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 work with regard to this 13 report? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Armentano, I assume, then, did an analysis 16 of data and drafting of all or portions; is that 17 accurate? 18 A. Say the last part. 19 Q. Armentano is the one who did an analysis of 20 data and drafting of all or portions of the report? 21 A. I don't believe that Armentano drafted 22 entire sections of the report. He may have done 23 that. I don't know. 24 Q. Who are the actual authors of the report? 25 By "authors," I mean who drafted the report that we 158 1 are seeing? 2 A. I believe the original draft, first draft 3 was drafted by Doren and Whiteaker and perhaps Jones. 4 Dr. Armentano, who is a plant ecologist, arrived at 5 the research center after, I believe, the original 6 draft and, based on his expertise, was encouraged in 7 being a part of it and adding to it and helping him 8 draft the subsequent drafts. 9 Q. What has been marked as Exhibit 2 to your 10 deposition, is this the most recent or current draft 11 that's being worked on? 12 A. To my knowledge. 13 Q. Drawing your attention for a moment to what 14 has been marked as Exhibit 1, there is a fair amount 15 of handwriting throughout this document. 16 Do you know whose handwriting that is? 17 A. I'm not certain. 18 Q. Is that your handwriting? 19 A. It's not my handwriting. 20 Q. Did you ever review any of the drafts of 21 this document? 22 A. I believe I reviewed the first draft. 23 Q. Did you make comments with regard to it? 24 A. I believe I did. I don't know how 25 extensive they were, but I believe I did. 159 1 Q. Have you retained a copy of that? 2 A. No. 3 MS. PONZOLI: Counsel, you don't have 4 another copy? 5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Of which? 6 MS. PONZOLI: Of Soukup No. 1. 7 MR. KOBELINSKI: You mean a prior draft or 8 you mean physically another copy? 9 MS. PONZOLI: Physically a copy of 10 Soukup 1. 11 MR. KOBELINSKI: I don't have a copy. I'm 12 sure we can have one at lunch. 13 THE WITNESS: He had the original copy of 14 this. 15 MS. PONZOLI: I want one to look at while 16 we talk about it. We will get it over lunch. 17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 18 Q. Have you ever reviewed, Dr. Soukup, the 19 underlying data that was checked with regards to this 20 transect study? 21 A. No. 22 Q. In relying upon this paper for your 23 opinions, are you relying then upon your review of 24 the prior drafts and this most recent draft and the 25 information contained therein? 160 1 A. I'm relying upon the prior draft and my 2 understanding of the study and the comments provided 3 to me by Dr. Armentano. 4 Q. When you say the comments provided to you 5 by Dr. Armentano, what are you referring to? 6 A. I asked Dr. Armentano when he first arrived 7 to basically do a peer review of the draft that was 8 current at the time. 9 Q. Do you recall, then, perhaps, in what's 10 marked as Exhibit 1, is this perhaps Dr. Armentano's 11 review of the report in terms of the handwriting? 12 A. Yes. That, I don't know. It could be 13 Dr. Armentano's. It might be Dr. Jones. It has been 14 sent back and forth amongst different authors. I 15 couldn't tell you. It could be Whiteaker. I don't 16 really know. 17 You could probably judge from the nature of 18 the comments, but I don't know the handwriting. 19 Q. Did you actually receive a written report 20 from Dr. Armentano with regard to his review of the 21 then current draft? 22 A. I don't remember. I might have, but I 23 don't think so. If I did, I don't have a copy. I 24 don't believe I received that. 25 It may have been in the form of comments on 161 1 the draft. I'm sure he probably made comments on it. 2 Q. If you still have that, if you could just 3 produce it I would appreciate that. 4 A. If I had it, it would have been in that 5 file. In fact, the file on this is as complete as I 6 have. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the sampling 8 technique done with regard to the study, the manner 9 in which sampling occurred on the transects? 10 A. Am I familiar with it in terms of having 11 done it or understand -- 12 Q. I'm saying how it was done. 13 A. I have only read the method section and 14 essentially understood the basic approach. I haven't 15 done the method. I don't know. 16 Q. Have you ever spoken with Dr. Jones -- or 17 is it Dr. Doren? I'm not that familiar -- 18 A. Mr. Doren. 19 Q. Have you ever spoken with either Bob Doren 20 or Ron Jones about the methodology and how the actual 21 study was done? 22 A. I talked to Dr. Jones about the sampling of 23 the phosphorous on several occasions. I don't 24 believe I have specifically talked to Mr. Doren about 25 the plant samples. 162 1 I think I asked some questions because it 2 wasn't clear to me the first time I read it. If I 3 remember, the first draft -- this is something, a 4 couple of years now -- it was not clear to me from 5 the method section exactly what they had done. They 6 went through revisions just explaining so it was 7 clear how the samples were taken. 