98 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. - 5:10 p.m. 21 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT JOHNSON 22 VOLUME II - P.M. SESSION 23 Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for 24 the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 25 99 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 1:10 p.m. 3 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record. 4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson. 6 If I could direct your attention, sir, to 7 what previously has been marked as Exhibit 1, and the 8 final page of that exhibit which has Bates number 9 0961523 marked on it, and also has a stamp labeled as 10 Government Exhibit 6B. But before I direct your 11 attention to that, off the record. 12 (Discussion off the record) 13 (A six-page document listing computer 14 files from computer disks was marked Johnson 15 Deposition Exhibit 2 for identification) 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. Mr. Johnson, I am showing you what has 18 been marked as Exhibit No. 2 to your deposition and I 19 would ask you as part of the documents and 20 information you provided in response to your notice 21 of deposition duces tecum did you provide us some 22 computer disks with information on them? 23 A. Yes, I did. 24 Q. I would represent to you that this is just 25 a listing on the various sheets of the directories of 100 1 those tapes, and they are essentially, there were 2 five disks -- I shouldn't say tapes, they are disks 3 -- five disks and I don't believe that the five are 4 in any particular order. However, as you can see 5 next to each directory we have gone ahead and 6 provided a number for that disk. 7 Could you go through and identify for us 8 what is in those files? Because we had some 9 difficulty trying to determine exactly what they 10 were. 11 A. Okay. 12 Most of the file names are MN and then at 13 the end an S and then usually a three digit number 14 and those are monthly flows for whatever particular 15 structure you are referring to. So then the third 16 letter there is either an N or a P indicating whether 17 it is positive or negative flows, because many of the 18 structures in the system have flow in both 19 directions. So depending on which sub-basin was 20 analyzed we would either list it as a positive flow 21 or negative flow depending on whether it was to the 22 north or south, east or west. 23 Q. Is there a particular period of time that 24 these flows relate to? 25 A. These are the monthly flows from the 101 1 period '65 through '89 that we are using for the 2 water budget and water allocation study. 3 Essentially these are the files that are 4 used in the South Florida Water Management Model. So 5 this is basically the same format, monthly total 6 flows as would be data from the model. 7 Q. When you say these are the files used by 8 the South Florida Water Management Model, are these 9 the files used by the Park in relation to that model 10 or are these essentially that particular model's 11 files? 12 A. They would be the same ones used by the 13 Park and the District. And the version of model, 14 these are the same historical flow files that we 15 would have received from the District directly. 16 Q. Perhaps for clarification, looking at this 17 Exhibit 2, on the first page there it has actually 18 what has been labeled as disk 5, and it is just an 19 arbitrary number we provided, the first file is 20 FLBAY.WP5. What would that be? 21 A. The Florida Bay and the Florida Bay PRE 22 are WordPerfect files, that's what the WP5 would 23 indicate. And based on the date they would be 24 probably some background information that I printed 25 up in order to prep for the presentation to the South 102 1 Florida Water Management District governing board 2 which was made on the 13th of November. 3 The next one -- 4 Q. Which is FLOWL? 5 A. Right. That is the file that specifies 6 the row and column number for the particular flow 7 lines in the South Florida Water Management District 8 Model that we analyzed for flow volume comparisons. 9 So it is just a file that lists for one 10 particular line, you know, this row and column 11 number, then the next row and column number, as you 12 go across the line either east-west or north-south. 13 That is just a file to keep track of how the flow 14 lines were oriented. And there should be some 15 explanation in there along with the actual numbers 16 that explains what the line was used for, whether 17 outflow to EAA or inflow to the Water Conservation 18 Areas or inflow to the Lower East Coast. 19 Q. And the next two files, one is FREQMON 20 space RUN, and the other one is FREQSEA space RUN. 21 A. These are two frequency analyses that were 22 run on I assume all of this monthly data. The first 23 one, MON ending is based on monthly data. And the 24 second one is based on seasonal data. And the RUN 25 extension tells me that it is the command lines to 103 1 run probably an SPSS program to do exceedance 2 frequencies. So this is some of the, I call them run 3 cards, back from the old days of key punch. That's 4 why they have the RUN extension on them. 5 Q. Then going down, the next number of files 6 are the MN files I believe you just discussed a few 7 moments ago. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. After them comes an NSM file. 10 A. That is probably an overall file that 11 includes flow data for a series of the flow lines out 12 of the Natural System Model based on the orientation 13 from the lines from the file FLOWL. It would 14 probably be monthly totals and annual total flows for 15 I think at that time we were looking at, this would 16 be version 4.0 of the Natural System Model. And it 17 would be for something like 15 different flow lines 18 spread all around the grid of the Natural System 19 Model. 20 At the top of each of the columns of data 21 there should be some explanation about which 22 particular name was given to that flow line and they 23 should match up to something in FLOWL. 24 Q. Which is the third one down? 25 A. Right. 104 1 Then below that the NSMANN and NSMANN with 2 two different extensions are the annual total flow 3 volumes, probably taken from the NSM file and just 4 separated out as annual totals. And the DAT tells me 5 it is an ASCII file and the WQ1 tells me it is a file 6 that was probably massaged in Quattro Pro. I 7 probably did something like the annual totals or 8 something like that within Quattro Pro. 9 And then the Natural System Model flow 10 MON, the next three files are Natural System Model 11 flow monthly data, one would be the raw data, DAT in 12 ASCII format, the NSMFLMON with the STA extension is 13 the statistics that is output most likely from SPSS 14 program. It probably would include basic descriptive 15 statistics like means and medians and mins and maxes 16 as well as probably some sort of frequency analysis 17 on the data. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. The next one down with the same file name 20 and extension WQ1 would be the Natural System Model 21 flow monthly data in Quattro Pro format. 22 Q. All right. 23 A. NSMFLOW.DAT looks like it is some sort of 24 streamlined version of the original NSMFLOW file in 25 ASCII format. It is slightly smaller than the other 105 1 one. Maybe I pulled out the annual data from that 2 and renamed it. 3 The next two, NSMFLSEA are the seasonal 4 breakdowns, wet-dry season breakdown over that 5 period. 6 And the first one is an ASCII data file 7 DAT extension, the next one is the output again 8 probably from SPSS program with the STA extension. 9 And again it would have the results of a statistical 10 analysis, something like descriptive statistics or 11 frequency analysis or something of that type. 12 I think that's probably the extent of any 13 statistical analysis I did on the data at this time. 14 And then the next two, NSMQ annual dot DAT 15 and Q annual dot WK1 are much older files. And 16 anything with the date in 1991, these November '91 17 dates are more than likely version 3.6 of the model. 18 We switched over sometime in early 1992. 19 And those would be again Natural System 20 Model discharge annual total flows in ASCII format 21 with the DAT and in Lotus format it looks like with 22 the WK1 extension. 23 And then the next file down, NSMSFWMM with 24 the extension Q would be a comparison file of the 25 flow data for the Natural System Model and the South 106 1 Florida Water Management Model. 2 The next one down would be output from the 3 South Florida Water Management Model. I am assuming 4 it is probably discharge based on all the rest of the 5 stuff in the files. 6 The last one on this disk is SSQMON.WK1 7 and that is the Shark Slough discharge monthly data. 8 And I would say based on the date it is probably the 9 Water Management Model output, something like that, 10 for that particular date. 11 Most of the files have some sort of 12 explanation header inside the top of the file to tell 13 you what, whether the data is a model output or 14 historical data from structures and if it is a model 15 output it will usually tell you it is a Natural 16 System Model or Water Management Model. 17 Q. The dates that are to the right of the 18 number of bytes, are those the last revision date or 19 is that the file creation date? 20 A. I believe it would be the revision date if 21 a change had been made. 22 Q. Going on to the bottom of that page and 23 what follows on the next page, what we have labeled 24 as disk 4. 25 A. That would be the same basic information, 107 1 annual flows from the Natural System Model and annual 2 totals from the Natural System Model. 3 These are I believe compilation tables on 4 those sub-basins that I referred to earlier. They 5 probably would be a table for the EAA inflows and 6 outflows, the Lower East Coast inflows and outflows 7 and the water conservation area inflows and outflows 8 on here in this case with the extension NSM meaning 9 those are the inflows and outflows under the Natural 10 System Model, based on their size. They are 11 relatively small. 12 The flow is the most likely the flow over 13 a series of flow lines and the total is probably some 14 summary of all that. So it is combined data for a 15 couple of different flow lines or something like 16 that. 17 Then again all of the MN structure name 18 files with the N or the P are again the individual 19 structure files. 20 And they more than likely are the same 21 files as what you see on disk 5 because the file date 22 and size are all exactly the same. It is just a 23 duplicate set that I have for some reason, they were 24 probably generated and stored on another file at the 25 same time. 108 1 And that monthly flow information extends 2 all the way down to the last set of files. Again, 3 the NSM flow data files and NSM discharge annual 4 files in ASCII and in Lotus format are the last three 5 files. 6 And again based on the date I would say 7 those are version 3.6 of the Natural System Model. 8 And you can see the last two are very 9 small files, just a summary of the annual data. 10 Q. Going to that second page on to what we 11 have indicated as disk 3. 12 A. All right. This is mostly compilation 13 data for a paper that I did on water allocations and 14 water management in the Everglades. 15 The first one, ASCEPAP is the actual 16 document in WordPerfect format. I don't know if it 17 is the final version or not but it is WordPerfect 18 copy of that file. 19 Q. Is that paper for one of the projects we 20 had been discussing? 21 A. It is called Water Management and 22 Ecosystem Restoration in the Everglades. It is in 23 the folder of papers I provided to you. It is one of 24 the papers that was done on the side. 25 The next one, Atlantic.DAT is flow data 109 1 that would be discharging off the Atlantic coastal 2 ridge into the coastline so it would be flow to 3 tidewater. 4 And it would probably be the sum of all of 5 the outflow structures from Palm Beach County south. 6 I believe there are some 30 or 40 structures that 7 would be included in that. And more than likely 8 there is some breakdown in the file about which ones 9 are in each county. 10 The next file down, BARALLOC.WK1 is a file 11 I was putting together to do bar graphs of water 12 allocation between different parts of the system. So 13 it is a file that includes the data for those 14 sub-basins, the EAA, the Water Conservation Areas, 15 the Lower East Coast, that would probably have inflow 16 and outflow annual totals. And then somewhere in 17 that file is information to set up the graphics, to 18 actually generate the bar codes. 19 Combined flow annual is more than likely 20 the raw data files that went into developing that bar 21 code file. And it is just, it is the annual flow 22 data combined for the sub-basins. 