1 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and ) 4 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038 5 v. ) 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 v. ) 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, ) v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040 16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 17 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 19 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 20 Monday, March 21, 1994 11:05 a.m. - 5:50 p.m. 21 DEPOSITION OF MILES M. SMART 22 Taken before BRIAN GARY BERKOWITZ, Shorthand 23 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking 24 Deposition filed in the above cause. - - - - - - - 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, 3 INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., AND NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC. 4 EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A. One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636 5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 6 BY: WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQ. 7 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 SIMMONS & SOLOMON, P. A. 9 Fountain Plaza 10020 South Federal Highway 10 Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 BY: DIANNE MISIAK, ESQ. 11 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 13 KATHY STARK, ESQ. Assistant United States Attorney 14 99 N. E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 15 ALSO PRESENT: 16 HERBERT J. GRIMSHAW 17 INDEX Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross 18 MILES M. SMART By Ms. Misiak 3 182 19 By Ms. Stark 135 By Mr. Hyde 182 20 SMART EXHIBITS 21 Exhibit 1.........................................42 Exhibit 2.........................................42 22 Exhibit 3.........................................67 Exhibit 4........................................116 23 Exhibit 5........................................127 Exhibit 6........................................128 24 Exhibit 7........................................129 Exhibit 8........................................131 25 - - - 3 1 Thereupon -- 2 MILES M. SMART 3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MS. MISIAK: 7 Q. Would you state your name for the record, 8 please? 9 A. My name is Miles Smart. 10 Q. Dr. Smart, have you ever had your deposition 11 taken before? 12 A. Yes, ma'am. 13 Q. So you understand that you need to answer 14 verbally, that the court reporter can't take down nods 15 of the head? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. If you don't understand a question, just ask 18 me to repeat it or clarify it, whatever is easiest, if 19 you don't understand, and if you need to take a break 20 at any time during this deposition, just let me know 21 and we will break. 22 A. I will. 23 Q. I think the first thing I'd like to do is go 24 over your CV. I understand this is not your most up to 25 date one. 4 1 If you could, for the record, tell me where 2 you are working presently? 3 A. I am currently the president of Smart & 4 Associates, Incorporated, an environmental consulting 5 firm, with offices in Cary, North Carolina, and a small 6 office in Orlando. 7 Q. When did you start this business? 8 A. February of 1993. 9 Q. What is it that you primarily do there? 10 A. Provide ecological consulting services, 11 primarily to private industry, in the areas of water, 12 water quality, water quantity, threatened and 13 endangered species. 14 Q. Threatened and endangered species, are they 15 just any threatened and endangered species, or are you 16 talking about periphyton, or macrophytons, or any 17 particular kind of species? 18 A. Primarily aquatic. That's a very small part 19 of what I do. My main emphasis is water quality, and 20 water quantity. 21 Q. What kind of jobs do you do? Like for 22 instance, can you give me an example of a client you 23 have for water quality, what you've measured, what 24 types of things you're measuring for water quality? 25 A. Sure. A good example would be looking at the 5 1 effect of a business' discharge on river -- on a river. 2 We would look at things like -- first of all, 3 we would set up a sampling program for the company, and 4 we would look at things like dissolved oxygen, and 5 temperature, the nutrients, heavy metals, organic 6 compounds, calculate how much they're putting into the 7 river, and calculate upstream and downstream impacts 8 that they -- that that industry would have on the 9 stream, and then work with the industry to figure out 10 how to mitigate problems, work with state agencies in 11 working with that industry to solve problems for 12 people. But that's a typical kind of approach that we 13 would take. 14 Q. When you do a job such as that, to determine 15 the water quality based on the outflow of what a 16 corporation is sending into the water, do you have a 17 control group? How do you -- what do you use as your 18 parameters to control what you find, to know what's 19 going in and what's already in there? 20 A. Most of the time we use a pretty simple 21 procedure called upstream-downstream sampling, if it's 22 in a river, and that is you go upstream of where the 23 discharge, quote-unquote, discharge is, and then you 24 would go ahead and sample downstream of the discharge, 25 and maybe in perhaps several locations, and then you 6 1 can compare what you find downstream to what you find 2 upstream. 3 Then you would also compare the data with 4 such things as state -- whatever the appropriate state 5 standard is or federal standard or whatever water 6 quality standard we're talking about. 7 Q. When you talk of downstream and upstream, 8 which one is the closer to the discharge from the 9 company? I'm just trying to get my terminology 10 straight. 11 A. If the discharge were located at point zero, 12 and flow is in the positive direction, we would have 13 sample sites at perhaps a negative one, and a negative 14 two, and then we would have downstream sites at perhaps 15 stations one, two, three and four. 16 So, you would have a gradient that you would 17 be sampling across. 18 Q. In this CV that I have, it says that one of 19 your areas of specialization is limnology. 20 A. That is akin to the term, "fresh water 21 ecology." It's the study of how organisms interact 22 with their environment. It's aquatic, of course, not 23 terrestrial. 24 Q. What's the relationship between ecology and 25 ecosystems? Is there a relationship between ecology 7 1 and ecosystems? 2 A. Well, let's define. Ecology is the study of 3 ecosystems. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. So, when we look at -- or it can be the study 6 of ecosystems. Let's put it that way. 7 Ecology looks at how organisms and their 8 environment interrelate and what causes one to be there 9 and not the other, and try to understand how critters 10 live in their environment. 11 Ecosystem is the whole abiotic and biotic 12 community that makes up a particular geographical area. 13 Q. Let's start back here and find out, where did 14 you do your undergraduate study? 15 A. I have -- at Jamestown College, in Jamestown, 16 North Dakota. It's a small, private, liberal arts 17 school of about 1200 kids, in North Dakota. 18 Q. What was your major there? 19 A. I have a major in biology. I also have a 20 major in philosophy, and a minor in chemistry. 21 Q. It looks like you graduated in '75 from that 22 school? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Then you went to the University of Wisconsin? 25 A. Yes. And there, I pursued a master's degree 8 1 in biology, with particular emphasis in aquatic 2 biology, and graduated there in 1977. 3 Q. To get your master's degree, did you have to 4 do a thesis? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was the subject of your thesis? 7 A. It was the -- let me see if I can remember 8 the name. 9 Nitrogen -- no, no. 10 Nutrient cycling by Ceratophyllum demersum 11 and Nymphaca tuberosa in Lake Onalaska, Wisconsin. 12 Ceratophyllum is a submergent aquatic 13 macrophyte, and Nymphaca tuberosa is the white water 14 lily. 15 I looked at how stands of those plants took 16 up nutrients from the sediments, incorporated them into 17 the plant tissue by looking at biomass, and then looked 18 at how they released that material into the 19 environment. 20 Q. Were there specific nutrients that these 21 plants were taking up? Did you limit your thesis to 22 specific nutrients? 23 A. Nitrogen and phosphorus. 24 Q. Were these nutrients being taken up from the 25 lake itself? Is that what you -- what was the actual 9 1 hypothesis? 2 A. The hypothesis was that the -- the nutrient 3 uptake was differential, depending upon the plant type. 4 We have two very different plant types. 5 Ceratophyllum is a submerged aquatic, which means it 6 lives under the water, and it has no true root system. 7 What we have here is an organism that has to 8 take all of its nutrients up from the water column 9 because it has no mechanism of absorbing from roots, 10 like an oak tree would. 11 Nymphaca tuberosa has a tubular and root 12 system, and it takes up nutrients, at least we found in 13 the studies, it takes up nutrients from the sediment, 14 primarily. 15 Q. Would there be a comparison, possibly, 16 between the submerged macrophyte and periphytons, in 17 that periphytons are not attached algae? Is that 18 correct? I mean they're -- what are they? Define a 19 periphyton. 20 A. Attached algal community, plus other critters 21 associated with that mass. It can include bacteria and 22 rotifers, and any number of organisms that make up this 23 assemblage that lives on plant material. In our case 24 we're talking about plant material. 25 Q. You're defining periphytons? 10 1 A. Right. 2 Q. A periphyton doesn't have a root system, does 3 it? 4 A. No. Algal -- and they're primarily algal 5 cells in this. Algal cells do not have, by definition, 6 roots. 7 Q. They also have to take up their nutrients 8 from the water column? 9 A. Yes, ma'am. 10 Q. Was your thesis ever published? Did you ever 11 publish this thesis? 12 A. Yes, I did, in 1980, in Hydrobiologia. And I 13 believe the name of the -- the article's name is there, 14 and I can't recall exactly what the title is. 15 Q. Then you went on and got your Ph.D. in 16 limnology. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It says here, "Land use and water quality 19 relations in the Missouri Ozark Plateau"? 20 A. "Province." 21 Q. "Province." What was that study about? 22 A. Looked at how land use affects water quality 23 in streams, and how that affects algal communities in 24 the streams. 25 Q. So, you were looking at algal communities in 11 1 this study? 2 A. Yes, ma'am. 3 Q. Just periphyton, or what kind of algal 4 communities? 5 A. We called the algal communities here -- 6 periphyton had -- if you have read any of the material 7 about periphyton, it goes by several different names. 8 Aufwachs, which is the German term for it. We commonly 9 call it periphyton. 10 Back when I did my research at the University 11 of Missouri, we called it benthic algae, and so, what I 12 examined was benthic algae, and that was the slippery, 13 slimy stuff on the rocks in streams, and that is 14 periphyton. It happens to be epilithic periphyton, 15 living on rocks. 16 So we looked at that portion, and that's very 17 equivalent to periphyton, and we also looked at 18 suspended algae, which are -- "suspended" means 19 floating in the water column. 20 Q. That would be unattached? 21 A. Yes. They're phytoplankton. 22 Q. What kind of land use were you studying? 23 What kind? Agricultural, business, corporate? 24 A. We studied the basic land uses in the 25 Missouri Ozarks and those are, or were at that time, 12 1 primarily pasture land, urban land and undeveloped 2 forest land. 3 Q. What was your basic hypothesis in this study? 4 A. The working hypothesis was that land use 5 would affect water chemistry, water -- quote, water 6 quality, and ultimately, affect the algal biomass in 7 the streams. 8 Q. What was your conclusion? 9 A. That land use definitely affected water 10 quality, which definitely affected the accrual of the 11 periphyton in the algal biomass and the streams. 12 Q. Were there changes in the periphyton species 13 or families? 14 A. We did not look at species composition. 15 When you study periphyton or benthic algae or 16 any algal community, there are different ways you can 17 study them. One of them is accrual, growth, which is 18 how they grow, how much. 19 It's kind of like looking at a cornfield. 20 What's the yield? You can look at yield, when you talk 21 about the algal community. You can also look at it in 22 terms of what is the taxonomy of the critters and the 23 species, and those are basically the two ways one 24 examines algal communities, and we chose to look at the 25 chlorophyll A as an indicator of algal biomass for 13 1 those streams. 2 Q. Chlorophyll A is also what you used in your 3 present study, that you just produced a copy to us 4 today? That was one of your indicators? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is that what you would call it? 7 A. Yes. It's common practice in limnological 8 studies to use chlorophyll A as an indicator of the 9 biomass of the algal community. 10 Chlorophyll A is used because it's a 11 ubiquitous phyto-pigment, it collects energy from the 12 sun, and all algae have chlorophyll A. 13 By looking at chlorophyll A, you can get a 14 handle on the biomass that's being produced in the 15 stream, or wherever. 16 Q. By "biomass," you mean the growth, how 17 much -- 18 A. How much, yes. 19 MR. HYDE: I would just like to note, you 20 indicated that it was produced today. 21 I did talk with my paralegals, and they did 22 tell me that they did attempt to hand them over to 23 this office on Saturday, but it was closed. 