1

1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA

3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and )

4 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038

5 v. )

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

7 Respondents. )

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

8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

Petitioners, )

10 v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

12 Respondents. )

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

13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

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

and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

15 Petitioners, )

v. ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040

16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

17 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

19 100 S.E. 2nd Street

Miami, Florida 33131

20 Thursday, March 17, 1994

9:25 a.m. - 3:45 p.m.

DEPOSITION OF CARLOS MARIN

Taken before BRIAN GARY BERKOWITZ, Shorthand

23 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking

24 Deposition filed in the above cause.

- - - - - - -

1 APPEARANCES

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE,

3 INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., AND NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.

4 EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636

5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

6 BY: ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.

7 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD.

9 100 S. E. 2nd Street

Suite 4000

10 Miami, Florida 33131

BY: R. BENJAMINE REID, ESQ.

INDEX

12 Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross

CARLOS MARIN

13 By Mr. Reid 3

14 MARIN EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1..........................................4

15 Exhibit 2.........................................23

Exhibit 3.........................................24

16 Exhibit 4.........................................63

Exhibits 5-36.....................................69

17 - - -

1 Thereupon --

2 CARLOS MARIN

3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly

4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. REID:

7 Q. Would you state your name?

8 MR. BLANK: Ben, I checked across the hall to

9 see if someone from the U.S. Attorney's Office was

10 going to attend, and they said they don't think

11 so.

12 MR. REID: I heard that.

13 BY MR. REID:

14 Q. Would you state your name?

15 A. Carlos Marin.

16 Q. What's your address?

17 A. Business address?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. 1101 East Harrison, Harlingen, Texas.

20 Q. By whom are you employed?

21 A. I am employed by Ambiotec Environmental

22 Consultants.

23 Q. Tell me a little bit about that company.

24 A. We're an environmental engineering,

25 scientific environmental engineering firm.

1 Q. Is that your only job, at the present time?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. How long have you been there?

4 A. Since '86, I presume.

5 MR. REID: Let's mark your CV as Exhibit No.

6 1.

7 (The document referred to was thereupon

8 marked Marin Exhibit 1 for Identification.)

9 BY MR. REID:

10 Q. Can you please tell me if this is a current

11 CV, and that has everything on there about you as of

12 today?

13 (Pause.)

14 A. That's pretty current. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Tell me a little bit about what is it,

16 Ambiotec?

17 A. Ambiotec.

18 Q. Tell me a little bit about what it does.

19 A. We're involved in a number of different

20 projects.

21 On the local level, we work with clients in

22 terms of helping them to comply with environmental

23 regulations. We do that both on the U.S. side and the

24 Mexican side. We're located right close to the border.

25 Q. Has long has this company been in existence?

1 A. Since '86.

2 Q. Who owns the company?

3 A. I'm one of the major partners, a principal.

4 Q. It's incorporated under the laws of the State

5 of Texas?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. How many professionals are employed by the

8 company?

9 A. We have six professional employees.

10 Q. Give me an idea of what kind of professionals

11 they are.

12 A. We have two engineers. One is a mechanical

13 engineer. The other one is a civil environmental

14 engineer.

15 Myself, who -- I'm an environmental engineer.

16 One is a geologist, and the other one is an

17 environmental scientist.

18 Q. How many non-professional people are employed

19 at Ambiotec?

20 A. Three non-professionals.

21 Q. Three?

22 A. Yes, sir. Four non-professionals.

23 Q. Has your company, or have you, personally,

24 been involved in wetlands issues before?

25 A. No, sir, I have not.

1 Q. How about your company?

2 A. No.

3 Q. What would you consider to be the closest

4 thing to wetlands science that you've been involved in,

5 in your work?

6 A. Well, the company has -- we do have some

7 people that have taken courses from the Corps of

8 Engineers to identify what wetlands are, for wetland

9 delineations, but in terms of the type of -- myself

10 being involved with wetlands work, I have not been

11 directly involved with wetlands work, in terms of

12 identifying wetlands, delineating wetlands.

13 The closest that my own work, in reference to

14 the Florida project we're working on right now, is in

15 terms of modeling, uncertainty analysis having to do

16 with modeling, calibration.

17 Q. So, I take it that you're doing that kind of

18 work in other areas as well as what you are doing in

19 this case?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Is it essentially the same science, the same

22 approach to things?

23 A. In terms of the uncertainty analysis, model

24 calibration, model evaluation, it is, yes.

25 Q. Do I understand that to mean that rather than

1 going out and taking samples and evaluating what's in

2 the ground, on the ground, over the ground, you

3 actually work with mathematical calculations in terms

4 of attempting to predict what happens on the ground?

5 A. Exactly. And I mean, the processes are

6 different, in different systems, but the work that I'm

7 doing is evaluating the models, doing uncertainty

8 analysis on the models, are the calibrations being done

9 properly, as opposed to doing the specification of the

10 processes that are involved. So -- but, yes, my work

11 is not involved in actually going out and collecting

12 data or anything like that.

13 Q. You sort of added a third level to my

14 description, which is what I will call checking up on

15 the modeling after it's been done by somebody else?

16 A. Exactly.

17 Q. That's what you are doing in this case?

18 A. Yes, sir.

19 Q. And you have done that in previous matters?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Tell me, or describe for me, the water bodies

22 or the matters in which you've done this work before.

23 A. I've done modeling and model verification --

24 that's pretty synonymous and usually goes

25 hand-in-hand -- for streams.

1 I've done a lot of work for the EPA office of

2 solid waste, both for multimedia models, ground water

3 models, air models, surface water models. In fact

4 that's been a major part of my work in the last six

5 years, has been to develop uncertainty analyses for

6 fate and transport models for EPA.

7 Q. I take it, then, that no one at your company

8 has ever done any work in what I would call wetlands?

9 A. In terms of the modeling itself, and the --

10 no, not prior to this project.

11 Q. Does your company do things other than

12 modeling?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you actually do the other -- the first

15 thing that I described, going out and taking the

16 samples?

17 A. Yes. Members of our company do go out and

18 collect samples, and we do engineering design and

19 remedial investigations, feasibility studies.

20 Q. Have any of those other people that do that

21 kind of work in your company, had any experience in

22 wetlands?

23 A. Not that I'm aware of.

24 Q. What do you understand me to mean when I say

25 "wetlands," by the way, so we know we're talking about

1 the same thing?

2 A. A wetland is a body that's defined as being

3 inundated a significant amount of the time, and it

4 doesn't have the same flow properties as a river. It's

5 more -- it's usually shallow, in low lying areas, flood

6 areas.

7 Q. Everglades would qualify?

8 A. I would think so, yes.

9 Q. Before you opened your own company in '86,

10 you were on the staff at Duke?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Tell me a little bit about what you did at

13 Duke.

14 A. I was in the -- both in the department of

15 forestry and environmental studies, the School of

16 Forestry and Environmental Studies. Also, in the civil

17 engineering department. I taught graduate level

18 courses in uncertainty analysis, environmental systems

19 analysis, planning analysis. Part of that was doing

20 the modeling optimization. I taught courses doing

21 that. I also did research in uncertainty analysis, as

22 well.

23 Q. During your time at Duke, did you have any

24 experience or exposure to wetlands?

25 A. Not directly.

1 Q. Did you work with what has been, I guess,

2 it's come to be known as the Duke Wetlands Center?

3 A. I had conversations with Curt about the work

4 he was doing, but I was not directly involved in this

5 work.

6 Q. You were not part of the Wetlands Center?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Or any of its predecessor components?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. Other than knowing Curt Richardson and

11 casually from time to time talking about it, you didn't

12 have any direct involvement in what he was doing?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Specifically with what he was doing in the

15 Everglades?

16 A. No, sir, I did not.

17 Q. Did you work with any of the other people at

18 the Wetlands Center?

19 A. No. I did work with Ken Reckhow, but I'm not

20 sure if he's associated with the Wetlands Center or

21 not.

22 Q. What did you do with Dr. Reckhow?

23 A. He and I wrote a number of proposals

24 together, papers, and generally worked together on

25 research areas.

1 Q. Any involved in wetlands?

2 A. Not that I recall.

3 Q. As I recall from Dr. Reckhow's deposition, he

4 pretty much deals with the statistical approach or

5 models and so forth?

6 A. Exactly, yes.

7 Q. And then, before Duke, you were a consulting

8 engineer.

9 A. When I was a graduate student at Harvard, I

10 was doing some work with Meta Systems as part of my --

11 not as part of my graduate work, but during my graduate

12 work.

13 Q. And you were also, during the same period, a

14 research scientist at Harvard?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 Q. During your Harvard period, and the time you

17 were consulting, any involvement with wetlands in that

18 experience?

19 A. No, sir.

20 Q. What did you do? What did you deal with

21 principally during that period?

22 A. Primarily, statistical areas, associated with

23 modeling and uncertainty analysis, model specification,

24 errors.

25 Q. Before that you were at Rice?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Was that while you were in school?

3 A. I'm sorry?

4 Q. While you were in school?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Any wetlands experience there?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. Your undergraduate degree was in civil

9 engineering?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Did you have to focus or specialize in any

12 particular area?

13 A. At that time, I think Rice had an option for

14 environmental, and so it was civil with an

15 environmental option, and I don't remember. At that

16 time they did not have an environmental engineering

17 degree, undergraduate degree. It was civil with an

18 environmental option.

19 Q. Did you take the environmental option?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I notice that you did get a master's from

22 Rice in environmental engineering.

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 Q. Tell me a little bit about what environmental

25 engineering is.

1 A. Environmental engineering -- it's

2 environmental science and engineering. Environmental

3 engineering is, it's identification of potential

4 problems, coming up with a design solution for it, in

5 order to meet certain objectives in an economically

6 efficient way.

7 Q. At some point, you became interested in

8 dealing with formulas and statistics and that kind of

9 thing.

10 When in your career did that first come up?

11 A. When I was at Rice.

12 Q. Undergraduate or graduate?

13 A. Graduate.

14 Q. What led you in that direction?

15 A. What led me in that direction was experience

16 with modeling, when I was a senior, or my first -- in

17 the interim being between a senior and first year

18 graduate student. I was doing some modeling for one of

19 my eventual advisors at Rice, stream modeling.

