STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


CASE NOs. 92-3038
92-3039
92-3040

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF
FLORIDA, INC., ROTH FARMS, INC.,
and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,

and

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.,
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION,
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,

and VOLUME II

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and
HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,

Petitioners,
vs.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT,

Respondent,
and

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF
FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

Intervenors.


_____________________________________________________________

DEPOSITION OF
DR. CURTIS POLLMAN

_____________________________________________________________




ACCURATE REPORTING
A/K/A
MACDONALD COURT REPORTING SERVICE
204 West University Ave., Suite 7, Gainesville FL 32601
(904) 373-1126 ù (800) 329-1133 ù FAX (904) 375-6249

Pursuant to due notice, the deposition of the above-
named witness was taken by the Petitioners, Sugar Cane
Growers Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and
Wedgworth Farms, Inc., before Mary Macdonald, Court Reporter
and Notary Public, State at Large, at 204 West University
Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, on Wednesday, February 17,
1993, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

APPEARANCES:

SUSAN HILL PONZOLI, Esquire, Assistant United States
Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 155 South Miami
Avenue, Miami, Florida 33130;

WILLIAM H. GREEN, Esquire, Post Office Box 6526,
Tallahassee, Florida 32314;

PAUL L. NETTLETON, Esquire, 400 International Place, 100
Southeast Second Street, Miami, Florida 33131, of counsel
for South Florida Water Management.


ALSO PRESENT:

Ronald D. Jones, Ph.D., Florida International University 153a
I N D E X


SWORN TESTIMONY OF: PAGE:


DR. CURTIS POLLMAN

Direct Examination by Ms. Ponzoli 4

Cross Examination by Mr. Nettleton 287


EXHIBITS:

Pollman Exhibit No. 3
First two pages of report entitled:
"Mercury Emissions to the Atmosphere
in Florida, Final Report" 211

Pollman Exhibit No. 4
Document with cover page entitled "Mercury
Contamination in the Everglades Ecosystem,
a Plan of Study for U.S. EPA, Region IV, Greer
Tidwell, Administrator, Atlanta, Georgia, by
Jerry Stover and Delbert Hicks, U.S. EPA,
Region IV, Environmental Services Division
Ecological Support Branch, Athens, Georgia" 214

Pollman Exhibit No. 5
Document with title page "Chesapeake Bay
Agreement 1992 Amendments" 216

Pollman Exhibit No. 6
Document with first page entitled "Proposed
Research on Water Quality Model for Water
Conservation Area 2A, Duke Wetland Center,
April 1992" 237

Pollman Exhibit No. 7
Document with cover letter on Duke University
letterhead, addressed to Dr. Pollman, from
Dr. Richardson, dated September 2, 1992 237

Pollman Exhibit No. 8
Document entitled "Privileged and Confidential ÄÄ
Notes on INTECOL's IV International Wetland
Conference Special Session ÄÄ An Ecological
Analysis of the Everglades", by C.D. Pollman 255

Pollman Exhibit No. 9
Document entitled "SFWMD Everglades SWIM
Plan, C. Pollman ÄÄ report, reviews,
weekly updates" 258

Pollman Exhibit No. 10
Document entitled "Privileged and Confidential
Draft Everglades SWIM Review 2/6/91" 264
153b
Pollman Exhibit No. 11
Document entitled "Everglades SWIM Plan
Challenge Review, 3 December 1992" 268

Pollman Exhibit No. 12
Document entitled "Water Quality and
the Everglades: Options for the Future" 275

Pollman Exhibit No. 13
Document entitled "South Florida Water
Management District Everglades SWIM Plan ÄÄ
Curt Pollman correspondence", with cover
letter dated May 31, 1990, addressed to
Mr. Green from Dr. Pollman 276

Pollman Exhibit No. 14
Document entitled "McClave", with fax
transmittal, dated 7/11/91 on Info Tech
letterhead, from Dr. McClave to Dr. Pollman 283



(Thereupon, at 9:00 a.m. on February 17th, 1993, the following proceedings were held:)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay. Dr. Pollman, just a few clean-up questions
from yesterday. Are there more coordinating tasks that you
are presently performing for the Cooperative?
A I believe I have mentioned all the coordinating
tasks that I'm engaged in at this point.
I guess to summarize what those tasks are: working
with Tetra Tech on their modeling efforts, coordinating with
Info Tech on statistical support services that they're
providing and the only other possible thing would be co-
sampling of the EAA or parallel sampling of the EAA relating
to the Department of Justice's request for entry into the EAA
for additional sampling.
Q All right. These statistical support services that
you're referring to from Info Tech, are those in support of
the Tetra Tech modeling effort?
A No, the work being done by Info Tech principally is
work that really stands on its own. It's work that's being
done in evaluation of the criteria that has been developed
for the Loxahatchee and the Everglades National Park
principally.
There is perhaps a possibility for some cross-
fertilization between what Info Tech is doing and what Tetra
Tech is doing relating to the review of William Walker's
analysis of the settling rates of Water Conservation Area 2A.
Q You're talking in reference to his forthcoming
document?
A Well, I'm not aware of a forthcoming document. I'm
aware of ÄÄ I'm glad to know that ÄÄ I'm certainly aware of a
document that he produced this summer.

MR. GREEN: How forthcoming is that document?
MS. PONZOLI: Well, when yours is forthcoming
it will probably be forthcoming.
MR. GREEN: I thought you had that.
You mean the distances?
MS. PONZOLI: I mean the distances. That's
really, as far as I understand, Mr. Green, all that
is lacking and it's not that long a task. Once he
obtains that it will not take him that long.
MR. GREEN: Good.
MS. PONZOLI: To adjust whatever needs to be
done.
MR. GREEN: We're responding to the letter you
sent on that.
MS. PONZOLI: Okay.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q I think that I may not be completely clear, Dr.
Pollman, on the Info Tech effort regarding evaluation for the
criteria for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the
Everglades National Park.
Would you please tell me what that effort involves?
A Well, there are numerical criteria that have been
developed for the Everglades National Park that are based on
statistical relationships and Info Tech may be involved at
some point in this challenge in evaluating these statistical
relationships or those numerical relationships in terms of
whether or not we feel those are scientifically defense more
supportable criteria.
Right now their efforts are really largely involved
with looking at the relationships for the Loxahatchee.
Q Have they reached conclusions in regard to those
criteria for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge?
A They have not reached final conclusions at this
point.
Q Have they reached conclusions?
A I would say that they have reached preliminary
conclusions that are subject to change depending on the
availability of what we consider to be a verified data set
and. . .
Q Is that what we discussed yesterday?
A Yes.
Q Okay. What are their preliminary conclusions?
A If the data they're working with are indeed the
appropriate data to be using, they feel that the data are a
poor quality and they cannot establish any sort of cause and
effect relationship between external inputs to Loxahatchee
and interior marsh concentrations.
Q I didn't get that down clearly enough.
Between the external ÄÄ the discharges into the
Refuge and the internal marsh. . .
A Let me rephrase it.
Q I just want to have it right, because it seems
important.
A Yes, I understand.
Info Tech has not been able to establish the
statistical means, whether or not there is any sort of
relationship between, say, discharges coming through the S-5
and S-6 structures and phosphorus concentrations at interior
stations within the Loxahatchee.
Q Did you say no relationship or no cause and effect
relationship?
A Well, I did mention cause and effect, but quite
frankly statistics never really establish cause and effect,
so it's perhaps a bit disingenuous to say cause and effect.
Q Okay.
A Let's just say that there's no statistical
relationship of any significance.
Q Is Dr. McClave the one who is responsible for
putting or assembling all this information and testifying
from?
A I would say largely, yes. It is a bit of a joint
effort, insofar as I'm providing some guidance to Info Tech, in
terms of the types of relationships I think should be there and
the types of analyses that might be useful to conduct.
As far as the statistical merits of the analysis,
Dr. McClave will be testifying to those.
Q You don't intend to be testifying on any of these?
A I would not be testifying as to any of the
statistics.
Q Will you be testifying regarding the relationships
or the analyses?
A I may be.
Q Okay. Did we cover all of your concerns regarding
that yesterday, or is there more?
We talked about lack of internal consistency.
A Right.
Q Wasn't that in regard to the Refuge data?
A Right.
Q And I honestly don't recall the other problems that
you had with them.
A Well, we certainly have questions regarding data
quality and I think I elaborated on major concerns that I had
with that yesterday.
Regardless of the concerns that we or that I had
identified yesterday, if we look just at the phosphorus
chemistry I think we still have some concerns regarding the
quality of just the phosphorus values alone, because of the
rather poor relationships that have been developed.
Q Did we cover all of those yesterday? I don't want
to have to make you do it again. It's not that you're
resisting, I just want to make sure I understand all of your
concerns regarding these data and. . .
A I believe there's probably one concern that wasn't
covered.
Q And what was that?
A That we would expect to see some sort of link or
relationship, a statistical relationship, between inflow
concentrations and inflow loadings and interior
concentrations, and those statistical relationships are just
not particularly strong and it's a bit surprising and we're
left wondering whether or not the data set is a very good
quality, because of the weak relationship between these
various parameters that we have looked at.
Q Okay. We have some documents that reflect Dr.
McClave's and/or your concerns regarding Dr. Walker's
analysis and I'll go over them with you later today.
Are there other concerns regarding statistical
methodology or manipulations that, to the best of your
recollection, were not reflected in those documents that you
turned over to us?
A Are you referring to Dr. Walker's analysis of
statistical trends at the S-12 structures?
Q Yes.
A I can't recall any at this point.
Now, bear in mind that we really haven't looked at
Dr. Walker's work since those affidavits were originally
prepared and maybe there might be more concerns and it may be
that more concerns will emerge as the discovery process
continues and we get our hands on more data.
Q So your evaluation of Dr. Walker's analysis is
still in a state of flux; is that fair?
A Well, flux indicates movement in some direction and
I would say it's more in a state of limbo.
Q Certainly not a conclusion; is that fair?
A Yes.
Q All right. Let me ask you this, if I can frame it
appropriately.
With your knowledge of nutrient dynamics that you
say you have an expertise. . .
A Yes.
Q With your knowledge of nutrient dynamics, do you
find the limits for the Loxahatchee Interior Marsh Stations
unreasonable?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: Unreasonable in what
respect?
MS. PONZOLI: Is that your objection?
MR. GREEN: Yes.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Do you find them unreasonable in terms of what one
would expect to find in an unimpacted marsh system within the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge?
A I really don't know if it's reasonable or not,
because I don't think we have sufficient background data at
this point to really answer that question.
I don't think there's sufficient data of high
quality to really analyze what should be there or what
shouldn't be there or what would be typical in an unimpacted
system versus an impacted system.
Q How would you go about determining what those
numbers should be?
A Well, there's probably a couple of things one could
do.
Q Okay.
A First of all, I think the easier thing to do would
be to set up a long-term monitoring program at stations that
one would consider to be unimpacted and look at phosphorus
dynamics during that monitoring period.
Another possibility, and this is not as good an
approach, but still might yield some useful information,
perhaps look at other areas in the South Florida region that
are known to be pristine and evaluate what background
concentrations are there, but the problem is that you run the
risk of looking at different types of communities and, of
course, the phosphorus concentrations that you see there
might not be reflective of what the Loxahatchee has
historically been.
Q Are there any other ways that you think it should
be done?
A I can't think of any at the moment.
Q Okay. For long-term monitoring program, that was
your first recommendation of unimpacted area, how long would
you anticipate that to be?
A Is this what I would prefer to see?
Q This is what, as a scientist, you would prefer to
see and not as a representative of the Cooperative.

