STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

OF FLORIDA, a Florida )

Agricultural Cooperative )

Marketing Association, ROTH )

FARMS, INC., AND WEDGWORTH )

FARMS, INC., )

)

and )

)

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;)

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;)

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) CASE NOS. 92-3038

) 92-3039

and ) 92-3040

)

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )

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

and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. )

)

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT, an Agency of the State)

of Florida, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF )

FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF )

AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

and the FLORIDA WILDLIFE )

FEDERATION, )

)

Intervenors. )

________________________________)

DEPOSITION OF RUSSELL B. RADER, PH.D.

250 Australian Avenue South

Clearlake Center

Suite 1403

West Palm Beach, Florida

November 5, 1992

9:23 A.M.

A P P E A R A N C E S:

FOR PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE

SOUTH, INC.:

PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK

BY: WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQ.

One Biscayne Tower

Suite 3636

Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

(305) 358-3000

FOR RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

VICKI O'MEARA,

ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

LINDA COLLINS HERTZ,

ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: SUZAN HILL PONZOLI,

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Southern District of Florida

155 South Miami Avenue

Suite 627

Miami, Florida 33130-1693

(305) 536-4425

A P P E A R A N C E S (continued):

FOR THE WITNESS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, AND THE DUKE

WETLAND CENTER:

GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.

BY: DAVID P. ACKERMAN, ESQ.

Phillips Point

Suite 500 East

777 South Flagler Drive

P.O. Box 4587

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-4587

(407) 650-0541

ALSO PRESENT:

RONALD D. JONES, PH.D.

MARK MAFFEI, PH.D.

HERBERT J. GRIMSHAW, PH.D.

1 The deposition of RUSSELL B. RADER, PH.D., a

2 witness of lawful age, taken for the purpose of discovery

3 and for use as evidence in the above-styled cause,

4 pending in the Division of Administrative Hearings, State

5 of Florida, pursuant to Notice, before Pamela S. Wilson,

6 Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large,

7 at the time and place aforesaid.

8 * * * * * * *

9 I N D E X

10 WITNESS DIRECT

11 RUSSELL B. RADER, PH.D.

(By Ms. Ponzoli) 7

14 E X H I B I T S

15 RADER EXHIBIT FOR IDENTIFICATION

1(1-7) Deposition Notice 9

16 2(1-4) Witness's CV 21

3(1-9) "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment

17 on Algae and Macroinvertebrates

in the Everglades: A Review" 24

18 4(1-43) "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment

on Algae and Macroinvertebrates

19 in the Everglades: A Review" 24

5(1-30) "The Effects of Eutrophication

20 on Algae and Macroinvertebrates

in the Everglades" 24

21 6(1-3) Correspondence between the witness

and Dr. de la Cruz in 4-92

22 7(1-2) Letter dated February 6 24

8(1-41) "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment

23 on Algae and Macroinvertebrates

in the Everglades: A Review" 24

24 9(1-54) "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment

on Algae and Macroinvertebrates

25 in the Everglades: A Review" 24

10 Letter dated May 14, 1992 24

1 E X H I B I T S

2 RADER EXHIBIT FOR IDENTIFICATION

11(1-11) Correspondence re: "The Effects of

3 Eutrophication . . ." 24

12(1-10) "Guide to Electronic Manuscript

4 Preparation" 24

13(1-65) Unpublished paper entitled "Changes

5 in Invertebrates and Small Fish

Along a Nutrient Enrichment Gradient

6 in the Everglades" 24

14(1-7) Paper entitled "The Effects of

7 Agricultural Run-off on Small Fish

and Macroinvertebrates in the

8 Everglades" 24

15(1-7) Initial copy of Exhibit No. 14 24

9 16 Abstract entitled "SWS '92" 24

17 Abstract entitled "Intecol '92" 24

10 18 Abstract Form 24

19(1-68) Quarterly report folder 24

11 20(1-39) Site notes and site coordinates 49

21(1-3) Invertebrate samples 49

12 22(1-10) Core data and miscellaneous notes 49

23(1-38) Inventory of samples 49

13 24(1-75) Documents entitled "Preliminary

Analyses" 49

14 25(1-174) Documents entitled "Preliminary" 49

26(1-113) Documents entitled "2nd Step -

15 Gradient Study" 49

27(1-17) Summary of data 49

16 28(1-57) Final summary and analysis of data 49

29 Calculations (cover only -

17 exhibit later subdivided) 49

30(1-62) Cores data 49

18 31(1-210) Oxygen and pH data 49

32(1-60) Notes on identification of species 49

19 33(1-7) Notes from field book 49

34(1-18) Summary of weekly meetings 49

20 35(1-5) Summaries of experimental designs 49

36(1-2) Map with sites circled 51

21 37(1-63) Percent similarity calculations 62

38(1-18) Rarity index 64

22 39(1-10) Summary data 64

40(1-62) Summary tables 65

23 41(1-16) Summary tables 66

42 Map of Water Conservation

24 Areas 1, 2, and 3 72

43(1-13) Slides primarily on invertebrate

25 data 84

44(1-9) Summary tables 84

1 E X H I B I T S

2 RADER EXHIBIT FOR IDENTIFICATION

45(1-14) Tables and figures 84

3 46(1-10) Figures and tables 84

47(1-13) Slides prepared for presentations 84

4 48(1-14) Slides and outlines prepared

for presentations 84

5 49(1-3) Printout of Disk No. 1 menus 96

50 Printout of Disk No. 2 menus 96

6 51(1-8) Printout of Disk No. 3 menus 96

52(1-2) Printout of Disk No. 4 menus 96

7 53(1-13) Printout of Disk No. 5 menus 96

54(1-9) Printout of Disk No. 6 menus 96

8 55(1-3) Printout of Disk No. 7 menus 96

56(1-17) Printout of Disk No. 8 menus 96

9 57 Miscellaneous slides 115

58 Miscellaneous slides 115

10 59 Miscellaneous slides 115

60 Miscellaneous slides 115

11 61 Miscellaneous and fertilizer slides 115

62 Fertilizer slides 115

12 63 Fertilizer slides 115

64 Talk/data slides 115

13 65 Talk/data slides 115

66 Talk/data slides 115

14 67 Dosing study slides 115

68 Dosing study slides 115

15 69 Dosing study slides 115

70 Dosing study slides 115

16 71 Dosing study slides 115

72 Dosing study slides and blanks 115

1 Whereupon:

2 RUSSELL B. RADER, PH.D.,

3 was called as a witness by the Respondent-Intervenor and,

4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified

5 as follows:

6 DIRECT EXAMINATION

7 BY MS. PONZOLI:

8 Q Sir, would you state your full name for the

9 record.

