338
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
2 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
3
4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
5 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.;
6 and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,
7 Petitioners,
8 -vs- DOAH Case
9 No. 92-3038
10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
11 DISTRICT, an Agency of the State
12 of Florida; et al.,
13 Respondents.
14 __________________________________/
15 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;
16 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION,
17 Petitioners,
18 -vs- DOAH Case
19 No. 92-3039
20 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
21 DISTRICT, an Agency of the State
22 of Florida; et al.,
23 Respondents.
24 __________________________________/
25
339
1 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
2 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;
3 W.E. SCHLECHTER AND SONS, INC.,
4 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,
5 Petitioners,
6 -vs- DOAH Case
7 No. 92-3040
8 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
9 DISTRICT, an Agency of the State
10 of Florida; et al.,
11 Respondents.
12 __________________________________/
13
14 The continued deposition of ROBERT KADLEC,
15 PH.D., a witness in the above-entitled cause, taken
16 before Lauren B. Bienenstock, CSR-1361, RPR, CM, and
17 Notary Public in and for Oakland County, Michigan,
18 (acting in Washtenaw County, Michigan), at Radisson on
19 the Lake, Ypsilanti, Michigan, on the 23rd day of March,
20 1994, commencing at 9:10 a.m., pursuant to the Michigan
21 Court Rules.
22
23
24
25
340
1 APPEARANCES:
2 GARY V. PERKO
3 Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
4 123 South Calhoun Street
5 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
6 Appearing on behalf of Sugar Cane Growers
7 Cooperative of Florida; Roth Farms, Inc.; and
8 Wedgworth Farms, Inc.
9 RICK J. BURGESS
10 Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, P.A.
11 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
12 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
13 Miami, Florida 33131
14 Appearing on behalf of Florida Sugar Cane League,
15 Inc.; and United States Sugar Corporation.
16 JON M. LIPSHULTZ
17 United States Department of Justice
18 Environmental Defense Section
19 10th and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W.
20 Room 7328
21 Washington, D.C. 20026
22 Appearing on behalf of United States of America.
23 ALSO PRESENT: Ronald Munson
24 Curtis Richardson
25
341
1 Ypsilanti, Michigan
2 March 23, 1994
3 About 9:10 a.m.
4 ROBERT KADLEC, PH.D.,
5 having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified
6 on his oath as follows:
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. BURGESS:
8 Q. Good morning, Doctor Kadlec.
9 A. Good morning, again.
10 Q. Your counsel handed us this morning a
11 document dated February 24, '94, which is represented to
12 be an earlier draft of what has been entered as an
13 Exhibit Number 18 dated April 12, '93, subject matter of
14 Brown and Caldwell alternatives report. Do you know
15 how, if at all, copy from February differs from the one
16 already entered as an exhibit?
17 A. No. I don't believe that the date of this
18 document is 2-24-94 because the date that I typed into
19 this document I believe is April 12th, 1993, which is
20 the same date on Exhibit Number 18.
21 Q. So, this document is incorrectly dated, is
22 that it?
23 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Yes, or if I could
24 be helpful, Doctor Kadlec, some of his documents we got
25 from his hard copy files and some we downloaded from his
342
1 disks and it may just be that that looked different to
2 me because it came from a different printer or something
3 like that. I'm not sure but it just looked different
4 when I was going through it so I thought I would bring
5 it with me.
6 A. It appears to me as though the copy you just
7 handed me which has the date of 2-24-94 appears to be
8 the same document without checking every sentence in
9 it. It is just a different format has been used to
10 print it. It bears the same date, the same address, the
11 same author, and the first few sentences appear to be
12 identical. The headings appear to be identical. It is
13 just printed in a different format.
14 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): And where does the
15 February 24, 1994 date come from?
16 A. I have no idea.
17 MR. BURGESS: Let's go ahead and
18 mark it so we can have it.
19 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 19
20 WAS MARKED BY THE REPORTER
21 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
22 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Let me ask you to turn to
23 page MB ten of Exhibit 15. There are a list of
24 assumptions on that page. What are those assumptions?
25 A. I believe that these are assumptions that go
343
1 with an equation above the list which has a number m21.
2 Q. What is the purpose of the assumptions or the
3 significance of the assumptions?
4 A. Well, this particular equation m21 appears at
5 the end of a derivation sequence in which successive
6 simplifications have been made in a phosphorus uptake
7 model, so at the end of that derivation sequence I
8 listed the assumptions with, that go with equation m21.
9 Q. Looking at assumption A it reads, no
10 adaptation trends, as implied by a stationary state for
11 all active wetland storages. Can you tell me what you
12 mean by stationary state for all active wetland
13 storages?
14 A. Yes. This is another way of wording what we
15 have been referring to as a condition past the start-up
16 for wetland treatment system. It would mean that except
17 for stochastic variations there would not be any time
18 trends in the amount of biomass or the amount of
19 absorbed phosphorus in the system.
20 Q. What are stochastic variations?
21 A. Well, they are just random fluctuations due
22 to events that, for which we can't yet provide a
23 deterministic forecast of the outcome.
24 Q. And what are wetland storages as it's used in
25 paragraph A?
344
1 A. As used in paragraph A it would refer to
2 storages in biomass compartments, litter compartments,
3 absorbed soil compartments. Those compartments are
4 detailed earlier in the document.
5 Q. How do you determine for a wetland when this
6 stationary state has been achieved?
7 A. Well, in a world where there is ideal amount
8 of data, one would measure the amount of phosphorus in
9 each compartment and amount of biomass in each
10 compartment and determine whether or not there were any
11 time trends remaining in the behavior of those storages.
12 Q. What are time trends?
13 A. They are changes, unit directional changes
14 usually with time as opposed to the stochastic
15 variability I mentioned earlier.
16 Q. In less than an ideal world, how do you do
17 it?
18 A. In less than an ideal world, one has to track
19 those variables which have been measured and in a case
20 of wetland treatment systems, that is normally evidenced
21 by the phosphorus in surface water in the wetland.
22 Q. I'm sorry, what do you do to or with the
23 phosphorus in the surface water in the wetland to
24 determine stationary status or stationary state?
25 A. Well, if the concentration of phosphorus in
345
1 wetland waters at various locations simply fluctuates up
2 and down but does not change unit directionally over a
3 course of time, then I would presume that we have
4 reached a stationary state in which the driving forces,
5 which would be the addition of new water to the wetland,
6 in the case of these treatment wetlands, that the
7 long-term trends are over.
8 Q. I believe you said if the concentrations of
9 phosphorus at various locations go up or down. Over
10 what period of time?
11 A. Well, there are two, there are two time
12 scales usually associated with these systems,
13 basically. There are year-to-year variations in
14 treatment systems and then there are day-to-day,
15 week-to-week variations and even if there's a relatively
16 stable source of water and nutrients entering the
17 wetland, there still are day-to-day and week-to-week
18 changes in behavior but if there is no, I distinguish
19 that from a condition where there are changes occurring
20 over some period of months or years, a clear trend to a
21 higher or lower nutrient status in the surface waters.
22 Q. In order to determine whether or not a
23 wetland then has reached steady state if you are to make
24 that determination by measuring phosphorus
25 concentrations at various locations in the wetland to
346
1 determine whether or not they go up or down over time
2 and not change unit directionally, do you begin to make
3 that determination by examining daily, weekly, and
4 monthly data?
5 A. No. I think that probably daily and weekly
6 data would be confused by the stochastic day-to-day and
7 week-to-week variations and I have in the work that I
8 have done usually looked at either annual averages or
9 quarterly averages to see if there are unit directional
10 trends in the phosphorus variables in the wetland.
11 Q. Are two quarters of data enough time in your
12 opinion to determine whether or not there are unit
13 directional trends in the data?
14 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Enough time or
15 enough data?
16 MR. BURGESS: Enough time, two
17 quarters.
18 A. I would think that two quarters would be a
19 very, very minimal amount of data from which to
20 determine, to determine that.
21 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): With respect to the North
22 American Database, have you made that determination with
23 respect to any of those systems based upon two quarters
24 of data?
25 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Objection, what
347
1 determination are you referring to?
2 MR. BURGESS: Whether or not there
3 are unit directional trends.
