193
1 Division of Administrative Hearings
2 Department of Administration, State of Florida
3
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )
WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., )
5 Petitioners )
V ) DOAH Case
6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3038
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
7 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
8
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
9 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
10 Petitioners, )
V ) DOAH Case
11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3039
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
12 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
13
FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )
14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
16 V ) DOAH Case
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3040
17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
18 Respondents. )
19
VOLUME II
20 DEPOSITION OF GALEN MILLER, P.E.
21 Taken before Rachel W. Bridge, Professional
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
22 Florida at large, pursuant to notice of taking
deposition filed by the Petitioners in the above
23 cause.
- - -
24 Thursday, February 4, 1993
319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
9:15 a.m. - 3:05 o'clock p.m.
194
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
3 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
and New South Hope, Inc.:
4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
6 By: RICHARD BURGESS, ESQUIRE
7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICK & KAUFMAN, LTD.
8 4000 International Place
100 S.E. Second Street
9 Miami, Florida 33131
By: PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10
On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
11 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street
12 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE
13
On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:
14 Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of Florida
15 Department of Justice
155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600
16 Miami, Florida 33130
By: SUZAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQUIRE
17
Also Present: Dr. John Davis
18 Ronald K. Munson
Ed Barber
195
1
I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
4 GALEN E. MILLER
5 BY MR. BURGESS 196
BY MR. PERKO 315
6
E X H I B I T S
7
NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
8
MILLER EXHIBIT 14 206 12-24-92 fax from Robert Kadlec
9 to G. Miller re phosphorus
mass balances
10
MILLER EXHIBIT 15 215 1-31-92 letter to Gary Goforth
11 from G. Miller, with attachments
12 MILLER EXHIBIT 16 236 Dec. '92 Draft of Historical
Phosphorus Loads for the EAA
13
MILLER EXHIBIT 17 237 Jan. '93 Draft of Adjustments to
14 EAA discharges due to
Implementation of BMPs
15
MILLER EXHIBIT 18 247 Nov. 18, '92 Historical Discharge
16 Data for the EAA
17 MILLER EXHIBIT 19 294 Everglades SWIM Plan, Appendix F
18 MILLER EXHIBIT 20 301 Resume of Galen E. Miller, P.E.
19 MILLER EXHIBIT 21 332 11-15-91 Memo to STA Design
Review Team from Pete Rhoads
20
MILLER EXHIBIT 22 340 11-3-92 Fax to Zan Kugler
21 from Galen Miller
196
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - -
3 Thereupon,
4 Galen E. Miller,
5 having been by the undersigned Notary Public
6 previously sworn, was examined and testified as
7 follows:
8 CONTINUED DIRECT (Galen E. Miller)
9 BY MR. BURGESS:
10 Q. Good morning.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. I'd like to begin if I could just with a
13 review a little bit of some of yesterday's testimony
14 from my standpoint. I went through my notes and I
15 have just a few, I hope, clarifying questions.
16 With respect to contract C91-2059, I
17 believe you said that amendment number four included
18 the preparation of model analysis for ENR project
19 done in July of '91; is that correct?
20 A. July of '92.
21 Q. '92, okay.
22 Was there a final report issued with
23 respect to that?
24 A. The July date is the final report.
25 Q. And what is that report titled?
197
1 A. Report of Model Analyses.
2 Q. Okay, July '92.
3 I think some of the documents that are
4 entered into the record yesterday and some of the
5 testimony concerned the Everglades Protection
6 Project.
7 Is that project defined someplace that you
8 are aware of?
9 A. The project, no. It is a name that was
10 coined, and I forget exactly how, to describe the
11 overall design efforts for development of constructed
12 wetlands or whatever we end up doing to further
13 improve water quality for discharge into the
14 Everglades Protection Area.
15 Q. Is that the definition that you put into it
16 when you say in connection with the Everglades
17 Protection Project?
18 A. That is correct
19 Q. You also spoke yesterday about a series of
20 maps that I believe you were given detailing current
21 land use. You were given those from the District,
22 together with some aerial photographs.
23 Could you describe those maps?
24 A. We were not given maps by the District that
25 define current land use. We prepared maps based on
198
1 the aerial photography, which reflected our
2 interpretation of land use.
3 Those maps were delivered to the District,
4 together with maps that present schematics of the
5 primary drainage system in each of the four basins of
6 the EAA. In fact, they were separated into six
7 basins. The S-2 and S-3 basins were shown
8 separately.
9 Q. What physically was delivered to the
10 District? How many maps were there?
11 A. There would be I think a total of 19
12 drawings, including the cover sheet.
13 Q. And how would I identify them if I were to
14 request them?
15 A. How would you identify them?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. If it were me, I would request the basin
18 mapping prepared by Burns & McDonnell under amendment
19 one to contract C-3021.
20 Q. Do you know whether those 19 drawings are
21 on computer disks?
22 A. They were prepared on Autocat.
23 Q. Is that how they were delivered also to the
24 District?
25 A. They were delivered in hard copy. I do not
199
1 recall whether we also delivered the diskette files
2 of the drawings.
3 Q. When were they delivered?
4 A. I'm pretty sure it was in December of 1992.
5 Exact date I'm not sure of.
6 Q. In your review yesterday of Exhibit 2,
7 which I believe was a listing of documents that Ruth
8 Clements sent to you in connection with documents
9 made available in response to the notice, do you
10 recall seeing the maps or the schematics listed
11 there?
12 A. I do not.
13 Q. Did you have any conversation with her as
14 to whether they were or were not provided?
15 A. I did not.
16 MR. BURGESS: Paul, if we request those,
17 would we have a problem getting it?
18 MR. NETTLETON: Not that I'm aware of.
19 BY MR. BURGESS:
20 Q. With respect to the ENR project, yesterday
21 I believe you testified that what Burns & McDonnell
22 did included preparation of a conceptual design of
23 that project; is that correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Is that conceptual design embodied in a
200
1 document or a report?
2 A. It is, and that is dated, I think it's
3 August of 1989.
4 Q. Do you know what the title might be?
5 A. I believe it's Everglades Nutrient Removal
6 Project Conceptual Design.
7 Q. What type of a conceptual design was
8 prepared?
9 A. The purpose of that analysis was to, in
10 essence, identify the proposed size of the physical
11 facilities discharging to the ENR project and
12 discharging from the ENR project to Water
13 Conservation Area Number 1.
14 Again, the conceptual design did not
15 concern itself with phosphorus reduction at the time.
16 Its focus and intent was to make sure that we did not
17 construct facilities that introduced flow to and flow
18 from the ENR project that because of their own
19 capacity limitations limited the amount of use that
20 could be made of the ENR project. It was to
21 determine what type, what size pump stations or
22 capacities might be needed for the ENR project so
23 that they would not be undersized.
24 It also analyzed various options or methods
25 for introducing flow to the ENR project in terms of
201
1 location of the pump stations, type of facilities for
2 water to be withdrawn from Water Conservation Area 1
3 after discharge from S-5A prior to going to the S-10
4 area. That was the basic focus of that effort.
5 Q. When we were talking about final
6 deliverables required under amendment one, I believe
7 you said that one of the documents in progress was a
8 document which would define the bottom line of the
9 STA area. Do you recall that?
10 A. That is correct. It is a document in which
11 we analyze, which we are analyzing again the
12 effective area necessary for the STAs given revised
13 data, more refined data available now, as well as
14 better understanding of the manner in which Water
15 Conservation Area 2A data has been analyzed.
16 Q. Is that the report that you are awaiting,
17 the William Walker report?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. So when you say bottom line, you mean
20 geographically as opposed to cost, for instance?
21 A. That is correct. It is not intended that
22 this document deal with cost. We are trying simply
23 to identify what changes may be appropriate to the
24 overall size of the STAs.
25 Q. Do you have any idea today what changes
202
1 might be appropriate as to the overall size?
2 A. I would be speculating. That work is in
3 progress. Again, we are awaiting receipt of some
4 fairly basic information.
5 Q. Are you in that effort going to attempt to
6 identify a zone or zones of enrichment?
7 A. Zones of enrichment, as I understand it,
8 really are not -- by zones of enrichment, do you mean
9 within the STAs?
10 Q. Within 2A.
11 A. Within 2A, no, we will not.
12 Q. So when you say bottom line, you are
13 talking about an area relationship? I'm trying to
14 understand what you meant yesterday, your term of
15 saying we are trying to define the bottom line of the
16 STA area.
17 A. We are simply trying to identify what
18 modifications to the effective areas presented in the
19 conceptual design would be appropriate as a result of
20 the more recent and continued analysis.
21 Q. Can you tell me today what changes you are
22 examining?
23 A. We are examining the influence of changes
24 in the -- not so much the hydraulic loading, that
25 hasn't changed a lot, the discharge data. There are
203
1 modifications to the total phosphorus loads in the
2 more recent analysis as compared to those utilized in
3 the conceptual design.
4 There also are a number of potential
5 options that are being considered in terms of what
6 water is actually carried through the STAs.
7 The conceptual design was developed upon
8 the basis that all flow would be carried through the
9 STAs and that the size of the STAs would be developed
10 to result in a 50 parts per billion long-term average
11 flow-weighted concentration.
12 Given that entire introduction, that basic
13 definition is not entirely consistent with the
14 approach presented in Appendix F of the SWIM Plan.
15 Q. In what way is it different?
16 A. It's the manner in which flow-through
17 discharge and loads are handled. In the conceptual
18 design document flow-through loads and discharges are
19 carried through the STAs and are considered in the
20 sizing of the STAs.
21 Q. And that's also the same in the settlement
22 agreement; is that your recollection?
23 A. No, it is not.
24 The settlement agreement and the SWIM Plan
25 does indicate acceptance of a flow-through, if you
204
1 will, or bypassing the treatment areas with those
2 discharges that originates in Lake Okeechobee and as
3 well discharges from other potential sources such as
4 the L-8 and C-51 canals and structures G-88 and
5 G-136.
6 Q. And the conceptual design did not include
7 acceptance of potential flow-throughs?
8 A. It did. The conceptual design took the
9 flow-throughs into the STAs and included those loads
10 in the calculation of size. The SWIM Plan does not
11 do that.