10 A Russell B. Rader.

11 Q And your address, Dr. Rader.

12 A Work or at home?

13 Q I think your work address would be --

14 A 16139 Okeechobee Boulevard -- let's see.

15 We're in Loxahatchee, Florida.

16 Q Your phone number there?

17 A 790-0843.

18 Q By whom are you employed, Dr. Rader?

19 A Duke University.

20 Q Dr. Rader, I'm Suzan Hill Ponzoli. I

21 represent the United States in the SWIM challenges. I'll

22 be asking you today, really, to identify the multiple

23 documents that you have produced in response to the

24 Notice Duces Tecum.

25 Have you ever had your deposition taken

7ÿ

1 before, Dr. Rader?

2 A No.

3 Q If you do not understand a question, it's

4 important that you indicate that to me because we will

5 assume that you understood the question when you answer,

6 and I will be happy to try and frame a better question

7 for you if you're having difficulty understanding my

8 question.

9 A Okay.

10 Q You are represented here by one or two

11 counsel.

12 What is it, gentlemen?

13 MR. ACKERMAN: My name is David Ackerman. I

14 represent the witness for the limited purpose of

15 assisting the witness in protecting the

16 confidentiality of certain trade-secrets

17 documents, which we'll talk about in a second,

18 but I also represent Duke University and the Duke

19 Wetland Center.

20 I have no representation of the witness or

21 any of those parties in connection with the

22 merits of this case or the outcome of this case

23 and don't know very much about it at all.

24 MR. HYDE: My purpose in being here is on behalf

25 of the petitioners, Florida Sugar Cane League,

8ÿ

1 U.S. Sugar Corporation, and New Hope South, Inc.

2 Dr. Rader is one of our listed witnesses, and

3 that is obviously the reason why we are here

4 today.

5 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, have you seen a

6 copy of the Renotice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum

7 that should have been served on you?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Let me have it marked for identification,

10 and let's go through it together.

11 What we have been doing, gentlemen, in the

12 prior depositions at which I was in attendance,

13 possibly with the exception of Dr. Parks's, is we

14 have been calling them Johnson Exhibit 1, Johnson

15 Exhibit 2 and --

16 MR. HYDE: Fine.

17 MS. PONZOLI: -- this would be Rader Exhibit 1.

18 MR. HYDE: That's fine.

19 MS. PONZOLI: So we will number them in that

20 manner.

21 (Rader Exhibit 1(1-7) was marked

22 for identification by the reporter and is

23 included herewith.)

24 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Ackerman, do you want to make a

25 statement on the record?

9ÿ

1 MR. ACKERMAN: I just wanted to give the witness

2 an instruction about the documents that he has

3 produced.

4 Our intent is to file some sort of a

5 Motion for Protective Order as to the documents

6 that Dr. Rader has produced to which we would

7 claim the trade-secrets privilege under the

8 Florida Evidence Code. Because Dr. Rader has

9 already produced those documents, they're

10 obviously in the stream of documents in this

11 litigation, but we will be asking the hearing

12 officer to limit their use for purposes of the

13 litigation only and not to allow their use for

14 outside scientific, commercial, or

15 patent-oriented uses.

16 Dr. Rader has not had the opportunity to

17 provide me with a list of those documents but

18 plans to, and I'm going to ask him today, in

19 answering questions about the documents, to let

20 you know when he comes across a document that

21 would fall within that privilege. And we'll take

22 up at a later time the filing of the motion and

23 the briefing on it.

24 The other instruction that I would give

25 him would concern the three pieces of paper which

10ÿ

1 we did not produce yesterday during the

2 deposition of Robert Johnson. Those were two

3 documents. One was a schematic, and the other

4 one was a parts list. I understand Dr. Rader has

5 no personal knowledge about the details of those

6 two documents and could not testify very much

7 about those at all.

8 So to the extent that any specifics of

9 those documents pop into your mind, I'm going to

10 instruct you not to provide that information.

11 Any question that you are asked about those,

12 please provide the lawyers with all of the

13 personal knowledge and information you have about

14 those with the sole and narrow exception of the

15 details contained within the schematic and parts

16 list that Mr. Johnson is concerned about.

17 And lastly, I will say, because I'm going

18 to be leaving, that we've had no involvement in

19 compliance with the subpoena, and if an issue

20 comes up, I'm available to the extent that I can

21 be helpful. Thanks.

22 MS. PONZOLI: Is it accurate, Mr. Ackerman, that

23 the compliance with the subpoena has been handled

24 by Mr. Hyde's firm?

25 MR. ACKERMAN: I would assume so.

11ÿ

1 MS. PONZOLI: You do not know?

2 MR. ACKERMAN: I do not know.

3 MR. HYDE: I can represent that that is indeed

4 the case. I have not had anything to do with

5 Mr. Johnson's documents that Mr. Ackerman

6 referred to a few moments ago, and even if I had

7 seen them, I wouldn't understand them anyway.

8 MS. PONZOLI: Mr. Ackerman, I would just like to

9 put on the record that I can certainly understand

10 Dr. Rader's concern. I assume this is over his

11 raw data and the use of it by someone else for

12 duplication purposes. That is my assumption. I

13 can certainly sympathize with that, but I would

14 like the record to reflect that this particular

15 litigation has evolved in many forms.

16 As we are all well aware, it started in

17 Federal Court and federal scientists have, for

18 years now, been compelled by, in particular,

19 Mr. Hyde's firm to produce their raw data and the

20 results of all their personal research into the

21 public stream of information. And the dominant

22 reason for that production was that it was data

23 generated by public funds and therefore felt to

24 belong to the public.

25 Those scientists felt those same painful

12ÿ

1 experiences of years of hard work being turned

2 into the public domain, but it was done. And I

3 believe, in fairness, this issue is on the other

4 foot, and perhaps it is only fair that the data

5 generated at the public's expense, which it is

6 the EPD which I understand to have funded

7 Dr. Rader's work, would again belong to the

8 public domain.

9 I want this on the record simply because

10 it is a fact that has gone on in the ongoing

11 process of this public debate over the nature of

12 the Everglades and the problems and the

13 resolution. And I guess we'll have to deal with

14 the briefs when they're filed.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: The only thing I would add is that

16 we would certainly entertain any discussions

17 about documents that your side has produced about

18 which the scientists are concerned insofar as

19 arriving at a reciprocal arrangement. I would

20 certainly be willing to pursue discussions like

21 that or any other discussions designed to resolve

22 the issues short of briefing and a hearing

23 officer.

24 MS. PONZOLI: Certainly.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: But I appreciate your position.

13ÿ

1 MR. HYDE: I'd like you to know that Dr. Rader is

2 producing all his documents here today. There is

3 no question here about our depriving the

4 respondents of any access to any of his

5 information or data.