23 There are data files and Quattro Pro files 24 and the last one in that group, there are two listed 25 as AN and the third one is CM and that was converted 110 1 to millions of cubic meters and that was because of 2 the ASCE Journal I submitted it to was doing it in SI 3 units and since I don't work in SI units I had to 4 make a conversion and store it someplace else for use 5 on that paper. 6 And then the next file is a combined Shark 7 Slough flow, ASCII file. 8 And the DEMANDS, again it has something to 9 do with this water allocation paper. I don't know 10 specifically what is in there referred to as demands. 11 It is probably something like the inflows to the 12 Water Conservation Areas, the inflows to the lake and 13 the inflows to the Lower East Coast, just a 14 comparison of inflows between those. 15 All the rest of them are based on 16 breakdown of those sub-basins. 17 There is EAAFLOW which more than likely 18 would be the inflows and outflows. 19 Then there is a series of them called 20 EAAIN and there is a data file. The one with the LAB 21 looks like just a label of some type, probably 22 something set up for graphics purposes. They are 23 very small files. 24 Then there is EAAOUT files, and again 25 there is an ASCII file, Quattro Pro version and a 111 1 label file of some type. 2 And then there is inflows to ENP. 3 The next two are FORTRAN programs that 4 are, actually they are output of FORTRAN programs 5 that are part of the South Florida Water Management 6 District. If I can remember, FORT.11 is a 7 sub-routine that calculates weekly flows for the 8 Shark Slough flow section based on the same time step 9 as the current rainfall-based formula and FORT.80 is 10 another output file from the South Florida Water 11 Management Model, another FORTRAN output file. And I 12 believe FORT.80 is a set of end of month water levels 13 for selected grid cells. In this case I would have 14 to look at the original FORTRAN program to figure out 15 which grid cells we selected. 16 But the program, if you look at that file 17 it will give you end of month readings and there 18 should be a header at the top of that which explains 19 which stations are included. It is just standard 20 output in the South Florida Water Management Model. 21 You can go in and specify you want end of month water 22 level information and specify row and column 23 information and it will pump out end of month water 24 level data on any row or column you want. And 25 FORT.80 just happens to be the sub-routine that you 112 1 go into to specific the row and column number. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. So it should have been renamed, you know, 4 but that was the original file and that probably 5 generated output for other analyses. 6 The FY92PROJ.WP5 and BK is a listing of 7 fiscal year '92 projects in the hydrology group that 8 I worked on, and backup file to that in WordPerfect 9 format. So it would just be some sort of breakdown 10 of all the projects we are working on. It would 11 probably specify who is working on it and what the 12 planned timetables of the projects are, that kind of 13 stuff. 14 Q. Just a quick side question. You mentioned 15 a hydrology group. Is that a separate group within 16 the -- 17 A. It is probably. 18 Q. -- analytical group we discussed? 19 A. Based on the date, it is the group of 20 people I work with currently in the research group 21 that are all hydrologists. There are nine of them 22 within the research group and I am the head of that. 23 As I said, I am not program manager but I am sort of 24 a supervisor of project leaders in that group. Those 25 would be the projects of the group which I am 113 1 responsible for. 2 Q. That is essentially what you said is a 3 group of hydrologists? 4 A. There are nine people total, there are 5 four of us that are hydrologists, actually, five of 6 us that are hydrologists counting myself and the rest 7 are technicians or cooperators. 8 Q. When you say cooperators, those are 9 outside ENP or outside Park Service individuals? 10 A. Outside of the Park Service, generally 11 university people like I mentioned Trupti Bhatt 12 previously. She is a research associate with Florida 13 International University but she is a full-time 14 employee on our project. So she is a member of our 15 group. 16 Q. Are these outside individuals you 17 mentioned, are they also hydrologists or what 18 specialties are they? 19 A. Mostly all hydrologists. Trupti is, her 20 master's is in environmental engineering so she is 21 water quality and chemistry is her area of expertise, 22 although she is not working in that. 23 Q. What is she working in? 24 A. She does primarily computer applications 25 for us. She has a lot of experience in programming 114 1 and GIS applications so most of what she does is in 2 ARCINFO applications of output from models and that 3 kind of work. So that would probably be all the 4 projects at the beginning of 1992 we were going to be 5 working on over the course of that year. 6 Q. Would it be indicative of which ones 7 should have been complete? 8 A. There are probably dates in that document 9 that specify when we were supposed to have things 10 done by. 11 Q. The next? 12 A. The next group all deal with Lower East 13 Coast flows, those would be the flows along the 14 series of flow lines, well, between L-30 and L-36. 15 It is the levee alignment along the eastern side of 16 the Water Conservation Areas. So it would be the 17 flow across that boundary between the Water 18 Conservation Areas and the Lower East Coast. And it 19 would be Lower East Coast flows annual dot, DAT is 20 annual flows across those flows line in ASCII format. 21 Then the next file down below that with 22 just FLOW is probably the monthly and annual flow. 23 The one below that is the same data in Quattro Pro 24 format. 25 Then it has been broken out to have just 115 1 the inflows to the Lower East Coast and then the next 2 set that have MAN and then a FLOW next to them are 3 some sort of output from the South Florida Water 4 Management Model. The MAN refers to managed versus 5 natural. Any time you see NSM versus MAN, it is just 6 a distinction between those two model outputs. 7 Again it would be output from the Water 8 Management flow data in ASCII files. 9 The first two, MANSS would mean managed 10 data for the Shark Slough flow section. 11 And then the group underneath that that 12 all begin with MN and have different designations 13 after that is the monthly flow. If there is an N, 14 two Ns or an N and a P then there is a split between 15 the north-south east-west flows negative versus 16 positive. If there isn't M or N after it that means 17 there is only flow in one direction. 18 The first one there is monthly AGQs and 19 that's -- it is a file referred to as AGQ, it comes 20 out of, I believe it is the 298 Districts in the 21 northern part of the EAA and it would be 22 theoretically I guess input to Lake Okeechobee. All 23 the other ones just refer to whatever other structure 24 you can talk about G-136, G-88, hurricane gate S-3, 25 hurricane gate S-4, hurricane gate S-5. 116 1 L-8 canal, Lake Worth Drainage District, 2 and then there is a, there is a north and south 3 direction for the AGQ indicating there must be some 4 flow from the lake back into the 298 Districts. 5 Again there is all of the monthly data we 6 were working with for the water allocation study. It 7 looks like that continues down to the next page until 8 we get to the last file NSM-MAN.DAT and that would be 9 a comparison between the Natural System Model and the 10 Water Management Model using ASCII data. And the 11 size tells me it is probably something like annual 12 totals, it is a small file. 13 Again continuation on the next page, this 14 is all in disk 3, is more comparisons between the 15 Natural System Model and the managed system. The STA 16 again is the output from a statistics package. The 17 WQ1 is the Quattro Pro version. 18 And then Natural System Model flow annual 19 and then the monthly data are the next three files. 20 There are a lot of duplicate files. I had a tendency 21 to lose files so I save them on multiple disks now. 22 The next set is the Natural System Model 23 for Shark Slough. 24 The next one is a WordPerfect file. It is 25 a recommendation document for Dr. David Moon for a 117 1 job in Queensland, Australia. How it got on this 2 disk, I don't know. 3 The next one is a compilation of annual 4 rainfall data in Lotus format and that is, in this 5 case, the annual data would be for the five rainfall 6 basins that were analyzed by the District in their 7 analysis of rainfall extremes that George Shih did in 8 the 1980s. And his file runs essentially from the 9 start of rainfall records in the 1800s up through 10 sometime in 1989 so this is probably the rain, annual 11 rainfall data from that file. 12 The RAINASCE is some probably subset of 13 that rainfall data I was looking at for the ASCE 14 paper that I did that I explained on the previous 15 page. 16 The next file, REGBUDG, is something 17 having to do with budgets associated with regulation 18 stages in the conservation areas. I don't know 19 specifically without looking at it. 20 Then more files on a monthly and annual 21 flow to Shark Slough. Then there is Shark Slough 22 QWEEK which is weekly data for the, most likely for 23 the period of the rainfall formula which would be '85 24 to current. 25 Water Conservation Area flows annually and 118 1 then Water Conservation Area inflows and outflows are 2 the next set and that is part of the sub-basin water 3 budget comparisons. 4 And the last one is another recommendation 5 document for David Moon to the Young Science Students 6 Program in I believe South America somewhere. 7 Q. The first one was Australia? 8 A. Yes. 9 The next diskette -- 10 Q. They bear the same date. 11 A. It is probably a very similar document 12 just with a change of location, change of address. I 13 don't think I spent much more time than that. 14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record. 15 (Discussion off the record) 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. And that would finish off disk 3, is that 18 correct? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Then going on to what again we have marked 21 as disk 2, you only have three files there. 22 A. Right. CANALS.WQ1 would be a compilation 23 of all of the monthly historical flow data for the 24 major canals essentially from Lake Okeechobee 25 southward. This would be the published data produced 119 1 by the USGS as well as whatever older data I could 2 compile. It is an uncompleted file listing that is 3 associated with this Water Management Changes in the 4 Everglades paper that goes from 1940 to 1989. So it 5 would be monthly flow data from 1940 to 1989. 6 Actually it probably stops around 1966 because most 7 of the other flow data is in all the other previous 8 files so I wouldn't have, after 1966 or so I wouldn't 9 have compiled it any more because it is probably 10 already in those other files. 11 Then WCA-WL are I believe daily water 12 levels for historical gauges in the Water 13 Conservation Areas that were collected as part of the 14 Everglades gauging program. So they would be the 15 early gauges established by the US Army Corps of 16 Engineers in 1951 that ran through the early sixties. 17 And that again was more data that was compiled for 18 this historical review paper. And again they will be 19 incomplete files because there are still a couple of 20 stations I haven't updated the record on. 21 The next file is empty for some reason. 22 Q. And going on then to the final disk which 23 again we have labeled as 1. 24 A. And again, most of this is associated with 25 the Water Management and Ecosystem Restoration in the 120 1 Everglades paper that I discussed earlier. 2 Again here's the final, according to the 3 title anyway, final version of this paper in 4 WordPerfect format. And here is ASCII versions of 5 the paper because my coauthor doesn't work in 6 WordPerfect. 7 Q. Does the final which bears date 9-6-91, 8 does that sound about? 9 A. It can't be because that is earlier than 10 the ASCEPAP file on disk 3, so it is probably not the 11 final. 12 I take that back. I am looking at two 13 different ones. One is a paper for the American 14 Society of Civil Engineers and one is the American 15 Institute of Hydrologists. So this is probably the 16 final for this paper. 17 So I have confused the two. So this one 18 is on Issues of Hydrologic Modeling in the Everglades 19 and that was a paper also included in that bundle of 20 papers that I submitted. 21 And then the ASCII files are versions, 22 portions of the document that were done with a full 23 screen text editor, not WordPerfect. 24 Then there are allocation files that are a 25 comparison between the flows between the different 121 1 sub-basins within the overall Everglades study area. 2 So I am not exactly sure what the difference is 3 between allocation and ALLONEW. 4 Q. What was AIHPAP? 5 A. American Institute of Hydrologists paper. 