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 100 S.E. 2nd Street 19 Miami, Florida March 7, 1994 20 9:20 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. 21 DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL SOUKUP 22 Taken before THOMAS R. NEUMANN, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for 23 the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 24 - - - - - - - 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 SUSAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQ. 4 ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 99 N.E. 4th Street 5 Miami, Florida 33132 6 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and 7 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC. 8 EARL, BLANK, KAVANAUGH & STOTTS P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 9 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 10 BY: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQ. 11 12 INDEX 13 Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross MICHAEL SOUKUP 14 By Mr. Kobelinski: 3 15 16 3 1 Thereupon -- 2 MICHAEL SOUKUP 3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 7 Q. Dr. Soukup, if you could just state your 8 name, and your business address is sufficient for the 9 record. 10 A. Michael Soukup. I'm at the Florida 11 International University, the South Florida/Caribbean 12 field units of the National Biological Survey in the 13 OE building, Room 148, University Park Campus, Miami, 14 Florida. 15 Q. Dr. Soukup, you are being deposed today in 16 some administrative proceeding in the state of 17 Florida which I know you are familiar with. 18 Have you ever been deposed before? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I think you are aware of that, also? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. How many times have you been deposed? 23 A. I think twice now. Once in this case. 24 Q. In the administrative proceeding? 25 A. No, in the earlier precedings. 4 1 Q. Federal lawsuit? 2 A. Federal proceedings. 3 Q. Well, this deposition will be similar to 4 that in that we will be asking you questions with 5 regard to both factual issues you may be aware of -- 6 and we are trying to find out what you know about 7 those -- but also to the extent you have expert 8 opinions as to, again, issues in this case. 9 If at any point in time you don't 10 understand a question I ask, please state so and I'll 11 attempt to rephrase it. If you don't know the answer 12 to a question or don't remember, "I don't know" and 13 "I don't remember" are pretty much the best answers 14 you can give. 15 At no point are you to assume anything. If 16 you feel compelled to assume, please just tell us 17 that you are assuming certain facts as part of your 18 response. All right? 19 A. That's fine. 20 Q. The other matter, which I would just remind 21 you on that, the gentleman here, the court reporter, 22 likes yes and no because he can't take down nods. If 23 we follow that, we will do all right. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Let me just first of all start out with the 5 1 fact that you are designated as an expert witness in 2 this case, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. I assume at this point you have reached 5 your final opinions? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I have here, although -- since I don't have 8 the whole document, I don't know if this is from the 9 final or not -- I have here a disclosure with regard 10 to your expert testimony which, according to this 11 one, states wetlands ecology and eutrophication, 12 assessment of the SWIM Plan, and remedies and 13 application of eutrophication principles to the 14 Everglades ecosystem. 15 I think it's the same one you have there 16 also? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are those generally the areas of your 19 expert testimony? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Are there any additional larger -- or I 22 would look at these as large, general categories. 23 Are there any additional general categories that you 24 intend to provide testimony on in an expert capacity? 25 A. I don't believe so. 6 1 Q. Then breaking this out in the fashion that 2 it is, I would like to at this point just get a 3 handle as to the -- define a bit better the areas 4 that you will be giving expert opinions on and what 5 those will be. Then the next few days we will try to 6 explore the basis of that and what your actual 7 opinions are in those areas. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. With regard to wetlands areas and 10 eutrophication, is there a particular area that you 11 will be providing opinions on? And I'm again 12 referring to that particular subject area, wetland 13 ecology and eutrophication. 14 A. I think my testimony will be in the sort of 15 overview impact of eutrophication on systems, in this 16 case Everglades National Park's system within the 17 Park and the general phenomenon of eutrophication, 18 cultural eutrophication. 19 Q. You mentioned Everglades National Park. 20 And given your experience, I'm certain it doesn't 21 come as a surprise, do you intend to provide opinions 22 as to other areas within the Everglades Protection 23 Area -- other than the Park, that is? 24 A. Well, I think the principles and processes 25 that I will be offering opinions on would be 7 1 applicable to the Everglades Protection Area in 2 general. I imagine I might extrapolate the things 3 that are relevant to those areas. 4 Q. Would I be correct in that you have 5 concentrated most of your research and time on the 6 Park itself, though? 7 A. Well, I have not done any personal research 8 either in the Park or in the Everglades system. But 9 my general overview has been focused on the Park, 10 although I have had some ongoing exposure to the 11 larger system and, of course, in the last three years 12 a number of different forums that have been available 13 to participate in. 14 Q. With regard to the assessment of the SWIM 15 Plan and remedies in that general area, what -- will 16 you be providing opinions with regard to the efficacy 17 of STAs? 18 A. Not in a specific sense, in a general 19 sense. I participated in some of the SAGE 20 evaluations of the different remedies. I think my 21 specific testimony would be in the area of the SWIM 22 Plan that relates to the Park and to the general 23 approach of remedies. 24 Q. And again, just referring to your 25 disclosure which the last area at this point 8 1 designated as separate areas application of 2 eutrophication principles to the Everglades 3 ecosystem, is that sort of a separate category from 4 what we discussed a few moments ago with regard to 5 wetland ecology and eutrophication? 6 A. No. I think it's just kind of providing 7 context. I have had some experience in other locals. 8 I think the point is that there is a general 9 overriding process which I feel comfortable 10 discussing. 11 Q. With regard to your opinions related to 12 wetlands ecology and eutrophication, you had 13 mentioned that you had not done any personal 14 research. Are you relying upon any specific data 15 done by others, research done by others? 16 A. Yes. I was research director at Everglades 17 National Park for roughly three or three and a half 18 years. I was aware of the research that had been 19 done there and initiated some research projects of a 20 short-term nature. 21 And I'm aware of the work that has been 22 done generally in the Park, so it's mainly an 23 evaluation process on my part of the information that 24 I have seen both in the Park and those other 25 comparable areas throughout the EPA, Environmental 9 1 Protection Area. 2 Q. Are you, for instance -- with regard to 3 your opinions again, I'm just trying to narrow it 4 down to get a map of wherever we are heading in the 5 next couple of days -- is there, for instance, 6 specific data sets that you are drawing upon for your 7 opinions related to eutrophication and/or cultural 8 eutrophication? 9 A. Yes. The work that was done by the 10 in-house staff at the research center, people like 11 Dan Scheidt, Mark Flora and later on Ron Raschkey 12 from the EPA and Ron Jones at FIU. Bob Doren. 13 Q. Can you spell -- 14 A. Are you asking me to spell Raschkey? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. R-A-S-C-H-K-E-Y. I think it's a K. 17 Q. After Ron Jones, I believe you said Bob 18 Doren? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was that it? I cut you off. I apologize. 21 A. There are some other people who were 22 involved in those studies, but those are the major 23 sources that come to mind. I think Pete Rosenthal 24 was involved in his earlier transformation. 25 Q. You were a research director at the Park 10 1 for approximately what years? 2 A. I arrived in early August of '89 and I was 3 formally transferred to the cooperative park studies 4 unit set up at FIU in Miami, University of Miami. I 5 think the formal transfer was in February of '93. 6 Q. Now, you say the formal. Was there 7 actually a practical transfer prior or subsequent to 8 that point? 9 A. I was partly involved in some of the 10 preliminary background work to setting it up, CPSU. 11 And there was, I think, a period which I was actively 12 involved in December or January in planning some 13 parts of the operation there, but I didn't receive -- 14 I guess I received transfer orders in early January. 15 So I think it was early January. I didn't really get 16 on site the first time until February. 17 Q. You just used an abbreviation, CPSU? 18 A. Yes. That was a park service unit while -- 19 the cooperative park studies unit that had been 20 established as a network around the country, ad hoc 21 fashion, and there was one to be set up at the -- in 22 the state of Florida. So one was completed and set 23 up at FIU and at Miami. 