1

1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )

WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )

4 Petitioners, )

vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038

5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 92-3040

6 of Florida; et al., ) 92-6796

Respondents. ) 92-6797

7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 92-6799

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) 92-6800

8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

9 Petitioners, )

vs. )

10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

11 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

13 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

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

14 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

15 vs. )

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

16 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

17 Respondents. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

18 100 Southeast 2nd Street

Miami, Florida

19 March 2nd, 1994

9:16 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.

DEPOSITION OF DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER

21 VOLUME I

22 Taken before BARNET I ABRAMOWITZ, court

23 reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

24 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking

25 Deposition filed in the above cause.

APPEARANCES

3 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE

LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and

4 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.

5 EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS , P.A.

One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636

6 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

7 BY: ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

9 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

10 POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN

International Place - 41st Floor

11 100 Southeast 2nd Street

Miami, Florida 33131

12 BY: JOSE A. LOREDO, ESQ.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

15 THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQ.

Assistant United States Attorney

16 99 Northeast 4th Street

Third Floor

17 Miami, Florida 33132

1 INDEX

2 Witness Direct

DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER

By Mr. Loredo: 4

EXHIBITS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE

1 Notice of deposition 6

7 duces tecum

8 2 CV of Dr. Lettenmaier 48

9 3 A letter dated April 149

12, 1993 from Dr.

10 Lettenmaier

11 4 A letter dated May 20,

1992 from Dr. Lettenmaier 158

1 Thereupon --

2 DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER

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. LOREDO:

7 Q. Good morning, Dr. Lettenmaier. My name is

8 Jose Loredo, and I represent the South Florida Water

9 Management District.

10 If you please, for the record, state your

11 name and your address.

12 A. Dennis Lettenmaier, xxxxxxx

14 Q. Are you married?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Have you ever been deposed before?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. When were you deposed?

19 A. It has been some time back, I can't

20 remember specifically, the past 10 years.

21 Q. Is that the last time?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What was the area?

24 A. It was a flood issue.

25 Q. And was it concerning Seattle, Washington?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What was the nature of your deposition or

3 the underlying theme of it?

4 A. It had to do with causation of flooding

5 and damages incurred by a property owner.

6 Q. Did you do any statistical analysis to

7 determine the causation of the flood?

8 A. That problem was not primarily

9 statistically based, it was more physical causality.

10 Q. And how did you determine the physical

11 causality?

12 A. Site visit, past background of the area,

13 some limited data analysis. It was a rather small

14 case.

15 Q. How much time did you spend on it?

16 A. Of the order of a day or two.

17 Q. And who employed you for this?

18 A. We are going way back. Inglewood Golf &

19 Country Club, as I recall.

20 Q. Did you testify at trial?

21 A. No, it settled out-of-court.

22 Q. Have you ever testified as an expert

23 witness at trial?

24 A. Yes, once.

25 Q. Can you tell us when?

1 A. Precisely, I would be guessing; around

2 1980.

3 Q. What was that for?

4 A. That was also a flooding case, also a

5 rather small homeowner's case.

6 Q. Was that also in Seattle?

7 A. Yes, King County Superior Court.

8 Q. Was this a physical analysis?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. How much time did you spend on it?

11 A. Again, that was of the order of a couple

12 of days.

13 Q. I will show you a copy of a notice of

14 deposition which was served upon your counsel for the

15 petitioners, Sugar Cane Growers, and I would like you

16 to take a look at it, breeze through it, and tell me

17 if you have seen it before.

18 A. Yes, I have.

19 Q. When did you see it?

20 A. Yesterday, possibly before. I definitely

21 saw it yesterday.

22 MR. LOREDO: I would like to mark as

23 Exhibit 1, the notice of the deposition duces tecum.

24 (Lettenmaier Exhibit 1 was marked for

25 identification)

1 BY MR. LOREDO:

2 Q. You stated you definitely saw it

3 yesterday. Do you recall if you had seen it before

4 yesterday?

5 A. I don't recall, no. Likely it is that I

6 have seen it and not read it carefully until

7 yesterday.

8 Q. And who did you discuss it with?

9 A. Mr. Blank.

10 Q. The subpoena requires the production of

11 documents, and I would like you to point to page 7,

12 which starts with No. 1 and runs through page 11

13 which ends at No. 15, and I would like you to take a

14 look at it again and see if I can maybe refresh your

15 memory.

16 Because these were documents which were

17 subpoenaed and asked to be produced from your

18 records, and I would like to see if you had an

19 opportunity to look at that, or at least if opposing

20 counsel or someone else had asked you to put together

21 documents to produce to the respondents in this case.

22 A. Yes, they have.

23 Q. And when did you have discussions relating

24 to the production of documents in this case?

25 A. Well, to go back, there was a request for

1 documents nine months or so ago for a deposition that

2 did not occur. This is probably the reason I didn't

3 read this one particularly carefully because there

4 was a list of documents, and all the rest were

5 prepared for a previous deposition which was not

6 taken.

7 Q. I see.

8 A. So I updated the documents and supporting

9 material for this deposition that were requested.

10 Q. Who did you speak to when you first

11 gathered the documents for your first deposition

12 which did not take place?

13 A. Mr. Blank.

14 Q. Did you speak to anyone else?

15 A. Not that I recall.

16 Q. Did you produce all the documents to Mr.

17 Blank?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. How did you go about going through your

20 files and your computer disks and your notes and

21 knowing what documents to produce?

22 A. I went through and I made a copy of all of

23 the computer files that I have used in the case to

24 date. That's my primary means of archiving work that

25 I've done.

1 I also went through the paper file and

2 produced for him all of the documents that I have

3 written associated with the case, including all

4 internal correspondence.

5 Q. Any scrap notes, notebooks?

6 A. No, I don't keep those.

7 Q. Most of your notes would be left on the

8 computer?

9 A. Exactly, or have been written up in the

10 forms that I indicated.

11 Q. So you actually produced it nine months

12 ago, and you provided the documents to Mr. Blank?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you recently update?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What did you update?

17 A. All of the computer files and all of the

18 reports and correspondence.

19 Q. In what media form was that, was that all

20 in computer form, was it it in letter form?

21 A. Both, both hard copy and computer tape.

22 There are two computers involved, there's a PC

23 involved and there's a UNIX work station involved,

24 two separate medium.

25 Q. PC being?

1 A. Personal computer.

2 Q. Okay. And the UNIX?

3 A. Microsoft DOS.

4 Q. What is the Microsoft DOS?

5 A. Microsoft DOS is the operating system used

6 by IBM compatible personal computers, such as the one

7 the gentleman has here. The medium used is the three

8 and a half inch disks, such as the ones you see

9 there. The medium that was used on the UNIX work

10 station was a 60-meg cartridge tape.

11 Q. I think we did receive that yesterday.

12 And that runs off of what? I received a diskette

13 which is about 12-by-4 --

14 A. Magnetic tape.

15 Q. Is that read just like any tape recorded

16 machine?

17 A. Yes, most UNIX work stations will have

18 access to the cartridge drive which will read that

19 format.

20 Q. Was that the only -- I guess the cartridge

21 that you provided with respect to your work?

22 A. That and the three and a half inch disks,

23 yes. There are two magnetics, electronic media

24 involved.

25 Q. What I'm trying to ascertain is for the

1 UNIX work station, we received one 60-megabyte

2 cartridge. Is that the only one?

3 A. Yes, from the UNIX work station, yes.

4 There are a large number of files on that tape.

5 Q. Does the 60-megabyte also work on the DOS

6 operating system?

7 A. No.

8 Q. What system does it work on?

9 A. UNIX, U N I X.

10 Q. Is that --

11 A. A widely used operating system used on

12 scientific computers in most major university and

13 scientific laboratories.

14 Q. Was there a reason to use that versus a

15 standard floppy disk?

16 A. Yes, because there is no floppy disk

17 medium on our work station.

18 Q. How many computer floppy disks did you

19 provide to Mr. Blank?

20 A. I believe six, I'm not certain.

21 Q. Was that recently?

22 A. Yes, within the last two to three weeks.

23 Q. Had you provided Mr. Blank any floppy

24 disks prior to that?

25 A. Yes, there were floppy disks provided nine

1 months ago for the deposition that didn't take place.

2 Q. What were those floppy disks?

3 A. They were all of the information

4 pertaining to this case from an associate of mine who

5 has worked on it, which is identical to the ones that

6 were provided two to three weeks ago, with the

7 exception that the ones two to three weeks ago

8 contain all of the information and computer files to

9 date, including the nine-month or so intervening

10 period.

11 Q. And the associate you are referring to is

12 who?

13 A. The name?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Lisa Dally Wilson whose name is on some of

16 the reports.

17 Q. Did she assist you in the work that was

18 generated?

19 A. Some of the work, yes.

20 Q. Is she a student?

21 A. No.

22 Q. An employee?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Did she receive compensation for her work?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I guess we would have to categorize her as

2 an independent contractor in this case?

3 A. Yes, she is a subcontractor to me.

4 Q. How long did she work with you on this

5 case?

6 A. Elapsed time, the beginning date?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Approximately, it would be the date of the

9 first report that her name is on minus about two

10 months, so probably around January 1 -- late 1992,

11 fall of 1992.

12 Q. And is she continuing to work on the

13 project now?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you tell me her background

16 educationally?

17 A. The bachelor's degree, I'm not certain of;

18 she has a master's degree in civil engineering from

19 the University of Washington and some additional

20 graduate work in civil engineering.

21 Q. Were you ever her teacher?

22 A. I was her adviser for her master's

23 program.

24 Q. Did she do a thesis?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What was that on?

2 A. Operation of storm water detention

3 facilities for water quality improvement,

4 approximately would be the title

5 Q. Operation of storm water "redemption"?

6 A. Detention facilities for water quality

7 improvements.

8 Q. Do you have a copy of her work?

9 A. Her work?

10 Q. Her thesis.

11 A. Do I have a copy with me of the thesis?

12 Q. Well, we could start with that. Do you

13 have a copy of the thesis with you?

14 A. No.

15 Q. I didn't think so.

16 Do you have a copy in Florida with you?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Do you have a copy back in Washington?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could we obtain a copy of that?

21 A. Could I ask counsel as to how such a

22 request get approved? I have no objection to

23 providing a copy.

24 MR. BLANK: Probably the best thing would

25 be to send it to me and let me take a look at it.

1 THE WITNESS: The answer is yes.

2 BY MR. LOREDO:

3 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about it? It

4 seems to relate somewhat. Since we are dealing in

5 the Everglades with storm water treatment areas, can

6 you tell me a little bit about what this thesis was

7 about?

