DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE)
OF FLORIDA, a Florida )
agricultural cooperative )
marketing association; ROTH )
FARMS, INC.; and WEDGWORTH )
FARMS, INC., )
and )
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE )
INC.; UNITED STATES SUGAR )
CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE )
SOUTH, INC., )
and ) CASE NOS. 92-3038
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) 92-3039
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,) 92-3040
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
vs. )
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT)
DISTRICT an Agency of the )
State of Florida, )
Respondent, )
and )
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, )
the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, the )
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, )
et al., )
Responent-Intervenors. )
- - -
Deposition of TERRY W. STURM, taken on
behalf of the Respondent-Intervenor, pursuant to
agreement of counsel, in accordance with the
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, before Eileen
Wickberg, Certified Court Reporter and Notary
Public, at 1700 Water Place, Suite 300, Atlanta,
Georgia, on the 9th day of March, 1993,
commencing at the hour of 10:00 a.m.
_ _ _
BRENTANO REPORTERS, LTD.
1700 Water Place, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia, 30339
(404) 952-8399
2
1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
2 On behalf of the Petitioner,
3 Florida Sugar Cane League: JONATHAN L. GAINES, Esq.
4 On behalf of the Respondent-
5 Intenvenors: GARY GUZY, Esq.
6 - - -
7 TERRY W. STURM,
8 having been first duly sworn, was examined and
9 testified as follows:
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. GUZY:
12 Q. Would you state your name for the record,
13 please.
14 A. Terry Sturm.
15 Q. And your address?
16 A. 2502 Kirkland Drive, Atlanta.
17 Q. Dr. Sturm, my name is Gary Guzy. I'm an
18 attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and
19 represent the respondents-intervenors in this matter.
20 With me is Dr. Souaup who is the director for
21 Everglades National Park. Have you ever been deposed
22 before?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. On how many occasions?
25 A. Twice.
3
1 Q. What were the circumstances?
2 A. They were both cases involving sediment
3 problems due to construction at housing developments.
4 Q. And were you providing expert services to
5 one side or another in the dispute?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What kind of analysis did you give in those
8 cases?
9 A. These were mostly observations of the
10 control methods that were used to mitigate sediment
11 production for the construction sites.
12 Q. Generally then, you're familiar with the
13 deposition process --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- from that experience? There are three
16 things I would ask you to bear in mind during today's
17 deposition. One is if at any point you don't
18 understand a question that I'm asking, please let me
19 know and I will attempt to make it understandable or to
20 rephrase it. Secondly, if you could respond in a
21 verbal fashion, that would help the court reporter get
22 things down. And similarly, if you could wait until
23 I've completed my question before responding, that will
24 help the court reporter as well. And then lastly, if
25 at any point you would like a break, please let us
4
1 know.
2 What documents did you review in preparation
3 for today's deposition?
4 A. This technical summary prepared for the SAGE
5 Committee meeting.
6 Q. May I see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. GUZY: Off the record for a second.
9 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the
10 record.)
11 MR. GUZY: Back on the record.
12 MR. GAINES: Let me just say with regard to
13 this document, this is not a document that was produced
14 -- there have been no documents produced in connection
15 with Dr. Sturm's deposition other than I think his CV,
16 which you have. This technical summary of a
17 presentation made to SAGE in August of 1992 is not
18 responsive to the deposition request which calls for
19 documents which form the basis of Dr. Sturm's expected
20 expert testimony. There are no documents as of this
21 date which fit that description. However, in the
22 hearing we had with Mr. Fitzgerald and the hearing
23 officer concerning this deposition, it was clear that
24 the SAGE presentation was gonna be one of the subject
25 matters of the deposition. So Dr. Sturm took a look at
5
1 this document just to refresh himself on it.
2 MR. GUZY: I appreciate your clarification.
3 I'd ask you to look at item six on the subpoena, and
4 it's your position that this document is not responsive
5 to item six?
6 MR. GAINES: Is that the one asking for
7 articles about the Everglades publications?
8 MR. GUZY: All technical publications,
9 technical memoranda or other publications the witness
10 authored or co-authored, or the preparation of which
11 the witness participated in, relating to the Everglades
12 Agricultural Area, or any other subject matter in this
13 action.
14 MR. GAINES: Well, I asked Dr. Sturm about
15 that, about whether he had any such publications. He
16 said no. Thinking about it here, this might
17 conceivably fit that description, but it's my
18 understanding that it is a public document from SAGE
19 and in talking with Mr. Fitzgerald, he indicated you
20 already had it.
21 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Did you have any
22 conversations with anyone in preparation for this
23 deposition?
24 A. I talked with John last week and yesterday
25 for a short time and I informed Dave Stewart of
6
1 Hutcheon Engineers that I would be giving a deposition.
2 Q. What is Mr. Stewart's position?
3 A. He didn't -- position about my giving a
4 deposition?
5 Q. No, with Hutcheon Engineers.
6 A. He is -- I don't know what his title is.
7 He's an engineer who has worked on the project for
8 Hutcheon Engineers. He's the lead engineer on that
9 project.
10 Q. Let me ask you, generally, when were you
11 first retained by any of the parties in this
12 litigation?
13 A. I was first invited last January -- the end
14 of January by Hutcheon Engineers to come down and tour
15 the EAA and to look at the sediment problems that they
16 were dealing with. Subsequently, I was contacted again
17 in May and asked to send my CV and the client committee
18 at that time decided to retain me to assist Hutcheon
19 Engineers in evaluating sediment impact.
20 Q. Have you done any other work with Hutcheon
21 Engineers?
22 A. No, I haven't.
23 Q. How did they come to contact you, do you
24 know?
25 A. Yes. A former master's degree student of
7
1 mine works for them.
2 Q. Who is that?
3 A. Julie O'Neal.
4 Q. Does she work on this same project?
5 A. She did for awhile. I don't believe she
6 does right now.
7 Q. What do you understand Hutcheon Engineers'
8 charge to be? What is their role?
9 A. Their role -- their charge or their charge
10 to me?
11 Q. Their charge, what is your understanding of
12 that?
13 A. My understanding is they are attempting to
14 help the client meet the water quality standards.
15 Q. And who do you understand the client to be?
16 A. The Sugar League and U.S. Sugar. That may
17 all be one client, I'm not sure.
18 Q. Now when did this invitation from Hutcheon
19 Engineers to tour the EAA come?
20 A. The first invitation was in January.
21 Q. January of 19 --
22 A. '92.
23 Q. -- 92?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Who contacted you?
8
1 A. I believe Julie made the initial contact.
2 Q. And what did she tell you?
3 A. Simply that they had a sediment problem that
4 they were working on and they would like for me to tour
5 the area and try to give them some help, some advice.
