1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 2 STATE OF FLORIDA 3 CASE NOS. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040 4 5 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF ) 6 FLORIDA, et al., ) ) 7 PETITIONERS, ) ) VOLUME II OF II 8 v. ) ) 9 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an Agency of the State ) 10 of Florida, et al., ) ) 11 RESPONDENT. ) ) 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 150 West Flagler Street 14 Miami, Florida October 16, 1992 15 9:00 a.m. 16 17 DEPOSITION OF PAUL LARSEN 18 19 Taken before JACKIE JOHNSON, Professional 20 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 21 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking 22 Deposition filed in the above cause. 23 - - - - - - - 24 25 Page 1 1 APPEARANCES 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 3 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK 4 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard 5 Miami, Florida 33131 BY: Mark Kobelinkski, ESQ. 6 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7 US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 8 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION 9 P.O. BOX 663 Washington, DC 20044 10 BY: Geoffrey Garver, ESQ. 11 12 13 14 15 Page 2 1 Thereupon -- 2 PAUL LARSEN, 3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED 6 BY MR. GARVER: 7 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to turn to Page 91 8 of the Supporting Document of the March 13, 1992 9 Everglades SWIM Plan. I'd like you to read from the 10 section beginning on 91 entitled History of 11 Development of Water Management in the EAA, and read 12 all the way to Page 93 until you get to recent 13 management activities. 14 A. So the entire Section II? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I have read it. 17 Q. Mr. Larsen, based on your studies and 18 investigation of the history of the Federal Project, 19 do you have any factual knowledge or beliefs that are 20 contrary or inconsistent with the language I just 21 asked you to read? 22 A. Let me first say, as I said yesterday, that 23 reading and commenting on material such as this in 24 the context of a deposition is not the way that I 25 would normally review this material. So, therefore, Page 3 1 in my review of it, it's possible that other things 2 would come to mind, given proper reflection upon this 3 material. But with that, I have read it, and there 4 are some things in it that I disagree with. 5 I would, first of all state, though, that 6 this is very much of a simplification of a very long 7 period of history and that, however, as a 8 simplification, it is generally correct, with a few 9 exceptions. 10 Q. And in what respects do you disagree with 11 any statements or facts in the section I just asked 12 you to read? 13 A. Near the bottom of Page 92 it states that, 14 "Agriculture development was of secondary 15 importance." 16 It is my belief, based on the material that 17 I have read, that agricultural development was 18 essential to the cost benefit analysis that enabled 19 the product to be approved. 20 Q. What specifically that you have read or 21 reviewed led you to believe that agriculture was not 22 of secondary importance? 23 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the 24 extent that the question was asked and answered 25 yesterday on two occasions. Page 4 1 BY MR. GARVER: 2 Q. You may answer the question. 3 A. I recall reading the cost benefit analysis, 4 and that analysis had to come out in favor of the 5 project in order for the project to proceed and, 6 thus, a prime justification for doing the project was 7 the benefits to be derived by agriculture. 8 Q. And in what document is the cost benefit 9 analysis you're referring to contained? 10 A. I don't recall at this time. 11 Q. Are there any other respects in which you 12 disagree with the section I just asked you to read? 13 A. On Page 93 at the bottom of the top 14 paragraph it states that, "The purpose of the Flood 15 Control District was to provide flood protection, 16 ensure adequate water supply, and enhance 17 environmental resources of the region." 18 That sentence is incomplete. It does not 19 stress the fact that the purpose of the system was to 20 enable agriculture to provide protection for urban 21 areas, and to provide water for environmental 22 purposes. 23 Q. Are there any other aspects of this section -- 24 A. There may be, given an opportunity to read 25 it more carefully and to reflect upon it. But in Page 5 1 general, as a simplification of the history, I 2 couldn't find anything wrong with it as a 3 simplification. 4 Q. And my question now is going to be: Are 5 there any other aspects of this section with which 6 you disagree? 7 MR. GARVIS: Just for keeping the Record 8 clean, please let me finish my questions before 9 you answer them. Otherwise, they won't appear 10 right on the Record. Excuse me. 11 THE WITNESS: I thought you were done with 12 your question. 13 MR. GARVIS: I understand that you 14 understood or believed you understood where I 15 was going with my question, but on the Record, 16 it was not a complete question. 17 BY MR. GARVER: 18 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd now like you to turn to 19 page 97 of the Supporting Information Document. 20 Please read the section entitled Hydrology and Water 21 Management Features that begins on Page 97 and ends 22 on Page 99 at the next subheading Soils. 23 A. I have read the material. 24 Q. Mr. Larsen, based on your studies and 25 investigation of the history of the Federal Project, Page 6 1 do you have any factual knowledge or beliefs that are 2 inconsistent or contrary to any statements or 3 language in the section I just asked you to read? 4 A. With the same reservation I made in the 5 prior response about reading and evaluating these 6 materials in the context of a deposition, I find that 7 this section is a simplification of a complex 8 situation. 9 However, with a couple of exceptions, I 10 find that as a simplification, this section of 11 Hydrology on Water Management Features which deals 12 specifically with a paragraph that deals with the EAA 13 is generally not incorrect. 14 Q. In what respect do you disagree with any of 15 the statements or language in the section I just 16 asked you to read? 17 A. In the second paragraph it states that, 18 "The canals have four functions, to provide flood 19 protection and drainage, to supply irrigation water 20 to the EAA, and for municipal water supply for the 21 City of West Palm Beach, to make regulatory releases 22 from Lake Okeechobee, and to transfer water from the 23 storage in Lake Okeechobee to water in Conversation 24 Areas." 25 That is correct. However, what it leaves Page 7 1 out is the function of delivering excess drainage 2 from the EAA to the Water Conservation Areas. In 3 other words, the EAA is in that supplier of water to 4 the Conservation Areas, and that function is that 5 supply of water is delivered by the canals mentioned 6 here, and that function is not mentioned in this list 7 in the SWIM Plan. 8 Q. On what do you base your knowledge or 9 belief that the EAA is in that supplier of water? 10 A. Based on my understanding of rainfall and 11 evapotranspiration from agricultural lands. 12 Q. And are there any specific documents or 13 other materials on which you base that belief or 14 knowledge? 15 A. They are contained within, among other 16 locations, a presentation given by Doctor Dale Bocher 17 at the Everglades Coalition meeting in January of 18 1992. 19 Q. Are you aware of any document or other 20 material that concludes that the EAA is not in that 21 supplier of water? 22 A. There may be other documents. I can't 23 recall them at this time. 24 Q. Did you understand the question? 25 MR. GARVER: Could you read it back. Page 8 1 (The question referred to was 2 thereupon read by the reporter as 3 above recorded.) 4 BY MR. GARVER: 5 Q. I was not asking for additional documents, 6 other than the Dale Bocher report. 7 My question is: Whether you were aware of 8 any documents or materials concluding that the EAA is 9 not in that supplier of water? 