1 STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

2 Case No. 92-3038

92-3039

3 92-3040

4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, )

a Florida Agricultural Cooperative Marketing )

5 Association, ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH )

FARMS, INC., )

6 and )

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., and UNITED )

7 STATES SUGAR CORPORATION )

and )

8 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, LEWIS )

POPE FARMS, W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and )

9 HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners )

10 vs. )

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )

11 an Agency of the State of Florida, )

Respondent, )

12 and )

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, )

13 the UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN and The )

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

14 PROTECTION, The FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, )

The FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and The SIERRA )

15 CLUB, )

Intervenors. )

16 __________________________________________________ )

17 99 N.E. 4th Street

Miami, Florida

18 April 8, 1994

9:45 - 1:00 p.m.

21 Deposition of Robert Reimold

22 Taken before Suzanne Fernandez, Notary

Public in and for the State of Florida at Large,

23 pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in

the above cause.

24 - - - - - - -

1 APPEARANCES:

2 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

3 EARL, BLANK, KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636

4 Two South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, Florida 33131

5 BY: Jonathan L. Gaines, Esq.

6 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

8 Eighth Floor, Rm. 866

Washington, DC 20004 Florida

9 BY: Stephen M. Macfarlane, Esq.

10 ALSO PRESENT:

Don Jones

14 - - - - - - -

15 I N D E X

Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross

16 Dr. Reimold 3 155 158 158

1 Thereupon:

2 ROBERT J. REIMOLD,

3 was called as a witness by the United States, and

4 after being first duly sworn, was examined and

5 testified under oath as follows:

6 DIRECT EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

8 Q. Would you state your name for the

9 Record, please.

10 A. Robert James Reimold.

11 Q. Good morning, Doctor Reimold.

12 A. Good morning.

13 Q. My name is Steve Macfarlane. I'm with

14 the Department of Justice. I'm one of the

15 attorneys representing the federal government and

16 its agencies in this litigation on behalf -- we

17 have intervened on behalf of the South Florida

18 Water Management District in defense of the SWIM

19 plan.

20 Let me ask you, sir, have you ever been

21 deposed before?

22 A. Yes, I have.

23 Q. Approximately how many times?

24 A. Around ten, twelve, something like

25 that.

1 Q. So you're a veteran at this?

2 A. Well --

3 Q. To the extent anybody can be a veteran?

4 A. That's right.

5 Q. Well, let me say that, as you probably

6 understand, the purpose of this deposition is to

7 learn about the subject matter and the substance

8 of testimony that you may be called to give on

9 behalf of the Petitioners at any final hearing

10 that may take place in this litigation.

11 If for any reason a question I ask you

12 is unclear to you or you want me to rephrase it,

13 don't hesitate to ask me to do so. I'd be happy

14 to.

15 I know your counsel will object if it

16 is appropriate to do so, and unless he instructs

17 you not to answer, you should go ahead and answer

18 my question, if you can.

19 And any time you want to take a break,

20 please feel free to give a holler and we'll do

21 that; okay.

22 Doctor Reimold, could you -- let's mark

23 that as an exhibit.

24 (Thereupon the document referred to was

25 marked as Government Exhibit No. 1

1 for Identification, a copy of which is

2 attached hereto.)

3 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

4 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me show you what's

5 been marked as Government Exhibit 1, and let me

6 ask you if you have ever seen that before?

7 I will represent that this is an

8 extract of a document that was previously filed in

9 this case by the Petitioners for Sugar Cane League

10 and United States Sugar Corporation.

11 A. I don't think I have ever seen a copy

12 of this before.

13 Q. Okay.

14 Let me ask you, sir, to turn to page

15 15, and do you see your name there?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Doctor Reimold, you have been listed as

18 an expert witness by the Florida Sugar Cane League

19 and United States Sugar who are Petitioners in

20 this action. You're aware of that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And the subject matter of your expected

23 testimony as listed on page 15 of the disclosure

24 of expert and fact witness of Petitioner Florida

25 Sugar Cane League and the United States Sugar

1 Corporation is given as follows: Application of

2 chemical treatment technologies to phosphorus

3 reduction, engineering and feasibility aspects of

4 chemical treatment, environmental impacts of

5 chemical treatment.

6 Doctor Reimold, is that description in

7 accordance with your understanding of what you

8 anticipate giving testimony on at the final

9 hearing in this litigation?

10 A. No, not really.

11 The latter part of it is, i.e. taking

12 information relative to chemical treatment,

13 engineering information, feasibility, jar testing

14 and the like. My expectation was to deal with

15 environmental impact of that treatment.

16 Q. So your understanding is you would only

17 be giving testimony on the environmental impacts

18 of chemical treatment?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. You don't anticipate giving testimony

21 at the final hearing on the engineering or

22 feasibility aspects of chemical treatment?

23 A. Well, only to the extent that they

24 relate to certain aspects of the environmental

25 impact.

1 But I'm a scientist; not an engineer.

2 Q. So does that mean you would not be

3 talking, for example, about the actual

4 construction of a chemical treatment facility?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. Would you be giving any testimony about

7 cost estimates or chemical treatment as compared

8 to other treatment technologies?

9 A. Only to the extent, say, regarding to

10 comparing cost of wetlands and other technologies

11 and the size of areas and things like that. But

12 again, looking at the engineering information

13 developed by others and the economic information

14 developed by others to make scientific

15 conclusions; not developing those particular

16 pieces of information myself.

17 Q. Let me just ask a follow-up to what you

18 have said.

19 Am I correct in understanding that your

20 testimony, to the extent you get into cost

21 analysis, would be based upon engineering work

22 done by others?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. All right. Okay.

25 Doctor Reimold, do you have a

1 consultant contract with either the Florida Sugar

2 Cane League, United States Sugar or the law firm

3 of Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh?

4 A. Our company has a contract with Earl,

5 Blank, et cetera, but I don't personally.

6 Q. What is your company, sir?

7 A. Metcalf & Eddy, Incorporated.

8 Q. What is your position?

9 A. I'm the vice-president and national

10 director for environmental quality.

11 Q. And is this contract that you have, is

12 that a written contract?

13 A. Yes, it is, but I have never seen the

14 contract.

15 We have, in a corporation the size of

16 ours, we have people who deal with contracts, and

17 I believe the project manager on this job is

18 Doctor Bowen, whom you have previously met,

19 someone has previously met.

20 So I'm not knowledgeable about the

21 details of the contract.

22 Q. Fair enough.

23 Do you know when approximately your --

24 Metcalf & Eddy entered into this contract with

25 Earl, Blank?

1 A. No, I don't.

2 Q. Okay.

3 Let's enter this as Exhibit 2, please.

4 (Thereupon the document referred to was

5 marked as Government Exhibit No. 2

6 for Identification, a copy of which is

7 attached hereto.)

8 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

9 Q. All right.

10 Doctor Reimold, let me show you what's

11 been marked as Government Exhibit 2 and ask you to

12 identify that, if you can.

13 A. It's a copy of a resume, Metcalf &

14 Eddy's corporate resume of me.

15 Q. Of you. That's your resume?

16 A. Um-hum.

17 Q. And I see you have a Ph.D. in biology

18 and marine science from the University of

19 Delaware?

20 A. Right.

21 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions

22 about some of the work you have done, Doctor

23 Reimold. I was very interested in looking at the

24 wide variety of things you have been involved in.

25 I see at the bottom of the first page

1 under general background, you're listed as

2 vice-president and national director for

3 environmental quality for Metcalf & Eddy.

4 Can you give me an idea of what you do

5 in that position?

6 A. In that position, my corporate

7 responsibilities relate to dealing with

8 environmental quality issues throughout the firm.

9 Metcalf & Eddy is a firm of over 2,000

10 persons. It's an 87 year old firm, environmental

11 engineering firm, and we have environmental

12 expertise of various kinds; biological, physical,

13 chemical, scientist-types and planner types, as

14 opposed to engineers, and a number of our

15 corporate officers are a preponderance of those in

16 the home office. And my responsibility is to

17 interact with the staff in the various offices to

18 lead projects that deal with environmental quality

19 issues, to deal with particularly problematic

20 areas, to deal with screening new staff, hiring

21 new staff or serving as an expert witness or

22 working on specialized projects that are a little

23 more problematic than just general environmental

24 projects.

25 These projects are sometimes

1 stand-alone projects, work done for federal

2 agencies and municipal and state agencies,

3 regulatory agencies like EPA, Corps of Engineers,

4 U.S. Army, et cetera, private clients, private

5 industry and the like, and also for

6 municipalities.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 Just at the very bottom of the first

9 page there is a description provided on your

10 resume. I guess that also describes some of your

11 duties. And I'll just read it.

12 "He coordinates corporate inter-office

13 staff expertise and project execution of

14 ecological risk assessments, habitat evaluations,

15 and related environmental work assessing potential

16 positive and negative impacts and appropriate

17 clean up levels for various engineered remediation

18 activities." And then it goes on to say that you

19 have a special expertise in wetlands.

20 A. Right.

21 Q. My question, Doctor Reimold, is this:

22 Prior to the present contract between Metcalf &

23 Eddy, and Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, had you

24 ever provided such services in relation to an

25 oligotrophic marsh or ecosystem?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you give me some examples?

3 A. Let's see.

4 A system that's very similar

5 ecologically in terms of a Typha Caladium system

6 is Kawailao which is a wetland in Honolulu or

7 north of Honolulu.

8 This is an approximately 500 acre

9 wetland receiving runoff from agricultural and

10 urban developed areas, subject to some

11 manipulation of water shed management and flood

12 control.

13 Q. Which island is that on?

14 A. Oahu, north of Honolulu.

15 Let's see, other oligotrophic

16 wetlands?

17 Some small areas of Caladium in Puerto

18 Rico relative to environmental assessment of the

19 health of it and the quality of it. Those were

20 being considered for parking lot development by

21 one of the industries, and this is near the town

22 of Humacao, H-U-M-A-C-A-O, in Puerto Rico.

23 I could probably think of others, but

24 I'm trying to answer just that one focused tight

25 question.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 Let me ask you, just generally, how

3 would you define a wetland?

4 A. Well, it's an interaction of three

5 principal components: Water, soil and

6 vegetation. And there is a federal definition

7 that a number of us worked on, and I was on the

8 team of people who sat around a conference room in

9 the early '70s to develop that federal definition

10 which I'm sure you've heard other persons recite,

11 but the critical components are making sure that

12 you have water in the right quantity and the right

13 quality and the right periodicity and having soils

14 that are hydric soils. These are soils that will

15 accommodate plants that grow under conditions that

16 are water logged or, in other words, they are

17 submerged at or near the surface for a period of

18 the growing season, and vegetation that will

19 survive under such conditions.

20 For example, you can take vegetation

21 alone. You can plant wetland plants in your front

22 yard, and after a short period of time, they won't

23 live, even if you water them every day because you

24 would have the right vegetation and the right --

25 perhaps the right amount of hydrology, but you

1 would not have the proper soils. So it's a

2 combination of the three factors in order to make

3 a wetland.

4 Q. Any particular soils that are --

5 A. As I said, they are called hydric

6 soils, and there are a variety of soils which are

7 hydric soils, and these are the ones that are

8 identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture

9 Corps of conservation of various soils.

10 There is a book -- USDA describes these

11 soils in detail.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. In a little more detail.

14 Q. So I guess, let me ask you, it would be

15 your opinion, wouldn't it, that the Everglades

16 fits this description?

17 A. Yes, it does.

18 Q. Do you have an opinion whether the

19 Everglades are unique in any way as wetlands?

20 A. Well, the Everglades are like all

21 wetlands. I have a bias that all wetlands are

22 unique, i.e., they are resources of special value,

23 and that's why there has been the international --

24 first national, I'd say, and in more recent times

25 through Ramseys and others, international efforts,

1 focused on wetlands and unique ecosystem.

2 They are unique from a variety

3 standpoint. They are more productive than normal,

4 say, agricultural or forested or upland

5 ecosystems. Relative to, say, the Everglades

6 being the most unique one, I think there is the

7 regional bias everywhere in the world that I have

8 worked, quote, "My one is the most unique one."

9 And the popular media, I think, brings that

10 message across.

11 National Geographic says it's the

12 Everglades. Go back a couple seasons and it was

13 the wetlands in the coast of Georgia.

14 So the public attention and the quote,

15 "unique factor" is kind of a nebulous thing, but

16 as far as ecosystems go, yes, wetlands are unique

17 ecosystems and have a higher standing. That's

18 probably one of the reasons we are all spending

19 this time and that's why there has been federal

20 legislation.

21 Q. We'll get into some of those issues

22 perhaps in a bit more detail later on.

23 Let me ask you a few more questions

24 about some of the things you have done.

25 On page two of your resume, down, let

1 me see, the third bullet from the bottom indicates

2 that you directed the successful environmental and

3 local planning, zoning and permitting for

4 construction of a -- 7-mgd is the abbreviation

5 for?

6 A. Million gallons.

7 Q. That's what I thought.

8 -- water treatment facility for the

9 Massachusetts American Water Company in Hingham,

10 where aesthetic issues had previously halted work

11 on the project.

12 Did this involve -- was this water

13 treatment facility a chemical treatment plant?

14 A. All water treatment facilities are

15 chemical treatment plants.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. All water treatment facilities -- the

18 stuff that you drink today, if it weren't for some

19 form of chemical treatment, you wouldn't be

20 drinking it, so yes.

21 Q. What --

22 A. I think that involves activated carbon,

23 ferric hydroxide. I've forgotten what polymers.

24 There is too many polymers.

25 It involves pulse -- let's see -- some

1 kind of a pulse system. I've forgotten the

2 patented name, but it's a pulsator system, rapid

3 pulsator systems that introduced fine dissolved

4 bubbles at the bottom of the system. Once the

5 chemicals are added, it does the same kind of

6 thing that's been talked about here, i.e., it

7 takes what's in the water and removes it or

8 removes it in a breachable quantity so it's safe

9 for drinking.

10 Q. Did it involve the use of coagulants?

11 A. Yes, that's why I said that.

12 Then there is also -- well, there are a

13 variety of chemicals -- I mentioned the

14 coagulants -- for the purpose of taking out the

15 chemicals.

16 Q. Let me ask you, flip the page, the

17 second bullet from the top, you're listed as

18 having managed preparation of conceptual design

19 for wetlands restoration associated with

20 remediation at a major New England Superfund

21 Site.

22 Can you give me a general outline of

23 the major features of the conceptual design for

24 that?

25 A. Well, this is a site that was extremely

1 contaminated with metals and pesticides. It was a

2 chemical manufacturing and formulation plant. And

3 their practices resulted in the contamination of

4 sediment up to about 18 feet deep in both emerging

5 macrophyte and forested matter and forested

6 wetland of -- how many acres? -- 20, 30-something

7 acres.

8 Q. This involved an existing wetland that

9 had been contaminated?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 So then the objective was, in order to

12 clean up -- the levels were so high, literally

13 what they're doing, and their contract has just

14 been started on, doing the work, but the

15 conceptual design for the remediation was to

16 actually incinerate the soil -- excavate and

17 incinerate, so it's going to be done in segments.

18 As segments are excavated, new soil is brought in,

19 hydric soils, and plants are planted, and

20 hydrology has been planned such that the water for

21 the hydrology is running through a ground water

22 treatment so that you don't recontaminate the soil

23 with bad groundwater.

24 Q. Is this remediation of this wetland or

25 the construction of a new wetland?

1 A. It's like taking the soil out of a

2 room, taking it away a piece at a time and then

3 building it back.

4 Q. Will the wetland that is replaced there

5 be used for treatment of runoff or is it there

6 primarily just restoring the wetland for habitat?

7 A. It'll just be used as a wetland.

8 Q. Have you had experience in the use of

9 constructed wetland to treat water?

10 A. Yeah, for storm water.

11 Q. Can you give me some idea where?

12 A. Well, my most recent project is one in

13 Farmington, Connecticut, west of Hartford.

14 An emergent macrophyte wetland was

15 recreated for the purpose of removing contaminants

16 and nutrient, metals, et cetera, from storm water

17 runoff.

18 Q. Had you had experience with the use of

19 constructed wetlands to treat agricultural

20 constructed wetlands?

21 A. I've had the experience relative to

22 reviewing the literature and the work of others,

23 but not doing the actual design of it myself.

24 Q. How about experience in the use of

25 constructed wetlands to treat water that was

1 discharged into a natural system --

2 A. Well --

3 Q. -- as opposed to --

4 A. -- all waters, treated waters, are

5 discharged into natural systems. Depends what

6 we're going to call natural.

7 We deal with treatment systems from

8 water treatment plants, waste water treatment

9 plants, industrial treatment plants. If they

10 don't go to the municipal sewer, they eventually

11 get to a natural system, i.e., a river, wetland,

12 whatever. So in that sense, yes, I have, where

13 there have been wetlands designed as polishing

14 ponds for the final removal of nutrients after you

15 get most everything out of the -- take everything

16 out to a low enough level where the wetland can

17 achieve efficient removals.

18 Q. Have you had -- let me just ask you,

19 can you give me an example of a constructed

20 wetland that your firm has designed that treated

21 water that was then discharged into a marsh

22 environment?

23 A. I can tell you about where. Somewhere

24 in north Georgia is the most recent one.

25 Paul Bowen -- if this goes to trial,

1 you can ask Paul Bowen about it.

2 It was designed in north Georgia and it

3 has to do with treatment of an industrial

4 facility. And then after treatment in an

5 industrial facility, it goes to a wetland

6 polishing pond before discharge to one of the

7 contributories of the Chattahoochee River.

8 Q. I take it that your firm has

9 recommended constructed wetland as a water

10 treatment strategy?

11 A. Only as a component of it. I mean, I

12 wouldn't want you to say -- to misuse that.

13 Yes, as a component of it where you

14 precede it with appropriate chemicals and physical

15 and biological means, the necessary parts of the

16 treatment.

17 What you have to understand, I don't

18 want to lecture, but in a treatment system,

19 different components do different things. There

20 isn't one system alone that will do it all. And

21 so it's sort of like everything else; a diversity

22 of things in life makes your life better, and a

23 diversity of things here actually results in an

24 appropriate treatment of water to meet the water

25 quality standards and receiving water conditions.

