ÿWPCD
Intervenors.
______________________________________/



99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida
March 31, 1994
9:00 o'clock a.m.




Deposition_of_Doctor_William_Patrick_(Cont.'d)
__________ __ ______ _______ _______ _________

Taken before Joan Carol Ocker, Court Reporter and

Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
Large,

pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the
above

cause.Ô Miami, Florida 33131
BY: Paul L Nettleton, Esq.

ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Sokup





- - - - - - - - -



I-N-D-E-X _ _ _ _ _
WITNESS: PAGE_ _______ ____
Dr. William Patrick
Direct Examination by Ms. Ponzoli (cont.'d) 218







- - - - - - - - -










JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


218



1 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONT.'D)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
2 Q. Dr. Patrick, you have brought, or your attorney
has brought a number of documents we had discussed
3 yesterday, and I would like to identify them and just
understand what it was.
4 You produced a portion of a transcript that you had
reviewed prior to coming. Because of the length of the
5 transcript, I don't think I'm going to attach it to the
record, unless somebody has a particular desire. But I
6 would like to know the purpose for which you reviewed this
transcript.
7 A. Well, I didn't review the whole transcript. As I
indicated to you, I cited the transcript as containing a
8 statement by Tom Fontaine that it would take a year or two
for the constructed wetlands in the ENR to reach the point
9 where they would be processing the drainage water.
Q. Is that really pretty much the purpose for which
10 you read this transcript?
A. Well, no, it wasn't the purpose for which I read
11 it. I just read it because it was furnished to me and I
went through it. That was the point that caught my
12 attention, which I cited yesterday, since there was some
question about how long it would take for the STA's to
13 achieve their desired effect on phosphorus removal.
Q. Did anything else in the transcript strike you as
14 noteworthy?
A. Well, yes. The apparent anxiety of the board
15 over their EPA'S letter maybe of noncompliance. I'm not
sure. A letter requiring that they get a permit for
16 discharge. And apparently there was some mention of
criminal penalties associated with that that several of
17 the board members commented on. That's about all I
remember from that.
18 Q. Do you have any experience in testifying on
meeting compliance within NPDES?
19 A. I don't recall that I have.
Q. Do you anticipate that you will be called upon to
20 offer any testimony in that regard in this particular
case?
21 A. No, I don't have any idea if I will.
Q. I'm going to hand you --
22 A. Apart from the projected level of phosphorus to
be achieved by the proposed STA's, which I assume will
23 also be required to meet the same standards.
Q. Just so that I am clear. As I recall your
24 testimony yesterday, it was the time factor that you
disagreed with on the STA's. You felt that it would take
25 six to eight years, maybe even up to ten years to achieve





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


219



1 the 50 ppb as opposed to a shorter time frame that you
referred to as Mr. Fontaine did, Dr. Fontaine, at the
2 board meeting. Is that accurate?
A. Yes.
3 Q. Let me hand you the next document that you
produced and ask you if you will identify it for us. We
4 marked it as Patrick 3.
A. These are the results of the field redox study
5 that I established in conjunction with Dr. Davis in
various parts of the water conservation areas.
6 Q. And is it my understanding that you will be
testifying on the redox and not Dr. Davis?
7 A. Yes. I don't know about Dr. Davis, but I
anticipate testifying.
8 Q. I would like to review those before I question
you on them. I just want to identify them for the record
9 right now.
I'm going to hand you Patrick Number 4 and ask you if
10 you would identify that, Dr. Patrick.
A. The first page shows the redox sample locations
11 in water conservation area 2A and 3.
Q. Did you use the same sample locations for your
12 phosphorus, your peat accretion and mercury that we
referred to yesterday in Patrick Number 2? There was BP
13 40, 50 - I don't recall all the numbers.
A. I don't believe that's exactly the same location.
14 I mean, they are -- It's at the same distance, and as I
recall, very close to the sample sites and is designed to
15 represent the sample sites.
Q. Is this why there is a BP-10A? That would
16 represent a little different site from BP-10?
A. Yes. R is for redox. And these are just A and B
17 were the replicates. And the BP-10 through 60R were the
redox sites, but at the same distance south of the 10C
18 structure.
Q. I'm going to return to this, but just so we can
19 identify it. This is a composite exhibit. Is the second
page -- What is the second page, Dr. Patrick --
20 A. The second page --
Q. -- other than extremely difficult to read?
21 A. The second page shows sample locations in the
Loxahatchee for, I think, the ESP sampling stations. And
22 it also shows the BP stations in water conservation area
2A, which are, incidentally, blown up on the next page.
23 Q. Now, are these redox the ones we're looking at on
the third page of this exhibit?
24 A. No, they are the same general location as the
redox, but they are the phosphorus and cesium locations.
25 Q. And these are the same ones from yesterday that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


220



1 we discussed?
A. Yes. And continuing on with the second page of
2 this, the high concentration of sample locations farther
south in water conservation area 3, represent a large
3 number of the samples that we discussed yesterday. And
this area is blown up on the fourth page, so you can see
4 it in more detail.
Q. And these are the phosphorus and mercury samples,
5 phosphorus, cesium and mercury?
A. Not cesium.
6 Q. You only did cesium along 10C?
A. Yes. These are the other samples that the
7 results of which you had yesterday, which we discussed in
some detail.
8 Q. And the numbers are not designations would match,
is that accurate? If I wanted to match the data with the
9 location, that would match?
A. Yes. That's the case at least for all except
10 possibly the ESP samples, which were samples that were
taken by Dr. Davis and/or his staff. I think our only
11 participation in those was to analyzes the phosphorus in
those. But the others - and there are a few of those -
12 but all of the others are samples locations that I took
cores myself.
13 Q. Did you use any other dating techniques other
than cesium?
14 A. No.
Q. I would like to return to that one also, since we
15 identified it.
A. That one being what?
16 Q. Patrick 4. I would like to return and discuss
it. I just want to identify these and get them into the
17 record and continue.
I'm going to hand you Patrick 6 and ask you to please
18 identify that.
A. This document shows the sample designation --
19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Six or five?
Q. I apologize.
20 A I have six.
Q. I have six also. I probably did them out of
21 order. We'll just do six.
A. Six is the one I have in front of me.
22 Q. Right.
A. Six shows the sample location, the vegetation
23 type, the actual ground location, latitude and longitude,
the characteristics of the cores, the inside/outside depth
24 and the water depth, and comments on the make at the time
of sample.
25 Q. Now, do these designations of locations match the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


221



1 maps in Patrick 4?
A. Yes.
2 Q. And these will match with your phosphorus and
whatever other sampling you did at the at various
3 locations?
A. Yes.
4 Q. You would put these together, and it's my
understanding that you intend to give testimony at trial
5 based upon all of this data and your interpretation of it;
is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
Q. I would like to take either at a break or lunch
7 or something and look at these things together, if I can,
before we discuss them.
8 Just so I'm clear from what we said yesterday,
though, you did indicate that a number of the sites had,
9 in your opinion, background phosphorus at them. Is that
accurate?
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you read that back --
Q. Remember we went through the tables of the
11 phosphorus?
A. Yes.
12 Q. And I asked you to indicate to me which of the
sites from the phosphorus readings would be an unenriched
13 - I believe that's the term we used - unenriched site?
A. Apparently unenriched. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Okay. So now I guess we'll need to go back to
Patrick 5. I'll hand you Patrick 5. Can you identify
15 Patrick 5 for me?
A. The first seven pages of Patrick 5 contain the
16 results of a separate sampling in the northern part of 3A
made in January, '94 by myself and Dr. Davis, in which we
17 went into areas of typha and caladium and took core
samples. And we were guided in this in a general way by a
18 staff member of Breedlove and Dennis who had helped map
this. So when he identified the general area, then we
19 went in and made specific selections of sites that had
these different vegetation types and we took cores and
20 measured water depth and characterized the area in which
you see here. There were seven of those locations. The
21 eighth page shows a location map of those sites.
Q. Okay. The squares are the several of the
22 seven -- Excuse me. The seven sites?
A. Yes.
23 Q. And the two dots, are those just structure dots,
the S-150 and S-7?
24 A. Yes. Three dots to the left.
Q. The following map?
25 A. The following map is what is left of Loxahatchee





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


222



1 after sampling.
The following page, the ninth page, shows sample
2 locations in the water conservation area 1, the
Loxahatchee refuge, and contains new information on our
3 additional core samples made just in recent days that were
designed to supplement our initial transects.
4 Q. These are the ones you did on the 28th? They
have already been done? Your recent is not as recent at
5 my recent.
A. The 28th of what?
6 Q. March.
MS. PONZOLI: Didn't you go in on the 28th of
7 March?
MR. KOBELINSKI: You lost me with your recent is
8 not my recent. I don't know when we went in. I
think that is what Dr. Patrick is referring to.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
10 Q. The 28th is on here?
A. I'm not exactly sure the date. I think that's
11 right. It was just in the last few days. It was the 28th
or 27th.
12 Q. Will you identify those and tell me which ones
those are?
13 A. Yes, I can.
Q. Will you please mark them on there for me?
14 A. They are already identified.
Q. All right. Just tell me which ones.
15 A. They are at the bottom, which is near 10C, north
of 10C structures. LR32, 33 and 34.
16 Q. Is that it?
A. On the bottom it is. On the west site about
17 halfway up, they are 30 -- No, maybe it's 29. Well, it
may be 20 -- These are numbered. There are LR28, 29, 30
18 and 31.
Q. Yes, sir.
19 A. You see those?
Q. Yes, sir. I see an 18 also, and a 19.
20 A. The 18 and 19 were from a previous transect. And
these were -- These are the new samples. And I think
21 that's all, as best I can make out from this map.
Q. And the purpose of these new samples, would you
22 please tell me what that purpose was?
A. Was to better delineate the transects, the west
23 to east transect across the mid part of Loxahatchee, and
the south to north transect going north from 10C.
24 Q. Was this to determine where you reached
background within the refuge?
25 A. Yes.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


223



1 Q. Was that the purpose?
A. Yes.
2 Q. And what is the surface soil reading of
phosphorus at those locations, approximately?
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: Which locations?
A. Well, the ones that were just taken?
4 Q. Where you reached background. When do you think
you are reaching background?
5 A. In the west to east transect?
Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. Which is our first sample, was 18.
Q. That was early on, right?
7 A. Yes. I think at 19 it went from west to east.
The spacing I selected was one sample location very near
8 the edge near, I think it's the L-7.
Q. And that would be near the canal, the LR18 would
9 be near the canal, LR18?
A. Yes. The way it looks here, and as I recall,
10 that was the number. Anyway, there was a sample located
near the canal. Then the next sample was at some
11 distance. Perhaps I don't have the document in front of
me. You do have it.
12 Q. Which one is it? Do you know?
A. It's the Loxahatchee data. But it's not
13 important right now.
Q. No, we can do it later? But you do believe it's
14 among this pile of documents?
A. Right.
15 Q. Okay.
A. The next sample site is 19, and then maybe 28 was
16 the next. And I increased the distance of sampling as I
went. But I discovered on analyzing these, that the only
17 station that had elevated phosphorus was 18. By the time
I got to 19 I was at background levels of phosphorus.
18 Q. That's the number I wanted. Can you give me what
you believe the background number for the soil phosphorus
19 is?
A. It would be somewhere in the 500 part-per-million
20 range. It may be somewhere a little lower.
Q. Parts per million?
21 A. Yes. In the Loxahatchee. But we can see that in
detail when we get --
22 Q. No, I agree.
A. And so as a result of having missed the
23 transition area with my grid with my transect sampling, I
requested that we be allowed to take additional samples
24 along that transect to properly delineate the transition
area where there was a decrease in phosphorus, because the
25 phosphorus was high at 18 right adjacent to the canal.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


224



1 And I thought sample 19 would be in the transition area,
but was already through the transition area. So that's
2 the reason for these additional samples.
Q. All right. I see the Reddy stations are going to
3 represent Dr. Reddy soil phosphorus. Is that accurate?
A. Yes.
4 Q. And the Richardson stations are what?
A. Those are stations sampled by Dr. Richardson for
5 cores in which he analyzed phosphorus, too, as I recall.
Q. Okay. I think that was part of the information
6 you said you were relying upon, but had not produced. Is
that accurate?
7 A. I'm sorry --
Q. Dr. Richardson's data. Remember we discussed
8 yesterday?
A. In the Loxahatchee?
9 Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes. I know I have seen Dr. Richardson's data,
10 and Dr. Reddy's data as well.
Q. Right.
11 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Kobelinski, do you know which
data is this?
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: That was all turned over. I
don't know if that's a year ago now or what, but that
13 all was turned over, both of them. And I'm sure with
courtesy documents. But that's the entry access, it
14 was turned over within a matter of a month it was
taken.
15 MS. PONZOLI: Let me ask you this, then. I have
not handled the entry and access. And I know the
16 documents, at least it's my general understanding,
there has been exchanges of those documents.
17 What I was not aware of was that the league came
in on behalf of different researchers, Dr. Patrick,
18 Dr. Richardson, so when you turn over the data, am I
going to be able to look at the data and say this is
19 Dr. Richardson's data and this is Dr. Patrick's data?
Or am I just depending on these data?
20 MR. KOBELINSKI: My understanding, you will be
able to differentiate that. Again, I guess that's
21 something I can check at lunch.
MS. PONZOLI: You don't know. You don't know,
22 either?
MR. KOBELINSKI: My understanding, you will be
23 able to differentiate.
THE WITNESS: You have the data. You have the
24 Patrick data, which is identified.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
25 Q. You turned it over with your documents?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


225



1 A. Yes.
Q. But I can't necessarily assume that all the rest
2 of it is Richardson. If I'm supposed to be comparing, I
will need to be able to be sure I can do that.
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: The other option is call for
Curtis' deposition and ask to fax it to us.
4 MS. PONZOLI: That would really be excellent if
we can do that. Because I would like to have these
5 pieces to talk to Dr. Patrick about while is still
here.
6 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, you said we have in our documents
7 the Delfino stations. Is this mercury data that Dr.
Delfino did?
8 A. Yes. I asked Dr. Davis do plot Dr. Delfino's
locations here, because I wanted to examine his mercury
9 data along with mine.
Q. Right. Did you provide that Delfino data among
10 your documents?
A. No. That's a report from IFAS to the Water
11 Management District, I think. That's a public report.
Q. Are you relying upon that for any testimony that
12 you might give?
A. No. Not that I have been asked to give.
13 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Meddleton, are you familiar
with this Delfino report on mercury? I heard he did
14 mercury work, but I have no personal knowledge.
MR. MEDDLETON: No, I'm not familiar with it.
15 MS. PONZOLI: Can you put your hands on it
easily?
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: I had heard first just a few
moments ago what it was. So I didn't know what it
17 was, either.
MS. PONZOLI: If you can, I would appreciate it.
18 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. What did that Delfino mercury information tell
19 you, Dr. Patrick?
A. Dr. Delfino's report showed mercury in a large
20 number of profiles throughout the water conservation areas
and his location map, though his report was not detailed
21 enough to see the actual location. And so Dr. Davis has
the capacity to take the latitude and longitude data and
22 plot it. So I wanted the location of Delfino's data,
since I had also done mercury profiles in some of these
23 same areas.
Q. What opinion did you come to based upon Delfino's
24 data, either in combination with yours or separately.
MR. KOBELINSKI: I raise the same objection I did
25 yesterday with regard to mercury opinions. If you





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


226



1 ask scientific or --
Q. And I have said if you were, Doctor, that you
2 asked to sit on the stand and offer mercury opinions, and
you said you would decline to do that.
3 A. Actually, I have not really analyzed his data
that closely and compared. I just wanted this as a basis.
4 I have devoted most of my time to matters for which I was
asked to provide, myself.
5 MS. PONSOLI: I would just most respectfully, Mr.
Kobelinski, like to be clear that if there comes a
6 time when Dr. Patrick is going to offer opinions on
this, that we would like the opportunity to question
7 him prior to his sitting on the stand.
MR. KOBELINSKI: As I explained yesterday, Dr.
8 Patrick would not be providing direct testimony on
mercury to the extent other parties provide testimony
9 on mercury. Obviously, we reserve the right to
either rebut or provide comment on that.
10 We have stated even in that situation that Dr.
Patrick wouldn't be relying upon his own sampling
11 that has been conducted, notwithstanding that that
has been provided to you and you have questioned him
12 about it.
I would agree to the extent that although, as I
13 said, you have already questioned extensively about
it, even his own data, to the extent that he is going
14 to be relying upon his own data in rebutting if that
occasion ever arises. I think at that point it would
15 probably be appropriate just to review his deposition
to see whether or not that there would be any
16 additional need, since you spent a good portion of
yesterday going over his testimony on mercury and his
17 opinions drawn from if.
And I know I have not stopped you from asking.
18 I just raised a standing objection.
MS. PONZOLI: I realize you had not stopped me
19 from questioning, but he has inclined to give
opinions because he has not been asked to formulate.
20 And I would point out for the record that if Dr.
Patrick were to sit on the stand, I doubt seriously
21 that it would be in rebuttal capacity, but in a
supporting capacity in a case already presented by
22 the cooperative, for example. So it would not be in
the nature of rebutting, but in the nature of
23 support. So I would still maintain that I had a
right to do a deposition of his opinions.
24 We don't need to belabor this. We feel
differently and you may feel differently at the time.
25 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think the record is clear as





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


227



1 to whether he has or has not had opinions. I think
that as far as rebuttal testimony goes, that perhaps
2 it is an issue that is going to be addressed to the
witnesses to the extent that we haven't had an
3 opportunity to truly find our what rebuttal opinion
is as opposed to direct opinion.
4 But I agree with you. We will just see what
happens if it arises.
5 MS. PONZOLI: Okay.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
6 Q. Just so I'm clear, Dr. Patrick, you have formed
no opinions on this Delfino mercury data in relation to
7 your mercury data; is that right?
A. That's correct. As a matter of fact, I'm not
8 even sure that I have seen these Delfino plots before now.
Q. I bet there is a beautiful exhibit waiting for
9 you to testify from at trial. I just have this feeling
it's going to look something like this.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can we wager on that?
Q. Have you seen any exhibit prepared on your
11 behalf?
A. No.
12 Q. On your testimony?
A. No.
13 Q. Have you discussed preparing any exhibit for
trial?
14 A. I was asked to make some recommendations for
exhibits, which I have not done.
15 Q. If you were to make those recommendations, what
would they be?
16 A. I haven't put any effort into that, yet. And so
I really can't answer that.
17 Q. All right. Well, then can we identify these last
maps and maybe finish with this particular composite
18 exhibit.
The next one is what, following the one we simply
19 finished discussing of Loxahatchee --
A. I don't --
20 Q. Oh, you are not finished with this one?
A. Well, it's up to you to decide, but I haven't
21 discussed all the new sample sites.
Q. Oh, no. Please, tell me the new sample sites.
22 A. On the south end I indicated that there was new
sample sites 32, 33 and 34, at least the only ones that I
23 can see. And the reason for that is, my first location,
which was 21, was some distance from the canal at 10C.
24 And I thought I was in an area of increased phosphorus.
But the phosphorus was near background levels even at 21,
25 or at my first location was 22. I'm not really sure. So





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


228



1 I wanted to go back in and take samples closer to the
canal in 10C to probably delineate the transect area.
2 And regarding the question on exhibits, it's pretty
apparent that the concentration of phosphorus was distance
3 from those two points would be an obvious exhibit topic.
But I haven't really worked through that, yet.
4 Q. And you were still using this 50 parts per
million as a background level in the surface of the soil?
5 A. It was 500 earlier.
Q. I'm sorry. It was 500. I misstated it. And
6 that's the measurement?
A. Approximately. It may be somewhat lower in
7 Loxahatchee or in the interior of Loxahatchee. As I
indicated, we'll get a chance to look at the actual data.
8 Q. We need to do that in more detail.
Was there anything else that you wanted to point out
9 about this particular map?
A. Well, I didn't want to point out anything.
10 Q. Well, I realize you are here under subpoena. But
I was using that in a euphumous way.
11 A. I understand. You had asked me about these new
samples to discuss, though. And I felt to complete my
12 answer, I should do that.
Q. I appreciate that. The next map is of 2A. And
13 what does it reflect?
A. As the legend shows, this map depicts the Reddy
14 data stations in which Dr. Reddy did a grid sampling of
2A. And the Patrick data samples, which are appropriately
15 indicated with a star.
Q. I have to tell you, Dr. Patrick, I don't think
16 these stars do you justice.
A. They are rather small, aren't they?
17 And the Duke data, which are represented by
triangles. And the Delfino data.
18 Q. Which are X's.
MS. PONZOLI: I don't mean to be ungrateful, Mr.
19 Kobelinski, but this one is really difficult.
MR. KOBELINSKI: If you look at the next page --
20 MS. PONZOLI: So long as we can read and
understand it.
21 MR. KOBELINSKI: We're just helpful people.
MS. PONZOLI: I think we're getting along just
22 fine.
THE WITNESS: I presume the Reddy data is in your
23 possession with the sample locations and the Delfino
data is not our data. And so it's only the Patrick
24 and the Richardson data or Duke data that I know
about in some detail.
25 BY MS. PONZOLI:





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


229



1 Q. So you are not relying upon the Reddy and Delfino
data for your testimony?
2 A. Well, not the Delfino data because it is mercury
data. But yes, I would utilize the Reddy data.
3 Q. All right.
A. But I was pointing out that you should have an
4 accurate map of the Reddy data, since it was done for the
district.
5 Q. Well, this case has, I can tell you from the
federal side, I have a minimum of two million documents.
6 So to say I have something is sort of not helpful in every
instance.
7 MS. PONZOLI: If he is actually relying upon it,
Mark, I would appreciate having it to compare. I
8 think that's sort of the requirement.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes. The Reddy data I can --
9 MS. PONZOLI: Put your hands on?
MR. KOBELINSKI: Sure. We have all the
10 phosphorus stuff.
MS. PONZOLI: I would appreciate it, so we can do
11 some comparisons.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
12 Q. And then these are just larger maps of what we
had just covered, is that accurate, Dr. Patrick? Sheet
13 two and three?
A. Well, it's a partial coverage. It doesn't
14 include the Reddy data.
Q. You are right. Is doesn't cover all of 2 is what
15 it doesn't include.
MR. KOBELINSKI: It just includes the box area.
16 A. But it doesn't include all of the Reddy data
shown on the previous map.
17 Q. It includes all of the Duke and Patrick; is that
right, within the box?
18 A. It apparently includes all that is in the box.
Q. Okay. And that is the portion that you are
19 testifying on. You are not testifying on what is found in
the other areas?
20 A. That's -- I can't confirm that because we have,
as I have shown you on an earlier map, we have stations
21 down below that.
Q. You're right. You do.
22 MS. PONZOLI: Do we have blowups of those larger
areas, Mr. Kobelinski?
23 MR. KOBELINSKI: No.
MS. PONZOLI: Because I really can't read it. If
24 you can get us a larger 2A, the worst part you can't
at the -- Well, one is Reddy, one is Patrick, one is
25 Duke and Delfino.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


230



1 MR. KOBELINSKI: I had, just to respond to that,
I had this actually, as you can tell from the bottom,
2 I had these created just for this.
MS. PONZOLI: I do appreciate it.
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll see if we can. I mean,
it's just a question of what his plotter can do. I
4 don't know what he has.
MS. PONZOLI: Right.
5 MR. KOBELINSKI: We can attempt to. But again,
this is something that Bill didn't even have. We
6 just created it for the depositions for convenience
sake.
7 MS. PONZOLI: I appreciate it.
THE WITNESS: Could I mention I think a hard copy
8 of this is being sent today.
MR. KOBELINSKI: That's true. He is Fed-Exing
9 something, a copy or a fax.
THE WITNESS: And I think you can examine every
10 location from that hard copy.
MS. PONZOLI: Good. Can we take a real fast
11 break? Five minutes?
(Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
12 deposition continued as follows:)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
13 Q. Dr. Patrick, I have handed you Patrick Number 7.
Can you identify it, please?
14 A. This is a cover letter from Dr. Wang from
Environmental Services and Permitting, indicating he would
15 send me soil samples indicating that he wanted phosphorus
samples done on it. These are not samples that I was
16 involved in the collection of. But we were just analyzing
these on a fee basis.
17 Q. And it has similar information, it would appear,
to what you had on some of your sampling, the vegetative
18 type, the location.
A. Yes, it appears to have.
19 Q. All you did on this was the phosphorus --
A. Yes.
20 Q. -- analysis. You are not relying on it in any
way? You are just producing it on your phosphorus work?
21 A. I can't say I will not rely on it. I don't know
if you even - if this was included in the phosphorus data
22 that I turned over to you.
Q. Right.
23 A. If it was, and I have possession of it, when I
look at all the phosphorus analysis or all the profiles, I
24 will look at these too.
Q. Right. I appreciate it. All right. That's
25 that.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


231



1 So just to make sure that we are together on what we
did yesterday, you have produced the Davis map that we had
2 requested yesterday; is that right?
A. Yes.
3 Q. And the vegetative data that we had discussed?
A. Right, that's correct.
4 Q. And we were requesting the Richardson documents
and that we will receive those perhaps sometime today.
5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Right. That is something we
just talked about today. Did we go through that
6 yesterday?
MS. PONZOLI: When we noticed duces tecum and did
7 go through and talked about the second part and said
he had relied on Richardson and Davis' work, but had
8 not produced them. And so we had requested that
those be produced. And I understand you produced
9 part of them today and requested the other part by
telephone a few minutes ago.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: I hadn't realized, I'm sorry,
the breadth of that with my notes yesterday.
11 Otherwise, I would have produced them this morning.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
12 Q. And we got the redox this morning?
A. Yes.
13 Q. And the mercury report there -- Not mercury
report. It's the mercury data that you already produced?
14 A. That's correct.
MS. PONZOLI: And then the only thing is that you
15 are still inquiring on, other than the report, that
there was no dispute over the articles and the
16 manuscript.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes.
17 MS. PONZOLI: Are the correspondence, contract
and report letters you are still requiring into your
18 possession on that; is that right, Mr. Kobelinski?
MR. KOBELINSKI: That's correct.
19 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Let's go back, Dr. Patrick, to what your opinions
20 are. You had given approximately nine areas that you
expected to give testimony on. And then we went through
21 your designation of issues.
I think what I would like to do, Dr. Patrick, is
22 continue going through your description of what you
believe you are going to testify on and the supporting
23 documents. And then if we covered everything given by the
attorneys, we're finish. If not, we will clean up. Is
24 that the most orderly fashion to do it?
A. It seems to me the most logical.
25 Q. You talked yesterday about phosphorus accretion





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


232



1 and vertical distribution in 2A and 3. Is that accurate?
A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you have more that you will offer as an
opinion at trial than what you had discussed with us
3 yesterday?
A. I think the data in Loxahatchee would also be
4 included in what I would testify.
Q. All right. I would like to do Loxahatchee, if
5 it's possible, as a discreet section and do all of the
Loxahatchee.
6 A. That's what I understood yesterday.
Q. I will continue to put Loxahatchee aside.
7 You listed cesium dating and accretion determination
of phosphorus; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
Q. And then largely 2A south of 10C, I believe we
9 have discussed that, have we not?
A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have anything else that you will be
offering in that regard?
11 A. Nothing I can think of.
Q. Okay. All right. And then we have cesium dating
12 in Loxahatchee, so we'll put that aside with the
Loxahatchee discussion.
13 You have redox in 2A and 3. Those are the documents
you produced this morning.
14 A. Yes.
Q. I would like to take a chance to look at those.
15 I'm going to set that aside for a second.
You have evaluation of STA's for removal of
16 phosphorus. Do you have more to add on that than you have
already discussed with us?
17 A. Well --
Q. We sort of touched on it a little yesterday, but
18 I don't think we really discussed it.
A. I thought we discussed it in great detail.
19 To answer your question do I have more to add, that
doesn't seem to be the appropriate approach to me. I'm
20 pleased to answer any questions you have in regard to
that.
21 Q. I understand. I understand. I have already
restated this morning that you have a dispute with the
22 STA's regarding the length of time it will take for them
to achieve the goal of the 50 ppb. You have stated
23 already for the record that STA's will, in fact, remove
phosphorus at some point. Are those two opinions correct?
24 A. Yes.
Q. All right. I guess I'm not looking to put
25 negative words in your mouth regarding STA's, but I need





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


233



1 to know what you are going to say.
You said you would, in fact, offer testimony whether
2 the STA program as set out in the SWIM program is
practical, reasonable and will achieve restoration goals
3 regarding water quality and hydroperiods. I would like to
know what your opinion of that would be.
4 A. This is a topic that I discussed in considerable
detail yesterday regarding the way the STA's would
5 initially function in an area of high available
phosphorus. And I can --
6 Q. You don't need to say. You don't really need to
recover. I'm looking for a way to elicit those other
7 opinions that you have, vis-a-vis, the STA's that we did
not cover yesterday. And you wanted me to ask you
8 specific questions, so I'm trying to figure out a way to
ask you those specific questions.
9 A. Right.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Is there a question? I'm sorry.
10 A. As far as I know, there is no question.
Q. Is that all because of the using, that it's not
11 practicable and reasonable because you believe using the
farm land and the phosphorus budget that you discussed
12 with us yesterday, you believe it renders it impractical
and unreasonable; is that right?
13 A. That is correct. For several years of time.
Q. Okay. All right. The next opinion --
14 A. And you may also recall that I indicated that it
was more desirable to remove the phosphorus closer to the
15 source than it would be to create a huge reservoir of
phosphorus adjacent to water conservation areas.
16 Q. Is that right? Because you indicated yesterday
that in your opinion it would be, I guess, more practical
17 to use the word used here to remove high phosphorus
concentrations from a smaller amount of water as opposed
18 to the larger amounts of water that would need to be
treated in basin-wise STA.
19 A. I wanted to mention that, because your question
was such that you indicated that I would only testify on
20 this particular point here. And so I know I did raise
that other point as well.
21 Q. Right.
A. And I may have raised another point or two, but
22 we would have to review my testimony.
Q. Whatever you told me yesterday is fair game to
23 say at trial.
The next area then indicated you would be testifying
24 on the STA's is whether the size or the need for them has
been correctly determined. What opinions will you be
25 offering on size and need?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


234



1 A. Well, based on my discussion yesterday, that in
my opinion they will not function to remove phosphorus for
2 some years. Any size is the size issue is inappropriate.
And so if you want me to discuss sizing after some years,
3 perhaps a decade, until the STA's have achieved the same
condition as present 2A does, only then will it be
4 appropriate, I think, to discuss the sizing.
Q. I think you have lost me. If we start with the
5 size as they are sized in the present SWIM plan, I
understand what your opinion of them is regarding their
6 ability to remove the phosphorus in a timely manner and
efficient manner.
7 What I don't understand is that you were saying the
sizing issue is premature at this time.
8 A. Well, obviously, in my, view it is. In the sense
that regardless of the size, I don't think that they will
9 remove. I think there will be a source of phosphorus
rather than a sink of phosphorus for some appreciable
10 time.
If you consider that after some years of operation,
11 they then begin to function in the same way that 2A does.
Where there is all of the excess phosphorus is tied up and
12 they are just processing the incoming phosphorus, then it
might be appropriate to discuss the size. And if you want
13 to, if you are asking me then to discuss size at that time
and under those conditions, I would be willing to do so.
14 Q. Do you think you will be offering testimony at
trial on that?
15 A. I could be.
Q. All right. Would you tell me how you would
16 determine the size and when?
A. Well, the size, probably the best basis for
17 determining the size at that time when the STA's finally
achieve the conditions where they have utilized all the
18 excess phosphorus and they were functioning just as 2A is
functioning now, then the matter of size does become
19 appropriate. And me feeling about size is that the
settling rate, the 10.25 settling rate is probably higher
20 than it should be. And this would require a larger size
of STA's to remove the amount of phosphorus.
21 Q. Let me just cut to the chase on what your bottom
line opinion is, since you were advocated yesterday
22 potentially doing things closer to the farm, either on the
farm, wetland treatment areas combined with lime rock,
23 phosphorus removal combined with water manipulation, I
assume these are the type of things?
24 A. Combined with smaller wetland, created wetland.
Q. You mean smaller STA's at the end of the basin?
25 A. On the farm land or closer to the farm, closer to





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


235



1 the source.
Q. You are talking about having both the basin STA's
2 and farm?
A. You mentioned the farm.
3 Q. Right.
A. Okay. Well, whatever is required to achieve the
4 phosphorus removal. It would be, in my view, better to
remove it farther away from the conservation areas than it
5 would be to have this huge reservoir of phosphorus right
adjacent to the water conservation areas.
6 Q. Because of the initial phosphorus release and the
opportunities for bypass or whatever?
7 A. Well, because in time to come, any change in the
hydrology of the STA's, if they dry out for some period of
8 time, they are going to release very large amounts of
phosphorus.
9 Q. All right. Well, let me just be clear, because
this is where I was heading with my concept of cutting to
10 the chase.
Dr. Patrick, is it your opinion that we just need to
11 go back to the drawing board and determine what the
remedial program knows to be for this phosphorus reduction
12 program?
A. Essentially, I would agree with that statement.
13 That's what my deposition, to this point, I think has made
clear.
14 Q. Right. I think so. And do you have some
estimate of how long -- Let's assume that your clients are
15 successful and the SWIM plan is rejected as being
factually operative as required. We're back to the
16 drawing board. Do you have an estimate as to how long you
believe it would take for scientists to determine an
17 appropriate phosphorus removal program?
MR. KOBELINSKI: Is your question assuming the
18 same mandate of 50 ppb?
Q. Let's set some standard so we can work against
19 it. Let's say you assume the 50 ppb.
A. I was going to ask the same thing of you to
20 stipulate some level of discharge. I think this could be
achieved in a very few years by a variety of methods,
21 which I have indicated. And this would be, first of all,
better water management at the farm level. Because
22 farmers have not managed their irrigation for drainage
water to phosphorus discharge. So there are things that
23 can be done, even at the farm level, such as management
practices that would maintain a higher water level in the
24 fields themselves, the development of varieties that have
a higher water tolerance, the selective removal of high
25 phosphate water from the fields and it's treatment.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


