264 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and ) 4 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038 5 v. ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 7 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) Petitioners, ) 10 v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 12 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) 14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 15 Petitioners, ) v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040 16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 17 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 100 S.E. 2nd Street 19 Miami, Florida April 7, 1994 20 2:05 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. 21 DEPOSITION OF THOMAS E. LODGE, Ph.D., C.E.P. 22 Taken before THOMAS R. NEUMANN, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for 23 the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 24 - - - - - - - 265 1 APPEARANCES 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS 3 COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC., AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC. 4 HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS 5 123 South Calhoun Street P.O. Box 6526, 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 BY: CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE, ESQ. 7 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 9 4000 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street 10 Miami, Florida BY: GREGORY CESARANO, ESQ. 11 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 13 TOM WATTS-FITZGERALD, ESQ. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY 14 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 15 16 INDEX 17 Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross THOMAS E. LODGE 18 By Mr. Cesarano: 266 By Mr. Watts-Fitzgerald 309 19 266 1 Thereupon -- 2 THOMAS E. LODGE 3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. CESARANO: 7 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Lodge. We are here to 8 continue the taking of your deposition which was 9 commenced last week. 10 Let's start by having you tell us what you 11 did since -- what you had done since the last time we 12 saw you? 13 A. The major participation I have had is in 14 the evaluation of 1984 and 1985 color infrared aerial 15 photography as an accuracy check for satellite 16 mapping that has been produced based on data from 17 that approximate time frame. 18 The color infrared photography that I used 19 is of a different scale. It's approximately 1 to 20 55,000 or so, I don't know the exact number, whereas 21 the previous color infrared photography we were using 22 was at a scale of 1 to 24,000 which matched the USGS 23 quadrangle sheets. 24 So for the assessment that I just completed 25 we had the USGS quadrangle sheets reduced to that 267 1 approximate scale so that the aerial photographs 2 could be superimposed over the quadrangle sheets. 3 And we also produced a grid, UTM coordinates in that 4 same scale so that check points for the accuracy 5 check could be superimposed on the USGS quadrangle 6 sheets and then also located on the color infrared 7 aerial photography. 8 So our accuracy assessment for the earlier 9 period then is totally based on aerial photography, 10 not based on ground truth data. 11 Q. Let me ask you some specific questions 12 about what you just told us. 13 What are the dates of the color infrared 14 photography from 1984 to '85? 15 A. We have the photographs here, and the 16 actual dates are specified on the sides, if you would 17 like me to pull one out. 18 Q. Yes, I would. 19 A. There are two different dates involved. 20 One series is March 3rd, 1984 and another set is 21 February 14th, 1985. 22 Q. How were those dates chosen? 23 A. These were what was available. I don't 24 know how that selection was made. 25 Q. Where did you obtain these? 268 1 A. These were provided to me at our Kennesaw, 2 Georgia office by Mr. Ed Downing. 3 Q. You don't know where he got them? 4 A. No, I don't know the direct source. 5 Q. The date of the satellite imagery that you 6 used these color infrared for was what, please? 7 A. That date is also on the satellite imagery 8 for the earlier time period. If I could just look at 9 it to get it right, it is November 2nd, 1985. 10 Q. In your opinion what effect would using a 11 color infrared image from March of 1984 to verify 12 satellite image in November of '85, that lapse of 13 time, what effect would that have? 14 A. Well, during the time period you could have -- 15 of course, a major influence would be fire. The 16 areas where it was evidence that fire had not 17 occurred there would be whatever time period the 18 growing season had. And any time that the data 19 photograph doesn't exactly match the date of the 20 imagery, you have other kind of conditions -- not 21 just date but the actual time of reflectance, 22 direction and wetness conditions, other weather 23 conditions. 24 Q. And all of those variables can introduce 25 error into your evaluation, can it not? 269 1 A. That's correct, it can. 2 Q. And this 1985 image, the title on this 3 document that you brought, this map for 1985 states 4 that it's a supervised classification of Landsat 5 multispectral thematic mapper scene. Is that the 6 type of satellite image it is? 7 A. The type of satellite image it is really is 8 Mr. Downing's area. 9 Q. But so far as you know, that's what it is? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Tell me -- well, first of all, what did you 12 bring here today that you worked with in the last 13 week or so? 14 A. I brought the color infrared photographs 15 that I worked with, the grid -- there are two grids, 16 actually, that were used to -- these are UTM 17 coordinate guides. These were used to match the 18 scale of the photography and to provide randomly 19 chosen points for an accuracy assessment. 20 Q. That's these two grids here? 21 A. Yes. One grid has purely the accuracy 22 assessment points. That grid was produced a number 23 of hours later than an earlier grid that was used 24 strictly as an overlay for the aerial photographs and 25 the USGS quadrangle sheets which had been reduced to 270 1 the size of the aerial photography. 2 Q. So that we know what we are talking about 3 here, the grid with the conservation area and what 4 appears to be the air boat trails is the one that was 5 used to locate for the proper location? 6 A. Right. 7 By superimposing these two grids, you can 8 see I went through a process of tracing on to the 9 grid showing air boat trails and it also shows some 10 tree island features. 11 I traced the randomly selected points that 12 were used for the accuracy determination, the reason 13 being that I had to have all of the information on 14 one sheet and the accuracy assessment points had not 15 been chosen as early as this grid had been made. 16 Q. I'll get into that whole process a little 17 more specifically in a few minutes. 18 I next want to ask you, was the only map 19 that you -- the only satellite image that you worked 20 with the November 2, 1985 thematic mapper image that 21 is down at the end of the table? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. You have not done anything with respect to 24 the map that shows the entire study area from the 25 refuge to the northern part of the Park? 271 1 A. None other than what was described in 2 the -- my earlier deposition where we talked about 3 ground truth points that we had done in Everglades 4 National Park and conservation area 2A. Mr. Downing 5 can tell you how those were used. 6 I will comment, however, that in learning 7 how to recognize details on the '84 and 85 color 8 infrared photography I needed to back check with 9 photography that I did understand from having worked 10 with in the previous time period. And in doing that, 11 I recognize that at one point apparently a grid had 12 slipped slightly, so I annotated the sheet and 13 re-evaluated previous points that had been used in 14 our accuracy check. 15 Q. That is for which map? 16 A. That is for the date of 1993. I retraced 17 some air boat trails and rechecked and handed that 18 accuracy check information in. I don't know what 19 effect it had. 20 Q. Now, you said that the scale of this 21 infrared photography that you used was different from 22 before in that it was approximately 1 to 55,000, 23 correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You didn't verify that scale? 272 1 A. The scale was verified. I don't happen to 2 have it in my head and I don't have it written down 3 on anything. It may be written on the grid. 4 Q. Up here at the top of this is some writing 5 that says printing, it says photo interpretation 6 registration grid for NHAP 9 by 9 CIR. Dispositive 7 at map scale 1 to 64,000923. Is that the scale? 8 A. That's the scale. 9 Q. Was that scale verified independently in 10 Kennesaw? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The USGS quad sheets are at a scale of 1 to 13 24,000? 14 A. The original are, that is right. 15 Q. You say that you reduced them so that they 16 would correspond to the scale of the infrared 17 photography that you were using? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. How did you reduce those quad sheets? 20 A. I didn't do that, that was done by 21 Mr. Downing. 22 Q. Do you know how it was done? 23 A. No, I don't, but I have an example 24 transparency of a USGS quadrangle sheet. 25 Q. Do you know whether the quadrangle sheet 273 1 was reduced to exactly 1 to 64,923? 2 A. I'll explain why it was not important for 3 me to remember what the actual scale is. The 4 important thing for me to verify as I work that I was 5 able to match the UTM coordinate grid lines with the 6 UTM indication on the sides of the reduced scale USGS 7 quadrangle sheets and that I was able to obtain a 8 satisfactory match of the aerial photography features 9 over the USGS quadrangle sheets. That is, there are 10 a number of features indicating canals and so on that 11 would superimpose. 12 Q. Okay. My question is not whether or not 13 you knew if the quad sheet was reduced to a 14 particular scale. What I meant to ask you was 15 whether or not you knew whether the quad sheet was 16 reduced to the exact same scale as the color infrared 17 photography. 18 A. As near as I was able to determine, that 19 was a satisfactory match. But I'll say that it was 20 not exact, that the color infrared photography had to 21 be adjusted very slightly. But there were 22 adjustments similar to the ones that I described in 23 doing the accuracy check for 1993, that the center of 24 a photograph is generally the best portion. So you 25 try to adjust so that you are sure that that center 274 1 is in the correct place. The edges sometimes are 2 slightly off, but the match requires very, very 3 little adjustment once the photograph had been set on 4 a sheet. 5 Q. Do you have any idea what type of 6 locational error was present by using those overlays 7 in the fashion you have just described? 8 A. I don't have that quantified, but in most 9 places on these aerial photographs there were visible 10 air boat trails and a few other features that were 11 also indicated on the USGS quadrangle sheets. So by 12 superimposing those I was able to obtain some degree 13 of accuracy. 14 I really don't have that quantified, but 15 the air boat trails may typically be 15 feet wide. I 16 think that that sort of degree of slip, say 15 feet, 17 is probably the best. But there may be places where 18 we are 30 or 40 feet off. But 15 feet from a 19 particular location would be a possibility. 20 Q. Now, talking about the air boat trails, did 21 those appear on the quad sheets? 22 A. A number of air boat trails are indicated 23 on USGS quad sheets, yes. 24 Q. And what were the dates of the quad sheets 25 relative to the dates of the color infrared? 275 1 A. I don't have all of the dates of the quad 2 sheets, but they are based on aerial photography that 3 was somewhat earlier. 4 And that I believe we discussed this 5 phenomenon the last time, that air boat trails change 6 from time to time but some of the major trails are 7 identifiable as being in the same place and having 8 the same curves. We were able to eliminate certain 9 trails as being new or substantially relocated. 10 A lot of that depends on features that are 11 on the edge of water conservation area 2A where, for 12 example, there are identifiable structures or roads 13 that can be seen in the aerial photography. So when 14 you get to the edge of a quad sheet there are a 15 number of match points that can be used between the 16 photography and the USGS quad sheet. 17 Q. Did you verify the location of the features 18 that you saw that were depicted on the quad sheets? 19 A. I don't understand how you mean "verify." 20 Q. Let me ask you this. What is the margin of 21 locational error on quad sheets? 22 A. I know there is some guaranteed level of 23 error. I don't have that figure in my head. 24 Mr. Downing does. 25 Q. You described in certain instances when the 276 1 overlays didn't exactly match up, didn't quite match 2 up. By how much wouldn't they match up and how does 3 that translate to distance on the ground? 4 A. I can't give you an overall number that 5 represents what my perception is even of how close it 6 would be. But error as large as a couple of hundred 7 feet is easily seen. Even a hundred feet is easily 8 seen even at this scale on the aerial photographs. 9 Because of the certain features, roadway width and so 10 on, roads can be seen. 11 There are some cases where there are stilt 12 camps, structures constructed in water conservation 13 area 2A, and those have size in the relative size of 14 a conventional house, not a large house. 