0434
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
2 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
3
4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, )
5 ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,)
6 -and- )
7 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., UNITED )
8 STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, and NEW HOPE ) DOAH
9 SOUTH, INC., ) CASE
10 -and- ) NOS.
11 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, ) 92-3038
12 LEWIS POPE FARMS, W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, ) 92-3039
13 INC., and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 92-3040
14 Petitioners, )
15 -vs- )
16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, )
17 Respondent, )
18 -and- ) Volume 4
19 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE UNITED )
20 STATES OF AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and FLORIDA )
22 WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, )
23 Intervenors. )
24
25 DEPONENT: ROBERT H. KADLEC
0435
1 DATE: Thursday, March 25, 1993
2 TIME: 9:15 a.m.
3 LOCATION: Sheraton Hotel, 3200 Boardwalk
4 Ann Arbor, Michigan
5 REPORTER: Rhonda L. Reppert, CSR-3468, RPR, CM
6
7 APPEARANCES:
8
9 MR. GARY V. PERKO
10 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
11 123 South Calhoun Street
12 Post Office Box 6526
13 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
14 Telephone: (904) 222-7500
15 Appearing on behalf of Petitioner, Sugar Cane
16 Growers Cooperative of Florida.
17 MR. RICK BURGESS
18 Peeples, Earl & Blank
19 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
20 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
21 Miami, Florida 33131
22 Telephone: (305) 358-3000
23 Appearing on behalf of Petitioners, Florida
24 Sugar Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar
25 Corporation, and New Hope South, Inc..
0436
1 APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
2
3 MR. DANIEL J. McGRATH
4 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
5 4000 International Place
6 100 S.E. 2nd Street
7 Miami, Florida 33131
8 Telephone: (305) 530-0050
9 Appearing on behalf of Respondent, South Florida
10 Water Management District.
11
12 MR. GEOFFREY GARVER
13 United States Department of Justice
14 Environment & Natural Resources Division
15 General Litigation Section
16 P.O. Box 663
17 Washington, D.C. 20010
18 Telephone: (202) 272-4692
19 Appearing on behalf of Intervenor, United States
20 of America.
21
22
23
24
25
0437
1 APPEARANCES: (Cont.)
2
3 MR. CARLOS MARIN
4 Law Office of Carlos Marin
5 1101 E. Harrison
6 Harlingen, Texas 78550
7 Appearing on behalf of Ambiotec.
8
9 ALSO PRESENT:
10 Mr. Curtis J. Richardson
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0438
1 C O N T E N T S
2 Witness: Page
3 ROBERT H. KADLEC
4 Examination by Mr. Burgess 439
5
6
7 E X H I B I T S
8 Number Identification Page
9 No. 10 Review of the Everglades Protection
10 Project, Conceptual Design,
11 December, 1992 440
12 No. 11 Conference Materials, Phosphorus
13 Uptake in Wetlands 499
14 No. 12 FAX Transmittal - 11/9/92 514
15 No. 13 FAX Transmittal - 5/21/91 548
16 No. 14 FAX Transmittal - 6/14/92 585
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0439
KADLEC
1 Ann Arbor, Michigan
2 Thursday, March 25, 1993
3 * * *
4 E X A M I N A T I O N
5 BY MR. BURGESS:
6 Q. Good morning, Dr. Kadlec.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. You were telling us before we went on the
9 record that you don't feel you fully answered one of
10 the questions at the end of the day yesterday?
11 A. That's correct. You had, I believe, asked a
12 question in connection with the sites that I might rely
13 on for forming opinions, and we then proceeded to refer
14 to the Kadlec-Newman report, identified sites in that
15 report, but I believe your question as originally
16 phrased was broader than that, and you wished to know
17 all of the sites, and there are perhaps other sites
18 that are not in the Kadlec-Newman report.
19 Q. And what would those include?
20 A. Those would include perhaps, among others, a
21 site at Humboldt, Saskatchewan.
22 Q. Any others?
23 A. I cannot think of any significant others. I
24 had alluded in my reply, I believe, to possible data
25 arriving from an Australian project and a Texas
0440
KADLEC
1 project.
2 Q. And were those projects previously identified
3 in your response to my question concerning Paragraph 11
4 of your vitae?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Dr. Kadlec, with respect to those sites you
7 identified yesterday and in response to my questions
8 concerning Question 11 of your vitae, what is it that
9 you're going to rely on from those sites? Is it data
10 from those sites?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And in support of what proposition will you
13 rely on that data?
14 A. I don't understand the meaning of the word
15 "proposition".
16 Q. Okay. For what basis -- I'm sorry. For what
17 portion of your testimony that you anticipate giving at
18 the final hearing will you rely upon the data from
19 these various sites?
20 A. The data from these sites will be relevant to
21 testimony on hydrology and phosphorus removal in
22 wetlands.
23 (Deposition Exhibit No. 10
24 marked for identification.)
25 Q. Dr. Kadlec, I show you what's been marked as
0441
KADLEC
1 Exhibit 10 and ask you if you can identify that
2 document.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have you seen it before?
5 A. I believe so, yes.
6 Q. I would refer you to the executive summary,
7 which is viii I believe on the bottom.
8 This document, Dr. Kadlec, talks in
9 terms of review of a settling rate of 8 meters a year.
10 I believe it's your testimony that you no longer feel
11 that that settling rate is applicable as a design
12 criteria for the STAs; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is it your opinion, Dr. Kadlec, as you
15 sit here today, that a settling rate of around 10 would
16 be an appropriate basis for design for the STAs?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you intend to do additional
19 calculations to verify or confirm in your mind what an
20 appropriate settling rate would be for a basis for
21 design?
22 A. I may.
23 Q. And if you do those calculations, do you
24 intend to testify concerning what, in your opinion, is
25 a relevant settling rate for the STAs?
0442
KADLEC
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What method -- by that I mean data and
3 model -- do you intend to use if you do decide to
4 determine a settling rate value?
5 A. I don't know that I can project at this time
6 what I may do in a future calculation.
7 Q. If you had to estimate that K value today,
8 what model would you use to do that?
9 A. I would consider -- I guess I should first
10 ask what you mean by "model" in this context.
11 Q. Yesterday we identified in one of the
12 exhibits three different phosphorus mass balance
13 equations which you said had applicability to
14 determination of a settling rate constant, correct?
15 A. We did.
16 Q. That is the -- strike that. I don't want to
17 limit my question to those three equations, but when I
18 speak in terms of a model to estimate K, I'm speaking
19 in terms of those type of equations that you have
20 testified to.
21 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand what the
22 question was.
23 Q. Do those phosphorus mass balance equations
24 that we spoke about yesterday -- are they used to
25 estimate settling rate constants?
0443
KADLEC
1 A. Those equations we spoke of yesterday could
2 be used to estimate settling rate constants under the
3 mixing scenario and other assumptions built into the
4 development of those equations.
5 Q. How would you go about -- if you had to today
6 estimate K, how would you go about doing it?
7 A. I would have several choices available to me.
8 Q. Okay. And they would be --
9 A. I could presume that the operation of area 2A
10 was plug flow, and use the corresponding equation to
11 estimate a settling rate coefficient. That would be
12 one option.
13 Do you wish me to go on?
14 Q. Yes. Thank you. I'm trying to determine
15 what options are available to you and what -- if you
16 had to do it today, what option you would select.
17 A. Under a different option, I could represent
18 the mixing in area 2A by a series of well mixed units
19 of some number, and use the corresponding equations to
20 estimate a K.
21 Q. Are those your two options? Any others?
22 A. Well, as I indicated in a line of questioning
23 yesterday, there are an almost limitless number of
24 series and parallel connections of such idealized
25 components of the system that could be presumed.
0444
KADLEC
1 Q. If you had to choose today among the options
2 you just listed, which one would you select as the most
3 appropriate with respect to WCA2A?
4 A. I would choose the most conservative, which
5 would be the plug flow version.
6 Q. Now assuming that utilizing that version gave
7 you your estimate for K, what model would you use to
8 estimate acreage?
9 MR. GARVER: I object to the form. Are
10 you talking about acreage of STAs?
11 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
12 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
13 A. Well, in estimating acreage in the design
14 mode of calculations, I would most probably utilize
15 more than one model.
16 Q. Why would you utilize more than one model?
17 A. Because in the design mode I would want to
18 understand the sensitivity of design calculations to
19 different model assumptions.
20 Q. What models might you use?
21 A. Because there is a very large number of
22 potential series of parallel combinations of the ideal
23 units I have alluded to, and because those calculations
24 need in some sense to reflect the potential
25 configuration of an STA, it's difficult to answer that
0445
KADLEC
1 question in a broad sense.
2 Q. I'm just trying to find out, if you assume
3 that you have your estimate for K, in other words you
4 have satisfied yourself that the specific number which
5 you testified to yesterday could be around ten, what
6 would you do next if someone asked you to design the
7 STAs for the Everglades, given the K value that you
8 have determined and given the necessity of having those
9 STAs achieve a 50 parts per billion outflow
10 concentration of the water conservation areas?
11 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
12 A. Well, what I'm trying to indicate in reply to
13 that question is that the settling rate coefficient
14 must then be utilized in mass balance calculations
15 which should, in design, reflect the sensitivity of
16 such calculations to factors other than the settling
17 rate constant. By that I mean the configuration of a
18 proposed STA would have implications as to the mixing
19 patterns that might occur in that particular STA.
20 Q. So assuming you then do these mass balance
21 calculations, what do you do after you complete those?
22 How do you get to the acreage, your estimate of
23 acreage?
24 I'm trying to understand your testimony,
25 Dr. Kadlec, and I'm asking you for what you would do
0446
KADLEC
1 next in order to estimate acreage if someone asked you
2 to do that, and I think you just said you have to do a
3 series of mass balance calculations.
4 Okay. After you do that, then what do
5 you do? Does that series of mass balance calculations
6 give you estimates of acreage?