24 Q. With regard to the period of time from 25 approximately August of '89 through February of '93 11 1 that you were the research director of Everglades 2 National Park, which I will refer to as the Park, if 3 that's all right -- 4 A. That's fine. 5 Q. -- could you just generally -- I don't want 6 a real detailed description of what your duties were. 7 A. Well, I was the research director of the 8 South Florida Research Center, which was the 9 technical arm of Everglades National Park. We had a 10 center of anywhere between 30 and 50 people, 11 depending on the season and depending on the budget. 12 We did research and resource management 13 application of basic research on all of the items and 14 issues that the Park superintendent required 15 technical information on to manage the Park. 16 Q. Now, if I recall my dates correctly, you 17 came in at a sort of a period of time when litigation 18 has been abundant related to the Park and/or water 19 quality in the Park. 20 Have you also been in charge of any type of 21 research that was directed and specifically related 22 to litigation or the issues therein? 23 A. Yes. I arrived in the Park on a Friday. 24 My first assignment was to attend -- to appear at the -- 25 to hear the presentation of Superintendent Findley 12 1 and Dr. Richardson for the sugar industry. 2 I split my time with the predominance of 3 internal issues and research issues, research center 4 issues for probably the first five to six months. 5 And then as the federal litigation continued and 6 became much larger and a more enveloping factor for 7 the research center, I started to spend nearly full 8 time for a period of time, I think probably starting 9 in spring of '90. 10 As that role became more dominant, I did 11 initiate some research and did a number of 12 coordinating kind of things in support of that 13 federal lawsuit. 14 Q. What I would like to do is review 15 essentially the research that was conducted during 16 that approximately three, three and a half year 17 period that you were director of the Park in a 18 general fashion. 19 Were there any particular areas that they 20 were broken down into, the research? Did you 21 internally break it down into areas? 22 A. Well, I think there were several general 23 areas. Early on the question was what is the 24 delivery of phosphorous and how has it changed. The 25 center of the focus was on the S-12 structures, 13 1 S-333, and also on the eastern sources of water 2 through structures to the Park. 3 Much of that was evaluation of the current 4 databases. 5 Another major area of interest was 6 vegetation change within the Park. And we initiated 7 a study of the vegetation community structure along 8 transects not only in the Park, but all the 9 Loxahatchee conservation areas. We did them, all the 10 ones. 11 Another area of direct interest was the 12 sediment chemistry and accumulation of phosphorous in 13 sediments below the S-12s and on those other 14 transects. 15 Another later area of interest was the idea 16 of mercury processes, sources, transformations in the 17 Everglades in response to the death of the Florida 18 panther. 19 Q. Let me just ask you just in case there was 20 a misunderstanding here. I was -- and perhaps I can 21 see where I may have misled you. I was looking at 22 the research that you essentially oversaw during the 23 three and a half year period, not specifically 24 related to litigation but just generally at the Park. 25 I gather from your response this was 14 1 perhaps what was done in relation to the litigation? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I was wondering more on a general basis 4 whether in your research at the Park whether you 5 split up the department or the manner in which 6 research was done in any particular areas. 7 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. I don't 8 know if he indicated those were clearly done in 9 response to the litigation. That's really the 10 source of my objection. 11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 12 Q. I understand that. That's fine. If I 13 misconstrued what you are saying, I would just repose 14 my earlier question, if I could, as to whether the 15 research that's done at the Park just generally 16 during the three and a half years you were there, 17 whether that was broken down in particular areas, 18 whether you had an internal organization for it. 19 A. Yes. I understand your question now. We 20 did a wide variety of basic and applied research. 21 We had, when I arrived, an organization 22 that was devoted to five, I think, major areas, 23 marine biology, wild life ecology, vegetation 24 ecology, and hydrology. 25 And I later reorganized that into a 15 1 different, more functioning based approach with 2 inventory monitoring data, collection data, accessing 3 storage, basic research and resource management, 4 science applications. 5 The research that was done under both 6 structures was heavily oriented towards the impacts 7 of hydrologic change in the recent Everglades history 8 and the wildlife responses and general ecology of 9 wildlife in the Park, as well as the issues of 10 Florida Bay fishing, Florida Bay water starvation, 11 impacts of those kinds of things. 12 Q. You had originally mentioned that there 13 were, if I understood you correctly, five general 14 areas when you took over as director of research 15 there at the Park. 16 What I had taken down, marine biology, 17 wildlife ecology, vegetative ecology, hydrology -- 18 and I didn't hear the fifth. Maybe I just 19 misunderstood what you were saying. 20 A. I think the fifth area was probably data 21 management, but that wasn't -- I'm trying to remember 22 if there was a division for that. There may have 23 only been four divisions. 24 Q. And you ran through the reorganization in 25 the new areas relatively quickly. If you could just 16 1 repeat those or I can have him read it back, but just 2 sort of slowly -- 3 A. I took those same resources, and in order 4 to sort of provide less overlap, duplication, I put 5 all of the people who were monitoring, doing 6 monitoring, long-term monitoring in one division. 7 That division fed information into the 8 database management section, which was the second 9 division which was used, and shaped the data 10 collection. The monitoring on that was shaped by the 11 researchers for application of models and things of 12 that sort. That became a basic research division. 13 That was the third division. 14 And the application of that information and 15 those data sets were then to be applied by resource 16 managers of the resource manager/application 17 division. 18 Q. With regard to -- I don't know what's the 19 best -- why don't we take it the way it's currently 20 organized with regard to data monitoring. If you 21 could just again generally -- and I'll see if I need 22 to pursue it further -- explain the data monitoring 23 that is occurring currently, but understand I will be 24 asking whether or not that has changed over the three 25 and a half years you were director. 17 1 A. Okay. The program that does the monitoring 2 we call the I&M program, inventory and monitoring, 3 its role is to characterize what's there in 4 quantitative terms and to monitor changes over time. 5 The long-term data sets that have been 6 acquired or have traditionally been heavily involved 7 with the changes in hydrology of the area, both 8 ground water and surface water and rainfall and air 9 quality, and participation with the Water Management 10 District's water quality sampling program through 11 sample collection, long-term databases exist for the 12 responses of nesting water birds or wading water 13 birds, long-term databases exist for things such as 14 the bald eagle, osprey, alligators and the major 15 species, key species in the Everglades. 16 When I arrived there, there was a very 17 useful systematic reconnaissance flight program, SRF 18 program, which continued and has now been taken from 19 the development phase into the routine ongoing 20 application phase. It's part of the routine 21 monitoring program that's ongoing now. 22 Q. SRF? 23 A. Systematic reconnaissance flights, where 24 flights are done routinely and repetitiously over a 25 large grid and the numbers of wading birds, deer, 18 1 alligator sites are quantified. 2 That program was further developed 3 cooperatively to cover at different times major 4 sections of the Everglades. 5 Other kinds of information were collected, 6 and there are some very useful long-term databases in 7 the Park on endangered species. Other topics. 8 Q. With regard to ground water, do you work 9 with a particular -- you mentioned that was one of 10 the long-term databases dealing with ground water. 11 Where is ground water measured within the 12 Park? 13 A. I don't know the exact sites, but there has 14 been a long-term network developed, I believe 15 earlier, much earlier, by USGS. USGS may be involved 16 in some ground water monitoring still, but there is a 17 network that has been established for some time and 18 is available through USGS files. 19 Q. With regard to that data set, is that being 20 utilized or is there a hydrological model for ground 21 water flows being developed for the Park? 22 A. The Park has been utilizing those data for 23 some time to indicate the changes in water levels 24 both in the Shark Slough water shed and in the Taylor 25 Slough water shed. Those are used very actively. 19 1 The most recent efforts that we were 2 involved in was a refinement of the natural systems 3 model, which is an offshoot of the South Florida 4 Water Management model. 5 Now, the South Florida Water Management 6 model models the flow of water in the present system. 7 The natural system model is a mathematical reduction 8 of that model into the system before structures and 9 canals and levees were built. The Park has been very 10 active, increased that program as much as I could 11 while I was there. 