275

 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 9, 1994
20                        12:56 p.m. -  5:45 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                          - - - - - - -
                                                 276

 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                   MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN
   
13 
                                INDEX
14   Witness           Direct    Cross    Redirect    Recross
     MICHAEL SOUKUP
15   By Mr. Kobelinski:  277
   
16 
   
17 
   
                                                 277

 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.    Good afternoon, Dr. Soukup.
 8       A.    Good afternoon.
 9       Q.    I guess we can put on the record, Susan,
10   I'm going to shoot for finishing today.  When we get
11   closer to five, maybe if we can go a little bit --
12             MS. PONZOLI:  We will be happy to go late
13        today so we can finish.
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    Dr. Soukup, we left off yesterday --
16   according to my notes, essentially I was wrapping up
17   your opinions with regard to cultural eutrophication,
18   and I have really reviewed with you the impacts of
19   cultural eutrophication to the Park.
20             We have discussed also to a certain degree
21   how those impacts differ or are similar in other
22   areas of the EPA.
23             Briefly I looked through my notes, but I
24   recall you said something about the Holyland earlier.
25   I wasn't sure, are you going to be giving opinions
                                                 278

 1   with regards to the Holyland and nutrient impacts in
 2   the Holyland?
 3       A.    No.  I think my earlier reference was to
 4   the fact I wasn't sure you were including that in the
 5   EPA, and that I wasn't familiar -- I hadn't had a
 6   great deal of contact with the issue in the Holyland.
 7       Q.    Just before we move on, I would like to
 8   confirm that.  Other than discussing the impacts of
 9   cultural eutrophication caused by nutrients from the
10   12 structures and/or others going into the Park, will
11   you be giving any additional opinions with regard to
12   that subject area, cultural eutrophication with
13   regards to the Park?
14             MS. PONZOLI:  Limited by the S-12?
15             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I'm saying with regard to
16        the Park itself.  I don't want to try to limit
17        it in any way to the S-12 or anything.  I want
18        to make sure I covered all bases before I moved
19        on to STAs and remedies.
20             THE WITNESS:  As far as I know, that is the
21        general topic.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    We have gone through, for instance, your
24   opinions as to periphyton microbial macrophytes.
25   I want to make sure there are not additional areas I
                                                 279

 1   have missed where you will be offering additional
 2   opinions as to impacts of cultural eutrophication.
 3       A.    I can't think of any off hand.
 4       Q.    I would now broaden that to the Everglades
 5   Protection Area as a whole.  Again, we have also
 6   explored that.  I have asked whether or not you have
 7   any additional areas you are going to cover with
 8   regard to nutrient impacts to the Everglades
 9   Protection Areas as a whole.
10       A.    None that come to mind.
11       Q.    Moving then to your other area of
12   testimony, which is the remedies within the SWIM
13   Plan, we handled that briefly earlier and I would
14   like to explore that perhaps in a little bit more
15   detail now with regard to the remedies.
16             What remedies of the SWIM Plan do you
17   intend to address in your expert testimony?
18       A.    My impression is that my testimony will be
19   in the general area of the adequacy of the remedy as
20   outlined in the SWIM Plan for protection of the Park
21   and as a general approach to reducing the impacts of
22   cultural eutrophication to the EPA.
23       Q.    Is the remedy you are referring to the
24   treatment areas --
25       A.    Yes.
                                                 280

 1       Q.    -- which I'll refer to as STAs?
 2       A.    Yes, the STAs and reduction of BMPs.
 3       Q.    With regard to BMPs, do you intend to
 4   provide any expert opinion as to the effectiveness of
 5   the BMPs currently in use or proposed and
 6   contemplated by the SWIM Plan?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    Do you intend to provide any testimony as
 9   to the percentage of reduction anticipated or that
10   can be reached by the BMPs?
11       A.    Only in the most general terms of what we
12   have heard in front of the SAGE committee.  I don't
13   know if that's going to come up.
14             But my only opinions have been formed as a
15   member of the SAGE committee and the TOC and
16   attending presentations by the groups and things like
17   that in general terms.
18       Q.    Other than your sitting in on the SAGE and
19   TOC and these presentations you referred to, have you
20   done research into Best Management Practices?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Have you in the past had any experience
23   with BMP or Best Management Practices for agriculture
24   or sugar?
25       A.    No.
                                                 281

 1       Q.    With regard to the STA program, then, is it
 2   your opinion that the STAs are the best means of
 3   reducing phosphorous for the Everglades Protection
 4   Area?
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.  I'm always
 6        more comfortable if he gives you the answer
 7        rather than you giving him the answer.  That's
 8        my objection to the form.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Could you repeat the
10        question?
11             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Read it back.
12                  (The question referred to was thereupon
13                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
14             THE WITNESS:  Let me expand on that.  A
15        combination of BMPs and STAs appeared after some
16        evaluation of the available alternatives,
17        appears to be the most practical and available
18        option for beginning to solve the problem.
19   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20       Q.    Are you addressing the adequacy of STAs
21   specifically as that remedy impacts the Park, or is
22   your opinion directed more towards the entire
23   Everglades Protection Area?
24       A.    We did the review of the options from the
25   framework of the EPA, including the Water
                                                 282

 1   Conservation Areas.
 2       Q.    When you say "we," who is the "we" that you
 3   are referring to?
 4       A.    I'm talking about those who were involved
 5   in the early development of the settlement agreement
 6   and in reviewing that plan as it was incorporated
 7   into the SWIM Plan as a SAGE member looking -- as
 8   part of the District's larger program of evaluating
 9   alternatives, reviewing the information that was
10   provided to the SAGE members.  That's the context of
11   the "we."
12       Q.    Will you be providing any opinions as to
13   the settlement rate for phosphorous, the appropriate
14   settling rate for phosphorous?
15       A.    Not to my knowledge.
16       Q.    Will you be providing any opinions as to
17   the appropriate size of the STAs?
18       A.    Not based on any technical work, only based
19   on the discussions that I have heard, my opinion
20   based on the discussions that have been presented to
21   SAGE, you know, the areas of the meetings and so
22   forth to the various arguments for the sizing.
23       Q.    Have you done any research into the
24   question of the appropriate sizing of artificial
25   marshes for the removal of nutrients?
                                                 283

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Will you be providing any testimony as to
 3   the appropriateness of the locations for the STAs?
 4       A.    Not to my knowledge.
 5       Q.    Will you be providing any opinions as to
 6   the types of plants or vegetations to be used within
 7   the STAs?
 8       A.    Not to my knowledge.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Mr. Kobelinski, I don't want
10        to be unfair to you.  We don't know what your
11        people are going to say, what you are going to
12        actually put on at trial.  I think his answers
13        are all very fair and honest.  But I do want you
14        to understand various federal witnesses may be
15        used in rebuttal to whatever is presented by
16        your witnesses at trial.
17             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I understand what you are
18        saying, Counsel.  I think that's probably true.
19             MS. PONZOLI:  It's true of you, also.  It's
20        sort of hard --
21             MR. KOBELINSKI:  What I would like to do,
22        I'll go back over the areas which I just went
23        into and see if he has done research in those
24        areas, if he does any research because he is,
25        for instance, being called upon for a particular
                                                 284

 1        area, as we will do with you, I would appreciate
 2        you contacting us so we can explore that.
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Certainly.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    With regard to these technical aspects, the
 6   sizing, type of vegetation, location, have you done
 7   any research as to the appropriate -- those technical
 8   aspects of the STAs?
 9       A.    No.
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Bearing that objection in
11        mind, Counsel, as I said, I think it has to be a
12        reciprocal process for all.  If the witness'
13        expert area changes to the extent he does start
14        doing research in that area, we would request
15        the opportunity to question him further.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    With regard to the alternatives that you
18   have considered in the two different time periods
19   that you mentioned, one being as part of the
20   settlement negotiations and the other being as part
21   of your membership on SAGE, actually we could handle
22   it one at a time.
23             What were the alternatives that you
24   considered when determining the STAs were the
25   appropriate remedy and included them within the
                                                 285

 1   settlement agreement?
 2       A.    As I recall, the district had done some
 3   preliminary work on evaluating alternatives and, of
 4   course, it had designed the ENR project.  The
 5   meetings and period when we have discussed
 6   alternatives, much of it was based on the use of
 7   water management areas I believe they were called at
 8   that time.  I think we have gone through several
 9   different acronyms.
10             But there was discussion of other
11   alternatives and discussion generally led by the
12   District based on some of the things that they had
13   looked at.  It was the general consensus that the
14   nutrient management area approach would be the most
15   feasible in terms of cost and effectiveness.
16       Q.    Have you ever reviewed any of the
17   District's documentation on the water management
18   areas, WMAs?
19       A.    I have reviewed portions of their work on
20   the ENR.  They had an ENR project, designed a review
21   committee.  I only sat in on one of their meetings.
22   They had a large panel of people who produced a
23   report and did some evaluations.
24             At one point, no, I have not really spent
25   much time on the early information that they had on
                                                 286

 1   water management areas which I believe they started
 2   to design in the early '80s.
 3       Q.    Do you recall whether or not the water
 4   management areas were designed solely for nutrient
 5   removal purposes?
 6       A.    I believe there were some perceived benefit
 7   related to distribution, hooking them up with
 8   distribution canals and increasing sheet flow early
 9   on.  I don't remember any other details of that.
10             There is also some minor role considered
11   for them in terms of modulating flow over time.  They
12   don't have an awful lot of storage capacity as the
13   general designs evolved, but there was some thought
14   that they would have a modulating effect on run off
15   events hydrologically.
16       Q.    With regard to a combination of the sheet
17   flow aspects and the modulation of flows, was that
18   one of the primary purposes of the water management
19   areas?
20       A.    My understanding has been that they have
21   always been considered as ways of reducing nutrients.
22       Q.    Do you know whether or not --
23       A.    Primarily.
24       Q.    Primarily, okay.
25             Do you know whether or not the hydrologic
                                                 287

 1   aspects, sheet flow and modification of water
 2   distribution timing, was a coequal primary purposes
 3   of the water management areas?
 4       A.    My understanding was that it was not
 5   co-equal.  That the water management areas were being
 6   designed primarily to address the nutrient problem.
 7       Q.    Do you recall the approximate size of the
 8   water management areas as far as acreages?
 9       A.    At what step, what period?
10       Q.    At the period you were considering them,
11   when you first were looking at that alternative as a
12   part of the settlement negotiations.
13       A.    I believe that there were a number of
14   different estimates that were current at different
15   times in the evolution of these water management
16   areas.  I believe the earlier sizing calculations
17   were based on an uptake rate produced by Steve Davis.
18   I think 1.67 grams per meter square per year.
19             I believe that rate that he defined in his
20   '91 paper was used when I first started attending
21   meetings that discussed the water management area
22   size question.
23       Q.    Do you recall whether the locations of the
24   water management areas were in the same approximate
25   location the STAs are currently scheduled for in the
                                                 288

 1   SWIM Plan?
 2       A.    Well, let me answer that and reflect back
 3   on your questions in that there was an ongoing
 4   shaping and sizing of the entire remedy during the
 5   settlement negotiations process, and there have been
 6   several other changes in the STAs promoted at
 7   different times since then.  So at any point in time
 8   the answer to your question might be a little
 9   different.
10             But generally the approach has been to find
11   the best engineering means of correcting the large
12   flows, especially those impinging on Loxahatchee, and
13   trying to find the most efficient way of collecting
14   and treating those flows to an interim step or at
15   least a technologically feasible step within a short
16   period of time.  So that the actual placement has
17   bounced around a bit.
18       Q.    Are the STAs as currently designed or
19   placed in the SWIM Plan, will they result in a
20   enhancement of sheet flow in any portions of the
21   Everglades Protection Area?
22       A.    I don't believe that that is provided for
23   in the initial plan.  That's in the SWIM Plan, if I
24   remember correctly.
25       Q.    Is that the hydrological alternative that
                                                 289

