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 my opinion, below 500 without new information, and 0521 KADLEC 1 probably not with that, because of the lack of 2 information at any level below I believe 400. So this 3 technique just does not extrapolate to very low soil 4 phosphorus numbers. 5 Q. Below 400? 6 A. There are some areas indicated 400 on the 7 preliminary version of the Reddy contour maps, yes. 8 Q. I ask you to turn to Page 1110061, and if you 9 can keep your finger on the 1110063 which is the work 10 sheet we were just addressing. 11 In order to calculate the upstream area 12 hectare number that you have testified to represents 13 that area above 500 milligrams per kilogram, did you 14 include all of the area depicted above the 500 line on 15 that 0061 page. 16 MR. GARVER: I object to the 17 characterization of the testimony. 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. Is there any other information contained 20 within the exhibit which would indicate to you where, 21 for purposes of the calculation of the number of 22 hectares, you calculated the phosphorus soil 23 concentrations at above 500 milligrams per kilogram? 24 A. I don't know of any offhand. 25 I'm sorry. Is there a question 0522 KADLEC 1 pending? 2 Q. Yeah. The 500 isopleth on 1110061, it would 3 appear to begin at the far eastern area or edge of 2A 4 and continue around but not over to a point where it 5 would intersect with the western edge? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And my question to you is, where would you 8 have calculated the hectare number that you have 9 testified to as being above 500 milligrams per 10 kilogram? What area depicted by that 500 line isopleth 11 would you have included? 12 A. Well, in closer inspection, I think what I 13 probably did -- I can't say with certainty, but I 14 probably extended the western edge of the 500 just to 15 the west of the number 500 to the levee. One of the 16 questions about the data was whether or not Dr. Reddy 17 had in fact just turned the contour to follow the levee 18 or in fact he had measurements that showed 500, and it 19 was my suspicion that the contour had been turned to 20 follow the levee. Consequently I extended -- it 21 appears a dashed line, so I think there's a faint 22 dashed line, at least on my copy, and that's probably 23 what I used. That's one of the reasons that this is 24 not, in my view, finalized. 25 Q. You said that in your mind -- when you 0523 KADLEC 1 provided your caveats to my preliminary question, that 2 in your mind the stations of Dr. Reddy were in question 3 and that therefore the measurements taken utilizing 4 those stations would quite probably need to be 5 altered. 6 I know there's testimony in the record 7 with respect to this ongoing re-examination of 8 stations, but I don't believe there's any testimony 9 from you as to why you believe these stations are in 10 question. Could you tell us? 11 A. In broad outline, yes. I from time to time 12 have conversations with Dr. Walker since we are working 13 on the same project, and in connection with some 14 element of his work, which I cannot recall at the 15 moment, he indicated to me that station locations from 16 the district, Duke University, and the South Florida 17 Water Management District were, in his opinion, not 18 correctly placed. Subsequent to those comments, I 19 think two of the three of those perceptions have been 20 born out, so I suspect a third is going to be born out 21 as well. So that's the source of my information. 22 Q. Okay. 23 MR. GARVER: I believe Dr. Kadlec may 24 have inadvertently said the district twice and excluded 25 Dr. Reddy from his list. 0524 KADLEC 1 A. Yeah, I'm sorry if I did. 2 Q. Do you know whether all of Dr. Reddy's 3 60-plus phosphorus sampling stations are being 4 re-examined? 5 A. I do not. 6 Q. Do you know whether all 60 of those have been 7 called into question? 8 A. I do not. 9 Q. Do you know whether Dr. Reddy used GPS to 10 locate the stations? 11 A. I do not. 12 Q. Dr. Kadlec, do you have an opinion as to what 13 base line poor-water phosphorus is in the Everglades? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Do you anticipate that you will testify at 16 the time of trial as to what base line poor-water 17 phosphorus is? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Will you use poor-water data to make any of 20 your calculations with respect to the settling rate for 21 WCA2A? 22 A. I don't believe so. 23 Q. So it would be your testimony you don't 24 intend to use poor-water phosphorus in any of your 25 equations or models? 