12 The purpose in doing that for the
13 conceptual design consistent with the overall
14 philosophy of its development was to, to the extent
15 we could at that time, make sure that whatever we did
16 would not underestimate the size and cost of the
17 STAs. We wanted to be sure that we were on the
18 conservative side.
19 Your question was in what ways things are
20 changing. That's one significant area of analysis.
21 A second area is, again, there is a form of
22 analysis or equation for sizing the STAs presented in
23 the conceptual design which was proposed by Burns
24 & McDonnell during December of 1992 and actually
25 presented to the STA design working group in
205
1 January -- December 1991 and early January of 1992.
2 That form of equation is not necessarily
3 the same as that actually being used in analysis for
4 Conservation Area 2 data. Again, that is as a basis
5 for the settling rate and it is considered necessary
6 to be consistent.
7 Q. The equation you are speaking about is the
8 equation you used in the March '92 design document?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. And is that equation undergoing review, is
11 that what you are saying?
12 A. It is, because that equation was not
13 suggested to us by the people actually performing
14 analyses of 2A data. It was our best shot at
15 interpreting how that might be used.
16 Q. What is the form of the new equation?
17 A. Well, again, we are hoping that will be
18 defined clearly in the forthcoming document by Bill
19 Walker.
20 We believe it will be consistent with some
21 of the equations presented in the December 20, '92
22 paper that was furnished to us by Bob Kadlec and
23 specifically those equations dealing with flood flow
24 analysis. I believe it to be equations 10 and 11 as
25 listed in that document.
206
1 Q. Are you simply going to adopt what Bill
2 Walker provides in his paper with respect to this new
3 equation?
4 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
5 THE WITNESS: We have reviewed the form of
6 equation presented in the Kadlec paper,
7 including its development, at least its
8 mathematical development through the calculus
9 and beginning with the same basic precept on
10 which it is based. We confirmed the form of
11 equation.
12 We will not simply adopt whatever we see.
13 It will be reviewed.
14 (The document was marked
15 Miller Exb. No. 14.)
16 BY MR. BURGESS:
17 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as
18 Exhibit 14 and ask if you can identify that.
19 A. This is the cover sheet, a facsimile
20 transmittal sheet from Robert Kadlec of Wetland
21 Management Services to myself dated December 24, 1992
22 by which he transmitted to us a copy of a paper
23 entitled Time Averaged, Spatially Variable Mass
24 Balances For Phosphorus And Water in Wetlands,
25 prepared for the US Department of Justice and dated
207
1 December 20, 1992.
2 Q. Is that the paper you just referred to?
3 A. It is.
4 Q. On what page is the equation you referred
5 to?
6 A. On page 3 of 8.
7 Q. Who at Burns & McDonnell has reviewed the
8 math development in that equation?
9 A. Myself and Mr. Dan Burr of my staff.
10 Q. Dan Burr?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What is his background?
13 A. He is a graduate of the University of
14 Nebraska. He has been with Burns & McDonnell for
15 about two years.
16 Q. Is he a statistician?
17 A. He is not. He is a civil engineer. Again,
18 what we are talking about is not statistical analysis
19 here, but simply following to do the steps of
20 calculus.
21 Q. Which equation on page 3 are you referring
22 to?
23 A. There are two equations, 10 and 11, which
24 is essentially the same equation. Equation 11 is
25 simply a restatement or rearrangement of equation 10.
208
1 Q. And what is your understanding that either
2 Kadlec and/or Walker utilized those equations for?
3 A. This appears to be the -- well, this is
4 intended to be the development of the plug flow case,
5 which is a more continuous solution on which
6 something you consider a series of cells.
7 We believe that to be most consistent with
8 the method of analysis that would be employed by Bill
9 Walker. We do not know for certain that these
10 equations would be used, but it would be difficult
11 for us, it's difficult to imagine there would be any
12 significant variation in it.
13 Q. Do you know who developed these equations
14 in Exhibit 12?
15 A. They are in a document authored by Bob
16 Kadlec. Who actually developed the equations, I do
17 not know. There are references made in the document
18 to previous publications.
19 Q. Have you discussed the equations in that
20 paper with either Kadlec or Walker?
21 A. We have. We called Bob Kadlec to make sure
22 we understood the steps they had gone through and to
23 see if there were any other potential variations on
24 that that would make sense.
25 Q. When did you call him?
209
1 A. Early January of this year.
2 Q. What did you ask him and what did he say to
3 you?
4 A. Well, the reason, what we called for when
5 we looked at equation 10 -- just looking at it, it's
6 not intuitively obvious. The influence of the --
7 Q. I'll stipulate.
8 A. -- of the area on the discharge
9 concentration, if you will.
10 While we could follow through the proofs
11 and the calculus, we might have preferred a form of
12 equation in which it was more obvious, the impact the
13 area would have on the concentrations. In fact,
14 there is an impact in the analysis. We demonstrated
15 that to ourselves.
16 We just would have preferred something that
17 looked a little more obvious, simply perhaps more on
18 the form of equation 14, but 14 is a simplified
19 analysis that really is not entirely appropriate to
20 what we are doing here.
21 Q. And what is equation 14?
22 A. Well, equation 14 is simply a reanalysis
23 for a case in which rainfall equals
24 evapotranspiration, which is not really a physical
25 reality in this instance.
210
1 Q. Okay. What did Bob Kadlec say in response
2 to your question with respect to equation 10?
3 A. His response was that, again, just as I
4 told you, the area does have a significant influence
5 on calculated discharge concentrations, which we
6 agreed to, and that equation is the most consistent
7 development of the integration process and should be
8 left alone. I can't take issue with that.
9 Q. Now is there data, do you assume that there
10 is going to be data in this paper that you are
11 awaiting from Walker that you will plug into this
12 equation?
13 A. There will be data in the paper that we are
14 awaiting from Walker which was applied with this
15 equation to analysis of water conservation. This
16 equation -- we would not use data from 2A to size the
17 STAs.
18 The data from 2A would be utilized, we
19 would believe would be utilized in conjunction with
20 these equations to develop the one, if you will,
21 unknown in the analysis, and that is the settling
22 rate constant.
23 Q. Who at Burns & McDonnell do you anticipate
24 is going to evaluate the Walker paper when you
25 receive it?
211
1 A. I have not made that assignment yet in
2 personnel.
3 Q. Do you feel that you have sufficient staff
4 to do that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you anticipate that you will assign that
7 paper out for any type of a peer review?
8 A. We do not.
9 Q. Other than the equations in Exhibit 12, is
10 there anything else in there that you anticipate you
11 will rely on in preparation of your final
12 deliverable?
13 A. Anything else in this Exhibit 12?
14 Q. Right.
15 A. No.
16 MR. NETTLETON: For the record, you are
17 referring to Exhibit 14.
18 MR. BURGESS: I'm sorry.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
20 BY MR. BURGESS:
21 Q. I have a question related to your testimony
22 yesterday regarding the October '91 draft design and
23 the March '92 conceptual design document, and I'm
24 trying to understand the difference between the
25 October draft and the March draft with respect to the
212
1 sizing of the STAs.
2 And my first question is did the March
3 report contain Burns & McDonnell's assessment of the
4 size of the STAs necessary to meet the nutrient
5 reduction levels called for in the SWIM Plan?
6 A. It was our interpretation, yes, at that
7 time, what it would take to do that.
8 The March document, you say?
9 Q. Right.
10 Now with respect to the October '91
11 document, did that contain your assessment of what
12 the Stormwater Treatment Areas called for by the
13 settlement agreement would look like?
14 A. It was our first effort at defining those
15 and was based upon an incomplete, totally incomplete
16 understanding of the basis for the acreage in the
17 settlement agreement and subsequently in the SWIM
18 Plan.
19 Q. So the March '92 document was in essence a
20 refinement of the October '91?
21 A. That is correct, and was the product, in
22 essence, of this series of consultations with the STA
23 design review group, committee, whatever it was
24 called.
25 Q. What was the ultimate difference in acreage
213
1 in the sizes between the October '91 and the March
2 '92?
3 A. I would have to refer to the documents to
4 find those figures.
5 Q. Is that contained in the March '92?
6 A. The March '92 document would not have made
7 reference to the October '91.
8 Q. I'm sorry, I thought yesterday you said the
9 March '92 document gives a direct comparison --
10 A. Direct comparison of the acreage presented
11 therein to the acreage presented in Appendix F of the
12 SWIM Plan and in the settlement agreement, not a
13 comparison to the October '91 draft document.
14 Q. Right. So in the October '91 document
15 would the size of the STAs be the same as that
16 reflected in the settlement agreement?
17 A. I believe they were.
18 Q. Okay. So if we refer to the March '92
19 document, which is in the record as Exhibit 5,
20 perhaps you can tell us what the acreage provided for
21 with respect to your analysis prepared for that March
22 report.
23 A. I would make reference to a tabulation at
24 the top page Roman numeral II-24 which presents a
25 summary comparison of the required effective areas as
214
1 developed in the conceptual design to those listed in
2 the settlement agreement.
3 Q. What is the total acreage in difference
4 between STAs 1, 2, 3 and 4?
5 A. In aggregate for the four STAs, the total
6 effective area to be developed in the conceptual
7 design the 31,975 acres as compared to 32,600 acres
8 in the settlement agreement and the SWIM Plan, a
9 reduction of 625 acres.
10 Q. Okay. What did you do between October '91
11 and March '92 to estimate the size of the STAs that
12 resulted in the 31,975?
13 A. What we did is defined in the conceptual
14 design document.
15 Q. And that's the document in front of you?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Procedurally what did you do, let's start
18 with respect to an examination of the uptake rate
19 that you might have used in the October document
20 versus the one that was used in the March document?
21 A. The October document made no reference or
22 consideration of an update rate.
23 The March document did include an uptake
24 rate as eight meters per year as defined in the SWIM
25 Plan and in the settlement agreement.
215
1 Q. So you took as design criteria in the March
2 document eight meters per year?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. You didn't do any independent evaluation of
5 that number?
6 A. No. We did prepare our own model analysis
7 of Water Conservation Area 2A to identify those
8 parameters, which in that model we did to allow
9 analysis of variations and inflows at the various
10 STAs.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Our purpose again I think I stated in the
13 conceptual design was not to verify eight meters per
14 year. It was simply to calibrate our own model
15 applied to daily discharges.
16 (Discussion held off the record.)