15 Q. When you put these overlays down and they 16 didn't quite match up, what was the greatest distance 17 in millimeters that you can remember that it didn't 18 match up with? 19 A. Well, when looking from one side of a sheet 20 to another side in millimeters, you could be off two 21 millimeters. And obviously then when you work one 22 side of a quad sheet with features matched up as best 23 you can and you start working to the other side you 24 have to readjust to line up the features that are on 25 that size. So you are constantly correcting. 277 1 You try to keep features that are as close 2 to your points of question as possible. 3 Q. At this scale, if your map didn't line up a 4 single millimeter, what would that translate to on 5 the ground? 6 A. That would translate to 64,000 millimeters, 7 approximately, on the ground. 8 Q. How many meters would that be? 9 A. 64, meters which would be a couple of 10 hundred feet. 11 Q. And what were the sizes of the pixels in 12 the satellite imagery? 13 A. The pixels, to my understanding, is on the 14 order of 75 feet on the side. 25 meters, 80 feet on 15 a side. 16 Q. What is the smallest size feature that -- 17 or I suppose you call it a mapping unit -- that you 18 can determine on the 1 to 64,000 plus color infrared 19 photo? 20 A. Well, as I said, roadways, even small dirt 21 roads are easily visible, but I don't have an actual 22 number. 23 Q. You don't think that's important to know? 24 A. Yes. I think it's of relative importance. 25 I'm confident that something as large as 30 feet 278 1 across would be visible on these photographs. 2 Q. Explain to me exactly how you did this 3 accuracy check, please, if you could come over and 4 point it out to me and kind of walk me through it. 5 A. Let me pick out an example photograph. 6 All right. First step is to superimpose 7 the USGS quad sheet on the grid of UTM coordinates. 8 The particular points of the UTM grids are printed on 9 the side of the photograph, the numbers are there, 10 and there are small blue lines that can be used to 11 match up. I did notice -- 12 Q. Let me look at this. 13 A. We can put this on the window and it's 14 focusable for my eyes. Let me go to the side and 15 find a particular point for you. Right there you 16 should see 2913. 17 Q. Right. 18 A. The grid points are visible with the naked 19 eye, but it's much easier with magnification. 20 Q. You line those up? 21 A. Using numbers as well as lines to make sure 22 you are on the correct line. 23 There are some places where this particular 24 redox of the USGS quad doesn't exactly match the 25 grid. We used a correction to make sure that the 279 1 area of interest was matching. Sometimes distant 2 from the area of interest there would be a slight 3 mismatch. But when you work from point to point you 4 make sure that your lineup is as close as you can get 5 it for that area. 6 Q. Explain to me again why there would be a 7 mismatch. 8 A. Well, it perhaps happens to do with how the 9 quad sheet was reduced. 10 In my opinion I would say it was a very 11 good job because I had very little problem with that. 12 Q. Okay. So you got the quad sheet on the 13 grid. What's the next step? 14 A. Right now we are talking about an accuracy 15 check where I have areas where I'm supposed to judge 16 what the vegetation is in the photograph. 17 That means we have jumped ahead of my 18 having studied these photographs to determine what 19 kind of vegetation are there, realizing we had no 20 ground truth for that particular point in time. That 21 may have been available, but we didn't have it 22 available to us. 23 Q. Let's talk about that. I don't want to 24 jump ahead too quickly. You have this color infrared 25 image here. Before you overlaid it on the quad 280 1 transparency, you studied it, correct -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- to try to determine the different types 4 of vegetation depicted in the photo, right; is that 5 correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. How did you make that determination? 8 A. We were first of all using the premise that 9 cattail at that time, if present, would be in 10 somewhat similar areas to where it is today. That is 11 particularly where it is very abundant today, it's 12 likely that it would have been present in the past. 13 So I used that as a training point. 14 We also looked at tree islands for known 15 characteristics. The heads of tree islands, the 16 actual tree island itself frequently has a pink 17 vegetation character. We cross referenced with the 18 older aerial photographs to see if we could pick out 19 those features and other items in the shape of tree 20 islands. 21 We looked at the variability -- I looked at 22 the variability in this photograph and compared it to 23 the variability in the other and was convinced that 24 the same spectrum of kinds of classes of vegetation 25 were generally visible on these photographs compared 281 1 to the others with somewhat of a qualification that 2 these photographs are accentuated towards the visible 3 blue, whereas the more recent color infrared 4 photographs have considerably more yellow and red at 5 the end of the spectrum. 6 We are looking for -- I looked for 7 patterns. Therefore, I assumed that the vegetation 8 would be similar. 9 One of the patterns that was easily 10 noticeable on the edge of areas where cattail exist 11 today, there are circular patterns that we verified 12 from the ground recently that were cattail. That's a 13 characteristic signature of cattail in a number of 14 places where it forms a circular colony, I should 15 say. 16 Those kind of features were recognizable in 17 similar areas on these older photographs. 18 Q. Is that like this? 19 A. That's correct. Plus the fact that those 20 features that you just pointed out, circular 21 photographs -- circular images are somewhat more 22 yellow than the background, blue/grey around it. 23 That is very similar to the characteristic color 24 change or color difference that we noted between 25 cattail and sawgrass in the more recent photographs. 282 1 Colors are not the same, but the general pattern of 2 change and the colors are somewhat similar. 3 So I used that as a training tool so that I 4 could identify cattail and sawgrass and tree island 5 features -- open water, of course, which is very dark 6 on both types of photography. 7 There are other subtle differences, but I 8 realize that a lot of that is too difficult to 9 determine what exactly it was without being able to 10 ground truth that at that particular time. 11 Q. What did you determine that these streaky 12 type images were? 13 A. Those streaky images were where water is 14 apparently showing through and would represent slough 15 habitat. There are times when water lilies, these 16 cover those so that a slough might look like open 17 water. It takes on a pink flush from water lilies 18 being present. 19 Q. So after you determined in the fashion that 20 you just described the types of vegetation without 21 doing some ground truthing, just by analyzing the 22 photographs -- 23 A. Cross referencing. 24 Q. -- what was the next thing you did? 25 A. Then we get to the point where we broke off 283 1 here of superimposing the redox, the USGS quadrangle 2 sheets over our grid, then superimposing on a light 3 table the aerial photographs. 4 And we would start out -- I started out 5 with aerial photographs that were on the edge of the 6 conservation area where there were identifiable 7 structures so that I could make a alignment that I 8 was very confident was correct. 9 I started tracing some features, then by 10 having to reverse the sandwich here to put, for 11 example, air boat trails and some tree island 12 features onto the grid. I'll say that we were also 13 aided by some location features that we had done 14 previously with Ed Downing, under his guidance, the 15 heads of tree islands that had a very small actual 16 center of trees, those were located for the previous 17 study. 18 We made the assumption that those heads, if 19 they were recognizable of being a similar 20 configuration, were the same as the tree island 21 locations in this earlier photography. 22 That grid that was present, diagonal lines 23 that intersect on tree island heads, were put on as 24 an aid of helping to locate where these aerial 25 photographs lie. 284 1 I'll say that we didn't purport to say that 2 the tree islands haven't changed shape or shifted 3 just slightly. So we used that as an aid, not as an 4 absolute location. 5 But in general that was very helpful. It 6 correlated, is the important thing, with other 7 features in the area of the photographs. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. After going through the exercise of tracing 10 easily recognizable air boat trails onto the grid, 11 I'll say I selected the air boat trails based on 12 their presence on the USGS quad sheet and 13 recognizable presence in a similar location on the 14 aerial photographs. 15 Q. I'm just going to make a couple of notes 16 here. Give me a second. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. You have done the step with the quad sheet 19 transparency, the color infrared transparency, and 20 you located tree island heads and made tracings of 21 tree islands and boat trails. Then what? 22 A. After that work had been done, a set of 23 points were given to me that represented by a small 24 box -- the points are actually the center of the box. 25 Those were -- Mr. Downing's group provided those on a 285 1 second grid. 2 Q. Do you know how those points were selected 3 or generated? 4 A. They were generated by a random locator 5 that is in the software that was provided that 6 Mr. Downing used. I believe that he needs to address 7 how that was done. 8 Further, I had to trust that that was done 9 properly. It was described to me as being a random 10 set of points where the program was also selected for 11 a uniform field of vegetation about that point so 12 that a certain number of pixels would be the same. 13 So we weren't looking for a needle in a 14 haystack, but we were looking for a feature that 15 would at least have dimensions of a few hundred feet 16 of being somewhat uniform. 17 Q. How many pixels were considered at each 18 point? I think you said the point was the center of 19 the boxes. 20 A. Right. 21 Q. Is the box the size of the pixels? 22 A. The box I believe is slightly larger than 23 the group of pixels selected. 24 Q. How many were in the group of pixels? 25 A. The earlier work, it was 3 pixels by 3 286 1 giving a 9 pixel area. I'm under the assumption it 2 was the same here, but I don't in fact know that. 3 Q. The method of selection was to within a 4 random selection to select points surrounded by 5 pixels in which a certain percentage or certain 6 number of pixels were of the same vegetative type? 7 A. Not the same vegetative type. They were 8 selected by uniformity of whatever parameters the 9 data set had which had to do with color. 10 Q. Do you know whether the program that 11 selected these random points was of a stratified 12 nature? In other words, was an attempt made to 13 locate random points in each vegetative class? 14 A. I don't know the answer to that. 15 Q. So Mr. Downing brought you how many points? 16 A. I believe that we ended up with 55. The 17 total number -- the total number that was generated 18 was 100. We had to cut back on that 19 number or I wouldn't have been able to finish for 20 this morning. 21 So we assumed that I would be able to 22 finish 35. So the first 35 in that order were 23 located on the grid that was supplied. 24 Q. This grid here? 25 A. Yes. I colored them in by number so that I 287 1 would be able to find them easily. 2 Q. It looks like just basically a smudge on 3 the first 35. 4 A. Right. 5 Q. After you did that? 6 A. Then I traced those actual points onto the 7 grid that we were using for location. You will find 8 that those two grids can be exactly superimposed. 9 There are so many lines and the fact that they both 10 have the numerical -- it's produced -- the grid is 11 produced by exactly the same technology. 12 I'm sorry, the second grid does not have 13 the actual numbers on it, but it has the same 14 features that were provided in the first that are 15 tied together with the grid. 16 Q. So you traced the points onto -- 17 A. Our working sheet. We call it the working 18 grid. 19 Q. This is the working grid? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And after you traced those on, then what 22 did you do? 23 A. Then I proceeded to align the photographs 24 on the grid using the location points that I had 25 described, but frequently having to go back and put 288 1 the USGS quadrangle sheet back under again as a 2 check, because I'm not confident in just trusting air 3 boats and tree island locations. Wherever I could 4 use other features on a quad sheet, I would do that -- 5 particularly at the edge of the quadrangle sheet 6 where roads that are identifiable on the aerial 7 photograph can be seen. 8 Q. You laid the color infrared over the 9 working grid? 10 A. Over the grid. Then I looked through to 11 find the actual accuracy check points. This 12 particular magnifier is a six power magnifier. You 13 are able to see a great deal of detail about a grid 14 point. 15 If I couldn't see through the sandwich, if 16 I couldn't recognize the color signature and perhaps 17 what the vegetation was, by leaving that in place you 18 can move the photograph while still looking at 19 features of the photograph to this part of the light 20 table where you can see through everything and it's 21 not complicated by the sandwich. 22 I would make a determination then what the 23 vegetation was based on the training that I had 24 performed earlier comparing these photographs with 25 the later photographs. 