6 It means some portion of the document that was put 7 together to complete this final report, but the first 8 one is an ASCII file, the next one is a WordPerfect 9 file and a backup to the WordPerfect file which is 10 probably an early draft of, or, yes, early draft 11 portions of the final paper. 12 Q. And that final is the first file? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Then all the allocation ones, the next two 15 files, there are allocation comparisons between those 16 different sub-basins. I can't tell you specifically 17 what are in the files offhand. 18 Then ATLANTIC.DAT is outflow data from the 19 coastal ridge to the Atlantic. 20 For some reason there is an AUTOEXEC.BAT 21 file in there. 22 There is a bar allocate dot WK1, that is a 23 Lotus file which probably has bar graphs set up in 24 it, so just inputting of all that allocation data 25 into a Lotus or some sort of file just to generate a 122 1 graphic. 2 DEMANDS is the same way, probably an 3 imported set of the allocation data to generate some 4 sort of graphic. 5 Then again there is a breakdown of the EAA 6 inflows and outflows both monthly and annual data. 7 The next three, actually the next six are all 8 breakdowns between total EAA flows, then the inflows 9 monthly, then the inflows annually, then another 10 inflow file and then the outflow files monthly and 11 annually both in ASCII and Lotus format. 12 The next one is just a batch file for 13 K-Edit. It is just an editing sub-routine that we 14 use for text editing. 15 Then the next batch are Lake Okeechobee 16 outflows, again it would be data from this water 17 budget study. 18 And then Lower East Coast budget 19 information, both in ASCII and Lotus format and Lower 20 East Coast combined which would mean both inflows and 21 outflows, more than likely. 22 Then the last one there on that page is 23 Lower East Coast monthly flows. I try to give them 24 names so at least I can remember later on. 25 Then the next batch on the top of the page 123 1 are the same way, Lower East Coast inflows, monthly 2 and annual, and the ASCII versus Lotus format, Lower 3 East Coast outflows monthly and annual. I am not 4 sure, I assume LOCOUT is Lake Okeechobee. I don't 5 know what else it would be. I don't know what else 6 it would be unless it could be just a typo. It 7 should be Lower East Coast or something, I don't know 8 without looking at the data. 9 Then the managed flow on a monthly basis. 10 And then this whole series of files that 11 would include monthly flow data, either north or 12 south or east or west for all the different 13 structures, again. And there may be, part of these 14 may be an older or newer version than what was on the 15 original disks. 16 I had gotten it out of the model on a 17 couple of different occasions for different projects 18 and I think there actually are some updates over the 19 course of time. So whichever set of monthly data has 20 the last date on it. These are 8-22-91 primarily. 21 There is another set that is 1-24-92 so I would 22 assume the latest date is the most up to date and 23 corrected output. We occasionally go back to the 24 District and ask them, what is their newest version. 25 There is a discrepancy between what is in 124 1 the model and what is in the major data base so we 2 always go with the data in the model because that's 3 what they are using for most of their analyses. 4 These would be the monthly flow data for 5 all those structures again all the way through to the 6 middle of the next page. 7 Then there is just a weird collection of 8 files after that that are batch files for Quattro Pro 9 and which is, you know, the spreadsheet, and for 10 Sigma Plot which is a graphics package that we use. 11 There is a PRO file, file for K-Edit which is a file 12 that sets up certain parameters within the text 13 editor program, K-Edit, that we use. 14 The next four, TEST.DAT, TEST.FOR and 15 TEST.OBJ as well as SYM are some sort of FORTRAN 16 program that I was running at the time. I couldn't 17 tell you right now what it was for. 18 The DAT extension is the data file that 19 went into it. The dot FOR is the source code. The 20 OBJ is the object code. And then the SYM is probably 21 some simulated data or output file from whatever was 22 generated by running the FORTRAN program. Obviously 23 it wasn't too important because I used it as a test 24 file. 25 The next one looks like it is some sort of 125 1 variable table, WordPerfect document, probably just 2 some document I put together trying to keep track of 3 all of the station names so I would know what they 4 were. Probably just some explanation of different 5 station names. 6 And then it is the Water Conservation Area 7 inflows and outflow data in monthly and annual format 8 both in ASCII files and Lotus files. 9 And then PRN is just an output from -- it 10 is a print file out of Lotus. 11 And then the last set of files, YR either 12 a P or a N and then the structure name are the yearly 13 flows for all of these structures. And the N and P 14 is negative or positive flow for all the different 15 structures. 16 And that should be it. 17 Like I said, there are a lot of 18 duplication of files or updated versions of files as 19 the project continued. This would be primarily for 20 the water allocation studies, water budget studies 21 and the comparisons between the Natural System Model 22 and the Water Management Model work that was being 23 done. 24 Q. Just out of curiosity, I saw only one or 25 two '93 files. I believe they are primarily on, 126 1 there are two on disk 5. Are there any additional 2 files in this regard that you are currently working 3 on? 4 A. Not probably that I have been working 5 with. I would say, I haven't done any data analysis 6 in '93. I have spent most of my time not doing 7 technical work. I would say I probably haven't 8 updated any of these files or done any additional 9 analysis on these files. Most of these projects 10 haven't been worked on on some time based on the 11 dates of the files. 12 Q. Drawing your attention then, Mr. Johnson, 13 to what has been marked as Exhibit 1, and as I said 14 the final page of that exhibit which bears Bates 15 number 0961523 and also has a stamp on there, 16 Government Exhibit 6B, I ask whether or not you have 17 ever seen that particular page before. 18 A. Yes, I have. 19 Q. Are you aware that you have been 20 designated as an expert witness on behalf of the 21 United States Government in the SWIM, Everglades SWIM 22 Plan administrative proceedings? 23 A. Yes, I am. 24 Q. Are you familiar with the topics of your 25 expert testimony? 127 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Have you reached final expert opinions 3 with regard to those topics? 4 A. Yes, assuming that I don't gain additional 5 information between now and the hearing, I would 6 assume that I have final opinions on all of those 7 topics. 8 Q. Are you doing any ongoing research right 9 now that you believe would impact or affect your 10 final opinions? 11 A. I am doing -- I am doing a little bit and 12 I am anticipating doing some additional work 13 primarily looking at hydroperiods in portions of the 14 Water Conservation Areas 1 and 2, in areas that are 15 referred to as nutrient impacted, and then comparing 16 those to hydroperiods in areas referred to as 17 background. 18 Q. With what background, sir? 19 A. Areas that are referred to as background 20 in terms of water quality. And I have just begun 21 some of that work. 22 Q. When did you commence that work? 23 A. I have been compiling the data over the 24 last couple of months but I haven't actually started 25 to do most of the hydroperiod and water depth 128 1 statistical analysis. 2 And I have been doing a literature review 3 of primarily vegetation studies in those areas, 4 basically going through bibliographies trying to pick 5 out if there is information on historical vegetation 6 patterns in the area. 7 Q. What data have you thus far collected with 8 regard to the study you just referred to with regard 9 to hydroperiod in high impact areas compared to 10 hydroperiod in background areas? 11 A. It would be the water level information 12 for the continuous water level recorders in the marsh 13 within Water Conservation Area 1 and 2 as well as the 14 water control structures such as the headwater and 15 tailwater for the S-10 structure and headwater and 16 tailwater for the S-11s. 17 Q. Where exactly are the high impact areas 18 that you will be studying or are currently studying? 19 A. The areas I am essentially compiling all 20 the hydrologic data for are in the southern end of 21 Water Conservation Area 1 and northern end of Water 22 Conservation Area 2. So it is whatever recorders are 23 in that general area. And then I will be looking at 24 other recorders within Water Conservation Areas 1 and 25 2 and 3 to try to find areas that are generally away 129 1 from water delivery inputs but have comparable 2 hydroperiods. 3 Q. Have you already located any? 4 A. I have located stations that I want to 5 analyze but I haven't completed the analysis to 6 confirm that they have the same general hydroperiods. 7 Q. What are the stations that you have thus 8 far identified for study? 9 A. Well, the stations that are in Water 10 Conservation Area 1 would be 1-7, 1-8C and 1-8D, 1-9, 11 2A-17, 2B-21, 2A-15, 2A-19. Those would be the marsh 12 stations in those two basins and the structures would 13 be the S-10 and S-11 structures primarily. 14 And then in Water Conservation Area 3A 15 they would be station 3A-3, 3A-4, 3A-28 and I believe 16 3A-2. And then the water control structures would be 17 the S-11s, S-151 and the S-12 structures headwater. 18 And then -- 19 Q. I didn't hear the last part. I am sorry. 20 A. The headwater for the S-12 structures. 21 But essentially all I am doing right now is trying to 22 compile all the data. 23 Q. With regard to the stations that you had 24 just listed out, were those the background stations 25 that you referred to? 130 1 A. I haven't really specified for any one 2 station whether it is background or in an impacted 3 area. I know from previous reviews of the SWIM plans 4 which stations are in the areas most likely impacted 5 by nutrients. 6 Q. Of the stations you have just listed, if 7 you can go back and tell me which are the ones you 8 are going to be researching to determine whether or 9 not they are background. 10 A. I would assume it would be the stations 11 furthest away from the water delivery points such as 12 Water Conservation Area 3A-3 and 3A-4, 3A-2 and 3A-28 13 as well as the station in Water Conservation Area 1 14 such as 1-7, in Water Conservation Area 2 such as 15 2B-21. Then there is I think a couple of other 16 stations I looked at that have very short records 17 like the 3-39 and 3-40 structures in the Miami Canal. 18 Q. How far have you gotten in your data 19 collection? 20 A. I am still trying to compile all the data, 21 running into problems with not available data from 22 the Army Corps of Engineers for the last couple of 23 years. 24 Q. During what period of time are you 25 reviewing? 131 1 A. I will be looking at period of record data 2 so I will be compiling data from whenever the station 3 began. In many cases these are gauges that were 4 established as part of the Everglades gauging program 5 and either started in 1951 or 1953. Most of the 6 stations I am talking about have a continuous record 7 from the fifties rather than stations with short-term 8 records although some of them are only available from 9 the sixties or seventies. 10 Q. Have you gathered any of the data yet for 11 these stations or structures? 12 A. Much of the data was already gathered as 13 part of the study I am looking at for History of 14 Water Management in the Everglades from 1940 through 15 1990. A number of these stations I already have the 16 data for that purpose. 17 Q. Which stations are you missing or what 18 data are you missing them? 19 A. I don't believe, other than structure data 20 for S-10 and S-11 which I haven't requested yet, I 21 don't believe I am missing any of the marsh data. I 22 believe I have it all. 23 It all has not been set up in a format so 24 I can do the analysis. Some of it still is just hard 25 copy, unless I can acquire it from an another source, 132 1 in particular like gauges 2-15 and 2-19 I believe all 2 I have is hard copy currently. 3 Q. And the remainder you have on disk format? 4 A. I believe so. 5 Q. What is the intent of this study? 6 A. Essentially looking at the characteristics 7 of hydroperiods throughout the study and to try to 8 key in on stations that have similar hydroperiods in 9 different areas of the Everglades that could then be 10 used to look at differences in vegetative type, water 11 quality or other parameters associated with those 12 changes in hydroperiod. 13 Essentially we are trying to pick two 14 stations with the same hydroperiod with different 15 water quality or environmental characteristics. 16 Q. What are the characteristics other than 17 water quality? 