MR. GREEN: And I would contend that those are
the same.
MS. PONZOLI: I might object.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay.
A Well, given the best of all possible worlds. . .
Q Right.
A I would prefer to see several years' worth of data,
certainly more than one, at the minimum two. Better yet,
three to five.
Q Okay. So you consider the criteria for the
Interior Marsh Stations of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge unreasonable in terms of obtainability?
A Again, I can't answer that question unless I know
more information about what the historical background
concentrations really should be.
Q Do you understand what goes ÄÄ do you have data
that reflects what is being found in those marsh stations
presently?
A No, I do not.
Q So, as you sit here, you don't know whether they
are presently being achieved or not achieved?
A That is correct.
Q All right. Let me ask you what information you
have regarding background concentrations in the Everglades.
A I have compiled some information that I have
summarized, I believe, in a letter/report, if you will, to
the Co-op on background concentrations out of the Big Cypress
Swamp.
Q Okay. Do you consider the Big Cypress Swamp
comparable to the Refuge or the Water Conservation Areas in
the Everglades National Park?
A I would have to examine those systems more
carefully before I would be able to give you a definitive
answer on that. I haven't reached a conclusion. I haven't
made a direct comparison at this point.
Q Have you done any examination of background
concentrations of what is available for the Refuge, Water
Conservation Areas or the Park?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
It may be easier ÄÄ when you say background
concentrations, that term is undefined.
MS. PONZOLI: It's a term Dr. Pollman has been
using.
MR. GREEN: Then I object retroactively. I
mean, I don't think that question. . .
What do you mean by background?
To make this a more useful question, I think
you ought to define that.
If you don't agree, he'll answer, obviously.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, what did you mean when you were
talking about background concentrations?
A What I would consider to be background
concentrations would reflect the pristine unimpacted
environment.
Q And I assume, implicitly from your answer, you
believe that we could find some areas that would be
unimpacted and pristine in the Everglades?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q I only ask that because there are people who say
there's nothing pristine in the world, you could not find a
pristine spot anywhere, and when you set up that high a
standard it becomes impossible to ever do that.
So we're talking about there are some relatively
clean places out there in the Everglades, in your and my
discussion.
A Well, I guess I should qualify the answer.
It depends on what you're looking for. If you're
looking at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, there
are currents that are ubiquitous and I don't believe there's
an area on the planet that has not been impacted by any
atmospheric deposition of PAHs.
Andaman Island, in the middle of the Indian Ocean,
is perhaps the most remote corner on the planet and it does
show some evidence of anthropogenic influence if you look at
certain contaminants, but if we confine our arguments for the
moment on phosphorus, then I would say, yes, that there are
in all likelihood areas that are unimpacted in the
Everglades.
Q Have you done an examination of data of those
places for the Refuge, let's say?
A Well, the only data that we really have of any
substance is the District data.
Q And?
A There are other data that are available in bits and
pieces. I believe there are some U.S. Geological Survey data
that predate the District's data and, again, it's rather hard
to evaluate the quality of that data.
Q How old is that data, Dr. Pollman?
A The U.S.G.S. data?
Q Yes.
A I believe that data goes back to the early to
mid-'70s.
Q Okay.
A At isolated stations.
Q Wouldn't the detection limit be far higher ÄÄ do
you understand what I mean ÄÄ at that time?
A Not necessarily. It depends on what analytical
techniques are being used.
Again, I'm not familiar exactly with the techniques
that were being used.
If the data came from, say, the mid- to late '70s,
I would say that analytical detection limits should be
reasonably low, but if they preceded say 1975 or 1976, there
may be analytical detection problems.
Q Okay. And the problems with the District's data
are those that you discussed with me yesterday, in regards to
detection limits?
A That's one of the problems that I have.
Q And the internal inconsistency problem?
A That's another problem that I have.
Q Are there any others that we haven't discussed?
A Not really.
Q Okay.
A I think in a broad sense those two categories
really cover it.
Q All right. So have you looked at data for
unimpacted areas in the Water Conservation Areas?
A I have not specifically looked at that yet.
Q Have you looked at them for the Park?
A No.
Q Okay.
A Let me rephrase that. I think early on I looked at
the data for the Park, probably several years ago, when I
first got involved in this project, and I looked at total
phosphorus concentrations at several different stations,
based upon historical publications. I certainly did look at
some other sites other than the S-12.
Q Did you form any conclusions as to what background
unimpacted total phosphorus concentrations would look like at
low. . .
A Well, again, I think the same data problem emerges.
The data that I was looking at, in part, included data from
the very late '70s and I'm not exactly sure who collected the
data. It might have been U.S.G.S., it might have been the
District, I don't recall; but, again, we're dealing at very
low concentrations for total phosphorus and I believe that
total phosphorus is not easy to measure at low concentrations
and I'm always concerned about data quality when you're
dealing with such low concentrations.
So I really don't know what the integrity of the
data are that have been published at this point for that
period.
Q So would you have the same conclusions for the
Everglades National Park that somewhere between maybe two to
five years of monitoring would be necessary to establish
background unimpacted concentrations for phosphorus?
A Yes.
Q You, Dr. Pollman, believe that total phosphorus is
the appropriate phosphorus standard that we should be
measuring? Do you understand my question?
A Could you elaborate?
Q Is that the form of phosphorus that we should use
to establish standards? That's a simple way. . .

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
Are you asking for a literal conclusion or a
scientific conclusion or are you asking him ÄÄ I
mean, that's a broad question.
MS. PONZOLI: Did you understand it to be a
legal question?
MR. GREEN: Well, when you say standard, for
example, that has connotations in the law.
But you're welcome to answer.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Well, let's put it in terms of a criteria.
Is total phosphorus the form of phosphorus that we
should use in establishing a criteria for these natural
areas?
A I have mixed feelings about it.
Total phosphorus is probably the easiest thing to
measure, so to speak, insofar as it gives you a total number
and it defines the upper limit for the amount of phosphorus
that might conceivably be available to the ecosystem for use,
but in reality not all that phosphorus is going to be
biologically available and I think it's very controversial as
to how you would define what is truly biologically available.
Perhaps the best standard would be defined by
biological available phosphorus, but in a practical sense I
don't think that would be very tractable.
Q What do you think is the most practical form of
phosphorus to use for setting criteria?
A I would say, today, without any further research,
that looking at total phosphorus might be the best criteria
and I certainly would like to see more research done in that
area. I think that every system is different and that total
phosphorus in one system may mean something entirely
different in another system and I think that each system
needs to be analyzed separately and ultimately, that the best
approach would be to define what is biologically available.
For example, let's say that you had a discharge
that had a very high total phosphorus concentration, but most
of that phosphorus was tied up in a suspended sediment load
and once that discharge leaves the discharger and the
velocity of the discharge drop, that material is going to
settle out and it's going to be largely unavailable to the
system.
So I doesn't necessarily make sense, in that
particular case, to write a standard that is based on total
phosphorus concentrations. It might make more sense to write
a standard of criteria that is based upon what is truly going
to make it down the stream and ultimately could make its way
into the ecosystem.
Q Do you think in the Everglades that it's possible
to really define what is truly making it downstream below
each of the structures?
A I think ÄÄ I can't answer that question without
actually doing some work in that area.
I would like to see some phosphorus speciation work
done and it may require some algal acid type study.
Q Do you have any reason to doubt the phosphorus data
that South Florida District is collecting today, presently?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
MS. PONZOLI: What's the problem?
MR. GREEN: What data?
MS. PONZOLI: The total phosphorus data.
MR. GREEN: For what?
MS. PONZOLI: Throughout the Everglades. I
mean, just. . .
MR. GREEN: General proposition?
MS. PONZOLI: Yes.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: I have concerns about
particularly their analytical techniques.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay. What are those?
A Well, my principal concern is the fact that when
they conduct their analysis, part and parcel of an analysis
of this type is running what is known as a standard curve.
Q All right.
A And that standard curve should cover the
concentration range of the samples of interest and for a
number or for a large area of the Everglades I would guess
concentrations are below twenty parts per billion. The
lowest standard that the District uses, in their standard
curve, is twenty parts per billion and they should be setting
up their standard curve with concentrations set up between
the range of zero to twenty parts per billion.
Q Is this, by the curve, high or low?
A I really couldn't tell you.
Q You really don't have an opinion on that?
A Well, based upon the recovery data that I've seen
from the U.S. Geological Survey, I'm concerned about a
negative bias.
Q But you're talking about a totally different data
set and laboratory set of work, aren't you?
A Well, the only thing we have to go by right now, in
terms of recovery, sample recovery, is the round-robin
results, based upon the District's collaboration with the
U.S. Geological Survey and there's, fortunately, scan data to
evaluate, but the few samples that we have to look at suggest
poor recoveries, which means that at the low concentration
end of the spectrum the District's laboratory is doing a
fairly poor job of recovering all the total phosphorus that
might be in the sample.
Q Okay.
A And, again, that would show up or should show up in
their standard curve or be corrected by running their
standard curve properly.
Q This round-robin that you referred to several
times, what was the time frame for that analysis?
A I believe the first year might have been 1979 or
1980 and I think it might have gone all the way through the
'80s to 1989 or so. I don't recall the exact date, but
roughly ten years, I believe.
Q Are you reanalyzing your data in a different way?
A Could you be more specific? Is it possible to go
back and take the raw data and run the numbers a different
way?
Are you saying is it possible to correct?
Q Right, is it possible to correct?
A I wouldn't feel comfortable with correcting their
data at this point.
Q Why?
A Because I don't think there's enough information
available to make such corrections.
Q What is missing?
A Well, we only have, I believe, three or four
measurements provided by the District of recoveries of low
concentration samples and I would be somewhat loath to try to
establish a statistical relationship between those recoveries
and try to correct low concentration data based on that
amount of limited information.
Q Then are we, again, back to beginning long-term
monitoring and then the proper application of analysis to
that data?
A I certainly would like to see that done, yes.
Q Do you have data to indicate that the total
phosphorus standard curves are not linear at low levels?
A Do I have data from the District lab?
Q Yes.
A No, because the District has not, from my
understanding, as far as I know, does not run standard curves
with low concentrations.