6 Q. Did you then tour the EAA?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And when did that tour take place?
9 A. That was January -- the end of January.
10 Q. How long did that tour last?
11 A. That was just a one-day tour.
12 Q. Who was on that tour?
13 A. Julie, me and another young engineer.
14 Q. From Hutcheon Engineers?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you remember that person's name?
17 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't. She was brand new.
18 Q. Was there anyone from the group that you've
19 described as your clients -- as Hutcheon Engineers'
20 clients, excuse me?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Anyone else on the tour?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Any attorneys?
25 A. No.
9
1 Q. How was the problem at that point posed to
2 you? What was the issue that Hutcheon Engineers was
3 facing?
4 A. The issue was trying to evaluate the impact
5 of sediments on the phosphorus loads.
6 Q. What were you led to understand was the
7 concern with phosphorus loads?
8 A. That they were causing -- that they were
9 provides excess nutrients to the Everglades National
10 Park area.
11 Q. And from where did you understand those
12 loads came?
13 A. They represented to me that they came from
14 the EAA.
15 Q. Where precisely did you go on that trip?
16 A. Well, we traveled I think along the West
17 Palm Beach canal and made a circle inside the EAA, came
18 back, made a stop at a couple of farms. I can't recall
19 the precise route.
20 Q. Did you do any sampling during that trip?
21 A. Yes. Yes. I took two sediment samples, one
22 out of the canal and one out of the field.
23 Q. When you say "the canal," do you mean the
24 West Palm Beach Canal?
25 A. No, it was a farm canal.
10
1 Q. And was it a U.S. Sugar field?
2 A. That I don't know.
3 Q. Was it a sugar cane field?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did you do with those samples?
6 A. I simply took them back to my office with
7 me. I did no tests on them. They were just for me to
8 have.
9 Q. Did you subsequently do any tests on them?
10 A. No, I didn't.
11 Q. Did you retain the samples?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you still have those?
14 A. Yes, they're in my office.
15 Q. What was the purpose of your taking the
16 samples?
17 A. Just to have an idea of the texture and feel
18 of the soil that we were talking about.
19 Q. Did you do any evaluation of the samples?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you get a garner or any idea of the
22 texture of the soil?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what did you find?
25 A. It's an organic soil, silty type soil.
11
1 Q. Was that conclusion based upon an empirical
2 observation?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Anything else?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And did that conclusion pertain to both
7 samples?
8 A. It was obvious that they were very similar.
9 The canal sample appeared to have some fibrous material
10 in it.
11 Q. Do you attribute that to anything, the
12 fibrous material?
13 A. There's a lot of aquatic vegetation in the
14 canal, on the banks of the canal.
15 Q. And yet there are differences between the
16 two samples?
17 A. No.
18 Q. How did you obtain those samples? What
19 technique did you use?
20 A. They were simply grab samples taken out of
21 the -- the canal was actually a canal that was being
22 dredged so there was no water. So we just took grab
23 samples out of the bottom of the canal.
24 Q. Do you do that by hand?
25 A. Yes.
12
1 Q. Can you describe that procedure?
2 A. We simply scooped samples out of the bottom
3 of the canal into a container.
4 Q. On that trip did you form any preliminary
5 conclusions concerning the impact of sediments on
6 phosphorus loads?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. What follow up was there to that trip?
9 A. There was no follow up until I was contacted
10 again in May. And at that time I was asked to provide
11 my CV, and then the client committee acted and decided
12 to retain me.
13 Q. During the January 1992 trip, were you
14 provided with any written materials?
15 A. Only a map, as I recall.
16 Q. A map of what?
17 A. Of the Everglades Agricultural Area, the
18 canal system, something like the map found in here.
19 Q. By "in here," you mean the report we were
20 just referring to?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And when you were contacted in May of 1992,
23 who contacted you?
24 A. Dave Stewart.
25 Q. What did he say to you?
13
1 A. That they would like to retain me and that
2 he wanted to -- that it had to be approved by the
3 client committee, and that he would take my CV and go
4 before the client committee so that they could make a
5 decision.
6 Q. And what did you understand you were being
7 retained for?
8 A. My understanding was that I was to provide
9 guidance to them in looking at the impact of sediments.
10 Subsequently, my role became more one of education and
11 preparing a presentation for the SAGE Committee. That
12 appeared to be the overriding objective at the time to
13 inform the SAGE Committee about the role of sediments
14 in the EAA.
15 Q. So did you perform the kind of evaluation
16 that Mr. Stewart initially spoke about?
17 MR. GAINES: I object to the form of the
18 question. If you understand it, you can answer it.
19 THE WITNESS: I was not asked to perform an
20 evaluation.
21 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Your conversation with
22 Mr. Stewart, was it by telephone?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What happened next after that conversation?
25 A. I was invited to come back for another
14
1 visit.
2 Q. To the EAA?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And did you do that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When was that visit?
7 A. I believe it was the end of May or early in
8 June.
9 Q. How long did that visit last?
10 A. I believe that was a two-day visit.
11 Q. Who accompanied you on that visit?
12 A. Dave Stewart accompanied me on that visit.
13 Q. Anyone else?
14 A. An engineer who was assisting him, also.
15 Q. From Hutcheon Engineers?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is it the same person you referred to as a
18 young engineer you referred to before?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Different person?
21 A. Different person.
22 Q. Anyone from the client on that visit?
23 A. Now by "visit," you mean tour of the EAA or
24 simply did I meet anyone from the client committee?
25 Q. Well, let's start with tour of the EAA.
15
1 A. Again, that was just myself and Hutcheon
2 Engineers, Dave Stewart and his assistant.
3 Q. Have you met anyone from the client
4 committee?
5 A. If I recall correctly, at that visit I met
6 Hank Andreis of U.S. Sugar.
7 Q. And who is Mr. Andreis?
8 A. I only know that he works for U.S. Sugar and
9 is a scientist for them.
10 Q. Where did you meet him?
11 A. In Dave Stewart's office.
12 Q. Which is where?
13 A. In West Palm Beach.
14 Q. How long did that meeting last?
15 A. One afternoon, a couple of hours in the
16 afternoon.
17 Q. What was the purpose of that meeting?
18 A. Hank made a presentation on BMPs, sediments
19 BMPs.
20 Q. Was there anyone else at that meeting?
21 A. There were a couple of other people at the
22 meeting, but I don't remember their names.
23 Q. Do you think they were from U.S. Sugar?
24 A. One representative was from U.S. Sugar and
25 then another engineer from Hutcheon Engineers was
16
1 present for a short time. They were in and out. And I
2 believe Julie O'Neal was present at that meeting, also.