 1   you considered back in the period where you were
 2   considering alternative treatment technologies for
 3   the settlement negotiations?
 4       A.    I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part.
 5       Q.    Is the addressing of the re-establishment
 6   of the sheet flow one of the items that you
 7   considered when you were addressing alternatives for
 8   nutrient removal while negotiating the settlement
 9   agreement?
10       A.    It was thought to be an ancillary benefit
11   to the construction of STAs.  But the discussions
12   that I was present at that were to resolve the
13   nutrient problem didn't dwell on that aspect.  That
14   was thought to be part of the restoration of water
15   quantity, which was felt to be another, of course,
16   important issue.
17             And the design of flow structures at the
18   end of those STAs were thought to be feasible, but
19   they weren't part of the initial considerations of
20   achieving the target that we generally felt was
21   feasible -- that's a 80% reduction by 1997, which was
22   the original date, July of 1997, reduction of
23   phosphorus tonnage going into the EPA.
24       Q.    Other than the WMAs, what other
25   alternatives did you consider at the time when you
                                                 290

 1   were negotiating or participating in the settlement
 2   negotiations of the federal suit?
 3       A.    I only remember some general talk of the
 4   range of options that included chemical
 5   precipitation.  I believe there was some talk about
 6   deep well injection and a number of the known
 7   technologies.
 8             But there wasn't, as I mentioned earlier, a
 9   great deal of discussion other than from the District
10   which had done some work initially on alternative
11   technologies.
12       Q.    Do you recall why chemical precipitation
13   was not selected as the alternative choice?
14       A.    It was generally felt in the early series
15   of talks that the overall costs, if calculated for
16   the volume of water or the range of volumes of water
17   that had to be treated, that cost would not in the
18   final analysis be competitive with STAs.
19       Q.    With regard to deep well injection, do you
20   recall why it was not used as an alternative that was
21   selected?
22       A.    My impression was that it was not capable
23   of handling the size of the range of flows that one
24   has to treat coming out of the EAA, and that the cost
25   to achieve deep well injection of those hundreds of
                                                 291

 1   thousands of acre feet would be prohibitive and there
 2   might be environmental concerns, as well, with that
 3   method on that scale.
 4       Q.    Was ASR ever considered as an alternative
 5   at this point during the settlement negotiations?
 6       A.    I don't believe we spent any time on it.
 7   The districts may have spent some time on it.
 8       Q.    Were there any additional alternatives
 9   other than those we just discussed that were
10   considered during the settlement negotiation phase?
11       A.    I don't recall any.
12       Q.    At the time that this consideration of
13   alternatives took place, were there actually
14   assessments as to the overall costs?  For instance,
15   chemical precipitation?
16       A.    I don't know if there were any detail costs
17   involved.  All of that information was provided to
18   the extent that it was provided, was from the Water
19   Management District.  I don't recall any detailed
20   cost estimates, although those were generated later
21   during the process that was set up with SAGE to look
22   at alternatives.
23       Q.    Ultimately during the settlement
24   negotiations then STAs were selected as the best
25   available alternative for removing nutrients with
                                                 292

 1   regard to the EPA; is that correct?
 2       A.    Correct.
 3       Q.    Moving, then, to the next step where
 4   alternatives were considered, would this be during
 5   your period as a member for SAGE?
 6       A.    It's my understanding that the District
 7   committed itself to looking at alternatives, and that
 8   part of the reason for the assembly of the SAGE
 9   committee was to review alternative technologies and
10   the general approach that was the combination of
11   STAs.
12       Q.    Has the Park ever conducted any research as
13   to the alternatives for nutrient removal?
14       A.    Not to my knowledge.
15       Q.    During the settlement negotiations did
16   discussions as to other sources of water, were those
17   considered as possible alternatives to nutrient
18   removal or cleaning water from the EAA?
19             MS. PONZOLI:  Excuse me, I don't understand
20        the question.
21             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure I do, either.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Well, for instance, with regard to deep
24   well injection, was it discussed that if there was
25   deep well injection of the EAA water, that due to
                                                 293

 1   water supply demands both for the Park and the urban
 2   areas, additional water would need to be made up from
 3   another source.  Was that ever considered?
 4       A.    The idea that deep well injection or a
 5   process that would use water or not recovered water,
 6   I don't believe we reviewed that impact, because the
 7   idea of achieving that level would produce a large
 8   volume impact.
 9             I think, as far as I know, that wasn't
10   discussed, if that answers your question.  Maybe you
11   should try the question again.
12       Q.    When considering deep well injection, was
13   there ever a discussion similar to the BMP to make up
14   water -- was there discussion as to whether or not by
15   necessity there would be necessity to make up the
16   water that was being injected into a deep well?
17       A.    I don't know of any discussions on that
18   level because I believe the method wasn't felt to be
19   practicable in achieving it, so the impact derived
20   from it, I don't believe I ever heard a discussion of
21   the make up order.
22             My recollection of the assessment of deep
23   well injection was that it didn't go so far as that
24   particular impact.
25       Q.    Are you familiar with the water budgets for
                                                 294

 1   the Water Conservation Areas set forth in the SWIM
 2   Plan?
 3       A.    I'm sure I have read them at some point,
 4   but I'm not able to recollect them in any detail.
 5       Q.    Are you just generally familiar that the
 6   SWIM Plan estimates that ET is equal to or greater
 7   than the rainfall within the Water Conservation
 8   Areas?
 9       A.    I have heard that.  I remember reading
10   that.  I believe it was the SWIM Plan.
11       Q.    Given that the Park -- and I don't have my
12   notes from yesterday, but I believe you stated that
13   on average the Park is receiving approximately
14   400,000 acre feet, was that the correct figure -- we
15   discussed the question yesterday -- currently?
16       A.    I believe that was the general ballpark.
17       Q.    As a ballpark, the Park is currently
18   receiving in the ballpark of 400,000 acre feet and
19   the current projections for the restoration of flows
20   for the modified water delivery are in the ballpark
21   of 500,000 to one million acre feet.
22             Is the Park dependent upon water from
23   sources other than the WCA's?
24       A.    The Park as I understand it gets much of
25   its water is from precipitations, and then inflow
                                                 295

 1   from upstream makes up the rest.  Those numbers that
 2   we were talking about are what used to flow across
 3   the entry plain into the Park.  I guess I lost the
 4   rest of the question.
 5       Q.    My question was, given the SWIM Plan shows
 6   that the ET and Water Conservation Areas meet or
 7   exceed the rainfall within the Water Conservation
 8   Areas, as such they do not have or create excess
 9   water for delivery to the Park, is the Park dependent
10   upon outside sources for its water supply?
11       A.    It's dependent directly upon water coming
12   through the conservation areas and canal water that's
13   delivered from Lake Okeechobee.
14       Q.    To what extent historically has the canal
15   water delivered from Lake Okeechobee been sufficient
16   to satisfy the Park needs?
17       A.    I believe it hasn't been sufficient.
18       Q.    Is the Park then dependent upon the water
19   that has historically been discharged from EAA to
20   meet a portion of its water supply needs?
21             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
22             THE WITNESS:  I believe the export of water
23        from the EAA has made up a portion of the water
24        that has been delivered to the Park.
25   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
                                                 296

 1       Q.    Is water supply for the Park and the urban
 2   areas one of the factors driving the need to deliver
 3   water into the Water Conservation Areas, be it from
 4   EAA or Lake Okeechobee?
 5       A.    I believe there has been a role for the --
 6   role established for the Water Conservation Areas in
 7   providing water for the urban water supply
 8   replenishment and for deliveries to the Park, in that
 9   apparent priority.
10       Q.    Again, while the Water Conservation Areas
11   are designed as reservoirs, according to the SWIM
12   Plan they do not produce -- they are not a net water
13   provider in the system that currently exists today;
14   is that correct?
15       A.    I probably should indicate that I am not
16   certain that that calculation that ET is equal to
17   rainfall certainly doesn't happen, in my mind, every
18   year.
19             If you are talking about long-term average,
20   the ET values for the Everglades are not very well
21   documented.  There has been a lot of work, but it
22   really hasn't panned out yet in terms of what the ET
23   is for the different communities in the Everglades.
24   Those are rough approximations.
25             I'm certain in some years there are net
                                                 297

 1   exports from the Water Conservation Areas by rainfall
 2   falling in those areas, other years not.
 3             So I think the premise of your question may
 4   or may not be totally accurate.
 5       Q.    Has the Park conducted any ET experiments
 6   or studies of its own?
 7       A.    It has done some work through Lance
 8   Gunderson who is now still, I think, at the
 9   University of Florida.  It's my understanding that he
10   is still working on the evaluation and write up of
11   the data that has been collected.
12             There may also be work in progress by the
13   Water Management District under contract, but I don't
14   know the details.
15       Q.    Has the Park ever done a water budget for
16   the lands of the Park itself?
17       A.    Water budget in terms of rainfall?
18       Q.    And ET.
19       A.    In ET, overall gross input/output kind of
20   budgets?
21       Q.    Yes.
22       A.    I believe it has.  I don't know the details
23   of it.
24       Q.    Do you recall whether or not it is a --
25   overall ET exceeds or is less than rainfall based
                                                 298

 1   upon the study that the Park has done for the Park?
 2       A.    I don't know how that calculation, if it
 3   were done -- which I'm sure someone has done it,
 4   probably many hydrologists have done it -- I'm not
 5   familiar how it turned out.
 6       Q.    With regard to your activity at SAGE, other
 7   than your consideration of alternatives in your role
 8   as a member of SAGE, have you considered alternatives
 9   to STAs in any other format other than the one during
10   the settlement negotiation of the federal suit and,
11   number two, your participation as a member in SAGE?
12       A.    There has been some discussion of
13   alternatives in the recent talks that occurred within
14   the last year with industry representatives and
15   environment representatives.
16       Q.    These are mediation talks?
17       A.    Mediation talks.
18       Q.    What are the alternatives that SAGE
19   considers to STAs?
20       A.    They considered I think a fairly broad
21   range of alternatives.  I believe most all of them
22   that were brought up by any interested group, the
23   ones that we spent most time on were chemical
24   precipitation.  We spent some time on the algal turf
25   scrubber.  We spent some time on a number of others.
                                                 299

 1             I believe there was a routing plan put
 2   forward by Jim Knoll called the Knoll plan, and there
 3   were a number of combinations of alternatives put
 4   together by the industry, agricultural industry.  I
 5   believe Flosun had a plan or perhaps at that time it
 6   was the Florida Sugar Cane League had one plan, and
 7   there may have been two versions of that plan which
 8   included things such as limestone lining of canals
 9   and various number of other approaches to reduce
10   phosphorus.  Pumping PNP's were a large part of the
11   industry proposals.
12       Q.    With regard to your participation in SAGE,
13   after considering those alternatives, what was
14   determined to be the best alternative for nutrient
15   removal of the EPA?
16       A.    It was the general opinion of the SAGE
17   committee that for the application intended within
18   the first phase of the clean up program that STAs
19   were the most feasible technology.
20       Q.    What were the driving factors in the
21   application for the first phase that were considered?
22       A.    The driving factors in the determination
23   that that was the best approach?
24       Q.    Yes.  You said with regard to the -- for
25   the first phase STAs were the most feasible.  What
                                                 300

 1   were the factors of the first phase that made STAs
 2   the most feasible?
 3       A.    The fact that it was easily demonstrated
 4   that wetland treatment systems were common and
 5   functioning at levels around 50 parts per billion.
 6   That was one factor.
 7             The fact that there would be little
 8   question of marsh suitability for the effluent, that
 9   was a question brought up about the ionic composition
10   of chemically treated water.  And the general cost, I
11   think, was thought by many people to be competitive
12   with chemical treatment at the outflow concentrations
13   in the 50 parts per billion range.
14       Q.    Anything else?
15       A.    I think those were the primary factors.
16       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to why STAs are a
17   preferable treatment as compared to the alternatives
18   that SAGE considered?
19       A.    I think those are pretty much my opinions
20   based on what I have seen.  I think that is a good
21   approach and one that is doable if the design,
22   construction and execution of the program is done
23   effectively.
24       Q.    What is the basis for your opinion there?
25   What are your sources of information?
                                                 301

