472
1
2
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
3 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )
5 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
6 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3039
7 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 92-3040
of Florida; et al., ) 92-6796
8 Respondents. ) 92-6797
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 92-6799
9 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) 92-6800
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
10 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
Petitioners, )
11 vs. )
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
12 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
13 Respondents. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
14 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
15 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
16 Petitioners, )
vs. )
17 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
18 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
100 Southeast 2nd Street
20 Miami, Florida
March 4th, 1994
21 8:40 a.m. - 12:20 p.m.
22 DEPOSITION OF DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER
VOLUME V
23
Taken before BARNET I ABRAMOWITZ, court
24
reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
25
473
1 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
2 Deposition filed in the above cause.
3
APPEARANCES
4
5 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and
6 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.
7 EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS , P.A.
One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
8 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
9 BY: ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.
10
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
11 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
12 POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN
International Place - 41st Floor
13 100 Southeast 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33131
14 BY: JOSE A. LOREDO, ESQ.
15
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
17 THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
18 99 Northeast 4th Street
Third Floor
19 Miami, Florida 33132
20
INDEX
21
Witness Direct
22 DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER
23 By Mr. Fitzgerald: 474
24
25
474
1 Thereupon --
2 DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER
3 was called as a witness and having been previously
4 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
7 Q. Doctor, you are still under oath.
8 Yesterday as we finished out, we were
9 talking about WCA-2A and interpreting the variograms
10 from the kriging work that you had done with respect
11 to soil phosphorus in the northeast corner.
12 And as I understood what you were saying,
13 you found nothing in the data sets available to you
14 or the results of your analysis that would suggest
15 that the surface inflows from the S-10 structures
16 don't move out across the marsh and ultimately in
17 some fashion end up contributing phosphorus to the
18 soils there.
19 Do I understand that correctly?
20 A. I have to make sure I understand your
21 statement. To reiterate what I said, the work we had
22 done was consistent with that idea, yes.
23 Q. Did you find any indication or data that
24 would be inconsistent with that view?
25 A. No, but then we were not looking to
475
1 support a hypothesis that that existed or that it did
2 not.
3 Q. Well, I didn't understand you in the last
4 two days to say you were trying to support any
5 particular hypothesis. I understood you to say you
6 were doing the work and then you were throwing it up,
7 and that sort of led to my next question or two this
8 morning.
9 Who is going to interpret your work in a
10 way that's relevant to the case, the kriging work?
11 A. That I don't know.
12 Q. So you don't plan to do that?
13 A. Which work are you referring to?
14 Q. The kriging work with respect to 2A.
15 A. For?
16 Q. Well, what we have right now? I know
17 there's the ongoing work trying to link the
18 vegetation, and we will get to that in a minute.
19 A. No, but there are several variables that
20 have been kriged.
21 Q. I'm talking about each of them.
22 A. Let's talk about 10 centimeter phosphorus.
23 Q. We can take them seriatim if you want.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. The 10 centimeter phosphorus.
476
1 A. The 10 centimeter phosphorus is being used
2 in another study that I am not doing, but we have
3 talked about it over the last couple of days.
4 Q. So we keep it straight, which study is
5 that?
6 A. The study being done by Millard, I
7 believe, relating to other variables, including
8 vegetation which we talked about.
9 Q. Vegetation and water depth?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And surface water phosphorus
12 concentrations?
13 A. I am not certain whether that is being
14 considered or not.
15 Q. How about soil phosphorus, the mass, soil
16 mass phosphorus?
17 A. Well, I consider that to be the same.
18 That's 10 centimeter or -- again, which variable are
19 you talking about?
20 Q. When you went from the 10 centimeter to
21 the dated core and synthesized those two sets of data
22 to give you an isotropic weighting that you needed
23 because you didn't have enough dated cores to do that
24 independently, what is that being used for?
25 A. This is the dated core data now you are
477
1 asking about?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. That I do not know.
4 Q. To whom have you provided that?
5 A. Those data have been provided to Earl,
6 Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, and they have also been
7 provided to John Davis's office.
8 Q. Has Dr. Davis suggested how it could be
9 used in coordinating his master plan, such as it is,
10 of the case or his view of it?
11 A. No, we have not discussed that.
12 Q. Have you discussed with Earl, Blank how it
13 might be used or what the implications of that data
14 is for the issues in the case?
15 A. Again, we are discussing the dated core
16 data?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. No is the answer to your question, with
19 that qualification.
20 Q. What other analysis have you conducted
21 that you do not expect to interpret and apply to the
22 case?
23 A. With the qualification of beyond whatever
24 interpretation what's already been done, we discussed
25 the sediment depth and the top sediment elevation in
478
1 2A.
2 Q. And who do you anticipate will interpret
3 that and apply it to the case?
4 A. I don't know, beyond what we have
5 discussed relevant to work being done by Millard and
6 possibly others.
7 Q. In looking at the 2A data, things like
8 sediment depth and top of the hard bottom -- you call
9 it the bedrock -- probably limestone is what's really
10 out there -- those depths have implications when you
11 attempt to determine a rate of accretion of the
12 soils, do they not, rate of accretion of the peats?
13 A. Well, one might do analysis to use that
14 information.
15 Q. When you use the cesium dating method and
16 you go back and say, what's the average rate of
17 accretion over the 26, 28 years -- whatever it is now
18 -- to when the samples were done, 26 years, most of
19 it -- that's what you are doing, isn't it?
20 A. What?
21 Q. You are taking what you assume is the
22 accreted depth from the surface to the cesium spike,
23 and it gives you a date of 1964, and then you said
24 yesterday I believe that you could just divide that
25 through and get an average annual accretion?
479
1 MR. BLANK: I will object to the
2 characterization. I don't think Dr. Lettenmaier said
3 that yesterday.
4 Q. Okay, my notes are incorrect then.
5 A. I don't understand what depth you are
6 talking about.
7 Q. When you do a soil core, you date it at a
8 certain depth you find a cesium spike, and that reads
9 1964 to a soil scientist, correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. If you want to get some rough guage of how
12 quickly the soil is accreting, and you know when you
13 took the soil core and you know how far down 1964 is,
14 it is a relatively simple division to get an annual
15 average, is it not?
16 A. That's correct, but that's not the
17 question you asked.
18 Q. That is one of the questions I asked. We
19 are moving on from there.
20 A. Okay. You asked another question, and the
21 reason things are going around in circles here a
22 little bit is you have confused me by asking in the
23 same breath essentially about work having to do with
24 depth of sediment, which is a separate issue.
25 Q. How do you see the dated core data
480
1 analysis that you have conducted figuring in an
2 evaluation of appendix E and F of the SWIM Plan?
3 A. That's not work that I intend to do. I
4 think I indicated that to my present knowledge, the
5 work that we have done with the dated core data is
6 complete.
7 Q. When you were doing that work, did you try
8 and account in any way for variability in accretion
9 rates over time that might be induced by changes in
10 schedules for WCA-2A?
11 MR. BLANK: What work are you referring
12 to, are you talking about?
13 MR. FITZGERALD: I am still talking about
14 the soil accretions and the dated core --
15 MR. BLANK: Cesium dating?
16 MR. FITZGERALD: Not that per se, but that
17 band of work, as Dr. Lettenmaier didn't do the cesium
18 dating himself.
19 THE WITNESS: I guess I am still a little
20 bit confused as to your question. The nature of the
21 analysis was a kriging analysis of what's there given
22 the dated core data that have been collected.
23 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
24 Q. Do you see any implications of that work
25 for annual accretion rates of the soils?
481
1 A. Of whose work?
2 Q. Of your work in 2A.
3 A. There are many things one could do with
4 the work, but I think I have indicated that we are
5 done with the work that we are doing. If you are
6 asking me how somebody else might use it, I would be
7 speculating.
8 Q. Could you use the work if requested to
9 develop some sense or picture of the phosphorus
10 accretion rates over that period of time, the 26
11 years?
12 A. I could.
13 Q. How would you do that?
14 A. I haven't thought that through, and I
15 certainly wouldn't be willing to testify at this
16 point as to how I might conduct an analysis that I
17 haven't yet designed.
18 Q. If you were to design such an analysis,
19 would you necessarily have to consider alterations in
20 the operating schedules in 2A that affected the water
21 flow detention time, standing depth, that sort of
22 thing?
23 A. I haven't thought that through. I can't
24 quite see how that is relevant to the type and nature
25 of the data that have either been collected or the
482
1 method of analysis.
2 Q. Well, Doctor, you have done an analysis of
3 STAs, haven't you?
4 A. I'm not sure of the meaning of your
5 characterization of "analysis of STAs," that's very
6 broad.
7 Q. You have a report here that's got
8 something to do with sensitivity on STAs, Analysis of
9 Uncertainty in STA Area Requirement?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And according to the factors you listed
12 for co-counsel yesterday, there are a number of
13 aspects of STA performance. You talked about I think
14 loading rates and concentration and
15 evapotranspiration and a number of other factors,
16 correct?
17 A. They come into the design using the
18 particular model of the District in appendix F.
19 Q. And you are aware, are you not, that the
20 SWIM Plan essentially states the view of the District
21 that WCA-2A has functioned over time as an STA in
22 terms of up taking phosphorus from the inflows?
23 A. I'm aware that assumption has been made,
24 yes.
25 Q. Are you aware of anything that would
483
1 suggest that in fact the northern portions of the STA
2 -- I'm sorry, of the WCA-2A have not in fact up
3 taken, as the District has used that term,
4 phosphorus?
