1 STATE OF FLORIDA

2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988

6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040

8 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural )

9 Cooperative Marketing Association, )

ROTH FARMS, INC., AND )

10 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )

)

11 and )

)

12 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

13 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

)

14 and )

)

15 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )

16 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and )

HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

17 )

Petitioners, )

18 vs. )

)

19 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT, an Agency of the State )

20 of Florida. )

Respondent, )

21 and )

)

22 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF )

FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF )

23 AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the )

24 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and )

the FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and )

25 SIERRA CLUB, )

Intervenors. )

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

3 GEOFFREY GARVER, Esquire

Assistant U.S. Attorney

4 155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor

Miami, Florida 33130

MARK T. KOBELINSKI, Equire

7 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636

8 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire

11 Popham & Haik

4000 International Place

12 Miami, Florida 33131

14 ROBERT JOHNSON

Everglades National Park

C O N T I N U A T I O N

DEPOSITION OF PAUL W. LARSEN, taken

19 on behalf of the Intervenors, on the 18th and

19th days of March, 1993, pursuant to the

20 notice and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, in the offices of Jack Besoner &

21 Associates, Museum Tower, PH II, Suite 2900,

150 West Flagler, Street Miami, Florida,

22 33130, before me, Phil Berglan, a Shorthand

Reporter and Notary Public in and for the

23 State of Florida.

1 PAUL W. LARSEN,

2 a witness being produced, sworn and examined

3 on behalf of the Intervenors does hereby

4 deposeth and saith as follows:

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. GARVER:

7 Q. Mr. Larsen, as we finished up

8 yesterday, we were talking about the dissolved

9 oxygen sampling work you have conducted in the

10 water conservation areas, and that is where I

11 will pick up or begin today.

12 You had discussed, in some detail,

13 some of the calibrations you did for dissolved

14 oxygen in relation to your dissolved oxygen

15 data collections. In conjunction with your

16 dissolved oxygen and related data collections

17 in the water conservation areas, beginning in

18 1990 or 1991, were there any other

19 calibrations that you performed on the

20 Hydrolab units?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What other calibrations did you do?

23 A. Calibrations for pH, specific

24 conductivity, and depth, and I believe that's

25 it.

1 Q. Can you please describe to me how

2 you did the pH calibrations.

3 A. The unit is calibrated to a

4 standard, and a standard is a liquid that has

5 a known value of pH and so that standard is

6 poured in a cup which holds the standard,

7 which then surrounds the sensor, and the

8 reading of the unit is compared with the known

9 value.

10 In other words, you are surrounding

11 the sensor with liquid-known pH value and the

12 unit, as I recall, is calibrated for two

13 values, one of seven and, I believe, we used

14 ten, so that then it sets its internal program

15 which is the relationship between the electric

16 signal that it's receiving, somewhat it's

17 measuring, and adjusts it based on the two

18 point calibration process, based on two known

19 liquid standards surrounding the sensor.

20 Q. Do you have any reports or

21 documentation of the procedure you followed to

22 calibrate the units for pH?

23 A. It's all in the field notes and in

24 the data summaries and in the volume that

25 describes the calibration procedures.

1 Q. And that documentation is included

2 in the files you produced?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. Would you please describe to me the

5 calibration procedure you performed for the

6 Hydrolab units for specific conductivity.

7 A. Again, the unit is calibrated --

8 it's a one point calibration procedure using a

9 known standard.

10 Q. Briefly describe to me the

11 calibration procedure you used to calibrate

12 the Hydrolab units with respect to depth

13 findings.

14 A. When the units are out of water you

15 simply set the reading at zero and that's the

16 only calibration.

17 Q. Was documentation of the calibration

18 procedures you used for specific conductivity

19 in depth included in the materials you

20 produced?

21 A. It should be included in the field

22 notes and in the materials provided. And, on

23 second thought, I know that the calibration

24 for depth is included in the field notes.

25 There may not be a separate summary of that

1 because we were operating in such shallow

2 water that it didn't have a sensitivity.

3 It was really invalid for measuring

4 depth and so we did not rely on the sensor to

5 provide us -- or the unit to provide us with

6 depth information.

7 However, it is included in the

8 information that was collected by the units.

9 But that unit is typically used in water

10 that's deeper than you find in the Everglades

11 and where the depth sensor is used to

12 determine how deep the unit is, and so in this

13 case, it did record the depth of water

14 overlying the unit but I am in no way relying

15 on those depth measurements to provide

16 information associated with the readings.

17 As I mentioned earlier, we measured

18 the depth of the sensor relative to the water

19 surface and the water bottom. At the

20 beginning and at the end of each deployment,

21 we measured that with a graduated ruler.

22 Q. Other than the calibrations that you

23 performed during the course of each deployment

24 and retrieval sequence with the Hydrolab

25 units, were there any less frequent

1 calibrations that you performed on the

2 instrumentation you were using in the course

3 of the dissolved oxygen sampling?

4 A. There was no way to calibrate

5 temperature. It was preset at the factory.

6 However, we would compare temperature readings

7 between the units and the Y side unit from

8 time to time and we would also compare them

9 with a glass thermometer from time to time.

10 But since there was no way to

11 physically calibrate the unit for temperature,

12 those readings were not part of the normal

13 procedure other than the test that we made

14 from time to time. We went through a process

15 at the beginning of each deployment sequence.

16 Q. What do you mean by "deployment

17 sequence"?

18 A. In other words, as I mentioned

19 before, the units were basically out for a

20 month and then not used for a month, and then

21 redeployed for a month and not deployed.

22 So at the beginning of the

23 deployment sequence is when we started to use

24 them for a month, approximately 24 days in

25 that we would have a thorough check of the

1 units initially, and then again at the end of

2 that -- of a sequence, we would have a

3 thorough cleaning and again check and put the

4 unit in storage.

5 Q. Can you please describe to me the

6 procedures that you used during the check that

7 you did before and after each deployment

8 sequence.

9 A. The check was primarily a physical

10 check to insure that the units were working.

11 It involved putting in new batteries and, just

12 for your information, the batteries were

13 changed before each redeployment, so they were

14 changed at the beginning of each deployment.

15 And I believe at the end, we would

16 then -- at the end of the deployment sequences

17 we would take the batteries out so the units

18 were not stored with batteries in them.

19 But, primarily, the calibration

20 techniques were the same before each

21 deployment and so there was nothing terribly

22 different about the first deployment as

23 opposed to all the others, other than sort of

24 a general check that you would make of the

25 units when you took them out of storage.

1 Q. Did you have any documentation of

2 the procedures you used to check the

3 instrumentation at the beginning of each

4 deployment sequence, at the end of each

5 deployment sequence?

6 A. We made a practice of recording

7 everything in the field book, so, yes.

8 Q. Other than recording what you were

9 actually doing as you were doing it in the

10 field book, was there any written procedures

11 or guidelines to follow during the checks that

12 you did at the beginning and the end of each

13 deployment sequence?

14 A. I believe that we did have a

15 checklist that we referred to, and if we did,

16 that should be included in the materials.

17 Q. Can you please describe to me

18 briefly the Winkler method for D,O and L?

19 A. The Winkler method involves

20 collecting a sample in a fashion that does not

21 alter or alters as little as possible the

22 dissolved oxygen of the sample and that would

23 involve placing -- getting water from either a

24 pail for the calibration technique or from

25 in situ into a BOD bottle with as little

1 disturbance as possible using the sampler that

2 I described yesterday that had a tube such

3 that you could introduce the water into the

4 BOD bottle with the tube always under the

5 surface of the water taking care not to get

6 any bubbles in the water.

