1
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.;
4 and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,
5 and DOAH CASE NOS. 92-3038
92-3039
6 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; 92-3040
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; 92-6796
7 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., 92-6797
92-6799
8 and 92-6800
9 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE VOLUME I (Pages 1 - 204)
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,
10 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,
11
Petitioners,
12
v.
13
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
14 DISTRICT,
15 Respondent,
16 and
17 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
18 et al.,
19 Intervenors.
_____________________________________
20
Deposition of CURTIS D. POLLMAN, Ph.D.
21
Taken before Lynn Marie Durscher, Registered
22 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
State of Florida at Large, pursuant to notice of taking
23 deposition filed by the Respondents in the above cause.
24 Monday, February 14, 1994
15 Southeast First Avenue
25 Gainesville, Florida 3260l
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers
Cooperative, Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth Farms,
3 Inc.:
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
4 123 South Calhoun Street
Post Office Box 6526
5 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526
BY: WILLIAM HARRIS GREEN, ESQUIRE
6
On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
7 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
4000 International Place
8 100 Southeast Second Street
Miami, Florida 33131
9 BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10 On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of
America:
11 United States Department of Justice
General Litigation Section
12 Environment and Natural Resources Division
Washington, D.C. 20530
13 BY: MICHAEL W. REED, ASSISTANT CHIEF
14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 RONALD D. JONES, Ph.D.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4
5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
6 Curtis D. Pollman, Ph.D.
7 BY MR. NETTLETON: 4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 - - -
16 E X H I B I T S
17 - - -
18
19 (NO EXHIBITS MARKED VOLUME I)
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 - - -
3 Thereupon,
4 CURTIS D. POLLMAN, Ph.D.,
5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly sworn, was
6 examined and testified as follows:
7 THE WITNESS: I do.
8 DIRECT (Curtis Pollman, Ph.D.)
9 BY MR. NETTLETON:
10 Q. Would you state your name for the record.
11 A. My name is Curtis D. Pollman, P-o-l-l-m-a-n.
12 Q. Dr. Pollman, we're here on the continuation of
13 your deposition from approximately a year ago, I believe
14 February 16th and 17th of 1993. At that time we'd gone over
15 some of the stuff you had done in this case, as well as some
16 preliminary opinions and things that you might testify about
17 at the final hearing.
18 What I'd like to do now to get us off and running,
19 if we could, is to ask you if you could tell me as
20 specifically or generally as you think appropriate the
21 opinions or categories of opinions that you have been asked
22 to present at the final hearing in this matter.
23 MR. GREEN: If I could interject, Mr. Nettleton, I
24 assume -- I believe we stipulated the first time around
25 that objections are reserved except to the form of the
5
1 question.
2 MR. NETTLETON: That's right.
3 MR. GREEN: And we would still operate under that,
4 and I object to the form of that because you're asking for a
5 narrative response and I'd ask you to be more specific, if
6 you could.
7 Q. Well, I don't know that a narrative response is
8 objectionable, but can you tell me what opinions or what
9 opinions have you been asked to present at the final hearing
10 in this matter?
11 A. The areas that I've been asked to testify to
12 relate to several. The first would be on issues that relate
13 to the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge particularly
14 regarding the quality of data that are being used to -- that
15 were originally used to set the criteria limits, and in
16 addition, the relevance of that data as it pertains to, say,
17 a cause-and-effect relationship that might be perceived
18 between, say, inflow concentrations going into the marsh and
19 interior marsh concentrations.
20 Second area that I would be asked to testify to
21 relates to sediment accumulation rates. In other words, a
22 key variable in this proceeding is the phosphorus settling
23 velocity that's being used to size the STAs. I have some
24 opinions as to the efficacy of the approach that has been
25 taken by Dr. Walker to arrive at that settling velocity and
6
1 I would be expected to provide some testimony in that area.
2 I believe there is one other area, but at the
3 moment it escapes me.
4 Q. Would the other area concern the mercury sampling
5 that's going on?
6 A. I envision that I would be asked to provide some
7 testimony in that area insofar as what was conducted and
8 perhaps what those results are.
9 Q. Is that the other area you were thinking of, or is
10 there still another one?
11 A. No. I think there's a fourth area.
12 Q. Have you seen your witness designation or
13 disclosure of subject matter of your expected testimony?
14 A. Yes, I have.
15 Q. If I showed that to you, would that help refresh
16 your recollection on this other area?
17 A. I'm sure it would.
18 Q. Let me hand you a copy of what the Cooperative has
19 filed as your designated area of testimony.
20 MR. GREEN: Just for the record, Paul, what's the
21 date of the document?
22 Q. That's the one that was faxed in last week, I
23 believe.
24 MR. GREEN: Okay. Thank you.
25 A. Yeah. Basically, what I have before me here in
7
1 terms of the subject matter of expected testimony recaptures
2 or reiterates what I have just stated. The only difference
3 is that what I have before me breaks the Loxahatchee work
4 into really two different components, and I sort of lumped
5 it all into one area.
6 Q. Which components did it break it into? I'm
7 sorry.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. That would be the quality of the data that --
10 A. Yes. As far as addressing the issues in the
11 Loxahatchee are concerned, there are two basic issues of
12 concern; first of all, is that the data itself are of rather
13 poor quality and that we have concerns, then, about using
14 data of poor quality to establish criteria limits.
15 The second area that also relates to Loxahatchee
16 concerns that we believe that there should be a
17 cause-and-effect relationship or a link, some sort of a
18 physical link between loads coming in through the S-5 and
19 S-6 structures and the stations that are being used to
20 monitor compliance as part of the criteria.
21 Q. Okay. Any other areas you intend to testify on at
22 final hearing than what you've mentioned?
23 A. Well, I've got to admit that I have some confusion
24 as to actually what my role in the hearing is going to be
25 since --
8
1 Q. Well, I -- I'm sorry.
2 A. -- as you may or may not be aware, I have been
3 conflicted out of the -- out of the hearing as a witness
4 for the co-op.
5 MR. NETTLETON: I was unaware that you had been
6 conflicted out, but -- I wasn't at the hearing Friday, but
7 we can talk about that later.
8 Does that affect this deposition at all, Mr.
9 Green?
10 MR. GREEN: Well, the topic came up at the case
11 management conference last Friday, Mr. Nettleton, and I
12 believe that all the representatives of parties present
13 anticipated that this deposition would go forward as
14 scheduled.
15 BY MR. NETTLETON:
16 Q. Dr. Pollman, with regard to the first area you
17 identified, the quality of the data for the refuge, could
18 you tell us what your opinions are concerning the quality of
19 that data?
20 A. My basic opinion of the data that have been used
21 initially to develop the criteria is that the data are
22 rather poor quality.
23 Q. And when you say "poor quality," what do you mean?
24 A. I have concerns about the reliability of the data
25 and whether or not they should be even used for anything of
9
1 scientific value, much less a regulatory value.
2 Q. What precisely are your concerns about the data?
3 What is it that raises these concerns about not being able
4 to use it for a scientific basis?
5 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. If I may interject, I
6 don't object to the question, Mr. Nettleton, but I would
7 reflect that this area was covered fully in the last
8 deposition.
9 MR. NETTLETON: I understand.
10 MR. GREEN: But he may answer.
11 MR. NETTLETON: I believe at the last deposition,
12 though, there were no final opinions. I'm just clarifying
13 the final opinions at this time.
14 MR. GREEN: That's fine.
15 BY THE WITNESS:
16 A. I guess I should state that I've not revisited
17 this issue since my last deposition. I guess I should also
18 state that as part of -- as a practical reality of being
19 conflicted out of the hearing, that I will be transitioning
20 myself out of my relationship with the Cooperative over the
21 next coming weeks and that I will be, I guess, producing
22 some sort of final report that summarizes my opinions, so I
23 will be revisiting this issue over the coming weeks in some
24 form of a report which I have yet not -- which I have yet
25 to write, but to the extent that I can restate what my
10
1 opinions were a year ago, if you would like me to revisit
2 that, I guess you can go ahead and proceed.
3 Q. Well, let me just clarify. Since your deposition
4 last February, you have not looked at this issue any further
5 and your opinions would remain the same as they were stated
6 last February of '93?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Okay. Just for my own edification and for
9 clarification of the record, could you briefly reiterate
10 what those opinions are?
11 A. Certainly. First of all, one of the concerns I
12 have relates to interparameter consistency. When you work
13 with data sets that consist of a number of variables, you
14 expect those variables to be internally consistent, some of
15 the interparameter relationships.
16 We have examined the Loxahatchee data that we were
17 provided by the District with to see if those relationships
18 are fundamentally consistent. We found some
19 inconsistencies, some rather large inconsistencies.
20 Now, these inconsistencies do not explicitly
21 address the problems or the efficacy of the phosphorus data
22 per se which the District is using to establish the criteria
23 limits, but they give us cause for concern because it
24 reflects that there's fundamental problems either with the
25 laboratory or the way the data were collected, that, at any
11
1 rate, the samples were poorly processed or poorly handled
2 and that the data base as a whole appears to be flawed and
3 of rather poor quality.
4 In addition, in the course of, I guess, discovery,
5 trying to acquire particularly QA/QC data from the District
6 regarding their laboratory practices and the performance of
7 the lab at particularly low levels of phosphorus
8 concentrations, we've gotten only limited information. That
9 limited information suggests rather poor recoveries of
10 ambient phosphorus levels and does not -- at least does not
11 give me any level of comfort that the samples are accurate,
12 the sample results are accurate.
13 Moreover, in the course of deposition, and I
14 believe those depositions were taken with Dr. Vidal of the
15 South Florida Water Management District, that's V-i-d-a-l,
16 and Mr. Rosen also of the District, their reflections of
17 historical practice and their indications of how method
18 detection limits are determined also give me very little
19 cause for comfort regarding the reliability of the data.
20 Q. Going to the first area you mentioned, the
21 interparameter consistency, can you tell me what
22 inconsistencies were found?
23 A. Yeah. I'll have to speak rather, I guess,
24 qualitatively at this point because, like I said earlier,
25 it's been a year since I looked at this stuff and I can only
12
1 remember some of the gross overall relationships, but if
2 memory serves me correctly, we got very poor ion balances.
3 In other words, when we summed up the total of the cation
4 and then some of the anion species, you'd expect those sums
5 to be very similar. You would expect them to be
6 equivalent. They're not.
7 You'd also expect to see a relationship between
8 the chemical makeup of the waters that were sampled and the
9 measured electrical conductance or specific conductivity.
10 Those relationships do not exist.
11 If memory serves me correctly, we also saw very,
12 very poor agreement between field measured conductivities
13 and laboratory measured conductivities, and conductivity is
14 a parameter that can be very easily measured. It's rather
15 hard to screw up that particular measurement, and so it's
16 surprising to me that we would find such poor agreement with
17 those species.
18 Q. Okay.
19 MR. GREEN: Excuse me, Mr. Nettleton, if I can
20 just state for the record, I believe that documents
21 concerning this matter were turned over in the first
22 deposition that you have. If you have them today, it may be
23 helpful to you, just for the record.