 1       A.    Just the documents that were provided to
 2   SAGE members and those were documents that were
 3   primarily provided by either the Water Management
 4   District as a result of their contracts, notably with
 5   Burns and McDonnell and Brown and Caldwell, based on
 6   my conversations and discussions with Bob Kadlec,
 7   based on my review of the materials provided by those
 8   who proposed and reviewed the alternatives presented
 9   to SAGE.
10       Q.    You mentioned Burns, McDonnell and Brown
11   and Caldwell.  Did either of these have the
12   assignment of comparing the alternatives for nutrient
13   removal?
14       A.    The contract to Brown and Caldwell was
15   targeted for that purpose.
16       Q.    Did you discuss the alternatives with
17   Curtis Richardson?
18       A.    Directly, I don't believe I did.
19             MS. PONZOLI:  Can we go off the record?
20             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Sure.
21                  (Discussion off the record.)
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    What background do you have --
24       A.    Let me answer that question a little more
25   broadly.  I had a number of discussions with
                                                 302

 1   Dr. Richardson, but I don't recall ever talking in
 2   any detail about alternatives.
 3             Dr. Richardson did make a presentation to
 4   SAGE based on some of his information pertinent to
 5   STA.
 6       Q.    What background, Doctor, have you had in
 7   the design or efficacy of artificial marshes in
 8   nutrient removal?
 9       A.    I have really only general awareness of the
10   technology in a general sense.  I have attended a
11   couple of conferences over the years.  I have really
12   not had any direct experience either in constructing
13   or designing.
14       Q.    Have you ever studied or done any research
15   into how the dynamics of how artificial marshes
16   remove nutrients?
17       A.    Any research into the dynamics?  No.
18       Q.    Are you and your opinions with regard to
19   the appropriateness of the remedy dependent, then,
20   upon the material you have reviewed both as a member
21   of SAGE and the presentations therein and also the
22   discussions you have mentioned with Dr. Kadlec?
23       A.    Also in other discussions with Bill Walker
24   and discussions provided during the settlement talks
25   by Chip Swindell, who was a consultant brought in by
                                                 303

 1   the Water Management District during the settlement
 2   talks.
 3             Those are the people that I have talked to
 4   about the general use and utility of those, plus some
 5   DEP people or, at that point, DER people.
 6       Q.    Do you recall whether or not the Brown and
 7   Caldwell report came to the same conclusion, that
 8   STAs were the most appropriate remedy for nutrient
 9   removal for the Everglades Protection Area?
10       A.    My recollection is that they felt that
11   chemical precipitation was a more cost effective
12   technology for this application.
13       Q.    With regard to the factors that you have
14   considered for STAs, is it your understanding that
15   chemical precipitation or treatment would work at
16   levels of 50 parts per billion or be able to achieve
17   those levels?
18       A.    Would chemical precipitation be able to
19   achieve those levels?
20       Q.    Yes.
21       A.    I believe that they will achieve lower
22   levels than that.
23             But there is also some question one of the
24   factors which might hinder their application would be
25   the need for treating certain volume to a very low
                                                 304

 1   level, and then bypassing during many events water
 2   untreated, which I believe would have a long-term
 3   continuing impact on the system.
 4             So that the designs that I saw that were
 5   presented to SAGE were designs that were touted to be
 6   cost effective.  And when one looked into the cost,
 7   that problem that of bypassing of untreated water on
 8   many occasions, plus my own opinion that there was a
 9   lot of uncertainty in their cost figures, those
10   aspects indicated to me that while the technology
11   could certainly treat the 50 parts per billion,
12   perhaps there may be a viable technology for lower
13   levels, that technology had drawbacks.  Even though
14   it could treat the 50 parts per billion, it might not
15   be the technology of choice in this application.
16       Q.    Are there uncertainties as to whether the
17   STAs currently designed will be able to achieve 50
18   parts per billion?
19       A.    The outflow is designed to achieve 50 parts
20   per billion on a long-term average, and there is some
21   uncertainty built into that.
22             There is some potential for the STA design
23   to achieve lower than 50 parts per billion.  There is
24   a fair amount of information on similar wetlands
25   operating and that information, to my mind, indicates
                                                 305

 1   that it is with a reasonable image of expectation.
 2       Q.    Are there any information from wetlands
 3   anywhere near the size of the STAs contemplated by
 4   the SWIM Plan?
 5       A.    There are, I don't think, any installations
 6   of such systems on this scale.  I believe the ENR
 7   project is the biggest to date of this kind of
 8   project.  The systems that are functioning at this
 9   time are on a smaller scale.
10       Q.    The ENR project has not had sufficient time
11   to yield any type of results or design criteria, has
12   it?
13             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
14             THE WITNESS:  The ENR, as I understand it,
15        is operating as of this year.
16             I guess the permit has been granted and --
17        the permit is being granted, so it would be
18        operational this year.  It's operation and its
19        performance has not been evaluated, no.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    Although the ENR would be the largest
22   project of an artificial marsh to date, it itself is
23   just a fraction of what the total size of the STAs
24   would be.  Is that accurate?
25       A.    I believe it's 3700 acres.  I believe it's
                                                 306

 1   a tenth.
 2       Q.    Are there any artificial wetlands that you
 3   are aware of that handle the same volume of water
 4   that the STAs are intended to treat?
 5       A.    You mean relative to size?
 6       Q.    I'm talking about just any artificial
 7   wetlands that are handling the same volume of water
 8   that will be treated by the STAs?
 9       A.    Well, obviously not.  If this is the
10   biggest system handling the amount of water that it's
11   designed to handle, this will be the biggest system.
12   No, there is no system handling the same volume now.
13       Q.    Under the SWIM and DER permit, do you know
14   what I'm referring to?  I guess it's now DEP, the
15   permit associated with the SWIM Plan, is it
16   contemplated there would be bypass water around the
17   STAs?
18       A.    For the ENR permits?
19       Q.    For the STAs.
20       A.    No.  The bypass would occur only under
21   extreme events outside a period of record.  I believe
22   it's a ten year period of record based on the
23   monitoring in the Everglades.
24             For that period of record which had the
25   extreme conditions for those conditions for that
                                                 307

 1   range of conditions, there would be no bypass.
 2       Q.    Are there any uncertainties about the cost
 3   of the STAs?
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 5             THE WITNESS:  I believe there are
 6        reasonable estimates available for land
 7        acquisition and for construction and for pumps
 8        and those kind of engineering things.
 9             I believe there are probably poorer
10        estimates for the annual operation of the STAs
11        that obviously those could be refined.  But that
12        would be a question that Galen Miller should
13        answer.
14             But I think the estimates that we have had
15        over time have not changed that much.  There has
16        been some change in cost estimates both up and
17        down for the technology.  I'm not at all sure
18        they were not reasonable estimates.
19   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20       Q.    You had stated that in your opinion there
21   were uncertainties as to the cost of chemical
22   precipitation or chemical treatment.
23             Are there greater cost uncertainties
24   related to the STAs?
25       A.    I don't believe so.  I believe if one
                                                 308

 1   examines the Brown and Caldwell report, which
 2   attempts to estimate the costs of both technologies,
 3   I believe if you look at it closely, you will find
 4   that there are some major inequities how the two
 5   systems were examined.  Because there is an awful
 6   large amount of research money included, for
 7   instance, in the STA budget and a very large
 8   operational budget, including operators and personnel
 9   for chemical treatment, there is a very lean and
10   favorable estimate of what that system would cost in
11   annual operation.
12             I believe those costs have recently been
13   revised upwards.  I believe they are becoming very,
14   very close in the overall costs.
15             An additional factor that wasn't considered
16   was A, the life span of the project, both projects.
17   If the capital invested or available in the land was
18   not considered in the STA assessment, then that of
19   course -- since STAs are land intensive that, of
20   course, is a big factor in assessing the overall
21   relative cost of the two technologies.
22       Q.    Is there a life span -- projected life span
23   for the STAs?
24       A.    Yes, there was a projected life span.  I
25   can't remember -- 20, 25 or 50 years.
                                                 309

 1       Q.    You had stated that according to Dr. Walker
 2   the STAs were projected to achieve a long-term
 3   average of 50 parts per billion.  What is your
 4   understanding of what the long term is?
 5       A.    Long-term average, 50 parts per billion.
 6   What is the long-term?
 7       Q.    Right.
 8       A.    I don't remember how he has produced an
 9   evaluation of what the probables are for the
10   discharge.  I don't know what basis, whether it was a
11   five-year running average.  I don't know what basis
12   that is.
13       Q.    Just to make sure that you understand my
14   question, again, the term "long-term average" is
15   used.  My question is really just what is the
16   long-term that is used to determine 50 parts per
17   billion average?  What is that?  How many years is
18   long-term average?
19             MS. PONZOLI:  I think it has been asked and
20        answered.
21             THE WITNESS:  I have read his most recent
22        report.  I can't remember the basis.  We have
23        often been using five-year running averages to
24        monitor canal discharges and things like that.
25             I don't remember what he uses to set up a
                                                 310

 1        compliance test to determine what the expected
 2        and probable outflow for the STAs will be.  And
 3        it's a statistical test to determine when that
 4        is or is not achieved, but I don't remember the
 5        details of it.  I read it a few weeks ago.  I
 6        don't remember the basis that he used -- that he
 7        proposed.
 8             It hasn't been accepted by all parties.  I
 9        think it has been proposed, but I can't remember
10        the test as he perceived it.
11   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12       Q.    Is 26 years, to the best of your
13   recollection, the long-term that is used in the
14   long-term average of 50 parts per billion?
15       A.    My understanding, and I would have to refer
16   you to him, my understanding is that is not the
17   long-term.  That's too long a time for the
18   calculation of whether or not they are producing 50
19   parts per billion.
20             My impression was -- and again I don't
21   remember the test that he proposed, but it was
22   certainly more immediate than that.
23       Q.    If 26 years is the long-term figure for the
24   long-term average of 50 parts per billion, would that
25   have an impact upon your opinion as to whether STAs
                                                 311

 1   are the most appropriate remedy for removing
 2   nutrients from the Everglades Protection Area?
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 4             THE WITNESS:  My expectation of STA
 5        performance is that after the initial start up,
 6        I don't know, after I believe a couple of years
 7        for sediment equalization and vegetation
 8        establishment and the normal uptake processes
 9        establishment, then the test for performance
10        would begin.  And within three years we would be
11        testing statistically the performance of the
12        STAs against their stated goal of 50 parts per
13        billion on that expectation, I believe.
14             MS. PONZOLI:  I believe you gentlemen are
15        talking about different issues.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Will you be providing any opinions as to
18   the period of time necessary for the soils to reach
19   equilibrium, the vegetation to establish -- in other
20   words, the period of time to which the STAs will
21   start to function as a nutrient removal project?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    If the STAs are designed to achieve a
24   long-term average of 50 parts per billion and the
25   long-term is actually 26 years, how appropriate is it
                                                 312

 1   to anticipate that the STAs will be reaching that 50
 2   parts per billion within the first five years?
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I guess I don't accept your
 5        premise that's the way they are expected to
 6        produce.
 7             If it is as you indicated, if the
 8        expectation was for the long-term average of 26
 9        years, then obviously you have given a lot of
10        latitude for higher performance early or later.
11        Long-term average of 50 parts per billion, if it
12        were delayed, I think would be a problem.  But
13        then obviously if it performed much lower than
14        that in the future with long-term average, I'm
15        not certain it still would be acceptable.
16             I believe the intent is to achieve that
17        load reduction within a very short frame of time
18        that the STAs have to start up.  And after
19        enough time to statistically evaluate their
20        performance, that they will be performing sort
21        of long before -- midway through 26 years.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Is it your understanding that the STAs were
24   designed to achieve a long-term average of 50 parts
25   per billion, just leaving the term "long term"
                                                 313

