205
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 II (Pages 205 - 404)
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 Tuesday, February 15, 1994
15 Southeast First Avenue
25 Gainesville, Florida 3260l
9:00 a.m. - 5:55 p.m.
206
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
207
1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
5 Curtis D. Pollman, Ph.D.
6 BY MR. NETTLETON: 211 (Continued)
7
8 - - -
9 E X H I B I T S
10 - - -
11 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
12 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
13 No. 15 231 Cover letters & technical proposal
14 No. 16 239 Document entitled Framework for
Evaluation of Hydrologic Effects
15
No. 17 240 Letter from Munson to Pollman -
16 2/19/91
17 No. 18 241 Proposed Agenda - 2/28 - 3/1
18 No. 19 248 Letter & scope of work - 3/29/91
19 No. 20 266 Telephone memorandum - l/15/92
20 No. 21 268 Fax dated 3/31/92 and document
entitled Everglades Hydrologic/
21 Nutrient Budget Model
22 No. 22 269 Document entitled Everglades
Hydrologic/Nutrient Budget Model
23
No. 23 270 Fax from Ward to Pollman - 4/16/92
24
No. 24 271 Letter from Pollman to Gherini -
25 5/1/92
208
1 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
2 No. 25 271 Document entitled Everglades SWIM
Plan Model Development Update
3
No. 26 278 Document entitled Preliminary
4 Application of the Everglades
Hydrologic/Nutrient Budget Model
5
No. 27 282 Letter from Pollman to Ward -
6 11/4/92
7 No. 28 284 Letter from Pollman to Gherini -
11/11/92
8
No. 29 287 File entitled Model Progess
9 Presentation
10 No. 30 295 Draft of Modeling Phosphorus
Trapping in Wetlands Using
11 Generalized Additive Models
12 No. 31 301 Letter from Pollman to Ward -
8/6/91 & document entitled ENP
13 Water Quality Trends Analysis
14 No. 32 303 Proposal by McClave and Pollman
15 No. 33 304 Water Resources Bulletin - 2/91
16 No. 34 304 Draft - Derivation of Phosphorus
Limits for ENP and Phosphorus
17 Levels for LNWR
18 No. 35 304 Document entitled Long-term Water
Quality Trends in ENP and the LNWR
19
No. 36 307 Draft - Statistical Critique by
20 James McClave
21 No. 37 309 Statistical Critique by James
McClave
22
No. 38 311 Affidavit - James T. McClave
23
No. 39 312 Affidavit - Curtis D. Pollman
24
No. 40 314 Letter from Pollman to Ward -
25 l0/24/91 & attachments
209
1 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
2 No. 41 319 Letter from Pollman to Green -
5/31/90 & attachments
3
No. 42 320 Letter from Pollman to Ward -
4 6/13/90 & attachments
5 No. 43 321 Letter from Pollman/Duever to Green
9/4/90
6
No. 44 335 Letter from Pollman to Green -
7 12/18/90
8 No. 45 335 Letter from Pollman to Gherini -
12/20/90
9
No. 46 336 File entitled Documents and
10 Correspondence Regarding SWIM Plan
11 No. 47 344 Letter from Pollman to Green -
10/4/93 & attachments
12
No. 48 368 Document entitled Conditions for
13 Key Permit
14 No. 49 375 Letter from Green to Clements -
1/31/94 and attachments
15
No. 50 377 Letter from Perko to Ponzoli -
16 2/7/94 & attachment
17 No. 51 377 Report - result of mercury testing
& cover letter dated 1/28/94
18
No. 52 378 Composite of letters & attachments
19
No. 53 382 Composite of computer printouts
20
No. 54 386 Graph - settling velocities
21
No. 55 388 Graphs - Richardson data
22
No. 56 391 Graphs - Reddy data
23
No. 57 392 Table/Chart of WCA-2A
24
No. 58 394 Handwritten notes
25
210
1 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
2 No. 59 395 Graphs - Pollman
3 No. 60 398 Document entitled EAA Phosphorus
Balance
4
No. 61 401 Document entitled Mass-Balance
5 Model for Estimating Phosphorus
Settling Rate in Everglades WCA-2A
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
211
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 previously duly
6 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
7 CONTINUED DIRECT
8 BY MR. NETTLETON:
9 Q. Dr. Pollman, with regard to the Loxahatchee
10 Refuge, do you believe that there are any interior areas of
11 the refuge that are currently unimpacted or would be
12 considered pristine areas?
13 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I'm sorry.
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. The data that you're relying on for your opinion
18 that the phosphorus concentrations at the inflow are not
19 causally related to the phosphorus concentrations on the
20 interior, what particular data is that?
21 A. The data that we relied on in that analysis were
22 the data that were originally presented in the SWIM Plan in
23 one of the appendices. I forget which appendix it is. It's
24 Appendix E, F, or G. Those data were used in support of
25 developing the criteria for the Loxahatchee.
212
1 Q. And that's the same data you're relying on for
2 your conclusion that the interior concentrations are not
3 causally related with the inflow concentrations?
4 A. In part, that's correct.
5 Q. Is that the same data that you have also expressed
6 the opinion is of poor quality?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What other data other than the data contained in
9 Appendix G of the SWIM Plan are you relying on for your
10 conclusion of the lack of cause and effect between inflow
11 and interior phosphorus concentrations?
12 A. The data that John Richardson collected as part of
13 his report, and I forget the exact year of that report.
14 It's a 1990 report, I believe. I think that data also show
15 rather conclusively that the interior marsh concentrations
16 or, excuse me, the interior marsh water chemistry is
17 uninfluenced by what the water chemistry is coming in
18 through the S-5A and the S-6 structures.
19 Q. Is that surface water samples or data?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And the data in Appendix G of the SWIM Plan you're
22 referring to, that's also surface water?
23 MR. GREEN: Object to the form. I think he said E
24 through F. He wasn't sure which appendix, unless I
25 misunderstood it.
213
1 Q. I'm sorry. That's correct.
2 In the appendices to the SWIM Plan, the data
3 you're relying on, was that also surface water data?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Any other source of data you're relying on for
6 your opinion on the lack of cause between inflow and
7 interior concentrations?
8 A. Well, in all likelihood, the statistical analysis
9 that Dr. McClave will be conducting on the recent entry data
10 will either provide further evidence in support of that
11 conclusion or may provide evidence in refutation of that
12 conclusion, so we'll have to wait and see what those
13 analyses show.
14 Q. Okay. That analysis has not yet been done by Dr.
15 McClave; is that right?
16 A. Insofar as I understand, that's correct.
17 Q. Do you know when -- when do you expect that
18 analysis to be complete?
19 A. I believe you asked me that question yesterday and
20 I believe my answer was some time in the very near future,
21 and that is my opinion today as well.
22 Q. Are any of the data within the John Richardson
23 data set or within the SWIM Plan appendices that you've
24 reviewed and are relying on for this particular opinion
25 taken from any of the areas you would consider pristine in
214
1 the refuge?
2 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
3 A. The data that have been taken, that Richardson and
4 his colleagues collected, and the data that were presented
5 in the SWIM Plan really cover a large portion of the
6 Loxahatchee, if not all of the Loxahatchee.
7 Q. So that would include areas that you would
8 consider background or pristine?
9 MR. GREEN: I object to the form. Let me explain
10 why.
11 MR. NETTLETON: You don't understand what I mean
12 by pristine.
13 MR. GREEN: Yeah. I mean, no one's defined that
14 term, no one's defined background, and so I object to the
15 form.
16 BY MR. NETTLETON:
17 Q. Okay. Well, Dr. Pollman, when I say pristine, how
18 have you been understanding that?
19 A. I would understand it in this particular case to
20 be uninfluenced at least by the S-5 and S-6 structures.
21 Doesn't mean it's pristine in the truest sense of the word,
22 that it's been unimpacted by any sort of anthropogenic
23 influence. Very likely may have been influenced by
24 anthropogenic sources of other types, which in that case
25 would render it not pristine.
215
1 Q. What do you understand the term background to
2 mean, background levels?
3 A. I think background is sort of a moving target. I
4 think as -- the term background, I think, is a case specific
5 or a site specific word. Background for one system under
6 consideration may not mean precisely the same or take on the
7 same meaning as background in another case, but I think in
8 the context of what we're discussing here today, background
9 would mean an area that is not influenced by direct
10 discharges from the EAA.
11 Q. Okay. With those definitions in mind, I assume,
12 am I correct your definition that you just gave me for
13 background was the same as for pristine?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Using those definitions, do you recall what John
16 Richardson's data showed with regard to any background or
17 pristine areas of the refuge as far as total phosphorus
18 concentrations in surface water?
19 A. I don't recall the numbers offhand. There's a
20 number of 37 parts per billion that comes to mind, but I'd
21 have to go back and look at his report. If I remember
22 correctly, the data were somewhat variable.
23 The other thing that I recollect is that it was
24 rather difficult from the Richardson report to gain, I
25 think, a complete understanding of the chemical dynamics of
216
1 the system because the raw data were not included in the
2 report, and by and large most data presentations are in the
3 form of concentration isopleths presented in maps.
4 Q. Do you recall what the total phosphorus
5 concentrations were in surface water data taken from any
6 pristine or background areas in the refuge as reported in
7 the appendices to the SWIM Plan?
8 A. I believe that there were concentrations around 10
9 parts per billion or perhaps a little bit lower and ranging
10 upwards from there, and I couldn't tell you what the upper
11 limit was. I don't recall off the top of my head.
12 Q. The entry into the refuge conducted by the League
13 for sampling, did that include sampling at locations you
14 would consider pristine or background?
15 A. I'd have to go back and look at the map. I
16 believe that it did.
17 Q. I understand Dr. McClave has not done a
18 statistical analysis on the results of that sampling.
19 However, have you seen any of the data that's been collected
20 as a result of that sampling effort by the League?
21 A. I have scanned some of that data, yes.
22 Q. Okay. Do you recall what the total phosphorus
23 concentrations in surface water were from those sampling
24 points in an area that might be considered pristine or
25 background in your opinion?
217
1 A. I don't recall exactly what those numbers were.
2 Q. Do you recall whether they were consistent with
3 what was shown in the SWIM Plan?
4 A. I never conducted that analysis, never did a
5 direct comparison with the two.
6 Q. Aside from a direct comparison, do you recall
7 whether the data was markedly different in total phosphorus
8 concentration levels than that reflected in the SWIM Plan?
9 A. I don't believe that they were markedly different
10 as far as the interior stations were concerned.
11 I guess I would like to ask a question at this
12 point. What exactly do you mean by markedly different? Do
13 you mean on the order of one to two parts per billion, or do
14 you mean on the order of 20 parts per billion?
15 Q. Well, what did you understand it to mean when you
16 answered it?
17 A. On the order of 20 parts per billion.
18 Q. Dr. Pollman, I'd like to fill in a couple of gaps
19 from the second area of your testimony yesterday concerning
20 the settling velocity of phosphorus.
