1

1 Division of Administrative Hearings

2 Department of Administration, State of Florida

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )

WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., )

5 Petitioners )

V ) DOAH Case

6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3038

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

7 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )

9 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

10 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH Case

11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

12 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )

14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )

15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

16 V ) DOAH Case

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3040

17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

18 Respondents. )

20 Deposition of Joseph Koebel

21 Taken before Elaine V. Williams,

Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for

22 the State of Florida at large, pursuant to notice of

taking deposition filed by the Petitioner Sugar Cane

23 Growers in the above cause.

- - -

24 January 26, 1993

319 Clematis Street, Suite 500

25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

9:10 - 11:10 a.m.

1 APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar

3 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,

and New South Hope, Inc.:

4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636

5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

6 By: WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQUIRE

7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:

South Florida Water Management District

8 3301 Gun Club Road

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680

9 By: JACQUELYN W. BIRCH, ESQUIRE

10 On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:

Department of Justice

11 299 East Broward Blvd.

Ft. Lauderdale Florida 33301

12 BY: ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE

- - -

1 - - -

2 I N D E X

3 - - -

5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

6 Joseph Koebel

BY MR. HYDE: 4

9 - - -

10 E X H I B I T S

11 - - -

13 NUMBER PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION

14 EXB. NO. 1 5 Resume'

EXB. NO. 2 22 Macroinvertebrate

15 colonization paper

EXB. NO. 3 Composite 23 Spread sheets

16 EXB. NO. 4 53 H. Carrick review

EXB. NO. 5 58 Notice of deposition,

17 duces tecum

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 - - -

3 Thereupon,

4 Joseph Koebel,

5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

7 THE WITNESS: I do.

8 DIRECT (Joseph Koebel)

9 BY MR. HYDE:

10 Q. Would you please state your full name and

11 address for the record, please?

12 A. Joseph Walter Koebel, Junior, and my

13 address is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

15 Q. Mr. Koebel, my name is William Hyde. I

16 represent the law firm of Peeples, Earl & Blank, and

17 I am here today on behalf of the Florida Sugar Cane

18 League, U. S. Sugar Corporation, and New Hope South,

19 Incorporated, and I will be asking you a series of

20 questions today about your anticipated testimony in

21 the upcoming administrative proceedings on the

22 Everglades SWIM Plan. I will presume if you answer

23 my questions that you understood them, and if you

24 don't understand my questions at any point, please

25 tell me and I will try to rephrase the question or

1 otherwise deal with your difficulty in answering that

2 question. Otherwise, please assume that -- or I will

3 assume that you understand it and you're being

4 responsive to the question.

5 I would further advise you that in the

6 event that your attorney might object to any of my

7 questions, to halt whatever you are doing at that

8 moment and let us thrash out the objection. In most

9 cases you'll be able to answer the question after

10 that, but I'll let you look to your own testimony for

11 guidance in that regard.

12 A. Okay.

13 Q. First of all, I would like to show you a

14 document that we'll label as Exhibit 1.

15 (The document was marked

16 Koebel Exb. No. 1.)

17 BY MR. HYDE:

18 Q. Mr. Koebel, would you please identify what

19 has been labeled Exhibit 1 for me?

20 A. This is a current copy of my resume'.

21 Q. Is all the information contained in this

22 resume' accurate and up-to-date?

23 A. To the best of my knowledge, it is.

24 Q. Okay. I would like to ask you a series of

25 questions now beginning first with your educational

1 experience and in particular, your degree; your

2 undergraduate degree.

3 Your resume' reflects that you got a

4 Bachelor of Science in 1987 from North Carolina State

5 University with a major in fisheries and wildlife

6 science, and with an emphasis on fisheries and

7 macroinvertebrat taxonomy and ecology. I think I

8 understand that aspect of your education pretty well.

9 Did you do a thesis for your undergraduate degree?

10 A. No, I did not.

11 Q. What sort of courses did you end up taking

12 during the course of that educational experience?

13 A. I'm not sure I understand.

14 Q. Well, what kind of undergraduate courses

15 would be the necessary constituents of a major in

16 fisheries in wildlife science?

17 A. There would be basic biology courses, basic

18 ecology courses, fisheries courses, ichthyology, as

19 an example; things of that nature.

20 Q. Okay. Your resume' reflects that you have

21 experience in identification from lentic and lotic

22 habitats. Could you please define those two terms

23 for me?

24 A. Lentic would be standing water habitat,

25 lotic would be flowing water.

1 Q. Okay. What is basic limnological

2 methodology?

3 A. Limnology is another course that I took as

4 an undergraduate, and essentially it is physical and

5 chemical parameters of standing water --

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. -- methodology.

8 Q. When you took courses on the identification

9 of terrestrial wetland plant species -- well, can you

10 tell me how you would go about identifying

11 terrestrial and wetland plant species as a result of

12 this educational experience? Just a general

13 description.

14 A. I would use keys; taxonomic keys.

15 Q. What do you mean by taxonomic keys?

16 A. They are books that give you a step-by-step

17 taxonomic guide to identification of plants.

18 Q. Are these texts that are generally accepted

19 within your scientific profession as being

20 appropriate --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. -- to utilize for that purpose?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Did you obtain any honors or other

25 privileges associated with your undergraduate degree?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Your resume' also reflects that you

3 obtained or you're about to obtain, I guess, a Master

4 of Science from the University of Alabama.

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Okay.

7 (Thereupon, Mr. Rosenberg arrived.)

8 BY MR. HYDE:

9 Q. Mr. Koebel, when do you anticipate that you

10 will actually obtain your master's from the

11 University of Alabama?

12 A. In July of this year.

13 Q. Okay. Have you completed all the course

14 work necessary for it?

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 Q. I take it you have done your thesis as

17 well.

18 A. That is what is holding up the process.

19 Q. Okay. Well, have you gone before the

20 thesis evaluators yet?

21 A. No, I have not.

22 Q. Okay. So that is the remaining thing to do

23 in that process?

24 A. That is the last step.

25 Q. Okay. Could you explain your thesis to me?

1 I see what the title is from your resume', but I

2 don't know that I fully appreciate it.

3 A. Corydalus cornutus is a predatory insect,

4 and the thesis involved the life history of that

5 particular insect. And secondary production is

6 simply the growth of that particular insect.

7 Q. Where was this thesis performed?

8 A. In Bib County, Alabama.

9 Q. Okay. Does Corydalus cornutus have a more

10 common name other than that Latin?

11 A. Hellgramite, I think, would be a common

12 name.

13 Q. Okay. What was the operative thesis of

14 your thesis, if you know what I mean?

15 A. I do not.

16 Q. Were you testing some theory in the

17 preparation of your thesis or --

18 A. No. My thesis just looked at growth and

19 the relationship between growth and the prey

20 community, since it was a predator.

21 Q. Well, did you have any hypothesis that you

22 were testing as a result of designing your thesis?

23 A. No.

24 MR. HYDE: Jackie, I don't know that we

25 have been produced a copy of his thesis. Do you

1 recall one way or the other? I didn't see any

2 documents that were submitted to us.

3 MS. BIRCH: No. It wasn't responsive to

4 the request that we received.