1 Q. Okay. I appreciate the clarification.

2 Let me ask you, going down to the next

3 bullet on page three, there is a list of sites in

4 which you have managed wetland jurisdictional

5 determinations and directed development and

6 evaluation of marsh and wetland restoration. And

7 I note that you have done some work in Florida.

8 A. Yeah.

9 Q. On Amelia Island, St. Augustine and

10 other places.

11 A. Naples, Hollywood, New Port Richie.

12 Q. Have you done any of this sort of work

13 for any portion of the Everglades before?

14 A. Well, I guess that, you know, depends

15 upon exactly where one draws the boundaries of the

16 Glades.

17 The work in Naples was really at the

18 fringes of the Everglades, but other than that,

19 the rest of these sites were clearly not within

20 part of the Everglades.

21 Q. Had you ever done any consulting work

22 involving the Everglades in any capacity before?

23 A. No.

24 With the exceptions that I have just

25 given you.

1 Q. Okay.

2 Let's go down to the bottom of that

3 page. In the second bullet up from the bottom you

4 are listed as a member of the Wetlands Ecosystem

5 Analysis Team for the National Wetlands Technical

6 Council.

7 What did you do in that position?

8 A. This is back in the early '70s when we

9 were actually formulating what became the federal

10 definition of wetland. I mentioned this before.

11 And then coming up with a scheme for mapping

12 wetland which resulted in the National Wetland

13 Inventory System of mapping -- let's see, it's

14 coordinates and all habitat evaluation

15 classification scheme for wetlands, so there was a

16 team of people that were the precursor to that

17 habitat evaluation classification scheme and

18 actual federal definition of wetland.

19 And that included -- at that time I was

20 in academia, and so it included academicians and

21 federal regulatory people from the Corps, Fish and

22 Wildlife Service, National Marine Fishery System.

23 I don't remember who else.

24 Q. What were you doing in academia?

25 A. I worked for the University of Georgia;

1 taught a variety of courses in ecology, graduate

2 courses, and I advised graduate students. I

3 worked at the University of Georgia Marine

4 Institute and Marine Extension Service of the

5 University of Georgia dealing with ecological

6 courses related to wetland, freshwater and

7 saltwater wetland.

8 Q. Were you a professor on the faculty?

9 A. Yes, first assistant professor, then

10 associate professor at the University of Georgia,

11 with appointment in the zoology -- Department of

12 Zoology, and co-staffed at the University of

13 Georgia Marine Institute.

14 Q. When did you leave the University of

15 Georgia?

16 A. It was like late '70s, early '80s.

17 During a period of about two or three

18 years I worked for the State of George at the same

19 time I worked for the University directing a

20 coastal management program and dealing with

21 wetland protection program that Georgia had at

22 that time.

23 And then in 1982 I went to Metcalf &

24 Eddy.

25 Q. Okay.

1 A. So during the time I was at the

2 University of Georgia, I did a variety of

3 consulting work, and that's where a lot of these

4 project experience I have gained as a consultant

5 at the same time as being a faculty member, as

6 Doctor Jones and other people do.

7 Q. Let's go back to the wetland ecosystem

8 analysis team for a minute.

9 You said that you were involved in

10 mapping of wetland and --

11 A. Defining the terms for the mapping.

12 Defining.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. Defining the terms for the category.

15 I assume in this case you probably

16 produced the wetland -- National Wetland Inventory

17 Maps that show pluster forest and emergent

18 macrophyte and that sort of thing.

19 The classification scheme was

20 conceived -- a variety of things were talked about

21 and the classification scheme was conceived, and

22 then Luke Core, Virginia Carter and Frank Goldat

23 and a few other people took all that, wrote it up,

24 sent it out. I think the team reviewed some

25 drafts, and then it was published as a document

1 which most people who work in wetlands have seen

2 and used.

3 Q. In the course of that work that you

4 have just described, did you receive information

5 or attend presentations concerning the Everglades?

6 A. Well, I think information was -- I

7 mean, Everglades were one of the systems

8 considered in terms of developing a definition, as

9 were lots of other major wetland ecosystems; hard

10 woods and soft woods of the Mississippi, pluster

11 and forests in New England.

12 Q. Do you recall how the Everglades were

13 classified as part of the scheme?

14 A. At that point, no, I don't. I mean,

15 that's probably 22 years ago or something like

16 that. You're getting into too much detail.

17 Q. Just got to ask.

18 A. No, I can appreciate that.

19 Q. Okay. Let's move along to the next

20 page, at the very bottom, the last bullet.

21 You are listed as serving as a member

22 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

23 Administration's Estuarine Eutrophication

24 Evaluation Team.

25 A. Um-hum.

1 Q. Can you tell me what you do in that

2 capacity?

3 A. A year-and-a-half ago, approximately,

4 put together a compendium of all the estuaries of

5 the country with all the information that they

6 knew to exist relative to nutrient content,

7 eutrophication, et cetera. Then they went around

8 the country and solicited persons, and I have a

9 list in my office. I don't know, I couldn't quote

10 to you right now, only two or three other people

11 to be on it, and they said: Okay, have you worked

12 in Galveston Bay? I worked there. Have you

13 worked in whatever? And they then asked if you

14 would be a reviewer of the summary of the

15 literature assembled relative to those estuaries

16 to determine whether, in your opinion, you thought

17 there were sufficient documentation to show that

18 there was eutrophication and there was not

19 eutrophication, and the purpose of that is for

20 them to just make decisions on funding future

21 study.

22 Q. So you --

23 A. Among others things.

24 That's still ongoing. I probably have

25 a stack of some of the notes on my desk now

1 because I had some of the data on Georgia, Mass.

2 Bay, and I've forgotten which ones I've had.

3 I've seen various ones over the past,

4 but it's been approximately a year in September

5 that that got underway.

6 Q. So you're primarily a reviewer of

7 documents on eutrophication in wetlands?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Have you received information on

10 eutrophication in the Everglades?

11 A. Not through that.

12 Q. Not through that.

13 Let me ask you to flip two pages.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. And the second bullet from the bottom.

16 A. This statement starts out: Directed a

17 comprehensive evaluation?

18 Q. That's correct, yes, you got it.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. You directed a comprehensive evaluation

21 of the environmental, engineering and economic

22 aspects of alternative means for disposal of

23 treated wastewater in southern New Jersey,

24 including ocean discharge, bay discharge, land

25 application and wetland application.

1 A. Um-hum.

2 Q. Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, what

3 were the conclusions of that evaluation?

4 A. This was work done for the Cape May

5 County Municipal Authority in conformance with

6 Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.

7 It was facility planning, and it was to

8 evaluate for all of Cape May County what were the

9 options for the best, the most economical, the

10 least environmentally impacting disposal of their

11 treated effluent from the wastewater collection

12 system for that county, and so just as it says,

13 reevaluated the alternatives. And the final

14 alternative was that, based on the level of

15 treatment, which was secondary treatment, that the

16 ocean discharge offered the most -- say the least

17 environmental impacting and the most cost

18 efficient. There is Cape May and Wildwood, direct

19 ocean discharges.

20 They had also considered, in addition

21 to these things that are explicitly stated here,

22 options of level of treatment. I don't go into

23 secondary, only go to primary, and so there were

24 two scenarios of treatment.

25 Q. Do you recall what the approximate

1 population was that you were designing or

2 recommending treatment for?

3 A. Well, this was done in the period of

4 like '85 to '88, and whatever the population of

5 Cape May County was at that time. I'm sorry, I

6 don't remember. I mean, it's in there. I know

7 because we had -- in doing something like this,

8 you take the existing census, whatever this is,

9 part of Section 201, Clean Water Act and you use

10 the existing census, then use various demographic

11 projections looking ten, twenty years ahead in

12 order to determine population growth. So I don't

13 remember what the population was, but it's

14 available.

15 Q. Sure, I understand.

16 Can you tell me what level of treatment

17 would have been necessary for wetland discharge?

18 A. A minimum secondary. We didn't look at

19 any primary treatment. I mean, the engineers told

20 me that the levels of nutrient would be such that

21 wetland would not be able to accommodate the

22 load. So the option I mentioned of primary was

23 only considered in terms of ocean discharge, not

24 inland application, or bay discharge, or wetland

25 discharge.

1 Q. Do you have any recollection as to what

2 the loads were or what the concentration levels

3 were?

4 A. Not right now, but you know, at the

5 time of trial, we can develop that information and

6 provide it.

7 MR. GAINES: I think we'll develop the

8 information at the time of trial that I ask you to

9 develop.

10 THE WITNESS: I said can or could. I

11 didn't say would.

12 MR. GAINES: Mr. Macfarlane is a nice

13 guy, but let's not go too far.

14 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

15 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me ask you, would

16 it be fair to say that most of the wetlands you

17 have had direct experience with have been located

18 in the northeast or mid Atlantic regions of the

19 country?

20 A. No, I wouldn't say that.

21 I'd say most of the wetlands I have

22 been familiar with and worked in would start from

23 places where Doctor Jones used to work down in

24 Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, essentially all the

25 Atlantic Seaboard coast states.

1 The freshwater parts have been off the

2 Columbia River, and one of the largest wetlands in

3 the state of Hawaii that I mentioned earlier. I

4 mean, I would say that I have lived up in the

5 north the last twelve years, but I have been doing

6 work in the north and south and west and other

7 places in the last twelve years. And prior to

8 that I lived and worked in the southeast all that

9 time, since out of graduate school.

10 Q. Was the wetland near the mouth of the

11 Columbia River, was that Asturia?

12 A. Miller Sands. How do you know that?

13 Q. I have been to Asturia.

14 A. Did you do any wetland work there?

15 Q. No.

16 A. Litigation related to wetland?

17 Q. No. This was back in my former life.

18 A. Yeah, Miller Sands is a site with an

19 experimental wetland creation project. If you

20 know where Miller Sands is, it's a little upstream

21 from Asturia.

22 In the early days, back before I got

23 gray hair and you lost some, in those days, the

24 Corps of Engineers called it wetland restoration

25 or habitat creation or marsh creation or something

1 like that. So the Corps of Engineers funded a

2 demonstration project to see if you can build

3 wetland.

4 I was responsible for designing and

5 building one in George, and then we extrapolated

6 that information to the Miller Sands site, and

7 they actually had contracts from private

8 contractors to do the work out there for

9 construction of that. And then I'm trying to

10 think who it was, Pat Barker and some of these

11 people in Texas did one.

12 Q. Was Miller Sands built what, in the

13 early '70s?

14 A. Yeah. Like '73 to '77, something like

15 that, in that area.

16 Q. And you said it's a demonstration

17 project.

18 Beyond what you have said, you know,

19 can one build wetlands, were there any other

20 purposes behind the demonstration project?

21 A. Yeah. For those it was can you keep

22 the cost of dredging down, i.e., when you dredge

23 major waterways, can you make the sediment stay

24 somewhere, and if you put it and make it upland,

25 it's not a favored habitat, again, because we

1 talked about the way wetlands are valued. And can

2 we take a wetland, and if the roots aren't

3 established, they won't fall back in the water and

4 have less maintenance cost.

5 Q. Let me see if I understand that

6 correctly.

7 The principal purpose, or one of the

8 principal purposes of the Miller Sands

9 demonstration project was the use of wetland for

10 sediment control?

11 A. That was one of the purposes, right.

12 Q. And another was to see the feasibility?

13 A. Another was to look at the feasibility

14 in terms of habitat creation, looking at the

15 vegetation and plant and animal community, and the

16 habitat that was established for that, what kind

17 of diverse ecosystem, because wetland, you don't

18 just talk about the plant or just the microbes or

19 just the nutria or something like that. We talk

20 about them all together. So it was what kind of

21 habitat and ecosystems can we accommodate by

22 developing those kind of wetlands.

23 Q. Do you consider that to have been a

24 successful demonstration project?

25 A. It had successes and drawbacks.

1 We had a lot of problems with the

2 nutria eating out the vegetation that was

3 transplanted before it was put in, and I think we

4 learned an awful lot in terms of how important --

5 you were asking earlier the three components of

6 wetland: Soils, vegetation and hydrology.

7 We had the vegetation, we had the

8 hydrology, but we didn't have good soil. We

9 basically had river sand and it wasn't as good as

10 it could have been if the soils had been better.

11 Q. Do you know what the status of Miller

12 Sands is today?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Do you?

15 Q. No.

16 A. I was just curious. I mean, off the

17 record.

18 (Thereupon conversation was

19 held off the record.)

20 MR. MACFARLANE: Back on the record.

21 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

22 Q. Doctor Reimold, would it be fair to

23 say, again, most, and I do mean most, not all, but

24 most of the wetland project you have been involved

25 with as a consultant have concerned most coastal

1 and marine wetland or salt marshes?

2 A. No. I guess I have to say maybe 60

3 percent, but not most. I wouldn't say that.

4 Q. That's more than 50 percent?

5 A. Yeah. But most to me is like 90 to 95

6 percent, and I wouldn't call it that.

7 Q. Would you consider yourself an expert

8 on the ecosystem found in freshwater wetland in

9 the United States?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that would be based upon your

12 experience as a consultant?

13 A. And my training as well. I mean,

14 education and experience are two parts.

15 Q. Okay.

16 Let me ask you about a couple of what

17 you have listed as representative publications,

18 and these may, I think, go over some of the things

19 we have just been talking about, but I'm curious

20 anyway.

21 On the first page of your

22 representative publications, the third bullet

23 down, you wrote an article, is that correct, on

24 wetland functions?

25 A. Actually, it's a chapter in a book

1 dealing with various methodologies for appraising

2 wetland functions and values of all kinds of

3 wetlands in all parts of the world, historically

4 what's been used.

5 This says December '93. The

6 publication is delayed and it will be out in -- I

7 think it's August of '94, so it's actually not on

8 the street yet. I just reviewed the galleys of it

9 last week.

10 Q. Can you tell me, in a nutshell, what

11 your conclusions were?

12 A. Well, let's see. I reviewed a variety

13 of ecological and economic methods and tools for

14 assessing wetland functions and values and said,

15 basically, you know, you pick what you like,

16 depending upon what you're going to do with it,

17 that you really need to include both economics and

18 ecology when you are going to make any decisions

19 about using them or putting value judgments on

20 them, but it's not just bugs and bunnies, nuts and

21 berries, and it's not just dollars and cents, it's

22 all those.

23 Q. How would you describe wetlands

24 values --

25 A. Well --

1 Q. -- in 25 words or less?

2 A. Well, I guess the values of wetlands

3 relate to physical, chemical, biological -- well,

4 I guess I'll focus a little bit differently

5 because I'm thinking about some other structure to

6 my thinking.

7 I have this idea that in order to come

8 up with a value system on ecosystems, and this

9 relates to ecosystems, if we're going to put a new

10 interstate highway through or evaluate a forest or

11 Biscayne Bay that's going to become a marine

12 preserve or whatever, we have social, technical,

13 economic, environmental, legal, political and

14 institutional values. I call those STEEPLI. I

15 have written a paper about that a while back,

16 contract work for EPA. There is actually a guy in

17 EPA, and I started this like 12, 14 years ago, but

18 in assessing the value of something, from my

19 perspective, one needs to consider all these

20 different factors, so I call it STEEPLI,

21 S-T-E-E-P-L-I, social, technical, economic,

22 environmental, legal, political and institutional,

23 and in assessing the wetland, the value of a

24 wetland or value of any other ecosystem, one needs

25 to consider all of those.

1 Now, typically what I find is that

2 persons assess the value based on their own set of

3 classes. An ecologist looks at the environment.

4 An economist looks at the economics. You're a

5 lawyer, so then you lawyers look at it from a

6 legal perspective. For me the evaluation has to

7 be done from all those perspectives.

8 Q. Wetland functions, same question.

9 A. Yeah, the wetland functions. Maybe

10 there are functions that wetlands accommodate and

11 provide from the physical, chemical and biological

12 standpoint. Again, functions as a treatment

13 facility; functions as a way to mitigate from

14 floods; functions as a compensatory storage;

15 functions as a home for endangered species;

16 functions as a habitat for migratory water fowl.

17 So those functions relate to biological, chemical

18 and physical features of things that happen in

19 this system. Functions are construed by some in

20 terms only of aesthetics.

21 Twenty, fifteen years ago I read an

22 article with some people, Non-consumptive Uses of

23 Wetland. Because, you know, perhaps none of the

24 four of us or five of us are all interested in the

25 wetland from a real technical standpoint, but for

1 other persons the wetland has a very important

2 function in terms of aesthetics alone and not

3 consumptive use, so that's why people come to the

4 coast or go to the Glades to look, because to them

5 it has a functional value that's not quantifiable.

6 Q. Well, let me follow up on that.

7 Have you had occasion to form any

8 opinions about the function of wetlands in the

9 Everglades?

10 MR. GAINES: You mean in this case or

11 any?

12 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

13 Q. Generally.

14 I assume you have reviewed material --

15 A. Right.

16 Q. -- on the Everglades, and I wondered if

17 the Everglades, as a specific wetland, has entered

18 your thinking as you deal with the issue of

19 functions of wetland?

20 A. Yeah. Just as thinking about any

21 wetland, I think about the functions, the various

22 functions of it.

23 Q. What would you think the functions of

24 the Everglades wetland are?

25 A. Well, it's all the things that I just

1 listed. They're all the things I listed.

2 Any wetland that's the subject of

3 public attention in this country or

4 internationally, if it's meriting that attention

5 of the public, it has a lot of functions and

6 values, a diversity of sorts.

7 Q. Let's flip the page.

8 Let me ask you about the second article

9 from the top, Mitigation or Litigation. I like

10 that title.

11 A. Right.

12 Q. The Scientific Reasonableness of

13 Wetlands Restoration Vs. Preservation.

14 What were your conclusions in that

15 article?