10 A. I am sorry. Not at this time. 11 Q. Are there any other aspects of the language 12 I asked you to read on Page 97 through 99 of the 13 Supporting Information Document with which you 14 disagree? 15 A. At the top of Page 99, it lists a series of 16 reasons that farmers are allowed to pump more than 17 three-quarters of an inch of runoff per day, and Item 18 1 says, "Not all lands in the basin would be in 19 agricultural production at one time. Two, that some 20 of the land would be planted to water tolerant crops, 21 and three, that the canals in the basin have some 22 storage capacity." 23 That list is correct. However, they leave 24 out the fact that another reason is that the EAA is 25 so large that rainfall is likely to not be uniform, Page 9 1 and that it may rain in one part of the EAA and not 2 in another. Thus, the farmers in that area can pump 3 more than three-quarters of an inch a day but not 4 affect the overall agricultural area. 5 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Counsel, was your 6 question also directed to having him review 7 Figure 14, 15 and 16 on Page 113? 8 MR. GARVER: Yes. My question on this 9 section, and on any section I ask Mr. Larsen to 10 read, should be understood to include any 11 figures that are referenced in the language. 12 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, I guess my 13 question is, Counsel, to the extent you're 14 talking about figures that give numbers and 15 statistical information, for instance, as Figure 16 16 does from 1955 to 1979, is your question, did 17 he verify that data, itself, from his memory or 18 is it just generally whether he is aware of 19 anything that is incorrect with it? Just so I 20 understand. 21 MR. GARVER: Well, my question is whether 22 based on Mr. Larsen's studies and investigation 23 of the history of the Federal Project he has any 24 knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or 25 contrary to any statements or language in the Page 10 1 section I am asking him to read. 2 THE WITNESS: Based on that, I would say 3 that Figure 16 would require more time to 4 evaluate than is available here today. 5 BY MR. GARVER: 6 Q. What would you need to do to evaluate 7 Figure 16? 8 A. I would need more time to review it and 9 understand it fully. 10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Counsel, I guess I will 11 object to the extent that you're asking this 12 witness to look at a graph that gives 25 years 13 of statistical information and confirm whether 14 or not it's accurate without, you know, giving 15 him the time to reference materials that, for 16 instance, were used to make the graph. 17 I don't know that there's anyone who could 18 go ahead and look at a 25 year graph on 19 statistical information and determine from 20 memory that, yes, all the numbers in that are 21 accurate. 22 I will object to forcing him to verify the 23 accuracy just based upon his memory in the 24 deposition. 25 MR. GARVER: Mr. Kobelinkski, this Page 11 1 proceeding as, you know, is to determine whether 2 the Everglades SWIM Plan is valid. 3 I am simply trying to discover any evidence 4 that Mr. Larsen is aware of that would 5 contradict statements in this lawyer. 6 MR. KOBELINKSKI: The graph is not a 7 statement. 8 He can't, from memory, look at 25 years of 9 statistical information and say all those 10 numbers are correct. I mean, he can't do that 11 just sitting here. I don't think anyone could 12 do that from memory, look at that stastical 13 numbers from a 25 year period and say, you know, 14 in 1961, that one is correct, and in 1958 that 15 one is correct. 16 I don't think that's appropriate for, you 17 know, a deposition question without giving the 18 witness an opportunity to go ahead and then look 19 at reference materials or the statistical 20 information upon which the graph was made to 21 confirm whether those numbers are correct. 22 MR. GARVER: Well, I will say that this 23 deposition obviously is going to continue past 24 today. The United States may have or any of the 25 other parties may have additional questions Page 12 1 regarding Mr. Larsen's factual knowledge 2 regarding the history of the Federal Project or 3 any other factual topic, and in the meantime, 4 perhaps, Mr. Larsen will have had more 5 opportunity to review the subject of these 6 proceedings, this SWIM Plan, and I understand 7 that Mr. Larsen may not have done that at this 8 point, but as I said, we will reconvene. 9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Before we go on, I am not 10 saying that Mr. Larsen has or has not done any 11 particular study of a particular graph. 12 Mr. Larsen has been produced yesterday and 13 today for his deposition on factual background 14 of the Federal Project. In that testimony, he 15 can only tell you what he knows, and if he does 16 not have sufficient data in his memory to 17 confirm or disaffirm a particular graph, he will 18 tell you. So as far as this deposition going 19 on, he was produced -- you set him at the end of 20 your period. You estimated two days. Yesterday 21 you told us that you believe you would be 22 finished around two or three o'clock or one or 23 two o'clock. 24 He will be deposed, again, with regard to 25 his expert testimony, but there are no parties Page 13 1 who decide to attend this matter, and as far as 2 when you're complete with asking questions with 3 regard to his factual testimony with regard to 4 the Federal Project, that will be the end of 5 that portion of the deposition. We are not 6 going to revisit all this when we produce him as 7 an expert witness. We are not going to go 8 through the SWIM Plan and ask him about factual 9 matters related to the Project, except as far as 10 they pertain to his expert testimony, and he is 11 relying upon that. 12 MR. GARVER: Well, Mr. Kobelinkski, I think 13 you're wrong about that, especially since you 14 have improperly restricted the scope of this 15 inquiry. Well, we will pursue that as we need 16 to. 17 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am just letting you 18 know today and putting you on notice today that 19 when he is deposed again, we will object to your 20 going over the same testimony with him, unless 21 he identifies certain portions of it as portions 22 he is relying upon as a basis for his expert 23 opinion, and that's a different matter. 24 You have one crack at this witness on this 25 subject matter. You don't have multiple cracks Page 14 1 at the witness. We do not have multiple cracks 2 of your witness on the exact same topic matter. 3 If, for instance, you say other parties may 4 have a question, the District, the DER and 5 others have decided not to attend this 6 deposition. They are not going to set this 7 witness down on fact testimony just because they 8 decide not to attend. This is your shot. 9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Mr. Garver, you have 10 restricted and limited in ways the United States -- 11 MR. GARVER: Excuse me, Mr. Kobelinkski. I 12 am not done. We will not agree to finishing up 13 any aspect of this deposition whatsoever today. 14 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I believe a motion is 15 appropriate on your part then. I am just 16 putting you on notice. 17 MR. GARVER: We will do that when you 18 instruct the witness not to answer a question, 19 Mr. Kobelinkski. 20 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Be put on notice that the 21 next deposition will be on his expert testimony, 22 only. I will be instructing him not to respond. 23 Excuse me. I haven't finished. I am just 24 putting you on notice that you can't say that 25 there's any surprise or chagrin on your part. Page 15 1 He will not be redeposed on areas that you have 2 covered, unless he identifies them as a basis 3 for formulating his final opinion. That's all. 4 BY MR. GARVER: 5 Q. Mr. Larsen, we were discussing Section 6 of 6 Pages 97 and 99 and the figures that are referenced 7 in that section. 8 Based on your studies and investigation of 9 the Federal Project, are there any other aspects of 10 that section or the figures in it that are 11 inconsistent or contrary to your factual knowledge or 12 beliefs? 13 A. You did say any other besides what I have 14 already? 15 Q. Yes. That's right. 