1

 1           DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
 2     DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
 3    SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE  )
      OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.;   )
 4    and WEDGWORTH FARMS,            )
                Petitioners,          )
 5       V                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT  )
 6    DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
      of Florida, et al.,             )
 7              Respondents.          )
      FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;)
 8    UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;)
      and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,       )
 9              Petitioners,          ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
         V                            )
10    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT  )
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
11    of Florida; et al.,             )
                Respondents.          )
12    FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE     )
      ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;  )
13    W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,  )
      and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,        )
14              Petitioners,          ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
         V                            )
15    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT  )
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State)
16    of Florida, et al.,             )
                Respondents.          )
17 
                           VOLUMEI
18              Deposition of Steven M. Davis
   
19 
               Taken before Marianne Martini Holmes,
20   Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in
     and for the State of Florida at large, pursuant to
21   notice of taking deposition filed by the Petitioners
     in the above cause.
22                        -   -   -
   
23   Monday, March 2, 1993
     319 Clematis Street
24   West Palm Beach, Florida  33401
     9:05 - 5:40 p.m.

                                                 2

 1   APPEARANCES:
 2        On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar Cane League,
 3        Inc., United States Sugar Corporation, and New Hope
 4        South, Inc.:
 5             Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
 6             One Biscayne Tower
 7             Suite 3636
 8             Two South Biscayne Boulevard
 9             Miami, Florida  33131
10             By:  MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE
11                  WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQUIRE
12 
13        On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers
14        Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and
15        Wedgworth Farms, Inc.:
16             Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
17             123 South Calhoun Street
18             Tallahassee, Florida  32314
19             By:  WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQUIRE

                                                 3

 1   APPEARANCES:  (Continued)
 2        On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
 3             Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
 4             4100 One Centrust Financial Center
 5             100 Southeast Second Street
 6             Miami, Florida  33131
 7             By:  PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
 8 
 9        On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:
10             Department of Justice
11             601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
12             Fifth Floor, Room 5613
13             Washington, D.C.  20004
14             By:  STEPHEN G. BARTELL, ESQUIRE
15                  DAVID WILLIAM GEHLERT, ESQUIRE
16 
17 
18         Also Present:  W. Michael Dennis, Ph.D.
19                        Courtney T. Hackney, Ph.D.
20 

                                                 4

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:            DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  Steven M. Davis
 7 
    By Mr. Kobelinski     5
 8 
   
 9 
   
10                         -  -  -
11                     E X H I B I T S
12                         -  -  -
13 
14  NUMBER            PAGE NO.  DESCRIPTION
15  DAVIS EXHIBIT 1       7     Resume'
   
16  DAVIS EXHIBIT 2     107     "Phosphorus Inputs And
                                Vegetation Sensitivity In
17                              The Everglades"
   
18 
    INDEXED QUESTION/ANSWER        PAGE NO.  LINE NO.
19                                    71       19
                                      72        1
20 

                                                 5

 1                 P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                         -  -  -
 3   Thereupon,
 4              Steven M. Davis,
 5   being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
 6   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 7              THE WITNESS:  I do.
 8                      DIRECT (Steven M. Davis)
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    Good morning, Mr. Davis.  My name is Mark
11   Kobelinski.
12             If you could state your name and address
13   for the record, please.
14       A.    Steve Davis, 8358 Sunup Trail, S-u-n-u-p.
15       Q.    Mr. Davis, have you ever been deposed
16   before?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    About how many times?
19       A.    Once.
20       Q.    And that would be the deposition during the
21   federal litigation of the United States versus South
22   Florida Water Management District?
23       A.    That's correct.
24       Q.    Okay.  My name is Mark Kobelinski, and I
25   represent United States Sugar Corporation, Florida

                                                 6

 1   Sugar Cane League and New Hope South, Incorporated.
 2   We are petitioners in an administrative challenge
 3   dealing with the Everglades SWIM Challenge, SWIM
 4   Plan.  I think you've aware of that.
 5             I'll be asking you questions today
 6   regarding facts that you may have that deal with the
 7   issues in this action and also with regard to any
 8   opinions you may have as to the subject or issues in
 9   the case.
10             If at any time you don't understand a
11   question, please stop me and ask me to rephrase it
12   and I'll attempt to do so.
13       A.    Um-hum.
14       Q.    If you don't know the answer to a question
15   or don't remember, "I don't know" and "I don't
16   remember" are the best answers.
17             On the other hand, if you have any
18   recollection as to facts, please state so and then
19   you can qualify it in any manner you so wish, all
20   right?
21       A.    Okay.
22       Q.    Okay.  Are you aware that you are listed as
23   an expert witness for the District?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Okay.  The listed areas for your expertise

                                                 7

 1   are biology and wetland ecology; is that correct, to
 2   your knowledge?
 3       A.    To my knowledge the listed areas were
 4   cattail expansion and the effects of nutrients.
 5       Q.    That would be the subject of your opinions,
 6   and we'll be getting into that.
 7             But as far as the areas of your expertise,
 8   the District has listed biology and wetland ecology,
 9   is that accurate?
10       A.    Right, yes.
11             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Go ahead and mark that.
12              (The document was marked
13               Davis Exhibit Number 1.)
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    Mr. Davis, I'm showing you what's been
16   marked as Exhibit 1 to your deposition.  It is a
17   multiple-page document which on the top states
18   "Resume' Steven M. Davis" and bears Bates Numbers
19   0959632 through 0959636.
20             Could take a look at that document and see
21   if you can identify it for us?
22       A.    Yes, it's my resume'.
23       Q.    Is that the most recent copy of your
24   resume'?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 8

 1       Q.    And if given the opportunity, is there any
 2   type of update --
 3              (Thereupon, Mr. Green entered the room.)
 4              (Discussion held off the record.)
 5   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 6       Q.    I'll go ahead and restate my last question
 7   which was if given the opportunity, would there be
 8   any updates to this resume'?
 9       A.    No.
10       Q.    All right.
11       A.    Oh, yes there is.  Excuse me.
12       Q.    Okay.  And what would that be?
13       A.    The senior professional, I had forgot to
14   change that.  It's still supervising professional in
15   the 8/92 to present.
16       Q.    Is there a difference between the two?
17       A.    It's the same salary grade.  It's just
18   senior professional doesn't have any supervisory
19   responsibility.
20       Q.    Okay.  Could you very briefly tell us what
21   your education is starting at your undergraduate
22   degree and the areas of concentration?
23       A.    My undergraduate degree is a bachelor of
24   science in zoology from University of Illinois.  My
25   graduate degree is a master of science in resource

                                                 9

 1   management and aquatic biology from University of
 2   Georgia.
 3             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read back that
 4        last part?  Thank you.
 5               (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 6                was read by the reporter.)
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    The master's degree, is that essentially
 9   one program, or since you have listed resource
10   management and aquatic biology, is that two separate
11   programs?
12       A.    It's one program.  The University of
13   Georgia has an Institute of Ecology that you can take
14   interdisciplinary courses for your degree.
15       Q.    What was your master's thesis on?
16       A.    It was on the effects of a reservoir on the
17   ecology of a small stream.
18       Q.    And where was that located?
19       A.    In North Georgia.
20       Q.    Okay.  Post master's degree at Georgia,
21   have you haBRITISH additional educational courses or
22   experience?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Okay.  The resume' essentially then covers
25   the educational background that we've discussed; is

                                                 10

 1   that correct?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    All right.  On the third page of this
 4   resume' at Bates 0959634 of Exhibit 1 it's entitled
 5   at the top "Publications" which goes on for the
 6   following page and a half.
 7             Are there any additional publications that
 8   are not included on this resume' that would be added
 9   if the resume' was updated today?
10       A.    (Witness reviewing the document).
11             Yes, I'm co-author of a paper authored by
12   Nancy Urban and with the third author Nick Aumen on
13   cattail and sawgrass dynamics in Conservation Area 2A
14   that's been accepted since this resume' was prepared.
15       Q.    Okay.  That is yet to be published; is that
16   correct?
17       A.    It's been accepted.  It hasn't been
18   published.
19       Q.    Are there any additional publications other
20   than the Nancy Urban cattail/sawgrass paper?
21       A.    No, not that I can think of.
22       Q.    Okay.  Are there any papers or publications
23   that are still in the process or still in the
24   drafting stage that are not listed in this Exhibit 1?
25       A.    I'm working on a book, co-editor of a book

                                                 11

 1   with a John Ogden from Everglades National Park on
 2   the Everglades that would be published this summer.
 3       Q.    Has it been accepted for publication?
 4       A.    It's not a journal article, so it's not a
 5   matter of acceptance.
 6             We have a publisher, yes.
 7       Q.    Okay.  Who is the publisher of the
 8   cattail/sawgrass paper by Nancy Urban and yourself
 9   and Dr. Aumen?
10       A.    Aquatic Botany.
11       Q.    Do you have a deadline as to when that
12   paper is to be submitted to Aquatic Botany?
13       A.    It's already been submitted.  It's been
14   accepted.
15             Nancy Urban is making minor revisions in
16   the paper as recommended by the referees.  I don't
17   know if she has a deadline.
18       Q.    Do you know --
19       A.    As junior author I'm not involved in those
20   revisions, so...
21       Q.    Have you been reviewing the revisions as
22   they take place?
23       A.    I looked at the referee comments.  I have
24   not reviewed the revisions.
25       Q.    With regard to the book on the Everglades,

                                                 12

 1   who is the publisher?
 2       A.    St. Lucie Press in Delray Beach.
 3       Q.    You mentioned that it's anticipated that
 4   this book will be published in the summer.
 5             Is there again a deadline or a specified
 6   date that it is intended to be published?
 7       A.    The publisher has put out an announcement
 8   it will be coming out in June.  I think that may be
 9   optimistic, but...
10       Q.    Has the publisher given any deadlines as
11   far as the submission of a final draft or final
12   drafts of various chapters for the book?
13       A.    We've agreed on a production schedule of
14   three to five chapters a week at this point to the
15   publisher.
16       Q.    When did that schedule commence?
17       A.    Oh, about three weeks ago.
18       Q.    Okay.  How many chapters then have been
19   submitted to the publisher as yet thus far?
20       A.    Excuse me.  I'd say four weeks ago.
21             We're close to 25.  I'd have to -- I don't
22   recall the exact number.
23       Q.    How many chapters will the book have?
24   What's the anticipated number?
25       A.    Approximately 33.

                                                 13

 1       Q.    When is it anticipated that the
 2   approximately eight additional chapters will be
 3   submitted to the publisher?
 4       A.    Sometime in April.  By, I'd say by mid
 5   April.
 6       Q.    Okay.  With regard to the eight additional
 7   chapters that are yet to be submitted, who are the
 8   authors of those chapters?
 9       A.    There are two hydrology chapters that are,
10   that Bob Johnson is senior author on.  There's two
11   chapters authored by Marty Fleming --
12       Q.    Would that be --
13       A.    -- one on alligator and one -- well, three
14   chapters by Marty Fleming:  one on alligator, one on
15   white-tailed deer and one on waiting birds, and three
16   synthesis chapters.
17       Q.    Who are the primary authors of the
18   synthesis chapters?
19       A.    One is C. S. Holling, H-o-l-l-i-n-g, one is
20   Carl Walters, and one will be myself and John Ogden.
21       Q.    Will those three synthesis chapters cover
22   different areas?
23       A.    Yes, they, Holling's chapter looks at the
24   entire Everglades system at different scales,
25   different spacial scales starting with the very small

                                                 14

 1   scale and going up to a global scale and examines
 2   issues involved at each scale.
 3             The chapter by John and myself simply
 4   inventories and summarizes the restoration, ecosystem
 5   restoration implications from each of the other
 6   chapters in the book.
 7             And Carl Walters' chapter uses a model that
 8   he developed to make broad generalizations and
 9   evaluations about opportunities for ecological
10   restorations in terms of water policy.
11       Q.    The model that you referred to that was
12   developed by -- is it Mr. Walters or Dr. Walters?
13       A.    Doctor.
14       Q.    Dr. Walters.
15             -- is that a water or a hydrology model?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Is that related in any way to the South
18   Florida Water Management model?
19       A.    He utilizes the same data base but
20   developed his own model.
21       Q.    Okay.  Is it related at all to the
22   District's natural system model?
23       A.    Same thing.
24       Q.    Oh, it's the NSM model?
25       A.    It's both.  It utilizes -- he has a current

