1 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and ) WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 4 ) Petitioners, ) 5 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 7 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) Petitioners, ) 10 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3039 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 12 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) 14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 15 Petitioners, ) vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3040 16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 17 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 19 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 20 January 27, 1993 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 21 22 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT JOHNSON 23 Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered 24 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of 25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS 3 COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC. 4 5 HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS 123 South Calhoun Street 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 BY: GARY V. PERKO, ESQ. 7 8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and 9 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC. 10 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A. 11 One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard 12 Miami, Florida 33131 BY: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQ. 13 14 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15 16 THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQ. Assistant United States Attorney 17 155 North Miami Avenue Suite 600 18 Miami, Florida 33130 19 PRESENT: 20 BRADLEY G. WALLER 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 INDEX 2 Witness Direct 3 ROBERT JOHNSON 4 By Mr. Kobelinski: 3 5 6 EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION 7 1 5 A document, the first page entitled, Robert Johnson, Update of 8 Work Experience, bearing Bates numbers 0961507 through 0961523 9 2 99 A six-page document listing 10 computer files from computer disks 11 3 235 A five-page document entitled, Comments of the United 12 States to Florida DER on the SWIM Plan for the Everglades, dated 13 November 19, 1990, Bates numbers ENP 0987029 through ENP 0972033 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 Thereupon -- 2 ROBERT JOHNSON 3 was called as a witness and having been duly sworn, 4 was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Johnson. 8 If you could would state your name and 9 address for the record. 10 A. My name is Robert Johnson. My address is 11 9952 Southwest 196th Street, Miami, Florida. 12 Q. Mr. Johnson, you have been noticed for 13 deposition in the Everglades SWIM Plan administrative 14 proceedings which I believe you are aware of, is that 15 correct? 16 A. Yes, that's correct. 17 Q. Have you ever been deposed before? 18 A. No. 19 Q. A deposition -- I believe you sat through 20 one or two during these proceedings -- a deposition 21 is an opportunity for a party to litigation or in 22 this case administrative proceedings to ask questions 23 of individuals under oath to find out what facts they 24 may know with regard to the issues involved in the 25 proceedings, and in your case since you have been 5 1 listed as an expert witness, what expert opinions 2 they may hold with regard to the issues involved in 3 the case. 4 I will be asking you a number of 5 questions, as you have seen done in these other 6 depositions you have sat through. I would ask you to 7 go ahead and respond truthfully. If you don't know 8 the answer to a question or don't remember, I don't 9 know and I don't remember are the best answers. 10 Please do not assume any facts you are not 11 aware of, and if you feel compelled to assume, please 12 state on so on the record so we are aware of that. All 13 right? 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. Also, some witnesses aren't aware of it 16 but you need to respond verbally all the time. I 17 think you noticed that at the prior depos 18 (indicating) doesn't do well nor do nods. 19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Please mark that. 20 (A document, the first page entitled, 21 Robert Johnson, Update of Work Experience, bearing 22 Bates numbers 0961507 through 0961523 was marked 23 Johnson Deposition Exhibit 1 for identification) 24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 25 Q. Mr. Johnson, I am showing you what has 6 1 been marked as Exhibit 1 to your deposition, which is 2 a document that I would represent to you is attached 3 to a witness disclosure filed by the United States in 4 the administrative proceedings. It is also labeled 5 as Government Exhibit 6A and 6B. That document bears 6 Bates numbers 0961507 through 0961523. 7 I ask you to take a look at that and tell 8 me if you have ever seen that before. 9 (Pause) 10 A. Yes, I have. 11 Q. What does this document comprise, sir? 12 A. The bulk of it is a federal government 13 application form, the physical sciences form 1180 14 which was the application package for, at the time, 15 for hydrology positions for the federal government. 16 Also attached to that is an update of my work 17 experience essentially from June of 1989 on. That 18 essentially updates the application form. 19 The second page is a list of recent 20 publications that I have been a senior or coauthor 21 on. 22 And, let's see, within the package is a 23 set of pages labeled Supplemental Knowledge, Skills 24 and Abilities which are the specific questions that 25 are asked as you apply for a particular position, and 7 1 you state your basic background for that. In this 2 case those were the knowledge, skills and abilities 3 for a position I applied for in I believe June of 4 1989. 5 Q. Are you referring there to Bates page 6 0961516? 7 A. That's correct, from that page through the 8 Bates number 0961519. 9 Then I believe the last page is the 10 summary of my testimony opinions. 11 Q. And we skipped a couple of pages which 12 bear Bates numbers 0961520 through 22. What would 13 those three pages comprise? 14 A. That is a supplemental list of college 15 course work that's included as part of the 16 application form, the federal government 1180 17 application form. So it is a list of my college 18 course work. I think I have one additional course 19 that may not be on the additional list. 20 Q. What course would that be? 21 A. That would be a graduate numerical methods 22 class that I took in 1991. 23 Q. Where did you take that course? 24 A. At Florida International University in the 25 civil and environmental engineering department. 8 1 And the only other change is on my 2 undergraduate courses I do have a grade for my fluid 3 mechanics courses which were listed as expected at 4 the time in 1989. So that course was completed. 5 Other than that, I think that section is correct. 6 Q. With regard to the numerical methods 7 course you took in 1991 at FIU, how many credit hours 8 was that? 9 A. It was a three credit course, graduate 10 three credit class. 11 Q. While we have some detail here, I would 12 like to just briefly go through your educational and 13 your work experience. In that regard where did you 14 receive your graduate degree, sir? 15 A. My graduate degree is from the University 16 of Virginia, from the department of environmental 17 sciences, and my area of expertise was water 18 resources. 19 Q. And your undergraduate degree? 20 A. My undergraduate degree was from James 21 Madison University and it was a bachelor's of science 22 in geology. 23 Q. When did you receive your bachelor degree, 24 sir? 25 A. In 1979. 9 1 Q. When did you receive your graduate degree? 2 A. In 1983. I would say I am also enrolled 3 in the civil engineering graduate program at Florida 4 International University. 5 Q. Is that currently, sir? 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Was the graduate numerical methods course 8 that you took in 1991 part of the civil engineering 9 school? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. Have you taken any additional courses at 12 FIU with regard to civil engineering? 13 A. Yes, I have, beginning in 1986. Do you 14 want to know my undergraduate or graduate courses? 15 Q. Are those contained in what has been 16 marked as Exhibit 1 to your deposition? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Those would be in addition to your courses 19 at University of Virginia and James Madison 20 University? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. I believe you said you started taking 23 those courses from 1986. Approximately how many 24 courses have you taken? 25 A. I think I began taking undergraduate 10 1 courses initially to build up my math skills and 2 computer science skills back in 1985 and I have taken 3 I guess four undergraduate math and computer science 4 courses and then I took approximately six graduate 5 courses at FIU to date. 6 Q. What areas are those six course in? 7 A. Almost all in civil and environmental 8 engineering, specifically water resources except for 9 one course in statistical methods and research taught 10 by the department of statistics. 11 Q. That would be a course other than that 12 graduate numerical methods course that you mentioned? 13 A. Right. This is a statistical methods 14 class. 15 Q. Have you received any additional degrees 16 other than the graduate degree from the University of 17 Virginia or the bachelor's degree from James Madison? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Are you working toward an additional 20 degree? 21 A. I enrolled at FIU primarily because it is 22 easier to take classes as an enrolled student than it 23 is as a special student. I don't know if I will ever 24 get a degree from the civil engineering department. 25 I have been waiting for a Ph.D. program to be 11 1 established either in the civil engineering program 2 or in geology. And I am hoping I can transfer my 3 credits at that time. 4 Q. Have you been enrolled in any type of 5 Ph.D. program at any of the schools we have mentioned 6 or any other schools? 7 A. No. 8 Q. With regard to your bachelor's degree at 9 James Madison University, a degree in science and 10 geology, generally what are the topics that are 11 covered in that type of program? 12 A. My geology courses, I guess I took 13 approximately 60 credit hours, so they ran the gamut 14 of courses from basic geology such as physical 15 geology, oceanography, historical geology up through 16 courses such as stratigraphy and sedimentation. I 17 did an honors thesis while at James Madison 18 University primarily in sedimentology. 19 Q. Were you just describing the geology 20 portion of that degree? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Or did you essentially describe the entire 23 program? 24 A. That's the bachelor of science in geology, 25 those are the major courses I had. 12 1 Q. With regard to your honors thesis in 2 sedimentology, what exactly was the more specific 3 subject of that thesis? 4 A. I looked at chemical and physical 5 decomposition of bedrock and sediments in tributary 6 streams in the Shenandoah National Park of Virginia. 7 Q. Did you work between receiving your 8 bachelor's degree and your graduate degree or did you 9 proceed directly on to your graduate program? 10 A. I took a year and worked full-time. Also 11 while I was an undergraduate I worked part time. 12 Q. Perhaps we will go through your work 13 experience in a just few moments. 14 Going on to your graduate degree in water 15 resources, could you again describe generally what 16 that degree covers? 17 A. The degree is from the department of 18 environmental science so the degree is in 19 environmental sciences but the program has four 20 disciplines. 21 Most of my course work was in hydrology. 22 The major courses I took there were dealing with 23 geomorphology and hydrology, groundwater and surface 24 water hydrology, and my masters thesis was in surface 25 water hydrology and geomorphology. 13 1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you read back the 2 early part of that answer. 3 (The portion referred to was 4 thereupon read by the reporter 5 as above recorded) 6 Q. What were the four disciplines? 7 A. Geology, hydrology, climatology and 8 ecology. And you can essentially get a specialty in 9 any of those four fields up through the Ph.D. 10 Q. With regard to your master's thesis in 11 surface water hydrology, could you be a bit more 12 specific as to what that covered? 13 A. I looked at extreme storm events responses 14 in river channels in the central part of Virginia. 