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, a portion of the record
21              was read by the reporter.)
22             MR. NETTLETON:  I believe the question has
23        been modified by counsel to refer simply to the
24        summary conclusions in the executive summary
25        that the witness has now reviewed.

                                                 282

 1             MR. BURGESS:  Then let me make it a
 2        two-part question.  One would be yes, with
 3        respect to the summary, conclusions contained,
 4        some of which we reviewed this morning.  I would
 5        like that question answered.
 6             Secondly, I would like the witness to
 7        respond to the question based upon his review of
 8        the entire report, and whether upon that review
 9        he noted conclusions that Nolte has made with
10        which he disagrees.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  I will object to the form
12        of the question.  You are asking him to sit here
13        through this deposition and read through every
14        word.
15             If you are asking him does he recall
16        anything at this time --
17             MR. BURGESS:  That's right.
18             MS. PONZOLI:  That's right what?  Does he
19        recall anything at this time?
20             MR. BURGESS:  Yes.
21             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm going to object to the
22        form of the question.  At least it's a little
23        more reasonable than before.
24             THE WITNESS:  Other than as we have
25        discussed already this morning, we would take

                                                 283

 1        serious exception to the conclusions presented
 2        in the executive summary.
 3             Again, I think we have discussed in essence
 4        some of our significant concerns or the
 5        differences there were with respect to the body
 6        of the document itself.
 7   BY MR. BURGESS:
 8       Q.    And based upon your earlier review of the
 9   document, do you recall as you sit here today any
10   other conclusions contained in the body of the
11   document that you would take issue with or disagree
12   with?
13             MS. PONZOLI:  Same objection as before.
14             MR. NETTLETON:  Same objection.
15             THE WITNESS:  Other than as we have
16        discussed, I can't recall any.
17   BY MR. BURGESS:
18       Q.    Going back to your earlier testimony with
19   respect to your review of the satellite imagery, in
20   your opinion, was the calculation of the impacted
21   area as you testified you did it based upon a review
22   of the satellite imagery a reasonable way in which to
23   calculate the impacted area?
24       A.    It is not a scientifically rigorous way to
25   do that, but given the number of approximations

                                                 284

 1   necessary to the conduct of our analysis of the Water
 2   Conservation Area 2 analysis, we felt it to be
 3   appropriate to that analysis.
 4       Q.    Have you determined the length of the flow
 5   path in 2A, given your testimony that you do not
 6   believe sheet flow occurs there?
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  I'm a little confused by the
 9        question.
10             MS. PONZOLI:  Objection.
11   BY MR. BURGESS:
12       Q.    I think you testified earlier that in your
13   opinion there is not sheet flow at least within the
14   impacted area of 2A?
15             MR. NETTLETON:  Object.
16   BY MR. BURGESS:
17       Q.    Is that correct?
18       A.    I testified earlier that we have not
19   prepared an analysis to determine whether or not
20   there is sheet flow or uniform flow, but I would be
21   greatly surprised if there were.
22       Q.    What, if any, studies have you done to
23   determine what the nature of the flow path is within
24   that impacted area in 2A?
25       A.    We would have attempted in those studies to

                                                 285

 1   define the nature of the flow path.  All our work is
 2   summarized in part two of the conceptual design
 3   document.
 4       Q.    Do you know of any studies that are
 5   attempting to determine the flow path in 2A?
 6       A.    I don't know if there is that is a subject
 7   of the forthcoming document from Walker or not.  I
 8   know of no other current studies.
 9       Q.    Do you think it's important for you to know
10   what the length of the flow path is through the
11   impacted area of 2A in order for you to design the
12   STAs?
13             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
14             THE WITNESS:  It is my understanding that
15        the forthcoming analysis by Walker would
16        consider data available from more than just one
17        transect in 2A, and to the extent that
18        additional transects, the data from additional
19        transects are considered, that would provide a
20        greater degree of comfort or reliability in
21        assumption of the flow length.
22   BY MR. BURGESS:
23       Q.    So you are going to utilize that Walker
24   report in determining what length to width ratios
25   would be appropriate for the sizing of the STAs?