                                                 15

 1   model and a natural system model just as the District
 2   does and compares the two.
 3       Q.    By whom is Dr. Walters employed?
 4       A.    University of British Columbia.
 5       Q.    Are you familiar at all with the South
 6   Florida Water Management model?
 7       A.    I'm not a modeler, so only generally.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Have you ever used it for any of
 9   your studies?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Are you familiar at all with the natural
12   system model, the District's natural system model?
13       A.    Generally.
14       Q.    And from time to time I may refer to that
15   as the NSM model, and that's --
16       A.    Okay.
17       Q.    -- typical; is that correct?
18       A.    Um-hum.
19       Q.    Do you know how the Walters model will
20   differ from the South Florida Water Management model?
21       A.    It only differs in the, its scale of
22   resolution.  It's a coarser scale model and it's much
23   more user friendly than the South Florida Water
24   Management model, so anyone with the instruction
25   manual sits down for a half a day can learn how to

                                                 16

 1   use it and you can make modeling runs very quickly in
 2   a matter of hours where it might take weeks with the
 3   South Florida Water Management model.
 4       Q.    Does it differ then from the natural system
 5   model in the same fashion?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Any other difference between the Walters
 8   model and the natural system model?
 9       A.    Well, they are vastly different in the way
10   that they were put together, but they both show the
11   same thing.  They both indicate the same results or
12   simulations.
13       Q.    When you say that the Walters model was put
14   together differently than the NSM, natural system
15   model, the Walters model does use the natural system
16   model's data base; is that correct?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Uses the same topography?
19       A.    Walters put in, put in the, in his version
20   of the natural system model, he did put topography
21   back in where he felt there had been soil loss, but I
22   don't know if it's the same, exactly the same amount
23   that was put in for the natural system model.
24       Q.    With regard to historic rainfall, does the
25   Walters model use the same data base as the natural

                                                 17

 1   system model?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Okay.  What about estimated ET values for
 4   the historic Everglades?  Does the Walters model have
 5   the same values as the natural system model?
 6       A.    They are similar.  I don't know if they are
 7   identical.
 8       Q.    Will there be a chapter of the book on the
 9   South Florida Water Management model?
10       A.    Yes, it's one of the chapters authored by
11   Bob Johnson, as I mentioned, with a number of
12   co-authors who have worked on it over the years.
13       Q.    That's one of the two chapters that he has
14   yet to submit to the publisher?
15       A.    That's correct.
16       Q.    Is there a chapter of the book that deals
17   with the natural system model?
18       A.    It's the same chapter.  He compares the
19   two.
20       Q.    All right.  With regard to the chapters of
21   the book that have already been submitted, the
22   approximate 25 chapters, have those chapters already
23   gone through peer review?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Just briefly if you could walk me through

                                                 18

 1   the peer review process.
 2             You are one of the co-editors of the book;
 3   is that correct?
 4       A.    That's correct.
 5       Q.    How were the peer referees selected for the
 6   various chapters of the book?
 7       A.    We have an Editorial Board for the book
 8   that met -- the Editorial Board was the same group of
 9   individuals that was the Steering Committee for the
10   symposium that resulted in this book.
11             And after the symposium the Editorial Board
12   met and came up with a list of potential referees for
13   papers in various areas of expertise.
14             John and I took that list and solicited
15   reviews from referees.  We attempted to find one
16   referee who had not only expert knowledge in the
17   field but also is familiar with the Everglades and
18   one referee who was an expert in the field but not
19   directly connected with Everglades issues.
20             The papers were submitted to the referees
21   with a form where they could find anything from
22   acceptable to unacceptable and major and minor
23   revision in between.
24             When we received the form and the referee
25   comments back, we submitted that back to the authors

                                                 19

 1   for revisions.
 2             And as we're submitting the papers to the
 3   editor in our final editing, we're examining the
 4   manuscripts to assure that the authors have taken the
 5   referee comments, suggestions.
 6       Q.    Was the publisher involved in that referee
 7   process as all?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Did the publisher receive copies of the
10   referees' comments?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Were the authors told the names of their
13   referees, peer referees?
14       A.    The referees are confidential unless they
15   choose to waive that.  In most cases they remained
16   confidential.
17       Q.    With regard to the Editorial Board which I
18   believe you stated was the same as the Steering
19   Committee for the Everglades symposium -- first of
20   all, when was the Everglades symposium?
21       A.    October 1989.
22       Q.    Who are the members of the Editorial Board?
23       A.    Myself and John Ogden as co-chairmen,
24   C. S. Holling, Carl Walters, Don DeAngelis, that's
25   D-e-A-n-g-e-l-i-s, Peter White, Bill Robertson, Bill

                                                 20

 1   Loftus, Marty Fleming, Tom Bancroft.  I'm missing
 2   some.  There's about 15.
 3       Q.    Are those the ones that you recall at this
 4   point in time?
 5       A.    That's all that comes to mind right now.
 6       Q.    Okay.
 7       A.    There were more, but...
 8       Q.    With regard to this Editorial Board, were
 9   some of the members that you just mentioned more
10   active than others?
11       A.    The ones that were local in South Florida
12   would attend more meetings.  The ones that were out
13   of state would tend to provide written comments on
14   issues.  But I think they were all active in the
15   process.
16       Q.    I would assume as co-chairs, you and John
17   Ogden were the most active?
18       A.    Not necessarily.
19       Q.    Okay.  Could you just very quickly go
20   through in the names that you've provided and tell me
21   their affiliation or employment?
22             John Ogden I know is with the Park.
23             C. S. Holling?
24       A.    University of Florida.
25       Q.    Carl Walters?

                                                 21

 1       A.    University of British Columbia.
 2       Q.    Don DeAngelis?
 3       A.    Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
 4       Q.    Peter White?
 5       A.    University of North Carolina.
 6       Q.    Bill Robertson?
 7       A.    Everglades National Park.
 8             One additional board member was Tom
 9   MacVicar, Editorial Board member.
10       Q.    Bill Loftus?
11       A.    Everglades National Park.
12       Q.    Marty Fleming?
13       A.    Everglades National Park.
14       Q.    Is he still with the Park?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Tom Bancroft?
17       A.    National Audubon Society.
18       Q.    Tom MacVicar?
19       A.    Water Management.
20       Q.    With regard to the Everglades symposium,
21   how did that particular symposium come about?  Is
22   that a district-sponsored event?
23       A.    It was co-sponsored by the District and
24   Everglades National Park.
25       Q.    Approximately how many papers were

                                                 22

 1   presented at the symposium?
 2       A.    I'd say about 40.
 3       Q.    And how were the individuals who presented
 4   the paper selected?
 5       A.    We invited people who were actively doing
 6   research in the Everglades system and asked them to
 7   work as groups in integrating their papers and
 8   developing concepts concerning the Everglades.
 9       Q.    Was Bob Johnson on the Editorial Board?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Okay.  Was there a list of invitees?  And
12   by invitees, I'm referring to individuals invited to
13   produce or participate in the production of papers
14   for the Everglades symposium.
15       A.    We have the symposium program which has the
16   paper titles and authors.  There were some other
17   authors that were invited that declined.
18       Q.    With regard to the individuals that were
19   offered the opportunity to participate and declined,
20   do you recall any particular individuals?
21       A.    We invited Jim Kushlan to prepare a paper,
22   and he declined.  And his name slips my mind, but we
23   invited an Everglades kite -- oh, I know, Steve
24   Beissenger.
25       Q.    Could you spell that?

                                                 23

 1       A.    I believe it's B-e-i-s-s-e-n-g-e-r.
 2             Invited him to work with another kite
 3   expert in putting together a paper, and he declined
 4   unless he could have his own paper.
 5       Q.    Who was who was the other kite expert?
 6       A.    Robert Bennetts.
 7       Q.    Did Mr. Bennetts ultimately produce a
 8   paper?
 9       A.    Dr. Bennetts.
10       Q.    Dr. Bennetts.  Excuse me.
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    And Steve Beissenger, what is his
13   affiliation or who was he employed by?
14       A.    He's with a university of New York.  I
15   forget which university.  Cornell comes to mind, but
16   I'm not sure.
17       Q.    And Mr. Kushlan -- or is it Dr. Kushlan?
18       A.    Dr. Kushlan.
19       Q.    -- is affiliated with?
20       A.    It's either Mississippi State or University
21   of Mississippi.  Again, I've lost track of which one.
22       Q.    Any other authors or individuals that you
23   can recall who were invited to participate in the
24   symposium that declined?
25       A.    Not that I can recall at this time.

                                                 24

 1       Q.    Okay.  Is there any type of document that
 2   you would have that would have those authors or all
 3   of the individuals that were invited to participate
 4   in the symposium?
 5       A.    I don't believe I have that anymore.
 6       Q.    Okay.
 7       A.    I cleared my files after the symposium.
 8       Q.    Did you retain any type of letters or
 9   communications with individuals inviting them to
10   participate in the symposium?
11       A.    I believe I have some.  I don't have them
12   all.
13       Q.    Have you retained the responses to your
14   letters of invitation?
15       A.    Some, but not all.
16       Q.    I believe you stated that approximately 40
17   papers were presented at the symposium, and I note
18   that you stated approximately 33 chapters will be in
19   the book, three of those are, you referred to as
20   synthesis chapters.
21             Were there synthesis papers of an
22   equivalent type as the three synthesis chapters
23   presented at the symposium?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Would that be in the same three areas?

                                                 25

 1       A.    It's not exact.  We regrouped a number of
 2   papers after the symposium.  But it was a general,
 3   the same general organization.  After each section of
 4   the symposium there was a synthesis chapter.  At the
 5   very end there were two or three -- synthesis talk,
 6   and at the very end there were two or three
 7   overviewing the entire symposium.
 8       Q.    Did Dr. Walters do an overview of the
 9   system at the symposium?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    And did -- is it Dr. Holling?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Did Dr. Holling look at the entire
14   Everglades and --
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    -- again similar to what he's doing for a
17   synthesis chapter?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Are there specifically seven or so papers
20   that were presented that have not been included as
21   chapters to the book?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    Do you recall why?
24       A.    We had a problem with one symposium session
25   on planning I believe it was the third day of the

                                                 26

 1   four days of the symposium.  The organization of that
 2   section by the, or that session by the session
 3   chairman was not as good as the other sessions and
 4   the papers were, did not address the questions that
 5   we were trying to address at the symposium and were
 6   generally weak.
 7       Q.    Would that cover all of the approximate
 8   seven papers that were presented that are not
 9   included in the book?
10       A.    We had one paper on the influence of the
11   Everglades on Florida Bay where the author because of
12   other commitments couldn't write the paper.
13       Q.    Who was that author?
14       A.    Tom Smith, Dr. Tom Smith.
15       Q.    Okay.  And does that cover all the
16   approximately seven papers that were presented at the
17   symposium that have not been included as chapters to
18   the book?
19       A.    As far as I can remember.  It was four
20   years ago.  You have to excuse my memory.
21       Q.    That's quite all right and understandable.
22             You had mentioned a few moments ago that in
23   relation to your comments on the planning section
24   that they had not quite addressed the, I believe you
25   stated, purposes of the symposium.

                                                 27

 1       A.    Um-hum.
 2       Q.    What were those purposes, if you could
 3   describe them?
 4       A.    The central theme of the symposium was
 5   examining patterns of the physical driving forces,
 6   vegetation and wildlife and how they interact to
 7   develop guidelines for ecological restoration in the
 8   Everglades.
 9             The planning section was from the beginning
10   outside the central theme, but we had hoped to look
11   at the very -- at the various problems and
12   opportunities to accomplish the restoration
13   guidelines that the other sessions were coming up
14   with from the standpoint of urban issues,
15   agricultural issues, water quality issues, water
16   management issues, population issues.
17       Q.    What you just referred to as the various
18   issues, was that supposed to be included in the
19   planning section?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    Okay.  Who was primarily responsible for
22   the planning section?
23       A.    Dr. Larry Harris.
24       Q.    What is Dr. Harris' affiliation?
25       A.    University of Florida.

