1

1 Division of Administrative Hearings

2 Department of Administration, State of Florida

3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and, )

4 WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

5 V ) DOAH

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3038

6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

7 Respondents. )

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )

8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

9 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH

10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

11 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

12 FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

13 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )

and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

14 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH

15 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3040

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

16 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

Volume I

18 Deposition of David Swift

19 Taken before April Y. Sapp, Court Reporter

and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at

20 large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed

by the Petitioners in the above cause.

21 - - -

Monday December 14, 1992

22 319 Clematis Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

23 9:15 - 12:35 p.m.

- - -

1 APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar

3 Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,

and New South Hope, Inc.:

4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.

215 South Monroe Street

5 Suite 350

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6 By: WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQUIRE

7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:

South Florida Water Management District

8 3301 Gun Club Road

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

9 By: RUTH CLEMENTS, ESQUIRE

10 On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:

Assistant United States Attorney

11 Southern District of Florida

155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627

12 Miami, Florida 33130-1693

By: THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE

On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:

14 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

123 South Calhoun Street

15 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

By: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE

Also Present: James Grimshaw

17 Miles M. (Bud) Smart

18 - - -

1 - - -

2 I N D E X

3 - - -

5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

6 David Swift

BY MR. HYDE 5

2 - - -

3 E X H I B I T S

4 - - -

6 NUMBER PAGE

7 EXB. NO. 1 8

8 Resume of David Swift

9 EXB. NO. 2 24

10 Technical Publication 81-5

11 EXB. NO. 3 83

12 Technical Publication 87-2

13 EXB. NO. 4 85

14 Periphyton document, 11-15-91

15 EXB. NO. 5 94

16 Ecological Indicators of Water Quality

17 in the Wetlands of S. Florida

18 EXB. NO. 6 97

19 David Swift 1987 Abstract

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 - - -

3 Thereupon,

4 David Swift,

5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

7 THE WITNESS: I do.

8 DIRECT (David Swift)

9 BY MR. HYDE:

10 Q. For purposes of the record my name is

11 William Hyde. I'm representing the Florida Sugar

12 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corporation

13 and New Hope South in proceedings on the Water

14 Management District's Everglades SWIM Plan.

15 First of all, let me ask you, is it

16 Dr. Swift?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Mr. Swift, have you ever been in a

19 deposition before?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Okay. So you pretty much know the drill

22 about how they are performed?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Okay. I would like you to note that if I

25 ask any questions that you don't understand, or if

1 they are confusing to you in any regard, please tell

2 me so and I'll try to redraft the question.

3 Otherwise, I will presume, for purposes of this

4 record, that you understand the question and you're

5 trying to be responsive to it.

6 I would also note that if any of the

7 attorneys in this room object at any time I would

8 suggest that you just stop what you're saying at that

9 point and allow the attorneys to flesh out that

10 objection. Usually it will allow you to answer the

11 question anyway, but there may be some rare

12 circumstances where your attorney in particular will

13 instruct you not to answer.

14 Mr. Swift, where are you currently

15 employed?

16 A. South Florida Water Management District,

17 West Palm Beach.

18 Q. Okay. And in what capacity are you

19 employed there?

20 A. My title is senior scientific -- I get

21 confused. We change this every year. Senior

22 Environmentalist is the title that I recall.

23 Q. And what duties and responsibilities does

24 that position entail?

25 A. Well, it varies from division to division.

1 Currently I'm project manager, for example, on the

2 Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan.

3 Q. Okay. Does it have any other

4 responsibilities at this point?

5 A. The position or my --

6 Q. Your particular role in that position as a

7 Senior Environmentalist.

8 A. Pretty much as project manager, although

9 there are other Senior Environmentalists that are not

10 project managers, obviously.

11 Q. I'd like to make an initial inquiry into

12 your educational background and I'd like you to start

13 first with your college degree.

14 Could you tell me where, when and in what

15 field you obtained that degree?

16 A. My undergraduate degree was from Adrian

17 College in Adrian, Michigan. Bachelor of Science

18 degree in zoology.

19 Q. When did you obtain that degree?

20 A. 1968.

21 Q. Did you do any undergraduate thesis in that

22 regard?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Did you obtain any honors in that position?

25 A. I don't believe so, other than belonging to

1 a biological club so to speak. You have to have a

2 certain grade point.

3 MS. CLEMENTS: Bill, we have a copy of the

4 cv. That might assist you in this.

5 MR. HYDE: It might.

6 BY MR. HYDE:

7 Q. So you were employed by ESE at one point.

8 MR. HYDE: Why don't we go ahead and attach

9 this resume to the deposition as Exhibit 1, is

10 that okay?

11 (The document was marked

12 Exb. No. 1.)

13 BY MR. HYDE:

14 Q. Mr. Swift, I'd like you to identify the

15 document that's labeled Exhibit 1.

16 A. Exhibit 1 is a resume.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. My resume.

19 Q. Okay. Is the information contained in that

20 resume a true and accurate reflection of your

21 educational and work related experience?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Okay. Let's go back now to your

24 educational background. Your resume reflects that

25 you obtained a Master of Science degree in aquatic

1 biology from Eastern Michigan University, is that

2 correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Could you tell me what your Master's thesis

5 in that regard was?

6 A. It was called, A Preliminary Study of

7 Diatoms of South Lake Michigan, January through

8 October 1972.

9 Q. What was the purpose of that study?

10 A. It was a floristic study of a freshwater

11 lake and what Eastern Michigan University does is it

12 develops a department to develop an expertise for

13 every student. For example, if you get a Master of

14 Science degree out of Eastern, you're required to be

15 a specialist in a particular area. Mine was in

16 aquatic biology with a specialty in phycology. Other

17 people, for example, would graduate with a specialty

18 in invertebrate taxonomy; for example, systems

19 ecology or fisheries research, those kinds of things.

20 Q. What do you mean by the phrase, "a

21 floristic study"?

22 A. It's a study of the species of algae that

23 were present in the lake.

24 Q. Okay. What was the nature of some of the

25 courses that you took in that Master's program, if

1 you could give me a notion of what kind of courses

2 were taken by you in order to obtain that specialized

3 post graduate degree?

4 A. There -- first of all, there was a general

5 phycology course that I took that was kind of a

6 survey of algae. There is a survey of the -- I think

7 aquatic vascular plants. There's an ichthyology

8 course. There was a course in statistics. There was

9 a course in -- I believe I took biochemistry and

10 entomology, environmental chemistry. There was

11 several special courses, I guess. One was

12 evolutionary biology. I'm starting to get foggy now.

13 Q. I'm just trying to get a general picture of

14 what it is.

15 A. Sure. I received a National Science

16 Foundation grant in the summer of -- I think it was

17 1971, I believe. Maybe 1970 for Central Michigan

18 University and that was a summer course, basically

19 again, in phycology and limnology and invertebrate

20 studies at Beaver Island, which is a biological

21 station for Central Michigan University.

22 Q. Did you say vertebrate or invertebrate?

23 A. Invertebrate.

24 Q. When was your -- what was your first

25 position once you obtained your post graduate degree?

1 A. It was -- a fellow by the name of Hugh

2 Putnam called me in Michigan. I had been working as

3 a consultant when I was in graduate school for eco

4 something. I have forgotten. There was an Ann Arbor

5 consultant company doing -- I don't think it's on

6 there, as a matter of fact. They were doing a study

7 of the effect of outboard motors on northern lakes

8 and they were shipping samples to me and I was making

9 a little money on the side as far as a graduate

10 student. Anyways, they liked my work. There was a

11 southern company called Environmental Science

12 Engineering who was doing a southern study in

13 Gainesville looking at the effects of outboard motors

14 on Florida lakes basically. They had an EPA grant

15 and they asked if I would be interested in working

16 for Environmental Science and Engineering and, yes, I

17 said yes and moved to Gainesville, basically.

18 Q. Your resume reflects you worked from 1972

19 to 1975. Is the job summary that's reflected on your

20 resume a fair summation of the kinds of work you did

21 for ESE during that time?

22 A. Yeah. It was some project management. A

23 lot of it, though, was basically based on taxonomy of

24 algae and doing biological assessment of various

25 projects. I was the -- ESE's expert, I guess, in

1 algal studies, basically.

2 Q. Why did you leave the employ of ESE?

3 A. ESE had several I guess what you would call

4 purges. I notice that this gentleman is from

5 Breedlove & Associates. I was hired by Hugh Putnam,

6 Mr. Breedlove I think worked for Biotest I think at

7 the time from Chicago. Anyways, ESE was primarily 12

8 professors from the university and they had a very

9 small operation and they were expanding rapidly and

10 Biotest bought them out. I was basically brought in

11 to take Dr. Putnam's place. I liked working with

12 Hugh. He was a very good limnologist and he went to

13 Water and Air Research and he asked if I would be

14 interested in moving over to Water and Air Research.

15 Q. Water and Air Research is also located in

16 Gainesville?

17 A. Right. On Archer Road. Same kinds of

18 responsibilities; almost exact same job, actually.

19 Q. Okay. So would the job summary that's

20 reflected on your resume for your period of time at

21 WAR, Inc. be reasonably accurate?

22 A. Right. I had done a number of

23 environmental assessments, that sort of thing. I

24 actually got my job at the District through that

25 company. I was doing consulting work for South

1 Florida on Lake Okeechobee. That's how they were

2 interested in bringing me down to South Florida Water

3 Management District.

4 Q. Okay. In 1977 you left WAR and moved to

5 the South Florida Water Management District. Why did

6 you leave that earlier position?