3 Q. When you say Mr. Andreis did a presentation
4 on sediment BMPs, what was the purpose of the
5 presentation?
6 A. It was to learn what BMPs at the sugar
7 companies were considering as sediment control measures
8 in eventual preparation for the SAGE preparation, to
9 inform me of what they were considering.
10 Q. Did you receive any written materials during
11 that meeting?
12 A. I received a series of slides. It looks
13 like there had been a previous presentation to the SAGE
14 Committee about the Everglades and the EAA. That's all
15 I recall I received.
16 Q. How about during your visit, did you receive
17 any written materials, this second EAA visit in late
18 May, early June?
19 A. I believe there was a document by IFAS on
20 BMPs as well that was a part of Mr. Andreas'
21 presentation.
22 Q. Anything else?
23 A. Not that I can recall.
24 Q. Did you receive any other written materials
25 from Mr. Stewart at any time?
17
1 A. Yes. I received a report on sediment cores
2 that they had taken sampled throughout the EAA and took
3 several sediment cores.
4 Q. When did you receive that report?
5 A. I think it was at that meeting, the early
6 June meeting.
7 Q. Anything else?
8 A. No, that's all I recall from that meeting.
9 Q. Did you receive any materials from the
10 client committee?
11 A. No, I did not. I did not meet with the
12 client committee.
13 Q. Did you provide any materials to the client
14 committee?
15 A. At that meeting I did not, no.
16 Q. At any time?
17 A. At a subsequent meeting later in June I did.
18 Q. What materials were those?
19 A. It was essentially an oral presentation
20 prepared for the client committee in which I made a
21 portion of the presentation, Julie O'Neal made a
22 portion and Dave Stewart provided a portion of the
23 presentation.
24 Q. And did you provide any written materials at
25 that time?
18
1 A. Copies of the slides that we put up on the
2 projector.
3 Q. Do you recall when in June that meeting was?
4 A. I believe that was near the end of June.
5 Q. Who did you meet with in addition to
6 Mr. Stewart and Miss O'Neal, who else was there?
7 A. What I understood to be the entire client's
8 committee. So Hank Andreis, members of U.S. Sugar,
9 Dave Anderson and other people I met on the client
10 committee.
11 Q. Any other names you can recall either from
12 U.S. Sugar or from the League or anywhere else?
13 A. Phil Parsons was there. I'm sorry. Those
14 are all the names that I can remember.
15 Q. During that June meeting, did you receive
16 any written materials?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Before that June meeting, did you receive
19 any written materials?
20 A. No, not -- you were talking about the second
21 meeting in June?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. I don't recall receiving any new materials
24 at that time.
25 Q. Since that time have you received any
19
1 written materials?
2 MR. GAINES: From who?
3 MR. GUZY: From either Hutcheon Engineers or
4 the client's committee.
5 THE WITNESS: I've never received anything
6 from the client committee. The only further documents
7 in the interaction with Hutcheon Engineers were in
8 preparation for the presentation of SAGE. So we -- I
9 provided to them a portion of the SAGE presentation and
10 then the rest of their presentation went into this
11 report that we've already referred to.
12 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) When you say a portion, a
13 draft essentially of that report?
14 A. A draft of my portion of the presentation.
15 Q. Yes. Is that what you mean?
16 A. Yes. I provided them with a draft of the
17 portion of the SAGE presentation.
18 Q. Have you received at any time materials from
19 any other experts designated by U.S. Sugar or the
20 League other than Hutcheon Engineers?
21 A. No. My only connection concerning documents
22 has been Hutcheon Engineers.
23 Q. Now --
24 MR. GAINES: Let me say I don't think he has
25 any idea what experts have been designated by anybody.
20
1 MR. GUZY: That may be.
2 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Let's go back to the early
3 June meeting at which time I believe you testified that
4 you had received a report on sediment cores throughout
5 the EAA. Could you describe that report for me,
6 please?
7 A. They were simply a compilation of and a
8 description of the soils, a map I believe showing their
9 location and just a profile indicating a visual
10 description of materials that were found.
11 Q. Who engaged in that sampling?
12 A. Hutcheon Engineers.
13 Q. When was that sampling taken?
14 A. I have no idea. I was not involved.
15 Q. Do you still have that report in your files?
16 A. The data became a part of this I think the
17 date of this technical summary.
18 Q. Was there any data in the report that you
19 had that's not reflected in that technical summary?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 Q. Who determined the location of the samples
22 for that report?
23 A. I have no idea.
24 Q. Who determined the methodology of sampling
25 for those samples?
21
1 A. I was not involved.
2 Q. What did you rely upon that sampling for --
3 excuse me. Did you rely upon that sampling at all?
4 A. No, I did not except to provide me a general
5 description of the soils that were found -- of the
6 samples that were found.
7 Q. Why did you want a general description of
8 the soils that were found?
9 A. To provide me with background.
10 Q. For your purposes does the location of the
11 sample matter? Did it matter at all to you where the
12 samples were drawn from in order to have the background
13 that you wanted?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And did the methodology of the sampling
16 matter to you?
17 MR. GAINES: Are you asking for his purposes
18 in connection with this SAGE presentation?
19 MR. GUZY: No. He just testified that he
20 wanted to have general background, so I'm providing him
21 the general background that he wanted.
22 THE WITNESS: That was not a major concern
23 of mine, no. My role was to provide general
24 information about how sediments move.
25 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Since the time of the meeting
22
1 in late June that you described, have you had any
2 meetings in connection with this matter?
3 A. Subsequently, I went there in August to make
4 the SAGE presentation.
5 Q. Any other meetings?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Any telephone conversations?
8 A. There was a telephone conference call,
9 again, in which the rough draft of the SAGE
10 presentation was -- wasn't discussed, it was actually
11 presented and I was on the phone while it was presented
12 and the materials that I was going to present was shown
13 to the client committee while I was on the telephone.
14 Q. Who else was on the telephone in addition to
15 the client committee?
16 A. It was just an open speaker phone. I was
17 just listening and then commenting on the presentation
18 at the end.
19 Q. Was Mr. Stewart on the phone?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Miss O'Neal?
22 A. She was there, yes.
23 Q. Mr. Andreis?
24 A. Yes, he was there.
25 Q. Mr. Anderson?
23
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Anyone else you can remember?
3 A. No. I mean, that's all I remember.
4 Q. Have you reviewed at any point the
5 designation of the subject matter of your expected
6 testimony that's been provided in this proceeding?
7 A. I don't understand the question.
8 Q. Are you familiar with the areas in which you
9 have been identified to testify as an expert witness
10 generally?