5 BY MR. HYDE:

6 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this question: Do

7 you anticipate relying upon your thesis for any of

8 the testimony that you will be giving in this

9 proceeding?

10 A. No.

11 Q. That satisfies me. Let me go back now to

12 your work-related experiences.

13 The first position you have here is a

14 research assistant in 1987 for North Carolina State;

15 identification of macroinvertebrates. Was that as

16 part of your course work or was that a paid position?

17 A. That was a paid position.

18 Q. Did you get paid by the hour? Was it sort

19 of a stipend for the work that you did?

20 A. I believe it was an hourly wage.

21 Q. To what purpose was this work conducted?

22 A. This was done in association with another

23 person's -- I believe it was his thesis.

24 Q. Similarly, in May through August of 1989

25 you engaged in identification of aquatic macro-

1 invertebrates taken from the Ogeechee River in

2 Georgia. Was that a similar type position?

3 A. Yes, it was.

4 Q. Was that likewise to assist someone in the

5 preparation of a thesis?

6 A. It was not a thesis, it was some ongoing

7 research.

8 Q. Okay. Was it for one of your professors?

9 A. Yes, it was.

10 Q. Can you tell me which professor it was?

11 A. It was Dr. Benke.

12 Q. Was Dr. Benke your thesis advisor?

13 A. Yes, he was.

14 Q. Okay. Do you know what purpose he was

15 engaging in this study for?

16 A. I do not. I don't recall.

17 Q. Your resume' next reflects that you were

18 then a Research Technician I for the University of

19 Alabama, Department of Biology, from January through

20 November -- well, January 1990 through November of

21 1991. Was that a full-time position with the

22 university?

23 A. Yes, it was.

24 Q. What was the purpose of that; collecting

25 the field data for those nine Alabama streams?

1 A. The individuals that I worked for were

2 looking at the influences of biological structure on

3 the biological productivity of stream ecosystems. My

4 job was to go and collect the monthly data.

5 Q. Why were they looking at the influence of

6 geologic structure?

7 A. It was something that they were interested

8 in.

9 Q. Well, what kind of stream ecosystems then

10 were you looking at? Maybe comparing and contrasting

11 them to each other?

12 A. I don't understand.

13 Q. Well, were they all similar types of stream

14 systems?

15 A. I was not involved in comparing them, I was

16 involved in collecting the data.

17 Q. Okay. Well, did you do any independent

18 analysis in this work other than simply the

19 collecting and identifying the data from these

20 various stream ecosystems?

21 A. My job was specifically to collect the

22 data.

23 Q. Did you engage in identification of the

24 data?

25 A. Identification? I don't understand what

1 you mean by identification.

2 Q. Well, did you identify them by taxonomic

3 class?

4 A. Identify what?

5 Q. Well, whatever data it was; like if you

6 were collecting macro invertebrates.

7 A. No, I did not.

8 Q. What kind of data did you collect?

9 A. Water quality data specifically.

10 Q. Oh, okay. Did you look to anything else

11 other than water quality data?

12 A. I collected leaf throughfall and leaf

13 samples from the trees that fell to the ground in

14 certain traps.

15 Q. What do you mean by throughfall? I have

16 not heard that term before.

17 A. It is rain water essentially that falls

18 through the canopy that we collected in containers.

19 Q. Before it hits the ground --

20 A. Yes. Right.

21 Q. -- in a stream?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Your resume' next reflects that you became

24 employed by the District in November of 1991. Could

25 you describe that position for me?

1 A. It is a senior scientific technician.

2 Basically it was to provide field assistance for

3 whatever ongoing research there was.

4 Q. Were you working under someone's tutelage

5 or supervision?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Who is that person?

8 A. It was Dr. Nick Aumen and Sue Newman.

9 Dr. Sue Newman.

10 Q. Okay. Your resume' reflects that you were

11 responsible for coordinating and implementing the

12 day-to-day activities of the plant competition study.

13 What plant competition study is this?

14 A. That is a study that we have set up to look

15 at -- well, it is a plant competition study that is

16 set up out near the ENR site.

17 Q. Everglades Nutrient Removal site?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. What plants are involved in this

20 competition study?

21 A. There are four plant species; cattail,

22 sawgrass, pickerel weed, and eleocharis.

23 Q. What is eleocharis by common name, if you

24 recall?

25 A. I believe it is spike rush.

1 Q. What is the purpose of that study?

2 A. To look at the competitive ability of these

3 four particular plant species under different water

4 depths and nutrient concentrations.

5 Q. Has the study yielded any results to date?

6 A. No, it has not.

7 Q. Okay. Do you have any idea as to when it

8 might yield such results?

9 A. Two years from last December.

10 Q. Last December. So that would be December

11 of 1994?

12 A. I believe that is correct.

13 Q. Do you know why the District is studying

14 the competitive abilities of these four particular

15 plant species?

16 A. It is my understanding that it is to be

17 used, the data is going to be used, in the ENR study

18 eventually.

19 Q. Okay. Do you know for what purpose it will

20 be used in the ENR study?

21 A. One of the cells within the ENR study is

22 going to be a mixed marsh system. In other words, it

23 is going to have a lot of different wetland plant

24 species in it. This is designed to look at the

25 competitive ability of those plants and see whether

1 or not one of those plants may take over,

2 essentially.

3 Q. Okay. Are you looking at these particular

4 plants for particular desirable qualities that might

5 serve the purposes of the ENR project?

6 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

7 BY MR. HYDE:

8 Q. You may answer. Do you understand the

9 question?

10 A. No, I don't.

11 Q. Is there an operative thesis that one or

12 more of these plants may have some desirable

13 qualities that serve the purposes of the ENR project?

14 A. That is possible.

15 Q. Can you expand upon that answer a little

16 bit?

17 A. I believe that eventually we will look at

18 the ability of these plants to take up phosphorus.

19 Q. Is that the primary purpose that you would

20 be looking at them?

21 A. No, not at all.

22 Q. Okay. What is the primary purpose?

23 A. To look at their competitive ability.

24 Q. Will you be evaluating them as to whatever

25 habitat qualities they might have for Everglades

1 ecosystem?

2 A. I'm not sure I understand that.

3 Q. Well, I have heard some people say that

4 cattails are considered undesirable habitat for

5 various species, particularly birds that might be

6 utilizing the Everglades ecosystem. Are these

7 various plant species being evaluated for similar

8 type concerns to that?

9 A. Not that I am aware of.

10 Q. Okay. Are any other persons, other than

11 the persons that you just identified, working on this

12 project with you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Who would they be?

15 A. Cathy Pietro is one individual.

16 Q. P-i-e-t-r-o?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. And anyone else?

19 A. Not that I recall, no.

20 Q. Are you still engaged or do you still have

21 any responsibility regarding that effort by the

22 District and Dr. Aumen?

23 A. I no longer work for Dr. Aumen.

24 Q. Well, do you have any responsibility to

25 this project?

1 A. To which project?

2 Q. To the plant competition study.

3 A. Yes. Yes, I do.

4 Q. Okay. And what are those?

5 A. The day-to-day activities; going out,

6 checking water levels, things of that nature.

7 Q. Why does your resume' reflect then that

8 that position -- oh, never mind. Strike that

9 question.