16 A. Well, I mean, if we want to know the

17 exact conclusions, I'd have to get a copy of it,

18 but --

19 Q. The best of your knowledge.

20 A. But my opinion is that there are ways

21 to mitigate, for when you get involved in anything

22 related to restoring wetlands, that there are

23 usually what I will consider to be environmental

24 solutions that are cheaper and better to the

25 environment than legal solutions.

1 Q. Can you give me an example or two?

2 A. Let's see.

3 There was a case in New Jersey, the

4 Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. It

5 was actually New York V. The State of New Jersey,

6 and it had to do with whether or not we were going

7 to build what's now the Giants Stadium and the

8 sports complex.

9 Q. The Meadowlands?

10 A. The Meadowlands complex.

11 So it was on and off again with the

12 litigation of the whole area and who owns it and

13 what should be done there, and then finally it

14 appeared that it could be litigated for years and

15 years, so the mitigation was the clean up of some

16 contaminated wetlands around there and the

17 mitigation there was development of the various

18 creek nature center which is now the home of the

19 Hackensack Meadowlands Commission. And the

20 trade-off for that was you go ahead and consume

21 the surrounded wetland.

22 Another current -- that's 20 years I

23 guess now, but I was involved in another more

24 current one. The State of Connecticut dealt

25 with -- well, no, I'll go to something even in

1 Florida.

2 There was a case of the fellow who

3 owned the southern part of Amelia Island.

4 Actually, he owned the major part of Cumberland

5 Island, Charlie Frazier. And so there was a

6 question there about the National Parks Service

7 having interest in Cumberland Island as a national

8 seashore, but they needed to get this major

9 landowner involved. So we -- I was involved in

10 some examination of wetland functions and values

11 in Amelia Island contrasted to Cumberland, and the

12 trade-off to keep fighting over it was to get

13 Frazier to buy the land and develop Amelia Island,

14 this is the short form, and Cumberland Island was

15 acquired by the feds and turned into Cumberland

16 Island National Seashore.

17 Q. Let me ask you -- I was going to ask

18 you about the article you wrote on Non-Consumptive

19 Use of Wetlands, and let me ask you if there is

20 anything -- you got into it a moment ago.

21 A. Yeah. I talked about aesthetics, but I

22 mean just in terms of the land shape, ecology

23 approach that brings in more than just the -- what

24 I, again, call nuts and berries, bugs and bunnies,

25 part of it.

1 I have a listing of a number of famous

2 artworks. If you go to the National Gallery, for

3 example, and you look at any landscape painting,

4 you will most likely see a wetland. If you think

5 about wetlands as being open water, and a wetland

6 can be forested wetland, and a wetland can be an

7 emergent macrophyte and a lily pond with lilies on

8 it.

9 The next time you go to an art museum,

10 take a look at landscape scenes and see how many

11 of them have wetlands on them. It's amazing the

12 number of them, the real critical art pieces in

13 the history of art that have wetlands involved.

14 Beach scenes, people ice skating, they are ice

15 skating on top of wetlands.

16 Let's see. Some music, a variety of

17 classical music works have been inspired and

18 written relative to wetlands.

19 I have to go back and get the article

20 to find all these things I researched at the

21 time.

22 MR. GAINES: The water museum?

23 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

24 There are a lot of non-consumptive

25 uses. Look at what happened the last 20 years,

1 how many boardwalks have been built to wetlands.

2 They are a road to nowhere, but very popular,

3 because people want to go. Wetland ecology or the

4 flooding or something else, they're just there to

5 have a look.

6 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

7 Q. Inspirational wetland?

8 A. Yeah. So there are a lot of what I

9 call non-consumptive uses of wetlands, even for

10 educational purposes, that give wetlands another

11 factor in terms of consideration.

12 Q. Have you been to the Everglades?

13 A. Yes, I have.

14 Q. Everglades National Park?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How about the Loxahatchee National

17 Park?

18 A. No.

19 Q. All right.

20 MR. GAINES: Off the record.

21 (Thereupon conversation was

22 held off the record.)

23 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

24 Q. I'd like to have this marked as an

25 exhibit, please.

1 (Thereupon the document referred to was

2 marked as Government Exhibit No. 3

3 for Identification, a copy of which is

4 attached hereto.)

5 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

6 Q. Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what's

7 been marked as Exhibit 3. I'd like you to

8 identify that, if you can.

9 A. You want me to read the title?

10 Q. Have you seen that before?

11 A. Yes. Love this article.

12 Q. Yes.

13 And have you reviewed this article?

14 A. Yes, I have scanned it as one of the

15 things that I used in reviewing history for the

16 case. I can't say that I know it word-for-word or

17 anything like that.

18 Q. Fair enough.

19 For the record, this is an article that

20 appeared in the journal Ecology, Volume 40,

21 January, 1959, entitled A Study Of The Vegetation

22 in the Florida Everglades, by Charles M.

23 Loveless.

24 A. Just for the record, it's journal with

25 a small J. There is another thing called Journal

1 of Ecology with a capital J. It's British, and

2 I'm a member of both, and I know they don't like

3 this to be referred to as the Journal, so it's

4 journal with a small J.

5 Q. Doctor Reimold, do you intend to rely

6 on this article for any part of your testimony in

7 the final hearing?

8 A. Only to the extent that it serves as

9 background for what we know about the Everglades.

10 Q. Well, let me ask you, then, let's look

11 at the first page.

12 And let me direct your attention to the

13 second column and just at the top, the first

14 sentence there beginning, "The area's principal

15 vegetational components are the sawgrass marshes,

16 wet prairies, slough aquatic communities and tree

17 island communities."

18 Do you agree with that statement?

19 A. Well, I mean, I agree with it in

20 principle.

21 Remember, this is reporting of the

22 conditions in the system as described by Loveless

23 in the '50s, not '90s. But I mean, I think it's

24 an accurate generic description.

25 Q. Accurate at the time it was made?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Let's go to page two, and there is a

3 description under the heading Descriptions of

4 Plant Communities, Sawgrass Communities.

5 Let me direct your attention, start

6 with, "Sawgrass is usually the dominant plant,

7 either occurring in almost pure stands or mixed

8 with a wide variety of other sedges, grasses,

9 herbs, and attached emergent or floating leafed

10 aquatic plants. The composition of such marshes

11 is affected by prevailing water conditions.

12 Abundance and density of plant species in the

13 community are greatly influenced by depth of

14 water, period of inundation and rate of rise and

15 fall of water levels."

16 Would you agree that that was an

17 accurate -- those were accurate statements at the

18 time they were made?

19 A. Yeah.

20 I guess just, you know, the period of

21 inundation there, the periodicity is an important

22 factor. I'm not sure if you want that to fall in

23 your reading or not.

24 Make sure when you are picking out

25 pieces of it that you think about that.

1 You said turn the page; is that right?

2 Q. Yeah. I'm looking to see if there is

3 anything else I need to ask you relative to this

4 article.

5 On page six, in the first column toward

6 the top there is --

7 A. Let me see where you are.

8 Q. Okay. Take your time.

9 A. We are talking about the section of

10 tree islands?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. Page six?

13 Q. Page six.

14 And there is, I guess just below the

15 halfway point down that first paragraph, there is

16 some discussion of the pH of the tree islands.

17 And the sentence reads, "For example, Gallatin and

18 Henderson report the soil pH of the tree islands

19 they sampled in the lower Everglades to range from

20 7.5 to 8.5 and conclude that it must be assumed

21 these soil solutions are normally basic."

22 Do you have any reason to doubt the

23 accuracy of that report and data --

24 A. Well --

25 Q. -- at the time it was made?

1 A. Well, I mean, what he's doing, the

2 author here, Loveless, is quoting Gallatin and

3 Henderson (1943). I haven't read this. I see

4 what they wrote.

5 If you go on, it says Davis says that

6 they are acidic, and the author here speculates

7 there may be some reasons why there is

8 differences, but as he says very clearly, in his

9 words, there is a paucity of data supporting this.

10 Q. Let's be clear, since you have gone to

11 the next sentence.

12 I believe the sentence was a reference

13 to the northern Everglades. Let me just read in

14 that next sentence. "In contrast to this, Davis

15 (1943) states that the tree islands of the

16 northern Everglades are acid."

17 A. Well --

18 Q. Do you have any understanding of the

19 location of the northern Everglades?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What's your understanding?

22 A. South of the water conservation area

23 where the Glades begin, and the southern part

24 being down toward the south. Actually the south

25 and a little west.

1 Q. Do you think of the water conservation

2 area as being part of the Everglades?

3 A. No.

4 Q. And let me just turn to --

5 A. You're asking me about a paragraph. I

6 don't like people taking things out of context.

7 You want to read what the author said about it?

8 He said these different things which you quoted on

9 the record, then he goes on -- "there is a paucity

10 of data supporting this."

11 So at this time, 1959, he says there

12 isn't any information to support one or the

13 other.

14 Q. Fair enough.

15 A. I don't know what you're going to do

16 with that information. I just want to be sure to

17 put his last words in there.

18 Q. Page seven, there is a discussion of

19 slough communities.

20 And at the top of the second column,

21 there is a discussion of alligator holes.

22 A. Um-hum.

23 Q. And I direct your attention to the

24 statement about the vegetation of alligator holes,

25 and the sentence reads, "The vegetation of

1 alligator holes is distinct and therefore usually

2 well defined. Spatterdock is the dominant species

3 with some white water-lily and floating heart also

4 present. Species represented in the narrow

5 ecotone are willow, pickerel weed, flag, cattail

6 and occasionally leather-fern, smartweeds and

7 primrose-willow."

8 Do you have any reason to doubt that

9 those were an accurate description of the

10 vegetation of alligator holes at the time the

11 article was written?

12 A. I don't have any reason to doubt it.

13 The ecotone is then, I would assume,

14 the transition between the alligator hole and the

15 rest of the slough community.

16 Ecotone is a very thin strip of

17 substance, whether it's land or water where you

18 transition from one community to another, from one

19 ecosystem to another.

20 Q. Do you know whether the Everglades is a

21 Typha Caladium wetland?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And what percentage of the native

24 vegetation in the unimpacted Everglades habitat is

25 cattail, do you know?

1 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form

2 of the question, unimpacted.

3 I think you need to define what you're

4 talking about, and when.

5 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

6 Q. Well, let's talk about the areas of

7 Everglades National Park, for example, below

8 the -- well, in sharp river slough, and below the

9 S-12 structures.

10 Just focusing on that area, do you have

11 any idea what percentage of the native vegetation

12 in the park there is cattail?

13 A. Today?

14 Q. Today.

15 A. I don't know the exact percentage, no.

16 But I mean, that information can be

17 developed through photograph and quantification of

18 that. So, you know, someone could, if one were

19 directed, get that number for you.

20 I would presume others have already

21 developed that number for you. I don't know what

22 it is right now.

23 Q. How about in the Loxahatchee National

24 Wildlife Refuge, the interior marsh -- well, let

25 me ask you first.

1 Are you familiar with the Loxahatchee

2 National Wildlife?

3 A. No. You asked me earlier if I had been

4 there and I told you no.

5 Q. That's a different question.

6 I mean, have you read anything about

7 the Loxahatchee National Wildlife?

8 A. Yes, I believe I have.

9 The articles I reviewed in preparing

10 for this had some information about it, I believe

11 some sampling. I can't remember which one.

12 Q. Do you know where it is?

13 A. Yes. It's north of where we have just

14 been talking about and south of the EEA -- EAA.

15 Q. Do you have any understanding of

16 whether the interior marsh in Loxahatchee is a

17 Typha Caladium wetland?

18 A. Yes. I think it's the -- you probably

19 are going to bring it up, but I believe I recall

20 reviewing an article by Davis that describes a

21 sampling point in that area. So when you bring it

22 up, we can get the answer. I haven't committed

23 all that to memory.

24 I assumed this was an open book test.

25 Q. Let me mark this as an exhibit.

1 (Thereupon the document referred to was

2 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 4

3 for Identification, a copy of which is

4 attached hereto.)

5 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

6 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as

7 Government Exhibit 4, Doctor Reimold.

8 Have you reviewed this document?

9 A. Something I read in terms of preparing

10 for this.

11 Q. Would you identify it, please.

12 A. Well, it's an April '94 pub from --

13 let's see -- it's BioScience, Vol. 44 No. 4.

14 Want me to read the title?

15 Q. It reads Hurricane Andrew Impact on

16 Freshwater Resources.

17 A. Charlie Roman and others.

18 Q. And there is, on page 247, which is the

19 first page of the article, there is a description

20 of the Everglades freshwater landscape.

21 Are you familiar with that description?

22 A. I see what it says.

23 Q. Do you agree that that's an accurate

24 description of the Everglades freshwater landscape

25 prior to Hurricane Andrew?

1 A. I think it's a reasonable portrayal of

2 it.

3 Q. Let me direct your attention to page

4 248. And there is, under the heading

5 Water-quality responses to the hurricane, and the

6 sentence -- the paragraph begins, "Oligotrophic,

7 nutrient-poor waters are characteristic of the

8 interior portion of Everglades National Park."

9 Then on the next page, continues, "Soluble

10 reactive phosphorus is typically at or below four

11 ug/l in this part of the Everglades."

12 Do you have any reason to doubt that

13 statement concerning the soluble reactive

14 phosphorus levels?

15 A. I don't have any reason to doubt it.

16 I only want you to think of it in terms

17 of a flag. In looking at nutrient data of the

18 Glades in the whole case, one must remember and

19 use caution in talking about any number because

20 when you see there such wide variability, wide

21 swings in concentrations from minimums to

22 maximums, that may be an average. But just

23 typically at or below. But it doesn't say 95

24 percent of the time it's four with a standard

25 deviation of .1, and in fact, a lot of the

1 nutrient concentration and other parameter

2 concentrations have wide levels of ranges. So

3 just keep that in mind.

4 Q. We may get into that a little later.

5 Let's mark this as an exhibit.

6 (Thereupon the document referred to was

7 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 5

8 for Identification, a copy of which is

9 attached hereto.)

10 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

11 Q. All right.

12 Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what

13 has been marked as Government Exhibit 5. This is

14 an article entitled Wetlands: Concerns and

15 Successes, or perhaps that's the journal that

16 appears -- the article title is Water Quality

17 Management for Everglades National Park.

18 A. It's not a journal. It's a special

19 publication of the American Water Resources

20 Association.

21 Q. I appreciate the correction.

22 Water Quality Management for Everglades

23 National Park by Dan Scheidt, Mark Flora and David

24 Walker.

25 Have you reviewed this article?

1 A. It's another one of the things I have

2 looked at for preparation, yes.

3 Q. Let me ask you to direct your attention

4 to page 378, and the bottom paragraph, and

5 'cause I don't want to rip things out of

6 context.

7 A. That's the second page of the article?

8 Q. Yeah.

9 The paragraph reads, "Water delivered

10 to the park may originate from or pass through

11 areas that have the potential to alter or degrade

12 water quality. Eutrophic conditions in lake

13 Okeechobee were documented as early as 1969 and

14 have since worsened with the 1988 mean total

15 phosphorus concentration of 122 ug/l the highest

16 on record."

17 Let me stop there and ask, do you agree

18 with those statements that I read out so far?

19 A. I agree with what you read. I don't

20 know of any factual reason that what they say is

21 not true.

22 Q. Okay. Let's continue.

23 "Water quality is further degraded in

24 the EAA due to fertilizer use and water management

25 practices."

1 Would you agree with that?

2 A. To the extent that that takes place. I

3 wouldn't agree that's the only source of

4 degradation.

5 Q. Let's continue.

6 "At least 300,000 acres of the

7 Everglades Water Conservation" --

8 A. 30,000.

9 Q. I apologize

10 -- "30,000 acres of the Everglades

11 Water Conservation Areas downstream of the EAA

12 have been biologically impacted by nutrient-rich

13 water."

14 Do you believe that's true?

15 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute.

16 Let me object to you asking Doctor

17 Reimold for basically an opinion on one of the

18 largest issues in this case, when that's not an

19 area he's been asked to look at. I think it's

20 outside his scope.

21 If he has an opinion, he can answer it,

22 but I object to going through and picking a

23 sentence here and there and asking, do you agree

24 with this, when it's not what he's been asked to

25 look at.

1 MR. MACFARLANE: So noted.

2 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

3 Q. Doctor Reimold, can you answer the

4 question?

5 A. Well, I would say that the answer to

6 your question is the areas are impacted both by

7 nutrient-rich water and by the periodicity of the

8 water or the absence of periodicity.

9 Q. Okay.

10 Let's flip over to page 382 and the

11 paragraph headed Present Everglades Water

12 Quality.

13 The paragraph reads, "The park's marsh

14 freshwater originates from rainfall or from canal

15 deliveries. Canal water chemistry is distinctly

16 different from marsh water chemistry in this

17 system."

18 Do you have any opinion as to whether

19 that is true?

20 A. Based upon what you read or -- I

21 believe it's true.

22 Q. Let's continue.

23 "Natural Everglades marsh water is

24 hard due mostly to calcium bicarbonate, of neutral

25 pH, and oligotrophic in regard to ambient water

1 column nutrient levels and nutrient

2 availability."

3 Do you have any reason to doubt that?

4 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form

5 of the question because I don't think that

6 sentence makes a lot of sense grammatically. So

7 you're asking if he agrees with something, I don't

8 think it reads well. So I'll object to the form,

9 and maybe the objection is more directed to Mr.

10 Scheidt and Mr. Flora.

11 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

12 Q. Well, issues of style notwithstanding,

13 Doctor Reimold, would you have an opinion as to

14 the truth of that statement?

15 A. Well, let's dissect it.

16 It's hard due to calcium bicarbonate,

17 that's probably correct. Neutral pH, there is

18 data to suggest that water in the natural

19 Everglades is acidic. There is some that suggests

20 it's on the other side. You just read something

21 earlier that said it's acidic.

22 It's oligotrophic in regard to ambient

23 water column. I don't know if this is the water

24 of the Everglades. This is oligotrophic. I don't

25 know in regard to the ambient water column. I

1 don't know what that means, but the water in that

2 lower part of the Glades is typically

3 oligotrophic. And that's nutrient availability.

4 I mean, it's related to the concentrations in the

5 first place. So it's a mixed bag as far as a

6 sentence.

