DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF )
FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural )
Cooperative Marketing Association, ) CASE NOS. 92-3038
ROTH FARMS, INC., and ) 92-3039
WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 92-3040
)
and )
)
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
) ______________________
and )
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) DEPOSITION
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) OF
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
) DR. KENNETH H. RECKHOW
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. )
___________________________________)
AT DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 31, 1994-FEBRUARY 1, 1994
REPORTED BY:
CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 312
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PETITIONERS: SUGARCANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
MR. RICK BURGESS OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC.
PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.
ONE BISCAYNE TOWER MS. CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE
SUITE 3636 HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314
TELEPHONE: (305) 358-3000
TELEPHONE: (904) 222-7500
FOR RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR: FOR SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MR. THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY MR. R. BENJAMINE REID
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH
99 N.E. 4TH STREET & KAUFMAN, LTD.
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 4100 ONE CENTRUST FINANCIAL
CENTER
TELEPHONE: (305) 536-5927 100 S.E. SECOND STREET
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
TELEPHONE: (305) 530-0050
ALSO PRESENT:
DR. RONALD JONES
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 313
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
E X A M I N A T I O N I N D E X
DEPONENT - DR. KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW - 1/31-2/1/94
EXAMINATION: PAGES
BY MR. FITZGERALD 314-430
BY MR. REID 431-507
BY MR. FITZGERALD 507-531
BY MS. RAEPPLE 532-540
-------------------------------------------------------
E X H I B I T S I N D E X
NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
EXH. #26 CURRICULUM VITAE FOR 321
DR. RECKHOW
(16 PAGES)
EXH. #27 MODELING PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING 341
IN WETLANDS USING GENERALIZED
ADDITIVE MODELS, SEPTEMBER, 1993
(29 PAGES)
EXH. #28 NADB CHART (7 PAGES) 515
EXH. #29A P MASS LOADING RATE CHART, 517
TPOUT = 0 REMOVED
(1 PAGE)
EXH. #29B P MASS LOADING RATE CHART, 517
TPOUT = 0 INCLUDED
(1 PAGE)
-------------------------------------------------------
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEPONENT 541
CERTIFICATION OF COURT REPORTER 542
†††††††††匠䝉䅎啔䕒倠䝁⁅但⁒䕄佐䕎呎††††††††††††㔠ㄴ††††††††††䕃呒䙉䍉呁佉⁎䙏䌠問呒删偅剏䕔⁒††††††††††㐵ലഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 314
ON MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THE DEPOSITION OF
DR. KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW MAY BE TAKEN BEGINNING
AT OR AROUND 2:11 P.M. ON JANUARY 31, 1994, AT THE
HILTON HOTEL, 3800 HILLSBOROUGH ROAD, THE WALKER
SUITE, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, BEFORE PAMELA S.
LILES, A NOTARY PUBLIC.
THE SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT
OF HIS TESTIMONY IS HEREBY REQUIRED.
- - - - - - - - - - -
WHEREUPON,
KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW, Ph.D.,
HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN,
WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED
AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. DR. RECKHOW, FOR THE RECORD, I'M TOM WATTS
FITZGERALD, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, BASED OUT OF MIAMI,
AND WITH ME IS DR. RON JONES. I'M SURE YOU'LL
RECALL, FROM OUR DEPOSITION IN MARCH OF 1993, THE
BASICS THAT MR. REID COVERED, OR PERHAPS I COVERED
THEM TOO WHEN I STARTED; BUT IF AT ANY TIME YOU
WANT TO TAKE A BREAK, OR YOU WANT TO TAKE FIVE AND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 315
STEP OUT AND CONSULT WITH YOUR -- WITH COUNSEL FOR
THE CO-OP WHO HAS DESIGNATED YOU AS A WITNESS,
PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW, OR IF YOU WANT TO JUST,
YOU KNOW, TAKE A COMFORT BREAK, GET A CUP OF
COFFEE, OR WHATEVER.
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. IF, DURING THE COURSE OF MY QUESTIONING, I ASK
A QUESTION THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE --
WHICH BECAUSE OF YOUR SPECIALTY, IS PROBABLY
GOING TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN I WOULD LIKE --
AND YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OR HAVEN'T
THE FOGGIEST IDEA OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK YOU,
PLEASE JUST TELL ME AND I'LL FUMBLE AROUND AND
TRY AND REPHRASE IT IN A WAY THAT DOES MAKE
SENSE.
A. OKAY.
Q. AND IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT'S ASKED,
OR YOU NEED TO ASSUME SOMETHING IN ORDER TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION, IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT THAT IS,
SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE DON'T WASTE ANY MORE
TIME THAN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I UNDERSTAND YOU
ARE AVAILABLE THE REST OF THIS AFTERNOON, AND
TOMORROW IS OKAY BY YOUR SCHEDULE?
A. YES, UH-HUH (YES).
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 316
Q. OKAY, I -- MR. REID AND I -- AND MR. REID WILL BE
JOINING US LATER THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE OF FLIGHT
DIFFICULTIES FROM THE WEST COAST -- IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS, WE'RE FAIRLY CONFIDENT WE'LL BE ABLE
TO FINISH BY THE END OF THE DAY TOMORROW. I'M
GOING A LITTLE OUT OF TURN. YOU'LL RECALL THAT HE
STARTED YOUR DEPOSITION BACK IN MARCH, BUT RATHER
THAN LOSE THE FEW HOURS THIS AFTERNOON, WE THOUGHT
WE'D MOVE IT ALONG AND I'LL GO BACK, ESSENTIALLY,
AND TRY AND FILL IN A FEW OF THE AREAS I DIDN'T
COVER THAT WERE RAISED BY THINGS HE HAD ASKED AND
THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE STAND WHEN HE ARRIVES, AND
PERHAPS I'LL FINISH, OR WE'LL SEE HOW CLOSE TO THE
END OF THE DAY WE ARE.
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
MR. FITZGERALD: IF THAT'S
ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYBODY?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S FINE.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) DURING YOUR FIRST DEPOSITION
IN MARCH, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD NOT REVIEWED
OR DEVELOPED INFORMATION AT THAT TIME TO DETERMINE
IF THE EVERGLADES WERE A EUTROPHIED SYSTEM OR NOT.
IN THE INTERVENING NINE TO TEN MONTHS, WHATEVER
IT'S BEEN, HAVE YOU INQUIRED INTO, OR RESEARCHED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 317
THAT ISSUE AT ALL?
A. NO.
Q. AT THE TIME, YOU HAD DONE NO FIELDWORK WITH
RESPECT TO THE EVERGLADES, ALTHOUGH I RECALL YOU
DID TESTIFY YOU WERE CO-CHAIR OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE TOC DOING SOME MONITORING OR SETTING UP A
MONITORING SYSTEM OF SOME KIND. HAVE YOU DONE
ANY FIELDWORK SINCE THE TIME OF YOUR MARCH
DEPOSITION?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. AT THAT TIME, YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT
THE Ph.D. WORK THAT YOU HAD DONE, YOUR
DISSERTATION RELATED TO EUTROPHICATION IN
LAKES, AND THAT SORT OF THINGS, LOOKING AT
LOADING WATER DEPTH AND RESIDENCE TIME, THAT
THAT AREA OR BODY OF KNOWLEDGE DID NOT DIRECTLY
APPLY TO THE ANALYSIS OR WORK YOU WERE DOING IN
THIS MATTER. IS THAT STILL TRUE, OR HAS THAT
CHANGED IN ANYWAY?
A. I DON'T RECALL WHAT I SAID AT THAT TIME, BUT THERE
IS A RELATIONSHIP IN THE SENSE THAT WE THINK -- I
THINK IT'S USEFUL TO THINK OF LAKES, WETLANDS,
WATER BODIES AS TRAPS OF POLLUTANTS.
Q. SO, IN THAT SENSE, YOUR WORK ON YOUR DISSERTATION,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 318
AND ON THE NATIONAL STUDY WOULD HAVE SOME GENERAL
BASIS OR BACKGROUND FOR YOUR CURRENT WORK?
A. JUST AS A STARTING POINT, AS A WAY TO THINK ABOUT
THEM IN A VERY BASIC, CRUDE SENSE.
Q. YOU INDICATED BACK IN MARCH THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK
THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES AT THE DWC, THE DUKE WETLAND
CENTER, WERE AWARE OF THE NATIONAL STUDY. IS THAT
STILL TRUE, OR HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS IT
WITH THEM?
A. NOW WHICH STUDY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
Q. YOU REFERRED TO THE NATIONAL STUDY THAT YOU HAD
WORKED ON. DID YOU WORK ON THE LAKE
EUTROPHICATION STUDY? IS THAT STUDY THAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO?
A. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MY DISSERTATION?
Q. YES.
A. I USED DATA FROM A NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION
SURVEY.
Q. AS I UNDERSTOOD THE TRANSCRIPT, AND MY NOTES
FROM THAT, YOU HAD SAID DURING YOUR DEPOSITION
THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES AT
THE WETLAND CENTER WERE AWARE OF THAT STUDY.
HAVE YOU---
A. OF THE NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 319
Q. YES, SIR. HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS
IT WITH ANYONE THERE, OR AT LEAST SINCE---
A. NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. THEY MIGHT BE AWARE.
I DON'T KNOW.
Q. AT THE TIME OF YOUR EARLIER DEPOSITION, YOU WERE
AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY. IS THAT
STILL CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE WE ASKED WHEN YOU WOULD
NORMALLY EXPECT TO MAKE FULL PROFESSOR AT DUKE?
A. PROBABLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
Q. WHICH OF THE SCHOOLS WITHIN DUKE ARE YOU ACTUALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH?
A. THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT; THE SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING; AND I'M ALSO IN THE INSTITUTE OF
STATISTICS AND DECISION SCIENCES.
Q. HOW DOES THE DUKE WETLAND CENTER FIGURE INTO THE
SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
A. IT'S A -- IT'S A CENTER, AS DEFINED -- AS UNDER
THE UNIVERSITY'S DEFINITION OF A CENTER, LOCATED
WITHIN THE SCHOOL.
Q. SO, IT IS WITHIN THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, OR
JUST DUKE UNIVERSITY AS AN UMBRELLA?
A. I THINK IT'S IN THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 320
Q. OKAY. ARE YOU STILL ASSOCIATED WITH THE WETLAND
CENTER?
A. YES, I AM.
Q. AND WHAT'S YOUR POSITION WITH THE WETLAND CENTER,
AS OPPOSED TO THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, IF
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE?
A. THERE'S -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY
DISTINCTION. THE WETLAND CENTER IS AN ENTITY
THAT DUKE RECOGNIZES AS A CENTER, AS THEY DEFINE
CENTERS, AND I'M A FACULTY MEMBER IN THE SCHOOL
OF THE ENVIRONMENT, WITH AN AFFILIATION WITH THE
CENTER. AND I DON'T -- IT'S HARD FOR ME TO
UNDERSTAND THE -- WELL, YOUR QUESTION MAY RELATE
TO LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSITY
STRUCTURE, AND I PROBABLY UNDERSTAND LITTLE MORE
THAN YOU DO.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) OKAY, YOUR COUNSEL -- OR
COUNSEL FOR THE CO-OP INDICATED TO ME A FEW DAYS
AGO THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
UPDATE YOUR RESUME SINCE OUR LAST GO ROUND. HAVE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 321
YOU, IN FACT?
A. YEAH, I FINISHED IT. DID SOME THINGS ON IT
TODAY.
Q. I HOPE YOU DIDN'T DO IT JUST FOR THIS.
A. NO. ACTUALLY, THIS WAS TIMELY. I NEEDED TO GET A
COPY INTO ENGINEERING, AND TO THE SCHOOL OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
MR. FITZGERALD: CAN I ASK THAT
THAT BE MARKED AS THE NEXT NUMBERED
EXHIBIT, WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE
EXHIBIT -- I THINK THAT WOULD BE
EXHIBIT 26.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS EXHIBIT
NO. 26 - KENNETH H. RECKHOW, Ph.D.
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO GO
THROUGH THIS IN DETAIL NOW. I WILL LOOK AT IT
TONIGHT AND TRY TO HAVE COPIES MADE FOR ANYBODY
THAT WANTS ONE. I WAS GOING TO MOVE ON ANYWAY
INTO THE AREA OF CURRENT CONSULTING PROJECTS, AND
I SEE THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ON SOMETHING ON THAT
ANYWAY.
A. I SHOULD ADD THAT -- THAT MAY NOT BE CURRENT. I
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 322
JUST WENT INTO IT FOR ABOUT A HALF HOUR THIS
MORNING, AND UPDATED CERTAIN SECTIONS. BUT THAT
IS ONE SECTION THAT I DIDN'T LOOK AT, AT ALL.
SO, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S ACTUALLY
UP-TO-DATE.
Q. YOU DESCRIBED SOME CONSULTING WORK THAT YOU WERE
DOING BACK IN MARCH OF 1993 FOR THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. ARE YOU STILL A
CONSULTANT TO THE DISTRICT?
A. THE CONTRACT IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE. WE WERE
WORKING ON A SERIES OF THREE PAPERS -- STILL
WORKING ON THE PAPERS.
Q. AND WHAT ARE THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF THE THREE
PAPERS?
A. ITS DECISION ANALYSIS APPLIED TO LAKE OKEECHOBEE
RESEARCH.
Q. ALL THREE, OR?
A. ALL THREE.
Q. OKAY. AND IS THAT THE CONTRACT YOU WERE
DESCRIBING WHERE YOU WERE WORKING WITH TONY
FEDERICO?
A. PROBABLY. NICK AUMAN IS THE PROJECT OFFICER.
Q. AND WHEN WOULD THOSE PAPERS SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY,
DO YOU THINK?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 323
A. I HOPE SOON, NEXT MONTH OR SO.
Q. ARE THEY IN PEER REVIEW?
A. NO. THE PROCESS THAT THE DISTRICT HAS REQUIRES
THAT ANY PAPER THAT'S CO-AUTHORED BY A DISTRICT
SCIENTIST, GOES THROUGH A PROCESS, AND WE'RE REAL
CLOSE TO GETTING A COUPLE OF THOSE PAPERS INTO
THAT PROCESS.
Q. SO, THEY'RE STILL IN THE FINE-TUNING PRIOR TO
SUBMISSION?
A. YEAH, PRIOR TO -- A COUPLE OF PAPERS -- ONE OF
THE PAPERS HAS -- THE FIRST PAPER HAS THREE
AUTHORS -- ME, A GRADUATE STUDENT, AND NICK AUMAN
FROM THE DISTRICT---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---AND IT'S JUST DIFFICULT TO GET EVERYONE TO READ
OVER AND MAKE REVISIONS AND CONTRIBUTE.
Q. IS THE GRADUATE STUDENT LEEMAN, SOMETHING LIKE
THAT?
A. KATRINA SMITH.
Q. OKAY, THAT'S SOMEBODY ELSE. YOU HAD DESCRIBED
SOME WORK ANOTHER GRADUATE STUDENT HAD DONE FOR
THE DISTRICT A WHILE BACK. DO THE THREE PAPERS
HAVE WORKING TITLES AT THIS POINT?
A. YEAH, THEY DO. THEY ALL THREE HAVE WORKING
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 324
TITLES.
Q. CAN YOU GIVE THOSE TO US?
A. I CAN'T OFFHAND. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER THEM.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF
EACH?
A. THE FIRST PAPER LOOKS AT OR DESCRIBES DECISION
ANALYSIS, AND OUTLINES SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT
HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST, OH, FIVE, TEN YEARS
WITH REGARDS TO DECISIONS AND RESEARCH FOR THE
EUTROPHICATION OF LAKE OKEECHOBEE.
THE SECOND PAPER INVOLVES THE USE OF THE
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR SELECTING A
SIMULATION MODEL FOR MODELING EUTROPHICATION IN
LAKE OKEECHOBEE.
AND THE THIRD PAPER SETS UP A SIMPLE
MULTI-ATTRIBUTE UTILITY SCHEME FOR PRIORITIZING
RESEARCH.
Q. AGAIN, KEYED TO LAKE OKEECHOBEE?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT WORK, ARE YOU DOING ANY
OTHER WORK FOR THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
CURRENTLY?
A. NO.
Q. HOW ABOUT THE WORK YOU WERE DOING WITH THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 325
SUBCOMMITTEE, CO-CHAIRING THE SUBCOMMITTEE;
IS THAT COMPLETE?
A. I DON'T KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT. BILL WALKER
CALLED ME ABOUT A WEEK AGO, AND INDICATED THAT THE
WORK OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE MAY BE REVIVED. I'VE
HAD ESSENTIALLY NO COMMUNICATION WITH THE DISTRICT
ABOUT THAT FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. BILL
INDICATED THERE WAS A MEETING THIS WEEK OF THE
TOC, AND ANOTHER ONE LATER ON IN FEBRUARY, AND
ASKED ME WHETHER I WAS INTERESTED IN POSSIBLY
GETTING INVOLVED AGAIN. AND I TOLD HIM THAT,
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO.
Q. YOU DESCRIBE A CURRENT CONSULTING ACTIVITY FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. CAN YOU
TELL ME WHAT THAT'S IN REGARD TO?
A. CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE INFORMATION WHAT THE ITEM
SAYS?
Q. "PREPARATION OF A GUIDANCE MANUAL AND SOFTWARE FOR
TREND DETECTION..."
A. OH, THAT ONE, THAT'S COMPLETE, AND THAT'S JUST
WHAT IT IS. IT'S A TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL AND
SOME SOFTWARE FOR A USER TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE
OR ABSENCE OF TRENDS IN WATER QUALITY DATA WITH AN
EMPHASIS ON LAKES.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 326
Q. IS THAT A MULTI-PARAMETER THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO
DIFFERENT WATER QUALITY ELEMENTS, OR IS IT
SPECIFIC?
A. YEAH, IT'S THE SAME -- THE SAME STATISTICAL METHOD
THAT BILL WALKER USED WHEN HE DID THE TREND
ANALYSIS IN SOUTH FLORIDA. IT'S A SEASONAL
KENDALL TEST, WHICH MOST PEOPLE USE FOR WATER
QUALITY.
Q. WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- OR YOU TALKED
MOSTLY -- ABOUT THE SEASONAL KENDALL BACK DURING
THE MARCH DEPOSITION. WHY, IN GENERAL, IS THE
KENDALL TEST SO WIDELY ACCEPTED OR USED BY PEOPLE
DOING STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
MR. FITZGERALD: CAN YOU BE MORE
SPECIFIC? I'LL TRY AND AMEND THE FORM FOR
YOU.
MS. RAEPPLE: I DON'T RECALL THAT
THERE WAS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE TEST BEING
WIDELY USED, OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS
USED.
MR. FITZGERALD: OKAY.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) IS THE SEASONAL KENDALL TEST
A WELL-RECOGNIZED MECHANISM FOR TESTING TRENDS IN
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 327
WATER QUALITY DATA?
A. IT APPEARS TO BE THE METHOD OF CHOICE FOR
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN
TREND ANALYSIS.
Q. WHY IS THAT?
A. MY BELIEF IS THAT SINCE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
ASSUMPTION OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF ERRORS, AND
AT CERTAIN POINTS IS RESISTANT TO OUTLIERS, THAT
IT HAS BECOME SOMEWHAT OF A STANDARD AS A
CONSERVATIVE CHOICE, SO THAT YOU NEED NOT HAVE
TO DEPEND UPON ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO MEET WITH REGARDS TO THE NATURE OF THE
DATA.
Q. SO, IT'S SORT OF STOOD THE TEST OF TIME?
A. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S JUST BECOME THE PROCEDURE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE OPTED TO USE FOR THE REASONS
I JUST MENTIONED. AND BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE
USE IT AND RECOGNIZE IT AS ACCEPTABLE, I HAVE
A FEELING THAT'S AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF IT,
TOO.
Q. OKAY. YOU MENTION AS WELL -- I GUESS AGAIN FOR
EPA -- THE "PREPARATION OF A GUIDANCE MANUAL ON
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR THE APPLICATION OF
BIOCRITERIA IN STREAMS." WHAT'S THAT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 328
A. THAT EPA HAS DECIDED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS,
IN PART, TO AUGMENT ITS CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PROGRAM, TO LOOK AT BIOTA ORGANISMS
IN STREAMS AS ANOTHER MEASURE OF THE WATER QUALITY
OR THE ECOSYSTEM, AND OUR TASK IN THAT EFFORT
WAS TO PRESENT AND ILLUSTRATE BY EXAMPLE SOME
STATISTICAL METHODS THAT COULD BE USED WITH THE
CRITERIA THAT THE EPA -- OR THE STATES WERE
SETTING UP.
Q. YOU MENTION HERE "DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL MODELS
OF LAKE EUTROPHICATION." WHAT DID THAT PROJECT
INVOLVE?
A. CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?
Q. THAT'S ALL IT SAYS. I CAN SHOW IT TO YOU---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---IT'S THE THIRD ENTRY UNDER EPA.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. OKAY. THAT WAS SOME SUPPORT THAT WE HAD FROM
EPA TO LOOK AT STATISTICAL MODELS, USING
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA TO PREDICT IN-LAKE
CONCENTRATIONS OF SOME COMMON TROPHIC
STATE PARAMETERS, SUCH AS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS,
TOTAL NITROGEN, CHLOROPHYLL-A, SO FORTH AND
SO ON.
††††††††††††匠⁏乏†ഠ
††††††††††††协⁏丮††ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 329
Q. WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
REGIONAL MODELS?
A. A GRADUATE STUDENT OF MINE, TOM STOCKTON.
Q. OKAY. AND BY REGIONAL MODELS, WHAT AREAS DID YOU
MODEL?
A. WE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, AND
DEVELOPED A REGIONAL SCHEME FOR HOMOGENEITY FOR,
AS BEST AS WE CAN DETERMINE, HOMOGENEITY OF MODEL
RESPONSE OR PARAMETERS WITHIN A REGION. MY
RECOLLECTION IS WE HAD ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT
REGIONS, THAT WE HAD DIFFERENT SETS OF MODELS
PITTED FOR.
Q. DID YOU WORK FROM A PREEXISTING DATABASE TO
DEVELOP THOSE MODELS?
A. YEAH, WE'VE HAD DATA ON LAKES AND NUTRIENT INPUTS
THAT WE'VE HAD AVAILABLE FOR YEARS, ACTUALLY
DATING BACK TO MY DISSERTATION, SOME OF THOSE
DATA.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF STATISTICAL MODELS ARE THEY? WHAT --
IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO ASK THE QUESTION.
A. THEY ARE LINEAR AND NONLINEAR ROBUST REGRESSION
MODELS.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY'RE ROBUST REGRESSION
MODELS, THEN ARE YOU USING THAT IN THE SENSE THAT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 330
THEY PROVIDE A RANGE FOR EACH OF THE VALUES THAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO PREDICT?
A. NO, ROBUST REFERS TO THE FITTING CRITERIA, AND
THAT'S A MODELING APPROACH THAT, IN EFFECT, TENDS
TO DOWNWEIGHT THE INFLUENCE OF OUTLIERS IN THE
DATA SET.
Q. SO, IN THAT SENSE, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, IT'S MORE
LIKELY THAT A GIVEN LAKE WITHIN A REGION WOULD
FALL WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE MODEL?
A. NO. NO, IT, BY DOWNWEIGHTING THE INFLUENCE OF
OUTLIERS, WHAT YOU ARE DOING, OR WHAT OUR FEELING
WAS WE WERE DOING, WAS FITTING THE MODEL TO THE
BULK OF THE DATA, AND SETTING UP WITH A ROBUST
FITTING SCHEME, A SITUATION WHERE OUTLYING DATA
POINTS -- DATA POINTS THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE
CLOUD OF POINTS, HAD LESS INFLUENCE ON THE MODEL
PARAMETERS.
Q. WERE THOSE MODELS DEVELOPED FOR PREDICTIVE
PURPOSES?