15 Essentially I did a statistical analysis of stream 16 channel responses to an extreme rainfall event within 17 the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. The storm 18 event was the Hurricane Camille storm of 1972. No, 19 '69, sorry. 20 Q. What courses have you had during your 21 graduate degree in biology? 22 A. Graduate biology courses would be 23 relatively limited to terrestrial ecology, I believe 24 is the only graduate course in biology that I have 25 had. 14 1 Q. What is covered in terrestrial ecology? 2 A. Essentially it is ecology of terrestrial 3 systems, anything that would not be in a submerged 4 environment. 5 Q. In that course did you study the biology 6 of wetland marshes, be they fresh water or salt 7 water? 8 A. That was one of the topics discussed. 9 Q. Do you recall how much time was devoted 10 toward that topic? 11 A. I think it was a relatively limited 12 amount, probably a couple of weeks. 13 Q. With regard to your undergraduate degree 14 at James Madison in science and geology, how many 15 courses did you have in biology in that degree? 16 A. I had approximately 30 hours of biology at 17 the undergraduate level. I started out as a biology 18 major at a previous university before transferring to 19 James Madison. 20 Q. What university was that, sir? 21 A. Christopher Newport College which is a 22 branch of William and Mary University. 23 Q. With regard to the courses you had in 24 undergraduate biology, did you continue with any of 25 those courses after you transferred to James Madison? 15 1 A. Yes, I did. I was a biology major for 2 approximately one year at James Madison. 3 Q. How many years were you at Christopher 4 Newport College? 5 A. I was there for two years. 6 Q. How many years were you at James Madison? 7 A. I was there for four years. 8 Q. With regard to the biology courses you had 9 undergraduate, did any of them deal with the 10 biological systems of wetland marshes? 11 A. Yes. I had two classes that dealt with 12 the ecology of wetland marshes. A class in general 13 ecology and a class in plant ecology. 14 Q. Were those saltwater or freshwater 15 marshes? 16 A. A combination of both. 17 Q. With regard to the general ecology course 18 that you took, approximately how much time was 19 devoted towards the ecology of wetland marshes? 20 A. Probably a few weeks. 21 Q. That would be both the freshwater and 22 saltwater? 23 A. I believe so. 24 Q. With regard to the plant ecology course 25 that you had, approximately how much time would have 16 1 been devoted to wetland marshes? 2 A. Again a few weeks. 3 Q. That would cover again both saltwater and 4 freshwater? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Subsequent to your receiving your bachelor 7 undergraduate degrees from James Madison and the 8 University of Virginia respectively have you taken 9 any additional biology courses? 10 A. No. 11 Q. With regard to the hydrology and geology 12 courses that you have taken, have any of them dealt 13 with the study of wetland, the hydrology of wetland 14 marshes? 15 A. Only as projects as part of a formal 16 course, not necessarily as lecture material. 17 Q. Would that have been in graduate or the 18 bachelor program, sir? 19 A. Graduate. 20 Q. University of Virginia? 21 A. At Florida International University right 22 now. 23 Q. Did you, just so I understand your 24 response, was it both at the University of Virginia 25 and Florida International or just the Florida 17 1 International course that you have been describing? 2 A. I believe just the Florida International 3 University courses. 4 Q. What courses at Florida International 5 University that you have taken have dealt with 6 hydrology of wetland marshes? 7 A. Advanced groundwater hydraulics and 8 special topics course called coupled surface 9 water/groundwater modeling. 10 Q. In either of those two courses have you 11 studied in particular the Everglades wetland marshes 12 or the surrounding marshes? 13 A. Yes, in both of those courses we dealt 14 with Everglades systems. 15 Q. Any other courses that you have taken 16 either at the graduate or undergraduate level that 17 have dealt with the Everglades marshes at all? 18 A. I believe a graduate course in 19 hydrogeology at the University of Virginia I did a 20 special project on, like a report, on the Everglades 21 system. 22 Q. What was the report regarding? 23 A. The groundwater conditions in the 24 Everglades, primarily looking at the aquifers that 25 underlie the system. 18 1 Q. When did you have this advanced 2 groundwater hydraulics course from FIU? 3 A. I believe it was in 1986. 4 Q. And the coupled surface water/groundwater 5 modeling course? 6 A. I believe it was the next year in 1987. 7 Q. If we could then briefly go through your 8 work history, and I believe you mentioned that you 9 were working during your undergraduate studies? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. So perhaps that is a good place to start. 12 A. In terms of professional related work 13 experience that relates to the field of sciences I 14 worked in I believe I started working for the geology 15 department during the second year I was there so that 16 would have been 1976. 17 Q. There would be? 18 A. At the James Madison University. I 19 started as a teaching assistant and I was a teaching 20 assistant I believe for three years there. 21 Then while I was at James Madison during 22 the second year I became employed with the 23 archeological research center at the university and I 24 worked on a number of archeological research projects 25 primarily as geologist and hydrologist doing field 19 1 work, mapping of soils and river channel deposits and 2 bedrock units. 3 Q. Did any of these projects deal with 4 Florida? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Go on, if you would. 7 A. After I graduated in 1979 I spent a year 8 working for the archeological research center 9 full-time. And I left the archeological research 10 center the summer of 1980 and worked for the summer 11 in northern Maine on archeological research projects 12 there. And in the fall I enrolled at the University 13 of Virginia. 14 Then for the first two years at the 15 University of Virginia I was a teaching assistant in 16 the department. 17 Q. That would be approximately the fall of 18 1980 through the summer of 1982? 19 A. That's correct. And then in the summer of 20 1982 I started working as a research assistant for 21 the coastal research center at the university and I 22 worked for them until I graduated and took employment 23 at the national park. That would be November of 24 1983. So that was part time until approximately May 25 of 1983 and then full-time for the summer until 20 1 November of 1983. Essentially I have been at 2 Everglades National Park since November of 1983. 3 Q. The coastal research assistant, that was 4 still with the University of Virginia? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Where was that located, sir? 7 A. It is in the department of environmental 8 sciences at the university. 9 Q. Any particular area that you were 10 researching? 11 A. Coastal hydrology, coastal ecology, 12 coastal meteorology. 13 Q. Any particular projects or research that 14 was with regard to the South Florida area? 15 A. No. I take that back. We did some field 16 sampling along the Atlantic coast, I believe some of 17 the samples were in the northern part of Florida but 18 nothing in South Florida. 19 Q. I believe you stated you started with 20 Everglades National Park or the Park Service in 21 November of 1983? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. What was your position then? 24 A. I was a hydrologist at that time. 25 Q. Would that have been your job title? 21 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. When you started in 1983 how many 3 hydrologists were there at the Park? And when I say 4 Park, I am referring to Everglades National Park. 5 A. I believe there were five hydrologists. 6 Q. In addition to yourself? 7 A. Correct. Actually six. 8 Q. In addition to yourself? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Were you in a particular department within 11 the Park organization? 12 A. I was in the hydrology program and I 13 worked on the water delivery studies project. 14 Q. You mentioned hydrology program. Is that 15 a type of division within the Park? 16 A. That is within the Research Center at 17 Everglades National Park there were four major 18 programs, hydrology was one of those four programs. 19 Q. And the other three? 20 A. Would be the wildlife program, the marine 21 ecology program and the vegetation program. 22 Q. What was your particular task at the point 23 you started in November of 1983? 24 A. My original projects dealt with a lot of 25 field sampling in the Taylor Slough Basin, the 22 1 routine water level, data collection in the basin. 2 Then in 1984 we began a detailed study of 3 the effects of a particular canal drawdown 4 experiment. 5 Q. Who was your immediate supervisor with 6 regard to your initial programs dealing with field 7 sampling in Taylor Slough? 8 A. Joel Wagner. 9 Q. Who was the head of the hydrology program 10 at that time? 11 A. At that time the position was vacant. 12 Q. Was there an acting head? 13 A. Not for the first year and a half. 14 Q. You are referring to the first year and a 15 half that you worked with the Park Service? 16 A. That's correct. Sometime in 1985 Joel 17 Wagner was named as the hydrology program head. 18 Q. Who was the head of the Research Center 19 itself? 20 A. Gary Hendrix. 21 Q. When did you start your involvement in the 22 drawdown, what did you say, the C-111 drawdown? 23 A. The L-31W canal drawdown. The field work 24 began in the summer of 1984. 25 Q. For the drawdown, you mean? 23 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Prior to that point you had mentioned you 3 were doing field sampling in Taylor Slough and you 4 stated water level and rainfall. Were there any 5 additional type of field sampling you were doing? 6 A. I believe I did some discharge 7 measurements. 8 Q. At what structures? 9 A. Not at structures, at the Taylor Slough 10 flow section. It is the published flow section at 11 Taylor Slough near Homestead. 12 Q. In the summer of 1984 when you started 13 work on L-31W drawdown, did that halt your field 14 study activities in Taylor Slough that you referred 15 to previously? 16 A. No, the monitoring that I did in Taylor 17 Slough continued through mid-1985. 18 Q. Did that change at all from what you 19 described it as? 20 A. No. The monitoring that was done at 21 Taylor Slough was, it was every two week sampling of 22 a discontinuous network and the continuous recorders 23 through mid-1985. And at that point we discontinued 24 monitoring on many of those stations. Some of the 25 stations were continued as part of this L-31W 24 1 drawdown study. 2 Q. What was your role in the L-31W drawdown 3 study? 4 A. I was responsible for most of the field 5 elements of the project, installing groundwater 6 wells, establishing the water level recorder network, 7 performing the drawdown analyses and I was the author 8 of the final report, the primary author. 9 Q. How long did the drawdown study go? 10 A. The original study went for one year based 11 on an experimental agreement with the South Dade 12 agricultural community, and then it was extended for 13 three more years as part of the three-party agreement 14 with the Water Management District at the objection 15 of the Park Service. So the drawdown ran for a total 16 of four years. 17 Q. How long did your study go on? 18 A. Four years. 19 Q. Were you serving in the same position 20 during that entire position? 21 A. I was -- no, my position changed in 1986 22 when Mr. Wagner left Everglades National Park. 23 Q. How did your position change? 24 A. I took over as the project leader on the 25 water delivery studies project. 25 1 Q. When in 1986 was that? 2 A. I believe it was May of 1986. 3 Q. Prior to May of 1986 who was the project 4 leader of the L-31 drawdown study? 5 A. Joel Wagner. 6 Q. Was he your immediate supervisor during 7 the period then prior to May of 1986 in the drawdown 8 study? 9 A. Yes, that's correct, from when I started 10 in 1983 until he left in 1986. 11 Q. As of 1986 did that result in your taking 12 on additional responsibilities? 13 A. Yes, it did. 14 Q. How so? 15 A. The water delivery studies project is 16 responsible for tracking water deliveries to all of 17 the major drainage basins to the Park so we had 18 additional work in the Shark Slough Basin and in the 19 in the C-111 eastern panhandle basin. 20 Q. You mentioned the water delivery study. 21 Was this a project in addition to the L-31W drawdown 22 study? 23 A. The water delivery studies is a group of 24 people on a particular project area and the L-31W 25 drawdown study is one project underneath the water 26 1 delivery studies group. 