Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
·1· · · · · · · ·SOAH DOCKET NO. 582-18-3319· · · · · · · · TCEQ Docket No. 2013-1506-MSW·2
·3· APPLICATION BY RANCHO· · · § BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE· · VIEJO WASTE MANAGEMENT,· · §·4· LLC for MUNICIPAL SOLID· · §· · · · · ·OF· · WASTE PERMIT· · · · · · · ·§·5· NO. 2374· · · · · · · · · ·§ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
·6· ·*· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· * *
·7· · · · · · · · · THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF
·8· · · · · · · · · · · DAVID STEITLE
·9· · · · · · · · · · ·January 25, 2019
10· · ·*· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· *· * *11
12· · · · · · ORAL DEPOSITION OF DAVID STEITLE, produced as
13· a witness at the instance of the Hurd Enterprises Ltd.
14· and duly sworn, was taken in the above styled and
15· numbered cause on the 25th day of January 2019,
16· from 8:04 a.m. to 2:47 p.m., before Sandra S. Givens,
17· CSR, in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
18· shorthand method, at the offices of Baker Botts, LLP,
19· 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1500, Austin, Texas
20· 78701, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S
·2
·3· FOR HURD ENTERPRISES, LTD and HURD RANCH COMPANY, LTD
·4· · · ·Mr. Dan Miller· · · · ·Mr. Paul Touch·5· · · ·McElroy Sullivan Miller Weber & Olmstead, LLP· · · · ·1201 Spyglass, Suite 200·6· · · ·Austin, Texas 78746· · · · ·(512) 327-8111·7· · · ·[email protected]· · · · ·[email protected]·8
·9· FOR RANCHO VIEJO WASTE MANAGEMENT, LLC
10· · · ·Mr. Derek McDonald· · · · ·Ms. Paulina Williams11· · · ·Baker Botts, LLP· · · · ·98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 150012· · · ·Austin, Texas 78701· · · · ·(512) 322-250013· · · ·[email protected]· · · · ·[email protected]
15· FOR ANB CATTLE CO., LTD.
16· · · ·Mr. Leon V. Komkov· · · · ·Mr. David Garcia17· · · ·Cardwell Hart & Bennett, LLP· · · · ·807 Brazos, Suite 100118· · · ·Austin, Texas 78701· · · · ·(512) 322-001119· · · ·[email protected]
20· · FOR THE JORDAN GROUP and JEV FAMILY, LTD.21· · · · ·Mr. James M. Richardson22· · · ·Ms. Emily Gerald· · · · ·Ms. Riley Brown23· · · ·Richardson Firm, PLLC· · · · ·1509 West 6th Street, Suite A24· · · ·Austin, Texas 78703· · · · ·(512) 499-887925· · · ·[email protected]
·1· FOR SPILL
·2· · · ·Ms. Marisa Perales· · · · ·Frederick Perales Allmon @ Rockwall, PC·3· · · ·1206 San Antonio Street· · · · ·Austin, Texas 78701·4· · · ·(512) 469-6000· · · · ·[email protected]·5
·6· FOR THE WALKER GROUP
·7· · · ·Ms. Mary Whittle· · · · ·Guerrero @ Whittle, PLLC·8· · · ·2630 Exposition Blvd., Suite 102· · · · ·Austin, Texas 78703·9· · · ·(512) 605-2300· · · · ·[email protected]
11· FOR JOB PARTNERS
12· · · ·Mr. Joseph S. Cohen· · · · ·Rosenthal Law Firm, PLLC13· · · ·675 Bering Drive, Suite 150· · · · ·Houston, Texas 7705714· · · ·(713) 647-8177· · · · ·[email protected]
16· FOR WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS
17· · · ·Mr. J. Eric Magee· · · · ·Allison Bass & Magee18· · · ·A.O. Watson Houst· · · · ·402 W. 12th Street19· · · ·Austin, Texas 78701· · · · ·(512) 482-070120· · · ·[email protected]
21· · FOR TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY22· · · · ·Mr. Sheldon P. Wayne23· · · ·Mr. Eli Martinez· · · · ·Office of Public Interest Counsel24· · · ·12100 Park 35 Circle, Bldg. F· · · · ·Austin, Texas 7875325· · · ·(512) 239-3144
·1· · · ·[email protected]· · · · ·[email protected]·2· · ALSO PRESENT:·3· · · · ·Mr. Carlos Benavides·4· · · ·Mr. Mike McInturff
·5
·6
·7
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
·2
·3· Appearances - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
·4· Exhibits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
·5· DAVID STEITLE
·6· · ·Examination by Mr. Miller - - - - - - - - - - - - 7· · · ·Examination by Mr. Richardson - - - - - - - - -· 175·7· · ·Examination by Mr. Komkov - - - - - - - - - - -· 221· · · ·Examination by Ms. Whittle - - - - - - - - - - - 233·8· · Changes and Signature - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 246·9· · Reporter's Certification - - - - - - - - - - - - -· 24810
11
12· · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S
13· · NO.· DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE14
15· Exhibit 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· · 9· · · ·David S. Steitle, PE, Steitle Traffic16· · ·Engineering, Inc. Resume
17· Exhibit 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· · 9· · · ·David C. Steitle, PE Resume18· · Exhibit 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·2719· · ·Excerpt from Applicant's First Supplemental· · · ·Responses to Tex. R. Civ. P. 19420· · ·Requests for Disclosures
21· Exhibit 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·28· · · ·Steitle Traffic Engineering Expert Report22· · Exhibit 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·4423· · ·Figure 9 - Part II, Supplemental Land Use Map· · · ·of Subject Area24· · Exhibit 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·4625· · ·Figure 7 - Part II, Aerial Photograph· · · ·of Subject Area
·1
·2· Exhibit 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·47· · · ·Figure 4 - Part II, Operations Area Layout·3· · Exhibit 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·60·4· · ·Traffic Data Survey, Jordan Road
·5· Exhibit 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· ·37· · · ·Figure 1, Site Access, Appendix 1 - Little·6· · Exhibit 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· 56·7· · ·Handwritten Notes
·8· Exhibit 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 135· · · ·Texas Administrative Code §330.61, Subchapter B·9· · ·Contents of Part II of the Application
10· Exhibit 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 143· · · ·Texas Administrative Code §330.63, Subchapter B11· · ·Contents of Part III of the Application
12· Exhibit 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 146· · · ·Texas Administrative Code §330.153, Subchapter D13· · ·Site Access Roads
14· Exhibit 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 153· · · ·Texas Administrative Code §330.237, Subchapter E15· · ·Facility Access Roads
16· Exhibit 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159· · · ·Six Color Photos of Jordan Road After 1-2 Inch17· · ·Rain Event, Taken by Hurd Ranch Manager, Ron· · · ·Baker18· · Exhibit 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16319· · ·Two Color Photos of the Cattle Guard at the· · · ·Gate to Hurd Ranch on Jordan Road, Second One20· · ·Showing Oilfield Truck on Roadway
21· Exhibit 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 165· · · ·Three Color Photos of a Culvert on Jordan Road22· · Exhibit 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16823· · ·Three Color Photos of Jordan Road and Taken· · · ·on Jordan Road24· · Exhibit 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17025· · ·Two Color Photos on Jordan Road at Railroad· · · ·Crossing
·1
·2· Exhibit 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 172· · · ·3/25/14 Steitle Letter to TxDOT re: Pescadito·3· · ·Environmental Resource Center Access from· · · ·US 59·4
·5
·6
·7
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · · · · · · · · DAVID STEITLE,
·2· having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
·4· BY MR. MILLER:
·5· · · ·Q· · Good morning, Mr. Steitle.
·6· · · ·A· · Good morning.
·7· · · ·Q· · We've met before, I guess about a week or so
·8· ago down at the -- around the site, correct?
·9· · · ·A· · That's correct.
10· · · ·Q· · Have you ever had your deposition taken
11· before?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · How many times?
14· · · ·A· · I estimate maybe 300.
15· · · ·Q· · 300 times?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So you're very familiar with the rules
18· of a deposition?
19· · · ·A· · As it applies to me, yes.
20· · · ·Q· · All right.· Well, as you know, this lady to
21· my right is taking down everything we say.
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · And in order for her to get it down it's best
24· if I get my questions out before you try to answer and
25· likewise before -- you try to get your answer out
·1· before I ask another question.· Can we agree to try to
·2· do our best to do that?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes, we can.
·4· · · ·Q· · All right.· I'm going to ask questions, and
·5· hopefully they're clear, but I know that they're not
·6· always going to be clear.· So if I ask a question that
·7· you don't understand, can I get your agreement to tell
·8· me you don't understand it and ask me to rephrase it?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · If you don't do that, I'm going to
11· understand -- I'm going to assume that you understand
12· the question, and I'm going to treat your answer as if
13· it was responsive to that.· Can we agree that that will
14· be the case?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· Mr. Steitle, as part of the
17· documents produced in this case there were a couple of
18· different CVs or resumes that were provided.· I'm going
19· to put before you two exhibits.· It's Exhibit 1 and
20· Exhibit 2.
21· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· And here's copies, if
22· you would, 1 and 2 in that order if you want to pass
23· them around.· Might have enough, or not.
24· · · ·Q· · If I could, let me get you focused on
25· Exhibit 1 first.· On Exhibit 1 there is a -- it's, it
·1· is two pages.· Is this a -- and is this an instrument
·2· or a document that was prepared by you?
·3· · · ·A· · It appears to be.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is this a document that contains a
·5· true and accurate statement of some of your experience?
·6· · · ·A· · I would agree that it does.
·7· · · ·Q· · All right.· There are some terms used in
·8· Exhibit 1 that I'd like to talk to you about in terms
·9· of projects that you've been working on based on what's
10· in Exhibit 1.· All right?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · One of the terms is construction phasing.
13· What is construction phasing?
14· · · ·A· · It's a division of activities in the building
15· of a project that moves from one area, not in
16· geographic area, but one area of construction to
17· another area of construction.
18· · · ·Q· · All right.· Can you give me an example of
19· what one area of construction moving and then a second
20· area of construction would be in terms of that answer?
21· · · ·A· · Well, if you're building a highway, you'd
22· normally -- and you're replacing a facility that is
23· carrying traffic, you normally have to phase it to
24· where you move traffic temporarily over so that you can
25· build on one side and keep the traffic separate from
·1· the construction activity.· That would be an example of
·2· phasing.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Can you give me another example?
·4· · · ·A· · Not specifically.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Does, does the, the construction
·6· phasing, does it relate to the handling of traffic, or
·7· does it relate to the handling of the actual
·8· construction project on the road itself?
·9· · · ·A· · It relates to both.
10· · · ·Q· · Both.· All right.· Another phrase or term
11· that was used in Exhibit 1 that I saw was circulation
12· plan.· What is a circulation plan?
13· · · ·A· · It's how you get traffic through an area, and
14· normally it would be referring to a construction area,
15· how you, how you control that traffic to move it safely
16· and efficiently and without interrupting excessively
17· either the construction activity or the traffic
18· activity.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is -- so the circulation plan would
20· really be focused on the handling of traffic in
21· relation to either construction or something else?
22· · · ·A· · Normally, yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.
24· · · ·A· · It would be solely that purpose.
25· · · ·Q· · All right.· Another term that I saw used in
·1· Exhibit 1 is, you indicated you were involved in
·2· geometric design.· What does that entail?
·3· · · ·A· · Geometric design is, is customarily explained
·4· as a birds-eye view of a facility, and if it's a
·5· roadway, it would be of the road as opposed to the
·6· grading, drainage profile of the roadway as it, as it
·7· changed elevations.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I think I understand that.
·9· · · · · · · · ·Another term that's used in Exhibit 1
10· that you've been involved in is traffic control plans.
11· What, what is entailed in a traffic control plan?
12· · · ·A· · Traffic control plan is how you deal with
13· traffic on a temporary basis during a construction
14· project.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Another term that sounds like it might
16· be something similar is construction traffic control.
17· Is that the same thing?
18· · · ·A· · Same thing.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You indicated in Exhibit 1 that you've
20· been involved in developing operational efficiency of
21· perimeter and internal streets.· What's involved in
22· that?
23· · · ·A· · Operational efficiency is the proper and
24· acceptable movement of people and vehicles, and I'm
25· referring to the accessing of the site, the perimeter
·1· facilities, sidewalks, streets, and then the internal
·2· facilities of a site, the movement control, safety,
·3· efficiency of that activity.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would the distinction between a
·5· perimeter and the internal be more -- sort of a good
·6· example of that would be when you're developing a
·7· subdivision, for instance?
·8· · · ·A· · Subdivision, shopping center, commercial
·9· activity.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.
11· · · ·A· · And generally that's -- perimeter might be,
12· more likely be public facilities, and the internal is
13· the private facilities.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· All right.· In looking at Exhibit 1,
15· we've talked about a number of those terms, at least
16· those were terms that were kind of unique to your
17· business that aren't just terms that I use every day.
18· · · · · · · · ·But in looking at Exhibit 1 it looks to
19· me like your focus has been geared more towards the
20· handling of traffic in relation to the projects that
21· you're working on.· Is that accurate, in your opinion,
22· or not?
23· · · ·A· · Well, as a consulting traffic engineer I
24· think that would be representative.· As a municipal
25· traffic engineer it would, it would involve not
·1· necessarily the planning and design that, that I'm
·2· involved with as a consulting engineer.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and I think you, you perceive
·4· correctly sort of the difference that I was focusing
·5· on.· So to look at what you do as a traffic engineer or
·6· a traffic consultant deals with more of the traffic and
·7· movement of vehicles as opposed to getting involved in
·8· the design, construction, or maintenance of roadways.
·9· Those would be sort of two different areas, would they
10· not?
11· · · ·A· · Not necessarily.· They, they're two different
12· areas, but they're not segregated, necessarily, between
13· a municipal employee and a consultant.
14· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· All right.
15· · · · · · · · ·Let me focus you, if I can, on
16· Exhibit 2, which is what you've got titled as "Resume."
17· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q· · Is this is a document you prepared?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · All right.· And does it accurately and
21· truthfully contain your experience and your education
22· and your licenses?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let me, if I can, start on page
25· 2, and I just briefly would like to understand a little
·1· bit about what you have done in your experience.· So
·2· I'd like to start with the oldest and work my way to
·3· the newest if I could.
·4· · · · · · · · ·So back in the '70s you worked for
·5· Wilbur Smith & Associates as an associate engineer.
·6· Can you tell me what you did for them?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes, Wilbur Smith & Associates is a
·8· transportation engineering firm, and I was project
·9· engineer on planning and design projects for
10· municipalities and private development, and there was
11· a, there was a program back then that involved traffic
12· engineering for municipalities.· It was a state program
13· through the governor's office that most smaller cities
14· that don't have traffic engineering capabilities, that
15· a safety analysis was done for those municipalities to
16· bring them up to speed to properly and adequately
17· control their traffic.
18· · · ·Q· · What's involved in doing a safety analysis?
19· · · ·A· · Well, it varies by assignment, but, but
20· generally it was analysis of traffic signals, pavement
21· markings and, and traffic signs, traffic control
22· devices --
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.
24· · · ·A· · -- to make sure that they were compliant with
25· standards, guidelines that were -- would be applicable
·1· and maintain maintenance needs to fund.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And I take it that you were involved
·3· in that project that you describe?
·4· · · ·A· · Many of them.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·6· · · ·A· · Dozens of them.
·7· · · ·Q· · All right.· You worked for the city of West
·8· University Place for a couple years back in the '70s as
·9· director of Public Works.· Tell me what you did for
10· them.
11· · · ·A· · Well, I was the staff engineer.· I was a city
12· engineer, city traffic engineer, director of Public
13· Works responsible for all the Public Works activities
14· from landfill to garbage collection.· It was -- I had
15· 55 employees, and they were all Public Works
16· activities, water distribution, traffic.
17· · · ·Q· · And as it relates to your specific role, were
18· you a manager, I take it?
19· · · ·A· · I was a manager and active engineer --
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.
21· · · ·A· · -- and, and design and maintenance.
22· · · ·Q· · All right.· Did you do any design of any
23· roadways in conjunction with your activities with the
24· City of West University?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what roads did you design?
·2· · · ·A· · Well, it was -- West University Place is an
·3· existing city.· So the design activities that I got
·4· involved with was improving generally intersections,
·5· either from a safety standpoint or from an operational
·6· efficiency standpoint, channelization of movements to
·7· facilitate traffic control, that sort of activity.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What about your maintenance
·9· obligations?· You mentioned that too.· What did you do
10· in that respect?
11· · · ·A· · Maintenance?
12· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· I heard you say that I thought.
13· · · ·A· · Yeah.· Well, there was street maintenance.
14· · · ·Q· · Which -- tell me what you mean by that.
15· · · ·A· · Well, the --
16· · · ·Q· · Street sweeper or --
17· · · ·A· · That.· There was a street-sweeping activity,
18· mechanical street-sweeper activity.
19· · · ·Q· · Um-hm.
20· · · ·A· · There was, there was vector control even.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me stop you.· What do you mean,
22· what do you mean by vector control?
23· · · ·A· · Well, back then we used diazinon and sprayed
24· it in an aerosol manner, high-volume manner off of the
25· back of a pickup truck at night to control the
·1· mosquitoes.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · The pothole patching, daytime pothole
·4· patching.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·6· · · ·A· · We had mud jacking, which with concrete
·7· streets sometimes when you lose support you have
·8· to -- it's called mud jacking, but you pressurize an
·9· injection under the pavement to lift it back into the
10· proper position.· It's -- the water towers had to be
11· painted.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.
13· · · ·A· · Contracting activities for pavement markings,
14· that sort of thing.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Why'd you leave as director of Public
16· Works and go to Walter P. Moore in '79?
17· · · ·A· · I was given a very -- the offer, very good
18· offer.· The ex-director of Traffic and Transportation
19· for the City of Austin, his name was Jerry King, who I
20· knew.· He, he contacted me and wanted me to take over
21· his Traffic Transportation section of the firm.· The
22· firm had planning, civil engineering, traffic
23· engineering, structural engineering, and Traffic and
24· Transportation was one of them.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you didn't work there very long.
·1· You only worked there until August of '80 and then went
·2· to the City of Longview.· What --
·3· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I had applied for the position at the
·4· City of Longview before taking the position with Walter
·5· P. Moore.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·7· · · ·A· · And the person that was hired stayed a very
·8· short time, and I was asked if I was still interested
·9· in the position, and I was.· And so I left Walter P.
10· Moore and went to the City of Longview.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And while you were with the City of
12· Longview as city traffic engineer, what were -- you
13· described on your resume some of the duties, but what
14· was your primary, primary function?
15· · · ·A· · I reviewed all plat applications, subdivision
16· applications, driveway requests, and I attended, of
17· course, city council meetings and planning commission
18· meetings.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.
20· · · ·A· · I, I had construction and maintenance for
21· traffic control devices.· I had parking meter
22· maintenance and collection activities and traffic
23· signal design.· I designed traffic signals, new traffic
24· signals, and managed the installation -- the
25· contracting, the contracting and installation of the
·1· traffic signals.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· After working as the city traffic
·3· engineer in Longview you went to the City of
·4· San Antonio.· Why'd you leave the City of Longview to
·5· go to San Antonio?
·6· · · ·A· · Well, it was my ultimate goal to circle back
·7· to San Antonio --
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · -- which is where I was born and raised and
10· where both sides of the family, both sides of my family
11· and both sides of my spouse's family, were located, had
12· grandparents involved, and it was my destination.· It
13· was my goal.· And so I, I had the opportunity at that
14· time, and, and I took it.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You had several positions there, city
16· traffic engineer, assistant director of Public Works,
17· and director of Public Works.
18· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q· · Were the -- you described what you did as
20· director of Public Works back in the City of West
21· University.· Was it similar at the City of San Antonio,
22· albeit different --
23· · · ·A· · Greater, it was greater magnitude.· I had 750
24· employees with the City of San Antonio --
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · ·A· · -- versus 55 with West U.
·2· · · ·Q· · Right.· And I'm assuming your duties as a
·3· city traffic engineer were similar to the way they were
·4· in Longview, but again, maybe a little more broad in
·5· terms of --
·6· · · ·A· · Yeah.· They, they were similar.
·7· · · ·Q· · Were there any major differences?
·8· · · ·A· · The only major difference I can think of is
·9· the major thoroughfare plan.· It was very involved,
10· and that was a, a period of time where San Antonio
11· was booming and we were annexing and expanding the
12· ETJ -- extraterritorial jurisdiction -- and the major
13· thoroughfare plan had to keep up with the development
14· and anticipated development, like SeaWorld and Fiesta
15· Texas and all the development of subdivisions in, in
16· the metropolitan area.
17· · · ·Q· · A lot of planning involved and thinking ahead
18· of what might be necessary to meet all those needs,
19· right?
20· · · ·A· · That, that's fair.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then you left to go back to Walter
22· P. Moore back in '88, spent a little bit of time there.
23· Why'd you do that move?
24· · · ·A· · I don't know if I could give one reason, but
25· I think that you can appreciate that the position of
·1· director of Public Works for the ninth largest city in
·2· the nation is, is demanding.· I, I served my prescribed
·3· function when I was hired, I completed it.· I had
·4· established a Capital Projects Management Division of
·5· Public Works for the public participation in Public
·6· Works projects that had not happened before I took the
·7· office, and I felt like I had done my service to the
·8· community and was ready to, to get away from a
·9· seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day job that was --
10· · · ·Q· · I understand.
11· · · ·A· · -- that I felt like was very demanding.
12· · · ·Q· · I understand.· You spent a short time with
13· Walter P. Moore, and then you set up your own firm back
14· in January of '89.· Tell me what -- and I know it's
15· pretty broad, a long time involved, but so what is your
16· primary focus from '89 to present in your firm?
17· · · ·A· · It's traffic engineering.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So undoubtedly you consider yourself
19· as an expert in the area of traffic engineering, do you
20· not?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let me talk a little bit about
23· more the, the road construction and design area, if I
24· can.· Do, do you have experience and do you consider
25· yourself an expert in the design of roadways?
·1· · · ·A· · Geometric design I do.
·2· · · ·Q· · Geometric design?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q· · What about the profile design of a road?
·5· · · ·A· · I don't, I don't get involved in that except
·6· in the examination of the profile as it relates to
·7· traffic safety.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · Such as intersection site distance, stopping
10· site distance that gets involved in those aspects.· I,
11· I have been involved with that from the beginning of my
12· profession, especially within City of San Antonio in
13· examining designs that were submitted to the city for
14· construction by consulting engineers.· They were
15· submitted for approval by the city, and that was a
16· primary aspect of the review, is the safety review for
17· stopping site distance, intersection site distance, in
18· some cases passing site distance.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what about road construction
20· itself, actually the process of constructing a road
21· from its base up to the top?· Is that something that
22· you have experience in and consider yourself an expert
23· in?
24· · · ·A· · I don't purport to be an expert in that area.
25· I have experience on a municipal level involving
·1· construction of streets and utilities, but I do not
·2· consider myself an expert in that area.
·3· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· What -- so with respect to the
·4· particular materials that might be required in order to
·5· properly construct a road, do you consider yourself an
·6· expert in that area?
·7· · · ·A· · No, sir.· I don't purport to be.
·8· · · ·Q· · Do you consider yourself an expert or do you
·9· have experience in the drainage aspects of roadway
10· construction and design?
11· · · ·A· · Yes, I do.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And tell me what your experience in
13· that area is.
14· · · ·A· · For the City of San Antonio, for instance, I
15· was floodplain manager.· I was, I was responsible for
16· 78 low-water crossings in the city and the bond
17· programming for either mitigating or eliminating the
18· conditions at those 78 crossings, which was a
19· substantial concern at that time with two, average of
20· two fatalities per year and countless millions of
21· dollars in litigation consequences to the city.
22· · · ·Q· · Because of people driving through the
23· low-water crossing and getting themselves swept away in
24· the water, stuff like that?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In conjunction with your work in
·2· projects as floodplain manager for San Antonio and
·3· in -- what about -- I understand that role.· What about
·4· since you've been in private practice since '89?· Have
·5· you been involved in drainage projects related to the
·6· roadways?
·7· · · ·A· · I don't do the design in that area.· No, sir.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · Except in terms of eliminating or considering
10· the traffic-safety aspects of, of the drainage, such as
11· the adequacy of the drainage, the consequences of the
12· drainage.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would some examples of that be if you
14· have culverts beneath a roadway but there aren't
15· sufficient culverts to pass the water that goes, goes
16· through there, do you have experience in identifying
17· what you might need to do by way of either increasing
18· the size or number of culverts, that kind of thing --
19· · · ·A· · Not --
20· · · ·Q· · -- or not?
21· · · ·A· · Not from a mathematical standpoint.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So help me understand, what is it that
23· from a drainage point of view you do as it relates to
24· traffic safety?· I don't quite understand.
25· · · ·A· · Drainage has to be taken care of,
·1· accommodated during construction phasing.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · And that has to be reviewed and determined to
·4· be adequate from a planning standpoint as proposed by
·5· another engineer that would determine it to be adequate
·6· from a mathematical standpoint.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and your area would -- you --
·8· your focus and your experience and expertise relates
·9· more to the traffic aspect as opposed to the, as you
10· put it, mathematical or how much water gets carried
11· where aspect?
12· · · ·A· · That's correct.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are there any areas that we've -- you,
14· you've explained to me and we've talked about your
15· experience, the projects you've worked on in fairly
16· much detail, and I've understood you to say that you
17· truly are an expert in traffic engineering and safety
18· related to traffic engineering.· You've explained what
19· you don't think you're an expert in.
20· · · · · · · · ·Are there other areas related to
21· roadways and, in particular, roadways related to this
22· project with respect to the applicant's landfill that
23· you have expertise in that we have not discussed and
24· that you have not explained to me you are an expert in?
25· · · ·A· · There's -- there are none that come to mind.
·1· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 3 marked.)
·3· · · ·Q· · I'm going to hand you what I've marked as
·4· Exhibit 3, and this is an excerpt from the applicant's
·5· disclosure responses in this proceeding, and in order
·6· to save paper, if you would, I've got the first page of
·7· it, and then I've lept over to page 10 and 11 and just
·8· attached those to Exhibit 3.
·9· · · · · · · · ·If you would, take a look at the second
10· and third pages of the exhibit.· It's down towards the
11· bottom on the second page, which is marked page 10.· It
12· has your name and address and gives a little history,
13· and then on the second -- on the third page of the
14· exhibit it talks about what you will testify about in
15· this proceeding.· Do you see that?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · Have you seen this before?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Were you involved in the preparation
20· of Exhibit 3 or the language contained within
21· Exhibit 3?
22· · · ·A· · I don't recall doing so.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, then, let's go through it and
24· talk about whether it accurately reflects what you're,
25· what you're going to be talking about.· I think we can
·1· just skip over to page 3 and start there.
·2· · · · · · · · ·So it indicates at the top that you've
·3· authored a report called "Traffic Engineering Responses
·4· to Access Roads and Traffic Issues."· Are you familiar
·5· with that report?
·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 4 marked.)
·8· · · ·Q· · I've marked as Exhibit 4 the document that I
·9· think that refers to.· Would you take a look at it and
10· let me know whether or not I'm correct?
11· · · ·A· · You are.
12· · · ·Q· · All right.· Now, this Exhibit 4 is dated
13· March 6, 2014, right?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · Has there been any supplements or amendments
16· that you have prepared to this report?
17· · · ·A· · No.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· At the time that Exhibit 4 was
19· prepared back in March of 2014 or thereabouts, had you
20· already visited the site that the applicant proposes to
21· put its landfill on?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Tell me about how many times you went
24· to the site and where you visited in relation to the
25· site prior to the preparation of Exhibit 4, if you
·1· will.
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.· I, I visited the, the area --
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·4· · · ·A· · -- including the Rancho Viejo property on one
·5· occasion one day.
·6· · · ·Q· · So just once?
·7· · · ·A· · One day.
·8· · · ·Q· · On both the area and Rancho Viejo's site?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· When you say "the area," I assume
11· that, based on what I've read in the report, I assume
12· that includes the area where 359 meets Jordan Road and
13· then from Jordan Road up to the Rancho Viejo property?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · That was included in what you visited?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What about the area on Highway 59
18· coming down to the Rancho Viejo property from there?
19· · · ·A· · No.
20· · · ·Q· · You didn't visit that back before this March
21· report in 2014?
22· · · ·A· · No.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· When you say you went to the Rancho
24· Viejo property, I assume that you went to the area some
25· of where we went a week ago, right?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · All right.· Did you -- tell me, tell me,
·3· where did you go specifically on Rancho Viejo's
·4· property before you wrote this 2014 report, if you can
·5· describe it for me?
·6· · · ·A· · Yeah.· The area was limited to the main
·7· access road served by the gate that intersects at
·8· Jordan Road.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And from there where?
10· · · ·A· · I didn't go beyond that.
11· · · ·Q· · Oh, you just went to the gate?
12· · · ·A· · No.· I went on that road.
13· · · ·Q· · On that road.
14· · · ·A· · Yeah.
15· · · ·Q· · And where to?· How far north?
16· · · ·A· · Within a mile.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· All right.· In, in Exhibit 3 on the
18· third page, if I could get you to focus on that for a
19· minute -- that's Exhibit 4.
20· · · ·A· · Oh, I'm sorry.
21· · · ·Q· · It's the prior exhibit.· Yeah.
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · There you go.· In the, in the -- right at the
24· top it talks about your Exhibit 4, and it says that
25· your "evaluation of the potential traffic impact of the
·1· proposed landfill facility, including noise, traffic
·2· volume, dust, impacts to livestock, and safety on
·3· access roads."· Do you see that?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · Would you agree that was your focus?
·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
·7· · · ·Q· · All right.· Then it says the analysis and
·8· references in that report reflect your opinions and the
·9· bases for those opinions.· Would you agree that that's
10· accurate?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · All right.· Then, then on Exhibit 3 it starts
13· talking about your opinions, and that's how I want to
14· start doing this, is to go through this and start
15· thinking about your opinions and asking you about them
16· as they relate to Exhibit 3 and as they're described in
17· Exhibit 4.· All right?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · All right.· Now, in conjunction with that,
20· what we're talking about here are access roads, and I'd
21· like to identify what those access roads are that we're
22· talking about.
23· · · · · · · · ·I'd like to start, if I could, with
24· Exhibit 4, which is your report, and on an unnumbered
25· page right after 3, between 3 and 4, you have Figure 1.
·1· Can you turn to that, please?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· What is your -- when, when we're
·4· talking about the access roads in the context of this
·5· application what do you mean?· What roads are we
·6· talking about as far as you're concerned?
·7· · · ·A· · We're talking about the existing State
·8· Highway 359, the existing Jordan Road, and the access
·9· roadway on private property within Rancho Viejo, those
10· three.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let's focus on -- the first two are
12· very self-evident to me.· The third one I'd like to
13· talk to you about a little bit, when you say the
14· private road on Rancho Viejo.· In looking at Figure 1
15· it shows where the Rancho Viejo gate is, or the gate to
16· Yugo Ranch, correct?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· To what ranch?
19· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Yugo, Y-U-G-O.
20· · · ·Q· · And when we were talking a moment ago about
21· your visit before the 2014 report, that's the gate we
22· were referring to, right?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · All right.· And when you went a mile or so in
25· you were going on the road that's the, not the straight
·1· shot, but the, the road that has angles on it on your
·2· Figure 1, right?
·3· · · ·A· · The existing road.