7 Three BOD bottles of sample are

8 collected and each BOD bottle is then treated

9 with two milliliters, I believe, of two

10 different solutions, and I would have to look

11 at the procedures to find out what their --

12 remember what their chemical names are, but

13 those -- each of those two things are put into

14 the BOD bottle with a measuring device that

15 allows you to squeeze in exactly two

16 milliliters of each of those.

17 That then has a tendency to bind the

18 dissolved oxygen in the sample. Once the two

19 milliliters are inserted into each bottle, the

20 bottles are shaken, and it creates a different

21 color and the bottle generally turns from

22 clear to sort of a milky color and once that

23 material settles out so that there is a clear

24 space at the top of the bottle, clear water at

25 the top of the bottle, and milky water

1 underneath, it's shaken again.

2 Then the two milliliters of sulfuric

3 acid is added to the bottle which then fixes

4 the dissolved oxygen in a different chemical

5 relationship and I would have to look at the

6 procedures to remember what that is. The

7 fixed sample is then measured. I believe it's

8 200 milliliters is measured using a graduated

9 cylinder and placed in an Erlenmeyer flask.

10 So you wind up then with three, one

11 from each of the BOD bottle, Erlenmeyer flasks

12 each with 200 milliliters of treated sample.

13 There is then a graduated or graduated burette

14 which is filled with yet another chemical and

15 I can't remember the name of it, I would have

16 to look at the notes.

17 And it's not necessary to have an

18 idea of what the dissolved oxygen will be, but

19 it's sometime useful. And of course, we would

20 have a YSI reading to know approximately what

21 the dissolved oxygen reading would wind up

22 being, whether it was one or eight, for

23 example.

24 Q. That was the YSI reading you took at

25 the beginning of each --

1 A. Yes, or in conjunction with whatever

2 we were doing. We had an idea from the YSI

3 meter what the dissolved oxygen reading should

4 be. And the liquid in the burette was then

5 metered into the Erlenmeyer flask containing

6 the fixed sample until -- assuming for the

7 sake of this description that it was a sample

8 that had a fair amount of dissolved oxygen in

9 it, sort of a very deep yellow color would

10 turn to sort of a light yellow straw color.

11 At that point, two droppers full of

12 starch soloution were added which would then

13 turn the liquid in the flask a deep blue color

14 and the titration you are using in the burette

15 would then proceed typically on a

16 drop-by-drop basis until the blue color turned

17 back to clear. And the reaction from blue to

18 clear was very fast in that with one more drop

19 it would turn basically from being definitely

20 blue to definitely clear.

21 The burette was graduated in

22 milliliters and the Winkler titration process

23 is set up such that the reading of milliliters

24 of titration fluid that is added is exactly

25 related to the dissolved oxygen in the sample

1 itself.

2 In other words, if you added 7.1

3 milliliters of titrant to the sample, then the

4 dissolved oxygen to get it so that the blue

5 color turned to a clear color, then the

6 dissolved oxygen in the sample using those

7 procedures was 7.1 part per million.

8 That was repeated for three

9 replicates. As I mentioned, we had three BOD

10 bottles and so each Winkler titration

11 consisted of three replicate procedures and

12 then the Winkler value would be the average of

13 those three.

14 Q. Does the Winkler method that you

15 used in the field measure a composite of the

16 water column down from the surface to the

17 depth of the Hydrolab sensor or was it taking

18 a sample at a particular depth?

19 A. No, it's only possible to do the

20 Winkler on a discreet sample. We made every

21 effort to collect that sample from the depth

22 of the sensor and as close to the sensor as we

23 could get. However, you will note that I

24 mentioned that we took dissolved oxygen

25 profiles using the YSI meter.

1 This was because at times we would

2 have disagreement between the field Winkler

3 value and the field Hydrolab value, and we

4 were able then to show that there was

5 variation in dissolved oxygen in the water

6 column as being higher closer to the surface

7 and lower towards the bottom:

8 Such that we realized it was very,

9 very important to collect a Winkler sample

10 from the same location as the sensor as best

11 we could, but nevertheless the water column

12 itself has a variability from top to bottom in

13 dissolved oxygen and so there was a certain

14 element of uncertainty from the field

15 calibration and the field checks.

16 Q. I understood you to say yesterday

17 that the comparison of the field Winkler

18 samples, the dissolved oxygen level in the

19 field Winkler samples, and the readings from

20 the Hydrolab unit can only be checked back at

21 the office after you have downloaded the

22 Hydrolab unit, correct?

23 A. That is correct. There was no

24 effort made to adjust the Hydrolab based on

25 the field Winkler readings. The calibration

1 of the Hydrolab was done using water in a pail

2 at saturation values for dissolved oxygen.

3 Q. Did you have any criteria for

4 determining whether disagreement between the

5 field Winkler values and the -- readings on

6 the dissolved oxygen levels in the field

7 Winkler samples and the dissolved oxygen

8 readings from the Hydrolab units were --

9 whether the disagreement was so big that you

10 had to disregard data?

11 A. We have a sheet in the material

12 provided to you which rates the data as

13 excellent, questionable, or not used. There

14 may be one other category in that based on the

15 agreement between the calibration values and

16 the instrument values. Typically the

17 calibration values had to be within, as I

18 recall, two-tenths of a part per million at

19 the saturation level.

20 The field Winklers are all recorded

21 and compared with the instrument values

22 corresponding to them and the correlation is

23 quite good, and it's all listed there. But

24 the main criteria that we used was the

25 calibration, initial calibration, and then the

1 check at the end of the deployment using

2 saturated values of dissolved oxygen.

3 Q. Just so I understand correctly, the

4 criteria that you used for determining the

5 quality of the data depended much more on the

6 saturated sample calibrations you did at the

7 beginning and at the end of each deployment

8 procedure than on the comparison of the

9 dissolved oxygen level in the field Winkler

10 samples to the readings you obtained from the

11 Hydrolab units from the field?

12 A. That's correct. And the reason was

13 because of the difficulty of obtaining a

14 sample for Winkler analysis which would

15 exactly represent the dissolved oxygen

16 conditions at the Hydrolab sensor.

17 So that we used a combination of

18 field Winkler values, the YSI values, the

19 meter values, the relationships of the meters

20 to each other while they were in the pail

21 going to the site and returning from the site

22 to provide us with a body of evidence

23 concerning the quality of the data.

24 Q. What role, if any, did the readings

25 you took, these dissolved oxygen readings you

1 took, with the YSI meter play in determining

2 the quality of data?

3 A. If those readings showed a large

4 difference between the surface and bottom of

5 the water column, then that indicated that the

6 field Winkler value that we could obtain would

7 be less reliable than if there was more or

8 less constant dissolved oxygen from the top to

9 the bottom of the water column.

10 But as I mentioned, the decision on

11 the quality of the data was one of valuing all

12 of the evidence from the initial calibration

13 using saturation values, the check of the

14 meters using a Winkler value in situ as close

15 as possible to the sensor, the YSI values, and

16 the comparison of the readings between the

17 three different meters, both entering and

18 coming back from the site.

19 Q. I understood you yesterday to say

20 that there were periods during the time you

21 were doing this dissolved oxygen sampling

22 where the water levels were so low that you

23 could not obtain data with the Hydrolab units;

24 is that right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. How deep did the water levels have

2 to be for you to use the Hydrolab units?

3 A. As I recall, about six inches.

4 Q. Was there any difference in your

5 field sampling methodology or procedures when

6 you had relatively shallow water levels as

7 compared to deeper water levels?