16 A. Again, with the reservation that this 17 section is an oversimplification, with those 18 reservations and, also, with the understanding that 19 in reading this in the context of this deposition, I 20 could have missed something, I would say that I don't 21 see that this section is in your report. 22 Q. Mr. Larsen, turning back to Page 93, the 23 last paragraph before the section headed Recent 24 Management Activities. The last three sentences 25 there state in 1961 WCA-2 was divided by Levee L -- Page 16 1 A. Excuse me. I don't see where you're at. 2 Q. That's on Page 93, the first full paragraph 3 on the page. 4 A. Fine. I was looking at the bottom of the 5 page. 6 Q. "In 1961, WCA-2 was divided by levee L-35B 7 into WCA-2A and WCA-2B to prevent seepage losses to 8 the system. WCA3 was enclosed by levees in 1967 with 9 the exception of a 7.1 mile strip along the border of 10 the Big Cypress. WCA-3 was divided into WCA-3A and 11 WCA-3B by levees L-67A in 1962 in an effort to reduce 12 seepage losses from the system." 13 Based on your studies and investigation of 14 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 15 factual knowledge as to whether the construction of 16 the levees referenced in the language I just read was 17 successful in preventing or reducing seepage losses 18 from the system? 19 A. It is my understanding that seepage losses 20 remain a substantial component of the water budget 21 for the Water Conservation Areas, even with the 22 construction of Conservation Area 2B and the 23 construction of Conservation Area 3B. 24 Q. And are there any particular documents, 25 materials or other information on which you support Page 17 1 that belief? 2 A. There are several documents. 3 Among them are US Geological Survey 4 publications. South Florida Water Management 5 District publications and even the recent draft Lower 6 East Coast Planning Document appendices which show 7 that these seepage losses from the Conservation Areas 8 remain large and substantial. 9 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 100 of the 10 Supporting Information Document. Please read the 11 second full paragraph on that page which begins with 12 the words subsidence rates. 13 A. I have read that. 14 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 15 the Federal Project, do you have any factual 16 knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 17 inconsistent with the language I just asked you to 18 read? 19 A. This paragraph is very much of a 20 simplification of the issue of seepage -- I am sorry -- 21 of the issue of subsidence, and in addition, I have 22 read much of the document concerning seepage 23 subsidence. Although I can't recall which documents 24 they are, I am also aware of management practices 25 that reduced seepage subsidence. Page 18 1 Based on that, I don't necessarily agree 2 with the conclusions of this paragraph. 3 Q. What specific facts are you aware of that 4 are inconsistent with conclusions in this paragraph? 5 A. It's my recollection of documents that I 6 have read, but I can't recall exactly which documents 7 they were and recollection of presentations that I 8 have heard on the issue of subsidence. But, again, I 9 can't give you a bibliography and a time and a place 10 or who it was by. 11 Q. What specific conclusions within the 12 paragraph I just asked you to read do you disagree 13 with? 14 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object, to the 15 extent that you are calling for an opinion on 16 his part as to agreement or disagreement as to 17 which estimates are obviously just expert 18 opinions in this instance, and I will not allow 19 him to testify with regard to his opinion on 20 other expert testimony or opinions. 21 MR. GARVER: I am not asking for your 22 expert opinion, Mr. Larsen. 23 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Could you then restate 24 your question so it's not asking for his 25 opinion. He is not here as an opinion witness. Page 19 1 MR. GARVER: I am sorry. 2 Could you read back my question back, 3 please. 4 (The question referred to was 5 thereupon read by the reporter as 6 above recorded.) 7 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, same objection. 8 He is not here to agree or disagree with expert 9 opinions. He is here to give his opinion on 10 someone else's opinion. He is here with regard 11 to fact. 12 BY MR. GARVER: 13 Q. What aspect of the paragraph I just asked 14 you to read are you aware of facts that are 15 inconsistent or contrary -- with what aspects of the 16 language I just asked you to read are you aware of 17 contrary or inconsistent facts? 18 A. I recollect -- again, I don't recall the 19 source, but I recollect information that indicates 20 that the EAA will be viable for a substantially 21 longer period of time than indicated here. 22 However, since it's only a recollection, 23 therefore, I question this. I don't know if this 24 material is right or if it's wrong. It could be 25 right. It could be wrong, but I question it. Page 20 1 Q. But your testimony is that you have no 2 specific recollection of any other facts, opinions of 3 other people that you have come across from your 4 investigation of the history of the Federal Project -- 5 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Did you finish the 6 question. I wasn't sure. 7 BY MR. GARVER: 8 Q. -- that are inconsistent or contrary to 9 materials in that paragraph? 10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, I will object to a 11 mischaracterization of his testimony since you 12 started the question, as you are testifying, 13 that you don't recall, etcetera. So I will 14 object to your mischaracterization of his 15 testimony. I object to the form of that 16 question. 17 MR. GARVER: I asked him whether that was 18 his testimony, Mr. Kobelinski. What's the 19 problem with that? 20 MR. KOBELINKSKI: And I object to your 21 mischaracterization of his testimony. I object 22 to the form of the question. He has testified 23 to what he has testified to. I object to your 24 mischaracterizing it and repeating it in your 25 fashion. I object to the form of that question. Page 21 1 BY MR. GARVER: 2 Q. You may answer my question, Mr. Larsen. 3 A. I believe that my earlier response answered 4 your second question. 5 Q. Did I understand you correctly that you 6 have no specific recollection of any facts or 7 opinions of other people that are inconsistent with 8 the conclusions in this or statements in this 9 paragraph? 10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the 11 mischaracterization of a sentence in the form of 12 a question. 13 You can go ahead. 14 THE WITNESS: I think you need to define 15 what you mean by specific, because I definitely 16 recall seeing information that disagrees with 17 this. However, I can't remember exactly where 18 or when that was or who said it or where I read 19 it. 20 BY MR. GARVER: 21 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 111, and 22 please read all of Page 111 and any figures that are 23 referenced in there or included by reference. 24 A. I have read the section. 25 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Counsel, this references Page 22 1 remote sensing mapping data and makes 2 conclusions with regard to it. 3 Since you're asking him to confirm all 4 references, do you have copies of the remote 5 sensing mapping data referenced in the third 6 full paragraph in approximately the middle? 7 MR. GARVER: No, I do not, Mr. Kobelinkski. 8 MR. KOBELINKSKI: So you do not want him to 9 confirm what that remote sensing mapping data 10 is? 11 MR. GARVER: Have I asked a question with 12 respect to that, Mr. Kobelinkski? 13 MR. KOBELINKSKI: We had a discussion 14 previously. You said all of your questions are 15 intended to include matters that are referenced 16 within paragraphs. That's why I am asking. 17 MR. GARVER: Oh, I don't believe I ever 18 said that, did I? 19 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Yes. This is referencing 20 mapping sensing data. 21 MR. GARVER: I said figures. 22 MR. KOBELINKSKI: They also have tables 23 that are referenced. You don't want tables. I 24 mean, tables and figures and mapping are 25 referenced throughout this entire -- Page 23 1 MR. GARVER: Figures. I am sorry. 