20 Q. Stream modeling?

21 A. Yes, sir. It seemed like you could overfit

22 the data, and people were calibrating models and

23 weren't getting a real handle on what the uncertainty

24 was associated with that prediction, what it mattered,

25 calibrating, estimating that uncertainty and trying to

1 figure out what it meant. And that's what got me

2 interested in the statistics, and modeling

3 verification.

4 Q. Your first Harvard degree was a master of

5 science, I take it?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. I understand environmental engineering. What

8 does operations research mean?

9 A. Operations research is a body of, or a set of

10 disciplines, that deals with the use of applied

11 mathematics to solve real world problems, as opposed to

12 pure mathematics, and I think my general understanding

13 is that operations research, the techniques were

14 developed during the war, World War II, in order to

15 optimize operations, and logistics, et cetera,

16 deliveries.

17 Q. Give me some examples that I might

18 understand.

19 A. For example, operations research, how do you

20 optimize where to put your planes and schedule your

21 planes in order to get there on time and minimize your

22 overall fuel consumption.

23 Operations research deals with optimization,

24 optimization, uncertainty -- under all parameters,

25 optimization with uncertainty, when you don't know the

1 parameters. It's basically a way to define an

2 objective, what's the best way to reach that objective,

3 what is best.

4 Q. I assume that discipline would expand beyond

5 the environmental field?

6 A. Definitely, yes.

7 Q. At Harvard, was there a separate department

8 of operations research, that took people in from all of

9 the other disciplines, or how is it operated? How is

10 it set up?

11 A. The -- my Ph.D. is in environmental

12 engineering, but my areas, if you would say, the area

13 of specialization was operation research.

14 I did not get a degree in operation research.

15 There is an operation research department in applied

16 math.

17 Q. With what --

18 A. In the applied math department.

19 Q. Tell me how operations research, then, is

20 manifest in the environmental field.

21 A. Basically, it's an extension of what

22 engineering companies -- engineering is trying to find

23 a solution that satisfies some constraints in some

24 optimal way.

25 Operations research is simply a formal

1 statement of that, of that problem.

2 Q. Do you use those skills on a regular basis?

3 A. As I said, operation research is fairly broad

4 and yes, I use statistics in operation research.

5 Q. Have you used it in your work in this case?

6 A. The general principles, yes. Optimization

7 itself has been used in some of the fitting techniques,

8 but generally it would fall more under the applied

9 statistics area, yes.

10 Q. Tell me what a model is.

11 A. A model is a representation of a system, it

12 could be a real system or a hypothetical system, and it

13 attempts to relate inputs to outputs, and the model is

14 the linkage between those inputs and outputs.

15 It's used to predict, simulate what the

16 hypothetical system you are trying to model or the real

17 system you are trying to model, its behavior under

18 different inputs.

19 Q. Tell me how you use modeling within the

20 context of the streams that you mentioned, in your

21 first experience.

22 A. Primarily to predict concentrations of

23 various contaminants in the streams, and the transport

24 of those contaminants.

25 Q. I assume that's exactly what you're,

1 generally speaking, doing in this case, using the same

2 approach?

3 A. And in this case, what I'm doing is taking a

4 model that somebody else already developed, and seeing

5 whether the parameters are fitting correctly, are they

6 the right parameters, are correct inferences being made

7 with that model.

8 Q. Is it fair to say, I'm just trying to make

9 sure I understand this, we didn't cover this in English

10 history at UNC, but you know you have a certain body of

11 water and you know you have a certain flow, and you

12 know that certain contaminants are being put into it,

13 and you might be interested in figuring out what is

14 left at the end, when it comes out, if your goal is to

15 try to, let's say, cut down on those contaminants?

16 Would that be a problem that you could deal with, with

17 modeling?

18 A. Yes. In a general sense, yes.

19 Q. Then you might compare how different

20 parameters would affect the difference between what you

21 had at the beginning and what you ended up with at the

22 end?

23 A. Different inputs, you mean?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Or different parameters. What do you mean by

2 "inputs"?

3 A. "Inputs" would be the -- there can be either

4 control variables or exogenous variables. Exogenous

5 variables you have no control over.

6 There are exogenous inputs to the model that

7 you usually have no control over, but they had to be

8 taken into account in the modeling process. For

9 example, precipitation, evaporation.

10 Then there are those variables that you are

11 concerned about, the input variables, that are what is

12 called decision variables or control variables, that

13 you are trying to control and determine what's the best

14 level of those inputs.

15 Q. In our case, a control variable might be the

16 amount of phosphorus that came through the structures?

17 A. Yes. For example, through, say, best

18 management practices.

19 Q. Once you put best management practice into

20 place, you end up with a certain amount of -- certain

21 amount of phosphorus, we will say.

22 A. Right. Another control variable would be the

23 area, say, that you use a tree and the output would be

24 the concentration, for example, if that's what you are

25 interested in.

1 Q. And how much of this is based on actual

2 things on the ground, as opposed to mathematical

3 calculations, in a model such as -- a simple model that

4 we're talking about?

5 A. Generally, the model development starts from

6 basic principles, it could, or it could be a simple

7 statistical model. It has no mechanistic components in

8 it. The level of mechanistic components in a model

9 could vary from very simple to very complex, and the --

10 I'm sorry. Could you rephrase your question?

11 Q. Let me ask you this: What do you

12 understand -- what is the model that you are ultimately

13 going to comment on in this case?

14 Can you, in a simple description, give me

15 what that model is, the way you understand it?

16 A. It's a simple mass balance model.

17 Q. Tell me how that works.

18 A. Basically, you have some idea what the mass

19 of phosphorus coming into the ground is, and --

20 Q. Would that be the load?

21 A. The load coming in. Right.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. And there's a parameter, a settling rate,

24 that determines what percentage of that load coming in

25 is going to be ending up in the ground and removed, if

1 you will, and then, that will tell you what the model

2 then predicts what is going to be coming out, after

3 it's been removed in that sized area.

4 Q. That seems pretty simple.

5 A. It's a simple model, yes, and it's

6 representational.

7 Q. Why do we need all these Ph.D. s to figure

8 this out?

9 A. I think model selection is a very, very

10 important issue. Complexity of the model, how simple

11 it is, how complicated it is, and you need to make a

12 decision about what's the optimal level of complexity,

13 and typically that decision is a function of the amount

14 of data you have.

15 If you have a very complex model, very little

16 data, you're going to have a hard time fitting that

17 model and making credible predictions.

18 If you have a very simple model at the same

19 time that overlooks some of the basic principles, you

20 could have some problems with predictions, as well.

21 My own belief, the simpler the model, the

22 better. The scale of the model, I think I agree with

23 the model, in terms of the complexity of it.

24 What you need -- the opinions are, or the

25 Ph.D.s, if you will, is in determining whether those

1 values are, in fact, going to be representative of

2 what's going out, the calibration process. Does this

3 model predict well? What are the issues associated

4 with the model? What are the issues associated with

5 taking those model values and predicting somewhere

6 else?

7 Q. Whose model are you particularly commenting

8 on?

9 A. Dr. Walker's model, found in his, I believe,

10 March '93 paper.

11 Q. I notice some material by Dr. Kadlec in some

12 of the papers that were produced. Are you talking

13 about anything that Dr. Kadlec has done?

14 A. Only as it relates to the paper, the model

15 that Walker has used.

16 My understanding is that some of that, those --

17 that model is based on some of the work that Dr. Kadlec

18 used, or did.

19 Q. With regard to the model or the data leading

20 up to the model, you have not -- you are not going to

21 be dealing with credibility, if you will, of any of the

22 actual sampling points and things such as that?

23 A. The only way I would be dealing with that,

24 not necessarily testifying to the validity of the

25 point, but possibly using analysis to point out that in

1 fact we should look at some of these points. They may

2 have a large influence on the results and we should

3 look to see if that's a reasonable point or not.

4 Q. By "point," you mean sampling point?

5 A. Data point, yes, sir.

6 Q. Which would be, ultimately, when somebody

7 went out and took cores?

8 A. Exactly.

9 Q. Or took the water, whatever --

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When were you retained to work in this case?

12 A. It was the latter part of 1992. November or

13 December, somewhere in the last part of that quarter.

14 Q. Who retained you?

15 A. I am not sure if it was Rick Burgess or Bob

16 Blank.

17 Q. Somebody at Peeples Earl & Blank?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The Peeples Earl & Blank firm?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you know how they got your name?

22 A. I don't know specifically, but -- no, I do

23 not know, specifically, but I would think maybe through

24 Curt Richardson. That would be speculation.

25 Q. Until you got this call in late '92, you had

1 really never done anything with or had any thoughts

2 about the Everglades?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. When you were actually called, what were you

5 asked to do?

6 A. I was simply -- I was asked if I had time to

7 get involved in a project dealing with the Everglades.

8 It wasn't very specific.

9 At the time I was simply asked to attend some

10 meetings to get some background information to see if I

11 would be interested in participating.

12 Q. I have a letter dated November 3, 1992, which

13 is to you, from Rick Burgess. This looks like it would

14 have been your letter of retention. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes, sir.

16 MR. REID: Mark that as the next exhibit.

17 (The document referred to was thereupon

18 marked Marin Exhibit 2 for Identification.)

19 BY MR. REID:

20 Q. Then there's a letter dated April 28, from

21 you to Mr. Blank, here, with a budget attached.

22 Was this the ultimate description of what you

23 intended to do?

24 A. Generally, so. I think our focuses have been

25 primarily on the first two tasks, and my work

1 primarily, up to that time, has been helping counsel

2 with preparation for depositions, helping him

3 understand the implications of models, and this

4 developed in April, basically focusing on tasks 1 and

5 2.

6 MR. REID: Mark this as the next exhibit,

7 please.

8 (The document referred to was thereupon

9 marked Marin Exhibit 3 for Identification.)

10 MR. BLANK: What was the date of that letter?

11 MR. REID: April 28, 1993.

12 BY MR. REID:

13 Q. Do you know if there was any other letter or

14 memo, which summarized what you are going to do?

15 A. No. No, there is not.

16 Q. Task one was to "develop, calibrate/validate,

17 and perform uncertainty analysis on an alternative

18 (non-zero intercept) settling rate model."