236



1 Q. You mean treating hot spots?
A. Well, or just the general, as I indicated to you
2 yesterday, there are times when the drainage water, which
has been in contact with the soil, has higher amounts of
3 phosphorus, I have shown it can be up to a thousand parts
per billion or one part per million for short periods of
4 time.
So you have small amounts of water with high amounts
5 of phosphorus. And I'm making the general statement that
it's much more effective and cost efficient to remove
6 large amounts of phosphorus from small amounts of water.
So management can be employed at the farm level and in the
7 drainage distribution level to treat those parcels of
water separately than the flood water that comes in from
8 storms that persist for several days. That is low
phosphorus discharged water.
9 So there is -- And then I think that the extensive
amount of limestone available, which is a substance that
10 will precipitate phosphorus, can be utilized as I have
shown in this study that I have carried out.
11 And I think there are other management practices that
farmers are always able to develop when they have a
12 certain goal to achieve that can, all of these things
together, remove appreciable phosphorus, perhaps down to
13 the required level, perhaps not. And if it isn't removed
to that level, then some other treatment method, chemical
14 method, STA, smaller STA's might have to be developed.
But my overall recommendation is, as I have stated
15 several times, that this concept of letting all of the
water go with some best management practice or reduction
16 to say 20 percent, letting all of this water go and huge
STA's, in my view, would not be the most cost effective or
17 actually effective method of treating, of reducing the
phosphorus loading to the water conservation areas.
18 Q. Right. I think you had indicated that. And you
don't see any economy of scale in treating the water in
19 larger STA's versus all the various different ones on the
various farms. I think that is inherent in your answer,
20 but I want to confirm you don't see economy of scale.
A. Not at all. I think the individual farmer should
21 be encouraged to develop methods to remove the phosphorus
level, to use lower phosphorus fertilizing level. If
22 there is no penalty for them to discharge any particular
amount of phosphorus, then I think there will be a lot
23 more phosphorus entering the system.
Q. Right. Two questions. The first one, the time
24 frame you say is several years. You think it would take
what, up to two years to develop this new program? Is
25 that -- I mean, I need to know. I think that's in issue





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


237



1 for people --
A. I think that attention of farmers has been
2 achieved.
Q. We got their attention?
3 A. I think that they were thinking about ways that
this can be done. And that they are and they probably now
4 are designing methods that can be used to do this.
Certainly, certainly, they are thinking about how to
5 achieve this 20 percent reduction as mandated in best
management practices. So it's hard to give a time scale.
6 But, I think some of this is already in place. And I
think in may be just in a fair few years this could be -
7 these methods could be worked out.
Q. So in your opinion, the farmers would be
8 physically capable of being committed to reaching far more
than a 25 percent reduction up to potentially a 75 percent
9 reduction, which is what 50 ppb would represent in a gross
manner. It might represent far more than that for some
10 farmers. But you believe that the farmer could be
required to achieve on the farm a 75 percent reduction in
11 one to two years?
A. No. I didn't make it that clear. You know, I
12 didn't make it that definite.
Q. Right.
13 A. And I can't guarantee that at their own farm
level a reduction of 50 part per billion. I suspect that
14 some farmers could achieve lower than that and some
farmers higher than that. And there probably should be a
15 mechanism, and maybe there will be in place anyway,
penalties for discharging higher than that and benefits
16 for discharging lower than that, either at the farm level
or at the drainage distribution level. I think this has
17 to be done.
I think more interest should be put at all levels in
18 the system, rather than at the resources put into huge
STA's at the lower end of the system.
19 Q. I understand.
A. I thought I made that clear yesterday.
20 Q. Well, you did. What I think is relevant to the
regulators in the effective parties down stream is the
21 type of timeframe that you, as an expert, are placing on
the development of this program so that people would have
22 that in the back of their mind. You think it would take
approximately two years to develop this program?
23 A. That seemed reasonable to me. I'll answer it in
this way. I think it will take much less time to develop
24 and put into place an effective program of phosphorus
removal than will be achieved by the construction and
25 operation of the STA's.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


238



1 Q. Well, let's assume we took two years to decide
what the program is and let's assume a very different
2 world than the world we have known in the last six years,
that we do litigate over that program. We just do it.
3 How long would you assume that it would take to implement
the program, literally on the ground by the various
4 mechanisms?
A. The lime rock, the on-farm STA, whatever,
5 something like three years. And I haven't put thought in
that, but that is what appears to me now to be a
6 reasonable estimate.
Q. Okay.
7 A. Because individual operators can move faster
than --
8 Q. The government?
A. -- government programs.
9 Q. That's not always true, Dr. Patrick. Some
government people move right fast.
10 A. I didn't say government people. I said
government.
11 Q. So we now have the programs in place. We, the
on-farm STA's. What is the reasonable estimate of how
12 long you think it would take for these on-farm STA's to
begin functioning in some efficient fashion? Because they
13 are going to have the same inherent problems of basin-wide
STA constructed on farm lands with all the phosphorus.
14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the
question. Only to the extent I assume the question
15 is to on-farm STA's as potential components as
opposed to that being the sole treatment that Dr.
16 Patrick is recommending.
MS. PONZOLI: Exactly.
17 MR. KOBELINSKI: You are not saying well, we're
just going to build farm STA's.
18 MS. PONZOLI: No.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
19 Q. And you correct me if I'm wrong, Doctor Patrick.
You told me you have not quantified how large these STA's,
20 on-farm STA's had to be.
A. That's correct.
21 Q. And so I assume from that answer, you do not have
quantified in your mind how much lime rock treatment would
22 be required with how much water management treatment with
what size STA. You still have not quantified these
23 various elements, the closer to the source treatment
areas, is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
Q. But even with those sort of ambiguous variables
25 in mind, I want to know how long is it going to take the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


239



1 on-farm STA's to begin functioning officially, however big
they are?
2 A. I thought you covered that maybe in some
peripheral way yesterday. But I'll go over it again.
3 The value of the on-farm or near-farm constructed
wetland, I wouldn't characterize as storm treatment areas
4 because they are treating drainage water rather than storm
water. They function much faster than the proposed STA's
5 because, as I indicated to you yesterday, I think the
value of those is to treat this high phosphorus water that
6 would have up to a thousand parts per billion of
phosphorus.
7 This small amount of water that has high phosphorus
contains a good part of phosphorus loading. And it
8 wouldn't take maybe only a year or so before a community
cover of a wetland plant community could be removing this
9 level. Because if the STA's as designed were receiving
water with thousand parts per million of phosphorus, that
10 would drive the system toward more absorption of
phosphorus by the soils, and so the soils would tend to be
11 more of a sink than a source. Which they will be with
this low phosphorus 150 parts per billion, 140 parts per
12 billion water coming in. Or maybe a little less than that
with the BMP reduction.
13 The same soil with a high phosphorus loading would
like to serve as a sink with a low phosphorus loading
14 would serve as a source. So my single point I'm trying to
make is that these on-farm or near-farm constructed
15 wetlands would function earlier and more effective because
they are dealing with high phosphorus. They would be
16 designed, in my view, to deal with the high phosphorus
drainage water.
17 Q. I apologize for my ignorance, but you are going
to have to help me. You went through an equation with me
18 yesterday where you said the plants come in to the
vegetative cover. How long does that take? You said one
19 or two years to have a vegetative cover in a constructed
wetland.
20 A. I did.
Q. They come in, they have a certain capacity to
21 remove phosphorus. And it's just that's the way that
plant grows. It has a maximum capacity, and once it
22 recovers its maximum, that's all it can do. And you were
using Steve Davis' figures, as I recall.
23 A. Standing crop we call that.
Q. The plant pulls X amount of phosphorus out of the
24 soil. It can only use X amount of phosphorus. X amount
of phosphorus is coming over the land with the water. So
25 a whole lot of this is going out on the other end is the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


240



1 net result of what you said?
A. Yes. Except for the emphasis on the "whole lot."
2 Q. I don't understand. If even more is coming in,
why even more isn't going out. Is goes down?
3 A. Well, keep in mind that the constructed wetlands
at this farm level will not necessarily discharge as much
4 water as the purposed STA's. The STA's are a flow-through
system designed with treatment water.
5 The on-farm system can be managed in such a way that
this high phosphorus water stays in the system longer.
6 Because these constructed wetlands can be maintained in a
way to have a low water level until this high phosphorus
7 water is pumped into them. In fact, evaporation will be
allowed to remove a good part of that water. So the
8 discharge results would not necessarily have to be the
same for on-farm constructed wetland as it would for a
9 flow -through STA. Because the STA's, as I understand,
are designed not to remove water but to treat water and to
10 send it downwards. So there are going to be a lot of
differences in constructed wetlands, on-farm or near-farm
11 constructed wetlands.
Q. Are you thinking of them in terms of being a
12 reservoir where the farmer put it in and takes it out?
A. That could be the case. But there will be a time
13 where there has to be drainage. But that can be put on
the field. It doesn't have to go in the drainage.
14 Already, there are all kinds of options with management
practices that farmers have developed and adopted using
15 that can segregate the high phosphorus drainage, put it in
a situation where it can be removed and then, instead of
16 putting it into the drainage system, put it back in the
field where it's needed for irrigation. So they can serve
17 somewhat as a reservoir. But this is only one of the
treatment programs I'm talking about.
18 Q. I understand. So you would have two years to
establish that vegetative cover so they would be able to
19 perform however they perform?
A. Yes.
20 Q. And the lime rock programs, have you modeled any
of this on the farm? I think you indicated you haven't,
21 because you haven't quantified because you wouldn't have
modeled it?
22 A. When you get to my report, we have some removal
values, which you may say could be tantamount to a model.
23 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the Burgess and McDonald
or Brown and Caldwell reports?
24 A. To some extent.
Q. Are you going to dispute those or rely on those
25 at trial?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


241



1 A. Well, their effectiveness as STA's, I think I
have indicated that I do not agree that they will achieve
2 the designed concentration. And I notice it's very
significant that in the profess of the report they assume
3 no liability for the effectiveness for these designs,
since they indicate that they based it on criteria
4 furnished by government scientists.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, I would also, just for
5 the record, as I believe Dr. Patrick mentioned
yesterday, he has been out of the country for several
6 weeks. I believe he has already seen the 1994
Burgess and McDonald report. But I don't know what
7 time he has spent, how thorough a review he has done
of that. So with regard to your question how much
8 you are going to be testifying about that, obviously,
the fact that it just came out this year has some
9 impact, given the fact that he was out of the
country.
10 MS. PONZOLI: Well, if he is going to offer any
opinions on that, then I guess I would ask you to
11 produce him again.
MR. KOBELINSKI: He is here and you can ask him
12 about it. I'm just making a comment that, obviously,
the fact that we're dealing now with a design
13 document that came out, you know, a couple years
after the plan was documented does have impact, I
14 believe, on all witnesses.
MR. MEDDLETON: Let me just state for the record
15 that that design document referred to is dated
February 4, 1994 is simply a report put in final form
16 of essentially no changes from the draft report that
came out in April of '93. So it's been around for
17 quite awhile.
MR. KOBELINSKI: That being the case, I know he
18 reviewed the prior one. So it may not have an
impact. I don't know. I'm just saying to the extent
19 the 1994 one is different, that can cause a problem
or may cause a problem.
20 MR. MEDDLETON: I'm misrepresenting -- Gail
Miller testified in her deposition there was
21 essentially no change between that and the April,
1993 version.
22 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Have you reviewed the Brown and Caldwell and
23 Burgess and McDonald report on on-farm wetlands?
A. No.
24 Q. Have you done any modeling or quantitative
fashion on the water supply and flood control needs of the
25 EAA if you use this type of on-farm reservoir where you





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


242



1 put the water in, take it back and manipulate it in that
way?
2 A. No, except it would not necessarily change the
overall water requirement. It would just cause the water
3 to cycle internally rather than bringing in irrigation
water from outside sources.
4 Q. But you did no hydrologic consultation how that
would work?
5 A. Not in a quantitative way.
Q. Is there anything else, Dr. Patrick, on the size
6 or the need for STA's that we haven't discussed that comes
to mind that you would be saying at the time of trial,
7 opinions you would be offering?
A. None that I can think of.
8 Q. All right. Fine.
And also, the next question that you have been listed
9 for is whether the district has correctly determined the
short-term and long-term phosphorus absorption and uptake
10 during the STA. Have we discussed that?
A. Would you read that one again?
11 Q. Here.
A. We have discussed that in detail.
12 Q. Good. And the next one, I think we have covered
also, is whether the STA as designed will achieve the
13 required phosphorus reduction and long-term total
phosphorus outflow concentration of approximately 50 ppb.
14 Would you like to read it?
A. No.
15 Q. I think we have done that one, haven't we?
A. I would agree.
16 Q. This is an STA-1, whether the STA program
required by the SWIM plan arbitrarily ignores better
17 locations for STA's, the need for larger or smaller STA's
and a linkage between STA and hydroperiods, which the
18 district is aware of, and had an outside contractor
evaluate it. You are listed as giving an opinion on that.
19 Have we covered that also?
A. May I see that? I don't think we have covered
20 all of that.
Q. Right. Arbitrarily ignoring the location. Is
21 that on-farm treatment you are referring to?
A. I would interpret that be to so. The need for
22 larger or smaller STA's, I think I had covered that
on-farm or near-farm constructed wetlands.
23 Q. Right. I'm sorry. I only used short term when I
was saying it.
24 A. It's not necessarily for storm-water treatment in
my view. Farm land.
25 Q. I understand that. I apologize.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


243



1 A. So long as we understand each other. I don't
know what the district is aware of, and if it had an
2 outside contractor evaluate. So I probably won't plan to
testify on what the districts knows and what they don't
3 know.
Q. Will you be testifying on a linkage between STA
4 and hydroperiod improvement?
A. Are you speaking of the proposed STA's or are you
5 speaking also of my proposed on- or near-farm constructed
wetlands?
6 Q. Let's take it one at a time. Let's talk about
the STA program first, the one that is in the SWIM
7 program. Will you be testifying on those, on a linkage
between those and the hydroperiod improvement?
8 A. I have some thoughts about the relationship
between STA's as proposed and utilization of water
9 resources.
Essentially it goes like this: The presence of large
10 areas of surface water is going to increase, vegetative
surface water is going to increase the evapotranspiration
11 more than would be the case if these STA's were not in
position or as the current system or because there is not
12 as much water exposed or not as much water lost. So STA's
are obviously going to result in less water being
13 available down stream from the STA's. That would be the
case if they were not there.
14 Q. Have you done any quantitative indication of
this, or have you reviewed any quantitative indication of
15 the loss?
A. My years of experience and knowledge.
16 Evaporation, transpiration, evapotranspiration, leads me
to understand this simple concept that you get more than
17 evapotranspiration from a water surface, particularly if
it's vegetative, than you do from a non-water-surface
18 system, or the water is present in channels and there is
less surface water exposed. I don't think there would be
19 any soil/water scientist in the world who would dispute
that.
20 Q. This is based on your own experience as a soil
scientist and as a scientist, but not based on a
21 quantitative indication?
A. No. But it could be easily quantified to some
22 level of accuracy.
Q. Sure. You are listed also, again, as an expert
23 who will testify as to whether the district is at present
able to determine or has correctly determined a design
24 criteria for the STA's. Do you have an opinion on that?
A. Well, we have covered that to some extent.
25 Q. Is this the size issue that we have discussed?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


244



1 A. It's the original issue that we have discussed
which relates to the size. In other words, I contend that
2 the STA's won't function as designed for an appreciable
period of time.
3 Q. But there is nothing beyond -- I mean, you will
speak more at length at trial, but that you pretty much
4 have given me what your opinion of regarding that is?
A. Yes. There will be a source rather than a sink
5 until they achieve the conditions that presently exist in
2A.
6 Q. And then finally on STA's, you're listed as an
expert who will give an opinion as to whether it's
7 premature to design and construct STA's given presently
under both the STA design criteria and underlying factors
8 that will determine STA performance and a lack of any
comparable project or field result.
9 A. And your question is?
Q. Do you have an opinion beyond the opinions you
10 have already offered me?
A. I have covered this, I think, in some detail,
11 except that I think it's absolutely essential on the basis
of this statement to wait until results are available from
12 the ENR, which were initially designed to do just that, to
determine these parameters before STA's are constructed.
13 Q. Okay. I think we have gone through all the STA
issues you should testify on.
14 And there is one of your areas of testimony you had
told us yesterday was ENR research on phosphorus removal
15 and effectiveness and that you had intended to offer
testimony at trial in that particular area.
16 A. Yes. And it's essentially along the line that
STA's can't probably be designed until prior research on
17 smaller size unions, which in this case is ENR, which
incidentally is the largest constructed wetland in the
18 world, itself, can be obtained unless the results of this
doubt can be obtained.
19 Q. All right. Do you have opinions on the design of
the ENR and the test cells and that design's ability and
20 the efficiency and effectiveness of STA's?
A. Not in particular. The design seems generally
21 adequate. There are some additional treatments that might
have been included. But I have no real quarrel with the
22 design, as I understand it.
Q. What additional treatments would you have
23 recommended they include?
A. Well, I have thought that that research should be
24 done on combining sugar crops, sugar cane farming with
rice farming to serve as an additional filter or sink for
25 phosphorus from drainage water in the sugar area. Because





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


245



1 the sugar farms, sugar cane requires that the water table
be at some depth below the soil surface. Rice requires
2 that the water depth be above the soil surface.
So I think it would -- And rice is being grown at the
3 time when the rainfall is highest during the rainy season.
And so it could serve as a reservoir for some of this high
4 phosphate drainage water from the sugar. In other words,
cropping systems could be linked to help remove
5 phosphorus. And this is the recommendation I made at a
district workshop that I attended.
6 Q. On the ENR?
A. Yes, when it was initially being planned.
7 Q. All right. How long do you believe from today, -
let's start today, not six years ago when the ENR was
8 begun or in '81 when it was first on the books - but as we
sit here today with the test cells designed, how long do
9 you believe it will take before we have the kind of
information we would need to begin constructing the other
10 STA's. Assuming we decide to go with the basin-wide
program or even assuming we decide to go with a mini-STA
11 and on-farm construction program and other mechanisms that
remove phosphorus, how long will we need to study IMR?
12 A. I would estimate three to four years we should
have some indication.
13 Q. Well, now, you had told me that you thought we
could design a program in two years for this combination
14 of basin-wider treatment areas and on-farm treatment
areas. How do we combine that two-year program with the
15 three or four years of research? Reconcile that for me.
A. The ENR is designed to mimic the STA's. So it is
16 utilizing water with a phosphorus content of, let's say,
approximately 150 parts per billion. Probably something
17 like 150, 140. Where as I have indicated earlier, on-farm
or near-farm treatment areas could be designed for parcels
18 of water that are drainage water that are much higher in
phosphorus and would give responses faster, because these
19 areas would be more likely to serve as sinks for this high
phosphorus water as compared to sources for the low
20 phosphorus water, which would be the case in the Knights
Farm area, which is used for the ENR program of research.
21 So a different period of time will be required, because
we're treating different kinds of water in different kinds
22 of ways.
But to continue answering this question why it would
23 take something like four years, I think after that period
of time it would be known whether the ENR area would be
24 removing phosphorus from the incoming-drainage water and
not passing it on through supplemented by soil phosphorus,
25 available phosphorus from the soil, as I indicated that I





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


246



1 think the STA's will do. If I'm wrong, then after four
years you should know that and you should start getting
2 some treatment effect. If I'm correct, I anticipate that
the ENR will still be exporting phosphorus at that period
3 of time.
Q. You indicated in several of your documents in
4 some of the designations that your knowledge of soil types
would be part of the foundation of your testimony; is that
5 correct?
A. Of the general soil areas of the Everglades.
6 Q. How does that interface with this STA testimony?
Does it?
7 A. No, not really.
Q. It really goes more to what is going on in the
8 water conservation areas with their different soil types?
A. It's just really sort of background information
9 for the whole system. The STA's will be constructed on
farm lands, which is derived from the sawgrass area that
10 has been farmed and subsided.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, if you are going to be
11 going to a different area, just a short break.
MS. PONZOLI: We can stop now.
12 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
deposition continued as follows:)
13 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, I'm going to clean up something here
14 and identify a few documents and move into a little
different area. I would like to go to Loxahatchee as a
15 group after lunch, and I would like to look at the new
redox material you presented me with this morning.
16 First, I'm going to hand you some documents. We'll
go off the record and mark a few documents.
17 (Thereupon, the documents were marked for
identification.)
18 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, I would like to hand you a series of
19 documents. Dr. Patrick I'm going to hand you Patrick
Number 8 and ask you to identify it, please.
20 A. This is a partial map of water conservation area
1 and 2, and shows sample sites in water conservation area
21 2 showing the BP sites, both those used for phosphorus and
cesium and those used for redox potential. And it shows
22 one of the SED sites.
Q. I forget. SED, did we talk about that yesterday?
23 A. No. I think the SED sites are some of Dr. Davis'
locations.
24 Q. And you don't know what the significance of that
site is?
25 A. I don't recall what that is. I don't think





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


247



1 that's part of my sampling system.
Q. I'm going to hand you a series of bar graphs.
2 The first one being Patrick Number 9, and ask you to
identify it.
3 A. This is -- You asked me to identify this
document?
4 Q. Yes, sir, I did.
A. This document is a plot of the bulk density at
5 various depths for the cores taken in water conservation
area 3A or 3.
6 Q. That we discussed yesterday?
A. Yes, we discussed yesterday.
7 Q. In conjunction with the other work?
A. Yes.
8 Q. I'm going to hand you Patrick Number 10 and ask
you to identify that.
9 A. This is the phosphorus concentration on a volume
basis for some of the -- This is Patrick 10, is a document
10 showing the phosphorus on a volume basis for several of
the cores - not all the cores, but some of the cores -
11 that we have discussed yesterday.
Q. All right. From Patrick Number 2, I believe it
12 was, wasn't it.
A. Yes. And also there is one for BP-60 there, too,
13 which may have been from another Patrick document.
Q. I'm going to hand you Patrick Number 11 and ask
14 you to identify that.
A. This is the same sort of plot. In fact, it
15 should go the with Patrick 10. They are all the same,
phosphorus concentration on a volume basis for a number of
16 the cores taken in water conservation area 2 and water
conservation area 3. At least taken in 3. I don't know
17 if water conservation area 2 is represented here or not.
I don't see any of the BP cores. Yes, they are. They are
18 in here, too.
Q. I see them.
19 A. So phosphorus concentration on a volume basis for
cores taken in water conversation areas 2 and 3.
20 Q. I would like to go ahead and identify some other
documents that are not related to the data that you
21 related to before, but they were turned over, and have you
tell me what they are. Patrick Number 12?
22 A. Yes. This is a review prepared to show the
beneficial effect of predicted drainage of wetlands.
23 Q. And that's to help the vegetation grow. Is that
accurate?
24 A. Pardon?
Q. What is the beneficial effect of predicted
25 drainage of wetlands?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


248



1 A. On the vegetation.
Q. To help the vegetation grow appropriately?
2 A. Yes. Even survive in some cases.
Q. I ask you to identify Patrick 13.
3 A. This is a map of Loxahatchee showing most of the
sample locations we discussed earlier today, with the
4 exception that it doesn't include the recent Patrick
samples and it doesn't include the Delfino sample
5 locations.
Q. What importance do you attach to the fact that
6 the Delfino information is missing from this?
A. None, in relation to the phosphorus work.
7 Q. Did you ask that it be added to the map of water
conservation area 1?
8 A. Well, that's what I told you this morning.
Q. That you asked that it be marked there?
9 A. Yes.
Q. I'm handing you Patrick Number 14 and ask you to
10 identify it, please.
A. Well, this is a letter with supporting data from
11 Curtis Richardson to Rick Burgess. And it should not
necessarily be a part of my deposition.
12 Q. All right. This is not -- You are not basing any
of your opinions on this document. Is that accurate, Dr.
13 Patrick? I guess I had assumed that you had reviewed this
document and some of your opinions would be coming from
14 the information reflected here, and that's why it had been
produced.
15 A. I have seen this document and I'm aware of the
results of the cesium cores. So in that connection, it's
16 possible I will utilize this document or the information
in this document.
17 Q. All right.
A. So it would be pertinent.
18 Q. Okay. I'll hand you Patrick Number 15 and ask
you to identify that document.
19 A. This is a brief assessment of the effect of
drying on the natural Everglades or vegetative areas on
20 phosphorus release.
Q. Did you do this at someone's request, Dr.
21 Patrick?
A. Yes.
22 Q. Whose request was that?
A. Mr. Earl, I think. The law firm, anyway.
23 Q. Right. Had they asked you to provide some kind
of a report on this particular opinion that's reflected
24 here?
A. They asked me to study this, you know, the
25 possible effect of drying on the Everglades, as I recall.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


249



1 Q. All right. In regard to your study of this, what
did you do to actually study it?
2 A. Well, it's laid out, I think, pretty well here in
the document itself. And it's just an approximate -- It's
3 an estimate, really, of what is likely to be the situation
as a result of the drying of various parts of the natural
4 wetland.
Q. Is it fair to call this a literature review with
5 your opinions based on it?
A. It's not necessarily a literature review.
6 Although, I use some documents, some data from some other
documents. But it's really an assessment on my part.
7 Q. It's based on your personal experience?
A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, Dr. Patrick: What is
the amount of field time that you have had in the Florida
9 Everglades since the time you began working on this case
for the Florida Sugar Cane League?
10 A. That's difficult to say. I have had a fairly
large number of field trips, maybe over a dozen.
11 Q. Over the years?
A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Before that, prior to that dozen field
trips, how much field work would you have done in the
13 Florida Everglades?
A. None.
14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the
question.
15 Q. None?
A. I don't recall doing any specific field work in
16 the Florida Everglades before.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Completing me objection to the
17 form, objection to the question. The witness stated
more than a dozen, as opposed to a dozen field trips.
18 I object to the prior testimony.
Q. I didn't mean to mischaracterize. You said
19 approximately a dozen.
A. Yes. I mean, I could document, though I'm sure
20 it's somewhere in that range. There may be more than
that.
21 Q. Right. Were those field trips of the approximate
length of a half a day?
22 A. Some were hardly any where half a day. Meaning
one day, two days. Some even three days. The first one
23 was at the invitation of the South Florida Water
Management District, as I recall. And a number of trips
24 in relation to the various studies that I have done.
Q. And that would have been back in 1989,
25 approximately?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


250



1 A. I think the first workshop that I attended was in
'89. Could have been '88, but '89 probably.
2 Q. Were you already employed by the Florida Sugar
Cane League at that time, Dr. Patrick?
3 A. No.
Q. You came at the invitation of the Water
4 Management District?
A. Yes.
5 Q. Did they pay your way to come?
A. Yes.
6 Q. And under what, were you hired as a consultant to
them at that time?
7 A. I don't think I was hired as a consultant. I was
asked to make a presentation on phosphorus chemistry of
8 wetlands at that time.
Q. Was this a SWIM plan or an ENR? Do you recall
9 the type of workshop it was?
A. It was related to, I think, the ENR, yes. In
10 fact, I know it was related to the plan for the ENR.
Q. Did you produce a report or some type of a, I
11 don't know -- Would there have been documents that you
passed out at this presentation?
12 A. No. I think I used slides. I just discussed the
phosphorus chemistry of wetlands based upon my prior
13 research.
Q. All right. And the thrust of your presentation
14 to the Water Management District at that time was what in
regard to the phosphorus chemistry of wetland, to the best
15 of your recollection?
A. It dealt with the basic reactions of phosphorus
16 in wetland systems, the forms of phosphorus, their general
reactions, the effect of flooding.
17 Q. Did you at that time indicate that wetlands, the
treatment systems could be effective for removing
18 phosphorus?
A. I was not asked to do that. I was invited to
19 present a more basic presentation of just general
phosphorus chemistry of wetlands.
20 Q. Was the idea -- If we were to try this mechanism,
what would be the processes going on in the phosphorus in
21 the wetlands?
A. As I recall the workshop dealt with possible
22 treatments that might be used in the Knights Farm area,
which I think even later was designated the ENR as a
23 nutrient-removal program. And at this workshop, there was
several presentations made. And then there was general
24 discussion of what treatments might be effective in
phosphorus removal. And that was the basis for my earlier
25 suggestion that a combination of cropping systems might be





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


251



1 used, where sugar cane can be used in combination with a
crop like rice that could utilize drainage water for
2 irrigation purposes.
Q. That was the time you were referring you made
3 that recommendation to the Water Management District?
A. Right.
4 Q. Would it be a fair characterization or not of any
of your presentations that people listening to it would
5 have thought that you were indicating wetland treatment
systems could be effective for removing phosphorus?
6 A. I don't think so. Because that was not the
subject I was asked to address.
7 Q. Did you indicate to people at that meeting the
concerns that you have indicated to me in this deposition
8 regarding wetland treatment systems for removing
phosphorus, particularly on the basin-wide scale?
9 A. Yes, I think so, as I recall. I was concerned
that typha was a species that was not noted for its
10 effectiveness in phosphorus removal, which is going to be
obviously one of its limitations in the STA's. Since
11 typha is a very leaky plant and it takes up appreciable
phosphorus, but it readily leaches phosphorus out.
12 Q. I think, if I recall correctly, you told me that
regardless of what you plan, you are going to end up with
13 typha in this treatment system.
A. That's my belief. Unless more effort is put into
14 establishing and maintaining other species, which can be
done.
15 Q. Right.
A. If the cost is, you know, if money effort is put
16 into it. But if it's allowed to colonize on its own, or
if the water is maintained at a uniform deep level, even
17 with another species, it's my belief that typha is going
to colonize the whole area.
18 Q. Is that based upon what you have seen throughout
the water conservation area?
19 A. Based on what I have seen throughout the U.S.
Q. Why is it that typha is so successful in out
20 competing the other species?
A. Typha is a plant that readily comes in after some
21 disturbance. That disturbance may be deep water or
removal of a form of vegetation layer. And so it's very
22 effective in colonizing systems like that. So if you just
flood an area, the first thing that generally comes in is
23 typha.
Q. Let me ask you in regard to the ENR, were there a
24 number of concerns voiced at this ENR meeting that this
was not going to be a successful method of phosphorus
25 removal for an extended period of time?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


252



1 A. Well, I recommended that below the typha zones
that other types of wetland and that perhaps rice itself,
2 irrigated rice, be established to utilizes the drainage
water from the typha. And this is also going to be - I
3 don't know if we covered this in much detail - this is
also going to to be a limitation in the STA's. If there
4 is complete typha, it's going to be hard to achieve 50
parts per billion, because typha is not noted for pulling
5 phosphorus down.
If we use a model of 2A that we talked about so much,
6 we don't reach 50 parts per billion until we get into a
mixed typha-sawgrass area.
7 Q. So it's your opinion that the STA's will have a
tendency to fill up with typha, in addition to the other
8 reasons you have listed, have a difficulty in reducing
phosphorus to a 50 ppb?
9 A. Yes.
Q. Were these types of concerns voiced at this
10 meeting at the ENR in 1989?
A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Who else spoke about these concerns at
that meeting?
12 A. I don't know. There was general discussion, both
in the field and in the conference room about this. This
13 started out to answer your question about field work.
This is hard to answer.
14 Q. I know.
A. It's hard for me to relay who else voiced those
15 concerns. I think Dr. Richardson also voiced his concern,
as I recall. He attended the workshop.
16 Q. Right.
A. And Mr. Davis. And Dr. Snyder from IFAS.
17 And others.
Q. Is the change in water depth one of the
18 disturbances you are talking about which favors typha?
A. A change from what to what?
19 Q. Well, to a deeper water depth?
A. From shallow to deep?
20 Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes. Typha is noted for it's ability to tolerate
21 deep water.
Q. But is that a disturbance? When you speak of
22 disturbance that favors typha, does that fit in the
category?
23 A. It could be a disturbance or it could be planned.
I designed a wetland system in California, which I planned
24 for the deep water areas to have typha in them, because
the other species were planned for more shallow areas. So
25 this is generally accepted that typha will tolerate deeper





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


253



1 water than some other species.
Q. Is that the only wetland system you designed, the
2 one in California?
A. I think so, yes.
3 Q. Okay. How large is that one?
A. About three to four hundred acres.
4 Q. And does it have a name?
A. Yes, it has a name.
5 Q. What is the name?
A. This was a proprietary design. And I can't give
6 you the information on it on my own authority.
Q. It's for a private owner?
7 A. Yes. Or it's not in the public domain. I'll put
it like that. If you call it a corporate owner or private
8 owner, yes.
Q. How long ago did you do this?
9 A. Six, eight years I suppose.
Q. And did it function to the design that you had
10 predicted?
A. It's just now being constructed.
11 Q. Is there a pattern to these things? What is the
reason it took so long?
12 A. I don't know, exactly. But I can tell you what I
think. This corporation went through a restructuring for
13 people that had designed this were either given other jobs
and so it stayed on the shelf, or maybe the need for it
14 was not as great.
Q. Was it for phosphorus and nutrient removal?
15 A. No, it was not designed for that purpose.
Q. Okay. It was not designed for nutrient removal,
16 this wetland system?
A. No, that was not the objective of the design.
17 Q. Was it designed for aesthetic reasons?
A. Yes, you could say that.
18 Q. So have you ever designed any wetland for - I
think you answered this, but I want to make sure - for
19 nutrient removal?
A. Yes, I have done research on this and designed
20 small-scale systems.
Q. And how small?
21 A. Well, pallet plant may be a laboratory level,
flow chambers, flow pathways. This is covered in some of
22 the many publications I provided to you.
Q. Right. And have you ever designed an actual on
23 the ground, such as the ENR?
A. No. Except -- You mean to remove nutrients?
24 Q. Yes, sir.
A. No.
25 Q. Have you examined those wetland-treatment systems





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


254



1 that Dr. Kadlec has testified about in his view being
successful?
2 A. I have studied those, but I have not been on the
ground, I don't believe, at any of the ones he has talked
3 about.
Q. Right. Do you not share his view that those
4 wetland-treatment systems have achieved some efficiency at
nutrient removal? You can answer it negative or positive.
5 A. That's a very vague question. So it's hard to
run water over a natural system without some phosphorus
6 being removed or supplied to it. So I don't share his
view that the ones reported in his documents have achieved
7 the 50 parts-per-billion discharge.
Q. Is it your understanding that he has indicated
8 that a number of these have achieved 50 parts per billion?
Is that your understanding of his reported work on these
9 other systems?
A. It's my understanding from reading over part of
10 his deposition that he was relying on these for the basis
for his design. And my examination of the data didn't
11 show that they had achieved this level of removal.
Q. Did you understand my question? I think I was
12 indicating that I wasn't -- Did you understand that Dr.
Kadlec was saying that these systems had achieved 50 parts
13 per billion as opposed to him simply taking the formula
for the systems and scaling it for the STA's?
14 A. Yes. I can't really say that I don't recall that
he said these achieved necessarily 50 parts per billion.
15 Q. Right.
A. That thesis relied on his design.
16 Q. And you were saying that you do not believe that
those systems achieve the same level of phosphorus
17 removal, whatever it was, that he had reported?
A. Oh, no. That was not my statement. My statement
18 was that the examination of the data from those systems
didn't indicate to me that he had achieved a 50
19 parts-per-billion level.
Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Patrick, do you consider
20 yourself an expert on designing wetland-treatment systems?
A. In some ways I consider myself an expert on the
21 processes involved in nutrient transformations in wetland
treatment of wetland systems. I do not consider myself an
22 expert in the engineering aspect of the wetland-treatment
system, although I have essentially done this in a
23 practical sort of way. But I don't consider myself an
expert.
24 Q. So it's really a component part of a design that
you would feel you have the expertise to offer opinions
25 on? If a particular part of a formula relied on a certain