11 A. No. I don't even know that I have been
12 identified to testify as an expert witness.
13 Q. Is it your understanding that the scope of
14 your retention involves services as an expert witness
15 in the state administrative proceedings?
16 A. No, I do not.
17 Q. What is your understanding of the scope of
18 your retention then?
19 A. I understood that the scope of my retention
20 ended after the SAGE presentation. Let me modify it
21 slightly.
22 Q. Sure.
23 A. After the SAGE presentation, there was talk
24 of starting some demonstration projects and it was
25 suggested that I might review the data sampling
24
1 programs for those demonstration projects, but that
2 never happened.
3 Q. How did that suggestion come about?
4 A. To develop demonstration projects?
5 Q. Yes, to develop demonstration projects.
6 A. I'm not sure who originated the idea.
7 Hutcheon Engineers was going to carry out those
8 demonstration projects.
9 Q. And how about your role, your anticipated
10 role in the sampling projects of demonstration
11 projects. How did you learn that you might be
12 reviewing data?
13 A. In a discussion following the SAGE meeting
14 with Dave Stewart.
15 Q. Was that immediately following the meeting?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Still down in West Palm Beach?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what were you led to believe at the
20 time?
21 A. About the demonstration projects?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. That there were two or three demonstration
24 projects that were going to be tried. Rock pits,
25 maintenance dredging and perhaps a sediment trap were
25
1 all being considered as possible demonstration
2 projects.
3 Q. Were you told the time frame for these
4 demonstration projects?
5 A. No, because the budget had not been approved
6 at the time by the client, so that was unclear.
7 Q. Did you or do you have any understanding of
8 the location for any of these demonstration projects?
9 A. No, I do not.
10 Q. Do you know if any of these demonstration
11 projects have, in fact, been carried out?
12 A. To the best of my knowledge they have not
13 even been initiated.
14 Q. They have not been initiated. And what
15 leads you to that understanding?
16 A. Conversation with Dave Stewart.
17 Q. When did you have that conversation?
18 A. Yesterday.
19 Q. That's the one you told me about before?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Let me ask you this. Did you have
22 discussions with Mr. Stewart concerning any other
23 matters?
24 A. Other technical matters.
25 Q. Matters other than your work concerning the
26
1 Everglades?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You're not in general contact with him?
4 A. No, not at all.
5 Q. So when you talk to him? It's exclusively
6 concerning matters in this case?
7 A. Correct.
8 MR. GAINES: Well, let me object to that
9 characterization. I don't believe that the SAGE
10 presentation we have been talking about is strictly
11 related to this case. It was a SAGE presentation.
12 MR. GUZY: Okay. Matters concerning the
13 Everglades. I appreciate that clarification.
14 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) What was the substance of
15 your discussion with Mr. Stewart yesterday?
16 A. Simply that I was going to be deposed and
17 that I had not been retained to provide an expert
18 opinion. And my question was why was I being deposed
19 at this time, and he said he didn't know.
20 Q. So your understanding at the current time is
21 that so far as you are concerned, you have not been
22 retained to provide an expert opinion?
23 A. Correct.
24 MR. GUZY: Could we go off the record for a
25 minute.
27
1 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the
2 record.)
3 MR. GAINES: There is some question now
4 that's been raised by Mr. Guzy about what Dr. Sturm's
5 role in this proceeding is based upon his testimony
6 that he hasn't been retained to provide an expert
7 opinion. I don't know if Dr. Sturm is focusing
8 specifically on the word "retained" and what formal
9 relationship has been established or not, but the
10 intention as we've expressed in our witness disclosure,
11 and in our subsequent correspondence with you and in
12 our motion for protective order is that Dr. Sturm has
13 been listed as a potential expert witness in this
14 matter primarily to comment on the work of other
15 experts or the districts of any optimal plan that is
16 ultimately advanced and his role would be providing
17 comments on sedimentation dynamics and control aspects
18 of other consultants' work such as the work currently
19 under way by Brown and Caldwell on BMPs, and chemical
20 treatment, and infiltration and that type of thing. As
21 we've made it abundantly clear, none of that work is at
22 at this point in a final form, none of it has been
23 reviewed by Dr. Sturm at this point and, therefore, he
24 has no comments on those items at this point in time,
25 but the intention is that there may come a time when
28
1 that work is completed and is provided to him for his
2 review and his comments.
3 MR. GUZY: Okay. Why don't I ask Dr. Sturm
4 a series of questions about the scope of his expected
5 testimony as represented in the designation of expert
6 witnesses and if counsel feels the need to clarify that
7 and if, Dr. Sturm, you're unable to answer that, then
8 please feel free to.
9 Q. (By Mr. GUZY) You have been designated to
10 provide expected testimony. The subject matter of your
11 expected testimony includes the general category of
12 STAs. What do you contemplate of being the nature of
13 your expected testimony concerning STAs?
14 A. We haven't really talked about what possible
15 testimony I might make.
16 Q. Have you done any evaluation of STAs at this
17 point? Do you understand what that term means?
18 A. Yes. No, I haven't.
19 Q. At this point do you intend to do any
20 evaluation of STAs?
21 A. No one has asked me to do that.
22 Q. Before getting into this, I want to change
23 course for a second because maybe it would be helpful
24 to ask you about your areas of expertise in general and
25 your background, and then we can go back to expected
29
1 testimony and a question of what expertise you might be
2 able to bring to bear on each of the categories we were
3 about to go in to. Is that a copy of your CV?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 MR. GUZY: Is it okay if we mark this one as
6 an exhibit?
7 MR. GAINES: Is that the same -- is there
8 any difference between this one and the --
9 MR. GAINES: It's been updated.
10 THE WITNESS: This is the most current.
11 MR. GAINES: It might have one or two
12 additional publications or something like that.
13 MR. GUZY: Well, let's mark the most current
14 one, certainly, and I will just take a brief look at
15 it, please. Off the record.
16 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the
17 record.)
18 (Whereupon, the court
19 reporter marked
20 Respondent-Intervenor's
21 Exhibit No. 1 for
22 identification.)
23 MR. GUZY: Back on the record.
24 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Dr. Sturm, we've marked a
25 copy of your CV as Exhibit 1. Does this accurately
30
1 reflect your professional experience to date?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And your educational background?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What do you regard as your principal field
6 of research teaching?
7 A. It is in the area of open channel hydraulics
8 and sediment transport.
9 Q. If you could help me out in lay terms, by
10 open channel hydraulics you mean what?
11 A. Describing the motion of water where a free
12 surface exists and surface water channels.
13 Q. And by channels, does that have any
14 limitation on kinds of water bodies?