289 1 I then filled out a data sheet that was 2 provided for this and turned that over to Mr. Downing 3 for whatever accuracy check he did. I do not know 4 the results of that or how he incorporated that 5 information. 6 Q. Where is that data sheet? 7 A. That's with Mr. Downing. That's part of 8 his presentation. 9 Q. Could you set up that light box so that we 10 can take a look? 11 A. Certainly. Is there a plug in the table 12 there? I have a six foot cord. 13 Q. There should be one down here. Right 14 there. Is this yours? 15 A. No, this is not the light box I was using. 16 I was using a much larger one. 17 I didn't always sandwich these in exactly 18 the same order. Sometimes I would have the USGS on 19 top of the grid, depending on what sort of features 20 you would want to see. 21 Now, it's probably not going to be possible 22 to go through the exercise of lining up the UTM 23 coordinates. You can line them up from top to 24 bottom, but the UTM coordinates are on the edge of 25 the grid here. And because of the enlargement, it's 290 1 not there. 2 But by aligning the north/south running 3 lines with the top and bottom of the USGS sheet and 4 then using a straight edge to check for the 5 particular marks on the side, you can line that up. 6 As I said, in most cases it was perfect. 7 And where there was any discrepancy -- 8 Q. Let me see how you do this. 9 A. All right. Let me do this. 10 Let me find a point. I'm finding a UTM 11 coordinate 567000, and on the edge of the USGS quad 12 sheet I have that same point. It's going to be 13 easier for you to see if I put the quad sheet on top. 14 Let's try the match again. 15 The edges of conservation area 2A are shown 16 by the red lines, so you get an approximate line up 17 there. And then I take my point, again 567000, I can 18 make an alignment right there. If you move that 19 slightly, you will see that the black line is exactly 20 superimposed over the blue tic point or the UTM 21 coordinate. You do that top and bottom. Then you 22 have to get it in proper north/south orientation on 23 the edge. It requires a fair amount of work to get 24 one lined up. 25 When you have one lined up to the point 291 1 where you are satisfied, we have little pieces of 2 tape made for that purpose that fasten it so it 3 doesn't move. 4 Q. Then you put the CIR over it? 5 A. Yes. Now, for example, on this one you see 6 a feature that is a dredged lake. That feature has 7 the same bottom line as that, so a feature such as 8 that on the edge can be used to line up. By holding 9 your finger there, you can rotate and bring in other 10 features. 11 For example, there are some roadway 12 patterns down here where you can make a good 13 alignment. So you know you have alignment, at least 14 in the developed area. That was convincing that it 15 was accurate. 16 Q. This is what I really wanted to ask you. 17 These little boxes appear to be significantly larger 18 in many cases than the circular patterns. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. How would you make a determination as to 21 what vegetative community was in that box? 22 A. I had to go on the premise that was given 23 me that the feature I was looking for was in the 24 center of that box. That box was small enough that 25 it's fairly easy to determine what is the center. 292 1 And you are also given a piece of information that 2 you are going to be looking for something that is 3 uniform about that center dot. So you are not going 4 to be looking for a tiny feature that is not uniform. 5 You are going to be looking for something that's 6 uniform. 7 So I would look. And if by chance I found 8 a uniform feature, after I was happy that it was 9 lined up, I would try to make a judgment what that 10 vegetation was. And then that is the answer that I 11 would give to Mr. Downing as the quality check. 12 If I was unable to determine any uniform 13 signature representing vegetation, I had to write on 14 the sheet "unable to determine." I handed several 15 sheets in that were that way. 16 Q. You started with 35? 17 A. I think I started with 35, and I had 18 promised I would have at least 35 data points. There 19 were several sheets I had to admit I could not judge 20 what piece of vegetation the satellite imagery had 21 picked out, so I did 10 more. 22 Q. You mean the aerial photography? 23 A. Well, that's correct. 24 Q. You said that the satellite imagery -- 25 A. The satellite imagery you see is what 293 1 picked the random points out. 2 Q. But you couldn't tell? 3 A. I couldn't tell on the aerial photographs 4 what it was, so we ended up with a fewer than 35. So 5 I went ahead and -- 6 Q. Can you recall how many? Was it more than 7 five points? 8 A. It was less than five. I believe it was 9 three out of 35. 10 So I went ahead and I circled numbers 36 11 through 45 to get ten more. And in that ten I had 12 two or three that I was not able to determine. But 13 we ended up with a number that was in excess of 35. 14 I don't remember what it was actually. 15 Q. Who decided that 35 would be a sufficient 16 number for an accuracy assessment at this point? 17 A. Mr. Downing and I had agreed that based 18 somewhat on time limitations you would like to do as 19 many as you can. But at 35 you have the number at 20 least where you can quantify what your accuracy is. 21 The statistics of 20 is quite often handed 22 out as a number of points for checking. But there 23 is, of course, the phenomenon that we discussed 24 earlier the more points you check the more accurate 25 it is until you checked all of the points in the 294 1 entire environment. 2 Q. Was the number 35 determined by any sort of 3 a statistical model or formula, do you know? 4 A. No, it was not. 5 Q. That was just yours and Mr. Downing's 6 opinion what might be a sufficient number? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So you filled out your data sheets and gave 9 them to Mr. Downing, is that the extent of your 10 involvement? 11 A. That's the extent of my involvement. 12 One other step. In some of the situations 13 there would be a pattern in the vicinity of the point 14 that I was to determine. 15 Q. The square? 16 A. The square. For those, I made a sketch 17 description of what I saw with some details of what I 18 thought the pieces were. 19 Mr. Downing called that point up on the 20 computer. That was the actual satellite image. He 21 asked me to tell him yes or no, was that the same 22 pattern that I saw. And in all cases I said yes, 23 that's the pattern. 24 The point that I intend to be what it is is 25 that. That was blind for what the vegetation is 295 1 because I was not able to know what his grid pattern 2 was on the computer screen. I was just telling him 3 whether or not it matched what I saw as a pattern in 4 the aerial photographs. 5 Q. How many points did you do that on? 6 A. Out of the total 45, I think I recall doing 7 that on about four. 8 Q. What was the purpose? 9 A. The purpose was to tell Mr. Downing what 10 point I meant as my interpretation. 11 MR. CESARANO: Let's take a short break. 12 We have been going for an hour. 13 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 14 after which the following proceedings 15 were had:) 16 BY MR. CESARANO: 17 Q. The aerial photography has a degree of 18 locational error intrinsically within itself, does it 19 not? 20 A. If the aerial photography has not been 21 rectified, it's my understanding this has not been, 22 yes, the scale will be slightly different on one side 23 than it is on the other. 24 Q. It's inevitable, is it not, that the 25 process that you used in your interpretation will 296 1 also introduce some locational error? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Can you estimate the quantity or the amount 4 of total error between those two, the process? 5 A. No, I can't. The dependence that I gave to 6 the process is one of doing as careful of an 7 alignment job of the various factors that I was 8 capable of doing, and then looking for a vegetation 9 pattern which was uniform in that particular area to 10 be what I consider probably was represented by what 11 had been selected. 12 I knew the area had to be uniform. That 13 was one of the characteristics that was plugged into 14 the selection of the points. 15 Q. All right. Now, talking about the 16 uniformity of the characteristics at a particular 17 point, that also is an assumption that may be 18 incorrect because of the differences between the 19 dates of the satellite imagery and color infrared 20 photography, correct? 21 A. There may be some difference there, as we 22 had discussed earlier, that fire may be the main 23 problem in that way. 24 But, in fact, the shapes of slough and 25 sawgrass patterns is a reasonably stable feature -- 297 1 through a few years, anyway. The kinds of 2 differences that you find are definitely decades 3 would give you problems. But a year or two or three, 4 shapes are easily recognizable. It would be 5 temporarily erased by fire, but they would come back. 6 Q. What effect on reflectance in the color 7 infrared photography would taking photographs at a 8 different time of the day have? 9 A. Well, that's known to be a problem. That's 10 where the user needs to be aware of the gradations of 11 tones that may be available, may be represented in a 12 particular photograph, and needs to do some homework 13 as I have described of looking over the photograph 14 and comparing it with a later date photograph to 15 become comfortable with the ability to interpret the 16 particular colors that are on a particular 17 photograph. 18 Q. And how did you account for the possible 19 error -- not in location, but differences in 20 reflectance of characteristics or features -- that 21 were not directly on NADER? 22 A. The biggest difference on reflectance had 23 to do with water. In some cases you get direct 24 reflection off water. Generally in infrared 25 photography, water is in sky blue or black. 298 1 You need to be aware that in the side of 2 the photograph where there is a reflection, that you 3 can't use that. 4 Q. I guess I wasn't talking about reflectance 5 of water, I was talking about reflectance as 6 described in brightness values of the vegetation. 7 A. I recognize that there are a number of 8 factors that could throw my interpretation off. The 9 one thing is that all of those would tend to diminish 10 my ability to be accurate. 11 So there aren't any of those factors that 12 by chance help you out. The general trend is to 13 diminish your accuracy. So when you end up with an 14 accuracy assessment done this way, the number that 15 you get is probably low based on those things, not 16 based on your ability -- on your knowledge of the 17 vegetation. It's based on your ability to interpret 18 it. 19 Q. What do you mean when you say the numbers 20 are probably low? 21 Do you mean that the percentage, the 22 accuracy assessment, is lower than the number -- the 23 number is lower than the accuracy of the map, or 24 because of these difficulties the number is lower 25 than you would like it to be? 299 1 A. What I intended to say there and didn't say 2 it very well is that my accuracy check, it's 3 reasonable to think that that might be, in fact, 4 lower than the accuracy of the image that was 5 generated, because there are so many factors in 6 interpretation that can deteriorate your ability to 7 judge the vegetation. They don't by chance enhance. 8 Maybe occasionally one enhances. But in general when 9 you have several categories of vegetation, that those 10 things deteriorate your ability to do that. 11 What I'm intending to say is that the 12 accuracy assessment gives you the low side of the 13 accuracy of the map that you are producing. 14 Q. And those things which can tend to 15 deteriorate your interpretation, we have talked about 16 a couple of them, the time of day of the photography? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Whether or not the image that you are 19 interpreting is on NADER, in the center of the 20 photograph or off to the side, whether the 21 photography itself is on NADER or off NADER, the 22 differences in the time of the year between the 23 photograph and the satellite image? 24 A. That is right. 25 Q. What other variables might deteriorate your 300 1 ability? 2 A. Did you mention fire? 3 Q. Fire. I want to talk more extensively 4 about that in a minute. But what else? 5 A. I think that you have -- 6 Q. How about atmospheric conditions? 7 A. Yes. Atmospheric conditions would have a 8 good bit to do with what you see. The worse 9 atmospheric conditions erases your ability to see 10 anything, and that's cloud cover. 11 In the absence of cloud cover, various 12 degrees of haze deteriorated your ability, for 13 example, if the visible range of haze reduces 14 everything to a shade of blue. 15 Q. What about the type of photographic 16 equipment that is used? You use two different dates 17 of infrared photography. Do you know whether the 18 same photographic equipment was used? 19 A. I do not know. 20 Q. Could that also have an effect? 21 A. Yes. That has an effect, but that's one of 22 the things you are compensating for by studying the 23 particular aerial photograph. That is one -- in 24 fact, all of those variables that we talked about 25 have to do with judging those variations. 301 1 Q. And generally, is it not more difficult to 2 recognize or define a particular vegetative class at 3 a 1 to 64,000 -- almost 1 to 65,000 scale than it is 4 at a 1 to 24,000 scale? 5 A. Yes. In trying to learn the details of 6 this photograph, I had to pick features that were 7 larger than I would have picked on the other scale on 8 the 1 to 24,000. So the typical feature is less than 9 half the distance across on this smaller scale 10 photograph. 