19 Did you do that?

20 A. That was originally based on the first Walker

21 model, and when that changed, the focus of that task

22 changed.

23 Q. Tell me what an uncertainty analysis is.

24 A. An uncertainty analysis, in a general sense,

25 is to predict what the uncertainty analysis -- the

1 uncertainty is in the predictions of a model, try to

2 assess what the uncertainty in the predictions are.

3 Q. How is it quantified?

4 A. It can be done a number of different ways,

5 but usually in a probabilistic way. Say the prediction

6 has certain probability of being within a certain

7 range.

8 Q. Like 90 percent, 80 percent, 50 percent?

9 A. Sure. It has an average of this, and has

10 some problems associated with distribution predictions.

11 Q. Are there certain levels that are considered

12 to be better than others?

13 A. A priori, no. It all depends on what you are

14 trying to do, your objective function, the objective of

15 your modeling.

16 Q. "What is an alternative," and then

17 parenthesis, "(non-zero intercept) settling rate

18 model"? I guess my first question -- what alternative

19 to what?

20 A. That was an alternative to the initial Walker

21 model, which I guess was represented by his October '93

22 document, in which he had a relationship --

23 Q. October of '92?

24 A. '92, yes. I think it was August.

25 MR. BLANK: August.

1 A. August, I'm sorry. He had a relationship

2 between the phosphorus accretion versus concentration

3 in that regression, as a way to estimate the settling

4 rate, and that regression went through the origin, to

5 zero, and there was speculation on the part of Dr.

6 Richardson at the time, that there should be a -- that

7 there might be a possibility, a hypothesis, that that

8 regression should not necessarily go through zero, it

9 should go through some other intercept, non-zero

10 intercept, and that would indicate a source of

11 phosphorus other than phosphorus from the water column

12 concentration.

13 The idea was to test that model, a simple

14 statistical model, to see if, in fact, the intercept of

15 that data was through non-zero. And as I said, that

16 model changed in March, right -- as a matter of fact,

17 this document was put out after Walker's document came

18 out in March of '93. The focus of that task changed,

19 because that model was, in a sense, relegated to a back

20 burner.

21 Q. Did you ever do anything with Walker's August

22 '92 model?

23 A. No, I did not. Other than looking it over,

24 but not specifically develop alternatives to it.

25 Q. When you say he was relating phosphorus to

1 concentration, total phosphorus to concentration?

2 A. Total phosphorus, yes, in the core. Core

3 data phosphorus to phosphorus concentration in the

4 water column.

5 Q. And the core, by that you mean -- you mean,

6 just so we're clear, C-O-R-E?

7 A. Yes, I'm sorry.

8 Q. In the ground?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. He was taking somebody's core samples and

11 pulling off the phosphorus level concentration?

12 A. The amount of phosphorus in the ground.

13 Q. The amount?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How was that described?

16 A. I'm not familiar with the actual laboratory

17 analysis techniques to do it. It was a measure of the

18 amount of phosphorus deposited over time in the ground.

19 Q. He compared that to the concentration in the

20 water?

21 A. Correct. And from that he developed a

22 relationship or regression relationship, with slope, as

23 a function of K, or the settling rate.

24 Q. You said "water column." What's "water

25 column"?

1 A. The concentration of phosphorus in the water.

2 Actually, above the ground, in the water.

3 Q. Is there a difference between the water

4 column and surface water, in your understanding?

5 A. Surface water and water column? The water

6 column concentration is just the concentration in the

7 column of water above the soil.

8 Q. Over what area?

9 A. It depends on the model. In this particular

10 case, it was representative of what was up top of the

11 core, over the core.

12 Q. Literally over? Are you talking about in a

13 mechanical sense, literally over, directly over that

14 core that was taken?

15 A. The general area of that core, yes.

16 Basically, the concentration of water -- of phosphorus

17 in the water column on top of the core.

18 Q. So, if you put -- you know, like if you cut a

19 hole in a golf course, you take a cylinder and stick it

20 all the way down into the ground. Some of it is below

21 the surface of the soil, and some of it is above.

22 Would you capture everything in that column

23 which would be water as well as soil, and those would

24 be the two areas you are talking about? Is it that

25 precise?

1 A. I think it represents the concentration in --

2 the average concentration of the water column, yes.

3 Q. But it would be that precise, directly over

4 the core? You take it all at the same time as opposed

5 to taking a core and then going back with a bucket

6 later and maybe scooping up some water?

7 A. These were long term averages and they

8 represent the long term average concentration over that

9 core. It wasn't specific, at any one time.

10 Q. Based on this relationship, what was Walker

11 trying to do, as you understand it?

12 A. Estimate what the settling rate is, which

13 would then give you what the fraction of the input load

14 coming in, settling out, to be removed from the

15 wetlands.

16 Q. I take it you would need a series of cores

17 that moved downstream, so to speak?

18 A. Not necessarily, but that's the data he had.

19 Yes.

20 Q. Explain to me, again, the non-zero intercept

21 versus some other intercept, which you say would

22 suggest alternative sources of phosphorus.

23 A. Non-zero intercept basically says if there's

24 no phosphorus in the water column, then you are not

25 going to have any deposition into the soil. And the

1 hypothesis that Dr. Richardson had, was that there

2 could be -- that in fact a regression might go through

3 zero. What is the source of that phosphorus if, in

4 fact, it didn't go through zero? And it seemed, the

5 regression that was done by Walker, forced the

6 regression to zero, rather than letting it vary and

7 giving you an intercept. And the idea was to see what

8 that intercept would be and find an explanation for why

9 that -- you had a non-zero intercept.

10 Q. So, if you put the soil phosphorus on the X

11 axis and the water column on the Y, Richardson --

12 A. No, the other way.

13 Q. Whichever. Okay. I wasn't trying to be

14 precise. One or the other.

15 A. Sure.

16 Q. Walker, you believe, was saying in effect,

17 that if you got down to zero on one, and you had to be

18 at zero on the other?

19 A. Exactly, yes.

20 Q. Richardson was suggesting to you, he believed

21 that you could be at zero in the soil, but still be up

22 the axis, so to speak, in the water column?

23 A. I think what he was --

24 Q. Or was it backwards?

25 A. What he was suggesting was, first of all, to

1 look at what the data was telling you, and if you

2 didn't force it to zero, what number would you get, and

3 if it was positive, it would say, where was that source

4 of phosphorus coming from? Was it coming from the

5 water column?

6 The idea was to let the regression tell you

7 what that intercept was, instead of forcing it, and

8 then come up with a hypothesis to test where it could

9 be coming from.

10 Q. Walker's assumed all the phosphorus in the

11 ground came from the water, or he got to that point?

12 A. In that analysis, yes.

13 Q. Did anybody ever contradict or do any work to

14 determine if that was accurate or not?

15 A. I never did.

16 Q. Do you know if anybody else ever did?

17 A. Not that I know of.

18 Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Richardson about it?

19 A. We talked about it, in the sense that the

20 focused shifted to a different model and we weren't

21 going to do the analysis, or that I didn't do the

22 analysis.

23 Q. Your second task was to reproduce, critique

24 and perform uncertainty analysis on Walker II, mass

25 balance model.

1 Did you do that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. That's essentially what your opinions in this

4 case are going to be.

5 A. Exactly.

6 Q. There's a three, a four and a five. Did you

7 do any of those?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Why didn't you do those?

10 A. That was a decision by counsel, to focus on

11 the first two tasks.

12 Q. Had you even started that?

13 A. No.

14 MR. BLANK: I'm sorry. What was the

15 question?

16 MR. REID: Had he done three, four and five,

17 and he said no, and I said, why.

18 MR. BLANK: Okay.

19 BY MR. REID:

20 Q. What's a plug flow model?

21 A. A plug flow model is one where the

22 concentration varies with distance, as opposed to a

23 continuous stir tank reactor, where the concentration

24 anywhere in that reactor would be homogenous, or the

25 same. In this case you have gradients, concentration

1 gradients, across the reactor.

2 Q. What was the second one, continuous --

3 A. Stir tank reactor.

4 Q. Stirring.

5 A. Where the concentration doesn't vary in

6 space, within that gradient.

7 Q. Did Walker use either of these approaches?

8 A. My understanding is that the second model is

9 a plug flow model.

10 Q. Walker II?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. How do these two models compare to or relate

13 to mass balance models?

14 A. They're both mass balance models. They use

15 as the first principle, mass balance. That's the first

16 principle underlying both models.

17 Q. Mass balance means that you just figure out

18 what goes in, and figure out what goes out, and the

19 difference is something?

20 A. Yes. To account for mass, yes.

21 Q. Within the operation of the system that you

22 are focused on, that you are going to do this sort of

23 gross analysis of, you either have one behavior or

24 another behavior?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. Do you have an opinion as to which is the

2 better model for the Everglades?

3 A. I would agree that the -- because of the

4 concentration gradients, the plug flow is more

5 appropriate than the continuous stir tank reactor.

6 Q. Because you've seen data that indicates as

7 you move down from the structures in the north of

8 WCA-2A, and you seem to get a reduction of

9 concentrations as you get away from the structures?

10 A. That concentration varies spacially, yes, and

11 you don't have a complete mixing for the entire zone.

12 Q. Would a lake be something that would be more

13 appropriate for a continuous stir approach?

14 A. It depends on the size. The ideal situation

15 is you have a reactor, like a waste water plant, and

16 where you have complete mixing, that's the ideal

17 situation.

18 Q. I was just thinking, that's a man-made --

19 A. Right.

20 Q. Number three seems to relate back to the

21 first two tasks, in that it describes work developing

22 and implementing a procedure for recalibrating or

23 validating and performing uncertainty analysis for the

24 models in tasks 1 and 2, using Richardson and Reddy's

25 data.

1 A. Can I see that again, please?

2 Q. Yes. Look at number three.

3 Did you do that?

4 A. I guess when I was thinking of task two, I

5 was not looking carefully at task three.

6 What I've been doing is reproducing,

7 critiquing and performing uncertainty analysis, and I'm

8 having trouble distinguishing what task three would do

9 at this point. Calibrating, validating --

10 Q. I should have more than one copy, shouldn't

11 I, by this time?

12 A. The Walker II had that data.

13 Q. What data was Walker II based on?

14 MR. BLANK: You didn't know that when you did

15 this?