24 I believe that it was hand-delivered, also, 25 to the United States Attorney's office on 14 1 Saturday, and I think someone was there, but I 2 don't know who, for a fact, it was. 3 I just wanted to note that. 4 MS. MISIAK: Thank you. 5 BY MS. MISIAK: 6 Q. Did you publish this study, the land use, 7 water quality -- 8 A. Yes. Several different -- we excerpted -- 9 let me make this clear. 10 I wrote the dissertation in chapters, with 11 anticipation that each chapter would be published as a 12 separate entity, and in fact, we did publish, I think 13 we published all of them, eventually, having to change 14 wording and those sorts of things to get them in the 15 journals, but we did publish, yes. 16 Q. In either one of these, did you ever go back 17 and -- like when you say you published them in 18 chapters, and so, this was in 1980. When was this 19 published? 20 You said in chapters. For instance, five 21 years later, say it was published in 1985, would you 22 have gone back to see if there had been any changes in 23 your hypothesis, or in the data that you had collected 24 in that five year period, if the actual site of your 25 test study had changed? 15 1 A. We didn't for the studies, for the simple 2 reason that going from 1980 to 1985, by the time you 3 get the material written, into the editors and have 4 them review it and send it out for the peer review 5 process, takes a year to a year-and-a-half, and so, to 6 get them published, 1983 to 1985, is pretty standard. 7 Did we go back and review? No, because we 8 had finished the studies and that we were, you know, we 9 were done with them and it was time to publish the 10 results. Perhaps, you know, sometime later somebody 11 else could come back and review those. 12 Q. Have you, in your career, ever done that, 13 ever done a study and had an hypothesis and a definite 14 conclusion, and then come back, say, ten years later to 15 determine if that conclusion was a true conclusion? 16 Have you ever kind of counter-checked yourself on 17 something like that? 18 A. I have never done that myself. However, it's 19 my understanding that at Missouri, that folks have gone 20 down and sampled -- gone down from Columbia to the 21 Ozarks, and sampled my stations, the stations I set up, 22 again, you know, ten years later, to see what had 23 happened. But I am not familiar with what the results 24 of that were. 25 Q. Then from there it looks like you -- during 16 1 school, you worked, apparently, as a research 2 associate, department of biology, University of 3 Wisconsin-LaCrosse? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Investigated nutrient cycling by aquatic 6 macrophytes. Macrophytes, that was what you were -- 7 that was in '77. In '77 you were studying macrophytes 8 for your thesis? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Was this basically background, or did it 11 affect your thesis at all, what you were doing here, at 12 this department of biology at the University of 13 Wisconsin? 14 A. Yes. They gave me a research stipend to 15 conduct my research, so the aquatic macrophyte 16 recycling that is indicated there, was exactly my 17 thesis. 18 Q. Then in '77 to '80, you were a consultant for 19 Environmental Science and Engineering. 20 A. Yes. While I was a student at the University 21 of Missouri. I identified organisms for them. 22 Q. That's what you talked about; you talked 23 about taxonomic consultants. It says, "Benthic 24 macroinvertebrates and zooplankton." 25 A. Yes. 17 1 Q. I take it that's the big name, and then there 2 are families or species underneath those? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What are both of those? What's 5 "macroinvertebrate"? 6 A. Those are the bugs that live in the stream 7 bottoms, or lake bottoms. They are such things as 8 leaches, and chironomids. A lot of fly larvae have a 9 stage in their life where they live in the sediments. 10 Horse flies are a good example. They include 11 mayflies and stoneflies. It's the fauna that you would 12 find living in a stream bottom. 13 Q. And zooplankton? 14 A. They are the animal version of the plankton 15 community. You have phytoplankton, which are the 16 plants, and zooplankton, which are the animals. 17 So, they are the microscopic critters that 18 are animals, and those are things like Daphnia, 19 rotifers, copepods. Those microscopic sort of things. 20 Q. You are able to identify them how far down? 21 The species -- 22 A. As far as the keys would take me at the time. 23 Some were down to family level. Most of the leaches, I 24 think, only go to family level. 25 Boy, it's been a long time since I did that. 18 1 Q. Is it phylum, family? 2 A. Kingdom, phylum, order, family, class. I'm 3 sorry, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. 4 Q. Would that be the same in the plant kingdom? 5 A. No. 6 Q. What would be in plants? 7 A. Instead of phylum in plants, you have 8 divisions, and other than that, they're the same. 9 Q. A periphyton is a plant, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So, we have division, class, order, family, 12 genus, species? 13 A. Yes. I hope. 14 Q. Then you went to the School of Forestry. 15 A. That's at the University of Missouri. 16 Q. That's at the same time as you were 17 working -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. That's when you were doing your Ph.D.? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. The next is 1980 to 1985. It looks like you 22 were a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin, again. 23 A. Right. 24 Q. This co-principal investigator of 25 multidisciplinary research team that conducted 19 1 chemical, physical and biological studies on aquatic 2 systems, what was all that? 3 A. That is -- when I was on faculty at the 4 University of Wisconsin, I was also a fellow of the 5 River Study Center, which was a multidisciplinary group 6 of scientists that studied primarily the upper 7 Mississippi River. 8 We did a number of different projects. I 9 think some of them are listed there. Things like 10 following barges up and down the river, finding out 11 what effect they had on water quality, as one rather 12 large study. 13 We looked at the movement of water through 14 some lowhead dams that they had on the upper 15 Mississippi River, looked at how substrate was 16 distributed, and where the currents were across the 17 river. 18 Some of the people did fisheries work, 19 although I didn't do fisheries work. 20 We simply were a team of scientists that -- 21 and each had different disciplines that we were 22 responsible for, and we wrote grants and got money and 23 did the research on the river. 24 Q. Under the same time period, 1980-1985, you 25 list some of the studies which were included in this. 20 1 It says, "A nutrient budget for small lake." 2 What is that? 3 A. There was a lake, it's Lake Onalaska, which 4 feeds into the Mississippi River, so we conducted 5 sampling -- let me back up. 6 What's a nutrient budget for a lake? Where 7 you do the inflow to the lake, what's coming in for the 8 nutrients, what's going out in terms of nutrients, and 9 what is in the lake that recycles. 10 So, you look at those three components and 11 try to figure out if the amount coming in is the amount 12 going out, or if the amount coming in is being used by 13 organisms to produce biomass, and then you have some 14 different number that would leave the system. 15 So, we conducted the necessary sampling to 16 determine the nutrient budget for Lake Onalaska. 17 Q. Do you know what nutrients you were studying 18 at that time? Do you recall? 19 A. Nitrogen and phosphorus. 20 Q. What organisms did you look at in the lake? 21 A. We looked at primarily macrophyte beds. 22 In addition to the Ceratophyllum and the 23 Nymphaca, the ones I worked on, back in 1975, we also 24 looked at Saggitaria lattifolia, we looked at Nuphar, 25 which is a floating leaf macrophyte. 21 1 We looked at the water lotus, and we looked 2 at a number of Potomogeten species, which are 3 submergent macrophytes, and we had different people who 4 were working on those different plants. Primarily they 5 were graduate students who were out doing biomass and 6 nutrient composition of, for example, the Potomogetens. 7 Q. Did you look at any periphytons from this 8 study, or just macrophytes? 9 A. No, just macrophytes. 10 Q. What is a "fellow"? Do you get paid for 11 being a fellow? What is a fellow? You said you were a 12 fellow. 13 A. Okay. That is a person who is associated 14 with the River Study Center, and I was appointed as a 15 scientist, with them, and I was paid by them. 16 It was a term -- I guess it's a person who is 17 paid to do research, and then that's what I was. 18 I was also the principal investigator on all 19 of those different projects, making sure that we did 20 the study of plants correctly, and the analyses were 21 conducted according to how they should have been, and 22 making sure that things got done on time, those sorts 23 of things. 24 Q. Then in 1986, you were a research assistant 25 professor at Duke University. 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Effects of pollutants at the ecosystem level. 3 A. Right. 4 Q. What is the ecosystem level? 5 A. That's looking at a -- the biotic and abiotic 6 area. 7 For example, in that class, which was a 8 graduate student course, we looked at various 9 ecosystems, one ecosystem, and the students picked what 10 ecosystem they wanted to look at, and then they had to 11 do a presentation in class, as to how an impact 12 stressed that ecosystems, and one of the students, by 13 way of example, chose lead effects on a forest. 14 So, the ecosystem study is, if you put lead 15 into a forest, in the soil, how does it affect, 16 basically, nutrient cycling and energy flow in the 17 system. And by understanding energy flow and nutrient 18 cycling, you basically understand the ecosystem. 19 So, what he looked at was, if you had high 20 concentrations in the soil, how did that affect the 21 trees that were there, and in turn, how did that affect 22 the birds that were there, and so on and so forth. 23 So, he looked at all of the biotic and 24 abiotic components. 25 Q. So, this course wasn't just limited to water 23 1 communities? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Then you were a senior scientist, Carolina 4 Power & Light Company, '85 to '88. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Again, you're studying water chemistry and 7 water quality? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. In the power plant generation, what they were 10 doing. 11 What kind of microorganisms were you again 12 looking at, to study the water quality, and water 13 chemistry, during this period of time? 14 A. I didn't look at any microorganisms. My 15 responsibility was the water chemistry, and trace 16 element programs, in particular looking at why some of 17 the reservoirs had very little life in them, and I -- 18 it was my job to figure out what was going on, and it 19 basically boiled down to study the toxic effects of 20 selenium on organisms. 21 The reason that I didn't look at any of the 22 microorganisms or the benthic macroinvertebrates, or 23 fish communities, is that people were there. They were 24 part of the biology unit. We had a phycologist. We 25 had a fisheries person. We had three benthic 24 1 macroinvertebrate people, who were specialists in 2 benthic macroinvertebrates. 3 If I wanted to know something about benthic 4 macroinvertebrates, I would say, "We need to go out and 5 take some samples here and let me know what you find." 6 That's exactly what we did. 7 Q. These trace elements, is that selenium? Is 8 that the trace elements you were talking about? 9 A. Yes. Trace elements are just those that are 10 in very small quantities. Primarily, heavy metals are 11 trace elements. Other examples would be cadmium, and 12 nickel, and mercury. Arsenic. All the heavy metals 13 that one commonly associates with aquatic systems. 14 Q. Next you were senior environmental scientist 15 and project manager, Westinghouse Environmental 16 Services, 1988. 17 You did some environmental audits and 18 developed a study to assess impact of a Superfund 19 hazardous waste site on stream biota. 20 What exactly did you do? 21 A. There was a Superfund site in Indiana, and it 22 had a stream going through it, and it was PCB 23 contamination and my part of it was to figure out, one, 24 how to sample the stream to get representative samples 25 of the -- where PCB was in the stream, upstream, 25 1 downstream, fish tissue, sediment sample. That's what 2 I did. 3 Q. What type of stream biota did you study? 4 Macrophytes? Did you study periphyton? 5 A. No. We looked at benthic macroinvertebrates, 6 fish, sediment, and water. 7 Q. Then, you were vice president and division 8 director, senior scientist, Kilkelly Environmental 9 Assessments, Inc. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What did you do there? 12 A. Basically, ran the division for the company, 13 in dealing with large EPA contracts, primarily. 14 Looked -- with the Office of Environmental Effects 15 research, and a couple of the things that we were doing 16 was acid deposition, and my part of that was making 17 sure that the right people were doing the right work. 18 Give us a lot of project management. That's why I 19 didn't stay with it very long. And the other part was 20 looking at biocriteria in streams, and putting on, as a 21 facilitator to a conference in Athens, Georgia, for 22 Region IV states for EPA, putting on and facilitating 23 this conference to look at using biological organisms 24 to evaluate water quality in streams, and the 25 biological indicators were anything from fish to 26 1 macrophytes, to periphyton, to some of the rotifers, 2 and my job there was to make sure that we had several 3 speakers on each of those areas, and that they were -- 4 that we got the information out to the people, and that 5 it went smoothly, and then we had discussion sessions 6 afterwards, and I led one of the discussion sessions on 7 how to implement biocriteria in state regulations. 