192
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )
WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
4 )
Petitioners, )
5 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
7 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
Petitioners, )
10 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3039
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
12 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
15 Petitioners, )
vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3040
16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
17 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
100 Southeast 2nd Street
19 Miami, Florida
November 23, 1992
20 9:10 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
21 CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD GETTINGS RING
22 Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered
23 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
24 the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of
25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.
193
1 APPEARANCES
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and
3 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.
4 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida
6 BY: JONATHAN L. GAINES, ESQ.
7 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
8
SUZAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQ.
9 THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorneys
10 155 North Miami Avenue
Suite 600
11 Miami, Florida 33130
12 INDEX
13 Witness Direct
RICHARD GETTINGS RING
14
By Mr. Gaines: 194
15
EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION
16
2 217 A document entitled Master Plan, May
17 1979, Everglades National Park, Florida
3 217 A document entitled Management
18 Policies, US Department of the
Interior, National Park Service,1988
19 4 219 A document entitled Resource
Management Plan, Everglades National
20 Park, dated September 1991
5 224 A document entitled South Florida
21 Research Center, allocation of $1.1M
base increase for FY 93
22 6 285 A three-page document dated
November 16, 1992 to Dr. Qualls
23 7 356 A two-page document, the first
page handwritten, the second page
24 addressed to Mr. Tidwell
8 360 A multi-page document, the top
25 page containing the date June 29, 1992
194
1 RICHARD GETTINGS RING, resumed.
2 THE COURT REPORTER: Superintendent Ring,
3 I remind you you are still under oath. Do you
4 understand that?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
6 MS. PONZOLI: Just a housekeeping matter,
7 Mr. Gaines.
8 Superintendent Ring has requested that we
9 have a copy of his whole statement. You had said
10 yesterday you had no problem with showing him that.
11 So on one of the breaks if we can have a copy of that
12 made.
13 MR. GAINES: You are talking about the
14 statement to the Water Management District?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Right, just his portion
16 before the Water Management Board.
17 MR. GAINES: All right.
18 MS. PONZOLI: Thank you.
19 MR. GAINES: It is about two pages long.
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
21 BY MR. GAINES:
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Superintendent.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Yesterday we were talking about problems
25 in Everglades National Park and you mentioned that
195
1 you had observed some vegetative changes south of the
2 Water Management control structures at the northern
3 border of the Park during a helicopter flight. Is
4 that basically correct?
5 A. I mentioned that I had seen vegetative
6 changes associated with the water delivery structures
7 at the north end of the Park.
8 Q. And I believe you were of the opinion or
9 are of the opinion that these are associated with
10 increased nutrients in the water from the EAA runoff.
11 Is that also correct?
12 A. I believe my testimony yesterday was to
13 that effect.
14 Q. Are you aware of any other areas of the
15 Park besides what we just were discussing that have
16 been impacted by what you believe to be increased
17 nutrients from EAA activities?
18 MS. PONZOLI: I am going to object to the
19 form. Are you referring to nutrient additions to the
20 water alone, Mr. Gaines, or just any activity in the
21 EAA?
22 MR. GAINES: I am not referring to timing,
23 distribution of water delivery but to nutrient
24 loading.
25 MS. PONZOLI: Okay.
196
1 A. I am still being briefed on the nature and
2 extent of the data and concerns that my research
3 staff has with regards to those issues.
4 BY MR. GAINES:
5 Q. Is it true then that as of this stage in
6 your briefing you haven't been made aware of any
7 other specific areas of the Park that are impacted by
8 nutrients from the EAA?
9 A. I have generally been made aware that
10 there are a number of impacts associated with higher
11 levels of nutrients coming from the EAA on the
12 Everglades system.
13 Q. Focusing just on the Park itself, I want
14 to determine what your current level of awareness or
15 knowledge is of any impacts inside the Park that have
16 been observed up until now which are purported to be
17 related to nutrients from the EAA.
18 A. My general understanding is that impact
19 due to elevated levels of nutrients creates a
20 progression of impact in the biotic communities and
21 that visible changes in plant communities such as the
22 presence of cattails is a relatively advanced stage
23 on that chain of changes.
24 I would assume from that and imply from
25 that that there are changes driven by the presence of
197
1 nutrients that are more extensive in scope than just
2 the cattail communities south of some of the Water
3 Management structures.
4 Q. If I understand what your answer just was,
5 you are saying that cattails have been observed and
6 as you understand it this signifies an advanced stage
7 of biotic change and therefore you assume that there
8 are other changes that have also occurred because you
9 can see the cattails. Is that a fair statement of
10 what you just said?
11 A. I rely on the statement I just made.
12 Q. Have any changes or impacts from nutrients
13 other than cattails south of the S-12 structures been
14 observed or documented in the park to your knowledge
15 as a result of nutrients from the EAA?
16 A. It is my understanding that they have.
17 Q. Can you tell me what those are?
18 A. Not specifically.
19 Q. Can you give me a general idea?
20 A. I believe I already have.
21 Q. And that would be changes in lower trophic
22 levels of the biotic community, lower than cattails,
23 not as readily observable from a helicopter, is that
24 what you are saying?
25 A. Certainly those.
198
1 Q. Would the changes you are talking about be
2 confined to the areas you are talking about where the
3 cattails were observed?
4 A. I don't specifically know.
5 Q. Who on your staff would be the person with
6 the most expertise or knowledge of this area?
7 A. I would rely on Dr. Soukup for information
8 relating to the specific nature and extent of our
9 data and research.
10 Q. So the only specific impact that you can
11 testify to here today is the cattail growth south of
12 the S-12 structures?
13 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form of the
14 question. I think you are recharacterizing his
15 answer, I guess I would say that his answer stands
16 for itself.
17 I think he has given other specific
18 impacts. So I guess I object to the way you formed
19 your question.
20 MR. GAINES: I think I missed that then.
21 BY MR. GAINES:
22 Q. Tell me one other specific impact that you
23 are aware of beside the cattail growth that you
24 observed? And when I say something specifically that
25 you are aware of, not something you have to imply or
199
1 infer from the fact that cattails are present but
2 something that you are aware of that has been
3 observed or documented.
4 MS. PONZOLI: I am going to object to the
5 form of the question.
6 A. I've stated the specific changes that I
7 personally observed.
8 Q. The cattails themselves that you observed
9 or that have been observed south of the S-12, are you
10 aware of how large an area of cattail growth we are
11 talking about?
12 A. In the areas that I have observed?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. From the air I could not be precise. I
15 would say possibly as much as several hundred acres
16 at a given structure.
17 Q. When you say at a given structure, the
18 S-12 structures which I believe what we are talking
19 about which are on the northern border of the Park
20 there, there are four of those. Did you observe
21 cattail growth associated with each of the four
22 structures or one area of cattails associated
23 generally with the structures or what was it?
24 A. I saw obvious cattail communities from the
25 air at several locations. I could not tell you which
200
1 structures they were.
2 Q. Were you able to observe whether the
3 locations had some relation orientation to the
4 structures?
5 A. They were immediately downstream of the
6 structures.
7 Q. How far from the inflow point of the
8 structures did the cattail growth begin?
9 A. Within feet.
10 Q. Did they extend out in a fan-shaped
11 pattern or some other --
12 A. In a fan-shaped pattern.
13 Q. Can you give me your best estimate of how
14 far from the structures until the cattails stopped,
15 where growth was no longer observed?
16 MS. PONZOLI: It has been asked and
17 answered. I object to form.
18 MR. GAINES: He said several hundred acres
19 but I don't know what the configuration is.
20 A. Well, I believe I have just addressed the
21 configuration as to the size I would: I would rely
22 on the approximate acreage figure that I gave you
23 earlier.
24 BY MR. GAINES:
25 Q. I think you stated you saw several areas
201
1 of cattail growth. Just to clear it up, those were
2 several hundred acres each?
3 A. I said I would say they may be as much as
4 several hundred acres.
5 Q. But you are talking about each one
6 separately may be as much as that?
7 A. Correct. I certainly could not tell
8 precisely from the air.
9 Q. Are you aware as to whether that has been
10 quantified by research that the staff or outside
11 contractors have done?
12 A. I do not know.
13 Q. Dr. Soukup would probably know the answer
14 to that?
15 A. You could ask him.
16 Q. If you wanted to know the answer to that,
17 is he the one you would ask?
18 A. If I wanted to know the answer to that I
19 would ask him to find out.
20 Q. Other than the S-12 cattail growth, are
21 you aware of any other cattail areas in the park?
22 A. I am aware that cattails can generally
23 occur at any location where there are elevated levels
24 of nutrients.
25 Q. Given that, are you aware of any other
202
1 cattail growth in the Park?
2 A. I have seen other areas where there were
3 cattails present.
4 Q. Can you tell me where that was?
5 A. In the vicinity of rookeries.
6 Q. Rookeries?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where in the park exactly?
9 A. In a variety of locations.
10 Q. Do you attribute those cattails to the EAA
11 runoff?
12 A. No.
13 Q. What do you attribute those to?
14 A. Elevated level of nutrients.
15 Q. The source of those nutrients would be
16 what?
17 A. The birds nesting at the rookeries.
18 Q. What is the mechanism by which birds
19 nesting elevate nutrient levels?
20 A. Fecal material.
21 Q. Other than EAA or increased nutrient
22 levels in bird nesting activities, are there any
23 other causes that you are aware of that cause cattail
24 growth?
25 A. My understanding is that cattail growth
203
1 can occur in aquatic conditions at any location where
2 elevated levels of proper nutrients occur.
3 Q. So it is only elevated nutrients that
4 trigger cattail growth as opposed to other potential
5 causes, disturbance of the soil and that type of
6 thing?
7 A. Disturbance of soils can cause elevated
8 levels of nutrients to be released into the aquatic
9 system.
10 Q. Are there other causes of elevated
11 nutrient that you are aware of besides agricultural
12 activity, bird nesting activity, disturbance of
13 soils, any other causes?
14 A. I am sure there are.
15 Q. Are you aware of any of them?
16 A. Within the park?
17 Q. Yes, let's start with that.
18 A. I am aware that the primary occurrences of
19 elevated level of nutrients leading to the growth of
20 cattail communities are associated with either
21 quality of water being delivered to the park or
22 concentrations of animal communities.
23 Q. Such as the bird nesting?
24 A. Such as the bird nesting.
25 Q. When you talk about the quality of water
204
1 being delivered to the park, it indicates that
2 something has occurred to elevate the nutrients in
3 that water?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Other than agricultural activities,
6 disturbance of soils and the bird nesting, are you
7 aware of any other factors that can lead to such an
8 increase of nutrients in the water?
9 A. I am aware that in the case of Everglades
10 National Park those are the primary factors.
11 Q. Outside the context of the park itself,
12 are you aware of any other factors that can cause an
13 elevation in the nutrient level?
14 A. I would assume that there are a variety of
15 ways elevated levels of nutrients can be released
16 into the biotic system. That can either occur by the
17 release of nutrients that are already present but not
18 available for use by the plant communities or they
19 can be artificially introduced, and with regards to
20 artificial introduction, there are probably as many
21 ways as you and I have in our imagination.
22 Q. Can fire cause an elevation in the
23 nutrient level in water?
24 A. Fire can and often serves to break down
25 organic material into components that are available
205
1 for reuse in the biological system.
2 Q. So is that a yes, it can cause or lead to
3 an elevation in the nutrient level?
4 MS. PONZOLI: I will object to the form of
5 the question.
6 A. I will stand on my answer.
7 Q. When you say that fire can break down
8 organic material into components available for use in
9 the biological system, would those components include
10 nutrients?
11 A. They would include whatever compounds are
12 available in the material being burned.
13 Q. Do you have any awareness of or knowledge
14 as to whether or not fire can serve to elevate the
15 nutrient level of water?
16 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
17 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
18 question?
19 (The question referred to was
20 thereupon read by the reporter
21 as above recorded)
22 Q. Just to clarify it, I mean in a system
23 like the Everglades.
24 A. I understand that fire can release
25 elevated levels of organic and other compounds into
206
1 the air which can affect the quality of rainfall, for
2 instance, as in the instance of burning of sugar
3 cane.
4 Q. Given your general knowledge about the
5 ability of fire to break down organic material into
6 component parts, have you ever observed or been
7 exposed to the concept of fire serving to elevate the
8 phosphorus level of water?
9 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form. I think
10 it has been asked and answered several times here.
11 MR. GAINES: I can't seem to get beyond
12 some generic reference to organic material. I am
13 just trying to finish up the thought.
14 MS. PONZOLI: I understand, Mr. Gaines.
15 But I think we have offered Superintendent Ring in
16 some pretty confined areas and you are going far
17 afield from those. I have been letting him answer
18 but you want a certain answer and he answers your
19 question and answers your question the best way he
20 can.
21 And if it isn't the answer you want you
22 continue asking the same question. I think that is
23 improper.
24 MR. GAINES: The only answers I want are
25 complete and honest ones and that's my only goal
207
1 here.
2 As I understand it, Superintendent Ring is
3 offered to identify external threats to the park.
4 One of the main ones he has identified is
5 nutrient-rich water entering the park. And I am just
6 trying to explore the way that the water can become
7 nutrient enriched and I don't think that is far
8 afield at all.
9 MS. PONZOLI: I do think you won't
10 question but that he is giving you complete and
11 honest answers.
12 MR. GAINES: I certainly don't intend to
13 do that and I think the record will speak for itself
14 on that.
15 MR. GAINES: Could you read back the last
16 question.
17 (The question referred to was
18 thereupon read by the reporter
19 as above recorded)
20 A. I believe I indicated that I understood
21 that elevated levels of a variety of compounds
22 including nutrients could affect rainfall.
23 Q. Have you ever considered with your staff
24 the issue of the funneling effect that the S-12
25 structures create for the water flowing into the
208
1 park, the fact that it flows through four discrete
2 structures and the concentrating effect that has on
3 whatever nutrients there are in the water?
4 A. I know we have long had concerns with
5 regards to the concentration of delivery points of
6 water. Sheet flow was the naturally occurring
7 process of distribution.
8 Q. Have you ever discussed this issue
9 specifically with regard to the S-12 structures?
10 A. I've discussed it specifically with
11 regards to all of the delivery structures on the
12 upstream end of the park.
13 Q. Have you discussed the fact that if a more
14 natural sheet flow was established in the area of the
15 S-12 structures so that the water entered the park
16 over a broader range rather than through four
17 concentrated points, that that would address to a
18 large extent any elevated nutrients contained in the
19 water by disbursing it out over a wide area?
20 A. I am aware that such a distribution of
21 water with elevated levels of nutrients would create
22 a much more widespread effect.
23 Q. So if I understand what you are saying,
24 that would make the problem worse and not better, is
25 that correct?
209
1 A. If the quality of water being delivered
2 had levels of nutrients significantly higher than
3 what naturally occurred, it would make the problem
4 much more widespread.
5 Q. So assuming for a minute that the quality
6 of the water doesn't change from what it is right
7 now, if we were able to implement a regime whereby
8 the water entered the park on the northern end there
9 over that entire expanse of the park through sheet
10 flow rather than through the discrete structures
11 there, it is your opinion that that would worsen the
12 problem rather than improve the situation?
13 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form. It is the
14 same question you asked before. He answered it.
15 Q. Let me just --
16 A. It is my opinion that it would distribute
17 the effect.
18 Q. Would the effect that is distributed be
19 diluted as well or would it be the same effect that
20 is observed but just over the entire area?
21 A. It would be the same net effect on the
22 park, and as a result equally as problematic.
23 Q. When you say the same net effect, you mean
24 the same volume of nutrients would be entering the
25 park, just in different areas?
210
1 A. Under the scenario you described --
2 Q. Under my scenario, yes.
3 A. -- you described that -- you described as
4 I understand it, that is correct.
5 Q. Is it a goal or desire of the park or of
6 you as the superintendent, to try to address the
7 sheet flow issue in the area of the S-12s?
8 A. It is our desire to reestablish sheet flow
9 distribution of water wherever we can in a manner
10 that approximates the naturally occurring system.
11 Q. Are you aware of any specific goal or plan
12 with regard to the area we have been talking about?
13 A. I believe we are working with the Corps of
14 Engineers and the South Florida Water Management
15 District on modified water deliveries plan for the --
16 for Shark Slough.
17 Q. That is the general design memorandum for
18 modified water deliveries?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Do you know what the current status is of
21 that?
22 A. My understanding is that the general
23 design memorandum has been approved and that work is
24 now proceeding on what they call the detailed design
25 memorandum. I may be off on the exact title. The
211
1 acronym I believe is DDM.
2 Q. Do you have any idea when that is supposed
3 to be ready, completed?
4 A. I don't know the particular schedule. I
5 do know that it is proceeding over the next year to
6 two years.
7 Q. What is the current regime for water
8 deliveries to the park? Is there a document that
9 contains that?
10 A. I am not sure I understand what you mean
11 by regime.
12 Q. The current plan, the current practice for
13 how water is delivered to the park, quantity, timing,
14 distribution.
15 A. If you are referring to an operating plan,
16 I believe there are operating plans and schedules
17 developed and in place between the South Florida
18 Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers.
19 Q. Have you had occasion to review the
20 current operating plan in detail?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Have you generally reviewed it?
23 A. I generally understand that there is a
24 minimum water delivery schedule on the books and that
25 there are experimental water deliveries occurring
212
1 which supersede minimum water delivery schedule on an
2 iterative basis.
3 Q. And the minimum water delivery schedule, I
4 take it, is just what it sounds like, it determines
5 the minimum amount of water that can be -- that must
6 be delivered to the park at certain times?
7 A. I only referred to the title of the
8 document, not to its effectiveness.
9 Q. Is that what the intent of the document is
10 to your understanding?
11 A. I wasn't here when it was put together. I
12 understand that was developed in the early 1970s.
13 Q. As far as the experimental water delivery
14 model, is that what is referred to as the rainfall
15 model, rainfall driven model?
16 A. We are talking -- you have now
17 transitioned into reference to a model which is an
18 entirely different concept and an item than an
19 operating schedule or agreement.
20 Q. Is the current experimental water delivery
21 schedule based upon a rainfall model?
22 A. My understanding that information
23 developed utilizing such a model has been used in
24 establishing experimental deliveries.
25 Q. Who on your staff has the most contact
213
1 with this issue and the most expertise?
2 A. On --
3 Q. Water deliveries to the park and also
4 coordinating with the District and the Corps on that
5 issue?
6 A. Again, I would refer to my research
7 director and his staff.
8 Q. Yesterday at the deposition there were
9 several documents that were produced that we didn't
10 see previously. One of them is a master plan dated
11 May 1979, Everglades National Park.
12 Can you tell me generally what is the
13 purpose of the master plan?
14 A. First I would explain that the term master
15 plan is a term that was typically used for broad
16 management planning for national park system units
17 prior to the late 1970s. Since that time with
18 Congressional guidance those documents are now
19 referred to as general management plans. And they
20 are intended to be -- to outline a broad management
21 framework responsive to Congressional mandates,
22 resource and visitor conditions and external
23 influences. They establish a strategy for management
24 of the unit intended to cover roughly a ten-year
25 period of time.
214
1 Q. You gave me several documents yesterday
2 but one is the master plan dated May 1979, and
3 another is called resource management plan,
4 Everglades National Park, a draft of that, with a
5 date of September 1991.
