75
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 8, 1994
20 9:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.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 - - - - - - -
76
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
ALSO PRESENT: COURTNEY HACKNEY
12
13 INDEX
Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross
14 MICHAEL SOUKUP
By Mr. Kobelinski: 77
15
16 EXHIBITS
NUMBER BATES NO. PAGE
17 1 1167046-1167089 156
2 Draft 3/2/94 156
18 3 1265718-1265728 271
19
77
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, good morning.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. We are just going to proceed along the same
10 lines we did yesterday with regard to my asking
11 certain questions of you.
12 Again, I would ask if you don't understand
13 the question, please let me know. And likewise,
14 again, no assumptions unless you let us know you are
15 doing so.
16 And I would just remind you you are under
17 oath, although you may not have been sworn in today.
18 With regard to your testimony yesterday, we
19 started going through your opinions with regard to
20 the impacts of nutrients upon the Everglades system.
21 Do you have an opinion as to what the
22 background water quality or nutrient level is for the
23 Everglades National Park?
24 A. I would roughly estimate it between four
25 and ten.
78
1 Q. That's parts per billion for phosphorous?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that the same background level that
4 would hold true for the remainder of the EPA?
5 A. I wouldn't -- when we talk about the EPA we
6 have to include Rodenberg. I'm not familiar with
7 that. Many people, at least in many of the
8 negotiations, EPA meant Holly Land and Rodenberg,
9 which I'm not familiar with.
10 But if we are talking about Water
11 Conservation Areas I believe that range would
12 probably be applicable to all of them.
13 Q. Is it your opinion that the certain areas
14 of the Everglades Protection Area, for instance, the
15 Water Conservation Areas and/or other sub areas, are
16 higher up or lower down within that range? In other
17 words, closer to the four as opposed to the ten?
18 A. I would venture to say that the chemistry
19 of Loxahatchee is a little bit different. I haven't
20 had much experience up there. I haven't looked at
21 the data as much.
22 I would say that background levels would
23 still be in the higher part of that range.
24 Q. So for the refuge it would be towards the --
25 closer to the ten than the four?
79
1 A. That would be in my estimate. But within
2 that four to 10 range, there is a bit of seasonal
3 change. That's why I prefer a range. I believe a
4 lot of it has to do with the dominance of rainfall as
5 the source of phosphorous for the system.
6 Q. With regard to the natural or background
7 system, if you are talking about, let's say, pre
8 drainage is there a particular date that you are
9 comfortable with comparing or looking at in the
10 natural system?
11 A. You are asking what pre drainage would be?
12 Q. Yes. Where you are talking unimpacted
13 system, what year would you use?
14 A. Well, there are many cultural-off points
15 possible. There is the early drainage project at the
16 turn of the century. Of course, the central and
17 South Florida project is much more recent than I
18 generally tend to think about absolutely natural
19 conditions being before the turn of the century,
20 before the channelization.
21 But of course there is a fair amount of
22 accumulative activity over time.
23 Q. So, for instance, would you be comfortable
24 if we discussed as a natural or background system as
25 pre 1880, would that --
80
1 A. That certainly would be pre major impact,
2 yes.
3 Q. Using that, then -- again, my purpose is
4 not to tie it to a particular year, but to try to get
5 to a natural system so we can discuss what the
6 natural system was prior to man's impact and other
7 activities, do you believe that there was a
8 phosphorous gradient in the soil from Lake Okeechobee
9 down to Florida Bay?
10 A. I believe there was, because of the
11 influence of Okeechobee. I think the overflow from
12 Lake Okeechobee was probably a little richer than the
13 rainfall, sure.
14 Q. How far do you believe that influence went,
15 just roughly?
16 A. I don't know. It would be useful to have
17 taken cores before the EAA. But before the EAA was
18 developed for farming, without that information I
19 suppose you could calculate it. It would be probably
20 estimated.
21 I'm not certain that anyone knows the pre
22 impact levels of phosphorous in Okeechobee or that
23 anyone has figured a way to figure that out.
24 Q. Generally, do you believe that the
25 influence from the lake water, again pre 1880 or pre
81
1 drainage, do you think it would have extended beyond
2 what is currently the EAA into what is currently the
3 WCAs?
4 A. I would imagine it would be confined to the
5 deep slough area that was the major channel, that
6 central area that traditionally was the deepest point
7 that captured the water coming out of
8 Lake Okeechobee.
9 It would have probably taken an arc down
10 and probably have been cleaned up fairly quickly or
11 nutrients would have been stripped, I think,
12 reasonably fast. I couldn't tell you how far.
13 Q. In this natural background, do you believe
14 that the water quality of the background water would
15 again be in the range of four to ten?
16 A. The background water quality?
17 Q. Background water quality. And, of course,
18 we are talking pre 1880, so essentially we are
19 talking about the entire system.
20 A. I believe rainfall, which probably
21 accounted for a good majority of the water,
22 three-quarters roughly, certainly would have been as
23 clean or cleaner than in terms of the lake
24 concentrations. I think that was certainly a lot
25 cleaner then -- certainly a lot cleaner than it is
82
1 now. As I understand it, it was a mesotropic lake.
2 I'm sure it was a fraction of what the concentrations
3 are now.
4 So the influence of the lake over marsh
5 land probably was significant for a distance, but I
6 don't think it reached, you know -- as far as the
7 Park, for instance, you could see some of the older
8 sediments, the ranges in the north. If you look at
9 sediment concentrations, in general they are a bit
10 higher. The lowest value occurs in the Everglades
11 National Park.
12 Q. Is it your opinion, then, that again the
13 range of the water quality, the surface water, would
14 it be within the four to ten or would that change as
15 perhaps you got closer to the lake in the background
16 system?
17 A. I think probably as you got closer to the
18 lake it would have been higher.
19 Q. With regard to the Park -- and now just so
20 you know, we can -- I can pretty much stop, unless I
21 tell you I'm not talking any longer about this pre
22 1880, I'm just sort of talking about that now.
23 At what level do you see impacts from
24 increased phosphorous in the waters at the Park?
25 A. Well, we do see --
83
1 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form.
2 THE WITNESS: We do see increases in
3 phosphorus in the intakes. They are not nearly
4 as high as the other Water Conservation Areas,
5 the levels are not nearly as high even at the
6 lower levels. We do see some impact.
7 And if you look at Bill Walker's work and
8 background levels as recent as 1978 we were
9 getting 7 to 8, 10 parts per billion through the
10 S-12 structures as a long-term average.
11 Since then, I think it's doubled. I guess
12 the estimate is a 5 or 6 or 7% increase per year
13 on a long-term average.
14 That level probably with some solution has
15 apparently impacted the flora at least to --
16 visibly to a distance of a kilometer or so.
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. If you went to background, unimpacted areas
19 of the Park, to what level of phosphorous
20 concentration of the water would you need to raise to
21 result in any impact?
22 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form. Read
23 the question back.
24 (The question referred to was thereupon
25 read by the reporter as above recorded.)
84
1 MR. KOBELINSKI: If you want, I'll rephrase
2 it if you don't understand the question.
3 MS. PONZOLI: Why don't you just repeat it.
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. If you are in a background area of the
6 Park, at what level of phosphorous concentration of
7 the water would you see or not see an impact?
8 A. I don't think we know. You would have to
9 define "impact." We all have to agree what the
10 definition of "impact" is, but I think we are
11 involved in setting up studies to do that.
12 We don't have a precise number based on any
13 criteria that would be mutually agreed upon yet.
14 Obviously that's one of the roles of the TOC, is to
15 do that kind of study to, in my mind, apply very
16 carefully different levels and see what the impacts
17 are and see what kind of ramification those impacts
18 have for the system.
19 Q. I would assume if we went to the higher
20 levels you would feel confident saying there was an
21 impact. For instance, if I told you out of 10 parts
22 per billion phosphorous, would you expect to see an
23 impact?
24 A. Yes, I would.
25 Q. Naturally when you start bringing it closer
85
1 to 8 or 10 to 20 parts per billion, would you
2 anticipate there would be a negative impact?
3 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. It has
4 the same inherent problem it had before,
5 "negative impact."
6 THE WITNESS: I think you would probably
7 see some indications of change. Some of those
8 indications might occur very quickly, some might
9 be long-term.
10 If you are taking a system that's honed to
11 a low level such as 10, it's possible that you
12 would see impacts of 20.
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. What would those impacts be?
15 A. I would imagine they would first be
16 demonstrated by changes in metabolic rates of
17 microorganisms. I think you would see gradual,
18 perhaps first subtle shifts of diatom species in the
19 periphyton.
20 I would think the role of the periphyton in
21 the system would be altered by the changes of the
22 species that make up the periphyton. That would work
23 its way up through the food chain.
24 If 20 parts per billion over a sufficient
25 period of time did show those effects, then you would
86
1 have to categorize those as impacts, in my opinion.
2 Q. Would those be negative impacts, in your
3 opinion?
4 A. In terms of Everglades National Park, yes,
5 it would. Everglades National Park obviously was
6 designated to preserve it as an Everglades habitat.
7 If you are preserving an Everglades habitat you must
8 try to minimize those kinds of impact.
9 So certainly there's no question in my mind
10 that in Everglades National Park, if you observe
11 changes that would work their way to the food chains
12 there is no question one should take some action.
13 Water Conservation Areas, if they are to
14 remain an Everglades habitat, I think would be very
15 similar in what you would have to do in order to keep
16 them as an Everglades habitat. You might not have as
17 strict a congressional mandate to preserve, but you
18 certainly, if you are maintaining those as
19 Everglades, then I think you have to be very careful
20 with what impacts you would accept.