10 I guess my confusion lies somewhat in the

11 fact that at the bottom of page 1 of Exhibit 1, there

12 are two listings for senior scientific technician

13 with two separate dates -- one being November '91 to

14 January '92, then January '92 to July 1992 -- which

15 appear to be or to have the same description. Are

16 they in fact the same job?

17 A. They are the same job. They were with

18 different divisions.

19 Q. Okay. Was that only difference involved?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. When you were with the Environmental

22 Sciences Division, who was your supervisor?

23 A. Dr. Aumen and Dr. Newman were; both.

24 Q. Okay. And did that switch when you moved

25 to the Okeechobee Research Division?

1 A. No, it did not.

2 Q. Was this just a reorganization within the

3 agency?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. Your resume' next reflects that from

6 July 1992 through the present you have been a senior

7 scientific technician for the District, Everglades

8 Systems Research. Could you explain that position

9 for me?

10 A. It is essentially the same as the other

11 positions.

12 Q. Okay. Do you have any additional duties or

13 responsibilities that have been imposed by this new

14 position?

15 A. Nothing that is not listed there.

16 Q. Okay. Is this work that you're performing

17 in your current position still oriented toward

18 primarily the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. Okay. Has that work that you have been

21 performing yielded any results for the District?

22 A. Not as of yet.

23 Q. Is it subject to that earlier testimony;

24 that you anticipate it being concluded sometime

25 within two years of 1992?

1 A. This was a three-year project.

2 Q. Okay. Very good. I would like to switch

3 now to the publications that you have on page 2 of

4 your resume'. The first one, The Secondary

5 Production of Corydalus Cornutus in a Small

6 Southeastern Stream, is your expected publication

7 from your thesis. Do you plan on submitting that, or

8 will it be submitted, to a scientific journal for

9 peer review and ultimate publication?

10 A. I would expect it to be, yes.

11 Q. Are you planning on submitting it to any

12 particular scientific journal?

13 A. I haven't made that decision yet.

14 Q. Okay. If you were to do so, which ones

15 might you be submitting it to?

16 MS. BIRCH: Objection; calls for

17 speculation.

18 BY MR. HYDE:

19 Q. You may go ahead and answer.

20 A. Probably the Journal of the North American

21 Benthological Society.

22 Q. The next listing there is entitled Food

23 Habits and Prey Selectivity of Corydalus cornutus,

24 and it says it is an expected publication from

25 thesis. Why are you doing a separate publication out

1 of the same work?

2 A. You can publish as many works as you want.

3 Q. Did that study ever have an operative

4 hypothesis that you were testing or was it more of

5 just a background type of study?

6 A. It did not have a hypothesis.

7 Q. Okay. When do you expect that this paper

8 will be ready for publication?

9 A. Once my thesis is completed, I'll begin to

10 work on that.

11 Q. Would you anticipate submitting it to a

12 scientific journal for peer review and hope for

13 publication?

14 A. I would expect so.

15 Q. The next listing that you did with two

16 other individuals is entitled In-stream Movement of

17 Six Snail Populations in Streams of Contrasting

18 Geological Structure, also in preparation. Is that

19 done in conjunction with your work as a Research

20 Technician I at the University of Alabama?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. I note that A. C. Benke is your

23 thesis advisor. Who is A. D. Huryn?

24 A. He was a post doc on the geological grant.

25 Q. Okay. Was he the person for whom you were

1 primarily collecting that data?

2 A. For this particular data, yes.

3 Q. Okay. Will you be or are you substantively

4 contributing to the preparation of that article?

5 A. I do not know what the status of that is.

6 Q. Okay. The next article is entitled

7 Colonization of Macro invertebrates in Sawgrass and

8 Cattail Litter in the Florida Everglades, which you

9 have apparently authored with Nancy Urban.

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Is that also known as -- let me just show

12 you something real quick.

13 (The document was marked

14 Koebel Exb. No. 2.)

15 BY MR. HYDE:

16 Q. Could you identify Exhibit 2 for me?

17 A. This would be the same paper that we just

18 discussed.

19 Q. Okay. Is this publication or manuscript

20 being submitted for publication to a scientific

21 journal?

22 A. That is our intent.

23 Q. It hasn't yet been submitted?

24 A. It has not, no.

25 Q. Okay. Would it likewise be submitted, for

1 example, to a journal such as the Benthological

2 Society?

3 A. That would be correct.

4 Q. Okay. Now, this draft of your paper dated

5 January 21, 1993 is, I take it, the last available

6 draft.

7 A. Yes, last available draft.

8 Q. Do you anticipate making or preparing any

9 subsequent drafts, or is this more or less the final

10 product?

11 A. I noticed some typos. We'll have to

12 correct those. But this is a final copy, as far as I

13 know.

14 Q. You don't anticipate making any substantive

15 changes or reaching any different results than those

16 which are already reflected in it?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Okay. That is all the questions I have

19 about your resume'.

20 (Discussion held off the record.)

21 (The document was marked

22 Koebel Exb. No. 3 composite.)

23 BY MR. HYDE:

24 Q. While we are on this subject, would you

25 identify for me, Mr. Koebel, what is labeled

1 Composite Exhibit 3?

2 A. These are the copies of the original spread

3 sheets which contain the data for this study.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you.

5 What was the purpose of this study that you

6 did with Nancy Urban?

7 A. To look at macroinvertebrate colonization

8 of these two leaf types.

9 Q. Okay. Why were you interested in doing so?

10 When I say you, I mean you and Ms. Urban.

11 A. I can't answer that. I was not involved in

12 the design of the experiment.

13 Q. So she is the person who designed it?

14 A. I don't know that for a fact.

15 Q. Was she the person who is primarily in

16 charge of this study or do you regard it as more or

17 less of a joint effort on your part?

18 A. She was more involved with it.

19 Q. The abstract, which is at numbered page 1,

20 reflects that "Invertebrate species diversity and

21 composition differed between sites with relative

22 abundance of Oligochaeta" --

23 A. Oligochaeta.

24 Q. -- "and Chironomidae"--

25 A. Chironomidae.

1 Q. -- "highest at the enriched site". Can you

2 refer me or can you tell me how the diversity

3 composition differed between those two sites with

4 more specificity?

5 A. There is a table that describes that.

6 Q. Okay. Which table is that?

7 A. I believe it is Table 3.

8 Q. I'll get back to that in a moment. On page

9 2, at the bottom of the page, you have a sentence

10 which reads, "The sawgrass and cattail litter layer

11 accumulated approximately 30 percent of labeled" and

12 then sort of a 32 P "at an enriched site and 12 to 15

13 percent at a background site." What is meant by that

14 32 P listing there?

15 A. I don't know. I believe it is a

16 radioactive phosphorus. That is a common way of

17 putting radioactive phosphorus.

18 Q. Okay. But this observation is basically

19 borrowed from a previous study by Mr. Davis, 1982?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Page 3 of your study reflects the following

22 purposes of the study, I guess: The first being to

23 perform a qualitative survey of the macro

24 invertebrates associated with the litter layer. Why

25 did you and Ms. Urban want to do that?

1 A. There is very little information as to what

2 the macroinvertebrate community is in the Everglades,

3 so we just wanted to document that there.