2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am just trying to find 3 out exactly what it is you're asking the witness 4 to confirm. 5 For instance, there is Table 11. There are 6 tables throughout this. There are also other 7 things referenced here. I am trying to find out 8 exactly what is being questioned of the witness. 9 MR. GARVER: I am including figures and 10 tables that are referenced in there. I don't 11 believe I have ever asked the witness to confirm 12 anything, have I? 13 MR. KOBELINKSKI: To confirm -- I didn't 14 hear the end of your question. 15 MR. GARVER: To confirm anything. 16 MR. KOBELINKSKI: You have asked him to 17 confirm many things throughout this deposition, 18 sir. 19 MR. GARVER: I mean, I didn't use the word 20 confirm. 21 THE WITNESS: The answer to your question 22 is no, I do not have the remote sensing mapping 23 data. 24 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Yes, you did. 25 Please read the question back. Page 24 1 (The question referred to was 2 thereupon read by the reporter as 3 above recorded.) 4 BY MR. GARVER: 5 Q. Mr. Larsen, are you still reviewing this 6 section I asked you to read? 7 A. Yes, I am. 8 Q. Please take your time. 9 A. I have read the material on Page 111. 10 Q. Mr. Larsen, based on your studies and 11 investigation of the history of the Federal Project, 12 do you have any factual knowledge or beliefs that are 13 contrary or inconsistent with any of the material in 14 that section? 15 A. Could you read the question, again, please? 16 (The question referred to was 17 thereupon read by the reporter as 18 above recorded.) 19 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, then I will object 20 to the question to the extent you're asking for 21 any fact or information that the witness has 22 contrary to facts stated in this section. 23 However, this section states conclusions 24 based upon remote sensing mapping data that is 25 not supplied to Mr. Larsen to review, and as Page 25 1 such, I don't know how he can state whether or 2 not he does have facts that are contrary to the 3 mapping data and conclusions drawn from that 4 mapping data when he has not had a chance to 5 review the mapping data. 6 BY MR. GARVER: 7 Q. Mr. Larsen, you may answer the question. 8 A. I have some reservations about the material 9 in this Page 111. 10 Q. What reservations do you have about the 11 material on Page 111? 12 A. At the middle of the third paragraph it 13 says, "Pre-drainage sheet flow patterns within WCA-1 14 run primarily from north to south in the northern end 15 of the Refuge, curving to a northeast to southwest 16 direction in the south end, as reflected in the 17 orientation of present day tree island communities." 18 There are other maps of topography which 19 indicate that the Conservation Area 1, these portions 20 of it were a mounded area, and I even believe that 21 such a map is shown in the SWIM Plan itself at Page 22 42. 23 Although this map shows flow lines and 24 topography, other maps that I have seen indicate that 25 there is a high area with an elevation of Page 26 1 approximately 16 feet, which would indicate that the 2 flows are a result of rainfall or that the water in 3 that area is as a result of rainfall, rather than 4 from input via sheet flow. It's a fine point. 5 There may be times when the area was 6 subject to sheet flow from the north, but that 7 topographic map would lead me to question this 8 conclusion. 9 Q. You stated in your answer "this map." 10 Are you referring to the map on Page 42 of 11 the SWIM Plan? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Upon review of Page 42, it does not show 14 the features that I recall on a topographic map which 15 was included in the 1948 Soil Conservation Service 16 report. Again, this is by recall, but I do recall 17 that that map shows the Conservation Area 1 to be 18 high ground, higher than surrounding areas, portions 19 of it, anyway, and that would indicate that the 20 hydroperiod was controlled by rainfall rather than by 21 sheet flow. 22 Q. And in your prior answer, you also used the 23 phrase "that topographic map." 24 When you stated that, were you referring to 25 the topographic map that's included in the 1948 Soil Page 27 1 Conservation Service report? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 4 the Federal Project, are there any other aspects of 5 the information on page or material on Page 111 that 6 are contrary and inconsistent with your factual 7 knowledge? 8 A. In the same third paragraph towards the 9 bottom it mentions a matrix of wet prairies, sawgrass 10 ridges and aquatic slough communities. 11 I have never seen the term sawgrass ridges 12 used before. I don't understand what it means. It 13 would indicate to me that the sawgrass is located in 14 land that is higher than other lands. That may not 15 be the case, but I question the use of the word 16 sawgrass ridges. 17 Q. You question that phrase because -- do you 18 question that phrase because you believe it is 19 inaccurate? 20 A. I question it, because I don't understand 21 what they mean by a sawgrass ridge. 22 If, however, they do mean that the sawgrass 23 is up on some sort of high ground, then I think I 24 would disagree with there being sawgrass ridges. 25 Q. What is the basis for your disagreement of Page 28 1 the phrase sawgrass ridges if it means areas that are 2 higher in elevation? 3 A. I have spent time in other portions of the 4 Everglades, and I have never seen a matrix of 5 vegetation where the sawgrass was apparently on 6 higher ground. However, I haven't been able to go 7 into this area to see for myself. There may be 8 ridges there, but they would be unusual features and 9 not consistent with the rest of the Everglades. 10 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 11 on Page 111 that are contrary or inconsistent with 12 your factual knowledge? 13 A. The material that you asked me to review 14 does not contain reference to the unique character of 15 the soils in Conservation Area 1. The soils of 16 Conservation Area 1, based on my reading of the 1948 17 Soils Report, are substantially different than the 18 soils in the EAA, and those soils are a component of 19 the title here Description of WCA Boundaries and 20 Hydrologic Features, and in my opinion, the unique 21 character of soils in Conservation Area 1 should be 22 included. 23 Q. How are the soils in Water Conservation 24 Area 1 different than the soils in the EAA? 25 A. The 1948 Soils Report characterizes the Page 29 1 soils in the Loxahatchee area as Loxahatchee peat, 2 characterizes the soils in the Everglades 3 Agricultural Area as Everglades peat. Those two 4 types of peat have different characteristics, in 5 terms of their subsidence potential, organic content, 6 etcetera. 7 It's my understanding that the reason that 8 the Conservation Area 1 was not included in lands 9 which were to be subject to agriculture was because 10 the soils in the EAA were eminently suited for 11 agriculture, while the soils in Conservation Area 1 12 are totally unsuited for agriculture. 13 Given that, there's obviously a substantial 14 difference in the soils between the EAA and the 15 Loxahatchee, and that difference in their 16 characterics should be included in this section. 17 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 18 on Page 111 that are inconsistent or contrary to your 19 factual knowledge? 20 A. Again, on this reading, for the purpose is 21 of this deposition, there's a definition of the area 22 of Conservation Area 1 contained in the second 23 paragraph, I believe. 24 Then the last sentence, it says, "The 25 Refuge also contains a 400-acre cypress swamp." That Page 30 1 area is outside of the levees. So I think that this 2 section sort of intersperses the Conservation Area 1 3 with the Refuge and that the boundaries of the Refuge 4 are not necessarily coincident with the boundaries of 5 the Conservation Area. 6 Since I have been there on several 7 occasions, I know that the cypress swamp mentioned in 8 the last sentence here is outside of the boundaries 9 of Conservation Area 1. 10 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 11 on Page 111 that are inconsistent or contrary to your 12 factual knowledge? 