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. 19 Q. Maybe we can go back a step from there and 20 do you have an understanding of how the sediments are 21 actually mobilized, what the physical process is for 22 that? 23 MR. GAINES: You mean generically? 24 MR. GUZY: In the EAA. 25 THE WITNESS: I have an idea about some 59 1 processes that might be present, but from the present 2 information available, I don't think anyone can answer 3 that question definitively. 4 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) What information is lacking 5 at this point? 6 A. There is no basin wide monitoring that's 7 been set up over a long period of time within the EAA 8 itself. 9 Q. And what would that tell you? 10 A. It could tell you where the sediment is 11 coming from, if it's correlated with pumping events, 12 how frequently, how it's correlated with the magnitude 13 of the pumping, whether it's coming from bank erosion, 14 erosion in coming off the field, draining of the field. 15 Q. And when you said a moment ago that you have 16 an idea of some of the ways in which it's mobilized, 17 are these the things you're referring to? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was there anything else? 20 A. I know that there have been other, for 21 example, wind driven erosion has been cited, but I have 22 not been asked to look into that. 23 Q. When you say pumping events, what precisely 24 do you mean? 25 A. When the pumps are turned on to drain -- to 60 1 lower the water table because of excess rainfall. 2 Q. When you just said basin wide monitoring, 3 you used that phrase, what do you have in mind? 4 A. Setting up sampling stations at various 5 points in the EAA. 6 Q. Are there any particular points that you 7 believe are appropriate for monitoring? 8 A. Well, the pumping stations from the 9 secondary into the primary canals would be a logical 10 choice, but probably some monitoring at the farm level 11 would also be appropriate. 12 Q. And what precisely should be measured or 13 monitored? 14 A. Total suspended solids and dissolved and 15 particulate phosphorus could be measured. 16 Q. What is your definition of total suspended 17 solids? 18 A. It really becomes defined by the method in 19 which it's measured, so usually by filtration. So it 20 establishes a lower particle size that would be 21 collected in the filter and so it would exist as 22 suspended material rather than dissolved material. 23 Q. For the measurements that you referred to 24 before in the tables here, I believe it was on -- did 25 any of the tables you referred to reference total 61 1 suspended solids? 2 A. Table one has total suspended solids. 3 Q. That's on page -- 4 A. On page 12. 5 Q. Well, let's start with table one on page 12. 6 Who prepared the data that's referenced in that table? 7 A. Hutcheon Engineers. 8 Q. You didn't have anything to do with it? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you have any opinion about the accuracy 11 of that data? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Do you have any opinion about the 14 relationship between -- well, let me step back. 15 What is your definition of a total 16 particulate for phosphorus? Do you have a definition 17 of that? 18 A. Again, I believe the test that establishes 19 that is a filtration test, but I'm not familiar with 20 that testing procedure. 21 Q. And -- 22 A. As a matter of fact, I believe that it was 23 measured by taking the difference between total 24 phosphorus and dissolve phosphorus. Yes. You'll find 25 on page 21 particulate phosphorus was calculated as 62 1 total phosphorus minus dissolved phosphorus. 2 Q. Do you agree with that approach? 3 A. I have no opinion on that. 4 Q. Is there a distinction between settleable 5 and nonsettleable particles in the water column? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Could you describe that distinction for me? 8 A. Well, as the name implies, settleable simply 9 means that the particles will settle out of the water 10 column. Much smaller sizes with lower specific gravity 11 may not settle. 12 Q. And in measuring the so-called particulate 13 difference, the difference between total dissolved 14 phosphorus and total phosphorus, are you accounting for 15 that distinction between settleable and nonsettleable 16 materials? 17 MR. GAINES: I object to the form as far as 18 what he's accounting for. He didn't do any of those 19 studies, but go ahead. 20 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Do you believe that this 21 data accounts for that distinction? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Have you made any evaluation of that? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you relied upon the data in this table 63 1 to form any of your opinions? 2 A. No. As I said, I haven't been asked to form 3 an expert opinion at this point. 4 Q. Do you have an opinion as to the amount of 5 -- well, the extent of the phosphorus problem that's 6 attributable to sediment transport? 7 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. 8 MR. GUZY: What's the basis? 9 MR. GAINES: The implication that there's 10 some phosphorus problem, quote, unquote, we've 11 established that here. But, I mean, if you understand 12 what he's driving at, you can answer the question. 13 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Well, let me rephrase it. We 14 have been talking about your evaluation of phosphorus 15 in the Everglades Agricultural Area and the Everglades 16 Protection Area this morning. Do you understand that, 17 and that's I think a phrase that you used, am I right 18 about that? 19 A. I don't recall using that phrase. 20 Q. Okay. What was your assignment essentially 21 from Dave Stewart? 22 A. The original assignment was to provide them 23 some guidance primarily in data monitoring to help them 24 evaluate the impact of sediments and associated 25 phosphorus loads. Subsequently, my role became one of 64 1 education in providing a discussion to SAGE to help 2 educate them about the role of sediments. 