18 A. I am not personally looking at vegetation 19 but I would be finding out from botanists, what are 20 the vegetation communities at different sites as well 21 as underlying soil types. 22 Q. Who is looking at the vegetation for you? 23 A. No one directly. I have been contacting 24 people who have done previous studies or going 25 through the literature and finding previous studies 133 1 that will describe the vegetation community in a 2 particular area or looking at generated vegetation 3 maps that you would find such as what is printed in 4 the SWIM Plan or other documents. 5 Q. Who are you using for information on the 6 soil types? 7 A. I assume that would be again, it would be 8 work that was collected by the Soil Conservation 9 Service or University of Florida IFAS or someone who 10 had done soil studies previously or a specific 11 research project, that had gone to a site and 12 collected some information like some of the early 13 studies on periphyton in the Everglades have done 14 soil studies. 15 But again, I am looking at very general 16 levels in terms of soils, whether they are peats or 17 marls and overall soil depths. I am not looking at 18 detailed soil comparisons. 19 Q. Have you already selected someone with 20 regard to the soil types? 21 A. No, not really. Based on knowing the 22 locations and knowing people who have studied the 23 area, I have a general idea what the soil types of 24 each one of those majors areas are, most of which are 25 Everglades peat. 134 1 Q. Do you intend to do any actual sampling or 2 have a sampling of any sort done with regard to this 3 study? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you intend to have any vegetative study 6 or mapping with regard to this study? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Same question with regard to the soil 9 sampling or soil studies? 10 A. No, it would all be with whatever 11 available literature I can find. 12 Q. Drawing your attention back to a comment 13 you had made and you state that there were from time 14 to time discrepancies between the data in the 15 District's main data base and the South Florida Water 16 Management Model, why would there be discrepancies 17 between the data? 18 A. Apparently the process that updates the 19 Water Management main data base referred to as 20 DBHYDRO is not done at the same frequency that many 21 of the researchers and engineers need for their 22 studies. So over the years there has been a process 23 of people developing their own data base for a lot of 24 work, particularly everything associated with the 25 South Florida Water Management Model. Most of those 135 1 data bases are maintained by people running those 2 models and the data in those data bases are not 3 necessarily the same or updated with the same 4 frequency as what is in DBHYDRO. 5 Since we are using output from the model 6 we will generally go back to whatever the District 7 staff is using in the model at that time as the most 8 appropriate data so we would be maintaining 9 consistency with anything we do on the model and they 10 do on the model. 11 I would say it is mainly a problem with 12 data management, not being able to keep up with huge 13 volumes of data coming in. 14 Q. With regard to this study you were just 15 referring to on the comparison of hydroperiod in a 16 high impact area and to hydroperiod in a background 17 area, when do you believe you will be finished with 18 your study? 19 A. I would assume in the next two months. 20 Q. Has your study progressed to the point 21 where you do have opinions with regard to the results 22 of the study? 23 A. I have some opinions because I have looked 24 at hydroperiods, water depths for a number of those 25 stations already as part of my historical review of 136 1 the Everglades paper. 2 Q. These are all areas outside of the Park, 3 is that correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. How much study have you done of areas 6 outside the Park over the past, I guess it would be 7 ten years you have been working for the Park? 8 A. Relatively limited detailed studies. 9 Mostly studies that look at water management over the 10 system such as the water allocation and water budget 11 studies that I referred to earlier. 12 The only real detailed work I have done on 13 hydrologic data outside the Park would be limited to 14 areas, say, south of Alligator Alley such as in the 15 modified water deliveries project which analyze data 16 essentially throughout Water Conservation Area 3A, 3B 17 and Everglades National Park. 18 Q. With regard to the researchers updating 19 the South Florida Water Management Model prior to the 20 update of the DBHYDRO, where did they get the data 21 they were updating the model with? 22 A. From data management, they get it from 23 resource operations, whoever happens to have the most 24 updated data. 25 Many times what you are seeing is data 137 1 that goes into the planning department's files before 2 it gets updated on DBHYDRO. So it is just a 3 difference in the amount of time it takes for DBHYDRO 4 to be updated. Other times it is someone reviewing 5 the data and selecting out portions of the data that 6 they would rather work on DBHYDRO there is a huge 7 range of data for any station you can pick from. So 8 they have eliminated that down to just particular 9 data bases that they are going to use. 10 Q. Does the Park review how that selection 11 process is made? 12 A. We will usually understand where they got 13 their data sources from. We won't necessarily have 14 direct access to it. 15 Q. Drawing your attention then to this final 16 page of Exhibit 1, it states as to the first 17 paragraph there, it says, "Mr. Johnson has formed the 18 following opinions." And although they are not 19 numbered the first one there states, "Alterations of 20 the natural Everglades ecosystem at the microbial and 21 macrophyte levels can not be accounted for solely on 22 the basis of man-induced alterations in hydroperiod." 23 Is that an opinion that you have reached 24 at this point in time? 25 A. Yes. 138 1 Q. What microbial or macrophyte studies have 2 you done in the Everglades ecosystem? 3 A. It is not based on any work I have done, 4 it is based on literature review or visits in the 5 field of either field sampling sites or general marsh 6 locations. But I have not done any work personally 7 in macrophytes or microbial ecology. 8 Q. You stated that this is based also on 9 field, and I am not sure if you used the terms 10 visits. Are you drawing a distinction between a 11 field study and a visit? Again, I am not sure, I 12 believe that's the word I thought you had said. 13 A. It would be trips that I have made to 14 different parts of the Everglades, either on, either 15 going to a field site within Everglades National Park 16 like our nutrient dosing study site and working at 17 that site for a day or two with the people or going 18 to other sites in the Everglades such as the nutrient 19 impacted areas in Water Conservation Area 2A or 1. 20 Q. With regard to the dosing site, what study 21 have you done at the dosing site within the Park? 22 A. I have done no work other than assistance 23 in the field with the normal data collection. I went 24 out in the field and assisted with the sampling of 25 periphyton and I did some of the laboratory work on 139 1 chlorophyll A, again, just so I would be familiar 2 with the methods that they were using out of my own 3 curiosity, not that I was assigned to the project. 4 Q. You had stated you did some sampling of 5 periphyton. Did you actually study whether there was 6 a change in the periphyton mat? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Or algal changes or the cause of those 9 changes? 10 A. No. I just assisted with the replacement 11 of the periphytometers, basically assisted with the 12 field work, not the analysis. 13 Q. You also mentioned WCA-2A, the work being 14 done, I believe you said work being done at 2A? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. What work is being done at 2A? 17 A. Simply site -- the only things I have done 18 there, I have gone and done site visits in the area 19 downstream of the S-10 structures. 20 Q. How many times have you visited areas 21 downstream of the S-10 structures? 22 A. Approximately five times since the late 23 1980s and probably before that in the early eighties 24 maybe once or twice. 25 Q. What was the purpose of your visits, the 140 1 five visits in the late eighties? 2 A. Generally orientation with the Justice 3 Department staff and new members of Everglades 4 National Park towards areas in the Everglades that 5 are nutrient impacted and what the differences 6 visually are between marsh communities in nutrient 7 impacted area and a non-impacted area. 8 Q. When you say orientation, do I understand 9 that you essentially would take these people out 10 there and say, this is a nutrient impacted marsh and 11 we will now go and I will show you what a background 12 marsh is? 13 A. Yes, I would go with them on the trip. I 14 wouldn't necessarily be the person leading the trip 15 but I attended a number of those trips. 16 Q. Did you do any testing while on these 17 trips? 18 A. No. 19 Q. How did you make the determination of what 20 was a nutrient impacted marsh? 21 A. Differences in vegetation type. 22 Q. Have you done any studies to determine 23 what the differences in vegetative type are in a 24 nutrient impacted marsh? 25 A. Other than visual examination in the field 141 1 myself, no, I have done no quantitative analysis. 2 Q. Have you done any studies to determine 3 whether or not the vegetative community of that marsh 4 was the result of the impacts of nutrients? 5 A. I have not personally done any studies, 6 no. 7 Q. Have you done any studies in the areas you 8 visually identified as nutrient impacted marsh to 9 determine whether or not there were other factors 10 that impacted the marsh community? 11 A. I have reviewed literature to get an 12 understanding of what the parameters that were 13 collected by other scientists in an area had 14 determined. 15 Q. Other than a literature review have you 16 done any other additional studies? 17 A. No. I should say literature review or 18 discussions with scientists working in the area. 19 Q. And have you had any, done any studies of 20 whether or not there were factors exclusive of 21 nutrients that resulted in the vegetative changes in 22 what you visually identified as nutrient induced 23 marshes? 24 A. Other than literature review and 25 discussions with other scientists, no. 142 1 Q. Is it your expert opinion that nutrients 2 are impacting the microbial and macrophyte levels in 3 the natural Everglades ecosystem? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is my understanding correct that that is 6 not based upon field tests but rather based upon 7 literature review and discussions with other 8 scientists? 9 A. And selected site visits, yes. 10 Q. These are the visual site visits we 11 discussed? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Have you had any other site visits that we 14 haven't discussed? 15 A. No, I have not done any field trips where 16 I have done any sampling at these sites. 17 Q. What literature are you basing that 18 opinion upon? 19 A. I have reviewed literature on periphyton 20 communities, I have reviewed literature on the 21 microbial community and I have reviewed literature on 22 macrophyte community changes in background and 23 nutrient impacted areas. 24 Q. I am sorry, I believe you said macrophyte, 25 periphyton and? 143 1 A. Microbial communities. 2 Q. Let's start with periphyton. What are the 3 literature studies or papers that you are basing your 4 opinion on? 5 A. The earliest papers I remember reviewing 6 was work by Pat Gleason in the 1970s. I believe he 7 has two publications in 1974, one is a technical 8 report and the other one is a professional 9 publication with Spackman in 1974 where they did 10 studies of the periphyton communities in Water 11 Conservation Areas 1 and 2A, compared the periphyton 12 communities in those areas to nutrient sampling, 13 water chemistry. 14 Q. Any other periphyton studies and 15 literature studies? 16 A. Yes. The next studies I would have 17 reviewed, probably work by Joan Browder who did work 18 at several different locations in the Everglades 19 including Everglades National Park and examined the 20 periphyton communities in different types of marsh 21 areas and did some comparisons with water chemistry. 22 Q. Were there particular papers or reports of 23 Ms. Browder that you reviewed? 24 A. I don't know if I could remember the dates 25 but she had a paper in early 1980s on periphyton 144 1 communities in Everglades National Park. 2 Q. Other than the early eighties paper in the 3 Park, are there any other papers -- 4 A. She has a late 1980s paper that was, it is 5 going into the Everglades Symposium proceedings, 6 whenever that comes out. And whatever, it hasn't 7 been published yet so I don't know what the date is 8 yet but she submitted a paper on periphyton community 9 related to water quality in the Everglades, to the 10 Everglades Symposium. 