1

 1           DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
       DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
 2 
   
 3   SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE     )
     OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and  )
 4   WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,             )
                      Petitioners,      ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
 5        v.                            )
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
 6   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
 7                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
 8   FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;   )
     UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;   )
 9   and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,          )
                      Petitioners,      )
10        v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
11   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
12                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13   FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE        )
     ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;     )
14   W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,      )
     and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,           )
15                    Petitioners,      )
          v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
16   SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
     DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
17   of Florida; et al.,                )
                      Respondents.      )
18  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
                          100 S.E. 2nd Street
19                        Miami, Florida
                          April 8, 1994
20                        8:40 a.m. - 4:10 p.m.
   
21                DEPOSITION OF ED DOWNING
   
22             Taken before THOMAS R. NEUMANN, Registered
     Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
23   the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of
     Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.
24                          - - - - - - -

                                                 2

 1                       APPEARANCES
   
 2 
      ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS
 3    COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC., AND
      WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.
 4 
           HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS
 5         123 South Calhoun Street
           P.O. Box 6526,
 6         Tallahassee, Florida  32314
           BY:  CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE, ESQ.
 7 
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
 8 
           POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD.
 9         4000 International Place
           100 S.E. 2nd Street
10         Miami, Florida
           BY:  GREGORY CESARANO, ESQ.
11 
      ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
12    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
   
13         TOM WATTS-FITZGERALD, ESQ.
           ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
14         99 N.E. 4th Street
           Miami, Florida  33132
15 
   
16 
   
17 
                                INDEX
18   Witness                 Direct    Cross    Redirect    Recross
     ED DOWNING
19   By Mr. Cesarano:           4
     By Mr. Watts-Fitzgerald:            33
20 
   

                                                 3

 1                            EXHIBITS
 2 
 3          NUMBER                                     PAGE
 4 
 5     Exhibit 10 through 12..............................5
 6     Exhibit 13........................................20
 7     Exhibit 14........................................20
 8     Exhibits 15, 16..................................121
 9     Exhibit 17.......................................142
10     Exhibit 18.......................................143
11     Exhibit 19.......................................143
12     Exhibit 20.......................................143
13     Exhibit 21.......................................144
14     Exhibits 22 and 23...............................144
15     Exhibit 24.......................................145
16     Exhibit 25.......................................145
17     Exhibit 26.......................................145
18     Exhibit 27.......................................145
19     Exhibit 28.......................................146
20     Exhibit 29.......................................146
21     Exhibit 30.......................................146
22 
23 
24 
25 

                                                 4

 1  Thereupon --
 2                       ED DOWNING
 3  was called as a witness and, having been first duly
 4  sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 5                    DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6   BY MR. CESARANO:
 7       Q.    Good morning, Mr. Downing.
 8       A.    Good morning.
 9       Q.    We are continuing the deposition that we
10   left off last week.  The rules are the same.  You
11   tell me if you don't understand my questions, all
12   right?
13       A.    Yes, sir.
14       Q.    Since we last met, what have you been
15   doing?
16       A.    Working on the classification for the 1985
17   image.
18       Q.    What have you been doing?  Tell me
19   specifically how you have been doing on the
20   classification.
21       A.    By using the techniques as described in the
22   previous deposition, 1985 and '84 that was used as
23   the source for training sample selection in the 2A
24   study area and identified those sites by the training
25   samples set up, the classification schemes produced,

                                                 5

 1   the classifications and continued, of course, the
 2   analysis that I talked about also.
 3       Q.    Did you do anything on the other images,
 4   the '87 or '89 or '91 images?
 5       A.    Unsupervised classification into 36 and 99
 6   categories, no.  We did nothing additional with
 7   those.
 8             MS. RAEPPLE:  Off the record.
 9                  (Discussion off the record.)
10             MR. CESARANO:  Mark these Exhibit 10.
11          (The documents referred to were thereupon
12           marked Exhibit 10 through 12 for
13           Identification.)
14   BY MR. CESARANO:
15       Q.    We have marked these three documents
16   Exhibits 10, 11, 12 to your deposition.  Counsel
17   produced these to me yesterday.
18             Could you explain what those are, please?
19       A.    Give me one second.  Document No. 12 is the
20   table indicating the area per class in the
21   interpreted TM image for 1993 document.
22             11 is a similar category map for the --
23   this is the entire Everglades study area.  This is an
24   area that includes 2A and an area from Loxahatchee
25   down to the small portions of the national Everglades

                                                 6

 1   park, the hectares -- class categories in hectares.
 2             And No. 10 is the similar area calculation
 3   table for the 1985 Landsat thematic paper image.
 4       Q.    When we were last taking your deposition we
 5   discussed the differences in part between the
 6   vegetative classes you were using on your map and the
 7   classes that Mr. Rutchey used on his map.  Have you
 8   done any further work or analysis or attempted to
 9   make those classes comparable to each other?
10       A.    No.  We weren't able to.  We just decided
11   to use our classes with the definition that we used
12   in terms of percent cover and had no comparison.  No
13   maps comparing Rutchey's classes to our classes.
14       Q.    I'm going to try to make at least an
15   initial attempt to see if there is any way we might
16   be able to determine which classes of Mr. Rutchey's
17   would fall into at least your cattail classes.  Did
18   you attempt to do anything like that?
19       A.    Preliminarily we tried to compare roughly
20   our classes to his in some of the tables we produced
21   early on in the study.
22       Q.    In looking at comparing Exhibits 10 and 12
23   which you have just identified, I note that on both
24   of those exhibits you have a class predominant
25   cattail, and we have already discussed the definition

                                                 7

 1   of that, I believe 95% or greater cattail in an area,
 2   correct?
 3       A.    We estimated roughly in the area of 95% or
 4   greater to be a cattail category.
 5       Q.    I see in both exhibits in Exhibit 10 class
 6   No. 2, predominant mix cattail/other.  According to
 7   class No. 3 in Exhibit 12, predominant mix
 8   cattail/other?
 9       A.    No.  The classes in the 1985 image, several
10   of the classes in this category in 1993 are combined
11   to form these classes in the '85 image.  It's not a
12   one-to-one comparison by class name.  If you notice,
13   there are fewer classes in '85 than there are in '93.
14   The total acreage would be the same, but the classes
15   themselves are inclusive of other classes.
16       Q.    Could you explain to me which ones have
17   been combined, please?
18       A.    The predominant cattail in the 1985 image
19   is predominant cattail, same definition for
20   predominant cattail in the '93 image.  You go down to
21   the predominant mix cattail/other, and that includes
22   all the mixes available in the '93 category,
23   predominant mix cattail open water.  All the mix
24   categories there of cattail and other would include
25   other in the predominant mix.

                                                 8

 1       Q.    Let me understand that.  Category No. 2 in
 2   the 1985 table is equivalent to categories No. 2, 3
 3   and 4 in the Exhibit 12 table?
 4       A.    You are talking about between 10 and 11 or
 5   10 and 12?
 6       Q.    Those are both 2A.  Why don't you just tell
 7   me which ones are included in category No. 2 in
 8   Exhibit 12.
 9       Q.    Category 1 predominant cattail equals -- in
10   the -- let's start with the -- in the reference in
11   this case would be the '85 image?
12       A.    In the '85 image predominant cattail and
13   predominant cattail class 1 are the same definition
14   of class.  All the mix categories 2, 3 and 4 are the
15   classed or combined into the predominant mix cattail
16   other category No. 2 in the '85 image.
17             There is no equal mix category in the '85
18   image.
19       Q.    Why is that?
20       A.    To determine an equal mix from the air
21   photos we used we thought was not practical, so we
22   did away with that category and decided either it was
23   a mix with predominance toward either category.  We
24   found no equal mix, equivalent equal mix category in
25   the '85 image.  So equal mix 5, there is no

                                                 9

 1   equivalent from '93 to '85.
 2       Q.    Category 3 in the '85 image predominant mix
 3   sawgrass/other would include class 6 in the '93 image
 4   which is predominant mix sawgrass/cattail, class 7
 5   predominant mix sawgrass/other and 9?
 6       A.    Yes, and 9.  Predominant sawgrass/open
 7   water -- no.  No.  Not 9.  It wouldn't be 9.
 8   Predominant mix sawgrass cattail class 6 in the '93
 9   image matches the predominant mix sawgrass class 3 in
10   '85.
11             Class 7 predominant mix sawgrass/other is
12   classed into class 3 in the '85 image predominant mix
13   sawgrass/other.  Sparse sawgrass is equal to sparse
14   sawgrass.  In other words, class 8 in the '93 image,
15   sparse sawgrass may contain periphyton.  And class 5
16   in the '85 spars sawgrass may contain periphyton or
17   comparable.
18             The predominant sawgrass categories,
19   predominant sawgrass class 9, '93 image, predominant
20   sawgrass open water would fall into the predominant
21   sawgrass in the '85 image, which is class 4.
22   Predominant sawgrass in the '93 image falls into
23   predominant sawgrass in the '85 image.  In other
24   words, that class 10 in the '93 image is included in
25   class 4 in the '85 image.

                                                 10

 1             The slough is equivalent to slough, class
 2   11 is equivalent to class 6.  Class 12 in the '93
 3   image is equivalent to class 7, which is broad leaf
 4   vegetation/tree island.  Class 13 in the '93 image
 5   open water is equivalent to class 8 open water in the
 6   '85 image.
 7             And clouds and shadows in both the class 14
 8   and clouds and shadows in the '93 image is equivalent
 9   to class 9 clouds and shadows in the '85 image.
10       Q.    Now, I want to ask about why you were
11   unable to determine whether or not there was an equal
12   mix of sawgrass and cattail -- or put differently,
13   why you were unable to identify that class from
14   aerial photography that you were using.
15             Why was that?
16       A.    That class requires a very detailed view of
17   the site that we were unable to obtain in the 1985
18   photography.  It was too close to call.
19       Q.    Why are the total hectares approximately
20   100 different between the two images?
21       A.    Apparently in digitizing the 2A study area
22   we were slightly off in delineation of the study area
23   in the '85 image.  It was about 100 hectares
24   different.
25       Q.    You told me about the accuracy evaluation

                                                 11

 1   that you are presently engaged in at the time that I
 2   last took your deposition.  My notes reflect that at
 3   that point you had gone through some 26 points.  How
 4   many total points were evaluated for the accuracy
 5   assessment for the 1993 image?
 6       A.    I believe that number was 84.
 7       Q.    When was that accuracy assessment
 8   completed?
 9       A.    It was completed during the deposition the
10   last time.
11       Q.    What was the percentage of accuracy?
12       A.    I believe that was 70% or 72%.
13       Q.    Do you have the error matrix on that?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    I would like to see it, please.
16       A.    I'm sorry.  I don't have that error matrix
17   with me today.  It's being faxed this morning.
18   Yesterday when we finished this project -- the day
19   before when we finished this project and compiled all
20   of that NASA through -- we are members of the VIP
21   program.  We were involved in the program using some
22   of the scanners that NASA has available.
23             NASA sent a film crew to our office
24   Thursday morning at 8:00.  They came in and cleaned
25   out our work area, set up cameras and did interviews

                                                 12

 1   for two and a half hours.  And in the process, they
 2   scattered stuff -- at least the records we had neatly
 3   piled were moved to a different area by the film
 4   crew.
 5             And Pam Green is reassembling that and
 6   sending me the current error matrixes.  I apologize
 7   for that.  It was unexpected.  They were supposed to
 8   have been out in the field filming field work and
 9   then would film in my work area Friday.  But it
10   rained, so they came into my work area.  But my staff
11   right now is finding that and they are faxing that to
12   us.  We will have it in a few minutes.
13             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Before the
14        accusations begin to fly, or I read it in the
15        paper, the Department of Justice had nothing to
16        do with the timing of this.  It was actually
17        supposed to have occurred much sooner.  Please
18        convey that.
19             THE WITNESS:  If you know the documentary
20        thing they are doing on CNN, just remembered
21        they disrupted my work schedule by doing that.
22   BY MR. CESARANO:
23       Q.    Where is it being faxed to?
24       A.    Here in this office.
25       Q.    To my office?

                                                 13

 1       A.    Yes.
 2             MS. RAEPPLE:  To whose attention?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Ed Dowling's office.
 4   BY MR. CESARANO:
 5       Q.    Were you expecting that Pamela Green would
 6   fax that first thing this morning?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Well, we will move off that point until it
 9   gets here.
10             We were discussing with Dr. Lodge yesterday
11   some of the aerial photography, and I believe the
12   grid indicated that the scale on the national high
13   altitude program aerial photography is close to 1 to
14   65,000?
15       A.    1 to -- the scale in the photography wound
16   up being a surprise.  That photography ordering to
17   NASA specifications when they sent it to us was
18   supposed to have been 1 to 58,200.  But when we photo
19   reduced the quad sheets to match the photo, it didn't
20   come out to that ratio.
21             So in conversations with NASA about that
22   photography, well, obviously it was not at that
23   scale.  So we matched the reduced quad sheets and
24   matched the photography and it turned out to be 1 to
25   64,900.