6 Is the resource management plan a current
7 version of what was called the master plan in 1979?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Two different kinds of documents?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Sticking with this master plan for a
12 minute, who would these master plans or general
13 management plans be prepared by, the park staff?
14 A. Typically a team made up of professional
15 planners and appropriately knowledgeable employees
16 capable of addressing the issues and needs of a given
17 area would be pulled together as a team.
18 Typically the superintendent would be the
19 primary management official working with that team,
20 providing it its guidance and support. And there may
21 be members of park staff, regional office,
22 professional service center or national office
23 assigned as members of the team.
24 Q. Is there a subsequent master plan or
25 general management plan in effect or that has been
215
1 drafted for Everglades National Park?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So is the 1979 version still in effect?
4 A. It is the most recent official document on
5 the books.
6 Q. Does a master plan that is 13 years old
7 still provide you with meaningful guidance in
8 managing the park?
9 A. It can.
10 Q. Do you make use of this master plan in
11 your management of the park?
12 A. I would refer to it routinely along with
13 other documents in understanding and addressing
14 management problems.
15 Q. As I understand the purpose of this, it
16 gives you a broad direction or guidepost for
17 management activities in connection with your
18 Congressional mandate and the resource needs and the
19 public needs and that sort of thing?
20 A. It is a general strategy to guide the
21 management of the unit intended to cover
22 approximately a decade.
23 Q. I guess that brings up the question, is
24 there another one in the works?
25 A. Not at the moment.
216
1 Q. Do you intend or is it intended that a new
2 master plan or general management plan will be
3 drafted up for Everglades National Park?
4 A. It is the practice of the service to
5 periodically review and undertake new general
6 management planning process for all units of the
7 national Park system.
8 Q. So you would expect at some point there
9 will be a new plan?
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. Have you had any indication as to when
12 that might be?
13 A. It would largely be my responsibility to
14 trigger it.
15 Q. Do you have any current intention to
16 trigger that process?
17 A. It is typical practice, and certainly my
18 intention, to review the status of plans for the park
19 along with all other aspects of the management
20 program and to set in motion appropriate efforts to
21 follow through on critical commitments and to
22 precipitate reviews and revisions of specific
23 programs and strategies and plans where I feel it is
24 necessary.
25 Q. As we sit here today do you have any
217
1 specific time frame in mind as to when you might or
2 when you will trigger this process of coming up with
3 a new general management plan?
4 A. No.
5 MR. GAINES: Why don't we go ahead and
6 mark this as an exhibit. Make it No. 2.
7 (A document entitled Master Plan, May
8 1979, Everglades National Park, Florida, was marked
9 Ring Deposition Exhibit 2 for identification)
10 MR. GAINES: Another document we received
11 yesterday is entitled Management Policies, US
12 Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
13 1988 which we will mark as Exhibit 3.
14 (A document entitled Management Policies,
15 US Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
16 1988 was marked Ring Deposition Exhibit 3 for
17 identification)
18 BY MR. GAINES:
19 Q. Superintendent Ring, how is this
20 management policies document used by you, if at all,
21 in managing the park?
22 A. It is one of a variety of documents I
23 refer to for guidance in reaching decisions related
24 to the management of the area.
25 Q. Is this a standard management policies
218
1 manual for Park superintendents, national Park
2 superintendents?
3 A. It is the management policies manual for
4 the National Park Service.
5 Q. I notice this one is dated 1988. Is that
6 the most current manual that there is?
7 A. To the best of my knowledge, that's the
8 most current comprehensive edition.
9 Q. Have there been any changes to this since
10 1988 that you are aware of?
11 A. There has not been any updated version of
12 it published.
13 Q. Is this a document that you use on a
14 regular basis?
15 A. It is one of several documents that
16 provide me with guidance on any and all decisions
17 that I make.
18 Q. I am just trying to get a feel. Is this
19 something you would look at every day of the week or
20 once a month or how integral to your function is the
21 management policies document?
22 A. The policies established in the document
23 are policies that routinely guide my actions.
24 Q. Are these policies that -- I am sorry?
25 A. I worked with some version of this for 20
219
1 years so I don't sleep with it under my pillow.
2 Q. In other words, some of the policies you
3 are so familiar with at this point through repeated
4 exposure to them and through your experience that you
5 don't have to look it up every time you make a move?
6 A. Correct.
7 MR. GAINES: The third document or another
8 document we got yesterday is what is called Resource
9 Management Plan, Everglades National Park, and on the
10 interior page it states, Draft, Resource Management
11 Plan for Everglades National Park, September 1991.
12 Mark this please as Exhibit 4.
13 (A document entitled Resource Management
14 Plan, Everglades National Park, dated September 1991
15 was marked Ring Deposition Exhibit 4 for
16 identification)
17 MS. PONZOLI: Off the record.
18 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
19 after which the following proceedings
20 were had)
21 MR. GAINES: Back on the record
22 BY MR. GAINES:
23 Q. What has been marked as Exhibit 4, the
24 resource management plan, what is this document?
25 A. It is a draft of a programatic document
220
1 which provides a more detailed approach to the
2 management of natural and cultural resources within
3 the park.
4 Q. More detailed than the master plan that we
5 were talking about?
6 A. Yes. It is considered in our planning
7 process a subsidiary or implementing type of a plan
8 for the general management strategy that would be
9 outlined in a master plan or a general management
10 plan.
11 Q. How often is a resource management plan
12 done?
13 A. It is done initially and then routinely
14 reviewed every two to three years, and where
15 necessary, updated.
16 Q. I notice on the inside page here there is
17 a signature, recommended by, looks like Mr. Chandler
18 signed it as the superintendent on October 2, 1991.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. There is also a signature line for the
21 regional director which is blank. Do you know if
22 this was passed on to the regional director for
23 approval?
24 A. Yes, it was.
25 Q. Has it been approved?
221
1 A. My understanding is that there was staff
2 review within our regional office and comments and
3 suggestions communicated back to the park regarding
4 the draft, and that a final document has not yet been
5 transmitted, a revised final document.
6 Q. Is that in the process of being prepared
7 now?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who is in charge of that effort?
10 A. I am.
11 Q. Who are the primary staff people that you
12 are utilizing to do that work?
13 A. I have resource management staff within
14 the South Florida Research Center that would be the
15 coordinators, but would draw on comment and input
16 from several divisions and a variety of staff
17 members.
18 Q. Are there any particular individuals that
19 are the most heavily involved with this?
20 A. Certainly the research director.
21 Q. Dr. Soukup?
22 A. Dr. Soukup.
23 Q. If the regional director had just gone
24 ahead and signed it and approved it would there just
25 have been a final plan and not a draft, is that what
222
1 is necessary for it to become a final plan?
2 A. Yes. But it was transmitted as a draft
3 for review with an expectation of comments and
4 revisions prior to finalization.
5 Q. So there was no expectation that it would
6 be sent up and approved and you would have a final
7 plan without further revisions?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Does this plan relate primarily to
10 research efforts at the park or more broad issues
11 than that?
12 A. Broader issues than that.
13 Q. Let me ask you to turn to a section -- I
14 don't have the dividers -- it is kind of in the
15 middle here -- it has a series of what are called
16 project statement sheets.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I believe the name of the section is --
19 A. Project statements.
20 Q. There are a handful, about 20 or 30 of
21 these project statement sheets. What are the
22 purposes of these documents?
23 A. They are a -- they represent a compilation
24 of resource management projects that the park has
25 identified as being appropriate to undertake in order
223
1 to accomplish the programatic objectives of the plan.
2 Q. It appears that there are various studies
3 or research projects or other activities described in
4 the project statement sheets in the form of a
5 statement of a problem, a description of recommended
6 action and a brief budget, some budget information.
7 Are these sheets essentially an
8 application to somebody for authorization or funding
9 to do these projects?
10 A. No.
11 Q. For example, the first one, project No.
12 001 here entitled the East Everglades Exotic
13 Vegetation Control, it says, Funding Status,
14 unfunded.
15 Is that still the status of that, if you
16 know?
17 A. I'm not sure I can give you the specifics
18 with regards to what activities under this project
19 were funded in fiscal year 1992 and fund allocation
20 for projects for fiscal year 1993 have not yet been
21 made.
22 Q. If these sheets are not a mechanism by
23 which funding or approval is requested for these
24 projects, what is that mechanism?
25 A. There are routine budget submittals.
224
1 Q. Who are they submitted to?
2 A. Any that I submit are submitted to the
3 regional director in Atlanta.
4 Q. Would those budget submittals have a
5 breakdown of the various projects such as we see on
6 the project statement sheet, describing what they
7 are, how much should be budgeted for them and why
8 they are necessary, that kind of thing?
9 A. In any funding request I would identify
10 those priority projects or needs and provide
11 justification for the funds requested.
12 MR. GAINES: While we are talking about
13 this let's make this No. 5.
14 (A document entitled South Florida
15 Research Center, allocation of $1.1M base increase
16 for FY 93 was marked Ring Deposition Exhibit 5 for
17 identification)
18 BY MR. GAINES:
19 Q. What has been marked as Exhibit No. 5 is
20 two pages relating to, as I see it, funding for the
21 South Florida Research Center. The first page
22 references allocation of $1.1 million base increase
23 for fiscal year '93.
24 Was there a $1.1 million base increase in
25 the funding for the Research Center for fiscal year
225
1 '93?
2 A. No.
3 Q. What does this refer to? Was this a
4 proposed increase?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Has that been approved?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Has it been declined or is it still
9 pending?
10 A. A base increase as described was proposed
11 as part of the President's budget proposal to
12 Congress in January of 1992 for fiscal year 1993. It
13 included a $1.1 million increase for research at
14 Everglades National Park. It was part of a targeted
15 parks program proposal for the National Park Service.
16 It was not funded in the -- as proposed in
17 the final appropriations bill.
18 Q. Was there any increase funded in the final
19 appropriations bill?
20 A. Specific to Everglades National Park?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. No.
23 Q. When you have your budget funded each
24 year, each fiscal year, is there a specific amount
25 that is allocated to the Research Center, South
226
1 Florida Research Center?
2 A. I have allocated an operating budget
3 within which I fund all aspects of continuing Park
4 operations, including the Research Center.
5 Q. So you are provided with essentially a
6 lump sum by Congress and as superintendent you have
7 the authority and discretion to determine how to best
8 allocate those funds in carrying out your function?
9 A. Within those base funding levels I have
10 discretion to set fund allocations for the various
11 aspects of park operation.
12 Q. So the funding for the Research Center,
13 whether it was increased or decreased, it was up to
14 you within your base fund allocation, is that
15 correct?
16 A. To a degree.
17 Q. How were you treated for fiscal year '93
18 by Congress? Did you receive any increased funds
19 from the prior year?
20 A. For operations?
21 Q. Operations as opposed to what?
22 A. As opposed to any other sources of funding
23 that Congress might appropriate for activities not
24 contained within normal Park operations.
25 Q. Can you give me an example of something
227
1 that would be not within normal Park operations that
2 Congress would appropriate funds for?
3 A. Land acquisition.
4 Q. Anything else?
5 A. A variety.
6 Q. From your answer, for fiscal year '93 did
7 Congress appropriate certain funds for operations,
8 certain funds for land acquisition and certain funds
9 for other items relating to the park?
10 A. They appropriated funds in a variety of
11 categories for the National Park Service.
12 Q. In each of those categories or for the
13 National Park Service as a whole?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would Congress deal specifically with what
16 piece of that pie goes to Everglades National Park or
17 is that someone within the Park Service?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Both?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In terms of operations, did you receive an
22 increase for '93?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you receive a decrease?
25 A. Yes.
228
1 Q. How much were you decreased?
2 A. I believe there was some portion of one
3 percent across the board naturally that was reduced
4 from Park operating budgets.
5 Q. And that was some portion of one percent
6 decrease of the operating funds that were allocated
7 to the National Park Service as a whole?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. What authority determines how those
10 operating funds are distributed among the various
11 national parks?
12 A. Usually the director of the National Park
13 Service consistent with whatever language is in the
14 appropriations bill.
15 Q. Are you aware whether in this instance did
16 the director have the authority to decrease some
17 parks more and increase some depending on need or was
18 it just an across the board, some fraction of one
19 percent decrease in operating budgets for all parks?
20 A. My understanding is that Congress reduced
21 all operating accounts by that percentage in order to
22 meet their target funding levels.
23 Q. And whatever happened at other parks, you
24 know your operating budget decreased by some portion
25 of one percent?
229
1 A. Correct, that's what I have been informed.
2 Q. Do you recall what the amount allocated is
3 for your operating budget for fiscal year '93?
4 A. I don't know the specific figure.
5 Q. Can you give me an order of magnitude?
6 A. Between 8 and $9 million.
7 Q. And fiscal year '93, when does that begin?
8 A. It began on the 1st of October 1991 and
9 ends on September 30, 1992.
10 Q. Do you recall how much was allocated for
11 land acquisition for fiscal year '93 roughly?
12 A. I believe 7 and a half million dollars was
13 appropriated by Congress for land acquisition at
14 Everglades National Park.
15 Q. Is that primarily targeted to the east
16 Everglades area?
17 A. Primarily.
18 Q. Other than land acquisition and
19 operations, are there any other categories of funding
20 that were allocated to the park for '93?
21 A. By Congress?
22 Q. By Congress.
23 A. Construction funds were allocated.
24 Q. How much was that?
25 A. $7 million.
230
1 Q. What is intended to be constructed with
2 those funds?
3 A. Those funds are supporting the
4 implementation by the Corps of Engineers of modified
5 water deliveries to the park.
6 Q. Are they already in the construction phase
7 on the modified water deliveries?
8 A. No.
9 Q. So what do those funds, are those for
10 further studies in that area?
11 A. The category of appropriation is line item
12 construction by title. The funds appropriated are
13 the funds specifically necessary to accomplish that
14 project identified.
15 Q. Is that to support the detailed design
16 memorandum effort that is ongoing?
17 A. Funds appropriated for that project
18 support all aspects of the project including design
19 stages.
20 Q. So just because the line item is entitled
21 construction doesn't necessarily indicate that
22 anything is going to be built with those funds,
23 right?
24 A. It implies that the project is one that
25 will be built.
231
1 Q. At some point?
2 A. At some point.
3 Q. But not necessarily fiscal year '93?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. I take it that at this point, given the
6 still ongoing design, you don't have any awareness of
7 what structures are intended to be built in
8 connection with that project, is that right?
9 A. I believe the general design memorandum
10 outlines those structures.
11 Q. Can you tell me generally what structures
12 are included in that?
13 A. I would refer you to the Corps of
14 Engineers at the Jacksonville District.
15 Q. Is there an individual at the park who is
16 primarily coordinating with them on this?
17 A. It would fall between my office and the
18 research center.
19 Q. Dr. Soukup, and in your office you are the
20 individual?
21 A. Dr. Soukup and I would direct the
22 coordination with the Corps of Engineers on the -- on
23 that project.
24 Q. Any other categories of funds allocated by
25 Congress for fiscal year '93?
232
1 A. Specifically providing funds to the
2 Everglades National Park?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Not that I am aware of.
5 Q. Are there other funds available to the
6 park for fiscal year '93 that have not been allocated
7 by Congress?
8 A. Aside from the base funds that I referred
9 to?
10 Q. We spoke about operations, land
11 acquisition and construction funds that have been
12 appropriated by Congress. Is that the sum total of
13 the funds that you have in your checkbook for this
14 fiscal year or are there other funds available?
15 A. Those are the only funds that have been
16 allocated to the park.
17 Q. The only reason I am asking this question
18 is when I asked you if there were other funds
19 allocated you asked, by Congress, which indicated to
20 me there might be some other source of funding. Are
21 there other sources of funding that the park has?
22 A. That the park has?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Not at this moment.
25 Q. At some prior moment were there other
233
1 sources of funding or do you anticipate other sources
2 of funding? I am just trying to be clear.
3 A. You have asked several things. Could you
4 be specific?
5 Q. Here is the basic thrust of my question.
6 You seem to be qualifying your answer in some way
7 when I am trying to pin down what funds are
8 available.
9 When I asked what was funded you said by
10 Congress indicating there might be some other source.
11 When I said was there another source you said not at
12 this moment which indicates at some other time there
13 might be other sources.
14 What other types of sources are there
15 available to the park for funding?
16 A. At any given time a variety of other fund
17 sources can be made available.
18 Q. Can you give me an example of that variety
19 of sources?
20 A. From other programs within the National
21 Park Service operation, from other agencies of
22 government, from other governments, from other
23 academic and private institutions, from the visitor
24 who spends time in the park. That would be a sample.
25 Q. Beyond the base funds that we have
234
1 discussed, does the park have available to it
2 currently any other funds from the National Park
3 Service for other programs?
4 A. For fiscal year '93?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Not at this time.
7 Q. Do you have any reason to anticipate any
8 such funding?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What is that? Why is that?
11 A. There are a variety of park programs and
12 offices that are administered regionally and
13 centrally in support of specific functional
14 objectives, and priorities are set in support of park
15 activities on an annual basis and either staff time
16 or funding can be allocated in support of specific
17 projects and objectives at different parks as a
18 result of those decisions.
19 Q. Do you currently anticipate any specific
20 funding with regard to any specific such program or
21 objective?
22 A. I believe that would be speculation.
23 Q. I don't want to rise to the level of
24 speculation. Have you been advised by anybody that
25 there is going to be such a program? Are you aware
235
1 of any such programs or objectives that are imminent?
2 A. I told you that there are a variety of
3 those, of such programs and decisions are made in
4 support of specific field projects.
5 Q. Among that variety, do you have any
6 specific awareness of any of them?
7 A. I know of most of those offices and
8 programs.
9 Q. Do you know of any one program for which
10 the park will receive funding on this basis during
11 fiscal year '93, just as an example?
12 A. I know of no allocations that have been
13 made.
14 Q. Can you tell me one program that you think
15 is the most likely to be funded and allocated to the
16 park?
17 A. With regards to budget matters, I would
18 not speculate on funding allocations until they have
19 been made.
20 Q. How did you become aware of these various
21 programs that are not yet funded or haven't yet been
22 allocated?
23 A. I started to work with them as a budget
24 and program analyst 18 years ago and have been
25 dealing with them as a park manager ever since.
236
1 Q. And in your experience are these types of
2 programs funded each fiscal year?
3 A. Some combination of them to varying
4 degrees, yes.
5 Q. Can you give me some examples of just
6 several of the types of programs you are talking
7 about so I can understand the parameters of this type
8 of program?
9 A. There is a program called lump sum
10 construction. It is intended to provide
11 project-related construction funds in small
12 quantities -- in small amounts to areas that have
13 emergency needs that cannot be met through the normal
14 budget cycle.
15 There is cyclic maintenance funding which
16 is allocated to provide larger cost for typically
17 contractually accomplished maintenance projects like
18 roof replacements and major rebuilds of facilities.
19 Q. Would you expect some funding along those
20 lines in connection with the damage from the
21 hurricane?
22 A. Funding from those sources could be used
23 in response to some of those things.
24 Q. Would funding of this type be used for
25 research projects undertaken by the Research Center?
237
1 A. Not of the programs I have described.
2 Q. Not lump sum construction or cyclic
3 maintenance but funding from the National Park
4 Service from other programs within it beside the base
5 funds that have been allocated, could that
6 potentially generate funds for the Research Center?
