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 554 1 transformations and making inferences or drawing 2 conclusions therefrom? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. That's one of the two places you have said 5 it. 6 A. Right. 7 Q. What is your concern? 8 A. Well, the concern of inverse log transform 9 is a long way of saying exponentiating, and when you 10 exponentiate something that may appear to be 11 reasonably well behaved, you can get something that 12 is very poorly behaved. 13 In particular, when you exponentiate some 14 number and add some perhaps small pertubation to 15 that, one can get a very large number, and that's 16 been the concern and is what drives problems with 17 statistical inferences based on inverse log 18 transforming. 19 Q. Can you minimize the danger of that by 20 bringing multidiscipline analysis to it? In other 21 words, if you apply it to a data set from a natural 22 system, you could bring in people with expertise in 23 the system, in related fields to supply their 24 professional judgment and review of the data to 25 insure you are not generating an artifact through 555 1 this process? 2 A. Well, then we are back into what 3 constitutes professional judgment, what an outlier is 4 and so on. And in general, as a philosophical 5 comment, I prefer methods that don't require that 6 sort of judgment. When one can avoid using inverse 7 log transforms, one is well advised to do so. 8 Q. How about straight logarithmic 9 transformations? 10 A. That's not necessarily quite such a big 11 problem if one then conducts all the subsequent 12 analysis in logarithmic space and never goes 13 backwards. 14 Q. Is this a personal preference of yours or 15 is this generally accepted in the field that you 16 don't do these sorts of things? 17 A. Probably it would be characterized more as 18 a personal preference. If you get a number of people 19 in the room, you would get some disagreement. 20 I would point you in terms of my own 21 experience, to some papers, I think I indicated 22 problems using those sort of logarithmic transforms 23 in flood frequency analysis that's been demonstrated. 24 Q. If we could go back to the first page of 25 the letter, the title page, the paragraph numbered 1, 556 1 you discuss the concern over large bias and load 2 estimation because of the mechanism used to derive 3 flow, using flow weighted concentrations? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. And you speak about developing a rating 6 curve of concentration corresponding to -- versus 7 instantaneous flow and integrated that over the 8 annual period. 9 Do you know how the District actually 10 established its flow values or how it establishes 11 flow values for the structures? 12 A. Precisely no, I believe they are operated 13 by the USGS, but I'm not certain of that. 14 Q. When you say "operated," you mean the 15 sampling mechanism, whatever it may be, or the 16 structure? 17 A. The structure is not operated by the USGS, 18 data collection and the flow -- you are talking about 19 the flow records at the structures? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. I believe those are USGS records, but I'm 22 not certain of that. 23 Q. Do you know what their protocol is for 24 collecting that data? 25 A. No. I think we discussed this at some 557 1 length yesterday as to what the different means might 2 be for estimating flows at structures. 3 Q. You don't know if at any given structure, 4 if it is sampled continuously, periodically? 5 A. I'm sorry, whether those flows are -- the 6 records in general for flow are continuous. 7 Q. Turn to the next page, paragraph No. 2. 8 You indicate that, according to this comment, that 9 you don't have maps showing the location of the 10 discharge structures and the corresponding flows. 11 Was that related to your comment yesterday 12 that you wanted a map that would have arrows that 13 showed direction of flows, or were you talking about 14 flow values? 15 A. I can't remember what this comment 16 specifically pertains to, but the question was what 17 the relative discharge is through those different 18 stations, and I think it simply had to do with 19 getting a better physical handle of what was going on 20 with the system. 21 At the point this letter was written, it 22 was the first work I had done in the area, so. 23 Q. This implies that you didn't have the 24 entire SWIM Plan because, of course, it has numerous 25 maps in it depicting the structures, the location and 558 1 flow patterns. Is that correct? 2 A. I think I was just provided with part of 3 it, yes. 4 Q. So you just had appendix E? 5 A. I believe it was appendix E. 6 Q. Counsel asked you previously about 7 Bayesian analysis yesterday. When I found out you 8 had an association with Dr. Reckow, I figured you 9 were probably a closet Bayesian. 