531
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, )
vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038
5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
6 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )
8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
9 Petitioners, )
vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3039
10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
11 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
13 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
14 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
15 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3040
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
16 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
17 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
18 100 Southeast 2nd Street
Miami, Florida
19 March 11, 1994
9:35 a.m. - 4:45 p.m.
20
CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT A. JOHNSON
21 VOLUME 3
22 Taken before MAXYNE BURSKY, Registered
23 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
24 the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of
25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.
532
1 APPEARANCES
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS
COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC. AND
3 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.
4 HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
123 South Calhoun Street
5 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
BY: GARY V. PERKO, ESQ.
6
7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and
8 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.
9 EARL, BLANK, KAVANAUGH & STOTTS , P.A.
One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
10 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
11 BY: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQ.
12
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
14 STEPHEN M. MacFARLANE, ESQ.
United States Department of Justice
15 Environmental and Natural Resources Division
General Litigation Section
16 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
8th Floor, Room 866
17 Washington, D.C. 20004
18
PRESENT:
19 MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN
20
21
22
23
24
25
533
1
INDEX
2
Witness Direct Cross
3
ROBERT A. JOHNSON
4
By Mr. Perko: 534 --
5 By Mr. Kobelinski: -- 650
6
EXHIBITS
7
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
8
13 Multi-page document entitled A 577
9 Hydrologic Evaluation of the
Rainfall-Driven Experimental Water
10 Delivery Plan for Shark Slough:
June 1985 through May 1993; by
11 Susan J. Connors and Robert A.
Johnson
12
14 Four season conditions maps 594
13
15 Document entitled Analysis of Water 603
14 Management Areas, Changes and
Assumptions Used in the Model dated
15 17 December 1990, with attachments
16 16 Memorandum to Dr. Soukup from Mr. 611
Johnson, subject: Summary Critique
17 of the Tetra Tech Hydrologic/Phosphorus
Model, dated March 26, 1993, with
18 attachments
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
534
1 Thereupon,
2 ROBERT A. JOHNSON,
3 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
5 THE WITNESS: I do.
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
7 BY MR. PERKO:
8 Q. Mr. Johnson, my name is Gary Perko. As
9 you know, I represent the Sugar Cane Growers
10 Cooperative, Roth Farms Inc. and Wedgworth Farms Inc.
11 in the pending Everglades SWIM Plan litigation. This
12 is a continuation of your prior deposition which I
13 believe was conducted on January 27 and 28, 1993.
14 Our purpose here today is to find out what
15 additional opinions if any or additional work you
16 have performed since that time as well as inquiring
17 about knowledge of facts you have obtained that are
18 relevant to this proceeding since that time.
19 If you don't understand my questions,
20 please tell me, I will try to rephrase them. If at
21 any time you want a break, just tell me and we'll do
22 so.
23 Mr. Johnson, I'd like to refer you to the
24 last page of Exhibit 1 to the earlier portion of this
25 deposition. I believe that contains a summary of
535
1 testimony and opinions that you are expected to
2 provide in the final hearing in this proceeding, is
3 that correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. If you would, sir, review the opinions
6 listed under the statement, "Mr. Johnson has formed
7 the following opinions."
8 (Pause)
9 Q. Have you reviewed it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Are there any additional opinions that you
12 expect to provide in the final hearing at this
13 proceeding that are not indicated on this page?
14 A. Not to my knowledge.
15 Q. Let's take them one by one. The first
16 opinion states, "Alterations of the natural
17 Everglades ecosystem at the microbial and macrophyte
18 levels can not be accounted for solely on the basis
19 of man-induced alterations in hydroperiod."
20 Is that still your opinion as you sit here
21 today?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Have you done any additional analyses that
24 support that opinion?
25 A. No.
536
1 Q. Have you reviewed any additional papers or
2 publications in connection with that opinion?
3 A. I have reviewed, I believe, three or four
4 additional reports since my last deposition dealing
5 with nutrient-induced alterations of the Everglades.
6 Q. Those reports are indicated on the piece
7 of paper that counsel provided us this morning, is
8 that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. That would include Davis 1994, P Inputs
11 and Vegetative Sensitivity in the Everglades; Browder
12 Gleason Swift 1994, Periphyton in the Everglades;
13 Nearhoof 1992, Nutrient-Induced Impacts in Water
14 Quality Violations in the Florida Everglades; and
15 Richardson 1992, Second Annual Report, Duke Wetland
16 Center.
17 Is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Are there any other reports that you have
20 reviewed in connection with this opinion?
21 A. There may be some other documents that
22 were provided to me through the TOC that I may have
23 briefly looked at, but no other reports that I have
24 read in any detail.
25 Q. And you would not be relying upon those in
537
1 support of your testimony in this hearing?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. I recall, and correct me if I am wrong, in
4 the prior deposition, you indicated that you were
5 performing some additional work regarding comparison
6 of hydroperiods on impacted versus unimpacted sites.
7 Has that work been completed?
8 A. No, it hasn't.
9 Q. Why was that work not completed?
10 A. I was directed to work on other projects.
11 Q. By Mr. Soukup?
12 A. I believe it would have been by
13 Superintendent Ring and Thomas Armentano.
14 Q. Since 1993, how much work did you perform
15 on that hydroperiod comparison?
16 A. I believe the only additional work that I
17 have done is we generated some of the hydrographs and
18 stage exceedance curves for some of the stations that
19 were not included in the draft report on review of
20 the hydrologic changes in the Everglades between 1940
21 and 1990.
22 Q. Approximately how many hydrographs and
23 stage exceedance curves did you develop?
24 A. Since that report came out, I would say
25 probably another ten to twelve, somewhere in that
538
1 range. The only other additional work I have done is
2 some calculations of water level recession rates for
3 stations, some computations of the data since the
4 last paper was completed.
5 Q. Again, that's the 1940 to 1990 paper?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Was all the documentation of that
8 additional work provided to us?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In response to the notice to take
11 deposition?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. I also recall that in connection with the
14 comparison of hydroperiods on unimpacted versus
15 impacted sites, you anticipated working with a
16 botanist who was going to look at the vegetation in
17 those areas. Did you do any work with a botanist in
18 connection with that comparison?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you have any discussions with any
21 botanists regarding that comparison?
22 A. I have had discussions with Thomas
23 Armentano about the need to complete the study and
24 link this work up with the nutrient and vegetation
25 studies that were done, but that work has not been
539
1 pursued.
2 Q. Do you know why the work was not pursued?
3 A. Not specifically. In my case, it was
4 because of other assignments that I needed to carry
5 out that precluded me from completing the work. I
6 don't know, I don't believe that the vegetation work
7 that was done that would have been combined with this
8 was completed and a final report was put out. I
9 don't believe it has been.
10 Q. Who performed that original vegetative
11 work?
12 A. It was performed by Robert Doren and Lou
13 Whitaker.
14 Q. Were those transect studies?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. South of the S-12 structures?
17 A. They were in Water Conservation Area 2A,
18 3A, the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and south of the
19 S-12C structure.
20 Q. And to your knowledge that work has not
21 been documented in a final report?
22 A. It has been documented in a report but I
23 don't know, I don't believe that the report has been
24 finalized.
25 Q. Do you know the title on that report?
540
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. To your knowledge, has anyone else
3 performed the type of hydroperiod comparison that you
4 anticipated performing on behalf of the federal
5 government?
6 A. Not to my knowledge.
7 Q. Do you anticipate testifying at the final
8 hearing in this proceeding regarding any comparison
9 of hydroperiods on impacted versus unimpacted sites?
10 A. I believe the subject matter of my
11 testimony would be as a rebuttal witness so it is
12 really dependent on what is presented.
13 Q. Let's take a look at the second opinion
14 here which states, "Areas with similar hydroperiod
15 characteristics in ENP and throughout the EPA
16 demonstrate alterations in natural Everglades flora
17 and fauna where impacted by nutrient-enriched water,
18 while areas with unenriched water evidence no
19 alteration of native communities."
20 Is that still your opinion, Mr. Johnson,
21 as you sit here today?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Have you done any additional work that
24 supports or contradicts that opinion?
25 A. No.
541
1 Q. Have you reviewed any additional reports
2 beyond those that we have discussed previously in
3 connection with this opinion?
4 A. I don't believe so.
5 Q. Moving on to the third opinion on the last
6 page of Exhibit 1 which states, "Natural hydroperiod
7 fluctuations generally cause slow shifts in
8 vegetative communities within the Everglades
9 ecosystem; while more rapid vegetative changes are
10 induced by nutrient enrichment."
11 Have you done any additional work that
12 either supports or contradicts this opinion?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is that still your opinion as you sit here
15 today?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you aware of any additional evidence
18 or did you become aware of any additional evidence in
19 support of this opinion since your deposition in
20 January 1993?
21 A. Other than the set of reports that I have
22 reviewed that are water quality-related since my last
23 deposition, that would be the only additional
24 information that I would have examined.
25 Q. The fourth opinion on the last page of
542
1 Exhibit 1 states, "Restoration of more natural
2 hydroperiods alone will not halt or reverse
3 displacement of native habitat in the EPA without
4 significant reduction in the phosphorus
5 concentrations and loads."
6 Is that still your opinion as you sit here
7 today?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Have you done any additional work since
10 January 1993 that would support or contradict that
11 opinion?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you reviewed any documents beyond
14 what we have discussed this morning that support that
15 opinion?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Could you explain to me what you mean by
18 the reference to significant reduction in phosphorus
19 concentrations and loads?