24 MR. NETTLETON: Okay. I just -- I don't recall
25 seeing documents on the inconsistency analysis, but --
13
1 MR. GREEN: Yes.
2 BY MR. NETTLETON:
3 Q. Do you recall any additional inconsistencies that
4 appeared?
5 A. Oh, I would have to go back and look at the data
6 again, but I think those are my fundamental concerns. I
7 think that there are also perhaps some calculation errors as
8 far as some of the -- how some of the parameters were
9 presented in the data set.
10 To be honest, there were some pretty funky things
11 in the data set that made me wonder if there were data entry
12 problems with the way the data that were -- the way data
13 were handled, and one of the concerns we had was did we
14 actually have the final data set or did we have some data
15 set that was provided to us that had some problems that were
16 subsequently corrected and we never did receive what I would
17 consider to be a cleaned up, verified data set subsequent to
18 my deposition.
19 Q. When you say there were calculation errors, what
20 do you mean?
21 A. Again, I have to speak from memory. My memory may
22 be faulty on this regard, but I thought that there might
23 have been problems with, say, calcium magnesium values and
24 the hardness values that were being presented. There may
25 have been problems with alkalinity measurements that were
14
1 presented. That I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and look
2 at the data set.
3 Q. And how would you go about determining a
4 calculation error?
5 A. Well, as far as hardness is concerned, hardness is
6 typically the sum of calcium magnesium, so you look at the
7 sum of calcium and you look at -- the sum of calcium
8 magnesium, rather, and you look at the hardness values and
9 see if they match up.
10 If they don't match up, then I would go back to
11 the reporting laboratory and ask why don't they match up and
12 try and ferret out the problem at that point. It may be that
13 hardness was measured directly or it may have been reported
14 as a calculated parameter, but at any rate, they should be,
15 again, internally consistent.
16 Q. Am I correct that you earlier stated that the
17 particular inconsistencies that you've noted do not directly
18 relate to the phosphorus data?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And you mentioned that you thought this may be the
21 result of data entry problems?
22 A. It could be. We saw some very unusual
23 relationships when we started plotting bivariate
24 relationships, in other words, when we were plotting one
25 variable versus another variable, and our a priori
15
1 expectations were that the relationship would be a straight
2 line and what we would see is a series of straight lines
3 that had different intercepts, and, quite frankly, I've
4 never seen anything like it before.
5 My first concern in seeing something like that is
6 that we've done something wrong, but we have checked our
7 plotting routine. I think we have checked our code in terms
8 of how the parameters should have been calculated in setting
9 up these bivariate relationships, and I think we're
10 reasonably satisfied when we first did this that we hadn't
11 made an error and that there appears to be an error in the
12 data, but, again, I would like to go back and look at this
13 before I state unequivocally that these data are flawed, but
14 my -- I have a very strong suspicion at this point, very
15 strong opinion that the data are indeed flawed.
16 Q. I believe you mentioned at your last deposition
17 that, in regard to this matter, that you considered there's
18 a possibility of like a column shift or something like that
19 in the data. Have you gone back and looked at that issue at
20 all?
21 A. Well, we talked about it. We haven't gone back
22 and done it. We talked about it actually before my
23 deposition, and we basically concluded there's no way in the
24 world that we could do that, that we could actually try and
25 clean up the data set. It's not something that's
16
1 straightforward, because in some respects the data looked
2 fine. It's not a universal problem across the data set.
3 In other words, if you take the data, the data are
4 presented in a tabular form, and the data, each parameter
5 appears as a column. Well, if you look at, say, column C,
6 the parameter that might be listed in column C actually
7 looks -- the numbers look actually reasonable, but then if
8 you look at, say, what's in column D and column B, those
9 parameters may be off or appear to be squirrelly in some
10 way, shape, or form, so it's not a simple matter of us
11 taking that data set and shifting everything to the right
12 one column or shifting everything to the left because you're
13 going to affect the entire data set.
14 What may have happened is that there is a data
15 shift problem in the raw data set and that the data that we
16 received then, of course, were output in a different form
17 rather than the way the data are stored, and so somebody
18 back at the District is going to really have to spend some
19 time checking the data to make sure that the data are indeed
20 accurately presented in that data set. It's not something
21 that we can do.
22 Q. Just as a point of clarification, am I correct
23 that the data set we're referring here to relates only to
24 the water quality data from the refuge?
25 A. As far as the interparameter inconsistency
17
1 problems, yes, that's correct.
2 Q. Can you tell me who you received this data set
3 from directly?
4 A. I think we received the data from several
5 different sources. I believe that we received one data set
6 from Mark Maffei through the course of discovery. We may
7 have also received the data directly from the District.
8 That I don't recall.
9 Q. Do you recall receiving a data set from Dr. Davis
10 of Environmental Services?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. What particular data set are you
13 utilizing?
14 A. Well, to get the -- get an accurate answer on
15 that, you would have to direct that question to Info Tech.
16 They're the ones that have been handling the data set, and
17 that would be Dr. McClave.
18 Q. And that's Info Tech?
19 A. That's right. That's the name of his firm.
20 Q. Has there been an attempt, to your knowledge, by
21 Info Tech or KBN to merge the various data sets into a
22 single data set?
23 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
24 A. Could you restate the question for me, please?
25 MR. GREEN: I'm not trying -- just which data
18
1 set? I think that's --
2 Q. All right. You mentioned that you believe you
3 received a data set from Dr., is it Dr. Maffei?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. From Dr. Davis, and possibly one from the
6 District.
7 A. I believe we also received a data set from George
8 Shih, S-h-i-h.
9 Q. And the data sets we're referring to are water
10 quality data from the refuge?
11 A. I don't know if we actually got a data set from
12 John Davis on water quality from the refuge. It may have
13 been included in the data that we got from him originally.
14 That I don't recall.
15 Q. Of the various sources of data sets for the
16 refuge, do you know whether Info Tech or if KBN has
17 attempted to merge those data sets into a single set for
18 quality of the data -- excuse me, for water quality data for
19 the refuge?
20 A. It is a desire that we have, that we believe that
21 there should be a -- we should -- that our team should be
22 working with a unified data set, and actually it is our hope
23 that all the parties could agree to some sort of unified
24 data set that all analyses would proceed from.
25 I mean, philosophically, it would make a lot of
19
1 sense to me that Dr. Jones here or Dr. Walker and ourselves
2 would all be using the same data set that we could all agree
3 upon to use, and that would rule out any ambiguity at least
4 as far as, well, which data did you use, my data set is
5 better than your data set, blah, blah, blah. I don't see
6 that as a productive course of events, so I think it would
7 be beneficial to all parties if we could, indeed, arrive at
8 a unified data set to conduct our analyses, and that's,
9 quite frankly, been one of the real problems in conducting
10 this work, is that the data sets themselves appear to be a
11 moving target, and we're constantly trying to examine the
12 quality of the data and make sure that the data are
13 up-to-date and so on and so forth.
14 Q. Taking the various data sets you have obtained
15 from the individuals you have mentioned, can you tell me
16 whether these data sets purportedly represent the same
17 sampling, or is it different sampling, thus creating
18 different data sets?
19 Do you understand my question?
20 A. Are you asking me if the data sets are the same or
21 are they different?
22 Q. Are they supposed to be the same I guess is the --
23 A. Well, I believe that they are supposed to be the
24 same. I believe like the Shih data set, if memory serves me
25 correctly, I believe George Shih provided us with
20
1 Loxahatchee data and the Maffei data set are supposed to be
2 the same, and then I know that we've also checked the
3 phosphorus data from the Maffei data set with the data that
4 were reported in the SWIM Plan in a hard copy, and I believe
5 that we found some problems matching the data up but we were
6 eventually able to resolve those problems. And, again,
7 there was -- appeared to be a column shift problem with some
8 of those, with some of those numbers, and we had to work
9 through that.
10 Q. Which parameter was that dealing with?
11 A. That was dealing with total phosphorus.
12 Q. So you were able to resolve the problems with the
13 total phosphorus in the data sets?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. I'm not sure yet I'm absolutely clear. As an
16 example, you have a data set from Dr. Davis, Dr. Shih, Dr.
17 Maffei?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. And there's a data point from March 1, 1977, taken
20 at sample site A. Would that point be represented in each
21 data set?
22 A. Well, theoretically, they should be because all
23 the -- the ultimate source of all these data sets is the
24 same, and that's the District.
25 Q. That's what I was trying to get at. Have you
21
1 seen, in fact, have those various data sets -- I guess a
2 single data set from different sources matched up as far as
3 the numbers and so forth?
4 A. Specifically for the Loxahatchee?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that for
7 other areas that we've encountered problems. For example,
8 we try to match up our data with Dr. Walker's data, the data
9 that we were supplied in the course of discovery of Dr.
10 Walker's files, that we are having a hard time getting an
11 exact match with all of his numbers, and we aren't exactly
12 sure where those differences lie or, rather, what's the
13 cause of those differences. It may be that he preprocessed
14 his data in some way, shape, or form, or maybe he got access
15 to a cleaned up data set.
16 There is a history, I don't know how close to the
17 present this history actually extends, but there is a
18 history of data sets coming out of the District of being
19 flawed in one way, shape, or form, and so we're always a bit
20 concerned about any data set that we're working with that it
21 may have been superseded by another data set released by the
22 District that we may not have obtained.
23 Q. I guess what I'm driving at, you indicated that
24 one of the problems may be the fact of, you know, data entry
25 problems or mistakes, and I'm wondering whether, because
22
1 you've received this data from different sources, whether
2 there's a possibility, for instance, that the data set you
3 received from Dr. John Davis may be the result of some
4 manipulation they have been doing with the data as opposed
5 to any problems from the original source.
6 A. No, I understand what you're saying.
7 MR. GREEN: I object to the form. You may
8 answer.
9 A. One of the things that we're trying to do and I
10 would suggest that you, to get more details, that you would
11 talk to Info Tech and also Tetra Tech, because these data
12 problems really relate to the hydrologic modeling because
13 it's a very vital concern that we have. We're constantly
14 checking one data set against the other to make sure that
15 the data sets match up. That's always an ongoing exercise.
16 Q. And have you determined that the data sets do
17 match up?
18 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
19 A. I can only speak in general terms because I've not
20 been that intimately involved in the overall data checking
21 exercises, but I think generally we're satisfied that most
22 the data check -- agree well with what we think are accurate
23 representations of the data.
24 Q. Okay. Who's been involved in those data checks?
25 A. Several people, Ron Munson from Tetra Tech, Cindy
23
1 Hewitt from Info Tech, John Good from KBN.
2 One other individual comes to mind. That would be
3 Andrew MacNeill also with Tetra Tech.
4 MR. GREEN: Can you give me 60 seconds?
5 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
6 BY MR. NETTLETON:
7 Q. The second matter you referenced under the quality
8 of the data referred to the fact that you'd only received
9 limited information from the District on QA/QC?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Can you tell me what information you have
12 received?