6 Secondly, I don't think that,

7 Ms. Ponzoli's concerns about the data generated

8 by the federal scientists notwithstanding,

9 there's any credible claim that that information

10 or data has been misused for someone else's

11 proprietary purposes or commercial advantage, and

12 there's certainly no intent that that ever occur.

13 We are seeking -- or I think what Duke

14 Wetland Center and Dr. Rader are seeking is that

15 their information not be provided to some

16 commercial or professional advantage.

17 MS. PONZOLI: I really have to tell you that I've

18 been around this block with my own scientists so

19 many times that I pretty much understand the

20 issues that are at stake here.

21 MR. HYDE: Well, it's all part of the publish or

22 perish process of academia --

23 MS. PONZOLI: Right.

24 MR. HYDE: -- not solely --

25 MS. PONZOLI: It's not so much a commercial

14ÿ

1 advantage as a professional use of it, and I

2 think we're just going to have to see if we can

3 resolve it among ourselves. I do believe there

4 are some of my scientists that feel they have

5 suffered that impediment, in fact, but let me see

6 how they feel.

7 And if there is protection that can be

8 offered to them in exchange for the research

9 generated under the Environmental Protection

10 District or the Everglades Protection District --

11 MR. HYDE: Yes.

12 MS. PONZOLI: -- and if that's possible, that

13 would certainly be desirable.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree with that.

15 MR. HYDE: It would be desirable to come up with

16 an agreement that would take care of all of those

17 problems --

18 MS. PONZOLI: Okay.

19 MR. HYDE: -- so we don't have to deal with this

20 in the future.

21 MS. PONZOLI: There's no intention to cause that.

22 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you for your time.

23 MS. PONZOLI: I would like to -- I think it will

24 just be easier, Mr. Ackerman, if you wait one

25 second.

15ÿ

1 Q Dr. Rader, do you have any knowledge of the

2 three pages that were withheld as, quote, trade secrets

3 by Mr. Johnson yesterday?

4 A Knowledge of them?

5 Q Yes.

6 A As in whether they exist or not?

7 Q What do you know about them? Why don't you

8 tell me that.

9 A I have -- I don't think I've even seen them.

10 Q You simply know that there are such pages

11 that are in dispute?

12 A That's all I know.

13 Q And you do not know what they look like or

14 what's on the three pages?

15 A No idea, no -- well, other than they're

16 electronic diagrams pertaining to the dosing study.

17 That's the full extent of my understanding.

18 MS. PONZOLI: That's fine.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. Thanks.

20 (Whereupon Mr. Ackerman left the deposition

21 proceedings.)

22 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, I would ask you

23 to look at the Rader Exhibit No. 1. I would like to go

24 through this. Is it your understanding, Dr. Rader, that

25 you have produced all documents in response to this

16ÿ

1 Notice Duces Tecum?

2 A Yes.

3 Q As I explained to you prior to the

4 deposition starting, because you have some number of

5 computer disks that were produced to my office, I guess,

6 the day before -- yes. I'm not sure if it's yesterday,

7 day before yesterday. And because the slides are several

8 hundred slides --

9 A I don't think it's that many. But 50.

10 Q Oh, you only have about 50 slides?

11 A I think so.

12 Q Well, your 50 slides were produced yesterday

13 in addition to the hard copy of raw data and certain

14 articles that exist here. The intention for the

15 beginning of your deposition is that it would really be a

16 document identification, that you will identify these

17 documents in response to the different requests and

18 identify which data belongs to which categories so that

19 we may sit and go through your documents in some rational

20 fashion before questioning you substantively, which will

21 in all probability occur in December.

22 A I have a question about the slides. I have

23 copies of the disks, but those are my original slides.

24 Q Right.

25 A When would I be receiving those?

17ÿ

1 MR. HYDE: They're going to be, just for

2 purposes -- we didn't discuss those. They're to

3 be delivered here this morning by Federal Express

4 courier. I don't know what time Federal Express

5 gets to this office, but it's supposed to be

6 sometime this morning.

7 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Just so you are aware, in

8 the process by which the parties exchange documents,

9 neither party ever takes possession of the other party's

10 documents.

11 A Uh-huh.

12 Q They are sent to a commercial copier who, at

13 the instruction of both your attorney's and my office,

14 will make duplicate copies of them. That was done with

15 your slides. I have a set of slides that should be

16 arriving here prior to your set this morning, and we will

17 probably talk from my duplicate set. But at no time did

18 I ever have possession of your original documents.

19 A Okay. I was just wondering when I get them

20 back.

21 Q Yes. All right. I would like -- and I know

22 this may be difficult for you, Dr. Rader, but it's very

23 important to us, and I think in a while it will be

24 important to you, when we do your substantive deposition,

25 that you make sure that everything that you did produce

18ÿ

1 has somehow been copied here and that we have possession

2 of. If you believe there's a gap, I don't think Mr. Hyde

3 will have any problem in providing that gap, refilling it

4 so that we have a full set of your documents.

5 A Well --

6 Q I am concerned that, because of the multiple

7 productions, it would be hard to be sure that we have it

8 all.

9 A You know, I went to my files and, to the

10 best of my knowledge, gave you everything that I had that

11 pertained to the Everglades.

12 Q Right.

13 A I don't memorize each and every one. I

14 don't have it cataloged in my brain. As you can see,

15 it's a lot of material; so if something is missing here,

16 all I can say is, to the best of my knowledge, I gave it

17 to you and whether something got lost or not, can I go

18 through and --

19 Q That's what I'm asking.

20 A If you're asking me to make sure if

21 everything's there that I gave you, I don't know.

22 Q I'm asking you to make an effort.

23 A Okay.

24 Q It may be there's a dominant piece of

25 publication, and as we go to through the four to six

19ÿ

1 inches of hard copy, you'll realize and say, "Mr. Hyde,

2 Ms. Ponzoli" --

3 A I can do that.

4 Q -- "my publication is not here."

5 And Mr. Hyde will turn it over to me. Or if

6 there is a critical set of your data that you know exists

7 that you believe you turned over to someone to turn over

8 to us, and somehow, in the translation, we don't find it

9 today, we need to fill that gap. That's what I'm asking.

10 I'm not asking that every sheet be accounted for because

11 I realize that may be very difficult for you.

12 A Okay.

13 Q That's what I'm asking.

14 A Your question makes we want to run home and

15 make sure I gave you everything. I hope I got it all.

16 Q We have not lost anything, but it's because

17 we do the things in the same manner that nothing gets

18 lost. All right.

19 The documents to be produced -- let's start

20 first with a copy of your CV or similar document. If we

21 could pull that from the pile, and let's mark it for

22 identification, and we'll just keep moving. I won't

23 question you on it at this time.

24 A Okay. I didn't see it in this stack, my CV.

25 Was it in here?

20ÿ

1 Q Why don't you just hand me one.

2 A I'm pretty sure I didn't see it here. Let

3 me look one more time. Here you go.