                                                 14

 1       Q.    Tell me how you went about reducing the
 2   quad sheets and turning them into transparencies.
 3       A.    We took the in-house photography and used
 4   that as a control for the quad sheet.  So we matched
 5   the quad sheet reduction to the NHAP, photography.
 6       Q.    And to your knowledge was it an exact
 7   match?
 8       A.    It was a good map.  I've never seen an
 9   exact map in photo reduction.
10       Q.    When you say a good map, can you quantify
11   how close?
12       A.    The features were within acceptable
13   distances that we decided were necessary to do this
14   photo interpretation.
15       Q.    And what were those tolerances that you
16   decided?
17       A.    We attempted to match reasonably the scale
18   of the photography so when we over laid a 500 meter
19   grid we could identify the patterns within that 500
20   meter grid.
21       Q.    Based solely on the reduction of the quad
22   sheets, can you tell me -- can you quantify the
23   locational error in the map?
24       A.    Can I quantify the locational area in the
25   reduced quad sheets?

                                                 15

 1       Q.    Exactly.
 2       A.    I did not quantify the area in the reduced
 3   quad sheets.
 4       Q.    But by reducing it like that, it does
 5   introduce the possibility of error, does it not?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    And the color infrared photography itself
 8   has a margin of error, does it not?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Can you quantify that for me?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    The process that Dr. Lodge used in manually
13   lining up the photography with the quad sheet also
14   has the potential to introduce error, does it not?
15       A.    Yes, it does.
16       Q.    Are you able to quantify that amount of
17   error?
18       A.    We have not yet quantified that amount of
19   error.
20       Q.    Do you believe that you will?
21       A.    I don't believe it will be necessary.
22       Q.    Why not?
23       A.    Because we depended on photo recognition
24   within a 500 by 500 meter quad.  We did not -- we
25   used a photo recognition pattern recognition within

                                                 16

 1   the map and the quad sheet.
 2       Q.    Am I correct in stating that the total
 3   locational error is a function of the margin of error
 4   in the photo added to the margin of error in the grid
 5   added to the margin of error introduced in the
 6   process?
 7       A.    That would be correct if you assume you
 8   were dealing in total positional error.  We were
 9   dealing in relational error.  Those are different
10   types of errors.
11       Q.    Would you explain that, please?
12       A.    Positional is accuracy of each map in
13   relation to the point on the surface of the map and
14   coordinated space.
15             We were dealing more with relational
16   accuracy, which is once we identified an identifiable
17   pattern in the photo, we align those various overlays
18   and transparencies to that point.  So relationally
19   within the 500 meter grid we identified areas and
20   patterns.
21       Q.    In your opinion how does the total error as
22   we have just discussed relate to or compare to the
23   pixel size in the thematic mapper image of 30 meters?
24       A.    As I stated already, we did not use
25   positional accuracy as the control in this photo.  We

                                                 17

 1   used relative accuracy.  Relative positional
 2   accuracy.
 3       Q.    Isn't it important to consider positional
 4   accuracy when you are talking about extent of
 5   vegetative cover?
 6       A.    It's important to consider positional
 7   accuracy if you are basing any data you might add or
 8   subtract to that map on simply a statement of
 9   positional accuracy, which is not what we do.
10       Q.    Talking about relational accuracy, is that
11   what you said?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Talking about relational accuracy and the
14   use of the color infrared photography.  The dates of
15   the infrared photography were, I believe, March,
16   early March of 1984, mid February of 1980 and mid
17   February of 1985 --
18       A.    There were two NHAP methods that we used in
19   the study area.
20       Q.    You were using those to verify or to define
21   the vegetative classes in the November 1985 satellite
22   imagery, correct?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Would you not expect that in the period of
25   time between March 3, 1984 and November 2, 1985 that

                                                 18

 1   there would be some significant changes in the
 2   relationships of the various vegetative classes as
 3   shown in the infrared photography between the
 4   satellite imagery?
 5       A.    The relationships between the species --
 6   I'm sorry.
 7       Q.    Between the grouping of the classes.  We
 8   are talking about relational accuracy.  That's what
 9   I'm talking about, the relationship of one species
10   location to another.  In other words, it would
11   change, would it not, over that period of time?
12       A.    What now?  You are talking about relational
13   accuracy in terms of species communities.  That's
14   really not the context I was describing relational
15   accuracy in.
16             If you could explain a little more about
17   what you mean.  I'm not certain --
18       Q.    As I understand it, Dr. Lodge would attempt
19   to locate various vegetative or various features in
20   the infrared photography and compare that position or
21   that spot, identify it and then locate it in the
22   satellite imagery.
23             Is that more or less correct, or you tell
24   me what your understanding of it was.
25       A.    He identified the feature in the

                                                 19

 1   photography and then we identified the feature
 2   sometimes with his assistance in the raw image.
 3             What was your question?
 4       Q.    How did you employ this relational or this
 5   relationship, as you have described the relational
 6   accuracy in that process?
 7       A.    The NHAP photography is color IR
 8   photography.  Color IR produces very good
 9   differentiation in patterns in vegetation community
10   patterns.  Those same patterns were apparent in the
11   raw satellite image.
12             By positioning Dr. Lodge's focus into a 500
13   by 500 meter grid as best we could determine through
14   the method I described, he would sketch out the
15   patterns that he recognized the various plant
16   communities to exhibit within that area.
17             We would take that sketch that he had
18   prepared for the patterns he saw in the infrared
19   photography, compare those patterns in the 500 by 500
20   meter grid on image which we produced in rectifying
21   the image.
22             If we could see a pattern that he had
23   described in the photo, then that became the pattern
24   we recognized in the image.  From that, we selected
25   the training sample.

                                                 20

 1             Is that what your question is about?
 2       Q.    Yes.  That's what I was getting at.
 3   Wouldn't you expect those patterns to change between
 4   the period of time of IR photography or satellite?
 5       A.    Dr. Lodge has extensive knowledge of the
 6   Everglades, so he would recognize any obvious shifts
 7   in vegetative patterns from, say, one period to the
 8   other.  We had to assume, and I'm sure Dr. Lodge
 9   discussed it, that he would have some recognition of
10   what was going on in those patterns and those
11   classes, those species locations.
12             MR. CESARANO:  Take a short recess.
13                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
14                  after which the following proceedings
15                  were had:)
16             MR. CESARANO:  Mark that Exhibit 13.
17          (The document referred to was thereupon
18           marked Exhibit 13 for Identification.)
19             MR. CESARANO:  Mark this as Exhibit 14.
20          (The document referred to was thereupon
21           marked Exhibit 14 for Identification.)
22   BY MR. CESARANO:
23       Q.    We were talking about the relational
24   accuracy vis-a-vis the positional accuracy?
25       A.    Did I say relational -- relative accuracy.

                                                 21

 1   I'm sorry.  Relative accuracy.
 2       Q.    And that is based on the relationship of
 3   patterns, vegetative patterns to each other?
 4       A.    No.  Relative accuracy really doesn't
 5   relate specifically to vegetative mapping.  Relative
 6   accuracy is a mapping term that relates to the
 7   accuracy of one feature's relationship to another.
 8       Q.    In this case, it's the vegetative patterns
 9   or vegetative classes?
10       A.    It's the vegetative classes, the air boat
11   trails, the tree island heads, the canal center
12   lines.  It's any feature within the area you happen
13   to be attempting to bring those features together
14   into.
15       Q.    Isn't it important to know the location or
16   the positional accuracy of the features at the outset
17   in order to have any confidence in the relative
18   accuracy?
19       A.    It's absolutely necessary to at some point
20   to establish some type of positional accuracy when we
21   transferred the points onto the image which was
22   geographically correct.
23       Q.    And the places where you established
24   positional accuracy were where?
25       A.    In the image when we rectified the image.

                                                 22

 1       Q.    And that is based on known locations of
 2   particular features?
 3       A.    The rectification of images -- I think we
 4   went through this process already.
 5       Q.    We don't need details.
 6       A.    When you would select your ground control
 7   points and then compare those known points to points
 8   in the image and then geographically stretch or
 9   rectify the image to that set of known points, that's
10   called rectification, and that's what we did with
11   that image.
12       Q.    You did that with the satellite image?
13       A.    With the satellite data, yes.
14       Q.    Was it necessary to do that with the
15   quadrangle sheets?
16       A.    No.  Our methods did not require that we
17   rectify the quadrangle sheets.
18       Q.    As you move farther away from the
19   rectification points in the image by using the
20   relative accuracy process, is there a greater margin
21   for error the farther away you get from a known
22   point?
23       A.    You wouldn't do that.  The points you are
24   referring to, I guess, are the ground control points,
25   the known points?

                                                 23

 1       Q.    Yes.
 2       A.    Those points were used to rectify the
 3   image.  The methods we used to establish the
 4   geographic locations of features in the photograph
 5   were all based on the relationship of those features
 6   to each other.  So moving from a point, you would
 7   continually readjust as you move.  In other words, --
 8       Q.    What is the margin of error that -- can you
 9   quantify the margin of error in the rectification
10   process that you used?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    What was that?
13       A.    Let's see.  What was it?  That's part of
14   the process you would always go through when you
15   rectify an image as part of our digital files we were
16   provided.  The error was very low.  And frankly, I
17   don't remember -- it's in the data we have given you,
18   it's part of the record.  It was well within the
19   acceptable limits for rectification of this image.
20       Q.    What are acceptable limits?
21       A.    The errors down to .003 you are definitely
22   down to within -- the accuracy requirements you would
23   need for us is the raw data, 25 meter by 25 meter
24   sample data set.  I don't remember what ours were.
25   They were very low.

                                                 24

 1       Q.    Was it within .003?
 2       A.    I don't remember.
 3       Q.    But .003 is acceptable?
 4       A.    The software we used allowed us to quantify
 5   that in terms of materials, I can't remember how many
 6   meters that was.
 7       Q.    Plus or minus?
 8       A.    So many meters, yes.  It's on our digital
 9   tape.
10       Q.    My recollection, Mr. Rutchey's report
11   indicated his was within 3 to 7 meters?
12       A.    What, for his rectification?
13       Q.    I think you are right.  Not for
14   rectification.
15       A.    You are thinking of positional accuracy.
16   He used the same process.  RMS error generation and
17   converted that to meters and wound up with "X" number
18   of meters.
19       Q.    Mr. Rutchey's rectification was plus or
20   minus eight meters.  Do you recall if yours was
21   better or worse than that?
22       A.    I don't recall.
23       Q.    We spoke briefly about the tasseled cap
24   analysis that you ran initially in the 1985 image, I
25   believe?

                                                 25

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Have you run a normalized different
 3   vegetation index on the '85 image or the '93 image?
 4       A.    In terms of within the tasseled cap did we
 5   use the coefficients that a tasseled cap normally
 6   would use?  Yes, we have.  "Normalize" is really not
 7   the right term to use there.
 8       Q.    What's was the right term?
 9       A.    Applying coefficients that are applied.
10       Q.    What is the difference between those
11   results and the greeness components on the tasseled
12   cap?
13       A.    What's the difference between what, now?
14       Q.    Those results.  You said it's not proper to
15   use "normalized," but however you phrased it.
16       A.    I wouldn't use the term "normalized" to
17   apply the coefficient to a tasseled cap image mainly
18   because the normalization has taken on in this
19   proceeding.
20             We applied coefficients -- a standard set
21   of coefficients that are common in tasseled cap.
22   Those coefficients were multiplied by the brightness
23   value.
24       Q.    That's a different process than the
25   tasseled cap process?