12 Q. Is Bob Johnson involved in that use of 13 those models for the model of ground water flows in 14 the Park? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. With regard to surface water, again that's -- 17 I believe when you stated there are long-term 18 networks on surface water, was that with regard to 19 quality or quantity? 20 A. Well, actually both. The quality part has 21 been monitored over the long-term by the South 22 Florida Water Management District and earlier by the 23 USGS. The surface water quantity has been measured 24 at stage levels over a network that was originally 25 set up by USGS, I believe, and was looked at while I 20 1 was there in terms of how that network could be 2 intensified to show how water moved in the system. 3 We call that a hydro-pattern study. That's 4 ongoing, 5 Q. With regard to the movement, does the 6 hydro-pattern study use either the South Florida 7 Water Management model or the natural model for its 8 study? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Is that a separate model related to that? 11 A. Actually I don't know what the relationship -- 12 I believe it might be useful in interpreting the 13 results, but I don't know the relationship of the 14 results of the hydro-pattern study. That has 15 never -- I have never seen the results of that. 16 The study that was initiated when -- a 17 little bit before I got there was asking the question 18 of after water comes from the S-12 structures and 19 falls as rainfall, how does it distribute in the 20 northern Shark Slough area. And I believe that's 21 ongoing and probably it has been expanded. 22 Q. With regard to the water delivery or 23 rainfall delivery plan, or the different regulation 24 schedules that have been used for S-12, is a 25 hydro-pattern study being done in conjunction with 21 1 that, determining the best means of delivering water 2 through S-12? 3 A. I believe it's associated with that. There 4 is a great deal of study and interest in the delivery 5 equation and method of delivery water into the Park. 6 It was to answer some questions associated with where 7 does the water go after it comes through the S-12s 8 and how you design a network to best monitor how the 9 water spreads and moves around in the Park, in that 10 general area. 11 Q. The next area I have down, again I was 12 trying to write as you spoke, was rainfall. 13 Do you have a long-term data set for 14 rainfall? 15 A. There is a data set that's not extremely 16 long but has been taken at the South Florida Research 17 Center. I believe it started in the '80s and is 18 ongoing. There are other data sets that were done by 19 different groups and different areas north of the 20 Park, I believe, and in the northern part of the 21 Park. The USSG one is often cited, although it's 22 flawed. 23 Q. I didn't hear the last part. 24 A. I said, although it's quite flawed. 25 Q. Other than USGS, who else has been looking 22 1 at the rainfall or collecting rainfall data in the 2 Park? 3 A. I think the South Florida Water Management 4 District may have some sites that would be useful I 5 believe east of the Park, but I'm not sure. They 6 have been, I think, doing the samples for the 7 rainfall monitoring station in the Park. 8 Q. The rainfall monitoring station, is that 9 the one at the South Florida Research Center? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Anyone else doing research -- rainfall data 12 collection in the Park? 13 A. I don't believe so. There may have been 14 some associated with small projects or individual 15 research projects. 16 Q. Anything related to the litigation rainfall 17 data collection? 18 A. I don't know of any. 19 Q. With regard to the rainfall data 20 collection, is that -- that measures both the 21 quantity and also the quality of the rainfall? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Is the data with regard to the quantity, is 24 that being plugged into the South Florida Water 25 Management model? 23 1 A. I don't believe so. 2 Q. Is there some other model that it's being 3 used with? 4 A. I don't believe that data set is being used 5 in any modeling that I know of. I'm not familiar 6 with a lot of the modeling that's going on. 7 Q. The next area I had written down, and again 8 this is -- I believe it was related to -- you didn't 9 use the term air plus, but you said something -- 10 A. Air quality. 11 Q. Air quality, thank you. 12 What is that related to? 13 A. There is an air quality monitoring station 14 there that measures various nationally important and 15 nationally implemented parameters. It's part of a 16 program that's run by our air quality division in the 17 national park service. It's part of the national 18 network. 19 Q. Is this also at the South Florida Research 20 Center? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. With regard to rainfall we spoke of a few 23 moments ago, you had stated that both quantity and 24 quality, is there any testing of dry fall of 25 nutrients or phosphorus? 24 1 A. That measures both wet and dry fall. 2 Q. That's in the rainfall collectors? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You had mentioned separately -- although we 5 discussed it a few moments ago, water quality testing 6 in the Park as a separate area of long-term database. 7 What is the database for water quality 8 testing? 9 A. It's largely the part in the Park done in 10 cooperation with the Water Management District. Our 11 technicians sample a number of sites, provide the 12 samples to the Water Management District that 13 processes those samples in their laboratory. 14 There are, of course, many ongoing research 15 projects that have some water quality sampling. 16 Those would be archived in the databases. But the 17 long-term overall water quality sample program is the 18 one in coordination with the Water Management 19 District. 20 Q. Do you recall what areas are tested under 21 that program with the District? 22 A. What areas are? 23 Q. You said there were several areas within 24 the Park that are tested in cooperation with the 25 District. 25 1 A. Yes. There were notably the structures, 2 the input areas, plus a network of internal marsh 3 stations both below the structures and in areas that 4 are isolated in sort of natural background marsh 5 areas. 6 There is also a very large program in 7 Florida Bay right now which -- there is a water 8 sample, water quality sample network set up now for 9 Florida Bay. That's being done primarily by FIU, Ron 10 Jones' laboratories in FIU. It does water quality 11 sampling over a grid pattern in Florida Bay. And I 12 may have omitted the measurements that have been done 13 a very long time by the Park in Florida Bay. That's 14 a water quality program in the marine system that has 15 something of a long data set. 16 Q. How far back does the water quality testing 17 in cooperation with the District go? 18 A. I believe it starts in the late '70s as a 19 solid ongoing, you know, database. There may be 20 fragments of data from earlier efforts, but it really 21 started as a massive data set. I think it was in the 22 late '70s, '77 or '78. 23 Q. With regard to this cooperative water 24 quality sample with the District, other than directly 25 at the S-12, approximately how many other areas are 26 1 there sampling sites? 2 A. Probably less than a dozen. I don't 3 remember the map of the network, but somewhere around 4 10 or 12, maybe. Let me correct that. I really 5 don't know, but my impression of the map is maybe a 6 dozen samples and maybe two dozen in the estuary 7 areas in that other program I mentioned. 8 Q. With regard to wading birds that you 9 mentioned as another area of long-term database, what 10 is that database? 11 A. Well, there is a historic database that had 12 been collected by the Audubon wardens that goes back, 13 I think, to the '30s and '40s and was a factor in the 14 establishment of the Park. That database was picked 15 up again, I think, in the '50s or '60s and has been 16 largely expanded, I think, in '60s and '70s and done 17 more systematically by the SRS -- SRF program in the 18 '80s. 19 There are records of numbers of nesting 20 birds, number of nesting pairs and occasional 21 estimates of hatcheling success in the early records, 22 and there has been a fair amount of examination of 23 those records and some conclusions drawn about the 24 transient wading bird habitation in the Park. 25 Q. Who was doing that examination of the 27 1 wading bird records? 2 A. John Ogden has done a lot of the evaluation 3 of the historic records, specially the Audubon 4 records. 5 Q. With regard to the SRF systematic 6 reconnaissance flights, other than viewing wildlife 7 are there any other purposes such as vegetative 8 matching to SRF flights? 9 A. No. That is not suitable for vegetation 10 mapping. There are data taken regarding the presence 11 or absence of pooled water and standing water and 12 things like that. But in terms of vegetation, it 13 would not be suitable for any kind of quantitative 14 estimate of vegetation. 15 Q. What about fire areas, is there any record 16 kept as a result of the SRF flights of burned areas? 17 A. I believe there are fairly good records of 18 fire and fire occurrence distribution in the Park. 19 That is, I think, a reasonable record there in the 20 Park. The SRF, I probably would note that, but I 21 don't believe it would give any quantitative 22 estimates of burned areas. I'm sure that would be 23 reported, but not necessarily suitable for 24 quantification. 25 The fire records are probably another 28 1 useful long-term database that I may have mentioned. 2 Q. You have also mentioned with regards to 3 long-term databases additional wildlife, alligators 4 and the like. And I assume this is a database 5 similar to the wading birds database; is that right? 