4 MS. PONZOLI: Let's mark this for identification.

5 (Rader Exhibit 2(1-4) was marked

6 for identification by the reporter and is

7 included herewith.)

8 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, is this a

9 current copy of your curriculum vitae, or resume,

10 whatever you prefer to call it?

11 A Yes. There might be actually some more

12 recent updates, but yeah, uh-huh.

13 Q What would you update on it?

14 A This paper on the "Determinants of

15 Decomposition in a Southeastern Coastal Plain, Blackwater

16 Stream," we received back. It's no longer in review.

17 That's the only thing.

18 Q That one would not be in review?

19 A Right.

20 Q Is there anything else that's listed for

21 review that's now been received for publication?

22 A No.

23 Q Have you submitted anything in addition to

24 anything that's on this list?

25 A No.

21ÿ

1 Q We need to put these in a pile, if you'll

2 give me this one. All right. No. 2 is "A list of all

3 technical, professional, or scientific publications,

4 reports, monographs, articles, monographs, thesis, or

5 similar documents in which you are identified as author

6 or co-author related to Everglades research."

7 A Are they all here is the question.

8 Q Did you produce a list, or did you just

9 produce copies of them?

10 A Copies.

11 Q So we go to a copy of each Everglades

12 publication. That includes drafts, edited copies,

13 reviewers' comments, and the final versions under No. 3.

14 You paid attention to that --

15 A Uh-huh.

16 Q -- did you not?

17 I would like us to look through and make

18 sure we have, to the best of your knowledge, all of those

19 documents.

20 A This one is in publication, or it's already

21 been published.

22 Q We'll get them together, and then we will

23 mark them for identification. It would probably be best

24 if you just pull them first.

25 MR. HYDE: Ms. Ponzoli, I don't know how we'll

22ÿ

1 handle this. A number of documents would fall

2 under several of the categories that you've

3 listed.

4 MS. PONZOLI: That's fine.

5 MR. HYDE: Do you intend to go through each of

6 those categories each time?

7 MS. PONZOLI: No. Once he's said, I've produced

8 everything previously -- my request became fairly

9 redundant after a while. I wanted everything he

10 did on the Everglades, and I asked for it a

11 number of different ways.

12 THE WITNESS: The quarterly reports. Looks like

13 a paper I'm currently working on.

14 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: What you should probably

15 do, Dr. Rader, instead of commenting on each of these is

16 pull them aside, and then I'll have her mark them for

17 identification. I'm afraid I'm going to forget as you

18 give me these comments because we'll have to mark them

19 separately.

20 A Okay. Okay. These two. They've included

21 abstracts. Did you not?

22 Q Yes, we did.

23 A Let's see. It goes with this one, I

24 believe. I'm not sure.

25 Q With that one?

23ÿ

1 A With that stack, yeah.

2 Q Is that it?

3 A That's it from that stack, yeah.

4 Q Dr. Rader, do you believe that these

5 represent all of your written work on the Everglades?

6 A I believe so, yes.

7 Q All right.

8 A You've got that one, that one, and that one

9 (indicating).

10 Q Let's mark them for identification. What I

11 may want to do is go through the annual reports and make

12 sure your writing in the annual reports is reflected in

13 these reports or, if these are additional articles maybe

14 on the same topic but still --

15 A Uh-huh.

16 Q -- your publications, let's mark these all

17 and then begin to talk about them.

18 Off the record.

19 (Discussion off the record.)

20 (Rader Exhibits 3(1-9), 4(1-43), 5(1-30),

21 6(1-3), 7(1-2), 8(1-41), 9(1-54), 10, 11(1-11),

22 12(1-10), 13(1-65), 14(1-7), 15(1-7), 16, 17, 18,

23 and 19(1-68), were marked for identification by the

24 reporter and are included herewith.)

25 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, I'm going to

24ÿ

1 hand you Rader Exhibit No. 3. Can you identify this for

2 us, please.

3 A Yeah. That's the final copy of this

4 particular publication sent for "Wetlands."

5 Q Would you read the name of it into the

6 record, please.

7 A "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Algae

8 and Macroinvertebrates in the Everglades: A Review."

9 Q I'm going to hand you Rader Exhibit No. 4.

10 Can you identify that, Dr. Rader?

11 A This is a review of this same paper by the

12 first reviewer that -- that -- and also, as I see, this

13 same review was made by de la Cruz on this same paper,

14 this same copy of this paper. So there's reviewer

15 No. 1's comments, and what were in red were de la Cruz's

16 comments, which was a third reviewer on this particular

17 paper.

18 Q Who was the first reviewer, Dr. Rader?

19 A They're anonymous.

20 Q So you have no idea who your first reviewer

21 was?

22 A Let's see. One of the reviewers signed his

23 name. I don't know if he was the first or the second.

24 James Kushlan and de la Cruz identified themselves. The

25 other reviewer, I don't know. He's anonymous.

25ÿ

1 Q So you don't know if this was the anonymous

2 reviewer or the Kushlan?

3 A I don't remember.

4 Q I'm going to hand you Rader Exhibit No. 5.

5 A This is the second reviewer's comments.

6 Q So this is either Kush --

7 A This would be either Kushlan or the

8 anonymous reviewer's comments. I can look at it and tell

9 you probably.

10 Q Okay.

11 A Do you want me to do that?

12 Q Okay. That would be fine.

13 A Let me see if I remember it well enough. I

14 think I remember who -- yeah. This is the anonymous

15 reviewer's, was reviewer No. 2. James Kushlan was

16 reviewer No. 1, and de la Cruz also was, I guess, the

17 third reviewer.

18 Q I'm going to hand you Rader Exhibit No. 6,

19 Dr. Rader. Can you identify that?

20 A These were Dr. de la Cruz's comments on this

21 paper to the editor, Doug Wilcox -- no. Excuse me -- to

22 me. These are his -- this is a notice from him to me,

23 saying that he's handling, as a third reviewer, this

24 manuscript.

25 Q Dr. Rader, Rader Exhibit No. 7?

26ÿ

1 A These are my remarks to Dr. Wilcox on the

2 revision of this manuscript -- excuse me.

3 Q I'm handing you Rader Exhibit 8, and can you

4 identify that?

5 A It's the penultimate copy made of that; so a

6 copy of this paper, after it has -- the reviewer's

7 comments have been made or changed on it.

8 Q And that would be essentially the same as

9 Rader Exhibit No. 3?

10 A Which one was No. 3?

11 Q "The Effects of Nutrient Enrichment . . ."

12 Yes.

13 A There might be some minor changes but

14 essentially the same, yes.