5 A. No, I'm not.
6 Q. In fact, all the evidence supports that,
7 does it not?
8 A. The evidence that I have read -- again
9 when you start saying "all," you are talking about a
10 very broad term and going beyond the analysis that I
11 have done. Of what I have read, your statement, I
12 would not disagree with.
13 Q. Doesn't your own analysis, your kriging
14 analysis that we discussed at the end of the day
15 yesterday support the notion that at the inflow
16 points, soil phosphorus is much higher, and as you
17 move out across the marsh, there's a gradient in the
18 soil phosphorus?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. As a hydrologist as well as a research
21 engineer, doesn't that intuit in your mind something
22 about what the Water Conservation Area has been doing
23 since at least 1964?
24 A. I don't have any reservation in saying
25 that the concentrations tend to be higher at the
484
1 north end than the south end in general direction,
2 and I think plots in the reports that we have
3 reviewed or that you have reviewed indicate that.
4 Q. In reviewing that data, in the work you
5 have conducted and your review of the STA analysis of
6 uncertainty, is not one of the factors that has to be
7 considered, detention time of water in an STA?
8 A. In the analysis method used by the
9 District, detention time is not an explicit variable.
10 Q. What do you mean by "explicit variable"?
11 A. If you look at the report we discussed and
12 look the variables that go into their model,
13 detention time is not an input.
14 Q. Is that because it is fixed by the
15 District at a given time interval, is it not, as a
16 design parameter?
17 A. I would have to go back and look at their
18 model and see if that is fixed or if that is a result
19 of the assumptions made in their model.
20 Q. Whether it is an assumption or fixed, is
21 it not correct to say that the design analysis
22 conducted by Burns and McDonnell for STAs, also fixes
23 that number, that that is not a dependent variable,
24 if you know?
25 A. That I do not recall. That may be
485
1 correct.
2 Q. Based on your experience in environmental
3 analysis, wouldn't you expect in a nonconservative
4 water parameter that's subject to biological
5 extraction and other chemical processes for removing
6 it from the water column, that detention time of the
7 water would be a factor in a remediation area?
8 A. That may or may not be explicitly
9 addressed by the models. I would agree that in
10 general, detention time, yes, would be a variable
11 that would be expected to affect performance.
12 Q. Would the same be true of water depth?
13 A. You are asking me in general whether these
14 variables would be expected to affect performance. I
15 think one would have to know a little bit more about
16 the nature of design, but in general, water depth,
17 yes, could be expected to be a variable that would
18 affect performance.
19 Q. After your kriging effort, and extrinsic
20 to the data points used for that purpose, have you or
21 anyone under your direction or to your knowledge,
22 done any ground truthing in the ecosystem to compare
23 in the areas where data points were, say, less
24 numerous, the kriging results?
25 MR. BLANK: I object to the broadness of
486
1 your question. I think you said "or anyone else."
2 MR. FITZGERALD: To his knowledge.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, as part of the kriging
4 method in the variogram estimation, one of the
5 aspects of the estimation procedure is to evaluate
6 kriging error via sequential removal of known points,
7 i.e., to treat known points as unknown. So in that
8 context, the answer is yes.
9 In terms of an ex post facto collecting
10 additional data to see how close they come to the
11 kriging lines, or perhaps more relevantly, to see
12 whether they come within some number of kriging
13 standard deviation of the estimate, I'm not aware if
14 that's been done.
15 Q. On the first part of your answer, if your
16 kriging was done properly and the program didn't have
17 any bugs and you didn't arbitrarily impose a
18 smoothing program, wouldn't you expect the kriging
19 program to predict exactly if you artificially remove
20 a known point and then, say, Program, tell me what
21 your prediction is -- you expect those to be a
22 perfect match, don't you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Why not?
25 A. We are talking about something different.
487
1 If you take the known point in kriging, and now using
2 all of the data ask it what is the value at that
3 known point, it should come back with the known
4 value. We discussed that yesterday.
5 That, incidentally, is not a
6 characteristic of all smoothing programs, so that
7 isn't necessarily as obvious as it might seem. That
8 is a property of kriging, however.
9 If one does not use the known points and
10 uses all other points, one will then of course not
11 get back the observed value at the location of the
12 point that one has pulled out of the data set
13 artificially, one will get some other value.
14 Q. Because of the weighting by removing --
15 A. Of course, what happens is in kriging,
16 there is a set of weights, and if you know all of the
17 points and go to a known point, the weight is 1.0 for
18 the known observation and zero for all of the others.
19 So, of course, you get the known point back.
20 If you don't know that point, if the
21 program doesn't know that point, knows the
22 surrounding points, one goes to estimate it, and
23 there will be some set of weights and it will be some
24 set of average -- it will be a weighted average of
25 all of the values, but in practice, mostly the close
488
1 values will be weighted most highly and one will get
2 some other value.
3 A standard part of the kriging method is
4 to do that sort of analysis one point at a time so it
5 sequentially is gone through, remove each of the
6 known points, estimate the values at those points,
7 and then one gets errors at each of those points, and
8 subtract the estimated value from the actual observed
9 value, and that should match with -- without going
10 into a lot of details, that should match with the
11 kriging standard. That should be able to match with
12 the kriging standard deviation.
13 Q. It is cross-checks on the functioning of
14 the program in your analytical method, it should be
15 pretty close?
16 A. It is a little more than that, because
17 that sort of procedure is actually used in the
18 estimation of what amounts to a floating parameter in
19 the variogram. And that's not something in our
20 program, that's a very standard method within
21 kriging, that's a very standard approach.
22 Q. You identified some fictitious point,
23 three sample points in 2A?
24 A. That was a completely separate analysis
25 aside from what we just discussed.
489
1 Q. Right. But based on your analysis, if you
2 had observed values from those points, you felt it
3 would improve the variogram accuracy or the ability
4 to extrapolate across 2A to a significant degree?
5 A. You said two completely separate things.
6 The variogram in that analysis, as you have correctly
7 indicated before, was taken from the 10 centimeter
8 depth, so because of the relatively small number of
9 samples from the dated core, we did not attempt to
10 estimate the variogram directly from that data. The
11 first part of your question is not relevant.
12 The second part as to whether the kriging
13 map might be improved by additional data at locations
14 that we tested, the answer to that is yes, that was
15 the reason for doing that analysis.
16 Q. Is that part of the generic
17 scientist/engineer view that you can never have
18 enough data?
19 A. Well, it is a little more broad than that.
20 I mean, I think a cursory review without even doing
21 kriging of where the points have been collected show
22 there was a large part of area that was not
23 characterized, and the question was if one were to go
24 out and take some observations in that part that had
25 not been characterized, where would be the best place
490
1 to go?
2 Q. Do you understand the rationale behind the
3 focus of the transect lines, the sampling lines to
4 the, more or less, eastern half of 2A?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What's your understanding of that?
7 A. That's where the 10 structures are.
8 Q. You discussed yesterday the apparent
9 problem in a data collection done by the United
10 States, or for the United States from October of
11 1993. Do you recall that?
12 A. This is up in the Loxahatchee?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you indicated that Dr. Davis opined
16 that it was because insufficient care was taken to
17 keep from contaminating the sample with sediment or
18 fish or whatever it was. Do you recall that?
19 A. I have heard that hypothesis advanced,
20 yes.
21 Q. I assume you heard that from Dr. Davis?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did Dr. Davis tell you he was there when
24 that sampling was carried out?
25 A. That I don't recall.
491
1 Q. So you don't know if his view is based on
2 personal knowledge or supposition?
3 A. I'm quite certain it is not based on
4 supposition, I don't know whether he was there or
5 somebody under his direction was there.
6 Q. Were you aware that ESP had its own data
7 point problems on its collection in Loxahatchee?
8 A. I think you would have to indicate what
9 you mean by "problems."
10 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Davis wrote or
11 sent an E mail letter to Stephen Millard suggesting
12 he should reject in his analysis involving
13 Loxahatchee, about 19 data observations from the ESP
14 entry and access data set because they were outliers?
15 MR. BLANK: I would object to your
16 characterization of Dr. Davis's communication. I
17 don't know if it is correct.
18 Q. Were you aware of such correspondence?
19 A. I'm aware there's been correspondence
20 relative to Dr. Davis's opinion regarding certain
21 data values, yes.
22 Q. You are aware, then, that based on what he
23 has referred to as his best professional judgment,
24 certain data points should be eliminated, data
25 observation should be eliminated from Dr. Millard's
492
1 analysis?
2 A. I'm aware of that, yes.
3 Q. In your prior work, have you ever had to
4 deal with a situation where the comparability of data
5 was less than ideal?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How did you handle that?
8 A. You are asking a very broad question, and
9 I guess I would have to ask you to be more specific.
10 Would you like a particular example?
11 Q. That's a good place to start.
12 A. Fine. If you came up to the Love Canal,
13 the way it was dealt with there was to classify data
14 based on the chemist's view and not the analyst's as
15 to whether it was -- and based on certain criteria --
16 as to whether it was "good data," "bad data," meaning
17 it was highly suspect or ununcertain, and since that
18 was GC mass-spec data, there was some quantitative
19 methods to be used to assess that.
20 We then did the analysis using all of the
21 data, using good plus uncertain and using good only,
22 and since we were using nonparametric methods, it
23 turned out it made no difference to the conclusion.