2 Q. When you became project leader, was that 3 of the water delivery studies or the L-31W drawdown 4 study? 5 A. The water delivery projects. 6 Q. Was there a particular project leader of 7 the L-31 drawdown study itself? 8 A. That would also be Joel Wagner until his 9 departure in 1986. 10 Q. In 1986 you also became the project leader 11 of the L-31 drawdown study? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Were there any additional studies you 14 became project leader on? 15 A. There was additional data analysis being 16 done to track the experimental water deliver program 17 in the Shark Slough Basin that began in 1985 and I 18 took over the responsibilities on that project and in 19 1985 we also established a new monitoring project in 20 the lower C-111 basin in the eastern panhandle. And 21 I took over the project leader job on that. 22 Q. With regard to the water delivery study 23 and the various studies you said which are underneath 24 or comprise that study, what specifically was being 25 studied besides water levels and rainfall? What 27 1 exactly was the study looking at? 2 A. In the Shark Slough Basin the study was 3 look at the impacts of the experimental water 4 delivery program. Initially it was looking at the 5 comparison between the minimum delivery schedule that 6 was established in 1987 -- sorry, 1970 -- and the 7 first experiment that was referred to as the 8 flow-through test that ran from 1983 through 1985. 9 That was the first project I worked on dealing with 10 Shark Slough. 11 Following that was a project looking at 12 the current rainfall-based delivery schedule for the 13 Shark Slough Basin. 14 And then after that in 1988 we established 15 a project referred to as the hydropattern study for 16 the Shark Slough Basin. Those would all be Shark 17 Slough pattern studies. 18 Q. That is hydropattern study? 19 A. Essentially it is a project that 20 established a network of approximately 51 new 21 discontinuous water level and rainfall monitoring 22 stations throughout the Shark Slough and northern 23 Taylor Slough basins to examine spatial and temporal 24 variability of rainfall and water levels in those two 25 systems. 28 1 Q. Has that study concluded? 2 A. No. The project leader left in 1990 and 3 annual reports were completed and one publication was 4 completed but the final technical reports have not 5 been completed. 6 Q. What was your involvement in the 7 hydropattern study? 8 A. No direct involvement. At that time I was 9 already the hydrology program manager and I just had 10 the responsibility of overseeing the project. And I 11 supervised the project staff. 12 There are other hydrology projects in the 13 other basins. Do you want me to go over those? 14 Q. Yes, if you could. 15 A. In the Taylor Slough Basin in addition to 16 the L-31W drawdown study, we conducted a series of 17 groundwater tracer studies in the northern portion of 18 the basin. 19 Through assistance with cooperators at 20 Florida International University we developed a 21 surface water groundwater model for the northern 22 Taylor Slough Basin and we conducted a series of 23 studies looking at the effects of water management 24 operations on the adjacent Taylor Slough marshes. 25 And then finally in the eastern panhandle 29 1 basin we established a, essentially a baseline 2 monitoring program and we have an ongoing project to 3 look at the water budget of the lower C-111 basin. 4 And I have been involved in one way or 5 another in all those projects. 6 Q. Starting from the top with the with regard 7 to the L-31 drawdown, you already discussed it 8 briefly but what exactly were the impacts that were 9 being studied by that? 10 A. There was an experimental program 11 established to lower L-31W canal stages on October 15 12 from four and a half to three and a half feet. And 13 we were looking at the effects of the artificial 14 drawdown in the L-31W canal on the adjacent marshes. 15 Q. You had mentioned groundwater wells and 16 recorders. How exactly were you studying the effects 17 or impacts on the marshes by the drawdown? 18 A. We developed distance drawdown curves to 19 examine the spatial extent of drawdowns west of the 20 canal. 21 We developed an initial one-dimensional 22 groundwater model and then a two-dimensional 23 groundwater model to examine the spatial and temporal 24 extent of the drawdown impacts on adjacent marshes. 25 Q. Was there any type of vegetative survey 30 1 done or study of the plant biomass at all? 2 A. Not as part of our study, no. 3 Q. Was there an additional study going on at 4 the same time with regard to vegetative impacts? 5 A. No, but there had been previously 6 vegetative mapping projects in the northern Taylor 7 Slough Basin. 8 Q. What was the extent of the effect of the 9 drawdown in feet? 10 A. I believe maximum drawdowns we were able 11 to detect west of the canals extended out to our 12 furthest monitoring station which was approximately 13 12,000 feet from the canal. 14 Q. Did you make a determination that there 15 was no effect beyond that point or was that just as 16 far out as you studied? 17 A. That is the maximum extent we had 18 monitoring stations. We had established that station 19 thinking it would be a background and be unaffected 20 by the canal drawing down and we were wrong. 21 Q. What was the conclusion of your study as 22 to impact upon the adjacent marshes? 23 A. That the impact was localized to basically 24 an area of a few miles west of the canal. 25 Q. What was that impact? 31 1 A. Essentially the quantification of the 2 amount of drawdown of the wetlands adjacent to the 3 canal. We simply mapped the depth and areal extent 4 of the drawdown as well as keeping track of the 5 discharge volumes coming out of the canal. 6 Q. Other than mapping the effect, in other 7 words, the hydrological water effect, did you make 8 any study or determinations as to what the impact 9 upon the marsh vegetation was? 10 A. No. 11 Q. The next study you had mentioned was 12 groundwater tracer, I believe. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. What was that study and during what period 15 did you participate in that? 16 A. I believe the study began in 1985, and we 17 conducted groundwater tracer studies during 1985 and 18 throughout 1986. And a report was prepared I believe 19 in either late 1986 or early 1987 by a cooperator 20 with Florida International University. 21 Q. Who was that, sir? 22 A. Dr. Robert Fennema, F E N N E M A. 23 Q. What was your role in the groundwater 24 tracer study? 25 A. I was responsible for the installation of 32 1 all of the groundwater monitoring wells. I 2 participated in the tracer injections. I was 3 involved in the groundwater sampling. And I had a 4 limited role in the laboratory analysis. And then I 5 assisted in the final report preparation and analysis 6 of the data. 7 Q. What exactly was the lab analysis that you 8 participated in? 9 A. We used three major types of tracers. We 10 used a suite of freons, fluorocarbons, we used 11 potassium bromide and we used, I believe it was like 12 a fluorescein dye. And I did some of the fluorescein 13 dye analyses and I did some of the preprocessing of 14 the freon samples prior to their analysis. 15 Q. Where was the groundwater tracer study 16 located? 17 A. The study was conducted in the northern 18 Taylor Slough marshes adjacent to the L-31W canal. 19 MR. PERKO: Did you say L-31? 20 THE WITNESS: L-31W. 21 Q. Were you the project leader with regard to 22 that study? 23 A. It was a cooperative agreement, and I was 24 the government technical representative on the 25 project. 33 1 Q. Was there any other Park representative 2 involved in that? 3 A. Technicians that worked for me. 4 Q. Was there any type of conclusion found as 5 a result of that study? 6 A. The study was designed to quantify the 7 aquifer parameters of Biscayne Aquifer underlying 8 Taylor Slough so we produced a report that documented 9 hydraulic conductivities, aquifer flow rates and 10 primarily presented a series of break-through curves 11 which document the time it took for the tracers to 12 travel a certain distance. 13 Q. Just so I understand, with regard to this 14 study were you just essentially pouring the tracers 15 on the surface and seeing how they would go into the 16 groundwater and where they would disperse or were 17 they injected into the groundwater? 18 A. They were directly injected into the 19 groundwater at a depth of approximately 3 meters. 20 Q. So your study would not have determined 21 water loss to groundwater through the aquifer in the 22 Taylor Slough area, would it? 23 A. No, not part of the tracer study. 24 Q. The third study you mentioned, the 25 groundwater surface water model, I believe that was 34 1 with regard to Taylor Slough, is that correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. When were you involved during that study? 4 A. I believe it was in late 1986 through late 5 1987. 6 Q. What was the purpose of that study? 7 A. The development of a model to look at the 8 effects of water management operations in the 9 adjacent canals on the Taylor Slough Basin. 10 Q. What was your involvement in that study? 11 A. I prepared much of the data analysis to be 12 input into the model. I assisted in the development 13 of the one-dimensional model and I had limited 14 involvement in the two-dimensional model except for 15 review of the final results and some of the, I 16 believe, graphical analyses and report writing. 17 Again, this was a cooperative project done 18 with a local university. 19 Q. What university was that, sir? 20 A. Florida International University. 21 Q. Anyone in particular at Florida 22 International University? 23 A. Dr. Robert Fennema was the principal 24 investigator at the university. 25 Q. Was a report prepared at the conclusion of 35 1 this study? 2 A. Yes, it was. 3 Q. When was that report produced? 4 A. I believe late 1987. 5 Q. Who was the primary author of that report? 6 A. Dr. Robert Fennema. 7 Q. Did you assist in the preparation of that 8 report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I believe you stated it was to study the 11 impacts of canal water management on the Taylor 12 Slough area, is that correct? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Exactly what impacts were you studying? 15 A. The model was initially developed to look 16 at the effects of the L-31W drawdown study, to 17 quantify using a model what the range of effects 18 would be on the wetlands and aquifer under varying 19 canal stages in L-31W. 20 Q. Did this study at all involve a study or 21 research as to the impacts on vegetation of the water 22 management activity? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Was it similar then to, as you mentioned, 25 the L-31 drawdown study? 36 1 A. Yes. The only difference is the model was 2 used to simulate the effects of drawdowns over a 3 wider range of conditions than just under what 4 occurred during the drawdown. 5 Q. Is that model still being used by the 6 Park? 7 A. The model has been run since then to look 8 at canal operational changes not associated with the 9 L-31W drawdown. 10 Q. Is it still in use currently then? 11 A. We haven't run the model lately, no, we 12 are using different models now. 13 Q. Were you the Park representative with 14 regard to this cooperative effort? 15 A. I was the government technical 16 representative. 17 Q. Were there additional government technical 18 representatives other than technicians working 19 underneath you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. I believe the fourth study that you 22 referred to was a study of water delivery impacts on 23 the marshes in Taylor Slough, is that correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. During what period of time was this study 37 1 conducted? 2 A. It is sort of an ongoing project. We did 3 some initial work in 1988 and produced a report in 4 1989, and we have done followup work since then. And 5 we produced another report this month, January of 6 1993. 7 Q. Were you involved with this study for the 8 entire period 1988 through 1993, then? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is this also a cooperative study or is 11 this something being done solely by the Park Service? 12 A. It is primarily being done by the Park 13 Service but there are people at local universities 14 that have been co-investigators on it although they 15 were never put on in the capacity of a contractor or 16 official cooperator. 17 Q. You said they were not put on a contract, 18 does that mean they were not reimbursed for the study 19 or their participation in the study? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Who outside of the employees of the Park 22 Service participated in this water delivery impact 23 study? 24 A. In the initial report that came out in 25 1989 Dr. Robert Fennema was a principal investigator. 38 1 On the most recent report Dr. Robert Fennema and a 2 Dr. Thomas Van Lent. 3 Q. Is Dr. Fennema still associated with FIU? 4 A. No. He left the university in December of 5 1991. 6 Q. Is he associated with another university 7 at this point? 8 A. No, he is not. 9 Q. Is he employed by any organization? 10 A. He's employed by Everglades National Park. 11 Q. Did he join the Park in 1991 then? 12 A. He joined the Park in 1992. 13 Q. You also mentioned a Dr. Van Lent? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Is he associated with any university? 16 A. He is in a research associate's position 17 currently with the University of Virginia, although 18 he is detailed to Everglades National Park. 19 Q. Does that mean he spends a particular 20 percentage of his time at the Park? 21 A. He lives in South Florida and works at the 22 Park every day. 23 Q. How long has he been doing that, sir? 24 A. Since April of 1992. 25 Q. Has your role with regard to this study 39 1 been the same from 1988 through today? 2 A. Well, the involvement on the projects 3 vary. 4 Q. Perhaps you could start in 1988 and walk 5 me forward. 6 A. In 1988 we worked on a project primarily 7 to look at the effects of water management in 8 response to the draft C-111 GDM and produced a report 9 on the effects of canal management on a series of 10 long-term water level recorders in the C-111 basin. 11 Since that time the project has focused 12 more on what are the needed improvements in the 13 Taylor Slough Basin. And the most recent report 14 focuses heavily on structural and operational 15 modifications needed for the C-111 GRR which is a new 16 title of the GDM and a proposed Taylor Slough 17 demonstration project that is supposed to begin in 18 June '93. 19 Q. Do you have a particular title with regard 20 to this study, for instance, project leader? 21 A. It is not an official project in terms of 22 having a separate project leader. There is really 23 only one project leader on the water delivery studies 24 project and that's myself. There are other principal 25 investigators but not project leaders. 40 1 Q. What has been your personal involvement in 2 this water delivery impact study? 3 A. I was the senior author on the 1989 report 4 and I was the second author on the 1993 report so I 5 did much of the data analysis, report writing, 6 graphics. 7 Q. Was this a study again geared towards 8 hydrologic water level and water analysis? 9 A. That's correct. 10 There was one other study that I did not 11 mention in Taylor Slough that was a report that came 12 out in 1992 that also dealt with the effects of canal 13 water management, but it focused on the effects on 14 refugia of small fish and invertebrates in the 15 northern Taylor Slough marshes. 16 Q. With regard to this water delivery impact 17 study we have been discussing, did any portion of 18 that study focus on impacts upon vegetation? 19 A. No. 20 Q. With regard to the fifth study you just 21 mentioned, the effects of canal water management on 22 the refugia of small fish and invertebrates -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- what exactly was the scope of that 25 study? 41 1 A. My involvement was to look at historical 2 water level changes related to canal operations and 3 estimate what the effects were on different sampling 4 areas that were monitored by a fisheries biologist on 5 our staff. 6 Q. Would that be a Mr. Fleming? 7 A. No, it would be William Loftus. 8 Q. Has that concluded? 9 A. Yes. And a report was submitted in April 10 of 1992. 11 Q. What was the conclusion of that report? 12 A. That the long-term lowering of canal 13 stages had caused a drainage of the adjacent marshes 14 and aquifer system leading to a loss of refugia for 15 small fish and invertebrates. 16 Q. With a negative impact upon the 17 population? 18 A. I would assume that that would be the 19 case. It is not my area of expertise but I assume 20 that would be the case. 21 Q. Was that a conclusion of the report? 22 A. I believe so, that it would have a 23 negative impact, correct. 24 Q. What portion or area of expertise on that 25 report were you contributing? 42 1 A. The hydrology portion looking at the 2 history of canal operational changes and the effects 3 on the adjacent aquifer and wetlands. 4 Q. Did you contribute to any portion of the 5 biological study on the fish and invertebrates? 6 A. Other than reviewing the document, no. 7 Q. You had mentioned a few moments ago that 8 you had become the hydrologic program manager. 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. When was that, sir? 11 A. In April of 1988 I believe I moved into 12 the position as an acting. I served as acting for a 13 little over a year. So approximately June of 1989 I 14 believe I took over as the official hydrology program 15 manager. 16 Q. Prior to that point am I correct that your 17 position title would have been project leader of the 18 water delivery study? 19 A. Right. That would be my title at the 20 organization. I was a hydrologist in terms of my 21 personnel title though until I became the program 22 manager. 23 Q. At that point your title -- 24 A. Became supervisory hydrologist. It is 25 just a difference between personnel titles and what I 43 1 am referred to at the Research Center. 2 Q. Has that changed since then? 3 A. No, I am still a supervisory hydrologist 4 at the center. 5 Q. Are you still a hydrology program manager? 6 A. After 1988 when I moved into the program 7 manager's position in an acting capacity I was 8 officially no longer the project leader on the water 9 delivery studies project. Since January of 1992 I 10 moved back out of a project leader position and I 11 became the project leader for the water delivery 12 studies project again. 13 Q. I believe you just said you moved out of 14 the project leader position and moved back -- 15 A. I moved out of the program manager's 16 position. Sorry. 17 Q. That was in January of 1992? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Was there a reason for your move back to 20 the project leader of the water delivery study? 21 A. In October of 1991 the Research Center 22 went through a reorganization and we did away with 23 disciplinary programs and we went to 24 interdisciplinary programs focused on different 25 functional groupings. At that time I took over as 44 1 the program manager for ecosystem analysis and 2 modeling. And I remained in that position for 3 roughly three months. And then in January of 1992 at 4 my request I stepped down as a program manager and 5 moved back into the project leader position. 6 Q. That was program manager of ecosystem -- 7 A. Ecosystem analysis and modeling is the 8 name of the program. 9 Q. Stepping back a moment to April of 1988 10 when you became the hydrology program manager, who 11 was your supervisor at that time? 12 A. That would have been the research 13 director, I believe Jim Tilmant was the research 14 director at that time. 15 Q. From April of 1988 through approximately 16 October of 1991 approximately how many people did you 17 have working for you in the hydrology program? 18 A. I believe six people worked full-time and 19 then we had outside cooperators. 20 Q. Of those six people, were those all 21 hydrologists? 22 A. I believe there were three hydrologists 23 and three technicians, although the individuals 24 varied depending on the date. Some people came and 25 other people left. 45 1 Q. For the brief period from October of 1991 2 through January of 1992 you had mentioned you were 3 the program manager of ecosystem analysis and 4 modeling. 5 A. That was from October of 1992 to 6 January -- no, that's right, you are right, it was 7 from October of 1991 to January of 1992, that's 8 correct, I was the program manager for that program. 9 Q. Who did you replace as the program manager 10 of that program? 11 A. There was no program by that title 12 previously. That was created out of the 13 reorganization. 14 Essentially what we did was we took the 15 functional groups in each discipline that did 16 long-term monitoring and data collection and put them 17 in one group, and we took all of the research people 18 in any discipline and put them in another group and 19 we took all the people dealing with resource 20 management issues and put them in another group and I 21 was put in charge of the research group. 22 Q. The research group then was the program -- 23 excuse me, ecosystem analysis monitoring -- 24 A. Modeling. 25 Q. Modeling, excuse me. 46 1 Could you then go through the other two 2 groups and explain to me what their titles were and 3 title of their programs? 4 A. There is a program called inventory and 5 monitoring, and their job essentially is to do 6 long-term monitoring and data collection for all of 7 the major monitoring projects in the Park. 8 There is a program called data base 9 management that maintains our long-term data bases 10 and does computer support. 11 There is the ecosystem analysis and 12 modeling program that I referred to earlier. 13 And then there is a program called, I 14 believe it is science applications that essentially 15 handles resource management activities of the center. 16 So there would be a program manager in 17 charge of each one of those programs. 18 Q. Going through this, you stated you took 19 all the researchers and they were essentially pulled 20 together in the ecosystem analysis and modeling, in 21 the inventory and monitoring, that was what, all the 22 data collectors? 23 A. Primarily the field monitoring people. 24 When I was the head of the hydrology program that 25 would be a project leader and two technicians that 47 1 were moved to that program and there would have been 2 similar positions in marine and vegetation and 3 wildlife. 4 Q. Data base management? 5 A. Is the computer support group, essentially 6 they are all computer programmers and GIS experts and 7 cartographer types. 8 Q. Science applications? 9 A. That would be all of the people who are in 10 resource management specialist positions for the Park 11 Service such as wildlife resource manager, marine 12 resource manager. All of our hands-on resource 13 management projects like exotic plant control are 14 handled in that group. 15 We have a position that was put in there 16 for the water quality specialist. 17 Q. Are these still the same programs you have 18 ongoing today, the same organization? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. With regard to service applications, are 21 there researchers or research programs being worked 22 on by service applications? 23 A. Science applications. 24 Q. I am sorry, science applications. 25 A. It is primarily not research, it is 48 1 short-term assessments or direct manipulation of 2 resources in the Park such as control of exotics, 3 keeping track of fisheries harvests, as compared to 4 more long-term research projects that deal with 5 understanding the ecology or hydrology of the system. 6 Q. You had mentioned a position was made for 7 a water quality specialist? 8 A. Yes. When the hydrology program -- during 9 the restructuring, the hydrology program had a water 10 quality project leader position in it and when we 11 went through the reorganization that position was 12 moved to science applications. 13 Q. When you joined the Park in 1983 was there 14 a water quality specialist in the hydrology program? 15 A. There wasn't by that title but there were 16 three professional positions that all dealt with 17 water quality. 18 Q. And that would be three of the seven 19 hydrologists that you referred to or are those 20 additional individuals? 21 A. Those would be two of them are additional 22 individuals other than the ones that I mentioned that 23 worked for me when I became the program manager. 24 Two of the people had left by the time I 25 took over the program. 49 1 Q. I am referring back to 1983 when you first 2 joined the Park as a hydrologist, was there a water 3 quality specialist at that point in the hydrology 4 program? 5 A. There were three hydrologists working on 6 water quality projects. 7 Q. Who were those these? 8 A. Mark Flora, Dave Walker and Dan Scheidt. 9 Q. When you became the hydrology program 10 manager you mentioned you also had three water 11 quality specialists working underneath you? 12 A. No. We had only one water quality 13 specialist working at that time. 14 Q. Who was that? 15 A. Dan Scheidt. 16 Q. Did that change occur during the period of 17 time you were the hydrology program manager? 18 A. Yes, we went to having no water quality 19 expertise -- 20 Q. At what point was that? 21 A. I believe Dan left in 1991. 