A. YES.
Q. SO, BY MAKING IT A ROBUST MODEL, IT'S GOING TO
TAKE IN THE WIDEST NUMBER OF LAKES WITHIN THE
REGION; YOU WOULD EXPECT THE WIDEST NUMBER TO
FIT---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 331
A. NO---
Q. ---WHEN YOU ARE PREDICTING?
A. ---NO, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE
ROBUSTNESS FITTING CRITERIA, IS HAVE THE CLOUD OF
THE -- THE BULK OF THE DATA, IF THERE'S A
WELL-ESTABLISHED PATTERN IN THOSE DATA, BE THE
PRIMARY DETERMINANT OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE
MODEL; AND, AGAIN, THE OUTLIERS FROM THAT CLOUD OF
POINTS HAVE LESS INFLUENCE THAN THEY WOULD UNDER
STANDARD APPROACHES.
Q. WHAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD APPROACHES THAT WOULD
NOT RESULT IN THAT ROBUST MODEL?
A. ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION.
Q. IT APPEARS THE ONLY OTHER CURRENT CONSULTING
ACTIVITIES HERE THAT YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED
ALREADY WOULD BE THE DECISION ANALYSIS FOR THE
EXXON-VALDEZ RESTORATION PROGRAM. WHAT DOES THAT
ENTAIL?
A. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, IN FACT, IT IS, AS
FAR AS I KNOW. I SPENT SOME TIME IN ANCHORAGE
ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO LAYING OUT A SCHEME
FOR THE STAFF, THE SCIENTIFIC STAFF TO HELP THEM
PRIORITIZE THE USE OF THE MONEY FROM THE
SETTLEMENT, AS TO WHAT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 332
MIGHT BE SELECTED.
Q. HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THAT?
A. I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEONE ON THE STAFF
ASKING IF IT WAS INTERESTED IN DOING IT.
Q. AND THAT'S COMPLETE NOW, OR ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE?
A. AS FAR AS I KNOW. I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING FOR
THEM IN MAYBE A YEAR.
Q. AT ONE TIME, YOU WERE DOING SOME CONSULTING WORK
FOR THE FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, THROUGH THE
FIRM AS IT WAS THEN KNOWN, OF PEOPLES, EARL AND
BLANK. HAVE YOU, SINCE MARCH OF 1993, DONE ANY
ADDITIONAL CONSULTING WORK FOR---
A. NO.
Q. ---THE LEAGUE?
A. (NODS NEGATIVELY.)
Q. HOW ABOUT FOR THE FLORIDA -- OR FOR THE CO-OP?
A. NO.
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ALL THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE?
A. I DON'T KNOW IF I AM OR NOT.
Q. I'M NOT SURE I AM EITHER. HAVE YOU BEEN DOING ANY
WORK FOR ANYBODY IN SOUTH FLORIDA WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT YET?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY, THE SHOTGUN APPROACH. YOU DESCRIBED YOUR
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 333
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SONG QIAN BACK IN
MARCH. ARE YOU INVOLVED IN SUPERVISING---
A. YES.
Q. IS HE STILL A STUDENT AT THE---
A. YES.
Q. ---CENTER?
A. HE'S A STUDENT AT THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
Q. OKAY. THAT'S -- SEE, I KNEW THERE WAS A
DIFFERENCE.
A. WELL, THE CENTER DOESN'T GRANT DEGREES.
Q. DR. JONES EXPLAINED THAT TO ME. I PROBABLY WASN'T
LISTENING CLOSELY ENOUGH. YOU DESCRIBED FOR US
THE MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH SONG WAS SUPPORTED IN
HIS WORK TOWARDS HIS DISSERTATION BY THE CENTER.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A. YEAH, IF YOU CAN REFRESH MY MEMORY. I---
Q. YOU DESCR -- WELL, THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS HE
STILL SUPPORTED THROUGH THE SAME MECHANISM? YOU
DESCRIBED IT---
A. NO.
Q. ---AS TWO TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLAR ($20,000.00)
GRANTS FROM THE CO-OP TO THE CENTER---
A. YES.
Q. ---OF WHICH SONG WAS RECEIVING SIXTEEN THOUSAND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 334
DOLLARS ($16,000.00) OUT OF EACH. DOES THAT SOUND
FAMILIAR?
A. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT, BUT -- I DOUBT IF
THAT'S RIGHT. HE'S NOT RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE
CENTER ANYMORE, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THOSE GRANTS STOPPED, OR
THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT---
A. THERE'S STILL MONEY IN ONE OF THEM, I THINK. I
DON'T MANAGE -- I SEE THE STATEMENTS ON ONLY ONE
OF THEM. I DON'T SEE THE STATEMENTS ON THE OTHER,
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THEM.
Q. ACCORDING TO THE TRANSCRIPT WHEN I REVIEWED IT,
AND IF THIS IS INCORRECT, JUST TELL ME SO, THERE
WERE GRANTS IN SUCCESSIVE YEARS, AND YOU HAD SEEN
SOME GRANT LETTERS, YOU THOUGHT, AT THE CENTER.
A. THEY WERE GIFTS, NOT GRANTS, WHICH IS AN
IMPORTANT---
Q. OKAY, I'M NOT USING THE RIGHT WORD.
A. ---DISTINCTION TO THE UNIVERSITY. AND YES. YES,
I HAVE -- THE ONE THAT I SEE THE STATEMENTS FOR, I
DID SEE THE LETTER ON THE GIFT TO THE CENTER.
Q. AND THOSE GIFTS WERE FROM THE CO-OP TO THE CENTER,
NOT TO THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
A. I THINK IT'S TO THE CENTER, YEAH.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 335
Q. IS SONG QIAN STILL IN THE MIDST OF HIS COURSE
WORK---
A. NO---
Q. ---OR HAS HE COMPLETED THAT?
A. ---HE PASSED HIS QUALIFYING EXAM FOR HIS DOCTORAL
DISSERTATION IN DECEMBER, AND SO HE'S JUST AT THE
EARLY STAGES OF DOCTORAL RESEARCH.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU EVER RECEIVE SONG'S FINAL PROPOSAL
FOR HIS DOCTORAL WORK?
A. YES. THAT WAS AN ESSENTIAL -- THAT WAS THE
ESSENTIAL WRITTEN ITEM FOR HIS EXAM IN DECEMBER.
Q. YOU HAD PROVIDED US A PROPOSAL, AND INDICATED BACK
IN MARCH THAT YOU WERE EXPECTING THE FINAL WITHIN
THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. DID IT CHANGE FROM THE
PROPOSAL THAT YOU PROVIDED US? DO YOU KNOW, OR DO
YOU RECALL?
A. I WAS SURE IT WAS POLISHED. BUT THE ESSENCE, I'M
FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE ESSENCE OF IT WAS THE
SAME. I'M SURE IT IS.
Q. CAN YOU SUM UP THE ESSENCE FOR ME?
A. THE ESSENCE IS SONG'S DISSERTATION WILL INVOLVE
THE USE OF NON-PARAMETRIC BAYES ANALYSIS TO PULL
MODELING ANALYSES ON WETLANDS TRAPPING, USING, WE
HOPE, THE NEW NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE, THAT R.L.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 336
KNIGHT IS WORKING ON WITH EPA, AND POSSIBLY WCA-2A
DATA, IF WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT FOR A MODEL
OF WETLAND NUTRIENT TRAPPING.
Q. WHO'S ON HIS PANEL?
A. HIS COMMITTEE?
Q. YEAH, I'M SORRY.
A. LET'S SEE, ME AND MICHAEL LAVINE FROM STATISTICS
AND DECISION SCIENCES, AND CURT RICHARDSON, AND
PETER BLOOMFIELD FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STATISTICAL SCIENCES, AND GABRIELLE KATUL FROM THE
SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
Q. NOW, YOU INDICATED BACK IN MARCH THAT YOU WOULDN'T
EXPECT TO SEE ANY RESULTS FROM QIAN'S WORK TO
SOMETIME INTO 1994. IS THAT TIME FRAME STILL---
A. FROM HIS DISSERTATION?
Q. YEAH.
A. YEAH, THE LATTER PART OF 1994, AT BEST.
Q. OKAY. DURING THIS PERIOD THAT SONG IS WORKING ON
HIS -- DOING HIS DISSERTATION RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPING THE WRITTEN PRODUCT, IS HE SUPPORTED BY
THE CENTER?
A. MY UNDERSTANDING IS HIS SUPPORT FROM THE CENTER
ENDED MAYBE SIX MONTHS AGO, OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
††††††††††††䡔⁅䕃呎剅ിഊ †††††††††䄠†奍唠䑎剅呓乁䥄䝎䤠⁓䥈⁓啓偐剏⁔剆䵏吠䕈䌠久䕔ഊ ††††††††††††久䕄⁄䅍䉙⁅䥓⁘位呎午䄠佇剏匠䵏呅䥈䝎䰠䭉ഊ ††††††††††††䡔呁മഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 337
Q. SO, AT THIS POINT, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, HE'S
SUPPORTING HIMSELF?
A. WE HAVE SUPPORT -- WELL, HE, LARGELY THROUGH HIS
EFFORTS, HAS OBTAINED TEACHING ASSISTANT AND OTHER
SUPPORT, EXTERNAL TO THE SCHOOL OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, SERVING AS A STATISTICS CONSULTANT,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON PROJECTS.
Q. DO YOU KNOW IF HE'S DOING ANY STATISTICAL
CONSULTING WORK FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THIS
CASE?
A. I DOUBT IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, AND I HAVE NO
EVIDENCE THAT HE IS. IN FACT, I'M ALMOST CERTAIN
HE'S NOT. STATISTICAL CONSULTING THAT HE'S TAKEN
ON, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HAS BEEN ON CAMPUS.
Q. SINCE OUR MEETING OR OUR DEPOSITIONS BACK IN MARCH
OF '93, HAVE YOU HAD ANY FURTHER MEETINGS WITH ANY
OF THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE, REGARDING THE MATTERS
AT ISSUE IN THE CASE, OTHER THAN THE TOC, FOR
EXAMPLE?
A. I MET WITH -- LET ME THINK. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE
ONLY MEETING I HAD WAS WITH CAROLYN JUST LAST
WEEK, A COUPLE OF HOURS.
Q. DO YOU HAVE A CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH ANY PARTY
TO THE CASE, OTHER THAN THOSE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 338
DESCRIBED?
A. NO.
Q. SO, YOU HAVE NO CURRENT CONSULTING OR CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CO-OP?
A. NO.
Q. OR THE LEAGUE?
A. NO.
Q. IN THE OVERNIGHT BREAK FROM OUR LAST GO ROUND AT
YOUR DEPOSITION, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU'D HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH DR. RICHARDSON CONCERNING SOME
OF THE GENERAL NATURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND
HOW MUCH YOU WERE ENJOYING THE PROCESS. HAVE YOU
HAD AN OCCASION TO DISCUSS WITH HIM YOUR RE-NOTICE
FOR DEPOSITION AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS?
A. YEAH, JUST IN PASSING, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.
Q. DID YOU EVER REVIEW YOUR PRIOR TRANSCRIPT?
A. NO.
Q. DID YOU EVER GET THAT?
A. NO -- OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY REVIEW
IT WITH RICHARDSON.
Q. NO. JUST YOU PERSONALLY?
A. YES, I LOOKED AT IT, YES.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU LOOK AT IT BEFORE -- I MEAN, IN THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 339
LAST WEEK TO TEN DAYS IN PREPARATION FOR THIS
PROCESS?
A. NO, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I HAVE A COPY OF IT. IT
SEEMS TO ME I SENT IT -- I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q. OKAY. YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SENT IT BACK TO THE
COURT REPORTER WITH YOUR CORRECTIONS, IF ANY.
A. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
Q. HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH TETRA TECH IN
THE LAST TEN TO TWELVE MONTHS?
A. I THINK RON MUNSON CALLED AND ASKED ABOUT THIS
WORK THAT SONG AND I WERE DOING, AND I TOLD HIM
THAT WE HAD NOTHING -- HAD NOTHING TO SEND HIM,
AND -- BUT I PROMISED HIM -- I LEFT A NOTE ON MY
DESK, I THINK, AND I PROMISED HIM I WOULD SEND HIM
A COPY OF THE PAPER WHEN WE FINISHED IT, AND IT
SEEMED TO ME I DID, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER
SEEING THAT NOTE ON MY DESK ANYMORE.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THAT PHONE
CONVERSATION WAS?
A. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN JUNE, JULY, SOMETHING LIKE
THAT -- MAY, JUNE, JULY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q. AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH TETRA
TECH SINCE?
A. NO.
†䄠䑎夠問䠠噁久吧䠠䑁䄠奎䌠䵏啍䥎䅃䥔乏圠呉⁈䕔剔ുഊ ††††††††††††䕔䡃匠义䕃ിഊ †††††††††䄠†低മഌ
†䅎䐠奏唠䡁噅丧吠䡁䐠䅎夠䍏䵍啎䥃䅔䥏丠坉呈⁔䕔剁ഊഊ††††††††††††⁔䕃䠠卉乃䔿ഊഊ††††††††††䄮†⁎伮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 340
Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR RE-NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION FOR TODAY'S CONVENING---
A. I DON'T KNOW IF I EVER RECEIVED A NOTICE -- WAS I?
Q. I'M SURE WE MUST HAVE SENT THEM TO COUNSEL, WHICH
YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T GET THE FIRST ONE, EITHER. IT
TENDS TO GO TO COUNSEL. THERE WAS AN INDICATION
IN THE TRANSCRIPT FROM BACK IN MARCH, THAT YOU HAD
WITHHELD, YOU KNOW, TEN TO TWENTY DOCUMENTS,
SOMETHING ON THAT ORDER, ON THE BASIS OF
PRIVILEGE, OR A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE ASSERTED BY
THE, CO-OP. AND LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
WERE YOU EVER MADE AWARE, PRIOR TO COMING HERE
TODAY, THAT FOR THIS DEPOSITION, A REQUEST WAS
EXTENDED AGAIN FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE RELATED TO THIS MATTER, BASICALLY
INCORPORATING THE LIST FROM THE ORIGINAL
DEPOSITION NOTICE?
A. WHEN CAROLYN CAME, WE WENT OVER SOME MATERIAL,
INDICATING WHAT WAS REQUESTED.
Q. AND DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT HAD
BEEN DEVELOPED, LOCATED, WHATNOT, DURING THE TEN
TO TWELVE MONTHS, THAT WERE RESPONSIVE TO THE
REQUEST?
A. YEAH, I GAVE HER A PAPER.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 341
MR. FITZGERALD: IF WE CAN MARK THIS AS
THE NEXT NUMBERED EXHIBIT. IT'S A DOCUMENT
DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1993, THE FIRST PAGE OF
WHICH HAS THE BATES STAMP NUMBER THAT LOOKS
LIKE DKR0013872.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED
TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS EXHIBIT
NO. 27 - KENNETH H. RECKHOW, Ph.D.
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) I'LL SHOW YOU THAT DOCUMENT.
IN ADDITION TO EXHIBIT 27---
MR. FITZGERALD: DO YOU HAVE A COPY
OF THAT, RICK?
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) OKAY, IN ADDITION TO THAT
DOCUMENT -- I SEE YOU HAVE A COPY, TOO, DOCTOR,
AND SOME CORRESPONDENCE, A COUPLE OF LETTERS BACK
AND FORTH TO THE AGU ABOUT PUBLICATION OF THAT
DOCUMENT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS
RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 342
A. WELL, I HAD SOME ITEMS THAT HAD BEEN TRANSMITTED
TO ME FROM THE LAW FIRM, UNDER THEIR PRIVILEGED
AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND I GAVE THEM -- I GUESS I
SENT THEM TO GARY PERKO. YEAH.
Q. YOU DON'T WORK FOR THE LAW FIRM?
A. NO.
Q. UNDER WHAT RELATIONSHIP ARE YOU CLAIMING PRIVILEGE
FOR DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE HAD OR REVIEWED, BASED
ON SOMEBODY YOU DON'T WORK FOR, WHO IS NOT YOUR
EMPLOYER, WITH WHOM YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT?
A. I'M NOT CLAIMING PRIVILEGE ON ANYTHING. I JUST
PROVIDED THEM TO THE LAW FIRM. I DON'T---
Q. BUT IN YOUR VIEW AT THE TIME YOU PROVIDED THEM TO
THE LAW FIRM, THEY FELL WITHIN THE DESCRIPTIONS IN
THE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, THE REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS?
A. YES.
MS. RAEPPLE: THESE WOULD BE DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE SENT BY US TO DR. RECKHOW, AND
WE'RE CLAIMING WORK PRODUCT.
MR. FITZGERALD: WORK PRODUCT FOR
SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. FITZGERALD: YOU'VE DISCLOSED THEM
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 343
TO A STRANGER TO THE CASE TO A THIRD PARTY TO
THIS ACTION. WHERE'S THE WORK PRODUCT IN
THAT?
MS. RAEPPLE: WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
MR. FITZGERALD: BASED -- I ASSUME YOU
HAVE PRECEDENT AND AUTHORITY FOR THAT CLAIM
OF EXPECTATION WHEN YOU DISCLOSE TO A THIRD
PARTY?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. FITZGERALD: I THINK WE WILL TAKE
EXCEPTION TO THAT, AND WE'LL TAKE THAT UP
WITH THE HEARING OFFICER.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) HOW MANY DOCUMENTS ARE
INVOLVED IN THAT, IF YOU RECALL, DOCTOR, WITHOUT
GIVING ANY SPECIFICS OF WHAT'S IN THEM?
A. HALF A DOZEN, AT MOST.
Q. AND DID YOU RECEIVE ALL THESE DOCUMENTS FROM
COUNSEL?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK SOME
MAY HAVE COME FROM KBN.
Q. DO YOU HAVE A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH KBN?
A. NO.
†䐠⁏余⁕䅈䕖䄠䌠乏剔䍁啔䱁删䱅呁佉华䥈⁐䥗䡔䬠乂ിഊ †††††††††䄠†低മ
†䑏⁙何⁈䅖䔠䄠䍏乔剁䍔啁䰠剅䱁呉低午䥐⁗䥔䠠䭂丿ഊഊ††††††††††䄮†⁎伮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 344
Q. WERE THERE ANY -- WAS THERE ANY EXPLANATION FROM
KBN WHY THEY WERE SENDING THEM TO YOU?
A. NO, I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE WAS.
Q. WERE YOU AWARE THEY WERE COMING TO YOU BEFORE YOU
HAD RECEIVED THEM?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I WAS, HUH-UH (NO).
Q. HOW'D YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM WHEN YOU GOT
THEM? KIND OF AN OBVIOUS QUESTION.
A. THERE WAS A COVER LETTER EXPLAINING WHAT THEY
WERE.
Q. WHO AT KBN SIGNED THE COVER LETTERS?
A. GEE, I---
MS. RAEPPLE: AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING
TO OBJECT FURTHER ON WORK PRODUCT, IF YOU GET
INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE DOCUMENTS, WE'RE
CLAIMING WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. AND IF
YOU'RE---
MR. FITZGERALD: I'M NOT ASKING ANY
SPECIFICS ABOUT -- STRICTLY WHO SIGNED THE
COVER LETTER. ARE YOU CLAIMING A WORK
PRODUCT ON THAT?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S RIGHT. YES.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) IN THE MATERIALS -- DURING
WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID YOU RECEIVE THESE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 345
MATERIALS?
A. I WOULD SAY IT WAS SOMETIME IN THE MAY TO AUGUST
PERIOD OF TIME.
Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU PERFORM STATISTICAL ANALYSIS,
BASED ON THESE MATERIALS THAT YOU RECEIVED?
A. I DID NOTHING WITH THEM.
Q. THAT'S PRETTY STRANGE.
A. I GET A LOT OF THINGS IN THE MAIL THAT I DO
NOTHING WITH.
Q. ME TOO.
MR. BURGESS: KIND OF LIKE THAT LETTER
I SENT YOU LAST WEEK.
MR. FITZGERALD: OH, I DIDN'T IGNORE
THAT LETTER, I THREW IT AWAY.
MR. BURGESS: WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT
LATER.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) SINCE MARCH, HAVE YOU HAD ANY
CONTACT WITH CURT POLLMAN?
A. I CAN'T REMEMBER. I MAY HAVE. HE MAY HAVE BEEN
SOMEONE I SENT THE PAPER TO AS WELL, AGAIN, IN THE
SAME SPIRIT AS WITH RON MUNSON.
Q. BUT NO SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE
WORK THAT YOU OR QIAN WERE DOING?
A. NOT ANYTHING THAT I CAN RECALL.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 346
Q. YOU INDICATED IN MARCH THAT YOU HAD A DOCUMENT
THAT WAS RESPONSIVE, BUT YOU HAD JUST KIND OF
OVERLOOKED OR FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE, IN RESPONSE TO
PARAGRAPH NINE OF THE SUBPOENA, OR THE NOTICE OF
PRODUCTION PROVIDED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, AND WHICH HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE UNITED
STATES AS WELL; THAT APPARENTLY INVOLVES SOME -- A
DECISIONAL CLASS HANDOUT DOCUMENT, WHICH YOU SAID
"NO PROBLEM, WE'LL PROVIDE IT," AND COUNSEL, OF
COURSE, THEN -- COUNSEL WHO WAS HERE AND HEARD
THAT, TO EVADE THAT RESPONSIBILITY, WENT OFF TO
EASTERN EUROPE INTO ONE OF THE FORMER S.S.R.'S AND
DOCUMENT NEVER TO BE SEEN. I WONDER IF WE MIGHT
GET THAT NOW. DO YOU KNOW THE DOCUMENT THAT WE
WERE -- THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THEN?
A. NO, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q. A CLASS HANDOUT DOCUMENT, A DECISIONAL CLASS?
A. I, LAST SPRING, TAUGHT A CLASS IN DECISION
ANALYSIS. I---
Q. I THINK MAYBE I CAN FIND IT IN THE RECORD AND
SOMETHING---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---AND WE'LL CLEAR IT UP.
A. OKAY.
††††††††††䄮†⁏䭁央ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 347
MS. RAEPPLE: MR. FITZGERALD, I RECALL
THE INSTANCE IN THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE THE
REPRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT THAT HANDOUT
WOULD BE PROVIDED, AND WHEN WE'RE OFF THE
RECORD, I'LL TALK TO THE WITNESS AND SEE IF
WE CAN'T GET THAT DOCUMENT FOR YOU.
MR. FITZGERALD: I NOTICE IT WAS IN
RESPONSE TO MR. REID, NOT TO ME, SO THAT'S --
BUT I PICKED IT UP WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH
AND MAKING NOTES. I THINK THE WHOLE CASE
WILL PROBABLY TURN ON IT, SO IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) IN THE INTERVENING TIME, HAVE
YOU DONE ANYTHING -- ANY WORK THAT HAD LED YOU TO
CHANGE YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON YOUR ROLE, AND WHETHER
YOU MIGHT OFFER OPINIONS ON WHETHER STA'S WILL
WORK OR NOT?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. AT THE TIME, YOU DEFINED OPINION AS
EQUALLING THE PREFERENCE FOR A STRATEGY. IS THAT
STILL YOUR VIEW OF WHAT OPINION MEANS?
A. THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE.
Q. YOU ALSO SAID, HOWEVER, THAT YOU WOULD REACH ANY
CONCLUSIONS AFTER SONG'S WORK ON STA DESIGN WAS
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 348
COMPLETE, AND I HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS YOU THOUGHT YOU
WOULD BE REACHING, SINCE YOU DIDN'T PLAN TO HAVE
OPINIONS ON WHETHER STA'S WOULD WORK. CAN YOU
CLARIFY THAT FOR ME, IF YOU CAN?
A. COULD YOU REPEAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OR TWO? I
DIDN'T CATCH ALL THE WORDS.
Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD REACH ANY CONCLUSIONS
AFTER SONG'S WORK ON STA DESIGN WAS COMPLETE, AND
I GUESS THAT CONFUSED ME, BECAUSE SINCE YOU DIDN'T
PLAN TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS ON WHETHER STA'S WOULD
WORK, I WAS LEFT A LITTLE UNCLEAR. I READ IT A
COUPLE OF TIMES, AND STILL COULDN'T FIGURE OUT
WHAT OF SONG'S WORK -- WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU
THOUGHT YOU MIGHT REACH, BASED ON SONG'S WORK.
A. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO AT THAT
TIME. CONCLUSIONS WE HOPE TO REACH ARE WITH
REGARDS TO GOOD PREDICTIVE MODELS, AND NOT
NECESSARILY SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF THOSE
MODELS.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU DEVELOPED ANY MODELS THAT WOULD
RELATE TO STA DESIGN, SINCE OUR MARCH DEPOSITION
SESSION?
A. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE MODELS IN THIS PAPER THAT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 349
SONG AND I WROTE WOULD RELATE TO STA DESIGN. I
HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THAT ISSUE AT ALL.
Q. SO, I TAKE IT FROM YOUR ANSWER, THEN, THAT
EXHIBIT 27 WAS NOT DEVELOPED WITH THE INTENT THAT
IT BE APPLIED TO STA'S?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. BUT IT DOES, AT LEAST IN ONE PORTION OF THE
ANALYSIS, USE THE DATABASE FROM WCA-2A?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. YOU WERE AWARE THAT 2A WAS BEING -- OR IS BEING
USED IN THE SWIM PLAN AND IN THE ANALYSIS DONE
BY DRS. KADLEC AND WALKER AS A BASIS FOR STA
DESIGN?
A. I'M NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE STA DESIGN WORK. I
KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE DATA,
THE WCA-2A DATA.
Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD A SABBATICAL COMING UP
THIS YEAR. IS THAT STILL THE CASE?
A. YES, I'M IN THE MIDST OF IT.
Q. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK WHEN, TO SEE IF YOU'RE
GOING TO BE AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE RUBBER
MEETS THE ROAD IN THIS THING. HOW LONG WILL THAT
LAST?
A. 'TIL SEPTEMBER OF '94.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 350
Q. OKAY. BUT YOU WILL BE HERE---
A. HERE.
Q. ---LOCALLY IN---
A. YES.
Q. ---DURHAM?
A. YES.
Q. YOU INDICATED IN MARCH THAT YOU DID NOT EXPECT
YOU'D BE OFFERING ANY TESTIMONY ON TREND ANALYSIS
WITH RESPECT TO THE EVERGLADES PROTECTION AREA.
IS THAT STILL TRUE?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU DONE ANY TREND ANALYSIS WORK WITH RESPECT
TO WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN THE EVERGLADES
PROTECTION AREA?
A. NO.
Q. ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS UTILIZED AT THE LAST
DEPOSITION, AND WAS EXHIBIT SIX, WAS A PAPER BY
W.H. PATRICK, JR., FROM L.S.U., DATED OCTOBER '92,
TITLED "REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE ON PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT WETLANDS." AND AT
THE TIME YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD IT AT HAND,
BUT YOU HAD NOT READ IT YET. WAS THAT DOCUMENT
UTILIZED BY YOU IN ANY WAY AS BACKGROUND, OR AS A
REFERENCE FOR EXHIBIT 27?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 351
A. I'D HAVE TO LOOK IN THE REFERENCE LIST TO SEE IF
IT'S LISTED. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT.
Q. DO YOU RECALL IF YOU'VE READ IT YET?
A. I HAVE NOT READ IT, YET.
Q. SO, YOU DIDN'T USE IT, ANYWAY?
A. I DID NOT USE IT, CORRECT.
Q. WELL, WE MAY GET THROUGH A LOT OF THESE VERY
QUICKLY, THAT WAY. EXHIBIT ELEVEN FROM THE
EARLIER DEPOSITION, "FORMS OF SOIL PHOSPHORUS
ALONG A NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT GRADIENT IN THE
NORTHERN EVERGLADES." THIS IS THE DOCUMENT BY
ROBERT QUALLS AND CURTIS RICHARDSON, WHO CLAIM
THEY'RE WITH THE WETLAND CENTER. YOU INDICATED AT
THAT TIME THAT YOU HADN'T READ THAT ONE, EITHER,
BUT THAT YOU MIGHT RELY UPON IT. DO YOU RECALL
IF YOU HAVE READ IT SINCE, OR WHETHER YOU HAVE
RELIED ON IT?
A. THAT MAY BE THE PAPER THAT IS CITED HERE, BUT I'M
NOT CERTAIN.
Q. OKAY. THERE'S -- IF YOU CAN LOOK AT YOUR COPY OF
EXHIBIT 27---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---THERE IS REFERENCE IN THERE, AS I RECALL, TO A
CRAFT-RICHARDSON, OR RICHARDSON-CRAFT DOCUMENT,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 352
WHICH MAYBE ONE OF THE ONES COMING UP.
A. RICHARDSON-CRAFT.
Q. YEAH. BUT THIS IS QUALLS-RICHARDSON---
A. OKAY. NO.
Q. ---WHICH I DIDN'T SEE IN THERE---
A. NO.
Q. ---IN YOUR REFERENCE TABLE. SO, THIS WAS NOT
UTILIZED?
A. YEAH, I -- I HAD CRAFT AND QUALLS CONFUSED. IF
IT'S NOT LISTED IN THE REFERENCE LIST, WE -- I DID
NOT RELY ON IT.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF -- DO YOU RECALL IF YOU
PROVIDED ANY INPUT FOR EXHIBIT ELEVEN TO
DR. QUALLS OR DR. RICHARDSON ON THAT -- THAT
PAPER?
A. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT I DID.
MR. FITZGERALD: I SEEM TO BE
MISSING ONE OF MINE. I'M MISSING NUMBER
14. RON, DID YOU PULL THAT ONE OUT, BY
ANY CHANCE?
DR. JONES: HUH-UH (NO).
MR. FITZGERALD: I FORGET WHAT IT WAS.
MS. RAEPPLE: I HAVE IT.
MR. FITZGERALD: YOU'VE GOT 14?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 353
MS. RAEPPLE: 14?
MR. FITZGERALD: YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST
GIVE ME THE TITLE OF THAT DOCUMENT. I KNOW I
HAD IT BEFORE, BECAUSE I WROTE IT DOWN. IT
PROBABLY IS, AND IT'S JUST STUCK -- I FOUND
IT. THANK YOU. THE PAPER CLIP PICKED UP
BOTH OF THEM.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) EXHIBIT 14 WAS A PAPER BY
LOWE, BATTOE, STITES, AND COVENEY, OR COVENEY,
FROM THE ST. JOHNS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN
FLORIDA ON PARTICULATE PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL BY A
WETLAND FILTRATION, WHICH YOU HAD PROVIDED AS PART
OF YOUR DOCUMENTS; AND AT THE TIME YOU INDICATED
YOU POSSIBLY COULD USE, MAY USE, PROBABLY HADN'T
READ. HAVE YOU RELIED ON IT?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU READ IT?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. AND THEN THE FAMOUS FACT OR FICTION
ARTICLE, DEPO EXHIBIT 15 -- "EFFECTIVE PHOSPHORUS
RETENTION IN WETLANDS, FACT OR FICTION?" -- AND
YOU INDICATED THIS WAS A MODIFICATION OF SONG'S
WORK, AND THE DATA LISTINGS HAD BEEN DONE BY SONG
FOR A CLASS. I BELIEVE THAT WAS A CLASS OF YOURS?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 354
A. IF I SAID THAT, THAT'S -- I DON'T REMEMBER IT, BUT
I'LL DEFER TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
Q. THIS DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT 15, WAS A BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT, AS A REFERENCE FOR THE EXHIBIT 27 PAPER,
RIGHT?
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. SO, DR. RICHARDSON AND -- WAS DR. CRAFT ALSO AN
AUTHOR ON THAT?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND SONG DID THE MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND
WORK?
A. (NO RESPONSE.)
Q. OKAY, YOU PROVIDED AS EXHIBIT 16 A PHASE ONE
NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE APPENDICES AND
DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU INDICATED WERE FROM THE
KADLEC-NEWMAN WORK FROM 1992. DO YOU RECALL
THAT?
A. I RECALL THE KADLEC-NEWMAN WORK, YES.
Q. IN EXHIBIT 27, YOU CITE TO THE NORTH AMERICAN
DATABASE AND A DATA SET. IS THAT THE DATA SET
THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
MR. BURGESS: WHAT NUMBER EXHIBIT IS
THAT?
MR. FITZGERALD: THAT'S EXHIBIT 16.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 355
WITNESS: 16.
MS. RAEPPLE: THANK YOU.
A. I THINK IT IS. IT'S GOING BY THE SAME NAME, SO
I'M ASSUMING THAT IT IS.
Q. WHEN THE ANALYSIS IN EXHIBIT 27 WAS CONDUCTED,
PART OF IT IS ON OR BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
DATABASE?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. DO YOU RECALL HOW YOU ACQUIRED THE DATA SET FOR
THAT?
A. I BELIEVE WE OBTAINED IT EITHER FROM CURT
RICHARDSON OR FROM CURT POLLMAN, BUT I DON'T
REMEMBER.
Q. WOULD YOU RECALL IF IT WAS IN TABULAR FORM OR
DISK?
A. I THINK WE HAD IT -- WE OBTAINED IT IN BOTH.
Q. THE KADLEC-NEWMAN DOCUMENT, THAT WAS IN YOUR
MATERIALS, INDICATED THAT THE DATA LISTING WAS
UNCHECKED AND UNPUBLISHED. IN PREPARING TO
PRODUCE EXHIBIT 27, WERE YOU ABLE TO ENSURE
THAT THE -- OR FINALIZE THE DATA IN ANY FASHION,
OR WAS IT STILL UNCHECKED AND UNPUBLISHED AT THE
TIME YOU PRODUCED EXHIBIT 27, DATED SEPTEMBER OF
'93?
††††††††††††传⁒䅗⁓呉匠䥔䱌唠䍎䕈䭃䑅䄠䑎唠偎䉕䥌䡓䑅䄠⁔䡔ഊ ††††††††††††䥔䕍夠問倠佒啄䕃⁄塅䥈䥂⁔㜲䅄䕔⁄䕓呐䵅䕂⁒䙏††††††††††††✠㌹ിഌ
††††††††††††㤧㼳
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 356
A. WE DIDN'T DO ANY DATA CHECKING. WE MADE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THESE DATA REPRESENTED A GOOD
DATA SET. WE HOPE TO OBTAIN FROM KNIGHT IN THE
NEW AND IMPROVED NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE.
Q. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DATABASE THAT
WOULD HAVE EXISTED THEN, AND THE ONE NOW?
A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I'VE JUST HAVE BEEN
TOLD THAT THERE'S A BETTER DATABASE AVAILABLE,
THAT THAT DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED OR REVISED,
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HOPED TO USE FOR SONG'S
DISSERTATION.
Q. DID YOU UNDERSTAND UPDATE OR REVISION IN THE SENSE
OF IT'S EXPANDED? THAT IT'S A LARGER DATABASE,
OR THAT---
A. I THOUGHT THAT COULD HAVE MEANT ANY ONE OF A
NUMBER OF THINGS, INCLUDING THAT.
Q. OKAY. YOU PROVIDED SOME BIWEEKLY PROGRESS
REPORTS, AND THEY WERE EXHIBIT 24 TO THE EARLIER
DEPOSITION, THAT YOU HAD BEEN PROVIDING TO THE
LEAGUE, AND OTHERS, I GUESS, LIKE CURT POLLMAN,
AND SOME PEOPLE YOU IDENTIFIED IN THE DEPOSITION
AT THAT TIME. DID YOU DO ANY ADDITIONAL BIWEEKLY
REPORTS ON -- THAT WERE ON QIAN SONG'S WORK?
A. NO.
†††††††††䄠†低മ
††††††††††䄮†⁎伮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 357
Q. AFTER MARCH, WERE ANY ADDITIONAL SUCH REPORTS
PROVIDED?
A. I DON'T RECALL SENDING ANY, NO.
Q. OKAY. YOU INDICATED IN MARCH THAT TO THE EXTENT
THAT YOU MIGHT BE SUBJECTED TO BEING A WITNESS
AT HEARING IN THIS MATTER, THAT YOU WOULD BE
TESTIFYING FROM SONG'S WORK. DO YOU RECALL
THAT?
A. I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT, YES, THAT SOUNDS
REASONABLE.
Q. IS THAT STILL---
A. YES.
Q. ---STILL CORRECT?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. TO WHAT EXTENT DOES EXHIBIT 27 REPRESENT SONG'S
WORK, AND TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT REPRESENT YOUR
WORK?
A. SONG DID ALL OF THE ANALYSIS. I DID ALL OF THE
WRITING WITH THE PRIMARY EXCEPTION OF THE
LITERATURE, "PREVIOUS WORK ON NUTRIENT TRAPPING IN
WETLANDS," PAGES -- WELL, BASICALLY PAGES THREE
AND FOUR, WHICH WERE MAINLY FROM SONG, AND I JUST
EDITED TO IMPROVE THE ENGLISH. OTHERWISE, I DID
ALL THE REST OF THE WRITING.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 358
Q. YOU INDICATED, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE NOTES,
THAT YOU WOULD TESTIFY BECAUSE SONG --
ESSENTIALLY, YOU DESCRIBED HIS BACKGROUND THAT
HE WAS CHINESE, AND NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR SYSTEM.
IS IT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT HIS FACILITY
IN ENGLISH IS FAIRLY GREAT, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF
THE TIME HE'S BEEN IN THE COUNTRY, AND HAVING
WORKED THROUGH -- HE'S GETTING HIS DOCTORATE AT
DUKE---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---SO, I ASSUME THAT THE LANGUAGE BARRIER IS NOT
A MAJOR PROBLEM -- OR IS THAT NOT A FAIR
ASSUMPTION?
A. IT IS AND IT ISN'T. HIS ENGLISH IS GOOD, RELATIVE
TO MANY OTHER FOREIGN STUDENTS.
Q. OR CHINESE?
A. YES, IT'S FAR SUPERIOR TO THAT. ON THE OTHER
HAND, HE'S NOT -- HE DOESN'T APPRECIATE NUANCES
AND MEANINGS, AND IS -- I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO
SUBJECT A GRADUATE STUDENT, UNLESS HE OR SHE IS
WILLING, TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS PERIOD. BUT
SOMEONE WHO'S A FOREIGNER, NOT -- WITHOUT THIS HIS
NATIVE LANGUAGE, IT'S -- IT CAN BE A PERSONALLY, A
DAMAGING EXPERIENCE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 359
Q. YOU DESCRIBED SOME WORK YOU DID BACK IN 1981 FOR A
SEPARATE LAWSUIT ON ANALYSIS AND GRAPHICS ON WATER
LEVELS AND CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS AT VARIOUS
STRUCTURES WITHIN THE EPA. YOU INDICATED THAT
THAT DATA HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM JOHN DAVIS.
A. SAY THAT AGAIN.
Q. OKAY.
A. SOMETHING DIDN'T---
Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED SOME DATA FROM
JOHN DAVIS.
A. YOU PROVIDED A DATE, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF
THAT STATEMENT.
Q. 1991-ISH.
A. 1991, OKAY.
Q. OKAY, AND THAT YOU HAD DONE SOME ANALYSIS AND
GRAPHIC WORK RELATING TO WATER LEVELS AND
CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS, PRIMARILY PHOSPHORUS,
AT STRUCTURES WITHIN THE EVERGLADES PROTECTION
AREA -- I MEAN, WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
STRUCTURES---
A. YES, YES.
Q. ---OR CORPS OF ENGINEER STRUCTURES?
A. YES.
Q. AND THEN YOU DID THAT WORK WITH SONG?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 360
A. I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE---
Q. I'M SORRY, YOU'RE CORRECT. THAT WAS THE PUNCH
LINE OF THE QUESTION. THAT DATA AND WORK THAT
YOU DID, DID YOU EVER SHARE THAT ANALYSIS WITH
SONG?
A. NO.
Q. DID YOU EVER SHARE IT WITH ANYONE?
A. I'M SURE I SHARED IT WITH JOHN, PROBABLY HAVE
SHARED IT WITH RICK.
Q. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN
ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE PUBLISHED OR WRITTEN?
A. NO, HUH-UH (NO).
Q. YOU INDICATED IN MARCH THAT YOU EXPECTED, TO SOME
DEGREE, THAT SONG'S WORK WOULD BE INCORPORATED
INTO THE TETRA TECH MODEL, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
EITHER I, OR BEN, AT THE TIME, ASKED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION, WHENCE SPRANG THAT ASSUMPTION, WHY DID
YOU ASSUME THAT HIS WORK WOULD BE INCORPORATED
INTO THE TETRA TECH MODEL?
A. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT I HAD HAD A PHONE CALL TO
INDICATE THAT, POSSIBLY FROM RON MUNSON. I DON'T
REMEMBER THE STIMULUS. THAT PROBABLY WAS IT, THAT
I'D RECEIVED A CALL FROM RON EXPRESSING INTEREST
IN THE WORK, AND INDICATED THAT THAT MIGHT OCCUR.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 361
Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH DR. GHERINI
REGARDING HIS MODELING EFFORTS?
A. REGARDING THESE MODELING EFFORTS?
Q. GHERINI'S MODELING EFFORTS.
A. NO. WITH REGARD TO SOUTH FLORIDA, NO.
Q. SO, THAT WOULD EXTEND TO SONG'S WORK AS WELL?
A. YEAH. YEAH.
Q. DOES THE WORK REFLECTED IN EXHIBIT 27 GO TO
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS IN
GENERAL?
A. BY "GO TO," YOU MEAN---
Q. USING YOUR WORDS, FROM SOMETHING YOU SAID BACK IN
MARCH, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE, AND YOU INDICATED YOU
COULDN'T TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC ANALYSIS BEING DONE,
THAT YOU WOULDN'T DEVELOP OPINIONS, BUT WOULD
FOLLOW THE ANALYSIS IN THAT AREA THROUGH SONG.
YOU FURTHER SAID YOU DIDN'T SEE SONG'S WORK GOING
TO PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN THE EPA AND WETLAND
TREATMENT AREAS, AND IT APPEARS TO ME -- AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- BUT THAT EXACTLY WHAT
EXHIBIT 27 GOES TO.
A. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, BUT I
DON'T THINK I EVER AT ANY POINT SAID THAT WE WOULD
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 362
NOT BE USING THOSE DATA, AND WORKING WITH WCA-2A
DATA, BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY WERE.
Q. UH-HUH (YES). I'M NOT MEANING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU
DIDN'T INDICATE THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE WORKING WITH
THE WCA-2A DATA---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---I THINK YOU MADE THAT VERY CLEAR.
A. SO, I MAY HAVE MADE MYSELF UNCLEAR IN THAT
STATEMENT.
Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU MIGHT, AT SOME POINT, HAVE
CONCLUSIONS ON ISSUES LIKE THE SUPPORT -- YOUR
ANALYSIS, YOUR AND SONG'S -- WOULD DEMONSTRATE, OR
THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE, SUPPORT
FOR THE SCIENCE IN THE SWIM PLAN, REGARDING
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE. I THINK THAT WE WERE, IN PART,
TALKING ABOUT THE AREAS IN WHICH THE CO-OP HAD
DESIGNATED YOU AS AN EXPERT WITNESS. HAVE YOU
REACHED CONCLUSIONS IN THAT AREA?
A. NO.
Q. DO YOU ANTICIPATE REACHING CONCLUSIONS IN
THAT AREA BETWEEN NOW AND OUR APRIL 25 HEARING
DATE?
A. NO.
Q. WHY NOT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 363
A. I'M INTERESTED IN THIS EFFORT AS A MODEL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. I'M INTERESTED IN APPLYING
CERTAIN STATISTICAL METHODS TO DEVELOP MODELS
USING DATA SETS THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO, THAT WE
FEEL REASONABLY COMFORTABLE WITH, TO DEVELOP
PREDICTIVE MODELS OF WETLANDS NUTRIENT TRAPPING.
I'M NOT INTERESTED IN SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF
THOSE MODELS AT THIS POINT.
Q. SO, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER, THIS WAS
DEVELOPED MORE AS AN EXERCISE FOR THE STUDENT
IN THE ABSTRACT, AND YOU WERE NOT INTENDING OR
DESIGNING THIS WORK TO BE APPLIED TO A SPECIFIC
SYSTEM IN A SPECIFIC LOCALE?
A. THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OBJECTIVE, AS AN EDUCATIONAL
EXERCISE. A SECOND OBJECTIVE THAT I HAVE, AND I
SUSPECT SONG HAS, TOO, IS TO DEVELOP USEFUL,
PREDICTIVE MODELS. BUT NEITHER HE, AS FAR AS I
KNOW -- AND I HAVE NO REASON TO EVEN QUESTION
THIS -- NEITHER HE NOR I HAVE INTEREST IN SPECIFIC
APPLICATIONS. WE WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF WE
DEVELOPED A PREDICTIVE MODEL, THAT WE INTENDED TO
BE USEFUL FOR PREDICTIVE PURPOSES WAS NOT USEFUL
IN SOME APPLICATION, BUT WE ARE NOT DEVELOPING
THIS FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 364
Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE THEN, TRYING TO
APPLY EITHER OF -- EFFECTIVELY THERE ARE TWO
MODELS IN THIS PAPER.
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE, THEN, TRYING TO APPLY
EITHER OF THOSE MODELS TO A SPECIFIC SITUATION IN
SOUTH FLORIDA?
A. I'M UNCOMFORTABLE APPLYING THE WCA-2A MODEL FOR
REASONS AS STATED IN THE PAPER. I AM NOT, AT THIS
POINT, UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THE MODEL FROM THE
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE, SUBJECT TO CONSTRAINTS
THAT ONE WOULD NORMALLY PUT ON A CROSS-SECTIONAL
MODEL, ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
DATA.
Q. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE 2A MODEL THAT YOU'RE
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH?
A. I DON'T FEEL THAT I UNDERSTAND THE FLOW PATHS, AND
WHAT I WOULD CALL THE EFFECTIVE INVOLVED AREA, OR
TREATING AREA OF WCA-2A. AND I DON'T THINK -- I
DON'T FEEL THAT THIS SIMPLE MODEL, CAPTURES
ADEQUATELY THE WATER MOVEMENT AND THE NUTRIENT
MOVEMENT.
Q. THAT MODEL, TO ME, SEEMS TO TAKE LOADING IN,
DEPTH, AND PREDICTS CONCENTRATION OUT, BASED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 365
ON -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY NONLINEAR, BECAUSE IT'S
LINEAR, BUT A---
A. IT'S NONLINEAR.
Q. DO YOU CALL IT NONLINEAR BECAUSE IT HAS A BREAK
POINT?
A. WELL, THE MODEL -- THE WCA-2A MODEL IS, AS
DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER, BASED ON A SMOOTH, WHICH
FOLLOWS THE SHAPE OF THE DATA.
Q. DID YOU EVER -- HAS IT EVER BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR
ATTENTION THAT A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE TOPOGRAPHICAL
MAPPING EFFORT AND HYDROGRAPHIC EFFORT WAS DONE IN
WCA-2A BY THE CO-OP?
A. WHO DID?
Q. THE CO-OP.
A. BUT WHO, SPECIFICALLY? I'M JUST TRYING TO---
Q. A LONG LINE OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT.
DR. LARSON HAS BEEN INVOLVED; MR. OWENS HAS BEEN
INVOLVED, AS A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR; KEITH
AND SCHNARRS, AN ENGINEERING FIRM IN FLORIDA HAS
BEEN INVOLVED. ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY'RE BEYOND
FLORIDA, BUT WELL-KNOWN IN FLORIDA. AND OTHERS.
BUT HAVE YOU EVER -- MAYBE WE CAN DO IT
DIFFERENTLY. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY TOPOGRAPHIC
DATA ON WCA-2A THAT WOULD HELP ADDRESS SOME OF
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 366
THESE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF
FLOW PATHS, ETCETERA?
A. I DON'T RECALL. I HAVE HEARD OF SOME WORK OF THAT
NATURE, NOT THE SPECIFIC PEOPLE YOU IDENTIFY---
Q. TOM JENNINGS---
A. ---I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT, BECAUSE I'M --
WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING A MODEL OF THAT
SPECIFIC WETLAND---
Q. I UNDERSTAND.
A. ---SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT MAY HAVE CROSSED MY
LINE OF SIGHT, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE FOCUSED ON IT,
WITH EMPHASIS ON THE OBJECTIVES HERE.
Q. OKAY. IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT 2A WAS
HOMOGENEOUS, WOULD THAT REMOVE MANY OF THE
CONCERNS YOU HAVE ABOUT APPLYING THE 2A MODEL?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
MR. FITZGERALD: HE'S AN EXPERT. IT'S
A HYPOTHETICAL. IF YOU CAN ANSWER IT.