7 A. There are programs that could.
8 Q. Are you aware of what those are?
9 A. Certainly.
10 Q. What are they?
11 A. There is a water resources program
12 administered by the service, an inventory and
13 monitoring program administered by the service, a
14 science program administered by the region. A
15 variety.
16 Q. Are you aware as to whether or not any of
17 those types of programs for the research component
18 generated any funding to the Research Center or the
19 park in the prior fiscal year?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What was that with regard to, if you know?
22 A. I believe there was a water resources
23 program provision of support for work in Florida Bay.
24 Q. Do you know how much that was?
25 A. No.
238
1 Q. Another source you mentioned was other
2 agencies of government.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have other agencies of government provided
5 any funding to the park for fiscal year '93?
6 A. Fiscal year '93?
7 Q. Or '92, if you know.
8 A. Other federal agencies, I believe, have
9 included, yes, the answer is we have received funds
10 from other federal agencies that I am aware of.
11 Q. For '93 or '92?
12 A. '92, I believe.
13 Q. What agencies were those?
14 A. Corps of Engineers, EPA.
15 Q. Any others?
16 A. There may have been.
17 Q. Is that two different agencies you just
18 mentioned?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What do they provide funding for?
21 A. I believe that the EPA provided some funds
22 for work to occur in the park associated with
23 monitoring global climate change, and I believe that
24 the Corps of Engineers provided some funds associated
25 with biological research into the effects and
239
1 implications of changes to the C-111 canal drainage
2 in preparation for a revised GDM for that basin.
3 Q. Has the Department of Justice provided any
4 funding, for example, to the Research Center for
5 research projects that might be of use in the water
6 quality litigation?
7 MS. PONZOLI: Counsel, let me think about
8 this, if you are going to into privileged areas. I
9 want to think about it. Just give me a minute.
10 (Pause)
11 MS. PONZOLI: I think you are in a very
12 difficult area, Mr. Gaines, in the relationship
13 between what basically I guess is the law firm for
14 the client and the client.
15 I don't honestly have a real good feel for
16 whether this is a privileged area or not. I feel it
17 is but I am not sure that you aren't entitled to some
18 information.
19 I would prefer, if you would hold your
20 question on this until after lunch, I would honestly
21 like to speak with someone at my office and get like
22 a second opinion before stopping you and just saying,
23 no, you can't answer this or letting you just go
24 forward, I would be more comfortable if I could have
25 that opportunity to confer with someone.
240
1 MR. GAINES: Just so I understand, is it
2 correct that you would object and instruct the
3 witness not to answer as to the substance or the
4 subject matter of any research programs that are
5 going on currently with regard to this litigation
6 that haven't yet been completed? Is that a correct
7 understanding of what your position is?
8 MS. PONZOLI: No. This is an odd way for
9 this to come up. I don't know that it has ever come
10 up this way before. And I really don't have in my
11 own mind a good feel for the parameters of what you
12 would be entitled to and what you are not. I really
13 would prefer a second opinion.
14 Normally you can go so far but not
15 further. Where that so far is, I am having real
16 difficulty. I am deciding.
17 MR. GAINES: The scope of my current
18 question is limited to whether the DOJ has provided
19 any funding to the Research Center for research to
20 the litigation, it doesn't go --
21 MS. PONZOLI: That is the first step.
22 Before we go, first step or step and a half, on to
23 step two, I would like to sort out the scope of what
24 we feel is appropriate and then let you go as far as
25 we feel you have a right to go.
241
1 MR. GAINES: I will take that at least for
2 now as a temporary instruction to the witness not to
3 answer that question and we will determine after
4 lunch if that instruction is a permanent one or
5 retracted.
6 MS. PONZOLI: Sure, and then you will be
7 allowed to go as far as we think it is appropriate
8 and we will sort it out however we have to
9 downstream. But that is only a couple of hours and I
10 don't think we will be finished by lunchtime. Do
11 you?
12 MR. GAINES: No.
13 MS. PONZOLI: I didn't either.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Would you read back to me
15 the precise question so I will know the first step, I
16 will have it accurate.
17 (The question referred to was
18 thereupon read by the reporter
19 as above recorded)
20 MR. GAINES: And just to cure any possible
21 infirmity with that question, the phrase "might be of
22 use," I understand, is vague and potentially
23 objectionable but I think you understand what I am
24 driving at here.
25 MS. PONZOLI: I think I understand too. I
242
1 am dealing more with the substantive issue of what
2 you can get into between the client and the law firm.
3 BY MR. GAINES:
4 Q. Let me ask you, Superintendent Ring, to
5 look at the second page of Exhibit No. 5, and there
6 is a list of projects here, it has two titles, one is
7 remaining unfunded projects after $1.1 million
8 increase and it appears to be, it is table 3 from
9 some publication or document, it states, partial list
10 of underfunded projects from pre-proposal list. Do
11 you have any familiarity with this list of projects?
12 A. Some.
13 Q. Where it says remaining unfunded projects
14 after $1.1 million increase, I take it that means
15 that with the $1.1 million increase these projects
16 would still not be funded with what was the proposed
17 $1.1 million increase, is that correct?
18 A. I believe it characterizes that kind of
19 relationship with the preceding page.
20 Q. Did you have any connection with the
21 preparation of this Exhibit No. 5?
22 A. It was prepared by others on my staff.
23 Q. During your tenure, I mean, after you came
24 on board at the park?
25 A. I don't know that.
243
1 Q. Do you know whether this Exhibit No. 5 was
2 transmitted to --
3 A. Are you referring to the entire exhibit or
4 just the one page of it?
5 Q. I was referring to both pages. And my
6 understanding was they were connected in some way but
7 maybe you can clear it up for me.
8 Do you know, what, for example, the first
9 page, what is this page? Where did it go? What was
10 its purpose?
11 A. It was prepared at my request.
12 Q. What was done with it? Was this
13 transmitted to the region or to Congress or someone
14 considering the request for additional funding?
15 A. It provided me with a summary of
16 information with regards to the implications of the
17 base increase proposal in the President's budget for
18 fiscal year '93.
19 Q. Was this transmitted to anyone outside the
20 park in connection with the request for additional
21 funding?
22 A. I used it in conjunction with a variety of
23 discussions I had concerning the proposal in the
24 President's budget.
25 Q. So this was a document that enabled you to
244
1 say, here's the extra funding we are requesting and
2 here is how we are going to use it or here is how we
3 propose to use it?
4 A. In a very summary fashion, yes.
5 Q. And was page 2 of this Exhibit 5 also used
6 in the same fashion by you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is there a relationship between --
9 A. Excuse me, I have a question. You
10 referred to page 5.
11 Q. No, page 2 of Exhibit 5. That is the page
12 that states remaining unfunded projects after $1.1
13 million increase.
14 A. Sorry. Obviously the caffeine hasn't
15 connected yet.
16 Q. Would you like to take a break?
17 A. No, that is fine. Let's continue.
18 Q. There is a list of projects under category
19 B here on the first page that would be intended to
20 benefit from the increased funding for fiscal year
21 '93 and then another list of projects on the second
22 page that would still remain unfunded.
23 Can you tell me what the relationship is
24 between that list, those two lists of projects taken
25 together and the project statement sheets contained
245
1 in the resource management plan which is Exhibit 4?
2 A. No.
3 Q. No, you don't know what the relationship
4 is, if any?
5 A. I cannot describe the relationship between
6 them.
7 Q. Let me ask you this: If I was to list all
8 of the projects here from the resource management
9 plan and put it down next to these two combined lists
10 on the fiscal year '93 Exhibit 5, would projects that
11 are from the management plan that aren't contained on
12 either one of these lists, can I assume those were
13 funded or would that not be a safe assumption?
14 THE WITNESS: Could you read that back to
15 me?
16 (The question referred to was
17 thereupon read by the reporter
18 as above recorded)
19 A. It would not be a safe assumption.
20 Q. The reason I am asking is, it seems to me
21 that if you take the Exhibit 5 projects, these are
22 all projects that remain unfunded absent a $1.1
23 million increase and even with the $1.1 million
24 increase the second page is still unfunded.
25 So that brings up the question, what
246
1 happened with the projects in the resource management
2 plan? Would some of them have justed dropped out of
3 the picture altogether and been abandoned as proposed
4 projects?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Who would know the answer to that?
7 A. With regard to any specific project?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. My research staff.
10 Q. Dr. Soukup and his staff?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. With regard to the first one here on the
13 project statement sheets, the East Everglades Exotic
14 Vegetation Control.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you already state you don't know
17 whether that has gone forward or not?
18 A. No, I didn't state -- I don't believe I
19 stated that I did not know whether it has gone
20 forward. I believe I stated I did not know whether
21 or not any funds had been allocated for it.
22 Q. Maybe I have been making an assumption.
23 Is there a relationship between a project being
24 funded and a project actually going forward?
25 A. Is there a relationship? Of course.
247
1 Q. Do you know whether or not this project
2 has gone forward?
3 A. I believe funds have been requested to
4 accomplish aspects of this project.
5 Q. Has that request been granted?
6 A. We have not received any Park Service
7 funds this year associated with this project.
8 Q. As I understand it, the resource
9 management plan relates to fiscal year '92, is that
10 correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. It relates to fiscal year '93?
13 A. No.
14 Q. What does it relate to, any particular
15 fiscal year?
16 A. The management of resources
17 programatically within the national park.
18 Q. When it says proposal date at the bottom
19 of this first page, '92, what does that indicate?
20 A. I would assume that it is a reference to
21 the time at which the project was first proposed.
22 Q. With regard to funding of projects to the
23 Research Center, you talked about some categories of
24 base funds that are provided to the park. Out of the
25 base funds, we had three categories, land
248
1 acquisition, operations and construction. Am I
2 correct in assuming that neither the land acquisition
3 nor the construction funds are available for the
4 Research Center to do research projects with?
5 A. It is incorrect to refer to all three
6 categories as base funds.
7 Q. The base funds are the operations?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Am I correct in assuming that only the
10 operations funds among the funds allocated by
11 Congress are available to the Research Center and not
12 the land acquisition and construction funds?
13 A. That would not be entirely correct.
14 Q. What is incorrect about that?
15 A. Fund allocations are for support of
16 routine and recurring park operations from within the
17 operations base and can be used in any fashion to
18 support those type activities.
19 The land acquisition funds are allocated
20 specifically for the task of acquiring lands within
21 an authorized boundary of the park and can be used
22 for any activity in support of that objective.
23 And the construction funds are allocated
24 for a specific project, the accomplishment of a
25 specific project, usually construction, and can be
249
1 used to support any activity that is necessary to
2 accomplish that project.
3 Q. If I understand what you are saying, if a
4 determination is made, for example, that in
5 connection with the efforts to acquire land from the
6 East Everglades, those efforts would be supported by
7 a particular research project determining water
8 quality or the conditions of the land there or
9 elsewhere, you would have the authority to allocate
10 some of those funds from the land acquisition
11 appropriation and direct those to the Research Center
12 to do that project?
13 A. No.
14 Q. How would that work, then?
15 A. Land acquisition funds are allocated to a
16 realty office not under my direct supervision.
17 Q. The realty office is part of the Park
18 Service?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who is in charge of that? Is this in
21 Atlanta or down here?
22 A. The realty office that accomplishes work
23 for Everglades National Park is located in Naples and
24 is under the direct supervision of the regional
25 director.
250
1 Q. The regional director from Atlanta?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could a decision be made by the regional
4 director in the realty office to allocate some of the
5 land acquisition funds to the Research Center if it
6 is determined that research by the Research Center
7 would be supportive of the land acquisition effort?
8 A. If some activity on the part of the
9 Research Center was necessary in order to accomplish
10 specific acquisition activities, then, yes, such a
11 decision could be made.
12 Q. Are you aware of that having happened in
13 this instance with regard to the --
14 A. No.
15 Q. What about, would the same thing apply to
16 the construction funds?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So among those three categories, land
19 acquisition, operations and construction, potentially
20 all of those categories could be used to fund
21 research through the Research Center under certain
22 circumstances?
23 A. Yes, consistent with the legal constraints
24 on the use of those funds.
25 Q. Additionally, funds could be provided to
251
1 fund research projects by the Park Service for other
2 programs within the Park Service and also other
3 agencies of government?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You also mentioned other governments
6 before. In what instances would other governments
7 provide funding to the park?
8 A. Just to clarify, I referred to other
9 agencies of government as I made an assumption there
10 that that referred to other federal agencies. Other
11 governments would refer to state and/or local
12 governments and their agents.
13 Q. Has the park received any funding from any
14 state agencies or specifically the Research Center to
15 support or fund research for use in the water quality
16 litigation?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Who would know that, Dr. Soukup?
19 A. Yes. Excuse me, I would clarify that.
20 Dr. Soukup would know what research has
21 been funded. I assume that the US Attorney's Office
22 would know whether or not that research had any
23 association with the litigation.
24 Q. Are you involved in the litigation on an
25 ongoing basis in terms of strategy or coming up with
252
1 issues and approaches to issues?
2 MS. PONZOLI: I am going to object to the
3 form of the question, it is compound.
4 I will ask you when you are referring to
5 the water quality litigation, are you referring to
6 the SWIM challenge litigation?
7 MR. GAINES: I was actually referring to
8 both the federal litigation and the SWIM challenge
9 litigation as the overall water quality litigation.
10 MS. PONZOLI: The federal litigation is
11 presently at the appellate level, counsel. I don't
12 know what active federal litigation you are referring
13 to beyond that.
14 MR. GAINES: At any rate, he doesn't know,
15 however we define the litigation.
16 MS. PONZOLI: I think for purposes of your
17 answers, you would want to clarify what you are
18 talking about, wouldn't you? I certainly do, since
19 he is answering your questions.
20 MR. GAINES: Yes, that's true. Maybe for
21 this proceeding when I say the water quality
22 litigation we will keep it focused on the SWIM
23 challenge administrative proceeding.
24 BY MR. GAINES:
25 Q. What role, sir, do you play in the SWIM
253
1 challenge administrative proceeding, as you
2 understand it?
3 A. I participate in discussions with
4 Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, US
5 Attorney's Office attorneys with regards to the role
6 of the United States as intervenors in defense of the
7 SWIM plan and with regards to the challenges that
8 have been filed against it.
9 Q. Do you participate in such discussions on
10 a regular basis?
11 A. I don't know what you mean by regular
12 basis, but I have on several occasions.
13 Q. Do you follow the progress of the
14 litigation, for example, by getting copies of
15 pleadings and reviewing them?
16 MS. PONZOLI: Counsel, I think you are
17 going beyond where you can go.
18 What he discusses with his lawyers, I
19 think you can get that he talks with us, I guess you
20 can get some level of frequency. But what he talks
21 about with us, I think you just stepped over the
22 line.
23 Q. Let me make it very clear then, I
24 understand, I don't want to get into privilege and
25 the substance of your discussions, but what I am
254
1 talking about right now are pleadings filed, motions,
2 memoranda of law, documents filed in the court file
3 of the administrative challenge which are public
4 documents and my question is do you follow the
5 progress of that litigation to the extent that you
6 review those documents.
7 MS. PONZOLI: You have the documents,
8 counselor, that he had in his possession. They were
9 provided to you as part of the document production.
10 So to the extent that those answered your
11 question, you already have the answer to your
12 question because you have those documents.
13 MR. GAINES: Number one, I feel I am
14 entitled to an answer on the record in this
15 deposition, and number two, I don't know if he has
16 ever seen or looked at those documents. And that is
17 the question.
18 MS. PONZOLI: I will let him answer this
19 question but I really believe you are pushing the
20 outer limits of what you can ask a client. But that
21 won't be the first time the League has pushed the
22 outer limit.
23 A. I follow the progress of the proceedings
24 and where and when necessary review pertinent
25 documents that have been filed with regard to it.
255
1 Q. Did you review any of the pleadings or the
2 depositions taken in this case to prepare for this
3 deposition?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have you read any of the deposition
6 transcripts from other witnesses that have been
7 deposed in the case up to now?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Have you seen any such transcripts?
10 A. Certainly.
11 Q. When you say certainly, whose transcripts
12 have you seen?
13 A. I visited the US Attorney's Office and
14 seen piles of documents that I understand are
15 associated with these particular proceedings.
16 Q. When you say --
17 MS. PONZOLI: Do you want to know how high
18 the piles are?
19 Q. When you say that you haven't read any,
20 and I asked you if have seen any, have you obtained
21 possession of any deposition transcripts for the
22 purpose of reviewing them?
23 A. I have not requested any.
24 Q. Have any been --
25 A. Nor have any been furnished in response to
256
1 my desire to specifically review or request to
2 specifically review any.
3 Q. Are there members of your staff that are
4 specifically allocated to work on the litigation or
5 aspects of the litigation?
6 A. There are a number of members of my staff
7 that have some degree of involvement and
8 participation.
9 Q. Are you able to quantify for me how many
10 staff members or what percentage of your resources,
11 your human resources are allocated to efforts
12 surrounding litigation?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Has any analysis been done of the cost of
15 the litigation, in either human or dollar terms to
16 the park?
17 A. I believe that some assessments have been
18 routinely made over the effect on other priorities
19 and on individuals with regards to demands placed on
20 them in support of this litigation.
21 Q. Have you seen those assessments? Are
22 those written assessments?
23 A. They have typically been discussions on
24 the part of myself and my staff as a part of a
25 routine responsibility we have to discuss those kinds
257
1 of issues resulting from any project commitments.
2 Q. Can you give me what the substance of
3 those discussions have been?
4 MS. PONZOLI: I think you have stepped
5 over the line. I mean, if the League wants to
6 stipulate right here and now that it is going to
7 allow all of its clients to reveal their strategy in
8 the litigation to the United States, then I would
9 certainly consider letting Superintendent Ring
10 discuss the park's. I will consider.
11 But I think what you are asking for is a
12 strategy of the client in proceeding with the
13 litigation.
14 Q. Not the strategy, I don't want you to
15 reveal any work product or confidential
16 communications you have had with counsel. All I am
17 asking for is some feel for the scale of the
18 resources that you feel have been allocated to the
19 litigation effort.
20 MS. PONZOLI: I don't have a problem with
21 that question, Superintendent Ring.
22 MR. GAINES: Are you instructing him not
23 to answer?
24 MS. PONZOLI: No. I said I don't have a
25 problem with it.
258
1 MR. GAINES: I thought you said you do
2 have a problem.
3 MS. PONZOLI: No, no.
4 A. To the best of my knowledge, no
5 comprehensive assessment of the scale of resources
6 committed to this project has been done.
7 BY MR. GAINES:
8 Q. Would you characterize it as putting a
9 strain on the park's resources as you administer the
10 park on a day-to-day or week to week basis?
11 MS. PONZOLI: I will object to the form of
12 the question. You are talking about a park that has
13 just been through a natural disaster. Probably
14 getting through the gates these days is a strain.
15 MR. GAINES: I understand that.
16 A. It places significant demands on staff
17 resources as do many projects.
18 Q. Could you take a look, sir, please, at
19 project No. 003 on the project statement sheets?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know the process by which these
22 project statement sheets were produced or drafted?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do they come out of the Research Center?
25 A. I assume so.
259
1 Q. Have you reviewed these in the past prior
2 to today?
3 A. I have read through this document.
4 Q. Are you familiar with this project that is
5 described here as No. 003, titled Determine
6 Natural/Induced Long-term Veg -- vegetative --
7 Changes?
8 A. I am familiar with the project statement.
9 Q. Do you know whether this project is an
10 ongoing research project?