21 Do you have an opinion on what an appropriate --
22 an appropriate settling velocity that should be used for
23 sizing the STAs?
24 A. What that number should be?
25 Q. Yes, sir.
218
1 A. I would first base that number at this point in
2 time on the modeling work that Tetra Tech has done. My
3 feeling at this stage, based upon their modeling work and
4 their calibration of the settling velocities, that it's
5 going to be on the order of somewhere, say, 2 to 3 meters
6 per year.
7 Nonetheless, I feel that the best means for
8 determining what that settling velocity would be would be to
9 conduct pilot studies.
10 Q. And what type of pilot study would be appropriate
11 to make a determination of the appropriate settling velocity
12 for sizing STAs?
13 A. Oh, I think the ENR Project site, at least in
14 part, would serve as a convenient pilot study.
15 Q. And what period of record of data would you need,
16 do you think, in order to render a scientifically valid
17 opinion based on that pilot study?
18 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
19 A. Well, I guess I'd have to caveat my remarks
20 insofar as I'm not an expert in the design of artificial
21 wetlands for the treatment of wastewater. My intuition
22 tells me, my scientific intuition tells me, based upon the
23 dynamics of ecological systems and the fact that you're
24 starting off with a system that's inherently unstable when
25 you first bring this artificial wetland on-line, is that a
219
1 several year period of time would probably be appropriate.
2 A one-year study clearly would be inadequate. Two
3 years would be better than one, but I still think two years
4 would be inadequate. I think maybe three to five years
5 would probably be more appropriate.
6 Q. And when you say three to five years, you're
7 talking about three to five years of data collected when the
8 project is up and running as designed; is that correct?
9 A. That's right. Let's say three to five years once
10 the system is vegetated.
11 Q. And discharging?
12 A. And discharging.
13 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. Could you read back the
14 last answer? I drifted for a moment.
15 (Thereupon, the record was read back by the
16 reporter as above recorded.)
17 BY THE WITNESS:
18 A. I guess I'd like to qualify my answer, if I may.
19 When you say "and discharging," I presume that you
20 mean that the system, when you bring it on-line, is
21 discharging.
22 If what you're trying to say is, if you bring the
23 system on-line vegetated but you hold off on discharging for
24 a couple of years, then do you wait another three to five
25 years after you start the discharge, I guess I would
220
1 disagree with that; that my concern here in terms of an
2 appropriate period of time is getting the vegetation
3 stabilized and having the nutrient dynamics settle down a
4 little bit, so it may be that for the first year or so you
5 may not be discharging at all, but once the system is
6 vegetated, I think maybe a three- to five-year stabilization
7 period would be required to really ascertain system
8 performance.
9 Q. Well, in order to ascertain system performance,
10 wouldn't you need to collect data from the outflows from the
11 system, the discharges?
12 A. That's correct. That's correct, but the data that
13 you're going to get early on are really not going to be very
14 meaningful, I think, in terms of long-term system dynamics.
15 The data that you collect early on, I think, will give you
16 an idea of how the system is moving towards some stable
17 response, and it would be useful in that regard.
18 Q. Am I correct, Dr. Pollman, from your testimony
19 yesterday that in your view there is not a constant settling
20 velocity that would apply as you move south into area 2A?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Okay. Am I correct that in your view the settling
23 velocity would vary with the phosphorus concentration in the
24 water?
25 A. I don't know whether the determining variable is
221
1 phosphorus concentration or whether it's vegetation type.
2 Q. Would the gradient, if you will, of the settling
3 velocity going from low to high as you move south in area
4 2A, does that reflect in your view that the phosphorus
5 accumulation efficiency is greater as you move south in the
6 system?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you explain why the efficiency of phosphorus
9 accumulation is greater as you move south?
10 A. It could be due to several different factors.
11 Geochemically it could be because that sorption sites are
12 saturated at the upper end and that sorption is no longer
13 occurring as a fairly efficient process, and so that
14 component as a removal mechanism is no longer available to
15 the system at the northern end.
16 It may mean simply that the vegetation as you
17 get -- as phosphorus is being removed and you get into a
18 sawgrass-type community, that the sawgrass is far more
19 efficient at taking up phosphorus at low concentrations than
20 cattail is at taking phosphorus up at high concentrations.
21 It may be a combination of factors.
22 Q. Other than the factors you just mentioned, are you
23 aware of any other factors that might influence the
24 efficiency of the phosphorus accumulation as you move
25 south?
222
1 A. Well, one thing that actually could affect it is
2 this internal loading mechanism. I didn't use that
3 euphemism yesterday, but that really is what I was referring
4 to. The reflux of phosphorus across the sediment-water
5 interface may be greater in a zone that's more organically
6 enriched, the northern end. That also will affect the
7 settling velocity, because, again, the settling velocity is
8 a combination or a synthesis of a series of processes. It's
9 a net number as opposed to an absolute number.
10 Q. Can you explain how the 2-meter-per-year settling
11 velocity used in the EPH model was calculated?
12 A. Again, --
13 MR. GREEN: Excuse me, just for the record, I
14 think that Dr. Pollman said he, to the best of his
15 recollection, it was about 2 meters per year, but with that
16 clarification.
17 Q. Well, I'm using the 2 as an example, if you could
18 just explain how the settling velocity in general was
19 calculated for the EPH model.
20 MR. GREEN: That's fine.
21 A. As I said yesterday, I think, that as far as the
22 specifics of how the EPH model was calibrated and set up,
23 that you're best advised to talk directly to Mr. Gherini.
24 My recollection of how that number was developed
25 was basically constructing a mass-balance, if you will,
223
1 across the zone of interest looking at the inflow, looking
2 at the outflow, looking at the mass loading in, looking at
3 the mass loading out, and looking at the concentration
4 dynamics within that zone, and then calibrating, based upon
5 those input and output variables, calibrating the settling
6 velocity so that a match between the observed and predicted
7 water column concentrations were achieved.
8 Q. Am I correct that the zones that were created you
9 have indicated were based upon vegetative type?
10 A. I believe so, yes.
11 Q. Do you know how that was broken down?
12 A. I don't understand your question.
13 Q. What was the first zone? What vegetative type is
14 within the first zone?
15 A. I would believe cattail. Again, the specifics of
16 the model structure should be directed, questions of that
17 type should be directed to Mr. Gherini.
18 Q. What's your understanding of what -- would the
19 second zone be cattail mixed with sawgrass?
20 A. Yes, I believe so.
21 Q. Okay. Do you know what the mixture ratio would be
22 for that second zone?
23 A. No, I do not.
24 Q. Am I correct, Dr. Pollman, that from your
25 testimony here, your view is that the settling velocity that
224
1 should be used for sizing STAs at this stage should be
2 restricted to the first zone as indicated in the EPH model?
3 A. I believe that that first zone is going to be far
4 more reflective of the conditions that we will see within
5 the STAs than in either of the other two zones.
6 Q. And why do you say that?
7 A. Well, it's my understanding that, first of all,
8 you're going to have a rather high nutrient loading to the
9 STAs. The input concentration of phosphorus is going to be
10 rather high. It's my understanding that the STAs will be
11 vegetated with cattail. They're not going to be vegetated
12 with sawgrass. These conditions all correlate rather well
13 with the conditions at the -- immediately below, rather,
14 immediately below the S-10 structures.
15 Q. What type of verification exercises have been
16 performed with regard to the settling velocity numbers?
17 A. I don't believe or my suspicion is that there has
18 been little verification done on the settling velocity
19 because I don't believe there's sufficient data. It's my
20 recollection that there are insufficient data collected
21 recently to go back and verify that portion of the model.
22 Q. What type of data would you need in order to
23 perform a verification exercise on the settling velocities
24 in the model?
25 A. You would need the same data that you would need
225
1 originally to calculate the settling velocity given any
2 approach, really, and that is water column concentration
3 data, input data, both hydrologic inputs and mass inputs,
4 hydrologic outflow data, also concentration or mass output
5 data. You would need precipitation information. You need
6 mass loadings from the atmosphere. You need all that
7 information and do a rigorous calibration and verification.
8 Q. Explain to me what the difference is between a
9 calibration and a verification.
10 A. Calibration typically is an exercise where you
11 take a data set and you use that data set of measured
12 observations and you try and match your predicted response
13 of the system to those measured values, and if we're dealing
14 with something as relatively simple as a phosphorus model,
15 for example, it's really a one-parameter model in the way
16 that it's currently being used, I mean, there's one variable
17 to adjust or calibrate and that's the settling velocity,
18 you twiddle the knobs, if you will, monkey around with the
19 settling velocity until you get the best possible match
20 between the predicted values and the observed values.
21 The verification exercise comes in using another
22 data set, it may be later in time, that was not used in the
23 calibration exercise, and then comparing the observed to the
24 predicted values, and if you get a good match then between
25 the predicted and the observed values, then you have a model
226
1 that's reasonably well-verified.
2 Q. Am I correct that a -- when you are calibrating
3 the model, essentially you're using that data you're using
4 for calibration to create the model? Is that the -- is my
5 terminology wrong there?
6 A. I don't understand what you mean by create the
7 model.
8 Q. Well, the data set that you say you're using to
9 calibrate the model, isn't that, in essence, what you're
10 building the model from, is that data?
11 A. I guess to be more precise, the data set that
12 you're using is the data that you're using to develop or
13 derive the coefficients that go into the model. The
14 calibration data set is used for parameter derivation and
15 estimation.
16 Q. Are there any other ways to verify the model other
17 than checking observed versus expected results from another
18 data set?
19 A. I don't believe so. I think that's really the
20 best way to do it.
21 Q. Okay. For instance, what I'm thinking of, is it
22 possible to use soil core data in order to determine whether
23 the settling velocity that you're using in the model matches
24 the accumulation rates in the soil?
25 A. Well, you still have -- you could use soil core
227
1 data, I think, to try and verify your model as long as
2 you're using an independent data set. In other words, you
3 cannot use the same cores that you used to calibrate, and
4 this discussion, of course, assumes that using soil cores is
5 an appropriate method for determining what the settling
6 velocity is, but given that assumption, if you have one set
7 of cores that are used to calibrate your model, you would
8 need another set of cores to verify your model.
9 Q. I think I must have missed something when you were
10 describing before the calibration process. Can you tell me
11 how the soil cores were used in calibrating or how soil
12 cores were used, if they were used, in calibrating the EPH
13 model?
14 A. Soil cores were not used in calibrating the EPH
15 model.
16 Q. Well, then my question is, could you use soil
17 cores since they weren't used to calibrate it for a
18 verification exercise?
19 A. You could, but I would have the same concerns
20 about using those soil cores in a calibration exercise
21 because I don't think that you would get a good match,
22 necessarily, between the sediment accumulation rates and
23 what the apparent settling velocity is because they're not,
24 at least in my mind, a one-to-one comparison.
25 Q. And that's, your testimony there is based upon the
228
1 testimony you gave yesterday about the various flaws you saw
2 in Dr. Walker's approach?