11 Q. These papers that you are referring to 12 with regard to the Everglades Symposium, are these 13 all going to be chapters in a book being published? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Is Ms. Browder then going to be the author 16 of a chapter in the book? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And it will be dealing with nutrient 19 impacts upon the periphyton community? 20 A. I would say she is going to be an author 21 on one of the papers that is probably in a chapter, 22 probably a series of chapters that focus on different 23 either environmental communities or stresses on the 24 system. She will be one of the authors that has a 25 paper in a section that deals with, I assume, 145 1 periphyton and water quality. 2 Most likely there will be other authors 3 who have papers on water quality and vegetation. I 4 know Steve Davis has a paper in the Everglades 5 Symposium proceedings. 6 Q. Other than Steve Davis and Joan Browder 7 are you aware of any other author -- 8 A. Steve Davis. 9 Q. Let me finish that question. I am sorry 10 to cut you off. 11 (Continuing) who will be submitting papers 12 that will become part of that book that are dealing 13 with water quality and any of the vegetative or 14 periphyton algal community, microbial community? 15 A. I think Pat Gleason has a paper that was 16 submitted to the Everglades Symposium but I don't 17 know specifically. He studies periphyton so I assume 18 he will have a paper on periphyton in the Everglades 19 but I don't know specifically. I never reviewed his 20 paper. 21 Q. Have you reviewed either Steve Davis' or 22 Ms. Browder's paper? 23 A. I have seen a copy of Steve Davis' paper. 24 I have only heard the presentation for Joan Browder's 25 paper. I have never seen a copy of it. 146 1 Q. Was that a presentation at the Everglades 2 Symposium? 3 A. That's correct. And I have discussed with 4 her on other occasions since the symposium her 5 findings, mainly just running into her at meetings, 6 general conversation. 7 Q. When you say you have seen Steve Davis', 8 you were not doing any type of a peer review, were 9 you? 10 A. No, it just happens to be one of the 11 papers I had a copy of at one time I got from I 12 believe John Ogden. Steve Davis and John Ogden are 13 the two editors on the documents so they have a 14 compiling of almost all the papers that are being 15 submitted. 16 Q. Are you on the peer review committee? 17 A. I am on the advisory committee, whatever 18 it is called, advisory peer review, I don't know what 19 it is. Something like that, steering committee, 20 there you go. It is called the steering committee 21 for the Symposium proceedings. I am on the steering 22 committee. 23 Q. Going back then to periphyton, we have 24 discussed Pat Gleason's 1974, he had two technical 25 publications, or excuse me, two publications, one 147 1 technical and one a private, I believe? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Joan Browder had an early eighties and 4 late eighties which is actually some of it still 5 sounds like it is in progress? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Any other literature that you have 8 reviewed with regard to periphyton? 9 A. Yes. I have reviewed I believe three 10 papers by David Swift, a Water Management District 11 technical report in 1981, a publication in 1984 on 12 the environments of South Florida, Volume 2, I 13 believe, and his 1987 paper with Nicholas, I believe 14 was the coauthor, all dealing with periphyton and 15 water quality in the Everglades. 16 Q. What was the last one? 17 A. I think it is -- 18 Q. '86 did you say? 19 A. '87 I believe was his last one. Swift and 20 Nicholas, I believe, are the two authors. 21 Q. Any other literature on periphyton? 22 A. Yes. I have reviewed work by Sonny Hall 23 and Ramona Rice, a technical report submitted to the 24 Park I believe in 1988 dealing with periphyton work 25 with, at the nutrient uptake study site, ENP dosing 148 1 study. 2 Q. What was the year of that paper? 3 A. I believe it came out in 1988. It was a 4 draft report in '87 but I believe the copy I read was 5 a 1988 report. 6 Q. That was on the dosing study site? 7 A. That's correct. That paper is strictly on 8 the periphyton communities, one of three papers on 9 the dosing study. 10 Q. You mentioned Sonny Hall and Ramona Rice. 11 They were coauthors on that? 12 A. Ramona Rice was the original investigator 13 on the periphyton dosing study. She left and went to 14 another university and Sonny Hall was hired by the 15 Park to complete the analysis. And she did a joint 16 publication. 17 Q. When you say she left and went to another 18 university, is she doing a cooperative study at 19 another university? 20 A. On the original study she was in the 21 biology department at Florida International 22 University and she was under contract for the Park 23 Service to do the periphyton work on the nutrient 24 dosing study. After all the field work was done she 25 left FIU before completing on the analysis, so much 149 1 of the identification and species composition work on 2 the periphyton was done by Sonny Hall. Then they 3 jointly got together and put out the paper. 4 Q. Is Sonny Hall with the Park Service? 5 A. No. He is a phycologist with the St. 6 Johns River Water Management District. 7 Q. What is a phycologist? 8 A. Someone who studies periphyton, algal 9 communities. 10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record. 11 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 12 after which the following proceedings 13 were had) 14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record. 15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 16 Q. Before the break we were I believe 17 finishing off discussing the Sonny Hall-Ramona Rice 18 study, and I guess faster than having the court 19 reporter read it back, I believe I asked whether 20 Sonny Hall was a member of the Park Service. 21 A. And I said, no, he was working for the St. 22 Johns River Water Management District. 23 Q. I believe you already told me where Ramona 24 Rice is now. 25 A. She is in Kansas. 150 1 Q. Kansas. Is she with the university up 2 there? 3 A. I believe so. I am not sure if it is the 4 University of Kansas or what school. She is at a 5 university teaching. 6 Q. Any additional periphyton literature? 7 A. There was a paper by I think a woman named 8 Owens, I can't remember if she was the senior author 9 or second author, that came out in the late 1980s. 10 And she did a dosing study in Water Conservation Area 11 3B, I believe. I don't know how she got permission 12 to do it. And it is in a publication that deals with 13 wetlands use of, the use of wetlands to filter 14 wastewater treatment. 15 Q. Do you know her first name? 16 A. No. I remember seeing the paper and 17 looking at it very quickly because it was something 18 that was reviewed around the same time that the 19 nutrient dosing study reports were being completed at 20 the Park. 21 Q. Do you know if she did that in cooperation 22 with any particular state or government agency? 23 A. I believe it was a Sea Grant project with 24 the University of Miami, something like that. It may 25 not have been but I think that rings bell. 151 1 Q. Any other periphyton papers or 2 publications? 3 A. I am sure I reviewed others but those are 4 the only ones that I remember by author and date. 5 Q. Going then on to macrophyte studies and 6 papers. 7 A. Why don't we do microbial next because 8 that's the most closely related. 9 Q. All right. 10 A. In terms of microbial community studies, 11 the work by I think it is Reeder and Davis in the 12 late 1980s, that looked at the composition of 13 bacteria and fungi communities in Water Conservation 14 Area 2A, I believe, and looked at rates of microbial 15 decomposition and dissolved oxygen. 16 A study by I think it is Ballanger and 17 Platko, also in the late 1980s, at several different 18 sites within the Water Conservation Areas, I believe 19 they did studies in Water Conservation Area 1 and 2A, 20 again looking at microbial community composition, 21 function and relationship with dissolved oxygen. 22 Work by Ed Maltby, I believe his paper 23 came out in 1988 on rates of decomposition of 24 cellulose related to nutrient impacts. His work was 25 at the dosing study site at Everglades National Park. 152 1 And then -- 2 Q. Is he with the Park Service? 3 A. No, he is a cooperator with -- what is 4 that school? I don't even know what the school is. 5 He is from a university in England but I am not sure 6 what the exact title of the school is. 7 Let me see what other studies. 8 I reviewed a number of studies Ron Jones 9 has done. There is a paper by Amador and Jones in 10 1992, I believe, that looks at rates of microbial 11 respiration experimentally, adding phosphorus to 12 Everglades peats to look at microbial metabolism and 13 effect it has on rates of respiration and again 14 related to dissolved oxygen. 15 And then I guess lastly a paper that Dan 16 Scheidt did along with I think Ballanger, they did a 17 paper back in 1990, I think it was on dissolved 18 oxygen and microbial activity in the Everglades. And 19 that went into the North American Lakes Management 20 Society, something like that. 21 Those are I believe most of the papers I 22 could think of anyway that deal with microbial 23 communities. 24 Q. And next would be macrophyte. 25 A. On macrophytes, a couple of papers by 153 1 Steve Davis on macrophyte community changes and 2 competition with cattails in the Everglades, I think 3 he did a 1991 publication, a 1992 publication. And 4 then there was a mid-eighties publication that he did 5 primarily on work in Water Conservation Area 2A and 6 looked at uptake rates and decomposition rates on 7 sawgrass and cattail communities relative to nutrient 8 levels in marshes. 9 A paper by Dave Walker on the macrophyte 10 community changes at the nutrient dosing study. That 11 came out in 1988. 12 The work by Bob Doren and a couple of 13 other botanists at the Park dealing with vegetation 14 communities related to nutrient gradients in the 15 Everglades. And they did work in all three of the 16 conservation areas and in the Park. 17 Q. What year approximately was the Doren and 18 other -- 19 A. Last time I saw it it was in press. So I 20 don't know if it is '92 or '93. I believe it 21 probably has come out. I haven't seen a final copy. 22 It is Doren and Lou Whitaker and Tom Armentano all 23 three of which are botanists that worked for 24 Everglades National Park, Whitaker left, and Ron 25 Jones from Florida International University. 154 1 Q. With regard to the Dave Walker study on 2 nutrient dosing in the Park, what year was that? 3 A. I believe the report I saw was a 1988 4 publication. Actually it wasn't a publication, it 5 was a report to the superintendent, I believe. 6 There have been a large amount of 7 publications I have reviewed associated with the ENR 8 project by Marguerite Cook and I think some stuff by 9 Sue Newman, work by Kadlec, mostly documents I have 10 reviewed in the last two years either associated with 11 the ENR project design or the STA project design 12 where they looked at the ability of marsh species to 13 uptake and store nutrients and then the effects they 14 have on the macrophyte community structure. 15 I think that's probably all the ones I can 16 think of by author and title or author and year. 17 Q. With regard to the Cook publications on 18 the ENR project, do you recall what years those were? 19 A. It wasn't the ENR project but work in 20 Water Conservation Area 2A, I believe it was a 1992 21 publication that I can remember where she did some 22 followup work on sawgrass and cattail communities in 23 2A, I think the same basic sampling sites that Steve 24 Davis has done. 25 Q. And the work or publication by Sue Newman? 155 1 A. It is a joint publication by I think 2 Newman and Kadlec that came out in 1992. 3 A. Again it was a document provided to the 4 SAGE committee or STA committee or something like 5 that that I got copies of. 6 And also the other work I have reviewed is 7 work by John Richardson in Water Conservation Area 1 8 done on contract with the Fish and Wildlife Service 9 and I think he has a 1990 and a 1991 publication, I 10 believe, on vegetation community related to water 11 quality and nutrients within Water Conservation 12 Area 1. 13 Q. That was '90 and '91? 14 A. I think a '90 and '91 publication I read. 15 One of them is probably like an annual report to the 16 Fish and Wildlife Service, a progress report kind of 17 thing, and the other one was a publication, I can't 18 even remember where it was published. It is 19 Richardson and Wiley Kitchens and a couple of other 20 cooperators that work in the Fish and Wildlife 21 Service cooperative unit at the University of 22 Florida. So it is a group paper by multiple people. 