                                                 26

 1       A.    No.  Tasseled cap is a process of applying
 2   coefficients to images to reduce the amount of data
 3   being increased or maintain the majority of
 4   information in that data.  It does that by applying a
 5   set of coefficients.
 6       Q.    Well, in doing that process is it effective
 7   to distinguish between cattail and sawgrass?
 8       A.    It's effective to distinguish between
 9   spectral response of various species of plants and
10   ground and water.
11       Q.    And in doing the map, we are concerned with
12   cattail and sawgrass, are we not?
13       A.    Yes, we are.
14       Q.    In your opinion, is it effective to
15   distinguish between cattail and sawgrass?
16       A.    I think that it could be, yes.  It could be
17   one of the two that can assist you in distinguishing
18   between the cattail and sawgrass.
19       Q.    Is it similar to tasseled capping that it
20   shows vigorousness of growth?
21       A.    Is what?  Is it -- is what similar?
22       Q.    This other process that we have just been
23   discussing using the ratios.
24       A.    The coefficients are part of the tasseled
25   cap analysis.  That's what tasseled cap is, it's a

                                                 27

 1   set of ratios that you apply to bands in order to
 2   compress data so there is no difference in what I
 3   discussed and a tasseled cap.  That is a tasseled
 4   cap.
 5       Q.    Just so I'm sure I understand, that is the
 6   analysis that measures total greenness of plants,
 7   chlorophyl or vigorousness of growth?
 8       A.    I never heard it described as total
 9   greeness.  One component of tasseled cap analysis is
10   greeness, yes.
11       Q.    Greeness values from low to high?
12       A.    Low to high, yes.
13       Q.    You mentioned that the difference in
14   hectares as we saw on the tape resulted from
15   digitizing the data.
16             Were you talking about the satellite
17   imagery or did you also digitize the color infrared
18   photography?
19       A.    No.  When I say the differences in
20   selecting out the study area, cutting it out of the
21   image.
22       Q.    Did you digitize the color infrared
23   photography?
24       A.    No.
25       Q.    I want to understand where I went wrong.  I

                                                 28

 1   asked you about the normalized difference in
 2   vegetation index.  You said that was not the proper
 3   term or description?
 4       A.    Based on the fact that "normalized" has
 5   been used in all proceedings so far to refer to some
 6   kind of adjustment to radio metric response, things
 7   of that sort, I want to make sure the record
 8   indicates that I'm not talking about performing a
 9   normalization of historical image.
10             Tasseled cap by definition does not require
11   they do anything except apply tasseled cap images,
12   and that's what we did.
13       Q.    Now I understand that.  Did you understand
14   what my question was by using that term, however?
15       A.    Maybe I didn't.  Maybe you ought to ask it
16   again.
17       Q.    As I understand it.  This process is one in
18   which you determine a ratio between two bands in the
19   TM image.  I think band 3 and 4, the distance and the
20   greater the ratio or the higher the number, the
21   greater the distance between the trough and the peak.
22   Are you understanding me?
23       A.    Yes.  I understand what you are saying, I
24   think.  Continue.
25       Q.    And by developing and normalizing that

                                                 29

 1   ratio you arrive at a scale of brightness values
 2   from -- that indicate very little vegetation or
 3   greeness to the top, which is quite a large amount?
 4       A.    Okay.  Yes.  What you do is, you apply a
 5   set of -- not just simply the difference between two
 6   bands.  You neutralize some bands by adding and
 7   subtracting some bands from others and things of that
 8   sort and come up with -- this has been going on since
 9   the late '70's, but yes.
10             You do wind up -- I guess if you want to
11   use the term "normalized," you wind up with a new set
12   of values that contain a majority of the information
13   that was in that original set of readings but
14   compressed into a smaller space.  And it is
15   reflectance values if you want to refer to that as
16   that.
17       Q.    Did you do that?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    And is that what you were describing as
20   part of the tasseled cap analysis?
21       A.    Yes.  That process is within the tasseled
22   cap analysis, applying those coefficients.
23       Q.    Now I think I understand.
24       A.    Okay.
25       Q.    Counsel brought with her yesterday this

                                                 30

 1   document here with the date at the bottom of April 5,
 2   1994.  I presume this is the latest?
 3       A.    This is the final.
 4       Q.    This is the final?
 5       A.    Uh-huh.
 6       Q.    The answer is yes?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    When we were last together, we had some
 9   discussion about some banding that appeared in the
10   image.  Did you do any further -- anything further
11   with the data to try to correct or account for that
12   banding?
13       A.    As I stated before, banding in my opinion
14   had no significant influence on this image.  We've
15   done nothing to correct banding in this image.  In
16   fact, there is no noticeable banding except in the
17   plot.  I'm not convinced whether that's a plot or a
18   banding.
19       Q.    What did you do with this image from the
20   last time that we were together?
21       A.    Simply refined the categories, just came up
22   with the best final product that we could arrive at.
23       Q.    You mentioned you are not sure whether the
24   banding is in the image or from the plotter?
25       A.    I noticed no banding that had any effect on

                                                 31

 1   this image.  The banding, in my opinion, is not an
 2   issue.  The banding did not affect the classification
 3   of my opinion.
 4       Q.    This next other document is I believe what
 5   you called the entire study area?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    You are saying, in your opinion it's a
 8   non-issue, but I think it's rather clear in this
 9   image.  My question is, why in your opinion would the
10   banding be more distinct in the image of the entire
11   study area than the image of just 2A?
12       A.    We made no adjustments for banding.
13       Q.    So you don't have an opinion or don't know
14   why it would be more distinctive in the entire study
15   area than in the 2A map?
16       A.    I don't think it's any more distinctive in
17   the entire study area than it is in 2A.  Defective
18   banding, in my opinion, did not affect the
19   classification to any significant amount.
20       Q.    Let's talk about Exhibits 13 and 14 for a
21   minute, please.
22       A.    Okay.
23       Q.    Could you just tell me what the
24   relationship between Exhibits 13 and 14 are, please?
25       A.    Exhibit 14 is a resume, my resume.

                                                 32

 1   Exhibit 13 is also an older version of my resume.
 2       Q.    What's the difference between the two?
 3       A.    This older resume, Exhibit 13, is a resume
 4   that ends with my work with the state of Mississippi.
 5   And this resume is a generalized, more current resume
 6   of my work since then.
 7       Q.    And Exhibit 14 doesn't list any reports or
 8   publications as Exhibit 13 does.  Have you published
 9   anything since the date of Exhibit 13?
10       A.    Yes.  Well, a few papers.  Nothing that
11   applies directly to this project.
12       Q.    Other than working on the 1985 image, and I
13   believe you said you refined the 1993 image somewhat
14   in the last week or so since we were last together,
15   have you done anything else in connection with this
16   project?
17       A.    We have done the '85 interpretation and the
18   tasseled cap.  That has been our work this week.
19       Q.    I do want to get into the accuracy
20   assessment.
21       A.    I apologize for that not being here.  It
22   should be here.  I don't know why it's not here.
23             MR. CESARANO:  Other than that, I do want
24        to wait for that to come in, do you have
25        anything to go into at this point?

                                                 33

 1             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  As long as you
 2        understand he is reserving having to come back.
 3             MS. RAEPPLE:  Yes.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Would you like me to call to
 5        the office?
 6             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Yes.  We will -- we
 7        are doing that.  Is it my understanding we are
 8        getting two accuracies, one for '93 and one for
 9        '85.
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
11             MS. RAEPPLE:  Go ahead and call your
12        office.
13                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
14                  after which the following proceedings
15                  were had.)
16                    CROSS EXAMINATION
17   BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:
18       Q.    Good morning.  I'm Tom Watts-Fitzgerald
19   representing the United States in this matter.
20             Same ground rules.  If you don't understand
21   the question or need to take a break, just speak up.
22             Addressing for a moment and clarifying in
23   my mind -- the documentation may be en route -- I
24   understand the two matrixes reflecting the error
25   assessment or accuracy assessment for the 1983

                                                 34

 1   imagery -- 1985 imagery and 1993 imagery that you
 2   have produced will be here shortly and we will look
 3   at that then.
 4             There were worksheets, as that term is
 5   used, by Dr. Lodge yesterday which I think you
 6   referred to today that may have included traces of
 7   vegetative patterns that were utilized in connection
 8   with the 1985 image development.
 9             Are those en route, to your knowledge?
10       A.    Yes.  Those are en route, to my knowledge.
11       Q.    Am I correct in understanding that there
12   would be one of those for every accuracy assessment
13   point to the tune of roughly 85 of these things?
14       A.    One of which one?
15       Q.    One of those worksheets.
16       A.    There are two worksheets.  There are a set
17   of worksheets that were used in support of the
18   classification of the 1985 image, and there are a set
19   of worksheets, different type of worksheet for the
20   accuracy assessment for the '85 image.  Both of those
21   are either in en route in Fed Ex or being faxed here.
22       Q.    For the accuracy assessment worksheets
23   there are 84 of those or something of that order, one
24   for each point, the tables?
25       A.    The total number would be listed in error

                                                 35

 1   matrixes.
 2       Q.    Why are there less than half as many for
 3   '85?
 4       A.    There were fewer classes and the classes
 5   were broader in definition.
 6       Q.    By going to broader classes, that appears
 7   to be reducing the apparent variability within the
 8   imagery when you look at the color depictions; is
 9   that true?
10       A.    Reduce the variability in the image?  You
11   mean the number of classes depicted in the image?
12       Q.    Yes.
13       A.    Obviously, yes.
14       Q.    It reduces your ability to make vegetative
15   distinctions from that image to some degree?
16       A.    In that the vegetative classes are
17   different since we classed, as I described earlier,
18   some classes into smaller classes, yes.
19       Q.    And since you did that for the reasons you
20   stated, some of which related to the resolution
21   capabilities of the color IR from 1985, are you able
22   within a reasonable degree of certainty to compare
23   your set, the '85 imagery and '94 imagery as you
24   produced it, and make an assessment of acreage
25   changes and vegetative alterations over that time

                                                 36

 1   period?
 2       A.    Within the limits of the data, yes.
 3       Q.    What could you see as the limits of the
 4   data?
 5       A.    The fact that we have classes and the
 6   interpretation that we did in '93.
 7       Q.    Can you make a direct comparison?
 8       A.    You can.  Those that are directly
 9   comparable that I described earlier.  The others you
10   have to assume the new class is a combination of the
11   classes that were combined in the '93 image to give
12   you that same basic vegetative mix.
13       Q.    Can you compare your two products to
14   Dr. Jensen's normalized time series to the various
15   years and assess vegetative alterations in comparison
16   to his assessment?
17             Can we put them side by side and reasonably
18   be able to analyze the results?
19       A.    Well, since we have questions that have
20   been stated in the previous deposition about the
21   methods of Mr. Rutchey and Dr. Jensen's one-to-one
22   comparison as we stated would be inappropriate
23   because the classes are different.
24       Q.    Is it my understanding that you will offer
25   no testimony at the time of hearing attempting to

                                                 37

 1   make a one-to-one comparison between the work you
 2   have performed and the work performed by Dr. Jensen
 3   and Mr. Rutchey?
 4       A.    Would you define "one-to-one".
 5       Q.    It's the term you just used.  You tell me.
 6       A.    You are the one that said would I do a
 7   one-to-one comparison.  I told you.
 8       Q.    No, we can read back the question.  What I
 9   said was, can you do a comparison.  You said you
10   can't do a one-to-one.
11       A.    Okay.
12       Q.    What did you mean by that?
13       A.    That the classes are -- as I stated earlier
14   in my deposition, the classes that Mr. Rutchey and
15   Mr. Jensen used, in our opinion, are inconsistent.
16   Therefore, there is no way to do a one-to-one
17   comparison.  The classes are not the same.  Our
18   classes are defined as a percent of the vegetative
19   class that we put is predominant in that class.
20       Q.    I understood from your earlier deposition
21   that some of your concerns about the methodology
22   employed by Mr. Rutchey and then indirectly -- at
23   least for the '91 imagery -- by Dr. Jensen concerned
24   some of the hardware that was employed in the field;
25   is that correct?

                                                 38

 1       A.    That's correct.
 2       Q.    Have you resolved those hardware issues in
 3   your mind?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    So, in fact, you now know that the
 6   equipment had the capacity to store the data during
 7   the field operations?
 8       A.    I'm satisfied that I understand it fully.
 9   My concerns about how they used the Trimble
10   equipment, if that's what you mean -- I'm not sure
11   what you mean.
12       Q.    I had understood your earlier testimony to
13   be you were not confident that the equipment that was
14   used in the field in fact had the capability to store
15   the data points.
16       A.    Storage was one of the concerns I had.
17       Q.    Do you still have that concern?
18       A.    My major concern does not involve storage.
19       Q.    What are all of your concerns regarding the
20   equipment used in the field?
21       A.    As stated earlier, those concerns -- as I
22   stated earlier, those were my concerns.  The
23   procedures used by Mr. Rutchey are still of concern
24   to me.
25       Q.    What procedures?

                                                 39

 1       A.    Procedures used to locate his accuracy
 2   assessment once in the field.
 3       Q.    What about his procedures cause you
 4   concern?
 5       A.    He had no communication to the base
 6   station.  He had no way to do post processing in the
 7   field.  Therefore, how could he have determined where
 8   he was in the field when he went out with a set of
 9   coordinates looking for an accuracy assessment point.
10       Q.    Is it your expert opinion that one cannot
11   record the data in the field and do the differential
12   corrections and post processing afterwards?
13       A.    No, it is not my opinion.  That is not my
14   opinion.
15       Q.    So that is possible?
16       A.    Is it possible to post process data?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    Certainly.
19       Q.    I don't understand.  I guess I would have
20   to ask you to elaborate what your concern was about
21   his inability to process the data in the field as one
22   of your major concerns.
23       A.    According to his testimony, his paper, he
24   did no post processing in the field.
25       Q.    Why is that a problem?