                                                 286

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Length to width are not
 4        important to me.
 5   BY MR. BURGESS:
 6       Q.    Length to flow?
 7             MS. PONZOLI:  Same objection.
 8             THE WITNESS:  We would hope we could use
 9        some of the same results used in that analysis.
10   BY MR. BURGESS:
11       Q.    What else would you use other than that
12   analysis for determining the length of the flow path
13   in 2A for sizing the STAs?
14       A.    The only other -- there are separate
15   publications that estimate length of flow path.
16             To this point, about the clearest one we
17   have is the information presented in Appendex F of
18   the SWIM Plan.
19       Q.    What other publication?
20       A.    That was a topic of, at least in some
21   fashion, the Duke University study annual report
22   which didn't address length of the flow, but it did
23   separate it into highly impacted, moderately impacted
24   and lightly impacted zones, and some information can
25   be gleaned from that.

                                                 287

 1             We are hoping that the forthcoming document
 2   will include a sufficient level of detail to allow
 3   some confidence in development of the required length
 4   of the flow.
 5       Q.    Have you asked anyone at Duke University or
 6   Dr. Richardson to provide any further information
 7   with respect to his gradients in 2A and how they
 8   might be utilized in your determination of flow path?
 9       A.    No.
10       Q.    Do you anticipate doing that?
11       A.    We do not.
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Are you offering it?
13             MR. BURGESS:  If he asks, we will respond.
14             (Discussion held off the record.)
15             MR. BURGESS:  If it was asked for, we would
16        definitely consider the request.
17             THE WITNESS:  I would note that, again, we
18        are assuming at this point that a basis for
19        design of constructed wetlands would be an
20        apparent settling rate, which I don't think was
21        a direct topic or discussion in the Duke or
22        Richardson basis.
23             If that is to be a basis and we are to
24        estimate our basis of flow length on that same
25        type of approach, it would not be particularly

                                                 288

 1        fruitful for us to further pursue that.
 2             MR. BURGESS:  Could you read that answer
 3        back?
 4             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 5              was read by the reporter.)
 6   BY MR. BURGESS:
 7       Q.    Who has made the determination that the
 8   settling rate should constitute the basis for design?
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
10             THE WITNESS:  To this point it is the most
11        rational approach we have seen for determination
12        of the phosphorus reduction.
13             It has also been accepted in at least
14        majority form by the SAGE group for the
15        Everglades.  It appears to be the only, if you
16        will, the only game in town.
17   BY MR. BURGESS:
18       Q.    Do you feel that you have under your
19   contract the ability to accept or reject the use of a
20   settling rate as a basis for design?
21       A.    I feel I have the ability under my contract
22   to do that, to reject it if I believe it necessary to
23   do so.
24             MR. BURGESS:  We can break for lunch.
25             (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

                                                 289

 1   BY MR. BURGESS:
 2       Q.    If I could ask you to turn to page 3 of
 3   Exhibit A of Exhibit 6, which is the 3021 contract.
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  Do you have any more copies
 5        of 6?
 6             MR. BURGESS:  I don't.  Very brief
 7        question.  It's the 3021 contract.
 8   BY MR. BURGESS:
 9       Q.    Do you understand that the project
10   formulation contained on the bottom of that page is
11   your present project formulation with respect to this
12   contract?
13       A.    I don't know that it's stated exactly the
14   same as the actual amendment number two or three
15   defines scope of the plan formulation phase.
16             This is worded to suggest it's a refinement
17   in conceptual designs in the FTA/RTA alternatives,
18   when in fact the currently operating definition of
19   what we are doing would extend to other alternatives.
20       Q.    And that currently operating definition is
21   contained in amendment two?
22       A.    It is.
23       Q.    Do you know whether amendment two also
24   addresses the rejection of alternatives which do not
25   appear to be individually economic?

                                                 290

 1       A.    Amendment number two is intended to
 2   consider those treatment technologies or alternatives
 3   which are considered to be most promising as a result
 4   of the evaluation being prepared by Brown & Caldwell
 5   under contract C-3051.
 6             It is not our intent to go back and further
 7   consider alternatives which have been screened out or
 8   rejected as a result of that process or effort.
 9       Q.    Is it your understanding that Brown &
10   Caldwell will be rejecting alternatives that do not
11   appear to be individually economic?
12       A.    It is my understanding that the phase one
13   evaluation prepared by Brown & Caldwell did in fact
14   identify certain of the alternatives which for a
15   variety of reasons, economics being one, were not
16   considered or recommended for further detailed
17   evaluation.
18       Q.    And do you understand that they will be
19   doing that with respect to phase two of their
20   evaluation also?
21       A.    The phase two evaluation will further
22   develop those alternatives considered most promising
23   as a result of the phase one evaluation.
24             Whether or not they would recommend
25   rejection on further development of their