6 A. Yes. It's probably not as systematic as 7 the wading bird effort. There are records for the 8 American crocodile. There are records for the Cape 9 Sable seaside sparrow. There are records for the 10 manatee sighting. 11 There is also a long-term database that is 12 somewhat useful on the recreational fishing intensity 13 for Florida Bay that's quite useful. 14 Q. And finally you mentioned endangered 15 species as a separate database. And generally what 16 is being done in that regard? 17 A. There are a number of periodic censuses 18 taken. The bald eagle has been observed for I don't 19 know how many years. That is a very long and very 20 complete database. The others vary in terms of 21 frequency of observations. 22 We also initiated the study while I was at 23 the Park of the snail kite in response to questions 24 of how restoration should proceed to the benefits -- 25 long-term benefits of the snail kite. That's being 29 1 done through the University of Florida. 2 Q. Is there a large snail kite population in 3 the Park? 4 A. Not in the Park. They are largely -- they 5 do fly the Park and feed in the Park. But as I 6 understand it, the population is centered north of 7 the Park, especially in Water Conservation Area 3A in 8 the draught years. 9 Q. What testing has the Park participated in 10 outside of the Park boundaries during the three and a 11 half years you were the director? 12 A. Well, the snail kite study is one example. 13 The earlier answer that I gave on the transects of 14 vegetation and soil phosphorous related to the 15 litigation is another example. 16 There are probably others, although we 17 tended to study in park issues and resources more 18 intensively. 19 Q. What type of topographic data exists for 20 the Park? 21 A. I think it varies quite a bit, but I 22 believe it's fairly good compared to the topographic 23 data for the rest of the Everglades units or 24 conservation areas. 25 The area that we have had little luck with 30 1 is the mangrove/fresh water marine estuaries 2 interface area. We tried several times in the 3 Panhandle region of the Park way over there to the 4 southeast of the Park to get good information, but 5 it's very difficult in mangroves to get good, solid 6 topographic information. 7 But I believe the Park is covered fairly 8 well, and if I understand it correctly it enables us 9 to have a much finer resolution of the water 10 management model in the Park. I think it's a one by 11 one grid in the Park as opposed to two by two for the 12 rest of the system. Apparently it's fairly good for 13 the Park. 14 Q. When you say one by one grid, what does 15 that refer to? 16 A. That means the units in which the model is 17 based upon. And, of course, the finer the grid the 18 more sensitive the results will be. And the limiting 19 factor, as I understand it, was the ability to 20 measure the topography or to treat the topography in 21 those grid cells. 22 Q. What are the size of the grid cells, then? 23 A. I believe one by one. One kilometer by one 24 kilometer in the Park and two by two in the rest of 25 the model -- recalling that from a conversation with 31 1 Bob Johnson, who would be a better source of that. 2 Q. With regard to -- you mentioned the model. 3 That's part of the model of the Water Management -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. The same model is being used for the South 6 Florida Water Management model? 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let's take a quick break. 9 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 10 after which the following proceedings 11 were had:) 12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 13 Q. Has there been one particular person 14 assigned to review the water quality data at the Park 15 in relation to looking at trends in water quality 16 over the past period of time, whatever that period 17 may be? 18 A. The primary person is William Walker. 19 Q. Is there anyone internally at the Park 20 assigned to assist Dr. Walker? 21 A. Up until his departure, Dan Scheidt was the 22 water quality specialist for the Park, and I believe 23 he left in the summer of '92. 24 Q. Is there someone fulfilling that role at 25 this point in time? 32 1 A. There was someone hired, I believe, in the 2 last couple of weeks to assume that role. 3 Q. Do you know who that person is? 4 A. Michael Zimmerman. 5 Q. With regard to Mr. Walker's review of the 6 water quality data for the Park, has there been any 7 specific additional testing done with regard to that 8 review? 9 A. With regard to Dr. Walker's review? 10 Q. Right. 11 A. There has been a great deal of scrutiny, 12 peer review and evaluation of his work. 13 Q. Perhaps I didn't phrase my question 14 correctly. Have you been collecting any additional 15 specific data related to his work on water quality or 16 trends and water quality? 17 A. I don't believe so. 18 Q. So he is using that long-term database that 19 we discussed a few minutes ago? 20 A. That's correct. He also has looked at the 21 rainfall information collected by the Park. I 22 believe he is aware of the water quality information 23 that Dr. Jones has collected for in some cases but 24 not all. 25 Q. Other than the water quality work conducted 33 1 by Dr. Jones and the cooperative water supply 2 sampling done by the District, what additional 3 testing has been done in the Park during the past 4 three and a half to four years? 5 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know of any other 7 water quality data except perhaps for the marine 8 system, the Florida Bay network that I 9 mentioned. 10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 11 Q. I believe also you had mentioned that there 12 was some water quality -- I believe you said soil 13 phosphorus with regard to the transect studies? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Were there water quality samples done with 16 regard to the transect studies? 17 A. I believe there was. 18 Q. I believe you had mentioned as a separate 19 task reviewing how delivery of phosphorous and how it 20 has changed. There was also evaluation of existing 21 data. 22 Is that what Mr. Walker is doing or 23 Dr. Walker is doing? 24 A. Evaluation of water quality, existing water 25 quality data? 34 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You had mentioned previously that there was 4 a study or a research going into the delivery of 5 phosphorous and how it has changed the S-12s. I 6 believe you said S-333 in the eastern basin. Is that 7 a separate task that's being -- 8 A. No, that's the task I was referring to. 9 Q. So both of that, along with the evaluation 10 of existing data, is essentially one task or a large 11 task being conducted by Dr. Walker? 12 A. I think you are saying that the analysis of 13 the incoming phosphorous in the S-12s and S-333 and 14 those situations -- those structures, that is the 15 database that Dr. Walker is doing. 16 Q. Is he also looking at the interior 17 stations? 18 A. He has looked at the interior stations. 19 Q. With regard to the analysis of vegetative 20 change, and other than the transect study you 21 referred to, what vegetative studies have been done 22 in the Park during the tenure that you were the 23 research director? 24 A. In terms of related to the lawsuit or in 25 general? 35 1 Q. Just generally. 2 A. There is a fair amount of work initiated 3 after the hurricane, that is now, I believe, going to 4 provide a detailed vegetation map for Everglades 5 National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve that 6 will provide information that will, I think, also be 7 useful in terms of vegetation community 8 identification that could be used for the lawsuit. 9 But it's largely an overall attempt to define 10 vegetative impacts of the hurricane forces. 11 Q. Was there actual vegetative mapping done 12 with regard to this post hurricane study on 13 vegetation? 14 A. There are, I believe, some 1990 maps 15 available, and there were some 1992 or '93 NASA 16 developed aerial photography that are not of good 17 quality, but apparently suitable for the kinds of 18 delineations necessary to develop a detailed 19 vegetation map. 20 I believe that's being done by the 21 University of Georgia by the Park. 22 We had, I think, another project planned to 23 be done by the Water Management District for the 24 entire set of transects, but I believe that's been 25 done. 36 1 Q. You referred to 1990 maps that were 2 utilized. What type of maps were these? 3 A. I believe they were aerial photography 4 flown in 1990. I don't know the source. I believe 5 there was a fairly good set of maps before and I 6 believe they were 1990. 7 Q. When you refer to maps, did someone 8 actually use the aerial photography to develop 9 vegetative maps for the Park? 10 A. They hadn't, but they are as a part of the 11 post hurricane study effort. 12 Q. Where does that particular project stand? 13 Have they developed the maps as yet? 14 A. No. I believe it's underway, but I don't 15 believe it's anywhere close to conclusion. 16 Q. Do you know if they are starting with the 17 1990 aerial photos developed earlier or pre hurricane 18 map? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Have you seen any drafts of the vegetative 21 maps? 22 A. No. That was initiated after I left. 23 Q. That would have been initiated in the last 24 year, approximately? 25 A. Correct. 37 1 Q. Do you know who at the University of 2 Georgia is in charge of this program? 3 A. I believe it's Dr. Roy Welch. 4 Q. How do you spell the first name? 5 A. R-o-y. 6 Q. Who within the Park is the primary person 7 working with Dr. Welch? 8 A. I believe it's probably Tom Armentano. 9 Q. With regards to the transect study you 10 mentioned, I'm referring to the vegetation transect 11 study, you referred to the Park and also the refuge 12 and perhaps one of the water conservation areas. 