8 A. The procedures were the same. What

9 would be different is the way the units were

10 mounted on a stand. We had different ways to

11 achieve placement of the sensor at mid-depth

12 but the procedures were essentially the same

13 regardless of depth.

14 Q. Did you ever encounter any

15 difficulty obtaining samples when water levels

16 were low, say, in the range of two feet or

17 less?

18 A. I would say there was difficulty in

19 obtaining samples when the water was very

20 shallow, down in the six-inch range. The

21 water depths are all recorded in the field

22 notes and depths of two feet would be somewhat

23 typical, and so I would say that there was

24 difficulty in obtaining a field Winkler sample

25 when water depths were very shallow, say less

1 than eight inches or so.

2 And the only difficulty there was

3 that it was difficult to get a sample that did

4 not contain some suspended material.

5 Q. Does the Winkler method procedure

6 that you described to me earlier today conform

7 to EPA's standard titration method for

8 determining dissolved oxygen?

9 A. We used EPA procedure sheets as a

10 basis for our techniques.

11 Q. Did the procedure you followed

12 conform -- is it exactly the same as the EPA

13 procedure?

14 A. I haven't looked at those sheets in

15 some time. The EPA sheets describe, as I

16 recall, the Winkler procedure, but do not

17 describe specific field procedures covering

18 the situation of shallow water in a marsh area

19 and so that the techniques that were used by

20 us were developed by us for this particular

21 circumstance.

22 But to my knowledge, I don't know of

23 an EPA protocol for exactly this situation.

24 We followed EPA protocol for doing the Winkler

25 samples but I am not aware of an EPA protocol

1 for using Hydrolab instruments in this

2 situation.

3 Q. In terms of the fixing chemicals and

4 titrating chemicals you used in your Winkler

5 method, those chemicals are the same as the

6 chemicals that are used in the EPA method; is

7 that right?

8 A. They are the same or equivalent. We

9 obtained our chemicals from chemical supply

10 houses and it was stated that those chemicals

11 did conform to EPA requirements.

12 Q. Other than any written documentation

13 you had of EPA procedures, did you receive any

14 guidance from the EPA regarding the Winkler

15 methods you were deploying in the field?

16 A. I talked to, and Glen Homeyer

17 (phonetic) talked to, EPA lab people, as I

18 recall, as we were setting up the program.

19 Q. Do you recall who you or Glen

20 Homeyer contacted at EPA regarding the Winkler

21 method?

22 A. No, I don't. It may appear in the

23 files, it may not; I don't know.

24 Q. Do you recall what guidance EPA gave

25 you with regard to the field Winkler method?

1 A. I recall initially having a question

2 of whether field checks would be necessary.

3 And in discussions with them, I determined

4 that it was their normal procedure to do

5 Winklers in the field as a check. I may have

6 talked to Delbert Hicks about that because I

7 worked with him off and on over the years.

8 Q. On what other occasions have you

9 worked with Delbert Hicks?

10 A. I worked for the EPA in carrying out

11 a study of the Big Cyprus area and he was part

12 of that group back in the early seventies. So

13 I definitely worked with him on that occasion

14 and have had conversations with him of a

15 technical nature off and on ever since.

16 Q. Do you recall any of the

17 conversations of a technical nature you had

18 with Delbert Hicks specifically?

19 A. Not specifically, no. Like I -- as

20 I mentioned before, I believe I talked to him

21 about EPA procedures and methods for working

22 in this environment. I recall also talking

23 with someone from a lab, which I believe was

24 in Mississippi, who -- Hydrolab told me was a

25 government agency using Hydrolabs in shallow

1 estuary areas.

2 Again, I don't recall the lab, I

3 don't recall the individual, but I was told,

4 as I recall, by him -- I think this may have

5 even before I purchased the units -- that they

6 were very, very satisfied with the equipment.

7 Q. Have you been satisfied with the

8 advice or opinions that you received from

9 Delbert Hicks?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When you were conducting your

12 dissolved oxygen sampling with Hydrolab units

13 and the other methods you have described, did

14 you record the locations of the hydrolab units

15 every time you deployed them?

16 A. Yes, they were always in the

17 vicinity of the ESP stations that I mentioned

18 earlier. And there was a marker at each of

19 those stations, PVC pipe with a flag on it, as

20 I recall, and we would typically note the

21 distance in bearing from that flag to the

22 exact location of the unit.

23 This was done not only to note the

24 location of the instrument for purposes of the

25 data, but so that we could find it when we

1 went back.

2 Q. Typically how far would the location

3 that you deployed the Hydrolab units be from

4 the PVC pipe marking those stations?

5 A. Twenty or 30 feet, and we would

6 attempt to find locations that were as

7 undisturbed as possible.

8 Q. What would you look for to determine

9 whether an area was disturbed or undisturbed?

10 A. Whether the location was typical of

11 the surrounding area and that the placement of

12 the unit disturbed the area as little as

13 possible, that when the unit was in place, the

14 shading of the unit would be essentially the

15 same as the rest of the area, that the depth

16 would be essentially the same which we could

17 tell from experience with the area.

18 The idea was to place the units so

19 they would measure as much as possible the

20 natural conditions.

21 Q. Do you have any written

22 documentation of the criteria you used to

23 select locations each time you deployed the

24 Hydrolab units?

25 A. No, those were basically done either

1 by myself personally or by Mr. Homeyer after

2 spending a year working with me doing it.

3 Q. During the course of your entire

4 investigation, starting in late 1990 or early

5 1991, and ending in January of 1993, did it

6 become more difficult during the course of

7 that time to find undisturbed sites for

8 placing the Hydrolab units?

9 A. We were cognizant that activity in

10 the vicinity of these stations had caused some

11 disturbance, but by moving away from any, for

12 example, open water areas, that had been

13 caused by people walking on a path between --

14 you know, to get to the location, but by

15 staying 30 or 40 feet away from those and not

16 using the same location each time, we were

17 hopeful we would minimize any effects of

18 disturbance to the area.

19 Q. Did you find that your visits in the

20 vicinity of the sampling stations, over time,

21 accumulatively disturbed the areas around the

22 sampling station?

23 A. Well, it's impossible to get to a

24 location on a repetitive basis without

25 creating an airboat trail leading to the

1 vicinity. So there was a certain amount of

2 beating down of the vegetation by airboats but

3 that was, again, kept to a minimum because we

4 attempted to use the same path each time.

5 Our visits were, as I mentioned

6 earlier, only once every two months, at most,

7 and we made every effort to create as little

8 disturbance as possible and to, each time we

9 were there, select a site that was

10 representative of the undistrubed conditions

11 in the vicinity.

12 Q. Did you find that your bimonthly

13 visits to the vicinity of one of the ESP

14 sampling stations would increase the amount of

15 disturbed or disturbance in that area over

16 time during the course of your entire

17 investigation?

18 A. Not significantly.

19 Q. Okay. I believe I understood you

20 yesterday to testify that ESP and Breedlove

21 and Associates, if I am getting that right,

22 had selected the four general sample locations

23 you have described; is that correct?

24 A. It's my understanding, yes. I did

25 not select them.

1 Q. Do you know what criteria were used

2 to select those sample locations?

3 A. Not specifically, however, I

4 understand it was their intent to find areas

5 that were located differing distances from the

6 S-10 structures relating to the stations in

7 Water Conservation 2A. ESP five and six was,

8 as I recall, approximately one mile.

9 ESP four and five was perhaps two to

10 three miles, and ESP -- I am sorry -- ESP

11 three and four was two to three miles and then

12 ESP one and two was probably six or seven

13 miles from the ten structures.