3 A. Yes. Now, what you could do is you could set up a
4 model, and if you had a -- and I'll call this model a
5 diagenetic model. If you set up a diagenetic model that
6 accounted for all the processes that go on within the
7 sediment profile and then you couple that model with your
8 water column model and use the appropriate settling velocity
9 or actually maybe use a gross settling velocity to
10 accommodate the loss of material out of the water column
11 into the sediments -- not the net settling velocity but a
12 gross sedimentation rate, it's a slightly different term --
13 and then include into that model, then, the reflux rates and
14 got a good match between the observed soil profile, the
15 observed interstitial water profile, and the observed water
16 column concentration dynamics, then I'd say you'd have a
17 very well-constrained and calibrated system.
18 Q. And are you aware if data is available to perform
19 such an exercise?
20 A. I believe that such data do not exist at this
21 stage.
22 Q. Do you know if anybody who's retained by the
23 agricultural industry is involved in collecting any such
24 data?
25 A. With that purpose in mind?
229
1 Q. With that purpose in mind.
2 A. No, not that I'm aware of.
3 Q. Are you aware of anyone retained by the
4 agricultural industry who may be collecting that data for
5 some other purpose but the data may be available for use for
6 that purpose?
7 A. I am aware that Dr. Curtis Richardson has
8 collected some soil cores that would include lead-210
9 measurements, and I think that the lead-210 measurements are
10 a key missing variable in terms of trying to sort out the
11 sedimentation dynamics, and so that's one of the bits of
12 information that are needed.
13 More information, of course, would be required, I
14 think, before you could set up a well-calibrated diagenetic
15 model for the sediments within Water Conservation Area 2A,
16 but that would be a first step.
17 Q. To your knowledge, is Tetra Tech going to be
18 pursuing that type of project?
19 A. No.
20 Q. To your knowledge, is anyone retained by the
21 agricultural industry going to be pursuing such a project?
22 A. Not that I'm aware of.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I guess I should state at this point that we
25 contemplated trying to set up a diagenetic model ourselves,
230
1 but I feel that that approach is ill-advised at this point
2 given the paucity of data.
3 Q. How long do you think it would take to collect the
4 necessary data to perform such a or create such a model?
5 A. I think a lot of the data could probably be
6 gathered through intensive, particularly laboratory studies,
7 within a year or less.
8 Q. Do you know if anyone has proposed to the
9 Cooperative or any of the agricultural parties in this case
10 undertaking such a data collection process?
11 A. Apart from the fact that we have contemplated
12 trying to develop a diagenetic model, but that did not
13 involve any additional data collection. No. I'm not aware
14 of anybody that has approached the sugar industry at all.
15 Q. Dr. Pollman, in the CV that was produced to us
16 sometime ago, I think it's dated February of '92. Do you
17 have a more recent CV available?
18 A. I believe so.
19 Q. Mr. Green, could we -- I don't need it today, but
20 could we get an updated version?
21 MR. GREEN: Uh-huh.
22 Yes. The answer was not uh-huh. It was yes.
23 Excuse me.
24 MR. NETTLETON: Would you mark this as a
25 composite.
231
1 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 15 was marked
2 for identification.)
3 MR. GREEN: Would this be a good time for a
4 two-minute break?
5 MR. NETTLETON: Sure, an excellent time.
6 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
7 BY MR. NETTLETON:
8 Q. Dr. Pollman, showing you what has been marked as
9 Pollman Exhibit Number 15, can you identify this document,
10 which I should say is a composite exhibit?
11 A. Looks like a series of letters that I have written
12 as cover letters to a proposal that we had submitted
13 originally to the Sugar Growers Cooperative and to the
14 Florida Sugar Cane League on developing a hydrologic model
15 of the Everglades.
16 Q. All right. This proposal involved building on
17 what was known as a Link-Node model; is that correct?
18 A. Yes. That was what was originally proposed.
19 Q. And this proposal was made on or about November
20 12, 1990?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Okay. Can you tell me who prepared the proposal?
23 A. The proposal was prepared both by myself and by
24 Tetra Tech.
25 Q. And who at Tetra Tech was involved?
232
1 A. I don't know specifically who at Tetra Tech was
2 involved. I would imagine it was several individuals.
3 Q. Was Steve Gherini involved?
4 A. Steve Gherini had some participation, yes.
5 Q. Do you believe someone else at Tetra Tech was more
6 substantially involved in the preparation of the proposal
7 other than Steve Gherini?
8 A. I think in the drafting of the proposal, yes, I
9 would believe that somebody else was more substantially
10 involved.
11 Q. And who would that be?
12 A. I don't know exactly. It was probably either
13 Karen Summers or Ron Munson, possibly other individuals that
14 work for Mr. Gherini.
15 Q. On the first -- I'm sorry. Beginning on the
16 second page of the technical proposal, there is a section
17 entitled Background. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know who prepared that section?
20 A. I believe Tetra Tech did.
21 Q. Do you know where they got the information to
22 prepare that section?
23 A. No, I do not.
24 Q. Referring to your letter dated November 12th, it
25 indicates in the first sentence that "Attached is a revised
233
1 proposal." Was there an earlier proposal made?
2 A. Apparently so.
3 Q. Do you recall what the difference was between this
4 proposal and the earlier proposal?
5 A. I don't recall the substantive difference. I
6 think -- and I'm really reaching here. My memory is not
7 clear on this. It's been some time. I believe that the
8 first proposal that we had submitted was perhaps more
9 extensive in the scope of work and that we scaled the work
10 effort back to accommodate what we believed were the --
11 really the available amount of funds to conduct the work.
12 Q. All right. Do you recall what the proposed budget
13 for the first proposal was?
14 A. No, I do not.
15 Q. Approximately?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Was it, to your knowledge, more than $400,000?
18 A. I think it might have been -- I think it might
19 have been closer to $500,000 or more. I don't recall
20 exactly.
21 Q. Turning to Page 4 of the proposal under the
22 heading Phase I, Review Everglades SWIM Plan and Prior
23 Studies, the second paragraph reflects that, reading from
24 the last full sentence on that page, "An output of the
25 review of these studies will be the development of
234
1 appropriate algorithms for simulating nutrient losses
2 through the system via vegetative uptake."
3 Was that, in fact, done at any time by Tetra Tech
4 or KBN?
5 A. I don't recall -- I don't believe that there was a
6 specific study that was done to try and develop a
7 system-specific algorithm to describe phosphorus uptake by
8 vegetation. This is something I think that was contemplated
9 given the fact that there were a number of studies that were
10 conducted in this area that might lend themselves to
11 developing a settling rate, but I think when push came to
12 shove, Tetra Tech decided to go with a conventional
13 approach.
14 Q. Was this proposal dated November 12, 1990,
15 accepted by the client?
16 A. This proposal was not accepted, at least in this
17 form, if I remember correctly. The idea between -- excuse
18 me, behind this particular proposal package was that this
19 was going to be a jointly funded effort between the Florida
20 Sugar Cane League and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative,
21 and it was not jointly funded, so the Cooperative decided to
22 pursue a modeling effort on their own.
23 Q. On Page 5 of the proposal, that first full
24 paragraph deals with water budgets, the second paragraph
25 leading onto Page 6 deals with nutrient budgets, and then on
235
1 Page 6 the first full paragraph refers to a Phase I report
2 summarizing the evaluation of the technical basis for the
3 SWIM Plan, the new water nutrient budgets, et cetera.
4 Was such a report ever prepared?
5 A. There were letter reports that were prepared that
6 summarized both Tetra Tech's evaluation and my evaluation of
7 the SWIM Plan.
8 Q. All right. Were new water and nutrient budgets
9 prepared by Tetra Tech or KBN?
10 A. No.
11 Q. At the bottom of Page 6 of the technical proposal
12 indicating what would be included in this proposed model, it
13 indicates that it would include an uptake of phosphorus by
14 different vegetation species. Is that part of the current
15 EPH model?
16 A. In a manner of speaking, that is correct, because,
17 for example, in Water Conservation Area 2A, as we discussed
18 earlier, we have different zones that essentially correspond
19 to different vegetation types that have different settling
20 characteristics.
21 Q. Were those zones used throughout the EPH model
22 geographic area, or was it only in area 2A?
23 A. The model structure really varies, I think, in
24 terms of whether we're using a plug-flow type representation
25 of the system or whether we're using a CSTR representation.
236
1 It really varies with both our objectives for a particular
2 area and the area themselves.
3 Q. Is the use of a CSTR in one particular area and a
4 plug-flow in a separate area compatible within the model?
5 A. I don't see any fundamental difficulties with
6 that, no.
7 Yes. To answer your question, I would say, yes,
8 they are compatible.
9 Q. The next item that is indicated on Page 6, which
10 was to be included in this original proposed model, was
11 retention capacity of the marsh sediments. Is that included
12 within the current EPH model?
13 A. No, it's not.
14 Now, I should, I guess, qualify my answer insofar
15 as, when you say retention capacity, my understanding of
16 retention capacity is that there is some capacity which,
17 once reached, the system will no longer continue to remove
18 phosphorus or will not continue to remove it at the same
19 rate at which it was removing it before.
20 Q. Is that how the term was used in this proposal?
21 A. I would believe so, yes.
22 Q. The next item to be included in this particular
23 proposal in the model was the release of phosphorus during
24 flooding cycles. Is that parameter included in the EPH
25 model?
237
1 A. I believe that there have been some efforts to try
2 and ascertain what those release rates might be, but I think
3 it's problematic at this point, that there's insufficient
4 data to really pin that number down.
5 Q. The proposal also reflects that a total phosphorus
6 budget will be prepared. Has that been prepared for use in
7 the EPH model?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what data was used to create the total
10 phosphorus budget used in the EPH model?
11 A. The District's hydrology and water chemistry
12 data.
13 Q. Would that be the same data that's reported in the
14 SWIM Plan?
15 A. Yes, I believe so.
16 Q. What would be the significance of including in a
17 model the retention capacity of marsh sediments and release
18 of phosphorus during flooding cycles?
19 A. Well, one of the, I think, important issues in
20 terms of the phosphorus dynamics in the Everglades relates
21 to hydroperiod and the effect the hydroperiod has on the
22 release of phosphorus in that system.
23 During periods of desiccation or exposure to air,
24 organic matter is mineralized, organic phosphorus is
25 mineralized, and then when reflooding occurs, then you're
238
1 going to have a pulse of phosphorus into the system, and, of
2 course, this has some impact on the overall dynamics of the
3 system, and we felt that it might be important to, if you're
4 trying to simulate the dynamics, the temporal dynamics on,
5 say, a seasonal basis of the system, that this type of
6 behavior needs to be incorporated in the model.
7 Q. Am I correct, though, in light of the fact that
8 this particular parameter was not included in the current
9 EPH model, you would not be able to predict the results of
10 that particular hydroperiod alteration?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. On Page 8 of the proposal it indicates that the
13 total phosphorus results would be presented as histograms.
