STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CASE NOS. 92-3038
92-3039
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE 92-3040
OF FLORIDA, a Florida agricultural
cooperative marketing association,
ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH
FARMS, INC.,
-and-
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.,
and UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION,
-and-
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and
HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,
Petitioners,
vs. VOLUME II
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT Pages 150 through 235
DISTRICT, an agency of the State
of Florida,
Respondent,
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF
FLORIDA, THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, and the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, the FLORIDA WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, the FLORIDA AUDUBON
SOCIETY, and the SIERRA CLUB,
Intervenors.
_______________________________/
DEPOSITION OF: EARL SHANNON, Ph.D.
TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF Attorneys for United States
DATE: March 4, 1994
TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m.
Concluded at 2:00 p.m.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
100 Salem Court
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 878-2221
(800) 934-9090
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
151
LOCATION: 315 South Calhoun Street
4th Floor
Tallahassee, Florida
REPORTED BY: Carolyn L. Rankine
Notary Public in and for
the State of Florida at
Large
* * *
APPEARANCES:
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS
SUGAR, ROTH & WEDGWORTH:
GARY PERKO, ESQUIRE
Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
REPRESENTING THE INTERVENOR UNITED STATES:
SUZAN H. PONZOLI, ESQUIRE, and
LISA HOGAN, ESQUIRE
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of Florida
99 Northeast 4th Street, 3rd Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
REPRESENTING THE INTERVENOR DEP:
DONNA LAPLANTE, ESQUIRE, and
ED STEINMEYER, ESQUIRE
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
ALSO PRESENT:
RONALD D. JONES, Ph.D.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
152
I N D E X
WITNESS PAGE
EARL SHANNON, Ph.D.
Continued Direct Examination by Ms. Ponzoli 153
CERTIFICATE OF ADMINISTERING OATH 233
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 234
EXHIBITS:
Number
10 Everglades Viewpoint 153
11 Memo dated December 16, 1993 168
12 Memo dated July 19, 1993 181
13 Memo dated July 6, 1993 181
14 FAX order form - July 8, 1993 181
15 Memo dated November 18, 1993 189
16 Memo dated May 3, 1993 189
17 EBM data (Jan. 1 - Dec. 27/93) 189
18 Curriculum vitae of Earl Shannon 189
19 43 Photos (composite) 194
(Photos retained by counsel for petitioners)
20 STA costing 212
21 FAX transmittal dated August 26, 1993 212
22 Telecopy cover dated September 3, 1993 212
23 Letter dated December 2, 1993 212
24 Pumping/gravity flow volumes 212
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
153
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 The following deposition of
3 EARL SHANNON, Ph.D., was taken on oral examination,
4 pursuant to notice, for purposes of discovery, and for
5 use as evidence, and for other uses and purposes as may
6 be permitted by the applicable and governing rules.
7 Reading and signing is not waived.
8 * * *
9 Thereupon,
10 EARL SHANNON, Ph.D.,
11 was called as a witness, having been previously sworn,
12 was examined and testified as follows:
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MS. PONZOLI:
15 Q Dr. Shannon, I have a number of documents that
16 in large measure I'd like for you to identify for me, and
17 I don't have significant numbers of questions on them,
18 but I just want to know what they are, some out of
19 curiosity, some because I think they're relevant to the
20 documents that we've done before, and a few out of basic
21 curiosity. I'd like to hand you something --
22 MS. PONZOLI: Let's mark it first, please.
23 (Deposition Exhibit 10 marked for
24 identification.)
25 Q Can you identify this document, Dr. Shannon?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
154
1 A Yes, I can.
2 Q What is it?
3 A It's a document prepared by the Sugar Cane
4 Growers Cooperative expressing views on the Everglades'
5 situation.
6 Q Did you help draft this document, Dr. Shannon?
7 A No; I did not.
8 Q Do you know who did help draft this document?
9 A I really don't. I saw this document after it
10 had been produced.
11 Q Have you ever heard who might have helped draft
12 it?
13 A No.
14 Q I'd like to return to a couple of documents
15 that we looked at yesterday, and just ask you -- it would
16 be EES Number 7. I'm sure this is self-explanatory
17 through the document, but I would like you to walk me
18 through it. I would like to look at page 15, and then
19 the chart on page 9, the table -- table 2 on page 9.
20 A Do you want me to review it first, or do you
21 want to go to those pages?
22 Q No, sir. You take whatever time you need.
23 A Well, this was the third technical memoranda in
24 the series of three. The first one was the
25 microfiltration pilot plant results, the second one was
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
155
1 the conceptual design for application, full-scale
2 application, of the microfiltration at the Flor-Ag site.
3 And in this third document, we looked at various
4 combinations of BMP control and microfiltration at hot
5 spots, or microfiltration on regional schemes where a
6 group of farms would go together in a regional facility;
7 or microfiltration at larger farms, and these were farms
8 over 2,000 acres, and the data base that was considered
9 in this analysis was the 46 farms that we had, early
10 base-line monitoring data, and these 46 farms were
11 members of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative.
12 Can I just make a point of clarification from
13 something I said yesterday?
14 Q Certainly.
15 A When we were talking about the Hundley Farm, I
16 think I may have given the impression that it was in
17 vegetables.
18 Q Vegetable and sugar, but I can't remember.
19 A It is not exclusively vegetables. I'm not sure
20 what it's in currently now, but it may be in mainly sugar
21 cane.
22 Q They go back and forth, don't they? A lot of
23 that acreage they'll plant vegetable one year, or however
24 many years, and then back again, don't they?
25 A Well, that's what they say in their permit, but
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
156
1 I'm really not sure when they started on sugar cane, so I
2 wanted to make the point it is not exclusively vegetables
3 at present.
4 Q I had been told by other people experienced in
5 the EAA that's not an uncommon practice.
6 A Okay. Getting back to this, we --
7 MR. PERKO: I don't think there's a question
8 pending, is there?
9 THE WITNESS: She had asked me to identify and
10 give her an overview on this document, so that's
11 what I'm trying to do.
12 A The objectives of this third memorandum were to
13 estimate the current 1993 total pump volumes from
14 phosphorus loadings from the 46 farms that were part of
15 the data set. To use existing rainfall information and
16 rainfall data to calculate phosphorus contribution from
17 rainfall, and to investigate how microfiltration in
18 combination with BMPs may be able to meet farm wide or
19 group of farm wide phosphorus discharge targets.