8 A. The scale was much different, first off.

9 This was an operation of two detention facilities,

10 one in a residential subdivision, and I'm guessing

11 some, because this was about 10 years ago, but as I

12 recall, about a hundred-acre development.

13 The work had to do with some mathematical

14 predictions and field data collection to indicate how

15 the facility was affecting water quality downstream.

16 In the first case, the residential

17 facility, it was a dry detention pond which fills

18 only during storms. The second site was an

19 industrial -- or actually the municipal transit

20 authority's operating base for a large number of

21 buses that were stored for maintenance overnight and

22 so on.

23 That was a wet detention facility, and the

24 issue there had to do primarily with oil and grease.

25 The size of that facility was I believe about 50

1 acres, mostly blacktop.

2 Q. I don't think I got the location, the

3 residential and industrial. Was that in Washington?

4 A. Both of them were in the Seattle

5 metropolitan area, not within the city, but within

6 King County.

7 Q. What was your conclusion?

8 A. There was some improvement achieved in the

9 water quality by the detention facilities; the dry

10 one, the effects were somewhat modest. There was

11 more effect on the wet facility.

12 Q. And how was that conclusion reached?

13 A. Based on field data collection.

14 Q. And who did the field data collection?

15 A. Ms. Dally Wilson under my direction.

16 Q. How many samples were taken?

17 A. Again, I'm going from recollection of work

18 that was done some time back, so I would have to go

19 look at the specific reports to see, but the data

20 collection period extended over two seasons, winters,

21 as I recall, and there were some number of storms,

22 approximately 10 in each case.

23 Q. When you say "two seasons," I guess you

24 started with one winter and you came back around

25 another winter and you went back to another winter,

1 so you could have had three winters?

2 A. My recollection is that there were two

3 winters.

4 Q. What did you do with the data that was

5 collected?

6 A. The physical data were analyzed, the

7 results were summarized in her report, which was also

8 Ms. Dally Wilson's thesis. The electronic form of

9 the data are probably around somewhere. I wouldn't

10 want to have to try to read the magnetic tapes they

11 are on, but they are archived somewhere.

12 Q. After you summarized the data, what did

13 you do with the data?

14 A. Well, as I indicated, they are in a

15 written report which is in fact the thesis that you

16 have requested.

17 Q. I guess what I'm trying to get at is what

18 was your next step? After you summarized that, I

19 guess you try to develop some kind of relationship or

20 statistical analysis?

21 A. No, this was primarily a study to document

22 the effects, that was as far as the study went.

23 Q. You never created any type of statistical

24 models?

25 A. For general prediction?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. No.

3 Q. Any specific predictions?

4 A. No. This was entirely a summary for the

5 particular sites in question.

6 Q. So all you did was basically you took

7 data, you analyzed the data, and you came to a

8 conclusion that at least in the wet detention areas,

9 there was more than of an impact versus the dry?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Is the storm water detention facility

12 still up?

13 A. To my knowledge, yes.

14 Q. Has Ms. Wilson done any other work beside

15 the Everglades work, which we will get to, under your

16 supervision?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What kind of work was that?

19 A. I had a contract with South Florida Water

20 Management District to review their Lake Okeechobee

21 water quality monitoring programs.

22 Q. Besides the Lake Okeechobee work, anything

23 else -- or the Everglades work, which I plan to get

24 to that later?

25 A. In which she has worked as a subconsultant

1 to me?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Let me go back to this.

5 Looking back at Exhibit 1, the subpoena

6 duces tecum, going through it, I would like to

7 confirm that you provided all the documents and that

8 we in fact received all the documents pursuant to the

9 subpoena.

10 The first one is a current copy of your

11 curriculum vitae, or your resume.

12 I believe you did provide, or at least it

13 was received by fax, a resume. When did you provide

14 your current resume to Mr. Blank?

15 A. We got a more current one yesterday. I

16 believe the one that probably was provided you within

17 the last two weeks had been provided to him either at

18 the initiation of my work for them or possibly for

19 the prior deposition. It has a date on the last

20 page, is the way you can tell. I'm not sure what

21 date you have there.

22 Q. I have a date of August 14, '93?

23 A. That's the one from yesterday and that is

24 the most current vitae in my files in Seattle.

25 Q. When did you provide that to Mr. Blank?

1 A. That was faxed yesterday.

2 Q. To Mr. Blank?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And is it up to date?

5 A. It is not entirely up to date, vitae in

6 the academic world never are. The updates are

7 probably of minimal interest to this case, but the

8 updates would have to do with certain refereed

9 articles on about page 3, which were in a review

10 status and have been accepted for publication now.

11 Q. You have been going to the University of

12 Washington since 1975 starting as a research

13 engineer. Who was your mentor, adviser?

14 A. My dissertation adviser was Stephen

15 Burges.

16 Q. Can you spell Burges?

17 A. B U R G E S.

18 Q. What is the distinction between the

19 department of civil engineering and the department of

20 civil engineering-college of fisheries? Why that

21 distinction?

22 A. The college of fisheries no longer exists,

23 it is now the college of fisheries and ocean

24 sciences, I believe. At that time, I had a joint

25 appointment. There's a college of engineering within

1 which the civil engineering is a department. I had a

2 joint appointment for a short period between the

3 college of fisheries and the department of civil

4 engineering.

5 Q. What was your BA in, your major?

6 A. BS.

7 Q. Your BS, I'm sorry?

8 A. Mechanical engineering.

9 Q. Is that a four- or five-year program?

10 A. Four.

11 Q. Is it now a five?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Is Mr. Burges still at the University of

14 Washington?

15 A. Dr. Burges, yes.

16 Q. What was your thesis on?

17 A. Design of water quality networks.

18 Q. What did you say?

19 A. Design of -- it is probably titled Stream

20 Quality Monitoring Networks.

21 Q. Networks?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about that?

24 A. It had to do with the placement of water

25 quality monitoring stations on river networks, how

1 many stations, how far apart, how frequently data

2 should be collected for optimal detection of water

3 quality trends, given a constraint on the number of

4 samples that could be collected.

5 Q. How much of an area are we talking about

6 in the stream?

7 A. The demonstration cases, as I remember,

8 were for river networks on the order of thousands of

9 square miles.

10 Q. How long did you work on your thesis?

11 A. The actual dissertation research?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. A year, a year and a half.

14 Q. Was that including actually writing the

15 thesis and reaching the conclusions?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What conclusions did you reach?

18 A. Well, conclusions -- I would have to go

19 read the thesis again to see what were listed as

20 conclusions. The results of the work were a method

21 to optimize the placement of stations and the

22 trade-off between -- designing the trade-off between

23 number of stations and how often you would collect

24 data at each station.

25 Q. What was the method?

1 A. The method was based on a combination of

2 the Kalman Filter to determine where stations would

3 go and statistical trend analysis to determine how

4 often samples would be collected at individual

5 stations.

6 Q. You said it was dependent on "column and

7 filter"?

8 A. K A L M A N filter.

9 Q. K A L M A N?

10 A. Kalman is the name of a person.

11 Q. Is that a method? You named it after

12 somebody?

13 A. The Kalman filter is fairly widely used in

14 control theory applications. It came from space

15 craft guidance problems.

16 Q. Kalman?

17 A. K A L M A N.

18 Q. And the second word?

19 A. Filter, F I L T E R.

20 Q. I'm sorry, I cut you off, but I was trying

21 to get that down.

22 You said it was a technique commonly used?

23 A. In space craft guidance, it was developed

24 for originally.

25 Q. Can you tell me a little bit about the

1 method?

2 A. Just briefly, it is a method for combining

3 information from two sources, one of which is

4 measurements and the other of which is a

5 deterministic model prediction.

6 Q. So you are combining actual measurements

7 with, you said, a deterministic model?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. A deterministic model, is that variables

10 you create or actual data?

11 A. In this particular case, this was a model

12 that would predict how river quality for particular

13 variables would change as one went downstream given

14 certain characteristics of the river and certain

15 characteristics of the inflows, waste discharges to

16 the river.

17 Q. What sort of variables were in here?

18 A. As I recall, in that model, dissolved

19 oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, I believe total

20 phosphorus, and I cannot remember at this point

21 whether it was total or orthophosphorus and a measure

22 of nitrogen.

23 Q. I apologize, orthophosphorus, what is

24 that?

25 A. That's simply another way of chemically

1 analyzing for a certain type of phosphorus, it is a

2 subconstituent of total phosphorus.

3 Q. Then you said you subsequently developed a

4 statistical trend analysis?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And what type of relationship did you

7 discover?

8 A. Well, the issue is not the relationship

9 that was discovered, it is how in the optimization,

10 the two components linked together, one being the

11 description of evolution of water quality down the

12 river, which was a key element in determining where

13 the stations would go, and the other was the

14 statistical trend assessment at the individual

15 stations, which was a key element in determining how

16 frequently one would sample.

17 Q. How frequently did you determine it should

18 be sampled?

19 A. That depends on the characteristics of the

20 river.

21 Q. Did you determine what the characteristics

22 of the river were to figure out how often you should

23 sample and how far apart the stations should be?

24 A. Yes, but this was a generic analysis which

25 was then applied in some particular cases. So

1 depending on the characteristics of the particular

2 river, the trade-offs between how often one would

3 sample and how many stations would then fall out.

4 Generally, the sampling frequencies tended

5 to be between, roughly, very roughly, once every two

6 weeks, and once every few months is where the

7 solution usually tended to lie.

8 Q. When you said generic approach, you didn't

9 apply it to any particular river?

10 A. I did do an application, yes, but it was a

11 demonstration application. In fact, I believe there

12 were two.

13 Q. And then did your demonstration concur

14 with your conclusions and opinions?

15 A. Well, that isn't the way the experiment

16 was designed. It was a development of a method and

17 demonstration application. There was no comparison,

18 for instance, with data to know what was right

19 because there is no way of determining in the absence

20 of an extremely extensive data collection program,

21 which does not exist, what the correct or true

22 solution would be. This was a demonstration

23 application.

24 Q. And in the demonstration, did you actually

25 take data from the river?

1 A. There was no primary data collection.

2 There were data used. They were not my data.

3 Q. Was there any quality control with respect

4 to the data used?

5 A. In what respect?

6 Q. In the collection of it, in the

7 measurements of the data?

8 A. The data were quality controlled, but that

9 was not part of my research.

10 Q. You just took someone else's data and

11 applied it to your analysis?

12 A. This was a demonstration application.

13 Q. I guess I am stuck on "demonstration

14 application." I don't know the difference.

15 A. That simply means the primary part of the

16 work was to develop a method. In order for readers

17 of the work to understand, to help them understand

18 how it might be used, there was a demonstration

19 application performed.