11 Q. Now, the last time we were together was, I 12 believe, last Tuesday, about ten days ago, nine days 13 ago, something like that. 14 Did you do any of this work that you have 15 described for the 1985 image before we met last 16 Tuesday? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So everything you have told me, all of the 19 studying and interpreting and learning about the 20 various characteristic of the vegetation reflected in 21 the infrared photography as well as actually locating 22 the points and interpreting the photography over the 23 grid has been done in about eight or nine days? 24 A. Yes. It was all done in the last two days. 25 It began Tuesday, the 5th of April. 302 1 Q. Would that have an effect on your ability 2 to accurately identify and interpret the vegetative 3 classes, the fact that you had such a compressed time 4 frame? 5 A. The -- no. I don't believe that my ability 6 to recognize the classes of vegetation had -- was 7 hampered, but perhaps the number of accuracy points 8 that I could have chosen might have been higher had I 9 been still working today. 10 But I was comfortable that I had learned as 11 much as I was going to be able to learn about the 12 interpretation of this photograph in the time frame 13 that we had. 14 Q. You did this up in Kennesaw? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. What time would you begin in the morning? 17 A. On Tuesday. I arrived there just 18 afternoon. So I spent from about 1:00, and I believe 19 that we quit at around 11:00 or midnight. 20 Q. And the second day? 21 A. The second day I got there at 8:00 and I 22 left at 11:30 at night. Perhaps an hour and a half 23 out, total, during the day for meals. 24 There are enough breaks. I think it's 25 important to establish that eye strain, it becomes a 303 1 factor. And I know about that factor and I know I 2 take breaks and try to do other things for a while 3 and then get back on to looking through the loop. 4 Q. What were you doing before you went to 5 Kennesaw on Tuesday? 6 A. With respect to the vegetation 7 interpretation, I was not actively involved in that. 8 I was through -- the days between I was primarily 9 finishing the final draft of my book, the final 10 chapter to turn into the St. Lucie Press -- which I 11 did Monday afternoon. 12 Q. The accuracy assessment of the 1993 map 13 that we discussed thoroughly the last time we were 14 together, I understand that there was a problem in 15 software that generated the random points; is that 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. They had to be regenerated. The 18 first time around the 3 by 3 pixel characteristic 19 that we had chosen didn't work, and we did it again. 20 Q. Doing it again, wasn't that done after your 21 deposition, the first session? 22 A. I'm sorry. I have lost track of time. In 23 fact, I can't tell you now. I believe that was after 24 my first deposition. Yes. We regenerated -- time 25 flies when you are having fun. 304 1 We regenerated a complete set of points, 2 that's correct. 3 Q. And how many did you interpret the second 4 time? 5 A. The second time, I don't know. Mr. Downing 6 has that number. Off the top of my head, I don't 7 recall what the actual number was. It was on a grid 8 sheet that we have here. 9 Q. I think we have it. I was wondering what 10 your recollection was. 11 A. I don't have it in my head. 12 Q. Do you know what the percentage accuracy is 13 for the 1985 map? 14 A. For this, no, I don't. 15 Q. You mentioned a couple of times that fire 16 could have an effect. Did you recognize or determine 17 whether or not there had been fire in the areas that 18 you were interpreting? 19 A. Yes. I think that there had been fire in 20 the western portion of 2A, and that a number of grid 21 points fell there and -- 22 MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: Can we just clarify, 23 are we talking about the accuracy assessment or 24 the training points? 25 THE WITNESS: Accuracy assessment grid 305 1 points fill in that area. That was much more 2 difficult to determine what was there. That may 3 have contributed to the inaccuracy, also. Much 4 more so than the areas that had not been burned. 5 BY MR. CESARANO: 6 Q. Do you recall how many points fell in the 7 burn area? Do you want to go over and look? 8 A. We could take a look. 9 It's a maximum of four points that were in 10 an area where the burn was fresh enough that it was 11 recognizable as a fire scar. 12 Q. And in the western area as you described 13 was the only place where there was a recognizable 14 burn area? 15 A. There had been earlier fire elsewhere. 16 There had been some recognizable fire 17 features elsewhere, but it apparently had been 18 earlier. As it wasn't as bothersome, as fire in the 19 western portion was a problem in interpretation. 20 MS. RAEPPLE: Can we take a quick break? 21 MR. CESARANO: Yes. 22 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 23 after which the following proceedings 24 were had:) 25 BY MR. CESARANO: 306 1 Q. We are looking at the map, "Supervised 2 Classification of Landsat multispectral Thematic 3 Mapper Scene," acquired November 2, 1985 that was 4 brought here today. Prepared date, April 5, 1994. 5 Looking at this map I see some of what 6 appear to me to be unusual characteristics. I'm 7 talking about this curved area on the western part of 8 the map and what appears to be a rather straight 9 line, demarcation between two types of -- two 10 classes. 11 Can you explain what the reasons for those 12 types of features are? 13 A. Yes, those are apparently fire -- what I'll 14 call fire scars and -- 15 Q. And the same with this larger area in the 16 middle, as well? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And with all of those fire scars there were 19 only 4 points? 20 A. The area where I looked at where I had 21 trouble with my photography looking at this fire scar 22 that continues down the western side and the northern 23 apex. 24 Q. Have you yet read either Dr. John Jensen's 25 report or Ken Rutchey's report to go along with your 307 1 maps? 2 A. No, I have not. 3 Q. You told us last time we were together that 4 there was some discussion that you may be asked to 5 look at Mr. Rutchey's map and slides in order to 6 verify certain portions. 7 Have you done that? 8 A. No, I have not done that. 9 Q. Do you know whether you will do that? 10 A. I will not. 11 Q. You also discussed when we were last 12 together the effect of air boat trails on monotypic 13 cattail and how it was your opinion that the air boat 14 trails were a factor in encouraging monotypic cattail 15 growth. 16 Is that an accurate recollection of mine? 17 A. Yes. I would call that a hypothesis, but 18 one of very reasonable basis that disturbance is 19 characteristically the opportunity that affords 20 cattail the ability to take root. 21 I have known that, for example, buggy 22 trails in the Big Cypress swamp frequently grow up as 23 a line of cattails. 24 Q. Now, the area that you are referring to is 25 the area generally south of the Hillsboro canal? 308 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Can you tell me whether -- let me say that 3 area is an area obviously dense cattail which is an 4 area of great interest and has been recently, 5 correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Can you say whether the air boat trails 8 caused the cattail or whether the cattail caused the 9 air boat trails, because it is such an area of 10 interest? 11 A. I think that it is reasonable that the 12 disturbance caused by air boats is one of the 13 disturbance factors that allows cattail to come into 14 domination. 15 There are other places clearly where 16 cattails grow without the intervention of an air boat 17 disturbance. 18 But the particular area along the Hillsboro 19 canal, particularly from an entry point where air 20 boats apparently use a boat ramp, I haven't been 21 there on foot, but you can see it in the aerial 22 photographs, that the number of trails emanating from 23 that point is just a complete maze in this corner. 24 It has also grown up with cattail. 25 So I think there is a reasonable assumption 309 1 that air boats may have been one of the contributing 2 factors in cattail growth there. 3 MR. CESARANO: I don't have anything 4 further at this point. Thank you. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 7 Q. Good afternoon. While we are up and moving 8 around anyway, on the light table I put the photo you 9 looked at earlier, which was the 3/3/84 photo. 10 And based on what you were just telling 11 counsel, I have been looking at the stretch south of 12 the Hillsboro canal between two visible discharge 13 structures, S-10 structures along the ridge of the 14 canal running down to the intersection that seems to 15 coincide with the air boat launch points you have 16 been describing. 17 Can you look through the loop and tell me 18 if that's the area you are referencing to counsel 19 regarding cattail growth and air boat trails? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. That air boat launch point at the actual 22 turning point of the north/south canal on the eastern 23 border to the northwest, there is a roadway 24 intersection there. Do you see that on the photos? 25 A. Yes, I see it. 310 1 Q. Can you tell me, based on your experience 2 with this scale on the work that you have done, the 3 approximate size of that intersection? 4 A. Are you asking how many feet it is across 5 the intersection? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. Well, it's -- from aerial photo 8 interpretation, something as white as the roadway you 9 see there, it's improper to try to tell how wide it 10 is because of the resolution phenomenon in films. 11 That if there is a very bright reflectance, the 12 signature of the feature is substantially wider than 13 what you see. 14 So if I were to try to judge the distance 15 based on the pattern that I see, I would overstate 16 it. 17 Q. Did you use any of those features in that 18 immediate vicinity as ground orientation points for 19 the process you described for 1985? 20 A. Yes, therefore you need to center on it. 21 But the roadway even at the most -- maybe the road is 22 75 feet wide. So we are talking about one pixel. 23 Q. And as you go from that intersection of the 24 levees and follow the Hillsboro canal to the 25 northwest, the structure or the vegetation that comes 311 1 in what I would call somewhere between a pink and a 2 red -- maybe magenta, what would that be? 3 A. That's generally shrubs. Cattail is one of 4 the main features that does that. 5 Q. The yellowish material to a little bit 6 further to the south into the water conservation area 7 many times associated with open water bodies, what 8 would that be? 9 A. If it's greenish-blue, that's cattail. If 10 it's bright yellow, what we are finding is cattail 11 that probably is underlain by either a fern called 12 Salvinia or duck weed. 13 Q. How did you make that determination? 14 A. We did that by our ground truth points. 15 That's the way the color signature came out. 16 Q. That's the ground truthing that you did? 17 A. For the first time around. 18 Q. Using a different set of photos with a 19 different scale? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Did I understand you to say this set of 22 photos were not geo rectified? 23 A. I don't know if they were. They are a lot 24 closer in falling perfectly from side to side than 25 the first ones were, much closer. 312 1 Q. So the first ones weren't? 2 A. No. 3 Q. You don't know if these were? 4 A. I don't know, but these were much easier to 5 work with. 6 Q. You testified last time Dr. Downing was in 7 the process of attempting to digitize the DBA 8 photography to use for the earlier process, the 1 to 9 24,000. Was that done? 10 A. Not to my knowledge, that was not done. 11 Q. Have these been digitized? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 Q. What was done, if anything, to your 14 knowledge to correct the BDA photos for any effects 15 induced by flight characteristics of the aircraft or 16 the path, actually? 17 A. The corrections that we did were what I 18 have described of using as many features along the 19 edge of the water conservation area that are easily 20 identifiable on the photograph as truth points and 21 lining up on those points. 22 As you progress further into the water 23 conservation area we use air boats if the signature 24 shape of the air boat was easily recognizable as 25 being the same as one that is visible on the 313 1 photograph. Air boat trails are present on the USGS 2 quadrangle sheets. Tree island shapes and sizes 3 helped in our location. Occasional houses -- these 4 are all of the things that I had gone through in the 5 last deposition for locating features. 6 Q. Were you aware that on the quadrangle sheet 7 published by the Geological Survey they identify the 8 date of revisions and the currency date of those? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The USGS quads that you brought with you 11 here today, are these the ones you actually used and 12 reduced? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If I look at a legend and find it was 15 edited in 1983, that would imply, would it not -- 16 photo revised in '83, I'm looking at Ft. Lauderdale 17 to the southeast. 18 No features on this had been verified, 19 anything later than that date? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. So approximately something on the order of 22 November 2 is the end of the year. You got to be 23 looking at virtually two full years -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- on the photo revision? 314 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And in the same photo counsel is perusing, 3 which I identified earlier, you talked about the air 4 boat trails, and I think I see what you are talking 5 about. 