                                                 40

 1       A.    Because if you don't post process data with
 2   a single hand-held free channel unit, if you don't
 3   have some communication with the base station or some
 4   way to adjust your position real time, then he could
 5   not be exactly on the point he thought he was at
 6   until he did post processing.
 7       Q.    And then once one had done the post
 8   processing later back in the lab, for example, one
 9   would know where you were while you were in the
10   field?
11       A.    That's true.
12       Q.    Even if that point was not what you were
13   looking for when you went out?
14       A.    That is right.
15       Q.    It's not a question of not knowing
16   necessarily where he really was, your concern is he
17   wasn't at the time in the field where he thought he
18   wanted to be?
19       A.    He more than likely was not at the point he
20   wanted to be in while he was in the field.
21       Q.    Your team used the Magellan receiver for
22   their field work for the training site selection
23   initially?
24       A.    Yes, we used the Magellan.
25       Q.    That did not have the capacity to store

                                                 41

 1   points?
 2       A.    The Magellan unit doesn't store enough
 3   points by itself.
 4       Q.    That was what Magellan model?
 5       A.    NAV Pro 4000.
 6       Q.    Which has limited storage capacity but not
 7   sufficient for the work you were doing in a given
 8   day?
 9       A.    Correct.
10       Q.    Within the remote sensing community, what
11   is the percent accuracy considered acceptable -- I
12   should probably qualify that and say for this
13   purpose, user accuracy?
14       A.    Within the user community, what is the --
15       Q.    Within the remote sensing community?
16       A.    What is the --
17       Q.    Level percentage of accuracy that would be
18   considered acceptable for a map product like these
19   classified from Landsat TM data.
20       A.    I think that depends on the project and the
21   person doing the work.  I don't know that there is a
22   standard map accuracy.  You are talking about map
23   accuracy?
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    Yes.  I don't know there is a standard

                                                 42

 1   acceptable level of accuracy.
 2       Q.    In your view, then, is there a certain
 3   level of professional judgment and project specific
 4   characteristics?
 5       A.    It has to be up to the person doing the
 6   classification, yes.
 7       Q.    Do you, in fact, intend at the time of
 8   hearing or between now and then to make an effort to
 9   compare your classification products for '85 and '93
10   with Mr. Rutchey and Dr. Jensen's work?
11       A.    As I stated before, we have done some
12   preliminary viewing of their products with ours.  We
13   have done no extensive analysis.  If I were requested
14   to do that I would do it.
15       Q.    How would you go about it, given the fact
16   that you within your two products don't have
17   uniformity of classifications and do not have cross
18   uniformity with their work?
19       A.    My classes are -- '85 classes are a sub set
20   of the '93 classes.  There is some uniformity.  It's
21   just a sub set.  We would have to come up with an
22   acceptable class comparison between Mr. Jensen's and
23   Mr. Rutchey's work in order to do further comparison
24   of the two products, three products.
25       Q.    You don't plan to do that unless requested

                                                 43

 1   by counsel?
 2       A.    If I'm requested, I will.  Right now we
 3   don't plan to do that.
 4             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Counsel, if the
 5        witness does that, I think we are entitled to
 6        some notice because that would be a major new
 7        opinion.
 8   BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:
 9       Q.    You have no final opinion on that at this
10   point?
11       A.    On what?
12       Q.    The comparison of your work with Dr. Jensen
13   and Mr. Rutchey's.
14       A.    We have general impressions of our work
15   versus theirs, but we have no digital overlay
16   comparison yet.  I haven't been asked to do that.
17       Q.    Have you discussed with anyone production
18   of a digital overlay of any sort either on the
19   product that Dr. Jensen generated or Mr. Rutchey and
20   your work?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Have you taken any steps to produce such --
23   I assume by "overlay," you mean something like mylar
24   acetate that would go over --
25       A.    I'm referring to a digital overlay, doing a

                                                 44

 1   digital overlay and platting the result.  You could
 2   produce a hard copy overlay, but I would do it in a
 3   digital environment.
 4       Q.    Have you begun that process?
 5       A.    We did some preliminary work several weeks
 6   ago where we took some of Jensen's products and
 7   brought them up, comparing them to ours, looking at
 8   them in different windows.  We did not overlay the
 9   two images but looked at the differences between his
10   classes and ours.
11       Q.    That was two separate images?
12       A.    Yes, two separate windows.
13       Q.    Was any preliminary work done through
14   software programs isolated into a single image,
15   various categories of classes, to see where there was
16   non-conformity or conformity?
17             We did some preliminary work on that.  And
18   then because of the volume of data, we took it off
19   the system.  We have not reinstalled it.
20             In a visual environment we set up a way to
21   look at two images on the screen, but we have done no
22   overlay.
23       Q.    Do we have that on the electronic data
24   provided, I guess, yesterday?
25       A.    That was a set of -- it wasn't dated.  It

                                                 45

 1   was a set of algorisms.  You should have it on the
 2   back-up tape.  If you don't, we will supply one.
 3       Q.    What's the file name or directory for that?
 4       A.    I don't remember.
 5       Q.    You testified in response to counsel this
 6   morning that with respect to area 2A the acreage
 7   differential that appears in the Exhibits, I think,
 8   11 and 13 was as a result of digitizing error in one
 9   of the images.  But I'm not sure that you said
10   specifically which of the images you determined was
11   incorrect.
12       A.    Well, incorrect, I mean the digitizing, the
13   area digitized were slightly different.  Obviously,
14   the acreage showed up differently.  The area was
15   digitized to a slightly larger extent than '93.  '85
16   had slightly more acreage than '93.
17             In eight years we lost a hundred hectares.
18   If it was my acreage, I would probably care about it.
19       Q.    Did you analyze to determine where it went
20   or what portion of the image that was attributable
21   to?
22       A.    No.  Acreage was lost in the digitizing of
23   the study area.  We included 130 hectares in one
24   image that was not included in the other.
25       Q.    I have no reason to believe within the

                                                 46

 1   bounds of 2A over that eight year period it grew.  So
 2   where did the 100 acres come from?
 3             I mean, is it strictly an artifact of the
 4   digitizing process?  Is it an imagery problem?  How
 5   do you account for the differential?
 6       A.    Since we didn't use coordinated geometry to
 7   digitize the area of 2A.  To start with, digitizing
 8   has in it always a percent of error, if you want to
 9   call it that.  You wouldn't take much difference in
10   digitizing an area of interest in one year's image to
11   another to find out less than one-tenth of one
12   percent or less than that error in the total acreage
13   of the study area.
14       Q.    I take it within your professional opinion,
15   that's within the acceptable range of errors for that
16   type of process?
17       A.    I would certainly think so, yes.
18       Q.    We may have covered this last time around,
19   but I didn't see it in my review of the available
20   information from the earlier deposition.
21             But prior to this particular case, what
22   work had you done in the vegetative mapping field in
23   the Everglades?
24       A.    None.
25       Q.    Had you done any vegetative matching for

                                                 47

 1   the wetlands prior to this case?
 2       A.    In those various industrial site studies, I
 3   did using MSS data, I think a little TM data.  In my
 4   career I have done wetlands identification and
 5   wetlands mapping mainly in terms of industrial site
 6   development.
 7       Q.    Did you use TM data for those wetland site
 8   evaluations?
 9       A.    I have to look at the reports and see --
10   no, I would not have used that.  I used MSS on those
11   studies.
12       Q.    The accuracy assessment points for '93 you
13   said you have 84 of those for the '93 image.  I
14   assume -- I shouldn't assume.  Are those 84 all
15   within area 2A?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    There are no accuracy assessment points for
18   the balance of the image that shows the entire study
19   area as you have referred to it?
20       A.    That's correct.
21       Q.    And I noted yesterday, and it's in front of
22   us today, that that December '93 production dated
23   April 4 for the entire area has a warning or at least
24   a caveat, if you will, on it that there is no
25   accuracy associated with the areas other than WCA-2A?

                                                 48

 1       A.    I believe it says no accuracy assessment.
 2   Accuracy is verified within Water Conservation Area
 3   2A only.
 4       Q.    I translate that -- tell me if it's correct
 5   or not -- that that means no one is making any
 6   representations as to the accuracy of the image
 7   beyond the boundaries of 2A?
 8       A.    It means the accuracy has not been
 9   assessed.
10       Q.    You are drawing a distinction.  Tell me
11   what the accuracy is beyond 2A.
12       A.    I expect the accuracy to be close to 2A.
13       Q.    Quantify that.
14       A.    I can't do that until we do an assessment.
15       Q.    Are you going to do that?
16       A.    If I'm asked to do that, I will.
17       Q.    Do you have any present plans to do an
18   accuracy assessment?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    How long would it take if you were asked to
21   do an assessment for the balance of the area depicted
22   in that image?
23       A.    That would depend on the availability of
24   aerial photography for the entire study area.
25       Q.    Where did you acquire the NHAP photography

                                                 49

 1   for the '83 image?
 2       A.    For the '83?
 3       Q.    I'm sorry, '85.  I keep saying that.
 4       A.    The '85 NHAP photography was acquired from
 5   the NASA spec photography.  We ordered it through the
 6   base, St. Louis facility.  I'm not sure where it was
 7   actually shipped from, from the U.S. government.
 8       Q.    Now, for the '93 image you used BDA's
 9   photography for 2A?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Was any effort made at the time you were
12   seeking to acquire CIR photography in the time frame
13   of the December '93 satellite pass to determine what
14   other CIR was available?
15       A.    I'm sorry, did I make that investigation?
16       Q.    Yes.
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Was there other CIR available?
19       A.    I couldn't find any, no.
20       Q.    So when you said a few minutes ago it would
21   depend on the availability of CIR, I take it you are
22   really saying you can't because there is no CIR known
23   to exist?
24       A.    No.  Right now we are unable to find some.
25   But the way I understand it, the photography

                                                 50

 1   available through Breedlove, Dennis, goes beyond 2A,
 2   so I could go beyond that.
 3       Q.    What's your understanding of the rest of
 4   the geographic coverage?
 5       A.    It goes outside of 2A.
 6       Q.    Do you know where?
 7       A.    Well, I have seen some indices that goes up
 8   to Loxahatchee a little bit and over into 3A or 3.
 9       Q.    If that's the extent of the CIR imagery
10   available, would you be able to assess only those
11   portions of the areas beyond 2A that fell within the
12   scope of the vegetative coverage?
13       A.    We would have to have some type -- to use
14   the same method we have to have some type of
15   photography available for the study area.
16       Q.    Are any other methods available to you?
17       A.    You could hold out a percent of the
18   original ground truth sites from the classifications,
19   classify using that set of ground truth points, and
20   then check your classification against your own
21   ground control points to see if, in fact, you
22   classified the image as to what you held out.
23       Q.    You would go back and regenerate your image
24   with less ground truth points?
25       A.    That's one option you would have, yes.

                                                 51

 1   That could be done.
 2       Q.    Aren't you kind of robbing Peter to pay
 3   Paul there?  I understand your reasoning, I think, in
 4   not using a ground truth point employed for
 5   generation of the image or training in the image for
 6   error assessment because of the bias that induces and
 7   the statistical problems that would be incurred in
 8   doing something like that.
 9             But you in a sense end up under training
10   your algorism to generate the image as you cut back
11   at the front end of the process to reserve them for
12   later use as assessment points.  You don't have that
13   many to begin with for an area that size?
14       A.    Is there a question there?
15       Q.    Is that true or not?
16       A.    Is all of that true?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    Yes.  Of course it's true.
19       Q.    Speaking of numbers and points, how many
20   accuracy points do you expect to have total for the
21   '93?  Are there any more that you will be assessing?
22       A.    At this point we generated 200 or 240
23   points.  We possibly could assess --
24       Q.    For accuracy?
25       A.    For accuracy.