7 Q. Let's flip over to the next page.

8 Maybe this will answer the question.

9 Table three, which is a table titled

10 Average Everglades nutrient concentrations in

11 ug/l.

12 Just focus your attention on the line

13 titled marsh background. Would you think that

14 that describes an oligotrophic ecosystem or

15 oligotrophic water, the numbers reported for total

16 phosphorus, dissolved phosphate, dissolved nitrate

17 and total nitrogen?

18 A. Well, this has the number of times with

19 natural background, but I don't know what the

20 citation here is.

21 The data source or natural background

22 is footnote one. Let's see what that is.

23 1985 to '88 mean. Do we know?

24 Q. I think it may be given at the top of

25 the page.

1 A. Of which page?

2 Q. Page 383. I was going to ask you about

3 that anyway.

4 Where it says, Interior marsh sites

5 within the park, nutrient concentrations are

6 usually less than the South Florida Water

7 Management District detection limits (dissolved

8 orthophosphate four ug/l; total phosphate 10

9 ug/l.

10 A. I'd have to know the detection limits.

11 Just flag that as an example in one of the

12 problems I have seen, in one of the literature in

13 reviewing here.

14 Maybe in the original document it does

15 tell us the detection limits, but if you can't

16 find the detection limits, and the number is four,

17 then it means the answer is already in here. If

18 it's here, we'll find it. Somebody point it out

19 to me. But let me just make a point first.

20 If the detection limit, if it's --

21 Q. Continue, I'm listening.

22 A. That's all right. I'll wait till

23 you've finished.

24 Q. Would you understand that the detection

25 limits are those limits listed in the parenthesis?

1 A. Not necessarily.

2 Q. I see.

3 A. I'd have to go to the document.

4 I want to tell you what I was going to

5 say. When you can't document what the detection

6 limit is, one side of the case would like to argue

7 that the number is zero; the other would like to

8 argue, let's say the number is four, the others

9 say the number is 3.9, and you and I don't know

10 what the answer is. So I don't know.

11 In this case, the way it's written, it

12 may or may not be.

13 Q. Let me ask you to turn your attention

14 to pages 386 to 389. This portion of the article

15 describes the nutrient dosing research, and there

16 is some underlining and marginal comments with

17 certain words circled, and let me ask you, is that

18 your underlining, do you recall?

19 A. It probably is. I couldn't verify it

20 for sure unless I saw the original, but it might

21 be.

22 I sometimes pull out a red pen when I'm

23 reading something, but I couldn't guarantee it.

24 Q. Sure.

25 A. Somebody else marked on it.

1 Q. Let me ask you, did you have occasion

2 to review this portion of the article on the

3 nutrient dosing research?

4 A. Not in the detail you're asking me

5 about. It's something I speed read and put

6 aside.

7 Q. Let me ask you, generally, what your

8 understanding of that research project was as

9 described here, if you have an understanding of

10 it?

11 A. Well, can I take a minute then to read

12 it? I can't remember it.

13 Q. Please do review it.

14 MR. GAINES: Let's take a two-minute

15 break if he is going to do that.

16 (Thereupon there was a brief

17 recess in the proceedings.)

18 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

19 Q. Doctor Reimold, you have had an

20 opportunity to review the nutrient dosing study

21 reported in this article.

22 Do you have any opinion as to the

23 conclusions of that study based upon your review?

24 A. Based on what's provided here, I would

25 have grave concern about how good the study was,

1 specifically because, as I see it, they made three

2 artificial channels constructed of fiberglass

3 sheets, fiberglass, yeah, about one meter high and

4 sunk some 15 centimeters into the peat sediment.

5 And through those three channels the water flow

6 was dosed and tested, but there was another

7 channel which was quote, "the control," but if you

8 look at this figure four, what do you see

9 different about the control?

10 If I were building this and we were

11 talking about -- I would have made the control

12 channel with fiberglass sheeting along both edges

13 of it. Otherwise, what I'm seeing is whatever

14 happens to this water going through the quote,

15 "control area" that here is subject to a lot of

16 other interactions in addition to just the mixing

17 and whatever takes place as it flows through. So

18 I guess that's kind of a red flag in terms of

19 method.

20 Now, I see it does say in the paper

21 here that for the full detail of methodology, you

22 need to look at a paper by Flora, F-L-O-R-A (1986

23 and 1988). I don't know if you have a copy of

24 that. That would be the way to go back and take a

25 look at maybe some other things that aren't shown

1 here they did.

2 On this alone I'd be concerned about

3 the control. A good control for an experiment is

4 as important as doing the experiment in and of

5 itself.

6 Q. Are your concerns substantial enough

7 that you would throw into question the results of

8 the study?

9 A. Yeah. I guess I'd question the results

10 of it because all the results are compared to how

11 background things are done and how much things

12 change, whether it's nitrogen or phosphorus,

13 limited by what happened in those quote,

14 "experimental channels" compared with what

15 happened in the control channel.

16 They talk about numbers of, you know,

17 so many times a factor of so much. And in order

18 to make that comparison, if you were going to do

19 the study, you'd want to have all four channels

20 exactly the same, and in three of them we put

21 nutrient in whatever you're doing, but you'll have

22 one that's exactly the same system, and they

23 didn't do that.

24 Q. Have you ever designed an experiment

25 like that yourself, or have you ever had a --

1 answer that question first.

2 A. Have I ever designed an experiment

3 controlled?

4 Sure. I have designed experiments to

5 look at the effects of putting different kinds of

6 nutrient on wetlands; a randomized block design

7 where you set up plots of say three meters by

8 three meters, or three meters by two meters and

9 then select them on a random basis and select them

10 for applications of different levels of

11 treatment. It's an atypical agronomic practice.

12 Q. Can you give me an example of where you

13 did an experiment like that to test impact of

14 nutrient?

15 A. Two examples, both of them in Georgia,

16 in a wetland which involved -- one was applying

17 various concentrations of ammonium nitrate. I

18 think we used three different treatments of

19 ammonium nitrates broadcast on the soils of two by

20 three meter plots, or split plot design, to then

21 see if we could determine the increased primary

22 productivity through the use of remote sending.

23 This was in the early '80s when color infrared

24 film was declassified and we could see three

25 different levels of treatment based on color

1 signals.

2 The other one was when you used radio

3 labeled phosphorus to look at the flux through

4 wetland ecosystem and apply different levels of

5 the radio label in different areas and, you know,

6 selecting a controlled experiment. It wasn't the

7 flow through, i.e. the flow of water, but it was

8 the flux of the nutrient in the wetland

9 plantation.

10 Q. All right.

11 I think that's all on that one.

12 Mark this six.

13 (Thereupon the document referred to was

14 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 6

15 for Identification, a copy of which is

16 attached hereto.)

17 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

18 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me ask you if you

19 recognize what I have handed you as exhibit six?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. And what is that?

22 A. It's a chapter out of a book, or out of

23 a publication journal called Estuarine, Volume 10,

24 Number 2. Cattail Invasion, et cetera, by Beare,

25 B-E-A-R-E, and Zedler, Z-E-D-L-E-R.

1 Q. And you have reviewed this article, I

2 take it?

3 A. I have.

4 Q. Would you intend to rely on this

5 article as any part of your testimony in this

6 case?

7 A. I might.

8 Q. How would you use it?

9 A. Well, I guess -- yeah, I figured that

10 would be the question you'd ask.

11 To me it's a demonstration that plants

12 do have certain abilities to respond to changing

13 environmental conditions and still survive, and in

14 this case they show Typha cattail, showing that

15 even as the salt concentrations increase with

16 certain ranges, you know, a lot of salt, and then

17 you can't survive, but with certain changes in the

18 chemistry in the water, the plant can adapt to the

19 changes and still survive.

20 Q. Let me ask a follow-up to that then.

21 What would be the lesson that you would

22 take or how would you apply that in the Everglades

23 context?

24 A. Well, that the plants within a certain

25 range, not outside a certain range, within ranges

1 and edaphic conditions or environmental

2 conditions, the plant can conform and survive.

3 And so, I guess the extrapolation to

4 the Glades would be in terms of there is a certain

5 range in which Typha can tolerate say levels of

6 nutrient, and outside of that range -- it isn't

7 going to tolerate all nutrients in the world -- it

8 isn't going to be able to survive or there isn't

9 going to be able to be so much of them or take

10 them up or metabolize them.

11 There are some movements, as the ranges

12 can slide and expand, but they never can become

13 all encompassing.

14 Q. Would the same principle -- you're

15 talking about Typha.

16 Would the same principle apply to

17 Sawgrass, for example?

18 A. Sure, any plant.

19 Q. Aylilokorous (phonetic)?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you have any idea or opinion as to

22 the ranges of nutrients that, let's say, Sawgrass

23 could respond to in the Everglades context?

24 A. Yeah. Sawgrass can respond to and

25 tolerate very low nutrient concentration.

1 Typha can tolerate a wider range and

2 higher level.

3 Q. Let me ask you about Sawgrass here.

4 When you say low nutrient conditions,

5 can you give me a more precise --

6 A. The literature varies from probably

7 five or six to ten to thirty or forty, sometimes

8 exceeding fifty.

9 Q. Fifty what?

10 A. Parts per billion.

11 Q. Parts per billion.

12 Do you have any idea what would happen

13 to a Sawgrass community that was exposed to 50

14 parts per billion phosphorus, for example, over an

15 extended period of time?

16 MR. GAINES: Object to the form of the

17 question.

18 You can answer it.

19 THE WITNESS: I don't. I mean, I need

20 to know what other things are in there.

21 This is always --

22 MR. GAINES: That was my objection.

23 THE WITNESS: The question is: What

24 are the other constituents in the water, similar

25 concentrations or reduced or concentrated.

1 This is a basic biological lesson, but

2 all biological tissue has carbon nitrogen and

3 phosphorate. The ratio is about a hundred to

4 sixteen to one. So we will say with the nitrogen

5 and phosphorus, and I know you have been through

6 those ratio stories, whatever you get out of that

7 sixteen nitrogen to one phosphorus, whichever is

8 there, the nutrient. And then you can go into the

9 nitrogen phosphorate and the like.

10 For the big three you've got to know

11 the phosphorus and nitrogen in order to say what

12 would happen.

13 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

14 Q. Let's hypothesize the situation in

15 which phosphorus can become the limited nutrient.

16 MR. GAINES: Let me object to this type

17 of question, unless you would be stating what the

18 hydrologic conditions of the Sawgrass community --

19 hypothetical Sawgrass community would be subjected

20 to, whether the hydro period would be natural or

21 manipulated by man, et cetera.

22 I don't think that you have given

23 enough information in your question, so I object

24 to the form.

25 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

1 Q. Doctor Reimold, do you feel you can

2 answer the question?

3 A. Well, your question was if I assume

4 that the phosphorus --

5 Q. If the phosphorus has become the

6 limiting nutrient, how long do you think or what

7 do you think the impacts would be on a Sawgrass

8 community?

9 Let's hold other things, other things

10 in the hydro period area being equal.

11 A. I guess I'm just --

12 MR. GAINES: Same objection.

13 THE WITNESS: I'm having trouble to

14 think how the question works in terms of an answer

15 because you give me some hypothesis, but I will

16 try to answer.

17 That alone is hard to answer. I don't

18 know where your mind is relative to what you're

19 saying the normal hydro period is.

20 The normal hydrogen concentration and

21 the periodicity of the water and the concentration

22 of other nutrients is important, so if you could

23 tell me.

24 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

25 Q. How about all conditions natural except

1 the phosphorus?

2 MR. GAINES: Object to the form.

3 THE WITNESS: Natural to what?

4 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

5 Q. Not man-altered.

6 A. Where?

7 Q. Well --

8 A. I mean, that's the problem with the

9 Everglades.

10 You want me to stop?

11 MR. GAINES: Go ahead, you made the

12 same objection.

13 THE WITNESS: That's the problem I

14 have, is that what's natural to me may be a

15 caladium Sawgrass community in some area that's

16 not been impacted, like in this one area in Puerto

17 Rico that I was thinking of.

18 But I can't think that because all we

19 know that we can say is that there are areas of

20 the Glades Sawgrass community that aren't

21 impacted.

22 So what is the natural situation you're

23 trying to tell me about?

24 Let's think of the situation that might

25 have been described by Loveless and all back in

1 the '30s and '40s and described in the '50s

2 and'60s. I mean, maybe that's the situation you

3 want to kind of conceive, what was it like then.

4 Q. All right. Well, let's take that.

5 A. So if it were like it was in the good

6 old days, then what's the question?

7 Q. If phosphorus levels had become

8 elevated that it became the limiting nutrient,

9 what would happen?

10 A. It doesn't become the limiting

11 nutrient. It's background.

12 If phosphorus --

13 MR. GAINES: You need to talk a little

14 slower for her.

15 THE WITNESS: If phosphorus levels

16 become elevated, then it's not limiting.

17 If the supply of Doritos goes up, you

18 are not limited in terms of survival because you

19 can always eat Doritos, but maybe you don't have

20 other things.

21 If the phosphorus goes down, whatever

22 you have the lowest concentration of is limiting.

23 It goes back to 1830 called Lebecks law

24 of the limited. Whatever is present in the lowest

25 concentration is the factor that's limiting.

1 That's been something that's been kind of misused

2 in all that grade stuff that I have been looking

3 at lately. Things are limiting, but we are

4 talking about higher concentration. The lower the

5 concentration is something that then becomes

6 limiting, not the higher.

7 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

8 Q. Okay. I take your point.

9 I will leave the question, then.

10 A. Okay.

11 Are we finished with this?

12 Q. Yeah, we are finished with that.

13 A. I'm trying to keep a clean slate.

14 Q. Good point.

15 Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, have

16 you had occasion to read the SWIM plan that is the

17 subject of the challenge in this case?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And you haven't had occasion to look at

20 this, for example, the supporting information

21 document that has passages on water quality and

22 the water conservation areas of the park?

23 A. I don't know what supporting

24 documentation. Tell me a title and I could tell

25 you.

1 MR. GAINES: It's part of the SWIM

2 plan.

3 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

4 Q. The SWIM plan is a multi volume

5 document.

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Are you familiar at all with the storm

8 water treatment areas as described in the SWIM

9 plan?

10 A. Remotely.

11 Q. What's the basis of your understanding?

12 A. Well, as discussed in some of the

13 literature that I have reviewed, Brown and

14 Caldwell reports and the like, it's based on oral

15 presentations from Hansen and other scientists

16 that I heard last October in California at a

17 national meeting. Beyond that, I couldn't.

18 Q. Have you had occasion to look at any

19 reports authored by the firm of Burns and McDonald

20 concerning the storm water treatment areas?

21 A. I don't recall. I mean, other than

22 just to think if it's on that list, I mean, other

23 than the things that are in my mind and sort of

24 incorporated to start with, and things I did, you

25 go out for refreshers and put on the list.

1 MR. GAINES: This is just a list of the

2 documents that we produced to you.

3 MR. MACFARLANE: I think I have that

4 list.

5 Well, let's enter that as an exhibit.

6 (Thereupon the document referred to was

7 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 7

8 for Identification, a copy of which is

9 attached hereto.)

10 BY MR. MACFARLANE.

11 Q. Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what's

12 been marked as exhibit seven and I will ask you if

13 you recognize it?

14 A. Yes. It's Amendment 4 -- let me look

15 at this for a minute. I think I noticed

16 yesterday -- yeah, I had not seen the 15th May

17 version. I saw a February version which did not

18 have the appendices to it. I got one piece of

19 Appendix A that I reviewed. And so I actually

20 took a moment to look at my version to see it and

21 I couldn't see that there was any difference to

22 it. Yesterday afternoon someone said, "You must

23 mean the May 15." And I said, "No, no, I'm sure

24 mine says February."

25 Q. For the record, the version I have just

1 handed Doctor Reimold is the same version that's

2 listed in a list of his.

3 MR. GAINES: The list says February 18,

4 '89.

5 THE WITNESS: The list has February

6 18.

7 MR. GAINES: I don't know whether these

8 are the copies or we just told you the date. I

9 don't know.

10 MR. MACFARLANE: Can I take a look

11 here?

12 THE WITNESS: It may be. You know, I

13 don't know if they made any changes from one time

14 to the other, but in terms of keeping things

15 honest, the document I looked at said February.

16 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

17 Q. All right. I take the point.

18 A. It's the same title.

19 Q. I need to go back and check the list

20 that I got.

21 But let me ask you, then, just

22 generally --

23 A. It's okay. I can't imagine they

24 rewrote it.

25 Q. I don't think that they did, but there

1 were some minor changes.

2 Let me ask you generally about your

3 familiarity with chemical treatment and other

4 various alternative treatment technologies that

5 have been proposed as alternative to the storm

6 water treatment areas in this case. And can you

7 just generally describe to me what your

8 understanding of chemical treatment is as a form

9 of treatment technology for treating water?

10 A. A general description, you mean?

11 It's adding constituents to the water

12 in order to remove things that you don't want in

13 the water when it leaves the facility that you

14 have for purposes of treating. And it's a series

15 of physical and chemical processes that are -- in

16 some cases it could be biological, but we are

17 talking about additions of chemicals in order to

18 take out certain things you don't want in the

19 water.

20 My expertise is not in the chemical

21 foundations of that.

22 Q. Okay. Let me hone in on that area.

23 The area that you do expect to give

24 testimony, and let me make sure I understand this,

25 on the use of follow on wetland as part of the

1 chemical treatment process; is that correct?

2 MR. GAINES: No, it's not correct.

3 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

4 Q. Okay.

5 Do you anticipate giving any testimony

6 on chemical treatment as a water treatment

7 process?

8 A. Not in the treatment process as to what

9 comes out of chemical treatment.

10 In a firm like ours, we have scientists

11 and engineers, and we learn to let the engineers

12 do the engineering and scientists do their thing.

13 And so we try to, and my experience is the

14 engineers tell me what they're going to produce,

15 how they're going to make it work.