24 Q. If you had used parametric, it would have
25 had greater impact?
493
1 A. I believe that's correct.
2 Q. Although you suggest that there was some
3 quantitative methods available or standards available
4 to apply in making the judgment whether something was
5 good data or bad data or suspect data, even in the
6 application of those, the setting of those standards,
7 isn't there professional judgment involved?
8 A. We are talking about a particular example
9 here, and there were criteria which I don't think are
10 relevant to the particular case at hand here.
11 Q. I guess my question is not what the
12 criteria were, but isn't there a subjective element
13 to establishing criteria ab initio, whatever they may
14 be, that a certain criteria is appropriate or not
15 appropriate for making the decision on whether
16 something is good or bad?
17 A. Well, I think one could imagine some scale
18 from objective to subjective, and you could probably
19 make the point that one ends up being somewhere along
20 that scale.
21 Q. In any of your other experience with data
22 comparability problems, have you had occasion where
23 the determination of whether data was good or bad,
24 includable or nonincludable in your analysis in fact
25 had to be made solely on best professional judgment?
494
1 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
2 question.
3 A. I have never been quite clear as to
4 exactly what best professional judgment is.
5 Q. That's surprising since you used the term
6 yesterday, I assumed it had some Talismanic meaning
7 to you scientists.
8 I won't ask to you define it since you say
9 it is not clear to you what it is, but maybe it is
10 like pornography in the Supreme Court, do you know it
11 when you exercise it?
12 A. I think I may be answering a different
13 question, but let me repeat what I said yesterday,
14 which is that I am not in favor of eliminating data
15 unless it can be shown clearly that it is essentially
16 a mistake, or for some other reason comes from a
17 statistical population other than the one one is
18 attempting to sample.
19 And all other things being equal, I tend
20 to leave the benefit of the doubt with the data and
21 do not reject.
22 Q. Okay.
23 What lab processed the samples for ESP for
24 the entry and access program data that you employed?
25 A. That I don't know.
495
1 Q. Do you know what their lab protocol was?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you know what analytical methods they
4 employed, which specific tests, for example, to
5 determine orthophosphorus in the samples?
6 A. No, that was not part of my charge in the
7 study.
8 Q. How do you know that that data is or is
9 not comparable to any other data that was previously
10 acquired?
11 A. We are talking about orthophosphorus --
12 Q. Just as an example, I just selected it.
13 Make it total phosphorus, BOD, dissolved oxygen,
14 whatever factors you might be examining in the data.
15 A. Your question is?
16 Q. It seems to me, if I recall yesterday, you
17 said an important aspect of comparability is knowing
18 lab protocols, whether they change, whether the tests
19 change, that sort of thing?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well, did you insure, make any effort to
22 determine the comparability of ESP's data which you
23 used to double your sample sizes in some of your work
24 to the earlier work?
25 A. I don't think there's any of my work that
496
1 has analyzed that data. In fact, not only do I not
2 think, I'm certain there's none of my work.
3 Q. You haven't used any of the ESP data?
4 A. Personally, no. I have indicated to you
5 that I have seen some of analysis of that, and that
6 was discussed yesterday.
7 Q. Is part of your work in progress any
8 effort to use the cesium dating data that ESP has
9 produced?
10 A. I'm not aware that ESP has produced any
11 cesium dating data. I would be interested in seeing
12 it if they have.
13 Q. You weren't aware that as part of the
14 entry and access program, they did some cesium --
15 A. That was in the Loxahatchee?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. I haven't done any work with cesium dated
18 data in the Lokahatchee.
19 Q. Have you done any work with cesium dated
20 cores in the Everglades National Park?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you expect to?
23 A. To my present knowledge, no.
24 Q. Were you aware that Dr. Millard has gone
25 back and taken the models from the SWIM Plan and
497
1 tested them with the ESP data from Loxahatchee?
2 A. Yes, we discussed that yesterday.
3 Q. What's your understanding of the results
4 of that test?
5 A. I think we discussed that yesterday. It
6 appears to me that there's some inconsistency.
7 Q. Were you aware that with the exception of
8 one month's data, in fact it was a very tight match
9 between the ESP Loxahatchee data and the predictive
10 model in appendix E?
11 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
12 question.
13 A. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying.
14 There are 14, I believe, original sample dates and an
15 additional 12. The fact that one point, whatever
16 that might mean, does or does not fall in a line,
17 means nothing.
18 Q. Let me see if we can clarify this.
19 Were you aware that Dr. Millard in testing
20 the model with the benefit of the new entry and
21 access data, considered several permutations of the
22 data to get a sense of what might or what might not
23 be happening in Loxahatchee and how well it matched
24 the predictive model in appendix E?
25 MR. BLANK: Again, object to the form of
498
1 the question.
2 A. What I have seen are plots of the new
3 data, the entry and access data on a scale and with
4 the prediction lines from the earlier model
5 indicated. I'm not quite sure in terms of what
6 permutations he might or might not have done.
7 Q. Have you done any analysis of the apparent
8 spike in phosphorus concentration in outflows from
9 EAA in the spring of 1993?
10 A. No, I don't believe I have seen the 1993
11 data yet.
12 Q. You are not aware of any concerns over the
13 apparent failure of the BMPs to maintain the 25
14 percent or greater than 25 percent phosphorus
15 reduction?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You haven't discussed that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. When you develop the rating curves we were
20 discussing yesterday, how do you account for things
21 such as washout phenomena?
22 A. You have to explain what you mean by
23 "washout."
24 Q. Washout phenomenon of phosphorus in
25 rainfall?.
499
1 A. The contribution of phosphorus from
2 rainfall?
3 Q. Are you aware of the notion referred to as
4 washout that during a rain event, the phosphorus
5 concentration of the rainfall is very high initially
6 and drops off and becomes --
7 A. I was confusing that with what I call
8 "washoff."
9 Q. That's off the farms.
10 A. That's a separate issue.
11 Q. I'm not addressing washoff, this is
12 washout.
13 A. Fine. The question is whether the rating
14 curve method accounts for anything that might be
15 going on with rainfall, and the answer is only
16 indirectly through how it might affect flow.
17 Q. How about surge pumping from farm sites or
18 something that's called "panic pumping" -- a heavy
19 localized rain event, and turn on the pumps? It is
20 clear from the data that the initial pumping, as with
21 washout and rainfall, is extremely high in phosphorus
22 and it may taper off over time. Is that accounted
23 for in any way in the rating curve mechanism?
24 A. No. One could if one had the data, but
25 the method as I described it, no.
500
1 Q. Once you developed this curve, how does it
2 account for unusual events that increase or distort
3 the predetermined relationship between flow and
4 concentration?
5 A. Depending on how one does it, if one
6 leaves the rating curve fixed for the entire period
7 of record, it does not.
8 Q. Is the rating curve sensitive to the form
9 of, in this case the phosphorus that we are concerned
10 about, whether it be dissolved or particulate?
11 A. Are you asking a general question or a
12 specific question?
13 Q. Generally.
14 A. A general question? I would not be
15 surprised to see that the rating curve, form of the
16 rating curve was different for different
17 constituents, and in fact that's been demonstrated in
18 the literature, for some of the reasons we discussed
19 yesterday.
20 Q. You have talked about attempting to
21 develop this type of rating curve in your
22 contemplation of your ongoing work. Do you intend to
23 distinguish the constituent forms of phosphorus?
24 A. The only one I have looked at is total
25 phosphorus. If I were looking at some other
501
1 constituent, I would develop a separate rating curve,
2 certainly.
3 Q. What's your understanding of the form of
4 the phosphorus that's contributing to the problem
5 being addressed at the behest of the legislature in
6 the SWIM Plan?
7 A. Well, I'm aware that the discussion has
8 been all in terms of total phosphorus. If you are
9 asking me whether there's some better form of
10 phosphorus, I would have to analyze it, I would have
11 to defer to somebody who is more expert in that
12 particular area.
13 Q. Have you analyzed or reviewed in any way
14 the South Florida Water Management model?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How about the natural systems model?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you have any background or experience
19 in the use of natural systems or biological processes
20 to remediate pollution problems?
21 A. Well, beyond what we discussed yesterday,
22 no, and I'm not sure you can characterize those
23 detention systems natural systems, so the most
24 accurate answer I think is no.
25 Q. Your kriging analysis, all of them that
502
1 you have done, they are essentially black box
2 analysis, aren't they, in the sense that they don't
3 try and account for the processes that are leading
4 to, for example, phosphorus settling out into the
5 soils in WCA-2A or 3A or even Loxahatchee?
6 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
7 question.
8 A. I'm not sure of the relevance of your
9 question, but kriging makes no attempt -- kriging is
10 essentially a mapping tool, it is not attempting to
11 say why something got there, it is simply saying
12 what's there.
13 Q. Well, if I didn't ask it well, you
14 answered the question I intended to ask.
15 Are you familiar with the North America
16 database on wetlands?
17 A. I have seen mention of it.
18 Q. Have you worked with it in any way?
19 A. No.
20 Q. If I can invite your attention to Exhibit
21 6, Doctor, the Estimation of WCA-2A Sediment
22 Deposition Using Reddy and Richardson Dated Core
23 Data.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I'm sure I had a question on this.
503
1 Go down -- the pages aren't numbered, but
2 the third page, Bates No. 1254601.
3 Looking at the "unresolved issues" portion
4 at the bottom of the page.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I had a few follow-up points.