7 A. Water and Air Research?

8 Q. Right.

9 A. I believe that -- I believe I could not see

10 missing -- I would get too much farther in that

11 particular organization. It was, again, in

12 Gainesville. A lot of consulting companies

13 originally start out with 10 or 12 professors who are --

14 basically it was their tax write off kind of thing

15 and they were not a very aggressive company. They

16 were not expanding and I didn't see a long term

17 future there. I was kind of interested in looking at

18 some different, I guess, types of work, I think, in

19 South Florida and I interviewed for that job.

20 Q. Okay. In 1977 your resume reflects that

21 you moved to the South Florida Water Management

22 District in the capacity as a Research

23 Environmentalist.

24 Is the job summary set forth in your resume

25 a fair description of what your duties were --

1 A. I believe so.

2 Q. -- at that time?

3 First category indicates you were project

4 manager of water quality/periphyton bio-monitoring

5 research programs in the Everglades Water

6 Conservation Areas at Lake Okeechobee, that you were

7 a technical writer for District environmental/water

8 quality assessment studies and the District expert in

9 the taxonomy and ecology of periphyton and

10 phytoplankton communities in the Florida Everglades

11 and Lake Okeechobee.

12 Did you have any other responsibilities

13 beyond those that I just described?

14 A. None that I can think of.

15 Q. Okay. Your resume reflects that you were a

16 research environmentalist for the District from 1977

17 to 1988. Did -- at any time during that period did

18 you obtain promotions or the like that would reflect

19 a higher status within the organization?

20 A. I think in -- it's hard for me to answer

21 because we redefined what an environmental scientist

22 is during that period of time, so I can't remember if

23 I became a Senior Environmentalist in 1988 or not.

24 Q. Okay. Actually --

25 A. Close to that.

1 Q. I was asking you about what happened

2 between 1977 and 1988. Were there any promotions

3 during that time?

4 A. Yeah. I think I came in as a 2. I think I

5 was promoted to a Environmentalist 3 and those

6 categories don't exist any more, but that's what I'm

7 trying to say is that we had an Environmentalist

8 Entry Level 1, then they had a 2 and 3. I think I

9 came in as a 2 and I was promoted to a 3. There was

10 a 4th category, but before I had a chance even to get

11 that they changed the whole job description of

12 environmentalist, basically.

13 Q. Was there any significance in that

14 categorization other than say a salary difference

15 between Category 1, 2, 3?

16 A. I think there's more responsibility as far

17 as project management, I believe, is what it was

18 about. There are also some experience, I think,

19 experience factors; being there five years, that sort

20 of thing.

21 Q. Were you a project manager as a Category 2

22 project manager?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What's the difference between Category 1,

25 Category 2 or Category 3?

1 A. Hard to tell. I think as far as

2 Environmental Scientist 2 or Environmental Scientist

3 3, roughly I remember that it was something about

4 experience. I think having so many years of

5 experience at the District, I believe. There are

6 probably some other things, but I honestly can't

7 remember.

8 Q. Okay. Your resume reflects that from 1989

9 to 1992 you've been Senior Environmental Scientist

10 and Technical Editor for the Planning Department of

11 the District and it further reflects what kinds of

12 work you've done during that time. Again, is that a

13 fair reflection --

14 A. Uh huh.

15 Q. -- of your work responsibilities during

16 that period of time?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Who currently do you answer to in the

19 hierarchy of the Water Management District? Who's

20 your supervisor?

21 A. My supervisor is a gentleman by the name of

22 Terry Clark. He's my direct supervisor. He's a

23 supervising professional.

24 Q. Okay. What's the program that he's in

25 charge of?

1 A. Um, he's a supervisor within what we call

2 Upper District Planning Division.

3 Q. Okay. What is the Upper District Planning

4 Division? Is that a geographic locale --

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. -- or does that have some other

7 significance?

8 A. Yes. It's -- the Upper District Planning

9 really is a misnomer. What it means is it would

10 include Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee and the Lower

11 West Coast of Florida. It would not include what we

12 call the Lower East Coast which would be the Water

13 Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park, Florida

14 Keys.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. So it is geographical.

17 Q. It seems that a lot of your work, at least

18 in the context of these proceedings, though, relates

19 to the Lower East Coast, yet you're in the Upper

20 Planning District. Is there any explanation for that

21 seeming discrepancy?

22 A. I don't think it's a discrepancy. I had a

23 choice I think a couple of years ago to do some

24 different things, basically. I had worked in

25 Everglades I think almost 12 years or 13 years,

1 worked with it, so to speak. I was interested in

2 some other issues. Lower West Coast, for example, is

3 an area that has not had a whole bunch of attention

4 as far as water management and it has a number of

5 problems. It's interesting from the fact that, you

6 know, it's not full of canals and has a lot of

7 pristine areas left. I was kind of interested in

8 being involved in development of water management

9 plans for Corkscrew Swamp, Big Cypress Basin, those

10 kinds of things.

11 Q. Do you currently have any responsibilities

12 or ongoing responsibilities for the Everglades SWIM

13 planning process other than to serve as an expert

14 witness in these proceedings?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Do you have any ongoing studies that relate

17 to the purpose of these Everglades SWIM Plan

18 proceedings?

19 A. No.

20 Q. So all of the work upon which you're going

21 to base your opinions has been done --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- is that a fair statement?

24 My notes reflect that you've been

25 designated by the Water Management District to

1 testify regarding the following subject matters:

2 Periphyton taxonomy and community structure; changes

3 in and causes of change in periphyton communities in

4 the Everglades; impact of nutrients on periphyton;

5 assessment of various scientific studies relating to

6 water quality and algal species and eutrophic algal

7 species in the Everglades Protection Area.

8 Is that a fair summation of the opinions or

9 testimony you'll be giving in this proceeding?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I'd like you to take me through each of

12 those general subject matters.

13 The first is periphyton taxonomy and

14 community structure. What do you -- what's going to

15 be the substance of that testimony?

16 A. Don't quite understand the question. If

17 you could --

18 Q. Well, have you spoken to your attorneys

19 about the kind of testimony they expect you to offer

20 during this proceeding?

21 A. No.

22 Q. So you don't have any idea what they meant

23 when they said you would be testifying regarding

24 periphyton taxonomy and community structure?

25 A. Not specifically as far as is there a

1 specific amount of information that we would like to

2 present to you. I think I'm here to basically answer

3 questions on the documents that have been produced by

4 the District over the years.

5 (Discussion held off the record.)

6 MR. HYDE: Tom, is that your understanding

7 as to what the witnesses are supposed to be

8 testifying to in terms of expressing opinions

9 that they are going go offer at a final hearing?

10 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, on the record, the

11 reason I asked to go back on the record is that

12 you're touching on a matter that may affect the

13 course of discovery for many witnesses, not

14 solely this one, so I can't answer that question

15 in the way that would make any sense to anybody

16 reading this record unless you put on the record

17 your long statement to the witness and to

18 counsel for the District because that's the

19 predicate for your question. Then I'll try and

20 answer it.

21 MR. HYDE: Fair enough. Let me see if I

22 remember all I said.

23 There has been an ongoing issue or problem

24 as to the opinions that witnesses are to be

25 offering during deposition and that they would

1 intend to offer during a final hearing in this

2 matter.

3 It has been my understanding that the

4 witnesses were expected to be able to, in

5 effect, designate the -- or identify the

6 opinions that they would be testifying on and

7 the factual bases for those opinions and, in

8 fact, I think the U.S. has -- that is the United

9 States Attorney's Office has itself suggested

10 that this was the appropriate way in which to

11 conduct discovery and that witnesses should be

12 ready to testify as to specific opinions and

13 factual bases for those opinions and not just

14 simply come in and say, well ask me any

15 questions you want about my work and I'll tell

16 you the answers to them.

17 Tom, is that a fair reflection of your

18 understanding of what witnesses are to be doing

19 in the course of these depositions?

20 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think I can agree

21 with the characterization. I think the problem

22 that you alluded to off the record earlier in

23 which you've sort of recited now regarding an

24 earlier question in a deposition which was not

25 satisfactory to the United States was based, in

1 part, as well on the fact that no final opinions

2 had been formed by that witness.

3 As I understand this witness' position, the

4 witness has stated that he's prepared to answer

5 questions on any of his work and presumably, if

6 you direct the questions to the witness in the

7 areas of designated testimony, he would give you

8 opinions.

9 I don't think it's proper for someone

10 necessarily to walk into a deposition and ask

11 for a narrative summary of the life and times of

12 a witness, certainly their professional life and

13 times and that's what you tried to do.

14 So I think the witness was correct. You

15 would never be permitted to elicit a narrative

16 summary of everything a witness might or might

17 not know at a hearing and it presents an

18 impossible burden for a witness who is himself

19 not schooled in the intricacies of the case to

20 necessarily render for you on the basis of a

21 generalized description of their expert

22 testimony everything they're going to testify

23 to.

24 MR. HYDE: Okay.

25 MR. FITZGERALD: On the other hand, I think

1 the witness last indicated, or would, he has

2 expert opinions and would certainly give those

3 to you. So I think it's how you approach the

4 problem.

5 The United States has been repeatedly

6 frustrated in focusing its experts on the case

7 at hand because of the lack of final opinions or

8 conclusions on the part of any of the League's,

9 for example, expert witnesses, most of the

10 Co-op's expert witnesses and I think except

11 perhaps for one expert witness on the part of

12 the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association,

13 they would not have final opinions either, so --

14 MR. HYDE: I think --

15 MR. FITZGERALD: That's a long term

16 problem.

17 MR. HYDE: I think I would disagree with

18 your editorial comments but I just want to make

19 sure we all are operating under the same

20 standard and that our witnesses will be not held

21 to a different standard at such time as they are

22 deposed. That's all I wanted to know.