A. THAT -- IF IT WAS HOMOGENEOUS, OR RELATIVELY
HOMOGENEOUS, AND IT WAS LOADED IN A WAY THAT GAVE
INDICATION OF THE FACT THAT THAT HOMOGENEITY
INDICATED THAT THE ENTIRE -- ESSENTIALLY THE
ENTIRE AREA WAS CONTRIBUTING, THEN THAT WOULD
RAISE MY COMFORT LEVEL.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 367
Q. DO YOU KNOW IF SONG CONSIDERED OR ATTEMPTED TO
CONSIDER THAT ASPECT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF 2A AT
THE TIME HE WAS DEVELOPING THE MODEL?
A. I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT THE MODELING APPROACH THAT
WE'RE USING HERE, JUST IS NOT INTENDED FOR THAT
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Q. GIVEN THAT CONSTRAINT, IS THAT MODELING EFFORT
THEN USEFUL IN ANY WAY IN STA DESIGN WORK?
A. I THINK THAT IT COULD BE.
Q. DOES THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE PROVIDE ANY DATA
ON FLOW PATH AND FLOW VOLUMES, FLOW INFORMATION
GENERALLY?
A. NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q. SO, THAT THE MODEL BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
DATABASE IS MISSING THE SAME UNDERLYING DATA THAT
IS ABSENT FOR THE 2A MODEL?
A. IT'S CERTAINLY CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE ARE WETLANDS
IN THAT DATABASE THAT HAVE FLOW PATHS THAT WOULD
CAUSE THE SAME SORT OF CONCERN.
Q. OKAY. SO, THAT'S ACROSS THE PAPER?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY).
Q. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THEN, IN ANY APPLICATION OF
THESE TYPES OF MODELS -- THE TWO TYPES OF MODELS
THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPLY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 368
THEM WITH GREAT CARE, AND SUBSTANTIAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE HYDROLOGY OF THE WETLAND INVOLVED?
A. APPLICATION OF ANY MODEL OUGHT TO BE INVOLVED
WITH -- OUGHT TO APPLY -- THAT APPLICATION SHOULD
HAVE CARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
Q. THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE THAT WAS UTILIZED TO
DEVELOP EXHIBIT 27'S BROAD MODEL, AS OPPOSED TO
THE 2A MODEL, DOES THAT DATABASE MAKE ANY
DISTINCTION AMONGST WETLAND TYPE -- AND BY TYPE, I
MEAN MARSH VERSUS SUBSURFACE FLOW, VERSUS UPLAND
FOREST?
A. I DON'T KNOW.
Q. OKAY. IS THERE ANY WEIGHTING OF DATA IN THAT
DATABASE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
IMPROPER WEIGHTING BETWEEN WETLAND THAT MAY BE
SAMPLED MONTHLY AS ONE THAT MAY BE SAMPLED
QUARTERLY?
A. NO.
Q. DO YOU THINK THAT THAT TYPE OF WEIGHTING SHOULD BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DEVELOPING A MODEL?
A. I THINK THAT THAT HAS MERIT TO IT. I'VE NOT SEEN
THAT APPLIED TOO OFTEN IN CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES
LIKE THESE, BUT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR
DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 369
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPE OF WETLANDS THAT
ARE, IN FACT, INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL DATABASE?
A. NO.
Q. SO, YOU DON'T KNOW IF CYPRESS ARE INCLUDED AND
SUBSURFACE, AND UPLANDS, OR FOREST AND WHATEVER?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. DO YOU KNOW IF SONG QIAN HAS THAT DETAILED
KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION?
A. HE MIGHT, BUT I SUSPECT NOT.
Q. IN UTILIZING THE DATA -- THE DATA SET, WHICHEVER
THE TWO PEOPLE PROVIDED THAT YOU IDENTIFIED, DO
YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF SOFTWARE CONVERSION WAS
USED, HOW YOU CONVERTED THAT DATA SET TO -- I
ASSUME A COMPUTER PROGRAM OF SOME SORT WAS USED TO
RUN THE DATA SET AND GENERATE THE ANALYSIS?
A. DO THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS?
Q. YEAH.
A. NO, BUT THAT'S FAIRLY -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT
FORMAT IT WAS PROVIDED, BUT IT'S FAIRLY STANDARD
PROCEDURE TO CONVERT FROM, SAY, A SPREADSHEET OR
WHATEVER, ASCII, OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW YOUR SOFTWARE CONVERSATION
SYSTEM WOULD TREAT MISSING DATA?
A. ONE NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL OF THAT TO SEE HOW THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 370
PARTICULAR -- WE WERE USING S PLUS, AND S PLUS
MEANS A DESIGNATION OF N/A FOR A MISSING DATA
POINT. WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT THAT'S
INSERTED.
Q. HOW IN YOUR ANALYSIS -- WELL, QIAN DID THE
ANALYSIS. DID YOU REVIEW THAT TO ENSURE THAT IT
WAS PROPERLY DONE, AND---
A. I TALKED TO HIM AT LENGTH ABOUT INTERPRETATION IN
ANALYSIS.
Q. HOW DID THE ANALYSIS ACCOUNT FOR BELOW DETECTION
LIMIT VALUES IN THE NATIONAL DATABASE?
A. SOMETHING THAT WAS REPORTED BELOW DETECTION LIMIT?
Q. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
A. I'LL TRY TO REMEMBER. WE HAD SOME -- IT MAY HAVE
BEEN THAT WE JUST KICKED THEM OUT. WE HAD SOME
THAT WERE -- OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THEY WERE
REPORTED AS ZERO. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT
HAPPENED WHEN WE MADE THAT TRANSFORMATION, THE
1-PLUS. NO DETECTABLE, OKAY. SONG -- YEAH, SONG
SET THEM EQUAL TO ZERO.
Q. WOULD THE SAME THING BE TRUE FOR THE WCA-2A
ANALYSIS?
A. I SUSPECT NOT, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RUN INTO THE
SAME PROBLEM WITH THE -- WITH THE OUTLET. THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 371
TREATMENT OF THE RESPONSE IN SETTING IT EQUAL TO
ZERO IS -- WAS A GOOD QUESTION. I SUSPECT WHEN
WE WORK ON HIS DISSERTATION, WE'RE GOING TO THINK
ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO MAYBE KICKING THEM OUT AND
SEEING WHETHER IT MATTERS. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT
WE HAD THAT PROBLEM WITH WCA-2A. WE CERTAINLY
DIDN'T HAVE TO APPLY THE TRANSFORMATION TO THE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE.
Q. WHAT DOES A ZERO CONCENTRATION MEAN IN THAT MODEL?
A. WELL, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT'S MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE
ONE WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE ZERO CONCENTRATION OF
PHOSPHORUS. I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK THAT IT
MAKES MUCH DIFFERENCE, AND I CAN'T RECALL THE
SPECIFIC CONVERSATION, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE
LOOKED AT TREATING -- IN ONE CASE, REMOVING THOSE
OBSERVATIONS, TREATING THEM AS MISSING, AND IN
OTHER CASES, DOING WHAT SONG DID, WHICH WAS TO
ADD ONE.
Q. IF THEY WERE JUST MISSING, AND YOU COULD REPLACE
THOSE JUST MISSING VALUES WITH ACTUAL VALUES, DATA
POINTS THAT WOULD APPEAR IN, YOU KNOW, THE TABULAR
GRAPHICS, COULD THAT CHANGE THE LINEARITY OF THE
ANALYSIS, OR EVEN CHANGE THE TYPE OF MODEL YOU
WOULD DEVELOP?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 372
A. MY SUSPICION IS THAT IT WOULDN'T CHANGE IT TO ANY
GREAT DEGREE. THEY ARE VERY SMALL VALUES.
Q. IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE -- GRAPH FIVE, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN EXHIBIT 27 -- OR FIGURE FIVE, IT'S THE "INPUT
PHOSPHORUS LOADING AND OUTPUT CONCENTRATION FOR
THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE."
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ON THE X-AXIS, WHICH IS -- THAT'S NOT A LOG
FUNCTION, IS IT? YES, IT IS---
A. YES, IT IS.
Q. ---IT'S A LOG FUNCTION. AS WE GO FROM THE FIRST
DATA ENTRY, AT ZERO OVER TO ROUGHLY 1.5 ON THE
X-AXIS, THE P LOADING, THEY'RE ALL REPORTED AS
ZERO VALUES.
A. THEY'RE ALL -- THEY'RE NOT REPORTED AS ZERO
VALUES, THEY'RE DOWN IN THAT ZERO RANGE. IF YOU
WANTED TO SEE WHAT VALUES THEY ACTUALLY WERE,
YOU'D EITHER GO TO THE DATA SET AND -- WELL, YOU'D
GO TO THE DATA SET AND LOOK AT THEM.
Q. DID YOU DO THAT?
A. NO.
Q. DID QIAN DO THAT?
A. I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER HE DID. HE MAY HAVE.
Q. CONTINUING OUT TO ALMOST THE 100 GRAM METERS PER,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 373
SQUARED PER YEAR, THERE ARE, BEYOND 1.5, OUT TO
ALMOST 100, THERE ARE -- IT'S HARD, YOU CAN'T
COUNT THEM EXACTLY, BECAUSE OF THE OVERSTRIKES,
BUT THERE'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
ADDITIONAL DATA POINTS THAT ARE REFLECTED AS
ZEROS.
A. YES.
Q. NOW---
A. I TAKE THAT BACK. THEY LOOK LIKE, ON THIS GRAPH
TO BE ZEROS. I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD TO
SAY THAT THEY'RE ZEROS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE
DATA.
Q. IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO FIGURE ONE, WHICH IS INPUT
AND OUTPUT PHOSPHORUS LOADING IN SELECTED NORTH
AMERICAN DATABASE WETLANDS FROM KADLEC AND NEWMAN
IN '92.
MR. BURGESS: TOM, DO YOU HAVE A
BATES NUMBER ON THAT PAGE?
MR. FITZGERALD: THE ONE I'M WORKING
FROM DOESN'T HAVE A BATES NUMBER. IT'S THE
VERY FIRST GRAPHIC, THOUGH. JUST A SECOND.
I CAN GET IT FOR YOU.
MR. BURGESS: OKAY.
MR. FITZGERALD: 13890.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 374
MR. BURGESS: OKAY.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) THAT'S -- WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD FIT OF THE DATA TO THE
LINE?
A. WELL, IS -- AGAIN, YOU'RE ASKING ME IF I FEEL THAT
THIS LINE IS A GOOD FIT TO THE PATTERN IN THE
DATA?
Q. YEAH.
A. NO.
Q. WHY NOT?
A. BECAUSE THERE'S A -- YOUR EYE CAN JUST SEE A CLOUD
THAT FORMS A SHAPE OTHER THAN LINEAR.
Q. OKAY. WHAT TYPE OF MODEL WOULD YOU USE, JUST
LOOKING AT THE DATA CLOUD?
A. WELL, WE MADE THE ARGUMENT---
Q. FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
A. ---OF COURSE, IN THIS PAPER, THAT A SMOOTHING
APPROACH, USING THE GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELS
WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY OF LOOKING AT DATA THAT HAD
A SHAPE THAT APPEARED TO BE NONLINEAR.
Q. IF THERE ARE, IN FACT, TRUE DATA POINT VALUES FOR
WHAT APPEAR TO BE REFLECTED AS ZEROS, IN FIGURE
FIVE THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT, WOULD YOU
REEVALUATE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF USING THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 375
SMOOTHING MECHANISMS THAT WERE EMPLOYED IN THE
PAPER?
A. I THINK THE SMOOTHING MECHANISMS ARE USEFUL IN ANY
EXPLORATION AND MODELING APPROACH, PERIOD. IF WE
WENT BACK AND HAD OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT
THOSE WERE NOT DETECTABLE, OR THERE WAS REASON TO
SAY THAT THEY WERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM ZERO,
BY ALL MEANS, YOU'D WANT TO PUT THEM BACK -- PUT
IN NEW VALUES AND REEVALUATE THE SITUATION.
Q. BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW OF WCA-2A AND ITS WATER
SOURCE AND THE FUNCTIONING OF THAT ECOSYSTEM, YOU
WOULD NEVER EXPECT A ZERO CONCENTRATION VALUE IN
SURFACE WATER IN WCA-2A, WOULD YOU?
A. IT DEPENDS ON THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS THAT ARE
BEING USED. I SUSPECT THAT THERE WOULD BE
RELATIVELY FEW, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT METHODS ARE
BEING USED BY THOSE WHO WOULD BE TAKING -- TAKING
DATA.
Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IS IN THE
NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE, THERE'S DISCUSSION IN THE
PAPER OF ANALYZING IN TWO PIECES.
A. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PAGE?
Q. PAGE 12 OF THE DOCUMENT, THE NUMBERED PAGE, WHAT
DO YOU MEAN BY PIECEWISE LINEARITY?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 376
A. THAT MEANS THAT A MODEL THAT IS PIECEWISE LINEAR
HAS TWO STRAIGHT LINE SEGMENTS CONNECTED AT A
JOINING POINT.
Q. WHAT DO YOU CALL THE JOINT POINT?
A. WELL, YOU CAN CALL IT JUST THAT.
Q. I'M SURE I SAW A WORD IN HERE FOR IT. WELL, IT'S
NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
A. WE DID, I THINK WE CALLED IT SOMETHING ELSE, TOO.
I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q. YOU SAY ON PAGE 12, IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS, THAT YOU OBSERVED AN OBVIOUS PATTERN
IN THE DATA. WAS THAT REFERRING TO THE NADB DATA,
OR THE WCA-2A DATA?
A. CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS?
Q. THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM, FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS, THIRD LINE DOWN,
MIDDLE OF THE LINE, "HOWEVER"---
A. YEAH. THAT WAS A COMBINATION OF LOOKING AT,
INITIALLY, THIS GRAPH RIGHT HERE, WHICH MADE ME
CONCERNED. THAT WAS THE FIRST FIGURE IN THE
PAPER, AND THEN THE -- SOME OF THE OTHER FIGURES,
INCLUDING THIS -- THE FIGURE FIVE, I GUESS
THAT'S---
Q. "CHANGE-POINT," THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL IT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 377
A. YEAH, CHANGE-POINT.
Q. WHAT DOES THE GREEK SYMBOL MEAN? WHAT IS THAT?
A. IS THAT PHI?
Q. WE RARELY USE THAT ONE IN LAW. OKAY, PHI, PHI
AND PI. YOU STATE THAT THE, AFTER OBSERVING
THE OBVIOUS PATTERN, THAT YOUR ANALYSIS WAS
DATA-DRIVEN, NOT THEORY-DRIVEN OR
HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---IN ORDER TO REACH A PREDICTIVE MODEL.
A. YES.
Q. IF IT WERE DEMONSTRATED TO YOU THAT THE DATA SET
WAS INCORRECT, AND THAT THE CORRECT DATA SET
SUPPLIES VALUES FOR ALL THOSE REFLECTED AS ZERO IN
FIGURE FIVE, WOULD YOU HAVE TO REEVALUATE THE
VALIDITY OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR THAT
MODEL?
A. IF WE FOUND THAT SOME OF OUR NUMBERS WERE IN
ERROR, THAT IS, THE DATA SET WAS IN ERROR,
CERTAINLY, WE'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND REDO IT.
Q. AND YOU INDICATED AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE
WAS -- THERE'S AN ENHANCEMENT AVAILABLE OR GOING
TO BE AVAILABLE, THROUGH KNIGHT, ON THE NORTH
AMERICAN DATABASE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 378
A. YES.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BECOME
AVAILABLE?
A. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S AVAILABLE NOW.
Q. HAS ANY EFFORT BEEN MADE TO GO BACK AND VERIFY
THOSE DATA POINTS?
A. WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA YET, SO WE CAN'T.
Q. SO, IT'S AVAILABLE; BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT?
A. I DON'T HAVE IT.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU PLAN TO DO THAT?
A. TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO
LOOK AT THAT. THE POINT IS A REASONABLE ONE, AND
I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT.
Q. THE BREAK-POINT OR CHANGE-POINT, PHI, OF 1.5, YOU
SUGGEST MIGHT REPRESENT THE LONG-TERM PHOSPHORUS
ACCUMULATION RATE. HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT
CONCLUSION?
A. THAT'S -- THAT REFLECTED, AS I MENTIONED IN THE
FIRST PARAGRAPH, THIS WAS A DATA-DRIVEN EXERCISE
FOR PREDICTIVE PURPOSES, AND SO WITH SOME
TENTATIVENESS, LOOKED AT THAT CHANGE-POINT OR
BREAK-POINT, OR JOINING-POINT, WITHOUT NECESSARILY
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS, BUT IT SEEMED FROM MY
DISCUSSIONS WITH SONG, THAT WE MIGHT OFFER A FEW
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 379
THOUGHTS WITH REGARDS TO WHY THERE WAS THIS --
WHY THERE WAS A NONLINEARITY, AND THE ONE OPTION
THAT CAME TO MIND WAS THIS HYPOTHESIS THAT
LONG-TERM -- IF INDEED THE NOTION OF A LONG-TERM
AND SHORT-TERM ACCUMULATION WAS REASONABLE, THAT
BELOW A CERTAIN AREA LOADING, THAT LONG-TERM
LOADING LIMIT WAS NOT REACHED, AND THEREFORE, THE
OUTPUT CONCENTRATION WAS LARGELY INDEPENDENT OF
THE INFLUENT AREA OF LOADING.
Q. DOES THAT CHANGE -- IS THAT CHANGE-POINT REFLECTED
IN ANY OF THE GRAPHICS HERE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT
AND---
A. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE PIECEWISE LINEAR MODEL,
WHICH IS TOWARDS THE BACK. THAT'S THIS SECOND
FROM THE LAST PAGE.
Q. FIGURE TEN, PARTIAL RESIDUAL PLOT OF FACTOR I, IN
PIECEWISE DRIVE FOR THE NADB?
A. YEAH, YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT IN THE -- YOU CAN SEE IT
IN THE FIGURE FIVE THAT WE WERE REFERRING TO AS
WELL.
Q. WHEN THE DATA BEGINS ITS UPWARD PROGRESSION---
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. ---ROUGHLY FROM ZERO?
A. YEAH.
††††††††††䄮†⁙䕁䠮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 380
Q. THAT'S -- BECAUSE OF THE LOG SCALE, THAT'S ROUGHLY
1.5?
A. 1.5 IS ACCORDING TO THE OPTIMIZATION CRITERIA, AND
IS THE BEST CHOICE.
Q. NOW, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU COMPARED ALL THIS
AGAINST THE RICHARDSON-CRAFT UPPER BOUNDS, USING
YOUR OPTIMAL VALUE OF---
A. WELL, ALL WE DID WAS USE THE RICHARDSON-CRAFT --
WELL, WE TOOK THE VALUE OF ONE, AND FOUND THAT
IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE ERRORS ON THE SQUARE,
GREATLY.
Q. OKAY, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT -- WHAT DOES
THE RESIDUAL SUM OF SQUARES TELL YOU?
A. IT'S A MEASURE OF FIT OF THE MODEL. IT'S THE SUM
OF SQUARE -- IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUM OF
SQUARED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DATA POINT AND THE
PREDICTION FROM THE MODEL.
Q. OKAY. AND BASED ON CONDUCTING THAT ANALYSIS,
WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE FIT OF THE NATIONAL --
THE NADB AS A HIGH CORRELATION OR A HIGH FIT
BETWEEN THE DATA AND THE MODEL?
A. I DON'T HAVE ANY BASIS FOR COMPARISON TO SAY
WHETHER IT'S HIGH OR GOOD OR NOT.
Q. SO, THERE'S NO EQUIVALENT IN LOOKING AT THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 381
RESIDUAL SUMS OF SQUARES ANALYTICAL METHOD TO THE
R VALUE IN A---
A. SURE, YOU COULD -- YOU COULD HAVE A -- YOU COULD
CONVERT TO AN R SQUARED IF YOU WANTED TO, FROM A
RESIDUAL SUM OF SQUARES. WE DIDN'T DO THAT.
Q. CAN YOU ESTIMATE IT GROSSLY?
A. NO, I COULDN'T EVEN DO THAT.
Q. THE BAYESIAN APPROACH THAT YOU SUGGEST IN THE
FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PAPER ON PAGE 13---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS IS?
A. BAYESIAN INFERENCE IS A SCHOOL OF STATISTICS.
CLASSICAL OR FREQUENTIST INFERENCE IS THE OTHER
COMMON SCHOOL OF STATISTICS. MOST PEOPLE ARE
TAUGHT STATISTICS FROM A CLASSICAL OR FREQUENTIST
PERSPECTIVE. THE INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS AND
DECISION SCIENCES AT DUKE IS UNUSUAL IN THAT IT
IS BAYESIAN, THAT IS, MOST OF THE STATISTICIANS IN
THAT GROUP SUBSCRIBE TO THE BAYESIAN PERSPECTIVE,
AND THE BAYESIAN PERSPECTIVE MAKES USE OF BAYES
THEOREM, AND BAYES THEOREM IS A VERY SIMPLE
RELATIONSHIP THAT DESCRIBES, IN ESSENCE, HOW YOU
COMBINE INFORMATION FROM DISTINCT SOURCES. IT HAS
HISTORICALLY BEEN CONTROVERSIAL. IT IS COMING
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 382
BACK INTO FAVOR NOW, AS PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT,
IN MANY INSTANCES, SCIENCE PROCEEDS ACCORDING TO
INFERENCE LIKE BAYES THEOREM. THAT IS, WE KNOW
SOMETHING BEFORE UNDERTAKING A STUDY. WE
UNDERTAKE A STUDY AND WE MIGHT LIKE TO POOL THOSE
TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION, AND BAYES THEOREM
PROVIDES A MECHANISM TO DO THAT.
Q. SO, IT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE DATA FROM DIFFERENT
SOURCES, OR DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND
UTILIZE THEM TO ANALYZE OR LEARN SOMETHING
ABOUT---
A. IT ALLOWS US TO POOL THE INFORMATION. I
WOULDN'T -- I GUESS I WOULDN'T CALL IT DATA,
BECAUSE ONE MIGHT ARGUE, WHY NOT JUST -- WHY NOT
JUST THROW ALL THE DATA INTO ONE BIG POT, AND DO A
SINGLE ANALYSIS.
Q. I ASSUME THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
A. YES.
Q. WHAT'S THE ANSWER?
A. WELL, IT VARIES. IF YOU'RE -- IF YOUR -- FOR
EXAMPLE, IF YOUR OBJECTIVE IS TO -- I GUESS I
CAN STATE IT THROUGH THE SENTENCE HERE, "A
NATURAL EXTENSION OF THIS WORK, WHEN PREDICTION
OF NUTRIENT TRAPPING IS NEEDED IN A PARTICULAR
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 383
WETLAND, FOR WHICH INPUT-OUTPUT DATA EXIST, IS
TO POOL THE CROSS SECTIONAL AND SINGLE-WETLAND
MODEL USING BAYESIAN OR EMPIRICAL BAYES ANALYSIS."
SO THAT, IN EFFECT, SETS OUT THAT PARTICULAR
WETLAND AS WORTHY OF CONTRIBUTING MORE THAN JUST
A SINGLE DATA POINT IN THE CROSS SECTIONAL
ANALYSIS. BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER REASONS, TOO,
MAYBE THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T
ALLOW YOU TO POOL THE DATA SETS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE
DON'T HAVE THE SAME DATA ON WCA-2A THAT WE HAVE ON
THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE. WE HAVE DIFFERENT --
THE DATA IS OF A DIFFERENT NATURE. WE MAY JUST
CHOOSE TO POOL THE PREDICTIONS, RATHER THAN POOL
THE RAW DATA.
Q. IF WE WANT TO PREDICT, OR DEVELOP A PREDICTION
MODEL FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF A SYSTEM THAT'S
UNIQUE, HOW VALID IS IT TO TRY A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS
OR EVEN A NONLINEAR ANALYSIS SUGGESTED IN THE NADB
MODEL HERE, TO A UNIQUE SYSTEM?
A. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT ANY SYSTEM
THAT WE WOULD BE MAKING PREDICTIONS FOR IS
TRULY UNIQUE, AND RELATES IN NO SENSE TO
A PRIORI SCIENCE AND DATA.
Q. IF THE ZERO VALUES IN GRAPH FIVE, OR LOOKING AT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 384
GRAPH TEN, WHICH REFLECTS THEM AS WELL, ARE IN
ERROR, WOULD THAT CHANGE, OR ALTER, RATHER, THE
CHANGE-POINT, PHI?
A. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ANY TRUE ZERO VALUES, I
SUSPECT ARE IN ERROR. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THE
QUESTION IS, IS THAT ERROR OF ANY CONSEQUENCE,
WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
OBSERVATIONS HAVE -- TRULY HAVE ZERO ON THEM,
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUE VALUE OF -- WOULD
BE.
Q. AS I UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT IN THE PAPER, IT
SAYS THAT THE VISUALIZATION AND THE DATA, DROVE
THE ANALYSIS MECHANISM---
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. ---BECAUSE IT WAS PERCEIVED, APPARENTLY BY QIAN,
SONG QIAN, THAT THIS WAS NONLINEAR.
A. IT WAS PERCEIVED BY BOTH OF US.
Q. OKAY, BY BOTH OF YOU.
A. YES.
Q. THE DATA SET LOOKS DIFFERENT, BECAUSE WE FILL IN,
HYPOTHETICALLY, THOSE ZEROS WITH ACTUAL NUMERICAL
VALUES THAT MOVE THE DATA POINT, THE VISUALIZATION
IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT, WILL IT NOT?
A. IF -- YES. BUT, IF ONLY TWO OUT OF A HUNDRED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 385
ARE DIFFERENT, AND THEY GO FROM ZERO TO .05, THE
EFFECT IS INCONSEQUENTIAL. SO, AGAIN, I STAND ON
MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE
NATURE OF THE DIFFERENCE, BUT I ALSO GO ON MY
PREVIOUS STATEMENT WHICH IS THIS IS A GOOD POINT,
AND IT'S SOMETHING WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION.
Q. YOU INDICATE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECENTLY
INITIATED NON-PARAMETRIC BAYESIAN APPROACH
CONDUCTED OR STARTED AT SOME POINT TO BE REFLECTED
IN A FUTURE PAPER.
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. WHO INITIATED THAT PARTICULAR EFFORT?
A. THAT'S SONG'S DISSERTATION.
Q. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE PRODUCT THAT YOU WERE
SUGGESTING WE WOULDN'T SEE UNTIL THE END OF
'94?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. IS THAT ALSO GOING TO FOCUS ON WCA-2A?
A. I DON'T KNOW. MY HOPE IS THAT THE NORTH AMERICAN
DATABASE WILL LOOK GOOD TO US, WE'LL BE
COMFORTABLE WITH THE DATA, AND THAT WILL BE A
PIECE OF IT. WHETHER WCA-2A IS AS WELL, I DON'T
KNOW.
Q. IF YOU HAVE A DATABASE WITH WIDELY DISPARATE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 386
OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR ENVIRONMENTS REFLECTED IN
THE DATA, AND YOU WANTED TO DEVELOP A MODEL THAT
WAS THE MOST RELIABLE IN PREDICTING A SPECIFIC
SYSTEM'S OPERATION, WOULD YOU SCREEN OUT THE
OUTLIER TYPES OF SYSTEMS, AND TRY AND DEVELOP A
DATA FIELD MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE SYSTEM YOU WANT
TO PREDICT?
A. IF I WAS USING A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TO DEVELOP A
MODEL TO PREDICT FOR A SPECIFIC SYSTEM, I WOULD
LOOK FOR A DATA SET THAT HAD CHARACTERISTICS ON
ALL VARIABLES THAT I THOUGHT WERE RELEVANT TO HOW
THAT SYSTEM FUNCTIONED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE
OF -- FOR WHICH THE PREDICTION WAS INTENDED, AND
COVER THAT -- COVER THAT SYSTEM, ALL AROUND IT.
Q. OKAY.
A. NOW, IF THE SYSTEM HAD A FIXED DEPTH, LET'S SAY,
AND IT NEVER VARIED IN DEPTH, I WOULD LOOK FOR
SYSTEMS THAT WERE AS CLOSE TO, AS POSSIBLE, THAT
DEPTH, UNDER THE BELIEF THAT DEPTH WAS ONE
POSSIBLE IMPORTANT DETERMINANT.
Q. OKAY. WATER DEPTH AND RESIDENCE TIME ULTIMATELY
PROVE TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN THE STUDY OF
EUTROPHICATION IN LAKES, AND RESIDENCE TIME?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 387
Q. AND YOU'RE SORT OF APPLYING THAT, BY ANALOGY, TO
MARSH SYSTEMS, THEN, YOU WOULD LOOK FOR THE SAME
KINDS OF THINGS?
A. YEAH.
Q. SO, YOU WOULD, GIVEN YOUR OPTION THEN, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, EXCLUDE FORESTED UPLANDS, WHERE,
SINCE YOU MAY HAVE NO STANDING WATER, AND NOT
ANALYZE THAT, OR INCLUDE THAT IN THE DATABASE
WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO ANALYZE THE PROCESSES OR
PREDICT THE VALUE IN A STANDING WATER SYSTEM?
A. SAY THAT AGAIN.
Q. WELL, IF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS TO PREDICT
THE OPERATION AND OUTPUT OF A STANDING WATER MARSH
SYSTEM, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR LAST
ANSWER, WHERE YOU WOULD TRY AND TAILOR TO
RELATIVELY ANALOGOUS SYSTEMS, YOU WOULD THEN
EXCLUDE FROM YOUR DATABASE, YOUR STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS BASE, A DATA SET -- A COMPLETE DATA SET
THAT RELATED TO A GROSSLY DISPARATE SYSTEM, LIKE
AN UPLAND FORESTED SYSTEM.
Q. IF I FELT THAT THAT WAS A -- THAT THAT SYSTEM BORE
NO RELATIONSHIP, GIVEN THE -- GIVEN THE DESIGN
CRITERIA, OR THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES, AND GIVEN
THE RESPONSE VARIABLE, I CAN'T SEE INCORPORATING
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 388
THAT INTO THE DATA SET, IF I HAD A SPECIFIC
APPLICATION IN MIND, AND A CANDIDATE SUBSET OF
DATA THAT HAD NO USEFUL INFORMATION TO CONVEY, I
WOULDN'T INCLUDE IT.
Q. SO, YOU WOULD TRY AND HONE IN ON THE CANDIDATE
SUBSETS THAT HAD USEFUL DATA THAT TRANSLATED TO
THE SPECIFIC SYSTEM YOU WANT TO PREDICT FOR?
A. YES.
Q. THAT'S THE WAY I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION IN
THE BEGINNING, BUT I WASN'T SMART ENOUGH TO. IN
THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE, DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT
DATABASE HANDLES DETECTION LIMIT VALUES?
A. NO.
Q. SO, YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY, LIKE, REFLECT THEM AS
A FOUR OR A TEN PARTS PER BILLION, OR ANY GIVEN
NUMBER OR MECHANISM?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. OKAY. ON FIGURE SIX, THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE
SMOOTHING PLOT, I THINK IS THE FIRST LOG PLOT, THE
FIRST LONG LOG PLOT, IS THAT Sp(logPin)?
A. YEAH.
Q. JUST A SECOND, I CAN GET YOU THAT BATES STAMP
NUMBER FOR THAT ONE. THAT WOULD BE BATES 13895
IN EXHIBIT 27. WHAT SMOOTHING -- OR WHAT FORM
FITTING FUNCTION WAS USED TO DEVELOP THE CURVES,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 389
DO YOU KNOW?
A. THIS IS THE SMOOTH WITHIN -- SMOOTHING SPLINE
WITHIN GENERALIZED -- WITHIN THE S PLUS VERSION OF
THE GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING. IT'S DESCRIBED
IN THE PAPER.
Q. WHAT LED TO THE SELECTION OF THAT FUNCTION,
RATHER THAN SIMPLY DO A REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON
THAT DATA?
A. WELL, AS WE DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER, THE
GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING APPROACH GIVES US
THE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT SHAPE, WHICH MAY BE
LINEAR, OR MAY BE NONLINEAR, AND ALSO WE HAD
INDICATIONS, IN LOOKING AT PLOTS, THAT THERE MAY
BE NONLINEAR RELATIONSHIPS HERE, AS WE -- AS YOU
AND I DISCUSSED EARLIER.
Q. THE DOTTED LINES, WHAT DO THEY REPRESENT?
A. THE DASHED LINES AROUND THE---
Q. DASHED.
A. THEY REPRESENT, I BELIEVE IT'S A PLUS OR MINUS A
STANDARD ERROR. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE CAPTION
INDICATES THAT AS OPPOSED TO AN INTERVAL. I THINK
IT'S A -- I'M PRETTY CERTAIN WE PLOTTED PLUS OR
MINUS THE STANDARD ERROR ON THE SHAPE.
Q. AS THE GAP BETWEEN THE SOLID CURVE AND THE DASHED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 390
LINES INCREASES, THAT SUGGESTS THAT YOUR STANDARD
ERROR IS OPENING OUT---
A. THAT'S CORRECT---
Q. ---AND BECOMING GREATER AND GREATER?
A. ---WHICH YOU EXPECT TO OCCUR AT THE ENDS,
PARTICULARLY AS THERE ARE FEWER DATA CONTRIBUTING
TO THAT.
Q. BEFORE GOING THROUGH THIS EVOLUTION TO CAUSE A
CURVE TO MEANDER THROUGH THE DATA, OR REFLECT THE
DATA IN A NONLINEAR FASHION, DID QIAN---
A. SONG.
Q. ---SONG QIAN, ATTEMPT TO FIT A STRAIGHT LINE?
I KNOW IT REFLECTS, IN THE FIRST GRAPHIC, THE
REGRESSION THAT WAS DONE BY KADLEC AND NEWMAN IN
'92, BUT DID HE ATTEMPT TO DO IT ON THE DATA SETS
AND THE SUBSETS THAT WERE UTILIZED?
A. WE LOOKED AT THE -- WE LOOKED AT ORDINARY LEASE
SQUARES, OLS, WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE BOX AND
WHISKER PLOTS, FOR BOTH DATA SETS, AND FOUND THAT
THEY WERE -- THE LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS THAT WE
IDENTIFIED WERE INFERIOR TO THE GENERALIZED
ADDITIVE MODEL ON A---
Q. NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT WILL THOSE -- WILL
THE OLS PLOT CHANGE IF THE DATA POINTS, IN FACT,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 391
ARE INCORRECT?
A. IT CERTAINLY WOULD.
Q. I UNDERSTAND YOU WERE SUGGESTING BEFORE THAT YOU
COULD END UP WITH, YOU KNOW, A WASH, DEPENDING ON
WHAT THE DATA DOES, BUT THAT COULD ALTER?
A. YES.
Q. AND THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE OF FIGURE NINE? NO,
THAT'S YOUR BOOTSTRAP, ISN'T IT. NO, THAT'S IT,
OKAY, FIGURE NINE, SOME OF THE SQUARES ON WCA-2A,
BUT LESS SO, BECAUSE YOU FELT THERE WASN'T AS MUCH
QUESTION ON THE DATA THERE?
A. YEAH, I GUESS IN GENERAL RESPONSE TO YOUR
QUESTION, IF THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE DATA, THEN
CONCEIVABLY ANYTHING COULD BE AFFECTED.
Q. IN LOOKING AT THOSE RESIDUAL SUM OF THE SQUARES,
THE PARENTHETICAL NUMBERS ALONG THE X-AXIS FOR THE
JMOLS, AND NLM, THE BEST FIT IS THE HIGHEST
NUMBER?
A. THE BEST FIT IS THE LOWEST NUMBER.
Q. LOWEST.
A. RESIDUAL SUM OF SQUARES IS ALSO A GOOD MEASURE OF
FIT.
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. SO, THE LOWER THE PLOT IS, THE BETTER THE FIT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 392
Q. AND BY LOWER, YOU MEAN LOWER ON THE Y-AXIS?
A. CLOSER DOWN TO THE BASE.
Q. OKAY. THE MODELS, AS THEY'RE REFLECTED HERE,
WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE -- THE NADB MODEL REFLECTS
A MODEL DERIVED FROM WHATEVER THE HYDRAULICS WERE
OF EVERY SYSTEM IN THAT DATABASE THAT WAS EMPLOYED
IN THE DERIVATION OF THE MODEL.
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. YOU HAVE TO SAY YES OR NO. I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR
HEAD, BUT---
A. YES.
Q. OKAY, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE APPLYING THAT
MODEL, AS IS, TO A SYSTEM WHOSE HYDRAULICS ARE
UNIQUE?
A. I WOULDN'T MAKE A GENERAL STATEMENT ON THAT ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER. I WOULD WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE
HYDRAULICS OF THE CANDIDATE WETLAND OF
APPLICATION, AND HOW THAT -- HOW THOSE HYDRAULICS
MIGHT MAKE THE MODEL EITHER APPROPRIATE OR
INAPPROPRIATE, AND THEN MAKE A JUDGMENT.
(THEREUPON, MR. REID ENTERS THE ROOM.)
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) WHEN YOU REFERRED TO THE
CRAFT-RICHARDSON NUMBERS, YOU SAID, ON PAGE 13 OF
EXHIBIT 27, THAT -- THE LAST SENTENCE AT THE TOP
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 393
OF THE PAGE IN THE PARTIAL PARAGRAPH, "THIS
SUGGESTS THAT THE CHANGE-POINT IN OUR MODEL IS NOT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE LONG-TERM PHOSPHORUS
ACCUMULATION RATE REPORTED BY RICHARDSON AND
CRAFT." IS IT FAIR TO CHARACTERIZE THAT REFERENCE
AS JUST SORT OF A CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURE, AS
OPPOSED TO A STRICT ANALYTICAL COMPARISON?
A. I GUESS.
Q. WELL, I GUESS THE ESSENCE OF MY QUESTION IS, YOU
INDICATED EARLIER THAT YOU CERTAINLY, AND PERHAPS
QIAN SONG AS WELL, DID NOT DEVELOP THESE MODELS TO
BE APPLIED SPECIFICALLY TO A SITE SPECIFIC SYSTEM
AT THE TIME THIS EFFORT WAS EMBARKED UPON, AND YET
OBVIOUSLY THE RICHARDSON-CRAFT LIMITS WERE DERIVED
FROM A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF DATA AT A SPECIFIC
SITE. SO, MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DID YOU DERIVE OR
GAIN BY -- AND THAT'S THE PORTION YOU INDICATED
YOU AUTHORED -- BY THAT COMPARISON? WHAT WAS THAT
MEANT TO CONVEY?
A. IT JUST OFFERED A COMMENT WITH REGARDS TO WHAT I
WOULD CONSIDER MORE A HYPOTHESIS GENERATION.
Q. OKAY. SO, THERE YOU STEPPED ASIDE FROM THE
STATEMENT EARLY IN THE DOCUMENT, THAT YOU WEREN'T
HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN, YOU WERE DATA-DRIVEN?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 394
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. DID YOU CONDUCT THE SAME COMPARISON WITH THE
SETTLING VELOCITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE WALKER
DOCUMENTS THAT YOU ANALYZED?
A. NO.
Q. YOU RECALL THE WALKER DOCUMENT THAT ADDRESSED
SETTLING?
A. LET ME TAKE THAT BACK -- WHICH WALKER DOCUMENT
THAT I---
Q. OKAY, YOU INDICATED BACK IN MARCH THAT YOU HAD
ANALYZED SOME OF DR. WALKER'S ANALYSIS OF SETTLING
RATES, AND YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE SETTLING
RATE, THAT YOU HAD LOOKED AT.
A. OH, I GUESS ANALYZE IS A BIT STRONG. I'VE LOOKED
AT, YEAH.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU CONDUCT THAT SAME COMPARISON?
A. NO. AND WE -- WE DIDN'T -- THE SETTLING VELOCITY
IN, SAY, METERS PER YEAR JUST DOESN'T LEND ITSELF
TO THAT CONVENIENT A COMPARISON. THERE WAS NO
REASON TO SELECT ONE VALUE OR ANOTHER, WE JUST --
WE SELECTED A VALUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION, AND COMPARED IT.
Q. WELL, NOW, THOSE VALUES THAT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS
BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, THOSE ARE THE VALUES IN
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 395
THE RICHARDSON-CRAFT PAPER THAT SONG DID THE DATA
INSERTS FOR, RIGHT?
A. WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU -- I DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT,
BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU MENTIONED I HAD SAID LAST
SPRING.
Q. ASSUMING MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT YOU SAID LAST
SPRING, IN MY NOTES, WAS CORRECT FROM THE RECORD,
EITHER BEAR ME OUT OR MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A TOTAL
FOOL, A NOVEL EXPERIENCE. HAVE YOU EVER DONE
SETTLING RATES FOR SYSTEMS INDIVIDUALLY?
A. BY DONE, YOU MEAN?
Q. HAVE YOU EVER CALCULATED SETTLING RATES FOR OTHER
SYSTEMS, OTHER THAN -- THIS GENERAL CALCULATION
HERE, AT THE TOP OF 13, FROM THAT, YOU CAN DERIVE
SETTLING RATES, AND YOU CAN USE THAT AS A MEASURE
OF LONG-TERM ACCRETION OR SETTLING RATES IN THOSE
PARTICULAR SYSTEMS.
A. YEAH, WITH THE RIGHT INFORMATION, SURE, YEAH.
Q. AND THE NADB ANALYSIS THERE, YOU CAN COME UP
WITH A COLLECTIVE RATE FROM THAT. HAVE YOU EVER
DONE, OR HAVE YOU GONE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
ANALYZING INDIVIDUAL RATES FOR WETLAND SYSTEMS,
EITHER IN THE NADB, WCA-2A, OR ELSEWHERE, OTHER
THAN YOUR LAKE WORK, BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE DONE IT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 396
FOR THAT.
A. I DON'T REMEMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT I MAY HAVE
SOME TIME AGO. THAT RINGS A BELL. A YEAR -- A
COUPLE OF YEARS -- A YEAR AND A HALF OR SO AGO,
JUST LOOKING AT NUMBERS TO GET A FEEL FOR NUMBERS,
DOING SOME HAND CALCULATIONS.
Q. DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY WETLAND SYSTEMS YOU DID
THAT FOR?
A. NO, I JUST SEEM TO REMEM -- I MEAN, WHEN YOU
RAISED THE QUESTION, IT RANG A BELL THAT I HAD
LOOKED AT SOME NUMBERS. IT SEEMS TO ME I DID THAT
IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE KADLEC PAPER, JUST TO GET
A BALLPARK FIGURE FOR A FEEL FOR WHAT SOME OF THE
NUMBERS MEANT. I DON'T KNOW AS I DID IT FOR ANY
SPECIFIC WETLANDS, BUT JUST TO -- JUST TO DO SOME
CONVERSION.
Q. YOU SAID ON 13 THAT "IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS MODEL
ARE CLEARLY POSSIBLE." WHAT SORT OF IMPROVEMENTS
WERE YOU CONTEMPLATING IN THAT STATEMENT?
A. SHOW ME WHERE THE STATEMENT IS.
Q. THIRD PARAGRAPH, PAGE 13, THIRD LINE, IT STARTS
OUT, "FOR LAKE EUTROPHICATION ASSESSMENT..." THE
NEXT SHORT SENTENCE.
A. OH, THAT'S SIMPLY A POINT TO RAISE, FROM A
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 397
BAYESIAN PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD EXPECT THAT AS WE
POOL INFORMATION, THAT IS, BRING MORE INFORMATION,
EACH PIECE OF INFORMATION BEING RELEVANT, THAT WE
WOULD DO A BETTER JOB.
Q. IS THERE ANY MECHANISM OR METHOD WHEREBY YOUR GRAM
PER METER SQUARED PER YEAR PHI NUMBERS CAN BE
RELATED TO STA DESIGN FACTORS?
A. PERHAPS. I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT AT ALL.
Q. GIVEN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOU DEVELOPED THESE TWO
MODELS, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH APPLYING
THEM IN THAT FASHION?
A. I'D WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE STA DESIGN. ALONG
THE SAME LINES AS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
EARLIER, DOES THIS -- DO THE PROPOSED DESIGN
CRITERIA, DESIGN VARIABLES THAT ARE IMPORTANT, ARE
THEY COMPATIBLE WITH THE VALUES ON THE VARIABLES
IN THE DATA SET WE USED TO FIT THE MODEL.
Q. WHEN YOU SAID EARLIER, ALONG THE SAME LINES, THAT
YOU WOULD ADJUST THE DATABASE FROM WHICH YOU
DERIVED YOUR MODEL, IF CERTAIN SYSTEMS WERE
CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE, OR HAD PARAMETERS THAT DID
NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE MODEL FOR THE PREDICTIVE
PURPOSES YOU WERE SEEKING, HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THAT
JUDGMENT? HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DECIDING THAT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 398
SYSTEM 21 IN THE DATABASE IS A TOTAL OUTLIER TO
WHAT I'M DOING, AND WOULD MERELY SKEW OR TAINT MY
RESULTS?
A. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WAYS THAT YOU WOULD DO
THAT. YOU'D LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE
ON THE DATA, AND IN MANY INSTANCES WITH DATA SETS,
YOU DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE,
SO, YOU MIGHT IDENTIFY CERTAIN, SAY, WETLANDS IN
THIS CASE, THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE DATA
YOU'D LIKE TO WORK WITH, AND MAYBE BECAUSE YOU
JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REPRESENTATION OF A CERTAIN
TYPE OF WETLANDS, SO YOU MIGHT REMOVE THOSE DATA,
AND DETERMINE THAT THE MODEL FIT TO THE REMAINING
DATA REFLECTS, OR IS APPROPRIATE ONLY FOR THE
CHARACTERISTICS YOU STILL HAVE WITHIN THE
REMAINING DATA SET. YOU MIGHT GET SOME CLUES BY
CONTINUING ON WITH YOUR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, AND
NOTICE THAT CERTAIN WETLANDS ARE NOT FIT
PARTICULARLY WELL, AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT'S THE CASE, POSSIBLY REMOVE THOSE, AND AGAIN
CONSTRAIN THE DATA SET FURTHER. YOU MAY END UP
WITH SOME WETLANDS IN THERE THAT JUST DON'T --
THAT JUST DEFY EXPLANATION, AND THEN YOU HAVE A
TOUGH DECISION.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 399
Q. SO, YOU COULD -- LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE NORTH
AMERICAN DATABASE, YOU COULD GO THROUGH AND
CONDUCT THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS FOR FIFTY, OR SIXTY,
OR SEVENTY OF THE WETLANDS IN THERE, FORESTED
WETLANDS, SUBSURFACE FLOW WETLANDS---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---AND IN THAT PROCESS, WOULD YOU SEEK ADVICE AND
CONSULTATION FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES, OTHER THAN
STATISTICAL SCIENCE?
A. YEAH, CERTAINLY WE WOULD. WE FEEL COMFORTABLE IN
TERMS OF OUR STATISTICAL JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS IN
USE OF THE STATISTICS, BUT IT'S CLEARLY PRUDENT ON
A DISSERTATION TO, YOU KNOW, DO THE SORTS OF
THINGS THAT YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT EARLIER,
WITH REGARD TO THESE ZEROS, WHICH WE WILL LOOK
AT, BUT TO LOOK MORE GENERALLY AT THIS NEW NADB
DATA SET, ASSUMING WE GET A COPY OF IT, AND BE
COMFORTABLE WITH THE DATA, AND THE LIMITS ON THE
DATA.
Q. ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THE NADB DATA
SET HAS INCREASED BY AN ORDER OF TEN, SINCE THAT
EMPLOYED BY KADLEC AND NEWMAN IN 1992, WHAT KIND
OF TIME FRAME WOULD IT TAKE TO DO THAT?
A. WE'D HAVE TO FIT IT INTO OUR -- INTO THE LIMITS OF
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 400
THE DISSERTATION. THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NUMBER
FACTORS THAT WE FEEL WE NEED TO EXAMINE, AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE INFORMATION ON THOSE -- ON
THOSE FACTORS. AND, IN SOME CASES, WE MAY JUST
SAY WE'VE GOT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE ANALYSIS, AND
WE WOULD MOVE AHEAD, AND IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR
US TO NOTE THAT.