11 A. I believe the project statement indicates
12 that it is an unfunded project.
13 Q. Do you know whether that is still the
14 case?
15 A. If it has not been funded in any way
16 during fiscal '92 prior to my arrival then it is
17 still the case.
18 Q. In other words, it has not been funded
19 during your tenure?
20 A. I have made no fund allocations to this
21 project.
22 Q. Does that mean that the project is not
23 being done?
24 A. This project to the best of my knowledge
25 has not been funded and commenced.
260
1 Q. Are you familiar with the concepts that
2 are discussed here in the problem statement portion
3 of this sheet, for example, where it states in the
4 first sentence, "There is very little information
5 available on the wetland successional patterns and
6 changes that have occurred in the Everglades." Is
7 that true as far as you know?
8 A. That is a relative statement. Almost
9 every project statement I have ever seen from a
10 research or resource management perspective starts
11 with, there is very little information available or
12 there is not enough information available.
13 Q. Is that put in there so there will be more
14 of an impetus to fund the project? Are you calling
15 into question the veracity of that statement?
16 A. No.
17 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form of the
18 question. I think he is explaining --
19 A. No.
20 MS. PONZOLI: -- the way these are
21 frequently worded.
22 A. I think that statement is one that is a
23 relative statement.
24 Q. In the second sentence it says, "Most of
25 the information available is qualitative in nature."
261
1 Do you agree with that?
2 A. I assume that's correct. I would simply
3 say that very little and most are neither absolute
4 terms. And without looking at the information
5 available I would not be able to tell to what degree
6 the terms very little or most applies.
7 Q. What about the next sentence which states
8 that "Many factors affect the vegetation communities
9 in the Everglades including natural disturbances such
10 as hurricanes and frost, and such managed or
11 man-induced perturbations such as fire, hydrology,
12 nutrients and exotic plants"? Is that accurate as
13 far as you are concerned?
14 A. I would say that is an entirely accurate
15 statement.
16 Q. When you say you have not allocated funds
17 for this, would that include any funds that came from
18 other governmental agencies outside the park Service?
19 A. No.
20 Q. So if I understand your answer, it is
21 possible that funds for this would have been
22 provided, could have been provided by other
23 governmental agencies and that was not included when
24 you stated that you didn't allocate funds?
25 A. That's correct.
262
1 Q. So without answering the question, if, for
2 example, the Department of Justice funded a project
3 such as this, funded the Research Center to do this
4 project, you would not consider yourself to have
5 allocated those funds?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. You also answered I think that as far as
8 you knew this project was not funded, had not been
9 funded or commenced.
10 If the Department of Justice had funded
11 this project to the Research Center could it have
12 been funded and commenced without your knowledge of
13 it?
14 A. I have been here a total of seven months.
15 There is quite a lot that is commenced and going on
16 in the park that I am not, still not aware of in any
17 great detail.
18 Q. So you don't have an awareness, then, I
19 take it of every single research project that has
20 been commenced? And when you say, as far as I know
21 it hasn't been commenced, that has limited meaning
22 because you can't be aware of every single project,
23 is that right?
24 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form. I think
25 it is a compound question.
263
1 He can answer it.
2 A. I am aware of those projects that have
3 commenced either as a result of my allocation of
4 funds or my approval of entering into a relationship
5 with some outside agency associated with project
6 activity. I am not necessarily aware in detail of
7 those activities that were funded or approved prior
8 to my arrival.
9 Q. Have you undertaken any kind of
10 comprehensive look at what research projects there
11 are currently ongoing at the park to determine
12 whether you approve of those projects or not?
13 A. I have not completed a comprehensive
14 review of the work in progress and proposed.
15 Q. Is that something that you intend to do?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Are you in the midst of that kind of
18 review?
19 A. I had a detailed schedule to do it in
20 early August that --
21 Q. Andrew had different ideas?
22 A. Someone up there did.
23 Q. So if a project was initiated after you
24 came on board, either through you allocating the
25 funds or through some other governmental agency
264
1 funding it, you would be aware of such a project, you
2 would have had to approve such a project, is that
3 correct?
4 A. I would have had to approve the allocation
5 of funds, the acceptance of funds or the issuance of
6 permission for some other agency to conduct research
7 activity within the park.
8 Q. But if, for example, this particular 003
9 project, if the Department of Justice said, we think
10 this is a good project and they provided funding for
11 it on April 19, 1992, the day before you arrived, it
12 is possible that that project was funded and
13 commenced and you just aren't aware of it yet, is
14 that accurate?
15 A. It is possible that some of that may have
16 even occurred after April the 20th. My arrival at
17 the office didn't constitute the flick of a light
18 switch.
19 Q. Is there currently in place some system
20 where you would routinely be made aware of any
21 projects that were being commenced by the Research
22 Center or by outside contractors in connection with
23 the park?
24 A. There is a process where my office would
25 be informed, and in any periodic review of status or
265
1 discussion of upcoming funding allocations, those
2 projects would be identified.
3 Q. But they may not be in your personal
4 consciousness at the moment that they start?
5 A. No. I absolutely encourage my staff to
6 seek out and find funding for or cooperation from
7 outside agencies in any and all projects we have
8 identified as being necessary and appropriate to the
9 furtherance of a program at the park.
10 Q. Does the park also receive funding from
11 environmental or conservation groups?
12 A. I don't specifically know of an instance,
13 but I do know that environmentally dedicated
14 organizations do provide everything from voluntary
15 assistance to occasional funding to National Park
16 Service projects in park units.
17 Q. On this vegetative changes project here,
18 do you know what specific vegetative changes that was
19 intended to examine?
20 A. I think the project was characterized as
21 dealing with a wide variety of communities,
22 vegetation communities and locations and effects.
23 Q. Did this deal with, for example, cattails
24 versus sawgrass?
25 A. I assume it would.
266
1 Q. Cattails, do you consider that a native or
2 an exotic species?
3 A. Cattails are a biological community that
4 do naturally occur within the Everglades at locations
5 where there are elevated concentrations of nutrients
6 and where other appropriate conditions exist.
7 Q. Does that mean they are a native species?
8 A. My understanding is that they are.
9 Q. Do cattails themselves do harm to the system?
10 A. They are an indication of conditions, of
11 specific conditions in the chemical and biological
12 environment.
13 Q. That being elevated nutrients?
14 A. That's one aspect of it, yes.
15 Q. Other aspects?
16 A. They require, like any other vegetative
17 species, they require certain kinds of water
18 conditions and soil conditions.
19 Q. On the second page of this, can you just
20 explain to me what the setup is here on the budget?
21 What does FTE stand for?
22 A. Full-time equivalency.
23 Q. Under year one, source, it says PNR 1.
24 What does that mean?
25 A. I don't know off the top of my head.
267
1 Q. What about act type RES?
2 A. I don't know specifically.
3 Q. Then it has the amount of money in
4 thousands of dollars and then FTE is what, full
5 full-time equivalency?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What does that refer to?
8 A. It is the government's more recent
9 characterization of what used to be called work years
10 or man years of staff time. 1.0 for instance on that
11 page represents the equivalency of one employee
12 working full-time for one year.
13 Q. So then down at the bottom, year four, 1.5
14 would indicate --
15 A. A combination of.
16 Q. One and a half man years?
17 A. Right, combination of employees that over
18 a course of a year would be equivalent to one and a
19 half persons working full-time for a year.
20 MR. GAINES: Do you want to break here?
21 MS. PONZOLI: Yes, I think it would be a
22 good idea.
23 MR. GAINES: One hour?
24 MS. PONZOLI: Yes.
25 (Luncheon recess)
268
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 12:50 p.m.
3 MR. GAINES: We are back on the record
4 now.
5 BY MR. GAINES:
6 Q. Let's go back to the issue we brought up
7 prior to lunch where there was at that time a
8 temporary instruction not to answer pending further
9 consideration. That question involved whether or not
10 the DOJ, Department of Justice, to your knowledge,
11 had provided any funding to the Research Center or
12 outside contractors for research related to the
13 issues in this litigation.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Counselor, I must tell you,
15 I don't remember that portion of the question
16 including outside contractors. Clearly the
17 Department of Justice has hired expert witnesses and
18 provided funds for them for the water quality
19 litigation. So as to that aspect of it, I don't even
20 think that is your intent, to --
21 MR. GAINES: I was trying to ask the same
22 question. The outside contractors reference in my
23 question referred to outside contractors coordinated
24 through the Research Center. But let's leave that
25 out for purposes of this question initially.
269
1 MS. PONZOLI: Let me just tell counsel, I
2 appreciate his giving me the opportunity to consult
3 with the second opinion as to the privilege that is
4 inherent in this question or any line of questions
5 that would follow from it.
6 I will allow Superintendent Ring to answer
7 the question but knowing what his answer will be, I
8 don't think the issue is resolved between us. I
9 think Dr. Soukup's deposition will have to flesh out
10 where the privilege line will exist and I think we
11 will devote some research to that issue.
12 So with that, I don't intend my allowing
13 him to answer this question to function as a waiver
14 of any further questions. It is a very limited
15 exception and we are going to research where the
16 privilege line will exist.
17 MR. GAINES: Okay.
18 BY MR. GAINES:
19 Q. Given all of that, do you understand what
20 the question is that is pending?
21 A. Why don't we read it back.
22 Q. Let's read it back and I would rather have
23 it read back than reask it, but when you hear it read
24 back, let's eliminate the reference to outside
25 contractors.
270
1 MR. GAINES: Off the record.
2 (Discussion off the record)
3 MS. PONZOLI: The question I have is: has
4 the Department of Justice provided funding, for
5 example, to the Research Center for research projects
6 that might be of use in the water quality litigation.
7 I wrote it down verbatim from the court reporter
8 because there was some importance to having it
9 accurate.
10 MR. GAINES: Let's use that as the
11 question.
12 MS. PONZOLI: And with my provisions
13 before I will allow him to answer that.
14 A. I know of no funds provided to the park
15 for the purposes of conducting -- provided to the
16 park by the Justice Department for the purposes of
17 conducting research during my tenure as
18 superintendent.
19 BY MR. GAINES:
20 Q. Do you know of any research projects that
21 are ongoing or have been undertaken as a result of
22 requests from the US Attorney's Office or the
23 Department of Justice?
24 MS. PONZOLI: I think all of my --
25 A. Do you mean projects that we have
271
1 undertaken with our own funds as a result of a direct
2 request from the Department of Justice?
3 Q. I am not really including the source of
4 the funds as an element in this question, but it
5 would include what you just described, yes.
6 MS. PONZOLI: Then I think I am confused.
7 Are you talking about any work that is being done in
8 the water quality litigation? That goes back to of
9 course the Department of Justice has hired outside
10 experts.
11 MR. GAINES: No, my question, I think I
12 specified that the park, Research Center of the park
13 is conducting.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Oh, okay.
15 A. Again, with regards to my personal
16 involvement, most of the research projects funded for
17 fiscal year 1992 were triggered prior to my arrival
18 and the projects for fiscal '93 are yet to be
19 finalized in terms of the National Park Service
20 funded projects.
21 I am aware of a number of other agency
22 projects or other agency funded projects that have
23 been agreed to since my arrival and I believe I
24 mentioned them previously in reference to the EPA
25 global climate change work and the Corps of Engineers
272
1 sponsored research into issues having a bearing on
2 the C-111 Taylor Slough Canal. There have been
3 several like that.
4 Q. My question is more focused on projects
5 being done to support the United States' position in
6 this litigation at the behest of the Justice
7 Department or the US Attorney's Office, whether you
8 are aware of any such projects?
9 A. I am aware that there is a significant
10 amount of staff time and effort going into the
11 support of the government's position in this
12 litigation.
13 Q. Does that include research staff?
14 A. I would say that's primarily staff on
15 the -- it would be primarily staff from the South
16 Florida Research Center.
17 I would simply like to note that the South
18 Florida Research Center has organizationally broad
19 responsibilities for inventory monitoring, actual
20 research and analysis and resource management and
21 management application. So that there is a wide
22 range of professional and technical staff within that
23 part of the organization.
24 How any of that work is characterized, I
25 would defer, and what spec work has gone on, I defer
273
1 to my research director.
2 Q. Do you know, for example, what was the
3 term, FTEs, full-time equivalencies, how many FTEs
4 have been expended by the research staff in let's say
5 the last calendar year in support of the government's
6 position in this litigation?
7 A. No, I do not. We typically do not account
8 for the usage of FTE on the basis of anything other
9 than broad category -- than the organizational
10 structure.
11 Q. I take it you are not able to quantify for
12 me the expenditure of research staff time and
13 lawsuit-related activity, is that correct?
14 A. No, that's correct.
15 Q. Is this something that Dr. Soukup, you
16 would expect him to be able to quantify or have that
17 information available to him?
18 A. I think he would be able to address some
19 specific aspects of it that he was involved in
20 directing and supporting.
21 Q. Other than what he observed with his own
22 eyes and was involved in, is there any kind of effort
23 made to keep track of that type of a statistic, how
24 much staff time is allocated to various functions and
25 projects?
274
1 A. We have a normal system of accounting for
2 funding and staff time assigned, but in broad
3 programatic categories, I am not aware of any
4 comprehensive audit that we have conducted with
5 regards to how many total dollars or days have been
6 dedicated over a given period of time to any given
7 aspect of the water quality issues.
8 Q. Does the research staff keep time sheets
9 on a daily basis reflecting what projects they are
10 working on and for how long?
11 A. The time records for the agency are
12 administrative records relating to whether an
13 employee was at work and what time he arrived and
14 left.
15 Q. But it wouldn't reflect what he was
16 working on?
17 A. No, we do not have an accounting system in
18 our agency that is similar to the one you describe.
19 I guess the legal profession has that.
20 Q. We are familiar with that concept, yes.
21 A. I had always assumed that was for billing
22 purposes.
23 Q. I guess that is one of the purposes.
24 Other than being able to testify that a
25 significant but unspecified amount of research staff
275
1 time is expended in support of the government's
2 position in this litigation, you are unable to, if I
3 understand your testimony, to tell me any specific
4 research projects or efforts that the staff is
5 undertaking in support of the government's position,
6 is that correct?
7 A. We have not developed an analysis of the
8 staff time or funding dedicated specifically to the
9 support of this particular case. And whether or not
10 there are projects that may or may not support
11 aspects of this case, when we pursue an issue we
12 typically assess whether any of the data available in
13 our records or any of the data coming from research
14 projects, regardless of how they were initiated, may
15 have a bearing on the case and make them available in
16 support of our analysis and arguments.
17 Q. Who is the individual, if there is one,
18 responsible for ensuring that the research efforts
19 undertaken by the research center adhere to the
20 scientific method?
21 A. Everyone from the professional scientist
22 conducting the research to that individual's
23 supervisor, to the research director, to myself, to
24 my boss, the regional director.
25 We have different aspects of
276
1 responsibility relating to assuring that that occurs.
2 Q. We will leave this area but just so I
3 understand what you are saying, there is no single
4 research project that is occurring or has occurred
5 that you are aware of that was instituted at the
6 request of the Justice Department or the US attorneys
7 for purposes of use in the litigation?
8 A. I am aware of no request in my tenure as
9 superintendent of the park.
10 Q. Just so we don't limit it, if you are
11 aware of any projects that occurred or commenced
12 prior to your tenure which you have been since
13 advised fit into that category, I would also like you
14 to tell me that.
15 A. I believe I can only speak to those issues
16 which I have direct and responsible knowledge of. If
17 you need to understand what may or may not have been
18 requested and approved prior to that, I think you
19 need to talk to the individuals who acted in my
20 position prior to my arrival and who preceded me.
21 Q. I can understand that you don't want to
22 make a statement based on something that is not your
23 personal knowledge. So my question is only limited
24 to your personal knowledge. And the personal
25 knowledge I am asking about it is, do you have
277
1 personal knowledge of having been advised or told by
2 anyone or seen some document indicating that any
3 research project has been requested or is ongoing at
4 the request of the US Attorneys or the Department of
5 Justice in connection with this litigation.
6 A. I am routinely told about a variety of
7 matters that occurred before my time and they are
8 often characterized as having been motivated by a
9 particular issue or request. And that may or may not
10 be the case, based on the individual's perceptions
11 and perspective that is talking to me about it.
12 I have seen no formal request, nor reply
13 on the part of the national park related to any such
14 activities, and I am not aware of any that have
15 personally crossed through my office since I have
16 been here.
17 Q. Accepting for a minute the inherent lack
18 of certainty in relying upon something someone else
19 has told you that you can't verify firsthand, this is
20 a discovery deposition and I am just trying to find
21 who I would need to follow this up with, so given
22 whatever qualifications you want to make about it may
23 or may not be true, my question is has anyone told
24 you that this has occurred with regard to projects
25 requested by the US Attorneys or the Department of
278
1 Justice regarding this litigation. I understand you
2 testified you haven't seen a formal request, that it
3 hasn't happened while you are there. Now the
4 question is just limited to have you been advised in
5 some fashion that this occurred prior to your
6 arriving.
7 A. I have been advised that such things have
8 occurred in the context of being advised about an
9 incredible of variety of things associated with
10 the -- with preceding events related to the water
11 quality issues here.
12 Q. Have you been advised that any particular
13 research projects were requested by the government in
14 connection with the litigation?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Sir, I am going to have a
16 continuing objection to any conversations that took
17 place between attorney and client. And that is where
18 this is a very difficult line of questioning.
19 Because when you ask, did the Department of Justice
20 ask its client to do X, you are talking about an
21 attorney-client communication. So it is very
22 problematic and I think you know that.
23 MR. GAINES: Without --
24 MS. PONZOLI: I have let you go a long,
25 long, long way and you know it and I know it. And I
279
1 think to continue going, it is almost as though you
2 are inviting me to reach the point where I am forced
3 to cause him not to answer. And I think that is
4 wrong. I just think that is fundamentally wrong
5 because I have given you enormously way.
6 MR. GAINES: I appreciate that. I don't
7 know if I agree with that.
8 MS. PONZOLI: I am sure we would never
9 agree on that point. I am sure you could go through
10 my whole office and not think I have been generous
11 but we have to agree to disagree on certain things.
12 BY MR. GAINES:
13 Q. I am not trying to get from you advice or
14 confidential communications you have had with your
15 attorney.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. So leaving that out of it, has anyone
18 advised you that there were any research projects
19 requested by the US Attorneys, the Department of
20 Justice, in connection with this litigation?
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. Who is that?
23 A. I don't recall specifically.
24 Q. You say of course like it is evident. It
25 is not evident to me.
280
1 A. I tried to explain to you that I have
2 heard an enormous amount from an enormous number of
3 individuals who have characterized what has gone on
4 prior to my arrival at the park with regards to the
5 water quality issues and the various aspects of
6 litigation associated with it.
7 And I have heard literally everything that
8 can be heard associated with who did what and why.
9 Unless I have direct knowledge of it, or I
10 see documents that substantiate exactly what's gone
11 on, I tend to hear that and not discount it so much
12 as, I don't try and retain it as a part of a factual
13 body of information that I've got to deal with.
14 Q. Understanding that, this is what we call a
15 discovery deposition.