·4· · · ·Q· · The existing road.· Okay.· In the context of
·5· the application do you have an understanding of what
·6· the applicant is proposing for the access roads to the
·7· facility that are within Yugo Ranch?
·8· · · ·A· · I believe I do.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is it correct to state that what the
10· applicant proposes to do is to build, if you will, a
11· road from the end of Jordan Road where it's maintained
12· on a straight shot just on the Rancho Viejo property,
13· or the Yugo Ranch property, as it's shown on your
14· Figure 1 as, it says, "proposed private road"?· Is that
15· your understanding of what is going to be part of the
16· access roads?
17· · · ·A· · Well, this -- no.
18· · · ·Q· · No?· What is your understanding?
19· · · ·A· · My Figure 1 is, is not an accurate
20· representation of that access road, because at the time
21· it was my understanding that the access road would join
22· the dead-end of Jordan Road instead of intersecting the
23· existing access road at the gate --
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.
25· · · ·A· · -- and paralleling Jordan Road.
·1· · · ·Q· · So back in 2014 it was your understanding
·2· that's where the access road was going to be, right?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · What you have marked as "proposed access
·5· road."· What's your understanding about where the
·6· proposed access road is supposed to be now?
·7· · · ·A· · On the other side of the fence from Jordan
·8· Road, on the Yugo Ranch property.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Which would be parallel to what you
10· have marked as "proposed private road," just slightly
11· to the west?
12· · · ·A· · Basically, yes, sir.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then you indicated that your
14· understanding of the access roads on the ranch, on Yugo
15· Ranch, to go to that point.· What about the road that
16· you have marked here as "Future Private Access Road"
17· that goes to the "Location of the Future KCS Siding"?
18· Is that one of the access roads?
19· · · ·A· · That's one of the, the future potential
20· access roads, as I understood it --
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.
22· · · ·A· · -- that is mentioned in the permit
23· application but is not, not existed -- it is not
24· existing.
25· · · ·Q· · Have you been down that area of the ranch
·1· ever?
·2· · · ·A· · I don't know for sure.· We covered a lot of
·3· area out there, and I can't tell you for sure whether I
·4· was there or not.
·5· · · ·Q· · Let me, let me back up, then, and ask you
·6· some other questions.· We talked about the amount of
·7· time you were in the area or on the site before the
·8· 2014 report, and that was basically one day, right?
·9· · · ·A· · That's right.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Since 2014 how many times have you
11· been out on the site?
12· · · ·A· · One time.
13· · · ·Q· · And when was that?
14· · · ·A· · It was on an organized site visit.· I think
15· it was on the 16th of January --
16· · · ·Q· · Last week?
17· · · ·A· · -- of 2019.
18· · · ·Q· · Right.· Last Wednesday, correct?
19· · · ·A· · That's correct.
20· · · ·Q· · And that's where I met you, right?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.· That's correct.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So that's the only other time you've
23· been on the property?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Or, or in the area?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· It's accurate to state, is it not,
·3· that on January 16th you -- did you or did you not go
·4· down that, the road that's marked as "Future Private
·5· Access Road" to the KCS siding location?
·6· · · ·A· · I can't tell you for sure whether I did or
·7· not.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you this:· Did you ride
·9· with Dr. Yildirim when he got in the van with
10· Mr. Benavides and they went down that road?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.· I was with Mr. Benavides the entire
12· time.· Yes.· So I would say yes.
13· · · ·Q· · When -- you recall that when we were on the
14· site visit we were doing borings at various locations
15· on the ranch, correct?
16· · · ·A· · When you say "we," it wasn't including me,
17· but it --
18· · · ·Q· · I understand.· But as a, as a group that you
19· were with it was -- it included Mr. Benavides, it
20· included Eddie Maddox, it included me, it included
21· Dallas Little, it included Yetkin Yildirim, correct?
22· · · ·A· · I don't know those people's names --
23· · · ·Q· · You don't?
24· · · ·A· · -- but I'll take --
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · ·A· · -- your word for it.
·2· · · ·Q· · And a couple guys from Terracon who were
·3· actually physically doing the, the borings and the
·4· testing and --
·5· · · ·A· · That's correct.
·6· · · ·Q· · And in that context where the -- where we did
·7· the borings were you -- had you looked at any of the
·8· plats to see where those borings were in relation to
·9· your Figure 1?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I'll do something.
12· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 9 marked.)
13· · · ·Q· · I'm going to show you what I've marked as
14· Steitle Exhibit 9, and this was an appendix that was
15· attached to the agreement that the various clients of
16· the people that are here at the deposition and the
17· applicant entered into to arrange for and sort of
18· describe what would be done on the site during the site
19· visit.· Have you seen this before?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And this was what you were -- when we
22· were talking about the borings that were being done
23· this was reflective of where those borings were and
24· pretty much were done?
25· · · ·A· · It was intended to be the target --
·1· · · ·Q· · Right.
·2· · · ·A· · -- of the borings.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I want to focus you on number 2 on
·4· Appendix -- on Exhibit No. 9, which is Appendix 1 to
·5· the access agreement.· Do you recall when we did that
·6· boring?
·7· · · ·A· · I recall that we did -- when I say "we," as
·8· we've described earlier --
·9· · · ·Q· · Yeah.
10· · · ·A· · -- I recall the seven borings --
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.
12· · · ·A· · -- that are generally represented by this
13· Exhibit 9, but they were, they were being -- the
14· locations as I observed were being estimated or guided
15· by GPS equipment, and I did not participate in that GPS
16· locating.
17· · · ·Q· · So basically what you're saying is you're not
18· sure each of the borings happened precisely -- well, I
19· mean, Appendix 1 is not a precise location, it's an
20· approximate location.· Would you --
21· · · ·A· · That's what I thought it was.
22· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· But I mean, you have a recollection,
23· do you not, about the order of how we went about those
24· borings?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And it started with what's marked as
·2· number 1, right?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · And then we went up to number 3, correct?
·5· And then we came back down and did number 2.· Do you
·6· remember that?
·7· · · ·A· · They weren't in sequential order entirely --
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · -- and I can't recall the sequence.
10· · · ·Q· · All right.· Fair enough.· But as we sit here
11· today, you're not sure whether or not you have been on
12· that private access road that goes down to the KCS
13· siding; is that accurate?
14· · · ·A· · That's accurate.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Prior to the report in 2014 you had
16· not been on the portion of the access roads that are
17· shown on either Exhibit 9 or, or Figure 1 in your
18· report in Exhibit 4?· You had not been on any of the
19· access roads that are contained within Yugo Ranch that
20· are north of the Yugo Ranch gate, right?
21· · · ·A· · No.· I went inside the property and on the
22· Yugo, the existing --
23· · · ·Q· · For about a mile or so?
24· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
25· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Okay.· So that would have been, that
·1· would have been here down just fairly close to where
·2· the angled road is shown, right, within that area?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.· It would be south of the boring site 1
·4· shown on this illustration.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So back to where I was, which is,
·6· let's talk about where the access roads are.
·7· · · · · · · · ·As we sit here today, what do you
·8· understand to be all of the access roads?· We've
·9· talked about State Highway 359, Jordan Road, the
10· proposed road that goes from the end of Jordan Road
11· where it's -- where it currently ends and goes straight
12· up towards where boring number 1 was.· We've talked
13· about the proposed future access road that goes to the
14· KCS siding.· What else is an access road as you
15· understand it?
16· · · ·A· · Well, the, the access road that I described
17· earlier was not from the end of Jordan Road.· It
18· paralleled Jordan Road on the Yugo Ranch side of the
19· fence, and Jordan Road beyond the gate, north of the
20· gate is outside of the Yugo Ranch property.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So let me be sure -- let, let -- I
22· need to -- I guess I may be confused based on what you
23· just said.· So let me be sure I understand.
24· · · · · · · · ·Do you know what the applicant plans to
25· use as the access road as it relates to Jordan Road?
·1· Is it going to end at the ranch -- at the Yugo Ranch
·2· gate, or are they going to use the existing Jordan Road
·3· as it goes up north?
·4· · · ·A· · The existing Jordan Road north of the gate
·5· will not be utilized for access.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·7· · · ·A· · It will be a separate access road newly
·8· constructed on Yugo Ranch property connecting to the
·9· existing Yugo Ranch Road near the gate.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Thank you.· Appreciate that
11· clarification.
12· · · · · · · · ·Okay.· What about -- okay.· So those are
13· all access roads.· What other access roads are involved
14· here?
15· · · ·A· · Those are the three initially involved.· The
16· fourth possible access road is to the location of the
17· anticipated or potential siding of the KCS --
18· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· We've talked --
19· · · ·A· · -- Kansas City Southern Rail.
20· · · ·Q· · We've talked about that.· Are there any other
21· access roads that you're aware of?· When you're using
22· the term "access roads" in your report, I realize that
23· it might have meant one thing in 2014 to you, but at
24· this point, as you sit here today, I'm trying to get
25· what you understand to be all the access roads so that
·1· we can talk -- when we're talking about your opinions
·2· with respect to the access roads you and I are on the
·3· same page.· All right?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · So as we sit here today, what other access
·6· roads other than the ones we've specifically discussed
·7· do you think are access roads that are going to be
·8· utilized to get to this facility?
·9· · · ·A· · The only access roads are the three I
10· described as State Highway 359, Jordan Road up to the
11· area of the gate into -- existing gate into the Yugo
12· Ranch, and then the private access road to be
13· constructed basically parallel from the gate, parallel
14· to Jordan Road into the landfill site.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and as I understand it from your
16· testimony, you expect that road to be parallel but on
17· the west side of the Yugo Ranch fence going parallel to
18· Jordan Road all the way up to where the existing road
19· within the ranch exists just north of where that boring
20· number 1 shows up on Exhibit 9, right?
21· · · ·A· · That may or may not be correct.· The
22· alignment and the utilization of the -- any section of
23· the existing road I don't think has been determined.
24· · · ·Q· · So is it your understanding that the
25· applicant intends to use the road as it currently
·1· exists in Rancho Viejo's Yugo Ranch once we've gotten
·2· to the area that is north of boring 1 on Exhibit 9 or
·3· not?
·4· · · ·A· · It's my understanding that it'll be an
·5· independent facility from the gate to the landfill
·6· site.
·7· · · ·Q· · An independent facility?· What do you mean
·8· by --
·9· · · ·A· · Or land --
10· · · ·Q· · Newly constructed road?
11· · · ·A· · Newly constructed road for landfill
12· operations.
13· · · ·Q· · All right.· And, and then based on that
14· understanding, then, is it correct to state that it is
15· your understanding, at least, that Rancho Viejo does
16· not intend to use the currently existing road that we
17· traveled on, on January 16th that exists within the
18· Yugo Ranch north of boring 1 to get to the landfill?
19· · · ·A· · It's my understanding that that's the current
20· intention.
21· · · ·Q· · To use that existing road, or not?
22· · · ·A· · It's the current intention not to use it.
23· · · ·Q· · Not to use it.· All right.· Do you know what
24· path that road that, that they intend to build, do you
25· know the path that it will take as shown on, for
·1· instance, Figure 1 of your report?
·2· · · ·A· · I'm not aware of the exact path.· No.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· Who does know?
·4· · · ·A· · I'm not aware.
·5· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 5 marked.)
·6· · · ·Q· · All right.· In -- I'm going to hand you what
·7· I've marked as Exhibit 5.· This is a land use map that
·8· is part of the application that's been submitted by the
·9· applicant to the TCEQ.· Have you seen this before?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Exhibit No. 5 shows the, the outline
12· of the proposed landfill.· Do you see where that is
13· noted on Exhibit 5?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · And that's labeled as "Site Location,"
16· correct?· See up to the right-hand side there with an
17· arrow?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.· There's, there's two, two tracts noted
19· that can be interpreted as the site location
20· indication.
21· · · ·Q· · And, and it's basically two angled boxes with
22· a little wedge between, right?
23· · · ·A· · I'll accept that.
24· · · ·Q· · Thank you.· All right.· Now, the, the roads
25· that are identified on here, on Exhibit 5, down by the
·1· Michael Oden stamp you see something that says "All
·2· Weather Access Roads," do you see that?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · And that's pointing to a road that intersects
·5· the dashed line that's reflective of the one-mile
·6· radius.· Do you see that?· One of those is.
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· That is, that is, in fact, a
·9· reflection on Exhibit 5 of the existing road that
10· exists on Yugo Ranch, right?
11· · · ·A· · It appears to be.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then it also points over to the
13· road that on your Figure 1 is labeled "Future Private
14· Access Road" to the KCS siding, right?· That second
15· arrow off of --
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · -- "All Weather Access"?
18· · · ·A· · It appears to be.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So this being in the application, this
20· would appear to reflect, would it not, that Rancho
21· Viejo, at least as it's been represented to the
22· commission, intends to use those roads to access the
23· landfill, would you not agree?
24· · · ·A· · Well, when you say "those roads," I don't
25· know --
·1· · · ·Q· · The ones that are labeled as "All Weather
·2· Access Roads."
·3· · · ·A· · Well, let me explain.· When you say "those
·4· roads," I don't know if those roads in the existing
·5· condition are represented by this drawing.· Those roads
·6· in a rehabilitated condition are those roads'
·7· replacement, is what is represented.· It doesn't, it
·8· doesn't explain that in this illustration.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You just don't know from looking just
10· at this illustration, is what -- you would, you would
11· say, I can't tell; is that right?
12· · · ·A· · That's right.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.
14· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 6 marked.)
15· · · ·Q· · Let me show you what's been marked as
16· Exhibit 6.
17· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Here you go.
18· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Thank you.
19· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· This is another figure
20· that's contained within the application that was
21· submitted to the TCEQ.· Have you seen this before?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · All right.· So what we have here is sort of a
24· closer look than Exhibit No. 5 that shows the facility
25· permit boundary north area and south area, right?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · And the -- and then it notes the actual
·3· landfill boundary within that permit area, right?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · And then it notes the one-mile radius.· Do
·6· you see all that?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·8· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let me get one more exhibit in
·9· front of you.
10· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 7 marked.)
11· · · ·Q· · I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 7.
12· This is another figure that's contained within the
13· application, and it shows the operations area layout.
14· Have you seen this plat or figure before?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· Now, this one down at the bottom
17· of Exhibit 7 it shows -- well, let me, let me back up.
18· · · · · · · · ·On the left-hand side of this exhibit it
19· shows the existing roadway on the ranch, correct?· And
20· it shows it going near corrals, gate.· Do you see all
21· that?· Is it your understanding that represents the
22· existing road?
23· · · ·A· · I don't --
24· · · ·Q· · You don't know?
25· · · ·A· · -- conclude anything other than that will
·1· be -- it's depicted as an all-weather surface access
·2· road to State Highway 359.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you're not sure whether that even
·4· reflects the existing road, right?· You don't know --
·5· · · ·A· · I can't conclude from this drawing.
·6· · · ·Q· · You don't know one way or the other?
·7· · · ·A· · Correct.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then up at the top left-hand portion
·9· of Exhibit No. 7 it shows another dashed line coming
10· in, and it's marked "Proposed All-Weather Facility
11· Entrance Road."· Do you see that?
12· · · ·A· · I do.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and that road as it's depicted on
14· Exhibit 7, you do know that that road doesn't exist
15· now, right?
16· · · ·A· · I believe that's correct.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then as that road enters the
18· permit boundary and goes over to where the actual
19· landfill boundary is as reflected on Exhibit 6 --
20· · · ·A· · Excuse me.
21· · · ·Q· · I'm sorry.
22· · · ·A· · I need to interrupt you, because I think that
23· my previous response may not be entirely accurate.· You
24· asked me about the proposed all-weather-access facility
25· up in the upper left-hand corner --
·1· · · ·Q· · Yes, sir.
·2· · · ·A· · -- of Exhibit No. 7 --
·3· · · ·Q· · Yes.
·4· · · ·A· · -- and I can't tell whether that, comparing
·5· that to Exhibit No. 6, whether that will be partially
·6· on an existing roadway alignment or not.
·7· · · ·Q· · And that would be because -- and, and you're
·8· looking at Exhibit 6 when you say that, correct?
·9· · · ·A· · 6 and 7.
10· · · ·Q· · Yes.· And, and when you say "I'm not
11· sure," you are not sure whether the proposed
12· all-weather facility road on Exhibit 7 that's in the
13· top left-hand corner is existing or not, you now are
14· not sure because when you look at Exhibit 6 you see
15· evidence of a roadway on the aerial photograph that is
16· Exhibit 6 that's somewhere to the north and to the west
17· of the permit boundary.· Is that why you're saying
18· that?
19· · · ·A· · Somewhat to the north and west and, and
20· possibly in the same general alignment.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So do me a favor -- and this is a red
22· pen I'm handing you -- on Exhibit No. 6 would you
23· circle the roadway you see that you think may be the
24· proposed all-weather facility entrance road that we
25· were talking about on Exhibit 7 that you say may or may
·1· not exist?
·2· · · ·A· · Well, I didn't, I didn't say that that is the
·3· all-weather access road.· It appears to be on the
·4· alignment of the proposed all-weather access road, and
·5· the extent that it coincides with it I do not know.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.
·7· · · ·A· · But the general alignment I will circle.
·8· · · ·Q· · Please.
·9· · · ·A· · In red.
10· · · ·Q· · Thank you.· Now if you would, on Exhibit 6,
11· just so we're clear, in blue would you circle the
12· proposed all-weather facility entrance road that we're
13· saying you're not sure would coincide with what you
14· circled in red?· No, over here on this exhibit.· I'm
15· sorry.· Now on Exhibit 7, this is Exhibit 7.
16· · · ·A· · Oh, the same area?
17· · · ·Q· · Yes.· So, so we tie what's in blue on
18· Exhibit 7 to what's circled in red on Exhibit 6.
19· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.· I've done so.
20· · · ·Q· · Thank you.· Thank you.· On, on --
21· · · · · · · · · · · MR. McDONALD:· Dan, we've been
22· going about a little over an hour now.
23· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Sure.
24· · · · · · · · · · · MR. McDONALD:· Let's take a break
25· here at a short -- when we have a good time and let him
·1· look at all the various maps.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· We can do it right now
·3· if you'd like.
·4· · · · · · · · · · · MR. McDONALD:· That'd be great.
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Sure.
·6· · · · · · · · · · · (At 9:10 a.m. the proceedings
·7· recessed, continuing at 9:25 a.m.)
·8· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Mr. Steitle [STITE-lee],
·9· before the break -- or STITE-el, I'm sorry -- before
10· the break we, we were talking about the Exhibit 6 and
11· Exhibit 7 and we were talking about what's reflected on
12· Exhibit 7 that exists and doesn't exist, and we've
13· just -- I had you circle in red and blue on those
14· respective exhibits what you think might be part of
15· roads that currently exist.
16· · · · · · · · ·If you look at Exhibit 7, the road
17· that's proposed, that's shown as proposed all-weather
18· facility entrance road goes south to the corner of the
19· permit boundary and then heads due approximately east,
20· straight east over to the landfill boundary itself.· Do
21· you see that?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · You'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that at
24· least as you have seen it in our visit on January 16th,
25· that portion of the proposed road does not exist today?
·1· · · ·A· · Well, I think that that is correct, but what
·2· I had circled in red, after reexamining what is in red
·3· on Exhibit 6 --
·4· · · ·Q· · Um-hm.
·5· · · ·A· · -- does not coincide with what I circled in
·6· blue, Exhibit 7.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·8· · · ·A· · So what I circled in red appears not to be a
·9· proposed access roadway on an existing alignment.
10· · · ·Q· · All right.· So, so even though we did that
11· before the break, you have since looked at these plats
12· and now you are convinced that what is shown on
13· Exhibit 7 as the proposed all-weather facility entrance
14· road into the permit boundary and within the permit
15· boundary is, in fact, that?· It is proposed, it is not
16· in existence today?
17· · · ·A· · That's what I have concluded.
18· · · ·Q· · Thank you, sir.
19· · · · · · · · ·So in your visit last week on January
20· 16th did you take any pictures?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you given those to the attorneys
23· for production to us?
24· · · ·A· · No.
25· · · ·Q· · Could I get you to do that?
·1· · · ·A· · I would be willing to do it.
·2· · · ·Q· · Thank you.
·3· · · ·A· · I, I have not downloaded them or, or even
·4· reviewed them.· They're still in my camera.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And your camera is your phone?
·6· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
·7· · · ·Q· · Or did you have a separate camera?· You did,
·8· didn't you?
·9· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I had a separate camera.
10· · · ·Q· · All right.· Yeah.
11· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Paulina, I'd ask that
12· you get those.
13· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Yeah.· We can get
14· those to you.
15· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· I thought you would.
16· · · ·Q· · In your previous visit back in 2014 did you
17· take pictures?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In your report --
20· · · ·A· · You said pictures, plural.
21· · · ·Q· · I did.
22· · · ·A· · I took a picture.
23· · · ·Q· · You took one picture?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And is that the picture that appears
·1· in your Exhibit 4 report?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· What about videos?· Did you take
·4· any videos on your previous visit in 2014?
·5· · · ·A· · No.
·6· · · ·Q· · Did you take any measurements in 2014?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · What did you do?· What did you measure?
·9· · · ·A· · I measured the roadway width at different
10· areas.· I measured the clearance width of several, I
11· don't remember the number of, cattle crossings on
12· Jordan Road, and I measured the railroad crossing width
13· of the KCS crossing of Jordan Road.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And the other measurements you've
15· talked about widths, clearances, were those also on
16· Jordan Road?
17· · · ·A· · They, they were all on Jordan Road.
18· · · ·Q· · All right.· Where did you record those
19· measurements?
20· · · ·A· · I don't know that I recorded them.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I do know that in your report you do
22· reference width; so, for instance, the railroad
23· crossings and some cattle guards.· Those would be
24· reflective of at least some of those measurements,
25· right?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Any other measurements that you took
·3· that aren't reflected in your report, is there anywhere
·4· where we would be able to see those?
·5· · · ·A· · No.· I mean, they were just committed to
·6· memory and recorded in my report.· There were two,
·7· there were two distances, 20 feet and 16.4 feet.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · Or 16 feet, 3 inches.
10· · · ·Q· · When you were talking about clearance what
11· was that?· I didn't understand.· What was the
12· measurement you did?· You said something about
13· measuring a clearance, and I didn't understand what
14· that was.
15· · · ·A· · Well, that's at the cattle crossings, the
16· cattle guards.
17· · · ·Q· · And by clearance you mean what?
18· · · ·A· · The available width to be used as to travel
19· on.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· All right.· Did you take any samples
21· when you were down there in 2014?
22· · · ·A· · I did not carry any samples into my
23· possession.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you prepare -- I do know that as
25· part of the production in this case we received some
·1· notes.· Let me get those real quick.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 10 marked.)
·3· · · ·Q· · I'm going to show you what's been marked as
·4· Exhibit 10.· These were produced by counsel for the
·5· applicant.· Would you take a brief look at Exhibit 10
·6· and let me know if these are all -- are your notes? I
·7· assume that they are, but I need you to tell me for
·8· sure.
·9· · · ·A· · I, I think that at least some of them might
10· be my notes.· It appears that my scribbling by hand has
11· changed in the last five years.· I don't, I don't
12· recognize --
13· · · ·Q· · Well, let me --
14· · · ·A· · -- everything.
15· · · ·Q· · Let me go through and let's start on the
16· first page of Exhibit 10 and go through each page.· Is
17· the first page of Exhibit 10 your writing?· Do you
18· know?
19· · · ·A· · That's what I'm referring to.
20· · · ·Q· · You're not sure that's yours?
21· · · ·A· · I recognize some of it.· I don't
22· recognize -- in all likelihood that, that's mine.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.
24· · · ·A· · This is, this is probably all mine on the
25· first page of Exhibit 10.
·1· · · ·Q· · Thank you.· What about the second page?· Is
·2· that yours?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · Let's go to the third page.· Is that yours?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· On the third page is -- this is -- it
·7· reflects dates, that date in 2012 down through 1986,
·8· and it talks about trains.· I'm assuming this is, this
·9· is notes that you took consulting something?
10· · · ·A· · Yeah.
11· · · ·Q· · This isn't, this isn't from the site visit in
12· 2014, right?
13· · · ·A· · You're right.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let's go to the fourth page.· Here we
15· have some additional notes.· Are these yours?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · All right.· Now, this would appear to be
18· notes that do relate, at least in part, to your visit
19· in 2014, right?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.· These, these appear to be measurements
21· that I do not recall recording.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So let's, let's see if we can refresh
23· your recollection maybe.· So up here in the left-hand
24· side one says "RR Xing" and it says 16 feet, 4 inches.
25· Is that your measurement of the railroad crossing at
·1· the KCS where it crosses Jordan Road?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then it says "Cattle Guard," 20 foot,
·4· 0 inches.· What is that a measurement of?
·5· · · ·A· · It is a measurement -- I think what I did is
·6· I measured one cattle guard; it was 20 feet. I
·7· measured the others.· I don't remember how many there
·8· are and did not identify them separately, because they
·9· were all the same design.· They were all the same
10· identical width.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then below that it says "Bridge," it
12· says 11 foot, 4 inches, right?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.
14· · · ·Q· · There are two bridges on Jordan Road, right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · And this was one of them or both of them?
17· · · ·A· · Both of them.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.· Then you have down at
19· the fourth entry it says "CG @ HRC," 19 feet, 8 inches.
20· Is that correct?· Did I read that right?
21· · · ·A· · I would interpret it the same way as you.
22· · · ·Q· · So that's the cattle guard at the entrance to
23· the Hurd Ranch, is that correct, the measured width?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.· That's what that would be.· Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · All right.· Then down below that there is a
·1· series of measurements with lines, and it starts with
·2· 10 feet, goes to 12 feet then 12 feet then 10 feet.
·3· What is that?
·4· · · ·A· · That's my measurement of State Highway 359 --
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·6· · · ·A· · -- at, at the adjacent or near Jordan Road.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then on the right-hand side there is a
·8· series of numbers.· At the very top it says 311 and
·9· then it has a number of other numbers.· What are those?
10· · · ·A· · Those appear to be odometer readings from my
11· vehicle.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And would those be odometer readings
13· at various points on Jordan Road?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what did those odometer readings
16· relate to?· It's not clear from this.
17· · · ·A· · It isn't --
18· · · ·Q· · These --
19· · · ·A· · It isn't clear to me now.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you know, as you sit here today,
21· what those odometer readings relate to on Jordan Road?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.· They began at the railroad crossing and
23· then went up toward the State Highway 359, and I
24· believe that's where I derived -- yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · ·A· · It would be the first reading is at the
·2· railroad crossing, 556.9, and then the 559.1 is at
·3· State Highway 359.· That's where I got my 2.2 miles, I
·4· believe.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I remember seeing that in your report.
·6· Next to 558.8 there's some writing to the right I can't
·7· decipher.· What does that say?
·8· · · ·A· · Well, I think it says "hill," H-I-L-L.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.
10· · · ·A· · And --
11· · · ·Q· · And what's the next word?
12· · · ·A· · I can't, I can't tell.
13· · · ·Q· · You're like me.
14· · · ·A· · It's, it's, it's, it's something that I
15· apparently didn't use --
16· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.
17· · · ·A· · -- and I thought it would be good to record
18· it, but it wasn't significant for me to utilize.
19· · · ·Q· · All right.
20· · · ·A· · But there is, I believe that there is a rise
21· in the road that I called a hill.
22· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· Let's flip to the next page.
23· Here we have -- are these your notes?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And these reflect a week's worth,
·1· Saturday through Friday, of cars, trucks, and a total.
·2· What was that information from?· Not from your visit in
·3· 2014, right?· Because you were there one day.
·4· · · ·A· · That's -- yes.· That's correct.· Those are
·5· the traffic counts that -- they appear to be the
·6· traffic counts, daily traffic counts, classification
·7· counts in my report that AC Group, the contracting
·8· traffic counting organization, did for me.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And when we're talking about the
10· traffic counts by the AC Group, you're referring, are
11· you not, to what I've marked as Exhibit 8?
12· · · ·A· · I am.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So the page that's got the
14· Bates-number 28311 on your notes that are Exhibit 10,
15· those are just your notes from looking at Exhibit 8,
16· right?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · If you would, flip to the next page on
19· Exhibit 10.· Are these your notes?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· These notes appear to be dated January
22· 24th, '14, right?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · Is that approximately when you were asked to
25· get involved in this case, give or take?
·1· · · ·A· · I don't know.· I can't tell you for sure.
·2· · · ·Q· · All right.
·3· · · ·A· · I can't tell you whether it was significantly
·4· before that.· This, this appears . . .
·5· · · ·Q· · What are those notes from?· Is this --
·6· · · ·A· · I was going to say, it appears to be notes
·7· from a meeting on the 24th.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · Of January 2014.
10· · · ·Q· · And I mean, I -- actually, your writing's
11· pretty clear here, I can kind of read it, but it
12· appears here your -- for instance, it says "Gabe - Land
13· Use," which I'm assuming means you were told that
14· Gabriel Rojas would be the land use person involved?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · And then you have "Prefile Reports Sooner
17· than Due."· I mean, in a case like this there's
18· prefiled testimony.· I'm assuming that that was part of
19· the discussion from this meeting; is that right?
20· · · ·A· · I don't know.
21· · · ·Q· · Don't know?· But these notes aren't from your
22· actual site visit, right?
23· · · ·A· · They are not.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Now, down here on the left-hand side
25· there's -- towards the bottom I see a various list of
·1· things.· It says derailments, noise, dust, two-way,
·2· railroad crossings, cattle guards, cattle, safety.
·3· What is that?
·4· · · ·A· · Those are subject areas of the hearing
·5· request letters.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And those are items that are, that are
·7· discussed in large measure, in some way, shape, or
·8· form, in your report that's Exhibit 4, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Correct.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The, the last attachment on page -- I
11· mean on Exhibit 10, the last page is a page with some
12· handwriting at the bottom.· Where, where does this come
13· from, do you know?
14· · · ·A· · I can tell you after I examine it.
15· · · ·Q· · Sure.
16· · · ·A· · Certainly.· Yes.· This, I believe, is a page
17· out of another landfill study --
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.
19· · · ·A· · -- of traffic activity.
20· · · ·Q· · It's not this facility, though, right?
21· · · ·A· · It's not.
22· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· I mean Austin Road and French Camp
23· Road are nothing to do with this facility?
24· · · ·A· · Right.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And there's handwriting down at the
·1· bottom.· Is that yours?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · What is, what is that?
·4· · · ·A· · I was trying to come up with some, some
·5· numbers that are represented by this information, which
·6· it appears that I -- it was involving the percentage of
·7· trucks.
·8· · · ·Q· · But this is based on the information out of
·9· this other landfill study?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let's go back to your -- not your, but
12· the Exhibit No. 3, I think.· Yes.· Which is the
13· responses to the request for disclosures that talks
14· about your opinions, and on the third page.
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · So when we get down to the, to the third
17· sentence it says, "It is Mr. Steitle's opinion that the
18· access roads" -- oh, let me before I get there . . .
19· · · · · · · · ·So as we sit here today we've talked
20· about a lot of the access roads.· Are you aware that
21· one of the access roads that has been described in the
22· application is a secondary or emergency access road
23· that comes from Highway 59 and goes south to the
24· landfill facility?
25· · · ·A· · I understand that that's an emergency access
·1· route.· It is not one that I dealt with.
·2· · · ·Q· · In your work in your 2014?
·3· · · ·A· · That's correct.
·4· · · ·Q· · Have you dealt with it at all in your work?