16 Doctor Bowen was one of your witnesses,

17 one of the persons you deposed who spoke to that

18 issue, how they go about doing it, what they

19 accomplish, and they tell me what they're going to

20 produce in terms of constituents, concentrations,

21 flows, things like that, and then I come in and

22 take a look at the receiving water environment,

23 land/water interfaces and the like, and what the

24 potential environmental impact would be from

25 that.

1 Q. Let me ask you, the two Brown and

2 Caldwell reports that are listed on your

3 documents, you have reviewed those, haven't you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you anticipate relying on them as

6 part of your testimony?

7 A. Um-hum.

8 Q. How do you anticipate using them?

9 A. Using information in there relative to

10 water quality. They have historic values for

11 water quality parameters. They have samples taken

12 in, what is it, April of 1993, and Amendment 6,

13 March and April, and one of them I'm sure is a

14 typo, but if you look in Amendment 6, that's -- if

15 you look in six, you would find that they say they

16 sampled in late March of '93 and early April a

17 couple lakes. Then one of them says April 1991,

18 and I'm sure it meant 1993, so they have historic

19 data and cite specific sampling at like station

20 S-5A or something like that. Then they have

21 results of different methods of testing, different

22 jar tests and the like where they have water

23 quality before and after testing, and then in this

24 one, Amendment 4 that we have in front of us,

25 Exhibit 7, there is water quality data then about

1 the blended water because the whole purpose here

2 is to take the water, treat it, blend it with raw

3 water and what will be the receiving water

4 quality, or what will be the quality of the

5 material being discharged into the receiving

6 waters. And there is some data relative to that.

7 So to the extent that that information

8 is in there, I look at existing historic and

9 proposed water quality, and in relation to the

10 receiving water in the environment. That's the

11 kind of information I intend to use out of here.

12 Q. Okay.

13 MR. MACFARLANE: Can we go off the

14 record for just a second.

15 (Thereupon conversation was

16 held off the record.)

17 MR. MACFARLANE: Let's mark this as an

18 exhibit.

19 (Thereupon the document referred to was

20 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 8

21 for Identification, a copy of which is

22 attached hereto.)

23 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

24 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as

25 exhibit eight.

1 A. Yeah, this is just a summary that I put

2 together of various historic information.

3 Q. And can you tell me what the sources

4 were for this information?

5 A. Let's start out, understand the whole

6 table.

7 The intent was, I could find no summary

8 of information about water quality relative to

9 this case. A lot of people have said a lot of

10 things. I read things published. So let's just

11 kind of go across the top and see what it is.

12 The first column lists the parameters.

13 Then I listed the units, so whatever units happen

14 to be from the Florida water quality standards, I

15 think it's the 1993 version of those. I have

16 taken off the Florida water quality criteria for

17 freshwater Class III. EPA has acute and

18 freshwater -- acute and chronic criteria. And

19 these are applicable to both freshwater and

20 saltwater. In this instance I have taken EPA

21 freshwater data. And these are based on bioassays

22 of the most sensitive plant or animal species that

23 are usually done for. So there is an EPA source

24 document to back up any value that's in there.

25 And those things I don't have citations on.

1 Then the next set of four columns

2 inside the double bars say Amendment Pump Six.

3 Pump five should be S-5A. Historic batch B.

4 You see those all have a superscript

5 one. If you go to the very back page of this, you

6 will see my footnote, and superscript one is the

7 Brown and Caldwell Amendment 6 report dated June

8 1, 1992.

9 Okay. And let's talk about what those

10 are. We could go into Amendment 6 and find it,

11 but they report some historic data over a period

12 of time at pump station S-5A, and that's the

13 historic average column. So I'm going across the

14 top.

15 Q. I follow you.

16 A. Okay. Then you recall, you probably

17 know this better than I, but they did different

18 types of tests, batches A, B, C and D, so I took

19 the data from batch B so I'd have something for

20 background purposes. And batch D was untreated.

21 They also had a treated portion of batch D, so I

22 put those parameter values down.

23 Then the next set of three columns

24 inside the next double bar, you see that has the

25 footnote of two. So if you go back to the back,

1 you see that's the report from Dave Anderson,

2 IFAS, November 1992, and I'm sure that you have a

3 more complete citation.

4 Let's talk a minute about what those

5 columns says, EPD minimum, maximum over the period

6 of time that they look at values.

7 Q. What do you understand EPD to mean?

8 A. Well, we'll have to get the report.

9 If you bring the report, I know it's on

10 my list. I can't tell you exactly what it means.

11 It's the environmental protection district, I

12 think. I mean, Everglades protection district.

13 But we can get the exact wording off the document.

14 From the period of time they looked at

15 it, they looked at the minimum values, maximum

16 values, and then an average value.

17 And the reason I did that, I was trying

18 to find some data as to -- sort of like the first

19 column that says Amendment 6, Pump S-5A historic.

20 I was trying to get data about what are the ranges

21 of values that we have been talking about. Are

22 they all basically the same number or different.

23 Then continuing across the top, the

24 next column of three inside the double bars, it

25 says EAA. And it's superfootnote three. And

1 that's the document that you just had in front of

2 us here, Government Exhibit Number 7. That's the

3 Appendix A of that.

4 Q. For the Record, I note in fact that

5 that is taken from the 5-15-1993 final report.

6 A. Right, because what I --

7 Q. Which is this version right here.

8 A. What I got was just those three pages,

9 just Appendix A what I got when I was looking at

10 all my stuff. I got a copy of the February

11 version and it had no appendices at all. Then I

12 got a copy of three pages which were called

13 Appendix A, and I'm going: Where did this come

14 from? And I want to be able, in case you ask me

15 -- yesterday afternoon I discovered it. I

16 discovered the February version didn't have

17 Appendix A.

18 Q. I appreciate the clarification.

19 MR. GAINES: For what it's worth, for

20 the record, I believe Appendix A is in the

21 February version as well. But it may not have

22 been provided with the original.

23 THE WITNESS: If we go back to the top

24 of the first page then, this was discharged from

25 S-5A. Then the treatment process here was the

1 filtration treatment process, what were the

2 values.

3 And then as you recall, I assume that

4 you know these studies blended the water, so what

5 are the concentrations it blended.

6 The next three columns are with the

7 untreated, the filtered, and the blended was from

8 EAA, from station S-7, and then finally from

9 another station which may or may not be as

10 represented. This is station S-10D which, as I

11 recall, is south of EAA and west of the

12 Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, but could have

13 drainage either coming through or along the side.

14 So it depends upon how the water really flows

15 there. But this is a footnote four, which is

16 Davis' 1991 article, and again, it gave some

17 ranges in values.

18 Now, I mean, I looked at this as a

19 working way to try and gather some information so

20 I can find out who says what. People have said a

21 lot about, you know, the nutrient concentration.

22 You asked me earlier if things are going better or

23 worse. Maybe it may be helpful if I explain what

24 are the reasons I did it.

25 Dissolved aluminum, if we go down the

1 parameter list and look at the third one down,

2 dissolved aluminum, you know there have been

3 concerns in some of the literature about is the

4 concentration of aluminum going to be so great

5 it's going to impair the growth of any plants upon

6 which it may flow. And, you know, looking across

7 there, there isn't much information to help me

8 with that. So I don't know that.

9 The unionized ammonia, the values show

10 in some instances ammonia concentrations are

11 greater than the Florida Class 3 Water Criteria.

12 That's true both over in the EAA, the right hand

13 columns, and it's also -- if you look at the range

14 that Davis shows, you can see a range from a

15 hundred up to one. So two orders of magnitude

16 just in variation in concentration.

17 Go down to boron. And I'm trying to

18 read in case you don't have the notes.

19 Q. For the record, the copy of this

20 document that we are examining here has notes,

21 marginal notes on the left hand margin, and I take

22 it --

23 A. They're all my notes.

24 Q. -- they're all your notes?

25 A. Yes. I mean, this is a working

1 product, so I have tried to show you where a few

2 things are. It may be subject to other changes.

3 Down under chloride, you see the

4 decimal point goes after the 860?

5 Q. Can you show me where your data is on

6 phosphorus?

7 A. Could I finish what I was going to

8 point out in the first page, or you don't want me

9 to do that?

10 Q. No, go ahead.

11 A. Well, I mean, I'll make the point. I

12 won't pick on each one of these, but only to try

13 and help you understand.

14 People have spoken about what's going

15 to happen to the micronutrient. Is what's being

16 proposed here going to be good or bad for the

17 plants.

18 Q. What's being proposed from what?

19 A. Water coming from chemical treatment.

20 The water coming from these facilities that you

21 asked me about.

22 Q. Can I stop you here and ask you: When

23 you talk about chemical treatment, are you talking

24 about what's being discharged from a chemical

25 treatment plant with a sedimentation basin?

1 A. I'm talking about whatever the

2 conditions are, all the conditions. I mean,

3 they're jar tests, so they are really -- it's a

4 big quantum leap in faith to say what it really

5 would be like. But all these conditions as set

6 forth in here. That's what I'm saying.

7 Q. Here?

8 A. These are chemistry results from --

9 Q. Let me stop you again.

10 Here, when you refer to here, you're

11 referring to the Brown and Caldwell reports that

12 you have examined?

13 A. Yes, which are Amendment 4, Government

14 Exhibit 7; and Amendment 6, which we haven't

15 produced yet, but you know what it is.

16 MR. GAINES: And also, just for the

17 record, he also has on here Dave Anderson's report

18 in his jar tests.

19 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

20 Q. But the chemical treatment plants, I

21 believe the ones that you're talking about, are

22 the ones referred to in the Brown and Caldwell

23 reports?

24 A. No. All of the above. All the things

25 that I just described, that includes Anderson,

1 includes two Brown and Caldwell documents.

2 Q. Let me ask a follow-up question to

3 that.

4 A. Can I finish the question or with what

5 statement I was making earlier?

6 Q. Go ahead and then I will ask.

7 A. If you tell me I can't do it, I won't.

8 Only to point out that in terms of

9 micronutrient, what are the conceptual

10 considerations of those documents that we just

11 referenced -- and another one, just for background

12 purposes, I don't see any information on boron, as

13 an example. There are other trace minerals;

14 micronutrient we might want to call them, and I'd

15 want to have some information properly developed

16 on those before I could make conclusions about

17 whether I'm going to have problems with

18 micronutrients or not.

19 Q. Do you think boron is an important

20 micronutrient?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If data were shown to you that chemical

23 treatment removed micronutrient boron from the

24 effluent, would that be a concern?

25 A. Depends upon what levels, depends upon

1 the levels in the background water and the levels

2 once it's reblended and mixed with the ambient

3 water and released, what the concentration is

4 there and what the concentration is in the natural

5 water.

6 Q. Let me stop you.

7 A. That's an example.

8 Chromium is another one.

9 Q. I take your point.

10 Let me stop you for a second, and I

11 want to see if we can --

12 A. Molybdinum is another.

13 MR. MACFARLANE: Just take a 15 second

14 break.

15 (Thereupon conversation was

16 held off the record.)

17 (Thereupon the document referred to was

18 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 9

19 for Identification, a copy of which is

20 attached hereto.)

21 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

22 Q. Doctor Reimold, just so we are clear

23 which document we are pointing to, let me ask you

24 to identify what's been marked as Government

25 Exhibit 9.

1 A. That's Brown and Caldwell Amendment 6

2 dated 1, June, 1993.

3 Q. Is this one of the documents that you

4 reviewed?

5 A. These are the documents referenced as

6 footnote one on the table that I produced,

7 Government Exhibit Number 8, just so we can tie

8 it. I'm sorry.

9 Q. Yes, you're correct. Government's

10 Exhibit 8, it's right here.

11 A. And Government Exhibit Number 7, as

12 referenced on my footnote, is the same document,

13 shows up as footnote three.

14 Q. Now, let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, as

15 part of the recommendations concerning chemical

16 treatment, Brown and Caldwell recommended chemical

17 treatment involving the use of a follow on wetland

18 and then chemical treatment without the use of a

19 follow on wetland.

20 Do you recall or have any recollection

21 as to that?

22 A. I recall reading it. I don't recall

23 exactly -- direct me to it, I might quickly recall

24 what it says. I mean, I just remember the

25 subject, not the exact page and paragraph of what

1 they said.

2 This is in Amendment 6?

3 Q. It could be Amendment 6 or it could be

4 Amendment 4.

5 (Thereupon conversation was

6 held off the record.)

7 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

8 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me ask you to look

9 at page ES-3, and the bates number on that page at

10 the bottom right hand corner is 1231123 and --

11 MR. GAINES: In Amendment 4?

12 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

13 Q. Amendment 4, which is --

14 A. Government Exhibit 7.

15 Q. Right, that's correct.

16 And toward the bottom of the page,

17 there is a listing of the treatment technologies

18 that Brown and Caldwell evaluated for basic S-5A.

19 Number three for alternative or treatment

20 technology three is listed as chemical treatment

21 using sedimentation basins followed by a wetland

22 treatment system. For basin S-7, treatment

23 technology three is chemical treatment using

24 sedimentation basins with no mention of a follow

25 on wetland treatment system.

1 Now, my question to you, Doctor

2 Reimold, is this: Going back to this chart that

3 you put together that's Government Exhibit 8, do

4 any of the figures you report here take into

5 account the differences between the use of follow

6 on wetland treatment system or not, as the case

7 may be?

8 A. Yeah. The columns labeled EAA

9 superscript three discharge S-5A, three of those

10 relate to the results reported in Appendix A of

11 Government Exhibit 7 for 5A.

12 Then the next three columns EAA

13 discharge for S-7, those three columns relate to

14 the process proposed for the basin that has S-7 to

15 it.

16 Q. So the columns for the EAA S-7 basin

17 reflect the use of a chemical treatment technology

18 without a follow on wetland; is that correct?

19 A. I think so. But, you know, I'm going

20 to have to find it in here. If you tell me it

21 says that, I'll take your word for it. I don't

22 remember.

23 Q. I'm trying to find out what you

24 understand by it. We can go and take a second and

25 look at Appendix A.

1 A. I don't remember whether it does or

2 doesn't. I can tell you that.

3 Let me find Appendix A in here.

4 Q. Appendix A is bates stamped 1231300.

5 And the next page begins water quality effects.

6 And it's followed by a series of tables, and these

7 were the tables that you used in putting together

8 Government Exhibit 8; is that correct?

9 A. One of the tables, yes.

10 Q. One of the tables?

11 A. Yeah.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. Bates pages 1231301, two and three.

14 Note for the record that two and three are in

15 reverse order from what they probably were

16 produced in.

17 Q. Vagaries of photo copying.

18 Let's flip over to page two of

19 Government Exhibit 8, Doctor Reimold.

20 A. Yeah.

21 Q. And you indicate that you found little

22 data for chromium, no data for chromium; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Why were you interested in looking at

1 chromium?

2 A. Because I took the substances in this

3 list for which there were Florida water quality

4 criteria, 'cause one concern is are we going to do

5 anything to impair the receiving water or its

6 fauna or flora, so anything for which there is

7 data -- and we ought to know whether there is

8 anything toxic or non-toxic being concentrated or

9 whatever.

10 Cobalt was included 'cause sometimes

11 it's important for growth of plant, so we want to

12 know in terms of looking at it as a trace element

13 for micronutrient there.

14 Q. That was my question.

15 A. Copper data was another one we looked

16 at. There had been some inferences in something I

17 read about the possibility of toxicity from too

18 much metals of some of these things, so here we

19 can look at copper data and we can also compare it

20 to Florida water quality standards and to EPA

21 numbers, and we see the numbers are low.

22 And in fact, the treatment you see --

23 if we look at the right hand columns, EAA five,

24 untreated water is 15, treated copper filtered

25 water, as they call it, is eight, and when it's

100

1 blended it goes back up to ten.

2 Same thing is true with EAA seven. In

3 other words, the treatment process here called

4 filtration, and whatever that stands for exactly

5 in here, it stands for itself.

6 Q. So the Record is clear, when you say in

7 here, you're referring back to Appendix A of

8 amendment --

9 A. Government Exhibit 7.

10 Q. Okay.

11 Let's go to page three.

12 A. I might point out for iron, since we

13 are there, people have asked or there have been

14 statements relative to what the impacts of iron

15 were going to be, because we are adding iron

16 hydroxide as one of the agents in the treatment

17 chemical process, if the concentrations of iron

18 were going to sky rocket or get high and cause

19 potential toxicity. In remembering that the

20 numbers that are developed by EPA and the State

21 are to quote, "protect sensitive species." The

22 EPA wants to protect the most sensitive species.

23 I think it's important to look at the iron in the

24 chronic EPA criteria. This is at the bottom of

25 page two, the very last line. The iron criterion

101

1 is 1 mg/l chronic. That's to protect the

2 sublethal, not the lethal effect.

3 If you go across and look at the values

4 of iron, specially over in the columns that are

5 treated, you see that the concentrations are like

6 one-tenth of that. So it's an order of magnitude

7 less than concentrations about which one would be

8 expecting toxic impacts.

9 Q. Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, since

10 we are on the subject.

11 Do you anticipate giving any testimony

12 about the, what I'll call the sludge disposal

13 issue in relation to either direct filtration or

14 chemical treatment or water quality -- water

15 quality problems relating to this sludge

16 disposal?

17 MR. GAINES: We haven't -- go ahead.

18 THE WITNESS: I might, if that issue

19 came up.

20 I mean, I have knowledge and I have

21 projects ongoing now where I'm taking residuals

22 from water treatment plant and I'm looking at them

23 in terms of impact on agronomic systems, looking

24 at soils, vegetation and hydrology, but they're

25 going on agricultural systems. They are land

102

1 applications of these kind of chemical treatment

2 sludges and their uptake.

3 I have looked at a ten-year period of

4 record in one particular plan now which is a

5 plant, water treatment plant in Connecticut. And

6 I have a study just starting for five years of a

7 more intensive groundwater soil and vegetation on

8 that. So it's something I'm doing some work in,

9 and although we haven't talked about it.

10 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

11 Q. At this point in time, you don't

12 anticipate giving testimony in that area?

13 MR. GAINES: We have not specifically

14 tasked him to do that.