22 Q. When in 1991? 23 A. I don't recall the exact date. 24 Q. Prior to the October '91 reorganization? 25 A. Yes. Just prior to the August of '91 50 1 settlement agreement. 2 Q. And during the period that you were the 3 program manager of ecosystem analysis and modeling 4 did you have water quality specialists working 5 underneath you at that time? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Who was your supervisor during the period 8 from October of 1991 through January of 1992 when you 9 were the program manager of ecosystem analysis and 10 modeling? 11 A. That would have been the research 12 director, Mike Soukup. 13 Q. You were only the program manager of the 14 ecosystem analysis and modeling for three months? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Did you participate in any particular 17 studies or research? 18 A. The water delivery studies projects that I 19 had been involved with previously continued during 20 that period. 21 Q. And they were within that program? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Are you still within that program then? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. But as a project leader at this point? 51 1 A. That's correct. I am in a weird position 2 because I supervise several project leaders, I am not 3 a program manager but I am not really the project 4 leader, but, yes officially I am a project leader. 5 Q. Who replaced you as the project manager? 6 A. Dr. Thomas Armentano. 7 A. Dr. Thomas Armentano. 8 Q. Could you spell the last name? 9 A. A R M E N T A N O. 10 Q. Prior to being sidetracked on some of the 11 changes within the reorganization we were going 12 through the studies you had participated in with 13 regard to Taylor Slough. We had gone through five of 14 those studies. Does that cover all the studies that 15 you had participated in with regard to the Taylor 16 Slough? 17 A. I believe so. 18 Q. With regard to the Shark River Slough, 19 have you also participated in studies there? 20 A. Yes, I have. 21 Q. If you could go ahead and list those 22 studies that you have participated in since 1983 when 23 you joined the Park Service? 24 A. I had minor involvement on a study done to 25 look at the distribution of flow through the S-12 52 1 structures, primarily just reviewing documents. 2 I was a principal investigator on a 3 project to examine the impacts of the minimum 4 delivery schedule and the flow-through experiment in 5 the Shark Slough Basin and I was the principal 6 investigator on the project to project the effects of 7 the current rainfall based delivery formula. 8 Q. Anything else, any other studies? 9 A. I helped to set up the hydropattern study 10 for Shark Slough, although I wasn't a principal 11 investigator. 12 I believe that's all of them. 13 Q. Outside the Taylor Slough and the Shark 14 River Slough which we have both covered, what 15 additional studies have you participated in during 16 your time with the Park Service, in other words from 17 essentially 1983 forward? 18 A. I have worked on a project in the lower 19 C-111 basin looking at the impacts of water 20 management on the eastern panhandle wetlands, and 21 done essentially a water budget study of the lower 22 C-111 canal system. 23 Then I have done a couple of projects or a 24 couple of reports on projects that were independent 25 of my work in terms of assigned responsibilities. 53 1 One was a review of water management 2 changes in the Everglades system from 1940 through 3 roughly 1990, and another one was -- 4 Q. That was 1940 through 1990? 5 A. That's correct. And another was a report 6 on the impacts of the major alternatives for the 7 modified water deliveries general design memorandum. 8 And then I am doing work on the use of the 9 natural system simulation model to examine hydrologic 10 changes in the Everglades basin. 11 Q. Anything else? 12 A. Can I look at my list of publications? 13 Q. Yes. 14 (Pause) 15 A. I have done some minor work on water 16 allocation studies in the Everglades that came out in 17 a publication in 1992, and then I am anticipating 18 some followup work on that during 1993. 19 Q. If we could as we did previously, just 20 very briefly going back to the Shark River Slough 21 studies, although you provided a bit of insight, let 22 me see if I need any additional information. 23 With regard to your inventory study of the 24 distribution of flows through the S-12s, you say you 25 had a minor role in that? 54 1 A. I just reviewed documents. 2 Q. What was the purpose of that study? 3 A. It was to examine the water distribution 4 patterns as water passes southward from the L-29 5 canal through the S-12s and into Everglades National 6 Park, either directly through the structures, through 7 the gaps under the old Tamiami Trail or down L-67 8 extension canal. 9 Q. Was there a project leader or study leader 10 with regard to that study? 11 A. I believe the project leader would have 12 been David Sikkema, and then there were two 13 hydrologists that worked on those projects, three 14 hydrologists that worked on those projects. 15 Those were projects that were going on 16 while I was working in Taylor Slough so I didn't have 17 a direct involvement on the projects. 18 Q. Were you involved in the drafting of any 19 report with regard to the S-12 flow study? 20 A. No. 21 Q. During what period was that flow study 22 conducted? 23 A. 1980 -- I believe the study itself started 24 in 1982 and ran through late 1983, and then 25 continuation studies ran through 1984 and I believe 55 1 they were completed by the end of September 1984, the 2 start of the fiscal year. 3 Q. You say you were the principal 4 investigator of impacts of the minimum delivery and 5 flow-through schedules. 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. What does principal investigator mean? 8 A. It usually means you are the senior author 9 of the final report, that you designed and carried 10 out most of the design, analysis and report writing 11 functions. In this particular case I designed the 12 study, I performed most of the analysis and someone 13 else was responsible for writing up the final report. 14 Q. Who did write up the final report? 15 A. David Sikkema. 16 Q. During what period did that study proceed? 17 A. I believe it began in 1985 and ended 18 somewhere in 1987. 19 Q. When was the report finalized? 20 A. I would have to look at the date on the 21 report. Finalized, it has not ever been finalized. 22 It came out as a draft report and I don't believe it 23 has ever been released as a technical report. As far 24 as it went it was a draft report. 25 Q. Is there an intent to release it as 56 1 technical report publication? 2 A. I don't know if anyone will go back and 3 release that document itself as a technical report. 4 Parts of the work on that document will more than 5 likely come out in future documents done by the Park. 6 Q. What was the purpose of the study of 7 minimum delivery and the flow-through schedules? 8 A. It was essentially to document the 9 hydrologic impacts of the minimum delivery schedule 10 on the Shark Slough Basin and make recommendations to 11 future water management operational changes for 12 deliveries to Shark Slough, and to document what 13 happened under the two years of the flow-through 14 experiment. 15 Q. When you say what happened, are you again 16 referring hydrologically? 17 A. Hydrologic changes, changes in water 18 depths, hydroperiods, spatial and temporal extent of 19 flooding. 20 Q. Did that study involve at all a vegetative 21 change or vegetative impacts? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did Dr. Sikkema -- is it Dr. Sikkema? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did David Sikkema assist you in that study 57 1 other than drafting the report? 2 A. He was a co-investigator throughout the 3 study and then I was transferred off that on to 4 another project and he was responsible for finalizing 5 the report. 6 Q. What was the other project you transferred 7 to? 8 A. I believe I came back to do the final 9 report on the L-31W drawdown study. 10 Q. The next study you mentioned with regard 11 to the Shark River Slough was the impacts of rainfall 12 based delivery schedule and I believe you mentioned 13 you were the principal investigator with regard to 14 that study. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. What was the purpose of that study, sir? 17 A. Again, to document the hydrologic changes 18 that occurred in the Shark Slough Basin in response 19 to the initiation of the rainfall based delivery 20 formula and to focus specifically on the impacts of 21 redistribution of flow in the northeast Shark Slough. 22 Q. The redistribution of flows, are you 23 referring to the proposed redistribution under the 24 modified water delivery GDM? 25 A. No. The current redistribution that has 58 1 been in effect since 1985 under the rainfall based 2 delivery. 3 Q. During what period was this study being 4 conducted? 5 A. Essentially the project began, data 6 analysis and data collection began in 1985 when we 7 started on the new delivery formula and it has been 8 ongoing since the beginning of the formula. 9 Q. Have you published any reports as yet? 10 A. No. The annual report describing most of 11 the data analysis for the first either six or seven 12 years has been completed. Other than that, no final 13 technical reports have come out. 14 Q. Any draft reports other than the annual 15 reports you referred to? 16 A. Not done by the Park, no. 17 Q. Done by others? 18 A. Done by the Water Management District. 19 Q. Was that a cooperative study? 20 A. No, not directly. We assisted in data 21 collection but we had no real responsibility in 22 report writing other than reviewing of documents. 23 Q. So the project, this particular study you 24 are referring to was essentially supervised by the 25 Water Management District? 59 1 A. No. The Water Management District did a 2 study of a 30 day field test in 1984, a 90 day field 3 test in 1984 and the first two years of the 4 experimental water delivery program. And then they 5 stopped doing an analysis on that. 6 What we did was, we have been analyzing 7 the entire seven plus years of the current rainfall 8 formula. So we have picked up from essentially with 9 the start of their two year reporting and continued 10 analyses onward. 11 Q. Does this study again focus on the 12 hydrologic impacts upon Shark River Slough? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Does the study include any vegetative 15 impacts or vegetative studies? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Who else is working with you on that 18 study? 19 A. Sue Von Hatten, Dr. David Moon and a 20 Gordon Anderson. 21 MR. PERKO: Could you repeat that? 22 THE WITNESS: Sue Von Hatten, Gordon -- 23 MR. PERKO: Just the last one. 24 THE WITNESS: Gordon Anderson. 25 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 60 1 Q. Are those all with the Park Service? 2 A. Dr. Moon has left the Park Service. Sue 3 Von Hatten is on maternity leave and Gordon Anderson 4 is still at the Park. 5 Q. What are their particular specialties? 6 A. Dr. Moon was brought in to do the spatial 7 and temporal analysis of hydropatterns, and Gordon 8 Anderson was brought in based on his surveying and 9 GIS skills. And Sue Von Hatten does primarily 10 graphics and statistical analysis on hydrology 11 projects. 12 Q. Is it intended that there will be a final 13 technical publication or final report from this 14 study? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is there a projected day as to when that 17 will be completed? 18 A. I am hoping it will be in 1993, probably 19 late 1993. 20 Q. Will you be the principal author of that, 21 sir? 22 A. Yes, I will. 23 Q. The final study you mentioned with regard 24 to the Shark River Slough was that you helped set up 25 a hydropattern study? 61 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. What does that consist of? 3 A. That was the project I was just referring 4 to that David Moon was the principal investigator on 5 and it is an analysis of spatial and temporal 6 patterns of rainfall and water levels in hydroperiods 7 within the Shark Slough and northern Taylor Slough 8 Basins. 9 Q. Is that study complete? 10 A. No. 11 Q. What was the period of time that that 12 study was conducted? 13 A. It began in 1988 and ran through 1991. 14 Q. Is that when Dr. Moon left the Park 15 Service? 16 A. He left in late 1990, I believe. 17 Q. Is there any intent to continue on with 18 that study? 19 A. I am trying to convince the new project 20 leader to take over and finish up the project. 21 Q. That is, you are attempting to convince -- 22 A. It would be Dr. Thomas Van Lent. 23 Q. Why was that study halted? 