14 Q. Did each of those three stations

15 have a cattail area, a sawgrass area, and an

16 open water area?

17 A. Except for ESP five and six which

18 did not have an open water area.

19 Q. Why was there no open water area at

20 five and six?

21 A. It didn't exist.

22 Q. Have the locations of the four ESP

23 stations been recorded using geographic

24 coordinates or by other means?

25 A. Yes, I personally, and it appears in

1 the field notes, located them with loran.

2 Others may have located them using other

3 navigational methods.

4 Q. Can you describe to me the

5 vegetation in the vicinity of ESP five and

6 six.

7 A. The vegetation is predominantly

8 cattail, and the number five and six relate to

9 two locations which are in close proximity to

10 each other and one of those is in an area

11 which is predominantly sawgrass and the other

12 is in an area which is predominantly cattail.

13 Two locations are perhaps 100 to 200, possibly

14 300 feet apart.

15 Q. In general, how tall is the sawgrass

16 in the vicinity of ESP five and six?

17 A. I recall that it was five or six

18 feet high above the water surface.

19 Q. In general, how tall is the sawgrass

20 in the vicinity of ESP five and six?

21 A. Excuse me, I might have

22 misunderstood you, was your first question

23 cattail or sawgrass?

24 Q. The first question was cattail.

25 MR. KOBELINSKI: I misunderstood

1 that, too. Could you read back the question.

2 (The court reporter here read back

3 the requested material as recorded).

4 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I already asked you

5 how tall the sawgrass was. I guess my

6 question now is, in general, how tall is the

7 cattail in the vicinity of ESP station five

8 and six?

9 A. Cattail, again, as I recall, was six

10 to eight feet in height.

11 Q. Can you describe to me the

12 vegetation in the vicinity of ESP stations

13 three and four.

14 A. Yes, there were three locations, a

15 cattail location, an open water location, and

16 a sawgrass location. I recall that the

17 sawgrass was five to seven feet in height, the

18 cattail was seven to nine feet in height, and

19 that the open water area was open water.

20 Q. Did I understand you correctly,

21 then, that, in general, both the sawgrass and

22 the cattail at ESP stations three and four

23 were taller than the sawgrass and cattail

24 respectively at ESP stations five and six?

25 A. Can you repeat that, please.

1 Q. I am just comparing the numbers that

2 you have told me, and do I understand

3 correctly that, in general, the sawgrass at

4 stations three and four was taller than the

5 sawgrass at stations five and six and, in

6 general, cattail at three and four was taller

7 than the cattail at stations five and six?

8 A. This is -- the answer is yes, but

9 this is by recall. I understand that other

10 people have measured the vegetation. I did

11 not. This is simply an estimate based on

12 recall of having been there.

13 But I recall that, as I mentioned,

14 that the cattail was slightly higher than the

15 sawgrass at each site and that the cattail may

16 have been somewhat higher, taller, at the

17 three and four sites than at the five and six

18 sites.

19 Q. Who has measured the actual

20 measurements of the vegetation in the area of

21 the ESP stations?

22 A. I don't know for sure. I think that

23 others, possibly Doctor Dennis and people from

24 his firm. I don't know.

25 Q. But you stated that someone has done

1 that work; is that correct?

2 A. I am assuming that somebody has done

3 that. I don't know for sure.

4 Q. On what are you basing your

5 assumption that someone has done that work?

6 A. The assumption that Doctor Dennis

7 has generally described vegetation throughout

8 the area and assuming that he would have, or

9 someone from his firm would have measured the

10 vegetation height and recorded it in the field

11 notes when he visited the site.

12 MR. GARVER: Let's take a break.

13 (A brief recess was here had).

14 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Mr. Larsen, can you

15 describe to me the appearance of ESP stations

16 one and two and the surrounding area.

17 A. They consisted of a station located

18 in a cattail area, a station located in the

19 sawgrass area, and an open water site.

20 Both the cattail area and the

21 sawgrass area were surrounded by open water.

22 They were both of a dimension of in the order

23 of magnitude of 150 feet by 200 feet by

24 perhaps 300 feet. The open water site was

25 adjacent to the cattail area.

1 Q. Can you describe to me, in general,

2 how tall the cattail and the sawgrass were in

3 the ESP one and two?

4 A. Again, I didn't measure it, but by

5 recall both the cattail and the sawgrass were

6 approximately ten feet high.

7 Q. Other than the distance from the

8 S-10 structures that you have already talked

9 about, do you know what other criteria, if

10 any, were used to determine where to locate

11 ESP stations five and six, three and four, and

12 one and two?

13 A. No, I don't.

14 Q. Who would know the answer to both of

15 those criteria?

16 A. As I mentioned earlier, I believe

17 those stations were selected by Doctor Davis

18 and Doctor Dennis.

19 Q. ESP stations eight, nine, and ten

20 are located in Water Conservation Area 3A; is

21 that right?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. Where exactly are ESP stations

24 eight, nine, and ten located?

25 A. I can't answer exactly. But they

1 are approximately one to two miles west of

2 pump station S-9. I would point out that the

3 field notes contain lower end coordinates.

4 Q. Do you know what criteria were used

5 to select ESP stations eight, nine, and ten?

6 A. No, I don't.

7 Q. When you did your dissolved oxygen

8 data collections and repeated data collections

9 with the Hydrolab unit, what kind of sites did

10 you choose for deploying the Hydrolab units in

11 terms of vegetation coverage?

12 A. Excuse me, but at which location?

13 Q. ESP stations eight, nine, and ten,

14 did you also have a cattail site, a sawgrass

15 site, and an open water site?

16 A. That's correct, except that in this

17 case there was a cattail site, an area

18 predominantly cattails, an area where cattails

19 and sawgrass were mixed, perhaps 50 percent of

20 each, and then an area which was primarily

21 sawgrass.

22 Q. So there was no open water site?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Why was there no open water site?

25 A. We were limited by having only three

1 units, and it was decided by others that these

2 three sites would be used.

3 Q. Who decided that those three sites

4 would be used?

5 A. I don't know for sure, but it was

6 probably the same as before with the others,

7 Doctor Dennis and Doctor Davis.

8 Q. Can you describe to me the physical

9 appearance of the vicinity of ESP stations

10 eight, nine, and ten?

11 A. There were three stations. The one

12 closest to pump station S-9 was predominantly

13 cattail. It was near an open water area. The

14 second station going in distance from S-9 pump

15 station was the mixed station.

16 It was near an open water area and

17 the third station in distance from the S-9

18 pump station was predominantly sawgrass and it

19 was also near an open water area.

20 Q. In general, how tall were the

21 cattails and sawgrass in the vicinity of ESP

22 station eight, nine, and ten?

23 A. I didn't measure them, but I recall

24 -- I would estimate between seven and ten feet

25 at all stations.

1 Q. Other than selecting sample

2 locations, did John Davis have any role in

3 your dissolved oxygen investigation?

4 A. The data that I collected was

5 transmitted to the law firm and then I

6 understand it was transmitted to Doctor Davis.

7 Q. Do you know what Doctor Davis did

8 with the data?

9 A. No, I don't.

10 Q. Did you generate plots from the

11 data?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is there, in the materials that you

14 have produced in connection with this

15 deposition, is there a map showing the

16 location of the ESP sampling stations?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. Is there such a map?

19 A. Yes, it may be in the materials. I

20 just don't know for sure.

21 Q. Do you have such a map in your

22 possession?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. GARVER: If that map hadn't been

25 produced, Mr. Kobelinski, we would ask for

1 it.