8 Q. Do you know who selected the transects, the 9 actual physical location of the transects? 10 A. Those have been around for some time. 11 Those transects I believe originally were laid out by 12 Ron Jones, Dr. Jones. 13 Q. You had stated that you did speak with 14 Dr. Jones about his methodology for soil phosphorus 15 sampling. I assume that methodology was the same for 16 all transects; is that correct? 17 A. Well, there were two methodologies used. 18 The reason I spoke to him was I heard someone had 19 critiqued -- more appropriately, criticized -- the 20 nature of the samples. 21 I asked if that were in his mind a 22 legitimate thing that should be looked at in terms of 23 comparison between, say, using a core to more simply 24 a hand grab sample. 25 He said that he had a number of different 163 1 transects and a lot of data from sampling. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right. Let's stop 3 now. 4 THE WITNESS: Let me finish that sentence. 5 He had done a number of samples and he had done 6 some comparison testing. He had taken along the 7 transect grab samples and core samples and 8 checked for the significance between the two 9 methods and convinced me that the sampling was 10 adequate. 11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 12 Q. He did that for all transects, both grab 13 and core samples? 14 A. I believe he did that for transects. I 15 don't know how many and how frequently he did that, 16 but I believe he did that -- several transects at 17 least once. 18 MR. KOBELINSKI: 1:00. 19 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken, 20 after which the following proceedings 21 were had:) 22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 23 Q. Dr. Soukup, prior to lunch -- I'm looking 24 at the notes. I don't take very great ones. 25 I believe in response to a question 164 1 regarding the evidence or support for your opinion 2 that cattail invades sawgrass in an elevated nutrient 3 or nutrient impacted area, you cited to three 4 particular studies. 5 One was the Davis '91 report. The other 6 one was the Park dosing study. And a third was a 7 Duke wetlands study, I believe, annual report. I'm 8 not sure if you specified a particular report in that 9 regard. Is that accurate? 10 A. I thought I mentioned the Park's report, as 11 well. 12 Q. The Park's report? 13 A. The report that's Exhibit 2. I was 14 referring to, I think, in terms of the Duke report 15 the April '92 revision to the previous annual report. 16 I think that was November or October, November annual 17 report that had been revised. 18 I remember some discussion of changes in 19 sawgrass communities along with changes observed by 20 them in wet period habitats. 21 Q. With regard to the Davis '91 report, do you 22 recall what the title of that report is or what that 23 report is regarding? 24 A. I don't recall the title. It's referred to 25 in the SWIM Plan. I have a reference recently. I 165 1 don't remember quite what the time limit is. I know 2 it was published in the literature, but I don't 3 remember the title. 4 Q. With regard to the Park transect study 5 report, which is what I'm referring to, Exhibit 2A, 6 is that the appropriate way to refer to it? 7 A. Exhibit 2 is fine. 8 Q. Did that report actually study the manner 9 by which there is a conversion from sawgrass to 10 cattail? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Is there a study that you are familiar with 13 that actually studies that transition and the 14 mechanics and how that occurs? 15 A. There are no studies that I know of that 16 have really defined that specifically for the 17 Everglades, actually experimenting and determining 18 how that occurs. 19 There is some literature, if I remember 20 correctly, that indicates the shifting of 21 communities. 22 And cattails have been studied in other 23 habitats, and their ability to out compete other 24 plants under high nutrient conditions have been seen. 25 The actual demonstration of that experiment I don't 166 1 recall seeing. 2 Q. What are the factors, the various factors, 3 that result in the establishment of cattails in the 4 Everglades? 5 A. I believe a primary one is the availability 6 of an ample supply of nutrients. I believe they 7 require a certain range of water depth and duration. 8 They can, I believe, be rather successful that occupy 9 disturbed sites. 10 There are occasions where they are able to 11 colonize deeper areas at least temporarily because of 12 the temporary supply of nutrients, which is a 13 continuing supply and do not lead to their large 14 spread of monoculture kind of community. 15 I also mentioned the alligator hole 16 phenomenon or just some of the kind of marginal 17 footholds they have had in the Everglades for many 18 years. 19 Q. You mentioned a deep peat burn and you also 20 mentioned disturbed sites. A deep peat burn, would 21 you also characterize that as a disturbance? 