14 Can you just tell me what a histogram is?
15 A. A histogram is basically a bar chart that shows
16 the frequency distribution of data.
17 Q. And the final sentence in that particular
18 paragraph says that, "These results can be used to help
19 determine whether species composition changes are likely to
20 occur over time."
21 Can you tell me if the current EPH model is
22 capable of making a similar determination?
23 A. The EPH model by itself is not capable of making
24 that determination. It would require input from individuals
25 who are knowledgeable about the effects of nutrients and
239
1 hydroperiod and species composition to make that
2 determination. The EPH model would really serve as an input
3 point for such determinations.
4 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 16 was marked
5 for identification.)
6 Q. Dr. Pollman, showing you what has been marked as
7 Pollman Exhibit Number 16, can you tell me what this
8 document is?
9 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. While he's looking at
10 that, I'll get a refill.
11 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
12 MR. GREEN: Okay. I'm sorry. You were on 16.
13 BY MR. NETTLETON:
14 Q. I believe there was a question pending.
15 A. And the answer is I believe that this document was
16 prepared by Tetra Tech, and it relates to, I guess, giving
17 an overview for the need and the basis for developing a
18 hydrologic model for South Florida.
19 Q. Is this a prelude to the proposal that ultimately
20 became the EPH model?
21 A. I believe so, yes.
22 Q. And the fax date that's reflected on the top of
23 February 6, 1991, would that approximate the date that this
24 document was forwarded or prepared?
25 A. I believe so.
240
1 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 17 was marked
2 for identification.)
3 Q. Showing you what's been marked as Pollman's
4 Exhibit Number 17, can you identify this document?
5 A. This is a letter from Ron Munson with Tetra Tech
6 to myself that documents some early findings, if you will,
7 that Tetra Tech developed in the course of doing some
8 preliminary model development for the co-op.
9 Q. In the first paragraph of the letter it indicates,
10 quoting, "we have begun the preparation of a simplified
11 water and nutrient budget model that could be used to answer
12 these and many other questions," et cetera.
13 My question is, the simplified water and nutrient
14 budget model, is that what ultimately became the current EPH
15 model?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. On the second page of the letter it makes
18 reference to a meeting to be held February 28th through
19 March 1st.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are you aware of whether that meeting was held?
22 A. I believe that it was.
23 Q. Do you recall who was present at the meeting?
24 A. I recall some of the individuals that were at that
25 meeting.
241
1 Q. Can you tell me who was at that meeting?
2 A. Well, if my recollection of these meetings dates
3 are correct and the meeting that I think that occurred
4 reflects these meeting dates -- I have to tell you my memory
5 is fuzzy as far as these dates are concerned -- there was a
6 meeting that was held at the Cooperative's offices in Belle
7 Glade, and in attendance at that meeting were myself, Ron
8 Munson, Steve Gherini, Mr. Green, Mr. Wedgworth, Mr. Ward,
9 and a few other individuals, I believe, from the
10 Cooperative.
11 Q. Were there any representatives of the League
12 present?
13 A. I do not believe so at the first meeting. There
14 was a meeting that was held, I believe, a day later in Miami
15 where the model, the simplified model, if you will, was
16 presented to several representatives of the League.
17 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 18 was marked
18 for identification.)
19 Q. Showing you what's been marked as Pollman's
20 Exhibit Number 18, which is entitled Proposed Agenda for the
21 same time period we just discussed, February 28th through
22 March 1, 1991, does this accurately reflect the agenda of
23 the meeting you just discussed?
24 Well, let me restate the question. Is this the
25 agenda that was prepared for the meeting that you just
242
1 discussed?
2 A. I believe that's correct.
3 Q. The first item on the agenda refers to
4 presentation of simplified hydrologic and nutrient model.
5 Was that, in fact, done at the meeting?
6 A. Yes, it was.
7 Q. One of the scenarios discussed down in the body of
8 the first page involves quantification of the impacts of the
9 Interim A -- I'm sorry, the Interim Action Plan. Was that
10 scenario run at this meeting or presented at that meeting?
11 A. I really don't recall.
12 Q. Do you recall whether a scenario has been run on
13 the EPH model at any time concerning quantification of the
14 impacts of the Interim Action Plan?
15 A. I guess I would appreciate if you could either
16 expand or clarify your question.
17 Q. What don't you understand?
18 A. What do you mean by the impacts of the Interim
19 Action Plan?
20 Q. Well, I was using the language from the agenda
21 here, which was a "quantification of the impacts."
22 A. I guess to the extent that the Interim Action Plan
23 was embodied in the data base that was used to develop the
24 model the Interim Action Plan is incorporated in the model,
25 so to speak. I don't know if -- I don't believe there have
243
1 been any specific analyses that have addressed how the
2 system would have behaved without the Interim Action Plan.
3 Q. Well, am I correct, then, in light of the manner
4 of the data that was available to create the EPH model, that
5 it would be impossible to perform a scenario which would
6 predict quantification of flows or phosphorus concentrations
7 that had resulted from the implementation of the Interim
8 Action Plan?
9 MR. GREEN: I would object to the form.
10 A. Could you restate your question, please?
11 Q. Did you not understand it, or you just didn't
12 follow it?
13 A. Well, my understanding of your question is that,
14 is it true that the model is not capable of predicting what
15 -- how the system would behave in the absence of the
16 Interim Action Plan. Is that correct?
17 Q. Well, we can start with that one.
18 A. Then I would say no. I would say that once the
19 model has been calibrated and verified, which it has been, I
20 believe, that it's perfectly capable of predicting what the
21 system response would be in the absence of the Interim
22 Action Plan.
23 Q. And how would that scenario be run?
24 A. It would be run by changing the input parameters
25 to the system and then letting the model run at that point
244
1 with the new input parameters, so the principal variables
2 that would change would be the hydrologic variables.
3 Q. And where would the changes in the input come into
4 the model? Would it be from the discharges from the lake
5 into the EAA or from discharges from the EAA into the EPA?
6 A. Well, it would start, I believe, with discharges
7 from the lake into the EAA, and, of course, then those
8 changes would then be propagated through the system.
9 Q. There would be no need to make a -- to make any
10 changes to inputs with regard to discharges from the EAA to
11 the EPA, those would be propagated, as you say, as a result
12 of the changes?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. Has that scenario actually been run on the EPH
15 model in any version?
16 A. I really don't recall. They may have been, but I
17 have no direct memory of that.
18 MR. GREEN: We'd be happy to do it for you,
19 Counsel.
20 MR. NETTLETON: Has it been done?
21 MR. GREEN: That's a good question.
22 BY MR. NETTLETON:
23 Q. The second scenario discussed in the body of this
24 agenda is an evaluation of the influence of the proposed
25 Water Management Areas on nutrient fluxes and water
245
1 deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas and the ENP.
2 Was that scenario run on the EPH model for this
3 meeting?
4 A. It may have been.
5 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. Just in order to avoid
6 confusion down the road, if it makes any difference, we've
7 or talked about -- you've used the word simplified model
8 when referring to Exhibit 17 and then the term simplified
9 model was used again with regard to Exhibit 18 and then you
10 just used the term EPH model, and, just, you know, I would
11 suggest that those might be -- may or may not be the same
12 thing.
13 MR. NETTLETON: Okay. We can clarify that.
14 MR. GREEN: Yes. I think it would be helpful to
15 clarify it.
16 BY MR. NETTLETON:
17 Q. I thought we had already done that. Dr. Pollman,
18 am I correct that the references in Exhibits 17 and 18 to
19 the simplified hydrologic and nutrient model refer to the
20 original development of the EPH model?
21 A. Well, yes and no. What it refers to is the
22 precursor to what ultimately became the EPH model, so it
23 was --
24 Q. It was an early stage of the EPH?
25 A. Absolutely. It was almost a germ of an idea at
246
1 that stage. It was very crude in its implementation. In
2 fact, really the objective of this meeting, as I recall, was
3 to show essentially how this model might perform, what sort
4 of types of analyses you could do with it once you got the
5 model up and running in its fullest form. It was more than
6 anything else a demonstration project of what the product
7 might actually look like once it was finally completed.
8 Q. Okay. Let me return to my questions. I'm not
9 sure where we broke it off, but on the second scenario here
10 of running a scenario with the WMAs, now known as the STAs,
11 on nutrient fluxes and water deliveries to the WCAs and the
12 ENP, was that scenario run for purposes of this meeting on
13 the EPH model at the stage it was at at the time of this
14 meeting?
15 A. Very likely might have been.
16 Q. And do you recall what the results were at that
17 time?
18 A. My recollection, and, again, my recollection is
19 not very clear on the specifics of what was presented at
20 this meeting, but my recollection would be -- is that the
21 nutrient concentration effects would be fairly nominal at
22 the park, at the structures leading into the park.
23 Q. And do you have any recollection of what the
24 results showed for the Water Conservation Areas?
25 A. I don't believe any other results were shown.
247
1 Q. And when we were discussing yesterday on the model
2 and the results and you had indicated your recollection of
3 the results with regard to the park, was that the same,
4 running of the scenario at the same time period we're
5 talking about here, or was it later in time?
6 A. The scenario that you discussed yesterday was run
7 at a later time.
8 Q. Okay. Were the results at the later time
9 consistent with the results you recall from this early
10 running of this scenario for the park?
11 A. I think there were some differences. I don't
12 recall necessarily whether there were, for example, changes
13 in flow that were predicted under this initial scenario that
14 was run versus the scenario that was run with the later
15 implementation of the model. I don't know if the
16 concentration, the predicted concentrations varied by any
17 great degree. That I don't recall. I suspect not.
18 Q. Do you believe that Steve Gherini would be in a
19 better position to recall the results of these scenarios
20 that were run during this initial meeting?
21 I'll withdraw the question. It calls for
22 speculation.
23 MR. GREEN: Thank you.
24 (Thereupon, a brief discussion was held off the
25 record.)
248
1 BY MR. NETTLETON:
2 Q. Dr. Pollman, one last question with regard to
3 Exhibit Number 18. Do you know who prepared that agenda?
4 A. Well, I know that I wrote this, this memorandum or
5 this agenda. I believe that I received input from a number
6 of different individuals, perhaps Mr. Green. I'm sure that
7 I received some input from Tetra Tech as well in terms of
8 things that we wanted to include in this agenda.
9 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 19 was marked
10 for identification.)
11 Q. Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit Number
12 19, which is a, I believe, a composite exhibit, with a
13 letter dated March 29, 1991, from you to Jeffrey Ward with
14 an attached scope of work, can you identify this document?
15 A. Yes. The cover letter is a cover letter from me
16 that is addressed to Mr. Ward. The cover letter basically
17 relates that we have prepared a scope of work that defines
18 the objectives for developing a hydrologic and nutrient
19 model for South Florida, including the Everglades, and then
20 attached to that letter is, indeed, a scope of work.
21 Q. And, again, my question is, is this scope of work
22 the proposal to develop what is now known as the EPH model?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. In your cover letter on Exhibit 19, there is a
25 reference in the second paragraph to an EAA Review Panel.