23 MR. FITZGERALD: You need to take that up

24 with -- if you're unsatisfied or dissatisfied

25 with how DER's experts may respond to

1 deposition, you know the remedy. If you're

2 dissatisfied with how the District's might, you

3 know the remedy. If you're ever dissatisfied

4 with how our witnesses designated respond, you

5 can take that up with us. If we're dissatisfied

6 with yours or Miss Ponzoli or any representative

7 of the United States is dissatisfied with the

8 expert witnesses we know the recourse for that.

9 MR. HYDE: I understand Miss Ponzoli to be

10 suggesting what I originally suggested during

11 her deposition of Dr. Russ Rader, (phonetic.) My

12 only concern at this point is not to create

13 problems but to make sure we're all operating

14 under the same understanding in mind.

15 That's enough said on the issue.

16 Would you label that Exhibit 2.

17 (The document was marked

18 Exb. No. 2.)

19 (Whereupon, Mr. Perko entered.)

20 BY MR. HYDE:

21 Q. Mr. Swift, I'd like to show you a document

22 which has been labeled Swift 2. Could you identify

23 that document for me?

24 A. This is a Technical document -- Publication

25 81-5 written in December of 1981 titled, Preliminary

1 Investigation of Periphyton and Water Quality

2 Relationships in the Everglades Conservation Areas

3 and it was -- its author is myself. It represents

4 data collected from 1978 through 1979 in Water

5 Conservation Areas 1, 2 and 3, I believe.

6 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 7 of your

7 report where you describe basically the analytical

8 methods that you employed in drafting this paper.

9 Did those methods vary from those used at

10 the time by the District to analyze water samples for

11 routine monitoring?

12 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. I'm not sure if

13 Dave understands what the routine monitoring was

14 at that time.

15 BY MR. HYDE:

16 Q. Okay. Well, let me back up for just a

17 second and see if I can rephrase it.

18 Do you know what methods were utilized by

19 the Water Management District at the time these

20 investigations were conducted to analyze water

21 samples for routine monitoring?

22 A. In general, yes.

23 Q. Okay. Did the methods that you employed in

24 preparing this paper differ from those analytical

25 methods that were commonly used by the District?

1 A. As far as the field methods for collecting

2 water samples, I believe that they were very similar

3 to what our water chemistry lab employed at that

4 time.

5 Q. What about other methods?

6 A. Could you be more specific, other, other --

7 Q. Are you aware of what is presently used or

8 approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a

9 standard method for analyzing water quality samples?

10 A. Currently, no. I do not do field work for

11 the last several years, so I'm not up to speed on

12 what the current methodology is.

13 Q. So you wouldn't know how those methods that

14 are EPA approved methods differ or are similar to

15 what you employed --

16 A. No.

17 Q. -- at that time?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Do you know whether the values that you

20 assigned for nutrient concentrations on the basis of

21 methodology can be compared with other data in the

22 District's water quality data base?

23 A. All of the samples are run through our

24 water chemistry laboratory and the limits of

25 detection were those that were ascribed to all other

1 water quality sampling throughout the District. In

2 other words, we simply collected the bottles,

3 prepared them as the Chemistry Department required

4 and we would send these samples in to the laboratory

5 and they would report the results.

6 Q. Can you give me a general description of

7 how that sampling was conducted at that time

8 beginning with your field work?

9 A. Actual collecting samples in the field?

10 Q. Yes. How did you do it? What kind of

11 utensils were used? Things along those lines.

12 A. Yes. We would -- we had a number of

13 stations that were located along a transect. We

14 visited those by airboat. When we moved to a station

15 it was very important that the airboat stop at a good

16 deal distance away from the water quality sampling

17 site because the -- there's a flocculant material,

18 organic detritus, that sort of thing that's on the

19 bottom and it's very easy, for example, for an

20 airboat wave to kick that up. So we would have to

21 stop a good deal distance from the site and basically

22 walk in. We would have to -- we had a plastic

23 sampling bucket that we rinsed three times with

24 de-ionized water and would very carefully take a

25 sample and bring it back to the boat and that -- the

1 sample then is filtered and processed according to

2 the laboratory standards right there on site. Then

3 the bottle was put into a laboratory -- or excuse me --

4 into an ice chest in the dark and they are brought

5 back to the laboratory to be processed within the

6 next day or so.

7 Q. Okay. Did you choose the transects that

8 were utilized for that study?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. How did you go about choosing those

11 transects?

12 A. We were looking at trying to get -- well,

13 if I can step back a little bit, when I first came to

14 the District I was taken out into Water Conservation

15 Area 2 by Walt Dineen. One of the, I guess, a

16 concern that he had is that the entire Water

17 Conservation Area 2 had a very thick algal mat there.

18 It was thicker than other areas across the Water

19 Conservation Areas. They were kind of concerned what

20 causes that. That was the primary reason I was

21 actually brought in. We did a number of collections

22 of algae samples and water chemistry samples and we

23 basically stumbled upon the problems of difference in

24 algal communities south of the S-10 structures and in

25 the interior. And to figure out why there are not

1 algal mats in that area and why there are other algal

2 mats in other areas we decided to take a look at

3 water quality along those transects and take a look

4 at the algal communities along there to see if

5 there's a relationship between the water quality

6 aspect and algal species composition. Therefore we

7 were looking for a gradient downstream of the S-10

8 structures to set up sampling sites and that's

9 basically how we came about it.

10 Q. Were these transect sites a uniform

11 distance apart or were there other factors that were

12 taken into consideration in establishing a given

13 site?

14 A. No. They are generally uniform, but not

15 exactly. It's a very difficult environment to work

16 in, especially back then we didn't have a navigation

17 set, sighting to figure out where we were, nor loran,

18 so, basically, we did the best we could with using

19 aerial maps that we had. It was important, we felt,

20 to have representative sites, though. Just to have

21 one site in a so called nutrient enriched area, we

22 felt we needed several sites. We also needed several

23 sites in background areas and then sites in between.

24 And that's -- from the water quality results that we

25 got we basically said, well, these areas have higher

1 nutrients than other areas and that's why we ended up

2 putting a number of sites in a nutrient enriched area

3 and sites in what I called a transitional area and

4 then establish a number of background sites. Area 2

5 is not the only place we looked at. We also did the

6 same thing in Area 1 and we also did the same thing --

7 similar things in Area 3.

8 Q. When you say Area 1, 2 and 3 are you

9 referring to the Water Conservation Areas?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. Perhaps I'm a little bit confused,

12 but I think you said that you wanted to obtain

13 representative sites and you determined what were

14 nutrient enriched sites versus unenriched sites and I

15 presume that you did that by virtue of some degree of

16 water quality sampling. So is it fair to say that

17 you did some sampling to determine what the

18 characteristics of the water were and then came back

19 and chose those sites at a later date?

20 A. In general, yes.

21 Q. Okay. I believe you said earlier that you

22 filtered the samples. Why did you filter them?

23 A. We were looking for total phosphorus which

24 came out unfiltered in the bottle. We were looking

25 at total dissolved phosphorus. That would be -- we

1 would filter that in the field. That would be total

2 dissolved phosphorus and we would also get

3 ortho-phosphorus out of another bottle. There are

4 actually three forms of phosphorus that we were

5 sampling from.

6 Q. What kind of filter did you employ?

7 A. A Millipore filter.

8 Q. Millipore?

9 A. Uh huh. It's stated on page 7.

10 Q. Describe the method for testing for

11 dissolved phosphorus or for total phosphorus or for

12 both.

13 A. For both --

14 Q. When you venture to a given site on your

15 airboat, approximately how far away did you position

16 your airboat from the actual testing site?

17 A. Well, it would vary because some sites were

18 in sloughs. Some sites were in thick sawgrass. Some

19 sites were in very thick cattails. You could get a

20 little bit closer in areas where the vegetation was

21 very thick, but the rule of thumb was to have no

22 disturbance, no wave or anything close to the site

23 and that was paramount because you didn't want to

24 kick up when sampling, you know, particulate matter

25 that you didn't want in your sample so to speak. So

1 it could be -- for example, in the 217 gauge, which

2 is a large open slough, that could be 50 feet, for

3 example, from the site and we would taxi up very

4 carefully to the edge of the slough, not get in the

5 slough, because a wave would go across the entire

6 slough. The whole area is very fragile as far as,

7 you know, kicking up material from the bottom. In

8 the nutrient enriched sites and in some thick

9 sawgrass sites you could get a little bit closer, but

10 that was the -- you're really trying very hard not to

11 have any kind of influence being there.

12 Q. You said once you had obtained the samples

13 and filtered them you placed them in an ice chest.

14 A. Uh huh.

15 Q. Was that an ice chest that was cooled or

16 was it just --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. -- or just an empty chest?

19 A. Yes. On ice.

20 Q. All right.

21 A. This was the standard practice throughout

22 the District at that time as to -- instead of using

23 mercuric chloride or other toxic substances and I

24 think for safety reasons because they process so many

25 samples, thousands of samples through the laboratory,

1 that they felt that kind of preservation was

2 something that they would rather deal with then

3 having to deal with toxic substances for

4 preservation.

5 Q. How was the -- how were those samples kept

6 cold? Was there ice in the chest?

7 A. Yes. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. I believe you stated that you got

9 those samples to your testing laboratories within one

10 to two days. Was there some purpose behind getting

11 them there that quickly?

12 A. Yes. Obviously nitrogen and phosphorus

13 values, if there were particulate matter in the

14 sample, the time -- you know, for example, like

15 bacteria or anything like that, you would want to

16 sample it as quickly as you could, have -- you

17 wouldn't want them sitting around for a week or two

18 and you certainly would want them to be processed as

19 quickly as you could. I believe our sampling usually

20 took place on Tuesdays, that way most of the samples

21 usually got processed by Thursday or Friday so you

22 are looking for -- we bring them back in the ice

23 chest, place them in the District's laboratory. They

24 have a huge cooler that we would put those in. They

25 would be stored, therefore, just before analysis.