                                                 28

 1       Q.    By the way, did the Army Corps of Engineers
 2   participate at all in the symposium or any
 3   representatives from it?
 4       A.    They attended.  I don't believe they
 5   authoreBRITISH papers because they didn't meet our
 6   criteria of actively doing research in the system.
 7       Q.    Going back for a moment to the purpose of
 8   the symposium which, just to summarize what you had
 9   stated, was the examination of patterns of vegetation
10   and wildlife ecosystems to produce guidelines for
11   ecological restoration, were there any additional
12   purposes to the symposium?
13       A.    We had, we attempted to develop these
14   themes in a, in a way that would be understandable to
15   decision-makers, not just the scientific community.
16       Q.    Okay.  Was that more of a format purpose as
17   opposed to what you had previously described as a
18   purpose of the symposium?
19       A.    No, I'd say it was part of the central
20   purpose.
21       Q.    Okay.  And you referred to I believe it was
22   the decision-makers related to the system.
23             Who would those be?  Who was that target
24   group?
25       A.    Oh, everything from Water Management

                                                 29

 1   District and National Park Service management to
 2   local planners.
 3       Q.    When you say local planners, are you
 4   getting down to the county and city level?
 5       A.    Yes.  We were simply trying to produce
 6   something that was understandable by people not in
 7   the scientific field.
 8       Q.    Okay.  With regard to this target group of
 9   decision-makers, would that include the Army Corps of
10   Engineers?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Did it include any private industry
13   leaders?
14       A.    Did what?
15       Q.    This target group of decision-makers.
16       A.    Certainly.  It would include anyone who's
17   not a, specifically a scientist working in the field.
18       Q.    Okay.  Who was invited to the symposium?
19       A.    There was no invitation list.  We
20   distributed a brochure on the symposium and a number
21   of functions before the, the year before the
22   symposium.  It was open to everybody.
23       Q.    Okay.  Did you in particular invite this
24   target group of decision-makers you were referring
25   to?

                                                 30

 1       A.    As far as I'm aware, they were all aware of
 2   it.
 3             As I say, we didn't invite anybody.  We had
 4   about 400 people show up, but we didn't invite
 5   anybody.  We just passed out notices about it.
 6       Q.    In your opinion did you have a successful
 7   turnout of the target decision-makers group?
 8       A.    It seemed that we did.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Did Dr. Harris or the planning
10   section propose a particular planning process to
11   address the Everglades?
12       A.    No.
13       Q.    By the way, any time you want to take a
14   break also, you just let us know.
15       A.    Okay.
16       Q.    With regard to the planning section, you'd
17   referred to the papers as weak.
18             Is that a symptom of the fact that it was
19   difficult for that area to address the primary
20   purpose of the symposium or was it just literally the
21   work product presented by those authors?
22       A.    I think it was Dr. Harris, because he had
23   so many other commitments, didn't give the attention
24   to working with his authors in developing the topic
25   for his session as much as the other session chairmen

                                                 31

 1   did.
 2       Q.    Who were the authors of the planning
 3   section papers?
 4       A.    There was a paper on urban concerns by
 5   Douglas Yoder.  There was a -- this is four years ago
 6   and I'm confused on which sessions some of the papers
 7   were in.
 8             There was an agricultural paper by George
 9   Snyder.  There was a water quality paper by Curtis
10   Richardson.  Larry Harris attempted to do a synthesis
11   of planning concerns.  There was a paper on the
12   relationship of Everglades water issues to Florida
13   Bay.
14             I'm listing papers with planning topics.
15   I'm not sure they were all in the planning session.
16   That was a long time ago, as I said.
17             That's what I can recall at this time.
18       Q.    The water quality paper by Dr. Richardson,
19   was that in the planning section, to the best of your
20   recollection?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    And did his paper fall into the category of
23   papers that were either weak or were not of the same
24   quality as the other papers presented at the
25   symposium?

                                                 32

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    You'd mentioned that Dr. Harris was the
 3   organizer, is that the term, for the planning
 4   section?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Who were the other organizers for the
 7   various sections?
 8       A.    I organized the first day on physical
 9   driving forces in the system.  John Ogden organized
10   the second day on -- excuse me.  I'm sorry.  Don
11   DeAngelis organized the first day on physical driving
12   forces.  I organized the second day on vegetation.
13   John Ogden organized the third day on wildlife, as I
14   recall.  Larry Harris organized the session on
15   planning.  And there was really no organizer for the
16   final half day of synthesis papers.  It was just
17   synthesis authors.
18       Q.    There were essentially four sections:  the
19   physical driving forces, vegetation and wildlife?
20       A.    Planning and the synthesis.
21       Q.    I'm sorry.  Planning.
22       A.    So five.
23       Q.    Five.
24             With regard to the section on vegetation,
25   were all papers that were presented at the symposium

                                                 33

 1   going to be included as chapters in the book?
 2       A.    Yes, but with different authorship on at
 3   least one.
 4       Q.    With regard to the vegetation section, what
 5   were the papers to the best of your recollection that
 6   were presented at the symposium along with the
 7   authors of those papers?
 8       A.    There was a paper on the determinants of
 9   vegetation community composition.  There was a paper
10   on vegetation change at the landscape level, large
11   scale level.  There was paper on sensitivity of
12   vegetation to phosphorus inputs.  There was a paper
13   on spread of melaleuca.  There was a synthesis paper
14   by Peter White.
15             As I recall, those were the five vegetation
16   papers.
17       Q.    Do you recall whether or not any of the
18   planning papers from the planning section dealt with
19   planning impacts on vegetation?
20       A.    Curtis Richardson's paper touched on that,
21   but that wasn't the main topic of his paper.
22       Q.    DiBRITISH of the five papers you have
23   referenced in relation to the vegetation section deal
24   with in any aspect the planning impacts upon
25   vegetation changes?

                                                 34

 1       A.    Well --
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 3             THE WITNESS:  They all did in one way or
 4        another because every paper was looking at
 5        management implications and changes in, the
 6        results of changes in the system as a result of
 7        management and planning.  So every paper in the
 8        symposium did in one way or another.
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    Okay.  If we could just briefly run through
11   the five papers you've mentioned and if you could
12   provide me with the author or authors of the paper.
13             The first one mentioned was determinants of
14   vegetative community composition.
15       A.    Lance Gunderson.
16       Q.    Was he the sole author of that paper?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Vegetation change on large scale?
19       A.    There were five authors:  Myself, Lance
20   Gunderson, Winnie Park, John Richardson and Jennifer
21   Mattson.
22       Q.    Sensitivity of vegetation to phosphorus
23   inputs?
24       A.    That was myself.
25       Q.    Any co-authors?

                                                 35

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    The study of melaleuca?
 3       A.    Ronald Hoffstetter.
 4       Q.    And I believe you had stated that the
 5   synthesis paper was done by Peter White; is that
 6   correct?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Okay.  With regard to the wildlife section,
 9   if you could go through to the best of your
10   recollection the papers that were presented in that
11   section.
12       A.    There was a paper on the ecology of small
13   fish populations, a paper on snail kite, on the
14   white-tailed deer, on the Florida panther and about
15   five waiting bird papers on various aspects of
16   feeding and nesting and population trends of waiting
17   birds.
18       Q.    What about alligators?
19       A.    And alligators.
20       Q.    Was that a separate paper?
21       A.    Yes.
22             I'm sure I'm missing some.  Again, I don't
23   have the list in front of me and this was four years
24   ago.
25       Q.    That's fine.

                                                 36

 1             If you could, as you did for vegetation, go
 2   through and provide to the best of your recollection
 3   the authors.
 4             The snail kite?
 5       A.    Robert Bennetts.
 6       Q.    The ecology of small fish?
 7       A.    Bill Loftus, L-o-f-t-u-s.
 8       Q.    White-tailed deer?
 9       A.    Marty Fleming.
10             I'm giving senior authors.  Some of these
11   papers have several authors.
12       Q.    Okay.  Did Mr. Fleming also do the
13   alligator paper?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Florida panther?
16       A.    Sonny Bass.
17       Q.    And I believe the five waiting birds
18   Mr. Ogden has discussed in his deposition.
19             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Why don't we take just a
20        quick break.
21               (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
22                10:00 a.m., until 10:10 a.m.)
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    Mr. Davis, with regard to the Everglades
25   symposium and the guidelines or the production of

                                                 37

 1   guidelines for ecological restoration, diBRITISH
 2   papers in the symposium that were presented at the
 3   symposium deal with an attempt to characterize or
 4   describe the natural Everglades prior to any
 5   man-induced impacts on the system?
 6       A.    The paper on the hydrology model does that
 7   from a hydrologic standpoint, the natural system
 8   model.
 9       Q.    Would --
10       A.    John Ogden's waiting bird paper looks at
11   estimates of past waiting bird populations.
12             My landscape paper looks at the extent of
13   the wetlands system before drainage and development
14   began and how it may have been divided into major
15   landscape types.
16             My paper on vegetation sensitivity to
17   phosphorus estimates very generally what phosphorus
18   inputs to the system may have been before
19   development.
20             That's all I can think of.  There may have
21   been more, but...
22       Q.    Okay.  With regard to Dr. Walters, did his
23   paper also address the natural system hydrology?
24       A.    Yes, excuse me.
25       Q.    And who did the paper on the District's NSM

                                                 38

 1   model?
 2       A.    At that time Tom MacVicar was senior
 3   author.
 4             The authorship at this point is up in the
 5   air.  They haven't -- there's no, there's no conflict
 6   about it, but it just hasn't been decided yet whether
 7   it'll be Bob Johnson or Tom MacViar.
 8       Q.    Have you retained a copy of the 25,
 9   approximately 25 chapters that have been submitted to
10   the publisher?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Do you also have a copy of the peer reviews
13   on the 25 chapters that have already been submitted?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Would the peer review copies that you have,
16   would you be able to identify the peer referee?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    With regard to the seven or eight papers
19   that have yet to be submitted, do you already have
20   the peer reviews on those papers?
21       A.    We do have peer reviews on the two
22   hydrology papers from more than a year ago.  We have
23   peer reviews on Marty Fleming's papers.  And for
24   synthesis papers, the Editorial Board is acting as
25   reviewer, and they are reviewing two of those papers

                                                 39

 1   at this time.  Haven't received all the comments
 2   back.  And there's two yet to be submitted.
 3       Q.    Are these papers and peer reviews, are
 4   these District documents?
 5       A.    No.
 6       Q.    Are they your private papers?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Looking back at your resume' for a moment,
 9   as the initial entry for August of 1992 to present it
10   states, "Senior," which I believe you've corrected to
11   supervising professional, "ecologist, Planning
12   Department, South Florida Water Management District.
13   My primary responsibility for six months is senior
14   editor of the Everglades book as a basis of
15   understanding our ecosystem restoration and
16   management."
17             Is your work as editor part of your
18   employment responsibilities at the District?
19       A.    I was assigned this project for six months,
20   yes.
21       Q.    All right.  Where do you retain the copies
22   of the prior chapters that had been submitted and the
23   peer reviews of those chapters physically?
24       A.    I believe they are at my home.
25       Q.    Okay.  Are you aware who else has copies of

                                                 40

 1   those chapters and peer reviews?
 2       A.    John Ogden has some of them.
 3       Q.    Okay.  To your knowledge, are you the only
 4   individual that has all of them?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Do you consider those chapters and peer
 7   reviews of those chapters confidential in any
 8   fashion?
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
10        Compound question.
11             You can answer.
12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    Do you consider the copies of the chapters
15   that have been submitted to the publisher as
16   confidential?
17       A.    We've already submitted those in the
18   production process for the litigation.  But other
19   than that, they are confidential.  We don't have the
20   authorization of authors to distribute those before
21   publication.
22       Q.    Okay.
23       A.    Most of the authors are not employees of
24   either the Park or the District.
25       Q.    And when you say you've produced those in

                                                 41

 1   the litigation, I believe you're talking about these
 2   administrative proceedings?
 3       A.    I think so.
 4       Q.    Okay.  And are you referring to all 33
 5   chapters that have been submitted in final form to
 6   the publisher?
 7       A.    Whatever state they were in at the time the
 8   production was made.
 9       Q.    And are you referring to the original
10   production made last year?
11       A.    I think so.
12       Q.    Okay.  I believe you had stated that you
13   had started submitting the final papers or chapters
14   to the publisher approximately three or four weeks
15   ago; is that correct?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Do you recall what state the chapters of
18   the book were at the time of the District's
19   production in the administrative proceedings?
20       A.    It varied from chapter to chapter.  Some
21   were, some have changed very little.  Some have had
22   major revision after, after the referee reviews.
23   Just -- and then there's a final editing that I go
24   through just the day or so before they go to the
25   publisher.  So it would be in all states.