249
1 Can you tell me who was on the EAA Review Panel?
2 A. There is no EAA Review Panel that I'm aware of.
3 Q. So the EAA Review Panel as referenced in this
4 letter and in the scope of work was never put together, to
5 your knowledge?
6 A. Not that I -- not that I'm aware of.
7 Q. Referring to the last paragraph of your cover
8 letter, it makes reference to the Florida Sugar Cane League.
9 Am I correct that this proposal was again made as a proposal
10 jointly to both the Cooperative and the League?
11 A. Well, the proposal was submitted to the
12 Cooperative, and I believe at that point in time the
13 Cooperative and the League were still negotiating with one
14 another over whether or not this work should be funded.
15 Q. And can you tell me who prepared the scope of work
16 that's included in Exhibit 19?
17 A. That would be largely Tetra Tech.
18 Q. Would that be the same individuals you referred to
19 previously?
20 A. Yes.
21 I probably had some input into the development of
22 this work, but it was by and large the brainchild of Tetra
23 Tech.
24 Q. Turning to Page 2 of the scope of work, the last
25 paragraph on that page referring to constituents should
250
1 include water and major plant nutrients, phosphorus and
2 nitrogen species at a minimum, was nitrogen included in the
3 -- is nitrogen included as a constituent in the current EPH
4 model?
5 A. No, it's not.
6 Q. All right. In this particular scope of work, why
7 was it considered significant to include both phosphorus and
8 nitrogen in the model?
9 A. Well, ecological response ultimately is a function
10 just not of phosphorus concentrations but nitrogen dynamics
11 also can be important.
12 Q. What would the inclusion of nitrogen in the EPH
13 model allow you to do or to predict that cannot be
14 accomplished without it being a parameter in the model?
15 A. Well, to the extent that the system would be
16 nitrogen limited, then inclusion of nitrogen as a specific
17 parameter would more accurately reflect how system dynamics
18 might proceed under such a regime.
19 If the system is not nitrogen limited at all, then
20 arguably nitrogen does not need to be included in the
21 model.
22 Q. Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that any
23 part of the system is nitrogen limited?
24 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
25 A. I have not seen any direct calculations of or
251
1 quantification of whether any portion of the system is
2 nitrogen limited at this stage.
3 Q. Would you agree that the Everglades Protection
4 Area is phosphorus limited?
5 A. I would believe that most of it is phosphorus
6 limited, yes.
7 Q. The last paragraph on Page 2 that runs into Page 3
8 refers to the key characteristics proposed for the model.
9 The first sentence indicates that the model should
10 rigorously account for inflows, outflows, and changes in
11 storage for all constituents simulated.
12 Has that been built into the current EPH model?
13 A. I would say from a hydrologic perspective that the
14 model was as rigorous as it can be. As far as phosphorus is
15 concerned, again, I guess based on the amount of information
16 available, I cannot see how the model can really be expanded
17 at this stage in time to perhaps provide more detailed
18 information on, say, phosphorus storage in various
19 components of the system.
20 Q. Am I correct that the only constituents simulated
21 in the model are water and phosphorus, total phosphorus?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Well, actually that may not be correct. There may
24 be the provision in there for simulating a conservative
25 constituent such as chloride. They may have that capability
252
1 built into it. If they don't, it's certainly a simple
2 procedure for including it.
3 Q. Well, to your knowledge, has chloride been
4 included as a constituent in the model?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. What is a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic organic
7 compound?
8 A. A hydrophobic organic compound is one that
9 basically does not like to be in water, ergo the name
10 hydrophobic. It's essentially insoluble. It's only
11 sparingly soluble in water, as opposed to hydrophilic
12 compound which is far more soluble in water.
13 Q. And why was it considered significant to include
14 at least one hydrophobic and one hydrophilic organic
15 compound in the model?
16 A. I actually don't recall why that was included in
17 there.
18 Q. Do you know why inclusion of such would be
19 significant?
20 A. Well, one reason would be, if we're interested in
21 predicting what contaminant behavior might be, let's say,
22 we're looking at, say, pesticide movement or some other
23 organic contaminant moving out of the EAA and we wanted to
24 predict what its fate might be as water moves through the
25 system, then inclusion of that sort of an algorithm would be
253
1 important.
2 MR. GREEN: Excuse me, I'd like to interject an
3 objection. It's unfortunate that we don't have a copy of
4 this as we go through, but just for the record, I don't
5 believe you characterized what this statement said
6 accurately, Mr. Nettleton. I'll quote it. It says,
7 "Provision should be made to allow for the inclusion of one
8 hydrophobic and one hydrophilic organic compound," period.
9 Then the next sentence says, "To accurately simulate
10 hydrologic behavior," et cetera, et cetera.
11 I think you implied that both types of compounds
12 would have to be included to simulate accurately hydrologic
13 behavior. I don't think that's correct. I may have
14 misheard you, but --
15 MR. NETTLETON: I don't think I did, but I was
16 just asking why it was considered significant to include
17 those. I wasn't projecting that on my own --
18 MR. GREEN: Well, I misunderstood you.
19 BY THE WITNESS:
20 A. I think it was significant to include this because
21 the idea, I think, that Tetra Tech had in mind was to keep
22 the model structure as flexible as possible in case at some
23 future point in time, if other objectives became important,
24 then the model would be flexible enough to add this stuff in
25 here, add these algorithms in here with minimal effort and
254
1 basically give the model more predictive capability and more
2 utility for other questions of interest.
3 Q. Am I correct that the current EPH model does not
4 include a hydrophobic or a hydrophilic organic compound in
5 its makeup?
6 A. As far as I know, it does not.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Well, actually, that may not be true. It's my
9 understanding that they have several different algorithms in
10 the model that would -- that could accommodate sorptive
11 behavior in different forms, and at least that is a major
12 component that needs to be included in terms of describing
13 hydrophobic and hydrophilic contaminant behaviors, how these
14 compounds may partition in the water column.
15 Q. Well, are you aware of a particular compound that
16 data has been collected on, collected with regard to and
17 input into the model?
18 A. No.
19 Q. So are you saying that you believe that the model
20 is capable of incorporating that type of information?
21 A. At least in part, yes.
22 Q. Does the current EPH model include all water
23 inputs and outputs to the system?
24 A. I believe that it does.
25 Q. Does it include inputs and outputs related to
255
1 seepage?
2 A. I believe that it does.
3 Q. Do you know how seepage was calculated for use in
4 the model?
5 A. I believe that you need to check with Steve
6 Gherini on that.
7 Q. Does the current EPH model allow for changes in
8 storage?
9 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
10 A. Changes in storage of what?
11 Q. Well, I'm reading from the scope of work here. I
12 assume it refers to water, but you can correct me if I'm
13 wrong. I don't want to mischaracterize it.
14 A. Yes. It does allow for change in storage of
15 water.
16 Q. And how does it do that?
17 A. Through the construction of a mass-balance.
18 Q. Is the mass-balance constructed, for instance, in
19 the 2A geographic area for each of these zones?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Does the current EPH model incorporate
22 stage-volume?
23 A. I believe that it does, yes.
24 Q. And how is that accounted for in the model?
25 A. Well, again, to get the specifics and get the
256
1 precise answer, you're going to have to talk to Steve
2 Gherini. My understanding is that the best available
3 information were used to try and establish stage-volume
4 relationships for each area, and to the extent that
5 topographic maps were available, those information were used
6 to develop those relationships.
7 Q. Do you know whose topographic maps were used for
8 that purpose?
9 A. I do know at least in part. I believe that John
10 Richardson's topographic map for the Loxahatchee was used to
11 develop the stage relationship, stage and volume
12 relationship, rather, for that area.
13 I know that there is topographic information
14 available for Water Conservation Area 2A that has been
15 provided to Tetra Tech, and I believe for 3A, although I'm
16 not clear on that. And where that information came from I'm
17 not certain, but I encourage you to ask Mr. Gherini those
18 questions.
19 Q. Are you familiar with any topographic maps for the
20 EPA created by any of the consultants retained by the
21 League?
22 A. I believe that Environmental Services and
23 Permitting have either directly or through some sort of
24 contractual relationship through another entity have
25 developed topographic maps, I believe, for Water
257
1 Conservation Area 2A.
2 Q. Have those particular maps been provided to Tetra
3 Tech?
4 A. We have received some maps from ESP, yes.
5 Q. And those were provided to Tetra Tech?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know whether those maps were utilized in
8 creating the model, the EPH model?
9 A. I can't answer that question definitively. My
10 recollection of when these maps were provided to us is that
11 the information was recently received, in other words, some
12 time in the past several months, perhaps even more recently
13 than that, and that it may be that that information has not
14 been digitized and put into the model at this stage. I
15 really don't know.
16 Q. Do you know if that exercise will be carried out
17 by Tetra Tech?
18 A. I would imagine that they would use the best
19 available information at their disposal and that they would
20 try to use that information in their model.
21 Q. So it's your understanding that the topographic
22 maps recently provided by Environmental Services is the best
23 information available concerning those -- concerning that
24 data?
25 A. I don't know if it's the best available
258
1 information or not. I can't comment on how good those data
2 are, quite frankly.
3 Q. Who would make that evaluation to determine
4 whether to use it or not in the model?
5 A. I really don't know.
6 Q. Well, will you be making that determination?
7 A. No, I will not.
8 Q. Has stage-area been included in the current EPH
9 model?
10 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
11 A. Stage-area in terms of area of inundation versus
12 stage-height, is that what your question was?
13 Q. Well, again, I'm reading from the scope of work,
14 so I don't want to mischaracterize.
15 MR. GREEN: What page is that, Mr. Nettleton?
16 MR. NETTLETON: Page 2.
17 A. Again, I feel very uncomfortable answering these
18 questions on the specifics, on the hydrologic specifics of
19 the model.
20 Q. I'm just asking to the best of your knowledge.
21 A. Yeah, and I don't want to mischaracterize how
22 those relationships are incorporated in the model, so I
23 prefer not to give you an answer.
24 Q. Well, to the best of your knowledge is all I'm
25 asking you. I'm not asking you how they are put into the
259
1 model.
2 A. Okay. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that
3 there is some stage-area relationship.
4 Q. And what about stage-discharge relationships or
5 operating schedules, was that --
6 A. Yes. Those are incorporated in the model.
7 Q. Are those incorporated or those various things we
8 just discussed incorporated for each of the components of
9 the hydrologic system?
10 A. I believe so.
11 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
12 A. I believe that those components -- excuse me. I
13 believe that those relationships have been incorporated in
14 the model for all the major structures that are regulated by
15 the District and for which there are operating schedules.
16 Q. The next sentence reads, "Energy-budget-driven
17 evapotranspiration relationships should reflect short-term
18 variations in meteorologic conditions."
19 Can you explain to me what that means, first of
20 all?