(Thereupon, a short recess was had; whereupon, the
following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Returning, Dr. Pollman, to this concept of
background on impacted Everglades, that I have been trying to
work through with you, do you believe, with the information
that you presently have, that an increase in total phosphorus
in the Everglades will result in a change in the biological
communities?
A I believe it would have some effect, yes.
Q What do you think the effects might be?
A I really couldn't say at this point without seeing
the appropriate dose response research.
Certainly the magnitude of the change is going to
be dependent upon the magnitude of the increase in total
phosphorus. That certainly is going to have some bearing.
Q So if, in your opinion, if we actually had a clear
idea of what background unimpacted total phosphorus
concentration should be, then we could measure the magnitude
by the magnitude of the difference between what is coming
into the system and that background amount; is that right?
A What do you mean by what's coming into the system?
Q Well, I mean, what is coming off of the EAA into
the Water Conservation Areas.
A I think that is perhaps only part of the equation
that should be evaluated.
What I would like to see, I guess, again, is some
sort of a conceptual framework that would relate what is
coming out of the EAA and from other sources to a, say,
pointwise distribution of total phosphorus concentrations
that would be predicted and then superimposed on that
framework would be some means for evaluating what the
ecosystem response would be.
Q So I guess we're back to basically indicating that
you would like to see some long-term monitoring, followed by
some ecosystem modeling.
A I would like to see some long-term monitoring,
coupled with some process-oriented research that dovetails
into ultimately a modeling effort.
Q All right. Let me ask you this.
How much experience do you have in the Everglades,
talking about the entire system, the Refuge, Water
Conservation Areas and the Everglades National Park?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
MS. PONZOLI: What is the problem, Mr. Green?
MR. GREEN: What kind of experience?
MS. PONZOLI: Well, I'm willing to listen to
whatever experiences he has on that.
MR. GREEN: Okay.
MS. PONZOLI: And then we'll narrow it down.
MR. GREEN: Okay.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: Well, I first got
involved in looking at the Everglades related
issues back in the early '80s and was involved in
evaluating air related impacts to particularly the
Everglades National Park.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay.
A Now, if we define the Everglades as Okeechobee
exclusively, I had no involvement with the Everglades
subsequent to that, until I got involved in this particular
SWIM Challenge.
So certainly I've been involved intimately in
looking at the Everglades' system for the past couple years.
Q Since 1990, the date that you gave us yesterday?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Okay. The air related impact in the Everglades
National Park, in the early '80s, what were these issues?
A Those issues, as I recall, were related to SO2
discharges by the Turkey Point Plant that's run by Florida
Power and Light.
Q Okay. What was the outcome of that?
A I don't recall what the outcome was. I just
recollect my involvement and my belief at the time that SO2
would have very little impact on the water chemistry of the
system.
Q And did you represent Florida Power and Light at
that time?
A That's correct.
Q Have you seen research subsequently that reflects
your conclusions?
A That would confirm my conclusions?
Q Yes.
A Oh, absolutely.
Q And where is that?
A Well, the basic water chemistry confirms my
conclusion. The system is a calcareous system in the areas
that we were looking at.
Q And your experience at Lake Okeechobee has been
what?
A My doctoral research included work on looking at
internal loading in Lake Okeechobee, principally the exchange
of phosphorus between the sediments in the overlying water.
I was a co-principal investigator on ÄÄ I don't
recollect the exact name of the project, but it was a project
funded by the South Florida Water Management District, which
was a several years' study, on the internal nutrient dynamics
of Lake Okeechobee, and my specific involvement in that
project involved the development of a diagenetic model for
Lake Okeechobee settlements.
I also collaborated with Wayne Huber at the
University of Florida, and one of his graduate students, in
developing a water quality model for Lake Okeechobee.
I also collaborated with Dr. Ramesh Reddy on his
phosphorus work on the sediments in Lake Okeechobee. More of
a technical advisor than anything else.
Q Anything else?
A On Lake Okeechobee?
Q Yes, sir.
A You know, various points here and there.
I may have looked at nutrient budgets for the Lake,
but I can't recall whether that was for my own personal
interest or whether it was for other related projects or what
have you.
Q Let me just return to Dr. Reddy for a second.
Do you have the same problem with his data that you
have with the South Florida Management's data?
A No. We're really talking about two different
issues.
Q Okay. Explain to me so that I'm clear.
A Well, Dr. Reddy's data that I have looked at is
largely confined to a soil chemistry data.
Q Okay.
A And I believe that Dr. Reddy is a capable,
competent researcher.
Q So at least these are his data you have confidence
that it's been handled appropriately.
A I have more confidence, yes.
I guess I should elaborate on one point and that is
that I believe it's easier to measure total phosphorus in the
sediments or at least get better recoveries, if you will, of
what is actually in the sediment. I think there's less
likelihood of gross error in that type of analysis than
measuring total phosphorus in low concentrations.
Q In surface water?
A That's right, in surface water.
Q Okay.
A There are some problems with soil analyses that you
have to be careful of when you get into phosphorus
fractionation of soil and sediments. I believe that data
tends to be more what we call operationally defined and
perhaps a little bit less reliable or difficult to interpret.
Q Do you have problems with the way Dr. Reddy's soil
chemistry data has been interpreted?
A I'm not familiar enough with that data to comment.
Q Have you done any interpretation of his data?
A I tried to evaluate phosphorus settling rates.
Q And have you come to any conclusions?
A If you take his data at face value.
Q Okay.
A And if you take water column chemistry data at face
value, so to speak, and I feel like I need to leave some room
here for some caveats, because the extension of the
extrapolation of the water chemistry data, which were
collected at different stations to the sites where the soil
cores were collected, is not necessarily a straightforward
exercise, but putting that aside, you would end up with a
settling velocity that is consistent with what other people

have developed.
Q What you told us yesterday.
A That's correct.
Q Eight meters.
A That's right.
Q Have you come to any conclusions regarding a more
appropriate analysis?
A No, I have not.
Q Are you working on approaches to what you believe
would be a more appropriate analysis?
A I'm not working specifically on that at this
particular point in time. I may in the future.
Q Is it anticipated that you might perform that task
for trial?
A Yes.
Q Is anyone else, on behalf of the Cooperative, to
your knowledge, doing that task?
A Mr. Gherini and Dr. McClave both will be looking at
William Walker's analysis of settling velocities and it may
prove that through their analysis that we might arrive at an
approach that we think is a more appropriate technique.
Q But it's anticipated that they do not intend to
perform their task until they have Dr. Walker's work?
A It would seem pointless to do so otherwise.
Q Why is that?
A Well, the reality of the situation, the way this
case has developed, is that data sets keep changing and we
would hate to spin our wheels by working with one data set
only to find a month later that it's not the right data set.
Q Well, I guess I'm a little puzzled by your answer,
because I'm unaware of the federal government out there
generating data sets. So I'm sort of like ÄÄ what do you
mean?
Is it your impression that the federal government
is out there. . .
A Absolutely not.
Q With big machines generating data sets?
A As somewhat of an outsider of the process here,
what I see is the following: we have been getting data from
the District, it comes in various states of completion, if
you will, and we're never entirely certain if these are the
data that Dr. Walker used.
Q Okay.
A And really to be most efficient in the process, it
would be nice to have exactly the same data set that Dr.
Walker used, and we would prefer to not spend our resources
analyzing data sets that might be inappropriate for use,
until we are satisfied that we have the appropriate and
correct data sets.
Q Well, let me ask it this way.
Is it that the data sets really change or that it's
the same data with perhaps additional data being analyzed in
a different manner?
A Well, the data sets may be flawed. We have enough
experience with District data at this point that there have
been a litany of problems and past history ÄÄ if past history
is an indication of the future, I think it would be prudent
to be satisfied that any particular data set is, indeed,
verified and accurate and is the one that another researcher
used in his or her analysis.
Q I guess ÄÄ I don't mean to be confrontational in
this question or imply something inappropriate, but I guess
I'm a little puzzled by your. . .
Have you ever just sat down and said: This is the
data set, let's analyze it and try to come up with what at
least we internally believe to be the appropriate answer for
such a question, as the settling rate.
Have you ever done that task or has anyone asked
you to do that task?
A Well, we have been charged with the task of looking
at the settling rate.
I'm not satisfied that we have all the data that
were used by Dr. Walker in his analysis so that we can
proceed forward with our re-analysis.
Q I'm sure all will be revealed.
I think I'd like to switch areas, Dr. Pollman, and
move on.
Are you doing any work with Dr. Horn?
A I'm not working directly with Dr. Horn.
Q Who is?
A I couldn't tell you that exactly.
Q Do you know what type of a scientist he is?
A I believe he has some expertise in phosphorus
dynamics.
Q All right. Do you know whose witness he is?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
DR. POLLMAN: I don't know.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q You don't know whether he's an expert witness for
the Cooperative or for the League or for the District?
A I don't know precisely.
Q Do you believe him to be a witness on behalf of the
agricultural industry?
A Yes.
Q Some particular party?
A Yes.
Q And have you ever had meetings with Dr. Horn?
A I attended one meeting that Dr. Horn was at.
Q Who else was at the meeting?
A I can't recall all who was at the meeting, there
were a number of individuals, but Curtis Richardson was at
this meeting.
Q All right.
A Bill Patrick was at this meeting.
Q All right.
A John Davis was at the meeting.
Q All right.
A And I don't believe any other technical folks were
there, with the possibly exception of Reckhow, who was only
there a brief period of time, and then a number of attorneys.
Q What was the purpose of the meeting?
A Well, the purpose of the meeting, as I recollect,
was really to ÄÄ well, a good bit of the time was focused on
talking about William Walker's analysis of settling
velocities of Water Conservation Area 2A.
Q How recently was this meeting?
A I believe it was in August, late August or
September of this year ÄÄ excuse me, 1992. We haven't had
August or September of 1993 yet.
Q All right. What was the thrust of the discussion,
Dr. Pollman?
A Well, there was a good bit of discussion over the
use of soil cores as an approach to measuring settling
velocities.
Q And the thrust of the conversation was the
appropriateness or inappropriateness of it or not?
A Well, I would say there was some discussion on the
limitations or concerns about using the approach.
Q Did Dr. Horn express opinions?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Did you agree with those opinions?
A Well, I can't recall what his opinions were, so I
can't recollect whether I agreed with his opinions or not.
Q What are your opinions on the use of soil cores?
A I believe that it's a good first-order approach.
Q All right.
A But then I have some concerns about the use of the
cores, nonetheless, in that I think we need to be a bit
circumspect about their application.
Q Was this a joint effort by the League and the
Cooperative in this sort of, I guess, challenge to the SWIM
Plan?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay.
A All I know is that both representatives of the
League and the Co-op were at that meeting.
Q Have there been other meetings where the League and
Cooperative had their scientists together. . .
Was this sort of a brainstorm sort of meeting or
what was it?
A Well, I can't recall what the precise purpose was.
Q All right.
A I do remember that, like I said before, we spent a
good bit of time discussing the technical issues of Walker's
report.
Q Okay.
A I believe there were some discussions about other
technical issues.
Q Which were? What were the other technical issues?
A The expanding nutrient fronts is the only issue I
can recall.
Q And what was the conclusion ÄÄ was there a
conclusion among the scientists there regarding an expanding
nutrient front?
A There was no definitive conclusion reached.
Q Were there some people in the room who felt that,
indeed, there was an expanding nutrient front?
A Not that I recall.
Q So everyone was in agreement that there was not an
expanding nutrient front.
A No, I don't believe that's a fair representation.
I believe that a number of the individuals were
uncertain as to whether or not the nutrient front might
expand in the future, but that the front appeared to be in a
state of stasis, if you will.
Q Is stasis something equivalent to equilibrium?
Well, define stasis for me, that would be better.
Just define what you mean by stasis.
A That the nutrient front was not moving.
Q Okay. Is this related to the concept of whether
the impacted area in Water Conservation Area 2A is stable?
A Yes.
Q Was that concept discussed, whether that area is
stable?
A With regards to the expanding nutrient front, yes.
Q Okay.
A I mean, in other words, the discussion really
focused on whether or not the nutrient front was expanding or
not. The feeling was that the front is not expanding at this
point in time.
Q It is kind of an interesting concept to a layman,
this expanding nutrient front.
Do we know when it stopped expanding? Can we point
to a period of time that we think it came to a halt?
A I don't think that there's been enough analyses at
this point to ascertain specifically when the nutrient front
stopped expanding or whether, in fact, it has not continued
to expand. I believe more work needs to be done.
Q You have not come to the conclusion that it's in
stasis.
A That's right.
Q Okay. Are you analyzing whether or not you believe
it's in stasis?
A I likely will be.
Q What do you believe is the importance of
determining whether that impacted area is in stasis?
A Well. . .