                                                 42

 1             A year ago they were mostly nonrevised.
 2       Q.    When did the papers start going through the
 3   peer review process?
 4       A.    Oh, they started maybe two years ago.  It's
 5   taken a long time for some of them.  It's hard to get
 6   reviews back.
 7       Q.    With regard to the production of documents
 8   that was made by the District that you referred to,
 9   were the peer reviews for all the various chapters
10   that you had at the time produced?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Okay.  Do you consider peer reviews
13   confidential?
14       A.    Yes, because they would identify the
15   reviewers which I consider confidential.
16       Q.    Okay.  Are the review comments themselves
17   confidential or is it just the confidentiality of the
18   identity of the reviewer?
19       A.    Well, we don't have authorization of the
20   reviewers to distribute their comments.  And that's,
21   to my knowledge that's never done in the scientific
22   field in journals or anything.  Reviewers and their
23   comments remain confidential.  They only go to the
24   authors and editors.  That's general scientific
25   practice.

                                                 43

 1       Q.    What's the purpose of not disclosing the
 2   name of a peer referee to the author?
 3       A.    It allows the referee to be as rigorous as
 4   he can be without any possible repercussions from the
 5   author.
 6             Science people in the same field often know
 7   each other, work together, have to continue working
 8   together.
 9             It allows people to comment on papers of
10   people who they collaborate with without destroying
11   or damaging their professional relationship.
12       Q.    Okay.  Would disclosure of the comments
13   without disclosure of the name of the peer referee
14   have any impact upon that process?
15       A.    I don't know.
16       Q.    Okay.  Are you generally familiar with the
17   witnesses who are listed by the District in this
18   administrative proceeding?
19       A.    I haven't seen the list.
20       Q.    Okay.  Are you familiar with the witnesses
21   that are listed by the United States in this
22   proceeding?
23       A.    I haven't seen any, any expert witness
24   list.
25       Q.    Okay.  Are you aware whether or not any of

                                                 44

 1   the peer referees for the papers or the chapters in
 2   the book that you're putting together are also
 3   witnesses or expert witnesses?
 4       A.    Since I haven't seen the list, no.
 5       Q.    Are you familiar with all the peer referees
 6   for the various papers?
 7       A.    What do you mean?
 8       Q.    In other words, if I brought a list of the
 9   experts that have been listed by the parties and went
10   through that list, would you be able to identify
11   whether they are a referee or not?
12       A.    I don't know the names of all the referees
13   or I don't have them in my memory.  I have some.
14       Q.    Okay.  Who are the referees that you are
15   currently aware?
16             MR. NETTLETON:  I'll object and instruct
17        him he does not need to answer that question as
18        he's already testified that's considered
19        confidential information.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    Do you consider the pool of referees used
22   without identifying what papers were reviewed as
23   confidential information?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Do you recall whether or not any of the

                                                 45

 1   referees were employees of a federal department,
 2   agency or otherwise affiliated with the federal
 3   government?
 4             MR. NETTLETON:  I'm going to object to this
 5        line of questioning in that your questioning is
 6        obviously trying to narrow the pool, if you
 7        will, of who the referees are and he's already
 8        testified that their identity is considered
 9        confidential, and on that grounds I'll instruct
10        him that he does not need to answer.
11             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Your instruction not to
12        answer as to whether or not any of them are
13        federal employees which is narrowing it down to
14        probably several million people?
15             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, he can answer if he
16        feels it will not affect the confidentiality.
17        I'll leave it at that.
18             THE WITNESS:  There were some referees who
19        worked for the government, yes.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    Were there any referees that worked for the
22   state, Florida state government or any of its
23   agencies, districts or departments?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Will the referees be listed in the

                                                 46

 1   publication?
 2       A.    We're still discussing that with the
 3   publisher as to whether we should do that or not.
 4       Q.    Is that a normal practice?
 5       A.    I wouldn't say it's normal.  It's sometimes
 6   done and sometimes not done.
 7             If we were to do it, I'd want to get the
 8   individual permission of all referees before we did
 9   it.
10       Q.    Do you know who the referee was for your
11   two vegetative papers?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Okay.  And who were those referees?
14             MR. NETTLETON:  I'll object again and
15        instruct him he need not answer unless he feels
16        that that would not be revealing the
17        confidentiality.
18             THE WITNESS:  I don't have a problem with
19        that 'cause they both let me know who they were
20        at the time.
21             For the phosphorus paper, Dr. James Grace
22        and Dr. Kerry Steward.
23             For the landscape paper, Dr. Taylor
24        Alexander and Dr. Dan Austin.
25             I think those were the ones that submitted

                                                 47

 1        comments back.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    Okay.  Don't scientific journals typically
 4   list referees each year?
 5       A.    Most of them do -- or some do, but it's a
 6   very long list that would be very difficult for an
 7   author to pick out the referee that reviewed his
 8   paper.
 9             In this case because we're only dealing
10   with 35 papers, it would be, it would be much easier
11   for an author knowing the people who had expertise in
12   his field to, to figure out who the referee was.
13   That's why if we do publish a list, it would only be
14   with the referees' permission.
15       Q.    Approximately how many referees were used?
16       A.    Well, two to three a paper, at least two
17   and usually three per paper, often three per paper.
18   So it would be about -- there were some that refereed
19   more than one paper.  So probably 60, 70.  I don't
20   know for sure.
21       Q.    Have you produced the referees' comments on
22   your two papers?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Do you still consider those confidential?
25       A.    I don't consider the referees' names

                                                 48

 1   confidential because I've told you those.  But as far
 2   as their comments, I don't believe I have the
 3   authority from them to distribute their comments
 4   without their permission.
 5       Q.    Did you seek or ask their permission as to
 6   whether or not you could disclose their comments?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    Did you seek permission from the authors of
 9   the papers prior to your producing the drafts that
10   were produced by the District in the original
11   production?
12       A.    We discussed it and voted on it at an
13   Editorial Board meeting, and based on that -- the
14   Editorial Board has contact with virtually all the
15   authors on a working basis -- and went back and
16   verbally notified them what we were doing before we
17   did the distribution, so...
18             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read back that
19        last portion of that?  I didn't catch that.
20               (Thereupon, a portion of the record
21                was read by the reporter.)
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Were all the authors then contacted prior
24   to the distribution?
25       A.    I believe so.

                                                 49

 1       Q.    Would this book be considered a research
 2   journal?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Would it be considered a secondary source?
 5       A.    I don't know what that means.
 6       Q.    Okay.  Why wouldn't it be considered a
 7   research journal?
 8       A.    Well, a journal's a periodical that comes
 9   out from year to year and a number of issues per
10   year.
11             This is a one-, a one-time project.
12       Q.    Are the chapters overall a discussion or
13   summary of research that was undertaken for the
14   purpose of the book?
15       A.    The research was not undertaken for the
16   purpose of the book.
17       Q.    Are the papers essentially dealing with,
18   you know, a report as to research or are they more in
19   the fashion of, for instance, a literature search?
20       A.    They are both.  Each paper summarizes
21   existing information in its field and then adds new
22   unpublished information.
23       Q.    That the authors themselves have tested and
24   reviewed?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 50

 1             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Paul, are you claiming the
 2        peer review comments on Mr. Davis' phosphorus
 3        paper and landscape paper as confidential?
 4             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, if he says they are
 5        not confidential, then they are not.  I'm not
 6        claiming --
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  They haven't been produced
 8        to us.
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, if they are called
10        for in the requests -- I don't have the notice
11        in front of me.  If you want to point out where
12        they would fall under and if they are called for
13        in that, if you'd just send me a note to remind
14        me after the deposition, we'll produce them.
15             I believe he testified he did not consider
16        them confidential.
17             Is that right?
18             THE WITNESS:  I said the names were, I
19        didn't feel the names were confidential --
20             MR. NETTLETON:  But the comments might be?
21             THE WITNESS:  -- but I would want to
22        contact the reviewers and let them know I was
23        using their comments for something other than
24        what they intended them to be used for.
25             MR. NETTLETON:  All right.  From that then,

                                                 51

 1        my understanding is he does still consider them
 2        confidential, so we would object to their
 3        production on that ground absent permission from
 4        the reviewers themselves.
 5             MR. KOBELINSKI:  And what would be the
 6        legal basis for your claim of confidentiality or
 7        privilege other than the witness' belief that
 8        they are confidential?
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  Academic privilege as well
10        as any potentially -- I don't know if there's
11        copyrights involved or anything if these are
12        specific comments of specific authors or other
13        reviewers who are looking at it who consider
14        their comments their own work product who would
15        not want them released.
16             The same objections that we've heard from
17        some of your people.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Is this an academic -- are these chapters
20   put out by universities?
21       A.    Some of the contributors, many of the
22   contributors are with universities, yes.
23       Q.    Are they being put out as a product by the
24   university?
25       A.    No.

                                                 52

 1       Q.    Are these rather then just personal
 2   projects or papers presented by individuals, some of
 3   which happen to be affiliated with universities?
 4       A.    Well, that's the way most university
 5   publications -- publications by university faculty,
 6   they submit them to journals or symposia.
 7             I don't understand your question.
 8       Q.    Were any of the papers funded through the
 9   university or by the university, to your knowledge?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    With regard to the documents that were
12   produced related to your research, you have produced
13   peer review comments on some of your papers that you
14   have done in the past.
15             Were those confidential?
16             MR. NETTLETON:  I'd object to the form.
17             THE WITNESS:  I don't know in that case
18        'cause I don't know the journal policies toward,
19        of individual journals toward confidentiality of
20        reviewers.  I know their names aren't given out.
21        In fact, I don't even have the names of the
22        reviewers of those papers.
23             In reality, that was, you know, when they
24        came and took file drawer after file drawer, I
25        didn't even know they were in there, so...

                                                 53

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Did you contact any of the peer reviewers
 3   or the journal to seek any type of permission to
 4   produce those peer comments?
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  No.  As I said, I wasn't even
 7        aware they were in the file being produced.
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    Do you still consider them confidential?
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
11             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.  As I said, it
12        would depend on the policy of the particular
13        journal, which I don't know.
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    When you say it's determined by the policy
16   of the journal, is the policy of confidentiality
17   you're referring to with regard to the chapters of
18   this Everglades book being specified by the St. Lucie
19   Press?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Okay.  Who is setting up this policy of
22   confidentiality?
23       A.    The Editorial Board and John Ogden and
24   myself.  In our letters to referees requesting their
25   comments we specified they would be kept

                                                 54

 1   confidential.
 2       Q.    Do you know whether or not Mark Maffei is a
 3   peer reviewer for any of the papers?
 4       A.    I don't believe he is, not that I can
 5   recall.
 6       Q.    Okay.
 7       A.    Again, I don't remember all, all the
 8   reviewers, not that -- I can't think of a paper that
 9   he reviewed.
10       Q.    Mr. Davis, do you recall if you've ever
11   been qualified as an expert witness before?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form of the
13        question.
14             THE WITNESS:  I don't think so.
15   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
16       Q.    Okay.  You'd stated you'd only been deposed
17   once previously.
18             Have you ever testified other than at a
19   deposition?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Have you ever testified at all in any type
22   of administrative hearing?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Mr. Davis, the District specified as the
25   subject matter for your expected expert testimony

                                                 55

 1   historical trends in distribution of cattail in
 2   WCA's, response of cattail to nutrient enrichment,
 3   and shifts in composition of cattail and sawgrass
 4   communities.
 5             To the best of your knowledge is that going
 6   to be the subject matter of your expert testimony?
 7       A.    I guess so.
 8       Q.    Have you ever discussed with anyone at the
 9   District what your expert testimony will be?
10       A.    I've been told that they listed those three
11   areas.
12       Q.    Do you know if there are any additional
13   areas you'll be providing expert testimony on?
14       A.    I don't know.
15       Q.    Have they discussed with you any additional
16   areas other than those three that we just mentioned?
17             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
18             THE WITNESS:  We've discussed my general
19        involvement in all sort of Everglades issues,
20        but no one's told me that I've been listed to
21        testify in areas other than the three that you
22        mentioned.
23             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Can we take a five-minute
24        break?
25             THE WITNESS:  Sure.