16 A. Right.
17 Q. And you can get into areas or levels of
18 testimony for purposes of discovery that may not be
19 admissible in a court of law when we get to the final
20 trial.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. For example, a statement like, somebody, I
23 can't recall who, told me that the so-and-so project
24 was requested by the US Attorneys in connection with
25 the litigation, that wouldn't prove very much in a
281
1 court of law at a final hearing but for purpose of a
2 discovery deposition, it is meaningful information
3 that we are entitled to obtain. And that is the kind
4 of information I am trying to elicit from you right
5 now.
6 So given the fact that it may not be in
7 your mind valid or something that you can firsthand
8 swear is true, my question is what have you been
9 advised if anything concerning research requests by
10 the US Attorneys or the Department of Justice in
11 connection with this litigation.
12 A. I am trying to be precise and accurate in
13 my responses to your questions and not speculate or
14 ramble about things that I am not certain of.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And I feel that's how I need to respond to
17 you.
18 Q. I don't want to you speculate on what you
19 were told or try to remember something that you can't
20 remember. But if you remember being told by somebody
21 that a particular research project was initiated by
22 the US government, even if you can't verify that
23 fact, that is what I am asking you. Can you remember
24 somebody telling you --
25 A. And as I indicated to you before, I have
282
1 been told a wide variety of things associated with
2 this case and in my response where I said, of course,
3 I am telling you that I assume, have a general sense
4 that I have been told that certain actions on our
5 part up to and including research may have been
6 motivated by the Justice Department or the US
7 Attorney's Office's request.
8 Q. This doesn't apply I assume to every
9 single research project that you are aware of, that
10 the Research Center has undertaken at any time, does
11 it?
12 A. I am a little unclear, when you say this,
13 what do you mean?
14 Q. This statement that you are making that at
15 one point or another you were told that a lot of
16 things had to do with the lawsuit, no one told you
17 every single thing the Research Center ever did in
18 its existence is related to the litigation that we
19 are sitting here today on, have they?
20 A. I think there have been a couple of
21 conversations where that has been the message.
22 Q. Can you specify even one research project
23 that would fit into this category of someone who has
24 told you that it was related to the lawsuit?
25 A. I in a general sense, I would say that
283
1 anything having to do with water or the effects of
2 water has been at one time or another characterized
3 by me as being associated with the litigation.
4 Q. You said characterized by me, do you mean
5 to --
6 A. Characterized to me by others, and a whole
7 lot of other things as well.
8 Q. Do these others include Dr. Soukup?
9 MS. PONZOLI: Excuse me, I don't
10 understand the question.
11 MR. GAINES: He said it was characterized
12 to him by others as having to do with the litigation
13 and I asked if the others include Dr. Soukup.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Okay.
15 A. I talk routinely and regularly with Dr.
16 Soukup and discuss the implications of research being
17 conducted in relation to management issues that the
18 park is dealing with. So I've had discussions with
19 Dr. Soukup concerning the potential implications of
20 various research projects to issues, some related to
21 the issues engaged here in the litigation.
22 But in terms of being motivated, research
23 being motivated by that litigation, I don't recall, I
24 don't recall anything specific in that regard.
25 Q. With Dr. Soukup?
284
1 A. With Dr. Soukup.
2 Q. Can you recall any specific conversations
3 in that regard with any individual?
4 A. As I said, unless it reaches a certain
5 level of substantiation with me, I tend to let it go
6 very quickly. So I don't even try and retain any
7 specific memory of those conversations.
8 And I want to make sure you understand
9 that I typically hear these kinds of things
10 associated with any large or controversial aspect of
11 park operations or management.
12 Q. When you say you typically hear these type
13 of things, you mean that certain factors are
14 motivating operations and management, is that what
15 you mean?
16 A. No. Any issue that is a controversial one
17 publicly as a matter of public policy or resource
18 concern, and oftentimes any matter that is a matter
19 of widespread concern and/or controversy related to
20 personnel, employee concerns, oftentimes or usually
21 generates quite a bit of discussion and quite a bit
22 of speculation about what is occurring and what
23 motivated those occurrences.
24 What I am telling you is that I hear that
25 level of conversation about a wide variety of issues
285
1 including water quality litigation. And it includes
2 everything from very plausible suggestions and
3 statements to very ill-informed ones.
4 As I said, I tend to pay attention to and
5 try and remember those that have some sort of
6 confirmed factual basis behind them as in documents,
7 supported by documents or specifics from an
8 individual who is stating what they did or didn't do.
9 Q. And I take it that none of the
10 conversations of this type that you have had has
11 reached the level of enough sureness that it has
12 remained in your memory as a particular conversation
13 you can recount for us now?
14 A. Not in specific terms, that's right.
15 MR. GAINES: Exhibit No. 6, please.
16 (A three-page document dated November 16,
17 1992 addressed to Dr. Robert G. Qualls from Richard
18 G. Ring was marked Ring Deposition Exhibit 6 for
19 identification)
20 BY MR. GAINES:
21 Q. Superintendent Ring, I have handed you
22 what has been marked as Exhibit No. 6, it is a letter
23 dated November 16, 1992 to a Dr. Robert Qualls from
24 yourself.
25 Do you recognize this letter?
286
1 A. I recognize the issue and the individual
2 referred to. I would like it to be noted that the
3 letter is signed -- it has my signature block on it
4 but it is signed by Ken Morgan, my chief ranger, who
5 was acting for me during a time of my absence.
6 Q. This was November 16, 1992.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Where were you at that time, when you say
9 during a time of your absence?
10 A. Let me think here.
11 MS. PONZOLI: You certainly get these
12 fast, don't you, Mr. Gaines. Faxed right from the
13 Duke's School of the Environment. Is Dr. Qualls
14 listed as one of your experts?
15 MR. GAINES: No, he isn't.
16 A. I believe I was aware -- I know I was away
17 from the office that day. I may have been in West
18 Palm Beach for the day.
19 Q. You were out of the office somewhere on
20 November 16 so you didn't personally sign this
21 letter?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And Ken Morgan is the chief ranger, you
24 stated?
25 A. Yes.
287
1 Q. What are the duties of a chief ranger?
2 A. He's in charge of what we refer to as our
3 ranger division which is responsible for both
4 resource and visitor protection. That includes all
5 aspects of law enforcement and he also has under his
6 responsibility the fire management function.
7 Q. Would he generally deal with issues such
8 as are contained in this letter?
9 A. All of my division chiefs on a rotating
10 basis may find themselves in a situation where they
11 are acting in the absence of either myself or my
12 assistant.
13 Q. The second and third page of this exhibit
14 is an application for permission to collect specimens
15 of rocks, plants, minerals, et cetera that Dr. Qualls
16 submitted dated November 1, 1992.
17 Did you review this application at any
18 time?
19 A. When it came in it went to my Research
20 Center staff.
21 Q. Did you see it?
22 A. I was aware of it when it came in.
23 Q. Do you know how the decision was made to
24 deny Dr. Qualls' request to conduct his research in
25 the park?
288
1 A. I don't understand that it has been
2 denied.
3 Q. Do you know how the decision was made to
4 refer Dr. Qualls to have his request be, quote, more
5 appropriately considered within the scope of the,
6 quote, discovery process associated with the State of
7 Florida's administrative hearing process?
8 A. I believe the nature of the work and the
9 possible association of the individual with experts
10 on the part of the parties submitting the challenge
11 has raised some questions as to what the intent and
12 purpose of the research was. And I believe the
13 letter in response raises those concerns and advises
14 Dr. Qualls that based on those concerns it may be
15 more, his request may be more appropriately
16 considered within the scope of the discovery process.
17 Q. Do you know how this letter was drafted?
18 Did you draft this letter?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Who drafted this letter for your signature
21 or over your name?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Did you see the letter before it went out?
24 A. I was aware that such a letter was being
25 prepared and I understood the general gist of it.
289
1 Q. Did someone advise you that Dr. Qualls is
2 an expert witness for the sugar cane industry where
3 it says "in the ongoing water quality litigation"?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Were you of the opinion that he was an
6 expert for the sugar cane industry?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that a
9 letter over your name says, "as you are an expert
10 witness for the sugar cane industry"?
11 MS. PONZOLI: I think it is an
12 argumentative question, counselor. I am going to
13 object to the form.
14 MR. GAINES: I am asking if he is
15 uncomfortable with that fact.
16 MS. PONZOLI: I understand what your
17 question is and I am telling you it is an
18 argumentative question said in an argumentative tone.
19 MR. GAINES: Okay, I take your objection.
20 A. My understanding is that Dr. Qualls is at
21 Duke University associated with individuals who have
22 been integral to the sugar cane industry's case. We
23 as a result made an assumption that Dr. Qualls and
24 his work would be associated with that and
25 characterized that to him and recommended that he may
290
1 be more appropriately handled, his request may be
2 more appropriately handled through the discovery
3 process.
4 BY MR. GAINES:
5 Q. How did you determine that he was
6 associated with individuals at Duke that are involved
7 with the sugar cane case, who told you that?
8 A. I was advised of that possibility by my
9 research staff.
10 Q. Anybody in particular?
11 A. Certainly Dr. Soukup communicated that
12 message to me.
13 Q. Did you or anyone on your staff call Dr.
14 Qualls to discuss this issue with him?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Counselor, I --
16 A. I did not.
17 MS. PONZOLI: I think that is an improper
18 question.
19 MR. GAINES: Why?
20 MS. PONZOLI: I think in my opinion that
21 might be improper behavior.
22 MR. GAINES: That is a different issue, it
23 is not an improper question.
24 BY MR. GAINES:
25 Q. Did you take a look at Dr. Qualls' request
291
1 here and try to determine whether it had anything at
2 all to do with the issues in the litigation we are
3 involved in?
4 A. I think that we were concerned that it
5 could and we saw no clear indication that it did not.
6 Q. Are you aware of any issue in this
7 litigation or to do with the SWIM plan concerning
8 dissolved organic carbon?
9 MS. PONZOLI: I am going to object to the
10 question as mischaracterizing the proposal and the
11 goals of the proposal.
12 I am certainly not a scientist but I don't
13 think that your characterization has covered the full
14 range of what this project might be about.
15 I guess I would also want to say,
16 counselor, that I am going to object on the record
17 that the law firm that has listed Dr. Curtis
18 Richardson for whom Dr. Qualls we are aware is the
19 principal investigator and principal scientist who
20 works directly for Dr. Richardson, Dr. Qualls in his
21 request to do research in Everglades National Park
22 has administrative remedies available to him if he is
23 not happy with the answer that he has obtained.
24 I think there is something fundamentally
25 unfair about your sitting here and questioning the
292
1 superintendent under oath at length prior to that
2 administrative process beginning, assuming it might
3 begin, and it is certainly a right that exists to Dr.
4 Qualls in the future.
5 I think there is just something equitably
6 wrong with your taking advantage of an expert witness
7 deposition that is not intended to cover this type of
8 issue in the least.
9 Just because you have the superintendent
10 sitting in front of you doesn't give you the
11 opportunity to cover any lawsuit any time or any
12 administrative action any time.
13 I think that is improper and I will put
14 that objection on the record.
15 BY MR. GAINES:
16 Q. Does the fact that you are now aware -- I
17 am representing to you that Dr. Qualls is not an
18 expert witness in this case, has not been listed as
19 such, does that change your position about whether or
20 not he should be allowed to conduct his research as
21 set forth in his proposal there?
22 A. Do you represent Dr. Qualls?
23 Q. Do I represent Dr. Qualls?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. No.
293
1 A. Then I would expect to hear from Dr.
2 Qualls with regards to his status and with regards to
3 his application.
4 Q. Does that --
5 A. And would welcome any discussion and
6 response that he may have to this letter.
7 Q. Does the fact that you are now advised
8 that he is not an expert witness change your position
9 with regard to his request?
10 A. I would want to hear what Dr. Qualls has
11 to say with regards to his application.
12 Q. But you didn't attempt to learn what he
13 had to say at the time you denied his request, did
14 you?
15 MS. PONZOLI: That is an argumentative
16 question, counselor. I think we are really --
17 THE WITNESS: I will answer it, Suzan.
18 A. Number one, we did not deny his request.
19 And, number two, I would -- we typically receive
20 applications from a variety of sources for a variety
21 of uses in the park that would require permits.
22 We do not typically get on the phone and
23 try and track an applicant down and talk those things
24 out. We typically respond to them with a letter.
25 Q. Do you typically refer him to the
294
1 discovery process in a lawsuit where he is not a
2 listed witness, he is not an expert witness, and
3 where his work has no connection whatsoever to the
4 issues in that lawsuit?
5 MS. PONZOLI: Objection to the form of the
6 question, counselor.
7 You have included things in your question
8 that you have not established as facts, that this has
9 no connection to the litigation that is ongoing is an
10 enormous leap.
11 This gentleman, every bit of the work that
12 he has done to my knowledge at least for several
13 years now is totally related to this litigation. It
14 has all been in conjunction with Dr. Richardson who
15 is listed as one of the if not the principal witness
16 on behalf of the Florida Sugar Cane League and the
17 cooperative. I mean, two of the dominant petitioners
18 in this SWIM challenge rely for their biological and
19 other challenges to the SWIM plan on Dr. Richardson
20 who basically from what I could tell from my first
21 deposition of his doesn't really do the research
22 himself, Dr. Qualls does it, Dr. Rader does it, Dr.
23 Craft does it.
24 So to separate Dr. Qualls from Dr.
25 Richardson is pretty tricky business in my view and I
295
1 think your question included a lot of assumptions
2 that were inaccurate.
3 Q. You can answer the question.
4 MS. PONZOLI: You can read the question
5 back.
6 (The question referred to was
7 thereupon read by the reporter
8 as above recorded)
9 A. I think there is a substantial question
10 with regards to several of those circumstances that
11 motivated a response to him suggesting he may be more
12 appropriately considered within the scope of the
13 discovery process.
14 Q. Are you saying that you doubted the truth
15 of the proposal here of what he intended to do and
16 the reasons he was taking these samples?
17 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form. That is a
18 ridiculous question.
19 A. I would say that based on his application,
20 the questions and concerns existed and they were not
21 clarified based on what we had before us.
22 Q. Was this concern, this decision to refer
23 Dr. Qualls to the discovery process, was this
24 something that was suggested to you by the research
25 staff or --
296
1 A. Excuse me, the decision was made to --
2 that was made was to write a letter back to Dr.
3 Qualls which is what we did.
4 Q. And this decision to in that letter refer
5 him to the --
6 A. Excuse me, we wrote a letter to Dr. Qualls
7 suggesting that he may be more appropriately
8 considered within the scope of the discovery process.
9 Q. Do you anticipate writing a followup
10 letter to Dr. Qualls on this issue?
11 A. I would anticipate hearing from Dr. Qualls
12 with regards to his application.
13 Q. You don't consider this letter to have
14 referred him to the discovery process in this action?
15 MS. PONZOLI: Objection to form. It is an
16 argumentative question, Mr. Gaines.
17 MR. GAINES: I have asked what his letter
18 means.
19 MS. PONZOLI: You asked a million
20 questions on this letter, what it means, and I think
21 it speaks poorly for your representation.
22 A. When we respond in any manner to an
23 application like that, whether it is a letter that
24 suggests that there is a concern and that may be more
25 appropriately handled in a different fashion, to an
297
1 outright denial of a permit, our administrative
2 process provides for hearing from the individual and
3 that we either may not have understood fully or may
4 not have had all the information necessary to reach
5 that conclusion, and we routinely hear back from
6 individuals with regard to their particular request.
7 Q. Do you know who drafted this letter?
8 A. You asked that before and I answered it.
9 Q. I am sorry, I don't recall if you knew who
10 had done it.
11 A. No, I do not.
12 Q. Did you speak with the attorneys about
13 this before you authorized this letter?
14 MS. PONZOLI: Counselor, you have no right
15 to inquire into what he talked with his attorneys
16 about and I am going to instruct him not to answer
17 that question.
18 Q. It states in the letter, "Our attorneys
19 advise us that your request may be more appropriately
20 considered within the scope of the discovery
21 process," et cetera. Is that a true statement?
22 A. I assume it is.
23 Q. Are you the one that the attorneys advised
24 of that fact?
25 A. No.
298
1 Q. Do you know who they did advise of that?
2 A. Not specifically.
3 Q. Was Dr. Soukup involved in this?
4 A. Research Center staff was.
5 Q. Do you know specifically if it was Dr.
6 Soukup?
7 A. There are a number of people who touch
8 these applications and staff them through.
9 Q. Do you know how many applications like
10 this the park receives in a month, let's say?
11 A. In a month?
12 Q. Is it a large number?
13 A. I would say in the time, seven months or
14 so that I have been here I have signed 15 to 20
15 permits associated with research.
16 Q. So 15 to 20 were allowed. Do you know how
17 many if any were rejected or not allowed?
18 A. I don't know an exact number. I would say
19 a small percentage of the requests that come in are
20 ultimately denied.
21 Q. More are generally granted than denied?
22 A. I would say that's a fair characterization
23 of my experience with the permitting system.
24 Q. What are the reasons that a request would
25 be denied, generally, if you can answer that?
299
1 A. They would not meet the requirements that
2 we have established in federal regulation and in
3 policy associated with entry into the park for the
4 conduct of the activities proposed. And that could
5 be a variety, take a variety of forms.
6 There may be research being proposed that
7 duplicates research that has already occurred. There
8 may be methodology proposed that is unnecessary and
9 inconsistent with resource preservation and visitor
10 disturbance.
11 There may be a refusal to make the
12 information obtained in the research or the
13 specimens, any remaining specimens available to the
14 park. There could be any one of a number of reasons
15 why a request might be turned down.
16 Q. Are you aware of Dr. Ronald Jones, are you
17 familiar with him?
18 A. Certainly.
19 Q. Who is Dr. Jones? Is he a member of the
20 park staff?
21 A. My understanding is that Dr. Jones is not
22 a National Park Service employee. He is associated
23 with Florida International University.
24 Q. Do you know if he is currently conducting
25 any research projects in the park?
300
1 A. I know he has been engaged in a
2 significant amount of activity associated with water
3 quality issues in the park.
4 Q. Do you know if any of that is ongoing now?
5 A. I believe he is identified as an expert
6 witness for the government in this case and is very
7 likely spending time on efforts related to the case.
8 Q. Do you know what any of those projects
9 are?
10 A. I have a general sense that he conducted a
11 significant amount of work in the park previously and
12 is engaged in discussions and consultations on
13 matters pertaining to water quality issues in the
14 park on a fairly wide range of issues. In terms of
15 specific work, no, I don't have any detailed
16 knowledge of that.
17 Q. Is he working in conjunction with Dr.
18 Soukup, do you know?
19 A. Any work that he would engage in, whether
20 it be research work or consultation on research
21 related issues would be done in conjunction with Dr.
22 Soukup and the Research Center staff.
23 Q. Look back at this document, Exhibit 4.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Back in Exhibit 4, the resource management
301
1 plan, the project statement sheet No. 004, which is
2 the next one, refers to the Hole-in-the-Donut
3 mitigation project. What is the Hole-in-the-Donut
4 mitigation project refer to?
5 A. Could we open up the brochure map?
6 The Hole-in-the-Donut is an area that is,
7 was inside the park just west of the main entrance
8 and headquarters area that had been privately owned
9 and developed as agricultural land. It is generally
10 the area I am indicating right now (indicating), that
11 gray area.
12 So it is significantly altered from its
13 natural state.