21 A. What that means --
22 MR. GREEN: Excuse me. I'll just observe and, Mr.
23 Nettleton, you can use your time however you wish, but Tetra
24 Tech will be presenting the model at the hearing and you
25 will be deposing Mr. Gherini, and, you know, I really doubt
260
1 the efficiency of this, but it's certainly your right to
2 pursue it. I just state that for the record. Thank you.
3 MR. NETTLETON: I don't think it will take much
4 longer.
5 MR. GREEN: Okay.
6 BY THE WITNESS:
7 A. Okay. Could you repeat your question, please?
8 Q. The sentence that I just quoted, "Energy-budget-
9 driven evapotranspiration, " et cetera, can you explain what
10 that means exactly?
11 A. What that means is this, that if you want to
12 predict short-term dynamics, hydrologic dynamics, and we're
13 talking on the scale of, say, hours to minutes or even days,
14 you need to account for short-term variations in
15 meteorologic conditions, and by short-term variations in
16 meteorologic conditions we're referring to rainfall, we're
17 talking about temperature, relative humidity, sunlight,
18 those types of parameters that affect both the amount of
19 water coming into the system and the amount of water leaving
20 the system.
21 Q. And that's for purposes of determining the ET?
22 A. Yes. And, of course, this is all predicated on
23 using the model for a very short time step, if you want to
24 accurately predict results on a short time step.
25 Q. Is the EPH model as it's currently in existence,
261
1 does it include these particular conditions or parameters?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you know if the EPH model in its current stage
4 is capable of predicting short-term phosphorus
5 concentrations or flows on the order of days or weeks?
6 A. I think it would be inappropriate to use the EPH
7 model to predict short-term dynamics for a couple of
8 reasons. First of all, the model has been calibrated using
9 monthly data, if memory serves me correctly.
10 The data base itself that's available for
11 calibration does not include daily phosphorus concentration
12 data, so I think it's meaningless to try and apply the model
13 at time scales shorter than what the data base itself would
14 allow for.
15 Second thing is, if you really want to predict
16 short-term dynamics of, say, hydrology, the model probably
17 could be used to do that, but the driving variables, the
18 input data, then, would have to reflect those desires.
19 I believe that the model is capable of handling
20 those types of input data, but I do not believe that Tetra
21 Tech is using it to predict short-term hydrologic dynamics.
22 Q. What would be the significance of being able to
23 predict short-term dynamics?
24 A. I think it gives you added confidence in the
25 robustness of the model in terms of its ability to predict
262
1 the system or simulate the system behavior.
2 Q. Does the current EPH model, to your knowledge,
3 include the processes of uptake and cycling the biota?
4 A. The EPH model includes one variable for describing
5 nutrient dynamics and that is a settling velocity. That
6 settling velocity is a lump parameter that embodies all
7 these different processes that are basically lumped in this
8 one sentence, except for input by precipitation and
9 foliar-enhanced dry deposition.
10 Q. What would be the importance of dividing or
11 separating out these various processes? What would that
12 enable you to do?
13 A. Well, if, for example, certain mechanisms fail to
14 continue to operate, and I'm thinking right now in terms of
15 absorption in particular, let's say that you have a system
16 in a certain area has a limited sorptive capacity and you
17 exceed that capacity, then, of course, if you are using a
18 single parameter to -- a settling velocity that lumps all
19 these different processes in that one parameter, that
20 parameter is not going to be capable of accommodating the
21 loss of sorptive capacity.
22 So if you wanted to, say, rigorously predict at a
23 very fine scale how the system is going to behave over the
24 long term, I certainly do think that these other processes
25 would be very meaningful to use.
263
1 However, the need to actually develop this fine
2 scale structure model is -- could be demonstrated or
3 eliminated through sensitivity analysis.
4 Q. What do you mean it could be demonstrated through
5 sensitivity analysis?
6 A. Well, if you had some feel for the relative
7 importance of these processes in terms of, say, the overall
8 loss of phosphorus from a system, let's say you set up a
9 very complex model that would include all these different
10 processes, sensitivity analysis would help you to identify
11 which processes are really important in terms of driving the
12 overall system dynamics.
13 Q. Does the current EPH model include input by
14 precipitation?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. Does it include foliar-enhanced dry deposition?
17 A. Implicitly.
18 Q. What does that mean?
19 A. Well, in other words, what the model includes is a
20 single depositional flux. It doesn't break deposition into
21 various components, i.e., does not break the depositional
22 flux into wet deposition and dry deposition. It's all
23 lumped together as a single number.
24 Q. Do you recall what that number is?
25 A. I believe that the rainfall concentration that is
264
1 assumed is 50 parts per billion.
2 Q. When you say rainfall, are you referring to bulk
3 or are you referring to just wet fall?
4 A. That would be everything, really.
5 Q. So the 50 parts per billion would include both the
6 wet fall and the foliar-enhanced dry deposition?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What does foliar-enhanced refer to?
9 A. It refers to scavenging of dry deposition by
10 vegetative surfaces.
11 Q. The remainder of Page 3 reflects a breakdown of
12 the proposal into stages, stage one, stage two, stage three,
13 stage one being the coarse-scale quantitative results, stage
14 two being the detailed hydrologic code being produced, and
15 the third stage involving a biological-chemical code being
16 developed.
17 Can you tell me, to the best of your knowledge,
18 with regard to the EPH model as it currently exists has it
19 gone through each of these stages?
20 A. I guess I would say that the model development
21 didn't exactly follow this sequence of events in such a
22 discrete fashion; that my recollection of the model
23 development was that Tetra Tech did try to develop a
24 hydrologic model first but that development was somewhat of
25 an evolutionary process. As they got deeper and deeper
265
1 within the process, they found that they needed to add more
2 and more structure to the model, and as the hydrologic model
3 was being developed, then code was added to predict
4 phosphorus dynamics as well.
5 We never did use results from Dr. Curtis
6 Richardson in our model to describe how phosphorus is taken
7 up by vegetation, so that's a deviation from the sequence of
8 events that is presented on Page 3.
9 Q. Okay. The last sentence on Page 3 reflects that
10 results will be presented and discussed in a draft final
11 report. Has such a draft final report been created, to your
12 knowledge?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Turning to the last page of the exhibit which
15 contains a chart of the estimated costs, am I correct that
16 this reflects that the cost of development of the
17 preliminary model which I understand to be the stage one,
18 the coarse-scale quantitative, which would be capable of
19 producing coarse-scale quantitative results, was
20 approximately $68,000?
21 A. Could you repeat that question, please?
22 Q. Am I correct in my interpretation of this document
23 to reflect that the costs proposed for developing the
24 preliminary model which would be capable of producing
25 coarse-scale quantitative results was approximately $68,000?
266
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And the costs as reflected in Exhibit 19 for
3 developing the detailed hydrologic model code was $184,000;
4 is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And the costs proposed for developing the detailed
7 biological-chemical code and full-featured model was an
8 additional $191,000?
9 A. Yes. That's correct.
10 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 20 was marked
11 for identification.)
12 Q. Showing you what's been marked as Pollman Exhibit
13 20, this particular memorandum makes reference to -- well,
14 it says, "Subject: Grass Model," and in the text refers to,
15 it looks like, three submodels.
16 Can you tell me what these are, what they refer
17 to?
18 A. This communication is a communication that was
19 provided to me by a member of KBN's staff that contacted Dr.
20 Michael Conghenour, I believe is how his name is pronounced,
21 at Colorado State University, and we had learned that he had
22 what was called a Grass Model, I guess, and our interest in
23 this model was perhaps he had something in his model that
24 would help us to describe vegetative uptake by macrophytes
25 of phosphorus, and in this communication the author
267
1 indicates that there are two other submodels, and I'm not
2 exactly sure what the phraseology means here, and a nutrient
3 cycling model that also has a plant growth subpart.
4 Q. Did KBN or Tetra Tech ever obtain the submodels
5 that are referred to in this memorandum?
6 A. Not that I'm aware of. We -- I believe we
7 obtained or we talked to this individual about obtaining his
8 Grass Model and that he was rather discouraging in his -- in
9 us obtaining the model for reasons that escape me at the
10 moment, and we decided that this is not a fruitful rabbit
11 trail to pursue.
12 Q. When you say he was discouraging, what do you
13 mean?
14 Uncooperative in providing it?
15 A. Well, I hate to characterize him as being
16 uncooperative. I think he -- I think there might have been
17 problems with incompatibility with FORTRAN code and the
18 compilers that we had.
19 It may be also -- and, again, my memory is not
20 exact on this point -- that his model was in a state of
21 flux, and I believe that actually Marguerite Cook was going
22 to be working with him on this model and developing it for
23 the Everglades, and I don't know if that was ever pursued.
24 Q. So to best of your knowledge, was the Grass Model
25 or any of the submodels referenced in this memorandum
268
1 utilized in any way in development of the EPH model?
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, they were not.
3 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 21 was marked
4 for identification.)
5 THE WITNESS: I guess I would like to take a
6 break, if I may.
7 MR. NETTLETON: Certainly.
8 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
9 BY MR. NETTLETON:
10 Q. Dr. Pollman, referring to Pollman Exhibit Number
11 21, am I correct that this -- again, I believe this is a
12 composite exhibit containing two different faxes. Am I
13 correct that which I -- let me just correct this. I believe
14 they are drafts of the same material.
15 Am I correct that this is a revised proposal for
16 what ultimately has become the EPH model?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. So this proposal would supersede the scope of work
19 that we looked at in Exhibit Number 19?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MR. GREEN: Well, excuse me. Let me just be sure
22 the dates make sense here. Just for the record, at least be
23 sure it's clear, because I see Exhibit 19, the date on it is
24 March 29th.
25 THE WITNESS: 1991.
269
1 MR. GREEN: Okay, right.
2 THE WITNESS: About a year ago.
3 MR. GREEN: Right, they're about a year apart.
4 BY MR. NETTLETON:
5 Q. Well, let's just clarify for the record. Dr.
6 Pollman, was this proposal, which has been marked as Exhibit
7 Number 21, conveyed on or about March 31, 1992?
8 A. Yes, indeed it was.
9 Well, actually April 1, 1992.
10 Q. And the proposal for this particular work on the
11 model was the total estimated cost of between eighty-five
12 and ninety thousand dollars; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 22 was marked
15 for identification.)
16 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Pollman
17 Exhibit Number 22, am I correct that this is another version
18 which includes the proposal on the current EPH model?
19 A. Yeah. I'd say this is a revised proposal of what
20 we just looked at, Exhibit 21.
21 Q. And this proposal was made on or about April 15,
22 1992, is that correct, the date being found on the second
23 and third page?
24 A. Apparently that's correct.
25 Q. This also includes, does it not, a proposal for a
270
1 wetlands phosphorus model through the Duke Wetlands Center;
2 is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And the budget for the two models, what became the
5 EPH model, remains at eighty-five to ninety thousand
6 dollars; is that right?