 1   undefined at this point in time?
 2       A.    Correct.
 3       Q.    The term "long-term average, 50 parts per
 4   billion" is based upon Dr. Walker's report; is that
 5   correct?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    And the uncertainty or analysis or the
 8   uncertainty with regard to whether or not they
 9   achieved 50 parts per billion was based upon this
10   long-term average, is that accurate?
11             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
12             THE WITNESS:  Repeat that again.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    We were talking earlier about the
15   certainties and uncertainties about the various
16   alternatives to achieving a reduction of phosphorus
17   to 50 parts per billion.
18             Was there a determination that the STAs had
19   a certain uncertainty of achieving a long-term
20   average of 50 parts per billion?
21       A.    My understanding was there was an
22   expectation that after initial start up they would be
23   producing in the area of 50 parts per billion
24   constantly over the life span of the project varying
25   year to year, but achieving the 50 part per billion
                                                 314

 1   level early in their performance.
 2       Q.    On what do you base your opinion that the
 3   STAs will perform -- achieve reductions to 50 parts
 4   per billion in the early period of their performance?
 5       A.    As I indicated earlier, there is a very
 6   large database on wetland performance in the U.S. and
 7   many have produced databases that have been evaluated
 8   primarily by Dr. Kadlec and his expectations that the
 9   performance of areas -- a couple of Florida systems,
10   for instance, indicate that they should perform
11   within a short start up time.
12             I believe his estimate given to the
13   mediation group was that the start up time for the
14   system was a little over two years, maybe three
15   years.
16       Q.    Is it anticipated that STAs will have any
17   impact upon water deliveries to the Park?
18       A.    As I understand it, the impact from
19   increased ET are small, five or six percent.  I think
20   the outflow from the EAA might be enhanced to the
21   level of five or six percent.  They are -- of course,
22   if combined with the spread of canals below and the
23   achievement of sheet flow, as was contemplated in the
24   mediation talks, there could be some positive
25   benefits for the water conservation in terms of
                                                 315

 1   replacing sheet flow to certain areas.
 2             By and large I don't believe the impact was
 3   so very -- I believe the estimate was five or six
 4   percent enhancement over I think what's happened to
 5   the water now.
 6       Q.    The STAs as currently designed do not
 7   provide for restoration of sheet flow?
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 9             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I'll withdraw that.
10   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11       Q.    Under the SWIM Plan adopted by the
12   distribution of the STAs, it does not provide for
13   restoration of sheet flow to the WCAs, do they?
14       A.    I haven't read the SWIM Plan for a couple
15   of years.  I have been involved in looking at the
16   more recent configurations of the STAs and those
17   outflows by other system.  I couldn't tell you for
18   sure whether or not the SWIM Plan -- I know it does
19   address other issues than nutrients.  I don't
20   remember whether or not it had determination of sheet
21   flow.
22       Q.    To the extent that the current SWIM Plan
23   does not provide for the restoration of sheet flow to
24   the WCAs, would movement or a reconfiguration of the
25   STAs to provide for that aspect be an improvement
                                                 316

 1   over the existing plan?
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.  I think
 3        you have probably stepped over the line.  I
 4        don't believe the hearing officer said you could
 5        say whether one plan was better or worse than
 6        another.
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I don't recall mentioning
 8        two plans, Counsel.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  I think that is the clear
10        implication of your question.
11             THE WITNESS:  If you can read back the
12        question, could you ask it again?
13             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Sure.
14             MS. PONZOLI:  Read it back.  You want me to
15        object again to the next --
16             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Go ahead and read it back.
17                  (The question referred to was thereupon
18                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
19             MS. PONZOLI:  I have an additional
20        objection.  I don't believe it has been
21        established by this witness that they don't
22        provide -- are you asking him to assume that
23        there is no provision for any sheet flow or
24        restoration?
25             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Oh, I wouldn't want this
                                                 317

 1        witness to assume.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Well, I mean --
 3             MR. KOBELINSKI:  It's all right.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Dr. Soukup, I'm showing you a copy of the
 6   SWIM Plan and appendices and supporting information.
 7   If you could review that and provide --
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  You want him to review the
 9        entire SWIM Plan as we sit here, Mr. Kobelinski?
10        I think that's unreasonable.
11             He answered your prior question.  He didn't
12        recall whether this document provided -- I think
13        that's accurate, whether it provided for sheet
14        flow.
15             And so I think to ask him to review the
16        entire document is an unreasonably request.
17             If Dr. Soukup can do that in a quick
18        fashion and answer you, I have no problem with
19        it.  But if it's going to require him going
20        through the entire SWIM Plan, I think that's an
21        unreasonable request.
22             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I don't think it requires
23        the entire SWIM Plan.
24             MS. PONZOLI:  Why did you hand him the
25        entire SWIM Plan?
                                                 318

 1             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I don't want to have
 2        another objection I didn't provide the complete
 3        document.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I think I can answer the
 5        question at least to a certain degree.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    Okay.
 8       A.    There are a number of different volumes and
 9   appendices.  I'm not sure if the system of
10   hydroperiods benefits canal improvements that the
11   District has been contemplating for some time.
12             I don't see them in the section that I
13   would assume that they would be in.  If they are in
14   other sections, I don't know in terms of your
15   question of whether or not spreader systems to
16   discharge flows over areas, say, 3A on a Browder
17   front would be preferable.
18             I believe that would be a useful part of a
19   larger effort that will probably hopefully be
20   undertaken in the near future to address many of the
21   hydroperiod impacts in the Everglades.
22       Q.    Well, given your consideration of various
23   alternatives, would it be appropriate at this point
24   in time prior to the STAs being constructed to design
25   the STAs in such a manner that hydroperiod aspects
                                                 319

 1   can be addressed prior to their being built and
 2   having to be reconfigured?
 3       A.    I don't believe that the provision for
 4   hydroperiod or sheet flow distribution is necessary
 5   or in any way has to be done at the same time as the
 6   STAs are constructed.
 7             There are, when clean water is available, I
 8   think a number of options for providing that water in
 9   a broad front.  I think that it would be useful and
10   advantageous to the environment to go that direction
11   as soon as the water is clean enough to be introduced
12   into areas that are not impacted as yet by large
13   flows of nutrient clear water.
14       Q.    On what do you base the opinion that
15   designing subsequent -- designing after the STAs are
16   constructed, as currently contemplated by the plan
17   for the restoration of sheet flow, would be as cost
18   effective and as effective in restoring sheet flow as
19   doing so at this point in time, prior to the
20   construction of the STAs themselves?
21             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't believe you
22        summarized his prior answer appropriately,
23        Mr. Kobelinski.  You are giving your answer and
24        then adding a question to the end of it.
25             I don't think -- maybe I have been sitting
                                                 320

 1        in this deposition for three days and I'm
 2        beginning to zone out, but I don't remember the
 3        "cost effective" in the prior series of
 4        questions.
 5             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Go ahead, Doctor.
 6             MS. PONZOLI:  You don't have to answer the
 7        question if it's not your answer.  You need to
 8        realize he has framed the question as your
 9        answer.
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Are you instructing the
11        witness not to answer?
12             MS. PONZOLI:  I counted two, three times
13        that you did it in a deposition.  I haven't done
14        it once, Mr. Kobelinski.
15             I'm very clear in what I say.  And when I
16        say, "Dr. Soukup, don't answer," this record
17        will reflect it, Mr. Reporter.
18             MR. KOBELINSKI:  You said many times you
19        don't have to answer.
20             MS. PONZOLI:  Read back the question.
21             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Is there a distinction
22        between the two?  I'm trying to figure it out.
23             MS. PONZOLI:  Would you read back the
24        question, please.
                                                 321

 1                  (The question referred to was thereupon
 2                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
 3             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure I'm giving the
 4        same emphasis you are as to cost efficiency.
 5             I'm just trying to indicate that the
 6        provision of clean water for that spreading was
 7        my primary concern.  There may be some costs
 8        involved that might be additional.  Those are
 9        engineering questions.
10             My impression is that the projects that
11        have been talked about by the district for
12        spreading water are largely canal improvements
13        and canal construction projects that would occur
14        below the STAs.
15             And while there may be some additional
16        costs, I couldn't tell you whether or not they
17        were significant or not.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Would it be appropriate for restoration of
20   the ecosystem to design the STAs to provide for
21   restoration of sheet flow to the WCAs?
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
23             THE WITNESS:  I don't believe it's
24        necessarily a part of the resolution of the
25        water quality issue.
                                                 322

 1             I would certainly advocate that when the
 2        water quality is appropriately clean, that the
 3        re-establishment of sheet flow in the Water
 4        Conservation Areas would be a high environmental
 5        priority.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    The STAs are supposed to make the water
 8   appropriately clean; is that correct?
 9       A.    The STAs are designed to be a significant
10   first step in that provision of water that is
11   appropriately clean.
12       Q.    Would it be appropriate, then, to design
13   the STAs to not only achieve the appropriate
14   cleanliness of the water but also to provide for
15   restoration of sheet flow to the WCAs?
16             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
17             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Normal ecosystem
18        restoration?  It has been asked and answered,
19        Counsel.
20             THE WITNESS:  I would say there are lots of
21        factors that would go into that decision, and
22        those are factors that are part of a larger
23        effort and were not considered part of the water
24        quality obligation of the state to achieve.
25   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
                                                 323

 1       Q.    When you say that was not part of the water
 2   quality obligation of the state to achieve, are you
 3   referring to the considerations in
 4   the settlement agreement of the federal lawsuit?
 5       A.    I was thinking of the regulatory authority
 6   and obligation that the state has.
 7       Q.    Is there a particular statute you are
 8   referring to?
 9       A.    Well, the provision of state waters and is
10   that suitable for the appropriate water quality
11   classification for that body of water.  Class three,
12   for instance.
13       Q.    Are you familiar with the Marjorie Stillman
14   Douglas Act?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Is that the act by which the Everglades
17   SWIM Plan was adopted along with the SWIM act?
18             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.  I think
19        that's a legal question, Counselor,
20        inappropriate for this.
21             THE WITNESS:  I couldn't tell you how they
22        interact.  I'm not sure of the legal connection.
23             MS. PONZOLI:  Can we take a break,
24        Mr. Kobelinski?
25             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Sure.
                                                 324

 1                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
 2                  after which the following proceedings
 3                  were had:)
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Dr. Soukup, is it your opinion that the
 6   STAs will achieve reductions of nutrients to 50 parts
 7   per billion by the fifth year of their operation?
 8       A.    I believe that it's within the design
 9   characteristics that an explanation of the
10   approximation of that level is reasonable.
11       Q.    Approximation of that level is reasonable --
12   I didn't quite hear what you said.
13             MS. PONZOLI:  You heard.
14             MR. KOBELINSKI:  That's what you said?
15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Do you mean that's a possibility that they
18   will achieve?
19       A.    That's a reasonable expectation, from what
20   I understand the design intended.
21       Q.    Do you know at what point in time
22   compliance with 50 parts per billion will be tested,
23   at what point in time that's going to start?
24       A.    We have proposed -- Bill Walker has
25   proposed a methodology for evaluating compliance, and
                                                 325