17 (The document was marked
18 Miller Exb. No. 15.)
19 BY MR. BURGESS:
20 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as
21 Exhibit 15 and ask you if you can identify that
22 document.
23 A. It is a letter dated January 31, 1992 over
24 my signature and addressed to Gary Goforth, Director
25 of the District Project Management Division.
216
1 Q. What was the purpose of writing that
2 letter?
3 A. Was to report on the results of our efforts
4 to model that portion of Water Conservation Area 2A
5 considered to act in a fashion parallel to that
6 intended for the Stormwater Treatment Areas.
7 Q. Why was it important for you to model that
8 portion of the WCA-2A?
9 A. Again, our purpose in developing the model
10 was to allow analysis of inflows to the various STAs
11 to assure that variations in the temporal
12 distribution of those inflows would not, or would
13 remain consistent with respect to the projected
14 long-term average performance of the treatment areas.
15 Q. Was it also an objective in developing the
16 model to allow you to size the STAs?
17 A. It was not.
18 Q. Could the model be used to size the STAs?
19 A. I believe it would be a misapplication, but
20 arithmetically it could be.
21 Q. What model are we talking about, by the
22 way?
23 A. This would be what is now referred to as
24 STAMOD.
25 Q. Could I ask you to refer to Roman numeral
217
1 II-22 in Exhibit Number 5, and specifically with
2 reference to the paragraph beginning, I believe it's
3 the third paragraph, "Phosphorus concentrations (and
4 as a result, removal rates)."
5 Can you read that paragraph? You don't
6 need to read it into the record, but just to
7 yourself.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Does this paragraph have reference to the
10 STAMOD model?
11 A. It does not.
12 Q. What does this refer to?
13 A. This refers to development of the equation
14 eventually shown on page Roman numeral II-23 of the
15 conceptual design.
16 Q. What equation, where on that page does the
17 equation appear?
18 A. It would appear roughly at the mid point of
19 the page, just above table II-24.
20 Q. Beginning A equals?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How is this different than the STAMOD
23 model?
24 A. This equation here is a definition or
25 calculation of the required effective area of an STA
218
1 given a long-term or a long-term average settling
2 rate, if you will, of eight meters per year and
3 applied to, you can consider these are average annual
4 or total period of record data, in this case total
5 period of record.
6 That varies from the STAMOD parameters or
7 constant in that they are intended to allow analysis
8 of much shorter time steps, again, so that we could
9 evaluate the potential influence of variations in the
10 nature of the hydrologic loading of the STAs as
11 compared to that in Water Conservation Area 2A.
12 Q. Why was it important to evaluate the
13 nature?
14 A. It was a question that was addressed or
15 raised at the meeting of the STA Design Review
16 Committee.
17 The entire effort of this modeling was our
18 attempt to respond to that question or concern as
19 best we can within the time frame allotted to us.
20 Q. What was the concern with the nature of the
21 inflows?
22 Was it with respect to form of phosphorus
23 or was it with respect to volume of discharge?
24 A. It had primarily to do with the pattern of
25 inflows, of volumetric inflows to the STAs as
219
1 compared to the pattern of inflows to Water
2 Conservation Area 2A.
3 It had nothing to do with the form of
4 phosphorus inasmuch as all the analysis we are
5 talking about considers a single parameter, if you
6 will, as representative of phosphorus reductions and
7 there is no definition of distribution of different
8 phosphorus types in that analysis.
9 Q. With respect to the equation in Exhibit 5
10 on II-22 --
11 A. II-23?
12 Q. I'm sorry, II-23, did you say that you
13 utilized eight meters a year in this equation?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. So that was an assumption that you plugged
16 into the equation?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And the basis for utilizing that number was
19 what?
20 A. It was the number defined in both the SWIM
21 Plan and the settlement agreement.
22 Q. Is the equation on II-23 the form of the
23 equation you plan to use in the new Lotus 1-2-3
24 spread sheet?
25 A. It is not, unless it is consistent with
220
1 what's actually being used in the most recent
2 analysis of Water Conservation Area 2A, which I
3 doubt.
4 Q. What equation do you anticipate using in
5 the Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet model?
6 A. To the extent that it is the equation
7 employed in the most complete analysis of Water
8 Conservation Area 2A data, it would be in the form
9 that we referenced earlier in the Kadlec, is our
10 understanding or anticipation.
11 Q. Why do you believe it would be a
12 misapplication of the STAMOD model to apply it to
13 size of the STAs?
14 A. It is developed to -- again, its purpose
15 was simply to evaluate or to try to make sure that
16 the variation in loading in the STAs would not result
17 in something that, as best we could tell, would
18 exceed the bounds established in Water Conservation
19 Area 2A.
20 It was never intended to be a sizing tool.
21 That was not our purpose in this development, which
22 is why I state that it would be a misapplication. We
23 did not develop it for that purpose.
24 Q. Referring back to Exhibit 15, on the third
25 page of Exhibit 15 you note that "the apparent
221
1 average settling rate for the period of analysis is
2 2.7 meters a year," and continuing in that sentence,
3 "which does not compare well with the long-term
4 average of 8 meters a year upon which the STA design
5 is based."
6 What does 2.7 meters a year represent?
7 A. Quite frankly, not much of anything. I
8 believe there were subsequent updates of this same
9 information.
10 Again, we were trying to take data that was
11 available in 2A and interpret it to the best of our
12 ability, consistent with the settling rate
13 computation.
14 This again was modified subsequently.
15 Q. Do you recall in what way was it modified?
16 Was there additional input data, for instance?
17 A. It had to do with the manner in which we
18 were attempting to fit the results of the analysis to
19 the water concentration data in 2A.
20 I believe subsequent to this letter we also
21 received the additional data at sites B and D and
22 subsequently extended the period of analysis, and we
23 did, subsequently extended the period of analysis to
24 which we applied our work.
25 Q. Does the model referred to in Exhibit 15
222
1 refer to the STAMOD model?
2 A. The STAMOD model as it exists now was
3 modified subsequent to this date, but it is the same
4 basic definition.
5 Q. Again referring to page 3 of Exhibit 15,
6 you reference the difference between the 2.7 and 8
7 meters a year number.
8 Have you since January 31, '92, which is
9 the date of that exhibit, reconciled the differences
10 between the two numbers?
11 A. I would direct your attention to pages
12 Roman numeral II-33 through II-37 of the conceptual
13 design or Exhibit 5.
14 Q. And what's contained there?
15 A. The description of the, if you will, the
16 updated analysis that I referred to earlier in our
17 discussion of Exhibit Number 15 for a longer period
18 of record with additional data.
19 Q. So is that in your mind one of the
20 controlling factors that resulted in the 2.7 meters a
21 year?
22 You had a shorter period of record with
23 less data?
24 A. That is very significant, yes. The
25 January 31 document or Exhibit 15 was based on a
223
1 period of record that extends only from July 1, 1986
2 through September 30, 1988, very short period, which
3 did include a very dry year.
4 Q. And the long-term average of eight meters a
5 year was based on what period of reference?
6 A. Was based on analysis extending from water
7 years 1979 through 1988.
8 I would note that the eight meters per year
9 referenced, or slightly over eight meters per year
10 referenced on page Roman numeral II-37 of Exhibit 5
11 was a back calculation.
12 Q. What do you mean by that?
13 A. What we did was fit the, in our analysis of
14 2A data, fit our analysis such that we related in the
15 long-term or 10-year deposition or estimated 10-year
16 deposition in 2A, and then we took that deposition
17 and the inflow loads and then plugged it in, back
18 into, if you will, the sizing equation we had
19 discussed earlier.
20 Q. The sizing equation?
21 A. In the conceptual design document to see
22 what k-e in essence would result from that input data
23 and estimated deposition.
24 And applying the data that resulted from
25 our analysis to that sizing equation resulted in
224
1 estimated 8.14 meters per year, which was reported
2 because it was a calculation we had done and was of
3 some interest.
4 It was not our intent to verify an eight
5 meter per year settling rate analysis.
6 Q. Is that calculation indicative at all of
7 any auto correlation?
8 A. Excuse me?
9 Q. Of any auto correlation.
10 A. Could you explain that to me?
11 Q. How do you use the term auto correlation?
12 A. I do not use the term.
13 Q. Okay. I understood just a little while ago
14 you to say that you took the eight meter a year
15 number from Appendix F to the SWIM Plan and plugged
16 it into this equation; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And I think I just heard you say that there
19 was some analysis that you performed that confirmed
20 the eight meter number; is that correct?
21 A. No, that is not correct.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. We prepared analysis of Water Conservation
24 Area 2A data for the express purpose of identifying
25 different constants, if you will, for application to
225
1 a daily discharge record for our analysis.
2 We then also reported, given the results of
3 that analysis, what the settling rate would have been
4 with that data. And an equation in the basic form of
5 that is shown on page II-23.
6 Q. What was that settling rate?
7 A. Stated as 8.14 meters per year on page
8 II-37.
9 Q. Is this in your mind a confirmation of the
10 eight meter a year number?
11 A. It is not.
12 Q. Is this an independent calculation?
13 A. It is.
14 Q. And does that independent calculation
15 utilize any regression or equation or portions
16 thereof contained in Appendix F to the SWIM Plan?
17 A. The only data that is employed, SWIM Plan
18 information that was considered in that analysis was
19 the estimated deposition downstream of the S-10
20 structures.
21 In other words, we estimated the deposition
22 over a 10-year period based upon regression analyses
23 presented in Appendix F of the draft SWIM Plan.
24 Q. And you utilized a portion of that
25 regression from Appendix F?
226
1 A. We utilized the stated regression equation
2 for deposition downstream to the S-10 structures in
3 Appendix F, the entire regression, not a portion of
4 it.
5 Q. Entire regression. If you had not utilized
6 that regression from Appendix F, what would have been
7 another way you could have derived that component of
8 the equation?
9 A. Our original intent was to try to perform
10 the analysis considering only water column data.
11 Part of what we were doing we reported in the
12 January 31 letter.
13 Our conclusion as a result of that effort
14 was that the water column, total phosphorus
15 concentrations did not adequately represent the pulse
16 nature of flows through Water Conservation Area 2A;
17 in other words, the impacted area of 2A was small
18 through the S-10 structures so that the water quality
19 data simply did not provide enough information in our
20 analysis for us to get what we would call a good fit.
21 It was then necessary for us to go about it
22 another way, in this fashion look for deposition
23 information.