20 Q. This was done twice?

21 A. It was done for two separate rivers, yes.

22 Q. Which rivers?

23 A. The Spokane River was one, and as I

24 recall, the Snohomish River -- S N O H O M I S H --

25 both Indian names, were used.

1 Q. Do you know if your analysis is being used

2 now by anyone?

3 A. The analysis was used in some subsequent

4 work that I did for the State of Washington

5 Department of Ecology to redesign their ambient

6 stream water quality monitoring network.

7 Q. Was that done by you?

8 A. It was done by me, yes.

9 Q. So you actually went out and took data now

10 and you have applied it?

11 A. No, again, this was based on data that

12 they had collected. I went back and determined how

13 often they should be sampling at the stations they

14 had, where the stations should be relocated, and how

15 many should be on the rivers. There's a report that

16 summarizes that work.

17 Q. Was phosphorus an issue?

18 A. That was one of many water quality

19 constituents that the agency was collecting.

20 Q. If I show you your resume, could you tell

21 me which publication?

22 A. Yes, probably. It would be a technical

23 report.

24 Q. Great.

25 (Pause)

1 A. The 1977 report Detection of Trends in

2 Water Quality.

3 You don't mind me making a mark?

4 Q. No, that would be fine.

5 A. This one.

6 Q. How long, how much of your time did you

7 dedicate to this?

8 A. I believe that was approximately half time

9 for approximately a year.

10 Q. When you say "half time," half of your day

11 every day?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you say a thousand hours then?

14 A. Probably a fair guess.

15 Q. Have you done any consulting work with Mr.

16 Burges, Dr. Stephen Burges?

17 A. Can I see my vitae for a minute? There

18 may be one project way back.

19 I think you will find the first two, which

20 were way back in the mid-70s, he would have had some

21 involvement in.

22 Q. Stochastic Analysis for Flow Yield

23 Evaluation?

24 A. Yes. Of the Bull Run Reservoir Water

25 Supply for the City of Portland, Oregon.

1 Q. And University of Washington Review of

2 River Basin Coordinating Committee Proposal to

3 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle?

4 A. Yes, that was a very small project,

5 probably a few hours of my time in that.

6 Q. I see on your next consulting work that

7 you did a review of Washington State Ambient Stream

8 Water Quality Monitoring Network?

9 A. That is the same as the report that we had

10 just spoken about, the same project.

11 Q. Is it?

12 A. That was done in a consulting mode.

13 Q. Now, do you teach presently?

14 A. Some. My appointment is primarily

15 research.

16 Q. Have you taught?

17 A. Some.

18 Q. What kind of courses?

19 A. I have taught classes in at one point -- I

20 can't remember the exact title of the course, but it

21 was statistics for fisheries for forestry majors; I

22 have taught computer programming; I have taught fluid

23 mechanics.

24 Q. What was the last one?

25 A. Fluid mechanics; I have taught statics.

1 Q. What is statics?

2 A. Statics is basically the study of forces

3 on immobile objects or structures.

4 Q. The study of the forces?

5 A. The balance of forces on immobile objects,

6 i.e. bridges. That's an introductory class. That's

7 generally a second-year engineering class.

8 I have taught more recently a graduate

9 level class in rainfall analysis and prediction, and

10 another in environmental data analysis.

11 Q. Was this all at the University of

12 Washington?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The first part when you said you had

15 taught statistics for fisheries, the computer

16 programming, was that several years ago?

17 A. That was quite some time ago. The

18 statistics was done at the time, I believe. My

19 appointment was jointly with the college of

20 fisheries, it would have been the late 1970s. The

21 computer programming was early mid-1980s.

22 Q. And the more recent teaching, the rainfall

23 analysis and the environmental data analysis, when

24 was that?

25 A. Those have been over the last three years.

1 Q. Are these to mechanical engineers?

2 A. Civil engineers, my appointment is in

3 civil engineering.

4 Q. Are these one-year courses?

5 A. No, one term, one-quarter classes.

6 Q. A quarter being half a year?

7 A. No -- well, the quarter system is three

8 academic quarters plus summer, so typically a quarter

9 is of 10-weeks duration.

10 Q. Did you have any actual applications in

11 your rainfall analysis in your courses?

12 A. Actual applications as in case studies?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. I have had them do a little bit of work

15 with radar rainfall data. I have also had them do

16 some analysis in stochastic model fitting to guage

17 precipitation theories.

18 Q. If I can pronounce it -- "stochastic,"

19 what does that mean?

20 A. Stochastic? Oh, that simply means

21 probabilistic but varying in time as well, so the

22 structure of time varying uncertain data that are

23 characterized by some probability description at a

24 given time and some evolution in time as well.

25 Q. I guess that's like a seasonal probability

1 because it could be the rainy season versus the dry

2 season?

3 A. No, not necessarily. That is more of the

4 nature of the sequencing of rainy days and the amount

5 of precipitation that occurs in subsequent time

6 periods; for instance, the amount of precipitation

7 occurring in one day as related to the occurrence or

8 lack thereof of precipitation in the next day, and if

9 there's precipitation, how much. The time evolution

10 of the probabilities, of the probability

11 distribution.

12 Q. There's probably a separate course on

13 that?

14 A. There are a number of different courses on

15 stochastic theory, yes. That is a field in and of

16 itself. It is simply one application.

17 Q. When you said "radar rainfall," is that

18 data collected from the radar?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. I didn't know radars can detect rainfall.

21 A. The National Weather Service has invested

22 a considerable amount of money in radar rainfall over

23 the recent past.

24 Q. The environmental data analysis, what type

25 of case studies did you have there?

1 A. The nature of the course has to do with a

2 number of topics in environmental data analysis, such

3 as spacial data analysis, kriging being one of the

4 topics we looked at.

5 I don't remember the particular data set

6 that I had given them to work with. I believe it was

7 some well nitrogen data. That was simply one aspect

8 of that course. Environmental trend analysis was

9 another application. They may actually have worked

10 with some of the Lake Okeechobee data in that case.

11 I would have to go back and look at the

12 course outline to see. There was some basic

13 probability estimation for different kinds of

14 environmental data involved in the course. There

15 were some aspects of graphical display and

16 interpretation of data.

17 Q. What type of environmental data are we

18 looking at?

19 A. Water quality certainly being the primary

20 one. I can't recall if I used applications with air

21 quality data or not, probably mostly dealing with

22 surface water quality, although some groundwater

23 quality issues as well.

24 I believe we did use the data, the soil

25 chemistry data from Love Canal as one of the

1 applications, so there would have been some soil

2 contamination issues discussed as well.

3 Q. Did everyone pass?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You were telling me about spacial analysis

6 and kriging. I guess I will take the opportunity to

7 learn a little about it now before I get into it

8 later.

9 Can you expand on that?

10 A. The method, how it works?

11 Q. Yes. Is spacial analysis the same as

12 kriging?

13 A. Kriging is a particular form of spacial

14 analysis.

15 Q. Can you just give me a summarization of

16 kriging?

17 A. Yes. Basically it is a data interpolation

18 that is sometimes termed a stochastic interpolator.

19 Q. Turned in to?

20 A. "Termed" a stochastic interpolator.

21 Basically what it does is it takes observations at

22 some finite number of locations, for instance, wells,

23 or in the case we have applied it to here, core data

24 that are associated with a particular set of

25 coordinates.

1 From those, it attempts to estimate at any

2 arbitrary point what the best estimate of the

3 variable in question is, and then how uncertain that

4 estimate is based on what it infers from the data

5 that have been collected.

6 And it is a linear, it is a linear

7 interpolator which means that the value at any

8 arbitrary point is some weighted sum of all of the

9 observations.

10 Q. So if we had two wells, you are going to

11 try to calculate at some point in the middle of it

12 what the data should be?

13 A. That would be an extremely simplified

14 case. In fact, usually kriging is not used for a

15 number of samples less than -- around 30 is a very

16 rough rule of thumb, but if one had, say, 30 wells --

17 Q. In a line?

18 A. Not in a line, over an area, over an area

19 with some spacing and one wanted to draw, for

20 instance, contour lines, and to do that, one needed

21 an estimate of the value of whatever variable at any

22 arbitrary point, kriging would do that.

23 Q. You said "linear," and I guess when I

24 think linear --

25 A. No, I'm sorry, "linear" simply means that

1 the value is a weighted sum of the values at any of

2 the points as opposed to, for instance, the values

3 squared or some arbitrary transformation.

4 Q. A little help for later.

5 Are you presently teaching?

6 A. As in this term?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. No, I will be next term.

9 Q. What are you going to teach next term?

10 A. It will be the precipitation analysis

11 class.

12 Q. Is that rainfall, the same thing?

13 A. Yes, yes. Actually I am -- there's a

14 seminar that I have organized this term, so I guess I

15 should say that technically I guess I am "teaching."

16 Q. Participation may not necessarily mean

17 rain, though?

18 A. Well, it could be snow or sleet or some

19 other form; mostly it deals with precipitation of

20 rain.

21 Q. What's the seminar going to be about?

22 A. Well, the seminar, the one that's ongoing

23 this term is the required seminar for all master

24 students in our program. So it has a range of

25 topics, and I have simply organized the speakers who

1 have come in. Most of the topics have to do with

2 hydrology or water resources, one way or the other.

3 Q. Who are some of the speakers you have

4 organized?

5 A. Names?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Oh, Charles Howard runs a consulting firm

8 in Victoria, BC; Jeff Richey -- R I C H E Y -- from

9 our oceanography school -- there are 10 of them. I'm

10 not sure I can remember all the names even when I go

11 down through the whole list.

12 Q. Just to the best of your recollection.

13 A. To the best of my recollection, Wendell

14 Tanbgorn -- T A N G B O R N -- was one of the

15 speakers.

16 Q. Where is he from?

17 A. He runs his own consulting firm in

18 Seattle, a hydrologist.

19 Keith Loague -- L O A G U E -- from the

20 University of California; Dave Montgomery from our

21 geology department -- who gave the seminar yesterday

22 -- I wasn't there --

23 Q. Are you going to speak?

24 A. No, not in this series.

25 Q. Is there anyone from Florida?

1 A. No. We don't have money to fly people in.

2 Q. Will any of the topics in the seminar deal

3 with the Everglades?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And then you said the seminar is ongoing

6 now, you are putting it together now.

7 You will teach a course next quarter in

8 precipitation, correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That's for the masters also?

11 A. Well, it is for graduate students, a

12 graduate level course, both Ph.D and masters.

13 Q. Are you advising anyone now on I guess

14 their Ph.D's?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Several people?

17 A. I have several students, yes.

18 Q. Not to get into all the students, but does

19 anything have to do with phosphorus trend models?

20 A. No, no.

21 Q. Anything to do with the Everglades cases?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Lake Okeechobee?

24 A. No.

25 Q. You figured if you did that we might call

1 them in for depos?