 1   that was the document I told you that I had seen
 2   several weeks ago but I haven't looked at it since
 3   then.
 4             I don't remember the exact terms of the
 5   test, but there is a discussion of the expectation of
 6   their performance.
 7       Q.    On what do you base your opinion that there
 8   is a reasonable probability to achieve 50 parts per
 9   billion, or the STAs will achieve 50 parts per
10   billion by the five-years of operation?
11       A.    My discussions with Bob Kadlec and Bill
12   Walker -- but probably Bob Kadlec, who has a fair
13   amount of experience, direct experience with the
14   systems.
15       Q.    Have you done any research with regard to
16   the period of time necessary for the STAs to achieve
17   50 parts per billion?
18       A.    No.
19       Q.    Other than the work you reviewed by Brown
20   and Caldwell, any other presentations to SAGE, have
21   you done any research as to the general cost
22   comparison between the alternatives considered to
23   STAs?
24       A.    No.
25       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
                                                 326

 1   the chemical precipitation of the water being
 2   discharged from the EAA would result in an issue of
 3   marsh suitability of that water?
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  Did you understand the
 5        question?
 6             THE WITNESS:  Could you repeat it?
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    Let me make it simpler.  Under chemical
 9   treatment or chemical precipitation, are those the
10   same interchangeably used terms or am I using an
11   inappropriate term by saying chemical treatment?
12       A.    I believe there are two slightly different
13   variations on chemical treatment.  One of them I
14   believe is called chemical filtration, and I believe
15   the other one has been termed by various parties
16   chemical precipitation.  Chemical treatment is the
17   general approach.
18             It depends on what you do with the
19   coagulated materials, how you remove the flocculent
20   from the treated water.  There are several different
21   options that they get, different terms applied to
22   them.
23       Q.    Which approach have you considered as an
24   alternative to STAs?
25       A.    We heard, I believe, proponents of both at
                                                 327

 1   SAGE and in the various other meetings that -- where
 2   these have been discussed.  I can't remember which
 3   party.  I believe Flosun Company had Champion for
 4   some period of time.  I believe it was chemical
 5   filtration.  And I believe other groups had talked
 6   about another approach for actually separating out
 7   the coagulated materials.
 8             I believe the co-op was also talking about
 9   using the marsh as an ecoreactor for removing the
10   flocculent material.  But I never heard a
11   presentation from them, although apparently they were
12   at some point considering making a presentation on it
13   after seeing that presentation.
14       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
15   the water that has been subjected to chemical
16   treatment, using both methodologies you just
17   described or either of them, would be marsh suitable
18   for the EPA marshes?
19       A.    I believe there are legitimate questions
20   about the ionic composition of that water after it
21   has been separated or the flocculent materials have
22   been separated out from that water.
23             I believe there to be some detail
24   consideration about whether or not that new ionic
25   balance that would result from those coagulation
                                                 328

 1   processes is compatible with the requirement that
 2   there be no imbalance to fauna and flora.
 3       Q.    Have you done any research or
 4   experimentation as to whether or not the marsh water
 5   or water subject to chemical treatment would be marsh
 6   suitable?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    On what do you base your opinion that there
 9   is a issue as to whether or not the water subjected
10   to chemical treatment would be marsh suitable?
11       A.    My general understanding that the character
12   of a water shed produces a certain character of fauna
13   and flora in it.  That the overall long-term
14   character of water, whether it be a hard water system
15   or soft water system or different variations within
16   those general categories, when you start to change
17   the ionic balance and concentration or relative
18   constituent in the water column that, in my opinion,
19   determines the types of fauna and flora in that water
20   shed.
21             When you start to make changes there is
22   some reason to look closely at whether or not the
23   changes will be sufficient to alter the naturally
24   occurring microorganisms and on up.
25       Q.    Are you aware of any studies that have
                                                 329

 1   addressed the issue of whether chemically treated
 2   waters are suitable for wetland marshes, fresh water
 3   wetland marshes?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    Will you be providing expert opinion at the
 6   final hearing as to whether or not the water
 7   subjected to chemical treatment would be suitable for
 8   the Everglades marshes?
 9       A.    I do not expect to based on my
10   understanding.
11             MS. PONZOLI:  Counsel, to be fair, I don't
12        think he would offer any more than he is giving
13        you here.  If he did --
14             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I'm sorry, I really don't
15        understand what you said.
16             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm saying he might offer at
17        trial what he has answered your questions at
18        this time.  I'm saying no more than that.  He
19        has given you the sum and substance, but I don't
20        want you to think he won't be available to
21        answer the same questions.  Were I to put that
22        question to him at trial, he gives me
23        essentially the same answer.  I don't want you
24        saying you said he wasn't going to say this.
25             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Well, under the same -- if
                                                 330

 1        he starts doing research or reviewing additional
 2        materials on this matter, then we would want to
 3        have an opportunity to discuss it further with
 4        him.
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  Absolutely.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    Just a final question on that, so I can
 8   understand what you believe to be the major factors
 9   impacting your determination that SDA is a more
10   appropriate remedy than chemical treatment.
11             If the marsh readiness issue was resolved
12   such that the waters were deemed to be appropriate or
13   ready for the Everglades marshes, would your opinion
14   as to the STAs being the preferable remedy remain the
15   same?
16       A.    I think that they would still be the issue.
17   And I think largely the remaining issue would be the
18   relative cost and the other environmental concerns,
19   if there are any, with the sludge, containment, that
20   kind of thing.
21             I guess my opinion has been that chemical
22   precipitation, if it were not subjected to the larger
23   bypass difficulty and the ionic composition
24   difficulty and what I suspect are financial
25   deficiencies in terms of their overall costs, once
                                                 331

 1   you re-estimate the entire cost and compare it, I
 2   think treatment may not be as competitive, actually,
 3   as STAs.
 4             Those are the factors, those three factors
 5   are the ones that undermine my endorsement of STA.
 6       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether the
 7   STAs would be the appropriate means of achieving
 8   long-term phosphorous reduction goals for the
 9   Everglades Protection Area?
10       A.    My opinion is that that probable level of
11   outflow would be more difficult to achieve in the STA
12   design based on what we know at this point.
13             I believe the opportunity to do research in
14   the ENR and in the early constructed STAs, I think
15   they will have to be phased in the early ones.  If
16   you study the operation and do research on the
17   optimization of STAs, that may tell you whether or
18   not you will be able to achieve lower levels.
19             It would in my mind not be demonstrable
20   that lower levels can be achieved based on the
21   database that exists presently, which leads one to
22   consider for the longer term levels those solutions
23   to those issues on chemical treatment or some
24   combination of chemical treatment and STAs or other
25   technologies if they become available.
                                                 332

 1       Q.    Dr. Soukup, have you been involved at all
 2   in addressing the problems associated with Florida
 3   Bay?
 4       A.    To some extent as research director I was
 5   involved after I arrived in '89 for a period of a
 6   couple of years, yes.
 7       Q.    Are the current ecological or environmental
 8   problems occurring in Florida Bay the result of
 9   excessive nutrients delivered from the Water
10   Conservation Areas?
11       A.    I'm of the opinion that the problems are
12   not related.
13       Q.    What is the primary problem, then, in your
14   opinion caused in Florida Bay?
15       A.    I see Florida Bay as a system that suffers
16   from some human induced problems and possibly showing
17   some natural changes.  And my general assessment is
18   the reduction of fresh water flowing into Florida Bay
19   from the eastern panhandle region at the Taylor
20   Slough water shed is generally the most serious human
21   induced problem.
22       Q.    Will the modified water delivery, GDM,
23   address that problem of the water deliveries to
24   Florida Bay?
25       A.    I think to a small extent it will have some
                                                 333

 1   impact.  I think the larger amounts of water which
 2   will eventually be required to restore the Shark
 3   Slough system will have some impact on Florida Bay.
 4   I believe the Taylor Slough water shed restoration
 5   project, which is also ongoing, will have perhaps
 6   more significant effects on Florida Bay, more direct
 7   effects.
 8       Q.    When was it that you formally ceased your
 9   responsibility as director of research for the
10   Everglades National Park?
11       A.    January of '93, I believe.
12       Q.    I realize there was an area I never really
13   asked you about yesterday, but you are currently --
14   what is your position?
15       A.    I'm the director of the South Florida/
16   Caribbean field unit of the National Biological
17   Survey.  Do you want the rest of it?  It goes on.
18       Q.    Feel free.
19       A.    At Florida International University and the
20   University of Miami.
21       Q.    To what extent does your position of
22   director of this field unit entail your continued
23   involvement in the Everglades?
24       A.    In the Everglades restoration --
25       Q.    Movement, project.
                                                 334

 1       A.    The role of that field unit will be in
 2   providing basic research on the Everglades system
 3   from a larger perspective, a regional perspective,
 4   while still collecting information that is useful
 5   such as monitoring information useful to managers of
 6   the land management units for the entire Department
 7   of Interior.
 8       Q.    This field unit, has it started conducting
 9   any type of testing or monitoring within the
10   Everglades?
11       A.    The field unit really has just been formed
12   by the establishment of the National Biological
13   Survey as a new agency of the Department of Interior.
14             That became formal in October of '93, and
15   we have yet to receive a budget for the fiscal year
16   '94 which began in October of '93.  So we have not
17   initiated any formal studies yet.
18       Q.    Are you conducting any informal studies
19   yet?
20       A.    No.  My time seems not to stretch much
21   beyond the duties associated with beginning to set up
22   staff and initiate the unit plus the duties of TOC --
23   and assistance that I provide to the Park on the
24   lawsuit issue, obviously.
25       Q.    You have referred to at various times
                                                 335

 1   throughout this deposition to both the Duke wetland
 2   annual report and I think it was '92, the one you
 3   referred to?
 4       A.    I believe it was April of '93, if I'm not
 5   mistaken.  I believe there is a fall of '92 version
 6   that was modified and released and an April '93
 7   version I believe.  There is another version
 8   apparently in draft form but not available yet.
 9       Q.    And I believe you also referred to some of
10   the work that Curtis Richardson and the Duke wetlands
11   center has conducted.
12             Are you familiar with his -- the fertilizer
13   study that Curtis Richardson or the Duke wetlands
14   study is conducting in Water Conservation Area 2B?
15       A.    I have heard his presentation in front of
16   TOC, and I believe I have read the section in one of
17   the earlier reports, the early ones.
18             I believe he made some modification to the
19   early design, which I am not certain that I
20   understand or have seen or understood what quite he
21   has done.  I believe he is going to be invited back
22   to update the TOC on the progress at some point.  I
23   believe that's the general sense of recent meetings
24   that we had, and his report has been requested but
25   apparently not available now.
                                                 336

 1       Q.    Do you have or will you have any opinions
 2   at trial as to the appropriateness of the
 3   methodologies Curtis has used in the fertilizer
 4   study?
 5       A.    I don't know if I will be -- I don't know
 6   the context of what will be presented.  I don't know
 7   what presentations or results have come from that
 8   study.  I don't know.  I wasn't sure that would be
 9   part of your presentation or presentation of the
10   industry.
11             I have seen his approach and I may be asked
12   to provide something on it.
13       Q.    Have you reviewed the methodology used in
14   that fertilizer study?
15       A.    I have not spent any time on it since his
16   last presentation.
17       Q.    As of his last presentation, had you
18   reviewed the methodology used in the fertilizer
19   study?
20       A.    I didn't review the report that was
21   available before that presentation, correct.
22       Q.    Did that report that you reviewed provide a
23   description of methodology used in the fertilizer
24   study?
25       A.    Yes, it did.
                                                 337

 1       Q.    Do you know what the purpose of the study
 2   was for?
 3       A.    I believe it's to establish the response of
 4   the system to the levels of nutrients applied in his
 5   apparatus.
 6       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
 7   the methodology used in that study was appropriate
 8   for that purpose?
 9       A.    My opinion is that there are some potential
10   problems with the design, from what I have seen.
11       Q.    What are the potential problems with design
12   of the fertilizer study?
13       A.    If I recall, the early experimental design
14   was to add rather high levels of nutrients to his
15   experimental channels.  I believe he supervised that
16   design and has approached the evaluation of levels,
17   different levels of nutrients along gradients so that
18   he could look at the impacts of -- lower than his
19   original applications further down his gradients.
20             I have not seen the presentation of any of
21   those results and I'm interested in looking at that
22   when they are available.
23       Q.    I have a suspicion that we are talking
24   about two different experiments.  I would refer your
25   attention to the fertilizer study that -- or what I'm
                                                 338

