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 replace 12 sawgrass under those conditions. 13 Q. Have you studied other portions of the 14 WCA 2A to determine whether there are similar or like 15 hydrologic conditions comparable to either of the two 16 sites? 17 A. I have not studied other areas. 18 Observations of Water Conservation Area 2A indicate 19 that a fairly large portion of the southern end of 20 Water Conservation Area 2A has hydrology comparable 21 to the South Levee site. I can't say that I know of 22 the extent to which there is hydrology similar to the 23 North Levee Site within Water Conservation Area 2A. 24 Q. Drawing your attention to Bates page number 25 0079653, that first sentence on that paragraph 165 1 starts: 2 "Estimates of cumulative leaf biomass 3 production were similar for comparable growth stages 4 at the two sites; however, based upon survivorship 5 curves, cohort leaf biomass production was 43% higher 6 at NLC than SLC." 7 What is cohort leaf biomass production? 8 A. Well, a cohort refers to an age group that 9 is tracked through its lifetime. So you might think 10 of it in terms of some, if you had a thousand 11 individuals that were born at one point in time, if 12 you tracked their survivorship over the course of 13 time like an insurance person might do. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. That thousand individuals which you start 16 with is referred to as a cohort. And the 17 characteristics of that cohort over time, you know, 18 each cohort has different characteristics over time. 19 What I did was look at survivorship 20 characteristics of cattail cohorts at the North site 21 versus the South site. And if you combine that 22 survivorship information with the biomass production 23 information, you come up with cohort leaf biomass 24 production. 25 Q. In layman's terms, are you saying that the 166 1 plants themselves would have the same leaf biomass 2 production but their offspring, for instance, by 3 rhizomes, et cetera, were greater at the North Levee 4 Site than the South Levee site? 5 A. In layman's terms, if you had a thousand 6 cattail plants originating at the North site and at 7 the same time had a thousand cattail plants 8 originating at the South site, if you tracked the 9 biomass production of those thousand plants over the 10 course of time until the point where they were all 11 dead -- 12 Q. Dead? 13 A. -- the total biomass production would be 43 14 percent higher at the North site than at the South 15 site. The leaf biomass production. 16 Q. Did the North Levee Site cattails live 17 longer? 18 A. I need to refer to the figure, or to the 19 data. I don't believe there were any -- well, yes 20 they did live longer because the South site was 21 subject to that winter mortality during that period. 22 There were also differences in relative growth rates 23 at the two sites. 24 Q. You say winter mortality during that 25 period. The winter mortality rate that you were 167 1 referencing, that's a recurring phenomenon, isn't it? 2 A. It can be a recurring phenomenon if 3 conditions are right. 4 Q. Not necessarily every single year, but it 5 is not as if that was just a sporadic, one-shot deal 6 that happened in a once every thousand year winter 7 storm? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And I see what you are referencing is the 10 second sentence there: "This was due to faster 11 growth rates at NLC, which had a greater influence on 12 lifetime production estimates at the two sites than 13 observed differences in age-specific mortality 14 rates." 15 Now, again, so I understand that, the North 16 Levee Site cattails grew faster but overall lived the 17 same period of time -- 18 A. The North Levee Cattail definitely grew 19 faster. There were differences in survivorship 20 characteristics between the two sites such that the 21 more advanced growth stages had higher survivorship 22 at the North Levee Site than the South site. 23 Q. All right. "Model predictions of leaf 24 biomass production were within the range of more 25 direct measurements of cumulative aboveground 168 1 production at other sites in WCA 2A (Davis, 1984, 2 Figure 8B)." 3 Were you running model productions of leaf 4 biomass productions as part of this project? 5 A. That statement refers to the mathematical 6 model or formulation that precedes it within the 7 text. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Does that answer your question? Is that 10 what you were getting at? 11 Q. You are comparing your productions with 12 direct measurements made by Davis, is that what you 13 are doing? 14 A. Yes. The predictions of this mathematical 15 formula that is presented within this text produces 16 estimates of aboveground biomass production that were 17 comparable to another method of determining more 18 direct method of determining biomass production of 19 plants. 20 Q. Okay. And his measurements were not, 21 though, at these two sites, were they? 22 A. No. They were at a number of sites. 23 Q. Was Davis doing any additional testing at 24 the North Levee Site and the South Levee site, to 25 your knowledge? 