21 Q. To what extent does changing the load of
22 nutrients have the same type of eutrophication
23 impacts as changing the concentration?
24 A. Well, a load is not something that
25 organisms see directly. Organisms respond to what
87
1 moves past them. My opinion, load is more of an
2 engineering bookkeeping that allows you to track the
3 total mass of a material over a period of time. It's
4 basically a calculation.
5 You could have -- of course, they are
6 obviously interconnected, but you could have -- with
7 a small load you could have very high concentrations
8 which, if they reached the flora and fauna of a given
9 area, could be damaging, but your overall load might
10 not be so high.
11 Q. Would looking at the S-12 area, and let's
12 say prior to the rainfall delivery schedule -- you
13 are familiar with the various delivery schedules that
14 were used for the S-12?
15 A. Pretty much.
16 Q. Historically, if you could just describe
17 them initially, what was done with the S-12s when
18 they were put in, installed?
19 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to let him answer
20 these questions, Mr. Kobelinski. This is not
21 what Dr. Soukup is being offered for at trial.
22 I'm allowing you to range far afield in
23 many of your questions of what we offered him to
24 present opinions on, but I want the record to be
25 clear that hydrology is not an area Dr. Soukup
88
1 has been listed to testify about.
2 THE WITNESS: I can just tell you in
3 general terms.
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. Right.
6 A. The construction of the project obviously
7 interdicted the normal flow characteristic of the
8 Shark River Slough, for instance. And the
9 interdiction of those flows and especially movement
10 of those flows to the west by simply the S-12
11 structures caused impacts to the deeper slough area.
12 The differentials of flows I only recall
13 roughly, and there were periods of withholding water
14 and creating great droughts, followed by a response
15 which was a minimum delivery system.
16 Minimum delivery system really didn't solve
17 the problem because timing and the volumes were not
18 sufficient. Following that was another congressional
19 direction to set up an experimental water delivery
20 program. That's the area I'm a little bit more
21 familiar with, and that brought about the rainfall
22 formula which is an improvement in terms of timing,
23 but it is certainly not the appropriate or correct
24 formula yet.
25 That formula is being revised currently and
89
1 with a larger basic flow built into that equation.
2 But right now there is a very long period where no
3 water has been delivered during droughts and publicly
4 wanted characteristics of the system and a correction
5 of that formula and the movement of that to the east
6 where it would then be able to persist in a deep
7 slough through the dry season at a normal year, then
8 the system would be put back on kilter in terms of
9 timing and distribution.
10 Then the volumes in kind can be adjusted
11 back to recover the basic processes that were
12 characteristic of the pre central and South Florida
13 project.
14 Q. By literally constructing the project with
15 the L-67 and S-12 structure, did that just by virtue
16 of shifting that water to the west and putting it
17 through the three 12 structures, did that increase
18 the load within the immediate area downstream of the
19 S-12s?
20 A. Did that increase the load directly below
21 the S-12?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. What you are essentially doing is just
24 taking that large sheet flow and funneling it through
25 structures. You may have increased the load in the
90
1 sense that you constructed it and moved it through a
2 smaller area, but by-and-large you reduced the load
3 because your volumes have been severely reduced.
4 Q. With regard to that area to the west where
5 the S-12s are located, did it increase the load
6 directly below each of the 12 structures themselves?
7 A. Well, compared to areas that weren't --
8 Q. Compared to background, compared to what
9 those areas were prior to the construction of the
10 L-67, the levys and the installation of the 12
11 structures?
12 A. You are talking about the immediate aerial
13 portion below the S-12 as opposed to something that
14 was in 10, 12-A and B, for instance?
15 Q. Right.
16 A. It probably increased the load in that
17 area, but by itself would not have increased the
18 concentration.
19 Q. Would increasing the load -- in this
20 instance you are increasing just the volume of water
21 with the same concentration, would that have any
22 impact upon either the flora or fauna?
23 A. Increasing -- repeat that, please.
24 Q. The volume as opposed to the concentration
25 within that volume of water, would that have any
91
1 impact upon the flora and fauna?
2 MS. PONZOLI: Assuming the same background
3 concentration?
4 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll repeat the question.
5 MS. PONZOLI: I want to understand what the
6 premise is.
7 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll repeat the question,
8 so I think we will get to that.
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. If you keep the same background
11 concentration but just funnel all of the water
12 through three or four delivery points thereby
13 increasing the load over the areas immediately below
14 those funnel points, merely by changing the volume of
15 water, not the concentration within the water, would
16 you have an impact to the flora and fauna below those
17 entry points?
18 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to object to the
19 form inasmuch as I'm not convinced you would
20 increase the load in your hypothetical. I think
21 you are assuming an increased load.
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll withdraw that.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. Let me ask you the initial question.
25 If you had taken a funnel sheet flow across
92
1 a large area through a point discharge, keeping the
2 same volume of water and likewise not changing the
3 concentration within the water, are you changing the
4 load that flows over or that is experienced by the
5 area directly below that point structure?
6 A. As I understand it, you are taking a given
7 concentration and a given amount of water. And now
8 if you funnel it through a structure -- and you are
9 asking if there is an increased load at the
10 approximate area near the structure?
11 Q. Right.
12 A. You would be increasing the load but not
13 the concentration. In my mind, I would think that
14 besides the obvious changes in velocity and things
15 like that you are subjecting the organisms to, the
16 fact that you are not giving a larger supply on a
17 larger availability of molecules in the solution for
18 which they have certain methods of extracting or
19 absorbing those molecules, you would not be changing
20 the situation a great deal.
21 Q. Would the funneling of that water, again
22 looking at -- not without changing the background
23 concentration -- would that have any impact upon the
24 soil chemistry below the structure?
25 A. That would depend on the equilibrium rates
93
1 of the processes that are involved. The way as I
2 understand it, the soil absorption -- phosphorus is
3 both a physical and a biological mechanism. And I
4 would say if you held the concentration the same, you
5 certainly might have some minor advantage for
6 organisms, but I think the effective physical
7 processes would probably be not different.
8 I'm not so sure you would see that much
9 difference in the biological uptake rate because of
10 the fact that -- the physics of just bringing in
11 molecules from a dilute solution would be changed
12 that much.
13 Q. If you then extend the period of time to
14 roughly 30 years, would you see a change in the soil
15 chemistry?
16 A. I think if you --
17 MS. PONZOLI: I want to put something in.
18 I want to object to, I guess, the hypothetical,
19 really, that you are working through
20 Mr. Kobelinski, but your hypothetical assumes a
21 fact not in the record at all. It assumes that
22 the volumes of water through the funnel points
23 are the same volumes that were going through the
24 sheet flow.
25 I believe that the record is that is not
94
1 the case and therefore your hypothetical is
2 built on a false assumption.
3 I want to enter that objection to your
4 hypothetical.
5 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the
6 question?
7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
8 Q. Sure. Again, if you take a sheet flow over
9 a large area and a background concentration and you
10 funnel it, the same volume and same concentration,
11 through a point source discharge thereby, of course,
12 increasing the volume of water in the immediate area
13 surrounding that structure over a 30-year period of
14 time, would you anticipate seeing a difference in the
15 soil chemistry below the structure?
16 MS. PONZOLI: I have the same objection as
17 I had before.
18 THE WITNESS: I believe you might not see a
19 great deal of increase if your mechanisms are
20 physically dominated, which I think certainly a
21 large role of the physical process is.
22 If there is an equilibrium between the
23 sediments and concentrations, for instance, I
24 believe you will probably not change the rates
25 by increasing the velocity or the availability
95
1 of new water.
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. My question pertained to the Everglades and
4 the Everglades mechanisms and based upon your
5 knowledge of them.
6 The only reason I state that is because
7 your response, if it depends on the mechanisms, et
8 cetera, of the marsh community, I would like you to
9 draw upon your understanding of the mechanisms of the
10 Everglades marsh community.
11 MS. PONZOLI: You are assuming he didn't.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not sure if he did.
13 That's why I'm asking.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. My question, then, is given your knowledge
16 of the mechanisms and the ecology of the Everglades,
17 again would you anticipate seeing any soil chemistry
18 impacts from the hypothetical that I posed to you
19 over a 30-year period or at the end of a 30-year
20 period?
21 A. I think with the system with a ligatrophic
22 metabolism that we see, the physical processes
23 probably are dominant and were dominant. And just by
24 speeding the flow of water up in an area you would
25 not necessarily increase the concentration in the
96
1 sediments.
2 Q. Is it based upon -- your answer to that
3 with regard to the elevated soil sediments you see
4 below the S-12 structures, is it your opinion that
5 all of that elevated soil sediments that you find
6 below the 12 structures is solely accountable to an
7 increase in concentration of phosphorous as opposed
8 to increase in the volume of water passing through
9 that area?
10 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form.
11 THE WITNESS: I would imagine. I would
12 postulate that if levels had remained low, you
13 would have lower levels in the sediment.
14 The fact that you have higher levels, and I
15 believe some of the levels are double and triple
16 the levels of background, that that indicates a
17 concentration phenomenon. Certainly the
18 availability is important.
19 But if the equilibrium is kept constant,
20 then you would have much lower levels in the
21 sediments than you have now.
22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23 Q. What is the background soil -- what would
24 be the background soil phosphorous concentrations for
25 the area below the S-12s?
