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.                 )
17 
                          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.
                             -  -  -
                                                 2

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          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
13 
           On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
14             Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
               123 South Calhoun Street
15             Tallahassee, Florida 32301
               By:  GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE
16 
           Also Present:  James Grimshaw
17                        Miles M. (Bud) Smart
   
18                         -  -  -
                                                 3

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:             DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  David Swift
 7 
    BY MR. HYDE             5
 8 
                                                 4

 1 
 2                         -  -  -
 3                     E X H I B I T S
 4                         -  -  -
 5 
 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
                                                 5

 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
                                                 6

 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.
                                                 7

 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
                                                 8

 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
                                                 9

 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
                                                 10

 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?
                                                 11

 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
                                                 12

 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
                                                 13

 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 --
                                                 14

 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.
                                                 15

 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?
                                                 16

 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?
                                                 17

 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,
                                                 18

 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
                                                 19

 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
                                                 20

 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
                                                 21

 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
                                                 22

 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
                                                 23

 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
                                                 24

 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
                                                 25

 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?
                                                 26

 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
                                                 27

 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
                                                 28

 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
                                                 29

 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
                                                 30

 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
                                                 31

 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
                                                 32

 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,
                                                 33

 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.
                                                 34

 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
                                                 35

 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.
                                                 36

 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
                                                 37

 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.
                                                 38

 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
                                                 39

 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?
                                                 40

 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
                                                 41

 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
                                                 42

 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?
                                                 43

 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
                                                 44

 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
                                                 45

 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
                                                 46

 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."
                                                 47

 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
                                                 48

 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
                                                 49

 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
                                                 50

 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
                                                 51

 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.
                                                 52

 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
                                                 53

 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.
                                                 54

 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
                                                 55

 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
                                                 56

 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?
                                                 57

 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.
                                                 58

 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
                                                 59

 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
                                                 60

 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
                                                 61

 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
                                                 62

 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
                                                 63

 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?
                                                 64

 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
                                                 65

 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
                                                 66

 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,
                                                 67

 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
                                                 68

 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
                                                 69

 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
                                                 70

 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
                                                 71

 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
                                                 72

 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."
                                                 73

 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?
                                                 74

 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?
                                                 75

 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.
                                                 76

 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
                                                 77

 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.
                                                 78

 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.
                                                 79

 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?
                                                 80

 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
                                                 81

 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
                                                 82

 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
                                                 83

 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
                                                 84

 1   Publication, 87-2 Periphyton and Water Quality
 2   Relationships in the Everglades Water Conversation
 3   Areas, 1978 through 1982.
 4       Q.    That document indicates that it's a draft.
 5   Does that document before you differ from what
 6   actually became the District Technical Publication
 7   with the usual cover that one finds in those
 8   documents?
 9       A.    Couldn't tell.
10       Q.    Okay.
11       A.    It's been so long ago I can't remember how
12   many changes were made or what changes were made.
13       Q.    Okay.  Would you anticipate there being any
14   significant changes between the two documents?
15       A.    Um, no.  As far as the -- as I recall, the
16   thrust of it was trying to show the differences in
17   community structure, biomass and its relationship to
18   water quality.  That's the same theme, general theme,
19   I think.  We sent this off to a number of outside
20   people for review.  We got some comments back from
21   them.
22       Q.    I'd like to draw your attention first to
23   page 14 of this document.
24             First of all, let me ask whether this
25   document was ever published in a peer review
                                                 85

 1   scientific periodical or literature?
 2       A.    Um, no.  I don't believe.  The -- well,
 3   let's see.  I think a summary of this -- and I could
 4   be wrong.  I'm a little confused of which document.
 5   In 1984 I had a document published in Environments of
 6   South Florida and I think parts of this showed up in
 7   there; not all of it, but just parts.
 8       Q.    I think maybe we should take a break and
 9   not do this document at this time.  It does appear to
10   significantly differ from the final draft at least in
11   its pagination.  Maybe we could get a copy made of
12   this.
13             (Discussion held off the record.)
14             MR. HYDE:  Let's postpone the discussion of
15        this document for the time being.
16             Label that Exhibit 4, please.
17             (The document was marked
18             Exb. No. 4.)
19   BY MR. HYDE:
20       Q.    I'd like you to identify what's Exhibit 4.
21       A.    Periphyton in the Everglades:  Spatial
22   Variation, Environmental Correlates and Ecological
23   Implications by Joan Browder, Patrick Gleason, David
24   Swift.
25       Q.    I take it you were a coauthor of this
                                                 86

 1   study.
 2       A.    My name is on it, yes.  Did I write it?
 3   No.
 4       Q.    Okay.  You were not the primary author of
 5   it, then, I take it.
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    That was Miss Browder?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Do you know what relative
10   contribution Mr. Gleason had to it?
11       A.    Well, I think he's in the same boat that I
12   was in.  I basically provided copies of my technical
13   publications to Miss Browder and she attempted to, I
14   guess, synthesize the information.  Patrick Gleason's
15   data is quite voluminous and I think she tried to
16   synthesize that and also my stuff and also basically
17   everybody else who has done any periphyton work in
18   South Florida, at least, and I really did not have
19   any direct influence in the paper.  She asked me to
20   review it once.  I reviewed it very quickly and I
21   said it's way too long and I haven't scene it really
22   since then.
23       Q.    Okay.  Do you agree with or stand by the
24   conclusions that are expressed in this paper?
25       A.    I don't even know what the conclusions are.
                                                 87

 1       Q.    Okay.
 2       A.    If you quiz me on it, I couldn't really get
 3   at it.
 4       Q.    So --
 5       A.    I could -- I should myself indicate why we
 6   got involved with this.  This was part of the
 7   Everglades Symposium and there were a number of
 8   people who were trying to synthesize the existing
 9   information on the Everglades and I was told to
10   basically contribute what I could to Dr. Browder to,
11   you know, synthesize the information together.
12       Q.    Will you be offering any opinions at the
13   final hearing in this matter which are based on this
14   paper?
15       A.    On the conclusions in this paper?
16       Q.    Yes.
17       A.    Not that I know of.
18       Q.    Okay.  Let me ask you a few questions about
19   it anyway.
20       A.    Okay.
21       Q.    I reviewed it.  I feel like I have to.
22             Please refer to the second page, the
23   abstract portion of this paper, bottom of the page.
24   The paragraph reads, "Water quality at various
25   Everglades locations is determined largely by whether
                                                 88

 1   the main source of surface water is local rainfall or
 2   canal discharge.  Hydroperiod and water depth at many
 3   Everglades locations has been changed by canals,
 4   levees, and other water control structures.  Because
 5   they affect both water quality and hydrologic
 6   conditions, water management activities influence the
 7   spatial distributions of the various periphyton
 8   communities."
 9             Do you agree or disagree with that
10   observation?
11       A.    In part I agree with it.
12       Q.    What part do you agree with first?
13       A.    Water management activities do have an
14   influence on spatial distribution of periphyton and I
15   think she's trying to say hydroperiod and water depth
16   have been changed by canals.  I agree with that.
17                 (Ms. Stinson entered.)
18   BY MR. HYDE:
19       Q.    What do you disagree with?
20       A.    As far as the water management activities
21   it's very inclusive.  I think you could be managing
22   water to, you know, to restore hydroperiods or to
23   store water in the system.  Water management
24   activities could be, you know, taking stormwater
25   runoff from an area and moving it into or out of the
                                                 89

 1   Everglades.  I guess what I'm trying to get at, water
 2   management activities is very general.  I -- I'm not
 3   exactly sure what she means by all of that.
 4       Q.    Okay.
 5       A.    It's -- there's a large number of things
 6   that could be included.  I think it's too inclusive.
 7       Q.    Let me ask the following question:  How, by
 8   your mind's light, do hydrologic conditions influence
 9   spatial distributions in periphyton communities?
10       A.    In Dr. Browder's studies of Everglades
11   National Park, she was looking at -- she found, I
12   believe, hydroperiod to be a primary factor or
13   gradient, I guess, in her studies and primarily, for
14   example, there's a disparity whether -- I think my
15   information show that major ions and water quality
16   was a major factor.  In her study, if you look at
17   water quality differences between sites, they are
18   very little.  Most of them are alkaline hard water
19   sites low in nutrients.  The main or environmental
20   gradient that she was looking at would be differences
21   in water depth which relate back to hydroperiod.  In
22   other words, whether periphyton developed in a deep
23   water slough versus a shallow water slough.  That's
24   why, from her analysis of hydroperiod, it became an
25   important parameter in her analyses.
                                                 90

 1       Q.    Okay.  If you disagree with Dr. Browder, at
 2   least in this regard, why did you lend your name to
 3   this publication?
 4       A.    Because I was told to lend my name to this
 5   publication.  I don't have a real big problem with
 6   it.  Just from the editorial standpoint, I -- this --
 7   I would have changed it.
 8       Q.    The next phrase is, "Dissolved oxygen
 9   studies and diet studies with small aquatic animals
10   suggest that changes in the periphyton community
11   caused by either nutrient enrichment or shortened
12   hydroperiod may reduce habitat quality and carrying
13   capacity."
14             How does a shortened hydroperiod reduce
15   habitat quality and carrying capacity if you know?
16       A.    That's basically from Joan's studies and I
17   think you'd have to ask Miss Browder.  I believe
18   there was a study by someone by the name of Pope, I
19   believe, who was the gentleman who did it and he was
20   working for Joan as she was doing this Everglades
21   periphyton biomass study that she was working on.
22       Q.    Do you intend to offer any opinions in that
23   regard?
24       A.    No, sir.
25       Q.    Do you claim any expertise in that regard?
                                                 91

 1       A.    Dissolved oxygen studies?  May or may not
 2   talk a little bit about dissolved oxygen, possibly.
 3   Diet studies I would not be.  I would rely on Miss
 4   Browder's testimony if she was to be called.  I don't
 5   know that we plan doing that.
 6       Q.    Well, what would your opinion be as to the
 7   effect of dissolved oxygen on shortened hydroperiod
 8   and thereby reducing habitat quality and carrying
 9   capacity?
10       A.    Well, I think more of it is more related to
11   nutrient enrichment rather than shortened
12   hydroperiod.  In other words, the dissolved oxygen
13   parameters that we've taken a look at are more
14   related to water quality and differences in nutrient
15   concentrations.
16       Q.    Well, how does hydroperiod affect dissolved
17   oxygen concentrations?
18       A.    I have no idea as far as what she's talking
19   about there.
20       Q.    Okay.  Do you intend to offer any opinions
21   as to how dissolved oxygen concentrations are
22   affected by hydroperiod?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    The next phrase is, "In restoration
25   efforts, periphyton communities can be used as
                                                 92

 1   sensitive site-specific indicators of environmental
 2   quality."
 3             Do you agree or disagree with that
 4   statement?
 5       A.    I would say, yes, I would agree.
 6       Q.    Okay.  How can periphyton communities be
 7   utilized as such indicators of environmental quality?
 8       A.    In two areas.  Number one, results of our
 9   studies found that the nutrient content of the
10   periphyton community is -- tells us a good deal about
11   the history of water quality to conditions at those
12   sites.  In other words, areas that had been exposed
13   or received a slug of nutrient enriched water, this --
14   a lot of this is very quickly stored in that
15   periphyton mat and by simply going out and measuring
16   the phosphorus content of that mat, we get a good
17   idea of what the historical nutrient conditions have
18   been at that site.  In the other regard, since the
19   1950s, periphyton communities have been used as
20   sensitive indicators of environmental quality.  Going
21   back to Europe, a guy by the name of Fernstead --
22   Hustead, (phonetic) those kinds of investigators
23   looked at and used diatoms, for example, as
24   indicators of water quality.  In this country it's
25   been Ruth Patrick, a friend of mine; Charles Reimer
                                                 93

 1   and several people at the Philadelphia Academy of
 2   Sciences have developed the periphyton as a water
 3   quality indicator.  As you know, EPA uses this as a
 4   bio monitoring tool in their surveillance studies of
 5   impacts of water quality on aquatic communities and
 6   it's really world wide.  It's used in Czechoslovakia;
 7   used in Russia; used it in Africa and Greece.  This
 8   is nothing new.  It's been used.  Periphyton are good
 9   indicators of water quality.
10       Q.    How quickly are -- is a slug of nutrients
11   taken up by periphyton?
12       A.    Don't know that.  We do know, based on our
13   studies, that relationship with water quality is at a
14   particular site and what the nutrient content of the
15   water was related back to the phosphorus content by
16   just some very crude looks at relationships between
17   the nutrient content and the surface water nutrient
18   chemistry.  There's a very high correlation between
19   the two.  As far as the length of time, it's hard to
20   say, but we're talking about the length of time that
21   a mat would be produced and would store the excess
22   phosphorus in that system.  You can pick that up.
23       Q.    Let me see if I can ask the question this
24   way.  How far would nutrient enriched water move
25   prior to being taken up by periphyton?
                                                 94

 1       A.    Don't know.  All I know is that a
 2   relationship between those two is that the nutrient
 3   content of the periphyton is very directly related to
 4   surface water phosphorus content.
 5       Q.    Do you intend to offer any opinions as to
 6   whether shifts in periphyton communities or break up
 7   of periphyton mat are having some adverse impacts on
 8   higher trophic species?
 9       A.    No, sir.
10       Q.    That was a good answer.  You saved all of
11   us a lot of time.
12             That's all I have of that document.
13             MR. HYDE:  Label this Exhibit 5, please.
14             (The document was marked
15             Exb. No. 5.)
16   BY MR. HYDE:
17       Q.    I'd like you to identify what's been
18   labeled as Exhibit 5.
19       A.    Ecological Indicators of Water Quality In
20   the Wetlands of Southern Florida, David R. Swift,
21   Herbert Grimshaw, South Florida Water Management
22   District.
23       Q.    Okay.  What was this abstract prepared for?
24       A.    Um --
25       Q.    Let me see if I can reflect your
                                                 95

 1   recollection or refresh your recollection.
 2             Was it presented to an International
 3   Symposium on Ecological Indicators on Miami Beach?
 4       A.    Right.
 5       Q.    The second paragraph reads, "Statistical
 6   analysis of these data revealed a highly significant
 7   correlation between the percentage of cellular
 8   phosphorus in periphyton and the concentration of
 9   phosphorus dissolved in ambient marsh water."  Citing
10   Swift 1981.
11             Was that the document that we were
12   referring to earlier which had been labeled Exhibit
13   2?
14       A.    Um, probably is a misreference.  I think it
15   should be also Swift and Nicholas 1987.
16       Q.    Okay.
17       A.    Those two documents, yes.
18       Q.    So it should be both of those documents?
19       A.    I would say so, yes.
20       Q.    The next phrase reads, "Recent
21   reexamination of these data revealed a substantial
22   increase in the magnitude of this correlation
23   coefficient when data were grouped by location prior
24   to the statistical analysis."
25             Was this recent reexamination conducted by
                                                 96

 1   both you and Mr. Grimshaw?
 2       A.    No.  I basically turned over all the
 3   nutrient chemistry due to phosphorus, cellular
 4   phosphorus data over to Jim and he basically took
 5   that information and reevaluated it and I really
 6   didn't have anything to do with the data analysis or
 7   its interpretation.  It was done strictly by Jim.
 8   Jim -- well, I think I'm wrong here.  I'm talking
 9   about two different things here.  In this one, I
10   believe that Jim and I did collaborate on this one,
11   just looking at some of the raw data that we had
12   taken a look at and the reason I'm making the
13   distinction, I think Jim has another paper that he's
14   recently published or attempted to publish that I did
15   not have much input on.  This one we did very quickly
16   take a look at some of the information for this
17   particular symposium, I guess, and presented that.
18       Q.    Do you recall the statistical procedures
19   you went through to arrive at the conclusions
20   expressed in this paragraph?
21       A.    Not exactly.
22       Q.    Okay.
23       A.    I'd have to go back and take a look at what
24   we did do.
25       Q.    Do you know whether Mr. Grimshaw would
                                                 97

 1   recall that?
 2       A.    Get him to testify, maybe he would.
 3             (The document was marked
 4             Exb. No. 6.)
 5   BY MR. HYDE:
 6       Q.    I'd like you to identify what is Exhibit 6.
 7       A.    Says, "Abstract presented at the 14th
 8   Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and
 9   Creation May 1987."
10       Q.    Okay.  And on the second page of this
11   document is that your abstract that you prepared?
12       A.    Right.
13       Q.    Are the documents that attest to this, for
14   lack of a better term, overhead documents that you
15   utilized in your presentation?
16       A.    I don't think so.  I believe these were put
17   together as part of Walt Dineen's overheads that he
18   was putting together for the Governing Board.  Some
19   of them may or may not have been used in the
20   presentation.  I remember the presentation being
21   extremely short and I couldn't have possibly gone
22   over this, but I think what happened this might have
23   been -- I don't know why there -- they are stapled
24   together.
25       Q.    Okay.  Just the way it came to me to.
                                                 98

 1       A.    Okay.  I think it's just a number of
 2   overheads that had been used in presenting some data
 3   to the Governing Board, I think.
 4       Q.    Okay.  Well, let's just refer to your
 5   portion of this document, the abstract which is page
 6   2 --
 7       A.    All right.
 8       Q.    -- the second page.
 9       A.    Uh huh.
10       Q.    In the first paragraph you state, "Attached
11   algal (periphyton) communities, a major component of
12   the Everglades food chain, were monitored over an
13   eight year period (1978-1986) to assess the effects
14   of nutrient enrichment on the ecology of the
15   Everglades Water Conservation Area marsh."
16             Why do you assert here that algal
17   periphyton communities are a major component of the
18   Everglades food chain?
19       A.    Well, I do not have a scientific
20   information that breaks down to what are the major
21   components, what are not the major components.  It --
22   the extent, for example, of the aquatic communities
23   in the Everglades is certainly obvious that the
24   periphyton are a large component of the biomass --
25   the living biomass of the Everglades.  As I said,
                                                 99

 1   other people have found that the periphyton represent
 2   a component of that food chain.  Whether it's -- you
 3   know, you can scientifically document that it's the
 4   major component, I don't believe anybody has done
 5   that yet.  But I do believe that it is an important
 6   component of the system and a major component of the
 7   system.  Just from the magnitude of biomass of carbon
 8   produced it would be obvious that it would be
 9   difficult to overlook it as a contributor.
10       Q.    I think maybe I heard two things there.
11   Were you saying that periphyton is a major component
12   of the Everglades system?
13       A.    Uh huh.
14       Q.    Or major component of the Everglades food
15   chain?
16       A.    Of the system, right.
17       Q.    I thought you also --
18       A.    Exact role in the food chain has not been
19   determined as of yet.
20       Q.    Okay.  What is your basis for saying that
21   periphyton is a major component of the Everglades
22   system?
23       A.    Just from the standpoint of you have your
24   aquatic vascular plants and then you have vast acres
25   and acres and acres of algal mats that are present in
                                                 100

 1   the system.  In Everglades National Park those algal
 2   mats can be from three to six inches thick covering
 3   miles and miles and miles of marsh.
 4       Q.    Are you essentially saying that basically
 5   because there's a lot of it there, it has to be
 6   significant?
 7       A.    Well, you are saying it's a component.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Well, I think you said it was a
 9   major component of that system.
10       A.    Right.
11       Q.    Is that -- is the significance of the
12   periphyton simply its geographic spread that makes it
13   a major component?
14       A.    It represents a large portion of the living
15   biomass of the system.  It's unlikely that that
16   living biomass is not utilized for something.  We
17   don't know exactly what it -- what it is utilized
18   for; specifically how much energy is derived from
19   periphyton; how much energy is derived from detrital
20   components of the -- of sawgrass or other components
21   of macrophytes.  It hasn't been determined yet.
22             (Ms. Stinson left.)
23   BY MR. HYDE:
24       Q.    What happens to the periphyton in drought
25   conditions?
                                                 101

 1       A.    It desiccates, falls back to the bottom of
 2   the marsh.  You can -- many times the calcium
 3   carbonate component shows up kind of -- if you flew
 4   over the area it looks like a grayish white and that
 5   represents the desiccated algal mats.
 6       Q.    Have you made any effort to quantify that
 7   periphyton biomass that you were referring to?
 8       A.    When we first got into the study, that was
 9   one of the things we were interested in, but since we
10   were trying to relate it, compare apples with apples,
11   it was very difficult because the hydroperiod, the
12   amount of time, for example, that water was present
13   at a site, we thought that would have a major
14   significance of how much -- how thick an algal mat
15   was or how much algae could be produced at a given
16   site and we wanted to make sure that we were looking
17   at one thing and that's water quality.  This
18   particular study, at least we think, is the only one --
19   only study that exists that tries to rule out the
20   effects of hydroperiod by putting out glass slide
21   substrates to look at growth rates, to look at growth
22   of algae on slides and just to look at the water
23   quality component of the study and that's the -- at
24   least that's what we designed it for.  That's why,
25   trying to get int