13 A. Well, my concern for QA/QC really lies at low
14 level concentrations, concentrations say below 20 parts per
15 billion, and virtually the only thing that I've seen that
16 really addresses the quality of data at those levels and
17 below was a series of round-robin results that the District
18 received in participation with a study with the USGS over a
19 course of -- I'm not sure when the round-robin started,
20 either 1979 or '80 or '81, somewhere around there, roughly a
21 10-year study, where during the course of this study USGS
22 would provide the District with a known sample of some
23 concentration X, the District would then analyze that sample
24 and report the results back to the USGS.
25 Most of those samples that were analyzed were at
24
1 comparatively high concentrations. There were several
2 samples that were at low, reasonably low concentrations.
3 When you look at those results, the recovery, in
4 other words, how close the District got to the known or true
5 value of the sample was not particularly good and that they
6 were uniformly low.
7 Q. When you say they were uniformly low, what do you
8 mean?
9 A. It means that they were all low to varying
10 degrees, but there was not an example -- it was not a
11 situation where you had some values high and some values
12 low, but the scatter was about some mean true value, if you
13 will.
14 If you plotted the observed versus the expected,
15 you would see that the observed concentrations were always
16 lower than the expected concentrations. That would suggest
17 some sort of a bias to me.
18 Q. The observed concentrations being the results
19 reported by the District?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay. And the expected concentrations being the
22 true values as determined by USGS?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Is there any other information other than the USGS
25 round-robin data that you're relying on with regard to that
25
1 opinion?
2 A. Well, I have a real concern, I guess, that has
3 developed as I've sat through a couple depositions, again,
4 with Mr. Rosen and Dr. Vidal concerning how they process
5 phosphorus samples through their laboratory. It's my
6 opinion that the phosphorus samples at low levels should be
7 segregated from the high samples before they're analyzed.
8 In other words, ideally, particularly at very low
9 concentrations, you should be running those samples under
10 one set of standard curves, and the higher samples should be
11 run at a different, under a different standard curve, and
12 it's my understanding that's not done.
13 Q. Okay. And I believe in your last deposition we
14 went through your opinion concerning the standard curve.
15 Has your opinions or conclusions in that regard changed from
16 your last deposition?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And the USGS round-robin, am I correct that is the
19 five data points that we looked at at your last deposition?
20 A. I don't recall the precise number. Five sounds
21 about right. Certainly it was not an overabundance of
22 data.
23 Q. When you indicated that the results of this
24 round-robin indicated to you a potential bias in the
25 results, what would you consider a significant deviation
26
1 which would create a problem with the results?
2 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
3 Q. Let me rephrase it. If I can figure out a way to
4 do it.
5 What I'd like to know, Dr. Pollman, is your
6 opinion on how close, essentially, the observed should be to
7 the expected in order to give you comfort in the validity of
8 the data?
9 A. Well, ideally, I think you'd expect agreement
10 within 5 percent, but I think that's un- -- not necessarily
11 reasonable, particularly at low levels. Maybe something on
12 the order of 15 percent might be more reasonable.
13 Q. And what did you observe with regard to the USGS
14 round-robin results?
15 A. Well, I feel far more comfortable answering that
16 answer or question, rather, if I had the data in front of
17 me. I know that the deviations were on the order of 40 to
18 70 percent in some cases.
19 Q. I think we'll probably come across that later in
20 the depo and we can pin it down a little bit more closely.
21 Other than your discussion concerning the standard
22 curve as described in the Vidal and Rosen depositions, was
23 there any other information that you're relying on either
24 from the Vidal and Rosen depositions or any other source to
25 support your opinions concerning the quality of the data?
27
1 A. Yes. I believe I stated this at my last
2 deposition, that Dr. Wetzel, for example, has written a text
3 on limnological analyses. In that text he states that, when
4 analyzing total phosphorus samples below 10 micrograms per
5 liter, the standard curve should be developed within that
6 range. He also mentions other procedures which should be
7 undertaken to improve the sensitivity of the analyses.
8 I have less concerns about that, but I am
9 concerned about the failure of the District to include
10 standards in that range.
11 Q. This text by Dr., it's Dr. Bob Wetzel?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Do you know when that was published?
14 A. I don't recall the precise date.
15 Q. Approximately?
16 A. Sometime after 1979 and maybe closer to '84 or
17 '88. I don't know exactly.
18 I should also state that it's generally accepted
19 laboratory practice that, when you're analyzing samples in a
20 certain range, you try to bracket the sample with
21 appropriately set standards. It's not just Dr. Wetzel who
22 states that opinion.
23 Q. Okay. And how long has that general practice been
24 in existence?
25 A. I would imagine for a fair amount of -- period of
28
1 time. I couldn't give you a precise date, but I'd really
2 hate to venture. I don't know precisely.
3 Q. Can you give me a decade range?
4 A. Well, I'll state this, I guess, that environmental
5 laboratory practices seem to lag behind pure analytical
6 chemistry practices, and that there is probably -- there is,
7 I'm sure this is true, that there was a period of time when
8 the environmental chemist had not caught up with their
9 brethren in the pure analytical chemistry field. It may be,
10 say, within the past 10 or 15 years that there's been far
11 more attention to QA/QC in the measurement of environmental
12 variables, but I think cognizance of this has been around
13 for quite some time.
14 Q. And by quite some time what do you mean?
15 A. At least 15 to 20 years.
16 You know, as a, I guess, another concern that I
17 have, I'm really surprised by the fact that we don't --
18 that we do not see other QA checks being reported, that
19 there are other reference samples that are not routinely
20 reported by the District lab, particularly at low levels.
21 It appears that most of the routine performance check
22 samples are usually at much higher levels, and the District
23 historically has not run samples at low levels as
24 performance checks other than what we see in the USGS
25 round-robin results.
29
1 Q. And what do you base that understanding on?
2 A. Well, I base that understanding on the fact that
3 we've asked for that information, didn't receive it.
4 Q. Okay. What is your understanding of the current
5 QA/QC program under which the District laboratory
6 operates?
7 A. Well, I know that their current QA/QC program, as
8 far as I know, has been approved by the state's Department
9 of Environmental Protection. I would imagine that's far
10 more rigorous than what was practiced during the early '80s,
11 and so I would imagine that the performance of laboratory
12 actually may be improved today relative to where it was,
13 say, 10, 15 years ago.
14 Q. Do you know how long the current QA/QC program as
15 approved by DEP has been in existence or in place, I should
16 say?
17 A. I do not know precisely.
18 Q. Are you familiar with any of the QA/QC procedures
19 that existed at the District prior to the current plan,
20 meaning the QA/QC plan?
21 A. I've been present to discussions by Dr. Vidal and
22 Mr. Rosen where those procedures were discussed to some
23 extent.
24 Q. And you're referring to their depositions?
25 A. That's correct.
30
1 Q. Can you tell me what your understanding is of the
2 QA/QC procedures from the mid 1970s through 1990,
3 approximately?
4 A. I'd have to go back and review their depositions
5 to answer that question precisely.
6 Q. Okay. To the best of your recollection, can you
7 tell me what you recall of the QA/QC procedures that were in
8 place from the mid '70s forward?
9 A. Well, I feel very uncomfortable answering that
10 question without reviewing that material. I would not want
11 to be in a position of either overstating or understating
12 that point.
13 Q. Okay. Other than the testimony that was provided
14 by Doctors Vidal and Rosen, do you have any other
15 information or have you seen any other information
16 concerning the QA/QC procedures in place from the mid 1970s
17 forward other than the round-robin that we've discussed?
18 A. I have seen some other internal documents that the
19 District has developed, and it's been about a year since
20 I've looked at that material. My recollection of that
21 material was that the most significant thing that stood out
22 in my mind was that there are reference checks that are
23 periodically run by the lab, but those reference checks
24 typically are at much higher concentrations than, say, the
25 levels where I'm concerned about the accuracy of the data.
31
1 Q. From your recollection of the procedures as you've
2 seen them in the documentation or heard about in the
3 depositions of Dr. Vidal and Dr. Rosen, do you believe that
4 the procedures that were in place from 19 -- mid 1970s
5 forward were typical for laboratories in that particular
6 time period?
7 MR. GREEN: Object to the form. You can answer.
8 A. I don't know if they were typical of all
9 laboratories. I believe not. I believe that those
10 individuals that were concerned, again, looking at very low
11 phosphorus concentrations would set up their laboratory
12 practices differently.
13 My perception of the District lab is that it was
14 a -- sort of like a factory operation. It was set up to
15 process samples and process a lot of samples, and when
16 you're in that mode, it's difficult to pay as strict
17 attention as you need to get good results at low levels.
18 Q. Are you aware of any circumstances that would
19 suggest that the District was particularly concerned in the
20 mid 1970s to late 1970s about obtaining data of low
21 phosphorus concentrations as you've defined them below 20
22 parts per billion?
23 A. Could you define what you mean by circumstances?
24 I mean, are you talking about political or scientific
25 issues?
32
1 Q. Political or scientific. Any circumstance that
2 would at that time period have --
3 A. Yeah. I know of no driving concern to treat those
4 numbers differently, except for the fact that I believe a
5 good chemist would have been cognizant of the fact that you
6 can get a different response at low levels with your
7 instrumentation as compared to dealing with higher level
8 samples, and I think that was commonly known laboratory
9 practice at the time.
10 Q. With regard to total phosphorus data collected
11 during the or from the mid '70s to the late '80s in the low
12 concentration ranges of below 20 parts per billion, do you
13 know what or are you familiar with what circumstances were
14 involved in the collection of that particular data?
15 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
16 A. I do not understand the question.
17 Q. Okay. With regard to total phosphorus data as
18 reported by the District's laboratory from the mid 1970s
19 through the late 1980s, do you have an understanding of what
20 percentage of that data related to low phosphorus
21 concentrations of below 20 parts per billion versus data
22 above 20 parts per billion?
23 A. I couldn't -- I couldn't guess. I would -- my
24 gut-level feeling, if that's what you're asking me for, and
25 I'm sure I could be proved wrong because I'm not privy to
33
1 the internal workings of the District lab, was that a large
2 number of the samples were comparatively high.
3 Q. Were comparatively what?
4 A. High. I mean, for example, the District has spent
5 a lot of time and effort working on Lake Okeechobee.
6 Phosphorus concentrations in Lake Okeechobee are on the
7 order of a hundred parts per billion, and included in their
8 routine sampling program would be samples out of the EAA and
9 the upper reaches of that system. Those would be high
10 concentrations.
11 So it may be that the preponderance of samples
12 that they collected were expectedly high concentration
13 samples, but if you're interested in precisely measuring
14 what's going on at low levels, then you need to
15 appropriately treat those samples, and this may be the
16 problem with a laboratory that's being asked to process a
17 lot of samples in a short period of time, that they just are
18 not well set up to handle low level samples and it's just
19 got -- something that got lost in the wash.
20 Q. Given the nature of the data that the District is
21 sampling with regard to total phosphorus in water, is it
22 reasonable -- was it reasonable during that time period of
23 the mid 1970s through the late 1980s, in your opinion, to
24 set the standard curve where they did?