14 And since acquisition as part of the park,
15 given its disturbed condition, it has been taken over
16 by exotics, chiefly Brazilian pepper.
17 Q. And the mitigation project for that, it
18 states here, at least as of this time, it was
19 unfunded. Do you know whether that was funded or if
20 it was ever commenced?
21 A. It is going to be commencing this year,
22 from what I understand.
23 Q. When was the agricultural activity stopped
24 in that area?
25 A. I do not know.
302
1 Q. Do you have any -- was it within the last
2 year, last ten years, last 50 years? You don't know?
3 A. It was within the last 50 years. It
4 certainly has been since 1947 when the park was
5 established.
6 Q. That would make sense.
7 A. I seem to recall that it may have been in
8 the fifties but I am not certain of a date.
9 Q. Has there been any remedial action done in
10 that area as of now?
11 A. Largely the remedial action has been to
12 remove several test areas of Brazilian pepper, to
13 test methods that would be successful over the long
14 term of returning that acreage to more natural
15 sawgrass community.
16 Q. In the project statement sheet in the
17 paragraph right above description of action it states
18 "All previous work includes the completion of a
19 vegetation study to determine the effects of soil
20 removal and hydroperiod on the effect of vegetation
21 restoration on the Hole-in-the-Donut."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that referring to work that has been
24 done in the past in that area?
25 A. Yes.
303
1 Q. Are there any results at this time from
2 that work?
3 A. I am aware -- I have inspected the test
4 areas and have been briefed on the results.
5 Q. Can you give me a general idea of what the
6 results have been based on that briefing?
7 A. Yes. That under certain conditions the
8 restoration work can successfully occur but only when
9 the vegetation is removed and then the soil is
10 removed completely from the area.
11 Q. To what depth? How much soil, how deep is
12 the soil there that would have to be removed?
13 A. It will vary. I understand that the
14 critical elements of success relate to removing soil
15 so that elevation of the remaining ground is lower
16 and subject to significantly longer hydroperiods and
17 that the soils, the loose soils over the limestone
18 base have been eliminated so that there is not a soil
19 base for the shrubby Brazilian pepper communities to
20 spring up from.
21 Q. Has there been any testing in the
22 Hole-in-the-Donut area for nutrient levels?
23 A. The testing that was done associated with
24 this vegetation was largely related to elevation
25 hydroperiod and presence versus the absence of soils.
304
1 There was a tract adjacent -- there was
2 one tract where all soil was removed down to
3 limestone base that has sustained longer hydroperiod
4 and where over several years sawgrass communities
5 have reestablished themselves and shrubby communities
6 including Brazilian pepper has not.
7 There is an immediately adjacent test
8 tract where the vegetation was also removed and a
9 significant amount of soil was removed but there were
10 one to two inches of soil left in place. And the
11 shrubby communities are gradually reestablishing
12 themselves in that area.
13 Q. What is it that -- is it the presence of
14 soil that allows the Brazilian pepper to flourish?
15 A. The results of the work seem to indicate
16 that it is a combination of length of hydroperiod and
17 the presence of loose soils that will affect our
18 ability to restore that area.
19 Q. So do you know whether there has been any
20 nutrient testing in this area?
21 A. No, I don't. I know that nutrient -- I
22 don't believe that nutrient testing was a part of the
23 project work as it has occurred to date.
24 Q. Do you know in the Hole-in-the-Donut area
25 where the surface water runoff goes to from there?
305
1 A. I believe it would be in the direction of
2 the western side of Taylor Slough.
3 Q. Are you aware of any observed cattail
4 growth in that area?
5 A. I cannot recall specifically large cattail
6 communities, but I do know that the entire area is
7 significantly disturbed and the vegetation is
8 extremely dense.
9 Q. Is this the area where the research
10 buildings are located, the Hole-in-the-Donut area?
11 A. The research buildings are located in a
12 portion of the Hole-in-the-Donut area.
13 Q. Is it true that one of the buildings there
14 is a former missile site?
15 A. There is a -- several of the buildings
16 there relate to a former NIKE missile complex that
17 was abandoned by the military and turned over to the
18 National Park Service.
19 Q. Do you know what kind of a missile a NIKE
20 missile is?
21 A. It was one of the earliest attempts at air
22 defense in this country.
23 Q. Does it have some kind of underground
24 component to it or is it an above the ground complex.
25 A. It is an above the ground complex?
306
1 Q. That is the only military site or former
2 military site located in the park?
3 A. Well, discounting Fort Jefferson, I
4 believe it is. That's the only one I am aware of.
5 Q. Do you know whether there has been any
6 kind of environmental audit or evaluation done of any
7 problems related to the former NIKE missile site?
8 A. Do you mean a -- if you mean a survey of
9 the facilities for toxics and things like that, I
10 don't know if any detailed testing was done or not.
11 That came into the hands of the park Service sometime
12 ago.
13 But I do know we routinely inspect our own
14 operations and develop facilities for the presence or
15 indicators for those kinds of problems.
16 Q. Who is in charge of the Hole-in-the-Donut
17 mitigation effort?
18 A. Again, the Research Center staff is
19 involved in that, but the person who is most
20 knowledgeable and in charge of the pursuit of that
21 particular project is the acting assistant research
22 director, Bob Doren.
23 Q. Just to finish up that area, I think you
24 stated that this project will be commencing shortly?
25 A. We ought to clarify what we mean by the
307
1 project will be commencing shortly.
2 My understanding is that Dade County has
3 agreed to provide funding from funds they have
4 received for wetlands mitigation and have determined
5 that -- they apparently determined that this is one
6 of the most viable mitigation projects in Dade County
7 based on the testing lots that have been done in the
8 area and that beginning in June of this coming year
9 it is my understanding that they plan to make, begin
10 to make funds available to the National Park Service
11 to start to mitigate this area.
12 Q. Do you know what the total estimated cost
13 of the mitigation is?
14 A. Not precisely. I do know that the entire
15 mitigation project would be in excess of $50 million.
16 Q. Five-zero?
17 A. Yes. It may be in the $70 million range.
18 Again, I don't know precisely. I would say 50 to
19 $100 million range is certainly a fair
20 characterization.
21 Q. This is an area of approximately 5,000
22 acres?
23 A. 4 to 5,000 acres, yes.
24 Q. Where does the park get its drinking water
25 from?
308
1 A. Wells.
2 Q. Wells within the park?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is there a division of the park staff that
5 samples the quality of that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who would that be?
8 A. I believe that's under the supervision of
9 our maintenance division, our facility management and
10 maintenance division.
11 Q. Do you know how many wells there are and
12 where they are located?
13 A. I don't know how many wells there are in
14 the park but there are wells associated with every
15 built up complex we have in the park with the
16 possible exception of Everglades City.
17 Q. Can you give me the name of someone in the
18 maintenance department or division who would have
19 some knowledge about the drinking water wells and
20 monitoring that is done on those?
21 A. The chief of the division is Andy
22 Anderson.
23 Q. Does the park have, for lack of a better
24 term, an environmental compliance officer responsible
25 for ensuring compliance with federal and state
309
1 environmental statutes, water and other statutes?
2 A. If you are referring to environmental
3 conditions relating to public health --
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. -- the National Park Service funds a
6 series of positions, public health service positions
7 who provide oversight and direction to us on
8 environmental matters related to public health, and
9 they do periodic inspections of park facilities.
10 Q. And these are positions funded by the park
11 Service for the purpose of providing these inspection
12 and compliance reviews to the parks?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Is there a particular individual
15 responsible for Everglades National Park?
16 A. There is a particular individual
17 responsible for the southeast region of the National
18 Park Service.
19 Q. Who is that?
20 A. His name is Ron Speedy.
21 Q. S P E E D Y?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And he is located in Atlanta?
24 A. I believe so.
25 MS. PONZOLI: Off the record.
310
1 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
2 after which the following proceedings
3 were had)
4 MR. GAINES: Back on the record.
5 BY MR. GAINES:
6 Q. Superintendent Ring, can you tell me the
7 name of someone who would be the most knowledgeable
8 on the park staff about the impacts of hydroperiod on
9 Park wildlife?
10 A. I would refer you to Dr. Soukup. We have
11 a number of people looking at biological conditions
12 associated with various factors throughout the park.
13 There may be more than one individual who could
14 address that on our research center staff.
15 Q. Are you able to speak with any specialist
16 on the impacts of hydroperiod on wildlife?
17 A. I have certainly some understanding of
18 those issues but again I have not proceeded to a
19 point where I have been given a detailed briefing on
20 resource conditions in the park and effects and
21 issues associated with that.
22 Q. The same question, who would be the most
23 knowledgeable people or person with regard to the
24 infestation of exotic plant species, Melaleucca,
25 Brazilian pepper, et cetera?
311
1 A. Again, I would refer you to Mike Soukup as
2 the research director but also his assistant, Bob
3 Doren, is probably next to Mike the next most
4 knowledgeable individual on the exotics issue.
5 Q. Have you been made aware of a dispute
6 between the park and the Fish and Wildlife Service
7 over, concerning the snail kite, the Everglades kite
8 related to water delivery modifications to the park?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell me what that dispute is?
11 A. My understanding is that the US Fish and
12 Wildlife Service has responsibility to evaluate any
13 proposed projects insofar as they may affect a
14 threatened endangered species that are federally
15 listed, that the general design memorandum undertaken
16 by the Corps of Engineers for the modified water
17 deliveries to principally Shark Slough had to be
18 reviewed in that context and that the Fish and
19 Wildlife Service or some members of the Fish and
20 Wildlife Service from the office responsible for
21 evaluating the project felt there would be an adverse
22 effect on the kite.
23 Q. Do you know what their worry was, their
24 concerns were about how it would affect a kite?
25 A. I do not know the details.
312
1 Q. Is that currently still an issue?
2 A. I believe there was a discussion as it
3 proceeded was that it wasn't the structural changes
4 to the water delivery system proposed by the GDM that
5 would have a trigger effect on the species, but any
6 revised schedule of water deliveries. And as a
7 result it was agreed to address it in terms of a
8 judgment in that context and that there was
9 significant discussion about what additional research
10 needed to be undertaken in order to have a reasonable
11 framework from which to make that judgment at that
12 time.
13 And I believe there was also some
14 relatively high level discussions and commitments on
15 the part of the National Park Service and the US Fish
16 and Wildlife Service to find a way to avoid -- not
17 avoid but find a better way to evaluate project
18 effects on threatened and endangered species in the
19 context of entire ecosystem rather than in isolated
20 locales and specific species.
21 Q. In other words, they were, the Fish and
22 Wildlife was focusing in on the effects of the snail
23 kite in WCA-3 rather than considering the entire
24 system in all species involved?
25 A. We felt that the scope of the projects was
313
1 such that it was going to have broader systemic
2 effects and conceivably affect in a beneficial way a
3 variety of different endangered species, and to view
4 the project and the proposed actions in the context
5 of a single species and a single locale was far too
6 limiting a way to look at its effects under the
7 Endangered Species Act.
8 The US Fish and Wildlife Service has
9 agreed with that in principle.
10 Q. We talked before about cattail areas in
11 the park that you had observed. Have you achieved
12 any level of knowledge or understanding at this point
13 of cattail areas outside the park in the WCAs and
14 Loxahatchee?
15 A. I have personally observed significantly
16 intrusive communities of cattails within the
17 Loxahatchee Refuge.
18 Q. Can you recall where in Loxahatchee you
19 saw that, what area?
20 A. Just inside its boundaries from the
21 northern end down the western side to its southern
22 end, primarily.
23 Q. From the northern end of Loxahatchee all
24 the way down the western boundary to the southern
25 end?
314
1 A. Yes. I believe there is intrusion along
2 the eastern side as well associated with the
3 proximity to the canals surrounding the Refuge.
4 Q. Can you tell me who would be most familiar
5 with the species composition of periphyton inside the
6 park?
7 A. I would refer you to Dr. Soukup.
8 Q. Are you familiar with that topic?
9 A. To a limited degree.
10 Q. What can you tell me about it?
11 A. About --
12 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form of the
13 question.
14 Q. What is your knowledge of the species
15 composition of the periphyton community?
16 A. Of the species composition?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I am aware of the presence of the
19 periphyton community and that it is a community that
20 is significantly affected by altered nutrient levels.
21 Periphyton communities are typical of an
22 oligotrophic or nutrient poor marsh system which the
23 Everglades is. And they play a dynamic and important
24 role in the biotic community that naturally occur in
25 the system.
315
1 Q. Who would be your staff person with the
2 best knowledge of the water quality of the inflows
3 into the park?
4 A. I would refer to you to Dr. Soukup and
5 maybe several folks on the research staff that have
6 knowledge bearing on that.
7 Q. What current requirements are there in
8 effect or standards in effect for the water quality
9 of inflows into the park as you under it?
10 A. There would be standards for water
11 established under the Clean Water Act and established
12 under state law.
13 My understanding is that the waters are
14 classified as ONRW, which is outstanding natural
15 resource waters.
16 My understanding of that designation is
17 that they are placed under a category of protection
18 which is basically an antidegradation protection.
19 Q. Are you familiar with a document known as
20 the memorandum of agreement concerning water quality
21 standards with regard to the park?
22 A. I guess not.
23 Q. I guess you don't know then if it is still
24 in effect or not if you are not familiar with it.
25 A. Right.
316
1 Q. Are you familiar with rainfall chemistry
2 in the park?
3 A. I have an awareness of ambient rainfall
4 composition with regards to presence of nutrients and
5 particularly phosphorus and that those are extremely
6 low.
7 Q. When you say extremely low, are you aware
8 of any testing that has been done in the park that
9 has established the phosphorus content of rainfall?
10 A. I am not specifically aware of testing
11 activity that has occurred.
12 Q. Do you know whether the phosphorus
13 concentrations called for in the SWIM plan for entry
14 into the park contain more or less phosphorus than
15 rainfall?
16 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form.
17 A. My general understanding is that they
18 contain more phosphorus than the naturally occurring
19 ambient water conditions within the park.
20 Q. What about with regard to rainfall?
21 A. My understanding is that the rainfall
22 naturally occurring over the Everglades is extremely
23 low in phosphorus content and as a result would be
24 lower than the level set. But that is the general
25 understanding I have based on briefings I have been
317
1 given.
2 Q. And these would be, any particular
3 briefings that you are thinking of or just in
4 general?
5 A. Just in general.
6 MR. GAINES: Off the record.
7 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
8 after which the following proceedings
9 were had)
10 MR. GAINES: Back on the record.
11 BY MR. GAINES:
12 Q. Going back to the resource management
13 plan, looking at project statement sheet No. 005, do
14 you recognize this particular project?
15 A. I'm not familiar with this project
16 specifically.
17 Q. So you wouldn't know whether or not this
18 has gone forward?
19 A. I would say based on its presence in this
20 document dating from the time of this draft in an
21 unfunded condition I would be surprised if it had
22 gone forward, but I don't know.
23 Q. We had a long discussion before about
24 there might be projects ongoing that you aren't aware
25 of.
318
1 A. Yes, but -- yes, I don't know.
2 Q. This project as I look at it relates to
3 rare and endangered plants.
4 Is that a -- I was going to say are there
5 a large number of endangered plants but that doesn't
6 make any sense internally.
7 Is this a significant problem in the park?
8 A. Well, our understanding on the presence,
9 the extent and the threat to endangered species
10 whether they be plant or animal is a matter of some
11 concern to us. I think in terms of understanding the
12 ecology associated with those plants only through
13 this kind of an effort can we understand how many
14 problems we have to deal with in trying to protect
15 them.
16 Q. This project sheet, statement sheet states
17 that there is no baseline information on the
18 distribution or ecology of rare and endangered and
19 endemic species and that very little work has been
20 done regarding their habitat requirements and
21 autecology of these important species or on the
22 effects of habitat manipulation, hydrology and fire.
23 Is that a true statement as far as you
24 understand it?
25 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
319
1 A. As far as I understand it, it is an
2 accurate characterization of our situation in terms
3 of resource data and understanding.
4 Q. The project after this, 006, relates to
5 exotic plant control and specifically Casuarina, if I
6 am pronounsing it correctly?
7 A. Casuarina.
8 Q. And there is a statement in here that the
9 most successful strategy for controlling the spread
10 of exotics is herbicide treatment, treatment spraying
11 with chemicals. Is that done inside the park,
12 spraying exotics with chemical herbicides?
13 A. Treatment with chemicals?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Spraying implies a method of treatment
16 that is not always used.
17 Q. Yes, that's correct, strike the reference
18 to spraying, just treatment with chemicals.
19 A. Chemical treatment of exotics and other
20 problematic plants and animal pests is a recognized
21 and accepted method when and where it is found to be
22 necessary and unavoidable.
23 Q. Are you aware whether that type of
24 treatment of exotics is ongoing in the park?
25 A. I know that there have been control
320
1 activities that have attempted to use a variety of
2 means to evaluate their effectiveness some of them
3 involving the use of chemicals.
4 Q. Who would be involved in those efforts?
5 A. Again, on the exotics, I would refer you
6 to certainly Mike Soukup, Dr. Soukup, but also
7 assistant director Bob Doren. And I would add that
8 any use of chemical pesticides within the National
9 Park Service is tightly controlled through what we
10 refer to as an integrated pest management program.
11 Q. What does that mean, integrated pest
12 management program?
13 A. It is a program that has several key
14 components. One is that a process be undertaken that
15 assures that the, that the pest in question is not
16 something that can simply be lived with or handled in
17 a mechanical or natural means that avoids the use of
18 chemical applications, and if it cannot be avoided,
19 that the type of chemical utilized, the method of
20 application and the volume and frequency of treatment
21 is carefully reviewed and kept limited to that which
22 is the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the
23 task.
24 And the approval of such applications
25 requires a submission of a request into an approval
321
1 by our program managers in Washington for each
2 application.
3 Q. And that is done through the Research
4 Center?
5 A. Correct. They have responsibility for the
6 handling the IPM program for the park.
7 Q. Let's turn to the next project, 007.
8 Q. This is entitled Water Quality and
9 Vegetation Changes, and states in the problem
10 statement here that the possible effects of nutrient
11 enrichment particularly phosphorus on vegetation
12 community and species structure became an issue
13 because of the federal water quality lawsuit.
14 Is that accurate to your way of thinking,
15 that that is why that became an issue?
16 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
17 A. I don't know if it became an issue because
18 of the water quality lawsuit but it certainly became
19 an increased focus of concern stemming from the
20 conflicts associated with the lawsuit, with the
21 litigation.
22 Q. Under recommended action it states, "This
23 project was established to determine if there was a
24 relationship to vegetation changes and nutrient
25 enrichment in several areas that were presumed to be
322
1 impacted by increased levels of phosphorus."
2 Do you know what areas are referred to
3 there?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know whether this project received
6 funding and commenced?
7 A. No.
8 Q. It also states, "This project is designed
9 to provide detailed vegetation maps of each
10 vegetation transect, to coincide with the
11 quantitative vegetation data."
12 Are there such detailed vegetation maps
13 that have been produced?
14 A. I don't specifically know.
15 Q. Have you seen such any such maps?
16 A. I believe I have seen some maps which were
17 produced for possible use as exhibits during the
18 federal litigation. I also believe those may have
19 been provided under discovery.
20 Q. When I used the word produced a minute
21 ago, I didn't mean in the discovery sense.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I mean created. Did you understand that?