1 Q. Generally speaking, those samples were

2 actually analyzed by the testing laboratory within

3 two days?

4 A. Uh huh.

5 Q. What do you regard as being the outer

6 limits of storing samples of that nature?

7 A. We did do some -- we did look at that

8 because that was a concern back at that time and, to

9 be honest with you, I can't recall the exact results.

10 I wish I could give it. There was a memoranda that

11 was done. There was a concern about pumping, for

12 example, not in our spot, but some other areas where

13 there was a backpumping study or so forth, so on, but

14 you'd have a lot of particulate matter in the sample

15 and I believe somebody did take a look at shelf life,

16 how long could you hold those. I'm sorry. I don't

17 know the name of the study, but the laboratory did

18 look at it. But, in general, we were trying to

19 process samples within seven days.

20 Q. Could you tell me where in your paper the

21 methodology for testing for total phosphorus is

22 described?

23 A. I don't know if the specifics are in this

24 paper. I believe it goes back to, if you take a look

25 at Water Chemistry Division, what they had in place

1 at that time, the standard methods that they were

2 using in the laboratory at that time. I don't

3 believe -- I think it's very generally referred to in

4 this paper.

5 Q. But you're sure that you, in fact, utilized

6 that methodology when testing for total phosphorus?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 18 of Exhibit

9 2. This is the area where you are engaging in a

10 statistical characterization of the data. My first

11 question is what was the limit of detection for your

12 method for testing for phosphorus?

13 A. The -- when we first started, I believe in

14 1978 through 1979 or 1980, it was -- .002 was the

15 limit of detection. I believe in 1980 the laboratory

16 went to .004 is what they ended up doing at that

17 time. So they changed it slightly and I think it was

18 for purposes of they had a very large amount of

19 samples coming in and, for some reason, that

20 particular limit of detection was more appropriate.

21 Maybe they felt that was really as low as they could

22 really go under using their Technicon methodology.

23 Q. When you say .002 and .004 could you relate

24 those two terms to parts per billion?

25 A. Milligrams per liter.

1 Q. Can you relate them to parts per billion is

2 my question?

3 A. You mean --

4 Q. What is .002 milligrams per liter as

5 reflected in a parts per billion gauge?

6 A. I'm talking about two parts per billion.

7 Q. Okay. I want to make sure we're on the

8 same wave length.

9 What methodologies were employed by the

10 District to test for very, very low concentrations of

11 phosphorus --

12 A. I'm sorry.

13 Q. -- at that time?

14 A. I didn't understand the question. Would

15 you --

16 Q. What was the methodology employed by the

17 District to test for very, very low nutrient

18 concentrations at the time of this study?

19 A. I'm sorry. I'm a little fuzzy whether

20 Technicon had been incorporated at that time.

21 Q. What else did they use?

22 A. I'd have to go back. I don't recall what

23 the methodology was back at that time.

24 Q. Would one have different concerns in

25 testing for ultra low concentrations of phosphorus as

1 opposed to concentrations in the range of 30 to 50

2 parts per billion?

3 A. Um, I think I should probably get this

4 straight is that my area of expertise is not on the

5 water quality monitoring sampling that the District

6 has employed over the years.

7 We utilize it as, you know, a certified

8 laboratory that we utilize, you know, in processing

9 our samples. The District looks very carefully at

10 the quality assurance of the -- you know, achieving

11 what you're talking about; does the number really

12 mean what it says? And they do that, you know,

13 weekly and they do that by looking at very low levels

14 and the water quality lab was satisfied that those

15 levels, you know, were accurate.

16 I can't really tell you too much really

17 specifically about the methodology back at that time.

18 I would refer you to Morris Rosen who worked in the

19 laboratory at that time who could help you quite a

20 bit more with the water quality monitoring program

21 and quality assurance that was employed at that time.

22 Q. So you would defer to a person such as

23 Morris Rosen and others for the District's QA and QC

24 procedures in this regard?

25 A. During that period of time, yes.

1 Q. So you wouldn't claim an expertise in the

2 water quality monitoring --

3 A. I wouldn't claim an expertise in that and

4 Morris is the -- actually the last person that worked

5 in that lab that's still -- you know, is at the

6 District.

7 Q. Okay. How did you use the values below the

8 limits of detection in your statistical analysis?

9 A. We ended up -- converted them up to .004

10 because it just is a very difficult thing to work

11 with because you could get a correlation if you had --

12 for example, if you had a site that was .002 for two

13 years and then suddenly you had .004 you might get a

14 positive correlation, so what we did is went back

15 through the data and brought it all back up to a

16 .004. In this particular study, I believe we were

17 still relying on the .002 milligram per liter limit

18 of detection. Later what I'm talking about is the

19 publication we put together in 1987.

20 Q. Did your limits of detection change over

21 the years or did the methodologies by which those

22 limits of detection, were they changed?

23 A. As I just answered before, yes, the limits

24 of detection was changed over a period of time. It

25 was either 1980 or '81 it went from, you know .002

1 milligrams per liter to .004 milligrams per liter as

2 the limit of total phosphorus and ortho-phosphorus

3 and total dissolved phosphorus.

4 Q. Did your methodologies change in making

5 those determinations?

6 A. Again, you would have to talk to Morris. I

7 am not real sure if Technicon was in operation in

8 1978 or '79. I really can't remember.

9 Q. I'd like you to refer now to page 52.

10 Could you explain to me what a stepwise regression

11 is?

12 A. It's basically looking for relationships --

13 interlineal relationships, what are the most

14 strongest values. What comes out of that

15 relationship is just a screening tool to look at what

16 are the strongest correlations that could come out of

17 a data set.

18 Q. Is that stepwise regression what you used

19 in presenting the results of your analysis here --

20 A. On page 52?

21 Q. In your report.

22 A. Well, there are a number of different

23 things that we used.

24 Q. Okay. Did you utilize the stepwise

25 regression?

1 A. One of -- that's one of the data screening

2 things we took a look at, yes.

3 Q. Is a stepwise regression sensitive to the

4 order of variable entry into the analysis?

5 A. I'm not all that familiar with that; the

6 specifics of it. I do not know.

7 Q. If you're not familiar with the specifics

8 of the order of variable entry how can you be sure

9 you're employing the stepwise regression properly?

10 A. I can't answer that.

11 Q. Well, could the order of variable entry

12 have influenced the output of your model?

13 A. I have a little problem with variable

14 entry. Could you define that for me?

15 Q. Do you know what variable entry means? If

16 you don't, just tell me.

17 A. I'm trying to ask you what it is, sir.

18 Q. I'm the one that asks questions. You are

19 the one that answers them.

20 A. I don't understand your question, I guess.

21 Q. Do you know what's meant by the phrase,

22 "non-transformed not normally distributed data"?

23 A. Well, the non-transformed data would be --

24 in our particular case, would be just simply the raw

25 data. We transform data because -- a number of times

1 because it was in percentages and is not normally

2 distributed.

3 Q. Well, how does the use of non-transformed

4 not normally distributed data influence

5 interpretations of the data in your analysis as

6 compared to later analysis of that same data?

7 A. A lot of biological data is not normally

8 distributed often. It's skewed to the left and

9 you're working in magnitude differences between

10 samples and it's -- for example, the cell density

11 data that we used, it would be -- if you took a look

12 at it, sometimes it was not automatically

13 distributed; you needed to transfer it to a log to

14 the assumption of trying to look at correlation

15 coefficients, for example. You would like to have

16 your data normally distributed. And the cell, for

17 example, the percent composition of cell data, for

18 example, is normally handled by an arcsine

19 transformation so that you have normally distributed

20 data or at least have attempted to put that

21 information together so it is at least close to a

22 normal distribution.

23 Q. Okay. What did you mean by the phrase,

24 "skewed to the left"?

25 A. For example, a lot of the data may be -- if

1 you plotted it, for example, it could be all columned

2 down on the left-hand corner of XY axis, for example.

3 It does not show up a whole range of values that you

4 would be expecting to take a look at.

5 Q. Of all the factors that you measured and

6 evaluated statistically which one or group was the

7 main or determinate of periphyton occurrence?

8 A. The primary thing we took a look at and

9 it's because we looked at all three Water

10 Conservation Areas, major ions, the amount of

11 dissolved minerals, for example, that were in the

12 water were the primary factor that was responsible

13 for differences in species composition between sites.

14 We also found that pH and total phosphorus were also

15 important factors. pH was related primarily to the

16 fact that whether it was an alkaline or -- excuse me --

17 whether it was hard water site, those were generally

18 alkaline sites. Soft water sites were usually acidic

19 sites so that parameter pretty much related to each

20 other. Phosphorus concentrations were related to the

21 occurrence of certain specialized community of algae

22 that occurred within an area south of the S-10

23 structures.

24 Q. To what do you attribute the presence of

25 major ions?

1 A. Major ions, what is interesting about the

2 study is that you could -- all three Water

3 Conservation Areas had widely varying major ion

4 concentrations.

5 In the interior of Water Conservation Area

6 1 major ion concentrations were very low for a number

7 of factors. Number one, the vegetation and the

8 elevation of the marsh, if you could kind of think of

9 the marsh sort of as a dome, so to speak, water

10 rainfall would fall and basically not be mixed with

11 the surrounding water that was discharged around the

12 periphery of Area 1. The thick peat in Area 1 also

13 prevented ground water from mixing with the surface

14 water so as a result the low ionic content of the

15 water in Area 1 or as a result of looking at the

16 ionic content of the water in Area 1 was also

17 basically from rainfall.