6 Starting from that same intersection of the 7 north/south levee of 2A and the Hillsboro canal 8 running to the northwest, I see what appear to be 9 several fairly prominent air boat trails with an open 10 water track. 11 Is that what those would be? 12 A. Yes, that is correct. 13 Q. There are very prominent ones due east, 14 perhaps a kilometer or less south of the 15 intersection? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And the area, according to your supervised 18 classification for 2A on the November 2, 1985 19 thematic paper, would seem to show relatively 20 monotypical cattail in the area north of that trail. 21 Would that be correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Now, what is the pattern within 2A, if you 24 know? 25 A. It's from north to south. 315 1 Q. Based on your training and experience as a 2 biologist and one with more than a passing interest 3 in the Everglades, would it be fair to say if the 4 water is moving north to south and the air boat trail 5 runs east to west, no factor in the growth of cattail 6 in that area could be described to the activities in 7 that area? 8 A. The immediate vicinity of the air boat 9 trail where there is disruption underneath the air 10 boat and moderate weight that is thrown by the air 11 boat, there would be an impact. 12 If we are talking about anything else, any 13 air boat factor would have to extend a little bit 14 south or north. But generally what I'm talking about 15 is disturbance by an air boat is a very, very local 16 phenomenon having to do with actual movement of water 17 created by the surge of water created. 18 Q. We are talking 10 meters, maybe less? 19 A. Probably less. 20 Q. So you would not ascribe the monotypical 21 cattail growth in the Hillsboro canal to cattail air 22 boat? 23 A. In careful scrutiny of some of the very 24 dense areas near this roadway intersection at the 25 northeast corner of 2A, by looking at several aerial 316 1 photographs you can see the area is completely 2 permeated with air boat trails. It's a solid feature 3 of air boat trails. That extends along the Hillsboro 4 canal to the west for some distance. 5 I don't have an actual distance but enough 6 that I was convinced that there may be a relationship 7 between air boat disturbance and solid growth of 8 cattail. 9 That also extends south along the eastern 10 edge of water conservation area 2A. There is 11 frequently a signature where you can see something 12 has passed in the shape of an air boat trail that has 13 now become vegetated and is no longer only water. 14 Q. If the air boats are launching in the open 15 water of the canal, how is it any different from a 16 boat doing the same thing, traveling the same water 17 body? 18 A. I would expect that any impact would be 19 less from an air boat than it would be from a boat 20 that has a propeller under the water. 21 Q. Would you expect boat operations, then, in 22 the canals further south in the Everglades ecosystem 23 to induce cattail growth along all the canals in 24 which they operate? 25 A. I would say that boat operation would be 317 1 one disturbance factor in a canal that could help 2 establish cattails along the side of the canal. But 3 there are many other things. 4 There is wind blown water movement along 5 the edges of canals. So canals, I think, have 6 problematic cattail lines along the edge. It could 7 be ascribed to many factors. I think boats may be -- 8 my personal judgment is boats may be minor in canals. 9 Q. Moving away from the northeast corner a bit 10 and the immediate vicinity of that heavy air boat 11 impact that you described, looking between the two 12 S-10 structures depicted in the photo running south, 13 let's say, eight to 10 kilometers, there is still a 14 considerable amount of cattail shown in those areas. 15 Would you expect any of that impact to have 16 been derived from canal borne air boat or surface 17 propeller driven boat activity? I'm talking down in 18 here. 19 A. I would say that away from the actual 20 immediate vicinity of the boat passage -- by 21 "immediate" I'm talking a few yards on each side -- 22 then I would say that that would be the extent of the 23 effect. So my concern only has to do with numbers of 24 air boats. 25 Q. You said you looked at other photos of that 318 1 roadway canal intersection, northeast corner of 2A. 2 What other photos have you looked at? 3 A. There are two dates represented here that 4 are clustered close together within a year of one 5 another. Then there is the 1993 Breedlove, Dennis 6 color infrared. Those are the only ones I looked at. 7 Q. What other date from the mid '80's did you 8 use to do the actual accuracy assessment, or did you 9 only use this run? 10 A. I only used these two sets of photographs 11 which are in '83 and '84. 12 Q. I didn't understand. You had used both 13 sets for the accuracy assessment? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Have you made any effort to determine 16 through historical sources or anecdotal data the 17 duration and extent and, in fact, timing of the fire 18 that may have contributed to the fire scars in 2A 19 that you testified to earlier today? 20 A. No. I recall that I said I was going to 21 attempt to research that in the last deposition. I 22 did not. 23 Q. Do you plan to do that between now and the 24 hearing? 25 A. No, I don't. 319 1 Q. You talked about studying the NHAP photo 2 sets from '83 and 84 to get a sense of what you were 3 looking at, that you utilized the training 4 opportunity of the BDA photos to enable you to 5 interpret the signatures on spectral signatures on 6 these photos; is that correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Did you do that process side-by-side? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So you still have the BDA photos? 11 A. They are here. 12 Q. I didn't see them. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Just keep track. We didn't get them last 15 time. We may need to get access to them at some 16 point. 17 You testified about 10 days ago that the 18 western portion of WCA-2A was an area not included 19 within the coverage of the flight paths of the 20 Breedlove, Dennis aerial photos; is that correct? 21 A. Very small area is not included. 22 Q. Were any of the accuracy assessment points 23 located within the area not covered by the BDA 24 photos? 25 A. No. 320 1 Q. Did you seek to determine if any of the 2 points selected by the software or whatever it was to 3 be used for accuracy assessment coincided with the 4 training points used in the earlier map generation 5 process for the 2A for the 1993 image? 6 A. I did not check. 7 Q. Are you aware of the bias that would be 8 induced in an accuracy assessment if that, in fact, 9 occurred? 10 I guess, to put it another way, isn't that 11 a statistical no-no? 12 A. The training points were shown on our 13 accuracy check of the 1993 photography. And the 14 accuracy assessment points at that time did not 15 include any of the training points. 16 I did not check to see if, in fact, any of 17 the accuracy points for the national high altitude 18 program photographs. The older photographs were the 19 same as some of our recent training points. 20 Q. You understand the bias that induced? 21 A. Yes, I understand. 22 Q. I am thinking it through. Tell me if I'm 23 wrong here, but if you select a point for your 24 training point and you later say, gee, let that be an 25 accuracy assessment point, and you ground visited, 321 1 you hope it's 100% because you went there and checked 2 it? 3 A. Yes. That is within the same date 4 photograph. 5 Now, if an accuracy assessment point on the 6 older photography had happened to fall on what was a 7 training point in the more recent photography, I 8 don't think that introduces a bias, because what we 9 are looking at is possibility of vegetative change 10 and that could occur anywhere. 11 Q. But I understood you earlier to say that 12 you engaged certain presumptions about the stability 13 of significant vegetative features within the area, 14 and that formed a substantial basis for your 15 assessment of vegetative community identification in 16 the earlier photos. 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Understand I'm not asking you to quantify 19 this yet. 20 A. Because I can't. 21 Q. That's the next question. But I guess you 22 sort of made that point, if there is a point. 23 Who picked the features to be used for the 24 assessment, the accuracy assessment? I think I 25 understood you to say there was 100 -- initially 100 322 1 feature points? 2 A. The computer picked the points. 3 Q. Randomly generated. You don't know what 4 other program was involved, just random? 5 A. I was told it was random. 6 Q. Paring it down to 35, was it simply an 7 arbitrary decision to take the first 35 to maintain 8 the randomness in some fashion? 9 MS. RAEPPLE: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: May I answer the question? 11 MS. RAEPPLE: Yes, if you understand it. 12 MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: You certainly may. 13 THE WITNESS: If we had selected points 14 throughout the 100, we could have introduced a 15 bias as to where those were. By selecting them 16 in actual sequence, we avoided any kind of bias. 17 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 18 Q. Are you familiar with the substantial body 19 of literature in photogrammetrical interpretation 20 that deals with how one selects the number of points 21 for statistical significance in an accuracy 22 assessment? 23 A. No, I'm not. 24 Q. So you are relying on Mr. Downing for that, 25 I would imagine? 323 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was any effort made in constructing the 3 program or selecting the points for assessment to 4 insure that all vegetative communities representative 5 of the area of the variation in the area were 6 adequately represented to avoid false results in your 7 assessment? 8 A. You have to ask Mr. Downing. It's my 9 understanding that the randomness was purely 10 geographic in nature and not that there wasn't a 11 factor built into the selection to insure that all 12 gradations were selected. 13 If that was built into the selection 14 process of the points, then I don't know about it. 15 It could have been done and I wouldn't know. 16 Q. In the actual results, because you saw the 17 results, the 35 that you examined, what was the 18 distribution of those 35 amongst seven or 10 whatever 19 it is categories of vegetative classes actually 20 reflected? 21 A. I don't know the actual numbers. But most 22 of them were in sawgrass, a lesser number in cattail. 23 And I know that on at least one occasion it hit dead 24 center on top of a tree island. 25 Q. Which type of tree island? 324 1 A. It was a head of a tree island, what would 2 have been called the bay head. Whether or not it was 3 actually the bay making the signature -- 4 Q. Were you aware that the spectral signatures 5 on some of the satellite bands of a bay head is 6 indistinguishable from a brush, sawgrass, tree 7 island? 8 A. What little I have done in trying to 9 recognize things like that, I think my opinion is 10 they are not distinguishable and weren't 11 distinguishable, based on what I have done. 12 I did not put down bay head as the answer. 13 I put down tree island. 14 Q. You think its proper to classify a mixed 15 brush sawgrass community as a tree island? 16 A. We had some check points built into the 17 first determination that showed a slight pink dotting 18 represented by -- it could have been bay, could have 19 been willow, it could have been wax myrtle -- into a 20 field that otherwise appeared with the color and 21 texture of sawgrass. 22 Based on our ground truth, we realized that 23 a small number of pink dots in a field that looks 24 like sawgrass should be called sawgrass because the 25 sawgrass is overwhelmingly dominant. The only time 325 1 in a tree island feature where we called it actually 2 a tree island is in the head of the tree island where 3 there is an entire cluster of pink. 4 Q. Is cattails in the Everglades ecosystem or 5 South Florida in general senescent in November or 6 December? 7 A. The site visits we did in November and 8 December showed cattail still with a substantial 9 amount of chlorophyl. We did not see seed heads at 10 that time of the year. 11 I'm aware from other work that I have done 12 that cattail in February and March is frequently 13 brown. We still found it green with some indication 14 that it was becoming senescent -- that is, yellow and 15 orange colors coming in. Also chlorophyl. 16 Q. I believe you testified last time that that 17 effect could be accelerated or would be associated in 18 your mind with colder weather onset? 19 A. And hypothesis based on what other plants 20 do. But that's strictly a hypothesis. I stated that 21 because of my observations, that I had seen cattails 22 turn to colors where there should be easily 23 recognizable at least in visible bands from sawgrass 24 during a so-called senescent stage when it ultimately 25 turns brown. I had seen that intensely in large 326 1 areas in February and March. 2 Q. What month of the year were the BDA runs 3 made? 4 A. We have the actual date here and they were 5 in early '93. I have to get the actual -- they were 6 the 2nd of February, '93. 7 Q. Do you have any idea what the prevailing 8 weather conditions were for that? 9 A. Other than '93 was a mild winter. In terms 10 of intense cold fronts, I don't have it. 11 Q. How is your memory for 1984 and '85? How 12 is your memory for back then, November and December, 13 whenever it was back then? 14 A. '89 I remember fairly distinctly. 15 Christmas '89 was a rather harsh freeze. But, in 16 fact, I don't know for those earlier years. 17 Q. In November 2, was the shoot in '84 -- '83. 