25 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
34
1 A. Well, that's not how I did it when I was in
2 graduate school. I typically set my standard curve up so
3 that I could measure comparatively low level samples, and if
4 the samples were too high, then we diluted them
5 appropriately so that they would fit within the standard
6 curve.
7 Q. And how many samples were you analyzing as a
8 graduate student?
9 A. On the order of tens at a shot.
10 Q. All right. And how does that compare with the
11 samples being processed by the District?
12 A. Oh, I'm sure that they were processing orders of
13 magnitude more samples than I was.
14 Q. And, again, given your understanding of the nature
15 of those samples and that the majority of those involved
16 high concentration levels of total phosphorus, in your
17 opinion, is it unreasonable for the District to set up their
18 standard curve in the manner in which they did?
19 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
20 A. I think it's unreasonable for -- well, I guess I
21 believe that they can set up the standard curve any way they
22 want, but I think it's unreasonable to be able to apply a
23 great deal of reliance on the accuracy of the data at low
24 levels based upon the standard curve that they have, and if
25 they want to place emphasis on the reliability of that data,
35
1 then they should have had an appropriate set of standards to
2 precisely quantitate what those sample results would be.
3 Q. Well, am I correct, Doctor, that if -- what you're
4 saying, then, is that it's not necessarily unreasonable for
5 the District to have set up the standard curve the way they
6 did. However, you believe that, in light of the way it was
7 set up, that there is less confidence you can put in the low
8 concentration readings that resulted?
9 MR. GREEN: Object to the form. He never said it
10 was reasonable to do any of that, or not unreasonable to do
11 any of that.
12 A. Could you restate your question, please?
13 MR. NETTLETON: Could you read it back, please?
14 (Thereupon, the question referred to was read back
15 by the reporter as above recorded.)
16 BY THE WITNESS:
17 A. I guess I should be very precise about my answer
18 here. How you set up your standard curve really relates to
19 your goals, and if the goal is to -- if the goal is to look
20 at principally high concentrations, then the District
21 standard curve probably was appropriate.
22 If the goal is to look at low level samples, then
23 a separate standard curve should have been used.
24 Q. Do you know what the goal of the District was
25 during the period of record we've been discussing, the mid
36
1 1970s through the late 1980s?
2 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
3 A. No. I'm not privy to the goals of the
4 laboratory.
5 Q. Other than the District data concerning water
6 quality parameters in the refuge, are you aware of any other
7 water quality data that exists for the refuge from the mid
8 1970s through the late 1980s?
9 A. Well, the only data that I'm aware of for the
10 refuge -- actually, I guess there's two data sources that
11 I'm aware of, potential data sources, one of which is
12 embodied in the District data, I believe, and that was the
13 data that was from a study by Millar, M-i-l-l-a-r, and that
14 was from the early '70s, and I think that forms the
15 framework for the phosphorus data that the District used in
16 the formulation of their criteria.
17 I also believe that the University of Florida
18 collected data out of the Loxahatchee, including water
19 chemistry data in the late '80s. I have not seen that
20 data.
21 Q. Okay. Let me expand the time period. Since the
22 -- from the mid 1970s to the present, are you aware of any
23 additional data sets or data collected from the refuge on
24 water quality parameters?
25 A. Yes, indeed, I am.
37
1 Q. And what would those other ones be?
2 A. Those additional data would be the data that were
3 collected by the Department of Justice and I believe
4 Environmental Services and Permitting as part of the right
5 to entry into the Loxahatchee, and I believe that sampling
6 started -- geez, I can't recall exactly when it started, but
7 it might have been last spring.
8 Q. And have you seen the data collected by
9 Environmental Servicing or DOJ?
10 A. I have seen some of that data. I have scanned it
11 briefly.
12 Q. All right. With regard to the University of
13 Florida data, who collected that?
14 A. I believe that was John Richardson's group.
15 Q. And have you or anyone else on behalf of the
16 Cooperative, to your knowledge, attempted to obtain John
17 Richardson's data?
18 A. I know that we were interested in obtaining it.
19 We've gone through the reports that have been published, and
20 if memory serves me correctly, we were not able to find any
21 data files or data listings of what those results were.
22 Q. To your knowledge, has anyone retained by the
23 Cooperative been able to obtain the complete data sets of
24 John Richardson?
25 A. To my knowledge, that is incorrect, nobody has.
38
1 Q. Have you or anyone retained by the Cooperative, to
2 your knowledge, seen John Richardson's data concerning
3 phosphorus parameters in the refuge as opposed to a complete
4 data set?
5 A. Which phosphorus parameters are you --
6 Q. Total phosphorus.
7 A. Are you talking about soils or water?
8 Q. Water. Water.
9 A. Only from what's been listed in his report, which
10 I think is very sketchy, if I remember correctly.
11 Q. I'm sorry. Dr. John Davis's outfit, what's that
12 called again?
13 A. Environmental Services and Permitting.
14 Q. Services. Based upon your scanning, I believe is
15 the term you used, or review of any of the data collected by
16 Environmental Services or DOJ from the refuge, have you done
17 any analysis with regard to that data?
18 A. No, I have not.
19 Q. All right. Has anyone from Info Tech or Tetra
20 Tech done any analysis of that data?
21 A. Info Tech, I believe, is in the process of taking
22 those data and developing computer files with the view of
23 analyzing those data.
24 Q. Have they been analyzed to date, to your
25 knowledge?
39
1 A. Not to my knowledge. They may have done some
2 preliminary stuff, but that I don't know.
3 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether this data suffers
4 from the same consistency problems that we saw with the
5 District data?
6 A. Well, I don't -- I don't know if I can answer
7 that question accurately. It's my understanding -- I'd
8 really have to take a look at the parameter list in terms of
9 all the parameters that were measured. It may be that
10 insufficient parameters were collected to fully evaluate the
11 interparameter consistency, but, at any rate, assuming that
12 those parameters were collected, I don't know if anybody's
13 done that type of analysis.
14 Q. Okay. I believe at your last deposition you had
15 indicated that, when that data became available, that
16 analysis of that data may dispel some of your concerns in
17 this area, and that's why I'm asking the questions as to
18 whether at this point in time you've had an opportunity or
19 if anyone from Info Tech, Tetra Tech has had an opportunity
20 to review that data in order to dispel any of your concerns
21 related to the refuge data?
22 A. No. We have not looked at that with a view to
23 dispelling those concerns.
24 Q. Do you believe that the data that has been
25 collected in the refuge by the Department of Justice and
40
1 Environmental Services, that that will be sufficient,
2 assuming there are no problems with that data, in order to
3 allow scientists to rely upon that data to reach conclusions
4 concerning appropriate criteria for the refuge?
5 MR. GREEN: I'll object to the form.
6 A. Could you restate the question, please?
7 Q. I'll withdraw it for now and come back to it
8 later.
9 Dr. Pollman, another area you indicated you would
10 be testifying concerning the refuge data concerned the
11 relevance of the data on the cause-and-effect relationship?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Can you please tell me what your opinion is in
14 that regard?
15 A. Yes. Basically, I disagree with the notion of
16 using interior marsh concentrations to set criteria for or
17 as trigger points for establishing violations for inflow
18 concentrations through the S-5A and S-6 structures.
19 Q. Okay. Let me try to break this down a little
20 bit. When you say using interior marsh concentrations to
21 set criteria, what are you referring to?
22 A. Well, I don't recall the precise stations. If
23 memory serves me correctly and, again, it's been about a
24 year since I looked at this, that the criteria looked at a
25 couple of interior stations to basically set the threshold
41
1 levels. Those interior stations are hydrologically
2 disjoint, are not affected really by water originating out
3 of the EAA, so their concentration response really in no
4 way, shape, or form, that's a hard stretch of my mind to
5 believe that the dynamics of concentrations at those
6 stations are influenced by anything that comes in through
7 S-5 and S-6.
8 Q. I guess I'd like you to explain to me your
9 understanding of what the criteria is as set in the
10 refuge -- set forth in the SWIM Plan?
11 A. I'd have to go back and review that.
12 Q. Just your general understanding, though. What is
13 your understanding, when you talk in terms of violation of
14 criteria, what are you referring to?
15 A. It's my understanding that the criteria would be
16 based on monitoring of interior marsh concentrations; that
17 there is a stage, I believe, that there is a stage
18 relationship that accounts for the fact that, as stage goes
19 up and down, concentrations are affected by that hydrologic
20 effect, so there's some consideration in the criteria for
21 how concentrations are affected by antecedent conditions
22 that really don't relate to inflow from the EAA, but that if
23 those concentrations exceed some range established by that
24 empirical relationship, that the system is considered to be
25 out of compliance.
42
1 MR. GREEN: Off the record.
2 (Thereupon, a brief discussion was held off the
3 record.)
4 MR. GREEN: Sorry, we're back. I'm sorry, Paul.
5 I'm not trying to disrupt what you were doing.
6 MR. NETTLETON: That's all right.
7 BY MR. NETTLETON:
8 Q. Dr. Pollman, what is your understanding of the
9 basis for the criteria that we've been referring to for the
10 refuge?
11 A. My understanding of the basis for the criteria is
12 that fundamentally it was derived from two stations. It was
13 based on examination, again, I believe it was the Millar
14 data, and it basically stated that -- well, it looked at
15 these two background stations that appeared to have lower
16 concentrations than a number of the other interior stations,
17 and in conjunction with the classical definition of the
18 phosphorus concentration above which you have mesotrophic
19 conditions and below which you have oligotrophic conditions,
20 i.e., 10 ppb, that these two stations, then, were reflective
21 of the true oligotrophic status of the refuge, and I believe
22 that those stations then were used to form the principal
23 basis for setting the criteria for the refuge.
24 Q. Okay. You mentioned two types of systems, an
25 oligotrophic and what was the other one?
43
1 A. Mesotrophic.
2 Q. Okay. Can you just define for me what
3 oligotrophic means?
4 A. Oligotrophic in the strictest definition of the
5 word means nutrient poor.
6 Q. And mesotrophic, what does that mean?
7 A. It means somewhat nutrient enriched. It means it
8 has more nutrients than an oligotrophic system, practically
9 speaking.
10 Q. Okay. And is it your testimony that the
11 approximate line between those, an oligotrophic system and a
12 mesotrophic system, is 10 parts per billion phosphorus?
13 MR. GREEN: Object to form.
14 A. No. That's not my testimony. What my statement
15 was is that's a classical definition. That definition was
16 based on work that was done in the late '40s in Wisconsin by
17 a guy named Sawyer and it's been used by other individuals
18 as a threshold level, but Florida limnological experience
19 suggests that those levels are perhaps not the appropriate
20 criteria to apply to Florida systems.
21 Q. And do you have an opinion as to what an
22 appropriate level would be for the Florida systems,
23 particularly the Everglades?
24 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
25 Go ahead.
44
1 A. Could you restate your question, please?
2 Q. Well, let me limit it further. With regard to the
3 refuge particularly, do you have an opinion as to what the
4 level would be where you crossed over from an oligotrophic
5 to a mesotrophic system?