2 MR. KOBELINSKI: If you would put a

3 written request for it we will go ahead and

4 produce it. The witness is not testifying he

5 is relying upon any map as integral to his

6 testifying about the quality of the data and

7 he has not been requested yet.

8 So if you request it, we will go

9 ahead and respond to your request.

10 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Have you produced

11 any final report of your dissolved oxygen

12 investigation in the Water Conservation Areas?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Will you be producing a final report

15 of that investigation?

16 A. I don't anticipate it.

17 Q. Have you completed all the work you

18 will be doing on the dissolved oxygen

19 investigation?

20 A. Yes, with the exception of adding

21 the information from the most recent

22 deployment to the data books in that the books

23 were collected for the purpose of this before

24 we had a chance to do that.

25 Q. Have you done any analysis of the

1 dissolved oxygen data you have collected

2 during your investigation?

3 A. The only analysis I have done is

4 pursuant to the quality of the data, but not

5 in terms of its relationship to each other or

6 to other factors.

7 Q. Have you compared the data collected

8 at one station from the data collected at

9 other stations?

10 A. Only as it relates to the data being

11 consistent and of good quality but not as it

12 relates to any sort of an attempt to determine

13 if they are or why they are different from

14 each other.

15 Q. Have you analyzed the data for any

16 trends in the data?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Do you know if anyone will be

19 analyzing the data for trends in the data?

20 A. I anticipate if that's done, it

21 would be done by Doctor Davis, but that's just

22 my understanding.

23 Q. Do you know if any comparison of the

24 data between different stations has been or

25 will be done?

1 A. I don't know.

2 Q. Based on your experience in

3 conducting the investigation and collecting

4 the dissolved oxygen data, have you observed

5 any trends in the data?

6 A. I made no attempt to analyze the

7 data other than to insure its quality. I

8 would look at the charts to see that the data

9 was complete and consistent, but I made no

10 attempt to analyze it.

11 Q. Have you drawn any conclusions from

12 the data regarding a comparison of the

13 dissolved oxygen levels at cattail sites

14 versus sawgrass sites or cattail sites versus

15 open water sites?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you know if a comparison has been

18 or will be made between the dissolved oxygen

19 data at cattail sites versus sawgrass sites or

20 cattail sites versus open water sites?

21 A. I don't know. I understand it will

22 be done by others.

23 Q. And that would be John Davis?

24 A. That's my understanding, but I don't

25 know for sure.

1 Q. During the course of your dissolved

2 oxygen investigation, did you encounter any

3 problems with the Hydrolab units?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What problems did you encounter?

6 A. Pursuant to our quality control

7 efforts, we had trouble with one of the units

8 which we returned to Hydrolab.

9 They provided us with a replacement

10 loaner unit while they were working on the

11 original unit. Upon their returning that unit

12 to us, United Parcel Service dropped it out of

13 a truck and it got run over and came to us in

14 many pieces.

15 And then we went through a

16 protracted process of getting insurance

17 payment for the unit, all of which -- during

18 which time we kept using the loaner unit.

19 Eventually we got back to our three

20 original units. As I recall, the problems

21 with -- the initial problems were related to

22 difficulty in calibration for that particular

23 unit and we worked with Hydrolab.

24 They were very cooperative in

25 repairing it. I can't remember if it was a

1 software problem or an electrical problem. It

2 should all appear in the field notes.

3 Q. During the time that you were having

4 trouble calibrating the unit that you

5 replaced, did you get to collect any data?

6 A. There was one episode which is noted

7 in the record as being of unacceptable

8 quality.

9 Q. Was there any period during which

10 you were only using less than three Hydrolab

11 units?

12 A. I believe there was one sampling

13 episode where we were at ESP five and six,

14 which you will recall that at that location we

15 only used two units. There was no open water

16 location. And for that sampling event, the

17 data from one unit was not usable.

18 Q. Over the course of the study, on how

19 many occasions did you determine that data

20 collected with a Hydrolab unit were unusable?

21 A. As I recall, on one or two

22 occasions, but that's listed in a summary of

23 data quality in the materials provided to you.

24 Q. Did you do an overall summary of

25 data quality covering the entire

1 investigation?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When was that summary written?

4 A. It's an ongoing summary that I

5 believe is complete up through but does not

6 include the most recent sampling event.

7 Q. Have you provided documentation of

8 the overall summary of data quality?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Will that summary then be updated at

11 some point in the future?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you describe to me briefly what

14 analysis you did of the data to insure quality

15 of the data?

16 A. As I mentioned before, the primary

17 indicator was the calibration and the checking

18 procedure using water in a pail which had been

19 saturated with dissolved oxygen. The data was

20 then checked with field Winklers and also

21 collected against YSI readings in the field.

22 The data was checked for consistency

23 when all three units were in the pail together

24 and the decision on quality of the data was

25 based on judgment, assimilating all of that

1 information, and all of that information

2 appears on field notes and in the

3 documentation provided.

4 Q. Did you do any calculations

5 involving the data to determine whether it was

6 of acceptable quality?

7 A. According to the DERQAQC

8 requirements, we made continuing calculations

9 of precision and accuracy.

10 Q. What do you mean by "precision and

11 accuracy"?

12 A. There is a formula spelled out both

13 in the QAQC document and in the materials

14 provided to you which provides that

15 information.

16 Q. Are precision and accuracy the same

17 things?

18 A. No.

19 Q. What is the difference?

20 A. Typically I would have to refer to

21 my notes to see which is which, but precision,

22 as I recall, has to do with the repeatability

23 of measurements and accuracy has to do with

24 the relation of the measurements to an

25 absolute standard.

1 Q. I am going to turn now to the

2 topographic work you have conducted on the

3 conservation areas. I understand that you

4 performed or participated in a topographic

5 analysis of some portion of the water

6 conservation area; is that correct?

7 A. My job was to essentially act as the

8 client's representative in terms of helping to

9 select an outside contractor to perform the

10 work and then working with and assisting the

11 outside contractor to get the job done.

12 Q. Specifically what work are you

13 talking about?

14 A. The preparation of topographic maps

15 of Conservation Area 2A and a small portion of

16 3A.

17 Q. What portion of 3A did you assist in

18 preparing a topo map for?

19 A. An area generally west of the S-9

20 pump station, south of the east-west canal

21 that leads to the west from the S-9 pump

22 station; north of the levee, which I recall is

23 L-67-A which separates Conservation Area 3-A

24 from 3-B and extending a distance of

25 approximately three or four miles west of pump

1 station S-9.

2 Q. I understood you yesterday to say

3 that preparation of this topographic map of

4 area 2-A and parts of area 3-A is not yet

5 complete; is that correct?

6 A. That's incorrect.

7 Q. The topo map has been completed?

8 A. There are two different topo maps.

9 Q. Are either of the topo maps

10 complete?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Is there one topo map of Water

13 Conservation Area 2-A and the other a topo map

14 of a portion of Area 3-A.

15 A. No, I am treating the work done by

16 Keith and Schnars as one topo map and the work

17 being done by myself in evaluating historical

18 data as a second topo map.

19 Q. Keith and Schnars, is that the

20 contractor that conducted the survey work in

21 Area 2-A, Conservation Area 2-A?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. Do the two topo maps you just

24 mentioned cover the same geographic area?

25 A. No, however, the area covered by the

1 Keith and Schnars survey is included in the

2 other topo map.

3 Q. Keith and Schnars topo map is the

4 one that covers Area 2-A and parts of Area

5 3-A; is that right?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. What does the other topo map that

8 you are preparing, what geographic area does

9 that cover?