20 A. I'm not sure if I can define
21 quantitatively what a significant reduction would be.
22 I would assume we are talking about a reduction of,
23 say, an order of magnitude.
24 Q. Would a 30 percent reduction in phosphorus
25 loads coming out of the EAA qualify as a significant
543
1 reduction?
2 A. I would say that's a fairly significant
3 reduction, yes.
4 Q. The fifth opinion on the last page of
5 Exhibit 1 states that, "Proposed STA design will not
6 adversely affect water supply to coastal communities,
7 LNWR and ENP."
8 Is that still your opinion as you sit here
9 today?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Have you done any additional work since
12 your deposition in January 1993 that would either
13 support or contradict that opinion?
14 A. I have reviewed the most recent modeling
15 by the South Florida Water Management District where
16 they modeled the May 10, 1993 conceptual design for
17 the stormwater treatment areas.
18 Q. Is that May 10, 1993 design, is that the
19 same design that's in the current Everglades SWIM
20 Plan?
21 A. To my knowledge, yes.
22 Q. It is?
23 A. Actually, I think it's slightly different
24 than what is in the SWIM Plan.
25 Q. Is it the same amount of acreage?
544
1 A. I think it's slightly larger than what was
2 in the SWIM Plan.
3 Q. Did that additional or does that
4 additional modeling support the opinion that proposed
5 STA design will not adversely affect water supply to
6 coastal communities, LNWR and ENP?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How so?
9 A. It provides an estimate of the water
10 losses associated with Best Management Practices in
11 the Everglades Agricultural Area. It describes the
12 reduction of water supply inputs to the EAA from Lake
13 Okeechobee.
14 It defines the makeup water requirements
15 to the Everglades Protection Area. It describes the
16 volume of additional water that would be supplied
17 with the C-51 project improvements.
18 Q. Anything else?
19 A. It quantifies the volumetric changes to
20 the Everglades Protection Area, to Everglades
21 National Park and to the Lower East Coast service
22 areas.
23 Q. Did that May 10, 1993 design that was
24 simulated by the South Florida Water Management
25 District assume that water losses associated with the
545
1 BMPs would be made up with additional discharges to
2 the EPA?
3 A. I believe it did.
4 Q. What was the source of that water?
5 A. The majority of the makeup water is from
6 the C-51 basin improvements and I believe additional
7 water is as a result of reduced water supply demands
8 in the Everglades Agricultural Area so that
9 additional water would be available from Lake
10 Okeechobee to the Everglades Protection Area.
11 Q. Did I understand you correctly to say that
12 the majority of the water was from the C-51?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And there would be some additional
15 releases from the lake?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Is it your understanding that the STAs or
18 that the South Florida Water Management District is
19 currently designing the STAs to treat makeup water
20 for the, that would be additional releases that would
21 be used to make up the water losses from the BMPs?
22 A. To my knowledge, the STAs would be
23 designed to treat that water.
24 Q. I am speaking of the STAs in the current
25 Everglades SWIM Plan, 35,000 acres.
546
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Have you reviewed any other documentation
3 that supports your opinion that proposed STA design
4 will not adversely affect water supply to coastal
5 communities, LNWR and ENP since your previous
6 deposition in January 1993?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Are you aware of any other modeling of the
9 current STA configuration in the current Everglades
10 SWIM Plan that has been conducted since January 1993?
11 A. To my knowledge, there is modeling of the
12 STA design incorporated in the Lower East Coast
13 Regional Water Supply Plan but the modeling results
14 have not been provided to outside groups.
15 Q. Do you know when that modeling was
16 conducted?
17 A. I believe it's been followup modeling that
18 was done in the fall of '93 and I know they are doing
19 some modeling currently in anticipation of a June
20 completion date, June '94 completion date.
21 Q. Who is conducting that modeling that's
22 anticipated in June of 1994?
23 A. The specific person to my knowledge is
24 most likely Ray Santee with the Lower District
25 Planning Department at the South Florida Water
547
1 Management District.
2 Q. Have you reviewed the assumptions that Mr.
3 Santee is using for that modeling?
4 A. I have seen some information on the
5 assumptions that are built into the base condition
6 for the, I believe it's 1990 and 2010 modeling
7 scenarios, but I have not seen any of the model
8 output.
9 Q. Does that modeling assume that the STAs
10 will be constructed as proposed in the current
11 Everglades SWIM Plan?
12 A. I believe the modeling assumes that they
13 will be constructed in accordance with the May 10,
14 '93 conceptual design by Burns and McDonnell. I
15 believe there's been some apparent changes in that
16 since the May 10th document came out relative to
17 STA-5, but I haven't seen any information on that.
18 Q. Is it your understanding that STA-5 would
19 be moved out?
20 A. Yes, to my knowledge.
21 Q. Does the modeling that Mr. Santee is
22 performing assume that the water losses associated
23 with implementation of BMPs will be made up through
24 additional releases from other sources?
25 A. Yes, to my knowledge.
548
1 Q. What is the quantity of the makeup water
2 necessary to offset water losses associated with
3 BMPs?
4 A. I believe the results of the work that the
5 Water Management District did in June of 1993 defines
6 that volume as 188,000 acre/feet per year on an
7 average annual basis.
8 Q. What acreage for the STAs is Mr. Santee
9 assuming for purposes of the modeling that's
10 anticipated in June of 1993?
11 A. I don't know specifically but I believe it
12 is in the range of 37,000 acres.
13 Q. Do you know what sources of water Mr.
14 Santee is assuming will be used to make up the BMP
15 water losses?
16 A. Most of the BMP water losses are made up
17 by reduced water supply demands within the EAA.
18 There's a very close agreement between the loss of
19 outflow due to BMPs and a reduction in water supply
20 needs within the EAA.
21 Q. So am I correct in assuming that because
22 there is a reduction in water supply for the EAA,
23 more water can be flowed through the canals from Lake
24 Okeechobee directly to the WCAs?
25 A. Yes, when the canal systems are capable of
549
1 moving that additional water, then there would be
2 additional water that would be made available in the
3 lake that could be passed southward to the EPA.
4 Q. When you said that the modeling that Mr.
5 Santee is performing is expected in June of 1993, I
6 believe you said that's in connection with the Lower
7 East Coast Water Supply Planning Project, is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes, June of 1994.
10 Q. I'm sorry.
11 A. I believe the base conditions for the
12 Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan are expected to be
13 completed by that date.
14 Q. Is it your understanding that the Lower
15 East Coast Water Supply Plan will be issued in final
16 form in June of 1994?
17 A. To my knowledge, it won't come out in
18 final form until at least November of 1994.
19 Q. What's the latest draft of the Lower East
20 Coast Water Supply Plan?
21 A. There is a document, I think it's called a
22 draft working document of the Lower East Coast
23 Regional Water Supply Plan that came out in 1993, but
24 I don't know the exact date.
25 Q. You noted that there was some modeling of
550
1 the STA design in the current Everglades SWIM Plan
2 that was included in that draft Lower East Coast
3 Water Supply Plan, is that correct?
4 A. I believe so.
5 Q. Do you know whether that modeling
6 predicted the effect of the proposed STAs and BMPs on
7 the volume of water discharged through the S-12s?
8 A. I believe they may have made some mention
9 of it, but I'm not sure if they specifically
10 quantified the impacts at the S-12 structures at that
11 time.
12 Q. They made no mention of it in the draft
13 plan, is that correct?
14 A. I don't believe flows to the S-12s was
15 mentioned in there.
16 Q. Do you know if they simulated flows to the
17 S-12s?
18 A. I would assume that when they did the
19 modeling of the STAs, they would have looked at the
20 flows in all of the major outflow structures from the
21 Water Conservation Areas. So, yes, I believe that
22 they would have had some estimate of flows out of the
23 Water Conservation Area 3A and into Shark Slough
24 Basin. Not of the modeling that was done at that
25 time; I know that the results are for the most recent
551
1 modeling.
2 Q. And that was the modeling of the May 10,
3 1993 design?
4 A. Yes, the work that was done in June of
5 1993 essentially shows roughly a 48,000 acre/foot per
6 year increase of inflows to Everglades National Park
7 through the S-12s and its 333 structure.
8 Q. What was that 48,000 acre/feet increase
9 attributable to?
10 A. The design of the stormwater treatment
11 areas provides, I believe, approximately 200,000
12 acre/feet of additional water into the Water
13 Conservation Areas within Water Conservation Area 3A
14 that would cause an increase in water levels and an
15 increase in regulatory releases out of that basin
16 into Shark Slough via the S-12s.
17 Q. When you say there would be 200,000
18 acre/feet of additional water to the WCAs, you mean
19 above and beyond the makeup water?
20 A. I believe the makeup water estimate, their
21 quantification of the makeup water was merely the
22 volume of water that was needed to offset losses. I
23 believe their calculations define the amount of water
24 that would be estimated going into the conservation
25 areas, so the makeup water would be included in that
552
1 water. It's not a sum of the two.
2 Makeup water simply replaces what was lost
3 through BMPs. This is water on top of, just
4 balancing the original water budget.
5 Q. I don't mean to mischaracterize your prior
6 testimony. I just want to make sure I am clear, so
7 correct me if I am wrong.