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


255



1 phosphorus cycling, then you feel you are an expert to
comment on that phosphorus cycling within the system? Is
2 that accurate?
A. That's an accurate assessment.
3 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert on the
vegetation of wetland-treatment systems?
4 A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that expertise derives from what
5 background?
A. Various research projects over the years, copies
6 some of which have been provided to you. And from studies
of wetland-plant communities, the nutrient dynamics of
7 nutrient wetland communities.
Q. Just so I'm clear, then you consider yourself or
8 represent yourself to be an expert on the phosphorus
dynamics of various forms of vegetation to remove
9 phosphorus, to absorb phosphorus? Do you consider
yourself an expert on the dynamics of phosphorus removal
10 of vegetation as opposed to the dynamics of what
phosphorus levels will cause community changes or shifts
11 or whatever within the Everglades?
A. Well, I don't want to box myself in by
12 restricting my expertise to that. I think I'm qualified
to deal with the effect of nutrients on vegetation changes
13 as well.
MS. PONZOLI: Okay. Why don't we follow that up
14 after lunch and stop now for lunch.
(Thereupon, lunch recess was had, after which the
15 deposition continued as follows:)
AFTERNOON SESSION
16 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, I would like to return to Patrick
17 Number 15 that we had discussed a little before lunch.
You said that you had been asked to do this
18 estimation. And I know this grew out of your explanation
of your field trips into the Everglades, but I would like
19 to return to it just for a moment.
A. I would like to offer a correction on this.
20 Q. All right.
A. Halfway through it says March, 1985 -- March,
21 1975, quoting on Page III-79 of the SWIM plan.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Three dash seven nine. Roman
22 numeral three dash seven nine.
THE WITNESS: Right. This was an earlier
23 addition of the SWIM plan. It's page now III-100.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Roman numeral three dash one
24 hundred.
THE WITNESS: But the quote is the same.
25 MS. PONZOLI:





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


256



1 Q. Let me just make sure I understood this
correctly. Is the bottom line on this document, Dr.
2 Patrick, that you believe that the drying of the water
conservation areas is, in fact, a significantly larger
3 source of phosphorus to the Everglades than even the
drainage water coming off of the EAA?
4 A. Yes, that's what my estimation shows. It
certainly is in the same order of magnitude, but I did
5 show it's higher. Fourteen hundred metric tons versus two
hundred metric tons.
6 Q. Has anyone else made this observation? This is
somewhat knew to me.
7 A. No. This is a natural consequence of the drying
of any organic soil that when it's drained - more drained
8 than drying, really. When it drains, oxygen enters the
system and becomes aerobic, micro-organic decomposes the
9 organic more faster. This results in mineralization or
release of phosphorus. And this is a well known process,
10 and is what happened in the EAA drainage of the EAA and
other parts of the Everglades, has resulted in oxidation
11 and subsidence. It's usually reflected in the subsidence
of the surface layer, if it's extensive enough.
12 Q. Let me ask you. I reviewed this a day or two
ago. I don't recall that you reflected how you did your
13 calculations, other than basically aerial extent.
A. Yes, that's true. That's true. I took the
14 phosphorus release from the EAA, which has been worked on.
And it's releasing phosphorus as a result of drainage at a
15 certain rate. And then I applied that rate with some
modifiers to drain natural systems and said well, it
16 should, if these conditions hold, then drainage parts of
water conservation areas 1, 2 and 3 as has been indicated
17 in the SWIM plan, would result in some release of
phosphorus.
18 And I estimated that well, this drainage, if it
extended to a depth of one foot for half a year, that
19 would be about 1/6 of that released in the drained EAA per
unit area. And according to the SWIM plan, about 527
20 square miles of the water conservation areas are over
drained. And so using the phosphorus release from the EAA
21 as a standard, then these natural areas would release
something like 1400 metric tons as a result of oxidation.
22 Q. Have you done depth measurements of water
conservation areas for muck, for organic matter?
23 A. No -- Well, yes, I have. And others have as
well. It's shown in some of the material passed out this
24 morning. The depth to the limestone layer, you will see
that in some of the information passed out. But one of
25 the most commonly made measurements in the Everglades is





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


257



1 the thickness of peat, the muck layer. But I didn't
necessarily use that whole depth. I just assumed that the
2 maximum depth of drainage as a result of this over-drained
area would be own one foot.
3 Q. Right.
A. And which is nothing more than an estimate on my
4 part, but it seemed reasonable. I didn't intend that it
was drained to the depth of the EAA itself. It's drained
5 a little deeper, two feet.
Q. Did you review any hydrographs of area 1, 2 or 3
6 when you made these assumptions?
A. I have seen some hydrographs of some of those
7 areas. But I assume that the SWIM plan, the data in the
SWIM plan was accurate. And then I have reviewed the
8 model developed by the district in this book on the
Everglades that shows the over drained areas in the
9 Everglades.
Q. You are talking about the Ogden Davis book is
10 what you are referring to?
A. Yes.
11 Q. And which chapter is that you are referring to?
I think you can probably locate it for me from the table
12 of contents.
MR. MEDDLETON: Just for the record, that book is
13 not a district publication.
THE WITNESS: Did I say it was a district
14 publication?
MR. MEDDLETON: You indicated something with the
15 district. It wasn't clarified, but we'll get to
that.
16 THE WITNESS: One of the editors is a district
employee.
17 These plates are here.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
18 Q. What are the pages, please?
A. Four thirty-two plus. They are after page 432.
19 Probably not numbered.
Q. And the the name of the article they appear in
20 is -- It's probably at the top, along the top of each
page.
21 A. I don't think it relates.
MR. KOBELINSKI: They just put all the plates in
22 the middle of the book.
MS. PONZOLI: I'm sorry. I haven't realized
23 that. I haven't read it, but each individual chapter
appeared to be an article.
24 THE WITNESS: I can't remember the page number.
It's chapter 10, Computer Models to Simulate Natural
25 Everglades Hydrology.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


258



1 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. That phosphorus that you say is released because
2 of the drying of the Everglades; is that right?
A. Yes.
3 Q. Phosphorus is released through the drying?
A. Yes.
4 Q. But I believe that you have indicated elsewhere
in your documents that drying of wetlands is a natural
5 process. I know, though, this may not be a natural
drying. Still drying is a natural process?
6 A. Of some wetlands, yes.
Q. Would these Everglades have dried out naturally
7 over time?
A. Apparently not to this extent. This is called
8 over drainage or over drying to the extent of this.
Q. Is there a quantitative indication what this
9 means?
A. Of what it means?
10 Q. To be over drained. Does it mean one foot, two
feet, six inches?
11 A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Okay.
12 A. I just really didn't do that in depth of a study.
But so far as I'm concerned, it's a relative term.
13 Q. And then I guess my question, what I'm driving
at, isn't the phosphorus that might be released from over
14 drainage, as you call it, isn't that really recycling
phosphorus that is just there?
15 A. Yes, I think most of it is recycled.
Q. But the phosphorus that is coming in from the
16 outside source from the drainage water is an external
source of phosphorus. As to the Everglades it is not
17 recycling, it is an external source?
A. It's taken up in the same way that this
18 phosphorus is released.
Q. But all phosphorus is taken up in the same way,
19 no matter whether it's artificial or national or recycled?
A. If the surface subsides and there is less volume
20 there, then this, in a sense, might be considered excess
phosphorus in a sense there is not as much substrate there
21 to contain the phosphorus.
Q. Is the point of all this, Dr. Patrick, that the
22 Everglades are being polluted by themselves in the over
drainage and not by the drainage water coming from the
23 EAA?
MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the
24 question. Are you assuming that the Everglades are
draining themselves?
25 MS. PONZOLI: The point of the question is that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


259



1 the SWIM plan assumes that there are vegetative
changes in the Everglades as a result of drainage
2 water from the EAA. And I guess I'm wondering if the
conclusion from Dr. Patrick's calculations here is
3 that the drainage water is only a drop in the bucket,
so to speak, of the nutrient enrichment that is
4 occurring as a result of over drainage?
THE WITNESS: To answer your question, I see
5 nothing in the document that makes that conclusion.
The results just stand on their own. That is that
6 phosphorus is released as a result of over drainage,
and the system may or may not be able to handle that
7 completely without some vegetation change, or it may,
if it's not extensive and it doesn't represent a
8 large release of phosphorus, the same vegetation may
reabsorb. So it says nothing about this having
9 necessarily the same impact as incoming phosphorus.
But I think there would be situations where that
10 would be the case.
BY MS. PONZOLI:
11 Q. Have you formed any opinions on that particular
point?
12 A. If the drying --
MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the
13 question. What particular point?
Q. The point of the 1400 metric tons that he is
14 calculating in his opinion may be released by over
drainage of the water conservation areas.
15 A. Yes. If the drainage is extensive enough and
oxidation is continuous, continues long enough, the
16 phosphorus concentration of that soil, that organic soil,
is going to be increased, unless part of it moves along
17 with flood water. But most of it is going to be recycled.
And I think in some cases, we may be looking at a
18 what we consider to be background levels of phosphorus
that we have talked about, say 500 parts per million. And
19 that could possibly represent some accumulation of
phosphorus as a result of change in hydrology of the whole
20 Everglades system. It's hardly anyway to know because
there aren't any areas that haven't been effected by
21 change in hydrology over the last century, really since
the Everglades have been drained.
22 Probably the closest comparison of an unimpacted area
would be the interior of the Loxahatchee, which is dome
23 shaped and probably receives only rainfall and storm
surges from hurricanes. So I think if this process is
24 extensive enough, it is going to change the phosphorus
status of the organic soils. If they subside a foot or
25 so, I think that would result in some significant release.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


260



1 Q. Well, since I believe that we'll probably have
some difference of opinion as to whether 500 parts per
2 million represents background of the Everglades or not, I
would like to ask you, do you believe sort of implicit in
3 your last answer was that you believe that that 500 parts
per million in the upper layer of the soil is a reflection
4 of this ongoing over drainage of the Everglades and may be
a little elevated over what phosphorus levels might have
5 been previously?
A. I don't know. I can't answer that, because I
6 don't know what it was a hundred years ago. And I don't
know if it's known what it was a hundred years ago.
7 Q. Is it your belief that the 1400 metric tons that
may be released as a result of this 527 square miles
8 that's reflected in the SWIM plan being subjected to the
surges you assumed for over drainage in calculations, do
9 you believe that some of that phosphorus is traveling on
down stream?
10 A. Yes.
Q. And do you have any data that supports this?
11 A. Well, I have the data that I cited yesterday
provided by the district or in Steve Davis' paper in
12 Aquatic Botany that shows when the vegetation takes up
phosphorus, that for types of 80 percent is leached out of
13 typha, the standing crop, and for caladium about 70
percent is leached out.
14 Where does that go except into the water column? And
if that water column is moving, then that phosphorus is
15 going to move. The same process holds there that would
hold in the STA's built on an area with available access,
16 available phosphorus for the plant.
Q. You will concede that farming is a harsher effect
17 in phosphorus release than over drainage, wouldn't you?
A. Yes. Because from the vegetation, the surface is
18 not covered with vegetation.
Q. In farming?
19 A. Yes, in farming. And the the soil manipulation
would also stimulate additional mineralization.
20 Q. Has anyone else reviewed this theory of
phosphorus release throughout the Everglades to your
21 knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge. I'm surprised they haven't.
22 Q. And you haven't shared this with Dr. Richardson
or Dr. Davis?
23 A. I'm sure. I would think that doctor -- I may
have sent a copy to Dr. Davis or he may have a copy. I
24 did discuss this with him.
Q. Okay. Does Dr. Davis act as sort of a central
25 coordinator for the science put together on behalf of the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


261



1 league?
A. Not for me. Not the science. The logistics,
2 yes.
Q. Of when you are going to go outside in the
3 helicopter or when you are going to go out in an airboat
and when you get back?
4 A. And if we're going to get back is very helpful.
Q. You are here, so I assume he always got you back.
5 I would like to clean up a point on your disagreement
with Dr. Kadlec's work. I believe you were not
6 disagreeing with his basic data, but you were disagreeing
with his interpretation of the data. Is that accurate?
7 Or his extrapolation of the data to the STA's.
A. I have seen no basic data from Dr. Kadlec, unless
8 it's the Houghton Lake.
Q. I have to defer. I'm not sure.
9 So when you reflect that you don't think that the
STA's were working as he has predicted, you are
10 disagreeing with his model? What are you disagreeing
with? What do you believe you are disagreeing with with
11 Dr. Kadlec?
A. If you will notice in the Kadlec Newman report,
12 he sites, I think, the iron bridge data on the eastern,
one of the other created marshes. And in his -- He
13 reports inflow and outflow data that we can check, if you
want to. And then in his deposition I notice he indicated
14 that he was relying on that wetland and eastern -- Well, I
can refer to his document to get the name of it. And my
15 observation of his data presented by him in his report
showed that after three years of operation, that
16 approximately a little over one, as I recall, about one
part per million phosphorus was coming in and almost that
17 much was coming out. So I didn't see much treatment
effect there.
18 Q. So is it fair to say that your belief, you are
disagreeing with his interpretation with the way it
19 functioned?
A. Yes. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. We had looked at Patrick Number 14. I
would like to move onto that, Dr. Patrick. Do you have
21 Patrick 14 in front of you? I think so.
I need for you to identify this for me. I don't
22 believe I had copies made yet, but I'm not sure what it is
and if I need to. What is it?
23 A. This represents the same data passed out to you
in other forms. This is something that is not marked.
24 And it also represents data from Dr. Davis, some of his
work, which I don't know about.
25 Q. Is it labeled which is yours and which is Dr.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


262



1 Davis'?
A. This is labeled Davis.
2 Q. Is yours labeled Patrick or BP somewhere?
A. No. That's a period of time. To answer the
3 question, no, these tables for Davis are labeled Davis at
the top. And there is no indication from me. But I know
4 from sample numbers, these are LR6 and these are my
Loxahatchee samples.
5 Q. These data you say are in other forms that we
have already identified this morning?
6 A. My data. I don't really know that --
Q. That we have your data anywhere else in the
7 record, yet?
A. You have my data. I don't know if you have
8 Davis' data. But because -- These sheets right here, they
have Davis at the top. They are not mine.
9 Q. Why don't we just --
A. J5, the other values listed I can't at the moment
10 interpret. But then there is another -- So I can't really
interpret that. That could be my data. But I don't -- It
11 looks like this is the data listed was the J series from
the north part of 3A, the cores that we took there. It
12 looks like the bog density and soil phosphorus in those
areas. Then there is another list of the BP analysis.
13 But it's nothing new.
Q. Which we had seen previously?
14 A. All of my data, with the possible exception of J
series data, has been provided to you.
15 MS. PONZOLI: I think I'm going to make this a
composite exhibit and attach it to the deposition.
16 Unless someone feels a need, I don't think I'll have
copies passed out. Is that all right with you?
17 MR. MEDDLETON: Yes.
MS. PONZOLI: I just want it there and
18 identified. I'm going to include the Davis for
comparison purposes. I might want it.
19 THE WITNESS: There were two copies of this J
series data, exactly the same. I'll put it on top.
20 Because as far as I'm concerned, this is the most
important data for this deposition.
21 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. We're going to label this composite -- This is
22 the one on top that is the most important data that we'll
talk about for the whole deposition? Is that what you
23 said?
A. I don't know. We only talk about the subjects
24 you bring up.
But this is the result of the most recent sampling of
25 northern part of 3A. Remember I said --





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


263



1 Q. This is the very recent one that was done the
last several days?
2 A. No. It was done in January of '94. If you
recall, I told you that we did some sampling in the north
3 part of 3A, in which we went into areas of cattails and
sawgrass.
4 Q. Right.
A. And it's described in Patrick Number 5, the site
5 description and actually the data itself. So you have it
presented in two ways, in this table, which we just had an
6 the previous document.
MS. PONZOLI: All right. We're going to label
7 this Composite Exhibit Patrick 18.
(Thereupon, the document was marked for
8 identification as Government Exhibit No. 18.)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
9 Q. Just so I can clean it up, Patrick Number 14, do
you still have that in front of you? I thought I had
10 handed you one. Or did I take it back?
A. Before lunch I had that, but it was returned to
11 you.
Q. Right. There we go. That's Dr. Richardson's
12 cesium explanation. And you said you might actually rely
upon this in some way.
13 A. Yes.
Q. And would you explain to me what you might rely
14 on this for?
A. To give some idea of the accretion rate in
15 various parts of the Loxahatchee, because I only had a
very few cesium profiles from Loxahatchee. And these are
16 additional profiles that Dr. Richardson took. And so it's
possible that I will look at all of those together.
17 Q. Sure.
A. In that connection. And I would also look at the
18 phosphorus, because he has phosphorus profiles, too.
Q. Let me ask you what the accretion rate, what the
19 importance in Loxahatchee is.
A. What I observed in Loxahatchee in regard to
20 accretion of building of peat in the surface is that at
the stations adjacent to the canal on the west side, there
21 was appreciable accretion. But that in the interior of
Loxahatchee, which appeared to me from the phosphorus
22 analysis and from the poor water phosphorus analysis that
Dr. Davis carried out to be oligotrophic, a very nutrient
23 deficient area. But in the are in the interior of
Loxahatchee, the accretion was almost 30. Very, very low
24 peat being laid down. So that is a major conclusion I
reached just from the examination of my cesium data.
25 Q. Let me ask you this: What were the levels, do





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


264



1 you recall, of the center of the refuge for the surface
soil, the phosphorus in the surface soil?
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form. When you
say "surface," are you talking about the centimeter
3 depth?
Q. I'm talking about the 500 millimeter range you
4 have been using in baseline.
A. That question you asked earlier. And you agreed
5 to wait until we examine the Loxahatchee data in detail.
Q. Right. You are waiting to do that?
6 A. Yes. I'm certainly willing to do that.
Q. Do you need to refer to a document to find it?
7 A. It's in the LR documents that I have provided to
you.
8 Q. Now, which are those? Are these Patrick 5 and
Patrick 18? The only reason I'm asking it out of turn now
9 is I have a question that goes back to a prior exhibit
that I would like to ask.
10 A. I'm pulling this out of Patrick 18.
Q. It's a composite exhibit. We just need to put it
11 back when we're through.
A. And I'm referring to a document labeled at the
12 top July93P.XLS and core I.D. numbers LR, various LR
numbers. If we were to refer to this and if we could get
13 the map of the Loxahatchee showing the station location,
particularly of that original map, not the fax copy.
14 MR. MEDDLETON: Exhibit 13.
A. What I'm referring to is 18.
15 Q. Is this the one you were referring to?
A. I think so. That's not the faxed copy, is it?
16 Q. No, sir. That's the one you produced among your
documents.
17 A. Wasn't there a better one that was attached to --
Q. I don't know.
18 A. Anyway, I think I can check this out, with the
aid of my bifocals I can find the stars on here.
19 If you will notice, as you recall in Loxahatchee, my
sampling consisted mainly of two transects, one going from
20 west to east starting at about the west boarder about
halfway up the refuge and extending due east to the center
21 of the refuge. And then the other transect was from the
southern part of the refuge just north of structure 10C
22 and going north.
Q. To the center of the refuge?
23 A. To or toward the center of the Refuge, yes. To
the center of the refuge. These sample locations are
24 delineated on here by the designation LR.
Q. Right.
25 A. And if we first look at LR18, which is western





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


265



1 most, you can see it on your map there.
Q. Right, I can see it.
2 A. I'll hold this map down here.
Q. Thank you.
3 A. If we were to go to LR18, we'll find LR18. We
may have to thumb through here. There, that's on page
4 five of this July93P.XLS document.
Q. This is the one that we only have a single copy
5 of, isn't it? You removed what you are talking from 18,
right, from the composite?
6 A. Yes.
Q. So we have a single copy. You can just call it
7 out to me.
A. I think it's important that you see this.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think this is the same thing.
A. I think so. That's right. There were two copies
9 here. So now we're looking at copies of the same
material.
10 Q. Right.
A. If you notice the LR18 --
11 Q. Right?
A. 84 and LR18-85.
12 Q. Do they match sites?
A. These are duplicate cores to give us some idea of
13 the accuracy of our sampling. If you will notice the
phosphorus content is very high, up to 2500 parts per
14 million.
Q. Yes, sir.
15 A. That is a site adjacent to the canal in an area
of all cattails.
16 Q. Yes, sir.
A. You will notice that the phosphorus content is
17 very high in this area. This is a very dense cattail area
adjacent to canal L-7 in Loxahatchee. And let's go to the
18 next site, which is LR19. If you will notice, these are,
incidentally, sections, these squares are sections of
19 those one-mile intervals. Do you see that on your map
here?
20 Q. Oh, yes.
A. You understand that those are section lines.
21 Q. Right.
A. And so you see that LR18 is about 1/8 mile from
22 that section line.
Q. Right.
23 A. And LR19 is not quite half a mile from that
section line, which is as I recall right at the canal. So
24 let's look at the phosphorus -- And I'm going to carry you
across this transect --
25 Q. Right.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


266



1 A. -- to answer the questions you asked about
background levels, among other things. So if you look at
2 LR19, you will see a tremendous drop off in the phosphorus
content. One profile had a maximum of 464 at the surface.
3 The other was higher, it had 847 at the surface and then
decreased. So this was apparently in an area not as --
4 Q. Where are these duplicates?
A. Is 88 a duplicate of 86? Yes. With some -- A
5 duplicate in a sense that these cores were taken some few
meters apart.
6 Q. That's a pretty significant increase, isn't it?
A. It's a difference. And there, I think, is some
7 differences in topography and other things. I'm convinced
this is a real difference. This is not a laboratory
8 error. Because this is a method that is -- If one of
those were off, then I would say hey, maybe it's an error.
9 The point I want to make here is not so much the
difference between these two, the difference in between
10 these two and LR18. A tremendous drop off in distance in
that quater of a mile.
11 Q. And it's only about a quarter of a mile further
in.
12 A. Right.
Q. Double that at the LR19-86 that you were still in
13 a cattail area.
A. I think so. We have got notes on that. I think
14 that was a cattail area or transition area. I'm not
really quite sure. But there were maps that would show
15 that, and there are. We have notes that would indicate
that. And it should be in the field notes that we got
16 from Dr. Davis. But if we could leave that question to --
Q. That's okay.
17 A. -- later and go to the next sample site, which is
some distance away. I chose these sample sites because I
18 thought when I got to LR28, a mile and a half over,
approximately, that I would still be in a an area affected
19 with -- There is an LR20.
Q. That's about a mile in or a little less than a
20 mile in?
A. Yes. It's hard to make out on this map because
21 there is another one of the Reddy stations is overlying
it. But that's LR20. I think that's LR20. If we refer
22 to LR20 then, which is -- Yes, that's 20. I make that out
as 20. LR20 is about 2/3 of a mile from the canal. And
23 you can see the phosphorus level in LR20 is 600 and 500 at
the surface, and then decreases down to lower levels.
24 Q. Right.
A. Close to what I have indicated was background for
25 other areas of the Everglades. And then going onto the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


267



1 next sample site -- And I might mention also that the
reason I wanted to go back in was my spacing was so wide
2 here that I missed a lot of the transition areas. I
thought the phosphorus effect was farther out in the
3 Loxahatchee than it actually turned out to be.
So the next site, I believe, is LR28, which is about
4 a mile and 3/4. So let's see what LR28 is. As I recall
from an earlier examination, it drops off even more. No,
5 it stays about the same. LR28, it's about 600 at the
surface, or to 700. And then drops down with depth. So
6 LR28 is -- And I think that's into the sawgrass area.
Because as I say, we can determine that later. And the
7 next site is LR27. And if you will notice -- It's on page
ten. And if you notice, the phosphorus levels at the
8 surface are down about 300 parts per million.
Q. Right. And you are now in the center of the
9 refuge.
A. No.
10 Q. LR27?
A. Yes, right, it is. It is close to the center of
11 the refuge.
Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Patrick, when you see LR27 at
12 roughly, let's say, three hundred parts per million --
A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Why aren't you considering that the
background level?
14 A. I didn't say I wasn't.
Q. But you are considering roughly 500, 600
15 elsewhere as the background level, which is approximately
double that level. I don't understand.
16 A. You mean in the Loxahatchee?
Q. Yes, sir.
17 A. Yes, the background, I'm not sure that I should
designate say 600 in this case in the Loxahatchee as
18 background. I think I said it was what I have indicated
as background level for other parts of the Everglades.
19 Q. Okay. Well, I need to establish how you decided
it's background for other areas, because I'm not clear on
20 that. I know I asked you the question what do you think
is background, and that was your answer.
21 A. We were talking about 2A and 3.
Q. Right.
22 A. The reason it is throughout 2A and 3, when we
finally get through the zone in which there appears to be
23 some impact from the incoming phosphorus, that the surface
concentration of phosphorus reaches about 500 parts per
24 million. That is even in the short sawgrass areas south
of 10C, quite a distance south of 10C, where it doesn't
25 appear to be any impact and the water phosphorus





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


268



1 concentration in the water was down to 10, 15 parts per
billion.
2 And in other areas of 3 that have no - that I have no
knowledge of it being impacted, those are the lowest
3 levels. So we didn't see many below 500. That's why I
was saying 500 is obviously background level at this time.
4 Maybe a hundred years ago before there was any
drainage and subsidence and burning of the Everglades, it
5 might have been lower than that. And that was the point I
was trying to make. That perhaps I mentioned that the
6 center of Loxahatchee would probably represent the most
likely unimpacted area in the whole system.
7 Q. But you did say that you have not done work in
the park. So you don't know what the levels in the park
8 would be?
A. No. I know work has been done in the park, but I
9 don't recall reviewing it to any extent. I won't be
giving testimony on the park.
10 Q. Okay. And you said where you have these levels
of roughly 300 parts per million in the top layer of the
11 soil in the center of the refuge that you find very little
accretion of peat. Is that accurate?
12 A. Yes, right. Or barely accretion of organic
matter, which is equivalent to peat.
13 Q. Okay. Did you only do cesium work in 2A and 1?
A. Yes.
14 Q. So you don't know what the accretion of peat is
in 3A and other areas? Is that accurate?
15 A. No.
Q. That's not accurate?
16 A. No, I do not know.
Q. Right. You do not know.
17 A. Correct.
Q. All right. And let me just make sure that I
18 understand some of your ideas accurately.
If you had this area of the center of the refuge with
19 very little peat accretion, and it were over drained by
the definition which is really unquantified in the SWIM
20 plan. Is that accurate?
A. Yes.
21 Q. The over drainage is just a sort of generic term.
A. To which I understand.
22 Q. To which you applied certain parameters.
A. Right.
23 Q. Isn't it true that an over-drained area with that
small amount of peat would not necessarily have the
24 phosphorus release in the over drainage that the EAA would
have where you have very deep historic peat levels?
25 A. I'm not sure I agree with that. If these areas





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


269



1 were drained for long periods of time, the organic matter
would decompose, the carbon dioxide would live. All the
2 minerals, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, would stay in
place and keep increasing in concentration.
3 Q. But you would have found that when you tested the
soil cores.
4 A. Sorry?
Q. You would have found these increased phosphorus
5 levels when you tested the soil cores in the center of the
refuge.
6 A. In the center of the refuge?
Q. Yes.
7 A. I have no knowledge that the center of the refuge
has been over drained. It was not on the map showing over
8 drainage.
Q. And you are referring -- I can't remember. Was
9 it page 121 in the SWIM plan?
A. About page one hundred in volume three, plus or
10 minus one or two.
Q. Okay.
11 A. It's that citation that I gave.
Q. Right. If 1400 times the phosphorus were
12 mobilized according to your analysis, would you expect to
see a nutrient gradient below that area like you see in
13 2A?
A. What are you -- That is difficult to answer
14 because the over-drained area is a very extensive area.
And there is obviously a transaction in drainage. It
15 wouldn't just be drained up to a line and stop. So it's
kind of hard to define, visualize that as a point source.
16 I would think, though, that if an area is over
drained enough to release phosphorus to the extent that
17 the plants would - the phosphorus content of the plants
would be higher than it would be under
18 phosphorus-deficient conditions as oligotrophic conditions
are, more of that phosphorus would be leveled out. And if
19 there is a fast-moving column of surface water, some of
that would move with that water. That probably wouldn't
20 move very far before it was reabsorbed, unless it were
suspended phosphorus in suspended matter or suspended
21 organic matter. The orthophosphate that dissolves in
organic phosphate would not move very far before it goes
22 back into the system, because it's so mobile. Which is
the same situation with the STA's.
23 The first phosphorus that comes out or comes into the
STA is is generated by the STA's as I have indicated, the
24 part of that that's orthophosphate dissolved in organic
phosphate is going to be more readily recycled than the
25 suspended phosphate that is present in colloidal





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


270



1 suspension, and especially that dissolved in organic
matter, because that is not readily available to the
2 plants. It won't go back up.
And incidentally, that reminds me that another one of
3 the problems with the STA's is that the phosphorus that
they would be getting from the agricultural area will be
4 depleted in that readily removed phosphorus, which is the
orthophosphorus, because the best management practices are
5 used on or near the farm will have the dissolved
phosphorus removed more readily than these other forms.
6 So it depends then on the form of one factor
involved in how much moves and how far it moves is the
7 form of phosphorus. And I would anticipate that leaching
from leaves, a fair amount of that is going to be
8 dissolved organic phosphorus.
Q. Then let me ask you this: Other than the two
9 pieces of property that I'm trying to protect, the refuge
and the park, are you basically telling me that the whole
10 Everglades is fairly over enriched over historic levels?
Is that your opinion?
11 A. No. I would say those areas that are over
drained, that they are oxidizing and that the organic
12 matter is disappearing and that the phosphorus and other
elements, sulfur for example, are conservative elements
13 and they are staying in the system and they are building
up in concentration. And that was the initial point in
14 this question.
Q. But see, I thought that that leads me to the
15 conclusion that the water conservation areas are enriched
over historic levels for either the reason or the
16 combination of reasons which the respondents/interveners
are in support of, or the reason that you are stating the
17 over drainage and release of phosphorus, but they are
enriched over historic levels almost over all of the
18 areas, particularly the ones that are over drained. Is
that accurate?
19 A. Especially the ones that are over drained.
Q. Even if the over-drained areas, the ones down
20 stream of over-drained areas, have been affected, in your
opinion?
21 A. In my opinion, they would have to be affected in
some extent.
22 Q. What I'm basically trying to protect are petunia
and onion patches; is that right?
23 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll object to the form.
Are you going to answer that question?
24 MS. PONZOLI: Yes, he is.
A. I think it's unrealistic to expect that the
25 Everglades is in its original pristine, unaffected,





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


271



1 undrained form. Because there has been so much drainage
activity, so many canals over the last hundred years.
2 So it gets back to an answer I gave you earlier.
It's almost impossible to know what the original condition
3 was, because no one can identify any part of the
Everglades that was absolutely unimpacted.
4 Q. In other words, what we're just looking to do, in
your opinion, is to reach some type of a policy management
5 decision about what kind of a wetland or wetlands we want
to manage out there.
6 A. Well, yes. That's true. That is not to say that
the Everglades, as it appears now, is not a valuable
7 ecosystem. I'm just saying it's not a completely
unimpacted, unaffected ecosystem.
8 Q. Let's assume the Everglades is impacted and is
affected, and we decide that we would like to keep the
9 Everglades as it is out there now from altering a whole
lot more. Do you have an opinion as to what we would have
10 to do about nutrient enrichments to keep it from altering,
from progressively altering more?
11 A. What part of the Everglades? What area are you
interested in protecting?
12 Q. Well, I'm obviously, as a federal attorney,
charged with trying to obtain protection for the refuge
13 and park. So if I want to keep the refuge and the park
from altering more, in your opinion, what needs to be done
14 in the management of the Everglades to those two areas?
I'm not saying the federal government only cares about its
15 property.
A. I want you to define what areas you are talking
16 about, first. The park? I haven't done the work in the
park, but I have reviewed the data that's available for
17 discharge of phosphorus at the 12C structures.
Q. Right.
18 A. And according to what my interpretation and also
according to what I have heard district personnel say,
19 there is no indication that there is excess phosphorus
going into the national park from up-stream areas. That
20 the phosphorus concentration of the drainage water is
down, the water going into that is down to 10 to 15 parts
21 per billion.
So, if I were going to protect the Everglades
22 National Park, I would deal water management more than
nutrient management. Although, I would be concerned that
23 there was not additional - there was not inputs of
nutrients into the park.
24 Insofar as the Loxahatchee refuge is concerned, it is
true that my study shows that a narrow band along the west
25 side of the Loxahatchee has been impacted and has





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


272



1 increased phosphorus content, which extends some distance,
albeit a short distance, out to the refuge itself before
2 it reaches low levels, which are considered background in
other parts of the Everglades. And so that part has been
3 impacted. But I don't have any information that there is
any increase or any enlargement in that small area of
4 impact alongside the canal. So --
Q. Do you see a gradient from the canal on into the
5 refuge?
A. Well, that is why I want to do the other samples.
6 I want to delineate that gradient. When I get the results
of that, I'll have a better idea.
7 My thought was that the impact extended much farther
into the Loxahatchee than it did. In other words, my
8 hypothesis was that it was impacted farther than the data
showed. So that's why I want to go back and take other
9 stations. And only the south end, which we haven't looked
at, yet.
10 Q. Right.
A. We haven't looked at that transect. You will
11 find that the first station even, which was some few
hundred yards from 10C, did not show any elevated
12 phosphorus. Not as I thought. So that's why I want to go
back and take samples closer to 10C's, so I can delineate
13 that gradient.
Q. May I ask you why you are using the standard for
14 the rest of the Everglades as the background standard for
the refuge when your data reflects and you agree that the
15 refuge itself has, in your words, a very oligotrophic
background with the 300 level? Why are you using the 500
16 level as your baseline as to what is actually the refuge
level, the 300?
17 A. As I indicated earlier, I think that possibly the
only part of the Everglades that I can understand from
18 talking to people who worked in the Everglades more than I
have, people like Wiley Kitchens and John Richardson and
19 others, that the center of the Everglades is at a higher
elevation and and all the manipulations in hydrology that
20 are taking place are most likely to have gotten into that
part of the Loxahatchee. If that's the case, than it
21 might be as close to it's original form as any other.
Also, the area -- If this deposition moves along for
22 us enough to get into the soils part, most of Loxahatchee
is on Loxahatchee muck, which is an organic soil formed in
23 deeper water from aquatic plants. And it forms a less
dense soil with organic matter of peat, forms a less dense
24 peat than the sawgrass does. And it doesn't have nearly
the favorable physical properties that the sawgrass peat
25 does, and probably has a lower background phosphorus