24 Q. Did you utilize the water quality data, and
25 what type of a fit did you get?
227
1 A. We did not utilize finally the water
2 quality data, because we could not get a good fit in
3 our analysis.
4 Q. Was a deposition or settling rate
5 calculated based upon the water quality data which
6 was indicative to you of not a good fit?
7 A. Well, we had one reporting of that of 2.7
8 meters per year based on a short period of record and
9 not a good fit.
10 Q. Were there other model runs or runs which
11 were made other than this one here described for 2.7
12 which confirmed in your opinion that that data wasn't
13 giving you a good fit?
14 A. We tried a number different things during
15 that period of time, and those analyses were I
16 believe reported to the STA Design Review Committee.
17 We were looking for some assistance or
18 guidance in what else we might do to try to obtain a
19 better, better definition or understanding of the
20 particular model we were trying to develop.
21 Beyond that, specifics escape me.
22 Q. Were those attempts compiled in a report of
23 some sort that you recall?
24 A. Basically in letter reports, I believe.
25 Q. Would they be to Gary Goforth?
228
1 A. They would have been. And again, the
2 result we wound up in that analysis is with the
3 information presented in the conceptual design.
4 Q. To do the back calculation that you
5 referred to a little bit earlier, what area did you
6 use?
7 A. The area we used was the total area
8 represented in the WCA-2A model down to -- I think it
9 was the 5.4 kilometer transect, but just a moment.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. The area used in that back calculation was
12 15,770 acres.
13 MS. PONZOLI: What page are you on, please?
14 THE WITNESS: Page Roman numeral II-36, and
15 that was for the area between S-10 structures
16 and 6.1 kilometer transect.
17 BY MR. BURGESS:
18 Q. And what concentration?
19 A. Well, the inflow load in that back
20 calculation -- well, the data used in that back
21 calculation is shown in a tabulation at the bottom of
22 page Roman numeral II-36.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. The average inflow concentrations
25 summarized on the top of page II-37 is 0.1317
229
1 milligrams per liter, and outflow concentrations
2 0.0392 milligrams per liter.
3 Q. If you assume, as I think you have
4 testified, that the 2A water phosphorus
5 concentrations are not representative of pulse flows,
6 would you therefore conclude that the same water
7 quality data should not be used to calculate the K
8 rates?
9 MS. PONZOLI: May I hear that question
10 again, please?
11 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
12 was read by the reporter.)
13 THE WITNESS: With respect to the analysis
14 we performed for our model, that was in fact our
15 conclusion, which is why we wound up calibrating
16 the model to the regression or to the deposition
17 estimated by the regression equation.
18 BY MR. BURGESS:
19 Q. I think you testified just a little while
20 ago that you may use the equations contained in
21 Exhibit Number 14 and provided by Bob Kadlec with
22 respect to the Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet; is that
23 correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Have you during your process of
230
1 consideration with respect to equations and settling
2 rates considered at all using a direct uptake rate
3 such as a weight per unit per time or gram per meters
4 squared, for instance?
5 A. We have not.
6 Q. Is there any reason why not?
7 A. It does not, we cannot understand the basic
8 definition or rationale which would go into such an
9 approach.
10 Q. What is your problem with the rationale?
11 What don't you understand?
12 A. To the extent that you have a basic uptake
13 rate of so many grams per square feet per meter year,
14 that would suggest the uptake of phosphorus bears no
15 relationship to the concentration of phosphorus in
16 the overlying water column. That just doesn't seem
17 rational to us.
18 Q. So have you made a considered judgment to
19 reject utilizing that type of a measurement?
20 A. We have.
21 Q. And who made that decision?
22 A. I made that final decision.
23 Q. Was that the subject matter of some
24 discussion amongst you and your staff or you and the
25 District?
231
1 A. Not between us and the District.
2 Q. Internally?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Dan Burr?
5 A. I can't -- I don't even know that Dan Burr
6 was working on the project at that time. The
7 conceptual design was done over a year ago or almost
8 a year ago, and I'm quite certain that they were not
9 working on the conceptual design.
10 Q. Another question in the nature of
11 clarification from yesterday's testimony, yesterday
12 we spoke about the STAMOD model, and I think you have
13 confirmed this morning that that model was not used
14 to size the STAs, correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. It was used to predict phosphorus
17 concentrations coming out of the conceptually
18 designed STAs?
19 A. Yes. I think probably the clearest
20 expression of what I mean to say there is included in
21 the conceptual design document. All I have to do is
22 find it.
23 I would direct your attention to page Roman
24 numeral II-37 of the conceptual design; in
25 particular, a paragraph which is headed paragraph
232
1 four, Applicability and Usage of Model.
2 And I would read into the record in
3 response to your question as clear as I can the final
4 paragraph of that section in which it is stated that
5 "It is not contemplated that, at the conceptual
6 design level, the effective treatment areas developed
7 herein be modified on the basis of subsequent model
8 analyses unless those analyses at any given treatment
9 area indicate an inability to comply with the design
10 objective of 0.05 flow-weighted average discharge
11 concentration."
12 Again, our intent in terms of sizing was to
13 apply these models to the inflow data at the STAs,
14 but not to consider that in sizing of the STAs unless
15 there is indication in our analysis that they would
16 not, that any given STA would not be large enough to
17 achieve the objective, which was not the results of
18 any of the analyses applied.
19 Q. As you sit here today, do you have any
20 plans to use that STAMOD model with respect to the
21 next design phase of any constructed wetlands that
22 may be the subject matter of your recommendation for
23 the Everglades Protection Project?
24 A. As we discussed yesterday, the only
25 applicability or usage we would see of something
233
1 similar to the STAMOD would be for analysis of
2 hydrologic loading.
3 We do not envision application of that
4 model to estimation of phosphorus reduction in
5 constructed wetlands during the subsequent work.
6 Q. What type of adjustments might be necessary
7 to the model to allow you to analyze hydraulics or
8 hydrology?
9 A. Other than as there may be changes in the
10 physical character of structures reflected in the
11 model, the only significant change that I would
12 envision in the way it operates or considers the
13 hydrologic flows would be in inclusion of energy
14 losses through the wetlands.
15 The STAMOD is developed as a level pool
16 rooting model for the hydrologic components, and we
17 need to modify that to reflect energy losses through
18 the wetlands.
19 Q. Does Exhibit 11, titled Report on Model
20 Analyses, contain the SHEET2D model that you used in
21 the ENR project?
22 A. It includes a summary of the results of
23 that model application to the ENR project.
24 Q. And what, if any, plans do you have to
25 utilize that SHEET2D model with respect to the next
234
1 phase of any design you may do of constructed
2 wetlands as part of the Everglades Protection
3 Project?
4 A. With respect to the next phase of design of
5 wetlands, that would occur subsequent to the plan
6 formulation process. We have not made a final
7 selection or recommendation of what two-dimensional
8 hydrodynamic model to use.
9 The SHEET2D has been developed in the
10 District and subsequently modified by a previous
11 District employee. There are other such models
12 available.
13 Q. Any that you are considering?
14 A. One model that is in use by, fairly
15 widespread use by the Corps of Engineers is a model
16 titled TABS IV.
17 Q. T-A-B-S?
18 A. T-A-B-S. That is one possibility. I think
19 we will make the selection of the two-dimensional
20 hydrodynamic model after consultation with the
21 District. We would hope that whatever model is
22 designed will be in continuing operation in
23 monitoring evaluation in performance of the STAs.
24 So we do not see that simply as a design
25 tool, but would be built as something that would be
235
1 utilized by the District long term, so we could not
2 make that choice independently.
3 Q. Any other models that you are considering?
4 A. Again, we are not trying to consider that
5 model now. I'm suggesting there is a 2D model used
6 by the District. There are other models, and I'm not
7 attempting to --
8 Q. As I understand your deliverable under
9 contract 3021 due in June, that includes a conceptual
10 design of a recommended or several recommended
11 alternative treatment technologies; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. In order to prepare that conceptual design,
14 will you utilize a 2D model of some sort?
15 A. We will not.
16 Q. So it is only at the general design phase
17 where you need to utilize a 2D model?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Do you have any time frame for when you are
20 going to make a selection for what model you might
21 use?
22 A. That all assumes that we will actually be
23 doing that work under the presently unstructured
24 amendment to contract C-3021. The time frame for
25 that if it were to occur would be this summer.
236
1 MR. PERKO: Just so I understand, the
2 amendment that you are referring to now would be
3 amendment three?
4 THE WITNESS: That's my best guess. Again,
5 it's not the next amendment. It's the next
6 number.
7 MR. PERKO: I understand.
8 BY MR. BURGESS:
9 Q. Have you decided on some or all of the
10 inputs for the Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet model under
11 development?
12 A. Well, one obvious input that requires final
13 resolution is the selection of the settling rate for
14 use in analysis.
15 With respect to the other input data
16 concerning phosphorus loads, volumes, yes, we have
17 made a selection of those based upon primarily the
18 draft documents we have submitted.
19 Q. Those are the draft documents recently
20 distributed at SAGE?
21 A. Yes, the various technical memoranda
22 prepared under C-3021 and distributed to SAGE.
23 (The document was marked
24 Miller Exb. No. 16.)
237
1 BY MR. BURGESS:
2 Q. I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 16
3 and ask you if you can identify that.
4 A. Exhibit 16 is a draft technical memorandum,
5 number 3021-A1-003 entitled Historical Phosphorus
6 Loads For The Everglades Agricultural Area prepared
7 by Burns & McDonnell for the District under contract
8 C-3021 and dated December 15, 1992.
9 Q. Is this particular document a draft?
10 A. It is a draft.
11 Q. Has it been finalized?
12 A. It has not been finalized. We are awaiting
13 receipt of comments.
14 Q. Does Exhibit 16 contain the loads that you
15 anticipate will be one of the inputs to the
16 Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet?
17 A. It does.
18 (The document was marked
19 Miller Exb. No. 17.)
20 BY MR. BURGESS:
21 Q. I ask if you can identify Exhibit 17.
22 A. Exhibit 17 is a draft of technical
23 memorandum 3021-A1-004 entitled Adjustments to EAA
24 Discharges Due to Implementation of Best Management
25 Practices prepared for the District by Burns
238
1 & McDonnell under contract C-3021 amendment one and
2 dated January 13, 1993.