22 A. It's a kind of disturbance. 23 Q. Likewise, would an alligator hole, would 24 that also be considered a disturbance of the peat 25 soils? 167 1 A. Certainly it's a disruption. It's an area 2 of disrupted soil coverage generally deeper and 3 outstanding water, generally with alligators which, 4 of course, collects nutrients and adds them to the 5 alligator hole. 6 Q. With regard to the cattails in the EPA, is 7 there any area of cattail marshes where cattails are 8 established that you are aware of where there has not 9 been an alteration of hydroperiod in addition to an 10 alteration of nutrient regimes? 11 A. Yes. My answer would be that one would 12 have to modify that a bit or at least qualify that a 13 bit in terms of modification of hydroperiod outside 14 the normal range of hydroperiods available in the 15 Everglades. 16 My answer would be no. I don't know of any 17 sites of dominant cattail communities that are 18 outside of nutrient influx conditions. But in those 19 conditions, I don't believe any of those situations 20 are outside the normal range of hydroperiods seen in 21 the Everglades, which generally produce a rather 22 different result when nutrients were not present. 23 Q. I'm afraid I have to ask you to break that 24 down a bit and ask you a few follow-up questions. 25 In 2A, are you familiar with essentially 168 1 what the cattail distribution is out in that 2 particular Water Conservation Area? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Where there have been establishment of 5 cattail in Water Conservation Area 2A, had the 6 establishment of cattail been in places where you 7 have coincident alterations to the nutrient regime 8 and an extension or a lengthening at both depth and 9 duration of the hydroperiod? 10 A. I don't know exactly how the hydroperiod 11 has changed in the present water management activity 12 in 2A. I do know, as I indicated earlier, that that 13 hydroperiod in 2A has been modified quite a bit. I 14 mentioned that earlier decade of flooding. 15 Whether or not the present schedule is 16 outside of the bounds of the normal hydroperiod you 17 would expect to establish -- you would expect in 18 communities, I don't know. 19 Q. Drawing your attention to a copy of the 20 SWIM Plan supporting information document -- I don't 21 know it's really worthwhile to attach it. It's one 22 of the long documents and everyone has it. 23 Page 121 of that document, Figure 20, the 24 supporting information document, I would ask you just 25 to review that figure which is entitled, Generalized 169 1 map of the WCAs indicating areas of other marsh 2 presumed by South Florida Water Management to be 3 affected by overdraining or prolonged hydroperiod. 4 A. What was your question? 5 Q. My question was, have you ever reviewed 6 this document before? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to 9 whether or not the areas where cattail occur in 2A, 10 whether they are in areas that are also -- other than 11 having an altered nutrient regime, also have had a 12 prolonged altered hydroperiod? 13 A. This figure, I assume, is the present 14 hydroperiod, although the caption says "generalized 15 map" presumed by the district to be affected by 16 overdrainage or prolonged hydroperiod. 17 The area you are discussing is marked as 18 "prolonged." I'm sure that entire area has been 19 affected by prolonged hydroperiod, and it mentions 20 that in the caption. 21 To the extent that it's now prolonged, I 22 don't know if there is any -- I don't know the 23 relationship of the prolongation in the eastern part 24 versus the western part. I would assume that there 25 is some impact there or some degree of hydroperiod 170 1 effect because of the sources, but I don't know what 2 the hydroperiod is. I assume the figure is correct. 3 Q. Other than 2A, are there any areas that you 4 are familiar with where you have cattails established 5 where there is not an altered hydroperiod? 6 A. I believe there are predominantly 7 hydroperiod alterations in many parts. I think the 8 area of the Park is probably one of the least 9 impacted from the hydroperiod alteration -- although 10 we know it has been impacted, but it hasn't been used 11 for storage, or hadn't been totally stored for long 12 periods of time. 13 But hydroperiod is such a broad concept, 14 depth of duration. It's hard to judge what areas are 15 significantly changed and whether or not those 16 changes have been outside the normal range of 17 hydroperiod which was really characteristic of the 18 variability of the system spatially in the natural 19 conditions, spatial heterogeneity of the system as 20 far as we can ascertain at the present time, part of 21 the reason for being so successful in wading bird 22 nesting success and so forth. 23 Q. Well, as I understand it from your prior 24 testimony, minor variations in water depth topography 25 upward of just a few inches can result in the 171 1 difference between sawgrass and spike rush? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So the alterations of hydroperiods, then, 4 would not need to be of a major sort to have an 5 impact upon sawgrass, would they? 6 A. Wouldn't have to be of a major degree to 7 change the competitive outcome between sawgrass and 8 Eleocharis or some other naturally occurring 9 community. That does sort out the hydroperiod, 10 sorting out to elevation. 11 Q. With regard to the area just south of the 12 S-12 structures, is there cattail in that area? 13 A. There is cattail in the vicinity I think 14 probably down to a half kilometer below the S-12 15 structures where we measured, which was S-12C. 16 Q. Is that one of the transects that was 17 viewed? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I would draw your attention, then, to 20 Exhibit 1 of this deposition. 21 MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, I have no further 22 questions of this. I am not marking this as an 23 exhibit. 24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 25 Q. Looking at Exhibit 1, Dr. Soukup, which is 172 1 draft No. 2 of the transect study, I would like to 2 see if we can find the figures related to the Park 3 transect. 4 And while we are doing that I would ask 5 with regard to Exhibit 2 which you produced to us 6 this morning, the most recent draft, it does not have 7 figures attached to it. 8 Do you have the figures to the most recent 9 draft? 10 A. I did not receive any new figures. I have 11 been assuming that the figures have not changed. 12 Q. In just reviewing it at lunch, apparently 13 the figures have changed. There is reference to some 14 change in the figures. 15 A. I know there has been one. Some of them 16 may have been deleted in the paper for publication. 17 Q. Is this paper being -- is it going to be 18 published in a journal that you are aware of? 19 A. It's going to be submitted. 20 Q. Has it been peer reviewed as yet? 21 A. I believe it has, but I don't know who they 22 were. I believe my first peer review was as I 23 mentioned earlier, begun by Tom Armentano who later 24 became involved in the project. I believe it's been 25 reviewed by others, but I don't know. 173 1 Q. Would that be others within the Park 2 service? 3 A. It may have been people in the Park 4 service, it may have been colleagues outside of the 5 Park service. I don't know for sure. 6 Q. Drawing your attention to Figure 18 of 7 Exhibit 1, which is Bates page 1167084, this 8 transects -- if I recall correctly, it's below the 9 S-12C structure; is that right? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Do you know why S-12C was selected as 12 opposed to either of the other S-12 structures? 13 A. No, I don't. It could be that it was a 14 spatial thing being away from the effects of the -- 15 not being on the end of the S-12 sort of picking. I 16 don't know the exact reason. 17 Q. In this particular sampling they only 18 sampled at zero, which is right by the structure 19 itself? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And then a half kilometer, then they kept 22 on going a kilometer at a time. And although this 23 particular grid does not show cattails at the half 24 kilometer mark, it's your understanding that the 25 cattails do extend approximately out to the half 174 1 kilometer? 2 A. Yes. I understand that they have gone 3 further or reached that and they are still spreading. 4 We have not updated this transect data set in terms 5 of vegetation. We probably will be doing that. 6 Q. With regard to that first half kilometer 7 below the S-12s, do you have an opinion or do you 8 know whether or not that area has experienced an 9 extended or greater hydroperiod as a result of the 10 S-12? 11 A. Greater than? 12 Q. Greater than what the background water 13 sheet flow would have been. 14 A. Sheet flow in historic periods? 15 Q. Historic, yes. 16 A. I'm not certain that it would be all that 17 different compared with historic sheet flow because 18 now it's getting more water than the eastern cross 19 section. 20 But I'm certain that historically both 21 sections got more water. Whether or not they are 22 equivalent by accident, I don't know. 23 Q. You had mentioned earlier that given the 24 density of the vegetative community out there, water 25 released from the S-12 has a tendency to pile up or 175 1 build up almost like a head as it disburses its way 2 through friction. What aerial extent does that occur 3 over? 4 MS. PONZOLI: That it builds up? 5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I have not 7 directly observed them. I'm just assuming that 8 those structures in general have a tendency to 9 be able to deliver a lot of water. But marshes, 10 because of their resistance, natural resistance 11 due to vegetation and terrain, tend to slow down 12 water and back it up the degree to which it 13 would increase the head. I don't know. 14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 15 Q. To what extent does distur