10 A. From Orlando to Florida Bay.

11 Q. When was the work begun on the

12 topographic map that Keith and Schnars is

13 preparing?

14 A. I recall it was in November of

15 1992.

16 Q. The survey work for Keith and

17 Schnars topo map has been completed; is that

18 right?

19 A. I understand the field work has been

20 completed, however, I understand that their

21 final map and report has not been completed.

22 Q. Do you know during what time period

23 the field work involved in the preparation of

24 the Keith and Schnars map was conducted?

25 A. I recall it was over a period from

1 November through February, November, 1991,

2 through February of 1993.

3 Q. November 19th, 1992?

4 A. I am sorry, November, 1992.

5 Q. And were you involved in the field

6 work done in connection with the preparation

7 of the Keith and Schnars topo map?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What was your involvement in the

10 field work?

11 A. I participated with them on a

12 reconnaissance of the area and a trial of

13 proposed methods. I now recall that that

14 reconnaissance may have occurred in October,

15 but I believe it was November of 1992.

16 Q. What was involved in conducting the

17 reconnaissance?

18 A. To ascertain the feasibility of

19 using the GPS positioning system using

20 airboats and using sounding poles to record

21 water depths in Conservation Area 2-A.

22 Q. Did you do a reconnaissance trip to

23 Area 3A also?

24 A. I did not do a reconnaissance trip,

25 but I was there with them as they were

1 carrying out their work for a portion of the

2 work in 3-A.

3 Q. What was involved in the conducting

4 the trial of methods?

5 A. We were mainly interested in the use

6 of airboats along sounding lines, spacing

7 between points where we would stop to take

8 soundings, such that we could get an idea of

9 the time required to carry out a survey based

10 on different intervals between sounding

11 locations.

12 Q. Was there anything else involved in

13 the trial of methods?

14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, I will

15 object, not so much to relevancy, but perhaps

16 you are unaware that there has been two

17 depositions of the Keith and Schnars

18 representatives that designed and actually

19 conducted all of this, that participated and

20 were there all the time as opposed to

21 Mr. Larsen. It was quite lengthy and quite

22 detailed.

23 You know, I don't mind going through

24 this a little bit, but it's going to be a

25 waste of time if we go through all that when

1 they were deposed for several days on minutia

2 detail on how these surveys were done.

3 But I am just saying that perhaps

4 you are not aware that Keith and Schnars has

5 been deposed. I don't know if you are or

6 not. You can answer the question.

7 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I asked you if

8 there was anything else involved in the trial

9 of methods?

10 A. The idea was to determine how long

11 it would take to do the survey, to test the

12 airboat, to test the sounding pole, to test

13 procedures for recording the data, to

14 determine, as I mentioned before, I think, how

15 long it would take to do a sounding line, and

16 I think that that was the purpose and that was

17 what we did in the reconnaissance effort.

18 Q. Can you describe to me the

19 methodology that was employed once the actual

20 survey work was initiated.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Please do.

23 MR. KOBELINSKI: I will raise an

24 objection because this is just repetitive

25 testimony. I was actually recommended --

1 unfortunately Bob Johnson left the room but

2 Bob Johnson, I know, sat through at least one

3 and possibly two days of deposition with Keith

4 and Schnars.

5 Again, perhaps you would like to

6 consult with him and find out whether or not

7 these questions are necessary at all. It's

8 just very repetitive testimony going through

9 the methodology. In other words, the Keith

10 and Schnars people have been deposed

11 extensively as to what the methodology has

12 been.

13 MR. GARVER: Mr. Larsen has not been

14 deposed extensively.

15 MR. KOBELINSKI: He is not the

16 surveyor. He said he was there to coordinate.

17 MR. GARVER: You can answer my

18 question.

19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, I know at

20 the end of this deposition, because you

21 intimated as much yesterday, that you will say

22 you are not going to be done by Friday, and if

23 you are wasting time on repetitive testimony,

24 I know you are going to get objections at the

25 end of the deposition when you want to

1 continue it.

2 MR. GARVER: Mr. Kobelinski, this

3 isn't repetitive testimony if Mr. Larsen

4 hasn't testified about it.

5 MR. KOBELINSKI: It is if he has

6 stated he was not a surveyor, he just was

7 there from time to time observing. And the

8 deposition of the surveyor has been taken on

9 their methodology, and you are asking the same

10 questions of this witness when they have

11 already been deposed. So, yes, it is quite

12 repetitive.

13 MR. GARVER: I disagree completely,

14 Mr. Kobelinski, as I am sure you are not

15 surprised. You can answer the question,

16 Mr. Larsen.

17 A. The general procedure as I

18 understand it, I am not an expert in

19 geographic positioning system survey

20 techniques, nor am I a registered surveyor,

21 but the general procedure was to establish a

22 grid of known locations that were -- would be

23 determined from GPS procedures, and at these

24 known locations, the surveyors would determine

25 the horizontal position with great accuracy as

1 well as the vertical position relative to an

2 established datum.

3 In other words, that the surveyors

4 would create a grid known benchmarks that were

5 precisely located, X coordinate, Y coordinate

6 and Z coordinate, that once these known

7 locations were established and marked with

8 iron pipes which comprise a somewhat permanent

9 marker, that then a water level staff would be

10 located in conjunction with each of them:

11 And the water level staff would be

12 related to the known elevations of the top of

13 its pipe such that subsequently an airboat or

14 other vehicle could visit the location and

15 read the water level staff and be able to

16 correct that reading to a known datum which

17 was the same for all staffs.

18 It was not necessary to determine

19 the X and Y locations of these benchmarks to

20 accuracies of milliliters for the purpose of

21 the survey, however, it was necessary to

22 locate the X and Y position to that accuracy

23 in order to be able to determine the Z

24 coordinate relative to the known datum.

25 Thus, the first phase, if you want

1 to describe it that way, of the survey was to

2 determine a grid of benchmarks at an

3 approximate spacing of three to four miles

4 throughout the area.

5 The second step would then be to run

6 survey lines where the airboat was located

7 using GPS in a kinematic mode such that the

8 accuracy of a location could be determined,

9 the X and Y coordinates, to a matter of feet,

10 and the Z coordinate or the elevation of the

11 soil, as well as the elevation of the

12 underlying rock could be determined in

13 relationship to the water level.

14 The water level having been

15 corrected using the network of known

16 benchmarks. The water levels in Conservation

17 Area 2-A or anywhere else in the Everglades,

18 is most likely a sloping surface such that

19 it's necessary to define that sloping surface

20 in the area where sounding lines are being run

21 so that water depth can be corrected back to

22 common datum.

23 The procedure then for creating the

24 survey was to run sounding lines, use

25 kinematic GPS for location along those

1 sounding lines, to use a sounding pole to

2 determine water depth, to use a probing rod to

3 determine the depth of the rock beneath the

4 water surface, and then to correct those

5 measurements later in the office based on the

6 sloping water surfaces defined by the series

7 of benchmarks.

8 This required, of course, that water

9 level readings at those benchmarks be made

10 coincident with the sounding lines. The

11 surveyors, as I understand it, are able to

12 certify the accuracy of those procedures and

13 will do so in sealed surveys with the

14 appropriate notes as to their accuracy.

15 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Are you familiar

16 with a system of ordering land surveys as

17 first order, second order or third order, and

18 so on?

19 A. Generally familiar, but I am not --

20 I know I have read about it. It was a topic

21 when I took courses in surveying in college.

22 So yes, I have heard of the system.

23 Q. What is your understanding of that

24 system of ordering?