18 November 2, '83 is the accuracy assessed? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. That's what we were just looking at, the 21 photos were shot 10 months from that 11/85 -- 3/3/84 22 and 2/85. 23 So we have February photo imagery and we 24 have -- of 10 months earlier than the satellite, and 25 you said you had a second set of CIR from March of 327 1 '84, which is 8 out in the annual cycle and 20 months 2 out in actual time. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Given the vagaries that might be induced by 5 weather conditions on the state of the cattail and 6 its spectral signature, could you account in any 7 fashion for possible error that might be induced in 8 the interpretation? 9 A. Yes. What I would say about that is that 10 all of those things would tend to deteriorate my 11 ability to judge what was seen by the satellite at a 12 different date. 13 The fact that the photography is at a 14 different time of the year, slightly different time 15 of the year and a different date. So I think that 16 that will be reflected in how well I did in the 17 accuracy assessment, because all of those things 18 would tend to deteriorate the accuracy assessment. 19 It would be a rare combination of 20 circumstances that would make it improve an accuracy 21 assessment. 22 Q. What I'm not quite able to follow here is 23 how something that causes a misclassification that 24 nobody can ground truth will show up as inaccuracy 25 when you are working back in time. I'm not sure I 328 1 made that clear for you. Did I? 2 A. No, you didn't. 3 Q. You have said several times that any of the 4 problems that can crop in that would affect your 5 ability to interpret the photo -- like atmospheric 6 conditions, fire, et cetera, would ultimately show up 7 in the accuracy assessment and would be reflected in 8 the ultimate assessment. 9 That may well be. But the problem I have 10 is if the inaccuracy is that you confidently 11 misidentify something because over that time span the 12 vagaries of nature distort what you think you are 13 seeing, I don't see how that shows up in the accuracy 14 assessment. 15 A. Okay. Where that shows up is in building 16 the basis for the interpretation of the satellite 17 imagery data I fed to them. And we really haven't 18 discussed a number of points for establishing the 19 vegetation of that time frame. 20 I gave them several numbers of points with 21 UTM data coordinates, what I said was cattail in the 22 '83 or '84 photographs. So that was built in. 23 Whatever signature was read by the satellite data, 24 that information was used to train the computer to 25 recognize cattail, to recognize sawgrass, to 329 1 recognize broad leaf vegetation, as would be present 2 in a tree island. 3 Q. And you knew how to classify that for the 4 November 2 run back then in '83, because you had done 5 a similar process complete with field visits in the 6 training for '93 and you told the '93 program this is 7 what you will find at the training points. Then it 8 went through the algorism. It generated ultimately 9 the map for 1993. 10 Now you are saying I'm going to read that 11 training ability into the 1983 run using photos that 12 I will interpret based on my 1993 experience. And if 13 your 1993 experience does not translate accurately 14 because the physical condition of the foliage is not 15 the same or reasonably close, an error will be 16 induced that we have no way of calculating in your 17 accuracy assessment because the program is blind to 18 it and you, in a sense, are blind to it as well 19 because you can't ground truth it? 20 A. That's correct. And what I'm saying is 21 that in our accuracy assessment, that that should be 22 reflected in a very low success rate. The number of 23 times that I -- so to say by the process of not 24 knowing exactly, I'm calling it a guess, what the 25 vegetation is, it's always an educated guess. I will 330 1 make a number of wrong guesses against an image that 2 has been trained by wrong information. 3 So you put the two together. I don't mean 4 wrong information, I mean by guesses based on '83 and 5 '84 photography. So if you put the two inaccuracies 6 together, it should make your accuracy assessment 7 come out worse and worse and worse. So what I'm 8 saying, if we get some reasonable degree of accuracy, 9 I'm trusting and crossing my fingers what Mr. Downing 10 did with my numbers that you will get tomorrow, that 11 if that is a reasonable number, that I'll hang my hat 12 on it and say we evidently found something. 13 Q. I hear a lot of like professional judgment 14 calls being articulated there. Is that a fair way to 15 characterize the process that you went through, both 16 for the '93 and the '83 process in identifying what 17 is there? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. The process that you have pursued with this 20 serial overlay and estimation process for accuracy 21 assessment, how often in your experience in the field 22 of color IR or interpretation have you used that 23 methodology? 24 A. Do you mean prior to the exercise that we 25 have been discussing at this table? 331 1 Q. That's not the methodology used for '93? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. So for the '83 -- '85 assessment, November 4 2 run, have you ever done it that way before? 5 A. I based it on work -- I based it all on 6 photography, but training myself by oblique 35 7 millimeter aerial photographs where you could, in 8 fact, recognize particular plants. 9 Let me give you a time frame -- a frame of 10 reference a little bit better. This would be from an 11 airplane or helicopter flying at -- as low as about 12 250 feet, shooting diagonally out the side so you can 13 recognize point blank what a pine tree is. 14 And given my experience in estuarian areas, 15 for example, it's very easy to recognize black 16 return. As you move up it's easy to recognize 17 freshwater, grass. And with that kind of training, I 18 taught myself to recognize features in vertical color 19 infrared photography and conventional color 20 photography. 21 After the fact people have ground checked 22 that and found that I did well. 23 Q. Let's focus on the question now that I 24 asked, which was how many times in the past have you 25 used this methodology as you used in your accuracy 332 1 assessment for the November 2 run? 2 A. I have done it before. I can't tell you 3 how many times. But I have been through so many 4 versions of photo interpretation in consulting work 5 that I have done this before. But not to this 6 degree, that is correct. 7 Q. Am I fair in assuming that this was for 8 like dredge and fill assessment and that sort of 9 thing? 10 A. Yes. That sort of thing, but a more broad 11 spectrum for the information required for a 12 development. Regional impact requires more than just 13 the wetland assessment, it requires the upland as 14 well, complete vegetation mapping. 15 So I have looked at more than just wetland. 16 I looked at upland and wetland. 17 Q. What would be the largest geographic area 18 where you have done this? 19 A. The largest was a portion of a 19,000 acre 20 development on the west coast of Florida. And the 21 largest plat of that, which was done with some ground 22 truth, but almost all aerial photography was 6,000 23 acres. Two other plats added to that, which were a 24 couple of thousand. 25 Q. I may have been insufficiently precise in 333 1 my question. 2 I'm asking you instances where there was no 3 ground truthing because you didn't ground truth for 4 this. You trained yourself, I understand that 5 process. But there is no ground truthing by 6 chronological limitation, the fourth dimension 7 precludes it? 8 A. There are areas in the Big Cypress Swamp I 9 have interpreted without being anywhere near it on 10 the ground. 11 Q. Going back 10 plus years with high altitude 12 CIR photography where you went through the whole 13 process of reducing the quads, adjusting the 14 photography to get a decent scale out of it? 15 A. Not quite to that extent. But, yes, a 16 number of these steps were, in fact, used. We went 17 back to 1951, black and white aerial photography. 18 Q. And when you did that, which was the point 19 of all of this, what was the percentage accuracy 20 assessment that resulted from those various projects? 21 A. I don't recall. 22 Q. Did you do them? 23 A. We had some accuracy assessment, but only 24 for the most modern features. We picked a number of 25 points, not randomly generated, but we picked points -- 334 1 let's see, if we interpreted this area and this area 2 and this area, and we went and looked at them and 3 found, in fact, we had done so, we had done it 4 correctly. 5 Q. But assessing it in that fashion in the 6 field of photogrammetry has no statistical 7 significance, does it, when you can't assign a 8 percentage? 9 A. I couldn't have assigned a percent 10 accuracy on that, no. 11 Q. So in these types of projects, you selected 12 prominent features that simply someone perhaps not as 13 skilled as you wouldn't even have the ability to 14 confuse and verified that it, in fact, was accurately 15 reflected over the time period involved? 16 A. A number of the time periods involved, yes. 17 But you must realize one of the things you 18 want to ground truth the most -- in fact, it was done 19 for the Big Cypress work -- was the confusing areas 20 where we thought it was one thing and we went and 21 made sure and found that we had done well. 22 That gives you a sense of professional 23 confidence, but it's not quantified. 24 Q. But your sense of professional confidence 25 in these earlier projects based on a similar, if not 335 1 as expansive, mechanism was sufficient for you to 2 submit it and expect the people for whom you were 3 performing this work to rely on within a reasonable 4 degree of professional certainty? 5 A. That was the whole reason for going through 6 a type of accuracy assessment that we have done, is 7 to try to quantify what I would otherwise have to 8 describe as professional opinion. 9 Somebody in Kennesaw, Georgia at our main 10 office between last night and today is grading my 11 paper. 12 Q. Who is doing that? 13 A. Mr. Downing is doing that. 14 Q. In grading any of -- he didn't grade any of 15 your earlier efforts like this, did he? 16 A. The one last week. But, no. 17 Q. We haven't seen that, so I can't ask you 18 about that. 19 You don't have the number from '93? 20 A. '93, I was told it was slightly in excess 21 of 70%. 22 Q. What type of accuracy assessment is that? 23 Is it producers or users? 24 A. I don't know the difference. 25 Q. That's overall. Do you know the accuracy 336 1 assessment for individual classes? 2 A. I have been told that that was quantified. 3 And that for sawgrass and cattail which we focused on 4 most carefully -- and we, in fact, ended up being two 5 of the classes that are reasonably easy to separate -- 6 that we did better. And it was other kind of classes 7 where we did not do so well. 8 Q. If that was done and you know that, why 9 don't we have it? 10 A. That was given to me verbally. I don't 11 have a piece of paper. 12 MS. RAEPPLE: Was that not produced at 13 Mr. Downing's deposition, the accuracy 14 assessment for the '93? 15 MR. CESARANO: No. 16 MS. RAEPPLE: You have never seen that? 17 MR. CESARANO: No. 18 MS. RAEPPLE: Let me see if I have it. 19 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 20 Q. While you are looking, perhaps a collateral 21 question. The document that was provided us today 22 that shows land cover classifications for 2A based on 23 the '85 Landsat, the '93 Landsat, have you compared 24 any of those acreages to the analogous classes 25 produced by Dr. Jensen's work for any of his time 337 1 normalized series or Ken Rutchey's work? 2 A. No, I have not. 3 Q. Do you plan to do that? 4 A. I don't plan to. I may come across those 5 numbers. But the actual comparison, I believe, is in 6 the area that Mr. Downing has to substantiate for me. 7 Q. You said that you would not be analyzing 8 Ken Rutchey's photography work to determine the 9 accuracy of his plant identification and field work. 10 To your knowledge, is anyone else doing that now? 11 A. I believe that there has been -- that 12 Mr. Downing has taken a look at the methodologies 13 Mr. Rutchey used, and that whatever aspect of that he 14 will cover will be in his deposition. 15 Q. You understand I'm asking strictly about 16 the ground truthing end of it -- 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. -- which I understood you to say 9 or 10 19 days ago you would do if you had the time to get 20 around to it? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I'm asking, has Mr. Downing taken over that 23 facet of it? 24 A. He will not be in a capacity to judge 25 whether Mr. Rutchey correctly identified cattail in 338 1 the field or correctly identified sawgrass. 2 So we may be under the assumption that what 3 he calls sawgrass and what he calls cattail is 4 correct. 5 Q. So you, anyway at this point, will not be 6 challenging any of Mr. Rutchey's interpretations that 7 may -- identifications that may underlie his work? 8 A. No. Part of the reason -- the main reason 9 that has been put aside is that the identification of 10 those plants in the field is very easy, and I don't 11 expect that there would be any fruitful basis for 12 challenging those particular plants. 13 Q. I also understood from your testimony a 14 week or 10 days ago that doing that check would be 15 incredibly difficult. Based only on photography and 16 even videotape, it would be very difficult to do. 17 There were problems when you attempted to do that? 18 A. Yes. We established that the field notes 19 are the most important. 