23 But those are most of the papers I could think of. 24 Q. Have you done any studies to determine 25 what impacts hydroperiod has on macrophyte 156 1 communities in the Everglades? 2 A. I personally have not done any work 3 although I have seen references to impacts of 4 hydrology on macrophytes and other vegetation by 5 authors in literature, but no personal field work or 6 laboratory work. 7 Q. With regard to the literature you just 8 referred to, was there a determination that 9 hydroperiod did have an impact upon macrophyte 10 communities or did not? 11 A. On most of the literature I think they 12 would say that hydroperiod does have an impact on 13 macrophyte communities. 14 Q. Are you basing your opinion in part then 15 upon that literature? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is there anything else you are basing your 18 opinion upon with regard to hydroperiod impacts on 19 macrophyte communities? 20 A. Just my review of the literature and site 21 visits I have made around the Everglades where I have 22 seen water depth and hydroperiod conditions relative 23 to vegetation community, either field work I have 24 done or reviews of maps and that kind of stuff 25 related to hydrologic data. 157 1 Q. And on those field trips or site visits 2 have you been able to visually determine whether or 3 not hydroperiod has had an impact on macrophyte 4 communities? 5 A. I can based on looking at the vegetation 6 communities and the hydrologic record and reviewing 7 the literature, I can form an opinion on how much of 8 the overall vegetation community structure is related 9 to the hydroperiod of the area that they are 10 occurring in. Basically what I am saying is the 11 literature reviews and the site visits have shown me 12 there is a gradation of hydrologic conditions that 13 characterize each of the major vegetation communities 14 within the Everglades. 15 Q. Just so I understand you, you just 16 essentially are referring to the fact that a slough 17 community typically has a longer and deeper 18 hydroperiod as opposed to a bush or relatively dry -- 19 A. As compared to a sawgrass community or, 20 yes, other communities, that's right. 21 Q. Do you have any opinions as to whether or 22 not alterations in hydroperiods, man-induced 23 alterations have any impact upon vegetative 24 communities? 25 A. Yes. I believe alterations of, 158 1 man-induced alterations of hydroperiod do have an 2 impact on vegetation communities. 3 Q. Is this something you have studied? 4 A. I haven't done any literature -- I haven't 5 done any research myself. I have done literature 6 review and I have visited in areas in the field where 7 there has been major changes in hydrologic parameters 8 and seen the history of changes in vegetation at 9 those sites either through review of aerial 10 photography or actually visiting the site myself over 11 a number of years. 12 Q. Let's start with macrophyte communities. 13 Has alteration of hydroperiod impacted macrophyte 14 communities? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. How are you able to visually distinguish 17 between alterations in macrophyte communities 18 resulting from hydroperiod as opposed to resulting 19 from nutrients or other factors? 20 A. I don't know if I could quantitatively 21 isolate the difference between hydroperiod and other 22 factors except in areas where the other factors 23 aren't important such as in areas of the Everglades 24 that are far away from delivery or inflow points 25 which theoretically would have background levels of 159 1 water quality throughout the vegetation communities 2 so nutrient wouldn't be a factor or areas that had 3 uniform soil characteristics so soil type and depth 4 wouldn't be a factor. 5 Q. How do you intend to distinguish then in 6 the study you referred to that you are still in the 7 process of doing which is as I understand it you were 8 going to attempt to differentiate between 9 quantification impacts resulting from altered 10 hydroperiod as opposed to those resulting from 11 nutrients? 12 A. I don't know if I am going to be 13 quantifying the vegetation impacts due to hydroperiod 14 versus nutrients. What I will be doing is looking at 15 a series of sites that have similar hydroperiod or 16 water depth conditions and trying to factor out the 17 effects of hydrology and then seeing if there is 18 still a difference in nutrients or water quality 19 between those sites. 20 Q. Are you going to look at sites that have 21 similar water quality but differences in or altered 22 hydroperiods to see whether or not there are 23 differences or impacts upon the vegetative 24 communities at the sites? 25 A. I would assume you would have to really 160 1 quantify that difference. Until I get all the data 2 and look at the ranges of hydroperiod I don't even 3 know what the possible ranges in hydroperiod and 4 water depth would be yet. I haven't analyzed that 5 much date for Water Conservation Area 1 and 2. 6 Q. With regard to impacts related to 7 hydroperiod, are we referring to impacts related to 8 shortened or lengthened hydroperiods? 9 A. I have visually seen impacts associated 10 with both and I have read literature reviews, 11 literature citations that show impacts on vegetation 12 communities associated with both lengthening and 13 shortening of hydroperiods. 14 Q. In your literature review have you seen 15 any studies that have attempted to differentiate or 16 quantify in any manner impacts resulting from 17 hydroperiod as opposed to those resulting from 18 nutrients? 19 A. Several of the studies I cited earlier by 20 David Swift state clearly in there that there was 21 water depth hydroperiod sampling over the period of 22 study and sites with same water depths and 23 hydroperiods have vastly different vegetation 24 communities and they are attributing that to the 25 water chemistry or nutrients. David Swift I know has 161 1 shown a relationship where there is very little 2 differences in periphyton communities associated with 3 hydrologic parameters as compared to water quality. 4 The work by Gleason and Spackman in the 5 1970s came to the same conclusion, that periphyton 6 did not vastly vary in response to hydrologic 7 parameters as you go from one water depth or 8 hydroperiod characteristic area to another but showed 9 the greatest correlation or quantitative relationship 10 with water quality and nutrients. 11 I believe the same thing has been shown by 12 work by Steve Davis on macrophytes along nutrient 13 gradients in Water Conservation Area 2A where they 14 have sampled water depth and hydroperiod along a 15 gradient and shown areas with similar hydroperiod and 16 water depth have vastly different vegetative 17 communities and they correlated that with nutrients 18 and water quality trends. 19 Q. You just mentioned a Spackman? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. With Gleason? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I don't recall you mentioning that before. 24 A. I think I mentioned a paper in 1974 with 25 Gleason and Spackman done on periphyton communities 162 1 in Water Conservation Areas 1 and 2A. 2 Q. That paper is in conjunction with the one 3 by Pat Gleason you mention before? 4 A. Right, Gleason and Spackman were the two 5 authors. 6 Q. With regard to the impacts on macrophyte 7 community resulting from alterations in hydroperiod, 8 what literature are you relying upon in formulating 9 your opinion? 10 A. A lot of old literature starting with the 11 work by John Davis in 1943. He did not a 12 quantitative analysis but he did a qualitative 13 comparison between hydrologic conditions and 14 vegetative types. 15 So did Loviss in the late 1950s, I 16 believe, 1959, did a study and qualitatively showed 17 differences in hydrology versus vegetation. 18 A number of studies in the seventies 19 including work by Ben McPherson of the USGS, Michael 20 Duever of the Audubon Society, I think. 21 I think Bill Robertson had some work in 22 the 1970s, late, doing bird studies I think, but 23 looking at hydrology and vegetation community 24 relative to bird communities. 25 In the eighties a series of papers I know 163 1 I have reviewed by Olmsted, Zafke. Olmsted was 2 something like a 1987 publication on vegetation 3 communities in Everglades National Park and she tried 4 to quantify the hydroperiod characteristics of 5 different communities. 6 The paper by Mike Zafke was an '84 7 publication, I believe primarily on Water 8 Conservation Areas, but he also did some work in the 9 lower eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park. 10 A paper by Dewey Worth I think came out in 11 1986 on the vegetation community in Water 12 Conservation Area 2A where he quantified hydroperiod 13 relative to vegetation communities. 14 A number of publications by Lance 15 Gunderson who is a botanist or was a botanist for the 16 Park in 1988, 1989 and 1990, where he looked at 17 hydroperiod versus vegetation communities both 18 throughout the Everglades and also did some 19 experimental studies of flooding, impacts of flooding 20 on different vegetation types, plants and buckets 21 kind of studies. 22 Q. Does that cover it? 23 A. Off the top of my head those are probably 24 the major studies that I can remember where someone 25 tried to either qualitatively or quantitatively 164 1 relate hydroperiods to vegetation changes at the 2 macrophyte level, not counting the ones we talked 3 about dealing with periphyton. 4 Q. That's what I was getting to next. 5 Let me back up. Have you conducted any 6 studies or testing to determine what impacts if any 7 altered hydroperiods have upon the Everglades 8 periphyton community? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have you conducted any studies to 11 determine what impacts if any altered hydroperiods 12 have on the Everglades microbial community? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or 15 not altered hydroperiods do have an impact on 16 periphyton communities in the Everglades? 17 A. I have reviewed literature and talked to 18 people who work in that field and I have an opinion. 19 Q. This is periphyton? 20 A. Yes, periphyton. 21 Q. What is that opinion? 22 A. That the changes in community composition 23 and productivity are primarily related to changes in 24 water chemistry and nutrients and other than one 25 study I don't know of any that related differences in 165 1 hydroperiod to differences in periphyton community 2 composition or productivity. 3 And then one study I believe there was a 4 study by -- I can't remember the woman's name -- 5 there was a study in Everglades National Park in the 6 early 1980s where a woman came in and looked at the 7 periphyton communities throughout the Park and her 8 findings were that periphyton communities were 9 related to hydroperiod and water depth. But I don't 10 believe she did any sampling near any water delivery 11 structures, she did all her sampling out in open 12 marsh areas relatively far away from -- she was 13 looking at differences in periphyton communities I 14 believe related to macrophytes, how periphyton 15 communities were related to differences in, say, open 16 water prairies or sawgrass areas or sloughs. 17 She was comparing, I believe she was 18 comparing periphyton communities between those kind 19 of macrophyte communities. So she really wasn't 20 looking at water quality. I don't believe she did 21 any water quality sampling. 22 So her findings were that periphyton was 23 associated with or could be quantitatively correlated 24 with differences in hydroperiod and water depth. 25 But other than that study, the work that 166 1 Pat Gleason has done and the work that Dave Swift has 2 done, the work that Ramona Rice and Sonny Hall have 3 done, to my knowledge have all shown that water 4 chemistry and nutrients are the parameters that drive 5 changes in periphyton community composition and 6 productivity. 7 And in several studies such as the dosing 8 studies, hydroperiod and water depth and flow 9 conditions have been factored out because you are 10 comparing in channels that are similar in terms of 11 hydrologic parameters and the only difference between 12 them is the nutrient inputs. 13 So those are probably the best 14 quantitative analyses you could probably see 15 something where you are physically isolating the 16 effects of one set of parameters and only making a 17 change in another set. So those I would say are 18 probably the most conclusive. 19 Q. Going to the microbial community, do you 20 have an opinion as to whether or not altered 21 hydroperiods have any impact upon the Everglades 22 microbial community? 23 A. To my knowledge in my literature review I 24 have not seen any information that would suggest 25 microbial community is heavily affected by changes in 167 1 hydroperiod or water depth. 2 Q. I believe you already testified you have 3 not done any studies in that -- 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. You said heavily impacted. Has it been 6 shown essentially no impact, just so I understand 7 what you mean by heavily? 