97
1 A. The Park's background levels range from, I
2 imagine, around 250 or 350 or something like that,
3 grams -- milligrams per gram.
4 Q. Do you have an opinion as to what the
5 background would be below the 12 structures?
6 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. You mean
7 pre 1880 or when?
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Pre 1880 is fine.
9 MS. PONZOLI: How would he know?
10 THE WITNESS: You are talking about
11 background without the structures or with
12 structures?
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. I'm talking about what was background in
15 that area where the 12 structures are, what was the
16 background level pre 1880 as we used before? What
17 would you anticipate?
18 A. I would say towards the low end of that
19 range, probably in that area, maybe around 300 or
20 something. That would be a guess.
21 MS. PONZOLI: A guess?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 MS. PONZOLI: You are not supposed to
24 guess, Dr. Soukup.
25 THE WITNESS: Let's call that a projection
98
1 based on what the concentrations are before the
2 construction of the S-12s.
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. What is the concentration now in the soil
5 phosphorus below the S-12?
6 A. Approximately they are approaching a
7 thousand, in that range.
8 Q. So an increase in the ballpark of 700 grams
9 per --
10 A. Milligrams per gram.
11 Q. Milligrams per gram, thank you. And is --
12 A. I'm sorry, micrograms per gram. It's grams
13 per kilogram. It does get confusing.
14 Q. We will try not to.
15 Of that approximate 700, is it your
16 opinion, then, that all of that, all 700 micrograms
17 per gram increase in that area below the S-12 as a
18 result of the increase in concentrations of the water
19 flowing over the area above background levels?
20 A. I think you certainly could have the
21 contributions from the fact that you have a highway
22 there. I think the Tamiami Trail might offer some
23 run off that would be higher at a higher level.
24 You would look towards the rest of the
25 non-structured areas to see if that's true, if it's
99
1 coming off the highway.
2 There is some activity towards the western
3 S-12 structures, human activity that might contribute
4 some phosphorous.
5 But in terms of the distribution -- and the
6 bulk of the distribution, I believe, is coming from
7 the water supply and probably some disruptions in the
8 equilibria of the processes that have effect on
9 phosphorous to the soils.
10 Q. Let me pose the question in the negative,
11 then.
12 Is it your opinion, then, that none of the
13 approximate 700 micrograms per gram increase over the
14 approximate background below the S-12s as a result of
15 a redirection of flow other than just merely from
16 redirecting the flow and increasing the amount of
17 water passing over that area?
18 A. You are talking about the loading factor?
19 Q. The loading, yes.
20 A. I would discount it as a major source. I
21 think you can determine what influence it would have
22 on the equilibrium, and then you would get a more
23 succinct answer.
24 I think if you are passing low
25 concentration water over sediments, speeding that
100
1 concentration up going by wouldn't markedly change
2 the process that accumulates phosphorous into the
3 sediments.
4 Q. With regard to the flow as going through
5 the S-12s, are those just generally very rapid flows
6 when the 12s are open?
7 A. I don't believe they are very rapid, no.
8 There is a lot of friction in the marsh, certainly a
9 lot of friction in the vegetation that's established
10 now around downstream part of S-12. There is not a
11 lot there.
12 Q. Are you familiar at all with the water
13 quality below the S-12? For instance, as a gradient
14 what is the approximate water quality one kilometer
15 down from the S-12s?
16 A. I don't recall the exact shape of the
17 curve. But Ron Jones has done a number of transects
18 below the S-12s. There is a steady decline below and
19 a steady decline in the accumulation in the sediments
20 below.
21 So you could see that there is a -- I don't
22 know what the slope of that line is, but there is an
23 extraction rate in the same way that there is a
24 similar extraction rate that you could see in Water
25 Conservation Areas away from canals.
101
1 There is a fairly rapid decline.
2 Q. I believe yesterday you testified that you
3 see some slip in that line as of a couple of years
4 ago.
5 Given that from your testimony, that would
6 indicate that there has been an elevation of water
7 concentration of phosphorous in the water upward at
8 least for the same distance, six kilometers below the
9 S-12; is that correct?
10 A. Say that again.
11 Q. Given the fact that your soil phosphorous --
12 you experienced elevated soil phosphorous up to a
13 distance of six kilometers from the S-12, if I
14 understand your testimony as to how that elevated
15 soil phosphorus occurs, which is a change in
16 concentration, you have to have had elevated water
17 phosphorous concentrations up to six miles below the
18 S-12s?
19 A. Correct.
20 MS. PONZOLI: Objection to the form. You
21 mean kilometers?
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Kilometers. Thank you,
23 counsel.
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. The range, if I recall from your testimony,
102
1 of the water passing through the S-12s has ranges
2 historically -- what was the historic range of the
3 water quality passing through the S-12s?
4 A. The water quality data that we have in '77
5 and '78 indicate that the long-term mean going
6 through there was somewhere around eight parts per
7 billion.
8 Q. That's up to '78?
9 A. That's for the year '78. That is the OFW,
10 Outstanding Florida Water designation year.
11 Q. Subsequent to '78 what has been the range
12 of water quality passing through the S-12s?
13 A. There has been a general trend up, I
14 believe, around 5% per year over the period of record
15 that we had. I think it was like about a 10-year or
16 12-year period of record.
17 Recently there have been some reductions in
18 outflow from the EAA, and that has leveled off a bit.
19 But for that period of record, I think it was little
20 over 5% per year.
21 Q. Which would mean it ranged up as high as
22 what?
23 A. I think the long-term average at the end of
24 that period of record was over 20 parts per billion.
25 Q. And given that as a long-term average, I
103
1 assume that means there were events where the water
2 quality actually exceeded 20 parts per billion?
3 A. Exactly.
4 Q. Do you recall approximately how high was
5 the highest water quality concentration?
6 A. There was a bit of jumping around. There
7 were some high values because water directly from the
8 EAA down the L-67 canal through the structures tended
9 to be fairly high. There were periods when some of
10 that water was not diluted by rainfall and some of
11 the numbers were small.
12 Q. Specs to what height, what level?
13 A. I don't know the general range. I can
14 picture the graph, but two or maybe three times the
15 average.
16 Q. Upwards of 60 to -- well, 40 to 60, as I
17 understand it?
18 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. That has
19 been asked and answered. He told you he didn't
20 know.
21 THE WITNESS: Very roughly. All of that is
22 contained in Bill Walker's paper.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. At the long-term average of 20 parts per
25 billion, as I understand from what you are
104
1 testifying, it took approximately a six kilometers
2 depth into the marsh for that area to actually remove
3 the excess phosphorous and bring it down to
4 background levels?
5 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. I don't
6 think that's what he testified. If it is, he
7 can say so.
8 THE WITNESS: Say it again.
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. Looking at the long-term average of 20
11 parts per billion, how much marsh or how far down
12 into the marsh below the 12 does it go prior to it
13 attaining a background level?
14 A. At what concentration?
15 Q. At the 20 parts per billion.
16 A. I could only speculate on that.
17 MS. PONZOLI: Don't.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. Well, is it your opinion it takes six
20 kilometers to achieve background at 20 parts per
21 billion?
22 MS. PONZOLI: It has been asked and
23 answered. We are on about the fourth or fifth
24 round of this. He doesn't have to answer if he
25 doesn't know. He can only speculate. He does
105
1 not have to speculate. That's not the rule of
2 the game.
3 THE WITNESS: You have to keep the
4 concentration and the volume in mind, as well.
5 Very high flows of 20 parts per billion would
6 reach further down the transect than very low
7 flows at 20 parts per billion.
8 You got an extra factor in there that you
9 are not -- your question doesn't seem to take
10 into the fact that flows and the amount of water
11 over a unit time and how that spreads out over
12 the system and how it reaches different parts of
13 the transect would be important.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Okay. So the speed of the flow will have
16 an impact how far down into the marsh the phosphorous
17 penetrates?
18 A. For instance, if you had a trickle of 20
19 parts per billion water and it spread out over the
20 large flat surface that's below the S-12 structure,
21 that would not penetrate very far. But if you had a
22 deep large flow, very large rain event that took a
23 lot of water at 20 parts per billion over a larger
24 area, then that transect would show those impacts
25 over that larger area.
106
1 Q. Am I correct, then, that if you slow down
2 the flows, you are essentially decreasing the area of
3 impact?
4 A. What I'm saying is the opportunity for
5 contact with the sediments will vary over the size of
6 the flow. That will impact or give access to varying
7 areal extents of settlement.
8 Q. Would a longer contact time result in
9 greater uptake of excess phosphorous in the
10 Everglades?
11 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form.
12 THE WITNESS: Only to reach equilibrium,
13 which is probably fairly fast.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. I'm sorry. You lost me there, so I
16 apologize.
17 A. That's okay.
18 Q. What do you mean by only to reach
19 equilibrium? What is the equilibrium you are
20 referring to there?
21 A. If you take, as Ron Jones has done, a
22 portion of sediment into the laboratory and you dose
23 it with a certain level, then the length of contact
24 has a fair amount of impact on the amount of material
25 taken up.
107
1 Q. What is --
2 A. You have to get the material in the
3 approximate location of the material that will absorb
4 it.
5 Q. If I understand what you just said, the
6 contact time -- i.e., the slower the flow, the
7 greater the contact time, the greater the uptake; is
8 that accurate?
9 A. No, I don't think so. That's not what I
10 meant to say. Try that again.