3 Q. And that document is also a draft?
4 A. It is.
5 Q. And you are awaiting comments before
6 finalizing?
7 A. We are.
8 Q. And are there data in Exhibit 17 which will
9 be an input into the Lotus 1-2-3 model?
10 A. There is.
11 Q. Did you attend some of the District 40E-63
12 rule-making meetings?
13 A. I believe I attended one such meeting.
14 Q. Were you aware that at those meetings and
15 in the process of developing that rule the District
16 said that they would come up with a method to
17 calculate loads for determining compliance with that
18 rule?
19 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
20 THE WITNESS: I am aware of what is
21 reflected in the rule itself.
22 BY MR. BURGESS:
23 Q. So you are aware of the method that they
24 came up with?
25 A. Yes.
239
1 Q. Did you use the same method in Exhibit 16
2 and 17 to determine adjustments to discharges?
3 A. Exhibit 16 would not deal with --
4 Q. I'm sorry, Exhibit 17.
5 A. We did consider the compliance method
6 defined in the rule in our analyses culminating in
7 the preparation of Exhibit 17.
8 Q. Did you adopt the same methodology that
9 they used?
10 A. We did not.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. I would direct your attention to, I believe
13 it's part III of Exhibit 17. Our original hope or
14 intent was to employ the compliance tools, if you
15 will, reflected in Chapter 40E-63 to permit us to at
16 least identify the annual variations in EAA loads, TP
17 loads resulting from implementation of the rule.
18 I guess I could read into the record if you
19 like the final two paragraphs of that part III of
20 Exhibit 17.
21 Q. What page is that on?
22 A. That would be on page Roman numeral III-9
23 in which we state, "It is therefore concluded that
24 calculation of the reduction in annual total
25 phosphorus loads discharged from the EAA Basin as a
240
1 whole, for subsequent use in analysis of potential
2 treatment works, cannot be obtained from target loads
3 calculated in accordance with the rule for
4 determination of compliance, unless it is accepted
5 that less than a 25 percent reduction is achieved.
6 "Further, application of the rule as it is
7 presently defined would not result in a separation of
8 load reduction by basin, as is necessary for design
9 of treatment works, and provides no guidance relative
10 to the magnitude and spatial distribution of
11 volumetric runoff reductions, as would also be
12 required for the design of treatment works."
13 Q. Okay. Did you use the same method of load
14 calculation in Exhibit 16?
15 A. No, there were variations in the manner in
16 which loads were calculated. And Exhibit 16 does
17 include a comparison of the loads we calculated to
18 those calculated by the District for the
19 Chapter 40E-63.
20 Q. Is there a specific chapter where that's
21 addressed in Exhibit 16?
22 A. I would direct your attention to part VI,
23 Roman numeral VI of Exhibit 16, as well as to
24 Appendix E of Exhibit 16.
25 Q. Can you tell me why there were different
241
1 load calculations in Exhibit 16 as opposed to
2 utilized by the District and the rule?
3 A. Our analysis of loads as one example at the
4 S-5A basin extended to consideration of discharge and
5 loads from the L-8 and C-51 basins which was not
6 directly considered in the Chapter 40E-63. There
7 were modifications in the manner, detailed
8 modifications in the manner in which we analyzed
9 inflows from G-88 and G-136.
10 Q. I'm sorry, differences in manners of
11 analyzation?
12 A. Of analysis, that's correct. I think those
13 differences are described in Exhibit 16.
14 There were also some differences in the
15 manner in which we estimated phosphorus loads, inflow
16 through from the lake, but by far the most
17 significant difference was in the analysis of the
18 S-5A basin at the S-5A complex.
19 Q. Is there someplace in Exhibit 16 you can
20 point me to which shows what the differences in load
21 calculations were that you performed in support of
22 this exhibit versus what the District calculated for
23 the rule?
24 A. You mean the results of the analyses?
25 Q. Right.
242
1 A. Probably the clearest place to find that
2 would not be in Exhibit 16, but actually in
3 Exhibit 17, if my memory serves me correctly. Bear
4 with me for a moment while I find that.
5 I direct your attention to page Roman
6 numeral III-7 of Exhibit 17.
7 Q. Did your load calculations result in an
8 increase of historic TP load estimates or a decrease
9 compared to the District?
10 A. As indicated in table III-2, our estimates
11 of total phosphorus load discharge from the EAA basin
12 over that 10-year period, water years 1979 through
13 1988, is 5.8 percent above the TP loads estimated by
14 the District.
15 Q. Will that increased percentage in your
16 opinion likely result in an increase in the size of
17 the stormwater treatment areas?
18 A. Given no other changes in the method of
19 analysis, that would be correct.
20 Q. Can you estimate how large?
21 A. I have not attempted to estimate the
22 increase in size due to increased loads.
23 In fact, the loads shown here as current
24 District estimate are not the same loads reflected in
25 the conceptual design.
243
1 So no, we have not attempted that.
2 Q. Do you know how the current District loads
3 reflected here differ from those in the conceptual
4 design?
5 A. We have not made a direct comparison that I
6 can recall. I believe there is some information
7 along those lines being prepared for this forthcoming
8 TM.
9 This is what confuses me a little bit.
10 Q. The forthcoming technical memorandum?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The one that will be complete after you
13 receive the Walker report?
14 A. That is correct, but I don't believe those
15 analyses are directed toward simple identification of
16 increase in area due to changes in phosphorus loads.
17 It would be directed toward all changes.
18 Q. Do you recall whether the estimated
19 historic TP load in the conceptual design was more or
20 less than the District estimates contained on page
21 III-7 of Exhibit 17, which total 221,030?
22 A. The two are not directly comparable
23 inasmuch as that Exhibit 17 is for the EAA basin as a
24 whole considering all points of discharge, whereas
25 the TP loads considered in the conceptual design
244
1 consider only discharge to the EPA from S-7/S-150 and
2 S-8.
3 Q. Does Burns & McDonnell have pending before
4 the District any proposals for future work at the
5 present time?
6 A. We have pending, are in the process of
7 executing -- I'm not sure exactly what the status is
8 today -- amendment number seven to contract C91-2059,
9 which deals with some additional revisions in scope
10 to design of renovation to pump station S-13.
11 We also have, anticipate receipt of a scope
12 of work for additional subsequent amendment to assist
13 the District in further analysis in development of an
14 operation plan for the ENR project.
15 Those are the only things that we presently
16 have pending before the District.
17 Q. What would the scope of work for the
18 operation plan be? What might it include?
19 A. It might include some additional
20 modification or analysis use of the ENR project
21 itself directed toward different depths in the ENR
22 project than reflected in the July 31 report on model
23 analyses.
24 It might include analysis of potential
25 modifications in the current operation of S-5A to
245
1 assure that we, that the District captures as much of
2 that runoff as possible into the ENR project as
3 currently formulated.
4 I'm speculating here as to what the
5 contents might be.
6 Q. Why didn't you use the water quality data
7 from composite and grab in the same manner as the
8 District did in 40E-63?
9 This has reference to Exhibit 16 and 17.
10 A. We are getting into a great deal of detail
11 on the structure of the analysis we prepared.
12 One difference we were looking for was
13 better definition of daily variations in loads or
14 concentrations during composite, during sample or
15 periods represented by composite samples then
16 reflected in the District analysis, in essence, in a
17 period for which there would be a composite sample at
18 a structure.
19 The District analysis would apply that
20 composite concentration to the discharge for all
21 periods, whereas we attempted to, without changing
22 the load represented by that composite sample,
23 redistribute those to daily flows.
24 There were some additional differences
25 which dealt with the method of analysis for
246
1 consideration of samples at the very beginning and
2 end of the period of record in terms of what samples
3 were included or excluded from the analysis. I can't
4 recall that much more detail other than that was the
5 difference.
6 Q. Assuming that a constructed wetland or
7 wetlands is a component to the recommendation you are
8 going to make to the board in June, is it your
9 testimony that you will use the Lotus 1-2-3 model to
10 size that wetlands component?
11 A. To the extent that it is accepted after
12 review of the draft TM, yes, it would be our current
13 intent.
14 Q. And as you sit here today, what phosphorus
15 uptake rate do you plan to use in that model?
16 A. To date, the best estimate reported of the
17 uptake rate and as recognized by SAGE in some fashion
18 at its last meeting was eight meters per year.
19 We don't know that that's the number we
20 will be using finally, but we are in the process of
21 preparing some analysis on that, as we do not have
22 the luxury of waiting until all documents are
23 forwarded to us.
24 Q. And the basis for the loading for that
25 constructed wetlands, whatever size it may be,
247
1 wherever it may be, again, 16 and 17?
2 A. That's correct, in addition to the
3 volumetric data reported in exhibit -- it's the
4 technical memorandum which defines the historical
5 discharges, volumetric discharges from the EAA. And
6 I'm not sure if it's been introduced as an exhibit or
7 not.
8 (The document was marked
9 Miller Exb. No. 18.)
10 BY MR. BURGESS:
11 Q. I ask you to identify Exhibit 18 for the
12 record.
13 A. Exhibit 18 is a technical memorandum number
14 3021-A1-002 entitled Historical Discharge Data for
15 the Everglades Agricultural Area prepared by Burns
16 & McDonnell for the District under contract C-3021
17 under amendment number one dated November 18, 1992.
18 Q. Is this the discharge data that you plan on
19 incorporating into the model?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. Is this report final?
22 A. It is.
23 Q. In response to my recent question with
24 respect to the composite and grab samples, I believe
25 you said that you handled those differently because
248
1 you wanted to reflect -- was it daily variation?
2 A. Yes, we were attempting to identify or
3 redistribute the loads and concentrations during
4 periods represented by composite samples.
5 Q. How do you plan to use that daily load
6 value?
7 A. With respect to the design of constructed
8 wetlands, it would be of no direct interest.
9 To the extent that the analysis would
10 include consideration of alternatives such as direct
11 filtration, variations in daily loading would be, we
12 would anticipate, of some real interest.
13 Q. Have you provided the District with a file
14 containing those daily load values?
15 A. I do not believe that we have.
16 MR. BURGESS: Paul, I think that's
17 responsive to our notice, so I'm going to
18 request that you produce it or have him produce
19 it to you.
20 MR. NETTLETON: You can request. I'll look
21 at it and if it's called for, we will produce
22 it.