MR. GREEN: I'll object to the extent that
you're asking him for a mind thought process.
If you're asking him his scientific opinion,
that's fine.
I'll instruct you to answer accordingly, just
to make it clear.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: I don't know if I can
answer that question without divulging on Mr.
Green's thought processes.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Has Mr. Green explained to you why he thinks it's
important or not important why it's in stasis or not?
A We have discussed that, yes.
Q Do you have a scientific opinion as to whether it's
important or not?
A I believe my opinions relate to the politics of the
case.
Q What do you understand the politics of the case to
be?
A The sense of immediacy.
Q Being that if it is in stasis the immediacy is
obviously diminished.
A Yes.
Q If something is in stasis, Dr. Pollman, such as
that nutrient impacted area in Water Conservation Area 2A,
how long, in your opinion, would it remain in stasis?
A That's a very difficult question to answer. It
really depends on the system and what is going into it and
the chemical characteristics and the biological
characteristics of the system.
I don't believe sufficient information is available
at this time to answer that.
Q So, in other words, even if we determine whether
it's in stasis or not, we would not be able to answer the
second question as to how long it would remain in that state.
A I don't believe sufficient information is available
at this time or sufficient analysis at this time to answer
that question.
Q How long do you think it would take to obtain such
an answer as to how long it would remain in stasis?
A I would ÄÄ it would be a pure guess on my part to
answer that question.
Q Well, what would be your best estimate?
A I don't know. A year, two years, maybe.
Q To come up with the answer of how long you think it
would stay in stasis, would you simply be monitoring it and
watching for the nutrient front to show signs of downstream
movement?
A Well, I certainly want to include monitoring as
part of that program. I think maybe some process-oriented
studies as well would be important in determining whether or
not this front is indeed not moving.
Q Okay. Let me ask you this.
If you, in your opinion, were to change the load
into Water Conservation Area 2A by the way of the BMP Program
and/or the STA implementation at various levels of STAs,
would that affect the stasis?
A I believe that the incursion of comparatively high
nutrient concentrations into Water Conservation Area 2A would
diminish somewhat.
Q Would diminish the stasis.
I didn't understand your answer.
A Well, I would imagine that the concentration
profile, if you will, would change the shape such that you
would not have as high concentrations extending into the
marsh as we currently see. In other words, the
characteristic profile of concentration as a function
distance into the marsh would change so that you would have
lower concentrations in the future with the implementation of
STAs and BMPs, compared to what we currently see.
Q But I, because I'm not in your field and I'm in
mine, I'm trying to ÄÄ I understand what you're saying,
you're saying if you lower the load coming in you believe the
concentrations downstream will diminish.
A That's correct.
Q So it remains in stasis, is that accurate ÄÄ or not
in stasis because it's not as far downstream. . .
I guess I'm having difficulty, because I see this
impacted area, all these processes going on within the
impacted area and subject to, as you have explained, a whole
lot of different things going on simultaneously, but they're
kind of like contained, the stasis, is the idea that I sort
of conceptualize and now we have lowered the load coming in.
A Right.
Q This has got to change somehow, doesn't it, all
these interactions that are going on in the impacted area?
A I would expect some changes to occur.
Q Okay. So we're not longer in stasis.
A Initially that would be correct.
Q Okay.
A But in all likelihood you would achieve a new set
of stasis with a different shape, if you will, than what is
currently existing in Water Conservation Area 2A.
Q But it would not travel downstream.
A I am not sure I understand what you mean.
Q But you would not see the nutrient front expanding.
A In reality what I would expect to happen is that
the nutrient front would contract.
Q Okay. And conversely, Dr. Pollman, I would assume
that if the load were to increase for any reason coming into
Water Conservation Area 2A, one might expect the impacted
area to expand?
A Yes, I think that is a reasonable expectation.
Q If our goal were to improve the water quality of
the Water Conservation Areas in the Everglades National Park,
what is the down side of the BMP and STA program?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
You may answer.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: Well, I really haven't
spent much time thinking about that.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay.
A As far as downstream impacts, I'm concerned about
what the effect of such a program might be in terms of
hydroperiod, I'm concerned about the efficacy of the STAs in
terms of achieving their stated goals, and it may be that the
STAs, by building these STAs, that we may exacerbate some
existing problems in the Everglades that may be either
hydrologically related or otherwise.
Q Anything else?
A Not that I can recall at the moment.
Q Okay. In regard to the hydroperiod concerns, are
those the ones that you explained to me yesterday?
A I believe so.
Q Okay. And in regard to exacerbating problems that
are hydrologically related ÄÄ is that what you said?
A Yes.
Q I'm not sure that we discussed that, are you?
A I don't recall.
Q All right. Why don't you, in a very general way,
tell me what you mean.
A Well, I believe that for the STA to perform
optimally, there's going to be certain restrictions or
requirements as far as flows out of the STAs are going to be
concerned and water is going to have to be managed in some
way, shape or form.
It's not clear to me, because I have not seen the
downstream modeling analysis at this point, as to whether or
not the hydrologic requirements of the STAs and the
management requirements are consistent with what the system
requires downstream to perform optimally as well.
Q So that is really pretty much the same as the first
issue, the hydroperiod.
A Yes. I mean, maybe there are other issues,
hydrologic impacts.
You've got a system ÄÄ the STAs are going to be a
flooded system and I believe that the STAs will be flooded
all the time. There may be adverse water quality impacts
that are keeping that system flooded. You're talking about
an impoundment as opposed to an open system that we have in
the Everglades, for the most part, and there may be some
adverse water quality impacts related to impounding that
water.
Q Okay. That's really sort of what I was driving at.
We weren't really talking about hydroperiod
problems, but that we might exacerbate water quality
problems.
A Right.
Q And is it your opinion that we might actually
increase phosphorus loads by the STAs or alter other
parameters?
A We may have short-term problems with phosphorus,
with the STAs, that's a possibility.
Q What do you mean a short-term problem with
phosphorus?
A Let's suppose that the system goes anaerobic.
Q Don't you imagine that it will?
A I suspect that it might, but I don't know that for
a fact. I guess we'll find out through the ENR project, or
one would hope, but if it goes anaerobic there's a good
chance it's going to result in a pulsed release of
phosphorus.
Q That would be a single event or multiple events?
A Oh, it would be multiple events.
Q Continuous response, over time?
A No, I believe it would be more of an intermittent
sort of thing.
Again, it really relates to whether or not you have
anaerobic conditions developing on a short-term basis.
Q Are the soils in the Everglades aerobic or
anaerobic, in your opinion?
A At what part of the profile?
Q Do you want to take them centimeter by centimeter?
I mean, why don't you describe for me how you believe the
Everglades. . .
A Well, I haven't done any direct work on soils.
Q Do you have an opinion?
A I would imagine that the surficial centimeters of
the soil are aerobic, particularly if those soils are not
flooded. If the soils are flooded it may be that the
surficial portion of the soil profile goes anaerobic. There
may be an oxidized microzone at the very surface most of the
time, nonetheless.
I don't think anybody has studied the situation
sufficiently to really identify the redox characteristics of
those soils.
Q Are you examining the studies that have been going
on, on redox?
A I'm not really aware of any redox studies, per se,
in the system, in the Everglades' soils.
Q So that I'm clear on what you're really saying,
because I'm not a chemist.
You think that you would have pulsed releases of
phosphorus potentially coming from the STA, that it would
exceed the present releases coming into Water Conservation
Area 2A.
A I don't know what the magnitude of those releases
could be. It's really hard to say.
Q In other words, it's possible that while it might
be a pulsed release over the goal of the fifty ppb, it might
still be significantly less than the present concentration
level coming into, for example, 2A.
A It's possible.
Q Okay.
A It could be more, it could be less.
Q It would not exceed the present, would it, in your
opinion?
A Not in the long term. Again, you might have short-
term excursions that might be very high.
Q Even if the system were maintained as a wet system?
No drying down and then a release?
A Particularly if the system is maintained as a wet
system.
Q Okay.
A If the system goes anaerobic and if iron is
solubilized, then you could end up with a large release of
phosphorus.
Q Larger than present releases?
A I couldn't answer that question.
Q Okay. You have no opinion.
A Well, I hate to have an opinion about something
that I haven't seen any preliminary data on.
I really can't speculate one way or the other.
Q Are you developing any testimony in that regard?
A I haven't thought about it up to this point.

MR. GREEN: That's a definite maybe.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q You talked about water quality problems coming out
of the STAs.
Are there other water quality problems that you
have concerns about?
A Certainly one unknown might relate to mercury
cycling.
Q What is that?
A We don't know what the effect of the STAs will be
on the cycling of mercury and the possible release of mercury
to downstream components of the Everglades.
Q Do you have series?
A I really don't know what the answer will be.
Q Well, let me ask you this.
What difference do you see between the STAs and,
let's say, the impacted zone of Water Conservation Area 2A?
A Well, I'm not familiar enough with the design of
the STAs to answer that question in toto, but I do perceive
that the impacted area of Water Conservation Area 2A is more
of a sheet flow type system and I see the STAs of more of an
impounded type system.
Q You mean deeper water?
A Well, maybe it may be that you have more
restrictive flow characteristic of the hydrodynamics are
doing somewhat different ÄÄ again, this is speculation, I
don't know this for a fact.
Q Because of water conservation areas are impounded
also. . .
A Yes, that's correct. In a manner of speaking they
are impounded, but we're really talking about a smaller
impoundment with the STAs.
Q All right. You're talking about more restricted
water flow, even if the depth is the same?
A I think that water restricted flow is an important
component.
Q Okay. Are you concerned in regard to the mercury
potential that the STA might, in fact, generate a greater
release of mercury than the impacted area of Water
Conservation Area 2A?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
MS. PONZOLI: What's the problem?
MR. GREEN: It's never been established that
either one is releasing mercury.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Well, your hypothesis is that there might be a
potential problem with released mercury from the STA; is that
accurate?
A I'm concerned that it will affect the mercury
cycle.
Q Okay. Are you concerned that Water Conservation
Area 2A affects the mercury cycle, the impacted area?
A I don't believe there's any evidence at this point
to suggest that. I haven't given it much thought.
Q All right. Let me ask you this.
Do you believe that the difference, that would
cause you to be concerned about the STA affecting the mercury
cycle versus the impacted area of Water Conservation Area 2A
affecting mercury cycle, the difference is the restricted
water flow?
A Fundamentally I think my concerns relate to redox
chemistry, but since we know absolutely nothing about mercury
in the aquatic environment in the Everglades, all I can do is
raise the specter that there might be problems and I really
can't speak to the point, whether one system is going to be
different than the other, because we have no data.
Q Returning to my question.
The more restrictive flow, does that create a
significant change in redox chemistry between Water
Conservation Area 2A and the impacted area and the STA?
A I can't answer that question. I don't know.
Q Okay. Do you have concerns about what is going on
in the redox chemistry in the impacted area of Water
Conservation Area 2A?
A I think it's potentially of concern.
Q In regard to the mercury?
A It could be an issue of importance.
Q Do you know of anyone who is doing research on
that?
A I know of no research that is underway to look at
that question, other than the research that Dr. Jones has
proposed.

MS. PONZOLI: Okay. Let's take a short break.
(Thereupon, a short recess was had; whereupon, the
following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, before we took a brief break you said
that your concern related to redox chemistry in relation to
mercury.
I'd like you to explain that to me first, please.
A Well, I'm interested in seeing what might be the
effect that changes in redox chemistry might have on
methylation of mercury.
Q You have a hypothesis as to what might be going on?
A Could you be a little more specific? What do you
mean by what's going on?
Q Certainly. In regards to the methylation of
mercury, do you have a hypothesis as to what the relationship
of the redox chemistry is to that process?
A I believe or I suspect that under low redox
conditions methylation may be enhanced.
Q Okay. And just so that I'm clear.
That methylation of mercury would mean that the
biological available mercury would become available to the
system.
A Methyl mercury is considered to be the bad actor,
if you will, and is certainly the form of mercury that has
been found in fish tissue.
Q The background unimpacted areas of the Everglades,
do you believe there to be low or high redox? Which?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
You may answer.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: You have varying
conditions depending upon where vertically in a
system that you're looking.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q You mean in the soil column; is that what you're
speaking of?
A In the soil and water column.
Q Do you have any opinion as to the spatial
variability of low redox throughout the Everglades?
A I don't have any direct knowledge of that.
Q Do you have any from the literature?
A I have not seen much information on it. I have
seen some isolated data.
Q All right. Do you have any knowledge of the redox
within the EAA soils?
A Not that I recall.
Q Is that also an area of concern to you?
A Well, I hate to characterize it as a concern. It's
more of a scientific interest. Yes, it would be an area of
some interest.
Q Okay. Are we just sort of playing a semantic
difference here between concern for the Everglades and
interest in the EAA, or is it really the same thing?
A Really, it's the same thing, scientific interest.
Q Okay. Do you have an opinion as to what the redox
generally in the EAA is?
A Well, I would suspect that as you get deeper in the
soil profile you get very highly reducing conditions.
Q How deep do you think you have to get?
A I think that really depends on the depth of the
water table at any particular point in time.
Q Do you have an idea of where, in relation to the
water table, the reducing conditions would come into play?
Do you understand my question?
A Not entirely.
Q Are you talking about ten centimeters above the
groundwater or right at the level of the groundwater or below
the groundwater. . .
A Again, I don't know, because I haven't seen any
data on it.
Q Okay. Where will you expect to see that occurring
in relation to the groundwater?
A With respect to the groundwater surface?
Q Yes ÄÄ wait, I don't know what you mean by
groundwater surface.
A Okay. Do you mean with respect to the water table?
Q Yes.
A Okay. Understanding that the water table is the
surface of the groundwater.
Q Okay.
A Well, the question is not a very straightforward
one to answer, because the oxygen characteristics are going
to be affected by the amount of soil organic matter present,
how decomposable that stuff is or how readily decomposed that
material is, how rapidly the water is infiltrated through the
soil profile, and that sort of stuff.
So any hard and fast number is likely to be
inappropriate.
Q Is there ÄÄ when you talk about how highly
decomposed the soil is, is this related to the concept of the
subsided compaction?
A Perhaps indirectly.
Q How is that?
A Well, to clarify my answer before.
Q All right.
A The amount of oxygen demand, if you will, that is
being exerted by the soil relates to how refractory or how
labile that organic matter is in part.
There may be other sources of oxygen demand as
well.
If the organic matter is particularly labile I
believe that would translate to a very high subsidence rate
or a comparatively high subsidence rate, as opposed to a soil
that is composed of largely refractory organic matter.
Q I'm having to work with this, so let me come back
to what you were saying.
A I understand.
Q If the organic matter ÄÄ would you say highly
labile or just labile?
A I don't recall.
Q If the organic matter is labile then, I would
assume ÄÄ and you said therefore that it would have a high
subsidence rate. . .