25 A. I would have to refer to a

1 reference. I don't have any specific

2 understanding other than first order is a

3 higher level of accuracy than third order.

4 Q. Do you know what order of survey the

5 survey work that was done in connection with

6 the Keith and Schnars topographic map was?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Do you know what order of accuracy

9 the benchmarks that were used in connection

10 with the Keith and Schnars topographic map

11 work?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. Have you done any comparison of the

14 results of the Keith and Schnars topographic

15 work with any other topographic surveys of the

16 Everglades Protection Area?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Do you know if any comparisons have

19 been made between the Keith and Schnars

20 topographic work and other topographic surveys

21 of the Everglades Protection Area?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you intend to do any such

24 comparison?

25 A. I don't have any plans to do so. I

1 suppose it would be easy to do but I have no

2 plans to do so.

3 Q. Have you relied on the Keith and

4 Schnars topographic analysis in developing

5 your anticipated expert testimony in this

6 proceeding?

7 A. I have not. It's possible that when

8 the survey is completed that I might.

9 Q. I understood you yesterday to say

10 that the survey would be complete in April

11 sometime; does that sound right?

12 A. I understand approximately

13 mid-April.

14 Q. How might you rely on that survey

15 when it's complete?

16 MR. KOBELINSKI: Objection, calls

17 for speculation.

18 A. As I mentioned before, I don't have

19 any plans at this time, nor have I formulated

20 any conceptual ideas. However, as we sit

21 here, it's possible that I would compare it

22 with other surveys.

23 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Do you know what

24 the purpose of conducting the Keith and

25 Schnars topographic survey was?

1 A. I believe that other people working

2 on this case were interested in it as a basis

3 for descriptions of water flow in Conservation

4 Area 2-A.

5 Q. Do you know what, about flow in

6 Water Conservation 2-A, people were interested

7 in finding out?

8 A. A determination of flow is dependent

9 upon an understanding of topography and it's

10 my understanding that prior to this map there

11 was no adequate information available for that

12 purpose.

13 Q. Was there existing information that

14 was deemed inadequate, to your knowledge?

15 A. There was information available in

16 the Soil Conservation Service reports based on

17 surveys done between 1940 and 1942, and, to my

18 knowledge, that was the most recent available

19 information.

20 Q. That was a 1948 Soil Conservation

21 Service report that you mentioned earlier in

22 the deposition?

23 A. That's correct.

24 MR. GARVER: Let me take maybe two

25 minutes here.

1 (A brief recess was here had).

2 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Are you still

3 involved with the Keith and Schnars

4 topographical survey?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What is your involvement at this

7 point?

8 A. Strictly as a coordinator to

9 facilitate their work.

10 Q. What is involved in providing this

11 coordination?

12 A. The question was am I still involved

13 and so you are interested in what I am doing

14 now?

15 Q. What is involved, in general, in the

16 coordination work you have done and will do?

17 A. I made arrangements for, among other

18 things, helicopters and airboats. I arranged

19 to build stands for their tripods, and install

20 iron pipes. I worked with them to work out a

21 level of effort that would be somewhat

22 commensurate with a budget. And my job was to

23 communicate and work with them so that the

24 needs of the client were accomplished, given

25 money restraints.

1 So I was facilitator, coordinator,

2 and basically the client's representative to

3 work with them as a consultant to carry out

4 the work. I assisted them with logistics and,

5 as I said, we physically assisted them by

6 building stands and installing benchmarks.

7 Q. Did you yourself, as Larsen &

8 Associates, install the benchmarks?

9 A. Mr. Homeyer and another person who

10 either works for or with Hydrologic Associates

11 installed the benchmarks and stands for the

12 tripods.

13 Q. Did those benchmarks receive some

14 sort of a certification or approval,

15 Government certification or approval?

16 A. Not to my knowledge.

17 Q. How was the accuracy of those

18 benchmarks established?

19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Asked and

20 answered.

21 A. Their location, relative to

22 coordinate systems, was entirely accomplished

23 by Keith and Schnars using their GPS

24 procedures. Their installation, which may be

25 the question that you are asking, was

1 accomplished with a very big sledge hammer.

2 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) How much money was

3 budgeted for the Keith and Schnars topo survey

4 work?

5 A. Initially $55,000 for Keith and

6 Schnars and approximately $16,000 for airboat

7 charter and support provided by Larsen &

8 Associates.

9 Q. What airboat and helicopter services

10 did you use for the Keith and Schnars topo

11 survey work?

12 A. We generally worked with, for

13 airboats, Tom Shirley -- I think he calls his

14 company, Everglades Airboat Tours, and for

15 helicopter charter we worked with a helicopter

16 firm in Pompono. I can't remember the name of

17 the company.

18 Q. Is that the same helicopter service

19 that you used when you did the flight

20 transects over Water Conservation Areas 2-A

21 and 1-A when you did the vegetation mapping

22 work there?

23 A. As I recall, it was not.

24 Q. Do you recall what helicopter

25 service you used for the vegetation mapping

1 work over Conservation Area 2-A and

2 Conservation Area 1-A?

3 MR. KOBELINSKI: Objection, asked

4 and answered.

5 MR. GARVER: I didn't ask that.

6 MR. KOBELINSKI: You asked it and it

7 was responded to yesterday.

8 MR. GARVER: I think you are right.

9 A. I recall that that was a company

10 called Crescent Airways, which is located in,

11 I think, Pembroke Pines.

12 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I want to turn now

13 to the other topo map you mentioned, the map

14 that you said you created; is that correct?

15 A. It's a map that is work in

16 progress.

17 Q. Are you doing the work?

18 A. Larsen & Associates, yes.

19 Q. Are you involved in that work?

20 A. Yes, I am.

21 Q. What is your involvement in that

22 work?

23 A. To supervise.

24 Q. Who else is involved in putting

25 together that topo map?

1 A. Kevin Plut, P-l-u-t.

2 Q. If you could describe to me what

3 work is being done to put together the map

4 that Kevin Plut and you are working on.

5 A. We are assembling existing

6 topographic data in an effort to prepare a

7 topographic map of the region of Florida

8 stretching from just south of Orlando to

9 Florida Bay, and, generally, from the Atlantic

10 Ocean to a point where -- to a point which is

11 beyond a drainage divide which would separate

12 the Everglades drainage basin from other

13 drainage basins.

14 Q. What resources are you using to

15 assemble this topographic map?

16 A. The paper copies of the United

17 States Geological Survey quadrangle sheets,

18 the electronic copies of those quad sheets

19 which we obtained from the water management

20 district, the Soil Conservation Service map

21 which was presented in the 1948 report,

22 topographic maps that appear in the 1943 Davis

23 report, and we may use, although we have not

24 to date used, topographic information

25 available from Dade County.

1 Q. How are you using the paper copies

2 of the USGS quads?

3 A. As you know, a quad tree is a map

4 that is approximately two feet by two feet in

5 size, and it contains a lot of detail. The

6 map of -- that area will be reduced in size on

7 the map that we hope to produce or that we

8 will produce to an area of perhaps less than

9 two inches by two inches.

10 If all the data was transferred from

11 the big map to the little map, the little map

12 would be undecipherable. Therefore it's

13 necessary to simplify the information and edit

14 the information on the big map, such that when

15 it's transferred to the small map, it will be

16 useful.

17 Q. What are you doing to edit the

18 information from the USGS quads?

19 A. We are using judgment to select

20 contours, land contours that are

21 representative.

22 Q. What sort of criteria do you use to

23 exercise the judgment in selecting contours

24 from those USGS quads?