16 A. I did not know what data -- that's part of

17 the problem, I guess, yes.

18 Q. So we're clear now --

19 A. I think in retrospect, that what I've been

20 doing, is looking at the Walker II model, and

21 reproducing the calibration that Walker did, and then

22 testing that model with different data sets and with

23 new data that has become available to us, and doing the

24 uncertainty analysis of the Walker II model.

25 Part of the confusion is task three, and that

1 paper was done before we were aware of the Walker II

2 model.

3 Q. Now as you understand, Walker II relies on

4 the Richardson and the Reddy core samples?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. For his model?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. And you have now had the benefit of some

9 additional samples?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. As part of your task, you have taken out the

12 Reddy-Richardson samples, and -- or maybe a better way

13 to describe it is, you have overlaid the new samples

14 with what you already had, to find out how close they

15 are?

16 A. Exactly.

17 Q. We will get to that in a minute.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. But, do you find the new samples are

20 materially different?

21 A. The two new samples cause, yes, a change in

22 Ke, yes.

23 Q. What is Ke?

24 A. The settling rate. Ke.

25 Q. Why is it Ke, by the way?

1 A. The effect of settling rate, that's what the

2 sub e stands for. That's the product of the settling

3 rate which Walker defines as K times some product, some

4 value, B, which he defines the ratio of the time

5 weighted, flow weighted concentration. It could be the

6 other way. But the factor B is a function of the

7 relationship between the flow weighted concentration

8 and the time average concentration.

9 MR. BLANK: Can we take a break?

10 MR. REID: No problem.

11 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,

12 after which the following proceedings

13 were had:)

14 BY MR. REID:

15 Q. We've cleared up now --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. As far as task four, it had to do with

18 developing a three parallel plug flow model alternative

19 dealing with some of Kadlec's work. You have not done

20 that?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Finally, developing a decision analysis

23 alternative to determine the number of acres required.

24 You haven't done that?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Do you have any opinions at all about the

2 subject matter of those final two tasks?

3 A. No, I do not.

4 Q. You said you thought it would cost 70,000.

5 How much has it actually cost to get you to here today?

6 A. I think as of last year -- it was on the

7 order of about $65,000 that we spent as of the end of

8 last year.

9 Q. What have you done since then?

10 A. Probably another 25 since, this year.

11 Q. So we're pushing a hundred now?

12 A. About 85, 90,000.

13 Q. Okay. After you received the call, I take it

14 you began to work on this assignment.

15 A. Those assignments?

16 Q. Yes. After you received the first call back

17 in late '92.

18 A. No. Really, the first -- I would say the

19 first six months, were primarily just getting familiar

20 with the problem, and helping counsel formulate issues

21 and help with depositions. That was primarily what I

22 was doing. And it wasn't until that document where we

23 actually started thinking about tasks.

24 Q. After you were retained, what is the first

25 thing you did? By that I mean, did you come to a

1 meeting, or did you get documentation?

2 A. I remember, I think -- I have a recollection

3 of going to a meeting, I believe it was in North

4 Carolina, Durham, and just getting an overview of what

5 the issues were.

6 Q. Who gave you that overview?

7 A. I remember counsel being present, and Curt

8 Richardson being present, and several other

9 consultants. I don't have a firm recollection of who

10 exactly was there. Maybe Dennis Lettenmaier and maybe

11 John Davis.

12 There was general discussion about what the

13 issues were, and what was relevant.

14 Q. How long did the meeting last?

15 A. I don't remember.

16 Q. A couple of days or one day?

17 A. One or two days. I do not have a firm feel

18 for that right now.

19 Q. This was your first exposure to the problem?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. At the conclusion of that meeting, what did

22 you understand the problem to be?

23 A. I think at that point, I just got a general

24 overview of what the situation was. It was still very

25 confusing in terms of what was going on. There were a

1 lot of legal issues, and I mean --

2 Q. Give me an overview of what was going on, as

3 you understood it at that point?

4 A. As I understood, was that the -- there were

5 going to be some STAs designed to meet some limits.

6 The question was whether the design was based on some

7 settling rate and whether that settling rate was

8 reasonable or not. That's basically the overall

9 impression I had at that time.

10 Q. Was that the general topic of this meeting,

11 or was this an overall litigation strategy meeting?

12 A. Of what I remember, that was a major part of

13 it. There were other issues related to legal

14 implications of -- related to permitting and so on, but

15 I wasn't really aware of what was going on, or had a

16 good grasp of what those issues were.

17 What I was interested in was primarily the

18 settling rate and whether that was reasonable or not,

19 and that's my best recollection of the important issue

20 at that point.

21 Q. You mentioned Lettenmaier.

22 A. Dennis Lettenmaier might have been there.

23 MR. BLANK: His deposition has been taken.

24 Q. What is his role, as far as you know? What

25 was his role at that point, as you understood?

1 A. I wasn't aware of what his specific role was

2 at that time. I don't think that was the purpose of

3 that meeting, to define who was going to do what.

4 I don't know if Dennis had already been part

5 of the meetings before or after, or he had just come on

6 like I did. I don't know.

7 Q. You said John Davis was there?

8 A. Yes, John Davis. That's where I met John

9 Davis.

10 Q. And Curt Richardson was there?

11 A. Curt was there.

12 Q. Did you have any understanding of what these

13 other people -- what their role was in the case?

14 A. I had a vague idea that John was doing data

15 collection, data management, and I knew that Curt had

16 come up with some calculations for the settling rates

17 of his own, and that was my understanding of what they

18 were doing.

19 Q. Do you remember what settling rates were

20 being discussed at this meeting?

21 A. I don't remember if the 8.3 was already out.

22 I guess it was probably 8.3. I think I remember seeing

23 that.

24 Q. What was the reaction to 8.3?

25 That would be meters per year, right?

1 A. There were questions about how it was derived

2 and whether it was reasonable to do the flow weighting,

3 and how it was done, but in terms of whether it was

4 high or low, I did not get that impression.

5 Does it make sense? What is the issue here?

6 Q. At that meeting, there was no conclusion

7 about whether it made sense or not?

8 A. My main recollection of that meeting is that

9 there were still a lot of issues to figure out how it

10 was done and whether it made sense or not. It wasn't,

11 a priori, decided it was crazy or not.

12 Q. Was there any talk about what you would do at

13 that meeting?

14 A. I think in a vague sense, yes, but it was

15 more -- I don't remember getting a specific assignment

16 at that point.

17 Q. What is the next thing you did?

18 A. I think I started reading documentation,

19 primarily the Walker August '93 paper, and getting

20 familiar with the issues, and getting a better handle

21 on that.

22 At the same time, just formulating issues

23 about the modeling and what kind of things should be

24 looked at or might make sense to look at. Primarily to

25 get a better handle of what was going on.

1 Q. Did you understand the 8.3 was a product of

2 Dr. Walker's work?

3 A. I think that's the number that came out of

4 the August '92 paper, yes.

5 Q. Did you know Dr. Walker before this?

6 A. I knew Dr. Walker before, yes.

7 Q. He's up in the area where you went to

8 college, I guess?

9 A. Right.

10 Q. Or graduate school.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What did you think about him?

13 A. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Walker.

14 Q. Have you ever been involved in anything

15 that's he's been involved in, before this?

16 A. Only tangentially. When I was a graduate

17 student, I was working at Meta Systems part-time. He

18 was doing some work, and I helped him with some data

19 bases, some statistical work. That was all.

20 Q. Some documents have been produced today. I

21 assume some of these documents would have been some of

22 the reading that you just described?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Do you have a file at your office relating to

25 this assignment?

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. What is in that file?

3 A. Documents that I've given you, plus I've got

4 some public documents, documents that are public

5 documents, and some correspondence from counsel.

6 Q. Did you actually pull together the set of

7 documents that was sent over to me as representative of

8 your, quote, file, close quote, for this case?

9 A. The majority of documents, yes. Some of

10 those documents, the bulk of documents I just went

11 through a list and pointed out the ones I had copies

12 of.

13 Q. I'm talking about the actual documents.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. We can look at this in a minute and mark

16 them, but does this look like the material? Is that

17 about the right volume?

18 A. It's about the right size, yes.

19 Q. Then there's a list of, here, I don't know,

20 of pages and pages, a lot of pages of public documents

21 that you've looked at.

22 You would have copies of these at your

23 office?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. BLANK: When you say "these," counsel,

1 you are referring to the public documents?

2 MR. REID: Yes. There's a list here called,

3 "Supplementary documents publicly available, not

4 copied," and it's 27 articles.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 BY MR. REID:

7 Q. These would be ones you actually have copies

8 and you didn't bring because you figured we had them?

9 MR. BLANK: You have to answer.

10 Q. You have to say yes or no.

11 A. Yes. I was just given a sheet and told to

12 check them out.

13 Q. You did some reading. During the time you

14 did this reading and studying, did you talk to anybody

15 else about this case, or your assignment?

16 A. During what period?

17 Q. I guess from the time of the meeting in

18 Durham, until the next major event that occurred.

19 Strike that.

20 Tell me what the next major event that

21 occurred for you, was.

22 A. There might have been another meeting, but I

23 do not recall. The next major event was the

24 formulation of that document, the tasks.

25 Q. Exhibit 2, the April 28 letter?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Between the Durham meeting -- by the way, do

3 you know when that meeting was?

4 A. The Durham meeting?

5 Q. Yes, the first one, or the one you described.

6 A. December, maybe. December of ninety --

7 Q. '92?

8 A. '92, yes.

9 Q. Between then, December '92 and April of '93,

10 you were busy reading and educating yourself about the

11 project?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. That's where these documents I have here

14 would have come into play?

15 A. Some of them, yes.

16 Q. During that time, did you have any

17 conversations with anybody, about this case?

18 A. I more than likely talked to Curt Richardson,

19 and that's where that task number one came out.

20 Q. Do you recall anybody else that you spoke to

21 about it?

22 A. Not directly. I think Curt Richardson was

23 the principal person. I'm sure I talked to counsel. I

24 might have talked to Steve -- Dennis Lettenmaier, but

25 I'm not positive of that, and we really haven't done

1 much work together.