11 Q. Let's try again.
12 What happens if you have -- let's use the
13 20 parts per billion.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. Let's go to, just so I can understand what
16 you are saying, to a background area. And you are
17 now going to increase the concentration to 20 parts
18 per billion?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If you keep the same flow that excess
21 phosphorous will be taken up in a given area, is that
22 accurate, "X" area, whatever that "X" is?
23 MS. PONZOLI: Over background?
24 MR. KOBELINSKI: Over background.
25 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
108
1 Q. You are adding volume of water, let's say,
2 a thousand acre feet of water and 20 parts per
3 billion to a background. That will
4 be taken up within some area; is that correct? It's
5 not just going to keep on passing downstream?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. If you release that thousand acre feet in
8 one surge, will that impact the -- as compared to
9 releasing it slowly over a 30-day period, will that
10 impact the aerial extent of where the uptake occurs?
11 A. I believe it would because I believe that
12 you will have a greater opportunity for contact with
13 sediments with a smaller flow that would have more of
14 a chance to distribute at a more shallow depth.
15 Q. I think, then, we are talking about the
16 same thing, we were just misunderstanding each other.
17 If you slow down the flow and increase the
18 contact time, your uptake rate at, for instance, 20
19 parts per billion will increase?
20 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. I don't
21 believe that's what he testified. You took
22 him -- wait, Dr. Soukup. Wait, Dr. Soukup. Let
23 me finish my objection.
24 MR. KOBELINSKI: It's all right. The
25 question is withdrawn. No point objecting to a
109
1 withdrawn question.
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. If you slow down the flow, spread out the
4 flow over a period of time in that aerial extent at
5 20 parts per billion, the area of impact, i.e., the
6 area where -- that will have elevated water
7 phosphorous concentration will decrease; is that
8 correct?
9 A. I believe.
10 MS. PONZOLI: Are you going to let me put
11 an objection on the record, Doctor?
12 THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
13 MS. PONZOLI: May I hear the question
14 again, please?
15 (The question referred to was thereupon
16 read by the reporter as above recorded.)
17 MS. PONZOLI: I object to the form. I
18 think it's thoroughly confusing.
19 You may go ahead and answer.
20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21 Q. Do you understand the question, sir? If
22 you don't --
23 A. I'm not sure. Rephrase it.
24 Q. My question is simply if you take the same
25 volume of water at 20 parts per billion and you, say,
110
1 double the time over which that water is released
2 thus essentially also cutting in half the rate of
3 flow, will you decrease the aerial extent of impact
4 to the marsh?
5 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form.
6 THE WITNESS: I think my answer is to a
7 point. What I was trying to indicate to what I
8 think you asked earlier was that if you have a
9 large flow event where, say, the depth of water
10 downstream does not insure optimal contact with
11 sediments for optimal take up -- in other words,
12 the maximum rate that you could see this stuff
13 disappear from the water, if you increase the
14 depth of the water flowing through that system
15 because of the frictions in the marsh vegetation --
16 in other words, its very hard to push water
17 through a marsh. If you had a large slug of
18 water going through it, 20 parts per billion,
19 and it backed up and there was a height depth
20 that reduced contact time of sediments, then
21 that water would penetrate further down the
22 transect.
23 I think the question that you just asked
24 was that when you have a smaller flow would that
25 be taken up in the smaller area.
111
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. My question is if you just double the
3 period of time that you released the event that you
4 are just talking about, if you just literally double
5 the time for release.
6 A. For contact? In other words, double half
7 the volume?
8 Q. No, the same volume, you are just doubling
9 the amount of time -- as opposed to opening the gate
10 one foot, opening the gate six inches, it will take
11 twice as long to get the same amount of water
12 through, right?
13 MS. PONZOLI: There is a different element
14 that Dr. Soukup is trying to explain to you.
15 It's not possible.
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll let him explain it.
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. What happens if you have a volume of water
19 and you open the gate one foot as opposed to two
20 feet?
21 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to continue my
22 objection. He is not a hydrologist.
23 THE WITNESS: You half the flow rate?
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. That's what I'm talking about.
112
1 A. You half the flow rate. It depends on
2 whether or not you reached a point that has any
3 impact from the optimization of contact with the
4 sediment.
5 I guess I don't have in my mind what
6 factors such as friction in the marsh, how that would
7 retard or restrict the movement at some hypothetical
8 flow level.
9 I think the answer to your question is that
10 when you maximize the rate at which the water is in
11 contact with the sediment, if you maximize that you
12 are going to get uptake and you see it reflected in
13 that large volume in the sediments.
14 I think if you give sediments an optimal
15 amount of time, it would take a fair amount up. We
16 see it in the thousands of parts per billion in
17 structures in sediments below structures.
18 Q. Let me back up a bit, then. How is
19 phosphorous taken out of the water column in the
20 Everglades? What are the mechanisms for that?
21 MS. PONZOLI: Throughout the entire
22 Everglades, Mr. Kobelinski, same process?
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. Does the process differ throughout the
25 Everglades?
113
1 A. I think there are different characteristics
2 of the process.
3 The processes, as I understand them, are
4 soil absorption, physical mechanical uptake
5 absorption. There is biological uptake cycling
6 pulling biomicrobes and higher organisms, plants,
7 lower plants such as diatoms and bluegreens and
8 greens, all of those are pulling nutrients out of the
9 water column. Those are the uptake processes.
10 Certainly there are also macrophytes
11 pulling out interstitial waters out of the sediment
12 and creating a large biomass by absorbing from the
13 sediments. Those processes are the reason why when
14 you introduce nutrient enriched water into the
15 Everglades it's taken up by the sediments.
16 Q. How does an increase in the depth of water
17 impact this uptake of nutrients from the water
18 column?
19 A. The increase in the depth of water?
20 Q. Right.
21 MS. PONZOLI: I would just like to put my
22 general objection on the record. What you are
23 trying to do, Mr. Kobelinski, that I think is
24 causing problems, you are trying to reduce very
25 complicated processes to a very simplistic
114
1 hypothetical to obtain the answer you seek.
2 It doesn't work, but that's my fundamental
3 objection and it will probably remain the same
4 throughout your series of questions.
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. You can answer.
7 A. Would you repeat your question?
8 Q. Sure. How does the depth of the water
9 impact the uptake of phosphorous out of the water
10 column?
11 A. The depth alone would impact it only by
12 access to those uptake processes. In other words, if
13 you had six or eight feet of water standing out
14 there, the relative contact to the sediments would be
15 much reduced.
16 It might be in contact with periphyton or
17 other mechanisms of uptake, but from the sediments if
18 there is not a great mixing and very slow velocities
19 and very high friction in some of the dense areas you
20 would be restricting access to the sediments, and
21 therefore by retarding the uptake mechanism by the
22 sediments in the sediments.
23 Q. You used an example of six to eight feet.
24 Would a difference from four inches to one foot have
25 an impact upon the uptake?
115
1 A. It would depend on the amount of turbulence
2 in the system.
3 Q. I didn't hear that.
4 A. It would depend on the amount of turbulence
5 in the system. If you got a turbulent flow, which
6 most flow is, except in the Everglades there is a
7 fairly low velocity often in the vegetation because
8 the rate of friction, there is very slow volumes,
9 movement of that volume of water -- then if you were
10 in a turbulent flow you would have very stagnant
11 water just moving very slowly. And at some depth, I
12 don't know what it would be, but at a certain depth
13 you are likely start to inhibit the amount of contact
14 with sediments or be restricted to a slower rate of
15 extraction.
16 Q. With regard to we have been discussing the
17 uptake mechanisms and you often referred to contact
18 with sediments and you haven't mentioned as much the
19 biological uptake.
20 Is the sediment uptakes the primary uptake
21 of phosphorous in the water column?
22 A. I think I focused on sediments because of
23 your question. Certainly the enormous periphyton
24 matter and periphyton community out there has a role
25 to play. There are a few plants. I don't know if
116
1 there are that many in the Everglades that are
2 absorbed directly from the water column, as well.
3 But by and large you can see tremendous
4 amounts accumulated in the sediment in the areas
5 below nutrient rich outfalls.
6 Q. With regard to macrophytes, where do they
7 obtain their phosphorous for growth?
8 A. Most of them, I think, predominantly pull
9 them from the sediments, from the root structures.
10 Q. Does that hold true for sawgrass?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What about cattail?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. Now, is that pulling it from the sediments
15 or from the interstitial water?
16 A. Interstitial water, the matrix.
17 Q. Actually you were sort of using them
18 interchangeably as far as that goes, the pulling it
19 from down below the surface level is what you are
20 saying?
21 A. Yes, down below the surface root, the
22 rooted aquatics.
23 Q. What are the primary mechanisms for the
24 removal of excess phosphorus below the S-12s
25 currently?
117
1 A. I would say absorption by the sediments,
2 absorption by the macrophytes and whatever periphyton
3 community is present.
4 Q. Now, with regard to absorption by the
5 macrophytes and periphyton, they don't -- I thought I
6 understood you to say they don't pull phosphorous
7 from the water column itself?
8 A. The macrophytes. Periphyton probably get
9 some from the water column and from the interchange
10 with proximity to the sediment.
11 Q. Is there a point in time where the -- due
12 to the concentration of phosphorous within the
13 sediments that the absorption decreases -- the rate
14 of absorption by the sediments decreases?
15 A. I can't remember the shape of those curves.
16 Those curves have been looked at recently by a number
17 of different people. I'm drawing a blank on the
18 shape of those curves.
19 My impression is that they level out, which
20 is what I would expect.