4 Q. So you admit that there is some uncertainty

5 as to the various types of macroinvertebrate species

6 that exist in the Everglades ecosystem?

7 A. There has been very little work done.

8 Q. Okay. I believe that some people have

9 suggested, for example, that some work done by the

10 Duke Wetlands Center might be suspect because it was

11 identifying macroinvertebrate species that were not

12 associated with the Everglades. Do you subscribe to

13 that criticism?

14 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

15 BY MR. HYDE:

16 Q. Go ahead. You may answer.

17 A. I have not heard that statement.

18 Q. Well, assuming that statement to have been

19 made and that criticism to have been made, would you

20 agree or disagree with that criticism?

21 A. And what was the criticism again?

22 Q. That some of the macroinvertebrate work

23 done by the Duke Wetlands Center is suspect because

24 it is apparently identifying macroinvertebrate

25 species that are not associated with the Everglades

1 ecosystem habitat.

2 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "suspect".

3 Q. Questionable.

4 A. I don't have any knowledge of that. I

5 couldn't give you an opinion.

6 Q. Okay. The next purpose of your study was

7 to determine possible relationships between

8 invertebrates to litter weight, litter plant species

9 and surface water quality. Why were you interested

10 in looking at those possible relationships?

11 A. Again, that was something that Nancy had

12 designed, so I really can't answer to that.

13 Q. So I should ask her that question?

14 A. If you'd like.

15 Q. And the third is to evaluate differences in

16 invertebrate species composition between nutrient

17 enriched and background sites. Again, why were you

18 looking to that?

19 A. We just wanted to see whether there was a

20 difference in community composition.

21 Q. How did you go about collecting the

22 macroinvertebrate species for this study?

23 A. I did not.

24 Q. Do you know how that was done?

25 A. They were collected in litter bags.

1 Q. Are you familiar with another process by

2 which invertebrate species are collected known as

3 hester-dendy?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Are you familiar with that alternative

6 sampling procedure?

7 A. Yes, I am.

8 Q. Do you know whether that was done in the

9 context of this study as a backup?

10 A. As far as I know, it was not.

11 Q. Are you familiar with the Department of

12 Environmental Regulations water quality standard or

13 criteria for biological integrity?

14 A. I know of it, but I haven't read anything

15 on it.

16 Q. Do you know whether that study prescribes

17 the hester-dendy sampling method as being the

18 operative way of determining compliance with that

19 rule?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Why was this litter sampling method

22 employed as opposed to the hester-dendy method, or

23 maybe using dip net?

24 A. I think it is a common way that is used,

25 has been used in a number of other studies.

1 Q. A number of other studies in the Everglades

2 or just generally in the scientific field?

3 A. In general.

4 Q. Are there some particular advantages to

5 using that litter method as opposed to the other two

6 I just identified?

7 A. If you want to look at the decomposition

8 rates and relate that to macroinvertebrate

9 colonization, it is a good way to combine the two.

10 Q. 0Q. Okay. Does it have any other

11 attribute vis-a-vis the other two studies identified?

12 A. Not that I am aware of.

13 Q. On page 4 at bottom of the page under the

14 subheading Methods, the report reflects that two

15 sample sites were selected for this study: Site D1.0

16 and site D6.7. Do you know how these particular sites

17 were chosen?

18 A. No, I do not.

19 Q. Did Ms. Urban choose them?

20 A. I don't know that.

21 Q. Well, then the report next reflects a few

22 sentences down that "site selection was based on two

23 factors. Both were used in earlier studies and

24 classified as enriched and background sites", and

25 both had sawgrass and cattail stands present, but not

1 in close proximity to each other. Do you think those

2 were the operative reasons for why these two sites

3 were chosen?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. Have you ever been to these sites?

6 A. No, I have not.

7 Q. Who actually collected the data from these

8 sites?

9 A. I believe it was Nancy Urban and Steve

10 Davis.

11 Q. Moving on now to page 6, line 18 indicates

12 that, "Surface water depths were measured in both

13 sawgrass and cattail stands on each sample date at

14 both sites and were determined as the difference

15 between the surface of the standing water and a fixed

16 mark on conduit pipes placed in each stand." Is

17 information concerning these surface water depths

18 reflected anywhere in this report?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. Could you perhaps check for me?

21 A. Yeah. I don't see it listed as any of the

22 tables.

23 Q. Might it be reflected in any of the raw

24 data which is set forth in Exhibit 3?

25 A. Yes. Actually, I don't know if it would in

1 this particular data set or not. It would not be

2 part of this set of spread sheets.

3 Q. Okay. Is there another set of spread

4 sheets that is relevant to this study?

5 A. I don't believe there is a set of spread

6 sheets, no.

7 Q. Well, is there another set of data --

8 A. No.

9 Q. -- that is part of this?

10 A. Not that I know of.

11 Q. Is there any document in which such

12 information as to surface water depths is reflected?

13 A. There is one.

14 Q. Okay. Do you know who has possession of

15 that document?

16 A. I believe that we turned it over to legal.

17 MR. HYDE: I would like to get a copy of

18 that, if it is at all possible.

19 MS. BIRCH: It has been provided to the

20 League. I think if you speak to Joe Richard --

21 MR. HYDE: Okay. I will do so. I'll take

22 you at your word on it.

23 BY MR. HYDE:

24 Q. Could you give me a description of what

25 this document would have looked like?

1 A. If I recall, it was a one-page piece of

2 paper that had water depths listed by date at each

3 site.

4 Q. Do you recall generally what the water

5 depths were at these sawgrass cattail stands at the

6 sample dates?

7 A. I don't recall.

8 Q. Do you recall whether one was deeper than

9 the other?

10 A. I don't recall, no.

11 Q. So you don't know whether the sawgrass was

12 deeper or the cattail was deeper?

13 A. No.

14 Q. The next sentence, line 22, reflects that

15 surface water temperature readings were also taken.

16 Why were you interested in looking at surface water

17 temperatures?

18 A. I believe it was just general information.

19 Q. The next line reflects that, "Species

20 richness, evenness, and diversity (Shannon index)

21 were calculated." When you say Shannon index, are

22 you referring to the Shannon Weaver index?

23 A. I believe that is correct, yes.

24 Q. Okay. What do you understand the term or

25 phrase "species richness" to mean?

1 A. Total number of species.

2 Q. Okay. And what is species evenness?

3 A. The way they are distributed --

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. -- among species.

6 Q. Well, in that category, do you look to

7 whether something is even versus uneven?

8 A. You look at how the species are distributed

9 amongst each other.

10 Q. Well, I guess I am harkening back to just

11 the term itself; even. Do you look to see whether

12 the distribution is even -- that is, they are more or

13 less the same throughout -- or do you look for

14 different relationships?

15 A. You don't look for any relationships. You

16 determine whether it is even or not by the total

17 number of species that occur in each category or each

18 species itself.

19 Q. Okay. How do you determine species

20 diversity under the Shannon Weaver index?

21 A. There is a formula.

22 Q. Can you explain to me your understanding of

23 that formula?

24 A. It simply is a combination of species

25 richness and evenness, and it results in a number; an

1 index.

2 Q. Did that Shannon Weaver index reveal an

3 increase or a decrease according to the index?