·5· · · ·A· · I've ridden it.· I rode it, rode on it
·6· or -- I was a passenger in a vehicle traveling that
·7· route.
·8· · · ·Q· · And --
·9· · · ·A· · And I observed the features, the area, the
10· connection to U.S. 59.
11· · · ·Q· · And that was on January 16, right?
12· · · ·A· · It was.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Very good.· So let's, let's go to the
14· Exhibit 3 now, and it says, "It is Mr. Steitle's
15· opinion that the access roads to the landfill site are
16· available and adequate."· Do you see that?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · Were those your opinions in 2014?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · And are those your opinions today?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · What does it mean when you say available?
23· · · ·A· · It means that they are there as defined in
24· the permit application.
25· · · ·Q· · Well, are they?· I mean, we've talked about
·1· several areas where the roads do not exist at all,
·2· right?· For instance, what we circled in blue and red
·3· on Exhibit 6 and 7 and the road that goes into the
·4· facility boundary doesn't even exist today, right?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So it, it -- that doesn't really -- so
·7· that's not correct, right?· It's not available.
·8· · · ·A· · No.· It's defined in the permit application,
·9· and as defined in the permit application it's not --
10· the entire road may not be there now, but it is defined
11· as the all-weather road that will be used.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So having said that -- and, and we
13· also talked about the fact that there's down at the end
14· of Jordan Road as it goes into the ranch, that area is,
15· is where, where a road is going to be constructed as an
16· access road that doesn't exist, right?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So both of those, at least, as we sit
19· here today, they don't exist, but, but it's your
20· opinion that they're available.· So by "available" what
21· is it that you really mean?
22· · · ·A· · Well, they're committed to in the, in the
23· application.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· All right.· And then, then it says
25· that the -- that they're adequate.· What do you mean by
·1· "adequate"?
·2· · · ·A· · They're defined as all-weather on the, on the
·3· ranch property, and State Highway 359 is purported by
·4· TxDOT to be adequate and Jordan Road is adequate.· From
·5· my observations, based on the condition I reviewed and
·6· the existing utilization of the road primarily, Webb
·7· County also didn't offer any objection to the
·8· utilization, although that, that is in addition to my
·9· site visit and review in 2014 of the adequacy of the
10· road, by reviewing the utilization of the road and the
11· condition of the road.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So, so far we've talked about
13· adequate, meaning all-weather.· 359 is adequate,
14· according to TxDOT and your observation, as I
15· understand it, right?
16· · · ·A· · And my -- yes.
17· · · ·Q· · And, and Jordan Road you say is adequate
18· based on your observations in 2014?
19· · · ·A· · And the lack of any objection from Webb
20· County.
21· · · ·Q· · How do you know there's no objection from
22· Webb County?
23· · · ·A· · Well, Mr. Valdez's letter.
24· · · ·Q· · So the, the County Judge Danny Valdez, is
25· that the letter you're referring to?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes, Exhibit H in Part II.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you ever had any conversations
·3· with anybody from Webb County personally?
·4· · · ·A· · Regarding this --
·5· · · ·Q· · Regarding, regarding the adequacy or the use
·6· of Jordan Road as an access road.
·7· · · ·A· · No.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are you aware or have you seen the
·9· comments that were submitted by Webb County that relate
10· to Jordan Road as an access road?
11· · · ·A· · I've gotten wind of them.· I have not -- I
12· don't know that I've seen them.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· When you say you've gotten wind of
14· them what do you mean?
15· · · ·A· · The content in general.
16· · · ·Q· · What -- and how were -- how was that
17· communicated to you?· If it came from these lawyers,
18· just tell me and I'll go no further.· If it came from
19· somewhere else, I'm interested.
20· · · ·A· · No.· It came from these lawyers.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then never mind.· Just so you know,
22· I -- and I don't ever want to -- if in answering a
23· question that I ask it necessarily involved you telling
24· me a conversation that you've had with the lawyers, I
25· really probably don't want to go there, but I can.
·1· · · · · · · · ·But what do you, what do you generally
·2· understand Webb County's comments to be?
·3· · · ·A· · Well, I don't know what their comments are,
·4· but I know that the mood regarding this landfill may
·5· have evolved from positive to negative.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So would it be a fair statement that
·7· perhaps the letter from Danny Valdez as the county
·8· judge may not reflect the current county position with
·9· respect to the use of Jordan Road as an access road?
10· · · · · · · · · · · MR. McDONALD:· Objection, form.
11· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Do you know?
12· · · ·A· · I don't know for sure.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Back to the word "adequate," what does
14· adequate mean to -- well, let me ask this:· Do you,
15· based on your observation, think that the secondary
16· access road is adequate?· I know you've only been on it
17· in a car.· So is that a sufficient exposure to even
18· make an evaluation as to whether it's adequate?
19· · · ·A· · Well, I don't know that it's an access road.
20· It's a emergency access facility when Jordan Road is
21· out of service or unavailable or other conditions
22· dictate that that road is not available for use.
23· The -- that's my answer.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And based on your observation, did you
25· see enough of the secondary access road to know whether
·1· or not it's adequate for those purposes?
·2· · · ·A· · I think in emergency situations it could be
·3· perceived as that.
·4· · · ·Q· · Could be perceived?· So you don't have an
·5· opinion, or do you?
·6· · · ·A· · I did not include that in my report.· It
·7· was -- I don't have an opinion regarding that.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So you don't have an opinion on the
·9· adequacy of the secondary access road as we sit here
10· today, right?
11· · · ·A· · No.· No.· It's there.· It could be used, and
12· it's presented as emergency utilization, and I saw no
13· reason why it couldn't be exercised as that.
14· · · ·Q· · And that is based on riding on it in a van
15· one time, right?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · That's the basis for that observation or
18· opinion, right?
19· · · ·A· · That's my basis.
20· · · ·Q· · Sure.· When you use the term "adequate" what
21· do you, what, what do you mean by that?· What does that
22· mean?
23· · · ·A· · It -- what I mean is it, it's sufficient to
24· service the needs of the activity, which means that it
25· has the capability of all-weather access.· It, in terms
·1· of my evaluation, it also involved the operational
·2· efficiency in regards to such quantifiable but
·3· subjective descriptions of congestion, capacity.
·4· · · ·Q· · Anything else?
·5· · · ·A· · And for that matter, it -- safety would have
·6· to be considered.
·7· · · ·Q· · Anything else?
·8· · · ·A· · No.
·9· · · ·Q· · When you say or when we use the term in this
10· context "all-weather," what do you understand that to
11· mean?
12· · · ·A· · It means being able to be utilized in all
13· types of weather conditions by the user.
14· · · ·Q· · Would that include a hundred-year storm
15· event?
16· · · ·A· · No.· That's, that's a, that's a -- well, it
17· could, yeah, certainly could.· The, the adequacy of the
18· road can be independent of a hundred-year storm based
19· on its design, but a hundred-year storm is not
20· considered a -- I'm looking for the technical term.
21· It's severe weather, it's considered severe weather
22· like a tornado, hurricane.· Like Harvey closed the
23· all-weather I-10 during the hurricane.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.
25· · · ·A· · It's still all-weather, but it's, it's not
·1· available during Harvey.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So a hurricane certainly can -- I
·3· mean, a hurricane can be way more than a hundred-year
·4· flood storm event, right?
·5· · · ·A· · It, it can depending on the location of the
·6· flooding.
·7· · · ·Q· · Did you do, did you do any investigation in
·8· the Webb County area as to what a hundred-year storm
·9· event would be in terms of the amount of rainfall?
10· · · ·A· · It depends on the location.
11· · · ·Q· · I know, and I'm asking you did you do any
12· investigation to determine what a hundred-year flood
13· event is in Webb County?
14· · · ·A· · No.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So let me be sure I'm following you.
16· As you understand it, the term "all-weather" would be
17· able -- would represent a road that can be used in all
18· weather conditions except, perhaps, severe weather like
19· a hurricane or a tornado, right?
20· · · ·A· · Or a major flood.
21· · · ·Q· · Or a major flood.
22· · · · · · · · ·Now, adequacy, do you think when we talk
23· about whether or not a road is adequate that it would
24· be appropriate to look to the design of the road?
25· · · ·A· · It -- if it's a, if it's an existing roadway,
·1· the adequacy can be established through its
·2· utilization.
·3· · · ·Q· · Well, you didn't really answer my question.
·4· My question is, is it appropriate in evaluating whether
·5· a road is adequate to look at its design?
·6· · · · · · · · ·For instance, just as an example so that
·7· you understand if I'm not being clear, if a road is
·8· designed so that water doesn't run off of it, is that a
·9· factor that one could look at in determining whether a
10· road is adequate or not?
11· · · ·A· · That would be a consideration in a proposed
12· roadway, but an existing roadway is based on
13· utilization and its serviceability to the demand.
14· · · ·Q· · Well, if a road is designed so that it holds
15· water and it doesn't drain water, that would make it
16· difficult in even a small rain event to utilize the
17· road, right, or it could?
18· · · ·A· · Well, when you say design, that, that tells
19· me that there is a engineer or professional that
20· established a grade on that road and did so to hold
21· water, and that would not occur.
22· · · ·Q· · What you're saying is an engineer -- I want
23· to be sure what you just told me.· You're saying an
24· engineer who designed a road would not design a road to
25· hold water, right?
·1· · · ·A· · An engineer or professional designer
·2· wouldn't.· Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · They would design a road, in fact, that had a
·4· crown in the center and some slope so that it would
·5· drain off water and certainly during anything other
·6· than a major flood event, right?
·7· · · ·A· · Not necessarily a crown, but not,
·8· not -- roads such as the road I use to get to my house
·9· is sloped toward the downhill, and that's common on
10· private roads.
11· · · ·Q· · Sure.
12· · · ·A· · On, on public facilities, highways, paved
13· highways they are frequently crowned, but in curves
14· they are sloped toward the inside of the curve.· It
15· depends on the, the intention of, of ridding the
16· highway of water.
17· · · ·Q· · But in any case, and a design by an engineer
18· would normally entail ridding the road of water.
19· · · ·A· · It'd consider drainage.
20· · · ·Q· · Yes.· What about when you're looking at the
21· term "adequate" in designing a road?· Would the
22· materials that are used to construct the road be a
23· consideration?
24· · · ·A· · It would -- the end result of the material
25· would be a consideration in terms of allowing
·1· all-weather use.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Because some materials just aren't
·3· well-suited to certain conditions, right?· Like --
·4· · · ·A· · Well, beach sand is --
·5· · · ·Q· · Right.
·6· · · ·A· · -- it's a good example here.
·7· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· You would have a hard time getting
·8· through a road that's made of beach sand and only beach
·9· sand.
10· · · ·A· · Or marbles or --
11· · · ·Q· · Sure.
12· · · ·A· · -- anything else.
13· · · ·Q· · All right.· So materials are a consideration?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· We've already talked about
16· drainage.· Drainage, of course, is the ability of a
17· road to drain water.· That's a consideration, wouldn't
18· you agree?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · All right.· If there is areas where water
21· can cross a road, the existence of culverts or adequate
22· cul- -- or culverts that transmit that water would be a
23· consideration as to whether or not a road is adequate,
24· wouldn't you agree?
25· · · ·A· · If culverts are involved, yes, sir.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And the design of those culverts and
·2· the road on top of the culverts would be a
·3· consideration to determine whether those culverts were
·4· effective to make the road adequate --
·5· · · ·A· · The --
·6· · · ·Q· · -- would you agree?
·7· · · ·A· · -- the effectiveness of the culvert based on
·8· experience or design, and design is, is a crystal that
·9· is used to anticipate what's going to happen out there.
10· Experience can also tell you that.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are you familiar with the American
12· Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
13· Guidelines for the construction and maintenance of
14· gravel roads?
15· · · ·A· · Generally, yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you -- have you made any evaluation
17· of the access roads in this case as to whether or not
18· they comport with those guidelines?
19· · · ·A· · I have not.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So where no road currently exists but
21· is proposed to exist as an access road to this
22· facility, how -- when you say they're adequate, how is
23· it that you can say they're adequate?
24· · · ·A· · They're shown on the permit to be
25· all-weather, and they would be engineered, designed to
·1· accommodate the users in all weather conditions.
·2· · · ·Q· · So you're, you're making an assumption that
·3· they will be designed and constructed as an all-weather
·4· road that could be used for the purpose of the
·5· transportation loads that could be expected to this
·6· landfill, right?
·7· · · ·A· · I'm accepting the commitment contained in the
·8· application that they will be all-weather.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The -- is there anything else that,
10· that you, in your opinion or your understanding of the
11· word "adequate," that we haven't talked about?
12· · · ·A· · Nothing that --
13· · · ·Q· · In terms of the access roads.
14· · · ·A· · Nothing comes to mind immediately.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· The next, on Exhibit 3, the next
16· sentence says, "It is also Mr. Steitle's opinion that
17· traffic volumes on access roads within one mile of the
18· site are acceptable."· Do you see that?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is that your opinion?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Was that your opinion in 2014?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · In 2014 did you even get within one mile of
25· the facility?
·1· · · ·A· · I got within one mile of the facility with
·2· regard to the application.· I did not physically go one
·3· mile to establish what --
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·5· · · ·A· · -- the volume was.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The, the volumes that you were aware
·7· of in 2014 in terms of traffic would be reflected in
·8· the report that's prepared as -- that's shown as
·9· Steitle Exhibit 8, right?
10· · · ·A· · Some of those volumes would be.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are there other volumes that you are
12· aware of?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.· The proposed landfill volumes.
14· · · ·Q· · In terms of number of trucks that are going
15· to go and the volumes of waste?· Is that what you're
16· referring to?
17· · · ·A· · Trucks and vehicles.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And your understanding of that is from
19· the application itself, right?
20· · · ·A· · Correct.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And those volumes are reflected in
22· part, are they not, in your, your report, Exhibit 4?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · All right.· Now, the sentence goes on to say
25· "there are no existing or future restrictions on the
·1· facility access roadways within one mile of the
·2· proposed landfill site that would preclude safe and
·3· efficient operations for landfill vehicles and other
·4· traffic in the area of the facility."· Do you see that?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Is that your opinion today?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · Was that your opinion in 2014?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · All right.· What do you mean by
11· "restrictions" in that opinion?
12· · · ·A· · Well, a restriction might be a width of a
13· roadway that cannot accommodate a full-size vehicle or
14· a truck.· It could involve a supporting capacity of a
15· structure or other facility to not be able to carry a
16· loaded truck destined for the landfill.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The, the opinion talks about "would
18· preclude safe and efficient operations."· When you talk
19· about safe what do you mean?
20· · · ·A· · Well, safe is a subjective term, and it's,
21· it's something that would be predictable to have
22· negative consequences that could be harmful.
23· · · ·Q· · Well, for instance, could safety be affected
24· by the condition of the roadway in the sense that if
25· it's -- if it floods easily, that could be a safety
·1· hazard?· We talked about that in the context of
·2· low-water crossings in your experience, right?
·3· · · ·A· · Well, I would not consider flooding easily to
·4· be all-weather.
·5· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.
·6· · · ·A· · I mean, it's, it's --
·7· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.
·8· · · ·A· · It would have to be a severe weather event
·9· that would cause flooding for it to be all-weather.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So but, but when you're talking about
11· safety and you're talking about it in terms of
12· restrictions or, or on the access roads that would,
13· that would preclude safe and efficient operations,
14· safety would include the effects of water on the road,
15· right?
16· · · ·A· · Well, we, we talked earlier about Interstate
17· 10.
18· · · ·Q· · Right.
19· · · ·A· · It's, it's unsafe if you drive into the
20· water.· I-10 was, was controlled through traffic
21· control devices to prevent that from happening.· The
22· road, the freeway was closed.
23· · · ·Q· · I understand.
24· · · ·A· · And it's not necessarily unsafe unless it's
25· uncontrolled.
·1· · · ·Q· · Well, but as you just got through telling me
·2· a few moments ago, if during a fairly regular storm
·3· event water collects on the road in such a way that you
·4· could, you could hydroplane your car, that's not going
·5· to be safe, is it?
·6· · · ·A· · Are we talking about a hypothetical road?
·7· · · ·Q· · We are talking hypothetically right now just
·8· in any way, shape, or form.· I'm trying to understand
·9· when you use the term "safe" in this opinion what kinds
10· of things we can talk about that would, that would
11· relate to the safety.· And I'm assuming, I have assumed
12· at least, that one of those would be water on the road
13· could create a safety hazard.
14· · · ·A· · Not, not necessarily.· It depends on the
15· traffic control to mitigate that event, and if it's an
16· all-weather road, that should be a monumental type of
17· event.
18· · · ·Q· · Right.· So an all-weather road pretty much
19· tells you, at least, that it wouldn't collect water to
20· be a danger unless it were a monumental event, right?
21· · · ·A· · You know, water, water is not a danger unless
22· it's, number one, deep; or number two, flowing at a
23· rapid rate.· And, and that would be a consequence of a
24· severe weather event and not on an all-weather road.
25· · · ·Q· · So by definition, then, an all-weather road
·1· should not have those -- that kind of flooding?
·2· · · ·A· · That's, that --
·3· · · ·Q· · Unless it was a severe weather event?
·4· · · ·A· · That would be correct.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What else goes into safety?· Would --
·6· are you familiar with the term "washboarding" or
·7· "corrugation"?
·8· · · ·A· · Yes.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And that's where on a gravel road you
10· get over time the development of little ridges, right?
11· · · ·A· · You can --
12· · · ·Q· · You can.
13· · · ·A· · -- get them.
14· · · ·Q· · All right.· Does that affect the safety of
15· people driving on the road?
16· · · ·A· · Generally, generally not.· It generally
17· affects the comfort.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Could it affect the safety if you got
19· to a speed that was beyond what -- I mean, you would
20· agree with me that at certain speeds on corrugation or
21· washboarding it makes it difficult to control the
22· vehicle.· It can.· You'd agree with that, right?
23· · · ·A· · It, it depends.· I would agree, depending on
24· the driver and the driver's performance regarding or
25· the driver's reaction or response to the condition, the
·1· particular condition.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What about the existence of potholes
·3· or ruts on a road?· Could that affect the safety of
·4· people driving on it?
·5· · · ·A· · Well, it certainly could.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·7· · · ·A· · I mean, we're talking about severe
·8· conditions --
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.
10· · · ·A· · -- that could.
11· · · ·Q· · When, when you in this -- in talking about
12· this opinion that there are no existing restrictions on
13· the access roads that would preclude safe and efficient
14· operations, let's talk about for a minute efficient.
15· What does that mean in the context of that?
16· · · ·A· · Means it can, can handle the capacity, the
17· needs, the traffic needs without excessive congestion.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· For instance, you mentioned width as
19· being a, a function of a type of restriction that could
20· affect either safety or efficiency, I think.· And so
21· one example would be if the road was too narrow to
22· accommodate two vehicles that are going to typically
23· use the road so that one would have to stop and wait
24· for another to go around, that would affect, certainly,
25· efficiency, right?
·1· · · ·A· · It, it would necessarily affect it, but to
·2· the degree would be defined on the frequency of that
·3· occurring on the roadway, which would be based on the
·4· split of the direction of traffic and the volume of the
·5· traffic.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In your report and in your notes you,
·7· you talk about the width at the cattle guards and the
·8· width at the railroad crossing, and in your report you
·9· say that those should be changed so that the cattle
10· guards are not 20 feet but 24 feet.· Do you recall
11· that?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So is it correct that that's your
14· opinion of how wide the road, Jordan Road should be as
15· an access road, at least the drivable area?
16· · · ·A· · The, the minimum acceptable width is 20 feet.
17· Bridges at one time were 18 feet.· They're no longer
18· that.· If you're going to improve the functionality of
19· a facility, you would -- such as this, such as cattle
20· guards, you'd make them 24 feet.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.
22· · · ·A· · But they will operate fine at 20 feet,
23· depending on the volume of, of -- depending on,
24· excessive volume of traffic or speed of traffic.· You'd
25· have to slow down to make sure you pass the opposing
·1· traffic safely.
·2· · · ·Q· · Sure.· But you, as I understand it, in your
·3· report your recommendation would be that if the cattle
·4· guards remain on the road, on Jordan Road and I guess
·5· anywhere on an access road, that they utilize 24-foot
·6· cattle guards so that it could be safe and efficient,
·7· right?
·8· · · ·A· · The wording in my report was such that that
·9· could be interpreted that way.· I saw that there -- if
10· the opportunity prevails that they should be wider.
11· But they'll operate fine as they are now at 20 feet. I
12· don't see the volume mandate -- the volume of expected
13· traffic even with the landfill mandating that they be
14· torn out and widened.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· We'll get back to that at another
16· point.
17· · · · · · · · ·But are you familiar with the
18· A-A-S-H-T-O guidelines concerning the width of a gravel
19· road with a low volume of traffic, like what is
20· currently here and projected to be here?· Are you
21· familiar with the guidelines on what they think the
22· width should be?
23· · · ·A· · I'm aware of them.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you think that those are
25· appropriate to follow in this instance?
·1· · · ·A· · Well, there's, there's, there's different
·2· guidelines available for that, and they're, they're up
·3· to the discretion of the agency or party that is
·4· responsible for that.· It's generally accepted that 20
·5· feet is the appropriate minimum width of a public
·6· roadway.
·7· · · ·Q· · And where do you derive that from?· What's
·8· the basis for you saying that?
·9· · · ·A· · I can't, I can't recite that.· I don't know.
10· It's based on my experience.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.
12· · · ·A· · I know that most, most county roads in Texas
13· cannot be accepted by a county unless they're 20 feet.
14· I know that for emergency access, fire access 20 feet
15· minimum is generally the standard for acceptance for
16· emergency purposes.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In this instance you haven't consulted
18· with the Webb County Road and Bridge Maintenance group
19· to determine what they think would be adequate for this
20· landfill, right?
21· · · ·A· · I don't --
22· · · ·Q· · In terms of width.· I'm sorry.
23· · · ·A· · Are we talking about Jordan Road?
24· · · ·Q· · We are.
25· · · ·A· · Well --
·1· · · ·Q· · For this question I'm asking about Jordan
·2· Road.
·3· · · ·A· · Well, Jordan Road is a county road, a Webb
·4· County road.
·5· · · ·Q· · That's what -- I agree.· Now, the question
·6· that I'm asking you is, you haven't, you haven't talked
·7· to Webb County's Road Maintenance Department to
·8· determine what they think this road should be in terms
·9· of width if it is used for the purposes of this
10· landfill, right?
11· · · ·A· · I'm not, I'm not aware of that department
12· that you're talking about and what their
13· responsibilities are.· I have not talked to them.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you know if anybody for the
15· applicant has consulted with them and coordinated with
16· them on what might be done with this road in order to
17· meet the, the loads, the traffic, and the what's going
18· to occur if this landfill is permitted?
19· · · ·A· · I haven't seen that analysis.· I'm not aware.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· On that opinion we were talking about
21· whether the existing or future restrictions on the
22· facility access roads that preclude safe and efficient
23· operations, you're not aware of anything?· When we talk
24· about future restrictions what was in your mind?· I'm
25· not sure I understood.
·1· · · ·A· · Well, restrictions that might come about that
·2· aren't existing, such as load limit.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you're not -- I mean, I guess the
·4· opinion is you don't know of anything in terms of plans
·5· that the county might have for Jordan Road?· You
·6· haven't talked to them, so you wouldn't know.
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In Exhibit 3 the next paragraph starts
·9· off with you "may offer testimony regarding projected
10· noise from traffic accessing the proposed landfill
11· facility."· Do you see that?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · What, what testimony are you planning, at
14· least now, to offer in terms of the projected noise
15· that would occur on the access road?
16· · · ·A· · I'm not planning any, but I can address the
17· subject if need be.
18· · · ·Q· · And the need is here.· You're being --
19· · · ·A· · Yep.
20· · · ·Q· · -- offered as expert, and we've been told
21· that you may offer testimony.· So if you were to offer
22· testimony, what would that testimony be?
23· · · ·A· · Well, I agree with your assessment, but I was
24· responding to your question, which now is different.
25· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.
·1· · · ·A· · The noise, the traffic noise of the existing
·2· trucks that are utilizing Jordan Road, the heavy
·3· vehicles, the 18-wheelers, is, as my report states,
·4· it's not discernible until those vehicles come into
·5· view, and when they're out of view the highway noise
·6· from the asphalt-paved State Highway 359 is discernible
·7· [sic].
·8· · · · · · · · ·And so based on the material, which
·9· asphalt is, is -- projects noise greater than this type
10· of road, Jordan Road, that the existing trucks that use
11· the road, in my judgment, are not objectionable, the
12· noise created, and should not become objectionable with
13· the landfill traffic.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you actually use any equipment or
15· tools to measure the noise of the trucks that were
16· using Jordan Road when you were making that
17· observation?
18· · · ·A· · Well, in answer to your question, I used my
19· ears only.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And in your evaluation of noise
21· levels, is that something that is appropriate, or is
22· it -- would you normally in trying to evaluate noise
23· levels and their impact on surrounding people and
24· residents, would you, would you not normally want to
25· measure that in some way, shape, or form?
·1· · · ·A· · Well, you're depicting a condition that
·2· doesn't exist on Jordan Road.
·3· · · ·Q· · Am I?· Why?
·4· · · ·A· · There's no residents, residential areas.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you a question:· Are you
·6· aware of the Hurd Ranch?
·7· · · ·A· · I'm aware of it.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you -- have you talked to anybody
·9· at the Hurd Ranch to know who might live on the Hurd
10· Ranch near Jordan Road?
11· · · ·A· · I don't know.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.
13· · · ·A· · I haven't done that.
14· · · ·Q· · All right.· Do you know how far the ranch
15· headquarters or the ranch houses are from Jordan Road?
16· · · ·A· · It's about a third of a mile.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· As I understood it from your report,
18· you indicated in your report that when you -- you said
19· when they got out -- when trucks got out of view you
20· stopped hearing the noise, but you evaluated it at
21· somewhere around .4 miles you stopped hearing a truck.
22· Do I have that right?· We can look at your report if
23· I -- I don't want to, I don't want to misstate it.
24· · · ·A· · Yeah.· Four-tenths of a mile, I think that's
25· correct.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, so based on your understanding
·2· of where the Hurd Ranch housing is located, that's less
·3· than that from Jordan Road, right?
·4· · · ·A· · It's slightly less.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So even with your ears registering
·6· noise, you'd agree that someone, whoever resides at the
·7· Hurd Ranch headquarters, could, in fact, be hearing the
·8· noise from the trucks on Jordan Road?
·9· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
10· · · ·A· · I think it depends on where they're at,
11· whether they're outside of the residence, whether
12· they're inside the residence, and other factors.
13· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Well, noise is an issue when
14· we're talking about the use of roads to, to access a
15· landfill.· You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?· We're
16· talking about it, it's included in your report.
17· · · ·A· · Well, it's obviously been expressed as one.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And do you have an opinion or do you
19· have specific knowledge about what level of noise could
20· create a nuisance?· Do you have any opinion with
21· respect to that?
22· · · ·A· · I don't, I don't have a history of, of any of
23· that based on existing use of the roadway to compare it
24· to.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you didn't use any equipment to
·1· actually measure the noise that comes from the existing
·2· traffic on Jordan Road, right?
·3· · · ·A· · All I did was count the traffic and classify
·4· the traffic based on three-to-four-axle vehicles,
·5· passenger vehicles, and tractor-trailer units that
·6· currently use the road.
·7· · · ·Q· · Well, but you also in your report take the
·8· position that noise is, is not a problem.
·9· · · ·A· · I don't think it, I don't think it is in
10· general.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.
12· · · ·A· · Now, if we look at, if we look at someone
13· that builds a house next to the road, that may be
14· objectionable to that particular person, but in general
15· that's, that's not a, a common condition.
16· · · ·Q· · I think you indicated -- I mean, when you
17· were, when you were evaluating the noise levels, as I
18· understood it in your report, you were evaluating those
19· near the railroad crossing on Jordan Road, right?
20· · · ·A· · No.· I was evaluating the condition up to
21· the railroad, because at that point you can clearly,
22· you can still clearly hear the highway noise on
23· the -- from State Highway 359, but you can't hear a
24· truck approaching you unless it's in view and in close
25· proximity.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And it's that observation -- when, I'm
·2· saying observation, observation in conjunction with
·3· hearing -- that you're relaying in your report, and
·4· based on that what do you conclude?
·5· · · ·A· · Based on that qualitative observation that
·6· it, it should not be objectionable because it is a
·7· subjective, it is a subjective factor.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And as a subjective factor your
·9· particular feeling or concern about the noise level
10· could be quite different from anybody else, right, if
11· it's subjective?
12· · · ·A· · Not if it's using the same criteria.· If
13· we're using individual situations like you've brought
14· up, it could be a specific objection rather than a
15· general noise-level objection.
16· · · ·Q· · Well, but when you say something's subjective
17· that means that it might -- two different individuals
18· could have a different conclusion based on the same set
19· of parameters, right?
20· · · ·A· · It does.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And that would, that would include the
22· noise and the impact of noise.
23· · · ·A· · No.· It would include the perception of the
24· impact.
25· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· In Exhibit 3 it goes on to say
·1· that you may offer testimony about existing and future
·2· traffic counts on the roads beyond one mile of the
·3· proposed facility.· Do you see that?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · All right.· What is that testimony, if you
·6· were to offer it?
·7· · · ·A· · Well, I've, I've attempted to describe it in,
·8· in my report.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.
10· · · ·A· · And that is that the, the traffic counts, the
11· nearest -- well, let's talk about State Highway 359.
12· The traffic volumes on 359 have been measured over the
13· years four miles, at a location four miles east of
14· Jordan Road and another location four miles west of
15· Jordan Road.· Those can be considered, in my judgment,
16· representative of the traffic that Jordan Road may
17· be -- or the volume of traffic on the road near Jordan
18· Road.· It shouldn't, it shouldn't diminish much or
19· shouldn't grow much because of the lack of development,
20· intensive development.· Those volumes are projected by
21· TxDOT 20 years out, and I utilized those projections
22· and those volumes to estimate what the existing and
23· future volumes, including truck traffic, would be.
24· · · · · · · · ·On Jordan Road I used my traffic counts
25· and assumed that it could be, depending on how the oil
·1· and gas production activity served by Jordan Road goes,
·2· it could be that by the time this landfill opens
·3· traffic could double.· Conceivably it could double,
·4· and, and I'm basing that on historic oil and gas
·5· production in Webb County and how it, how it has varied
·6· based on drilling activity and the price of crude.
·7· · · ·Q· · In your report you, you reflect that, I think
·8· on page 6, that you think that it's possible that
·9· traffic could double because of the success of oil
10· production.
11· · · · · · · · ·Have you taken a look at what wells are
12· in that vicinity to the east of Jordan Road?· Have you
13· looked at those wells?· I don't mean physically looked
14· at them.· I mean have you looked at data with respect
15· to the oil and gas wells that exist on the east side of
16· Jordan Road that you're discussing?
17· · · ·A· · Yes, I have, and I've documented it in my
18· report.
19· · · ·Q· · And what did you look at --
20· · · ·A· · I looked at --
21· · · ·Q· · -- to do that?
22· · · ·A· · I gave a reference in my report.
23· · · ·Q· · Could you show me where that is?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.· It's on page 5.· I referenced number --
25· · · ·Q· · Footnote 1?
·1· · · ·A· · -- footnote number 1, which referred to, as
·2· I recall, and I'm, I'm not reading it current -- oh,
·3· here we go, that seven of Webb County's top-producing
·4· wells are located on the east side of Jordan Road
·5· between State Highway 359 and the KCS tracts.· And my
·6· source was the texas-drilling.com website,
·7· texas-drilling.com/webb-county.