7 A. It could, but given the complexity of the
8 calculations for a multiple cell STA, it is more likely
9 that the calculations would be done in a manner in
10 which the area of the system was varied, each cell in
11 the system was varied, until the design goal for the
12 STA was achieved.
13 So it is a more -- I'm having
14 difficulty, because this is not a straightforward
15 simple calculation, and it's difficult to answer a
16 brief question on how this is done.
17 Q. Is it your understanding that the STAs will
18 be of the multi cell variety?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is that a Burns & McDonnell design criteria,
21 as far as you know?
22 A. That has been an element of the conceptual
23 design, and it is my belief that it will continue to be
24 so.
25 Q. What equation or equations do you feel would
0447
KADLEC
1 be most appropriate to perform these mass balance
2 calculations?
3 A. I would ask you what you mean by "these
4 mass --
5 Q. The ones that you testified to after you had
6 your value for K you would need to perform.
7 I thought I understood you to say after
8 you had your estimate for K and on your way to
9 determining the acreage, you would have to perform a
10 series of mass balance calculations.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. What equation or equations would you
13 anticipate using for those mass balance calculations?
14 A. It would depend on what the presumption of
15 flow pattern was for that particular iteration of
16 design calculations that is being done.
17 Q. How many different flow patterns would you
18 estimate you would examine, performing these mass
19 balance calculations?
20 A. That's difficult to answer in advance of the
21 fact.
22 MR. GARVER: You shouldn't speculate.
23 Q. What are your choices?
24 A. What are my choices concerning --
25 Q. Flow patterns.
0448
KADLEC
1 A. The choice for a cell in an STA, the choices
2 would range between a single well mixed unit to a
3 single plug flow unit.
4 Q. And would you anticipate examining both of
5 those and others?
6 A. I would anticipate using more than one of the
7 options available, yes.
8 Q. And what type of flow pattern, among those
9 that you just identified and whatever others might
10 exist that you haven't identified but that you might
11 consider, do you envision would be used in the design
12 configuration for the STAs?
13 MR. GARVER: Objection; calls for
14 speculation.
15 A. If you would rephrase the question. I did
16 not understand the question.
17 Q. Okay. What flow pattern do you consider in
18 your opinion to be most appropriate to use in the
19 calculations which you're going to perform for the
20 design configuration?
21 A. Well, the trouble I have with the question is
22 the calculations do not calculate the design
23 configuration.
24 Q. Okay. What do they calculate?
25 A. The calculation can be made for a given
0449
KADLEC
1 mixing assumption in a given STA cell of the
2 concentration change to be expected in that cell.
3 Q. Okay. I want to go back. In response to one
4 of my questions you said it would depend upon the flow
5 pattern that was used or that was chosen, and in that
6 context do you remember -- do you recall that answer?
7 A. Not explicitly.
8 Q. Okay. Why is flow pattern important for --
9 is flow pattern important for these calculations?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Why is it important for the
12 calculations?
13 A. Because the expected performance of a unit in
14 an STA depends upon flow pattern.
15 Q. What flow pattern do you feel is most
16 appropriate for the calculations?
17 A. In the absence of detailed information on
18 configuration of that particular unit in the design of
19 that particular STA unit, it's difficult to answer that
20 question.
21 Q. Are you familiar with Burns & McDonnell's
22 conceptual design?
23 A. I believe I know which document you refer to,
24 yes.
25 Q. If I asked you to assume configurations that
0450
KADLEC
1 are in that document, does that help you answer my
2 question?
3 A. It helps in some degree, yes.
4 Q. Can you tell me what type of flow pattern you
5 would feel would be most appropriate, if the design
6 were to design to the Burns & McDonnell STA design
7 criteria?
8 A. Well, the Burns & McDonnell conceptual
9 design, which does contain some projected layouts of
10 STAs, would be of assistance in answering the
11 question. However, there are four STAs laid out in
12 that document, and within each of those there are a
13 number of cells. Those cells are of different shapes
14 and sizes. To answer your question, I would have to
15 know which of those I am to estimate my opinion of the
16 flow pattern.
17 Q. Do each of those STAs need to be designed
18 separately?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do each of them require a separate
21 calculation of a settling rate?
22 A. The design calculations do not involve a
23 calculation of the settling rate.
24 Q. Okay. Independent question. I'm going back
25 to calculations of settling rates.
0451
KADLEC
1 Based upon your testimony that each of
2 the STAs need to be designed separately, in your
3 opinion, do you need -- strike that.
4 In your opinion, is it necessary to
5 calculate -- to independently calculate settling rates
6 for each of the four STAs that Burns & McDonnell have
7 in their STA conceptual design?
8 A. I don't understand the question. The reason
9 I don't understand the question is that the design
10 process will utilize a value of the settling rate.
11 Q. Yes, sir. And in your opinion, since you
12 have testified that each of those four STAs should be
13 designed separately, I'm asking you whether in your
14 opinion you feel the predecessor calculation of the
15 settling rate should be independently performed for
16 each of the four STAs.
17 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
18 Q. Can you answer that?
19 A. I think that a single value of the settling
20 rate may be used for the four STAs.
21 Q. What is the -- thank you. What is the basis
22 for that opinion?
23 A. The basis for that opinion is that there is
24 sufficient similarity in the intended nature of these
25 STAs, in terms of water depth, vegetation, and the
0452
KADLEC
1 parameters which influence performance, to warrant that
2 statement.
3 Q. Have you visited any of the areas where you
4 understand the four STAs are going to be constructed?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Which of the four or all of the four?
7 A. I have visited the area of STA 1.
8 Q. Have you done any field sampling in any of
9 the areas where the STAs are going to be constructed?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know of anyone that has taken soil
12 samples -- other than where STA 1 is going to be
13 constructed -- in areas where STAs 2, 3 or 4 are going
14 to be constructed?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you yourself reviewed any data or soil
17 cores from those areas?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Back to my question about STA design
20 process. Is it your understanding that a mixing
21 assumption needs to be made as part of the design
22 process?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Which mixing assumption would you recommend
25 be used and why?
0453
KADLEC
1 A. As I think I have answered on previous
2 occasions, I think that several mixing assumptions
3 should be explored in the design process.
4 Q. And as you sit here today, do you have an
5 opinion as to which is the most appropriate for the
6 STAs, for design of the STAs?
7 A. In general terms, I believe that a degree of
8 mixing intermediate between plug flow and well mixed is
9 appropriate.
10 Q. Is that the same as or different from what
11 you understand Burns & McDonnell is recommending?
12 A. It is the same as Burns & McDonnell have used
13 in the conceptual design.
14 Q. Have you had discussions with anyone from
15 Burns & McDonnell as to whether they are going to
16 continue to recommend that through the conceptual
17 design process?
18 A. I have not.
19 Q. Have you recommended to Burns & McDonnell
20 that they utilize that mixing assumption -- strike
21 that.
22 Did you recommend to Burns & McDonnell
23 that they utilize that mixing assumption for the
24 conceptual design process?
25 A. What do you mean by "that mixing
0454
KADLEC
1 assumption"?
2 Q. The one that I asked you to identify what you
3 thought would be the most appropriate.
4 A. The intermediate degree of mixing?
5 Q. Right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And was that a recommendation that was made
8 at or near the time you were on the STA design
9 committee?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as far as you know, that is the mixing
12 assumption that Burns & McDonnell is continuing to
13 recommend in their conceptual design process?
14 MR. GARVER: Do you mean the general
15 design process, Mr. Burgess?
16 MR. BURGESS: General design process.
17 A. I can't answer for what Burns & McDonnell are
18 doing at the present time.
19 Q. When did you last speak with anyone from
20 Burns & McDonnell?
21 A. It was late February of this year.
22 Q. And in what context did you meet or speak
23 with --
24 A. There was a meeting at the South Florida
25 Water Management District.
0455
KADLEC
1 Q. Have you recommended any cell layout
2 configuration to Burns & McDonnell?
3 A. No.
4 Q. What cell layout configuration would you
5 recommend should be used in the STA design process?
6 A. That question cannot be answered without
7 understanding the site specific conditions of the STA
8 in question.
9 Q. In your opinion, it is going to vary between
10 and among the four separate STAs?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Well, what cell layout configuration
13 would you recommend with respect to STA 1? Strike
14 that. Strike that.
15 Are you familiar with the
16 recommendations for cell configurations that Burns &
17 McDonnell have included in their conceptual design?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Do you agree with them?
20 A. I have not formed an opinion.
21 Q. Do you anticipate at the time of trial that
22 you will testify concerning the cell configurations of
23 the various STAs?
24 A. I may.
25 Q. Do you intend to review the general design of
0456
KADLEC
1 Burns & McDonnell with respect to cell configurations
2 in the STAs?
3 A. I expect so.
4 Q. Was the last cell configuration that you saw
5 from Burns & McDonnell contained in their conceptual
6 design document?
7 A. I'm sorry. Could you please repeat the
8 question?
9 Q. What was the last cell configuration that you
10 recall seeing from Burns & McDonnell, their
11 recommendation? Was it in their conceptual design
12 document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know the timetable for their
15 production or completion of their general design
16 document?
17 A. In a rough way.
18 Q. When do you understand that that document is
19 due?
20 A. In early summer.
21 Q. This year?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have you seen a draft of the document?
24 A. I have seen a small portion of what I believe
25 to be a draft of such a document.
0457
KADLEC
1 Q. Is that something that has been publicly
2 available, to your knowledge?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. How did you get it?
5 A. It was given to me by Galen Miller.
6 Q. When did he give it to you?
7 A. I can't give you the exact date, but it was
8 early in this year, January or February of this year.
9 Q. And what was the document called?
10 A. It had no name.
11 Q. What was contained in the document?
12 A. The document contained, among other things,
13 the reproduction of the equations that I had
14 transmitted to Galen Miller in December of 1992.
15 Q. Did it contain any cell configurations for
16 the STAs?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you have any comments back to Galen
19 Miller with respect to what he provided to you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Dr. Kadlec, in your opinion will the ENR
22 project, for which you have attended two workshops I
23 believe you have testified, assist you with the future
24 design of these cells in the STAs?
