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 222 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 -- 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 223 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 224 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 225 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 226 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?