MR. GREEN: Excuse me. I see very labile.
MS. PONZOLI: Very labile?
MR. GREEN: Yes.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Does that sound appropriate?
A Yes.
Q Okay. If organic matter was very labile, therefore
it would have a high subsidence rate.
A I didn't say that precisely.
Q Okay. I'm not trying ÄÄ I am definitely not trying
to be tricky here. I am just trying to understand.
A Okay. I guess what I'm trying to say is the
following.
Q Okay.
A And certainly if the organic matter is in a form
that can be readily decomposed, it would not surprise me if
that soil had a high subsidence rate.
Q Okay. And that would be, with the appropriate
water conditions, a place where you would see a low redox; is
that accurate?
A If you're saying that you would expect to see low
redox when you have a fair amount of labile or organic matter
and the soils are flooded?
Q Yes.
A Then I would say yes.
Q Conversely, when you said the soils were more
refractory and the organic matter was reduced; was that
accurate?
A I don't know if that. . .
Q Is reduced the word that is troubling you?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Is diminished more accurate?
A Maybe you should rephrase your question.
Q Well. . .

MR. GREEN: I believe he answered the question
before ÄÄ are you just asking him. . .
MS. PONZOLI: I'm just asking if the converse
is true, that's really what I think I'm asking.
MR. GREEN: Do you remember the question?
DR. POLLMAN: I would appreciate it if you
would articulate it a bit more explicitly.
MS. PONZOLI: I'm trying, I'm definitely
trying.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Why don't we work our way on to the conclusions
that I would like to understand, if you believe they're
accurate or not, which may not be possible, but let me just
ask.
Where you have highly subsided soils in the EAA,
are these soils usually dealt with organic matter that is
very labile?
A I believe so.
Q Okay. Do you believe that the phosphorus has any
relationship to redox or organic matter decomposition?
A I believe that the phosphorus cycle can affect the
redox cycle and vice versa.
Q How? How does the phosphorus cycle affect the
redox cycle?
A Increases in phosphorus can simulate primary
production, which translates through increased organic matter
production, which could translate to the higher oxygen demand
in the system, particularly at the sediment/water interface,
and that could affect the coarse redox conditions.
Q Causing lower redox?
A That's correct.
Q And how does redox affect the phosphorus?
A Well, this is by no means universal truth, but in
some systems if phosphorus is controlled by iron ÄÄ if the
availability of phosphorus is controlled by iron, then iron
is solubilized under very low redox conditions, any
phosphorus that may be bound to this iron would be released
under those conditions.
Q And that would result in what type of redox?
A Well, the redox conditions are driving the iron
cycles.

MS. PONZOLI: Okay. I'm going to ask that we
just attach the cover page of this report. So if
we could maybe just Xerox the cover page, Ms. Court
Reporter, and then write the exhibit number, and
we'll not have to attach the whole exhibit.
MR. NETTLETON: Then I would just request that
you attach the first cover letter on the first page
or at least the inside cover.
MS. PONZOLI: Sure.

(First two pages of report entitled: "Mercury
Emissions to the Atmosphere in Florida, Final
Report" so marked as Pollman Exhibit No. 3.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, can you identify this document?
A I can read the title for you.
Q Sure.
A "Mercury Emissions to the Atmosphere in Florida,
Final Report", by my firm, KBN.
Q Have you seen this final report previously?
A Not really.
Q Did you work on this particular report, Dr.
Pollman?
A Not directly.
Q Okay. Who in KBN worked on this report?
A David Buff was the project manager.
Q Okay. Did you have any input to this particular
report?
A I had some consultations with the staff only in the
process of this study.
Q Have you ever read drafts of the study?
A No, I have not read any drafts of this study in
toto. I may have seen one or two sections, but I don't
recall.
Q Okay. Was there any particular reason why you did
not work on this?
A Yes.
Q What was the particular reason?
A I was ÄÄ my time available did not allow it.
Q Not your interest, just your time?
A That's correct.
Q Okay. Is this report available through your firm,
to your knowledge?
A No. Under a situation like this, since the report
was prepared for a client, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, we would forward requests for the
document to the DER.
Q Okay.

MS. PONZOLI: If you want it attached to the
depo, Mr. Green, I think it would be easier to go
and obtain it from the DER.
MR. GREEN: That's fine. I just wanted to be
sure that we have ÄÄ why don't we just see how the
questions go and if I feel we need to attach the
whole thing. . .
MS. PONZOLI: Sure. I don't mind.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Did you ever, in the draft form, review those
portions of this report that pertain to mercury in chemical
forms: the atmosphere, the aquatic environment and/or soils?
A Not that I recall.
Q Okay. Did you ever review any other portions of
this document in regard to the sugar cane industry?
A Again, not that I recall.

MR. GREEN: Would you like to look at the
report?
MS. PONZOLI: If you could just wait a second.
MR. GREEN: Okay.
MS. PONZOLI: Let me take a second.
I honestly assumed that he had a great deal of
input into this.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q I'm going to hand you, Dr. Pollman, some documents
that were produced to the United States and ask you to
identify these.
Can you identify this document, Dr. Pollman?
A Well, actually it's a series of documents. It's a
number of documents that I compiled and kept in the file
entitled "Ron Jones Mercury Program."

MS. PONZOLI: Let's mark that as No. 4.

(Document with cover page entitled "Mercury
Contamination in the Everglades Ecosystem, a Plan
of Study for U.S. EPA, Region IV, Greer Tidwell,
Administrator, Atlanta, Georgia, by Jerry Stover
and Delbert Hicks, U.S. EPA, Region IV,
Environmental Services Division Ecological Support
Branch, Athens, Georgia" so marked as Pollman
Exhibit No. 4.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, let me hand you another composite, I
guess it's your whole file that was entitled, as you said.
A Yes.
Q I'd like to hand you another of what I believe was
a file produced from your documents to the United States and
ask you if you can identify ÄÄ I guess I would like to ask
Mr. Green a question, if I may, regarding these documents.

MR. GREEN: Do you want to do it off the
record?
DR. POLLMAN: Off the record.
MS. PONZOLI: That's all right.

(Thereupon, a short recess was had; whereupon, the
following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q So can you identify this document, Dr. Pollman?
A Yes. It's, again, a composite set of documents
taken out of my files, entitled "Mercury EPA South Florida
Work Plan."

MR. GREEN: Now, if you don't want to mark
that until you decide ÄÄ can we just talk about it?
MS. PONZOLI: Well, it's not the whole
document.
MR. GREEN: Right.
MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Pollman has his tag
basically, I believe, on two letters.
MR. GREEN: Right.
MS. PONZOLI: But he indicates that he would
request they be removed from the file, I guess is
the cleanest way of saying it.
MR. GREEN: That's fine.
MS. PONZOLI: And I guess my preference is
that we attach the entire file and give Mr.
Nettleton and me an opportunity to look at this and
determine whether we're willing to remove them from
the file today or subsequently or if ever. I guess
when they would be removed would the issue, if we
both agree that they should be removed.
MR. GREEN: I assume you would let me know in
time, because if we felt it was important enough we
could seek protection, but I assume that's not
going to be a problem.
MS. PONZOLI: No, it's not a problem.
MR. GREEN: Okay.

(Document with title page "Chesapeake Bay Agreement
1992 Amendments", so marked as Pollman Exhibit No.
5.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q All right. Dr. Pollman, I don't have a lot of in-
depth questions on all of this, but I do want to ask you, in
regard to the "Mercury Contamination in the Everglades
Ecosystem Plan of Study", that is included in Pollman No. 4
and also included in Pollman No. 5, since I don't really know
which of these is the later version ÄÄ I assume one is the
later version of the other; is that accurate?
A I believe that the document that you have in your
left hand, which. . .
Q Pollman No. 5.
A . . .would be the later document.
Q The later document, okay.
I guess what my question to you would be, have you
read that interagency scope of study "Mercury Contamination
in the Everglades Ecosystem"?
A Not in great detail, I've scanned through it.
Q Did you have an opinion of that document when you
ran through it?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. And what was your opinion?
A I'm trying to recollect.
Q Would you like to hold it and look at it as
you. . .
A Yes, please.
Q Okay.
A Well, first of all I should state that this
document really relates to what I believe is known as the
"South Florida Initiative".
Q Okay.
A And as I understand this plan, it was a
framework ÄÄ there was a meeting that was held in Tallahassee
in December that discussed this overall plan.
Q All right.
A All the ramifications of the plan, I guess there's
a number of different aspects of this plan, were not
discussed in detail at this particular meeting. My comments,
I made some comments at this particular meeting, really
related to spatial sampling in the Everglades, what the
priorities might be, as far as what sort of sampling should
be conducted and how it related to EPA's EMAP Program.
Q And in general your spatial sample comments related
to what? Were they excluding certain areas?
A No, by no means.
Q Okay.
A I think it was trying to get a program that was
optimally designed that would help us understand what has
been often labeled the "Mercury Problem in South Florida".
Q Do you believe there's a mercury problem in South
Florida?
A Yes, I do.
Q Okay. What is that mercury problem, very simply?
A Well, I believe that there are high concentrations
of mercury particularly in hypertrophic level organisms and
including top predator fish that are reason to be of concern.
Q Now, the spatial sampling, were your concerns
addressed and met, to your knowledge?
A I don't know that, because I have subsequently not
been engaged in further discussions that have been held
between the State Department Environmental Regulation and EPA
and Everglades National Park representatives on what the
sampling program might encompass.
Q Any particular reason that you have not been
included, to your knowledge?
A No, I don't know why, except for the fact that I'm
not a member of a public agency.
Q All right. Were other non-members of public
agencies included in this discussion?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q So it wasn't anything that appeared to be just
you ÄÄ that it appeared to be just an interagency
coordination at this level?
A That's correct.
Q Okay.
A I know that EPA has recommended that I be involved.
Q Do you wish to be involved?
A I believe I have something to offer.
Q Okay. Do you see any opportunity that this will,
in fact, happen?
A I do believe that the South Florida initiative is
going to move forward. I couldn't tell you in what shape or
form it will take. I think a lot of it is going to be
contingent upon the level of funding available.
Q Has it been funded lately?
A I can't answer that question definitively. I
believe there are some monies available at this point.
Q Do you know how much money was necessary in order
to fund it adequately?
A I think there's a number listed in this document,
but I can't recall what it is.
Q All right.
A It could be ten million dollars or something like
that.
Q Whatever the number was at the time, it struck you
as adequate to begin the program?
A No, I didn't analyze that number to see if it was
adequate or not. I didn't form any opinions on that.
Q So you really have no idea what the level of
funding presently is?
A No, I don't.
Q Okay. In regards to the spatial sampling, can you
tell me what your concerns are? Can you describe it verbally
for me?
A Well, I think the concerns that I have, and I
believe this concern is shared by some other scientists as
well, is that you have limited resources available to examine
this problem and evaluate it, in that there should be some
sort of, I feel, some sort of a screening program to really
identify the areas of greatest concern.
Q Before you begin your overall sampling?
A Yes, in a manner of speaking. I think there should
be perhaps some more explicitly, I think, a concerted fish
sampling program across the Everglades to identify the areas
of greatest interest and then let those results guide the
next phases of research, whatever shape they may take.
Q Okay. Not to be argumentative, I would just like
to ask you why you think that that is an appropriate way of
deciding on where the sampling should occur, and let me
explain to you why.
A All right.
Q If the waters are moving downstream and your
concerns had been that the methylation might be occurring
upstream, isn't it possible that you would be looking in
altogether the wrong place?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
Go ahead.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: Well, first of all, I
think that you're discussing one aspect of the
mercury cycle methylation and the mercury cycle
involves a number of different processes, which I
think need to be considered in toto in
understanding the mercury problem in South Florida.
We don't know the extent of the mercury
problem in South Florida, because nobody has looked
across the region. The principal sampling that has
been done has been in the canals of South Florida
and, from my understanding, talking to Tom Acheson,
that there are other data available, but I have yet
to see it from, say, within the Everglades National
Park, and I believe that Wiley Kitchens has
mentioned that he has collected data from the
interior portion of the Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge, but we don't know what those
results are at this point in time.
I feel that ultimately perhaps the best
expression of the mercury problem is going to show
up in the fish and then let the fish basically ÄÄ
let the occurrence of mercury in fish in that
spatial distribution then guide us where we should
be spending our resources.
Measuring mercury in fish is a relatively
straightforward or comparatively straightforward
easy exercise and I think there's less of a
likelihood for developing ambiguous results by
taking this approach first and then we can examine
whether or not there are areas that we need to look
at in more detail.
So it's really, from what I see, more of a
definition of the scope of the problem and then
letting the scope then guide us to where we need to
go next.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Okay. So I had misunderstood you in thinking that
when you said measure the level of mercury in the fish, just
because, let's say, you found a fair number of fish at the
bottom of 3A with very high levels of mercury, that you would
just be doing spatial sampling in 3A, that would just simply
indicate to you that something gets to the fish in that area
would be wherever you had to look for the. . .
A Well, I think. . .
Q . . .the source of the mercury. . .
A Right.
Q . . .is that accurate?
A Well, let me, since I fully don't understand
exactly what your question is. . .
Q All right.
A The best thing for me is to recast it a little bit.
Q Okay.
A What I would like to see done is a random sampling
of the South Florida Region, so that we don't. . .
Q Including what areas?
A Well, the entire Everglades area.
Q Starting at the Lake?
A Yes, and moving down.
Q Within the Lake or below the Lake?
A I don't believe we would have to look at the Lake,
because there's some data from Lake Okeechobee that suggests
mercury concentrations in fish are not very high out of that
system.
Q Just start below the Lake?
A Yes, and move down.
Q Okay.
A Map that data, once those data are available, and
then you start looking at the distribution occurrence and let
that guide the next step of research.
Q So that includes the EAA, obviously?
A Yes.
Q Would you go all the way to Florida Bay?
A I don't see any reason why not to.
Q Okay. Dr. Pollman, are you aware of any subsequent
meetings and/or discussions regarding spatial sampling for
the South Florida Initiative?
A I believe there was a meeting in Tallahassee, that
would be two to three weeks ago, that DER hosted with
Everglades National Park, I believe there was a
representative from the Park.
Q Okay.
A I believe there was a number of representatives
from EPA. I believe that Don Porcello from the Electric
Power Research Institute was at that meeting and I believe
that Ed Zillioux from Florida Power and Light was at that
meeting. I was not at that meeting.
Q You were not included in the invitation?
A No.
Q But there were industry and other interests who
participated at that meeting.
A I would perhaps disagree with the characterization
of Drs. Porcello and Zillioux's participation as industry
representatives, per se.
Q All right.
A I believe they were included because they are the
funding agencies for the Florida Atmospheric. . .
Q Right.
So you view this as the funders and the interagency
participants, who participated at this meeting?
A I think that's a fair characterization.
Q Okay. Do you know if there was any resolution of
the spatial sampling?
A I really don't know what transpired at that