15 A. That refers to situations in which there is
16 a flow in a river, an artificial channel, a canal.
17 I've also done work on gravity currents in lakes,
18 again, as a gravity driven flow. So I would say a more
19 general characterization was gravity channel flows.
20 Q. And by transport, what do you mean?
21 A. I mean the movement of sediment by water at
22 the interface between the water and solid boundary.
23 Q. Sediment meaning in the physical sense?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I would like to ask you about a few of the
31
1 -- let me go back.
2 Are there any publications on this list that
3 reflect your interest or expertise in the sediment
4 transport in particular?
5 A. Yes. There are two research reports on
6 calculating the sediment yield from water sheds that
7 have undergone construction and developing design
8 criteria for sedimentation basin.
9 Q. Under the category that you've labeled as
10 publications in your CV, is there anything?
11 A. There are -- I believe there may be
12 conference presentations on the erosion of sediment at
13 hydraulics structures which is called scour.
14 Q. Let me ask you about your research report
15 that's entitled, "Sediment Reduction in Urban
16 Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites" --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- dated May 1991.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is the thesis of that report?
21 A. The thesis is that one can predict the
22 amount of sediment expected from such water sheds and
23 to design measures to help prevent that sediment from
24 reaching the water course.
25 Q. Have any of your publications or reports or
32
1 has any of your research been in the area of sediments
2 from agricultural sites or operations?
3 A. Not specifically, but many of the same
4 principles of sediment yield and erosion apply
5 regardless of the particular land use.
6 Q. Is there anything in particular that you can
7 think of that distinguishes agricultural sediment
8 runoff from, for example, urban stormwater runoff or
9 construction site runoff?
10 A. That's too general a question. I mean,
11 there are similarities. The process, the physical
12 processes of erosion are the same. But there may be
13 different slopes in agricultural cases or in a
14 construction case or of course different kinds of
15 soils. Normally, the kinds of soils that may be
16 involved in construction of a landfill, for example,
17 could not be suitable for agricultural.
18 Q. Has any of your research or have any of your
19 reports or publications concerned erosion runoff or
20 sedimentation from organic soils?
21 A. No, it has not. The organic soils in the
22 EAA are rather unique.
23 Q. How so from your perspective?
24 A. Their very high organic content is not the
25 usual case.
33
1 Q. How does that affect their sedimentation?
2 A. It affects the specific gravity of the soil
3 particles. One has a mixture of organic matter and
4 soil, what we ordinarily consider soil grains.
5 Q. Would you believe that there is more or less
6 of a tendency for organic soils to erode?
7 MR. GAINES: As compared to inorganic soils?
8 MR. GUZY: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: The question is not
10 necessarily the organic content but also how much
11 cohesive material is present, what kinds of land slopes
12 and cover are present. There are many other factors
13 besides just the organic matter.
14 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) If you isolate out those
15 other factors and the only variable were the organic
16 nature of the soil versus the types of soils that
17 you've had experience in your reports and publications
18 and research, are you able to tell me which is more
19 likely to erode or create sediments?
20 A. Well, the organic material itself is more
21 likely to be eroded, but if we're talking about the
22 soil matrix in general, the organic material affects
23 the whole bonding process if there are clays present,
24 for example. So it's dependent upon the particular
25 soil that we're talking about, how much cohesive
34
1 material is present, how the organic material is
2 interacting. Those things are subjects of research.
3 Q. When you said before that in the EAA I
4 believe you said that there is a unique mixture of
5 organic particles and soil particles, what is the
6 relationship between those particles? Are they bonded
7 together somehow physically?
8 A. In some cases they can be and in other cases
9 they may be separate particles.
10 Q. Let me ask you about a publication back in
11 March of 1981, if you can remember back that far,
12 entitled, "A Numerical Model of the Interaction of
13 Density Currents and Wind-Induced Mixing in Stratified
14 Cooling Lakes." Do you recall what the thesis of that
15 report was?
16 A. In cooling lakes there are density
17 differences. Because of differences in temperature, a
18 cooling lake is a receptacle for heated water from a
19 power plant. So because of the temperature differences
20 that are encountered, density differences occur and
21 those density differences drive currents into side arms
22 of those lakes giving rise to greater cooling than
23 would otherwise be expected. So it's an attempt to
24 take into account both those density driven currents
25 and wind driven currents and assess their impact on the
35
1 overall cooling potential of a lake.
2 Q. What is the effect of the wind driven
3 currents upon the density of the water?
4 A. It has no effect on the densities of the
5 water. It may provide an additional driving force
6 either opposing or in the same direction as the gravity
7 driven force.
8 Q. Does the wind create some mixing?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is that the basic mechanism?
11 A. Yes. In fact, the wind mixes the heat
12 downward into the lake and it also developed as part of
13 that project a model for predicting the temperature
14 variation of depth in the lake.
15 Q. How far down in terms of depth can you see a
16 mixing effect based upon wind driven mechanism?
17 A. It depends on the climate to a certain
18 extent, but in the southeast we're talking about 10 to
19 30 feet. You see the heating during the summer
20 provides a density stratification that limits the
21 amount of wind mix. So the more heating available in
22 different climates, there are differences in the amount
23 of mixing.
24 Q. Let's turn to the category that you have
25 labeled as research grants. I would like to ask you
36
1 about one that's delineated, Sediment Reduction in
2 Urban Water Runoff for Construction Sites. What was
3 the goal of your research grant there?
4 A. Okay. That refers to the same reports that
5 you mentioned a moment ago. The practical objective
6 was to assist the state and environmental protection
7 division in Georgia to establish water quality criteria
8 for runoff from construction sites. More specifically,
9 to evaluate the ability to meet the current standard
10 that has been promulgated.
11 Q. That's part of your work that you propose a
12 water quality standard?
13 A. No, I proposed a method for meeting the
14 water quality standard.
15 Q. What was the applicable water quality of
16 standard there?
17 A. On turbidity in a receiving stream.
18 Q. And the method that you proposed for meeting
19 that standard was what?
20 A. Was the combination of land treatment
21 measures including vegetative cover, diversions in
22 combination with sediment basins.
23 Q. And was that work continued, essentially the
24 same work that you were doing the following year as
25 what's listed here as a USGS principal investigator or
37
1 sediment base and design for landfills and construction
2 sites?
3 A. Yes, that was a continuation of that
4 project.
5 Q. Let me ask you about some of the student
6 research that you've been the major advisor of. Can
7 you tell me what the thesis was of the report on the
8 effects of hydrologic variability on a nonpoint source
9 pollution concentration in small lakes, do you recall
10 that work?
11 A. I need the name of the student. Is that
12 given there?