20 BY MS. PONZOLI:
21 Q Your final conclusion on this whether it should
22 be individual farm, larger farm, or regional facilities
23 is what, Dr. Shannon?
24 MR. PERKO: Object to the form.
25 Q Have you reached a conclusion as to the best
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
157
1 use of microfiltration in the EAA, whether it should be
2 used on individual farms, or in a regional way, or --
3 A Well, the conclusion would be that it's best
4 directed to hot spots, and that could be an individual
5 farm or it could be two adjacent farms that have high
6 phosphorus concentrations.
7 Q So it's really geographic, it isn't limited to
8 a single farm or something. The hot spot concept is just
9 really going to where you could get the most bang for the
10 buck, in a manner of speaking?
11 A I think that's a fair analogy, where you want
12 to get the highest phosphorus concentration feed water
13 that you can and treat it closest to the source.
14 Q On page 15, I think you have your main
15 findings, is that accurate?
16 A Yes. We have a number of conclusions that we
17 listed on page 15.
18 Q For your rainfall phosphorus number, did you
19 again use the 29 parts per billion in estimating what was
20 in rainfall?
21 A Yes, we did. And we used the average rainfall
22 number of 48.3 inches per year, I think the number is.
23 Q I'm interested in how you came to what it would
24 cost per acre for the co-op farmers and what you believe
25 that means, and then you've compared it to the technical
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
158
1 mediated plan, and what that would cost for the co-op
2 farmers. I would like you to, if you would first explain
3 to me -- you have a number here of $41 per acre. If you
4 would explain first that number to me, the cost of that
5 to the farmers.
6 A Okay. The $41-per-acre cost assumes that the
7 phosphorus contribution to the farms from rainfall there
8 would be a credit for that, so that, really, they
9 wouldn't have to remove that phosphorus.
10 Q They're only responsible, under whoever's
11 interpretation of this application, of what they
12 contribute, the phosphorus that they actually contribute
13 to the system?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And that represents the credit for the
16 rainfall. And then the amount under your computation
17 they have contributed --
18 A Sorry. Finish the question.
19 Q -- the amount that they've contributed to the
20 main canals, I guess.
21 A We've used, as an overall target for the
22 requirement that they have to get down to, we've used
23 0.05 milligrams per liter as the target. And then we've
24 taken their total discharge volumes from the farms, and
25 we said that's what they'd have to meet. And then --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
159
1 with the rainfall adjustment. Then we backed out the
2 amount of phosphorus that would have come from rainfall
3 directly on those 46 farms.
4 Q Did you only back out rainfall?
5 A That's all.
6 Q And how did you come up with the mediated
7 technical plan of $92 an acre?
8 A That was taking the cost from the Burns and
9 McDonnell report. I believe it's the November report.
10 And backing out any costs that were associated with
11 enhancing water distribution in the conservation areas --
12 in other words, we just had the STA cost in there, and we
13 took the total annual cost of that, and divided it by the
14 total acreage served by the STAs, the total agricultural
15 area served by the STAs.
16 Q I'm sorry. It's been a while since I even
17 looked at that, and that I'm not promising that I ever
18 read the Burns and McDonnell, but was that for all the
19 STAs being on line?
20 A Yes. That's for the total mediated plan area
21 served. I believe on page 14 the costs, actual costs,
22 are spelled out. Did you want me to --
23 Q No; you don't need to walk me straight through
24 it. But you didn't do any like incremental analysis for
25 "X" number of years all you would be charged is a certain
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
160
1 amount, because only a certain number of STAs are being
2 built, or the land purchased, or whatever?
3 A No; I didn't. The analysis didn't get into any
4 staging of the STAs. It just looked at the total
5 solution and the total annual cost of that solution.
6 Q And then if you would explain the final 118 an
7 acre to me. That's without correcting for rainfall, is
8 that the only difference?
9 A Yes. And an important point here is that our
10 sample size was limited to the 46 co-op farms, and out of
11 those co-op farms in the data base we had what we would
12 consider one hot spot. So we looked at the 46 farms and
13 looked at scenarios that would allow them to meet the
14 target so this wasn't an EAA wide analysis.
15 Q Certainly. Have you done it on a larger number
16 of farms? Have you done the same analysis for a larger
17 number of farms and come up with somewhat different
18 numbers because you have different hot spots or whatever?
19 A No; we haven't done any analysis outside the
20 data base that we had for the 46 farms.
21 Q Do you intend to do that? Have you been asked
22 to do that?
23 A Once we summarize the early base-line data that
24 we have for the some 130 farms, we would plan on doing
25 that.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
161
1 Q Will you use the same method of analysis
2 outlined in this report for that?
3 A I think we will make some changes from the
4 methods. I think our approach will be to look at overall
5 loadings from the EAA and various combinations of hot
6 spots that would allow us to maximize the reduction that
7 we could get with microfiltration.
8 Q I have one -- you know, from a theoretical
9 standpoint, Dr. Shannon, this is kind of interesting how
10 you would resolve this problem using your remedial
11 method. But one problem that I keep coming back to is it
12 provides, in one sense, as I'm understanding it,
13 certainty for the farmer as to what his obligations are
14 in regard to the water. How does it provide certainty
15 for the water conservation areas or the natural areas
16 that they will in fact receive what the goal was?
17 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
18 Q Do you understand the question?
19 A Yes. Our overall objective in the
20 microfiltration work and the three technical memoranda
21 was to look at phosphorus and how we could use various
22 combinations of BMPs and microfiltration to meet
23 phosphorus targets, and we focused on phosphorus, and we
24 used the phosphorus target of 0.05.
25 Q Well, I wasn't really returning so much to the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
162
1 marsh-ready concept, are you meeting other needs of the
2 natural area, but even as to the phosphorus, I still have
3 this lingering doubt in my mind that despite your best
4 efforts, and your best calculations, and most efficient
5 waste minimization techniques, you might have a very
6 different product at the other end, might you?
7 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
8 Q Do you understand the question? What came out
9 of the EAA would not necessarily be the 0.05, isn't that
10 true?
11 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
12 A Absolutely meeting 0.05 on a consistent basis
13 with combinations of BMPs and microfiltration doesn't
14 necessarily follow from, you know, our approach. By the
15 same token, I'm not sure that it follows from any of the
16 other technologies either.
17 Q I'm well aware of that. Have you done any
18 analysis of the certainty of one approach over the other
19 as to the result coming out of the EAA?