meeting.
Q Okay. Have you reviewed Dr. Jones' document
regarding "Environmental Parameters Affecting the Release of
Mercury from Soils of the Florida Everglades", that is
included in your Pollman No. 4?
A May I take a look at it, please?
Q Sure.
A I have not read it in great detail. I have scanned
through it.
Q Do you have an opinion of that document?
A If memory serves me correctly ÄÄ I guess I would
have to take a look at it.
The thing I recollect is that there was a
hypothesis put forth that there was a relationship between
phosphorus and the redox cycle and that would translate to
effects on mercury methylation.
Q Which you've already indicated that you believe
it's something that should be looked at.
A I believe that there might be a relationship.
Q Do you have any other opinions of that document by
Dr. Jones?
A I would hesitate to comment at this point because,
as I said before, I have scanned and not critically reviewed
it.
I would likely have some comments upon critical
review.
Q But your basic impression, from what you recall at
this time, is what you have stated?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Have you also reviewed Dr. Jones' sampling
proposal for the EAA and the supporting documents that were
provided to the Cooperative, specifically some publications
and explanation of some methodology?
A I have reviewed, I guess, several documents that
were provided by the Department of Justice on the Federal
requests for entering into the EAA that summarized the type
of sampling program and. . .
Q Okay.
A . . .and I did receive, I believe, two Xerox copies
of articles that Dr. Jones was the co-author on, relating, I
believe, to phosphorus absorption, but I haven't read those
articles.
Q Do you have an opinion of the sampling program that
has been proposed for the EAA by Dr. Jones on behalf of the
Federal government?
A Well, I would like to know what the objectives are
before I comment on the ÄÄ before I develop an opinion.
Q Okay.
A I don't know what the objectives of the program is.
Q Without the objectives you have no opinion?
A I may have some opinions regarding whether work is
likely to yield fruitful results.
Q And what is your opinion?
A I have a hard time understanding at this point in
time, for example, how data from the hexane phase samplers
will be interpreted.
Q Can you explain to me why that is? Is it possible
to answer the question I'm posing to you?
A Well, I guess ideally I'd like to hear how Dr.
Jones intends to use that data.
Q Did you review that testimony in the administrative
hearing and the pleadings filed by the United States?
A I have read portions of it, but I haven't read it
in detail.
Q Okay. And you did participate in a telephone call
where methodologies were explained?
A Where they were discussed, yes.
Q Are you distinguishing between discussed and
explained?
A I may be making a slight distinction insofar as I,
again, certainly don't see the rationale behind the use of
the hexane phase samplers or more appropriately how the
results from those samplers would be interpreted.
Q Is that because you just don't believe that they
can give you a type of a useful result to the extent that you
understand them?
A Well, I would like to see how they could be used
quantitatively.
Q So that goes back to your issue of what are the
objectives and what you would be doing with it.
A In part, yes.
Q Dr. Pollman, let me ask you a generic question.
Do you have any opinion regarding some quantitative
assessment of whether what is, what we've said was the
mercury problem, is more of an airborne problem or waterborne
problem?
Do you understand my question?
A Yes, I believe I understand your question.
Q Okay.
A I think it's premature to really put much weight in
either hypothesis at this point in time and I think that the
type of data that are necessary to resolve that question are
not available at this point.
Q Do you see the data being collected that would
answer that question?
A Well, I would believe that if we embark upon ÄÄ we,
meaning society in general, if we embark upon that spatial
sampling program in South Florida of fish, I think that will
be an important first step in helping to resolve some of
these issues and it would help point us in the proper
direction.
Q But would the fish sampling help resolve whether
you should be looking in the air or in the water?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Would you explain why?
A Well, for example, if you find high concentrations
of mercury in portions of the Everglades that are likely not
impacted by discharges leading out of the EAA, or if you find
high concentrations of mercury in fish in say the central
part of Loxahatchee, which is clearly an atmospherically
dominated portion of the marsh, I would start looking
carefully at atmospheric inputs as the primary mechanism.

MS. PONZOLI: Okay. I think I would like to
take a break for lunch, because I think right now
that's probably all I have on the mercury.

(Thereupon, the luncheon recess was had; whereupon,
the following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, again, I have a few clean-up
questions. They're sort of all over.
Are there any other models that you're working on,
on behalf of the Co-op, other than the ones we discussed?
A I don't believe so.
Q Okay. Do you know about any other models that are
being developed on behalf of the Co-op?
A No.
Q Okay. I'd like to return to ÄÄ you had mentioned
there was one meeting where you were discussing the settling
velocity and there were League consultants present and League
attorneys present.
A Yes.
Q Okay. I would like to know to what extent you, on
behalf of the Cooperative, have worked in consultation or
cooperatively with League expert witnesses or consultant
firms?
A With the exception of periodic or, I should say
occasional, contact between Dr. Richardson and Dr. Reckhow, I
have had almost no contact with League consultants.
I've had a couple phone conversations with John
Davis, one or two, possibly three or so, over the past four
or five months since that meeting, really regarding
information exchange or data exchange, but, to speak of, I
have not had any direct working relationship with League
consultants.
Q Okay. Have you ever been denied any data or
information, which you requested from ESP or from the League?
A I may have at some point in the past.
Q Do you recall?
A Well, I do believe that I may have requested some
data or have some interest in gaining some data that I knew
was in the League's possession, but we may not have been able
to get it.
Q Were you given a reason?
A No formal reason was ever given to me.
Q So passive resistance?
A It's my understanding that the League and the Co-op
are not bosom buddies at this point.
Q I'm not touching that one.
Have you had other meetings, other than that single
meeting, where the various consultants and scientists sat
down, the League's and the Cooperative's scientists and
consultants sat down, and discussed issues?
A There have been several meetings, I would say.
There's one meeting in particular that I recollect
where there were a number of different individuals from the
League at a particular meeting that I attended.
Q When was that?
A I believe it was two years ago, right about this
time.
Q What was the one that we discussed previously, do
you recall when that meeting was? I don't think I asked you
that, the one on the settling velocity?
A I believe August or September, it might have been
October.
Q Okay. So about two years, roughly, in February,
there was another meeting with consultants of the League,
right?
A Right.
Q Okay. Who was at that meeting?
A Ed Barber was at that meeting, John Davis, I don't
recall if any other technical people were there at that
meeting.
Q Okay.
A There was at least one attorney.
Q A League or Cooperative attorney?
A He was a League attorney.
Q Who was that?
A I don't recall her name. I know who the person is,
but I don't recollect her name.
Q Ms. Cavanaugh?
A Yes.
Q And the purpose of that meeting?
A I believe the purpose of that meeting was to
develop what was called a fact finder, if memory serves me
correctly.
Q Okay. What was the fact finder?
A The fact finder, again, my memory is not exact on
what all was discussed at the meeting, but I believe it was a
statement of issues and perhaps even positions on some of the
issues regarding the Everglades SWIM Plan.
Q Did you sort of divvy up the facts and different
people would look at different facts to try and. . .
A No. I think really the idea was to try to reach a
consensus internally among the League.
Now, I offered comments at that meeting, but I
don't recollect exactly the purpose as to why I was at the
meeting.
Well, I don't recall what that purpose was and I
don't believe it was critical, as far as the League was
concerned, to reach a consensus with my view, as far as their
development of a so-called fact finder.
Q Okay. So there was no stated purpose of reaching a
consensus with the Cooperative, it was really reaching a
consensus internally to the League's consultant on certain
factual positions.
A That's how I perceived the meeting. There was
really no stated purpose to that effect.
Q And did they ask your input on various issues?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what the issues were?
A Well, certainly one of the issues was atmospheric
deposition of phosphorus.
Q Okay. And was there a consensus reached?
A I don't recollect.
Q Okay. Did you express an opinion?
A Yes.
Q What was your opinion?
A My belief was, at the time, that the amount of
phosphorus coming into atmospheric deposition was overstated.
Q Overstated by the figures that they were using?
A Yes.
Q Based upon the U.S.G.S. report?
A That's right.
Q As reflected in your document ÄÄ I think I might
have already introduced it ÄÄ you explained in one of your
documents your position on this.
A That's right.
Q And does your position remain essentially the same
in that regard?
A I believe so.
Q Okay. Do you remember any of the other facts?
A No, with one exception.
Q Okay.
A I believe we talked about mercury as an issue.
Q Was there any consensus reached, that you recall?
A No.
Q Did you state your position?
AYes.
Q And was it essentially the position that you stated
here on the record today?
A No. We didn't get into the details of the science
behind mercury as an issue in South Florida.
I believe I stated at that meeting that I thought
mercury was going to become an emerging issue and it was one
that the industry should pay attention to.
Q Okay. Did they indicate that they disagreed or do
you recall their response?
A I don't recall their response.
Q Do you have any other recollection of other factual
issues that stand out in your mind?
A No, I don't recall what else was discussed at that
meeting.
Q Do you recall where it was?
A Yes, it was at Environmental Services and
Permitting office.
Q Is there more than one location?
A I believe there's just one office outside of
Gainesville.
Q All right. I'd like to introduce a couple of
exhibits and some of them I'd like to ask you questions on
and some I'll just ask you to identify.
A Okay.
Q I'm going to hand you two documents and if you
would look at them, Dr. Pollman.