2 Q. What exactly is his discipline, Lettenmaier?

3 A. Dennis, I would characterize him as -- it's

4 hard. I just know him from reputation and haven't

5 worked with him until recently -- is the area of

6 systems analysis, which is sort of environmental

7 engineering, operations research. Very similar to my

8 area.

9 Q. Do you know what role he's playing in this

10 particular case?

11 A. Specific projects, the details I couldn't

12 give you, but a general consultant providing expert

13 testimony.

14 Really, I couldn't pin it down exactly. I

15 could give you a general idea, but not exactly.

16 Q. During this period, were you also helping

17 with discovery or depositions?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Which depositions, specifically, did you help

20 with?

21 A. I was preparing for Dr. Kadlec's deposition,

22 or was asked to help out, just in terms of interpreting

23 what the math meant. And I don't know if I was also

24 asked to help out with the Walker deposition, but that

25 was rescheduled, and I'm not sure whatever happened to

1 it, but primarily to help out with Dr. Kadlec's

2 deposition.

3 Q. Specifically, what role did you play with Dr.

4 Kadlec?

5 A. To help counsel prepare questions for Dr.

6 Kadlec.

7 Q. Was there any particular part of his opinions

8 that you were dealing with specifically?

9 A. I think it was primarily to find out exactly

10 what he was doing and the basis for his modeling, and

11 the implications of the modeling, all the assumptions

12 of the modeling, to get it clarified.

13 Q. Did he do a model separate from Dr. Walker?

14 A. My understanding is that the Walker model

15 that's used in the March '93 paper, is based on a model

16 developed by Dr. Kadlec.

17 Q. Dr. Kadlec had a data base?

18 A. Right.

19 Q. A North American data base of wetlands and so

20 forth. Some of that information made its way into the

21 Walker model. Is that correct?

22 A. That's not my understanding, but I do not

23 know, but not my understanding.

24 Q. Did Dr. Kadlec use, as far as you know, that

25 data base in his work?

1 A. I --

2 MR. BLANK: Just for clarification, are you

3 talking about the North American data base?

4 MR. REID: Yes.

5 A. I know he references it in his work and uses

6 sort of a general indication of performance of wetlands

7 systems. He might have used it for the basis for

8 formulating his hypothesis or his model structure. I

9 do not know.

10 Q. You just said this, and it escaped me, so I

11 apologize for asking again.

12 How did what you are calling the Kadlec model

13 and the Walker model, relate?

14 A. I believe they're very similar, except for

15 maybe notation differences.

16 Q. Was there any particular part of Kadlec that

17 you found to be objectionable, when you were helping

18 the lawyers prepare?

19 A. I don't think it's a question of being

20 objectionable. Just in terms of the assumptions he was

21 making, and trying to clarify what those were.

22 Q. Can you recall any specific assumptions that

23 he made, that you found fault with or questioned?

24 A. I don't think they're a question of fault

25 with them. Just a question of assumptions that it

1 would be interesting to look at them.

2 Q. Were there any that you thought were

3 incorrect?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Did you overall -- did you feel that there

6 was some overall problem with the Kadlec model?

7 A. I think there were some issues that would

8 have been useful or would be useful to look at the

9 assumptions, in terms of the potential heterogeneity of

10 the value of K. A single value of K is assumed, and --

11 but it's not clear right now that that assumption is

12 incorrect.

13 It was just an issue of one possible thing to

14 look at.

15 Q. Anything else that you can recall

16 specifically?

17 A. That was the primary consideration.

18 Q. When you talk about the heterogeneity of the

19 K value, explain to me what you mean about that.

20 A. The model basically assumes a single K value,

21 at least the way Walker used it and Kadlec.

22 Q. That would be the settling rate?

23 A. The settling rate. That's assumed to be the

24 same everywhere, it has no variability, and the

25 question that arises is, well, is it possible that

1 there are sources, where it does vary spacially, and

2 what would be the implication of that.

3 Q. So the closer to the structures, you might

4 have a greater settling rate or a lesser settling rate?

5 A. Yes, and it would be different in space.

6 Q. Have you seen any work on this by anybody in

7 the case?

8 A. What I've done is, I've done some, if you

9 will, sensitivity analysis, where I partitioned the

10 WCA-2A, and tried to fit the data from that partition,

11 and seeing if I were to get different Ks. And --

12 Q. Did you?

13 A. Yes, of course. You would expect to get

14 different Ks.

15 Q. These partitions that you made, were these

16 partitions that you came up with, or did you use some

17 that Richardson came up with?

18 A. I came up with those partitions based on

19 input from Dr. Richardson.

20 Q. Do I recall correctly that one of the Duke

21 reports or one of the calculations on settling rate, he

22 used a partitioning approach to arrive at a settling

23 rate?

24 A. Right. His recommendation was primarily

25 based on what he thought vegetation types would be

1 represented by those partitions.

2 Q. In other words, where you had a lot of

3 cattails, you might call that one area. Then maybe not

4 so many cattails another area, and so forth?

5 A. Basically. Exploratory in nature. It's not

6 meant to be defined very precise, but just a general

7 breakdown of a reasonable way to break up the

8 partitions.

9 Q. Did you help to prepare for anybody else's

10 deposition during this --

11 A. Dr. Walker's recent deposition.

12 Q. You did that recently?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you do any other major work during this

15 period from December '92 until April '93?

16 A. No, I did not. The work I'm talking about

17 was done subsequent to that period.

18 Q. After this letter was sent in April '93, you

19 mentioned you had some correspondence in your file with

20 counsel.

21 MR. REID: Is that being marked as

22 privileged?

23 MR. BLANK: Correct. That's correspondence

24 from counsel.

25 MR. REID: From counsel to Dr. Marin?

1 MR. BLANK: Correct.

2 MR. REID: You're going to give us a list or

3 something of that?

4 MR. BLANK: Correct.

5 BY MR. REID:

6 Q. Let me just get a general idea of the counsel

7 correspondence.

8 Does it contain assignments, for instance,

9 for you?

10 A. Yes. In terms of well, can you make it to

11 this deposition, can you be here at --

12 Q. I meant work assignments in the case.

13 Substantive work assignments.

14 A. Not that I can think of.

15 Q. Does it contain any -- did it pass along any

16 data to you?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Was there ever a confirmation of an

19 acceptance of this April 28 proposal, or did you just

20 start working?

21 A. Verbal. Verbal.

22 Q. So, then, you began your work?

23 A. It wasn't probably until a couple of months

24 afterwards, that I remember.

25 Q. So --

1 A. Sometime in the summer.

2 Q. In the summer of '93?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You began your work?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Was there some reason that you didn't start

7 until then?

8 A. Scheduling.

9 Q. Your scheduling?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Were you given any deadlines?

12 A. At the time, no.

13 Q. I've been talking about you all the time.

14 Did anybody else at your company work on this project?

15 A. No, they did not.

16 Q. Even in a clerical way or doing computer work

17 or anything?

18 A. Making copies, but not doing anything else.

19 Q. Do you have time records of how much time

20 you've actually spent?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know how many hours you've spent

23 working on this project?

24 A. I can tell you from the billing. As I said,

25 it was about 50-some-thousand dollars last year, and

1 about 8,000 in '92, and last -- it's been pretty heavy

2 the last two months, 20 thousand something.

3 Q. That's your hourly rate?

4 A. $115 an hour.

5 Q. Give me an overview of your work in terms of

6 what you did. I don't mean your opinions and all, but

7 just kind of tell me how you went about it.

8 A. Okay. The first thing we did, that I did, is

9 try to see if I could reproduce Walker's analysis. And

10 the paper pretty much contained the data I needed to be

11 able to reproduce his work.

12 I set that up and I was able to get 10.2,

13 10.25, what power he used for the residuals. It wasn't

14 very much of an impact. So, we were able to reproduce

15 his work.

16 The other thing we did, we had some

17 additional data. Dr. Richardson had collected three

18 additional cores near the top of the WCA-2A structure.

19 WCA-2A. Near the gates. And one of the cores, he

20 found problems with it, the quality assurance, quality

21 control problems, so we only used two of those cores.

22 We then fitted the model to the additional

23 cores.

24 The other thing we did was partition the

25 WCA-2A area in different sets of partitions, and see if

1 we saw variability in the K. Then, the other thing we

2 looked at, was the sensitivity of that K, to each

3 individual core value.

4 Q. Of the three new ones or of all of them?

5 A. All of them.

6 The other thing we did do was to look at

7 reviving that issue about the non-zero settling --

8 non-zero intercept, by adding a constant term to the

9 settling rate Dr. Walker had and testing to see if that

10 proved to be significant or not. And the other thing

11 we've done, and that's been the major effort the last

12 three months, has been the uncertainty analysis, trying

13 to find out what the probability distribution of the

14 concentration predictions are for a given design.

15 Q. I think I got everything you said, except the

16 second thing. You said you fitted the data to

17 something; all the data, you said.

18 A. We were trying to look at the effect of each

19 data point on sensitivity, on the settling rate

20 estimate, and seeing how sensitive that K was to any --

21 settling rate was to any particular data point.

22 Q. So, to see if I have them then, you first

23 replicated Walker's work, and you found, you arrived at

24 the K he arrived at, 10.5, or whatever it is?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. 10.5?

2 A. 10.2.

3 Q. 10.2, I'm sorry.

4 Then you took the new core samples and used

5 those, that data, two of the three --

6 A. Right.

7 Q. -- in Walker's model?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Ignoring all the data that he used?

10 A. No, no. Using his data, also.

11 Q. You added these new ones to his?

12 A. Yes. We basically set up a bunch of

13 different data sets, and set up the model to see what

14 the effect would be.

15 Q. Then you determined the sensitivity or the

16 effect on the K value, to any one core sample?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. By that -- okay. I'll talk about that in a

19 minute.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. Then you partitioned WCA-2A, and in effect,

22 modeled, did a little model for each subpart?

23 A. No, I wouldn't call it a model. What we were

24 doing was basically fitting the model as if that was

25 the only data set you had.

1 Q. You took all the data points within that

2 partitioned area, and determined what K would be?

3 A. What if that was your only data, what would

4 you do?

5 Q. Exactly. Then finally, you added a constant,

6 such that you could test this zero intercept.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is that all you did?

9 A. And the uncertainty analysis.

10 Q. Then you did an overall uncertainty analysis

11 on Walker's work?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Assuming the data points that he used, only.