25 MR. GARVER: I object to the form. I
0458
KADLEC
1 believe Dr. Kadlec said he was going to design those
2 cells.
3 MR. BURGESS: Okay.
4 Q. Well, assist you in your review of the design
5 work of Burns & McDonnell.
6 A. But what do you mean by -- I believe you said
7 ENR project.
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. What do you mean, will it help? What's "it"
10 in this case?
11 Q. Given what you know about the ENR project,
12 what configuration would you recommend for STA 1, what
13 cell configuration?
14 A. Well, I believe --
15 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
16 A. Well, I believe I have answered that cell
17 configuration is determined by site specific factors.
18 Q. Like?
19 A. The potential possibility of citing pump
20 stations and outflow structures, among other things,
21 physical site constraints.
22 Q. Earlier this morning, Dr. Kadlec, when I
23 asked you if you had to estimate K today what model
24 would be used, I believe you said that in your opinion
25 the plug flow model would be most appropriate; is that
0459
KADLEC
1 correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is the basis for that opinion?
4 A. The basis for that opinion is twofold.
5 Firstly, as I have indicated several
6 times, I believe that is the conservative presumption
7 for the estimation K, and secondly, my best
8 understanding of flow patterns in area 2A.
9 Q. Why, in your opinion, is the plug flow model
10 the most conservative?
11 A. Because it returns the smallest value of the
12 settling rate constant.
13 Q. Why is it important that the settling rate
14 constant be the smallest value?
15 A. The importance is my personal preference, in
16 a process involving parameter estimates and subsequent
17 design in the face of uncertainty as to mixing either
18 in the prototype or in the final system, to stay on the
19 conservative side when assumptions must be made.
20 Q. And do conservative K values yield larger or
21 smaller amounts of acreage when those K values are used
22 in design equations?
23 A. Larger.
24 Q. You have testified previously that in your
25 opinion the flow patterns in WCA2A are sheet flow; is
0460
KADLEC
1 that correct?
2 A. I don't believe I said that.
3 Q. Then I didn't want to repeat your testimony,
4 so then I do need clarification.
5 You said there were two reasons
6 supporting your use of the plug flow model, the second
7 one of which was your assumptions of the flow patterns
8 in 2A. What is your understanding of the flow patterns
9 in 2A?
10 A. That it is approximated by plug flow.
11 Q. What does that mean, I mean in layman's
12 terms, "approximated by plug flow"?
13 A. In layman's terms, that means that an element
14 of water enters through an inlet structure and proceeds
15 on a course toward the outlet structure, with small, if
16 any, mixing, with preceding or succeeding elements of
17 water.
18 Q. What is sheet flow?
19 A. In the wetland hydrology context, that is
20 used to refer to a shallow depth of water over a broad
21 expanse, in motion.
22 Q. And do you think WCA2A hydrologic conditions
23 approximate sheet flow?
24 A. The term "sheet flow" is not an absolute
25 quantifiable term. I personally do not often use the
0461
KADLEC
1 term "sheet flow". It would be my understanding, if I
2 were to use it, that yes, that's what exists in area
3 2A.
4 Q. Okay. And what, in your opinion, is the
5 direction of flow in 2A?
6 A. In general terms, from north to south.
7 Q. And the basis for that opinion?
8 A. Because the inlet structures are on the north
9 and the outlet structures are on the south.
10 Q. Is there any lateral variability to the
11 magnitude of flow in 2A?
12 A. Well, as we went through this yesterday, this
13 needs a referent of time in question, the depth in
14 question, but in general terms, there is variability in
15 the magnitude of flow in area 2A.
16 Q. You say in general there is variability in
17 the magnitude of flow in 2A. Have you attempted to
18 quantify that variability?
19 MR. GARVER: I believe this area was
20 covered in some detail already.
21 MR. BURGESS: I don't think that
22 specific question was.
23 A. I have not taken data on flows in area 2A.
24 Q. Is that one way, in your opinion, to quantify
25 the variability of flow?
0462
KADLEC
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What type of data would be taken?
3 A. I'm sorry. The referent for the question is
4 unclear. I don't know why I would be taking data.
5 Q. In an attempt to quantify the variability in
6 flow in 2A.
7 A. Well, there are several types of variability,
8 and so the answer to the question, I would need to
9 know --
10 Q. Variability in the direction of flow.
11 A. In the direction of flow?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Would you repeat the question at this point,
14 please?
15 Q. Dr. Kadlec, you have been testifying for the
16 last five minutes that in your opinion there is
17 variability in the direction of flow in 2A; is that
18 correct?
19 A. No, I think it was the magnitude.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you.
21 Is there variability in the magnitude of
22 flow in 2A?
23 A. I would expect so, yes.
24 Q. That's right. Okay.
25 And one way to quantify the variability
0463
KADLEC
1 in magnitude is through the collection of data; have
2 you testified to that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What data would you seek to collect to
5 determine that variability in the magnitude of flow?
6 A. There are different approaches that could be
7 taken to make such a determination. One such approach
8 could be to make local velocity measurements in 2A.
9 Q. Do you know of anyone who has attempted to
10 take local velocity measurements in 2A on behalf of the
11 Department of Justice?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you know anyone who has done that on
14 behalf of the South Florida Water Management District?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you seen any data referencing local
17 velocity measurements?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you know if that is a work step planned by
20 the United States prior to the time of trial?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Is it important to you, in either your
23 calculation of the K rate or estimation of the acreage
24 to achieve compliance with 50 parts per billion outflow
25 requirement, to know the magnitude of flow in WCA2A?
0464
KADLEC
1 MR. GARVER: Well, I don't believe
2 Dr. Kadlec said he was going to make those
3 calculations.
4 MR. BURGESS: I think he said he may.
5 MR. GARVER: It calls for speculation.
6 Q. Were you to make those calculations,
7 Dr. Kadlec, would the variability in the magnitude of
8 flow be important to you?
9 A. I cannot tell at this time.
10 Q. Why not?
11 A. Because that is dependent on the relative
12 importance of the size of those variations.
13 Q. Would it make a difference to the accuracy of
14 your plug flow model if 50 percent of the water in
15 WCA2A moved east/west and not north/south?
16 A. Well, I would return to an answer that I made
17 I believe yesterday, which is, it is not possible in
18 general terms for that to occur, because although water
19 can move on preferential paths from north to south, all
20 of the water eventually has to make it through the
21 outlet instructs to the south, so your hypothetical
22 situation I don't believe is possible.
23 Q. If it happened, would it make a difference?
24 MR. GARVER: I believe Dr. Kadlec said
25 he doesn't believe it would be possible.
0465
KADLEC
1 MR. BURGESS: I'm asking him to assume.
2 A. Well, in order to understand your question, I
3 would need to know what area of 2A you are referring
4 to, and in what way, which side, in what way there can
5 be an east/west flow out of whatever area it is we're
6 describing.
7 Q. Do you anticipate that you would conduct a
8 sensitivity analysis with respect to the magnitude of
9 flow in 2A prior to undertaking your calculations to
10 determine K?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Have you done such sensitivity analysis?
13 A. No.
14 Q. As you sit here today, do you anticipate as a
15 contemplated work step before the trial of this matter
16 that you are going to conduct such sensitivity
17 analysis?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know of anyone on the department -- do
20 you know of any consultant to the Department of Justice
21 that has made such a sensitivity analysis with respect
22 to the flow in 2A?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Other than conducting a sensitivity analysis,
25 do you anticipate evaluating the magnitude of flow in
0466
KADLEC
1 any other manner between now and the trial of this
2 matter?
3 MR. GARVER: You mean the flow in 2A?
4 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
5 A. Only in the sense that such a sensitivity
6 analysis would avail itself of all information at my
7 disposal.
8 Q. If there were preferential paths in 2A that
9 routed 50 percent of the water east/west, would this
10 affect your plug flow model?
11 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
12 A. I would have to know where in 2A, to answer
13 that question. 2A is an area larger than the area used
14 to estimate the parameter K.
15 Q. Let's say 50 percent of the water initially
16 entering Water Conservation Area 2A through the ten
17 structures.
18 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
19 A. I don't understand your scenario for where
20 that water then goes.
21 Q. East/west and then north/south.
22 A. Well, the difficulty I have with your
23 question is that water goes one way, it doesn't go
24 east/west and then north/south, so I just would ask you
25 to explain what you mean by that.
0467
KADLEC
1 Q. What effect would preferential paths have on
2 your plug flow model?
3 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
4 A. As I understand that question, preferential
5 paths are one of the ways in which a nonplug flow
6 mixing pattern can obtain in a given wetland.
7 Q. Have you conducted sensitivity analysis with
8 respect to the magnitude of flow in 2A already?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you know of anyone else besides yourself
11 that anticipates evaluating the magnitude of flow in 2A
12 for the Department of Justice?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. GARVER: About ready for a break,
16 Mr. Burgess?
17 MR. BURGESS: Okay.
18 (Recess taken: 10:10 - 10:22)
19 Q. Dr. Kadlec, in the Kadlec-Newman paper which
20 is Exhibit No. 8, did you find that depth should not be
21 a model parameter because there was no correlation
22 between depth and performance of a given wetland?
23 MR. GARVER: You should review that
24 document if you wish, Dr. Kadlec.
25 A. Well, there is a work element on that in this
0468
KADLEC
1 document. I need to refer -- it's in the appendices
2 section.
3 I have reviewed the section that I think
4 you're alluding to, and I would ask you, please, to
5 repeat the question.
6 Q. Do you have any findings or conclusions in
7 that exhibit concerning the relationship between
8 wetland performance and depth?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What are those conclusions or findings?
11 A. The conclusion reached from that particular
12 section was that evidence from Boney Marsh and Iron
13 Bridge did not support the hypothesis that a volume
14 specific uptake or settling rate was to be preferred to
15 an area specific rate.
16 Q. And what does that say about the
17 consideration of depth of a wetland?
18 A. That implies that depth is a factor in
19 hydrology, but probably not in wetland function.
20 Q. Do you utilize depth as a parameter in your
21 plug flow model for WCA2A?