15 Q Is Rader Exhibit 9 the same --

16 A The same as 8.

17 Q -- to your recollection?

18 It's just another duplicate copy?

19 A Yeah.

20 Q Rader Exhibit 10, can you identify that?

21 A Yeah. This is the acceptance letter after

22 the reviews by Doug Wilcox to myself.

23 Q Raider Exhibit No. 11, can you identify

24 that?

25 A This is his first letter. Maybe we better

27ÿ

1 separate some of these. This is his first letter.

2 Q "This" being -- you'd better identify it

3 into the record. The one that has the Rader Exhibit 11

4 stamp actually on it is the first letter?

5 A Right, and that's Dr. Wilcox's first letter

6 to me --

7 Q Right.

8 A -- that accompanied the first reviewers'

9 comments, one and two.

10 Q But this is a composite exhibit. It

11 contains more documents.

12 A And they're different; so maybe they ought

13 to be separate --

14 Q Well, maybe they should.

15 A -- because this is my cover letter that

16 accompanied the paper at the time of submission.

17 Q That is a letter dated to Dr. Wilcox dated

18 9-13-91, typed in "Russell B. Rader." Is that accurate,

19 Dr. Rader?

20 A Right.

21 MR. HYDE: Are you going to separately identify

22 those as exhibits or just leave them as part of a

23 composite?

24 MS. PONZOLI: I'm inclined -- if they're all

25 related to that document, since we've already

28ÿ

1 numbered and we've numbered sequentially after

2 that, to make a composite exhibit and identify

3 that there are however many documents under Rader

4 Exhibit 11 identified as -- whatever Dr. Rader --

5 MR. HYDE: You can list them as 11-A, -B, -C, -D.

6 MS. PONZOLI: Off the record.

7 (Discussion off the record.)

8 MS. PONZOLI: Back on the record.

9 We've decided to use the court reporter's

10 system of 11-1, 11-2, et cetera, 11-1 being the

11 Wilcox letter, 11-2 being the --

12 MR. HYDE: Could you tell me what the date was on

13 that?

14 MS. PONZOLI: December 5, 1991. 11-2 was

15 Dr. Rader's letter to Dr. Wilcox of 9-13-91.

16 Q 11-3, Dr. Rader, could you identify that for

17 us, please.

18 A This is a letter from the editor, just

19 recognizing that he has received my manuscript and that

20 it will be reviewed.

21 Q 11-4, Dr. Rader, can you identify that,

22 please.

23 A This is a cover sheet for the first

24 reviewer's comments.

25 Q 11-5, Dr. Rader, can you identify that?

29ÿ

1 A This goes with the cover sheet. It's just

2 those reviewer's typewritten comments.

3 Q Would you identify 11-6.

4 A It's the second page of the same.

5 Q And is 11-7 the final page of it?

6 A Yes.

7 Q I'm taking meticulous a new height.

8 11-8?

9 A This is the comments of the second reviewer.

10 Q 11-9, Dr. Rader, can you identify that?

11 A Yes. This is the one page that accompanies

12 the second reviewer's comments. This is the second page

13 of the same.

14 Q 11-10 is the second page of 11-9?

15 A Of that, right.

16 Q Then is 11-11 the third page of that same

17 document?

18 A Yes, uh-huh.

19 Q Dr. Rader, can you identify Rader No. 12?

20 A All of these pages are simply instructions

21 to the author for publishing in that particular journal.

22 Q Can you identify Rader No. 13, Dr. Rader?

23 A All right. This is a paper that I am

24 currently working on that has not been submitted for

25 publication. This, along with the reviewer's comments on

30ÿ

1 the paper, based on what David Ackerman was discussing

2 earlier, I'd like to identify as protective or hopefully

3 under some sort of protective privilege, I guess.

4 Q Rader No. 13 is a document you are currently

5 working on for publication?

6 A Yes.

7 Q So that would be the reason you would wish

8 to retain that?

9 A Right. That has not been submitted.

10 Q The review comments of the prior

11 publication, which would have been "The Effects of

12 Nutrient Enrichment on Algae and Macroinvertebrates in

13 the Everglades: A Review" --

14 A Uh-huh.

15 Q I can understand the interest in this

16 document, but on the prior reviews, can you explain to me

17 what protective interest you believe you have in the

18 reviews of it?

19 MR. HYDE: I don't think he asserted any

20 protective --

21 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: I understand you said the

22 reviews you also wish to keep in a confidential or more

23 confidential circle. Am I wrong?

24 A No. Yeah. That would be -- if that's

25 possible, that's what I would like to do, yes.

31ÿ

1 Q I'm asking you why. I don't understand the

2 reviews. This article, "The Effects of Nutrient

3 Enrichment on Algae and Macroinvertebrates in the

4 Everglades: A Review" is already out on the street, so

5 to speak.

6 A The article is out --

7 Q The article is out.

8 A -- but the reviewers' comments are private

9 matters.

10 They're done anonymously between reviewers

11 and the -- as I'm sure you understand, and the author.

12 So in terms of confidentiality and privateness, I would

13 just as soon that they not become accessible to anyone

14 that thinks, gee, I wonder what this reviewer thought of

15 that.

16 Q So it's not a proprietary or commercial or

17 professional interest. It's really more a privacy issue

18 in your mind?

19 A Yes, uh-huh. I assume that is legitimate.

20 Maybe not. Huh?

21 Q I'd like to ask you to identify Rader

22 Exhibit No. 14.

23 A Yes. This was sent for publication in

24 "Wetlands," a special issue of that, and it corresponds

25 with The Society of Wetlands Scientists meetings that

32ÿ

1 were held this year; so that proceedings of those

2 meetings are being published. That is my contribution to

3 that.

4 Q Is this an extension of "The Effects of

5 Nutrient Enrichment on Algae and Macroinvertebrates in

6 the Everglades: A Review"?

7 A No.

8 Q Is it a separate --

9 A Separate.

10 Q Rader Exhibit Number 15, can you identify

11 this?

12 A This is the initial copy, my writing of that

13 last document, the one that corresponds with The Society

14 of Wetlands Scientists meetings, the publications of

15 those proceedings; so this is just an earlier rendition

16 of that.

17 Q So Rader 15 is an earlier rendition of

18 Rader 14?

19 A Right.

20 Q And you would consider Rader 14 your final

21 product?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Can you identify Rader 16?

24 A This is an abstract sent to The Society of

25 Wetlands Scientists, just describing my talk, the topic

33ÿ

1 or focus of my talk, for that particular meeting.

2 Q Rader No. 17?

3 A This is the same, just an abstract

4 describing the findings of my research and what I'm going

5 to talk about at the Intecol meetings, international

6 wetland meetings.

7 Q Rader No. 18?

8 A This is the same, an abstract submitted to

9 the Society of Limnology and Oceanography for a talk --

10 or actually a poster session that I presented there in

11 '91.