8 Q. Did you guys come up with a list of organisms 9 that were indicators of water quality? 10 A. No. We weren't focused on specific organisms 11 that would be used for water quality, but rather, 12 groups of organisms. James Carr, who is in Blacksburg, 13 Virginia, VPI, is a big proponent of using fish in 14 something he calls metrics, to analyze the water based 15 on the fish community and based on certain conditions 16 that you see associated with that fish community. For 17 example -- he was one of the people who was there 18 talking with these fellows about using fish in writing 19 the regulations. 20 Q. What is acid deposition? 21 A. That's not a legal term, sorry. That's an 22 acid rain problem. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. It's dealing with, from smokestacks, where 25 you have emissions from the smokestacks and then when 27 1 it rains, the acidity from the smokestacks in solid and 2 wet deposition, comes down, hits the ground and hits 3 the water and can cause adverse problems. 4 Q. 1989 to 1991, senior scientist, Eastern 5 Environmental Associates. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What did you do there? 8 A. A lot of hazardous waste work, associated 9 with things like tanks and spills of hazardous material 10 and how they impacted biota. 11 That was the primary thing that I did for 12 those years. 13 Q. What was this biota that you were looking at? 14 A. Primarily wetlands, where you would have some 15 material deposited into a wetland, and trying to figure 16 out if it would be positive or negative impact on the 17 wetland. 18 Q. This says, "Traced source of one foot of free 19 product floating on groundwater." 20 What does that mean? 21 A. Gasoline. We had a client who was -- the 22 state thought that his tanks had leaked and that 23 gasoline floating -- it was a foot of groundwater. 24 Sitting there floating on top of the groundwater, free, 25 it was gasoline, and they blamed him for doing that. 28 1 What we did was, we went back -- I knew of a 2 technique that we could fingerprint gasoline to see 3 whether it was Mobil, or Exxon, and the year, 4 basically, it was put into process based, on the 5 chemistry of the gasoline. So, we fingerprinted it and 6 found out who the violator really was. 7 Q. Then you were with Breedlove Dennis & 8 Associates, Inc., from 1991 until 1993, when you 9 started your company? 10 A. Correct. Right. 11 Q. Here it says that you were an expert witness 12 in the administrative hearing process. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What did that have to do with? 15 A. Water chemistry in a stream, here in Florida. 16 Q. Do you recall what stream that was? 17 A. Reedy Creek. 18 Q. What was the problem with it? What were they 19 trying to determine in this water quality? 20 A. Whether or not a transmission line that would 21 span Reedy Creek, would cause negative impact to the 22 stream. 23 Q. The transmission line was going to be in the 24 creek? 25 A. No, over it, and then placement of poles and 29 1 clearing, and those sorts of things. 2 Q. Who were you an expert for at that -- it 3 says, "expert witness." Who was your client? 4 A. Florida Power. 5 MR. HYDE: Is that Florida Power Corp., or 6 Florida Power & Light? 7 THE WITNESS: Florida Power Corp. Sarasota. 8 No, St. Petersburg. 9 BY MS. MISIAK: 10 Q. Then it says, "Functional attributes of a 11 wetland ecosystem receiving treated waste water 12 effluent." 13 You were to assess the impact of that 14 effluent? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. It says, "Analyze sediment water and plant 17 chemistry." 18 What plant chemistry do you recall, did you 19 analyze? 20 A. It was in conjunction with the regulations, 21 the Florida statute that says that if you use a wetland 22 for discharge of municipal waste, there's a list of 23 chemicals that you have to analyze in various tissues, 24 and you have to analyze whether there are any 25 threatened and endangered species there, you have to 30 1 analyze for different chemicals, and I don't remember 2 what all of the chemicals were that we looked at in 3 what specific media, but it's exactly what was in the 4 Florida regulations that we were working from. But I 5 know it included nitrogen and phosphorus, and I believe 6 it included some heavy metals. 7 Q. Did you analyze algae and periphytons in 8 this, or just macroinvertebrates? 9 A. No. Macroinvertebrates. 10 Q. It says changes were assessed with GIS. What 11 is GIS? 12 A. Geographical Information Systems. 13 Q. What is that? 14 A. Using remote sensing to look at things like 15 tree cover and cover of herbaceous vegetation, to get a 16 handle on what's really out there. 17 Q. It says, "Periphyton biomass and species 18 composition relative to water chemistry, light 19 conditions and sediments in Water Conservation Areas in 20 South Florida." 21 Is that the study that you presented -- 22 A. That's these. 23 Q. The "Periphyton community dynamics." Okay. 24 Who designed this study, this "Periphyton 25 community dynamics study"? 31 1 A. There were two of us who designed it, myself 2 and Dr. Jack Jones, Dr. John R. Jones. 3 Q. Was Dr. Jones also working at Breedlove 4 Dennis? 5 A. No. He is a professor of -- at the 6 University of Missouri. 7 Q. Was he one of your professors when you got 8 your Ph.D.? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What is his specialty? 11 A. Limnology. 12 Q. Then, some of the other things you did, you 13 obtained numerous permits, water quality sampling 14 design and implementation. 15 Does that mean you designed programs for 16 these people? 17 A. Yes. If, for example, a development needed 18 to have stormwater permitting, or needed to have some 19 kind of -- to show that they weren't degrading water 20 quality, they needed to take samples in a certain way, 21 at a certain time, so they were valid and statistically 22 sound and those sorts of things, I designed -- I 23 figured out where they needed to take the samples, how 24 often they needed to take them, and what they needed to 25 sample. 32 1 Q. "Consent order with DER for water runoff from 2 industrial operations." It says, "Evaluated situation 3 and successfully negotiated settlement." 4 Who was your client in that particular 5 instance? 6 A. CBS Industries, which is now called -- which 7 was bought and is now Sunshine Materials, Incorporated, 8 in Lake County, primarily is where they're located. 9 Q. What wetland were they encroaching upon? 10 A. One right near Lake Eustis. It was a wetland 11 that they owned. 12 Q. Was the problem with the DER, the water 13 quality was not up to the standards required by the 14 DER? 15 A. One of the concerns was water quality, yes. 16 Q. What were the other concerns? 17 A. They put concrete in a wetland. 18 Q. "Water chemistry in Water Conservation Areas 19 in South Florida was evaluated relative to land uses. 20 Literature was reviewed and samples were obtained and 21 analyzed. Attention was focused on the rates and 22 routes of phosphorus transport in the water column." 23 Was that also part of this, or was that a 24 different study? 25 A. Part of that was this, but it also included 33 1 some other things that were not associated with this 2 study. 3 Q. Who hired you to do this study? 4 A. I don't remember. 5 Q. Is this something that you published and 6 finished? 7 A. No. I didn't finish it. It was still 8 ongoing at Breedlove. 9 Part of it dealt with the Green Swamp area. 10 Q. Is that part of this litigation? 11 A. No, no. No. Green Swamp is up in Osceola 12 County, but it's part of the -- it's in the South 13 Florida Water Management District area, I believe, and -- 14 MR. HYDE: Actually, it's in Southwest. 15 Primarily in Polk and Lake and Osceola Counties. 16 It's actually to the west of the Kissimmee -- 17 MS. MISIAK: In Kissimmee -- 18 MR. HYDE: It wouldn't be part of the 19 Kissimmee drainage basin. It's nearer to Tampa 20 and Lakeland. 21 A. I was working there, and also on a 22 development just south of Orlando, that is in the South 23 Florida Water Management District jurisdiction, which 24 is Shingle Creek, where we designed studies to look at 25 inflows and movement of phosphorus, and there were, as 34 1 always, wetlands in a stream channel, and trying to 2 figure out what was going in and what was going out. 3 Q. What type of land uses were you looking at 4 for this study? 5 A. Primarily agricultural. You know, old orange 6 groves, that kind of thing. 7 Q. Were there other people working with you on 8 this project? 9 A. Yes. In fact, that encompasses a series of 10 different projects. The Green Swamp was different from 11 the -- what I did is made a generic statement there, 12 that that's the kind of thing I was working on, and the 13 Green Swamp, I did that one, and that was for CBS 14 Industries. I remember that. 15 The Shingle Creek was called Project ABC. 16 It's a golf course development. 17 We were working for a land planner in 18 Orlando. And, I'm sorry, I cannot think of his name. 19 I just -- 20 Q. In any of these studies, did you look at 21 periphyton to determine uptake of phosphorus or 22 anything like that? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Then we have today, where you have Smart & 25 Associates. How many employees do you have? 35 1 A. One. 2 Q. Just one? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So, the whole company is you and one other 5 person? 6 A. No. The whole company is me. 7 Q. You're it. You're the employee and the 8 director and -- 9 A. Yes. It's a wonderful way to go. 10 Q. Who are some of your clients? 11 A. Weyerhauser, Golden Poultry, Panther Creek 12 Development, the Club at Mill Creek, Capital City Club 13 in Atlanta, Hudson National, Incorporated, New York. 14 Q. It keeps you busy. 15 What do you do for these people? Do you get 16 permits? Is everything different? What do they hire 17 you for? 18 A. Because I'm good. With most of the 19 developments that are there, the Panther Creek, to 20 do -- to do two primary things. One, put together 21 environmental monitoring programs for them, to make 22 sure that they know their base line condition, and that 23 they are in compliance with all regulations, and if 24 they're not, put together ways to fix it. 25 The other thing we do for those clients is to 36 1 write integrated pest management plans, so that they 2 don't have problems with herbicides and pesticides 3 coming off of their property and their golf courses. 4 With Weyerhauser and Golden Poultry, I'm 5 working with those in water quality issues. Golden 6 Poultry is an NPDES, national pollutant discharge 7 elimination system permitted, which they're having some 8 problem with into a severely stressed stream in North 9 Carolina, and I am working with them to figure out how 10 to minimize their problems. 11 Q. When you talk about a severely stressed 12 stream, how do you define that? 13 A. The state has classified -- not classified. 14 I don't have a classification for stress. 15 They have determined that it's stressed by 16 the fact that they have DO, dissolved oxygen 17 concentrations, in the summer, that are less than 3 18 milligrams per liter, and the state standard is 5 19 milligrams per liter on an average, and 4 milligrams 20 per liter instantaneous measurement. 21 It also has a relatively high biological 22 oxygen demand, at times exceeding 10 to 12 milligrams 23 per liter, and this is in an area that nobody can 24 figure out what's going on, where there shouldn't be 25 this. There shouldn't be that type of a severe 37 1 negative impact. 2 Q. How is dissolved oxygen measured? 3 A. With a YSI DO probe, standing for Yellow 4 Springs Instrument Company. 5 Standard technique is with a -- with this 6 probe. Other ways of doing it are Winkler method 7 titration, which is a wet chemistry technique, which 8 not very many folks use anymore. Take the meter out in 9 the field and measure. 10 MS. MISIAK: Let's take a break. 11 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 12 after which the following proceedings 13 were had:) 14 BY MS. MISIAK: 15 Q. Next, what is eutrophication? What does that 16 mean? 17 A. Eutrophication is a term that describes 18 increased nutrients in loss of depth, and generally, in 19 a body of water, and generally is designated as to have 20 happened by a man induced phenomenon. 21 Q. Have you ever conducted any studies regarding 22 eutrophication effects? 23 A. Yes. Yes. 24 Q. Can you describe to me some of those? 25 A. One of them, the nutrient budget at Lake 38 1 Onalaska. 2 Q. Go ahead. Explain that one again, how 3 that -- 4 A. We were looking at the inflow of the 5 nutrients, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, and then 6 looking at how the aquatic community responded to the 7 inputs of those nutrients, and then what was being 8 discharged from the lake, and the lake was becoming 9 eutrophied, based on increased phosphorus 10 concentrations in the lake, and loss of depth, which 11 would promote the growth of more, in this case, more 12 submerged macrophytes. 13 Q. When you talk about loss of depth, are you 14 talking about water depth? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So the water is getting more shallow? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That's due to the overgrowth of the plants, 19 the biomass growth? 20 A. That's due to sedimentation and to the 21 biomass. And it's a slow process. 