20 MR. PERKO: Object to the form.
21 A I have not done any analysis, but I have seen,
22 as part of the SAGE material, Dr. Walker's analysis of
23 predictions of effluent phosphorus that may come out of
24 and STA probability distribution of effluent.
25 Q Have you done similar probability type of
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
163
1 analysis --
2 A No.
3 Q -- for microfiltration?
4 A No; we haven't.
5 Q Can it be done?
6 A I believe it can be done once we do the EAA
7 wide analysis. The one major limitation of our work here
8 is it was focused on 46 farms that we had data for.
9 Q That's about a quarter of the EAA?
10 A Well, in land area, it's only about a tenth.
11 Q Oh, really. Because it's a couple of hundred
12 farms you said yesterday.
13 A There's a lot of small farms in our data base,
14 and the total acreage that those 46 farms encompass is
15 something like, I believe, it's around 48,000 acres. So
16 that's about one-tenth of the EAA total area.
17 Q When do you estimate you will have this work
18 done?
19 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
20 A Our best estimate is that we need another three
21 or four weeks to get the data base in a form that we can
22 start extracting meaningful loading calculations. We
23 need to get the acreage values for the farms. I would
24 estimate a minimum of six weeks.
25 MS. PONZOLI: Well, Mr. Perko, we will need to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
164
1 do Dr. Shannon again.
2 Q I think the comparison, or at least certainly
3 the one-tenth of the EAA may be a very different result
4 from 100 percent of the EAA, or at least we said it was
5 two-thirds have participated in early base line, is that
6 right?
7 A Yes, I think it's about two-thirds.
8 Q And the probability analysis, have you been
9 asked to do that?
10 A We have not specifically been asked to do it,
11 but it's an exercise that once we develop the sites where
12 we have treatment, the hot spots, and we develop
13 information on what level of BMPs are required to get the
14 rest of the total load removal, and I believe analysis
15 could be done to make some predictions of what the EAA
16 wide phosphorus concentrations may be, may not be a
17 formal probability distribution, but I think we could
18 address that.
19 Q One area -- and maybe I can avoid even doing
20 the documents, depending on what you tell me. I saw
21 through your documents several references to farm storm
22 water treatment areas, and I know people have talked
23 about regional treatment areas, and of course we have the
24 large ones that we're presently looking at. Are you
25 still an advocate of the concept of farm storm water
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
165
1 treatment areas?
2 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
3 Q I don't mean an advocate in that you still
4 believe that's an alternative that should be explored.
5 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
6 A Well, I believe the context that you're using
7 farm treatment areas is probably retention areas for
8 water.
9 Q Yes.
10 A And I am certainly not an advocate, or would
11 feel that's a viable alternative by itself. I believe
12 that any treatment technology that you put in for a farm,
13 an individual farm, be it a hot spot or whatever, there's
14 going to need to be flow equalization. There's going to
15 need to be some form of retention in front of that
16 treatment facility. Otherwise you'd have to size the
17 facility, it's instantaneous flow rate would have to be
18 very high, and the capital costs would be pushed up. So
19 I think flow equalization is required in our
20 microfiltration -- for our microfiltration alternative,
21 it's required for direct filtration alternative.
22 Anything that you want to try and keep the treatment
23 going for a good portion of the year, you're going to
24 need flow equalization in front of it.
25 Q Let me just show you an April 6th, 1992
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
166
1 document, before we identify it and pass it around. I
2 don't think that's what you were talking about at that
3 time, though, is it?
4 A No. This memo that you just gave me was
5 produced after I reviewed a document that was handed out
6 at SAGE, and I believe a document had been done by the
7 South Florida Water Management District.
8 Q Is this the document you're referring to?
9 A Yes, that's correct.
10 Q Do you consider that concept a viable
11 alternative?
12 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
13 A Can I just take a minute?
14 Q I mean, if you're going to tell me you don't
15 believe this is something that should be explored or
16 pursued, then I'm not going to mess with it with you
17 because it was just among your documents and I wanted to
18 eliminate it as something that you believed in.
19 A (Perusing document.) This document talks about
20 treatment on site, but the treatment technology is the
21 same as what's in a storm water treatment area, yes.
22 Q That was my understanding.
23 A Yes.
24 MR. PERKO: For the record, Dr. Shannon, would
25 you identify the title of the document that you're
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
167
1 just referring to.
2 THE WITNESS: The title of the document that
3 I've just been handed is farm storm water treatment
4 area alternative dated February 1992, prepared by
5 the South Florida Water Management District,
6 Construction Management Department.
7 BY MS. PONZOLI:
8 Q And your recommendation, Dr. Shannon, regarding
9 farm storm water treatment area alternatives was, or is
10 what?
11 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
12 A My recommendation regarding the type of storm
13 water treatment area as proposed in that report is that
14 they not be considered for individual farm use.
15 Q And for what reason?
16 A They have the same -- they'll probably have the
17 same land area requirements as the STAs plus some,
18 because you've got more dikes, and levies, and so on. So
19 the total land consumed would be even greater than the
20 STA alternative. And it's based on the STA wetlands
21 approach, and I think the same uncertainties that the
22 STAs would apply to the individual farm treatment units.
23 Q I have two documents, Dr. Shannon, I'd like to
24 hand you. But one would appear to be either an early
25 draft of the other, or just -- why don't I hand them both
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
168
1 to you, and you tell me, and we may only introduce one
2 into the record.
3 A (Perusing document.)
4 Q We certainly don't need all those FAX sheets.
5 A I believe these are the same document.
6 Q And one is just a portion of the other?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Let's get rid of the one that's the small
9 portion one and just deal with the main document itself,
10 the December 16th, it's bates number 879, that one
11 beginning --
12 A Yes.
13 Q Would you identify that document for me,
14 please, and let's mark it.
15 A This is a memorandum entitled additional Sugar
16 Cane Growers Cooperative wide phosphorus reduction
17 BMPs/microfiltration treatment scenarios, and it is from
18 Kevin Boehmer to Bill Green.
19 Q Did you review this document before it went
20 out?
21 A Yes, I did.
22 MS. PONZOLI: Can we mark it, please.
23 (Deposition Exhibit 11 marked for
24 identification.)
25 BY MS. PONZOLI:
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
169
1 Q Again, Dr. Shannon, you have used the 29 parts
2 per billion for the rainfall, is that the consistent
3 number that you use in your analysis?
