1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 3 4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988 5 6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040 7 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. ) 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 GEOFFREY GARVER, Esquire Assistant U.S. Attorney 4 155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 5 6 MARK T. KOBELINSKI, Equire 7 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 8 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 9 10 PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire 11 Popham & Haik 4000 International Place 12 Miami, Florida 33131 13 14 ROBERT JOHNSON Everglades National Park 15 16 C O N T I N U A T I O N 17 18 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. 24 25 3 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. 4 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. 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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. 9 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 10 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 11 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 -- 12 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 13 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. 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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. 18 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 19 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 20 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? 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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. 26 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 27 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 28 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. 29 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 30 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. 31 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 32 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 33 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. 34 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 35 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 36 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? 37 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. 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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. 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 -- 48 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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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 53 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 54 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? 55 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. 56 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. 57 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 58 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 59 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? 60 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. 61 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 62 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. 63 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 64 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. 65 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. 66 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 67 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 68 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 69 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. 70 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 that are available. 24 MR. GARVER: I am going to need a 25 full hour for lunch to take care of some 71 1 things, so why don't we break now and meet 2 again at 1:15. 3 (A luncheon recess was here had). 4 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Before we broke for 5 lunch, we were discussing the different 6 resources you used in creating the topographic 7 map you have been working on with Kevin Plut 8 and I understood you to say that in 9 determining which data to rely on from various 10 resources to include in creating the map you 11 made some assessment of the reliability or 12 quality of the information contained in the 13 various resources; is that correct? 14 A. I believe I characterized it that I 15 would be doing that rather than I had done 16 that. I have identified sources of 17 information which I will use but I have not 18 yet done that. 19 As I think I made it very clear, 20 this was work in progress, and so what I 21 provided for you is my plan, as well as the 22 status of the work at this time. 23 Q. I guess I am not clear on that then. 24 When did you commence work on this topographic 25 map? 72 1 A. I believe in November of 1992. It 2 could have been October. I don't remember the 3 exact date. 4 Q. In terms of -- how far along are you 5 in the process of incorporating data and 6 information from the various resources you 7 listed before lunch into the map you are 8 creating? 9 A. We have provided a copy of the 10 present status of the map which I think is the 11 best indicator of current progress. 12 Q. Does the map that you provided 13 incorporate information that you have obtained 14 from various resources you listed before 15 lunch? 16 A. The copy you have, which is very 17 recent, provides a very recent status of it, 18 should contain information obtained from USGS 19 quad sheets and the 1948 Soil Conservation 20 Service report. 21 Q. Am I correct in assuming that it 22 does not incorporate information from any of 23 the other resources you mentioned before 24 lunch? 