3 Q. The impact of sediments and associated 4 phosphorus load on what? 5 A. On water quality. 6 Q. Where? 7 A. No specific location. 8 Q. In the Everglades Agricultural Area? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you have an opinion as to the relative 11 contribution of phosphorus and sediment to the problem 12 as you just defined it or to the task as you've just 13 defined it? 14 A. I don't know the answer to that at this 15 point. I think that's a question that needs to be 16 answered. 17 Q. Have you made any evaluation of that? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you intend to make any evaluation of 20 that? 21 A. Only if sufficient data -- if I'm asked to 22 and if data are provided to me. 23 Q. What data would you require to make that 24 evaluation? 25 A. I think, again, that a data monitoring 65 1 program needs to be set up over the whole EAA in the 2 primary secondary and farm canals to do a kind of 3 phosphorus balance to find out where it's coming from, 4 where it's going. 5 Q. Can I ask you to look again at table one on 6 page 12. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In order to form the opinion that we have 9 been talking about, what is not present in the data 10 that's here that you feel you would need? 11 MR. GAINES: I want to be clear. You're 12 asking him what he would need to form an opinion as to 13 what proportion of the phosphorus in EAA water is 14 particulate phosphorus, is that your question? 15 MR. GUZY: Yes. 16 THE WITNESS: I understood the question to 17 be what portion comes from the EAA as particulate 18 phosphorus. Is that what you meant? 19 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) No, that was not what I 20 meant. I'm sorry if you understood it that way. What 21 I was asking what portion of the phosphorus from the 22 EAA is particulate. Did you understand my question? 23 A. You mean what percentage of phosphorus 24 measurements. I think that's discussed here. You'll 25 see a column there which gives percentages and there's 66 1 discussion by various people in the report about that. 2 Q. So is there any other data that you feel you 3 would need in order to evaluate that question? 4 MR. GAINES: I just object to that type of 5 question because I don't think you're putting enough 6 detail into it that he could meaningfully answer that. 7 Are you talking about a particular point, EAA wide, you 8 know, at certain pumps stations. I don't think you're 9 giving him enough information to give you a meaningful 10 answer. 11 MR. GUZY: Well, that's something he can 12 tell me. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I already said 14 that the sampling needs to be done basin wide, 15 including the water coming into the EAA, the water 16 going out of the EAA, the pumping stations, the primary 17 and the secondary and the farm canals. 18 Q. (By Mr. GUZY) And do you understand the 19 data represented on table one to be a more limited 20 effort than what you've just described? 21 A. That was an experiment essentially to see 22 how the sediment was being carried into the water 23 column and what kinds of monitoring methods would work 24 best. 25 Q. Do you have an opinion on whether the 67 1 percentage of particulate phosphorus as a percentage of 2 total phosphorus whether the figures represented in 3 table one can fairly be extrapulated to the entire EAA? 4 A. I don't think they can. 5 Q. Why is that? 6 A. This is only one location. I'm sorry. It's 7 three locations. 8 Q. And I believe you testified, please correct 9 me if I'm wrong, that you're not aware of where these 10 locations are? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And you didn't have any input into the 13 selection of those locations? 14 A. No, not at all. 15 Q. So you wouldn't know whether these locations 16 might be representative of one particular kind of farm 17 practice or another? 18 A. No. 19 MR. GUZY: Let me mark this as Exhibit 20 3, please. 21 (Whereupon, the court 22 reporter marked 23 Respondent-Intervenor's 24 Exhibit No. 3 for 25 identification.) 68 1 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) I would ask you to take a 2 look at this exhibit, please, and let's start have you 3 ever seen that exhibit before? 4 A. No, I haven't, unless some of this was 5 presented at the SAGE Committee meeting by Hank 6 Andreis. Some of these slides look familiar from his 7 presentation. 8 Q. Let me ask you specifically to look at pages 9 2 and 3 and let me know when you've had an opportunity 10 to review those. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. Have you ever seen either of these tables 13 before? 14 A. Not in written form. I may have seen them 15 in a presentation by Hank Andreis. 16 Q. Did you rely upon any of the data in these 17 tables? 18 A. No, I had no access to these tables. 19 Q. Again, in assessing the percentage of total 20 particulate EAA -- total phosphorus in particulate EAA 21 wide, would you believe these tables to be 22 representative of that question? 23 A. I can't answer that because I don't know 24 where these locations are. They're numbered one 25 through eleven. I have no idea. 69 1 Q. You haven't done any evaluation of that? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you have any preliminary conclusions as 4 to a rough percentage EAA wide of total phosphorus in 5 particulate? 6 A. No. 7 MR. GAINES: Jerry, I don't know what your 8 intention is on how long you think you might be, but I 9 would just assume if you think you're like, you know, 10 within an hour or two, I would just assume go right 11 through lunch. 