4 A In the technical memoranda, any rainfall
5 calculations were based on the 29 parts per billion
6 phosphorus. In this memo, we looked at -- also looked at
7 50 parts per billion, which was the same number that
8 Burns and McDonnell used in their analysis.
9 Q Which one do you think more accurately reflects
10 the rainfall, Dr. Shannon?
11 A I would say that based on our work that we did
12 back in '77-78 at our sites that the rainfall probably
13 lies -- the average value for the EAA, this is rainfall
14 over the EAA -- probably lies in the area of closer to
15 the 50 parts per billion than it does to the 29.
16 Q Let me ask you why you continuously use the 29
17 throughout your documents?
18 A I think to be conservative.
19 Q Is it the rainfall number that in the end
20 affects what the estimated cost per acre per farmer ends
21 up? Is that really the determinative factor that's going
22 to nail down what the farmer should pay on a per acre
23 basis?
24 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
25 A We looked at two scenarios, one was with the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
170
1 so-called rainfall correction and then we looked at
2 uncorrected, where there was no adjustment made in the
3 loadings with respect to the amount of phosphorus that
4 had to be removed. So the main correction factor, the
5 only correction factor, is that rainfall factor. And it
6 does influence the per-acre cost because, obviously, you
7 don't have to remove as much phosphorus because you're
8 giving yourself a credit for not removing the rainfall.
9 Q When you use the word rainfall correction, do
10 you mean from no correction to whatever number you
11 choose, or do you mean from 29 to 50?
12 A No. In our initial technical memorandum, we
13 used 29, that was the basis of the correction. In this
14 one we looked at -- in this memorandum, we looked at an
15 additional scenario of the rainfall being 50. So it
16 wasn't an incremental correction, it was just 50 in these
17 scenarios versus 29 in the previous analysis.
18 Q On page 3, it would look like it's still 29,
19 but I know you're telling me it's 50. I'm confused.
20 A (Perusing document.) I would like to just go
21 back on that 50. We did use 50 -- I think we used in
22 our -- just looking at the tables that are attached, we
23 looked at a scenario that was 150 percent of 29, which
24 would be 14. It's a little bit less than 50. That was
25 the scenario we looked at, just a 50 percent increase in
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
171
1 29 parts per billion, if you look in the attached tables.
2 Q Oh, I see. Right. And in some you didn't?
3 A Yes. We actually did look at 50, too, which is
4 171 percent of 29. That's the 50 part.
5 Q The rainfall correction calculation is where I
6 see how it comes out each time?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And is this the same? Is DES 882, 883, 884,
9 are we looking at the same piece of property done
10 different ways or not? Can you tell me?
11 A We're looking at the same group of farms.
12 Q I understand the same group, but not the same
13 farm?
14 A No; not the same farm. It's the same 46 group
15 of farms. It's just an extension of the analysis that's
16 in the third technical memorandum for different rainfall
17 values.
18 Q And am I correct in understanding it that when
19 you do it at 29 parts per billion, none of your 46 farms
20 would appear to be a sink. When you do it at 150 percent
21 of 29, 20 of your farms would appear to be a sink, and
22 when you do it at 171.2 percent, 22 of your farms would
23 appear to be a sink, is that accurate? Am I reading it
24 right?
25 A No; you're not reading it right. I would like
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
172
1 to refer back to a table in Exhibit Number 7, I believe,
2 to address the sink question.
3 Q Right. Who has my 7?
4 A I just need a few minutes to sort something out
5 (Perusing document.) Well, okay. I think I'm ready to
6 proceed on this regarding the sink question that you
7 asked.
8 Q Right.
9 A If we take the average annual rainfall of 48 --
10 Q Where are you? I'm going to have to work to
11 understand.
12 A I'm referring to page 5 of Exhibit Number 7.
13 Q Okay.
14 A And in the first paragraph, we mention that the
15 value used for rainfall phosphorus concentration was 29
16 parts per billion, or 0.029 milligrams per liter. Then
17 the volume of rainfall number that we've used 48.53
18 inches, that's in the second paragraph, and that's a
19 reference of Burns and McDonnell. So based on that
20 rainfall volume and the rainfall concentration, that
21 works out to 0.32 pounds per acre per year. That's the
22 rainfall contribution per acre of land.
23 Q I understand.
24 A Now, if we go to table number 1 on page 7 in
25 that same exhibit, if you look down the last column, the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
173
1 extrapolated phosphorus discharge, and there's a number
2 in pounds, the first entry in that column is pounds per
3 acre -- or sorry. The second column is pounds per acre
4 per year.
5 Q Yes, sir.
6 A Any farm that exhibits a phosphorus discharge
7 value of less than 0.32 pounds per acre on this table
8 would be considered a sink.
9 Q So the third one down would be a sink -- or the
10 second one down would be a sink, third one down would be
11 a sink?
12 A No. Less than 0.32.
13 Q So we have to go down six to get a sink, right?
14 It's 0.31?
15 A We don't have any that are sinks until we get
16 down -- well, about halfway down the table there's 0.31.
17 There's one further down, 0.26, 0.22, 0.17, 0.19. So
18 there are several that are sinks. I'm sorry. There is
19 one 0.15, which is 11 lines down.
20 Q I'm with you. I'm with you. And the numbers
21 are hard to read. What I was calling a 31 was an 81.
22 Then let's move back over so I can understand,
23 to number 11, EES Number 11 to page DES -- I guess we can
24 choose almost any of them, but let's choose DES 884.
25 A Yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
174
1 Q Let me ask you, Dr. Shannon, if you walk me
2 through one of these charts, would I be able to
3 understand all of them once I can understand one of them?
4 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
5 Q Are they set up the same way, the variables
6 just change?
7 A Yes. It's the same spread sheet. The input
8 variables change.
9 Q Then what? Walk me through one and let me see
10 if I can understand what you're doing with how you're
11 changing the variables and what they mean. Because I
12 think the bottom line is number 5, in some instances.
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay.
15 A The inputs are -- the first input is flow
16 multiplier, and this was a factor that we introduced
17 because we only had -- we had nine months of data when we
18 did this analysis. We were doing this analysis before we
19 had all of the 1993 data for those farms. So we made
20 some guesstimates of what was the appropriate
21 extrapolation factor to take our -- to take the flows
22 that we had observed and get those to total annual flows.