15 THE WITNESS: We haven't excluded it.

16 It's something I know something about, but I

17 haven't been exclusively asked, but I haven't been

18 told not to.

19 MR. GAINES: Now that you brought it

20 up, it's not a bad idea.

21 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

22 Q. Well, let me ask you to go to the area

23 where you analyze or set figures on phosphorus.

24 A. Sure.

25 Q. In your table where would I find that?

103

1 A. Page four, the lower third of the table

2 deals with the various parameters.

3 One of the things would take total

4 phosphorus as an example, and we can take others

5 for which there is data.

6 The second example, go to the very

7 center of the page, just so you can see the wide

8 range, and this is the data from Anderson, 1991,

9 which we haven't produced yet, but I'm sure it's

10 in the record in other cases, November 1992,

11 Anderson report. See the wide swing in the

12 values? The values go from one to 3500, minimum

13 to maximum. So in total reactive -- dissolved

14 reactive from one to 3200 with the averages there

15 of 438 and 160 respectively. Let's say that

16 that's something different. So let's go back to

17 the next set of left columns, Amendment 6, pump

18 station 5A, historic average and look at total

19 phosphorus. The average is 150. And then the

20 numbers that -- we are actually in the late March,

21 early April 1993 columns, batch B and batch D,

22 numbers of 111 and 120. There is just a wide

23 variation.

24 Or go over to Davis' data, the very

25 righthand-most column, and just because I had

104

1 problems in formatting my table to fit on the

2 page, I wrote the numbers in as I was reading the

3 data, reviewing the numbers, but Davis is 1991

4 data of explicitly total dissolved phosphorus in a

5 Caladium and Typha wetland in the Everglades, not

6 somewhere else. This is real life data. Shows a

7 number of 97, but with a range there of 18 to

8 564.

9 Q. All right.

10 Let me stop you for a second and ask

11 you, just so I'm clear, do you interpret the data

12 for the S-10D inflow as data that is taken from

13 the Everglades?

14 A. No.

15 Q. What did you --

16 A. I said that earlier today this morning,

17 that S-10D is on -- we can get a map out of the

18 canal system -- it's on, as I recall, it's on the

19 western side of the Loxahatchee, south of the

20 EAA.

21 And then we've got to look at Davis'

22 article. There it is right there.

23 Q. Yeah.

24 A. You know where it is?

25 Q. Yeah.

105

1 A. So the question is whether it

2 represents water that only flowed through the

3 system or whether it's water that flowed across

4 the overland and to it. I'm not exactly sure. We

5 have to read Davis' report and see what he says.

6 It wasn't to pick out the worse case or

7 the best case. It was only wherever I could find

8 things that I thought were representative. I

9 tried in a reasonable way to put down some

10 numbers. All I've seen is a lot of speculation,

11 and I haven't seen anything tabular where I could

12 do what's done here. And in fact, if you can

13 refer me that there is something like this done

14 already, I'd like to know what reference it is.

15 Q. That's not my job.

16 A. I know.

17 Q. Let me ask you what you understand from

18 the standpoint of the ecosystem that we are

19 talking about here, the S-10D sampling data to

20 represent.

21 A. Then we need to get Davis' article out,

22 then we can talk about it. You have it? We gave

23 you a copy of it, I think.

24 Q. Okay, continue talking about --

25 A. You were asking about the phosphorus.

106

1 I think it's important to look at phosphorus and

2 nitrogen here, and the handwritten notes across

3 the bottom are kind of a compilation of the

4 nitrogen to phosphorus ratio.

5 Remember we talked earlier this morning

6 about the sixteen to one ratio of nitrogen to

7 phosphorus. So whichever one is present in the

8 lower number, that's the one that's going to be

9 limiting. So if I'm looking across, and I'm on

10 the bottom of page four, the handwritten notes

11 that say N:P ratio, you will note under Amendment

12 6, pump station S-5A, historic values 3.1 to 150.

13 Now, what that means is that there is a

14 lot more phosphorus than there is nitrogen there;

15 okay.

16 MR. GAINES: Doctor Reimold, can I ask

17 you to just read what your note there at the

18 bottom says, 'cause I think it got cut off a

19 little bit.

20 MR. MACFARLANE: I believe that's

21 correct, actually.

22 MR. GAINES: For the Record.

23 THE WITNESS: It says even more

24 treatment none approach sixteen to one, i.e. there

25 is still excess phosphorus, although 15 parts per

107

1 billion is easy to achieve.

2 What I was trying to show in all these

3 situations is that even with the reductions that

4 are proposed or for where there is data, we never

5 get nitrogen ratios of sixteen to one. So the

6 point is that if you remove all that phosphorus

7 and you don't remove the nitrogen, then you're

8 going to have exacerbation 'cause you're affecting

9 the nitrogen phosphorus ratio. You never get to

10 where there is more than enough nitrogen.

11 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

12 Q. Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, looking

13 at the second column on your page four of your

14 table, you have your total phosphorus figures

15 given in micrograms per liter?

16 A. Um-hum.

17 Q. Your nitrogen figures at the bottom are

18 in milligrams per liter?

19 A. Um-hum.

20 Q. Do you have any view as to the

21 significance of the difference here in --

22 A. Good point. Good point. I see that.

23 Q. -- measuring?

24 A. I see exactly the point you're

25 deriving. I'll have to recompute these nitrogen

108

1 phosphorus ratios to speak to that.

2 So I'd strike all those numbers at the

3 bottom and say I will recompute them sometime and

4 then we will be able to talk about them in greater

5 detail.

6 Q. So you will not be relying on this

7 particular table as it's presently constructed for

8 that aspect?

9 A. That's right.

10 Q. The nitrogen phosphorus ratio?

11 A. That's right. Good observation.

12 Before I leave the table, I'd just like

13 to make sure you just reflect on how many columns

14 are empty. If these are the substances -- and you

15 can skip over the pesticides and some of the

16 organics that you wouldn't deal with anyway. But

17 deal with the things that relate to plants like

18 molybdinum, boron, micronutrient. There is no

19 information available.

20 Q. Doctor Reimold, are you familiar with

21 the experiments by -- the chemical experiments by

22 Doctor Shannon?

23 A. Chemical treatment experiments?

24 Q. Have you come across those at all?

25 A. I may have. That doesn't ring a bell,

109

1 Shannon.

2 Q. Earl Shannon.

3 A. I can't say that I have. Maybe if I

4 saw a copy of it, it might refresh my memory, but

5 I'm sorry.

6 Q. Let me ask you a kind of a concluding

7 question about the data that's in this table.

8 And the question is: Based upon your

9 understanding of Everglades functions and values,

10 from the data you've analyzed or brought together

11 here in this table, do you think that Everglades

12 functions and values are being impacted by

13 nutrient enrichment?

14 MR. GAINES: I just would repeat the

15 same objection I made earlier concerning that he

16 has not been asked to identify causes of problems

17 in the Everglades, nutrient, hydro periodicity, et

18 cetera, but if he has an opinion based on what

19 he's looked at, he may answer.

20 MR. MACFARLANE: He spoke very

21 eloquently early on about wetlands functions and

22 values.

23 MR. GAINES: Like I said --

24 MR. MACFARLANE: I'd just be interested

25 if he has an opinion.

110

1 MR. GAINES: Go ahead and answer.

2 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

3 Q. Please do.

4 A. Yeah, I have an opinion, and I think

5 that nutrients are one of the factors involved,

6 and I think that the other factor -- there are a

7 lot of factors, but there are two factors that are

8 principal. The periodicity and quantity of water

9 and the nutrient, yeah. There are two factors

10 that are inextricably linked.

11 Q. When you say inextricably linked --

12 A. Because when you have the water, you

13 have nutrient; and when you don't have the water,

14 you don't have the nutrient. It has to do with

15 the delivery system as well as the concentration.

16 Q. And presumably the source of the

17 nutrient as well, would you say?

18 A. It isn't going to change much

19 regarding -- I mean, unless we get into different

20 chemical forms, it's not going to matter much what

21 the source was. If it's there, it's there.

22 Q. But just to be clear here, you believe

23 or you have an opinion, then, that nutrients are

24 having an impact on the Everglades ecosystem?

25 A. My opinion is that the nutrient and

111

1 water periodicity involved are inextricably

2 linked, and the two of them combined, you don't

3 get the nutrient without the water; you don't get

4 the periodicity without the water.

5 I'm not just applying granulate

6 phosphate or ammonium phosphate in the Glades.

7 It's the water. So it's the concentrations in the

8 water and how the water either comes there equally

9 or it's allotted, and then a little later on, that

10 periodicity factor is what's important.

11 Q. Fair enough.

12 MR. GAINES: Are we done with this

13 table?

14 MR. MACFARLANE: I think we are.

15 Mark that as an exhibit, please.

16 (Thereupon the document referred to was

17 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 10

18 for Identification, a copy of which is

19 attached hereto.)

20 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

21 Q. Okay. This is I guess follow up to

22 what we have just been talking about, Doctor

23 Reimold.

24 Let me show you exhibit ten and ask you

25 if you recognize that?

112

1 A. It's a letter dated 26 February, 1993,

2 from Paul Carlson to Peter Rhoads.

3 Q. All right.

4 A. Yes, I have seen this before.

5 Q. And let me direct your attention to the

6 third paragraph on the first page. And I'm going

7 to give you plenty of opportunity to respond and

8 tell me what your views are on this, but I will

9 read the paragraph.

10 "Brown and Caldwell engineers and some

11 SAGE members" -- let me stop.

12 For the record, are you familiar with

13 what SAGE is?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. -- "SAGE members apparently feel this

16 concern is trivial, but marsh-readiness is a

17 crucial requirement for the effluent of any

18 treatment system because the entire purpose of the

19 Federal lawsuit and subsequent settlement

20 agreement is the restoration and maintenance of

21 the Everglades ecosystem. Therefore, chemical

22 treatment will not be acceptable if it achieves an

23 effluent TP concentration of 20 micrograms per

24 liter, but disrupts major components of the

25 Everglades ecosystem."

113

1 All right, let's go back.

2 Do you have an opinion whether

3 marsh-readiness is a crucial requirement for the

4 effluent of any treatment system?

5 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form

6 of the question and the phrase marsh-readiness

7 without some understanding of how you're using

8 that term, what it means.

9 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

10 Q. Well, let me ask if Doctor Reimold has

11 an understanding of what the term means?

12 A. I have my own understanding, and from

13 what I've seen and what I have read, different

14 experts have different opinions of what the

15 marsh-ready is in the first place.

16 Q. Tell me what you understand.

17 A. If I were working on this project as

18 one of the investigators that help come up with

19 the idea, marsh-readiness would be much like the

20 water at the edge of the mix zone when we deal

21 with any other discharge. We have a certain area

22 where we take the water that we have treated and

23 we mix it with natural background water, and that

24 area where the treatment and mixing goes on is, in

25 a regulatory sense, described as a mixing zone.

114

1 Then outside of that water, that mix of water

2 actually conforms with water quality criteria and

3 standards, et cetera.

4 To me marsh-readiness would be the mix

5 of water when these various processes, filtration

6 and chemical treatment have been described and

7 anything else is done to them. When that water is

8 finally then blended with whatever the amount of

9 the receiving water is, such that it's ready then

10 to go, you know, comparing to natural background,

11 so whatever area that takes for that to happen.

12 In that sense, then yes, I'd say that's the

13 concern we have. And so, the marsh readiness of

14 water is the only place I've seen it simulated, is

15 in that one Appendix A of Exhibit 4, which is --

16 sorry, of Amendment 4, which is Government Exhibit

17 9.

18 Q. You have talked a number of times this

19 morning about blending of water, and I know that

20 Brown and Caldwell address that in the two reports

21 that you have reviewed.

22 Do you believe, given the definition of

23 marsh-ready that you have just provided us, do you

24 believe that blending of treated and untreated

25 waters will produce, in the particular context we

115

1 are dealing with here, marsh-ready water?

2 A. Using your definition.

3 Yeah. I don't see any data to prove

4 that it won't. And I see some holes in the data

5 from that table I made where I'd want some more

6 data to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

7 because, of course, in a court of law we ought to

8 be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

9 Q. For the record, this is not a criminal

10 prosecution.

11 A. As an ecologist, as a responsible

12 ecologist who, you know, recognizes someone is

13 paying for things, I like to be able to

14 demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the efficacy

15 of something, instead of being a great scheme that

16 somebody thinks about. So yes, I think that in

17 that sense, it is.

18 Q. And that can be achieved -- that could

19 be achieved by blending treated and untreated

20 water?

21 A. Not just could be, it would be.

22 I mean, that's a given, as far as I'm

23 concerned. Just like it's a given that you will

24 have the ability to have mixing zones when you

25 discharge from a waste water treatment plant or

116

1 water treatment plant, industrial treatment plant,

2 whatever. They're all chemical discharges,

3 chemically treated discharges.

4 Q. When you use the term mixing zone,

5 again, let me see if I can connect this back up

6 with the Brown and Caldwell studies.

7 Would the wetland treatment that is

8 proposed as part of the treatment plant for the

9 S-5A basin, would that constructed wetland be a

10 mixing zone?

11 A. No. It's after the water comes out of

12 that and it's blended with receiving water or

13 whatever the canal water, it's when those two are

14 mixed together, then that's the quote, "mixing

15 zone."

16 Q. Mixing zone?

17 A. Analogue and mixing zone.

18 Q. Am I correct the mixing zone just

19 refers to that area where treated and untreated

20 water is blended together?

21 A. Yeah. And it's particularly defined in

22 the regulations that it can't be larger than --

23 and there are conditions -- receiving water, water

24 conditions in terms of the size of it, literally,

25 the volume of it, so beyond the boundary of that.

117

1 Because within that regulatory mixing zone, I'm

2 thinking of that regulatory concept, within the

3 boundary of the mixing zone you sometimes exceed

4 water quality standards, but never outside the

5 mixing zone, so that's what I'm saying.

6 At the very end of the pipe from the

7 treated system and at the very end of the pipe of

8 the water that's been bypassed, the numbers will

9 be different. But by the time they have mixed

10 together in a short distance, matters of feet or

11 hundreds of feet, that's when then the water is

12 mixed together and it's when it becomes quote, in

13 the parlance you used here, "marsh-ready." That's

14 when I don't think it will have any.

15 Q. Would that take place, again, thinking

16 back to the treatment proposed, chemical treatment

17 system proposed for the S-5A basin, would that

18 take place, that blending or mixing take place

19 after the treated water had flowed through the

20 constructed wetland or --

21 A. Yes. I think the way they proposed it,

22 it's after this goes through that then the blend

23 is back together, they are mixed together,

24 commingled, the two pipes, or I don't know exactly

25 the design of it, engineers tell you that.

118

1 Q. Just so I get the nomenclature and how

2 it fits in, I understand you don't expect to give

3 testimony on the design so much.

4 Let's go back to this letter, and let

5 me ask you about the last sentence which again

6 says, "Therefore, chemical treatment will not be

7 acceptable if it achieves an effluent TP

8 concentration of 20 micrograms per liter, but

9 disrupts major components of the Everglades

10 ecosystem."

11 Would you agree or disagree with that

12 statement, or do you have an opinion as to --

13 A. I have an opinion. I guess my opinion

14 would be it's kind of a weak statement.

15 If I were going to write a

16 conclusionary statement, I'd be sure to cover more

17 than that. There are other things that could

18 affect disruption of the Everglades ecosystem.

19 First of all, we need to see what that would be.

20 And second of all, just knowing what the TP

21 concentration is, 'cause we have talked earlier

22 today about nitrogen and about all the

23 micronutrient. We need to know something about

24 that. So the table we had, which was Government

25 Exhibit 8, I'd like to be able to have more of

119

1 those blanks filled in if I were going to speak

2 beyond a reasonable doubt that it was ecologically

3 good or bad.

4 Q. You understand that this letter is

5 written as a critique of chemical treatment,

6 right?

7 A. Yeah.

8 Q. Right.

9 A. But I also say, you know, the letter

10 sort of has a bias. It sort of looks at chemical

11 treatment but doesn't say compared to what. It's

12 sort of inferred as compared to what.

13 Q. What's your understanding of the

14 inference?

15 A. Well, it's compared to storm water

16 treatment areas. And no one really goes on to say

17 what's going to happen to those same things,

18 what's going to happen supposing this were the

19 same letter about a storm water treatment area,

20 and so therefore, the storm --

21 Q. You've really got to slow down for the

22 court reporter.

23 A. Therefore, the storm water area will

24 not be acceptable if it achieves a TP

25 concentration of 20, disrupting major components.

120

1 I mean, there are other things that

2 storm water treatment areas are going to have

3 impacts on, micronutrient, just as the chemical

4 treatment area is going to have.

5 I think you have to make sure when the

6 final judges get involved, they've got to be

7 comparing apples to apples.

8 Q. Out of curiosity, what is the basis of

9 your understanding about the effect of a storm

10 water treatment area on micronutrient?

11 MR. GAINES: If it's out of curiosity,

12 you want to do it off the record?

13 MR. MACFARLANE: No. I want to do it

14 on the record.

15 THE WITNESS: The effect of water --

16 wetland storm water treatment area and

17 micronutrient is not really well understood, but

18 there is a removal of the micronutrient in those

19 systems proportionate to the uptake in those

20 elements in the plant that are there. The other

21 side of that is what about the major nutrient; if

22 they're not macro, they are major -- or micro. If

23 they're not micro, they are macronutrients,

24 nitrogen and phosphorus and the like. That is,

25 there is only a finite number of nutrient they can

121

1 take up. You can't infinitely produce plant

2 biomass. If you keep eating and eating and taking

3 water, you don't get big. There is a point where

4 it doesn't happen any more, and the same thing is

5 true for these plants. There are limits to it and

6 there are maximums to it.

7 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

8 Q. All right.

9 Let's go look at the next paragraph.

10 This would be the last paragraph on the first

11 page, and again, I'd like your reaction to the

12 last sentence which reads, "During discussion, we

13 also mentioned the problem that chemical treatment

14 might not be effective in removing other

15 pollutants such as pesticides and mercury."