12 MR. GUZY: No, I think I have pretty much 13 most of the afternoon. So any point that you want to 14 break for lunch is fine, we're flexible about it. It's 15 really up to you. 16 MR. GAINES: That's fine with us. 17 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 18 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Do you have an opinion, 19 Dr. Sturm, about the appropriate professional method 20 for measuring the percentage of total phosphorus in 21 particulate? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Is that kind of measurement something you 24 would typically do in assessing the viability of 25 cleaning up sediments? 70 1 A. I don't understand the question. It's a 2 measurement that would be made but not one that I 3 necessarily would be involved in. 4 Q. And who would make it? 5 A. A field team would be responsible for taking 6 the sample and then they usually transmit those to 7 Analytical Laboratories to evaluate those chemicals 8 constituents. 9 Q. How about for total suspended solids. Do 10 you have a similar kind of opinion? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. You don't have an opinion is what you're 13 saying? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. For total dissolved phosphorus? 16 A. No, I have no opinion about the analytical 17 methods that were used. 18 Q. Have you formed any opinion about whether 19 phosphorus in sediments in the EAA can be controlled at 20 all? 21 MR. GAINES: Phosphorus in sediments? 22 MR. GUZY: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: To the extent that phosphorus 24 is absorbs by a sediment and sediment BMPs that can 25 control that sediment, then some measure of control 71 1 would be possible. 2 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Do you have any opinion about 3 what that measure of control is? 4 A. No. You mean how much control is possible? 5 Q. How much control is possible. 6 A. No. 7 Q. And have you attempted to evaluate that at 8 all? 9 A. No. 10 Q. What kind of information would you need to 11 make that assessment? 12 A. One possible avenue would be the farm 13 demonstration projects that were proposed in which 14 specific BMPs would be carried out on specific farms 15 and monitoring would be carried out to see how 16 effective they were. 17 Q. Would your assessment of the control depend 18 upon the chemistry of the situation at all or is what 19 you're telling me that it really depends upon certain 20 practical success in the field? 21 A. Since one doesn't know exactly where 22 sediments is coming from, it's difficult to predict in 23 advance how effective a sediment BMP would be. So one 24 way to short circuit that is to measure directly, to 25 monitor directly the effect of it. 72 1 Q. That hasn't been done you're saying? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. And you haven't attempted to do that? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Is there any parameter for the amount of 6 monitoring you would want to do, a time frame before 7 you can make that assessment before you in your 8 professional judgment would be comfortable in making 9 that assessment? 10 MR. GAINES: I object to the form. I'm 11 losing track of specifically what assessment it is 12 you're asking him about. Are you asking him about the 13 amount that sediment can be controlled, is that it? 14 MR. GUZY: Amount or efficiency of control. 15 THE WITNESS: Are we talking about farm 16 demonstration projects? 17 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Yeah. That was what you were 18 talking about. 19 A. Well, I think one would need to go through a 20 complete year through the growing seasons and the 21 change in the climate during that year's time, seasonal 22 changes. 23 Q. Do you have an understanding of the thermal 24 phosphorus? 25 A. Only to the extent that it is a term to 73 1 describe phosphate ions. 2 Q. In your opinion or do you have any opinion 3 about whether particle size plays a role in designing 4 means of controlling phosphorus in sediments? 5 A. Sediment size is important along with 6 specific gravity in determining the flow velocity in 7 designing flow sedimentation basins and in determining 8 the threshold conditions of which movement of those 9 sediments begin. 10 Q. And have you made any assessment of sediment 11 size relative to phosphorus in either water measurement 12 district canals or farm ditches? 13 A. No, I have not. 14 Q. In your opinion, what size particles are 15 included in the phrase "total suspended solids"? 16 MR. GAINES: As used where? 17 MR. GUZY: As he would use it. 18 MR. GAINES: Just generically? 19 MR. GUZY: Yeah. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't recall the exact 21 filter sizes used. It's in the order of a few microns. 22 I don't remember. 23 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Do you have an opinion about 24 whether there is a lower limit of particle size that 25 can successfully be controlled? 74 1 A. Controlled by what means? 2 Q. What I mean is in trying to seek a solution 3 to the problem of phosphorus in sediments or to -- 4 let's not characterize it as a problem, but to the 5 existence of phosphorus in sediments, is there some, in 6 your opinion, is there some lower limit of particle 7 size that can be addressed? 8 A. That's the difference between plain 9 sedimentation and chemical. At the lower size limit 10 the only way to get it to settle is to cause it to 11 flocculate by chemical addition. 12 Q. And your evaluation or expertise or opinions 13 are limited to plain sedimentation? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. What would occur naturally? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. And what is the lower limit of what would 18 occur naturally? 19 A. In a sediment basin, for example, that 20 depends on the through flow rate, but in general, 21 particle sizes of the order of the clay sizes are 22 difficult to remove by plain sedimentation. 23 Q. How on the order of clay sizes? Can you 24 specify that any way? 25 A. Smaller than two microns. 