22 Q. Any other studies that you measured these 23 type of effects? 24 A. The Missouri, the work I did my Ph.D. on, 25 certainly looked at the eutrophication, because the 39 1 range of streams that we had were from very pristine to 2 those that had secondary effluent being discharged into 3 them. So, that, yes, is another example. 4 Q. When you are looking at these increased 5 nutrients, we're talking about phosphorus and nitrogen 6 again? 7 A. Yes. Although in the Missouri work, we also 8 looked at other things, like carbon and silica, and as 9 potential things that -- potential constituents that 10 could cause changes in those communities. But 11 predominantly phosphorus and nitrogen. And the 12 literature, the scientific literature on phosphorus and 13 nitrogen, you know, there is -- is this well developed 14 over the last twenty years. 15 Q. Is there a difference in the changes? Like 16 we always talk about phosphorus and nitrogen together. 17 Does nitrogen cause certain changes and phosphorus 18 cause other changes, or do they cause the same changes? 19 A. Generally, in fresh water ecosystems, you see 20 the changes that are caused by phosphorus. 21 Starting back in the early seventies, with 22 studies by folks like Vollenweider, and Schindler, and 23 those folks started looking at the increases in 24 phosphorus and how they affected the communities, and 25 they very clearly demonstrated that when you add 40 1 phosphorus as a nutrient, that you get more biomass. 2 So, in fresh water ecosystems, as a general 3 rule, that's what we see happening, is an increase in 4 biomass. 5 Q. What about nitrogen? 6 A. Nitrogen is more commonly a nutrient -- 7 limiting nutrient in non-fresh water systems, like the 8 ocean, and if you see changes -- I'm not sure that I've 9 seen changes associated with nitrogen, per se, in the 10 work that I've done in fresh water systems. 11 Q. So, most of the changes that you've seen, 12 have been caused by phosphorus in these fresh water 13 systems? 14 A. Changes in biomass have been caused, that I 15 have seen, have been caused by the -- have been caused 16 by phosphorus. 17 Q. When you talk about changes in biomass, is it 18 just -- is there an actual change in the species that 19 are growing, or is it just increased growth? 20 A. Increased growth. 21 Q. Are there different types of periphytons? 22 Different classes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I guess -- what did you call them? It wasn't 25 kingdom. It was -- 41 1 A. Divisions. 2 Q. Divisions? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How many divisions of periphytons are there? 5 A. I'm not even sure right now. There are a 6 number of them, and the ones that we see in the 7 Everglades, for example, are things like Myxophyceae, 8 which are the blue-greens. You see the greens, which 9 are the Chlorophyceae. You see diatoms, which are the 10 Bacillariophyceae. You see Euglenaphyceae. You see 11 the dinoflagellates. Those are, I think, the common -- 12 more common ones. But they all make up the periphyton, 13 and as I indicated earlier, the periphyton is also made 14 up of bacteria, and made up of little animals that 15 graze on the periphyton. So it's the algal community 16 as well as these other communities, as well. 17 We find basically the same kinds of, in terms 18 of divisions, classes of benthic algae as we do with 19 the periphyton, as we do in the phytoplankton. 20 Q. What does that mean? 21 A. It means we see -- if we see blue-greens that 22 are periphyton, we see blue-greens that are 23 phytoplankton. We see blue-greens that are periphyton. 24 Some of them are paraphytic. 25 Q. Your attorney produced on your behalf a 42 1 feeding study in the Everglades, a draft. We are going 2 to mark this as an exhibit. 3 (The CV referred to previously was thereupon 4 marked Smart Exhibit 1 for Identification.) 5 (The document referred to was thereupon 6 marked Smart Exhibit 2 for Identification.) 7 BY MS. MISIAK: 8 Q. Were you commissioned to do this feeding 9 study in the Everglades Water Conservation Areas? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. This was part of your job description, to 12 produce this study? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you have any help with this study? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Who helped you with that? 17 A. In the design of the study, Dr. John 18 R. Jones. 19 Do you want people who conducted it, as well? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. A fellow named Jeff Collins did much of the 22 field work and the laboratory work, worked up all the 23 samples. 24 Q. Is that all? 25 A. Yes. 43 1 Q. What was the hypothesis when you started this 2 study? 3 A. The hypothesis was that the algae in the 4 Everglades can serve as a carbon source for herbivores. 5 Q. What significance is that? What significance 6 is that? 7 A. It means that it serves as a carbon source. 8 It means that the herbivores are eating the periphyton, 9 and they serve as a food source. 10 Q. What are herbivores? 11 A. Things that eat plants. Animals that eat 12 plants, not things. No aliens. 13 Q. In the introduction, it looks like, this is 14 an isotope study? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Of carbon and nitrogen. Those are the 17 isotopes? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And this first statement says, one of the 20 statements in here, "There is considerable uncertainty 21 in the evidence supporting a dominant role for vascular 22 plants in wetland food webs." 23 What vascular plants are you talking about 24 here? 25 A. Can I see that? 44 1 Q. Sure. 2 A. Okay. 3 MR. HYDE: Maybe we can provide him with a 4 copy of the study. 5 MS. MISIAK: Sure. 6 BY MS. MISIAK: 7 Q. It's on page 1, the second paragraph. 8 A. Okay. These are general statements that 9 other investigators have made, that we're summarizing. 10 The investigators are Bailey, 1989, and Ward, 11 1989, as indicated in the next sentence, and what their 12 papers and what they're talking about, basically says 13 that in the past, we have often thought that detritus 14 from vascular plants, in other words, the breakdown of 15 those plants, provides most of the food for organisms 16 in wetlands, and we are now reevaluating that, not to 17 say that it's not an important component, but we're 18 reevaluating to find out if there is evidence that 19 other sources, periphyton being one of them, are 20 important food sources for the ecosystem. 21 So, what we're talking about here and saying 22 that evidence supporting dominant role for vascular 23 plants, the vascular plants would mean, a very general 24 term of vascular plants, from any vascular plants -- 25 they were very general in their assessment of the role 45 1 of the detritus. 2 Q. The very last sentence on page 1, and it goes 3 over to the top of page 2, "In addition, ecosystem 4 level comparisons of primary and secondary production 5 in wetlands, have indicated that algal production is 6 insufficient to sustain the secondary production of 7 aquatic animals." 8 Again, is this a general statement made by 9 other scientists? 10 A. Right. When you go through and finish that 11 sentence, there are a series of semicolons, and those 12 are, yes, the other scientists who are saying some of 13 the reasons why it was thought that detritus is the 14 primary food source, is that, just as you read, is that 15 ecosystem level comparisons of production, primary and 16 secondary, have indicated that it's insufficient, and 17 that's been the tenet that we have held in the past, 18 and that's what other researchers are saying, and what 19 I'm trying to do here is just to say that where we are 20 now, is the vascular plants are important, but we need 21 to also look at other potential sources, and these 22 other scientists are -- have been examining since 1985 23 or so, the hypothesis that algae and other autotrophs 24 can be an important part of the food chain in the 25 Everglades. And I think -- not in the Everglades, in 46 1 wetlands in general. In the Everglades, you know, as 2 an example of that. 3 I think that Joan Browder, or Dr. Browder, in 4 some recent things that I've read, indicates that 5 periphyton as well, is a good food source at times, for 6 animals. 7 Q. Can you describe the method, how you went 8 about this study? 9 A. Yes. We -- before I start, can I get a map, 10 which would be figure one in this study? Because it 11 has the locations, and that makes things much easier. 12 (Pause.) 13 A. The study -- we set up sample locations at 14 three locations throughout the Everglades. One, here 15 in WCA-2A, near the S-10 structures, and we have 16 labeled that station as 2A1-1. And that's consistent 17 with this study, and with this other study, as well. 18 MR. HYDE: Just for purposes of the record, 19 the other study being referred to is, "Periphyton 20 dynamics in the Water Conservation Areas." 21 A. So, we have that station near the S-10 22 structures, near the canal. 23 The second station here as designated 2A2-3, 24 is at the 217 location, at the interior of WCA-2A, and 25 again, that's consistent with the report just 47 1 mentioned. 2 The third location is station No. 3A4-5, that 3 is way down in the lower part of WCA-3A, and it is, I 4 believe, the C-5 station of South Florida. And it is 5 some -- I can't remember the exact distance, but it's 6 four to five kilometers interior of the canal system. 7 So, it is pretty much isolated way back in 8 the bottom of WCA-3A. 9 So, the three sites were at the lower part of 10 WCA-3, the middle of WCA-2A, and near the canal, 11 WCA-2-1. 12 We placed large plexiglass slides, large 13 numbers of them at each of these stations, in September 14 of 1992. I wanted to make sure I got the date correct. 15 And to do a preliminary study, to find out if we could 16 get the separation needed in the isotopic ratios in 17 order to make this useful. 18 So, we set out the plastic slides that were 19 roughed up, so the periphyton could live on them, at 20 those three sample locations. We then incubated them 21 for a period of five weeks, and retrieved those slides, 22 brought them back to the laboratory, and we dried them 23 at 60 degrees centigrade, we washed them with 10 24 percent hydrochloric acid, we ground them to pass a 600 25 micromesh screen, and then subjected them to the carbon 48 1 and nitrogen isotope analysis. 2 The analyses were conducted by Coastal 3 Science Labs, Incorporated, in Austin, Texas, and then 4 we reported the carbon and the nitrogen data relative 5 to their standards, and the standard for carbon is 6 Peedee belelemite, which is the limestone, which is the 7 carbon standard, and then to nitrogen in the air, 8 and -- and the data are in parts per thousand. 9 Q. It says, "Carbon data are believed accurate." 10 A. That's from Coastal Science's laboratory. 11 That's their accuracy measure. 12 Q. That's what they quoted to you guys? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Where does this Peedee come from? Who sets 15 that up as a standard? 16 A. That's the standard that's used by everybody 17 that conducts isotopic work, but I'm not sure who set 18 the standard, whether it was in the National Bureau of 19 Standards, or whether it's a convention used. I don't 20 know. 21 Q. How did you choose five weeks as your 22 incubation period? 23 A. We used five weeks, again going back to this 24 other study, where Mr. Swift, in 1978 and 1979, when he 25 did the study here at the Everglades, used, I think it 49 1 was 30 days, and we patterned ours after his work. 2 Q. You can go on and finish telling me about 3 your method, then. 4 A. So, after we finished the pilot study, we 5 needed to look to see if the differences in carbon were 6 sufficient to allow separation, and the difference in 7 the carbon ratios, and we looked at the data and said 8 it appears that that would work, and so then we went 9 out in November and collected macrophytes, periphyton, 10 fish, snails and assorted other critters that we could 11 catch, and analyzed them as well for carbon and 12 nitrogen. 13 Q. You talked about separating them out. You 14 did the pilot study to see if you could separate them 15 out. 16 What does that mean? Does that mean so you 17 could determine -- how would you know that the 18 carbon-nitrogen isotopes that you are measuring inside 19 of a plant that's been eaten, is the same carbon and 20 nitrogen that was on the periphyton, say, and not on 21 the vascular plant? How would you know what these 22 things are eating? 23 A. That's precisely why you have to have 24 separation in the carbon numbers. 25 Let's take, for example, the periphyton that 50 1 we found, and if I can just turn to a -- where's the 2 figure? 3 Q. It's not there? 4 A. The figures aren't here. 5 Q. I don't have them in mine, either. 6 THE WITNESS: That one does, at the back. 7 Can I borrow the figures, again? 8 MR. HYDE: Would it be a good idea to make 9 copies of that? 10 MS. MISIAK: Yes. 11 MR. HYDE: Since this is the marked exhibit, 12 I guess you want to have a complete one. 13 MS. MISIAK: I do want to have it complete. 14 MS. STARK: Does that one have the 15 literature? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, it has that, plus the 17 appendix and the tables, but it does not have 18 figures. 19 Let me show you which ones it doesn't have. 20 It doesn't have those. 21 (Pause.) 22 A. Figure one from that report, if you look at 23 the Y axis, Delta carbon ranges from the top to minus 24 22, to minus 32 at the bottom, and that's the 25 difference in the isotopic ratios. 51 1 For periphyton, which is the first bar graph 2 that you see there, we have for all stations over the 3 study period -- we had, what's this, about a minus 30.8 4 or so as the mean carbon ratio. 