20 Q. You described for counsel a circular 21 pattern growth of cattail in the Everglades ecosystem 22 as being one of the features that you utilized on 23 high altitude photography to assist you in your 24 identification and classification; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. That's useful in assisting, but it 339 1 does not follow everywhere. But it appears that 2 cattail in a number of locations start as an 3 individual plant or perhaps a group of plants that 4 started in a some fortuitous circumstances and then 5 reproduced by rhizome development. 6 I described to you having looked at that in 7 aerial photography at an impoundment at the west 8 coast of a Florida development called Rotunda. I had 9 some experience in looking at that in successive 10 years from aerial photography. 11 When I saw these clusters of circles in the 12 field work that we did and saw that the cattails, in 13 fact, were often like that I suppose maybe that was 14 vegetative reproduction that accounted for it. And 15 between the color signature being right and that 16 circular feature, I felt that I could recognize 17 cattail in the older photographs. 18 Q. Doesn't sawgrass also grow in circular 19 patterns many places in the Everglades? 20 A. Yes. That's where you need to have a look 21 at color in addition to that pattern. Now, where 22 sawgrass is a expansive feature over a great deal of 23 territory and a circular pattern in the sawgrass with 24 a slightly different color signature is apparent, 25 then you suspect it's a different plant. 340 1 MR. CESARANO: Off the record. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 4 Q. Do you know if the error analysis that has 5 been done for '93 which you have heard about is -- by 6 word of mouth, does that include a complete error 7 matrix or is it just a reported number by class 8 overall? 9 Do you understand what I mean by matrix? 10 A. Yes. There is a matrix, but it identifies 11 it also by class so that Mr. Downing knows how well I 12 did in various categories. 13 Q. You described for us last time two 14 contracts involved between your firm and your clients 15 for this particular litigation. 16 Are there still just the two contracts 17 outstanding, your personal one to provide advice and 18 one to provide vegie maps? 19 A. It's not my personal one. It is a contract 20 of Law Environmental to provide my services. 21 Q. Your personal? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have there been any extensions on either of 24 those contracts? 25 A. No. 341 1 Q. So despite the work, you haven't exceeded 2 your 10,000 cap yet? 3 A. Okay. The 10,000 cap was for my initial 4 assisting of Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams in 5 developing whatever strategies or whatever knowledge 6 they needed to work on their aspects of this case. 7 My participation as a witness here is 8 separate from that and does not have a cap on it. 9 But I did not exceed the 10,000 at all on the other 10 work. I don't have the actual dollar figure, but I 11 haven't gone far over the 10,000. 12 I think I'm in excess of it totally, 13 putting everything together. 14 Q. You indicated you had not read or reviewed 15 Jensen's or Rutchey's work but that you had at some 16 time in the past reviewed other vegetative maps. 17 Have you in the last 10 days reviewed any 18 other vegetative maps, whatever source, regarding the 19 Everglades ecosystem to assist you in your work? 20 A. Not other than the historic maps that I 21 have been using in my book, particularly the Davis 22 map of 1943. 23 Q. And in what fashion would you be relying on 24 or basing any of your opinions in this matter with 25 regard to the accuracy assessment or the production 342 1 of the 1993 map on the Davis work for 1943? 2 A. Not at all. 3 Q. Did you ever figure out the significance of 4 the assignment of the letter H, R and E to your 5 training sites? 6 A. They were essentially arbitrary. 7 Mr. Downing had some reason that he could remember 8 what those sequences were. But since there were 9 similar number sequences from different trips, they 10 were assigned a letter designators to make sure they 11 weren't confused. 12 Q. When you were doing the work with the 1 to 13 24,000 grid and IR for the 1993 effort, you testified 14 that originally you started out with 10 sites that 15 would be training sites that you visited in the 16 field. And because of time constraints and other 17 factors, that was cut back to 200, it was cut back to 18 something on the order of 70 plus? 19 A. Those were not training sites. 20 Q. What were those? 21 A. Those were the accuracy assessment sites. 22 We did identify initially 200. Maybe even 250. 23 Q. That was done by random programming? 24 A. That's correct. We cut that back and the 25 actual accuracy check you asked -- I was asked 343 1 earlier how many we had done. I couldn't come up 2 with a number. I did see that I checked off at least 3 through number 89 on the map. I don't remember how 4 many we did. I would think it's probably on the 5 order of 10. 6 Q. That was done as you did for the November 2 7 '83 photo or imagery -- that was also done using CIR; 8 is that correct, color infrared photos? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. In that process for the '93 map that you 11 produced for 2A last month or a couple of weeks ago, 12 when you dropped from the 200 assessment sites to 13 something on the order of 70 or whatever it was, was 14 that a stratified random sample? 15 A. I don't know. I do know that we had to go 16 through the same process, though, making sure that we 17 took the numbers in order to preserve the randomness. 18 Q. Was any effort made in that process to 19 insure that variability would not be understated by 20 including within that sample sufficient 21 representative sites for each of the classifications 22 appearing in the map? 23 A. I think Mr. Downing will have to answer 24 that. My assumption is that there was not built 25 into -- it was poorly geographic and not to satisfy a 344 1 certain number of points in particular classes. 2 Q. Were you aware that a substantial body of 3 literature in the field of remote sensing identifies 4 ways in which one should geographically distribute 5 your sites for purposes of assessment in terms of 6 both physical geography and classification geography? 7 A. I'm not aware of that. It becomes more 8 difficult to use randomly selected data to quantify 9 actual areas of various plant communities. It 10 becomes more difficult statistically to come up with 11 those numbers. But it can be done. 12 Q. Does it decrease the accuracy of the 13 ultimate acreage numbers generated if you don't use 14 something like a stratified random sample? 15 A. This is getting out of my area. I don't 16 know the answer to that. 17 Q. So the extent of your knowledge is yes, it 18 can cause you problems, but it can't take it beyond 19 that? 20 A. The extent of my knowledge is that we used 21 what I thought was a geographically random process of 22 selecting points. And that I'm aware that that is a 23 good way to quantify an area of various classes of 24 vegetation coverage. And it would get out of my 25 ability to do the quantification if the points were 345 1 other than randomly selected. 2 Q. I obviously had some confusion in my mind 3 over the number of sites that were assessment sites 4 thinking those were training sites. I may repeat 5 just a little bit, but I'm almost done, some of what 6 we covered the last time because I have listened to 7 too many terms of art in this field already. 8 How were the training sites for the '93 9 imagery selected? 10 A. '93 is the recent imagery. The training 11 sites were selected in the field for identifiable 12 vegetation that was of interest in this 13 classification system. So we -- 14 Q. So that was a supervised classification 15 process? 16 A. That's correct. I supervised it. 17 Mr. Downing contributed to the supervision by 18 requesting that we have reasonably good coverage 19 aerially of the subject, particularly water 20 conservation area 2A. But we looked at other places. 21 Q. Was any statistical test used for that 22 purpose, to satisfy the concern that Mr. Downing 23 expressed to you? 24 A. To my knowledge, no test was used. 25 Q. This was simply a fly out there and pick a 346 1 site that looks big and of a community that we are 2 interested in? 3 A. That's correct. I'll qualify the "big" by 4 saying that we try to judge that it would be 5 substantially larger than a pixel. 6 Q. You said 10 days ago something in the order 7 of several hundred feet across? 8 A. That would be three pixels across. 9 Q. And when you set out on this process, that 10 you and Mr. Downing agreed on the number of training 11 sites throughout the system? 12 A. I think Mr. Downing had an idea of how many 13 that would be, but it was certainly tailored by our 14 experience of how confusing it was or how simple it 15 was, that we found that the areas of -- for example, 16 of dense cattail were sufficiently easy to recognize, 17 that we quit looking for dense areas of just cattail 18 and started looking for mixes of cattail and sawgrass 19 and so on that we knew might be more confusing -- if 20 it was confusing to us, might be more confusing to 21 the process. 22 Q. Were the non-confusing dense monotypical, 23 if you will, stands of cattails more prevalent in one 24 area of the ecosystem that you analyzed than in 25 others? 347 1 A. Well, the northern -- where we discussed in 2 the northern part of 2A, there are extensive areas of 3 monotypical cattail. But we found them elsewhere, 4 too. That shows up on the aerial photography pretty 5 much the way we saw them of circular or somewhat 6 circular patches that were monotypical. 7 Q. And, in fact, how many training sites did 8 you use? 9 A. I don't have the actual number. If you add 10 up, H, R, E -- 11 Q. Can you give me a ballpark figure? 12 A. 70. 13 Q. Do you know their distribution by class in 14 the earlier -- larger field of classes that was 15 originally used in '93? 16 A. No, I would be guessing on those numbers. 17 Q. What did you do to insure that you had a 18 statistically significant number of training sites 19 for each class that you were going to employ and 20 ultimately employed? 21 A. The statistics of it wasn't my 22 responsibility. 23 Q. That's Mr. Downing's? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you use all of the training sites in 348 1 developing the 1993 map that was made an exhibit last 2 week? 3 A. I assumed that we did, but I don't know. 4 Q. And I know we talked about this for the 5 1985 version, but for the 1993 were any of the 6 accuracy assessment sites co-located or coincident 7 geographically with training sites? 8 A. Some were close, but there weren't any 9 direct overlaps. 10 I do recall when the 200 number was printed 11 out that there were a couple of the higher numbers 12 that did happen to overlap our training sites, but 13 the number that we selected, that went up to -- I 14 forget. I saw a 99 -- 89 on this map. I think it 15 was 100 accuracy assessment points. None of those 16 fell on a training site. That's my recollection. 17 Q. In Everglades National Park you had 10 18 sites that you had requested to visit. And as I 19 understand it, you visited like five of them. Those 20 were assessment sites or were they training sites? 21 A. Training sites. 22 Q. Did you have any assessment sites in 23 Everglades National Park? 24 A. No. We didn't do any assessment sites. 25 Assessment sites were done totally on aerial 349 1 photography. 2 Q. I'm not asking if you visited -- did you 3 have any there? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you know how many you had in WCA-3A 6 assessment sites? 7 A. No. I don't recall. A lot smaller than we 8 had in 2A. 9 Q. How many did you have in 2A? 10 A. The lion's share of them. I don't know the 11 actual number. 12 Q. It's your view or your understanding that 13 the lion's share being in 2A was the result of the 14 randomness of the generation program that selected 15 them? 16 A. No, we are talking about -- 17 Q. Assessment? 18 A. We are talking about training sites. 19 Q. I'm talking about assessment. 20 A. There were no assessment sites anywhere 21 except in 2A. 22 Q. That answers the next question, which is 23 why there is a legend on one of these maps that says 24 no accuracy assessment sites for 2A. 25 A. That is right. 350 1 Q. Why did you not do an accuracy assessment 2 for the rest of this work? 3 A. Mr. Downing will have to answer for that. 4 I did the vegetation identification. We focused 5 accuracy checks on 2A. 6 Q. So to the trier of fact and for the moment 7 me, how do you express your confidence in the 8 materials depicted on the April 4, 1994 150,000 scale 9 map that's "Supervised Classification of the Thematic 10 MMI" for December 10, 1993 for the areas exclusive to 11 WCA-2A? 12 A. I don't have any reason to believe that the 13 accuracy would be greatly different elsewhere than it 14 would be in 2A. But, in fact, the only place we 15 quantified it is 2A, so the percentage of accuracy 16 that Mr. Downing will bring to you -- that I reported 17 was somewhere in excess of 70% -- applies to 2A. And 18 if it's any different elsewhere, I don't know. I 19 would be surprised if it was greatly different 20 elsewhere. 21 Q. That's based on just professional judgment 22 because you can't quantify it through statistical 23 evaluation or testing, or you didn't? 24 A. I did not. That's based on the fact that 25 when I fly around in the helicopter, I can recognize 351 1 cattail as easily in Everglades National Park as I 2 can in 2A. I'm under the assumption, then, that the 3 satellite, being a better eye than me in terms of 4 various types of sensitivity, would do at least as 5 well as I did. 6 Q. The April 5 production of the 1993 7 supervised classification for WCA-2A, which has only 8 2A on it in comparison to the December '93 imagery 9 that shows the entire Everglades or a good chunk of 10 the protection area, the study area dated April 4 I 11 was just referring to are different scales. 