                                                 56

 1               (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
 2                10:40 a.m., until 10:45 a.m.)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Mr. Davis, going back for a moment, who
 5   made the decision not to include the Richardson paper
 6   in the final book?
 7       A.    All the referees for that paper indicated
 8   that his conclusions weren't supported by his data,
 9   and on that basis I as editor, I wrote the response
10   saying, "This paper was not accepted."
11       Q.    Was he initially then invited to submit a
12   paper as a chapter for the book?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    And at what point was it determined that
15   his paper would not be included as a chapter?
16       A.    After referee review.
17       Q.    Approximately what time?
18       A.    Gee, I don't remember.  Sometime at least a
19   year ago.
20       Q.    Sometime during 1992?
21       A.    I'm not really sure.  '91, '92.
22       Q.    Who were the peer referees for the
23   Richardson paper?
24       A.    I view that as confidential.
25       Q.    Okay.  Were they disclosed to Curtis

                                                 57

 1   Richardson?
 2       A.    No.
 3       Q.    Okay.  Were the peer comments disclosed to
 4   Dr. Richardson?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Did you discuss the peer comments with
 7   Dr. Richardson?
 8       A.    Only in the letter that I sent him.
 9       Q.    What results of Dr. Richardson's paper were
10   not supported by data?
11       A.    He drew conclusions on water quality in the
12   conservation areas based on -- again, this is a
13   couple years ago -- as I recall, only one or two
14   sample dates which doesn't give you any indication of
15   water quality in the conservation areas.
16             There's a lot of variability.  You have to
17   sample for long time periods to get an indication of
18   water quality.
19             He attempted to run a transect from the top
20   of Conservation Area 1 down to the bottom of
21   Conservation Area 3 in terms of looking at gradients
22   of water quality without accounting for inputs along
23   the way from various pump stations.
24             His soil data was based on only one
25   sampling date which again doesn't take into account

                                                 58

 1   temporal variability or variability over time.
 2             I'm just remembering from a year or so ago.
 3   I haven't reviewed this in a long time.
 4             Then I had one problem in that when we had,
 5   in addition to the reviewers, when we'd asked Curt to
 6   submit a paper both at the symposium and for the
 7   volume, we'd asked him to review, specifically to
 8   review the technology for nutrient removal systems
 9   and to comment on their applicability or
10   nonapplicability to the Everglades problem, and he
11   didn't do that at all.  He didn't even address that.
12             And so -- and we did this with everyone.
13   We asked, everyone we invited to participate, we
14   asked them to write on a topic.
15             Some of the people who did not participate
16   did so because they didn't want to write on that
17   topic or -- but Curt participated but didn't write on
18   the topic we asked him to.
19       Q.    After the symposium was he invited to
20   present a paper for possible inclusion as a chapter
21   in the book?
22       A.    Yes, that's what we've been talking about
23   in terms of the referee process.
24       Q.    At that time did you have a discussion with
25   him and notify him that his presentation at the

                                                 59

 1   symposium did not cover the areas that would be
 2   required to be covered in his chapter of the book?
 3       A.    I had a verbal conversation with Curt
 4   saying that we needed him to focus his paper on what
 5   we felt we needed in the book.  I felt he was very
 6   qualified to do that.  And he said that he would, but
 7   then he didn't.
 8             But even so, we sent his paper out for peer
 9   review at that point, and the reviewers rejected it
10   based on the paper that he submitted, not on what I
11   wanted.
12       Q.    Were any of the reviewers of
13   Dr. Richardson's papers ever government or state
14   employees as we've described before?
15       A.    I feel because of the confidentiality of,
16   the request of the reviewers in this case to remain
17   confidential, that I would view, I would view that as
18   confidential.
19       Q.    The fact that they are an employee of the
20   government?
21             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
22             THE WITNESS:  Or not.
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    Without disclosing names, you don't feel
25   comfortable identifying whether any of the peer

                                                 60

 1   reviewers were an employee of the federal government.
 2       A.    I don't feel comfortable with that in this
 3   case because I know for certain that the reviewers
 4   asked to remain confidential.
 5       Q.    Who selected the reviewers for the
 6   Richardson paper?
 7       A.    The same process we used for other papers.
 8   We had an Editorial Board meeting shortly after the
 9   symposium.  We listed a number of reviewers for all
10   the various possible subject matters in the
11   symposium, and the names that we used were the names
12   that came from that meeting.
13       Q.    With regard to Dr. Richardson's paper, who
14   made the determination of who from that list would
15   provide the review?
16       A.    There were only a couple on that list
17   that -- I mean, we went, at the Editorial Board
18   meeting we went down the list of papers and suggested
19   reviewers for papers, and so there were only a couple
20   that were appropriate for his paper from that list.
21       Q.    Did Curtis Richardson provide any peer
22   reviews for any of the chapters of the book?
23       A.    I don't believe so.
24       Q.    Okay.  Was Louis Ajamil a peer review
25   referee for -- excuse me, a peer referee for any of

                                                 61

 1   the chapters in the book?
 2       A.    I think that would breach the
 3   confidentiality I feel I have to have towards
 4   reviewers.
 5       Q.    Let me do this.  I'm going to list for you
 6   all of the witnesses that have been listed by the
 7   District.  I'll read them out to you at the end of
 8   which I'm going to go ahead and ask whether any of
 9   them, without identifying who of the approximate 43
10   witnesses, whether any of them were peer referees,
11   all right?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  I don't know if we can
13        speed this process along, since we're going to
14        object and he's going to claim it's
15        confidential, if you just want to identify the
16        witness list and the record will be supported by
17        it at this point.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Would you have a problem answering the
20   question whether any of these, and, again, not with
21   answering specifically as to whether one or the other
22   or more than one, would you have a problem with
23   testifying as to whether any of these were peer
24   referees?
25       A.    I need to think about that for a minute.

                                                 62

 1             Can I take a break?
 2       Q.    Sure.
 3               (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
 4                10:55 a.m., until 10:56 a.m.)
 5             THE WITNESS:  What I suggest is that if you
 6        read me the list and I don't feel that it's
 7        breaching a confidentiality, I'll be happy to
 8        answer your question.
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    All right.  These are witnesses listed by
11   the South Florida Water Management District on
12   October 26th, 1992.  I will not even differentiate
13   between fact or expert witnesses for you.
14             Louis Ajamil, Ronald Bearzotti, Robert
15   Brown, Anthony Federico, Archie Grant, Guy Germain,
16   Gary Goforth, J. B. Jackson, Zan Kugler, Alexander
17   Perez, Peter Rhoads, Paul Whalen, Wossenu Abtew,
18   Nicholas Aumen, Arthur Benke, Adelbert Bottcher,
19   Steve Davis, Bill Dendy, Eric Flaig, Thomas Fontaine,
20   Zack Fuller, Donald Gatz, Wendell Gilliam, Herbert
21   Grimshaw, John Jensen, Grace Johns, Lawrence Keith,
22   Nagendra Khanal, Marguerite Koch, Joseph Koebel,
23   Thomas MacVicar, Irving Mendelssohn, Galen Miller,
24   Ronald Mireau, Jayantha Obeysekera, K. R. Reddy,
25   Douglas Robson, Morris Rosen, George Shih, Dave

                                                 63

 1   Swift, Jose Vidal, Robert Wetzel, Carl Woehlcke.  And
 2   I'm not sure if I had the pronunciation
 3   exactly correct on all of those.
 4             My question to you, sir, would be whether
 5   or not any of those individuals that I had just
 6   listed served as peer referees for any of the papers
 7   or chapters of the book?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Okay.  And just for the sake of
10   clarification, I would exclude your name from that
11   list and ask the same question so this way you're not
12   referring to yourself.
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    I'm going to do the same.  I'll be reading
15   you a list of witnesses, and this list is by the
16   United States Government.  I will just again rapidly
17   go through and read off this list and be posing the
18   same question to you.
19             Richard Bonner, John Burt, Martin Fleming,
20   Delbert Hicks, Lewis Hornung, Robert Johnson, Lonnie
21   Jones, Ronald Jones, Robert Kadlec, Ronald Lacewell,
22   Guy Lanza, David Lean, Mark Maffei, Burkett Neely,
23   Teofilo Ozuna, Paul Parks, Ronald Raschke, Dick Ring,
24   Dan Scheidt, Ronald Smola, Mike Soukup, James Vearil,
25   William Walker.

                                                 64

 1             I believe that is the list, but I would add
 2   to that the following names:  Lonnie Jones, Ronald
 3   Lacewell, Teofilo Ozuna, William Boggess, Daniel
 4   Bromely, Bruce Gardner, and that would complete the
 5   list.
 6             Were any of those individuals, diBRITISH of
 7   them serve as peer referees for any of the chapters
 8   of the book?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Finally, sir, I will read off a list of
11   witnesses that were designated by the Department of
12   Environmental Regulation of Florida.  Barton Bibler --
13             MR. KOBELINSKI:  One moment.  Take a quick
14        break.
15               (Discussion held off the record.)
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Let me go through this list very quickly.
18   Barton Bibler, Doug Fry, Russel Frydenborg, Richard
19   Harvey, Wayne Magley, Peggy Mathews, Frank Nearhoof,
20   Landon Ross, Marlene Stern, Tom Swihart.
21             DiBRITISH of those individuals serve as
22   peer referees for any of the chapters of the book?
23       A.    Not that I recall.
24       Q.    Okay.  And, finally, a list of witnesses
25   that were listed by the Florida Audubon Society,

                                                 65

 1   Sierra Club and Florida Wildlife Federation.
 2             Paul Parks, Charles Lee, James Webb, Craig
 3   Diamond, Manley Fuller, Thomas Weis, Nat Reed.
 4             DiBRITISH of those individuals serve as
 5   peer referees for any of the chapters of the book?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    In making determinations as to who would
 8   serve as a referee for the various chapters of the
 9   book, did the Editorial Board take into consideration
10   the fact that some of these witnesses were being paid
11   as experts with regard to the very issues they were
12   reviewing in the papers?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
14             THE WITNESS:  Back when this list was made
15        we didn't have any idea who the expert witnesses
16        were.  I don't even think they'd been
17        designated.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Okay.  Did the Editorial Board take into
20   consideration that any of these witnesses -- excuse
21   me, not witnesses -- peer referees had already been
22   retained as expert consultants on the --
23       A.    I don't even believe --
24       Q.    -- very issues?
25       A.    -- they had at that time, not to my

                                                 66

 1   knowledge.  If they did, if they were, no one knew
 2   it.
 3       Q.    If you would, a lot of times the question
 4   midway through is fairly obvious and you start
 5   responding.
 6       A.    I'm sorry.
 7       Q.    She has great difficulty --
 8       A.    Oh.
 9       Q.    -- because she has to take down both mine
10   and yours.
11             To keep the transcript a little clearer, if
12   you could just wait.
13       A.    Okay.
14       Q.    And I appreciate sometimes it's obvious
15   where the question is heading.
16       A.    Okay.
17       Q.    Are you aware whether any of the peer
18   referees were designated as experts in the federal
19   litigation between the United States and the South
20   Florida Water Management District?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Was that taken into consideration in
23   deciding whether a referee should review a particular
24   issue upon which he had been retained as an expert?
25       A.    No, because, as I said before, the same

                                                 67

 1   thing applies, we did not know those lists or if they
 2   had been made up when we made a referee list.
 3       Q.    When the referee decisions were made for
 4   the various chapters as opposed to just the original
 5   list of potential peer referees, did you have
 6   knowledge as to who the expert witnesses were in the
 7   federal litigation?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Was that taken into consideration at
10   all in deciding who should be a referee?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Likewise, when referees were decided for
13   the various chapters of the book in the past year --
14   well, let me withdraw that.
15             Have any determinations or decisions as to
16   peer referees been made within the last year?
17       A.    I believe so for late papers.
18       Q.    Okay.  And in making the determination as
19   to who the referees for those late papers would be,
20   did the Editorial Board take into consideration the
21   fact that there already were experts who were
22   retained and designated for the Everglades SWIM
23   Challenge proceedings?
24             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
25             THE WITNESS:  No.

                                                 68

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Okay.  Did the Editorial Board ever review
 3   the peer process at any time once it had been
 4   determined that some of the peer referees were
 5   retained as experts on the very issues they were
 6   providing peer reviews on?
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  The Editorial Board reviewed
 9        the peer process where we had real problems with
10        certain papers where they were borderline
11        rejection or acceptance in terms of whether we
12        were going to accept or reject a paper, but none
13        of that was in consideration of any of the
14        expert witnesses or the process that you've been
15        talking about concerning expert witness lists.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    When was the Richardson paper declined?
18       A.    Probably sometime in 1991.  I'm not really
19   sure.  Might have been 1990.
20       Q.    Were any of the peer referees for the
21   Richardson paper included in the various lists I just
22   read out?
23       A.    I feel that would be breaching their
24   confidentiality.
25       Q.    By the way, when did you want to break for

                                                 69

 1   lunch?  Was there a particular time or is --
 2       A.    No, no, just any particular time that's
 3   good for you.
 4             Oh, from now till perhaps five.
 5       Q.    I'm sure that will be seconded by others.
 6             With whom have you discussed your expert
 7   testimony?
 8       A.    Well, with you (indicating Mr. Nettleton)
 9   and with Jackie Waters.
10       Q.    Okay.  The "you" that you initially
11   referred to, would that be Paul Nettleton?
12       A.    Yes, yes.
13             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me, Paul.
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    Have you discussed your expert testimony
16   with anyone else?
17       A.    Jim Grimshaw, Morris Rosen and there's one
18   other attorney present.  I don't know -- I forget his
19   name.  I guess he was an attorney.
20             MR. NETTLETON:  Um-hum.
21             THE WITNESS:  But I don't remember his
22        name.
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    So you referred to "his."  I assume it's a
25   man.