8 Reviewing your previous deposition, I
9 understood that the bases for this opinion that the
10 proposed STA design will not adversely affect water
11 supply to coastal communities, LNWR and ENP, that was
12 based upon four sets of modeling, one performed
13 roughly in 1990 by the Corps of Engineers in
14 connection with the then-proposed WMAs, one performed
15 roughly contemporaneously by the South Florida Water
16 Management District on the proposed WMAs, another set
17 of modeling in connection with Mr. Neidrauer's
18 presentation to SAGE in 1992 and modeling performed
19 by Burns and McDonnell that showed a 22 percent
20 decrease in EAA outflows associated with BMPs and
21 STAs.
22 Does that accurately characterize the
23 bases for that opinion as of January 1993?
24 A. Yes, I believe those were the four sources
25 of technical information on the impacts of the
553
1 stormwater treatment areas.
2 Q. As I understand your testimony today,
3 those bases would be supplemented by the modeling of
4 the STA design that's within the draft Lower East
5 Coast Water Supply Plan as well as the modeling of
6 the May 10, 1993 plan conducted by the South Florida
7 Water Management District in June of 1993, is that
8 correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Would you be relying on any other sources
11 of information for the opinion that proposed STA
12 design will not adversely affect water supply to the
13 coastal communities, LNWR and ENP?
14 A. Unless there was some way I could see more
15 recent modeling done in support of the Lower East
16 Coast Water Supply Plan, I don't believe there would
17 be any other source. In the June 1993 modeling,
18 there were some issues that were raised that were not
19 resolved in the modeling output and I believe the
20 District staff had changed some of the assumptions
21 and had planned on doing followup modeling and I have
22 not been informed whether that followup modeling has
23 been done or not.
24 Q. What assumptions were contemplated for
25 change?
554
1 A. There was an assumption in the June 1993
2 modeling that there were constraints on the amount of
3 regulatory flow that could be provided to the Water
4 Conservation Areas tied to, I believe, the stages
5 within the conveyance canals in the EAA. And it had
6 to do with how they would treat excess regulatory
7 water under those conditions.
8 I believe the modeling assumed that we
9 would not be passing additional large regulatory
10 releases southward because of limitations from
11 impacts of flooding. Over the last year, we have
12 essentially implemented plans that have passed large
13 regulatory flows through the EAA and I think that has
14 changed their opinion on the volumes of excess
15 regulatory water that could be passed southward.
16 So there is the potential for larger
17 volumes of regulatory water to be made available to
18 the Water Conservation Areas that were not built into
19 the modeling done in June of 1993.
20 In addition, there is a plan for
21 improvements in the LA Basin, the northern portion of
22 the LA Basin to allow backpumping of water into Lake
23 Okeechobee and at the time of the June 1993 report, I
24 don't believe a conceptual plan had been proposed for
25 that work.
555
1 I think there may be a conceptual plan now
2 for those proposed LA Basin improvements. And if so,
3 both of those changes would be incorporated in the
4 most recent modeling.
5 Q. With regard to the LA improvements, you
6 said that that would result in additional or would
7 allow additional backpumping of water to Lake
8 Okeechobee. Where is that water currently
9 discharged?
10 A. It's discharged southward through the LA
11 Basin either into the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
12 Refuge or eastward into the West Palm Beach Canal.
13 Q. With regard to the additional lake
14 releases within the past year, what is the volume of
15 those additional lake releases?
16 A. I believe there was almost a million
17 acre/feet of additional water passed southward from
18 Lake Okeechobee through the conveyance canals in the
19 Everglades Agricultural Area in excess of what had
20 been passed through normal years.
21 Q. Was the Park consulted, Everglades
22 National Park consulted prior to the implementation
23 of these additional lake releases?
24 A. Our staff had discussions with both the
25 water management section of the Army Corps of
556
1 Engineers and with the resource operations staff of
2 the South Florida Water Management District. So we
3 were basically informed about the potential for these
4 changes and some estimates of the kind of volumes
5 that would be passed southward because of the impacts
6 on the flows to the Shark Slough Basin.
7 Q. Was it estimated that the additional
8 releases would approximate a million acre/feet?
9 A. I'm not sure if anyone at the time had the
10 ability to quantify what was happening because the
11 consultation was prior to a lot of the rainfall that
12 occurred at that time of the year so we really didn't
13 know how much water would be available. The
14 consultation was just in a change in operations that
15 would allow them to implement additional flows
16 southward.
17 Q. Was there above average rainfall in that
18 year?
19 A. Yes, there was.
20 Q. Who at the ENP staff was consulted in
21 connection with these additional lake releases?
22 A. I was and I believe David Sikkema was also
23 consulted.
24 Q. Who did you consult with at the Corps of
25 Engineers?
557
1 A. I had conversations with Jim Vearil and
2 most likely Louis Hornung and possibly Chris Smith.
3 Q. Who did you consult with at the Water
4 Management District?
5 A. Ron Meareau and Tom McVicar. And I
6 believe I may have discussed it with Calvin
7 Neidrauer.
8 Q. Was there any discussion about the quality
9 of the water of these additional lake releases?
10 A. I believe that the quality of the water
11 was an issue but I don't remember anyone being able
12 to quantify what the concentrations or loads
13 associated with that water would be.
14 Q. Do you know if there's been any subsequent
15 quantification of the concentrations or loads
16 associated with those additional lake releases?
17 A. I believe Dr. William Walker has done some
18 work examining the flows over that period of time and
19 most likely quantifying the concentrations and loads
20 through the system. But I haven't discussed it with
21 him specifically.
22 Q. When you say that the quality of the
23 additional lake release water was an issue at the
24 time of your discussions with the Corps of Engineers
25 and the Water Management District, how was it an
558
1 issue?
2 A. Water from Lake Okeechobee is somewhat
3 enriched in nutrients so there is always a concern
4 with water passed southward from Lake Okeechobee. As
5 the water passes through the Everglades Agricultural
6 Area it generally becomes more enriched with
7 nutrients so there is a concern of increased loading
8 to the Water Conservation Areas.
9 Q. What about Everglades National Park?
10 A. Under these kind of conditions, generally
11 we have widespread marsh flow and the Park is much
12 less affected in terms of nutrient loading than the
13 Water Conservation Areas.
14 Q. Is it affected at all?
15 A. I would say yes. Whatever the
16 concentration of phosphorus is in the water because
17 of the large volumes of water, you are going to get
18 higher loadings because you are having larger volumes
19 of water brought in during that period of time.
20 Q. Do you know if Dr. Walker in his analysis
21 of these additional lake releases has tried to
22 quantify any additional loading at the S-12
23 structures?
24 A. I would imagine he has but I haven't
25 talked to him specifically, no.
559
1 Q. Did Everglades National Park provide its
2 approval of the proposed additional lake releases?
3 A. We weren't asked for approval.
4 Q. Did the Park approve?
5 A. We raised some concerns about the seasonal
6 timing issues related to these volumes since much of
7 the water was delivered during the dry season at a
8 time that the marsh would naturally be drying down.
9 We had some concerns about the very large volumes of
10 water that were received during that period of time.
11 Q. What were those concerns?
12 A. That essentially the marsh did not go
13 through a normal drydown that would occur in response
14 to rainfall; that the Park received a much larger
15 proportion of our flows as supplemental releases from
16 the Conservation Areas at a time where we were on an
17 experimental program and focusing on a natural
18 response to rainfall. That's not necessarily the
19 most beneficial types of deliveries.
20 Q. Did in fact the additional lake releases
21 occur during what would be normal dry periods?
22 A. From our quantification, the water was
23 well above normal both in the wet season of, this
24 would have been the '92-'93 hydrologic year so
25 essentially from June of '92 through May of '93, we
560
1 received well above normal flow during both the wet
2 season and the following dry season. And both of
3 those were associated with large releases out of Lake
4 Okeechobee and into the Water Conservation Areas.
5 The large flows were somewhat related to rainfall in
6 the wet season but we got significantly more flows in
7 the dry season than would have been anticipated by
8 the rainfall.
9 Q. Has there been any analysis of the he can
10 logical effects of those additional lake releases?
11 A. There is continuous monitoring that's done
12 in the Park for a whole suite of biological species
13 and that monitoring was done at the time but no
14 reports have been done to quantify the impacts of
15 these kinds of programs.
16 Q. Who was involved in that monitoring?
17 A. We have a monitoring program called the
18 Systematic Reconnaissance Flights for our aerial
19 census studies of wading birds and deer, and most of
20 that is done by a gentleman named Sonny Bass and
21 technicians that work for him. We also have some
22 alligator nesting studies done by Marty Fleming.
23 We also have wading bird nesting studies
24 done primarily by John Ogden. We have fisheries
25 studies, primarily freshwater fish and small
561
1 invertebrates in the marshes and those studies were
2 primarily conducted by William Loftus. And then in
3 the marine system we would have studies conducted by
4 Michael Roblee and DeWitt Smith.
5 Q. Has there been any monitoring of
6 vegetative impacts of additional lake releases?
7 A. To my knowledge there hasn't been any
8 specific monitoring of vegetative communities over
9 that period of time.
10 Q. What about periphyton communities?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What about microbial communities?
13 A. No, not to my knowledge. If any work of
14 that type was done, it would have been done most
15 likely by cooperators with the Park or with members
16 of the federal team of technical experts on this
17 case.
18 Q. Including Dr. Ron Jones?
19 A. That's correct. But to my knowledge I
20 don't believe any work was done.
21 Q. During your discussions with the Corps of
22 Engineers and the Water Management District prior to
23 these additional lake releases, was there a concern
24 that the additional lake releases would have an
25 effect on the vegetative communities?
