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