 1   referring to as the fertilizer study that has been
 2   conducted in 2B as opposed to the dosing study.
 3       A.    I was thinking of the dosing study.
 4             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I thought so.
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  I thought so, too.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    Drawing your attention to the dosing study --
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Do you have a document you
 9        could show him, Mr. Kobelinski?
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Actually I have -- I do
11        have a copy of the annual report here.  I don't
12        know if there is really a need to do so.  I am
13        trying to get an understanding of what the
14        witness' thoughts are on it.
15             If the need arises or if at any time you
16        would like to see --
17             MS. PONZOLI:  I guess since the applicable
18        names of the various studies Dr. Richardson has
19        done are confusing --
20             THE WITNESS:  Maybe I can go ahead -- maybe
21        I can answer your question a little bit because
22        I haven't spent any time on the fertilizer
23        experiments.
24             I have only looked at the dosing, and the
25        most recent review time spent with that document
                                                 339

 1        of April '93 was on his discussion of the
 2        gradient studies that he was doing in 2A.
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Given what you just said, you would not
 5   have any opinions one way or the other with regard to
 6   the fertilizer study in 2B?
 7             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  I haven't spent any time on
 9        it to speak of at this point.
10   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11       Q.    Well, let's take care of the information.
12   Do you have an opinion with regard to Curtis
13   Richardson's fertilizer study which is being
14   conducted in 2B?
15       A.    No, I haven't at this point.
16       Q.    Let's shift our attention to the dosing
17   study.
18             So we don't rehash a fair amount, as I
19   understand it you have looked at some Duke wetlands
20   report with regard to the dosing study and also have
21   with regards to the participation in TOC have heard
22   Curtis Richardson give a presentation on that
23   particular study; correct?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    You had started to provide me with your
                                                 340

 1   opinions as to possible design problems with that
 2   dosing study, and one of which was that the early
 3   design, as you understood, was to add high levels to
 4   the channels of the dosing studies, high levels of
 5   nutrients?
 6       A.    Up to 75 parts per billion, for instance.
 7       Q.    Has that problem, to the best of your
 8   knowledge, been rectified?
 9       A.    I'm not certain.  I know there was an
10   attempt to rectify it, but I haven't looked at it in
11   terms of whether or not it seems to have cured or
12   addressed the problem that he detected.
13             His next presentation and some of the
14   results of his ability to detect gradients and so
15   forth will be of interest.
16       Q.    Are there additional design problems that
17   you have identified with regard to the dosing study?
18       A.    I'm concerned a bit about the length of his
19   channels.  I believe they are ten meters in length.
20   The closed in nature of his channels may be a
21   hydraulics problem.
22             The site selection process, I haven't seen
23   any evidence that indicates that these were pristine
24   marshes or background level marshes.  From his report
25   there seems to be some question.  He may have more
                                                 341

 1   information.  I don't know.
 2       Q.    With regard to the question of whether or
 3   not the site selected was a background or pristine
 4   site, is your concern there that you have not seen
 5   information on it or the information you have seen
 6   indicates that it may not be a pristine or background
 7   site?
 8       A.    I don't recall seeing any phosphorous for
 9   the sediments, for instance.  The language used in
10   the report was, although these levels are higher than
11   expected background, they are pristine sites.  There
12   is some question there about exactly what the
13   condition of the marsh is there.
14       Q.    Have you ever been out to the dosing site?
15       A.    I have flown over it once.
16       Q.    With regard to your concern about the
17   closed in nature of the channels, how would that be a
18   design problem for the experiment?
19       A.    I'm not sure it is, but it seems entirely
20   possible that the hydrology of a closed system
21   subject on one side, not totally closed but open on
22   one end, that might interfere with gradients.  We
23   will have to see the establishment of gradients.
24       Q.    Have you seen any data to date that would
25   justify that being a concern?
                                                 342

 1       A.    I haven't really seen -- I think his
 2   presentation last time was largely on the initiation
 3   of the experiment in early operational things.  I
 4   believe he now has enough data to look at the
 5   preliminary results.
 6       Q.    You also raised a concern as to the length
 7   of the channels.  You mentioned 10 meters.  Is that
 8   too short or too long?
 9       A.    It would seem short to establish a real
10   definitive set of gradient steps for sampling.  Ten
11   meters would seem to be perhaps too short a channel
12   to obtain that kind of resolution.
13       Q.    Is that another issue that the data will
14   bear out either one way or the other?
15       A.    I would think so.
16       Q.    Are there any other problems that you have
17   identified with regard to the design of the dosing
18   study?
19       A.    The use of a sump well in the -- as a
20   source of water for application of nutrients would
21   seem to be a possible problem.
22       Q.    In what manner?
23       A.    I think you would have to demonstrate that
24   in that order was equivalent sheet flow.
25       Q.    Is that a question of how the water is
                                                 343

 1   flowing through the channels?
 2       A.    No.  A question of whether or not it's
 3   directly comparable in an ionic composition situation
 4   and chemical attributes.
 5       Q.    Are there any other design problems you
 6   have identified?
 7       A.    Those are the ones that come to mind.
 8       Q.    Are there any other studies done by
 9   Dr. Richardson that you are familiar with?
10       A.    In the Everglades?
11       Q.    In the Everglades.
12       A.    Let me think.  I'm aware of invertebrate
13   work that is done with Dr. Rader, I believe.  I'm
14   reasonably certain.  I read a number of things as
15   they came out.
16       Q.    With regard to the invertebrate work that
17   Dr. Richardson did with Russ Rader, do you believe --
18   do you have an opinion as to whether or not the
19   methodology for that invertebrate work was
20   appropriate?
21       A.    I haven't looked at it recently, but I
22   recall there may be some questions of, I believe, the
23   sweep samples.  There might be some questions as to
24   the quantifiable nature of the sample.
25             I don't remember the details, but I believe
                                                 344

 1   there is in my mind some questions as to how samples
 2   were taken.
 3       Q.    Do you recall what that study -- the
 4   results of that study were?
 5       A.    In general terms I recall the results and
 6   the conclusions.
 7       Q.    What was your recollection of the results
 8   and conclusions?
 9       A.    I believe they concluded that the
10   enrichment process was a beneficial subsidy to the
11   environment, to the invertebrate community.
12       Q.    Do you disagree with that conclusion?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Is there a problem with the study that
15   causes a disagreement with that conclusion?
16             MS. PONZOLI:  Asked and answered, Counsel.
17             THE WITNESS:  There may be sampling
18        difficulties, but my impression is it's more in
19        the interpretation of the results.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    That's my next question.  Is it more an
22   issue of interpretation of the results collected from
23   the study?
24       A.    Results?
25       Q.    The results of the study.
                                                 345

 1       A.    Say that one more time.
 2       Q.    Let me just back it up and start from step
 3   one.
 4             Have you reviewed the results of that
 5   study, the data collected?
 6       A.    I looked at the results of the data as they
 7   were presented in the papers published.
 8       Q.    Did you draw a different conclusion from
 9   your view of the data?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    What was your conclusion?
12       A.    My conclusion was that there were changes
13   in the invertebrate community and that the
14   interpretation that that was a positive benefit to
15   the community was inappropriate.
16             If that's a sentence -- could you read back
17   my answer?
18                  (The answer referred to was thereupon
19                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    Does this get back to our discussion
22   yesterday of your opinion that merely determining
23   that there is not a decrease in diversity or
24   abundance is an insufficient means of determining
25   whether or not there is negative impact to an
                                                 346

 1   ecosystem?
 2       A.    You have to say that again.
 3       Q.    I'm trying to skip going over prior
 4   testimony.  I believe yesterday you had -- in
 5   discussing the impact of microinvertebrates, I
 6   believe you expressed an opinion generally that you
 7   need to look at more than just whether or not there
 8   is an overall increase in diversity and abundance,
 9   but rather look at the specific species that are
10   there in the natural system and what has occurred to
11   those.
12             Is that generally what you had voiced
13   yesterday?
14       A.    That's part of the problem.  I believe that
15   enrichment can be shown under some circumstances to
16   increase diversity.  Certainly it can be shown -- and
17   I think this was part of their argument, that this
18   introduction of nutrients to the Everglades was a
19   beneficial subsidy, was based on some of the animals
20   being more numerous or having faster growth rates and
21   that sort of thing.
22             My understanding of the nature of the
23   Everglades system is that the Everglades system may
24   not benefit from that kind of an enhancement, in
25   quotation marks, by introduction of excess nutrients --
                                                 347

 1   certainly if it is to remain characteristic of an
 2   Everglades habitat.
 3       Q.    Would the change in macroinvertebrates that
 4   you have just described that can occur with nutrient
 5   enrichment have a negative impact upon the higher
 6   vertebrate species?
 7             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  I would say that that is
 9        highly likely, and that some of the work in that
10        report that we just talked about in the April
11        '93 report gives me some indication that the
12        changes that they have observed in the nutrient
13        enriched versus the unenriched background sites
14        suggested to me that the invertebrate community
15        has undergone significant changes and has been
16        demonstrated by their data.
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    Are you aware of any studies which you have
19   looked at whether or not changes in the invertebrate
20   communities in the Everglades resulting from nutrient
21   enrichment have had an impact on fish or other higher
22   vertebrates?
23       A.    There is that tadpole study that we talked
24   about.  There are indications in that report that we
25   are talking about that studies have done dietary
                                                 348

 1   assessments of higher vertebrates like wading birds
 2   and species such as the fresh water shrimp or
 3   significant elements of the diet of certain wading
 4   birds.
 5             And there are probably under studies --
 6   Bill Loftus has done invertebrate work in the Park on
 7   the food web relationships, and the modification of
 8   those invertebrate communities insofar as they
 9   represent food sources for the food chain or the food
10   web, certainly changes in that community can impact
11   the higher trophic levels.
12       Q.    Are you relying upon Jim Loftus --
13       A.    Bill Loftus.
14       Q.    Are you relying upon the studies you just
15   mentioned of Bill Loftus?
16       A.    Only in the general sense of that work, I
17   believe, work he did with Lance Gunderson, work
18   that's been available for some time in depicting
19   general food web relationships.
20       Q.    Did that work that Bill Loftus do actually
21   study the changes and impacts of vertebrates in
22   nutrient enriched areas?
23       A.    No, this was fundamental work on the
24   Everglades food web in the Everglades National Park
25   central slough areas.
                                                 349

 1       Q.    Has the nutrient enrichment in the EPA had
 2   an impact upon wading birds?
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I have heard various people
 5        suggest that the areas dominated by cattails are
 6        less frequently used for foraging and nesting
 7        than other bird activities.
 8             So that the extent to which nutrients
 9        change vegetative communities and those
10        vegetative communities are less suitable for the
11        native Everglades vertebrate populations, then
12        that would be an impact.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    Do you have an idea as to what the
15   approximate reduction of the wading bird community is
16   from the pre 1880 or pre drainage Everglades to
17   today?
18       A.    The number used for the Everglades National
19   Park populations is approximately 90% reduction.
20   That number, I don't think, is hard and fast, but
21   it's an approximation.  That's fairly widely used.
22       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to what portion
23   of that approximate 90% reduction has been caused by
24   nutrient enrichment in the EPA?
25       A.    The reduction of wading bird numbers in the
                                                 350