2 A. No, none of the work has anything remotely

3 to do with Florida.

4 Q. Is Steve Millard a speaker at the seminar?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Dr. Steve Millard.

7 Do you need a license for your consulting

8 work?

9 A. You don't need a license, no, but I do

10 have one. I am a licensed professional engineer.

11 Q. Do you do anything other than consulting

12 work?

13 A. Well --

14 Q. -- and teaching?

15 A. I wouldn't put it that way to my

16 colleagues at the university.

17 Q. I'm sorry.

18 A. I am an employee of the University of

19 Washington 75 percent of the time.

20 Q. I guess the other 25 percent would be

21 dedicated to consulting work?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You have listed some professional

24 memberships. Are you active in any of those

25 organizations? I guess when I say "active," I mean

1 just showing up and participating a little bit?

2 A. Yes, the American Geophysical Union, I am

3 most active in, and I am on the American

4 Meteorlogical Society committee as well.

5 Q. What type of activities?

6 A. For AGU, I am the chapman conference

7 coordinator. Chapman conferences are short,

8 typically three- to five-day conferences on focused

9 topics in all areas of geophysics. I help coordinate

10 those conferences for the union.

11 I am also the deputy editor of Water

12 Resources Research.

13 Q. Water --

14 A. Water Resources Research, which is a

15 journal. I believe I am a member of the Surface

16 Water Committee.

17 Q. What comes under geophysics?

18 A. Basically earth sciences, all areas of

19 earth sciences. And within the American Geophysical

20 Union, that is split, more or less, into areas like

21 the sort of hard earth sciences, things like

22 tectonophysics, seismology, vulcanology and so on.

23 There are eight sections, I believe, and

24 I'm not sure I could name them all, but the other

25 side is the land-atmosphere area of which hydrology

1 is my home. That's one of the major sections,

2 atmospheric sciences-oceanography, ocean sciences.

3 Q. I guess the ocean does affect -- let me

4 back up.

5 Hydrology, how would you define hydrology?

6 A. Hydrology is basically a water at or near

7 the land surface.

8 Q. How long have you been the deputy editor

9 for the Water Resources --

10 A. Water Resources Research?

11 Q. Right.

12 A. About six months. I was an associate

13 editor before that. I think that's listed on the

14 first page.

15 Q. Yes.

16 The title "Referred" Publications --

17 A. "Refereed." I hope it is not misspelled

18 there.

19 Q. No, I decided not to pronounce the next

20 "E."

21 Q. What do you mean by "refereed," you just

22 supervise?

23 A. A refereed publication is one that

24 typically is a journal publication which has been

25 reviewed as opposed to a report which would not

1 necessarily have undergone a formal review.

2 Q. So all refereed publications have been

3 reviewed by one or other experts in the field?

4 A. Yes, usually some number of experts, and

5 it is handled by an editorial editor or editorial

6 board of some nature.

7 Q. You have listed them in chronological

8 order?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Let me start with you your most recent

11 one. Hydrological forecasting. Does that have

12 anything to do with the Everglades?

13 A. No.

14 Q. What was it about?

15 A. This is the handbook chapter?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. That's a chapter in the Handbook of

18 Hydrology which is a McGraw-Hill publication. It has

19 to do with forecasting of river flow.

20 Q. How do you forecast river flow?

21 A. It depends on the time and scale.

22 Q. The time period in a year?

23 A. Well, how far into the future you are

24 interested in forecasting, i.e., flood forecasting

25 might be a matter of only hours or so if it was a

1 flash flood. Seasonal forecasting for reservoir

2 operations could be a matter of months. There are

3 different methods.

4 Q. You can actually forecast for a flood?

5 A. Oh, floods are forecast all the time.

6 Q. What causes -- I mean, you think of a

7 flood that's going to be caused by rain or some other

8 dumping on the earth, something happening out there?

9 A. Yes, flood forecasts are issued, and

10 generally there's little forecasting skill before the

11 onset of the storm. Once a storm has begun, though,

12 forecasts are routinely issued warning people what

13 the river stage might be, which areas should be

14 evacuated, things like that.

15 Q. Can you forecast for a storm?

16 A. Could you clarify that?

17 Q. Well, you said the flooding was dependent

18 on a storm coming, and I'm wondering whether or not

19 you can forecast when storms are going to come based

20 on I guess prior data analysis of storms?

21 A. That's the meteorologist's problems.

22 Q. But you wouldn't do any forecasting other

23 than from the storm itself then?

24 A. Again, it depends on time scale.

25 Short-term forecasting may integrate meteorlogical

1 forecasts as well as information about what the river

2 flows are at that time, other information about the

3 conditions of the land surface, for instance, soil

4 moisture.

5 Q. Your Dynamic Modeling of the Spacial

6 Distribution - Precipitation in Remote mountainous

7 Areas.

8 What was that about?

9 A. That was part of a dissertation of a

10 student of mine which has to do with understanding

11 how precipitation varies in complex mountainous

12 terrain.

13 Q. In Seattle?

14 A. Well, there were applications of the work

15 to the Olympic Mountains of Washington and the Sierra

16 Nevadas of California, but the model is a physically

17 based model and is not particular to any region.

18 Q. The Trends in Stream Quality in The

19 continental U.S.

20 Does that have anything to do with the

21 Everglades?

22 A. That was the result of work in part that I

23 did when I was on leave with the U.S. Geological

24 Survey, and has to do with analysis of trends at a

25 large number of stations across the continental U.S.

1 Some part of those stations are in

2 Florida, and I do not recall the particular streams

3 in South Florida that were involved; one of the

4 streams draining from Lake Okeechobee; I seem to

5 recall Fish Eating Creek has one of the stations on

6 it.

7 And there may be some others in South

8 Florida, but it is not specifically directed at South

9 Florida in the national scale analysis.

10 Q. What were you trying to do or determine?

11 A. We were simply looking for the spacial

12 pattern of trends in water quality since the onset of

13 this program of the U.S. Geological Surveys in the

14 early, mid-1970s.

15 Q. Did you find any trends?

16 A. Yes, there were some trends. I would have

17 to go look at the paper to see the specific patterns

18 because there were a large number of constituents

19 that were monitored in general. There are not a

20 large number of trends in any one constituent.

21 Typically, the largest number of the

22 trends, as I recall, were in constituents like total

23 nitrogen and would be around maybe a hundred of the

24 500 stations at most.

25 Q. Do you want to take a break?

1 A. Sure.

2 (Recess)

3 BY MR. LORDEO:

4 Q. As interested as I am in the refereed

5 publications, we could probably sit here talking

6 about them all day.

7 What I would like you to key on -- and

8 maybe I will let you look at this -- obviously what

9 we are interested in is where you might have done

10 something similar or where there are similar

11 statistical analyses as to the SWIM Plan.

12 A. Would you like me to go through the vitae

13 and perhaps mark those that have something to do with

14 water quality and aspects that may have any bearing

15 on the case, and it would save some time?

16 Q. Yes, I certainly would.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. I would like you to err on the side -- if

19 you even think it has something to do with our case,

20 I would like you to mark it.

21 A. None of it has to do directly with this

22 case. You won't find anything in there which has to

23 do with analysis of Everglades data or anything like

24 that.

25 Other than the work for the district, I

1 have not worked in South Florida before that. So you

2 are talking all about methodological work and I think

3 I have indicated the ones that might be most

4 applicable.

5 Q. I don't think I have marked this as an

6 exhibit.

7 Why don't we mark this as Exhibit 2.

8 (Lettenmaier Exhibit 2 was marked for

9 identification)

10 BY MR. LOREDO:

11 Q. All right, Doctor, I guess you went

12 through the refereed publications and the technical

13 reports?

14 A. I just went through the refereed

15 publications. If you want me to mark refereed

16 reports, I can do that as well.

17 Q. Why don't you finish. That was a previous

18 marking under technical reports?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. If you would also look, you had some other

21 publications above that.

22 A. These are papers in reviews, but none of

23 those are applicable.

24 Q. Thank you, Doctor.

25 It will make this a lot easier.

1 Did we already talk about the

2 Probabilistic Methods in Stream Quality Management?

3 A. Where did that appear?

4 Q. In your first one of the refereed

5 publications. You had referred to this because you

6 had worked with Dr. Burges on it?

7 A. Yes, I think so, right.

8 Q. Why don't you tell me a little bit about

9 that publication and the methodology used.

10 A. This is the one in -- the Water Resources

11 Research bulletin is the name of the publication. I

12 have to admit the details of that, I can't recall.

13 That was probably the first publication I was

14 involved in.

15 I believe that it had to do more with

16 indicating how probability -- the role, for instance,

17 probability theory might play in stream quality

18 management. It was more in the nature of a tutorial.

19 Q. You may not recall the specifics in the

20 publication, but what role do you believe the

21 probability should play?

22 A. Well, I think it is a key element in

23 characterizing natural systems. One has to

24 understand how a particular sample might be viewed in

25 the larger picture, the uncertainty that is

1 associated with, say, individual measurements and

2 collections of measurements.

3 Q. I guess one of the key elements in what

4 variables affect certain data is time and other

5 factors?

6 A. Well, I think that's one aspect of it,

7 yes.

8 Q. There are other aspects?

9 A. The key aspect of probability theory is

10 that one views a sample as a particular realization

11 that can come from some statistical population, that

12 others could have come as well. One then talks about

13 probability distributions rather than particular

14 values.

15 Q. Can you repeat what the key element was

16 again? I almost had it.

17 A. Now I can't remember what I said.

18 I think the idea was that a group of

19 observations need to be characterized in terms of

20 what we cannot explain about them in terms of known

21 factors, and what's left over is what gets described

22 probabilistically. That might be the best way to

23 view it.

24 Q. Why don't we talk about the next

25 publication that you have marked in Exhibit 2 in your

1 resume: Detection of Trends in Water Quality Data

2 with Dependent Observations.

3 A. That's part of my dissertation work.

4 Q. We already talked about that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. That had to deal with how many stations --

7 A. Yes, but that particular publication only

8 has to do with the trend detection part of the work,

9 so that's essentially the time frequency of sampling

10 issue that dealt with in that publication.

11 There's another publication that I may or

12 may not have marked, a couple down, which has to do

13 with spacial number of stations and how far apart and

14 so on. It would be in the American Society of Civil

15 Engineers, about 1976 or '77.

16 Q. Do you want to take a quick look?

17 A. Sure.

18 I don't think the spacial part of it is of

19 particular interest here, so I probably didn't mark

20 it.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. The Design of Trend Monitoring Networks,

23 October '77, is the other part of the dissertation.

24 Q. But in that publication, there's really

25 nothing of interest to us in terms of statistical

1 modeling?