13 A. Yes. 14 In the last paragraph, it says that, "WCA-1 15 is a huge freshwater storage area," indicating a 16 purpose for the Conservation Area is for the storage 17 of water. 18 Then the last sentence before you get to 19 the last says, "Current Management objectives of the 20 Refuge are as listed there." 21 I think it should be important to show that 22 the management objectives of the Refuge may conflict 23 with other management objectives of the Water 24 Conservation Area that may be down further on in this 25 section. Page 31 1 I don't know, but it seems that the way 2 this reads is that this list -- since the Refuge is 3 largely coincident with the Water Conservation Area, 4 that this list then should include the freshwater 5 storage area concepts and other concepts associated 6 with the purpose of the Water Conservation Area, as 7 opposed possibly to the purpose of the Refuge and 8 that it should show that the management needs to 9 consider many factors in addition to those four that 10 are listed. 11 Q. Are there any management objectives, in 12 particular, you're referring to? 13 A. The first one that comes to mind is simply 14 the one that says it's a part of a huge freshwater 15 storage area that receives storm pumpage from the 16 EAA. There may be others, but they don't come to 17 mind at this moment. 18 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 19 on Page 111 that are contrary or inconsistent with 20 your factual knowledge? 21 A. Yes. 22 This section is a simplification of a 23 complex issue, and I need to point out that it would 24 take much more than a page to describe the hydrologic 25 features of the Water Conservation Area 1, and with Page 32 1 all of the reservations that I have listed, I would 2 say that this section is basically inadequate. 3 Q. Are there any considerations that you 4 haven't already mentioned with respect to this 5 material on Page 111? 6 A. There may be considerations that I haven't 7 thought of in the context of this deposition, but at 8 this moment, the list of problems with this section 9 is as complete as I can produce, without the benefit 10 of a list and reflection and possibly other reference 11 materials. 12 Q. And that includes problems related to the 13 inadequacy you find with this material? 14 A. As I said, I have listed the things that 15 come to mind upon this reading. That list is 16 sufficient to make me say that this page is 17 inadequate. There may be other things that I would 18 think of if I had more time to think about it, and I 19 would go through the normal procedure of reviewing 20 something like this, other than in the context of a 21 deposition. 22 Q. What would be your normal procedure for 23 reviewing material like this? 24 A. I would read it very carefully. I would 25 prepare a list of things that I questioned. I would Page 33 1 probably use reference material to verify those 2 questions, and I would probably read further in this 3 document to see what else it says about Water 4 Conservation Area 1, 'cause I notice on the next page 5 there's additional information. 6 I think that the process that I have just 7 outlined is pretty much what anyone would do in terms 8 of reviewing this, and they would not do it in the 9 context of answering questions at a deposition with a 10 court reporter typing away and people looking over my 11 shoulder. 12 Q. Am I correct in assuming that you have not 13 applied the procedures you just described to review 14 the Everglades SWIM Plan, March 13, 1992 Everglades 15 SWIM Plan? 16 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the 17 question to the extent that you are asking for 18 attorney work product. 19 This gentleman, Mr. Larsen, has stated that 20 he has made comments with regard to the document 21 to attorneys, and what he has done in that 22 regard is privileged, but other than that, the 23 witness may answer the question without 24 divulging any information with regard to what he 25 has done for counsel. Page 34 1 THE WITNESS: As I mentioned, I have read 2 this. It's been some time ago. I don't recall 3 doing such an analysis of this particular page. 4 I may have done such an analysis for other 5 pages. 6 BY MR. GARVER: 7 Q. Have you done such an analysis for any 8 portion of the March 13, 1992 Everglades SWIM Plan? 9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Same objection, same 10 instruction. The witness is not to divulge any 11 type of work he has done for counsel in this 12 matter. 13 If the witness has done it for others or 14 himself, he is free to divulge that, but he may 15 not divulge what he has done for counsel. 16 THE WITNESS: Any review that I have done 17 of this document has been for counsel. 18 MR. GARVER: Mr. Kobelinkski, it's your 19 contention that the mere fact of whether 20 Mr. Larsen applied the review procedures he just 21 described, the mere fact that he did those -- 22 whether or not it's for -- I mean, if it was for 23 counsel, is privileged information? 24 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am stating that if a 25 party in a proceeding retains an expert to go Page 35 1 ahead and review and provide opinions as to 2 particular matters or scientific matters within 3 a document, that is privileged information. 4 Absolutely, I do maintain that it's privileged 5 information. 6 MR. GARVER: I don't think it would be 7 privileged to know whether or not Mr. Larsen 8 reviewed this document. 9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: He has stated he reviewed 10 the document or other copies of the document. 11 He has stated that he has not done the type of 12 study that he referenced a few moments ago with 13 regard to this page. You have asked him then 14 well what particular portions have you done 15 in-depth research on, and I am stating that if 16 we retain him as an expert to do any type of 17 in-depth research as to a particular portion of 18 the document, you are not entitled to go ahead 19 and find out what those portions are. 20 MR. GARVER: You are a master at putting 21 words in my mouth, Mr. Kobelinkski. I don't 22 know if you do it intentionally or you just 23 forget what I have said. 24 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I appreciate the 25 compliment. Page 36 1 BY MR. GARVER: 2 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to turn now to 3 Page 112 of the Supporting Information Document. I'd 4 like you to read the section in the middle of the 5 page entitled Hydrology and Water Control Features. 6 Read that entire section which ends on Page 113 at 7 the heading Water Conservation 2A. 8 A. I have read the requested material. 9 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 10 the history of the Federal Project, is there any 11 material in the section I just asked you to read that 12 is inconsistent or contrary to your factual 13 knowledge? 14 A. This material is a simplification of a 15 complex issue, and with one reservation, I would say 16 that the material is not wrong. 17 Q. What is the one reservation you have with 18 respect to this material? 19 A. I don't have the ability here to verify the 20 water budget information in the first paragraph, and 21 so I don't know if it is right or wrong. 22 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 113. I'd 23 like you to read the entire section entitled Water 24 Conservation 2A beginning on Page 113 and ending on 25 Page 114 at the heading Water Conservation Area 3. Page 37 1 A. I have read the material. 2 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 3 the history of the Federal Project, do you have or 4 are you aware of any factual information that is 5 contrary or inconsistent with the material I just 6 asked you to read? 7 A. This section is simplification of a complex 8 issue, and I do have certain reservations and believe 9 that certain important facts are omitted from this 10 section. 11 Q. What important facts do you believe are 12 omitted from this section? 13 A. This is part of a section on the 14 Conservation Areas. It discusses boundaries and 15 hydrologic features and the Loxahatchee peat that I 16 mentioned earlier in the questions concerning 17 Conservation Area 1 extending down into Conservation 18 Area 2. That Loxahatchee peat is, as I mentioned, a 19 soil type which was deemed unsuitable for 20 agriculture, which is highly suspectible to 21 subsidence, and that existence of that particular 22 soil in Conservation Area 2 has been not included in 23 this section, and I believe that that soil is 24 relevant to a discussion of hydrologic features. 