562
1 A. In the short term, I don't believe there
2 was a concern. In the long term, there was a concern
3 of the overall loading of nutrients in the system but
4 not something that would be a problem specifically
5 that would have occurred immediately in response to
6 these deliveries.
7 Q. What about periphyton communities?
8 A. The same thing, it would have been
9 something that we had a general concern on
10 nutrient-enriched waters entering the Park not
11 specifically tied to this event.
12 Q. When you say there was a concern about the
13 long-term effects, what do you mean by long-term?
14 A. Let's say, I haven't looked at the
15 phosphorus content, but let's say the phosphorus
16 content is 20 parts per billion. If you deliver a
17 volume of water, 500,000 acre/feet at that
18 concentration, you have a load.
19 If you deliver four times that volume, you
20 have four times that volume of water, you have four
21 times the load. So you are increasing the amount of
22 phosphorus that's coming into the system even at the
23 same concentration. So there is a concern about the
24 long-term impact of the buildup of phosphorus within
25 the soils and vegetation communities in the Park even
563
1 if there wasn't a specific problem with increased
2 concentration associated with that event.
3 Q. When you say long-term, do you mean a
4 matter of two years, three years?
5 A. I'm not sure at the kind of concentrations
6 we are talking about. I don't believe I could
7 quantify when there would be a threshold effect.
8 But, yes, it would be the issue of accumulation of
9 phosphorus in soils that most likely would take some
10 period of time in excess of a few years.
11 Q. Was there a concern expressed during these
12 deliberations about potential effects to wildlife
13 associated with these additional lake releases?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What were those concerns?
16 A. In the wet season, I don't believe we had
17 specific concerns because the system was already
18 fairly wet and in the dry season we had concerns
19 about delaying the drying of the marshes and the
20 potential impacts that would have on foraging
21 patterns of wading birds and the movement of fish.
22 I should say in the wet season there was a
23 concern raised about the potential effect of high
24 water in the early wet season and its effect on
25 nesting success of alligators. But I'm not sure if
564
1 there was any documentation that suggested that there
2 was a problem.
3 Q. Are you aware of the results of the
4 monitoring that you spoke about?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you anticipate a report or reports
7 being prepared to analyze the effects of the
8 additional lake releases?
9 A. Not specifically tied to the additional
10 lake releases of this event. We have ongoing work to
11 look at the effects of the experimental water
12 delivery program in Shark Slough and this is a
13 continuation of that experiment. So I would say as
14 biological reports come out, this would be another
15 piece of information in an overall longer-term
16 report.
17 Q. Is there a set time schedule for those
18 long-term reports?
19 A. There should be. I'm not sure if there
20 is. I have had discussions with my supervisor about
21 the need to put out reports on the biological impacts
22 of the experimental water delivery program that are
23 tied to the timing of reports that the hydrology
24 group would be putting out.
25 Q. What effect if any did the additional lake
565
1 releases have on your analysis of the experimental
2 water deliveries?
3 A. Essentially this was the largest flow
4 event to the Shark Slough Basin within the
5 experimental water delivery program. It's the
6 highest wet season and dry season totals within that
7 experimental program. I think it's one of only two
8 years of above normal flows during the experiment.
9 Q. Will that affect the experimental design?
10 A. It will to a point in that we have raised
11 concerns about the effect of large regulatory
12 releases on the Shark Slough system and this is
13 clearly a year where that problem has been brought to
14 the forefront. We have raised concerns about the
15 amount of excess water that's brought into Shark
16 Slough that is not tied to rainfall and I think
17 clearly this event was an example of water releases
18 that are not tied to rainfall directly.
19 Q. Is the concern about lake releases that
20 are not tied to rainfall or additional flows, rather,
21 primarily related to the volume of water or the
22 quality of the water?
23 A. It is related to the volume, the
24 distribution, the timing and the quality of the
25 water.
566
1 Q. What is your understanding about the
2 District's current thinking on the additional lake
3 releases, are they to be continued?
4 A. There is a general interest on the part of
5 the Water Management District to pass more of the
6 excess regulatory water from Lake Okeechobee
7 southward to make it available to the Everglades
8 Protection Area rather than having that water
9 discharged to tide via the Caloosahatchee and St.
10 Lucie Canals.
11 So I would think that this is a practice
12 that when water is available, they would like to
13 provide more of this water southward.
14 Q. Are there ongoing consultations between
15 the Park and/or the Corps of Engineers and/or the
16 Water Management District regarding the continuation
17 of these additional lake releases?
18 A. It is a topic that we bring up regularly
19 at meetings that we have with the Corps and the
20 District. I don't know if I would call that
21 consultation, though.
22 Q. In what context do you bring this up?
23 A. We have an experimental water delivery
24 program that was authorized by Congress in 1983 and
25 that requires the routine exchange of information and
567
1 discussion of impacts of the different water delivery
2 programs in the Park. So it's a routine part of my
3 job and others' on our staff to consult with the
4 Water Management District and the Corps on
5 operations.
6 So as we document changes in the Park and
7 identify problems, we bring those to the Corps' and
8 Water Management District's attention.
9 Q. Have you documented any changes in the
10 Park resulting from additional lake releases?
11 A. Other than the reduction of drydowns and
12 unseasonal hydroperiods and water depths which were
13 all hydrologic parameters, I don't believe that there
14 has been any documentation of the biological effects
15 either from the increased volumes or any water
16 quality concerns.
17 Q. Is the Everglades National Park currently
18 endeavoring to determine the amount of water that's
19 needed for the maintenance of Everglades National
20 Park?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What's the status of that analysis?
23 A. We have developed an improved water
24 delivery formula for the Taylor Slough Basin of the
25 Park and made that information available to the Army
568
1 Corps of Engineers and the Water Management District.
2 We are endeavoring to develop the same type of
3 delivery formula for the Shark Slough Basin and
4 anticipate most of the work to be done by the
5 mid-summer.
6 And we will be working with the Water
7 Management District and the Corps to try to implement
8 our proposed recommendations in those two basins as
9 we go into next year's wet season.
10 Q. Do you contemplate that the results of
11 that work on the Shark River Slough Basin would be
12 incorporated into the Lower East Coast Water Supply
13 Plan?
14 A. To a point they will be because I believe
15 improved water deliveries to Shark Slough is going to
16 be built into the base condition of the Lower East
17 Coast Water Supply Plan.
18 Q. When you say improved water deliveries,
19 what do you mean?
20 A. Right now we're on a rainfall-based water
21 delivery schedule that was established in 1985 and
22 what I'm talking about is a new formula that would be
23 proposed that would be more closely linked to an
24 estimate of what the pre-drainage hydrologic
25 conditions in Shark Slough were.
569
1 Q. Are those analyses primarily based upon
2 modeling or summations from the natural systems
3 model?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Do you anticipate that these analyses will
6 result in a recommendation that the Park received
7 more water than it traditionally has?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you have an estimate of the volume of
10 that additional water?
11 A. I believe the current estimates for the
12 natural system model deliveries to Shark Slough are
13 in the range of 840 to a million acre/feet of water.
14 If you look at the period of record deliveries to
15 Shark Slough, the average is about 600,000 acre/feet.
16 So I would say somewhere in the range of 240 to
17 400,000 acre/feet more water would be estimated to go
18 to Shark Slough under the natural system model.
19 Q. What's the period of record that you are
20 referring to?
21 A. That would be beginning in October of 1939
22 and going through current. It is simply the period
23 of record average. If you look at 50 years worth of
24 data, the average comes out to be about 600,000
25 acre/feet.
570
1 Q. That's annual average?
2 A. Annual average flows. The discrepancy
3 between the 840 number and the million number depends
4 on which cross sections within Shark Slough you
5 include in your estimate.
6 Q. I'm not sure I follow you. What do you
7 mean by cross section?
8 A. The Shark Slough watershed has been
9 divided due to water management into three sections:
10 the area east of L-30 levy, the area between L-30 and
11 L-67 and the area between L-67 and 40-Mile Bend. The
12 area east of L-30 has been heavily drained and it is
13 virtually impossible to reintroduce surface water
14 flow through that reach but that reach accounted for
15 almost 200,000 acre/feet of additional water based on
16 the natural system model simulations. So if you
17 exclude flow through that flow section, you come up
18 with an annual average of about 840,000 acre/feet.
19 If you include it, you come up with about a million
20 acre/feet.
21 Q. Is my understanding correct that the
22 modified water deliveries project would increase the
23 flow east of the L-30, that's one of the purposes of
24 the model?
25 A. Not east of L-30, no, certainly not in the
571
1 Corps' design.
2 Q. Between L-67 and L-30?
3 A. That's correct. I would say from the
4 standpoint of the proposed structural plan, there is
5 no operations criteria in place for the modified
6 water deliveries project. In essence, if the project
7 was built and operational today, we would be on the
8 same delivery formula in terms of the operations that
9 we are today. So there would be a slight increase in
10 the volume of water going into northeast Shark Slough
11 only because we could fully implement the current
12 formula which has limitations on it but the
13 structural modifications alone don't increase the
14 flow of water going in significantly.
15 Q. If you were to change the current
16 deliveries formula, would that require Congressional
17 approval?
18 A. Yes, it may. It would require, I would
19 say we have Congressional approval in that we have a
20 congressionally mandated experimental water delivery
21 program and what's required in that is three-agency
22 concurrence. We are able to implement new iterations
23 of that experiment without going back and asking for
24 specific approval.