22 A. Not directly.
23 Q. How is it used indirectly?
24 A. That I would have to review. Could I please
25 review the exhibit in question?
0469
KADLEC
1 Well, I slightly misspoke. This is a
2 steady state version in which depth does not appear
3 indirectly either.
4 Q. Does your plug flow model for 2A use
5 hydraulic loading rate as a model parameter?
6 A. To which model do you refer?
7 Q. The plug flow model that you have utilized
8 for your various calculations for 2A.
9 A. I draw a distinction between "model" and
10 "equation".
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. So I would ask you what you mean by that.
13 Are you referring to equations 10 or 11 --
14 Q. Yes, sir.
15 A. -- in Exhibit 6?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. And so in that context question was --
18 Q. Is hydraulic loading rate a parameter?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is hydraulic detention time a parameter?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Let me refer you to Exhibit 7 from
23 yesterday. The last sentence in the first paragraph
24 reads "Attempts to correlate wetland performance for
25 pollutant reduction with very simple design variables
0470
KADLEC
1 such as hydraulic loading rate, detention time, and
2 pollutant loading rate, have all failed to produce
3 satisfying results".
4 I think I asked you yesterday whether
5 that was a true statement when made and whether you
6 agreed with it today, and you said yes; is that
7 correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Why, if that statement is true -- and the way
10 I read it, it indicates that attempts to correlate
11 performance with a design variable of hydraulic loading
12 rate hasn't produced satisfactory results. Why, if
13 that is a given, do you use hydraulic loading rates as
14 a parameter for your plug flow equation for 2A?
15 A. Because the equations in Exhibit 6 that we
16 were referring to are not an attempt at a correlation.
17 Q. What are they an attempt to do?
18 A. Those equations are mass balances, not
19 correlations.
20 Q. So in your opinion it is a valid exercise to
21 use a hydraulic loading rate in equations such as 10
22 and 11 in contradistinction to utilizing them to
23 correlate wetland performance or to evaluate wetland
24 performance?
25 A. It's inescapable in the acknowledgment of
0471
KADLEC
1 conservation of mass.
2 Q. Do all of the models in Exhibit 7 utilize
3 detention time as a parameter?
4 MR. GARVER: Did you say do all of the
5 models?
6 MR. BURGESS: Yeah, the models.
7 Q. Or the equations. Again, I'm sorry. I will
8 refer you to the equation on No. 3, No. 5. I don't see
9 any others, but maybe you do.
10 A. The equations in Exhibit 7 contain contact
11 time or detention time, yes.
12 Q. Does the data that you have reviewed with
13 respect to 2A validate the use of detention time?
14 MR. McGRATH: I object to the form.
15 A. I have not attempted to validate the use of
16 detention time for data from 2A.
17 Q. If you used a hydraulic detention time
18 model -- or equations, I'm sorry -- instead of a
19 hydraulic loading rate equation for 2A, in your opinion
20 would it lead you to a higher or lower value of K?
21 A. Since the two procedures lead to a different
22 K, a different type of K, the two cannot be compared.
23 Q. Why do they lead to different types of K?
24 A. Because they are used in different equations
25 and different units, different meanings.
0472
KADLEC
1 Q. What type of K would you get if you used
2 hydraulic detention time as opposed to hydraulic
3 loading rate?
4 A. A mass balance model that utilizes detention
5 time necessarily involves a rate constant that I refer
6 to as a volume specific rate constant. A model that
7 utilizes hydraulic loading rate is the same mass
8 balance, but in that case it is an area specific rate
9 constant. Two different quantities.
10 Q. If you used a hydraulic detention time model
11 instead of a hydraulic loading rate model for 2A, would
12 it lead to higher or lower acreage for the STAs?
13 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Well, why don't you know? Is there other
16 information that is required before you can answer the
17 question?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What information would that be?
20 A. An estimate of the volume specific value of
21 an uptake coefficient.
22 Q. What is a volume specific value for an uptake
23 coefficient?
24 A. It is the coefficient in a rate equation that
25 presumes that phosphorus uptake is proportional to the
0473
KADLEC
1 concentration of phosphorus in the water and to the
2 volume of water in question.
3 Q. Do you anticipate before the trial of this
4 matter that you would conduct such an analysis to
5 determine what the K value would be so you could answer
6 the question that I have posed?
7 A. I have no such plans at this time.
8 Q. Why did you use detention time in the models
9 in Exhibit 7 and not in the models for 2A?
10 MR. GARVER: Are you referring to models
11 or equations, Mr. Burgess?
12 MR. BURGESS: I was referring to
13 equations earlier, but I think Dr. Kadlec has been
14 answering my questions in the terms of these as
15 models.
16 A. Well, I'm now aware that we need not make too
17 careful a distinction apparently, and I have been, I
18 think, interpreting correctly what you mean.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. In Exhibit 7, equations 1 through 5 occur in
21 a section on reactor theory taken from the literature,
22 and in that literature the common practice, because of
23 the nature of chemical reactors in general, is to use
24 volume specific reaction rates. That's equations 1
25 through 5.
0474
KADLEC
1 Equations 6 and 7 are taken from other
2 literature from a reference by Reed, et al, which is
3 reproduced elsewhere.
4 So those are not models that I'm using.
5 They are models that I'm quoting from the literature.
6 And I believe those are all of the equations listed in
7 this document.
8 Q. If I can refer you to Page 5, the top of the
9 paper, is that model depicted in the top figure
10 utilizing hydraulic detention time or hydraulic loading
11 rate?
12 A. Figure 4 depicts a hydrologic situation. It
13 depicts dye concentration versus time. It does not
14 purport to represent a model of concentration of a
15 reactive species.
16 Q. For the Des Plains, Illinois site, which I
17 think you said was one of the ones that you might rely
18 upon at the time of trial, did you estimate a hydraulic
19 loading rate or a hydraulic detention time?
20 Do you utilize a hydraulic loading rate
21 based parameter or hydraulic detention time based
22 parameter?
23 A. Well, you have asked two questions. I would
24 ask you to please repeat the first and I'll attempt to
25 answer it.
0475
KADLEC
1 Q. I think the one that I need an answer to is,
2 with respect to Des Plains, Illinois, that site which I
3 think is the one you said you might rely upon at the
4 time of trial, did you utilize a hydraulic loading rate
5 based parameter or a hydraulic detention time based
6 parameter?
7 A. Well, the answer is that in this particular
8 document, which is Exhibit 7, I'm attempting to model
9 the movement of a noninteractive tracer which moves
10 with the water, through the wetland. There is no
11 uptake process being modeled in this connection at all,
12 and consequently the model in question is simply one of
13 liquid movement through the system. It has nothing
14 whatsoever to do with an uptake model. The concepts of
15 hydraulic loading rate and detention time are not
16 operative in the context we have been discussing them.
17 Q. For any of the work that you have done at
18 Des Plains, have you utilized a hydraulic loading rate
19 based model or a hydraulic detention time based
20 model --
21 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
22 Q. -- for describing the movement of phosphorus?
23 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
24 A. In my work in attempting to describe
25 phosphorus at the Des Plains site I have used a
0476
KADLEC
1 hydraulic loading rate model in the sense I believe you
2 mean it.
3 Q. Have you made any attempts to utilize a
4 hydraulic detention time model for WCA2A?
5 A. I believe I may have.
6 Q. When would you have conducted that effort?
7 A. It would have been very early in my work with
8 data sets from 2A, and there's a possibility I -- at
9 that point in time I may have attempted to extract the
10 volumetric rate constant. I can't recall as I sit here
11 today.
12 Q. You would have attempted that through a
13 series of calculations; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know whether those calculations were
16 made available with your documents?
17 A. I would have produced them, given them to the
18 Department of Justice for production, yes.
19 Q. And do you know where among your documents
20 and how we may be able to identify such calculations?
21 A. I would assume that they would be in a file
22 that has designation WCA2A.
23 Q. Do you recall any of the results of those
24 calculations?
25 A. No.
0477
KADLEC
1 Q. Do you know whether the calculations produced
2 a K?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know what the K was?
5 A. I cannot recall any numerical values.
6 Q. Do you know whether it was lower than 8
7 meters a year?
8 A. That is not possible. The units are not
9 meters per year for volumetric rate constant.
10 Q. What are the units?
11 A. It would be reciprocal time; for example, one
12 over years.
13 Q. And you don't recall what that value might
14 have been?
15 A. No, if in fact I made such calculations.
16 That's some time ago.
17 Q. Why would you -- if you made such
18 calculations, why would you not have pursued those
19 calculations?
20 A. Because it's my belief that the phosphorus
21 uptake potential of a wetland is more appropriately
22 described as area specific than volume specific.
23 Q. And the basis for that opinion is?
24 A. That a given square meter of wetland should
25 not remove twice as much phosphorus if the water is
0478
KADLEC
1 twice as deep.
2 Q. Is depth important for phosphorus removal in
3 a wetland?
4 A. It may have effects on phosphorus removal.
5 Q. And what factors of depth would affect
6 phosphorus removal?
7 A. What do you mean by the word "factors" of
8 depth?
9 Q. I'm trying to -- I think we have agreed that
10 depth may be important in your opinion to a wetland,
11 and I guess I would rephrase my question to say how
12 might depth be important in a wetland?
13 MR. GARVER: For P removal?
14 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
15 A. Well, one such way would be as an influence
16 on the type of vegetation that could be sustained in
17 such a wetland.
18 Q. Is it your opinion that there is no
19 correlation between depth and performance of a
20 wetland -- is it your opinion that there is no
21 correlation between depth and performance of a wetland?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What is your opinion with respect to
24 correlation between depth and performance?
25 MR. GARVER: Do you mean performance
0479
KADLEC
1 with respect to phosphorus removal?
2 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
3 A. I'm sorry. Please repeat the question.
4 Q. Referring back to your testimony a short
5 while ago with respect to the Kadlec-Newman paper, I'm
6 asking you what your opinion is with respect to the
7 correlation or say with respect to the relationship
8 between depth and performance of a wetland.