25 A. At this time, it does not. 73 1 Q. Have you made any assessment of the 2 quality or reliability of the various sources 3 you mentioned before lunch in terms of the 4 data and information you will use from them in 5 creating the map? 6 A. Not as yet, other than that we 7 noticed some discrepancies between the USGS 8 data and the Soil Conservation Service data as 9 we attempted to join the two independent 10 sources. 11 Q. What kind of discrepancies did you 12 find between the USGS maps and the Soil 13 Conservation Service data? 14 A. Basically that the contour maps 15 didn't line up, match up. 16 Q. Do the USGS maps and the Soil 17 Conservation Service maps cover the same time 18 period? 19 A. No, the USGS maps are typically -- 20 have a more recent date. 21 Q. What is your purpose for creating 22 this map? 23 A. To describe conditions prior to 24 anthropogenic changes to the drainage basin, 25 and to then compare with more recent data, 74 1 short changes. 2 Q. What kind of changes? 3 A. More recent data to show changes. 4 Q. Why are you interested in looking at 5 changes between the recent data and the 6 information that will be included in your map? 7 A. As one of the ways to show the 8 extent of changes to the natural system. 9 MR. GARVER: Off the record for a 10 second. 11 (A brief off-the-record discussion 12 was here had). 13 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Why don't we take a 14 look at the map you provided. 15 MR. GARVER: Can we mark this as 16 Larsen Deposition Exhibit 100? 17 (Larsen Deposition Exhibit No. 100 18 was here marked for identification purposes by 19 the court reporter). 20 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Mr. Larsen, I am 21 showing you what's been marked as Larsen 22 Exhibit 100; can you identify this exhibit. 23 A. This exhibit represents work in 24 progress and shows contours, land contours, in 25 the general vicinity between Orlando and 75 1 Florida Bay. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: If you don't mind, 3 for the sake of the record it also bears a 4 No. LAR 1100578, just for identification 5 purposes. 6 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) When was this map 7 created? It states March 3rd, 1993, on it; is 8 that the date it was created? 9 A. This map was created over an 10 extended period of time and represents the 11 status of the map on March 3rd, 1993. As I 12 mentioned before, this is work in progress and 13 additional work has been done since March 3rd, 14 and it's ongoing at the present time and will 15 continue. 16 Q. Am I correct in understanding that 17 this map is based solely on USGS quads and 18 1948 Soil Conservation Service reports? 19 A. This particular map is based on USGS 20 quad sheets and 1948 Soil Conservation Service 21 reports. 22 Q. Do you anticipate revising any 23 portions of this map? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Which portions of the map do you 76 1 anticipate revising? 2 A. I anticipate editing and revising 3 and adding information to perhaps the entire 4 map. 5 Q. Can you tell me -- there is a series 6 of code bands labeled as 25, 50, 75, 100, and 7 so on, up to 200; can you tell me what those 8 color lines represent? 9 A. That's a color code for contours of 10 the elevations stated. 11 Q. Those are feet; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Is that feet above mean sea level or 14 something like that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Feet above mean sea level? 17 A. It is feet above NGVD and I will 18 have to confirm -- I know that that is the 19 case, or the data from the quad sheet, I will 20 have to confirm that for the data from the 21 Soil Conservation Service map. I believe it 22 is for both. 23 Q. Do you recall what the source of the 24 data was for the information contained on this 25 map depicted in the area south of Lake 77 1 Okeechobee in roughly the area where the 2 Everglades Agricultural Area is today? 3 A. The source is a survey conducted by 4 the Soil Conservation Service between 1940 and 5 1942 as modified by myself to take out 6 subsidence associated with various drainage 7 canals which run through the area, and so that 8 the land contours here on this particular map, 9 this particular version of the map, is 10 somewhat simplified from those shown for the 11 EAA or what is now the Everglades Agricultural 12 Area on the 1940 and 1942 Soil Conservation 13 Service survey. 14 Q. How did you remove the effects of 15 subsidence in creating this particular version 16 of this map in the area of the Everglades 17 Agricultural Area? 18 A. This particular version of the map 19 is simply a simplification of the Soil 20 Conservation Service data in their report of 21 1940 and carried out from 1940 to 1942. 22 My interpretation of subsidence may 23 change from -- this does not depict the final 24 version of the map for what is now the EAA 25 area. 78 1 Q. My question was how you have removed 2 the effects of subsidence in creating this 3 particular map of the Everglades Agricultural 4 Area? 5 A. The map shows subsidence valleys 6 running up concurrent with the drainage canals 7 and in this map their subsidence valleys have 8 been removed. 9 Q. Which canals are you referring to? 10 A. The Miami Canal, the Hillsborough 11 Canal, the North New River Canal and possibly 12 the Palm Beach Canal. 13 Q. Mr. Larsen, are you familiar with 14 any estimates or actual data of presubsidence 15 lake levels, at Lake Okeechobee levels? 16 A. I have seen information in the 17 materials that I have reviewed that referred 18 to Lake Okeechobee levels. 19 MR. KOBELINSKI: By the way, I will 20 object to the form of the question. I am not 21 sure what Counsel means by subsidence in 22 referring to Lake Okeechobee. 