4 A. In some instances such data exists and in
5 other cases it does not.
6 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Do you know whether you in
7 any instance relied on two quarters of data for purposes
8 of determining --
9 A. I don't believe that I did.
10 Q. What in your opinion is the minimum amount of
11 time you need in order to make a determination as to
12 unit directional trends?
13 A. Well, there are two ways of going about
14 this. One is that for a specific system if you had no
15 other information available to you, I would prefer to
16 look at information from, on an annual basis from two
17 years or three years in order to make that
18 determination.
19 A second way of looking at it,
20 though, is to, to understand data from systems in the
21 same geographical region and understand the lengths of
22 time that those changes have taken in systems where
23 long-term data do exist so there is a presumptive
24 element of making a decision on whether or not a
25 stationary state has been reached as well.
348
1 Q. Have you made a determination as to whether
2 or not a stationary state exists in WCA2A?
3 A. I have formed an opinion on that. I believe
4 that in terms of the water quality in 2A, that such
5 stationary state in fact does exist.
6 Q. Does the stationary state exist in 2A in your
7 opinion in terms of soil phosphorus?
8 A. Here you have to, I think I have to
9 distinguish between the inlet region and downstream
10 regions of 2A and since I'm focusing on document in
11 question and also in a determination of design values
12 for the STAs in the inlet zone of 2A, I think that there
13 is information that indicates that the, such a
14 stationary state exists for soil phosphorus and for the
15 phosphorus in the water sheet.
16 Q. And you're defining the inlet zone for
17 purposes of your testimony as that as defined by Doctor
18 Walker in his March 8th, 1993 paper?
19 A. It would be that zone in which we're
20 achieving approximately seventy-five percent reduction
21 in the surface water phosphorus. I believe his zone
22 goes a bit beyond that.
23 Q. How have you determined, if you have, this
24 zone where we're achieving seventy-five percent
25 reduction in surface water phosphorus?
349
1 A. Well, I had taken some information collected
2 by the South Florida Water Management District in the
3 form of phosphorus concentrations along transects in 2A
4 and examined the variability in those transects over a
5 period of record which I think was about five or six
6 years and although there were fluctuations across
7 periods, at which basically biweekly periods, there was
8 no long-term trend in those transects. The slopes of
9 the lines would vary up and down a bit but basically
10 moving around a central, central average line.
11 Q. Where is that work effort documented?
12 A. It's in the production of documents from the
13 first round of deposition.
14 Q. Is it, is the work effort codified in a
15 paper, abstract, summary?
16 A. No, I don't believe it ever got into a
17 paper. What I had done, there would exist a table of
18 information from South Florida Water Management
19 District. There would exist some graphs in which I had
20 looked at those transect data, and as a matter of fact,
21 there may have been a version of one of those graphs in
22 a document that I prepared for a stage meeting
23 presentation.
24 Q. Have you quantified the area where the
25 seventy-five percent reduction takes place in terms of
350
1 hectares or acres? Have you quantified the area?
2 A. It is roughly that area that's used by Burns
3 and McDonnell in their analysis of data and in their
4 previous reports. It is somewhat smaller than the area
5 considered by Doctor Walker in his analysis.
6 Q. Do you know how much smaller?
7 A. Well, what I would have to do is, I could
8 determine a distance and so forth by inferring things
9 off of the graphs that I alluded to. Doctor Walker has
10 already done that, however, in his analysis of the water
11 sheet phosphorus.
12 Q. So your opinion is that within that inlet
13 zone of 2A which you have defined as the area where you
14 determined a seventy-five percent reduction in surface
15 water phosphorus, it is your opinion that in terms of
16 both water quality and soil, a stationary state exists?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know how long that stationary state
19 has existed?
20 A. Since I examined information as I indicated
21 for a period of some four to five years and since that
22 effort dates back now perhaps two years ago, the
23 information that I examined would go back about that
24 long. I've not made attempts to go back further in
25 period of record.
351
1 Q. Is the vegetation in WCA2A also in a
2 stationary state?
3 A. I believe that the response of the vegetation
4 in terms of species composition is probably still
5 changing when 2A is considered as a whole. I think that
6 in general terms the changes in the vegetation take
7 place more slowly than changes in surface water
8 chemistry but in terms of the zone in which the three
9 quarters of the phosphorus is removed, I think that
10 basically we have achieved a stationary state with
11 respect to biomass and species composition. I do not
12 feel the same about further downgradient areas in 2A.
13 Q. Have you attempted to quantify with regard to
14 either soil water or vegetation what changes are
15 existing in that area other than, in that area
16 downstream of where the three quarter reduction is
17 taking place?
18 A. I have not personally taken data nor examined
19 any recent data. I simply know that there are reports
20 that there are continued changes in the abundance of
21 cattail and other species in those downgradient areas.
22 Q. That's with respect to vegetation. Have you
23 made any determination as to changes with respect to
24 soil phosphorus or water quality?
25 A. I, in terms of soil phosphorus, most of the
352
1 data I have looked at are in that area where the three
2 quarters phosphorus is removed, although Doctor Reddy's
3 data do go a bit beyond that, so in that sense I have
4 looked a little bit beyond that seventy-five percent
5 zone.
6 Q. And what do you see there that leads you to
7 believe it's not stationary status?
8 A. I don't believe I said that. I think that
9 somewhat beyond the seventy-five percent zone there is
10 also a stationary state with respect to water quality,
11 perhaps also soil phosphorus status.
12 Q. How far beyond, do you know?
13 A. Well, I think that some of those stations
14 that I've looked at perhaps go another several
15 kilometers past the seventy-five percent zone.
16 Q. What is the dominant species vegetation
17 throughout the seventy-five percent reduction zone?
18 A. It's Typha and I believe most of the Typha is
19 Typha latifolia although I believe there is some Typha
20 domingensis there as well.
21 Q. What is the difference between the two?
22 A. It's, both species of cattail and I am not a
23 good enough botanist to be able to give you all the
24 physiological differences that distinguish the species.
25 Q. Doctor Kadlec, do you anticipate offering
353
1 expert opinion testimony at the time of trial as to at
2 what time WCA2A reached a stationary state status with
3 respect to either water quality, soil phosphorus, or
4 vegetation?
5 A. Only insofar as I've already stated in the
6 most recent questions and that is that I had looked at
7 the surface water quality transects for a period that
8 dates back into the late '70s and it would be my opinion
9 that at the time I looked at those, the time of those
10 transects such a stationary state existed with respect
11 to water quality in that inlet zone.
12 Q. And your recollection is that those transects
13 extended back into the late '70s?
14 A. Excuse me. I misspoke on that. It would
15 have been the late '80s, not the late '70s.
16 Q. When did you make the determination as to
17 stationary state for 2A with regard to vegetation and
18 soil phosphorus? I'm sorry, I thought your last
19 question limited your answer to a determination of
20 steady state to water quality.
21 A. It did and the, I think the conclusion on
22 soil chemistry is more recent than that. In conjunction
23 with constructing this particular chapter, draft
24 chapter, at this point I will call it a first draft
25 chapter, which is Exhibit 15, I spent considerable time
354
1 going over Doctor Reddy's data on the soil phosphorus in
2 area 2A and that would be the time of which I formed
3 that opinion.
4 Q. Do ecosystems ever reach a stationary state?
5 A. In my definition and over a time period that
6 I regard as adequate for the definition they do. If one
7 wants to extend the time period consideration to
8 centuries and millennia, I think that perhaps the answer
9 might be something different, but in time spans measured
10 in less than a hundred years, I think they definitely do
11 come to a stationary state.
12 Q. So that I understand your testimony, is the
13 inlet zone of 2A which you have described as that zone
14 where a seventy-five percent reduction in surface water
15 phosphorus is reached, is that inlet zone in 2A in
16 stationary status?
17 A. I believe it is.
18 Q. What are some of the things that could occur
19 to drive an ecosystem out of stationary status?
20 A. Well, two things that come immediately to
21 mind are changes in the amounts of water and nutrients
22 that are entering the system.