21 Q. When you say level out, does that mean they
22 level out at a particular level or there is still
23 uptake but it stays constant at a particular rate?
24 A. It's water that becomes a flat rate. In
25 other words, the rate does not increase.
118
1 Q. Does calcite precipitation remove
2 phosphorus?
3 A. To a certain extent it does, but there is
4 an equilibrium there that's at work. That's been
5 looked at a number of times for -- as the basis for
6 the uptake process. That will work to a certain
7 equilibrium concentration, I don't know how low it
8 is, I can't remember how low it is.
9 Q. How does calcite precipitation remove
10 phosphorous?
11 A. Basically it's a chemical precipitation
12 process. It's a function of temperature, PH. And
13 when you reach a certain level, there is a great deal
14 of carbonate in the system. When you reach a certain
15 temperature and PH, and this can be enhanced by the
16 periphyton, then you reach conditions where there is
17 simply an inorganic precipitation of calcium
18 carbonates. It's all based on equilibrium.
19 Q. Does the depth of the water influence the
20 calcite precipitation?
21 A. It certainly would. In some ways the depth
22 of the water probably has some modifying effect. The
23 temperature and the amount of water circulating
24 probably changes the degree to which periphyton
25 activities change the entire water column chemistry.
119
1 Periphyton make tremendous changes in the water
2 chemistry because of their process of fixing CO2 --
3 fixing carbon and respiring CO2.
4 If you had a large or deeper water column,
5 then their impact, if there is reasonable
6 circulation, might be somewhat lessened by the larger
7 amount of material that they would be influencing in
8 the water column.
9 Q. Does calcite deposition produce deposits of
10 this mineral in the Everglades?
11 A. Oh, sure.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let's take a quick break.
13 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
14 after which the following proceedings
15 were had:)
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. Dr. Soukup, again trying to understand how
18 the elevated water phosphorous causes impacts to an
19 area in the Everglades, and I guess first I would
20 like to address the soil chemistry which I believe is
21 one of the areas you stated it is impacted from
22 elevated water phosphorous. You had stated that part
23 of the uptake of phosphorus from the water column is
24 by absorption by the soil, peat soils.
25 I assume that absorption is from the
120
1 phosphorus or the water that comes in contact with
2 the soil itself; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Is there a way that the water mixes such
5 that once the phosphorous is removed from that water
6 contacting the soil, the water then churns somehow so
7 additional phosphorus comes in contact with the soil?
8 A. It depends on the amount of turbulence you
9 have in the water column, the degree to which you
10 have contact with the soil. And your question
11 earlier about deeper systems would be perhaps
12 providing less contact with the soil.
13 Q. So the depth of the water to the extent
14 that that you have phosphorous in the higher levels
15 of the water, I'm talking about the upper portion of
16 the surface water, that surface will not come into
17 the contact with the soil, will not be absorbed by
18 the soil?
19 A. If it happens to be moving imperceptively,
20 the flow kicks in only for a very small -- very, very
21 small velocity. If you are going faster than
22 velocity then the system becomes turbulent.
23 If the system is stratified -- for
24 instance, not moving, approximately still, then you
25 would probably certainly reduce the amount of contact
121
1 time.
2 Contact time is important. Certainly
3 concentration is a major function, as well.
4 Q. I believe you had stated that the primary
5 source of excess or elevated nutrients to the Park is
6 through S-12 structures?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. What is the flow there generally? Is there
9 generally a faster turbulent flow or is it generally
10 slow?
11 A. I would imagine it's generally fairly
12 turbulent. It's a turbulent flow.
13 Q. What if the water were -- what if it was
14 deep; and if it were deep and still, then you might
15 have some problems with adequate access to contact
16 with sediment.
17 What is the average amount of water that
18 flows through the S-12, if there is a general average
19 or range?
20 MS. PONZOLI: Same objection.
21 THE WITNESS: Annually?
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm sorry, annually.
23 THE WITNESS: Annually, I think in an
24 average year -- let's see. It's probably three
25 to 400,000 acre feet. It might be a little less
122
1 than that.
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. That obviously fluctuates from year to
4 year?
5 A. Very much.
6 Q. I know that from the research being done
7 with regard to the rainfall delivery system. The
8 Park is now attempting to determine what the historic
9 flows were to the Park; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Has the Park come to a conclusion as to
12 what the historic flows were?
13 A. There are only estimates and those
14 estimates are constantly being refined. The historic
15 flows are being estimated right now by the natural
16 system model as one tool, and the actual number would
17 certainly be bracketed by annual fluctuation.
18 Q. What is the approximate range now that is
19 being looked at for the natural system flow to the
20 Park?
21 A. The natural flow probably was closer to
22 maybe three-quarters of a million acre feet,
23 somewhere in that range. That's a very approximate
24 number. But somewhere of that magnitude there is a
25 range from a half to a million to bracket probably
123
1 what would be the range of flows in the historic
2 system. That is a rough estimate.
3 Q. Is the area south of the S-12s, is that
4 part of the historic slough area?
5 A. The area to the west of L-67 is a little
6 bit higher elevation. The deep slough area is to the
7 eastern part of the Park. And, in fact, the eastern
8 part of the Park as it has now been modified with the
9 acquisition of the east Everglades area.
10 The western part of the east Everglades
11 area was a traditional deep slough area, deeper
12 slough area elevation of course being very minor in
13 magnitude, changes in elevation. The Everglades are
14 very minor. But it's a deeper area and it's where
15 the water, given its own free movement, would have
16 gone.
17 Q. Just out of curiosity, where does the
18 acquisition of that land stand?
19 A. I understand that there has been money in
20 the budget and it's actively being acquired now, the
21 Park has already received 40,000 acres of state
22 lands, and the major issue -- it's on the table right
23 now -- is the last eight and a half square miles,
24 whether or not that should be acquired or the current
25 level of flood protection be afforded to those end
124
1 holders or those holders of land in the eight and a
2 half square miles.
3 Q. With regard to the area south of the S-12,
4 historically do you have any idea as to whether or
5 not that is an area that pre 1880 used to receive the
6 three to 400,000 acre feet of water on the average?
7 A. Well, that figure, three or 400,000 --
8 Q. Acre feet of water.
9 A. You are talking about what it gets now?
10 Q. I'm saying, did it used to get that much
11 historically pre 1880?
12 A. When I gave you that figure for the 500,000
13 and to a million range of historic flows, I was
14 talking about the cross section of that whole entire
15 area. 40 mile bend to the east Everglades, and that
16 volume flowing across that cross section would have
17 been between 500,000 and a million acre feet.
18 How that distributed across the area that
19 is now occupied by the S-12, that probably would have
20 been a fraction of that, a smaller fraction of that
21 flow because the deeper area was to the east. But
22 I'm sure a fair amount of water used to flow across
23 there.
24 I can't estimate exactly how much would
25 have gone over that area. It probably could be
125
1 estimated.
2 Q. Is it your opinion, then, that the volume
3 of water flowing in the area south of the S-12 is
4 approximately the same as the historified water
5 flowing across that area?
6 MS. PONZOLI: I just want the record to
7 reflect my continuing objection that Dr. Soukup
8 has not been offered as an expert on hydrology
9 of the Park.
10 THE WITNESS: I really couldn't answer that
11 because even the volumes are subjected to so
12 much change. How that would distribute across
13 the flow section, I don't know how that would
14 work.
15 I mean, you could calculate that by doing
16 some cross sectional areas and predictable
17 depths based at the range of acre feet that are
18 supposedly characteristic of the natural system.
19 I haven't done that. I probably wouldn't want
20 to guess.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Would changing or would increasing the
23 depth and duration of flows over a background area
24 have an impact upon -- on a long-term basis, have an
25 impact upon the vegetation in the Everglades?
126
1 A. Increasing the depth and duration?
2 Q. Of flows.
3 A. To what extremes?
4 Q. Has there been a change in the depth and
5 duration of flows for the area south of the S-12
6 structures?
7 A. Coincident with the construction of the
8 S-12s?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. The hydroperiod is I guess what you are
11 asking, has the hydroperiod changed? Has that
12 changed? Probably it has.
13 Q. How so?
14 A. Probably. It may have -- certainly not --
15 wasn't designed to mimic the natural. I don't want
16 to say a guess, I will get nailed by my lawyer -- but
17 I would say it has been altered. The extent to which
18 it is higher or lower, I don't know.
19 You have to do that previous calculation to
20 realize whether that cross section -- that cross
21 section -- the S-12, of course, is getting more water
22 than east of the cross section. That's the reason
23 behind the Shark Slough GDM, to restore that whole
24 cross section to approximate the natural
25 distribution.
127
1 That whole process is one hundred some
2 million dollars. It's in gear right now. It's part
3 of the overall restoration program of the Park.
4 Q. Under that modified water delivery, GDM,
5 does that include continuing flows through the S-12
6 structures?
7 A. Yes, but the predominant flows would be --
8 the predominance of flows would be switched from a
9 large fraction now going to the S-12, very little
10 going to the eastern Everglades, to something of a
11 reversal for that relative magnitude.
12 Q. Will the reduction of flows through the
13 S-12s have an impact on the area south of the S-12s?
14 A. Well, if we increase the volume of water
15 gradually over time, I don't know if you are going to
16 see much difference in the overall quantities going
17 through the S-12s. But what you will see, of course,
18 are increased quantities in the eastern parts.
19 Q. I had mentioned a few moments ago changing
20 the duration and depth of flows, and you referred to
21 those as the hydroperiod.