12 Q Rader No. 19 is a composite exhibit.

13 Dr. Rader, I'd like you to identify the composite exhibit

14 for us.

15 A Yeah. I think we have a couple things mixed

16 up here.

17 Q Are there some documents, other than what

18 appears to be quarterly reports, mixed in with that

19 document?

20 A Yes, there is, yes.

21 Q Why don't we clean it up and make a clean

22 composite exhibit of quarterly and/or monthly reports,

23 assuming you believe those belong together, and then

24 separate out those documents that you believe are

25 inappropriate for that pile.

34ÿ

1 MR. HYDE: Off the record.

2 (Discussion off the record.)

3 THE WITNESS: These are all quarterly-report

4 documents.

5 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Rader Exhibit No. 19 is a

6 composite of quarterly reports. Dr. Rader, when did --

7 to the best of your knowledge, when did the Duke Wetland

8 Center begin publishing quarterly reports? Do you know?

9 A Oh, I don't remember right offhand.

10 Q All right. If we were missing what appeared

11 to be -- and I believe there are some missing from

12 here -- quarterly reports, where would be the easiest

13 place for us to obtain those missing quarterly reports?

14 A I think probably Dr. Richardson's office at

15 Duke would be the easiest way.

16 MR. HYDE: I'll just note for the record that

17 Dr. Rader has not been employed by the Duke

18 Wetland Center from the inception of its studies

19 of the Everglades system.

20 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: I have one more question on

21 this composite Exhibit No. 19 for the present, Dr. Rader.

22 There is a monthly report dated September 15, 1992. Can

23 you explain to me the difference between the quarterly

24 reports and the monthly report?

25 A I think that that's -- that we don't make

35ÿ

1 monthly reports. And so I think that's just a -- not

2 necessarily a typed error, but I think they meant to

3 indicate the month that that quarterly report was due.

4 So I would chalk it up -- this being a cover letter, I

5 didn't write this. So I would just chalk it up to

6 whoever wrote it.

7 Q It's a clerical error, in your view?

8 A Yeah, right.

9 Q I believe -- is this an additional document

10 sitting in front of you --

11 A Uh-huh.

12 Q -- that we have not marked?

13 Does it fit into a very separate category?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Let's hold onto that until we get to that

16 area. We have now, I believe, gone through at least

17 what I understand to be the copies of your response to 2

18 and 3, the technical, professional, scientific

19 publications et cetera, including drafts, reviewers'

20 comments and final versions.

21 Do you recall any others that you have done

22 on the Everglades?

23 A I think this might be -- is this yours

24 maybe? I'm just looking at that and wondering.

25 Q The introduction -- have we included the

36ÿ

1 introduction among the documents?

2 A Is that a copy of that over here is what I'm

3 wondering. May I --

4 Q Sure.

5 A -- look at that real quick?

6 Yeah. A copy that is over there.

7 Q Yes, the introduction is here. Do we also

8 have the decomposition experimental design, or does that

9 fit into a different category?

10 A Again, your categories and categories in my

11 head are two different issues.

12 Q Right.

13 A But this is not for publication. It's not a

14 report or anything.

15 Q All right. The decomposition experimental

16 design would fit under a different category under my

17 Subpoena Duces Tecum, you believe?

18 A I believe so, yes. What page is this?

19 Q I'm on page 6.

20 A We're at No. 3?

21 Q So we're trying to finalize No. 3. So we

22 think we have all your publications on the Everglades,

23 including comments, et cetera, abstracts. Do you think

24 we've reviewed everything?

25 A Yes, yes.

37ÿ

1 Q Just to be sure, let us go through the --

2 A Well, they're annual reports.

3 Q -- the annual reports.

4 You were hired by the Duke Wetland Center

5 when?

6 A I think on record it would be August -- July

7 or August of 1990. I'm not a hundred percent sure what

8 month exactly.

9 Q All right. If we were to go through the

10 annual report August, 1991, you were listed as a

11 coprincipal investigator, and, Dr. Rader, you are listed

12 as having contributed along with Dr. Richardson to

13 Chapter 5, Fauna. Is that accurate?

14 A That is true.

15 Q Are there any other drafts of that

16 contribution?

17 A The drafts of that are the drafts that

18 relate to the review article that has been published in

19 "Wetlands"; so that chapter was modified, changed,

20 whatever needed to be done to put it in publishable form.

21 So that -- actually, the subsequent drafts of that paper

22 are the preliminary drafts to the reviewed article that

23 was published in "Wetlands."

24 Q Can you identify by exhibit numbers -- my

25 memory is not helping me here -- can you identify by

38ÿ

1 exhibit numbers which ones belong with Chapter 5,

2 entitled "Fauna"?

3 A (Indicating.)

4 Q That would be Rader Exhibit No. 3. Is that

5 what you're indicating?

6 A May I see it for just a second?

7 Q Sure, sure.

8 A I need to jog my memory here a little bit.

9 Okay. Parts of this, Chapter 5, were used in the

10 publication of this (indicating).

11 Q Rader Exhibit No. 3 --

12 A No. 3, yes.

13 Q -- right?

14 A Parts of it.

15 Q What other exhibits would relate to that

16 Chapter 5 that were among the exhibits we've already

17 identified? Are you able to just flip through the

18 exhibits and tell me which ones, just quickly, relate to

19 it?

20 A There's a relationship between Chapter 5

21 and --

22 Q Yes, sir.

23 A -- for example, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5,

24 Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, Exhibit --

25 Q You skipped one.

39ÿ

1 A Did I? That wasn't on purpose. 10 and 11,

2 probably not 12. So there's some relationship there

3 between Chapter 5 and that paper.

4 Q Are you listed in that 1991 annual report as

5 having authored other chapters or coauthored other

6 chapters?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Are you the principal writer of Chapter 5?

9 A Uh-huh, yes, I am.

10 Q Did Dr. Richardson edit or just review

11 Chapter 5, or is that predominantly your work?

12 A No. He did review it, as I recall, uh-huh.

13 Q But you authored it?

14 A Right.

15 Q What other chapters are you an author on?

16 A Chapter 6.

17 Q What was your participation in Chapter 6?

18 A The same as Chapter 5. I authored it.

19 Dr. Richardson reviewed it.

20 Q Are there any other chapters in the annual

21 report for 1991 that you authored?

22 A Chapter 8.

23 Q And your participation in 8 was what?

24 A The same. I authored it. Dr. Richardson

25 reviewed it.

40ÿ

1 Q Right. And Chapter 9, is that the same, or

2 is that someone else?

3 A That's someone else.

4 Q So you have three --

5 A Uh-huh.

6 Q -- that you participated in.

7 Are there any -- there are no other drafts

8 of those that exist?

