218
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
2 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; )
4 and WEDGWORTH FARMS, )
Petitioners, )
5 V ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
of Florida, et al., )
7 Respondents. )
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;)
8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;)
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
9 Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
V )
10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
11 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
12 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
13 W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
14 Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
V )
15 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
16 of Florida, et al., )
Respondents. )
17
VOLUME II
18 Deposition of Steven M. Davis
19
Taken before Marianne Martini Holmes,
20 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in
and for the State of Florida at large, pursuant to
21 notice of taking deposition filed by the Petitioners
in the above cause.
22 - - -
23 Tuesday, March 3, 1993
319 Clematis Street
24 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
9:06 - 4:59 p.m.
219
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar Cane League,
3 Inc., United States Sugar Corporation, and New Hope
4 South, Inc.:
5 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
6 One Biscayne Tower
7 Suite 3636
8 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
9 Miami, Florida 33131
10 By: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE
11 WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQUIRE
12
13 On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers
14 Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and
15 Wedgworth Farms, Inc.:
16 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
17 123 South Calhoun Street
18 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
19 By: WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQUIRE
220
1 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
2 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
3 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
4 4100 One Centrust Financial Center
5 100 Southeast Second Street
6 Miami, Florida 33131
7 By: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
8
9 On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:
10 Department of Justice
11 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
12 Fifth Floor, Room 5613
13 Washington, D.C. 20004
14 By: STEPHEN G. BARTELL, ESQUIRE
15
16
17 Also Present: W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D.
18 Courtney T. Hackney, Ph.D.
19
221
1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4
5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
6 Steven M. Davis (Continued)
7
By Mr. Kobelinski 222
8
9
10 - - -
11 E X H I B I T S
12 - - -
13
14 NUMBER PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION
15 DAVIS EXHIBIT 3 371 Draft Memorandum dated
July 27, 1989
16
222
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - -
3 Thereupon,
4 Steven M. Davis,
5 being by the undersigned Notary Public previously
6 duly sworn, was further examined and testified as
7 follows:
8 THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Davis, you're
9 still under oath.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 CONTINUED DIRECT (Steven M. Davis)
12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Davis.
14 MR. BARTELL: Mark, before you begin, I
15 just want to mention that I will probably be
16 leaving about an hour or so early today.
17 And just because I should have to leave
18 certainly doesn't mean that you have to end any
19 earlier than you would have planned.
20 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right, that's fine.
21 Thank you.
22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23 Q. Mr. Davis, just a reminder that you're
24 still under oath and we will be following the same
25 procedures we did yesterday. I'll be asking you
223
1 questions. If at any time you don't understand a
2 question, please state so and I'll attempt to
3 rephrase it.
4 If you don't know the answer to a question,
5 please state so. If you don't remember the answer,
6 please tell us what you recall and qualify it in
7 whatever way you'd like, all right?
8 A. All right.
9 Q. Okay. Yesterday you had mentioned in
10 passing that, or I believe you had, that you had
11 changed I believe the reference was to departments in
12 the last year or two years.
13 Perhaps if you could take us through from
14 1985 forward what your duties have been at the
15 District, just briefly.
16 A. In 1985 I was an Environmentalist IV in the
17 Environmental Sciences Division. I directed a group
18 of researchers and continued to do data analysis
19 myself on research in the water conservation areas
20 and Kissimmee River floodplain.
21 Q. Okay. And who was that group of
22 researchers that you were supervising?
23 A. Nancy Urban, Lou Toth. I believe Pamela
24 Reeder was there during that time. I'm, I'm not sure
25 of the chronology of when some of the staff came and
224
1 left.
2 Q. Okay. And I believe you'd mentioned
3 yesterday that around '85 is the time that you had
4 stopped doing your actual field work as opposed to
5 data analysis; is that correct?
6 A. About 1985.
7 Q. All right. Proceeding forward then from
8 that date?
9 A. In May '86 I was promoted to senior
10 environmentalist in the Environmental Sciences
11 Division. I continued my responsibilities
12 supervising research staff on the Kissimmee River and
13 the Everglades. I also became involved in the
14 Everglades symposium and was co-chairman of the
15 Steering Committee.
16 Q. The Everglades symposium, who sponsored
17 that?
18 A. The Water Management District and
19 Everglades National Park.
20 Q. Okay. Had the research staff that you were
21 supervising, had it changed from the preceding year?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Again, I'm not sure of the chronology of
25 when people came and went, but it was essentially the
225
1 same --
2 Q. Group of three?
3 A. -- group of three or four.
4 Q. Okay. Anyone in addition to the three that
5 you'd mentioned that you recall for '86?
6 A. Not that I recall. I'd have -- I haven't
7 really thought out when people came. We had a couple
8 of technicians in the group which I haven't
9 mentioned. I only mentioned the professional staff.
10 Q. That's fine.
11 Any other primary duties that commenced in
12 '86?
13 A. I led an interdisciplinary group that
14 examined the alternatives for a nutrient removal
15 system for the Knight Farm property, came up with a
16 research design, and I was a staff advisor to
17 LOTAC II concerning Everglades nutrient inputs.
18 Q. That would be the Everglades Nutrient
19 Removal Project?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. I was also involved in the Northeast Shark
23 River slough general design memorandum, the Holeyland
24 restoration project and a Kissimmee River tributary
25 floodplain restoration planning project and a small
226
1 exhibit at the South Florida Science Museum.
2 Q. Proceeding forward then?
3 A. In 1989 I became a supervising professional
4 and I had supervisory responsibility for all the
5 staff in Environmental Sciences for a period of about
6 a year, about 22 staff I believe at that time.
7 Q. That would be 22 professionals?
8 A. No, professionals and technicians.
9 Probably about half of those professionals.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. I continued my involvement in the
12 Everglades symposium and my involvement in the
13 planning of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project.
14 Q. Okay. From '86 to '89 essentially your
15 duties had stayed the same?
16 A. (No response).
17 Q. Is that what you described commencing 1986,
18 May of '86?
19 A. The supervisory responsibilities remained
20 the same, but I was involved in several additional
21 planning efforts that I've mentioned in addition to
22 simply supervising research staff.
23 Q. Right.
24 Other than those that you've already
25 mentioned, though, was there anything else between
227
1 '86 and '89?
2 A. Nothing major.
3 Q. Proceeding forward from 1989 then?
4 A. In February 1990 I served as acting
5 assistant division director when the division
6 director Walt Dineen died. We had two acting
7 division directors, myself and Dewey Worth, and I was
8 in charge of the Everglades and Kissimmee River
9 projects and staff and Dewey was in charge of
10 estuaries and other projects.
11 Q. Did that change your supervision of
12 research professionals?
13 A. Actually it cut it in half because we had,
14 I had Dewey working with half the staff, whereas
15 before I was handling the entire staff.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. But I had more administrative
18 responsibilities to balance it that go along with
19 division director.
20 Q. Advancing forward from then?
21 A. I remained as supervising professional
22 since, and January 1992 I transferred to the Planning
23 Department and was in -- or directed the
24 environmental planning activities for what's called
25 the lower division planning which is Lake Okeechobee
228
1 south including the Everglades and lower east coast.
2 Q. Now, the Planning Department, does it
3 conduct research?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Essentially this is -- that's what you
6 mentioned yesterday. A year or so ago you were no
7 longer doing any type of research activities. Is
8 that essentially that cutoff point?
9 A. During the last two, couple of years I had
10 published papers, and that was my research activity,
11 but I wasn't doing any actual field research.
12 Q. Okay. You had stated that after '85,
13 after --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- or about that time you stopped field
16 research, you continued doing data analysis.
17 Has that essentially continued on through
18 January of 1992?
19 A. Yes, data analysis and publication, yes.
20 Q. Okay. And that data analysis would be with
21 regard to the papers that you've published or are in
22 current process of publishing?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Proceeding forward then from the January
25 1992 date?
229
1 A. I'm still the senior professional in the
2 Planning Department.
3 Q. I believe you mentioned yesterday you
4 actually are the supervising professional; is that
5 right?
6 A. Supervising professional. Did I say
7 senior?
8 Yes, supervising professional in the
9 Planning Department.
10 My duties shifted in, it's actually the
11 fall of 1992, about October, even though the decision
12 was made in August, to make my primary responsibility
13 the completion of the book coming out of the
14 Everglades symposium.
15 Q. What are your other duties at this time?
16 A. None as priorities. Minor things come up,
17 but it's my priority.
18 Q. Does the book take that much of your time?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You mentioned yesterday that the St. Lucie
21 Press was publishing the book.
22 Is the book being sponsored by the District
23 as the symposium was?
24 A. And the Park, yes.
25 Q. Who is St. Lucie Park? Where are they --
230
1 excuse me, Publishing? Where are they located?
2 A. Delray Beach.
3 Q. Delray Beach?
4 How were they selected for publisher?
5 A. We had an Editorial Board meeting and
6 reviewed responses of perhaps ten presses to a book
7 proposal we had sent out and included in those
8 responses was St. Lucie Press, and by vote of the
9 Editorial Board chose St. Lucie Press.
10 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with what the
11 ownership of the Press is, St. Lucie Press?
12 A. It's owned by Dennis Buda, B-u-d-a.
13 Q. Do you have a copy of the book proposal by
14 St. Lucie Press?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is the District picking up any of the costs
17 of publication?
18 A. No.
19 Q. What about the Park?
20 A. The Park is possibly going to contribute
21 about $7500 to color illustrations in the book.
22 Q. Okay. The remainder is being fronted by
23 St. Lucie Press?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Yesterday we were discussing
231
1 your opinions as to the causes of cattail expansion
2 in response to a question as to a listing of causes
3 of expansion in addition to nutrients. I believe
4 your response was hydroperiod, fire and disturbance;
5 is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. What is your understanding of hydroperiod?
8 What do you mean by that term?
9 A. I use the term hydroperiod in the broadest
10 sense, meaning hydrologic conditions including the
11 depth, duration of flooding.