9 MR. GARVER: With respect to phosphorus
10 removal?
11 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
12 A. In what connection are you referencing the
13 Kadlec-Newman document?
14 Q. Just your former testimony or your earlier
15 testimony today in response to some of my questions.
16 You cited to that report with respect to support for an
17 opinion concerning the relationship between depth and
18 performance.
19 A. No, the conclusion in that report I believe
20 is that there was no support for a hypothesis that a
21 volume specific uptake rate was to be preferred to an
22 area specific uptake rate. The issue of a depth
23 dependence of performance is in several ways separate
24 from that. I do believe that there is an effect of
25 depth on phosphorus removal in more than one way, as I
0480
KADLEC
1 have indicated.
2 Q. Is there an optimum depth in your opinion for
3 water in a wetland for optimum P removal?
4 MR. GARVER: I object to form.
5 A. There may be.
6 Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to
7 whether there is for WCA2A?
8 A. There may be.
9 Q. Your opinion is that there may be?
10 A. An optimum depth for P removal in WCA2A.
11 Q. And what in your opinion is that optimum
12 depth?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Do you have an opinion as to what an optimum
15 depth might be for P removal in the W -- I'm sorry --
16 in the STAs?
17 A. I think there's a range of possibilities.
18 Q. And what are those ranges?
19 A. I think that range would be from a fairly
20 shallow depth, something perhaps approximating a foot
21 or thereabouts, on up to an upper range where the
22 system would become aquatic, which might be on the
23 order of perhaps four feet.
24 Q. And in your opinion, should that -- should
25 that -- strike that.
0481
KADLEC
1 How, if at all, does your model account
2 for the effects of depth that you have testified to?
3 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
4 A. I would ask you to define what you mean by
5 "your model".
6 Q. Plug flow model for 2A.
7 A. Depth dependence in the model represented in
8 part by the equations 10 and 11 in Exhibit 6, which I
9 believe is what you're referring to, the depth effects
10 are imbedded in the rate constant, the uptake constant,
11 settling rate constant, KE.
12 Q. How does that settling rate constant account
13 for depth?
14 A. That was not my answer. My answer was that
15 depth effects are contained within KE, and that KE is
16 expected to depend in some way upon depth.
17 Q. Does the depth of water in the STAs change
18 the size of STAs to treat the water to the target
19 levels of the SWIM plan?
20 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
21 MR. BURGESS: I withdraw the question.
22 Q. Dr. Kadlec, how do variations in depth of up
23 to on the order of four feet -- which I think you have
24 testified to -- affect the phosphorus removal
25 performance of a wetland?
0482
KADLEC
1 MR. GARVER: I don't believe Dr. Kadlec
2 testified to variations up to four feet.
3 MR. BURGESS: I think he said depths of
4 up to four feet.
5 A. I believe that I said that depths could be
6 imagined for phosphorus uptake in wetlands. They could
7 operate at depths between a foot and four feet.
8 Q. Well, I guess my question is, how do
9 variations in depth on the order of up to four feet,
10 the fluctuation in the depth of the water, how does
11 that affect the phosphorus removal performance of a
12 wetland?
13 A. Wetlands which undergo depth fluctuations in
14 that range would be expected to have some particular
15 performance, and I would anticipate that if a different
16 depth fluctuation were imposed on the same wetland,
17 that there would be a difference in phosphorus
18 removal. I could not quantify it at this point.
19 Q. For answering my question did you assume that
20 we had a constant depth of water and then fluctuation
21 of four feet for a period of time?
22 A. Well, I believe we are talking within a
23 general context of Conservation Area 2A and similar
24 systems --
25 Q. Right.
0483
KADLEC
1 A. -- which do undergo fluctuations in water
2 depths about a mean over some time period in question,
3 yes.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. So my answer was relative to what WCA2A, for
6 instance, was doing at a depth of four feet, as
7 distinguished from what it was doing at a depth of one
8 feet -- one foot. I would have to analyze information,
9 if sufficient information were available, to make such
10 a determination.
11 Q. If I recall your testimony earlier, you had
12 no opinion as to what the optimum depth of WCA2A would
13 be for phosphorus removal; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what do you base your opinion on with
16 respect to design of STAs with a range of depth of one
17 to two feet?
18 MR. GARVER: I'm not sure that's what
19 Dr. Kadlec stated.
20 A. I don't believe I did make such a statement.
21 Q. What is the basis for your opinion as to the
22 optimum design parameter of depth in the STAs, in view
23 of the fact that you have testified you don't know what
24 the optimum depth is in 2A for a phosphorus removal?
25 A. In the absence of information on the depth
0484
KADLEC
1 dependence, it's my opinion that a utilization of the
2 same depth variability into A should be utilized in the
3 design of the STAs.
4 Q. And is it your understanding that that depth
5 variability has been incorporated into the conceptual
6 design of the STAs by Burns & McDonnell?
7 A. With one exception, yes.
8 Q. What is that exception?
9 A. With the exception that the dry end of the
10 water depth range has been removed; in other words, the
11 STAs should not be allowed to dry out.
12 Q. Do you agree with that design parameter?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why?
15 A. By the design parameter, I think your
16 referent is the no dryout period; is that correct?
17 Q. Yes, sir.
18 A. I agree with that, because I believe that
19 dryout has the effect of removing a period of time of
20 possible phosphorus removal for the wetland, as well as
21 perhaps bringing into play sediment oxidation
22 processes.
23 Q. And why should that period of time be
24 removed?
25 A. So that the STA would be operational as large
0485
KADLEC
1 a fraction of the time as possible.
2 Q. In your opinion, is phosphorus not being --
3 strike that.
4 With respect to the Everglades, do you
5 have an opinion as to when plants grow best, growing
6 season?
7 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
8 A. Well, do you mean during what period of the
9 year?
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. It is my general impression that growth
12 proceeds throughout the year, but to differing degrees.
13 Q. Do plants in the Everglades grow best when
14 the soil is moist or when there is standing water on
15 the soil?
16 A. I would presume that that would depend on
17 which plant species you're referring to.
18 Q. Okay. Let me refer you to Exhibit 10.
19 A. I have Exhibit 10 in front of me.
20 Q. Thank you. In Paragraph 2 --
21 A. Excuse me. What page?
22 Q. I'm sorry. In the executive summary.
23 A. Paragraph -- Item 2.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Okay.
0486
KADLEC
1 Q. The second sentence begins: The degree of
2 confidence in the 8 meter a year value involves three
3 major concerns; the validity of the 8 meter a year in
4 describing phosphorus removal determined from the
5 transects studied in 2A, the transferability of the 8
6 meter a year value from the WCA2A to the proposed STA
7 sites, and support for the 8 meter a year value from
8 independent data sources.
9 Dr. Kadlec, substituting for 8 meter a
10 year the term "close to 10 meters a year", would you
11 agree that the degree of confidence in 10 meters a year
12 would involve those three factors?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Any other factors that bear upon the degree
15 of confidence in that settling rate constant?
16 A. I'm sure there may be, but I can't at this
17 point in time speculate on all of them.
18 Q. Okay. Paragraph B down further on the page,
19 again, substituting 10 for 8, The transferability of 10
20 meters a year to the STAs is based on similitude
21 between the conditions in the STAs and the WCA2A site.
22 Would you agree with that statement?
23 A. Not entirely.
24 Q. What, in your opinion, is the transferability
25 of a settling rate constant derived from WCA2A data
0487
KADLEC
1 dependent upon?
2 A. Well, there needs to be a definition of the
3 word "transferability" before this question can be
4 properly addressed.
5 Q. Are you utilizing -- for purposes of your
6 calculations arriving at the 10 meter a year K value,
7 are you using data from 2A?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And are you attempting to transfer that K
10 value, arrived at from using that 2A data, to an
11 estimation of the size for stormwater treatment areas
12 to be constructed on lands that are not located within
13 WCA2A?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That is the context in which I mean
16 "transfer". Does that help?
17 A. Well, I would ask one further question as to
18 whether or not you mean transferability in the sense of
19 the basis of design of the STAs.
20 Q. It is for the determination of acreage. Is
21 that what you're asking?
22 A. The reason that I'm asking you for
23 clarification is the basis of design is the long-term
24 sustainable removal of phosphorus as opposed to the
25 start-up period of such a system, and I draw a
0488
KADLEC
1 distinction between the two in the context of the word
2 "transferability".
3 Q. Will the systems operate differently over the
4 long-term than during the short-term start-up period?
5 MR. GARVER: Asks for speculation.
6 Objection.
7 Q. Do you have an opinion?
8 A. What do you mean by "the systems"?
9 Q. In the context that you used the word, the
10 STAs.
11 A. It's my opinion that the long-term
12 sustainable phosphorus removal potential of WCA2A is
13 transferable under appropriate conditions,
14 knowledgeable conditions of hydrology and other design
15 parameters to the STAs.
16 Q. I guess what are those -- what are those
17 factors that you just mentioned, hydrology among
18 others, that are transferable to the STAs?
19 A. They are the other design factors such as the
20 nature of vegetation, depth, hydraulic loading that we
21 have alluded to in previous lines of questioning.
22 Q. Do factors such as vegetation, depth and
23 hydraulic loading, in your opinion need to be similar
24 between the STAs and the WCA2A?
25 A. To some degree, yes.
0489
KADLEC
1 Q. To what degree does the vegetation need to be
2 similar?
3 A. In general terms, I would expect it would
4 need to be soft tissue emergent macrophytes.
5 Q. To what degree does the depth need to be
6 similar?
7 A. It would need to approximate the hydroperiod,
8 with the exception of the nondryout period, that exists
9 in Water Conservation Area 2A.
10 Q. And is it your understanding that that
11 hydroperiod in 2A goes from zero to four feet?
12 A. I believe those are the -- below zero in some
13 instances to approximately four feet is the best of my
14 recollection, yes.
15 Q. When you say that the dryout periods are not
16 to be considered, at what level is the water in 2A --
17 when is 2A dry?