7 With regard to No. 1, the issue of the
8 bulk density was measured or calculated, in what way
9 would an inconsistency there affect the estimation of
10 phosphorus mass and deposition rates?
11 A. Well, that's an ongoing question that
12 hasn't been resolved.
13 Q. Have you modeled that in the sense of
14 saying -- they clearly are disparate, you would agree
15 with that?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. BLANK: Clearly what?
18 Q. Disparate. There is an apparent problem --
19 A. We identified there's an apparent problem.
20 Q. And that was identified based on best
21 professional judgment?
22 A. No, it was based on direct analysis.
23 Q. What type of direct analysis?
24 A. Comparison of the bulk density
25 measurements for nearby locations where Richardson
504
1 and Reddy had sampled the same location essentially.
2 Q. In a natural system or an environmental
3 data, you have said in this deposition, that you
4 expect the data to be noisy and there to be
5 considerable variations, that that's just the nature
6 of the data set?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What leads you to conclude that in a
9 natural system like 2A, even geographically
10 associated points will not have substantial
11 variations?
12 A. There certainly are substantial
13 variations. I can't remember the exact nature of the
14 analysis and the reason here that there's inferred to
15 be a problem, but it was of the nature of all of one
16 of the bulk density measurements was greater than or
17 less than -- I can't remember which one tends to be
18 high -- at all of the locations, and one can, without
19 going through the analysis, know from background that
20 those probabilities are low, that something does not
21 make sense there.
22 And whether we call it professional
23 judgment or anything else, when one suspects there's
24 a problem, one doesn't ignore it.
25 Q. But you ran your analysis anyway?
505
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. How did you cope with that problem?
3 A. I think we have indicated, this analysis
4 almost certainly will be rerun once the data issues
5 are resolved.
6 Q. That's fine, but how did you handle it in
7 the run that you did?
8 A. Well, it is not. I think I indicated that
9 there's a problem there. I can't go through here --
10 and if all of the data were used, if we didn't use
11 the data, the smaller data set or exactly what was
12 done, but this is work in progress, and I think this
13 is indicated on the front, it is a draft report, work
14 in progress.
15 Q. This is an aspect of the comparability
16 problem that we have talked about a few times, right?
17 A. Yes, except that in in particular case,
18 something is being done about it. I'm not doing it
19 personally, but we have raised the flag here and
20 said, Hey, there's a problem, and there are inquiries
21 being made to try to understand what the implications
22 are.
23 In fact, I think it is indicated, now it
24 turns out possibly incorrectly here, that the problem
25 may affect the mass. It is now not clear whether the
506
1 concentration measurements are, should be considered
2 to be consistent in the bulk density to affect the
3 mass or the other way around. That still is in the
4 process of being resolved.
5 Q. Has anybody suggested to you that it was
6 the method of taking the core that impacted samples
7 of one of these researchers that has skewed the mass
8 density?
9 A. We haven't discussed the reason for it.
10 Q. Do you have any sense of how you might go
11 about rectifying these two sets of data?
12 A. Sure, go back to the investigators.
13 Q. Right, so you will learn they did it a
14 different way or somebody used too narrow a pipe and
15 compacted his sample, for example. That would not
16 necessarily affect the cesium spike, you would still
17 get your date, but you could end up with --
18 compaction is one of the things that could lead to an
19 error in the soil mass density, right?
20 A. That's a hypothesis.
21 Q. It is a possibility?
22 A. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis.
23 Q. There may be other things?
24 A. There might be others.
25 Q. This could be back in the lab?
507
1 A. That's true.
2 Q. Assuming you can tell after these
3 consultations occur what caused the disparity, how do
4 you rectify the data?
5 A. Well, one could then do a comparability
6 assessment. One could develop some sort of
7 adjustment, that's a procedure that's fairly widely
8 used when methods are changed.
9 Q. So you reprocess one of the data sets to
10 render it comparable to the other data set?
11 A. In general, that's the kind of thing that
12 would be done, yes.
13 Q. Have you ever had the problem that we seem
14 to face here, or at least under your understanding of
15 it, that the early data set -- there is a dearth of
16 data, for whatever reason, or field notes, oral
17 history, whatever, to tell you how to go about
18 rendering it comparable?
19 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
20 question. I also would like some clarification. Are
21 you talking about Loxahatchee now or are we still on
22 the bulk density problem?
23 THE WITNESS: That was exactly going to be
24 my question. Are we talking about bulk density here?
25 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
508
1 Q. I'll answer your question. I'm talking
2 about all the data that you employed from the
3 District that you testified for two days nobody seems
4 to to know how it was collected and there's a
5 comparability problem.
6 So that will include the data set, the 14
7 observation data sets from Loxahatchee, that form the
8 baseline for, and all of the underlying data for
9 appendix E and appendix F that the District employed.
10 I had understood you to say that you felt
11 all of that data was somewhat suspect and you wanted
12 comparability information before you would feel
13 confident in using it. Am I wrong in that?
14 A. We are not talking about this report any
15 more?
16 Q. We will, but it is sort of --
17 A. We are talking about Loxahatchee and some
18 comments I made about comparability yesterday. Are
19 you asking me how I would do a comparability analysis
20 for those data?
21 Q. No, I said, have you in your past
22 experience encountered a similar situation where
23 apparently information from which to make a
24 comparability assessment, is nonexistent or
25 unobtainable, has that ever happened to you?
509
1 A. It hasn't happened to me, no.
2 Q. Are you aware of such instances from the
3 literature?
4 A. Where it was impossible to determine any
5 information about how prior samples were collected?
6 Q. I guess any is the worst case, but let's
7 start with that.
8 A. I can give you have examples where there
9 have been comparability assessments done that address
10 exactly the same sort of problem I brought up. One
11 could imagine cases where everyone is dead and it is
12 impossible to ressurect the information, but that's
13 certainly not, to my knowledge, the case here. We
14 were not talking about data that that's far in the
15 past.
16 Q. The half life of institutional memory at
17 the Water Management District I guess is the issue.
18 A. Well, those people, to my knowledge, are
19 still alive. They may not work for the District any
20 more.
21 Q. In paragraph 2 on the page we were just
22 discussing in Exhibit 6, you address the issue of
23 replicates being smaller in magnitude, and that was
24 discussed yesterday.
25 The final line of that paragraph says:
510
1 "All replicates were averaged before the spacial
2 estimation was performed."
3 Why did you average or make the decision
4 to average dissimilar replicates?
5 A. Well, one has to make some assumption, one
6 has to do something with those, and we had no basis
7 for assuming that the first one was more represented
8 than the last one. We indicated there the nature of
9 the problem as something that needs to be resolved,
10 and again indicated this is work in progress.
11 Q. Did there seem to your mind to be
12 significant differences in the values in the original
13 sample and the replicates?
14 A. Say that again.
15 Q. Was there much variation between, in the
16 reported replicates?
17 A. I'm not sure what you mean by -- the
18 paragraph there tends to indicate they were smaller.
19 Q. I took that to be a size, am I misreading
20 that?
21 A. Smaller in magnitude is a number, meaning
22 that if the number were some number of micrograms per
23 kilogram in the first sample, that the replicate
24 tended to be a smaller number.
25 Q. By an order of magnitude?
511
1 A. No, I don't think we said "order of
2 magnitude." They are smaller in magnitude, and that
3 simply means if one was 10, the other might be 9.9
4 and the next one might be 9.7. There tended to be
5 some progression, smaller.
6 Q. I read that in the mathematical sense.
7 A. No, it doesn't say "order of magnitude."
8 Q. And you were not discussing the physical
9 size of the sample there?
10 A. No, we are talking about the numeric
11 values.
12 Q. In your view, were the differences
13 substantial?
14 A. I don't remember numerically how
15 substantial those were. I simply remember that they
16 tend to be getting smaller, and this is another one
17 of these things that when you look at them, you would
18 say something is funny here because there is no
19 reason when you take a replicate that's supposed to
20 be independent, for them to tend to progress in one
21 direction.
22 Q. What is your understanding of Dr.
23 Richardson's replicate protocol?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. So you don't know whether he was taking a
512
1 true replicate or splitting a single sample?
2 A. Well, I don't know what you mean by "true
3 replicate," because there are many kinds of
4 replicates: there are field replicates, lab
5 replicates -- they are all replicates.
6 Q. Field?
7 A. Field -- I don't know, a true field
8 replicate would be to take multiple cores from a
9 small area.
10 Q. That's the sense in which I am using it,
11 too. Do you know if Dr. Richardson did that?
12 A. I do not know.
13 Q. You made the decision to join his data
14 with Reddy's data for this analysis?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And yet you don't know if they are
17 comparable because you didn't find that out from Dr.
18 Richardson?
19 A. I think we have indicated here, what we
20 have been discussing for the last 15 minutes or so
21 was all the issues in doing that that was raised.
22 Q. When you average the replicates, doesn't
23 that have the effect in your analysis of minimizing
24 the variation?
25 A. Depending on what the source of variation
513
1 is, yes. There's a whole discussion, and we could go
2 for a long time on whether one should or should not
3 average replicates in this sort of analysis.
4 Q. We did that with Dr. Millard --
5 A. I may or may not agree, I don't know what
6 he would have said, but I'm sure he would say also,
7 because he has done some work in another context on
8 that, that it is a major issue, and certainly there
9 won't be general agreement on that.
10 Q. That's why I only asked you was my
11 understanding of the effect correct, and I think you
12 answered that.