22 Using the term "hydroperiod" in the same
23 manner, do changes in hydroperiod have impacts upon
24 marsh communities in the Everglades?
25 A. Yes.
128
1 Q. Did the different areas of the Everglades
2 pre 1880, have different hydroperiods?
3 A. Certainly.
4 Q. Did that have an impact upon the vegetative
5 community within those areas?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are you familiar with what the natural
8 hydroperiod or optimal hydroperiod would be for
9 sawgrass?
10 A. Only in relative terms. It has a -- I
11 think a range of depth that it prefers. And what was
12 a natural period of inundation, I believe the depth
13 was between 10 and 50 centimeters depth. If it gets
14 too deep it can drown.
15 If it has been six weeks totally submerged
16 or something, it dies. It has a preferred
17 hydroperiod. It fits in a natural range of -- it has
18 its own preferred niche within the range of
19 hydroperiods in the natural Everglades.
20 Q. Which is, I guess, why you would not see
21 sawgrass growing in the middle of a slough?
22 A. If you decrease the elevation and therefore
23 increase the general depth, you generally find the
24 sawgrass community giving way to Eleocharis, or a
25 deep slough, depending on the elevation.
129
1 There is a fairly well documented range of
2 preferences for the different communities in the
3 historic Everglades. I think that was done a long
4 time ago, '71, I think. There was a range of
5 hydroperiods and things had adapted to preferred
6 ranges of depth and duration.
7 Q. Are you familiar with what the preferred
8 hydroperiod would be for cattail?
9 A. My understanding is it likes somewhat or it
10 prefers and is quite successful in a somewhat
11 increased hydroperiod over sawgrass.
12 Q. Is that both depth and duration or just one
13 of those components?
14 A. I would say both.
15 Q. You had listed yesterday when we were
16 discussing the impacts below the S-12 structures a
17 number of impacts. To what extent are any of those
18 impacts we discussed yesterday also resultant from
19 changes in hydroperiod?
20 A. I imagine if the nutrient concentration
21 were held constant, that directly below the
22 structures you would certainly be increasing the
23 hydroperiod and you would find a shift in communities
24 from perhaps sawgrass, whatever was there, to
25 Eleocharis or deep slough.
130
1 I think when you introduce another variable
2 and another factor that modifies plant competition,
3 that community structure then probably opens up a
4 habitat that previously wasn't available.
5 Q. Does the introduction of elevated
6 phosphorous without changing a natural hydroperiod
7 have an impact upon the sawgrass community?
8 A. The introduction -- say that again.
9 Q. If you elevate the phosphorous
10 concentrations in the water column without changing
11 the background or natural hydroperiod, will that have
12 an impact upon a sawgrass marsh?
13 A. I believe it will.
14 Q. What would that impact be?
15 A. I think you will see an opportunity for
16 other plant species to utilize the resources, the
17 nutrient resources, species that are faster growing
18 and less parsimonious in their requirements for
19 resources. And you will probably see them under
20 certain conditions outcompete sawgrass.
21 Q. Does the sawgrass itself benefit from
22 increases in phosphorous in the water column?
23 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form, to what
24 "benefit" means.
25 THE WITNESS: Benefit is a kind of a
131
1 foreign concept.
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. I will withdraw the term "benefit."
4 A. In terms of preservation of the system,
5 that would be a dubious benefit, to increase the
6 nutrients and the parameters of competition within
7 the Everglades.
8 Q. Let me ask you a different question.
9 What happens to a sawgrass marsh if you --
10 again keeping the hydroperiod to a natural background
11 hydroperiod, but you double the water phosphorous
12 concentrations, let's say, lifting it to 20 parts per
13 billion?
14 A. With the short-term you would probably see
15 some increased uptake, some luxury consumption. If
16 you continued that over the long-term you might see a
17 shift in vegetation, but that should be done
18 experimentally. It goes back to that previous
19 question.
20 But it certainly might lead to a
21 competitive advantage for plants such as cattail that
22 don't have a large or haven't had a large presence in
23 the Everglades.
24 Q. Would the increase of phosphorous to a 20
25 parts per billion stress the sawgrass?
132
1 A. I'm trying to develop some empathy for
2 sawgrass.
3 I would say I'm not certain that it would
4 stress it. I'm not certain that -- we have seen it
5 grow. It depends. I don't know whether the larger
6 sawgrass is happier or more philosophically
7 comfortable or not.
8 Those are very rigorous conditions out
9 there. It's adapted to very low levels. If you
10 increase the levels, you'll probably see some ability
11 to absorb it. You see what we call killer sawgrass,
12 very high. But whether or not that's stressful for
13 the plant, certainly I think it could be if it starts
14 to get shaded or something by other species coming in
15 and adapting to a habitat that's no longer what it's
16 optimally suited for.
17 Q. You are familiar with John Henry Davis'
18 vegetative maps from the '40s?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I assume also that you have -- as a result
21 of your tenure as research director of the Park and
22 also from the research you have done in this area,
23 you are familiar with the former sawgrass area that
24 is -- was located in what is currently the EAA; is
25 that accurate?
133
1 MS. PONZOLI: Can we see the map,
2 Counselor? If you got it with you, why don't we
3 refer to it.
4 MR. KOBELINSKI: I don't have the map --
5 MS. PONZOLI: I don't have it with me, no.
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: -- I don't think.
7 MS. PONZOLI: I think if we are going to
8 discuss the map, it would be preferable to have
9 the map sitting in front of us.
10 I guess we can retrieve it at lunch. If
11 you want I can have it retrieved from my office.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: If you want to, you can
13 retrieve it.
14 MS. PONZOLI: You are asking him to confirm
15 all the EAA was sawgrass?
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: I don't think that was my
17 question. That's a common practice. I'm not
18 going to do it. I don't have the map.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Dr. Soukup, is it your understanding that
21 the sawgrass marsh that generally was in the area
22 which is currently the EAA historically was described
23 as one of the thickest or densest and largest
24 sawgrass marshes in the historic Everglades?
25 MS. PONZOLI: I'll continue my objection if
134
1 we are going to discuss the map, that you
2 produce the map for us to view.
3 THE WITNESS: I know that it was large,
4 robust sawgrass community.
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. Essentially the density and the height of
7 the sawgrass, was there literally a gradient from
8 Lake Okeechobee down to, for instance, Florida Bay in
9 a historic or pre 1880 Everglades?
10 MS. PONZOLI: Of the sawgrass, a gradient
11 of the thickness?
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Density and height.
13 MS. PONZOLI: Continuing objection.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know the continuity
15 of it. I know it fits that general framework.
16 I don't know how continuous or discontinuous
17 that was.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. What in your opinion would explain the
20 difference, then, in the density and height of the
21 sawgrass generally from Lake Okeechobee down to the
22 Park or Florida Bay in historic Everglades?
23 MS. PONZOLI: Object to the form. He has
24 already said he didn't know whether it was
25 continuous or discontinuous or to what degree.
135
1 Dr. Soukup, I want to be clear on the
2 record you don't have to answer these questions
3 if you are not comfortable answering, just so
4 you are clear. I'm not instructing you not to
5 answer.
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: It's a peculiar
7 instruction, Counsel. But go ahead, Doctor.
8 Again I'm not going to go into --
9 MS. PONZOLI: Let me finish my statement.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Is it an objection?
11 MS. PONZOLI: It is an objection.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Then state your objection.
13 MS. PONZOLI: It's a continuing objection.
14 MR. KOBELINSKI: It's a continuing
15 objection?
16 MS. PONZOLI: I will finish what I have to
17 say, you can't stop me. When you are through
18 laughing, I'll continue my objection.
19 I believe you can do this better if you
20 produce the map and then I'll have no objection
21 to his answering, and the map is readily
22 available to both of us.
23 You know you are making a problem where
24 there doesn't have to be one.
25 MR. KOBELINSKI: My questions are not
136
1 related to a map.
2 MS. PONZOLI: Your questions are all based
3 upon the map.
4 MR. KOBELINSKI: Fine.
5 MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Soukup doesn't have to
6 answer these questions, so you need to
7 understand you are creating problems.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Instruct him not to answer
9 or object.
10 MS. PONZOLI: I'm objecting.
11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Good.
12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13 Q. Dr. Soukup, is there in your opinion an
14 explanation for the differences in sawgrass marsh in
15 the historic Everglades as to where they were
16 located, a density and height of the sawgrass marsh?
17 A. The gradient you spoke of?
18 Q. Yes.
19 MS. PONZOLI: You did not have to assume
20 the gradient unless you believe there was. If
21 you said there was, that's fine.
22 This is not premised on a proper
23 hypothetical or proper line of questioning, so
24 I'm not going to allow it to go on without
25 objection.
137
1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Fine.
2 MS. PONZOLI: You may answer. Would you
3 like the question back again?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, why not.
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. Counsel missed your prior answer.
7 Is it your understanding that there was
8 historically a gradient, if you want to call it that,
9 a difference in the density and height of the
10 sawgrass marsh from Lake Okeechobee down to Florida
11 Bay?
12 MS. PONZOLI: You missed his answer. He
13 did not know how continuous or discontinuous it
14 was, Counselor.
15 THE WITNESS: That's correct. I don't know
16 if there was a continuous gradient north to
17 south.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. Let me ask you a different question. I
20 know you are using the term "continuous." You
21 probably have a hang-up on that.