18 A. When there's no standing water.
19 Q. So the period of time from 2A that you would
20 remove as a transferable design parameter would be when
21 the water is below the surface or when there is no
22 standing water on the surface?
23 A. I did not mean to imply at any time that the
24 dryout period was a transferable design parameter.
25 Quite the contrary. It's a perceived improvement to
0490
KADLEC
1 not use such a dryout period.
2 Q. Do you have any opinions as to whether the
3 vegetation in the STAs will in a general sense remove
4 phosphorus from the water column better than vegetation
5 in WCA2A?
6 A. I would expect the function of a given
7 macrophyte in the STA to be closely approximated to
8 that performance in WCA2A.
9 Q. So it would be your opinion that macrophytes
10 grow better under conditions of continual standing
11 water than conditions where they have been allowed
12 to -- strike that.
13 It would be your opinion that
14 macrophytes grow better under conditions of continual
15 standing water than under conditions experienced in
16 WCA2A?
17 A. I don't believe I made such a statement.
18 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether
19 macrophytes would grow better under continual standing
20 water than under conditions where the soil is allowed
21 to dry out from time to time?
22 A. I think that would depend on which macrophyte
23 you are referring to.
24 Q. Does it make any difference to you,
25 Dr. Kadlec, with respect to answering these questions
0491
KADLEC
1 concerning transferability, and specifically with
2 vegetation, that WCA2A has been -- that the macrophytes
3 in WCA2A have been subjected to periods of drought and
4 drying, or certainly periods of no standing water, and
5 that the macrophytes in the STAs are going to be
6 subjected to continual flooding?
7 MR. GARVER: Objection to the form.
8 A. I don't know what you mean by make any
9 difference to me. I take your question to mean do I
10 believe this has an influence on design.
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. And in that case, my answer is I do not think
13 it has a significant influence on design.
14 Q. Have you attempted to quantify the influence
15 at all?
16 A. Indirectly.
17 Q. And how have you done that?
18 A. By comparison of information on the
19 phosphorus removal potential as measured by a settling
20 rate constant in Florida systems which do not undergo
21 the dryout and other phenomena that you alluded to, and
22 comparing them to the same number for Water
23 Conservation Area 2A.
24 Q. Do any of the systems that you testified you
25 might rely on at the hearing, do any of the systems
0492
KADLEC
1 from Florida, are they subjected to periods of drying
2 out?
3 A. Water Conservation Area 2A.
4 Q. Other than that.
5 A. Of those that I have said I would rely upon,
6 I don't believe so.
7 Q. On a per unit area basis, do you feel that
8 the macrophytes in the STAs will uptake phosphorus
9 better than the macrophytes in WCA2A?
10 A. I would ask you what you mean by "uptake" in
11 this context of this question.
12 Q. Remove phosphorus from the soil-poor water or
13 from the water column.
14 A. Is the premise of the question is there the
15 same vegetation density, biomass and species?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. And it is the amount of -- you're referring
18 to the amount of phosphorus taken up by the plant or
19 the overall settling rate concept that we have been
20 talking about?
21 Q. Talking about the amount of phosphorus taken
22 up by the plant.
23 A. It would be my opinion that there might be
24 minor differences due to the minor differences in
25 hydroperiod of the growth of a macrophyte, and
0493
KADLEC
1 consequently minor differences in the macrophyte
2 portion of phosphorus uptake.
3 Q. Dr. Kadlec, in your opinion the fact that the
4 STAs are not going to be subject to drought, is that,
5 in your opinion, an enhancement over the conditions
6 which obtain in WCA2A from a macrophyte standpoint?
7 MR. GARVER: I'll object to the form.
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Do you have any concerns or questions about
10 whether WCA -- I'm sorry -- whether the macrophytes in
11 the STAs will remove phosphorus from the water
12 column -- strike that.
13 Do you know what the water depth or
14 range of water depths are for Boney Marsh and for Iron
15 Bridge?
16 A. I have information on water depths for Boney
17 Marsh, and I have also rough information on water
18 depths for Iron Bridge.
19 Q. How do they compare to the water depths
20 proposed for the STAs?
21 A. They are within the range proposed.
22 Q. What is your -- could I ask you to turn to
23 Exhibit 8.
24 A. What page, please?
25 Q. 9-4. Let's see if that refreshes your
0494
KADLEC
1 recollection at all with respect to water depth.
2 A. It does not.
3 Q. Okay. When you say that the water depths at
4 Iron Bridge and Boney Marsh are within the range of
5 that proposed by the STAs, what do you mean?
6 A. Well, it's my understanding from the
7 conceptual design document that the range in depths for
8 the STAs is going to approximate that for WCA2A, with
9 the exception of the dry period, so the range in depths
10 would be from zero to four feet, and Boney Marsh and
11 Iron Bridge are generally, in general terms, within
12 that range.
13 Q. Do they also fluctuate from between zero and
14 four feet?
15 A. There are fluctuations. The hydroperiod
16 curves are different.
17 Q. Is there a mean average depth for Boney Marsh
18 and Iron Bridge?
19 A. A mean depth for Boney Marsh could be
20 computed from the data available in the period of
21 record for that system, yes. I don't know that number
22 as I sit here today.
23 Q. How about for Iron Bridge; do you know what
24 the average depth is in Iron Bridge?
25 A. I do not.
0495
KADLEC
1 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
2 typha takes up phosphorus when there is no standing
3 water?
4 A. I would ask you what you mean by "takes up".
5 Is it in the nature of storage of phosphorus in the
6 plant tissues, or do you mean the long-term average
7 settling process that we have discussed in most other
8 contexts?
9 Q. Does it remove phosphorus from the soil-poor
10 water?
11 MR. GARVER: I'll object to the form.
12 A. It may.
13 Q. What is your "may" dependent upon?
14 A. Well, in the climate in which we sit and the
15 period of time of year in which we are sitting here, I
16 don't believe the typha is, as of yet, removing
17 phosphorus from poor water.
18 Q. How about in the Everglades?
19 A. I would imagine in the Everglades, in the
20 same time period, that growth of typha requires
21 phosphorus from the poor water, yes.
22 Q. Do you have an opinions as to the depth at
23 which the typha can take P from the poor water?
24 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
25 A. Well, in general terms a plant can take
0496
KADLEC
1 phosphorus from its rhizosphere.
2 Q. So whatever the depth of the root of the
3 typha is the depth at which it can remove P from the
4 poor water?
5 A. That would be the range of possibility, yes.
6 Q. Do you have any opinions as to what, on
7 average, the depth of the root system is for typha in
8 the Everglades?
9 A. I have no direct data on typha in the
10 Everglades as I sit here today.
11 Q. Okay. Back to Exhibit 10, please. Over onto
12 the next page. Yeah. The paragraph beginning, "A
13 major issue of concern is the expected water
14 chemistry. The required implementation of the BMP
15 activities in the EAA may significantly change the
16 relative amounts of dissolved and particulate
17 phosphorus reaching the STAs".
18 Do you agree with that statement?
19 A. Not entirely.
20 Q. Do you agree that the BMPs may change the
21 relative amounts of dissolved and particulate
22 phosphorus?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The next sentence reads, "It is possible that
25 the particulate fraction of phosphorus reaching the
0497
KADLEC
1 STAs will be less than that experienced in WCA2A".
2 Do you agree with that statement?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The next sentence reads, "As a result, the
5 treatment performance of the STAs may not be the same
6 as the performance observed in 2A".
7 Do you agree with that statement?
8 A. No.
9 Q. What's the basis for your disagreement?
10 A. My basis for disagreement is that other
11 Florida systems which receive particulate fractions
12 less than Water Conservation Area 2A do not display a
13 lowered value of the settling rate.
14 Q. What systems are those?
15 A. Iron Bridge.
16 Q. Any others?
17 A. There are other systems outside Florida.
18 Q. Do you anticipate that at the hearing you
19 will render an opinion that the performance of the STAs
20 will not depend upon the amounts of dissolved and
21 particulate phosphorus which may be reaching them?
22 A. I would not expect to make that precise
23 statement, no.
24 Q. Okay. Of the other systems that you
25 mentioned are outside of Florida and that receive
0498
KADLEC
1 particulate phosphorus less than that experienced in
2 2A, were any of those systems systems which you
3 mentioned you may rely upon for the purpose of
4 expressing opinion at the area hearing?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Which one?
7 A. Well, I can't, as I sit here, quickly
8 identify all such systems. Would you like me to go
9 through the list? I can in general terms tell you that
10 those systems that receive a fairly highly treated
11 municipal waste water typically contain a small
12 particulate fraction, and those systems, both in and
13 out of Florida, fall in the category of those that
14 offer information on low particulate incoming waters.
15 Q. Would you expect to testify at the time of
16 the hearing that the removal rate for the STAs will not
17 depend upon the form of phosphorus between dissolved
18 and particulate phosphorus that they are going to
19 receive?
20 A. No.
21 Q. What would you anticipate your testimony to
22 be on this subject at the hearing?
23 A. I would anticipate that my testimony would be
24 of the nature that anticipated changes in the fraction
25 of particulate material coming from the EAA as a result
0499
KADLEC
1 of BMPs would not be greatly different from that which
2 exists at the present time in terms of the character of
3 the particulate material, and perhaps not greatly
4 different in the fraction of particulate material, and
5 that other information from sites which have less
6 particulate do not reflect a substantial reduction, in
7 fact, reflect no reduction in the settling rate to be
8 expected.
9 MR. GARVER: Mr. Burgess, if you are
10 about to get started, could we take a very short
11 break?
12 MR. BURGESS: Very short.
13 (Recess taken: 11:30 - 11:35)
14 (Mr. Marin exits.)
15 (Deposition Exhibit No. 11
16 marked for identification.)
17 Q. Dr. Kadlec, let me show you what's been
18 marked as Exhibit 11 and ask you if you can identify
19 that.
20 A. This appears to be the hard copy of materials
21 that I used in a conference at LSU a few weeks ago.
