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. It was a document I was asked to produce 20 for Dr. Michael Soukup as a summary of the Tetra Tech 21 model that was proposed for use by the agricultural 22 community. 23 Q. I note that the document is dated March 24 26, 1993. Does that refresh your recollection as to 25 when a meeting occurred? 613 1 A. Obviously the meeting must have been from 2 the note down here in the last paragraph on the first 3 page, it looks like this came out after the meeting. 4 So the meeting must have been in, I would say, early 5 March of 1993. 6 Q. As opposed to August? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Did you provide copies of this document to 9 anyone else besides Dr. Soukup? 10 A. I believe they were provided to counsel. 11 Q. Was it provided to the Water Management 12 District? 13 A. Not by myself. 14 Q. Do you know if it was by someone else? 15 A. Unless counsel or Dr. Soukup provided it, 16 I wouldn't know. 17 Q. The subject line states that this is a 18 summary critique of the Tetra Tech 19 hydrologic/phosphorus model. Is there a more 20 complete critique, if you will? 21 A. No, at least not one that I prepared. 22 Q. Other than this memorandum, the maps that 23 have been previously identified as Exhibit 14 and 24 some handwritten notes that I notice in your filings, 25 is there any other documentation that you reviewed of 614 1 the Tetra Tech model? 2 A. No. 3 Q. If I could refer you to the second 4 paragraph under the sub-heading Introduction, you 5 refer to, "the most important hydrologic components 6 in the system are, in priority order," and then in 7 the final sentence of that paragraph you state that, 8 "Our past modeling efforts have shown that 9 inaccuracies in the representation of any of these 10 elements can lead to erroneous and/or misleading 11 results." 12 What past modeling were you referring to 13 in this sentence? 14 A. I would assume any modeling with the South 15 Florida Water Management model or any similar 16 hydrologic modeling. 17 Q. Can you think of any specific instances 18 where inaccuracies in the representation of any of 19 these elements led to erroneous or misleading 20 results? 21 A. Yes, I can. 22 Q. Could you identify those instances? 23 A. I believe shortly prior to preparing this 24 memo, I was asked to review the Adaptive 25 Environmental Assessment model prepared by the 615 1 University of Florida and I believe many of the 2 criticisms that I had with the Tetra Tech model were 3 similar to that model in terms of the time step and 4 the lack of inclusion of some of the hydrologic 5 parameters in the model. 6 Q. Do you recall who at the University of 7 Florida developed that model? 8 A. It's a model that was developed by Carl 9 Walters who actually works for the University of 10 British Columbia, and at the university it's run by a 11 Dr. Lance Gunderson. 12 Q. Did you review specific modeling output 13 that led you to the conclusion that the Adaptive 14 Environmental Assessment model had some of the same 15 problems as the Tetra Tech model you previously spoke 16 of? 17 A. Yes, since approximately 1989 I reviewed 18 quite a bit of output from the AEA model as well as 19 the source code and an executable version of the 20 model which was provided to the Park. 21 Q. To your knowledge has that model ever been 22 used to Simulate the effects of the stormwater 23 treatment areas? 24 A. Not to my knowledge. 25 Q. Could it be used to do that? 616 1 A. In a crude way, yes. 2 Q. Why do you say in a crude way? 3 A. Because it's a model that does not look at 4 hydrologic change in a very accurate way. It does a 5 lot of use of averaging information. It runs on a 6 longer time step and the information that goes into 7 the model is a little cruder than is really needed to 8 model the stormwater treatment areas. 9 Q. What time step is used in that model? 10 A. Monthly time step in terms of the input 11 processes such as rainfall. 12 Q. Is that model strictly a hydrologic model 13 or does it also have a water quality component? 14 A. There is, I believe in 1991 or 1992, there 15 was a water quality component that was written for 16 the model and the model was renamed something like 17 HydroNut, with N U T standing for nutrients. 18 Q. Have you ever used that model? 19 A. No. I have run the most recent version of 20 the model but I never looked at the nutrient part of 21 the model. 22 Q. Do you have any prior experience with 23 water quality modeling? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in 617 1 water quality modeling? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Under the subheading Rainfall Variability 4 Issues again on the first page at the very bottom is 5 a sentence that states, "Extensive past research has 6 shown that rainfall patterns in South Florida show a 7 high degree of spatial and temporal variability." 8 And the next sentence refers to a report by McVicar 9 1984. 10 With regard to the McVicar 1984 paper, 11 were you referring to any other research by use of 12 the term extensive past research in that sentence? 13 A. There's been several other studies by the 14 Water Management District primarily that's looked at 15 rainfall variability. 16 Q. Do you recall any specific studies? 17 A. There was a paper by Shawn Scully that I 18 believe came out in approximately 1989 that dealt 19 with rainfall variability. There was a study by 20 George Shih at the South Florida Water Management 21 District that dealt with rainfall variability, and 22 again, that was late 80s, actually probably 1990. 23 The data base for that project ends in 1989 so I know 24 it is somewhere after that date. 25 Q. Do you recall the titles of either of 618 1 those papers? 2 A. Not right offhand, no. 3 Q. Were they official technical memoranda? 4 A. They are both technical memoranda of the 5 Water Management District. 6 Q. Besides the Shih, Scully and McVicar 7 papers, are you aware of any other research and 8 rainfall variability in South Florida? 9 A. Work that's been done recently by David 10 Chin at the University of Miami and Dr. Thomas Van 11 Landt with South Dakota State University. 12 Q. Was Dr. Van Landt previously of the Park? 13 A. He is a cooperator that spent, I guess, 14 about almost 18 months at the Park. 15 Q. Has Dr. Van Landt authored a paper on 16 rainfall variability? 17 A. No, we have a contract with the South 18 Florida Water Management District to evaluate the 19 rainfall network in South Florida and he's produced 20 two quarterly reports but no final report. 21 Q. Do you recall the approximate dates of 22 those quarterly reports? 23 A. There would have been a report due 24 probably the first of December and one due the first 25 of September of 1993. So I would imagine they would 619 1 have come out during those months. 2 Q. Do you recall the title of the McVicar 3 1984 paper? 4 A. Something about rainfall extremes and 5 frequencies of rainfall in South Florida. There is a 6 technical report and then there is also a publication 7 in a book that he did. 8 Q. Do you recall the name of the book? 9 A. It's Environments of South Florida. I 10 think it's volume 2, I believe is the one he 11 contributed to. 12 Q. Again, going on the next page under the 13 subheading of Evapotranspiration Issues, midway down 14 the paragraph, you refer to "Past hydrologic studies 15 indicate that ET varies as a function surface water 16 depth, vegetation type, soil moisture availability 17 and the time of year." 18 What hydrologic studies were you referring 19 to in that statement? 20 A. It would have been studies done by various 21 agricultural researchers, many of which were with the 22 University of Florida. 23 Q. IFAS? 24 A. IFAS primarily, and then work that's been 25 done by the Water Management District, I believe in 620 1 support of the South Florida Water Management model. 2 Q. Any specific publications come to mind? 3 A. Not right offhand, no. I believe there's 4 a paper by, I'm not sure when it came out, by Wossenu 5 Abtew that deals with evapotranspiration. 6 Q. That was relating to lysimeter studies? 7 A. That's correct, and I believe he has an 8 earlier study on ET in the Everglades Agricultural 9 Area also. I don't believe that's lysimeter studies, 10 I believe it is based on more of a water budget 11 approach. 12 Q. Do you know of any plans to update the ET 13 algorithms in the South Florida Water Management area 14 based on Dr. Abtew's lysimeter study? 15 A. I believe it is something they are looking 16 into. I don't know if they made specific plans to 17 integrate that information. In addition to that work 18 they have a major ET assessment going on with, I 19 think it's a Dr. Jensen at Florida Atlantic 20 University. 21 So I would assume that with all this work 22 going on, if the results are conclusive, that will be 23 built into the model. 24 Q. Is Dr. Jensen's work in relation to the 25 project or is that something different? 621 1 A. I think the focus of his work is 2 improvements to water use activities that the 3 District does. They have to use evapotranspiration 4 estimates in their water use calculations when they 5 go through a permitting process and currently they 6 are using one algorithm. 