8 A. When you are talking about microbial 9 community activity and you are talking about diurnal 10 changes in dissolved oxygen, there is marked 11 differences in the range of fluctuations of dissolved 12 oxygen in the water depending on the type of 13 community you are in, usually microbial -- I mean 14 macrophyte community, so that sawgrass communities 15 have different ranges of dissolved oxygen than do 16 open prairies than do sloughs. But the effects of 17 nutrients are vastly different than the variations 18 that occur between those communities. 19 Q. Just so I understand your opinion, you are 20 saying other than the natural changes in microbial 21 communities resulting from, for instance, the 22 difference between a slough community/microbial 23 community and a macrophyte, a sawgrass community, 24 hydroperiod has no impact upon microbial communities? 25 A. In the literature that I have reviewed I 168 1 haven't seen hydroperiod has an effect. 2 Q. Other than the literature that you have 3 reviewed do you base your opinion upon anything else? 4 A. Discussions with people working in the 5 field such as Ron Jones and others, but no direct 6 field work. 7 Q. Would the literature review that you 8 already mentioned with regard to the microbial 9 communities essentially cover the literature that you 10 are basing your opinion on? 11 A. Yes. I should say the only other source 12 of literature that I have reviewed that I think goes 13 into all these communities is something like the 14 Everglades SWIM Plan because it basically has 15 summaries of periphyton, microbial and macrophyte 16 community dynamics that summarizes the findings of 17 lots of different studies and I have reviewed those 18 documents. 19 Q. Do you understand that you are providing 20 an expert opinion in support of the findings of the 21 SWIM Plan, is that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. So essentially in your review of the SWIM 24 Plan you have not found anything contradicting your 25 opinion, is that what you are telling me? 169 1 A. Or I have -- 2 Q. You are not supporting your opinion upon 3 the findings that your -- 4 MR. FITZGERALD: Allow the witness to 5 answer. 6 A. The SWIM Plan document references work by 7 a number of different authors. In general I have 8 gone back to the original source on those authors and 9 reviewed theirs findings and what I see in the SWIM 10 Plan in terms of their conclusions is consistent with 11 what the original authors had stated. I don't see 12 any inconsistencies with what is in this SWIM Plan. 13 Q. Are there any additional authors who you 14 have not mentioned in providing the literature that 15 you reviewed in the past half hour, hour? 16 A. Not that I can think of right now. 17 Q. Given your experience as a hydrologist, 18 how would you go about setting up a test or is there 19 a means as far as you know of studying to determine 20 whether or not alterations in hydroperiod do have an 21 impact upon the periphyton community in the 22 Everglades? 23 A. Probably the best thing to do would be 24 some sort of controlled experiment where you 25 establish a series of small test cells or flow ways 170 1 where you introduce a different hydroperiod or water 2 depth and run that for a long period of time and see 3 if existing periphyton community changes relative to 4 those variabilities. 5 The kind of experiments that would be 6 proposed in the ENR project in the test cells portion 7 of that project, I know they have proposed to do 8 those kind of studies on macrophyte communities. I 9 don't know if they have also proposed to do those 10 kind of studies on periphyton because I am not sure 11 if there is still a plan used for periphyton in the 12 ENR project, like there was originally. 13 But that in my mind that would be the most 14 ideal way of testing it because you are controlling 15 all the other parameters. 16 Q. Have any of the literature that you have 17 reviewed done that type of test? 18 A. From the closest thing is the Everglades 19 National Park dosing study where instead of 20 controlling hydroperiod they maintained hydroperiod 21 normal and modified nutrient input, but I have not 22 seen a comparable situation where they have kept 23 water chemistry the same and altered hydroperiod. To 24 my knowledge I don't know of anyone who has ever done 25 that. 171 1 Q. Would the dosing study be able to indicate 2 what impacts hydroperiod would have then? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Does the periphyton community change, for 5 instance, are there differences in the Everglades 6 generally based upon your knowledge between the 7 periphyton community in a slough as opposed to a 8 macrophyte marsh? 9 A. There are some differences. The 10 differences seem to be more pronounced not between a 11 slough versus an open marsh but between portions of 12 the Everglades that have different substrate and 13 water chemistry, like in pristine areas of Water 14 Conservation Area 1 versus Water Conservation Area 2 15 or 3 there are different macrophyte communities, 16 because the substrate in Water Conservation Area 1, 17 the peat is slightly different, the water chemistry 18 in Water Conservation Area 1 is more acid and is 19 softer water, has lower total dissolved solids, 20 whereas in the other Water Conservation Areas the 21 environment is more alkaline and has higher total 22 dissolved solids so those differences in chemistry 23 and slight differences in substrate have been shown 24 to produce different periphyton species in 25 communities. 172 1 Q. Could you just generally describe to me 2 the different type of ecosystem or vegetative 3 communities you find in the Everglades such as for 4 instance an open slough, a macrophyte or sawgrass 5 marsh? 6 A. You mean name those categories? 7 Q. Yes, go through the categories. 8 A. I believe there are nine major categories 9 going from an open water marsh which would be like an 10 Eleocharis marsh or slough environment, sawgrass 11 communities, they are usually something like a 12 coastal prairie community that is dominated by 13 coastal grasses like, what is it, Spartina patens or 14 alternaflora, normal coastal marsh grass communities. 15 Q. Is that sort of a combined, is that where 16 the freshwater marsh sort of meets up with the 17 saltwater marsh? 18 A. Right, that's usually why they occur. 19 There are the mangrove forest communities and usually 20 different ranges of mangrove forests. 21 There is a cypress community, either 22 cypress domes or usually dwarf cypress forests that 23 occur with different mixed understory grasslands 24 underneath it. 25 There is in the wetter communities there 173 1 are bay heads and usually willow heads, tree islands, 2 hardwood hammocks, tropical hardwood hammocks. 3 I think that's -- I don't know if that is 4 nine or not but that's the major communities that I 5 would think of in terms of gross scale differences in 6 vegetation communities. 7 Q. If you were to conduct a study again as a 8 hydrologist to determine what if any impacts 9 hydroperiod or altered hydroperiods have on microbial 10 community, how again would you do that type of study? 11 A. You would have to probably do the same 12 kind of a study, take samples of similar substrates, 13 Everglades peat, and in a test situation impose 14 different hydroperiods on them, either in some sort 15 of closed cells or in a flow way situation, maintain 16 the same water chemistry and other parameters and 17 only alter water depth and hydroperiod. 18 Q. If you wanted to go ahead and eliminate 19 the impacts of water quality, is there a means of 20 doing that so you could, to the extent possible, just 21 determine what the hydroperiod impacts are as opposed 22 to water quality impacts? 23 A. Sure, induce the same water chemistry to 24 all of the samples. 25 Q. So, for instance, you could do one whole 174 1 set of tests with different hydroperiods using 2 pristine water? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And again keeping the same soil type, et 5 cetera, you could do the same series of hydroperiods 6 using a different or a let's call it a nutrient 7 impacted water quality, is that correct, or high 8 nutrient? 9 A. Yes, that's true, but then I think, if you 10 wanted to compare between the two sets of runs you 11 would be comparing across water chemistry parameters, 12 not just hydroperiod. 13 What you could do is take samples of 14 different substrates in the Everglades and test them 15 with the same water chemistry at different 16 hydroperiods, take samples of substrates for marl 17 soils and different type of peat soils and impose 18 different hydroperiods and see how they react, and 19 keep the water chemistry the same. 20 Q. Would there be any way to then do, be it 21 one test or series of tests, to attempt to 22 differentiate or quantify changes due to hydroperiod 23 as opposed to changes due to water quality? 24 A. You would have to do a series of 25 controlled experiments, as we talked about. 175 1 Some experiments that have different types 2 of -- if you wanted to test on macrophyte communities 3 impose on certain macrophyte communities the same 4 water chemistry, the same substrate conditions and 5 only alter hydrologic periods, water depth 6 hydroperiods. Do the same thing, keep hydroperiod 7 the same, keep the sediment, whatever parameters, the 8 same, and only alter water chemistry. 9 You could do a series of tests like that 10 and then the same thing on periphyton, the same thing 11 on microbial community could be done. 12 Q. What you have previously identified as, 13 what you identified as a nutrient-impacted marsh -- 14 A. Right. 15 Q. -- which I believe you said was the 16 northern end of 2A? 17 A. That's one area. 18 Q. Are you referring to downstream of the 19 S-10 structures? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Do you know whether or not that has 22 experienced altered hydroperiods? 23 A. It has experienced altered hydroperiods 24 over the long term, meaning that there is a normal 25 variability due to climatic changes that have 176 1 occurred so on an annual basis the hydroperiod has 2 changed over time. Spatially I don't believe most of 3 the area south of the S-10s has been affected by 4 significantly altered hydroperiods, which means if 5 you went to an area 2 kilometers downstream of the 6 S-10 or 4 kilometers downstream of the S-10 I believe 7 you would find very similar water quality and water 8 depth and hydroperiod characteristics. 9 Q. In that situation how would you go about 10 determining what impacts if any in the macrophyte 11 community were due quantitatively to hydroperiod 12 changes and what impacts if any were due 13 quantitatively to nutrient changes? And then perhaps 14 there would be other factors that may have an 15 influence. How would you go about doing that as a 16 hydrologist? 17 A. I mean under controlled conditions you 18 would want to maintain the same hydroperiod 19 conditions throughout the system over the study 20 period and look at whatever the effect of, in this 21 case, nutrient addition has been. So if there is a 22 trend of increasing nutrients to the system but the 23 hydroperiods really remain the same you would tend to 24 factor out hydroperiod as a cause to the vegetation 25 change, or if the substrate conditions are relatively 177 1 the same along a particular transect you would assume 2 that differences in substrate changes in soil type or 3 something like that isn't the cause of the vegetation 4 community shifts. 5 It is much more difficult in a natural 6 system like the 2A canal just because it is not 7 maintained uniformly over time, normal climate 8 patterns alter the hydrology and water depths. 9 Q. Have you seen any studies that have done 10 the series of tests we have just discussed to 11 determine what impact if any changes in hydroperiod 12 has had on the microbial communities? 13 A. No, I have not seen any studies that have 14 altered hydroperiod and looked at the effects on the 15 macrophyte community. 16 Q. I believe we asked that question with 17 regard to microbial. 18 A. I am sorry, microbial community. 19 Q. Have you seen a series of tests on 20 macrophytes where you again are attempting to 21 determine what the impacts of hydroperiod are using 22 the type of test you just referred to? 23 A. Again, I don't remember ever seeing that 24 type of an experimental test done. 25 Q. Do you have copies of the literature that 178 1 you are relying upon for your expert opinion? 2 A. There are copies at the Park of I believe 3 all of the documents I have referred to. We have a 4 bibliographic listing of most of the major 5 publications that either show up in the SWIM Plan 6 references or other STA design, ENR project reports 7 where literature has been cited as the primary source 8 and we maintain most of that in one collection at the 9 Research Center. 