5 If that ratio wasn't different from, let's 6 say, cattail, then we couldn't assess what the critters 7 were eating. That's pivotal to the whole study. 8 So, cattail has a negative of about 27, and 9 I'm reading this upside down, so they're close, and so, 10 if we found an organism that had an isotopic ratio of 11 about minus 31, we would conclude from that, that that 12 organism was eating periphyton, because an organism 13 cannot be more enriched than the food that it eats. 14 That's just the basic tenet of doing this isotopic 15 work. 16 So, if an organism were eating cattail, it 17 would have to have a carbon value that would be greater 18 than a minus 27. Let's say minus 26 or 25. But if 19 it's right around the value that the periphyton has, 20 then it indicates that they are consuming periphyton. 21 The upshot of the -- the theory behind all of 22 this, is basically very -- is not very difficult, I 23 don't think, and the reason I like it is it's very 24 simple, and that it -- that what an organism eats is 25 integrated over time. This just doesn't mean that this 52 1 organism has eaten something in the last 24 hours. 2 It's integrated over time of the life of the organism. 3 If it has a short life span -- so, what you are getting 4 is an integration over time of food that the critters 5 have consumed, and so, it provides, I think, a nice way 6 of looking at, if -- looking at the critters consuming, 7 you know -- what the critters are consuming. 8 Look at water lily, way up here. It's a 9 minus, about 23 Delta carbon. So, in order for a 10 critter to have eaten lots of water lily, it would have 11 to have a much more -- a less negative value. It would 12 have to have something like a minus 22 or 20 or 18. 13 If we look at the data -- and this is the 14 separation we were looking for. Did we get the 15 separation? And we did. 16 So, we went ahead and then collected 17 organisms so that we could then say, okay, where does 18 it -- what kind of food source does it look like these 19 critters are consuming? 20 Q. In the different types of periphyton, are 21 there different levels of Delta carbon? Like for 22 instance, say blue-green algae versus a filamentous 23 green algae? 24 A. I don't know. I don't know that. 25 Q. So, then what -- after you did your pilot 53 1 study and realized there was a separation, so you could 2 do that, then what? 3 A. We went out in November -- he would put 4 slides out again and collected as much material as we 5 could at these three stations. 6 In addition, we collected all kinds of 7 different critters, and on figure two, we list some of 8 the -- for station 2A1, we list some of the organisms 9 that we captured, in November, and that's apple snails, 10 shrimp, crayfish, flagfish, sailfin molly, killifish, 11 Gambusia, sunfish, bowfin, gar, as examples of the 12 different organisms that we collected at station 2A1. 13 Figure 3, likewise, has a list of organisms 14 that we collected in November, and then compared the 15 Delta carbons to those critters, and the same thing 16 here in figure four, which is -- indicates the 17 organisms that we collected at station 3A4-5. 18 Q. How long did this sampling and the study 19 continue? 20 A. I'm not sure. What do you mean, how long did 21 this study -- 22 Q. For instance, is it seasonal? Would your 23 results have changed and been any different in November 24 than in July? 25 A. Okay. The first part of the question, first. 54 1 Did we do this more than one time? 2 Q. Right. 3 A. No. No. We did it at the end of the summer, 4 and would I find seasonal differences? One wouldn't 5 expect so, but I don't have the data to back that up. 6 I simply didn't do the study. 7 But, based on the fact that we have 8 integration, over time, of the carbon within an 9 organism, one wouldn't expect that to vary all that 10 much. 11 Q. Would light source have any effect on this 12 study? For instance, at the location of your three 13 different stations, was some large overgrowth, that the 14 organisms were not getting a lot of light, because the 15 macroinvertebrates covering -- 16 A. Whatever -- 17 Q. Herbivores or any kind of vascular plants 18 that would be covering the light sources? In other 19 words -- 20 MR. HYDE: I think you mean "macrophytes"? 21 MS. MISIAK: Yes. 22 A. Go ahead. 23 Q. In other words, were there some type of 24 controls? Did we know -- this is just, I guess, just a 25 study simply limited to finding out where these 55 1 herbivores are getting their carbon? 2 A. That's it. 3 Q. That's it? 4 A. That's it. 5 Q. Just simply that? 6 A. Absolutely, that's it. And, of course, when 7 we find where they get their carbon, then they tell us 8 whether or not they're a food source, which is what 9 we're after. 10 Q. What was your conclusion to this study? 11 A. The conclusions are on page 12. The first 12 conclusion is that the carbon isotope analysis 13 indicated that the periphyton-Bladderwort assemblages 14 can be a carbon source for herbivores in the WCAs. 15 Q. What is a periphyton Bladderwort assemblage? 16 A. That's the periphyton living on the 17 Bladderwort, and in many of the instances we -- well, 18 let me back up a minute. 19 Based on the Delta carbon values, periphyton 20 and Bladderwort are very similar in their Delta carbon. 21 Okay? Number one. 22 Number two is that we found Bladderwort, 23 most -- in all instances that I can recall, encrusted 24 with the periphyton. 25 So, it's very difficult to separate out the 56 1 periphyton from the Bladderwort. And that's why I 2 called it a Bladderwort, or a periphyton-Bladderwort 3 assemblage. I can't separate the two. 4 Q. So, that assemblage, the 5 periphyton-Bladderwort, was what was eaten by the 6 herbivores? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That's the carbon source? 9 A. Yes, that's the carbon source. 10 Q. The combination was the carbon source? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. How did you measure these Delta 13 carbons? How were they measured? 14 A. Coastal Science. 15 Q. That's when you -- you sent everything over 16 to Coastal Science? 17 A. Yes. They're in Texas. And they measured 18 them. I believe they measured them with mass 19 spectroscopy, but I'm not altogether sure about that. 20 That's why we sent them to them. 21 Q. Your second conclusion? 22 A. Macrophytes were not generally the carbon 23 source for the animals that we measured, because the 24 animals were more enriched than the macrophytes. 25 Carbon enrichment of about one part per 57 1 thousand. So, carbon enrichment of about one part per 2 thousand, occurs for each trophic level. Therefore, a 3 plant that is more enriched than an animal, is not a 4 carbon source for that animal. 5 Q. How did you measure the carbon sources from 6 the animals? 7 A. The same way we measured them for the plants. 8 We collected them, dried them, ground them up, and 9 shipped them to Texas for analysis. 10 Q. Then number three, "Calculated enrichment 11 factors for trophic levels assuming the 12 periphyton-Bladderwort assemblage provided carbon to 13 animals when measured." 14 What is an enrichment factor? 15 A. We just divided what we found in the critter, 16 and what we found in the Bladderwort-periphyton, to get 17 how much we had to -- if you start with a base of 18 periphyton-Bladderwort assemblage of zero, what's the 19 increase to the herbivore level, and then what's the 20 increase to the first -- or consumer, so we could get 21 those levels? How much are we increasing, if anything, 22 as we go up the food chain? 23 We found enrichment between periphyton and 24 herbivores was about 1.1 per periphyton, and omnivores 25 was about 2.5, and between periphyton and piscivores, 58 1 was 2.7. 2 Q. But the carbon in macrophytes was less in the 3 animals, the Delta carbon? 4 A. Less in the macrophytes than in the animals. 5 Q. Then, in your fourth -- paragraph number 6 four, you talk about nitrogen enrichment factors? 7 A. Right. Nitrogen enrichment factors were 3.6, 8 4.0 and 5.8, sorry for the misspellings, herbivores, 9 omnivores and piscivores, respectively. 10 What the literature tells us is that nitrogen 11 enrichment of about 3 parts per thousand would occur at 12 each trophic level. 13 So, between one trophic level and the next, 14 it should be three, and the next one would be an 15 additional three and three, and so on up the food line, 16 and we found for herbivores, again, assuming that 17 periphyton-Bladderwort were the carbon nitrogen source 18 here, that 3.6 was the average enrichment for the 19 herbivores, 4 for the omnivores, and 5.8 for the 20 piscivores. 21 Q. Did you measure the carbon-nitrogen -- not -- 22 the Delta -- did you measure the nitrogen in 23 macrophytes? I mean, in summary No. 3, you say that 24 the Delta carbon was less in the macrophyte than in the 25 animal? What about the nitrogen in the macrophyte? 59 1 A. You use nitrogen differently than carbon. 2 You use nitrogen to look at trophic level and carbon to 3 look at food source. 4 In four here we are looking at nitrogen as 5 trophic level indicator, and carbon as source of food. 6 Q. What's "trophic level"? 7 A. Feeding level. Whether you are a producer, 8 consumer, and what level consumer you are. 9 Q. Was this approach good science, in your 10 opinion? This approach? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Why? 13 A. I think that it takes advantage of the -- 14 what we know about isotopes, what we know about feeding 15 behavior, and it uses that information. It's 16 repeatable. It's -- it integrates over time. And I 17 think it provides a basis for at least suggesting that 18 the periphyton is a food source. And I, again, I think 19 that's very consistent with what we're seeing from 20 Browder's work, and her diagram in the latest -- I 21 can't remember the name of the book. The restoration 22 book that just came out, where she has a diagram of 23 both macrophytes and the periphyton, and showing that, 24 you know, at times they're both food sources, but 25 certainly periphyton is a food source. 60 1 Q. That's all the study measured, though, is the 2 food source, whether or not there's growth out there? 3 Biomass, is it biomass growth? 4 A. No. It measured the carbons, Delta carbon. 5 You know, that was the primary impetus, was to look at 6 carbon ratios. 7 Q. Let's go back to page 4 of the study. You're 8 talking there about the naturally occurring periphyton 9 community. 10 You identify some periphyton species. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. What are these? Are they blue-green? Are 13 they diatoms? 14 A. Schizothrix calciola is a blue-green algae, 15 identified by Swift and Nicholas and Browder, and 16 everybody that has done work in the Everglades, as a 17 blue-green algae that is indicative of low nutrient 18 concentrations. The second one is Stigeoclonium tenue, 19 and Stigeoclonium is a green algae, and it's somewhat 20 pollution tolerant. 21 Q. What does that mean? 22 A. That it can grow in enriched waters, waters 23 that are enriched with nutrients. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. And then Scytonema hofmanii, a very small 61 1 quantity in 2A1, and that again is a blue-green, and 2 coupled with the Schizothrix calciola, are the two 3 blue-greens that are indicative of low nutrient waters. 4 In station 2A2-3, we found Schizothrix as 5 well. 6 Microcoleus lynbyaceous. Microcoleus is a 7 blue-green algae which is a very pollution tolerant 8 organism, and has been identified as so in the 9 Everglades. And we find diatoms. And Gomphospheria, 10 which I believe is a green algae. And at 3A4-5, we 11 find, again, Schizothrix calciola as a dominant 12 organism, and at all of these stations, Schizothrix was 13 the dominant organism. 14 We find Anabaena, which is a blue-green, 15 which is pollution tolerant, much like Microcoleus, and 16 then very minor amounts of Gomphospheria. 17 Q. So, you identified these specific species in 18 the periphyton community. When you did that 19 identification, did you check to see the different 20 levels of carbon in each species relative to the other? 21 A. No, you can't. There was no -- it's not 22 physically possible to separate those organisms in a 23 periphyton assemblage, at least not to my knowledge. 24 Perhaps there are ways of doing it, but I 25 have not seen those, and no, we didn't attempt to 62 1 separate them. 2 What we were trying to get at here was the 3 periphyton assemblage that's there, is it a food 4 source? In looking at the assemblage, that's the 5 approach that we took. 6 Q. In your opinion, these Schizothrix calciola, 7 those are an indicator of low nutrient waters? 8 A. Yes. And I'm relying here on the work that 9 Dave Swift did in '78, and into the early eighties, and 10 that Dr. Browder did as well, and that Patrick Gleason 11 did. All of those folks have identified that as a 12 blue-green algae that's a very -- is indicative of low 13 nutrient concentrations and is -- can I use the word, 14 in quotes, good guys? 15 Q. Okay. What about diatoms? What are they 16 indicative of? 17 A. They can be -- diatoms is a huge group of 18 critters. The diatoms can be -- there are some that 19 are good. If I can use the word in parentheses, again, 20 parenthetically, and there are some that live in very 21 eutrophic conditions. It depends on what diatom you 22 are looking at. 23 Q. Are the different species of diatoms very 24 easily identified? 25 A. Yes, sure. 63 1 Q. But you weren't looking at that in the 2 studies you did? You didn't go down to look at the 3 different species? 4 A. Yes, we did. In December and August. 