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 ph