7 And Dr. Jensen has been recommending that 8 they switch to another method and he's been doing 9 work to help them define how this new method ought to 10 be applied for water use. 11 Q. Do you know when they anticipate the 12 results of his work? 13 A. No, I don't, not right offhand. 14 Q. Do you know how the South Florida Water 15 Management model accounts for ET? 16 A. It does it on the basis of land use or 17 vegetation type as well as water depth and depth 18 below the ground. 19 Q. Do you know where the District obtained 20 the ET coefficients for the various types of 21 vegetation? 22 A. I don't know right offhand but I would 23 assume that it's in the 1984 documentation report on 24 the model. 25 Q. By Tom McVicar? 622 1 A. Tom McVicar, Tom Van Landt and Dr. Castro. 2 Q. In the next section of your March 26 3 memorandum under the subheading Canal/Structure 4 Operational Issues, you talk about the need to 5 account for water supply and regulatory operations 6 criteria, rainfall over WCA-3A and control of Shark 7 River Slough deliveries -- I'm sorry, and canal 8 bypassing. 9 How does the South Florida Water 10 Management District model account for canal 11 bypassing? 12 A. Essentially all of the canals in South 13 Florida are added as part of the code. So if water 14 enters a canal, there will be a specific sub-routine 15 that would route water using open channel flow 16 methods, would route water down the canal system. So 17 in the case of, say, Water Conservation Area 3A, the 18 model could account for times when the water level is 19 below ground surface elevation in the marsh but you 20 could still have movement of water within the canal 21 whereas if you had a reservoir model, once you got 22 below ground surface elevation the model would assume 23 the system was dry and no water was moving. 24 Q. How does the South Florida Water 25 Management model account for water supply in 623 1 regulatory operations criteria? 2 A. Essentially there's two components to the 3 model. There's a physical hydrologic model that 4 simply takes rainfall and removes evapotranspiration 5 losses and then has water infiltrated into the ground 6 or pass as overland flow and in addition to that 7 component there is a water management component that 8 provides criteria for the opening and closing of all 9 the gates and explains how water would be moved from 10 one structure to another either for water flow or 11 flood control operations. 12 Q. So does the model automatically account 13 for opening and closing of the gates based on 14 different -- 15 A. It would automatically account for those 16 operations based on criteria that are provided for 17 each structure in the model. 18 Q. Are those criteria routinely updated? 19 A. I would assume they would be updated each 20 time there is a calibration and verification, or if 21 there is a specific reason why they are running the 22 model that would account for generally, say, a 23 proposed change in operations. 24 Then they would modify the operations for 25 a particular set of structures at that time. So I 624 1 don't think that they would be routinely updated 2 because I don't believe the operations criteria 3 changed that frequently. 4 Q. Do you consider the South Florida Water 5 Management model to be adequately calibrated? 6 A. The two by two version of the model is 7 adequately calibrated and verified. 8 Q. What about the one by one? 9 A. I would be less comfortable with the one 10 by one version. 11 Q. Why is that? 12 A. The Water Management District was not able 13 to spend the time doing a full recalibration on the 14 one by one model. 15 Q. What do you look for in determining 16 whether a model is adequately calibrated and 17 verified? 18 A. You determine how well the estimated flows 19 and operations of structures match the actuals. You 20 do comparisons with water depth estimates at discrete 21 points, either at water control structures or in the 22 case of South Florida either out at the marsh or 23 ground water levels in developed areas and you see 24 whether or not that matches the historical period 25 that the model is being compared to. 625 1 Q. What criteria do you use in determining 2 whether there is an adequate match? 3 A. I don't know if there's a specific 4 quantitative amount of variability. It's usually 5 something that's done just based on professional 6 experience and judgment on the part of the modeler. 7 So if you have a match of, say, less than a few 8 tenths of a foot, then I would say the model is very 9 well calibrated. 10 If your match starts exceeding a half a 11 foot or more, then you would probably be running into 12 a condition where in a particular area the model is 13 not as well calibrated. 14 Q. What about if you are trying to calibrate