23 So that factor was 1.3. And I believe that was the same
24 factor in every chart. It should be the same in every
25 chart.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
175
1 Q In your '93, when you have your full year of
2 flow data, you will have what you believe to be the
3 actual number?
4 A Yes, we will. We'll use the actual flows for
5 the farms.
6 Q So this one is a constant throughout the work
7 that I will look at presently --
8 A Yes.
9 Q -- the 1.30?
10 A The --
11 Q The next one will be a constant also?
12 A That should be the same on every table
13 except -- no, I'm sorry. It's not. As part of this
14 memorandum, we looked at some what-if scenarios of less
15 than expected performance from the STAs. And then we
16 assumed if the STAs performed at this level, then this
17 would become the allowable discharge concentration for
18 our scenarios.
19 Q So that became a variable?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Then the next?
22 A The next is the percent reduction in phosphorus
23 loading that would be attributed to BMPs, and I believe
24 we looked at 45, 25, and there's one here that says 27.
25 I'm not sure --
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
176
1 Q And 35?
2 A I believe it should be --
3 Q I saw it.
4 A It should be 25, 35, and 45. The total yearly
5 rainfall number should stay the same on all the tables.
6 That's the number from Burns and McDonnell, 48.53 inches
7 per year. And then the rainfall correction calculation
8 is -- we've just done percentage corrections of the 0.029
9 value that was used in other previous analysis just to
10 simplify the spread sheet calculations. So we used a
11 zero-percent correction of 0.0292, which mean we would
12 take rainfall -- take any rainfall correction out at all.
13 Q And then you used several variations, the 100,
14 the 100 and whatever?
15 A We used the 150, which I think works to about
16 44 parts per billion, and then we used 171.3, which works
17 to 50 parts per billion.
18 Q That one becomes a variable. And then the
19 effluent phosphorus concentrations for the
20 microfiltration, you took different readings that you had
21 obtained?
22 A We used -- we were fairly conservative on this.
23 We demonstrated in our short field pilot study that we
24 could produce effluents lower than 0.04, but we used 0.04
25 for our analysis. It should be the same in all the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
177
1 tables.
2 Q Then that one stays a constant on all the
3 tables?
4 A Yes. So, really, all we're changing in these
5 input variables is that the allowable discharge
6 concentration will change, the BMP level will change to
7 three different levels, and the rainfall changes. And
8 then the microfiltration scenario we look at various
9 numbers of sites that we apply it at, I think up to 20.
10 Q That's the one I don't understand. That's how
11 much treatment you're applying?
12 A Yes. Treatment in addition to the BMP
13 reduction. So there are various combinations of
14 treatment and BMPs.
15 Q So on your spread sheets, does that become a
16 variable? I'm seeing one hot spot everywhere on these,
17 but on various spread sheets I might have, it could be a
18 variable, is that right or not?
19 A No. I think what you're seeing is correct, we
20 didn't look at other scenarios other than the one
21 so-called hot spot that we had. That's right. We only
22 looked at one microfiltration unit at Flor-Ag in all of
23 these scenarios.
24 Q Now, looking at the outputs, are the outputs
25 dictated by this at the top? I guess they must have to
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
178
1 be.
2 A Right. I believe they have to be.
3 Q And so any changes I see are a reflection of
4 the variables at the top?
5 A Yes.
6 Q The December 3rd, which is EES Number 7; and
7 the December 16th memos, which is EES Number 11. The
8 December 16th, do you recall -- these are different
9 spread sheets, aren't they? Do you recall just offhand?
10 They appear to have different dates. I don't know if
11 that's just the date of the memo, or if that reflects --
12 no; it's not the date of the memo.
13 A (Perusing document.) Could you repeat the
14 question.
15 Q I'm trying to account for the fact that -- am I
16 looking at the same spread sheet? I just can't match
17 them up, side by side, or am I looking at spread sheets
18 generated at different times?
19 A These were generated on the dates that are
20 indicated at the top. So the spread sheets that are
21 shown in Exhibit 7 were generated on December 3rd. The
22 spread sheets shown in Exhibit 11 were generated on the
23 14th of December.
24 Q But I just might find different variables in
25 the inputs, is that what I should expect to see, between
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
179
1 the EES 7 and EES 11?
2 A The exhibits -- sorry. The spread sheets in
3 Exhibit 7 would have different variables. We weren't
4 correcting for different levels of rainfall in Exhibit 7.
5 We were only using the 29 or we were doing no rainfall
6 corrections. So it should either be 100 percent of 29 or
7 it should be zero percent of 29.
8 Q So December 16th would reflect a little more
9 refined analysis than the December 3rd?
10 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
11 A No; I don't think there was any refinement in
12 the analysis. Exhibit 11 involved us looking at some
13 different levels of rainfall over the 29, and involved us
14 looking at different effluent requirements for the farms
15 to meet based on STA performance.
16 Q Okay.
17 A So the spread sheet analysis should be the same
18 between the two exercises.
19 Q You said before that when you have all of the
20 data in, the early base-line data, and you have it in a
21 form that you can use it in three to four weeks, that you
22 plan to do some changes from these methods, is that
23 correct, of analysis? Some changes from these methods of
24 analysis, am I correct?
25 A We would change our approach somewhat. I don't
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
180
1 see it as a major deviation in the way we are analyzing
2 the situation. We're going to look at hot spots;
3 whereas, in this case, we really only had one hot spot.
4 And we extended the microfiltration treatment to a number
5 of farms. In fact, we went as high as 20 farms in the
6 Exhibit 7. We looked at 20 farms. We called them hot
7 spots, but they were the hot spots in our 46 farms
8 because we only had 46 farms to work with. So they were
9 the farms with the 20 highest loadings, if you rank from
10 highest loading to lowest loading. So our -- we'll do
11 the same sort of analysis with the EAA as a whole, but
12 we'll be focusing on areas like Flor-Ag.
13 Q And you will extrapolate from the Flor-Ag data
14 and say if you receive these types of reductions at these
15 other hot spots, you could expect to have this type of
16 phosphorus loading, is that accurate?
17 A We will take the flow information and the
18 phosphorus concentration information that we can extract
19 from the early base-line data, and get an idea of what
20 size of equalization facility would be required to handle
21 that flow, and we may use some scaling factors from the
22 Flor-Ag analysis, and determine what size of
23 microfiltration unit we would have to locate there, and
24 scale the costs accordingly based on the size of the
25 unit, and then scale the operating costs as well.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
181
1 Because I don't think it's going to turn out that all the
2 sites are going to be like Flor-Ag. There will be
3 different acreages, there will be different flow regimes,
4 and there will have to be some adjustment made -- there
5 will have to be some site-specific adjustments made for
6 each site before you develop a cost for that site.