13 Where are the transects located in the 14 Park? 15 A. Within the Park they are located below the 16 S-12 structures. 17 Q. How many are there? 18 A. I believe it's only one and it's below 19 S-12C. 20 Q. Are there any transects within Water 21 Conservation Area 3A? 22 A. Yes, there is one. 23 Q. Do you know where that one is located? 24 A. I couldn't give you the location of that 25 one. 38 1 Q. Do you recall whether it was northern 3A or 2 southern 3A? 3 A. I believe it's northern, but I don't recall 4 specifically. 5 Q. Are there any transects located in Water 6 Conservation Area 3B? 7 A. 3B I don't think is. 8 Q. Are there any transects located in Water 9 Conservation Area 2A? 10 A. There is one emanating at the S-10 11 structures and headed southwest, I believe. 12 Q. Do you recall which of the 10 structures? 13 A. No. 14 Q. I believe you had mentioned there was a 15 transect in the refuge, is there only one? 16 A. Loxahatchee. I believe there were two in 17 the refuge. 18 Q. Where would those be located? 19 A. My only recollection is that they begin at 20 the peripheral canal and go towards the internal. I 21 believe they were sort of on the western side. 22 Both of them were coming down the center 23 from the western side. Northwest and southwest I 24 believe were the points of origin. I can't remember 25 the map. It has been a while. 39 1 They were all associated with inflow 2 structures and gradings downstream. 3 Q. You mentioned that related to inflow 4 structures. Would that mean that with regard to the 5 refuge you would have a transect by S-5A and one by 6 S-6? Is that your recollection? 7 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. He 8 already indicated he didn't recall. You may 9 answer, Dr. Soukup. 10 THE WITNESS: That seems logical. I 11 believe that may be the case, but I haven't 12 looked at it for some time. 13 But the general set up was to look at the 14 major influx points and see how nutrients 15 behaved downstream from that. 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. With regard to the transect below S-12C, 18 what length or distances do you transect? 19 A. I believe it was six kilometers. 20 Q. Is that a standard distance used for all 21 the transects in the study? 22 A. No. I believe it varied. 23 Q. Do you recall the approximate distance of 24 the transect in Water Conservation Area 3A? 25 A. Only vaguely. I believe it was shorter. 40 1 Q. Do you recall the approximate distance of 2 the transects in Water Conservation Area 2A? 3 A. I don't remember the exact, but I believe 4 it was a fairly long transect. 5 Q. Would that mean greater than six 6 kilometers? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I failed to ask, is there a transect in 9 Water Conservation Area 2B? 10 A. I don't believe so. 11 Q. With regard to the refuge transects, are 12 they both of equal distance? 13 A. I don't believe they are. 14 Q. With regard to the one that's on the 15 northwest perimeter canal or the northwest portion of 16 the refuge, do you recall approximately how long it 17 is? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Would that be to the best of your 20 recollection below or less than 6 kilometers? 21 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. You 22 asked him -- you indicated you have to live with 23 his answer. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 25 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm taking the objection. 41 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. With regard to the transect in the 3 southwest portion of the refuge in the perimeter 4 canals, do you recall approximately how long that 5 was? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Would that be less than 10 kilometers? 8 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form. 9 Counsel, you are doing the same thing again. 10 When he's saying he doesn't know, that's his 11 answer. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. When did the transect study commence? 15 A. They commenced during the federal/state 16 litigation. And I don't remember exactly, but I 17 would be guessing '90 or '91. 18 Q. Who was in charge of that from the Park? 19 A. The original study was done under the 20 direction of Bob Doren. And for the vegetative 21 transects -- and Ron Jones followed the vegetative 22 transect work with the water chemistry aspects. 23 Q. Is the study still ongoing? 24 A. There is some discussion about re-examining 25 it as an update to see how things have changed, but I 42 1 don't know if there is anything immediately likely to 2 happen. I don't know of anything that's being done 3 right now. 4 Q. You mentioned that the original study was 5 done under Bob Doren. Were there two studies or was 6 there a follow up to the original study? 7 A. No. There was a team that did the original 8 sampling. Bob Doren, Lou Whiteaker, were the major 9 people working on it. Lou Whiteaker left and -- 10 after the study was completed, and Tom Armentano 11 became involved. 12 Tom Armentano is the acting research 13 director at the Park at the present and he is a plant 14 ecologist. He was involved in reviewing the project, 15 critiquing the project and evaluating the data, 16 analyzing the data and helping write the final 17 report. 18 Q. Were you involved at all in the study? 19 A. No. I was partially involved in initiating 20 the study. I have not had much to do with field 21 work. I did visit a couple of the sites, but I 22 haven't had much direct involvement with them. 23 Q. What was the purpose of the study? 24 A. The purpose of the study was to look at the 25 downstream characteristics of the vegetation from 43 1 structures that appeared to have phosphorous 2 concentrations that are higher than one might expect 3 in the Everglades marsh community. 4 Q. Is there a final report in that transect 5 study? 6 A. There is a report that is being prepared 7 for publication which I think lacks only final 8 figures. I believe that was turned over in my 9 documents. 10 Of course those documents have the answers 11 to your questions on what the transects were at the 12 length. 13 Q. With regard to settling chemistry, other 14 than the settling chemistry done in relation to the 15 vegetation, what vegetative chemistries has been done 16 within the last four years? 17 A. Vegetative chemistry? 18 Q. Sediment chemistry. 19 A. I believe there were some samples taken 20 just north of the Park. But in terms of Water 21 Conservation Area 3A north of the structures, the 22 transect was extended north to see what the 23 relationships were there in terms of sediment 24 chemistry inside the Park. 25 I believe Dr. Jones has done a number of 44 1 different studies that I'm not directly aware of. I 2 believe he has a fair number of sediment samples and 3 analyses that he has done over the years that he has 4 been working out there. 5 There were also, I believe, sediment 6 samples done routinely in conjunction with the dosing 7 study that was carried out in the early '80s in the 8 Shark Slough. 9 The dosing study in the Shark Slough was 10 done in the early '80s. 11 Q. With regard to the sediment sampling in the -- 12 related to the dosing study, are those still ongoing? 13 A. No. We haven't as far as I know done 14 anything other than I believe there may have been 15 some split sample work done at the dosing study. I'm 16 not so sure. 17 I haven't seen John Davis, what his group 18 has done. But if they did the work in the dosing 19 study, then there were some samples that were 20 analyzed. 21 Q. Other than that done, if at all, by John 22 Davis with regard to entering access to the Park, 23 when was the last time there was sediment sampling 24 done at the dosing sites? 25 A. Ron Jones did a follow up series. I 45 1 believe that was after the study was completed a 2 year -- several years perhaps after that, but nothing 3 since then. We haven't sampled it, to my knowledge, 4 for a number of years. 5 Q. Do you actually have a soil sediment data 6 for essentially the entire park on any particular 7 grid format? 8 A. I don't believe we do. There may be 9 something constructed now as part of the map process 10 by EPA. But I don't believe -- it certainly has not 11 been completed yet. I'm not sure what they are doing 12 in term of collateral. 13 I know E-map is mercury in the Everglades 14 system as a whole. There may be some collateral 15 phosphorous data being taken with that. That's in 16 progress right now. But I don't know of any overall 17 sediment picture of the Everglades National Park that 18 a person put together. There is obviously one for 2A 19 and I think 3A, although I haven't seen the data for 20 3A. That would be very interesting, but I haven't 21 seen it. 22 Q. With regard to the E-map you referred to, 23 that's an analysis of mercury in the soil sediment? 24 A. It's a mercury study being done in 25 coordination with the E-map sampling procedures. 46 1 That's being done by EPA. 2 Q. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that. 3 E-map, is that a particular type of program? 4 A. I don't believe that I can remember what it 5 stands for, but it's a particular type of grid based 6 on environmental mapping program of the entire 7 country. It's a program that sets up a protocol for 8 setting up the grid based set of information for 9 sites anywhere in the country. 10 EPA has started to look at mercury and has 11 adopted or made their sampling of mercury compatible 12 with or a part of that E-map system. I would imagine 13 that they will be taking a lot of collateral 14 information as part of that mercury study. 15 Q. Do you know whether or not they are 16 actually doing phosphorus sampling in relation to 17 that? 18 A. I don't know for sure. 19 Q. Do you know how far along they have gotten 20 with regard to studying the Park in that grid format? 