0525 KADLEC 1 A. At this time I think that's a correct 2 statement. 3 MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you. Let's 4 go to lunch. 5 MR. GARVER: Sure. 6 (Lunch recess taken: 12:25 - 1:35) 7 (BY MR. BURGESS, Continuing:) 8 Q. Dr. Kadlec, good afternoon. 9 A. Good afternoon. 10 Q. With respect to Paragraph No. 3 on Page IX of 11 Exhibit 10, I direct your attention to the last 12 sentence of that paragraph which reads, "To achieve 13 total phosphorus concentration values equal to or less 14 than 0.050 milligrams per liter consistently, the STAs 15 must be designed to achieve a median effluent 16 concentration below 0.050 milligrams per liter". 17 Do you agree with that statement? 18 A. Well, I agree with the statement insofar as 19 if the design goal of the STAs were to produce total 20 phosphorus concentration values qualify to or less than 21 .05 milligrams per liter, then the median over some 22 time period would likely be below .05 milligrams per 23 liter. 24 Q. And what is your understanding that the STAs 25 are to be designed to achieve? 0526 KADLEC 1 A. As I indicated in testimony yesterday, the 2 actual definition of what the STA compliance is to be 3 is, in my view, as yet not finalized. 4 At the present time, it is my 5 understanding that the STAs are to, in total, achieve 6 50 parts per billion on average over a time period. 7 Q. And that figure appears in the SWIM plan, 8 does it not? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And it also appears in -- 11 A. Do you mean the 50 parts per billion? 12 Q. Yes, sir. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And it also appears in Exhibit C to the 15 settlement agreement; is that correct? 16 A. I would have to look at that to confirm that. 17 MR. PERKO: I think you meant to say 18 Appendix C, counsel. 19 MR. BURGESS: Appendix C. 20 A. Yes, it does. The number 50 parts per 21 billion appears in there. 22 Q. Thank you. 23 With respect to Appendix F to the SWIM 24 plan, which is our Exhibit No. 4, could you tell us 25 where the value 50 parts per billion came from? 0527 KADLEC 1 A. I cannot. 2 Q. What was your involvement, if any, with 3 respect to target phosphorus reduction goals of the 4 STAs from the time after the settlement agreement and 5 its appendices were made public, to the time that you 6 first saw any draft of Appendix F to the SWIM plan? 7 A. I'm sorry. Could you please repeat that? 8 Q. For clarification, we have two items in 9 evidence. One is Appendix C to the settlement 10 agreement, which you just testified has the 50 11 billion -- 50 parts per billion number in it, and also 12 we have Appendix F to the SWIM plan, or our Exhibit 4, 13 which has that number in it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you have been instructed not to answer 16 certain of the questions that I have asked you with 17 respect to the genesis of the 50 parts per billion that 18 appears in the settlement agreement appendix. 19 I'm asking you if you had a role, from 20 the time that the Appendix C to the settlement 21 agreement was published, containing 50 parts per 22 billion, to the time that the SWIM plan Appendix F was 23 published containing the same number. 24 A. Well, I had a role in Everglades issues, and 25 from time to time in what I would term minor ways, the 0528 KADLEC 1 50 parts per billion number would occur in 2 conversations and discussions. 3 Q. Do you recall, Dr. Kadlec, between the time 4 July, 1991, when the settlement was announced, and 5 September, '91, when the first draft of the SWIM plan 6 appeared, whether or not you participated in such 7 discussions with respect to the 50 parts per billion 8 number with anyone from the district? 9 MR. GARVER: Do you mean the first draft 10 of the SWIM plan after the settlement agreement? 11 MR. BURGESS: Yes. 12 A. I can recall no such discussions. 13 Q. How about between September, '91, which is 14 the date of the first draft of the SWIM plan after the 15 settlement, and January of '92, which is the date of 16 the revised SWIM plan? 17 A. I recall no such discussions in that time 18 period. 19 Q. Do you know who authored or principally 20 authored Appendix F to the SWIM plan? 21 A. I do not. 22 Q. And again, I don't want to repeat areas I 23 have inquired to, but I'm not sure I asked this 24 question. 25 Do you know whether or not you reviewed 0529 KADLEC 1 any drafts of that document between -- well, at any 2 time after the settlement was announced in July of '91? 