                                                 70

 1       A.    Yes.
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  His name was Patrick
 3        Cousins, if you'd like that.
 4             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Neither like or dislike.
 5        I don't know that I've met him.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    Do you recall when you had your discussions
 8   about your expert testimony with -- is it Mr. or
 9   Dr. Grimshaw?
10       A.    Dr.
11       Q.    -- with Dr. Grimshaw?
12       A.    I had two meetings.  One was a couple of
13   months ago, I don't remember the date, and one was
14   last week.
15       Q.    And was it Dr. or Mr. Rosen?
16       A.    Mr.
17       Q.    When have you discussed your expert
18   testimony with Mr. Rosen?
19       A.    At the meeting last week.
20       Q.    Who attended the meeting last week?
21       A.    I believe Morris Rosen was there.  I'm
22   thinking back.  I think Morris was there, Jim
23   Grimshaw was there, Paul was there, and the attorney
24   that he mentioned was there.
25       Q.    With regard to the meeting you had with

                                                 71

 1   Dr. Grimshaw a couple of months ago, who was present
 2   at that meeting?
 3       A.    Paul and Jim Grimshaw.  I honestly don't
 4   remember if there was anyone else there or not.  I
 5   know the two of them were there.  I think it was just
 6   the two of them.
 7       Q.    Have you ever discussed your testimony with
 8   any of the attorneys for the United States or the
 9   Department of Justice?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Have you ever discussed your testimony with
12   any of the attorneys for the Department of
13   Environmental Regulation?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Have you ever discussed your testimony with
16   any other individuals other than Mr. Rosen and
17   Dr. Grimshaw, other than the attorneys?
18       A.    No.
19           ...............INDEXED-QUESTION.....
20       Q.    Okay.  Mr. Davis, I'm going to repeat my
21   prior question with regard to whether any of the
22   witnesses I had previously listed for you by the
23   District, United States and the DER and the other
24   intervenors, whether any of them were the peer review
25   referees for Dr. Richardson's paper.

                                                 72

 1           ...............INDEXED ANSWER.....
 2       A.    I feel that would be breaching the
 3   confidentiality of the reviewers.
 4             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Okay.  Are you instructing
 5        your witness not to respond to that question?
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  I'm instructing him he need
 7        not respond to it.
 8             MR. KOBELINSKI:  And the basis for that
 9        instruction is?
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Same as what we discussed
11        before.
12             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Academic?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  It's already in the record.
14        I'm not going to debate it here.
15             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Okay.  Do you have a basis
16        for an academic objection?
17             MR. NETTLETON:  I'm not going to discuss it
18        with you, Mark.  You can raise it in front of
19        the hearing officer.
20             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I have to make my record,
21        so I have to understand what your privilege is.
22             MR. NETTLETON:  It was discussed previously
23        on the record.
24             MR. KOBELINSKI:  We didn't have a
25        discussion as to this particular one witness.

                                                 73

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  It's the same objection.
 2             MR. KOBELINSKI:  And that would include
 3        then the academic privilege.
 4             MR. NETTLETON:  Sorry.  I didn't understand
 5        your question to me.
 6             MR. KOBELINSKI:  That's quite all right.
 7        You're not under oath.
 8             MR. GREEN:  Excuse me.  Would you certify
 9        that question, please, and answer?
10             THE COURT REPORTER:  Yes, sir.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  I don't think that's
12        necessary.
13             MR. GREEN:  It sounds formal.
14             Just mark it, please.
15             THE COURT REPORTER:  Yes, sir.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Mr. Davis, have you reached your final
18   expert opinions on the three areas we've discussed
19   previously?
20       A.    I believe so.
21       Q.    Are you currently conducting any type of
22   research in the areas of your expert testimony?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Is anyone underneath you, and by that I
25   mean anyone within your department, conducting any

                                                 74

 1   research in the areas of your expert testimony?
 2       A.    No.
 3       Q.    Do you intend to rely upon any ongoing
 4   research at this point in time as a basis for your
 5   expert testimony?
 6       A.    I guess I need to know what you mean by
 7   "ongoing."
 8       Q.    Well, is there any research that is
 9   currently ongoing at this time or is planned and has
10   not yet been completed or the data has already been
11   collected but has not as yet been analyzed and
12   processed, anything along those lines that you intend
13   to rely upon?
14             MR. NETTLETON:  That he's aware of is what
15        you're asking.
16             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Yes.
17             THE WITNESS:  Not that I'm aware of.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Okay.  And would your response change if I
20   said whether or not there's any ongoing research that
21   you may rely upon?
22       A.    No, it wouldn't change.
23       Q.    All right.  With the first subject matter
24   that is listed by the District, the historical trends
25   in distribution of cattail in water conservation

                                                 75

 1   areas, I believe you have stated you have reached a
 2   final opinion, expert opinion as to that; is that
 3   correct?
 4       A.    Yes, that's correct.
 5       Q.    Okay.  Is there a document that accurately
 6   reflects your expert opinion as to that subject?
 7       A.    Probably the best document would be the
 8   paper on vegetation sensitivity to phosphorus in the
 9   symposium volume that we've been discussing, although
10   a lot of my information on the subject is from
11   personal observation over a number of years.  That's
12   not published anyplace.
13       Q.    Is that one of the chapters that's already
14   been submitted to the editor?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    And the exact title of that document would
17   be?
18       A.    "Phosphorus Inputs And Vegetation
19   Sensitivity In The Everglades."
20       Q.    Okay.  What is your expert opinion as to
21   the historical trends in distribution of cattails in
22   water conservation areas?
23       A.    Are you putting that in the past sense
24   entirely in terms of historical trends and historical
25   distribution and changes, is that how you're --

                                                 76

 1       Q.    Well --
 2       A.    -- or currently what's there in 1993?
 3       Q.    Let me put it this way.  I'll once again
 4   read to you the three areas that you're designated,
 5   and you can perhaps explain, and I'll go through with
 6   them with you, whether or not they are an adequate or
 7   accurate description of your areas of expert
 8   testimony.
 9       A.    You'll have to rephrase.
10       Q.    The first is historical trends in
11   distribution of cattail in WCA's, the second is
12   response of cattail to nutrient enrichment, the third
13   is shifts in composition of cattail and sawgrass
14   communities.
15       A.    So you want to know my opinion in each of
16   these categories, summary of my opinion?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    Okay.
19       Q.    Would those three, essentially those three
20   descriptions, would you agree that those are accurate
21   descriptions of the three subject matters or areas of
22   your testimony?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Okay.  With regard to the first area,
25   historical trends in distribution of cattails in

                                                 77

 1   WCA's, what is your opinion as to the historical
 2   trends?
 3       A.    In the 1970s -- well, first of all, let me
 4   say that my observations are mostly limited to
 5   Conservation Area 2A.
 6             In the 1970s the cattail distribution in 2A
 7   extended about one mile below the northern border of
 8   that area and very closely corresponded to the
 9   airboat trail that we commonly called the north
10   trail, ending at that trail, a fairly sharp line of
11   cattails to the north of there and the normal
12   sawgrass marsh that you find in the Everglades to the
13   south.
14             Beginning in 1979 or early 1980 I began to
15   observe cattails south of that line in an area
16   extending approximately four miles south into the
17   marsh.  Up into the mid Eighties could visually see
18   an increase in density in this area, although it
19   still remains a mixture of sawgrass and cattail.
20       Q.    You said was that 1980s?
21       A.    Into the mid 1980s.  That's when I
22   essentially stopped my regular work, field research
23   in the conservation areas.  And --
24       Q.    And before you go on for a moment,
25   Mr. Davis, you said you saw an increase, general

                                                 78

 1   increase in this area, and you have now described
 2   essentially two areas, one being one mile south of
 3   the S-10s which I believe you stated and the
 4   north-south airboat trail and then a change where it
 5   extends out to approximately four miles.
 6             Were you referring to that entire four
 7   miles or any particular segment of it?
 8       A.    Most of it.
 9             We were out there at least every other
10   week, often every week either by airboat or
11   helicopter, so we could key the distribution into
12   airboat trails and fish camps in terms of our airboat
13   trips and then from the helicopter we get a broader
14   overview of the areas.
15             At that time it wasn't anything really
16   intentional we were looking for.  It just became
17   obvious that there was a change occurring, being out
18   there weekly.
19       Q.    Okay.  Anything after the Eighties?
20       A.    The only thing I've done since then was in
21   19-, I believe 1992 did an aerial reconnaissance of
22   cattail distribution for two days by helicopter in
23   the water conservation areas and the north end of the
24   park and produced a map of very generalized cattail
25   distributions in that area.

                                                 79

 1             That map is in that paper that I referred
 2   to, vegetation sensitivity to phosphorus.
 3             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read that back
 4        for a moment?
 5               (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 6                was read by the reporter.)
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    You mentioned the WCA's, and was that and
 9   the north end of the park?  I didn't quite understand
10   the distinction you were making.
11       A.    Yes.  From Water Conservation Area 1, 2
12   and 3 and then specifically the only place I looked
13   in the park was down the L-67 extension.
14       Q.    Did you observe the area south of the S-12
15   structures?
16       A.    No.  Essentially stayed out of the park.
17   Looked along L-67 extension from outside the park.
18   That's the park boundary at that point.  Because of
19   sensitivities at that time, I used my better
20   discretion.
21       Q.    Who else was on you in that aerial
22   reconnaissance flight -- with you?  Excuse me.
23       A.    Ken Rutchey, one of our technicians Winnie
24   Park on one of the trips, and the pilot.
25       Q.    What sensitivities were you referring to in

                                                 80

 1   relation to the park?
 2       A.    The lawsuit.
 3       Q.    Are you referring to the federal lawsuit or
 4   to the SWIM Challenge proceedings?
 5       A.    It was the federal lawsuit back then.
 6       Q.    Okay.  When exactly was the aerial
 7   reconnaissance?
 8       A.    I'd have to look in the paper.  Again, that
 9   was a couple of years ago.  It was probably in 1991.
10   I believe it states in the paper when it was.
11       Q.    And what specific areas were covered in the
12   aerial reconnaissance?
13       A.    Conservation Areas 1, 2, 3 and the eastern
14   border of the park next to L-67 extension.
15       Q.    And when you refer to Conservation Area 2,
16   is that 2 A and B?
17       A.    Yes.  And 3 is 3 A and B.
18       Q.    Okay.  Were a hundred percent of the
19   conservation areas covered?
20       A.    Yes, we traversed the areas essentially on
21   a zigzag pattern, and where we did find major cattail
22   stands, then we timed distances to the borders of
23   those stands from known levees or pump stations using
24   the navigational equipment of the helicopter.
25       Q.    You had stated that Ken Rutchey

                                                 81

 1   participated in the aerial reconnaissance.
 2             Did he participate in both days?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    About how much time did you spend each day
 5   in the helicopter up in the air?
 6       A.    Probably six hours.
 7       Q.    So a total of twelve hours?
 8       A.    Probably.
 9       Q.    Approximately?
10       A.    Um-hum.  As I said, it's a very generalized
11   map.  We didn't try to hit every tiny cattail stand
12   in the conservation area.
13       Q.    Had Ken Rutchey already done any type of
14   reconnaissance or otherwise been familiar with the
15   areas of cattail?
16       A.    I believe at that time he was in the
17   initial stages of producing the vegetation map for
18   Conservation Area 2A.
19       Q.    What about the other conservation areas?
20       A.    I don't believe he was mapping those at
21   that time.
22       Q.    What type of navigational equipment did the
23   helicopter have that you were using to time
24   distances?
25       A.    We were using the coordinates for pump

                                                 82

 1   stations which are in the helicopter's computer and
 2   using compass directions from those coordinates and
 3   timing distances using the helicopter's air speed and
 4   a watch.
 5       Q.    Did the helicopter have a loran system?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Did you obtain loran coordinates for any of
 8   the sites?
 9       A.    We just obtained loran coordinates for our
10   base points of structures and pump stations and
11   levees.  We didn't obtain loran coordinates for the
12   borders out in the marsh of the cattail areas.  To my
13   knowledge, loran's not that sophisticated.
14             It was a pretty simple procedure.  It
15   wasn't very complex.
16       Q.    Have you ever done any prior aerial
17   reconnaissance for vegetative mapping purposes?
18       A.    In the other paper in the symposium volume
19   on landscapes we mapped vegetation in 25 one square
20   mile plots throughout the conservation areas in the
21   park that had been previously established and mapped
22   by Dr. Taylor Alexander back in the Sixties, and we
23   remapped his plots to look at vegetation change.
24       Q.    Was that done through aerial
25   reconnaissance?