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


273



1 level, just because of the plant community and the nature
of the peat.
2 And it is this adverse or poor structure in nutrient
status of this Loxahatchee peat that has resulted in there
3 being a refuge. If it had been a good sawgrass plane, it
would all be sod crops and sugar cane and whatever the
4 federal government and the state spent hundreds of
miscellaneous dollars to develop into agriculture.
5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can we have take a short break?
MS. PONZOLI: Yes.
6 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
deposition continued as follows:)
7 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, I'm going to hand you two documents
8 and ask you to identify them, please, for the record.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Are these previously marked?
9 MS. PONZOLI: They were marked on a period when
we went off the record. And I would just like for
10 Dr. Patrick to identify them, just do a couple of
questions on them, then clean this one up.
11 THE WITNESS: Document 16 or 16 and 17. Is that
a 7? Document 16 is a report is entitled Capacity of
12 the Limestone layer Under Muck Soils of Everglades
Agricultural Area to Remove Phosphate from Drainage
13 Water. It is a preliminary report on the laboratory
phase of the study.
14 And the next document Number 17, Patrick 17, has
the same title and is a more comprehensive report
15 that includes both the laboratory study and a field
study dealing with the same topic that is the
16 capacity of limestone and muck soils to remove
phosphate from drainage soil.
17 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. And I think, as you have explained a couple of
18 times, Dr. Patrick, you believe this would be a useful way
to remove phosphorus in drainage water?
19 A. Yes. If properly developed and maintained, it
certainly has the potential capacity. And I think if
20 properly developed would have the actual capacity to
remove some significant amount of phosphorus from the
21 drainage water.
Q. What do you mean "properly developed?"
22 A. I mean developed to the extent that the drainage
water is in contact with the limestone, with the calcium
23 carbonate.
Q. How does it lose its contact, the drainage water
24 with the limestone?
A. Well, unless you make some efforts, it perhaps
25 will not have any contact with the limestone layer, unless





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


274



1 it happens to be - the water happens to be in a ditch that
is dug down into the limestone layer.
2 Q. Let me just make sure I understand. You mean you
have to expose the limestone initially to the drainage
3 water so that it can have contact? Is that the initial
step?
4 A. Yes. I put that the reverse way. But it doesn't
really matter.
5 Q. And I think you suggested in a couple places it
needs to be sometimes ground up and you would have crushed
6 limestone?
A. If you increase the surface area, you are going
7 to increase the contact. And that will allow more action,
more removal, more precipitation.
8 Q. All right. Obviously, I am the extreme layman.
But the only criticism of this method of phosphorus
9 removal that I personally am aware of that is it rapidly
loses it's capacity for contact. Is that an inherent
10 problem with this?
A. Yes, I think that would be a problem, unless it's
11 designed in a way to maintain a good contact. But that
may or may not be a big problem. Frankly, only
12 experimentation will tell. I came up with this concept
because I happen to know that phosphorus will combine with
13 calcium carbonate, and there is plenty of calcium
carbonate in this EAA. So it's a matter of well, can
14 these be gotten together in a way that would help remove
phosphate.
15 Q. As part of my layman's knowledge, I was under the
impression that algae or some such flora begin to grow on
16 the limestone rather rapidly. Is that accurate or not?
A. Yes. Epiphytic algae will grow.
17 Q. Then it loses it's ability to absorb phosphorus
if the growth of algae is at some level?
18 A. I'm not sure about that.
Q. Have you experimented with this?
19 A. No, but I thought about how it would work.
Q. And what are your thoughts on it?
20 A. Well, the algae, either the suspended algae or
the algae, adheres onto surfaces like these limestone
21 surfaces, pull orthophosphate out of the water. But there
is a turnover of these algae cells. They die. The
22 suspended cells tend to fall as detrital material to the
bottom. This is organic and the phosphorus is in an
23 organic form.
This organic matter, this detrital material,
24 decomposes or releases and some is orthophosphate and
releases it in proximity to the lime layer, where it has
25 an opportunity to enact. And so I think a system like





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


275



1 this will work best if the time of water is such long
enough that algae will pull the phosphorus out of the
2 water, some of the phosphorus out of the water, and then
the cells fall to the bottom, or die and fall to the
3 bottom and decompose. And then the phosphorus, instead of
being uniformly disbursed throughout the water column
4 tends to be concentrated at the rock, the lime rock or
calcium carbonate surfaces where it has greater
5 opportunity to be absorbed or precipitated.
Q. Have you done these experiments?
6 A. No, I haven't. I think it's a possibility.
Studies need to be done along this line.
7 Q. That seems, I guess at least to me, not to be
that complicated an experiment to do. Why hasn't that
8 been followed through on?
A. Because I just haven't taken the initiative or
9 proposed that it be done. It is something that I probably
will recommend that I do as part of this study.
10 Q. And there have been no field experiments, I take
it, in the EAA by U.S. Sugar or anyone else where they had
11 the limestone exposed and then took measurements over a
long period of time?
12 A. Yes, that's what this second document describes.
Q. And what is the length of time that the
13 phosphorus readings have been taken?
A. None of these were - I don't know what you call
14 long periods of time - but something like two- or
three-day periods the phosphorus was exposed to the lime
15 rock.
Q. Have you done it for longer than two or three
16 days?
A. No, not really. Two hundred and something hours.
17 So that would be about ten days.
Q. Okay.
18 A. Eight or ten days.
Q. Is that the point at which this algae buildup
19 will begin to impact the phosphorus on reduction capacity
of the lime rock system?
20 A. That I don't know. We haven't tested that.
Q. All right. Was there any reason for setting the
21 time period as short as ten days?
A. Yes. Because it was reduced to the capacity to
22 retain this water, which was drainage water. And it's
unrealistic to keep it in drainage ditches longer than
23 that. To properly utilize the system, treatment systems
will have to be involved that will permit longer contact
24 time between the water and the limestone.
Q. So you will have to have the equivalent of a
25 reservoir that can be controlled?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


276



1 A. Yes. Something like that, yes.
Q. But that experiment has not been done?
2 A. No.
Q. When did you first begin the lime-rock
3 experiments, in what year?
A. The laboratory experiments probably began in
4 1990, I would think. Probably 1990 or 1991. These I
don't have any dates on here, but about then.
5 Q. And the field experiments began when?
A. That's a little easier to -- In '92.
6 Q. Dr. Patrick, it doesn't sound like it would be a
terribly expensive experiment to run for a longer period
7 of time. Is that inaccurate?
A. No, it wouldn't -- I'm not so sure. It would
8 take a well designed experiment that would be followed and
would take pretty extensive sampling. It couldn't be done
9 with a quick and dirty study, so to speak.
Q. Well, no. But I mean, I guess it seems to me to
10 be a fairly straight forward concept.
A. Yes.
11 Q. The lime-rock concept holding the phosphorus.
And I guess I'm just puzzled why it hasn't been carried
12 through and we don't have some better idea of its capacity
to actually achieve what we hope it would achieve.
13 A. I think it is being used in one of the U.S. Sugar
mills where they have some appreciable phosphate discharge
14 that they are using a lime-rock system to remove some of
the phosphorus.
15 Q. Do they have a reservoir where they move the
water in and out? Supposedly one of these self-contained
16 systems?
A. I can't answer that. I haven't seen it. But
17 that's what I heard, that they are removing phosphates
from the drainage water with the limestone.
18 Q. You don't know if it's moving on into the system
or recycled water within the mill? You don't have an
19 idea?
A. No, I don't. My guess is that's it's moving
20 through the system.
Q. And you have no idea of the algae buildup or the
21 reduced capacity of the system?
A. No, I have not gone into detail any farther than
22 you see in these reports right here.
Q. All right. Do you know which U.S. Sugar mill is
23 involved?
A. No, I do not. I heard, but I don't recall.
24 Because I'm really not that familiar with their mills.
Q. Then I won't start guessing which mill you heard
25 of.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


277



1 A. Even if you named it, I'm not sure I would even
recall.
2 MS. PONZOLI: I think what I would like to do is,
what we sort of danced around all day is the
3 Loxahatchee. And what I would like you to do is help
me -- Let's go off the record and assimilate all the
4 Loxahatchee information.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
5 deposition continued as follows:)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
6 Q. Let's identify the documents. And then let's
talk about what you did and what it means.
7 Can we do Patrick number 19? Can you identify that
for me, please?
8 A. The first page of Patrick Number 19 is a map
showing the Patrick station data and the Richardson
9 station data. And it includes my samples, except for the
more recent samples taken a few days ago.
10 The next set of tables that are listed LOX-AVG.XLS
are not my data.
11 Q. Do you know whose data they are?
A. From my understanding, it's the surface water
12 analysis carried out by Dr. Davis' group, Environmental
Services.
13 Q. So long as we see LOX-AVG.XLS, those are all
Environmental Service?
14 A. With monthly dates, monthly columns shown through
page seven.
15 Q. They are renumbered each time, though.
A. Okay. Then the next set is another page one, the
16 next page one, which follows page seven. Which the
samples indicated LR01 through 3 and so on --
17 Q. Right.
A. -- are also not my data.
18 Q. But still has LOX-DATA.XLS, which would be
Environmental Services?
19 A. I would guess so. Yes. And I'm not sure -- It
appears to represent phosphorus concentrations in surface
20 water.
Then there is a yellow marker page that is entitled
21 monthly spread sheet. And this also is not my data.
Q. Then we come back to the MOD --
22 A. Yes.
Q. -- files, and we still have not reached your
23 data, yet?
A. We have not yet reached my data.
24 Then we go onto -- Okay. There is a section with a
yellow page on my copy with the notation Patrick cesium
25 and sediment.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


278



1 Q. All right. Now we're coming to your data?
A. Yes, we're coming to my data. That's correct.
2 Q. All right. So now we're into your data. And
does your data extend through the end of this document,
3 Dr. Patrick,
or only up to Richardson Sediment. Again, a blank sheet
4 with Richardson Sediment typed on it?
A. Let's see. I think it would. Let me see the
5 page before that. Yes. Yes. I think that's my data
right before that. Let's see. Okay. Yes. Up to a page
6 entitled Richardson Sediment.
Q. All right. Now, so we know we have located where
7 yours is in this data collection. I would like to go back
to the sampling program in the refuge, Dr. Patrick. And
8 before we even begin that sampling program, to talk about
how you designed it and what participation you had in the
9 design and what your hypothesis were and what you were
sent there to do.
10 A. Well, my hypothesis was very simple in this case.
And that was to do two transects in the Loxahatchee, as I
11 indicated earlier. One going from the west margin of the
Loxahatchee out to the middle.
12 Q. Right.
A. And the other going from the south end of
13 Loxahatchee near 10C and going north to approximately the
middle. And at a number of locations along those
14 transects, I took 50-centimeter-deep cores, carried those
to the laboratory, sliced them horizontally as to what I
15 recall two-centimeter segments, and analyzed all of them
for phosphorus and some of them for cesium. And also
16 analyzed some of them for other elements as well.
Q. Such as, are they listed on the sheets?
17 A. Yes, they are listed in the table. Manganese,
calcium, magnesium, aluminum and sodium, in addition to
18 the phosphorus.
Q. Did you measure for anything that would have
19 shown you the flow of water, where you could tell where
the flow of water had gone?
20 A. No.
Q. What would you have measured if you wanted to do
21 that?
A. Well, I don't really understand what you mean by
22 "the flow of water." At the present time or in the past?
Q. If you wanted to know where the canal water, how
23 far the canal water extended into the refuge, for example,
could you --
24 A. Yes. I see.
Q. What would you have measured for?
25 A. Okay. I would have -- That was the one purpose





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


279



1 of my transect was to measure, to determine the extent of
which the canal water had extended into the refuge by
2 measuring the phosphorus content in the profile, since the
drainage water that came through did contain phosphorus.
3 Q. Let me ask you this: Is it specific conductivity
that you measured for? There are constituents that will
4 tell you where the canal water is going, and I am can't
quite frankly remember.
5 A. I was not attempting to study the hydrology. But
another indication of where the canal, the extent of the
6 canal water would have been the depth of the water. And
the extent, the distance out from the canal through that
7 or subsidence would have occurred as a result of the
lowering of the water table due to the - lowering of the
8 soil surface, rather, as result of the long-time presence
of the canal. All the canals in the Everglades have
9 depressed the zone adjacent to the canal, the land
adjacent to the canal, so that it slopes down to the
10 canal.
Q. What is the phenomenon that causes that?
11 A. Just drainage that causes compaction.
Q. Going back to my question, are there constituents
12 you might have measured to make sure just exactly how far
canal water was going in?
13 A. Yes, I think that could have been done at any one
time. It wouldn't necessarily tell you where over a long
14 period of time.
Q. What would that be?
15 A. Since the canal water is known to have a certain
level of phosphorus, which I think there is an average at
16 five, compensation five, I think 140 parts per billion,
since the interior, the only phosphorus can come from rain
17 water. One way of doing that would have been to measure
the phosphorus gradient in the water.
18 Q. That's the one you did use, right?
A. I did this in the soil, not the water.
19 Q. But beyond phosphorus, what could you have
measured?
20 A. You are talking about water now?
Q. Yes. In water. Something beyond phosphorus.
21 A. You could have done this also as you indicated
with conductivity. Since the water from the interior of
22 Loxahatchee would have had a lower conductivity than water
in the canal that had been exposed to strata had a higher
23 sodium content.
Q. You did not measure surface water? You only
24 measured soil?
A. You mean what component of surface water? You
25 mean the constituent in surface water?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


280



1 Q. Right.
A. No, I didn't. I think we measured the depth of
2 the water. But I think that's the only thing.
Q. Okay. All right. Your hypothesis was to do two
3 transects. And what were you trying to establish in the
two transects?
4 A. Actually, instead of calling it an hypothesis,
the objective was to measure the two transects. And I
5 presume if I had a hypothesis, it would be that the
highest phosphorus content would be at the vicinity of the
6 canal with distance out from the canal that would be a
decrease phosphorus content to the point where there was
7 little observable effect of phosphorus in the soil as a
result of phosphorus coming down the canal.
8 Q. And just so I understand, that you are going to
have the highest phosphorus where the canal water is, and
9 going toward the center there is going to be a gradient?
A. Yes.
10 Q. Was it to determine the distance that it took to
get the background?
11 A. Yes. Essentially to see how much the area was
impacted by the phosphorus in the drainage water. I
12 thought that would be something worth doing.
Q. And then so I can understand. I mean, I don't
13 think anyone disputes that, in fact, that there were areas
that would appear to be impacted within the refuge; is
14 that correct?
A. Sorry, I'm --
15 Q. There were areas in the refuge that are impacted
along the canal edges?
16 A. Impacted in that, yes, there were areas that have
typha and that the water depth is higher or greater. Yes.
17 And from the result of my study, shows there is higher
phosphorus as well.
18 Q. Okay. I guess what I'm having difficulty
understanding is how did this help you in helping your
19 client to understand the facts of this case? What
information was this really providing to you?
20 A. I thought it would be worth while to know how far
into Loxahatchee the effects of incoming phosphorus could
21 be noted.
Q. Okay. Now --
22 A. Just simply that. Period.
Q. Right. So you did the soil cores to 50
23 centimeters at these locations. Did you do something
else?
24 A. You mean, when I said I did the core samples I
did and took those analyzed for phosphorus? Right?
25 Q. Right.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


281



1 A. I analyzed some for cesium to determine the
accretion rate. And I analyzed a number of them, maybe
2 all of them, for a few other elements that are reported in
this table. All of which are reported in the tables in
3 this exhibit.
Q. And the cesium was so you could determine the
4 peat accretion?
A. Yes.
5 Q. And what were the - or what was the purpose of
the other constituents?
6 A. In part, because they are so easy to analyze.
Q. But you had a reason?
7 A. Yes.
Q. I find most people in this case do things for a
8 reason.
A. Actually -- Well, just the fact that we had the
9 extracts from the phosphorus analysis. And we could get
the other data at the same time we got the phosphorus data
10 for almost no additional cost. So we decided to analyze
those.
11 Q. Let me ask you this, then: Does the other data
really tell you anything? Do you get any additional
12 information from the other data?
A. No. And I'm saying that without having carefully
13 examined our data. But since I didn't anticipate that it
would be of any value, of much value --
14 Q. Right. Did you do anything else --
A. No.
15 Q. -- with your work?
A. No. I mentioned the cesium, the cores.
16 Q. You mentioned cesium, and that was to determine
peat accretion. And your conclusion from that was there
17 was very low peat accretion in the center, but higher
along the phosphorus gradient out to the canals. Is that
18 accurate?
A. Yes. Actually, I'm still trying to -- I'm sorry.
19 I wasn't following your question. I was still looking at
this data to see if there could be something gleamed from
20 these analysis.
Q. Take your time. That's fine.
21 A. But, my original answer stands. This was done
sort of as an add on, because we had the solutions and it
22 was easy to run those. And they were just reported here.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
23 deposition continued as follows:)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
24 Q. Dr. Patrick, you said your objectives were to
establish the two transects and to look at the phosphorus
25 gradient and to look for peat accretion. Were there any





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


282



1 other objectives of your portion of this study?
A. No. Not that I can think of at the moment.
2 Q. And what was the purpose for the determining of
peat accretion in the refuge? Why did you think that --
3 A. I wanted to see if the peat accretion, what it
was in an area that had received phosphorus in drainage
4 water for some years as compared to what I presume to be,
and it turned out to be an area in the interior of the
5 refuge which had not received this - which apparently had
not received this added nutrient.
6 Q. Do you have data that we can look at and compare
the results of that? Do we have a graph like we had in
7 Patrick Number 2?
A. I don't think it's here. Although, I had one and
8 it was somewhere. But we can look at the data and you can
get - you can draw the same collusion. In my deposition
9 even, you have seen enough of this to do that.
Q. Let's --
10 A. So we'll look at --
Q. Let me do one more thing just to make it easy for
11 us. I think this morning you identified these site LR18,
19, 20 and 28. Is that accurate?
12 A. 18, 19, 20, 28, 27.
Q. Right?
13 A. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
Q. All right. Let me ask you this: These LR1 --
14 there is an LR17 with a little star, Patrick station data
star. What is that?
15 A. I don't really recall if that is one of my
stations. Let's see --
16 Q. There is LR5 with another star.
A. Okay. Those are other stations.
17 Q. All right.
A. Yes. They are in my data. Let's see if I can
18 find those tables.
Q. Right. So we will be looking for ones that we
19 haven't seen before, LR17 and LR5.
A. You would think I have never seen this. LR6 and
20 that's mine. And LR7. And LR5.
Q. Where are those -- I'm lost. Where is LR09 and
21 10. There is a lot of stations that don't appear on the
map. I found 45.
22 A. You see 9? I see 9. It's on the transect.
Q. You are going to have to help me.
23 A. They are on the west-east transect of LR9.
Q. Oh, all right. And handwritten at the top of the
24 page LR45 and cesium readings. That would be just that
particular sample from station 5. The 44 would indicate
25 that particular sample.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


283



1 A. Station 5 should be --
Q. I think it's up a little north.
2 A. In the middle. Yes. Okay.
Q. It's your northern most station.
3 A. Yes. Okay. And 44 just refers to the core
number.
4 Q. That's what I meant. I'm sorry. That's what I
meant. LR06 - 40 though, I don't understand. And I'm not
5 able to match the readings with your map. I just don't
see enough stars.
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: That seems to be the one that is
missing.
7 THE WITNESS: It's here. It's LR6. It's over on
the east side.
8 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. But there is no star.
9 A. No. Well, several of those that I have analyzed
don't have stars.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: No. They all have stars.
A. That was just missed in the delineation.
11 Q. And 7, I see 7. And 5, I see a star by 5. So 6
should have a star. It just doesn't have one. There
12 should be a star.
A. There should be a -- There are results for a
13 profile 6.
Q. Right.
14 A. And there should be a star marked by it.
Q. Okay. All right. Have you created bar graphs
15 for this, Dr. Patrick?
A. I don't recall that I did.
16 Q. Nor graphs for the cesium?
A. Yes, I had some. I recall having a graph of the
17 cesium. But I don't see it here. I don't know if it's in
this other document.
18 Q. Do you think it's in Patrick Number 20? Did we
identify 20 for the record? I don't think we did. Do you
19 want to identify 20 for the record?
A. Yes. This is another compilation of the data
20 that is in 19, but also shows some figures of different
kinds of plots of the phosphorus data.
21 Q. But we don't see any cesium graphs here, do we?
A. No.
22 Q. Do you think you turned over the cesium graphs?
A. I can't be absolutely sure that I made the graph.
23 But, I don't know why I wouldn't have. And I don't recall
that I turned it over. But we have the data for the
24 cesium here, and is very easily understandable.
Q. Okay. Do you want to walk me through the cesium?
25 A. I did limited cesium cores. In fact, I only did





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


284



1 three --
Q. All right.
2 A. -- in the Loxahatchee, which is why I also wanted
to have access and plan to use Dr. Richardson's cesium
3 data that he did in some cores in Loxahatchee. But if we
take the three that I did, I did two replicates at LR18.
4 As I recall, LR18 is my first sample adjacent to the canal
on the west side where there was no cattails. And the
5 column here, that means something, the last column.
Q. The very last one?
6 A. Yes.
Q. Not the next to the last one?
7 A. No. The next to the last is on a weight basis.
And the last one is on a volume-depth basis.
8 Q. And why is one more valuable than the other?
A. We usually do the cesium distribution on a volume
9 basis. But either column would give you the same answer.
Q. The marker is still at 219 or point 7309?
10 A. That is the maximum fallout. That corresponds to
the 1963 date.
11 Q. Okay.
A. The LR18-85, the other replicate was - did not
12 show a different peak. It showed it up near the surface.
So this was an example of a cesium duplicate or near
13 duplicate, because these were taken in some distance, a
short distance apart. But you can see that the maximum
14 cesium was at two to four centimeters, which this is very
unusual. We usually find much more agreement than this.
15 Q. What do you attribute that difference to?
A. It's very difficult to know. Probably there was
16 some - I would suspect there was some disturbance in that
area that prevented a uniform deposition of cesium. So
17 that's the only explanation I can give for that.
Q. You would think that the disturbance occurred at
18 the LR18-85?
A. That would be my guess. But I can't really be
19 absolutely sure of that.
Q. Is there any bias in the cesium dating technique?
20 A. Of what type? Sorry.
Q. Well --
21 A. Well, errors can always be made. Samples can be
switched inadvertently, as with all kinds of chemical
22 analysis.
Q. Can the cesium migrate in the sediment?
23 A. No, not in sediments like this that contain
appreciable clay of a certain type that will hold the
24 cesium very well. All the other dating shows very sharp
peeks.
25 Q. You are not sampling -- You sampled out from the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


285



1 canal?
A. Just a short distance out from the canal.
2 Q. And you feel confident that you are not sampling
in an area where soil of the canal was tossed or that the
3 subsidence hasn't dragged the soils down so the marker is
smeared?
4 A. I thought not, but I'm not so sure now.
Q. Because of the difference between these two?
5 A. Right. Yes. Which I usually don't find.
Q. Okay.
6 A. I would say they are low, since you have two
values that differ, the 18-84 is more in keeping with what
7 I would expect from a buildup of a high phosphorus content
and large growth of vegetation.
8 Q. These would have not been within a few meters of
each other?
9 A. Maybe 10, 15 meters apart.
Q. You consider that a normal replicate of samples
10 to go that far?
A. Yes, ordinarily.
11 Q. Then you took one more cesium measurement?
A. Right. And this was in the interior, LR05.
12 Q. Right.
A. And if you will notice, the cesium activity was
13 greatest at the surface and decreased down. So it
indicates that there had been very little accretion or
14 buildup of peat since the '63 fallout. Most of the
accretion was still at the surface of the soil.
15 Q. If there was subsidence that caused things to go
down, what would the marker look like?
16 A. If there was subsidence only and no sedimentation
on top of that, it wouldn't look any different. In other
17 words, the cesium would be in the same relative position,
except the whole profile might be compressed, if there was
18 consolidation or oxidation. If it's just subsidence
alone, it wouldn't change the relative dimensions very
19 much.
Q. So your opinion is that there has been virtually
20 no peat accretion since '63?
A. That's what this one cesium core shows. And
21 which is why I said I was also interested in having access
to Dr. Richardson's as well. Because to determine there
22 was just sort of an add on, that was not my main objective
to determine the accretion rate. And I only did three
23 cores to get this information. But it looks like on core
number 5, that the greatest activity, which is indicative
24 of '63 error deposition, is right or at the surface. And
this might be somewhat in keeping with the very low
25 phosphorus levels that we measured in the interior.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


286



1 Q. So you think this is accurate, that there has
been virtually no peat accretion since 1963?
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Asked and answered.
A. That's hard to say on the basis of one profile.
3 Q. Right.
A. If I went out and took several other profiles and
4 had some replication, I could say. But the indication
from this is that at that location there has been no
5 accretion of peat.
Q. Let me ask you this --
6 A. A little accretion of peat.
Q. Did Dr. Richardson's cesium data corroborate
7 this?
A. I haven't looked at it in some time, so I can't
8 really tell without examining it.
Q. It's not before us, is it? I don't think this is
9 included in Dr. Richardson's data in the back.
A. I don't see cesium. Maybe I'm missing it. I see
10 Richardson sediment, but I don't see cesium.
Yes. He has cesium.
11 Q. Where is it?
A. It's in the first table of his data.
12 Q. We have depth and then the next one is cesium?
A. Yes.
13 Q. CN -- I can't read it.
A. That's cesium is cpm/g. It's counts per minute.
14 Q. Okay. Let's look at his -- Do we know what site
we're looking at?
15 A. I can't make out the -- It's LR --
Q. Zero three.
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think it's 08, is my guess.
A. Maybe we can make the next one out. I think it's
17 three. The next one is 08.
Q. The next one looks identical to me.
18 A. Let's see Richardson data.
Q. They all look the same. That can't be.
19 A. Richardson's LR17 is somewhat in the same
vicinity as my LR18.
20 Q. I see Richardson's LR17.
A. It's close to the canal, so it should be somewhat
21 comparable. Do you have his LR17?
Q. I can find 17. Is there 117?
22 A. Well, I think LR17 is the same as 117.
Q. Okay. Where is the marker --
23 A. There is no LR117, is there?
Q. No. Where is the marker in that cesium?
24 A. Let's look and see. It's on page 11 in his
series. He showed the maximum activity at -- And he seems
25 to have marked it here at between four and five





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


287



1 centimeters.
Q. So this is the second column over? Is that
2 right?
A. No. It's the fourth -- Well --
3 Q. 2.31130. Is that it?
A. Yes. But, I would have interpreted this -- I
4 don't know how he interpreted. If you notice the cesium
is pretty high until you get down to nine centimeters.
5 And then it drops off. So I would say that that is the
zone above that is a zone. '63 peat is somewhere in that
6 zone.
Q. You mean this is a smeared marker?
7 A. Yes. This is somewhat of a smeared marker. The
best way to look at his cesium is the figures in the back,
8 the last few pages.
Q. Great.
9 A. And if you can find his LR3 is not too far from
my LR5. It's just north of my LR5, two miles north of my
10 LR5. And he has two graphs. And if you will notice in
those two graphs that the maximum cesium is right at the
11 surface. In the surface a couple centimeters indicating
that since the fallout of cesium in '63, there has been,
12 in that area, there has been very little accumulation.
There has been very little accretion.
13 Q. Dr. Patrick, in your opinion -- I mean, I'm just
having trouble with this. I'm not saying it's not
14 accurate, that my scientists wouldn't say Susan, that's
the way it happens. But I'm having troubling with the
15 idea in 30-something years there has been no peat
accretion there. In your opinion, you think this is
16 rational and you think these are accurate results?
A. In the interior of Loxahatchee, which is probably
17 obviously a pretty nutrient-starved system, it's likely
that that system is just maintaining itself and there is
18 some peat accretion, but there is probably some surface
oxidation that kind of keeps the peat from growing. So I
19 don't know that this indicates no accretion, but it
indicates a very slow rate of accretion.
20 The average rate of accretion in the natural
Everglades for it's whole formation was only approximately
21 a tenth of a millimeter a year. Ten years for a
millimeter. A century for a centimeter. So this probably
22 sort of represents maybe a more natural system.
Q. So we can measure the enrichment of an area by
23 the accretion that's occurred since the cesium marker; is
that right? If we find a heavy peat accretion over the
24 cesium marker, than we know we're looking at a
nutrient-enriched area. Because it if has increased in
25 more than a century, in a hundred years, it's probably





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


288



1 building up faster than natural?
A. I wouldn't put values on it. I would agree with
2 that in a general way. Because I really don't know what
the most natural accretion was. But I have read that the
3 long-term historic geological accretion rate was in that
range. Because the whole Everglades peat system has
4 developed over approximately five thousand years from the
limestone base up to where it is now. That wasn't
5 probably a uniform accretion. So I wouldn't want to
relate that kind of rate to what is going on out here,
6 even in the natural unimpacted area.
Q. An unimpacted area. LR03 replicate 1 and LR03
7 replicate 2, where the cesium marker is at the surface.
Is that what you would expect to see in a rainfall-driven
8 system?
A. Well, that's what we're looking at.
9 MR. KOBELINSKI: Pre-rain Everglades?
Q. No. Now.
10 A. That's what we're looking at. By then, this
could happen from several ways. There could be peat
11 accretion, could be peat forming. But then if it goes
through some drying periods, then there could be
12 oxidation, you see. And this layer, that force then
disappears, and then it goes through this cycle again.
13 So if you went to the EAA, where that surface has
been subsiding, probably the cesium would be, and hadn't
14 been plowed, you probably would find most of the cesium
right at the surface. So this doesn't necessarily
15 represent accretion only. This may be the net results of
accretion and oxidation. I mean, there is no way I can
16 tell.
Q. If we saw oxidation, though, we would expect to
17 see some elevated phosphorus levels?
A. I really don't have the data to say that. I will
18 say this: That this interior of Loxahatchee is
characterized by relatively low phosphorus compared to the
19 other system, and relatively low accretion. And if you
say that maybe the '63 peat is at say two centimeters,
20 well, two centimeters in 30 years is some appreciable
accretion. It is some accretion. If it is a combination
21 of accretion and oxidation, it would be kind of hard to
interpret. The best comparison of this is to compare it
22 to areas like in 2a.
Q. Right.
23 A. Transect 2A.
Q. Right.
24 A. Which shows that these are rapidly accreting
areas.
25 Q. Right.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


289



1 A. We know that the accretion is larger than the
oxidation that occurs, even when those areas dry out. And
2 that's not the case here. So I would agree that there is
an effect of nutrient level here. That this is a low
3 nutrient system.
Q. You agree that the deeper levels of peat
4 accretion in 2A would reflect nutrient enrichment over
time?
5 A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
6 A. It would affect a greater availability of
nutrients and hydrology that would result in the
7 preservation of that peat that was formed. You know, it
takes more than just nutrients to make sure to have peat
8 accretion. You have to have an anaerobic system, so that
the peat accumulates.
9 Q. Let me ask you this -- Excuse me. I'm sorry. Go
ahead.
10 A. You wanted to interpret the Loxahatchee cesium
values.
11 Q. Right.
A. And Dr. Richardson has others. And you can see
12 that in these cases the peat, the maximum cesium level is
deeper in the profile, like LR08, both replicate 1 and
13 replicate 2. The peat is down around four to five
centimeters here. Somewhere in that three to six
14 centimeters, any way, in this first one. If you go to 17,
and as I indicated, 17 was characteristic of the area of
15 my 18, because they are both close to the canal.
Q. Right.
16 A. And you will see the cesium is deeper --
Q. Right.
17 A. -- in the system.
Now, in 17, there is some cesium up in the surface as
18 well. But that could be the translocation of sediment
that contained cesium in the ditch, you see.
19 Q. Certainly.
A. So this system is, you know, is not an isolated
20 system in the sense that it gets drainage water in the
canal.
21 Q. All right. Were you a participant on how Dr.
Richardson and Dr. Davis designed the rest of the testing
22 program?
A. As far as Loxahatchee?
23 Q. Yes, sir.
A. No.
24 Q. Do you have any idea what they were looking for
as they set out to test in Loxahatchee?
25 A. I don't recall discussing this with either of





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


290



1 them, except I know that Dr. Davis' water-quality work was
that as reported in his section here. Those are all the
2 phosphorus concentration values, were obviously designed
to get some picture about the phosphorus in the surface
3 water, overall, of Loxahatchee over some period of time.
And Dr. Richardson's rationale, I don't really know.
4 He came in and sampled Loxahatchee after I did. It may be
that he just wanted to get in there, since he had been
5 arrested once for being there.
Q. I'm going to make it through one deposition where
6 that isn't brought up.
A. I'm glad he did. He has these additional cesium
7 values and I have so few values.
Q. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how
8 the cesium profile can't be used as an indication of
nutrient enrichment. It would appear to me that it's
9 pretty consistent with that.
A. I think I gave maybe the wrong impression that it
10 could not be. I just was saying that in all cases, it
doesn't necessarily.
11 Q. But it can be, in other words?
A. Yes. And I think in this case here, that is what
12 we're looking at.
Q. Okay.
13 A. I tried to make that point.
Q. I'm sorry.
14 A. We had nutrient enrichment at the edge of
Loxahatchee, and then we didn't have. We had a nutrient
15 deficient or oligotrophic system that was putting on very
little peat on the interior. To get to exactly how much
16 peat, that is kind of beyond the scope of our limited
analysis here. If someone wants to fund a study to
17 determine that in more detail, I would be willing.
(Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the
18 deposition continued as follows:)
BY MS. PONZOLI:
19 Q. Dr. Patrick, in regard to Patrick 19, are you
relying upon the first set of data, which is the LOX files
20 or the Richardson Sediment for your opinions? And if so,
how do they support your opinions?
21 It's a compound question.
A. In regard to the phosphorus or the cesium or
22 all --
Q. Well, either one. I can break it back down.
23 A. The reason I want it broken down, I haven't
reviewed the Richardson phosphorus data in some time. And
24 I formed my opinion on my own phosphorus data, which I
have enough, I think, to form an opinion as set forth in
25 the extent of transition area, which hopefully will be