75 1 Q. Smaller than two microns. And how does -- 2 A. I didn't say impossible but difficult to get 3 a high efficiency of removal. 4 Q. And how does the particulate phosphorus that 5 we're talking about here compare in size to the two 6 micron order? 7 A. I don't have any information about the size 8 of the particulate phosphorus or the size of the 9 sediment particles to which it may be absorbed. 10 Q. Is that information which you would need in 11 order to assess the success of particulate control 12 measures? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And I take it you haven't been asked to make 15 that assessment? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And you haven't yourself undertaken to make 18 that assessment? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know if anyone has? 21 A. I don't think so. I have suggested that it 22 be done, but I don't think that anyone has done it. 23 Q. And who did you make that suggestion to? 24 A. I discussed that with Hutcheon Engineers. 25 Q. When did you make that suggestion? 76 1 A. It would have been at one of our meetings. 2 I don't know which one. 3 Q. Would particle size of the particulate 4 phosphorus have any bearing upon which control methods, 5 which natural control methods might be successful? 6 A. Well, specifically, I don't know which 7 control methods you're referring to. For example, if 8 we talk about bank erosion of farm laterals, then if 9 one protects the banks of those with appropriate cover, 10 then size becomes less of an issue. If one uses cover 11 crops to hold them in place, size goes out of the 12 equation to a certain extent. Those are the examples 13 that come to mind. 14 Q. Are you familiar with proposals to remove 15 sediments from Water Management District canals? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Are you familiar with proposals to remove 18 sediments on farm ditches? 19 A. Proposals by whom? 20 Q. Well, did you make any evaluation of such 21 proposals on farm ditches? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Were such proposals among those that 24 Mr. Andreis presented at the meeting you were at I 25 believe in June of 1992? 77 1 A. I only recall him mentioning sediment traps 2 as one means, but nothing in primary or secondary 3 canals. 4 Q. Do you have any opinion about whether such 5 removal would be successful as a means of phosphorus 6 control? 7 A. It could be, but without the means to 8 evaluate it, I can't answer that. 9 MR. GAINES: You need to let him ask his 10 whole question before you start to answer or she is 11 going to have a heart attack. 12 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 13 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) I would like you to look, 14 again, at what's been marked as Exhibit No. 3, please. 15 And now to the best of your recollection, are the 16 various so-called sediment reducing practices presented 17 in the report ones that you recall were outlined by 18 Mr. Adreas at that meeting? 19 A. I'll have to look at them. 20 MR. GAINES: Are you talking about that June 21 meeting? 22 MR. GUZY: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: Most of these look familiar to 24 me in the presentation. 25 Q. (By Mr. Guzy. Were there any other possible 78 1 approaches for sediment control that were discussed at 2 that June meeting that are not in this report? 3 A. Not to my recollection. 4 Q. I would like to refer you to page 35 and 36. 5 Do you have any understanding of what strong canal 6 cleaning program signifies, what that contemplates? 7 A. I assume that means dredging of the canals. 8 Q. Do you know which canals? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you have any opinion about the best or 11 most successful means for doing that to control 12 phosphorus in sediments? 13 A. The most successful means of dredging? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Not about the methodology itself. I think 16 it's a good idea. 17 Q. Why is it that you think it's a good idea? 18 A. Because I think it's highly likely that the 19 sediments that presently have been deposited in the 20 bottom before subjected to resuspension at later times. 21 Q. Can you explain to me how that works, how 22 resuspension works? 23 A. After the sediment has settled and 24 consolidated, it may still be subject to 25 transportation. Again, wherever the forcing function 79 1 becomes larger than the resisting function, 2 effectively, whenever high pumping rates are 3 encountered that would tend to dislodge individual 4 particles and suspends them into the flow. 5 Q. Are there any other instances when that test 6 that you just stated would also be met other than high 7 pumping? 8 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. 9 Q. Well, for example, would a high rain flow 10 event have the same effect? 11 A. The area is so flat that there is no real 12 runoff into the canal, it's pumped into the canal. So 13 rainfall -- in ordinary circumstances, rainfall events 14 would give rise to runoff and cause resuspension, but 15 in this case the drainage occurs by pumping, not by 16 gravity. 17 Q. Do you know if any canal cleaning either 18 primary or secondary is now being done? 19 A. I only know that it was discussed -- or 20 presented at the SAGE meeting and I don't know if it's 21 under way or not. 22 Q. Do you konw if it had been done prior to the 23 is SAGE meeting? 24 A. So far as I know there was no new program 25 other than the ordinary on farm canal maintenance that 80 1 was undertaken. In other words, there is no monitoring 2 involved. 3 Q. What is your understanding of ordinary on 4 farm canal maintenance? 5 A. My only information about that comes from 6 riding around with Dave Stewart from the EAA and his 7 telling me that the farmers do occasionally maintain 8 the canals. So I don't know with what frequency. 9 Q. Do you know how they do it? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know if their maintenance involves 12 removal of sediments? 13 A. Yes. I mean, that's what I was told. 14 Q. And do you know how long they have been 15 doing that for? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know what they do with the sediments? 18 A. My understanding is they spread it back on 19 the fields. 20 Q. Do you believe that to be -- do you have an 21 opinion about whether that is a recommended sediment -- 22 recommended control strategy for reducing phosphorus in 23 sediments, spreading it back on the fields? 24 A. Provided measures are introduced to prevent 25 it from getting back into the canals. I think that's a 81 1 possible disposal means. 2 Q. What is your opinion as to -- or do you have 3 an opinion as to what measures are appropriate to 4 prevent it from getting back into the canals? 5 A. Examples I think are these sediment BMPs. 6 Q. By "these sediment BMPs," you mean what? 7 A. Exhibit No. 3. 8 Q. Of the various ones that are described in 9 this report? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is there anything about the placement of 12 those sediments in particular on the fields that should 13 be followed in your opinion to minimize them getting 14 back into the canals? 15 A. I have no opinion about that. 16 Q. Do you have an opinion about the frequency 17 with which canal cleanage should occur? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Is that because you haven't evaluated the 20 situation for the EAA? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What information would you need to make that 23 evaluation? 24 A. The rate at which the sediments are 25 accumulated. 82 1 Q. How would you go about assessing that rate? 2 A. By field sampling program in which bottom 3 sediments are sampled and their depths determined. 4 Q. Is it necessary to sample over time? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What time period is reliable in your 7 professional judgment? 8 A. Well, it would again depend on the rate at 9 which they're being accumulated. If they're being 10 accumulated very slowly, then it would take a long time 11 to obtain a measurable amount. 12 Q. For the EAA canals do you have any 13 preliminary thoughts about that? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Once a canal has been cleaned in the means 16 that we have been talking about by removal of 17 sediments, do you have an opinion about whether the 18 phosphorus reduction yield that's been attained is 19 sustainable? 20 MR. GAINES: I mean, if you can answer the 21 question, that's fine. I object to the form. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't understand. 23 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Well, once a canal is 24 cleaned, you spoke before about your concern -- let me 25 make sure I'm right about this -- your concern being 83 1 that phosphorus in the sediments may become 2 resuspended. Is that a fair statement? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If the sediments are removed and there's not 5 phosphorus in there, does the canal then reach some 6 kind of equilibrium? Do the sediments or the canal 7 bottom reach an equilibrium as far as resuspension of 8 phosphorus? 9 MR. GAINES: I don't understand your 10 question, so I'll object to the form. But if you 11 understand his question, you can answer it. 12 THE WITNESS: I'm still not sure I 13 understand. If what you mean is that resuspension of 14 sediments will stop if you prevent further sediments 15 from coming in, the answer is yes. 16 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) That's what I meant. Yes. 17 For sediments that are taken out of the canals, are 18 they dewatered somehow before they're placed back on 19 the farm fields? 20 A. I have no knowledge of how that's done. 21 Q. Does soil provide some filtering capacity 22 for sediments? 23 A. I don't understand the question. 24 Q. Well, I'm wondering if you take sediments 25 out of a canal and they're laid in with particles of 84 1 all different sizes, I take it, is that a fair 2 assumption? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And there's, let's assume, that out with the 5 sediments comes some amount of water as well. And if 6 that combination of sediment and water is placed on the 7 farm fields again, will some of that water then drain 8 back into the canals? 9 A. It's possible because obviously the high 10 water table is how the whole system works. 11 Q. Will some of the sediments drain back into 12 the canal? 13 A. Not likely. 14 Q. Why is that? 15 A. Because they would have to percolate through 16 the existing soil matrix. 17 Q. Is there a minimum size that the soil matrix 18 is successful in holding back, essentially in 19 preventing from percolating? 20 A. I can't answer that. That's too 21 hypothetical. 22 Q. Well, do you know know what the minimum size 23 particle is that soil is a successful entrainer of? 24 A. Soil covers such a wide range, I can't 25 answer that. 85 1 Q. How about for EAA muck soils, do you have an 2 opinion as to that? 3 A. No, I don't. 4 Q. Have you done any evaluation of it? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you have an understanding of the term 7 "digested sample"? 8 A. No. 9 MR. GAINES: Digested or digestive? 10 MR. GUZY: Digested. 11 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Have you ever encountered 12 that term in your professional work? 13 A. The term "digested"? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Not in my own work, no. I mean, it's a term 16 used in treatment. 17 Q. In treatment? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And how is it used there? 20 A. It usually means a transformation by some 21 chemical process of a contaminant from one form to 22 another. 23 Q. Have you encountered that term in relation 24 to phosphorus? 25 A. No. 86 1 Q. In relation to phosphorus sampling? 