23 Q. Anything else?
24 A. Well, there are, those would be fundamental
25 things. There could also be changes in, I suppose in
355
1 climatological variables. If in fact we're going
2 through long-term global warming and we're changing
3 temperatures, that's another driving force that could
4 change the character of the ecosystem.
5 Q. Has Houghton Lake reached stationary status?
6 MR. LIPSHULTZ: With regard to any
7 particular parameter?
8 MR. BURGESS: As an ecosystem.
9 A. I assume you mean the treatment wetland
10 located in the, near the community for Houghton Lake,
11 not the lake itself?
12 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Thank you.
13 A. I think my answers would be much the same to
14 similar questions. There is a zone, an inlet zone, in
15 this case it is my data and I've been watching it
16 through time so the answer now is a little bit more
17 definitive in I have watched more than one compartment
18 myself and the vegetation species composition and
19 biomass is stable in a sense that there is no change in
20 the long-term average although there are the stochastic
21 year-to-year variations.
22 There is also stability of the
23 concentration of phosphorus in the surface water along
24 transects in the system. Soil phosphorus is not a
25 measurement that has been taken although I'm currently
356
1 negotiating with Doctor Reddy to examine that question,
2 and in the same vein that there may be changes occurring
3 past the zone of removal of most of the phosphorus,
4 there are still changes occurring in the species
5 composition at the very most downgradient locations.
6 Those changes being slower at that location.
7 Q. What is the vegetative species composition
8 that is stable in the inlet zone?
9 A. It is Typha latifolia with isolated patches
10 of Typha and gustifolia and understory of lemna.
11 Q. What is lemna?
12 A. Duck weed.
13 Q. For how long a period of time has the
14 vegetative species composition and the water quality
15 been stable in the inlet zone of Houghton Lake?
16 A. For approximately the last twelve years.
17 Q. How large is this inlet zone?
18 A. Very approximately fifty hectares.
19 Q. Have the nutrient loadings or hydraulic
20 loading rate changed over those past twelve years?
21 A. Yes, and to a certain small extent and so
22 the, there is in the case of Houghton Lake a very slow
23 time drift because the, the operator has been adding a
24 little bit more water in each succeeding year. It's not
25 significantly different over the last twelve years in
357
1 the sense that that's probably been perhaps fifteen
2 percent increase. I would have to check the data, and
3 that's reflected in a bit of a change in the phosphorus
4 concentrations along transects. They go slightly
5 further out.
6 However, when one calibrates the
7 model that we're alluding to here in this particular
8 Exhibit 15, the difference then is reflected, excuse me,
9 those differences are absorbed into the model because
10 the parameter k that goes in it has not changed over
11 that time period so the transects move a little bit
12 further out due to the little bit more water each year
13 but that's described by the one parameter model quite
14 nicely.
15 Q. Are these increases in water quantity
16 reflected in the NADB?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. For how long a period of time have these
19 increases in water quantity been taking place?
20 A. Over the entire history of the project.
21 Q. And I'm sorry, was it your testimony that
22 there had been fifteen percent increases over the last
23 twelve years?
24 A. A total. On that order. I would have to
25 check the data to get a precise number.
358
1 Q. Based upon your testimony regarding the
2 transects having extended a bit further down at the
3 Houghton Lake system, is phosphorus in the water column
4 also moving further downstream as a result of these
5 additional water loadings?
6 A. I'm not so sure how to answer your question.
7 What I would suggest is that the best answer is that the
8 first order aerial uptake model with a settling rate of
9 about eleven describes the new transects as well as the
10 old ones dating back to the period at which the start-up
11 transects were over so that means then that if there is
12 a bit more phosphorus as, or a bit more water in one
13 particular year, that would reflect itself in the actual
14 distance transect being a little longer and if in other
15 years there was somewhat less water, transect would not
16 go as far.
17 So within the, within the confines
18 of the model there is not an ever increasing progression
19 in the phosphorus front. It is, in other words it is a
20 stable long-term response to minor changes in the
21 loading rate of water and phosphorus.
22 Q. As a result of those minor changes in
23 phosphorus loadings at Houghton Lake, has phosphorus
24 moved downstream in the water column over the last
25 twelve years?
359
1 A. Well, your question confuses me a bit. This
2 is a flow through system, phosphorus is always moving
3 downstream.
4 Q. Have you measured phosphorus further
5 downstream in the last twelve years than was measured in
6 the previous twelve years?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is that in your opinion as a result of
9 these increases in water quantity to the system?
10 A. Yes, as I indicated because the first order
11 aerial uptake model returns the same value of the
12 settling rate constant for these higher loadings and
13 hence longer transects, it is my belief that's a
14 long-term stable response to a slightly increased
15 average annual loading of phosphorus in water.
16 Q. If you doubled the annual average loading of
17 phosphorus in water, would the phosphorus move
18 downstream?
19 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I will object to the
20 form of the question.
21 A. Well, again, the phosphorus moves downstream
22 regardless of whether the loading is doubled so I'm
23 having trouble with the form of the question and perhaps
24 you could rephrase it because I think I know what you
25 are driving at but I'm not sure.
360
1 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): What do you think I'm
2 driving at?
3 A. I think you're suggesting that the transect
4 in phosphorus has higher values further downstream if
5 the inlet loadings are higher and if that's the sense of
6 your question, then the answer is yes, that's what would
7 happen.
8 Q. And is that in fact what has happened over
9 the last twelve years at Houghton Lake?
10 A. Not uniformly because the, the loadings have
11 not always gone up and the hydrologic conditions have
12 not always permitted it but in general terms I think the
13 answer to your question is yes.
14 Q. With respect to WCA2A is there any back
15 mixing or bypassing in water flow in 2A?
16 A. I have no measurements on that subject but by
17 virtue of knowing what has gone on in a large number of
18 other emergent marshes, all emergent marshes have
19 nonideal flow patterns that would include phenomena that
20 would normally be called bypassing. I forgot the other
21 term that was in your question.
22 Q. Bypass.
23 A. I thought there was a second part.
24 Q. Back mixing.
25 A. I would also suggest that all wetlands have
361
1 some degree of back mixing and I would be amazed if
2 there weren't any in 2A.
3 Q. Have you made a determination as to whether
4 or not systems such as Iron Bridge and Boney Marsh have
5 reached stationary status?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let's start with Iron Bridge. I'm interested
8 in the, some of the parameters we've gone through for 2A
9 and Houghton Lake and that would be whether it's reached
10 stationary status with respect to water quality, soil
11 vegetation, and as of what date, if you know?
12 A. Well, here we've gone over the basis for my
13 statement in yesterday's questioning and that is that I
14 believe that the parameterization of the model, first
15 order aerial model with the settling rate constant is a
16 way to examine that and if the settling rate constant
17 derived from data no longer displays a time trend, then
18 I take that as evident that those aspects of the
19 ecosystem which effect phosphorus removal from the water
20 sheet have indeed reached such a stationary state so
21 with regard to yesterday's testimony it was, it's clear
22 from the data from that site that that condition was
23 achieved after approximately twenty-seven months.
24 Q. You testified earlier this morning that you
25 can also make the determination with respect to
362
1 stationary status with regard to water quality by
2 measuring phosphorus concentrations at various locations
3 within the wetland. Have you done that at Iron Bridge
4 and have you made the determination with regard to
5 stationary status based upon those measurements?
6 A. I have not done so but of necessity if the
7 settling rate constant has leveled out, then that will
8 be reflected in the, in the stability of the phosphorus
9 concentrations at various locations.
10 Q. So your determination with respect to
11 stationary status for Iron Bridge was made as a result
12 of examination of the settling rate constant?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And is your determination with respect to
15 stationary status in Iron Bridge confined to water
16 quality or have you also examined vegetation and/or
17 soil?
18 A. Well, the conclusion I just indicated was
19 reached on the basis of water quality is clearly
20 supported by information on the vegetation which is
21 indicated in Exhibit 8, that the period of twenty-seven
22 months was one in which the vegetation establishment
23 took place, that fill in of planted material occurred in
24 that time period, and was documented in measurements
25 from the site, so there would be support in this case
363
1 from what's known about the changes in vegetation
2 patterns.
3 Q. Does the lack of trend in your settling rate
4 allow you to conclude that stationary status has been
5 reached with respect to water quality, vegetation, and
6 soils?