25 Q. Do you anticipate that the recommendations
572
1 that will result from your ongoing analyses that you
2 expect to complete by mid-summer of this year, that
3 those will require Congressional approval?
4 A. Not Congressional approval but I believe
5 they will require a formal NEPA evaluation and we
6 will have to go through at a minimum an environmental
7 assessment to implement proposed modifications.
8 Q. Assuming that your estimates of the need
9 for 240 to 400,000 additional acre/feet of water come
10 to fruition, what would be the sources of that
11 additional water?
12 A. The ultimate source is rainfall.
13 Q. Are you planning on controlling rainfall?
14 A. Not yet.
15 The water would come out of Water
16 Conservation Area 3A and 3B. The sources of the
17 inflow water to 3A and 3B are from a number of
18 different sources, runoff from the Everglades
19 Agricultural Area, additional water provided from
20 Lake Okeechobee. There is in plans a number of
21 locations where water would potentially be backpumped
22 from urban areas into the Everglades. All of those
23 are potential sources of additional water.
24 There are also discussions of
25 modifications to regulation schedules that would mean
573
1 less of the water that is currently stored in the
2 Everglades would be drained out and that would
3 provide additional water. So there are multiple
4 source of that water.
5 Q. When you say water that's currently stored
6 in the Everglades, you mean the Water Conservation
7 Areas?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. So the stages in Water Conservation Areas
10 would be lowered?
11 A. Not necessarily lowered but in essence we
12 have regulation schedules that dictate when water has
13 to be passed from the Water Conservation Areas
14 outward for flood control. If you did not pass the
15 same volumes outward for flood control, more water
16 would be retained in the system. So it is not
17 necessarily a lowering of stages. It is a change in
18 the operational plans within the Conservation Areas.
19 Q. Timing?
20 A. Timing issues, elements like the
21 stormwater treatment areas where you are introducing
22 water over a front rather than at individual points.
23 That would have an impact on how much water could be
24 stored within the system.
25 Q. Would the stormwater treatment areas
574
1 increase the amount of water that could be stored or
2 decrease?
3 A. It would increase the amount of water that
4 could be stored.
5 Q. Do you know if the Corps of Engineers has
6 performed any additional modeling of the proposed
7 stormwater treatment areas?
8 A. To my knowledge they have not.
9 MR. PERKO: Let's take a break, five
10 minutes.
11 (Recess)
12 MR. PERKO: Back on the record.
13 BY MR. PERKO:
14 Q. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned that the
15 additional lake releases within the past year or so
16 resulted in approximately a million acre/feet of
17 water in excess of what's normally released from the
18 lake, is that correct?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. Is that a million acre/feet that's
21 discharged into the WCAs?
22 A. I believe that was the volume of water
23 that was passed out of Lake Okeechobee. The bulk of
24 it went into the Water Conservation Areas. I believe
25 some of it went out the West Palm Beach Canal.
575
1 Q. You may have answered this already but it
2 is not reflected in my notes: Are you aware of how
3 much additional water was discharged through the
4 S-12s as a result of the additional lake releases?
5 A. I believe it's about, the annual flow
6 through the S-12s that year was about 1.7 million
7 acre/feet. Specifically the amount of that that was
8 caused by the regulatory releases is hard to say
9 because we haven't quantified it, but I would say
10 probably maybe 600,000-plus acre/feet of additional
11 water came to the Park as supplemental regulatory
12 water.
13 Q. What's the annual average for the period?
14 A. I believe around 610,000 acre/feet.
15 Q. You are estimating that approximately
16 600,000 was due to supplemental releases and anything
17 above that, above normal would be due to the
18 additional rainfall?
19 A. The additional rainfall that fell over
20 Water Conservation Area 3A.
21 Q. When is the next report due on your
22 experimental water deliveries program?
23 A. I provided a draft copy of a report on the
24 Shark Slough experimental water delivery program.
25 That will probably be, additional work will be done
576
1 and it will probably come out in June of this year.
2 There's a report on the Taylor Slough
3 iteration of the experimental water delivery program.
4 Most likely it will come out also around June. So I
5 would say we will have two reports around that date.
6 Q. Is the Shark River Slough report you
7 mentioned dated January 21, 1994?
8 A. It's not that one.
9 This one right here (indicating). It is
10 probably not dated. I received it on Monday, so
11 whatever Monday was.
12 Q. It is entitled A Hydrologic Evaluation of
13 the Rainfall Driven Experimental Water Delivery Plan
14 for Shark Slough, June 1985 through May 1993?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. By Susan Connors and Robert A. Johnson.
17 Does this report for the Shark River
18 Slough discuss the additional lake releases within
19 the past year?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Where would I look for that discussion?
22 A. There's a set of tables, portions of the
23 report -- this is a followup editing of a report that
24 came out last year so there are tables in there that
25 are handwritten, essentially extensions of what the
577
1 computerized table was, so I could find it for you if
2 you would like but I couldn't tell you specifically
3 what page it's on.
4 MR. PERKO: Why don't we mark this as an
5 exhibit.
6 (Johnson Deposition Exhibit 13 was marked
7 for identification)
8 BY MR. PERKO:
9 Q. Mr. Johnson, let me show you what's been
10 marked as Exhibit 13 to this deposition. I will ask
11 you if that is the updated Shark River Slough report
12 we were just talking about.
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned earlier in the
15 deposition that you anticipate that any testimony
16 that you provide in this proceeding would be of a
17 rebuttal nature, is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Have you reviewed any deposition testimony
20 or documents produced by other experts in this
21 proceeding for purposes of formulating rebuttal
22 testimony?
23 A. I don't believe specifically for that
24 purpose but I have reviewed the depositions of what I
25 would consider the hydrology and water management
578
1 experts in the case that represent the agricultural
2 interests.
3 Q. What specific experts have you focused on?
4 A. I attended the depositions of Paul Larsen
5 and Brad Waller and I reviewed both of their
6 depositions.
7 Q. Anyone else?
8 A. I believe I have reviewed Louis Hornung's
9 previous deposition but not his most recent
10 deposition.
11 MR. MacFARLANE: Let the record be clear,
12 Mr. Hornung is not a representative of the
13 agricultural interests. He is in fact on the federal
14 witness list.
15 THE WITNESS: That's true.
16 A. And I believe I have reviewed documents
17 from Thomas McVicar's depositions, but again, he
18 would be on the state side.
19 Q. What about Steve Gherini?
20 A. No, I did not attend the deposition nor
21 have I reviewed the documents.
22 Q. Are you aware of any rebuttal testimony
23 that you currently contemplate providing in this
24 proceeding?
25 A. No.
579
1 Q. Do you plan to undertake any additional
2 analyses or review additional documents in
3 formulating expert testimony in this proceeding?
4 A. There are some documents that summarize
5 the history of the Central and Southern Florida
6 Project that I have not reviewed, most likely
7 documents such as the report by Steve Light and Walt
8 Denine that is included in the Everglades restoration
9 project and there may be other documents dealing with
10 the project history and operation that I haven't seen
11 yet that I would potentially review if called upon to
12 testify in that area.
13 In the area of hydroperiods, I still
14 anticipate working on the project that I started last
15 year but I don't know when I'm going to get back to
16 that analysis. Most likely it will be after June of
17 this year.
18 Q. That would be the comparison of
19 hydroperiods between the impacted and unimpacted
20 sites?
21 A. Yes. I'm not specifically doing it for
22 that purpose. It is hydroperiod analyses that I am
23 doing in support of the hydrologic changes in the
24 Everglades between 1940 and 1990.
25 Q. Are you aware of the date currently
580
1 scheduled for the start of the hearing in this
2 matter?
3 A. I believe so.
4 Q. What's your understanding of the starting
5 date?
6 A. I believe it's April 25th.
7 Q. Do you anticipate completing that
8 hydroperiod comparison prior to April 25th?
9 A. Unless I'm directed to drop everything
10 else I'm doing, I would think it is virtually
11 impossible to complete it by April 25th.
12 Q. Do you anticipate doing any additional
13 analysis in connection with that work prior to April
14 25th?
15 A. The group that I work with are constantly
16 doing hydrologic assessments in the Park so there may
17 be some information that comes up related to
18 hydrologic conditions within Everglades National Park
19 that would be supportive of hydroperiod and water
20 management impacts in the Everglades, but I don't
21 anticipate doing anything outside of Everglades
22 National Park.
23 Q. Is there anything specifically that you
24 anticipate doing in connection with this hydroperiod
25 comparison between now and April 25th?
581
1 A. I have a work assignment to evaluate the
2 feature design memorandum for the modified water
3 deliveries project to Everglades National Park which
4 will involve some work with historical hydrologic
5 data and natural system model data for the Shark
6 Slough Basin and most likely the southern ends of
7 Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B.
8 So I may be reviewing some hydrologic data
9 and model output in those areas, but to my knowledge
10 we have already compiled and I have already done the
11 hydrographs for the long-term records of those
12 stations any way, so there wouldn't be any new
13 information that I would be analyzing.
14 Q. Were those hydrographs provided to us in
15 connection with the deposition notice?
16 A. Yes, I believe several of them are
17 included in the draft copy of that report, the review
18 of hydrologic changes in the Everglades and then all
19 of the hydrographs and state station exceedance
20 curves would be included in the documents I provided
21 for this deposition.