2 A. No. I haven't done phosphorus sampling. 3 Q. I may have asked you this before, but please 4 bear with me if I have. Have you made any assessment 5 of the size of the phosphorus -- the particulate 6 phosphorus that's of concern in the EAA? 7 A. No, I haven't. 8 Q. And let me ask you do you know how you would 9 go about making that assessment? 10 A. Assessing the -- 11 Q. Size -- 12 A. -- size? 13 Q. -- of a particulate phosphorus sample. 14 A. I'm not familiar with those analytical 15 techniques. 16 Q. So you would rely upon others to do that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I take it you didn't ask anyone to do that 19 kind of evaluation, did you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Other than what you spoke about before your 22 conversation with Mr. Stewart about particle size in 23 general? 24 A. What was the question? 25 Q. I said other than what you told me before 87 1 about your conversation with Mr. Stewart about the need 2 to assess particle size in general. 3 A. That was the only discussion we had, yes. 4 Q. Do you have any opinion about the relative 5 success of removing phosphorus from primary versus 6 secondary canals as a phosphorus particle or sediment 7 control strategy? 8 A. Removal by what means? 9 Q. Whatever means is appropriate. I'm not 10 specifying the means in my question. 11 A. No, I can't assess which would be more 12 important. One has to be able to evaluate the amount 13 of flux from the secondary system into the primary 14 system and to know what flux is coming into the primary 15 system from the lake. 16 Q. And you haven't done that? 17 A. No. 18 Q. And, again, would the kind of monitoring 19 you've been talking about be necessary in order to do 20 that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What was the purpose as far as your work was 23 concerned of Mr. Andreas' presentation of these various 24 BMP strategies? 25 MR. GAINES: The purposes as far as his work 88 1 was concerned? 2 MR. GUZY: Yes. 3 THE WITNESS: I had no input into those. 4 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Did you use what he presented 5 to you to do anything? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You didn't use the information you learned 8 at all? 9 A. No. My role was in the SAGE presentation to 10 provide a kind of background for the viability of 11 sediment BMPs within the sediment mechanisms by which 12 sediment moves. 13 Q. So have you provided any evaluation of the 14 viability of any of the BMPs that are listed in Exhibit 15 3? 16 A. No, I have not. 17 Q. Do you have any opinion as to the viability 18 of any of those techniques now? 19 A. I think that some of them would work, but I 20 have no way of knowing which might be more successful. 21 Q. Are there ones in particular that you 22 believe would work? 23 A. The use of cover crops and the lining of 24 ditch banks would be successful I think. 25 Q. But when you use the phrase "successful" or 89 1 when you say it would work, I just want to be clear on 2 what you're saying. Are you saying that it would 3 achieve some measure of reduction of phosphorus in 4 sediments, is that what you mean? 5 A. I think so, but I'm only speculating. I 6 have no data. Those measures have worked in other 7 situations. 8 Q. Do you have any opinion about the degree of 9 success of those measures? 10 A. No, I don't. 11 Q. And as to the other BMPs which are presented 12 in this report that you didn't just mention, other than 13 cover crops and ditch bank vegetation -- 14 A. Or rock lining. 15 Q. -- or rock lining, you would add to that 16 list? 17 A. (Witness nodding head.) 18 Q. That's rock lining of the canals themselves? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Other than those techniques, do you have any 21 opinion about whether the BMPs presented in this report 22 would be viable control strategies? 23 A. Well, I'm not going to go through them one 24 by one, but I mean, canal cleaning is included here, I 25 think that's a possibility. You know, several of these 90 1 are all reasonable possibliities, but one has no way of 2 predicting how effective they would be. 3 Q. Are there any in here that you would rule 4 out as possibilities? Just for ease of reference, 5 there is a table of contents that lists them all right 6 at the beginning. You might find that easier. 7 A. I don't think I would rule out any of them. 8 Q. Can you describe for me how rock lining is 9 done? That was one of the three that you particularly 10 mentioned. How is that done? 11 A. Rock riprap is a standard lining procedure 12 for river banks and canal banks and it's usually called 13 bumped rock riprap is one method where the rock is 14 simply dumped and placed on the canal bank. Sometimes 15 a filter is used to prevent the underlining sediment 16 from leaving through the riprap, and the purpose 17 obviously is to place larger size rocks which are 18 resistent to movement. 19 Q. Do you have any opinion about the cost of 20 that technique? 21 A. No. 22 Q. In general, is evaluation of the economic 23 aspects, the cost of various control techniques 24 something that you regard within your area of 25 expertise? 91 1 A. No. 2 MR. GUZY: Off the record for a second. 3 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.) 4 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Dr. Sturm, what factors do 5 you believe influence movement of phosphorus out of the 6 sediments in the primary and secondary canals? 7 A. Well, there are physical factors, like, the 8 rate of pumping and even so far as that goes in the 9 primary canals the rate at which the irrigation water 10 moves through the system. Then I think there are 11 probably other chemical and biological reactions 12 involved as well, but those are not in my area of of 13 expertise. 