7 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form.
8 A. I think that's a very strong inference that
9 the processes, that the sum of the ecosystem processes
10 as documented in Exhibit 15 in a, let's see if I can
11 find the correct picture, maybe it's in two or three
12 different sketches. Let me try to find the right one.
13 A figure called P Trans Web which indicates that there
14 are intercompartmental transfers but the sum total data
15 is represented by the one parameter model. It's on page
16 that has a number 0010798.
17 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Is there a page at the
18 top, a number at the top?
19 A. No page number at the top. It is
20 approximately two thirds of the way through the
21 document.
22 Q. I have it.
23 A. And if an ecosystem which does have all these
24 intercompartmental transfers is represented in a global
25 sense while settling rate constant, if that constant has
364
1 reached a stable value, then there is a strong
2 implication that the intercompartmental transfers that
3 contribute to it as indicated in equations leading up to
4 m21 which basically are given in equation m5 on page MB
5 four of the document on Exhibit 15, if the sum of those
6 rates in equation m5 which is characterized by settling
7 rate constant have reached a stationary state, then
8 implication is that the contributing processes have.
9 Q. With respect to figure P Trans Web, if you
10 were to double the hydraulic loading rate, would that
11 change any transfer among these components?
12 A. I believe it would.
13 Q. And what would that do to your k rate?
14 Strike that for a moment.
15 Are these transfer routes that are
16 described in P Trans Web, is that in effect your k rate?
17 A. Yes. I think I just misspoke. I think that
18 if you change the hydraulic loading rate, the first
19 order aerial model would account for that in that the
20 hydraulic loading rate is already in the form of mass
21 balance for the system and the k rate is the single
22 parameter basically encompasses boxes and arrows that
23 are at a level beyond the hydraulic loading rate.
24 Q. So, is it your testimony that there is no
25 effect on the k rate if you were to double your
365
1 hydraulic loading rate?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. With respect to the stationary status of Iron
4 Bridge, what would happen there if you were to double
5 the hydraulic loading rate, would the system remain in
6 stationary status?
7 A. That's insufficient information to answer the
8 question in the sense that, and in the answer to the
9 preceding question there is an implicit assumption that
10 you're only doubling hydraulic loading rate not the
11 concentration of phosphorus and the same would be true
12 of Iron Bridge. If it is a doubling of the hydraulic
13 loading rate without any other changes, then that should
14 be accounted for in the first order aerial model.
15 Q. With respect to the P Trans Web figure, is it
16 your testimony that the k rate does not change even if
17 there are water or nutrient changes within the web?
18 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form.
19 A. No, I don't believe I said that.
20 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): If you change the
21 hydraulic loading rate, would that result in changes to
22 the transfer routes for phosphorus shown in P Trans Web,
23 use my example of doubling it so we have an order of
24 measure.
25 A. Well, there are, there are changes in the
366
1 performance of the system in response to hydraulic
2 loading rate, equation m21 embodies the dominant effect
3 of changing hydraulic loading rate because it is a
4 variable in that equation. At a second level there may
5 well be some very minor changes in transfer routes, for
6 instance, a mass transfer coefficient from the water to
7 the solid compartments could change a bit in response to
8 a change in hydraulic loading rate which would imply a
9 velocity change. That would be one of the many
10 transfers that could be affected and so the effect on
11 the overall transfer web would be relatively minor
12 compared to the effect already embodied in hydraulic
13 loading rate as a variable in equation m21.
14 Q. Can you think of any changes that wouldn't be
15 relatively minor?
16 A. Well, in the sense that systems that are in
17 the database and have been analyzed have been subjected
18 to changes in flow rates and other environmental
19 variables such as the Houghton Lake system which I'm
20 quite familiar and since we don't get large changes in
21 the settling rate constant, I conclude that those minor
22 adaptations to the variables like water velocity are
23 indeed quite secondary.
24 Q. If the water depth were increased sixty
25 centimeters and as a result drowned out your vegetation
367
1 shown in P Trans Web, would this effect the web?
2 A. In this case I think I can give an answer
3 that arose out of our discussion yesterday because I
4 last night went back and looked at the data from Boney
5 Marsh which indeed goes through water depth fluctuations
6 ranging from fifteen to eighty-five centimeters and the
7 settling rate constant appears not to depend on that
8 water depth and the vegetation was in fact not drowned
9 out, the model seems to work over that depth range and
10 be adequately parameterized by the first aerial uptake
11 model. Now, if you preface your question and say that
12 you drown out the vegetation, then I would have to agree
13 that there is certainly going to be a change in the
14 model parameter.
15 Q. Which would also result in the change in the
16 k rate?
17 A. Well, the k rate is the model parameter so
18 yes.
19 Q. What was the vegetation at Boney Marsh that
20 was not drowned out when the water level was increased
21 as high as eighty-five centimeters?
22 A. That's been documented in papers that have
23 been produced by Steve Davis and others. I can't quote
24 you the list. It was a mixed marsh community. There's
25 some information on that in table PK sum. I believe I
368
1 selected two, only had room for two so I selected two of
2 the dominant species. It will take me a moment to find
3 table PK sum. Panicum and Pontederia but as I recall
4 there were, there are many other species as well and
5 these were two of the dominants only.
6 Q. What data was it that you went back and
7 looked at last night?
8 A. Well, it was the, I had obviously processed
9 the data on the settling rate constants and I had quite
10 recently in conjunction with the hydrology chapter in
11 the book gone back and key entered stage data that been
12 provided to me in documents that I alluded to earlier,
13 the Trimble and Mireau document. I entered the stage
14 data and then also the soil elevation data so I was able
15 to get the mean depth information and use it in
16 conjunction with settling rate constant.
17 Q. Do we, have you produced the hydrology
18 chapter from the draft manuscript?
19 A. No, because good share of it has been written
20 since the date of production, over the last two weeks.
21 Q. Who are the authors of the hydrology section,
22 or author?
23 A. I am.
24 MR. BURGESS: Can we get a copy of
25 that?
369
1 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Is it relevant?
2 A. Well, I don't know if it's relevant or not
3 but let me explain the status. The hydrology chapter is
4 comprised of information on subsurface flow and surface
5 flow wetlands. I had written a subsurface flow gravel
6 bit portion dating back a month ago and I'm currently
7 working on the surface flow portion of it. It is not
8 complete. I have not even printed a draft of the
9 surface flow for my own purposes at this point, still
10 being key entered and data are being analyzed so that's
11 the status of that work at this point.
12 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Would you anticipate that
13 your testimony would draw on any aspect of what is
14 contained in the hydrology chapter of your book?
15 A. I do not have plans to use that information
16 but I can't say that hydrology will never come up in
17 this proceeding in some way, at which point I certainly
18 will add in what I know about the hydrology of what I
19 know about emergent marshes.
20 Q. Some of which is contained in the hydrology
21 chapter?
22 A. Well, to the best of my ability I'm going to
23 represent what I know in that chapter. Again, it's
24 certainly not complete as we sit here today. The gravel
25 bed portion is and I could provide a copy of that.
370
1 Q. Unfortunately completeness has not been the
2 test for production in this case so far.
3 A. Well, I don't regard the gravel bed portion
4 as relevant to the current proceeding. I can understand
5 that the free water surface emergent marsh portion would
6 be but, again, it's work began on that subsequent to the
7 time I collected all my documents just ten days ago.
8 Q. With respect to the P Trans Web graph, what
9 effect would freezing have on the transfer routes of
10 phosphorus?
11 A. Freezing, okay. The effects of freezing in
12 general terms, we have done some work on that. There's
13 published paper that's been produced on that for you.
14 In northern peatlands and treatment systems at freeze it
15 depends on the management of the system. In the case of
16 a natural wetland that does not undergo water
17 manipulation, the typical winter event is that a small
18 amount of surface water would usually be small because
19 the systems are not usually run in the winter, would
20 freeze, it would prevent transfers to and from the
21 water. The plants are in period of dormancy, transfers
22 to and from the above ground parts of the plants are
23 essentially shut off. However, transfers in the soil
24 system between solid and interstitial water compartments
25 can probably continue to take place.