12 Q. Do you make any distinctions between
13 hydrologic conditions which are either created due to
14 anthropogenic activities such as the diking off of
15 the water conservation areas and natural hydrologic
16 conditions?
17 A. Well, there are differences.
18 Q. But do they all fit within your term of
19 hydroperiod or is hydroperiod just a description of
20 the natural --
21 A. They would all fit within my term of
22 hydroperiod.
23 Q. Fire, I assume you're just talking about
24 fires in the Everglades.
25 A. That's correct.
232
1 Q. All right. What is meant by disturbance?
2 A. Disturbance would be a change in natural
3 patterns that is not a cyclical event or a long-term
4 trend.
5 Q. Could you give me a couple of examples of
6 what a disturbance would be?
7 A. A severe fire, physical soil disturbance
8 due to levee construction or dredging of a canal, a
9 major hurricane.
10 Q. You'd mentioned a severe fire. However,
11 you'd also listed fire as a separate cause or factor.
12 Is fire such a, let's say, relatively
13 common factor or does it have such an impact that
14 you've listed it separately apart from disturbance?
15 A. I would view fire as a type of disturbance.
16 Q. Okay. What about a severe drought, for
17 instance, a one-in-a-hundred-year drought? Would
18 that be considered a disturbance or is that
19 essentially since it's hydroperiod, it falls under a
20 different factor in your definition?
21 A. That would be a disturbance by that
22 definition.
23 Q. So there can be times when a particular
24 event falls under one or more of the factors
25 resulting in the expansion of cattails; is that
233
1 correct?
2 A. Fire, hydroperiod and disturbance aren't
3 mutually exclusive terms.
4 Q. Would an anthropogenic change in
5 hydroperiod be a disturbance, for instance, the
6 period of time that WCA-3 was kept flooded?
7 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't recall what period of
9 time WCA, that you're referring to when WCA-3 --
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. I'm sorry. I meant to reference 2A.
12 MR. GREEN: Does that resolve the objection
13 to form?
14 MR. NETTLETON: (Shrugged shoulders).
15 THE WITNESS: That would be stretching the
16 definition of disturbance. It would be more a
17 change in hydrology. A disturbance is usually
18 viewed as a discrete event.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Can one event have an impact as to both
21 hydrology and disturbance? For instance, a canal can
22 drain an area, which would that be a disturbance in
23 your viewpoint?
24 A. It could be.
25 Q. Okay. And, likewise, the drainage would
234
1 create an alteration of hydroperiod; is that correct?
2 A. It could.
3 Q. Okay. Are there any instances where
4 nutrients would fall into the disturbance category,
5 introduction of nutrients?
6 A. Would fall into the disturbance category?
7 I don't understand.
8 Q. Well, we had discussed where fire could be
9 a disturbance.
10 Is there any situations where nutrients can
11 be a disturbance?
12 A. Possibly.
13 Q. Okay. Would you be able to think of any
14 examples?
15 MR. NETTLETON: I'll object to the form. I
16 mean, are you asking him for hypothetical
17 examples or actual occurrences?
18 MR. KOBELINSKI: Same type of examples he's
19 been describing all along, counsel.
20 MR. NETTLETON: Like a plane dropping a ton
21 of phosphorus on...
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you swear him in?
23 THE WITNESS: That would be an example.
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Anything other than what your counsel is
235
1 testifying as to?
2 A. Again, I think nutrient additions to a
3 system would not generally fall under the description
4 of a disturbance but a long-term change or
5 directional change.
6 Q. We discussed yesterday that Water
7 Conservation Area 2A was your primary and practically
8 sole area of study with regard to cattails; is that
9 correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Given both your research and the historical
12 review that you have done as to that area, could you
13 take us through what changes have occurred in Water
14 Conservation Area 2A or what is currently Water
15 Conservation Area 2A that would classify as a
16 disturbance, an example of fire or an example of
17 hydroperiod and, finally, the example of nutrients
18 that have resulted in impacts to cattail?
19 Would it be best if we just took those one
20 at a time, would that be easier for you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. Start at the top of your list
23 which is nutrients.
24 What throughout the history of Water
25 Conservation Area 2A nutrient changes have resulted
236
1 in your opinion or had an impact upon the expansion
2 of cattail in that area?
3 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
4 THE WITNESS: Nutrient supplies through the
5 S-10 structures.
6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
7 Q. Prior to the operation of the S-10
8 structures were there any changes in nutrient
9 patterns that had an impact upon expansion of cattail
10 in Water Conservation Area 2A?
11 A. Not that I'm aware of.
12 Q. Okay. Are there any other nutrient-related
13 events which had had an impact upon expansion of
14 cattail in Water Conservation Area 2A?
15 A. Not that I have any direct evidence for.
16 Q. Okay. Would the implementation of the
17 Interim Action Plan have had any impact on Water
18 Conservation Area 2A that you're aware of?
19 A. Very likely.
20 Q. And what was that impact?
21 A. Increasing nutrient loads through the S-10
22 structures.
23 Q. Okay. Does that essentially cover
24 nutrients then?
25 A. Yes.
237
1 Q. Going on to hydroperiod. I recognize that
2 some events, as you said, sort of cross over
3 different areas.
4 What events have created changes or
5 alterations to hydroperiod, be they natural or
6 unnatural, which have resulted in impacts upon the
7 expansion or distribution of cattails within Water
8 Conservation Area 2A?
9 A. As I mentioned yesterday, the completion of
10 construction of Water Conservation Area 2A and its
11 flooding probably allowed the replacement of willow
12 by cattail in that subsidence valley below the
13 Hillsboro Canal.
14 Q. The Hillsboro Canal was dredged prior to
15 the completion of construction of Water Conservation
16 Area 2A, was it not?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. All right. Would the dredging of the
19 Hillsboro Canal be the first alteration in
20 hydroperiod having an impact upon that area?
21 A. Probably.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know when that was?
23 A. Either in the Teens or early Twenties of
24 the Twentieth Century.
25 Q. Okay. What impacts did the Hillsboro Canal
238
1 have on the area that is currently Water Conservation
2 Area 2A? You'd mentioned subsidence in the area
3 approximately a mile south of the S-10 structures.
4 Any other impacts?
5 A. That would be due to local drainage around
6 the canal.
7 Other than that, I don't think it's clearly
8 understood the effects of the original canals.
9 Q. Prior to the construction of the levees
10 around 2A or essentially the completion of the Water
11 Conservation Area did the Hillsboro Canal result in
12 severe drainage of the area with fires in the
13 northern end of Water Conservation Area 2A or what is
14 currently Water Conservation Area 2A?
15 A. As I just said, I don't think it's clearly
16 understood the effects of the Hillsboro Canal before
17 construction of the water conservation areas.
18 Q. Have you reviewed any of the historical
19 accounts by the Corps of Engineers or any of the
20 state agencies as to the impacts of the Hillsboro
21 Canal or the condition of the area that is now Water
22 Conservation Area 2A prior to the construction of the
23 conservation area levees?
24 A. There were major droughts and fires. It's
25 hard to separate the natural causes of these droughts
239
1 and fires from the causes induced by the construction
2 of these canals.
3 Q. Once there was construction of Water
4 Conservation Area 2A then, what impacts did that have
5 on the hydroperiod resulting in impacts upon the
6 cattail distribution and expansion?
7 A. As I just said, raising water levels
8 probably drowned out the willows and allowed
9 replacement by cattail in that subsidence valley.
10 From what we know about Typha domingensis,
11 deeper water would have encouraged that species along
12 with nutrient enrichment.
13 Q. Exactly when did that cattail become
14 established in the area that was formerly willow
15 approximately a mile south of Water Conservation
16 Area 2A?
17 A. I don't know the exact date.
18 Q. Was it a steady overtaking or change from
19 one to the other?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Have you done any research or done anything
22 to establish whether or not nutrients did have an
23 impact upon the change from willow to cattail?
24 A. As I stated yesterday, what we now know
25 about the nutrient status of cattail, it would be
240
1 unlikely it would take over without an increase in
2 nutrient supply.
3 Q. Don't cattail move into a disturbed area
4 even without a nutrient supply?
5 A. That's questionable. It may well be that
6 the disturbances in one way or another increase the
7 nutrient supply temporarily.
8 Q. All right. Then perhaps let me change my
9 question.
10 Have any research or historical review that
11 you've done determined that nutrients from
12 agricultural runoff resulted in the establishment of
13 the cattail as opposed to -- or the changeover from
14 willow to cattail after the construction of 2A?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what research and data would that be?
17 A. That would be that cattail's generally
18 viewed as an early colonizer of a disturbed site but
19 generally does not persist over the time frame of
20 decades in a site without -- in areas that do not
21 have elevated nutrient supply.
22 Q. Okay. So if I understand your testimony,
23 you're saying that elevated nutrient supply from
24 agricultural runoff would have allowed the cattail
25 after it replaced the willow to remain there; is that
241
1 correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
4 nutrients from agricultural runoff resulted in the
5 establishment of the cattail site in that area in the
6 first place?
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. Okay. With regard to the Water
9 Conservation Area 2A, we discussed yesterday there is
10 a canal essentially that runs the interior of the
11 conservation area alongside the 10 structures; is
12 that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Was that canal there prior to the
15 construction of the project or Water Conservation
16 Area 2A?
17 A. Not to my knowledge.
18 Q. So the construction of the levee and that
19 interior canal itself right by the area south of the
20 10 structures would have been an example of a
21 disturbance, would it?
22 A. I'm unclear on that.
23 There was, before construction of Water
24 Conservation Area 2A there was the Hillsboro Canal in
25 a much shallower form than exists now.
242
1 I don't know if the canal to the south of
2 the levee was part of that canal or the canal north
3 of the levee. I'm assuming the canal north of the
4 levee, but I'm not clear on that.