7 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
8 Q. Let me rephrase. Am I correct that the estimated
9 project costs to be incurred by Tetra Tech in development of
10 the EPH model as set forth in this proposal was eighty-five
11 to ninety thousand dollars?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. And the estimate of costs for preparation
14 of the wetland phosphorus model at Duke University was
15 approximately twenty thousand dollars?
16 A. That's correct.
17 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 23 was marked
18 for identification.)
19 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Pollman
20 Exhibit 23, am I correct this reflects that the Cooperative
21 accepted your proposal dated April 15, 1992?
22 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I was busy
23 looking at this document.
24 Q. Okay. Can you identify Exhibit Number 23?
25 A. Yes, I can.
271
1 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
2 A. It's a fax communication to me from Mr. Jeff Ward
3 of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida giving KBN
4 authorization to move forward with the EPH model.
5 Q. And the approval was to go forward with the
6 modified modeling proposal that was dated April 15, 1992; is
7 that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And that's what we just looked at, which was
10 Exhibit Number 22?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 24 was marked
13 for identification.)
14 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Exhibit Number
15 24, can you tell me what this particular exhibit is?
16 A. This exhibit is a letter from me to Mr. Gherini of
17 Tetra Tech indicating that we have received, we being KBN,
18 have received formal authorization from the Sugar Growers
19 Cooperative, and by virtue of that authorization, I, in
20 turn, was authorizing Tetra Tech to move forward with the
21 development of the EPH model.
22 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 25 was marked
23 for identification.)
24 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Pollman
25 Exhibit Number 25, can you identify this document?
272
1 A. Yes, I can.
2 Q. Can you tell us what that is?
3 A. It is a progress report or a memorandum that I
4 prepared with input from Tetra Tech that reported on
5 progress principally on the EPH model at that particular
6 point in time.
7 Q. What was the date of this progress report?
8 A. The date of the progress report appears to be,
9 based on the fax date, August 28, 1992.
10 Q. To your knowledge, was this the first progress
11 report prepared with regard to the EPH model?
12 A. I don't recall. I believe there may have been
13 earlier progress reports.
14 Q. In the body of the progress report on the first
15 page, the second to the last paragraph makes reference to
16 the use of in the model precipitation with a phosphorus
17 concentration of 30 ppb. Is it your understanding that that
18 had subsequently been changed to use a 50 ppb precipitation
19 rate?
20 A. Yes. I believe that's correct.
21 Q. Is the model capable of --
22 MR. GREEN: Excuse me, just for the record, to be
23 sure there's no discrepancy, I believe the earlier testimony
24 involved a 50 ppb bulk deposition rate, and this reference
25 is precipitation, if that's relevant.
273
1 Q. Okay. Is the model capable of manipulation in the
2 sense of being able to change various parameters such as ET
3 rates and rainfall concentration and so forth?
4 A. Yes, it is capable.
5 Q. The last full sentence on the first page of the
6 progress report makes reference to a scenario that was run
7 with phosphorus uptake constants set equal to those used for
8 WCA-2. Do you recall what the phosphorus uptake constants
9 were that were used in that scenario?
10 A. I don't remember what those uptake constant --
11 excuse me, what those uptake constants were.
12 Q. On Page 2 of the progress report, in the first
13 full paragraph on the page making reference to WCA-1 in the
14 Loxahatchee, it indicates that the area was divided into
15 four cells running or cells 1-4 running north to south.
16 Is it your understanding that the Loxahatchee is
17 currently configured in that manner in the current version
18 of the EPH model?
19 A. My understanding is that the Loxahatchee is not
20 configured in that manner in its current incarnation.
21 Q. Do you know why at this stage of the development
22 the Loxahatchee was divided into four cells running north
23 and south?
24 A. I believe it was divided into four cells so that
25 the model representation would faithfully represent, if you
274
1 will, the understanding of the Tetra Tech modelers of how
2 water moved through that system.
3 Q. Did that understanding change after this stage of
4 development of the EPH model?
5 A. Yes, it did.
6 Q. The reference to cells in this particular
7 paragraph, is that the equivalent of CSTRs as discussed in
8 your previous deposition?
9 A. Yes, I believe so.
10 Q. Am I correct that the manner in which the
11 Loxahatchee was divided at this particular stage in the
12 development was incorrect hydrologically speaking?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Do you find it surprising, then, that it
15 references in here that there is reasonable agreement
16 between simulated and observed values?
17 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
18 A. Could you be more specific, please?
19 Q. Well, it indicates that Figures 6 through 9 show
20 simulated versus observed phosphorus concentrations in cells
21 1 through 4 in the Loxahatchee, and then indicates, "Again,
22 there is reasonable agreement between simulated and observed
23 values."
24 Do you find that surprising in light of the fact
25 that these cells were not set up hydrologically correctly?
275
1 A. It doesn't necessarily surprise me. I believe
2 that to achieve that calibration they would have had to
3 invoke settling velocities that were perhaps unrealistic to
4 achieve that calibration within those zones, and that I know
5 that the calibration ultimately proved to be problematic
6 when we were looking at settling velocities in, say,
7 Loxahatchee versus other areas of the EPA, and that was an
8 area of some concern and forced us to examine our initial
9 assumptions regarding how water flowed through that system.
10 Q. Were settling velocities -- strike that. Were
11 different settling velocities, talking about this stage of
12 the development of the EPH, were different settling
13 velocities used for the four different cells in the
14 Loxahatchee?
15 A. I don't know specifically. I would imagine that
16 they were.
17 Q. Do you recall what the range of those settling
18 velocities were?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you recall what the basis for the division of
21 the cells was at this stage of the development?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Under the Future Work listed on that page, it is
24 suggested that an algorithm should be developed to simulate
25 the production of phosphorus resulting from the drying of
276
1 soil.
2 Has that ever been accomplished, to your
3 knowledge?
4 A. There may, indeed, be an algorithm in the model to
5 describe the production of phosphorus resulting from the
6 drying of soil. Whether or not that algorithm has actually
7 been parameterized, and by parameterized I mean actually a
8 numeric value assigned to the algorithm so that it can then
9 be used to predict what that effect might be, that I don't
10 know.
11 Q. The following sentence in there refers to a
12 hypothesis that some of the phosphorus reaching the S-12
13 structures results from prolonged periods of drying
14 upgradient in WCA-3.
15 Can you tell me what that hypothesis is based
16 upon?
17 A. I believe that's from the SWIM Plan itself.
18 Q. Do you recall what the quantity of phosphorus
19 attributable to the prolonged periods of drying upgradient
20 in WCA-3 was?
21 A. No, I do not.
22 Q. Again, you believe that comes from the SWIM Plan,
23 however?
24 A. Well, I don't believe there's an actual estimate
25 in the SWIM Plan of the amount of phosphorus that might be
277
1 mobilized through drying. I think it's just mentioned in
2 the SWIM Plan that excessive drying has occurred or
3 excessive draining, rather, and drying has occurred.
4 Q. Last full paragraph on that page indicates that
5 another important use of the model will be the
6 quantification of the uncertainty in budget calculations.
7 Has the model been used for that purpose?
8 A. We addressed this yesterday, I believe, and I
9 really don't know specifically what Tetra Tech has done
10 regarding uncertainty analysis in the model.
11 Q. Referring to the following page, indicates that
12 the entire project through the scenario evaluation and
13 uncertainty analysis was to be completed by October 1, and I
14 assume that's 1992, the date of that document.
15 To your knowledge, was all of that work completed
16 by that date?
17 A. That work was not completed by that date.
18 Q. All right. Has that work been completed to this
19 date, to your knowledge?
20 A. It has largely been completed, I believe, but not
21 fully completed by today.
22 Q. Am I correct that the attachments would show,
23 graphically display the scenarios that were run with the
24 model at that stage?
25 A. I wouldn't necessarily call these scenarios, per
278
1 se. I think these are examples of model output in the
2 course of developing the model.
3 Q. Are they representative of any actual conditions?
4 A. I think these are representative of the base
5 period conditions.
6 I guess I should amend my comment that it appears
7 that there are some scenarios that have been added at the
8 end of this document.
9 Q. Would they be beginning with Figure 10, which is
10 kind of cut off from the photocopying, but would be the
11 graphic labeled Loxahatchee Cell 1 with STA?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26 was marked
14 for identification.)
15 Q. Dr. Pollman, showing you what has been marked as
16 Pollman Exhibit Number 26, can you identify this document?
17 A. Yes. This is a document that was supplied to me
18 by Tetra Tech in September of 1992. It is a document that
19 describes preliminary applications of the EPH model.
20 Q. Let me back up a second. With regard to Exhibit
21 Number 25, can you tell me who prepared that progress
22 report?
23 A. Yes, I can. I prepared the cover page, and I
24 believe that Ron Munson prepared the rest of the material.
25 Q. All right. Returning to Exhibit Number 26, the
279
1 last full paragraph on the first page refers to a second
2 scenario analysis having been conducted. Am I correct that
3 that scenario involved assumptions relating to
4 implementation of the BMP program without STAs in place?
5 A. I'll have to take a minute to read through this.
6 Your question, again, is, this second scenario was
7 run by evaluating the effects of the BMPs without the STAs?
8 Q. Correct.
9 A. I guess it's a little unclear from the text
10 whether the STAs are included in this second scenario or
11 not.
12 Q. The attachments to this particular document, do
13 they reflect the output of the model at this stage under the
14 second scenario referenced in the document?
15 A. Which figures are you referring to?
16 Q. Well, I was referring to all of them, but if you
17 think some apply and some don't, maybe you could tell me.
18 A. Well, I believe, according to this communication,
19 that the first four figures apply to the first scenario,
20 and that Figure 5 and I presume through Figure 7, which is
21 all that's referenced in the text, I'm not sure how many
22 figures are in here, those figures refer to the second
23 scenario.
24 Q. Am I correct that the first scenario refers to the
25 implementation of the STAs as called for in the SWIM Plan
280
1 without the BMP program?
2 A. I believe so. Again, I did not write this
3 document, and the language is a bit unclear as far as that
4 is concerned.
5 Q. And there is an attachment in the nature of a map,
6 if you go back into the document, that's entitled Base Case.
7 Do you know where that particular diagram comes from?
8 A. The actual map itself, I believe, comes from the
9 SWIM Plan.
10 Q. What about the figures that are included within
11 the map? Is that what --
12 A. I believe those also come from the SWIM Plan.
13 Q. And the following two diagrams labeled 10 percent
14 Inflow Reduction and then 20 Percent Inflow Reduction, are
15 those representative or purport to be representative of the
16 outputs of the model at that stage under the scenario two,
17 the BMP program --
18 A. I believe --
19 Q. Excuse me, I'm sorry.
20 -- assuming the reductions in flows as reflected
21 on the diagrams?
22 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
23 A. I believe that's correct.
24 Q. And as we discussed yesterday, I think, when this
25 scenario, the second scenario was run, am I correct that the
281
1 water reduction attributable or assumed for the BMP program
2 was passed through entirely to the park?
3 A. Doesn't appear to be based on these maps, but it's
4 hard to tell. You may be correct.