13 Q. Yes, it is, but why don't you take a look.
14 It's the first item that I have here.
15 A. No, I don't have that page on this copy.
16 Yes, that was an attempt to model nonpoint source
17 pollutants in small lakes incorporating a lake model
18 that I had developed for temperature. It was including
19 other nonpoint source pollutants.
20 Q. By hydrologic variability, what does that
21 refer to?
22 A. That refers to the fact that a lake is not a
23 stagnant pool of water, but that the inflows and
24 outflows and wind driven mixing all affect the
25 subsequent concentration of pollutants in the lake.
38
1 Q. And what was your role in this thesis?
2 A. I was the major advisor.
3 Q. Do you recall the particular pollutants that
4 were studied in this thesis?
5 A. As I recall, it was phosphorus.
6 Q. And were there particular lakes that were
7 the subject of the study?
8 A. Yes. There was a lake that was part of an
9 ongoing study by my colleagues in which they measured
10 phosphorus in the sediments of the lake.
11 Q. Which lake was that?
12 A. I don't recall the name of the lake anymore.
13 Q. Do you remember where it was located?
14 A. Northern Indiana.
15 Q. Have you any ongoing current research
16 projects?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What are those?
19 A. I have a project with the hazardous
20 substance research center of the EPA in the southeast
21 region with a colleague to study the transport of
22 cohesive sediments and associated contaminants.
23 Q. In what context?
24 A. It's basic research to try to characterize
25 the movement of sediments which have clay as a
39
1 component and which may be affected by the presence of
2 organic matter and toxic contaminants.
3 Q. Is it referring to surface runoff?
4 A. It could be. It's generic in the sense that
5 we're just looking at the sediment water interface. We
6 have constructed a flume which is an artificial channel
7 in the laboratory in which we have been placing
8 sediments samples and measuring their rate of transport
9 as a function of the presence of organic matter, biotic
10 strengths of the water and other variables.
11 Q. How long a study is this?
12 A. It began as a three-year study, but it's
13 renewed on a yearly basis.
14 Q. How long have you been working on it?
15 A. Really only since September because the
16 money was still incoming from the EPS.
17 Q. And who is your principal contact at EPS on
18 it?
19 A. I don't have -- I'm lower down the pole than
20 that. The way it's set up is the hazardous substance
21 research center is located at LSU. Georgia Tech and
22 Rice Univesity are cooperating universities with
23 costrictors located at Georgia Tech and Rice
24 University. So my main contact is with our director at
25 Georgia Tech.
40
1 Q. And who is that?
2 A. Dr. Saunders.
3 Q. There are, I take it, other investigators on
4 this project as well?
5 A. Yes, many.
6 Q. Do you have a rough number for Georgia Tech?
7 A. Three.
8 Q. Are there other ongoing research projects
9 that you have?
10 A. I am currently studying bridge abutment
11 skours at flood plains.
12 Q. Simply, do you use models for that?
13 A. Yes, physical models.
14 Q. At any point in your work concerning
15 Everglades matters in general, did you have occasion to
16 construct a physical model?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you do any computer modeling?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Is there anything else about your background
21 or qualifications that you believe particularly
22 qualifies you to render opinions upon sediment
23 transport of phosphorus in the Everglades area?
24 MR. GAINES: You mean other than what's
25 contained in his CV?
41
1 MR. GUZY: Other than we have been
2 discussing so far.
3 MR. GAINES: Well, I mean, you discussed
4 about two or three items from his CV and he has, like,
5 a hundred articles.
6 MR. GUZY: Sure, other than the things
7 identified in his CV.
8 THE WITNESS: The CV fairly accurately
9 represents my area of expertise.
10 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) And other than the actual
11 things that we've discussed, is there anything else
12 that you believe qualifies you? I understand that you
13 have a Ph.D. in mechanics and hydraulics, those kinds
14 of things, but I wonder if there is anything else in
15 particular that you believe qualifies you.
16 A. Well, there is a preponderance of research
17 on scour and modeling of that scour both physically and
18 numerically. However, that research concentrates
19 primarily on the alluvial sediments; that is, sediments
20 composed primarily of sands and gravels without
21 cohesive material present.
22 Q. I appreciate that. Let's go back to what we
23 were talking about before, the areas of testimony in
24 which you've -- expected testimony for which you have
25 been designated.
42
1 MR. GAINES: Before we do that, if you need
2 a break at any time for a couple minutes to whatever,
3 just say so.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Why don't we take a
5 break now.
6 MR. GUZY: Sure.
7 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
8 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Dr. Sturm, I would like to
9 ask you about the areas that at least counsel who is
10 here today has designated as areas of expected
11 testimony on your part and for each of these areas ask
12 what based upon your particular qualifications and
13 expertise that we have been discussing you would feel
14 competent to testify to -- comfortable testifying to.
15 A. Let me just say that John and I only first
16 talked what, last week, is that right, is the first
17 time so that that list was made without my input and
18 they simply tried to deduce what areas of expertise I
19 might bring. As far as any specific areas, I haven't
20 discussed those with anyone. I simply have areas of
21 expertise in these areas that we've talked about and if
22 in the future those areas of expertise are needed, then
23 I would be able available to testify, but no real
24 discussions have taken place in which areas I might
25 testify about.
43
1 Q. Okay. I appreciate that clarification.
2 Instead, maybe what I'll ask you is if based upon your
3 knowledge of these areas as they pertain to the
4 Everglades matters in general, the phosphorus problem
5 in the Everglades in general, including the Everglades
6 Agricultural Area, the water conservation areas, the
7 park areas, if based upon your understanding of that,
8 if there are any aspects of the broad category of
9 testimony that's listed that you believe your expertise
10 is relevant to, why don't we start with that.
11 A. All right.
12 MR. GAINES: Before you get into that, I
13 have no problem with you going through an exercise like
14 that if that's your desire, but given the state of what
15 his role is in this matter as of today's date, his
16 response to these questions would not in my mind impose
17 any limitations on his testimony as the need for that
18 develops based upon the development of the optimal plan
19 or these other consultants' reports which Dr. Sturm may
20 be requested to review and provide comments on. So, I
21 mean, in a vacuum sitting here today, if he tries to
22 give you STAs, his perceptions of how his expertise
23 might touch upon STAs, that's fine, he can tell you
24 that, but I don't think that to be a limitation on what
25 his role in the case would be as the case develops.
44
1 MR. GUZY: You're free to take it any way
2 you want.
3 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Let's go on to the first
4 category which is STAs. Do you have expertise that is
5 relevant to an understanding of STAs?