23 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I was using 24 presubsidence in the manner that you used the 25 term presubsidence earlier, and I believe you 79 1 said that was referring roughly to the 2 conditions that existed in around 1880. 3 What data or information have you 4 seen regarding presubsidence Lake Okeechobee 5 levels? 6 A. Corp documents indicated elevations 7 of Lake Okeechobee about 20.5 feet. 8 Q. Am I correct in understanding Larsen 9 Exhibit 100 just shows the level of Lake 10 Okeechobee to be 14 feet? 11 A. That's probably true, because this 12 is based on more modern data than 1880. 13 Q. Will the elevation of Lake 14 Okeechobee levels be something that you will 15 be changing or editing as you revise the map 16 depicted in Larsen Exhibit 100? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If historic Lake Okeechobee levels 19 were on the order of 20 feet, does that 20 indicate that the elevations in the area that 21 is now the Everglades Agricultural Area would 22 be higher than they are depicted in Larsen 23 Exhibit 100? 24 A. Yes, I believe they were. 25 Q. So I take it then that the 80 1 elevations in the area that's now the 2 Everglades Agricultural Area is another thing 3 that you will be revising as you revise this 4 map; is that right? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Do you know what resources in 7 particular you will be using to revise the 8 elevation information depicted on this map in 9 the area that's now the Everglades 10 Agricultural Area? 11 A. Yes, the Davis map for one, Corp of 12 Engineers reports for another, and although I 13 don't have any sources beyond that at this 14 point in time, any other information that I am 15 able to acquire associated with that. 16 Q. What is your time frame for 17 completing this map? 18 A. We are hopeful of completing it in 19 approximately a month. 20 Q. It will probably save time when we 21 reconvene this deposition for a follow-up 22 after you have completed that map to pursue 23 this line of inquiry then rather than waste 24 time during this deposition which, of course, 25 I don't want to do. 81 1 THE WITNESS: Can we take a 2 two-minute break? 3 MR. GARVER: Sure. 4 (A brief recess was here had). 5 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Mr. Larsen, will 6 you be using the topographic map you are 7 creating of historical conditions in the 8 Everglades system in connection with your 9 investigation of soils and water levels in the 10 Everglades? 11 A. I anticipate that I will. 12 Q. How will you be using the map in 13 connection with your soil work and the water 14 levels? 15 A. The idea is to show the extent of 16 the changes to the system since 1880, and so 17 it will be one of the things that I use to 18 show how much the system has changed. 19 Q. Will you also be using the 20 topographic map you are creating to reach your 21 final opinions regarding the effects of the 22 federal project design in operation? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Have you reviewed the work -- to 25 your knowledge, have you reviewed the work of 82 1 any other expert witnesses that are 2 anticipated to testify in this proceeding? 3 A. I have read a lot of different 4 material, so the answer is yes. 5 Q. Which expert witnesses have you 6 reviewed work of? 7 A. I have read certain annual reports 8 prepared by Doctor Richardson. While I was a 9 member of the SAGE Committee, I reviewed 10 various reports from individuals who I 11 understand will be experts in this 12 proceeding. 13 I have reviewed the SWIM Plan 14 portions of which I understand were prepared 15 by experts. So I can't, off the top of my 16 head, give you a complete list of all the 17 experts' work that I have reviewed, and I 18 don't even have complete knowledge of who all 19 the experts may be. 20 Q. Will you be providing any testimony 21 based on your review of the work of any of the 22 other expert witnesses in this proceeding, to 23 the best of your knowledge? 24 A. Possibly as it relates to the extent 25 of changes to the system. 83 1 Q. Do you know which expert witnesses 2 that have work that will relate to that 3 portion of your testimony? 4 A. There may be others, but I could use 5 possibly some of the work of Doctor Dennis, 6 but there may be others. 7 Q. What work of Doctor Dennis' is it 8 possible that you would rely on? 9 MR. KOBELINSKI: Objection, calls 10 for speculation. 11 A. Possibly vegetation mapping. 12 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Is Doctor Dennis' 13 vegetation map work completed? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Have you reviewed any of the work of 16 Doctor William Walker? 17 A. I have seen it in conjunction with 18 the SAGE Committee, but I haven't reviewed it 19 in detail. 20 Q. What work of Doctor Walker's have 21 you reviewed in conjunction with your service 22 on the SAGE Committee? 23 A. He gave a presentation and I recall 24 that we were handed out material that were 25 associated with it that I looked at, but I did 84 1 not review them in detail. 2 Q. What is your opinion of Doctor 3 Walker's work? 4 A. I really don't have an opinion in 5 that I haven't reviewed his work in detail. 6 Q. Have you reviewed any of the work of 7 Doctor Robert Kadlec? 8 A. I may have briefly reviewed some of 9 his work, but right now, I can't recall what 10 it was. I think I have seen some reports that 11 he has prepared. I may have scanned them, but 12 I haven't prepared comments or anything like 13 that. 14 Q. Have you reviewed the work of Doctor 15 Robert Jones? 16 A. I had the opportunity to sit in on 17 Doctor Jones' deposition a year or so ago and 18 pursuant to that deposition, I reviewed some 19 of his materials for attorneys. 