·8· · · ·Q· · And did you make a copy of what you looked at
·9· on texas-drilling.com that supports your statement?
10· · · ·A· · No.· I just referenced the website.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you know, have you looked at the
12· production from the wells that you're referring to and
13· compared those to all of the Webb County production?
14· Do you know what percentage of production is coming
15· from those wells that's produced in Webb County?
16· · · ·A· · I'm not, I'm not representing anything other
17· than what I've stated in the source of that
18· information.
19· · · ·Q· · Well, you're calling them top-producing
20· wells.· What makes you think they're top-producing
21· wells?
22· · · ·A· · That's what Texas Drilling defines.
23· · · ·Q· · They define those specific wells --
24· · · ·A· · They, they --
25· · · ·Q· · -- as-top producing wells?
·1· · · ·A· · Yeah.· They call them top-producing.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · (Off-record exchanges)
·3· · · ·Q· · Would it surprise you to know that
·4· the -- well, are you aware of whether there's been any
·5· new wells drilled in that vicinity, to the east of
·6· Jordan Road between 359 and the railroad, since 2011?
·7· · · ·A· · I haven't researched that.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you haven't researched what
·9· percentage of production in Webb County comes from
10· those wells, have you?
11· · · ·A· · No.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would it surprise you to know that
13· it's less than 1 percent?
14· · · ·A· · Nothing would surprise me.· No.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· And as I understand it, the
16· assumption in your report that the traffic may double
17· related to the oil and gas production -- is that -- do
18· I characterize that right, that you think the oil and
19· gas production -- or the road activity, the trucks --
20· · · ·A· · Well, there's two aspects:· There's
21· production and there's exploration.· And it depends on
22· the marketability of the product and the availability
23· to produce the product, and I can't predict it. I
24· don't think --
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · ·A· · -- anyone here can predict it, but I'm saying
·2· that conceivably it could double, and/or I wouldn't be
·3· surprised if it doubled.
·4· · · ·Q· · You're not an expert in oil and gas
·5· operations, are you?
·6· · · ·A· · No.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So this is, this is more of an
·8· assumption on your part than anything else, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Well --
10· · · ·Q· · Speculation?· Would that be a correct term?
11· · · ·A· · It's, it's, it's a loose -- loosely said,
12· it's a speculation, but like I said, I looked at the
13· historic production of Webb County and how it has
14· increased up to 2014.· It's incredible what has gone on
15· in Webb County, and it's incredible when you look at an
16· aerial photograph what has gone on in Webb County at
17· the well sites.
18· · · ·Q· · Sure.· You can see a number of well sites
19· even on the aerial photograph that we've got as
20· Exhibit 7 to this deposition, right?
21· · · ·A· · You can.
22· · · ·Q· · All right.· But have you looked at what has
23· happened since 2014 in regards to increased oil and gas
24· production in this vicinity on the east side of Jordan
25· Road between 359 and the railroad?
·1· · · ·A· · Only Webb County.· I did not --
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · -- have information regarding the east side
·4· of Jordan Road.
·5· · · ·Q· · All right.· The testimony that you will give
·6· with respect to existing and future traffic counts,
·7· with respect to existing traffic counts you were
·8· relying, were you not, in large part on the AC Group
·9· traffic count back in -- for one week back in 2014
10· that's reflected by Exhibit 8?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Were you relying on anything else?
13· · · ·A· · Well, I was relying, as I mentioned, the
14· TxDOT traffic counts on State Highway 359.
15· · · ·Q· · I'm sorry.· You're right.· Anything else
16· other than those two things for the existing traffic
17· counts back in 2014?
18· · · ·A· · No, sir.
19· · · ·Q· · All right.· And with respect to the existing
20· and future traffic counts, is it fair to say that
21· whatever opinions you have are reflected in Exhibit 4,
22· at least as of 2014?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · Is there something that has occurred that you
25· are aware of since 2014 that would alter your, your
·1· opinions with respect to future traffic counts in the
·2· Jordan Road area?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · And what would that be?
·5· · · ·A· · The traffic counts that are available to me
·6· now on State Highway 359 go up to the year 2017, and
·7· the projection of future traffic volumes are to 2,037,
·8· and so that is new information.· The other new
·9· information is the sudden decline in oil production in
10· Webb County in 2018 compared to the peak, which I don't
11· recall the exact year.· It was in the vicinity of this
12· study though.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is there any other new information
14· that would affect your opinion with respect to future
15· traffic counts other than the updated data on the 359
16· counts and the decline in oil and gas activity?
17· · · ·A· · There is none available at this current time.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you quantified what the impact,
19· based on that new information, would be on the
20· projected traffic counts that are contained within
21· Exhibit 4?
22· · · ·A· · They would be less.· Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and when you say they would be
24· less, you're referring to the projected traffic counts
25· from things other than the landfill activity, right?
·1· · · ·A· · Well, the -- well, the projected includes a
·2· landfill.· It -- and so the projected volumes would
·3· maybe not double.· They may be less because the Jordan
·4· Road traffic, existing traffic that's projected, would
·5· be less, but the landfill traffic would be the same.
·6· · · ·Q· · Right.· Because the landfill traffic that
·7· you've projected is based upon the information
·8· contained within the applicant's application, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · And that hasn't changed?
11· · · ·A· · And what?
12· · · ·Q· · And that hasn't changed?
13· · · ·A· · Not -- no.· It hasn't changed.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is there anything else that if you're
15· offered to testify about future and existing traffic
16· counts that you, that you would testify to other than
17· what we've talked about so far?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.· I'm, I'm seeking to obtain a updated
19· traffic count on Jordan Road at the intersection of
20· State Highway 359 to ascertain the impact of that
21· updated count on current and future traffic volumes.
22· · · ·Q· · Have you already contracted for that to be
23· done?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · And who are you getting to do it?
·1· · · ·A· · AC Group.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Same people?
·3· · · ·A· · Same people.
·4· · · ·Q· · Is there a date when they're scheduled to do
·5· it, or have they already done it?
·6· · · ·A· · The, the traffic, it has to, it has
·7· to -- traffic counts have to coordinate with weather,
·8· and the weather hasn't been conducive.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.
10· · · ·A· · It's going to happen I would expect very soon
11· if the weather holds out, but it's supposed to rain on
12· Saturday, so I don't know.
13· · · ·Q· · Maybe --
14· · · ·A· · I can't, I can't predict is what I'm saying.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.
16· · · ·A· · I've ordered it, I'm committed to it, and I'm
17· just waiting for the successful completion of it and
18· reporting to me.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is there anything else?· Obviously
20· when that count is done you will look at it and
21· evaluate what impact that has on your opinions about
22· both existing and what impacts that might have on
23· projected future counts, right?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Anything else that you would -- okay.
·1· My colleague here has got a couple questions he'd like
·2· me to ask.
·3· · · · · · · · ·One is, the study that you have
·4· contracted for AC Group to do with respect to these new
·5· traffic counts on Jordan Road, are they going -- how
·6· long are they going to look at it?· Is it another week
·7· study?
·8· · · ·A· · No.· What I have done is I've -- it's obvious
·9· from the counts and, and the data that's presented in
10· my report that Monday is a big day for oil well
11· servicing on Jordan Road and, and probably a lot of
12· other land uses, and so traffic declines through the
13· week and peaks again on Saturday and then trucks go
14· away on Sunday.
15· · · · · · · · ·So what I'm doing is, I'm taking Monday
16· as the comparison point, and I'm recounting Monday from
17· midnight to midnight and comparing it to what was
18· counted in January of 2014 and use that as the, as the
19· basis.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So the plan is to do a one-day, one
21· 24-hour count on a Monday?
22· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Any other -- anything else?· Just that
24· one day?
25· · · ·A· · That's it.· I, I expect that the 2018 traffic
·1· volume reports from TxDOT will become available,
·2· though, shortly.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·4· · · ·A· · And so I'll utilize that also.
·5· · · ·Q· · And that would, that would affect the traffic
·6· going up and down Highway 359, right?
·7· · · ·A· · It, it --
·8· · · ·Q· · Not Jordan Road.
·9· · · ·A· · Well, it's related, because the operation of
10· the intersection I use the operational efficiency or
11· congestion at the intersection of Jordan Road and State
12· Highway 59.· I used the volumes of both facilities to
13· evaluate what that currently is and what it's
14· projected, potentially projected to be.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.
16· · · · · · · · ·Why is the weather condition -- how does
17· that impact doing one of these studies?
18· · · ·A· · Weather, weather -- in two ways.· Weather
19· affects the habits, the voluntary habits of people, and
20· it's not represent- -- not -- we know it's not
21· representative of, of normal conditions.· Number 2,
22· we've got a dirt road out there that using road tubes
23· to count the traffic, it's not effective on when the,
24· when the roadway surface gives too much and the, and
25· the road tube becomes buried to where it doesn't
·1· register the vehicles.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So two things, really, as I understand
·3· it from your testimony.· The first -- I'll do them in
·4· reverse -- the first being that the equipment used to
·5· count the vehicles works better when the road is hard
·6· and stable, stiff, so that whenever a vehicle goes over
·7· it's correctly counting the wheels that go over it,
·8· right?
·9· · · ·A· · I would say I would agree with that.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then the second reason is because
11· weather can affect when people or -- when people choose
12· to do things that they might otherwise do in good
13· weather, they might not do in bad weather?· Is that --
14· · · ·A· · That's correct.
15· · · ·Q· · -- the feeling?· Okay.· Is there anything
16· else that you're aware of, as you sit here today, that
17· might impact the opinions that you -- we have talked
18· about with respect to existing and future traffic
19· counts?
20· · · ·A· · None that I can anticipate.
21· · · ·Q· · All right.· In Exhibit No. 3 --
22· · · · · · · · · · · (Inaudible exchanges concerning a
23· break)
24· · · ·Q· · In Exhibit No. 3 the next item that's talked
25· about --
·1· · · ·A· · That's not what you can expect me to say.
·2· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· You're ready to get out of here,
·3· aren't you?· I got you.
·4· · · · · · · · ·It goes on to state that you may offer
·5· testimony regarding the potential for road dust caused
·6· by landfill-related traffic.· Do you see that in
·7· Exhibit 3?
·8· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What is the test- -- if you were
10· offered up to give testimony, what is the testimony you
11· would give on that topic?
12· · · ·A· · The, the testimony is that the observations I
13· made of truck traffic on Jordan Road did not exhibit a
14· problem with the creation of dust, as, as I showed in
15· the photograph on page 5 of my report.
16· · · ·Q· · In the one picture that you took, right?
17· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and it's correct to state that
19· your observation is based on that one day you were
20· there, right?
21· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Were you aware --
23· · · ·A· · Well --
24· · · ·Q· · Well, go ahead.
25· · · ·A· · It's based on the one day I was there and the
·1· material that is used, or was there on Jordan Road when
·2· I was there, as I described in my report.
·3· · · ·Q· · You mean the nature of the material that was
·4· on the surface of the road?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And I think you referred to it as it's
·7· not fines, it's more granular, or something like that?
·8· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I -- yeah.· It's not powdery; it's,
·9· it's more granular.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would you agree with me that the
11· powdery nature of the materials on Jordan Road
12· depending on where you are changes?
13· · · ·A· · I did not, I didn't find that from
14· the -- from the railroad track to State Highway 359 I
15· didn't find that to be the case.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.
17· · · ·A· · There is some -- in 2014 I did observe some
18· change on the -- near the tracks on the south
19· side -- or on the north side, but I didn't, I didn't
20· observe the condition at that location.· I observed it
21· on the first 2.2 miles, which is the, the heaviest
22· truck activity on Jordan Road.· I mean the greatest
23· truck activity.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Other than just observation, did you
25· use any equipment to measure the dust that was being
·1· kicked up by traffic?
·2· · · ·A· · Just my camera.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you evaluate the dust -- I think
·4· you mentioned that -- I mean, I guess I need to ask.
·5· · · · · · · · ·Did you go north of the railroad tracks
·6· up to the gate of the Yugo Ranch and evaluate the way
·7· dust was being kicked up by traffic there?
·8· · · ·A· · I attempted to do that, but on the day that I
·9· was there, which I forget the day of the week, the
10· truck traffic on the north side of the tracks had
11· diminished to where I couldn't, couldn't show an
12· example as I did on -- in Figure 3 of my report.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you talk to anybody, when you were
14· out there to evaluate the dust, did you talk to anybody
15· about what might have been done recently to the road in
16· terms of dust mitigation, if anything?
17· · · ·A· · In 2014 --
18· · · ·Q· · Yes, sir.
19· · · ·A· · -- recently?
20· · · ·Q· · In 2014.
21· · · ·A· · You said "recently," so I'm --
22· · · ·Q· · I did?
23· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I thought you did.
24· · · ·Q· · I'm sorry.
25· · · ·A· · But anyway, in 2014 no.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· That, of course, leads me to ask this
·2· question:· Did you do something recently?
·3· · · ·A· · No.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.· Did you do any traffic
·5· count analysis or evaluation of dust impacts on the
·6· secondary access road?· I think --
·7· · · ·A· · No.
·8· · · ·Q· · -- the answer is no, but I want to make sure.
·9· · · ·A· · You're correct, the answer is no.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you do any evaluation of traffic
11· counts -- well, let me, let me back up.
12· · · · · · · · ·With respect to traffic counts you did
13· some evaluation, because there -- AC Group did some
14· traffic count information at the Yugo Ranch gate, did
15· they not?
16· · · ·A· · It's north of the gate.· It's on the, on the
17· property.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.
19· · · ·A· · I mean, it could be at the gate.· It would be
20· the same thing, north --
21· · · ·Q· · Just north of the gate?
22· · · ·A· · Yeah.
23· · · ·Q· · I got you.· So there's some traffic count
24· information with respect to the ranch property itself.
25· Did you do anything independently of what AC Group did?
·1· · · ·A· · No.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· With respect to dust evaluation, did
·3· you do any evaluation of the dust raised on the roads
·4· within the ranch in 2014?
·5· · · ·A· · No.
·6· · · ·Q· · And you haven't done that in 2019?
·7· · · ·A· · No.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Back to Exhibit 3, it says that you
·9· may offer testimony regarding the impact of landfill
10· traffic on livestock.· Do you see that?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · All right.· If you're -- if testimony were to
13· be offered, what would your testimony be?
14· · · ·A· · It would be consistent with what I said in my
15· report.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.
17· · · ·A· · That I found no evidence of the presence or
18· the frequency of livestock occupying Jordan Road by
19· virtue of droppings, trails or tracks, or, or
20· hoofprints.
21· · · ·Q· · What investigation of the property adjacent
22· to Jordan Road did you do in looking for cattle?
23· · · ·A· · I -- no.· I looked for, I looked for evidence
24· on Jordan Road.
25· · · ·Q· · On Jordan Road.· Okay.· So you didn't go try
·1· to make any investigation of the land adjacent to
·2· Jordan Road to determine whether there was cattle
·3· present?
·4· · · ·A· · I didn't observe any cattle from Jordan Road
·5· to the Yugo Ranch gate to -- and as I said, neither did
·6· I -- I didn't say that in my report, but in my report I
·7· said that there was no evidence to me that there was
·8· cattle occupying Jordan Road.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you talk to any of the people who
10· work in -- on the Hurd Ranch about what their cattle
11· operations are or are not?
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you interview any other landowners
14· that live up and down Jordan Road about their cattle
15· operations?
16· · · ·A· · No.
17· · · ·Q· · Do you have any specific knowledge about what
18· cattle operations Hurd Ranch does?
19· · · ·A· · I just am aware that they do.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Anything else other than that?
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · All right.
23· · · ·A· · I, I -- other than that, I, I expect it to be
24· active based on what I've heard.
25· · · ·Q· · And what have you heard?
·1· · · ·A· · That it's active.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · It's big.
·4· · · ·Q· · And where did you hear that from?
·5· · · ·A· · I think I got it from the internet.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In your report I believe you mention
·7· the possibility that if cattle operations were to
·8· become a problem because of the increased traffic
·9· counts, landowners could put up fences.· I may -- I
10· know I'm paraphrasing, but do you recall referencing
11· that in your report?
12· · · ·A· · Not in that, not in that exact form.
13· · · ·Q· · Well, let's have a look.· Trying to recall
14· where you said this.· There you go.· On, on the page 2,
15· item number 6 you say, "The presence of livestock
16· around Jordan Road was not evident, but if free range
17· grazing becomes dangerous to road users, then ranch
18· owners that have not fenced should consider fencing
19· along Jordan Road."· I -- that's what I was referring
20· to, and that's your statement, right?
21· · · ·A· · That is.
22· · · ·Q· · So if fencing were to be needed, are you
23· making a judgment call as to whether fencing should be
24· or should not be put on Jordan Road?
25· · · ·A· · Well, it's, it's not as simple as yes and no.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Why?
·2· · · ·A· · Counties and portions of counties can be
·3· declared what some people refer to as free range, which
·4· means you have the ability and the right to not confine
·5· your livestock to your private property and keep them
·6· off of a county road.· If it is not free range, then
·7· the property owner has the obligation to control their
·8· livestock.· And I could not determine whether this
·9· portion of Webb County or Webb County as a whole is
10· free range or not.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Nonetheless, without having made that
12· determination you said that the landowners should
13· consider fencing along Jordan Road.
14· · · ·A· · If it's free range.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.
16· · · ·A· · And, and if it's not, then there's, there's a
17· different obligation.
18· · · ·Q· · Right.
19· · · ·A· · And that's the county to provided adequate
20· warning signs of the condition.
21· · · ·Q· · And there are no warning signs on Jordan Road
22· about cattle, are there?
23· · · ·A· · No.· There are no warning signs, period, of
24· anything.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you, do you have an opinion one way
·1· or another as to if, if a, if fencing is going to be
·2· required by the county on Jordan Road because of the
·3· installation of a landfill facility, do you have an
·4· opinion on, one way or another, as to whose
·5· responsibility it should be to pay for and install that
·6· fencing?
·7· · · ·A· · No, I don't.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you investigate at all the impacts
·9· of cattle operations on the secondary access road
10· that's proposed to be used by the applicant?
11· · · ·A· · I, I did.· Not expressed in my report,
12· because I recently discussed that with Mr. Benavides.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.
14· · · ·A· · The rancher, the owner.
15· · · ·Q· · And what, what was -- tell me about that
16· discussion and what you concluded from that discussion.
17· · · ·A· · My interpretation of the discussion was that
18· since the access road be running along the property
19· line up to a point, that there would be no reason for
20· the livestock to cross that road, because the only
21· thing across there is a fence.
22· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· And that --
23· · · ·A· · It's --
24· · · ·Q· · You're talking about the area down on the, on
25· the southern gate?
·1· · · ·A· · That's part of my --
·2· · · ·Q· · Yes.
·3· · · ·A· · -- response to your question.· The second is
·4· that it's my understanding that Mr. Benavides would
·5· control the grazing activities, the exposure of his
·6· livestock if it became a problem by controlling the
·7· grazing locations but that the experience with existing
·8· oil production activity has not presented that problem
·9· to him.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and so that discussion focused on
11· the property that's controlled by Mr. Benavides.· What
12· about the portion of the secondary access road that is
13· north of his property and on the property that's
14· controlled by ANB Cattle?· Have you evaluated the
15· impact of the secondary access road being utilized on
16· cattle operations and vice versa?
17· · · ·A· · Well, I have not evaluated it, but it would
18· be an incidental emergency situation that would be, I
19· think, different than the daily use of Jordan Road.
20· · · ·Q· · Because the, the -- in an emergency situation
21· you're not using it on a regular basis, is that it?
22· · · ·A· · The exposure is minimal, and it's different.
23· · · ·Q· · When you think about an emergency access road
24· what do you think it would be utilized for?
25· · · ·A· · Well, like I testified earlier, that if
·1· Jordan Road is out of commission --
·2· · · ·Q· · Um-hm.
·3· · · ·A· · -- either through construction activities,
·4· maintenance activities, emergency situations that
·5· cannot be predicted, that it's an alternative
·6· to -- it's an alternative route for utilization.
·7· · · ·Q· · Well, and in that circumstance where Jordan
·8· Road is not available for use to access the landfill,
·9· then the secondary access road would then become, at
10· least for that period of time, the access road to the
11· facility and it would have the same projected traffic,
12· at least the same projected landfill traffic, right?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.· And conceivably certain emergency
14· situations could, could take the Hurds through the
15· Jordan -- through Yugo Ranch or other oil production
16· activities, depending on the condition or the -- the
17· condition of the emergency.· It, it's, it's just an
18· incidental occasional condition, as, as I would view
19· it.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Needless to say, though, you haven't
21· really done an evaluation of the impacts of the use of
22· the secondary access road on cattle operations on the
23· property north of the applicant's property?
24· · · ·A· · No.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In Exhibit 3 it continues to talk
·1· about you may offer testimony regarding traffic-safety
·2· considerations.· Do you see that?
·3· · · ·A· · Yeah.· You're -- I want to back up to that
·4· last question and my response that I haven't done an
·5· evaluation.· What I would be offering on that subject
·6· is the same, same response as -- that is consistent
·7· with my report, that the exposure would be, would be a
·8· consideration, as I noted in my report, and whether or
·9· not it is or is not a problem except that it would be
10· on private property.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Now we'll move on to the Exhibit 3
12· saying you may offer testimony regarding traffic-safety
13· considerations.
14· · · · · · · · ·If you were offered to testify on
15· traffic-safety considerations what is it that your
16· testimony is going to be?
17· · · ·A· · Well, like I mentioned earlier, safety is
18· subjective except that there are certain events or
19· exposure to events that can be a predictor of an unsafe
20· situation.· The, the primary exposures that I see and
21· that I have expressed in my report, I believe, are the
22· railroad crossing that the Federal Railroad
23· Administration predicts based on existing operations
24· that there could be a crossing accident, one crossing
25· accident every 85 years.
·1· · · · · · · · ·I think with the additional landfill
·2· traffic the exposure is obviously greater, but it's
·3· because of the speed and volume or speed and activity
·4· of the train movements being 25 -- 29 to 45 miles per
·5· hour and the infrequency relative because that low
·6· speed, relatively low speed and the frequency of
·7· operation being 16 movements per day, I would not
·8· expect that predicted frequency to be significantly
·9· greater, the exposure to be significantly greater.· And
10· if, consistent with my report, if it were, then the
11· railroad reporting system would identify it and
12· consider appropriate measures.· I don't see the
13· railroad crossing to be of only a potential safety
14· issue.· I don't see it becoming an actual issue.
15· · · · · · · · ·The second is, as I -- as we've
16· discussed and as I've presented in my report, is the
17· width of the cattle guards, and I, I don't see that as
18· a -- with the volume of traffic that we have I don't
19· see the exposure of conflicts in the safety of that to
20· become an issue.
21· · · · · · · · ·The third is the intersection of State
22· Highway 359 and Jordan Road.· The TxDOT has gone on
23· record as saying they don't anticipate it being a
24· problem, which if it were a safety issue, they would
25· identify it.· And they are considering the need for
·1· left-turn storage lanes on 359 at locations such as
·2· Jordan Road, and I expect that if it becomes necessary,
·3· which my analysis shows it's not necessary, they would
·4· consider alleviating any deficiencies by providing a
·5· left-turn lane.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let's look for a minute at your report
·7· on page 2, if you would.
·8· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·9· · · ·Q· · Let me start with the last, with the last
10· topic.· In item number 10 you state, "Jordan Road at
11· State Highway 359 should be improved to accommodate
12· simultaneous ingress and egress movements without the
13· need to turn in a wide swinging path."· Do you see
14· that?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So this is your report, that's your
17· opinion.· First of all, what do you mean by that?· I'm
18· not sure I follow.
19· · · ·A· · Well, in the event that a truck is exiting
20· from Jordan Road and another one is wanting to turn in,
21· there might be a necessity to take turns.
22· · · ·Q· · I see.
23· · · ·A· · And otherwise, a wide swinging turn would be
24· necessary to accommodate it without having to take
25· turns.· If the opportunity comes about, I think it
·1· should be looked at if it becomes an issue.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Paragraph 10, though, with that, with
·3· that explanation, paragraph 10 represents your current
·4· opinion with respect to what should happen?
·5· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I should have -- I shouldn't have, I
·6· shouldn't have put it so -- I was trying, I was trying
·7· to shorten my opinions' verbiage.· I could have
·8· expanded that to "if conditions warrant" and "it should
·9· be considered by," you know, whatever, but I'll, I'll
10· stand with should.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then in item 12, we talked about the
12· cattle guards; you mentioned that in your testimony
13· about safety issues.· And so there you say "the need
14· for cattle guards remains" -- "If the need remains for
15· cattle guards then the cattle guards should be widened"
16· from the 20 to 24 feet.· Again, that represents your
17· current opinion?
18· · · ·A· · And it should be expanded.· If it, if it
19· becomes justified based on traffic volumes.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.
21· · · ·A· · And, and conflicts at the cattle guards.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.
23· · · ·A· · I mean, you're not going to, you're not going
24· to improve on them unless it's justified.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And at this point you're not sure
·1· whether it's justified or not?
·2· · · ·A· · I don't expect it to be, because my
·3· experience is this is a low-volume, this is a
·4· low-volume roadway, and the low-volume roadways that
·5· I'm accustomed to don't -- it's not a problem.
·6· · · ·Q· · Item number 13 talking about the railroad
·7· crossing.· There you state again the, the crossing
·8· should be widened to accommodate two-way traffic.
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · Is that something you stand on today as your
11· opinion, or --
12· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
13· · · ·Q· · -- are you changing that?
14· · · ·A· · And, and that's really from an operational
15· efficiency standpoint that that comes about.· It's a
16· railroad's responsibility to make that decision, it's
17· not for me to make the decision.· They will put it on
18· the improvement list if they feel like it is justified
19· with this volume of traffic.· I don't think it will
20· ever be justified in that regard.
21· · · · · · · · ·The, the other, the second part of my
22· response is that this is for the benefit of the
23· landfill traffic -- this would be for the benefit of
24· the landfill traffic so, as I said before, the trucks
25· don't have to take turns or the traffic doesn't have
·1· to -- they have to take turns now, whatever is on the
·2· roadway, and --
·3· · · ·Q· · Right.
·4· · · ·A· · -- it could benefit both category of user,
·5· existing traffic and landfill traffic, if it were
·6· improved.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· With respect to the railroad crossing,
·8· do you have knowledge or are you capable of expressing
·9· an opinion about when it is that it's appropriate at a
10· railroad crossing to install gates that come down with
11· blinking lights as opposed to what's there now?
12· · · ·A· · It has to do with the volume of traffic on
13· both the roadway and the speed of trains and the volume
14· of, of, of movements across the tracks.· The -- and
15· especially any history of accidents at the crossing.
16· There has never been a recorded, that I'm aware
17· of -- well, there isn't recorded any accidents at this
18· crossing.
19· · · ·Q· · So those are factors to consider.· Do you
20· have the experience and the expertise to know at what
21· point it would be appropriate to do that, to install
22· that facility?
23· · · ·A· · Based on, based on my experience, it's not
24· going to happen at this location.· It's -- unless there
25· is -- unless the conditions would establish that the,
·1· that the predicted frequency is more than 85 years or
·2· significantly greater than 85 years.
·3· · · ·Q· · Than 85 years?
·4· · · ·A· · That's the predicted, that's the current
·5· predicted frequency.· Anticipated frequency of
·6· collisions at that crossing is one every 85 years.
·7· Sort of like floodplain, hundred-year floodplain.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · Crossing, crossing accident predictions are
10· established for every crossing, thousands and thousands
11· of crossings, so that they can be listed in priority
12· and what kind of attention they're going to get.
13· · · ·Q· · Well, in this instance you're projecting
14· traffic increases based on the landfill traffic and
15· other traffic based on those things that we've talked
16· about.
17· · · · · · · · ·Do you have an opinion one way or
18· another whether that increase that you've predicted in
19· terms of both landfill traffic and other traffic would
20· be sufficient to warrant changing the facilities at the
21· railroad to include gates and lights, flashing lights?
22· · · ·A· · I'm confident that it wouldn't.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what is that -- and that's based
24· on just what we've gotten through talking about?
25· · · ·A· · No.· It's based on my experience.
·1· · · ·Q· · Anything else?
·2· · · ·A· · No.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· In Exhibit 3 it goes on to say
·4· that you may offer testimony regarding potential road
·5· improvements beyond one mile of the proposed landfill.
·6· Do you see that?· It's at the bottom of that second --
·7· · · ·A· · Oh, this one.
·8· · · ·Q· · Yep.
·9· · · ·A· · I'm sorry.
10· · · ·Q· · Oh, I'm sorry.· Do you see that?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · If that testimony were to be offered, what is
13· it that you would be testifying to?· I'm assuming that
14· part of it, at least, is contained within your report
15· on page 2, which talks -- the items we just got through
16· reading, which are 10, 12, and 13.· Was that part of
17· that, or not?
18· · · ·A· · Well, I didn't -- let me, let me just admit
19· that I did not write this.
20· · · ·Q· · I think you've already pretty much said that.
21· · · ·A· · And I think that it is necessary that if
22· there are needs, that I address those, and I think I
23· interpret that as, as meaning just that, that that
24· would be my position to recommend improvements if
25· they're exposed.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, and so as we sit here today, if
·2· someone were to say, Mr. Steitle, I want you to provide
·3· testimony on the improvements that are needed -- or
·4· potential road improvements beyond the one mile from
·5· the facility, what would your testimony be?
·6· · · ·A· · There aren't any currently justifiable.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· None?
·8· · · ·A· · None.
·9· · · ·Q· · All right.· And in future, based on your
10· traffic counts?· Is that your testimony, that none
11· would be needed?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.· Based on, based on those projected
13· traffic counts, and as I've explained in my report that
14· no additional -- no improvements would be needed.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Now, specifically what we have been
16· talking about is the area between 359 along Jordan Road
17· more than anything else.
18· · · · · · · · ·What about the other roads?· Are there
19· any need for improvement if you were to offer testimony
20· in the secondary access road and the roads on the
21· ranch?
22· · · ·A· · Well, if, if I were to thoroughly analyze the
23· secondary access road beyond what I have currently
24· described, I think because of its utilization I would
25· not expect to offer any improvements except perhaps
·1· gate control.
·2· · · ·Q· · And by gate control what do you mean?
·3· · · ·A· · There's, I think, two, I think there's two
·4· gates that have to be manually opened --
·5· · · ·Q· · Um-hm.
·6· · · ·A· · -- to pass through, and those gates appear
·7· not to be or shouldn't be left open, for whatever
·8· reason.· They, they take on that appearance, and I
·9· would think that something would have to be done for
10· that emergency situation to control nonauthorized
11· vehicles, which would be vehicles that have a
12· combination or a key to one of the locks, and to make
13· sure that traffic volumes are adequately serviced
14· through those gates.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· With respect to the roads within the
16· ranch, is there anything that you have observed that
17· you could see should be improved or that you would
18· testify potentially should be improved?
19· · · ·A· · Well, the all-weather access road should,
20· should adequately serve the landfill.· So the answer is
21· no.
22· · · ·Q· · Well, I mean, in those areas where there is
23· no road of course they need to be improved to create a
24· road, right?· So at the very least that.
25· · · ·A· · No.· The, the application commits to
·1· all-weather roads.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · And so that's a commitment that is acceptable
·4· to me.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And so when you -- I think I'm
·6· understanding you, and basically if, if I'm incorrect,
·7· please tell me.