Q. DO YOU HAVE A DATA TABULATION, REFLECTING WHAT
WAS ACTUALLY UTILIZED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
EXHIBIT 27?
A. OH, WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE, BUT I'M SURE THAT WE
DO. THE DATA COULD EASILY BE IDENTIFIED AND
OBTAINED.
MR. FITZGERALD: COUNSEL, I BELIEVE
THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO OUR MOTION --
AND I THINK IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE
CONCERN OVER HOW SOME OF THE DATA MAY HAVE
BEEN TREATED. AND I WOULD REQUEST THAT
YOU PROVIDE THAT TO US AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
MS. RAEPPLE: WE WILL DO THAT.
MR. FITZGERALD: I REALIZE THAT THIS
IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, BUT AS QUICKLY
AS POSSIBLE, IF THAT COULD MEAN LIKE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 401
TOMORROW, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESOLVE
THIS WHOLE ISSUE.
MS. RAEPPLE: WE'VE BEEN GOING FOR
OVER TWO HOURS.
MR. FITZGERALD: WOULD YOU LIKE TO
TAKE BREAK?
MS. RAEPPLE: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A
LITTLE BREAK, AND I WILL TALK TO THE
WITNESS AND SEE HOW BIG AN ISSUE THAT
WILL BE.
MR. FITZGERALD: WE SHOULD HAVE
REFLECTED ON THE RECORD, TOO, THAT -- MAYBE
THE COURT REPORTER WAS SMARTER THAN THE REST
OF US -- THAT MR. REID JOINED US. WELL, SHE
WAS SMART ENOUGH. MR. REID JOINED US A WHILE
AGO. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A -- I'VE GOT ABOUT
4:15. WHY DON'T WE MAKE IT 4:30, 5:00 OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
(THEREUPON, A SHORT
BREAK WAS TAKEN.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FITZGERALD CONTINUES:
Q. WHEN THEY SAY THINGS LIKE A QUALIFIER ON THE
TENTATIVENESS OF CASUAL HYPOTHESIS, YOU KNOW,
WHEN I GET MY HEAD BACK UP OFF THE TABLE, I HAVE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 402
NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.
A. HEDGING.
Q. THE EXHIBIT 27 SAYS ON PAGE TEN THAT THE
STATISTICAL MODELS DISCUSSED IN THE PAPER ARE
ULTIMATELY INTENDED TO BE APPLIED FOR PREDICTIVE
PURPOSES. WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, WERE YOU INTENDING
TO PREDICT FROM THOSE MODELS?
A. THE RESPONSE VARIABLES IN THE MODELS.
Q. WHICH?
A. THOSE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE EQUALS SIGN.
Q. WHICH ARE OUTFLOW CONCENTRATIONS?
A. OUTFLOW CONCENTRATIONS.
Q. ALTHOUGH YOU INDICATED TO ME THAT YOU DIDN'T
INTEND THE WCA-2A MODELING EFFORT, TO BE USED AS A
DESIGN BASIS FOR STA'S, PER SE, ON PAGE EIGHT, IT
SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT, IN FACT, THAT WAS VERY MUCH
IN THE MIND OF THE AUTHOR. THIS PORTION HERE
THAT, AGAIN IN THE TEXT, WAS A PORTION THAT YOU
AUTHORED, CORRECT?
A. YES. WHERE ARE YOU -- WHERE ARE YOU REFERRING TO,
PAGE EIGHT?
Q. THE FINAL PARAGRAPH.
A. YEAH, I WROTE THAT.
Q. IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT A BROADER INFERENCE BASE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 403
OF A CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA SET COULD BE VERY
MISLEADING BECAUSE OF BIAS FOUNDED ON THE USE OF
NON-ANALOGOUS WETLANDS, OUTLIER WETLANDS OF THE
TYPE WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER, THAT YOU MIGHT,
ON APPROPRIATE ANALYSIS, EXCLUDE FROM YOUR MODEL
DATA SET?
A. RESTATE THE BEGINNING OF YOUR QUESTION AGAIN.
Q. OKAY. IN USING THE BROADER INFERENCE BASE THAT
YOU CITE HERE IN THE SECOND LINE OF THE FINAL
PARAGRAPH ON PAGE EIGHT, YOU SAID, "THE MODEL
LACKS THE BROADER INFERENCE BASE OF A
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA SET." I TOOK FROM THAT, AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THE REASON -- OR THE
REASONING BEHIND THAT IS THAT THE BROADER MODEL,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE NADB, NONLINEAR MODEL, DEVELOPED
IN THIS DOCUMENT, MIGHT BE PREFERABLE AS A DESIGN
BASIS, BECAUSE THE 2A DATABASE REFLECTS ONLY A
SINGLE WETLAND, AND DOESN'T HAVE THAT BROADER
INFERENCE. IT DOESN'T HAVE WHATEVER HIGHER
CONFIDENCE YOU MIGHT DEVELOP YOURSELF, OR THE
WARM FUZZY FEELING KNOWING THAT FIFTY WETLANDS,
POOLED TOGETHER IN A BAYESIAN, OR IN JUST THE
NONLINEAR HERE, FALL WITHIN THE RANGE OF CAUSE
AND EFFECT DATA FROM THE WETLAND YOU'RE TRYING TO
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 404
PREDICT.
A. THE BROADER INFERENCE BASE REFERS TO THE FACT THAT
THERE'S A RANGE ON DESIGN OR PREDICTIVE VARIABLES,
AND SINCE WE ARE NON-SPECIFIC WITH REGARDS TO
WHERE THIS MODEL MIGHT BE APPLIED, THE BROADER
INFERENCE BASE, MEANS THAT YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO
FIND THAT A PARTICULAR WETLAND APPLICATION IS
COMPATIBLE WITH THE CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE, IN
CONTRAST TO THE SINGLE WETLAND, WHICH REFLECTS
ONLY THAT PARTICULAR SYSTEM.
Q. OKAY. IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ABOVE THAT, THE
PARAGRAPH THAT STARTS, "UNFORTUNATELY, FOR
APPLICATION PURPOSES" -- YOU DISCUSS IMPORTANT
DESIGN QUESTION OF WETLAND SIZE. I ASSUME THAT
HAD IN MIND THE CONCEPT OF AN STA OR A WETLAND
TREATMENT SYSTEM OF SOME SORT?
A. IT DOES NOT. IT JUST SAYS WETLAND "SIZE," NO
PARTICULAR THING IN MIND.
Q. IS PREDICTING THE SETTLING RATE OF PHOSPHORUS---
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. ---WITHIN A WETLAND SYSTEM?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. ACTUALLY, YOU'RE PREDICTING OUTFLOW CONCENTRATIONS
AS WELL, DEPENDING ON WHAT---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 405
A. YEAH, THE OUTFLOW CONCENTRATION, THE VARIABLE ON
THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THESE EQUATIONS.
Q. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCE, THEN, TO WETLAND
"SIZE," WHERE YOU WERE DEALING WITH THAT AS A
DESIGN QUESTION, UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
CONSTRUCTING A WETLAND FOR REMOVAL, AND YOU BACK
INTO YOUR SIZE, BY STIPULATING THE OUTFLOW
CONCENTRATION YOU WANT; IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ALTER
YOUR PREDICTOR VARIABLE.
A. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
Q. YOUR PREDICTOR VARIABLE BECOMES THE OUTFLOW
CONCENTRATION, THE TARGET CONCENTRATION YOU WANT.
A. THAT'S A RESPONSE -- THAT'S THE RESPONSE VARIABLE.
Q. AS YOUR MODELS ARE CONSTRUCTED?
A. YES.
Q. BUT TO BE -- TO HAVE AS THE OFTEN IMPORTANT DESIGN
QUESTION, HOW MUCH AREA IS NEEDED, YOU GO IN THE
OTHER DIRECTION, DON'T YOU?
A. YOU SHOULDN'T. THAT RAISES AN INTERESTING
QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO DESIGN. OUR MODELS ARE
FITTED TO PREDICT OUTLET CONCENTRATION.
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. THEY'RE OPTIMIZED ON THAT CRITERION.
Q. SO, IT WOULD BE AN IMPROPER USE OF THIS MODELING
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 406
EFFORT TO TRY AND PREDICT WHAT SIZE ST -- WHAT
SIZE TREATMENT AREA -- MARSH TREATMENT AREA---
A. STRICTLY SPEAKING, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO MINIMIZE
THE PREDICTION ERROR ON SOME QUANTITY, THEN YOU
SHOULD OPTIMIZE THE MODEL TO PREDICT ON THAT
QUANTITY.
Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU DID THIS SORT OF -- I DON'T KNOW,
PENCIL-TOP, HAND CALCULATOR, WHATEVER IT WAS,
REVIEW OF WETLAND SETTLING VELOCITIES, BACK WHEN
YOU WERE LOOKING AT KADLEC AND NEWMAN, JUST AS
A FIRST GAUGE, DID YOU FIND ANY SIGNIFICANT
DISCREPANCIES, OR ANYTHING THAT STUCK IN YOUR
MIND, THAT THAT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE?
A. NO. YOU KNOW, I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I
CAME UP WITH, OTHER THAN WHEN YOU ASKED THAT
QUESTION, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT I JUST GOT A PENCIL
OUT AND STARTED DOING SOME CALCULATIONS, WHAT DO
THESE NUMBERS RELATE TO; AND IT WAS JUST A SPUR OF
THE MOMENT PAPER AND PENCIL CALCULATION, AND
NOTHING CAME OF IT.
Q. IF THE SAME TYPE OF MODELING -- OR NOT THE SAME
TYPE OF -- BUT IF A MODELING EFFORT WAS CONDUCTED
USING REGRESSION MODELS ON THE SAME DATABASE, HOW
WOULD YOU COMPARE YOUR MODEL OF CHOICE FOR YOUR
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 407
PREDICTOR VARIABLE, BETWEEN THE NADB THAT YOU HAVE
DONE, OR SONG HAS DONE, AND THE WCA-2A MODEL THAT
YOU'VE DONE IN 27 AND THE REGRESSIONS, HOW WOULD
YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO? HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE
THEM IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHICH WAS THE MOST
APPROPRIATE, OR WOULD THERE BE A MOST APPROPRIATE?
IS EITHER METHOD REASONABLE?
A. WHEN -- IF YOUR CRITERION IS TO -- YOU NEED TO
DEFINE YOUR -- YOU NEED TO DEFINE YOUR CRITERION
FOR GOODNESS OR BEST MODEL, AND WHAT WE HAVE
TENDED TO LOOK AT WOULD BE SQUARED ERROR, OR
RESIDUAL SUM OF SQUARES---
Q. UH-HUH (YES).
A. ---SOME MEASURE OF DEVIATION OF THE POINTS FROM
THE PREDICTION LINE. AND SO THOSE BOX AND WHISKER
PLOTS IN THE BACK ARE INDICATIVE OF WHAT WE MIGHT
EXPECT IN THE WAY OF A SQUARED PREDICTION ERROR,
AND THAT, IN MY MIND, IS THE BEST SINGLE CRITERION
FOR IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED MODEL IN GENERAL, TO
PREDICT WITH A DATA SET LIKE THIS.
Q. WHAT'S THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT?
A. IT'S -- IT'S STILL UNDER REVIEW. THE
CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH YOU'VE SEEN COPIES OF, IS
THE LAST THAT I'VE HEARD.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 408
Q. YOU RECOMMENDED THREE INDIVIDUALS TO BE THE PEER
REVIEW PANEL?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. WHY DID YOU SELECT DR. WALKER FOR THAT?
A. I VALUE HIS JUDGMENT AND I WANT TO HEAR. MY
FEELING ON AN ANALYSIS LIKE THIS IS THAT IT --
SOONER OR LATER, IF IT'S PUBLISHED, IT HAS TO
STAND UP TO SCRUTINY, AND MIGHT AS WELL DO THAT AT
THE OUTSET.
Q. AND YOU WERE AWARE, THEN, AT THE TIME YOU
SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT HE IS TAKING A SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT APPROACH---
A. YES.
Q. ---TO THIS. OKAY, YOU ALSO IDENTIFIED A
DR. MITCH?
A. YES.
Q. WHO IS DR. MITCH?
A. I DON'T KNOW HIM. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER MET
HIM, BUT HE'S WRITTEN A BOOK ON WETLANDS, AND IT
SEEMS TO ME I'VE HEARD, OFF AND ON, IN
CONVERSATION, THAT HE'S WELL-REGARDED.
Q. SO, IT WAS PRIMARILY BASED ON HIS PUBLISHED WORKS
OR HIS REPUTATION IN THIS---
A. YEAH.
††††††††††䄮†⁙䕁䠮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 409
Q. ---PARTICULAR FIELD---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---OF INTEREST?
A. YEAH.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THIS PAPER?
A. I WAS IN -- HAD BEEN INTERESTED FOR SOME TIME IN
GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING AS A MODELING
APPROACH IN WATER QUALITY ANALYSES THAT I DO, OR
MY STUDENTS DO, AND HAD TALKED TO SONG OFF AND ON
FOR SEVERAL MONTHS ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES TO USE THIS
AS A FLEXIBLE MODELING TOOL, AND THEN HE GOT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON WETLANDS, THROUGH THE
FUNDING FROM THE WETLAND CENTER, AND THAT LED TO
THE EFFORT, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Q. THERE WERE SOME DOCUMENTS YOU PROVIDED BACK IN
MARCH. YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE DISCUSSED, I THINK
THERE WERE TWO VERSIONS OF -- EXHIBIT 23 AND
EXHIBIT 25. AND EXHIBIT 25 WAS A COPY OF THE
DOCUMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY STEVE GHERINI, AND THE LANGUAGE HAD
ALTERED. IN REVIEWING THOSE DOCUMENTS, IT APPEARS
THAT THAT MAY HAVE MATURED INTO THIS EFFORT. CAN
YOU CONFIRM THAT, OR---
A. MATURED INTO WHAT EFFORT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 410
Q. INTO THIS MODELING PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING IN
WETLANDS.
A. DID GHERINI HAVE SOME RELATION TO THIS?
Q. NO, IT WAS A DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM GHERINI. LET
ME SHOW IT TO YOU.
A. OKAY.
Q. THIS IS A COPY OF 23. IT'S AN AUGUST '92
DOCUMENT, CAPTIONED, "AN EMPIRICAL MODEL OF
PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION FOR WAC-2A OF THE
EVERGLADES, DUKE UNIVERSITY WETLAND CENTER,
AUGUST, 1992." IT HAS NO AUTHORSHIP INDICATED,
BUT IF YOU WILL RECALL, YOUR TESTIMONY WAS THAT
THIS WAS QIAN SONG'S WORK. I'M SORRY, THE OTHER
WAY AROUND.
A. SAY "SONG QIAN."
Q. QIAN.
A. "QIAN" IS THE PRONUNCIATION.
Q. I'VE BEEN MISPRONOUNCING IT ALL DAY, THANKS.
A. I'M SORRY.
Q. NOW YOU TELL ME. THE NEW SPELLINGS ARE THROWING
EVERYBODY OFF. THAT PARTICULAR VERSION, I WOULD
REPRESENT TO YOU AS THE RECORD WOULD SHOW FROM
EARLIER, WAS RECEIVED BY STEVE GHERINI. AN
EARLIER VERSION, OR IT'S A DIFFERENT VERSION, IS
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 411
IN EXHIBIT 23 -- OR DID I GIVE YOU 23. I'M SORRY,
25 IS THE PRODUCTION BY STEVE GHERINI, AND YOU MAY
RECALL WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS.
A. YEAH, THIS PROBABLY WAS A REAL EARLY VERSION WHEN
SONG WAS JUST BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH SMOOTHING,
AND OPTIMAL TRANSFORMATIONS. THIS INVOLVES SOME
SAS ANALYSIS, WHICH PREDATED ALL OF OUR STUFF IN
HERE, SO -- YEAH -- BUT IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE
WHAT I SAID. I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE
BEEN INTERESTED IN FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE
OPPORTUNITY WITH SONG AROSE AND WE TOOK IT.
Q. SO, IT WAS AT HIS BEHEST, YOU DIDN'T SUGGEST THIS
TO HIM AS A---
A. I SUGGESTED TO HIM FOR A LONG TIME THAT HE LOOK AT
GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING FOR WORK THAT HE WAS
INVOLVED IN, AND THIS WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
THAT.
Q. HOW DID IT BECOME FOCUSED ON THE NADB AND WCA-2A
AS A COLLATERAL MODELING EFFORT?
A. I GUESS BECAUSE OF HIS SUPPORT THROUGH THE WETLAND
CENTER, THAT WAS THE DATA SET THAT WAS AVAILABLE.
HE IS -- HIS -- NO, I THINK IT WAS THROUGH HIM.
HIS SUPPORT CAME THROUGH THE WETLAND CENTER, AS WE
DISCUSSED BEFORE, UP UNTIL SIX MONTHS AGO OR SO.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 412
AND I THINK IT WAS THROUGH THEM, AT LEAST
INITIALLY. I'M -- YEAH. I DON'T -- I WASN'T
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN OBTAINING THOSE DATA. I
DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE EXISTENCE
OF THE DATA WITHOUT SOMEONE FROM THE WETLAND
CENTER SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---PARTICULARLY THE CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA SET.
Q. SONG QIAN'S EFFORTS HERE, AND YOUR EFFORTS, IN THE
PROPOSED PUBLICATION SEEK TO CORRELATE LOAD-IN AND
CONCENTRATION-OUT. WAS ANY OTHER CORRELATION
ATTEMPTED TO BETTER FIT THE DATA?
A. ANY OTHER -- YOU MEAN ANY OTHER MODEL
RELATIONSHIPS?
Q. YEAH.
A. WE LOOKED AT A -- AS ANYONE WOULD DO WHEN YOU HAVE
A DATA SET, WE LOOKED A VARIETY OF RELATIONSHIPS
AND BLOCKS AND STATISTICS AND SO FORTH BEFORE
SETTLING ON THIS, AND WE HAD SOME CRITERIA FOR
INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING VARIABLES THAT ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE PAPER. SO, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW,
NO SENSE WHERE WE SAY THIS EQUATION IS EXPRESSED
IN EQUATION FOUR WAS THE MODEL WE'RE GOING -- WE
WERE SHOOTING FOR RIGHT AT THE ONSET.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 413
Q. WHAT OTHER CORRELATIONS DID YOU TRY?
A. I CAN'T TELL YOU. IN A NORMAL ANALYSIS LIKE THIS,
YOU LOOK AT -- AND, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE
WORK CORRELATION -- YOU LOOK AT ASSOCIATIONS AND
PLOTS TO GUIDE YOU IN SELECTING MODEL
RELATIONSHIPS. ANY GOOD SCIENCE WOULD START OUT
WITH -- ANY GOOD INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS WOULD
START OUT WITH CERTAIN SCIENCE, AND HENCE THE
LITERATURE REVIEWED OR IDENTIFIED LOOSELY WHAT
SCIENCE WAS THOUGHT ABOUT BY ONE OR MORE OF THE
GROUP, AND THEN WE HAVE A MODELING APPROACH, AND
THAT'S THE DESCRIPTION OF THAT.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHAT CORRELATIONS NEWMAN AND
KADLEC -- KADLEC-NEWMAN USED IN THEIR DOCUMENT IN
1992?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER, OTHER THAN THAT PLOT THAT WE'VE
SHOWN AS OUR FIRST FIGURE.
Q. IN DOING THE BAYESIAN ANALYSIS THAT'S SUGGESTED
IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 13, THE EFFORT THAT
SHOULD CULMINATE IN THE DISSERTATION BY MR. QIAN,
IF THAT IS DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT RESULTS IN A
VERY ROBUST MODEL, AS YOU WERE USING THE TERM
ROBUST MODEL---
A. NO, I DIDN'T. I TALKED ABOUT ROBUST IN A DISTINCT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 414
DISCUSSION FROM BAYESIAN.
Q. THAT HAS NO APPLICATION IN BAYESIAN?
A. WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARDS TO
ROBUSTNESS WAS NOT -- THAT WAS AN HOUR BEFORE WE
TALKED ABOUT BAYESIAN.
Q. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---THE CONCEPT OF WHAT YOU MEANT BY A ROBUST
MODEL, NOT SPECIFICALLY---
A. NOT THE WAY YOU -- IN SOME SENSE, BUT NOT IN THE
SAME -- IN THE SAME VEIN.
Q. HOW'S IT DIFFERENT?
A. THERE'S AN ALGORITHM FOR DOING ROBUST STATISTICAL
ESTIMATION, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT I DESCRIBED,
THAT IN EFFECT RESULTS IN AN ESTIMATOR THAT
DOWNWEIGHTS OUTLIERS FROM THE CLOUD OF DATA
POINTS, AND THAT'S A STANDARD ESTIMATION ALGORITHM
IN CLASSICAL STATISTICS DEVELOPED USING THIS
NOTION OF ROBUSTNESS. OUR NON-PARAMETRIC BAYESIAN
ANALYSIS IS NOT ROBUST IN THAT SENSE, NOT THINKING
OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO TREAT OUTLIERS IN ANY
SPECIAL WAY.
Q. HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR OUTLIERS IN A
NON-PARAMETRIC BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, OR HOW ARE THEY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 415
TREATED?
A. WE'LL HAVE TO -- YOU KNOW, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT LOOKING AT THE DATA, AND UNDERSTANDING
WHETHER YOU INCLUDE SOMETHING OR EXCLUDE
SOMETHING, AND ALONG THAT SAME VEIN. BUT THE
ESTIMATION ALGORITHM IN A BAYESIAN -- IN A
NON-PARAMETRIC BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, WE -- WE TRY --
WE TRY TO NOT IMPOSE A PARTICULAR STATISTICAL
MODEL ON THE DATA, LIKE A LINEAR MODEL, AND RATHER
SAY THAT -- INSTEAD SAY THAT THE MODEL COULD BE
ANY ONE OF A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE MODELS; AND IN
THAT SENSE, IT'S ROBUST. BUT ONCE THE DATA ARE
USED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE MODEL FORM, AND
POSSIBLY MODEL PARAMETERS, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY
GOING TO BE ROBUST AGAINST OUTLIERS IN THE DATA
WITH THE ANALYSIS AS WE'VE DEFINED IT SO FAR.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND LOOK FOR
THOSE, BUT NOT IN THE SAME WAY THAT THIS OTHER
ROBUSTNESS APPROACH DOES, WHICH IS A MORE
AUTOMATED WAY OF HANDLING OUTLIERS.
Q. OKAY. I FOUND MY NOTE ON THE CLASS HANDOUT. AND
THIS MAY HELP A LITTLE BIT.
A. YEAH, WE FOUND IT, TOO.
Q. OH, IT WAS SOMETHING ABOUT THE CLASS ON
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 416
DECISION-MAKING IN THE EVERGLADES.
A. YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC.
A. YEAH.
Q. AND DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT?
A. I DON'T KNOW. I GAVE THAT CLASS TWO YEARS AGO IN
DECISION ANALYSIS. I MIGHT. I'LL TRY TO FIND IT.
I HAVEN'T -- I HAVEN'T USED IT SINCE.
Q. AT THE TIME OF THE LAST DEPOSITION, SESSION TWO,
YOU HAD A Ph.D. STUDENT. I WROTE IT DOWN AS
LAMAND, PHONETICALLY, OR LAMAN, L-A-M-A-N.
A. OH, CONRAD LAMON, OH, YEAH, L-A-M-O-N.
Q. OH, OKAY. NOW, MAYBE I'LL PRONOUNCE THAT ONE
CORRECTLY. THAT HE USED STELLA, A MODELING TOOL,
TO LOOK AT PHOSPHORUS MOVEMENT IN WCA-2A AND THAT
HE HAD WORKED WITH -- OR FOR THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ONE SUMMER, BUT HIS
FINAL REPORT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME. IS
IT AVAILABLE NOW?
A. I DON'T KNOW. YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE DISTRICT.
THAT WAS SOMETHING HE DID DUR -- WITH THEM FOR THE
SUMMER, AND I---
Q. SO YOU---
A. ---I'VE NEVER GOTTEN INVOLVED IN.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 417
Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR
WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE GIFT LETTERS.