                                                 52

 1       Q.    And you used 84.  Are you going to use any
 2   more?
 3       A.    If instructed to do so, we certainly could.
 4   We maintain that set of points for that reason.
 5       Q.    The 84 that you used, how were they
 6   selected out of the 240?
 7       A.    In sequential order.
 8       Q.    And the 200 that were generated, that was
 9   done with using what selection program?
10       A.    Stratified random sampling.
11       Q.    What measures, if any, did you take when
12   you determined to use only the first 84 to insure
13   that each of the classes was adequately represented
14   for statistical purposes in the reduced sample that
15   you chose to employ?
16       A.    Since the sample was generated through
17   random numbers, since we went through the random
18   numbers sequentially we wound up with a random set of
19   the entire set.
20       Q.    Who would instruct you to use additional
21   points out of the 200?  Where would that decision
22   come from?
23       A.    It would come from my people that hired me
24   to do this project.
25       Q.    At this point you have intentions to use

                                                 53

 1   additional points.  That's something you are capable
 2   of doing given time, but no current plans, per se?
 3       A.    Yes, correct.
 4       Q.    With regard to the accuracy assessment for
 5   the 1985 image, I think you said there were 34 points
 6   for that?
 7       A.    34 or 37, I believe.
 8       Q.    How were those points selected?
 9       A.    Exactly the same method, random stratified
10   samples.  There were 104 over 100 points.  I believe
11   104 in total.
12       Q.    On what basis did you determine that the 37
13   or whatever the number is, in the 30's was, that were
14   ultimately used and were identified by Dr. Lodge was
15   sufficient for statistical purposes in analyzing the
16   accuracy of the area encompassed by WCA-2?
17       A.    It was just my judgment.
18       Q.    Are you familiar with the body of
19   literature in the remote sensing field which
20   describes how one should go about the process of
21   assessing the appropriate number of accuracy
22   assessment points?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    What factors did you take into account in
25   making your professional judgment that 30 was

                                                 54

 1   sufficient?
 2       A.    Just begin the complexity of the map and
 3   the major classes that we were dealing with.  Major
 4   classes were cattail and sawgrass.
 5       Q.    You mentioned in your original deposition a
 6   concern because you felt that Mr. Rutchey -- and
 7   perhaps Dr. Jensen, as well -- had an initial bias in
 8   their assessment because they set out focused on
 9   cattail, Mr. Rutchey, and sawgrass, Dr. Jensen.
10             Do you recall saying something along those
11   lines?
12       A.    Stated some concerns about their method and
13   the fact about comparing the two.
14       Q.    My understanding from Dr. Lodge's testimony
15   is that basically you set out to do the same thing,
16   focusing essentially on sawgrass and cattail; is that
17   not true?
18       A.    That we did the same thing that Mr. Rutchey
19   or Dr. Jensen did?  They did different things.
20       Q.    I'm not talking methodology.  I'm talking
21   mind set.  You set out along with Dr. Lodge with the
22   purpose of specifically analyzing vegetative changes
23   with respect to cattail and/or sawgrass just as they
24   did, although you chose a different methodology to do
25   it?

                                                 55

 1       A.    Well, your question, if I understand your
 2   question, yes.  We set out to determine the
 3   relationship between sawgrass and cattail, but we
 4   feel that Dr. Jensen's methods and Mr. Rutchey's
 5   methods were different.  Therefore to say it was like
 6   them, I guess you mean in terms of did they have a
 7   goal of determining -- are you saying that both had
 8   the goal of determining sawgrass and cattail?
 9       Q.    In both your effort and their efforts
10   looking at them collectively, yes.
11       A.    Yes.  The emphasis of the study was on the
12   relationship of sawgrass and cattail within 2A, yes.
13       Q.    How many training samples were there for
14   the '85 image?
15       A.    The acreage -- no, that wouldn't be it.
16   Yes.  Let me see the tables with the acreage,
17   Exhibit 12, which is the '93 image.
18             If you are looking down at the bottom, it
19   says based on original 53 classes for December 10,
20   you see at the bottom 53 classes down at the bottom.
21   Each one, it says "based on original of each number
22   of classes."
23       Q.    How do the classes tell me how many
24   training samples?
25       A.    Because we produce the number of classes in

                                                 56

 1   the original classification equal the number of
 2   training samples.  There were 35.
 3       Q.    You did map productions here of imagery for
 4   36 training sites and 99 training sites -- I'm sorry,
 5   classes.  You just said classes equal training sites?
 6       A.    No.  You are misunderstanding.
 7       Q.    Straighten it out for me.
 8       A.    What are you confused by?
 9       Q.    I asked you how many training samples you
10   had or training sites, if you will, for the '85
11   image.  You just talked about the '93 image.
12       A.    You said '85.
13       Q.    I said '85 to start with.  I'm not asking
14   how many classes.  I understood you to say in the '93
15   image classes equals training sites and the numbers
16   don't match.  I understood there were 116 roughly
17   training sites for the '93 image from your testimony
18   last time and doing all of the R, H and E's --
19   whatever that meant.  Is that right, 116?
20       A.    116 observations were made.
21       Q.    Training sites?
22       A.    Okay.  Wait.  Let me understand what you
23   are asking again.  Ask me one more time.  I'm not
24   understanding.
25       Q.    Back up.  I'm looking at '93 now.  You had

                                                 57

 1   about 116 training sites for '93?
 2       A.    For the entire study area.
 3       Q.    When you generated the class map --
 4   classified map for '93 for the entire study area, how
 5   many classes did you have when you went through the
 6   classification process initially?
 7       A.    You mean before recoding the classes into
 8   general categories?
 9       Q.    Yes.
10       A.    The map is down here and that show 36 and
11   99 classes.
12             Now I understand what you are asking.
13   There are two processes here for each year.  If I'm
14   understanding correctly.  A little history, I guess
15   for each year we produced an unsupervised
16   classification for 2A.  99 classes unsupervised and
17   36 classes unsupervised.  That was a separate process
18   from the supervised classification.
19       Q.    On the unsupervised, why did you do that?
20       A.    On the unsupervised -- I thought you were
21   talking about supervised.
22       Q.    We are going to go back to the supervised
23   on the unsupervised.  Why did you do that?
24       A.    On the unsupervised classifications we
25   produced 99 classes and 36 classes of unsupervised

                                                 58

 1   classification of TM data for all of those years
 2   because we wanted to see what type of spectral
 3   significant classes there were in those images.
 4             In other words, if you break it into 99 how
 5   many classes and where are they spatially in the
 6   image.  If you break it into 36, where are those 36
 7   clustered images.  So it was to gain a feel for the
 8   study area.
 9       Q.    But according to the printout dates, that
10   was done the end of last month.  At least the
11   platting was done.  When did you actually conduct
12   that exercise?
13       A.    Unsupervised classification?
14       Q.    Yes.
15       A.    Most of that was completed in the week of
16   my deposition -- the deposition in Tallahassee,
17   Florida a week ago.
18       Q.    How will you, if at all, be relying on
19   those unsupervised classification efforts in
20   formulating your opinions of testimony in this case?
21       A.    They will provide an indication of spectral
22   diversity in the study areas to support analysis and
23   conclusions in the area.
24       Q.    In an unsupervised classification you as
25   the operator get to set arbitrarily the number of

                                                 59

 1   classifications the program should look for?
 2       A.    Correct.
 3       Q.    So if I told it I want 200 classes or 230,
 4   all I have to do is set into the algorism program the
 5   range of spectral signature that I want and it will
 6   attempt to classify every pixel in the digitized
 7   database into that number of classes; correct?
 8       A.    Correct.
 9       Q.    So the fact it's 99 or 36, per se, has no
10   significance.  Those are just the numbers you chose?
11       A.    No significance?
12       Q.    It tells you nothing about ground truth, it
13   tells you nothing about what's really there, it just
14   assigns pixel by pixel into your set number of
15   categories subject to black spots if something falls
16   outside of the range you specified in the program?
17       A.    Okay.  First you make a statement that it
18   gives you no information about the image.  In my
19   opinion, it does give you information about the
20   image, but it does not tell you -- it will not tell
21   you a certain class is cattail.  It will tell you
22   that there are, based on what your input is, subsets
23   to this image, it will tell you what spectral classes
24   fall in that set of bands that you created.
25       Q.    So if you tell it, give me 99 and here is

                                                 60

 1   the specs for each of the 99, and you have an
 2   incredibly homogenous area, the program could end up
 3   coming back saying, sorry, there are only four
 4   classes out there?
 5       A.    Repeat that, please.
 6       Q.    If I tell it I want the program to classify
 7   an image in the 99 classes, unsupervised
 8   classification, it will go pixel by pixel through the
 9   entire image and will try to fit them into the 99 if
10   it can?
11       A.    Correct.
12       Q.    Some may not fit in the 99 because you are
13   specifying the range for each of those
14   classifications, are you not?
15       A.    In an unsupervised classification in the
16   software -- Imagine software package, you tell it to
17   do 99 classes out of the image it will be produced.
18       Q.    It will divide up your entire spectral
19   range in that image in the 99?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    Same thing if you do it with 36?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    After producing that work, what opinions or
24   conclusions did you derive from reviewing the
25   unsupervised class maps?

                                                 61

 1       A.    It gave us a feel for the effect of fire,
 2   which was obvious in the unsupervised
 3   classifications.  It gave us a feel for where the
 4   greater diversity existed in the image.
 5       Q.    How did you use or employ that information
 6   or that sense impression that you developed in
 7   producing the final product for the 1993 and 1985
 8   imagery?
 9       A.    It served as reference material.
10       Q.    So it doesn't directly affect the
11   classified products for '93 and '85?
12       A.    That's correct.
13       Q.    General background?
14       A.    Yes.  It was not directly affecting the
15   classifications, correct.
16       Q.    Did you do any accuracy assessment based on
17   the imagery that was produced through the
18   unsupervised classification classes?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    Did you make any effort, you or those
21   working with you at your firm, to take the
22   unsupervised classes the, 36 and 99 and identify them
23   as to vegetative type?
24       A.    Yes, we did.
25       Q.    There is no legend on the map that appears

                                                 62

 1   to do that.  Where does that appear?
 2       A.    It doesn't.  We began -- as I stated in my
 3   deposition last week, the original plan was to take
 4   the 36 class or the 99, whichever we decided was most
 5   appropriate, and use that in a hybrid classification
 6   process.  Hybrid classification process normally
 7   combines an unsupervised and supervised
 8   classification.  But we did not use that.  We did not
 9   use that process on the '85 image.
10       Q.    Did you use it on the '93 image?
11       A.    No, we did not.  It was supervised.
12       Q.    So there are no hybrid products available?
13       A.    That's correct.  We did not do a hybrid
14   classification.
15       Q.    Did you start that work and stop it or you
16   didn't begin it?
17       A.    We actually never did a hybrid
18   classification.  Wait.  Let's see.
19             At one point when we collected about eight
20   training samples from the NHAP photography, we did
21   combine those signatures to the 36 class unsupervised
22   signature table and run the classification.  But we
23   did not use that, did not ever produce it as a
24   product.  Just that it was a test.
25       Q.    Does that appear on the back-up tape you

                                                 63

 1   brought us?
 2       A.    We didn't save it.  It was not a
 3   work-product.
 4       Q.    Moving now to the 1985 product, how many
 5   training samples or sites were there for the 1985
 6   image?
 7       A.    I believe there were 37.
 8       Q.    How many accuracy assessment points for the
 9   1985 image?
10       A.    Wait, let's see.
11       Q.    Did you reverse the numbers?  37 roughly
12   is, in fact, the accuracy assessment number?
13       A.    Just a second.
14       Q.    It's not always me.
15       A.    You are right.  It's not.  '85 -- I cannot
16   remember right now how many training samples were
17   used in the '85 image.  My mind is blank.  I can't
18   remember right now.  Those documents are being faxed
19   here.  We will have them shortly.  I apologize for
20   that.
21       Q.    Without the actual number, can you tell me
22   how the training sites were selected for the '85
23   imagery?
24       A.    Yes.  Exactly.  The process was very, very
25   similar to the selection process used in the '93

                                                 64

 1   image.  You want me to elaborate some more?
 2       Q.    It was my understanding in '93 they went
 3   out in the field.  First, you couldn't very well go
 4   out in the field in '85?
 5       A.    Okay.  The field operations became
 6   photogrammetric operations.  The process, in other
 7   words, the process of identifying samples were
 8   similar in that we weren't in a helicopter, we were
 9   perusing the NHAP photography.  We found areas that
10   had recognizable vegetative patterns, zeroed in on
11   those and used those as training samples.
12             In other words, Tom would make his notes,
13   as he told you yesterday.  From that, we would
14   identify the same area in the image and then select a
15   training sample from the image that met the photo
16   mission, -- if you would, observations.
17       Q.    What criteria were used to decide how many
18   training sites you needed for each class that you
19   were attempting to generate?
20       A.    We attempted to find some number of
21   training sites in each class and attempted to
22   stratify those per our knowledge of the image in
23   terms of most of it is sawgrass, or at the center
24   there might be cattails, something of that sort.
25             You select according to expected patterns

                                                 65

 1   to some degree.
 2       Q.    So that was done more or less in a
 3   supervised as opposed to unsupervised fashion?
 4       A.    Absolutely supervised.
 5       Q.    Because you were working from CIR
 6   photography with a relatively small scale in
 7   comparison to what you used for '93 with the loss of
 8   resolution, et cetera., how do you account for the
 9   inevitable variability within an area in terms of its
10   spectral signature?
11       A.    Variability in an area was more difficult
12   to interpret.  Therefore, that's why we reduced the
13   number of classes we could identify in the available
14   photography.
15       Q.    Was there any class or is there any class
16   in your '85 imagery for which only one training site
17   was available or used?
18       A.    I don't think so.  I think we had at least
19   more than one in all classes, all field observations.
20   I can't remember one that only had one training site.
21       Q.    You would be able to tell that --
22       A.    When we see the worksheets, those are
23   clearly listed.
24       Q.    You told Mr. Cesarano this morning that the
25   satellite image was rectified?