5 Q. If the canal north of the levee was the
6 site of the original Hillsboro Canal and the canal
7 south of the levee within Water Conservation Area 2
8 was constructed as part of the project, would that be
9 considered a disturbance in your opinion?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Do you know by what date the cattail
12 stand just south of the S-10 structures, what we've
13 referred to as essentially that one mile area, became
14 established?
15 A. I don't recall the particular year. I've
16 looked at aerial photography from the about the mid
17 Sixties that showed that stand.
18 Q. Okay. How long would a disturbance from,
19 for instance, the dredging of that interior canal,
20 construction of the dike, the disturbance of the
21 soil, how long would that result in an impact on the
22 spread or establishment of cattails?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Would the disturbance of the soils in that
25 fashion, the construction of a canal, result in a
243
1 release of nutrients from the peat?
2 A. Possibly.
3 Q. How long would that effect last?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Any other changes in hydroperiod after this
6 initial establishment of the Water Conservation Area
7 and the flooding that you referred to?
8 A. The water regulation schedule for Water
9 Conservation Area 2A was changed in roughly 1980 to a
10 schedule with lower water levels.
11 Q. What impact did that have upon the
12 establishment or expansion of cattails?
13 A. There's no way to be certain.
14 I would, I would think given the deep water
15 affinity for Typha domingensis, that it would have
16 decreased the competitive ability of that species.
17 Q. So that in your opinion would have had a
18 negative impact upon the establishment or expansion
19 of cattails?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. If I understand you correctly, it's your
22 opinion then that had the original water regulation
23 schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A, the one
24 prior to the change about 1980, had remained in
25 effect, there would have been a greater degree in
244
1 density of cattails throughout Water Conservation
2 Area 2A.
3 A. That's only hypothetical, but based on what
4 we know about Typha domingensis, that's believable.
5 Q. Well, what is your opinion as to that based
6 upon your studies and research?
7 A. My opinion would be that that would have a
8 negative effect on Typha domingensis.
9 Q. What would have a negative effect?
10 A. The lowered water regulation schedule.
11 Q. I'm asking had there never been a change in
12 the water regulation schedule --
13 A. Oh.
14 Q. -- and that prior to 1980 higher water
15 regulation schedule remained in effect, what is your
16 opinion based upon your research and studies as to
17 the impact that would have had on the distribution
18 and spread of cattail throughout Water Conservation
19 Area 2A?
20 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
21 THE WITNESS: I think that would continue
22 to encourage the spread of cattail.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. Was it your opinion then that we would have
25 greater cattail under that scenario than we do today?
245
1 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Any other changes in hydroperiod that have
5 impacted the spread or distribution of Water
6 Conservation Area 2A?
7 A. The major drought during 1989 to 1990.
8 Q. What effect did the drought have of 1989
9 and 1990?
10 A. It visibly killed back the above-ground
11 portions of cattails throughout the area.
12 Q. Did it kill off any of the below-ground
13 portions of cattails?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. How would you establish that?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Would the lack of regrowth of cattail in
18 that prior cattail-dominated area for a year after
19 water levels were restored be indicative of a killing
20 off of the below-ground portion of the cattail plant?
21 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that
22 question, please?
23 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
24 was read by the reporter.)
25 THE WITNESS: Probably.
246
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. Did you experience that in any of your
3 study sites in the Urban cattail study?
4 A. I'd have to review the data -- or the
5 report to look if there's any specific instance in a
6 particular year at a particular site where we saw
7 that.
8 Q. Okay. Would the killing off of both the
9 above-ground and below-ground portions of the cattail
10 plant be considered a long-term impact, be it as a
11 result of fire or hydroperiod or any other reason?
12 A. Not necessarily.
13 Q. In what instance would it not be?
14 A. Cattail has a wind-blown seed and can very
15 rapidly recolonize a site through seed distribution.
16 Q. Any other instances?
17 A. Not that I can think of.
18 Q. How quickly would that seed reestablishment
19 result?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Okay. Would seed reestablishment be
22 greater in a high nutrient soil concentration or low
23 nutrient soil concentration site?
24 A. Based on my observations, I'd have to say
25 high phosphorus concentration sites.
247
1 Q. In fact, cattail seeds are born by both
2 wind and water; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Okay. Do cattail seeds always establish
5 wherever they happen to land?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. What factors are necessary for a cattail
8 seed to establish and commence growing a plant?
9 A. The major factor would be adequate
10 moisture.
11 Q. Okay. Anything else?
12 A. A source of nutrients.
13 Q. Okay. Anything else?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. What would you consider adequate moisture?
16 A. Anything from moist soil to flooded
17 conditions.
18 Q. Can a seed establish in flooded, a cattail
19 seed establish in flooded conditions?
20 A. I've observed that, yes.
21 Q. How deep? How deep a flooded condition can
22 you have an establishment of cattail plant through
23 seed?
24 A. I don't know for sure.
25 Q. Okay. Is there a preferable water depth
248
1 for the establishment of a cattail seed?
2 A. Not that I'm aware of.
3 Q. Is there a preferable depth for the
4 establishment of a sawgrass seed?
5 A. To my knowledge, sawgrass seed rarely
6 germinates in deep water conditions.
7 Q. What is a deep water condition?
8 A. Probably someplace over a foot.
9 Q. All right. How much, what level nutrients
10 or what availability of nutrients would be necessary
11 for the establishment of a cattail plant?
12 A. I don't know the specific availability.
13 Q. Have any of your studies considered what
14 nutrients are necessary to establish a cattail plant?
15 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
16 THE WITNESS: They'd indicate that
17 phosphorus would be the limiting nutrient in the
18 water conservation areas.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. What level of phosphorus or phosphorus
21 availability would you require to have a cattail seed
22 establish as a plant?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Okay. Have any of your studies indicated
25 what that level would be?
249
1 A. No.
2 Q. How would the control of phosphorus
3 concentrations in surface water stop the
4 establishment of a cattail seed from growing or
5 establishing as a plant?
6 A. Simply inadequate nutrition for growth.
7 Q. Okay. And what would be that inadequate...
8 A. I don't know that level.
9 Q. Did any of your studies show a level at
10 which cattail seeds would not establish?
11 A. On personal observations after the, after
12 the drought indicated that cattail seedlings were not
13 establishing themselves throughout most of the water
14 conservation areas, only in the areas below the
15 structures with major nutrient inputs.
16 Q. Is there a particular phosphorus
17 concentration at which you will no longer see an
18 expansion of cattail?
19 A. All I can say is that we do not see that
20 expansion under what we consider to be background
21 phosphorus concentrations in the interior portions of
22 the water conservation areas or the park.
23 Q. All right. In your studies how can you
24 determine whether or not a cattail plant is the
25 result of a being established from a cattail seed as
250
1 opposed to a vegetative propagule?
2 A. By digging up the plant.
3 Q. And have you done that?
4 A. No.
5 There's one other way you could tell.
6 Simply if there's a single cattail seedling coming up
7 with no other cattails in the immediate vicinity, I
8 think it's a safe assumption that it's a seedling.
9 Q. What is a propagule?
10 A. Propagule is a seed that's, as far as I
11 know, usually water-distributed. I guess it could be
12 extended to air-distributed.
13 I may have misanswered your question. If
14 you could repeat that question before what is a
15 propagule.
16 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
17 was read by the reporter.)
18 THE WITNESS: I misanswered your question.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. All right. What would the accurate
21 response be?
22 A. To my knowledge, the definition of a
23 propagule is a seed that's distributed by primarily
24 water, perhaps by wind.
25 So a propagule is different from vegetative
251
1 reproduction.
2 Q. All right. Vegetative reproduction would
3 be from rhizomes?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. How long would a rhizome survive?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. In a drought condition how long can a
8 rhizome survive?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. What impacts would dry-out of an area have
11 on a rhizome?
12 A. If it was dry long enough, it could
13 potentially kill the rhizome.
14 Q. How long would long enough be?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Okay. What impact would a dry-down have
17 upon a cattail plant?
18 A. If it was dry long enough, it could kill
19 the plant.
20 Q. Okay. How dry is dry?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. How long is long?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, going back for
25 a moment to the change in regulation schedules
252
1 pre '80 and post '80, you'd offered the opinion that
2 had there not been a change, we would have seen a
3 greater density or spread of cattail as a result of
4 the higher water levels, is that accurate?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Would further lowering in the water
7 regulation schedules result in a further decrease in
8 the density and spread of cattails?
9 A. I would expect that, yes.
10 Q. How much per foot?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Have any of your studies shown what the
13 change in density and distribution would be as a
14 result of a one-foot change?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Have you examined the pre-project
17 hydroperiod simulation by the natural system model
18 developed by the District?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are you basing any of your opinions upon
21 that natural system model hydroperiod?
22 A. Opinions about what?
23 Q. Any of these opinions as to the causes of
24 distribution and expansion of cattails in Water
25 Conservation Area 2A.
253
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And how does the model simulation, what
3 impact or effect does that model simulation have upon
4 your opinions?
5 A. The model indicates a wide range of
6 hydrologic conditions throughout the Everglades under
7 which we do not have evidence for expanding cattail
8 stands.
9 Q. With regard to the area that is now Water
10 Conservation Area 2A, how did the hydroperiods
11 reflected in the natural system model simulation
12 compare to the existing hydroperiods for the area?
13 A. I'd have to review that data.
14 Q. Have you ever reviewed that in coming to
15 your opinion?
16 A. My recollection is that the water would be
17 a little deeper there, but not much deeper than it is
18 now.
19 Q. Would that be true throughout the entire
20 conservation area?
21 A. No. As I mentioned yesterday, the
22 northwestern portion of Area 2A is much drier because
23 there's no water source to it and the extreme
24 southern end is pooled water and is probably deeper.
25 Q. The southern end is probably deeper than
254
1 the natural hydroperiod?
2 A. Probably.
3 Q. And the northern end then would be drier
4 than the natural hydroperiod?