A. YEAH.
Q. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT?
A. NO.
Q. WHO WOULD?
A. THE WETLAND CENTER.
MR. FITZGERALD: THAT WOULD LIKELY
HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE
DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY
DR. RICHARDSON FOR HIS DEPOSITION IN JANUARY
OF THIS PAST YEAR, BEFORE DR. RECKHOW'S, AND
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED.
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO OF THEM, I UNDERSTAND.
MS. RAEPPLE: I'D BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP
AND CHECK TO SEE IF THAT KIND OF DOCUMENT
EXISTS IN HIS RECORDS. IT MAY NOT EXIST IN
HIS RECORDS AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW IF
HE MAINTAINS COPIES OF GIFT LETTERS IN HIS
RECORDS FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME.
MR. REID: YOU MEAN DR. RICHARDSON
MIGHT NOT RETAIN COPIES OF LETTERS ABOUT
FORTY THOUSAND DOLLAR ($40,000.00) GIFTS?
MS. RAEPPLE: I HAVE NO IDEA. I SAID
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 418
I WOULD CHECK.
MR. REID: I THINK THERE'S AN IRS
REQUIREMENT ON THAT. JUST A THOUGHT. I
SUSPECT HE HAS THEM. AND, IN ANY EVENT,
DR. RICHARDSON IS BEING RE-NOTICED AND WILL
BE RE-DEPOSED SOMETIME IN THE NOT TOO
DISTANT, AND THAT WOULD BE ONE THING THAT
WE'LL JUST BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AS IT
WAS PROBABLY AN OVERSIGHT. IF IT WASN'T
COVERED FOR SOME REASON IN THE LAST
ARTICULATION, IT CERTAINLY WILL BE THIS
TIME.
Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) DR. RICHARDSON TESTIFIED LAST
JANUARY THAT THE MODELING EFFORT WITH REGARD TO
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN WETLANDS, THAT WAS BEING
UNDERTAKEN, LOOSELY SAID, AT THE WETLAND CENTER,
BUT HE DID MENTION YOU BY NAME, WAS GOING TO
PREDICT, AS ITS SOLE RESPONSE VARIABLE, OUTLET
CONCENTRATION. IS THAT, IN FACT, STILL ACCURATE?
AND EXHIBIT 27 SEEMS TO ADDRESS OUTLET
CONCENTRATIONS.
A. YEAH, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONSTRAINTS THAT
WE'VE IMPOSED ON OUR WORK, AND NO ONE HAS IMPOSED
ANY CONSTRAINTS ON OUR WORK, SO -- BUT THAT'S
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 419
PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN.
Q. BUT THERE ARE NO OTHER CURRENT MODELING EFFORTS
UNDER YOUR DIRECTION, BECAUSE HE SAID THIS WAS
UNDER YOUR CHARGE---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE MODELS THAT HAVE OTHER
PREDICTOR VARIABLES -- I'M SORRY -- RESPONSE
VARIABLES.
A. RESPONSE VARIABLES, YEAH. NO, THAT'S NOT TO SAY
THAT AT SOME POINT WE WOULDN'T FIND IT INTERESTING
TO LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY
PLANS TO.
Q. DO YOU -- YOU HAVE NO PLANS TO DO THAT BETWEEN NOW
AND APRIL, DO YOU?
A. NO. NO, I DOUBT VERY MUCH IF WE'LL DO MUCH
BETWEEN NOW AND APRIL, OTHER THAN GET THE DATA
AND CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS NON-PARAMETRIC
BAYES.
Q. IN GETTING THE DATA, YOU MEAN THE UPDATED NADB?
A. YEAH, YEAH.
Q. DR. RICHARDSON, ALSO BACK ON JANUARY 15TH,
SUGGESTED THAT THE WETLAND CENTER -- AND AGAIN,
YOU -- WERE WORKING ON A SETTLING RATE CONCEPTUAL
MODEL.
††††††††††††䴠䑏䱅മ
††††††††††††䵏䑅䰮ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 420
A. HE SAID I WAS DOING THAT?
Q. YEAH, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT 27 IS. HAVE
YOU OR ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE BEEN WORKING ON
A---
A. NO.
Q. ---CONCEPTUAL---
A. NO.
Q. ---MODEL FOR---
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. YOU PROVIDED US AN EARLY DRAFT VERSION, OR
PRELIMINARY -- AND I THINK IT EVEN HAD SOME
COMMENTS MARKED ON IT -- VERSION OF MR. QIAN'S
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL, AND YOU INDICATED THAT HE
HAS PASSED THAT HURDLE AT THE END OF THE SUMMER?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF HIS FINAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS
ACTUALLY APPROVED?
A. DO I HAVE IT?
Q. YES.
A. YEAH, BACK IN MY FILE ON SONG.
MR. FITZGERALD: I WOULD REQUEST
A COPY OF THAT, IF THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
MS. RAEPPLE: IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR
YOU TO RELEASE THAT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 421
WITNESS: IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I'M
JUST CONCERNED ABOUT BRINGING SONG INTO THIS.
FOR PERSONAL REASONS, HE -- YOU KNOW, HE
WANTS TO STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM THIS CASE,
AND HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS CASE, IN ORDER TO -- IN ORDER TO STAY
AWAY FROM IT.
MR. FITZGERALD: I UNDERSTAND THE
SENSITIVITY, DOCTOR, AND I APPRECIATE THAT
PROBABLY A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO STAY
AS FAR AWAY FROM THIS CASE AS THEY COULD,
EVEN A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND THIS TABLE,
BUT 27 DOESN'T STAY AWAY FROM THIS CASE.
WITNESS: 27, I'M HERE AS THIS -- AS THE
CO-AUTHOR.
MR. FITZGERALD: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
MS. RAEPPLE: MR. FITZGERALD, I DON'T
THINK MR. QIAN'S DISSERTATION PROPOSAL COMES
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF YOUR REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS, AND IF---
MR. REID: COULD I SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
THAT?
MR. FITZGERALD: YES.
MR. REID: I WAS DEPOSING DR. RECKHOW
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 422
LAST TIME, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS, IS THAT
HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPINIONS FORMULATED AS OF
THAT TIME. AND HE TESTIFIED -- AND I WILL
CHECK THIS TONIGHT -- THAT HIS OPINIONS
WOULD, IN FACT, BE THE RESULT OF HIS GRADUATE
STUDENT'S DISSERTATION WORK, WHEN IT WAS
APPROVED AND WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED. NOW,
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CHANGED OR NOT, BUT
THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO WHEN
WE WERE HERE LAST TIME.
MR. FITZGERALD: FOR MR. REID'S
BENEFIT, I THINK YOU SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR
TO THAT TODAY WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE END
OF '94.
MR. REID: SO I DON'T SEE HOW --
IT SEEMS TO ME ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING
TO THE GRADUATE STUDENT, WE NEED TO SEE. I
MEAN, THEY RELATE. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN
SAY THEY DON'T.
MR. FITZGERALD: WELL, FOR COUNSEL'S
BENEFIT, I MEAN, YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE EARLIER, BUT THE
PRELIMINARIES, AT LEAST IN TWO DIFFERENT
VERSIONS, WERE PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY EARLIER.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 423
I DON'T SEE HOW THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT
THEN UNDER THE SAME REQUEST NOW, AND THE
FINAL NOT BE. CERTAINLY, LOOKING AT THE
DESIGNATION OF WITNESS AND---
MR. REID: YEAH, AND THAT REMINDS ME.
I'LL SAY ALSO THAT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT AT
THE LAST DEPOSITION, I THINK DR. RECKHOW
POINTED TO ONE OF THOSE EXHIBITS, 23 OR 25,
DEPENDING ON THE VERSION, BECAUSE THERE WAS
SOME CHANGE, AS THE BEST STATEMENT OF WHAT
HIS GRADUATE STUDENT WAS GOING TO BE
PROPOSING AND GOING TO BE DOING. SO, I'M
SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT SUDDENLY THERE IS
THIS---
WITNESS: WELL, WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT
AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT LED TO THIS PAPER.
WE HAD NOT, AT THAT POINT, IN MY
RECOLLECTION, ANTICIPATED DOING ANYTHING
ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT HE'S DOING RIGHT
NOT, WHICH IS THE NON-PARAMETRIC BAYES
ANALYSIS. I DON'T THINK YOU'LL FIND ANY
WORDS TO THAT EFFECT IN EARLIER DISCUSSIONS.
SO, THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF THAT WORK THAT
WE HAD EARLIER.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 424
MS. RAEPPLE: DR. RECKHOW AND I WENT
OVER THE DOCUMENT REQUEST VERY CAREFULLY, AND
DETERMINED AT THAT TIME THAT WE HAD PRODUCED
ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT CAME WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THAT REQUEST. I WILL BE HAPPY TO REVISIT
IT WITH HIM. BUT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, THE
DOCUMENT YOU'RE NOW REQUESTING, SONG QIAN'S
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL, WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE
REQUEST.
MR. REID: YOU OUGHT TO LOOK AT THAT
TESTIMONY AT THE LAST DEPOSITION IN LIGHT
OF THAT, BECAUSE I -- MY RECOLLECTION IS
THAT WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT WAS PRECISELY
GOING TO BE THE BASIS OF DR. RECKHOW'S
OPINIONS, WHICH SURPRISED US. I REMEMBER,
BECAUSE IT SURPRISED US, BECAUSE HE SAID IT
WOULDN'T BE FINISHED UNTIL TWO YEARS AFTER
THE HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CASE, AND THAT
HE WAS BEING -- WE WERE TOLD BY MR. GREEN
THAT HIS OPINIONS WOULD BE READY FOR THE
HEARING.
MR. FITZGERALD: AND WERE TOLD VERY
SHORTLY AFTER THAT---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 425
MR. REID: AFTER THAT, HE HAD OPINIONS,
SUDDENLY.
WITNESS: THAT WHO HAD OPINIONS?
MR. REID: YOU.
MR. FITZGERALD: YOU. YOU DIDN'T TELL
US THAT.
WITNESS: NO.
MR. REID: NO, GREEN TOLD US YOUR
OPINIONS WERE FINALIZED, SHORTLY AFTER THE
DEP---
MS. RAEPPLE: WELL, I THINK WHAT
DR. RECKHOW IS TELLING YOU IS THAT THE
OPINIONS THAT WERE BEING REFERENCED ARE
REFLECTED IN THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS NOW
EXHIBIT 27 TO THE DEPOSITION. THOSE ARE
THE FINAL OPINIONS.
MR. FITZGERALD: I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE
TESTIMONY EARLIER THAT THIS EFFORT THAT'S
REFERENCED ON PAGE 13 OF EXHIBIT 27 IS A
DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT THE SAME DATA
SETS, BOTH WCA-2A AND THE NATIONAL -- NO,
I'M SORRY -- THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE.
THE 2A DATA HASN'T CHANGED ANY, ALTHOUGH PART
OF THAT'S FOLDED INTO THE NADB -- AND I MAY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 426
BE MISSPEAKING NOW -- BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS ON THAT, AND THE PROPOSAL
TO DO THAT, AND THE -- MY UNDERSTANDING FROM
OUR CONSULTANTS AND FROM LIMITED PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WOULD BE CONTAINED, AND A
REVIEW OF THE TWO EARLIER ONES, THAT IT WOULD
BE A FAIRLY CLEAR INDICATION OF THE DIRECTION
AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THAT EFFORT. AND I
THINK THAT FAIRLY FALLS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THE ORIGINAL DEPOSITION NOTICES, DRAFTED BY
MR. REID FOR THE DISTRICT, AND ADOPTED BY US.
I HASTEN TO ASSURE DR. RECKHOW, THAT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, WE'RE GOING
TO RUSH OUT AND, YOU KNOW, PUBLISH THAT TO
THE WORLD, AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY LEAD TO ANY EFFORT TO INVOLVE
MR. QIAN ANY MORE THAN HE ALREADY IS, BASED
ON THIS. I MEAN, CLEARLY, IF THAT WORK IS
NOT DONE, THE CHANCES OF INVOLVING HIM
DIRECTLY ARE GREATER BECAUSE OF HIS
CO-AUTHORSHIP, AND IN SOME RESPECTS, AT
LEAST FROM THE ANALYSIS PART OF IT, PRIMARY
AUTHORSHIP OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
APPEARING IN EXHIBIT 27, I THINK PROBABLY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 427
WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU
CAN TALK AND THINK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE,
MAYBE TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE REQUEST, AND
WE CAN RESOLVE THAT TOMORROW MORNING. WHAT
I'D LIKE TO -- IT'S GETTING ON IN THE EVENING
HERE, AND I KNOW MR. REID'S PROBABLY
SUFFERING FROM JET LAG, BUT I THINK I HAVE
MAYBE ONE OR TWO MORE QUESTIONS TO STOP NOW,
AND WE CAN -- AND WE STILL ARE FAIRLY
CONFIDENT WE WILL FINISH REASONABLY EARLY
IN THE DAY TOMORROW.
EXAMINATION BY MR.FITZGERALD CONTINUES:
Q. THE CURRENT -- THE EFFORT IN 27, THE MODELING
EFFORT THERE, DOES NOT APPEAR, TO ME, TO INCLUDE
ANY DETAILED HYDROLOGIC FACTORS, TO DETERM---
A. YES.
Q. THAT'S CORRECT?
A. (NODS AFFIRMATIVELY.)
Q. IN CONSIDERING DESIGN -- OR DETERMINING DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE FOR WETLANDS AREAS, AS I MENTIONED
ON PAGE -- I'VE SINCE LOST IT -- PAGE 8 --
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ON PAGE 8, THIRD PARAGRAPH
FROM THE BOTTOM, IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN SUCH
IMPORTANT DESIGN EFFORTS RELATED TO WETLAND SIZE,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 428
IF ONE WERE TO EMPLOY EITHER OF THE MODELS IN 27,
WOULD YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE HYDROLOGIC
DETAILS OF THE WETLAND OR THE SITE?
A. SAY THAT AGAIN.
Q. WELL, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE
THESE MODELS AND USE THEM IN A PRACTICAL WAY,
AND I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SAID SO
FAR, THAT YOU'RE SOMEWHAT CHARY OF DOING
THAT, AND---
A. I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT, BUT GO AHEAD.
Q. NO. OKAY. YOU -- ARE YOU NOT CHARY OF DOING
THAT?
A. I WOULD BE PRUDENT ABOUT APPLYING ANY MODEL.
Q. OKAY. IF I WERE TO DESIRE TO APPLY THESE MODELS,
WOULD I HAVE -- WOULD YOU WANT ME, OR ANYONE
UTILIZING THESE MODELS, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
HYDROLOGIC REGIME OF THE WETLAND AREA TO WHICH
THEY WERE GOING TO BE APPLIED TO PREDICT OUTFLOW
CONCENTRATIONS?
A. IF IT WAS FELT THAT THE HYDROLOGY OF THE WETLAND
OF APPLICATION WAS UNUSUAL IN THE SENSE THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE SITUATION OF CONCERN IN WCA-2A, THAT
CERTAIN REGIONS OF THE WETLAND MAY NOT BE INVOLVED
IN THE FLOW PATH, THERE WAS A SHORT-CIRCUITING,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 429
FOR EXAMPLE, AND THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE
MODEL, WHERE A MODEL LIKE THIS IS, IF IT HAS A
SIZE CHARACTERISTIC LIKE AREA, IS IN EFFECT SAYING
THAT AREA MATTERS. AND IF THE AREA OF THE WETLAND
IS NOT THE EFFECTIVE OR CONTRIBUTING AREA FOR THE
APPLICATION WETLAND, BUT IT IS FOR MOST OF THE
WETLANDS IN THE DATA SET, THEN YOU SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT
YOU CAN, LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU
SHOULD.
Q. BUT TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT BEYOND
THE LIMITS OF THE MODELS, BECAUSE THESE TWO
MODELS DON'T ACCOUNT FOR THAT. I MEAN, THEY
SIMPLY---
A. THESE TWO MOD---
Q. ---THEY SIMPLY HAVE A DEPTH CRITERION, RIGHT?
A. THIS PARTICULAR MODEL HAS A DEPTH CRITERION, AND
THE OTHER ONE HAS A Q/A, OF FLOW OVER AREA
PREDICTOR VARIABLE.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF FLOW IS THAT?
A. THAT'S TOTAL VOLUME OF FLOW PER YEAR, I BELIEVE.
THE Qs IS AN AREAL WATER LOADING TERM, WHICH IS --
MAY BE CALCULATED BY THE TOTAL VOLUME OF FLOW
PER UNIT TIME, WHATEVER THE TIME PERIOD IS,
DIVIDED BY THE SURFACE AREA. IT'S AN ANALOGUE TO
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 430
THE L TERM.
Q. SO, IT DOESN'T TRY AND DISTINGUISH, YOU KNOW, IN
THE -- IN UPTAKE CHARACTERISTICS, PLUG FLOW FROM
SHEET FLOW, IT DOESN'T CARE. IT'S JUST A TOTAL
LOADING -- TOTAL FLOW OF THE WETLAND.
A. THAT'S RIGHT. IN EFFECT, THESE MODELS ARE
COMPATIBLE WITH AN ASSUMPTION OF CONTINUOUSLY STIR
TANK REACTORS, CSTR.
MR. FITZGERALD: THAT'S PROBABLY A
GOOD POINT TO BREAK.
WITNESS: OKAY.
MR. REID: OFF THE RECORD.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
-----------------------------------
(THEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS
ADJOURNED AT 5:18 P.M. TO RESUME
ON FEBRUARY 1, 1994, AT 9:00 A.M.)
-----------------------------------
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 431
THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE DEPOSITION OF
DR. KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW WAS TAKEN BEGINNING AT OR
AROUND 9:00 A.M. ON THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1994, AT
THE HILTON HOTEL, 3800 HILLSBOROUGH ROAD, THE WALKER
SUITE, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, BEFORE CAROL ANN S.
YOUNG, A NOTARY PUBLIC.
- - - - - - - - - -
EXAMINATION BY MR. REID:
Q. DR. RECKHOW, I'M BEN REID AND I REPRESENT THE
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, I THINK WE MET LAST
TIME YOU WERE HERE. I THINK IT WAS IN APRIL THIS
YEAR. DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?
A. ABOUT RIGHT, YEAH.
MR. BURGESS: BEN, IF YOU'LL EXCUSE
ME FOR A SECOND. TOM, ARE YOU DONE?
MR. FITZGERALD: BEN ACTUALLY HAD TO
LEAVE -- AND I HAD SPOKEN WITH CAROLYN
ABOUT THIS BEFORE THAT I WAS BASICALLY
GOING TO HAND OFF AND LET HIM RESUME AFTER HE
ARRIVED, BUT RATHER THAN DUPLICATE YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON, I JUST FINISHED MINE. AND I MAY
HAVE A FEW MORE, BUT VERY LITTLE. IF FACT,
YOU KNOW, IF BEN IS AS THOROUGH AS I EXPECT,
MAYBE NOT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 432
EXAMINATION BY MR. REID CONTINUES:
Q. DR. RECKHOW, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE STILL
LISTED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS BY SOME OF THE PARTIES
IN THIS CASE?
A. YES.
Q. AND WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
A. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY THAT IS USED IN
THESE LEGAL SETTINGS, SO THAT ACTUAL STATEMENT
THAT I'M AN EXPERT WITNESS I HEAR FROM YOU.
Q. WELL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT FUNCTIONAL -- YOUR
FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THAT REGARD IN A MINUTE.
BUT I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THE COOPERATIVE HAS
LISTED YOU, AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED US WITH
DOCUMENTS, WHICH SUMMARIZE THE OPINIONS AND SO
FORTH THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVING IN THIS CASE IF IT
WERE GOING TO BE -- IF WE ULTIMATELY HAD A TRIAL,
A HEARING OR A TRIAL, AND I WANT TO GO OVER THOSE
WITH YOU.
A. UH-HUH.
Q. NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU, FIRST OF ALL, A COPY OF ONE
OF THE COMPLIANCES FILED BY THE COOPERATIVE AND
ASK YOU IF YOU'VE JUST SEEN THAT, BEGINNING IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE PAGE WITH YOUR NAME AND THEN
CONTINUING ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE SECOND PAGE?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 433
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. OKAY.
Q. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT BEFORE?
A. I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT.
Q. THE DOCUMENT SAYS, IN DESCRIBING THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF YOUR EXPECTED TESTIMONY, THAT IT WILL
INCLUDE MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
IN THE EPA AND WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS. WHAT IS
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE AS USED IN THAT SENTENCE?
A. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT IT'S REFERRING TO
PHOSPHORUS -- SOME FORM OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL FROM
THE WATER COLUMN.
Q. AND HAVE YOU, IN FACT, OR ARE YOU PREPARED TO
TESTIFY TO OPINIONS REGARDING A MATHEMATICAL
ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE?
A. I'M PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE --
THAT IS, SONG QIAN AND I -- DID IN THIS PAPER
WHICH IS -- WHAT?
Q. EXHIBIT 27.
A. EXHIBIT 27.
Q. WELL, DOES THAT PAPER INCLUDE IN IT A MATHEMATICAL
ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN THE EPA AND
WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS?
A. IT INCLUDES AN ANALYSIS -- A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 434
OF PHOSPHORUS INPUT, OUTPUT TO WCA-2A AND TO A
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE, THE NADB.
COURT REPORTER: EXCUSE ME. COULD
YOU SHUT THAT DOOR?
Q. (BY MR. REID) NOW, YOU USED THE TERMS
PHOSPHORUS -- WHAT DID YOU SAY, INTAKE AND
OUT TAKE OR INPUT AND OUTPUT?
A. INPUT AND OUTPUT.
Q. INPUT AND OUTPUT. IS THAT THE SAME AS PHOSPHORUS
UPTAKE?
A. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT -- AS I AM NOT A WETLAND
SCIENTIST, I'M NOT SURE HOW PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS
BEING USED IN THAT SENTENCE.
Q. WELL, THIS SENTENCE IS REPRESENTED TO BE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR OPINIONS IN THIS CASE. SO,
WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT IS MEANT BY
THE CONCEPT OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE WITH REGARD TO
YOUR OPINIONS, AND I ASKED YOU WHAT -- IF THAT WAS
YOUR OPINION, AND YOU SAID YOUR OPINION DEALT WITH
PHOSPHORUS INPUT AND OUTPUT.
A. YEAH.
Q. AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT'S -- IF WE'RE
USING THAT INTERCHANGEABLY WITH THE CONCEPT OF
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 435
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. MR. REID,
HE'S EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW
HOW THIS TERM PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS UTILIZED
IN THE SENTENCE THAT YOU'RE READING TO HIM,
THAT HE'S NOT A WETLAND SCIENTIST.
MR. REID: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
A. I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING THAT I JUST SAID, AND
WHAT CAROLYN JUST SAID, IS THAT I'M NOT A WETLAND
SCIENTIST AND I DON'T KNOW HOW PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
IS BEING DEFINED IN THAT SENTENCE, AND I STAND BY
WHAT I SAID A MOMENT AGO.
Q. WELL, I'M NOT -- I GUESS I DID BEGIN BY ASKING YOU
THE DEFINITION. NOW, PAST THAT, AND YOU'VE TOLD
ME SEVERAL TIMES YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S -- WHAT
THAT MEANS IN THAT SENTENCE, AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT, SO NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
AND MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE OPINIONS REGARDING
A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. THAT'S NOT
WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS.
Q. (BY MR. REID) IN THE EPA AND WETLANDS TREATMENT
AREAS -- THAT FINISHES THE SENTENCE. I DIDN'T
THINK THE LAST PART MADE A DIFFERENCE, BUT I'LL BE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 436
HAPPY TO---
MS. RAEPPLE: THE OBJECTION STANDS.
THE SENTENCE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE HAS
OPINIONS REGARDING THE MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS.
IT SAYS THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS
EXPECTED TESTIMONY.
MR. REID: FINE. I'LL CHANGE IT.
Q. (BY MR. REID) I ASSUME THAT -- THAT YOUR EXPECTED
TESTIMONY WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF OPINIONS THAT
YOU HAVE, BUT MAYBE NOT. TELL ME, THEN -- AND
I'LL CERTAINLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COUNSEL'S
DESCRIPTION OR LIMITATION OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO
CALL IT -- WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
YOUR EXPECTED TESTIMONY, ARE YOU PREPARED TO
TESTIFY REGARDING A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE?