25 Q. Have you finished your answer, Mr. Larsen? Page 38 1 A. Yes, I have. 2 Q. Why do you believe a discussion of soil is 3 relevant to the discussion of hydrologic features? 4 A. The Loxahatchee peat is located south of 5 the Hillsboro Canal, and in earlier times, the 6 Hillsboro Canal resulted in severe drying of these 7 areas in the times before the project was 8 implemented, and it's likely that the soils in the 9 Loxahatchee, peat soils have subsided. 10 Q. When you say the Hillsboro Canal has 11 resulted in the drying of these areas, what areas, in 12 particular, are you referring to? 13 A. The areas of Loxahatchee peat located, 14 both, north and south of the Hillsboro Canal. 15 Q. And why would a discussion of the 16 subsidence of the Loxahatchee peat be relevant to a 17 discussion of hydrologic features? 18 A. If the area has subsided, then water levels 19 in the vicinity of the canal would be deeper simply 20 because the soil surface is now lower than it was 21 historically. 22 Q. What information, document or materials 23 supports your belief that the Loxahatchee peat may 24 have dried and subsided in the vicinity of the 25 Hillsboro Canal or as a result of the Hillsboro Page 39 1 Canal? 2 A. Materials that I recall reading in the 3 Parker book, descriptions of the Loxahatchee peat 4 that appear in the Soil Conservation Service 1948 5 report which says that the soil will shrink to 6 approximately 25 percent of its original volume upon 7 drying, and other statements about the effect of 8 canals, the pre-project canals creating overdrying 9 conditions during drought periods. 10 Q. Are you aware of any comparisons of the 11 topography of the areas of Loxahatchee peat which you 12 believe may have dried and subsided that compare the 13 situation prior to drainage activities in that area 14 and subsequent to drainage activities? 15 A. I am not aware of topographic surveys that 16 would confirm this, and of course, it's very unlikely 17 that topographic surveys would have been made prior 18 to, you know, the effect taking place. 19 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 20 I just asked you to read on Pages 113 and 114 that 21 are contrary or inconsistent with factual knowledge 22 you are aware of or have? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And what are those other aspects? 25 A. Again, in the first paragraph it states Page 40 1 that, "The regional water management practices 2 significantly altered the marsh's natural hydroperiod 3 by increasing water depth for long periods of time 4 causing loss of tree islands in wet prairie 5 communities." 6 In my opinion, the extent or duration of 7 what he means by a long period of time should be 8 indicated. 9 Q. Are you aware of any documents, materials 10 or other information that supports the view that 11 increased water depth for some period of time caused 12 loss of tree islands in wet prairie communities in 13 Water Conservation Areas? 14 A. I believe there are statements to that 15 effect in the SWIM Plan. I can't remember exactly 16 what page they are on. There are statements to that 17 effect in other documents that I have reviewed. At 18 this point, I can't remember exactly where they were 19 or what document they were in. So that this is 20 information that I have read, but I can't give you a 21 bibliographic reference for it. 22 Q. Why do you believe it would be important to 23 define long periods of time in more detail? 24 A. I would like to know what he means, whether 25 it's one year, five years, ten years, fifteen years, Page 41 1 because there may be other impacts associated with 2 that long-term flooding, such as changes in the soil 3 that would be important to know in terms of 4 hydrologic features. 5 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 6 on Page 113 and 114 that I just asked you to read 7 that are inconsistent or contrary to factual 8 knowledge you have or are aware of? 9 A. The section references Figure 16, and as I 10 mentioned earlier, it would take me more time than is 11 available for this deposition to review the 12 background for Figure 16. 13 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 14 I just asked you to read on Pages 113 and 114 that 15 are contrary or inconsistent with your factual 16 knowledge that you are aware of? 17 A. I have reservations concerning the 18 statistics in the last paragraph where it makes 19 statements about the percent of water inflow. It 20 makes statements about the quantities of phosphorus. 21 I, without reviewing other materials, could 22 not determine whether those numbers are correct or 23 incorrect. So my comment is in the form of a 24 reservation about the statistics and the numbers in 25 that paragraph. Page 42 1 Q. What additional information would you need 2 to review to remove those reservations? 3 A. Data associated with phosphorus levels and 4 water flows would be appropriate for reviewing 5 loading and the percentage of inflow water. It would 6 also require a review of rainfall records, and such a 7 review is beyond the scope of my review of this 8 paragraph in the context of this deposition. 9 Q. Are there any other aspects of the section 10 I just asked you to read on Page 113 and 114 of the 11 Supporting Information Document that are contrary or 12 inconsistent with factual information you have or are 13 aware of? 14 A. In my opinion, this section uses words such 15 as massive regional flood control. My question would 16 be, massive relative to what? 17 It uses terms such as nutrient enriched. I 18 would assume that that term should be defined, and I 19 would believe that the degree of mineralization of 20 canal inflow waters should also be defined in this 21 section. 22 Q. Are there any other aspects of the material 23 on Pages 113 and 114 of the Supporting Information 24 Document that are inconsistent or contrary to factual 25 information you have or are aware of? Page 43 1 A. There may be, if I was reading this other 2 than in the context of a deposition and given more 3 time to reflect. But based on this reading here 4 today and given the reservations that I have already 5 mentioned, I don't see additional factors of this 6 section that are wrong. 7 Q. I'd like you to now turn to Page 114 of the 8 Supporting Information Document, and I'd like you to 9 read the entire section that begins on Page 114 and 10 ends on Page 117 at the heading Regulation Schedules. 11 A. I have read the material. 12 Q. Mr. Larsen, based on your studies and 13 investigation of the history of the Federal Project, 14 do you have or are you aware of any factual 15 information that is inconsistent or contrary to any 16 of the material in this section I just asked you to 17 read? 18 A. Yes, I do. 19 Q. And what aspects of the material I asked 20 you to read are inconsistent or contrary to factual 21 information or knowledge you have or are aware of? 22 A. This section is part of one dealing with 23 hydrologic features, and I realize that, both, this 24 section and the preceding sections on Conservation 25 Area 1 and Conservation Area 2 leave out the topic of Page 44 1 evapotranspiration. 2 This particular section talks about 3 rainfall as a major contributor of water, but there 4 is no discussion in here about the outflow by way of 5 ET, and I think that that should be included for 6 completeness. 7 In addition, this section does not mention 8 seepage losses, which are an important hydrologic 9 consideration, and I believe that that should be 10 included in this section. 11 In the next to the last paragraph on 116 it 12 talks about a historic norm, and it's not indicated 13 whether that is a norm for earlier periods of water 14 management or historically. I think it should be 15 important to indicate what norm they are talking 16 about. 17 But with those reservations and, also, with 18 the understanding that this is a simplification of a 19 very complex issue and also with -- excuse me. I 20 believe you asked me to read from where it says Water 21 Conservation Area 3 in 114 through -- 22 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Page 117. 