6 A. No. I have a real problem with using a threshold
7 value to describe a continuum of response, and so I think
8 it's perhaps disingenuous to or perhaps a bit naive to state
9 that there is a single value for applicable system without
10 doing other work to back up that number that then states
11 this is the magic threshold in which a system crosses the
12 boundary from oligotrophic to mesotrophic and mesotrophic to
13 eutrophic.
14 Q. Is the crossover of boundary from oligotrophic to
15 mesotrophic, would that be defined more in terms of response
16 of the system itself?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And then is it your testimony that
19 different levels of the system may respond to different
20 levels of total phosphorus?
21 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
22 A. Could you restate your question, please?
23 Q. Okay. I was really trying to restate, I thought,
24 what you were saying in your testimony. Maybe I
25 misunderstood it, and if I did, please clarify me, but am I
45
1 correct that it is your view that, particularly with regard
2 to the refuge or the EPA in general, that there is no
3 specific threshold number where the ecosystem in general
4 responds, but that you must look at each level of the
5 ecosystem and that each level may have a different threshold
6 number?
7 MR. GREEN: I object to the form. You may answer,
8 but the reason is he hadn't talked about different levels of
9 the ecosystem, to my recollection, but you're welcome to
10 answer if you know the answer.
11 A. I have a problem, I guess, a philosophical problem
12 with defining a threshold value per se. It may be possible
13 to achieve a definition of a threshold, but I believe that
14 that threshold is going to be -- must be predicated on a
15 lot of research looking at a lot of different variables.
16 The basic problem I have with a threshold number
17 is that I don't believe that there is a single value that
18 delimits the transition from, say, good to bad or, if that's
19 how you want to define it, or oligotrophic to mesotrophic or
20 what have you.
21 The notion of using 10 milli- -- excuse me, 10
22 micrograms of phosphorus per liter as a critical threshold
23 value in my opinion was largely used as a matter of
24 convenience, and, again, it was based on some work that was
25 done in Wisconsin and it was based on looking at spring
46
1 turnover concentrations. It really has no relevance in its
2 application to, say, Florida systems. We don't have spring
3 turnover concentrations in Florida lakes, for example.
4 Q. Well, I'm a little bit confused because you say
5 that it's your understanding that the criteria was based
6 upon this work done in the '40s, but at the same time you're
7 saying that it was based upon some sampling that was taken
8 at certain interior marsh stations, so --
9 A. Okay. Yeah, my memory may be a little bit fuzzy
10 on terms of exactly how the data were treated, but my
11 recollection is that the individual who analyzed the data
12 and then used these data to set the criteria had an array of
13 concentration -- had an array of stations and, of course,
14 different concentrations at each station, and those
15 concentrations were generally low, like on the order of,
16 say, 8 or 9 or 9 to 15 parts per billion or something like
17 that. I forget exactly what the range of numbers were, but
18 that there were two stations that were right around 10 or
19 maybe even a little bit below 10, and that this individual
20 said, okay, the classical threshold value between
21 oligotrophy and mesotrophy is 10 parts per billion and this
22 is the value that we should be using, so, therefore, we're
23 going to use these two stations.
24 Q. Who is this person you are referring to?
25 A. I believe it was William Walker.
47
1 Q. Do you know what particular period of record was
2 looked at with regard to these interior stations to set the
3 criteria?
4 A. I don't remember the precise dates. I believe it
5 was '79 to '83.
6 Q. Now, you indicated that you do not believe there
7 is a single threshold number where you would pass through
8 the boundary from oligotrophic to mesotrophic; is that
9 correct?
10 A. Yes. At this stage in time, yes, I believe that's
11 correct. I could be -- I could be proved wrong, I think,
12 with the appropriate research, but I have a hard time
13 envisioning that we're going to be able to relate a
14 continuum of response, of ecological response, to a single
15 parameter.
16 I mean, ecological responses are dictated by a
17 number of different parameters, and to boil it down to one
18 number and precisely one value I think is
19 oversimplification.
20 Q. Well, do you believe, based upon what you have
21 seen and reviewed, that there is a range within which the
22 refuge particularly would pass between an oligotrophic and a
23 mesotrophic system?
24 MR. GREEN: Object to form.
25 Q. Referring specifically to a range of phosphorus.
48
1 A. I believe that there would be a range of values
2 that could be applied, yes.
3 Q. Can you tell me what that range would have
4 encompassed?
5 A. You mean in terms of the actual values?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. No, I really can't say because I haven't seen the
8 research to do it. I think it needs to be defined by some
9 empirical studies. I can only speak to it in qualitative
10 terms.
11 Q. Well, with those qualifications, can you give me
12 your best professional judgment of what that range would
13 involve? Range would include, excuse me.
14 A. No. I can't give that judgment because I think it
15 really defines in terms -- that range is going to be
16 defined in terms of what is the perceived use of the system
17 or what is it that we're trying to maximize with the system.
18 You know, it may be that, if you want wading birds or
19 something like that, that may be that a more enriched
20 nutrient state might be more applicable.
21 I don't feel, quite frankly, knowledgeable enough
22 about the ecological dynamics of the refuge to start
23 throwing numbers around and what those goals are.
24 Q. Okay. Again, it just seems to me that we're
25 talking about possibly two different things here. One is
49
1 management decisions on what the goal might be for the
2 particular refuge.
3 What I would like to focus on, which I, correct me
4 if I'm wrong, is the scientific question of moving from an
5 oligotrophic to a mesotrophic system and what range of
6 values of total phosphorus would be involved in that
7 particular question.
8 A. You mean in terms of, again, a threshold between
9 oligotrophic and mesotrophic conditions?
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. My feeling is it's probably going to be on the
12 order of, say, 20 to 30 parts per billion.
13 Q. And that's with particular regard to the refuge or
14 the EPA in general?
15 A. Well, I hate to say for the EPA in general. I
16 have a problem -- I really have a problem. I don't want to
17 be pinned down to a particular number because, quite
18 frankly, each system has different needs, and I'm not an
19 aquatic ecologist. I'm not going on the record stating that
20 this is what the phytoplankton need or what have you.
21 My general feeling as far as systems in general is
22 that you start getting much above 20 parts per billion or
23 certainly above 30 parts per billion I think you're going to
24 start changing the trophic state of the system.
25 But we don't know, necessarily, what's appropriate
50
1 for the system, and what may be appropriate for the park may
2 not be appropriate for the refuge.
3 Q. Okay. Again, when you say appropriate, are you
4 talking about in terms of the scientific change in the
5 trophic system or a management question?
6 A. Well, I think that all this boils down to really a
7 management decision where scientists can only provide
8 guidance.
9 Q. Okay. Well, let me, just for clarification, aside
10 from the management question, if we're talking simply about
11 the scientific question of moving from an oligotrophic to a
12 mesotrophic system, do you believe with regard to the park
13 that the range of total phosphorus would be the same 20 to
14 30 parts per billion, or would you expect it to be less than
15 20 to 30 parts per billion?
16 A. I think I'd expect it to be less than 20 parts per
17 billion.
18 Q. And could you provide a range, again, for the
19 park?
20 MR. GREEN: I'd like to assert an objection here.
21 This is all very interesting, but Dr. Pollman has been very
22 careful to disclaim being an ecosystem or an ecological
23 expert. He hasn't been tendered in that regard, and, you
24 know, he may answer the question to the best of his
25 judgment, but that doesn't, by not objecting, doesn't mean
51
1 that we concur that he is qualified to give those opinions.
2 MR. NETTLETON: Okay.
3 MR. GREEN: Okay.
4 A. Well, I really hesitate to throw numbers around
5 without having supporting research behind it. My own belief
6 is that each system is unique and that, if we're going to
7 try and set threshold values, if you will, for, say, the
8 park, what we need to do is understand the ecological
9 dynamics of the park and understand how those dynamics are
10 affected by changes in nutrient concentration, as well as
11 other parameters as well, and that only on the basis of
12 that, on those types of studies, then can we set appropriate
13 limits.
14 Q. Well, Dr. Pollman, in light of Mr. Green's
15 objection, I'm just trying to get clear in my own mind
16 precisely what it is you will be testifying about on this
17 issue of cause and effect with regard to the interior marsh
18 concentrations, and maybe if you could clarify that for me,
19 again, precisely what it is your opinion is concerning the
20 cause-and-effect issue.
21 A. Certainly. It seems to me --
22 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. I object. I think you
23 have asked him that, and he's answered it. He's welcome to
24 try again.
25 Q. All right. Thank you.
52
1 A. As I understand the process, the idea between
2 setting the criteria is to establish whether or not there
3 are violations and that those violations then relate back to
4 discharges coming out of the EAA.
5 The idea is that, by monitoring interior marsh
6 stations and setting up threshold values, if you will, or
7 flag points at which point violations of water quality
8 criteria are identified, that becomes a trigger point for
9 establishing that the system is out of compliance and that
10 concentrations or loadings coming out of the EAA into the
11 refuge need to be rationed down in some way, shape, or form.
12 My problem with that approach, and this is really
13 what I mean by cause and effect, the effect that is implicit
14 or explicit in the criteria are interior marsh
15 concentration. The link, then, as a cause is what's coming
16 in through the S-5 and S-6A structures.
17 Quite frankly, I have a hard time believing that
18 there is a cause and effect between what comes in through
19 S-5 and S-6 and what happens at the interior part of the
20 Loxahatchee. That's the crux of what I mean by cause and
21 effect.
22 I think the language I used earlier is that I
23 believe that those two systems are hydrologically disjoint.
24 They're not connected, so to speak.
25 Q. Do you have an opinion on the reasonableness of
53
1 the interim or long-term levels that were set for the
2 interior of the marsh?
3 MR. GREEN: Object to form.
4 A. Well, again, you know, those data were based on a
5 data set that I think has some real problems, and so I can't
6 fairly comment on the reasonableness of the, say, the
7 relationships that were established in the criteria like the
8 stage concentration relationships and whatnot with the
9 extant data set.
10 I believe that the newer data set that is being
11 developed through the work that Dr. Jones is performing, as
12 well as ESP, would prove to be a much better data set with
13 which to use to try to establish reasonable criteria.
14 Q. Well, am I correct, Dr. Pollman, that you do not
15 anticipate testifying concerning the reasonableness or
16 appropriateness of the particular levels that were set in
17 the criteria for the refuge as opposed to tying those levels
18 to the inflows to the refuge?
19 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
20 A. That's, I guess, a question I never really
21 contemplated answering.
22 Q. Well, did you understand my question?
23 A. Well, maybe I don't understand your question. Let
24 me restate it and perhaps see if we're on the same
25 wavelength there.
54
1 If I understand you correctly, what you're driving
2 at is do I think that the threshold -- that the actual
3 numbers are reasonable values, all other questions aside
4 regarding data quality and what have you, if the actual
5 numbers are reasonable limits for the park.
6 Q. Refuge.
7 A. Excuse me, the park -- I mean refuge. That's
8 correct.
9 I -- I really hate to say at this point. I don't
10 feel like I've studied the question long enough with that in
11 view.