22 Do you have the same type of sawgrass, same
23 type of density, height of sawgrass marsh in what is
24 now the Everglades National Park as you had in the
25 EAA historically?
138
1 A. My understanding of the literature is that
2 the higher, more robust forms of sawgrass were in the
3 EAA. Certainly some forms and communities in the
4 Everglades are sparser and less robust.
5 Q. What would account for that difference?
6 A. An awful lot of characteristics that affect
7 the plant growth. Plants are affected by many
8 characteristics. One could be nutrients.
9 Q. What are the other characteristics that
10 would effect that difference?
11 A. Soil type.
12 Q. Anything else?
13 A. There is a whole list of them, actually. I
14 have talked about hydroperiod, the optimization of
15 all of those factors. There is also a possible --
16 different strain of sawgrass.
17 Q. Is it your understanding that there are
18 different strain of sawgrass growing within the EPA
19 currently?
20 A. No, I don't know.
21 Q. Is it your belief that there are different
22 strains of sawgrass growing in the Everglades, let's
23 say, pre 1880?
24 A. Say that again.
25 Q. Is it your understanding that there were
139
1 different strains of sawgrass growing in the
2 Everglades pre 1880?
3 A. No. I was just responding to your asking
4 hypothetically what could be responsible for that. I
5 wouldn't rule that out, but I have no idea if that's
6 a factor.
7 Q. My question was not hypothetical, it's just
8 what do you believe the factors were that influence
9 the differences in sawgrass communities. It was not
10 meant to be a hypothetical question.
11 MS. PONZOLI: What is the question, now,
12 after your statement?
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. The question goes back to restating the
15 prior question. It's not meant as a hypothetical.
16 What in your opinion were the factors that
17 influenced the differences between the sawgrass
18 communities in the natural Everglades?
19 A. For me, it would have to be hypothetical.
20 I have no evidence or data on the conditions up there
21 other than things that I would assume were
22 characteristics of that area.
23 Q. With regard to soil type, are you familiar
24 with the soil types of the Everglades?
25 A. I'm more familiar with what they are now
140
1 than what they were then, impacts of farming and
2 reduction, that type of thing.
3 Q. Does the impact of farming have a -- does
4 farming have an impact upon the soil type?
5 A. Well, I think you have seen the change in
6 soil classification over the years up there. So
7 certainly by draining, oxidizing and reducing
8 thickness through compaction and oxidation I believe
9 you have seen some. Soil types in the classification
10 sense certainly have changed. There are still peats
11 up there, but certainly less organic than they used
12 to be.
13 Q. You had listed as one of the documents you
14 are relying upon for your opinion the Tropical
15 Bioindustries report for Everglades National Park?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are the Everglades soil types essentially a
18 result or merely reflect the historic Everglades
19 vegetative communities that existed in that area?
20 MS. PONZOLI: Do you have a copy of that
21 report that we could see, Counselor?
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: No.
23 MS. PONZOLI: Is your question based upon
24 the report?
25 MR. KOBELINSKI: No.
141
1 THE WITNESS: Repeat --
2 MS. PONZOLI: May I hear the question
3 again?
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. Are the Everglades soils, peat soils, a
6 reflection of the historic vegetative communities
7 that existed in those areas?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did I miss that part? Are you saying that
10 the historic soils are reflective of the historic
11 communities?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So, for instance, you are familiar with
14 Loxahatchee peat?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is there a difference in how Loxahatchee
17 peat was formed, i.e., vegetative communities between
18 that and the Everglades peat?
19 A. Difference in the communities that laid
20 them down, yes.
21 Q. What were the communities generally for
22 Loxahatchee peats?
23 A. I believe those are deeper slough or
24 different kinds of peat.
25 Q. What were the vegetative communities that
142
1 created Everglades peat generally?
2 A. I think there are several varieties of
3 Everglades peat, but it's certainly the dominant
4 factor in Everglades formation of the sawgrass.
5 Q. In response to my prior question as to what
6 were the factors that influenced the difference in
7 the sawgrass communities in the historic Everglades,
8 you had stated one was soil type. If the soil type
9 is a function of the vegetative community, how does
10 the soil type then impact the characteristics of the
11 sawgrass?
12 A. You could have many influences on soil
13 after it's laid down. Certainly fire and -- fire
14 influences the rate of accumulation, long-term
15 accumulation, things of that sort. Soil can be
16 influenced by a number of things and soil types may
17 over time change. Certainly they have changed in the
18 EAA with land use changes.
19 Q. Are you familiar with the Duke Wetland
20 Center's fertilization study in Water Conservation
21 Area 2B?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In that study generally there was dosing or
24 increasing of nutrients in various communities.
25 Do you recall what impacts that dosing had
143
1 upon sawgrass?
2 A. I haven't seen this year's annual report.
3 I know there is one being prepared. It's apparently
4 still in draft form and not released yet.
5 I heard a presentation about six months ago
6 by Curtis Richardson. I have read many of the parts
7 of a large report that was modified in '92.
8 Q. What does that study show, at least today?
9 A. The last presentation that I heard was that
10 there were all kind of interesting results, but that
11 there weren't enough data to make any conclusions.
12 I know different sections of it showed some
13 increases and decreases in various components of the
14 system.
15 Q. Let's go back to a prior question. I'll
16 try to go about this from a different angle.
17 Increasing nutrients -- let's just take the
18 20 parts per billion in a sawgrass marsh without
19 changing the hydroperiod -- I believe you stated that
20 will -- over a period of time will result in a
21 community shift; is that correct?
22 A. No. I don't think I said that.
23 What I said was that if a system is tuned
24 to ten parts per billion, say the background number
25 we talked about earlier, and you increase that to 20,
144
1 then you may change some components and some rates of
2 metabolism. But in terms of whether or not that was
3 a shift that would work its way up into the system or
4 not should be determined experimentally.
5 Q. If you continue to increase the
6 concentration of phosphorous in the water column,
7 let's say, 50 parts per billion, will there come a
8 point in time where again you will see a shift in the
9 sawgrass community or a shift to a different
10 community type?
11 A. One of the major factors in sediment
12 accumulation, which I probably didn't stress enough,
13 is the idea of concentration as a driving factor in
14 the rate of uptakes or rate of removal.
15 At 50 parts per billion, you can test that
16 in the laboratory and you can see a much faster rate
17 of uptake over 10 or 20, things like that.
18 At 50 parts per billion, I would -- based
19 on what I know about the dosing studies that were
20 done or the results from the Duke study, there are
21 some real questions, legitimate questions, about
22 whether the system is being fundamentally changed at
23 50 parts per billion.
24 Q. With regard to impacts to sawgrass marsh
25 would you believe that 50 parts per billion would
145
1 have an impact upon a sawgrass marsh?
2 A. I believe it would. I think it probably
3 would be demonstrated and may be demonstrated in the
4 Duke apparatus that fundamental characteristics of
5 the systems might change.
6 Q. What would happen to the sawgrass marsh, to
7 the sawgrass plants?
8 A. Again, I would like to see that determined
9 experimentally. I don't know what the Duke results
10 have shown after the period of study that's being
11 reported right now, but I know -- let's look at the
12 Eleocharis marsh.
13 I think some of the changes that you saw in
14 the park's dosing study somewhere in that range
15 change in the associated algal communities very
16 quickly and some change in the composition of the
17 plant macrophyte community.
18 I think those things should be tested
19 experimentally, but it's my own opinion that 50 parts
20 per billion certainly will impact a ligatrophic
21 system, you should go back to the definition of a
22 ligatrophic system and that will, I think, give most
23 scientists some discomfort with raising the nutrients
24 influx up to that level based on the literature.
25 Q. Based upon the literature that you have
146
1 read, do you have an opinion as to whether or not as
2 you continue to raise or elevate the phosphorous
3 concentrations in the water in a sawgrass marsh
4 whether you will have ultimately a shift from
5 sawgrass to cattail?
6 A. I think you see evidence of sawgrass being
7 outcompeted by sawgrass in many instances.
8 MS. PONZOLI: Sawgrass by cattail?
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. You said sawgrass by sawgrass.
11 A. Sawgrass by cattail. There is plenty of
12 evidence out in the field that sawgrass is being
13 invaded and could exist for some periods of time.
14 But it is being -- in 2A, for instance, it's being
15 replaced by cattail.
16 Q. What particular studies or evidence are you
17 relying upon for the concept of sawgrass being
18 invaded by cattail?
19 A. I would have to go back to the Davis paper.
20 I think it was a '91 paper. I believe that's
21 relevant. I believe that the Park study shows a
22 relationship between change of vegetative community.
23 I think, if I remember -- the Duke studies
24 are so voluminous and I don't want to mix sections of
25 those reports, but I have seen indications in the
147
1 data, interpretation may not follow directly. There
2 may be more comfort in changing directions in some of
3 the conclusions with more data. I don't know the
4 reason.
5 But you see changes in the vertebrate
6 communities in those sawgrass and wet communities
7 that can be reflective of fundamental changes which
8 are being observed but perhaps inescapable in another
9 year or two of data.
10 Q. You had mentioned the Park study. I gather
11 from that you have a particular study in mind?
12 A. I was referring to the dosing study that
13 was done by the Park in the early '80s. That was a
14 study done down in some of the wet prairies, sawgrass
15 areas mostly in the center of the slough, sort of
16 background marsh conditions.
17 Q. In that dosing study, did you see a change
18 from a sawgrass marsh to a cattail marsh?
19 A. No. The study was done over couple of
20 years' duration at a dosing rate that was in the
21 range of 30 parts per billion. That was a fairly
22 rapid loss of periphyton community.