23 THE WITNESS: Then it appears, also, that 24 the sentence which is the last sentence on 114 25 and the top sentence on 115 is not -- something Page 45 1 seems to be missing there where it says, "Major 2 inflows include the drainage from the EAA from 3 the north includes the Miami Canal and a 4 combination of agriculture." 5 It appears that that sentence is in error, 6 so I can't comment on that, but I would point 7 out that a portion of that sentence seems to be 8 missing. But again, with those reservations, I 9 would say that this section is not wrong. 10 MR. GARVER: Mr. Larsen, I do want to 11 reiterate that I want you to take as much time 12 as you need to review the material I am asking 13 you to read before I am asking my questions. 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I would just state that 15 I am doing the best I can. I am spending, I 16 believe, a reasonable amount of time reviewing 17 this material, even to the point where I can 18 find incomplete sentences. 19 But again, reviewing this material in the 20 context of a deposition is not the way I would 21 normally review it, but I am doing the best I 22 can under the circumstances. 23 MR. GARVER: I just want to make sure you 24 are not feeling rushed in any way. 25 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Counsel, I would note you Page 46 1 have him reading in this case approximately 2 three and-a-half pages and asking him to confirm 3 whether there's anything that he disagrees with, 4 even though in these three pages they have 5 listed scientific studies in at least upwards of 6 a dozen times. He has not had the opportunity 7 to now then go back and see whether or not those 8 scientific studies actually state what they are 9 referenced for. Nor does he have any other 10 reference materials to compare this to. So 11 again, I would for the Record, he is reading 12 this. He is not comparing this or doing any 13 research on it, and that is all that he is 14 doing. 15 BY MR. GARVER: 16 Q. Mr. Larsen, you have read the SWIM Plan at 17 least once before; is that correct? 18 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the 19 extent that that question has been asked and 20 answered more than once. 21 THE WITNESS: I believe I have possibly 22 read it more than once, but that was some time 23 ago, and my recollection of that reading is not 24 current. 25 Also, I point out that this is a very large Page 47 1 document, and you're asking me to review small 2 portions of it, and while I am doing the best I 3 can, it's possible that given the time to review 4 the whole document, there would be items which I 5 would find useful in here to alleviate some of 6 my concerns that I am mentioning, you know, as 7 we go through these individual pages and the 8 portions that you are asking me to read. 9 BY MR. GARVER: 10 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd next like you to read the 11 section beginning on Page 117 entitled Regulation 12 Schedules to Page 120 to the heading Vegetation 13 Characteristics. 14 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Where are we reading to, 15 Counsel? 16 MR. GARVER: Page 120. 17 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Vegetative 18 Characteristics? 19 MR. GARVER: Right. 20 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Thank you. 21 THE WITNESS: You wanted me to read on Page 22 120 to where it talks -- 23 BY MR. GARVER: 24 Q. Just stop when you get to the heading 25 Vegetation Characteristics. Page 48 1 A. Okay. I have read the material. 2 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 3 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 4 factual knowledge or information or are you aware of 5 any factual knowledge or information that is contrary 6 or inconsistent with anything in the material I just 7 asked you to read? 8 A. Can you repeat that question very slowly 9 where you say factual knowledge or -- 10 Q. Information? 11 A. Go on. 12 MR. GARVER: Could you read the question 13 back, please. 14 (The question referred to was 15 thereupon read by the reporter as 16 above recorded.) 17 THE WITNESS: This is a series of 18 paragraphs that describe an exceedingly complex 19 issue, and it is one that I don't feel 20 comfortable in confirming or refuting without 21 extensive review of the materials and of 22 graphics provided. 23 In my reading of this material, nothing 24 leaps out at me as being wrong. But again, the 25 material is so complex that it would require Page 49 1 extensive review for me to either confirm or 2 refute the materials that you have just asked me 3 to read. 4 BY MR. GARVER: 5 Q. What additional materials or information, 6 if any, would you need to review in order to be able 7 to confirm or refute the information in the material 8 I just asked you to read? 9 A. Documentation from the Corps of Engineers 10 which describes these regulation schedules in more 11 detail and any other documentation that would be 12 available. 13 Q. I'd like you to now turn to Page 122 of the 14 Supporting Information Document. I'd like you to 15 read the section that begins at the bottom paragraph 16 which starts out Enclosure of WCA-1 and continue 17 reading onto Page 125 until you reach the subheading 18 Cattail Distribution in WCA-1. 19 A. I have read the material. 20 Q. Mr. Larsen, I am not asking for your expert 21 opinion in any way. But based on your studies and 22 investigation of the history of the Federal Project, 23 do you have any factual information or knowledge or 24 are you aware of any factual information or knowledge 25 that is contrary or inconsistent with the material I Page 50 1 just asked you to read? 2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: And I will object to this 3 question on the grounds that the portions that 4 Counsel just requested Mr. Larsen to review 5 which starts on the closing paragraph on Page 6 122 through Page 125, the paragraph Commencement 7 of Cattail Distribution is basically replete and 8 almost completely centered upon expert opinions. 9 For example, taking from the first 10 paragraph of Page 125 nutrient enrichment into 11 these waters may also play a major role in 12 determining the vegetative characteristics of 13 the center portion of the Refuge, the third 14 paragraph Everglades plant communities are 15 thought to have evolved in Everglades 16 ecosystems. 17 This entire section is just expert opinion. 18 To question this witness as to whether or not he 19 has facts that would disagree with this is 20 merely asking for his opinion on these expert 21 opinions. This is not a factual paragraph or 22 section that counsel has asked this witness to 23 review. He is now asking this witness to review 24 expert opinions, and I object to that. 25 BY MR. GARVER: Page 51 1 Q. You may answer the question, Mr. Larsen. 2 A. I would point out that I am not a 3 biologist, and that much of the material in this 4 section deals with the opinions of others, and I'd be 5 happy to give you my opinion on their opinions. 6 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I direct the witness not 7 to provide opinions on any of these expert 8 opinions. That's not what you are here for, to 9 give opinion testimony. 10 THE WITNESS: However, in this section, I 11 do see that they have left out the topic of 12 soils as it is related to vegetation, and I 13 would think some information on relationships of 14 vegetation to soils would be appropriate. So as 15 a fact, I think that the fact about soils ought 16 to be included in a section about plant 17 communities. 18 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I would also object to 19 the extent -- and correct me if I am wrong -- 20 this section you had the witness read does refer 21 to Figure 22, which is a survey of major 22 vegetative zones within WCA-1. 23 Petitioners have been repeatedly, for a 24 number of the past few years, been kept out of 25 WCA-1 and have been unable to do any type of Page 52 1 vegetative survey. 2 I object to any attempt to make this 3 witness confirm or disaffirm that this 4 vegetative zone figure is accurate in any 5 fashion whatsoever. 