5 A. It's not that simple a relationship. Even
6 though the southern end is deeper, it's highly
7 fluctuating up and down. So it's not comparable.
8 It's not an easy comparison to make just in terms of
9 water depth.
10 Q. Is there any portion, to your knowledge, of
11 Water Conservation Area 2A that does essentially
12 match the natural hydroperiod?
13 MR. NETTLETON: Object. Asked and
14 answered.
15 THE WITNESS: I would have to review the
16 model before I could answer that.
17 Can we take a quick break?
18 MR. KOBELINSKI: We certainly can.
19 (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
20 10:06 a.m., until 10:15 a.m.)
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. I believe your last mention of hydroperiod
23 impacts on cattail density and distribution was the
24 major drought in 1989-1990.
25 Has there been any subsequent change in
255
1 hydroperiod which has resulted in an impact upon
2 cattail spread or distribution in Water Conservation
3 Area 2A?
4 A. Well, at the end of the drought the water
5 has returned.
6 Q. Okay. Anything subsequent to that?
7 A. Not to my knowledge.
8 Q. And what would the return of water after
9 the drought do with regard to cattail densities and
10 distribution? Did it increase or decrease?
11 A. The cattails came back in areas near the
12 structures of nutrient input.
13 Q. And I believe you'd mentioned earlier that
14 you have to actually look at the data to determine if
15 that was true of all sites that you studied; is that
16 correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. The next factor would be fire. And by
19 next, I put them in no particular order, just the
20 next one I'm going to discuss with you.
21 What impacts has fire had on Water
22 Conservation Area 2A resulting in a change in density
23 or distribution of cattails in that area or what is
24 currently that area?
25 A. A large fire occurred in the north end of
256
1 Water Conservation Area 2A I believe in the late
2 Eighties. I'd have to review the data. Much of the
3 area that was burned was colonized by cattail after
4 the burn.
5 There have been numerous other small fires
6 in Conservation Area 2A -- or not so small, I should
7 say -- where cattail did not come in after the burn.
8 Q. Okay. With regard to the fire in northern
9 2A in the late Eighties that you referred to, the
10 colonization by cattail, does that cattail area still
11 remain today or exist today?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Did that area exist in 1991 when you did
14 your vegetative helicopter mapping?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What document does that cattail vegetative
17 mapping -- ah, found it.
18 Drawing your attention to what's been
19 marked as Exhibit 2, Bates page or number 1084713 --
20 MR. GREEN: What page?
21 MR. KOBELINSKI: 1084713.
22 MR. GREEN: Thank you.
23 MR. KOBELINSKI: You're welcome, sir.
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. -- is that cattail site indicated on this
257
1 map?
2 A. The burn site?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. It would be included within the stippled
5 area at the north end of Water Conservation Area 2A.
6 Q. Up by the S-6?
7 A. No, mostly between S-10C and S-10A.
8 Q. Over what area was that fire? How large
9 was the area affected by the fire?
10 A. I don't recall.
11 Q. How far south of the S-10C and S-10A
12 structures did the fire...
13 A. I don't know for certain. Nancy Urban has
14 the data on that. I haven't reviewed that for -- I'd
15 have to take another look at that.
16 Q. With regard to the Urban data on that, is
17 that just data that she collected as part of the
18 Urban, Davis cattail study?
19 A. It would just be an observation on her part
20 of the extent of the fire since she was working out
21 there so frequently during that period.
22 Q. Okay. But she didn't attempt to map it in
23 any sense of the term.
24 A. I don't know if she did or not.
25 Q. Okay. At that time were you still
258
1 supervising Ms. Urban?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Was she assigned with attempting to
4 delineate the boundaries of the fire or the
5 fire-impacted area?
6 A. I didn't supervise Nancy at that level of
7 supervision. I left decisions on her field study up
8 to her.
9 Q. Was this fire over a one-acre area, over a
10 two-acre area?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Over a hundred acres?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Two hundred acres?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Three hundred acres?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can we go hot and cold on this one? Strike
19 that.
20 Was it in excess of a thousand acres?
21 A. To my knowledge it was. Probably closer to
22 2,000.
23 Q. Okay. I started too low.
24 What impact did that fire have upon the
25 distribution and spread of cattails in Water
259
1 Conservation Area 2A?
2 A. It was in an area that already had the
3 scattering or peppering effect of cattails, although
4 after the fire the cattails came in in much greater
5 density.
6 Q. And that would have been an impact
7 resulting from the fire?
8 A. The results of the Urban, Davis and Aumen
9 study would indicate that was the result of the
10 combination of the fire and nutrient enrichment.
11 Q. Do all fires result in an impact upon
12 cattail expansion or distribution?
13 A. No.
14 Q. What distinctions would there be or what
15 type of fire would result in an expansion or
16 distribution of cattail?
17 A. A very severe peat-burning fire that would
18 destroy the meristem and rhizome system of the
19 sawgrass or a fire in a nutrient-enriched area.
20 Q. Would all fires in a nutrient-enriched area
21 have an impact upon cattail densities?
22 A. I don't have direct knowledge of that.
23 Q. All right. What type of fire within a high
24 nutrient area or nutrient impact area would have an
25 effect on cattail spread and distribution?
260
1 A. All I can comment on is this fire that
2 we've been referring to in the north end of
3 Conservation Area 2A.
4 Q. Given the areal extent of it, approximately
5 2,000 acres, was that a peat-burning fire?
6 A. Not to my knowledge.
7 Q. Did it kill any of the rhizomes that you've
8 referred to?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Would it have made a difference in your
11 study as to whether or not that was a peat-burning
12 fire or not?
13 A. It could have.
14 Q. How so?
15 A. As I mentioned before, a peat-burning fire
16 would be more damaging to the sawgrass.
17 Q. Would it also be damaging to cattail?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In what way?
20 A. It would probably kill the cattail rhizome
21 systems as well as the sawgrass.
22 Q. In a background site what impact would a
23 peat-burning fire have with regard to cattail
24 distribution or density?
25 A. It is likely that cattail would colonize a
261
1 site after a peat-burning fire in a background
2 location.
3 Q. Would cattails colonize a site if it was
4 not a peat-burning fire? Would you call that a
5 surficial fire or is there a distinction or another
6 term you use for that other than one's peat-burning
7 and one is not?
8 A. There's no particular terminology for it.
9 Q. For the sake of the deposition, I'll refer
10 to a nonpeat-burning fire as a surficial fire, okay?
11 Would you have cattail colonization in a
12 background site where there was just a surficial
13 fire?
14 A. Probably not usually.
15 Q. Why not?
16 A. Because sawgrass is a species adapted to
17 fire and fire affects sawgrass, a surficial fire
18 affects sawgrass by increasing its density rather
19 than decreasing it in its regrowth after the fire.
20 Q. What is it about a peat-burning fire that
21 results in the establishment or colonization of
22 cattail even in a background site?
23 A. It would be the killing of the sawgrass
24 plants.
25 Q. Okay. Anything else?
262
1 A. As I mentioned before, many types of
2 disturbances, and probably fire would be accompanied
3 by a brief availability of nutrients.
4 Q. How long would that availability of
5 nutrients exist?
6 A. Very limited data on that would indicate a
7 few weeks.
8 Q. All right. How long do cattail exist in a
9 peat-burning burnt-out background area?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. Does a peat-burning fire also result
12 in a deeper water level?
13 A. It could, yes.
14 Q. Would the hydroperiod impact and fire
15 impact then overlap in that instance?
16 A. Apparently over in -- only in
17 nutrient-enriched areas.
18 Q. Why so?
19 A. Because over the 5,000-year history of the
20 Everglades soil cores indicate peat-burning fires
21 over the entire area without evidence for domination
22 by cattail following the burn.
23 Q. So in some instances where you have a
24 peat-burning fire cattail will not colonize.
25 A. That would be correct.
263
1 Q. In what instances?
2 A. Probably under low-nutrient conditions from
3 external nutrient supply.
4 Q. I thought you had stated, though, that a
5 peat-burning fire does result in a nutrient release.
6 A. Yes, and you would expect after such a fire
7 even in a low-nutrient site to get -- I would not be
8 surprised, let's say, to see a regrowth of cattail,
9 but that has to be temporary and cattail has to be
10 viewed there as an early colonizer, otherwise the
11 entire Everglades would be cattail.
12 Q. Okay. Given its role as an early
13 colonizer, do you ever have in a background site a
14 peat-burning fire without the cattail coming in as an
15 early colonizer?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What instances would you have that?
18 A. The instances I can think of would be in
19 Conservation Area 3A following severe fires in the
20 early to mid Seventies.
21 Q. And there was no cattail establishment
22 after those fires?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Do you have any theory as to why
25 there was not?
264
1 A. Only that these were low-nutrient, would be
2 considered low-nutrient areas removed from any pump
3 stations or structural inputs.
4 Q. You made reference a few moments ago to
5 core samples showing that there were fires throughout
6 the Everglades but that cattail was not the dominant
7 species in the Everglades.
8 Were these core samples that you took?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Who took these core samples that you're
11 referring to?
12 A. A number of individuals. Primarily Pat
13 Gleason and some of his coworkers.
14 Q. In what areas were these core samples
15 taken?
16 A. To my knowledge, these cores have been
17 collected throughout the Everglades system from
18 Conservation Area 1 down through the park over the
19 last couple of decades.
20 Q. Have you ever reviewed the data from these
21 core samples?
22 A. No.
23 Q. With regard to the major peat fires I
24 believe you said in the Seventies in the northern
25 portion of Water Conservation Area 3A; is that right?
265
1 A. As I recall, they were mostly north of
2 Alligator Alley, yes.
3 Q. After the fire do you know what the
4 hydrologic conditions were at those sites?
5 A. I'd have to review the data.
6 Q. Do you know whether there was sufficient
7 water for the cattails to establish?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Would that be a factor that could have
10 impacted the establishment of cattail in that area?