10 A. No, those are only the guys who went to 11 Harvard. 12 Q. Duke. 13 A. No, his degree is not from Duke, he came 14 from Harvard. 15 Q. Although you are not a statistician by 16 your own statement, you clearly make judgments, 17 professional judgments, if you will, regarding what 18 analytical method to apply in a particular situation 19 where you want to do some type of environmental 20 analysis. 21 For example, in this case, you chose 22 kriging as a mechanism, and you suggested that in 23 other places here, you would use nonparametric 24 analysis as opposed to the parametric that's employed 25 by the District. 559 1 Do you believe that a Bayesian analysis is 2 appropriate given the data sets available in this 3 case? 4 A. Again, we are back to exactly what I said 5 yesterday, that there are libraries full of books on 6 Bayesian analysis, and there's no way I could make a 7 comment on that without seeing the particular method 8 that was proposed, and I have not reviewed it in the 9 context of this case, any Bayesian methods. 10 Q. Is Bayesian analysis available as a 11 mechanism to get around the data comparability 12 problem? Could you treat the older data sets from 13 Loxahatchee and the newer data set as two different 14 pools of data? This is what Bayesian does, it allows 15 you to pool data from different sources. 16 Can you do that? 17 MR. BLANK: Again there's multiple 18 questions here. 19 MR. FITZGERALD: It was meant to be one. 20 MR. BLANK: I counted at least four. 21 THE WITNESS: You are faster than I am, I 22 only got the two. 23 MR. BLANK: Could you restate the question 24 you would like answered? 25 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure. 560 1 BY MR. FITZGERALD: 2 Q. Could one treat the period of record data 3 from Loxahatchee as one pool of data and the entry 4 and access data set as a second pool of data, and 5 using Bayes's theorem and the Bayesian techniques, 6 analyze that data? 7 A. I'm sure one could, but one doesn't need 8 Bayesian analysis to do that. 9 Q. How would you do it? 10 A. How would I do what? 11 Q. Actually you spent a lot of time on how 12 you would do it. You would try and do a 13 comparability analysis first, right? 14 A. It depends entirely on what the objective 15 is. One could do a hypothesis test and simply test 16 whether or not those data sets are different. That's 17 a very classical type of statistical analysis. 18 Q. Has anybody done that? 19 A. Directly, to my knowledge, no. 20 Q. Is that one of those good questions that 21 somebody should have done that? 22 A. Well, I think from the analysis even that 23 I have given a cursory review, it is fairly evident 24 what the answer would be to that, but whether or not 25 somebody has put numbers on it, like selected a 561 1 significance level and done the hypothesis test and 2 so on, I have not seen that. 3 Q. Is your preliminary impression that they 4 are not alike? 5 A. That would be my preliminary impression, 6 yes. 7 Q. In paragraph 4 of Exhibit 4, in the middle 8 of the paragraph after explanatory paretheticals, the 9 new sentence reads: "Without understanding what was 10 meant by 'an unusual and never to be repeated release 11 of canal water into the Park (in 1985-'86),'" it goes 12 on to say you don't know if that was justified or 13 not. 14 Have you conducted any research or made 15 any inquiries to clarify that point since the date of 16 generating this letter? 17 A. Well, I may have a little more information 18 as to what was going on there. 19 Q. Do you understand -- 20 A. I've not conducted additional analysis, is 21 a direct answer to your question. 22 Q. Do you understand now what was meant by 23 "'an unusual and never to be repeated release'"? 24 A. I understand what they have meant by it, 25 yes. 562 1 Q. What is your understanding? 2 A. Well, my understanding is that there was 3 water sent to the Park via release mechanisms and 4 management decisions that have not customarily been 5 used. The source of the water was essentially 6 different than how the water ordinarily enters the 7 structures. 8 Q. If that data were then incorporated in the 9 database, would it leverage the rest of the data? 10 A. I don't know because I don't recall the 11 particular values. 12 Q. Throughout here you suggest the errors 13 from the regression are not normally distributed. 14 What led you to that conclusion? 15 A. I don't recall, which sentence are you 16 looking at? 17 Q. It is in paragraph No. 6, the easiest 18 place to find it. 19 (Pause) 20 A. Yes. You are asking why did I think they 21 were not? 22 Q. What led you to the conclusion? 