22 Q. Can you turn to Page 1112243.
23 A. (Witness complied.)
24 Q. What does that table show?
25 A. This table was not used in the presentation.
0500
KADLEC
1 It was an initial effort to attempt to separate forms
2 of phosphorus at Boney Marsh, and I did not include it
3 in the presentation because I realized that this
4 particular breakdown should not have been carried
5 through to a settling rate constant, that that is
6 inappropriate in terms of mass balances, but it is an
7 attempt, an erroneous one in my view, to attempt to
8 partition the forms of the phosphorus in terms of the
9 settling rate.
10 Q. The figures on the right under rate constant
11 meters per year, is that equivalent to a settling rate?
12 A. That is computed in the same way as a
13 settling rate for the fraction of phosphorus indicated,
14 yes.
15 Q. Those are fractions of phosphorus that were
16 in the water column in Boney Marsh in 1986; is that
17 correct?
18 A. 1986 Boney Marsh data, yes.
19 Q. And those rate constants are not all the
20 same, are they?
21 A. Those rate constants should not have been
22 calculated.
23 Q. Why not?
24 A. Because the settling rate process by mass
25 balance can only be applied to an element or
0501
KADLEC
1 constituent like total phosphorus, not to individual
2 species which may interconvert in the wetland. Having
3 realized that, I did not use this table in the
4 presentation.
5 Q. When did you realize that, compared to when
6 you prepared the table?
7 A. Within hours.
8 Q. What did you intend to show through
9 preparation of this table?
10 A. It was an attempt to see if I could extract
11 some information on the relative rates at which the
12 forms of phosphorus interacted with the ecosystem.
13 Q. And why is it an incorrect or invalid result
14 in your mind?
15 MR. GARVER: Objection; asked and
16 answered.
17 A. Because the various forms of phosphorus
18 undergo processes not described by the settling rate
19 model, interconversions.
20 Q. How fast do those interconnections occur?
21 MR. GARVER: Interconversions.
22 Q. Interconversion?
23 A. It depends on which one or which process you
24 might mean.
25 Q. If the ratios -- no, strike that.
0502
KADLEC
1 If the form of phosphorus were to
2 change, and by that I mean particulate phosphorus were
3 to interconnect or interconvert to dissolved organic
4 phosphorus, would the rate constant associated with
5 dissolved organic phosphorus change?
6 A. I'm sorry. Repeat that. What is
7 interconverting to what, please?
8 Q. Well, I think you said the reason that this
9 exercise was not valid is you somehow discovered,
10 realized, or thought about it further and realized that
11 forms of phosphorus -- what was your term?
12 Interconvert?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Interconvert, such that the settling rate
15 concept wasn't valid.
16 A. Correct. Wasn't valid for individual
17 species.
18 Q. It is in your mind only valid for total P, or
19 for what? What, in your mind, is it valid for?
20 A. In my mind it should be applied to total P.
21 Q. Only?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether
24 or not dissolved organic P would stay in the water
25 column for a longer period of time relative to ortho P?
0503
KADLEC
1 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
2 A. I would have to ask, what water column are
3 you referring to?
4 Q. I meant it in the abstract, but I'll confine
5 it to the Everglades.
6 A. So we're referring to a water column in an
7 Everglades wetland?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. In general terms, I believe ortho phosphorus
10 is a more reactive species than dissolved organic
11 phosphorus.
12 Q. And does that mean that in your opinion
13 dissolved organic phosphorus would remain in the water
14 column for a longer period of time relative to ortho
15 phosphorus?
16 A. That does not in my mind necessarily follow,
17 because of a wide variety of other factors which would
18 need to be known.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that the chart on
20 Page No. 111243 indicates that dissolved organic
21 phosphorus has a lower or is the lowest settling rate
22 amongst the four varieties of phosphorus listed on the
23 page?
24 A. I would agree that the incorrectly presented
25 number or incorrectly computed conceptually wrong
0504
KADLEC
1 number listed for dissolved organic phosphorus of 5.2
2 is a lower number than the same incorrectly contrived
3 number for ortho phosphorus, yes.
4 Q. How would you correctly derive the relative
5 settling rates for the various fractions of phosphorus?
6 A. I don't believe it can be done, because the
7 settling rate concept is a combination of all processes
8 operating at a locality in a wetland ecosystem that
9 does not distinguish between forms of phosphorus.
10 Q. How would one then go about determining the
11 ability of a wetland to remove one form of phosphorus
12 better than another form of phosphorus?
13 A. The ideal experiment, to answer that
14 question, would be to subject a same wetland, under
15 identical conditions of climate, hydrology and all
16 other factors, to first a flow involving particulate
17 phosphorus, and then the second part of the experiment,
18 identical conditions to another form of phosphorus to
19 assess the differences.
20 Q. Some sort of a dosing study; would that be
21 appropriate?
22 A. Not necessarily.
23 Q. Other than subjecting the wetland to two
24 different forms for a period of time, is there any
25 other way that you are aware of you can distinguish
0505
KADLEC
1 between the relative removal abilities?
2 A. One can also compare wetlands in the same
3 region receiving different types of water with
4 comparable wetlands in the same region, and evaluate
5 potential differences from their performance data.
6 Q. Okay. Is that what you intend to do at the
7 hearing?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Dr. Kadlec, the rate constants on the page
10 we're discussing, those were not in fact incorrectly
11 calculated, were they?
12 A. They are based on an incorrect concept.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. They ignore interconversion rates.
15 Q. The calculations though to arrive at those
16 numbers were not invalid, were they, or incorrect?
17 A. Not to my knowledge. They were not numerical
18 errors, to my knowledge.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you.
20 Do you have any opinions as to whether
21 or not dissolved organic P moves further down the
22 gradient in WCA2A than any other fraction of
23 phosphorus?
24 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
25 A. Well, not at this time.
0506
KADLEC
1 Q. Do you anticipate that you will be
2 investigating that before the time of the hearing?
3 A. I have no such anticipation.
4 Q. Dr. Kadlec, is it your testimony that the
5 model which you used to derive the settling rate
6 constant will not discriminate among these various
7 phosphorus forms?
8 A. Not directly.
9 Q. Okay. Is it a mechanistic model?
10 A. I don't know that I understand what you mean
11 by "mechanistic".
12 Q. Would you consider it, in your definition of
13 the term "mechanistic", to be a mechanistic model?
14 A. Okay. In order that I can be clear, what is
15 the equation representation model to which you refer?
16 Q. I'll withdraw the question.
17 Dr. Kadlec, how does your model not
18 directly discriminate among the P forms?
19 MR. GARVER: Objection to form.
20 A. I need to know what you mean by "your model".
21 Q. The model you used to derive the K to which
22 you just said it does not directly discriminate among
23 the P forms.
24 A. Well, I believe in the context in which we're
25 currently talking, you may be referring to models
0507
KADLEC
1 represented by equations in Exhibit 6.
2 Q. Yes, sir.
3 A. There is no differentiation between the forms
4 of P, because those equations and those models refer to
5 total phosphorus in the water column, as well as total
6 phosphorus removed by sedimentation processes, settling
7 processes, uptake.
8 Q. Back to Exhibit 10, if we could.
9 Dr. Kadlec, with respect to the systems
10 that you have said you might rely upon, and
11 specifically Boney Marsh, Iron Bridge, Jackson Bottoms,
12 WCA2A, have those in your opinion reached steady state
13 with respect to macrophytes?
14 A. Well, we had encountered those words earlier,
15 and I would like to be sure I understand what you mean
16 by "steady state".
17 Q. Your definition of steady state is in the
18 record, so you may answer it using your definition of
19 steady state. You mean steady state, not stationary
20 state; is that right?
21 MR. BURGESS: His definitions of both
22 are on the record, and if you would like to repeat your
23 definition, you may do so.
24 A. I think I recall what those were. Steady
25 state and stationary state must however -- I think your
0508
KADLEC
1 question refers to vegetation?
2 Q. Yes, sir.
3 A. All right. One of the systems was Boney
4 Marsh.
5 Q. Yes. Iron Bridge? If you want, we will take
6 them individually. That would be fine.
7 A. Yes, please.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I mean I don't remember them all.
10 Boney Marsh, it is my impression that
11 the vegetation -- first of all, let me make one
12 comment, and that is that the Boney Marsh system was
13 studied for a period up through 1986, so reference to
14 the present condition is perhaps not what you meant.
15 Q. Okay. Your anticipated testimony at trial,
16 will that discuss conditions at the Boney Marsh up
17 until 1986?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Then my question is with respect to
20 conditions in 1986.
21 A. So in 1986 was the vegetation at a steady or
22 stationary state? And my answer would be that the
23 major portions of it were, or close to or at what I
24 would call a stationary state.
25 Q. What portions were not?
0509
KADLEC
1 A. There's a possibility -- and I have not fully
2 reviewed all of the information at this time -- that
3 the very downstream-most end was still undergoing some
4 changes.
5 Q. The edge of the affected area?
6 A. I don't know that I associate a term like
7 "affected area" with the Boney Marsh project.
8 Q. What macrophytes were at the downstream edge
9 of that project?
10 A. I would have to refer to data to answer that
11 question.
12 Q. I think you just indicated that major
13 portions of it were not at stationary state, and my
14 question was whether they were not -- whether they were
15 at steady state, utilizing your definition.
16 Do you believe -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
17 A. Well, I think I just said the opposite, so
18 let me try and say it again.
19 I think that the largest portions of
20 Boney Marsh with respect to vegetation may have been
21 close to steady state or stationary state, in the way
22 that I would prefer to use the terminology.
23 Q. We need to define, I think, stationary state
24 and steady state with respect to macrophytes again on
25 the record, because my understanding was that you had
0510
KADLEC
1 not previously defined them to be similar. By that I
2 mean you were not using the term interchangeably.
3 A. I would prefer not to.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. It's my preference to refer to a steady state
6 situation as one that has no time variability
7 whatsoever on any time scale.
8 Q. Can macrophytes or vegetation in your mind in
9 a wetland ever be at steady state?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And how do you define "stationary state"?