371
1 Now, in the second scenario which is
2 evidenced by systems such as Listowel where water levels
3 were managed so that an insulating level of air, ice,
4 and snow allow them to run at very cold temperatures,
5 then with the exception of the growth of the macrophytes
6 most of the other processes continue to operate under
7 the insulating layers that were intentionally formed and
8 hence the settling rate constants for those systems are
9 pretty much the same in the winter as they are in the
10 summer.
11 Q. Are you aware of any instances where cattails
12 have died off in Florida due to freezing?
13 A. I am aware that freeze-out of cattails can
14 occur in warmer climates, yes. I'm not necessarily
15 aware or been party to information from a Florida
16 freeze-out but I have observed the effects of and been
17 told about such freeze-outs in other southern states.
18 Q. In instances where that might occur, what
19 effect would there be on the transfer routes for
20 phosphorus in the wetland as depicted in the P Trans Web
21 graph?
22 A. Well, this is very much a good example of
23 what I referred to as a stochastic event superimposed on
24 long-term trends. I would, I would presume that what
25 would happen in such a circumstance is that the, I don't
372
1 know of measurements on this but one would presume that
2 the new dead material would add to the litter pool and
3 then subsequently add to processes associated with
4 litter decomposition so there would be an alteration and
5 one would be fairly confident that as the plants regrew
6 as they did in places like Pembroke, Kentucky, then
7 there would be a surplus of phosphorus uptake capability
8 as the new biomass reformed so this would have the net
9 effect of one of the stochastic changes superimposed on
10 a long-term behavior.
11 Q. Can you describe any other stochastic
12 processes that might have a similar effect on a wetland?
13 A. Well, there are other events I would imagine
14 that would contribute to this although if I knew the
15 deterministic reason for all the stochastic behaviors,
16 we would move them out of the stochastic category. I
17 would put fire, I suppose, in that category although
18 fire is not generally associated with STAs because of
19 the fact that they are normally run with water in them
20 and so fires are an uncommon event in STAs. I know of
21 only one such instance.
22 Q. Any other more common events that come to
23 mind?
24 A. Well, I think that there could probably be
25 insect attacks. I think some of the Tennessee Valley
373
1 Authority projects, there were, I forgotten, I think it
2 was an army worm but I'm not sure, attacked and caused
3 some stress on the cattails in one of those projects for
4 a period of time. I think that would be a stochastic
5 event that would influence the ecosystem, might provide
6 a blip on the long-term average behavior.
7 Q. Other than freeze, fire, and insect attacks,
8 can you think of any others that might affect long-term
9 behavior?
10 A. Those are the ones that come to mind as I sit
11 here.
12 Q. How about hurricane?
13 A. Yes, wind effects might have an effect but I
14 don't know of any measurements that would provide any
15 indication whether the blip might be up or down.
16 Certainly I would think that if you flatten all of the
17 cattails with a hurricane, that that might have an
18 effect. However, I must say that there is a system here
19 in Michigan that has its cattails blown down routinely
20 and there's not enough data to draw a conclusion from
21 that except that it is running efficiently and doing its
22 job of phosphorus removal. Not enough information to
23 get k rate, though.
24 Q. What system is that?
25 A. Vermontville.
374
1 Q. Are you working on that one?
2 A. In a sense. I had done some work on that
3 one. It's a system that was identified by USEPA for a
4 descriptive brochure and that's in review, perhaps in
5 press at the moment.
6 Q. What effect might the doubling the input of
7 water due to excessive rain have on the transfer routes?
8 A. Well, again, this is in the same character,
9 category, excuse me, as hydraulic loading rate in we
10 prefaced this discussion in terms of an assumption list
11 for equation m21 which I indicated was at the simple end
12 of a whole train of steps that was taken to shorten the
13 number of variables and simplify the equation which is
14 desirable for transfer to the civil engineering
15 community.
16 I had, however, in appendix to this
17 document indicated the form of the first order aerial
18 uptake model which embodies rainfall and evaporation and
19 when that form of the model which has the mass balance
20 terms added for rainfall and evapotranspiration and
21 aerial phosphorus deposition, when those terms are
22 added, then they are embodied in major way in the model
23 and the effect is then included in mass balances.
24 Q. The effect of doubling the hydraulic loading
25 rate or the excessive rain is included in the mass
375
1 balances?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What would the effect be of doubling the
4 load, the phosphorus load?
5 A. Again, the phosphorus load is a product of
6 the hydraulic loading rate and inlet phosphorus
7 concentration. In equation m21 and it's embodied in the
8 sum of the incoming surface flow load and rainfall load
9 in the more complicated version in the appendix and the
10 effect of that is characterized in those mass balances
11 so when you say what is the effect, the effect is to
12 change the driving forces that go into this model to
13 predict what the outcome is.
14 Q. Is the effect also to change the k rate?
15 A. No.
16 Q. K rate would not change if you double your P
17 load?
18 A. Yes, and as I indicated yesterday, the
19 evidence for that is quite strong. When we look at
20 correlations of behavior, we get essentially the same k
21 rate over four orders of magnitude of inlet phosphorus
22 loading.
23 Q. Do we have the appendix that you are
24 referring to?
25 A. It should be here, yes. Yes, it's there.
376
1 Q. Your point about our discussions yesterday
2 with respect to the variation in the k rate, that would
3 be the k rate that is exemplified by the NADB ranging
4 from point nine to thirty plus meters per year?
5 A. Yes, with no trend associated with the
6 loading to those systems. In other words, there are,
7 there are both high and low, within the band there are
8 both high and low values associated with loadings to the
9 systems as well as high and low values associated with
10 the high end of the phosphorus loading.
11 Q. If we can go back to the assumptions on MB
12 ten for a moment?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We have addressed assumption A thus far. If
15 assumption A were to be violated, in other words the
16 stationary state doesn't exist for all wetland storages,
17 is m21 in, equation m21 still valid in your opinion?
18 A. Let me answer it in this case. It might be
19 that equation m21 would give the appearance of fitting
20 the data but the settling rate constant could be either
21 higher or lower than it would be in the long-term
22 average case and as a matter of fact, this is the reason
23 for being very clear about stating this option A and
24 that is that if, for example, we were to look at the
25 Houghton Lake system, we could find that equation m21
377
1 could be fit to the first year's data but that the k
2 value that would go into it would be one hundred and in
3 fact after the stationary state is reached, we know that
4 it is approximately eleven so that's the reason for
5 stating assumption A so that a user would not make that
6 error and it could go the other way because as we saw
7 for Iron Bridge, the original k rate that was fit to the
8 data was essentially zero and that is an incorrect
9 application of the equation for long-term design as
10 well.
11 Q. So while the equation may still be used, in
12 your opinion if assumption A is violated, it would be
13 less accurate, would result in less accurate?
14 A. The context of this chapter is to provide
15 tools to people who are designing STAs. My intent in
16 stating assumption A is to encourage people to design
17 for the long-term table operating condition systems and
18 not for an initial pessimistic or optimistic start-up
19 period.
20 Q. So utilizing equation 21 for design purposes
21 when in fact one of the assumptions, or let's stick with
22 assumption A, has in fact been violated would yield a
23 less accurate prediction than if the assumption was
24 valid?
25 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I will object.
378
1 You've asked him that question twice already.
2 A. Well, let me, again, restate my intent in
3 this section, is to provide a tool for people who are
4 designing STAs. We are providing in table TP k sum. a
5 listing of parameter values to guide a designer and what
6 we are attempting to do is say that we are providing
7 those long-term values of k, this equation which is a
8 simplified version of other equations in this chapter
9 shouldn't be used to attempt to describe a start-up
10 period, nor should a k rate determined from a data set
11 for a start-up system be used in the equation. I think
12 both implications, that is my general goal in this
13 chapter is to prevent both of those things from
14 happening.
15 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): But nonetheless if
16 assumption A is not valid for a particular wetland
17 system, is equation m21 less accurate than if assumption
18 A was valid?
19 A. It could well be very inaccurate.
20 Q. Is the same true, would the same be true with
21 regard to the remainder of the assumptions?