7 Q But going back to my question, you're going to
8 have to estimate what your phosphorus reduction will be
9 at these additional hot spots because you obviously
10 haven't done it.
11 A Yes.
12 Q And you're estimating what size microfiltration
13 unit you would need there, you're estimating what it
14 would cost, and you're estimating what type of results it
15 could in fact obtain?
16 A Yes.
17 MS. PONZOLI: Can we take a quick break?
18 MR. PERKO: Sure.
19 (Brief recess.)
20 (Deposition Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 marked for
21 identification.)
22 BY MS. PONZOLI:
23 Q Dr. Shannon, I'm going to hand you a document
24 and ask you to identify it for me, please.
25 A This is a memorandum from myself to Bill Green,
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
182
1 and the subject is comparison of EAA total phosphorus
2 mass balances, and it's dated July 19th, 1993.
3 Q Do they come to different conclusions? I
4 haven't really read through the chart. I'm not going to
5 spend a long time on it.
6 A Can I raise a point here?
7 Q Yes, sir.
8 A This July 19th memo, there was an error in the
9 units that were used in some of the calculations of
10 conversion from pounds to kilograms. There's some
11 English to metric conversion. We issued a later version
12 of this. We discovered that error, and we issued a later
13 version of this, and I believe it's dated October 18th.
14 Q October 18th, 1993?
15 A Yes.
16 Q There may have been -- and I think there
17 actually were several copies of what appeared to be the
18 same document, and I didn't pay attention. So I need to
19 find that October 18th version.
20 MR. PERKO: It was produced, counselor.
21 Q I'm pretty sure I saw another one. We'll just
22 look for it on a break, or at lunch, or something, and
23 substitute it. So let's put that aside for now.
24 A October 18th.
25 MR. PERKO: It looks very much -- virtually the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
183
1 same thing.
2 Q I hand you EES Number 13 and ask you if you can
3 identify that.
4 A This is a memo from myself to Bill Green, and
5 the subject is Everglades SWIM Plan challenge document.
6 Q Yes, sir.
7 A It's dated July 6, 1993.
8 Q It's the outline of a paper to be written, is
9 that accurate?
10 A It's an outline of a report that was
11 anticipated as part of the SWIM Plan challenge.
12 Q Did that document get written, Dr. Shannon?
13 A No; it did not.
14 Q I'm sorry. I kept looking for it in your
15 documents. Is there a reason it wasn't written?
16 A Yes. At the time we prepared this, this was
17 our thinking at the time of, you know, what would be
18 incorporated in a report. Once we started doing the
19 microfiltration work and we got the early base-line data,
20 or become aware of the early base-line data, we revised
21 our approach somewhat. And we've accomplished many of
22 the objectives, or many of the points that are outlined
23 in here in our three technical memoranda. So I'd say by
24 and large the three technical memoranda that we produced
25 all related to microfiltration and various applications
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
184
1 of microfiltration in conjunction with BMPs, they have
2 replaced what was in this report, or proposed report.
3 Q So they've accomplished pretty much the same
4 goal that this might have solved?
5 A More or less. There certainly are differences
6 between here and some of the areas that are listed here
7 and some of the areas that are covered in our technical
8 memoranda.
9 Q You mean as to proposed alternatives that you
10 are now less -- believe are less attractive?
11 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
12 A No. I think our efforts became more focused on
13 microfiltration. I think direct filtration has been
14 dealt with through SAGE, STAs have been dealt with
15 through SAGE, and we didn't anticipate our analysis going
16 beyond those reports so we tried to focus on
17 microfiltration.
18 Q SAGE has not been meeting any more.
19 A I've noticed.
20 Q Do you think that's a committee that needs to
21 reconvene?
22 A My personal feelings was -- my personal
23 feelings are that SAGE served a useful purpose.
24 Q Which was, in your opinion, what?
25 A Well, it was a forum for discussion of the
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
185
1 rationale behind the STAs, for discussion of other
2 alternatives, discussion on BMPs, and so on. So I
3 believe the process was set up for this information to be
4 presented to a group of people who are -- had knowledge
5 in water quality, and wetland issues, and Everglades
6 issues, and so on. So from that standpoint, it was a
7 good forum.
8 Q Would it serve that same purpose if it
9 continued to meet?
10 MR. PERKO: Object to form.
11 A As far as the purpose of the forum objective,
12 or purpose, I think it would continue to serve that
13 purpose.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Mark this one, please -- I'm
15 sorry, it is marked.
16 Q Dr. Shannon, I'm going to hand you EES Number
17 14 and ask you if you can identify that.
18 A Did you want me to identify the FAX cover sheet
19 or the memorandum?
20 Q The memo is really what I'm interested in. FAX
21 cover sheets are less interesting.
22 A Okay. The memo is from Jeff Ward, Sugar Cane
23 Growers Co-op, to Earl Shannon. It's authorizing us to
24 proceed with our microfiltration -- just a minute.
25 (Perusing document.)
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
186
1 It's authorizing us to proceed with our
2 Everglades SWIM Plan challenge work, which included
3 reference to microfiltration.
4 Q It's really a composite of a FAX, a Ward
5 letter, and then one from yourself, is that accurate?
6 A Yes. The covering FAX is my FAX to
7 Steve Lavender in our Deerfield Beach office directing
8 him to set up the logistics for the project, set up a
9 budget, set up a project.
10 The response letter from the co-op from
11 Mr. Ward to myself is authorizing us to do work that we
12 had outlined in our attached letter of June 30th. So the
13 sequence of these is actually in reverse order. The
14 letter was sent outlining our estimate of cost to do the
15 SWIM challenge work and to do the microfiltration work,
16 and Mr. Ward's letter authorizing us to proceed, and then
17 my FAX to Steve Lavender in Deerfield Beach asking him to
18 set up a project for this work.
19 Q Well, then, if I understand your letter,
20 Dr. Shannon, to Mr. Green, I had originally thought this
21 was only your microfiltration work, but it's not, it's
22 more than that, isn't it? This includes an estimate for
23 more than just the microfiltration work, it includes some
24 SWIM challenge efforts?
25 A Yes, it does.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
187
1 Q You indicate here that you are interfacing with
2 Tetra Tech and Curt Pollman on modeling activities. The
3 third paragraph in the June 30th letter.