23 A. We are going back a year and a half, so I 24 can't remember what plots and so on were shown in the 25 particular document that I was reviewing. However, 563 1 based also on my experience with total phosphorus, 2 that one would not expect that sort of nice behavior. 3 The normal distribution is a convenient 4 characterization that has some very nice properties 5 in terms of probability theory; in natural systems, 6 it rarely applies strictly. 7 Q. So to apply it, you are automatically 8 engaging in some estimation or assumption activity? 9 A. There's an assumption that underlies that. 10 Q. What was the prior experience with 11 phosphorus that you just referred to that underlaid 12 this view? 13 A. Well, certainly the work that we had done 14 in Lake Okeechobee would be one. 15 Q. So you assume, then, that the performance 16 of phosphorus in a lake was -- or your experience 17 with that was translatable to phosphorus performance 18 in a peat mixed marsh system? 19 MR. BLANK: Objection to the form of the 20 question. 21 A. I didn't say that. What I said was in the 22 Lake Okeechobee work -- which I believe we discussed 23 several times over the last few days -- what the 24 nature of that was -- that there were three sampling 25 networks involved, including sloughs, agricultural 564 1 systems, gate discharge structures, are the same 2 that's been analyzed in some of the work we have 3 discussed here, but I certainly have not said 4 anything about them being in lake samples, with one 5 small exception. 6 Q. You just said "sloughs." What sloughs 7 were sampled as part of the Lake Okeechobee effort? 8 A. Taylor Creek Slough is certainly one of 9 them, a rather extensive system. Kissimmee River 10 Slough is another slough system. 11 Q. You state in the penultimate paragraph of 12 the letter that you disagree in principle with the 13 use of a different hydrologic indicator for the 14 Refuge and the Park (flow versus stage). 15 Why did you disagree with that, based on 16 what principle? 17 A. I think it was just an issue of 18 consistency there and a concern that perhaps there 19 had been something of a prefiltering analysis done to 20 use one variable one place versus the other, the 21 other -- that some prior analysis might have been 22 done with the Loxahatchee that showed that one didn't 23 get some desired result using flow, so they switched 24 to stage instead, and I was simply made a little 25 suspicious by that. 565 1 Q. Are you suggesting that there's something 2 inherently suspect with making that kind of policy 3 decision? 4 A. That's not a policy decision, that's an 5 analytical decision. 6 Q. If I could invite your attention to 7 Exhibit 5, which is your Analysis of Uncertainty in 8 STA Area Requirement for January of 1993. 9 On page No. 2, the first full paragraph, 10 there's a statement a few lines from the end of the 11 paragraph: "We subsequently decided that the water 12 depth and freeboard should be treated as design 13 parameters, and not allowed to vary." 14 Who is "we"? 15 A. "We" is me. 16 MR. BLANK: That's the royal. 17 THE WITNESS: The royal "we." 18 BY MR. FITZGERALD: 19 Q. That's the associate's "we." 20 A. The nonexistent associate. 21 Q. On page 3, the paragraph just above the 22 Monte Carlo simulation results? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. At the beginning you say: "These values 25 were selected to reflect the fact that all of the 566 1 above are to be average annual values." 2 So that was derived from the SWIM Plan? 3 A. Everything is done in the SWIM Plan in 4 terms of long-term averages, yes. 5 Q. Then in the middle of that sentence, you 6 say: "None of the above were based on direct analysis 7 of the historical data (see recommendation below), 8 but rather are based on a 'first guess' of the 9 distributions." 10 How did you perform that first guess 11 analysis for the distributions? 12 A. Experience. 13 Q. What experience other than Lake Okeechobee 14 were you basing that on? 15 A. Review of the literature, as well as three 16 of the six in there are well known hydrologic 17 parameters -- two of the six, and the third is -- 18 Q. Which of the two are you referring to? 19 A. Annual ET evapotranpiration and annual 20 precipitation. You get a group of hydrologist around 21 a table and ask them how confident would you be in 22 the annual precipitation in Miami, they would give 23 you some numbers and it would be -- 24 Q. The same for ET? 25 A. Yes. The others -- I have read various 567 1 reports, so I had some idea -- for instance, the 2 settling rate, I was aware somewhat of the range of 3 values that people had been discussing, so I had some 4 basis to at lea