 1   Park that is due to the effects of nutrient influx, I
 2   believe, is very small, perhaps insignificant at this
 3   point, unless there is some minor, minor, minor
 4   impact due to less habitat available in the Water
 5   Conservation Areas.
 6             But I believe that the total impact area in
 7   relation to the larger area would be certainly a
 8   small effect.
 9       Q.    Dr. Soukup, do you have an understanding as
10   to what the range of phosphorous content in the
11   rainfall is for Everglades National Park?
12       A.    My understanding stems from my familiarity
13   with the analysis done on the data taken at the
14   research center at that site we talked about earlier.
15       Q.    What is your understanding of the range of
16   phosphorus concentration in the rain water that falls
17   upon Everglades National Park?
18       A.    Well, there are two components, wet fall
19   and dry fall, and that database suggests that the wet
20   fall is quite low -- somewhere I believe between five
21   and 14 would be a reasonable range -- and that the
22   total wet plus dry volume weighted level would be in
23   the low 20's, somewhere perhaps up to 30 range, up in
24   there.
25       Q.    Will you be offering opinions as to the
                                                 351

 1   current levels of phosphorous in the wet and dry fall
 2   within Everglades National Park?
 3       A.    I don't know if I will be specifically
 4   asked to do that.  There are other sources of
 5   rainfall data for the Park, as you probably know
 6   this.  There are some long-term USGS data for the 40
 7   mile bend area that I'm aware of and some other
 8   fragments of data here and there.
 9             Those methods were quite different and the
10   technology and methodology for analyzing the sample
11   is quite different, so that database is quite
12   different.
13       Q.    Which is the more accurate, in your
14   opinion?
15       A.    In my opinion, the more recent park data,
16   which is part of the larger management district,
17   collection network, that is a much better database in
18   terms of analytical methods, collection methods and
19   generally qualitative data.
20       Q.    How long is the method you believe that's
21   more appropriate or the better method, how long has
22   that been operating?
23       A.    I believe the methods were standardized, I
24   believe, starting in the late '70s is when the method
25   started becoming more appropriately controlled.
                                                 352

 1       Q.    That's when that testing started occurring
 2   in the Park under the methodology you believe is more
 3   accurate?
 4       A.    I believe the Park's installation was
 5   somewhat later than that, early '80s.  I believe the
 6   database goes back to then, I believe.
 7       Q.    Dr. Soukup, were you involved in
 8   establishing the long-term phosphorous
 9   concentrations -- the short term and long-term
10   phosphorus concentrations for Everglades National
11   Park?
12       A.    As they appear in --
13       Q.    The settlement agreement and then as they
14   appear in the SWIM Plan.
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    What was your involvement with that?
17       A.    I was representing the Park in the matters
18   related to the litigation in the federal lawsuit.
19   There was an interest in settling out of -- before
20   the trial, and that resulted in a series of meetings
21   with members of the technical staff of the Water
22   Management District and Florida DER at that time.
23             I was the Park's representative to those
24   meetings that were of a technical nature.
25       Q.    How were the long-term -- how were the
                                                 353

 1   phosphorous limits for the Park established?
 2       A.    Phosphorous limits for the Park were
 3   established from analysis of the data provided by
 4   that long-term monitoring network set up by the Water
 5   Management District.
 6             The data for the S-12 structures and S-333
 7   were evaluated as to the long-term trends in that
 8   database, the OFW period of records and the various
 9   factors that might be responsible for the variation
10   in that data set.
11             Those analyses were done largely by Bill
12   Walker and the statisticians from the other agencies,
13   notably the water management district and I believe,
14   to some extent, DER.
15       Q.    Are those long-term numbers or calculations
16   reflected in the SWIM Plan?
17       A.    The results of those?
18       Q.    Yes.
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Where would we locate those, where would we
21   find those in the SWIM Plan?
22       A.    In the SWIM Plan I believe they are
23   identified as the long-term limits for the refuge in
24   the Park.
25       Q.    Is that Appendix E or a different place in
                                                 354

 1   there, do you recall?
 2       A.    I don't know where that would be.  I would
 3   imagine that would be probably in all three.
 4             Appendix E has the figures.
 5       Q.    Why don't we flip to that.  Does that have
 6   the numbers itself?  I was looking at it the other
 7   day.
 8       A.    I believe the numbers are in there.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Which page are you on?
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I'm on E.
11             MS. PONZOLI:  E what?
12             MR. KOBELINSKI:  E-12.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    Does Appendix E to the SWIM Plan reflect
15   the methodology used to establish the phosphorous
16   limits for the Everglades National Park?
17       A.    I believe so.
18       Q.    Where would we turn to in that appendix for
19   that determination?
20       A.    What particular page?
21       Q.    Yes.  I mean, this is both park and the
22   refuge.  I want to make the record clear, that's all.
23       A.    I believe that it starts on page E-2 --
24   actually on E-1 and goes through the results on
25   page 1 based on calculations from that database, and
                                                 355

 1   then results of the OFW base line year is on page 1,
 2   and then the rationale is given on the following
 3   pages for the interim limits, which are given on E-7
 4   in graphic form.
 5             The long-term limits for Shark River Slough
 6   on page E-9 and limits for Taylor Slough on E-13, and
 7   then picks up on page E-16 discussing the derivation
 8   of phosphorous limits for Loxahatchee.
 9       Q.    Okay.  You were not involved in the
10   derivation of phosphorous limits for Loxahatchee,
11   were you?
12       A.    Well, the group that met looked at both
13   sets of limits.  So I was involved to the extent that
14   I had some participation in that group as it derived
15   those two sets of limits.
16       Q.    What is the interim limit for the
17   phosphorous concentrations for waters discharging
18   through the S-12s?
19       A.    That is a variable limit, if I remember
20   correctly.  For the interim limits, it ranged from
21   nine to 14 parts per billion, dependent upon the
22   nature of the water year.  Drier years generally in
23   the database had that higher range and wetter years
24   in the database reflected the lower phosphorous
25   concentration.
                                                 356

 1       Q.    Was any data used from interior marsh
 2   stations or water quality for establishing the
 3   limits?
 4       A.    The interior marsh stations were evaluated
 5   as part of the process for understanding the
 6   background levels of the natural system and used as a
 7   general touch tone on what the normal levels for
 8   interior marshes should be, could be.
 9       Q.    Who did the evaluation of the interior
10   marsh stations and data?
11       A.    All of the data were evaluated by the
12   statisticians that we brought in for that purpose.
13             The same data set was available to all of
14   the statisticians and they all worked on them at
15   different times in the process.
16       Q.    Would those statisticians include
17   Dr. Walker?
18       A.    Dr. Walker was one.  Dr. Robson was
19   another.  Dr. Shih, was another that was involved.  I
20   believe the District had one or two others coming in
21   at different times.
22       Q.    Who made the final determination as to what
23   the interim limit, the range, the internal limit
24   would be?
25       A.    Who made the final determination?
                                                 357

 1       Q.    The range of nine to 14 parts per billion,
 2   what the range would be for the S-12s?
 3       A.    That was a general group decision based on
 4   the information provided by the statisticians to the
 5   technical people present throughout the process.
 6       Q.    Doctor, the group that you just referred
 7   to, who was in that group that made that decision?
 8       A.    The technical group generally consisted of
 9   Tony Federico and Tom MacVicar, although Tom MacVicar
10   was not always present.  He was present on and off
11   throughout the process.
12             Mark Maffei representing Loxahatchee.
13   Richard Harvey represented DER.  And occasionally
14   Frank Nearhoof.  And myself.  I believe those are the
15   representatives of the four major groups.  They are
16   the ones that consistently were there.  Then there
17   were occasional technical people brought in from the
18   District's staff or the District's consultants, and
19   federal consultants as information was deemed
20   necessary by the group.
21       Q.    Who are the participants in the decision or
22   the setting of the interim limits for the S-12s?
23       A.    The participants in the decision on the
24   technical adequacy of those numbers were the
25   representatives from the four major agencies.
                                                 358

 1       Q.    Would that be Federico, MacVicar, Maffei,
 2   Harvey, Nearhoof and yourself?
 3       A.    I believe that's the group.
 4       Q.    You had mentioned that Mr. MacVicar was not
 5   always present, that's why I was wondering.
 6       A.    Well, the people were in and out.  Tom
 7   MacVicar was in and out but played a major role in
 8   the -- determining the approach to setting the
 9   limits.
10       Q.    With regard to the interim limits, what was
11   the purpose of those limits?
12             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.  I don't
13        understand the question.  Do you understand the
14        question?
15             THE WITNESS:  Are you asking why there were
16        interim limits as opposed to final limits?
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    No.  Was there a goal to achieve the
19   interim limits, for instance, ecosystem restoration,
20   protection, et cetera?
21             What was the goal to be achieved by the
22   interim list?
23       A.    The approach was to identify the needs of
24   the system and to identify the OFW numbers for the
25   system, the numbers guaranteed under state water
                                                 359

 1   quality law for Loxahatchee and Everglades National
 2   park, which are OFWs.
 3             That limit is described in terms of a
 4   process for calculating it in the water quality log,
 5   and we followed that as a touch tone for achieving
 6   long-term limits.
 7             The construction of interim limits was to
 8   provide an earlier target that was deemed achievable
 9   with concerted and maximum effort.
10       Q.    What was the approach for the long-term
11   limits?
12       A.    The long-term limits were targeted towards
13   the OFW limits as could be derived from the
14   databases.
15       Q.    With regard to the 9 to 14 numbers, would
16   exceedance of those limits by a factor of one or two
17   parts per billion have an impact upon the system?
18       A.    That is a question that received a lot of
19   attention.  The position of the Park was that we were
20   receiving in 1978 and 1979 water, I believe -- I
21   think it says here six parts per billion.  I believe
22   it says here six parts per billion, somewhere in that
23   range, six or seven or eight, based on the data that
24   were collected.
25       Q.    E-6 may be of assistance.  I believe that
                                                 360

 1   would be of assistance.
 2       A.    Yes.  It looks like in '78 about seven
 3   parts per billion, roughly.  That level, that level
 4   is what the Park was entitled to under state law
 5   insofar as we could determine.  We felt that on a
 6   technical basis we could defend a range of numbers
 7   reflecting the water year since the subsequent
 8   database showed some variation with annual rainfall
 9   levels.  So that we felt it was a fair approximation
10   of the OFW number, which we were entitled to use the
11   entire database rather than just one year.  It seemed
12   a more ecologically appropriate approach.
13             Now, using the whole database raised a
14   problem with obviously detectable influences,
15   especially in S-12C and D, of high nutrient canal
16   water as well as the S-333 waterway was higher in
17   nutrient concentration.
18             So in the interim, we had Bill Walker
19   evaluate the long-term database and statistically
20   determine, sort out what seemed to be a trend being
21   related to the increasing delivery of water from the
22   Everglades Agricultural Area.
23             Certainly we have data from those
24   structures and there are trends of those structures
25   of an increase in concentration over the period of
                                                 361

 1   records and an indication of trends in the S-12
 2   structures, certainly most pronounced in S-12C and D.
 3             Bill Walker did an exhaustive analytical
 4   effort aimed at detrending the database, subtracting
 5   out the changes observable and reflective according
 6   to his analysis of the increasing amounts delivered
 7   to the water shed during those years.  And also
 8   sorting out the residual changes based on an annual
 9   pattern of slightly higher levels in dry years and
10   slightly lower levels in wet years.
11             So we used that analysis to come up with a
12   free estimate of variability and used that as better
13   approximation of the guaranteed OFW figure.
14       Q.    What does the interior marsh station data
15   show as the range of water quality in pristine areas?
16             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
17             THE WITNESS:  The water quality levels in
18        those unimpacted sites insofar as we could
19        determine in unimpacted sites were normally
20        below ten and often somewhere between four and
21        ten.  Generally six to eight would be a
22        reasonable estimate of background levels as
23        reflected in most databases.
24   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25       Q.    How did those numbers influence the interim
                                                 362