18 Area 2 is a very different scenario and if

19 I could compare Area 2 and Area 3, you will find that

20 chlorides and sodium and calcium were the dominant

21 major ions in Area 2 and then if you looked at Area 3

22 you would find calcium, calcium carbonate were the

23 dominant ions, but sodium chlorides were low. The

24 reason for that is Area 2 receives, has -- at that

25 time it had three direct inflow structures that

1 supplied water from the Hillsboro Canal and that

2 drains both the Everglades Agricultural Area which

3 historically contains large amounts of connate

4 seawater. In other words, there's a ancient sea bed

5 there and when you pump water from the ground it

6 contains high sodium chloride levels and those are

7 pumped south and they move through the Hillsboro

8 Canal into Area 2. And I think if you look at a

9 water budget for Area 2, maybe 40 to 50 percent of

10 the inflow water comes from the Hillsboro Canal. So

11 as a result you have a lot of chlorides and sodium

12 that kind of trace its origin, really. So we have

13 Area 1 it's origin is primarily -- the interior is

14 rainfall. And Area 2, a good portion is rainfall

15 plus inflow water and Area 3 is primarily -- at least

16 the open marsh is primarily rainfall.

17 Q. Does the presence of the artificially

18 constructed canals in these Water Conservation Areas

19 have any significance or relationship to the presence

20 of major ions?

21 A. Yes. It's a vehicle for transport. You

22 can actually see sodium and chloride transported all

23 the way from the Everglades Agricultural Area and as

24 a result it shows up in deep areas in Everglades

25 National Park and it's not reported by me, but

1 reported by Klein in 1975.

2 Q. Does the depth of the canals have any

3 significance concerning the presence of major ions?

4 A. I do not know.

5 Q. Do you know whether the canals are having

6 any influence or impact on the movement of major ions

7 from the ground water into the surface waters of the

8 Water Conservation Areas?

9 A. I do not know.

10 Q. Let's back up for a moment. Do you know

11 what a factor analysis is?

12 A. Uh huh.

13 Q. Did you employ a factor analysis in

14 preparing this report?

15 A. Um, I don't recall if this was it or not.

16 Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yes.

17 Q. How did or how does a factor analysis give

18 you the information by which you can relate water

19 quality data to periphyton occurrence?

20 A. Well, we're using a factor analysis trying

21 to use it as a screening tool to look at what

22 variables are closely related and in that factor

23 analysis I had responded to earlier what -- what --

24 what parameters ended up being the most important as

25 far as major ions and that sort of thing. That was

1 also a tool that we used to basically screen the data

2 and look for correlations between our parameters.

3 Q. Does the order in which the variables are

4 brought into the statistical analysis affect the

5 outcome of that analysis?

6 A. It could, yes.

7 Q. How could it affect it?

8 A. Well, the basic problem is -- I think we'd

9 have to take a look at auto-correlation -- is that

10 you don't have really similar factors outweighing

11 other factors. In other words, if you had a whole

12 bunch of factors that were related to one another,

13 they would tend to drive it to a conclusion that

14 those were the dominant things going on there and

15 that's something you have to watch out for.

16 Q. What did you mean by the phrase or term,

17 "auto-correlation"?

18 A. I was trying to explain it where you'd have

19 similar parameters that were related very

20 specifically and if they are brought together they

21 can have some affect on the -- your results.

22 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 63 of your

23 report. I quote, "Phosphorus and nitrogen were both

24 potentially growth limiting nutrients at interior WCA

25 sites due to their low availability."

1 Do you still agree with that statement?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Does your research, however, support

4 a sole focus on phosphorus as the growth limiting

5 factor in the Everglades?

6 A. I don't believe it does. It looks at

7 nitrogen also. Because we sampled for the nitrogen

8 at the same time.

9 Q. What chemical forms of nitrogen comprise

10 the inorganic nitrogen that you used as a factor in

11 your statistical analysis?

12 A. Let's see. I'm trying to remember. I

13 believe it was ammonia, what we call NOX which is a

14 calculation of nitrate plus nitrite.

15 Q. Is that all?

16 A. I believe so. I believe that's basically

17 what we were looking at.

18 Q. Did those forms of inorganic nitrogen

19 accurately or adequately characterize the forms of

20 nitrogen that are used primarily by periphyton?

21 A. I believe so.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. We felt they did in that study, yes.

24 Q. What other types of inorganic nitrogen

25 might one measure to determine what is used by

1 periphyton?

2 A. I think I answered the question. Maybe I

3 don't understand your question.

4 Q. Let me see if I can rephrase it.

5 Are there any other types of inorganic

6 nitrogen that are utilized by periphyton other than

7 the ones you just listed?

8 A. In a soluble form, as I understand it,

9 those are the major ones that we felt that were

10 important.

11 Q. Okay. Does a variation in the proportional

12 composition of inorganic nitrogen influence the

13 availability of nitrogen to periphyton?

14 A. Are you talking about for example -- I

15 guess I need to understand. Could you give me an

16 example? You want to know if there is a composition

17 that is higher than others? Is that what you are

18 saying?

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. It's possible. Ammonia, for example, may

21 be utilized by some species very quickly, whereas

22 nitrate -- or it depends on the species. I don't

23 pretend to be expert on the uptake efficiencies of

24 nitrogen by algae, so I don't think I could really

25 answer your question as an expert in that particular

1 area.

2 Q. So you would disclaim any expertise in that

3 particular regard?

4 A. As far as the uptake efficiencies of algae

5 as far as in regards to nitrogen uptake, yes.

6 Q. Okay. Let's back up for just a moment.

7 What factors were, by your term, auto-correlated?

8 A. Which ones?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Well, things like where we had sodium and

11 chlorides, for example. That's really looking at the

12 same thing.

13 Q. What influence do inorganic ions have on

14 periphyton species and communities?

15 A. If you're -- any specific one? Because

16 they vary. Could you give me a specific ion?

17 Q. Okay. Can you relate it to chloride ions?

18 A. Yes. The literature, for example, chloride

19 in saltwater versus freshwater, high concentrations

20 of chlorides do limit some algal species and the --

21 their cell structures cannot handle some high

22 concentrations of chloride whereas others can and you --

23 when you look, for example, at the diatoms and, for

24 example, at a type of algae, they are very -- they

25 are distributed along gradients of chloride

1 concentrations. Usually you're talking about

2 chloride concentrations going from seawater to

3 brackish water to freshwater. In this particular

4 study chlorides between the sites, for example, may

5 or may not have had an impact.

6 Q. Did you utilize chloride ions to correlate

7 all your ions in your study?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. I believe you said awhile ago that

10 you attributed these chlorides to connate water that

11 underlay the Everglades Agricultural Area.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is it fair to say, then, that the presence

14 of these connate chloride ions is attributable to the

15 construction of the project itself?

16 A. No. All I can tell you is that's the

17 origin of that water of those ions.

18 Q. Well, how else would have they have gotten

19 to the Water Conservation Areas but for the

20 construction of the project?

21 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. Speculation.

22 BY MR. HYDE:

23 Q. You may answer the question.

24 A. Could you repeat the question, please.

25 Q. How else would have they have gotten to the

1 Water Conservation Areas but for the construction of

2 the project?

3 A. You're assuming that the project is the

4 only source. The largest source that I understand is

5 the daily pumping of water from the EAA for, you

6 know, agricultural pumping. That water moving

7 through the fields, moving through the ground water

8 into fields is probably the primary source of where

9 that is coming from.

10 Q. Pumping of what water?

11 A. Irrigation water from canals.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. Not constructed as part of the project. I

14 think you're trying to say, if I understand your

15 question, is that the primary source would be the

16 Central and Southern Florida canal system and I don't

17 think that's entirely true.

18 Q. Well, is this connate water present in the

19 agricultural canals within the EAA?

20 A. I understand that it is.

21 Q. How did it come to be present there?

22 A. I understand that it was an ancient sea bed

23 bottom that dried up periodically and as a result

24 salts and other deposits formed in the limestone

25 bedrock.

1 I would like to say that I am testifying,

2 obviously, out of my area of expertise, but the

3 information I'm repeating comes from Gleason, Patrick

4 Gleason's publications, Klein, 1975; I believe

5 McPherson, some other investigators who have looked

6 at water quality relationships between the EAA and

7 Water Conservation Areas and found similar results.

8 Q. Let me go back to my question. How would

9 these chloride ions come to be in the Water

10 Conservation Areas if it were not for the project

11 itself delivering those waters to the Water

12 Conservation Areas?

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Objection. Asked and

14 answered. Calls for speculation.

15 MS. CLEMENTS: You can go ahead.

16 THE WITNESS: I had asked -- answered that.

17 And it is basically that, as I understand, the

18 system was developed, the Central and Southern

19 Florida project to, one, provide -- open up the

20 Everglades for agricultural development and one

21 of the things that resulted from that is,

22 obviously, the conversation areas were set aside

23 as areas for surface water runoff to be

24 discharged during storm events and, yes, that

25 the water is transported from the EAA field into

1 the Water Conservation Areas and that is

2 basically under what's called Bulletin -- I

3 think it's 442 out of the Belle Glade Experiment

4 System. That's how the system was originally

5 devised is dividing up the Water Conversation

6 Areas in the Everglades Agricultural Area,

7 originally looking at what kinds of soil types

8 would be good for agriculture; what types of

9 soil types would not be good for agriculture,

10 but should be set aside for future preservation.

11 BY MR. HYDE:

12 Q. Considering that answer, would it be fair

13 to characterize the project canals and structures as

14 being delivery systems for these waters into the

15 Water Conversation Areas?

16 A. They do move water from the Everglades

17 Agricultural Areas into the Water Conservation Areas,

18 yes.