11 A. Could have.
12 Q. You also made the comment that the water
13 level depth in a peat fire only has an impact in a
14 high-nutrient site, not in a low-nutrient site.
15 Why is that?
16 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. Or am I misunderstanding your prior
19 statement?
20 A. Two reasons. One is the reason I just
21 stated, that there was chronic fire history
22 throughout the 5,000 years of the Everglades without
23 major establishment of large cattail stands, and the
24 second reason is that our research on cattail
25 nutrient status would indicate that the species would
266
1 not be competitive in low-nutrient situations even
2 under deeper water conditions.
3 Q. And what study are you referring to there?
4 A. (Witness reviewing Exhibit 2).
5 The last two references on Exhibit 1084703,
6 Davis, 1989 and Davis, 1991.
7 Q. That would be of Exhibit --
8 MR. NETTLETON: 2.
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. -- 2?
11 A. 2.
12 Q. In these two studies did you have sites
13 located in varying hydroperiods with background
14 sites?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How do you draw that opinion or conclusion
17 from these studies then?
18 A. The growth and nutrient retention
19 characteristics of sawgrass and cattail as a result
20 of these studies indicated cattail was a species that
21 would only be competitive under high levels of
22 nutrient availability, while sawgrass would only be
23 competitive under low levels.
24 Q. Yet, you have stated that after a
25 peat-burning fire even in a background site cattail
267
1 will establish as an early colonizer.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And that's only with several weeks of
4 nutrient impact from the fire or disturbance.
5 A. That could happen, yes.
6 Q. You referred to cattails as an early
7 colonizer.
8 How long does the cattail stay in that
9 background site in that fire hole or the depression
10 created by the fire?
11 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Asked and
12 answered.
13 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Have your studies shown that cattail
16 essentially builds up peat faster than sawgrass?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Sawgrass builds up peat faster than
19 cattail?
20 A. My studies have not measured peat buildup
21 by either species.
22 Q. Okay. What role does cattail have --
23 perhaps this isn't, not a scientist -- but does
24 cattail have a role in the Everglades ecosystem as an
25 early colonizer in a post peat fire burn hole?
268
1 A. Probably.
2 Q. What would that role be?
3 A. It probably has a beneficial effect on
4 habitat diversity and creating more of a patchiness
5 in the natural system.
6 Q. With regard to a surficial fire in a
7 background site -- let me withdraw that for a moment.
8 Sawgrass in a background site, are they
9 just one monospecific stand continuous with no breaks
10 whatsoever?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you have breaks between the clumps of
13 sawgrass?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Open areas?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Is there a nutrient release as a
18 result of a surficial fire?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do cattail establish themselves in
21 these openings between the sawgrass after a surficial
22 fire in a background site?
23 A. I don't believe I've seen that documented.
24 Q. Is that because without a peat burn,
25 there's no difference in water level or an increase
269
1 in the depth of water level?
2 A. That would be difficult to say.
3 Q. Well, what would you attribute the
4 difference in reaction between a peat burn site and a
5 surficial site in a background area? Why do you have
6 establishment of cattail in one and not the other?
7 A. I can immediately think of three factors
8 that would all be compounding one another. One would
9 be the increased depth, one would be increased
10 nutrient availability, simply more peat burned and
11 therefore would release more nutrients, and the third
12 would be the death of the existing vegetation if it
13 were sawgrass which would open a niche for the
14 encroachment by cattail.
15 Q. There already exists, though, niches
16 between the sawgrass stands; is that correct? We
17 discussed that. You have open areas.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. Have you ever tested to determine
20 what the difference in nutrient release from a
21 surficial fire and a peat-burning fire is?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you ever tested to see what the
24 difference in water depth is between the two?
25 A. No.
270
1 Q. With regard to the Gleason study of soil
2 cores, how did they establish that there was no
3 cattail or cattail did not exist where the site was
4 that the core was taken?
5 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
6 THE WITNESS: As I understand it, the
7 presence of cat- -- the long-term presence of a
8 cattail stand would be indicated both in the
9 structure of the peat and in pollen within the
10 peat.
11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12 Q. Were both studied with regard to the
13 Gleason study you referred to?
14 A. As I understand it, they were, yes.
15 Q. I may have asked this already, but how long
16 do, in a background site where there's a peat burn,
17 how long do cattails last after they're established?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Would that depend upon the depth of the
20 peat burn?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Have you studied any cattails outside of
23 the Everglades?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Does the natural system model that the
271
1 District has developed show that the hydroperiod for
2 the natural Everglades prior to the project or
3 anthropogenic impact was vastly different than the
4 hydroperiod of the Everglades today or the remainder
5 of the Everglades that we have today?
6 A. It varies from place to place in the
7 Everglades, but in general the system was wetter
8 historically.
9 Q. And have you considered how changes in
10 hydroperiod would have impacted the pre-anthropogenic
11 impact distribution of cattail?
12 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat that
13 question, please?
14 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
15 was read by the reporter.)
16 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
17 question.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. Well, I'll withdraw the question.
20 MR. NETTLETON: I don't have to object to
21 its form then.
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: You blew your chance.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. With regard to the establishment of a
25 cattail plant from seed, is that correct that that
272
1 would be referred to as germination; is that right or
2 no?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Okay. Does a cattail seed itself carry any
5 type of supply of nutrients for the germination of
6 the seed once it hits the soil or substrate?
7 A. Probably some.
8 Q. Okay. Is it sufficient for the initial
9 germination or establishment of the plant?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. With regard to the 2,000-acre,
12 approximately 2,000-acre fire that occurred in Water
13 Conservation Area 2A in the late Eighties, were there
14 any areas where there was a peat-burning fire as
15 compared to a surficial fire such that they could be
16 studied, the differences in reaction?
17 A. To my knowledge, none of that fire was a
18 peat burn.
19 Q. Throughout the entire 2,000 acres?
20 A. To my knowledge.
21 Q. Did anyone study that, go out and check?
22 A. I would have to rely on Nancy Urban's
23 observations for that.
24 Q. Did you ever have a discussion with Nancy
25 Urban as to whether or not there was any peat
273
1 burning?
2 A. Her descriptions of the fire to me would
3 not indicate a peat burn.
4 Peat burn is very obvious, keeps smoking
5 for days after the surficial fire goes out.
6 Q. Was Ms. Urban able to actually get into the
7 fire area immediately after the fire?
8 A. As I recall, she was out there within a few
9 days after. I'd have to check her notes on that.
10 Q. Did Ms. Urban have difficulty getting to
11 most of the sites in dry conditions?
12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Were the conditions dry when the peat fire
16 of 2,000 acres occurred?
17 A. Let me qualify that. She had difficulty
18 getting to the site by airboat during dry conditions.
19 Q. How would she get out there otherwise?
20 A. Helicopter.
21 Q. How often did she use a helicopter?
22 A. Generally to collect water samples which
23 she collected every two weeks during periods when she
24 could not get around by airboat.
25 Q. If Ms. Urban was not out there within days
274
1 of the fire, how would you go about establishing
2 whether or not there was a peat fire or surficial
3 fire?
4 A. I'd check with either the Florida Game and
5 Freshwater Fish Commission or the Florida Forest
6 Service.
7 Q. Why would they know?
8 A. They are the agencies that keep track of
9 Everglades fires in terms of size and intensity.
10 Q. That's the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
11 Commission and?
12 A. Florida Forest Service.
13 Q. If you're not able to review a site until
14 after the fire's out and sufficient water's returned
15 for you to gain access, how would you, is there
16 visually some way to tell whether it was a surficial
17 or a peat-burning fire?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Have you visually ever seen that out in the
20 Everglades?
21 A. After reflooding?
22 Q. After reflooding so you could gain access
23 to the site that was burned.
24 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question
25 again?
275
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. I'll just restate it.
3 After a site's reflooded after a fire, have
4 you ever in your experience out in the Everglades
5 been able to just visually be able to tell whether
6 there was a peat-burning fire there or a surficial
7 fire?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Would a fire have a greater impact upon a
10 sawgrass that was growing in a tussock growth pattern
11 as opposed to a regular stand of sawgrass?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Would you anticipate it would?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Well, in a tussock growth pattern is there
16 a greater portion of the root structure exposed above
17 ground?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Would the burning of this greater portion
20 of the root structure result in a greater impact to
21 the plant?
22 A. I'm not certain that that burning would
23 occur in tussock growth.
24 Q. Why is that?
25 A. To my knowledge, the intensity of a marsh
276
1 fire is, unless there's a peat burn, is greatest at
2 the level of the foliage a few feet off the ground,
3 not right within the first foot of the ground where
4 the tussocks would be. And I do not know the
5 susceptibility of the root and rhizome systems in a
6 tussock to burning. I don't know the protection that
7 the tussock provides the roots within it. There's
8 just a lot of factors I don't know.
9 Q. After the drought years in '89 and '90 when
10 water was reintroduced to the area in Water
11 Conservation Area 2A, would that have resulted in any
12 type of a surge of nutrients?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why?
15 A. Well, for two reasons. One, there was
16 reduced resistance to water flow from the structures
17 across the marsh because of the burn and, two, there
18 would be some regeneration of phosphorus in the
19 burned material.
20 Q. Was there any oxidation of the peat soils
21 in Water Conservation Area 2A as a result of the
22 '89-'90 long drought?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Did Ms. Urban ever remeasure her water
25 depths after the drought to determine whether or not
277
1 the ground level had decreased at all?
2 A. I'd have to check with her on her notes on
3 that.
4 Q. Could there have been any compaction or
5 subsidence of the soils at the study sites as a
6 result of the long drought, the '89-'90 drought?
7 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
8 THE WITNESS: I would doubt if it would be
9 measurable, and I think there could be
10 offsetting factors where any oxidation that
11 might have occurred might be balanced by the
12 compaction of the sediments in the water column
13 which would actually increase the soil level.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. At what sites did you have the flowing
16 sediments in the water column?