24 A. Right, I understood the distinction.
25 Q. Do you know whether any maps, vegetation
323
1 maps of the park have been produced or created in
2 connection with the University of Georgia?
3 A. No.
4 Q. There is a reference here at the end of
5 recommended action, it says, "incorporate digitized
6 photography into Park GIS." Tell me what that means.
7 A. I would assume that means any aerial
8 photography that shows vegetative type and cover be
9 digitized and be entered into the park GIS system for
10 future mapping and analysis.
11 Q. What does the GIS stand for?
12 A. It is a geobased information system,
13 basically it is a combination of computer hardware
14 and software that will map in great detail a variety
15 of data with its spatial relationship to other data
16 and provide the capability to develop comparisons and
17 analyses of a variety of data bases in a geographic
18 format.
19 Q. And the initials GIS, what do they stand
20 for?
21 A. Geobased information system.
22 Q. Geobased?
23 A. Yes, or geographic information system,
24 both terms are used.
25 Q. Is this a relatively new technology?
324
1 A. It is technology that has been around
2 certainly for a decade and has developed in terms of
3 sophistication capability through that time.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Let's look at the next one, 008. By the
6 way, when you see the initials EVER or the word EVER
7 in all caps does that mean Everglades National Park?
8 A. Yes, within the National Park Service
9 every park has a four letter acronym and that is
10 ours.
11 Q. The first sentence there under the problem
12 statement it says, "Everglades National Park does not
13 have a set of vegetation maps both current and past
14 for research and resource management needs."
15 Is that still the case as far as you
16 understand?
17 A. I would assume so. I don't know
18 specifically.
19 Q. Are you aware of any set of vegetation
20 maps that the park has for research and resource
21 management needs?
22 A. I am aware that we have some vegetation
23 data. Some of that may be mapped. I think that
24 there is no comprehensive set of vegetation maps for
25 the park.
325
1 Q. Further down in the problem statement it
2 says, "Long-term vegetation changes as they relate to
3 hydrology, fire and climate are unknown. In order to
4 relate these continuing changes to effects on
5 fisheries, wildlife, exotic plant and animal invasion
6 endangered species, water quality and quantity
7 requirements and global climate change we need a
8 detailed and comprehensive historical and current
9 vegetation map."
10 Would you agree with that statement?
11 A. I would defer to the research staff.
12 Q. Dr. Soukup?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Have you been advised by Dr. Soukup or
15 anyone else on your staff that the park does not have
16 sufficient vegetation maps to analyze the types of
17 changes referred to here?
18 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form. I think
19 it assumes things that have not been put in the
20 record.
21 A. I think Dr. Soukup has advised me about a
22 number of areas where more knowledge and research is
23 necessary. I think by its very nature the presence
24 of these project statements in a resource management
25 plan identify a need for additional work on the part
326
1 of his staff.
2 Q. I think earlier when we were talking about
3 the cattail growth that you observed south of the
4 S-12s, I believe you testified that that had not been
5 quantified as far as you were aware. Is that
6 correct?
7 A. I've not seen any information that
8 quantifies that.
9 Q. Do you know when or have you been advised
10 when cattails first appeared south of the S-12
11 structures?
12 A. No.
13 Q. The problem statement here goes on and
14 states, "No previous work has been done to create a
15 detailed map. However, current work is under way in
16 cooperation with the South Florida Water Management
17 District to produce a landscape scale vegetation map
18 of the entire Everglades area."
19 Are you aware of that work that is
20 referred to there?
21 A. Not in specifics.
22 Q. Do you have any idea who is working on
23 that other than Dr. Soukup and his staff?
24 A. It would be someone on Dr. Soukup's staff.
25 Q. Have you seen such a landscape scale
327
1 vegetation map?
2 A. No.
3 Q. In 009, which again deals with Casuarina
4 control in the southeastern part of the park, there
5 is a statement at the bottom of the problem
6 statement, "Casuarina fixes nitrogen in normally pool
7 soils and has the potential to change the nutrient
8 regime over large areas."
9 Have you ever discussed that issue with
10 your staff?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Have you ever been made aware of the
13 contents of that statement?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you have any knowledge about that
16 issue?
17 A. No.
18 MS. PONZOLI: What number are we on now,
19 counsel?
20 MR. GAINES: 011.
21 BY MR. GAINES:
22 Q. In project No. 011 relating to the
23 long-term contaminants monitoring program, there is a
24 statement that the park has no systematic program for
25 determining the types and amounts of contaminants in
328
1 the park.
2 Is that accurate to the best of your
3 knowledge?
4 MS. PONZOLI: May I hear the question
5 again? I am sorry.
6 (The question referred to was
7 thereupon read by the reporter
8 as above recorded)
9 MS. PONZOLI: Where are you, counselor?
10 Where did you find that statement? I am having
11 trouble finding it.
12 MR. GAINES: It is the very first
13 statement, I just said the park instead of EVER.
14 MS. PONZOLI: Thank you.
15 A. I have no idea whether that is accurate or
16 not.
17 BY MR. GAINES:
18 Q. It also states that there have been,
19 paraphrasing, there have been various contaminants
20 and usually in insignificant amounts periodically in
21 the past, that recent exceptions have been reports of
22 mercury concentrations high enough to be considered a
23 public health threat and gradually increasing
24 concentrations of agricultural runoff substances,
25 phosphates and nitrates, capable of causing
329
1 nutrification of natural marshes, and then it
2 concludes the actual extent and characteristics of
3 contaminant problems in the park are unknown.
4 Do you agree with that last sentence, the
5 extent and characteristics of contaminant problems in
6 the park are unknown?
7 A. I would certainly agree that our knowledge
8 of the full extent and characteristics of all
9 contaminant problems in the park are not complete.
10 But whether or not -- but I also would assume that we
11 have data on the extent and characteristics of some
12 contaminant problems.
13 Q. What about agricultural runoff, or more
14 precisely, what about phosphorus entering the park.
15 Do you feel that the extent and characteristics of
16 that problem are sufficiently known?
17 A. I know that there is data on it. Whether
18 or not it is sufficient to our purposes and needs, I
19 don't know. It may be.
20 Q. The next project is 012 and it addresses
21 hydrological monitoring and data management.
22 With regard to the federal project, the
23 Central and South Florida Flood Control Project, do
24 you have an understanding of the currently in effect
25 goals of that project?
330
1 A. What is the section you are looking at
2 here?
3 Q. I am not looking at any particular section
4 in this. It just triggered it in my mind. It
5 relates to the project.
6 A. I am sorry, then. If you weren't
7 referring -- I assumed you were referring to language
8 here in the statement.
9 Q. I am sorry.
10 A. Could I go ahead and have that last
11 statement read back.
12 (The question referred to was
13 thereupon read by the reporter
14 as above recorded)
15 A. I have a general understanding of the
16 goals of the project.
17 Q. Can you tell me what that understanding
18 is?
19 A. Basically to provide for a management
20 system that achieves several purposes for Central and
21 South Florida including flood control and water
22 supply, environmental needs.
23 Q. Any other goals?
24 A. I think economic activity which would
25 include agriculture on one of them. I am not sure.
331
1 Q. It is your understanding that
2 environmental needs is one of the stated goals of the
3 project?
4 A. In briefings I have had with the Corps of
5 Engineers I understand that it is one of their
6 objectives in projects associated with the project.
7 Q. Have you ever analyzed or read the
8 legislation surrounding the federal project to
9 determine for yourself what the stated goals are?
10 A. No, I have not.
11 Q. On this project that we are, in the small
12 P project, 012, are you aware as to whether the
13 hydrological monitoring and data management project
14 referenced here was funded or has commenced?
15 A. I believe there is a lot of hydrological
16 work going on at this point by our staff associated
17 particularly with modified water deliveries in the
18 project at the C-111 basin.
19 Q. This particular project as described here
20 appeared to call for some extensive monitoring at a
21 number of sites of rainfall, inflows, discharges,
22 evaporation and is budgeted here over a four year
23 period starting at $171,000 and gradually increasing
24 to $193,000 a year with three to four FTE units per
25 year.
332
1 This would appear to me to be a major
2 monitoring effort. Would that be an accurate
3 assessment of that?
4 A. I would say significant.
5 Q. Do you know whether that, this particular
6 effort as described in this project statement has
7 commenced or been approved?
8 A. I know there is a significant amount of
9 activity associated with hydrological monitoring and
10 modeling. Whether it is an outgrowth of this project
11 statement or associated with other projects, I am not
12 sure I can tell you.
13 Q. Is this another question for the research
14 staff and Dr. Soukup?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Turn over, if you will, sir, to project
17 No. 019 which is entitled Followup Shark Slough
18 Nutrient Dosing Study.
19 Are you familiar with a study known as the
20 dosing study?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell me what that is?
23 A. It is an effort being undertaken under the
24 oversight of the technical oversight committee under
25 the settlement agreement.
333
1 Q. The settlement agreement in the federal
2 lawsuit?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And the technical oversight committee, or
5 the TOC I guess it is referred to --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- who from the park participates in the
8 TOC?
9 A. Dr. Soukup is my representative on the
10 TOC.
11 Q. What is your understanding of the function
12 of the TOC?
13 A. Its function is as spelled out under the
14 settlement agreement.
15 Q. Have you read the settlement agreement?
16 A. Yes, I have.
17 Q. I just want to know what your
18 understanding is of what TOC does and what its
19 functions are.
20 A. They provide technical oversight to the,
21 to matters pertaining to the settlement agreement and
22 implementation of it on behalf of several principal
23 parties to the agreement.
24 Q. And the dosing study, can you tell me how
25 that fits into TOC's function and the issues related
334
1 to the settlement agreement?
2 A. My understanding is that the dosing study
3 is an attempt to learn a good deal more about the
4 long-term effects of increased levels of phosphorus
5 and nitrates in various locations in the Everglades
6 where variations in soil type, hydroperiod,
7 biological communities occur.
8 Q. Can you tell me what the setup is of that
9 study?
10 A. No, I can't, as I believe that is still in
11 process of being designed.
12 Q. Are you familiar with the dosing study
13 that was conducted back in the eighties, early
14 eighties, '83, '84?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is the dosing study that you are talking
17 about TOC is involved with part of the same study?
18 A. It is a similar type of study.
19 Q. As I understood the dosing study, there
20 was a dosing study conducted in the park in the
21 eighties where there were some channels constructed
22 and they are dosed with nutrients and some samples
23 were taken to determine what the effect was.
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Is the TOC dosing study being conducted at
335
1 the same site, same channels or is this a different
2 dosing study?
3 A. My understanding is that the dosing study
4 is one that will be done in a variety of locations.
5 Q. Not just a -- for example, this one, the
6 one we are looking at in 019 talks about followup to
7 the Shark Slough nutrient dosing study and it says
8 the proposed work will resample sites dosed with
9 dissolved phosphate and nitrate in 1983-84 by park
10 staff.
11 So I take it that this particular project
12 statement that we are looking at is a followup to the
13 previous study, resampling of the previous study
14 site?
15 A. That's what it seems to be.
16 Q. Are you familiar with that effort to
17 resample the prior dosing study?
18 A. I am familiar with that as the proposal,
19 yes.
20 Q. Do you know if that has been done or is in
21 the process of being done?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. You were also talking about a dosing study
24 at various locations in connection with TOC, is that
25 something aside from the followup to the old dosing
336
1 study, is that a new dosing study?
2 A. My understanding is that -- I guess my
3 understanding is that they are separate efforts.
4 They may have some coordination or overlap.
5 Q. Is Dr. Soukup involved in the TOC dosing
6 study?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know whether that has commenced?
9 A. I don't believe any field work has
10 commenced. I believe it is still being designed and
11 agreed to by the members of the TOC.
12 Q. As you understand the purpose of that
13 study, it is to determine or quantify in some way
14 what if any impact various nutrient concentrations
15 have on different habitat areas?
16 A. It is to learn more about those impacts.
17 Q. Has anyone ever discussed with you any
18 problems related to the methodology in the original
19 dosing study?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Have you heard any reference to the lack
22 of a control or proper control in that study?
23 A. Not that I specifically recall.
24 I do recall discussions with regards to
25 that dosing study, that reasonably typical to many
337
1 research projects was that the study itself as it was
2 designed and implemented has limitations and that the
3 data associated with it has to be evaluated in the
4 context of the work, the extent of work that was
5 done.
6 So I do recall a general discussion of
7 that nature. It doesn't apply to the project itself
8 as good or bad, you have to define parameters.
9 Q. Do you recall who you heard that from,
10 about the limitations to that study?
11 A. I don't recall specific conversations that
12 came up but I recall being part of the briefings I
13 have had associated with the research projects at the
14 park.
15 Q. Take a look at No. 24, please, project
16 statement sheet No. 24 entitled, Water Quality
17 Nutrient Trends, Origin Transport.
18 The problem statement next to the last
19 sentence states, "A thorough documentation of the
20 origin, transport and fate of these nutrients has not
21 been completed," referring to nutrients from upstream
22 agricultural activities.
23 Is that also your understanding, that a
24 thorough documentation of the origin transport and
25 fate of these nutrients hasn't been completed?
338
1 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
2 A. I think with all of these project
3 statements you have to keep in mind that they are
4 characterizations of long-term and comprehensive
5 needs in response to a variety of resource concerns
6 and conditions.
7 So in most cases the reference to lack of
8 systematic or comprehensive or sufficient work being
9 done is indicative of a need from the research affair
10 resource management staff that under best of all
11 conditions we would want to do a great deal more work
12 than we had been able to do to date.
13 Q. Are you aware of what documentation there
14 is that does exist on that issue, the issue being the
15 origin, transport and fate of the nutrients?
16 A. No, not specifically.
17 Q. Under recommended action about halfway
18 down it states, "The project will produce new
19 baseline information in areas of the park that have
20 not previously been sampled."
21 Do you know what areas that refers to?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you know what areas of the park have or
24 have not been sampled?
25 A. No.
339
1 Q. It also states, it says, "Nitrogen
2 isotopes and N:P ratios will be used to determine the
3 origin and transport of the nutrients found in the
4 park. This approach will tell us if these nutrients
5 were derived from rainfall, canal water, fertilizers,
6 soil or native biota."
7 Have you had discussions with your staff
8 or been exposed to the concept that nutrients found
9 in the park could potentially be derived from those
10 various sources?
11 A. I don't recall specific discussions with
12 them.
13 Q. Are you aware of this concept, that these
14 various, there are these various potential sources
15 for nutrients?
16 A. I am aware of a possibility of nutrients
17 coming from a variety of sources at any given time or
18 location.
19 Q. Do you know if this study has been
20 commenced or funded?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Do you feel that there is adequate
23 documentation of the fact that the nutrient levels
24 measured in inflows to the park from the S-12
25 structures emanate from the EAA?
340
1 A. My understanding is that there is adequate
2 indication of that.
3 Q. Are you familiar with what the substance
4 of that documentation is?
5 A. I am not familiar with the technical
6 details of the research.
7 Q. If in fact it was documented that the
8 source of the nutrient levels flowing into the park
9 came from some source other than the EAA, would that
10 give you concerns about the effectiveness or
11 appropriateness of the current SWIM plan?
12 A. I wouldn't want to speculate on that. It
13 would give me concerns with regards to whatever
14 source was identified.
15 Q. Would that trigger the type of inquiry you
16 mentioned yesterday that it would be your duty as
17 superintendent to undertake to ask sufficient
18 questions until you got to the bottom of it in order
19 to determine what was best for the park?
20 A. It would trigger a process of trying to
21 look into information that was presented.
22 Q. If you became convinced through your
23 review of documentation, your conferring with staff
24 and exposure to the whole body of information that is
25 brought to bear on these issues concerning water
341
1 quality and the SWIM plan, if you became convinced
2 that the contents of the SWIM plan are more
3 politically than scientifically motivated, what would
4 your reaction as superintendent of the park be to
5 that?
6 MS. PONZOLI: I am going to object to the
7 form of the question. I don't think it is a proper
8 hypothetical. I don't think you have laid the
9 foundation that you need to lay to have him answer
10 such a hypothetical.
11 You may answer if you can, Superintendent
12 Ring. I am not instructing you not to answer. I
13 just think it is a wholly improper question.
14 A. If I became convinced that scientific data
15 upon which -- that contributed to the position of the
16 park on a given issue or a decision by, on the part
17 of the park with regards to a particular action, I
18 would ask that our position or decision be
19 reassessed.
20 Q. Is it a fair statement that your goal and
21 your duty is to take whatever actions are the best
22 for the park based on the best information you have
23 available?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Let me ask you to turn to -- there is a
342
1 list after project statement 49 -- you have found it.
2 A. The last two pages of that section, three
3 or four pages of that section before the blue sheet.
4 Q. There is a list here entitled an
5 Incomplete List of Additional Unfunded Natural
6 Resource Management Projects.
7 Several of these I want to ask you whether
8 you know if they have been funded or commenced.
9 No. 53 there, document nutrient impacts
10 from Miccosukee Village, do you know whether that was
11 a project that was funded or commenced?
12 A. No, I don't. I assume not.
13 Q. Have you had any awareness or discussion
14 with staff concerning possible nutrient impacts from
15 the Miccosukee Village?
16 A. Nutrient impacts?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I don't believe I have had discussions
19 that specific.
20 Q. When you say not that specific, have you
21 ever considered that there may be nutrient impacts to
22 the park from activities in the Miccosukee Village?
23 A. In a general fashion I would -- I have
24 considered that there may be water related impacts
25 including water quality emanating from or
343
1 attributable to any developed use in and around the
2 park.
3 Q. Have you specifically related that to the
4 Miccosukees?
5 A. I would, insofar as nutrients go, I have
6 had no specific discussions about a particular
7 problem or issue, but I would generically consider it
8 a matter of concern along with any other developed
9 site inside the boundary of the park.
10 Q. No. 57 there, research phosphorus cycling
11 in the Everglades, do you know what the status of
12 that proposed project is?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are you aware of any research done by the
15 park staff on phosphorus cycling in the Everglades?
16 A. No.
17 Q. What about No. 65 there, monitor response
18 of vegetation to water quality, do you know what that
19 particular project is and whether or not it has gone
20 forward?
21 A. No and no.
22 Q. What about the followup question, also a
23 no, do you know of any research done by the Research
24 Center on the response of vegetation to water quality
25 other than the dosing study that we just talked
344
1 about?
2 A. No.
3 Thank you for helping me review this
4 draft.
5 Q. Now you have gotten your detailed review.
6 Have you had any discussions with staff
7 about the possible impact of hydroperiod changes on
8 the natural release of nutrients in the park?
9 A. Not that I specifically recall.
10 Q. Are you familiar with that concept, that
11 changes in hydroperiod, for example, during the dry
12 season, can trigger natural nutrient releases?
13 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
14 A. I've not really had any specific
15 discussions with regards to that.
16 Q. Do you have any awareness of any data or
17 research concerning nutrient content in soil content
18 in the park?
19 MS. PONZOLI: What was the question?
20 MR. GAINES: Any data or research done
21 concerning the soil nutrient content in the park.
22 MS. PONZOLI: Thank you.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do Park research personnel do studies
25 outside the park boundaries? I understand that they
345
1 are related to the four parks in South Florida but
2 other than that, do they go up to the WCAs or
3 Loxahatchee or other areas to do research?
4 A. Park researchers and park sponsored
5 researchers engage in research work outside of park
6 boundaries when there is a need to do so in relation
7 to issues of concern to the park and the appropriate
8 coordination and permission has been developed with
9 the appropriate governmental and land owning parties.