23 There was some shift, I believe, in the
24 Eleocharis portions of the channels to the other
25 plant species, a couple of plant species. There was
148
1 also a loss of one of the important ones, the -- I'm
2 drawing a blank on it. There was shift in some of
3 the macrophytes as the short-termed study went on.
4 Q. Did the channels of that dosing study, the
5 Park dosing study, did they include sawgrass marsh or
6 thick sawgrass stands?
7 A. I believe there was sawgrass in some of
8 them. It was predominantly a wet prairie system
9 because that was considered to be the most sensitive
10 system.
11 Q. What happened to the sawgrass that was
12 within the channels?
13 A. I don't remember any discussion what
14 happened to the sawgrass. I would have to go back
15 and look.
16 Q. How does cattail invade a sawgrass marsh?
17 I mean, that's a term you stated. You hear the term
18 "benefits" a lot. I hear the term "invasion." How
19 does that process occur?
20 A. My interpretation of that process would be
21 that cattail seeds which are available -- cattail has
22 been a player in the Everglades for a very long time.
23 I don't know how long. But they have never been a
24 major peat classification. They have never been a
25 dominant community in any sense. They have been
149
1 present. I assume the sides have been present.
2 But under drier conditions, normal dry here
3 you would have an opportunity for seeds to germinate.
4 If conditions were to -- within its optimal range of
5 requirements, it could germinate. And if the
6 nutrients were there, it could do a fairly large
7 growth metabolism -- let me start over.
8 It would do a large -- it would have an
9 advantage being a fast growing species if the
10 nutrients were there and would gradually invade out
11 the cattail -- sawgrass, I'm sorry.
12 You see opportunities for that, say, after
13 fires, or you see opportunities under rookeries. And
14 you see the community change if the nutrient regime
15 is increased.
16 Q. You mean the cattail would shade out the
17 saw grass.
18 A. Yes, that's what I meant to say.
19 Q. Why wouldn't you find historically -- the
20 rookeries that you referred to, why wouldn't they be
21 a large dominant cattail marsh?
22 A. I think rookeries can produce a cattail
23 marsh as in Loxahatchee, but they don't persist over
24 time. You see cattails in alligator holes.
25 Q. I didn't hear what you said.
150
1 A. You see cattails in alligator holes.
2 Cattails are not a known in the Everglades. There
3 may be some hybrids, but they are just not very
4 active and not very dominant under, in my opinion,
5 natural Everglades conditions.
6 Q. Were there general areas of the Park in
7 particular -- let's again go pre 1880 -- that would
8 be used as rookeries on a relatively regular basis?
9 A. The major rookeries were down in the
10 mangroves, culverts, lakes, places like that. There
11 are a number of major rookeries which were inhabited
12 by hundreds of thousands of pairs. Largely in the
13 mangroves and estuarine interface area.
14 Q. Were those large cattail marshes?
15 A. The ones I'm thinking about were mangrove
16 colonies established in mangrove areas. So no, they
17 were not.
18 Q. What were the factors that stopped the
19 cattails from overtaking those rookery areas?
20 MS. PONZOLI: I'm going to object to this
21 question and the prior one as absurd.
22 THE WITNESS: The areas, they are right on
23 the marine estuarine interface salinity. It's
24 just a totally different habitat suitable for
25 mangroves.
151
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. There is a difference in the water makeup;
3 for instance, salinity?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You mentioned rookeries in the --
6 A. Let me just add something to that. I don't
7 know what the conditions were or what the vegetation
8 was under those rookeries.
9 They are gone now in terms of the large
10 wading bird colonies. But we do see, for example, in
11 Loxahatchee a fairly sizeable rookery -- nothing like
12 the past, you know, colony sizes. But in Loxahatchee
13 there is small cattail stand that developed a year or
14 two. The year after, the rookery was very active.
15 Q. Does that cattail stand still exist now,
16 today?
17 A. I think the cattails are there. The stand
18 is not very large or thick, but they are there. A
19 small stand. I believe it does exist today.
20 Q. Is there a rookery -- still being used as a
21 rookery?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Why not?
24 A. The birds are somewhat perfidious in where
25 they decide to rook.
152
1 Q. Roost?
2 A. They change locations, depending on
3 conditions. And they know what they are doing,
4 certainly where the food sources are, where
5 conditions are optimal. But they do vary quite a bit
6 in switching between rookery sites.
7 Q. What are the --
8 A. That was an attempt at humor, I'm sorry.
9 Q. Once a cattail plant is established by
10 seedlings, what are the mechanisms by which cattail
11 expands or grows, spreads?
12 A. Certainly it can spread laterally, I guess
13 by -- I think the right word is tolon, t-o-l-o-n. Of
14 course they produce lot of seeds. I am not sure how
15 successful they are in relationship to the two
16 different methods, but they are very aggressive where
17 conditions are optimal.
18 Q. In the 2A area where you have stated you
19 see cattails invading sawgrass, how does -- again,
20 once you have a seedling, does the cattail literally
21 invade a sawgrass stand itself?
22 A. I think if the conditions are appropriate
23 in the sediments, it sends out rhizomes and it
24 generally develops into a very thick stand, jade
25 stand, which seems to be very effective in taking
153
1 over.
2 Generally the pattern in 2A is to move into
3 the deeper slough areas first. That could be a
4 preference for a slightly higher hydroperiod or it
5 could be an availability of flows that, because of
6 the friction, tend to concentrate more in the deeper
7 areas.
8 Q. We talked about briefly what the impacts of
9 increased phosphorous in the water column has upon a
10 sawgrass marsh.
11 What are the consequences of increasing the
12 hydroperiod depth and duration on a sawgrass marsh?
13 MS. PONZOLI: Didn't we do that also,
14 Mr. Kobelinski?
15 THE WITNESS: Increasing the depth and
16 duration, probably over time if you increase it,
17 you know, dramatically for six weeks over the
18 life of the sawgrass, then you drown it.
19 But if you increased the hydroperiod in the
20 Everglades, you would probably be shifting the
21 community towards a deeper, longer hydroperiod
22 community -- which in the Everglades is often
23 Eleocharis or, if it's deeper than that, then
24 your traditional deep slough community.
25 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
154
1 Q. With regard to the change from sawgrass to
2 cattail in 2A that you referenced, do the changes in
3 hydroperiod have any role in that change of
4 communities?
5 A. Probably it has a role. I think the
6 hydroperiod of 2A has been manipulated tremendously
7 over the last decade over the entire surface of 2A.
8 It was increased several feet by the Water Management
9 District for approximately 10 years.
10 It's still somewhat confused, I think, in
11 terms of hydroperiod. But what -- you saw tree
12 islands disappear, for instance, in that period.
13 The shift towards cattail, though, seems to
14 be directly associated with the proximity to the
15 sources of phosphorous.
16 Q. And you are referring there to the
17 structure?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. S-10s in this instance?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would the alteration in hydroperiod
22 likewise be greater the closer you are to the
23 structures?
24 A. I don't think they would compare to the
25 alteration of hydroperiod of that schedule change for
155
1 the whole thing, was my point.
2 Q. Currently do the alterations in hydroperiod
3 in 2A, are they greater the closer you come to the
4 structures?
5 A. Probably because of the proximity to flow
6 and that limit of movement of water that we talked
7 about could cause friction, sure.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm actually going to move
9 into different areas. We can break now for
10 lunch, or what's your preference?
11 MS. PONZOLI: I have a 12:30 conference
12 call. And I guess if we went and got lunch now,
13 we could be back here -- if it runs longer than
14 15 minutes, can you give me a few extra minutes?
15 I don't think it should, but I don't know. The
16 conference call could last longer than 15. We
17 only have from 12:30 to 12:45.
18 Can you go 15 minutes and that way I will
19 have a half hour. I can grab lunch in a half
20 hour and do the conference call in a half hour.
21 MR. KOBELINSKI: Sure. Maybe I can do
22 something very quickly.
23 Could you mark that as Exhibit 1 and that
24 as Exhibit 2?
156
1 (The documents referred to were thereupon
2 marked Exhibits 1 nd 2 for Identification.)
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Dr. Soukup, I'm showing you what has been
5 marked as Soukup Exhibit 1 to this deposition, which
6 is a document entitled, "Second Draft, Marsh
7 Vegetation and Soil Phosphorous Patterns in the
8 Everglades Ecosystem," and the document bears Bates
9 numbers 1167046 through 1167089 consecutively.
10 If you could, review this document and
11 identify it for me.
12 A. I believe it's the second draft of a report
13 on the transect work that we talked about yesterday,
14 transects in Water Conservation Area 1, 2, 3 and the
15 Park.
16 Q. And then if you would look at what has been
17 marked as Soukup 2 in this deposition, which is a
18 document entitled, "Draft, Not For Distribution,
19 Marsh Vegetation Patterns and Soil Phosphorus
20 Gradients in the Everglades Ecosystem."
21 It has in the upper right-hand corner a
22 handwritten date of 3/2/94, and there are
23 approximately 16 pages to this document. It does not
24 bear any Bates numbers.
25 Could you identify this document, sir?
157
1 A. This apparently is a subsequent draft of
2 that earlier report.
3 Q. I believe yesterday you had identified this
4 as one of the documents you are relying upon; is that
5 correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. The authors on the most recent draft dated
8 March 2, '94 are listed as Doren, Armentano,
9 Whiteaker and Jones.
10 From yesterday's testimony, is it my
11 understanding that Doren, Whittaker and Jones
12 actually did the field wo