22 A. Well, putting it all in context we're talking
23 about one of the equations of quite a long list in this
24 chapter. It is the most simple form. These assumptions
25 pertain to that simplified form and I believe in
379
1 glancing at it with perhaps one exception I still feel
2 these are right.
3 I think in reflecting on it now as
4 we're examining it, I see one minor change that needs to
5 be made in the list and it's quite minor. Assumption G
6 it says rectangular wetland, that really doesn't
7 necessarily apply to m21 but it would to m20 so I'm
8 going to have to fix that. It's only because of a
9 distance variable occurring in m20 that doesn't in m21
10 that that needs a little fix but those are the
11 assumptions that go with the highly simplified form of
12 m21.
13 Q. And if any of those assumptions were
14 violated, m21 would be less accurate than if the
15 assumption had not been violated?
16 A. That's correct.
17 MR. BURGESS: Please mark this.
18 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 20
19 WAS MARKED BY THE REPORTER
20 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
21 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): I will show you what's
22 been marked as Exhibit 20 and ask if you can identify
23 that?
24 A. Yes. That's a draft of a paper that
25 presumably will be a preprint of an oral presentation in
380
1 a conference later this year.
2 Q. What oral presentation would that be?
3 A. There's the biannual conference of the
4 International Association on Water Quality that's going
5 to be held in Budapest this coming July. Will be
6 presented in the natural system section of that
7 conference.
8 Q. When is that conference?
9 A. I can't give you the exact date. I just
10 indicated it was at the end of July.
11 Q. Are you planning on attending that?
12 A. Well, I think I just said I'm going to give
13 an oral presentation.
14 Q. You said an oral presentation would be
15 given.
16 A. Well, I'm the only author.
17 Q. We have a trial coming up that may well
18 encompass the summer months and I was wondering whether
19 you plan to be here or you will be in Budapest?
20 A. I plan to be in Budapest.
21 Q. How long are you going for?
22 A. The conference lasts for one week.
23 Q. Why was the paper written?
24 A. Well, the International Association on Water
25 Quality has, is a forum for exchanging ideas on various
381
1 aspects of water quality type projects and since I'm
2 active and the chair of the macrophyte group for that
3 particular international organization I felt that it
4 would be good to have something from North America and
5 particularly something from the work that's going on in
6 this proceeding to exchange with the international
7 community.
8 Q. Does the paper support STA design in your
9 opinion?
10 A. Well, since I drew much of this information
11 from earlier documents in this proceeding, I think
12 certainly it has quite a lot to do with STA design.
13 Q. But it wasn't written for STA design?
14 A. The paper was put together from pieces that
15 had been already put together in the, in Exhibit 8, for
16 example, in other sources, pulling those pieces together
17 to exchange at this particular forum.
18 Q. Does this paper change any of the assumptions
19 or conclusions in Exhibit 8?
20 A. I would have to reread the paper. It was
21 based on information that appeared I think in Exhibit 8
22 so to that extent without reading it line for line it
23 basically draws on information in Exhibit 8.
24 Q. Would you intend to rely on this paper for
25 purposes of your testimony in this case?
382
1 A. No, I think it would be more reasonable to
2 rely on the contributing information from which it was
3 drawn.
4 Q. Which is in Exhibit 8?
5 A. Yes, and there's also, I believe, let me just
6 check. I think that virtually, virtually everything in
7 this paper was drawn from Exhibit 8.
8 Q. Can you explain what k and ku are as used in
9 this paper?
10 A. Yes. In Exhibit 8 and in this paper I was
11 attempting to distinguish between a model which was
12 calibrated with information from a transient period, a
13 start-up period, and distinguish that parameterization
14 from a parameterization for a stationary period so at
15 that time dating back to the time of this paper and
16 further in the past I was using ku as an uptake
17 coefficient which would mean that it would embody not
18 only the long-term phosphorus removal processes but also
19 short-term processes such as loading up soil absorption
20 sites in the preexisting soils and building new biomass
21 in the case of an elevated phosphorus level coming in so
22 ku is intended to indicate that the calibrations take
23 place in the start-up period and not in the long-term
24 stationary period. K is for the stationary period.
25 Q. There is a statement on the bottom of page
383
1 1300578 of this exhibit, last two sentences, therefore
2 the uptake rate coefficient is close to settling rate
3 constant. Application of equation ten to figure three
4 yields ku equals k equals ten meters a year. At what
5 point in a wetlands development do you determine that ku
6 is equal to k?
7 A. Well, in particular paragraph in question
8 which I am rereading, it probably wasn't written very
9 well, we've been over this and in the case of Iron
10 Bridge there is a stabilization of the parameter after a
11 period of twenty-seven months and beyond twenty-seven
12 months there is no significant time trend in the value,
13 and consequently in the case of that system where I have
14 the information over the course of time, that's when I
15 would stop using the subscript u.
16 Q. Have you estimated ku for the STAs?
17 A. Not officially in a written document but
18 based on the fact that the Iron Bridge system is close
19 by and, I'm sorry, a ku, I think I misunderstood the
20 question. Could you please repeat it?
21 Q. Have you estimated a ku for the STAs?
22 A. I have not.
23 Q. Have you estimated a k for the STA?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is your estimate of k for the STA?
384
1 A. I believe the value of ten point two which is
2 currently in use is the, is my estimate as well.
3 Q. Can you estimate a ku for the STAs?
4 A. Not accurately.
5 Q. How would you do it?
6 A. Well, if I had information on the antecedent
7 condition of the land on which the STA were to be built,
8 I think some rough estimate of a ku could be made.
9 Q. How would you do that?
10 A. I haven't reflected on it because we've been
11 dealing with long-term design but the ingredients in it
12 would be to understand the presence or absence of
13 antecedent vegetation, the amount of absorption capacity
14 for the antecedent soils at the site, and those could be
15 as I indicated in a rough sense combined along with
16 things like soil phosphorus to perhaps estimate whether
17 there would be an initial release or uptake of
18 phosphorus, we get some rough idea of what might happen
19 in the start-up years.
20 Q. But you haven't done that?
21 A. I have not done so.
22 Q. Based upon testimony you've given over the
23 past two days, would it be your opinion that with
24 respect to the STAs ku will be equal to k in
25 approximately one to two years after start-up?
385
1 A. That would be my opinion, yes. Could we take
2 a break sometime soon?
3 Q. It will be soon. I just have a couple more
4 questions.
5 Would you also -- strike that.
6 Have you estimated either a k or a
7 ku rate for the ENR project?
8 A. I would expect the k for the ENR project be
9 something in the range of ten to fifteen, same as for an
10 STA. It is an STA. I have not attempted to estimate a
11 ku for a start-up period of the ENR.
12 Q. Would your opinion be with respect to the ENR
13 that ku would be equal to k in approximately one to two
14 years after commencement of operation?
15 A. Well, if a reasonable course of activities
16 takes place, yes. However, in the case of the ENR,
17 recent events do not give me a great deal of confidence
18 that what I would call a normal start-up period, normal
19 start-up sequence of events is in fact going to happen
20 so if one could manage water levels in the system in the
21 way that other people have started systems, I think the
22 answer is certainly yes but I sense some constraints and
23 some difficulties in that particular system at this time
24 that cause me some concern as to whether or not it's
25 going to follow a normal start-up sequence.
386
1 Q. And the concern that you have is the concern
2 you identified yesterday, that the ENR is unable to
3 discharge water?
4 A. That's one of the concerns, yes.
5 Q. What are the others?
6 A. Well, I believe that there is still
7 herbicides being applied to the system so there is some
8 management techniques being applied to the ENR that are
9 not associated with the start-up of other systems.
10 Q. Such as being forced to hold water?
11 A. That would be the predominant one. It is my
12 understanding that some portions are being held under
13 quite large water depths and that may be all right for
14 mature vegetation but certainly not a good way to
15 establish wetland vegetation.
16 Q. But your opinion would be that ku would be
17 equal to k for the ENR project after the, in
18 approximately one to two years after the establishment
19 of vegetation assuming that normal water management
20 practices are allowed to occur to the ENR project?