13 What is the significance of assuming that
14 the data from Richardson and Reddy were collected
15 during the same time period?
16 A. I think the only issue there -- it is not
17 a question of whether that may not be quite correctly
18 phrased as to whether they were collected in the same
19 time period, the question is whether they were
20 collected at times different enough so that it might
21 make a substantial difference in a rate computation.
22 I.e., since you were going back to 1964 --
23 and that's the only point you have in the time line,
24 in the extreme case -- if one data set were collected
25 five years earlier than the other, you have whatever
514
1 accretions occurred in five years in between there,
2 and there would be a problem with comparability.
3 To my knowledge, the difference in the
4 time in which they were collected was not that great,
5 we simply said we need to pin down just exactly what
6 date and to make some assessment as to whether that's
7 a major issue or not.
8 Q. When you say "accretion rate" as you are
9 using it there, rate of accretion, are you talking of
10 the average over the years?
11 A. The average -- essentially since you have
12 one point in the core and you are taking the total
13 amount of phosphorus and then dividing by some number
14 of years, one would need to determine -- if one is
15 dividing by the number of years, you need to
16 determine what number of years to divide by.
17 If you are not, you need to be aware that
18 there may be some more phosphorus that's accumulated
19 in one sample or the other. That simply is the issue
20 there, to pin down so we know what dates they were
21 actually taken at. That information is available
22 somewhere, we just didn't have it when we wrote the
23 report.
24 Q. Does that analysis or that understanding
25 help you in any way determine whether the phosphorus
515
1 was accumulated at disparate rates over the 26-year
2 period or whatever the time period of collection was?
3 A. No.
4 Q. You talked about redoing it, and you have
5 mentioned that again today. How long will it take to
6 carry this analysis out again once all these issues
7 are resolved?
8 A. Oh, the actual data will be very quick
9 because most of this is all in place. It is a matter
10 of changing a few numbers and rewriting some computer
11 programs.
12 Q. Is sorting out the comparability issue and
13 some of these others, a timely process?
14 A. Yes, but that's somebody else's timely
15 process.
16 Q. Whose is that?
17 A. Curtis Richardson would certainly be one
18 of the people.
19 Q. As part of this follow-on to finalize from
20 draft form to final Exhibit 6, you plan to request or
21 seek additional samples?
22 A. No, beyond those that have been mentioned
23 in the fictitious sample point analysis.
24 Q. If we can move to the next page -- the
25 last three digits are 602 -- in the middle paragraph,
516
1 it says there that you have limited your work to
2 analysis of depth-averaged concentrations?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. What do you mean by that?
5 A. That's the concentration, the effect of
6 concentration over the whole column.
7 Q. So in a sense, that really goes back to my
8 last question. You are not able from that work to
9 say anything about the accretion rates or
10 concentration at a given point in time as reflected
11 in that soil core?
12 A. Well, unless one makes some assumptions --
13 and there are others who have made the assumptions
14 about that, but we didn't get into that.
15 Q. Who is making assumptions about that?
16 A. At this point, I can't remember -- I
17 believe it is one of Walker's reports in which he has
18 proposed various models for how that accretion might
19 occur in an attempt to get back at where other points
20 might be on the time line. We didn't attempt to
21 impose any of those assumptions on this work.
22 Q. Have you discussed that issue with any of
23 the consultants for the Sugar Cane League?
24 A. No.
25 Q. On the next page, 603, you suggest that
517
1 "When the fictitious points were included in the data
2 set, the range of prediction using the same
3 anisotropic variograms discussed above increased to
4 encompasses almost all of WCA-2A."
5 And then the final sentence says: "This
6 analysis argues for collection of additional cores"
7 in those areas.
8 I might have asked this out of sync a
9 little bit earlier, but are you seeking to have
10 someone in fact collect those cores for you?
11 A. Well --
12 Q. To finalize this work?
13 A. Yes, but I think the reason the analysis
14 was done may be a little bit the other way from that.
15 In other words, it is well recognized just by looking
16 at the map -- and I indicated this before -- that
17 there are major holes out there where there aren't
18 any data.
19 And there have been discussions as to what
20 and how accurate the estimates of the phosphorus
21 deposition throughout the area might be, particularly
22 -- and if I'm looking over there at the ones you have
23 marked yellow, which I think are the fictitious
24 points out in that point in the water. So the
25 question simply was --
518
1 MR. FITZGERALD: For the record, the
2 doctor is referring to figure 1 of Exhibit 6, which
3 depicts the fictitious points.
4 THE WITNESS: I understand that.
5 So the question was, if we were going to
6 attempt to get some better estimates, where would be
7 the best place to go?
8 And that's a very common use of kriging,
9 to find what locations would be the best ones to go
10 collect the additional samples. I guess the only
11 clarification was we had not come forward and said we
12 can't do this analysis unless you get some more data.
13 There had already been discussion that
14 some additional discussion was going to be needed to
15 be collected, could you help us a little bit in
16 deciding where would be the best place to go?
17 Q. Is an implication of that that your
18 confidence in the variograms and kriging results is
19 much, much greater in the near vicinity of the areas
20 that were in fact sampled?
21 A. That will certainly come out on the
22 kriging standard deviation map, yes.
23 Q. To do the work in Exhibit 6, did I
24 understand you had to assume a normal distribution?
25 A. No, there's no distributional assumption
519
1 in kriging.
2 MR. FITZGERALD: Let's take a break.
3 (Recess)
4 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
5 Q. Continuing now, I have handed you a copy
6 of the Exhibit 9 from yesterday, the Estimation of
7 Soil Phosphorus Topography in the WCAs, and I have a
8 few follow-up questions on that.
9 Before we go into that, one last question
10 I think -- perhaps one last question on data
11 collection protocols.
12 Is it your opinion that like base period
13 data in Loxahatchee, and the entry and access data
14 for Loxahatchee, as an example, the same thing is
15 true for Everglades National Park, that in order to
16 be statistically appropriate or valid for your
17 analysis, it had to be collected at the same precise
18 spot?
19 A. I don't think I would necessarily argue
20 that. I would argue that I would like to know
21 something about how that might affect the nature of
22 the samples that were collected.
23 Q. So some linear separation would not
24 necessarily be the kiss of death?
25 A. I would not necessarily argue because it
520
1 was later determined that the data were not collected
2 at the precise location, but perhaps were some small
3 number of perhaps 10 or a hundred meters away but
4 that the other locations were comparable, would
5 invalidate the data. That's not necessarily the
6 nature of the issue.
7 Q. With the sampling protocol that was set up
8 for the entry and access program, it seems to me that
9 your background in designing sampling systems would
10 make you a peculiarly appropriate resource for
11 setting that up or selecting the stations --
12 frequency is kind of controlled -- but did you have
13 any role in that?
14 A. I think your characterization there is not
15 correct. To my understanding, the attempt was to
16 sample at the same locations of earlier samples, so
17 there was not a degree of freedom associated with how
18 many samples locations might be visited or where they
19 might be.
20 Q. You weren't aware that a sizable number of
21 additional sampling sites were granted by the hearing
22 officer?
23 A. I may have been aware of that, but I
24 haven't had any discussions related to that.
25 Q. So other than the fixed ones where they
521
1 wanted to revisit the 14 sites --
2 A. Those are the ones I have been involved
3 in.
4 Q. You didn't have any involvement in saying,
5 Well, this is where you ought to go?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Down in the area of the S-9 sampling in
8 WCA-3A, is the same thing true, you were not
9 involved?
10 A. I wasn't involved in that, and I think I
11 indicated before that the level of effort associated
12 with the S-9 analysis has been considerably lower
13 than it has with the other sites we have discussed.
14 Q. On the second page of Exhibit 9, Bates No.
15 1254542, it is numbered at the top, No. 2 of the
16 document.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The second paragraph, second sentence:
19 "The results were provided to Bruce Myer of ESP Inc.
20 who calculated the areas within specified contours in
21 the vicinity of the S-10 structures."
22 What was the purpose of conducting that
23 calculation?
24 A. Well, I think we discussed this yesterday,
25 that there had been suggestions as to what others
522
1 might have characterized as being an "affected area,"
2 and there was discussion as to the need for some
3 objective method of making such an estimation, and
4 this was the objective method.
5 Q. Have you seen the results of that
6 calculation?
7 A. I think we provided them in tables in one
8 of these reports.
9 Q. I may be wrong, but I didn't see anything
10 labeled that suggested --
11 A. Well, in particular, I see a table 2, I
12 see a table 1 in here which has areas and acres.
13 Q. That is Mr. Myers' --
14 A. That's what we indicate in the second
15 paragraph there, that we provided him the
16 information. He computed the acreage and we reported
17 them here.
18 Q. And table 2 would reflect his handling, if
19 you will, of the rather large or high standard
20 deviations for that area?
21 A. Well, we provided him also the maps, the
22 contour maps, and he simply performed for the plus
23 one half and minus one standard deviation and he
24 performed the same analysis, that's where table 2
25 comes from.
523
1 Q. Okay. This was the effort using the
2 values supplied by Dr. Richardson?
3 A. No.
4 Q. What values were used?
5 A. I have to look at the front -- this is
6 definitely the 10 centimeter data, May 5th --
7 Q. At the end of paragraph No. 2.0 on page 2,
8 it talks about four metric tons per square kilometer
9 and 600 milligrams per kilo?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. What was the derivation of those numbers?