24 A. Because the project leader left. 25 Q. Dr. Moon? 62 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Who did Dr. Moon have assist him with that 3 project? 4 A. Gordon Anderson and then a large number of 5 volunteers and VIPs to do the field work. VIPs are 6 volunteers in park, it is sort of an official 7 category of people who come into parks that are 8 provided a small stipend and housing, usually. 9 Q. Did that study at all include a vegetative 10 impact analysis? 11 A. I don't believe as part of that study, but 12 there were vegetation mapping studies being done in 13 conjunction with the hydropattern study. 14 Q. Were those also being conducted by Dr. 15 Moon? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Who was doing the vegetative mapping? 18 A. I believe it was initially work that Lance 19 Gunderson and John Stenberg was involved with, and I 20 am not sure if anything ever, any final reports came 21 out on that? 22 A. Essentially the hydropattern study was 23 part of an overall project consisting of vegetation 24 and soils and topography and hydrology studies all 25 being done. 63 1 Q. Did that have a title? 2 A. I don't know what the individual titles 3 for particular parts were but the hydropattern study 4 which was the only part I was involved with dealt 5 with elevations and hydrologic patterns. 6 Q. Did you mention the overall study? Does 7 that overall project have a name or study have a 8 name? 9 A. Not that I know of. Essentially 10 evaluation of the experimental water delivery program 11 for the Shark Slough Basin. 12 Q. What is the geographical extent of the 13 hydropattern study? 14 A. It covered all of the freshwater marshes 15 in Shark Slough, essentially from Tamiami Trail 16 southward and westward until you reach the mangrove 17 fringe and all of northern Taylor Slough down to the 18 main park road which would be Route 9336, essentially 19 all the area where the original topographic surveying 20 had been done. 21 Q. I believe that covered all the studies 22 that you participated in with regard to Shark River 23 Slough? 24 A. Except for analysis of the alternatives 25 for the modified water delivery project. 64 1 Q. Which you mentioned as one of the other 2 studies you had been involved in. Do you -- 3 A. It is a project specifically on Shark 4 Slough. 5 Q. What is the purpose of the modified GDM 6 study, modified water delivery GDM study? 7 A. The project that I did was to look at 8 hydrologic effects of a series of proposed 9 alternatives for the Shark Slough Basin. 10 Q. What period of time has that study been 11 ongoing? 12 A. I believe my work started in the summer of 13 1989 and I completed most of my reports by late 1990. 14 Q. And the overall modified water delivery 15 GDM study itself, what period has that been ongoing? 16 A. The studies have been, I believe the first 17 proposed structural modifications would go back to 18 1983 for the Shark Slough Basin, immediately after 19 the original environmental impact study was done on 20 Shark Slough. That was when the Park, Water 21 Management District and the Corps first started 22 looking at modified water delivery and the time when 23 the experimental water delivery program was 24 authorized by Congress so our studies started in 25 1983. 65 1 Q. Was there a formal modified water delivery 2 GDM study, though? 3 A. Yes, that was the report that came out in 4 June of 1990. 5 Q. Did you assist in drafting that report? 6 A. Yes. I wrote all of the hydrology 7 components and I was the, one of the two editors of 8 the document. 9 Q. Did your participation in that study 10 involve any type of vegetative studies? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Or vegetative impacts resulting from the 13 modified water delivery? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You then listed for me six and one of 16 which was this modified water delivery GDM which we 17 have now discussed and with regard to Shark River 18 Slough, but you then listed five additional studies 19 that you have been involved with, the first of which 20 was the lower C-111 basin study. 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. What was the purpose of that study, sir? 23 A. To look at the impacts of canal discharges 24 on the hydrology of the eastern panhandle basin and 25 to a limited extent the salinity of the near shore 66 1 basin of North Florida Bay. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can you repeat that 3 answer? 4 (The question referred to was 5 thereupon read by the reporter 6 as above recorded) 7 Q. During what period has that study been 8 ongoing? 9 A. It was established in 1985 and the project 10 will continue for several more years. 11 Q. What is your role in that study? 12 A. I am a co-investigator along with Dr. 13 Robert Fennema on a joint project between the 14 District, in this case the South Florida Water 15 Management District, and Everglades National Park, as 16 part of the impact assessment for the C-111 interim 17 project. And then we had a previous project ongoing 18 with the District prior to that to look at the 19 development of a water budget for the lower part of 20 the C-111 canal system. 21 Q. With regard to the lower C-111 basin study 22 that we have been referring to, were you involved 23 from 1985 to present? 24 A. Not on a continuous basis, but, yes, I was 25 involved. 67 1 Q. What aspects of the study have you been 2 involved in? 3 A. I installed most of the original 4 monitoring network in 1985. In 1988 we began our 5 first major research effort out there with a joint 6 funded project between the Park Service and the 7 District. And I was a principal investigator along 8 with Dr. Robert Fennema on that project. 9 Q. What specific impacts were you looking at, 10 again, similar to the prior with the impacts on the 11 hydrology, water levels, et cetera? 12 A. Impacts on hydrology, meaning water 13 levels, hydroperiod, length of inundation and also 14 minor impacts on salinities in the downstream basin. 15 Q. Did this study include any type of 16 analysis or study of vegetative impacts? 17 A. No. 18 I would like to take a break somewhere 19 around now. 20 Q. Sure. As I am sure you heard us before in 21 other depositions, any time you want to take a break, 22 give a shout and we will accommodate you. 23 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 24 after which the following proceedings 25 were had) 68 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. Mr. Johnson, I believe where we left off, 3 you had just given a somewhat brief mention of the 4 water budget study of the C-111 canal system, is that 5 correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. During what period was this water budget 8 study? 9 A. The project began in I believe October of 10 1988 and it continues through sometime in 1994. 11 Q. To present at this point? 12 A. Right, to present. 13 Q. What is your participation in that study? 14 A. I am one of the principal investigators on 15 the project along with Dr. Robert Fennema. 16 Q. Have you developed a water budget for the 17 C-111 canal system as yet? 18 A. We have developed budgets for limited 19 periods of time when we had flow measurements. 20 Q. Is there a reason why you do not have flow 21 measurements for all the periods of time that you 22 have been looking? 23 A. The published record for the structures in 24 the lower C-111 canal is inadequate for doing a 25 continuous water budget or at least it has been until 69 1 recently. 2 Q. What is the purpose of the study, 3 preparing the water budget? 4 A. Essentially to document the distribution 5 of flows out of the lower C-111 canal system of the 6 water that passes through the upstream structure, how 7 much of it goes into the marshes and where. 8 Q. Have you prepared any draft reports? 9 A. We have prepared I believe three major 10 reports, all as portions of the contract requirements 11 with the Water Management District. 12 Q. Is this something you are doing on behalf 13 of the Water Management District? 14 A. It is a jointly funded project with the 15 Water Management District. Basically it is part of 16 the permitting requirements for the C-111 interim 17 project. 18 Q. Who are you working with at the District 19 on this? 20 A. It has changed over the years. Currently 21 it is Dr. Janet Ley. 22 Q. You had mentioned several times previously 23 a Dr. David Moon and I believe you said he left in 24 late 1990. When did he join the Park Service? 25 A. I believe 1988. 70 1 Q. Did he come from a particular university? 2 A. He came from Harvard. 3 Q. Do you know where he is employed now? 4 A. He has been traveling in Europe and South 5 America and I believe he is currently employed in 6 Germany, but I am not sure. 7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record. 8 (Discussion off the record) 9 MR. KOBELINSKI: On the record. 10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 11 Q. Did you prepare a water budget model, a 12 computer water budget model for the C-111 study? 13 A. There is a model being prepared. 14 Q. Had you participated in that? 15 A. Dr. Robert Fennema is the modeler on the 16 project. I am assisting. 17 Q. What is the status of that model? 18 A. Essentially the work is primarily using 19 the one-dimensional version of the South Florida 20 Water Management Model and the primary effort is to 21 use the natural system version of that model and 22 include the single C-111 canal and then incorporate 23 the historical discharge record and see if we can 24 reproduce the historical patterns of water depths and 25 hydroperiods. 71 1 Q. Have you been successful to date with any 2 degree of accuracy? 3 A. I don't know the current status. I don't 4 believe any simulations have been run on it yet. He 5 is still in the process of fitting the canal system 6 and historical flows to the Natural System Model. 7 Q. Drawing your attention back a moment to 8 what has been marked as Exhibit 1, does that include 9 a complete bibliography of your papers or studies 10 that you have drafted? 11 A. No. The list of publications I believe 12 here starts in 1990. So there are a number of 13 publications prior to 1990. 14 Q. Do you have a complete bibliography? 15 A. I have never sat down and developed one, 16 no. 17 Q. Do you have a bibliography which includes 18 reports and papers that precede the ones contained on 19 Exhibit 1? 20 A. No, I never sat down and prepared one. 21 Q. So this is then the only bibliography that 22 you have? 23 A. That's correct, although the list of 24 publications prior to 1990 would not be very long. 25 MR. FITZGERALD: One second. 72 1 (The witness and his counsel confer off 2 the record) 3 A. I had provided as part of the duces tecum 4 a folder of I believe all of my major publications 5 since working with the Park Service. 6 Q. The folder then that you provided had 7 everything that you did? 8 A. I believe so, except for some documents 9 that were provided as part of the modified water 10 delivery GDM which was a separate disclosure done I 11 believe in response to the April '92 FOIA. There 12 were one or two publications in there but all the 13 publications would be in here except for quarterly 14 reports or something like that that were responsive 15 to the District on certain projects, but all the 16 major annual reports and publications would be in 17 that folder. 18 Q. Just to finish off the studies that you 19 had told us, you also stated you were involved in a 20 review of the water management changes, is that the 21 Everglades National Park or Everglades in general 22 from 1940 through 1990? 23 A. That would be the efforts in general. 24 Q. During what period of time has this study 25 been ongoing? 73 1 A. I began work on that in 1990 as part of 2 the Everglades Symposium and I am still doing some of 3 the data analysis and report writing. 4 Q. This is a Park project, though, is that 5 correct? 6 A. No. It is a Park project in that I am a 7 Park employee and I am working on it. It is not an 8 assigned project to me. It is something I am 9 primarily doing on my own time as is most of my 10 research. 11 Q. What is the purpose of the review of the 12 water management changes? 13 A. Simply to document the changes in the 14 hydrology of the Everglades Protection Area since the 15 1940s, essentially it is a review of the flow history 16 and water level, water depth variations in the Water 17 Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park and then 18 some peripheral wetlands. 19 Q. When do you anticipate completing this 20 review? 21 A. It was supposed to be completed by the end 22 of February '93, but I don't anticipate getting it 23 completed by that date. 24 Q. When do you now anticipate having it 25 complete? 74 1 A. Sometime during the summer of 1993. 