4 A That's correct.
5 Q I would like to know what that interface is.
6 A Well, at the time that this was prepared, which
7 was really our initial efforts in the SWIM challenge, I
8 anticipated a number of -- tried to anticipate some time
9 in here to interface with Tetra Tech and Curt Pollman on
10 their activities.
11 Q Did you in fact interface with Tetra Tech and
12 Dr. Pollman?
13 A We have had -- we've had maybe three, four
14 conference calls.
15 Q Have you shared data among yourselves:
16 Mr. Green, Dr. Pollman, and yourself?
17 A Can I deal with one at a time?
18 Q Yes, sir.
19 A On Tetra Tech, the main interface I've had with
20 Tetra Tech is a meeting before -- a meeting in Washington
21 with people in your office. I'm trying to think of the
22 date of that meeting.
23 Q Is that the 100-year snow storm. I can't
24 remember if you were there. I can't remember who was
25 there. I just remember ice up to my ankles.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
188
1 A But I believe one meeting with Mr. Green and
2 then the conference call, and I haven't seen the final
3 versions of their modeling efforts.
4 Q Are you aware of the results, what they show?
5 A No; I'm not.
6 Q That's Mr. Green. How about Dr. Pollman?
7 A Dr. Pollman, our main interface with
8 Dr. Pollman and KBN was, as I described previously in my
9 testimony or in deposition on the mercury sampling on the
10 microfiltration unit, and he has sent us some rainfall
11 information and, you know, a few what I considered rather
12 routine data requests of data that they had that we
13 thought we might need with respect to rainfall and other
14 information.
15 Q But other than his sort of joining his mercury
16 sampling to your microfiltration effort, there's been no
17 joint collaboration on an effort for the trial?
18 A No.
19 MS. PONZOLI: Are those the pictures?
20 MR. PERKO: Yes. I would like to look at them,
21 if you don't mind.
22 MS. PONZOLI: Why don't we just go off the
23 record.
24 (Discussion off the record.)
25 (Deposition Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 18 marked
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
189
1 for identification.)
2 BY MS. PONZOLI:
3 Q Dr. Shannon, I'm going to hand you EES Number
4 15 and ask you to identify it for me, please.
5 A This is a memo from Kevin Boehmer to
6 Mr. Jeff Ward, and it's dated November 18th, 1993. And
7 the subject is analysis of the potential impact of
8 1992-93 water year inflow volumes on STA discharge
9 concentrations.
10 Q And attached to it is a table 1 --
11 A That's correct.
12 Q -- with predicted STA phosphorus discharge
13 concentration calculations?
14 Let me just make sure, what you've done is
15 you've charted Burns and McDonnell -- in South Florida
16 Water Management District -- you've charted other
17 people's information, you've done no additional
18 manipulation to it, is that accurate?
19 A We've taken flow data from South Florida Water
20 Management District and Burns and McDonnell, and those
21 were the two sources of information. There were no other
22 sources, and there was no adjustment of flows.
23 Q I'm going to hand you EES Number 16, and ask
24 you if you can identify that.
25 A (Perusing document.) This is a memo from
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
190
1 Earl Shannon to George Wedgworth, Sugar Cane Growers
2 Co-op, dated May 3rd, 1993, and it's entitled phosphorus
3 balance at Sugarcane Plantation.
4 Q You keep using that term "Sugarcane
5 Plantation," I believe, is that a generic reference to an
6 actual sugar cane farm, or is that the name of a farm?
7 A This comes from -- the name of the site that we
8 did our '77-78 studies was called the Vaughn Plantation.
9 Q You talked about that.
10 A So it's a slip in that we're using the term
11 "plantation" to refer to sugar cane sites.
12 Q You told me that yesterday.
13 A This is referring to the Vaughn Plantation.
14 Q You told me that yesterday. I think we went
15 through that yesterday. You mentioned in here that you'd
16 be interested in seeing Tetra Tech mass balance on the
17 entire EAA showing you the net sink of phosphorus. Did
18 you ever see such an iteration of the Tetra Tech model?
19 A No; I haven't.
20 Q I mean, you didn't see some interim iteration
21 or have you seen any final iteration?
22 A I haven't seen any interim or final mass
23 balance from Tetra Tech that would show that the entire
24 EAA is a net sink of phosphorus.
25 Q Do you think such a model exists? I mean, have
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
191
1 you heard that there is such a model that shows that?
2 A Well, I've been informed that Tetra Tech is
3 working on mass balance models for the EAA.
4 Q But have you heard any conclusion that model
5 will show that the EAA is a net sink?
6 A I've been involved in some conversations where
7 it's been indicated to me that their model shows that
8 it's a net sink.
9 Q But they're not sharing it with you?
10 A I haven't seen the results with the mass
11 balance.
12 Q I'd like to do the picture -- let me finish
13 these that we've numbered. Number 17, Dr. Shannon, if
14 you can identify that one for us.
15 A Number 17 is a table of data for the 46 Sugar
16 Cane Growers Cooperative farms that we had early
17 base-line data for, and it shows much the same
18 information as was in Exhibit Number 11, I can look up
19 the table number, if you want it.
20 Q It looks the same, pretty much, doesn't it?
21 A Well, no; it's not exactly the same --
22 Q Then I would appreciate your looking it up.
23 A I'll point out the difference between the two
24 tables.
25 Q It's Number 11?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
192
1 A It's in Exhibit Number 11. I'm sorry. It's
2 not 11. It's Number 7. It's comparable to table 1 in
3 Exhibit Number 7 with the main difference being that
4 table number 1 in Exhibit 7 represents the flow data that
5 we had to date for '93, which was, I believe, till the
6 end of August, and then we extrapolated flows in table
7 number 1 to the end of the year. And that the Exhibit
8 Number 17 shows the actual flow data, uses the actual
9 flow data for 1993.
10 Q And the results come out in what? How do the
11 results compare, Dr. Shannon?
12 A There was considerable pumping at most of these
13 sites in September through December, and the actual flow
14 values come out higher than our extrapolated flow values.
15 Q Which supports your other premise that the
16 control of pumpings is one of the main ways of
17 controlling the phosphorus, is that accurate?