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


291



1 shown by our additional sampling, which we were fortunate
enough to get access.
2 Q. You are welcome.
A. So my opinion on the phosphorus is based almost
3 completely on my own analyses. But as I recall, there was
nothing in Richardson's analysis which made me change my
4 mind.
So probably, if I am to testify on this, I probably
5 will also review Richardson's in more detail than I have
up to now. But I have reached certain conclusions on the
6 basis of my own.
Q. Can you summarize those conclusions for me --
7 MS. PONZOLI: Can you read back the first
question when we came back from break?
8 (Thereupon, the requested portion of the record
was read back by the court reporter.)
9 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. What I'm asking, Dr. Patrick, is what are your
10 opinions, what are your conclusions you have drawn from
this data?
11 A. Were they based on mine or were they also based
on Dr. Richardson's? I think I answered that question.
12 That I have drawn conclusions. And based largely on
mine -- I have seen nothing in Dr. Richardson's, as I
13 recall, that would cause me to change my mind.
Q. I'm asking if you would please summarize those
14 collusions.
A. That's where we are?
15 Q. That's where we were.
A. My conclusion is that the area adjacent to canal
16 L-7, I believe is the number of the canal, and extending
eastward from the canal into the Loxahatchee, that it is -
17 that area has received drainage water that had enough
phosphorus in it to raise the phosphorus level of the soil
18 appreciable for some distance that I have not yet
determined, but for a much shorter distance than I
19 anticipated in my original sampling schedule.
In that this area is characterized by deeper water as
20 a result of subsidence adjacent to the canal. Very large
typha plants and increased phosphorus and high phosphorus
21 content in the soil down to some several centimeters in
the soil. And the distance to which this impacted area
22 extends is not yet known to me, but probably is greater
than the location of LR18, but apparently not as far out
23 as LR19, at least not to the same high level of enrichment
as LR18, as at LR18.
24 And that the interior of the Loxahatchee, which is my
understanding from an examination of the hydrology models
25 and from attending meetings where these things were





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


292



1 discussed, is an area that has not received water other
than rainfall, except for perhaps storm surges from
2 hurricanes. And that as a result, it is very much lower
in phosphorus and has much sparser vegetation than the
3 lower lying areas on the outer part of Loxahatchee. Which
even in predevelopment times, received nutrients
4 containing waters from Lake Okeechobee and from areas
north of the Loxahatchee.
5 And so what we see in the Loxahatchee is apparently a
dome-like structure of the interior, which is relatively
6 and may be completely unaffected by inputs of nutrients,
both naturally and man supplied. Whereas the outer edges
7 have been affected, not to say impacted, by both natural
inputs of nutrients, since the land on the outer portions
8 is lower lying, as well as inputs of drainage water from
the EAA and from Okeechobee that is higher - that has a
9 higher content of phosphorus and nitrogen.
Q. That's pretty much it?
10 A. Yes.
Q. I know I have asked you this several times, and I
11 apologize for asking again. But I don't really understand
why you don't measure back -- I can guess, but I don't
12 care to guess.
I want you to tell me explicitly why you do not
13 measure your unimpacted area to where you would find
roughly a 300 parts per million in the top layers of the
14 soil as opposed to nearly double that figure, which is
where you were judging the end of the nutrient-enriched
15 area.
Do you understand the question?
16 A. Yes. I think what we're looking at is the outer
portion of Loxahatchee, as compared to the interior. It
17 can be explained in terms that I just went over. The
interior is a dome-like structure, which the hydrology
18 model showed the unimpacted or receiving no outside flow.
Q. Right. I understand that concept. You were
19 saying, in other words, that when you get back to 500 to
600 along your transect, your west-east transect, you were
20 saying that in your opinion that is a naturally-enriched
background area as opposed to a drainage-water-enriched
21 background area.
A. Yes. On the basis of the facts that most of the
22 apparently unimpacted areas of 2A, of 2 and 3, that have
no record of - that I know of - receiving significant
23 runoff water, or at least water that has had most of the
nutrients removed, have a background, an apparent
24 background level, of phosphorus of about 500 parts per
million.
25 Q. And are there comparable soil types to the soil





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


293



1 type that you find in the Loxahatchee where you're finding
the 500?
2 A. There definitely are in 2.
Q. It's sawgrass along that edge of Loxahatchee and
3 it's sawgrass into sawgrass muck?
A. If you will look at the John Henry Davis map of
4 the vegetation areas in the Everglades, you will see that
the Loxahatchee is composed of Loxahatchee muck, and has a
5 vegetation type of aquatic vegetation, and this zone
extends almost all the way through 2A. So you're looking
6 at the same plant communities and vegetation type through
Loxahatchee all the way down through 2A, at least all the
7 way through the impacted area of the enriched area and
onto the none-enriched area.
8 So these are areas that are receiving runoff water
that over - under natural conditions receive runoff water
9 from Okeechobee that was enriched to some level with
nutrients. And that, plus those nutrients, plus rainfall
10 nutrients is what caused this gradual thinning of peat as
you go down the Everglades from Okeechobee to the natural
11 park.
Q. You mean the flow of water was carrying sediment
12 with it as it went downstream?
A. Not necessarily. Although, there was some input
13 of sediment, because there was sediment in soil. How much
is waterborne and how much is airborne is not determined.
14 There were always some air movements of sediment.
And over a 5,000-year period, you find sediment. Much to
15 my surprise, there is more than mineral sediment in the
Loxahatchee peat than I thought there would be in peat
16 formation. But the major effect of this movement is that
nutrients --
17 MS. PONZOLI: Do you have your map in that book?
MR. KOBELINSKI: Map of --
18 MS. PONZOLI: Davis.
MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes.
19 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. Dr. Patrick, do you have some maps that we have
20 looked at in the several days where we have been here
talking about sites that you or Davis or Richardson tested
21 that would show interior locations deep into 2A or deep in
3 that you believe represent the background sites? Can we
22 locate those and then try to locate them on the Davis map?
A. If you look at the Davis map, you can see -
23 although Loxahatchee was not delineated at that time, you
can see the dimensions of Loxahatchee. And this, if you
24 look down here at the legend, it will show as indicated,
sloughs, ponds and lakes with aquatic plants. This was a
25 deep-water system that developed here. And it has those





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


294



1 islands in it, which has some of these island structures
in it.
2 But if you also notice, this canal, the Hillsborough
Canal, was constructed at the time of Davis' '43 survey.
3 And you can see that this same land form extends on down
into what is now 2A, which is the transect below 10C. So
4 all this is the same.
So my point was that when we were down here below the
5 point where we have any phosphorus secretion and where
measurements have shown that the surface of phosphorus
6 content is down 10, 15 parts per billion, that the
phosphorus level in there should be that of the
7 background.
Q. And do you mean this 10 or 15 is the level in the
8 surface-water background?
A. Well, I think 10 wouldn't be very far from it.
9 10 parts per billion is a very low phosphorus level. And
it's very difficult for organisms or plants to pull
10 phosphorus out of water to a concentration lower than
that, particularly since some of that is probably organic
11 phosphorus.
MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll just, so my objection is
12 recorded, I object to the extent that the question is
ambiguous and you were referring to a '43 map. And
13 I'm not sure if you are asking in '43 or if that
referred to today.
14 Q. You are talking about today, Dr. Patrick?
A. Today is when we measured this 500 parts per
15 million.
Q. Thank you, Dr. Patrick.
16 If I'm understanding your theory, then we should find
the same measurements in the center of this slough as we
17 extend down past the impacted areas. Isn't that true?
A. No.
18 Q. Why not?
A. Because this part of the slough here is getting
19 water from this whole system here that contains nutrients.
Q. Well, I understood that's what you were saying.
20 You were saying this was a domed effect in the middle,
which would cause the water to short circuit or run around
21 it.
A. Other people have said that. But that is what I
22 said, yes.
Q. But I would ask you, does this vegetation map
23 with it's pattern of islands, which you would admit which
are supposed to reflect the flow of the water, the islands
24 were formed by the flow of the water. Isn't that true?
A. The shape of the islands were affected, I
25 understand, by the flow of the water.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


295



1 Q. There is no indication there that the center has
a different flow of water, is there?
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: I object to the question. It
assumes that those islands truly are mapped in a
3 correct direction in that shape.
MS. PONZOLI: We have played this game from the
4 other side, Mr. Kobelinski. I sat here and qualified
as to what this map had on it. And your side acted
5 as it's the gospel. Now, are we switching roles?
MR. KOBELINSKI: We're sitting on the other side
6 of the table.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if I agree with your
7 characterization. If you know the density of these
island s is lower here than these parts here in other
8 parts of the system. So I can't interpret that, the
location of these islands. I can go on what the
9 hydrologists have said, and I think it's represented
in the models in this book that this center of
10 Loxahatchee doesn't receive any water, other than
rainfall.
11 BY MS. PONZOLI:
Q. And so you're basing your theory of the doming
12 and the exclusion of the drainage water on the article
that you had previously referred to from the Ogden and
13 Davis book?
A. Yes. The absence of any -- If I understood your
14 question right, the absence of any runoff in here, because
they are projected as domed areas that don't receive any
15 water, except rainfall for the most part.
Q. All right. Did you call this an ombitrophic
16 (phonetic) bog in one of your other documents, the center
of the refuge?
17 A. No, I didn't.
Q. Was it Dr. Richardson?
18 A. It could have been.
Q. Do you think it's like an ombitrophic bog?
19 A. Yes.
Q. What happens if the entire area historically has
20 been an ombitrophic bog?
A. I thought I had explained. All of the
21 Loxahatchee, according to this hydrology map that I - or
map that I have seen - all of Loxahatchee is not in the
22 dome. It's the center here. So on the edge it's very
likely that there was water flow. If we could refer to
23 the --
Q. Ogden and Davis? Certainly. That will be fine.
24 A. Here is this page 267 in the Davis and Ogden
edited volume. It shows what I was referring to and it's
25 in figure 10.11, which shows the flow patterns in natural





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


296



1 system before impact of any kind and in the present
system. You see the density of these lines in the center
2 of Loxahatchee are very sparse.
Q. Okay. This is from the natural system's model is
3 the information that is reflected on page 267. Is that
accurate?
4 A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
5 MR. KOBELINSKI: The one the witness is referring
to, I think, there is also a graph under the
6 management system, too.
MS. PONZOLI: Right.
7 THE WITNESS: But I wasn't referring to it.
By MS. PONZOLI:
8 Q. What happens, Dr. Patrick, to that type of a
system, an ombitrophic bog, when you add nutrient
9 enrichment over time? What would you expect to see
chemically in the system?
10 A. I would expect it to respond to the addition of
nutrients like any biological system. And an increase in
11 primary productivity, either with the species that are
present or by a transition in the plant community that
12 would take advantage of those larger nutrient supplies.
Q. And those are the kinds --
13 A. Physical changes that you would expect to see,
transitions in the plant communities.
14 Q. What type of physical changes would you expect to
see in the --
15 A. In the sediment or the plant communities?
Q. In the plant communities.
16 A. Depending on the extent of the enrichment, the
plant community may not change in species composition, but
17 only in primary productivity. As is the case in the
sawgrass plants in the lower part of 2A that receive some
18 nutrients from this overland flow.
Q. They get denser and thicker and taller?
19 A. I have noticed in sampling that we can go into
these, what I consider these background areas of sawgrass,
20 where the sawgrass may only be three feet in height and
somewhat sparse, but almost a poor community of sawgrass.
21 And then into these enriched areas below this transition
area of cattail, sawgrass where it is very dense growth of
22 sawgrass. And I have also seen sawgrass, managed
sawgrass, in other parts of Florida that has phosphorus
23 concentrations in the flood water. One to two parts per
million or 1,000 or 2,000 parts per billion.
24 So the change can be just in the behavior of the
species at hand, depending on what species it is, or it
25 could be possible that new species could come in as well,





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


297



1 if the species at hand can't respond to those increased
nutrients. My own personal feeling regarding this system
2 is that it takes more nutrients to displace sawgrass.
Q. You think it takes the increased water depth?
3 A. I think it takes some other disturbance that has
an adverse impact on the stability of the sawgrass plant
4 community and increase submergence would be one of those.
Fire would be another possibility.
5 Q. But natural stressers would not -- Natural
stressers such as fire, which is a natural stress, isn't
6 it, in the system?
A. Well, it depends. It depends on if it's a
7 shallow fire that is only in a system where it's just dry
at the surface, but the moisture is below the surface, so
8 the peat won't born. Or if a drought and there are
several centimeters, some appreciable depth, maybe one
9 foot or more of peat might burn. Those would be different
stresses that I think would have different effects on a
10 play in the community.
And in that case, with the greater burn and the
11 deeper water, that would be an ideal condition, as far as
other species that tolerate more water depth, to move in.
12 Q. Such as the typha?
A. Such as the typha.
13 Q. But without increased phosphorus and without
increased nutrients, would disturbance alone cause the
14 cattail to expand?
A. Yes.
15 Q. What would be an example of this?
A. If you have increased submergence and continued
16 submergence in a system that is not tolerant of that,
submergence for a long period of time, the submergence
17 itself, we talked about yesterday, is going to create very
anaerobic conditions. And these conditions will cause the
18 release of phosphorus.
So phosphorus is generally not limiting in a
19 situation like that. Because the natural phosphorus that
is there is mineralized and released. So I'm convinced
20 that you can have colonization of typha into a system by
disturbance and increased water depth because the
21 phosphorus is going to be there.
If we get around to looking at our 3A values, you
22 will see that the sites where there was indication of
burning because of deeper water depth, where there was
23 either mostly typha, these were higher in available
phosphorus, in total phosphorus, because the burning
24 caused the oxidation of the peat and left the residue of
most of the phosphorus behind, which increased in
25 concentration.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


298



1 So if you want to release nutrients from the soil,
you can do that by piling up some combustible material and
2 just burning it, because this enhances mineralization.
Q. But now let me get it straight. If you dry the
3 soil out, that will cause increased phosphorus release.
Is that right?
4 A. Yes, if you drain it, not necessarily dry it.
But it has to be moist. There has to be moisture there,
5 but you remove the excess water and leave it for a long
enough period for oxidation to occur. As oxidation
6 occurs, you are going to get phosphorus increase.
Q. If you flood it, you will end up with increased
7 phosphorus because you create anaerobic conditions.
A. If you flood it without previous oxidation even,
8 you are going to get phosphorus release from the system.
Because if you flood it enough, the plant community that
9 is there is not going to be able to probably utilize the
released phosphorus. An anaerobic condition releases
10 phosphorus more than an aerobic condition does, as Diaz'
work shows, as Reddy work shows, as many of the papers
11 that are in my citations will show.
Q. But the question remains. If we can have the
12 Davis map again. The question remains that historically
over time we had to have significant flooding events where
13 anaerobic conditions built up in the Everglades. Don't
you agree?
14 A. Sorry.
Q. Over time in the Everglades there must have been
15 a significant flooding event that caused anaerobic
conditions?
16 A. Also fire. That would cause --
Q. And fire would cause deeper water and droughts
17 would cause oxidation. And my question to you is, why
don't we see significat cattail areas reflected in the
18 Davis map?
A. Well, I expect --
19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the
question to the extent that you referred to the
20 natural and then you are referring to the Davis map.
A. I think if you went back through the history of
21 the Everglades for these several thousand years, at
various times and in periods following heavy fires, deep
22 fires and extensive inundation after that, I expect that
those areas will be probably colonized by typha. Because
23 it's my understanding that typha is no stranger to the
Everglades.
24 Q. That's agreed.
A. Can I finish?
25 Q. I'm sorry.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


299



1 A. And this typha would persist until it probably
built up the elevation high enough over long periods of
2 time, peat accretion in that system, so that probably the
water depth and the oligotrophic conditions would give
3 caladium a competitive strain. Then caladium would move
into those areas.
4 And I'm not a plant ecologist, but it's my
understanding that in the peat record itself is an
5 indication that typha was no stranger in the development
of the Everglades. So it's perfectly logical to me that a
6 sequence like that could occur.
Q. That a succession would have occurred that
7 sawgrass would follow typha and go back to typha and
sawgrass over time?
8 A. Depending on the disturbance. Because typha is a
disturbance-seeking colonizer.
9 Q. Do you believe that typha areas, the typha
dominated or heavily typha-mixed areas today are receding?
10 A. Are you speaking specifically of the transition
area in 2A or just --
11 Q. Anywhere. Do you see any area where you believe
that a great deal of typha exists, I don't care if it's 50
12 percent or 70 percent, but you see it receding and
caladium coming in?
13 A. No. The process that I'm talking about would
occur so slowly. Because remember, the rate at which peat
14 is laid down in the system like on average, say, tenths of
a million meters a year. It would take a century probably
15 to see something like that. This kind of succession would
take a long period of time. There is no way you can look
16 at what is out there now and make any judgments, that if
an area is receding or it's growing.
17 Q. Okay. Now, so I think you had previously
indicated that if you had any opinion as to the movement
18 of the enriched or the typha areas, it was that they were
expanding very slowly?
19 A. If at all.
Q. But in your opinion they were not receding?
20 A. The typha area?
Q. Yes, sir.
21 A. I don't think they would be, under the present.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what water level
22 favors typha?
A. I'm trying to recall. In our design of this
23 wetland, we looked into that. And I think in order to
keep the other species out, we designed a water level of
24 about three, maybe four feet. Something like that.
Q. Is this the one out in California?
25 A. Yes.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


300



1 Q. And this is the one you referred to a few minutes
ago regarding --
2 A. No. I didn't refer. I haven't referred to this
since this morning. This reference a few minutes ago I'm
3 not clear.
Q. I'm not either. I recall you did it and someone
4 indicated to ask you what managed wetland you were
referring to. And you don't recall it. And I can't point
5 out in time to when you mentioned it.
A. I don't remember referring to a wetland
6 management.
Q. You designed a wetland in California at three- to
7 four-foot levels so that it will accommodate typha?
A. Yes. Although I'm not really clear on the exact
8 level. It was a deeper area than used for some of the
other species.
9 Q. Is there any evidence that you have seen in the
soils of the Everglades of cattail having built up peats
10 that now underlie sawgrass marshes?
A. No, I haven't looked for that. I don't know if
11 it would be, if it would even be determined. Because I
told you, this is just my theory how this could happen.
12 Q. There is an enormous curiosity where this
sawgrass is thriving at a thousand parts per million.
13 A. Near Hookers Prairie, New Mulberry, Florida.
MS. PONZOLI: I think we'll break for today, Dr.
14 Patrick.
(Whereupon, the deposition was recessed at 5:20
15 p.m.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






REPORTER'S DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT



STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
COUNTY OF DADE. )



I, Joan Carol Ocker, Court Reporter, certify that
I was authorized to and did stenographically report the
foregoing deposition; and that the transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by the witness.
I further certify that I am not a relative,
employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor
am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
Dated this 8th day of April, 1994.



__________________________________
JOAN CAROL OCKER




STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE

The foregoing certificate was acknowledged before
me this 8th day of April, 1994.



_______________________________________
Notary Public - State of Florida















JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






CERTIFICATE OF OATH



STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF DADE





I, the undersigned authority, certify that the

aforementioned witness personally appeared before me and

was duly sworn.



WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of

April, 1994.








__________________________
JOAN CAROL OCKER
Notary Public - State of Florida




















JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No.s 92-3038
92-3039
92-3040


_____________________________________
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF
FLORIDA, et.al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT,

Respondent.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.,

Intervenors.
______________________________________/



99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida
April 1, 1994
9:00 o'clock a.m.




Deposition_of_Doctor_William_Patrick_(Cont.'d) __________ __ ______ _______ _______ _________

Taken before Joan Carol Ocker, Court Reporter and

Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large,

pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the above

cause.









JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






APPEARANCES:

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, P.A.
Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3636
Miami, Florida 33131
BY: Mark Kobelinski, Esq.

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES:
United States Department of Justice
Environmental and Natural Resources Division
Post Office Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663
BY: Susan Ponzoli, AUSA

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, LTD.
100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 4000
Miami, Florida 33131
BY: Paul L Nettleton, Esq.

ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Sokup





- - - - - - - - -



I-N-D-E-X _ _ _ _ _
WITNESS: PAGE_ _______ ____
Dr. William Patrick
Direct Examination by Ms. Ponzoli (cont.'d) 384
Direct Examination by Mr. Nettleton ....... 435




- - - - - - - - -












JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


384



1 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONT.'D)

2 BY MS. PONZOLI:

3 Q. Dr. Patrick, you brought several articles for us

4 this morning, and I would like to attach them to the

5 record, because we have been referring to them repeatedly

6 as part of your foundation for your opinions.

7 I hand you Patrick 24 and ask you to identify it,

8 please.

9 A. This is an article from Aquatic Botany, written

10 by Steve Davis entitled Growth, decomposition, and

11 nutrient retention of Caladium and Typha in the Florida

12 Everglades.

13 Q. You have used that article for which portion of

14 your opinion, Dr. Patrick?

15 A. For two portions, actually. One part of this

16 paper, results of this paper that I have used is the

17 leaching out of nutrients that have been taken up by typha

18 and caladium. And the second is the differential removal

19 of different forms of phosphorus down the 2A transect.

20 Q. And that's pretty much --

21 A. Well, those are the points that I can think of at

22 this time.

23 Q. That's fine. I would like to hand you Patrick

24 Number 25.

25 A. The question?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


385



1 Q. Can you identify it, please?

2 A. Yes. It's an article by Dr. Kadlec, of which the

3 front first page is missing. It was torn off. And I

4 don't have it.

5 Q. That's all right.

6 A. So I don't know the exact title. But I recall it

7 has to do with phosphorus removal as the title of the

8 article, and I don't know where it is being published.

9 Looks like a chapter of the book, because it is entitled

10 Phosphorus Chapter at the top.

11 Q. I don't think you were using -- Were you using

12 this as a foundation for your formula? Is this the one

13 you turned to the chart in?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And this was for which portion?

16 A. To determine the standing crop of phosphorus in a

17 wetland system.

18 Q. Is there a particular page, would you be able to

19 turn to that page and locate it for us?

20 A. It doesn't have the ordinary numbers, but it has

21 a Bates number.

22 Q. That's even better.

23 A. 0010752. Oh, sorry. That's not the one. It's

24 753.

25 Q. 0010753 Bates number?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


386



1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Thank you very much. Somehow, in my flu-ridden

3 fog, I believe you did contradict portions of this

4 document, didn't you, certain interpretations by Dr.

5 Kadlec. Is that accurate in your testimony yesterday?

6 A. I'm not sure that it was parts of this document.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. If you would bring up those specific points, I

9 could comment on them more precisely, but I don't recall.

10 Q. That you did for that one?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. That's fine. I hand you Patrick Number 26, and

13 ask you if you would identify that, please.

14 A. It's an article by Dr. Kadlec and Dr. Sue Newman,

15 of the South Water Florida Management District. The title

16 is Phosphorus Removal in Wetland Treatment Areas,

17 Principles and Data, July, 1992.

18 Q. And this is the document to which you were

19 referring yesterday when you were discussing Kadlec and

20 Newman?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Are there any specific pages that you wanted to

23 refer us to in there?

24 A. No, not at this time. Unless you have specific

25 questions on some of my earlier --





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


387



1 Q. No, I don't. We had discussed some Reddy reports

2 and data. And I'm not going to attach these to the

3 record. I think I'll just have you identify these and

4 read into the record the title.

5 Would you prefer I do the cover sheets?

6 (Thereupon, the cover sheets of the documents

7 were marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit

8 Numbers 27, 28 and 29.)

9 BY MS. PONZOLI:

10 Q. Dr. Patrick, we have agreed to attach the cover

11 page of several of the Reddy documents as exhibits to the

12 deposition. So I would ask you to identify Patrick 27, 28

13 and 29 and only the cover sheets will be attached as

14 exhibits.

15 Can you identify Patrick Number 27, please?

16 A. Patrick Number 27 is a report on the

17 Physico-Chemical Properties of Soils in the Water

18 Conservation Area 3 of the Everglades. That's a final

19 report, 1994, submitted to the South Florida Water

20 Management District by K. R. Reddy, Et Al.

21 Q. And you have relied upon that in your phosphorus

22 analysis?

23 A. In my phosphorus interpretation.

24 Q. Of your interpretation. Okay. And it's really

25 the data you find consistent with your data. Is that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


388



1 accurate?

2 A. Essentially, yes.

3 Q. Right. You are not relying upon Dr. Reddy's

4 interpretations, you are relying on his data and putting

5 your interpretation on his data. Is that fair?

6 A. That's a good assessment.

7 Q. Can you identify, please, Patrick Number 28?

8 A. Patrick Number 28 is a similar report dealing

9 with the Influence of Flooding on Physico-Chemical

10 Properties and Phosphorus Retention of Soils in the

11 Holyland Wildlife Management Area. It's a final report,

12 1994, first draft, submitted to the South Florida Water

13 Management District by K. R. Reddy, Et Al.

14 Q. And again, you have relied upon that for your

15 phosphorus interpretation using Dr. Reddy's data?

16 A. I can't say that I have. I don't think I have

17 really examined this report in any detail, because I just

18 obtained a copy of it.

19 Q. All right. So you simply produced it in an area

20 of completeness in producing Dr. Reddy's data, or your

21 lawyer did?

22 A. I didn't know he produced it.

23 Q. Your lawyer was being complete. We understand

24 you have not at present relied upon this date?

25 A. That's correct.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


389



1 Q. Okay. And then Patrick Number 29?

2 A. Patrick Number 29 is a similar report entitled

3 Physico-Chemical Properties of Soils in Water Conservation

4 Area 1 of the Everglades. It's a final report, 1994,

5 submitted to the South Florida Water Management District

6 by K. R. Reddy, Et Al.

7 Q. And have you relied upon this in your phosphorus

8 interpretation?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And you relied upon the data, again, not Dr.

11 Reddy's interpretation?

12 A. Correct. This is a draft dated January, 1994.

13 Q. It has final report and draft written on the

14 front of it?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you very much. Dr. Patrick, I would like

17 to turn to some documents that we identified for the

18 record yesterday and have you explain them to me, and go

19 through them with you.

20 The first one is Patrick Number 3, which I believe

21 was the redox study that you had produced yesterday. Is

22 that accurate?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Would you please explain what your redox study

25 was. Did you do it by yourself or did you do it in





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


390



1 conjunction with other people?

2 A. I did this in conjunction with Dr. Davis.

3 Q. Did the two of you design the study or did you

4 design it?

5 A. Designed it and installed it.

6 Q. You designed?

7 A. I designed and he installed it.

8 Q. Did his input relate only to physically getting

9 you out to installation of the structure?

10 A. That was part of it, and helped me install it. I

11 chose the locations and was in charge of and did most of

12 the installation with the assistance of Dr. Davis and one

13 of his staff members. And the actual routine monthly or

14 periodic readings were done by Dr. Davis' staff.

15 Q. Do you know who on his staff assisted with this?

16 A. Yes, it was Larksley (phonetic), or maybe Dr.

17 Wang.

18 Q. Have you worked with Dr. Wang in regard to this

19 work, personally?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And he pulled the field samples?

22 A. There was no pulling of samples.

23 Q. Okay. He gathered whatever, he installed the

24 instruments and took the monthly readings?

25 A. No. I installed it and he took the monthly





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


391



1 readings.

2 Q. And for what period of time did this study go on?

3 A. I believe it was from maybe -- It was set up in

4 1992. And you can see from the dates, the dates range

5 from August, 1992 to September, 1993.

6 Q. And it was conducted in 2A and 3A?

7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Ten is October, by the way.

8 Q. So it went from August, '92 to October, '93?

9 A. It went to 10/93, whichever month that may

10 represent.

11 Q. It was done in 2A and 3A?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. All right. What was the purpose of this study or

14 the objective?

15 A. It was to determine the intensity of reduction of

16 the soils in these areas, particularly the 2A transect

17 running south from 10C, the BP samples, the location that

18 we discussed yesterday. And then other areas that were

19 selected on the basis of maybe some random selection and

20 perhaps, as I recall, looking for locations that were in

21 typha and locations that were in caladium in these areas.

22 Q. Let me ask you this: As a non-scientist, what is

23 the benefit of running a transect and then selecting

24 random sites?

25 A. Well, this, in a sense, was two studies. One a





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


392



1 study of the transect.

2 Q. Right?

3 A. To see if there were differences along the

4 transect. And the other was to select other sites from

5 other parts of the water conservation areas.

6 Q. So I am right, as a non-scientist, it's sort of

7 contradictory to try and mix transect data with

8 random-site data for drawing conclusions?

9 A. That's probably true. There may be some

10 situations where you can compare the two.

11 Q. Right.

12 A. But it essentially was a double study in that

13 regard.

14 Q. Did you have double conclusions that you drew

15 from it and that you compared?

16 A. Not really. Because the results indicated that

17 all of these areas were reducing, as indicated by the

18 redox potential measurements.

19 Q. Would that be an indication that these were all

20 enriched sites?

21 A. No. Because if you can look, I know the BP-60

22 sites, which was out of the enriched area, had negative

23 redox potentials, which denotes reducing conditions. And

24 so all of the sites, all of the sites were reducing.

25 That's my general conclusion, that all of the sites that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


393



1 were, as a result of inundation, were chemically reducing.

2 Q. Well, let me ask you again. Then would your

3 conclusion be that virtually the entire Everglades is

4 under reducing conditions?

5 A. The portion of the Everglades that are inundated

6 with water, I believe, are under reducing conditions.

7 Q. Is that true in all circumstances, Dr. Patrick,

8 wherever you have something inundated with water you reach

9 those conditions?

10 A. Almost always if you have inactive conditions.

11 Q. If it's an oligotrophic system inundated, will

12 you have reducing conditions?

13 A. That is what my results showed, which I did not

14 know beforehand if that would be the case. And that was

15 one of the objectives of this to see if there were

16 differences. If you will look at the figures for the

17 various BP levels, that has BP sites, you will see that

18 all of these are similar in appearance, insofar as they

19 all gave negative values of redox potentials. And that it

20 appeared that the BP-50 site and the BP-60 site were as

21 reducing as the more enriched BP-10 and BP-20 site.

22 Q. Did you do any redox in the center of the refuge

23 where you believe that you have, I guess you called it,

24 highly oligotrophic conditions?

25 A. No. I didn't have access to the refuge.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


394



1 Q. Well, we did have sample stations. At some point

2 there was access to the refuge.

3 A. Only one or two days to take samples. This was a

4 continual long study. And that access was only gained

5 recently. I had no opportunity to study that in the

6 Loxahatchee.

7 MR. KOBELINSKI: I would note for the record also

8 that, in fact, request to do redoxing by both the

9 refuge and park was refused and Ron Jones in the park

10 made a point to stop redox testings.

11 MS. PONZOLI: What was agreed to in sampling

12 probably, which was intended for a year, you may not

13 be aware of that, Dr. Patrick.

14 I didn't handle the entry issue, Mr. Kobelinski.

15 But there were significant requests for various

16 research projects to be done over the year in the

17 park and in the refuge, or at least the refuge. And

18 I guess I don't recall that redox was requested for

19 that whole program and refused. If you say it was,

20 the record speaks for itself.

21 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think the record will speak

22 for itself.

23 THE WITNESS: I can add that I would have liked

24 to have stations in the Loxahatchee and the park for

25 this type of study, just to compare those different





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


395



1 ecosystems.

2 BY MS. PONSOLI:

3 Q. Right.

4 A. Because one of my developments in that area is to

5 collect scientific information that after the dust of

6 litigation settles might be made available to me for a

7 scientific purpose.

8 Q. Well, it may be settling, Dr. Patrick, even as we

9 speak.

10 You say that your main conclusion is that all sites

11 are reducing that are inundated, that you tested in the

12 Everglades. Is that accurate?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And what does that tell you? In layman's terms,

15 what does that mean to you?

16 A. That tells me that all areas of the Everglades

17 that I studied, which range from high phosphorus, high

18 accretion-rate sites at this upper end of 2A, to low

19 phosphorus, low accretion-rate sites at the lower part of

20 2A, and the other sites selected in 3A were all reducing

21 throughout the course of this study, because the soils

22 were inundated with water during that whole period.

23 Q. What significance does that have in your mind to

24 this debate whether drainage water from the EAA needs to

25 be cleansed before it comes into the greater Everglades?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


396



1 A. My hypothesis was that the greater inputs of

2 phosphorus at the upper end of 2A would result in a higher

3 biological activity, which would result in more reducing

4 conditions.

5 Q. So while you believe there is higher biological

6 activity up there, your results did not show more reducing

7 conditions?

8 A. I assume there is more biological activity, since

9 there was more inputs of phosphorus and more accretion of

10 biomass and the greater growth of plants, which I

11 interpret to be greater biological activity. However, no

12 measurements were made by me of microbial activity. But

13 it seems reasonable that these parameters would be an

14 index of biological activity.

15 Q. What would be your hypothesis if you had measured

16 for microbial activity? What would you expect to find?

17 A. Well, I could have come up with a number of

18 hypothesis. One might have been greater input of

19 phosphorus at the upper end would generate higher

20 microbial activity. Another possible hypothesis was that

21 enough nutrients were available throughout the system that

22 there would not be any effect on microbial activity. So

23 you can select any hypothesis to test and you design the

24 same study.

25 Q. We thought only lawyers could do that.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


397



1 A. Well, there is a science called statistics that

2 is very rigid in its requirements.

3 Q. Was there a reason you didn't test for microbial

4 activity? You had access.

5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Access to what?

6 MS. PONZOLI: To 2A

7 A. In my view, these parameters are adequate to

8 evaluate biological activity. And there is some concern

9 about cost and time and effort. I tried to minimize what

10 I considered the less necessary activities.

11 Q. So what is the bottom-line conclusion, Dr.

12 Patrick, from your findings, that there were reducing

13 conditions completely along the transect and then in the

14 random sites that the -- Let me phrase it one way and you

15 tell me if that's accurate or not. That there is no

16 impact from the higher phosphorus input in regard to

17 redox.

18 A. That is a correct statement of the obvious

19 conclusions of this study.

20 Q. And will we find lower dissolved oxygen where we

21 have reducing conditions?

22 A. You would find no oxygen where you have reducing

23 conditions of this magnitude.

24 Q. And was the magnitude the same along the transect

25 and at the random sites?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


398



1 A. It appears to be essentially the same.

2 Q. So it is your conclusion that there is extremely

3 low dissolved oxygen throughout the inundated Everglades.

4 Is that accurate?

5 A. In the water or in the soils?

6 Q. What were you testing here?

7 A. I was testing the soils you see, so I can't

8 comment on the oxygen in the water. But I can tell you

9 conclusively that redox potential values this low are

10 associated with systems or zones that are completely

11 depleted of oxygen.