21 A. I haven't kept up with where they are 22 sampling. I know they have taken a lot of samplings. 23 My impression was that they were working in 24 the conservation area at this time, but they may well 25 have done it. 47 1 Q. Do you recall approximately what the size 2 of the grid is that they are working with? 3 A. No, I don't. 4 Q. Is there any additional mercury work being 5 done by the Park itself, currently? 6 A. Being done by the Park. You mean -- 7 Q. Within the Park. 8 A. Within the Park, the work that's being done 9 may be -- there may be some work being done in the 10 Park by Ron Jones on mercury. I don't know. I 11 haven't kept up with where he is taking the samples. 12 I believe he may be sampling routinely in the Park. 13 E-map certainly may be in the Park at this 14 point. I don't know the E-map grid sampling. There 15 is a graduate student study now in progress on the 16 accumulation of mercury in the food chain. That's 17 being done in Ron Jones' lab by a graduate student 18 who is a park bio -- well, who is a employee of the 19 National Biological Survey, who was a park employee 20 until the creation of the National Biological Survey. 21 Q. Let's shift then, if we could, to your 22 areas of expert opinion. And with regard to 23 eutrophication I believe you used the term "cultural 24 eutrophication." 25 Do you have an opinion as to whether there 48 1 is cultural eutrophication occurring within the 2 Everglades National Park? 3 A. My opinion is that it's occurring in the 4 Everglades National Park. 5 Q. And where is it occurring? 6 A. Primarily below the S-12 structures. 7 Q. Anyplace else? 8 A. There may be other impacts from cultural 9 eutrophication at other structures that provide water 10 to the Park. There may be instances of minor 11 cultural eutrophication, but the major source of 12 nutrients as I understand it would be the S-12s. 13 Q. And do you have an opinion as to how far 14 down below the S-12 the cultural eutrophication 15 stands? 16 A. I believe the impacts are demonstrable to 17 about six kilometers, but the large visible impacts 18 are probably observable only to about a kilometer, 19 somewhere around there. 20 Q. With regard to the visible impacts, what 21 would those visible impacts be? 22 A. For probably a half a kilometer noticeable 23 changes in the vegetative community. In my mind, 24 they are indicative of modifications of the nutrient 25 influx rate. 49 1 Q. And beyond a half kilometer, are there any 2 visible impacts? 3 A. The large changes in large macrophytic 4 plants are the ones that are observable to the eye. 5 I don't believe they occur beyond that rough 6 kilometer distance, one kilometer distance. 7 There may be changes to the periphyton 8 below that. There is certainly some accumulation of 9 soil phosphorous several kilometers into the Park. 10 But the large observable impacts that you 11 could see from the airplane, from the helicopter, 12 from the vantage point above it, you would see the 13 impact was roughly a kilometer below the structures. 14 Q. With regard to the area down to six 15 kilometers, what are the impacts? 16 A. I believe there would be modifications of 17 the periphyton community. There would be probably 18 changes in metabolism in the community, bacterial 19 metabolism, probably some changes in algal species 20 composition. 21 Q. Anything else? 22 A. In terms of observable? 23 Q. In terms of any impacts, essentially, up to 24 six kilometers. 25 A. Generally hard to detect with the eye. A 50 1 kind of impact might be changes in metabolic rate of 2 the lower categories of fauna and flora such as 3 microbes and algal species. There would be a change 4 in the respiration rate. 5 Those are aspects of the system that would 6 be effected by raising the rate of influx of a 7 important nutrient like phosphorous. 8 Q. Does the soil phosphorous change? Do they 9 extend six kilometers? 10 A. I believe they are detectable six 11 kilometers into the Park. Those are the results of 12 that transect work started a couple of years ago. 13 The status now I don't have any updated information 14 on, but that was the general status then. 15 Q. Are there any additional observable or 16 unobserveable -- by unobserveable, to the naked eye -- 17 impacts within that six kilometers from the 18 eutrophication? 19 A. I'm certain there probably is some 20 secondary impact in terms of utilization of habitat 21 by fauna that probably occur but would be difficult 22 to detect. 23 Q. Now, are there any particular data or 24 documents upon which your opinion is based? 25 A. Yes. The reports from the transect work. 51 1 The study done by Ron Raschkey on the diatom shift. 2 All of the work done in the '70s and early '80s by 3 the Water Management District's staff. Some early 4 USGS work that was done as a response to the interim 5 action plan, I believe. 6 The demonstrations associated with the 7 dosing study that was done in the Park and the 8 observations of Bill Walker on the database we talked 9 about earlier. Those are the primary sources, plus 10 some of the general eutrophication literature 11 available nationally, and some of the work done by 12 Chris Richardson and some of the consultants provided 13 by the Water Management District, Professor Reddy and 14 others. 15 Q. You referred to the work done by the 16 district's staff in the '80s or '90s. What work are 17 you referring to there? 18 A. Work done by Steve Davis and Dave Swift. I 19 believe Walt Denine did some work that I read. 20 Q. Are there specific studies of Steve Davis 21 that you are referring to? 22 A. Several of his reports. Some of them have 23 only been produced recently as two or three years, 24 but I believe they were published in the general 25 literature. I don't recall specific titles. 52 1 Q. What do they relate to? 2 A. They related to the influx of nutrients in 3 2A and his observations based on community shifts 4 relating to that. 5 He also did a lot of work on the changes in 6 nutrient content of tissues in sawgrass and in 7 cattail, and I think he has done a fair amount of 8 work in the likelihood of cattails being more likely 9 to be competitive with sawgrass under heavier rates 10 of nutrient influx. 11 Q. Other than his work on sawgrass and 12 cattails, are there any additional work or studies of 13 Steve Davis that you are relying upon? 14 A. I don't believe I have seen all of his 15 work, but I have seen four or five of his papers. I 16 have had discussions with him. And based on that, I 17 have drawn some conclusions. 18 Q. With regard to the four or five papers that 19 you have seen, just so I understand which ones we are 20 discussing, did those deal with either sawgrass or 21 cattail and the nutrient impacts on the plants? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. With regard to Dave Swift, which of his 24 papers or work are you relying upon? 25 A. There was a paper where he did some 53 1 transect work in 3A, and there are a numbers of 2 papers that he provided indicating phosphorous 3 impacts on periphyton. Those have recently, I think, 4 been reviewed again. 5 I read papers by Jim Grimshaw evaluating 6 some of the periphyton relationship with phosphorus 7 or with the increased phosphorous. 8 Q. Is that a new study by Grimshaw or review 9 of the data collected by David Swift? 10 A. I believe it's a review of the data 11 collected by Dave Swift and others in the District. 12 Q. Any additional work done by Swift that you 13 relied upon? 14 A. I believe I covered the materials. I think 15 some of them are cited in the SWIM Plan. And when I 16 first arrived at the Park and I looked at them, as 17 much literature as I could find in the Swift studies, 18 I think they were also identified in the SWIM Plan. 19 I used that as a source of material. 20 Q. And you had also mentioned Walt Denine as a 21 source of papers or work that you had -- any specific 22 work or paper that you relied upon? 23 A. The paper that -- I think he presented one 24 paper on the changes that he observed in the 25 Everglades and the potential impacts that it had on 54 1 the system, especially the observable 2 macroinvertebrates and vertebrates in the system. I 3 believe that's also cited in the SWIM Plan. 4 I provided, I believe, somewhere a list of 5 documents that I had felt were fundamental to drawing 6 conclusions about the system. I probably had that 7 somewhere. 8 Q. Is that data dated a particular date? 9 A. Excuse me? 10 Q. That document you are referring to, is that 11 dated a particular date? How would I identify that? 12 A. It was turned over with my documents with 13 the -- in response to the subpoena that was sent last 14 year. I believe the previous subpoena was for a 15 deposition in March of '93, which didn't occur. It 16 was postponed until this date. 17 Q. March of '94? 18 A. Yes. And I had listed a number of papers I 19 had used to form my opinions. I think those are the 20 ones you are asking about. 21 Q. You had also mentioned USGS work done 22 earlier? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Before I go to that, are there any 25 additional work done by the District staff in the 55 1 '70s and '80s that you are relying upon? 2 A. I believe there was a report, Dewey Worth, 3 done in 2A. There were reports done by Marguerite 4 Koch and Al Zann. 5 I also looked at some of the work done in 6 the system earlier. It was focused in the reports by 7 LOTAC and some of the Lake Okeechobee issues and the 8 interim action plan as a means of solving some of the 9 Lake Okeechobee issues. 10 Some of the LOTAC deliberations include 11 references which I had. I think I included reference 12 to the LOTAC report. 13 Q. With regard to what the USGS did in 14 relation to the interim action, what work was that? 15 A. Let me also say LOTAC 2. Add that to the 16 last one. Repeat the last question. 