19 Q. Okay. What, to your mind's light, is more

20 important ecologically speaking, considering the use

21 of nutrients or the issue of nutrients in periphyton,

22 growth rates of periphyton or community structure and

23 species occurrence?

24 A. Well, they are both really related, I

25 think.

1 Could you repeat the question? I'm trying

2 to figure out what the separation is that you're

3 trying to get at.

4 Q. What, by your mind's light, is more

5 important in an ecological sense, considering the

6 nutrients and periphyton on the one hand, the growth

7 rates of periphyton on the other hand or the

8 community structure and species occurrence?

9 A. In my view, you really have to look at the

10 whole -- whole -- both issues and maybe some other

11 issues also. Trying to look at -- before you define

12 whether it's good or bad, you need to take a look at

13 the species composition. You need to take a look at

14 biomass production or algal growth rates in this

15 particular since. You need to take a look at

16 productivity and try to understand, you know, how

17 that impacts the entire ecosystem because they all

18 are related to one another and you need to look at

19 all of those factors, really, in total.

20 It's -- it's kind of an unfair question

21 because it's kind of like you asking to spit on the

22 flag or spit on the Bible. You really have to --

23 Q. That's an interesting metaphor.

24 A. You have to really look at it as a total

25 system and evaluate all of those different

1 parameters.

2 Q. Does this particular paper purport to

3 address any of those concerns, growth rates of

4 periphyton, community structure or species

5 occurrence?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All of them?

8 A. Looks at growth rates as algae grown in

9 glass slides. It looks at periphyton species

10 composition.

11 What was the third?

12 Q. Species occurrence.

13 A. Species occurrence, yes.

14 Q. Do the tests that you employed in preparing

15 this paper establish that phosphorus and not

16 inorganic ions are the most important substances that

17 control diversity and abundance of periphyton species

18 in the WCAs?

19 A. No. The paper identified major ions as the

20 major factor based on the analysis that we had done

21 here and the reason for that is that there's such a

22 wide variation in major ion content between the Water

23 Conservation Areas that that became the dominant

24 factor that we were looking at. I would say that,

25 for example, if we had not included Water

1 Conservation Area 1 interior information, that we

2 probably would have both major ions and pH drop back

3 as major factors and nutrient content would be the

4 primary driving factor in determining species

5 composition. But this paper clearly demonstrates

6 that the primary factor, looking at all of the Water

7 Conservation Areas was major ion content.

8 Q. I'm struggling a little bit with asking the

9 next question, but do you believe there to be, quote,

10 good types of blue-green algae and bad types of

11 blue-green algae in the Water Conservation Areas?

12 A. You are struggling with that question.

13 In reflection to being bad for the

14 environment -- or excuse me -- bad being bad for the

15 environment, good being good for the environment, is

16 that what you're trying to get at?

17 Q. Yes. I think you could characterize it as

18 good versus bad to the environment or as being

19 reflective of natural conditions versus artificially

20 induced conditions.

21 A. If I could, I would turn the question

22 around a little bit and answer it this way. The --

23 what we were trying to do is identify is there a

24 relationship between the species composition of

25 algae, their growth rates and water quality factors?

1 That was the purpose of the study and we were simply

2 reporting these algae occur in this kind of water

3 quality. These algae occur in another. As far as

4 good or bad, I don't know if you would put it in that

5 context, but what you would put is these reflect this

6 kind of environment, whether it's a low nutrient

7 alkaline hard water environment or whether it's a

8 high nutrient alkaline hard water environment or

9 whether it's a low nutrient low ionic content

10 environment and that's what we were trying to achieve

11 there.

12 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether there

13 is a difference in nutritional value between these

14 different types of blue-green algae?

15 A. No. No one's doing anything on that yet.

16 Q. Do you know if anyone is studying that?

17 A. I was under the impression that Bill Loftus

18 and Everglades National Park had taken some sort of

19 look at the stomach contents of Everglades flora --

20 or excuse me -- fauna, whether it be tadpoles or

21 whatever. Joan Browder had done a little bit of work

22 on tadpoles, I think, but I know of no real specific

23 study that really gets at whether the -- you know,

24 blue-greens are better than diatoms or whatever in

25 the Everglades.

1 Q. And do you claim any expertise in that

2 regard, then?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you consider the interior marsh areas,

5 "closed" systems?

6 A. Well, closed in that rainfall is the

7 primary nutrient inflow. I think there's a lot of --

8 we call it the River of Grass and it's no longer a

9 river. There are compartments of grass, I guess.

10 There are in -- Area 2, for example, is a different

11 situation because we do have a lot of flow through

12 that particular system that comes from an external

13 source. Area 1 is a little different than Area 2

14 because it has a flow component around its peripheral

15 areas and the interior is primarily rainfall driven;

16 closed in this particular manner. I meant closed

17 with respect to nutrient inputs. I felt rainfall --

18 at least the large Water Conversation Area, Area 3,

19 for example, was primarily rainfall driven.

20 Q. Is that the only factor that you're

21 utilizing this term "closed" to mean?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. Is there a geographical component to

24 a system or any of these systems being "closed"?

25 A. Geographically, some areas of the

1 Everglades are more compartmentalized than others.

2 The -- I think I just was saying that in Area 3 there

3 are some small components that are totally enclosed

4 by berms. They are small areas, but in general it's

5 a hard thing to describe because Area 3, for example,

6 has the Miami Canal running down the middle of it.

7 It probably does not contribute that much water as

8 far as surface water over the entire marsh. Rainfall

9 is the primary inflow factor there. Again, that's

10 what I was trying to get at.

11 Q. Let me back up just for a second.

12 Concerning the time period between collection and

13 analytical analyses for orthophosphate, nitrate and

14 total dissolved phosphorus, were they all done in the

15 same time periods that you alluded to earlier?

16 A. What did I allude to earlier?

17 Q. Approximately two days --

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. -- maximum to a week?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. Were surface water samples

22 filtered through Millipore membrane filters?

23 A. I believe so. On page 7 I think it states

24 that.

25 Q. I'd like you to refer to Table C-6. I'm

1 not sure which page that's on. C-7. Excuse me.

2 It's on page C-7.

3 What role, if any, did water depth play in

4 your stepwise multiple regression?

5 A. I would have to look at it a little bit. I

6 haven't seen this in quite a few years.

7 Q. At the bottom of the page, and I guess it's

8 like foot note (a), it identifies water depth as

9 being one of the independent predictor variables

10 included.

11 A. In the table I don't see it as a -- unless

12 you see it I don't see it as a big factor.

13 Q. Okay. What about hydroperiod length?

14 A. Well, it must be remembered what we were

15 doing is looking at algal growth on a glass slide

16 incubated for a specific -- actually a relative short

17 period of time, approximately 45 to 60 days -- I

18 believe 60 days -- and really -- and we grew these --

19 grew the algae on the glass slides, which would have

20 the same amount of light, were at the same depth

21 within the water column and basically all of those

22 parameters were all the same. What we were hoping to

23 look at is differences in water quality at each site;

24 trying to rule those things out. That was the

25 purpose of using floating glass slides so water depth

1 and that sort of thing was similar. We did throw in,

2 however, hydroperiod length for the number of days

3 dry, the number of days wet. The water depth we

4 actually recorded at the sites. We threw that into

5 the particular equation, into this coefficient. It

6 didn't have much to do with what we came out with.

7 Q. Do you recall whether there was a

8 correlation coefficient for hydroperiod length and

9 water depth?

10 A. No.

11 You mean did we look at it?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. We did look at it but nothing came out of

14 it.

15 Q. So you didn't establish one?

16 A. No. We did not find a significant

17 correlation that existed between them.

18 Q. Okay. How many stations did you sample at

19 in conducting this study?

20 A. This one?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. I'm guessing 18. I can't remember.

23 Q. How many samples did you take per station?

24 A. Let's see. Over the incubation period from --

25 I believe from four to five during the incubation

1 period. Talking about water quality samples. Then

2 as far as the chlorophyll a samples I believe we

3 looked at five, measured five slides for chlorophyll

4 a and a minimum of two slides at every station for

5 species composition. We had devised a thing called

6 an ALGAESTAT program which was a physical way to look

7 at the data and we would have a preserve slide that --

8 or preserve sample of algae we would look at and look

9 at the percent co-variation and if it was greater

10 than that we would do another count. This is for a

11 dominant species so we knew we would have a

12 representative species composition information.

13 Q. Okay. How many times did this sampling

14 occur?

15 A. Let's see. This was primarily during the

16 summer of 1978-'79, so that you're talking about a

17 summer. I don't remember how many weeks that was.

18 Q. What were the environmental conditions

19 present at that time?

20 A. In 1978 and '79 it was a relatively deep

21 water system and Area 2 was much deeper in 1980, '81,

22 '82, '83, '84.

23 Q. How did that change or how would that

24 change in water depth affect your analysis if at all?

25 A. Again, as I was trying to relate, we were

1 looking at various short term colonization of algae

2 on slides and the hydroperiod factor would not come

3 into play simply because we were only looking at

4 collecting algae on glass slides over a 60 day

5 period. So hydroperiod, if it was wet, obviously

6 there would not be a -- hydroperiod would not be an

7 issue between the sites. And I'm not sure if I

8 answered your question. I kind of wandered.

9 Q. I think you did.

10 Was nitrogen enrichment of your filtered

11 samples detected?

12 A. Nitrogen enrichment? Um, in the -- one

13 interesting thing we found from the water quality

14 information we were looking at is nitrate would drop

15 to very, very low levels very quickly in the marsh

16 and it's probably to do with -- we're just guessing --

17 there's a lot of bacteria, other kinds of nitrifying

18 and de-nitrifying processes going on in the marsh at

19 that time and nitrate levels were relatively low as

20 compared to the canals; very frequently at detection

21 levels.

22 Q. Okay. Did you measure water depth at your

23 sample sites?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How did you determine water depth?

1 A. We very simply looked at some sticks that

2 we had placed in the ground and we knew, relating

3 them back to gauges, roughly what the water depths

4 were. We also, you know, would take samples with --

5 made a ruler with a very large piece of a board with

6 plywood on the bottom just to get relative depths

7 also across the slough that we were looking at too.

8 Q. Did you measure the depth of the peat at

9 these sampling sites?

10 A. I believe we did. It's somewhere. I don't

11 know where it is.

12 Q. How does one go about determining peat

13 depth?

14 A. We had a long rod that we would simply

15 stick down into the peat, subtract away the depth of

16 the water.

17 Q. Do you just manually shove it into the

18 peat?

19 A. Yes. At a number of different places. It

20 was just a general -- we were just generally looking

21 at it, what the differences between the sites were.

22 Q. Did your sample stations differ in the

23 species composition of the plants that were there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Were they representative of different

1 species compositions in the sense of having one being

2 a macrophyte or sawgrass dominant sighted site,

3 another being a cattail dominant sighted site, the

4 third being maybe a plant species characteristic of

5 an open slough?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Are all of those sampling sites described

8 in this report as being one or the other of these

9 categories?

10 A. I think so. I believe each site is

11 described if I'm not mistaken. I might be mistaken.

12 Page A-2 through A-4.

13 Q. Table A-1, which is on page A-2 for some

14 curious reason, indicates or suggests that some sites

15 were sampled only once, is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How did you use this type of data in your

18 water quality analyses and species composition

19 analyses?

20 A. I think we did not use them in some cases.

21 I think like, for example, B-1, for example, in Area

22 2, it was just such a rank and difficult spot to get

23 to at low water. There were very thick mats of

24 vegetation that were -- well, they were impossible to

25 get through with an airboat. We got stuck a bunch of

1 times. We felt we should not go back and sample

2 those just from safety sake. We had to chop our way

3 out of it several times.

4 Basically what I tried to do in this table

5 is identify every place we looked at and -- but we

6 did not include necessarily every station in our

7 analysis.

8 Q. Okay. I'd like you to turn to page 72 and

9 take you through.

10 Number 2 in your summary on that page

11 reflects, and I quote, "Earlier periphyton studies in

12 the Everglades have shown that these microorganisms

13 are an important component of the marsh food chain."

14 Which studies are you referring to here if

15 you can identify them?

16 A. Number 42 on page 78, Kolopinski and Higer.

17 I just want to look at some others, if I can just go

18 through here.

19 Q. Take your time.

20 By the way, if you wish to take a break at

21 any time, please feel free to request one.

22 A. I think number 27, Gleason and Spackman. I

23 believe they mentioned it. I think number 32, Hunt

24 1961. Sorry I'm taking so long. I'm not familiar

25 with this any more. Number 99, Van Meter, 1965; 100,

1 Van Meter-Kasanof and Wood and Maynard, 1974, number

2 114.

3 Q. Are you of the opinion that periphyton is

4 an important component of the marsh food chain?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What's the basis for that opinion?

7 A. Well, there's probably only three types of

8 how you pass energy up the food chain and that would

9 be you would have to have plankton which are floating

10 microorganisms in the water column. Those are not

11 present in abundance in the Everglades.

12 The second area would be the algal

13 community such as periphyton.

14 And the third would be the detrital

15 components of sawgrass and of other products and

16 because this is such a conspicuous feature, diatoms,

17 for example, and a number of green algae are present,

18 these are in every other ecosystem -- aquatic

19 ecosystem, these are grazed upon by invertebrates and

20 fishes and that sort of thing.

21 So this is a very similar case.

22 Periphyton, for example, in the literal zones of

23 lakes world wide are felt to be an important

24 component of those aquatic systems.

25 So not knowing whether that detrital

1 component of sawgrass or other marsh vegetation, what

2 role, how important each one is, no one has

3 determined that as yet. I would believe that

4 periphyton would play a very important role.

5 Q. Does it make any difference what kind of

6 periphyton is in this marsh food chain as long as

7 it's present there?

8 A. I would think that it might. For example,

9 in other communities, blue-green algae are utilized

10 and passed directly through the gut and they may not

11 necessarily be -- you know, get an energy requirement

12 from it, but that is recycled back in the food chain.

13 In the Everglades diatoms and green algae

14 and other types of organisms that are found in other

15 environments that are nutritional algae are present

16 everywhere and in some degree of the productivity of

17 that system I would assume it would depend on that.

18 No one has done a quantitative study, to my

19 knowledge, at this point, of the exact quantitative

20 role that periphyton do play.

21 Q. Do you know whether anybody's conducting

22 such a study?

23 A. I don't know.

24 Q. Is that the reason why your answer was a

25 little bit qualified by your use of word "may" as

1 opposed to being firm?

2 A. I believe I said, "may" in several cases in

3 here.

4 Q. Some people use "may" to mean different

5 things.

6 A. I understand.

7 Q. Do you regard the Everglades ecosystem as

8 being a detrital food base system?

9 A. Well, if you include the periphyton

10 component as part of that detrital food base, yes.

11 Q. What do you mean by detrital food base?

12 A. Well, the -- for example, the -- in that

13 particular sense, it would be the components that

14 would be derived by the periphyton algae that may be

15 consumed and in the Everglades there is a calcium

16 carbonate, actually, calcium carbonate -- strike

17 that. There is an algal mat that is made up of algae

18 and Utricularia which are bladderwort and forms a

19 very large mat in that system and components of that

20 system could be grazed upon and that's what I'm

21 talking about is the detrital component in the

22 Everglades.

23 Q. The next observation here number 3 reads,

24 "In addition to their importance as a food source,

25 periphyton photosynthesis and metabolism greatly

1 influence marsh water diurnal dissolved oxygen

2 concentrations and calcium carbonate (marl)

3 deposition in marsh sediments."

4 First could you explain to me how

5 periphyton photosynthesis and metabolism influences

6 diurnal water or dissolved oxygen concentrations?

7 A. In the presence of sunlight the periphyton

8 photosynthesize the uptake carbon dioxide from the

9 water column and as a by-product oxygen is produced

10 during the day and you can see this in dissolved

11 oxygen studies out of the marsh which I have done and

12 you can see in open water sloughs very large mats,

13 you see a very large swing in diurnal oxygen

14 concentrations in the marsh and what I believe -- I

15 had worked with Tom Blancher at FIT doing a contract

16 for us -- and what I believe he found is that

17 atmospheric re-aeration of the water and periphyton

18 and photosynthesis were the primary sources of oxygen

19 production in the marsh.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. If the calcium carbonate -- I can explain

22 as calcium or as carbon dioxide -- is taken out of

23 the water column that shifts the carbonate system to

24 the right and having as a result the calcium

25 carbonate is precipitated on the outside cell sheets

1 of the algae of the Everglades and that's where marl

2 production is formed in the system and as a result of

3 that we have marl soils that predominate in various

4 areas of the Everglades.

5 Q. Does calcium carbonate affect the use of

6 periphyton as a food source?

7 A. I do not know.

8 Q. What did you mean in your last answer or

9 the answer before last by "shift to the right"?

10 A. Um, in an equation of the carbonate

11 equation, as a result of carbon dioxide uptake in the

12 system, you will have a calcium carbonate precipitate

13 as a result of that and as a result of the photo --

14 algal photosynthesis.

15 Q. Okay. The next summary point, number 4,

16 reflects, "Recent nitrogen fixation studies in the

17 Water Conversation Areas show that periphyton may

18 play an important role in the marsh nitrogen cycle."

19 By use of the word "may" again, that's a

20 rather tentative conclusion. Is it still tentative

21 in your mind?

22 A. The information of where it comes from is a

23 study done by Antioch College by a fellow by the name

24 of Jeff Goldberg, I think, and they had done some

25 nitro fixation experiments of the mat in the Water

1 Conversation Areas.

2 The other observation I made is that the --

3 there's a algae that makes up the mat out there.

4 It's called Scytonema hofmannii and it contains

5 heterolysis. Heterolysis are often thought sites of

6 nitrogen fixation. What role, as far as a nitrogen

7 source in this system, it's not really clear. I just

8 could tell you that in India, for example, the same

9 species or very similar species are used to -- when

10 they flood a rice field, for example, they'll build

11 up this big algal mat and then they'll drain the

12 marsh, harvest the rice and then plow it under and

13 that mat ends up being a nitrogen source for those

14 systems. The Everglades could play a similar role.

15 Q. Do you have any opinions within a

16 reasonable degree of scientific certainty at this

17 time as to whether periphyton does play an important

18 role in the Everglades marsh nitrogen cycle?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Statement 6 reads, "Although periphyton

21 algae are recognized as an important component of the

22 Water Conversation Area ecosystem, little is known

23 concerning their seasonal population dynamics,

24 species composition, growth rates or their

25 relationship with water quality parameters."

1 Do you continue to agree with that

2 statement?

3 A. We know more and that was the purpose of

4 the study is to take a look at species composition,

5 growth rates and how they related to water quality

6 parameters.

7 Q. Okay. This study, that is Exhibit 2, was a

8 summer study, was it not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Would you expect seasonal differences as a

11 result of this study?

12 A. Yeah. I think number 6 was actually trying

13 to convince my boss that we ought to do -- take a

14 look at seasonal and we did. That was what we did

15 next, actually, looked at seasonal aspects of it.

16 Q. Would seasonal differences affect the

17 statistical outcome of your analysis?

18 A. From the standpoint -- I think it would. I

19 think you would have, for example, differences in

20 biomass during low light, low temperature periods.

21 You would have less biomass than during -- that being

22 during the winter than you would have during the

23 summer.

24 Q. I think you just said, "That's what we did

25 next." What were you referring to there?

1 A. We continued sampling from 1980 to 1982 and

2 we looked at -- attempted to look at monthly growth

3 rates on slides and what we found there was that the

4 end of the wet season was the period of greatest

5 production in the system. I think it's related back

6 to the interior sites, greater rainfall, possibly

7 more nutrients in the system. Also high light was

8 also a factor.

9 Q. Was this later sampling a year round

10 sampling effort?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. I'd like you to turn to the next

13 page, number 12. The second sentence in that

14 observation reads, "Although water depth and

15 hydroperiod length were poorly correlated with the

16 development of periphyton communities on glass slides

17 during 1978-'79, it is well documented that extended

18 hydroperiod length encouraged the long term

19 accumulation of periphyton biomass (standing crop) in

20 some portions of the Everglades."

21 What is the basis or what is the

22 documentation for that observation?

23 A. I believe it's Maynard and Wood that I

24 quoted before. It's in here.

25 Q. This is in your list of references?

1 A. The name is Woodward or Maynard. Excuse

2 me. Wood and Maynard, 1974, reference number 114.

3 Q. What significance, if any, does this long

4 term accumulation of periphyton biomass have?

5 A. Well, the point of the statement was -- is

6 that there is a relationship between hydroperiod and

7 periphyton biomass and our study was not looking

8 directly at the effects of hydroperiod. It was

9 trying to focus on the effects of water quality.

10 Q. Might that documentation have also included

11 Van Meter's work?

12 A. It may have. I remember the specific

13 statement about the size of mats and that sort of

14 thing and about the size of the mats in the Wood and

15 Maynard paper. Van meter may have also said

16 something about that.

17 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 19, Table 1.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. About half way down the page you've listed

20 total phosphorus listed as Total P, I presume.

21 A. Uh huh.

22 Q. But it doesn't appear that you analyzed

23 total phosphorus, is that correct?

24 A. No. We analyzed total phosphorus, I

25 believe.

1 Q. What were the ranges and sample size?

2 A. I don't recall.

3 Q. Would you regard the data as being normally

4 distributed?

5 A. As far as total phosphorus is concerned?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. The data being total -- being total

8 phosphorus data, as I recall, the best of my

9 knowledge, if you look at the actual data that was

10 collected, I think we started out trying to figure

11 out if -- which phosphorus parameter was the one that

12 would be most useful to us and I believe total

13 dissolved phosphorus ended up being that because it

14 did not seem to fluctuate all over the place and we

15 felt, I think, that the total phosphorus values might

16 have been impacted by some sort of, you know, either

17 particulates or whatever that were in the water

18 column at the time. I believe if you look at the

19 data base, I think -- I'm not clear -- I think the

20 first several sets of samples we did not look at

21 total phosphorus directly and that we looked at total

22 dissolved phosphorus, but I think later we looked at

23 all of them.

24 Q. Okay. I'd like you to turn now to page 29

25 concerning discussion of a cluster analysis of the

1 periphyton cell volume data.

2 A. Uh huh.

3 Q. Was this analysis only based on this summer

4 data?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. Does it mean only one sample time or

7 did it reflect only one sample time?

8 A. No. I think it was both -- well, I'm not

9 real sure. Let me look.

10 Is there a table where the results are

11 presented?

12 Q. It reflects Appendix B. It's on page B-1.

13 A. Yes. It says in B-2, "Figure B-1 presents

14 the results of the cluster analysis of the summer

15 1978 periphyton data." I thought it was both

16 periods.

17 Q. On how many sites was this cluster analysis

18 conducted?

19 A. Take a look at B-3. You can count them.

20 18.

21 Q. Okay. Was this just one sample per year?

22 A. I apologize again. I haven't looked at

23 this for quite awhile. You're question was: Was

24 this based on one sample per year?

25 Q. Yes.

1 A. Does that mean -- I think what it was based

2 on is the results of the summer 1978 data. In other

3 words, the results of the summer efforts.

4 Q. Okay. Well, how many times did you site

5 the periphyton samples and pick them up again?

6 A. Well, again, it should be in the methods

7 section.

8 A. Well, I can't really be accurate. I've

9 forgotten exactly what we did in 1978, whether we put

10 them out in June or July and picked them up in

11 August. What would reflect that, however, would be

12 the computer files that record the water quality

13 information. The first date would be the date I

14 believe a week after we sent them out and then the

15 last -- the last -- excuse me -- the last date would

16 be the day we picked them up. To the best of my

17 knowledge, anyways.

18 Q. I'd like you to turn now to page 33 in your

19 report. It's a pie chart. Figure 11, pie chart for

20 lack of a better term -- series of pie charts.

21 I'd like to call your attention to the

22 following sample sites, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7.

23 A. On 33?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Okay.

1 Q. And 217.

2 A. Okay.

3 Q. Now, your total dissolved phosphorus for

4 B-3 was I think 39 parts per billion, is that

5 correct?

6 A. I don't know. I can't remember. Bear with

7 me for a minute. We can definitely relate this chart

8 to another table. Table A-5 and A-6. Table A-6,

9 actually.

10 Q. Okay. For B-3 the total phosphorus is

11 reflected to be 39 parts per billion on A-6, would

12 that be correct?

13 A. I don't know. For B-3?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Okay. Yes.

16 Q. Is that correct?

17 A. Right.

18 Q. And for B-4 it would be 18 parts per

19 billion?

20 A. Okay. Yes. That's the range obviously.

21 Q. Okay. B-5 is 5 parts per billion?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. And B-7 is 5 parts per billion?

24 A. Right.

25 Q. And 217 is 3 parts per billion?

1 A. Right.

2 Q. Now, refer back to Figure 11.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. B-3 reflects species composition as being

5 primarily blue-greens?

6 A. Okay.

7 Q. Is that correct?

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. In fact, 79.2 percent --

10 A. Okay.

11 Q. -- being blue-greens.

12 B-4 reflects species composition as being

13 primarily greens, 62.3 percent, is that correct?

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. B-5, again, primary composition being

16 greens with 66.2 percent?

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. And B-7 being primarily blue-greens at 63.1

19 percent?

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. And then 217 being primarily blue-greens at

22 68.5 percent?

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. Why did you find blue-greens primarily at

25 B-3 and B-7 which reflected quite different total

1 dissolved phosphorus concentrations but not at, for

2 example, at B-4?

3 A. I could answer that. This report I guess

4 was written before there was a great, you know,

5 debate, I guess, about the Everglades and all that it

6 simply does is take blue-greens, blue-greens whether

7 they're good, whether they're bad, whether they

8 represent a background site or whether they represent

9 a nutrient enriched site. B-3 -- and I'm getting --

10 I'd have to go back and look at this stuff and we

11 probably will do that in a second -- but I would

12 assume that would be one species of possibly

13 Microcoleus spp. The background sites, for example,

14 are blue-greens, Schizothrix calcicola, Scytonema

15 hofmannii. Those are also blue-greens. They are

16 different in nature. The Microcoleus spp. being one

17 that we find. At least in the results of our

18 studies, found them in nutrient enriched situations.

19 They had high phosphorus content. We looked at

20 Scytonema hofmannii and Schizothrix calcicola and

21 those mats that we found at background sites were

22 very low nutrient content. Algae represented

23 primarily low nutrient alkaline hard water sites and

24 we just were simply just doing simple groupings of

25 the algae by major divisions and making no

1 distinction whether a blue-green is good, bad or

2 indifferent. These were the groups.

3 Q. Is there any way to parse out at this late

4 date what the relative composition was of the bad

5 blue-greens versus the good blue-greens?

6 A. That's your word, right?

7 Q. Well, you used it too, so --

8 A. Yes. On page A-13 it breaks it out in B-3

9 Microcoleus spp. is the dominant species. You'll

10 find Schizothrix calcicola represented in maybe six

11 percent of that population, but you look over at the

12 B-7 and you'll find, for example, Schizothrix

13 calcicola representing a large portion of it. What

14 is missing in here is the 217 gauge. I can't explain

15 that.

16 Q. Is there any way to obtain any information

17 about what the 217 gauge was?

18 A. Not from this report, no.

19 Q. How would one go about obtaining that

20 information if it still exists?

21 A. Well, that is a good question. We have a --

22 when I left Environmental Sciences in 1988 my

23 technician Brett Nicholas had a file that contained

24 all the raw data sheets. We would have a raw data

25 sheet of these -- the common species and their cell

1 volumes and so forth, so on and that was contained in

2 a folder along with water chemistry log sheets and

3 also the other stuff, so -- I do not know if that

4 stuff is existing now or not.

5 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

6 BY MR. HYDE:

7 Q. Let me ask you one final question,

8 Mr. Smith, (sic) about Exhibit 2.

9 When you identified the type of vegetative

10 cover at your sampling sites, did you or your team

11 attempt to quantify the relative percentages of the

12 vegetative composition at that site?

13 A. Not by a quantitative means like plots or

14 anything like that or transects. We just generally

15 took a look at the dominant vegetation.

16 Q. Okay.

17 A. That was not the purpose of the study. It

18 was just to get a general idea of what was there.

19 MR. HYDE: Could you label this Exhibit 3.

20 (The document was marked

21 Exb. No. 3.)

22 BY MR. HYDE:

23 Q. I'd like you to identify a document that's

24 been labeled Exhibit 3.

25 A. Exhibit 3 is a District Technical