·8· · · · · · · · ·But what you're saying is that because
·9· the representation is being made that within the ranch
10· they will build where needed, where it doesn't exist,
11· or improve where it does exist if need be to create an
12· all-weather road that accesses the facility, that, in
13· your view, is the potential improvements that would
14· meet any obligation?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Along Jordan Road are there any
17· improvements, based on your observation of Jordan Road,
18· that should be made to the road itself as it exists
19· right now?· For instance, as an example, do you think
20· it provides adequate drainage in its current state?
21· · · ·A· · Well, 2019?
22· · · ·Q· · Yes, sir.
23· · · ·A· · It -- you ask in my judgment, and in my
24· judgment it appears that there was some recent
25· maintenance work, including importing additional fill
·1· material on top of Jordan Road and grading it, and that
·2· that material had not been compacted before being
·3· rained on and becoming messy.
·4· · · · · · · · ·I, I think that that -- I think that the
·5· county probably recognizes the situation and, and is
·6· intending to take it back to what it was before they
·7· maintained it such as in 2014.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So let me see if I understood what
·9· you're telling me.· You're telling me that based on the
10· visit that we did last week, January 16th, and your
11· observation of Jordan Road at that time, you feel like
12· the condition of the road in terms of it being messy,
13· as you put it, was different than the way you observed
14· the road in 2014, first of all; is that right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · And that the condition of the road as it
17· exists in 2019 shows that it could or -- I'm going to
18· ask you, should it be improved so that it is, as you
19· put it, less messy?
20· · · ·A· · Well, I don't know if I would say improved.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.
22· · · ·A· · I would say the --
23· · · ·Q· · Worked on?
24· · · ·A· · -- county needs to finish their maintenance
25· activity there.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· With respect to drainage on that road,
·2· do -- in your observation of the road in 2019 do you
·3· see any issues with respect to drainage from -- of
·4· water from that road?
·5· · · ·A· · Not to affect the all-weather aspect of the
·6· road.· No.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What about culverts that are on, on
·8· Jordan Road?· Have you inspected the culverts at any
·9· time, either in 2014 or in 2019, that exist on Jordan
10· Road?
11· · · ·A· · Inspect them for what?
12· · · ·Q· · I'm just asking you if you've looked at the
13· culverts.
14· · · ·A· · I've seen the culverts.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what have you seen?
16· · · ·A· · I've seen culverts.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
18· · · ·A· · That's, that's the bottom line of that.
19· · · ·Q· · With respect to the culverts that are there,
20· have you done, other than just seeing them, have you
21· done any -- have you made any attempt to determine
22· whether or not the culvert and the road base on top of
23· the culvert is sufficient?· And the question is just,
24· have you made an attempt to determine that?
25· · · ·A· · Well, in terms of any type of mathematical
·1· analysis, no.· But observation, I have not seen any
·2· indication that the road material on top of the
·3· culverts is an issue.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· But you haven't specifically studied
·5· it either, right?· I mean, I know that this is based on
·6· limited observation, so I'm just trying to make sure I
·7· understand.· It's based on --
·8· · · ·A· · I could --
·9· · · ·Q· · -- 2014 being out there one day and 2019
10· riding in a van.
11· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Similar question with respect
13· to -- well, never mind.
14· · · · · · · · ·The -- let's go back to Exhibit 3.· It
15· goes on to state that you may offer testimony on TxDOT
16· guidelines related to traffic flow.· Do you see that?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · What guidelines?· Well, if you were asked to
19· offer testimony on TxDOT guidelines related to traffic
20· flow, what would be your testimony?· We'll start with
21· that.
22· · · ·A· · Well, if I were to offer some unknown-at-
23· this-time testimony on that subject, I would look to
24· Access Management Manual perhaps, I would look at the
25· Road Design Manual perhaps, and any other pertinent or
·1· applicable resource such as the Texas Manual on Uniform
·2· Traffic Control Devices.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you have not done that in
·4· anticipation of testimony at this point, right?
·5· · · ·A· · Of my testimony, no.· Huh-uh.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·7· · · ·A· · Uh -- no.
·8· · · ·Q· · Are there any other guidelines, TxDOT
·9· guidelines other than the ones you just got through
10· referring to that you would potentially look at in
11· offering testimony about TxDOT guidelines related to
12· traffic flow?
13· · · ·A· · Well, I can't predict the subject, so I can't
14· speculate as to what might be applicable and pertinent
15· consideration.· I would look at possibly what's
16· referred to as the Green Book, AASHTO Green Book, which
17· is referred to as a reference in the Roadway Design
18· Manual.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are there any other guidelines that
20· you're aware of that might come into play?
21· · · ·A· · I can't anticipate any more.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· On Exhibit 3 it goes on to say that as
23· part of your testimony you may offer an opinion that
24· "the proposed landfill's access roads meet the TCEQ
25· rules and applicable guidance without any improvement."
·1· Do you see that?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is that your opinion?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · So it is -- I probably wasn't real clear with
·6· that the way I said it, so let's make it clear.
·7· · · · · · · · ·Is it your opinion that the proposed
·8· landfill's access roads meet the TCEQ's rules?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And is it your opinion that the
11· proposed landfill's access road meet appliable guidance
12· in both without any improvement?
13· · · ·A· · As noted in the application.
14· · · ·Q· · I'm not talking -- I realize that the opinion
15· is based in part of what's in the application, right?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And with that being said, it's your
18· opinion that the proposed landfill's access roads meet
19· the TCEQ rules without any improvement?
20· · · ·A· · Without any additional improvements, yes.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Understanding that, that although we
22· can quibble about what the word "improvement" may mean
23· in that context, it's expected that there are areas
24· that the applicant intends to construct a road that
25· doesn't yet exist but based on the representation that
·1· they will construct an all-weather road, you say, or
·2· it's your opinion, as I understand it, that that meets
·3· TCEQ rules.
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · Then likewise, it would be your opinion or is
·6· your opinion that the proposed landfill's access roads
·7· as described in the application meet applicable
·8· guidance, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · What guidance are you talking about?
11· · · ·A· · Well, if we're, if we're talking about design
12· guidance, it would be that the responsible, responsible
13· engineer would be obligated to use proper engineering
14· criteria to design the road in order to protect the
15· safety of the public.
16· · · ·Q· · In addition to protecting the safety of the
17· public, to make it an all-weather road as well, right?
18· And those may be the same thing in part and parcel, but
19· I want to make sure I'm understanding.
20· · · ·A· · Well, it's, in my judgment, it would -- it's
21· separate, but --
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.
23· · · ·A· · -- as an engineer, an engineer is responsible
24· for the safety of the public in whatever they -- in
25· whatever endeavor, engineering endeavor they
·1· participate in.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· One of the questions I asked was what
·3· guidance or guidelines are applicable here.· I know we
·4· talked about some other of the guidance documents
·5· referred to when we talked about the TxDOT guidelines
·6· and the AASHTO Green Book.
·7· · · · · · · · ·Are there other guidance that you're
·8· aware of that come into play in making these access
·9· roads meet guidance?· I mean, I'm trying to just figure
10· out what guidance we're talking about in this opinion.
11· · · ·A· · Well, I would have to speculate, because
12· there's, there's aspects of the design that utilize
13· different guidance criteria.
14· · · ·Q· · Acknowledged, and I'm just trying to get from
15· you what you may know about what, in this opinion that
16· these proposed roads if built in accordance with what's
17· in the application they need applicable guidance, what
18· is -- what applicable guidance are you referring to?
19· · · ·A· · In, in terms of the available and adequate
20· requirement, it would be -- those all-weather
21· requirements, it would be those guidance documents that
22· I've specified.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Now, when we talk about meeting TCEQ
24· rules, what TCEQ rules are you referring to?
25· · · ·A· · Well, I refer to it as 331(i), the five
·1· requirements for transportation.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Dan, I don't want to
·3· interrupt your flow --
·4· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· No.· You --
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· -- but at some point
·6· should we take a 10-minute bathroom break?
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· We can do that now.
·8· That's fine.
·9· · · · · · · · · · · (At 11:40 a.m. the proceedings
10· recessed, continuing at 11:56 a.m.)
11· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· All right.· Before the break
12· we were talking what about rules you were referring to
13· in the opinion that the proposed landfill's access
14· roads meet the TCEQ rules, right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · And you cited me to 31(i), I think, something
17· like that, right?
18· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I meant to say 330.61(i).
19· · · ·Q· · I guessed as much.
20· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 11 marked.)
21· · · ·Q· · So let me show you what's been marked as
22· Exhibit 11 and ask you if when you were referring to
23· the rule you were referring to 330.61(i), which is on
24· page 4 of 6, I believe.
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what, what (i) talks about in
·2· Section 61 is that the owner or the operator of the
·3· proposed landfill would provide, in, in paragraph 1,
·4· data on the availability and adequacy of the roads,
·5· right?
·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
·7· · · ·Q· · And in paragraph 2, "provide data on the
·8· volume of vehicular traffic on the access roads within
·9· one mile of the facility, both existing and expected,"
10· during the life of the facility, right?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · And 3, "project the volume of traffic
13· expected to be generated by the facility on access
14· roads within one mile," right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · And finally, "submit documentation of
17· coordination of all designs of proposed public roadway
18· improvement such as turning lanes, storage lanes, etc.,
19· associated with site entrances with the agency
20· exercising maintenance responsibility of the public
21· roadway involved," as part of that paragraph 4, right?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · And it goes on to say, "In addition, the
24· owner or the operator shall submit documentation of
25· coordination with TxDOT for traffic and local
·1· restrictions," right?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· Would you agree with me that
·4· basically, just looking at that rule, it talks about
·5· primarily what data should be included within the owner
·6· or operator's application, certainly with respect to 1,
·7· 2, and 3?
·8· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And with respect to 4, it talks about
10· documentation of, of and specifically coordination with
11· the, the agency exercising maintenance responsibility
12· of the public roadway involved.· In this instance one
13· of the public roadways involved, as we've discussed
14· ad nauseam perhaps, is Jordan Road, right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Do you know the agency who's responsible for
17· maintenance of that public roadway?
18· · · ·A· · I have an understanding of that.· Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · And what's your understanding?
20· · · ·A· · Webb County.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you know if there's a particular
22· department in Webb County that is responsible for that
23· maintenance?
24· · · ·A· · I believe it's Road and Bridge or Street and
25· Bridge.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you personally done anything to
·2· provide documentation as part of the application of the
·3· coordination of designs and other improvements needed
·4· on Jordan Road with Webb County's department in charge
·5· of this maintenance of that road?
·6· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· I'm sorry, why?
·8· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· You have some
·9· assumptions built into your question.
10· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Let me, let me try to make
11· it without any assumptions.· Okay.
12· · · · · · · · ·Have you personally done anything to
13· provide documentation of any coordination with Webb
14· County's Maintenance Department?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · In fact, you yourself have not done
17· any -- you haven't consulted with Webb County's Road
18· Maintenance Department about this application at all?
19· · · ·A· · Correct.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you, have you reviewed the
21· application that has been submitted to TCEQ by this
22· applicant?
23· · · ·A· · I've reviewed Part I and II.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In your review of Part I and II have
25· you seen any documentation as described in (i)
·1· subparagraph (4) as it relates to Webb County's
·2· maintenance on Jordan Road?
·3· · · ·A· · Well, the Exhibit H, the letter from
·4· Mr. Valdez that we discussed earlier.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Anything else?
·6· · · ·A· · No.
·7· · · ·Q· · All right.
·8· · · ·A· · Oh, well, the application said that traffic
·9· count data from Webb County was pursued and couldn't
10· find any traffic count data on Jordan Road.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Anything else that you can recall?
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · As I understood it in talking about what your
14· testimony is or your opinion is with respect to the
15· landfill's access roads meeting TCEQ's rules, this rule
16· talks about the documentation that should be provided
17· and the data that should be provided as part of the
18· application, as we've discussed.
19· · · · · · · · ·In, in your reading of this Rule 61(i),
20· does it focus on what the road needs to be, both
21· design, construction, and maintained, to meet TCEQ
22· rules?
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · You think (i) does that?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And would you explain to me what you
·2· think (i), in your understanding of the rule, says with
·3· respect to the requirements under the rule that these
·4· roads need to meet?
·5· · · ·A· · I'm looking for it.· I'm sorry.· I lost it.
·6· · · ·Q· · No.· That's okay.· Take your time, take your
·7· time.
·8· · · ·A· · Okay.· Can you repeat the question, please?
·9· · · ·Q· · I'll try to do it as best I can.· So does
10· 61(i) -- what, what does 61(i) provide, as you
11· understand it, that relates to what conditions the road
12· must meet, the access roads must meet to meet TCEQ
13· rules?
14· · · ·A· · Well, I was looking for the all-weather
15· statement, which I couldn't find, but in number 4
16· there's "submit documentation of coordination of all
17· designs and proposed public road improvements, such as
18· turning lanes, storage lanes, et cetera."
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So, you know, perhaps -- I don't want
20· to put words in your mouth, but as you pointed out,
21· this rule doesn't really -- you don't find that
22· all-weather language in this rule, but you, I take it
23· you are familiar enough with the rules to understand
24· that somewhere in the rules that it does say that?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · All right.
·2· · · ·A· · It does.
·3· · · ·Q· · And, and I -- and this isn't a test of your
·4· memory, so don't, don't take it that way.
·5· · · · · · · · ·But can you tell me, as you sit here
·6· without me showing you, what rules talk about those
·7· requirements that the roads must meet so that they meet
·8· TCEQ rules?· Other than this one, 61(i).
·9· · · ·A· · No.· The only other requirements relative to
10· the access roads is, is the all-weather --
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.
12· · · ·A· · -- aspect of it.
13· · · ·Q· · Well, let's, let's --
14· · · ·A· · There are other technical, perhaps, that
15· don't -- aren't necessarily generally transportation,
16· but it's --
17· · · ·Q· · And when you say "other" there you're
18· referring to rules?
19· · · ·A· · Other aspects of the rules.
20· · · ·Q· · Aspects of the rules.· All right.
21· · · · · · · · ·Again, you're, you're saying it's your
22· opinion that these roads, not the application, and I
23· want to make sure we're understanding each other,
24· you're saying these roads meet TCEQ rules, right?
25· Jordan Road, the secondary access road, and the
·1· proposed roads that aren't even built yet, they meet
·2· the TCEQ rules?· That's your opinion?
·3· · · ·A· · Yeah.· As described in the application.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And I, I get that part.
·5· · · ·A· · Okay.
·6· · · ·Q· · And so Jordan Road itself you think meets the
·7· TCEQ rules as an access road?
·8· · · ·A· · Yes.
·9· · · ·Q· · All right.
10· · · ·A· · It's, it's all-weather.
11· · · ·Q· · And, and so I'm really just trying to make
12· sure I understand.· In your opinion, when you're giving
13· me that opinion, what rules you are relying on to say,
14· Yes, Jordan Road and these other roads meet those
15· rules.
16· · · ·A· · Jordan Road is --
17· · · ·Q· · And, and other than, other than (i) and the
18· knowledge that somewhere in the rules it says it's got
19· to be all-weather, is there anything else you know as
20· you sit here without me prodding you?
21· · · ·A· · Other than, other than (i) and the
22· all-weather, I can't, I can't recite or recall any
23· other.
24· · · ·Q· · That's fair.· I, I -- that's fine.· So let me
25· do something for you.· I'm going to show you some other
·1· rules.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 12 marked.)
·3· · · ·Q· · I'm going to show you Exhibit 12, which is
·4· Section 63 in Chapter 330, and if you would, go ahead
·5· and --
·6· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· What number is this?
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· This is Exhibit 12.
·8· · · ·Q· · And if you will, take a look at page 4 of 5,
·9· and down towards the bottom you will see paragraph 4.
10· It starts with "Landfill units.· The owner or the
11· operator shall specify," and then it says "Provisions
12· for all-weather operation."· Do you see that?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Take, take a little time and get
15· yourself familiar with, with paragraph (4)(A).
16· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MAGEE:· Dan, what's the exhibit
17· count on this?
18· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· That's 12.
19· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MAGEE:· 12?· Okay.· I thought
20· we said 9, and I was getting --
21· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Oh, don't look at
22· those folders.· You know I move on the fly, right?
23· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MAGEE:· I know, I know.· Just
24· checking.
25· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Just because it says 9
·1· doesn't mean it's going to be 9.
·2· · · ·A· · Okay.
·3· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Okay.· So after refreshing
·4· your recollection and looking at this rule, Section 63
·5· and Subparagraph (4) on page 4, you'd agree with me
·6· that this rule does address, at least to some extent,
·7· the required -- some of the requirements for access
·8· roads, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · And, in fact, deals with the -- that it
11· should be an all-weather road, it needs to be an
12· all-weather road, right?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.
14· · · ·Q· · All right.· It also talks about "The roads
15· within the facility shall be designed so as to minimize
16· the tracking of mud onto the public access road."· You
17· see that?
18· · · ·A· · Yeah.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In this instance the public access
20· road that's closest to the facility from, coming from
21· the south, that would be Jordan Road, right?· Is that
22· your understanding?
23· · · ·A· · Yeah.· Over two, two miles.
24· · · ·Q· · I understand.· Do you see anything that
25· limits the distance from the facility in Section 63?
·1· · · ·A· · I see what limits it is to minimizing
·2· tracking of mud.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And how does that relate to distance?
·4· · · ·A· · Well, the farther the distance the less
·5· tracking there is.
·6· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· But would you agree with me,
·7· back to the question I asked, that the closest public
·8· access road to the facility that's going to be used as
·9· the primary access route to the facility is, in fact,
10· Jordan Road?
11· · · ·A· · Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And Jordan Road itself isn't a paved
13· road, right?· It's a gravel road.
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· And so tracking mud, as described
16· in this rule, do you think that's applicable here at
17· all?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And what, what do you understand to
20· have been done by this applicant to design the roads to
21· minimize the tracking of mud onto the public access
22· roads?
23· · · ·A· · I don't know of the details on the site
24· itself.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · ·A· · I dealt with the access roads.
·2· · · ·Q· · All right.
·3· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 13 marked.)
·4· · · ·Q· · I'm going to hand you what I've marked as
·5· Exhibit 13, which is a copy of Chapter 330, Section
·6· 153, and are you familiar with this rule?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · All right.· This rule does talk about what
·9· the nature of the roads, at least to some extent what
10· the nature of the roads must meet in order to comply
11· with this rule, right?· I didn't say that very well at
12· all.· Let me try that again.
13· · · · · · · · ·So this rule does address requirements
14· for the access roads, would you agree?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· And it also addresses the
17· all-weather nature of the road in the first sentence of
18· (a), doesn't it?· It says, "All-weather roads must be
19· provided from the facility to access public roads and
20· within the facility to the unloading areas designed for
21· wet-weather operation," right?
22· · · ·A· · It says that.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And in this instance it's your opinion
24· that based -- that it's your opinion that the roads
25· that are proposed by the applicant meet this rule,
·1· right?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · In (a).· And, and that is premised on your
·4· understanding that the applicant, if I understand it
·5· right, has said in the application, I'm going to
·6· construct or provide all-weather roads?
·7· · · ·A· · In essence he said that.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Is there anything other than that
·9· representation in the application that, that leads you
10· to the conclusion that the roads here, the access roads
11· in this that are here, meet the TCEQ rules?
12· · · ·A· · I didn't understand that.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me try it again.· So in (a) it
14· says that the all-weathers roads, "All-weather roads
15· must be provided from the facility to access public
16· roads," right?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · And then all-weather roads "within the
19· facility to the unloading areas" -- or the roads must
20· be designed for wet-weather operation --
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · -- right?· That's what's in the first
23· sentence of (a).
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · In this instance we are aware, based on what
·1· we've looked at today, that the roads that are within
·2· the facility don't exist yet, right?· The facility
·3· being the actual permit boundary.
·4· · · ·A· · I'll agree.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And, and that the all-weather roads
·6· that would go from the facility to access public roads
·7· would be the roads that either exist or that are
·8· going -- that are proposed to exist on Yugo Ranch from
·9· the facility to State Highway -- I'm sorry, to Jordan
10· Road.
11· · · ·A· · I would agree that the alignment of some
12· roads and the provision of new roads would apply.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And to some extent, based on your
14· understanding and your observation and visits to the
15· site, you know that some portions of that road, of
16· those roads, do not yet exist?
17· · · ·A· · Correct.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· To the extent that this applicant
19· would use the existing roads that you observed within
20· the Yugo Ranch, do you have an opinion as to whether
21· those existing roads meet the requirements of this
22· rule?
23· · · ·A· · I haven't evaluated that.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So you don't have an opinion one way
25· or another?
·1· · · ·A· · Well, I don't know that the existing roads
·2· are representative of what is included in the
·3· application and defined as all-weather.
·4· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· I think I asked this in a
·5· different way, but if I didn't, let me try again.
·6· · · · · · · · ·I premised the question, I believe, and
·7· I'm premising this one, with an assumption.· If this
·8· applicant uses the existing roads that you observed on
·9· your site visits within the boundaries of Yugo Ranch as
10· the access roads to access public roads, i.e. Jordan
11· Road, are those existing roads as you have observed
12· them, do you have an opinion one way or another as to
13· whether or not those existing roads meet these rules,
14· in particular 153(a)?
15· · · ·A· · I, I can't say.· I can't address the entirety
16· of the length of the existing roads that would be used,
17· and I didn't endeavor to do that, but I do, I do know
18· that a certain portion of them would meet the
19· all-weather criteria.
20· · · ·Q· · Certain portion of them would?· And does that
21· mean that a certain portion of them would not?
22· · · ·A· · No.· I'm, I'm not saying that at all.· I'm
23· just saying I haven't ascertained the extent that I
24· would agree would be all-weather, but I know that a
25· minimum amount or a certain amount that I observed
·1· would meet the all-weather criteria.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· As we sit here, other than having, you
·3· know -- is there some way that you could tell me, based
·4· on looking at an exhibit or a map, what portions of the
·5· road you think do meet the all-weather requirement in
·6· (a) that are currently existing that you observed on
·7· Yugo Ranch?
·8· · · ·A· · I don't think I could.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Part (b) says, "Dust from on-site and
10· other access roadways must not become a nuisance to
11· surrounding areas."· Do you see that?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · And it says, "A water source and necessary
14· equipment or other means of dust control approved by
15· the executive director must be provided."· Do you see
16· that?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · All right.· First of all, I take it that it
19· is your opinion that the dust that you observed in 2014
20· on Jordan Road met this requirement in terms of you
21· didn't think that it would become a nuisance to
22· surrounding areas?
23· · · ·A· · I didn't, I didn't consider it to be a
24· nuisance or in all likelihood become a nuisance.
25· · · ·Q· · Fair enough.· When you were on the ranch in
·1· 2014 on the portion of the roads within the ranch that
·2· you went to, did you do any evaluation of the dust at
·3· that area?
·4· · · ·A· · No.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And if I understood you correctly, you
·6· didn't really do an evaluation of the dust on the area
·7· of Jordan Road that existed south of the Yugo Ranch
·8· gate all the way to the railroad crossing either,
·9· right?
10· · · ·A· · I don't think I did.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.· In, in either then or
12· now, have you had any -- or have you done anything to
13· determine what, to the extent may be necessary, water
14· source or equipment should be utilized to control dust
15· either on Jordan Road or on any of the access roads?
16· · · ·A· · No.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The paragraph (c) talks about "All
18· on-site and other access roadways must be maintained in
19· a clean and safe condition."· Do you see that?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.
21· · · ·Q· · All right.· Is it your opinion that
22· the -- that Jordan Road meets that requirement in this
23· rule?
24· · · ·A· · Well, I think that that is referring to
25· debris and litter, which has not been produced yet.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So it's your understanding of this
·2· rule that all that's being addressed in (c) is litter
·3· that may spill onto a road out of a truck?· Is that it?
·4· · · ·A· · Or associated, associated -- that, associated
·5· with the, the landfill, the debris especially.· And
·6· debris is not -- is a different class than litter.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· All right.· Debris and litter.
·8· · · ·A· · Yes.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· But, so your understanding, or at
10· least your reading of this rule, is that it's limited
11· to that and it wouldn't include, for instance, the
12· condition of the road in terms of its ability to drain
13· water or other features concerning the materials used,
14· things like that?
15· · · ·A· · Well, the maintenance regarding regrading of
16· the road, of Jordan Road, that's the county's
17· responsibility.· The other access roadways involved in
18· this would be on Yugo Ranch property, and it would be
19· the owner operator's responsibility.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Didn't really answer my question, but
21· I appreciate the answer.
22· · · · · · · · ·So if -- is it your understanding that
23· the maintenance of the road, whether it be of, of the
24· access road, is covered by paragraph (c) so that, for
25· instance, the manner in which an access road on Yugo
·1· Ranch, once this landfill is in operation, that
·2· maintenance by the operator would be covered by
·3· paragraph (c), including the manner in which it's
·4· graded?
·5· · · ·A· · That's the way I interpret it.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.· And just so we're clear,
·7· the roads that -- your opinion that the roads meet the
·8· TCEQ rules, in particular this Rule 153, subparagraph
·9· (c), is premised on the notion, is it not, that this
10· applicant and the operator will, in fact, maintain this
11· road in a manner that keeps it safe and clean from
12· debris and litter?
13· · · ·A· · It's a requirement that they do that.
14· · · ·Q· · And, and your opinion that the rule -- that
15· these roads meet that requirement is, in fact, premised
16· on your assumption that's what the operator will do,
17· right?
18· · · ·A· · It would have to be.
19· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 14 marked.)
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I've handed you Exhibit 14, which is
21· Chapter 330, Section 237.
22· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· You said 14?
23· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· I believe so.
24· · · · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· 14.
25· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· I believe so.
·1· · · · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· 14, we just finished
·2· 13.
·3· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Yes.· 14.
·4· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with this rule?
·5· · · ·A· · Well, it's almost identical to the previous
·6· rule.
·7· · · ·Q· · In some respects there is language that is
·8· similar, I agree.
·9· · · ·A· · And so I can't tell, I can't tell you that I
10· recall seeing this one independent of the other, but I,
11· I'm familiar with the rules.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Paragraph (a) talks about the
13· providing of all-weather roads within the facility
14· unloading areas and they need to be designated for
15· wet-weather operation, right?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · And that's similar to the language in 153,
18· right?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · Then it talks about tracking of mud and
21· debris onto public roadways shall be minimized.· That's
22· not exactly the same language, but it also addresses
23· some of the same things?
24· · · ·A· · Similar concept.· Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · All right.· And then in (b) it talks about
·1· dust not becoming a nuisance, and it talks about
·2· providing a water source and necessary equipment for
·3· dust control, similar to 153, right?
·4· · · ·A· · I agree.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So all of the questions, all of the
·6· conversation we had about 153, probably not any real
·7· difference between anything I asked you and your
·8· answers in 153 from Section 237.
·9· · · ·A· · Correct.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let's focus on (c) for a minute.· (c)
11· in Section 237 says, "All on-site and other access
12· roadways shall be maintained on a regular basis."· Do
13· you see that?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · Now, that language wasn't really something
16· that was in 153 specifically, although maybe perhaps
17· embedded in that provision (c).
18· · · · · · · · ·Is there anything about the, the
19· questions and answers you gave me on maintenance that
20· would be different under 237 than what we talked about
21· under Section 153?
22· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
23· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Okay.
24· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Do you want the
25· basis?
·1· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· No.· I think I know
·2· it, but I'm just -- I'll hear his answer and then --
·3· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Okay.
·4· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· -- if I need to follow
·5· up, I will.
·6· · · ·A· · Well, I don't, I don't know if, if this is
·7· particularly relevant to your question, but in, in
·8· an -- item (c) discusses access roadways.
·9· · · ·Q· · Yes, sir.
10· · · ·A· · And the way the commission has worded these
11· rules is when they say access roadways, they're --
12· that's separate from public roadways, in my estimation
13· of this.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.
15· · · ·A· · So this is, this is the same, same
16· requirement as previously, that the owner operator will
17· have to maintain the access roadways on, on the Yugo
18· Ranch.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And the, the addition here over that
20· same concept and -- so let me back up one second.
21· · · · · · · · ·As I understand it from your answer,
22· it's your understanding of the rules that when
23· it -- when the commission is -- or -- yeah, when the
24· commission is referring to access roadways in Section
25· 237 and in the other rules, it's referring to those
·1· roadways which exist before you get to a public road.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.· He
·3· said that as to 237, which is part of Subchapter (c)
·4· for processing units.
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Then let me, let me
·6· limit my question to that.
·7· · · ·Q· · With respect to Section 237, is it your
·8· testimony that, as you understand it, access roadways
·9· as used in this rule refer only to those roads that
10· exist outside of public roads?
11· · · ·A· · That's my interpretation.· Yes.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· With respect to your interpretation of
13· 237, it says, "Access roadways shall be regraded as
14· necessary to minimize depressions, ruts, and potholes."
15· Do you see that?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So would you agree with me that what
18· that rule requires is that the owner or operator, or
19· applicant as the case may be, maintains the access
20· roadways so that there are no depressions, ruts, and
21· potholes?
22· · · ·A· · On the Yugo Ranch roadways, yes.
23· · · ·Q· · As I understood it, you were, you were
24· telling me that, in your opinion, the access roadways
25· that are being discussed in 237(c) are those that would
·1· exist on the ranch before you get to the public roads.
·2· So I understood that.
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
·5· You're referring to a rule for a different type of
·6· facility.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Okay.
·8· · · ·Q· · Do you have an understanding, Mr. Steitle, as
·9· to whether Chapter 330, Section 237 applies to the
10· facility that this applicant has applied to do?
11· · · ·A· · When I looked at this earlier today on the
12· solid waste storage and processing facility I did not
13· conclude that at that time that it was applicable to
14· this or pertinent to this application.
15· · · ·Q· · Do you know whether it is or isn't?
16· · · ·A· · I don't -- I can't speak for sure.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Fair enough.· If this rule does apply
18· to the facility that we're here talking about, would
19· you agree with me that the second sentence of 237(c)
20· would require the owner or the applicant to maintain
21· the road, the access roads within the Yugo Ranch so
22· that there are no depressions, ruts and potholes?
23· · · ·A· · If it applied, yes.
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Thank you.· Let me do something. I
25· don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I --
·1· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· We're on 15?
·2· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes.
·3· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 15 marked.)
·4· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· I'm going to hand you what
·5· I've marked as Exhibit No. 15.
·6· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· And I don't have a ton
·7· of copies of these to go around.
·8· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Is it one, or is it
·9· a set?· I'm sorry.
10· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· It's a set.
11· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Okay.
12· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· I've handed you a packet of
13· pictures of Jordan Road and they are Bates-labeled
14· Hurd, starting with Hurd 03038 as the first picture,
15· right?
16· · · ·A· · Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · And then the next picture is Hurd 02708.· See
18· that?
19· · · ·A· · Yes.
20· · · ·Q· · Third page is 02704.
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · The fourth page is 02705.
23· · · ·A· · Yes.
24· · · ·Q· · The fifth page is 02706.
25· · · ·A· · Yes.
·1· · · ·Q· · And the last page is 02707.
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· I'm going to represent to you
·4· that these were pictures taken on Jordan Road after a
·5· rain that was approximately one to two inches, and they
·6· were taken by Hurd's ranch manager, Ron Baker, so that
·7· you know.· Each of those pictures shows a condition of
·8· the road with standing water in various locations, does
·9· it not?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · Would it -- just based on your understanding
12· of, of road design, would you, would you -- road design
13· and maintenance, would you say that this condition, if
14· indeed it is based on one to two inches of rain, would
15· you call this an all-weather road?
16· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form,
17· foundation.
18· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Well --
19· · · · · · · · · · · MR. COHEN:· Let me look over your
20· shoulder so I can --
21· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Oh, yeah.
22· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Miller)· Let me, let me back up then.
23· You've, you've indicated that you, you have an
24· understanding of what an all-weather road is.· We've
25· talked about what you think it is, right?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · It's a road that withstands and would drain
·3· water from anything other than a severe weather event,
·4· right?
·5· · · ·A· · No.· It's a, it's a road that's usable in all
·6· weather conditions.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So if it's usable despite the fact
·8· that it, that it ponds water, it's still an all-weather
·9· road in your opinion?
10· · · ·A· · It can be.· Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Based on, again, the assumption that
12· these pictures reflect the condition of Jordan Road
13· after a one-to-two-inch rain, would you think that this
14· condition meets the requirement of being an all-weather
15· road or not?
16· · · ·A· · I think that it's usable by evidence by tire
17· tracks in here that it's being used.· I would not doubt
18· that it is a usable road and therefore an all-weather
19· road.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What did I mark that, 15?
21· · · ·A· · 15.· Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Thank you.· I take it from your testimony
23· that if Jordan Road or the access roadways within Yugo
24· Ranch show a current existing condition with
25· corrugation or washboarding, that that would, in your
·1· opinion, not make it -- it would, it would still be an
·2· all-weather road and adequate?· Is that -- am I
·3· understanding your testimony correct?
·4· · · ·A· · Well, it --
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MR. COHEN:· I'll object to the
·6· form.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Who was that?
·8· · · · · · · · · · · MR. COHEN:· Joe Cohen.
·9· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Let me withdraw it.
10· · · ·Q· · So if the, if the access roads in their
11· condition are showing that they have corrugation or
12· washboarding, is that something that would be a concern
13· to you?
14· · · ·A· · It would depend on the degree.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And at what degree would you think
16· that it would need to be handled or repaired?· Is there
17· a way that you can define that?
18· · · ·A· · I don't think that it can be quantified.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you have an understanding of what
20· causes corrugation and washboarding on a gravel road?
21· · · ·A· · Yeah.· It's a, it's a common characteristic
22· that happens at certain locations that where the
23· features of the roadway and the traffic and the type of
24· traffic create this phenomena.
25· · · ·Q· · On Exhibit No. 15, the first page, you can
·1· see the, you see those features on Exhibit 15, page 1,
·2· don't you?
·3· · · ·A· · I see the -- looks like the beginning of
·4· corrugation on certain portions of this, this roadway.
·5· Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· And that, do you have an understanding
·7· of whether or not the materials that go into the road
·8· have a bearing on whether or not it, it can result in
·9· washboarding or corrugation?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 16 marked.)
12· · · ·Q· · I've got a two-page exhibit that is number
13· 16, pictures again on Jordan Road, specifically at the
14· cattle guard and gate to Hurd Ranch.· The first one is
15· Bates-labeled 02719, and the second page is
16· Bates-labeled 02733, correct?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · All right.· Based on your observation of
19· Jordan Road, have I correctly characterized this as the
20· cattle guard at the gate to the Hurd Ranch on Jordan
21· Road?
22· · · ·A· · I think you have.· Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· The first -- and this is one of the
24· cattle guards on Jordan Road that in your report you
25· talked about potentially increasing the size of it from
·1· its existing width to 24 feet, right?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· The second page shows a oilfield
·4· work-over rig truck crossing the cattle guard, right?
·5· · · ·A· · It does.
·6· · · ·Q· · And just looking at that, it looks to me
·7· like, based on the current width of the cattle guard,
·8· there would be no way to get more than that one vehicle
·9· and another -- there would be no way to get another
10· vehicle across that cattle guard at the same time as
11· that particular vehicle, right?
12· · · ·A· · Well, I can't say that there -- it would
13· be -- it would depend on the, on the classification of
14· the other vehicle.· If it was a passenger car, they
15· might be able to squeeze through, but this equipment is
16· oversize.
17· · · ·Q· · It is oversize, but it is equipment that
18· travels on Jordan Road, right?
19· · · ·A· · I'm sure.
20· · · ·Q· · Well, we've got a picture of it, so it
21· clearly does, right?
22· · · ·A· · Well, the way you ask it is this is equipment
23· that continues to, and, and yeah, we've got oilfield --
24· · · ·Q· · Right.· I mean, you've talked --
25· · · ·A· · -- oil wells out there.· This equipment is
·1· going to come in occasionally.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And but, you know, when we talk about
·3· on Jordan Road looking at the cattle guards and
·4· potentially increasing them from this width that's
·5· approximately 20 feet to 24 feet, the purpose of that
·6· would be to facilitate, would it not, the free flow of
·7· traffic across a cattle guard so that a vehicle coming
·8· up to this would not necessarily have to wait for a
·9· larger vehicle to cross before it could cross?
10· · · ·A· · This --
11· · · ·Q· · Isn't that really what we're talking about?
12· · · ·A· · This -- the event that simultaneously two
13· vehicles reach that point at the same time.
14· · · ·Q· · Right.
15· · · ·A· · That would be the condition.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· And it would facilitate the
17· movement of traffic in an efficient manner on Jordan
18· Road to expand the cattle guards, would it not, in your
19· judgment?
20· · · ·A· · It would prevent this conflict.
21· · · ·Q· · And wouldn't that facilitate the flow of
22· traffic?
23· · · ·A· · The traffic that is exposed to it, it would.
24· Yes.
25· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 17 marked.)
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I'm going to hand you, it's a
·2· three-page exhibit identified as Exhibit No. 17, and
·3· I'll represent to you that this is a location on Jordan
·4· Road where there is a culvert.· It starts on first page
·5· with Hurd Bates-numbered 02746, the next page is 02747,
·6· and the last one is 02748, correct?
·7· · · ·A· · Yes.
·8· · · ·Q· · All right.· Under the assumption that this
·9· does accurately reflect a culvert on Jordan Road, do
10· you have an opinion one way or another as to whether or
11· not the road-base material, whether or not there is a
12· problem with respect to this culvert and the road-base
13· material that's on top of this culvert?
14· · · ·A· · I, I can't make that conclusion.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So --
16· · · ·A· · Based on these paragraphs.
17· · · ·Q· · You don't -- okay.· Based on the photographs.
18· What is it about the photographs that doesn't give
19· you enough information, I guess?· Or, or what
20· information -- let me withdraw that.
21· · · · · · · · ·What information would you need that's
22· not in these photographs in order to evaluate whether
23· the road base on top of this culvert is sufficient?
24· · · ·A· · I, I wouldn't make that evaluation.
25· · · ·Q· · You don't feel comfortable making that
·1· evaluation at all?
·2· · · ·A· · Not -- no.· It's a, it's a conclusion based
·3· on design and the materials included in the design.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And --
·5· · · ·A· · And --
·6· · · ·Q· · -- you don't have enough information to
·7· really make any judgment call on that on this --
·8· · · ·A· · In the -- it even --
·9· · · ·Q· · -- is that right?
10· · · ·A· · Wait a minute.· It even involves
11· classification of this concrete pipe, whether it's
12· Class 3, Class 4, whatever.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.
14· · · ·A· · And I don't -- I wouldn't have enough
15· information for that.· I wouldn't attempt to.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· Fair enough.· On Jordan Road, do
17· you recall that there are bridges on Jordan Road?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.· As, as I've -- as we've discussed in my
19· notes --
20· · · ·Q· · Right.
21· · · ·A· · -- from the field.· Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Right.· Did you do -- did you make any
23· attempt to inspect those bridges to determine whether
24· or not they are in a condition which -- well, did you
25· do any inspection of those bridges?
·1· · · ·A· · I got out and looked at the structures and
·2· measured the clearance, the width.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you have an opinion one way or
·4· another on whether or not those bridges are usable?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What's your opinion?
·7· · · ·A· · They are usable.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you, do you think that there is
·9· anything that should be done to those bridges if this
10· landfill facility were permitted?
11· · · ·A· · I don't, I don't see that justification.· No.
12· · · ·Q· · So you, you believe that the condition of the
13· roads in the location of the bridges would not need any
14· improvement to meet the requirements of, of providing
15· access to this landfill?
16· · · ·A· · I don't think so.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
18· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 18 marked.)
19· · · ·Q· · I'm going to hand you what I've marked as
20· Exhibit 18.· It's a three-page exhibit of pictures on
21· Jordan Road, were taken on Jordan Road.· The first page
22· is Bates-labeled 03002, the next one is 03003, and the
23· last page is 02882; is that correct?
24· · · ·A· · Yes, it is.
25· · · ·Q· · All right.· The first two pictures -- well,
·1· all three pictures depict some level of dust, and, and
·2· they differ fairly substantially from the dust that's
·3· shown in the picture that you took in 2014 that's
·4· included in your report.· Would you agree?
·5· · · ·A· · I agree.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would you, would you say -- I mean
·7· would you agree with me that the level of dust that is
·8· apparent on the pictures that are part of Exhibit 18 is
·9· greater?
10· · · ·A· · Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · If I understood correctly, the picture that
12· you took that's included in your report -- remind me,
13· where was that taken on Jordan Road?
14· · · ·A· · It was taken on just south of one of the
15· structures that we were just talking about, and I don't
16· remember which one it was.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
18· · · ·A· · You can, you can tell by the photograph that
19· the road is separating --
20· · · ·Q· · Yeah, yeah, yeah.
21· · · ·A· · -- at the structure.
22· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Okay.· In any event, it's somewhere
23· between 359 and the railroad for sure?
24· · · ·A· · Correct.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·1· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 19 marked.)
·2· · · ·Q· · I'm going to hand you a two-page exhibit I've
·3· marked, Exhibit 19, and it is a picture of the railroad
·4· crossing we've talked about on Jordan Road, and it's
·5· Bates-labeled Hurd 02751 and 2754, correct?
·6· · · ·A· · Yes.
·7· · · ·Q· · Would you agree with me that this is -- these
·8· are pictures of the railroad crossing we've been
·9· talking about?
10· · · ·A· · It appears that it is.· Yes.
11· · · ·Q· · All right.· And what it depicts is that there
12· is -- as far as traffic control devices, what does it
13· show?
14· · · ·A· · Shows the minimum cross-buck requirement plus
15· yield signs.
16· · · ·Q· · Right.
17· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Cross-buck, did you
18· say?
19· · · · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah.
20· · · ·Q· · And, and no other traffic control devices,
21· right?
22· · · ·A· · Well, yes and no.· It, it has delineators on
23· either approach at the, at the --
24· · · ·Q· · Oh, okay.
25· · · ·A· · -- cattle guards.
·1· · · ·Q· · And the delineators being what those -- the
·2· reflectors on a metal stick.
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Just trying to understand.· All right.
·5· · · ·A· · I would like to comment on this if I could.
·6· · · ·Q· · Feel free.· Go ahead.
·7· · · ·A· · It -- this railroad crossing has been
·8· improved since I was there in 2014.· It has been
·9· widened.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So let me be sure I'm following.· The
11· picture that we're looking at, Exhibit 19, is, is
12· different, in your view, than what you saw in 2014?
13· · · ·A· · It is different.· I measured a 16.4, 16-foot,
14· 4-inch crossing, and it's obviously in the order of 20
15· feet or more.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And so when you were there in 2014,
17· looking at the first page of Exhibit 19, the -- you're
18· referring to the area that's asphalted next to the
19· tracks as being -- as having been expanded?· Is that
20· what you mean?
21· · · ·A· · Well --
22· · · ·Q· · I'm just trying to understand.
23· · · ·A· · -- you can't see the, the crossing itself.
24· Well, yeah, you can too.
25· · · ·Q· · On the second page?
·1· · · ·A· · It has definitely been widened.· Yeah.· On
·2· the second page you can see the wooden crossing.· It's
·3· in three sections, and I believe before it was only in
·4· two sections.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·6· · · ·A· · And the asphalt approach, at least on the
·7· approach we're looking at, has been widened to almost
·8· the width of that, that wooden crossing.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· In 2014 you sent a letter to TxDOT,
10· did you not, regarding the intersection at 59?
11· · · ·A· · I did.
12· · · · · · · · · · · (Exhibit No. 20 marked.)
13· · · ·Q· · Is number 20 that I've handed you, is that
14· the letter?
15· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Here you go.· This one
16· I have copies of (addressing Mr. Cohen).
17· · · ·A· · Well, you asked me if this is the letter I
18· sent to TxDOT.· I can't say that it was sent to TxDOT.
19· · · ·Q· · Oh.
20· · · ·A· · I authored the letter, and I don't know
21· whether I sent it or not.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are you aware of any response to your
23· March 25th, 2014 letter to the TxDOT?
24· · · ·A· · I do not have a record of a response, so I am
25· not aware.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·2· · · ·A· · And I can't say for sure whether I sent this
·3· or not and whether or not I got a response if I did
·4· send it.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· It talks about a couple of things:
·6· First, that on behalf of Carlos Benavides you're asking
·7· for concurrence to utilize 59 as an access route to the
·8· landfill.· That's one part of it, right?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.· We're asking for their concurrence with
10· using it.
11· · · ·Q· · Right.· And then you indicate that you think
12· it could be safe and understand that a permit, a
13· driveway permit would be needed.· And then you talk
14· about in the second paragraph that under certain
15· conditions the volume of traffic coming down from 59
16· could be 240 trucks and 20 passenger vehicles daily.
17· · · · · · · · ·And those numbers are the numbers that
18· are contained within the application as the initial
19· landfill-related traffic, right?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You indicate the timing of the
22· vehicles entering and exiting as 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
23· Where does that come from?
24· · · ·A· · It came from information presented in my
25· report that the peak hour of the then-existing 7 a.m.
·1· to 7 p.m. landfill at the Laredo landfill on U.S. 359
·2· was 1:45 to 2:45 p.m.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Can you -- do you have any
·4· information -- so let me back up.· On exhibit -- I'm
·5· sorry, I can't read that.· What's this, 7?
·6· · · ·A· · 6.
·7· · · ·Q· · 6.· On Exhibit 6, the aerial photograph, it
·8· shows what's labeled as "Landfill Boundary."· Do you
·9· see that?
10· · · ·A· · I do.
11· · · ·Q· · And it has a north area and a south area.
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · Has, has anyone with the applicant talked to
14· you about how they intend to access the south area from
15· the north area?
16· · · ·A· · No.
17· · · ·Q· · Have you yourself investigated how the
18· applicant or its people would access the south area
19· from the north area?
20· · · ·A· · No, I haven't.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Give me a couple minutes.· I think I'm
22· done.
23· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Off the record?
24· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Yes.· Off the record.
25· · · · · · · · · · · (At 1:03 p.m. the proceedings
·1· recessed, continuing at 1:13 p.m.)
·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
·3· BY MR. RICHARDSON:
·4· · · ·Q· · Mr. Steitle, my name is Jim Richardson. I
·5· represent the Jordan Group as well as JEV Family,
·6· Limited in this proceeding.· I wanted to ask you some
·7· questions today.
·8· · · ·A· · Okay.· Could I ask you to speak up?
·9· · · ·Q· · Sure.
10· · · ·A· · There's a roar in the building, and --
11· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· I've noticed the same thing.· Yeah.
12· I'll try to, I'll try to speak up.
13· · · ·A· · Thank you.
14· · · ·Q· · So my notes indicate that your report is
15· dated March 6 of 2014.· We've already discussed that;
16· that correct?
17· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q· · So I assume that at some point prior to that
19· that someone asked you to be an expert witness in this,
20· correct?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Do you recall who asked you to be an expert
23· witness in this case?
24· · · ·A· · It was someone with the law firm of Thompson
25· and something --
·1· · · ·Q· · Grissom?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And at that time did you speak with a
·4· lawyer with Grissom and Thompson?
·5· · · ·A· · I did.
·6· · · ·Q· · Do you recall who that lawyer was?
·7· · · ·A· · It was both --
·8· · · ·Q· · Both of them?
·9· · · ·A· · -- attorneys.
10· · · ·Q· · What specifically were you asked to opine
11· about?
12· · · ·A· · They introduced the, the project to me and
13· asked for my availability to provide professional
14· services.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· At some point were you able to
16· determine what the scope of your expert witness
17· testimony would be?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · When did you do that?
20· · · ·A· · I think it was immediately.
21· · · ·Q· · All right.· And what was the scope of your
22· proposed expert witness testimony?
23· · · ·A· · It was -- well, the scope of my assignment
24· was to develop a report responsive to the letters
25· submitted to the commission, as explained in my report.
·1· · · ·Q· · All right.· And so I'm trying to figure out
·2· what that is.
·3· · · ·A· · Well, let me, let me -- it's -- they're
·4· called hearing request letters.· I'm sorry.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you, did you create a list of
·6· issues about what you intended to provide an evaluation
·7· for purposes of your testimony?
·8· · · ·A· · I didn't --
·9· · · ·Q· · What did --
10· · · ·A· · -- present a list.· I responded to the
11· traffic issues of the letters.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, let me, let me be more specific.
13· So in Exhibit 10, which you've already testified about
14· here today in response to questions by Mr. Miller,
15· there's one page in particular ending with the
16· Bates-numbers 8312, which looks like it's about second
17· to the last page of the, of the exhibit where it states
18· "Permit OK List," it looks like "Mike is witness"?
19· · · ·A· · Let me get to it.
20· · · ·Q· · Sure.
21· · · ·A· · Which page?
22· · · ·Q· · Ending at Bates number 8312.
23· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Second to last page of
24· the exhibit.
25· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·1· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· Okay.· See where it
·2· says, looks like, "Mike is witness," about the second
·3· line down from the top?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.· The --
·5· · · ·Q· · What does that mean?
·6· · · ·A· · That I think Mike Oden is referred to here.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·8· · · ·A· · And that he's the expert witness on the
·9· permit, is the way I interpret it.· I don't recall
10· what, what exactly it meant.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then let me ask you just one more
12· question about this.· It also says "Issues Way of Life"
13· and then also "Compatible With Surrounding Land Use,"
14· right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Who gave you that information to write down?
17· · · ·A· · It was at that meeting with the two
18· attorneys.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And in terms of the scope of your
20· engagement as you understand it, you were not retained
21· as an expert with respect to highway-design issues,
22· were you?
23· · · ·A· · No.· This was -- my assignment was respond,
24· to respond to the complaints or letters.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And since the time of your initial
·1· engagement has the scope of your engagement changed or
·2· evolved?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · In what way?
·5· · · ·A· · It's, it's been continued beyond my original
·6· assignment of responding to the letters.· I'm now
·7· providing consulting services regarding the permit
·8· activities.
·9· · · ·Q· · Have you been asked to consider entering into
10· a contract with respect to any construction activities
11· out there on this project --
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · -- after the -- pardon me, after the permit
14· is, is finalized, if ever?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So I've, I've had an opportunity to
17· look through various published opinions that involve
18· your affidavits and your testimony, of which there are
19· quite a few, and I note that for the most part you have
20· been a witness in accident reconstruction cases; is
21· that correct?
22· · · ·A· · Not in the most part, no.
23· · · ·Q· · Well, you've, you've testified in numerous
24· cases as an accident reconstruction expert, have you
25· not?
·1· · · ·A· · That is, that -- historically that has been a
·2· minor element of my consulting business.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· How would you describe your, your
·4· consulting business?
·5· · · ·A· · I deal with roadway design and traffic
·6· control involving civil and criminal personal injury
·7· cases, automobile.· I, I no longer do traffic -- uh,
·8· accident reconstruction.
·9· · · ·Q· · What do you mean by civil and criminal?
10· · · ·A· · Courts, civil --
11· · · ·Q· · You, you testified at this point in criminal
12· cases?
13· · · ·A· · Yes.
14· · · ·Q· · In what regard?
15· · · ·A· · It's usually negligent criminal homicide when
16· someone negligently is involved in an accident and is
17· claimed to be negligent -- excuse me, responsible for a
18· death.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I see.· So is there, is there
20· one -- who, who are your clients in these cases?
21· · · ·A· · Well, there's very few of those cases because
22· of -- there's the issue of roadway design and traffic
23· control has to come into play for it to be a potential,
24· for it to be potential involvement.
25· · · ·Q· · Do you have -- you're involved right now in
·1· a -- you have your own business; is that correct?
·2· · · ·A· · I do.
·3· · · ·Q· · So can you identify who your largest clients
·4· are at this time?
·5· · · ·A· · No.· I have -- I don't have a list of clients
·6· that I work for.· Every assignment I have is more
·7· likely to be someone I've never worked for than, than a
·8· repeated client, a repetitive client.
·9· · · ·Q· · All right.· Can you tell me how many, how
10· many cases, how many reported cases that you've been
11· involved in as an expert where you've either testified
12· or provided an affidavit concerning access roads on a
13· landfill?
14· · · ·A· · No, sir.
15· · · ·Q· · Has there ever been --
16· · · ·A· · I -- no.· I can't provide you a list. I
17· don't have a record of that.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Sitting here today, do you ever recall
19· having provided opinion by way of testimony or an
20· affidavit in connection with an access road for a
21· landfill?
22· · · ·A· · I can recall testifying in Harris County
23· regarding a proposed landfill on the west side of town
24· north of the ship channel and south of I-10.· I don't
25· have a record of that.· I have a memory only.
·1· · · ·Q· · And in that case in Harris County with regard
·2· to a landfill north of the ship channel, did your
·3· testimony relate to an access road for a landfill?
·4· · · ·A· · It -- yes, a publicly -- I'm sorry, a public
·5· access road.· Yeah.· Public road.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What was the nature of your testimony?
·7· · · ·A· · It involved the exposure -- well, the
·8· adequacy of the access road, of course, and then the
·9· exposure within a school zone to the loads that would
10· be moving across pedestrian-active areas and the
11· possibility of spillage.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.
13· · · ·A· · Or leaking equipment and such.
14· · · ·Q· · All right.· And can you think of any other
15· case in which you provided expert or affidavit
16· testimony in connection with an access road for a
17· landfill?
18· · · ·A· · I, I can remember the Rosillo Creek landfill
19· project in San Antonio where I created a report
20· responsive to the adequacy and efficiency of, of the
21· access, and it was, it was through the intersection of
22· Loop 410 and W.W. White Road and the access through the
23· one-way frontage road with a turnaround at Salado
24· Creek, and I can't tell you if, if I produced an
25· affidavit or just a report or a presentation.· I can't
·1· remember that.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·3· · · ·A· · That was -- I don't remember the year, but it
·4· was 20 years ago.
·5· · · ·Q· · What about the Harris County landfill you
·6· were referencing?· How many years ago was that?
·7· · · ·A· · It was, I don't know, it was probably close
·8· to 20 years ago.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So sitting here today, you can't think
10· of any case that you provided testimony, either oral
11· testimony or affidavit, for sure other than the Harris
12· County case involving an access road pertaining to a
13· landfill?
14· · · ·A· · That's correct.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And other than the Harris County case
16· you've referenced and the Rosillo Creek matter, which
17· you said you didn't know whether you provided an
18· affidavit or testimony, can you think of any other case
19· in which you provided either testimony or an affidavit
20· in connection with an access road for a landfill?
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So your report states, the one we've
23· referenced here today, your written report states that
24· "Jordan Road is an all-weather sandy caliche roadway."
25· In connection with that, you stated, and correct me if
·1· I'm wrong here where I quote you -- I wrote this down
·2· as you were testifying -- "I am accepting the
·3· commitment as contained in the application that the
·4· roads will be all-weather," closed quote.· Do you
·5· recall having said that here today?
·6· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
·7· · · ·Q· · Do you recall testifying to that here today?
·8· · · ·A· · I, I think that's consistent.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So by that I assume that what you're
10· saying is, is that you say there's a commitment as
11· contained in the application, you're talking about a
12· commitment as you understand it on the part of the
13· operator to make sure these roads are all-weather roads
14· as part of the commitment in the application, correct?
15· · · ·A· · I agree.
16· · · ·Q· · All right.· Have you ever testified or
17· tendered an affidavit in any reported case that you
18· recall in which you testified to the definition of an
19· all-weather-access roadway?
20· · · ·A· · No.
21· · · ·Q· · Have you ever testified or provided an
22· affidavit in any case regarding the adequacy of an
23· access road having the characteristics of a sandy
24· caliche roadway?
25· · · ·A· · Are you talking about a lawsuit that, that
·1· I've been involved with?
·2· · · ·Q· · Or any civil proceeding.· I'm just -- in
·3· other words, in this case you referred to the Jordan
·4· Road as a sandy caliche roadway, and I'm trying to
·5· find out in my questioning whether or not you've ever
·6· been involved in any civil proceeding -- could be a
·7· lawsuit -- where you've given opinions with regard to
·8· the adequacy of a sandy caliche roadway.
·9· · · ·A· · Related to dust.
10· · · ·Q· · Is that it, just dust?
11· · · ·A· · It -- well, this is, this is related to dust,
12· and that's, that's what that refers to, and I haven't,
13· I haven't had an issue of dust before in a lawsuit.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So is it fair to say that you've never
15· testified previously until this lawsuit about the
16· adequacy of a roadway that was a sandy caliche roadway?
17· · · ·A· · I can't say that.· That's a difficult
18· question.· I don't know.
19· · · ·Q· · Well, have you given any opinions on the
20· adequacy of a roadway that was a sandy caliche roadway
21· apart from the issue of dust?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And when was that?
24· · · ·A· · Well, there's a number of cases involving
25· unpaved roadways that get involved with accidents,
·1· including oilfield service roadways, county roads
·2· serving residential areas, and the maintenance thereof.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And how many civil proceedings, then,
·4· have you provided testimony, either by oral testimony
·5· or an affidavit, in connection with the adequacy of a
·6· sandy caliche roadway?
·7· · · ·A· · I can't, I can't enumerate what the, what
·8· the, what the involvement was, whether it, it led to a
·9· deposition or even a trial, but there's been
10· approximately six, five or six such cases in my
11· profession.
12· · · ·Q· · All right.· And I can't -- I'll tell you
13· I've looked at Westlaw, I've reviewed some of the cases
14· that you've testified in.· I was, I was not able to
15· find any case in which you gave testimony regarding
16· what types of drainage structures may be required along
17· or near a roadway so that it would qualify as a
18· all-weather-access roadway.· Has there ever been a case
19· like that?
20· · · ·A· · No.
21· · · ·Q· · All right.· I also have not been able to find
22· any case on Westlaw where you testified regarding the
23· adequacy of base material of a -- for a, for an access
24· roadway, and I think you testified in response to
25· Mr. Miller's questioning that that's not really your
·1· expertise, the, the evaluation of base material for a
·2· road.
·3· · · ·A· · Yeah.
·4· · · ·Q· · But correct me if I'm wrong.
·5· · · ·A· · Yeah.· It was in reference to the material
·6· covering the culvert crossing.
·7· · · ·Q· · Correct, correct.· And --
·8· · · ·A· · And, and no, I have not.
·9· · · ·Q· · So your answer is you have not provided
10· testimony or any affidavits with regard to the adequacy
11· of base material, correct?
12· · · ·A· · In regard to covering a culvert, yes.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Has -- let's take that answer and then
14· move on.
15· · · · · · · · ·What about just generally speaking have
16· you been engaged to render expert opinion with regard
17· to the adequacy of base material for a road?
18· · · ·A· · Not in a civil lawsuit.· No.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· We've used the term "all-weather-
20· access road" here today.· Is there a definition in your
21· mind that would comport with your understanding of what
22· an all-weather-access road would be?
23· · · ·A· · Well, that's an excellent question.· The, the
24· TCEQ has a definition contained in another section
25· other than the solid waste section of, of their
·1· regulations that defines it.· The common, the common
·2· definition is, is based on the HUD, Housing and Urban
·3· Development, definition that it can serve emergency
·4· vehicles and, and users of the roadway.
·5· · · · · · · · ·But I think, I think that it, based on
·6· the comparison to the definition in a different section
·7· of the regulations, it would be that it would be usable
·8· in all weather conditions.
·9· · · ·Q· · Usable in all weather conditions?· That's not
10· really a definition that you're taking from TCEQ
11· regulations or from HUD definitions.· That's --
12· · · ·A· · I can't hear you.· I'm sorry.
13· · · ·Q· · I'm -- okay.· Your answer was "usable in all
14· weather conditions," right?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· That's not really a definition based
17· on the TCEQ definitions or the HUD definitions, is it?
18· That's your definition?
19· · · ·A· · No.· It think it's based on both of them.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Where is the TCEQ definition that
21· you're referring to?
22· · · ·A· · I don't have it before me.
23· · · ·Q· · You're saying that there's a definition in
24· the TCEQ regs that actually is for an all-weather road?
25· · · ·A· · Yes.· Serving, I think it's, composting
·1· activities, not municipal solid waste.
·2· · · ·Q· · Oh, I see what you're saying.· Is that in the
·3· Texas Administrative Code, to your recollection?
·4· · · ·A· · I, I can't tell you.· It's -- no.· It's in
·5· the regulations, as I recall.
·6· · · ·Q· · And have you ever testified in any case
·7· regarding the composting activity definition of
·8· all-weather roads?
·9· · · ·A· · No.
10· · · ·Q· · What about the HUD definition?· Where is it
11· located?
12· · · ·A· · I can't recite that.· It's used in the
13· mortgage business, of which I'm familiar with.· It's a
14· requirement that for mortgage loans that access to a
15· parcel has to be all weather.
16· · · ·Q· · And it actually provides for a definition of
17· what all-weather means?
18· · · ·A· · No.
19· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let me refer you to a definition
20· in the Texas Administrative Code, which is Section
21· 332.2, 30 TAC 332.2, which states -- this is subsection
22· for "All-Weather Roads:· A roadway that has been
23· designed to withstand the maximum load imposed by
24· vehicles entering and exiting the facility during all
25· types of weather conditions."· Do you agree with that
·1· definition?
·2· · · ·A· · I do.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· And in connection with the work
·4· that you've done within the scope of your engagement,
·5· have you done any analysis with regard to what the
·6· maximum load would be for vehicles entering and exiting
·7· this facility?
·8· · · ·A· · I've calculated and I've been told that it's
·9· 26 tons, and the average load that I've calculated is
10· 21 tons.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· First let me ask you, who told you
12· that?
13· · · ·A· · I believe it was Paulina Williams.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And --
15· · · ·A· · And the 26 tons -- the 21 tons I got, I
16· calculated from the permit application.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have you seen any documentation to
18· reflect that that's accurate?
19· · · ·A· · Permit application.
20· · · ·Q· · No.· I'm -- there's nothing in the permit
21· application about 26 tons, is there?
22· · · ·A· · Repeat the question.
23· · · ·Q· · Is there anything that you know of anywhere
24· in the permit application where there's a reference to
25· the maximum load of vehicles being 26 tons?
·1· · · ·A· · No.
·2· · · ·Q· · All right.· So I'm asking you are you aware
·3· of any other documentation to confirm the statement
·4· made to you by Ms. Williams that 26 tons is the maximum
·5· load?
·6· · · ·A· · No.· I don't know what you're referring to
·7· other than a number on a regulation.· I don't know
·8· where in the regulation that is.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Does that make a difference to you?
10· · · ·A· · It'd help me understand what, what the
11· questioning is all about.
12· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, let me, let me go back to this
13· definition again, the one that you agreed to, which is
14· "A roadway that has been designed to withstand the
15· maximum load imposed by vehicles entering and exiting
16· the facility during all types of weather conditions."