17 Q. You mentioned you also relied upon work 18 done by USGS in relation to the interim action plan? 19 A. There were couple of papers done by 20 McPherson. Another one done by -- I think Brad 21 Mahler had parts of it or did parts of it. Aaron 22 Higer had a part of it. Papers done by USGS in, I 23 think, mid '70s or late '70s or early '80s. 24 Q. And the Ben McPherson paper, what was that 25 in regard to? 56 1 A. That was in regard to some of the impacts 2 below the structures similar to the kind of studies 3 we did in the Park. I think they were done primarily 4 in the conservation areas. 5 Q. Is that vegetative? 6 A. Vegetative and chemical. 7 Q. You have not mentioned with regard to your 8 opinion on eutrophication any specific work by Ron 9 Jones other than I know you did mention in the 10 reports the transect study. 11 Other than the transect study, are you 12 relying upon any work done by Ron Jones for your 13 opinion on eutrophication? 14 A. Part of the transect study has been 15 authored by Ron Jones. Some of his work on sediments 16 certainly are important, yes. I should not have 17 omitted some of his work certainly on sediments and 18 sediment phosphorous interactions and alkaline 19 phosphatase, things like that. All of those pieces 20 of information have been considered. 21 Q. You had mentioned generally eutrophication 22 literature with regard to this list you provided, I 23 believe you said, approximately a year ago or in 24 relation to the deposition that was scheduled a year 25 ago, does that contain a listing of the general 57 1 eutrophication literature that you were relying upon? 2 A. Yes, that is correct. 3 Q. With regard to Curtis Richardson's work, 4 you talked about that. Are there any particular 5 records you are referring to there? 6 A. I have read several of his published 7 reports, work that he has done with Dr. Rader. I 8 have read some of his reports on his -- I think they 9 are annual reports to the EPD, Environmental 10 Protection District, in the Everglades agriculture 11 area. 12 Q. You had also mentioned work done by Reddy 13 and other district consultants. What is that that 14 you are referring to? 15 A. The soil work of Reddy in the 2A area. 16 Q. Any other soil work by Reddy? 17 A. I don't remember any of the work done, I 18 believe extensive work in conservation area 3A. 19 Q. You reviewed that work, as well? 20 A. I believe a long time ago, but I don't 21 recall the details of it. 22 Q. Is that to the best of your knowledge 23 something that you relied upon for your opinion as to 24 eutrophication? 25 A. I believe I used that to sort of evaluate 58 1 what I had seen from other sources of sediment 2 phenomenon. Certainly included that work with 3 Marjorie Koch' work and Ron Jones' work and sort of 4 looked for internal consistency between all of those 5 sources. 6 Q. And other district consultants other than 7 Reddy? 8 A. I guess I was thinking at the time of some 9 of the statistical people that they had. Robson -- 10 Q. Is there any specific work of -- what is 11 Robson's first name? 12 MS. PONZOLI: Douglas Robson. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Does that sound right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Let's call him Douglas. Any specific work 17 of Robson that you are relying upon? 18 A. Only his evaluation in contributions to 19 some statistical analysis done during the meetings 20 around the settlement agreement of 1991, and also 21 some of his statistical reviews of work that we had 22 done. 23 Q. With regard to the statistical analysis of 24 the work that you had done, what particular work was 25 he doing a statistical analysis on? 59 1 A. When we were looking at the aspect of water 2 quality, limits of discharges for the Park and the 3 refuge, he was providing opinions as to what the 4 long-term database indicated statistically. 5 Q. Are there any specific papers of by Ron 6 Jones that you are relying upon? 7 A. There were a couple of publications on 8 absorption of phosphorus by sediments, laboratory 9 studies, and soil information in the transect 10 studies. Those are the major ones. 11 Q. With regard to the opinion on 12 eutrophication, have you reviewed any actual data? 13 Are you relying upon a specific data or data sets or 14 are you relying upon the papers and work that you 15 referred to here? 16 A. I personally haven't evaluated any raw data 17 sets. I have looked at the evaluations included in 18 all of those papers. 19 Q. I believe earlier you mentioned you have 20 not done any actual data collection or field studies 21 yourself? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. Is it your opinion there is cultural 24 eutrophication within the EPA other than Everglades 25 National Park? 60 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Where is there cultural eutrophication 3 within what is known as the Loxahatchee National 4 Wildlife Refuge? 5 A. I believe there is substantial impact 6 associated with the inflows through S-5A and in areas 7 where canal waters coming from the structures feeding 8 the refuge leak into or head in the direction of the 9 center of the refuge. 10 Q. Approximately how far does that penetration 11 or eutrophication extend into the refuge? 12 A. I don't know exactly. It's easily found, 13 but I don't recall. 14 Q. And when you say it's easily found, are you 15 referring solely to the transect study that we 16 discussed earlier? 17 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: I believe there is ample 19 indication in the transect study. I think the 20 work of John Richardson and Wiley Kitchens might 21 bear on that, as well. 22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 23 Q. With regard to the Park, do you have any 24 visible impacts from this cultural eutrophication? 25 A. I believe there is quite a bit of visible 61 1 impact. I believe the large community dominated by 2 cattail is associated with the general phenomenon of 3 cultural eutrophication, and that's quite visible 4 from satellite or from air boat. 5 Q. Are the impacts from cultural 6 eutrophication of the refuge the same as those we 7 discussed for the Park? 8 A. Generally so. But of a slightly different 9 chemical nature to Loxahatchee, but the general 10 process would be the same. 11 Q. Let's walk through those. 12 Is it the phosphorous that's causing this 13 cultural eutrophication? 14 A. I believe phosphorous is a major factor in 15 the symptoms that we associate with cultural 16 eutrophication. 17 Q. What are the other factors involved in that 18 cultural eutrophication in the refuge? 19 A. There certainly may be some synergistic 20 role for other nutrients, nitrogen in order to 21 enhance productivity or to drive higher rates of 22 productivity. Many factors have to be available. 23 And if phosphorous is normally or frequently a 24 limiting factor, it will drive productivity -- its 25 increase will drive productivity to dry levels. But 62 1 it requires all the other macronutrients necessary 2 for plant growth. 3 There is some synergy here, but it's 4 generally agreed that phosphorous is a large 5 contributing factor to eutrophication and cultural 6 eutrophication. 7 Q. Any other factors other than phosphorous 8 and other nutrients which play a synergistic role? 9 A. In the process of cultural eutrophication? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. I would say no. 12 Q. What is the source of the phosphorous and 13 the other nutrients which are having this impact 14 causing cultural eutrophication in the refuge? 15 A. I believe the large dominant source driving 16 increase in productivity or the eutrophication of the 17 system by cultural activities is the function of the 18 water pumped from the Everglades Agricultural Area. 19 Q. What are the impacts, then, of the EAA 20 water? 21 A. I think the EAA water is a product of land 22 use activities that mobilize phosphorous. That 23 phosphorous when it is applied or injected into a 24 system that has been largely starved of resources, it 25 starts to drive an increase in productivity. 63 1 And that increase in productivity or 2 increase in productivity potential allows the 3 establishment of different species of plants and 4 animals, changing the system fundamentally as well as 5 changing the levels of the system's metabolism. 6 Q. Do you have vegetative community impacts 7 from the nutrients in EAA water with the refuge? 8 A. I believe you did. 9 Q. Approximately where are they located? 10 A. They seem to be concentrated in areas 11 affected by canal overflows or canal water, water 12 coming in from the pump structures or from the pumps 13 filling the canals. And depending on the balance 14 between what levels you have in the higher areas of 15 the refuge, there is a push/pull kind of flow back 16 and forth from the canals into -- toward the center 17 of the refuge. 18 You see the impacts in the refuge in the 19 areas close to the canals where the water from the 20 canal comes in and penetrates into the refuge. 21 That's largely -- you could see it from the map that 22 there are a tremendous amount of impacts along the 23 western rim of the refuge. 24 Q. Will you be offering an opinion as to the 25 aerial extent of vegetative community impacts from 64 1 cultural eutrophication within the refuge? 2 A. Within the refuge, I don't believe I will. 3 Q. Have you done any research as to that 4 extent? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Are there any other visible impacts of 7 cultural eutrophication from the refuge by other -- I 8 mean other than the vegetative community 9 relationship? 10 A. I have not looked closely at what's 11 happening to other algal based systems. If you are 12 talking vegetation, meaning macrophytes, I haven't 13 been -- I haven't had the opportunity to look for 14 algal impacts. 