14 Q. Do you have a sense of about what those are, 15 what some of those other factors are? 16 A. I would rather not speculate on something 17 that's not really my area. 18 Q. When you said irrigation water may influence 19 it in the secondary canals, is that right? Is that 20 what you said? 21 A. Actually I was referring to the primary 22 canals. 23 Q. Primary canals. That's my mistake. That's 24 an action that's independent of the pumping? 25 A. Well, the flows are adjusted so as to 92 1 provide necessary irrigation water when the farmers 2 call for it. 3 Q. I want to be clear that I understand. Are 4 you saying that there's a distinction between moving 5 water off the fields and moving water onto the fields, 6 is that what you're driving at? 7 A. In terms of the direction of sediment 8 movement, yes. 9 Q. How do you describe rates of pumping, what 10 measure do you use? 11 A. Of volume per unit time. So gallons per 12 minute, cubic feet per second. 13 Q. And for the EAA canals, what is a relevant 14 measure? 15 A. Either of those would be ways of measuring. 16 Q. And is there one that you typically use? 17 A. I usually use cubic feet per second. 18 Q. Is that because it's a handier measure for 19 some reason? 20 A. Only in the sense that gallons per minute 21 can become a very large number. 22 Q. Is there a range of cubic feet per second at 23 which phosphorus in the sediments becomes mobilized? 24 A. Well, indirectly it is instead a function of 25 the velocity or the sheer stress existing near the 93 1 canal bottom and then that's affected by the rate of 2 volume flux or flow. 3 Q. And in lay terms here sheer stress means 4 what? 5 A. Means a force parallel to a surface per unit 6 area. 7 Q. Now in that indirect relationship that 8 you've described, how does that translate into a rate 9 of pumping, if can you do it -- or I'm sorry, a rate of 10 flow in let's take the primary canals first for 11 mobilization of phosphorus? 12 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. When you're 13 talking about a mobilization of phosphorus, you're 14 talking about of sediment -- 15 MR. GUZY: Yes. 16 MR. GAINES: -- or of phosphorus in 17 particular? 18 MR. GUZY: Of particulate phosphorus. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. The question again, 20 would you repeat the question? 21 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) I don't know that I can. You 22 described what you said was an indirect relationship. 23 A. Mm-hmm. 24 Q. Is there a way to translate back to it a 25 rate of flow that would reflect when you have movements 94 1 of particulate phosphorus let's start with in the 2 primary canals? 3 A. Yes, there is a computation method for doing 4 that. 5 Q. Have you done that computation? 6 A. No, I haven't. 7 Q. Do you have a rough ballpark guesstimate of 8 what that rate of flow is? 9 A. No. 10 Q. How about for the secondary canals. Is it 11 the same answers that you haven't done that 12 computation? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And that you don't have a rough ballpark 15 estimate of what the rates of flow that would lead to 16 mobilization would be? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. In your professional judgment do you believe 19 it's necessary to understand that relationship, the 20 rates -- 21 A. Yes, I do. Sorry. 22 Q. Go ahead. You believe it's necessary to 23 understand the rates in order to form what opinions? 24 A. In order to form the opinions about whether 25 this sediment is mobile or remains stationary. 95 1 Q. And how about in order to assess the 2 viability of control techniques? 3 A. Well, it affects some control techniques, 4 like, in canal sediment traps, whereas, other 5 techniques, say, ditch bank lining may of a level that 6 the flow rate variation that we're talking about 7 wouldn't affect it. 8 Q. Do you believe that there are a range of 9 preferred pumping rates that could be used to minimize 10 phosphorus mobilization? 11 A. Yes, I think one could find a range of 12 pumping rates that would minimize the mobilization. 13 Q. Have you ever been asked to do that? 14 A. No. I wasn't really involved in the pumping 15 BMP development. 16 Q. Is it your understanding of the pumping 17 practices in the EAA that they are essentially rain 18 driven events? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what is the primary determinant of when 21 the pumps are turned on and when they're turned off? 22 A. I asked that question myself and the answer 23 I received was that the farm management makes that 24 decision. 25 Q. Based upon what? 96 1 A. His experience. 2 Q. What is he trying to achieve? 3 A. Well, he doesn't want to flood his crop. 4 Q. So the water level, water table? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That's the primary? 7 A. Yes, one would monitor the water table level 8 and the soil moisture if it were being done on an 9 analytical basis. 10 Q. Based upon that, are there certain rain 11 driven events where the flow rate may be such that it 12 has the effect of mobilizing sediments? 13 MR. GAINES: You mean regardless of any 14 pumping, just the rain event itself? 15 MR. GUZY: No, I'm speaking about -- 16 MR. GAINES: Oh, in connection with the 17 pumping? 18 MR. GUZY: -- in connection with the pumping 19 principles that he's just testified to. 20 MR. GAINES: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I quite 22 understood. Would you repeat the question? 23 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Let me try it a little bit 24 differently. Can you describe for me what you 25 understand to be the pumping practice BMPs that could 97 1 be used to attempt to control particulate phosphorus? 2 A. My understanding is that pumping schedules 3 would be developed in which the pumping rates would be 4 reduced and extended over longer durations so as to 5 move the same amount of water off the fields and 6 perhaps extend the period of time during which it was 7 being done. 8 Q. Okay. And as that relates to your 9 particular area of expertise, is it a fair statement to 10 say that that has the effect of reducing flows which 11 leads to less mobilization of the phosphorus? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now if you have a rain driven pumping event 14 where flows have to be increased to move water off of 15 the fields, how do you assure that you don't get 16 mobilization of a phosphorus? 17 A. In principle one would try to hold the 18 velocities in the drainage canals to values below that 19 to mobilize the settlement. So again, that's the same 20 calculation we were talking about previously. 21 Q. And was implicit in your answer the fact 22 that in practice that might not be feasible given the 23 goal of maintaining a certain desirable water level? 24 A. I think I said it would be feasible, didn't 25 I? 98 1 Q. You said in principle this is what you would 2 do. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I'm asking in practice based upon what. You 5 know about the farm fields and what you've learned on 6 your visits with the EAA, is that always possible given 7 the goal of maintaining water level at a certain point? 8 A. Is it always possible is your question? 9 Q. Yeah. Are there just big rain storms. I'm 10 talking about what happens when there's a big 11 rainstorm, they have to move a lot of water off the 12 field. How does that affect the pumping practices of 13 BMP? 14 A. Well, I suppose there are certain situations 15 in which the volume of water to be moved might exceed 16 some critical limit. So one couldn't say that it would 17 be effective 100 percent of the time, but it certainly 18 would be more effective than the present practice. 19 Q. More effective than not doing anything? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And have you made any effort to assess the 22 reliability of the pumping practices and technique 23 based upon what we have been talking about about 24 rainfall events? 25 A. I have made no quantitative evaluation of 99 1 the effectiveness of the pumping in relationship to the 2 size of the rainfall that would be typical. 3 Q. Have you made any quantitative evaluation of 4 that? 5 A. No. 6 Q. No evaluation? 7 A. No. I believe that Hutcheon Engineers did 8 that, but I have not seen such a report. 9 Q. What leads you to believe that? 10 A. My understanding is that a certain kind of 11 model, computer model was developed to help schedule 12 the pumping rates, but I don't know anything about 13 that. 14 Q. Has anyone ever asked you to engage in that 15 kind of evaluation? 16 A. No. 17 Q. What information would be necessary for you 18 to make that evaluation? 19 MR. GAINES: Is your question to make that 20 evaluation just in a vacuum without any reference to 21 any specific area or farm or location? 22 MR. GUZY: No, we're taking about in EAA. 23 MR. GAINES: Well, I mean, the EAA is a 24 pretty big place. Are you talking generically across 25 the EAA? 100 1 MR. GUZY: Yes. I'm not necessarily saying 2 for the entire EAA, but however you think it's 3 appropriately done. 4 THE WITNESS: How would the effectiveness be 5 evaluated, is that your question? 6 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Yeah. What information would 7 you need to evaluate the effectiveness or to make the 8 kind of determination of when you have rainfall events 9 that might require departure from pumping practice 10 BMPs? 11 A. Well, I think there are many pieces of 12 information you would need. For example, how long can 13 the crop tolerate the flood waters, how far below -- 14 how far down does the water table have to be drawn, so 15 that would give you an estimate of what volume of water 16 has to be moved. You would have to know the frequency 17 depth relationship for rainfall in the area and 18 establish a certain design storm. You would have to 19 develop a model of all the interconnected canals and 20 how they function together as an unit and develop a 21 model of pumping rates and whether or not the sediment 22 would be mobilized under those conditions. 23 Q. Is there some way that you are able to 24 describe the relationship between flow and suspended 25 solids coming out of the EAA? 101 1 MR. GAINES: Again, you asked these 2 questions in a very broad generic way and I think that 3 any serious analysis of the EAA is much more specific 4 than that, but I guess maybe you're asking -- 5 MR. GUZY: This was intended to be broad. 6 MR. GAINES: -- him for a formula? 7 MR. GUZY: Yeah, if there is one. 8 MR. GAINES: Or some relationship? 9 THE WITNESS: Such formulas have been 10 developed in many rivers in the United States where one 11 correlates flow rate and sediment discharge or flow 12 rate and sediment concentration, primarily, louvial 13 rivers. However, it is an oversimplification because 14 there is a lot involved in these things more than just 15 that simple correlation. And so typically you see a 16 lot of scattering in the data when you try to do that. 17 Q. (By Mr. Guzy) Have you completed your 18 answer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you attempted to do that here? 21 A. No, I was not asked to do any kind of 22 evaluation like that. 23 Q. Is there an equation that you -- sort of a 24 standard equation that you cite to when you try and 25 make that kind -- when you try to do that kind of 102 1 evaluation? 2 A. No, -- well, there are equations by which 3 one can calculate sediment transport, but the 4 relationship that I was just speaking of is one that's 5 established using experimental data, field collected 6 data. 7 Q. Do you know if anyone has done that for the 8 EAA? 9 A. Not to my knowledge, but I have limited 10 access to what has been done. 11 Q. Have you provided any advice concerning 12 either the width or depth of canals as a sediment 13 control mechanism? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Do you believe that manipulation of either 16 the width or depth o