2 A. That has to do with more with the Kalman

3 filter part of the work. I think for this case, the

4 trend part of it is of more direct interest.

5 Q. But that's not applicable here?

6 A. It is not applicable in any of the work

7 that I have done.

8 Q. But was a trend developed?

9 A. I'm saying the trend work is applicable in

10 some of the reviews and so on that I have conducted,

11 and that's marked.

12 Q. And I will go back to your Detection of

13 Trends in the Water Quality.

14 What trend did you detect, if any?

15 A. Well, again, this is methodological. In

16 fact, I think if you review some of the publications

17 of one of your witnesses, you will see actually

18 references to that particular work, the one I marked

19 there.

20 Q. This is just physical?

21 A. Well, the one with the dependence,

22 Detection of Trends with Dependent Observations, is

23 that the one you are talking about?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. That has to do with what the effect is of

1 statistical dependence between observations in time.

2 That was an issue that hadn't really been dealt with

3 in the work before then, and that paper ended up

4 being somewhat widely quoted in that area.

5 Q. But was there any modeling done?

6 A. Well, statistical and probalistic

7 modeling, yes.

8 Q. What type of modeling?

9 A. That's a difficult question, but as I

10 recall, I used what's known as a Lag One Markov --

11 that being the name of a person.

12 Q. M A R?

13 A. K O V -- to describe the dependence in

14 time between observations.

15 Q. The Lag One Markov, is that a widely used

16 model?

17 A. In time series modeling, yes.

18 Q. Again we touched on this before, but when

19 we talk about time series, we are not looking at

20 seasonal, we are looking at other factors?

21 A. Seasonal is one of the factors that can in

22 fact has to be addressed.

23 Q. What are the other factors, variables?

24 A. The statistical dependence between

25 observations is the major one that's dealt with.

1 That dependency may exist regardless of the

2 seasonality.

3 Q. So like maybe a decision whether to

4 analyze data on a weekly versus a monthly basis?

5 A. That plays a strong role in that decision

6 because the statistical dependence becomes stronger

7 as the sampling frequency becomes higher, and there

8 ends up being a loss of information relative to what

9 information would be in a sample where all the

10 observations were independent, and that loss of

11 information becomes a more serious issue as the

12 samples become closer together. That's basically

13 what that paper deals with.

14 Q. You are saying the more sampling that you

15 do, the more likelihood of having lost information or

16 misinformation?

17 A. It is not so much an issue of

18 misinformation as it is redundancy in samples. If

19 you take four samples over a period of four months as

20 opposed to four samples over a period of four weeks,

21 the seasonal issues aside, there's more information

22 in the four samples taken in the four months.

23 Q. If you take 16 samples over the four

24 months versus four samples over the --

25 A. There certainly will be more information

1 in any case of practical interest than the samples

2 taken over --

3 Q. Wouldn't you get a truer model by taking

4 more samples?

5 A. Yes, but in the real world, people have

6 budgets.

7 Q. What misled me a little -- I shouldn't say

8 "misled," but seemed inconsistent, you said there's

9 redundancy in the more samples that you took, and I

10 thought --

11 A. Typically one expresses this as a ratio of

12 something called the effect of independent sample

13 size divided by the actual sample size, and if

14 there's no redundancy, then those two are the same

15 and that ratio is one.

16 As you increase your sampling frequency

17 and start to encounter statistical dependence, that

18 ratio goes below one.

19 Q. Let's take a look at the next publication

20 which you have marked: Design Considerations for

21 Ambient Stream Quality Monitoring in the Water

22 Resources Bulletin, 1978.

23 A. That publication resulted from the work

24 that I did for the state department of ecology, and I

25 believe it was more of the nature of a case study in

1 how some of the earlier methods, which were described

2 more in a theoretical context, were applied to an

3 actual state-wide water quality monitoring effort.

4 Q. Was this an actual application, then, of

5 theories?

6 A. The work that was done for the state was,

7 yes. If you are asking me what was in that

8 particular paper -- I'm going from recollection, and

9 I would be more than happy to provide you copies of

10 any of those publications, incidentally, that are

11 marked there.

12 Q. Well, obviously you marked it because you

13 thought it had some type of relationship?

14 A. Well, what I have done is I have marked --

15 as you might notice there, I have done work in a

16 number of different fields.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. Some of which have absolutely nothing to

19 do with the Everglades. So I have gone through and

20 tried to mark the ones which have some bearing on

21 water quality and statistics of water quality, not

22 because there's any particular application in them

23 that might have to do with, say, South Florida or

24 anything like that.

25 Many of them still are fairly broad or

1 methodological, and none of those publications, I

2 believe, have any particulars having to do with South

3 Florida in them.

4 Q. Not particulars, but how about

5 methodology?

6 A. Well, the methodology certainly can and in

7 some cases have been applied.

8 Q. And the publication, the Design

9 Considerations for Ambient Stream Quality Monitoring,

10 which you were just referring to, what type of

11 methodology was used?

12 A. That's a nonparametric statistical

13 analysis, I think that's the key point.

14 Q. Can you tell me what that is? I don't

15 know how many times I have seen this -- nonparametric

16 system?

17 A. Nonparametric statistics.

18 Q. What does that mean?

19 A. It basically just means that you do not

20 have to assume a particular mathematical form of the

21 probability distribution.

22 Q. When would you do that?

23 A. Well, some, and I think I could probably

24 say many people in the field, would argue that that

25 is the preferred method of analyzing water quality

1 data for a trend certainly, for the reason that it is

2 difficult or impossible to identify a specific

3 mathematical form for a probability distribution of

4 water quality data. They tend to be statistically

5 poorly behaved.

6 Q. Let me back you up on this so I can

7 understand it.

8 When you are looking at water quality, you

9 are looking at its composition, phosphorus content,

10 different contents of the water, and are you telling

11 me that we don't want to develop a -- when we analyze

12 it, we are not looking at a formula or mathematical

13 formula of that water quality, we are just going to

14 ignore it?

15 A. No, what I am saying is this. I will just

16 take as an example some station out in the

17 Loxahatchee, and you give me all the data that's been

18 collected at that station and you say, I want to do

19 some trend analysis at that station.

20 If I do a parametric analysis, the first

21 thing I am going to need to do is to determine what

22 probability distribution fits those data. If I do a

23 nonparametric analysis, I do not require that

24 assumption, I do not require to fit that.

25 I'm saying it is very difficult to develop

1 a defensible parametric fit or determine what the

2 mathematical distribution should be, and most people

3 in the field would say that a nonparametric analysis

4 is preferred there because it does not rely on the

5 assumptions that otherwise must be made.

6 Q. Have you ever done a parametric

7 statistical analysis of water quality?

8 A. Oh, I'm sure I have. If you ask me when,

9 I can't recall.

10 Q. Where?

11 A. When or where.

12 Q. No whens or no wheres?

13 A. No whens or wheres, I can't recall. Most

14 of the work I have done has been nonparametric.

15 Q. In the last two years, have you done any

16 parametric statistical analysis of water quality?

17 A. I don't believe so.

18 Q. I think one of the statements you said is

19 it is almost impossible to do, or if you do it, the

20 assurance or confidence level you will have on it

21 will be very low. Do you agree with that statement?

22 A. Not necessarily.

23 Q. Why not?

24 A. We have to deal in specifics here.

25 Q. Okay.

1 A. I would not be willing to be held to a

2 statement that a parametric analysis could never be

3 defended.

4 Q. For water quality?

5 A. For water quality, even then I wouldn't

6 want to say that.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. Most of the time it has problems.

9 Q. Because you can't determine --

10 A. Let me give you an example of a case where

11 one might be able to defend it, and that would, for

12 instance, be an analysis of the temperature of a

13 water body which tends to be quite constrained, it

14 tends not to have occasional very large or very small

15 values like one might have, for instance, in

16 phosphorus measurements where most of the data might

17 be fairly nicely behaved and then there's an

18 occasional large value which doesn't seem to quite

19 fit.

20 That sort of thing doesn't happen with

21 temperature, so if someone did a parametric analysis

22 of stream temperature, I wouldn't be so concerned as

23 I would be with certain other variables.

24 Q. That would be temperature related to what,

25 though?

1 A. Say one wanted to do an analysis at some

2 station to see if there had been a long-term trend in

3 temperature and one did a parametric analysis, I

4 wouldn't be nearly so bothered by that as a

5 parametric analysis of, say, total phosphorus.

6 Q. That's because you would tend to have data

7 that I guess you would consider outlier?

8 A. Yes, but there's a major disagreement as

9 to what constitutes an outlier, and some people would

10 argue that other than mistakes there is no such

11 thing, and I would tend closer to that argument.

12 Q. As a statistician, you would rather use

13 all data rather than excluding any data?

14 A. Yes. The problem with parametric analysis

15 and stream values is that they cause major problems,

16 so then one is tempted to classify some of the very

17 large values as outliers and then not use them, so

18 the methods work better. I have a philosophical

19 objection to that approach.

20 Q. Now, the nonparametric statistical

21 analysis, you don't worry about creating a

22 mathematical formula for relationships between in

23 water quality?

24 A. No, I don't think that's a correct way to

25 characterize it.

1 Q. Can you characterize it properly for me?

2 A. All that is not required is to say what

3 the form of the probability distribution is. That

4 particular step is not required. A trend analysis in

5 some sense is saying something about a temporal

6 relationship in the values.

7 For instance, if there is a trend, the

8 values may be becoming greater or less in time. The

9 nonparametric analysis can do that. It just doesn't

10 require you to assume the form of the probability

11 distribution.

12 Q. The reason for determining the probability

13 distribution is to determine whether or not -- the

14 likelihood of the relationship?

15 A. Well, are we talking about trend analysis?

16 Q. Yes, trend analysis.

17 A. The way a trend analysis is done usually

18 is that one forms a null hypothesis and an

19 alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that

20 the probability distribution is not changing with

21 time. The alternative hypothesis is that it is

22 changing in some way, for instance, the values later

23 in time, for instance, are getting to be larger.

24 What was the original question I started

25 on?

1 Q. Well, I was trying to figure out why we

2 wouldn't use a nonparametric, because you had defined

3 it as saying that it was a form of determining the

4 probability distribution.

5 A. Well, okay, I think what I was getting at

6 is in a nonparametric analysis, one typically -- one

7 way of doing it, and the way that most nonparametric

8 tests are used, they use the ranks of the data

9 somehow so that they look and see over time if one

10 combines all the data, and look from smallest to

11 largest, is there some tendency for the bigger

12 values, the largest rank values to occur later in the

13 time series as opposed to earlier.

14 That doesn't require that you use the

15 specific observations, it only requires that you use

16 the ranks.