14 A. No. Uncertainty analysis -- let me clarify a

15 little bit.

16 We had a number of different data sets. None

17 of the uncertainty analysis was done on partitioned

18 data sets. Assuming we had one K, one settling rate

19 for the entire area.

20 The idea of the partitioning was to see if

21 you did get different settling rates and whether it

22 makes sense to then try to test hypotheses that those

23 Ks are, in fact, different.

24 The uncertainty analysis is based on several

25 data sets, one of them to look at the original data

1 set. Another set includes a look at the original data

2 set plus the two new cores.

3 I was also provided some data that Dr.

4 Patrick collected for some core data as well. That was

5 also included.

6 Then part of our sensitivity analysis showed

7 that one of the cores in particular, was very high

8 impact on the settling rate, and so, one of the data

9 sets was created, and let's see what happens if we

10 remove that.

11 Q. Which core was that?

12 A. A Reddy core, very close to the gates. R-10.

13 That's a notation that I got in my documents. So, that

14 was another data set.

15 For those data sets, we've done the

16 uncertainty analysis, and the uncertainty analysis is

17 two parts. First estimating the uncertainty in the

18 settling rate from the fitting procedures and taking

19 that uncertainty in settling rate, and the uncertainty

20 in the inputs of the design model, and seeing what the

21 effect is on the concentration for the actual design.

22 Q. The last thing you said, I didn't understand.

23 I didn't understand your alternatives. You said you

24 did two things?

25 A. It's all part of the same --

1 Q. I understand.

2 A. The first step is to find out the uncertainty

3 in the settling rate for the fitting process, where you

4 fit the data at WCA-2A.

5 Q. What do you mean by "fitting"?

6 A. Calibration process, where you estimate K,

7 try to find your uncertainty in the estimate of

8 settling rate, by using data in WCA-2A.

9 Then the next thing you need to do is look at

10 the uncertainty, which we did, look at the uncertainty

11 in the actual design for the actual STAs, which

12 incorporates the uncertainty in the settling rate

13 estimate to -- that was derived by fitting or deriving

14 it from the data in WCA-2A.

15 Q. So, the first would have been calculating or

16 calibrating the uncertainty or doing the uncertainty

17 analysis, basically in Walker's original model, with

18 his data?

19 A. What I'm calling the Walker 1993, March 1993

20 paper, yes, with his original, yes.

21 Q. Then, what's different about the second

22 uncertainty analysis?

23 A. Each of those -- it's all part of the

24 uncertainty analysis. Each of those are the steps that

25 go into the uncertainty analysis, and those were done

1 for three data sets.

2 The first step you need to do is figure out

3 what the uncertainty is in the fitting process or

4 calibration process, and then how that uncertainty

5 affects the design, and that's how I'm breaking it up

6 into two steps.

7 Q. Anything else that you did?

8 A. Can you go over the list, what we said?

9 Q. Okay. Maybe it's easier just to talk through

10 them. Replicating Walker, including the new core

11 samples, partitioning, that exercise, testing Walker's

12 zero intercept assumptions, and doing the uncertainty

13 analysis, using the various data sets that you had to

14 work with.

15 A. Correct. One other thing we did -- I just

16 thought of something. As part of the sensitivity

17 analysis, we specified what would happen if you were to

18 let the K vary with concentration, and see what would

19 happen.

20 That's sort of an exploratory test to

21 determine the -- if the K could be related to the

22 concentration, assuming a non-linear K.

23 Q. How would you do that? I mean --

24 A. We just specified that the settling rate was

25 a function, inverse function of the concentration.

1 Q. So, as the concentration --

2 A. Goes down, the settling rate would go up.

3 Inverse relation. See if that would test out.

4 Q. Was it a one to one kind of thing, or did you

5 have a formula that created that relationship?

6 A. It was a formula.

7 Q. Who came up with that formula?

8 A. It was just something I tried.

9 Q. Did anything come of that work?

10 A. For the original data, no. It was just an

11 exploratory test, and it didn't prove to be very

12 sensitive.

13 Q. I'm going to come over there, because I'm

14 going to run through these exhibits with you.

15 A. Okay.

16 Q. Then I'll go back.

17 The next exhibit will be a letter of March 9,

18 to me, from Bob Blank, with a list of documents.

19 Are these the documents that you read and

20 didn't reproduce to give to me?

21 A. I'm just making sure that the ones I know

22 I've been using are here.

23 (Pause.)

24 A. Yes. Essentially, yes.

25 Q. Was this background reading, in a sense?

1 A. Some of it was background reading. Some of

2 it was documents that I haven't gotten through, but I

3 do have in my possession, and some were documents I

4 actually used.

5 MR. REID: Let's mark this as Exhibit 4.

6 (The document referred to was thereupon

7 marked Marin Exhibit 4 for Identification.)

8 BY MR. REID:

9 Q. Let me have you tell me, first of all, which

10 ones you haven't read. Just call the numbers out.

11 A. Not read?

12 Q. Yes. That you have in your possession.

13 A. That I have not read?

14 Q. That you have not read.

15 A. I may have looked at this, but I don't think

16 I read No. 3.

17 No. 4.

18 I'm not sure what No. 5 is.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. That's fairly vague, but I'm sure I've seen

21 it.

22 Q. What?

23 A. No. 7, diagrams containing data --

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. Diagrams -- I haven't read this one.

1 Q. No. 9?

2 A. Right. When you say "read," what do you mean

3 by that? Have I skimmed through it? Have I read it,

4 and am going to use it and rely on it?

5 Q. You gave me three categories, and I was going

6 to go through each of the three. You gave me one you

7 didn't read. You gave me one that you read, and then

8 you gave me one that you read and you are actually

9 using.

10 A. How would you qualify skimming?

11 Q. Skimming would probably be not read. If you

12 are not going to use it --

13 A. Okay.

14 Q. What number?

15 A. I don't think I'm going to -- No. 14, I've

16 skimmed through it.

17 There's an oldie, I skimmed. I'm not going

18 to use that.

19 MR. BLANK: You're referring to No. 15.

20 A. 15, I'm sorry. 15.

21 I haven't read this one.

22 Q. No. 20?

23 A. Yes. If I have, I just skimmed through it.

24 I'm not exactly sure. I remember some vague

25 recollection of this document, and I may rely on it,

1 but I couldn't tell you right now.

2 Q. 22 is unknown at this point.

3 A. 24, I can't tell you. I know it's a Burns

4 and McDonnell document, but I couldn't tell you

5 specifically about that one.

6 That's pretty much it.

7 Q. Tell me the ones you actually relied on.

8 A. No. 1.

9 Q. Tell me what you relied on, as far as No. 1

10 goes.

11 A. No. 1, that's the March '93 paper. That lays

12 out the document -- I mean the model, the data, the

13 procedures used for fitting.

14 Q. That's what you are really critiquing or

15 analyzing?

16 A. Analyzing, yes. No. 2, there's some data,

17 water quality data in there, that I may rely on. I

18 will rely on.

19 I will rely on No. 6.

20 Q. In what way?

21 A. Simply that I've done an uncertainty

22 analysis, just for comparison purposes, to see what Dr.

23 Walker has done, in terms of what he thinks some of

24 these numbers are.

25 Q. That was an uncertainty analysis of Walker I

1 we're calling it?

2 A. Yes. Basically a reference to other ranges

3 of some parameters.

4 Q. So you used some of that?

5 A. Used it and/or will use it.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. I may use this document.

8 Q. No. 9?

9 A. Yes. I may use it, but I haven't decided.

10 No. 16, I have used it.

11 Q. In what regard?

12 A. In terms of the -- seeing how the data was

13 derived for the loadings, for the design -- in the

14 design.

15 Some of these are drafts, and there are

16 subsequent reports that are final. So, they might be a

17 previous document, and I'll probably rely on the most

18 recent document.

19 No. 19.

20 Q. What is that?

21 A. That's the recommended affected areas -- it's

22 probably "effective."

23 MR. BLANK: I think that would be a typo

24 there.

25 A. That's basically a design document. I'll

1 definitely use that.

2 Q. In what regard?

3 A. That specifies how a design is being modeled,

4 how the STAs are designed, how they're sized and how

5 the concentration is being predicted.

6 Q. How does that relate to Walker II?

7 A. That uses the Walker II model and the 10.2

8 settling rate, and takes that model and applies it to

9 the STAs and the sizing of the STAs, and predicting the

10 concentrations.

11 Q. How are you using that in your opinions?

12 A. In order to be able to predict how the

13 uncertainty analysis will affect those concentrations,

14 I need to know how the design is being made.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. I will use No. 21, or may use it, and I have

17 used it, and I'm not sure what that is.

18 Q. How are you using 21? That's the Reckhow

19 piece.

20 A. The way I would describe it is sort of a

21 laugh test to see if based on --

22 MR. BLANK: "Lab," L-A-B, or "Lap," L-A-P?

23 THE WITNESS: No, "Laugh," L-A-U-G-H.

24 A. It's sort of a laugh test, L-A-U-G-H. To see

25 if the general relationships that are shown for

1 wetlands will substantiate what this model is saying,

2 basically, and I'm not certainly going to use the model

3 Dr. Reckhow has looked at, but I will at least read his

4 paper to see about -- maybe use that model or a

5 different model.

6 Q. So, really, you are going to use that to sort

7 of test or confirm what you do, or otherwise, see if it

8 works?

9 A. See if what -- sort of part of verification

10 on a laugh test, does it make sense. Does it tell you

11 you are in the ballpark or not.

12 Q. What was his basic premise, Dr. Reckhow?

13 A. I think that there's a relationship between

14 the phosphorus concentration out of wetlands, versus a

15 loading coming in, areal loading. I'm not sure you

16 call it permanence, but that's the relationship it

17 showed.

18 MR. REID: Off the record.

19 (Discussion off the record.)

20 A. I'm not exactly sure about the No. 23. I'm

21 not exactly sure. I need to go back and review it, and

22 see what -- number 24, definitely. No. 25, definitely.

23 BMP stuff. No. 26, for sure. And No. 27.

24 MR. REID: Mark these as the next exhibits.

1 (The documents referred to were thereupon

2 marked Marin Exhibits 5-36 for Identification.)