6 MR. GARVER: I think it may be a matter of 7 fact that this witness has not entered the 8 interior of the Refuge and made observations or 9 other experiments or whatever else may have been 10 done in the interior of the Refuge to confirm or 11 deny or comment upon Figure 22. 12 However, the witness has testified that he 13 reviewed a substantial amount of material 14 regarding the history and development of the 15 Everglades, and certainly his recollection or 16 knowledge regarding what those other materials 17 say with respect to the information in Figure 22 18 is well within the scope of the questions in 19 this deposition. 20 MR. KOBELINKSKI: My objection still 21 stands, and the hearing officer is well aware of 22 the fact that we have not been able to get into 23 the Refuge. So I would object to any type of 24 verification with that particular Figure No. 22. 25 MR. GARVER: Are you instructing the Page 53 1 witness not to make any comment whatsoever with 2 respect to Figure 22? 3 MR. KOBELINKSKI: No. I am objecting to -- 4 I mean, you can ask him whatever you'd like to 5 about Figure 22. 6 I am stating on the Record that we have 7 been unable to do any type of vegetative zone 8 mapping. As a result, I don't know how the 9 witness can verify one way or another. But you 10 can ask him any questions you'd like, Counsel. 11 MR. GARVER: I have asked him a question 12 that covers the entire section or material that 13 includes Figure 22, and to that extent, Figure 14 22 is included in my question. 15 BY MR. GARVER: 16 Q. Mr. Larsen, I believe you mentioned that 17 you believe that the section I just asked you to 18 review does not contain information regarding soils 19 that you feel would be important in this section. 20 Again, I am not asking for your expert 21 opinion, but based on your studies and investigation 22 of the history of the Federal Project, do you have 23 any factual information or knowledge or are you aware 24 of any factual knowledge that is contrary or 25 inconsistent with the information contained in that Page 54 1 material, other than what you have already mentioned? 2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will repeat my prior 3 objection as to the witness testifying as to 4 facts relating to expert opinions. 5 THE WITNESS: I have not reviewed in detail 6 the underlying documentation for this section. 7 So, therefore, I do not choose, and I don't 8 think it's appropriate for me to comment, either 9 to confirm or refute the material in this 10 section. 11 BY MR. GARVER: 12 Q. In your studies and investigation of the 13 history of the Federal Project, have you come across 14 any factual information that discusses the topics 15 that are discussed in the section I just asked you to 16 read on Pages 122 to 125 of the Supporting 17 Information Document? 18 A. I am certain that I have read material 19 dealing with vegetation but, again, I am not a 20 biologist, and my comments on vegetation would -- and 21 comments in terms of confirming or refuting this 22 specific material in the context of this deposition 23 would be inappropriate. 24 Q. I'm not asking you to confirm or refute the 25 information. Page 55 1 What I would like to know is if you have 2 encountered any information, whether or not you find 3 it -- not whether you personally believe or in your 4 opinion it's accurate -- but whether you have 5 encountered any information in your studies and 6 investigation of the Federal Project that is contrary 7 or inconsistent with the material in Pages 122 and 8 125? 9 A. All I can tell you is that my review of the 10 materials have not focused on vegetation. So asking 11 me in the context of this deposition to state whether 12 or not I have read anything or seen anything that 13 either proves or disproves this material would be in 14 the nature of asking me my opinion as to whether or 15 not this material is right or wrong. 16 Without actually going in and reviewing the 17 statements and the studies upon which this is based, 18 such as Everglades plant communities are thought to 19 have developed within a phosphorus deficient 20 ecosystem with a majority of nutrients derived from 21 direct rainfall. That is a statement that I don't 22 have facts to either confirm or refute. So I find it 23 very difficult to respond to your question. 24 Q. Is it your testimony, then, that you have 25 encountered no materials in your studies and Page 56 1 investigation of the history of the Federal Project 2 that pertain to whether Everglades plant communities 3 have developed within a phosphorus deficient 4 ecosystem with a majority of nutrients derived from 5 direct rainfall? 6 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form 7 of the question, mischaracterizes the witness' 8 testimony. 9 THE WITNESS: I have seen maps that show 10 large areas of cattails, which some argue are a 11 result of nutrients growing in areas which are 12 or were probably not subject to any nutrient 13 elevation. 14 So looking at that one sentence, I have 15 seen factual information which would lead me to 16 disagree with that, to the extent that, you 17 know, people say that cattails are, but I mean, 18 this is all opinion. 19 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object and direct 20 this witness, he is not here to agree or 21 disagree with the opinions contained in these 22 paragraphs. 23 MR. GARVER: Are you objecting to my 24 question or to the witness' answer, 25 Mr. Kobelinkski. Page 57 1 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am objecting to both. 2 I have told you repeatedly I object to all these 3 questions based upon you asking him to testify 4 about these expert opinions, and any question 5 that you ask is basically asking him for expert 6 opinion testimony. 7 MR. GARVER: I have carefully framed my 8 questions to avoid that problem, 9 Mr. Kobelinkski, as you are aware. 10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: And, obviously, since he 11 was just saying he disagrees with these 12 particular opinions, he must have either 13 misunderstood your question or it wasn't that 14 carefully drafted. 15 MR. GARVER: I find it somewhat unusual 16 that you are objecting to your witness' answers, 17 Mr. Kobelinkski. 18 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am not objecting to 19 anything except the fact that you are asking 20 questions about expert opinions in a fact 21 deposition. 22 MR. GARVER: Well, I obviously don't agree 23 with that. 24 In fact, you have objected twice to 25 Mr. Larsen's answers which, like I said, I find Page 58 1 quite unusual. 2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I don't object to your 3 answers at all, Mr. Larsen. 4 BY MR. GARVER: 5 Q. You mentioned some maps that showed areas 6 of cattails in areas in which there were not elevated 7 nutrients. 8 What maps are you referring to, 9 specifically? 10 A. Davis 1943 Map. 11 Q. And where is that map located? Is that in 12 the context -- does it stand alone or is it included 13 in another document? 14 A. I have seen the map, and there may be 15 supporting materials to it, but I have not reviewed 16 those. 17 Q. Have you seen any other or come across any 18 other information such as those maps, again, without 19 revealing your expert opinion, that are relevant to 20 the topics raised in the material on Pages 122 to 21 125? 22 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid that the only way 23 to respond to your question -- I have been 24 attempting to respond to these questions 25 yesterday afternoon and this morning up to this Page 59 1 point by dealing with them on a paragraph or 2 section basis. 3 I think now we have to go back to what we 4 were doing yesterday morning and deal with this 5 whole section sentence by sentence. 6 MR. GARVER: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: I am happy to do that, and I 8 will tell you sentence by sentence whether I 9 agree or disagree and whether I feel that the 10 sentence is based upon an opinion or fact and 11 let you know anything I know about the sentence. 12 MR. GARVER: I will happy to have you do 13 that. I am not sure Mr. Kobelinkski would. 14 MR. KOBELINKSKI: No. I'd object to that 15 type of testimony in this deposition. 16 (Thereupon the deposition was adjourned) 17 18 19 Page 60