22 Q. What documents specifically?
23 A. There's a set of folders that I provided
24 that go through the data base and summarize all the
25 hydrographs that we have analyzed to date on that
582
1 project. I'm not sure of the specific title of the
2 folder that they were in, it was probably something
3 like review of the hydrologic changes because it was
4 related to that project.
5 Q. Would that folder have been produced in
6 connection with your prior deposition or the current
7 deposition?
8 A. I believe in prior deposition I provided
9 the report on what had been analyzed at that time.
10 In this deposition I provided basically all of the
11 background notes and documents that had been done on
12 this project as well as any followup work that had
13 come out since my last deposition.
14 Q. You mentioned, was it the feature design
15 memorandum for the modified water deliveries project?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Has that memorandum been issued?
18 A. Yes, it has.
19 Q. When was it issued?
20 A. I'm not sure exactly.
21 Q. If you recall.
22 A. Sometime in January of this year.
23 Q. What's the current status of the modified
24 water deliveries project?
25 A. The project has its authority and
583
1 appropriations and the Corps is moving forward with
2 design and land acquisition. The only construction
3 that has been undertaken is they have begun a pilot
4 study along the L-67A and C levies to construct a gap
5 in the levies to test the impacts of essentially
6 uncontrolled releases between Water Conservation Area
7 3A and 3B.
8 Q. Some sort of spillway?
9 A. Essentially I would define it sort of as
10 an overflow weir. It is a thousand foot gap in both
11 of the levies to allow water to naturally flow from
12 the marsh in 3A to the marsh in 3B as compared to a
13 spillway.
14 Q. I believe you said that construction has
15 commenced on that.
16 A. I believe so.
17 Q. Do you know when it is to be completed?
18 A. The whole project was only a matter of a
19 couple of weeks worth of work so I would imagine it
20 may be done and operating already.
21 Q. Just a matter of moving some dirt?
22 A. Essentially, yes, and creating a series of
23 committees to evaluate.
24 Q. I believe you stated in your prior
25 deposition that, I have heard an estimate, let's put
584
1 it that way, that the modified water deliveries
2 project would result in approximately 40,000
3 additional acre/feet of water to the Park. Is that
4 accurate?
5 A. I believe that was the estimate based on
6 the basic rain-driven formula as it was proposed in
7 the original general design memorandum.
8 Q. Has that estimate of additional water
9 associated with the modified water deliveries project
10 been updated to your knowledge?
11 A. The feature design memorandums focus on
12 the structural designs so we have not started
13 development of improved water delivery formulas as
14 part of that project.
15 Q. What is the current schedule for
16 completion of the modified water deliveries project?
17 A. I believe the entire project would be
18 completed by somewhere around mid-1997 and then
19 elements of the project would be completed between
20 now and then in a sequence of three feature design
21 memorandums.
22 Q. Does the recent feature design memorandum
23 only address part of the project?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What part of the project does it address?
585
1 A. The modifications to the L-67A and C
2 levies and canals and the modification to the L-29
3 levy and the associated land acquisition and
4 construction of those areas.
5 Q. When you say modifications of the L-67A
6 and C, is there anything in addition to the gap that
7 you just referenced that's anticipated?
8 A. The project, the general design memorandum
9 project envisions a series of structures, spillways
10 constructed within the L-67A canal and large culverts
11 constructed in the L-67A and C levies.
12 The pilot study of gaps would eliminate
13 the need for the gated culverts between the Water
14 Conservation Area 3A and 3B.
15 Q. Assuming the pilot study goes as planned,
16 what modifications are associated with the L-29 levy?
17 A. The levy would have a series of structures
18 constructed in the central reach to allow water to
19 move from Water Conservation Area 3B into the L-29
20 Borrow Canal and then from there into northeast Shark
21 Slough.
22 Q. When was it anticipated that those
23 modifications will be completed?
24 A. They would not begin, I don't think, until
25 '95 and they would be completed by '97.
586
1 Q. You said that the culverts planned for
2 L-67A and C could be done away with because of this
3 pilot project for the gap. What about the spillways?
4 A. If the pilot study works, most likely the
5 spillways would be replaced by some sort of earthen
6 plugs.
7 Q. Those would be for the same purpose of
8 facilitating flow between 3A and 3B, is that correct?
9 A. Essentially raising water levels on the
10 upstream side and helping to divert that water into
11 3B.
12 Q. Let's switch gears a little bit here and
13 go back to our discussion of modeling for the
14 proposed STAs. During the last deposition we talked
15 about 1990 modeling, I think it was late 1990
16 modeling conducted by the Corps of Engineers for the
17 then-proposed Water Management Area.
18 Did that modeling assume that there would
19 be water losses associated with BMPs?
20 A. I'm not sure if the BMP program was that
21 far along, but I know there was an assumption of
22 water losses because of changed water management
23 practices within the Everglades Agricultural Area. I
24 don't know if those would have been defined as BMPs.
25 Q. What about the Water Management District
587
1 modeling roughly contemporaneous with the Corps of
2 Engineers?
3 A. I believe the District did include some
4 reduction associated with both BMPs and the
5 construction of the Water Management Areas.
6 Q. Were those assumptions carried over into
7 the 1992 modeling conducted by the Water Management
8 District?
9 A. I believe so, along with whatever
10 refinements had come out through the regulatory
11 program design.
12 Q. Do you know if that 1992 modeling assumed
13 that the water losses associated with BMPs would be
14 made up from other sources?
15 A. I don't know specifically how it would
16 have been built into the model but certainly it would
17 have been assumed to be done because of the
18 settlement agreement.
19 Q. So in effect, the analyses would have
20 assumed that roughly the same amount of water would
21 flow out of the EAA as historically it had flowed?
22 A. I believe that's correct.
23 Q. In your prior deposition, I believe you
24 stated that it was your understanding that the Burns
25 and McDonnell modeling that had been conducted in
588
1 association with STA design had estimated a 22
2 percent reduction in outflows from the EAA, is that
3 correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Are you aware of any additional modeling
6 that Burns and McDonnell has performed since that
7 time?
8 A. There is a followup report to the May 1993
9 report that I believe came out in September and I
10 would assume that they have done additional modeling
11 of the STA design and some estimates of the impacts
12 of the project, but I have only glanced at it. I
13 haven't done any review of it.
14 Q. Do you intend to review that information
15 prior to the final hearing in this matter?
16 A. I don't have a copy of the report. I have
17 requested it but I don't have a copy of it yet. If
18 it's made available to me, I will review it because
19 of my responsibility with the Technical Oversight
20 Committee. It is a document that I need to review
21 any way.
22 Q. Is it your understanding that that
23 document performs modeling of the STA design in the
24 current or the STA configuration in the current
25 Everglades SWIM Plan or would that be some other STA
589
1 configuration?
2 A. It would be more consistent with what's in
3 the May 10, 1993 conceptual plan. I think the
4 proposed modifications after that, the change in
5 STA-5 came out after the September Burns and
6 McDonnell report.
7 Q. Is there an STA-5 proposed in the current
8 Everglades SWIM Plan?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Mr. Johnson, have you actually performed
11 any modeling of proposed STAs?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Do you in the course of your employment
14 with Everglades National Park have occasion to run
15 the South Florida Water Management Model?
16 A. I generally do not run it. People on my
17 staff run it.
18 Q. Have you in the past?
19 A. I have run it, yes.
20 Q. So you know how to run it, then?
21 A. I have not run it since it was reported
22 over to the new work stations, so I would have to
23 spend sometime to learn how the new model runs versus
24 when it was on the CDC machine at the District. The
25 last time I was involved with any runs was when it
590
1 was on another computer system.
2 Q. Do you anticipate learning how to run the
3 model between now and the hearing date?
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 Q. Do you anticipate having anyone on your
6 staff run the model between now and the hearing date?
7 A. We run the model regularly for specific
8 projects but not related to the stormwater treatment
9 area design, more related to water delivery projects
10 in the area of the Park.
11 Q. Do you anticipate having someone on your
12 staff run the model for purposes of simulating the
13 STA design?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Simulating the impacts of the STA design?
16 A. No.
17 Q. In your prior deposition we spent sometime
18 going over anticipated changes in the South Florida
19 Water Management model. Have those changes been
20 completed to your knowledge?
21 A. A number of the changes have been
22 completed.
23 Q. Has that resulted in a new version number
24 for the Water Management District model?
25 A. I believe there is a new version number
591
1 for both the South Florida Water Management model and
2 for the natural system model.
3 Q. Do you know what the number is?
4 A. I believe the South Florida Water
5 Management Model would be version 1.2 and for the
6 natural system model it would be version 4.0.
7 Q. Do you recall what changes have been made
8 since your prior deposition in January 1993 to the
9 South Florida Water Management model?
10 A. There's been fairly significant changes in
11 the way rainfall is incorporated into the input data
12 files and the way the model handles rainfall. We
13 have gone, instead of looking at rainfall averaged
14 over a series of, I think 16 sub-basins, now they
15 have a rainfall estimate for, I believe, every grid
16 cell.
17 Q. Those are generally two by two meters or
18 kilometers?
19 A. Two by two square miles for the California
20 Water Management model. I believe there has been a
21 change in the land use map that would affect portions
22 of the code that deal with evapotranspiration and
23 other parameters of that type.
24 Q. That's the South Florida Water Management
25 model, right?
592
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Do you know who is responsible for the
3 changes in the land use map?