6 A. I don't think so.
7 Q. What are qualities, the next category, the
8 same question. Do you have expertise that's relevant
9 to an evaluation of water quality as it pertains to
10 this Everglades issue?
11 A. Water quality as it is affected by sediment.
12 Q. Would that involve water quality, I take it,
13 in ditches on the farms?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in canals that run from the farms?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would it involve water quality in the water
18 conservation areas.
19 A. Only to the extent that it is affected by
20 the water coming off the EAA, but I don't think I would
21 be involved in the water conservation areas.
22 Q. Would it involve water quality in either
23 Locks National Wildlife Refuge or Everglades National
24 Park?
25 A. No, I don't think so.
45
1 Q. Soil chemistry is the next category.
2 A. No, I'm not an expert in soil chemistry.
3 Q. Particulate sedimentation of phosphorus is
4 the next category.
5 A. My area is in plain sedimentation without
6 chemical treatment. So I've done work on
7 sedimentation, but when you talk about phosphorus
8 sedimentation, you're talking about first chemically
9 treated creating flux. That's a treatment issue and
10 not my area.
11 Q. Just so I had understand, your area of
12 expertise is not in the treatment side of phosphorus?
13 A. Right, only as it is associated or absorbed
14 by sediment particles. As we saw, my area is in
15 sediment and not in chemistry of the contaminants that
16 may be attached to that sediment.
17 Q. For the category analysis of EPA soil
18 chemistry, do you have any particular relevant
19 expertise on that?
20 A. EPA soil chemistry?
21 Q. Yeah, the entry is analysis of EPA soil
22 chemistry.
23 MR. GAINES: Everglades Protection Area.
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) The general category of
46
1 sedimentation.
2 A. Yes. As I just described, plain
3 sedimentation of chemical treatment.
4 Q. When you say plain sedimentation, is that
5 P-L-A-N-E?
6 A. No.
7 Q. P-L-A-I-N?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Water quality and quantity.
10 A. Certainly quantity, but, again, quality only
11 as affected by sediment.
12 Q. And what sense quantity?
13 A. In determining, for example, how the canal
14 system might function, how water levels might be
15 distributed among the canals for different flow rates.
16 Those are open channel hydraulics issues.
17 Q. As the quantity issues relate to transport
18 of sediments?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Any other expertise as to water quantity
21 issues?
22 A. You'd have to give me something specific.
23 Q. For example, the effects of hydropuriad on
24 vegetation.
25 A. No.
47
1 Q. Did you participate at all in U.S. Sugar,
2 the League's drafting of their petition, their
3 administrative petition in this matter?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. Do you have any particular opinions
6 concerning physical changes to the Everglades
7 Agricultural Area that may result from any of the
8 remedies proposed in the SWIM plan?
9 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form of
10 that question. I think you're -- I don't think you've
11 established that he has any knowledge of what the
12 remedies are that are proposed in the SWIM plan.
13 MR. GUZY: Fair enough.
14 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Have you read the SWIM plan?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you read any drafts of the SWIM plan?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Are you familiar generally with the
19 discussion of remedies in the SWIM plan?
20 A. The only remedy I'm aware of is the 50 parts
21 per billion limits of phosphorus in the water
22 conservation areas.
23 Q. Are you aware of the means that are proposed
24 for achieving that?
25 A. Only that the STAs have been proposed and
48
1 the chemical treatment may or may not be proposed.
2 Q. Do you have any particular expertise
3 concerning any physical changes that may occur in the
4 EAA as a result of the STA proposal?
5 MR. GAINES: You mean with relation to
6 sediment transport or just physical changes of any
7 kind?
8 MR. GUZY: Physical changes.
9 THE WITNESS: I don't really know what kind
10 of physical changes you're talking about. It's hard
11 for me to answer the question.
12 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) I'm referring to the petition
13 in this matter and an allegation that the EAA areas may
14 suffer physical changes. I can read you the language
15 and you can tell me if you have any knowledge or
16 expertise concerning this issue. The full statement
17 is, "The regulatory policies and programs dictated by
18 the SWIM plan will cause petitioners to suffer physical
19 changes to their property." Are you aware of any?
20 MR. GAINES: Well, let me just object to,
21 you know, you're taking -- I think you're reading
22 paragraph 33 from an I don't know how many paragraph
23 petition which he hasn't had any connection with and
24 kind of asking him to comment on in a vacuum. I mean,
25 if you want to go through the exercise, that's fine,
49
1 but, you know, I don't think there is any relevance.
2 MR. GUZY: Yeah, I would like to.
3 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Are you aware of any physical
4 changes that may result from the proposals we have been
5 talking about, the STA proposal?
6 A. I would only be speculating.
7 Q. The same, the next phrase says, "Will impair
8 existing permit rights." Do you have any particular
9 expertise concerning permit rights?
10 A. No.
11 Q. "And will adversely affect their substantial
12 interest and ability to conduct essential water
13 management activities on their property to protect
14 their crops and farming operations." Do you have any
15 particular knowledge of or expertise concerning water
16 management activities on the farm properties?
17 A. The only thing that I know about are the
18 pumping BMPs that have been proposed to reduce the rate
19 of pumping in an effort to reduce the amount of
20 sediment coming off the farm.
21 Q. What is your understanding of those?
22 A. I was not involved in developing those, so
23 they were only described to me by Dave Stewart that
24 they involved more rigid pumping schedules in which the
25 same amount of water would be pumped but over a longer
50
1 period of time to reduce the rate of canals.
2 Q. Have you evaluated those BPMs?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Do you intend to?
5 A. I have not been asked to do so.
6 Q. And is it a fair statement that your area of
7 expertise as it relates to this would be the effect of
8 flow rates upon transport of sediment?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have any particular expertise or
11 knowledge concerning impacts on Everglades National
12 Park or Locks National Wildlife Refuge from the
13 phosphorus problem we have been talking about?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you have any particular expertise or
16 knowledge concerning allegations of other factors that
17 may be a cause of problems in the park or the refuge
18 such as hydropuric fire, those kinds of things?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you have any particular knowledge
21 concerning the existence or not of violations of water
22 quality standards in the park or the refuge?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you have any particular experience with
25 the context of mixing zones?
51
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is that?
3 A. My experience with mixing zones is in
4 connection with, again, discharges into lakes,
5 specifically, thermal discharges from a jet mixing zone
6 in which the dynamics are different than in the farm
7 field mixing. So I don't know in what connection
8 you're using that term "mixing zone" as a regulatory
9 connotation and also means something in fluid mechanics
10 as well.
11 Q. And your expertise is in which of those two
12 contexts, the regulatory or the fluid mechanics?