17 A. I didn't say flowing sediments.
18 Q. Okay. At what sites did you have sediments
19 in the water column that would result in a
20 countervailing factor as compared to subsidence or...
21 A. At any site there is a matrix of detritus
22 above the soil surface in the water column. It is a
23 flocculant texture at enriched sites. But even in
24 background sites there's a matrix of detritus in
25 various stages of decomposition which would be
278
1 consolidated on the marsh floor with the drought.
2 Q. Would any of that have been burnt off as a
3 result of the fire?
4 A. Some of it could have been.
5 Q. Is it possible that the drought between
6 subsidence, oxidation and the like resulted in a
7 decrease in the or a drop in the level of the
8 substrate surface --
9 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. -- at the study sites?
12 A. As I said, I'd be very surprised if it was
13 measurable.
14 Q. Did you do any testing to determine whether
15 there was a measurable difference in depth?
16 A. As I said, I'd have to look at Nancy
17 Urban's notes to see if she did that.
18 Q. Do you recall if you instructed her to do
19 so?
20 A. No, I do not.
21 Q. Any other fire impacts in Water
22 Conservation Area 2A that have resulted in a change
23 in density or distribution of cattail?
24 A. Not that I'm aware of recently.
25 Q. Disturbance.
279
1 What disturbance events are you aware of
2 that have occurred in Water Conservation Area 2A or
3 the area that is currently known as Water
4 Conservation Area 2A that would have impacted the
5 spread and density of cattails?
6 A. We've discussed fire and drought. Both
7 could be viewed as a disturbance also.
8 I might go back and add one hydrology
9 effect, it would be more of a hydrology effect than
10 disturbance, and that is when the area was kept under
11 the deep water hydrologic regime before 1980 there
12 was a drowning of tree islands, and cattails came in
13 in this situation in small patches.
14 Q. That would have been during what period?
15 A. That would have been during the Sixties.
16 Q. Did the flooding during the Sixties and
17 Seventies have any impact upon the sawgrass marsh?
18 A. As I said yesterday, it resulted in a
19 conversion of some sawgrass areas to deeper water
20 slough communities and created a tussock growth
21 response of sawgrass in deeper water areas, a
22 thinning.
23 Q. Is sawgrass relatively resilient to changes
24 in hydroperiod?
25 A. That would depend on the situation.
280
1 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the
2 flooding that you've referred to in the Sixties and
3 Seventies, was that a gradual draw-up of the water
4 level or was that a rapid filling of the water
5 conservation area with water?
6 A. I'd have to look at the water records, but
7 it was initiation of a water regulation schedule that
8 involved deep water conditions during most times.
9 How fast it filled up would depend on rainfall. I'd
10 have to look at the records for that.
11 Q. Would the degree or the amount of time it
12 took to raise levels of Water Conservation Area 2A
13 have an impact upon the sawgrass community therein?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Going back to disturbance, what disturbance
16 events are you aware of that have had an impact upon
17 the spread and distribution of cattails within Water
18 Conservation Area 2A?
19 A. The only other one I can think of in what
20 we've discussed would be just the physical impact of
21 levee and canal construction at the construction
22 site.
23 (Discussion held off the record.)
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Are you familiar at all with the District's
281
1 use of herbicides within Water Conservation Area 2A?
2 A. Only that they periodically spray canals
3 for water hyacinths.
4 Q. Do you know whether or not that spraying
5 has any impact upon the cattail distribution and
6 expansion?
7 A. I don't know how it would other than on the
8 canal banks that were sprayed.
9 Q. How was the spraying taking place?
10 A. To my knowledge, it's usually by airboat.
11 Q. How would spraying along the canal banks
12 have an impact upon the distribution and spread of
13 cattails?
14 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Asked and
15 answered.
16 THE WITNESS: If it were to kill other
17 species of vegetation along the canal bank,
18 cattail might come in, it might encourage
19 cattail to come in.
20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21 Q. Have you done any studies to determine
22 whether or not that has occurred?
23 A. No.
24 Q. In your studies of the water conservation
25 area -- when did you start studying Water
282
1 Conservation Area 2A?
2 A. The very early work was in 1974. We really
3 began in earnest in about '75.
4 Q. Are Water Conservation Area 1's perimeter
5 canals also sprayed with herbicide?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. When herbicide is sprayed on the water
8 hyacinths in Water Conservation Area 2 in the canals,
9 would water overflow from that canal into the marsh
10 carry the herbicide?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Are you familiar with the Army Corps of
13 Engineers mowing the sawgrass and cattail in Water
14 Conservation Area 2A below the S-10 structures?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What impact would mowing of a mile-wide
17 swatch through the cattail and sawgrass from the
18 S-10C down to the S-11 structures have?
19 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
20 THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Would you characterize that as a
23 disturbance?
24 A. By definition, yes.
25 Q. Okay. The mowing that took place was in
283
1 1969.
2 Are you aware that Carroll White of the
3 Army Corps of Engineers testified that in 1969 a mile
4 wide strip was mowed from south of S-10C to S-11B --
5 MR. NETTLETON: Object --
6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
7 Q. -- with underwater mowers?
8 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. Would that mowing have resulted in a spread
12 of seeds and rhizomes and the like?
13 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
14 Can I ask --
15 MR. KOBELINSKI: May I finish my question,
16 counsel?
17 MR. NETTLETON: Can you identify where the
18 testimony is?
19 MR. KOBELINSKI: After I finish my
20 question, I will identify whatever you'd like.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Now, would the underwater mowing from S-10C
23 to S-11 result in a spread of cattail seeds and
24 rhizomes into the interior marshes of Water
25 Conservation Area 2A?
284
1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
3 MR. NETTLETON: Counsel, can you identify
4 what you were referring to as testimony, where
5 it came from?
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Sure. I'm referring to
7 the deposition of Ormond Carroll White taken in
8 part of the SWIM proceedings on November 23,
9 1992, and specifically I'm referring to page 89
10 of his deposition.
11 At line 20 the question was asked, "You did
12 mow it?
13 "Answer: We did mow it.
14 "Question: When was that?
15 "Answer: Let me see it. I can guess it
16 was during the major floods of '69 and '70,
17 during that period. That's the only time that
18 we had a real major flood in my terms as major
19 until this year. We have had some pretty good
20 floods.
21 "Question: The purpose of the mowed strip?
22 "Answer: Was to reduce the friction. And
23 as the depth of water increased, you would have
24 more of your water column that didn't have that
25 friction from the vegetation there."
285
1 MR. NETTLETON: I just asked for
2 identification. I didn't need you to read it
3 into the record, but...
4 MR. HYDE: We like it, however.
5 MR. KOBELINSKI: We like it.
6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
7 Q. Finally, are you aware the testimony where
8 the question was asked Mr. White, "You said mowed a
9 mile wide, what did you use?
10 "Answer: We had a mowing machine that
11 would mow underwater. It was something like an
12 airboat and it was a cycle type mower, the same kind
13 you go out and mow but it mowed underwater. And it
14 broke down a lot"?
15 MR. NETTLETON: I'll object to form.
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. In your studies as to the Water
18 Conservation Area 2A, what would a mile-wide mowed
19 strip starting at S-10C going down to the S-11
20 structures right through that cattail area have done?
21 A. Would do apparently nothing.
22 Q. Nothing?
23 Why not?
24 A. I don't see a strip of vegetation change
25 between S-10C and S-11 structures and I didn't, we
286
1 didn't start to observe the expansion of cattail
2 until the late Seventies, ten years after this.
3 Q. Okay. So in this instance that would not
4 be a disturbance?
5 A. I think it would be a disturbance. I don't
6 believe I ever said that cattail was given an
7 advantage by every disturbance.
8 Q. Okay. In your opinion then the mowing of a
9 strip from S-10C down to S-11 would not be the type
10 of disturbance that would give cattail an advantage.
11 A. Based on our observations in area 2A I
12 would say it did not.
13 Q. Since you have studied cattails, why didn't
14 it in this instance?
15 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
16 THE WITNESS: All I know, it would be a
17 very different type of disturbance than a burn
18 or excavation or a drought. It wouldn't affect
19 sediments.
20 If you look at mowing the lawn, what it
21 does is increase the density of the grass.
22 Mowing through sawgrass areas might have
23 done the same thing.
24 I don't think we have any evidence that it
25 would have had any effect at all.
287
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. All right. You used the example
3 excavation, burn and drought.
4 Excavation and burn and drought, as we've
5 discussed, all deal with changes in water level.
6 Mowing apparently would not have a change
7 in water level; is that correct?
8 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
9 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't think so.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. The S-10 structures were already
12 carrying --
13 A. I didn't mean to imply --
14 Q. I'm sorry.
15 A. -- that all excavation, burn or drought had
16 an effect on water level, lowering -- increasing
17 water level by lowering soil, if that's what you're
18 getting at. I didn't mean to make that implication.
19 Q. Okay. But I believe your testimony was
20 that a surficial fire does not result in the
21 establishments of cattail as an opportunistic
22 species. It's only when there's a peat burn which
23 does lower the surface level.
24 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
288
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. Is that correct?
3 A. I said I haven't seen a documentation of a
4 surficial fire that's resulted where cattails come
5 in.
6 Q. Well, in your experience then the only fire
7 sites you've seen where cattail has established is
8 where the peat has burned and there's been a lowering
9 of surface, ground surface level; is that correct?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. Well, have you seen then a surficial
12 fire where cattail has been established?
13 A. As far as I'm aware, that burn of
14 approximately 2,000 acres was a surficial fire by
15 your definition and cattails did become established.
16 Q. But cattails were already there beforehand,
17 weren't they?
18 A. In a mixed stand as opposed to a much
19 increased density after the fire.
20 Q. Okay. And a background stand then, the
21 only time you'll ever have establishment of cattail
22 after a burn is if there's a peat burn resulting in a
23 reduction in the substrate level; is that correct?