10 Q. Is there any such research ongoing at this
11 time that you are aware of in the WCAs or
12 Loxahatchee?
13 A. I believe we are working with the South
14 Florida Water Management District and the owners of
15 the frog pond area adjacent to the park in relation
16 to setting up some monitoring stations associated
17 with groundwater and surface water conditions in
18 different canal stages and hydrological regimes in
19 that area. I don't believe that work has begun. And
20 I believe it is under discussion with all the parties
21 involved.
22 Q. Is that water quality monitoring?
23 A. I believe it relates to hydrology.
24 Q. Do you feel that the SWIM plan adequately
25 deals with hydrology issues?
346
1 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the question,
2 counselor. You are asking for an opinion that we
3 have not offered Superintendent Ring to offer an
4 opinion at trial and I think he has indicated to you
5 that he has done only the most cursory glance at the
6 SWIM plan so it probably would be impossible to offer
7 such an opinion even if he did have expertise in that
8 area, which we have not offered as someone who does.
9 A. I'd offer one comment and that is that the
10 SWIM plan is one of many, of several processes and
11 decision making documents that the South Florida
12 Water Management District, that I understand the
13 South Florida Water Management District uses in
14 achieving its comprehensive management objectives and
15 taken together I think they are intended to deal
16 effectively with all aspects of those problems.
17 And I would offer for instance the lower
18 East Coast water supply and planning process that is
19 under way right now as a complementary component to
20 SWIM planning.
21 Q. Earlier in the deposition we spoke about
22 the specific external threats to the park which I
23 think is what you have been offered as an expert on.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And to paraphrase but not to quote you I
347
1 believe your answer was something along the lines of
2 exotic species is one and water problems is the other
3 and you included within that quantity, quality,
4 timing and distribution. And you had the main
5 problems to the park under those two categories.
6 Is that a statement of how you see the
7 threats to the park?
8 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form. His
9 answer stands for what it was. He doesn't need you,
10 counselor, to paraphrase after two full days of
11 interrogation.
12 I am not instructing him not to answer but
13 I am objecting to starting all over again of asking
14 questions that have been asked and answered
15 previously.
16 Q. You can answer.
17 A. I think that I believe I stated that those
18 two areas were probably the most significant areas of
19 concern amongst a variety of problems related to
20 environmental conditions resulting from alteration of
21 natural processes.
22 Q. Do you see issues related to quantity,
23 hydrology issues, hydroperiod, timing, distribution
24 of water, are they as significant a threat to the
25 health of the park as the water quality issues are?
348
1 A. They are inseparable from them. That's
2 why I characterize the water issue as a single issue.
3 Q. You see it as a serious single issue for
4 the park and you can't separate out to quality and
5 quantity and say one is more or less important than
6 the other?
7 A. No. They are components of the same issue
8 and all have to be addressed in order to effectively
9 deal with the water issue.
10 Q. On the dosing study we spoke about the
11 revisiting of the old dosing study. Is that Dr.
12 Soukup or Mr. Doren or do you know who is most
13 directly involved that?
14 A. I would refer you to Dr. Soukup with
15 regards to the dosing study.
16 Q. Is there any research going on currently
17 with regard to pesticides in the park or are you
18 aware of the existence of any data on that?
19 A. I am not aware of any ongoing research or
20 data with respect to that.
21 Q. We talked about the TOC before. Are you
22 familiar with the SAGE committee?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Does the park have a representative on the
25 SAGE committee?
349
1 A. Yes, we send representatives to SAGE
2 meetings.
3 Q. Is there a regular representative or
4 different people?
5 A. Dr. Soukup regularly attends.
6 Q. Any other park personnel that regularly
7 attends SAGE meetings?
8 A. There are other park personnel who attend
9 depending upon the topics being discussed.
10 Q. What is your understanding of the function
11 of the SAGE committee?
12 A. It is a creature of the South Florida
13 Water Management District board and it provides both
14 the staff and the board with a forum to discuss and
15 comment on scientific and technical matters related
16 to the Everglades.
17 Q. Do you understand the SAGE committee to
18 make recommendations to the board for possible
19 strategies in Everglades restoration?
20 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
21 A. I understand that the committee advises
22 the board on scientific and technical matters related
23 to the Everglades, as I just stated.
24 Q. How far reaching is the Everglades system?
25 Where does the system end and become part of some
350
1 other system, if you understand what I am saying?
2 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form of the
3 question. You are asking for an opinion in an area
4 that Superintendent Ring has not been offered as an
5 expert.
6 You may answer, Superintendent Ring,
7 however. I am not instructing you not to answer.
8 A. I would hesitate to give it a political
9 boundary.
10 Q. I was thinking more of a physical or
11 natural.
12 A. I suspect that depending upon how you are
13 defining the Everglades, in hydrological and
14 biological terms, you may get variation in terms of
15 precise boundaries.
16 Q. Would you consider Lake Okeechobee and the
17 Everglades to be part of the same hydrologic system?
18 MS. PONZOLI: Same ground, I object to the
19 question on the same grounds as previously objected.
20 A. I would consider Lake Okeechobee to be an
21 integral part of the historic Everglades system
22 hydrologically.
23 Q. Would you extend that above the lake to
24 the Kissimmee River?
25 MS. PONZOLI: Same objection.
351
1 Q. Its basin there.
2 A. I think there is a very distinct
3 relationship. I would not necessarily characterize
4 those two as the Everglades but they are part of the
5 same hydrological system.
6 Q. In the park itself, what are the major
7 types of vegetative communities that exist in the
8 park? For example, one is sawgrass marsh. Are there
9 other types of communities there?
10 A. Coastal mangrove community, island tree,
11 tree island hammocks, pine uplands, pine ridge.
12 Q. Do you know what percentage of the area of
13 the park is broken down into the various types of
14 communities there?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you know whether that type of analysis
17 has been done?
18 A. No. I would refer, however, you to the
19 park brochure where some of those communities are
20 mapped on a fairly gross scale, color coded.
21 Q. The area of the park that sits right up in
22 the central portion of Shark River Slough, is that
23 sawgrass marsh or some other type of community?
24 A. Yes, sawgrass, generally open sawgrass
25 marsh.
352
1 Q. Do you have enough familiarity with
2 nutrient levels to be able to tell me, for example,
3 what the current phosphorus concentration is for
4 water flowing into the park at the S-12 structures?
5 A. No, I don't.
6 Q. Are you aware of any water that drains
7 from western Broward County through WCA into the
8 park? Are you aware that that is a source of water
9 inflows into the park?
10 MS. PONZOLI: Through where, counselor?
11 MR. GAINES: Through the S-9 structure in
12 western Broward County into Conservation Area 3.
13 A. Not specifically.
14 Q. Do you have any general awareness that
15 among the waters flowing into the park are waters
16 emanating from western Broward County?
17 A. I have a general understanding that the
18 system is a highly manipulated one and that where
19 water comes from at any given time or location is
20 based on the implementation of operational plans and
21 actions.
22 Q. But you haven't specifically focused in on
23 waters coming in from western Broward?
24 A. I personally have not.
25 Q. We talked yesterday about some of the
353
1 results or effects of Hurricane Andrew. Was there
2 any data, research data, computer files or anything
3 of that nature lost as a result of the hurricane?
4 A. There were records damaged, water damaged,
5 largely, as a result of the hurricane.
6 Q. Do you know whether those have been able
7 to be recovered?
8 MS. PONZOLI: I object to form.
9 A. I can tell you what has been done with
10 them.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. A team of archivists and curators were
13 brought in as part of the emergency recovery effort
14 to locate and protect any and all records and
15 documents we deemed important including research and
16 resource data records, and in the case of records
17 that were significantly water damaged, they were
18 carefully loaded into a refrigeration truck and
19 frozen, shipped to a qualified contractor and
20 subjected to a freeze drying process in order to
21 arrest the damage and remove the moisture.
22 Q. Do you know whether those efforts were
23 successful?
24 A. They were frozen, they were dried and many
25 of them have been returned into the park's custody.
354
1 Q. Are you aware as to whether any records
2 were permanently lost as a result of Andrew?
3 A. That remains to be seen. In terms of
4 records blowing away so that we can't find them, no,
5 I think there was very little of that.
6 In terms of lost, i.e., beyond salvage for
7 useful purposes, some of the water damaged and freeze
8 dried records still may require extensive and
9 professional salvage efforts in order to separate
10 them and recover them into a condition that may be in
11 any way usable.
12 Q. Does there exist an inventory of what
13 records were affected by the hurricane or a list of
14 what was shipped out?
15 A. Well, I think there was a general
16 understanding of how many lumps and piles were sent.
17 But if you are asking for a listing of specific
18 documents when we couldn't identify them separately
19 given their condition, the answer is no.
20 Q. Is there going to be a section on that
21 kind of a topic in Dr. Davis' report that is being
22 prepared about the impacts of the hurricane or is
23 that a separate issue?
24 A. I would assume that Dr. Davis' report
25 would not address that particular issue. They are
355
1 not treated as Park resources so much as they are
2 critical records.
3 Q. Are you aware of the extent of the
4 Brazilian pepper infestation problem in the park?
5 A. Generally, yes.
6 Q. Where does that occur generally?
7 A. Certainly in the Hole-in-the-Donut,
8 definitely on the, as you approach the mangrove
9 communities towards Flamingo on the main Park road.
10 Those are the two key areas that I am aware of.
11 There are others.
12 Q. Brazilian pepper is an exotic that invades
13 mangrove communities, as I understand?
14 A. Yes, it can. It can invade a number of
15 different locales and communities.
16 Q. Is Brazilian pepper to your knowledge,
17 does that have any association with increased
18 nutrient levels?
19 A. I believe it may. I believe that the
20 critical issues have to do with soil elevation, the
21 presence of soil, disturbance of that soil and the
22 hydroperiod.
23 Q. What about Melaleucca, is that also a
24 problem in the park?
25 A. Extremely so.
356
1 Q. Is that a more significant problem than
2 the Brazilian pepper? Is there more of an area of
3 Melaleucca infestation than Brazilian pepper?
4 A. I would say Brazilian pepper and
5 Melaleucca are on a par in terms of their being tied
6 at the top of the list as exotic problems.
7 Q. And what is your understanding of the
8 conditions favorable to Melaleucca encroachment?
9 A. Water tolerant and longer hydroperiod
10 conditions are -- don't seem to bother Melaleucca at
11 all. In fact, it uses enormous quantities of water.
12 It seems to be attracted by it.
13 Q. What species does Melaleucca displace?
14 A. Darn near everything.
15 Q. Sawgrass, just whatever native vegetation
16 there is, Melaleucca will take over and push out?
17 A. It will push out just about all the forms
18 of vegetation creating very, very dense groves with
19 very close canopy.
20 MR. GAINES: Let's mark this as Exhibit 7.
21 (A two-page document, the first page
22 handwritten, the second page addressed to Mr.
23 Tidwell, was marked Ring Deposition Exhibit 7 for
24 identification)
25 BY MR. GAINES:
357
1 Q. Exhibit 7 is a handwritten note to you
2 from Mike Soukup which to me looks like it says, this
3 is a draft of the TOC invitation to EPA, any
4 comments, we need quick response, thanks, with the
5 initial M.
6 A. It took me several attempts but that's how
7 I read it too.
8 Q. Took me several also.
9 Do you recognize that and the attached
10 letter?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me what that was all about?
13 A. That was Mike's asking me to concur in his
14 desire to have the TOC invite the Environmental
15 Protection Agency to participate as a cooperator in a
16 specific project that TOC was negotiating to
17 undertake.
18 Q. Did you have any comments for him on the
19 letter?
20 A. I basically told him I had no problems
21 with it going out. I understood that the invitation
22 was to participate in the project being described.
23 Q. Do you know what became of this? Do you
24 know when did this occur? I don't see a date on the
25 letter.
358
1 A. I think you will see -- it is an
2 interesting date up there, 3/20/14. This was very
3 recent. This was in the last couple of months. My
4 understanding is that the communication of such a
5 request either has gone or is about to go and if it
6 has gone I am not aware of EPA's response.
7 Q. Among the documents that you produced to
8 us were some correspondence concerning a request from
9 Mr. Jones, Durand Jones, to be recused from
10 participation or involvement with the litigation as a
11 result of his sister who is an attorney being
12 involved with some aspect of the case. Do you recall
13 that?
14 A. Yes.
15 MS. PONZOLI: Counselor, may I have a
16 moment to speak with my client, please?
17 MR. GAINES: Okay.
18 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
19 after which the following proceedings
20 were had)
21 BY MR. GAINES:
22 Q. Has Mr. Jones remained uninvolved with the
23 litigation pursuant to your instructions to him in
24 the documents that you provided to us as far as you
25 know?
359
1 A. Well, I would respond by saying that those
2 documents were not intended to be turned over as part
3 of the discovery. They are a matter of my
4 supervision of subordinate employees and pertain to
5 matters which are typically confidential and private
6 between employees.
7 MS. PONZOLI: I think the request would
8 be, counselor, that you return them.
9 MR. GAINES: Are you asserting a privilege
10 of some type with regard to those documents?
11 MS. PONZOLI: I think the only privilege
12 that Superintendent Ring and I are aware exists is a
13 privacy privilege to Mr. Jones as part of his private
14 files and I don't think they were really considered
15 to be litigation related in the sense that they had
16 anything to do with the issues that your client is
17 concerned about.
18 MR. GAINES: Let me just leave it with the
19 question:
20 BY MR. GAINES:
21 Q. Have you had any further problems or any
22 problems with regard to this issue?
23 A. I never had the first problem with regards
24 to that issue. And Mr. Jones has done everything I
25 have asked and expected of him.
360
1 Q. Including what you asked of him to do in
2 this exchange?
3 A. That and far more.
4 Before leaving that, what would be your
5 intention with regards to those documents?
6 Q. I would like to think about it. I don't
7 intend to make them an exhibit to this deposition,
8 more likely than not I will return them to you. I
9 would just like to have a little time to think about
10 it the way Ms. Ponzoli had some time at lunch to
11 think about her issue.
12 A. Certainly. Thank you.
13 MR. GAINES: Exhibit 8.
14 (A multi-page document, the top page
15 containing the date June 29, 1992 was marked Ring
16 Deposition Exhibit 8 for identification)
17 BY MR. GAINES:
18 Q. Do you recognize the documents which
19 constitute Exhibit 8?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you tell me what this exchange of
22 correspondence and the attached handwritten note
23 relate to?
24 A. They relate to a request by the Miccosukee
25 tribe for funding assistance from the Secretary of
361
1 the Interior to support research and legal expenses
2 associated with their role in the litigation and
3 settlement agreement.
4 Q. What was your understanding of what kind
5 of assistance they were seeking?
6 A. Financial.
7 Q. Is the draft budget that is attached here
8 as the last page of this exhibit, that is the amount
9 that the Miccosukees were seeking?
10 A. That is my understanding.
11 Q. And then --
12 A. I believe that amount is referred to in
13 the, on the first page of the letter to Secretary
14 Lujan dated June 24.
15 You are correct.
16 Q. The routing request and handwritten notes
17 on the last page, is that a note from you to Dr.
18 Soukup?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you just read that for me, what it
21 says?
22 A. "Mike, what should we tell the Secretary's
23 office about this request if asked?" And it has a
24 check mark under the box, "review with me."
25 Q. Are you left-handed?
362
1 A. Yes, and proud of it.
2 Q. Me too.
3 Are you able to read Dr. Soukup's note
4 back to you?
5 A. Again, after several attempts, I
6 understand it to read, "Dick, we should support the
7 request if asked. They are moving strongly on WQ,"
8 water quality, "issues and more technical presence
9 could be helpful. The caveat is that this seems a
10 bit high in cost (includes some extras) but DOI
11 should bargain with them. Gene Duncan sits on SAGE
12 for them and is doing a fine job. I keep them (him)
13 apprised (Sporadically) of TOC developments and they
14 seem comfortable so far with not being on the TOC."
15 And then it is initialed by Mike dated
16 7/14/92.
17 Q. Do you know whatever became of this
18 request by the Miccosukees? And did the secretary's
19 office ever ask you about it?
20 A. I don't know what final action has
21 occurred. I do know that I have been asked for my
22 recommendations by the Washington staff of the
23 National Park Service. I discussed the matter with
24 our Interior solicitor and I have discussed the
25 matter with staff in the immediate office of the
363
1 Secretary of the Interior.
2 Q. Did you advise them that you supported the
3 request?
4 A. I advised them that I supported the
5 Department of the Interior providing financial
6 support to the Miccosukee tribe and that I felt that
7 it should be handled through the Bureau of Indian
8 Affairs, as part of the secretary's trust
9 responsibilities toward the Miccosukee tribe.
10 Q. Do you know what Dr. Soukup meant when he
11 said they are moving strongly on water quality issues
12 and more technical presence would be helpful?
13 A. My understanding is that they were
14 expressing a good deal of interest in looking into
15 water quality conditions and issues that were of
16 concern to them and were requesting assistance to
17 carry through with that.
18 Q. And when it says, more technical presence
19 would be helpful, what does that part of the phrase
20 mean or that part of the sentence, if you know?
21 A. I understood that to mean that it would be
22 more helpful for the Miccosukee tribe to ascertain
23 and articulate their own concerns in a more detailed
24 technical fashion, that their ability to do so would
25 be helpful to us in understanding and addressing
364
1 those concerns on TOC and in pursuit of implementing
2 the settlement agreement.
3 MR. GAINES: That's all I have.
4 You have the right to read the deposition
5 after it has been transcribed or you can waive that
6 right.
7 MS. PONZOLI: He will read, Superintendent
8 Ring will read.
9 MR. GAINES: Does not waive. Thank you
10 very much
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 (Thereupon, the taking of the
13 deposition was concluded)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
365
1 I, RICHARD GETTINGS RING, do hereby certify
2 that I have read the foregoing depostion and that the
3 same is a true and accurate transcript of my
4 testimony, except for attached amendments, if any.
5
6
7
8
_______________________________
9
10
11
12
13 The signature above of RICHARD GETTINGS RING
14 was subscribed and sworn to before me this
_______
15 day of , 1992.
___________
16
17
18
19
20
_______________________________
21 Notary Public
22 My commission expires
23
24
25
366
1 CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF FLORIDA:
: SS.
3 COUNTY OF DADE
4
5 I, Richard Bursky, a Registered
Professional Reporter and Notary Public for the State
6 of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was
authorized to and did report the deposition of
7 RICHARD GETTINGS RING in stenotype; that the said
witness was first duly sworn to testify the whole
8 truth; that the reading and subscribing of the
deposition were not waived by the witness; and that
9 the foregoing pages numbered from 192 to 364,
inclusive, constitute a true and correct
10 transcription of my shorthand notes of the deposition
by said witness.
11
I further certify that the said deposition
12 was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
13 and completed as hereinabove set out.
14 I further certify that I am not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor a
15 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
connected with the action, nor financially interested
16 in the action.
17 The foregoing certification of this
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
18 same by any means unless under the direct control
and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
19
Witness my hand in the City of Miami,
20 County of Dade, State of Florida, this 6th day of
December, 1992.
21
22
_________________________
23 RICHARD BURSKY, RPR, CM
NOTARY PUBLIC AT LARGE
24 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
July 18, 1994
25