MS. PONZOLI: These will be marked 6 and 7.

(Document with first page entitled "Proposed
Research on Water Quality Model for Water
Conservation Area 2A, Duke Wetland Center, April
1992", so marked as Pollman Exhibit No. 6.)

(Document with cover letter on Duke University
letterhead, addressed to Dr. Pollman, from Dr.
Richardson, dated September 2, 1992, so marked as
Pollman Exhibit No. 7.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, can you identify the first document
that I have handed you?
A Yes, this is a series of two communications from
Dr. Reckhow to myself from Duke University as bi-weekly
progress reports, basically stating progress Dr. Reckhow is
making on the work that the Co-op has been funding to the
University to perform.
Q Was this the twenty thousand dollars for the
graduate student?
A Yes.
Q Song-Qian?
A Yes.
Q Is this like the first written description of the
Water Conservation Area 2A phosphorus uptake model?
A No. There was a, I believe, a report that was
written in the spring of 1992, that describes in more
conceptual terms what sort of model Song-Qian was going to
pursue in developing.
Q Okay. And you believe that you have produced that
among your documents?
A Yes.

MS. PONZOLI: And that will be Pollman No. 6.
MR. GREEN: And that is three pages long,
right?
MS. PONZOLI: No, my 6 is not three pages
long.
MR. GREEN: Well, mine is three pages.
MS. PONZOLI: I think we'll have to ask Dr.
Pollman to look at my No. 6, which is about twenty
pages long, and we'll attach this one to the
deposition, not the three-page one.


BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q I would like to use, Dr. Pollman, the full Pollman
No. 6, and ask if you can identify that document.
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A That's a document that was produced by Duke
University. I don't know who the specific author was, I
believe Song Qian and perhaps in conjunction with Dr.
Richardson and probably with some input from Dr. Reckhow, and
it looks to be a document that lays out the conceptual
approach for developing the type of model they were
interested in developing for Water Conservation Area 2A.
Q Is that the spring document that you recalled?
A Yes.
Q All right. The progress reports. I didn't seem to
get continued progress reports.
Have bi-weekly reports continued to come on a bi-
weekly basis?
A No, they have not.
Q Okay. Do you believe that you have produced all
the progress reports that you had?
A Yes, I do believe so.
Q Do you recall if any of them were held back?
A No.

MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Green, do you believe that
there were any progress reports withheld?
MR. GREEN: Not to my knowledge. If any came
after the production it's possible, but I'm not
aware of that.
MS. PONZOLI: Okay.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q In the ones that are attached, Dr. Pollman, I would
like to turn your attention to one dated November 18th, 1992.
A Yes.
Q And Song-Qian is discussing ÄÄ oh, it's from Dr.
Reckhow, I'm sorry ÄÄ what Song-Qian will be doing and he
says that the components will be as listed in that bi-weekly
progress report.
I would like to refer you to those three components
of the Duke Water Conservation Area 2A model.
Do you understand those still to be the components
of the model as listed?
A I would say that I guess I have a bit of a problem
using the word component for the model.
Q All right.
A Because the way I interpret components is to mean
that this is going to be an integral aspect of a particular
model.
Q Right.
A I do not know whether or not use of the Walker data
and model, as identified in Item 3, is actually going to be
part of the Duke model, nor do I know whether or not analyses
related to the Kadlec-Newman cross-sectional data and
empirical model will be part of the Duke model.
Q Has there been discussion to eliminate those as
part of the Duke model?
A No, there has not.
Q But at this time in November they were anticipated
as being part of the model, were they not?
A No, I don't know if Dr. Reckhow meant, by stating
that the three components are, and I'm giving a list of the
three different items, whether he actually meant these are
going to be specific aspects of his modeling efforts.
I believe that what he meant to say was that these
were three different things that he's working on, rather than
all related to the model.
Q Well, the letter, at a minimum, is ambiguous in
that regard; is it not?
A It seems ambiguous, yes.
Q Do you have any knowledge of whether it has
progressed as a sort of a plain reading might have implied or
in a different manner, as you're more or less testifying, do
you have any knowledge as to which way it's gone?
A No, I do not.
Q All right. The next one is December 2nd, 1992.
A Right.

MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, are these
all part of No. 6?
MS. PONZOLI: Yes. The full No. 6 has these.
MR. NETTLETON: All right.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Again, from Dr. Reckhow to yourself and Mr. Green,
and it says that Song and he are preparing a discussion paper
regarding work on Water Conservation Area 2A model, and I
think my question to you is, the second document that I
handed you, is that, in fact, what he was referring to. . .
No, it's post-dated, so I must be wrong.
I withdraw my question.
Would you identify the September 2nd, 1992 exhibit?
A Yes. What I have before me here is a letter of
transmittal from Dr. Richardson that transmits a preliminary
report entitled "An Empirical Model of Phosphorus
Concentration for WAC-2A of the Everglades", he meant to say
WCA-2A.
Q Right.
A And this paper reflects the preliminary work that
Song-Qian had been performing up to that point in time on the
Duke model.
Q Following December 2nd was there another such
report, as what we have marked as Pollman No. 7, what you
have just identified?
A I'm not sure I understand.
Is there another report like this?
Q Right, following the December 2nd letter.
A No, there has not been another report of this
nature developed.
Q Okay.
A That I recall.
Q Okay. So we have the only two, marked as Pollman
No. 6 and Pollman No. 7, that you have in your possession,
the only two reports of the 2A model that Reckhow and Qian
were working on.
A Right, other than the progress report that you
have.
Q All right. Returning to Pollman No. 7.
I would just like to ask you a few questions.
Who was the author of this particular report? Was
this Song-Qian or was it Dr. Reckhow?
A I believe that it was Dr. Richardson and Song-Qian.
Q Okay. You will see that there's marginalia
throughout the document, not a lot, but a little.
Do you recognize the handwriting?
A Yes, I do.
Q Is that yours?
A Yes, it is.
Q Okay. I'd like to ask you a few questions about
the things that you commented on, maybe a couple more, but
not much.
On the first page there's a sentence in the second
full paragraph that says: "The short-term storage
compartments, including periphyton plants and soil
absorption/precipitation have finite size and uptake rate."
A Yes.
Q Your marginalia says: "PPT". Is that
precipitation?
A That's right.
Q "Does not have finite size."
A Yes.
Q What does that mean?
A That's notes to myself.
I reviewed this report and provided comments to Dr.
Richardson on some of the statements in the report that I
felt were not very accurate.
Q And that remains your opinion?
A Well, I should clarify this particular note.
It has ÄÄ someone, other than myself, reading the
statement might draw the wrong conclusion regarding the true
meaning of this statement.
Precipitation as a mechanism for moving phosphorus
is not limited in the same sense that soil absorption is as a
means for removing phosphorus and I think it's a bit
misleading to lump the two processes together and say they
have finite size.
Precipitation, as a mechanism for moving
phosphorus, is limited by other characteristics.
It's not ÄÄ by no means intended to make the
statement that precipitation is an infinite sink, per se.
As long as the chemical conditions are ripe for
precipitation to occur then, yes, it matters if it's an
infinite size.
Q Then further down the page, where you have
"citations", you're not rejecting the statement, you just
simply want to know whether the sources of information by
"studies show that the long-term phosphorus surge rate is
closely (positively) related with phosphorus concentration of
the surface waters"; is that right?
A That's right. I would like to see some citations.
Q Have they been provided to you?
A No.
Q Do you doubt the comment or not?
A I always have a concern, I guess, in terms of
making a statement that strikes me as a categorical fiat that
might be based on other data and I would like to look at what
the other author said to insure that these comments are not
being taken out of context.
Q All right. Do you have an opinion of this
particular preliminary report, Dr. Pollman, as a whole?
A I remember feeling that there was a good bit more
work that needs to be done.
Q In what way?
A Well, I felt that the model was incomplete and I
wanted to see more information on the modeling.
I also don't understand the statistical procedures
that were used to develop the model. I would like to see
more clarification on this.
Q Has that information been forthcoming?
A Not at this point, no.
Q Do you understand that to be being developed?
A Based on Dr. Cowell's communications, yes, I
believe there will be a more lucid explanation forthcoming.
Q I believe I asked you this question, and I'm sorry
I don't remember the answer, but when do you believe that
this will be at some stage of completion?
A It's hard to say how soon the Duke people will
finish their work, because I feel they work under their own
time frame.
Q Okay. I think you gave me that answer also.
Over on Page 3.
A Yes.
Q I don't understand your diagram to the left. Does
that have any particular importance? Zero median to a
hundred.
A Well, that diagram is what is known as a cumulative
frequency diagram or cumulative distribution diagram, and I
don't recollect why I put that in the margin at this point.
I believe the reason I did that there was to
suggest a different way of representing some type of
bivariate relationship, or what have you, or actually, I
guess, what we're looking at. . .
Let me read this for a second.
Q Sure.
A This figure in the margin, I believe that I
included as a suggestion to Dr. Richardson as a means to
represent the frequency distribution for what he calls Cout in
the paragraph, which means concentration of phosphorus
exiting Water Conservation Area 2A.
He makes the statement in here that Figure 3.9
shows that Cout was always less than .04 mg/l ÄÄ oh, I'm
sorry.
Figures 3.11 through 3.17 are the frequency
distributions of the variables of interests, and the way that
he has the frequency distribution shown I think is difficult
to interpret the data, it's not a very straightforward
representation, and I prefer to see the type of diagram that
I described in the margin here.
Q Okay. You have on Page 4 "non-sequitur" on the
right column.
A Yes.
Q To which statement are you referring?
A Bear with me a moment and let me read through this.
Q All right.
A I believe that that statement referred to Item No.
1 on Page 4, the amount of P put into the system.
Q All right.
A And I don't recollect my concern at the moment,
when I made the comment. I'm not exactly sure why I had a
concern about that comment at this point.
Q In rereading it nothing strikes you as illogical?
A Not at this particular point in time.
Q Okay. Also on Page 5 you had, in the left column,
some explanation of a formula.
I would like you to explain that to me.
A Okay. The statement that I have written here is,
first of all, a question that says: "What is the relation
between Z bar, which is average depth, and Q sub-zero, which
would be the outflow".
Then I have a statement that says "Z bar equals the
function of Q zero". Then the hydraulic resonance time may
effectively go down with Z bar.
And what was your question?
Q I just wanted you to interpret that for me.
A Okay.
Q I want to know if you answered your question at the
bottom: "What is more important? Is it aerial contact or
depth?"
Have you been able to answer that question?
A No, we haven't been able to answer that question.
Q Is someone working on what the answer to that
question would be?
A I don't believe that anyone is working on that
question directly at this point.
Q Do you think that question has importance?
A Yes.
Q What is the importance of it?
A Well ÄÄ my suspicion is that aerial contact needs
to be maximized for effective phosphorus removal.
Q As opposed to increasing the depth?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any idea of an optimal depth?
A No, I do not.
Q Okay.
MR. GREEN: True depth.
MS. PONZOLI: True depth.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q On the right-hand column you have something that is
"not true".
A Yes.
Q Are you able to locate what portion of that you
felt was not true?
We have an accelerated interest in truth.
A Yes. I recollect ÄÄ I believe what my concern was
with the statement, the statement that I have a problem with
is the following.
Q All right.
A "Figure 3.3 shows that the flow rates of the inflow
and outflow water control structures were roughly balanced,
therefore the variation of water level reflects the combined
effects of rainfall and evapotranspiration."
Q Right.
A When I look at Figure 3.3 I have a hard time
arriving at the same conclusion and the way the data are
plotted in Figure 3.3 doesn't readily identify the
relationship at the beginning of the sentence, i.e., that the
flow rates of the inflow and outflow are roughly balanced,
and I have a suggestion that the data be replotted to
illustrate that point.
Q So you're not saying you don't think it's true, you
just think that the plotting doesn't reflect that.
A That's right.
Q Okay. Over on Page 7 I have a statement that I'd
like to ask you about, whether you believe it's true or not.
A Okay.
Q At the bottom of the second full paragraph it says:
"We believe that the amount of phosphorus put onto the system
is more important than the concentration, since the amount of
phosphorus and the volume of water in the wetland will
determine phosphorus concentration and the volume of water in
Water Conservation Area 2A is relatively stable, the
phosphorus concentration of the wetland is more sensitive to
the loading rate than to the inflow phosphorus
concentration."
Do you believe this is true?
A I believe the statement is a bit convoluted and
that's why I have a question mark there.
I wasn't sure exactly what the authors were trying
to convey.
I believe that concentration is important.
Q All right.
A I also believe loading rates are important.
Q Why is concentration important in your view?
A Well, concentration ÄÄ let me step back a second.
Q All right.
A By odor respond to concentration, the removal
process for phosphorus by other means, such as absorption and
chemical precipitation, relates to concentration.
Q Okay.
A Those are the reasons that I believe that
concentration is important.
Q Why do you believe loading is important?
A Because loading really relates to, in a manner of
speaking, maintaining concentration.
If you have a system ÄÄ let's say you take two
systems and the first system has concentration of, for the
sake of argument, fifty parts per billion and the second
system also has the same concentration in it and each system
is the same, relative to the other, with one difference.
The first system receives relatively little inflow
of water at fifty parts per billion, while the second system
receives more inflow of water. The concentration in the
system that is receiving a lower load is going to drop more
rapidly and that is because the process is ÄÄ although the
process is reacting to concentration they will serve to
deplete the phosphorus more rapidly, because you have less
phosphorus coming into the system to maintain the overlying
water concentration.
So it's inappropriate to look at the focus on
concentration or it's inappropriate to focus on loadings by
themselves, I think you need to consider both sides of the
coin, as it were.
Q Okay. Thank you.
Moving to the next paragraph.
A Yes.
Q There's a statement, second sentence ÄÄ well, maybe
we need to read the first statement.
"Because Water Conservation Area 2A is not a
wetland designed for optimal phosphorus removal, it is
difficult to find all the possible factors controlling
effluent phosphorus concentration. Also, because only a
small part of Water Conservation Area 2A is affected by the
phosphorus-enriched agricultural runoff, it is hard to say
whether the phosphorus concentration at the end of the
affected area has the same relationship as the. . ." and I
don't remember what the reference for Cout stated in this
report is. Is that the phosphorus out?
A That would be the. . .
Q Concentration out.
A That's right.
Q ". . .as the Cout studied in this report."
My question to you really is, do you believe that
only a small part of 2A is affected by phosphorus-enriched
agricultural runoff?
A I guess it all depends on what one defines as
small.
Q Do you consider only what is normally referred to
as the impacted area?
Do you know what I mean by that?
A Yes.
Q Do you consider that the only area that has been
affected by the phosphorus-enriched agricultural runoff?
A Well, it may be that there are other areas that are
impacted, but I'm not aware of it.
Q Well. . .
A I have not seen data from all across Water
Conservation Area 2A that would suggest other areas other
than, say, the sixteen thousand acres that people typically
put forth as the impacted area. I haven't seen any data that
suggests any other areas have been impacted by ag inputs.
Q Okay. That's all I have on that document.
Thank you, Dr. Pollman.
Dr. Pollman, I have handed you a document entitled
"Notes on INTECOL's IV International Wetland Conference."
Can you identify these notes for me?
A Yes, these are notes that I prepared and supplied
to my client subsequent to my attending a meeting in, I
believe, Columbus, Ohio, where there was a special session
held entitled "An Ecological Analysis of the Everglades."