4 A. It is being done I believe through the
5 combination of staff members in the Lower District
6 Planning and the Everglades Systems Research Group,
7 but specifically who is in charge of that effort, I
8 don't know.
9 Q. Do you know how the rainfall estimates for
10 the individual grid cells were made?
11 A. I believe they have moved away from the
12 original averaging, arithmetic averaging over a
13 sub-basin and gone with a weighted averaging method
14 per grid cell based on the nearest gauges using
15 what's called a nearest neighbor method.
16 Q. Is that related to the Thiessen method?
17 A. It is similar to Thiessen polygons, yes.
18 Q. Do you know who was responsible for
19 developing these rainfall estimates for individual
20 grids?
21 A. Randy Von Zee in the Everglades Systems
22 Research Group.
23 Q. Do you recall any other changes that have
24 been made to the South Florida Water Management model
25 since your prior deposition?
593
1 A. Not specifically, no.
2 Q. Other than the change in the land use map,
3 have there been any changes in the algorithms that
4 would affect ET estimates in the model?
5 A. I don't believe the algorithms themselves
6 have been changed, no.
7 Q. Are you aware of any changes in the
8 algorithms?
9 A. No, not to my knowledge. The South
10 Florida Water Management model was rewritten from
11 FORTRAN to C. At that time in their conversion of
12 the code, most likely they made some modifications in
13 the algorithms, but I don't believe it was a
14 wholesale change of one solution method to another.
15 It was just the change that would be required on
16 recoding it to a new language.
17 Q. Does the Park currently utilize the
18 version of the model in the C language?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. How often are changes made in the model?
21 A. I would say fairly infrequently would
22 there be large changes because any large change would
23 require a recalibration of the model and that's a
24 major effort.
25 Q. When was the last recalibration?
594
1 A. In 1992.
2 Q. Do you recall roughly when in 1992?
3 A. No, not specifically. I think it was the
4 fall of 1992, but other than that...
5 MR. PERKO: Let's mark this and get copies
6 at the break.
7 (Johnson Deposition Exhibit 14 was marked
8 for identification)
9 BY MR. PERKO:
10 Q. Mr. Johnson, let me show you what's been
11 marked as Exhibit 14 in this deposition and ask you
12 if you recognize this document.
13 (Pause)
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. What is that document?
16 A. It's a series of four maps that relate the
17 volumes of flow and operations of the water control
18 system around the Water Conservation Areas to the
19 total phosphorus inputs to the Shark Slough Basin of
20 the Park.
21 Q. Do you know who prepared the maps or the
22 analysis reflected in the maps?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Who is that?
25 A. Myself.
595
1 Q. For what purpose did you prepare these
2 maps?
3 A. They were prepared for a series of
4 discussions in the Washington office of the
5 Department of Justice last year, I believe around
6 August of last year.
7 Q. What prompted the need for late volumes of
8 flow in operation of the water control system to TP
9 inputs to the Shark River Slough?
10 A. I was asked to review a proposed modeling
11 approach by a consulting firm working for the
12 agricultural interests in this case, I believe it was
13 the Tetra Tech model, and I was asked to raise any
14 concerns I might have with the modeling approach that
15 was proposed and its application to the Everglades.
16 Q. As a result of the analyses reflected in
17 Exhibit 14, did you formulate concerns about that
18 model?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. What concerns specifically did you
21 formulate?
22 A. The approach that was being used by the
23 modelers doing the Tetra Tech model was that the
24 Water Conservation Areas could be treated as large
25 reservoirs without any potential movement of water
596
1 other than sheet flow or single or multiple point
2 sources at one end. And I had some concern that that
3 was not representative of the water management system
4 in the Everglades.
5 Q. Do the analyses reflected in Exhibit 14
6 confirm that concern?
7 A. Yes, I believe so.
8 Q. How so?
9 A. They show essentially, depending on the
10 stage conditions and discharge conditions at the
11 inflows to Water Conservation Areas, that the
12 phosphorus concentration at the S-12 structures
13 changes drastically. So that there are other
14 processes going on other than sheet flow through the
15 marsh and normal uptake.
16 Q. Is it your understanding that the Tetra
17 Tech model does not account for those processes?
18 A. At the time that I reviewed the Tetra Tech
19 model, it did not.
20 Q. In your view could the Tetra Tech model
21 that you reviewed have been modified to account for
22 those factors?
23 A. I would say that the model would have been
24 modified to account for the factors.
25 Q. How so?
597
1 A. The model that I saw had no internal
2 canals or levies -- it had no internal canals within
3 the Water Conservation Areas so there was no way to
4 move water other than a sheet flow through the
5 Conservation Areas. So if canals could have been
6 added to the model, that would have significantly
7 improved the model relative to the concerns that I
8 raised.
9 Q. Could the canals have been added to the
10 model consistent with the reservoir approach that you
11 mentioned?
12 A. I'm not exactly sure how that kind of a
13 model is coded, so I don't know how a canal reach
14 would be added to a program of their type. Normally,
15 the kind of program they used is sort of a simple
16 routing program and it is not equipped to allow
17 canals to be added to those particular basins. But
18 certainly codes could be modified to include canals.
19 Q. Did you identify any other concerns with
20 the Tetra Tech model?
21 A. I believe I raised some concerns about the
22 treatment of topography within the Water Conservation
23 Areas. I think I may have raised some concerns about
24 the time step used in the model.
25 I believe I raised some concerns about the
598
1 interaction between the inflow and outflow structures
2 in the Conservation Areas and how they were modeled
3 in the Tetra Tech model.
4 Q. Anything else that you recall?
5 A. Not to my knowledge.
6 Q. Why were you concerned with the treatment
7 of the topography in the Tetra Tech model?
8 A. They were essentially taking each of the
9 Water Conservation Areas and establishing, I believe,
10 a uniform depth across the area and not accounting
11 for the natural gradient within the Water
12 Conservation Areas.
13 Q. Is there data that you would point to that
14 reflects the natural gradient in the Water
15 Conservation Areas?
16 A. I have seen a number of contour maps for
17 the Conservation Areas provided in different sources
18 of documents.
19 Q. Do you recall any specific documents?
20 A. Design documents of the Army Corps of
21 Engineers going back to probably the partial definite
22 project report in 1951, all of the design documents
23 for each of the specific Water Conservation Areas
24 have contour maps provided.
25 The Everglades gauging program reports of
599
1 the Army Corps of Engineers have contour maps. There
2 are contour maps provided, I believe, in the water
3 atlases that the Water Management District has done
4 on all the Water Conservation Areas. So there are a
5 large number of sources of ground service information
6 for the Conservation Areas.
7 Q. How if at all would treating the WCAs or
8 establishing a uniform depth for each of the WCAs on
9 the Tetra Tech model affect the predictive value of
10 the model?
11 A. I don't think you could model the
12 hydrology correctly assuming it is a uniform depth
13 pool because you can't account for the inundation
14 patterns and the variability in depths within the
15 Conservation Areas.
16 It is a similar problem to not including
17 the canals. Water can move through the system
18 differently than just as uniform sheet flow.
19 Q. In your opinion would that affect the
20 predicted volumes downstream of the WCAs?
21 A. Both the predicted volumes and the loads.
22 Q. Have you seen any calibrations or
23 verification of the Tetra Tech model?
24 A. There was some limited information
25 provided to me just prior to and during the
600
1 presentations in, I believe, August of last year.
2 Q. What did that data consist of?
3 A. I believe it was estimates of load and
4 concentrations at key water control points in the
5 Water Conservation Areas.
6 Q. Was it verification or calibration or
7 both?
8 A. I believe what I saw was the verification.
9 Q. What did that verification data tell you?
10 A. I believe it told me that the model was
11 not very well verified.
12 Q. How so?
13 A. I believe there was not a very good fit
14 between both flow volumes and historical loadings.
15 Q. You mentioned concerns about the time step
16 they used in the Tetra Tech model. Could you explain
17 what you meant by that?
18 A. I think they were primarily working with
19 monthly data in both rainfall and flows and
20 concentrations rather than daily data.
21 Q. Why would that be a concern?
22 A. A lot can happen in a month.
23 Q. Meaning?
24 A. Meaning on an annual basis you may be able
25 to match loads or volumes but you may not reflect the
601
1 actual processes that moved water through the system,
2 particularly when you talk about rainfall. Rainfall
3 availability is well-known in the Everglades and
4 monthly rainfall data other than for sort of
5 graphical presentations is not an acceptable time
6 step for rainfall variability.
7 Q. What is an acceptable time step?
8 A. Daily I would say is a good time step
9 depending on what you are doing, possibly weekly. I
10 think my other concern about rainfall was that they
11 were not incorporating the spatial variability of
12 rainfall.
13 Q. In your opinion, how should the spatial
14 variability of rainfall have been accounted for?
15 A. There's a large number of rainfall gauges
16 both from the standpoint of the volume of rainfall
17 and the load of phosphorus in rainfall throughout the
18 Everglades and the appropriate way would be to look
19 at both the spatial variability and volumes and
20 loads.
21 Q. In any other concerns related to rainfall
22 and time step in the Tetra Tech model?
23 A. Not that I can remember.
24 Q. You also mentioned concerns about the
25 interaction between inflow and outflow structures and
602
1 how they are operated. Could you elaborate on that
2 for me?
3 A. I believe the Water Conservation Areas
4 were modeled as a reservoir with limited inflow and
5 outflow points and the control structures in many of
6 these areas operate in more than one direction.