5 Q. Do you know who prepared the maps we're referring
6 to?
7 A. I believe Tetra Tech would have.
8 Q. To your knowledge, have any scenarios been run
9 involving the use, with the EPH model, involving the use of
10 any makeup water to the system?
11 A. Yes, I believe so.
12 Q. Do you know what the results of those scenarios
13 indicate with regard to reduction in flows at the S-12s?
14 A. No, I don't exactly. I don't recall seeing those
15 results.
16 Q. Am I correct, if the assumed reduction in flow
17 attributable to BMPs or any ET attributable to the -- or
18 increase in ET attributable to the STAs is made up in
19 quantity from some other source, that it should show no
20 effect in reduction of flows at the S-12s?
21 MR. GREEN: I'm going to object to the form.
22 A. I believe that the District has a great deal of
23 control that it can exert over where flow goes and that, if
24 it chooses, that in all likelihood the District can insure
25 that makeup water can be delivered to the park to offset any
282
1 flow losses that might accompany BMP implementation.
2 Q. So it's your view that there is enough water to
3 make up any reduction that would occur through the BMPs and
4 the STA program?
5 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
6 Q. There is sufficient water available?
7 MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
8 A. No. I don't think I can state that
9 categorically. I mean, it's truly a hydrologic question,
10 and it's my understanding that the makeup water will be
11 coming from Lake Okeechobee. The maintenance of Lake
12 Okeechobee and the withdrawal of water from Lake Okeechobee
13 will have to be compatible with the needs of the downstream
14 system.
15 To the extent that they're not compatible, if that
16 incompatibility ever arises and one need supersedes the
17 other, then it may be that the District cannot meet those
18 needs, so that's not a question that I can resolve.
19 MR. GREEN: Excuse me, Paul, are we getting to
20 where we need to do what we need to do?
21 MR. NETTLETON: What time is it?
22 MR. GREEN: 11:40.
23 MR. NETTLETON: Let me get through three more of
24 these.
25 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 27 marked for
283
1 identification.)
2 BY MR. NETTLETON:
3 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Pollman
4 Exhibit 27, can you identify this document?
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 Q. Could you, please.
7 A. Yes. It's a letter from me to Mr. Jeff Ward.
8 It's dated November 4, 1992. The letter was written by me
9 as a request for further funds to accommodate Tetra Tech's
10 need for additional money to continue on with the model
11 development for the EPH model.
12 Q. And in this letter it indicates that Mr. Green and
13 yourself requested Tetra Tech to evaluate and apply the
14 University of Florida hydrology model for the Everglades?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And that's the AEA model that we were discussing
17 yesterday?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On the second page of this exhibit, you make the
20 recommendation that biweekly progress reports be submitted;
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Have, in fact, biweekly progress reports been
24 submitted since this date?
25 A. No, they have not.
284
1 Q. Okay. Have any type of regular progress reports
2 been submitted?
3 A. Well, periodically, we would submit the progress
4 reports, but despite our best intentions, we never were able
5 to keep to some sort of a fixed schedule.
6 Q. That's understandable.
7 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 28 was marked
8 for identification.)
9 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Exhibit Number
10 28, can you identify this document?
11 A. Yes. It's a letter from me to Steve Gherini of
12 Tetra Tech. The letter is dated November 11, 1992. In this
13 letter I indicate to Mr. Gherini that we have received
14 authorization for continued work by Tetra Tech on the EPH
15 model, and in addition, approval was received from the co-op
16 regarding a model briefing meeting that was to be held in
17 Tampa, Florida.
18 Q. Did that model briefing meeting actually take
19 place?
20 A. Yes, it did.
21 Q. Okay. Who was present at that meeting?
22 A. Ron Munson, Steve Gherini, myself, Mr. Green, Mr.
23 Wedgworth, and Mr. Ward, and I don't believe anybody else
24 was present.
25 Q. There were no representatives of the League at
285
1 that meeting?
2 A. I do not believe so.
3 Q. The three items listed in the letter, were those
4 three items presented at the meeting?
5 A. Yes. And I should mention that there was at least
6 one other individual, perhaps two other individuals at this
7 meeting now that I see the rest of the letter. Dr. McClave
8 of Info Tech was at the meeting, and Cindy Hewitt of Info
9 Tech may or may not have been there. I don't recall.
10 So to get back to your question. I'm sorry for
11 interrupting.
12 Q. I think you answered. You said that the three
13 items were presented at the meeting; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you tell me what model scenarios examining
16 various STA options were presented?
17 A. I don't recall. I believe that the graphics for
18 those options were produced in discovery, but --
19 Q. With regard to the third item, what was the result
20 of the scenarios run, whether the criteria for total
21 phosphorus as defined in the appendix to the SWIM Plan
22 complied with the refuge and park?
23 A. I don't really remember what the result of that
24 analysis was, and, in fact, I am a little unclear. My
25 memory is not precise on the nature of that portion of the
286
1 presentation. I know that Dr. McClave presented some
2 results of some work that he was doing on the refuge
3 criteria and I believe also on the park criteria. I'm not
4 sure if that work was interfaced with anything else that
5 Tetra Tech might have been doing with the EPH model. I
6 don't believe so.
7 Q. Well, that leads to my next question, which is
8 what was Dr. McClave and Ms. Hewitt's involvement in this
9 particular meeting?
10 A. Their participation in the project at that time
11 was to look at the statistical basis for the criteria that
12 were developed for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
13 to determine whether or not that statistical model was an
14 appropriate model for setting criteria and to see if better
15 models could be developed based upon the available data.
16 Q. Was there any interface between their work and the
17 development of the EPH model?
18 A. Very little in terms of the mechanics of the type
19 of work that they were doing. There was certainly interface
20 between the two entities in terms of data exchange.
21 Q. At that meeting was the comparison to the
22 University of Florida AEA model also met?
23 A. I believe it was discussed.
24 Q. And that's what we discussed yesterday
25 essentially?
287
1 A. Yes.
2 (Thereupon, Respondent's Exhibit No. 29 was marked
3 for identification.)
4 MR. NETTLETON: For the record, we have marked as
5 Exhibit Number 29 a file that was a file entitled Model
6 Progress Presentation that was produced with Dr. Pollman's
7 documents, and this may be an appropriate time to break.
8 MR. GREEN: That's fine. Let's break.
9 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
10 BY MR. NETTLETON:
11 Q. Dr. Pollman, before we broke, we had just marked
12 Exhibit Number 29, which is materials from your file
13 entitled Model Progress Presentation. The first document
14 behind the cover sheet is dated December 3, 1992. Can you
15 tell me if that corresponds with the meeting that we just
16 discussed with regard to Exhibit Number 28?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. On this page that's with the date of December 3,
19 '92, on it, can you tell me what the chart on that page
20 makes reference to?
21 A. The -- you are talking about the first page; is
22 that correct?
23 Q. Right, the Total Phosphorus Concentrations in the
24 Interior Stations in LNWR.
25 A. Right. That's a table that was extracted out of
288
1 the Richardson, et al., 1990 report, John Richardson.
2 Q. Okay. I have seen another version of this page,
3 which I think was marked at your previous deposition, which
4 suggested that under the specific conductance, that there
5 were errors reversing those numbers. Do you recall that?
6 A. My recollection is that this table here actually
7 may be in error and I'd have to go back and look at the
8 original data, that we may have transposed some numbers in
9 the production of this particular table.
10 Q. Well, the bullet up above indicates that
11 Richardson's data shows that TP concentrations for interior
12 stations are higher during wet periods than dry.
13 Would that suggest, therefore, that the table,
14 assuming the table is based upon Richardson's, that those
15 numbers are reversed in that table?
16 A. That's correct. Either the statement is in error
17 or the table is in error, and I'd have to go back and look
18 at the original data before I comment further.
19 Q. Okay. The first bullet on that page states that
20 "Compliance criteria gives total phosphorus criterion as an
21 inverse function of stage."
22 Compliance criteria there refers to the interim or
23 long-term levels for the refuge, is that correct, as set
24 forth in the SWIM Plan?
25 A. I believe so.
289
1 Q. Have you reached any conclusion or opinion as to
2 whether the statement on this document is accurate, that the
3 opposite is true, that total phosphorus concentrations for
4 interior stations are higher during wet than dry periods?
5 A. If my memory is correct, I believe that some of
6 the statistical results that Info Tech has generated would
7 suggest that some of the stage-phosphorus relationships that
8 we see in other areas in the Everglades Protection Area,
9 like, say, around the S-12 structures, are not the same sort
10 of relationships that we observe in the Loxahatchee.
11 Q. Well, what was observed at, in regard to this
12 relationship, at the S-12 structures?
13 A. Well, I guess I'd have to go back and look at the
14 compliance criteria, but I believe that as stage goes down,
15 concentration goes up.
16 Q. I'm a little confused. Are you talking about
17 simply what the compliance criteria set forth in the SWIM
18 Plan refers to?
19 A. Yes, but that -- the compliance criteria, as I
20 understand it, are based on empirical observations.
21 Q. Turning to the next page, there are a number of
22 graphs in this document, this composite exhibit. Just
23 wanted to ask you, what does nondimensional analysis mean?
24 A. Nondimensional analysis refers to in this case
25 really the absence of units on the axis, on the Y axis on
290
1 the plot.
2 Q. So that the numbers along the Y axis in this
3 particular graph are hypothetical in nature?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Are these the -- these graphs, were these used at
6 your presentation at the meeting in Tampa that we
7 discussed?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell me what the distinction is between
10 the two different forms of dotted lines on the graph?
11 A. I don't recall exactly what was in the back of my
12 mind when I constructed these lines. The lower line would
13 indicate in some way the behavior of phosphorus relative to
14 a conservative constituent when there is an input load to
15 the exterior of the Loxahatchee, coupled with some dilution
16 via rainfall in the interior portion of the marsh, and then
17 the solid curve and the lower dotted curve, then, would
18 relate to, in a very qualitative sense, the differential
19 behavior, if you will, in concentrations that you might see
20 as you move from the outer rim or fringe of the Loxahatchee
21 into the interior portion of the marsh.
22 Q. Do these nondimensional analysis graphs, do they
23 -- are they based upon any actual data plotting, or is this
24 simply a, as you said, a hypothetical or a hypothesis of how
25 the curves would look on the graph?
291
1 A. This is a theoretical analysis, basically. In
2 other words, what we're trying to do is show the difference
3 in expected behavior between a conservative constituent
4 where concentration changes would be due solely to dilution
5 as opposed to a nonconservative constituent such as
6 phosphorus where concentration changes would be related to
7 both uptake and dilution.
8 And, I guess, as a point of clarification, when
9 we're talking about nondimensional concentrations here, what
10 we're really referring to is a value of one is an arbitrary
11 concentration. One would be the initial concentration, and
12 any number, then, less than that would be a fractional
13 amount of that initial concentration, whatever that initial
14 concentration might be.
15 Q. There is a plotted diagram on USGS round-robin
16 results included in h