                                                 291

 1   alternative, I won't know until I see their document.
 2       Q.    With respect to the continuation of that
 3   last sentence, this goes over to the other page,
 4   talks in terms of "selecting the two or three
 5   combinations which offer prospect of maximum return
 6   for detailed consideration and reanalyzing costs and
 7   benefits."
 8             Who is going to make this election as to
 9   the two or three combinations?
10       A.    We will be defining those combinations or
11   possible combinations of alternatives for further
12   consideration and formulation phase.
13       Q.    And that will be -- when you say we, do you
14   mean Burns & McDonnell?
15       A.    Burns & McDonnell.
16       Q.    Will you consult with your clients in
17   making those decisions?
18       A.    Certainly.
19       Q.    Who will you talk with at the District?
20       A.    Again, our direct point of contact is Zan
21   Kugler, Director of the Engineering Division.
22       Q.    You anticipate that will be your point of
23   contact?
24       A.    Point of contact.  He may or may not
25   involve other personnel in those discussions.

                                                 292

 1       Q.    And that selection of those combinations is
 2   going to occur after the February SAGE meeting when
 3   Brown & Caldwell presents its report; is that
 4   correct?
 5       A.    We will begin the process in terms of
 6   trying to decide what we would like to suggest as
 7   soon as we see the documents being prepared by Brown
 8   & Caldwell in advance of the SAGE meeting.
 9       Q.    Do you anticipate in fact that it's going
10   to be a combination or combinations as opposed to
11   just one alternative that will be recommended?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
13             THE WITNESS:  I don't presently anticipate
14        what the form of the recommended plan will be.
15        It may include combinations and it may not.
16   BY MR. BURGESS:
17       Q.    Okay, thank you.
18             I want to go back to an area that we were
19   at right before we broke for lunch just to make sure
20   that I understand your testimony.
21             Have you in fact calculated flow lengths
22   for WCA-2A?
23       A.    I think the answer would be no.
24       Q.    Will it be necessary for your continued
25   analysis of constructed wetlands for you to determine

                                                 293

 1   or have determined the flow length in 2A?
 2       A.    It will be.  We have already stated that we
 3   think it's important that we be consistent in terms
 4   of geometric similitude between what we are doing and
 5   what is observed in Water Conservation Area 2A.
 6       Q.    Do you anticipate that the paper that
 7   Walker is working on addresses that flow length
 8   issue?
 9       A.    We anticipate that paper will address in
10   some detail the effective area or area under
11   consideration.
12             It may or may not describe flow length, but
13   given definition of the area being considered, we
14   think it would be possible to make some estimate of
15   what flow length would be from that.
16       Q.    If that paper doesn't describe flow length
17   or if it's not provided, how will you determine the
18   flow length for 2A?
19       A.    We would not -- you are asking me how I
20   would do something that's not really consistent with
21   my intended approach to the project.
22       Q.    Let's start with why is it not consistent
23   with your intent?
24       A.    We are hoping that that type of information
25   is presented in detail in the Walker documents.

                                                 294

 1       Q.    Right, so assuming for purposes of my
 2   question that it's not or that you don't get the
 3   document, what are you going to do?
 4       A.    The length downstream of the S-10
 5   structures for flow we would consider consistent with
 6   previous reports of the information that is
 7   available, including Appendex F of the SWIM Plan.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Can you read that answer back
 9        again, please?
10             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
11              was read by the reporter.)
12             MS. PONZOLI:  Thank you.
13   BY MR. BURGESS:
14       Q.    So that you would utilize the lengths or
15   the flow lengths that are contained in Appendix F in
16   the SWIM Plan in the absence of other information?
17       A.    In the absence of other information, yes, I
18   think we would have to.
19             (The document was marked
20             Miller Exb. No. 19.)
21   BY MR. BURGESS:
22       Q.    I'm going to hand you Exhibit 19 and ask if
23   you can identify that document.
24       A.    It is labeled as Everglades SWIM Plan
25   Appendix F, Documentation of Models Used to Determine

                                                 295

 1   the Size of Stormwater Treatment Areas.
 2       Q.    Assume for purposes of my question that
 3   that is Appendix F to the final draft of t