2 Q. As part of this review are you also 3 reviewing any type of vegetative patterns or 4 vegetative studies? 5 A. No. 6 Q. The next to last study you mentioned was a 7 hydrologic changes in the Everglades basin using the, 8 I believe it is the District's natural system 9 simulation model. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. What is the purpose of this study? 12 A. To document the changes in the hydrology 13 of the system between pre- and post-water management 14 eras. 15 Q. Is this a Park study? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What is the period of time that this study 18 has been ongoing? 19 A. We began work on the project in 1990. 20 Q. Is it ongoing at this time? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. Who is working with you on that project? 23 A. The principal investigator is Dr. Robert 24 Fennema, Dr. Thomas Van Lent is assisting on the 25 project as well as several people from the Water 75 1 Management District. 2 Q. Dr. Van -- 3 A. Dr. Thomas Van Lent. 4 Q. Could you spell that? 5 A. V A N, cap L E N T. 6 Q. The Everglades basin you referred to, what 7 comprised the Everglades basin? 8 A. Essentially the area covered by the South 9 Florida Water Management District Model under the 10 natural system scenario, essentially extends from 11 Lake Okeechobee southward and goes to the Atlantic 12 coast on the east and goes roughly to the extension 13 of Route 29 on the west up to the Caloosahatchee 14 River and southward down to the mangrove fringe along 15 Florida Bay and Whitewater Bay. 16 Q. Are you actually assisting in developing a 17 model? 18 A. I am primarily working with compiling the 19 data and assisting with analysis of the model output. 20 I am not doing any of the modeling. 21 Q. Is the purpose of this particular study to 22 improve the NSM model, the Natural System Model? 23 A. That's correct, improve the Natural System 24 Model and allow it to be more user friendly for 25 applications. 76 1 Q. Is there a projected period of time that 2 this study or this improvement is intended to be 3 complete? 4 A. April of 1993. 5 Q. I gather from your testimony you work a 6 fair amount with Dr. Fennema? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Is he in a supervisory position or just at 9 the same level as you? 10 A. He works under me. 11 Q. The final study you mentioned was water 12 allocations in Everglades, I have written down 1992. 13 Could you explain a little further what that study 14 is? 15 A. Essentially what we are looking at is the 16 history of water use and water allocations in the 17 system from 1965 through 1989. 18 Q. What geographic area? 19 A. Essentially from Lake Okeechobee 20 southward. 21 Q. Would it essentially be the same area that 22 is covered by the NSM model? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. During what period of time has that study 25 been ongoing? 77 1 A. I think we began some work on the project 2 in 1991 and put out a brief report in 1992, and then 3 we anticipate doing most of the work during 1993. 4 Q. It is ongoing at present, then? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Who is working with you on this study? 7 A. Dr. Robert Fennema, Trupti Bhatt and Fred 8 James. And I believe Dr. Thomas Van Lent will be 9 involved to some extent. 10 Q. He is not involved as yet? 11 A. No. We are not really doing much on the 12 project currently. 13 Q. What has been done to date? 14 A. The data bases have been compiled, 15 preliminary report was written in I believe May of 16 1992, some water budget analysis by sub-basins has 17 been completed, there has been a couple of 18 presentations done on some of the results, but we 19 have not started to do a detailed assessment 20 associated with the project. 21 Q. What sub-basins has the water budget 22 analysis been completed for? 23 A. The EAA, the Water Conservation Areas, the 24 Lower East Coast which would include Palm Beach, 25 Broward and Dade Counties and Everglades National 78 1 Park. 2 Q. What sub-basins still need to be 3 completed? 4 A. Those are the only sub-basins that will be 5 analyzed. 6 Q. Perhaps you misunderstood my prior 7 question. What water budget analysis for the 8 sub-basins has been completed? 9 A. We have looked at the annual water budgets 10 in all of those basins and we are starting to look at 11 or we will be starting to look at seasonal and 12 monthly variability in those four sub-basins. 13 Q. With regard to the annual water budgets, 14 did you use a particular computer model for this? 15 A. No, it is simply spreadsheet calculations. 16 Some of the analysis that is used for the water 17 budgets is a result of what comes out of the South 18 Florida Water Management District Model, particularly 19 parameters such as evapotranspiration, rainfall 20 inputs, groundwater seepage, those numbers would come 21 out of the South Florida Water Management District 22 Model. Most of the other parameters are the 23 historical flows going to the basins and the 24 historical rainfall. 25 Q. Who authored the preliminary report in May 79 1 of 1992? 2 A. I was the senior author and Robert Fennema 3 and Trupti Bhatt were coauthors. 4 Q. Did that report include the water budgets, 5 the annual water budgets for the four basins you 6 mentioned? 7 A. Yes. I should say it is not the, the 8 report doesn't include the complete water budget. 9 What it does is compares inflows and outflows in each 10 of those basins over the period from 1965 to 1989. 11 So it doesn't account for all the changes in storage. 12 Q. Did your annual water budgets that you 13 stated were complete account for changes in storage? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Are they put together in any particular 16 report? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Who is doing the modeling for this 19 particular study? 20 A. Some of it is, has been done by staff at 21 the Water Management District. Most of the 22 additional work would be done by Dr. Robert Fennema. 23 Q. Who at the Water Management District? 24 A. The people that have been involved with it 25 so far are Calvin Neidrauer, Jayantha Obeysekera. 80 1 Those are the primary people at the District. 2 We have also gotten some assistance on 3 data bases from Lehar Brion and Randy Van Zee, I 4 believe. And those I believe are the major people at 5 the District who have been providing us data for the 6 study. 7 Q. Mr. Brion and Van Zee are also at the 8 District? 9 A. Yes, in different departments. 10 Q. You mentioned a few moments ago, I believe 11 you said most, but you say you do other research 12 outside of your employment activities for the Park, 13 is that correct? 14 A. I won't say it is outside of my employment 15 activities, it is outside of the time that the agency 16 pays me. 17 Q. Does this research, is it basically with 18 regard to the various studies we have already 19 discussed or is it in addition to that? 20 A. Several of the studies that were done are 21 projects that I have worked on outside of normal 22 business hours. 23 Q. Let's just quickly run through them. The 24 water use in the Everglades basin 1965 to 1989, I 25 believe you mentioned that is actually a Park study, 81 1 is that correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. The NSM hydrologic changes in the 4 Everglades Basin 19 which goes through 1989, that is 5 also a Park study, is that correct? 6 A. Right, but in both cases I have papers 7 that have come out that were not part of the original 8 project requirements. 9 Q. So those would not be Park publications? 10 A. They are not part of our technical report 11 series, they are simply publications that myself and 12 the other investigators would have put out. 13 Q. Were those included in the group of 14 reports that you provided? 15 A. In that case, both of those were included. 16 Q. Then I don't need to ask about those. The 17 review of water management changes in the Everglades 18 1940 to 1990 you actually testified is not a Park 19 study. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. The water budget C-111 canal study, is 22 that a park study? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. The lower C-111 basin study, is that a 25 Park study? 82 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. The modified water delivery GDM study, is 3 that a Park study? 4 A. That is but I have two publications I have 5 on that that are separate from the work I did as a 6 specific Park project. 7 Q. And those were produced in that binder 8 that we referred to a few moments ago. 9 The hydropattern study you referred to, is 10 that a park study? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The impacts of rainfall driven delivery 13 schedule, is that a park study? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. The minimum delivery and flow-through 16 schedule, is that a Park study? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Your review of documents with regard to 19 the S-12 flows, was that with regard to a Park study? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Going then to your studies related to 22 Taylor Slough, the fish study that you participated 23 in with Mr. Loftus. 24 A. That was not a Park study. 25 Q. That was not a Park study. 83 1 Is that fish study in any way related to 2 the review of water management changes in the 3 Everglades 1940 to 1990? 4 A. No. 5 A. It is related in that some of the stations 6 that were analyzed for the Taylor Slough study are 7 included in the larger water management study of the 8 Everglades. 9 Q. But the fish study was not done as part of 10 the Everglades Symposium that you referred to before, 11 was it? 12 A. No. 13 Q. The water delivery impacts on marshes in 14 Taylor Slough study, was that a Park study? 15 A. Neither one of the projects were official 16 Park projects, no, neither one of the reports. 17 Q. Was the study itself though a Park study? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When you say they weren't Park reports, 20 are you saying they were not technical publications? 21 A. They weren't assigned tasks where we were 22 supposed to produce a final technical report. They 23 were usually spinoffs from Park research that we 24 produced an outside publication of some type that was 25 not a requirement of the project. So it doesn't mean 84 1 that they weren't done as part of a Park project. 2 Q. But the reports themselves, for instance, 3 is it considered a Park report or on Park, for 4 instance, stationery? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Then in the true sense it would be a 7 private publication? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. And those two reports, were they included 10 in the binder that you referred to a few minutes ago 11 that was produced? 12 A. Yes. I take that back. One of those two, 13 the most recent one in 1993 is going to come out as a 14 technical report so it would be a normal Park Service 15 work element. It was just something that was not an 16 assigned work task. 17 Q. But even though it wasn't assigned in this 18 case it will be a technical report? 19 A. It will become a technical report. 20 Q. Is there a distinction between that and 21 the other ones to you? 22 A. Not specifically that. That report came 23 out, a spinoff based on a request to me to do a 24 presentation before the governing board on the Taylor 25 Slough water management issues related to inflows to 85 1 Florida Bay, and somehow from the preparation of a 2 presentation it became a 90-page technical report? 3 Q. You are referring to a presentation to the 4 District governing board? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. South Florida Water Management District. 7 The groundwater/surface water model with 8 regard to Taylor Slough, was that a Park study? 9 A. It was a park study through a cooperator. 10 Q. That would be groundwater tracer study, 11 was that a Park study? 12 A. Through a cooperative agreement it was a 13 Park study. 14 Q. And the L-31 drawdown study, that was a 15 Park study? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I believe I have covered all the studies 18 we have discussed, is that correct? 19 A. I believe so. 20 Q. Going back then for a moment, have we 21 covered all of the research, both involved with 22 particular Park studies and that you have done on 23 your own time from 1983 through the present? 24 A. There are some additional projects that I 25 am working on currently, I should say spinoffs of 86 1 other projects that I am working on currently, that 2 have not come out as a publication yet. 3 Q. Are these Park projects or again private 4 projects? 5 A. They would be primarily Park projects. 6 Q. Could you describe what those are? 7 Perhaps if you just list them first and then we can 8 get some more detail if necessary. 