23 MS. PONZOLI: We would like copies also.
24 MR. PERKO: As would the Cooperative.
249
1 BY MR. BURGESS:
2 Q. Do you have someone at Burns & McDonnell
3 who you have charged with responsibilities for
4 evaluating phosphorus uptake mechanisms and rates
5 from an ecological standpoint?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you anticipate with respect to the
8 Walker report having someone evaluate the mechanisms
9 and rates from an ecological perspective?
10 A. From an ecological perspective, no.
11 Q. How about from an engineering perspective,
12 do you do that?
13 A. I would be involved in that. I don't know
14 that I would be the only person involved.
15 Q. Who else might be involved?
16 A. Again, we haven't made that assignment.
17 MR. BURGESS: Can we take a break?
18 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
19 BY MR. BURGESS:
20 Q. Let me show you what's already in the
21 record as Exhibit 4, which I believe is the final
22 report of Nolte and Associates.
23 Have you reviewed that exhibit?
24 A. I have.
25 Q. Is there anyone else at Burns & McDonnell
250
1 that's charged with reviewing that exhibit?
2 A. No.
3 Q. For what purpose are you reviewing it?
4 A. The review we conducted of that exhibit was
5 to assure ourselves to the extent we could that Nolte
6 and Associates had in fact completed their
7 contractual obligations under the subcontract to us
8 and that the comments received on the draft report
9 prepared by Nolte and Associates had been addressed
10 in that document. And that was the extent of our
11 review.
12 Q. In your opinion, had the comments on the
13 draft Nolte report been addressed in this final
14 report dated December 1992?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Yesterday you mentioned that there were
17 some contract items between Burns & McDonnell and its
18 subcontractor Nolte and Associates which had not been
19 completed.
20 Do you anticipate going back to ask them to
21 complete those items?
22 A. I do not.
23 Q. So in your opinion, is the contract between
24 Burns & McDonnell and Nolte completed?
25 A. It is.
251
1 Q. Do you anticipate any further role for
2 either the Technical Advisory Panel or Nolte?
3 A. It may be that under amendment number three
4 we would involve Nolte in assisting us in preliminary
5 engineering design. That decision has not been made,
6 nor has any particular scope been identified.
7 Q. This particular fact wasn't clear in my
8 notes, although I know I covered this subject matter
9 yesterday, and I just wanted to try and clear it for
10 the record.
11 Other than Ron Crites and Sherwood Reed,
12 did you speak with any of the TAP members during the
13 preparation of either the draft or the final report?
14 A. Yes. There was a meeting of the Technical
15 Advisory Panel held in the offices of Nolte and
16 Associates in Sacramento on I believe September 1st
17 through 3rd or so of 1992.
18 That meeting was attended by myself and Zan
19 Kugler, Director of the District Engineering
20 Division.
21 Q. Who else was in attendance?
22 A. The five members of the Technical Advisory
23 Panel, as well as staff of Nolte and Associates.
24 Q. And what was the purpose for the meeting?
25 A. The purpose of the meeting was to allow
252
1 that group to, as a group, consider the various
2 information documents that have been submitted to
3 them and to formulate an initial position for
4 inclusion in the draft report.
5 The process that followed was that Nolte
6 and Associates and their staff was preparing drafts
7 of the document for review and consideration by the
8 Technical Advisory Panel.
9 I guess that's about as clear as I can put
10 it.
11 Q. Had Nolte, as of that meeting, been
12 provided with all of the documents that you had asked
13 them to review?
14 A. At that point in time, yes. They were
15 subsequently asked to review additional documents.
16 Q. And that additional document review was
17 after the publication of the draft report; is that
18 correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Who made the determination or
21 determinations as to what documents Nolte would
22 review prior to the publication of the draft report?
23 A. Nolte and Associates. We did identify
24 certain documents we knew that they would have some
25 interest in and had furnished those to them, but they
253
1 also conducted their own literature search.
2 And a member of their staff, a Robert
3 Charney, had made a separate trip to the District to
4 seek their assistance in obtaining copies of a number
5 of other documents that we had not suggested to them.
6 Q. And to your knowledge, did they get copies,
7 did Mr. Charney get copies of all the documents that
8 he requested from the District?
9 A. To my knowledge, yes. I never saw a
10 complete list of what he was asking for, but I'm sure
11 had they not received what they were looking for, I
12 would have heard about it.
13 Q. Who from the District or Burns & McDonnell
14 made the decision as to what documents to initially
15 provide them with in advance of their literature
16 search and request for additional documents?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. Would you turn to page Roman numeral ix?
19 At the top of that page, first full
20 paragraph reads, "A major issue of concern is the
21 expected water chemistry. The required
22 implementation of the BMP activities in the EAA may
23 significantly change the relative amounts of
24 dissolved and particulate phosphorus reaching the
25 STAs."
254
1 Do you have any opinion as to how the BMP
2 activities in the EAA may change the relative amounts
3 of dissolved and particulate phosphorus reaching the
4 STAs?
5 A. We have not attempted to prepare such an
6 opinion.
7 Q. Do you know of anyone that is working on
8 such an opinion?
9 A. I do not.
10 Q. How do you anticipate that you will factor
11 into your model -- in other words, what assumptions
12 might you make with respect to fraction or
13 fractionation of phosphorus?
14 A. With respect to the design of constructed
15 wetlands, we would anticipate no effort to analyze a
16 fractionation of phosphorus.
17 To the extent that the design is based upon
18 a single lump parameter of analysis of Water
19 Conservation Area 2A, that single lump parameter does
20 not permit consideration of the influence of
21 fractionation on removal.
22 Q. Do you agree that a change in the type of
23 phosphorus would impact the K rate?
24 A. I agree that it is possible. I am not
25 certain that it actually would operate in that
255
1 fashion.
2 Q. Do you know if any investigation of that
3 type of cause and effect relationship is being
4 undertaken?
5 A. I would anticipate that to be one topic to
6 be considered in the operation and monitoring and
7 analysis of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project.
8 I know of no other ongoing analysis.
9 Q. Next sentence in the same paragraph reads,
10 "It is possible that the particulate fraction of
11 phosphorus reaching the STAs will be less than that
12 experienced in WCA-2A. As a result, the treatment
13 performance of the STAs may not be the same as the
14 performance observed in WCA-2A."
15 Do you agree with that last statement?
16 A. Do I consider that to be a possibility?
17 Yes.
18 I would note that nothing in my review of
19 the Nolte documents suggests that any particular
20 consideration or analysis was made by the TAP as to
21 the historic fractionation of phosphorus in either 2A
22 or the STAs, so whenever someone makes a statement
23 that it is possible, it is difficult to dispute.
24 Q. Is that something that you could charge
25 them with or the District could charge them with
256
1 doing?
2 A. It is something they could be charged with
3 doing; however, I'm not entirely sure that the
4 available data would support that analysis.
5 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
6 that analysis should be performed?
7 A. To the extent that the design of the
8 constructed wetlands would be based upon a single
9 lump parameter representing all removal processes --
10 Q. What is that single lump parameter?
11 A. The settling rate, it would not appear to
12 be a question involved. I think all that is
13 necessary is some relative feel for any order of
14 magnitude differentials in particulate loading.
15 And again, I have not seen any definitive
16 development or documentation of the fractionation of
17 the phosphorus either in 2A or in the historic
18 discharges from the EAA.
19 Q. Why does the use of a single lump parameter
20 make the form of phosphorus irrelevant for purposes
21 of preparing a general, conceptual design or general
22 design of constructed wetlands?
23 A. Quite simply, because the fractionation of
24 phosphorus in inflows to the Water Conservation Area
25 2A impacted zone is not directly reflected in the
257
1 development of that settling rate.
2 In other words, if the design is to be
3 based upon that single lump parameter settling
4 rate --
5 Q. Derived from 2A data?
6 A. Derived from 2A data, and there was no
7 analysis as to the influence of particulate loads in
8 2A on that settling rate, then it would be difficult
9 to apply some separation in the analysis to the STAs.
10 Q. Paragraph (c) on that same page of
11 Exhibit 4 speaks in terms of a report prepared by
12 Kadlec and Newman.
13 Have you reviewed that report?
14 A. We have.
15 Q. And the last sentence in paragraph (c)
16 says, "It is concluded in the analysis that none of
17 the sites used in their study meet all the necessary
18 criteria for comparability."
19 Do you agree with that statement?
20 A. Let me make sure I understand it first.
21 Q. Sure.
22 MS. PONZOLI: And I'm going to object to
23 form.
24 THE WITNESS: I would agree that none of
25 the sites used the analysis was identical in all
258
1 respects to what we were discussing for the
2 STAs, and as a result, I would agree with the
3 statement.
4 BY MR. BURGESS:
5 Q. Well, let me ask you this. With respect to
6 that statement, was it necessary in your opinion that
7 all of the sites in that study needed to be identical
8 for it to meet the necessary criteria for
9 comparability as that phrase is used in the
10 statement?
11 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
12 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection.
13 THE WITNESS: Could you state that again?
14 BY MR. BURGESS:
15 Q. The basis for your statement -- I asked you
16 simply do you agree or disagree with the statement,
17 and you said to the extent that I agree that none of
18 the sites used in their study were identical, then I
19 agree with the statement.
20 And I don't think that's what the statement
21 says, so my question to you is in your opinion, was
22 it necessary for those sites in Kadlec and Newman to
23 be identical in order for the sites to meet the
24 necessary criteria for comparability?
25 MS. PONZOLI: And I objected to form.
259
1 MR. NETTLETON: Objection to form.
2 THE WITNESS: No two sites are identical,
3 but most of the sites referenced are loaded in
4 fashions markedly different than what we are
5 talking about for the STAs in Water Conservation
6 Area 2A. Identical may have been a bad choice
7 of adjective.
8 BY MR. BURGESS:
9 Q. Based upon your review of this exhibit,
10 does Nolte utilize the Kadlec and Newman report as
11 support for the eight meter a year value for design?
12 A. I do not believe they do.
13 Q. And do you agree with that fact, that
14 nonuse of that report?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
16 THE WITNESS: I agree that it needed to be
17 considered in the report that was done by Nolte
18 and Associates.
19 Given their conclusions relative to the
20 applicability of the data presented in that
21 report, I can take no exception to their lack of
22 reliance on it as a valid source.