12 A. The source of those numbers?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Those were simply suggested critical
15 numbers.
16 Q. From?
17 A. Critical in a sense of those were based on
18 discussions, I believe, directly or indirectly, with
19 Curtis Richardson, but I think I indicated before
20 that, well, those numbers were used, and there's
21 nothing in the method of analysis that -- it couldn't
22 have been 3.29, it couldn't have been any other
23 number.
24 Q. That wasn't an attempt to match the
25 impacted area analysis in the SWIM Plan?
524
1 A. Not directly.
2 Q. Figure 3.6 at page 22, Bates No. -- the
3 last three digits, 562, Estimated Distribution of
4 Sediment Surface Elevation in 2A.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. These contours were drawn by what method?
7 A. Well, the raw data were kriged and then
8 the contouring package is the SURFER contour package.
9 Q. With the smoothing function?
10 A. As I recall, you can't turn the smoothing
11 off entirely. In that, however, it's not much of an
12 issue with the sediment surface elevation, it is
13 relatively smooth anyway.
14 Q. As a hydrologist examining this
15 topographical projection, is there anything along the
16 northern levee boundary of 2A, the boundary running
17 from the northern peak to the southeast, then --
18 actually south-southeast, and then to the southeast
19 where the I believe flow structures are located?
20 A. Wait a minute, the northern peak, I have --
21 Q. From the northern peak to the
22 south-southeast?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Basically the northeastern boundary?
25 A. Yes.
525
1 Q. Is there anything in that topographical
2 projection that would suggest to you as a hydrologist
3 that there would be hydraulic bypass or shunting of
4 the water and that it would not proceed out across
5 the marsh?
6 A. Well, I don't think that -- I mean, one
7 has a question of spacial scale there, and I'm not
8 sure that you can make -- when you talk about
9 shunting, that's a relatively small spacial scale
10 feature, and these data are interpolating relatively
11 large spacial scale features.
12 As I recall, the survey data were
13 collected at around 1000-foot intervals. Certainly
14 any sort of channel is of spacial scale much smaller
15 than that. So one could only talk about what one
16 sees at this scale.
17 Q. The data you are referring to is the GPS?
18 A. No, these are the actual measurements.
19 This map is based on an interpolation, a kriging
20 interpolation of survey data which has the actual
21 sediment surface elevation at some certain number of
22 points on a grid mesh over this area.
23 I'm saying the spacing of that raw data is
24 something of the order of a thousand feet. So you
25 would not -- if one wanted to know about bypass and
526
1 such things as that that had occurred, one would need
2 a much, much finer resolution map to really be able
3 to say much about that.
4 Q. Thank you, I understand.
5 If I can invite your attention to pages 36
6 and 37 which are Bates Nos., last three digits, 576
7 and 577, figure 4-4 and 4-5, relating to Water
8 Conservation Area 1 or Loxahatchee National Wildlife
9 Refuge.
10 On figure 4-4 on the western boundary, the
11 north-southwestern boundary, there's some incredible
12 dense -- they are iso something -- some incredibly
13 blacked out areas in fact?
14 A. Of course, right.
15 Q. What's the significance of that?
16 A. Well, you just have very high
17 concentrations of the cores that were taken close to
18 the edge there in the canals.
19 Q. Does that imply, because it is a
20 distribution of total phosphorus mass -- this is in
21 the soils, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Does that imply that the water that enters
24 at S-6, or S-5 for that matter, does in fact impact
25 the adjacent marsh in terms of phosphorus load?
527
1 A. Well, whatever the source might be -- and
2 I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that
3 with cows running along the edge, that the canals
4 have something to do with that. Certainly there's a
5 gradient. It is very obvious strong gradient, yes,
6 strong spacial gradient.
7 Q. The interior gradient, the last one that's
8 plotted, is that two metric tons per square
9 kilometer?
10 A. I believe that is the case, yes.
11 Q. And you defined in your analysis for
12 WCA-2A, four metric tons as impacted in the analysis
13 that was done by Bruce Myer.
14 A. I am not sure I would want you to say that
15 we defined that. We took that as a threshold.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Which others have suggested as being
18 "impacted." I'm not passing judgment on the
19 significance of that number. That was the number
20 that was used, yes.
21 Q. If we applied roughly the same threshold
22 standard here, we have got a four iso whatever it is
23 running basically north-south from the middle of the
24 northwestern boundary to, it looks like the middle of
25 the southwestern boundary?
528
1 A. Yes. With possibly some other ones that
2 aren't labeled up in the upper corner.
3 Q. Up in the vicinity of the S-5A inflow
4 point?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. As a hydrologist examining a contour
7 schematic like this knowing the parameters involved,
8 doesn't that suggest that in fact the water from that
9 canal has impacted a fairly significant impact into
10 the eastward -- from the canal into WCA-1, whatever
11 that distance is? Obviously there's no scale.
12 MR. BLANK: Let me just object to the form
13 of the question.
14 Q. When he objects to the form, although you
15 have to try and answer, if there is a problem in
16 understanding what I'm asking -- which occasionally
17 creeps in -- just say so.
18 A. No, I think I was about to say the only
19 aspect of your characterization I would object to is
20 introduction of the term "significant." I think I
21 can look at this and see -- I would not object to a
22 characterization that close to the canals the
23 concentrations are higher and that they do tend to go
24 down as one goes some distance away.
25 Q. Would you agree that at the first bend at
529
1 the south end, the turn to the southeast of the
2 western border --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -- that if you count up -- I don't have a
5 magnifying glass, but if you started with four metric
6 tons and count up some of those lines, those contours
7 are each one metric ton spacing, and you get up to
8 around 18 to 20 metric tons where you can read the
9 contours, and some places that apparently either they
10 are so close or they run so high you really can't
11 discriminate them in some plot.
12 So you are looking at a 20-metric ton rate
13 over the vicinity of the canal?
14 A. The only thing I would say there is that
15 you may be right. You have computer files that have
16 the exact numbers on them, so I simply wouldn't want
17 to be guessing what's on those computer files.
18 Q. I'm not trying to guess in the blackened
19 out area.
20 A. There are some number of contours, they
21 appear to be at one metric ton per square kilometer
22 interval, and if one counts some number, it looks
23 like 10 or so, so it is well over 10, possibly 20.
24 Q. You have done some work on rainfall, as I
25 recall, mentioned in the last two days. Is that
530
1 correct?
2 A. Various aspects of rainfall, yes. I'm not
3 sure which particular work --
4 Q. I didn't get into my notes --
5 A. I was talking about that in respect of
6 some class I was teaching, and there are papers.
7 Q. Have you done any rainfall analysis as
8 part of your work in this matter in this case?
9 A. Not in connection with this part of the
10 work. I did a small amount of work in connection
11 with some of the mediation activities.
12 Q. That was in, reflected in some of the E
13 mail correspondence I think we had where you were
14 looking at rainfall and percentages and occurrence
15 probabilities, something like that?
16 A. You don't have any E mail correspondence
17 from me.
18 Q. Doctor, we do.
19 A. Not from me, because I don't retain my E
20 mail. Whoever else might copy their E mail, I don't
21 know, but it sounds like if you are talking penalties
22 and so on, you are talking mediation.
23 Q. Doctor, if we can look at figure 4.5 of
24 the following page.
25 A. Yes.
531
1 Q. On the western boundary of WCA-1, we are
2 looking at the kriging error now?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. With anisotropic variogram?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. It appears to my untrained and strained
7 eyes, that the western portion of the refuge,
8 Loxahatchee, in fact enjoys some of the lowest error
9 values of the survey plot. Am I interpreting that
10 correctly?
11 A. That does seem to be the case from that
12 map, yes.
13 Q. And as I understand what you said about
14 kriging, that is because one could deduce there's a
15 fair number of samples along that area?
16 A. I believe that's correct. Without seeing
17 the actual sample locations, this probably arises
18 because there are a large number of samples along
19 that area.
20 Q. If you go down to figure 4-7, an Estimated
21 Distribution of Total Phosphorus Concentration in the
22 refuge using an isotropic variogram?
23 A. Yes, instead of mass.
24 Q. These concentrations are in micrograms per
25 kilo?
532
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. By this measure, the questions I was
3 asking you about before about the western boundary?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would that still be valid, the questions
6 or the answers that you gave with regard to that
7 western portion being apparently impacted by the
8 canal flows to some distance in?
9 A. That appears to be the case. It is
10 interesting that -- well, your general
11 characterization is consistent, yes, with the mass.
12 Q. Should it be qualified in some way, am I
13 overstating it, am I understating it?
14 A. No, I think as far as you stated it, that
15 the higher concentrations are close to the canals and
16 closer to the structures, is correct.
17 Q. I recall yesterday you were -- let's look
18 at figure 4-8 and finish the cycle, the last three
19 Bates Nos. are 580, page No. 40 of the report.
20 Again, is my understanding that the
21 western portion shows the least error values?
22 A. Well --
23 Q. Mine is a little hard to read.
24 A. Mine is a little hard to read, too, and it
25 is not quite obvious that's the case there, and I
533
1 don't entirely understand why. I interpret that as a
2 relatively uniform error actually.
3 Q. Why would the --
4 A. Why would it be different for mass than
5 concentration?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Probably because the difference is in the
8 variogram.
9 Q. The variograms are not generally of
10 different samples, though?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. They are different?
13 A. Because you have one variogram for mass
14 and one for concentration. Those are estimated
15 independently.