17· Let me ask you a question regarding that.
18· · · · · · · · ·Would you agree With me that in order to
19· withstand the maximum load imposed by vehicles entering
20· and exiting during all types of weather conditions,
21· that the roadway would have to include drainage
22· features that would cause water, including stormwater,
23· to drain from the road?
24· · · ·A· · Would you repeat the question?
25· · · ·Q· · Yeah.· Would you agree with me that the
·1· roadway would have to include drainage features that
·2· would cause the water to drain from the road?
·3· · · ·A· · It wouldn't, it wouldn't necessarily be
·4· required to maintain its all-weather status, in my
·5· judgment, but I think that any roadway that is going to
·6· be designed is going to be designed to drain.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And that would include any designs
·8· that were implemented on either the Jordan Road or the
·9· proposed emergency road for this facility; would that
10· be correct?
11· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
12· · · ·A· · I, I don't know that Jordan Road was
13· designed.
14· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· I'm saying if there were
15· ever a design change on Jordan Road, would you expect
16· it to include features for draining water off the road?
17· · · ·A· · If -- not necessarily.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you this question:· Would
19· you agree that in order to have an all-access-weather
20· roadway to accommodate public traffic from the facility
21· to a public road, that the roadway would have to
22· include engineered bridges and culverts where it
23· intersects a 100-year floodplain across the roadway?
24· · · ·A· · Not necessarily.· No.
25· · · ·Q· · All right.· Well, you testified that you were
·1· a floodplain administrator in San Antonio; is that
·2· correct?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And in that regard you, I assume, were
·5· responsible for determining whether or not parties were
·6· authorized to conduct development in floodplain areas;
·7· is that correct?
·8· · · ·A· · Yes.
·9· · · ·Q· · And you're -- in that position I assume
10· you're familiar with what a 100-year floodplain is,
11· correct?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · Have you as part of the scope of your
14· engagement in connection with this case done any review
15· of the floodplain maps that would be applicable to
16· Jordan Road or the proposed emergency road?
17· · · ·A· · Not in regard to my assignment.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, don't you think that if you were
19· going to be testifying about the adequacy of roadways
20· to this facility or from this facility, you would check
21· to confirm whether or not portions of the road were in
22· a 100-year floodplain, sir?
23· · · ·A· · Not necessarily.
24· · · ·Q· · So you feel today that you can adequately
25· testify that a road is adequate even though you don't
·1· know whether the road is in the floodplain?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·4· · · ·A· · Whether or not -- now, I do know whether or
·5· not it's in -- susceptible to unreasonable inundation,
·6· because it's all-weather.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· Objection,
·8· nonresponsive.
·9· · · ·Q· · I asked you about a floodplain, whether or
10· not you've done an evaluation to determine whether
11· portions of Jordan Road or the emergency road were in a
12· 100-year floodplain.· Your answer was you have not done
13· that analysis, correct?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let me ask you this question:
16· Would you agree that an all-weather-access roadway to
17· accommodate public traffic to or from the facility to a
18· public road would have to be designed with an elevated
19· center line causing water to drain laterally away from
20· the traffic or slope to allow drainage to one side?
21· · · ·A· · Yes.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Would you also agree with me that an
23· all-weather-access road to accommodate public traffic
24· from the facility to a public road would have to
25· satisfy reasonable engineering standards of hardness of
·1· the base and the quality of the subsurface, depending
·2· on existing traffic volume and uses?
·3· · · ·A· · I would have to agree that it could likely.
·4· · · ·Q· · Also, would you agree that such a roadway
·5· would have to satisfy reasonable engineering standards
·6· based on the results of laboratory analysis such as the
·7· application of Atterberg limits by a competent --
·8· · · ·A· · Not necessarily.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So you don't agree with that?
10· · · ·A· · No.· It, it depends on the material that's
11· being used.
12· · · ·Q· · Right.· And you have not conducted any
13· analysis of the material being used for the base on
14· Jordan Road, correct?
15· · · ·A· · It's not being used.
16· · · ·Q· · Well, my question is, though, you haven't
17· conducted any testing on the base material for Jordan
18· Road.· That's true, isn't it?
19· · · ·A· · What's the base material?· I don't know what
20· the base material is, so I haven't conducted anything.
21· · · ·Q· · That's my point.· You don't know what the
22· base material is, correct?
23· · · ·A· · It's yet to be determined.
24· · · ·Q· · And you haven't done any analysis of the base
25· material pursuant to the scope of your engagement,
·1· which did not cover this aspect of this project; is
·2· that correct?
·3· · · ·A· · Correct.
·4· · · ·Q· · All right.· And would you agree that to have
·5· an all-weather-access roadway to accommodate public
·6· traffic that you have to -- and again, I'm harkening
·7· back to what you testified to, that you were a
·8· floodplain administrator in San Antonio.· If you were
·9· to develop this Webb County road, Jordan Road, to
10· traverse a 100-year floodplain, you know, do you not,
11· that you would not be able to develop that road absent
12· issuance of a floodplain development permit by Webb
13· County?
14· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
15· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· Is that correct?
16· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Pardon me.
17· Objection, form.
18· · · ·A· · I don't know that to --
19· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Assumes improvements
20· to Jordan Road.
21· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· Pardon me?
22· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· You've built an
23· assumption into your question.
24· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· I didn't ask
25· you --
·1· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· I'm sorry.· I was --
·2· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· -- Paulina.
·3· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· -- trying to give
·4· you (crosstalk) --
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· Yeah.· But I never
·6· asked you anything about the reason for your objection.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
·8· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· So my, so my question
·9· is -- well, let me, let me back up here, because this
10· is something I need to talk to you about.
11· · · · · · · · ·You were a floodplain administrator in
12· San Antonio, okay?· And so you know that road
13· development, really development of any kind,
14· particularly where it's near a 100-year floodplain,
15· cannot occur without an assessment being made by the
16· county with issuance of a floodplain development
17· permit, right?
18· · · ·A· · I agree.
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So in connection with the scope of
20· your engagement here have you contacted the floodplain
21· administrator in Webb County to determine whether or
22· not a floodplain development permit has ever been
23· requested for Jordan Road?
24· · · ·A· · No.
25· · · ·Q· · Why not?
·1· · · ·A· · That's not my assignment.
·2· · · ·Q· · Well, if your assignment, sir, is to testify
·3· about the adequacy of this roadway, then wouldn't your
·4· assignment also include knowing whether or not a
·5· floodplain development permit has been issued on an
·6· area where the actual roadway intersects with a
·7· floodplain?
·8· · · ·A· · No.
·9· · · ·Q· · Do you know what the effect is of building a
10· road where there's, where there's an intersection with
11· a 100-year floodplain in a historic rainfall event?
12· · · ·A· · I'm confident that that will not happen.
13· · · ·Q· · You're confident there will not be a historic
14· rainfall event near Jordan Road or the emergency road?
15· · · ·A· · I didn't say that.
16· · · ·Q· · What did you mean by that?
17· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
18· · · ·A· · The permit application has defined the access
19· on all-weather roads, and that's, that's what I'm
20· relying on.
21· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· No.· But that's, that's
22· not what I'm relying on.· I'm relying on your testimony
23· that you would have to request the issuance of a
24· floodplain development permit before developing
25· portions of a road intersecting a floodplain.· That's
·1· what you said --
·2· · · ·A· · I would not --
·3· · · ·Q· · -- correct?
·4· · · ·A· · -- have to do that.
·5· · · ·Q· · No.· But someone would have to do that,
·6· because you know that in the sense that you were a
·7· floodplain administrator and you had jurisdiction over
·8· precisely those types of questions, didn't you, sir?
·9· · · ·A· · Yes.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So here going back, it makes sense to
11· me that before determining the adequacy of Jordan Road
12· you would have undertaken to contact Webb County to
13· determine whether there was an issue with development
14· of that road without a floodplain development permit
15· having been issued.
16· · · ·A· · No.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
18· · · ·A· · I do not agree with that.
19· · · ·Q· · Well, let me ask you this:· Are you aware
20· that a floodplain development permit has been denied to
21· Rancho Viejo for doing work on this road?
22· · · ·A· · No.
23· · · ·Q· · Well, don't you think that would have been
24· within the scope of your engagement, to find out
25· whether that type of action had been taken?
·1· · · ·A· · No.
·2· · · ·Q· · So you can determine the adequacy of a road
·3· even though a floodplain development permit has been
·4· denied for that road?
·5· · · ·A· · Yeah.
·6· · · ·Q· · And that wouldn't even be an issue that you
·7· would consider or deem to be relevant?
·8· · · ·A· · No.· Not in this case.
·9· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And why is that, that not in this case
10· would that be required?
11· · · ·A· · The, the road is being utilized currently.
12· It's functioning as an all-purpose road, and I have no
13· reason to doubt that it will continue with proper
14· maintenance by the county who's responsible for it.
15· · · ·Q· · Well, wait a second, let's back up here.
16· It's okay right now you're saying?· It's functioning
17· okay right now, right?
18· · · ·A· · It's exhibited that.· Yes.
19· · · ·Q· · It was -- it's functioning okay on January
20· 16th when you went out there, even though it was, it
21· was raining and it was quite muddy, right?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· But if we had a flood, a 100-year
24· flood, is it your testimony, sitting here today, that
25· you know that everything will be fine on Jordan Road
·1· and cars and vehicles would be able to go up and down
·2· that road with no problem?
·3· · · ·A· · Of course not.· It's like Hurricane Harvey
·4· and Interstate 10.· It'd have to be barricaded and
·5· taken out of use.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, this says -- this definition
·7· that you subscribe to says "All-Weather Road: A
·8· roadway has been designed to withstand maximum load
·9· imposed by vehicles entering and exiting the facility
10· during all types of weather conditions," right?
11· · · ·A· · That's not a, that's not a hurricane --
12· · · ·Q· · Well --
13· · · ·A· · -- that's not a hundred-year flood.
14· · · ·Q· · This doesn't say except for hurricanes, does
15· it?
16· · · ·A· · It's -- that's not a all-weather condition.
17· · · ·Q· · All right.· And it doesn't say except for
18· 100-year floods when you know the road is in a 100-year
19· floodplain, does it?
20· · · ·A· · Not everything is designed to a hundred-year
21· flood.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And that's why -- isn't that why you
23· need to get a floodplain development permit issued
24· before you do development --
25· · · ·A· · It, it could --
·1· · · ·Q· · -- on a road like that?
·2· · · ·A· · It could be, but that's not what I'm talking
·3· about.
·4· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let's talk about these two
·5· bridges.· There are two bridges on Jordan Road.· What
·6· kind of bridges are those?· Is there an engineering
·7· term for it?
·8· · · ·A· · I don't know.
·9· · · ·Q· · Well, I mean, what we're talking about here
10· is you, you've got a road, and then to one side of the
11· road you have a wooden bridge that's been built there
12· that's obviously higher than the other side of the
13· road.· Would you agree with that characterization?
14· · · ·A· · Sure.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So that it appears to me the reason
16· those wooden bridges were built is because cars,
17· vehicles couldn't get through there, and so someone had
18· to go build a higher wooden bridge on one side to allow
19· vehicles to pass in flooding conditions.· You would
20· agree with that, wouldn't you?
21· · · ·A· · That's -- I would agree that's what it
22· appears to --
23· · · ·Q· · All right.
24· · · ·A· · -- have been done.
25· · · ·Q· · So my question is, you're not seriously
·1· saying here today that with respect to those two wooden
·2· bridges that once this facility opens, if ever, that
·3· trucks are going to go across those little wooden
·4· bridges, are you?
·5· · · ·A· · That's what I expect them to do.
·6· · · ·Q· · You expect 18-wheelers to go across those
·7· little wooden bridges?· Is that really your testimony?
·8· · · ·A· · I'm not testifying to little wooden bridges.
·9· I'm testifying to the structures that are out there now
10· and being used now.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What are they?· What are those
12· structures?
13· · · ·A· · They're structures that the county has, has
14· put in.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you this:· When were those
16· wooden, little wooden bridges that we've been -- the
17· two of them, when were they constructed, do you know?
18· · · ·A· · I don't know when the structures were built.
19· · · ·Q· · And you haven't, and you haven't undertaken
20· any type of analysis or testing with respect to the
21· integrity of those structures, have you?
22· · · ·A· · No.
23· · · ·Q· · And you haven't given an engineering opinion
24· that those structures would support the weight of a
25· 26-ton vehicle -- actually, multiple 26-ton vehicles
·1· going over those bridges many, many times a day,
·2· correct?
·3· · · ·A· · My only opinion regarding that is there's no
·4· weight limit posted on that road to limit the weights.
·5· · · ·Q· · And you know from an engineering point of
·6· view that just because there's no weight limit posted
·7· that doesn't mean that a bridge integrity has met
·8· reasonable and proper engineering conditions, right?
·9· · · ·A· · There would be no guarantee of that.
10· · · ·Q· · Right.· So let me ask you about some of the
11· recorded cases where you've testified.
12· · · · · · · · ·Did you recall having been engaged in a
13· case styled Robert Murillo and City of Laredo versus
14· Oscar Vasquez, which was in the District Court of Webb
15· County?
16· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· What was that,
17· Robert what?
18· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· Robert Vasquez --
19· pardon me, Oscar Vasquez.
20· · · ·A· · I don't remember that style.
21· · · ·Q· · All right.· Do you recall in that case the
22· San Antonio Court of Appeals held that your expert
23· opinion was based on an erroneous legal conclusion
24· regarding a city ordinance pertaining to traffic
25· control classes?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes, I do.
·2· · · ·Q· · All right.· And what was the nature of the
·3· mistake made in that case by you?
·4· · · ·A· · I don't remember.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you testify in a case styled
·6· Texas Department of Transportation versus Purchase,
·7· which was before a District Court of Hildago County in
·8· 2010?
·9· · · ·A· · I don't recall.
10· · · ·Q· · You testified in that case that TDOT did not
11· implement appropriate signage and signals within a
12· reasonable time.· Do you recall that?
13· · · ·A· · No.
14· · · ·Q· · Well, do you recall in that case the Corpus
15· Christi Court of Appeals rejected your conclusions as
16· being contrary to Texas law?
17· · · ·A· · I don't recall.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Have there been other cases where your
19· opinions have been stricken?
20· · · ·A· · This is news to me.· I've, I've never heard
21· of this.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, let me ask you about this one:
23· Did you prepare an expert affidavit in a case styled
24· Dallas Area Rapid Transit versus Hayes in the District
25· Court of Dallas County in approximately 2001?
·1· · · ·A· · I don't recall that.
·2· · · ·Q· · Did your -- do you recall having signed an
·3· affidavit that, that gave your opinion as to why
·4· traffic was backing up?
·5· · · ·A· · I don't recall that case.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Do you -- let me ask you this
·7· question:· Do you recall the Eastland Court of Appeals
·8· decision that held that your affidavit was properly
·9· stricken from the record because it did not, quote,
10· "state any objective facts upon which he reached his
11· conclusions"?· Do you recall that?
12· · · ·A· · I don't recall the case.· I don't --
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.
14· · · ·A· · -- recall anything about what you're talking
15· about.
16· · · ·Q· · So then you wouldn't recall that the court
17· rendered an opinion stating that your opinion was based
18· on mere possibility, speculation, and surmise?
19· · · ·A· · Of course I wouldn't.
20· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with what a Robinson/Daubert
21· motion is in the State of Texas?
22· · · ·A· · Yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Has -- in the cases that you've
24· testified in, in Texas have Roberts -- have, pardon me,
25· Daubert/Robinson motions been filed against your, your
·1· affidavits or your proposed testimony?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · Have any been granted?
·4· · · ·A· · No.
·5· · · ·Q· · How many times has a Daubert/Robinson motion
·6· been filed against you, sir?
·7· · · ·A· · I don't know, probably 10 or 15 times.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·9· · · ·A· · That I'm aware of.
10· · · ·Q· · And, and again, you say you're not aware of
11· the, of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit versus Hayes case
12· in which a Daubert challenge was made and granted
13· against you --
14· · · ·A· · Wait a minute.
15· · · ·Q· · -- is that right?
16· · · ·A· · Who -- Dallas Area Rapid Transit --
17· · · ·Q· · Right.
18· · · ·A· · -- versus who?
19· · · ·Q· · Dallas Area Rapid Transit versus Hayes.
20· · · ·A· · Hayes?
21· · · ·Q· · H-A-Y-E-S.
22· · · ·A· · I don't remember that case.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I want to go back to your expert
24· report rendered in this particular case, the one we're
25· here on today.· And you might want to look at your
·1· report if you have it there in front of you, sir.· I'm,
·2· I'm on page 2 of the report, which is the part entitled
·3· "Report in Brief."
·4· · · ·A· · Okay.
·5· · · ·Q· · And, and about the third paragraph down you
·6· say, quote, "Traffic safety cannot be assumed to be
·7· compromised because of landfill truck traffic.
·8· Research has shown that low-volume rural roads have a
·9· greater rate of injury accidents and that the
10· percentage of truck traffic is not significantly
11· associated with accident rate on those roads."
12· · · · · · · · ·Okay.· My question is this:· What
13· research are you referring to that shows that
14· low-volume rural roads have a greater rate of injury
15· accidents and that the percentage of truck traffic is
16· not significantly associated with accident rates --
17· · · ·A· · It's --
18· · · ·Q· · -- do you know?
19· · · ·A· · It's cited in a footnote in my report.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.
21· · · ·A· · It's on page 6, footnote number 3, Federal
22· Highway Administration Research Report.
23· · · ·Q· · All right.· So, so this, this citation in
24· footnote 3, your testimony is today that if I were to
25· read that, it would support your statement that
·1· research has shown that low-volume rural roads have a
·2· greater rate of injury accidents?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And again, probably I have the same
·5· question for you twice, maybe it's the same answer.· On
·6· page 2 your report states that, quote, "Based on
·7· Federal Highway Administration research, there is no
·8· basis for an argument that traffic safety will be
·9· compromised by anticipated conditions that will result
10· from development of landfill and increased oil
11· production."· Is that the same footnote?
12· · · ·A· · Yes.
13· · · ·Q· · Same article?
14· · · ·A· · Yes.
15· · · ·Q· · So if I were to read that article, it would
16· support this proposition that I just read?
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And then on paragraph 10 -- I want to
19· make sure I understand your testimony response to
20· Mr. Miller's questions -- it states, quote, "Jordan
21· Road" --
22· · · ·A· · I'm sorry, paragraph what?
23· · · ·Q· · 10 on page 2 where, where you're talking
24· about Jordan Road SH 359.
25· · · ·A· · Oh, okay.
·1· · · ·Q· · Okay?· So you say, quote, "Jordan Road at SH
·2· 359 should be improved to accommodate simultaneous
·3· ingress and egress movement without the need to turn in
·4· a wide swinging path," closed quote.
·5· · · · · · · · ·So I want to see if I understand this
·6· correctly.· Are you now saying today that that does not
·7· have to happen until some specified future point in
·8· time when traffic volumes build up, or are you,
·9· alternatively, are you saying it should happen
10· immediately as soon as this facility opens, if ever?
11· · · ·A· · It's not a requirement for safety and
12· efficiency at that intersection.· It's a desirable
13· design feature of any facility, and TxDOT is engaging
14· in their anticipated $12 million project to improve
15· State Highway 359 in consideration of a left-turn lane
16· into the site.· And that intersection will necessarily
17· be included in the interface with State Highway 359.
18· · · · · · · · · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· All right.
19· Objection, nonresponsive.
20· · · ·Q· · And I don't mean any disrespect by that. I
21· just mean I need to object for the record, because I'm
22· asking you a little different question here.
23· · · · · · · · ·Your report on page 2, paragraph 10
24· says, "Jordan Road at SH 359 should be improved to
25· accommodate simultaneous ingress and egress
·1· movements without the need to turn in a wide swinging
·2· path."
·3· · · · · · · · ·Here's my question:· Are you saying that
·4· that needs to happen immediately at the time this
·5· facility opens, if ever, or are you saying that needs
·6· to occur sometime way in the future?
·7· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
·8· · · ·A· · I'm not saying it needs to occur way in the
·9· future.
10· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· Okay.· Are you saying it
11· needs to occur when the facility opens, if ever?
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · What are you saying?
14· · · ·A· · I'm saying what I just explained to you
15· earlier.
16· · · ·Q· · Well, but forgive me for arguing, but your,
17· your report says, "Jordan Road at SH 359 should be
18· improved to accommodate simultaneous ingress and egress
19· movements."· There's no qualifying language there, so
20· I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.
21· · · ·A· · Well, like I explained earlier, I could have
22· written an entire page on that subject, but I tried to
23· keep it simple and to one sentence, and I believe it's
24· consistent with my entire report that it will help
25· traffic operations and can be incorporated in the
·1· proposed project of TxDOT.
·2· · · ·Q· · What if it's not incorporated in the proposed
·3· project of TxDOT?
·4· · · ·A· · Then TxDOT is not agreeing to that
·5· intersection design.
·6· · · ·Q· · And that would mean that TxDOT is disagreeing
·7· with you, your assertion that's contained in this
·8· report in paragraph 10?· Because you're saying it needs
·9· to happen, correct?
10· · · ·A· · I don't know if they would be disagreeing
11· with me or not.
12· · · ·Q· · Well, it would obviously not be consistent
13· with your statement.
14· · · ·A· · Well, I don't know what TxDOT would be
15· telling me as to why they're not going to do that.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you this:· Do you stand by
17· this statement that Jordan Road SH 359 should be
18· improved?· Do you stand by that, or are you abandoning
19· that statement here today?
20· · · ·A· · No.· I think that's a universal
21· recommendation that any intersection such as that
22· should accommodate simultaneous turns without a
23· swinging wide turn --
24· · · ·Q· · Okay.
25· · · ·A· · -- like the, like the wide-right-turn sign on
·1· the back of semis.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Then here's my, my next question:· Are
·3· there any other improvements that need to be made, in
·4· your mind, at this Jordan Road SH 359 --
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Objection, form.
·6· · · ·Q· · (By Mr. Richardson)· -- intersection?
·7· · · ·A· · No.· No, sir.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And shifting gears now, I'm going
·9· over -- let me, let me also talk about the intersection
10· of U.S. 59 and the ranch road there that is the private
11· road through the Yugo.· Are you -- the so-called
12· emergency road.· Are you on the same page with me about
13· that?· Do you know what I'm referring to?
14· · · ·A· · The existing road, yes.
15· · · ·Q· · Right.· That goes from, from U.S. 59 onto the
16· Yugo Ranch --
17· · · ·A· · Yes.
18· · · ·Q· · -- that road.· Okay.· My question is, do you
19· have any proposed improvements in connection with that
20· U.S. 59 ranch road intersection?
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · And with regard to, again, page 2 of the,
23· of the report -- and now I'm looking at paragraph
24· 13 -- you say, quote, "The Jordan Road crossing of
25· Kansas City Southern should be widened to accommodate
·1· two-way traffic," correct?
·2· · · ·A· · Yes.
·3· · · ·Q· · All right.· Are you saying now -- I'm a
·4· little confused by your testimony.· Are you saying now
·5· that that has already happened but it was unbeknownst
·6· to you until you looked at the photos that Mr. Miller
·7· handed to you?
·8· · · ·A· · Yeah.· I was -- that's right.· It's just
·9· happened now.
10· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So it's happened and now you're,
11· you're -- what you're saying is there don't need to be
12· any additional improvements to the Jordan Road crossing
13· of Kansas City Southern?
14· · · ·A· · That's what I would say if I was asked to.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· That's what I'm asking you right now.
16· So are there any visual obstructions on Jordan Road,
17· based on your observations?
18· · · ·A· · Could you please be more specific?
19· · · ·Q· · Sure.· Are there any obstructions on Jordan
20· Road -- and by that I mean also to the sides of Jordan
21· Road -- that would potentially interfere with traffic
22· in the sense that they would constitute safety
23· concerns?
24· · · ·A· · When you say interfere with traffic, there
25· are many access points on Jordan Road, dozens of them.
·1· I did not, I did not recognize any specific locations
·2· along Jordan Road.
·3· · · ·Q· · Was it part of the scope of your engagement
·4· to determine if there were obstructions that might
·5· constitute a safety concern for traffic on Jordan Road?
·6· · · ·A· · My assignment was to respond to the hearing
·7· request letters.
·8· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And I don't know whether the hearing
·9· request letters mentioned obstructions, visibility
10· obstructions on Jordan Road.· So you'll have to help me
11· there.
12· · · ·A· · What they, what they addressed was the safety
13· on Jordan Road with the increased volume of traffic.
14· Okay?· The, the existing conditions and the safety
15· under which Jordan Road is currently operating.· And
16· with the increased traffic is it going to get worse,
17· and of course, based on my reference to a footnote 3,
18· that source, it's not going to get worse, it's going
19· to --
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.
21· · · ·A· · -- get better.
22· · · ·Q· · So said another way, would I be correct that
23· your engagement did not include an assessment of
24· visibility obstructions on Jordan Road?· That wasn't
25· your mission, in other words, right?
·1· · · ·A· · Not, not separating that.· No.· Huh-uh.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And additionally, you didn't consider
·3· it to be part of your engagement to determine whether
·4· there were visibility obstructions on the ranch road
·5· where it intersects U.S. 59, right?
·6· · · ·A· · I wasn't requested to evaluate that.· No.
·7· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you didn't conduct any such
·8· evaluation, did you?
·9· · · ·A· · I, I observed the intersection, and I did not
10· detect in 2014 when I was there, I did not detect any
11· issue resolving inadequate visibility.
12· · · ·Q· · All right.· Let's put the intersection at
13· U.S. 59 and the ranch road aside --
14· · · ·A· · Oh, I'm sorry.· I'm sorry.
15· · · ·Q· · -- and talk about, and talk about the entire
16· ranch road, is what I'm asking about.· Your mission was
17· not to determine visibility obstructions on the ranch
18· road, was it?
19· · · ·A· · No.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you didn't do that, did you?
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · All right.
23· · · ·A· · In terms of individual locations, no.
24· · · ·Q· · Right.· What about visibility obstructions at
25· the KCS railroad crossing on Jordan Road?· Did you make
·1· it a part of your engagement to determine whether
·2· visibility obstructions existed at that railway,
·3· railway crossing?
·4· · · ·A· · I didn't single that out as a mission.· When
·5· I, when I looked at that crossing I didn't see a
·6· deficiency in visibility.
·7· · · ·Q· · Did you perform any, any measurements or
·8· testing in order to determine whether visibility
·9· obstruction might exist at that crossing?
10· · · ·A· · I didn't take any measurements.
11· · · ·Q· · Did you take any measurements -- did you make
12· any evaluation as to whether the KCS control building
13· was an obstruction to visibility on the KCS crossing?
14· · · ·A· · No.
15· · · ·Q· · Because that wasn't part of your assignment,
16· I take it?
17· · · ·A· · No.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You testified that, that you -- it's
19· your belief that noise from the approaching and
20· departing trucks would not be an impediment -- would
21· not cause a nuisance, essentially, on Jordan Road.· Is
22· that pretty much what you said?· And if not, correct
23· me.
24· · · ·A· · I, I -- it would not be an increased
25· nuisance, I believe.
·1· · · ·Q· · All right.· And you stated that your -- the
·2· basis of your conclusion that it would not constitute a
·3· nuisance was a subjective one, that is, based on your
·4· own individual sensibilities; is that correct?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · Are you aware that there are experts in the
·7· field of acoustical noise that are board certified in
·8· that area with regard to whether or not sounds will
·9· cause a problem for some people's sensibilities?
10· · · ·A· · I will accept that.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Well, you're not an expert in
12· acoustics, are you?
13· · · ·A· · No.
14· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You're not board certified by the
15· Institute of Noise Control Engineering to make
16· assessments about whether or not noises would result in
17· a nuisance, correct?
18· · · ·A· · No.
19· · · ·Q· · And also, are you familiar with the noise
20· emissions standards of the American National Standards
21· Institute?
22· · · ·A· · Just roughly, yes.
23· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you apply any of those standards
24· of the American National Standards Institute when you
25· were reaching a conclusion about noise from traffic on
·1· Jordan Road?
·2· · · ·A· · No.
·3· · · ·Q· · You state in your report that additional cars
·4· for landfill use would not cause an increased risk of
·5· train derailment affecting safety and property.· By
·6· that I assume you meant cars on a train, additional
·7· cars added to a freight train?· Is that what you mean
·8· would not result in --
·9· · · ·A· · Either --
10· · · ·Q· · -- additional risk?
11· · · ·A· · Either the cars added to an existing train or
12· a separate shipment.
13· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Are you aware of research that shows
14· that train derailments, the frequency of train
15· derailments can be determined as a function of the
16· length of the train?
17· · · ·A· · I, I will accept that notion.
18· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you consult any research prior to
19· making the opinion that's expressed there that
20· additional cars would not cause an increased risk of
21· train derailment?
22· · · ·A· · Did I consult what?
23· · · ·Q· · Any research or studies prior to, prior to
24· reaching the conclusion that you did.
25· · · ·A· · Yes.· I consulted the Federal Railroad
·1· Administration Department of Transportation site
·2· regarding the regulation of train car make-up.
·3· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Did you consult any other studies or
·4· research beyond that one?
·5· · · ·A· · Other than the -- no.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Let me ask you these questions.
·7· I'm not sure what your answers are going to be,
·8· obviously.
·9· · · · · · · · ·But all right.· With respect to Jordan
10· Road, let's, let's first start with Jordan Road.· Do
11· you agree that Jordan Road in its current state has
12· road-width deficiencies, yes or no?
13· · · ·A· · No.· Does not.
14· · · ·Q· · Do you agree that in its current state Jordan
15· Road has design deficiencies, yes or no?
16· · · ·A· · Has what?
17· · · ·Q· · Design deficiencies.
18· · · ·A· · What design --
19· · · ·Q· · I'm just asking you whether there are any
20· design deficiency that you know of on Jordan Road.
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · Okay.· So if I say, Are there any design
23· deficiencies on Jordan Road that you know of, your
24· answer is no, right?
25· · · ·A· · That would be correct, unless we get more
·1· specific as to what we're addressing.
·2· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And is it also your opinion that there
·3· are no drainage deficiency -- drainage feature
·4· deficiencies on Jordan Road?
·5· · · ·A· · In terms of what type of deficiency?
·6· · · ·Q· · Drainage, with respect to the drainage of
·7· water off of Jordan Road, do you believe there are any
·8· current deficiencies on Jordan Road that would fall
·9· within that definition?
10· · · ·A· · I -- yes and no.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.· What's -- explain your answer, please.
12· · · ·A· · I did not -- I'm not aware of any drainage
13· deficiencies that influence the all-weather nature of
14· the road.
15· · · ·Q· · Are you aware of any, any engineering at all
16· to implement drainage features on Jordan Road?
17· · · ·A· · No.
18· · · ·Q· · I have no further questions at this time.
19· Thank you, sir.
20· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
21· BY MR. KOMKOV:
22· · · ·Q· · Mr. Steitle, my name's Leon Komkov, and I'm
23· representing ANB Cattle Company in this matter.· You've
24· been here a long time.· I'm going to make every effort
25· to be brief and nonduplicative.
·1· · · · · · · · ·Can I get you first, sir, to turn to
·2· Exhibit 20 that you were shown earlier?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q· · This is a letter that you wrote March 25th,
·5· 2014 to TxDOT, correct?
·6· · · ·A· · Yes.· Well, it was addressed to TxDOT, and I
·7· don't know what the distribution, if you will, was of
·8· that.