10 Q. When were you notified that you were going 11 to be listed or were listed as an expert in this 12 case? 13 A. I don't know when specifically I was 14 listed. I have known I most likely would be an 15 expert witness on this case since essentially my 16 involvement in the case after the original federal 17 case was filed in 1988 based on the fact that I was 18 the program manager for the hydrology program and 19 this was a water-related project. 20 Q. Were you involved in the federal case? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What was your involvement in the federal 23 case? 24 A. Similar to what it would be in this case. 25 My involvement would be my expert opinion on 179 1 hydrology, water depths, hydroperiods, knowledge of 2 the South Florida Water Management system impacts, 3 proposed alternatives such as STA design, best 4 management practices in the EAA, knowledge of the 5 plans of the ENR project. 6 Q. With regard to this first opinion we have 7 been discussing, that alterations of the natural 8 Everglades ecosystem at the microbial and macrophyte 9 levels can not be accounted for solely on the basis 10 of man-induced alterations in hydroperiod, was that 11 an expert opinion that you had with regard to the 12 federal case? 13 A. I don't think I ever wrote down my 14 opinions on that but I would say I formed my opinion 15 based on reviewing this literature primarily since 16 1988. Whether or not I reviewed most of it before 17 the SWIM Plan challenges or not, I would say most of 18 it was reviewed prior to 1991, most of it is older 19 literature. 20 Q. Are you, by the way, relying upon William 21 Walker's work at all? 22 A. Not specifically related to these but I 23 have studied I guess two or three of his 24 publications. But his work deals more with water 25 quality trends, changes in nutrients spatially over 180 1 time in the Everglades. So I am familiar with the 2 work but I am not specifically referring to it on 3 these. His work doesn't deal with hydroperiod or 4 water depth, it deals with water quality related to 5 flow. 6 Q. Is that an area of your expertise with the 7 type of work that Mr. Walker does? 8 A. Not the water quality work but related to 9 flow part, yes, in that I worked with Bill compiling 10 a lot of the data and reviewed a lot of his documents 11 in his work. 12 Q. Do you have an expertise in vegetative 13 community shifts resulting from water quality? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Other than the literature search that you 16 have discussed, have you done any type of studies 17 with regard to vegetative community shifts resulting 18 from nutrient impacts? 19 A. No. My only background in an area would 20 be review of the literature, discussions I have had 21 with professional colleagues and attendance at 22 meetings where many of these subjects are discussed 23 such as the ENR project meetings, STA design 24 meetings, meetings associated with the SAGE 25 committee. 181 1 Q. With regard to periphyton, for instance, 2 you refer several times to discussions you have had 3 with other experts. With regard to periphyton what 4 specific conversations have you had that you are 5 basing your opinion upon? 6 A. Let me think of who I have talked to. I 7 talked to both of the people who have worked on the 8 periphyton community studies associated with the 9 nutrient dosing study in the Park. 10 Q. That would be Sonny Hall and Ramona Rice? 11 A. Yes, although I haven't talk to either one 12 ever them in a long time. 13 I have talked with Ron Jones about some of 14 that work but mostly he is doing the chemistry side. 15 I have discussed -- 16 Q. Do you have an expertise in the chemistry, 17 water chemistry? 18 A. No. 19 I have discussed, I believe, some issues 20 of periphyton with David Swift before. 21 I have spoken to Pat Gleason on occasions 22 about periphyton communities, mostly in Everglades 23 National Park. 24 Q. The discussions you had with Pat Gleason, 25 did they provide additional information or any 182 1 opinions or conclusions different than those 2 contained in the two technical publications of his 3 that you reviewed? 4 A. No. Mainly I discussed with him sources 5 of information, what other sources of information 6 would be useful for me to look at. 7 Q. The conversations you had with Swift with 8 regard to periphyton, what were they about? 9 A. Primarily asking him about what 10 publications he would have on periphyton related to 11 water quality. 12 Q. What is Mr. Swift's -- is it Mr. Swift or 13 Dr. Swift? 14 A. It is Mr. Swift, I believe. 15 Q. What is his specialty? 16 A. He's a phycologist. 17 Q. Phycologist, which I believe you have 18 identified previously as a periphyton expert? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. What is Joan Browder's expertise? 21 A. She's a phycologist. 22 Q. And Pat Gleason? 23 A. He is -- I think his degree is actually in 24 geology, sedimentology or something like that, but 25 most of his professional work has been in periphyton, 183 1 water quality related activities. Even in 2 sedimentology he deals with the communities that form 3 the sediments that are deposited in the Everglades so 4 he has to look at -- 5 Q. The biological communities? 6 A. The -- the biological communities anyway. 7 Q. What about Sonny Hall's expertise? 8 A. Phycologist. 9 Q. Ramona Rice? 10 A. She is a phycologist also. 11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record. 12 (Discussion off the record) 13 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record. 14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 15 Q. Is it Mr. Owens? 16 A. No, I think Owens is a woman and she was 17 the second author on a paper that I remember 18 reviewing, but for the life of me I can't remember 19 the first author's name. 20 Q. Do you know what her specialty was? 21 A. Not right offhand other than they did 22 analysis of periphyton communities related to input 23 of water quality so either her or her coauthor must 24 have had some algal community knowledge of phycology 25 or some similar training. 184 1 Q. Given your own educational background in 2 hydrology and geology, does that essentially 3 characterize your educational background? 4 A. I would say environmental science because 5 I have 30 plus hours of biology and -- 6 Q. Does that give you the same expertise in 7 periphyton as the authors we have just been 8 discussing? 9 A. Certainly not. 10 Q. Would you consider yourself an expert in 11 periphyton? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Would you consider yourself an expert in 14 the study of impacts of nutrients upon vegetative 15 communities? 16 A. No. 17 Q. What about as an expert in the study of 18 impacts of nutrients upon microbial communities? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Have you in your work experience done any, 21 had any type of work experience on the impacts of 22 water quality on periphyton or algal communities? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Have you had any work experience on the 25 impacts of water quality on macrophyte communities? 185 1 A. No. 2 Q. Have you had -- 3 A. No work experience other than reviewing 4 the literature, discussing it with professional 5 colleagues and attending meetings where the subjects 6 are presented and discussed. But no formal research 7 or analysis of data myself, no. 8 Q. You don't work in that field? 9 A. That is not in my field. 10 Q. Does your field of work include the study 11 of impact of water quality on the microbial 12 community? 13 A. No. 14 Q. We had discussed your conversations with 15 the various authors here about periphyton. Were 16 there any additional individuals you had discussed 17 impacts on periphyton community other than these 18 authors? 19 A. I know I have discussed it with other 20 members of the Everglades National Park staff such as 21 Dan Scheidt and Bill -- Dave Walker and Mark Flora. 22 Q. Is it Bill or Dave Walker? 23 A. Dave Walker. I was thinking of William 24 Walker sorry. I know I discussed it with the three 25 of them because they were doing the nutrient dosing 186 1 study at the time I came to the Park. 2 Q. That was with regard to the periphyton? 3 A. Yes, they were doing the periphyton 4 sampling and chlorophyll A work and productivity 5 work. 6 Q. Do you recall essentially what those 7 conversations entail, for instance, with regard to 8 Dan Scheidt? 9 A. Dan Scheidt and I worked together from 10 1983 through 1990. The early conversations I am sure 11 were focused on the details of the nutrient uptake 12 study, what the purpose of the study was, what the 13 methods were, what you were hoping to gain in terms 14 of additional information, how would the information 15 be used, those kind of questions. 16 Beyond that, I am not sure specifically 17 what other conversations I have had with him dealing 18 with periphyton or microbial communities. 19 Q. What is Mr. Scheidt's specialty? 20 A. Water quality in general. His educational 21 background is in biology and water resources. 22 Q. And given his educational background and 23 work experience do you feel he was qualified to do 24 the dosing study related to periphyton that you just 25 referred to? 187 1 A. He wasn't the designer of the project, 2 essentially he wasn't the project leader of the 3 project even. He was hired basically as a technician 4 to work on the project. So at the time he came to 5 the Park he was not the lead water quality person. 6 Q. At this point in time do you feel given 7 his educational and/or work experience that he is? 8 A. Yes, I think he would be very well 9 qualified to conduct a nutrient dosing study. 10 Q. And to testify or give an expert opinion 11 as to results of that study? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Given your literature search that you have 14 discussed do you feel you have the same expertise as 15 Mr. Scheidt in that area? 16 A. No, not at all. 17 Q. Given your literature research do you feel 18 you have the same expertise in that area as any of 19 these authors we have discussed? 20 A. No. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: I want to note for the 22 record that Exhibits 6A and 6B which have been 23 referenced do not purport to designate the witness as 24 an expert in those areas. 25 Q. When did the nutrient dosing studies 188 1 begin? 2 A. I believe the dosing began in early 1983. 3 The channels themselves were constructed in early 4 1982 and left to stabilize for six months, the dosing 5 I believe began in early 1983 and ended in mid-summer 6 of 1984 so they ran for a period of 18 months. 7 Q. Have you produced any of the literature 8 upon which your expert, in particular expert opinion 9 is based or are relying on? 10 A. No, have I provided any of this, no, I 11 think all of it pretty much has been referenced in 12 the SWIM Plan. And I thought we said that 13 professional documents or public documents referenced 14 in the SWIM Plan were already available and I did not 15 provide any copies that I had. 16 To my knowledge I haven't made any 17 annotated notes to any of these documents, I have 18 just read them other than I should say I know I made 19 annotated notes in the copies of the reports 20 submitted to the Park on the dosing study because I 21 did a formal review of them and I am sure I made 22 notes on those. 23 Q. Do you still have the notes on the dosing 24 study? 25 A. On one of the 1988 reports, the one that 189 1 focuses on water chemistry and the first report which 2 is kind of general for water chemistry and deals a 3 little with periphyton and macrophytes, I know I have 4 that report, yes. 5 Q. Is that something you produced to us? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And the dosing study I believe you said 8 you are relying upon literature relating to the 9 dosing study? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And the results of the dosing study 12 itself? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. The report that you made notes on, is that 15 one of the reports that you actually listed as 16 relying upon for your opinion? 17 A. Yes, I would say it is. 18 Q. Is that something that you can produce for 19 us, for instance, by tomorrow? 20 A. I imagine I can. I know the report 21 already has been provided in previous, has been 22 provided previously. I will look at my copy and see 23 if there are handwritten pages and I will bring in 24 the copy of the report. My comments would be more at 25 the editorial level because it is not specifically in 190 1 my area of expertise to be commenting on a lot of the 2 technical issues of periphyton or water chemistry but 3 I imagine I did make some sort of comments on the 4 document. But, yes, I know I have a copy of it and I 5 can bring it in tomorrow. 6 MR. FITZGERALD: Let me note for the 7 record, counsel, the document itself has been already 8 been provided to you, twice in prior discovery. 9 MR. KOBELINSKI: With this witness' 10 handwritten notes on it? 11 MR. FITZGE