4 A. It was a decrease in diversity.

5 Q. Okay. How much of a decrease?

6 A. It is a relative term.

7 Q. Well, can you relate it to a percentage

8 decrease?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Is there any way one could look at the data

11 that you have here and calculate that decrease?

12 A. They could calculate the two diversity

13 indices, yes.

14 Q. Okay. That was not done here, though?

15 A. Yes, it was.

16 Q. Can you point out where that was actually

17 performed?

18 A. I believe it was the data that we had

19 looked at earlier.

20 Q. Table 3?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. How would you go about comparing

23 site D6.7 to site D.10 -- or D1.0 -- excuse me -- for

24 the Shannon Weaver index? Which numbers are you

25 going to compare to which?

1 A. You would compare sawgrass to sawgrass, and

2 cattail to cattail.

3 Q. Okay. Do you divide one into the other?

4 A. No. No. They are just a number.

5 Q. Okay. Again, at the bottom of page 6, line

6 25 -- by the way, I like the reference to the

7 numbered sentences; it makes it a lot easier -- it

8 states, "Invertebrates were grouped into the

9 following functional feeding groups: Scrapers,

10 collectors/gatherers, shredders and predators." Why

11 did you group them as such?

12 A. The groupings are common practice, and we

13 did it to look at if there were any trends in

14 functional feeding groups.

15 Q. Okay. Did you notice any trends?

16 A. No, we did not.

17 Q. Okay. Would you describe for me what a

18 "scraper" is?

19 A. Something that has adapted for scraping

20 algae off rocks, for instance.

21 Q. Okay. Could you give me a specific example

22 of what that macroinvertebrate might be?

23 A. A snail.

24 Q. Okay. The next category is collectors/

25 gatherers. What is that?

1 A. It would be an invertebrate that foraged on

2 the bottom, collecting and gathering bits of

3 detritus.

4 Q. Would you give me a representative example

5 of that?

6 A. A lot of the beetles are gatherers.

7 MR. ROSENBERG: I didn't hear what your

8 answer was.

9 THE WITNESS: Beetles.

10 BY MR. HYDE:

11 Q. Okay. The next group is shredders. What

12 are they?

13 A. That is something that actually bites and

14 chews and shreds plant material.

15 Q. Okay. And again give me a representative

16 example.

17 A. A caterpillar.

18 Q. Okay. And the final group is predators.

19 What are they?

20 A. Obviously, they eat other animals.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. And beetles would be again a good example.

23 Q. Would crayfish also fall in that category?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Do they fall in any of these

1 categories?

2 A. I would probably put them with the

3 collectors/gatherers.

4 Q. Okay. Page 7, line 3, reads, "Analysis of

5 covariance" -- I guess that is the acronym ANCOVA --

6 "with both forward and backward stepping was used to

7 establish a model to describe the litter

8 decomposition data." Could you explain to me this

9 concept of "analysis of covariance"?

10 A. I was not involved with this.

11 Q. Okay. So you don't understand how that was

12 done?

13 A. Not this particular instance.

14 Q. Do you understand what the writer of this

15 sentence meant regarding forward and backward

16 stepping?

17 A. I know that they are two models.

18 Q. Okay. On line 8 there is a discussion

19 about angular transformation being used for the

20 dependent variable. Do you know what the author is

21 referring to there?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Line 12 reads, "We analyzed the variables

24 affecting the distribution of invertebrates using

25 canonical discriminant analysis, CDA," I guess, then

1 there is a semicolon -- "SAS, 1988, to assess the

2 presence of patterns in invertebrate communities

3 related to environmental variation." Can you

4 describe for me what canonical discriminant analysis

5 is?

6 A. Canonical discriminant analysis is a

7 statistical step that doesn't transform, but it forms

8 linear combinations of variables that best separate

9 the two groups.

10 Q. Okay. Why does one employ that exercise in

11 a study such as this?

12 A. It seemed to be the best way to analyze the

13 data.

14 Q. Okay. Is it a methodology that is a

15 generally accepted methodology within the profession?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Might you look to other types of analyses

18 to yield the same or similar results?

19 A. It is possible.

20 Q. Were you responsible for doing this

21 particular aspect of the report?

22 A. No, I was not. Well, I was in the

23 analysis. I was not in the decision to run it or the

24 actual running of the program itself.

25 Q. Line 21 of your report reflects, "Species

1 abundance was grouped into categories to indicate the

2 relative abundance as follows" and then it goes on to

3 state how that is done. Why did you employ this

4 grouping in your report?

5 A. I believe that is explained on the next

6 page.

7 Q. Well, is that the statement, "To compromise

8 between meeting the normality requirements and

9 minimizing outliers"?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. What do you mean by "meeting the normality

12 requirements"?

13 A. Normality is if you have a bell shaped

14 curve, normal distribution.

15 Q. Okay. What about minimizing outliers?

16 A. Well, outliers are the ones that are way

17 off of that curve.

18 Q. Sort of refer to outliers as being sort of

19 a glitch in the data?

20 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

21 THE WITNESS: No.

22 BY MR. HYDE:

23 Q. A previous sentence, beginning at line 3,

24 reads, "CDA is very sensitive to outliers, but is

25 robust to deviations from normality". What do you

1 mean by that, in lay terms?

2 A. Actually, it was the best -- based on data

3 sets, it was the best statistical package to use for

4 this, because we did have outliers.

5 Q. Who was responsible for actually

6 identifying the invertebrate species that were

7 collected?

8 A. It was a gentleman named Ed Terczak.

9 Q. Is he the same Terczak that did a report

10 for the Water Management District in 1980 on impacts

11 on benthic macroinvertebrate communities from

12 nutrient enrichment?

13 A. I believe that is correct.

14 Q. Is he still in the employ of the District?

15 A. Yes, he is, to the best of my knowledge.

16 Q. Did you attempt to corroborate his

17 identification or did you just accept it for being

18 accurate for purposes of the study?

19 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

20 THE WITNESS: I had to accept it.

21 BY MR. HYDE:

22 Q. Okay. So you were relying, in effect, on

23 what he did?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Did he likewise do the calculations

1 regarding species diversity as measured by the

2 Shannon Weaver index?

3 A. I don't know that he did that or not.

4 Q. Did you?

5 A. I did.

6 Q. You did?

7 A. I did, yes.

8 Q. Okay. Is that the same for richness and

9 evenness?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Okay. On page 10, line 8, your study

12 reads, "Another indicator of the biological health or

13 trophic state of the study sites is the relative

14 abundance of Chironomidae" -- I can't keep these --

15 A. Chironomidae.

16 Q. -- "and Oligochaeta". Why do you say that?

17 A. Chironomidae and Oligochaeta are typically

18 found in highly enriched areas, or common in those

19 areas.

20 Q. Are they only found in those areas?

21 A. No.

22 Q. So they can live in all sorts of different

23 habitat; would that be correct?

24 A. Correct. And they do very well in highly

25 enriched environments.

1 Q. Let me ask you just a general question.

2 Does this study purport to show that these shifts in

3 macroinvertebrate communities are having an adverse

4 impact on higher trophic species?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether that

7 is the case?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Does this study purport to show that these

10 shifts are having an adverse impact on the Everglades

11 habitat?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Okay. Moving on now to line 20, which

14 reads, "Canonical discriminant analysis resulted in a

15 distinct separation of the eight indicator species

16 based on nutrient levels, with canonical variable 1

17 exhibiting the most discriminatory power for both

18 vegetation types," and then it refers to Figure 3;

19 could you explain that statement to me in lay terms?