 1   standards other than just as a reference point?
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 3             THE WITNESS:  They were taken as a
 4        reference point and -- as were the levels of the
 5        S-12A and B during the period of record for the
 6        OFW, which was very equivalent to the marsh
 7        background samples.
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    Do you have any documentation of the
10   considerations and analysis establishment of these
11   interim numbers?
12       A.    What documentation I have was turned over
13   in that previous set of materials, turned over a year
14   ago.
15       Q.    Just so I understand, you turned over your
16   notes or any other documentation you had with regard
17   to the settlement negotiations to the extent that it
18   pertains to either interim or long-term phosphorus
19   concentrations?
20       A.    Correct, in that last production which was,
21   I believe, about a year ago.
22       Q.    Now, with regard to the -- what is the
23   long-term range, long-term phosphorous range?
24       A.    It's found, I believe, on page E-9.  It's
25   roughly, I think, about 8 to 13 as the 10% rejection
                                                 363

 1   level.  There is a difference here.  We are looking
 2   to reach a level of somewhere around 7 to 11, it
 3   looks like, about in that range with a significance
 4   of 10% rejection limit.  Slightly above that.  So
 5   that the limits would be that higher level.  I
 6   believe it looks like about 8 to 13.
 7       Q.    When you say 10% rejection limit, what --
 8   what are the limits for the S-12s, 10% rejection
 9   limit or the lower numbers?
10       A.    The actual limit is the upper line.  In
11   other words, anything falling outside of that line
12   would be a violation of the limit.  That's a 10%
13   confidence around the target, which is the long-term
14   compliance mean.
15       Q.    That's around nine and a half to 14?
16       A.    Something like that, yes.
17       Q.    What does that say -- I was looking at the
18   interim.
19       A.    It's not too far different, but the
20   long-term is on E-9.
21       Q.    About seven and a half to 13,
22   approximately?
23       A.    Roughly.
24       Q.    What exactly was the documentation you had
25   from the settlement negotiations relating to the
                                                 364

 1   phosphorous concentration limits for the Park?
 2       A.    I don't remember the details of the files.
 3   There were probably some drafts, if they were
 4   retained, of the different versions of the
 5   appendices.  Whatever memos and notes that were kept
 6   are in there.
 7             I don't remember exactly what's in there,
 8   but those files were turned over.
 9       Q.    With regard to the -- let's take the
10   interim limits 9 to 14.
11             Do you have any evidence that indicates
12   that a range from, for instance, 10 to 15 would have
13   any negative impact or any impact upon the Park's
14   ecosystem?
15       A.    The approach to those kinds of
16   discriminations was to require long-term research of
17   the dosing microcosms and monitoring nature to
18   determine the actual impact level of the different
19   nutrient concentrations to define those kinds of
20   changes between slight variations and levels.
21             I believe the approach was that these
22   levels were approximations of what the system was
23   receiving and ostensibly requires, since it is tuned
24   or evolved under those conditions, and that any
25   refinement of that would be done by research so that
                                                 365

 1   the class three standard when defined would actually
 2   provide the protection against significant changes in
 3   fauna and flora.
 4       Q.    I understand the approach you used.  Do you
 5   have an opinion as to whether or not a range from 10
 6   to 15 would have negative impacts, interim range of
 7   10 to 15?
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  It has been asked and
 9        answered.  He gave you a lengthy answer to the
10        same question.  I don't think he can improve on
11        the answer.
12             THE WITNESS:  The response data for
13        different levels of nutrient input of that fine
14        a magnitude were not available to answer that
15        kind of question.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Based upon current ecosystem studies as
18   opposed to statistical analysis of loads or flows
19   through the S-12s, is there a number at which you
20   would offer an opinion there would be no negative
21   impacts to the ecosystem?
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Asked and answered I think
23        several times over the last several days.
24             THE WITNESS:  I believe that when you begin
25        to introduce nutrients of higher levels than
                                                 366

 1        normal and you have a graduation of impacts on
 2        the system, it would be necessary to look
 3        experimentally at the response of the system.
 4             To answer your question of what exact level
 5        can be delivered to the system without
 6        significantly changing it, that's the class
 7        three related research program that was included
 8        in the settlement agreement.
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    I understand the need for additional
11   research.  I'm saying based upon current research, is
12   there a number at which you believe, based upon
13   current research, there would be no impact to the
14   system?
15             MS. PONZOLI:  Asked and answered.
16             THE WITNESS:  I would say that I don't
17        really have any adequate amount of information
18        to offer a number or to defend a number.
19             And in the absence of that, for a system
20        that is to be protected and preserved for the
21        long-term, a good approximation of that number
22        in the interim, until that information is
23        experimentally determined, would be the
24        background levels or an approximation of the
25        background levels which appear to be fairly
                                                 367

 1        consistent with the OFW obligation to the Park.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    Was there, in your opinion, in the natural
 4   System -- let's use pre 1880 as a benchmark -- a
 5   gradient from north to south in the concentration of
 6   phosphorous in the water, surface water?
 7       A.    As we discussed earlier, I believe that the
 8   impact in the northern part of the system probably
 9   had some associated nutrient loadings that may
10   certainly have been higher than further down in the
11   system.
12             If in fact Okeechobee was more of
13   mesotropic in it's earlier history, then that, as a
14   source of that downward graduate flow, would have
15   established such a gradient.
16       Q.    Do you believe that there is any type of a
17   gradient in the deposition, both wet fall and dry
18   fall, from the lake on down south in the natural pre
19   1880 system?
20       A.    I don't know of any reason why that would
21   occur.
22       Q.    Do you believe fires were more prevalent in
23   the northern portion of the system?
24       A.    Keep in mind that you had a variety of
25   dents and elevations, and that was both areas.  And
                                                 368

 1   certainly the extent to which those areas were dried
 2   out seasonally would determine the occurrence of
 3   fire.
 4             What the net impact of that or the net
 5   ratio of fires in the north versus the south are, I
 6   don't know.
 7       Q.    Are you familiar at all with what the water
 8   quality is in pristine or background areas in Water
 9   Conservation Area 2A?
10       A.    My understanding is that it's reasonably
11   similar to the range -- the last number that I
12   remember seeing was in Curtis Richardson's -- I
13   believe that was somewhere around less than ten,
14   somewhere around six to eight, something like that.
15       Q.    I believe yesterday you had stated that the
16   pristine areas of the refuge were similar to the Park
17   but on the higher end, is that accurate?
18       A.    The Loxahatchee system is a little bit
19   distinct in a number of ways.  It's more acidic water
20   body and has, I believe, higher sediment background
21   levels and seems to be slightly richer in phosphorus.
22             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Let's take a quick break.
23        It's 4:00.
                                                 369

 1                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
 2                  after which the following proceedings
 3                  were had:)
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    How were the time periods for the interim
 6   and long-term standards established?
 7       A.    The time periods for their achievement?
 8       Q.    Right.
 9       A.    It was based on what was considered to be
10   the earliest data possible given, technology that was
11   being considered.
12       Q.    Who provided the information, that
13   decision?
14             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
15             THE WITNESS:  I don't remember
16        specifically, but there were people coming in
17        like Chip Swindell, I believe his name was, from
18        Post, Buckley, Jirnigan & Shue, whatever that
19        company was.
20             There were people that had experience
21        constructing wetlands.  I believe there were
22        some other engineering expertise brought in, but
23        I'm not certain who it was.  And this was
24        thought to be the fastest possible, but still
25        reasonable hopefully deadline that could be
                                                 370

 1        established.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    Are you familiar with the most recent water
 4   quality data for the S-12s for the last complete
 5   water year, '92 and '93?
 6       A.    I haven't seen it, no.
 7       Q.    How do discharges from the EA, the water
 8   discharges from there impact the water quality of the
 9   water discharge at the S-12s?
10       A.    It's delivered down the L-67 canal.  There
11   is a smaller fraction that I believe comes down the
12   eastern canal route, but by and large it's delivered
13   through the L-67 canal.
14             Some water is, of course, diverted into 3A
15   and probably reaches the Park after a great deal of
16   contact with Water Conservation Area 3A and makes its
17   way through the S-12 structure or S-333 structure.
18       Q.    You had mentioned that there were -- I
19   believe you said one event of water being shunted
20   down from EAA to the Park.  When was that?
21       A.    One event?
22       Q.    An event where water was actually shunted
23   down or directed down to the Park from EAA which
24   resulted in a spike in water quality.
25       A.    I don't remember the context.  Was that
                                                 371

 1   yesterday or today?
 2       Q.    Yesterday we were talking about water
 3   quality of S-12.  You had given me ranges.  You said --
 4   perhaps it was more than one event -- where water was
 5   directed by the canal down to the S-12 from the EA.
 6       A.    Let me clarify that.  I don't quite
 7   remember what was said, but what you could generally
 8   see in the database for S-12, A, B, C, D, is more
 9   canal influenced in the C and D structure database.
10   And in plots of the data for S-12C and D, you could
11   see a great variability depending on the amount of
12   water flowing directly from L-67 into S-12C, and D.
13   It was more likely to influence those two structures
14   because of the proximity to the L-67 canal.
15       Q.    Has anyone attempted to statistically
16   determine whether there is correlation between EAA
17   discharges and water quality at the S-12s?
18       A.    Bill Walker looked at that and observed
19   similar trends, increasing trends at the EAA
20   structures and at the S-12.
21       Q.    Did you find a correlation between the
22   discharges at the -- from EAA and water quality
23   changes at the S-12s?
24       A.    I believe he did that, but I'm not certain.
25       Q.    With regard to the water that is discharged
                                                 372

 1   into the marsh, 3A, that worked down to the ENP, is
 2   that water still in need of treatment?
 3       A.    I would assume no, because the water that --
 4   say there is a structure in the canal that forces
 5   some water out of the canal coming down.  I can't
 6   remember the number of the structure.  It forces
 7   water out.
 8             There has been at least one study of the
 9   uptake characteristics of the movement of that water
10   across 3A.  And the general gist of the result of
11   that study is that the water nutrients from the canal
12   are taken up fairly quickly.
13       Q.    To what extent can the water discharge, the
14   EAA, be routed so that it does filter through the
15   Water Conservation Areas prior to passing through the
16   S-12s?
17             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't believe this witness
18        has been offered as an expert on hydrology.
19             If he can answer or chooses to answer,
20        that's his choice.  This is not what he has been
21        offered on.
22             I think it's thoroughly out of the area
23        upon which Dr. Soukup would be expected to offer
24        testimony.
25             The League or the U.S. Sugar Company's
                                                 373

 1        desire to use historical Everglades to connect
 2        water for the Park seems a wholly inappropriate
 3        line of inquiry for Dr. Soukup.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Having heard the speech, you can answer.
 6       A.    Can you repeat it?
 7       Q.    I'll have it read back.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  I really object to the
 9        characterizations of my objections as speeches,
10        Mr. Kobelinski.
11             I'm being extremely generous in this entire
12        line of inquiry.  I allowed you to go really
13        further than I honestly felt the judge said you
14        could go.  I have been very, very silent.
15                  (The question referred to was thereupon
16                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
17             THE WITNESS:  Can I answer the question?
18             I believe that it could physically be done.
19   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20       Q.    To what extent are the STAs needed to
21   provide the -- or to reach the interim water quality
22   standards at the S-12s given the management
23   opportunities to deliver water through the Water
24   Conservation Areas to the S-12s without violating
25   those standards?
                                                 374

 1             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form.
 2             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I'll withdraw that.
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    If water is delivered from EAA to the S-12s
 5   by means of filtering them across the marsh, would
 6   the water that is delivered to the S-12, in that
 7   event, meet the interim standards?
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to the form, my former
 9        objection.
10             THE WITNESS:  I believe it would be.
11   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12       Q.    To what extent are the STAs needed to meet
13   the interim standards at the Park if management
14   options exist for water delivery in a fashion that
15   would meet those standards?
16       A.    It of course depends on management
17   objectives.  And of course there are management
18   objectives for those stated properties that may
19   preclude the options that you suggest.
20             The achievement of those levels, I think,
21   is certainly possible by that avenue.  Whether or not
22   that would preclude any long-term restoration
23   objectives and results for Everglades National Park
24   by the result of that activity would be something the
25   Park would certainly be concerned about.