24 A. Establishment in the sense of a long-term
25 stand, yes.
289
1 Q. Well, is there a short-term establishment
2 of cattail after a surficial fire in a background
3 site?
4 A. I don't know. Cattails occur throughout
5 the Everglades in little patches here and there.
6 There's no way to sort that out.
7 Q. Going back to the mowing, you said there
8 would be no disturbance of the substrate as a result
9 of an underwater mowing?
10 A. I wouldn't think so.
11 Q. Why not? Is the substrate so compacted
12 without any flocculant or detritus that a mower
13 swishing over it cutting off the plants and perhaps
14 ripping them up by their roots would not have any
15 impact upon it?
16 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
17 THE WITNESS: Mowing in terms of clipping
18 the plants off, which is what my view of mowing
19 is, I wouldn't think would affect the soil
20 surface, particularly if Carroll White described
21 the vehicle used as an airboat type device that
22 wasn't running over the substrate.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. I believe his description, which I can read
25 back to you, was that the airboat -- the mowing was
290
1 underneath the airboat; it was not just on the
2 surface of the water. It was an underwater mowing.
3 A. Well, until I saw the device and saw it in
4 operation, it would just be pure conjecture that -- I
5 view mowing as clipping of vegetation.
6 Q. Well, have you ever done any underwater
7 mowing?
8 A. No, I never have.
9 Q. Okay. So your comparison to the mowing of
10 your lawn may not apply; is that correct?
11 A. Or it might apply.
12 Q. But you don't know, do you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, the water coming out of the S-10
15 structures in '69-1970, did they already have
16 nutrient-enriched water from agricultural runoff?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was the nutrient concentration in the water
19 coming out of the S-10 structures in '69-'70 have any
20 impact upon the spread and distribution of cattails
21 in Water Conservation Area 2A?
22 A. The most likely impact would be the
23 allowing of cattails to come in in the area that had
24 been formerly willow.
25 Q. It wouldn't have an impact beyond that?
291
1 A. As I stated previously, through the early
2 to mid Seventies up through about 1980 we did not see
3 an expansion of cattail beyond that area.
4 Q. Is that because the concentrations of the
5 phosphorus in the water coming out of the S-10s at
6 that point were essentially at a level resulting in
7 equilibrium where there would be no spread of
8 cattail?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Well, was there a spread of cattail with
11 the concentrations that were coming out of the S-10
12 structures at that time?
13 A. Not that I observed.
14 Q. So nutrients in the, the phosphorus
15 concentration in the waters coming out of the S-10s
16 up through '70 and I believe you said up through 1980
17 were not causing any type of expansion in the
18 cattail.
19 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
20 THE WITNESS: I did not see an expansion in
21 the cattail during that period.
22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether
24 or not the nutrients, the phosphorus concentrations
25 in the waters coming through the S-10 structures up
292
1 through the Seventies up to the Eighties were causing
2 an expansion of cattail?
3 A. Since there was not a -- since I did not
4 observe an expansion of cattail, I can presume that
5 it was not caused by a spread -- by nutrients.
6 Q. Now, Mr. White, as I just read, and I can
7 re-read the section if you'd like, stated that the
8 purpose of the mowing was to stop the vegetative
9 friction and allow the water coming out of the S-10s
10 to get down to those S-11s.
11 Would that mowing also have resulted in a
12 greater penetration of nutrient-enriched water into
13 the Water Conservation Area 2A marsh?
14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
15 THE WITNESS: Probably for a time period.
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. Okay. Did that result in a, did that
18 increased nutrient load going into the interior of
19 the Water Conservation Area 2A marsh result in an
20 increase in the spread of cattail?
21 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
22 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. Why not?
25 A. I don't know.
293
1 Q. Was it because the, again, the phosphorus
2 concentrations in the water that were penetrating the
3 marsh there were insufficient to result in an
4 increase or spread of cattail?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. In fact, from your prior testimony this was
7 at a time when the water levels were at a more
8 favorable depth for the establishment of cattails; is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Nutrients under that situation should have
12 resulted in a greater magnitude of expansion, if I
13 understand your testimony.
14 MR. NETTLETON: Is that a question?
15 THE WITNESS: I would say we just don't
16 have enough knowledge on, you know, the specific
17 amounts of nutrients that might have been
18 introduced to the south or how long they were
19 available for plant growth to make any
20 conclusions.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Well, you had stated with regard to fire,
23 in a peat-burning fire, that the nutrient flux from
24 that fire lasts for only a couple of weeks.
25 Would you expect that the underground
294
1 mowing of vegetation to allow flow from the S-10s to
2 penetrate the marsh would last for less than a couple
3 of weeks?
4 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
5 THE WITNESS: It easily could.
6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
7 Q. What would grow into that area in a couple
8 of weeks' time which would stop the water from
9 flowing into the marsh?
10 A. I don't, I wasn't observing the situation
11 then. I don't know what grew.
12 Q. Well, what could have grown in a couple
13 weeks' time that would have stopped the nutrients
14 from entering the marsh?
15 MR. NETTLETON: Objection to form.
16 THE WITNESS: Probably not much would grow
17 up through the water column in that period of
18 time. That would be very rapid growth.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Which is, of course, why the Corps cut the
21 vegetation, to increase the flow of water.
22 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
23 THE WITNESS: If that's what Carroll White
24 said.
295
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. All right. The mowing then essentially
3 would have resulted in, if I understand your
4 testimony, a disturbance, an increase in nutrients
5 into the interior marsh and also hydroperiod was more
6 favorable at the time, but there was no expansion of
7 cattail.
8 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
9 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay. Why don't we take a
11 break.
12 (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
13 11:30 a.m., until 11:40 a.m.)
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Back on the record.
16 Perhaps at a bit more rapid pace since this
17 is not an area that you conducted your research in,
18 what nutrient impacts have there been in Water
19 Conservation Area 1, historical impacts that have
20 resulted in the spread and distribution of cattail?
21 A. My only knowledge of nutrient impacts in
22 Area 1 would be from surface water phosphorus
23 concentration maps, from soil phosphorus maps of John
24 Richardson, and cattail distribution maps from, as
25 mapped by John Richardson in his vegetation map which
296
1 all correspond very closely.
2 Q. Are there increased soil phosphorus
3 concentrations south of the S-5A structure?
4 A. As I said yesterday, I would have to review
5 his map to determine that.
6 Q. Actually, I was trying to go in a different
7 direction here.
8 We've just gone through the various, the
9 four impact or factors that you've stated cause the
10 distribution and expansion of cattail: nutrients,
11 hydroperiod, fire, and disturbance for Water
12 Conservation Area 2A.
13 My question was historically what
14 nutrients, changes in nutrients have resulted or have
15 impacted the distribution and spread of cattails in
16 Water Conservation Area 1 similar to what we've just
17 done for Water Conservation Area 2A?
18 A. The construction of the S-5A and S-6 pump
19 stations.
20 Q. All right. Anything else?
21 A. There's a small pump on the eastern side of
22 Water Conservation Area 1 that would be relatively
23 negligible in its inputs.
24 Is that the Acme Improvement District?
25 Q. Is there a corresponding cattail in that
297
1 area?
2 A. I'd have to look at the vegetation map. It
3 would not be a big stand.
4 Q. Would that be because the nutrient
5 concentrations in the water are insufficient to
6 result in a spread of cattail?
7 A. As I said yesterday, nutrient
8 concentrations only are useful as correlates to
9 nutrient supply. And although I'm not certain what
10 the concentrations are from that pump outflow, the
11 supply would be low because it's a small pump.
12 Q. Would that just mean you'd have a smaller
13 impacted area or would that mean that you would have
14 no cattails whatsoever?
15 A. It would be hard to say in that case since
16 the discharge from that pump is into the perimeter
17 canal, and as I mentioned yesterday, that canal
18 provides a hydrologic bypass for most of the marsh.
19 So I'd have no idea in that case if there
20 was penetration of water and phosphorus into the
21 marsh from that pump station, so there would be no
22 way for me to tell.
23 Q. You had stated earlier, as a matter of fact
24 you just restated that the nutrient concentrations
25 are, in the surface waters are not the important
298
1 factor but, rather, nutrient supply; is that correct?
2 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
3 THE WITNESS: I think the nutrient
4 concentrations are important as correlates to
5 nutrient supply in a particular area such as
6 Area 2A. I don't think you can make a direct
7 relationship between concentration and supply at
8 an area below the Acme pump station with the
9 concentration/supply relationship that exist in
10 Water Conservation Area 2A.
11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12 Q. Can you make a correlation between
13 concentration and supply in the area below S-5A?
14 A. Probably.
15 Q. Are the --
16 A. But it wouldn't be the same one that would
17 exist in Water Conservation Area 2A.
18 Q. Why is that?
19 A. Different pumping rate.
20 Q. Is there more water going into Water
21 Conservation Area 1 or more water going into Water
22 Conservation Area 2A?
23 A. Everything that goes into at least the
24 north end of 2A has passed through some part of
25 Conservation Area 1.
299
1 Q. And what are the major influences of
2 nutrient input into Water Conservation Area 1?
3 A. As I've said previously, from the maps I've
4 seen, elevated surface water phosphorus
5 concentrations, elevated soil phosphorus and cattail
6 distribution mostly along the perimeters of
7 Conservation Area 1.
8 Q. Where does the phosphorus come from?
9 A. Mostly from S-5A and S-6.
10 Q. Okay. But I believe you stated that S-6 is
11 only a minor supply; is that right?
12 A. It's not a minor supply. It enters the
13 southern end of the area, so it would not influence
14 very much of the area.
15 Q. Why wouldn't it influence much of the area?
16 A. 'Cause it's a direct shot to the S-10
17 structures down the canal.
18 Q. The S-5A, on the other hand, is on the
19 northern end of Water Conservation Area 1.