21 A. That's right. That's correct.
22 Q. If we could turn to 1300582 just for a
23 moment, second paragraph under summary ends with the
24 sentence, the growing season in Florida's subtropical
25 climate is basically twelve months long so these results
387
1 will not transfer on an annual basis to colder
2 climates. My question is whether the converse is also
3 true, in other words would results from an annual basis
4 from colder climates not transfer to Florida because of
5 its subtropical climate?
6 A. The statement is true but I must hasten to
7 point out that the word annual is extremely important,
8 and the intent of that paragraph is to warn people that
9 settling rate constants apply during the unfrozen season
10 of the year when the ecosystem is active and northern
11 systems during that period display a settling rate
12 constant of general area of twelve but if you were to
13 prorate it over the entire twelve month year, it
14 obviously would be much less than that and that's the
15 intent of that paragraph and sentence.
16 Q. In the next paragraph last sentence reads,
17 Burns and McDonnell 1992 showed that rate constants for
18 WCA2A had to be adjusted by a factor of four to describe
19 short-term phenomena. What does that sentence mean?
20 A. Well, there was an activity early in the
21 design process by Burns and McDonnell to attempt to use
22 the first order aerial model on an extremely short time
23 step in an attempt to model the short-term flow pulses
24 that were occurring in the period of record for Water
25 Conservation Area 2A. When they parameterized that
388
1 model on a short time step, they found they needed to
2 adjust the settling rate constant to a much higher value
3 to account for those short-term phenomena and it was a
4 very unsatisfactory modeling exercise so in this
5 particular sentence, I'm trying to tell people that
6 there have been attempts to use the first order in
7 long-term model in short terms and that they have not
8 really been successful.
9 Q. Do you know of any other attempts other than
10 by Burns and McDonnell to do that?
11 A. I believe there's a current effort on the
12 part of Tetra Tech to also, to conduct such short time
13 interval modeling.
14 Q. Anybody else?
15 A. The only other instance in which this has
16 come up is that as a reviewer of a paper that's not yet
17 been accepted for publication by another individual I
18 have had conversations with that individual and for
19 other parameters, not for phosphorus, have indicated
20 that these first order models really don't represent
21 short-term behavior very well, that they are good for
22 the long-term averages but not for short-term phenomena.
23 Q. Is the author of the paper a witness in this
24 case?
25 A. He is not.
389
1 Q. In your opinion would this adjustment by a
2 factor of four accurately describe short-term phenomena?
3 A. No, I think that I would not place any faith
4 in the number because the measurement frequency needed
5 to adequately parameterize a model for short-term
6 phenomena just didn't exist in that data set, in other
7 words the District was measuring water concentrations on
8 approximately a biweekly frequency and that is not a
9 close enough time interval in order to correctly
10 characterize the pulses that were taking place so the
11 exercise had an unsatisfactory result and I think other
12 such exercises would also have unsatisfactory results.
13 Q. So, is it your opinion that it can't be done?
14 A. It's my opinion that it would take a model
15 that has the capacity to include storages, it would take
16 data that would have many data points per pulse event in
17 order to correctly calibrate a more detailed model as
18 well.
19 Q. Do you want to take a break?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. BURGESS: Let's take a break.
22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Sure.
23 (Recess).
24 (Whereupon Mr. Curtis Richardson
25 left the deposition room).
390
1 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Doctor Kadlec, yesterday
2 you testified on the subject matter that you said you
3 might testify to and that would be that the addition of
4 nutrients to wetlands, especially treatment wetlands,
5 results in changes to flora and fauna and a lessening of
6 species diversity and perhaps also a shift to cattail.
7 Do you recall that general testimony?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. In terms of phosphorus, we will talk about
10 addition of nutrient. In terms of phosphorus have you
11 quantified the amount of phosphorus in the water column
12 necessary to result in those changes?
13 A. I have no quantification of that level.
14 Q. Have you quantified the amount of phosphorus
15 in the water column necessary to result in a reversal of
16 those changes, of those changes once they occur?
17 A. I do not have a quantification of that level.
18 Q. Do you have an opinion, do you have an
19 opinion on either of them?
20 A. Well, the opinion that I have is based on the
21 large measure on the observations of cross-treatment
22 wetlands and it's my opinion based on those that
23 phosphorus level in excess of five hundred parts per
24 billion which is typical of most of the treatment
25 wetlands certainly has a strong tendency to promote
391
1 cattail mono culture in the system.
2 Q. Do you have a similar opinion with regard to
3 the amount of phosphorus in those cross-sectional
4 wetlands necessary to result in a change from those
5 cattail mono cultures once established?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you have an opinion on either of those
8 subjects with respect to WCA2A?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you have an opinion regarding what
11 phosphorus concentration level in the water column would
12 be considered eutrophic for wetlands generally or for
13 the Everglades, do you have an opinion?
14 A. In some sense I think the word eutrophic is
15 perhaps a loaded word in that there are, it means
16 different things to different people.
17 Q. Explain what it means to you and then you can
18 answer with that definition.
19 A. Well, to me it means a nutrient condition and
20 the associated conditions of the biota and the ecosystem
21 that reflects something other than the background for
22 that particular ecosystem, either regionally or as it
23 may have been in preimpact conditions. My trouble with
24 the term is that it's normally applied to more aquatic
25 systems and dividing lines on a nutrient basis are
392
1 perhaps more commonly accepted for lakes than they are
2 for wetland ecosystems so I have difficulty with putting
3 a precise quantification on that.
4 Q. Given your definition I could see that the
5 difficulty to answer the question with respect to
6 wetlands generally but could you answer the question
7 with respect to WCA2A?
8 A. I prefer to use, prefer to use a term
9 impacted rather than eutrophic or the converse
10 oligotrophic or the intermediate mesotrophic.
11 Q. What is your definition of impact?
12 A. That there has been a change in the flora and
13 fauna and other attributes of the preexisting wetland in
14 the case of 2A.
15 Q. What type of change?
16 A. There's clearly impacts and changes in
17 vegetation type from sawgrass over to cattail, that's
18 one.
19 Q. Over what period of time?
20 A. I don't know that time has anything to do
21 with the situation. It's from a preexisting state to a
22 current state is the comparison I think that would be
23 made.
24 Q. To what do you attribute the impact?
25 A. The impacts to 2A, is that what we're talking
393
1 about?
2 Q. Yes, in terms of your definition of change
3 from sawgrass to cattail?
4 A. I would attribute the impact to probably two
5 factors, one much more important than the other. One
6 would be alteration of phosphorus level and the incoming
7 water to 2A but I couldn't rule out that there are other
8 what I would regard as secondary considerations that
9 might apply to other factors such as changes in the
10 hydroperiod but in my opinion based on the treatment
11 wetland set that I've observed, those are secondary
12 effects.
13 Q. Changes in hydro --
14 A. Yes, other factors normally are lesser
15 importance.
16 Q. When you said and incoming water, what do you
17 mean by and incoming water?
18 A. Amount of incoming water, what I mean by that
19 is a change in the hydroperiod associated with the
20 discharges that historically were coming in in sheet
21 flow and now are coming in in terms of discharges
22 through structures which I think is altered
23 hydroperiods, at least I've been given to believe that
24 from the documents and the discussions I've had.
25 Q. So, is it your testimony that the alterations
394
1 of phosphorus levels in 2A is primary in that changes in
2 the amount of incoming water to 2A is secondary?
3 A. That's what I was attempting to say, yes.
4 Q. Can you have one without the other?
5 A. Generically, yes, you can have just additions
6 of nutrients without affecting the hydroperiod or the
7 amount of water. For instance, all you have to do is
8 change from one source of pretreatment to another in a
9 treatment wetland and you can alter the concentration
10 but not the loading.
11 Q. How does that occur for 2A?
12 A. Well, specifically in the case of 2A I
13 believe that the situation, although far from simple,
14 it's basically one where the amount of water is
15 determined by the meteorology, by the rainfall, and of
16 the evapotranspiration for the particular year and that
17 the amount of phosphorus contained in that water has got
18 to do with human activities as well as with
19 meteorological events so that the two are not
20 synonymous.
21 Q. Do you have an opinion regarding what
22 phosphorus concentration level in the water column would
23 be considered impacted for purposes of 2A?