9 A Let me just clarify one thing.

10 Q All right, yes.

11 A Chapter 8 also is related to this particular

12 paper, the "Wetlands" article.

13 Q Rader Exhibit No. 3 and those exhibits --

14 A Right.

15 Q -- related to it --

16 A Yeah, yeah.

17 Q -- in the same way as before?

18 A Right.

19 Q But there are no drafts of these particular

20 annual reports?

21 A No, none that I still have.

22 Q All right. I'd like to move to annual

23 report --

24 MR. HYDE: Did we mark that as an exhibit, for

25 the record, or was that just a discussion about

41ÿ

1 its relationship?

2 MS. PONZOLI: This one?

3 MR. HYDE: Yes.

4 MS. PONZOLI: Well, Mr. Hyde, I --

5 MR. HYDE: I just wanted to know for clarification.

6 MS. PONZOLI: I am content to put in copies of

7 the Duke Wetland Center annual reports August,

8 1991, and October, 1992, but they're so

9 voluminous. It's going to cost us a fortune.

10 MR. HYDE: That's okay.

11 MS. PONZOLI: Everyone has copies of them, and I

12 don't think there's any dispute, when we go to

13 trial, that this is an annual report 1991 and

14 this is an annual report 1992. I can't imagine

15 it would be a matter in dispute.

16 MR. HYDE: It isn't.

17 MS. PONZOLI: I don't honestly care to introduce

18 them.

19 Q Do you have reviews of the other chapters,

20 Dr. Rader, in addition -- we talked about the reviews

21 throughout of Chapter 5 -- or were associated with

22 Chapter 5. Were there similar documents on Chapter 6 or

23 Chapter 8?

24 MR. HYDE: May I ask for a clarification. You

25 mean reviewers' comments?

42ÿ

1 MS. PONZOLI: Right, or reviews of those

2 chapters, either one.

3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. You mean -- no. That's --

4 all I have is that. What I had originally was

5 probably -- if I had hard copies, were probably

6 thrown away.

7 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: And you didn't retain them

8 on disks or anything?

9 A No, not that I can remember.

10 Q Is there a policy of not retaining some of

11 those documents, Dr. Rader?

12 A None that I know of, no, no.

13 Q Moving to the annual report of the Duke

14 Wetland Center for October, 1992 -- I'll hand you a clean

15 copy, Dr. Rader, to assist you -- I'd like to identify

16 those chapters that you helped to author, and I'd like

17 you to tell me your participation in those particular

18 chapters.

19 A Chapter 5.

20 Q Were you the principal author on Chapter 5?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And are the same reviews that exist in

23 relation to Rader Exhibit No. 3 related to Chapter 5 and

24 the annual report?

25 A I don't understand.

43ÿ

1 Q Are there any reviews of Chapter 5 or any --

2 MR. HYDE: I'm still unsure about what we're

3 talking about in context of the reviews. Do you

4 mean anonymous reviewers' comments?

5 MS. PONZOLI: No. They don't even have to be

6 anonymous? They can be --

7 Q Did Dr. Craft write a review of Chapter 5,

8 and you somewhere have such a document, or you had such a

9 document at one time?

10 A Oh, no. Maybe it would help if I

11 explained --

12 Q Go ahead.

13 A -- a little bit of how this did work.

14 If I sent up a chapter --

15 Q Right.

16 A -- then we would probably make corrections

17 over the telephone, and Curt would call and say, what

18 about that sentence?

19 What do you think? Okay. Yeah. We can do

20 that. The correction was made and sent back up, and I

21 try not to hold onto -- you know, it would stack up to be

22 a mile high, and it would fill up my folder.

23 Q Sure.

24 A So I don't hang on to all that stuff. So if

25 it's a publication, that's a different matter. As you

44ÿ

1 can see, I hang onto those, the reviewers' comments on

2 publications.

3 Q So the annual reports do not go through the

4 same level of review that a publication would go through.

5 Is that fair?

6 A No, it does not.

7 Q Are the annual reports reviewed by outside

8 reviewers, outside the team of investigators who are

9 listed as authors?

10 A Not that I know of.

11 Q Do the team of authors review each -- the

12 principal investigators -- I apologize. Let's say the

13 coprincipal investigators -- do you review each others'

14 chapters or articles?

15 A We can.

16 Q Did you for the 1991, August '91, annual

17 report? Did you review any of the other chapters?

18 A '91?

19 Q Yes, sir.

20 A No, not that I recall.

21 Q Did you review any of the other chapters for

22 the annual report for 1992?

23 A Huh-uh, no, I didn't.

24 Q Have you read all of these various chapters

25 in '91 and '92?

45ÿ

1 A '91, yes; '92, no.

2 Q If I understand my reading of the table of

3 contents, in your answer, Chapter 5 is the only chapter

4 to which you contributed in the annual report 1992. Is

5 that accurate?

6 A Yes.

7 Q You are likewise listed as a coprincipal

8 investigator on the annual report appendices to the

9 September, 1991, report. I would like for you to

10 identify for me, Dr. Rader -- it lists appendices that, I

11 believe, each contain data. I would like you to

12 identify -- I'll hand you the table of contents -- those

13 appendices which reflect your data.

14 A Just to make sure -- so that would be

15 appendix 5-1, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4.

16 Q 5-1, -2, 6-1, -2, -3, and -4?

17 A Uh-huh.

18 Q Okay.

19 A Yes.

20 Q Did you collect some of the data for any of

21 the other appendices in this Volume II to the '91 report?

22 A Let me look at them a little closer, then.

23 Yes.

24 Q Which ones did you collect data for?

25 A I did for the water chemistry data.

46ÿ

1 Q Which is appendix?

2 A Appendix 1-1, looks like. Some data there.

3 That's it.

4 Q Thank you.

5 MR. HYDE: That's Volume II for 1992?

6 MS. PONZOLI: No. That's Volume II for 1991.

7 MR. HYDE: Okay.

8 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Is there going to be a

9 Volume II for 1992, Dr. Rader?

10 A An appendix volume?

11 Q Yes, sir.

12 A Yes, there is.

13 Q But it's not out in publication yet?

14 A I don't know. I don't know where that's at.

15 MS. PONZOLI: Jim, do you know?

16 DR. GRIMSHAW: I have no idea.

17 THE WITNESS: '92, as you know, the annual report

18 has just come out -- what? -- two, three weeks

19 ago. So I don't think the appendix is out.

20 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Do you have any idea how

21 soon it would come out?

22 A No.

23 Q Do you have any idea how long they normally

24 lag behind the annual report?