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Okay. Would you anticipate then given the
22 high nutrient -- or phosphorus concentration in the
23 water that you would have high nutrient supply to the
24 vegetation in the northern end of Water Conservation
25 Area 1?
300
1 A. It would depend on how much that water
2 mixed with -- went into the marsh rather than down
3 the canal.
4 Q. Would you anticipate that the phosphorus
5 concentrations were higher in Water Conservation
6 Area 1 or Water Conservation Area 2A in surface
7 water?
8 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
9 THE WITNESS: It would depend where you
10 were collecting the sample.
11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12 Q. Okay. Let's say from the canal right below
13 the S-5A input and from the canal below the S-10
14 structures.
15 A. And what is your question?
16 Q. Where would you anticipate having higher
17 surface water phosphorus concentrations?
18 A. I'd anticipate having higher concentrations
19 in the S-5A outflow compared to the S-10 outflows.
20 Q. Okay. Would you have an impact on the
21 phosphorus supply to the vegetative community if you
22 spread the flow of water from Water Conservation
23 Area 1 all the way up and down the eastern boundary
24 of Water Conservation Area 2A as opposed to the four
25 structure sites of the S-10s?
301
1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
3 question.
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. Okay. Right now the water flows from Water
6 Conservation Area 1 into Water Conservation Area 2A
7 through the four S-10 structures plus S-10E which is
8 a smaller structure; is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 Q. All right. How does water flow from Water
11 Conservation Area 1 into Water Conservation Area 2A?
12 A. Through the three S-10 structures plus
13 S-10E.
14 Q. Okay. One S-10 structure not being used.
15 A. There is no S-10B.
16 Q. Now, would there be a change in the supply
17 of nutrients to the cattail community located below
18 S-10C if you redistributed the water flowing from
19 Water Conservation Area 1 all the way up and down
20 that common border through, let's say, as opposed to
21 four structures you had fifty structures?
22 MR. NETTLETON: Could you read back the
23 question, please?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, please.
302
1 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
2 was read by the reporter.)
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll go ahead and rephrase
4 it.
5 MR. GREEN: I thought it was clear.
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Thanks, Bill.
7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
8 Q. Currently, as you've testified, water flows
9 from Water Conservation Area 1 into 2A through four
10 structures; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Three primary and one minor?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Okay. And the phosphorus supply to the
15 cattail community below the S-10C structure primarily
16 comes from the S-10C and S-10D structures; is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay.
20 Now, would there be any impact upon the
21 phosphorus supply to the cattail community below
22 S-10C if you expanded the number of structures which
23 regulate the flow from Water Conservation Area 1 into
24 Water Conservation Area 2A from four to fifty all
25 along and up and down the common border between Water
303
1 Conservation Area 1 and Water Conservation Area 2A?
2 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
3 THE WITNESS: Just read the last part of
4 that question to me again.
5 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
6 was read by the reporter.)
7 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
9 Q. Would there be a change in the phosphorus
10 supply to the cattail community below S-10C if all
11 the water from Water Conservation Area 1 that flowed
12 into Water Conservation Area 2A came solely through
13 the S-10E structure?
14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. Would it be an increase or decrease in
18 phosphorus supply?
19 A. Decrease.
20 Q. Okay. If you spread the flow between Water
21 Conservation Area 1 and Water Conservation Area 2A so
22 that there was a decrease in the amount of water
23 flowing through the S-10C structure, would that
24 impact the water, the phosphorus supply to the
25 cattail community below S-10C?
304
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. What are the factors that comprise
3 phosphorus supply?
4 A. Low volume, the pattern of flow, how the
5 water flows across the marsh, and the phosphorus
6 concentration in that water.
7 Q. Pattern of flow.
8 What do you mean by pattern of flow?
9 A. Where the water goes. In other words,
10 would there be a uniform flow across the marsh or
11 would it be going, channeled or going down a canal.
12 Q. Based upon your studies and research, is
13 there currently a uniform flow across the marsh below
14 the S-10 structures?
15 A. Probably not.
16 Q. Where does it flow? What has impacted a
17 uniform flow?
18 A. Variations in vegetation density or
19 contours.
20 Q. Are you familiar with a term
21 flow-weighted P concentration?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How does P supply differ or phosphorus
24 differ from flow-weighted phosphorus concentrations?
25 A. We're mixing the term supply and loading
305
1 again.
2 Q. If you could explain the difference between
3 the two.
4 A. Loading is the external input of phosphorus
5 to the system. I've used supply more in terms of
6 availability, what's available to the plants in the
7 particular location.
8 Q. Okay. Are you saying then that loading is
9 equal to flow-weighted phosphorus concentration?
10 A. No. It's a correlate of flow-weighted
11 phosphorus concentration times flow volume.
12 Q. Okay. Is there a correlate between
13 phosphorus supply and loading?
14 A. Probably less of one. The correlate there,
15 as I said yesterday, is between supply or
16 availability and concentration.
17 Q. What does a flow-weighted phosphorus
18 concentration measure? How would you calculate that?
19 A. It measures the phosphorus concentration in
20 the water giving a weighting factor to the
21 concentrations during periods of higher flow.
22 In other words, if you have one week when
23 the phosphorus concentration is a hundred and three
24 weeks when it's ten in a month period, your -- no,
25 excuse me. If you have a, if you have a phosphorus
306
1 concentration of a hundred during a period when
2 the -- bad example.
3 It gives more, gives a higher weighting to
4 phosphorus concentrations when flow volumes are
5 higher.
6 If you want me to go through some
7 calculations for you, I will.
8 Q. No need.
9 In a flow-weighted phosphorus
10 concentration, does that calculation take into
11 consideration the pattern of the flow?
12 A. Not usually.
13 Q. In your definition of phosphorus supply is
14 there a timing factor?
15 A. I don't understand.
16 Q. Would it make a difference as to how long
17 the water was in contact with the plant or is that
18 merely a portion of the flow volume?
19 A. The two would be auto-correlated. They'd
20 fluctuate together.
21 Q. Have you ever done any study or research or
22 reviewed any study or research wherein a correlation
23 was drawn between phosphorus supply and the expansion
24 or distribution of cattails in the Everglades?
25 A. Yes.
307
1 Q. What study?
2 A. The very strong overlap of the results of
3 three studies: the distribution of surface water
4 phosphorus concentrations, the distribution of soil
5 phosphorus and the distribution of cattail combined
6 with our process research indicating that cattail are
7 a high-nutrient species and sawgrass a low-nutrient
8 species.
9 Q. Okay. Was that one particular study?
10 A. I think that's four studies.
11 Q. Are there papers resulting from those four
12 studies?
13 A. The soil phosphorus concentrations are in
14 Reddy, et al., as we cited yesterday.
15 The cattail distribution is in the
16 vegetation map produced by Ken Rutchey.
17 Surface water concentrations have been the
18 subject of a number of studies, everything from
19 Millar, et al., in the, I believe the early Eighties
20 to the water sampling by Nancy Urban and Marguerite
21 Koch more recently.
22 Q. And did Ken Rutchey study the flow volume
23 in preparing his vegetative map?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did he study the pattern of flow?
308
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did he study the phosphorus concentrations
3 in the surface water?
4 A. No.
5 Q. He did not then determine what the
6 phosphorus supply was.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did Reddy in his soil phosphorus
9 concentration study, did he look at the flow volume
10 of water?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did he look at the pattern of flow?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did he look at phosphorus concentration in
15 the surface water?
16 A. I would have to review that to see if he
17 had phosphorus surface water concentration data in
18 that report.
19 Q. So he possibly looked at one of the three
20 factors comprising phosphorus supply; is that
21 correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Now, with regard to Urban and Koch's water
24 sampling, have they been establishing or studying the
25 flow volume?
309
1 A. No.
2 Q. Have they been looking at the pattern of
3 flow?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have three been looking or establishing
6 what the phosphorus concentrations are in the surface
7 water?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Did they then determine what the
10 phosphorus supply was?
11 A. As I said, I was relying on the combination
12 of these studies.
13 Q. Okay. Which of the studies you referred to
14 have looked at flow volume?
15 A. As I said yesterday, phosphorus
16 concentration is commonly used as a correlate to
17 supply at sites in the same area of wetland, and I
18 feel it's a valid correlate.
19 Q. Okay. So for phosphorus supply, you can
20 actually knock out the flow volume factor since we
21 already have phosphorus concentration in surface
22 water; is that correct?
23 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form.
24 THE WITNESS: As long as you don't imply
25 that concentration equals supply. It's a
310
1 correlate to supply.
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. All right.
4 Well, does that just give you an error
5 factor in there?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, how good is the correlation
8 statistically?
9 A. I stated that we made an assumption that
10 phosphorus concentration was a correlate to supply.
11 Q. When you say phosphorus concentration is a
12 correlate to supply, are you referring to phosphorus
13 supply as a whole? In other words, phosphorus
14 concentrations are a correlate to the combination of
15 flow volume, pattern of flow and phosphorus
16 concentration in surface water?
17 A. Availability to the plants at the site.
18 Q. Well, is that what phosphorus supply is,
19 the availability of phosphorus for the plants in the
20 site?
21 A. That's the way I'm using it and the way
22 I've used it in my papers and the way it would
23 influence cattail.
24 Q. Okay. Have you ever attempted to quantify
25 phosphorus supply?
311
1 A. No. As I stated yesterday, that's almost
2 impossible in an open marsh area. You have to use
3 correlates.
4 Q. Okay. Have you ever attempted to quantify
5 patterns of flow?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Is that something that can be done in a
8 marsh area?
9 A. It would be extremely difficult, if not
10 impossible.
11 Q. Okay. Is phosphorus supply more of a
12 concept than a quantitative figure?
13 A. I wouldn't call it a concept. I would say
14 that it's a, that it can be used in a quantitative
15 way when comparing sites with low versus high
16 phosphorus concentrations. I would call it more than
17 a concept.
18 Q. Have you ever use