                                                 83

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Okay.  What type helicopter?
 3       A.    The same helicopter.
 4       Q.    Was it done during the same approximate
 5   period?
 6       A.    That was done earlier, probably 1989.
 7       Q.    What purpose did you have of doing the
 8   aerial reconnaissance of cattail spread in 1991?
 9       A.    It was strictly for this paper I was
10   working on for the symposium volume.
11       Q.    Okay.  Were any of the results from your
12   reconnaissance included in the SWIM Plan?
13       A.    Not to my knowledge.
14       Q.    I believe you stated that Ken Rutchey had
15   been doing some vegetative mapping.
16       A.    Um-hum.
17       Q.    Did he produce a separate cattail expansion
18   map or vegetative map?
19       A.    He's produced a vegetation map of
20   Conservation Area 2A.
21       Q.    Does it match the one that's included in
22   your paper that you've referred to that you prepared
23   as a result of the aerial reconnaissance?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Okay.  With regard to the aerial

                                                 84

 1   reconnaissance you did of the Alexander plots -- is
 2   that correct?
 3       A.    Um-hum.
 4       Q.    -- how did you go about doing that
 5   reconnaissance?
 6       A.    We had aerial photography of the areas
 7   including these plots which through visual landmarks
 8   of tree islands and sloughs we could find the plot
 9   boundaries on the more recent aerial photographs
10   which were 1980-, between 1985 and 1989 more recent
11   photography, and then we went to each of these sites,
12   located the boundaries from the air, and simply noted
13   on an overlay, a plastic overlay over the aerial
14   photograph what the communities were at this time,
15   spending perhaps as much as a couple of hours on a
16   square mile plot to look at every cluster of
17   vegetation and identify it from the air in terms of
18   community.
19       Q.    Approximately what height were you doing
20   aerial reconnaissance?
21       A.    Whatever height we needed to to identify
22   the communities.  Sometimes we'd have to go down to
23   the ground.  Sometimes we could identify it as a
24   sawgrass stand from a hundred feet.  It was a much
25   finer scale mapping than the entire conservation area

                                                 85

 1   or the map that I indicated in the other publication.
 2       Q.    When you say you went down to the ground,
 3   would you actually land the helicopter in your review
 4   of the Alexander plots?
 5       A.    No, that wasn't necessary because you could
 6   see the community type without landing the
 7   helicopter.
 8       Q.    In that particular mapping did you include
 9   mapping of the periphyton community?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Did you have any difficulty locating the
12   Alexander plots?
13       A.    No.  We had coordinates for them, so we
14   could get the helicopter pretty close to them and
15   then it was just looking for visual landmarks such as
16   major tree islands and zeroing in on them.
17       Q.    Did you do any groundtruthing of the
18   vegetative makeup of the Alexander plots?
19       A.    Well, that's considered to be
20   groundtruthing even if it's by helicopter.  It's
21   going out, on-site verification.
22       Q.    Do you do any other type of on-site
23   verification?
24       A.    No.
25       Q.    And you compared those to what photos?

                                                 86

 1       A.    Taylor Alexander and his co-author's name
 2   was Crook, I forget his first name now, had produced
 3   a report in the early Seventies on vegetation maps of
 4   these plots made during the Sixties, during the mid
 5   Sixties, so we had about a 20-year interval from the
 6   mid to late Sixties to the mid to late Eighties that
 7   would look at change.
 8       Q.    Did you review all the Alexander plots?
 9       A.    Pardon?
10       Q.    Did you review all the Alexander plots?
11       A.    We reviewed all the Alexander plots that
12   were in the Everglades as we defined them in the
13   symposium.
14       Q.    Which would be what area?
15       A.    They were all in the conservation areas of
16   the park.  I don't think there were any outside the
17   conservation areas of the park.  I'd have to look
18   back.  There were 25 all together.
19             All together Taylor Alexander mapped nearly
20   a hundred plots, nearly a hundred plots in South
21   Florida, but some were in Big Cypress, some were
22   outside the boundaries of the Everglades.
23       Q.    Did you find all of the plots, Alexander
24   plots that were located within the Everglades as you
25   defined it?

                                                 87

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Was the surface water quality measured
 3   within the plots?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    How did your reconnaissance of the
 6   Alexander plots differ, if it did at all, from your
 7   reconnaissance of the cattail distribution that took
 8   place in approximately 1991?
 9       A.    Much more detailed.  We were looking at
10   clusters of vegetation in the Alexander plots within
11   a resolution of 10 meters, about 30 feet, while for
12   the overview of all the conservation areas we were
13   looking at only the distribution of major stands of
14   cattails, we were looking only at the distribution of
15   major stands of cattails and were not recording the
16   small stands of cattails in that range of 10 meters
17   or that occur naturally in the conservation areas.
18       Q.    How would you define then a major stand of
19   cattail or how would you define it as part of your
20   reconnaissance trip in 1991?
21       A.    Continuous areas of cattail as opposed to
22   small patches.
23       Q.    You're familiar with cattail early
24   colonization of post burn or at burn sites; is that
25   correct?

                                                 88

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Okay.  Being familiar with that, would you
 3   have in your aerial reconnaissance of cattail that
 4   took place in 1991, would those type of cattail
 5   stands have been included in your reconnaissance?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I need to take a break.
 8               (Thereupon, a recess was taken from
 9                11:35 a.m., until 11:38 a.m.)
10   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11       Q.    Mr. Davis, you had mentioned that you had
12   also done aerial reconnaissance or mapping,
13   vegetative mapping with regard to the Alexander
14   plots.
15             Were there any other vegetative mapping or
16   reconnaissance you've done in the past?
17       A.    Well, not unless you go back to the early
18   Seventies on the St. Johns River which I don't think
19   is relevant to this --
20       Q.    What type of --
21       A.    -- issue.
22       Q.    What type of vegetative mapping did you do
23   at St. Johns River?
24       A.    Produced a vegetation map of the upper
25   St. Johns River floodplain.

                                                 89

 1       Q.    Was that likewise with a helicopter?
 2       A.    We didn't have a helicopter, the use of a
 3   helicopter back then.  It was mainly groundtruthing
 4   aerial photography from the ground.
 5       Q.    Did you review any type of aerial
 6   photography or satellite photography with relation to
 7   your aerial reconnaissance in 1991 for the spread of
 8   cattail?
 9       A.    I don't understand your question.
10       Q.    Did you in conjunction with your helicopter
11   overflights also look at any type of aerial
12   photography or satellite imagery?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  For?
14             THE WITNESS:  We looked at satellite
15        imagery before the flight to make sure that we
16        were covering obvious areas of cattails in
17        addition to those that we found that were less
18        obvious, areas that stood out clearly on aerial
19        photography.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    And do you have any opinion as to what the
22   post 1991 distribution of cattails are in the WCA's?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Did you do any water quality sampling in
25   conjunction with this reconnaissance in 1991?

                                                 90

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Where have you done water quality sampling
 3   in the WCA's in the park?
 4       A.    I've done none in the park.
 5             My water quality sampling is limited to
 6   Water Conservation Area 2A during the years of
 7   vegetation research from about 1975 to the mid
 8   Eighties.
 9       Q.    Did at that point in time you stop doing
10   any type of field work?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Is there a particular reason for that?
13       A.    Taking on more supervisory
14   responsibilities.
15       Q.    Okay.  Do you have any opinion as to what
16   the distribution of cattail were prior to the 1970s?
17       A.    I've looked at aerial photography from the
18   mid to late Sixties, and the cattail stand that I
19   referred to north of the north airboat trail was very
20   apparent on that photography in the late Sixties.
21       Q.    What aerial photography would that be?
22       A.    That was just black and white Mark Hurds
23   back then.
24       Q.    I didn't understand the last.
25       A.    Black and white Mark, it's called Mark

                                                 91

 1   Hurds.
 2             Mark Hurd was the company that routinely
 3   flew aerial photography of the conservation areas.
 4       Q.    And did you or anyone else groundtruth the
 5   aerial photography of the late Sixties?
 6       A.    No, I didn't.
 7       Q.    What experience do you have in aerial
 8   photography, in interpretation of aerial photography?
 9       A.    Just what I told you.
10       Q.    Who within the District would be the person
11   with the most knowledge about the post 1991
12   distribution of cattails in the WCA's?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
14             THE WITNESS:  Probably Ken Rutchey.
15   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
16       Q.    Do you know whether or not Mr. Rutchey --
17   is it Mr. or Dr. Rutchey?
18       A.    Mr.
19       Q.    -- whether Mr. Rutchey has determined the
20   cattail distributions in Water Conservation Area 1
21   after the 1991 aerial reconnaissance he did with you?
22       A.    I don't know.
23       Q.    Have you ever spoken with him about any
24   additional vegetative mapping?
25       A.    Not recently.

                                                 92

 1             I left the Research Department more than a
 2   year ago and haven't been working with these people
 3   for more than a year, so...
 4       Q.    Will you be offering an expert opinion as
 5   to what the historic distribution of cattails were in
 6   the Everglades prior to the development of the
 7   federal project?
 8       A.    Will I be offering?
 9       Q.    Do you expect to give an expert opinion as
10   to what the distribution of cattails were prior to
11   the diking off and development of the federal
12   project?
13       A.    If asked.
14       Q.    Okay.  Well, have you been asked to do so
15   thus far?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    Do you intend to give an expert opinion as
18   to that matter?
19       A.    I don't know.
20       Q.    Well, at this point in time do you intend
21   to do so?
22       A.    If they ask me.
23       Q.    If they ask you.
24             All right.  Do you have any additional
25   expert opinions as to the historical trends in

                                                 93

 1   distribution of cattails in the WCA's?
 2       A.    Well, there's historical reports that
 3   indicate cattails in the WCA's prior to the project,
 4   and that would be the only basis of my opinion.
 5       Q.    But I thought a few moments ago you stated
 6   that at this point in time you had not been asked to
 7   offer an opinion as to pre-project distribution of
 8   cattails.
 9       A.    That's true.
10       Q.    Okay.  What is your knowledge of
11   pre-project distribution of cattails?
12       A.    Accounts particularly in "The Natural
13   Features of South Florida" by John Henry Davis in the
14   1940s of scattered cattail stands in what are now the
15   water conservation areas.
16       Q.    Anything else?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    As part of this area of your expert
19   testimony on the historical trends in distribution of
20   cattails in water conservation areas, are you
21   offering any type of expert opinion as to the cause
22   for the distribution of cattails?
23       A.    For historical distribution of cattail?
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    Are you talking pre project or --

                                                 94

 1       Q.    I'm talking --
 2       A.    Would you be more specific?
 3       Q.    I believe in your description of your
 4   expert opinion as to the historical distribution of
 5   cattails you commenced in the 1970s and took us
 6   through an aerial reconnaissance in approximately
 7   1991.
 8             As part of this area of your expert
 9   testimony do you intend to provide opinions as to the
10   cause for that distribution or change in distribution
11   of cattails?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Okay.  Prior to going into that opinion,
14   Mr. Davis, you refer to the aerial reconnaissance of
15   1991 covering the Water Conservation Areas 1, 2, 3
16   and the western boundary of --
17       A.    Eastern.
18       Q.    Excuse me.
19             -- the eastern boundary of the park along
20   the L-67 extension.
21             Did you review the same area during your
22   observations from 1970 through the mid Eighties?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Okay.  What were your observations?  Was
25   there geographic limitations on those observations?

                                                 95

 1       A.    During the Seventies to mid Eighties, Water
 2   Conservation Area 2A.
 3       Q.    Okay.  Do you have any idea what the
 4   cattail distribution was in Water Conservation Area 1
 5   from the 1970s through the 1980s?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    Will you be offering an expert opinion at
 8   the hearing as to what the distribution of cattail
 9   was in Water Conservation Area 1 from the 1970s
10   through the mid Eighties?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Or, actually, I believe I should say up to
13   1991.
14             Does that change your answer at all?
15       A.    No, it doesn't change my answer.
16       Q.    Okay.  Will you be offering an expert
17   opinion at the final hearing as to the distribution
18   of cattails in Water Conservation Area 2B from the
19   1970s through 1991?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Up to 1991, excuse me?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    Will you be giving, offering an expert
24   opinion as to the distribution of cattails in Water
25   Conservation Area 3A from the 1970s up to 1991?