5 However, we did this work in September through 6 November, and I don't have that data. 7 Q. The work done in December and August, were 8 they for the same study, and just not incorporated in 9 this? 10 A. No. They were for this other study, the 11 periphyton community dynamics. All the data that we 12 have for the study is included here. 13 Q. I guess this is why I was asking about light, 14 because I didn't understand this. 15 On page six, it says, "Cattail and sawgrass 16 detritus was obtained from shaded areas and failed to 17 minimize periphyton growth." 18 A. When we picked up cattail and sawgrass 19 detritus, but we didn't want to have it with a green 20 mat or blue-green mat on it. We wanted it to be as 21 pure as we could get it from the field, so when we 22 brought it back to the laboratory and looked at the 23 material, we didn't have to scrape off periphyton. 24 That's why we took it from the shaded area, 25 because there's less likelihood of significant 64 1 quantities in the shaded area. 2 Q. Then, it says, "Water quality parameters that 3 were monitored in representative bowls daily include: 4 Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and 5 conductivity/hardness." 6 What are those indicators of, each 7 individually? Why would you -- 8 A. We also did a feeding study here, associated 9 with this, and organisms need to have a certain level 10 of dissolved oxygen to be healthy. They need to have a 11 good temperature range, pH and conductivity. 12 They need to have a decent environment in 13 which to grow. And when you culture organisms in the 14 laboratory, there's enough stress on them already, 15 taking them out, handling them and putting them in a 16 small bowl and all kinds of things, that we need to 17 maintain that water quality in as, quote-unquote, good 18 quality water as we possibly could. So, we monitored 19 those, as indicators of water quality. 20 Q. You're actually growing the animals, you're 21 culturing these animals in your laboratory, to do this 22 study? 23 A. No. There are two parts of the study. The 24 first part was the isotope study. Then we went out to 25 the same stations and collected slides of material, 65 1 brought them back to the laboratory, in water, and put 2 them in bowls, in the culture bowls, and then had 3 crayfish, snails and sailfin mollies, in the -- in 4 bowls, so that we could see if those critters were 5 actually eating the periphyton and could live. So, 6 that was the second part of the study. 7 Q. Is it possible that they were eating the 8 periphyton in your study, in the second part of your 9 study, only because there wasn't anything else to eat 10 and they wanted to live? What would you -- how do you 11 control that? 12 How do you know that when there's other 13 sources of carbon, say, out in the environment, in the 14 natural environment, in the Everglades, versus a 15 controlled situation in your laboratory, where their 16 only source of nutrient is the periphyton with the 17 carbon in it, that they weren't struggling to survive, 18 so they eat this carbon containing the periphyton, 19 versus out in the natural system? 20 A. I don't think it matters. If they're eating 21 the periphyton in the laboratory, they're eating it and 22 they're using it as a food source, and it can be used 23 as a food source. 24 Whether or not they exclusively use it in the 25 field, I can't begin to tell you based on that feeding 66 1 study. 2 However, based on the carbon isotope data, it 3 indicates that they are using it in the field, and I 4 think that perhaps if we put them under stress 5 conditions, it may be like the Everglades, in one 6 that's drying up, or under some other very stressful 7 condition. 8 So, I don't think -- I just don't think 9 that's a concern. 10 Q. So, is your implicit conclusion then 11 basically, because you can use these periphyton as food 12 sources, that everything is okay in the Everglades and 13 it doesn't matter what kind of periphyton are out 14 there? 15 A. No, that's not my implicit conclusion. My 16 conclusion is that periphyton can be a food source in 17 the Everglades, and that based on the data that we 18 have, they are a food source in the Everglades. 19 MS. MISIAK: Let's break for lunch. It's 20 1:00 o'clock. 21 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken 22 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., after which 23 the following proceedings were had:) 24 MS. MISIAK: This is what we're going to mark 25 as the exhibit. I guess this would be Exhibit 3, 67 1 "Periphyton community dynamics in Water 2 Conservation Areas, Everglades, Florida." 3 (The document referred to was thereupon 4 marked Smart Exhibit 3 for Identification.) 5 BY MS. MISIAK: 6 Q. Dr. Smart, are you the actual author of this? 7 Did you write this document? 8 A. There are two authors, two principal authors. 9 That's myself and Dr. Jack Jones, John R. Jones. 10 Q. John R. Jones? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I guess, let's see, let's start at the 13 summary. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. Number one, would this statement be 16 considered your hypothesis to this study? 17 "Periphyton biomass nutrient content and 18 species composition in the Everglades Water 19 Conservation Areas were examined to determine 20 periphyton community response to environmental 21 gradients, vegetation, nutrient, water level." 22 A. No, that's not the hypothesis. The 23 hypotheses are on page 1 of that document, where it 24 says we had two working hypotheses, one relating a 25 species composition and one to growth. 68 1 Our working hypothesis was that differences 2 in periphyton species composition could be related to 3 differences in water levels, (hydroperiod), and our 4 second hypothesis was that periphyton growth, the 5 accrual of biomass, could be related to hydroperiod and 6 nutrients in the water column. 7 Those would be the two hypotheses that we 8 had. Number one here basically says what we did in 9 order to test those two hypotheses. 10 Q. And number two, it says, "Incubate for 35 11 days." 12 Did you again get that 35 day period of 13 incubation from Swift's study? 14 A. Yes. In fact, we patterned this study after 15 the work that Mr. Swift did, in his 1978-1979 work. We 16 added some stations and did -- but that was the pattern 17 that we followed. 18 Q. Were you kind of trying to duplicate Swift's 19 work? 20 A. Yes. Although not exactly duplicate. What 21 we wanted to do was to find out -- we did some things 22 differently, like in around a station, we had 23 substations. 24 I don't want to get lost in terminology here, 25 but the station, for example, would be the 2A1, which 69 1 is nearest the canal, S-10 area, and that we had 2 substations, one, two, three and four, each in a 3 different macrophyte stand, so that we could figure out 4 if the water chemistry, if the accrual, and if the 5 species compositions were different within those 6 substations. 7 So, that was different than his study, but as 8 a general rule of going out and looking at water 9 chemistry, and periphyton species and accrual, yes, 10 that's -- you know, we were patterning our work after 11 the work that Dave Swift did. 12 Q. These macrophyte stations, what is that? 13 A. Based on an area that we would go to, we 14 would look at the dominant vegetation as indicated in 15 table one of the report, and based on that dominant 16 vegetation, we would go ahead and put, or went ahead 17 and put a periphyton sampler into that area. 18 Q. How did you determine these were -- were you 19 trying to get different types of macrophytes? 20 A. We focused in each area on -- the dominant 21 macrophytes in most of the areas are sawgrass, cattail, 22 and the sloughs that are in those areas, as well, and 23 we also looked at -- I think we had two stations that 24 were wet prairies, as well, and those are, again, 25 identified in table one, that lists species abundance 70 1 for each of those macrophytes. 2 Q. Because this is kind of a strange 3 configuration, and the reason is because of your 4 substations? That's why this is a different -- 5 A. May I -- 6 Q. You can write on that one. 7 A. Why is it strange? 8 Q. Instead of being linear, it's not really a 9 linear configuration of stations. You've got all of 10 these little -- 11 A. I wouldn't think that it needs to be linear 12 to be -- to not be strange, but I think that what we 13 have here is the 2A1 station being right here. Let me 14 just stop for a minute and get the table one out, 15 because I don't recall right off the top of my head 16 which one is cattail and which one is sawgrass. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. If I had that, it would make more sense. 19 So, within this area, and we're looking here 20 near the S-10 structure, we were -- we did site 21 reconnaissance, "we," meaning Dr. Jones and myself. 22 We went out and said, "Okay, where's the 23 dominant stand of cattail," and we found the dominant 24 stand of cattail at 2A1-1 and hence, we put our station 25 there. We then went and said, "Where's the dominant 71 1 stand of sawgrass," and we went to 2A1-2 and located 2 the station there. 3 We then said, "Okay, let's look at a mix of 4 cattail and sawgrass that would be roughly 50/50, but 5 variable, to be certain," and we established that at 6 2A1-3, which is, you can see, is close to 2A1-2. 7 Then we went to a slough near that area, and 8 that's the station over here in the right-hand corner 9 of this inset, for station 2A1, and that's a maiden 10 cane hydrocolloidal slough. 11 So, station location is in the general 12 vicinity of the S-10 structures, in the general 13 vicinity of the canal, but located in a position so 14 that we had different macrophyte communities being 15 represented, so that we could take the different 16 samples from those stations. 17 We can go through each of the stations from 18 the table and the figure there, and point out which 19 ones are cattail and sawgrass. 20 I might add that your linearity question, I 21 assume, is coming from the fact that Mr. Swift did a 22 linear down, fairly near where we were, and we decided 23 that, you know, that we wanted to be -- base ours on 24 the macrophytes, so we could test whether or not 25 there's any difference in the macrophytes. 72 1 Q. In comparing your study to Swift's study, did 2 you take into consideration the changes that have 3 occurred in the ten years since Swift did his study? 4 Back in the '78-'79, you didn't have the drying out 5 periods that you have now. 6 A. That's right. The WCA-2A, back in that time 7 period, was basically water storage, so you had water 8 there all the time. 9 Yes, I think we did, and I think we took into 10 account the different variables of the water depth, the 11 drying out, the nutrient -- the vegetation nutrient 12 water level, and I think those -- by locating our 13 stations where we did, we took into account the 14 differences that were there. 15 Q. Let's look at your methods and let's go into 16 detail and tell me what your methods that you used were 17 for this study? 18 A. Where would you like me to start? 19 Q. What type of substrate was used for your 20 study? 21 A. Substrate for -- 22 Q. For your periphyton. 23 A. Okay. We used -- page 4, middle paragraph, 24 where it says that samples were obtained by use of a 25 periphotometer constructed of a meter long piece of 73 1 PVC, and three four inch styrofoam floats. A three 2 inch PVC tee attached to each end of the periphotometer 3 could allow the unit to be placed on two PVC guideposts 4 and rise and fall with fluctuating water levels. 5 To that assembly we attached plastic 6 microscope slides, approximately 6.5 centimeters by 3 7 centimeters, and they were lightly buffed, sanded, read 8 that sanded, and attached to the barrel swivels, such 9 that the top of the slide was approximately one inch 10 below the water surface. 11 There should be a figure two in here, that is 12 a schematic, that just shows the -- what that looks 13 like. Not there? Okay. 14 MR. HYDE: Do you have it with yours? I'm 15 trying to see if it's a copier problem or what. 16 MS. STARK: I got mine when she got hers. 17 They all went through the fax machine together. 18 MR. HYDE: I just wonder, do you have the 19 document, the one that Dianne does not have? 20 A. It's just a hand-drawn sketch of the 21 periphotometer. So, if I might -- 22 Q. Sure. 23 A. These are the PVC pipe, and these are 24 representative of the tees, and we put a piece of rebar 25 into the muck, and then put the PVC over the muck, and 74 1 then put this apparatus, just slid it right over the 2 top, and then these are basically net floats, 3 styrofoam, like you would use on some kind of a fish 4 net, and so it could rise and fall with the water 5 level. That's the way that we, you know -- that the 6 slides were obtained. 7 Q. They were left in this position for 35 days? 8 A. Yes. Yes. Let me hasten to add that if we 9 came back and the site had dried, we didn't take the 10 slides. We did not analyze them. We only analyzed 11 slides that we knew were in the water for 35 days, or 12 that we had no knowledge that they weren't in the water 13 for that time period. 14 Then around each of the periphotometers, we 15 cleared -- we took up another piece of PVC, a meter by 16 a meter, and laid it over the top of this, so you had a 17 corral enclosure, and if the PVC was sticking up, you 18 would have this corral enclosure, and that kept 19 floating material from being pushed into each of these. 20 So, you had a meter -- one meter by one meter 21 opening, so you could look at that. 22 Q. You placed these approximately one inch below 23 the water surface, but that one inch below the water 24 surface, would have changed during the 35 days 25 depending on the period? 75 1 A. No. The slides were suspended so that when 2 these floats were in the water, that they were one inch 3 below. 4 Q. So the notes should keep it relatively 5 constant? 