12 A. Stationary state is one in which the
13 vegetation, although undergoing changes, returns within
14 a specified period of time to a condition similar to
15 that at the beginning of that period of time. So it
16 may be undergoing short-term variability as well as
17 cyclic seasonal processes, but on average looks the
18 same in one year compared to the previous year, the
19 distinction being the allowance of repetitive and some
20 degree of variability.
21 Q. Given the caveat that you have said in your
22 opinion that vegetation can never be at steady state, I
23 understand your testimony with respect to Boney Marsh.
24 In your opinion, has the vegetation at
25 Iron Bridge reached stationary state?
0511
KADLEC
1 A. Some of it has. In answer, Iron Bridge is a
2 difficult system. In some cells, vegetation management
3 has been attempted, and that makes a generic or general
4 answer to your question difficult.
5 Q. Can we answer it for those cells where
6 vegetation management hasn't been attempted and those
7 cells where it has?
8 A. Well, information is not available from all
9 cells. The cells where information is available, it is
10 my impression that a close approximation of the
11 stationary state has been achieved.
12 Q. I'm sorry. In those cells where they are
13 managed?
14 A. In those cells where data is available.
15 Q. I'm sorry. Thank you.
16 A. I believe. But I would have to refer to
17 actual data to see which cells are managed, which
18 aren't, and where the data on vegetation has been
19 made -- has been taken.
20 Q. Okay. Do you anticipate at the time of trial
21 that you will be giving opinions as to whether or not
22 the vegetation in the various sites that you said you
23 might consider in your opinions has or has not reached
24 stationary state?
25 A. I would expect so, yes.
0512
KADLEC
1 Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to the
2 vegetation at Jackson Bottoms, whether or not it has
3 reached stationary state?
4 A. I have not reviewed the most recent data from
5 that system. My general impression from site visits is
6 that it may have reached a stationary state with
7 respect to biomass, but perhaps not with respect to
8 species composition.
9 Q. Does the first order model that you and
10 Dr. Walker have used to estimate the P settling rate
11 require a steady state condition in order to be valid?
12 A. The calculation procedures can be applied
13 under either condition, and I attempt to draw a
14 distinction between a stationary state description
15 resulting in a settling rate coefficient, whereas a
16 nonstationary state results in a calculation of what I
17 term an uptake coefficient.
18 Q. And what is or are the differences between
19 the two?
20 A. When an ecosystem is undergoing
21 unidirectional change, the total removal of phosphorus,
22 from the water passing through it, is being utilized in
23 transient storage compartments as well as in the
24 long-term removal mechanisms.
25 Q. If in fact, as you previously testified,
0513
KADLEC
1 vegetation in wetlands can never be at a steady state,
2 is it your opinion that an uptake of coefficient as
3 opposed to a settling rate is the factor to be applied
4 as design criteria?
5 A. In the context of STA design, a long-term
6 average settling rate has been utilized and I believe
7 should continue to be utilized.
8 Q. And how does a long-term average settling
9 rate differ from an uptake coefficient?
10 A. Again, the uptake coefficient refers to those
11 systems who are in a state of ecosystem change, and the
12 design is not -- and in my opinion should not -- be
13 focused on that period of change. It should be focused
14 on the long-term average performance.
15 Q. Have you attempted to calculate an uptake
16 coefficient for the STAs?
17 A. The STAs are not in existence and cannot
18 generate uptake or settling rate coefficient.
19 Q. Have you -- I'm sorry. For WCA2A, have you
20 calculated an uptake coefficient as opposed to a
21 long-term average settling rate?
22 A. Those two terms, when the calculation is made
23 for a period in which a stationary state occurs, there
24 is no difference. The calculation for the long-term
25 situation, which I believe pertains in the zone of 2A
0514
KADLEC
1 that we're discussing, which is the area that has
2 concentrations related to the STA design --
3 Q. How large is that zone?
4 MR. GARVER: Were you done with your
5 answer?
6 MR. BURGESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
7 A. I believe I was close to done with my answer.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I'm sorry. How large is what zone in 2A?
10 Q. Right, the zone that you are saying that
11 we're concerned with for calculation of the long-term
12 average settling rate.
13 A. I can't tell you an exact size as I sit here,
14 but it would be that zone which includes concentrations
15 that exceed the 50 parts per billion, which is the
16 target for the STAs.
17 MR. BURGESS: Mark this.
18 (Deposition Exhibit No. 12 marked for
19 identification.)
20 Q. How do you determine what that zone is? By
21 that I mean that zone that contains more than 50 parts
22 per billion.
23 A. Well, there is information on the phosphorus
24 concentrations on gradients from north to south within
25 Water Conservation Area 2A.
0515
KADLEC
1 Q. Is that South Florida Water Management
2 District data?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Any other data?
5 A. There are also data sets on various
6 parameters on those same gradients by Dr. Reddy's group
7 and by Duke University group.
8 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether or not
9 that zone corresponds to the zone where cattails are
10 seen in WCA2A?
11 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
12 A. I can say that there are cattails in that
13 zone.
14 Q. Do you have any intention to testify at the
15 time of trial concerning the relationship between that
16 50 parts per billion and the abundance of cattail
17 within area where that 50 parts per billion is found?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as
20 Exhibit 12.
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. GARVER: Can I take a look?
23 Q. What is that document, Dr. Kadlec?
24 A. This is a FAX memo of some of my work to
25 Dr. Walker.
0516
KADLEC
1 Q. And what were you attempting to do in that
2 work?
3 A. I was attempting to establish a relationship
4 between -- not a relationship, excuse me. What I mean
5 to say is I was attempting to calculate the areas
6 between the L39 levee and various contours of poor
7 water and soil phosphorus in Area 2A.
8 Q. Can you utilize any of the calculations in
9 that exhibit to tell us, referring back to your
10 testimony a moment ago, with respect to what area
11 contains the 50 parts per billion?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. GARVER: When you say the area
15 contains 50 parts per billion, you mean area bounded by
16 50 parts per billion?
17 MR. BURGESS: I'm sorry. I'll clear it
18 up.
19 Q. Dr. Kadlec, earlier this week you testified
20 that 500 milligrams per kilogram, in your opinion,
21 represent the background levels of soil phosphorus in
22 the Everglades; is that correct?
23 MR. McGRATH: I object to the
24 mischaracterization.
25 MR. BURGESS: The record will stand for
0517
KADLEC
1 itself. I'm just trying to refresh his recollection.
2 A. That is not correct.
3 Q. Okay. What did you say?
4 A. I said I was not prepared to offer an opinion
5 on that, excepting that I believe that 500 milligrams
6 per milligram might represent an upper limit.
7 Q. On background?
8 A. On what background might be perceived to be,
9 yes.
10 Q. Okay. Would you turn to Bates numbered Page
11 1110063.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is this?
14 A. It's a printout of a spreadsheet of
15 information workup in this document.
16 Q. Did you create this spreadsheet?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. Okay. What amount of hectares or acreage --
19 or let's say hectares -- is depicted to be included in
20 the area above 500 milligrams per kilogram total
21 phosphorus in the soil?
22 A. Well, I must point out that the information
23 that's in this entire document is subject to the
24 reservations about accuracy which I have expressed
25 earlier in my testimony, which is that the contours
0518
KADLEC
1 from which this information is derived are those of
2 Dr. Reddy, and the placement of those contours is, in
3 my mind, in question, and I'm awaiting information from
4 the South Florida Water Management District in order to
5 improve this calculation.
6 So in that context, this work that we're
7 inspecting is very preliminary and in my opinion quite
8 probably needs to be altered and has not been reviewed
9 by myself for accuracy and is based on information that
10 may change.
11 In that context, referring to Page
12 1110063, I have made a calculation, I believe -- I'm
13 jumping right into this work, but it appears to
14 tabulate at 600 milligrams per kilogram and above for
15 total phosphorus in whatever horizon it pertains to,
16 which appears to be 0 to 10 centimeters, 133 -- excuse
17 me -- 13372 hectares. I'm sorry. I misspoke, because
18 there's a second area.
19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. I'm sorry. I erred. I was reading a column
21 called "station area" which refers to areas what I
22 believe are upstream of a station, and I should have
23 been on the left-hand side.
24 So upstream of 500 milligrams per
25 kilogram, the number in the table is 13554 hectares.
0519
KADLEC
1 Q. That would be at 500 or above --
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. -- milligrams per kilogram?
4 Okay. Do you have an opinion as to
5 whether or not, subject to the caveats that you have
6 provided, that is the amount of or the number of
7 hectares that are impacted by nutrients above
8 background in Water Conservation Area 2A?
9 A. I would form no such conclusion based on one
10 parameter, and as I said, I don't necessarily believe
11 500 is the background level; it is simply an upper
12 limit on what it may be with respect to soil
13 phosphorus.
14 Q. Do you have any intentions between now and
15 the time of the hearing in this matter to determine
16 what the background of soil phosphorus is in the
17 Everglades?
18 MR. GARVER: I believe that's asked and
19 answered.
20 A. I have no such intention.
21 Q. Do you have any intention to testify at the
22 time of trial relative to what background soil
23 phosphorus concentrations are in the Everglades?
24 MR. GARVER: I believe that's asked and
25 answered also.
0520
KADLEC
1 A. I'm sorry. The exchange caused me to lose
2 concentration. Would you repeat the last question,
3 please?
4 Q. Yes, sir. Do you have any intention at the
5 time of trial on testifying what in your opinion would
6 be the background levels of soil phosphorus in the
7 Everglades?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Could, in your opinion, background soil
10 phosphorus levels be less than 500 milligrams per
11 kilogram?
12 A. I have so stated.
13 Q. Okay. And would that, based upon the
14 document you have in front of you, necessarily increase
15 the number of hectares --
16 MR. GARVER: I object to the form.
17 Q. -- upstream of that lower background number?
18 MR. GARVER: I object to the form. I'm
19 not sure what you refer to by "lower background
20 number".
21 MR. BURGESS: Than the 13554 hectares he
22 has testified to.
23 A. Well, the techniques represented in the rough
24 work document we are inspecting cannot be extended, in
25