20 A. Yeah. If we look at Figure 3, it might

21 help. First off, canonical variable 1 is the first

22 linear combination that I discussed earlier.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. And that is the essentially the axis. And

25 our nutrient levels H and L are what is plotted for

1 each replicate sample taken over the course of the

2 study. And along canonical variable 1 there is a

3 distinct separation between the individuals in the

4 high nutrient condition and the low nutrient

5 condition. Just look at the relative placement along

6 that axis.

7 Q. Is Figure 3 referring to the nutrient

8 enriched site?

9 A. It is both sites.

10 Q. Oh, it is both sites. Well, what did the

11 letters in Figure 3 stand for?

12 A. Low and high for nutrients.

13 Q. Okay. So they are just L and H?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. The reason I ask is that on my copy, some

16 of them look like they might be M's.

17 A. No. L and H.

18 Q. Okay. The next sentence on page 10 reads,

19 "Analysis of the raw canonical coefficients (Table 5)

20 within the cattail sites shows that the snail" -- and

21 I won't even pretend to say that -- "and isopod had

22 particularly discriminating power." What did you

23 mean by discriminating power?

24 A. If we can look at Table 5, the coefficients

25 under CAN 1 and CAN 2 represent the discriminating

1 power. Again, it is a relative thing. Those

2 negative values, the species associated with those

3 negative values, acted differently than the species

4 associated with the higher values. These numbers

5 don't actually stand for anything. It is a relative.

6 Q. Okay. Well, when you say they are

7 discriminating, how do you mean?

8 A. Very high or very low values.

9 Q. Do you mean discriminating between habitat

10 types or between nutrients -- nutrient enriched

11 versus nutrient poor conditions?

12 A. In this case, it's between nutrient rich

13 and nutrient poor.

14 Q. So you would say that the snail and the

15 isopod basically didn't like the nutrient enriched

16 site, but it liked the nutrient poor site?

17 A. They responded differently at those two

18 sites.

19 Q. Page 11, bottom of the page, line 18 reads,

20 "Invertebrate colonization of litter was highly

21 variable across sites, litter species, and

22 invertebrate order, with maximum numbers occurring

23 between 75 and 100 days. (Figures 5 and 6)." What

24 do you mean by highly variable in the context of that

25 sentence?

1 A. There was no distinct pattern observed.

2 Q. Okay. On the next page, I guess as a

3 follow-up to that, beginning on line 7 you state,

4 "This apparent lack of correlation between the

5 trophic structure or number of invertebrates present

6 in the leafpacks with the decomposition rates of the

7 leaf litter is not unusual," and then a cite, "and

8 may suggest that benthic invertebrates are able to

9 exploit a range of detrital inputs." Could you

10 explain that general statement to me in lay terms?

11 A. Basically it means that because there was

12 no correlation, that benthic invertebrates may not

13 have to wait until the leaves begin to decay before

14 they can begin to utilize them as a food source.

15 Q. Okay. Page 13, line 17 reads, "Results of

16 this study indicate that there were differences in

17 species composition and diversity between the two

18 site locations, which had significantly different

19 surface water nutrients concentrations." Where in

20 the study are those differences specifically

21 identified?

22 A. Table 1.

23 Q. Okay. I would like to call your attention

24 now to page 14, line 1, which reads, "Although both

25 studies investigated relationships between surface

1 water nutrient concentrations and invertebrate

2 communities, use of" --

3 MS. BIRCH: Excuse me, Bill. I don't think

4 we are on the same page.

5 MR. HYDE: Page 15.

6 MS. BIRCH: You said 14.

7 MR. HYDE: I'm sorry. I was looking at the

8 bottom of the page. Page 15. Excuse me.

9 THE WITNESS: Sure.

10 BY MR. HYDE:

11 Q. Line 1, reading, "Although both studies

12 investigated relationships between surface water

13 nutrient concentrations and invertebrate communities,

14 use of different field sampling techniques and

15 sampling in unlike habitats generated contradictory

16 results." I take it you were referring here to the

17 Rader, Richardson study?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. What field sampling techniques did that

20 other study employ?

21 A. I believe in part they used dip net, among

22 others which I don't recall.

23 Q. You say here also that they sampled in

24 unlike habitat.

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. Could you explain that statement in a

2 little more detail?

3 A. That is comparing our study to their study.

4 We looked at the benthic litter layer, the

5 decomposing plant material, and they looked at

6 submerged vegetation.

7 Q. Okay. That isn't meant to be a criticism

8 of their study then, it is just they did it a little

9 differently than you?

10 A. It was just different.

11 Q. Okay. Do you regard your method of

12 sampling to be preferable to the sweep net sampling

13 that was employed by the Rader, Richardson study?

14 A. I don't think you can compare them in this

15 instance.

16 Q. Okay. Well, are you saying, or purporting

17 to say, that the results in your study are better,

18 qualitatively, than the results yielded by

19 Richardson, Rader?

20 A. No.

21 Q. On line 8 of that same page you state,

22 "Although differences in species diversity and

23 composition and water quality existed between the two

24 sites, the lack of replication among areas of

25 different nutrient status makes statistical analysis

1 of nutrient impacts difficult". What did you mean by

2 that?

3 A. There was no replication of treatments, so

4 to do any statistical analyses to see if nutrient

5 concentrations were in fact the cause between the

6 differences in communities, we were unable to do

7 that.

8 Q. Okay. Is that perhaps another way of

9 saying that you needed to do more than just two sites --

10 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

11 BY MR. HYDE:

12 Q. -- to yield good results?

13 A. There needs to be replication.

14 Q. What do you mean by replication then?

15 Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of the term.

16 A. A treatment replication.

17 Q. Okay. Well, does that mean that you do the

18 sampling at another similar site?

19 A. That would be correct.

20 Q. Okay. Approximately how many replicated

21 sampling efforts would one have to employ to yield

22 that kind of good result?

23 A. I'm not sure I understand.

24 Q. Well, it states in the next line, "Studies

25 are needed that will have adequate replication in

1 order to facilitate statistical analyses."

2 A. At least two.

3 Q. At least two? At least two more?

4 A. At least two so that you can compare.

5 Q. Okay. Well, your sentence -- I understood

6 this paragraph to mean that what was done to date was

7 not adequate, and that you really needed to do more.

8 Am I misreading something there?

9 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

10 BY MR. HYDE:

11 Q. You may go ahead and answer.

12 A. We need to -- more research needs to be

13 done in this area. That was the basis of that.

14 Q. Okay. Well, what additional research would

15 you like to see done?

16 A. I would like to see a replicated study.

17 Q. Is that all?

18 A. That is all that I can think of at the

19 moment.

20 Q. Okay. When you say a replicated study,

21 would you have someone go out and do the same study

22 at the same sites or would you have someone go out

23 and do a similar study at a similar site?

24 A. I don't see any problem in using the same

25 site with replication.