MS. PONZOLI: I'd like this marked as
Pollman's No. 8.

(Document entitled "Privileged and Confidential ÄÄ
Notes on INTECOL's IV International Wetland
Conference Special Session ÄÄ An Ecological
Analysis of the Everglades", by C.D. Pollman, so
marked as Pollman's Exhibit No. 8.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q All right. Just quickly over on Page 3, in regard
to Dr. Vymazal's periphyton and macrophyte study in the
Everglades.
A Now which page was that?
Q Page 3.
A Okay.
A You indicated at the end of your report, on Dr.
Vymazal's presentation, that you needed to do some
theoretical calculations and send them to Dr. Richardson?
A Yes.
Q Did you, in fact, do that?
A No.
Q Any particular reason?
A I just never got around to doing it.
Q Okay. One quick question.
At the bottom of the page on Dr. Craft's
presentation on the effects of the agricultural drainage on
peat accretion and nutrient accumulation in Everglades soils.
A Yes.
Q He indicates three zones for phosphorus
accumulation rates: the high efficiency model, moderate
efficiency and low efficiency.
A Right.
Q I guess I want to ask your opinion on breaking the
phosphorus accumulation rate into those three zones. What is
your opinion in regard to that method of analysis?
A It isn't necessarily the way that I would do it.
Q How would you prefer to do it?
A Well, I guess what I would prefer to see is a
modeling approach that looks at removal more as a continuum
as opposed to three zones.
I think that as far as what is represented here
might be an okay first order analysis.
Q All right.
A But I have a problem using the word high
efficiency, moderate efficiency and low efficiency, because
in my mind it refers to processes operating at different
rates, per se. I mean, the rate coefficient may be the same,
we don't know that, and so the efficiency, per se, may be the
same across those three zones, and really my difficulty is
maybe more of a semantic difficulty than anything else.
Q Okay. That's all I have on this particular
document, Dr. Pollman.
I'd like to hand you a composite exhibit, which
appears to be entitled "C. Pollman ÄÄ Report, reviews,
weekly updates", and ask if you can identify the document?
A Yes, I can identify it.
Q Okay, What is this composite exhibit, Dr. Pollman?
A It consists of two documents that I either prepared
directly or I was involved in the preparation.
The first document is a set of comments that I made
regarding a report that was published by Dr. Richardson and
Dr. Craft at Duke University. That report was entitled "A
Preliminary Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Accumulation and Surface Water Quality in Water Conservation
Areas 2A and 3A of South Florida."
Q Okay.
A The second document is maybe a draft, I don't
recall whether it's a draft or a final document, but it was a
"Summary of Major Inconsistencies in the Everglades SWIM
Plan", that Steve Gherini, from Tetra Tech, and I found,
based upon a fairly cursory review of the document.
Q Okay.
(Document entitled "SFWMD Everglades SWIM Plan, C.
Pollman ÄÄ report, reviews, weekly updates", so
marked as Pollman Exhibit No. 9.)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Let's look at the first report regarding your
assessment of the Phase I "A Preliminary Assessment of
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Accumulation and Surface Water
Quality in Water Conservations Areas 2A and 3A of South
Florida", by Drs. Richardson and Craft.
Of the opinions expressed there, have any of your
opinions changed?
A Well, as far as the first part is concerned,
regarding precipitation chemistry, I believe my comments
still hold.
Q What about the comparison of South Florida Water
Management District target phosphorus concentrations with
bulk precipitation?
I mean, I thought I understood you to reaffirm your
disagreement with using the U.S.G.S. as a basis of an
opinion.
Do you still hold with the opinion as reflected
here?

MR. GREEN: Object to the form.
ANSWER BY DR. POLLMAN: I have problems. . .
MS. PONZOLI: What is the problem, Mr. Green?
MR. GREEN: I'm not sure he said what you said
with regard to U.S.G.S. data.
I just object to the form.
You may answer.
MS. PONZOLI: Would you repeat the question
please?
MR. GREEN: I wasn't trying to confuse
him. . .
MS. PONZOLI: I'm not trying to make this
difficult either.
MR. GREEN: Right.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q I want to know if you still hold to the opinions
that are reflected here, Dr. Pollman; if not, I would like to
know what has changed and why.
A I believe that the concerns that I raised in this
document, regarding precipitation chemistry and its
application in the SWIM Plan or for other uses, is suspect.
Q Okay. So your opinions are the same as reflected
here; is that right? That's what I'm trying to. . .
A Yes.
Q If you say. . .
A As far as the precipitation chemistry is concerned,
I don't believe my opinions have changed.
Q Okay. Is there some way that your opinions have
changed?
A Well, I would really have to spend the time
reading. . .

MR. GREEN: Take as much time as you need.

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Yes, that's fine. I would really rather ÄÄ I think
it would go much faster, because I don't intend to spend a
long time ÄÄ if you say that these are still your opinions,
then I'm moving on.

MS. PONZOLI: Let's take a break while you
read it.
DR. POLLMAN: That will be fine.

(Thereupon, a short recess was had; whereupon, the
following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Dr. Pollman, are you ready?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Do you understand the pending question?
A Yes.
Q All right.
A I guess I'll restate it.
As I understand the question, you're interested to
know if my opinions have changed regarding this document
since it's been produced?
Q Yes, sir.
A And my opinions have not changed.
Q Okay. In regard to the second document, I guess my
question is the same.
A I haven't reviewed it yet.
Q Okay.
A Let me look through it.
Q Okay.
Dr. Pollman, are you ready?
A Yes.
Q Okay. In regards to the report written by Mr.
Gherini and yourself, do your opinions remain the same?
A There are some things in this report that I believe
should be changed, if you will, or I don't agree with at this
particular point.
Q Okay. Where have your opinions changed?
A On Page 3 of the report, last item under Item 5.
Q Okay.
A We talk about ÄÄ and this is something that I
wrote ÄÄ I had a concern when I drafted this document with
what I saw as some inconsistencies between the way nutrient
loads were being represented as coming into the Loxahatchee
and the way the budgets were being calculated.
Q Okay.
A And, in part, my problem really related to a lack
of understanding on my part as to how flows went through the
Loxahatchee at that point.
Q Okay.
A I think the statement is no longer accurate.
Q Okay. I don't believe I introduced a document
regarding the League's entry into the Loxahatchee, where you
asked that specific conductivity should be tested at regular
intervals.
Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q Is it your understanding that that task is being
tested or that that task is being performed?
A I believe that that specific conductance will be
measured at the Sampton Stations that have been agreed upon
between the Department of Justice and the League.
Q Will that answer your questions?
A I would prefer to see a higher spatial resolution.
Q When you say higher spatial resolution, please. . .
A Well, I would like to see more frequent sampling,
in other words, in terms of linear distance along the
transect.
I forget what the distance is that has been agreed
upon, I believe it's one mile or something like that.
Q I carefully avoided participating in. . .
A Whatever the distance is, I'd like to see something
more on the order of, say, a quarter of a mile, something
like that.
Q Because it will be more difficult to establish the
relationship that you had hoped to establish or disestablish?
A I think the relationship will be established one
way or another.
Q Okay.
A But with a finer resolution of analysis I think
we'll be able to get a better idea as to what extent water is
getting into Loxahatchee from S-5A and S-6, actually make
their way into the interior portion of the marsh.
Q Okay.
A So the coarser the resolution the less precisely
the question can be answered.

MR. GREEN: Off the record.

(Thereupon, a discussion was had off record;
whereupon, the following proceedings were held:)

BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q Are there any other areas, Dr. Pollman, where you
would like to clarify or change your opinion?
A On the last page, Item 11.
Q Yes.
A I guess I would like to look at more information
regarding aquifer recharge before I come up with a final
conclusion on this.
Q And that's really all you have to say about that
particular report?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Moving on.

MS. PONZOLI: This will be Pollman No. 10.

(Document entitled "P