16 Do you have an opinion as to the

17 effectiveness of chemical treatment in removing

18 other pollutants such as pesticides or mercury?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 I'd like to go back and look at

21 Government Exhibit 8 as an example. And if we

22 look on the page number three, about the one, two,

23 three, four, five or seven lines down, total

24 mercury, you see we have Florida Water Quality

25 Criteria, we have EPA acute and chronic criteria.

122

1 What data do we have there? We have less than two

2 for the batch D untreated, and less than two for

3 the batch D treated, and nothing else across

4 there.

5 So relative to mercury, and I will come

6 back to pesticides in a minute, but relative to

7 mercury, there is very little information to

8 substantiate that sentence. That's why I did

9 this. That sentence raised awareness. Maybe

10 there is an issue here.

11 Then let's go on down here on this

12 table, and on page four and page three, again,

13 after the water, oil and grease, starts out from

14 the Florida Water Quality Standards, the

15 chemicals.

16 Q. Sorry, let me stop you. Where are you

17 on page four?

18 A. Page three.

19 Q. Page three; okay.

20 A. Page three.

21 Sixty percent of the data says oil and

22 grease, then aldrin, and then --

23 Q. Those are all pesticides?

24 A. Those are pesticides. And it goes

25 through the first quarter of page four, down

123

1 through toxaphene.

2 Those are the pesticides that are

3 currently regulated by Florida Water Quality

4 Standard, Class 3 Water Quality Standards, and if

5 you would just take a minute and look at the

6 table, then of all the studies that I have

7 referenced in this document, there aren't any,

8 there is no data. So which leads me to the

9 conclusion, in answering your question, do I agree

10 with that statement, no, I don't agree to it

11 'cause I don't know whether it's right or wrong.

12 I don't have any information to tell me that it

13 was or it wasn't.

14 Q. Fair enough.

15 Back to mercury for a second.

16 Do you have any opinion or any

17 knowledge of the effects that storm water

18 treatment areas would have on mercury?

19 A. None; any direct measurements or

20 anything. I mean, other people's data I read and

21 I'm aware of it.

22 Q. What's your awareness?

23 A. It depends upon the nature of the

24 soils, the reduction potential and the microflora

25 that's present.

124

1 Q. Let's go to the second page of the

2 letter. And I would direct your attention to the

3 second half of the paragraph which is discussing

4 language from the settlement agreement.

5 And I'll just read that, quote,

6 "Monitoring of biological responses in the Park

7 will determine if these limits are sufficient to

8 prevent imbalance of flora and fauna; if not,

9 these limits will be adjusted to prevent an

10 imbalance of flora and fauna. While this standard

11 is cast in terms of phosphorus, the settlement

12 agreement also states that waters delivered to the

13 Park and the Refuge achieve state water quality

14 standards, including Class III standards, by July

15 1, 2002. Therefore, nitrogen, metals, pesticides,

16 and other compounds which would result in

17 imbalance of flora and fauna of the receiving

18 waters and ecosystem must also be controlled."

19 Let's break that apart a little bit.

20 Now, am I correct in thinking, Doctor Reimold,

21 from your creation of this table that's Government

22 Exhibit 8, that you have reviewed state water

23 quality standards?

24 A. I so stated on the paper for you.

25 Q. And then with that in mind, let me ask

125

1 you whether you have any opinion as to the last

2 sentence: Nitrogen, metals, pesticides, and other

3 compounds which would result in imbalance of flora

4 and fauna of the receiving waters and ecosystem

5 must also be controlled.

6 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form

7 of the question. You're asking him whether he

8 reviewed state water quality standards, and

9 therefore, does he have an opinion about this

10 sentence. This sentence relates to the

11 requirements that the state agreed to with the

12 Federal Government in the settlement agreement.

13 So I think what you're asking him to do is legally

14 interpret that settlement agreement contract and I

15 object to him being asked to give a legal

16 conclusion.

17 MR. MACFARLANE: Actually, I don't

18 believe that's what I'm asking him to do. I'm

19 asking him to, based upon his knowledge of the

20 Class III water quality standards, whether the

21 discharge of those compounds referenced in the

22 last sentence would have to be controlled in order

23 to meet those standards.

24 MR. GAINES: Well, let me object to the

25 form, and it's not your form, it's really the form

126

1 of the sentence to the extent you're taking the

2 standard from -- the narrative nutrient standard

3 of the Class III water quality standards and

4 attempting to apply it to all these other

5 parameters, some of which have numerical

6 criteria.

7 MR. MACFARLANE: All right. We note

8 your objection, but let me go back, and Doctor

9 Reimold -- actually, I think I'll withdraw the

10 question.

11 So let's move on.

12 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

13 Q. Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, based

14 upon your understanding of chemical treatment,

15 would chemical treatment as proposed in the Brown

16 and Caldwell studies you have reviewed, remove

17 other pollutants than phosphorus, and Brown and

18 Caldwell focused on phosphorus, but do you have

19 any understanding as to whether other compounds or

20 nutrient would be removed as well?

21 A. Only to the extent they provided data

22 which I have summarized on here.

23 Q. Okay; fair enough.

24 Do you have any understanding whether a

25 constructed STA wetland would remove those other

127

1 nutrients or other compounds such as metals,

2 pesticides and so forth?

3 A. Relative to constructed wetland and

4 nutrient and metals and pesticides, do I what?

5 Q. Do you have an opinion whether an STA

6 would remove those as well as phosphorus?

7 A. To the extent data are available,

8 yeah.

9 Q. Your answer would be yes?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Let's go on, back to the letter.

12 And let me ask you for your reaction to

13 the first of the enumerated propositions there.

14 "Chemical treatment might not remove

15 additional pollutants such as nitrogen species and

16 mercury, that a large marsh community would

17 probably remove effectively."

18 Do you have an opinion as to that

19 proposition?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. What is your opinion?

22 A. Let's take mercury. First of all, from

23 the data sheet, from Government Exhibit 8, the

24 data that I was able to accumulate under mercury,

25 looking at batch test D, treated untreated, there

128

1 was no change in mercury, so I don't know how one

2 could say it did or didn't. There was no change.

3 If we look at total -- look on page

4 four, down near the bottom under the substance

5 called TKN, which is total kaldo nitrogen, there

6 the columns batch D untreated and treated show

7 total kaldo nitrogen went from .9 to .46, so I

8 don't believe that substantiates what it says in

9 that sentence.

10 If I look at nitrate, which is on page

11 three, about 50 percent of the way down that page,

12 I see a reading across there, under batch test D

13 untreated and treated, that it went from .36 to

14 .34, not much of a change, but down, if

15 anything.

16 And then let me see if there is

17 anything else. I've forgotten if there is another

18 one.

19 That's it. Just looking if there was

20 anything else. I was thinking there was something

21 else, but I guess not relative to nitrogen and pH.

22 Yeah, it was ammonia. I'm sorry, page

23 one, up near the top, the ammonia row. And you

24 look at batch test D untreated, it went from .06

25 to .05. Whether that's a significant difference

129

1 or not, I don't know.

2 So in some instances there was removal,

3 and in some instances, like in mercury, there is

4 no information at all. So I don't know whether

5 the sentence is true or false.

6 Q. Okay.

7 Doctor Reimold, do you know whether

8 chemical treatment using iron salts as a coagulant

9 removes nitrogen?

10 A. Well, if we are only sticking to the

11 chemistry of it, it won't, but we have to look at

12 what the total response is, whether it's a

13 combined physical and chemical process, and then

14 the interaction with the receiving water.

15 Something accounted for the fact that what they

16 did dropped the value here, getting away from the

17 direct chemistry, by looking at what happened on

18 the bottom of total caldron. It went down to half

19 of it with the one test that was done. Is that

20 typical of all or not, I don't know that those --

21 that there was a reduction.

22 Q. Do you know whether that reduction was

23 the result of blending or --

24 A. This isn't even blended. This number

25 is without any blending taking place. That's just

130

1 the jar test results. It's the other columns

2 further at the right that have the blended water,

3 the ones that say blended in the heading.

4 Q. Back to the letter.

5 Enumerated paragraph number two. Now,

6 we have covered some of this, but I'd just like to

7 get your reaction to this. "Chemical treatment

8 will remove anionic forms of trace metals such as

9 molybdate, arsenate, and vanadate, with unknown

10 effects."

11 Do you have an opinion about that?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. What is your opinion?

14 A. My opinion is there is not a sufficient

15 body of data to make any knowledgable conclusion

16 one way or another.

17 If they are talking in the theoretical

18 world, that if you remove everything and you were

19 making distilled water, that would be one thing,

20 but we're not making distilled water, and so, you

21 can look at the sheet here and you can take any of

22 those rows.

23 I know I have data for arsenate and

24 molybdate. I didn't think there was any vanadate

25 numbers at all to even list the standard for

131

1 vanadate, so there isn't any information.

2 Q. If data were to come to light or if you

3 were shown data that showed that chemical

4 treatment removed those forms of trace metals --

5 A. Then I'd have to know the

6 concentration.

7 What concentrations are we getting down

8 to? As I said, you know, we take designer water,

9 it has all these constituents in it and it's safe

10 to drink, and yet we consider it to be very good,

11 but if we take distilled water that you might buy

12 at the grocery store for your steam iron, it

13 doesn't have any of these things in it, and that's

14 not good, you don't drink distilled water. No one

15 markets it. You would quickly become dehydrated

16 if you drank water that just had HNO in it.

17 Q. Based on your experience with chemical

18 treatment systems in the past, are you aware of

19 any testing of the chemistry of the water that's

20 the effluent from such system as to these

21 particular trace metals?

22 I'm not talking about here in the

23 Everglades context, but in general, your

24 experience?

25 A. It's often done. I mean, you run

132

1 through the whole sweep of metals and nutrient and

2 pesticides and organics, regulated substance. We

3 call it the priority pollutant list to see if you

4 are complying with either EPA or a particular

5 state's water quality criteria.

6 Q. And do you recall data on the levels to

7 which these sorts of substances, these trace

8 metals were reduced down to?

9 I mean, are we producing designer

10 water? Were they producing designer water as

11 opposed to distilled water?

12 A. Down toward designer, never toward

13 distilled, right. They are always compared to

14 quantities needed for plant update. There is

15 always adequate micronutrients left in the water.

16 I can't think of any instance of any

17 time that micronutrients became an eliminating

18 factor.

19 Q. Let's go on to the third proposition

20 here, enumerated paragraph on page two.

21 "Chemical treatment will add iron in

22 whatever anion is used in the precipitant at

23 concentrations far greater than background

24 concentrations with unknown effects."

25 And my question here, Doctor Reimold,

133

1 is are you aware or have you seen any data as to

2 the background concentrations of iron in the

3 Everglades?

4 A. Yeah. We can look on page two, bottom

5 row. That's one of the reasons that row is in

6 there.

7 In addition to having a Florida Class

8 III water quality criterion of less than one, and

9 the numbers here show .3, .53, .23.

10 Look at treatment with batch D, treated

11 and untreated columns goes from .3 down to .015.

12 So in order of magnitude drop, decrease in

13 concentration.

14 If we go over to the --

15 Q. Can I stop you a second and just let me

16 ask you: Are you saying -- is it your testimony

17 that the figures 0.30, 0.53, 0.23 and 0.15 given

18 in the bottom row on page two represent background

19 levels for iron?

20 MR. GAINES: Background where?

21 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

22 Q. Background in the Everglades.

23 A. Well, I would say that the Amendment 6

24 pump station S-5A historic average could be

25 construed as a background value.

134

1 I would say that the column called

2 batch B untreated could be included as

3 concentration in a point in time, that being like

4 the 1st of April, '93.

5 The column called batch D untreated was

6 taken early April '93. That's a background. And

7 then we could go over and look at the middle

8 columns entitled EPD minimum, maximum and average,

9 and those would be good representations of, again,

10 some background.

11 Q. Okay. That was my question.

12 Continuing, Doctor Reimold, the forth

13 enumerated paragraph on page two of this letter,

14 "Adverse impacts of chemical treatment on plant

15 and animal community structure would probably

16 occur over several years."

17 Do you have an opinion as to that

18 statement?

19 A. Yeah, I have an opinion about it. I

20 think it's unfounded. I don't -- I'm not aware

21 what knowledge or what basic information was used

22 to draw that conclusion.

23 Q. Did you have -- you had occasion to

24 review the attachment to this letter, at the very

25 back, the Big Cypress Swamp and Southwestern

135

1 coastal Area Water Quality Records?

2 A. I really didn't pay attention to it,

3 but I see what it is. I recognize the format from

4 lots of others of these reports I dealt with.

5 Q. Did you incorporate any data from this

6 table into the table you constructed as Exhibit 8?

7 A. No, I didn't.

8 Q. Okay.

9 Would you have -- I'd actually like you

10 to review that table, if you would, for a minute.

11 MR. GAINES: Want him to review all of

12 this, everything?

13 MR. MACFARLANE: No. Actually, let me

14 see if I can point to it.

15 THE WITNESS: I'm just looking across

16 the parameters.

17 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

18 Q. Particularly the second row that begins

19 nitrogen, ammonia dissolved, and continues

20 across.

21 A. Yeah.

22 Q. If you could look at the numbers

23 there.

24 A. Yeah.

25 Well, take nitrogen, ammonia; nitrogen

136

1 to ammonia, the numbers are .05, .05, .02. And if

2 you look at the table that I prepared, on

3 unionized ammonia, and let's presume for the

4 purpose of argument they --

5 Q. You're referring to page four of your

6 table?

7 A. No, page one.

8 Q. Page one, okay.

9 A. Ammonia, nitrogen ammonia, ammonia

10 nitrogen, they show at the particular -- I don't

11 know.

12 This was October '85 through present?

13 What are these averages?

14 Q. I believe that's the case.

15 A. Samples collected also.

16 Do we know if these are averages? I

17 can't tell from the top.

18 Q. No, I believe these are specific

19 dates.

20 A. Says October '85 to present.

21 Of which year were these? Like these

22 are all the 30 November averages, or are these all

23 the -- must be the average from November, June,

24 August and September of each year, do you think?

25 Or is it one year?

137

1 Q. Yes. Water quality data, if you look

2 down, I'm indicating right here, October '89 to

3 September.

4 A. All right. So all right. '89 to '90.

5 Thank you for helping me with that.

6 Then if we look at the values for

7 nitrogen ammonia of .05 to .02, and the range

8 there as milligrams per liter, the pump -- I'm

9 looking at page one of Government Exhibit 8, row

10 four on ammonia, the value that's a historic

11 average was .35. So it was above that.

12 Of course, pump station S-5A is up in

13 the agricultural area, and I presume this is

14 somewhere at the outlet of -- says Tamiami Canal

15 outlet, so this must be further down the system.

16 MR. GAINES: For the record, this

17 document seems to relate to the Big Cypress Swamp

18 and Southwestern Coastal Area. I don't think it's

19 even part of our case.

20 THE WITNESS: Can I see the map we had

21 up on the table a moment ago?

22 MR. MACFARLANE: Sure.

23 MR. GAINES: My understanding is that

24 this water quality is from an area outside -- let

25 me finish -- outside of the Everglades SWIM

138

1 planning area, so I don't know how relevant it

2 is.

3 THE WITNESS: I might add, for the

4 record --

5 MR. GAINES: Big Cypress.

6 THE WITNESS: I might add, for the

7 record, that's why I didn't look at the title. I

8 don't think this is in my study area. I didn't

9 know exactly where it was on the map.

10 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

11 Q. I believe it's part of the SWIM

12 planning area, but I will not ask any further

13 questions about it.

14 MR. GAINES: Where is it, just out of

15 curiosity?

16 THE WITNESS: Can you point to where it

17 is?

18 MR. MACFARLANE: Down in this corner.

19 MR. GAINES: Okay. That might be on

20 the fringe.

21 Are we done with that one?

22 MR. MACFARLANE: I think we are done.

23 I'm not sure I'm quite done with the letter yet.

24 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

25 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me direct your

139

1 attention to the last page, page three of the

2 letter. Not the last page of the document.

3 Are you familiar with the Wahnbach

4 Germany treatment plant?

5 A. Only to the extent that I have seen a

6 couple of references to it. I have not seen any

7 of the direct test results, and I have never been

8 to that cite.

9 Q. Would you agree or disagree with the

10 statement that appears in the second paragraph, "I

11 don't think that the mineral soils and water

12 chemistry of Wahnbach are representative of the

13 Everglades."

14 A. I would presume that to be the case,

15 just from my knowledge of ecology.

16 Q. Have you given any consideration or

17 reviewed any data that would indicate how the

18 marsh areas in water conservation area one or

19 water conservation area 2A would respond if

20 chemically treated water, as you have been

21 discussing today, were discharged into them?

22 A. Yeah, I have given a little bit of

23 consideration to that, and it also relates not

24 only to the chemical nature of the water, but its

25 periodicity. You know, the fact that we're going

140

1 to take this water that's mixed with raw water so

2 that we have in the definition we discussed

3 earlier what a marsh-ready water would be under

4 such context.

5 And then the next question is how is it

6 disbursed, and I've seen several generic

7 descriptions for plant, whether it comes out of

8 one pipe or comes out of a structure, a diffuser

9 system which has a variety of ports which is like

10 the irrigation system for a lawn or whatever where

11 you have a long hose with a lot of hoses in it,

12 whether there is a pipe system actually designed

13 that would have a way of releasing the water so it

14 would go out in a sheet flow and it could be held

15 so that you would have periodicity of water, you

16 wouldn't release it continually the same flow

17 every day.

18 Q. What's your understanding of that

19 aspect with regard to chemical treatment systems,

20 if you're familiar with them?

21 A. I didn't think that they had defined

22 exactly how that was going to be done. I thought

23 that was to be determined.