17 Why would somebody use the parametric

18 analysis, I think was your question, now that I

19 recall.

20 The reason is that if one knew the

21 probability distribution, one can develop a test

22 which has -- it more powerful, is the statistical

23 word, for determining trends, i.e., if there's really

24 a trend there, it has a higher probability of

25 detecting that trend.

1 That is the reason people -- there

2 essentially is some additional information being used

3 about the form of the probability distribution,

4 hence, the power would be larger.

5 However, in some specific cases, you can

6 show that nonparametric tests, even when the

7 probability distribution is known, do almost as well,

8 and that they do much better if the assumption is

9 violated. That's the rationale why people like to

10 use nonparametric analysis.

11 Q. In using the parametric, you say it had

12 more power, and when you say "power --"

13 A. If the assumptions are met.

14 Q. Is that competent? How do you define

15 "power"?

16 A. No, power means -- you have a null

17 hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. The null

18 hypothesis either might be true or the alternative

19 hypothesis might be true, we don't know, we only have

20 some data out there.

21 Q. Right.

22 A. So you have two things that could go

23 wrong. One is that you could fail to reject the null

24 hypothesis when in fact the alternative hypothesis

25 was true, that there really was a trend. The power

1 is actually just one minus that probability. So it

2 is the probability of detecting a trend when there

3 really is one.

4 Q. This will help me for later.

5 Q. Are there other experts out in the field

6 that would disagree with you as to using the

7 parametric analysis and the nonparametric analysis?

8 A. I'm sure there are.

9 Q. Can you name any?

10 A. No, but I think if you got a group of

11 theoretical statisticians in the room, you would

12 probably be more likely to find people who would

13 argue for the parametric analysis, and I think people

14 who probably have done more work and gotten their

15 hands on the data would tend more to the

16 nonparametric school.

17 Q. People that got their hands on the data

18 meaning?

19 A. Have actually done trend analyses of data

20 and are familiar with the characteristics of water

21 quality data.

22 Q. Would tend toward nonparametric?

23 A. Would tend toward nonparametric.

24 Q. Such as yourself?

25 A. Such as myself, and I think you could go

1 look at a textbook by Dennis Helsel and Bob Hirsch at

2 the U.S. Geological Survey that came out recently

3 that would, I'm sure, take that view.

4 Q. Do you recall the trend that you developed

5 in your article, under the Design Considerations for

6 Ambient Stream Quality Monitoring, do you recall it?

7 Was there a trend model done?

8 A. Well, no, that, again -- this is the Water

9 Resources Bulletin paper?

10 Q. Yes, it was.

11 A. That has to do with the work that I did

12 for the state department of ecology and that was in a

13 design context. There are two, somewhat separate

14 concerns here. One is design, which has to do with

15 where are the stations, how often do you collect

16 samples, that sort of thing. That would be used for

17 the later purpose of conducting the trend analysis.

18 That was really the concern of the state's

19 department of ecology, with design, as opposed to

20 going back after the data had been collected some

21 number of years later and analyzing them.

22 While there is some analysis, preliminary

23 analysis that one has to do to determine the

24 parameters that could be used in the design, in other

25 words, you can't do the design in the complete

1 absence of data, that work had to do with design and

2 not analysis.

3 Q. Moving ahead, you had marked here

4 Assessment of Environmental Impacts Part 1:

5 Intervention Analysis, and this was in the

6 Environmental Management.

7 A. Yes, that actually is a parametric,

8 describes a parametric analysis. Those papers are

9 methodological.

10 Q. So you didn't do any analysis?

11 A. I'm not sure if there's an example in

12 those papers or not, but if there is, it is of the

13 nature of here is how the stuff would be applied sort

14 of at the end of the paper. The papers are primarily

15 methodological.

16 Q. I guess you did Part 1 and Part 2. There

17 was one titled: Intervention Analysis, and the

18 second part was Data Collection.

19 Again that was methodological?

20 A. It is basically methodological.

21 Interventional analysis is a particular parametric

22 method that at that time was relatively new for time

23 series analysis, and basically those papers described

24 how the method worked.

25 Q. Using the parametric analysis, statistical

1 analysis?

2 A. Yes. And there were some -- I believe

3 there were some design applications there as well.

4 Q. When you say "design applications," are

5 you taking a trend modeled of some sort and applying

6 the data to it?

7 A. Well, it has to do basically with the

8 analysis of the power, the probability of detecting

9 trends, and how design factors like the sample size

10 being a key one, what role that plays, and also how

11 the true magnitude -- what magnitude of trend could

12 you hope to detect with a given sample size and given

13 certain characteristics of the time series model like

14 the dependence between samples.

15 Q. You talk about the nonparametric approach

16 within the articles?

17 A. No, that's a parametric approach.

18 Q. Did you put any warnings that maybe the

19 parametric approach should not be used in particular

20 situations?

21 A. I can't recall what the discussions were.

22 In those particular papers, the assumptions were made

23 pretty clear.

24 Q. You are saying if all the assumptions are

25 true or if you know all the assumptions, then you can

1 use a parametric approach?

2 A. Well, if you can demonstrate, certainly if

3 you can demonstrate that you know the form of the

4 probability distribution, there's no problem with the

5 parametric approach.

6 Q. Now it is starting to make some more

7 sense.

8 For your next publication, you have Data

9 Requirements for Kriging: Estimation and Network

10 Design, and again this is for Water Resources

11 Research?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. 1981.

14 What were you talking about here?

15 A. That was some early work that I had done

16 on kriging with a student of mine. That was actually

17 a major part of his master's thesis, and at that

18 time, kriging was a relatively new idea in the water

19 resources literature. It came out of the mining

20 geology literature and it started to be used.

21 One of the issues we were interested in

22 was how many samples in space does one need to really

23 be able to make use of this method. The problem

24 there is that in order to make the method work, you

25 have to characterize the form of something that is

1 called the variogram from the data, and most of the

2 literature assumed that you knew the variogram and

3 various nice things fall out.

4 We addressed the problem via some computer

5 simulations of how many stations did you really need

6 in order to be able to estimate the variogram to then

7 in turn do the analysis.

8 Q. Is the variogram like the probability of a

9 population?

10 A. No, it is analogous to a correlation

11 function in space which tells you -- instead of

12 dependence in time, it tells you dependence in space,

13 how closely related are observations at two spacial

14 locations, and that gets related to their separation

15 distance and possibly the angle, how they are

16 separated as well as the distance.

17 Q. Do you ignore time?

18 A. In that sort of analysis, that's primarily

19 a spacial analysis, and the answer is yes. It is

20 basically applicable to problems where the

21 observations are not time changing or at least not

22 changing in time very rapidly.

23 For instance, the phosphorus core data is

24 a good application. If you go back a week later, the

25 core is going to be essentially the same.

1 Q. You say that you develop characteristics

2 for the variogram?

3 A. No. We were interested in the problem of,

4 if one has to estimate the variogram to then in turn

5 go do the spacial analysis and kriging, how many

6 samples or how many spacial locations did you need

7 data at to be able to do that.

8 Q. You do a computer simulation to determine

9 is that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you recall what was determined?

12 A. Well, it depends on a whole lot of things,

13 and it depends on the characteristics of the

14 underlying data themselves, if you can imagine, but

15 as a very rough rule of thumb, sort of 30 to 50

16 seemed to be what was coming out. If you had many

17 less than that, you probably shouldn't be doing it,

18 that sort of analysis.

19 Q. 30 to 50 sample sites?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did it matter how many samples you took at

22 a particular site?

23 A. Well, again, the kriging theory says you

24 have one.

25 Q. One sample per site?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. The use of the kriging theory is so that

3 you can estimate or determine the probability of a

4 site not actually tested?

5 A. Well, it is not a probability so much as

6 it is to estimate a value at sites that are not

7 actually sampled, and that one would like to know

8 something about the probability distribution of the

9 data or the uncertainty of that estimate.

10 Q. That's another calculation?

11 A. Well, that falls out of the kriging. You

12 get two things, you get the value and you get an

13 estimate of the variance which helps you characterize

14 the probability distribution.

15 Q. What would be a variance that would be

16 acceptable?

17 A. There is no such thing.

18 Q. I mean, if you your estimate of variance

19 came out zero, is there a zero value occurring?

20 A. The variance of zero is a deterministic

21 calculation.

22 Q. It is the other way around?

23 A. The other way around.

24 Q. 1 or a hundred?

25 A. No. The variance is not -- it depends on

1 the scale of the data. Variances come out in the

2 units of the data squared. Standard deviation is the

3 square root of the variance and has the same unit of

4 the data.

5 What sometimes people do is define the

6 coefficient of variation as being the ratio of the

7 standard deviation to the mean, and one could perhaps

8 get some crude characterization of how variable

9 something is from the coefficient of variation.

10 Q. Can I get you to say that one more time.

11 A. Sure. The definition of the coefficient

12 of variation?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. The coefficient of variation is the

15 standard deviation divided by the mean.

16 Q. Okay. So you are dealing with percentages

17 then?

18 A. If you multiplied by a hundred, yes.

19 Q. I will leave this part alone for now.

20 Have you developed any computer programs

21 for kriging yourself?

22 A. The co-author on that paper, Jim Hughes,

23 did, yes.

24 Q. Have you developed any subsequently?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Is there a standard program used for

2 kriging?

3 A. I'm not sure there's a standard program.

4 We have used some programs that were put together by

5 EPA.

6 Q. The results in kriging, you said, were two

7 things: the value at a particular location?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then the estimate of the variance of

10 that value?

11 A. Right. Essentially what you get out of it

12 -- if we go back to the application in, say, one of

13 the WCAs where it was applied to core data -- and

14 some other people have as well -- if you get a map of

15 the "best estimate," it essentially is the mean, the

16 method's estimate of the mean, the best estimate.

17 And you also get a map of the variance, or

18 if you take the square root, the standard deviation

19 which gives you an idea of how uncertain those

20 estimates are.

21 Q. Do you calculate an average variance after

22 that?

23 A. There's one value that comes out at each

24 point.

25 Q. But then you develop a map with hundreds

1 of points maybe -- or do you?

2 A. The map would be of the form of say a

3 contour -- contours. You are characterizing at any

4 point what the value is, and then there's another map

5 which is its variance at any point.

6 Q. You did that for WCA/1?

7 A. Those reports pertained to -- I have to

8 look in there -- WCA/1 has been done, yes, and WCA/2A

9 has been done as well based on data by one of the

10 District subcontractors.

11 Q. WCA/3, has that been done?

12 A. We had attempted to do some analysis in a

13 small part of WCA/3, but there are not sufficient

14 data there to really do a very good job.

15 Q. Have you done it for the Everglades

16 National Park?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Have you done it for the Everglades

19 agricultural area?