169 1 A. No, no. 2 Q. Because it states: "In fact, if Davis' 3 data points are shifted several increments to the 4 right to account for small scale leaves that were not 5 included in his measurements (Davis, personal 6 communication), lifetime leaf production estimates at 7 NLC and SLC appear to resemble aboveground production 8 at Davis' most nutrient enriched site." 9 What does that mean? 10 A. He will refers to Figure 8B in the back, if 11 you can find it. The data points on this, well, the 12 data points on this figure represents Davis' six 13 sites. The reason for shifting his data points 14 several increments to the right were to account for 15 the fact that his measurements of the number of 16 leaves produced did not account for the very small 17 leaves that are produced at the base of the plant or 18 in the very early stages of its growth. Mine did. 19 And therefore you needed to add several leaves to 20 his, his data points, which would shift all of his 21 data points to the right. 22 And if you did that and compared my model 23 predictions, which are the solid line and the dash 24 line, to his data points, there seems to be, there 25 seems to be some agreement between my predictions and 170 1 his data points. 2 Q. I gather the parenthesis "Davis personal 3 communication" just refers to a conversation you had 4 with him on this point; is that right? 5 A. Let me see. 6 Q. 0079653 is where we're at. 7 A. Yes. That refers to the fact that he did 8 not account for the small leaves. That's the 9 personal communication. He personally told me he did 10 not account for the very small scale leaves at the 11 base of the plant. 12 Q. You had made reference several times now to 13 the impact of winter months -- I believe you were 14 referring to cold weather -- on the cattail at the 15 South Levee site. Was there an unusually cold winter 16 during the period of your study? 17 A. The cold front that caused the mortality 18 that I referred to was a particularly cold winter 19 cold front. You know, I don't know if it actually 20 caused frost conditions within that area, but the 21 temperatures were at that range, the low 30s. So, 22 you know, I don't know what the recurrence of those 23 types of conditions are, but they occur on a regular 24 basis. Not every year, but they occur. 25 Q. What impact did those conditions have upon 171 1 the sawgrass at the South Levee site? 2 A. No apparent influence or impact. 3 Q. Drawing your attention to the discussion 4 section starting at 0079657, and referring you to the 5 fourth sentence which states: 6 "Hydrologic and climatic conditions appear 7 to be the primary cause of cattail mortality at the 8 South Levee site." 9 What hydrologic conditions caused cattail 10 mortality at the South Levee site, separate and apart 11 from the climatic conditions? 12 A. They were not, they were not separate and 13 apart. There was an interaction there. The climatic 14 conditions affected cattail mortality of cattail 15 because water levels fell below the soil surface, so 16 there is an interaction there. I'm not sure exactly 17 if this is the same statement that is in the final 18 technical publication. 19 I would have thought I would have made that 20 clarification. 21 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 8 was 22 marked for identification.) 23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 24 Q. Showing you, sir, what's been marked as 25 Toth Exhibit Number 8, and drawing your attention to -- 172 1 A. Page 22. 2 Q. Drawing your attention to page 22 -- and it 3 appears you have the same conclusion, however, 4 reading on the following sentence, which we didn't do 5 as to either exhibit: "Cattail at this site" -- 6 referring to the South Levee site -- "sustained 7 complete aboveground mortality when water levels fell 8 below ground and a cold front passed through the 9 region during the winter of 1985." 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. That's what you were describing a few 12 minutes ago as far as hydrologic conditions and 13 climatic? 14 A. That's correct. It clarifies that first 15 statement. 16 Q. What is Typha latifolia? 17 A. It's a different species of cattail than 18 the species that was investigated in this study. 19 Q. Drawing your attention to Exhibit No. 4, 20 Bates page 0079659. First full sentence in that 21 page: 22 "Although internal recycling is adaptive in 23 nutrient poor habitats" (Boyd, 1971) and seasonal 24 latitudes with short growing seasons (McNaughton, 25 1974; Fiala, 1978; Prentki et al., 1978) it is likely 173 1 ineffective in preventing substantial nutrient export 2 in hydrologic conditions like those that occur at 3 SLC." 4 Why isn't internal recycling effective in 5 preventing substantial nutrient export in hydrologic 6 conditions like those that occur at the South Levee 7 Cattail site? 8 A. Again, you have to take the context of this 9 statement within the paragraph in which it's written. 10 The point I was making here was that there was some 11 evidence of internal recycling or internal 12 translocation of nutrients at the South Levee site. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Okay. And within that context, there is a 15 degree of inefficiency in internal recycling or 16 translocation. And because of that inefficiency, 17 the, that will allow for nutrient export in these 18 type of hydrologic conditions. 19 Q. Does internal recycling in other nutrient 20 poor habitats stop substantial nutrient export? 21 A. Not that I'm aware of. 22 Q. My confusion is by the sentence that says: 23 "Although internal recycling is adaptive in 24 nutrient poor habitats and seasonal latitudes with 25 short growing seasons, it is likely ineffective in 174 1 preventing substantial nutrient export in hydrologic 2 conditions like those that occurred at SLC." 3 I mean, are there other hydrologic 4 conditions which would result in preventing the 5 substantial nutrient export or are we just referring 6 to the hydrologic conditions that, for instance, 7 exist at the North Levee Cattail site? 8 A. (No verbal response) 9 Q. Do you understand my question? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Is the difference you are talking about 12 here again just the difference between the hydrologic 13 conditions at the North Levee Canal site and the 14 South Levee Canal site or -- 15 A. This statement is only being made in terms 16 of the South site. There is really no comparisons 17 with the North site at all. It is done. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. Within the context of what was stated prior 20 to that in the same paragraph. 21 Q. All right. Are there hydrologic conditions 22 then where internal recycling would be effective in 23 preventing substantial nutrient export? 24 A. I'm not sure I know how to answer that 25 question. 175 1 Internal recycling is always going to have 2 a limitation in terms of the nutrient, permanent 3 nutrient storage or removal potential. And it is 4 that limitation that makes any, or any acquired 5 nutrients subject to export once they are released. 6 Now, the fate of the nutrients once they 7 are released from a plant tissue depends upon where 8 that plant tissue is and the characteristics of where 9 they are released into. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. I think, you know, you have to read the 12 context, this statement in the context of this 13 paragraph. 14 (Thereupon, a discussion was had 15 off the record.) 16 Q. Do the hydrologic conditions at the South 17 Levee cattail and sawgrass site have a greater impact 18 upon the sawgrass mortality and the sawgrass stands 19 than they do upon the cattail stands? 20 A. I don't know that I could say greater. 21 They have a different influence, as I've previously 22 testified to. The hydrology affects cattail and 23 sawgrass differently at that site. 24 Q. In your study you mention that as part of 25 your testing you saw evidence of sawgrass tussocks 176 1 that had died out and cattail had taken over; is that 2 correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Did your testing reveal any indications 5 where cattail stands had died out and sawgrass 6 tussocks had taken over? 7 A. No. 8 (Thereupon, a discussion was had 9 off the record.) 10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 11 Q. Drawing your attention to Roman numeral i, 12 the Executive Summary in Exhibit 8, and the last 13 paragraph, there is a change, as you mentioned there 14 may well be from Exhibit 4, the draft to Exhibit 8. 15 And that change appears in the last paragraph, 16 sentence: 17 "Cattail and sawgrass exhibit similar 18 production responses to nutrient regimes associated 19 with shallow, stagnant water conditions; however, due 20 to greater vegetative spreading and annual 21 production, (Davis, 1988) cattail has a competitive 22 advantage which may allow it to supplant sawgrass 23 wherever these conditions prevail." 24 And the change there is, quote, "may" 25 inserted there prior to the "cattail has a 177 1 competitive advantage which may allow it to supplant 2 sawgrass wherever these conditions prevail." As 3 opposed to the draft which states that "cattail has a 4 competitive advantage which allows it to supplant 5 sawgrass wherever these conditions prevail." 6 Is it your finding that cattail will 7 supplant sawgrass where the conditions at the North 8 Levee Cattail site exist? 9 A. No, it is not my finding. 10 Q. Then the Exhibit 8 which states that 11 cattail may, that is just a possibility? 12 A. That is a possibility based upon the 13 information that was available to me at that time, 14 yes. 15 Q. What information indicated that sawgrass, 16 excuse me, cattail would not would not continue to 17 expand in the condition similar to the North Levee 18 Cattail site? 19 A. That it would not continue to expand or it 20 would not expand? I don't know that it was 21 expanding. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. But under the set of conditions that I 24 investigated, I know, I did not produce any 25 information to indicate whether or not it would or 178 1 would not expand. 