                                                 96

 1       A.    No.
 2             I might qualify that, that the only opinion
 3   I could offer would be observations of simply driving
 4   an airboat through the marsh of the presence of small
 5   stands of cattail in the marsh.  That's the only
 6   thing I could directly testify to.
 7       Q.    This would be the marsh of 3A?
 8       A.    All the conservation areas.
 9       Q.    Okay.  And do you recall, was this done as
10   part of a vegetative study?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Would --
13       A.    It was not part of a vegetation study.
14       Q.    From those trips that you're referring to
15   through the marsh would you be able to go ahead and
16   describe the areas of cattail distribution within the
17   water conservation areas other than that of 2A during
18   the period 1970s through 1991?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    I've missed one, so let me go ahead and ask
21   that.
22             Do you intend to offer at the final hearing
23   an expert opinion as to the distribution of cattail
24   from the 1970s through 19, or up to 1991 for Water
25   Conservation Area 3B?

                                                 97

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Okay.  And the same question for the park?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Okay.  As part of this area of your expert
 5   testimony do you intend to offer an opinion as to
 6   whether or not the cattails are currently expanding
 7   in the water conservation areas of the park?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Will you be offering -- I limited that by
10   stating as to whether this portion of your expert
11   testimony.
12             Will you be offering an opinion, expert
13   opinion at the final hearing as to whether or not the
14   areal distribution of cattails are currently
15   expanding in the water conservation areas of the
16   park?
17       A.    Isn't that the question you just asked me?
18       Q.    I asked it in relation to this area of your
19   expert testimony, so I'm just trying to broaden it to
20   just generally will you be offering an expert opinion
21   as to that?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    With regard to your statement that you will
24   be offering an expert opinion as to the causation of
25   the expansion of cattails, is that expert opinion

                                                 98

 1   limited to the expansion of cattails within Water
 2   Conservation Area 2A?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Will you be offering -- well, for what
 5   areas of distribution of cattails will you be
 6   offering an expert opinion as to causation?
 7       A.    From the standpoint of causation, I would
 8   feel it's valid that the factors affecting cattail
 9   dynamics could apply to any of the water conservation
10   areas even though most of the data was gathered in
11   Conservation Area 2A.
12             MR. KOBELINSKI:  We might as well break for
13        lunch now because the causation is a whole area.
14        It doesn't make sense to go ahead and spend five
15        minutes and then break.
16             MR. NETTLETON:  Okay.
17                from 11:55 a.m., until 1:38 p.m.)

                                                 99

 1            A F T E R N O O N  S E S S I O N
 2                        -   -   -
 3                        CONTINUED DIRECT (Steven M. Davis)
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    All right.  Mr. Davis, we're going to
 6   continue on with the deposition then.  We'll follow
 7   the same format we did this morning.  I'll be asking
 8   you questions under oath, and just if you'd provide
 9   me with the facts and opinions you have on the
10   different matters discussed.
11             Where we left off prior to the break for
12   deposition was your providing an opinion as to the
13   causation for the cattail distribution within water
14   conservation areas.
15             Would that also include causation of any
16   cattails within the park?
17       A.    In the peatland areas of the park, yes,
18   peat soil areas of the park perhaps.
19       Q.    And what specific areas would those be of
20   the park?
21       A.    The Shark River slough region, the regions
22   below the eastern two or three S-12 structures.  The
23   fourth S-12 structure to the west is in a marl soil
24   region.

                                                 100

 1             (Thereupon, Dr. Hackney entered the room.)
 2       Q.    All right.  And what is your opinion as to
 3   the cause of the change in cattail distribution
 4   within the Everglades area -- or for the time being
 5   let's go ahead and narrow that down to Water
 6   Conservation Area 2A which I believe you stated you
 7   have the most knowledge about; is that correct?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    All right.  As a matter of fact, have you
10   done any studies outside of Water Conservation
11   Area 2A related to cattail other than the vegetative
12   mapping you've discussed?
13       A.    No.
14       Q.    Okay.  Have you done any research of any
15   type outside of Water Conservation Area 2A other than
16   the vegetative mapping you've discussed?
17       A.    I've assisted on a number of research
18   projects but haven't done any of my own research
19   outside of Conservation Area 2A.
20       Q.    If you could just very briefly describe
21   what those research projects you have assisted on
22   outside the confines of Water Conservation Area 2A.
23       A.    I've assisted in vegetation and
24   invertebrate sampling in Conservation Area 3 and I've
25   assisted in vegetation analysis of floating peat

                                                 101

 1   islands in Conservation Area 1 and fish sampling in
 2   Conservation Area 3.
 3       Q.    The two studies you referred to for
 4   Conservation Area 3, would that be 3A?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    And the first one, I didn't quite catch
 7   exactly what it was.  It was a vegetative study?
 8       A.    Vegetation and invertebrate sampling.
 9       Q.    When was that?
10       A.    Through the Seventies.
11       Q.    And you referred to vegetation.
12             Was there any particular type of vegetation
13   you were studying?
14       A.    We were mainly sampling wet prairie areas
15   in Conservation Area 3A.
16       Q.    What vegetative types did you find in those
17   wet prairie areas?
18       A.    Sedges, grasses, for the most part,
19   rhynchospora.
20             Do you want me to go into scientific names?
21       Q.    If you'd like.
22       A.    Generally sedges and grasses.
23       Q.    DiBRITISH part of that vegetative study in
24   3A include a study of cattails in the area?
25       A.    No.

                                                 102

 1       Q.    Okay.  And when was the peat island study
 2   in Water Conservation Area 1?
 3       A.    In the Seventies.
 4       Q.    And, likewise, when was the fish study in
 5   Water Conservation Area 3A?
 6       A.    Throughout the Seventies.
 7       Q.    All right.  Going back then to the prior
 8   question, what is your opinion as to the cause of the
 9   changes in distribution of cattail in Water
10   Conservation Area 2A from the Seventies up to the
11   1991 aerial reconnaissance that you conducted?
12       A.    All the evidence I've seen would indicate
13   that nutrient loading or nutrient supply's the major
14   factor affecting the spread of cattails in
15   Conservation Area 2A.
16             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read the first
17        part of that back?
18               (Thereupon, a portion of the record
19                was read by the reporter.)
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    And the evidence that you have seen, how
22   would you broadly describe that evidence?  Are there
23   particular data sets, for instance, that you're
24   relying upon?
25       A.    (Witness nodding head up and down)  There's

                                                 103

 1   the work I did for about ten years in Conservation
 2   Area 2A comparing the production and nutrient cycling
 3   characteristics of sawgrass and cattail along a
 4   gradient of surface water nutrient concentrations.
 5       Q.    And do you have a technical publication
 6   with regard to that study?
 7       A.    Several.
 8       Q.    Okay.
 9       A.    There's an article in "Aquatic Botany"
10   either '91 or '92.  I'd have to look back.  There's
11   an article the year before in a symposium in a book
12   called "Fresh Water Wetlands And Wildlife."  And then
13   there were several interim reports in technical
14   publications and articles before that.
15       Q.    Are you relying on any of those technical
16   publications or the article in "Aquatic Botany" as a
17   basis or partial basis for this opinion?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Okay.  Could you go ahead and designate
20   specifically which ones?
21       A.    The article in "Fresh Water Wetlands And
22   Wildlife" was called --
23       Q.    Well --
24       A.    Oh, do you want --
25       Q.    Before you start that, would they all be

                                                 104

 1   listed in this resume' which has been listed as
 2   Exhibit 1?  You have it right in front of you there.
 3       A.    (Witness reviewing the document).
 4             Yes, one is at the bottom of the first page
 5   on Publications.
 6       Q.    Which I believe is Bates Number 0959634 of
 7   Davis Exhibit Number 1.
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Please go ahead, sir.
10       A.    "Sawgrass and cattail production in
11   relation to nutrient supply in the Everglades."
12       Q.    Is that the --
13       A.    That's the title.
14       Q.    -- Davis, S. M. 1990?
15       A.    Yes, that's the one I was referring to.
16       Q.    The final publication on that page?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    All right.
19       A.    And then going on to the next page, the
20   second publication down, Davis, 1991.
21       Q.    Which I believe is entitled "Growth,
22   decomposition, and nutrient retention of Cladium
23   jamaicense Crantz and Typha domingensis."  Is that
24   the entire title or is that --
25       A.    "In the Florida Everglades."  That's the

                                                 105

 1   entire title.
 2       Q.    All right.  And that would be on Bates page
 3   0959635, Exhibit 1?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    Any other?
 6       A.    I probably referred to the third
 7   publication on that page which is no longer in
 8   review; it's in press, "Phosphorus inputs and
 9   vegetation sensitivity."  That title's been shortened
10   somewhat.  It's just "in the Everglades" rather than
11   "in an oligotrophic Everglades ecosystem."
12       Q.    Okay.  So the title of the paper as finally
13   published would be "Phosphorus inputs and vegetation
14   sensitivity in the Everglades"?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Is that a journal, a book or what exactly
17   is that?
18       A.    This is a symposium volume that we talked
19   about earlier.
20       Q.    And would that be all the reports or
21   publications you'd be relying upon?
22       A.    I'd be also using Ken Rutchey's vegetation
23   map of Conservation Area 2A, Marguerite Koch's soil
24   phosphorus maps of Conservation Area 2A.
25       Q.    Anything else?

                                                 106

 1       A.    Essentially everything I would be using is
 2   referred to in the paper "Phosphorus inputs and
 3   vegetation sensitivity in the Everglades."
 4       Q.    Are there any other reports that you have
 5   generated that you would be relying upon or authored
 6   or co-authored?
 7       A.    The paper I mentioned earlier with Nancy
 8   Urban as senior author on the dynamics of sawgrass
 9   and cattail over a six-year period, but that's also
10   referred to in the summary paper, the "Phosphorus
11   inputs and vegetation sensitivity" paper.
12       Q.    When you make reference to the "Phosphorus
13   inputs and vegetation sensitivity" paper, would it be
14   best to go through that paper -- does that paper have
15   a bibliography or a list of references?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Would it be best to go through that paper
18   to determine which of the references you're relying
19   upon for your expert opinion?
20       A.    That would be fine with me.
21       Q.    All right.  Is that a good way of doing it
22   in your opinion?
23       A.    Yes, that would be a start.
24       Q.    Well, let's start.

                                                 107

 1              (The document was marked
 2               Davis Exhibit Number 2.)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Mr. Davis, I'm showing you what's been
 5   marked as Davis Exhibit Number 2 to this deposition,
 6   and at the top of the page is, the first page, is
 7   stamped a large "draft" and underneath that is a
 8   title "Phosphorus Inputs And Vegetation Sensitivity
 9   In The Everglades" and it bears Bates Numbers 1084687
10   through 1084716, and I ask if you can identify this
11   document?
12       A.    This is the manuscript that I have
13   submitted to the publisher for publication, the book,
14   "The Everglades Ecosystem And Its Restoration."
15       Q.    And is the most recent draft of the
16   manuscript?
17       A.    The only more recent draft would be one
18   that's come back from the publisher that has the
19   tables inserted in the text, but there's no change in
20   the text or the data presented.  It's exactly as it
21   is here.
22       Q.    All right.  And I will draw you to what is
23   marked as page 17 in the upper left-hand corner of
24   Davis Exhibit Number 2 which also bears Bates Number
25   1084703 and is entitled "Literature Cited."

                                                 108

 1             As described by that title, are these the
 2   references made throughout the manuscript?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    Okay.  Which if any of these studies or
 5   papers are you relying upon in coming to your expert
 6   opinion?
 7       A.    Let me clarify.  Is this expert opinion
 8   only concerning the distribution and spread of
 9   cattails, is that all we're talking about, or are we
10   talking about the effects of nutrient enrichment?
11       Q.    We're talking about at this point in time
12   the cause of the distribution of, change in
13   distribution of cattail --
14       A.    Okay.
15       Q.    -- which I believe you've stated is
16   nutrient-related.
17       A.    Okay.
18       Q.    Okay.
19       A.    (Witness reviewing the document).
20             You want me to list the authors in terms of
21   these references?
22       Q.    Well, which