20 A. No.

21 Q. We will get to your reports later.

22 The next publication that you had marked

23 off in your resume was titled: Consolidation of a

24 Stream Quality Monitoring Network.

25 You did this with J.R. Stedinger and R.

1 Vogel?

2 A. No, I don't think so, unless that's a

3 typo.

4 Q. No? I am actually reading the wrong one.

5 A. It had nothing to do with water quality.

6 Q. D.E. Anderson and R.N. Brenner or

7 "Breen-er"?

8 A. Brenner, yes.

9 Q. What was the nature of that publication?

10 A. That was another review of the trend water

11 quality monitoring network that the municipality of

12 metropolitan Seattle had on some small streams in the

13 Seattle area.

14 Q. What methodology did you use, if any?

15 A. There was a screening method developed to

16 determine the relative importance of different basins

17 they were sampling and how many stations might go on

18 each stream channel within their small basins, and

19 then there was an analysis similar to the one done

20 earlier for the state for the time frequency

21 sampling.

22 Q. Had they put up any stations or basins?

23 A. Yes, they had an existing network, and

24 they were concerned with what the rationale was for

25 why various stations they were operating were in fact

1 being operated, and for whether the allocation of

2 stations made sense.

3 Q. And what did you conclude?

4 A. Well, we helped them reallocate some of

5 the stations. We felt that they were oversampling

6 some stream basins, undersampling some others.

7 Q. Did you add any any new stations?

8 A. As I recall, we did recommend that some of

9 the basins have new stations added and some of the

10 other basins have stations dropped.

11 Q. Were any models developed for this,

12 statistical models?

13 A. Not specifically for that work. There

14 were -- I mean, there were computer analyses

15 conducted, so there were programs used and possibly

16 written for some specific purposes.

17 Q. What type of computer analyses?

18 A. My recollection -- I would have to go back

19 and check the particular report that was used and the

20 paper there -- was that there was an algorithm to

21 help select and prioritize stations based on some of

22 the attributes of the particular candidate stations.

23 Q. You said there was an algorithm developed?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can you tell me what that is?

1 A. It is not a statistical algorithm, it

2 basically was just a scheme for combining some

3 priorities in terms of different attributes that had

4 been developed by metro, by the client, in terms of

5 why they might want to sample at different locations.

6 Q. What were they sampling for?

7 A. There were a number of constituents.

8 Phosphorus was certainly one of them, nitrogen was

9 another, I believe dissolved oxygen, temperature, and

10 probably a few others.

11 Q. Were there any relationships developed or

12 stated between the constituents?

13 A. I don't believe so directly.

14 Q. Indirectly?

15 A. Well, indirectly possibly in the sense

16 that we went through the list of constituents and

17 tried to identify some of those that might have been

18 redundant, because there was a cost issue involved.

19 I think we looked at the issue of did they really

20 need to be collecting all of the constituents they

21 were collecting.

22 Q. This cost issue always plays a part in all

23 your analyses?

24 A. Well, it is certainly an issue in design.

25 Q. Did stage ever come into play in your

1 analysis of the stream water quality?

2 A. I believe there was some discussion of it,

3 and there was a concern that at many of their

4 stations, they were in fact not monitoring, were not

5 monitoring discharge, I believe there were

6 recommendations to that effect.

7 Q. Did you make any recommendations?

8 A. Oh, there were a whole series of

9 recommendations. That was the point, that's what we

10 had been asked to do, conduct a review of their

11 network.

12 Q. Do you know if they actually took your

13 recommendations and actually did certain things?

14 A. Implemented? Yes, my understanding is

15 most of them were implemented.

16 Q. Have you ever gone back to see what the

17 effect of implementing your recommendations were?

18 A. No, not in that particular case.

19 Q. In any particular case, have you gone

20 back?

21 A. Well, gone back in what sense? Aware of

22 what's been done and so on?

23 Q. I guess what I am really more getting at

24 is whether you compared what you thought would happen

25 to what actually happened later?

1 A. That's not a proper characterization of,

2 say, a design. There's no characterization of what

3 should happen, this is a question of how many

4 stations are you going to sample, where are they

5 going to be, how frequently are you going to collect

6 data.

7 Q. I understand what you are saying, and I

8 can see where my question might not be proper, but

9 would you go back and say maybe you need more

10 stations or less stations or stations somewhere else?

11 A. It would be an interesting retrospective

12 analysis to go back and see how well the

13 recommendations might have worked out. In that case,

14 no, I haven't done it. We have never been hired to

15 go back. Futhermore, that particular agency has been

16 subsumed by another agency, and there's some problems

17 of institutional memory.

18 Q. Moving on to your publications.

19 You have marked Multivariate Nonparametric

20 Tests for Trend in Water Quality. This was in Water

21 Resources Bulletin in 1988.

22 A. That's a methodological paper. It has to

23 do with how one does a nonparametric analysis for

24 more than one water quality constituent currently,

25 instead of analyzing all the constituents

1 individually, if one treats them at the same time and

2 does the same analysis.

3 Q. Doesn't that skew your result more or

4 aren't you more susceptible to errors when you

5 combine everything?

6 A. In what respect?

7 Q. With my little knowledge of statistics, I

8 always thought when you start combining data and you

9 did that, that you are more prone to have errors in

10 your design or your modeling.

11 A. You are not combining data in this

12 analysis. What you are doing is, for instance, to

13 take an example, where you have two constituents --

14 Q. Phosphorus and nitrogen or something?

15 A. Phosphorus or nitrogen, it might not be a

16 particularly good example, but phosphorus and, say,

17 total dissolved solids. One way of doing a trend

18 analysis is simply to say, let's go do an analysis of

19 total phosphorus and we get some result, and let's go

20 do an analysis of total dissolved solids and we get

21 some result.

22 What this method says is you do a

23 concurrent analysis to see whether taken together,

24 there's some picture of change, instead of taking

25 them one at a time.

1 Sometimes, the reason for doing this is

2 that sometimes while there may not be a statistically

3 significant trend in any one particular constituent,

4 when one analyzes them as a group, there is in fact

5 something going on.

6 Q. Again, this was a paper dealing with the

7 method of it?

8 A. It is methodological.

9 Q. So there are no applications of it?

10 A. The application of that paper is in the

11 '91 national trend analysis, that we used the method

12 there.

13 Q. Do you know if you marked that?

14 A. Yes, I think so.

15 Q. The Trend in Stream --

16 A. -- Quality in the Continental U.S., or

17 something like that.

18 Q. Talking about the concurrent constituents,

19 how do you negate the possibility of the

20 interdependence of the components being treated?

21 A. Here it is treated. That's the whole idea

22 of the analysis.

23 Q. In what way is it treated?

24 A. It is a nonparametric analysis, so it

25 knows about what it called the rank correlation

1 between the variables.

2 Q. You lost me.

3 A. Okay. The interdependence between the

4 variables is in a sense a correlation between them,

5 that if one value tends to be high, the other value

6 tend to be high.

7 An extreme case, if you had total

8 phosphorus as one constituent and orthophosphorous as

9 the other, perhaps they tend to vary similarly and

10 there's a correlation between them. It estimates

11 that correlation, but it does it in a rank sense, in

12 a nonparametric sense.

13 Q. Rank from 1 to 100?

14 A. No, in terms of everything is done in

15 terms of the ranks of the data as opposed to their

16 numerical value.

17 Q. Who ranks the data?

18 A. If you have a sequence of observations,

19 let's say, 4 times, 1.3, 2.1, 1.4 and so on, one

20 simply goes through and ranks those from smallest to

21 largest, and then goes and takes at the first time

22 what is the rank of the observation that was

23 collected then, not its numerical value, but its

24 rank. And then you calculate a correlation between

25 the ranks as opposed to between the raw values.

1 Q. So you are ranking all the phosphorus

2 constituents and maybe the dissolved solids?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And then you combine them?

5 A. Not combining them.

6 Q. You are doing a trend on the concurrent?

7 A. Yes, it is a multivariate analysis, but

8 instead of univariate analysis. So one has

9 essentially a matrix instead of a vector, that's all

10 that's happened.

11 Q. I think this was touched in Dr. Millard's

12 deposition -- maybe it wasn't.

13 One of the next publications you marked

14 here is Design of Soil Sampling Study to Determine

15 the Habitability of the Emergency Declaration area,

16 Love Canal, New York.

17 A. Right, he was the co-author on that. In

18 fact, he was the more senior author than I was, so

19 I'm sure anything he has told you would be --

20 Q. Actually, it was skipped over since I

21 think it was assumed that counsel knew about it. I

22 didn't know much about it. Can you just tell me a

23 little bit about it?

24 A. About the paper?

25 Q. Well, about what was going on there, what

1 you did and what was involved.

2 A. Well, I was involved in the soil sampling

3 design in Love Canal over a period of about three or

4 four years. The history of that project, very

5 briefly, was that there had been a report before my

6 time done on it issued from the EPA which essentially

7 failed to review.

8 And the project was started essentially

9 all over again to attempt to characterize the area,

10 what was known as the emergency declaration area in

11 which about 800 houses had been evacuated in a ring

12 around the immediate Love Canal dump site.

13 And the question was whether those houses

14 could be reinhabited and what would be done. So

15 there was a rather extensive sampling program

16 initiated to characterize the existence of certain

17 trace chemicals in the soil, and there were a lot of

18 chemicals identified called Love Canal indicator

19 chemicals.

20 Those particular chemicals were identified

21 by another group that was outside the purview of our

22 study, but they were sampled at a number of

23 locations, and the question was in order to determine

24 whether there was a difference between certain

25 neighborhoods within this emergency declaration area

1 and some identified control areas, how many samples

2 would need to be collected.

3 And that was the aspect of what I worked

4 on, both an analysis of a pilot study and then design

5 of the statistical methods, and ultimately conducting

6 the analysis. I was involved with basically the

7 other people who were co-authors on that paper in

8 that study.

9 Q. You refer to Love Canal. Was there a

10 canal around there?

11 A. Well, Love Canal was in the news around

12 1980. It was the first major hazardous waste site in

13 the U.S. that got widespread public attention. There

14 was a Presidential order which evacuated the area in

15 about 1979 or 1980.

16 There was an area that was evacuated

17 following some health studies which had shown that

18 there was possible health effects to children that

19 had attended a school which would have been

20 constructed immediately on top of the waste site, and

21 people living in the immediate area.

22 Consequently, President Carter issued an

23 order which evacuated the area and directed the

24 Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study to

25 determine what should be done.

1 That first study, which was to have been

2 conducted over a period of six months or so in about

3 1980 or '81, was the one that failed review by the

4 Center for Disease Control. The National Bureau of

5 Standards, the Office of Technology Assessment, was

6 involved in that.