                                                 66

 1       A.    Yes.  How did you determine from your
 2   satellite image -- I think you were taking about '93
 3   at that point, maybe this applies to '85.
 4             Were both '85 and '93 geo rectified?
 5       A.    The '93 image was rectified and the '85 was
 6   rectified to the '93 image.
 7       Q.    How many ground cross points did you use
 8   for '93 to do that?
 9       A.    That is in the digital data.  I'm trying to
10   remember.  That is on the tape we gave you.  I
11   believe there were about 34 or 30 something ground
12   control points.
13       Q.    Is that throughout the entire study area?
14       A.    Throughout the entire study area.
15       Q.    How many within 2A, if you can recall?
16       A.    I would have to go back and look at the
17   records to see.
18       Q.    How did you determine the geographical
19   position of the control points?
20       A.    Determine -- you mean where they were?
21       Q.    Yes.
22       A.    We used USGS quad sheets.
23       Q.    What's the positional accuracy of quad
24   sheets?
25       A.    The positional accuracy is stated by U. S.

                                                 67

 1   geological survey to be plus or minus 40 feet.
 2       Q.    Were you working off the full sized quads
 3   at this point or had you had to reduce them already?
 4       A.    Which image are you talking about?
 5       Q.    '93.
 6       A.    We used the full size quads.
 7       Q.    You said you geo rectified '85 to '93?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    So you did not use the quad sheets for that
10   purposes for the '85 imagery?
11       A.    No, we did not go to the paper quads to
12   rectify the '85 image to the '93 image.  We used
13   image to image rectification.
14       Q.    Because you used the quads for '93, the
15   geophysical position accuracy was the limiting factor
16   for the '93 image, or are there other factors that
17   affect the geo rectification accuracy of the image?
18       A.    Our geographic rectification was based upon
19   USGS 24,000 quads.  They were the control points from
20   which we selected our ground control points.
21       Q.    I understand that.  I'm not sure that quite
22   answered the question I had in mind.
23       A.    What was the question?
24       Q.    The question I had in mind is that the only
25   error input, if you will, or were there -- could

                                                 68

 1   there have been other sources of positional error in
 2   your process not solely attributable to the error
 3   inherent in the quads?
 4       A.    Let me make sure I understand what you are
 5   asking me.  Are you asking what error might be
 6   introduced in the rectification process other than
 7   the error in the quad?
 8       Q.    Yes.
 9       A.    The ability of the operator to identify a
10   feature in the quad and to identify the same feature
11   in the image.  Obviously, it has a potential for
12   error.
13       Q.    I assume if you selected a ground control
14   point, it's because you could find it in both.  Is
15   that a fair assumption?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    The ability of the operator to find it is
18   not a factor.  You used it and you found it?
19       A.    No.  I mean, the ability of an operator
20   always has an influence on the potential to introduce
21   error.  Ground control points are usually the
22   intersection of two vectors.  You have to estimate
23   that intersection so that includes the accuracy of
24   the digitizing tables, the eye of the operator.  So
25   there is potential error always for operator

                                                 69

 1   interface to the process.
 2       Q.    In your expert opinion what is the error of
 3   the '93 image -- the total error, excuse me?
 4             You were fitting the '93 image to the quads
 5   in that entire process, what's the assessment of the
 6   overall proportional error?
 7       A.    That's in the digital data.  That's
 8   normally stated.  It was very small.  I don't
 9   remember the number.  It's in the digital data
10   supplied to you.  You are welcome to look at the
11   files.
12       Q.    With regard to the '85 satellite image, am
13   I correct in believing there is an error inherent in
14   fitting the '85 to the '93?
15       A.    There is potential error, but we used the
16   same observed points in the '93 to find that same
17   intersection, if you would, in the '85 and then
18   rectified those two together.
19       Q.    What role, if any, did the reduced quads
20   play in the rectification process?
21       A.    None.
22       Q.    So the error inherent in fitting the '93
23   image to the full sized quads would be carried
24   forward in the effort to fit the '85 image to the '93
25   image.  You can't be more accurate?

                                                 70

 1       A.    No, you can't.  You couldn't increase
 2   accuracy.
 3       Q.    Theoretically you could increase the
 4   accuracy but you wouldn't want to say that in looking
 5   at your error you would look at the total range?
 6       A.    Yes, that is correct.
 7       Q.    What is your assessment of that error in
 8   '85, the '85 imagery?
 9       A.    We didn't do a quantitative assessment.  We
10   viewed the overlay of the two images and the overlay
11   of the control points and saw no error, no increased
12   error that affected our interpretation.
13       Q.    So you have no specific estimate of the
14   total location error on the '85 image as the
15   methodology for '93?
16       A.    We could certainly run an RMS error on the
17   '85 image.  I don't know we did that.  We probably
18   did do that.  I just haven't looked at it.  I could
19   probably produce that if you wanted it.
20       Q.    What's your pixel size for '93?
21       A.    25 meters re-examined to 25 meters.
22       Q.    That means that's not what you got in the
23   original digitized data?
24       A.    We got it at 25 meters.  We opened it,
25   re-examined it.

                                                 71

 1       Q.    The scanners in the satellite don't produce
 2   its data in that?
 3       A.    That's correct.
 4       Q.    So you received reprocessed data to begin
 5   with?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Any error induced by that reprocessing
 8   effort?
 9       A.    There could be potential for some error.
10       Q.    Can you quantify it for me?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Can anybody?
13       A.    I would imagine EOSAT could probably do it.
14       Q.    You never seen in the literature that talks
15   about that?
16       A.    I can't recall any papers.  I'm sure there
17   have been people that attempted to do that.
18       Q.    Didn't I see in your earlier testimony a
19   criticism that Dr. Jensen had done re-examining and
20   was using a different pixel size than the original
21   data?
22       A.    I don't think you saw that.  I don't
23   believe I said that.
24       Q.    Well, I guess my question is, since you did
25   it you must think it's an acceptable procedure?

                                                 72

 1       A.    I didn't.  You misunderstood what I said.
 2       Q.    Forget Dr. Rutchey for the moment.  You
 3   used the re-examined knowledge or a process set of
 4   data, preliminary process, to get it into the
 5   exercise you wanted to employ for some reason?
 6       A.    We used the standard pixel size from EOSAT
 7   Corporation.  We did not resample the pixel size.  We
 8   did not change the resolution of the data.
 9       Q.    It had already been done for you?
10       A.    A scanner does not produce a grid.  A
11   satellite produces a single reference based on the
12   central point of a scanning mechanism.
13             Every device, every mechanism for
14   establishing the satellite's recognition of a pixel
15   location on the ground is modified through some
16   re-examining method.  You have to do that.
17             A pixel -- in fact, the instant field of
18   view of a scanner is usually beyond the pixel size
19   produced in the data delivered from EOSAT.  So every
20   data set, every scanned data set has to be
21   re-examined in some fashion.
22             So, yes, everything has to be re-examined.
23   It's not unusual, in fact it's required that the data
24   be re-examined in some fashion in order to be usable.
25       Q.    Routine operation in the field?

                                                 73

 1       A.    Required operation by the provider of the
 2   digital data, EOSAT, SPOT, CASEY, anybody else.
 3       Q.    Would you agree that the overall error for
 4   the '93 image is probably in the range of plus or
 5   minus 20 to 30 meters?
 6       A.    What now?  Restate that.  I'm sorry.
 7       Q.    Would you agree that the overall error in
 8   the '93 image for WCA-2A is plus or minus 20 to 30
 9   meters, it's on that order?
10       A.    The overall error in the '93 image -- you
11   mean the image itself, the raw data?
12       Q.    Yes.
13       A.    I'm sorry.  Now I'm trying to understand
14   exactly what you are asking.  Are you asking if I
15   think that the data from EOSAT --
16       Q.    The rectification error overall for the '93
17   image.
18       A.    Was within how much?
19       Q.    Plus or minus 20 to 30 meters.
20       A.    Our rectification?
21       Q.    Yes.
22       A.    I would say my recollection is better than
23   20 meters.  The RMS error that we generated will tell
24   you what the estimated error is and it's in the
25   digital tape.  RMS error is standard product.  And to

                                                 74

 1   my recollection, I can't remember exactly what it
 2   was, but I would say it's much better than 30 and
 3   possibly better than 20.  Is that what you are
 4   asking?
 5       Q.    Yes.
 6       A.    Okay.
 7       Q.    You described for Mr. Cesarano in some
 8   degree the last time and a little more today doing
 9   the KT transformation, but I don't understand how
10   that's reflected in your work.
11             Can you explain for me how the KT formation
12   has assisted you in producing either the '93 or '85
13   imagery you will be utilizing in the case since you
14   went to great trouble to produce it?
15       A.    You said the KT?
16       Q.    What you called tasseled cap.
17       A.    You called it --
18       Q.    KT.
19       A.    Which is what?  What's KT?
20       Q.    You never heard it referred to that way,
21   after the two guys invented --
22       A.    You are talking about the researchers of
23   tasseled cap?
24       Q.    You said tasseled cap was one narrow
25   application of a technique.

                                                 75

 1       A.    You are talking about their techniques or
 2   the tasseled cap?
 3       Q.    Where did tasseled cap come from?
 4       A.    That has been around a long time.
 5       Q.    The question is, where did it come from?
 6       A.    Arum did a lot of research.
 7       Q.    I am sorry, who?
 8       A.    Arum.  I seen it used at NASA's Earth
 9   Research Center.
10       Q.    You are not answering the question.  Who
11   developed the technique that you are calling tasseled
12   cap?
13       A.    I don't know who developed it.  My
14   knowledge of tasseled cap is based on numerous papers
15   and mention of tasseled cap over the years.
16       Q.    Which of those papers sanctioned or in any
17   way suggested the validity of employing tasseled cap
18   in a sub tropical wetland environment?
19       A.    I wouldn't know which paper recommended
20   that or didn't recommend that.
21       Q.    Is it fair to say, then, you are aware of
22   no paper that, in fact, identifies such use in the
23   past?
24       A.    I can't think of a paper that I read that
25   used tasseled cap in a sub tropical environment.

                                                 76

 1       Q.    Have you ever used tasseled cap in a sub
 2   tropical environment to assist in the analysis of
 3   spectral imagery?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    Whose idea was it to use it in this case?
 6       A.    Tasseled cap was suggested by Dr. Roy
 7   Stein.
 8       Q.    Who is he?
 9       A.    He is a professor at Sanford University.
10       Q.    What's his involvement in the case?
11       A.    He has been employed by some of the parties
12   in the case to just look into it and see what's going
13   on.  He has been asked to form an opinion about
14   certain pieces of this case.
15       Q.    How do you know that?
16       A.    He has told me he was employed to
17   investigate this process.
18       Q.    Have you consulted with Dr. Stein?
19       A.    Yes, I have.
20       Q.    Has he reviewed your work?
21       A.    He has reviewed our procedures.  We
22   discussed our procedures with him and spent one day
23   looking at that, and he has reviewed it.
24       Q.    When was the one day looking and reviewing?
25       A.    About three weeks ago.

                                                 77

 1       Q.    Did he provide you any comments on your
 2   work?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    In writing?
 5       A.    No, just comments.
 6       Q.    Has he produced or written products, to
 7   your knowledge, resulting from his review of your
 8   work?
 9       A.    Nothing that I have seen.
10       Q.    As a result of your communications with him
11   either by person or phone or otherwise did you alter
12   your work plan in any fashion?
13       A.    We introduced the tasseled cap, yes.
14       Q.    Did Dr. Stein -- I presume it's Dr. Stein?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Did he explain to you the environment in
17   which the process you referred to as tasseled cap was
18   developed?
19       A.    No, we did not.
20       Q.    As I understood your testimony the last
21   time, you had concerns over the use of the Eckert
22   technique by Dr. Jensen to enable him to do his time
23   normalized series?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    And one of your concerns, as I understood

                                                 78

 1   it, was that Dr. Eckert developed his technique in a
 2   semi arid ecosystem; is that correct?
 3       A.    It was the area, yes.
 4       Q.    And that you were concerned -- deeply
 5   concerned, I might say, if that's a fair
 6   characterization -- over the transference of that
 7   technique from a semi arid environment to the sub
 8   tropical environment of South Florida?
 9       A.    Because it required targets, as I clearly
10   stated.  It required clear targets over the study
11   period.
12       Q.    Are you aware of any literature that
13   suggested that the same target must be used
14   throughout a time normalized series under the Eckert
15   technique?
16       A.    My understanding of the technique was -- my
17   recommendation was to use a consistent target.
18       Q.    From whence do you derive this
19   understanding?  Have you ever yourself employed the
20   Eckert technique?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Who told you that you got to use a
23   consistent target throughout?
24       A.    It seems like I remember in the paper that
25   the target should be consistent.