23 BY MR. BURGESS:
24 Q. Do you think the Kadlec and Newman report
25 in your opinion provides support for the use of eight
260
1 meters a year as a design criteria for the STAs?
2 A. I believe it to be a, one of the more
3 complete pieces of information that has been made
4 available to us for our analysis, and as a result, I
5 could not ignore its presence.
6 Q. I'm not asking you to ignore it. I'm
7 asking you whether it supports.
8 Would you use it as a document that
9 supports a determination that eight meters a year is
10 a value for the design of the Stormwater Treatment
11 Areas?
12 A. The conclusions reached in that paper would
13 support the eight meter per year value.
14 Q. Okay. And do you believe those conclusions
15 support the use of the eight meter a year number in
16 your design of the STAs?
17 MR. NETTLETON: Asked and answered.
18 THE WITNESS: For our design of the STAs,
19 we are awaiting receipt of a document which we
20 believe to be a more comprehensive review of all
21 available data in Water Conservation Area 2A,
22 and I would prefer not to make a judgment as to
23 whether we would use a previous document until
24 we have had an opportunity to review the new
25 one.
261
1 BY MR. BURGESS:
2 Q. Well, the new document is really a
3 different document than what Kadlec and Newman
4 examined; isn't that true?
5 A. That's true.
6 Q. The next paragraph provides, "As a result
7 of all the factors described above, it is believed
8 that there is significant uncertainty in the
9 application of the eight meter a year value for
10 design of the STAs."
11 Do you agree with that statement?
12 A. I would agree there is uncertainty.
13 Significant is a relative term. I'm not sure what
14 that means as used in the document.
15 Q. In your opinion, is there significant
16 uncertainty of the application of the eight meter a
17 year value for the design of the STAs?
18 A. We are reserving our opinion until such
19 time as we can see a more complete analysis of the
20 data.
21 Q. What are you doing to establish that
22 uncertainty as you go forward in your compliance with
23 the contract?
24 A. We will be in preparation of this
25 forthcoming technical memorandum analyzing the
262
1 influence of variations in the settling rate upon the
2 calculated discharge concentrations from the STAs to
3 assess what impact it might have upon the stated
4 objectives, which could be discharge concentration or
5 could be load reduction.
6 Q. When do you anticipate making a
7 determination as to whether the objective is going to
8 be load reduction or concentration?
9 A. I don't believe that to be a determination
10 that Burns & McDonnell can prepare on its own.
11 Q. Who will make that determination?
12 A. We would hope to make that determination in
13 consultation with various agencies and parties
14 represented or stake-holders in this overall process,
15 if you will.
16 I believe that, as developed and stated in
17 the SWIM Plan, there was an assumption that a 50
18 parts per billion discharge concentration and the
19 stated percentage load reductions in the SWIM Plan
20 were generally consistent with each other, and I do
21 not believe that to be the case.
22 So I'd like in the SWIM Plan where we have
23 in essence a single objective stated in two fashions,
24 I believe we are faced with a choice of objectives.
25 Q. Do you anticipate in your determination of
263
1 these uncertainties doing an uncertainty analysis?
2 A. We anticipate conducting an analysis in
3 which the various input parameters to the model are
4 varied within reasonable ranges to assess what the
5 influence on load reductions primarily would be.
6 Q. Who in Burns & McDonnell is going to
7 perform that analysis?
8 A. That would be done by myself and Dan Burr.
9 Q. Do you have any opinion today as you sit
10 here as to how you will account for that uncertainty
11 once you determine what it is?
12 A. We will define it, present it, and hope
13 that that uncertainty would be reflected in the
14 development of any compliance program for eventual
15 monitoring of the STAs.
16 It would not be our intent to arbitrarily
17 increase or reduce the size of the STAs as a result
18 of the uncertainty analysis.
19 Q. No matter what the level of that
20 uncertainty may be?
21 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: If we were to prepare the
23 analysis and within a reasonable range the
24 parameter identifying an uncertainty makes
25 analysis of the system untenable, then we would
264
1 have to pay attention to it.
2 So with respect to your question, no matter
3 what range of uncertainty, no, I don't think
4 that would be a true statement.
5 BY MR. BURGESS:
6 Q. How do you plan to utilize the uncertainty
7 analysis in either your conceptual or general design
8 other than defining it and presenting it to the board
9 in your report?
10 A. We see our role in this process, at least
11 during the amendment number two plan formulation, as
12 defining the general extent of the uncertainties.
13 We do not see our role as saying given that
14 uncertainty, you should do this or do that.
15 I think those are determinations that
16 cannot be made by a consulting engineer acting
17 independently.
18 Q. Do you anticipate making recommendations as
19 to what might be done given those uncertainties or
20 the uncertainties that you determine?
21 A. Again, we are speculating as to what I will
22 come up with or decide once I see the results of the
23 analyses.
24 I think part of my task is to present our
25 recommendations for at least consideration by the
265
1 people, whoever they may be, who will be tasked with
2 the final decision.
3 Q. Which might include recommendations as to
4 how those uncertainties that you determine might be
5 dealt with?
6 A. It could.
7 Q. Paragraph three on page ix of Exhibit 4
8 provides in its last sentence, "To achieve total
9 phosphorus concentration values equal to or less than
10 0.050 milligrams per liter consistently, the STAs
11 must be designed to achieve a median effluent
12 concentration below 0.050 milligrams per liter."
13 Do you agree or disagree with that
14 statement?
15 A. I would tend to agree with that.
16 Q. Do you have an opinion as to how far below
17 50 milligrams per liter you need to adjust their
18 design?
19 A. To achieve a median effluent concentration?
20 The achievement of an effluent concentration is not a
21 direct consideration in our analysis.
22 I agree that if the STAs are developed to
23 achieve a .05 milligram per liter long-term average
24 flow-weighted concentration, that it will be
25 necessary to have periods in which the calculated
266
1 concentration is less than that.
2 Again, this is noted as a median volume,
3 not mean value. Median suggests something other than
4 flow-weighted average, and as a result, is not a
5 direct consideration in the analysis.
6 Q. Long-term average flow-weighted
7 concentration in your opinion is what period of time?
8 A. The only definition we have proposed to
9 this point -- we have heard no others -- is applied
10 to a 10-year period of record, base period consisting
11 of water years 1979 through 1988.
12 At this point I do not know whether as a
13 result of that analysis it would be possible to
14 reduce that long-term period to ten years with any
15 real degree of confidence.
16 Q. Onto the next page, x at the bottom --
17 A. Okay, I have it now.
18 Q. Paragraph five on that page provides, "The
19 length and detention time in the STAs should be
20 designed comparable to the treatment area identified
21 in WCA-2A."
22 What do you understand the 2A detention
23 time to be?
24 A. Well, based on our analysis of the Water
25 Conservation Area 2A, the average flow-weighted
267
1 detention time in what we used as the impacted zone
2 was just under seven days. That is stated in the
3 conceptual design document.
4 With respect to length, we would tend to
5 agree that the length of the STAs in detention time
6 and area are all interrelated, and that we would not
7 propose the design of an STA in which the length of
8 flow was markedly less than that in 2A for a similar
9 phosphorus concentration reduction.
10 Q. What was the basis for the detention time
11 as stated in the conceptual design document, seven
12 days?
13 A. Our analysis of the inflow data to the
14 15,770-acre impacted zone we had assume or estimated
15 for our work, coupled with the stage records in Water
16 Conservation Area 2A.
17 It is the result of the hydrologic
18 computations associated with that analysis.
19 Q. Where are those hydrologic computations?
20 A. Summarized in the conceptual design report,
21 included in the 2A data which has been submitted to
22 the District and I believe distributed.
23 Q. Was that the STAMOD model?
24 A. That was not. The STAMOD model is a
25 subsequent, if you will, version of the Water
268
1 Conservation Area 2A model intended solely for
2 application to the STAs.
3 There were certain hydrologic and
4 phosphorus components in the 2A model that would not
5 be needed in the STAMOD. This deals with extraneous
6 inflow sources such as pump stations, et cetera, and
7 other structures that do operate to influence the
8 data in 2A.
9 Q. What model was used?
10 A. What model was used?
11 Q. For the hydrologic computations summarized
12 in the conceptual design report to determine the
13 detention?
14 A. I don't know a title as such was ever
15 ascribed to the model. It was described to a level
16 of detail in the conceptual design document and was
17 furnished to the District.
18 Q. Are you referring to part two of the
19 conceptual design document?
20 A. I am.
21 Q. How do you intend to incorporate length and
22 detention time into the design of any constructed
23 wetlands which may be part of your recommendation in
24 fulfillment of your contract?
25 A. Well, the detention time will result from
269
1 just the geometric similitude between area and depth
2 to the extent that we are consistent with the area
3 required for any given reduction and as taken from
4 2A, and to the extent that the hydroperiod in the
5 constructed wetlands is similar to that in 2A, then
6 we will result in a fairly close definition of
7 retention time for the same influent and effluent
8 concentrations.
9 To the extent that the influent
10 concentrations are higher than those experienced in
11 2A, the detention time will be increased, because the
12 area will be increased.
13 Q. How will you determine what level the
14 influent composition is?
15 A. Could you state that again, Rick?
16 Q. Yes.
17 MR. BURGESS: Could you read that back?
18 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
19 was read by the reporter.)
20 THE WITNESS: The determination of inflows
21 to the STAs would be based upon the revised data
22 and analyses that we have been discussing
23 previously included in the technical memoranda
24 submitted under amendment one to contract
25 C-3021.
270
1 BY MR. BURGESS:
2 Q. Do you anticipate using similar hydrologic
3 computation for purposes of potential constructed
4 wetlands to that which you utilized in the conceptual
5 design document?
6 MS. PONZOLI: May I hear that question
7 again?
8 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
9 was read by the reporter.)
10 THE WITNESS: We would anticipate that that
11 would be included in the eventual preliminary
12 engineering of any constructed wetland.
13 We would expect some modification as we
14 have discussed earlier, inasmuch as the 2A
15 analysis we prepared was in the form of a level
16 pool rooting, as is the current case for STAMOD,
17 and we believe that additional analyses of
18 additional wetlands for Stormwater Treatment
19 Areas should be based on the results of a
20 two-dimensional hydrodynamic model which would
21 allow us to incorporate the influence of energy
22 losses to the wetlands in the hydrologic
23 computations.
24 BY MR. BURGESS:
25 Q. And that determination with respect to the
271
1 2D model is going to await an assignment to prepare a
2 design?
3 A. With respect to the SHEET2D model or any
4 other model that may be employed is not for current
5 consideration.
6 Q. Paragraph six provides in its last
7 sentence, "Therefore there is no basis for design of
8 open water communities in the STAs and it is not
9 recommended."
10 My question is whether you agree or
11 disagree with that statement. And you obviously can
12 read the entire paragraph if you need to to form your
13 testimony.
14 A. We agree with that statement.
15 Q. Paragraph number nine, the last sentence
16 provides, "A coefficient of 0.6 to 0.7 (pan to
17 wetland) is recommended for the areas vegetated with
18 cattails."
19 What pan coefficient will you use in any
20 design of constructed wetlands that you might
21 perform?
22 A. The pan coefficient reflected in the
23 conceptual design document is 0.85.
24 For our subsequent analyses we will be
25 using at least for base 0.7, the upper point of the
272
1 range recommended by Nolte and Associates.
2 We also, as we discussed, for the
3 uncertainty analyses make a reasonable range of
4 values in that pan coefficient or analyze those to
5 determine what influence they may have on the
6 results.
7 Q. And the basis for using the 0.7 is Nolte?
8 A. Is the information presented in the Nolte
9 report.
10 Q. Number 13 on the next page provides "Length
11 to width aspect ratios in the range of 4:1 to 10:1
12 are recommended for the STAs."
13 Do you have an opinion as to that
14 recommendation?
15 A. Our opinion is that the length of flow in
16 the STAs should be developed based upon again
17 similitude to Water Conservation Area 2A.
18 With respect to the actual application of
19 length to width ratios of 4:1 to 10:1, our
20 interpretation of what that means is not the overall
21 length to width of the STA as a total, but the length
22 to width or the aspect ratio of that portion of the
23 STA influenced by an individual structure.
24 Q. How is that similitude to the 2A data going
25 to be established?
273
1 A. The development of the -- and this is how I
2 think it will be established. That hasn't been done
3 as yet, but the development of the equations
4 presented in the December 20, 1992 paper prepared by
5 Bob Kadlec in which it eventually results in analysis
6 by area would permit, if we were to consider the
7 impacted zone as a uniform width, which is an
8 approximation, a separate integration in which the
9 reduction, the observed reduction relative to length
10 can be computed.
11 Q. From that same equation?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Or from the results of that equation?
14 A. If you are to consider area as a product of
15 a width of flow and a length of flow, then it is
16 possible to separate the integration.
17 But again, that's how I think it will be
18 done. It has not been done as yet.
19 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the
20 impact area in WCA-2A has uniform or sheet flow?
21 A. We have not prepared a two-dimensional
22 analysis of WCA-2A; however, given our understanding
23 of its configuration, the nature of inflow
24 structures, I would be greatly surprised if in fact
25 there is uniform flow experienced in 2A in the
274
1 impacted zone.
2 Q. Why?
3 A. It is not developed, operated or regulated
4 to contribute or promote uniform flow.
5 And in nature, uniform flow is not
6 something that happens by accident.
7 Q. How have you defined the impacted area of
8 2A as you are using it in your testimony?
9 A. With respect to our analysis in the
10 conceptual design, the 15,770 acres was estimated
11 based upon inspection of satellite imagery of Water
12 Conservation Area 2A for a definition of what we
13 considered to be a representative width to flow and
14 then a length of flow based upon the reported
15 phosphorus concentrations downstream of the STA
16 structures.
17 Q. Whose reported phosphorus concentrations
18 downstream --
19 A. SWIM Plan.
20 Q. Did you do any ground truthing?
21 A. None.
22 Q. What satellite imagery are you referring
23 to?
24 A. I do not recall the date of the image. It
25 was imagery available at the District. We looked at
275
1 I think a couple of different dates. We didn't even
2 ask for copies of them.
3 This is going to sound a little crude, but
4 we simply applied a scale to the images hanging on
5 the wall. Did not attempt a rigorous scientific
6 definition of the impacted zone.
7 Q. Did your methodology as you describe it
8 give you an approximation of the impacted area of 2A?
9 A. It did.
10 Q. And what have you used that approximation
11 of the impacted area for?
12 A. The development and analysis of Water
13 Conservation Area 2A reported in part two of the
14 conceptual design document that we have discussed
15 previously this morning.
16 Q. When you say in the development and
17 analysis, have you in fact utilized that in your
18 calculations of the Stormwater Treatment Areas that
19 is contained in the March 31 conceptual design?
20 A. We have not.
21 Q. Then how have you used it?
22 A. We have used it in an attempt -- and we
23 keep answering the same question, I believe.
24 Our intent in development of our analysis
25 of the 2A data was to identify different parameters
276
1 to allow us to apply a daily model to variations in
2 inflow of the various STAs to satisfy ourselves it
3 was not something in that temporal variation, which
4 in and of itself would cause us to exceed the bounds
5 of Water Conservation Area 2A analysis.
6 Q. And how was your approximation of the
7 impacted area utilized in establishing that
8 parameter?
9 How was the acreage figure that you came up
10 with utilized?
11 A. The acreage figure we came up with --
12 Q. For impacted area.
13 A. For impacted area -- and I should make
14 perhaps one distinction. Our interest was not in
15 identifying the entire impacted area of Water
16 Conservation Area 2A.
17 Our analysis was directed towards
18 approximation of that part of 2A which would act in
19 fashion similar to the STAs in reducing phosphorus
20 concentrations to .05 milligrams per liter. The two
21 are not the same thing.
22 Q. How do they differ?
23 A. We have not attempted to estimate the
24 acreage of the impacted area of Water Conservation
25 Area 2A. I would expect it to be greater.
277
1 Q. How did you determine whether the cut-off
2 point would be, if you will, with respect to that
3 area that you would expect in 2A, you would expect to
4 act similar to the STA?
5 A. With respect to the, in terms of how much
6 length of flow is what we are talking about of 2A did
7 we consider, that was judged with respect to the
8 regression equation on phosphorus concentrations
9 reported in Appendix F to the SWIM Plan, the draft
10 SWIM Plan.
11 In essence, we were looking for that
12 transect at which we would have the effluent
13 concentration at or slightly below the target of 0.5
14 milligrams per liter.
15 Q. Do you know which transect?
16 A. As discussed in the -- extended the
17 analysis through the 6.1 kilometer transect.
18 Q. Is that a transect south of the A, C or D
19 structure?
20 A. That is a distance south of the S-10 C
21 structure.
22 Q. Do you know whether you are using equation
23 three in Appendix F to the SWIM Plan?
24 A. Could you show me that?
25 Q. Yes.
278
1 A. Is this Appendex F of the final version of
2 the SWIM Plan?
3 Q. Assume for purposes of the question that it
4 is.
5 A. Of the final version?
6 There were some differences in the final
7 version to those in the draft SWIM Plan. The draft
8 SWIM Plan -- I mean the final version of the SWIM
9 Plan was not available to us when we were doing our
10 analysis, so I could not state that something coming
11 out of the final version was used in the conceptual
12 design.
13 Q. Looking at that equation, does that refresh
14 your recollection at all as to whether or not that
15 was the equation you used?
16 A. You are asking me whether I can -- no, I
17 could not state that.
18 Q. Do you recall whether you used the water
19 concentration equation from Appendix F?
20 A. It would have been from Appendex F of the
21 draft SWIM Plan, which may not be what I have before
22 me.
23 Q. Okay, thank you.
24 Number 14 in Exhibit 4 on page Roman
25 numeral xi provides "Low internal lateral berms are
279
1 suggested at 0.5 to one mile intervals (805 to 1,609
2 meters) in the STAs to improve flow distribution.
3 Lateral berms existing within the STA sites may be
4 incorporated in the design."
5 Do you have any opinion as to whether or
6 not you are going to utilize low internal berms at
7 those intervals?
8 A. We would expect to utilize low internal
9 berms at intervals approximating those listed here as
10 they are in fact available to the majority of the
11 sites being considered for the STAs.
12 Q. Finally, paragraph 15 provides in its
13 second sentence, "The most appropriate method for
14 calculating friction losses in the STAs was developed
15 by Kadlec (1990) and is based on vegetated stem
16 density."
17 Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
18 you are going to utilize that same model for purposes
19 of calculating friction losses?
20 A. We have not reached a final determination
21 on that. The reference in statement 15 is I think
22 with respect to the data summarized in one of the
23 appendices to the Nolte report.
24 If we go back to the paper actually
25 prepared by Kadlec and upon which this analysis is
280
1 based, it is suggested in that document that the
2 calculation of friction losses in wetlands such as
3 are in consideration here should in fact include two
4 primary components, one based on a Mannings N value,
5 in conjunction with one based upon a transition zone
6 loss calculation, as suggested in the Nolte report.
7 We tend to agree with the need for a
8 multiple term analysis and are in the process of
9 trying to determine whether or not it is possible to
10 estimate the parameters necessary for that analysis
11 based on such information as we can find.
12 Q. Have you identified any inaccuracies or
13 what you might consider incorrect conclusions in the
14 Nolte report based upon your review to date?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
16 THE WITNESS: With respect to inaccuracies,
17 to the extent that there are inaccuracies in
18 numbers reported, we have attempted to identify
19 those to Nolte.
20 With respect to incorrect conclusions,
21 their conclusions are their own.
22 BY MR. BURGESS:
23 Q. What inaccuracies in numbers reported have
24 you pointed out to Nolte?
25 A. There were some in the preparation of the
281
1 draft report. I don't recall exactly what they were,
2 but they didn't seem to be particularly, of
3 particular importance.
4 Q. Have they been corrected in the final
5 report, to your knowledge?
6 A. I believe they were.
7 Q. Are there any conclusions in the Nolte
8 report that you disagree with, other than as you have
9 stated so far in your testimony today?
10 MS. PONZOLI: Object to form.
11 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection.
12 THE WITNESS: If you are talking about the
13 conclusions listed in the summary, could you
14 give me a moment to look through those, assuming
15 that I need to answer that kind of question?
16 BY MR. BURGESS:
17 Q. Yes.
18 MS. PONZOLI: Would you read back the
19 pending question?
20 (Thereupon