12 Q. Am I correct in the assumption that it's your

13 conclusion that that is a normal condition throughout the

14 inundated Everglades to have the soils depleted of oxygen?

15 A. Yes. Below a surface layer of some small

16 thickness. If there is oxygen in the water column, it

17 will penetrate the soil to some distance. But this is

18 usually a few million meters to no more than a centimeter

19 in depth. Below that, oxygen is certain to be absent.

20 Q. And were you surprised to find this, Dr. Patrick?

21 A. To find what?

22 Q. This conclusion that there was this depletion of

23 oxygen throughout the inundated Everglades?

24 A. No, not at all. My studies of decades have shown

25 that this is the case.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


399



1 Q. You found what you expected to find?

2 A. I was not looking for oxygen depletion. I was

3 looking for intensity of redox.

4 Q. What is the relationship of intensity reduction

5 and oxygen depletion?

6 A. Only a modest intensity reduction will result in

7 all the oxygen being depleted. But more intense reduction

8 beyond the point of oxygen depletion will affect other

9 redox systems, redox chemical systems in the soil.

10 Q. Let me ask you this: Did your measurements

11 extend over a 24-hour period. I mean, they were running

12 at different times of the day.

13 A. We did diurnal measurements.

14 Q. Would that have made any difference, Dr. Patrick?

15 A. In my experience, no.

16 Q. Do diurnal measurements make a difference in the

17 water?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. To the lawyers, all of this isn't that obvious.

20 But the conditions in the tables are stable?

21 A. That's correct, because the factors that affect

22 oxygen content in the water column are not operative below

23 the soil surface.

24 Q. Would you explain your tables to me just reading

25 across to make sure that I understand what each column





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


400



1 refers to. Date is clear, I understand. And the station.

2 Will these stations all be reflected on the maps that we

3 have already examined together?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And then now we come to the 2 foot F. I would

6 like to know what this means from there over.

7 A. You can look at the table, or if you don't mind

8 referring to the figures, it would make it easier to

9 explain. At each date there are three bars.

10 Q. Yes, sir.

11 A. And you notice the legend says that one of these

12 represents a measurement, 2-foot measurements and then

13 one-foot measurements and half-foot measurements. That

14 was the depth of installed redox electrodes. So if we

15 take -- Which one are you looking at?

16 Q. I don't care. Which one you think is the most

17 interesting? BP-10R, and I guess that's a more enriched

18 area.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. Let's look at any one of these. Let's look at,

22 just for example, the one in the middle of 3/17/93. At

23 this 2-foot depth, the redox potential was minus 350,

24 approximately. At the two-foot -- One-foot depth was

25 about minus 325. At the half-foot depth was about minus





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


401



1 300. All intensely reduced.

2 Q. Did you find that the reducing conditions were

3 intense enough to affect other redox reactions in the soil

4 other than the oxygen depletion?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. If so, what were those others?

7 A. I did not measure these others.

8 Q. Right.

9 A. But other studies that I have done that are cited

10 in my list of publications strongly show, even prove, that

11 redox potential values this low will result in the

12 reduction of all of the nitrate and nitrogen gas

13 denitrification. All active manganese compound to

14 manganous form. Reduction of all of the biologically

15 active iron compounds to the ferrous form. The reduction

16 of sulfate to sulfide, and even the reduction of some of

17 the carbon dioxide to methane.

18 Q. And this is just sort of a crazy guess. Is this

19 what produces the rotten egg small?

20 A. That is the hydrogen sulfide reducing the

21 production of sulfate.

22 Q. Then it would be with these levels of reducing?

23 Or these levels of reduction taking place where you found

24 these levels of reduction throughout the Everglades, you

25 would find the rotten egg smell?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


402



1 A. Not necessarily.

2 Q. Okay. Why?

3 A. Only if there is enough sulfate there to produce

4 sulfide. If there is no sulfate, there is no sulfate

5 reduction.

6 But I can say that there were indications of some,

7 what you term, "rotten egg smell." What I would term

8 hydrogen-sulfide smell.

9 Q. Did you find that all along the transect, even to

10 the furthest end of the transect?

11 A. No. It was not consistent. In fact, I didn't

12 really set out to determine that. And in many of these

13 cases, the water was so deep that the soil gas didn't

14 really escape through the water column to the extent that

15 might have been the case. But I do recall a place or two

16 of a minor hydrogen-sulfide smell.

17 Q. I have a question in my mind what the bottom-line

18 conclusion of this redox means to you. What do you think

19 this indicates?

20 A. I think it was indicated in my first statement.

21 That the overall results of this study indicate of all of

22 the areas of the Everglades that I have studied that were

23 inundated have very reducing conditions in the soil

24 profile.

25 Q. And I would have to go back and look at the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


403



1 phosphorus levels for each of these sites in the soil that

2 you measured. And compare them with, I assume we have

3 some vegetation information in some of your other

4 incidents with the vegetation that was found at these

5 sites to more fully understand each particular site; is

6 that correct?

7 A. That's correct. Of course, the vegetation has

8 been intensively studied along the BP transect. Because

9 my transect was similar to that in the same general area

10 of Steve Davis' transects, as Dr. Reddy's transects, as

11 Dr. Richardson's transects. In the other locations there

12 are field notes in your possession that indicate the

13 vegetation and the water depth.

14 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this, Dr. Patrick: There

15 were some - I don't know if you heard this before or not.

16 There are some that believe that entire 10C transect is

17 enriched. Are you aware of that, that others believe the

18 entire transect is enriched and it doesn't really move

19 down to an oligotrophic or background area?

20 A. What is the question? Am I aware of that?

21 Q. Are you aware that others believe that entire

22 transect reflects an enriched area?

23 A. I can't say I am aware of that.

24 Q. Your belief was that most people would accept

25 that it went from enriched to transition to background?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


404



1 A. Yes. I think the evidence of extremely low

2 soluble phosphorus at the lower end is represented by my

3 same BP-60 sites, for several reasons, represent

4 background levels. There is no indication that

5 appreciable phosphorus reached that point, because the

6 water concentration of phosphorus were in the something

7 like the 10 parts-per-billion range. The vegetation was

8 sparse, the sawgrass or caladium vegetation was sparse and

9 not very tall. And the surface-phosphorus levels were

10 back to, what I believe, is the general accepted or

11 accepted by some background level of about 500 parts per

12 million.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. So I believe on that transect you do run out of

15 the enriched level into a background level.

16 Q. Patrick Number 5 and Patrick 6 appear to be

17 vegetation documents recording vegetation types and water

18 depth and muck depth combined with phosphorus and other

19 information.

20 A. May I see a copy of that?

21 Q. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I put them there. Those

22 two.

23 A. Thank you.

24 Q. Can you explain? Would you look those over for a

25 second, and then I would like to ask you some questions





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


405



1 about them.

2 A. I am familiar with 5.

3 Q. All right. Can you tell me what 5 reflects?

4 A. Well, the first several pages of 5, the first

5 eight pages reflect the results of a study done in the

6 northern part of 3A in January, 1994 by myself and with

7 the assistance of Dr. Davis. That was designed to, as I

8 explained yesterday, to go into areas of typha and areas

9 of caladium in northern 3A selected on the basis of aerial

10 observation in a helicopter. And take soil cores,

11 evaluate the vegetation, the plant community and measure

12 the water depth in these areas in order to possibly

13 determine the relationship of water depth and phosphorus

14 level to the plant community.

15 Q. How did you from the helicopter select these

16 areas? What were your criteria for selecting an area from

17 the helicopter?

18 A. We were just looking at areas that were obviously

19 largely typha and areas that were adjacent or nearby,

20 areas in the same general area that were sawgrass,

21 caladium.

22 Q. Did you do transects moving from the typha area

23 out into the sawgrass?

24 A. No. In fact, I think this is best explained by

25 the location map on this page.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


406



1 Q. Good.

2 A. Which may be slightly difficult to see in these

3 copies. But I think we can determine the sample

4 locations.

5 Q. If you can help us by telling us what you think

6 the names of those sites are, my copy is close to

7 illegible.

8 A. They were all J5 sites. And then there is a

9 different number from one to seven. And I think that's --

10 Q. That's legible. It's the J5 that I lose on mine.

11 A. You will notice the tables all indicate J5-1

12 through J5-7.

13 Q. Right. They seem to be in pairs exempt form

14 J5-5. Was there a reason that one didn't have a twin?

15 A. Yes. But I can't recall what it was.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. Maybe as we look we will see.

18 Q. So we should assume that each of these main sites

19 was chosen, first you chose a typha. What did the typha

20 look like as you chose it from the helicopter?

21 A. The best way to answer that is it looked like

22 typha.

23 Q. Was it thick? Did you chose a nice thick stand

24 of typha or a mixed stage?

25 A. This will be clear in looking at the vegetation





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


407



1 of the type. You can see J5-1 was six- to eight-foot

2 typha. And this would represent a good growth of typha.

3 So that's the best way I can answer in general. But I

4 would rather you be clear, I think, if you ask it

5 specifically.

6 And so the J5-1 was selected in a typha area. J5-2

7 was selected in an adjacent caladium area, or a mixed

8 area, because we concluded it was from 30 to 50 percent

9 caladium.

10 Q. Right. How is that vegetation count done?

11 A. There was no count. Just an observation that

12 appeared to be on a stem basis.

13 Q. You sort of eyeballed it and said looks like 50

14 to me?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right.

17 A. Very scientific. But where it says typha,

18 without saying the percentage, this was all typha. Where

19 it said caladium without a percentage, it was all of this

20 species.

21 Q. Let me just look through. Is this the only time

22 you did this type of thing where you did water depth, and

23 is it soil phosphorus you did?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Soil phosphorus, water depth and a type of a





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


408



1 vegetation count?

2 A. No. The answer to your question is no, this is

3 not the only case in which we did this.

4 Q. Okay. That's what I wanted to determine. This

5 is one time. Do we have other -- Is Patrick 6 evidence of

6 a different effort to do that again?

7 A. Yes, it's evidence of an earlier effort.

8 Q. So you had done an earlier comparison of

9 vegetation, soil phosphorus and water depth. Did that one

10 have water depth?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you did this one, that's Patrick 5. Are

13 there any others?

14 A. No. I was trying to think if the BP transect had

15 this. And it probably did. We probably have, if you

16 check the field notes. You will probably find water depth

17 there and also plant communities. So you could probably

18 add the BP transect to that, as well as an area we looked

19 at vegetation community, water depth and soil phosphorus.

20 Although, I don't remember, I can't guarantee that we did

21 water depth on the BP transect, but can't believe that we

22 would not have. But that's easily determined from the

23 field notes.

24 Q. Where was Patrick Number 6 done? What area was

25 Patrick 6 done in?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


409



1 A. As you can see, when we went through this

2 yesterday, with the name designation at the top, not only

3 giving the sample locations, but given latitude and

4 longitude. And these are plotted on one of the maps we

5 were looking at yesterday.

6 Q. This one is the one that goes throughout the

7 Everglades. Is that right? These sites found in 2A and

8 3A?

9 A. No. This was really not throughout the

10 Everglades. That was mostly in 3A.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. Well, and the BP transect. And remember we

13 looked at -- You inquired what HL meant. It meant

14 Holyland. So we had a site or two in Holyland. One site

15 in Holyland and one site in Rotenberger and one in

16 Cypress. There should be a BC here.

17 Q. Right. Let me ask you this: I don't recall, and

18 I guess we should locate the map, were there sites in the

19 lower portion of 3A?

20 A. Yes. In what I would consider the lower portion

21 of 3A in the vicinity of L-67 canals.

22 Q. Okay. There is deeper water there, isn't there?

23 A. I very vividly remember that there were places

24 there was deeper water.

25 Q. Can I ask you why you located Patrick 5 in the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


410



1 upper portion of 3A? Was there a particular reason?

2 A. Yes. This was an area that according to Dr.

3 Dennis' survey showed patches, rather extensive patches,

4 of typha in the northern part of 3A, interspersed with

5 caladium. And it was felt it would be instructive to go

6 into that area and see if we could sort out the reason why

7 typha occurred in spots and caladium occurred in spots.

8 Q. Can you tell me what your conclusions were, what

9 your reasons were you concluded?

10 A. This could best be done by taking few minutes to

11 examine these seven locations --

12 Q. Sure.

13 A. -- and going through those. Would you like me to

14 do that?

15 Q. Yes, sir. If you will wait just one second.

16 A. Sure.

17 Q. Let's go through it.

18 A. Well, there are three things I would like to call

19 your attention to. One is the vegetation type.

20 Q. Right.

21 A. The other is the water depth and the other is the

22 phosphorus concentration with depth.

23 Q. Right.

24 A. You can identify all three of those.

25 Q. Right. Certainly.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


411



1 A. Then we take the first one, which is J5-1, which

2 is shown on this map, which I have removed from an

3 exhibit.

4 Q. I noticed that, but I wasn't going to mention it.

5 A. It was mentioned by my attorney.

6 If you will notice, so you can see the location on

7 this --

8 Q. Right.

9 A. You see that this is typha six- to seven-feet

10 tall, which represents a good growth of typha or sawgrass.

11 And there are two replications that we took. And in one

12 case, the water depth was five centimeters and the other

13 depth was nine centimeters, which is a little unusual.

14 It's usually closer to that.

15 Q. I'm confused how you did a replica.

16 A. We moved ten meters and took another core. And

17 then measured in the same vegetation area. Do you

18 understand?

19 Q. Yes, I do.

20 A. So within that vegetation area, represented by

21 six- to eight-foot typha plants.

22 Q. Sounds like fun.

23 A. If the water isn't too deep. Except this was

24 January. It's better in summertime. The water is not as

25 cold.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


412



1 So we took these duplicate cores and this is the

2 average of those that you see. And the water depth. And

3 the phosphorus content seemed to be slightly elevated in

4 the surface. And then after six centimeters seemed to be

5 back down to background levels. Well, actually -- Okay.

6 Sorry. Both the phosphorus replicate, phosphorus is given

7 for both replicates.

8 Q. Okay. I see it.

9 A. Then you saw it before I did. I haven't looked

10 at this in several days. In rep one, which was where

11 there was deep water depth, it was only 13 centimeters to

12 the -- The lower depth here represents the muck depth. In

13 there is a section called muck depth.

14 Q. Yes, sir.

15 A. In rep one there was 15 centimeters to the marl.

16 Q. Right.

17 A. In the other there was 19 centimeters to the

18 marl. I think that must be a typo.

19 Q. What is a typo? The 1739?

20 A. No the 19 centimeter to marl. Because my cores--

21 Q. Goes to 32?

22 A. Right.

23 MR. KOBELINSKI: Testing the marl?

24 A. No. I was not testing the marl. You don't drive

25 a cylinder into the marl.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


413



1 Q. It's a hard clay?

2 A. Yes. All I can say is that I think that's an

3 error in the 19 centimeter depth to marl. We can

4 determine that right now, if we want to look at the field

5 notes, or we can just assume that there is an error there

6 and you can check it at your leisure.

7 Q. I would like to ask you why you think it jumped

8 from 809 to 1739? That doesn't follow the profile we have

9 been looking at for the last several days.

10 A. I think that represents a burn area. For two

11 reasons, one you see the depth of water --

12 Q. Yes, sir.

13 A. That meant that the soil depth was lower.

14 Q. Right.

15 A. And one obvious way in a plane area like that for

16 one area to be lower than the other is due to the

17 patchiness of a burn. And this is an area that had been

18 burned. That's also indicated by the high phosphorus

19 content, because burning tends to concentrate the

20 phosphorus. Because burning can destroy the substrate.

21 Q. Says near previously Ph 4. What does that mean?

22 A. This, as I recall, is a sample designation of Dr.

23 Dennis' group. So I think you will find that a sample

24 location of theirs. I think that is not the hydrogen

25 non-activity. I think that's a sample location. It's





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


414



1 near, as I indicated yesterday, one of Dr. Davis' staff

2 people.

3 Q. Right.

4 A. Dr. Dennis' staff people did a survey and showed

5 areas that they had analyzed.

6 Q. Was there an effort to go back to those same

7 areas?

8 A. Within reason. Within reason, yes.

9 Q. So that would have been one of your criteria for

10 looking for places to choose. You were just randomly

11 choosing typha areas. You tried to choose typha areas

12 where you choose previously

13 A. Not where I did previously.

14 Q. Not you, specifically. But you, generically, the

15 team of league researchers.

16 A. Oh, I see. In a sense, that's probably true.

17 Although, we exercise independent judgment in selecting

18 these sites, because we wanted to make sure we got typha

19 areas and cattail areas. So I didn't -- We didn't say

20 here, this was a previous Ph 4. And you see the BDA

21 vegetation description was dense cattails, 90 to 100

22 percent.

23 Q. Dr. Dennis has vegetation maps, doesn't he?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do these BDA vegetation descriptions refer to





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


415



1 those vegetation maps?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you know, I believe there are several of those

4 vegetation maps, are there not?

5 A. I have only seen the one that his staff person

6 had for that.

7 Q. Would that have been the '91 vegetation?

8 A. I do not know.

9 Q. Well, the date of this -- Could have been '94.

10 Could have been the '93, I suppose.

11 A. I would guess that one would use the most recent

12 map without knowing.

13 Q. I don't know.

14 A. I have just recalled something else. Dr. Birch,

15 his name is given on the next page who went with our

16 reconnaissance and pointed out their sites. And selected

17 some of the sites because you see the second location, he

18 obviously pointed out his Ph 4 site that we took the

19 sample near that site.

20 Q. Right.

21 A. The next one says this site selected west of site

22 selected by Dr. Birch.

23 Q. Right. So there was some effort to coordinate

24 these sites with previous work done by Dr. Dennis's group?

25 A. That's correct. But I don't recall very definite





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


416



1 that we exercised our own judgment and selected plant

2 communities that seemed to represent typha, caladium and

3 mixed.

4 Q. Okay. Now, I assume that we can't draw

5 conclusions from a single sheet. We have to work our way

6 through these sheets, and then I would have to ask what

7 your conclusions were from all of these put together.

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Let's work our way through them and point out the

10 important points.

11 A. J5-2, if you notice from the map we all ripped

12 from the exhibit. It is adjacent to 1.

13 Q. Right.

14 A. It's just west of 1. And the scale, if you

15 notice the mile scale here, this would represent about a

16 quarter of a mile.

17 Q. Yes, sir.

18 A. And this was a -- So you can see there was a mix

19 of vegetation in this area. This was 30 to 50 percent

20 caladium. The characteristics, major characteristics

21 here, this was shallow water, three and four centimeters

22 of water. The other characteristic is this is near

23 background levels of phosphorus. And there was no

24 indication of any burning here, since the water was

25 shallow in both cases. And caladium was a major - was





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


417



1 about half the vegetation.

2 Q. Let me ask you this in these profiles. Each time

3 we see the soil profiles for phosphorus, we see them

4 decreasing as they go deeper. Isn't that pretty much

5 accurate, except for the anomaly of 1739?

6 A. That we have seen throughout the Everglades.

7 Q. Why is that?

8 A. For two reasons. Because the surface layer is

9 more organic and weighs less per unit volume. So it has

10 phosphorus in the plant remains in the organic matter. If

11 you convert that to a weight basis, it's a higher value.

12 If you converted these probably to a volume basis, you

13 wouldn't see quite this effect. It wouldn't be as

14 pronounced, but there would still be a gradient.

15 So there are two reasons, as I indicated. One is the

16 difference in density from the surface down. But the

17 other is the fact that the plants mine the phosphorus from

18 the lower depth, take it up in the roots and carry it to

19 the surface, to the above-ground portion. Then the plants

20 die and this falls to the surface and is incorporated in

21 the surface. There you can call it a phosphorus pull or

22 nutrient pull that takes phosphorus from the lower depth.

23 This is characteristic of wetlands.

24 Q. How deep do the plants normally mine? How far do

25 the roots reach, generally speaking?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


418



1 A. There is a distribution of roots where most are

2 near the surface, and there is a decrease in concentration

3 of roots with depth. But these roots will go at least the

4 15 centimeters that we show here.

5 Q. Okay. So you think a caladium root will go 15

6 centimeters?

7 A. Some will.

8 Q. And typha also?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. All right.

11 A. But most of the uptake is most in the root

12 density at a shallower depth.

13 Q. What level?

14 A. From the surface on down. If you plot the

15 distribution of roots with depth, you will find a

16 logarithm decrease in root depth.

17 Q. Where will we find the bulk of the roots? Down

18 to 10 centimeters?

19 A. Somewhere in that range.

20 Q. In the 10 to 15 we'll find the bulk of the roots?

21 A. From 0 to 10, to 0 to 15 centimeters. Yes, in

22 that range. More of the roots will be in that range.

23 That is characteristic of all plants in all substrates.

24 The roots are concentrated more in the surface.

25 Q. So we are back to typha. Is there anything else





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


419



1 more significant on J5-2?

2 A. J5-2 is mixed with about half caladium, water

3 depth is shallow and phosphorus is what I would consider

4 near background level. J5-3 is at another location, which

5 is northwest of these sites, about two miles.

6 Q. All right.

7 A. And is in the area of eight- to nine-foot typha,

8 and has deeper water. Nine centimeters in one case.

9 Twenty centimeters in the other. The phosphorus profile

10 for rep one indicates burning, some aspect or some effect

11 of burning to me, because of the elevated phosphorus at

12 this two- to six-centimeter depth. If this were

13 phosphorus coming in from the surface, it should be higher

14 in the surface, you see. And the other replicates a

15 background situation.

16 Q. It's monster typha.

17 A. J5-4, which is the pair, is caladium. And the

18 water depth was the water was just at the surface. There

19 was not inundation. And these, there didn't seem to be

20 any indication of fire, because the muck depth was 62

21 centimeters to the marl in the one case, and 40

22 centimeters in the other. And the phosphorus seemed to be

23 either near background or slightly above background level,

24 but this was even though the phosphorus was elevated

25 slightly. There was dense to moderately dense sawgrass,





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


420



1 according to the BDA vegetation report. So in this case,

2 caladium seemed to be associated with (1), shallow water;

3 (2), slightly elevated phosphorus.

4 J5-5, which is the northern individual sample, is

5 four- to five-foot sawgrass, which BDA indicates is dense

6 sawgrass, as I recall. And the water depth was shallow,

7 and the phosphorus was slightly elevated.

8 Showing that in this -- Still, sawgrass was present

9 here, even though the phosphorus was elevated.

10 Q. But it's nice, fat, thick sawgrass, right?

11 A. Right. That is true. Four- to five-foot

12 sawgrass.

13 Q. Can you determine why you didn't have a twin

14 site?

15 A. No, I don't recall. I think we just took one

16 last site. Maybe there was a time constraint. I think

17 this was the last site we took. But I don't know why it

18 would be listed J5-5. Maybe an examination of the file

19 might give you some clue as to why that is.

20 Q. Thirsty and hungry going home.

21 A. That's always a possibility.

22 J5-6, which is the last paired site, 6 and 7. This

23 site was dense cattails. And a significant water depth of

24 17 to 22 centimeters. And in one case, slightly elevated

25 phosphorus. And the other case, perhaps background or





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


421



1 very slightly elevated phosphorus.

2 And the last one, J5-7, was six- to seven-foot

3 sawgrass. And the water depth, there was very shallow

4 water, which we found associated with the sawgrass as

5 opposed to the typha in these area. And the phosphorus is

6 significantly elevated in this location.

7 So, to answer your initial question, what are my

8 conclusions from this study.

9 Q. Yes, sir.

10 A. It is that it seems to be that the vegetation

11 type for these seven samples at this location was more

12 closely related to the water depth than it was to the

13 phosphorus level. Because there seemed to be elevated

14 phosphorus both in the sawgrass and in the typha. But

15 there was no consistency to that. But there was

16 consistency between the water depth and the vegetation.

17 Q. Now, have you compared that to other sites where

18 you have water depth, vegetation count and soil

19 phosphorus, Dr. Patrick?

20 A. Yes. But it would take a similar examination to

21 draw my conclusions from this. But as I recall from

22 examination of this, not in recent weeks, that a similar

23 type relationship existed that the typha was more

24 associated with deep water than the caladium was more

25 associated with shallow water. But that could be





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


422



1 determined by just an examination of this Exhibit 6.

2 Q. Let me ask you this: When we had gone through

3 the issues on which you were going to offer opinions at

4 trial, I believe cattail being affected by water depth

5 disturbance was one of the areas that you were intending

6 to offer testimony on; is that right?

7 A. Yes. Based to some extent on this information in

8 these studies here.

9 Q. But the foundation of that opinion would be

10 Patrick Number 5?

11 A. That would be one of the foundations.

12 Q. That's one foundation. And what else?

13 A. Well, Patrick 6 would also be another.

14 Q. Anything else?

15 A. Just from reading the literature that shows that

16 typha is a colonizer that comes in after a disturbance and

17 flooded areas.

18 Q. Okay. Have you done any -- Could you do any

19 statistical analysis of this particular study of seven

20 sites? Is there enough information here to do that?

21 A. Probably a test could be done showing if there is

22 a significant relationship between water depth and plant

23 community.

24 Q. You do have those on a single site, at which you

25 have modestly growing caladium, don't you?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


423



1 A. I'm not sure. I'll check. Which site are you

2 referring to?

3 Q. I guess the three- to four-foot caladium,

4 although it was dense, your six- to seven-foot sawgrass

5 and four- to five-foot sawgrass are certainly vigorous

6 sawgrass, wouldn't you agree?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. So the three- to four-foot sawgrass would

9 be probably the closest to the type of unenriched sawgrass

10 you had described yesterday.

11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the characterization

12 of what his prior testimony was. The record will

13 stand for itself as to what it was.

14 THE WITNESS: Can I answer that?

15 MR. KOBELINSKI: Oh, yes.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes, this would be more typical of

17 the sawgrass in the BP-60 sites and below.

18 BY MS. PONZOLI:

19 Q. Do we have vegetation -- I don't know. Maybe

20 they may exist in the record somewhere. Dr. Dennis'

21 description of vegetation is along that. Is that what

22 this is on Patrick 6?

23 A. No. That's Dr. Davis' and my description of the

24 vegetation types.

25 Q. Okay. Maybe we should walk through number 6. I





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


424



1 have a few more questions on number 5, though.

2 Are the samples in number 5, these seven sites, are

3 they all in the over-drained area using your calculation

4 described yesterday?

5 A. Yes, they are in the northern part of 3A. And

6 the district data shows that to be historically an

7 over-drained area.

8 Q. So to some extent, all of these might reflect,

9 according to the conclusions you had yesterday, elevated

10 phosphorus areas because of over drainage?

11 A. Well, I think the data shows that there are a few

12 phosphorus values as low as 500 parts per million at the

13 surface.

14 Q. Have you done any other studies, laboratory or

15 other studies, to confirm the conclusions regarding the

16 water depth and the phosphorus enrichment and which

17 vegetation grows?

18 A. No. As I mentioned to you the day before

19 yesterday, I think, we submitted a competitive-grants

20 proposal to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

21 Q. So you had that study, which you have been funded

22 by USDA to do that type of laboratory work. Is that

23 accurate?

24 A. Yes. But the parameters are not with the term

25 department, per se. The parameters are the intensity of





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


425



1 the reduction of which is related to inundation and water

2 depth.

3 Q. And the one that you are doing for USDA?

4 A. Yes. That's one of the objectives of that is to

5 measure the differential effect of intensity of reduction

6 and nutrient level on these two species that occur in this

7 Southern Florida.

8 Q. May I ask you --

9 A. So this test is not designed to do exactly what

10 this says here.

11 Q. What Patrick 5 did?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. Patrick 5, would it have been useful to have

14 redox samples at each of those sites?

15 A. Yes. But it was impossible to do on a one-day

16 study, because a redox study has to be -- The equipment

17 has to be installed and allowed to equilibrate for some

18 time, and the most accurate way is to take readings with

19 time intervals. If you notice the redox study extended

20 over a year's time.

21 Q. I would like to go through Patrick Number 6 and

22 understand it. If you could explain that to me, rather

23 than trying to speculate and trying to figure it out

24 myself.

25 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can we take a quick break?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


426



1 MS. PONZOLI: Sure. That's fine.

2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the

3 deposition continued as follows :)

4 BY MS. PONZOLI:

5 Q. Dr. Patrick, Patrick Number 5 represents a single

6 sampling date, does it not?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Okay. In Patrick Number 6, are we again looking

9 at a single sampling date?

10 A. No. There were two sampling trips, if you notice

11 from the note at the top. One was February 13th and 14th,

12 and the other was for March 3rd, 4th.

13 Q. All right. Can you walk me through Patrick

14 Number 6 so I can understand it?

15 A. To understand it completely, in addition to this

16 document, we would need to get the phosphorus analysis

17 from a previous table.

18 Q. Can we locate those, because I would like to

19 understand. This part does go to the heart of your

20 testimony?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Would you recognize those as we come to them?

23 A. It's one of the tables that we dealt with.

24 Q. Is it the phosphorus secretion one?

25 MR. KOBELINSKI: It's Patrick 2.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


427



1 Q. So we have to match Patrick 2 with Patrick 6. So

2 we match up which page of Patrick 2 with Patrick 6?

3 A. It's about one-third of the way through and it's

4 after the figures of the cesium profiles.

5 Q. If you give us the Bates number --

6 A. It's -- Which of these numbers are Bates numbers?

7 Q. 1311267 will work for us. 1313267 appears as one

8 of those two numbers at the bottom of your page?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Then we're together. Or at least you and I.

11 A. This table doesn't seem to be complete, as far as

12 all of the sample locations, but if we would start with

13 the L-67 And then we can go back and see where the other

14 phosphorus analysis are. Because I don't seem to have a

15 phosphorus analysis for WCA-1.

16 Q. Do you think those tables exist elsewhere in the

17 documents and it's just a matter of our locating them?

18 A. Yes, I think.

19 Q. Give me one second.

20 A. Yes. Actually, in this --

21 Q. They are there?

22 A. Yes. With the possible exception of 3C-1. I

23 don't see it, but I see the 3A-1 and the 3A-2.

24 MR. KOBELINSKI: That is BC, isn't it?

25 A. Sorry. That is BC. It is not properly





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


428



1 reproduced. It looks like a three to me, but it's B.

2 Q. So we have them all?

3 A. I think we have them all. BC is here. I don't

4 consider BC significant for this discussion.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. We can talk about it, if you want to. It's more

7 a matter of scientific interest.

8 Q. What I'm doing now is just pulling out a few data

9 sheets that I'm not sure we have identified, just in case.

10 A. Well, I think the pages I have indicated and

11 given you this Bates number that end with 67 contain it.

12 Q. That's what we need?

13 A. That's what we need.

14 Q. All right.

15 A. And maybe -- Well, anyway, I think that's what we

16 need.

17 Q. All right.

18 A. Along with the Patrick 6 Exhibit.

19 Q. Yes, sir. We're using Patrick 6 coordinating

20 with Patrick 2.

21 A. Now, if we want to understand this in really

22 great detail, we would also get the field notes and look

23 at those. But I think that would be pretty time

24 consuming. If you want to, we won't refer to those unless

25 we need to, the handwritten field notes.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


429



1 Q. Those were the ones you supplied yesterday?

2 A. Yes. As I understand, the field notes for this

3 trip were in what was supplied yesterday.

4 Q. Just so we can be sure, Patrick 21, as I recall,

5 were those field notes. Is that accurate? I just want to

6 make sure. If I want to go through this exercise at a

7 later date, I have what I need to do the exercise.

8 A. The first ones I'm looking at are Loxahatchee.

9 Q. We have some more, Dr. Patrick. Perhaps they are

10 in --

11 A. These all seem to be Loxahatchee, so far.

12 Q. How about Patrick 22 or Patrick 23? Maybe I have

13 handed you the wrong set.

14 A. Yes. This is the same date, this is 2/13/92.

15 This is Patrick 23.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. And these are the field notes on these particular

18 locations.

19 Q. All right. Can you read those or are ours

20 legible?

21 A. Marginally so. I think I can make them out if we

22 need to refer to them.

23 Q. All right. Why don't you hold them there in

24 front of you. And if there is useful information in there

25 that you think we need to understand, then you can refer





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


430



1 to them.

2 A. Very well. So perhaps the easiest way would be

3 to look at Patrick 6 and just see what the vegetation type

4 is and see what the water depth is. And to see what kind

5 of relationship is there. Then I propose we go back then

6 to the table showing the phosphorus analysis and do the

7 same sort of thing.

8 Q. Yes, sir.

9 A. Because it's been some time since I looked at

10 these in that connection.

11 Q. I'm not clear, though. Before we start this,

12 these efforts, you went to each location a single time.

13 It's just that it took February 13th, 14th, March 3rd and

14 March 4th to make it through all of these locations. Is

15 that accurate?

16 A. That's correct. There are quite a number of

17 samples.

18 Q. A sample form each location is a single visit?

19 A. There were two-day visits.

20 Q. You stayed on all sites for two days?

21 A. As I recall. And that's what the notation says.

22 But I think the field notes will demonstrate that in more

23 detail.

24 Q. It's possible that you went to a certain number

25 only one day and a certain number the second day?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


431



1 A. Yes, that's exactly the situation. Yes. We did

2 not revisit any sites, that I recall.

3 Q. That's what I wanted to make sure.

4 Explain to me what we're looking at.

5 A. If we look at Patrick 6, which is the table, this

6 shows the vegetation type, the location, the sampling,

7 characteristics of where inside and outside. You can

8 really ignore that for the time being. But the water

9 shows the water depth.

10 Q. What does the inside and outside mean? I have to

11 tell you, I'm really curious.

12 A. I'll be glad to explain it to you. We use a

13 50-centimeter long aluminum cylinder that's four inches in

14 diameter. And we press the cylinder into the soil to

15 usually close to the 50-centimeter depth. As you can see,

16 if you look at the table here, you can see that the depths

17 go down to an average of 46.5. Let's say that's the 45 to

18 48 segment.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. So we press the cylinder into the organic soil,

21 and it is sharpened on the lower side so that it cuts

22 through the fibrous material easily without significant

23 compaction. And when we have it pushed in, then we

24 measure the depth from the surface to the top of the

25 cylinder on the outside of the cylinder and on the inside





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


432



1 of the cylinder. And this will give us a measure of the

2 compaction of the sediment during the compaction. It

3 seems WCA-2, eight on the inside and four on the outside.

4 That is showing that during this sampling there was four

5 centimeters of compaction of the sample.

6 Q. There is always compaction. It's just a matter

7 of how much?

8 A. Almost always. Sometimes the conditions are such

9 that you have little compaction. But you almost always

10 have some compaction.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. Then the water depth is just the depth of water

13 at that location.

14 Q. All right.

15 A. It's obvious that we chose sites that were where

16 there was caladium and sites that were typha. And a

17 combination of typha and caladium. There was not much to

18 be gained on the relationship of plant community to water

19 depth. Although, the deepest sites would appear to be at

20 least either completely or part typha. In fact, in S9-6,

21 the water was too deep, apparently too deep, to measure or

22 at least we didn't measure. It's just designated deep.

23 Q. So you have no conclusions from this regarding a

24 comparison of water depth to vegetation type?

25 A. That's right. The main reason we chose these





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


433



1 sites was on vegetation type, to see where we had areas

2 that were typha and other areas that were caladium to

3 mainly see if there is a difference in phosphorus content.

4 So the main conclusion is to be drawn by examining the

5 phosphorus profiles in these systems.

6 Q. How much do we know the description of vegetation

7 type beyond caladium and typha or typha to caladium? Do

8 we have to go to the field notes to get specifics?

9 A. That was the basis which we selected these areas

10 of caladium and areas of typha.

11 Q. But we don't know how big or dense the typha was.

12 That information is not available to us, right?

13 A. It's hard to make out these notes. But I don't

14 believe that we measured the height of the vegetation. It

15 doesn't appear that we did here.

16 Q. Nor the percent cover?

17 A. No. But as I recall, and as these notes

18 indicate, we designated like sawgrass area.

19 Q. Right. I agree.

20 A. So that meant we selected areas that were more or

21 less complete sawgrass or complete typha.

22 Q. Is it fair to say, Dr. Patrick, this is a little

23 cruder designation of the vegetative type than your

24 Patrick 5 study where you actually put the height and the

25 density and more detail description?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


434



1 A. Yes, that's fair to say.

2 Q. All right. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Let's

3 just go on.

4 So we need to compare the vegetation type over to the

5 phosphorus levels, is the main comparison with the water

6 depth?

7 A. That was the rationale for this study, to go into

8 areas of typha and areas of caladium and see if they were

9 related to the phosphorus levels.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. And we also, as I recall, and I don't know if it

12 shows up in here, we could determine that by examining the

13 location map. We took one more sample, I think at least

14 two within the area between the two L-67 canals, which was

15 my understanding. This was the area that only received

16 rainfall. I might stand corrected on that one.

17 Q. Patrick Number 4, the one that we used for

18 locating those sites?

19 A. That's right. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. So we're looking at Patrick Number 4

21 sites?

22 A. Yes. And I think the area in L-67 below the

23 Miami Canal, as I recall - although Dr. Davis is more

24 knowledgeable and could be more explicit about this - is

25 the area that presumably did not receive any canal water





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


435



1 from the system, was more or less isolated. And those

2 sites can be seen on the blowup on the last page of this

3 Exhibit 4.

4 Q. Is that --

5 A. It is L-67-2 and L-67-3.

6 Q. And L-67-1, as you can see --

7 A. Is north of the Miami Canal. And I'm not as sure

8 if that is of the isolated area.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I think the one below it. I can't really be

11 absolutely definite on that at the present time. But I

12 say that because they will be ascertained in both Dr.

13 Davis, if you want to know that. It might be better, I

14 hate to skip through these --

15 Q. Let me ask you something on the L-67-2 and the

16 L-67-3. Would those be subject to phosphorus influence

17 from seepage from the L-67?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Were any measurements made to try and determine

20 that?

21 A. As I recall there were levies alongside these

22 canals on the inner part. And I think they were isolated.

23 But I made it clear to you that I'm not absolutely certain

24 about that.

25 Q. Okay. Your assumption is there was isolation?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


436



1 A. Yes. At least some where our samples were taken

2 I recall that was one of the basis we took the samples. I

3 think these are the ones. But that information is

4 available. And that's subject to some correction.

5 So, if we return to this table to L-67-2 and L-67-3,

6 you can see the phosphorus and also you see we did mercury

7 on these as well. You can see that the L-67-2 and L-67-3

8 seems perhaps slightly elevated at the surface. Although

9 it is only the zero- to three-centimeter section that

10 showed elevation.

11 When you get down to the next section, it seemed to

12 be the background level. I don't know how much input of

13 phosphorus this represents. But I do note that the L-67-1

14 is a lower concentration of phosphorus, which seems to be

15 at or near what I indicated I thought was the background

16 level for these enriched areas. It seems to be that is

17 the isolated area.

18 Q. That is the one, the isolated area?

19 A. It's possible, since it has a lower phosphorus.

20 Perhaps an examination of the field notes might indicate

21 that.

22 Q. Let's look at Patrick Number 6. L-67-1 and 67-2

23 and 67-3 represent caladium and the L-67-1, L-67-2 is

24 typha and L-67-3 is typha/caladium?

25 A. One is caladium type and the others are mixed.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


437



1 Q. Right.

2 A. One is caladium.

3 Q. Yes, sir.

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. But the water depth -- But all the water depths

6 do appear to be a deep compared to Patrick Number 5.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Isn't that true?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. But we're finding three different vegetative

11 communities there?

12 A. That's right. As I recall, the water depth in

13 the whole area was high in February and March, '92.

14 Q. So that would not bear out the water depth theory

15 that we had seen you felt demonstrated in Patrick 5, would

16 it?

17 A. That's correct. It doesn't offer any indication

18 of that.

19 Q. Okay. Assuming we were to work our way through

20 all of these various locations, have you drawn conclusions

21 from Patrick Number 6 that you would be offering at the

22 time of trial?

23 A. Could I defer that answer until I look at the

24 field notes regarding the basis for selection of one, two

25 and three?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


438



1 Q. Yes, sir. Are the reasons for selection listed

2 for every site to the best of your recollection, Dr.

3 Patrick?

4 A. That's what I'm trying to determine.

5 I can't really decipher these field notes well enough

6 to know which of these was the basis for our selecting

7 these, because it was done as result of consultation with

8 Dr. Davis at the time.

9 Q. Right. Are they just basically sort of

10 illegible?

11 A. Yes.

12 MS. PONZOLI: Will we be able to obtain more

13 legible copies, Mr. Kobelinski?

14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Are they illegible because of

15 the photo copy or because of the handwriting?

16 THE WITNESS: A combination.

17 MR. KOBELINSKI: We can perhaps improve the photo

18 copy, but not the handwriting.

19 THE WITNESS: I would just comment that these

20 would be perfectly legible to Dr. Davis.

21 BY MS. PONZOLI:

22 Q. If we can only get him scheduled to finish these

23 depositions.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you are suggesting that we torture Dr. Davis





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


439



1 to read his own field notes?

2 A. That seems to be the logical conclusion.

3 Although, I'm not trying to hedge on the answer. I find

4 it difficult to reconstruct the basis for these samples in

5 this particular location.

6 In general, we were looking for areas of -- One of

7 the things we were looking for were areas where there were

8 cattails or typha in an area that we thought had no reason

9 to be, that there was any inputs, high inputs of

10 phosphorus. And in an adjacent typha -- Caladium areas --

11 I'm having difficulty in sorting out those samples. But I

12 think if we just went through and looked at the vegetation

13 type and the phosphorus analysis, which is what I

14 indicated was the main thrust of this study, we can get

15 some information from this.

16 Q. All right.

17 A. This would be information that I would anticipate

18 using at trial.

19 Q. Okay. All right.

20 Dr. Patrick, we're proposing to either copy off some

21 of the numbers or some average of the numbers in the soil

22 phosphorus profile. And it's been suggested that we

23 average the 1.5 and 4.5 measure?

24 A. From zero to a six-centimeter depth?

25 Q. Yes, sir. Is that the way you would do your





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


440



1 analysis? You would go zero to six, or you would use the

2 1.5?

3 A. I would look at the surface in more detail. I

4 would look at the whole profile. But this would be the

5 first cut of evaluating that and seems a reasonable way to

6 do it and save time.

7 Q. Should we just copy the first number as opposed

8 to averaging the first two?

9 A. I'm not sure it isn't a good idea to average the

10 first two or just write down the first and second numbers,

11 which I would prefer to do.

12 Q. I think so, too, because we have been talking

13 consistently about the first number, and then we looked at

14 the rest of the profile. I'm a little uncomfortable

15 averaging the first two.

16 A. I think the general ideas is a good one.

17 MR. KOBELINSKI: The only reason I did that

18 because Reddy did the top 10 centimeters.

19 MS. PONZOLI: We'll take a few minutes and do

20 that exercise and then we will discuss it together.

21 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the

22 deposition continued as follows:)

23 BY MS. PONZOLI:

24 Q. Let's return to Patrick Number 6. We're on the

25 report. And we have now the 1.5 centimeter phosphorus





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


441



1 reading and the 4.5 centimeter phosphorus reading, or at

2 least the ranges that those numbers represent on the

3 table. And I would like you to explain to me what

4 patterns and what conclusions you see emerging from this

5 comparison of vegetation with phosphorus levels.

6 A. Okay. The first sample is the big Cypress, which

7 is a mineral soil. We could ignore it. It's not

8 significant to this case, unless you want to bring it up

9 for some reason.

10 The others are samples taken at various locations

11 shown on this map. And the major recollection I have now

12 is that we chose sites of caladium and we chose sites of

13 typha, and they were chosen for various reasons, some at

14 random and some because they were near maybe some outflow

15 structures on the canal.

16 And as I have indicated in at least one case, some

17 samples were taken because they seemed to be what was

18 considered to be in an isolated area and did not receive

19 any - his was blocked off from any water, from canal

20 water. And my interest in this was to see if these plant

21 communities could be related to phosphorus levels.

22 And so just going down that list then you see WC3A-1

23 caladium, there was a phosphorus content of about close to

24 what I consider background. The next one also there

25 seemed to be where these may have been elevated slightly





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


442



1 because both the zero to three and the three to six were

2 high. Usually there is a little fall off in the three to

3 six below the 500.

4 The Holyland, if it's of any significance, was also

5 the same way. It was close to 600 in the surface and 600

6 at the second depth. In the Rotenberger, which to my way

7 of thinking represents, I think, a rather unimpacted area

8 was 500 in the surface and -- Oh, that Rotenberger 1 was

9 500 in the surface and about 400 in the next level. The

10 other Rotenberger was 500 and 360. So close to

11 background.

12 In L-67, there were several samples in L-67, which I

13 told you I can't explain to you. I can't recollect which

14 of those were supposed to represent areas that where there

15 was no, presumably no, input of water. But all of these,

16 the two caladium sites were about 500 -- Oh, sorry. The

17 first caladium site was about 450 and 250. And the typha

18 site was significantly higher than that in the surface and

19 slightly higher in the next depth. And the typha/caladium

20 also appeared to be somewhat elevated in the surface. It

21 was 600 where the typha was 700. And the L-67-4, we don't

22 have that data.

23 Q. No, sir.

24 A. It's not in here?

25 MR. KOBELINSKI: No.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


443



1 Q. But assuming we have the same numbers sitting

2 besides these, Dr. Patrick, the same set of numbers which

3 were copied from Patrick Number 2?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you have conclusions that you have drawn from

6 this comparison of the numbers to these vegetative types?

7 A. Yes. And I can give you that better if you allow

8 me --

9 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to -- That's fine

10 A. S9-2, which is typha, also had a near background

11 level of phosphorus of 598 and 370 for the second.

12 And continuing on, I'm trying to hurry through this.

13 The S9-3 was mixed, and that was near background. S9-3

14 was typha and caladium was background.

15 The S9-5 typha was in an enriched, apparently

16 enriched area with 710 and 851. And also S9-6. As I

17 recall, I think these were outflow areas. It wouldn't

18 hurt to check the field notes on that. It's near pump

19 station S9. The S9-7 was also typha and it was back at

20 background level.

21 And then there was a slough community that we

22 sampled.

23 Q. Are we to assume that S9-7 is typha? Because it

24 has six but nothing for seven. Are we to assume it's

25 typha? Because I have nothing typed on mine for S9-7.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


444



1 A. Let's look at the field notes and see.

2 Mainly typha with little caladium.

3 Q. So it's mixed?

4 A. No. Mainly typha. So just write typha. Mainly

5 typha with little caladium. And that is - that's a

6 reduced phosphorus level. And the slough -- Or we can

7 ignore the slough.

8 Here is a mixed stand of typha and caladium. That's

9 enriched, apparently enriched. 800 and 550. Then there

10 is typha S9-10 has typha, but the phosphorus level is 400

11 at the surface and 690 below. That typically represents,

12 sometimes represents, a burn area. I can't really tell on

13 that.

14 Going on down to ESP-7, which is typha. That is

15 background level of phosphorus. And caladium 68-1 is

16 background level of phosphorus in the surface and 620 at

17 below, which is very much like S9-10, which was typha in

18 the same phosphorus concentrations.

19 We have the BP, we have the BP-10 sites. If you want

20 to review those, but we have already gone through those

21 and we have that relationship.

22 Q. Right.

23 A. To answer the question asked a long time ago,

24 what conclusions have I drawn from these relations, my

25 conclusion is that there is no consistency based on the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


445



1 samples in the northern part of 3A and the samples in the

2 rest of 3A, earlier samples. I find no consistent

3 relationship between phosphorus content and vegetation

4 type from these results.

5 The northern part of 3A indicates a closer

6 relationship between water depth and vegetation type than

7 any other relationship. But that relationship doesn't

8 seem to hold for the samples taken earlier, lower down in

9 3 where the water depth is generally - the water is

10 generally deep at all the sample locations.

11 Q. Well, then, is the bottom-line conclusion from

12 these two studies that you still cannot sort out what

13 percentage influence of water depth has on the community

14 type and what percentage influence nutrients have on the

15 community type?

16 A. I'm not sure I would express it exactly that way.

17 I would express it as follows:

18 There doesn't seem to be a clear relationship between

19 phosphorus level and community type in these samples that

20 we have selected.

21 And the second observation is that for the northern

22 3A, at least, the only consistent relationship was that

23 between water depth and typha occurrence that typha was

24 associated with deeper water.

25 Q. But while you didn't want to state it in the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


446



1 words I had stated, I don't think that my statement was

2 inconsistent with your first conclusion, do you, that

3 there was no relationship?

4 MR. KOBELINSKI: Object to the form of the

5 question. First of all, it stopped in the middle. I

6 think you were responding to that question.

7 A. Considering all of the samples -- Am I to answer?

8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes.

9 Q. Lawyers are very clear when they don't want you

10 to answer.

11 A. There is just one slight difference in the way I

12 stated and the way you stated.

13 I think, as I have indicated, that the samples in the

14 northern part do show a consistent relationship between

15 one factor, water depth and plant community type. And

16 then for all of the locations we have had, there doesn't

17 seem - phosphorus level doesn't seem to be a driving force

18 in the presence of typha or caladium, under the conditions

19 that were present at the locations we sampled.

20 Q. And that conclusion that phosphorus doesn't seem

21 to be a driving force is based upon these two studies. Is

22 that accurate?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Are you doing any other studies other than the

25 one you have mentioned for USDA? Are there any other





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


447



1 studies that you have done on this particular case? I'll

2 make it that broad.

3 A. In regard to USDA, I am not doing that study.

4 That is being done in my institute by Dr. DeLaune and Dr.

5 Peceshki and Dr. Reddy of the University of Florida. And

6 yes, the other studies that would relate to this are in

7 the Loxahatchee.

8 Q. What studies are those?

9 A. The transect that I described yesterday.

10 Q. It supports your conclusion that phosphorus level

11 doesn't seem to be a driving force?

12 A. Oh, I didn't say it supports my conclusion. You

13 asked me --

14 Q. Oh, other studies. Okay. But those studies,

15 other than the recent testing, are concluded, are they

16 not?

17 A. Well, yes. But the studies in progress - there

18 were just samples just taken - would be important to my

19 conclusion.

20 Q. Okay. That's fine.

21 A. But I can give you a tentative conclusion.

22 Q. That would be fine.

23 A. In the Loxahatchee samples that I have collected

24 and analyzed for phosphorus, typha, the presence of typha

25 and the growth of typha, occurs in areas that have both





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


448



1 deep water and high phosphorus, which makes it impossible

2 to separate the effects, since high or deeper water is

3 related to high phosphorus, because the phosphorus came

4 down that channel and the depressed area alongside the

5 channel of the canal. And obviously, since the land level

6 is depressed, the water is deeper there. But that is also

7 the area that was exposed to phosphorus in the drainage

8 water.

9 Q. Do you see that same relationship throughout the

10 Everglades, that typha is found predominantly in dome

11 water and high phosphorus?

12 A. Well, I thought I just concluded here that I

13 didn't see that relationship in these samples. I only saw

14 the relationship in 3A that typha was associated with deep

15 water. But there didn't seem to be any association with

16 high phosphorus, either in the northern part of 3, more

17 recent 3A samples, or for that matter, in the samples in

18 the other part of 3 that we just went through.

19 Q. Let me ask you, what about page three of Patrick

20 6? Do you see that same relationship on the BP transect,

21 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60?

22 A. Okay. In the BP transect, water depth did not

23 seem to be a factor, since the water was shallow at the

24 time I sampled these. But as we have discussed briefly

25 and as other people have spent extensive time





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


449



1 demonstrating, the area of typha and the growth and the

2 vigor of that typha is related to the phosphorus

3 concentration in the soil. I mean, that's been

4 demonstrated a number of times by Dr. Davis, Richardson,

5 Reddy and Patrick.

6 Q. So we're seeing different relationships in

7 different water conservation areas. Is that accurate?

8 A. In water conservation area 2A, I have no basis on

9 the basis of my data of the samples that the water level

10 that I took of showing that relationship between water

11 depth. But it is my understanding that this was an area

12 that was subjected to deep water. That it was an area

13 that was flooded extensively for some number of years.

14 And as a matter of fact, I observed a pier, a boat pier at

15 some distance out into 2A in some of my sampling trips.

16 So this was open water at one time.

17 Q. Based upon the data that you have collected or

18 participated in, you are seeing different relationships in

19 water conservation area 1, 2A and 3A with the variables

20 you have been examining, vegetation type, water depth and

21 phosphorus level?

22 A. I thought I made it clear that I was not able to

23 use water depth as a variable in 2A. Only the phosphorus

24 level. See, all of these areas had shallow water, you

25 see.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


450



1 Q. I understand. But it seems to me what I'm asking

2 you for are conclusions. One of those conclusions are

3 different from the conclusion in 3A, which are yet still

4 again different from the conclusions in 3A. And I

5 understand you are saying there is a data gap here.

6 A. Right. On the basis of the best data available

7 where I have both variations in water depth and in

8 phosphorus concentration, the most valid conclusion that I

9 can draw is that there is a relationship between water

10 depth and plant community.

11 Q. In 3A?

12 A. In 3A.

13 Q. But not in 2A. You can't draw that conclusion in

14 2A?

15 A. I cannot draw the data conclusion in 2A because I

16 don't have the data for that. I can draw that same

17 conclusion in 1 in Loxahatchee that the typha is

18 associated with deeper water, but high phosphorus is also

19 associated with deep water and with typha. So it's

20 impossible to separate that effect in 1.

21 Q. But in 2, though, we do see a relationship in

22 phosphorus in the typha?

23 A. Yes. But we also see that in 1, too.

24 Q. In 3 we see no relationship with phosphorus. You

25 can't establish a relationship between typha and





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


451



1 phosphorus levels in 3A?

2 A. That's my conclusion from 3A.

3 Q. Well, my former question should be accurate, that

4 you are drawing different conclusions from each of these

5 areas.

6 A. I have different kinds of data. I have

7 independent measurements of phosphorus and water depth. I

8 have variations in both water depth and phosphorus in 3A.

9 Q. And in 1?

10 A. No. Not independent variations. It's not

11 independent of phosphorus, because phosphorus and water

12 depths are linked in 1.

13 Q. Only because they are both high?

14 A. Not always. They are high at the canal and then

15 they decrease, both the water depth and phosphorus

16 decrease with distance.

17 Q. Before we break for lunch, Dr. Patrick, there is

18 one particular area that we have not examined. And that

19 is, I believe, all of these documents you produced on

20 soils of the Everglades. I would like to know, are you

21 using that information on the various soils as part of

22 your testimony at trial? You produced those documents to

23 me.

24 A. Yes. Well, since I'm not in complete charge of

25 trial preparation, it is difficult for me to answer that.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


452



1 I would answer it like this:

2 On the basis of the questioning that has gone on for

3 the last three days, I can't think of anything very

4 significant that would come out of a close examination of

5 those documents.

6 Q. Well, you provided them with some idea that they

7 were relevant to your testimony. Can you share with me

8 what that idea was?

9 A. It was generally, in my view, to sort of set the

10 stage of where different types of soil occurred in the

11 whole Everglades system, from the very thick sawgrass

12 organic soils, from the original sawgrass plane in what is

13 now the EAA, the Everglades Agriculture Area, that

14 extended from lake Okeechobee and occurred in deep

15 formation as result of nutrient input from overflow of the

16 lake, extending on down, thinning out into more shallow

17 peats or mucks as you get farther south.

18 And the fact that there were other areas that were

19 formed under different vegetation and different water

20 depths, which have different types of organic soil

21 material, such as a Loxahatchee muck.

22 And so that was the main purpose is probably to help

23 set the stage for what the whole system is and how it came

24 about.

25 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you have an idea how you





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


453



1 will be testifying on the extent and the location of the

2 violations of the water quality standards, the imbalance

3 and nuisance species standards?

4 A. I don't anticipate that I will be testifying in

5 regard to that. My testimony will start with the

6 knowledge based on analytical results that water entering

7 a water conservation area is at the present time at about

8 140 parts per billion total phosphorus consisting of three

9 different types of forms of phosphorus, orthophosphorus,

10 dissolved organic phosphorus and suspended or colloidal

11 phosphorus. And how these forms of phosphorus will react

12 differently in a storm treatment area, and how they will

13 react differently to best management, farm level and

14 drainage district levels, best management practices. And

15 how these forms of phosphorus, as well as the soil

16 phosphorus, will behave in the STA's that are proposed for

17 construction.

18 Q. I don't believe we have covered this, have we?

19 MR. KOBELINSKI: You mean five times today?

20 Q. I don't recall - seriously, Dr. Patrick. I don't

21 recall you discussing the different forms and how they

22 would react in the STA's. Did we do that the first day?

23 A. No. I haven't been asked to.

24 Q. We need to do that. What else do you think your

25 testimony will consist of?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


454



1 A. We could review that list that we went over the

2 first day. And I think we have really covered it.

3 Q. We pretty much covered it, other than how the

4 different forms of phosphorus will react. We covered it,

5 to the best of your recollection?

6 A. That's right. But I have not been asked about

7 this.

8 Q. No. This is fair. I would ask you to identify

9 this document that we discussed off the record at one

10 point.

11 A. This is Patrick 30.

12 Q. Yes, sir. Can you identify that?

13 A. These are plots of different data, phosphorus

14 data in the Loxahatchee.

15 Q. Right.

16 A. Collected by me, by Dr. Richardson and by Dr.

17 Reddy. And it shows a comparison of the analytical

18 results, which I would like to state for the record, are

19 very similar regardless of the laboratory from which they

20 came.

21 And to illustrate the point that I was making the

22 other day, that the sample density on my transect was not

23 close enough near the edge of Loxahatchee to properly

24 delineate the transition zone, as can be seen from page

25 one or from page --





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


455



1 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Patrick. I think you and I have

2 made a mistake. Have we already introduced this exhibit

3 as number 20 but have not discussed it? Patrick 20 is

4 Patrick 30, isn't it?

5 A. As I recall -- Well, it may or may not be. We

6 have to see.

7 Q. Because I'm going to eliminate this 30 -- I know

8 we haven't discussed it. If it's the same exhibit, we

9 don't want two exhibits with different numbers.

10 A. It appears to be exactly the same.

11 Q. Then let's make it 20.

12 A. But this document, I have not discuss this

13 document.

14 Q. No, we have not discussed it. I would like to

15 discuss, instead, Patrick 20 now. I would like to discuss

16 that with you. And I'll hand you the one from the

17 exhibit.

18 A. They appear to be copies of the same.

19 Q. Good. We are going to discuss Patrick 20, and

20 then we'll take a lunch break. We don't need a map for

21 this, do we?

22 A. We examined the map for this in detail. In my

23 mind, it's clear.

24 Q. This is the --

25 A. We'll be looking at the south-north transect.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


456



1 Q. All right.

2 A. These are not in the order that I would like to

3 discuss these. I would like to turn first to page - the

4 third page.

5 Q. Right.

6 A. Which is Bates, the last three numbers of Bates

7 is 545.

8 Q. Right.

9 A. This shows that the total phosphorus in the zero-

10 to two-centimeter depth along my west-east transect in

11 Loxahatchee.

12 Q. Yes, sir.

13 A. And the point I want to make about this is that

14 my sample site, LR-18, which is, as I recall, about a

15 quarter or half a mile from the canal or third of a mile

16 or something like that, as we discussed yesterday, is high

17 in phosphorus, 2500 parts per million. But by the -- And

18 you can see along the X-axis here that distance in feet.

19 And so LR -- Distance from open water. And LR-18 is maybe

20 a tent or a twentieth of a mile, fairly close to the

21 canal. And 19 is about a third of a mile from the canal,

22 between a third and a half. And you can see that the

23 phosphorus level is down to what I would call at or near

24 background levels, close to 500 parts per million.

25 Q. For other parts of the Everglades, not for the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


457



1 refuge though?

2 A. I don't agree with that statement. Not for the

3 interior of the Loxahatchee. Because I thought we had

4 discussed yesterday that the outer portions of Loxahatchee

5 did receive flow, the downward flow, the general surge

6 flow from the lake. And in my view would not have

7 necessarily the same background as the interior. In fact,

8 I think that's an important point to keep in mind. And

9 with distance across to 20, 25, 30 thousand feet, which

10 would be close to between five and six miles, the

11 phosphorus level stayed fairly close.

12 There was a slight drop off, decrease. But the

13 important point here is that the transition zone, in my

14 view, was between sites 18 and 19, which represents the

15 area of maximum compaction of incoming phosphorus.

16 Q. Let me ask you this, Dr. Patrick: Where do you

17 think the dome, in your opinion, combines in this five-,

18 six-mile transect. Do you have any idea?

19 A. Could I look at a map of the Loxahatchee that we

20 had? It showed a bridge of a mileage. Because I think

21 it's about 15 miles across Loxahatchee, as I recall. And

22 even with that, I'm not going to be able to answer your

23 question thoroughly, because the frequency of my sampling

24 was not such that I could identify.

25 This is the map. Fourteen. Missed it by one.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


458



1 The frequency of my spacing my samples is not close

2 enough for me to make that delineation, but I would think

3 my best estimate is that the center half would be

4 representative of that area, and that is just an

5 estimation.

6 I can tell you that there are some figures available

7 from the fish and wildlife unit at the University of

8 Florida from Wiley Kitchens and I think John Richardson,

9 which I obtained some years ago that depict these

10 differences in the interior of Loxahatchee and the outer

11 portions of Loxahatchee.

12 Q. Have you reviewed Dr. Kitchens' and Dr.

13 Richardson's Work Order 32, Dr. Patrick?

14 A. I don't know that I have. I'm not familiar with

15 the term "Work Order 32." I interviewed them, I think, in

16 1989 when I was a visitor to the University of Florida.

17 Q. Work Order 32 simply reflects that body of work

18 that they did in the refuge, which I believe pieces of

19 which you keep referring to.

20 A. Yes. But I'm not sure I had my hands on a

21 document called "Work Order 32" and reviewed it in detail.

22 But I did obtain from them color maps showing gradients,

23 various things like conductivity and maybe phosphorus that

24 gave me some insight into the characteristics of the

25 Loxahatchee at that time.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


459



1 Q. Okay. All right. Other than there is a close

2 correlation between, I guess what you told me a few

3 minutes ago, between your sampling and Dr. Richardson's

4 sampling, is there any other information contained in

5 these graphs that is of importance?

6 A. Well, yes. We have correlated some of our

7 samples with Dr. Reddy's that is either in there or this

8 or in some other presentation that showed all of the

9 laboratories were finding just about the same

10 concentrations.

11 Q. Yes, sir.

12 A. I don't see that in here. But it's floating

13 around here somewhere.

14 Q. I don't know. I may have seen it, I may not have

15 seen it. Is this information contained at the back, the

16 tables?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. We have reviewed this in other forms, other

19 places, the phosphorus information, the bulk density.

20 A. Did we? Yes, we did. Yes, we did. Because we

21 talked -- We did yesterday. That's right.

22 Q. All right.

23 A. But to answer your question, I would like to also

24 point out the -- Well, if we continue on with the next

25 page after the page that I spoke of, the zero to two





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


460



1 centimeters, the next is a plot of two- to four-centimeter

2 phosphorus level.

3 Q. Yes, sir.

4 A. It shows essentially the same situation of very

5 high phosphorus adjacent to the canal. And this was an

6 area of thick, dense typha. And then a drop off. And I

7 think this was a transition area. But I stand to be

8 corrected about that.

9 The vegetation data is available from Dr. Dennis'

10 work. And maybe the field notes. It should be from the

11 field notes associated with it. As I recall, this might

12 be a transition area and this LR-20 was maybe into a

13 caladium area.

14 Q. The transition was between 18 and 19 or 19 and

15 20?

16 A. I can't really answer that without referring to

17 the field notes.

18 Q. So somewhere between 18 and 20, but you are not

19 sure?

20 A. Yes, that's right.

21 Q. Okay. Now, that would reflect a relationship

22 between phosphorus and community type, would it not?

23 A. Well, water depth, since water depth also

24 decreases was distance from the canal. Because you will

25 recall, I said, and I'm sure you know from other





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


461



1 testimony, that all the canals that have been in place for

2 some time have subsided adjacent to the canal. And there

3 is a slow down to the canal that extends out some

4 distance.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And so this would result in a water depth of

7 decreasing thickness as you go from the canal east.

8 Q. All right. Is there any other information in

9 this Patrick Number 20?

10 A. If you turn to the next page you see the four- to

11 six-centimeter depth.

12 Q. Yes, sir.

13 A. And then you see that when you get down to four

14 centimeters, even this impacted site, 18, the phosphorus

15 content is still high, but not as high as in the surface,

16 four centimeters. In other words, the increase in

17 phosphorus did not extend as deep in the soil. And the

18 same thing for six to nine. You can still see a slight

19 increase.

20 Q. Right.

21 A. But if you turn to the next one, you see nine to

22 fifteen. We're down a depth that was not impacted at all

23 by the phosphorus in the canal.

24 Q. Right. Do you think that these decreasing depths

25 and decreasing phosphorus levels reflect historic





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


462



1 background levels of total phosphorus?

2 A. Probably. Yes. Because I think we're close to

3 historic background levels, because you see the line

4 across there as you go through the interior.

5 Q. Right.

6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Are you breaking for lunch,

7 Susan? I need to make a phone call.

8 MS. PONZOLI: Can we finish this exhibit? Or is

9 it urgent?

10 MR. KOBELINSKI: It's marked very urgent.

11 MS. PONZOLI: We can finish this after lunch.

12 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken, after which

13 the deposition continued as follows:)

14 AFTERNOON SESSION

15 BY MS. PONZOLI:

16 Q. Dr. Patrick, we had handed you Patrick Number 20.

17 And I believe you have not finished discussing Patrick

18 Number 20 when Mr. Kobelinski had an urgent call and we

19 decided to break for lunch. Maybe we should finish with

20 that, first.

21 A. I had discussed the west to east transects.

22 Q. Yes, sir.

23 A. And was just prepared to discuss the south to

24 north transect.

25 Q. Yes, sir.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


463



1 A. Which is also a transect which we have requested

2 additional samples for, and which have just recently been

3 obtained and in the process of being analyzed.

4 But if you will turn over to Bates number 6550, the

5 last one out of 6550, you will see a transect listed total

6 phosphorus zero to two centimeters along transect

7 Loxahatchee Patrick data. With the total phosphorus on

8 the X-axis and the -- On the Y-axis, and the distance from

9 open water and that 10C on the X-axis.

10 And you will see that unlike the first station on the

11 west side near the canal, that the total phosphorus is

12 relatively close to background levels. That's about 600

13 at the first station, although, it decreases to about 400

14 thereafter. And so, this is why I felt that I needed some

15 other samples between the LR-21 sample and the canal to

16 better delineate the possible layer of increased

17 phosphorus.

18 And so, if you go through these you will see that the

19 zero to two was up 600 and below. And the two to four was

20 down about 400 -- Well, 500 between one site and then

21 about 400 for the rest. And then four to six was also

22 about 500 and 400 with just a slight increase.

23 Then on the six to nine inch, there was little even

24 impact. All of them were somewhere around 300, except for

25 the first one, which was about 400. There was little





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


464



1 evidence of impact that extended that deep in the profile.

2 And the same thing for the next layer, which is the nine-

3 to fifteen-centimeter layer. This seemed to be at

4 background levels, even as close to the 10C.

5 And so I carried out these transects in order to

6 determine the area of increase phosphorus. And that's

7 what I'm in the process of continuing to do.

8 The point I want to note is that, I think even what

9 we have here delineates the distance out from the canal at

10 which there is elevated phosphorus in the Loxahatchee.

11 And it's my conclusion that relatively, this extends a

12 very short distance into the Loxahatchee, in relation to

13 the total area of the Loxahatchee. But this will be

14 better delineated when we get the other analysis.

15 Q. Since we only have about an hour left, Dr.

16 Patrick, I'm going to try to move as rapidly as possible.

17 A. I'll try to keep my answers as short and concise

18 as I can, consistent.

19 Q. With your desire to get on a plane.

20 I would like to identify several documents that have

21 been produced with your work or to which you have

22 referred. And we would like these identified and attached

23 to the record.

24 I'm going to hand you Patrick Number 30, and ask you

25 to identify that, please.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


465



1 A. Yes. This is an article from the Soil Science,

2 which is a journal in the field of soil science, entitled

3 Phosphorus Mineralization from Histosols of the Everglades

4 Agriculture Area, by Diaz, Anderson and Hanlon.

5 Q. And this is the Diaz article to which we have

6 referred on numerous occasions in this particular

7 deposition?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. I'm going to hand you a Dr. Reddy article marked

10 as Patrick Exhibit Number 31 and ask you to identify that,

11 please?

12 A. This is an article in the journal of Agriculture,

13 Ecosystems and Environment, 1983. Titled the Soluble

14 Phosphorus Release from Organic Soils, by K. R. Reddy of

15 the University of Florida.

16 Q. And does that rely -- Is that part of the Reddy

17 work that you referred to in several instances?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. All right. And I'll ask you to identify Patrick

20 Number 32, another Dr. Reddy article.

21 A. Yes. This is an article that's impressed in the

22 Soil Science Society of America Journal of 1994. That is

23 entitled Spatial Distribution of Soil Nutrients in

24 Northern Everglades Marsh: Water conservation Area 2A, by

25 W. F. DeBusk, Reddy, Koch, and Wang.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


466



1 Q. And again, this is part of Dr. Reddy, et al work,

2 by which you are relying?

3 A. Yes, it's their work in 2A.

4 Q. I have yet two more Reddy, Koch, and with other

5 authors. Patrick Number 33 and Patrick Number 34. If you

6 would identify those, please?

7 A. Patrick Number 33 is a paper in the Soil Science

8 Society of America Journal, 1993, entitled Long-Term

9 Nutrient Accumulation Rates in the Everglades, by R. K.

10 Reddy, R. D. DeLaune, DeBusk and Koch.

11 Q. And Patrick Number 34?

12 A. Patrick Number 34 is an article also in the Soil

13 Science Society of America Journal, 1992, entitled

14 Distribution of Soil and Plant Nutrients Along a Trophic

15 Gradient in the Florida Everglades, by M. S. Koch and K.

16 R. Reddy.

17 Q. 33 and 34, again, are further Reddy work that you

18 used to help form the foundation for your opinions?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. All right. I would like you to identify Patrick

21 Number 35 for me.

22 A. Patrick Number 35 is a series of figures

23 depicting phosphorus in the Loxahatchee in graphic form,

24 done in several different graphic forms.

25 Q. I'm kind of curious about some of those graphs.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


467



1 Do they have particular meaning for you, the contour

2 graphs? Is that the right word for them?

3 A. Yes. They are 3-dimensional.

4 Well, to specifically answer your question, they

5 don't provide any information that I haven't obtained from

6 the 2-dimensional figures. It's just another way of

7 presenting data.

8 Q. Does this represent the phosphorus gradient that

9 we have been looking at in other forms?

10 A. I'm sure it does. Yes, I think so. Yes. But

11 I'm not sure whose data it is. Because I think this came

12 from either -- Well, it probably came from Dr. Davis.

13 Q. What does that show, Dr. Patrick? Read the Bates

14 number into the record.

15 A. Bates number 6443. This shows a contour, a map

16 of phosphorus content in the zero- to ten-centimeter zone

17 in the Loxahatchee. And it shows the different contours

18 in 100 micrograms per gram intervals.

19 Q. Then we see what you describe as oligotrophic in

20 the center where you say the dome is in the 300 range

21 moving closer and closer to the canal with higher and

22 higher numbers.

23 A. Well, yes. This is probably the best depiction

24 of this dome that we have seen in this deposition.

25 Because you see the 300 contour.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


468



1 Q. Okay. And you believe the dome would match that

2 300 contour?

3 A. Well, in terms of the phosphorus in the surface

4 layer, yes. Probably if you were looking at something

5 else, it might be in a little more, out a little more. It

6 generally, in my view, would represent the dome.

7 Q. What do these multiple lines represent in top of

8 the Loxahatchee?

9 A. This shows a zone of increased phosphorus

10 concentration from this point in. Each one of these is a

11 100 part per million or microgram per gram. If you count

12 these in from 100, this would be 500, six, seven, eight,

13 nine, one thousand on to, say there is about a fifteen

14 hundred parts per million or micrograms per gram at the

15 source here and thins out to this level over this

16 distance. The same thing happens over here.

17 Q. On the western side?

18 A. On the west side, which pertains to the high

19 value I obtained on the west side of the canal. The

20 figure we just examined is the best, most understandable

21 depiction of the phosphorus of zero to ten centimeters.

22 Q. I ask you to identify Patrick Number 36, please.

23 A. This is a plot from Environmental Services and

24 Permitting - since it has their name on here - of water

25 levels in, I think, the Loxahatchee. Although I must say,





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


469



1 I don't really know what this is, myself. I think it was

2 in some documents provided to me. And I think there are

3 two copies.

4 Q. Have we pulled in two? We only need one.

5 A. I think that's right. Isn't this a --

6 Q. It looks identical to me. You may be using this

7 in the future, but you have not presently used it?

8 A. I have not presently used it.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. And I'm not certain that I will use it, but I may

11 use it.

12 Q. Dr. Patrick, remember we went through the issues

13 that your lawyers had listed you to testify on earlier in

14 this deposition? And I think what I would like to do is

15 hand you that list back again and let you read through the

16 various issues and make sure that you offered us -- I can

17 call them out to you.

18 A. If you don't mind.

19 Q. Certainly. Ignore the highlighting of Mr.

20 Larsen's name. And what I'm trying to do is trying to

21 highlight your name, which I do remember at this point.

22 I believe, largely, Dr. Patrick, that we have covered

23 all of these areas. But I want to make sure.

24 A. You want me to review this to make sure?

25 Q. Yes. I'm going to walk you through it. But if





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


470



1 you would say to me yes, I believe I have given you the

2 opinion.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. On number one, you can read with me. Number

5 one -- It will save us time, actually, in the record, Dr.

6 Patrick, if I can call out the number, you glance through

7 it and say yes, I believe I have given you my testimony on

8 that.

9 A. I understand.

10 Q. As to number one under the pretrial disclosure.

11 Witnesses in U.S. Sugar --

12 A. I don't see U.S. Sugar.

13 Q. U.S. Sugar is the party and Florida Sugar Cane --

14 A. I wanted to make sure we were reading the same

15 material.

16 Q. We are in the same document.

17 A. Yes, I think I have covered that in my

18 deposition.

19 Q. Then number two?

20 A. Yes, I believe we have covered that in some

21 detail.

22 Q. The next one I have is number eight.

23 A. Yes, we covered that somewhat extensively.

24 Q. Number nine?

25 A. We have covered that, but not separately from





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


471



1 number eight. We sort of covered those two together.

2 Q. Do you consider it a separate issue, or is that

3 something a lawyer wrote? If you consider it a different

4 issue, then we need to talk about it.

5 A. I understand. I believe we have discussed that.

6 I think we have covered that. Although, we probably

7 didn't cover it in the way it's just stated here. Whether

8 it was more vegetative or ecosystem in changes.

9 Q. Do you consider this to be more of a vegetative

10 ecosystem change because of the flooding and pooling? Is

11 that your opinion?

12 A. Yes. In fact, I think I covered that in some

13 detail this morning in relation to the sampling in 3A.

14 Q. That's the basis of your opinion?

15 A. Part of the Basis for my opinion.

16 Q. The other part is what?

17 A. The other part is the other work in 3A. Probably

18 the work in 1, as well.

19 Q. But those three studies that you are referring

20 to?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. All right. The next section I have is number 11.

23 A. Since this was apparently written by a lawyer, I

24 have to read it with some care to make sure I understand

25 it.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


472



1 Q. I believe you said this morning, though, that you

2 did not really anticipate testifying on this, on the water

3 quality violations.

4 A. I don't believe I will. Not in the way that is

5 expressed just here.

6 Q. All right. And then again, another one on water

7 quality violations is the dominance of nuisance species,

8 number 12.

9 A. Yes. We have covered that in the sense that

10 typha is considered a nuisance species.

11 Q. If I may just cut to the bottom line. Would that

12 be your testimony where you believe that typha is related

13 to water depth as opposed to --

14 A. And disturbance.

15 Q. That's really where your testimony in this regard

16 comes in?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. So we have covered that. Then I have the next

19 one as number 21 on page 18 is the next time I see your

20 name.

21 A. We have certainly covered that in detail.

22 Q. Yes, sir. Then again on 24, I believe we have

23 covered that on the STA's.

24 A. Absolutely.

25 Q. Then again on 25 regarding the STA's?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


473



1 A. In detail.

2 Q. Right. And then also we have on number 26 on the

3 STA's. I believe we have also covered that.

4 A. We have covered that. But I don't know that we

5 really talked about -- We covered the inability of the

6 STA's as designed with cattails or typha.

7 Q. Right.

8 A. Their capacity to possibly reduce phosphorus

9 content with time, if they were in place long enough to

10 achieve some of the characteristics of 2A. But I'm not

11 sure we covered the fact that a typha, a pure typha stand,

12 will pull the phosphorus down to 50 parts per billion.

13 The evidence from 2A suggests that we don't reach 50 parts

14 per billion until we reach a mixed plant community.

15 Q. I believe you did say that. But do you have more

16 than that that you would add to that discussion?

17 A. No. I wasn't even sure that I had made that

18 point, because I just spoke about it in a relative way and

19 not in terms of the 50 parts per billion, as I recall. So

20 I want to make sure I make that point.

21 Q. But the substance of your testimony is that if

22 the STA's were comprised entirely of typha, you do not

23 believe that typha STA would not pull it down to 50 ppb?

24 A. That's right. And that's based on the

25 observations of water conservation area of 2A. Even if it





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


474



1 achieves that, even if it finally utilizes the stored

2 phosphorus in the soil and starts processing the

3 phosphorus coming in, there is, in my view, there is no

4 hard evidence in my mind that it would guarantee to get it

5 to 50 parts per billion. Unless there is a vegetation

6 community change.

7 Q. Number 29, page 23.

8 MR. MALCOLM: Just if we want to be complete,

9 Susan, he did mention number 27.

10 Q. We covered that, yes. If you were to testify --

11 A. Yes. I should be listed on that.

12 Q. Number 29, I think we covered, because you

13 believe that they should be closer to the source.

14 A. Yes. Well, I thought I made it clear that I

15 wasn't aware of what the district new, and so there were

16 aspects of this -- I can't say I can cover all of this,

17 but I certainly would cover part of the this. So I cannot

18 tell you today what the district is aware of and what

19 outside contractors they have.

20 Q. That's just lawyer talk. Number 30?

21 A. I certainly agree we have discussed that.

22 Q. And 31?

23 A. I think we have gone into that in considerable

24 detail.

25 Q. There is an exhibit I don't believe we have





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


475



1 discussed, and I would like to make sure we have

2 determined the importance of it. Patrick Number 7 you had

3 identified previously.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is this data included in other data that we have

6 examined? Is this just a different presentation of data

7 we have already found elsewhere?

8 A. I don't think so. I don't recall any SED

9 designations, unless some of you have and refresh my

10 memory.

11 As I indicated to you when you first asked me about

12 this: These are, as I recall, samples that were taken by

13 Dr. Davis' group.

14 Q. Right.

15 A. And were sent to us to analyze on a fee basis.

16 Q. That's right. You did say that. And you have

17 not drawn conclusions from these. Is that accurate?

18 A. That certainly is accurate.

19 Q. And you don't know how the vegetation was

20 designated. Where they have caladium and typha you have

21 no knowledge of those designations of these vegetation?

22 A. My knowledge of this table is the same as yours.

23 Q. Okay. That's fine. I would like to ask you, in

24 regard to your work on the reauthorization of the Clean

25 Water Act, what is your role in that reconsideration?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


476



1 A. What was my role?

2 Q. What was it, right.

3 A. I was chairman of the advisory committee in the

4 office of technology assessments for the reauthorization

5 of the Clean Water Act. A committee of people drawn from

6 all over the country to advise ETA on technology

7 assessment, which is an organization belonging to the U.S.

8 Congress.

9 Q. Did the exception for agricultural discharges

10 come up at that time in the reauthorization?

11 A. No. This reauthorization dealt almost completely

12 with section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Seemed to be a

13 lot more important than the Everglades problem at that

14 time.

15 Q. Have you been asked to serve again when the Clean

16 Water Act is under consideration?

17 A. Not right now. At the present time, I'm on the

18 National Academy of Science Committee to advise U.S.

19 Congress on the identification and characterization of

20 wetlands.

21 Q. In regard to the National Academy of Sciences,

22 was there a time that they were asked to participate in

23 this Everglades controversy or to consider participating

24 to your knowledge?

25 A. Not to my knowledge.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


477



1 Q. Okay.

2 A. There may have been some discussions, but I

3 wouldn't know about that. Mike would probably know about

4 that. To my knowledge, there is no participation of NAS

5 in the Everglades.

6 Q. But you don't have any knowledge of that --

7 A. It's not directly involved in our wetland study.

8 Q. Okay. Would there be, Dr. Patrick, any

9 differences in the redox phenomena between ombitrophic

10 sediment and enriched sediment?

11 A. I think there could be in some sphagnum bogs of

12 the north. They are so absolutely oligotrophic and

13 nutrient starved that probably the intensity of reduction

14 would probably not be as great as it would be found in

15 areas that have higher nutrients, either from rainfall or

16 from some overland flow.

17 Q. I'm having difficulty - and I know this is

18 because I'm just a layman - understanding the importance

19 that you place on your redox study and your findings for

20 the Everglades. Can you put that in very simple layman's

21 terms what the bottom line on that redox study is for the

22 Everglades?

23 A. The bottom line is that across the habitats and

24 ecosystems that we examined, as far as in our redox study,

25 that all of these differ considerably in plant





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


478



1 productivity and nutrient level, that there was no

2 significant difference in the redox levels. That all of

3 these sites, all of these locations, were somewhat uniform

4 in reducing.

5 Q. Well then, would that mean that this is really a

6 factor that probably doesn't tell us very much about what

7 we're trying to sort out in our Everglades debate?

8 Wouldn't that be the conclusion that we would come to?

9 A. Essentially. My hypothesis was that there would

10 be differences.

11 Q. What role does increased productivity play in the

12 redox phenomenon in oligotrophic systems?

13 A. Well, if a system is oligotrophic, it has limited

14 primary productivity because of a shortage of nutrients.

15 And within that narrow range of primary productivity, I'm

16 not really knowledgeable about whether there would be any

17 changes in redox condition in the substrate in the soil

18 itself.

19 My guess is that there wouldn't be any significant

20 change. That it would take a larger change in nutrient

21 supply and primary productivity to show differences in

22 intensity. But I have no solid information that I can

23 pull out of my mind to back that up.

24 Q. Is that partially because you haven't tested

25 redox in the refuge and you really don't have data from





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


479



1 the park?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Okay. In areas with similar hydroperiods, what

4 changes in the redox phenomena would you expect between

5 oligotrophic or ombitrophic sites and enriched sites?

6 That's really the same question, isn't it?

7 A. You need to get Mike to explain this.

8 Q. To me or you?

9 A. Both of us. Would you read that again, please?

10 Q. In areas with similar hydroperiods, what changes

11 in redox phenomena would you expect between oligotrophic

12 or ombitrophic sites and enriched sites?

13 A. My hypothesis is that enriched sites would have

14 more intense reduction conditions, would be more reduced.

15 Q. But you didn't find that, did you? You found it

16 very similar.

17 A. Yes, I found it very similar. That was my

18 hypothesis, which I indicated to you a few minutes ago.

19 Q. Dr. Patrick, what are the mechanisms which remove

20 phosphorus in 2A? Which forms are removed by each

21 mechanism? Actually, I think that goes to what we have

22 said before lunch, these different types of phosphorus,

23 didn't you?

24 A. Well, not completely. There is more to that

25 question than I covered. And I'll just take a minute to





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


480



1 zip through this.

2 But in 2A -- And this is important in relation to the

3 STA's as proposed for the agriculture area. In 2A, the

4 system has stabilized to the point that the major

5 mechanism of phosphorus removal, as in all systems, is

6 plant uptake by the roots and some algae removal that

7 falls to the surface and finally gets into the soil and is

8 available to the plant roots. So the method of uptake is

9 the same.

10 But the system is stabilized to the point that the

11 amount of phosphorus removed or buried in peat, which is

12 the settling rate that is so much discussed in 2A, is the

13 residual amount of that phosphorus taken up that shows up

14 finally in stable peat and ranges on depending whose

15 figures we use. 1.14 Dr. Reddy's first site, and about .7

16 from doctor Richardson's site, and .9 from my first site,

17 down to almost nothing at the lower end of the transect

18 where the amount of phosphorus available is extremely low.

19 But the net removal is that settling rate, and

20 probably would average something like for the whole range,

21 between the water coming in where it reaches 50 parts per

22 billion, something like .5 grams per meter square.

23 And the other part of this question was the many

24 forms of phosphorus. As Dr. Davis showed, and as I think

25 Dr. Richardson also showed, the easiest phosphorus to





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


481



1 remove of the three forms that I have described is the

2 dissolved orthophosphate. It's an inorganic ionic form

3 and is readily available for plant uptake. The other two

4 forms, the dissolved organic, must be decomposed before it

5 can be utilized by the plants. And of course, suspended

6 or colloidal phosphorus is also in organic form and must

7 also be mineralized.

8 In 2A, as Dr. Davis and Dr. Richardson showed, the

9 orthophosphate disappears more rapidly down the transect.

10 And I might mention this, parenthetically, that this form

11 of phosphorus that would be removed by the BMP in

12 agricultural areas and STA's will have a difficult task of

13 removing the dissolved organic and the suspended organic.

14 Q. All right. You had said before lunch that you

15 were going to discuss at trial these three types coming

16 out. And so you believe that the BMP would remove

17 orthophosphate?

18 A. Yes. Respectfully more of that.

19 Q. And that's because of the water manipulation?

20 A. Because it's the easiest to be absorbed. It's

21 the easiest to be taken up by plants, by algae.

22 Q. What about the concept of dredging the canals?

23 Wouldn't that help removed the suspended phosphate?

24 A. Dredging?

25 Q. Dredging the canals?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


482



1 A. Drainage canals?

2 Q. The drainage canals had been one of the

3 mechanisms suggested for removing phosphorus coming out in

4 drainage water. Won't that affect the sediments

5 suspended?

6 A. I'm familiar with discussions along this line. I

7 thought about this myself. But actually, the sediment in

8 the canal, the clay organic sediments may be a sink of

9 phosphorus rather than a source. In fact, phosphorus

10 disappears from the water as it leaves the farm and as it

11 approaches the water conservation areas. And so, this

12 sediment and banks are sinks of phosphorus. So I'm not

13 sure that having a clean channel is going to aid in

14 removing phosphorus.

15 If those sediments in the canal get changed to the

16 point that they are sources instead of sinks, then it

17 would be helpful to remove it. So it depends on that

18 factor right there in the banks.

19 Q. The second part of this general question is what

20 the representative importance for different mechanisms for

21 removing phosphorus in 2A - or STA's are modeled after the

22 2A. Do you understand the question?

23 A. No. Well, I don't know -- Would you repeat it

24 again, so I make sure I'm answering the right question?

25 Q. We started out with what are the mechanisms that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


483



1 remove phosphorus in 2A. And then what is the relative

2 importance of these mechanisms was the second part of

3 that question.

4 A. As proposed STA's or 2A?

5 Q. Is there a difference? Aren't the STA's really a

6 manmade 2A?

7 A. I thought instead --

8 Q. I understand you said they don't work the same.

9 I understand. Maybe that is impossible to answer.

10 A. Yes. Well, I think I can attempt to answer this

11 with the understanding that I'm not equating the STA

12 function with the 2A.

13 Q. I understand.

14 A. Because I hope I --

15 Q. You made that clear.

16 A. In the STA's, the phosphorus uptake mechanism is

17 going to be the same as it is, in one sense the same in 2A

18 as in all plants. The plants go to take up the phosphorus

19 through the roots. Studies show they don't take it up

20 through leaves or stems. Even submerged aquatics take up

21 phosphorus through the roots. So what phosphorus is taken

22 up will be taken up in the roots, as far as plant uptake.

23 And the point I made is in the STA's, there is in

24 addition to this small amount of incoming phosphorus,

25 there is this huge reservoir of available phosphorus in





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


484



1 the soil that is going to be as readily available and

2 maybe more readily available of that in the water column.

3 Because that coming in the water column has to diffuse

4 into the soil or moved close to the soil surface where

5 there are roots before it can be taken up.

6 So it's going to be the orthophosphate that is more

7 readily taken up in the STA's, as well as in 2A, the

8 dissolved orthophosphate. The other formations, they are

9 either going to be removed by filtration of some of the

10 colloidal material and mineralization, which means

11 conversion to the orthophosphate form as it moves through

12 the STA in the same way as it moves through the 2A.

13 And the difference is going to be the fact that, as I

14 explained, in STA, there is this huge reservoir of

15 phosphorus that is readily available, as compared to 2A

16 where all this excess phosphorus has been converted to

17 peat and is either in peat or in a standing crop of the

18 plant.

19 Q. When you were outlining how much you would

20 testify before lunch, you said that you would be

21 testifying on the three different types of phosphorus, how

22 each will react differently within the STA's and how they

23 will react differently to BMP.

24 A. Yes. How BMP's will remove more of one form than

25 of the others, which I have just discussed.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


485



1 Q. Right.

2 A. In fact, I think I covered all of those aspects

3 of that. Although, I would be glad to go into more

4 detail.

5 Q. Why don't you take a five minute break and let me

6 look over my notes and see what we need to conclude.

7 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the

8 deposition continued as follows:)

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. MEDDLETON:

11 Q. Dr. Patrick, in the 20 minutes or so we have

12 left, I have a few questions I would like to ask.

13 A. I hope this is 15 minutes we have left.

14 Q. I just want to try to clarify your opinions,

15 first of all, concerning the six to eight years that you

16 indicated it would take the STA's to reach the point that

17 they would become a sink rather than a source, similar to

18 2A.

19 And just for the record, I would just like to clarify

20 that the first thing that you are relying on is the Diaz

21 article marked as Exhibit Number 30 for conclusion in this

22 160 kilogram per hectare for the phosphorus release per

23 year.

24 A. That's down to a depth of 30 centimeters. They

25 calculate for 15 centimeters, which is half that amount in





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


486



1 their table. But I anticipated that the plants would have

2 to draw it down to about twelve inches.

3 Q. Well, what do they -- Again, I have not had a

4 chance to review the Diaz in any detail. What do they

5 report the amount of available phosphorus that is being

6 released in this study? You said they reported to 15

7 centimeters?

8 A. They just took samples, apparently, from

9 15-centimeter samples, about six-inch samples from a

10 number of fields. And they just leached those under two

11 conditions. Under drain conditions and under flooding

12 conditions to see what amount of phosphorus was readily

13 available, readily supplied by those soils over about a

14 year period of time. And that is the result they got.

15 And the Dr. Reddy study, he did a similar study,

16 which he showed was four to eight times greater release

17 under flooding conditions, of which is going to be the

18 situation in the STA's, as I understand their design.

19 Q. Is that the Reddy 1983 article marked as Exhibit

20 31?

21 A. I'll have to examine it to see. The 1983?

22 Q. '83.

23 A. Yes. If you look in the abstract, in that it

24 says increase release of four to eight times.

25 Q. Is the 160 kilograms per hectare that is





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


487



1 utilized, is that number actually shown in here?

2 A. Half that number is shown in there. If you turn

3 to one of those tables, you will see 70 to 80 kilograms

4 per hectare. And I converted that also to 16 grams per

5 meter squared. I used that instead of 160. And that

6 phosphorus must be dealt with somewhere. It is there.

7 As a matter of fact - and this is directed to the

8 other attorneys in this - if I were asked to design a

9 system to transfer the phosphorus in the Everglades

10 agriculture area to water conservation area, I would

11 submerge and plant it in typha and have a flow of water

12 through the system to pick up the phosphorus from EAA and

13 dump in this water conservation area, which I think is

14 going to happen for some period of time, which is the STA

15 design.

16 Q. That's what I thought you were describing. I was

17 a little confused.

18 The standing crop numbers that you were using, 6.25

19 grams per meter squared, that's reported in the Kadlec

20 report marked as Exhibit Number 25?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Was the 6.25 grams per meter squared, was

23 that standing crop in cattail?

24 A. It was in a wetland, a vegetative wetland. And

25 he didn't designate, as I recall, the species. But that





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


488



1 wouldn't make much difference. In fact, I used an outside

2 figure. I even counted the below-ground portion as a

3 standing crop.

4 Q. In your opinion, would there be a difference

5 between the standing crop of phosphorus in cattail versus

6 standing crop of phosphorus in a sawgrass community for

7 the same unit area?

8 A. I don't think so. Not the best sawgrass and not

9 the best typha that I have observed. Because there is

10 some very dense productive stands of sawgrass in the

11 Everglades.

12 And also, I base that also on some information of my

13 own, that the maximum crop, standing crop, you can

14 anticipate from our work on marshes and coastal zones of

15 Louisiana is about a maximum of 30 thousand kilograms per

16 hectare for standing crop. And we found a maximum of 1/10

17 percent phosphorus in this. And that would result in

18 about 30, a standing crop of about 30 kilograms per

19 Hector, or three grams per meter squared. I think the

20 Figure 6.25 is an outside figure.

21 Q. Do you think that's on the high side?

22 A. Yes, of standing crop.

23 Q. And you said in your calculations that you used a

24 an accretion rate of one gram per meter squared per year;

25 is that right?





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


489



1 A. Yes.

2 Q. For this amount?

3 A. For the incoming, yes. Incoming water. And the

4 accretion associated with 50 parts per billion for the

5 lower end, an average of those. I think it's somewhere in

6 my calculations I used one gram per meter squared for the

7 whole STA system.

8 Q. And well, where did you get the one gram per

9 meter squared? Was that based on Reddy's data?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would that be reflected from the Reddy 1993

12 marked as Exhibit Number 33?

13 A. I'm not sure. I think that's the one that

14 doesn't have the figures inside it. But that value of

15 Reddy has been published in so many places, I'm sure it's

16 in the records.

17 Q. Well, this one in the abstracts make one to 1.14

18 grams.

19 A. Yes. 1.14 is the figure.

20 Q. Okay. In the 140 parts per billion that you have

21 assumed for inflow concentration, where are you? What are

22 you basing that upon?

23 A. That's the value that I remembered coming down

24 through 5A going into the water conservation area. That

25 seems to be the long-term value for the last for the





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


490



1 period of measurement. That's the figure that I recall.

2 It's not going to be much different from that.

3 Q. Do you remember where you saw that? Was that in

4 the SWIM plan or some other document?

5 A. I think it is in the SWIM plan. I know it's in

6 some other documents as well.

7 Q. Do you understand that to be the flow, the weight

8 average?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That's over the period of record?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What is your understanding of period of record?

13 A. It's about a 120-year period. And I'm not

14 exactly sure. It may be something like 70 something to 80

15 something. I could look it up for you.

16 Q. And the 80 percent leaching rate, I think that

17 you mentioned, came from the Steve Davis report that was

18 marked as Exhibit Number 24?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Do you know whether the phosphorus Mr. Davis is

21 referring to, what particular species it was, was that

22 available phosphorus, or was that total phosphorus?

23 A. It was leached phosphorus. And so it had to be

24 soluble. It wouldn't have been leached out of the leaves.

25 If you are -- He did report the form. If you want me to





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


491



1 speculate, I would say it was a mixture of dissolved

2 organic and orthophosphate.

3 Q. Dr. Patrick, I understand the base of information

4 that we have that you are relying on to reach your

5 opinions. What I still am not clear on is exactly how you

6 use that information to come up with your final

7 conclusion, that it's seven or eight years before the

8 STA's are going to be acting like 2A. Can you explain

9 that a little more?

10 A. Yes. That's sort of a minimum, really, time I

11 think. And I did adjust a calculation in my head of how

12 long it would take to take up this amount of phosphorus

13 and to bury it or settle it at a rate, a maximum rate of,

14 I would say, one gram per meter squared per year. So

15 we're looking at something like, say we have seven years.

16 Let's say seven years. That would be seven grams per

17 meter squared per year. Which would be about half of this

18 available phosphorus.

19 Let's assume that the others shows up in the standing

20 crop. So it would be about that long period of time in my

21 view before the STA's as designed on former agricultural

22 land, will start processing, even processing this incoming

23 water. In that period before then, I don't think they

24 will effectively process it. That's because they are

25 being sited on very fertile agricultural land that has a





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


492



1 huge reservoir of available phosphorus. If think on 2A or

2 something like that, it would be a different situation.

3 Q. I understand that part of the analysis. I was

4 more interested in the quantitative analysis, if you

5 actually calculated some numbers out. You mentioned you

6 calculated in your head. Have you actually written down

7 numbers?

8 A. I'm in the process. But I plan to calculate this

9 out and put it in adopted form. But roughly, it would be

10 somewhere in that range, if you just -- And using a

11 maximum for removal at every step.

12 Q. Can you give me an idea of what type of equation

13 we will be looking at?

14 A. I really explained it just now. The approach I

15 took, there is an available amount of phosphorus. Let's

16 say 15 grams per meter squared in the soil as reported by

17 Diaz and some of Reddy's data will also substantiate.

18 There is a standing crop of six. So six of that will be

19 taken up by the crop. The burial rate, removal rate of

20 phosphorus is the maximum, the highest measure was 1.14

21 grams per meter squared. If you start with 15, you have a

22 standing crop of six. That leaves nine grams per meter

23 squared. And you are burying only one gram per meter

24 squared of that a year. You are really looking at nine

25 years.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


493



1 Q. Okay.

2 A. So, I mean, that is it in a nutshell. And it's

3 not quite that simple in a sense that the system isn't

4 really functioning that well, because of that standing

5 crop of six grams per meter squared, something like 60

6 percent is going to be released every year and has to

7 recycled. So it's not -- That's not a consistent standing

8 crop.

9 Q. When you say 60 percent needs to be released, are

10 you talking about the leaching or are you talking about

11 something separate?

12 A. I'm talking about the leaching, but I'm

13 correcting for that. The leaching, it won't take place in

14 the roots. I'm just sort of correcting for it.

15 Q. So the standing crop would reduce 15, subtract

16 six, you have nine. Then you add back in what is being

17 recycled out of the standing crop?

18 A. Would go out and come back in every year, you

19 see.

20 Q. So it will be the same phosphorus?

21 A. You can kind of ignore it. Except when it comes

22 out, it's moving down the system with the water flow.

23 Q. All right. Do you have any idea approximately

24 when you might have your formal calculations completed?

25 A. Between now and trial.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


494



1 Q. Okay. Referring to Exhibit Number 15, which was

2 your paper that you wrote on effective drying of natural

3 Everglades --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- how does the references to Morris from the

6 SWIM plan on page 100 of this document, how does that 25

7 thousand metric tons of phosphorus relate, if it does, to

8 the Diaz analysis of release of phosphorus? From flooding

9 of lands?

10 A. Not quite the same. The Diaz release is that

11 release of phosphorus that has accumulated as a result of

12 years of this type of oxidation that has occurred. And

13 that phosphorus is stored there. But when the system is

14 made anaerobic, it increases the availability of that.

15 The Diaz phosphorus represents years of this process going

16 on that is stored in the soil.

17 Q. And when you made references in the SWIM plan to

18 areas being over drained, I know we discussed this a

19 little bit yesterday. But do you have any knowledge of

20 what was meant by the term "over drained" as used in that

21 figure 20 in the SWIM plan?

22 A. I assume that that meant that there was no

23 surface water and that the water table was at some depth,

24 which I don't know, but I assumed it was at a maximum of

25 one foot. And I assumed it was there for, let's say, half





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


495



1 a year.

2 Q. Okay. Is there any data which would indicate

3 that, in fact, that it was at least a one year -- Or

4 excuse me. A one-half year period that there was actually

5 water below the surface in any of those areas?

6 A. I'm trying to think. I'm not sure I recall that.

7 It seems there was some indication of that. If it were

8 over drained, it would be over drained for, let's say,

9 part of the dry season. And this could be -- That was

10 presented as an estimate. And I wouldn't want to be doing

11 mathematics about whether it was 1400 tons or a thousand

12 tons, or 1500 tons.

13 But using those -- And that's why I spelled out the

14 premises that I used, which seemed reason to me. But in

15 any case, it is, I think it is a significant figure in

16 relation to the 200 tons that is going into the water

17 conservation area from the EAA.

18 Q. And do you recall approximately where this

19 over-drained area existed primarily?

20 A. Yes. It's the north part of the 3A -- This is

21 out of the SWIM plan and is readily available on

22 examination. But northern part of 3A. Northern part of

23 Loxahatchee. Those are the major areas. And I would like

24 to remind you that it's 1:35.

25 Q. I only have a couple of questions.





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


496



1 Let me just represent to you that the area depicted

2 in figure 20, which I can't find right now, is the

3 northern area of 3A, and I believe the area of 2B.

4 A. 2B, right.

5 Q. Would I be correct in is it a fair statement that

6 those particular areas do not show the type of vegetative

7 changes that have been seen in the areas south of the S-10

8 structures? Would that be a fair statement?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if the effect, as you suggested in your

11 paper, actually occurred, wouldn't you expect to see a

12 more drastic change in the vegetative covers in those

13 over-drained areas than in comparison to the areas below

14 the S-10 structures?

15 A. Not necessarily. That's not of phosphorus in

16 that 527 square miles. If you project that over 527

17 square miles, you are not talking about the phosphorus per

18 hectare. And so there might be some -- There probably

19 would be some increase in the soil phosphorus, and that's

20 probably one of the reasons that you see that we

21 considered that may be the base level now. In fact, that

22 level is 500 parts per million, where it was in the past

23 maybe 400 parts per million. But this would be an

24 elevation in the phosphorus.

25 MR. MALCOLM: In light of the fact that you need





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537


497



1 to get to the airport, I'll cut off now.

2 I would like to again, Mark, bring up the

3 subject of status letters and contract invoices and

4 we're still waiting for your response with regard to

5 that.

6 MR. KOBELINSKI: My response is that as far as

7 the status letters go, I think they were brief

8 letters, we consider privilege. As far as invoice,

9 we are probably amenable to make an exchange.

10 MR. MALCOLM: Just for the record, I would like

11 to make the usual reservation, in light of the fact

12 that Dr. Patrick has indicated he is doing some

13 additional calculations. And I haven't had much of a

14 chance to ask very many questions. But we may need

15 to seek his deposition again, prior to actual

16 testimony. But we'll work on that as we move

17 forward.

18 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll just say we will handle it

19 when we get to it.

20 (Whereupon, the deposition concluded at 1:45

21 p.m.)

22

23

24

25





JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






REPORTER'S DEPOSITION CERTIFICATE WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT



STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
COUNTY OF DADE. )



I, Joan Carol Ocker, Court Reporter, certify that
I was authorized to and did stenographically report the
foregoing deposition; and that the transcript is a true
record of the testimony given by the witness.
I further certify that I am not a relative,
employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor
am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
Dated this 8th day of April, 1994.



__________________________________
JOAN CAROL OCKER




STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE

The foregoing certificate was acknowledged before
me this 8th day of April, 1994.



_______________________________________
Notary Public - State of Florida















JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537






CERTIFICATE OF OATH



STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF DADE





I, the undersigned authority, certify that the

aforementioned witness personally appeared before me and

was duly sworn.



WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of

April, 1994.








__________________________
JOAN CAROL OCKER
Notary Public - State of Florida




















JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES (305) 371-1537