12 I would like to caveat my answer also by stating
13 that those concentrations may be entirely reasonable for the
14 interior part of the park -- excuse me, refuge, but, again,
15 we are really talking about a system that's divided in two.
16 You've got the fringe of the refuge that is influenced by
17 inflows out of S-5A and S-6 and then you've got the interior
18 portion of that marsh, and those interior marsh
19 concentrations may be very reasonable. It's a
20 rainfall-driven system, and that may be what's appropriate.
21 Q. Can you tell me what you're relying upon for your
22 understanding that the refuge is hydrologically disjoint
23 between interior and exterior?
24 A. Yeah. There's several things. First of all,
25 there's good direct geochemical evidence that the systems
55
1 are really different. If you look at conductivity, for
2 example, you take a transect across the system, you look at
3 conductivities. You see that the conductivities rapidly
4 drop off, and you have, of course, high conductivity on the
5 exterior part. As you get near the rim of the system, you
6 have very high conductivities. As you grade in or you move
7 in towards the interior portion of the marsh, the
8 conductivities drop off and go from, say, a range of nine
9 hundred to a thousand microsiemens per centimeter to
10 something on the order of, say, a hundred microsiemens per
11 centimeter, and geochemically, those are quite different
12 systems.
13 You also see these differences picked up in other
14 variables, for example, in pH, alkalinity, some of the other
15 ancillary parameters that reflect major ion chemistry.
16 Phosphorus is also less interpenetrating, if you will, than,
17 say, a conservative constituent like chloride. So
18 phosphorus is not going to invade into the interior part of
19 the marsh as far as chloride will, and so these geochemical
20 parameters indicate that you have basically different
21 influences driving the overall chemistry of the system.
22 And, of course, the interior is, I think a lot of people
23 would agree, is rainfall driven. It's reflected in the pH.
24 It's reflected in the low conductivity of the waters.
25 The exterior or the outer fringe of the marsh is
56
1 dominated, the water quality is dominated by flow at S-5A
2 and S-6.
3 Q. Okay. Can you quantify for me the outer fringe?
4 A. You mean in terms of the actual kilometer extent?
5 Q. (Nods head.)
6 A. I couldn't do it here right now. I'd have to sit
7 down and look at the data, particularly have to look at the
8 data that have been collected as part of the right to entry,
9 but I think that that could be done.
10 And, again, it's not going to be a sharp line, I
11 don't believe. I think there's probably going to be a bit
12 of a continuum of response, but I think that we can probably
13 set up a system that might have three zones. You have a
14 zone of almost complete domination, maybe a smaller zone of
15 intermediate influence, and then an interior zone of
16 virtually no influence.
17 Q. Just based upon the data you've reviewed and to
18 the best of your recollection without having it sitting in
19 front of you, do you know approximately how far that fringe
20 would extend?
21 A. No. I really hate to say because, quite frankly,
22 I haven't reviewed the data with that in mind. I've just
23 taken a look at some of the interparameter relationships on
24 a brief cursory scan. The amount of time I've spent with
25 that data is on the order of a couple of minutes, to be
57
1 perfectly honest, and I have not given it a detailed review.
2 Q. Are any of the interior stations that are being
3 used to measure compliance with the criteria in the SWIM
4 Plan within the fringe area as you have defined it?
5 A. I couldn't answer that question at this point.
6 Q. Okay. What particular data does exist that you're
7 referring to?
8 Is it the data that was collected on the entry by
9 Environmental Services?
10 A. Well, it's just -- yeah. That would be, I think,
11 the best data set to look at. The other data set would be
12 the data collected by Richardson, et al., where I believe
13 that they can actually construct, if memory serves me
14 correctly, it's been a long time since I've looked at this
15 stuff, I believe that Richardson in his report actually
16 conducted or constructed, rather, concentration isopleths
17 that show, for example, how conductivity varies within the
18 refuge.
19 Q. And that's John Richardson?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And that would be for surface water?
22 A. Yes, I believe so.
23 Q. And is that reported or set forth in his report
24 that was published in the 1990-91 time period?
25 A. Yes. Again, if memory serves me correctly, it is.
58
1 (Thereupon, a brief discussion was held off the
2 record and a recess was taken.)
3 BY MR. NETTLETON:
4 Q. Dr. Pollman, with regard to your opinion
5 concerning the use of interior marsh concentrations to set
6 criteria for violation of the inflow structures at S-5A and
7 S-6, have you done any work or reviewed any additional
8 materials with regard to this area of testimony since your
9 last deposition?
10 A. No, I have not.
11 Q. And with regard to the preliminary opinions that
12 you stated at your last deposition, would those now be
13 essentially your final opinions?
14 A. Well, I would like to see -- I know that Info
15 Tech, like I said before, is taking that entry data and
16 putting it into their system so that they'll statistically
17 analyze the data, and I'd like to see what those results
18 show before I finalize my opinion.
19 Q. Do you know when that will be accomplished?
20 A. Well, I know it's a fast-track item, but I would
21 imagine that's being done in a matter of days, but I don't
22 know precisely when it will be finished.
23 Q. Can you tell me how long Info Tech has had the
24 data from the refuge entry?
25 A. Well, I think the data has been sort of dribbling
59
1 in over the course of time. I think we just recently got
2 some new data over the past several weeks.
3 MR. GREEN: Let me state something lest we get
4 into a hassle about when opinions are final and invite you
5 to question Dr. Pollman further if I stir the pot, but my
6 recollection of what he said about an hour ago was that
7 those data had a bearing only with regard to their potential
8 for resolving some of his concerns about the interparameter
9 comparisons, and that's the only -- so I just want to state
10 that for the record, that's my understanding, and you've
11 covered a lot more turf than that, so that's all I had to
12 say.
13 A. I guess I would like to --
14 MR. GREEN: No. I didn't ask you a question,
15 unless Paul asks you. It would be inappropriate for me to.
16 Excuse me.
17 Q. All right. I will allow you, Dr. Pollman, to
18 clarify in light of Mr. Green's comments, if that's
19 correct.
20 A. Well, I do think that it would be appropriate to
21 look at the new data and see if the same lack of cause and
22 effect that we saw with the earlier results are borne out by
23 new statistical analysis. That's all.
24 Q. And I'd like to go back again now. When you say
25 cause and effect, what are you referring to?
60
1 A. Well, we should see a relationship and it should
2 show up statistically between changes in, say, loadings
3 coming in through S-5A and S-6 or concentration and flow and
4 what's going on in the interior portion of the marsh.
5 If we do not see that relationship statistically,
6 that gives me great cause for concern that there's any sort
7 of real linkage between the two.
8 Q. Okay. When you say cause and effect, though, in
9 light of your testimony, does that refer only to
10 relationships between the water quality parameters as
11 opposed to ecosystem response?
12 A. That's right. We're not looking at ecosystem
13 response in our analysis.
14 Q. So when you say cause and effect, you're not
15 referring to a cause and effect between inflow and ecosystem
16 response on the interior; is that right?
17 A. Restate that question, please.
18 Q. Okay. I stated it in the negative, but when you
19 are referring to cause and effect in your testimony, you are
20 not referring to cause and effect between inflow parameters
21 and ecosystem response in the interior of the marsh.
22 A. That's correct. We're only looking at whether or
23 not there is a relationship between what comes in through
24 the S-5 and S-6A structures geochemically and what occurs
25 geochemically in the interior portion of the marsh.
61
1 Q. And am I correct that that would be generally a
2 hydrologic question?
3 A. First and foremost a hydrologic question.
4 Q. Would it be driven by anything other than the
5 hydrology of the system?
6 A. No. You've got to have a hydrologic connection
7 first.
8 Q. I'd like to move to another area of your testimony
9 that you mentioned and that is the settlement accumulation
10 rates and the phosphorus settling velocity.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Can you tell me what your opinions are in that
13 regard?
14 A. I believe that the -- that the approach that has
15 been used to derive the settling velocity is flawed and
16 biases the characteristics for phosphorus or the estimates
17 for phosphorus accumulation are biased upwards by the
18 approach taken.
19 Q. Okay. First of all, can you identify whose
20 approach you're referring to as being flawed?
21 A. Dr. Walker's approach.
22 Q. And can you describe the flaws that you see in
23 that approach?
24 A. Yes. There are several problems or potential
25 problems that I see with the approach that's taken. First
62
1 of all, I think an inherent assumption in the approach that
2 Dr. Walker used is that, when phosphorus is deposited in the
3 sediments, it doesn't move, in other words, what's laid down
4 in a particular horizon, and, of course, you'll get new
5 horizons added on, so to speak, each year, but what is laid
6 down in a particular horizon basically remains intact and is
7 just pushed deeper and deeper within the profile as the
8 phosphorus accumulates.
9 Under such a scenario, what you would expect to
10 see in a system that's unperturbed, in other words, let's
11 assume that you have a system that has received the same
12 phosphorus inputs for decades, with those assumptions you'd
13 expect to see a concentration profile and an accumulation
14 profile, excluding any other variables for the moment, that
15 would be perfectly flat. It would be straight up and down.
16 That's not the way phosphorus behaves in soils.
17 You have a characteristic profile in soils that -- and
18 there's good geochemical evidence to support this -- that
19 almost invariably shows high concentrations in the soil
20 grading down to lower concentrations, even if the
21 accumulation rate or the deposition rate of material was
22 constant for long, long periods of time. In that case, by
23 looking at the upper layer and using that then to derive a
24 sedimentation rate and then using that sedimentation rate to
25 describe the loss of phosphorus out of the water column,
63
1 you're going to bias those loss rates upwards, and the error
2 could be significant.
3 Q. Am I correct that this is what you referred to in
4 your previous deposition as the translocation of phosphorus
5 in the profile?
6 A. No. That's another part of the problem.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. There's actually several problems that I see with
9 the approach. One is just what I told you.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. The second thing is that, characteristically, when
12 phosphorus is deposited in sediments -- and, again, let's
13 just assume that this is a system that has been unperturbed
14 for a long period of time, so we're not looking at changing
15 deposition rates. We're looking at constant deposition
16 rates for decades.
17 The solid phase concentration is going to show a
18 profile of high concentrations at the interface grading down
19 to much lower concentrations as you get deeper and deeper in
20 the profile. Those changes in concentration really relate
21 to decomposition of organic matter. That's the principal
22 driving variable there, all other things being held
23 constant.
24 Conversely, the interstitial fluid, which is the
25 water that's between the soil particles, if you look at the
64
1 profile of phosphorus in the interstitial fluid, almost
2 universally you'll see very low concentrations of phosphorus
3 at the interface, at the soil-water interface, grading
4 towards high concentrations as you move deeper and deeper
5 within the profile.
6 The reason for that being is two-fold. First of
7 all, you've got organic matter decomposing. That becomes
8 the source of phosphorus into the interstitial fluid.
9 You also have exchange. As phosphorus builds up
10 in the porewater, it builds up the concentrations higher
11 than what's in the overlying water column. Because of that,
12 then, there's a net flux of material, a net flux of
13 phosphorus across the interface.