7 At any rate, that study was set aside, and

8 EPA was directed to go back and do a more thorough

9 study to determine what should be done, and that was

10 the point at which I became involved in the early

11 mid-1980s.

12 Q. You ended up designing?

13 A. I worked on the design with the others

14 there of the soil chemistry data collection, and

15 other decisions such as how many laboratories would

16 be used, which laboratories would analyze certain

17 samples, because it turned out that there were so

18 many samples being collected that no one laboratory

19 could conduct all the analyses within the time period

20 that the quality control people indicated they would

21 have to be analyzed.

22 There were a number of those issues of

23 allocation, number of samples, how the statistical

24 analysis would be conducted that I was involved in.

25 Q. Did you design where the samples should be

1 taken, when?

2 A. I was not personally involved. That study

3 does describe, though, some issues. Some of the

4 other co-authors in that paper were involved in

5 questions of what order the samples would be

6 collected at, how things would be randomized to

7 assure that there was no essentially contamination of

8 the statistical results by the order in which the

9 samples were collected.

10 Q. I think you referred to this before as the

11 application of the methodology of a prior article

12 which this one is now titled: Trends in Stream

13 Quality in the Continental U.S.?

14 A. Right.

15 Q. And that was the application --

16 A. The multivariate analysis was one aspect

17 of that.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 What did the multivariate analysis show?

20 A. Well, to describe the paper very briefly,

21 that was one aspect of it. We applied the seasonal

22 Kendall's test -- Kendall is a name -- the method

23 which has been developed by some people at the U.S.

24 Geological Survey for the National Stream Quality

25 Accounting Network Stations throughout the U.S., of

1 which I believe about 400 of their 500 or so stations

2 had sufficient length of record, and passed some

3 other screening criteria.

4 There was a large number of constituents

5 that were grouped. I think there were as many as 30

6 or 40 constituents that they routinely analyzed.

7 Those were grouped into certain areas, and I can't

8 remember things like trace metals -- I can't remember

9 exactly what we call them. Again I will get you a

10 copy of the paper.

11 We conducted the seasonal analysis

12 individually, and then we did a generalization of the

13 multivariate method to include seasons as well, and

14 applied it to each of the groups.

15 So that in addition to the analysis for

16 each of the individual constituents in each group,

17 for instance, common ions -- they had a list, and

18 sodium would certainly be one, and I think potassium

19 was in there and some others, those were analyzed

20 individually, and then we also analyzed the group

21 using a multivariate test.

22 This was done for all the stations in the

23 country, and then there were maps developed to show

24 where trends in these things were increasing and

25 where they were decreasing and where there were

1 significant changes.

2 Q. This was like a concurrent -- you grouped

3 constituents together. Did you group them all

4 together or did you decide which constituents to

5 group together?

6 A. Again, we had 30 to 40 constituents. We

7 determined six or seven groups that logically fit

8 together; common ions I remember was one, trace

9 metals, I remember the other -- I can't remember the

10 others.

11 Q. Was the data ranked?

12 A. No, we simply said these are typically

13 similar, that it makes sense to analyze common ions

14 together, but not to lump in common ions with, say,

15 nutrients which was another group. I think nutrients

16 just had total phosphorus and I think total nitrogen.

17 So we would go within each group and do

18 the analysis individually, which of course then

19 doesn't matter whether it is in a group or not, but

20 then we would analyze the group using the

21 multivariate at the time.

22 Q. In a nonparametric approach?

23 A. It was all nonparametric approach, the

24 seasonal Kendall test is a nonparametric method.

25 Q. Then you developed trend models from them?

1 A. Those are statistical trend models.

2 Q. Were there maps?

3 A. They are maps that show simply whether

4 over that period of record there was statistically an

5 increase, uptrend, downtrend or no significant trend.

6 Q. Did you find any trend?

7 A. Well, there's a whole paper full of

8 papers. It is a little different to characterize,

9 and I can't remember the details well enough. I

10 think I indicated earlier that with either groups or

11 individual constituents with the most trends, one

12 would have maybe a hundred or so out of the 400 or so

13 stations.

14 So I think around 25 percent was about the

15 most that we would find trends in. It is a

16 relatively short record, about 10 years -- a little

17 longer.

18 Q. When you do the nonparametric approach, do

19 you get a variant or indicator of how much confidence

20 you can give that particular trend model that you

21 have developed?

22 A. I don't know quite what you mean.

23 Q. What I am trying to get at is when you do

24 a parametric approach, you get a probability of the

25 population?

1 A. You get a probability of distribution, but

2 in the end, you get -- the analysis is the same

3 thing, the result of the analysis is the same thing.

4 You could have a statistically significant trend or

5 you don't, at some significance level.

6 Q. Do you quantify the statistical result

7 that you have reached in terms of confidence -- I

8 guess I am getting back to alpha and beta?

9 A. Well, sure. The analysis is all conducted

10 with some P values and significance level. So if if

11 the significance level is .05, which is one that's

12 often used, that is just the type 1 error

13 probability, which is the probability of rejecting

14 the null hypothesis when in fact it is really true,

15 which is a finding a trend when there really isn't

16 one. That's the thing you fix.

17 Then with that fixed, you go and see

18 whether or not you have a significant trend.

19 Q. You do that at the end?

20 A. That happens in any statistical analysis.

21 The difference, one of the things that often falls

22 out of a parametric analysis which does not in a

23 nonparametric analysis is the magnitude of the trend.

24 The nonparametric analysis says there's

25 one there, and there either is or is not one there.

1 The parametric analysis may give you an estimate of

2 how big.

3 Q. Moving on to your technical reports, I

4 point you to Design of Monitoring Systems for

5 Detection of Trends in Stream Quality.

6 A. That's 39?

7 Q. Yes, No. 39.

8 A. That's my dissertation.

9 Q. We already talked about that.

10 The next one, is this also part of your

11 thesis: Detection of Trends in Stream Quality:

12 Monitoring Network Design and Data Analysis?

13 A. That was the work done for the state

14 department of ecology which we also discussed.

15 Q. Moving right along.

16 Aquatic Monitoring: Data analysis and

17 network Design Using Regionalized Variable Theory.

18 It looks like the same student?

19 A. That's the same -- the Water Research

20 paper in '81 is basically that, the distillation of

21 that. That in fact is his master's thesis.

22 Q. Have you continued to work with Mr.

23 Hughes, H U G H E S?

24 A. Hughes is now on the faculty in the

25 biostatistics department of the university.

1 Q. Has he helped in any of the Everglades

2 work?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Have you talked to him about it?

5 A. No -- well, I had a discussion at one

6 point before Steve Millard was brought in to ask

7 whether he would be interested when we needed some

8 statistical help, and his answer was no, that he was

9 too busy and he suggested that Steve Millard, whom I

10 also knew, might be able to do it. So the only

11 discussion that ever was had with him had to do with

12 his availability.

13 Q. The technical report titled: Routine

14 Streams and River Water Quality Trend Monitoring

15 Review?

16 A. About '82?

17 Q. March of '82.

18 A. That's the work for metro which was in

19 that Water Research Bulletin paper which we

20 discussed.

21 Q. Can you just --

22 A. There's a paper there with Anderson and

23 Brenner and we discussed prioritizing the different

24 attributes and so on.

25 Q. And this is the same?

1 A. This is the same. The report has all the

2 details and the paper has more of a summary.

3 Q. Maybe this next one we talked about also:

4 Operation of Detention Facilities for Urban Stream

5 Quality Enhancement?

6 A. We talked about that because that's Lisa

7 Dally's thesis.

8 Q. That's what I thought.

9 Other Technical Reports: Design of

10 Nonradiological Aquatic Sampling Programs for

11 Newclear Powerplant Impact Assessment Using

12 Intervention Analysis?

13 A. The same stuff as is in that Part 1 and

14 Part 2 we discussed -- Environmental Management, or

15 whatever the journal was -- about 1980 or so with

16 Hipel and McLeod. I'm not sure I have marked it on

17 the refereed publications.

18 Q. I think we talked about Part 1 and Part 2.

19 Can you tell me a little bit more to jog

20 my memory?

21 A. This has to do with the intervention

22 analysis, and we discussed that it is a parametric

23 method.

24 Q. Okay. We got into talking about

25 parametric versus nonparametric?

1 A. Right.

2 Q. And I might have taken you off that.

3 A. I mentioned that the intervention analysis

4 was a method that had been suggested in the

5 statistical literature, and we explored it for use in

6 environmental trend analysis basically.

7 To be perfectly honest, I probably would

8 not use that method in most problems I have come

9 across because it makes some assumptions that I

10 consider to be too restrictive, but it was something

11 that looked interesting, and we did some

12 investigation into it at that point.

13 Q. When you are saying assumptions that are

14 too restrictive, assumptions imposed upon you or

15 assumptions that you had to make?

16 A. Assumptions of the model.

17 Q. That you had to make?

18 A. That you have to make. You have to make

19 the parametric assumptions to start with. You need

20 to know -- the data needs to be normally distributed.

21 The other problem with that method is that it doesn't

22 like missing data very well.

23 So it likes a nice long time series where

24 you have observations every month, it doesn't like it

25 if those observations are missed. I think we had

1 done some analysis in those papers to look at how one

2 might deal with problems -- I take that back.

3 There's another paper having to do with

4 interventional analysis data, and that paper assumes

5 all the data are there, and that's a real problem.

6 Q. Stormwater Quality Evaluation for

7 Metro-Transit Operating Base.

8 This is a Lisa Dally?

9 A. Yes. I can't remember exactly why that

10 was a separate report. I think what happened was we

11 got an additional small contract to do some more work

12 for metro, and that would have been the report that

13 had to do with the follow-on work. This was all

14 basically performance of oil-water separators.

15 Q. This is where you tested between the dry

16 ponds and wet ponds?

17 A. I think the dry versus wet stuff was in

18 the earlier report that you mentioned, and Metro East

19 operating base, that is the transit facility, that's

20 a wet facility.

21 Q. Did you test for anything other than oil

22 and grease?

23 A. That was the main thing they were

24 interested in.

25 Q. Nothing else, no other constituents?

1 A. I don't remember if there were other

2 constituents tested. In the follow-up, the second

3 report you have mentioned, I think not. I think it

4 was entirely oil and grease.

5 Q. There's nothing to discuss on Other

6 Publications. You haven't marked anything under

7 Other Publications in your resume?

8 A. I don't think I saw anything on there that

9 really was water quality related.

10 Q. You did look at that page then?

11 A. Yes, I did look at that page.

12 Q. Do you still work for or do any consulting

13 work for the municipality of metropolitan Seattle?

14 A. No, I haven't done any work for them in a

15 long time.