15 But obviously the large visible impacts are 16 on the macrophyte community. 17 Q. What other impacts are there of cultural 18 eutrophication of the refuge other than vegetative 19 impacts? 20 A. I believe there will be secondary impacts 21 in the characteristic fauna of the Everglades. That 22 depends on whether the characteristic flora of the 23 Everglades will be impacted through habitation 24 utilization loss. 25 Q. Any other impacts? 65 1 A. There may be impacts in changes in the 2 chemistry of those habitats that we are not aware of. 3 There are ramifications of changes in metabolism of 4 the entire system. That certainly impacts the 5 settlement fauna, things such as the apple snail and 6 areas that we probably don't fully understand. 7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let's take a break. Off 8 the record. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 11 after which the following proceedings 12 were had:) 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Dr. Soukup, as opposed to walking you 15 through at this point in time the other water 16 conservation areas or points where you do have 17 inflows of waters with above background level 18 nutrients, do you have the same cultural 19 eutrophication impacts that you have been describing 20 for the Park and now for the refuge in those areas in 21 the EPA? 22 A. In the water conservation areas, yes. 23 Q. With regard to your expert opinions in this 24 matter, do you intend to address specifically how 25 nutrients result in changes in macrophyte 66 1 communities? 2 A. In terms of the detail of how that occurs, 3 is that what your question is? 4 Q. The process by which that occurs. 5 A. Not in detail. Only as an overview 6 process. 7 Q. Likewise, do you intend to provide opinions 8 on the process by which above background level 9 nutrients cause changes to the algal or periphyton 10 community? 11 A. In general terms, I do. 12 Q. Do you intend to provide expert opinions as 13 to how the excessive nutrients or phosphorous above 14 background level are cycled within the soils of the 15 Everglades Protection Area? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Other than providing an opinion as to the 18 general cause and effect of cultural eutrophication 19 within the Everglades Protection Area, do you intend 20 to provide opinions as to any particular facet of the 21 flora in those communities? 22 A. Not in specific terms, only in general 23 process terms. 24 Q. Again, as a general ecological impact of 25 the excess of nutrients and the cultural 67 1 eutrophication; is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. We had spoken just briefly earlier with 4 regard to your testimony or your expert opinions 5 related to the assessment of the SWIM Plan and 6 remedies. You had stated that you would primarily 7 address the SWIM Plan as it relates to the Park and 8 the general approach of the remedies taken within the 9 SWIM Plan. 10 Do you have an opinion as to how the SWIM 11 Plan programs relate to the Park? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What is that opinion? 14 A. That the SWIM Plan as it's presently 15 written will solve through its STA design the 16 implementation of the STA configuration as well as 17 the research program and the other parts of the SWIM 18 Plan which talk about some of the other problems, as 19 well, will in the long-term protect the Park as well 20 as the conservation areas. 21 Q. Is it your opinion that the STAs will 22 result in a lowering of nutrients that enter the 23 Park? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Again, probably paraphrasing your statement 68 1 earlier, but you stated that you were going to be 2 discussing the general approach of the remedies. 3 Will you be offering opinions as to the 4 efficacy of the STAs as compared to other alternative 5 remedies or means of removing nutrients? 6 A. In the general area as we evaluated them 7 based on the presentations we were receiving from the 8 different proponents of different approaches. 9 Q. Other than your work on SAGE and on TOK, 10 which I am familiar with, have you done any 11 additional research or work in the area of 12 alternative remedies or means of reducing phosphorus? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Other than the general areas I know I 15 haven't gotten into great detail, are you going to 16 provide any general expert opinion in any other areas 17 than we have discussed right now? 18 MS. PONZOLI: Counsel, the only thing -- he 19 can answer, but -- maybe I should let you answer 20 first -- but I do believe in the order of the 21 presentation of the trial, I believe Dr. Soukup 22 will certainly be available to the United States 23 in rebuttal testimony to whatever your people -- 24 we are actually going second, in a manner of 25 speaking. We go first in the prima facie case, 69 1 but you put on your major issues. 2 Since we have not heard from principal 3 experts for the league as to what issues they 4 will contest within the Park in particular, in 5 fairness you should realize if he disagreed with 6 their assessment of data or presentation of 7 facts, the United States will put him on the 8 stand. 9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 10 Q. You can feel free to respond, if you have 11 anything to add to that. Also, if you recall the 12 question. 13 A. I don't recall. Maybe you should repeat 14 the question. 15 Q. The question was just generally are there 16 any additional areas of expert testimony other than 17 the areas we discussed? 18 I know we discussed them only perhaps in 19 broad terms that you will be providing at the final 20 hearing, and I would include in that also what 21 Ms. Ponzoli just stated, which is areas of rebuttal. 22 Any areas in addition to that? 23 A. The only areas that might come up within 24 those general topics that we talked about. If there 25 are specifics that come up within those general 70 1 topics, then I may have an opinion. I would say 2 other than that, no. 3 MR. KOBELINSKI: If you don't mind, I'll 4 make a statement with regard to what we 5 discussed. 6 I have been informed the co-op will not be 7 attending this deposition of Dr. Soukup and, in 8 fact, perhaps at this break we might want to 9 confirm with Bill Green if that means for the 10 entire week. That's what I took it to mean. 11 And as a result of that, we anticipate not 12 having to take the full four days. 13 I have an expert witness who has been 14 fogged in for quite some time now, apparently 15 will not arrive until this evening. As a 16 result, for the sake of expediency in the 17 deposition, I have proposed to counsel and 18 counsel agreed to terminate for the day at noon 19 today or at this time so we can pick up 20 tomorrow, and the plan is to attempt to complete 21 it by Wednesday. 22 I'm making every effort to do so. It would 23 be surprising to me at this time if I needed 24 more time than that. But the point is to break 25 to allow me to have assistance of expert to make 71 1 this a quicker deposition. 2 Do you need to add anything to that, Susan, 3 or is that pretty much accurate? 4 MS. PONZOLI: Pretty much accurate. The 5 United States is entering this agreement with 6 the understanding that the expert will 7 facilitate the speed of the deposition and that 8 the afternoon that we are not going to go 9 forward, will not be pushed forward into 10 Thursday. 11 In other words, we will conclude by the end 12 of Wednesday. 13 MR. KOBELINSKI: We will make every attempt 14 to do so. We should check with Bill Green 15 before we conclude this? 16 MS. PONZOLI: Yes. 17 (Thereupon the taking of the 18 deposition was adjourned.) 19 - - - - - - - - - 72 1 2 I, MICHAEL SOUKUP, do hereby certify that I 3 have read the foregoing deposition and that the same 4 is a true and accurate transcript of my testimony, 5 except for attached amendments, if any. 6 7 8 9 ---------------------------------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 The signature above of MICHAEL SOUKUP was 16 subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1994. 17 18 19 20 21 ----------------------------------- 22 Notary Public 23 My commission expires 73 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 3 4 5 THE STATE OF FLORIDA ) 6 COUNTY OF DADE. ) 7 8 9 I, the undersigned authority, certify that 10 MICHAEL SOUKUP personally appeared before me and was 11 duly sworn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 12 18th day of March, 1994. 13 14 15 ___________________________________ 16 Thomas R. Neumann, RPR 17 Notary Public - State of Florida 18 My Commission Expires: June 19, 1994 74 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 THE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF DADE ) 4 5 I, Thomas R. Neumann, Registered 6 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report said deposition in 7 stenotype; and that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 71, inclusive are a true and correct 8 transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition. 9 I further certify that I am not an attorney 10 or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel or party 11 connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 12 The foregoing certification of this 13 transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control 14 and/or direction of the certifying reporter. 15 Dated this 18th day of March, 1994. 16 ______________________ 17 Thomas R. Neumann, RPR 18 THE STATE OF FLORIDA ) 19 COUNTY OF DADE. ) 20 The foregoing certificate was acknowledged 21 before me this 18th day of March, 1994 by Thomas R. Neumann, who is personally known to me. 22 23 ________________________________ 24 Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission expires: 25