25 A No, not really. They do that at Duke.

47ÿ

1 Q So now we really have gone through all your

2 publications on the Everglades --

3 A I think so.

4 Q -- to the best of your recollection?

5 A Yep, yep, yep.

6 Q Okay. The next category of documents is,

7 "All documents relating to research done in conjunction

8 with or under the direction of Dr. C.J. Richardson and/or

9 the Duke Wetlands Center." I wasn't going to forget

10 anything, Dr. Rader. I mean, I covered it ten different

11 ways.

12 A That's why I just gathered it all up in a

13 box and said, "Here it is."

14 Q I could have sent a Subpoena Duces Tecum and

15 said, "Send everything," but they would have said it

16 wasn't sufficient.

17 MR. HYDE: We might as well start doing that.

18 MS. PONZOLI: I think that's how Dr. Grimshaw

19 feels about the district.

20 MR. HYDE: That's certainly the way Dr. Parks

21 responded.

22 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: You have a number of more

23 documents. I would ask you, Dr. Rader, to look over the

24 list, and if we can identify documents that fit within a

25 specific category, let's go back and put them under --

48ÿ

1 for example, if you have, under No. 12, field notes that

2 we could pull aside and say these are my field notes,

3 then we'll pull those and put them as identified

4 documents or proposals or laboratory notes, and then

5 we'll just go back to the generic Everglades documents

6 that are requested under several categories.

7 A Should I just start with that stack, work

8 through it? That would be easier rather than me working

9 from this category and going to the stack. Maybe I can

10 just start with these documents and say it fits here,

11 fits there.

12 Q Why don't we do that off the record, and

13 then we'll put them in piles so it will be easier for us

14 to deal with and try to make sense of what you've done --

15 A Okay.

16 Q -- which is the real purpose of identifying

17 these documents.

18 A You want to do that now?

19 MS. PONZOLI: Let's go off the record.

20 (Rader Exhibits 20(1-39), 21(1-3),

21 22(1-10), 23(1-38), 24(1-75), 25(1-174),

22 26(1-113), 27(1-17), 28(1-57), 29, 30(1-62),

23 31(1-210), 32(1-60), 33(1-7), 34(1-18), and

24 35(1-5) were marked for identification by the

25 reporter and are included herewith.)

49ÿ

1 (Discussion off the record.)

2 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, I'm going to

3 hand you Rader Exhibit No. 20. Can you identify this,

4 please.

5 A Yes. It's site notes and some data

6 collected each time we visited the sites on the -- what

7 we call the "gradient study," or the "nutrient-enrichment

8 study." It also includes coordinates for each one of

9 the -- latitudinal, longitudinal coordinates for each

10 site.

11 Q Dr. Rader, I'm going to hand you what has

12 been marked as Johnson Exhibit No. 13 and ask you if

13 these are the sites for the gradient study?

14 A Yes. These are the sites for

15 Jerry Qualls's -- that's not exactly accurate. Yes,

16 these are the sites for the gradient study. I just used

17 part of them; so I did not collect invertebrate data --

18 Q Right.

19 A -- and my data on all the sites -- should I

20 identify those.

21 Q Yes, you should.

22 We should probably take a short little

23 break, and let me Xerox a copy of that so the Johnson

24 Exhibit is not altered, but we'll make it a Rader Exhibit

25 in this deposition.

50ÿ

1 A Okay

2 (Short recess.)

3 (Rader Exhibit 36(1-2) was marked

4 for identification by the reporter and is

5 included herewith.)

6 Q BY MS. PONZOLI: Dr. Rader, I've handed you

7 Johnson Exhibit No. 13, which, you indicate, is the

8 gradient study to which you were referring, but you did

9 not use all of these sites for your work. So I would ask

10 you to please circle those locations that you did use on

11 what will now be Rader No. 36.

12 A Okay.

13 Q You have circled from the second dot down on

14 10C six -- the six consecutive sites under 10C and the

15 first two under 10D. Is that accurate?

16 A That is, yes.

17 Q That is where you have done your

18 invertebrate work; is that right?

19 A Right, right. Do you want that to go with

20 these?

21 Q This is the work -- Rader Exhibit No. 20

22 reflects the coordinates and the data that have been

23 collected at these eight sites reflected on Rader No. 36?

24 A Yeah. It's a -- it's not all the data

25 certainly, but it reflects some physical-chemical data

51ÿ

1 that I collected at each site.

2 Q Is the rest of the data among the pieces we

3 have not come to yet?

4 A Yes.

5 Q You had indicated off the record previously

6 that your data for this invertebrate work -- and you'll

7 have to tell me -- the oxygen work also -- I don't

8 know -- broke into roughly preliminary data, second-step

9 data, and third-step data. Is that accurate?

10 A Yes, and maybe it would be good to add a

11 fourth category, a summary category, summarizing the

12 data.

13 Q All right. I would like you to I.D. the

14 data as we go through, whether it fits into one of these

15 four categories.

16 A Okay.

17 Q So Rader Exhibit 20 would fit into which

18 category?

19 A Well, let's see. It fits best, I guess,

20 into final data -- or what was our --

21 Q Summary data, you had said. The last would

22 be summary data.

23 A Yeah. It's -- this isn't really a summary.

24 These are the actual data sheets of the physical-chemical

25 data. Okay?

52ÿ

1 Q Yes.

2 A And the summary of which is found in the

3 appendix in the second annual report by Jerry Qualls.

4 Okay. I collected some of that. You asked if there was

5 any other data that you collected. That is what I was

6 talking about. It's pH and temperature and water depth

7 at the various transects; so it doesn't really fit into

8 the categories we discussed, I'm afraid.

9 Q I just want to clarify something on Rader

10 Exhibit No. 36. Under 10D, under structure 10D --

11 A Yes.

12 Q -- you did not use the first site; is that

13 accurate?

14 You intended to skip that first site; is

15 that accurate?

16 A No. I did use it.

17 Q Well, there appears on Johnson No. 13 to be

18 a dot, a site almost directly on the Hillsboro Canal at

19 10D, and the question exists in my mind: Did you use

20 that first dot or the next one down as a site?

21 A I think that first dot is supposed to

22 indicate a gate.

23 Q All right. That is only a gate. That is

24 not a site used --

25 A No.

53ÿ

1 Q -- for anyone's research, and that's why you

2 skipped it under 10C, also?

3 A Yes. That's just a gate.

4 Q So your initial sites would have been how

5 far down roughly -- do you recall? -- from the gates in

6 kilometers?

7 A Roughly a kilometer and a half, I believe.

8 The reason I say "I believe" is because the sites were

9 chosen prior to my starting on the project.

10 Q So you were using --

11 A The actual sites.

12 Q Doctor whose sites?

13 A I believe Dr. Qualls and Dr. Richardson

14 chose the sites together, probably in conjunction with

15 Dr. Craft -- the three of them.

16 Q Okay. Are those sites --

17 A I'm not sure.

18 Q Are the coordinates actually listed in Rader

19 Exhibit No. 20, where we would