16 Q. Okay, from the same physical sample?
17 A. Same physical sample, but the values are
18 -- it is separate data sets.
19 Q. If we can go back to figure 4-4, yesterday
20 we talked about the same type of variogram for 2A
21 using an anisotropic variogram --
22 A. Right.
23 Q. -- and its implications and what limited
24 information we could draw from it with respect to
25 flow directions.
534
1 You determined at some point that the
2 anisotropic was the most appropriate variogram or the
3 appropriate kriging method to use for WCA-1A?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. I noticed you also --
6 A. For 2A or 1?
7 Q. 1A.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. You also here have the isotropic, but --
10 A. Well, I don't know, do we?
11 Q. On the last page -- I think it is just for
12 phosphorus concentration.
13 A. You have concentration is isotropic and
14 mass is anisotropic.
15 Q. Why is that?
16 A. Well, I have to look back at the text and
17 see. It may be that in the analysis, that there was
18 not strong indication of anisotrophy in the
19 variograms for concentration as there was for mass.
20 I am sure that's documented in the text.
21 Q. Does figure 4-4 imply that the source of
22 the total phosphorus mass are the inflow points at 5A
23 and 6?
24 A. Again, we are back into implying causality
25 from a statistical relationship, which I would not be
535
1 willing to do. To ask whether it is consistent, then
2 I would have a different answer.
3 Q. Is it consistent, Doctor?
4 A. It is not inconsistent.
5 Q. Are you aware of any data that you have
6 reviewed or any of your work that would suggest that
7 5A and 6 as the source of total phosphorus mass in
8 WCA-1 would not be a reasonable interpretation?
9 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
10 question.
11 A. I would have to qualify that in that I
12 would not -- I have given you an answer saying that
13 the distributions as we have shown them here are not
14 inconsistent with those being sources. I make no
15 comment as to whether they are the only sources.
16 Q. I understand that.
17 Let me make the question even narrower.
18 Are you aware of anything to suggest, or are you
19 aware of any inconsistent information or data?
20 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the
21 question.
22 A. I would have to qualify that by saying
23 that I've not conducted a specific review to indicate
24 whether there is or is not information that was not
25 the nature of our analysis. We are back to what we
536
1 were doing, which was characterizing some data which
2 was collected by somebody else.
3 Q. Let me repeat the word in the question
4 because I think that problem is taken care of.
5 Are you aware of any inconsistent data?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Have you discussed with anybody the notion
8 of the interior of Water Conservation Area 1 being
9 rain driven?
10 A. I have heard that term used.
11 Q. Who used it?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. What did you understand the term to mean?
14 A. I think the implication was that the
15 interior stations were concentrations, at least in
16 the water column, were related more to the loading
17 from rainfall than from external loads.
18 Q. Have you looked at rainfall phosphorus
19 loads over the EPA or the EAA?
20 A. I have not done an analysis of that, no.
21 I have used other people's information.
22 Q. Whose?
23 A. I'm not sure. I'm aware of the range of
24 values that others have used, in particular
25 Management and Justice consultants.
537
1 Q. In the work that Dr. Millard is going to
2 be doing trying to relate in 2A the depth of
3 vegetation -- I think he is doing it for 1A as well
4 -- the depth in general, depth in vegetation and soil
5 phosphorus, and the various other factors that he is --
6 A. Depths and vegetation.
7 Q. Examining the relationships amongst them,
8 how will that work account for the fact that depth of
9 water could vary on a daily basis?
10 A. We have estimates of water depth on a
11 daily basis.
12 Q. None of your kriging work deals at that
13 level, does it, with depth? It doesn't address water
14 depth issues?
15 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "addresses."
16 Q. Do variations in water depth have any
17 implications for the kriging work you have done in
18 the six reports we have been provided?
19 A. You get a more informative answer if you
20 reverse the order of your question.
21 Q. Do you want me to ask about the six
22 reports first?
23 A. Let me short circuit this a little bit.
24 The water depth -- the top of sediment depth
25 information is used and has been used in computing
538
1 water depth; there is a linkage there.
2 Q. You cross-reference that to stage recorder
3 data?
4 A. I have not, no, but that work has been
5 done.
6 Q. And that is how Dr. Millard will account
7 for the depth factor in his calculations?
8 A. You will have a record of water depth on a
9 daily basis at each location within the area.
10 Q. That's for both 2A and 1?
11 A. It certainly is for 2A, I believe it is
12 for 1 as well.
13 Q. You mentioned -- I believe it was
14 yesterday, perhaps the day before -- that you had
15 employed the seasonal Kendall test at some point in
16 your work in this matter?
17 A. I don't think I indicated that, I
18 indicated that it has been applied. I reviewed
19 worked where it had been applied.
20 Q. You had not yourself?
21 A. I don't believe I have actually applied
22 the test in this particular work.
23 Q. Do you recall who did?
24 A. Walker has done that work.
25 Q. Anyone else?
539
1 A. Yes, I believe there's some work by Jim
2 Loftis -- L O F T I S -- that I have reviewed.
3 Q. The anisotropic analysis, essentially that
4 establishes a vector relationship between points?
5 A. All that happens is that in the kriging,
6 the variogram defines what the weights are going to
7 be. The nature of the weights changes a little bit
8 if you use anisotropic versus isotropic.
9 In particular what tends to happen is that
10 points that are along the major axis of the
11 anisotrophy will tend to have higher weights, and
12 points that are lateral to that direction will have
13 lower weights relative to what you get in an
14 isotropic case.
15 Q. You stated yesterday with regard to 1A,
16 that part of your concern was lack of an apparent
17 correlation between the inflows and the interior
18 marsh station phosphorus values.
19 Which interior stations were those to
20 which you were referring when you said that?
21 A. I don't recall the exact numbers. Again,
22 I'm not the one who has done the analysis, but there
23 are -- I mean, there are stations that have been
24 identified, and in fact have some particular
25 significance in the limits analysis, those are
540
1 certainly among those.
2 Q. Were you referring to the so-called "Clean
3 3"?
4 A. I don't think anybody would object to
5 terming those interior stations.
6 Q. Those are what you meant by "interior
7 stations," or did you have a wider universe?
8 A. I didn't do the analysis; interior is sort
9 of in a general sense.
10 Q. Based on the data you have reviewed in
11 your estimation, how far into the interior of the
12 marsh measuring from the perimeter canal on the west
13 does the effect of the surface flows go with respect
14 to the phosphorus in the sediments?
15 A. I haven't made an analysis of that, nor
16 have I seen one.
17 Q. Do you know what the scale is on the
18 exhibit that you are looking at right now, Exhibit 9
19 -- you are looking at?
20 A. 9.
21 Q. -- for Loxahatchee, for those depictions
22 4-4, 4-5 figures?
23 A. What do you mean by "scale," the total
24 size across the area?
25 Q. Linear scale, yes.
541
1 A. It is on the order of tens of kilometers.
2 I don't recall the exact dimension.
3 Q. Is that to scale, that plot?
4 A. I'm not certain of that -- to scale as in
5 distortion, north-south versus east-west?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. That I am not certain of. I believe it is
8 because I believe it is using UTM coordinate systems,
9 but we could never be sure what plotting software was
10 used to generate things. It is, more or less, to
11 scale.
12 Q. Didn't you say you used SURFER to plot
13 this?
14 A. Yes, but I'm not certain in SURFER if one
15 tells it to go generate a plot on an 8 1/2 by 11
16 pages, whether it rescales things to make it fit.
17 That's why I am saying I'm not sure if there's some
18 distortion there.
19 Q. Have you assisted in preparing any
20 witnesses for the depositions in this matter?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Have you drafted questions for assisting
23 in preparing counsel in any other way in the conduct
24 of depositions in this matter?
25 A. Taken from others? When you say prepared
542
1 for depositions, you are inferring somebody else that
2 I might have been working with?
3 Q. Well, in the sense I'm using it, have you
4 drafted questions to be propounded to witnesses for
5 the governmental parties in this case?
6 A. That's a separate question. I just want
7 to make sure I have given you the correct answer to
8 the first question.
9 Q. I am going through so it is clearer --
10 MR. BLANK: How many questions do we have?
11 MR. FITZGERALD: One that I am aware of.
12 THE WITNESS: Let me clarify that the
13 previous question had to do with witnesses for
14 Florida Sugar Cane League.
15 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
16 Q. That's right.
17 A. I ever not assisted in preparation of
18 those people for their depositions.
19 Q. That's how I was understanding it.
20 A. The next question had to do with whether I
21 prepared any questions that might be asked of counsel
22 of witnesses for the other side basically, and the
23 answer to that is yes. In one occurrence about a
24 year ago in previous deposition, I provided a list.
25 Q. For what witness was that?
543
1 A. I believe it was William Walker, but I'm
2 not certain of that.
3 Q. Do you still have that list of questions?
4 A. I believe that was in one of the letters
5 that I provided Mr. Blank.
6 MR. FITZGERALD: Am I safe in assuming,
7 counsel, that you are claiming privilege on that?
8 MR. BLANK: You may assume that, if it
9 does exist.
10 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
11 Q. Other than that one instance with regards
12 to Dr. Walker, have you prepared questions or
13 assisted counsel in preparing for any other
14 depositions?
15 A. To my recollection, no.
16 Q. Have you sat in on any depositions?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Have you read any deposition transcripts?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Whose?
21 A. William Walker's, amongst others.
22 Q. From the original federal case?
23 A. Yes, I believe that was the source. That
24 was some time back.