3 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,

4 after which the following proceedings

5 were had:)

6 BY MR. REID:

7 Q. Let's look at the -- continuing to look at

8 exhibits, Exhibit 5, can you tell me what that is and

9 whether you are using it?

10 A. It's documentation of some work being done by

11 Tetro Tech.

12 Q. Why is it in your file?

13 A. It was fax'd to me by counsel. I will be

14 using the general -- in the sense that I will probably

15 be looking at fitting the model to both core and water

16 quality data. But in terms of using the results, I

17 will not be using the results. It's just sort of a

18 general description of what their results were.

19 Q. Have you completed your work? You've been

20 talking about will use or --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Tell me where you are.

23 A. In terms of fitting --

24 Q. In general. Have you finished all the work

25 you've done in this case?

1 A. The Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis spread

2 sheets are fairly well complete.

3 What we need to do is go back in and refine

4 what the parameters are going to be, and the

5 uncertainty analysis are.

6 I haven't discussed this with counsel. In

7 terms of additional work, I may or may not be doing

8 this, is to test the hypothesis that the settling rates

9 vary within the partitions, and those settling rates

10 are significant.

11 Q. You haven't done that yet?

12 A. No. One of the other things that would make

13 sense, would be to go back and estimating the settling

14 rate by -- for both water -- with both water quality

15 data and the core data.

16 Q. You haven't done that yet?

17 A. Right. Part of the problem of finalizing the

18 documentation, has been, for example, the data that I

19 finally use in my uncertainty analysis, I don't need

20 just the average data that Walker had in his paper, but

21 I need the entire ten or fifteen years to use, and I

22 had some files, electronic files that I got early this

23 year, and trying to make sense of those was just really

24 a hassle. And I finally got a kit with the input file

25 that Walker used for his model, March first. So that's

1 been part of the difficulty.

2 Q. Well, so, at this point, you're here today

3 prepared to testify to certain opinions that you've

4 been retained to reach. Is that correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. My question is, are you going to be coming in

7 with new opinions, or are you going to do new things,

8 between now and the trial in three weeks, or whatever

9 it is, four weeks?

10 A. I think the background work for some -- some

11 of the opinions are pretty final, and I go with -- I

12 can go over them with you, if you wish, but some of

13 those opinions will depend on what the results will be

14 of this fitting the data to both water quality data and

15 the core data and the finalization in terms of

16 finalizing the numbers in Monte Carlo. But the spread

17 sheet themselves are fairly final.

18 Q. Do you know how Tetro Tech calculated these

19 settling rates?

20 A. I have a general idea that they used water

21 quality data to fit -- to estimate the Ke values, and I

22 have a general understanding of what they are trying to

23 do, but in terms of the mechanics or the mathematics, I

24 have no idea what they did.

25 Q. Are any of the notes on these two pages

1 yours?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Just tell me what the notes say.

4 A. I have a hard time recognizing my

5 handwriting. Water column concentration was -- I think

6 in general, the general comment is that water column

7 concentration was used as opposed to core data. That's

8 the general meaning there. Bob Grabner, that's the

9 fellow I talked to at Tetro Tech.

10 This says, "Single prediction for the model,"

11 but I'm not sure exactly what it means or the

12 implications for that. What water quality data has

13 been questioned to me, if there were any estimates of

14 standard error. I couldn't find any. That's just Ke

15 3.3. It could have been part of the conversation I had

16 with Bob.

17 Q. "Ke" means what?

18 A. Settling rate.

19 Q. And "KM"?

20 A. Kilometers.

21 Q. It's not K sub m?

22 A. No. That's the estimated Ke.

23 Q. Right.

24 A. Using equation nine, that's my comment.

25 "What period?" Some questions to myself.

1 What period did they use? I think what I did

2 here, I took their data and fitted it, just a real

3 quick fit with the Walker II model, and got a Ke of 12,

4 using core data. That was real quick.

5 I wouldn't say that there was any reliability

6 to that number. That was just -- that was just a back

7 of the envelope type calculation.

8 Q. On the first column, the first page here,

9 they apparently are estimating the phosphorus settling

10 rates using the concentration data. That would be in

11 the core?

12 A. No. This is water quality data. That's my

13 understanding of what they did, yes.

14 Q. And they in effect were partitioning. Is

15 that correct?

16 A. Yes. Saying what if we only use data from

17 zero to five and zero to eight.

18 Q. What data were they using? What water

19 quality data were they using? Do you know?

20 A. Data collected from June '78 to February '84.

21 Q. You don't know by whom?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Whether it was the district --

24 A. I do not know.

25 Q. On the second page, they were estimating the

1 settling rate using concentration data, which I assume

2 is the same?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. And independent estimates, C and Q. What

5 does that mean?

6 A. They were using different values for the flow

7 rate and different values for the inlet concentrations

8 into the WCA-2A area.

9 Q. C, I can't read what sub is on that. One of

10 those is flow and one is inlet?

11 A. Where are you pointing out?

12 Q. These two.

13 A. C sub zero and Q sub zero.

14 Q. What are they?

15 A. C sub zero is the inlet concentration. Q sub

16 zero would be the inlet flow.

17 Q. Exhibit 6, what is that and why is it there?

18 A. This was one of the Walker -- it should be in

19 my other files. This was one of the Walker documents

20 that came out of the electronic files, and it was

21 useful for me in terms of summarizing data, data

22 sources, and that's a table from the Burns and

23 McDonnell document, looking at their sensitivity

24 analysis.

25 Q. Anything wrong with that?

1 A. No. I'm just using it as a reference for

2 comparative purposes.

3 Q. The rest of these would all be from Burns and

4 McDonnell?

5 A. Yes. That's the input table from Walker.

6 Q. From Walker. All we were just talking about

7 are contained in Exhibit 6.

8 MR. BLANK: How are we identifying Exhibit 6?

9 MR. REID: It's -- the bulk of it is Burns

10 and McDonnell, sensitivity analysis. There's also

11 electronic data that you received from Walker.

12 BY MR. REID:

13 Q. Exhibit 7 is what?

14 A. That is part of a document produced by Dennis

15 Lettenmaier, some uncertainty analyses he did, and it's

16 part of that document, or it goes with that document in

17 terms of references for other uncertainty analysis.

18 Q. By "that document," you mean the Walker

19 material we were just looking at?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I guess you may as well tell me, now, what is

22 a Monte Carlo simulation?

23 A. Monte Carlo simulation, it's a way to derive

24 a distribution, an output distribution, without having

25 to do it analytically, and it's done by generating

1 random numbers.

2 Q. Explain it to me in the context here.

3 A. In the context of uncertainty analysis, what

4 you could do is, if you knew what the probability

5 distributions were to an input, as inputs to some

6 model, you could try to derive analytically what the

7 output distribution's probability would be, and you

8 could try to do that analytically.

9 That's usually very, very difficult to do.

10 What you do is you generate random numbers from the

11 input data, run it through the model and then

12 accumulate the outputs that are now random, and derive

13 the distribution that way. It's a numerical technique,

14 if you will.

15 Q. I want you to repeat that using actual data,

16 you know, water quality, phosphorus levels,

17 concentrations or whatever. Whatever you are

18 comfortable doing.

19 A. Let's just take the case where I have a

20 model, where the flow is a random input.

21 Q. What do you mean by "random input"?

22 A. "Random input" means that the input to this

23 model is not fixed, it's not a single number, but

24 rather is governed by a distribution function.

25 Q. Sometimes you might have higher

1 concentrations of phosphorus in the water flowing, and

2 sometimes you might have lower?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. It varies over time, and you have no

5 consistency?

6 A. Right. We have a random distribution for the

7 flow, random distribution for the concentration. We

8 have this model that translates those inputs, the flow

9 and concentration, into an effluent concentration,

10 effluent flow.

11 Q. Effluent?

12 A. In this case you have a single value for flow

13 and concentration. You run it through the model and

14 get a single output out.

15 Q. Based on the amount of water that comes in,

16 and the concentration of whatever pollutant you are

17 dealing with, would lead to -- because once it comes

18 in, a certain amount comes out and you would determine

19 what the concentration is in the effluent or the water

20 that comes out?

21 A. I'm not sure I follow exactly what you just

22 said, but the general idea is you got a model that

23 translates some inputs, that are flow and

24 concentration, and gives you effluent concentration

25 that comes out.

1 Let's say you are interested in the effluent

2 concentration. You can take a single value from the

3 flow and a single value from the concentration, and

4 that would be the prediction. If the flows and

5 concentrations are random, you can try to do it

6 analytically.

7 Q. What do you mean by "analytically"?

8 A. You can try to derive analytically -- by

9 "analytically," you can try to derive what the

10 probability distribution of the effluent contribution

11 is, as a function of the probability distribution of

12 the influent flow as relates to the inputs and outputs.

13 Typically, that's very hard to do. What is

14 done is, you have this numerical technique called Monte

15 Carlo, where you generate random samples from each of

16 the distributions, run it through the model, and each

17 random sample creates one effluent concentration.

18 You repeat that many times and accumulate the

19 effluent concentrations, and that gives you an estimate

20 of the probability distribution of the concentration

21 effluent, or the output.

22 Q. Why do you do that?

23 A. Why do you do that? It depends on different

24 circumstances.

25 Q. Why would somebody be doing it regarding the

1 Walker model that we're working with?

2 A. That's a big question, but I'll try to give

3 you a short answer, and a legible one, too. Let's see.

4 Uncertainty analysis is very important in

5 terms of determining how variable your effluent

6 concentration predictions are going to be.

7 Q. Monte Carlo simulation is a subpart of an

8 uncertainty analysis?

9 A. It's a technique used in uncertainty

10 analysis, because there are some other approaches that

11 can be used. Monte Carlo is sometimes the easiest way

12 to do it.

13 Q. Then I understand why you want to do it. I

14 didn't understand that that was -- what you just told

15 me cleared it up.

16 A. I'm sorry.

17 Q. I thought it was something different. It's

18 just one of the ways you can test somebody's

19 hypothesis; right?

20 A. It's one of the ways that you can carry out

21 an uncertainty analysis. It's a technique for carrying

22 out an uncertainty analysis.

23 Q. What might your results be from one extreme

24 to the other? You might find that there's no

25 relationship between the two input parameters and the

1 output, or you might find out there's an amazingly

2 close relationship?