1 Q. At line 13 the report reads, "Further

2 information on the distribution of macro

3 invertebrates within and between habitat types,

4 invertebrate production, and the effects of physical

5 and chemical parameters (dissolved oxygen,

6 temperature, hydroperiod, mercury, et cetera) on the

7 distribution of invertebrates is needed to provide a

8 better understanding of the overall dynamics of the

9 Everglades". Am I correct in understanding that

10 passage to mean that the information to date is

11 inadequate to fully analyze these impacts?

12 A. I would say that is correct.

13 Q. Okay. Why would you be looking at

14 dissolved oxygen?

15 A. Dissolved oxygen is a parameter that

16 certainly would affect distribution of invertebrates.

17 Q. How so?

18 A. Well, low dissolved oxygen would eliminate

19 a lot of the oxygen intolerant species.

20 Q. Okay. Why would you be looking at

21 temperature?

22 A. It would just be another parameter to look

23 at.

24 Q. Okay. Would some species be more tolerant

25 of higher temperatures? Is that what you're driving

1 at there?

2 A. Certainly, yes.

3 Q. What about hydroperiod?

4 A. Water fluctuations could be another factor

5 that would influence the distribution of

6 invertebrates.

7 Q. Okay. Has the District or anyone with the

8 District analyzed how hydroperiod is impacting upon

9 invertebrate populations?

10 A. I'm not aware of any.

11 Q. Do you think that is something that is

12 important to be done?

13 A. I think there's a lot of important work

14 that should be done.

15 Q. Would you regard that as being important

16 additional work that should be done?

17 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

18 THE WITNESS: I think that would be a good

19 study.

20 BY MR. HYDE:

21 Q. Why would you be looking at mercury?

22 A. Any type of chemical would affect

23 distributions.

24 Q. Well, why in particular mercury, as opposed

25 to some other chemical?

1 A. Mercury and any other chemical. There was

2 no specific reason for stating mercury.

3 Q. So this has nothing to do with some of the

4 notions that there is a mercury problem?

5 A. This paper doesn't address that at all.

6 Q. Okay. I would like to ask you just a few

7 follow-up questions about these various tables and

8 figures.

9 A. Sure.

10 Q. Table 2: Under Trophic Group, you have

11 various listings: C, G, PR -- does that mean

12 collector, gatherer, predator, et cetera?

13 A. Correct. Correct.

14 Q. Okay. And did you state earlier that you

15 did the actual calculations for species richness,

16 Shannon Weaver index, evenness on Table 3?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Would that likewise be correct for Table 4?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Why did you calculate relative abundance of

21 these Oligochaeta, Chironomidae and then relative

22 abundance of Taxa excluding those two species?

23 A. Because Oligochaeta and Chironomidae are

24 very tolerant of enriched areas, and an increase in

25 their relative abundance would give some indication

1 as to the trophic state of that particular area.

2 Q. Okay. What is meant by the bottom line on

3 Table 4, O:C ratio?

4 A. That is Oligochaeta to Chironomidae ratio.

5 Q. So the first one under D6.7 would be

6 1.98:1?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Okay. Let me ask you a general question

9 regarding Exhibit 2. Does this January 2, 1993 draft

10 differ significantly from the previous drafts of the

11 paper?

12 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

13 BY MR. HYDE:

14 Q. Do you understand my question?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Well, in other words, does it reflect any

17 significant changes in opinions or results?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay.

20 (The document was marked

21 Koebel Exb. No. 4.)

22 BY MR. HYDE:

23 Q. Would you identify what has been labeled as

24 Exhibit 4?

25 A. This is a copy of -- I don't know who it is

1 from -- Hunter Carrick, who reviewed this paper.

2 Q. Okay. Do you know why he was called upon

3 to review that particular paper?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Could I see this for a second?

6 A. Sure.

7 Q. Did you review these comments prior to

8 reworking your paper and ultimately resulting in the

9 January 21 draft?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you accept his criticisms or comments

12 and try to make the paper respond to them?

13 A. Yes, we try to respond to all of them.

14 Q. Okay. The bottom of page 1 of Exhibit 4,

15 under the subheading Study Areas, there is the

16 phrase, "You chose these two sites for a reason.

17 Perhaps you could present some background data that

18 contrasts these sites." Did you change your paper to

19 counter or take account of that comment?

20 A. I personally did not choose the two sites

21 and I don't believe that we made any changes based on

22 that statement.

23 Q. Okay. The top of the second page under the

24 subheading Methods, the first sentence reads, "Were

25 any invertebrate collections made from natural

1 cattail and sawgrass litter? This would indicate how

2 closely your litter bags reflected in situ

3 conditions." First of all, were any such collections

4 made from the litter?

5 A. Not to my knowledge.

6 Q. Okay. Do you know why that was not done?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Several lines down Mr. Carrick states, "I

9 feel uncomfortable about the CDA" and then goes into

10 his explanation about why he feels uncomfortable with

11 it.

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. Did you take into account his comments

14 there?

15 A. We contacted the individual who recommended

16 we do the CDA, and he justified it for us

17 sufficiently.

18 Q. Okay. Who was that individual?

19 A. That was Joel Trexler.

20 Q. Trexler?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Is he employed by the District?

23 A. No, he is not.

24 Q. Who is Mr. Trexler?

25 A. He is a -- I will call him a statistician.

1 I'm not sure if he is trained in statistics. I

2 believe he is. I believe he is with FAU, but that

3 may not be correct.

4 Q. Florida Atlantic University?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. Did you personally contact him or did

7 someone else?

8 A. I did not.

9 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Ms. Urban

10 contacted him?

11 A. I believe that she did.

12 Q. Okay. Underneath his subheading Results

13 and Discussion, he states, "Perhaps an alternative

14 explanation might apply here; Invertebrates do not

15 significantly influence litter decomposition rates.

16 It might follow that microbial activity is the

17 determining factor for detrital decomposition. This

18 is a widely accepted paradigm for open oceans and

19 lakes. This idea may be applicable to stream

20 systems, but this is debatable." I am deleting the

21 difficult citations there.

22 Q. Do you know what Mr. Carrick was referring

23 to in that regard?

24 A. The leaf litter is colonized by microbes

25 and algae. In turn, the macroinvertebrates colonize

1 the leaf litter, feeding on the microbes and the

2 algae, which aids in the decomposition of that

3 particular material.

4 Q. Okay. Did you take into account these

5 comments when you revised your draft of the paper?

6 A. We did not have any information on the

7 microbial community, so we really could not address

8 that particular question.

9 Q. Okay. Is that another way of saying it is

10 really beyond the scope of your study?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Okay.

13 MR. HYDE: Why don't we take a break for a

14 few minutes.

15 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

16 BY MR. HYDE:

17 Q. Mr. Koebel, the Water Management District

18 has designated you as an expert witness in the area

19 of biology, ecology, and macroinvertebrate

20 communities, and their answers to our interrogatories

21 indicated that the subject matter of your testimony

22 is expected to be macroinvertebrate community

23 structure, effect of phosphorus on structure and

24 function of macroinvertebrate communities. You'll be

25 analyzing macroinvertebrate data in the Everglades

1 Protection Area and WCA2-A in conjunction with water

2 quality data to determine relationships between

3 phosphorus concentrations and species diversity and

4 macroinvertebrate communities. Then the answers went

5 on to reflect that the substance of the facts and

6 opinions are based upon the report that we have been

7 going through here today. Do you intend to offer any

8 opinions other than those that found expression in

9 your January 13, 1993 draft?

10 A. No.

11 Q. So when the answers to the interrogatories

12 speak about macroinvertebrate community structure,

13 that is in the context of that paper?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And that is similar for the other

16 categories for which you were listed?

17 A. That is correct. Everything refers to this

18 paper.

19 Q. Okay. Good. Were you provided with a copy

20 of our notice of taking deposition duces tecum?

21 A. Yes, I was.

22 MR. HYDE: Okay. Let's label that Exhibit

23 5.

24 (The document was marked

25 Koebel Exb. No. 5)

1 BY MR. HYDE:

2 Q. Would you please identify Exhibit 5 for me,

3 Mr. Koebel?

4 A. This is the -- I believe it is called duces

5 tecum.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. This is what I received.

8 Q. Okay. I would like you to turn to page 7

9 of Exhibit 5. Did you review the nine listed

10 paragraphs under the subheading Documents to be

11 Produced?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And have you, in fact, produced all the

14 documents that were listed in those nine paragraphs?

15 A. To the best of my knowledge, I have.

16 Q. Okay. Have you or your attorney withheld

17 any documents from production to us?

18 A. Not to my knowledge.

19 MR. HYDE: Is that in fact the case?

20 MS. BIRCH: There are no withheld

21 documents.

22 BY MR. HYDE:

23 Q. Okay. Very good. I have a few follow-up

24 questions for you in general categories.

25 Do you intend to offer any testimony or

1 opinions as to the design, construction, creation or

2 use of the Stormwater Treatment Areas?

3 A. No.

4 Q. What about the 50 part per billion

5 limitation for waters being discharged from the STAs?

6 A. I don't have any anticipation of dealing

7 with that.

8 Q. Will you be offering any testimony as to

9 either the short-term or long-term phosphorus limits

10 established for the Loxahatchee Refuge?

11 A. Not to my knowledge.

12 Q. For the long-term or short-term limits for

13 phosphorus established for the Everglades National

14 Park?

15 A. Not to my knowledge.

16 Q. Do you intend to offer any testimony as to

17 violations of water quality criteria for dissolved

18 oxygen?

19 A. No.

20 Q. For the narrative nutrients?

21 A. I'm not sure what that means.

22 Q. For the Narrative Nutrients Standard?

23 A. Oh, I'm not aware of that.

24 Q. Okay. For the Nuisance Species Standard?

25 A. I'm not aware of that either.

1 Q. Okay. For biological integrity?

2 A. I don't intend to, no.

3 Q. For the Department of Environmental

4 Regulations, Water Quality Criteria Relating to

5 Outstanding Florida Waters?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Did you ever assist in the preparation or

8 promulgation of the Everglades SWIM Plan or any

9 particular portions of that document?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you ever have any involvement in the

12 settlement negotiations that were had in the federal

13 litigation prior to this case?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Do you know what I am referring to when I

16 say federal litigation?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether the

19 changes or shifts in macroinvertebrate community that

20 you have identified in your paper constitute a,

21 quote, imbalance under the Narrative Nutrients Rule?

22 A. The only thing I can say about that is that

23 the data that we looked at in this paper, it does

24 seem to indicate that there are differences in the

25 species composition of those two communities.

1 Nutrient concentrations may be one thing that has

2 caused those differences.

3 Q. Okay. But there are other factors also

4 which you have alluded to in your paper?

5 A. I don't know that we have alluded to other

6 factors.

7 Q. Well, I think -- didn't you suggest that

8 hydroperiod is something that one would like to look

9 to?

10 A. I think that is an area of research that

11 needs to be looked at.

12 Q. Okay. What other factors by your lights,

13 other than nutrients, might be affecting the species

14 composition of the macroinvertebrate community?

15 MS. BIRCH: What is the question?

16 BY MR. HYDE:

17 Q. What other factors might be affecting the

18 species composition of the macroinvertebrate

19 community in the Everglades ecosystem?

20 A. It could be --

21 MS. BIRCH: Objection; calls for

22 speculation.

23 BY MR. HYDE:

24 Q. You may answer.

25 A. It could be any food source, differences in

1 food sources, it could be hydrology, it could be

2 dissolved oxygen, it could be other contaminants.

3 There is not any information on it.

4 Q. Will you be expressing any opinion in the

5 upcoming proceeding as to whether the changes in

6 macroinvertebrate community constitute a violation of

7 the Nuisance Species Standard or that species that

8 you have observed constitute nuisance species?

9 A. I don't intend to.

10 MR. HYDE: Okay. I think I have concluded.

11 I will let you instruct your witness.

12 Mr. Koebel, thank you very much for your

13 time today.

14 THE WITNESS: My pleasure.

15 MS. BIRCH: He will want to read the

16 transcript.

17 (Witness excused.)

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

The State of Florida )

3 County of Palm Beach. )

I, Elaine V. Williams, Professional

5 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at

large, do hereby certify that Joseph Koebel was by me

6 first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I

was authorized to and did report said deposition in

7 stenotype; and that the foregoing pages, numbered

from 1 to 64 inclusive, are a true and correct

8 transcription of my shorthand notes of said

deposition.

I further certify that the said deposition

10 was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth

and that the taking of said deposition was commenced

11 and completed as hereinabove set out.

12 I further certify that I am not attorney or

counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or

13 employee of any attorney or counsel or party

connected with the action, nor am I financially

14 interested in the action.

15 The foregoing certification of this

transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the

16 same by any means unless under the direct control

and/or direction of the certifying reporter.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my

18 hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1993.

_______________________________

21 Elaine V. Williams, CP, CM

Notary Public, State of Florida

22 at large. My commission expires

March 27, 1993.

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 - - -

4 The State of Florida, )

5 County of Palm Beach. )

8 I hereby certify that I have read the

9 foregoing deposition by me given, and that the

10 statements contained therein are true and correct to

11 the best of my knowledge and belief.

13 Dated this ____ day of______________ 1993.

18 _________________________

19 Joseph Koebel

1 DATE: February 2, 1993

2 TO: Joseph Koebel

1290 Snowbell Plabe

3 West Palm Beach, Florida

4 RE: Sugar Cane Growers v SFWMD

5 Please take notice that on January 26, 1993 you

gave your deposition in the above referred matter.

6 At that time you did not waive signature. It is now

necessary that you sign your deposition.

Please come to our office, 319 Clematis

8 Street, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida, at any

time between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

9 Monday through Friday, to sign the deposition.

Notice that this address may be different than the

10 one where you gave your deposition.

11 If you do not appear to sign your

deposition within thirty (30) days, the original will

12 be forwarded to the attorney who requested your

appearance for deposition, for filing with the Clerk

13 of the Court. If you wish to waive your signature,

sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this

14 page and return to us.

15 Very truly yours,

16 MUDRICK, WITT, LEVY & CONSOR

REPORTING AGENCY, INC.

18 ____________________________

Elaine V. Williams

19 NOTARY PUBLIC

I do hereby waive my signature:

22 ______________________________

Joseph Koebel

cc:

24 cc:

cc: