81
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2 _________________________________________________________
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
3 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and, )
WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC., )
4 Petitioners, )
vs. ) DOAH CASE
5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) NO. 92-3038
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
6 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
7 _______________________________________)
)
8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
Petitioners, )
10 vs. ) DOAH CASE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) NO. 92-3039
11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
12 Respondents. )
_______________________________________)
13 )
FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )
14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
16 vs. ) DOAH CASE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) NO. 92-3040
17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
18 Respondents. )
_______________________________________)_________________
19
DEPOSITION OF LOUIS TOTH, VOLUME II
20 (Day 1, Afternoon Session)
21 Taken before Criss D. Bertling, Court Reporter
and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
22 large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed by
the Petitioners in the above action.
23 - - - - -
Monday, October 26, 1992
24 319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
25 12:55 to 4:55 p.m.
- - - - -
82
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS Florida Sugar
Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,
3 and New South Hope, Inc.:
4 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
6 By: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE
7 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SFWMD:
8 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
3301 Gun Club Road
9 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
By: RUTH CLEMENTS, ESQUIRE
10
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
11
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
12 155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627
Miami, Florida 33130-1693
13 By: THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE
14
- - - - -
15 E X H I B I T S
- - - - -
16
EXHIBIT NO: DESCRIPTION: PG. MARKED:
17 ___________ _____________________________ ___________
18 Toth Depo #6 Memo dated 10-22-87 134
From Toth to Dineen
19 (Bates # 0065525-0065526)
20 Toth Depo #7 Memo dated 10-28-87 137
From Dineen to Wedderburn
21 (Bates # 0024991 & 0003482)
22 Toth Depo #8 Tech. Publication #88-6 170
(Bates # 0233515-0233546)
83
1 ~1B&dDPROCEEDINGS AFTER LUNCHEON RECESS:~1B&d@
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record.
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Mr. Toth, before we move along to a
5 different area, do you know what the latitude and
6 longitude of the sites are, the North Levee Sawgrass
7 site and the South Levee Sawgrass site?
8 A. No, I don't.
9 Q. Is there any means of locating where they
10 were that you're aware of?
11 A. I believe someone has plotted these on a
12 map, and they, you know, approximate latitude and
13 longitude, but I don't know what it is.
14 Q. And that would be someone with the
15 District?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that something that you would be able to
18 locate?
19 A. The map?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Not that I know of. I mean, put it this
22 way. At one time there was an effort under way to
23 locate all of the research stations, water quality
24 stations on one map. I don't know if that map was
25 ever produced and got to the point that it was
84
1 originally intended to be produced. But, you know, I
2 was asked to provide information regarding my sites.
3 Q. When, approximately, was that project or
4 map that you are referring to?
5 A. Oh, maybe three years ago.
6 Q. Do you know who was doing that, do you
7 recall?
8 A. Ken Rutchey.
9 Q. Could you spell that name?
10 A. R-U-T-C-H-E-Y.
11 Q. With regard to, again drawing your
12 attention to page 3 of Toth Exhibit No. 5; are you
13 aware of what the historical hydrologic regime
14 patterns were for the North Levee Sawgrass site?
15 A. No.
16 Q. At the time you did the study did you
17 investigate or determine at all what the prior
18 hydrologic, historical hydrologic regime was for that
19 site?
20 A. No.
21 Q. With regard to the South Levee Sawgrass
22 site, are you aware what the historic hydrologic
23 regime was for that site?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Were you aware at the time you were
85
1 conducting the sawgrass study?
2 A. No.
3 Q. After the sites were selected for the South
4 Levee Sawgrass and the North Levee Sawgrass, how did
5 you proceed with the project, sir?
6 A. At that point the basics of the sampling
7 methodology had already been established, and I
8 proceeded to carry out that methodology.
9 Q. Who established the basics of the sampling
10 methodology?
11 A. Who did what?
12 Q. Who established the basics of the sampling
13 methodology?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. And perhaps you could walk me through, if
16 you would, what the sampling methodology was.
17 A. We used a polyethylene cylinder, the
18 diameter of which is described in this, in the
19 report. But basically the cylinder was placed around
20 a clump of sawgrass plants. And the cylinder was
21 pushed into the soil surface by, well, physical brute
22 force, in addition to cutting your way through the
23 soil with a knife, eventually till the cylinder got
24 to a depth of 50 or so centimeters below the soil
25 surface.
86
1 At which point I physically went down
2 underneath that and cleaved the bottom of that plug,
3 if you will. And then that whole core of soil and
4 enclosed plants were lifted out of the substrate and
5 transported, either by way of truck, in the case of
6 North Levee Sawgrass, site or by airboat in the case
7 of the South Levee Sawgrass site, back to the
8 District where the samples were processed.
9 Q. Did the sampling differ at all between the
10 North Levee Sawgrass site and the South Levee
11 Sawgrass site?
12 A. No. Same sampling methodology.
13 Q. Did the higher water levels at the South
14 Levee Sawgrass site impact at all the sampling
15 method?
16 A. Not the method, just the characteristics of
17 the sampler.
18 A. In other words, I had to go under water.
19 Q. Oh. Who did the sampling for the sawgrass
20 report which is Exhibit 5?
21 A. Primarily me, in that I physically located
22 the samples and did all of the cutting and so forth
23 and extraction of the samples. But I did have some
24 assistance.
25 Q. And who did you have assistance from?
87
1 A. Various members of the Environmental
2 Sciences Division, and at that time, although primary
3 assistance came from Nancy Urban, Nancy Urban -- yes.
4 Q. Was Miss Urban your assistant?
5 A. She was -- yeah, she was a technician
6 within the division who was assigned to this
7 particular project, yes.
8 Q. Was she working on anything else at the
9 time, do you know?
10 A. No.
11 A. No, that was her primary responsibilities
12 during the year in which I did the sawgrass studies.
13 I believe her primary responsibilities were towards
14 that study.
15 Q. How often would samples be taken?
16 A. Approximately quarterly, every three months
17 or so. There were a total of 5 sampling periods over
18 a year's period of time.
19 Q. How many samples would be taken from each
20 site at the, at each sampling period?
21 A. Two of these cores per sampling date. And
22 these, each sampling period consisted of two sampling
23 dates. So a total of four core samples per sampling
24 period.
25 Q. And that's four from each site?
88
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So a total of eight, then?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What additional, was there any additional
5 sampling done at the time you took the core samples?
6 A. Well, there were -- some soil core sampling
7 was, samples were taken adjacent to the plant
8 sampling core. There were also surface water samples
9 taken adjacent to where the plant samples were taken.
10 Q. How many soil core samples would be taken?
11 A. Two per sampling period.
12 Q. And water samples?
13 A. The same two per site per sampling period,
14 I believe. Yes.
15 Q. The core samples of the sawgrass, could you
16 describe -- well, describe, if you would, exactly
17 what sample was -- Here, let me try to rephrase that.
18 Was the sample taken from the middle of a
19 sawgrass patch?
20 A. Yes. The samples were taken from the
21 middle of a sawgrass stand. A monoculture sawgrass
22 stand.
23 Q. And that's true of both of South Levee site
24 and the North Levee site?
25 A. That's correct.
89
1 Q. With regard to the soil sample that was
2 taken in conjunction with the core sample, where
3 would that soil sample be taken from?
4 A. Just the, immediately adjacent to the
5 location at which the polyethylene sampling device
6 was placed in the soil.
7 Q. So that would be again in the midst of this
8 sawgrass stand?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That was true of both sites?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. With regard to the water sampling, where
13 was that sample taken from?
14 A. The same, same general location as the soil
15 sample was taken. About the only exception being if
16 there was no water at the location at which these
17 plant samples were taken, the water samples were
18 taken, if there was water in the nearby vicinity.
19 Q. What was done with the samples once you
20 brought them back, presumably to a lab; is that
21 correct?
22 A. They were brought back to an outside
23 facility where I processed the samples. And the
24 processing involved pulling the individual plants out
25 of this core of, this clump of plants and soil
90
1 material.
2 Q. If you could just explain that entire
3 process, once you the got the samples back.
4 A. Okay. The big clump of plants and soil
5 material was placed on a table. We used a hose to
6 wash down the sample and expose the belowground plant
7 parts of the individual plants. And these were very
8 carefully extracted from this core, and each of the
9 individual plant parts were separated and put in a
10 separate sampling bag. After which they were oven
11 dried over a three to four day period in a certain
12 set of conditions. And the dried samples were
13 subsequently ground in a Wiley mill and analyzed for
14 nitrogen and phosphorus content.
15 Q. With regard to the sampling methodology and
16 procedure you followed, was that approved by anyone
17 within the department or the District?
18 A. By my immediate supervisor.
19 Q. Was that Mr. Davis?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did he have any recommended changes?
22 A. No, none that I recall.
23 Q. With regard to the water samples you
24 referenced a few moments ago, that when the water was
25 not, surface water was not available right at the
91
1 site, I believe you stated the most immediate
2 adjacent water would be sampled?
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Would that be from a slough or from the
5 canal?
6 A. Not the canal. I wouldn't, I never took
7 water from the canal. But at the South Levee site
8 there was a slough adjacent to the sawgrass stand
9 which at times had water in it when there was no
10 water within the sawgrass stand. And I would have
11 taken a water sample from that site if, on that, you
12 know, if it occurred during that sampling period.
13 Q. How would you then, how did you go about
14 determining what the nutrient uptake capacity was of
15 the belowground portion of the sawgrass once you
16 separated out the samples and followed the procedure
17 you just stated?
18 A. The plant tissues were analyzed for
19 nutrient content, which is expressed as a percentage
20 of the dry weight of that sample. And that was done
21 by our water chemistry lab.
22 Q. When you say our water chemistry lab --
23 A. The District Water Chemistry Lab.
24 Q. Were you in charge of determining the
25 sampling methodology for that?
92
1 A. No, I was not.
2 Q. Was that just following the standard
3 District methodology for it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And how did you then determine what the
6 long-term uptake efficiency was of sawgrass in the
7 North Levee site?
8 A. I don't know that I ever determined what
9 the long-term uptake efficiency was.
10 Q. Once you determined what the belowground
11 information of the plant, what nutrient percentage of
12 nutrient level it had, is that correct, how did you
13 determine what occurred with those nutrients once the
14 plant died?
15 A. Comparisons of the nutrient content of
16 those tissues among live versus dead plants gave an
17 indication of the long-term fate of those stored
18 nutrients as the plant died and decomposed.
19 Q. Did your study at all indicate what
20 happened to the aboveground portions of the plant
21 nutrient levels?
22 A. The same types of analyses were conducted
23 with aboveground plant tissues and again the same
24 kind of comparisons among live versus dead plant
25 tissues.
93
1 Q. Were there any differences between the
2 sawgrass stands at the North Levee site and the South
3 Levee site?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What were those differences?
6 A. The growth characteristics differed at the
7 two sites.
8 Q. Anything else?
9 A. There were some differences in nutrient
10 content of plant tissues at the two sites.
11 Q. Anything else?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Were there any differences in the mortality
14 of the plants?
15 A. Oh, I would consider that, well, life
16 history characteristics. There were differences in
17 mortality schedules at the two sites.
18 Q. Could you describe for me the differences
19 in the growth characteristics between the North Levee
20 site and the South Levee site?
21 A. Sawgrass plants at the South Levee site had
22 a tussock growth form in which all of the, most of
23 the plant parts including the roots, rhizomes and
24 stocks, are perched above the soil surface and are
25 basically within the water column when there is
94
1 surface water available.
2 They're anchored by roots that extend to a
3 shallow depth within the soil. That contrasted with
4 the North Levee Sawgrass site in which the roots,
5 rhizomes and stocks were all below the soil surface
6 and only the leaf material extended above the soil
7 surface.
8 Q. I believe you used the term tussock?
9 A. Tussock.
10 Q. Is that describing what you just said where
11 you only have some roots going down into the soil
12 surface?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. What caused the tussock growth form at the
15 South Levee site?
16 A. The deep water levels.
17 Q. Did the South Levee site experience deep
18 water levels all year round?
19 A. During the course of my study, no. There
20 were periods during the year during which the water
21 level, I believe, fell below the soil surface. Yes.
22 Q. What happens to a tussock sawgrass stand,
23 then, when the soil, when the water falls below the
24 soil surface?
25 A. It just sits there.
95
1 Q. It has no impact on the plant?
2 A. The actual tussock itself does not appear
3 to be affected. I can't say that, you know, that I
4 identified anything that specifically happens when
5 the water falls below the soil surface, per se.
6 Q. Just, again, so I understand visually, if
7 the water falls below the soil surface, do you know,
8 so you sawgrass roots exposed to the air?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And this is in a sawgrass -- is it still a
11 stand of sawgrass?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So you would only see the roots then around
14 the outside or would you basically see them on the
15 inner or --
16 A. The distribution of individual tussock was
17 such that it was a clump distribution pattern, so
18 there was a lot of open space in between these clumps
19 of tussocks. So if you walked through the stand you
20 would see these during a dry period, you would see
21 these exposed root systems.
22 Q. And you did not have any tussock growth in
23 the North Levee site?
24 A. No.
25 Q. As I understand what you're describing,
96
1 your study, one aspect, at least, was to determine
2 the nutrient uptake of the belowground portions of
3 the sawgrass stands at the different sites; is that
4 correct?
5 A. The nutrient storage in belowground plant
6 tissues. The difference between nutrient storage and
7 uptake.
8 Q. Excuse me. Nutrient storage. When you're
9 looking at the South Levee site, then, were you then
10 looking only at those roots that actually did
11 penetrate and go into the soil substrate or would you
12 actually look at the floating tussock growth?
13 A. Looked at the entire root system.
14 Q. So that would include, then, the growth
15 that was during, for instance, high water levels of
16 floating in the weir, if I understand your
17 description correctly?
18 A. Yes. Although they weren't all floating.
19 Again, the characteristics of a tussock is that these
20 roots extend, they anchor the tussock into the soil.
21 So only, very few roots were actually floating.
22 There was sort of an anchoring type structure.
23 Q. Does it, are they -- do they form a mat?
24 I'm just trying to understand -- okay.
25 At the North Levee site where they all grow
97
1 together in the roots and they grow in a clump or
2 stand, obviously they are held together by the soil.
3 As I understand what you're describing at the South
4 Levee site, you have anchoring roots going through
5 the water and into.
6 What holds the different plants together in
7 a stand at the South Levee site; are they
8 intertwined?
9 A. An individual tussock typically has a
10 number of interconnected plants and they are
11 connected by way of rhizomes or the individual culms
12 grow off the stock of another plant.
13 Q. Now when you refer to a rhizome, could you
14 describe to me what a rhizome is?
15 A. It's a structure that's usually
16 belowground. But it's a structure, it's a
17 reproductive structure in which a new culm or plant
18 is produced from a parent plant.
19 Q. Drawing your attention to page 4 of Exhibit
20 No. 5. The rhizome on this particular figure is
21 identified in the lower lefthand portion of that
22 plant. What would happen with that rhizome, how does
23 it create a new plant?
24 A. The rhizome makes stands from the stock of
25 the sawgrass culm. And it grows laterally to a
98
1 point. And at some point in time a, the, there is
2 vertical meristematic tissue growth which causes the
3 formation of a new sawgrass culm. So the lateral
4 development of the rhizome eventually gives rise to a
5 new sawgrass culm that elongates in the vertical
6 direction.
7 Q. You mentioned meristematic, what does that
8 mean?
9 A. That refers to a group of cells that are
10 basically the new growth cells of a plant or of a
11 tissue, rapidly reproducing growth cells.
12 Q. In the North Levee site, would the rhizomes
13 typically be below the surface root structures or
14 portions of the plant?
15 A. Yes, they would be belowground typically.
16 Q. At the South Levee site, would those be
17 typically above or belowground?
18 A. To a large extent they would be above the
19 soil surface. That's not to say there were not
20 rhizomes below the soil surface, but predominantly
21 above the soil surface.
22 Q. Would there be any differences in the
23 density or other physical characteristics of the
24 sawgrass stands between the North Levee site and the
25 South Levee site?
99
1 A. I can't remember exactly what the data
2 said, but by virtue of the distribution of the
3 individual culms, I believe there were density
4 differences such that there was greater density of
5 plants at the North Levee site than at the South
6 Levee site. And that's because the plants at the
7 South Levee site were distributed in clumps with a
8 lot of space or gaps in between those clumps.
9 Q. What would be the occupying of space and
10 the gaps in between the clumps?
11 A. (No verbal response.)
12 Q. Do you understand the question?
13 A. Yes. Open water. Algogrowth.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. All the other things that live in water.
16 Q. With regard to the North Levee site, did it
17 also have gaps between the stands?
18 A. Between the stands? Between the individual
19 plants, you mean?
20 Q. I'm sorry. Were you referring to
21 individual plants would have gaps in the South Levee
22 site between them?
23 A. Individual tussocks would be gaps between
24 them.
25 Q. And a tussock is comprised of how many
100
1 plants?
2 A. Hmm. It could be 50, could be a hundred.
3 Q. How would, then, the tussock growth with
4 the gaps with the water in between compare to the
5 sawgrass growth in the North Levee site?
6 A. *** The sawgrass distributions at the
7 northern site were more, they were more evenly
8 distributed. Individual culms would, were evenly
9 distributed throughout the stand in a very dense
10 fashion.
11 Q. Drawing your attention back to page 4
12 there, what was the culm, is this an individual culm?
13 A. That is a representation of a culm, yes.
14 Culm refers to the set of plant tissues that are
15 associated with one plant. There is a
16 differentiation between a culm and a plant. This is
17 a culm as presented here (indicating).
18 Q. And what would a plant be if you presented
19 it --
20 A. Well, this is called a culm because of its
21 relationship by way of rhizomes and so forth to the
22 other plants within the immediate area. This
23 individual culm could have a number of other sawgrass
24 culms attached to it by way of rhizomes. It could
25 have a number of other sawgrass culms attached to it
101
1 that are growing right off the stock itself.
2 That differentiation is used, it is called
3 a culm rather than a plant because, typically, when
4 you think of a plant it's just one, one plant; it
5 doesn't have all these individual, other individual
6 culms attached to it (indicating).
7 Q. Okay. In relation to this figure 2 on page
8 4 of Exhibit 5 at the South Levee site, approximately
9 what portion of this culm would be under the
10 substrate surface?
11 A. That's variable. Some culms within a
12 tussock would be entirely above the soil surface.
13 Some would have roots that were anchored into the
14 soil surface.
15 Q. I believe I probably misspoke. I meant to
16 say at the North Levee site. From what you're saying
17 it sounds like to me I misspoke when I asked the
18 question.
19 At the North Levee site what portion of
20 this culm would be under the ground surface or
21 substrate surface?
22 A. Everything from the tip of what is
23 designated as the stock and below that (indicating).
24 Q. And now that I understand that, I would ask
25 what you were about to respond to earlier. At a
102
1 tussock growth, how would that differ?
2 A. The only portion of the culm that was
3 belowground was typically the anchoring roots and any
4 individual rhizomes that extended belowground.
5 Q. Some rhizomes would be in the ground and
6 some would be in the surface or -- excuse me -- in
7 the water surface?
8 A. Yes. There was -- I guess I need to
9 clarify that. The tussock typically had a one or two
10 what you might call parent plants that had originated
11 in the, within the soil. And therefore a portion of
12 their stock would have been in the soil and their
13 anchoring root systems would also have been within
14 the soil.
15 But from this parent culm, a large number
16 of other culms were produced and most of those other
17 culms would have been perched above the soil surface.
18 Q. What would happen to the nutrients stored
19 in the belowground portion of the sawgrass at the
20 North Levee site upon the death of the plant?
21 A. There was, I think the data showed that
22 there was some initial leaching of nutrients with the
23 death of an individual plant. In other words, the
24 nutrient content or concentration of roots of live
25 plants was greater than the nutrient concentrations
103
1 of roots of dead plants, suggesting that there was
2 some loss of nutrients from those tissues as the
3 plant died.
4 Thereafter, after death, the nutrient
5 content of those roots appeared to be fairly stable,
6 suggesting that those nutrients were permanently
7 stored in the soil complex.
8 Q. The leaching that occurred that you just
9 referred to, is that as a result of some
10 decomposition of the root or is that a different
11 process?
12 A. Leaching can be, is a different process
13 than decomposition. Leaching can occur outside of
14 decomposition; I mean leaching can occur whether or
15 not the plant or tissue is decomposing.
16 So, you know, maybe I wasn't totally clear
17 on the answer to that. It could have been leaching
18 and it could have been decomposition as well. Or
19 both.
20 Q. Was there a, for instance, you said, it
21 sounded like you were talking about a period where
22 there was some loss of the nutrient storage due to
23 leaching or decomposition and then it leveled off
24 where that the loss of nutrient storage did not take
25 place. What was the time period you are referring to
104
1 there?
2 A. I don't know that I had any specific data
3 on the time period. Although some data, I did
4 collect some data that was intended to track the
5 nutrient storage, the nutrient content of individual
6 plant tissues of plants that, in which the time of
7 their death was known. I tracked those over a period
8 of time and I can't exactly recall what the data
9 shows, but I seem to remember that there was an
10 initial nutrient loss followed by a fairly stable
11 period thereafter.
12 Q. Is that what you were just referring to,
13 that study or portion of the study, is that part of
14 this particular --
15 A. Yes, the flowering plants -- sawgrass
16 plants flower during a certain time of the year and
17 all sawgrass plants, the flowers die immediately
18 thereafter.
19 And by sampling plants that had, that had
20 died or flowered during a certain time of the year at
21 subsequent intervals after they had died is a way of
22 tracking the changes in nutrient content at given
23 periods after the plant had died or the culm had
24 died.
25 Q. And after the leaching or decomposition
105
1 period where there was a loss of storage, as I
2 understand, are you saying that the remainder of the
3 storage would then get trapped in the soil or would
4 remain in the soil?
5 A. It's very likely, yes.
6 Q. Now, shifting then to the South Levee site,
7 what would happen thereupon death of a plant?
8 A. The plant tissues that were above the soil
9 surface were subject to further decomposition and
10 more likely to undergo further decomposition than the
11 belowground plant parts at the other site.
12 Q. So does that mean there would be less
13 nutrients stored in the soil after the plant died?
14 A. That means, of the nutrients that were
15 stored in these plant tissues there was less that
16 would be subject to permanent storage within those
17 plant tissues within the soil complex, yes.
18 Q. Once a plant died up at the North Levee
19 site, if there was a subsequent burn at that area,
20 would that impact at all the, what would happen to
21 the nutrients in the below-surface remnants of the
22 plant?
23 A. I didn't investigate the effects of fire.
24 I can't really comment on that.
25 Q. Did you look at all whether, how far it
106
1 would impact at a tussock site, whether or not that
2 impacted what happened to the nutrients stored in the
3 remnants of the dead plant?
4 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. He stated he
5 didn't look at fire at all.
6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
7 Q. I was just shifting to that side.
8 A. Again, I didn't look at the effects of fire
9 at that site, at either site.
10 Q. Okay. So as far as you know it might or
11 might not affect it, you just haven't looked at it,
12 just so I understand what you're saying?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. How did you go about determining how many
15 samples to take at each site?
16 A. A number of factors entered into that. I
17 tried to get a very large number of samples of, large
18 number of culms, individual plant culms representing
19 various life history stages, various growth stages.
20 So that, to a large extent, determined how many
21 samples that we collected.
22 The other factor that came into play was
23 processing time on any given sampling date to. Two
24 samples were the maximum number of samples that I
25 could process within what I felt like was a, an
107
1 acceptable time period to have the samples processed.
2 In other words, I didn't want samples
3 laying around for weeks before I had extracted the
4 plants and extracted those tissues and had them dried
5 and the nutrient content more or less fixed with the
6 tissues.
7 So there were two samples per sampling day
8 was the maximum that I could process within a week's
9 period of time.
10 Q. Drawing your attention to Roman numeral 3,
11 page iii, it refers there in the last sentence to
12 comments made on earlier drafts by a number of
13 individuals. Do you still have copies of the
14 comments that were made on earlier drafts of this
15 document?
16 A. If I do they were within the files that I
17 provided to you.
18 Q. Do you have any earlier drafts of this
19 document?
20 A. If I do it's within the files that I
21 provided.
22 Q. If they're not there, then in all
23 likelihood you just didn't hold onto them?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Do you recall what if any comments were
108
1 made by the individuals that are listed there?
2 A. I don't recall, no.
3 Q. Turning to Roman numeral page iv of that,
4 second sentence in the "Abstract" states:
5 "Biomass production, tissue nutrient
6 concentrations and nutrient storage potential were
7 higher in sawgrass stands exposed to shallow, stable
8 water levels than in stands growing in relatively
9 deep and widely fluctuating water levels."
10 Did your study determine as to why that was
11 so?
12 A. To some extent, yes. To some extent.
13 Q. Okay. And why was it true, or why are
14 nutrient storage potential and tissue nutrient
15 concentrations higher in the shallow, stable water
16 levels as opposed to the stands growing in relatively
17 deep and widely fluctuating water levels?
18 A. The nutrient storage potential was higher
19 in the shallow stable water levels because the
20 belowground plant tissues were belowground and were
21 not subject to, once the plant died they were not
22 subject to any further decomposition.
23 So it was very likely that the nutrient
24 content of those tissues was permanently stored in
25 the soil complex.
109
1 And that was not the case at the South site
2 where those same tissues were above the soil surface
3 and subject to further decomposition and release to
4 the water column.
5 Q. Did the different water concentrations have
6 any impacts -- I believe you might have already
7 stated this briefly -- on the density or the actual
8 physical characteristics of the plants?
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Objection.
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. What are you
11 talking about, "water concentration"?
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm sorry. I'll restate
13 the question.
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Did the different water levels or the
16 hydrologic conditions between the two sites have any
17 impact upon the physical characteristics of the
18 plant?
19 A. The differences in the tussock growth form
20 versus the other growth form, yes.
21 Q. Aboveground characteristics.
22 A. Aboveground characteristics, physical
23 characteristics.
24 Q. Yes. When I say aboveground, since you
25 explained tussock growth actually does, quite a bit
110
1 of the root structure occurs aboveground, what would
2 be the correct above root structure?
3 A. Leaf material is that what you're talking
4 about?
5 Q. Leaf material, yes.
6 A. There were differences in the length of the
7 individual sawgrass leaves, the maximum length at
8 which sawgrass leaves attained at the two sites.
9 Q. What were those differences?
10 A. They grew to a longer length at the North
11 Levee site than at the South Levee site.
12 Q. Were the stands denser at the North or the
13 South Levee site?
14 A. At the North Levee site.
15 Q. Did your study reveal why there were those
16 differences?
17 MS. CLEMENTS: Which differences are we
18 talking about, density or leaf length?
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Okay. I'll start with leaf length. Did
21 your study reveal as to why there were differences in
22 leaf length between the North Levee site and the
23 South Levee site?
24 A. Not definitively.
25 Q. When you say not definitively, were there
111
1 indications as to why?
2 A. I provided a possible explanation of why
3 these differences occurred at the two sites.
4 Q. What was that explanation?
5 A. The explanation was that the shallow, that
6 the hydrologic regimes at the north site provided for
7 greater nutrient availability to those individual
8 plants than the hydrologic conditions at the southern
9 site.
10 Q. Which site resulted in a greater release in
11 nutrients to the surface water at the time of death
12 of the plant?
13 A. I don't recall. The greater release of
14 nutrients to the surface water at the time of death
15 of the plant --
16 Q. After death of the plant is what I meant to
17 say.
18 (Thereupon, there was a pause in
19 the proceedings.)
20 A. I don't know. I don't know.
21 Q. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.
22 As I understood it, you stated that at the North
23 Levee site upon death of the plant there was some
24 loss of nutrient storage and then after a while the
25 remaining, the remains of the plant were constant and
112
1 the nutrients would be stored in the soil; is that
2 correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And comparing that to the South Levee site,
5 is there the same amount, was there the same amount
6 of storage of nutrients left in the remnants of the
7 plant in the substrate, in the soils?
8 A. Not in the soils. No. There was
9 differences in the soils.
10 Q. Were there less nutrients stored in the
11 soils on the South Levee site?
12 A. There were less nutrients within sawgrass
13 plant tissues stored in the soils at the South site.
14 Q. I believe you also stated that as a result
15 of the tussock growth there was, after the death of
16 the plant, the portions of the plant that were above
17 the substrate level were subject to greater
18 decomposition than at the North Levee site as a
19 result of the tussock formation where they were
20 floating in the water; is that correct?
21 A. Say that again, ask that question again.
22 Q. At the South Levee site --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- were the portions of the root structure
25 that were in the water surface above the soil surface
113
1 subject to greater amount of decomposition than those
2 portions that were in the, under the soil surface?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would the decomposition result in nutrient
5 loss or release into the surface water --
6 A. Did the decomposition of the tissues above
7 the soil surface -- yes.
8 Q. Going back to my prior question, then. Did
9 the difference in the water levels, the hydroperiod
10 between the two sites impact the amount of nutrients
11 that would be released into the surface waters upon
12 death of the plant?
13 A. These are two different questions. You're
14 asking a very, very general question in this case
15 versus the more specific questions that you asked
16 prior to that. So in answer to your latest question
17 I would say I don't know.
18 Q. What would you have to do to find out?
19 A. You would have to look at the nutrients
20 released from the aboveground plant, all of the plant
21 parts that were aboveground, including the production
22 of those plant parts aboveground and the
23 characteristics of the stand, the standing crop,
24 biomass standing characteristics of the stand.
25 But if you're talking about an individual
114
1 plant and its associated tissues, and I gave you the
2 answer to that -- you're asking a much more general
3 question.
4 Q. What you're saying is as to an individual
5 plant there is greater release?
6 A. There is -- That depends. It depends on
7 the relative quantities of nutrients that are found
8 in the leaf portions of the plants at the two sites
9 as well as the root portion -- well, all of the
10 individual plant tissues at the two sites.
11 If the same quantity of nutrients were
12 found in leaf tissues at the North site and the South
13 site, then there is greater potential for nutrient
14 release to the water column at the South site because
15 those tissues that are belowground at the North site
16 are aboveground at the South site.
17 Q. Let me ask, then, perhaps, a more specific
18 question, and that is, Did the amount of nutrients
19 stored in the soil, was that a function of the
20 hydroperiod, the differences in the hydroperiod
21 between the two sites?
22 A. I don't know about the amount of nutrients
23 stored in the soil in those general terms. I know
24 about the amount of nutrients that were stored in
25 plant tissues within the soil.
115
1 Q. Okay. The amount of nutrients stored in
2 the plant tissues within the soil, the differences
3 between, were there differences between the amount of
4 nutrients stored in the plant tissues in the soil
5 between the two sites?
6 MS. CLEMENTS: In the soil or below?
7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
8 Q. Below the soil.
9 A. Yes, there were differences.
10 Q. And what were those differences? Was there
11 greater storage in the North site?
12 A. There was greater storage in the North site
13 because there were more plant tissues, individual
14 plant tissues within the soil complex than at the
15 South site.
16 Q. And is that difference a function of the
17 difference in the hydroperiod between the two sites?
18 A. It's a function of the differences in
19 growth characteristics at the two sites which were
20 attributable in the differences of hydrology at the
21 two sites.
22 Q. What happens to the remnants of the dead
23 plants that are in the soil?
24 A. They are likely not subject to very much
25 additional composition because they are being
116
1 continually buried below new layers of soil as the
2 aboveground tissues die and accumulate more soil
3 above them.
4 And based upon the literature and types of
5 conditions that are found within the soil complex,
6 those conditions are not very favorable for further
7 decomposition and loss of nutrients to the soil
8 complex.
9 Q. Let me see if I can understand what your
10 testimony is. Can you then dig into the peat, for
11 instance, in WCA 2A, if you go down far enough, and
12 find root remnants from plants that have been dead,
13 five, ten, twenty years?
14 A. You can find root remnants that have been
15 dead for a number of years, yes.
16 Q. And basically they do not decompose after a
17 particular point; is that correct?
18 A. I wouldn't say -- I don't know for sure if
19 they don't decompose, but my observations are that
20 they do not undergo significant decomposition after a
21 certain point. If they are within the soil complex
22 buried.
23 Q. Do they ultimately become part of the peat,
24 Everglades peat or --
25 A. Yes, yes, that's characteristic of
117
1 Everglades peat.
2 Q. Drawing your attention, sir, to page 1 of
3 your Exhibit No. 5, the second paragraph, second
4 sentence states:
5 "Nutrients remaining in dying aboveground
6 plant tissues are either translocated and internally
7 recycled" -- with a cite to Hopkinson and Schubauer,
8 1984, Prentki et al., 1978 -- "or returned to surface
9 water during decomposition" -- with sites to three
10 additional studies.
11 What does translocation mean?
12 A. That's a process by which nutrients are
13 internally redistributed, are redistributed
14 internally within a given plant to either other parts
15 of that same plant or to new plant growth by way of
16 reproduction.
17 Q. Do nutrients release from decomposing
18 aboveground plant tissues get trapped in the soil?
19 A. I believe the literature will suggest that
20 there could be some reuse of those nutrients that are
21 released from belowground plant tissues, reuse in
22 terms of new plant growth or uptake.
23 Q. I'm not sure if you understood the
24 question.
25 MR. KOBELINSKI: Do you want to read it
118
1 back?
2 (Thereupon, a portion of the
3 record was read by the reporter.)
4 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I misunderstood
5 the question. I don't know. I don't know.
6 Nutrients released from aboveground tissues may
7 or may not make their way into the soil and be
8 trapped. I don't have any data to comment
9 either way on that one.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. The statement that we just read that:
12 "Nutrients remaining in dying aboveground
13 plant tissues are either translocated and Internally
14 recycled or returned to surface water during
15 decomposition"
16 is not based upon any of your own
17 findings?
18 A. That is not.
19 Q. Are you aware of any data that would
20 indicate that that statement is untrue?
21 A. I'm not specifically aware of any data that
22 that, that would indicate that statement is untrue,
23 no.
24 Q. Did the South Levee site experience water
25 depths of belowground elevation, typically, at least
119
1 at some portion during the year?
2 A. I believe they did, yes. The best I
3 remember.
4 Q. And did that also occur at the North Levee
5 site?
6 A. Not to my recollection, no.
7 Q. You mentioned that there was a difference
8 in the nutrient concentration storage of the plants
9 between the North Levee site and the South Levee
10 site; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, there were some differences in
12 concentrations of comparable plant tissues between
13 the two sites, yes.
14 Q. And it was greater in the North Levee site?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was that a factor of the nutrient
17 concentrations in the surface water?
18 A. It could have been, yes. There were
19 differences in, some differences, slight differences
20 in nutrient concentrations, at least some parameters
21 between the two sites.
22 Q. Were there differences in the soil
23 characteristics between the two sites?
24 A. There were some differences.
25 Q. What were the differences?
120
1 A. I would have to look at the information.
2 It's been a long time since I did this.
3 Q. Where would you look? Is it someplace
4 within the study?
5 A. Yes, it's documented in the "Results"
6 section.
7 Q. Feel free to use Exhibit 5 to refresh your
8 recollection.
9 A. Let's see. Soil nutrient concentrations
10 are given on page 8.
11 Q. You are referring to soil nutrient
12 concentrations. Was there -- I'll ask you a few
13 questions about that in a moment since you have
14 pointed it out. But was there, otherwise, other than
15 soil nutrient concentrations, was there any
16 difference between the soil located at the South
17 Levee site and the North Levee site; were they the
18 same types of peat?
19 A. They were the same types of peat, yes. The
20 South site soils were more compacted than the North
21 site soils. But from my observations they were
22 similar types of peat.
23 Q. Was the peat at the North Levee site
24 Loxahatchee peat?
25 A. I have no idea what Loxahatchee peat is.
121
1 Q. Did your study consider any of the impacts
2 of differences in the soil characteristics, how that
3 would impact the nutrient storage capacity of the
4 plants both during life and after they died?
5 A. Soils were sampled for nutrient content in
6 an attempt to determine if there were any differences
7 between the two sites. If that, you know, could
8 possibly affect the nutrient storage on uptake
9 capabilities of the plants at the two sites.
10 There were differences. The differences
11 did not appear to be consistent enough to affect the
12 characteristics of the stands at the two sites, in my
13 opinion.
14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you read that back?
15 (Thereupon, a portion of the
16 record was read by the reporter.)
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. Drawing your attention to Roman numeral i,
19 the "Executive Summary", third full paragraph, the
20 righthand side of the page:
21 "Shallow and stable water conditions also
22 appeared to be more conducive to permanent storage
23 (retention) of nutrients accumulated by sawgrass
24 tissues, than deep, widely fluctuating stages."
25 Does that mean there was more nutrient
122
1 storage in the soil at the North Levee site as a
2 result of the sawgrass characteristics there than
3 there was at the South Levee site?
4 A. There was more potential for nutrient
5 storage in belowground plant tissues at the North
6 Levee site than at the South Levee site, yes.
7 Q. A few moments ago I asked you a question
8 about differences in the soils between the two sites
9 and you had mentioned that initial testing had shown
10 that there was a slight difference in the phosphorous
11 levels with slightly higher phosphorous levels at the
12 North Levee site than at the South Levee site. I
13 believe you referred me to page 8.
14 A. I don't believe I said anything about the
15 phosphorus levels. I said differences in nutrient
16 concentrations at the two sites.
17 Q. All right. Is that a function of what you
18 described in the Executive Summary, that the "Shallow
19 and stable water level conditions also appeared to be
20 more conducive to permanent storage (retention) of
21 nutrients accumulated by sawgrass tissues, than deep,
22 widely fluctuating stages"?
23 A. No, no, these are sort of independent
24 analyses. I wouldn't draw any correlation between
25 this data and the data on dealing with nutrient
123
1 content and storage in the plant tissues. Too many
2 other factors probably going on there. Because this
3 (indicating), this -- they are different things.
4 Q. What other factors would be involved in the
5 nutrient concentrations in the soil?
6 A. The soil complex is made up, the peat soil
7 complex is made up not only of roots and rhizomes and
8 what are typically belowground plant parts, but it's
9 also made up of decomposing aboveground, or leaf
10 tissues or decomposed leaf tissues. The statements
11 that I make in the Executive Summary refer to
12 nutrient storage in roots, rhizomes, typically the
13 belowground plant part tissues.
14 They do not refer to, you know, what's
15 happening with the leaf material once it's undergoing
16 decomposition and eventually becoming part of the
17 soil complex.
18 Therefore, you know, we're comparing apples
19 and oranges if you try to compare that statement with
20 the data presented in the soil nutrient analyses
21 results.
22 Q. As I understand what you're saying, there
23 are other factors involved besides just what is
24 referred to in that statement?
25 A. Can you clarify that question?
124
1 Q. My question with regard to the differences
2 in the soil concentration was an attempt to determine
3 what are the factors that influenced the nutrient
4 concentration in the soil. You said there were
5 differences between the two sites?
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. Okay. And in another portion of your
8 report you state that the shallow and stable water
9 conditions at the North Levee site are more conducive
10 to permanent storage of nutrient conditions accumulated
11 by the sawgrass tissues than the South Levee site.
12 Was that one factor influencing the nutrient levels
13 in the soil the differences between the two sites?
14 MS. CLEMENTS: Are you saying that the
15 greater storage potential at the north end
16 contributes to the greater soil concentration?
17 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll ask it that way.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. Does the greater storage potential to the
20 North Levee site contribute to the greater nutrient
21 level concentration?
22 A. It could, yes.
23 Q. What else could impact it?
24 A. The dynamics of decomposition of the leaf
25 material.
125
1 Q. Okay. Drawing your attention further on in
2 that paragraph of the Executive Summary:
3 "Moreover, due to high rates of leaf
4 production in shallow water conditions, leaf litter
5 may accumulate on the soil surface faster than leaf
6 decomposition, and thereby bury a portion of the
7 nutrients retained by dead leaf tissues. In
8 contrast, where water levels are predominantly deep
9 and widely fluctuating, sawgrass typically grows on
10 tussocks on which all plant parts are perched above
11 the soil surface."
12 Is that what you are referring to as an
13 additional factor?
14 A. In part.
15 Q. And what other part is there?
16 A. Not only the accumulation of leaf material
17 as new, potentially new peat material, but also what
18 happens with those nutrients that are released from
19 the leaf material. That would affect the nutrient
20 content of the soils as well.
21 If there are differences between the two
22 sites -- and I don't know that there are -- but if
23 there are differences and the ultimate fate of
24 nutrients released from leaf materials at the two
25 sites that could influence the content of nutrients
126
1 within the soil.
2 If there are differences in nutrient
3 inflows at the two sites, that could affect the
4 differences in soils at the two sites.
5 If there are differences in soil
6 microorganisms that could influence the nutrient
7 content of the soils.
8 If there are differences in algo production
9 at the two sites that could influence the differences
10 in soil nutrient content at the two sites.
11 The statement that I make here provides
12 information on the contribution, or the nutrient,
13 permanent nutrient storage potential within roots,
14 rhizomes, belowground plant tissues at the two sites.
15 That's only part, a piece of the puzzle.
16 Q. Okay. Once a plant dies, a sawgrass plant
17 dies, what are the difference options as to where the
18 nutrients that were stored in the plant could go?
19 A. Once it's dead, once the plant is dead, the
20 nutrients can be released. In which case they are
21 either subject to uptake by other plants or other,
22 other components of the system that might use
23 nutrients. They can become absorbed to other
24 materials. Dead plant parts, so forth. Or they can,
25 under some conditions, can be released to the
127
1 atmosphere as a gas.
2 Q. What conditions would that happen in?
3 A. Soil -- It would have to be a dry
4 condition. Or they could be permanently stored
5 within the soil complex.
6 Q. Which is what you are referring to there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When you said released and used by other
9 plants, are you referring to release from either the
10 soil and/or the water column or just one of those
11 two?
12 A. It's possible for both. If nutrients are
13 released at or just below the soil surface the sort
14 of interstitial litter layer, those nutrients are
15 subject to, very likely subject to further uptake.
16 Q. Turning your attention to page 27,
17 "Conclusions and Recommendations", number 4, is this
18 conclusion based upon the results of the South Levee
19 site study you did?
20 A. Yes, in comparison with the North site,
21 yes.
22 Q. As I understand, then, it is the
23 hydroperiod between the two, or hydrology,
24 differences in hydrology between the two different
25 sites that results in the ability of the sawgrass to
128
1 permanently remove surface water nutrients?
2 A. The differences in hydrology at the two
3 sites and their effects on the growth characteristics
4 of the species at the two sites and specifically the
5 growth of most of the plant tissues above the soil
6 surface at the South site versus the characteristics
7 at the North site, that, in my words, interfere with
8 the ability of the species to permanently remove
9 surface water nutrients.
10 Q. At the South site?
11 A. At the South site.
12 Q. Hydrology then was the determining factor
13 there?
14 A. Hydrology had the effect that, through the
15 differences in growth characteristics, had the effect
16 that interfered with the ability of this species to
17 permanently remove nutrients.
18 Q. Did the hydrology of the South Levee site
19 have a impact or stress the sawgrass stands located
20 at that site?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did that impact the growth or spread of the
23 sawgrass at the South Levee site?
24 (Thereupon, there was a pause in
25 the proceedings.)
129
1 MS. CLEMENTS: You only have to answer if
2 you have an idea.
3 (Thereupon, there was a pause in
4 the proceedings.)
5 A. I certainly have no idea if it influences
6 the spread of sawgrass at the South site. You know,
7 I didn't collect any data along those lines.
8 Q. Did the fluctuating, deep water and the
9 fluctuating hydrology impact the growth
10 characteristics at the sawgrass at the South site?
11 A. Yes.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Answered.
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. Did it negatively impact the growth
15 characteristic at the sawgrass at the South site?
16 MR. FITZGERALD: Objection to the form of
17 the question.
18 MR. KOBELINSKI: What's your objection to
19 the form?
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Define negative.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Did the deep water and fluctuating
23 hydrology have an adverse impact upon the health of
24 the sawgrass stands at the South Levee site?
25 A. Yes.
130
1 Q. Referring referring you to page 25, second
2 sentence, first paragraph. Is it true that:
3 "Results of this study indicate that water
4 regimes may directly affect sawgrass growth rates and
5 mortality schedules and lead to adaptive growth
6 characterizes and life history strategies. Tussock
7 formation, slow plant growth rates, and heavy early
8 mortality coupled with high rates of new shoot
9 production appear to be characteristics of sawgrass
10 subjected to stresses associated with deep and widely
11 fluctuating water levels."
12 A. Those were the conclusions of the study,
13 yes.
14 Q. As part of your studies did you investigate
15 the impact of nutrients upon sawgrass concentrations
16 of nutrients in the surface water?
17 A. No, not directly.
18 Q. Are you aware of any studies showing that
19 the concentration of nutrients in surface water
20 stresses sawgrass and impacts its growth
21 characteristics?
22 MS. CLEMENTS: You mean as to high or low
23 amounts of nutrients?
24 MR. KOBELINSKI: Either one.
25 MS. CLEMENTS: Either very extreme or very
131
1 low?
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm talking any level of
3 nutrients.
4 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that?
5 (Thereupon, a portion of the
6 record was read by the reporter.)
7 A. Not in the same context that those words
8 are used in this study, no, I am not aware of any
9 studies that indicate that nutrients affect or
10 stresses influence growth characteristics of
11 sawgrass.
12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13 Q. Was the North Levee site a high nutrient,
14 did it have a high nutrient concentration in the
15 water?
16 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. Define high.
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. Did you determine what the nutrient levels
19 were in the water?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you compare those to the background
22 levels of the marsh?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Were the nutrients levels in the water
25 typical of areas influenced by agricultural surface
132
1 water runoff?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Were the surface water levels of
4 phosphorous concentration, surface water levels at
5 the North Levee site impacted by phosphorous in the
6 surface waters flowing out of the E.A.A.?
7 A. I would have no way of determining that.
8 But I don't know.
9 Q. To your knowledge were they elevated as a
10 result of agricultural activities?
11 A. No.
12 Q. With regard to the South Levee site, were
13 the surface water levels of phosphorous or nutrient
14 concentrations experiencing nutrient enrichment
15 influenced by agricultural surface water runoff?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did the culmination of your study
18 demonstrate that hydrological factors were the
19 controlling factor in determining the nutrient
20 storage of belowground portions of sawgrass plants?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What were the controlling factors?
23 A. The results of my study indicate that
24 hydrology was a factor influencing nutrient storage
25 potential of belowground plant tissues. I wouldn't
133
1 take that a step further and say it was the
2 controlling factor because there is potential for
3 other factors to influence that.
4 Q. Such as?
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Asked and answered.
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: That was general. I'm now
7 referring to these two specific sites.
8 MR. FITZGERALD: The objection stands.
9 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the
10 question, please?
11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12 Q. Did your study show that hydrological
13 factors were the controlling factor in the nutrient
14 storage of belowground portions of sawgrass plants
15 between the two sites?
16 MS. CLEMENTS: Objection. Asked and
17 answered. He's already stated no, it was not
18 the controlling factor.
19 THE WITNESS: I think you asked two
20 different questions, to be honest with you.
21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22 Q. Answer this question, then, just the one
23 that's addressed to you right now.
24 A. My study showed that hydrology at these two
25 sites was a key factor in determining the potential
134
1 for nutrient storage in belowground plant tissues at
2 these two sites.
3 Q. Did your study reveal any other factors
4 that compared to the impact of the hydrology?
5 A. No.
6 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 6 was
7 marked for identification.)
8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
9 Q. Drawing your attention, sir, to what's been
10 marked as Toth Exhibit No. 6, a memo from yourself to
11 Walt Dineen, dated October 22, 1987, I ask whether or
12 not you have ever seen this before.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Drawing your attention to the first
15 numbered paragraph there. How would the inclusion of
16 that statement have tainted your professional
17 reputation?
18 A. If you put a statement like that in the
19 Conclusions and Recommendations section it implies
20 that it's a conclusion and recommendation of this
21 particular study, and it was not. So I felt like it
22 was inappropriate to include a statement that, you
23 know, made that suggestion.
24 Q. Your study, in other words, did not
25 investigate whether fluctuating water levels had
135
1 advantages or disadvantages to overall management of
2 the South Florida water runoff; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. What prompted this memo?
5 A. To the best of my recollection here, this
6 was at a point when the sawgrass technical
7 publication was undergoing its final phases or review
8 just before publication, and there were these
9 suggested modifications to the conclusions and
10 recommendations that I had within the draft at that
11 point in time.
12 Q. And whose suggested modifications are
13 these?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Did you discuss them with Mr. Dineen?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Did he tell you whose suggested changes
18 they were?
19 A. He told me where he thought they came from,
20 and it was in some general terms executive review of
21 the draft.
22 Q. What is executive review referred to?
23 A. Executive office review of the draft. Now,
24 I don't know who that means specifically, but, you
25 know, it could mean a number of different people at a
136
1 time.
2 Q. Did he ultimately support you in not
3 creating that portion of the fourth conclusion and
4 recommendation? I'm referring to "management options
5 leading to excessive depth in water concentration
6 areas should be avoided."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Who is Dr. Bidol, B-I-D-O-L?
9 A. Bidol.
10 Q. Bidol.
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Who is that?
13 A. She was a, I don't know what her title was,
14 but she was an employee of the District at the time
15 when this study was at this point.
16 Q. Was she involved in 3208 project?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Why would she be reviewing your publication
19 or your draft?
20 A. Like all of our documents, they are
21 distributed for internal review, various levels of
22 internal review. And at that point part of the
23 review process was that she was one of the final
24 steps in the review process prior to its final
25 publication.
137
1 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 7 was
2 marked for identification.)
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Did you ever have any discussions with
5 Leslie Wedderburn with regard to the draft of the
6 Sawgrass Technical Publication?
7 A. Not that I recall.
8 Q. Was he part of the executive review you
9 were discussing a few moments ago?
10 A. No, he wasn't part of this, the executive
11 office review referred to in here, no.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't we take a quick
13 break?
14 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
16 Q. Mr. Toth, let me ask what I believe will be
17 my final question on Exhibit No. 5. Drawing your
18 attention back to page 27, Conclusions and
19 Recommendations. Did you draft all four of those
20 conclusions and recommendations?
21 A. I drafted 1, 2 and 4. Number 3 I had some,
22 some of my words are in that draft. But I certainly
23 agreed with it.
24 Q. Who assisted in the preparation of
25 number 3?
138
1 A. Walt Dineen, Division Director.
2 Q. Would you characterize number 3 as a
3 conclusion resulting from your study?
4 A. I would characterize it as a
5 recommendation.
6 Q. Okay. Setting that aside, sir, I would
7 draw your attention back to Exhibit No. 4.
8 Q. Showing you, sir, what's marked as
9 Exhibit 4, I believe previously you identified this
10 as a preliminary draft for technical publication
11 number 88-6, which is the cattail project; is that
12 correct, sir?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. In the upper righthand corner of the first
15 page it makes mention there to a Dave. Who would
16 that be?
17 A. I believe it was Dave Swift.
18 Q. Who is Mr. Swift?
19 A. Let's see. At the time he was a colleague
20 within the Environmental Sciences Division.
21 Q. What was his title, if you know?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. He was not your superviser at this point in
24 time?
25 A. No.
139
1 Q. Was your supervisor still Mr. Davis, to the
2 best of your knowledge?
3 A. Yes. I believe so; I think so.
4 Q. Calling your attention to the Executive
5 Summary that's on page, I believe, 3 of this
6 document, the Bates number that is stamped on the
7 bottom is 0079639. It states:
8 "To adequately evaluate the nutrient
9 storage potential of the Water Conservation Areas, it
10 is necessary to establish relationships between
11 nutrient dynamics of existing plant communities and
12 hydrological regimes that result from usage of the
13 water concentration areas for flood control and water
14 storage."
15 Why is that?
16 A. To determine if hydrological regimes,
17 varying hydrological regimes affect the nutrient
18 storage potential.
19 Q. In that sentence there you are referring to
20 nutrient storage potential, it says Water
21 Conservation Areas. Are you speaking of something
22 more than just the storage within the particular
23 underground portions of the sawgrass plant that we
24 were discussing a few moments ago in relation to
25 Exhibit No. 4?
140
1 A. This statement was written in the context
2 of the study that I conducted which dealt with
3 nutrient storage potential of belowground plant
4 parts.
5 MS. CLEMENTS: I just wanted to clarify, he
6 was speaking as to Exhibit 5, I believe.
7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes. Thank you.
8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
9 Q. That doesn't change your answer at all,
10 does it, sir? I made reference to Exhibit 4 and I
11 meant to make reference to Exhibit 5; In other words,
12 the sawgrass study. I think I unnecessarily confused
13 you.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Is the nutrient storage within the
16 belowground portions of sawgrass and cattail a
17 component of the nutrient storage potential of the
18 Water Conservation Areas?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is that what you meant, or a portion of
21 what you meant in this sentence here that we're
22 discussing?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Calling your attention, sir, to Figure 1,
25 which is contained at Bates page number 0079668.
141
1 Does Figure 1(B) show the locations, approximate
2 locations of the sites used for this study?
3 A. Approximate locations, yes.
4 Q. How did you go about determining those
5 sites?
6 A. Determined the -- sites were determined
7 based upon the hydrologic characteristics of those
8 sites and accessibility for sampling purposes.
9 Q. Were the selection of those sites
10 influenced at all by the selection of the sawgrass
11 study sites, the North Levee Sawgrass and the South
12 Levee Sawgrass?
13 A. Yes, to the extent that they, that there
14 was a bit of a history of hydrologic information
15 available from that study that made these sites good
16 potential sites for the study.
17 Q. Contrarily, did the selection of the
18 sawgrass South Levee sites and North Levee sites,
19 were they influenced at all by the future sites for
20 the cattail study?
21 A. Yes, they were. Yes.
22 Q. How so?
23 A. One of the prerequisites for the studies
24 was to have a sawgrass stand and cattail stand in
25 close proximity to one another. Or that was one of
142
1 the beneficial aspects of this site selection.
2 Q. Was the purpose of that so that both would
3 have been comparable or be experiencing comparable
4 hydrologic impacts?
5 A. Hydrologic characteristics, yes.
6 Q. Are you aware of the longitude or latitude
7 or any means of determining or locating where the
8 North Levee Cattail site and South Levee Cattail site
9 are?
10 A. I'm not aware of the latitude and longitude
11 coordinates of these sites, no.
12 Q. All right. And to the best of your
13 knowledge, is the information that Ken Rutchey may or
14 may not have put together about the only source you
15 would be aware of with regard to these sites?
16 A. For the latitude and longitude, yes.
17 Q. Okay. Is there any other information other
18 than the latitude and longitude which would allow the
19 location or determine the exact location of the
20 sites?
21 A. The written description that's included
22 within the document describes their location.
23 Q. Okay. Were the sites permanently marked?
24 A. They were marked with a stake that was used
25 to measure water levels. So there was a permanent
143
1 marker at each site.
2 Q. Would that be one stake for the North Levee
3 Cattail and another stake for the North Levee
4 Sawgrass?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Likewise, one stake for the South Levee
7 Cattail and another stake for the South Levee
8 Sawgrass, a total of four stakes in other words?
9 A. There was only one stake at the South Levee
10 site because the two stands were adjacent,
11 immediately adjacent to one another. They were
12 immediately adjacent to one another.
13 Q. Are you aware whether or not any additional
14 sampling is still being conducted at these sites?
15 A. I am not aware of any additional sampling
16 at these sites.
17 Q. Were these state water level staff gauges
18 that you are referring to?
19 A. No.
20 Q. How did they differ from that?
21 A. They were stakes, site markers that I
22 installed.
23 Q. Would you be able to locate the sites if
24 you attempted to, to the best of your knowledge?
25 A. I think so.
144
1 Q. Was the same basic sampling methodology
2 used for the cattail study as for the sawgrass study?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were there any differences?
5 A. No. The only difference that I recall was
6 that there were -- I don't remember doing
7 measurements of plant densities within the stand in
8 the cattail study. But the other aspects of sampling
9 methodology were identical.
10 Q. Why did you omit measurements of cattail
11 density in the stand?
12 A. Visual observations at the two sites
13 suggested they had comparable densities, so there was
14 no need to characterize those types of differences
15 between the two sites.
16 Q. Were there any differences in the types of
17 tests then or the manner in which nutrient
18 concentrations were determined?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Other than measurements with regard to
21 cattail density, were there any differences between
22 the testing done with regard to the sawgrass study
23 and the testing done for the cattail study?
24 A. Not that I recall, no.
145
1 (Thereupon, a discussion was had
2 off the record.)
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Were there any differences in the
5 characteristics of the cattail stands between the
6 South Levee site and the North Levee site?
7 A. The cattail stand characteristics? The
8 only difference that I recall was that the cattail at
9 the South site was originating in a slough, whereas
10 the cattail stand at the North site was what one
11 would characterize as a marsh environment.
12 Q. Would that be true, also, as to the as to
13 the sawgrass stands, one originating in a slough and
14 one originating in a marsh?
15 A. No.
16 A. They were both marsh environments on both
17 sites.
18 Q. With regard to the South Levee site, if I
19 recall your prior testimony, you had stated that the
20 cattail and the sawgrass stands were immediately
21 adjacent to each other?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Was the sawgrass then adjacent to a slough?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the cattail then was inside the slough?
146
1 A. Yes, along the edges of the slough.
2 Q. What was the difference in ground
3 elevations between the cattail site and the sawgrass
4 site at the South Levee site?
5 A. I don't know that I quantified those, but
6 based upon the cattail stand being located in the
7 slough, that would suggest that those ground
8 elevations were lower than the ground elevations
9 within the sawgrass marsh.
10 Q. Were they lower as to physical observation?
11 A. Water depths were slightly deeper.
12 Q. Approximately how much?
13 A. Oh, 10 centimeters would be a good
14 approximation.
15 Q. Did the water level recede below the
16 surface level at the South Levee site with regard to
17 the cattails during the course of the year?
18 A. Yes, it did, during the period of sampling,
19 yes, I believe.
20 Q. Was that true for the entire slough there?
21 A. Yes, where the stand was located, yes.
22 A. You were referring to the South site,
23 right?
24 Q. Yes, the South site. And did the water
25 level recede below the ground level at the north
147
1 cattail, North Levee Cattail site during the course
2 of the year study period?
3 A. No, I don't recall that it did.
4 Q. Did your study indicate which site the
5 cattails experienced greater lifetime nutrient
6 uptake?
7 A. Yeah, I believe I produced data to that
8 effect.
9 Q. Which site was that?
10 A. That was the North site, the North Levee
11 Site.
12 Q. So the same as the sawgrass, the cattail
13 had greater uptake in the shallow constant water
14 levels?
15 A. Greater lifetime uptake by a given plant.
16 Q. You have previously described the sawgrass
17 plants' tussock growth at the South Levee Sawgrass
18 site. Did the cattail experience the same type of
19 tussock growth at the South Levee Cattail site?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Calling your attention to Figure 2, which
22 is at Bates number 00796669 on Exhibit 4, what
23 portion of the plant was typically under the ground,
24 the substrate surface in relation to the figure on
25 this page?
148
1 A. The top of the shoot base and everything
2 below that.
3 Q. And that would be true of both the North
4 Levee Cattail site and the South Levee Cattail site?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was there a difference in leaf height
7 between the two sites of the cattails?
8 A. I don't remember if there was a difference
9 in this species. If there was, it's documented in
10 the report.
11 Q. Drawing your attention to page 0079639,
12 which is the first page of the Executive Summary, and
13 drawing your attention, sir, to the second full
14 paragraph, the final two sentences, where it states:
15 "In contrast, widely fluctuating water
16 level regimes preclude any external recycling pathway
17 and force cattail to rely heavily upon internal
18 nutrient storage for new growth and expansion.
19 However, internal recycling constraints limit cattail
20 growth rates and production, and lead to substantial
21 nutrient export."
22 This is in reference to the South Levee
23 site; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it is. And I want to clarify that.
25 You know, we are talking about a draft document here.
149
1 But, yes, it does.
2 Q. Did your conclusions change from the draft
3 to the final document?
4 A. Not that I recall.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. But I think it should be pointed out that
7 there could be differences between this draft
8 document and the final Technical Publication that was
9 produced.
10 Q. Was this a conclusion of your study?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How did internal recycling constraints at
13 the South Levee site lead to substantial nutrient
14 export?
15 A. The internal nutrient recycling constraints
16 statement is based upon the literature that indicates
17 that that process by which nutrients are
18 redistributed among plant parts is only effective to
19 a certain extent. And it is not a hundred percent
20 efficient.
21 In other words, if you cannot translocate,
22 or the data does not, the literature does not
23 indicate that a hundred percent of the nutrients that
24 are stored in one plant part can be translocated for
25 new plant growth. So there is some inefficiency in
150
1 that internal recycling pathway that is a constraint
2 for cattail growth, that could be a constraint for
3 cattail growth and production.
4 And as a result of that, that means that
5 there will still be nutrients left in dead plant
6 tissues that are subject to decomposition and release
7 to the water column during that process. And
8 therefore, under the hydrologic conditions at that
9 site, can lead to substantial nutrient export from
10 the site, from the plant to the site and wherever
11 else that the water goes.
12 Q. Why wouldn't you have the same nutrient
13 export from the North Levee Site then?
14 A. Because the North Levee Site was at a
15 location where the surface water was not subject to
16 overland flow to the south, it basically sat there.
17 And there was no movement of surface water, overland
18 flow of water. Whereas at the South site, when the
19 water levels declined at the South site they, that
20 water flowed overland into the adjacent canal and was
21 transported south to, through the structures.
22 Q. Are we talking about velocity, one place
23 the water is flowing and the other place the water is
24 stagnant?
25 A. Yes.
151
1 Q. So the velocity of the water, whether it
2 moves, doesn't move or how fast it moves, impacts the
3 release of nutrients?
4 A. There's not a question of how fast, but
5 whether or not it moves or doesn't move. And the
6 sites were such that the water at the South site was
7 subjected to overland flow and movement from that
8 site to downstream site.
9 At the North site the characteristics of
10 that site were such that it was in a stagnant pool
11 and there was no overland flow of water further
12 south. It just, it stayed there.
13 So any nutrients that were released into
14 the water column at the two sites had a, didn't have
15 the same pathway of movement.
16 Q. It might be a real simplistic question.
17 But it was my understanding that topography of WCA 2A
18 that the north site was a higher elevation than the
19 south site. Is that your understanding of the
20 topography?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Wouldn't that result in movement of water
23 at the North site?
24 A. Under general circumstances, that is true.
25 But. The hydrology of the North site suggested that
152
1 that site was located in a trough between the Levee
2 and the higher elevations south of it, so the water
3 was retained at that site and not really subject to
4 substantial overland flow to the south.
5 Q. Okay. Whereas at the South Levee site
6 there was, would it be a continuous flow -- there was
7 at least flow over the period of a year?
8 A. There were flow periods during the course
9 of the year but not continuous flow.
10 Q. Fluctuated?
11 A. Yes.
12 (At this time, Mr. Fitzgerald
13 left the deposition.)
14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15 Q. Drawing your attention to the following
16 page in the Executive Summary, Bates number 0079640,
17 in the first full paragraph there the statement
18 states:
19 "The interaction between hydrologic
20 conditions and nutrient availability appears to
21 mediate cattail expansion in Water Conservation
22 Areas."
23 What aspect of your study resulted or
24 studied the impact of nutrient availability on the
25 mediation of cattail expansion in the WCAs?
153
1 A. Data collected at the North Levee Site
2 indicated that the hydrologic conditions at that site
3 led to higher levels of nutrient availability than
4 the, than were available at the South Levee site and
5 the hydrology at that site.
6 Q. Is that hypothesis then that nutrient
7 availability mediates cattail expansion at WCAs based
8 upon the analysis of those, these two sites, the
9 North Levee Site and the South Levee site?
10 A. Yes, the statement refers to the, those two
11 sites and the hydrologic conditions that occur at
12 those sites.
13 Q. Was it your understanding of the history of
14 the South Levee site that historically that was a, or
15 cattail was historically a native vegetation at that
16 site?
17 A. I have no way of knowing if cattail ever
18 occurred at that site historically. My only
19 experience with that site was during the years that I
20 visited that site in conducting the sawgrass and
21 cattail studies.
22 Q. During that year was there an expansion of
23 the sawgrass at the North Levee Site?
24 A. No.
25 Q. During that year was there an expansion of
154
1 the sawgrass at the South Levee site?
2 A. No.
3 Q. How, then, did your data result in the
4 conclusion that nutrient availability mediates
5 cattail expansion between the two sites?
6 A. As I indicated, the hydrologic conditions
7 at the North site appear to provide for greater
8 nutrient availability at that site. And that
9 indication or that conclusion based, coupled with
10 other literature, would provide information on
11 cattail expansion.
12 And by the same token, at the South site
13 the hydrology is not conducive to higher levels of
14 nutrient availability. And if you look at that
15 result in conjunction with other literature
16 information, you can draw the conclusions, that
17 conclusion.
18 Q. How is a hydrology at the South site not
19 conducive, I believe you said, to nutrient
20 concentrations?
21 A. Nutrient availability.
22 Q. Nutrient availability. Thank you.
23 A. The export of nutrients from that site
24 through overland flow would be one way that nutrients
25 are limited at that site. The open water
155
1 characteristics at that site, the open stand
2 characteristics at that site, allow more competition
3 for nutrients between the emerging plant species and
4 their other potential competitors, like algo species.
5 Q. Is it your understanding that the S-11's
6 controlled the flow of water through the South Levee
7 Cattail Site?
8 A. The openings and closing of the S-11's will
9 control water levels and the movement of water at
10 that site, yes.
11 Q. Does the opening and closing then of the
12 S-11 structures impact the nutrient export from that
13 site?
14 A. Yes, it will influence nutrient export from
15 that site.
16 Q. Is there any structure, comparable
17 structure that would influence the flow at the North
18 Levee Site?
19 A. Based upon my observations, no.
20 Q. We had previously discussed with regard to
21 the sawgrass North Levee Site and South Levee site
22 that neither site appeared to be subject to nutrient
23 enrichment influenced by agricultural surface water
24 runoff.
25 You stated that the, with regard to the
156
1 cattail South Levee site they were adjacent to each
2 other, however there was a difference in the North
3 Levee Site. Was the North Levee Site impacted by
4 nutrient enrichment from agricultural runoff?
5 A. No. It did not appear to be, no.
6 Q. Drawing your attention to Exhibit 4, Bates
7 page 0079651, the paragraph entitled "Stand
8 Characteristics." I believe it's the fourth sentence
9 there says:
10 "Other internal soil attributes, such as
11 presence of willow (Salix) stumps at NLC and remnant
12 sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) tussocks at SLC,
13 indicate that both stands are of an 'invasive'
14 nature. While cattail indicate invasion at SLC
15 appears to have occurred recently and is proceeding
16 with encroachment into open areas of the sawgrass
17 marsh as well as sections of the adjacent slough, the
18 cattail stand at NLC is dense and dominates the
19 former willow zone south of the L-39 levee."
20 With regard to that statement, did your
21 study indicate that the sawgrass at the South Levee
22 site was proceeding with encroachment into the other
23 areas of the sawgrass marsh as well as sections of
24 the adjacent slough?
25 THE WITNESS: Repeat what he just said.
157
1 (Thereupon, a portion of the
2 record was read by the reporter.)
3 THE WITNESS: Do you care to repeat the
4 question?
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. I'll rephrase that. Did your study show
7 that the cattail at the South Levee site was
8 proceeding with encroachment into the other areas of
9 the sawgrass marsh as well as sections of the
10 adjacent slough?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So the cattail encroachment was continuing
13 notwithstanding the lower nutrient levels at the
14 South Levee site as compared to the North Levee Site?
15 A. Yes, there was evidence of that, yes.
16 Q. At the South Levee site, would the cattail
17 invade the sawgrass tussocks themselves or just fill
18 in the areas between the tussocks?
19 A. Fill in the area between the tussocks.
20 Q. Were there any sawgrass tussocks in the
21 slough portion of this South Levee site?
22 A. No, there were no sawgrass tussocks within
23 the slough.
24 (Thereupon, a discussion was had
25 off the record.)
158
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. With regard to the stand characteristics
3 paragraph there, did your study indicate that there
4 was previously a larger stand of sawgrass than
5 existed at the time of your study? By that I'm
6 referring to the remnant sawgrass Cladium jamaicense
7 tussocks at the South Levee Cattail site?
8 A. The characteristics at that site indicated
9 that in places where I found cattail within the
10 cattail stand that that stand had previously been
11 occupied by sawgrass.
12 Q. And was then currently occupied by cattail?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Drawing your attention to page 0079640, the
15 final paragraph there which states:
16 "From a management perspective, results of
17 this study indicate that sawgrass and cattail act as
18 significant nutrient sinks only where hydrologic
19 conditions feature long-term detention of surface
20 waters and (2) in Everglades habitats with long-term
21 detention of surface waters, cattail will continue to
22 replace sawgrass."
23 With regard to the first finding there that
24 sawgrass and cattail act as significant nutrient
25 sinks only where hydrologic conditions feature
159
1 long-term detention of surface waters, does the level
2 of the surface water also have an impact upon their
3 long-term, excuse me, on their nutrient sink
4 capacity?
5 A. Well, that is an entirely different
6 thought. That was one sentence. This statement
7 refers only, you know, to long-term detention of
8 surface waters. Basically the characteristics of the
9 North Levee Site.
10 Q. Okay. But you had previously testified
11 that the North Levee Site also had relatively shallow
12 surface waters; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. What was the approximate depth, do you
15 recall?
16 A. It varied between, it's typically 15 to 20
17 centimeters.
18 Q. Did the depth of the water, did your study
19 also indicate whether the depth of the surface water
20 also has a impact on the nutrient sink capacity of
21 the two plants, sawgrass and cattail?
22 A. Well, as I previously indicated, the depth
23 of the water did have that effect on sawgrass but I
24 don't think my study indicated that the depth of the
25 water had any effect on the nutrient storage
160
1 potential of cattail.
2 Q. We're back, then, to the theory we're
3 discussing now, which is water movement is what
4 results in the nutrient export as opposed to
5 detention.
6 A. That's one, yes, that's one aspect of it.
7 But also, again, recall the difference in
8 characteristics of sawgrass at the two sites.
9 Belowground plant tissues, okay, that type of thing,
10 did not occur for cattails.
11 So if you, in that, in the case of
12 sawgrass, the depth of the water influenced the
13 availability of, or the fate of nutrients once they
14 are released from belowground plant tissues, or what
15 would normally be belowground plant tissues. The
16 depth of the water did not influence the fate of
17 nutrients that were released by roots, rhizomes and
18 shoot bases of cattail.
19 So with that in mind, or with that
20 indication, that's why this statement refers to
21 sawgrass and cattail.
22 Q. Okay. But then, if we then just say with
23 cattail then, just so I understand the differences,
24 with cattail, the flow, whether there is flow or
25 stagnation impacts the storage capabilities or
161
1 nutrient sink capabilities of the cattail as opposed
2 to the water level?
3 A. Yes. Flow. Yes.
4 Q. So your study did not show that water level
5 had any negative impact upon nutrient sink capacity
6 of cattail?
7 A. That's right, that's correct.
8 Q. With regard to the second portion there, it
9 states:
10 "Results of the study indicate that" --
11 going to number 2 -- " in Everglades habitats with
12 long-term detention of surface waters, cattail will
13 continue to replace sawgrass." That's in reference
14 to the North Levee Site; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. However, given the stand characteristics
17 and the discussion that's on 0079651, doesn't cattail
18 also replace sawgrass at the South Levee site?
19 A. I believe I said, and this statement says,
20 that cattail is encroaching, was encroaching into the
21 sawgrass marsh. However, if you would read on in
22 this publication, I further indicated that the
23 hydrologic characteristics at this site made cattail
24 more subject to density independent mortality
25 factors, namely winter cold fronts.
162
1 And as a result of that, the cattails stand
2 at the South site under those hydrologic conditions
3 was knocked back by that density independent factor,
4 namely the winter cold front.
5 Therefore, should those hydrologic
6 conditions continue to occur, one would expect that
7 cattail encroachment into the sawgrass marsh would
8 continue to be kept in check by these types of
9 conditions. And that's in direct contrast to the
10 hydrologic characteristics at the North site where
11 cattail is buffered from these winter cold fronts by
12 the hydrology of the site where there is water kept
13 above the soil surface the whole time so it is not
14 subject to the stresses, the extreme stresses
15 associated with winter cold fronts.
16 So there is encroachment, there was
17 encroachment at the South site but that encroachment
18 was kept in check by the hydrology.
19 Q. Now, with regard to the North Levee Site,
20 your finding is a result of the study indicates that
21 the cattail will continue to replace sawgrass even at
22 the nutrient levels in the surface water found at
23 that site?
24 A. Yes, and that was because the water, the
25 hydrology at that site appeared to lead to greater
163
1 nutrient availability and that greater, that
2 conclusion coupled with other literature conducted
3 dealing with nutrient availability and its effect on
4 cattail and sawgrass growth suggested that cattail
5 will continue to replace sawgrass under those
6 conditions.
7 Q. Okay. We discussed briefly the fact that
8 WCA 2A topography is such that the northern end is
9 generally higher than the southern end. And you had
10 explained that with regard to this particular site
11 the North Levee Site, there is like a trowel effect
12 created by or right next to the levee there. Was
13 this, to your knowledge was this trowel effect
14 created by construction of the levee and the
15 construction of the levee there separating WCA-1 from
16 WCA 2A?
17 A. I'm not sure on that.
18 Q. But for the levee, would the water still be
19 stagnant right there?
20 A. If the levee caused it it would not be
21 stagnant. But if there were other factors, other
22 than -- historically, if there had naturally been a
23 sort of a trough in that area, then there is reason
24 to suspect that that particular area was subjected to
25 stagnant conditions over time.
164
1 But, again, without knowing the history of
2 that site, particular site, I don't know that we can
3 draw any conclusions.
4 Q. So you're saying it doesn't matter what
5 caused the hydrologic features at that site, those
6 hydrologic features, whether they existed back then
7 or now, what is causing the cattail expansion doesn't
8 matter, whether it's levee or something else?
9 A. Yeah, I would say under those conditions my
10 data coupled with other literature suggests that this
11 will occur and the cattail will continue to