6 A. Yes. That should -- 7 Q. How, periodically, how often were you out 8 there, checking on the slides? I know just -- 9 A. We put them out and picked them up. Put them 10 out and picked them up. Yes. 11 Q. Did you, yourself, put these out and pick 12 them up? 13 A. I did on four occasions. Other than that, 14 some other folks helped out. Would you -- 15 Q. Yes. How many occasions, total, were there? 16 Do you know? 17 A. 12 sample periods. 18 Q. You took -- four you did. 19 A. Right. 20 Q. Who else? 21 A. Jeff Collins. He has a master's degree in 22 aquatic sciences. He was my primary field sampler, and 23 he was on every field trip. 24 Q. So, he went with you, and he -- whoever went 25 out there, he was also with them? 76 1 A. Right. He was my lead technician for the 2 project. And he had an assistant, if I wasn't there, 3 he had an assistant go with him, somebody he would work 4 with. 5 Do you need that? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. That person was generally Clyde Owens, and 8 Clyde is a technician, and he went on about, I'm 9 guessing here, about 80 percent of the trips. 10 Q. In the cattail areas, did you have many 11 problems inserting this device because of the growth of 12 the cattails? 13 A. We had to cut a few cattails, yes. The same 14 with the sawgrass. 15 Q. So, after you placed these in the water, you 16 left them for 35 days and then you came back and you 17 got them? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. Well, first let me -- how did you get out to 20 each of these sites? I take it some of these sites are 21 pretty much into the interior of the Everglades and 22 it's pretty much overgrown? 23 A. Airboat, or a -- on occasion, in what we call 24 the 3A1 station, just off Miami Mud Canal, south of the 25 S-8 structure, with a -- the big wheel things. Swamp 77 1 buggy. 2 Q. I heard of that. 3 A. We contracted that out with an individual who 4 knew where everything was. 5 We located all the stations with GIS -- GPS, 6 Global Positioning System, so that we could come back 7 to them and find them, which is an endeavor, at times. 8 Q. Yes. To make sure you are going -- you knew 9 where you were going. 10 Is there a table in here that measured or 11 that took into consideration light filtering through to 12 these slides? In other words, in some of the more 13 overgrown areas there would have been -- 14 A. No. We put the meter, PVC around it, so that 15 each station had a meter opening, and our thinking 16 there is that in cattail or dense stands of sawgrass, 17 the amount of light impinging in there is a very big 18 determinant, from the literature, a big determinant of 19 accrual and growth of algae. We've known that for 25 20 years. 21 So, we decided that we would put these rings 22 around it, so that we could compare the sites among 23 themselves. 24 Q. Then you would go -- you went back at the end 25 of the 35 days and you took each slide. 78 1 A. Right. 2 Q. What did you do with it at that point in 3 time? 4 A. We removed each slide, and we took three of 5 the slides for chlorophyll A, to determine biomass. We 6 took two to three replicates for total nitrogen, two to 7 three replicates for total phosphorus, and two to three 8 replicates for total carbon. 9 The reason we have two to three in there and 10 not a specific number is, we only had 12 slides, and to 11 do all of the things that we were going to do, 12 sometimes we used two for total nitrogen, sometimes we 13 used three, just depending, and we would vary it, and 14 we would always take three for chlorophyll, we would 15 always take three for IDs, and whatever was left we 16 would take and put them into whirlpacks and analyze the 17 material. 18 Q. What's a whirlpack bag? 19 A. It's a small plastic bag that's sterilized, 20 and it's about five or six centimeters wide by ten 21 centimeters deep, and they have a tie on the top of 22 them so you can slip something into them, wrap them up 23 and they're sealed, and you put liquid in them, and 24 it's a very convenient way of transporting materials in 25 the field, and in fact, we put 5 milliliters of ethanol 79 1 in the whirlpack bag, in the chlorophyll A, and we put 2 five -- hang on a minute -- and we put in formalin in 3 the slides that we were going to enumerate into those 4 bags. 5 Q. Why would you use ethanol at one point and 6 formalin for others, for certain ones? 7 A. Because ethanol is used for chlorophyll A for 8 the biomass analysis, and formalin is used for the 9 identification. Two separate processes. 10 Q. Ethanol is for chlorophyll A? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And formalin is used to ID -- 13 A. For critter names, to determine what's there. 14 Q. In these whirlpack bags, did you put all the 15 slides? Did the slides ever overlap? 16 A. No. One slide per bag, always. 17 Q. Were there different amounts of light being 18 filtered to these slides, like in the sawgrass versus 19 in dense concentrations of sawgrass, versus dense 20 concentrations of cattails? 21 A. I didn't measure light attenuation within the 22 community, so I don't know. I don't know. 23 Q. Would the amount of light that gets -- that 24 would get to these slides, would that affect the amount 25 of chlorophyll A? Does light affect amounts of 80 1 chlorophyll A in periphytons? 2 A. Scientific literature tells us light is one 3 of the things that affects the amount of growth on the 4 slides, and that's why we put a meter ring around every 5 station, so that we could standardize as much as 6 possible, light getting to the station. That's why we 7 did that. 8 Now, were we a hundred percent accurate and 9 correct in that there was always the same amount of 10 light? I don't know. But we -- I think that we did 11 everything we could to make sure that, you know, that 12 we got -- we had an open -- the same opening for each 13 sample area. 14 The important thing here is that we compared 15 sample areas, so that we could compare sample station 16 2A1-1 to sample station 3A4-5, and that's important in 17 that you have the same methodologies at each of those 18 stations, and that's what we did. In a dense cattail, 19 near the 12 structures, we constructed the same 20 periphotometer setup that we did in the north 2A area. 21 Q. I guess I'm confused on what this meter is 22 that you are describing. 23 A. Around this periphotometer, which is a 24 meter -- this is one meter right here -- can I draw you 25 a picture? 81 1 Q. Sure. 2 A. I know you can't see this -- 3 MS. MISIAK: You can put it on as part of an 4 exhibit. 5 A. If you are looking down from the 6 periphotometer, there's one of the PVC pipes, there's 7 one of the PVC pipes, and there is the meter. PVC, one 8 meter. We took PVC that was one meter -- I apologize 9 for my drawing, but -- you're looking down at it. And 10 this was a piece of PVC that was one meter, one meter, 11 one meter, and one meter, around there. 12 So that what we had is this opening of -- 13 around the periphotometer, so we could at least have 14 that much opening for each of the stations, and you are 15 looking down on it. If you were to look down on it, 16 that's the way it would look. 17 Q. Would there be any shading over this, that 18 would affect that? 19 A. Well, sure. When the sun comes up in the 20 morning, and it goes down at night, you get shading, 21 and you are going to get shading when the wind blows 22 and the cattails are over it, and that's just one of 23 the things that -- you know, I can't control all of 24 that. 25 What I can do is try to make the sample areas 82 1 the same in all of the -- you know, so we can do the 2 comparisons, and make the comparisons valid. One would 3 think that the rising sun would affect 2A1 and 3A4-5, 4 and you are going to have differences because of that. 5 Q. What about, do nutrients affect the amount of 6 chlorophyll A in a periphyton, in algae? 7 A. Sure, absolutely. We've known for 25 years 8 that phosphorus and nitrogen, primarily phosphorus, 9 controls -- not controls, but is a very significant 10 component to biomass production in algae. 11 Q. What does that mean? So, phosphorus is a 12 nutrient. So, if you added phosphorus, you would have 13 an increase in chlorophyll A? You would expect to see 14 an increase in chlorophyll A? 15 A. One would expect to see an increase. If I 16 may make the analogy, when you fertilize your lawn in 17 the springtime, most places in the U. S., I don't know 18 about here, but you fertilize your lawn in the 19 springtime and then it gets green and grows like crazy, 20 and you have to mow it a lot. 21 The same thing happens with periphyton, and 22 the fertilizer you are putting on the lawn is the 23 nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. So, the effect on 24 a plant of that material, you know, it makes it grow 25 more. 83 1 Q. Now we have these placed in formalin and in 2 ethanol. 3 A. And some of them just placed in the ice 4 bucket, or ice chest that we had. 5 Q. You mentioned, kept in the dark. Why was 6 that important? 7 A. Chlorophyll A, once it -- it is very 8 susceptible to light, and if you have put ethanol, 9 which is the extracting agent from the algae, if you 10 want to extract chlorophyll, put it in ethanol alcohol 11 and it will extract the green pigments right out of the 12 plant. 13 If you put the ethanol in the algae and put 14 it in 20 or 30 seconds of light, you can change the 15 numbers that you get, by fifteen or twenty percent. 16 So, it's very, very susceptible to light, and you have 17 to be very careful that you keep it in the dark at all 18 times. 19 Q. Would light affect any of these other -- 20 light wouldn't affect your taxonomy, would it? 21 A. No. Because when you pickle them -- when you 22 put them in formalin, you are basically pickling them. 23 You're killing them. Preserving them. Preserving them 24 is the correct biological term. 25 Q. So, you get back to the lab and you scrape 84 1 each of the periphyton from the slide. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What does this mean? It says the periphyton 4 material was digested and the digest state analyzed for 5 total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total organic 6 carbon. 7 A. Let me back up, and I will go through what we 8 did with each of those. With the slides that we 9 collected for chlorophyll A, we shipped them and took 10 them back to the laboratory and analyzed those slides 11 for the amount of chlorophyll A in there, an indicator 12 of the bottom mass of the periphyte. 13 The slides we had collected for total 14 nitrogen, total phosphorus and total organic carbon, 15 those you just referred to a moment ago, we took the 16 slide, we scraped the periphyton from that slide, and 17 digested the material at standard methods for plant and 18 soil analyses, and then analyzed the resultant liquid 19 that would contain the digested material for total 20 phosphorus, total nitrogen and total organic carbon, 21 and we would analyze for each slide we collected, we 22 would analyze it for total nitrogen, one slide for 23 total nitrogen, and then we would move on and analyze 24 another one for total organic carbon, because the 25 problem with the periphyton is that at times you do not 85 1 have enough biomass on there to give you a real -- to 2 give you a large quantity of material to work with. 3 So, you take the material, you digest it, you 4 analyze it, and then you come up with how much 5 phosphorus, how much nitrogen and how much organic 6 carbon is associated with the periphyton community on 7 the slides. 8 Then, the other set of slides that we 9 obtained, we analyzed with, or put the 5 percent 10 formalin solution in them and analyzed those for the 11 taxonomy, figured out what organisms were on those 12 slides. 13 Q. Who did the actual species identification? 14 A. A fellow by the name of Blaise, B-L-A-I-S-E, 15 Brazos, B-R-A-Z-O-S. He is a master's degree in 16 biology and he is a taxonomist. And he did all of the 17 identifications. 18 Q. He did all of them? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who is he with? 21 A. He is at the University of Missouri. He 22 worked directly under Dr. Jones. 23 At the same time that we took the slides, we 24 also took water samples, and we had the -- the water 25 samples were analyzed for the various constituents 86 1 listed in table -- let me get the table number right. 2 In table 2. Had the variables analyzed, methods 3 employed, detection limits and the type of tests that 4 we used to analyze those, to the water. 5 Q. Did you actually do the water analyses? 6 A. Did I do them? No. No. We had -- the water 7 was analyzed by two different locations. One, most of 8 the water analyses were conducted at the Breedlove 9 Dennis laboratory, and were conducted under their 10 comprehensive quality assurance, quality control plan, 11 the state document, and the total nitrogen and the 12 total phosphorus, were analyzed by Dr. Jack Jones at 13 the University of Missouri. 14 Dr. Jones has a research laboratory that 15 routinely analyzes periphyton and suspended algae and 16 the nutrients and the chemistry associated with aquatic 17 ecosystems. We decided to send the nitrogen and 18 phosphorus to him for analysis, because we needed the 19 analytical -- we wanted him to do the analytical work 20 on it. 21 Q. Did this Blaise Brazos, when he did the 22 species identification, did he do a reference check, to 23 confirm what it was that he found, that the IDs were 24 confirmed? 25 A. With the diatoms -- you mean, did he actually 87 1 have mounts that he kept? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. I believe so, but I'm not a hundred percent 4 certain. I think he took pictures, and I believe he 5 kept the mounts, but I'm not a hundred percent certain. 6 One would assume that he would, in the normal course of 7 identification. That's standard practice. 