24 A. I believe we had this discussion in the first
25 part of my deposition and I do not have a dividing line
395
1 in my mind. I believe the concentrations in excess of
2 fifty parts per billion probably constitute a range of
3 concentrations that contribute to impacts on pristine
4 Everglade systems.
5 As we move down from fifty parts per
6 billion toward some other level, I surely do not know
7 such a level and look forward with interest to the
8 results of the various threshold studies that are in
9 progress or contemplated.
10 Q. And your basis for your opinion regarding the
11 concentrations more than fifty parts per billion
12 probably contribute to impact would be literature that
13 you've read?
14 A. Yes, basically there are cattails at the end
15 of the inlet zone and the concentration there is fifty
16 parts per billion and that's the basis for my opinion.
17 Q. I'm sorry, the basis for your opinion is
18 literature and site investigation?
19 A. Well, as I think I indicated earlier in the
20 first part of this deposition, I have had limited
21 personal inspections of 2A, limited to perimeter levies
22 and structures and overplates.
23 Q. Do you anticipate testifying at the hearing
24 regarding your opinion that concentrations in excess of
25 fifty parts per billion in the Everglades probably
396
1 contribute to impacts on pristine Everglades in the
2 ecosystem?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I notice that in, I think it was Exhibit 18,
5 your review of the Brown and Caldwell alternatives
6 report you chided the authors for their failures to
7 examine and state the various benefits and detriments
8 to, or for the STAs and for chemical treatment. I would
9 like to ask you your opinion as to what you see would be
10 the benefits for the STAs for the South Florida
11 ecosystem and similarly what would be the detriment, if
12 any?
13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm sorry, the
14 detriments of STAs, is it?
15 MR. BURGESS: What benefits and what
16 disadvantages are there of STAs, constructing STAs in
17 the Everglades.
18 MR. LIPSHULTZ: In general or
19 specifically contrasted to chemical treatment?
20 MR. BURGESS: We will handle STAs
21 first and then we can deal --
22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I guess my question
23 is, are you asking him the pluses and minuses of STAs
24 generally speaking or pluses and minuses of STAs as
25 compared to chemical treatment?
397
1 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): I'm interested in both and
2 I would ask you in follow-up nature the same questions
3 with respect to chemical treatment. If it's easier for
4 you to answer it at once, please do.
5 MR. LIPSHULTZ: So this question is
6 just general terms?
7 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
8 Q. (BY MR. BURGESS): Let's do it this way.
9 What do you see as the benefits that would accrue in the
10 Everglades to the construction of STAs, from the
11 construction of STAs?
12 A. The broad, on a broad scale the anticipated
13 benefits of the STAs is to provide trapping of
14 phosphorus in a constructed nonEverglades system so
15 that's the overall benefit to be derived. That's the
16 design goals, to absorb phosphorus in a constructed
17 wetland system STA.
18 Q. Any other benefits associated with the
19 construction of STAs?
20 A. Well, in general, in general --
21 Q. I'm interested in specifics. I want to know
22 what you are going to say at the time of trial. You can
23 give me general and then I will follow up with specifics
24 but I'm interested in your opinion what would be the
25 benefits to the Everglades by constructing them?
398
1 A. I think I've just listed the dominant one and
2 the one that I would expect to testify to at trial, that
3 they are intended to, designed to, to remove phosphorus
4 from waters reaching the Everglades wetlands and there
5 are, in terms of STAs in general, it then becomes a
6 comparative, I suppose, thing.
7 There are other benefits besides
8 phosphorus in my mind to STAs. I wouldn't necessarily
9 feel that this is something that I plan to testify on
10 but some of the other benefits are that for other
11 chemicals that have not been the direct focus of the
12 design, that there is some treatment potential for those
13 chemicals and that that's well-known because the STA
14 technology extends over a suite of other parameters.
15 For example they are effective
16 physical filters and remove suspended solids. This is a
17 documented treatment characteristic of STAs. They also
18 process nitrogen compounds. They also trap certain
19 metals. They also degrade organic compounds including
20 herbicides, pesticides, petroleum based compounds, so
21 there is a whole suite of documented treatment potential
22 for an STA which returns in the direction of wetland
23 water quality, the character of the incoming water is
24 altered toward background wetland quality, not
25 necessarily reaching such wetland background quality so
399
1 I think in some then another benefit to be derived from
2 an STA is that for nonphosphorus compounds they change
3 the character of the incoming water toward a marsh
4 background character.
5 In general terms I think STAs also
6 have an advantage in terms of what I might term the
7 secondary impacts of the treatment technology in the
8 sense that what we have is a passive system that is
9 essentially driven by solar energy without chemical
10 additives, without a lot of structures and so forth that
11 require the consumption of energy and the associated
12 by-products and pollutants of the contributing
13 technologies so the second, if I may term it such, the
14 secondary effects of the STA are much less than they are
15 for concrete steel technology, for example.
16 That plus another one more remaining
17 factor that I think is important for STAs and that is
18 that they have a pulse dampening feature. They
19 basically are long detention time systems and any sharp
20 pulse of any material that enters the system by virtue
21 of the retention capacity alone and often augmented by
22 treatment capacity dampens the pulse and transmits a
23 much less sharp pulse to downstream receiving waters.
24 Q. What advantage is there in that?
25 A. Well, if there is any feature of the
400
1 downstream system that is responsive to what might be
2 called an acute level of any substance, by dampening the
3 pulse you simply reduce the peak below the acute.
4 As an example, wetlands are known
5 to, from some recent research are known to be able to
6 treat atrazine, a chemical that's been studied at Des
7 Plaines, drinking water standards three parts per
8 billion, even if the wetlands did not degrade this
9 compound they would reduce the spikes in the incoming
10 water which exceeds three parts per billion just by the
11 action of most of the water in the wetland below the
12 loading standard so that's what I mean by pulse
13 dampening so in a general way those are the attributes
14 of STAs that are favorable.
15 Q. Any others that you can think of?
16 A. Those are the principal attributes that come
17 to mind at this time. Now, I believe your question
18 originally asked me to do the opposite and --
19 Q. Yes, are there any disadvantages?
20 A. Yes, and so I have now given an answer to the
21 first part of your question and I will move to the
22 second one, are there disadvantages, and I think the
23 answer to that is yes, there are some disadvantages and
24 the principal one that is perceived in virtually every
25 instance is that this is a land intensive technology and
401
1 that the amount of land required to achieve a particular
2 pollutant reduction is typically larger than it would be
3 for alternative technologies.
4 Another disadvantage that has been
5 perceived in some cases but not all is very much
6 geographical, is that not everyone favors placing a
7 wetlands acre back on the landscape and in particular
8 the mosquito breeding potential of the wetland is
9 perceived as a disadvantage, particularly in some of the
10 western states, so if you don't like the animals that
11 are associated with the wetland, then that's a
12 disadvantage.
13 However, I should go back and point
14 out that there is significant other advantages. A lot
15 of people would think that providing extra wetland
16 habitat for some of, particularly our scarcer wetland
17 species would be an advantage to an STA.
18 Q. I notice you didn't list that one. Is that
19 also in your mind an advantage, habitat?
20 A. Yes, very definitely, and that was an
21 oversight in the earlier portion of the answer but very
22 definitely. Another advantage to the technology that
23 comes to mind, although not particularly applicable in
24 the Everglades situation, is that since the, a wetland
25 treatment system provides green space, that in an urban
402
1 or suburban setting is frequently viewed as an amenity,
2 green space on a landscape.
3 Q. What effect will construction of these STAs
4 have on the mosquito breeding potential for south
5 Florida?
6 A. Well, I think south Florida is probably like
7 Michigan in that regard and some of the northern states,
8 already extensive wetlands, I think it would be
9 difficult to measure any increase in the number of
10 mosquitos in that particular location due to the
11 addition of these wetlands.
12 Q. Because there are so many already?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Any other disadvantages you can think of?
15 A. Those would be the disadvantages that I can
16 think of.
17 Q. I notice that with respect to the, your list
18 of attributes you didn't say that they will restore or
19 contribute to the Everglades hydroperiod. Do you have
20 an opinion as to whether or not they will do so?
21 A. Well, it is my general impression that the
22 purpose of the STAs is to treat water. The fact of an
23 STA in and of itself does not imply more or les