25 A. It's a case by case basis, but the

1 prime criteria is how, for example, a 25-foot

2 contour would generally run through the quad

3 sheet that we are looking at as well as how it

4 would connect to the adjacent quadrangle

5 sheets in a fashion that is consistent with

6 the information on all of those sheets.

7 There may be places where that

8 contour goes around and becomes confusing

9 because of anthropogenic features such as

10 roads or canals. The aim of the map is to

11 attempt to show topographic conditions in

12 general before anthropogenic changes, so it's

13 necessary to use judgment on the big maps to

14 select features which would represent the way

15 things were before man changed the area.

16 Q. What are you doing to remove the

17 anthropogenic features from the USGS quads in

18 creating the smaller map that you are

19 producing?

20 A. As I explained, in many cases an

21 elevated road will cross an area, in which

22 case the modern contour will then depart it's

23 former location and will follow the road off

24 to the edge of the quadrangle sheet along the

25 berm that was constructed for the road.

1 We would use judgment to view what

2 those contours would have been and how they

3 would have connected to each other if that

4 road had never been built. There are many

5 places where the same sort of thing occurs,

6 for example, with a five-foot contour when

7 drainage canals are built, and modern contours

8 will take off along the drainage canal, which

9 is obviously a departure from the way things

10 were to start with.

11 Q. What anthropogenic features are you

12 attempting to discount in creating this map --

13 in the map you are creating?

14 A. Roads, levees, canals, and where

15 information is available, the effects of

16 subsidence.

17 Q. In what geographic areas or what

18 portion of the geographic area in your mapping

19 have you been able to discount the effects of

20 subsidence?

21 A. There appears to be data available

22 in the Soil Conservation Service report, 1948,

23 a Davis report, 1943, Corp of Engineers

24 reports from approximately 1955, the

25 mid-1950s, which portray conditions before

1 subsidence occurred.

2 Q. Where, specifically, within the

3 geographic area covered by your map have

4 anthropogenic effects of subsidence occurred?

5 A. Wherever wetlands have been

6 drained.

7 Q. Are you attempting to discount

8 subsidance within the Everglades Agricultural

9 Area with the map you are creating?

10 A. I don't understand your use of the

11 word, "discount."

12 Q. Okay.

13 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record for

14 a second.

15 (A brief off-the-record discussion

16 was here had).

17 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I understood you to

18 state earlier that in creating the map you are

19 creating you are attempting to remove

20 anthropogenic changes in the topography from

21 the map you are creating; is that correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. So I guess when I use the word,

24 "discount," I mean, "remove."

25 A. Okay.

1 Q. Then my question would be: Have you

2 attempted to remove the anthropogenic effects

3 of subsidence in the Everglades Agricultural

4 Area in creating the map?

5 A. Not as yet, but I intend to.

6 Q. If you know, how would you go about

7 removing the anthropogenic effects of

8 subsidence on the Everglades Agricultural

9 Area?

10 A. The Davis map from 1943 provides an

11 estimate of presubsidence contours. Corp

12 documents from the mid-50s provide estimates

13 of presubsidence conditions, and I will

14 attempt to use all available information,

15 including estimates of subsidence provided by

16 the Soil Conservation Service in their 1948

17 report to estimate conditions, say, before

18 1880, or at 1880, before there were changes in

19 the system.

20 Q. Do you have an understanding of when

21 subsidence due to anthropogenic causes began

22 occurring in the Everglades Agricultural Area?

23 A. As soon as drainage was provided.

24 Q. As soon as --

25 A. Drainage was provided.

1 Q. Do you know when the drainage of the

2 Everglades Agricultural Area was begun?

3 A. In approximately 1905.

4 Q. How are you using electronic copies

5 of quad sheets from the South Florida Water

6 Management District in creating this topo map?

7 A. The electronic copies are in a GIS

8 format, and we obtained the information

9 because we thought it would be easier than

10 using the paper copies.

11 But it turned out that, as I

12 understand it, the water management district

13 had used a subcontractor to digitize all of

14 the contours on the quad sheets, and so in

15 some cases, there were just too much

16 information to be useful when we replotted the

17 information back out on the paper copy.

18 In other cases, the information was

19 of limited enough nature so that we could use

20 the electronic contours. It's our

21 understanding that the electronic contours are

22 simply digitized versions of the paper copies.

23 So in some cases, we were able to use it to

24 save the step of digitizing the information.

25 But, to be perfectly honest, it was

1 not terribly useful because it was too much

2 information. And, as I mentioned before, the

3 electronic versions show the modern contours

4 which are sometimes very confusing due to

5 roads and canals and drainage work and so we

6 then had to use a combination of, when that

7 happened, of the paper copy as well as the

8 electronic version to simplify the land

9 contour information to a point where it was

10 useful in the context of a bigger map.

11 But by bigger map, I mean that the

12 size of the area covered by the quad sheet was

13 much smaller than on the quad sheet itself.

14 Q. How are you using the maps and other

15 information included in the Soil Conservation

16 Service 1948 report in creating this

17 topographic map?

18 A. We started by digitizing the

19 information from that report as the starting

20 point for this overall map. We are then

21 checking it against information on the quad

22 sheet and information from the Corp and

23 sources like the Davis report for changes

24 between, say, 1900 and 1945.

25 Q. What time period does the

1 topographic information in the 1948 Soil

2 Conservation Service report cover?

3 A. It's 1940 to 1942.

4 Q. Do the maps and the information in

5 the 1949 Soil Conservation Service report

6 include any anthropogenic features, I mean,

7 the effects of any anthropogenic features on

8 the topography of the covered area that

9 existed in 1940 through 1942?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In creating the map you are

12 creating, are you doing anything to remove the

13 anthropogenic features that existed during the

14 1940 to 1942 period?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What are you doing to remove those

17 anthropogenic features?

18 A. We are using information contained

19 in Corp reports and in the Davis report, and

20 we will be using any other information that we

21 can get to describe conditions in, say, 1880,

22 before any changes to the area occurred, any

23 anthropogenic changes occurred.

24 Q. So is your goal then to represent in

25 your map as much as possible the topographic

1 features that existed in roughly 1880?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. What time period does the topo map

4 and other information in the 1943 Davis report

5 cover?

6 A. The Davis report covers an estimate

7 of historical topography, which is

8 presubsidence topography.

9 Q. What do you mean by

10 "presubsidence"?

11 A. The topography before the area was

12 drained.

13 Q. Is that, roughly, the topography

14 that existed in 1880?

15 A. Roughly.

16 Q. Why don't you just use the Davis

17 report to create the map?

18 A. We want to rely on as many different

19 independent sources as possible.

20 Q. What Corp documents are you using to

21 remove the anthropogenic features that existed

22 in 1940 and 1942, that are reflected in the

23 1948 Soil Conservation Service report?

24 A. As I recall, it was the general

25 design memorandum of Conservation Area 3.

1 Q. Have you observed any conflicting

2 information in and among the various resources

3 you are using to create this map?

4 A. No.

5 Q. How do you choose which data to use,

6 as a best data to use from these various

7 sources for purposes of creating a map?

8 A. Judgment.

9 Q. And what criteria, what factors, do

10 you consider in exercising judgment in

11 selecting the most appropriate data?

12 A. The judged quality of the individual

13 report or source as well as its similarity or

14 difference to other sources or reports of

15 topographic information.

16 Obviously, I was not there in 1880,

17 and I have to rely on the reports and

18 estimates done as far back as possible.

19 And so the judgment comes in

20 assessing the nature of the individual

21 document or source, and then considering as

22 well as it's interrelationship with all of the

23 other documents t