9 A. One is a project that just started in 10 October of 1992 to look at water management in the 11 canal systems adjacent to the Frog Pond and involves 12 the development or the refinement of the existing two 13 dimensional surface water/groundwater model in that 14 area. And that is a project jointly funded between 15 the Park Service and the Water Management District. 16 Another project involves the use of the 17 Natural System Model and the South Florida Water 18 Management District Model to develop a series of 19 ecosystem restoration alternatives for the Everglades 20 basin. 21 A third project that hasn't started yet 22 but should start in the near future is an analysis of 23 or development of new water delivery schedules for 24 Taylor Slough and the Shark Slough Basin. 25 And I think there is another study that 87 1 should begin in the next few months looking at 2 Everglades rainfall, spatial and temporal variability 3 related to the effectiveness of the rainfall network. 4 Q. All four of those I believe you stated 5 were Park studies? 6 A. Park or jointly funded studies. 7 Q. Are there any additional private studies 8 or research that you are conducting currently? 9 A. I don't believe so. The only additional 10 publication I am working on is a final report for the 11 Everglades Symposium on a comparison of the Natural 12 System Model and the Water Management Model and I 13 guess you can call that a private study in that it is 14 not a funded project at the Park. 15 Q. When is that intended to be complete? 16 A. It is supposed to be completed by the end 17 of February 1993. 18 Q. When do you expect it to be complete? 19 A. I hope it is completed by the end of 20 February 1993. 21 Q. With regard to the project on the water 22 management canals adjacent to Frog Pond, what is your 23 role in that? 24 A. I am one of the principal investigators 25 along with Dr. Robert Fennema on the study. I will 88 1 assist in design of the monitoring network and data 2 analysis and some limited role in the report writing, 3 and probably assist in compilation of the data for 4 the modeling work and Dr. Fennema will do most of the 5 data analysis and all of the modeling along with some 6 cooperators. 7 Q. What is the status of that project? 8 A. We are just completing our equipment 9 acquisition in terms of the field equipment. 10 We are entering into a contract with a 11 private consulting firm to construct and to 12 instrument the acoustic velocity meter setups in the 13 canal, we are beginning the well drilling for 14 installation of the equipment. 15 And Robert Fennema has been reviewing his 16 two-dimensional model to find out what additional 17 data is needed. 18 And we have two cooperative agreements 19 that we are trying to establish with Florida 20 International University. One is for a continuation 21 of the groundwater tracer study that we began in 1985 22 and 1986 and the second one is to do the flow meter 23 measurements and water budget analysis in the canals. 24 Essentially the project is just beginning, 25 the funding was in October and we haven't even gotten 89 1 all the equipment in yet. 2 Q. With regard to the second to the current 3 project you mentioned which involves both the Natural 4 System Model and the South Florida Water Management 5 District Model, that is the study of ecosystem 6 restoration alternatives? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. What is the scope of that study? 9 A. Essentially we will be trying to develop a 10 series of alternatives that help to approach the 11 hydrologic conditions that occurred under the Natural 12 System Model and then we will be analyzing the 13 impacts of those alternatives on water supply, flood 14 control, environmental systems. 15 Q. What is the status of that project? 16 A. That project began in 1990. A lot of the 17 work on the improvements to the Natural System Model 18 and the South Florida Water Management Model that the 19 Park is doing is basically associated with this 20 project. We will start with the assistance of the 21 Water Management District developing and testing 22 alternatives probably sometime in late 1993. 23 Then there are a number of ongoing 24 wildlife, marine, vegetation studies associated with 25 that project that began also in 1990 and then 90 1 essentially once the hydrologic models and 2 alternatives are developed we will look at the 3 impacts on the ecology of the system based on these 4 ongoing biological studies. 5 Q. What role have you had in this study? 6 A. I have worked on the improvements to the 7 Natural System Model and limited role on the 8 applications of the Water Management Model. 9 I am doing most of the analysis on 10 discharge variations between the sub-basin and the 11 impacts on hydroperiod and water levels and those 12 major parameters. Essentially analysis of the model 13 outputs and the comparisons. 14 Q. Who is doing the primary work on the South 15 Florida Water Management District Model from the 16 Park? 17 A. Dr. Robert Fennema, Trupti Bhatt and Fred 18 James. And then Tom Van Lent has some involvement. 19 Q. Who has been primarily working on the 20 natural system, is it simulation model or Natural 21 System Model? 22 A. Natural System Model. 23 Q. Who has been working on the Natural System 24 Model from the Park? 25 A. The same three people, Dr. Robert Fennema, 91 1 Trupti Bhatt and Fred James, and then myself to a 2 limited amount, again with assistance from other 3 agencies 4 Q. What is the current status of the NSM, the 5 Natural System Model? 6 A. In 1990 version 3.4 came out which was the 7 original version of the Natural System Model, in 1991 8 version 3.6 came out, and currently there is a 9 version 4.0 developed by Robert Fennema. He has 10 converted it from FORTRAN to C. 11 And currently the Water Management 12 District and the Park are trying to work jointly on 13 finalizing improvements to the Natural System Model 14 version 3.6 or 4.0, whichever one we decide to run 15 with, and we are anticipating that all of the major 16 improvements will be done by April of 1993. 17 Q. Has the decision been made as yet to go 18 with the 3.6 or 4.0? 19 A. On our end the decision has been made. 20 Q. What is that decision on your end? 21 A. We would prefer to go with version 4.0. 22 Q. When will the decision be made on the 23 other end? By that I assume you mean the District? 24 A. Yes. They are reviewing version 4.0. We 25 had a meeting scheduled in late December to finalize 92 1 all the work elements on the Natural System Model 2 improvements and to agree on which version and model 3 we were going to use for our analyses, and the 4 meeting was canceled because of other commitments and 5 holidays. So it is being rescheduled for early 6 February. So I would say we will have decided by 7 early February 1993 which of those versions to use. 8 Q. The third current project you referred to 9 is the development of a new water delivery schedule 10 for Taylor Slough and Shark Slough. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Is that in relation to the modified water 13 delivery GDM? 14 A. For the Shark Slough Basin it is related 15 to modified water delivery and it is also related to 16 the experimental water delivery program for the Shark 17 Slough Basin. 18 Q. How long has that project been ongoing? 19 A. We began work in 1990 with cooperators 20 from Colorado State University. 21 Q. Who were the cooperators? 22 A. Dr. Duane Boes, B O E S. 23 Q. B? 24 A. B O E S, and Brad Biggerstaff. 25 Q. Brad Biggerstaff? 93 1 A. That's correct. That is for the Taylor 2 Slough model. 3 And for the new model for Shark Slough the 4 cooperators are at the University of Virginia, and 5 they would be primarily Dr. Thomas Van Lent, Dr. 6 George Hornberger and a cooperator from the Institute 7 of Hydrology in England but I right offhand can't 8 remember his name. 9 Q. What is your role in the development of 10 the new water delivery schedules? 11 A. Originally I was going to be the project 12 leader on that project. And now Thomas Van Lent is 13 taking over on the project. So I have been assisting 14 in data analysis and compiling the data needed for 15 the studies and I will do some of the analyses of the 16 final delivery formulas relative to past delivery 17 changes as well as Robert Fennema. 18 Q. Dr. Van Lent is not an employee of the 19 Park Service, is he? 20 A. He is a cooperator with the University of 21 Virginia funded by the Park Service. 22 Q. Is it a normal practice for a non-Park 23 Service employee to be a project leader? 24 A. Yes, on cooperative projects, certainly. 25 Q. Is there a particular model being used for 94 1 the development of the new water delivery schedules? 2 A. No, there are time series methods. The 3 only hydrologic model used will be the Natural System 4 Model and Water Management Model primarily to compare 5 proposed formulas to output of those models to see 6 what the proposed impacts would be. 7 Q. The final current project that you 8 referred to is a rainfall study? 9 A. That is a study that has not started yet 10 that will be a jointly funded project between the 11 Water Management District and the Park to look at the 12 current network of rainfall stations essentially from 13 Lake Okeechobee southward and to focus on spatial and 14 temporal variability and the reliability of the 15 current monitoring network. 16 Q. Does that then cover all the past and 17 current studies and research you have been involved 18 in? 19 A. There is one other project that we have 20 been involved with on an examination of the 21 alternatives for the C-111 GRR which was the original 22 GDM and that is a jointly funded project between the 23 Park and the Army Corps of Engineers. 24 Q. That is an analysis of what, sir? 25 A. It is the development of alternatives and 95 1 testing of alternatives for hydrologic improvements 2 in the Taylor Slough and C-111 basins. 3 Q. What is your role in that project? 4 A. I supervise the principal investigators 5 currently. 6 Q. Who are the principal investigators? 7 A. David Sikkema and Fred James and to a 8 limited extent Robert Fennema. 9 Q. I believe you did so before but can you 10 spell Sikkema for me? 11 A. S I K K E M A. 12 The only other projects that are going on 13 is work on the water supply planning study of the 14 Everglades. That is essentially work being done by a 15 cooperator with the University of Virginia. 16 Q. That is something you are working on? 17 A. It is something that is being done on 18 contract to the Park Service. 19 My involvement is pretty limited other 20 than review of the documents, assistance and finding 21 publications and other sources of information. 22 Q. What is the status of that project? 23 A. It is going to end up initially as a 24 master's thesis that I think is slightly overdue now, 25 it should be coming out in early 1993. 96 1 Then we have one other report that has 2 been completed that is a water rights study that is 3 being done through cooperators at the University of 4 Florida. 5 Q. Who are the cooperators at University of 6 Florida? 7 A. The principal person is Richard Hamann. 8 Q. Who else? 9 A. He has other people working for him but I 10 don't know who they are. 11 Q. What is the purpose of this study? 12 A. It is a review of the water rights and 13 water availability issues associated with deliveries 14 for Everglades National Park. 15 Q. Is that a legal analysis? 16 A. Yes. He's a lawyer with the Center for 17 Government Responsibility. 18 Q. When did that study commence? 19 A. It began in 1990, I believe. 20 Q. When is it intended to be completed? 21 A. The final report is overdue. A draft 22 report I believe has been presented to the Park in 23 late 1992. 24 Q. What is your involvement in that study? 25 A. There was a lot of background information 97 1 that was required by the cooperator on the hydrology 2 of the Park and I provided most of that background 3 information. And I met with the cooperator on a 4 number of occasions to describe the history of water 5 management operations, general background information 6 for his study, as well as I spent some time compiling 7 previous water right studies that have been done on 8 Everglades National Park. 9 Q. Are you including any portion of that 10 analysis or a similar type analysis in your review of 11 water management changes in the Everglades from 1940 12 to 1990? 13 A. No. 14 MR. KOBELINSKI: It probably makes sense 15 to break for lunch. 16 Q. Does that cover all the studies 17 essentially and research that you have been involved 18 in since 1983 through the present? 19 A. To my knowledge, but I will think about it 20 over lunch and see if I can remember any more 21 projects. 22 Q. Thanks. 23 (Luncheon recess) 24 25