24 Q. Just curious.

25 Can you continue -- and how would the

141

1 sheet flow aspect of that be important, or would

2 it? I mean --

3 A. Well. Yeah, I mean, it would be

4 important. The method of application of the water

5 and periodicity of it would be important in terms

6 of sustaining the wetland ecosystem. And what I

7 would expect would happen then is if you have --

8 well, suppose all the things we have said have

9 taken place, then as the water works its way south

10 and westward, more and more nutrient will be

11 removed out of it, because you'll be making the

12 tritus, the value of the tritus-based food change

13 which is wetland, and then it will start out more

14 in the plant that will tolerate higher

15 concentrations of nutrient, and then the natural

16 system works its thing as it moves out and west,

17 as they become more atrophic where Sawgrass will

18 take place. Again, depending on the nutrient at

19 the right time, like aspirin, or any other

20 medication, you've got to take not only the right

21 amount but at the right interval, so putting the

22 nutrient in the right amount at the right time,

23 you would get back more toward the conditions that

24 we saw from, you know, the level other people

25 describe as what the good old days were like.

142

1 Q. So your testimony would be then, or

2 your opinion, let me put it that way, that

3 devising a discharge mechanism --

4 A. Diffuser system.

5 Q. -- would approximate or come closer to

6 the Everglades ecosystem at the time, let's say,

7 Loveless described it?

8 A. That's the ideal, with all the other

9 things being equal, is a diffuser flow with

10 dispersed periodicity to it as opposed to having

11 one pipe in a canal makes ecologically a lot more

12 sense to me.

13 MR. MACFARLANE: Just take a 15 second

14 break.

15 (Thereupon the document referred to was

16 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 11

17 for Identification, a copy of which is

18 attached hereto.)

19 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

20 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me show you what's

21 been marked as Government Exhibit 11, and let me

22 ask you, have you ever seen that document, sir?

23 MR. GAINES: I don't think you have

24 seen it.

25 THE WITNESS: I don't think I have ever

143

1 seen it.

2 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

3 Q. Let me represent to you that this is a

4 document entitled pretrial disclosure of issues

5 and witnesses by the Petitioner, Florida Sugar

6 Cane League and United States Sugar, and let me

7 direct your attention to page 19.

8 A. Page 19, okay.

9 Q. And to enumerated paragraph 22.

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. Would you look down, and do you

12 recognize your name as appearing among the list of

13 witnesses?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Let me read the assertion contained in

16 paragraph 22.

17 Whether the SWIM plan fails to

18 identify, evaluate and consider reasonable,

19 practicable, and less costly alternatives to

20 STA's.

21 My question, Doctor Reimold, is to the

22 best of your knowledge, do you anticipate giving

23 any testimony at the final hearing on any aspects

24 of that statement?

25 MR. GAINES: Let me state, for the

144

1 record, I guess what I call an objection.

2 This is a legal document that was put

3 together by the attorneys, which this witness has

4 not seen, and I believe that asking him to

5 interpret where the substance of his testimony

6 fits into the arguments being framed by the

7 attorneys in the case is not that appropriate or

8 fair.

9 If you want to ask me, I think his

10 testimony fits into that category, but he may or

11 may not agree or understand that it does, so I'm

12 not instructing him not to answer these questions,

13 but I don't think he's really an appropriate

14 source for this information.

15 MR. MACFARLANE: Well, once again,

16 John, I would note your objection, but we feel

17 that we have a right to ask Doctor Reimold whether

18 he is, to the best of his understanding, he

19 anticipates giving testimony as to these

20 particular areas.

21 MR. GAINES: I understand.

22 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

23 Q. So if you feel you can answer the

24 question, please do so.

25 A. If I am given an opportunity to review

145

1 it, as we talked about earlier I hadn't, but at a

2 time prior to the time of trial.

3 Q. It meaning SWIM plan?

4 A. Yeah, and the attachments that you

5 talked about this morning.

6 If I have an opportunity to review it,

7 then yes, I would be prepared to offer testimony

8 relative to the statement in number 22, if I was

9 asked to do that.

10 Q. Do you understand -- let me ask you

11 what your understanding is of chemical treatment

12 in relationship to STA's, if you have an

13 understanding?

14 MR. GAINES: Objection to the form. I

15 don't understand. I just really don't understand

16 the question.

17 THE WITNESS: I don't either.

18 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

19 Q. Okay.

20 Do you have any opinions concerning

21 chemical treatment that you would expect to offer

22 at the final hearing?

23 MR. GAINES: With regard to chemical

24 treatment?

25 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

146

1 Q. With regard to chemical treatment.

2 A. With regard to the output from chemical

3 treatment, I mean, the quality of what comes out,

4 yeah. But not relative to the treatment process.

5 Q. All right, fine. Let's take your

6 qualification.

7 Can you tell me what your opinion --

8 what opinion you would be prepared to give at the

9 final hearing concerning the output from chemical

10 treatment?

11 MR. GAINES: Well, I mean, I think

12 that's what we have been spending the last couple

13 hours talking about. I don't think you want him

14 to rehash everything he testified to.

15 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

16 Q. If you could give me a summary.

17 A. Well --

18 MR. GAINES: Well, I object to -- I

19 object to that.

20 He's not going to sit here and try to

21 summarize two or three hours of questions and

22 answers. I think you need to ask him a more

23 specific question.

24 MR. MACFARLANE: Well, let me --

25 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

147

1 Q. Would you anticipate that the testimony

2 you would give at the final hearing concerning the

3 output of chemical treatment would cover the

4 issues we have dealt with this morning?

5 A. Yes.

6 To the -- you know, I have answered

7 things that I thought there was something I would

8 testify about, and when there are things --

9 whatever the record shows. I mean, certain things

10 when you asked me questions that related to

11 engineering I said: No, that's not part of it.

12 So then that's already in the record and I

13 wouldn't answer that. And when there are things

14 that I -- so I think you understand pretty clearly

15 what I speak to and don't speak to. I hope you

16 do.

17 Q. Let me ask you to turn to page 22 of

18 this document and the paragraph -- with reference

19 to the paragraph number 27, if you flip over to

20 the next page, do you recognize your name there?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay.

23 And I will read the assertion contained

24 in enumerated paragraph number 27, "Whether farm

25 BMPs, other on-farm practices, or alternative

148

1 technologies, will reduce or eliminate the need

2 for the STA program."

3 And my question is, Doctor Reimold, do

4 you anticipate giving, within that list of issues

5 there, any testimony in that area at the final

6 hearing?

7 MR. GAINES: And I would just state the

8 same objection as I stated earlier.

9 MR. MACFARLANE: So noted.

10 MR. GAINES: If there is an area that

11 you come across that I believe that it is entirely

12 a mistake that he's been listed, I will try to let

13 you know that.

14 MR. MACFARLANE: I appreciate that,

15 John.

16 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

17 Q. But, Doctor Reimold, can you answer the

18 question?

19 A. If I am given material to review

20 relative to those subjects, at that time I'll be

21 able to formulate an opinion. Specially, I mean,

22 focusing on alternatives.

23 Q. That was going to be my follow-up

24 question.

25 Do you understand chemical treatment or

149

1 the output from chemical treatment as an

2 alternative treatment technology to the STA

3 program?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And so, will you talk --

6 A. That's one of the things I have done in

7 all my environmental professional careers.

8 When you get into the national

9 environmental policy processes, you look at the

10 reasonableness of alternatives. And I described

11 earlier to you today the STEEPLI approach for

12 looking at it. I mean, that's the kind of thing

13 that I do all the time.

14 Q. That would include non-consumptive use

15 values as well?

16 A. Yeah, includes the whole bit.

17 Q. Doctor Reimold, we are just about done

18 here; a couple more questions that I want to ask

19 you.

20 A. Are you finished with this?

21 Q. I think I am finished with that.

22 Noting Mr. Gaines' representation that

23 in the event you're asked to testify about any

24 areas outside of the propositions for which you

25 have been either designated as a witness or listed

150

1 as expected to offer testimony, we will be

2 notified.

3 MR. GAINES: I don't recall saying

4 that, but --

5 MR. MACFARLANE: Well, I am

6 embellishing a little bit.

7 MR. GAINES: I think what I said is if

8 there is anything on here that is a mistake, I

9 would let you know.

10 MR. MACFARLANE: I think that may be a

11 more direct way of saying what I was trying to

12 say.

13 MR. GAINES: I was talking about

14 something else. But I'm sure that we will all be

15 notifying each other if any of our experts have

16 gone into dramatically new areas that they intend

17 to offer testimony on.

18 MR. MACFARLANE: Fair enough.

19 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

20 Q. In preparing for your deposition, did

21 you have an opportunity to review the duces tecum

22 that was attached to the notice of your

23 deposition?

24 Do you know what a duces tecum is?

25 Duces tecum literally means bring it with you.

151

1 But the list of documents you were asked to

2 produce, did you review that?

3 A. I remember reading something. I

4 remember that Latin phrase, so I must have read

5 the specific document you're talking about.

6 Q. Well, let me see if I can cut through

7 this and we can do this generally.

8 Have we been produced all of the

9 documents that you have previewed or relied --

10 expect to rely on today that are responsive to the

11 specific document request that accompanied the

12 notice of your deposition?

13 A. To the best of my ability.

14 Q. The reason I ask, Doctor Reimold, is

15 because we have had some documents produced as

16 early as this morning that were represented to us

17 that you had reviewed and might be relying on, and

18 we just want to make sure that we have everything

19 that you have looked at to date in formulating

20 your opinion testimony that you would give at the

21 final hearing?

22 A. I mean, there is nothing being

23 withheld. All I could say is that, you know, if

24 something is in my mind from a document I read, I

25 have a very extensive library in my office, and if

152

1 there is something in there that I read five years

2 ago or three years ago or whatever, I didn't make

3 a list of it and I didn't bring it.

4 Q. So I'm not asking you to produce your

5 library, and I understand that all experts in this

6 case are relying on their experience.

7 A. There is no really hot thing that's in

8 my briefcase and I'm waiting to say: What do you

9 think of this?

10 I have nothing. I can tell you there

11 is absolutely nothing.

12 MR. GAINES: You have his documents.

13 MR. MACFARLANE: We have his documents,

14 that's what I want to know.

15 THE WITNESS: Yesterday they sent you a

16 copy of this table and I made marks on it this

17 morning. This morning I made marks on it, and

18 they said we got to make copies for you.

19 MR. GAINES: If we ask him to look at

20 additional documents, we will advise you of that

21 prior to his testimony.

22 MR. MACFARLANE: That was going to be

23 my next question.

24 MR. GAINES: At trial.

25 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

153

1 Q. And my last question is, again, which

2 we are entitled to ask, you have a, Doctor

3 Reimold, your firm has a contract with Earl,

4 Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts; is that correct?

5 I believe you testified that was the

6 case.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Are you receiving compensation pursuant

9 to that contract?

10 A. Part of my normal pay.

11 Q. Could you tell me what your billing --

12 A. What my billing, whatever my hourly

13 rate is times whatever the conditions are in the

14 contract.

15 Q. What is your hourly rate?

16 A. $49 and some cents an hour. But I

17 don't know what it is with compensation multiplied

18 or whatever the terms of the conditions of the

19 contract are. I mean, if you all discover that,

20 tell me. I don't know.

21 Q. You're the one actually --

22 A. I said earlier, as I recall, that the

23 project manager was the person that had that

24 responsibility. And so, I work for a company and

25 I turn in a time sheet each week and it has the

154

1 number of hours, it has the job number, and after

2 that I don't see it. So I don't know exactly how

3 it works.

4 Q. Just so I'm clear, because this is a

5 little bit different than other people who have

6 been retained as experts in this case, you know

7 that you are receiving compensation for your

8 services in connection with acting as consultant,

9 but you're not aware of the rate at which you're

10 being compensated; is that correct?

11 A. Not aware at the rate at which the

12 company is being compensated; therefore, the exact

13 rate the client is being billed. Because the

14 normal procedure you have other direct costs and

15 overhead and a fee built into a pricing structure

16 for whatever the contractor arrangement is and I

17 don't know what it is for this.

18 MR. GAINES: I think it's more the

19 corporation or the Metcalf & Eddy that's being

20 compensated.

21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Metcalf & Eddy is

22 being compensated. I work on different jobs and

23 different numbers of hours and I don't get money

24 from any one client or another client.

25 MR. MACFARLANE: Fair enough.

155

1 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

2 Q. It is sometimes -- in fact, I think

3 it's more often the case that expert witnesses are

4 paid directly.

5 A. No, no, no, no. That's why.

6 Q. Just so we have that clarification on

7 the record.

8 A. That's why I don't know.

9 MR. MACFARLANE: I have nothing

10 further.

11 MR. GAINES: I actually have one or two

12 questions for this witness.

13 CROSS EXAMINATION

14 MR. GAINES: I'd like to go ahead and

15 mark these as exhibits I guess one and two.

16 (Thereupon the document referred to was

17 marked as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 & 2

18 for Identification, a copy of which is

19 attached hereto.)

20 BY MR. GAINES:

21 Q. Doctor Reimold, taking a look at what's

22 been marked as exhibit P-1 in the upper right-hand

23 corner, which is a letter dated February 27, 1993,

24 to Peter B. Rhoads from Doctor Ronald D. Jones,

25 let me ask you, first of all, have you reviewed

156

1 this document previously?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Okay.

4 Looking at the sentence in the first

5 paragraph which states, the last half of the

6 sentence, "I am also convinced that the Everglades

7 we all love so much cannot tolerate the water that

8 would be directly discharged from these systems;"

9 was it your understanding that the contents of

10 this letter were discussing the direct discharge

11 from chemical treatment systems into the

12 Everglades, as opposed to with a blending of that

13 effluent with raw water as you have discussed here

14 today?

15 A. That was my presumption. I don't know

16 that for sure. I don't see anything to tell me

17 for sure. Just my presumption.

18 Q. Okay.

19 And let me direct your attention to the

20 second page, the first and second paragraph of the

21 second page which refers to an article entitled

22 Canfield et al. from the Canadian Journal of Fish

23 and Aquatic Science.

24 Did you review that paragraph which

25 refers to that article?

157

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. And as a result of that review, did you

3 take a look at that article that's referenced?

4 A. Yes, I did. I have a copy of it. It's

5 the thing you have here as P-2.

6 Q. Okay.

7 And just for the record, that's what we

8 have marked as exhibit P-2, an article entitled

9 Factors Influencing the Abundance of Blue-Green

10 Algae in Florida Lakes.

11 Do you understand that to be the

12 article that's referred to in this letter?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. And can you tell us, sir, what your

15 review of this article in connection with this

16 paragraph, this letter revealed to you?

17 A. Let me have a quick look at it.

18 I guess relative to the letter, my

19 conclusions were that this article deals with

20 algae. It, to me, doesn't have anything in its

21 methods, its results or its conclusions about

22 microbes. It doesn't have anything in its

23 methods, results or conclusion relative to

24 macrophytes, so I didn't see -- three out of the

25 four were on target concerning the assertions made

158

1 in the letter.

2 MR. GAINES: I was going to say that's

3 all I have.

4 MR. MACFARLANE: I have one redirect

5 question for Doctor Reimold.

6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. MACFARLANE:

8 Q. With regard to that passage in the

9 letter, do you see, sir, the parenthetical clause

10 that appears after the words: This will cause a

11 shift in the algal and microbial communities, and

12 then parenthesis it says (see Canfield et al.

13 Canadian Journal, Fish and Aquatic Science.) It

14 gives the cite, there is a semicolon there and

15 says, "and many other articles."

16 A. Um-hum.

17 Q. Do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. MACFARLANE: I have nothing

20 further. I will leave it there.

21 MR. GAINES: Let me just follow up with

22 one question.

23 RECROSS EXAMINATION

24 BY MR. GAINES:

25 Q. Based upon the reference in that letter

159

1 to the quote, "many other articles," were you able

2 to find those articles that Doctor Jones was

3 referring to from that reference?

4 A. What I did was literature search

5 through the library or corporate library and

6 information retrieval system. I don't recall the

7 exact name of it. I did a literature search to

8 see if other articles would be available relative

9 to that subject, and I wasn't able to find

10 others.

11 MR. GAINES: Thank you, sir.

12 That's all I have. We'll read.

13 MR. MACFARLANE: We have nothing

14 further.

15 (Deposition concluded.)

160

1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH

2 STATE OF FLORIDA:

: SS.

3 COUNTY OF DADE:

I, the undersigned authority, certify

4 that Robert J. Reimold personally appeared before

me and was duly sworn.

5 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 24th

day of April, 1994.

_____________________________

7 Suzanne Fernandez

Notary Public, State of Florida

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

9 STATE OF FLORIDA:

: SS.

10 COUNTY OF DADE:

I, Suzanne Fernandez, Registered

11 Professional Reporter, certify that I was

authorized to and did stenographically report the

12 foregoing deposition; and that the transcript is a

true record of the testimony given by the witness.

13 I further certify that I am not a relative,

employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the

14 parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of

the parties' attorney or counsel connected with

15 the action, nor am I financially interested in the

action.

16 Dated this 24th day of April, 1994.

17 __________________________

Suzanne Fernandez

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

19 STATE OF FLORIDA:

: SS.

20 COUNTY OF DADE:

The foregoing certificate was acknowledged

21 before me this 24th day of April, 1994, by Suzanne

Fernandez, who is personally known to me.

__________________________

23 My Commission Expires:

161

1 READING AND SIGNING

2 I have read the above transcript, pages 1

through 160 and I find: (MARK ONE)

( ) The transcript is true, correct, and

4 completely accurate.

5 ( ) The transcript is true, correct, and accurate,

except as set forth in my List of Corrections

6 attached hereto, citing page and line and reason

for the correction realizing that, for this

7 purpose, I am still under oath.

8 _______________ _________________________

(DATE) ROBERT J. REIMOLD

Sworn to and subscribed before

13 me this______day of____________, 1994.

14 ___________________________

Notary Public

15 My Commission expires:

TO BE EXECUTED BY THE NOTARY IF THE DEPONENT DOES

18 NOT SIGN:

I hereby certify that a letter with

19 reference to reading and signing deposition was

mailed to the witness through his attorney, on

20 April 27, 1994 and that the witness

( ) Witness refused to sign, giving the following

21 reason:

( ) Neither the witness nor his attorney has

22 responded to request to read and sign.

23 _______________ ___________________________

(DATE) Notary Public

24 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: