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 definit