14 So what this does is it sets up a system where
15 phosphorus being generated down below from the solid phase
16 being produced and moving into the liquid phase now has a
17 means for moving upwards, so there is a migration of
18 phosphorus upwards through the soil profile, through the
19 interstitial fluid, and then you can end up with a flux rate
20 across the interface that's on the order of, say, a
21 milligram to 2 milligrams of phosphorus per meter
22 squared per day. It can be fairly significant.
23 My problem with the Walker approach is that you're
24 really looking at not net burial. The real net burial is
25 what is contemplated down below in this scenario where we're
65
1 holding deposition constant, and so he's looking at one part
2 of the flux equation. He's looking at the downward flux,
3 but there is also this upward flux, and the sedimentation
4 rate that he's trying to take his soil accumulation rates
5 and extrapolate it back to that settling velocity, if you
6 will, that describes a loss of phosphorus out of the water
7 column is a synthesis of a number of processes, including
8 the net flux material across the interface from the
9 interstitial water into the water column.
10 His approach does not consider that. His
11 approach, therefore, is biased upwards. It assumes too high
12 a settling velocity.
13 The problem is further exacerbated by the fact
14 that typically you have two different zones, oxygen zones in
15 sediments. Down below the interface, well down below the
16 interface you have a lack of oxygen, conditions are known as
17 reducing conditions, and under such a scenario particularly
18 iron minerals are soluble.
19 In the upper zone, and that upper zone may be on
20 the order of a couple of centimeters thick or maybe even
21 less or it may be upwards of 10 meters thick, it all depends
22 on the physics of the local environment, you have oxygenated
23 conditions, and under that type of situation the iron that
24 is reduced and soluble becomes oxidized to form iron (III),
25 that's the name of the species, and iron (III) is rather
66
1 insoluble, forms typically a ferric hydroxide gel, and that
2 gel is a good scavenger for phosphorus.
3 So the solid phase concentration that you measure
4 in the upper zone could actually be enhanced by sorptive
5 capture, if you will, of some of this diffusing upwards
6 phosphorus that's originating from down below.
7 Now, there's a third problem, potential problem
8 that I see with this approach, and that is based on
9 conversations I've had with Dr. Patrick at LSU and Dr.
10 Richardson at Duke University.
11 Macrophytes apparently derive some of their
12 nutritional needs through their roots. In other words, they
13 pull phosphorus out of the soil down below the interface,
14 and, of course, that phosphorus then goes in through the
15 roots into the -- into the leaves and whatnot, and, of
16 course, when the plant dies or it senesces, that material
17 drops, falls, and is redeposited on the soil surface.
18 That also serves to basically move phosphorus from
19 down below, bring it up to the top, and give you an apparent
20 enhanced deposition rate, and, of course, these factors all
21 conspire, if you will, not that I'm saying that there is a
22 conspiracy theory, but they all work in concert to help bias
23 that sedimentation rate, which is an extrapolate to a
24 settling velocity by Dr. Walker, and it helps bias those
25 numbers upwards.
67
1 MR. GREEN: Paul, would you permit me to ask a
2 clarifying question so it won't be hours later?
3 MR. NETTLETON: Sure.
4 MR. GREEN: I think Dr. Pollman might have
5 intended a different unit. I'll just ask.
6 Dr. Pollman, you said there were two different
7 zones and reducing conditions were in the lower zone, the
8 upper zone, an oxidizing zone. You said sometimes the
9 oxidizing zone could be a few centimeters.
10 MR. NETTLETON: Centimeters.
11 MR. GREEN: And other times as much as 10 meters.
12 THE WITNESS: I meant 10 centimeters.
13 MR. GREEN: Thank you. That's what I thought you
14 meant.
15 BY MR. NETTLETON:
16 Q. Well, I won't claim that I understood everything
17 you just told me, Dr. Pollman, so you're going to have to
18 bear with me when I try to get through this.
19 If we broke out the flaws that you just mentioned
20 as you see them in Dr. Walker's approach, I understand that
21 the third one you mentioned was the macrophytes bringing
22 phosphorus upward through the soil and then redepositing it
23 when the --
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. The second flaw was the O2 zones, the oxygen zones
68
1 within the soil, is that right, and the release of something
2 to do with iron, and I'm going to go back into this.
3 A. Right, I understand.
4 Q. The first one, I wasn't sure whether that was one,
5 two, or three or how many, the first flaw that you were
6 mentioning about phosphorus being deposited in the
7 sediments, not moving in the profile as assumed by Dr.
8 Walker, I believe.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Okay. Does that involve more than one factor or
11 variable?
12 A. Yes. It involves fundamentally -- there are a
13 number of factors that actually can affect the
14 characteristic profile of phosphorus and sediments, but I
15 think in terms of keeping things simple, I'll reiterate.
16 Let's just assume for the moment that we are considering a
17 system that has been receiving constant rates of deposition
18 for a long period of time. Let's assume that this material
19 is unreactive, undergoes no chemical transformation
20 whatsoever, no biological transformations.
21 If you were to look at a profile of that material,
22 if you were to take a soil core and examine that core and
23 plot the concentration or the accumulation rate as a
24 function of distance down the core, you would see a straight
25 line. It would be vertical, straight up and down. It would
69
1 show no variance in the accumulation rate as a function of
2 distance down the core, and, of course, distance would be a
3 surrogate for time.
4 Now, my problem here is that phosphorus is not
5 conservative. Phosphorus, organic phosphorus is
6 decomposed. It moves out of the solid phase into the liquid
7 phase, and what that does, then, is sets up a gradient for
8 movement upwards and out of the system, and the true net
9 loss, the true net sedimentation rate in this scenario is
10 more accurately reflected by what is the actual movement
11 rate of the material down below, well down below the profile
12 than what you would measure near the surface, which, of
13 course, is what has been used by Dr. Walker and others to
14 infer a settling velocity.
15 Q. This is just for my own edification. I'm trying
16 to keep this straight in my mind. In your last deposition
17 you mentioned a concern about translocation, mobility of
18 phosphorus. Does that relate to the conversations you've
19 had with Dr. Patrick and Richardson?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. This first argument that I've tendered, also,
23 falls under the general heading of translocation, if you
24 will, or mobility of phosphorus as well. We could put a
25 term to it if you like. It's call post-depositional
70
1 mobility.
2 Q. Good. I need a term to write down.
3 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. Off the record.
4 (Thereupon, a brief discussion was held off the
5 record.)
6 MR. NETTLETON: Okay. We can go back on.
7 BY MR. NETTLETON:
8 Q. In rendering the opinion concerning your expressed
9 first flaw in the approach, you made an assumption that
10 there were constant rates of deposition of phosphorus, I
11 assume.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Is, in fact, a constant rate of deposition, is
14 that assumed in Dr. Walker's work as well?
15 A. I believe in his latest work, and I believe we're
16 hindered in our analysis of results because of the available
17 data, quite frankly, but Dr. Walker uses a cesium marker,
18 radioactive cesium marker to define a particular event point
19 in time, i.e., 1962 or 1963.
20 I believe in his most recent paper in which he
21 derives a settling velocity of 10.2 meters per year, he
22 assumes that the deposition rate of material above that
23 marker is constant, the deposition of solid phase material,
24 in other words, the amount of sediment that's accumulated is
25 so many grams per meter squared per year. He assumes that
71
1 that rate is constant. He then uses that. He looks at the
2 total amount of phosphorus, then, that's accumulated over
3 that interval, and then he comes up with a mass accumulation
4 rate as a function of time, basically an average
5 accumulation rate over that interval.
6 Q. Okay. Another assumption that you stated in your
7 analysis was that the system was unreactive. Can you tell
8 me what you meant by that?
9 A. Yes. A system that's not -- does not undergo any
10 chemical transformations or any biological transformations
11 as it's being deposited. In other words, it's inert.
12 Q. And is that assumption made in Dr. Walker's
13 analysis as well?
14 A. I think it's implicit in his analysis, yeah. His
15 assumption assumes that there is no movement of phosphorus
16 in any direction once it's deposited.
17 If he did assume that there is some movement, he
18 certainly didn't show how he accounted for it in his
19 analysis.
20 Q. Now, you mentioned that there is geochemical
21 evidence which shows that there is a gradient from the
22 surface of the sediment downward from high phosphorus to low
23 phosphorus; is that correct?
24 A. Yeah, that's classic.
25 Excuse me, restate that. I think you might have
72
1 said the wrong thing, or we might be looking at two
2 different aspects of the coin here. Could you restate your
3 question, please?
4 Q. Sure. Did you testify that there's geochemical
5 evidence which shows that there is a gradient in the
6 sediment from the top downward which shows high phosphorus
7 to lower phosphorus?
8 A. In the solid phase, yes. In the liquid phase, the
9 trend is exactly the opposite. You have very low phosphorus
10 concentrations at the surface, and those grade up to higher
11 concentrations as you get deeper in the profile.
12 Q. What particular data are you referring to where
13 this gradient exists in the soils?
14 A. Well, as far as the soil, solid phase stuff is
15 concerned, I'm basing my evidence on soil cores that have
16 been taken out of Water Conservation Area 2A, particularly
17 in the areas that we believe are unimpacted by
18 concentrations of phosphorus originating out of the EAA, and
19 it's also based on theoretical considerations. I can direct
20 you to a textbook that's a classic on the subject, if you
21 like.
22 Q. If you'd tell me what it is.
23 A. Yeah. It's a book by Robert Berner, B-e-r-n-e-r.
24 It's called "Early Diagenesis," D-i-a-g-e-n-e-s-i-s. It's
25 also based on my own experience from working with lake
73
1 sediments, and, well, I guess that about covers it. I mean,
2 it's a well-known phenomenon.
3 There's another book that also addresses it, a
4 book by Abraham Lerman, L-e-r-m-a-n, and I forget the title
5 of the book. It was published around 1979. It basically
6 deals with the same sorts of issues.
7 Q. Okay. I think I had qualified my question with
8 regard to the basis for the gradient you testified
9 concerning the soils. Is there also additional evidence
10 that you have relied upon with regard to the opposite trend
11 or gradient in interstitial water?
12 A. Oh, yeah. Again, that's based on my own personal
13 experience in collecting interstitial water and looking at
14 interstitial water chemistry in lake sediments, and that's
15 based on work that we've done in Lake Okeechobee and other
16 systems.
17 It's also based upon, again, theoretical
18 considerations and what we also see in the literature. I
19 mean, this is a very well-documented phenomenon in lake
20 sediments, or submerged sediments, for that matter.
21 Q. Any particular data from the EPA area that you're
22 relying on for that particular --
23 A. Well, there are some data that Dr. Reddy
24 collected, and to be perfectly honest, I haven't looked at
25 his interstitial water chemistry data. My concern is that
74
1 his interstitial water chemistry is not of sufficient
2 resolution to establish the true nature of these profiles;
3 that my recollection of how Dr. Reddy typically collects his
4 samples is that he tends to work on rather coarse intervals
5 within the soil as opposed to -- particularly when he is
6 collecting interstitial water, and that really what should
7 have been done, and there may be some data to back this up,
8 but he should have, to really pin down this particular
9 question, the type of sampling device, the preferred
10 sampling device would be an in situ sampler known as a
11 porewater equilibrator, otherwise known as a peeper, and
12 that would help establish the nature of the profile.