                                                 79

 1       Q.    Are you aware of anything suggesting that
 2   you can't use different targets?
 3       A.    I'm not aware of a paper saying that you
 4   can -- what?  I'm sorry.
 5       Q.    Are you aware of anything saying that you
 6   cannot use targets that are not consistent throughout
 7   the entire time normalized series?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Were you aware that the technique you
10   referred to as tasseled cap was invented or developed
11   in the study of agricultural lands in the midwest for
12   large homogenous tracks of crop?
13       A.    They were used in South Carolina and three
14   other states, from what I was aware of.
15       Q.    Let me ask you the question again so you
16   can answer the one I asked.  Were you aware that it
17   was developed in the midwest based on assessments and
18   studies of large area homogenous crops in
19   agricultural lands?
20       A.    You say "developed."  I'm not aware that
21   tasseled cap is a single development.  Tasseled cap
22   is an ongoing development, from what I read.
23       Q.    What are you relying on for that?
24       A.    I have read a few papers on tasseled cap
25   and discussed it with Dr. Roy Stein.  It's an ongoing

                                                 80

 1   discussion.
 2       Q.    Did you read these papers in connection
 3   with preparing to employ the technique in this case?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    Please identify the papers you read since I
 6   don't see them in the materials.
 7       A.    Just papers and literature.  The titles of
 8   the papers, is that what you want?
 9       Q.    Yes.
10       A.    I would have to find them.  I got two
11   papers I read on tasseled cap.
12       Q.    Do you have copies of those in your
13   materials at your office?
14       A.    Yes, I have copies of the reports, if you
15   would like those.
16       Q.    If you relied on those and employed them in
17   assisting you in applying this technique in this
18   case, I certainly do.
19             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Counsel, I request
20        they be provided.
21             MS. RAEPPLE:  Have they not been provided?
22             THE WITNESS:  I thought they were.  I'm
23        surprised if they aren't.  A copy of the entire
24        file was produced.
25             Research is an ongoing proposition, but I

                                                 81

 1        would be surprised they are not in the file you
 2        already got.  If they are not, I'll provide
 3        them.
 4             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  I indexed the
 5        material I got.  I don't recall --
 6             THE WITNESS:  I'll provide them, two
 7        studies out of ASPRS one.  They are discussions
 8        of tasseled cap.
 9   BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:
10       Q.    What's ASPRS?
11       A.    American Society of Remote Sensing
12   Photogrammetry and --
13       Q.    Are you a member?
14       A.    No, I'm not.
15       Q.    I take it you are not certified in
16   photogrammetric interpretations by any professional
17   organization?
18       A.    No, I'm not.
19       Q.    The publication listed in Exhibits 13 and
20   14, your CV and update, I didn't notice if the update
21   had anything which -- if any of those are peer review
22   journal publications.
23       A.    I have done no peer review journal
24   publication except for the review through URISA.  No,
25   I'm not in peer review publication.

                                                 82

 1       Q.    What is URISA exactly?
 2       A.    Urban and Regional Information Systems
 3   Association.
 4       Q.    What is it?
 5       A.    It's a large group of people interested in
 6   information systems, have been around for quite a
 7   while.
 8       Q.    They have a publication?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    You have contributed to that?
11       A.    I presented many papers, as the resume
12   indicates.  They have an annual conference similar to
13   ASPRS.
14       Q.    Do they produce written results?
15       A.    Usually they do.
16       Q.    There are outlines of presentations?
17       A.    Every year conference proceedings are
18   published.
19       Q.    But those are not peer review, they reflect
20   whatever was presented?
21       A.    It's reviewed by a group at URISA but not a
22   peer review.
23       Q.    You said the tasseled cap could be a tool
24   to distinguish between sawgrass and cattail.  That's
25   what you said this morning?

                                                 83

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    In what fashion in your estimation could it
 3   be such a tool?
 4       A.    Several ways.  One is to actually perform a
 5   classification on a tasseled cap image and then you
 6   see what those classes are.
 7             Another method would be to compare
 8   brightness values in a tasseled cap image to a
 9   classified image brightness green.  You compare
10   brightness, greenness or wetness values to a
11   classified image.
12       Q.    So that's how it could be a tool?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Have you used it as a tool in either of the
15   two faxes you have described?
16       A.    We produce the tasseled capped image
17   combining '85, '87, '89 and '93.  I have used various
18   combinations of wetness, brightness and greenness
19   among those images and compared those images to our
20   classification for '85 and '93.
21       Q.    I need to break that down.  I'm not sure I
22   understand what you did.  You merged together the
23   scatter plots, if you will, of brightness and
24   greenness and wetness for all of those years into a
25   single product?

                                                 84

 1       A.    We produced one 12 band image that included
 2   '85, '87, '89 and '93.
 3       Q.    Using what satellite data?
 4       A.    The '85 the '87 PM image, '89 and '93 PM
 5   image.
 6       Q.    Did you use all bands?
 7       A.    No.  We used the tasseled cap modeling
 8   capabilities with the software to produce three
 9   bands.  In each of those three images, the bands
10   being where -- the new bands being brightness,
11   greeness and wetness.
12       Q.    When you say you produced the 12 band
13   image, what form did that take?
14       A.    It's a digital image.
15       Q.    Did you print that out?
16       A.    It's on that tape right there.  There are
17   photographs of it.
18       Q.    The photographs are taken off the screen?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    The question was, did you hard copy it?
21       A.    No, we produced no hard copy of tasseled
22   cap at this point.
23       Q.    Do you plan to?
24       A.    If requested to do so, I will.
25       Q.    And then as I understood what you said, you

                                                 85

 1   compared that 12 band image to your '85?
 2       A.    Various components of the 12 bands image to
 3   our classified '85 image and classified '93 image.
 4       Q.    What components of the 12 band image did
 5   you compare to the '85 imagery?
 6       A.    Greeness and brightness and wetness.
 7       Q.    What were your conclusions as a result of
 8   that comparison?
 9       A.    Our conclusion is that there is no
10   substantial change in greeness between '85 and '93.
11       Q.    You have added in '93.  You jumped ahead a
12   little bit.  As I understand it, you did the same
13   comparison to your '93 classified image?
14       A.    The tasseled cap image is a combination of
15   all of those years.  So the comparisons are intrinsic
16   in the image.
17       Q.    If you are comparing the 12 band image that
18   includes the two years in which -- and the same
19   imagery data that you have for '85 and '93, aren't
20   you already biased towards limiting any variation or
21   change in the greeness values?
22       A.    Could you repeat that question?  I do not
23   understand it.
24       Q.    You took the three bands from your '85 TM
25   satellite range and put that in the 12 band?

                                                 86

 1       A.    I took the 36 bands excluding thermal and
 2   combined that to a three band tasseled capped image.
 3       Q.    For '85?
 4       A.    Used that as part of the 12 band composite
 5   image.
 6       Q.    The three bands are -- used tasseled caps
 7   out of '85 are derived from the '85 data which is
 8   used to generate your classified '85?
 9       A.    From the raw '85, the unclassified '85.
10       Q.    Doesn't that inevitably suggest that you
11   are minimizing any variance?  You are taking '85 and
12   '93 and using the same tasseled cap converted as part
13   of the comparison?
14             You don't understand what I mean?
15       A.    No, I don't understand.
16       Q.    I have reviewed my notes on the materials
17   provided.  I can't find any indication of the fact of
18   the publications you referred to.
19       A.    At the first break I'll find my copies.
20       Q.    I don't know if you need to make the copies
21   if you can get me titles and reference.
22       A.    You want that?  Okay.
23       Q.    In the efforts you described to determine
24   the 12 band image, what original TM data channels
25   were used to produce the 12 band image?

                                                 87

 1       A.    We used all bands in each image except the
 2   thermal band.
 3       Q.    You said earlier that this could be a tool
 4   in distinguishing between cattail and sawgrass based
 5   on what you just said regarding how you employed it.
 6   I don't understand you to say that you, in fact, did
 7   that or attempted to do that of your analysis of the
 8   '93 image, but you only attempted to determine if the
 9   greeness values showed the significant shift, and you
10   concluded the answer to that was no.
11             Am I correct in my understanding?
12       A.    You said a lot in that statement.  Are you
13   saying -- I'm not sure what you are asking.  Please
14   tell me what you are asking about the greeness.
15       Q.    As you applied the analysis or the
16   comparison of your TC image to the '85 and '93
17   classified images, did you form an opinion
18   specifically about any alterations in sawgrass and
19   cattail over that time span, those species?
20       A.    From the tasseled cap, singularly?
21       Q.    Yes.
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    You told us three times now that you could
24   use the tasseled cap analysis to make such a
25   distinguishing judgment?

                                                 88

 1       A.    That it could be a tool in making the
 2   judgment, yes.
 3       Q.    Have you done that?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    How?
 6       A.    Visually we have compared -- we have
 7   produced numerous combinations of brightness,
 8   greeness and wetness from the 12 band image, and we
 9   have produced those and observed greeness in
10   particular and then compared that greeness to our '85
11   classification and the '93 classification.
12       Q.    And did I understand you to say the
13   greeness values from your tasseled cap '85 to '93
14   don't show any significant change?
15       A.    There is not a major significant change in
16   the areas that -- the significant change -- there is
17   change I guess is significant up to the user.  It
18   shows change in areas that we did the classification
19   on to see, in fact, what the greeness was at that
20   point.  It showed changes in greeness.  It indicates
21   greeness values in those two years.
22       Q.    Can you quantify the changes you observed?
23       A.    We did not attempt to quantify the changes
24   in the tasseled cap image.
25       Q.    Do you plan to?

                                                 89

 1       A.    We could if asked.
 2       Q.    I take it that's a no.  The question is, do
 3   you plan to.  Not could you do it.  If somebody asked
 4   you, do you plan to do it?
 5       A.    I'm doing what my client asked me to do.  I
 6   do what I'm asked to do.  I can do it or not do it.
 7   I'm not sure if I understand.
 8       Q.    Let me ask the question.  Has anybody asked
 9   you to do that?
10       A.    No, not yet.
11       Q.    Do you of your own sua sponte plan to do
12   that?
13       A.    No.
14             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Counsel, if you ask
15        him to do that, obviously we feel entitled to
16        certain notice on that further deposition.
17             MS. RAEPPLE:  Certainly.
18   BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:
19       Q.    In your analysis where you found some
20   unquantified as yet shift in greeness values for 1985
21   imagery to the 1983 imagery --
22       A.    '93.
23       Q.    -- how much of that greeness shift can you
24   attribute within a reasonable degree of scientific
25   certainty to expansion of cattails over that time

                                                 90

 1   frame?
 2       A.    How much of the changes in greeness can I
 3   attribute to expansion of cattail?
 4       Q.    Yes.
 5       A.    The acreage figures that we produced would
 6   be that combination.  Those are digital files that
 7   can easily be overlaid to each other.  If you want to
 8   quantify it pixel by pixel, we can do that.
 9       Q.    Let me make sure I'm clear on this.  The
10   original calculations you are talking about, that's
11   based on the tasseled cap?
12       A.    No, it's based on the classification.
13       Q.    You are answering a question I didn't ask.
14   I'm talking about tasseled cap, based on tasseled cap
15   and the shifting greeness values, which has nothing
16   to do with your accuracy assessment.
17             In your acreage assessment in Exhibits 10,
18   11, 12, you have said you have observed a greeness
19   value shift but you can't quantify it, but there is a
20   shift over those years '85 to '93.
21             You told me the tasseled cap is a tool to
22   distinguish between cattail and sawgrass in the
23   greeness for area shifts.
24             How much of it is attributable to the
25   increase in cattail?

                                                 91

 1       A.    I did not tell you that tasseled cap would
 2   quantify species.  I said it was a tool used to help
 3   assist us in quantifying the species attributable to
 4   a particular species.  That's what I said.  Tasseled
 5   cap is not -- we did not assign vegetative classes to
 6   the tasseled cap images.
 7       Q.    Do you plan or did you attempt that in any
 8   fashion thus far?
 9       A.    No, we have not.
10       Q.    Has anyone directed you to do that?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Do you have any plans to do that at this
13   juncture?
14       A.    At this point, no.
15       Q.    Would you have to go through the same
16   process with color IR or would you conduct that
17   effort by reference to your classified '85 and '93
18   images?
19       A.    You could do it either way.
20       Q.    Which way would you do it?
21       A.    I would compare it to the classified
22   images.
23       Q.    It's easier.  You have already got that
24   digitized, right?
25       A.    We do have that.