3 A. The Monte Carlo itself, in this case, is

4 designed to not test relationships, but simply say, if

5 the relationship is given in this way, and this is the

6 distribution of the inputs, that this is what the

7 probability distribution of the output is going to look

8 like.

9 Q. So, the -- Walker's already done that in the

10 first instance; is that right?

11 A. In the first instance --

12 Q. That was the purpose for what he was doing,

13 to try to develop a model that would be -- that could

14 be used as a predictor.

15 A. Let me try to clarify this, because I'm not

16 sure exactly what you are saying.

17 One thing is to develop a model, and estimate

18 the model and make a single prediction with it, and the

19 second thing is to try to predict what the uncertainty

20 associated with that prediction is.

21 Q. How good the prediction is?

22 A. Not necessarily how good, but how will it

23 vary. It may vary. How good the prediction is, that's

24 sort of a related question.

25 Q. Maybe you don't go as far as I'm assuming,

1 but as I understand, Walker has created a model, and

2 that model is going to be used to predict certain

3 activity, which will then be used to design, in this

4 case, the STAs.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. Your job is to find out by the subsequent

7 analysis or reanalysis of what he's done, whether or

8 not it's appropriate to use his model.

9 A. The Monte Carlo itself assumes that the model

10 is correct. So, it doesn't really -- the Monte Carlo

11 will not be used to say his model is wrong or not

12 wrong. It's going to be used to determine what in fact

13 his model is using and how uncertain are his

14 predictions, because there's uncertainty in the

15 settling rate, and there's uncertainty in the input

16 set, and he's going to create an uncertain output, and

17 it doesn't necessarily reflect on his model. His model

18 is -- we're assuming the model is correct, and that --

19 in the sense of the mechanics and the linkages between

20 the inputs and outputs are correct.

21 Q. What's the purpose of doing what you are

22 doing?

23 A. To give a realistic understanding of the

24 potential variability in the long term concentration

25 for a given design, or given an understanding of the

1 variability of the prediction, of the design.

2 Q. It sounds to me like you are being sort of

3 euphemistic there.

4 A. Yes. It's a subtle distinction.

5 Q. It sounds like you don't want to say that you

6 are trying to prove that Walker did something wrong.

7 That's not what you are doing, I guess?

8 A. An uncertainty analysis in itself -- there

9 are two separate issues. One is, sort of the -- is

10 whether the model mechanics are correct, whether the

11 estimate of value of Ke is correct. But there's

12 uncertainties.

13 I mean, Walker says there's uncertainties in

14 his Ke. He agrees to that. Those uncertainties are

15 going to produce an uncertain concentration.

16 He has done an uncertainty analysis for the

17 model one, I think, and the idea of the model is just a

18 representation of what the uncertainty in the

19 predictions are, and that the uncertainty could be the

20 variability of the flows.

21 My estimate of Ke is well known. My influent

22 is variable; that means my effluent is going to be

23 variable.

24 Q. You've been involved in litigation before.

25 A. Not being taken -- not taking depositions.

1 Q. But you've done work for lawyers?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You understand there are two sides.

4 A. Right.

5 Q. Do you understand what your role is in this

6 litigation, as compared to what Dr. Walker's role is?

7 A. In a general sense, yes.

8 Q. Tell me what you understand you are being

9 asked to do.

10 A. What I'm being asked to do is to review the

11 work that's been done by Dr. Walker, and see what the

12 uncertainty in the predictions are, and to see if the

13 model formulation in terms of the sensitivity of the

14 data is reasonable, and did he derive that value of Ke

15 correctly; has that been calibrated correctly.

16 Q. Is there a "Yes" or "No" answer to that?

17 A. To what?

18 Q. To that question, that series of questions.

19 Did he do that correctly or not?

20 A. I think the biggest -- biggest difference in

21 what we're talking about is just different data that

22 exists. It's not a question of correct or not correct.

23 There was some data he didn't have access to.

24 Q. The two cores you had?

25 A. And there's a question of one core and how

1 important that is. What I'm sort of saying, the

2 uncertainty analysis doesn't necessarily have to be

3 used or will be used to say he did everything

4 correctly. You can do an uncertainty analysis, but say

5 the value of Ke is incorrect, but it reflects the

6 uncertainty.

7 That particular technique does not

8 necessarily directly impact on whether that value of Ke

9 is right or wrong, or the model is right or wrong.

10 Q. That's just a function of whatever particular

11 subject matter you are dealing with? Some things just

12 by nature will be more uncertain than others?

13 A. Yes. The value of Ke will be uncertain,

14 because that doesn't fit the data exactly, and we're

15 simply trying to reflect what the uncertainty in that

16 does. But it doesn't necessarily -- that technique, by

17 itself, doesn't necessarily say that model is bad,

18 because it has a lot of variability.

19 Q. If you were modeling something -- give me an

20 example of a model that would have no variability.

21 Give me a simple example, the one extreme.

22 MR. BLANK: No variability or no uncertainty?

23 MR. REID: That's a good point.

24 Q. Either/or.

25 A. Either/or?

1 Q. I want you to give me a model that we can

2 then use as sort of our control. We will talk about --

3 A. No uncertainty in the inputs, no uncertainty

4 in the parameter specification, no uncertainty in the

5 model area.

6 Q. Give me an example.

7 A. There's no such animal.

8 Q. They wouldn't hire you, I guess, because then

9 you would just see it.

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. Okay. Let's keep talking.

12 I think -- did you tell me who you think did

13 this?

14 A. I believe it's Dennis Lettenmaier.

15 Q. Is he doing the same thing that you are

16 doing?

17 A. That was for the original Walker data, and

18 the design.

19 MR. BLANK: Can I see that exhibit a minute?

20 (Pause.)

21 BY MR. REID:

22 Q. Exhibit 8 is what?

23 A. That's a document that was given to me, that

24 may have some use in terms of the uncertainty analysis,

25 in terms of quantification of the variability inflows

1 and concentration.

2 MR. BLANK: Let me interrupt and reflect for

3 the record, this Exhibit 7 we identified is only

4 pages two and three of the report that Dr.

5 Lettenmaier prepared, which is an exhibit -- the

6 complete document is an exhibit to Dr.

7 Lettenmaier's deposition in this case.

8 MR. REID: Sure.

9 BY MR. REID:

10 Q. Do you have any idea or do you know anything

11 about what Dr. Lettenmaier is doing in this case?

12 A. Only in a very general sense.

13 Q. What do you understand he's doing?

14 A. Something to do with water quality at the

15 Refuge. Something to do with the time stream of

16 payments, but I don't know, really.

17 Q. But part of it, at least in part, he's doing

18 an uncertainty analysis?

19 A. That was work he had done earlier, yes. That

20 document is simply to get some ranges that he used and

21 compare them.

22 Q. Exhibit 8, you were saying someone gave you?

23 A. Yes. This is a document prepared, I believe,

24 by, I think Dr. Walker, and the idea was simply to look

25 at his data and see if it could be used for the Monte

1 Carlo.

2 Q. Did you use it?

3 A. Not right now, I haven't used it.

4 Q. Are these handwritten notes in here, your

5 notes?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. On page 3, there's a sentence, "Assuming that

8 the STAs perform similarly to these other wetland

9 treatment systems," and then it goes on, and you have

10 "Big assumption." Why do you put that there?

11 A. Just an assumption.

12 Q. Why is it a big assumption?

13 A. I don't think there's any significance to

14 that.

15 Q. Do you believe they will, or do you believe

16 they won't, or do you have an opinion about it?

17 A. I think there's a question about

18 transferability of the K value, but it's not clear to

19 me right now whether it is transferable or how

20 untransferable it is.

21 Q. From these other various North American

22 wetland systems that Kadlec reports?

23 A. Let me see. I guess it's a very vague

24 statement, also, "perform similarly." What do you mean

25 by that?

1 Yes, it should probably perform within the

2 range. The question is, what I was thinking about

3 more, whether if you can take a Ke derived in one

4 WCA -- in WCA-2A and say that's going to be the Ke at

5 the STAs. That's an assumption.

6 Q. You don't have an opinion whether the WCA-2A

7 experience is transferable to the STA design?

8 A. My opinion is, there is some question about

9 the transferability, but I don't have an answer to it,

10 yes or no, it is not transferable, but I think it's an

11 issue.

12 Q. Do you have an answer as to how probable it

13 is, that relationship?

14 A. No. It would require some additional

15 analysis.

16 Q. You haven't done it?

17 A. No.

18 Q. What is the note on page 4 in your hand?

19 Something "control assumption"?

20 A. Let me see. "Another critical assumption."

21 Q. "Another critical assumption." Again, it has

22 to do with comparing WCA-2 to something else. Is that

23 correct?

24 A. It says, "Quantification of this benefit is

25 difficult."

1 Q. Then on page six, you have a note, and the

2 specific comment is, "The long term flow weighted mean

3 discharge concentration is less than or equal to the 50

4 PPB design objective."

5 When you commented on that, what did you say

6 about that?

7 A. That's the -- the way, you know, the

8 hypothesis, innocent until proven guilty or guilty

9 until proven innocent. That's just a given that --

10 Q. Then on page 8, there's a -- you have a

11 comment, a question mark. Why don't you read the

12 comment to me first? Then I'll see if we need to talk

13 about it.

14 A. It's just saying that there's a 10 percent

15 chance that you would reject the hypothesis

16 incorrectly. It's a statement of what he's saying, 10

17 percent.

18 Q. Exhibit 9 is the Qian-Reckhow paper. You

19 told me previously how you intend to use that. As a

20 laugh test, I think you said.

21 A. I think the -- that the general idea is to

22 look at that data set, and see if you are within the

23 ballpark, and see if it makes sense.

24 Q. What data sets was he using? Do you

25 remember?

1 A. I think he was using -- I'm not sure, but I

2 know that he is not using the -- the data set Dr.

3 Kadlec was using, and our intention was to use the same

4 data Dr. Kadlec was using, and we just got that data

5 two days ago.

6 Q. Actually, I thought he was using Kadlec and

7 WCA-2A data.

8 A. It's not clear to me.

9 Q. I took his deposition. I thought that's what

10 he said.

11 A. The understanding I have -- well --