8 Q. Back on page 5, above your species 9 identification, you state that all water chemistry 10 variables, except alkalinity, conductance, pH, 11 turbidity and water temperature were positively skewed 12 and were transformed with log X to satisfy normality 13 assumptions. 14 Did you test for normalcy? Did this 15 logarithm method actually work? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Analyze the data? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Back to Blaise Brazos. Were his species -- 20 were the specie IDs confirmed at a museum or by a 21 recognized expert? Do you know? 22 A. Yes. The diatoms by Mike Amspoker. 23 Q. Amspoker, A-M-S-P-O-K-E-R. 24 A. And the other algae by -- I'm drawing a 25 blank, and I apologize. 88 1 Q. That's okay. 2 A. I can't think of the person that he had help 3 him with that. I'm sorry, I can't -- I'm going blank. 4 Q. Under this method section of species 5 identification, this is the method that Blaise actually 6 used for his identification? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. On the bottom of page 6, it kind of just 9 ends. It doesn't follow on page seven. 10 Do you know what's missing? 11 A. Yes. The person who typed that last sentence 12 there, forgot to remember the "for" in a word 13 processing error, which he apologizes for. 14 Q. It talks about blue-green algae being 15 identified to species. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And filamentous green algae being identified 18 to genera. Were the diatom identified to species? 19 A. Yes. And the greens were, where they could 20 be, were identified to species as well. 21 Those lists are in the back of the species 22 identification, and if you look at those tables, you 23 see the diatoms in December and August, most of them 24 are species that would be in Appendix A. 25 Q. Do you agree that the Everglades is a 89 1 phosphorus limited ecosystem? 2 A. Our data suggests it is a phosphorus limited 3 system. As opposed to a nitrogen or carbon or silica, 4 yes. 5 Q. If it's a phosphorus limited system, and you 6 increased the phosphorus in the system, what would you 7 expect to happen? 8 A. Can I answer that in terms of what we found 9 in the Everglades? 10 Q. Absolutely, yes. 11 A. As we talked about before, when you increase 12 phosphorus, you can expect biomass to increase. 13 What we found here indicated that phosphorus 14 was an important contributor at times and at locations, 15 to the periphyton community. 16 I think if we look at -- if I can go back to 17 the front, to the summary, to the things that are 18 numbered there, we can look at No. 20, where it says, 19 "Chlorophyll accrual at stations 2A3 and 2A2, some 8.1 20 and 11.2 kilometers south of the Hillsborough Canal, 21 within the interior of the WCA-2A unit, was about 20 to 22 30 percent of the measured rate at the 2A1 location. 23 This difference in chlorophyll accrual along a 24 longitudinal transect, closely matches the decrease in 25 phosphorus content of the marsh below the 2A1 site. 90 1 Collectively, this pattern of chlorophyll accrual at 2 the various sampling stations, supports the view that 3 the canal water serves as a source of nutrients to the 4 adjacent areas of the wetland complex and promotes 5 algal growth." 6 Okay. Now, go, if you would, to number -- to 7 No. 24, where it says that, "An examination of an 8 estimated maxima for chlorophyll indicated that 3A1 had 9 somewhat more observations than expected, and site 3A3 10 produced many more observations than expected." 11 The observations are defined in No. 23, or in 12 the text. 13 "This suggests that on average, there is 14 greater algal accrual per unit of phosphorus in the 15 water column at these sites than elsewhere in the 16 system. Site 3A1 is located near the Mud Canal, and 17 receives water from the S-8 structure and the Miami 18 Canal. Site 3A3 is adjacent to the S-9 structure and 19 receives flow from developed areas to the east of the 20 WCA-3A unit. In both cases, the inflow may deliver 21 available forms of phosphorus that promote algal 22 growth. This analysis included data from the site 2A1 23 with less than 50 micrograms per liter of total 24 phosphorus." 25 When you look at the particular analysis we 91 1 looked at to get to No. 24, that last analysis makes 2 sense. 3 Then let's go to No. 31, where we say that, 4 "Multiple regression analysis indicated that pH, water 5 temperature and specific conductance were important 6 variables in determining the percent eutrophic algae in 7 winter." 8 Eutrophic algae is defined Mr. my Grimshaw in 9 a paper. "When regressed against percent eutrophic 10 algae, pH alone had an R squared of .33, water 11 temperature .31, and specific conductance of .27. 12 During summer, TP," which is total phosphorus, 13 "specific conductance, water temperature and water 14 depth were important variables in determining percent 15 eutrophic algae. When regressed against percent 16 eutrophic algae, total phosphorus alone had an R 17 squared of .2, specific conductance .14, water 18 temperature .22, and water depth .33." 19 No. 33, please. "Diversity indices were 20 generally greatest during winter. Mean diversity 21 indices plotted over the study period are fairly 22 uniform," they're not different, "and range from one at 23 2A3, to 2.04 at station 2A1-2 and 3." 24 Okay. When you look at what I've just said, 25 it relates to the phosphorus, and when you talk about 92 1 the algal community, you can't just talk about accrual 2 or the diversity or whatever. You have to talk about 3 everything. 4 So, when you look at phosphorus, does it 5 affect growth? Sure it's a nutrient. It grows. When 6 you add fertilizer to grass, grass grows. We would 7 expect that. 8 Does it determine the species composition? 9 And in what we looked at, we found that it was one of 10 the variables that contributed to the type of species 11 one would find in the summer. 12 However, as well as total phosphorus, 13 specific conductance, water temperature and water depth 14 were also significant contributors to the percent 15 eutrophic algae that we would find there. 16 And in the wintertime, total phosphorus had 17 no impact at all on -- that we found in our study, on 18 the percent eutrophic algae, and then if we take that 19 one step further, we look at it as a diversity index, 20 and the diversity index, looking at the diversity of 21 the community, does the 2A1 or the 2A1-4 or any of the 22 2A1 stations have a lower diversity, that's where we 23 have the highest phosphorus, and there's no question 24 about that, and the answer is no. They seem to be 25 very, very uniform over the study period. 93 1 So, when we look at the effects of 2 phosphorus, I think we have to look at a number of 3 different things, and I think that those -- the things 4 we just looked at are the ones that we need to be very 5 concerned -- not concerned about. Those are the ones 6 we need to look at. 7 Q. Your diversity indices did not include 8 diatoms. Why is that? 9 A. Because they're not all done at species level 10 yet, and if you were to lump the diatoms as a group, it 11 would goof up all your species diversity. 12 Q. Why? Because they're not all the way 13 identified to the species level? 14 A. And the other critters are. The other 15 organisms are, down as far as we can get them, and to 16 take a group of diatoms that are significant, and to 17 just lump them as a diatom, I think would not be as 18 accurate as this. 19 Q. What is "regression"? You talk about in 31, 20 multiple regression analysis. What does that mean? 21 A. That's where we have one dependent variable, 22 which in this case would be the percent eutrophic 23 algae, and we have a number of independent factors that 24 we look at in combination affecting the dependent 25 variables. 94 1 So, we would regress, for example, pH, water 2 temperature, specific conductance, total nitrogen and 3 total phosphorus, and carbon, or, I mean, calcium and 4 total organic carbon, and the range, the variables we 5 measure in that time period, and we would try to 6 establish relationships, so you can use one independent 7 variable and two or three. There are numbers of 8 techniques like forward stepwise regression, and 9 backwards stepwise regression, and a whole myriad of 10 those, and if you look at using forward and then go 11 into it backward, the addition of the -- the order that 12 you put some of the variables, affects which ones are 13 significant. 14 So, you do things by forward stepping it and 15 then you back step it, and then you come up with the 16 answers or -- not the answers, but what we have come up 17 with here. 18 Q. Do you think by not including your diatoms in 19 your diversity indices, that that affects the value of 20 your diversity index at all? 21 A. Sure it does. It would be much better if we 22 had diatoms in the diversity index. However, again, 23 we're going back and the primary purpose here is to 24 compare station 2A1 in January and February and July, 25 with station 3A4-5 or 3A2-1, or whatever station we're 95 1 looking at, to have within it, the ability to compare 2 among these stations. 3 To include diatoms for one time period, for 4 or for two time periods and not the other time periods, 5 would skew our ability to compare those stations. 6 So, even though it may be lower than -- and I 7 think it is lower, because we don't have the diatoms in 8 there. I think that's one of the reasons, as I 9 indicated, that if we were to put the diatoms in there 10 for only two of the time periods and not for the rest, 11 it's simply not a valid comparison. 12 Q. Did you in the study, or at any time, try and 13 compare the algae species, the periphyton species, of 14 today, with the periphyton species found by Dr. Swift 15 in his study? 16 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "compare." 17 Q. Okay. Say, were there -- was there a greater 18 prevalence of the load nutrient indicated in periphyton 19 versus today? 20 A. Yes. Sure, we did. We looked at, 21 particularly in the WCA-2A, up near the S-10 structure, 22 because that's where we did a lot of the analysis for 23 what organisms were there, when, and I think that we 24 find a big difference between what we found and what 25 Mr. Swift found, and the difference is basically this. 96 1 That -- let me refer you to No. 28 of the summary. 2 I say that Swift and Nicholas, in 1987, 3 observed very different species composition between 4 station P-2, six -- 0.6 kilometers south of the S-10C, 5 and 217, which is in the middle of the WCA-2A, and they 6 observed seasonal maxima of Microcoleus in August. 7 Now, our station 2A1, substations one, two 8 and three, you notice I left out four there, because 9 four is off on the right-hand part of that box that we 10 looked at, are similarly located near the S-10C 11 structures, and in August, at our station 2A1, 12 Schizothrix calciola was the dominant alga. It ranged 13 from 69 to 80 percent of the total periphyton 14 community, and at this site, Microcoleus comprised from 15 zero to 19 percent at any one time. 16 I think, if I can move to figure 32 and 17 figure 33 of the report, we have December and August 18 data, figures 32 and 33. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Figure 32 is for December of 1991, and a very 21 similar figure is No. 33, but for August of 1992. 22 The X axis on the -- I'm sorry, the Y axis on 23 the left side, is percent, and that's percent of total 24 periphyton, and we have total phosphorus on the right, 25 in micrograms per liter, for both these stations. 97 1 The figure 33 is similarly set up to figure 2 32. 3 You will notice in December, the phosphorus 4 is the line that you see, and at one point -- then, 5 across the bottom, on the X axis, we have distance 6 south of the S-10 structure, and it goes from .86, 1.7, 7 4.5, 10.9, 11.4, 11.4, and 11.2. 8 I got 11.2 and 11.4 reversed there at the 9 end, but I don't think it makes any difference. 10 Basically, the last four in there is the 217 11 area, right around the 217, and we have the stations 12 2A1, 1, 2, 3 and 4. .86 is station 4, 2A1-4. 13 Phosphorus concentrations are shown as the 14 line, and it's less than 20 at 2A1-1 in December and -- 15 I'm sorry, not less than 20. I was looking at the 16 wrong graph. It's right around 50, a little better, of 17 50 micrograms per liter in December, at .86, and goes 18 to 288 at station -- that's 1.7 miles south. Then it 19 drops off. 20 What species do we have here? Well, we find 21 that pollution tolerant blue-greens, which is the 22 darker bars at 11.4, 11.4 and 11.2, that's Microcoleus; 23 predominantly Microcoleus. In one of the tables in the 24 appendix, it's there, how much is there? It's a 25 dominant during that time period at the 217 structure. 98 1 You will notice at the 2A1, where we have the 2 high phosphorus concentration, we have pollution 3 tolerant diatoms, and again, the -- not again. The 4 pollution tolerant diatoms and pollution tolerant 5 greens predominant at the 2A1 -- 2A1. Let me say that 6 again. At the 2A1 station. I got myself confused. 7 Contrast that to the next figure, which is 8 figure 33. Again, total phosphorus is the line. At 9 the 0.86, which is 2A1-4, it's about 85 or so 10 micrograms per liter. The high there, at 1.7 11 kilometers south, is 130, and then it drops down and 12 you notice, we have two additional stations there, 13 which is 7.1 and 8.5. 14 Those two stations we added after December, 15 and that was halfway between the 2A1s, and the 2A2s, 16 and we call that 2A3. 17 So, 2A3 is between 2A1 and 2A2. 18 The dominant algae at this time period, are 19 Schizothrix and Scytonema, and by far and away the 20 dominant blue-green algae here is Schizothrix, and the 21 percent at 2A1-4 is better than 80, it's about 9