3 A. I did not review drafts of the appendix after 4 the SWIM plan. 5 Q. Did you participate in any discussions where 6 50 parts per billion was discussed as a technology 7 based standard which the STAs could achieve? 8 A. I would ask you to explain what you mean by 9 "technology". 10 Q. Have you ever heard the 50 parts per billion 11 referred to as a technology based standard? 12 A. I may have. 13 Q. What is your understanding of what a 14 technology based standard is? 15 A. I have no clear understanding of the meaning 16 of that term. 17 Q. Do you know whether, between the time of the 18 settlement in July of 1991 and either the September, 19 '91 or January, '92 revised version of the SWIM plan, 20 whether the district considered, as an effluent 21 discharge limitation from the STAs to the water 22 conservations areas, any number other than 50 parts per 23 billion? 24 A. I have no knowledge of that. 25 Please repeat the question. That was 0530 KADLEC 1 really lengthy. I think I answered correctly. 2 MR. BURGESS: Okay. Can you read it 3 back? 4 (Record repeated by court reporter.) 5 A. No, I don't. The answer is correct. 6 Q. Was 50 parts per billion as a target effluent 7 reduction number discussed during your technical team 8 meetings between the time of the stay in the lawsuit in 9 February of '91 and the announcement of the settlement 10 in July of '91? 11 MR. GARVER: I instruct the witness not 12 to answer. 13 MR. BURGESS: Okay. I have many more 14 questions along that regard, but I assume if it 15 inquires into the same subject matter your instruction 16 would be similar? 17 MR. GARVER: I'm not sure exactly what 18 you mean by that. I think that's a pretty broad 19 description. 20 I would not let the witness testify with 21 respect to the details of the substance of discussions 22 in those technical settlement negotiation meetings. 23 MR. BURGESS: And that would include any 24 discussion concerning the genesis of the 50 parts per 25 billion number and any alternate value parts per 0531 KADLEC 1 billion numbers that may have been discussed in those 2 meetings; is that correct? 3 MR. GARVER: With respect to -- that's 4 correct. 5 MR. BURGESS: Okay. We'll seek a ruling 6 on that before we recommence his deposition, and I 7 won't waste our time trying to solicit answers, if you 8 are going to instruct him to not answer. 9 MR. GARVER: Let me be clear. I'm 10 talking about the discussions in those meetings. I 11 will instruct the witness not to testify as to 12 discussion in those technical settlement negotiation 13 meetings. 14 Q. Dr. Kadlec, it's your testimony then that you 15 do not know where the 50 parts per billion value that 16 appears in the appendix to the SWIM plan, where that 17 number came from? 18 MR. GARVER: Asked and answered. 19 A. I have very little and probably no 20 information on that subject. 21 Q. What is the very little information? 22 A. The very little would refer to conversations 23 regarding that number during settlement negotiations. 24 Q. And so that the record is clear, Dr. Kadlec, 25 Appendix C to the settlement agreement which you have 0532 KADLEC 1 testified contains the 50 parts per billion number, is 2 it your testimony that the 50 parts per billion number 3 was arrived at during the settlement agreement 4 negotiations and is a value which in your opinion the 5 size and design of the STAs as called for in Appendix C 6 can meet on a long-term basis? 7 MR. GARVER: I don't believe that's the 8 witness's testimony. I instruct the witness not to 9 answer. 10 Q. Has anyone discussed with you the fact that 11 the 50 parts per billion outflow of phosphorus would 12 support the 32000 acre areas of STAs with the EAA 13 inputs to those STAs? 14 MR. GARVER: I'll object to the form. 15 A. Well, in general terms, the performance of 16 the STAs in terms of the concentrations they achieve 17 and the inflows which they have receive, has been the 18 subject of a lot of discussion during the so-called STA 19 working group meetings. 20 Q. Which were meetings held after the adoption 21 of the SWIM plan; is that correct? 22 A. I'm sorry. I do not know the exact date of 23 adoption of the SWIM plan, so I cannot tell you what 24 the "before" and "after" would be on that. Nor, am I 25 afraid, do I recall the exact date of the first STA 0533 KADLEC 1 working group meeting. 2 Q. Well, the revised SWIM plan was proposed in 3 January of 1992. Do you recall whether any STA design 4 working group meetings which you attended occurred 5 prior to that date? 6 A. I don't recall exactly, no. It's possible. 7 Q. Do you know the -- do you know where the 50 8 parts per billion -- strike that. 9 Do you know how the 50 parts per billion 10