                                                 92

 1       Q.    Cut Dr. Lodge out of the loop, he doesn't
 2   have to sit there on the light table.
 3       A.    I would compare it to the classified
 4   images, yes.
 5       Q.    So as of right now, as I understand it --
 6   correct me if I'm wrong -- you have no opinion based
 7   on tasseled cap as to the relative change or
 8   distribution within those greeness values for '85 and
 9   '93 of cattail and sawgrass?
10       A.    That's correct.  We did not classify the
11   tasseled cap based on species type.
12       Q.    So what opinions have you formed and
13   developed based on your tasseled cap analysis that
14   are final at this time?
15       A.    Tasseled cap similar to the unsupervised
16   classifications we did increase our general knowledge
17   of the study area.
18       Q.    And as I understand it, it has been
19   suggested to you that there has been some change in
20   the coverage of certain species.  The extent of that
21   is not quantified in terms of, say, acreage?
22       A.    Not quantified in the tasseled cap but in
23   the '85 or '93 image, yes.
24       Q.    We were speaking in terms of cattail and
25   sawgrass.  But there are, according to Dr. Lodge's

                                                 93

 1   book, something on the order of 190 other vegetative
 2   species in the ecosystem at issue here.
 3             How would you distinguish out from the
 4   tasseled cap analysis as you have done it thus far,
 5   unclassified other species of flora that have their
 6   own associated greeness and brightness values?
 7       A.    If we did that, we would do classification
 8   of the tasseled cap image.
 9       Q.    That's the only way to distinguish that
10   out?
11       A.    We could overlay it to our existing
12   classification and see if there was correspondence.
13       Q.    Have you done that, even on the screen?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Other than the photos, we have all of your
16   tasseled cap analyses on this back-up data?
17       A.    That 150 megabyte tape contains the
18   complete tasseled cap model that we used.
19       Q.    What system was the 150 meg produced on?
20       A.    A SUN micro station work station.  SPARC,
21   2, 150 megabyte, quarter inch tape unit.
22       Q.    What is the tape format?
23       A.    Probably TAR format.  TAR back up.  If it's
24   not, call us and we will tell you.  I think it's TAR.
25       Q.    Assuming for the sake of argument for this

                                                 94

 1   question that the quantification of the greeness
 2   change is relatively minor.  Do you have any way
 3   currently on the work you have already completed to
 4   assess the greeness values you had developed from the
 5   TC effort?
 6       A.    William Thomas or Bill Thomas, that's the T
 7   you are talking about, TC tasseled cap.  KT is the
 8   other one.
 9       Q.    Do you have any way of assessing within a
10   reasonable scientific certainty whether or not the
11   mix of cattail and sawgrass species within the
12   greeness value has altered the proportion of those
13   species, if you will, from '85 to '93 based on the
14   work already completed?
15       A.    Based on what we already completed today,
16   is that what you are asking?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    Yes, I believe it did.
19       Q.    On what do you base that belief?
20       A.    As previously stated, we could overlay the
21   tasseled cap brightness categories and assign species
22   typed to the tasseled cap.
23       Q.    In your answer just now you said "could."
24   My question was "done."  You have not done that then?
25       A.    I thought you said "could we."

                                                 95

 1       Q.    No.  I am assuming the difference is very
 2   small.  Can you right now based on the work already
 3   done tell me what the ratio shifts are or what shift,
 4   if any, in the relative composition within the
 5   greeness values is accounted for from '85 to '93 by
 6   cattail and sawgrass?
 7       A.    By "can," you mean have I produced that
 8   product already?  My interpretation of "can" was
 9   could I take the data I got and come up with that
10   answer.
11       Q.    It's a semantic thing.  Put the question
12   this way.
13             Tell me right now what the ratio shifts
14   were based on the greeness evaluation from '85 to
15   '93.
16       A.    I understand your question now.  We have
17   not done that as of right now.
18       Q.    It was the way I asked the question.  We
19   just look at the words a little differently.
20       A.    Okay.
21       Q.    The software used to produce the tasseled
22   cap analysis was still ERDAS?
23       A.    ERDAS, yes.
24       Q.    What version?
25       A.    This model was run in the current release,

                                                 96

 1   which was 8.1.
 2       Q.    The demonstration tape that was produced as
 3   part of your discovery, it showed Mr. Erickson
 4   playing with the monitors doing his golly, gee whiz
 5   stuff.  That was a later version not yet released?
 6       A.    That was one, the beta version, probably
 7   8.02.
 8       Q.    Earlier for Mr. Cesarano you were talking
 9   about the 2A image and said that you refined the
10   categories as part of your very recent work?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Were you talking about '85 or '93?
13       A.    '93.
14       Q.    How did you refine the categories?
15       A.    We observed that we could break out
16   predominant -- which one was that?
17       Q.    The next one down.
18       A.    We determined in reviewing these classes
19   that we could break out predominant cattail open
20   water and predominant sawgrass open water.  We added
21   those to the classes that we exhibited in the legend.
22       Q.    Did that require you to go back to the
23   field notes?
24       A.    Let's see.  We reviewed field notes
25   continuously through this.  We probably did, yes.

                                                 97

 1       Q.    And who actually conducted that exercise to
 2   class the categories?
 3       A.    I did.
 4       Q.    Assisted by anyone?
 5       A.    Pamela Green and Terry Jackson.
 6       Q.    Dr. Lodge was not one of those?
 7       A.    Dr. Lodge has been involved in quite a bit
 8   of discussion.  Yes.  Dr. Lodge would have had some
 9   input into this, yes.
10       Q.    When I look at the image, is it fair to say
11   that everything I see on the image is as a result of
12   platting out of the digitize data that has been
13   classified?
14       A.    I am not sure I understand.  As a result of
15   what?
16       Q.    As I understand the image, it is intended
17   to convey through the color schemes and
18   classification process information to the reviewer?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    So everything depicted on there has
21   significance to the viewer, even if it's down to the
22   cloud category which tells you what was under it?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    If I see banding on any of these images
25   that implies to me it's in the digitized data or it's

                                                 98

 1   an artifact of the platting; is that correct?
 2       A.    I would say that's right.
 3       Q.    What is the inclination to its orbital path
 4   for the satellite of the sensors employed to produce
 5   these two images, the '93 images?
 6       A.    What?
 7       Q.    Inclination of the sensors to the orbital
 8   path of the satellite?
 9       A.    Inclination of the sensors to the orbital
10   path --
11       Q.    What satellite are we talking about?
12       A.    Landsat 5.
13       Q.    Landsat 5's sensors, are they normal to the
14   footprint of the satellite?
15       A.    Are they off NADER, are they pointed other
16   than straight down?  Is that what you are asking?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    They are pointed straight down.  Landsat 5
19   does not have a pointing capability.  Therefore, the
20   sensors are always aligned in the same direction from
21   the satellite, if I understand your question.
22       Q.    Then if there were -- if banding were
23   present you would expect it to be consistent
24   throughout the areas that you mapped if there were
25   banding as a result of the sensor?

                                                 99

 1       A.    Expected to be consistent within that
 2   image, yes.
 3       Q.    If you look at the image for the entire
 4   study area, do you see banding in what would be the
 5   Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge?
 6       A.    I do see what could be interpreted as
 7   banding in the upper portion of Loxahatchee.  If you
 8   are speaking of this area here, is that what you are
 9   talking about, here?
10       Q.    The entire area of Loxahatchee.
11       A.    I do not see indications of banding in the
12   southern area or 2A.
13       Q.    When you hold the paper chart and look at
14   it end on, very close to end on, you still don't see
15   it?
16       A.    We printed these on a -- these are color
17   electrostatic plats, and the color electrostatic
18   platting that we are using prints in rows and our
19   observation of the image on the screen was that there
20   was no significant banding.
21             I can see what you are talking about there
22   and that does have the appearance in the upper
23   Loxahatchee of possible banding in the image, but we
24   never observed it in the image on the screen and I
25   cannot tell you where that came from.

                                                 100

 1       Q.    I guess the problem I have when I look down
 2   at WCA-3A on that image I see bands from whatever
 3   source running more or less parallel east/west.  And
 4   when I look at Loxahatchee on the same image,
 5   certainly in the northern half of it above the cloud
 6   cut out, I see what appear to be bands running
 7   northwest, slightly southeast.
 8             If there is an artifact of your platter, I
 9   would expect them to be consistent throughout the
10   entire range of the imagery.  It was platted at one
11   time?
12       A.    This is what you are talking about, right
13   here.
14       Q.    Show me what you are talking about in the
15   image.
16       A.    I see the banding effect right here.  Since
17   I think you are wrong on the satellite you are not
18   interpreting what I'm talking about, the platter
19   effect which is straight horizontally.
20       Q.    Down in 3A we are talking east, west or --
21       A.    All right.  Let me see this down here.  In
22   this part of the image, what are you talking about,
23   right here.
24       Q.    East/west, there are triangles, if you
25   will, in the imagery?

                                                 101

 1       A.    You mean this little light thing here?
 2       Q.    No.  I see it continuously.
 3       A.    Where do you see it?
 4       Q.    I see it like every 16 lines.
 5       A.    Every 16 lines?
 6       Q.    How many sensors are there on a Landsat?
 7       A.    There are 7, 7 bands.  I can see something
 8   in this image.  I do not know -- I cannot attribute
 9   why that's there.
10       Q.    And we can both see something in the
11   Loxahatchee part of the image?
12       A.    I see something up there, yes.  There is
13   some.
14       Q.    Do those striations which I use, because it
15   doesn't have a normative value what the cause is,
16   they don't all run in the same direction, which is
17   roughly parallel to those in 3A, and it seems to me
18   this is an artifact of the printer.  You just
19   suggested your printer prints in rows, which I assume
20   is roughly east/west normal to the paper?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    That would not seem to account for
23   striations for Loxahatchee.  I want to know what they
24   are.  Are they an artifact, are they in the data or
25   is there some problem in the classification we have

                                                 102

 1   not considered?
 2       A.    Is your question, do I know what that is?
 3       Q.    Yes, or can you explain that for me.
 4       A.    The artifact you are observing is something
 5   either in the data of the platter, it looks like from
 6   the angle of it.  It's in the data.  At least in
 7   northern Loxahatchee during our classification
 8   process we observed no banding that caused us
 9   difficulty with the classification.
10             Frankly, I don't see -- I don't observe
11   that banding at that angle referred to, I don't
12   observe that in the southern study area.  I don't see
13   it.  I see perfectly horizontal lines and I do see
14   that slightly off horizontal artifact you referred to
15   here.  But I do not see that here.
16       Q.    Did you process the portion of the data
17   involving Loxahatchee in some way different from the
18   balance of the imagery as a result of the cutting
19   into the middle of Loxahatchee?
20       A.    That was not separated out as an area of
21   interest or digitized out in any fashion from the
22   classification that occurred in this portion of the
23   study area around 2A.  It was not treated separately.
24       Q.    Other than the tasseled cap effort, has any
25   classification been done on images other than '85 and

                                                 103

 1   '93?
 2       A.    Yes.  We did an unsupervised classification
 3   on '87 and '89.
 4       Q.    As I understand what you said, while you
 5   classified them to the 36 and 99 class, no effort was
 6   made or expended to identify vegetative species with
 7   those classes?
 8       A.    Correct.
 9             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  He has a call to
10        make and I'm at a good stopping point.  It's a
11        quarter to 12.  I would like to review these
12        materials before we continue.  So if we can take
13        an early lunch and get back early --
14             MS. RAEPPLE:  Do you want to take a short
15        lunch?
16             MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:  Let's come back at
17        12:45.
18                  (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken,
19                  after which the following proceedings
20                  were had.)
21   BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD:
22       Q.    Your imagery for 1985, that is complete and
23   final as I understand it; is that correct?
24       A.    Yes.  Yes, it is.
25       Q.    Did you yourself do any of the photo

                                                 104

 1   interpretation in the process of developing the
 2   classified images?
 3       A.    No, not directly.  I looked at the photos
 4   and gained as much familiarity as I could.  But that
 5   was left for Dr. Lodge.
 6       Q.    You stated you were going to compare Ken
 7   Rutchey's procedures and results to yours or to your
 8   effort.
 9             Other than the limited discussion we had
10   about comparing acreages and classes and whether you
11   could overlay them or not, how you would do that?
12   Have you done anything else to analyze and compare
13   your methodologies of the final product?
14       A.    To Ken Rutchey?
15       Q.    Yes.
16       A.    You know the GPS procedures.  I stated some
17   differences in