25 Q. Other than Dr. Walker, what other
544
1 witnesses?
2 A. This would be in deposition -- I don't
3 recall any that came from a deposition. I read other
4 transcripts, is the reason I sound a little vague,
5 and not being exactly sure what their source was, but
6 I believe that's the only one from deposition.
7 Q. Have you read transcripts of
8 presentations, for example, at SAGE committee
9 meetings and TOC committee meetings?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In what way have you used or relied on
12 those transcripts?
13 A. In one particular case we discussed
14 yesterday with some of William Walker's work, I used
15 numerical values, and I believe that were presented
16 at a SAGE meeting, in the uncertainty analysis.
17 That's your Exhibit 6.
18 Q. Do you have that transcript?
19 A. Do I have the transcript now?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. I'm not certain of that.
22 Q. In your search for documents responsive to
23 the subpoena provided by counsel, did you look for
24 that?
25 A. I think there's a list. I'm not sure if
545
1 that's on that list or not.
2 Q. It is not.
3 A. I'm not aware of that. If it is not on
4 the list -- it must have been at the time I prepared
5 the list. I no longer have that document.
6 Q. I think we are talking about two different
7 lists here. I am talking about the March 1 letter,
8 you are talking about the earlier list.
9 MR. BLANK: It would have been on the
10 earlier list.
11 THE WITNESS: It would not have?
12 MR. BLANK: It would have, if you had it.
13 THE WITNESS: If I had it at that time, it
14 would have been on the earlier list because that was
15 dated April 20th, '93, and that was before that.
16 MR. FITZGERALD: I have a little bit of
17 concern because that's not a public document.
18 MR. BLANK: I'm saying if we had it, it
19 would have been on that list.
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Of items that he had?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. We provided you with a
22 list.
23 MR. BLANK: Are you talking about the
24 actual transcript?
25 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's not been
546
1 produced, and he relied on it and I think we are
2 entitled to it. So that is why I am asking. If it
3 is on your earlier list, it meant you had it, but you
4 haven't produced it, right?
5 MR. BLANK: No, that was a list of
6 documents he had reviewed.
7 MR. FITZGERALD: If he reviewed them --
8 and he just said he relied on them -- they fall
9 within the ambit of the subpoena in this matter, and
10 it should have been produced. The only reason not to
11 was sort of the understanding we had that if it is a
12 public document and we have all got it, why keep
13 reproducing things, but that is not a public
14 document.
15 MR. BLANK: You are losing me here. I
16 understand your statement that it is not a public
17 document, the transcript itself.
18 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. The witness has
19 relied on the transcript and has utilized it in
20 performing work, and I think we are entitled to see
21 the transcript.
22 MR. BLANK: That's fine. I am sure we do
23 have a copy of it, and we will be happy to give it to
24 you. I don't believe, however, there are any numbers
25 in the transcript. I think any numbers he may have
547
1 used came off the actual exhibits, the handouts that
2 were made at that presentation.
3 MR. FITZGERALD: I can't say I was at that
4 particular one, I can't recall off the top of my
5 head, but depending on who else was there, a lot of
6 numbers were developed and discussed across the table
7 at these meetings in the give and take --
8 MR. BLANK: This was a presentation that
9 was made by Dr. Walker, and he made the presentation
10 and he had slides and a handout, and those were the
11 documents that contained the numbers.
12 I don't think the verbatim transcript of
13 his presentation actually has any numbers in it other
14 than a general discussion of the exhibits.
15 THE WITNESS: I think you are correct on
16 that, that I became aware of the work through the
17 transcript and that there was some additional
18 information provided in that, the particular numbers.
19 MR. FITZGERALD: I think I still would
20 like to see that transcript since it underlies the
21 source of some of the work.
22 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
23 Q. There is some correspondence here that
24 addresses a program to simulate loads for the EAA and
25 compute the distribution of penalties and credits.
548
1 A. That's all mediation work.
2 Q. It is a letter from you or an E mail kind
3 of thing.
4 I understand that that was referring to
5 something you were doing for the mediation effort,
6 but it addresses simulating loads from the EAA of
7 phosphorus presumably, since that was relevant to the
8 mediation.
9 Have you employed that work or the
10 simulation that you developed for that purpose in
11 forming any of your opinions or conclusions with
12 respect to the issues you will be testifying on in
13 this case?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. And does that work underlie or contribute
16 to the work you have indicated you are doing or plan
17 to do on flow adjustments, concentrations, loads, off
18 the EAA and through the principal structures to
19 WCA-1, the WCAs, and Everglades National Park?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. FITZGERALD: Counsel, I think we are
22 entitled to that.
23 MR. BLANK: What is it?
24 MR. FITZGERALD: A simulation program.
25 THE WITNESS: You have it.
549
1 BY MR. FITZGERALD:
2 Q. What is it and where is it?
3 A. It is on the 60-meg tape I gave you.
4 Q. Let me show you a printout of subjects or
5 files that I think you said was on the 60-meg tape?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. It doesn't need to be made an exhibit, you
8 can identify what's on there.
9 A. You go down the subdirectory, and I have
10 given you a subdirectory tree as to where things are
11 on that tape. If you go down to the subdirectory
12 load underscore EAA, you will find that information.
13 You have all of my computer files, they are not
14 segregated to whether it was mediation.
15 Q. Do you plan to use the kriging mechanism
16 to develop a distribution of rainfall over the EPA?
17 A. I have not been asked to do that.
18 Q. Would the kriging technique be amenable to
19 a use such as that?
20 A. I would have to see the particular data,
21 which I haven't reviewed, but subject to other
22 qualifications I have given over the last few days,
23 kriging has been used.
24 Q. If you had water quality parameters from
25 the analysis of rainfall samples coupled with those
550
1 sampling locations, could you krig the distribution
2 of the water quality parameters given sufficient
3 sample size?
4 A. Subject to qualifications, that would
5 appear to be an appropriate use.
6 Q. With regard to Everglades National Park,
7 have you examined any of the soil data developed in
8 transects conducted within the Park?
9 A. No.
10 Q. None whatsoever?
11 A. No.
12 Q. That would extend then I guess to the
13 cesium 137 dated core?
14 A. Yes, we discussed that before, and no, I
15 have not.
16 Q. A question I didn't ask yesterday. You
17 explained what the difference was between the
18 teaching appointment and research appointment. What
19 other research are you currently conducting under
20 your research appointment?
21 A. Would you like a list of all of my
22 sponsors?
23 Q. How long is the list?
24 A. It is not that long, five or six sponsors.
25 Q. Yes.
551
1 A. Most of my work presently has to do with
2 large scale hydrology and global change.
3 Q. Are we talking like El Nino here?
4 A. No, not directly, more associated with
5 things like how the land surface hydrology is
6 represented in global climate models and the American
7 weather prediction models, that's one aspect of the
8 work.
9 Another aspect of the work has to do with
10 the effect of what people term subgrid scale effects
11 on large scale, i.e., global climate models, land
12 surface fluctuations of energy and water at the land
13 surface.
14 We are doing some work that relates to the
15 effects of climate change on water resource systems,
16 i.e., water supply reliability, hydropower production
17 and so on; there is some ongoing work having to do
18 with modeling of snow melt -- which is not a big
19 problem in South Florida -- in mountainous basins.
20 Q. Wait till the next ice age, you won't be
21 able to say that.
22 A. And the sponsors, for your information,
23 are -- we are doing some work in the Boreal Forest as
24 well, and it is not probably much interest in South
25 Florida. The sponsors for that work are NASA, U.S.
552
1 Department of Energy, National Science Foundation,
2 Electric Power Research Institute, and I think NOAA,
3 and I hope I haven't missed any others.
4 Q. You mentioned that in your view after
5 reviewing appendix E and F of the SWIM Plan, that
6 some people had made creative use of the available
7 data. What did you mean by that?
8 A. I'm not sure I recall the exact context of
9 that comment.
10 Q. I think it was with respect specifically
11 to appendix E and the modeling that appears there.
12 A. I think that probably had to do with
13 respect to appendix E with such things as creating
14 spacial averages and what sort of transformations of
15 the data might have been employed and so on, and in
16 particular, concerns on my part having to do with
17 small sample sizes.
18 Q. I think we agreed yesterday, though, that
19 you can't go back and create historical samples,
20 right?
21 A. Well, I think we have discussed today the
22 potential for comparability assessments which, to my
23 knowledge, have not been created, and that there's
24 nothing that apparently precludes such comparability
25 assessments being conducted.
553
1 Q. In some of your statements yesterday, you
2 said you essentially you directed the work of Lisa
3 Dally Wilson.
4 How did you direct her work? Is that
5 reflected in any written directions, discussions, E
6 mail correspondence, that sort of thing?
7 A. Periodic meetings.
8 Q. So it was all done face-to-face?
9 A. Yes -- well, over the phone as well.
10 Q. I will invite your attention to Exhibit 4
11 which is your early letter to Rick Burges.
12 A. This is May 20th?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. If you would go to the next to the last
16 page, it has numbered paragraphs 2 through 8 on it?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. If you go down to paragraph 8, the last
19 sentence states: "It can be extremely dangerous to
20 make inferences based on inverse transforms of
21 statistical analyses in logarithmic space, as is
22 apparently suggested."
23 Do you recall yesterday I promised that I
24 would pore through the documents last night till I
25 found where you said you had concerns over log