2 Q. Okay. There is reference there to 3 supplanting sawgrass. Again, just so I understand, 4 and we discussed this previously with regard to the 5 South Levee Cattail site, does sawgrass inivade -- 6 excuse me -- does cattail actually invade sawgrass 7 stands, as it did in the South Levee, fill in where 8 there is open water or gaps? 9 A. My observations were that it was filling in 10 in the open water gaps in between the sawgrass 11 tussocks. 12 Q. Okay. And with regard to the North Levee 13 Site? 14 A. I had no observations indicating that 15 cattail was invading the sawgrass stand that I 16 studied. 17 Q. Have you seen other data that shows that 18 that is the way cattail expands? 19 A. That what is the way? 20 Q. I mean, does cattail normally fill in gaps 21 or does it actually invade and take over a particular 22 stand, for instance? 23 A. I have not, you know, you haven't done any 24 studies along those lines or know of any studies 25 along those lines, other than the literature that 179 1 I've seen that's suggested that cattail is an 2 opportunistic species that will take advantage of 3 conditions that are favorable to invade an area. 4 Q. And, for instance, after a burn which 5 knocks out other vegetation, is that what you are 6 referring to when you say -- 7 A. Again, I haven't studied the effects of 8 fire, so I can't really say that the effects of a 9 burn would be conducive to cattail invasion or 10 expansion. 11 Q. With regard to the hydrologics and climatic 12 conditions which mediate the expansion of cattail at 13 the South Levee Cattail site, would those hydrologic 14 and climatic conditions still mediate expansion even 15 if there was a higher surface water level 16 concentration of nutrients? 17 A. I don't know. But the hypothesis that I 18 presented regarding the effects of or interaction 19 between hydrology and the effects of climatic 20 conditions would lead me to suspect that as long as 21 water level fell belowground and a winter cold front 22 passed through an area comparable to the one that 23 passed through to the area during the course of my 24 study, that it would have the same effects on the 25 cattail stand. It would it cause aboveground 180 1 mortality like the effects that I observed? 2 Q. Is it the combination of the winter level 3 and belowground? For instance, if it just, if the 4 water was aboveground and the climatic condition 5 occurred, would that impact the cattail mortality? 6 A. No, it didn't. It did not. The same 7 winter cold front affected, or the North Levee Site 8 was subjected to the same winter cold front as the 9 South Levee site. And there were no similar effects 10 on the North Levee Cattail stand. 11 Q. Okay. What about a drawdown of the water 12 to below surface without a winter cold front, would 13 that impact the cattail mortality? 14 MS. CLEMENTS: If you know. 15 (Thereupon, there was a pause in 16 the proceedings.): 17 A. Yeah, you know, I guess I don't, I can't 18 answer that because I -- other than a short-term fall 19 below the soil surface, I guess -- I guess maybe I 20 can answer that. Because there was a period during 21 which water fell below the soil surface and the 22 cattail stand was not subject, or did not undergo 23 aboveground mortality. 24 So in answer to your question, based upon 25 my limited observations of that stand, the effects 181 1 were due to the winter cold front and the water below 2 the soil surface. 3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 4 Q. Drawing your attention to page 18 of 5 Exhibit 8, and drawing your attention to the second 6 full paragraph, the statement that: 7 "Nutrient concentrations of dead and 8 remnant plant components (Table 4) indicate that 9 cattail tissues release substantial amounts of 10 accumulated nitrogen and phosphorus as they die and 11 begin to decompose." 12 How did cattail compare in this aspect to 13 sawgrass? 14 A. In answer to your question, without sitting 15 down and doing actual comparisons of the tables 16 produced, both sawgrass and cattail released 17 nutrients as the plant died and began to decompose. 18 I don't know that I can give any relative comparisons 19 of the rates or the quantities without having the 20 data right in front of me. 21 Q. Did your studies, the cattail and the 22 sawgrass study, indicate that one species was a 23 better, provided a better nutrient storage or 24 expansion capacity than the other species? 25 A. My study showed comparable levels of 182 1 nutrient storage in belowground plant tissues of the 2 two species. And all other things being equal, if 3 the levels are, if the nutrient storage of 4 belowground plant tissues are comparable, then the 5 two species are comparable with respect to the 6 question you asked. 7 Q. Drawing your attention to page 23, did you 8 draft all three conclusions that are contained on 9 that page? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And while keeping that page open there to 12 page 23 of Exhibit 8, I would ask you then to also 13 open Exhibit 4 to page Bates number 0079661 and at 14 the bottom of that page where it states: 15 "Two major management implications are 16 derived from these studies." The first coming to the 17 same conclusion as the first conclusion you h