·9· · · ·Q· · Got it.· But since you're asking on behalf of
10· Mr. Carlos Benavides, was it Mr. Benavides personally
11· who asked you to write this letter?
12· · · ·A· · I can't, I can't say.
13· · · ·Q· · Do you --
14· · · ·A· · I, I talked to Mr. Benavides on the telephone
15· about this, but I don't know if he's the one that
16· initiated the request.
17· · · ·Q· · To the best of your knowledge, sitting here
18· five years later, before you prepped this letter what
19· were you advised regarding this inquiry as to a
20· northern access point to the facility?
21· · · ·A· · I was asked to explore with the -- or
22· consistent with this letter to explore with TxDOT a new
23· access point to U.S. 59 to provide access to this
24· landfill site.
25· · · ·Q· · When you say a new access point, was it an
·1· access point that was different than the current
·2· entryway of what we've been calling the emergency road?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · And where was that new point to go, do you
·5· know?
·6· · · ·A· · It was just to be determined, and it was
·7· requested of TxDOT, as I said, but we also understand
·8· that a driveway permit with specific provisions will be
·9· necessary before access is actually granted.· The
10· location of it was, was to be different from the
11· existing gated driveway.
12· · · ·Q· · Right.· Did you do any further work after
13· writing this letter as to trying to identify a
14· potential access point?
15· · · ·A· · I believe not.
16· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I know this was asked earlier, but let
17· me ask you again in this instance, because I was not
18· paying attention well.
19· · · · · · · · ·Did TxDOT ever respond to you with
20· respect to this Exhibit 20?
21· · · ·A· · Well, like I testified earlier, I don't know
22· whether this was distributed or who it was distributed
23· to, if at all, and I'm not aware of any response as a,
24· as a result of this letter.
25· · · ·Q· · Okay.· You testified a little bit about oil
·1· and gas traffic, and I think your opinion talks about
·2· anticipated increases in the traffic just with regard
·3· to oil and gas operations, correct?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · Do you have an opinion regarding whether oil
·6· operations or gas operations produce more traffic in a
·7· given area?
·8· · · ·A· · Well, I don't quite understand your question.
·9· · · ·Q· · You, you -- well, I don't, I don't know if I
10· understand, because I was listening to you saying that
11· oil production is going to increase traffic, in your
12· view, correct?
13· · · ·A· · The, the -- what my statement should have
14· suggested is that oil and gas traffic should increase.
15· · · ·Q· · Now, gas is typically transported by
16· pipelines and not trucks, correct?
17· · · ·A· · Exploration and production, I mean, we've
18· got -- you know, I don't know what degree of fracking
19· is going on.· There's obviously oil, there's obviously
20· well maintenance, based on one of the figures
21· that -- exhibits that we have, and as the oil wells are
22· produced and lose their quantity, that void is filled
23· with saltwater that has to be pumped out.· And so the
24· older the well gets, generally, the more truck traffic,
25· tractor-trailer, tanker truck traffic is going to have
·1· to service that oil well to keep it producing.
·2· · · ·Q· · Let me -- and I'm not trying to be facetious,
·3· but let me kind of cut to the bottom.
·4· · · · · · · · ·With respect to energy production
·5· traffic, is it correct to say this is not your expert
·6· opinion, it's a surmise?
·7· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
·8· · · ·Q· · With respect to what you've stated, your
·9· projections regarding energy-related traffic, is that
10· part of your expert opinion, or is that a surmise on
11· your part?
12· · · ·A· · It's part of, it's part of my traffic
13· engineering application of information in that I have
14· a -- I know that, that the propensity of activity out
15· there is oil and gas exploration and production.
16· · · ·Q· · And what's the proportion in these fields in
17· this area east of Jordan Road of oil production versus
18· gas production?
19· · · ·A· · No, let me finish my response.
20· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Please finish.
21· · · ·A· · Okay.· We know, we know that there's an
22· abundance of activity regarding oil and gas out there,
23· and --
24· · · ·Q· · And let, let me --
25· · · ·A· · -- over the years --
·1· · · ·Q· · -- stop you to be specific.· You know there's
·2· an abundance east of Jordan Road within the vicinity of
·3· this landfill?
·4· · · ·A· · That's not what I'm not referring to.· Let me
·5· finish, please.
·6· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·7· · · ·A· · Oil and gas production in this geographic
·8· area served by FM -- or U.S. 359 is exhibited by the
·9· rise and fall of traffic on U.S. 259 [sic], based on
10· the barometer of feasibility of exploration,
11· production, maintenance, et cetera.· And I was basing
12· it on the 2014 information that I could see the
13· likelihood of that rise in traffic.
14· · · ·Q· · The likelihood of rise in traffic, you were
15· talking about Jordan Road, weren't you?
16· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
17· · · ·Q· · But when you're talking about the likelihood
18· in rise in traffic on the access roads, you're talking
19· about Jordan Road, correct?
20· · · ·A· · No, no.· I'm talking --
21· · · ·Q· · Just (crosstalk) --
22· · · ·A· · -- about Jordan, I'm talking about, yes,
23· Jordan Road, but it's directly related to the activity
24· on U.S. 259 -- 359.· That's where the road -- that's
25· where the traffic on Jordan Road comes from.
·1· · · ·Q· · So even if there's no new exploration on
·2· Jordan Road, you think that the 359 traffic affects the
·3· burden that Jordan Road will bear?
·4· · · ·A· · Well, it's an indicator, and, and there's not
·5· a direct relationship, of course, but as I'm saying, as
·6· oil is depleted you've got to haul off more saltwater,
·7· and so what that relationship is I can't define.· It's
·8· just that I'm expecting the traffic, the oil and gas
·9· exploration and production and maintenance to be
10· related to the barometer of activity regarding the
11· petroleum industry, and right now it's down.
12· · · ·Q· · And just to be accurate, you used the word
13· oil throughout your entire testimony.· In fact, you
14· know that this is principally a gas field in the area
15· of the landfill [crosstalk] --
16· · · ·A· · I, I -- yes, I am aware of that.
17· · · ·Q· · Okay.
18· · · ·A· · That's why I say oil and gas, because I don't
19· want to restrict it just to gas, because there could be
20· an oil well out there that I'm not aware of.
21· · · ·Q· · Understand.· You've not done any correlation
22· between the price of gas and the amount of traffic on
23· Highway 359, have you?
24· · · ·A· · Yeah.· There is.
25· · · ·Q· · Oh, you have?
·1· · · ·A· · No, no, no.· There is, there is a
·2· relationship, because it's like, like gold mining.
·3· Once gold price gets --
·4· · · · · · · · · · · MR. KOMKOV:· Object to
·5· nonresponsive.
·6· · · ·A· · -- below a certain level they're going to
·7· stop mining.
·8· · · ·Q· · I asked have you done a correlation between
·9· the price of gas and the traffic on Highway 359?
10· · · ·A· · Not a numerical correlation.
11· · · ·Q· · Have you done a correlation between the price
12· of crude and the amount of traffic on Highway 359?
13· · · ·A· · Not a numerical calculation, just an --
14· · · ·Q· · Have you done a --
15· · · ·A· · -- observation --
16· · · ·Q· · -- non-numerical correlation?
17· · · ·A· · -- of the graphs of oil and gas production
18· and the relationship to traffic volume on U.S. -- or on
19· State Highway 359.
20· · · ·Q· · Does Webb County class Jordan Road as a Class
21· 1 road?
22· · · ·A· · I don't know.· I don't know that.
23· · · ·Q· · You don't know what the classification Jordan
24· Road is [crosstalk]?
25· · · ·A· · No.· I don't know their classification
·1· system.
·2· · · ·Q· · Let me -- I've just got a quick note.· I want
·3· to go back and pick up.· You said you haven't done a
·4· formal numerical correlation between energy prices and
·5· traffic on Highway 359 but you'd looked at graphs.
·6· What graphs are those?
·7· · · ·A· · Well, for instance, on the website that I got
·8· the information in my report regarding --
·9· · · ·Q· · Drillingreports.com?
10· · · ·A· · Yeah.· Texasdrilling.com, texas-drilling.com.
11· · · ·Q· · And then you looked at those and you were
12· looking at drilling and you were also correlating with
13· crude prices and gas prices and Highway 359 traffic at
14· the same time?
15· · · ·A· · Well, if we're talking about that website,
16· we're talking about oil and gas production.· They're
17· both, they're both graphed on that by year, by
18· six-month intervals, actually, on that website.· And it
19· was climbing at a very rapid rate when I did this
20· study.
21· · · ·Q· · And --
22· · · ·A· · And so I, I made the conclusion that with
23· that increased activity there should be increased
24· traffic, and I'll stand by that.· I, I, I think that
25· there is a relationship.
·1· · · ·Q· · I'm, I'm not denying that.· I'm trying to
·2· find where I find that relationship versus is it a
·3· surmise of yours, but I can't find the information in
·4· your report.
·5· · · ·A· · No.· It's footnoted, texas-drilling.
·6· · · ·Q· · Texas-drilling is going to get me the
·7· drilling activity, correct?
·8· · · ·A· · No.· It, it's --
·9· · · ·Q· · Let me back up a step.· Does
10· texas-drilling.com show me Highway 359 traffic?
11· · · ·A· · No.
12· · · ·Q· · Does it show me Jordan Road traffic?
13· · · ·A· · No.
14· · · ·Q· · So I can't go look at your footnote and say,
15· I've just seen the correlation between oil price
16· drilling activity and traffic on Jordan Road, can I?
17· · · ·A· · Like I've testified to you, I have not
18· determined a numerical --
19· · · ·Q· · Okay.
20· · · ·A· · -- relationship between those two.
21· · · ·Q· · Okay.· And you're making a surmise based on
22· looking at activity that traffic will go up if oil
23· price goes up, correct?
24· · · ·A· · I don't know if I'd call it a surmise, but
25· I'm making a judgment based on what I would expect
·1· based on the trends of traffic and the trends of oil
·2· and gas.· So if it doesn't, if it doesn't increase, it
·3· doesn't increase.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.· Sir, all I'm trying to do -- we get to
·5· talk to you today.· I'm trying to see where in here I
·6· look -- you've said 359 will get busier if oil's up,
·7· and Jordan Road will get busier if oil's up.· I don't
·8· see that in your report, and I'm trying to get where I
·9· go to find that.
10· · · ·A· · I'm not guaranteeing that that will happen.
11· · · ·Q· · Okay.
12· · · ·A· · I'm saying based on my observations and based
13· on traffic trends at the time that I would expect it to
14· be able to double in 10 years.
15· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I'd like to talk about the railroad.
16· I think your report says there 16 crossings on the KCS
17· railroad daily?
18· · · ·A· · Yes.· Daily there's an average of 16
19· movements per day.· Yeah.
20· · · ·Q· · I don't know if they're evenly spaced, but
21· essentially 1.5 train movements per hour?· Or I'm
22· sorry, a train movement every hour and a half on
23· average then?· 16 a day divided by 24 do I get 1.5 in
24· my head, somewhere around there?
25· · · ·A· · I'll accept that.
·1· · · ·Q· · Have you calculated for what period of a
·2· given day the Jordan Road railroad crossing is actually
·3· blocked by a train being in that crossing?
·4· · · ·A· · No.
·5· · · ·Q· · Okay.· I want to talk -- you were saying that
·6· you were preparing to do a revised traffic count on
·7· Jordan Road sometime in the near future, correct?
·8· · · ·A· · No.· I said that I've ordered that count and
·9· I've arranged for it and that it will be done as soon
10· as the weather permits.
11· · · ·Q· · And that's because if the weather doesn't
12· permit, the traffic count would be lower, correct?
13· · · ·A· · No.· As I said, the counting equipment will
14· be buried in the soft surface of the road, because if
15· it's wet, it won't support that concentration of load
16· imposed on the, on the air tube.
17· · · · · · · · · · · MR. KOMKOV:· I pass the witness.
18· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Can we ask a question
19· of the court reporter?· Where are we on our kind of
20· time on this deposition at this point?
21· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I'll just look.
22· · · · · · · · · · · MR. MILLER:· Off the record so you
23· can.
24· · · · · · · · · · · (At 2:30 p.m. the proceedings went
25· momentarily off the record.)
·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
·2· BY MS. WHITTLE:
·3· · · ·Q· · Good afternoon, Mr. Steitle.· Was your
·4· analysis with regard to dust limited to the Jordan
·5· Road?
·6· · · ·A· · It was.
·7· · · ·Q· · And was your analysis limited to dust from
·8· the roadway itself?
·9· · · ·A· · It was.
10· · · ·Q· · Did you conduct any dust analysis with
11· respect to the waste expected to be carried in the
12· trucks to the proposed landfill?
13· · · ·A· · No.
14· · · ·Q· · Are you a mechanical engineer?
15· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
16· · · ·Q· · Are you a mechanical engineer?
17· · · ·A· · I still didn't hear you.
18· · · ·Q· · Are you a mechanical engineer?
19· · · ·A· · No, ma'am.· I'm a civil engineer.
20· · · ·Q· · Are you an environmental engineer?
21· · · ·A· · No.
22· · · ·Q· · Are you an atmospheric scientist?
23· · · ·A· · No.
24· · · ·Q· · Are you an air modeler?
25· · · ·A· · No.
·1· · · ·Q· · Have you ever conducted an air quality
·2· assessment?
·3· · · ·A· · No.
·4· · · ·Q· · Have you ever performed air dispersion
·5· modeling?
·6· · · ·A· · No.
·7· · · ·Q· · Did you review meteorological data when
·8· coming to your conclusion about dust?
·9· · · ·A· · No.
10· · · ·Q· · Did you conduct any meteorological
11· monitoring?
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · Have you ever performed a visibility
14· analysis?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Did you conduct any modeling analysis with
17· respect to the Jordan Road dust?
18· · · ·A· · No.
19· · · ·Q· · Did you conduct any modeling analysis with
20· respect to dust from waste carried in trucks on the
21· access roads?
22· · · ·A· · No.
23· · · ·Q· · Is the one photograph in your report, which
24· is Exhibit 4 to this deposition at page 5, this
25· photograph of the truck driving down the Jordan Road,
·1· is that one photograph the only photograph you took
·2· regarding dust?
·3· · · ·A· · Yes.
·4· · · ·Q· · Is it the only photograph you evaluated with
·5· respect to dust generated from truck traffic?
·6· · · ·A· · Well, the photograph is depicting what I
·7· observed.
·8· · · ·Q· · So --
·9· · · ·A· · In trying to document it.
10· · · ·Q· · So can you explain how long you were standing
11· on the Jordan Road observing?
12· · · ·A· · Long enough to jump out of my truck and take
13· the picture of the truck that I saw approaching.
14· · · ·Q· · And was that an 18-wheeler truck?
15· · · ·A· · Yes.· 18-wheel gravel truck.
16· · · ·Q· · How many trucks did you observe?
17· · · ·A· · I observed trucks all day.· This is the only
18· one I took a photograph of.
19· · · ·Q· · For your dust analysis how many trucks did
20· you stand and observe?
21· · · ·A· · For my example of the dust created by a truck
22· this is the only one I photographed.
23· · · ·Q· · But how long were you standing there for your
24· evaluation?
25· · · ·A· · Like I said, long enough to jump out of my
·1· truck and take a picture of this vehicle that was
·2· approaching.
·3· · · ·Q· · Have you ever conducted a dust analysis on
·4· any prior project?
·5· · · ·A· · No.· You mean similar to this?· No.
·6· · · ·Q· · At paragraph 4 of your report you say the
·7· "Dust kicked up from Jordan Road by the 18-wheeler
·8· trailer" --
·9· · · ·A· · Excuse me.
10· · · ·Q· · Sorry.
11· · · ·A· · What page?
12· · · ·Q· · Paragraph 4 on the first page of your report.
13· It's the summaries.
14· · · ·A· · It begins "One railroad derailment"?
15· · · ·Q· · It has a number down at the bottom.
16· · · ·A· · Oh, oh, the numbered.· Yes.
17· · · ·Q· · The number 4.
18· · · ·A· · Okay.
19· · · ·Q· · It says, "Dust kicked up from Jordan Road by
20· the 18-wheel tractor trailer trucks using Jordan Road
21· was relatively low in magnitude."
22· · · · · · · · ·My question is, what specific
23· measurements did you do to reach your conclusion that
24· the dust was relatively low in magnitude?
25· · · ·A· · Just based on my observation that I would
·1· categorize that as low.
·2· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WHITTLE:· Object,
·3· nonresponsive.
·4· · · ·Q· · Did you take any specific measurements to
·5· make that conclusion?
·6· · · ·A· · No.
·7· · · ·Q· · Did you calculate, did you make any
·8· calculations to determine how long it took the dust to
·9· settle after a truck passed?
10· · · ·A· · No.
11· · · ·Q· · Did you take any measurements with a SUMMA
12· canister?
13· · · ·A· · No.
14· · · ·Q· · Do you know what a SUMMA canister is?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Also in paragraph 4 you state that "the
17· roadway material is more granular than powdery."· Did
18· you -- what measurements did you take to reach that
19· conclusion?
20· · · ·A· · Just an observation and judgment of that
21· observation.
22· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WHITTLE:· Objection,
23· nonresponsive.
24· · · ·Q· · What measurements did you take to reach that
25· conclusion?
·1· · · ·A· · None.
·2· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with the term "particulate
·3· matter"?
·4· · · ·A· · Yes.
·5· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with the health consequences
·6· of human exposure to particulate matter?
·7· · · ·A· · No.
·8· · · ·Q· · Have you developed an opinion with respect to
·9· the cumulative road dust expected from landfill traffic
10· over the course of a day?
11· · · ·A· · No.
12· · · ·Q· · Have you developed an opinion with respect to
13· the cumulative road dust expected from landfill traffic
14· over the course of a week?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Are you -- do you have any expertise in
17· measuring the cumulative dust from the waste carried in
18· trucks over the access roads to a landfill over a
19· 24-hour period?
20· · · ·A· · No.
21· · · ·Q· · The Rancho Viejo landfill application
22· estimates as much as 240 18-wheeler trucks per day at
23· 27 trucks per hour.· You say you relied on the dust
24· generated from the one truck depicted in that
25· photograph, Figure 3 of your report, which is
·1· Exhibit 4.
·2· · · ·A· · I observed, as that paragraph 4 explains, I
·3· observed more than one 18-wheeler and the dust that it
·4· created, and this one I took the opportunity to
·5· photograph as representative, and I believe it was
·6· representative of what I observed.
·7· · · ·Q· · Did you measure the cumulative dust of 27
·8· 18-wheelers per hour?
·9· · · ·A· · No.
10· · · ·Q· · Are you an expert in noise pollution?
11· · · ·A· · No.
12· · · ·Q· · I think we established that you're not an
13· acoustical engineer, but have you taken any classes in
14· acoustical engineering?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Are you familiar with OSHA guidance on noise
17· levels?
18· · · ·A· · No.
19· · · ·Q· · When conducting your analysis on expected
20· truck noise did you use any special equipment designed
21· for taking readings of sound levels?
22· · · ·A· · No.
23· · · ·Q· · As I understood your testimony, you stood on
24· the road and listened to the sounds of a truck passing
25· you; is that correct?
·1· · · ·A· · No.· Approaching.
·2· · · ·Q· · Approaching.
·3· · · ·A· · And departing.
·4· · · ·Q· · How many trucks did you observe?
·5· · · ·A· · It was -- I don't know the number.· It
·6· was -- over the period of time that I was there I, I
·7· observed the trucks as they approached and departed.
·8· · · ·Q· · What is your estimate of the decibel level
·9· that you observed as the trucks were approaching and
10· passing you?
11· · · ·A· · I don't know.
12· · · ·Q· · You said a few times today with both
13· Mr. Richardson and me that you have trouble hearing us.
14· When was the last time you had your hearing checked?
15· · · ·A· · I don't recall.
16· · · ·Q· · How old are you?
17· · · ·A· · 71.
18· · · ·Q· · Have you ever shot a gun without headphones
19· on?
20· · · ·A· · Yes.
21· · · ·Q· · Have you ever listened to loud music?
22· · · ·A· · I don't remember that one.
23· · · ·Q· · Have you ever used a lawnmower?
24· · · ·A· · Yes.
25· · · ·Q· · Without ear protection?
·1· · · ·A· · Yes.
·2· · · ·Q· · Have you ever conducted any studies on how
·3· wildlife respond to noise?
·4· · · ·A· · I'm sorry?
·5· · · ·Q· · Have you ever conducted any studies with
·6· regard to how wildlife respond to noise?· Deer, for
·7· example.
·8· · · ·A· · No studies.· No.
·9· · · ·Q· · Have you ever observed how a deer responds to
10· noise?
11· · · ·A· · Certainly.
12· · · ·Q· · And how does a deer respond to noise?
13· · · ·A· · Depends on what noise there is.· If it's, if
14· it's a horse, if you're riding a horse, you can
15· normally ride right up to a deer and shoot it with a
16· pistol if you want to.· If it's some other vehicles,
17· they -- on the roads that I use in the country to go to
18· and from my house the deer ignore passing vehicles
19· because they get accustomed to them.· A sudden noise
20· could disperse a group of deer.
21· · · ·Q· · Are you aware that the landowners around the
22· proposed landfill have mentioned deer permits issued by
23· the State of Texas?
24· · · ·A· · No.
25· · · ·Q· · Does a traffic engineer normally analyze or
·1· offer opinions on noise?
·2· · · ·A· · Not analytical analysis.· No.· Analytical
·3· opinions.
·4· · · ·Q· · You mentioned taking some observations with
·5· respect to the presence of cattle.· Did you make any
·6· observations with respect to the presence of wildlife
·7· in the area?
·8· · · ·A· · I did not observe any wildlife other than
·9· birds, fowl.
10· · · ·Q· · Have you ever worked for a railroad?
11· · · ·A· · Not as an employee.· No.
12· · · ·Q· · Have you ever served as a safety engineer for
13· a railroad?
14· · · ·A· · No.
15· · · ·Q· · Are you a safety engineer at all?
16· · · ·A· · Would you define that, please?
17· · · ·Q· · Do you review -- well, would you consider
18· yourself a safety engineer?
19· · · ·A· · I don't know what you mean by safety
20· engineer.
21· · · ·Q· · Have you been trained as a safety engineer?
22· · · ·A· · I don't know what you mean.
23· · · ·Q· · All right.· Well, since we have limited
24· time . . .
25· · · · · · · · ·What factors increase the risk of
·1· derailment of a rail car?
·2· · · ·A· · There's a number of factors.· I mean, it
·3· could be endless.· It could be anything from sabotage,
·4· such as in World War II, to -- and perhaps recently, I
·5· don't know -- to maintenance of the vehicles
·6· themselves, excessive speed, facility failures and on.
·7· · · ·Q· · Have you ever investigated a train
·8· derailment?
·9· · · ·A· · No.
10· · · ·Q· · Are you offering yourself as an expert in
11· train safety?
12· · · ·A· · No.
13· · · ·Q· · Have you taken any courses or had any
14· training in rail safety or derailment?
15· · · ·A· · No.
16· · · ·Q· · Can you identify any safety standards in the
17· railroad industry for determining the degree of risk
18· associated with rail offloading facilities such as
19· would be necessary to offload waste from rail cars to
20· load trucks for transport to a landfill?
21· · · ·A· · No, I can't.
22· · · ·Q· · With regard to the secondary access road, the
23· emergency road that we've talked about, as I understand
24· it you drove it one time; is that correct?
25· · · ·A· · One time in one direction.
·1· · · ·Q· · And what kind of vehicle were you in?
·2· · · ·A· · It was a 12-passenger -- a 15-passenger van.
·3· · · ·Q· · Did you see any 18-wheelers driving down the
·4· secondary access road when you were driving down it?
·5· · · ·A· · Yes.
·6· · · ·Q· · How many?
·7· · · ·A· · One.
·8· · · ·Q· · Did you observe what dust was stirred up by
·9· that 18-wheeler on the secondary access road?
10· · · ·A· · No.· It was not -- the condition of the road
11· was, was damp and it -- there was no dust.
12· · · ·Q· · Did you take a measurement that there was no
13· dust, or that was an observation you made?
14· · · ·A· · There was, there was no dust.· It was
15· evident.
16· · · ·Q· · It was --
17· · · ·A· · If I had --
18· · · ·Q· · -- rainy and muddy?
19· · · ·A· · -- attempted to measure it, or anyone would,
20· they would not have been able to measure it.
21· · · ·Q· · Do you know what level of noise would occur
22· on the secondary access road for the level of
23· 18-wheeler traffic that would be required in an
24· emergency situation?
25· · · ·A· · If the emergency situation involved Jordan
·1· Road, then I would expect similar vehicle activity on
·2· the access route, secondary access route as on Jordan
·3· Road.
·4· · · ·Q· · Okay.
·5· · · · · · · · · · · MS. WILLIAMS:· Are we at time?
·6· · · · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · Mr. WHITTLE:· I think that's all
·8· our questions.· Thank you.
·9· · · · · · · · · · · (At 2:47 p.m. the proceedings
10· adjourned.)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · · · · · · CHANGES AND SIGNATURE
·2· · PAGE· · · CHANGE· · · · · · · · · · · · REASON·3· _______________________________________________________
·4· _______________________________________________________
·5· _______________________________________________________
·6· _______________________________________________________
·7· _______________________________________________________
·8· _______________________________________________________
·9· _______________________________________________________
10· _______________________________________________________
11· _______________________________________________________
12· _______________________________________________________
13· _______________________________________________________
14· _______________________________________________________
15· _______________________________________________________
16· _______________________________________________________
17· _______________________________________________________
18· _______________________________________________________
19· _______________________________________________________
20· _______________________________________________________
21· _______________________________________________________
22· _______________________________________________________
23· _______________________________________________________
24· _______________________________________________________
25· _______________________________________________________
·1· · · · · · I, _______________________________, have read
·2· the foregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature
·3· that same is true and correct, except as noted on the
·4· preceding page.
·5
·6
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · DAVID STEITLE·8
·9· STATE OF TEXAS· · · · ·)· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)10· COUNTY OF TRAVIS· · · ·)
11· · · ·Before me __________________________ (name
12· of officer) on this day personally appeared
13· __________________________, known to me (or proved to me
14· under oath or through _________________ (description of
15· identity card or other document)) to be the person whose
16· name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and
17· acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the
18· purposes and consideration therein expressed.
19· · · ·Given under my hand and seal of office on this
20· ____ day of____________________, A.D., 2019.
21
22
23· · · · · · · · · · · · · ____________________________· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Notary Public in and for24· · · · · · · · · · · · · the State of Texas
25
·1· · · · · · · ·SOAH DOCKET NO. 582-18-3319· · · · · · · · TCEQ Docket No. 2013-1506-MSW·2
·3· APPLICATION BY RANCHO· · · § BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE· · VIEJO WASTE MANAGEMENT,· · §·4· LLC for MUNICIPAL SOLID· · §· · · · · ·OF· · WASTE PERMIT· · · · · · · ·§·5· NO. 2374· · · · · · · · · ·§ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
·6
·7· · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
·8· · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF DAVID STEITLE
·9· · · · · · · · · · ·January 25, 2019
10· · · ·I, Sandra S. Givens, Certified Shorthand Reporter
11· in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the
12· following:
13· · · ·That the witness, DAVID STEITLE, was duly sworn by
14· the officer and that the transcript of the oral
15· deposition is a true record of the testimony given by
16· the witness;
17· · · ·That the deposition transcript was submitted on
18· · · · · · · · ·, 2019 to the witness or the attorney for
19· the witness for examination, signature, and return to me
20· by· · · · · · · · , 2019;
21· · · ·That the amount of time used by each party at the
22· deposition is as follows:
23· · · ·Dan Miller - 4 hours, 28 minutes· · · · ·James M. Richardson - 1 hour, 3 minutes24· · · ·Leon V. Komkov - 15 minutes· · · · ·Mary Whittle - 15 minutes25
·1· · · ·That pursuant to information given to the
·2· deposition officer at the time said testimony was
·3· taken, the following includes counsel for all parties
·4· of record:
·5· · · · ·Dan Miller - Attorney for Hurd Enterprises, Ltd.·6· · · · · and Hurd Ranch Company, Ltd.· · · · ·Paul Touch - Attorney for Hurd Enterprises, Ltd.·7· · · · · and Hurd Ranch Company, Ltd.· · · · ·Paulina Williams - Attorney for Rancho Viejo Waste·8· · · · · Management, LLC· · · · ·Derek McDonald - Attorney for Rancho Viejo Waste·9· · · · · Management, LLC· · · · ·James M. Richardson - Attorney for The Jordan10· · · · · Group and JEV Family, Ltd.· · · · ·Emily Gerald - Attorney for The Jordan11· · · · · Group and JEV Family, Ltd.· · · · ·Riley Brown - Attorney for The Jordan12· · · · · Group and JEV Family, Ltd.· · · · ·Leon V. Komkov - Attorney for ANB Cattle Co., Ltd.13· · · ·David Garcia - Attorney for ANB Cattle Co., Ltd.· · · · ·Marisa Perales - Attorney for SPILL14· · · ·Mary Whittle - Attorney for the Walker Group· · · · ·Joseph S. Cohen - Attorney for Job Partners15· · · ·J. Eric Magee - Attorney for Webb County· · · · ·Sheldon P. Wayne - Attorney for TCEQ16· · · ·Eli Martinez - Attorney for TCEQ
17· · · ·I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
18· related to, nor employed by any of the parties or
19· attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was
20· taken, and further, that I am not financially or
21· otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
22· · · ·Further certification requirements, pursuant to
23· Rule 203 TRCP, will be certified to after they have
24· occurred.
25
·1· · · ·Certified to by me this 29th day of January 2019.
·2
·3
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · Sandra S. Givens, CSR·5· · · · · · · · · · · Certification No. 5000· · · · · · · · · · · · Certificate Expires 12/31/19·6· · · · · · · · · · · U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.· · · · · · · · · · · · CRCB Firm Registration No. 10558·7· · · · · · · · · · · Austin Centre· · · · · · · · · · · · 701 Brazos Street, Suite 380·8· · · · · · · · · · · Austin, Texas 78701· · · · · · · · · · · · (512) 292-4249·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · FURTHER CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 203 TRCP
·2· · · ·The original deposition, or signature and errata
·3· pages from the original deposition, of DAVID STEITLE
·4· []was []was not returned to the deposition officer by
·5· · · · · · · · · · , 2019;
·6· · · ·If returned, the attached Changes and Signature
·7· pages contain any changes and the reasons therefor;
·8· · · ·If returned, the original deposition was delivered
·9· to Dan Miller, custodial attorney;
10· · · ·That $· · · · · · · is the deposition officer's
11· charges to the Respondent for preparing the original
12· deposition transcript and any copies of exhibits;
13· · · ·That the deposition was delivered in accordance
14· with Rule 203.3, and that a copy of this Certificate
15· was served on all parties shown herein and filed with
16· the Clerk.
17· · · ·Certified to by me this· · · ·day of
18· 2019.
19
20
21· · · · · · · · · · · Sandra S. Givens, CSR· · · · · · · · · · · · Certification No. 500022· · · · · · · · · · · Certificate Expires 12/31/19· · · · · · · · · · · · U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.23· · · · · · · · · · · CRCB Firm Registration No. 10558· · · · · · · · · · · · Austin Centre24· · · · · · · · · · · 701 Brazos Street, Suite 380· · · · · · · · · · · · Austin, Texas 7870125· · · · · · · · · · · (512) 292-4249