12 But other than the scaling, was anything 13 done to process and present the imagery on the 2A 14 alone, depiction as opposed to the 2A in conjunction 15 with Loxahatchee 2B, 3A 3B in the northern expanse of -- 16 A. No, Mr. Downing will answer that question. 17 Q. You don't know if there is any difference 18 in the processing of the imagery? 19 A. I have been led to believe that they are 20 identical. But I, in fact, haven't had time myself 21 to satisfy that curiosity by doing a detailed 22 comparison. 23 Q. It's a little difficult to do given the 24 fact there are three to one scale differences, isn't 25 it? 352 1 A. By scaling, though, it's reasonably easy to 2 sit down and take some time. But you can do that. 3 Q. Were you involved in the preparation of 4 these types of unsupervised depictions of 2A on 5 various dates, including but not limited to, the 6 first two for December 10, 1993? 7 But they show unsupervised classification 8 for 36 classes and 99 classes, respectively. They 9 were produced both on March 29, 1994. 10 Were you involved in that effort? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you know why those were produced? 13 A. No. 14 Q. With regard to water conservation area 2A, 15 January 13, '89 thematic mapper scene -- again 36 16 classes and 99 classes produced March '94 -- were you 17 involved in either of those efforts? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Same for WCA, January 8, 1987, 36 classes 20 and 99 classes, were you involved in the efforts to 21 prepare these on March 29? 22 A. No, I was not. 23 Q. Do you know for whom these six documents 24 were prepared -- not in terms of the law firm, but in 25 terms of usage for purposes of facts at issue in the 353 1 case? 2 A. That's Mr. Downing's area of how these maps 3 were used and what kind of comparison he was able to 4 make as his area. 5 Q. You don't know what comparisons he was 6 attempting in any of this process? 7 A. Procedures called tasseled cap. I'm not 8 familiar with the details of how that comparison is 9 done. 10 Q. Do you know what tasseled cap is? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Is the same true, then, with respect to the 13 November 2, '85 satellite imagery, again 36 classes 14 and 99 for area 2A? 15 A. No, I'm not familiar with what those are 16 for, either. 17 Q. The grid overlay system that you described 18 for the 1993 effort, was that done for any of the 19 other water conservation areas, Loxahatchee or 20 Everglades National Park, as part of the process of 21 producing the 1 to 150,000 scale map? 22 A. No, that was not done. 23 Q. Never attempted whatsoever? 24 A. Never attempted. 25 Q. Did you ever ascertain the source of 354 1 digitized canal data that are reflected by the red 2 lines on the earlier grid system for the '93 effort 3 that turned out to be inaccurate? 4 A. No. And because of that, we only used 5 those very generally in locating features. We 6 depended on UTM coordinates. 7 Q. I notice the same lines, although not in 8 red any more on the effort for the 1985 grid process, 9 had the data been updated or was the same limitation 10 inherent in that case? 11 A. It's my understanding it's the same 12 limitation. 13 Q. You stated at your initial deposition that 14 when the software package did not generate all the 15 random points accurately, that someone went back to 16 verify by hand that the points selected by the 17 program were, in fact, 3 by 3 uniform or homogenous 18 pixels. Did you do that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Who did? 21 A. Mr. Downing did. That entire accuracy 22 assessment was discarded and replaced by the one that 23 I did later in the week that carries my signature on 24 the grid dated March 30. 25 Q. Why precisely was the earlier effort 355 1 discarded? 2 A. Because of the improperly selected points 3 we decided to regenerate it. And Mr. Downing can 4 explain the basis for doing that and what accuracy 5 was involved in the computer work. 6 Q. You stated the last time around as well 7 that in the fire area, accuracy could be done. And 8 that the accuracy assessment would determine that. 9 And I guess I didn't understand that then and thought 10 that I would understand it after today. 11 Unfortunately, I still don't. 12 Can you elaborate what you meant by that? 13 A. Mr. Downing knows from results that I 14 turned in. I commented if it was an area of visible 15 fire scar, that might be problematic. I put that on 16 my data sheet. 17 Q. There were four of those points? 18 A. There were four that I saw there that were 19 in the area that I described as being in the northern 20 apex and down the western side of water conservation 21 Area 2A. He could quantify those separately from 22 what I turned in. Whether or not he did that, I 23 don't know. 24 Q. You extrapolated the data from 2A in the 25 Loxahatchee, basically signature extension. What 356 1 does that do to the accuracy of the depictions for 2A 2 for Loxahatchee, not 2A? 3 A. The communities in Loxahatchee are 4 substantially different than they are in 2A. I would 5 expect that that extrapolation would be more 6 problematic into Loxahatchee than it would be into 7 3A. 8 Q. You believe that the 3A -- which is what, 9 twice the size of 2A -- is sufficiently similar in 10 vegetative communities that you can extrapolate 11 without any significant deterioration in quality? 12 A. It's closer than Loxahatchee. 13 MS. RAEPPLE: Just for point of 14 clarification, Counselor, are you saying that 15 they did a signature extension or if they did a 16 signature extension? 17 MR. CESARANO: I'm saying that the -- 18 MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: I'm saying the 19 witness the last time around told me Loxahatchee 20 is based on data point. 21 Now I'm going to ask about hovering a 22 thousand feet overhead how accurate that is in 23 terms of assessing the vegetation for purposes 24 of training points in Loxahatchee. 25 MS. RAEPPLE: Perhaps you need to go over 357 1 that again. I think you misunderstood his prior 2 testimony on that point. 3 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 4 Q. Dr. Lodge, did I misunderstand your prior 5 testimony on that point? 6 A. Well, I may be confused as to exactly what 7 ** we will establish. We did have some hovering 8 points in Loxahatchee where we established ground 9 truth, but knowing that our accuracy where we were 10 wasn't that good. 11 Q. What you are calling ground truth was the 12 same as training sites? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. How many did you do in Loxahatchee from a 15 thousand feet up? 16 A. I don't recall the actual number. 17 Q. Where would it be reflected? 18 A. Mr. Downing will have to tell you what that 19 number is. I identified the vegetation. I didn't 20 keep track of the numbers of sites. 21 Q. You told me Loxahatchee is markedly 22 distinct or somewhat distinct in the vegetative 23 communities from the adjacent 2A. 24 Does that imply that in your entire 25 training effort you could be extrapolating signatures 358 1 from the balance of the water conservation areas into 2 Loxahatchee WCA-1A that would inaccurately depict the 3 vegetative communities in 1A? 4 A. I would expect the accuracy in 1A to be 5 less than it is in -- it's not 1A, it's just 1 -- 6 Q. I'm sorry, 1. 7 A. -- less than 2A, because 2A is where we did 8 the accuracy checks. So we have a measured level of 9 confidence. What we did in 2A, we didn't do that in 10 Loxahatchee. 11 Q. You said something interesting. You said 12 you did an accuracy check or assessment in 2A using 13 the color IR, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You did not do that in 1? 16 A. No. 17 Q. There was no photo imagery available? 18 A. There was imagery available from Breedlove, 19 Dennis that overlapped into area 1 into Loxahatchee. 20 For whatever reason, we did not do accuracy checks in 21 Loxahatchee. 22 Q. And based on what I saw in the 1 to 150,000 23 study area map, you did not do an accuracy assessment 24 in 3A and B or Everglades National Park? 25 A. That's correct. 359 1 Q. They didn't begin the process or attempt it 2 in any fashion? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Yet it's clear there is color IR 5 photography available from a variety of sources, 6 although it might not be that close in time to -- of 7 the 1993 satellite run? 8 A. I'm under the assumption that color IR 9 would be available. But we just did not seek it or 10 use it. 11 Q. Would you be comfortable professionally in 12 trying to utilize the depiction of WCA-1 in the 13 absence of an accuracy assessment, given what you 14 have told me about the variance in vegetative 15 communities? 16 A. I wouldn't be able, of course, to put a 17 percentage value on the accuracy when we get outside 18 of 2A. The assumption is that the accuracy would not 19 be as good outside because conditions are different, 20 but I think the general accuracy of the map would be 21 quite revealing of the kind of communities that are 22 there. And I think that if we compared it to ground 23 truth, you would find that the mapping is much more 24 useful than not having it. 25 Q. So something is better than nothing, within 360 1 limits? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. With regard to Everglades National Park and 4 its similarities to the accuracy assessed 2A, are the 5 vegetative communities there also sufficiently 6 different that you would be cautious or be concerned 7 about attempting to extrapolate 2A's data or accuracy 8 levels to Everglades National Park? 9 A. I would be more comfortable going from the 10 kind of characteristics of 2A into Everglades 11 National Park than Loxahatchee. 12 That's my personal judgment. Just a quick 13 perusal of where I recall having seen cattail in 3A 14 and in the northern edge of Everglades National Park 15 and along the L-67 extension levee canal, that we 16 ended up showing cattail there, for example, where we 17 also verified from helicopter that it was there in 18 the field. 19 And so a type of accuracy determination -- 20 I'm looking at the map right now, I see that there 21 are things -- features that were similar to what I 22 recollect. I can't be quantitative about that at 23 all. 24 Q. It's strictly a subjective, qualitative 25 analysis? 361 1 A. Right. 2 Q. When you trained this, is the right term, 3 when you trained your algorism to generate the 1993 4 WCA-2A image, you trained the algorism to generate 5 the entire study area image? 6 You didn't do a separate process for 2A? 7 A. You are going to have to ask Mr. Downing 8 those details. 9 MS. RAEPPLE: Is that a question? Was that 10 a question? I didn't hear a question. 11 BY MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: 12 Q. You told me a little while ago that the two 13 charts -- we do have one of 2A for December 10 and 14 the one for the entire area of study for December 10, 15 '93 -- that you thought more or less the 2A 16 depictions, although different in scale, appear 17 without detail? 18 A. It's my understanding that those are the 19 same. 20 Q. You didn't do two separate mapping efforts 21 with two separate training runs, did you, to produce 22 these two maps? 23 A. No. All they are is a different scale 24 production of the same data. 25 Q. That's just a matter of telling the plotter 362 1 how much paper you have, correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. When you did that, when you did the 4 training run and you used whatever number it was, 70 5 or 80 you trained the algorism, that did the 6 classification for you? 7 A. That's my understanding. But that's 8 Mr. Downing's area, of the training and algorism. 9 Q. But you would agree, would you not, that 10 since you used only one set to train it, you used the 11 whole system when you go into 1A and attempt to map 12 1A in a classified -- supervised classification such 13 as appears in the 1 to 150,000 map scale you have 14 extrapolated to 1 the spectral signatures derived 15 from every other training site throughout the system? 16 A. You are going to have to ask Mr. Downing 17 the details of how he constructed the algorism and 18 how he used the training sites, hovering sites in 1A 19 for the process. 20 Q. Is it your understanding that they were, in 21 fact, used? 22 A. Right now I don't know. 23 Q. Do you know if the training sites in the 24 Everglades National Park sites were used? 25 A. I don't know if they were used in building 363 1 the algorism. I know everything in 2A was used, but 2 whether or not those sites outside were used for 3 anything other than our visual verification -- 4 Q. If no training sites other than 2A were 5 used -- this is a hypothetical, no other ones were 6 used -- then you are extrapolating 2A spectral 7 signatures to the entire chart. Doesn't that follow? 8 A. That logically follows, but we are getting 9 into the area of Mr. Downing's expertise as to how he 10 used all of the information. And he can vouch for 11 how those maps were produced and what the computer 12 generated. He can throw the vegetation back to me. 13 Q. Have you done anything else in connection 14 with this matter which we have failed to inquire 15 about? 16 A. Not that I recall. 17 MR. WATTS-FITZGERALD: We are concluded. 18 Thank you very much. 19 (Thereupon the taking of the 20 deposition was concluded.) 21 - - - - - - - - - 364 1 2 I, THOMAS E. LODGE, Ph.D., C.E.P., do 3 hereby certify that I have read the foregoing 4 deposition and that the same is a true and accurate 5 transcript of my testimony, except for attached 6 amendments, if any. 7 8 9 10