18 A Well, not -- you can't draw that direct
19 inference. The 1993 rainfall was -- for the whole
20 year -- was quite a bit above average rainfall
21 conditions.
22 Q 1993 was an extraordinary rainfall year?
23 A It was higher than normal. It was probably at
24 least 10 percent and maybe 15 -- as high as 15 or 20
25 percent over normal.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
193
1 Q And how often did those rainfall years happen
2 in South Florida?
3 A I would just be speculating.
4 Q I'd like to ask you to identify these
5 photographs. And I don't know how to handle this in the
6 record.
7 MS. PONZOLI: How do you want to do this,
8 Mr. Perko? This is always a mess when you've got a
9 whole bunch of photos into the record. I know you
10 don't want to leave your original photos, that I
11 understand, and I'm not asking you to. Can we
12 number them, and if we want to, to talk about them
13 at trial, you would produce them again at trial,
14 and --
15 MR. PERKO: Yes.
16 MS. PONZOLI: -- I could at least hold up
17 number 13, and Dr. Shannon and I or somebody could
18 talk about number 13.
19 MR. PERKO: That would be fine. We can have
20 them numbered on the back.
21 MS. PONZOLI: So then what we'd have to do is
22 have her number all of these.
23 MR. PERKO: That would be fine.
24 MS. PONZOLI: But let the record reflect that
25 you'll retain custody.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
194
1 (Brief recess.)
2 (Deposition Exhibit 19 marked for
3 identification.)
4 BY MS. PONZOLI:
5 Q I've handed you Exhibit Number 19, Dr. Shannon,
6 and it would be, I guess, 43 photos, is that accurate?
7 A There is 43 photographs here, yes.
8 Q Who took those photographs, Dr. Shannon?
9 A I believe Kevin Boehmer took these photographs.
10 And if I could just qualify my knowledge of these
11 paragraphs, I was not on site during the testing, so my
12 knowledge of the photographs relates to Mr. Boehmer
13 showing me the photographs and telling me what's in the
14 photographs. And I would suggest that since he's being
15 deposed, that if you want a truly firsthand account of
16 what's in each photograph, he would certainly be the best
17 source for that.
18 Q I would like to do just a quick run through,
19 but I realize you didn't take them, and you know what he
20 told you.
21 A Yes.
22 Q So if you would -- you can just go from one
23 photo to the next, if I don't stop to ask you a question,
24 if you would say what you believe it represents.
25 A Okay.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
195
1 MS. PONZOLI: And then I guess I would ask
2 Mr. Perko, if you would produce these same photos at
3 Mr. Boehmer's deposition. And, in fact, if it's
4 possible, if you could go ahead and get a set made,
5 at our expense, from the negatives, then we could
6 simply go ahead and have our own?
7 MR. PERKO: We'll certainly try to do that.
8 MS. PONZOLI: Thank you.
9 A The first photograph, number 1, is some canal
10 water that has been dosed with ferric sulfate and allowed
11 to settle. And it shows the canal water with the iron
12 floc in the bottom, the bottle.
13 BY MS. PONZOLI:
14 Q Is that part of the preliminary testing you've
15 referred to several times?
16 A I don't think this was part of the formal
17 testing. It looks to me like they just took this bottle,
18 and they put some material that they had been doing some
19 testing with, and took a photograph to show that the floc
20 in fact was separating out.
21 The second photograph is a picture of the
22 monitoring the sampling enclosure at the first farm that
23 we worked at, the Sugar Cane Growers Co-op main farm.
24 The sampling structure has the number 923 on it.
25 Q I'm sorry. That's where the water comes in?
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
196
1 A This would be their early base-line sampling
2 structure.
3 Q Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not connecting. So we
4 would find that same number, 923, on some of our tables
5 and charts, if we were to look for it?
6 A I'm not sure, but I think we would.
7 Q It looks like there's a number that might match
8 a similar number, but it's not on that chart.
9 MR. PERKO: There it is (indicating).
10 Q So that number will match what's called?
11 A It's just identified here as Sugar Cane Growers
12 Cooperative, but it is looking at the acreage -- at least
13 that's the identifier that's recognized as the 1440-acre
14 farm.
15 Q This is under the -- called the station?
16 A Sugar Cane Growers station number. 923, then,
17 relates to a South Florida Water Management District
18 permit number.
19 Q Thank you.
20 A The third photograph is a picture of one of the
21 pumps at the first farm, the Sugar Cane Growers
22 Cooperative farm?
23 Q Now, that pump would belong to the co-op, is
24 that accurate?
25 A As far as I know, it's there pump, yes.
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
197
1 Q Okay.
2 A The fourth photograph shows kind of a setup of
3 the microfiltration train. And, again, this is at the
4 first site, site 633?
5 Q When you say the train, you mean the way -- the
6 run of the equipment?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Dr. Shannon, if you actually could turn these
9 this way, I guess the other lawyers down the table could
10 see them, too.
11 A I'm sorry. This shows the -- I believe this
12 was the tank that we pumped water out of canal into this
13 tank (indicating). Then it flowed through here
14 (indicating). The chemical was added between this tank
15 and this tank (indicating). This is what we called the
16 flocculation tank that we tested (indicating). This is
17 our chemical feed tank right here (indicating). We fed
18 our ferric sulfate from this tank (indicating). And then
19 the material after the chemical addition was fed to the
20 actual microfiltration device, which was contained in
21 this little module here (indicating).
22 Q Now, is this a portable unit that we're looking
23 at that could move from site to site?
24 A This unit was portable, yes.
25 Q And that handled, what was it, several gallons
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
198
1 a day or an hour, I don't remember?
2 A It's nominal flow rate was two gallons a
3 minute. It's the smallest version of microfiltration.
4 It was designed to do the kind of testing that we did at
5 a small flow rate.
6 Q Okay.
7 A Number 5 is just another photograph of the set
8 up at the first farm that we tested. It shows -- the
9 green line shows the water line coming from the canal.
10 This is a very coarse prefilter to keep any coarse
11 material out of this system like duck weed leaves, large
12 debris, and so on. And then it proceeded from here
13 (indicating) to a holding tank, and this is our chemical
14 feed tank here (indicating).
15 MR. PERKO: If I could, just to prevent later
16 confusion, Dr. Shannon, you referred to this as the
17 first site, number 633 on Exhibit 17 shows that's
18 Flor-Ag?
19 THE WITNESS: That's right. The first site
20 that I'm referring is 923. Th