13 A. The fluid mechanics.
14 Q. With respect to the regulatory application
15 mixing zones in the Everglades, do you have any
16 particular expertise?
17 A. No, I do not.
18 Q. And the same for site specific alternative
19 criteria?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And the regulatory concept of equitable
22 abatement, do you have any expertise there?
23 A. No.
24 Q. How about with the workability or the
25 success or lack thereof of STAs. Do you have any
52
1 particular expertise there?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Alternatives, STAs, what else might be used
4 as an alternative, any particular expertise there?
5 A. Well, there are a number of alternatives I
6 think that have been discussed. My area of expertise
7 would concern more the sediment BMPs and perhaps the
8 pumping of BMPs, those measures relative to mitigating
9 the sediment transport.
10 Q. We'll get back to those areas. How about
11 the reasonableness, if any, of the phosphorus limits
12 that have been proposed, do you have any particular
13 expertise as to that?
14 A. Specifically, no. All I know is I've read
15 some values of concentration at various points in the
16 system.
17 Q. Do you have an opinion one way or another as
18 to --
19 A. Not at this time because it doesn't appear
20 to me that there's enough data to form an opinion.
21 Q. Are you referring to any area in particular?
22 A. Any area of the EAA?
23 Q. EAA, the EPA, Everglades Protection Area.
24 A. No, just in general that I haven't seen a
25 lot of data about the present levels of phosphorus at
53
1 various points in the EAA.
2 Q. Have you made any effort to review the data
3 that's in existence?
4 A. I've only seen the data in this technical
5 summary that was prepared by Hutcheon Engineers.
6 Q. I asked if you had read any of the SWIM plan
7 or its drafts. Have you read any of the technical
8 appendices, the supporting documents to the SWIM plan?
9 A. No, I have not.
10 Q. Do you have any opinion about whether the
11 SWIM plan complies with applicable laws or regulations?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you have any opinion about the
14 reasonableness of implementation costs of the SWIM
15 plan?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Any opinion on the -- I may have asked you
18 this, but just to be certain -- on the manner of
19 design, construction or maintenance of the STAs?
20 A. No, I have not seen any document relative to
21 the STAs, how they were constructed or maintained or
22 designed.
23 Q. Did you participate at all in the
24 administrative petition concerning BMPs?
25 MR. GAINES: What administrative petition?
54
1 THE WITNESS: I'm not even aware of it.
2 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) You're not aware of it?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Have you provided any comments or
5 analysis of the district's proposed BMP rule? By the
6 district's, I mean, the South Florida Water Management
7 District -- I'm sorry. Can I clarify that? I didn't
8 mean to say proposed BMP rule. I meant district's BMP
9 rule.
10 A. Specifically, what is that rule? I don't
11 know.
12 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with that rule?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the proposed DER
15 permit for South Florida WATER Management District
16 structures?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Would you expect to have any testimony
19 concerning that?
20 A. I don't know. I can't answer that at this
21 point.
22 Q. Do you have any particular expertise or
23 knowledge concerning mercury?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Transport of mercury?
55
1 A. (Witness shaking head.)
2 Q. Was that a head shake of a no?
3 A. That was a no.
4 Q. Okay. Let me go back to a few basics of
5 areas that you are familiar with and maybe you could
6 help me gain a better understanding of them. How do
7 you define the term "particulate"?
8 A. Specifically, the term I think is used to
9 distinguish the substance which is suspended rather
10 than dissolved or may not necessarily be suspended, but
11 it identifies -- it can be identified as a particle.
12 Q. Is there some relationship between the term
13 "sediment" and "particulate"?
14 A. The term "sediment" is used in a lot of
15 different ways. Particulates can be part of sediment.
16 Sediment particles themselves could be considered
17 particulates.
18 Q. Have you evaluated what kind of particulate
19 load is generated by the Everglades Agricultural Area?
20 A. No, I have not personally done that. No.
21 Q. Do you have any understanding of that?
22 A. I have seen the measurements of particulate
23 and dissolve phosphorus in this technical summary.
24 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
25 A. I have seen the measurements of the
56
1 particulate phosphorus and dissolve phosphorus in the
2 technical summary.
3 Q. Do you know who generated those
4 measurements?
5 A. Actually, there is more than one source. I
6 believe Hutcheon Engineers made some of the
7 measurements and then they also analyzed some of the
8 district measurements, as I recall.
9 MR. GAINES: Is this marked already?
10 MR. GUZY: No, it's not and if he's going to
11 refer to a specific page, why don't we go ahead and
12 mark it as Exhibit 2, please.
13 (Whereupon, the court
14 reporter marked
15 Respondent-Intervenor's
16 Exhibit No. 2 for
17 identification.)
18 THE WITNESS: In the presentation by Dave
19 Anderson, some data are given on phosphorus
20 concentrations on page 9 and 10. In table one there
21 are some measurements given. I believe those were made
22 by Hutcheon Engineers. Yes. There are some
23 measurements in table two on page 23 made by the Water
24 Management District. I believe that's the extent of
25 the measurements on phosphorus. Well, there are
57
1 measurements of phosphorus in the soil samples taken at
2 Appendix B. That was also done by Hutcheons Engineers.
3 Q. Again, you haven't done any independent
4 measurements?
5 A. No, I wasn't involved in any of those. I
6 was trying to respond to your question.
7 Q. Thank you. And in forming your opinions,
8 have you relied upon these measurements, the ones
9 you've just referred to?
10 A. I haven't formed any opinions about
11 concentrations.
12 Q. Have you formed any opinions about sediment
13 transport?
14 A. Only that from the preliminary experiments
15 that Hutcheon Engineers made, that sediment was set in
16 motion by a pumping event. They essentially as shown
17 on the technical summary did three pumping experiments
18 and measured the sediment in transport as a result of
19 those.
20 Q. Could you describe for me the intent of the
21 three different pumping experiments?
22 A. I didn't formulate those experiments, but my
23 impression was that the purpose was to do preliminary
24 experiments to assist Hutcheons Engineers in designing
25 future sampling procedures.
58
1 Q. And did each of the three have a different
2 purpose?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Were they redundant or was each illustrative
5 of different areas?
6 A. They were at different locations in the EAA,
7 but I was not told where those locations were.
8 Q. Do you have an opinion or any thoughts about
9 how sediments are mobilized into secondary canals or
10 ditches by EAA farming practices?
11 A. I think that the pumping BMPs, for example,
12 are one attempt to address one manner which the
13 sediments may enter by overpumping. I have been told
14 that there are some practices that can easily be
15 changed, for example, flooding a field, a fallow field
16 and then pumping it down too rapidly. Those were all
17 proposed to be altered in the pumping BMPs as I
18 understood it.