20 Q. What is your opinion of Doctor 21 Jones' work? 22 A. I believe that Doctor Jones' work is 23 probably accurate, however, I recall, at the 24 time, disagreeing with his conclusions. 25 Q. Do you recall which of his 85 1 conclusions you disagree with? 2 A. Doctor Jones made certain 3 assumptions associated with background levels 4 of phosphorus which I disagreed with. 5 Q. What kind of background levels of 6 phosphorus are you referring to? 7 A. As I recall, his analysis showed 8 phosphorus levels in the top ten centimeters 9 of soil starting at a point five miles north 10 of S-12-V, I believe, and extending to a point 11 ten miles south of S-10-Y, therefore it was a 12 transect -- S-12-Y -- I am sorry -- therefore 13 it was a transect that extended for miles. 14 Q. On what did you base your 15 disagreement with Doctor Jones' conclusions 16 regarding those phosphorus levels? 17 A. I believe that transect showed soil 18 phosphorus levels of approximately 500 ppm, 19 gradually diminishing to a level of 200 ppm 20 over the 15 mile extent of the transect with a 21 blip, if you would, of high phosphorus levels 22 immediately adjacent to Highway 41, levels 23 that I recall were in the 1200 and 1300 24 milligram per kilogram range. 25 Doctor Jones seemed to be of the 86 1 opinion that background levels for that entire 2 transect were defined by phosphorus levels at 3 the south end of the transect which were 4 approximately 200 milligrams per kilogram and 5 I personally found it much more likely that 6 there was a gradual dimunition in phosphorus 7 levels from five miles north of the S-12-C 8 structure to a point ten miles south. 9 Q. Why did you think that was likely? 10 A. Excuse me, I didn't hear you. 11 Q. Why did you think that was more 12 likely? 13 A. Because of other data that I had 14 seen, and I think, as I recall, other data 15 collected by Doctor Jones that showed general 16 pristine phosphorus levels in the Everglades 17 of about 500 parts per million in the top ten 18 centimeters of the soil. 19 Q. What other data have you seen that 20 you are referring to? 21 A. I can't recall specifically, but I 22 remember that Doctor Jones had some transects 23 that went across Water Conservation Area 1 and 24 possibly across Conservation Area 2, but I 25 can't recall exactly -- plus I have seen other 87 1 data that indicates that general background 2 levels in the Everglades for soil phosphorus 3 in milligrams per kilogram are about 500. 4 Q. Where do those sources of data other 5 than -- what are the sources of data other 6 than Ron Jones' data that you just referred 7 to? 8 A. I can't recall other than that they 9 are reports that are generally available 10 pursuant to this SWIM process, but I can't 11 recall specifically. 12 Q. Were there any other of Doctor 13 Jones' conclusions you that disagree with? 14 A. I believe that Doctor Jones, based 15 on his assumption of background levels, 16 concluded that values above 200 parts per 17 million were the result of increased 18 phosphorus concentrations somehow related to 19 activities in the Everglades Agricultural 20 Area. 21 Q. Why did you disagree with that 22 conclusion? 23 A. No. 1, I thought that background 24 levels were more accurately defined by the 25 sloping line, and I recall that I did some 88 1 very simple back of the envelope calculations 2 that showed that the quantity of phosphorus 3 and soil using his assumption was impossible. 4 Q. Why did you determine that it was 5 impossible? 6 A. It was -- again, this is completely 7 by recall, if the tons of phosphorus required 8 to raise that amount of soil from 200 to 500 9 over the extent of the area that was affected, 10 it could not have been delivered in the period 11 of time since the S-12 structures started 12 operating. 13 Q. Were there any other reasons that 14 you disagreed with, other than the conclusions 15 of Doctor Jones' you just mentioned? 16 A. There may have been others, but that 17 was basically it. It just didn't add up. 18 Q. Were there any other conclusions of 19 Doctor Jones' that you disagreed with? 20 A. There may have been. I recall that, 21 as I mentioned, there was a blip in the data 22 at Highway 41 where levels went from general 23 values of around 500 up to 1200 or 1400 24 milligrams per kilogram, and I believe that he 25 assigned the cause of that blip in the data 89 1 again to activities in the Everglades 2 Agricultural Area. 3 To me, it was much more likely that 4 that was a feature associated with Highway 41 5 and possibly the tourist and Miccosukee Indian 6 activities along that road. 7 Q. Why do you believe the blip in 8 phosphorus levels that you just mentioned is 9 more likely due to Highway 41 tourist activity 10 and the Miccosukee Indians? 11 A. For example, I have been to the 12 Miccosukee Indian Jamboree, or whatever it's 13 called, in the Christmas season, and there is 14 some 10,000 people that visit the area. I 15 have been there at other times when there have 16 been a lot of tour buses of lots of people and 17 I know that whenever I drive through there, 18 there is an awful lot of people around and 19 those people urinate and deficate while they 20 are there, and that's a possible source of 21 loading that he didn't consider. 22 Q. And you also mentioned Highway 41, 23 why did you think that was a source of the 24 blip that you observed? 25 A. I have seen data that indicates -- I 90 1 am sorry, I have seen data that indicates 2 there is a potential for contamination from 3 automobiles and traffic in general, 4 disturbance of soils, wind blowing dust, and 5 many other things. So in my opinion, there 6 was a strong possibility or probability that 7 that blip in the data could have been caused 8 by all of the activities along Highway 41. 9 For example, there was a tourist 10 visitor center for the national park, a very 11 large parking lot, and