7 Water can flow in or flow out through the structures
8 and I don't believe their modeling approach took that
9 into account.
10 Q. What additional inflows or outflows are
11 you referring to?
12 A. The impacts of the structures along the
13 eastern side of the Water Conservation Areas that
14 move water to the Lower East Coast and interactions
15 with the structures, say, in the Loxahatchee area
16 where water can also be removed from the Refuge
17 rather than just put in.
18 Q. So your understanding of the Tetra Tech
19 model did not account for this?
20 A. I don't believe it did. I believe I did
21 it on the basis of a monthly budget so it would
22 simply, whatever the net was of inflow or outflow, it
23 would look at that as compared to individual events.
24 Q. In referring to structures on the eastern
25 sides of the Water Conservation Areas, what specific
603
1 structures are you referring to?
2 A. There's a whole series of structures,
3 S-151 in the West Palm Beach Canal, S-39 in the
4 Hillsboro Canal, I think it's S-35, S-31, S-151, all
5 of the structures along the boundary between the
6 Conservation Areas and the Lower East Coast. I don't
7 believe their model really simulated outflow at those
8 points as much as it simulated the net volume of
9 water coming into each of the basins and the net
10 volume of water leaving but not the specific points.
11 Q. Any other concerns about the interaction
12 between inflow and outflow structures and how they
13 were operating?
14 A. I don't believe so. I think those were my
15 major concerns.
16 Q. Do you recall any other concerns that you
17 had with the Tetra Tech model?
18 A. No, not right offhand.
19 Q. Did you actually review the source
20 material for the model?
21 A. No.
22 MR. PERKO: Mark this as the next exhibit.
23 (Johnson Deposition Exhibit 15 was marked
24 for identification)
25 BY MR. PERKO:
604
1 Q. Mr. Johnson, let me show you what's been
2 marked as Exhibit 15 to this deposition. I ask you
3 if you recognize that document.
4 (Pause)
5 Q. I will represent for the record that this
6 is one of the documents that was previously withheld
7 from your prior deposition on grounds of privilege
8 that counsel for the United States later provided for
9 us.
10 A. Yes, I do recognize this.
11 Q. What is that document?
12 A. It is a writeup of the 1990 modeling done
13 by the US Army Corps of Engineers to examine the
14 hydrologic effects of the Water Management Areas.
15 Q. In your prior deposition I believe you
16 noted that there was some documentation of the 1990
17 Corps modeling that you were relying upon for your
18 opinion that proposed STA design will not adversely
19 affect water supply in coastal communities, LNWR and
20 ENP. Is that that documentation?
21 A. Yes, it is. To my knowledge this is
22 probably the only documentation that I have in my
23 files, although when it was presented to me,
24 additional information was provided which I don't
25 have in my possession.
605
1 Q. What did that additional information
2 consist of?
3 A. I'm not completely sure, but I believe
4 there were some additional graphics done at the time
5 beyond just the water supply plots that are provided
6 in here.
7 Q. Do you know who created those additional
8 plots?
9 A. I believe it was all done by the same
10 people who generated this. Mr. Danushkodi who works
11 for the Water Management Section of the Army Corps of
12 Engineers, I believe he did all the modeling. I
13 believe it was Mike Choate who provided the
14 information to us. But I do remember some additional
15 plots that did a breakdown beyond what is provided in
16 this.
17 Q. And you do not have those in your
18 possession, is that correct?
19 A. To my knowledge this is the only handout
20 that was provided at the meeting and I thought
21 additional information may have been requested by the
22 Department of Justice after this was done. So it may
23 be available but I don't have possession of it, no.
24 Q. The first page of that document refers to
25 some of the assumptions he used in this modeling
606
1 effort, is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. If you would just review those.
4 (Pause)
5 MR. MacFARLANE: For the record, counsel,
6 when you say counsel for the United States provided
7 this, are you talking about Tom Watts Fitzgerald?
8 There was a cover letter on that. Let me look for
9 that.
10 I don't have it with me. He sent a cover
11 letter.
12 Q. Have you had a chance to read those?
13 A. Two more.
14 (Pause)
15 Q. Have you had a chance to review those
16 assumptions?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Based upon that review, were there any
19 assumptions to your knowledge made about water losses
20 associated with implementation of BMPs?
21 A. Not to my knowledge. There was
22 assumptions made associated with the loss of
23 agricultural acreage but not specifically with BMPs.
24 Q. To your knowledge, what was the acreage
25 lost as a result of construction in the WMAs assumed
607
1 in this modeling?
2 A. I believe the total as calculated on this
3 sheet, 72,000 acres was proposed at that time for
4 Water Management Areas.
5 Q. On the first page of this document there
6 are some handwritten notes at the bottom, referring
7 to followup modeling.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Are those your notes?
10 A. Yes, they are.
11 Q. Do you know if the followup modeling
12 suggested there was work performed?
13 A. To my knowledge, it was not.
14 Q. At the top there is a handwritten note,
15 "review District modeling," I can't read the next
16 word. Maybe you can help me out.
17 A. "18 K and 40 K, Water Management Areas."
18 Q. Is that a reference to the roughly
19 contemporaneous Water Management District modeling
20 that you referred to previously?
21 A. To my knowledge, yes.
22 Q. Referring to the third page of Exhibit 15,
23 there appears to be some additional handwriting. Is
24 that your handwriting?
25 A. No. I believe that's Mike Choate's
608
1 handwriting.
2 Q. If you would, what does that handwriting
3 refer to?
4 A. It compares the total water supply, I
5 believe the total water supply between 1963 and 1987
6 delivered to Everglades National Park through the
7 S-12 structures.
8 Q. What does it show?
9 A. It shows a reduction of, based on this
10 calculation, 944,000 acre/feet over that period of
11 time.
12 Q. That's cumulative?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So in order to determine the average water
15 loss, average annual water loss, would you divide the
16 944,000 number by --
17 A. 25.
18 Q. By 25?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Which would be roughly --
21 A. A little less than 25,000 acre/feet per
22 year.
23 Q. Would you consider that a significant
24 reduction?
25 A. No, I wouldn't.
609
1 Q. The title of this graph says Mass Water
2 Supply to the Everglades National Park. What does
3 that mean?
4 A. I think it was, the mass was we were
5 talking about cumulative water volumes and it is just
6 the supply going to the major delivery points in the
7 Park.
8 Q. The S-12s?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record.
11 (Discussion off the record)
12 MR. PERKO: Back on.
13 BY MR. PERKO:
14 Q. Mr. Johnson, in the break, I believe you
15 did some additional rough calculations of the average
16 annual water loss.
17 A. That's correct. I think it's closer to
18 38,000 acre/feet.
19 Q. Would that change your answer as to
20 whether that's a significant reduction?
21 A. No, it would not.
22 Q. I ask you to look at the second page of
23 Exhibit No. 15. What does that reflect?
24 A. It is the plot of, I would assume,
25 approximately monthly total flows to Shark Slough
610
1 over this period of time and the two lines are with
2 and without the Water Management Areas.
3 Q. How does that chart differ from what's on
4 the third page?
5 A. The only difference is the time period.
6 It's the sequence from '63 to '83 versus the sequence
7 from '79 to '89.
8 Q. On the first page of Exhibit 15, the third
9 assumption states that, "The daily discharges in
10 Miami Canal and North New River Canals were reduced
11 to account for the Water Management Areas."
12 How would those daily discharge areas be
13 reduced to account for the Water Management Areas?
14 A. I would assume they would estimate the
15 volume of runoff that would have been contributed for
16 a particular area and reduced the area, the
17 contributing area of those two canal systems based on
18 the amount of land that was taken out of the
19 agricultural production.
20 Q. The fourth assumption states, "The daily
21 water supply demands of the Everglades Agricultural
22 Areas were reduced by ten percent due to the removal
23 of the Water Management Areas."
24 I assume that refers to the fact that
25 there is no longer need for irrigation in those
611
1 areas, is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. The seventh assumption states that, "The
4 water supply needs of the EAA were first met from
5 WMA-2 and 4 as much as possible."
6 Is it your understanding that the
7 currently proposed STAs will be used to meet EAA
8 water supply needs?
9 A. No, it's not my understanding that they
10 will be used to meet EAA water supply needs.
11 Q. How does it affect your opinion that the
12 water supply won't be significantly affected by STA
13 and BMP implementation?
14 A. If you use this assumption that water from
15 the Water Management Areas 2 and 4 would be reused by
16 agriculture, it would be decreased going to the
17 Conservation Areas. So by removing that assumption,
18 water volumes going to the Conservation Areas would
19 increase.
20 MR. PERKO: Mark that as the next exhibit.
21 (Johnson Deposition Exhibit 16 was marked
22 for identification)
23 MR. PERKO: Let's take a break for lunch.
24 (Luncheon recess)
25
612
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 12:50 p.m.
3 BY MR. PERKO:
4 Q. Mr. Johnson, if you would take a look at
5 what's been marked as Exhibit 16 in this deposition
6 and tell me if you recognize this document.
7 (Pause)
8 A. Yes, I have two copies of a March 26th
9 memo so I assume you want to pull one of those out.
10 Yes, I recognize it.
11 Q. It appears that there are a couple of
12 different documents within this exhibit but this is
13 the way we received it.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. If we could refer first to the March 26,
16 1993 memorandum from yourself to Michael Soukup on
17 the first page of Exhibit 16, could you tell me the
18 purpose of that document?
19 A.