13 Of course, these profiles are variable with time,
14 the antecedent conditions. One profile does not tell the
15 whole story. Scientists love to collect lots of data.
16 Q. I've heard that. You mentioned soil cores in area
17 2A. Who took those soil cores?
18 A. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Richardson from Duke
19 University.
20 Q. Those are two different sets of data?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Other than showing the gradients that exist within
23 the profiles, have those core -- can you use those cores to
24 determine the cause of those gradients?
25 A. You mean within an individual core?
75
1 Q. Right.
2 A. Well, the -- I guess I should ask you to rephrase
3 the question.
4 Q. Okay. Let me start from scratch. Given that the
5 cores that you've testified about show a gradient of
6 phosphorus in the sediment from high to low, going from top
7 to bottom, are you aware of any information, any data that
8 has been collected which would establish the cause of that
9 gradient?
10 A. No, I'm not.
11 Q. With regard to the gradient, you testified with
12 regard to the interstitial water being in the opposite
13 direction. Have you actually seen any data from the EPA
14 area which shows that that gradient does exist?
15 A. I have not examined that in detail, no. I have
16 not yet looked at that question. I would be, quite frankly,
17 very surprised if that type of profile did not exist.
18 Q. Assuming that profile does exist in the EPA, have
19 you seen any data or information which would establish the
20 cause of that particular gradient?
21 A. No. That's not likely something that anybody
22 would directly try and examine. I think it's generally
23 accepted that the porewater profile is influenced by a
24 number of variables, but the driving variable is the
25 production of inorganic phosphorus that's released into the
76
1 interstitial fluid by decomposition of organic material
2 that's already been buried.
3 Q. What other variables exist that could influence
4 this particular profile or the gradient that exists?
5 A. The gradient would be very influenced, the actual
6 shape of the gradient would be influenced by mixing
7 processes at the soil-water interface.
8 In a wetlands system, those processes, I believe,
9 would be largely confined to what's known as bioturbation,
10 which is the burrowing of benthic invertebrates, benthic
11 infauna, basic burrowing little holes or tubes into the --
12 across the interface and essentially enhancing the rate of
13 flux of or the rate of exchange of dissolved material across
14 the interface, and, of course, the greater the rate of
15 exchange, the sharper the interface is going to be.
16 Q. And what do you mean by that, sharp?
17 A. Oh, excuse me. Hold on. Excuse me. Let me
18 restate that.
19 The greater the rate of exchange, the interface is
20 probably going to become less sharp. In other words, by a
21 sharp interface -- it would be better if I described it
22 pictorially, I guess, but if you had a system where only
23 passive diffusion was the mechanism for physical exchange,
24 the type of profile that you would expect to see in the
25 interstitial fluid would be, right at the interface, a
77
1 concentration that's very close to what the overlying
2 concentration in the water column is as far as interstitial
3 phosphorus is concerned.
4 Then as you start moving down below that interface
5 you'll see concentrations moving or increasing rapidly and
6 then perhaps approaching some sort of steady state value as
7 you get deeper and deeper within the profile.
8 Now, if there is bioturbation or some sort of
9 physical mixing, sediment resuspension or what have you,
10 that tends to result in a more gradual increase in
11 concentrations towards that steady state value, but the flux
12 rate is a function of both the concentration profile and
13 also a function of the mixing process or the exchange
14 process.
15 So the sharper the profile, all other factors
16 being held constant, the faster the rate of exchange, but
17 oftentimes the thing that is most important is the rate of
18 bioturbation. That very strongly influences the rate of
19 exchange.
20 You basically have a balance between production
21 down below and the rate of movement across the interface.
22 Q. Are there any other variables that would affect
23 the profile?
24 A. Yes. There's a couple other variables that would
25 affect it. One would be sorption, and I alluded to that
78
1 earlier, I believe. Sorption will remove phosphorus at the
2 upper zone, in the upper zone to some extent, and add to the
3 solid phase concentration.
4 The other process that could also affect the
5 porewater profile is chemical precipitation, and that may
6 place a limit on the upper limit to which concentrations
7 reach, and that's going to be dictated by a number of other
8 variables, including the calcium content of the soil
9 porewater and also the pH.
10 Q. I'm sorry, the pH and what was the other?
11 A. Calcium content. Also the alkalinity of the
12 system will have an effect on it as well.
13 Q. What do you mean by chemical precipitation?
14 A. Chemical precipitation is when you have sufficient
15 -- and let's talk about phosphate, for example -- when you
16 have sufficient calcium that's dissolved in the water and
17 you have sufficient phosphate that's dissolved in the water,
18 and this is a very simple example, concentrations are
19 sufficiently high that you're going to end up forming a
20 solid mineral which then precipitates out of the water
21 column and becomes part of the solid phase.
22 Q. Okay. Can you think of any other variables that
23 might affect the profile?
24 A. Not right off the top of my head.
25 Q. Just for clarification, the profile we've been
79
1 talking about --
2 A. Oh, yes, I can. Actually, I can. The profile
3 also is going to be affected by compaction.
4 Q. And how does that affect the profile?
5 A. Well, that's a more complicated question.
6 Compaction only relates to when materials being deposited
7 typically at the interface, materials rather loose and
8 unconsolidated. Then as you get deeper and deeper, then the
9 profile compaction will change the porosity of the
10 sediments, and I really would hesitate to speculate in terms
11 of how compaction would affect the phosphorus profile
12 specifically at this point in time. There are some papers
13 on that topic. I'd have to go back and review those, but I
14 know that it does have an effect.
15 Q. And these variables we've been talking about,
16 we're talking about effects on the interstitial water
17 profile?
18 A. Principally, yes.
19 Q. Okay. Would compaction be related to the density
20 of the phosphorus within the profile?
21 A. No. It's really related to the density in the
22 solid phase within the profile.
23 Q. Can you explain how the compaction affects the
24 profile in the interstitial water? I don't think I
25 understood that.
80
1 A. Well, I think I tried to beg off on that,
2 actually, if I remember my answer correctly. I would like
3 to spend some time thinking about it and review some papers
4 on how compaction particularly affects the transport of
5 interstitial solutes before I answer that question. There
6 have been a couple of papers written on that topic.
7 In essence, compaction will reduce the rate of
8 flux. As material gets more and more compacted, you
9 decrease the porosity of the sediments. You increase what's
10 known as the tortuosity, and so that should actually
11 decrease the rate of flux material.
12 Q. I'm going to take a wild stab here and say moving
13 to the sediment profile, would it be fair to say that these
14 same variables affect the sediment profile perhaps in the
15 opposite direction?
16 A. No. I don't think -- the sediment profile really
17 is -- is related to milligrams per kilogram, milligrams of
18 phosphorus per kilogram of soil, so compaction isn't
19 necessarily going to affect the overall shape of the
20 sediment profile. It may compress it to some extent, but it
21 isn't going to change the basic nature of the shape in terms
22 of a gradient from high to low.
23 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what variables would affect
24 the sediment profile gradient?
25 A. I think the big variable is going to be the
81
1 decomposition rate, the long-term decomposition rate of that
2 organic material and the release of phosphorus. The slower
3 the decomposition rate, basically, the more protracted the
4 profile will be. In other words, rather than having a
5 sharply changing curve near the interface, you're going to
6 have a more gradual change from high concentrations to low
7 as you get deeper and deeper within the profile.
8 Q. Any other variables that affect that profile?
9 A. Well, yes. As I said before, if we -- if we're
10 considering the mobility of dissolved phosphorus upwards and
11 to the extent that you have phosphorus being removed from
12 solution by the solid phase, then the mineralogic content of
13 the soil also could affect how that phosphorus is
14 partitioned and how that phosphorus is removed and
15 accumulated by the solid phase.
16 Q. How could it affect that?
17 A. Well, let's say, for example, you had a soil
18 that's very rich in iron. Iron is an effective -- or iron
19 and aluminum, for example. Iron and aluminum materials are
20 pretty effective at removing phosphorus from solution. You
21 may have a calcium-rich soil, and here I think the evidence
22 is a little bit less clear. I've seen differential
23 responses by soils rich in calcium in terms of their removal
24 characteristics of phosphorus, but one possible scenario
25 would be a soil that has a lot of calcium available. That
82
1 calcium then would serve as perhaps a substrate for chemical
2 precipitation and removal of phosphorus, perhaps through the
3 formation of hydroxyapatite, h-y-d-r-o-x-y-a-p-a-t-i-t-e.
4 Soils rich in clay minerals, which, of course, are
5 generally comprised of aluminum and iron sesquioxides,
6 s-e-s-q-u-i-o-x-i-d-e-s, also are sufficient scavengers of
7 phosphorus. The pH is going to -- the pH of the
8 interstitial medium is also going to affect the sorption and
9 removal characteristics of the soil.
10 Q. Have you done any analysis of these issues as they
11 relate to the EPA soils and interstitial water?
12 A. No, I have not.
13 Q. Okay. Has anyone on behalf of the Cooperative, to
14 your knowledge, done such an analysis?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Specifically, is anyone at Tetra Tech or Info Tech
17 doing such an analysis?
18 A. Not that I'm aware of.
19 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. Just for clarification,
20 when you say "such analysis," that's kind of broad. I want
21 to be sure that we understand the question.
22 A. As I understand the question, you're asking me if
23 anybody has looked at these issues that relate to phosphorus
24 removal in soils, particularly as it concerns mineralogic
25 content or what have you, as a removal mechanism for
83
1 phosphorus, whether or not Tetra Tech or Info Tech have been
2 involved in such analyses, and my answer is no.
3 Q. Okay. Let me broaden the question a little bit.
4 With regard to the numerous variables that you described
5 that affect the profiles of both the interstitial water and
6 the sediment, is anyone at Tetra Tech or Info Tech involved
7 in any analysis with regard to those processes as they
8 relate to the EPA?
9 A. Insofar as my knowledge is concerned, I'd have to
10 say no.
11 Q. Are you aware of any information or data that
12 exists which would show how those processes are or how those
13 variables are affecting the profiles of either the
14 interstitial or sediment -- interstitial water or sediment
15 in the EPA?
16 A. I think some inference may be gained by looking at
17 the sediment chemistry data that particularly Dr. Reddy
18 gained or obtained in Water Conservation Area 2A because I
19 do believe that he has done some chemical fractionation of
20 those sediments, and so we can look at the mechanisms by
21 which phosphorus is accumulating in those sediments and that
22 should help us gain some overall understanding of some of
23 the processes operating in those sediments.
24 Quite frankly, I don't recall whether Dr.
25 Richardson has done any chemical fractionation of his
84
1 sediments or not.
2 Q. You're referring to Dr. Curtis Richardson?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. What about Dr. John Richardson?
5 A. I'd be very surprised if they have done that type
6 of work.
7 I need a