A. I AM PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THE WORK ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATISTICAL MODELS THAT WE
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 27.
Q. IS THAT -- IS THAT PHRASE "A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE" -- DOES THAT HAVE MEANING TO
SOMEONE WITH YOUR EXPERTISE?
A. AS I'VE SAID TO YOU BEFORE, I'M NOT SURE HOW
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS BEING USED BY WETLAND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 437
SCIENTISTS. I'M HESITANT TO SAY THAT THAT INDEED
DESCRIBES WHAT'S IN EXHIBIT 27.
Q. DOES THE CONCEPT OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE NEVER BECOME
INVOLVED IN WHAT YOU DO AT ALL?
A. I DON'T KNOW. AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M NOT SURE HOW
THAT WORD IS DEFINED BY WETLAND SCIENTISTS.
Q. I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT. I ASKED YOU IF THE CONCEPT
OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS A CONCEPT WITH WHICH YOU
EVER DEAL IN YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. ASKED
AND ANSWERED.
A. SINCE I DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITION, IT'S HARD FOR
ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Q. SO, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU CANNOT TELL ME WHAT
THE MEANING OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS?
A. I'M TELLING YOU THAT I'M NOT SURE OF THE
DEFINITION AS THAT TERM IS USED BY WETLAND
SCIENTISTS.
Q. I'M NOT ASKING YOU -- STRIKE THAT. ARE YOU A
WETLAND SCIENTIST?
A. I AM NOT A WETLAND SCIENTIST.
Q. THEN I'M NOT ASKING YOU ABOUT HOW THAT TERM IS
USED BY A WETLAND SCIENTIST. I'M ASKING YOU HOW
THAT TERM IS USED BY YOU?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 438
A. I DON'T USE THAT TERM.
Q. SO, THAT IS A CONCEPT THAT, IN YOUR DISCIPLINE,
YOUR AREA OF STUDY, IS NOT USED?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. NOW, CONTINUING IN THE SAME SENTENCE, THERE'S
REFERENCE TO THE "EPA," AND I ASSUME THAT MEANS
THE "EVERGLADES PROTECTION AREA"?
A. I ASSUME SO.
Q. AND THAT WOULD BE THE WATER -- THE WCA'S SAID A
DIFFERENT WAY?
A. THAT'S -- IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS, THAT'S---
Q. OKAY. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW?
A. I DON'T KNOW.
Q. OKAY. AND THEN THE PHRASE "WETLAND TREATMENT
AREAS," DO YOU KNOW IF THAT WAS SYNONYMOUS OR
MEANT TO BE SYNONYMOUS WITH WHAT WE'RE CALLING
STA'S IN THIS LITIGATION?
A. I DON'T KNOW. IT SOUNDS -- IT SOUNDS LIKE IT
MIGHT BE.
Q. OKAY. IS IT FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THAT THE FOLLOWING
SENTENCE IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? "SUBJECT
MATTER OF EXPECTED TESTIMONY: MATHEMATICAL
ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN THE EPA AND
WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS."
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 439
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. THE
WITNESS HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT HE
DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM PHOSPHORUS
UPTAKE MEANS AND SO HE CANNOT ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, UNLESS YOU DEFINE THE TERM FOR
HIM.
MR. REID: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
A. UNLESS I KNOW HOW PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS BEING USED,
I CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Q. (BY MR. REID) BUT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION -- SINCE
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PHRASE "PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE"
MEANS IN THIS SENTENCE, I TAKE IT, THEN, THAT YOU
HAVE NO INTENTION OF TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO ANY
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN THE
EPA AND WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. THE WITNESS
HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED HE DOESN'T KNOW THE
DEFINITION OF PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE.
MR. REID: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER. DO YOU
NEED THE QUESTION BACK?
WITNESS: YES, PLEASE.
MR. REID: OKAY. COULD YOU READ THE
QUESTION BACK, PLEASE?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 440
(THEREUPON, THE QUESTION APPEARING
ON PAGE 439, LINES 12-17, WAS
REPEATED BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
MS. RAEPPLE: CONSEQUENTLY -- LET ME
JUST ADD TO THAT OBJECTION, MR REID --
CONSEQUENTLY, YOU'RE ASKING HIM TO SPECULATE.
SO I'M OBJECTING ON THAT GROUND.
MR. REID: DO YOU NEED THE QUESTION READ
BACK AGAIN? I WAS HOPING YOU COULD HEAR THE
QUESTION AND THEN ANSWER WITHOUT ANOTHER
INTERRUPTION. BUT WE CAN READ IT AGAIN IF
YOU LIKE.
WITNESS: NO. THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT.
MR. REID: BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THAT QUESTION BE ANSWERED.
A. I CAME HERE WITH NO PARTICULAR INTENTIONS, BUT
UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I MIGHT BE ASKED
ABOUT EXHIBIT 27. IF THAT RELATES TO THAT
STATEMENT, THEN, YES, I AM TESTIFYING ABOUT
ASPECTS OF THAT STATEMENT.
Q. ALL RIGHT. SHOW ME IN EXHIBIT 27 THE PARTS THAT
RELATE TO THAT STATEMENT.
A. I CAN'T, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PHOSPHORUS
UPTAKE IS BEING DEFINED.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 441
Q. NOW, THIS DISCLOSURE GOES ON TO SAY THAT YOU
HAVEN'T COMPLETED FORMULATING ALL OPINIONS AND
THAT THEY WILL BE FINALIZED AFTER ANALYSIS OF DATA
TO RECEIVE -- TO BE RECEIVED THROUGH DISCOVERY.
AND IT LISTS SOME DATA, AND I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH
THAT. HAVE YOU RECEIVED DATA PREPARED BY, OR
RELIED UPON BY WILLIAM WALKER IN THIS CASE?
A. HAVE I EVER SEEN DATA RELIED UPON BY WILLIAM
WALKER?
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. I MAY HAVE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT WILLIAM WALKER HAS
RELIED UPON.
Q. WELL, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT DATA THAT YOU
HAVE REVIEWED -- I'M SORRY -- WHAT DATA THAT YOU
HAVE RECEIVED THAT WAS REPRESENTED TO YOU AS
HAVING BEEN REVIEWED AND/OR RELIED UPON BY WILLIAM
WALKER.
A. I DON'T RECALL RECEIVING ANY DATA THAT IT WAS
TOLD TO ME, "THOSE DATA WERE USED BY WILLIAM
WALKER."
Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY OF WILLIAM WALKER'S DATA --
OR WORK PRODUCT OF ANY FORM? I DON'T MEAN TO
LIMIT IT BY SAYING "DATA."
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 442
A. CAN YOU -- SINCE BILL WALKER HAS BEEN A FRIEND OF
MINE FOR TWENTY YEARS, COULD YOU BE A BIT MORE
SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT QUESTION?
Q. WELL, YOUR HAS LAWYER TOLD ME, IN A DOCUMENT FILED
WITH THE JUDGE, UPON WHICH WE WERE INVITED TO
RELY, THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE FINALIZING
OPINIONS AFTER YOU ANALYZED DATA THAT YOU WOULD
RECEIVE THROUGH DISCOVERY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DATA REVIEWED AND/OR RELIED UPON BY
WILLIAM WALKER. NOW, ALL I KNOW IS THAT'S WHAT
YOUR LAWYER TOLD ME YOU WERE GOING TO DO, AND I'M
ASKING YOU, "HAVE YOU DONE IT?"
A. WITH REGARDS TO THE EVERGLADES, I -- AGAIN, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT DATA WILLIAM WALKER HAS WORKED
WITH. I DON'T RECALL. SO, IF HE'S WORKED WITH
THESE WCA-2A DATA OR THE NADB DATA, THEN THE
ANSWER IS YES. IF HE HAS NOT, THEN THE ANSWER
IS NO.
Q. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY MATERIAL PREPARED BY
WILLIAM WALKER RELATING TO THE LITIGATION
INVOLVING THE SWIM PLAN OR THE PERMITS?
A. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, OH, THREE-QUARTERS OF A YEAR
AGO OR LONGER AGO, I LOOKED AT WORK THAT BILL
WALKER HAD DONE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 443
Q. AND IS THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT I THINK WE TALKED
ABOUT LAST TIME THAT YOU HAD MADE SOME MARGINAL
NOTES ON?
A. IT MAY HAVE BEEN.
Q. OKAY. AND DID YOU REACH ANY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON
THAT?
A. I DON'T RECALL REACHING ANY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON
BILL WALKER'S WORK.
Q. SO, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU HAVE NO OPINIONS
WITH REGARD TO ANY OF THE WORK THAT YOU'RE
PREPARED TO TESTIFY TO IN THIS MATTER REGARDING
ANY OF THE WORK WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY BILL
WALKER?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. NOW, THE SAME QUESTION WITH REGARD TO ROBERT
KADLEC.
A. KADLEC---
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
A. ---KADLEC IS A CO-AUTHOR OF A REPORT BY NEWMAN,
AND IT WAS FROM THAT REPORT THAT WE -- OR --
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THAT REPORT THAT WE
OBTAINED THE NADB, NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE. SO,
WE'VE LOOKED AT THE SAME DATA THAT KADLEC LOOKED
AT IN THAT PART OF A---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 444
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY MATERIAL THAT KADLEC
HAS PREPARED AS PART OF THIS LITIGATION?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO FORM.
A. I LOOKED AT THE PAPER THAT KADLEC CO-AUTHORED WITH
NEWMAN.
Q. THAT WAS PREPARED BEFORE THIS LITIGATION---
A. THAT'S---
Q. ---AND NOT FOR -- NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS LITIGATION?
A. YOU MEAN THE KADLEC-NEWMAN PAPER?
Q. RIGHT.
A. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS PREPARED.
Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WALKER AND KADLEC ARE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN LISTED AS EXPERTS IN THIS
LITIGATION?
A. IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT'S THE CASE.
Q. AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY HAVE PREPARED REPORTS
WHICH EXPRESS OPINIONS ABOUT THE ISSUES IN THIS
LITIGATION?
A. I EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.
Q. AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF YOU'VE SEEN ANY OF
THAT MATERIAL, OR HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU ABOUT IT,
OR HAVE YOU DRAWN ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANY OF
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 445
THAT MATERIAL BY KADLEC?
A. OTHER THAN THE PAPER BY KADLEC AND NEWMAN, I DON'T
RECALL SEEING ANYTHING ELSE.
Q. SO, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU HAVE NO OPINIONS
ABOUT -- THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO TESTIFY TO AT
HEARING -- ABOUT ANY OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE BY
KADLEC?
A. THAT'S INCORRECT. THE PAPER BY KADLEC AND NEWMAN
AND THE MODEL THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE NORTH
AMERICAN DATABASE IS A MODEL THAT WE FEEL IS AN
INADEQUATE DESCRIPTOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
INPUT AND OUTPUT IN THE -- AND THAT'S DESCRIBED
IN THIS EXHIBIT 27.
Q. HOW IS IT INACCURATE?
A. IT'S INADEQUATE.
Q. I MEAN -- I'M SORRY -- INADEQUATE.
A. IT USES A LINEAR RELATIONSHIP IN A SITUATION WHERE
THE DATA APPEAR TO BE BETTER CHARACTERIZED BY A
NONLINEAR RELATIONSHIP.
Q. AND WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THAT INADEQUACY? THE
PRACTICAL RESULT?
A. THE PRACTICAL RESULT IS THAT FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, GIVEN THAT INADEQUACY, THAT ONE
CAN FIT A BETTER MODEL FOR PREDICTING OUTLET
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 446
CONCENTRATION IN WETLANDS BY ALLOWING FOR THE
NON-LINEARITY.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS
A KNOCK AT THE DOOR.)
Q. NOW, HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY MATERIAL BY ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO ARE PREPARED TO TESTIFY
IN THIS LITIGATION?
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
Q. THE SAME QUESTIONS I'M -- I'M ASKING YOU THE SAME
QUESTIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING WITH REGARD TO
WALKER AND KADLEC, BUT NOW I'M EXPANDING IT TO ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN THIS MATTER.
A. OF COURSE, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE WITNESSES. BUT IN
THE PAST TWO YEARS, I KNOW I'VE LOOKED AT WORK BY
RICHARDSON, PROBABLY BY KRAFT, AND POSSIBLY OTHERS
WHO I DON'T KNOW ARE WITNESSES.
Q. AND HAVE YOU FORMED ANY OPINIONS ABOUT ANY OF THAT
MATERIAL ABOUT WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO TESTIFY IN
THIS LITIGATION?
A. NO OPINIONS -- OTHER THAN THE REFERENCE TO THE
RICHARDSON KRAFT PAPER, THE DISCUSSION THAT
APPEARS IN EXHIBIT 27 -- THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 12,
TOP OF PAGE 13 -- WITH REGARDS TO PROPOSING AN
HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING WHY THERE IS A NON-LINEARITY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 447
IN THE RELATIONSHIP WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THESE
DATA.
Q. OKAY. NOW, IN THE SAME DISCLOSURE UNDER SUMMARY
OF GROUNDS FOR OPINIONS, IT'S REPRESENTED THAT
YOUR OPINIONS WOULD BE BASED UPON YOUR
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE; THAT'S OBVIOUS. THE
SECOND ONE IS THE STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF
PHYSICAL DATA RELATED TO PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IN EPA;
IS THAT ACCURATE?
A. WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WE HAD BEFORE WITH
REGARDS TO PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE. IF WE CAN
SUBSTITUTE PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING, THEN I'M
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
Q. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
AND PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING?
A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE IS BEING USED
TO REFER TO, BUT I REFER TO PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING AS
A NET LOSS.
Q. IS THERE A -- I GET THE FEELING THAT THIS PHRASE,
"PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE" REALLY CAUSES DIFFICULTY FOR
YOU.
A. WELL, IT -- BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT -- THE
BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH
COMMENTING ON IT.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 448
A. IN OTHER -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT, IN EFFECT, YOU'RE
A MEASURER OF HOW MUCH PHOSPHORUS WAS PUT INTO A
SYSTEM, BLACK BOX, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT --
AND THEN MEASURING HOW MUCH CAME OUT, SO THAT YOU
CAN CONCLUDE HOW MUCH WAS LEFT OR HOW MUCH DIDN'T
COME OUT?
A. I'M -- "MEASURING" PERHAPS ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD.
I'M USING DATA AND STATISTICAL METHODS TO COME UP
WITH ESTIMATES OF THAT.
Q. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO OUT AND MEASURE IT?
A. BECAUSE I'M NOT A MEASURER WHO DOES NOT GO OUT --
I DON'T GO OUT IN THE FIELD AND ACTUALLY DO THESE
MEASUREMENTS.
Q. WOULD IT BE BETTER TO GO OUT AND MEASURE IT, THAN
TO DO IT YOUR WAY?
A. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR OBJECTIVES.
Q. WHAT OBJECTIVE COULD YOU HAVE THAT WOULD MAKE YOUR
ANALYSIS SUPERIOR TO GOING OUT AND MEASURING IT,
ASSUMING YOU COULD DO THAT?
A. IF YOU, FOR REASONS, PHYSICAL PERHAPS, YOU WERE
UNABLE TO GO OUT AND MEASURE; OR REASONS SUCH AS A
WETLAND DOES NOT -- A WETLAND STRUCTURE DOES NOT
EXIST THAT -- A CONSTRUCTED WETLAND, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT DOESN'T EXIST; OR A SITUATION WHERE THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 449
INPUTS AREN'T ACTUALLY REALIZED. IN OTHER WORDS,
A PROPOSAL TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER INTO A WETLAND,
AND IT DOESN'T -- IT ISN'T ACTUALLY BEING DONE.
SO, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEASURE JUST DOES NOT
PRESENT ITSELF.
Q. SO, YOU'D AGREE, IT'S BETTER TO MEASURE IF YOU
COULD?
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. IF YOU COULD MEASURE UNDER ALL CONDITIONS THAT ARE
LIKELY TO OCCUR AND THE MEASUREMENTS TRULY
CAPTURED THE QUESTION OF INTEREST, THEN IT IS
LIKELY BETTER TO MEASURE THAN TO DO THE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.
Q. IT ALSO SAYS A GROUND FOR YOUR -- ONE OF THE
GROUNDS FOR YOUR OPINIONS WOULD BE AN ANALYSIS OF
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL IN WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS; IS
THAT ACCURATE?
A. SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE.
Q. PHOSPHORUS -- AN ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL IN
WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS.
A. NOT -- NOT DIRECTLY. OUR WORK AS PRESENTED IN
EXHIBIT 27 RESULTS IN A MODEL THAT MIGHT BE
APPLIED BY SOMEONE TO DO THAT.
Q. AND, FINALLY, A REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 450
WHAT WOULD THAT INCLUDE? I KNOW WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT SOME THINGS IN THE LAST DAY OR TWO, BUT I
WANT TO BE SURE WE SORT OF HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE
LIST OF LITERATURE THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED AS PART
OF THE FORMULATION OF YOUR VIEWS IN THIS CASE.
A. THE LITERATURE THAT I'VE LOOKED AT FOR THIS WORK
IN EXHIBIT 27 IS, TO A LARGE DEGREE, SOME
STATISTICS LITERATURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING THE GENERALIZED
ADDITIVE MODELS.
Q. SO, IT'S THE MATERIAL THAT'S CITED IN THE PAPER,
EXHIBIT 27, PLUS SOME STATISTICAL MATERIAL?
A. YEAH, THE STATISTICAL LITERATURE, BY AND LARGE,
CITED IN THE PAPER.
Q. OKAY. IS THAT CITED IN THE PAPER?
A. YES, YES.
Q. AND, ANYTHING ELSE?
A. NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO.
Q. NOW, WHEN WE WERE HERE IN APRIL, YOU TOLD ME THAT,
I THINK, THAT NO ONE WAS PAYING YOU FOR COMING TO
THAT DEPOSITION?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. OKAY. AFTER THE FACT, DID ANYONE PAY YOU FOR
COMING TO THAT DEPOSITION?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 451
A. NO.
Q. AND, I WANT TO BE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE TERM
"PAY" IN THE BROAD SENSE. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY
FUNDS TO DO ANYTHING WHICH INCLUDED ANY SERVICES
THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE PERFORMED IN COMING TO THE
DEPOSITION?
A. NO, I DID NOT.
Q. MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT, AT THE LAST DEPOSITION,
YOU SAID THAT WHATEVER OPINIONS YOU WOULD HAVE
ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER WOULD RESULT FROM YOUR
GRADUATE STUDENT'S WORK AS PART OF HIS
DISSERTATION?
A. THAT'S---
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. ---THAT'S ESSENTIALLY CORRECT. SUBJECT TO THE
AWARENESS THAT, AS ADVISOR TO THE GRADUATE
STUDENT, SONG QIAN, I WILL BE INVOLVED AT,
MORE OR LESS, AT VARIOUS STAGES OF HIS
DISSERTATION; EITHER DOING ANALYSIS MYSELF OR
DOING WRITING. SO, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME
OF THAT ANALYSIS WILL BE MINE OVER THE COURSE OF
THIS EFFORT.
Q. NOW, THAT STRIKES ME AS DIFFERENT FROM THE
DESCRIPTION THAT YOU GAVE US LAST TIME, IN TERMS
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 452
OF WHAT YOUR INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE. MY
RECOLLECTION IS, YOU SAID YOUR INVOLVEMENT WOULD
BE MORE AS A MENTOR FOLLOWING ALONG, AS OPPOSED TO
ACTUALLY DOING PART OF THE WORK YOURSELF.
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
A. THAT'S BASICALLY -- WHAT YOU JUST STATED IS
BASICALLY CORRECT, BUT AS I HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK ON THIS MODELING PROBLEM MYSELF -- TIME,
OPPORTUNITY, AND INTEREST -- I MAY DO SOME MYSELF.
BUT, AS A RULE, MUCH OF THE ANALYSIS IS UNDER THE
MODEL THAT YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED; I SERVE MORE AS
A MENTOR.
Q. FOLLOWING YOUR DEPOSITION IN APRIL, UP THROUGH
YESTERDAY, HAVE YOU MET OR TALKED WITH ANY
ATTORNEYS ABOUT THIS CASE?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION. ASKED AND
ANSWERED.
MR. REID: WAS THAT BEFORE I CAME
YESTERDAY?
MS. RAEPPLE: YES.
MR. REID: I APOLOGIZE. I'LL TRY NOT
TO REPEAT.
A. I SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS WITH CAROLYN LAST WEEK.
Q. AND WHERE WAS THAT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 453
A. THAT WAS IN MY OFFICE AT DUKE.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT MEETING?
A. SHE WANTED TO GO OVER THE REQUESTS FOR MATERIALS.
Q. JUST -- I FORGOT TO ASK YOU -- AS YOU SIT HERE
TODAY, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RETAINED BY ANY PARTY TO
THIS LITIGATION TO PROVIDE EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS
LITIGATION?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. NOW, YOU SAY SHE MET WITH YOU LAST WEEK TO GO OVER
THE REQUESTS PRODUCED?
A. YES.
Q. WHAT ELSE DID YOU TALK ABOUT?
A. SHE ASKED ME SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PAPER,
EXHIBIT 27, JUST FOR INTERPRET -- AS FAR AS I
COULD TELL, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE METHODS AND
SO ON.
Q. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID -- WHAT
SHE ASKED ABOUT.
A. WELL, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NATURE OF THE
CONVERSATION, BUT JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS
CONCERNING WHAT THIS MODELING PROCEDURE WAS ALL
ABOUT, AND HOW TO INTERPRET THE RELATIONSHIPS, AND
THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
Q. DID SHE TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 454
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION.
MR. REID: GO AHEAD AND ANSWER.
A. SHE MAY HAVE, BUT NOTHING THAT STUCK IN MY MIND.
Q. DID SHE TELL YOU THAT YOU HAD BEEN LISTED BY HER
CLIENTS AS AN EXPERT IN THE CASE TO GIVE OPINIONS?
A. SHE MAY HAVE. I---
Q. DID SHE---
A. ---I GUESS IT WAS PROBABLY MY ASSUMPTION THAT I
WAS.
Q. ---DID SHE GO OVER THE AREAS -- THE LISTINGS THAT
WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH YOU, AS TO WHAT'S
BEEN REPRESENTED---
A. YOU MEAN THAT PARTIC---
Q. YES.
A. NO. I DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T GO OVER THAT.
Q. AND DID YOU ACTUALLY PULL OUT DOCUMENTS AS YOU
WENT THROUGH THE DOCUMENT REQUESTS AT THAT TIME?
A. YES.
Q. AND THE RESULT BEING THAT YOU BROUGHT THE TWO
DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MARKED?
A. THAT'S -- YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. AND ALSO I
MENTIONED TO CAROLYN THAT I HAD SPOKEN WITH GARY
PERKO FROM HER FIRM ON THE TELEPHONE THE FRIDAY
BEFORE, IT WOULD BE ABOUT TEN DAYS AGO, AND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 455
INDICATING THAT -- THE REQUEST. AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE, I JUST PACKED UP MY FILE AND PUT IT
IN AN ENVELOPE AND SENT IT TO HIM. SO, HE KNEW
WHAT I HAD.
Q. AND HOW BIG WAS THIS FILE THAT YOU SENT TO HIM THE
WEEK BEFORE?
A. IT WAS MAYBE THAT -- A QUARTER OF AN INCH THICK AT
BEST.
Q. HOW MANY DOCUMENTS DID IT CONTAIN?
A. OH, MAYBE HALF DOZEN.
Q. AND THAT WOULD BE -- STRIKE THAT. DESCRIBE FOR ME
WHAT WAS -- WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOUR FILE?
A. I BASICALLY HAD TWO SETS OF ITEMS THAT I LOOKED
AT, RELEVANT TO YOUR REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS. ONE
WAS A FILE FOR THIS PAPER AS IT WAS -- EXHIBIT
27 -- AS IT WAS SUBMITTED TO WATER RESOURCES
RESEARCH FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLICATION. AND
OUT OF THAT, I TOOK THE CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR AND FROM THE EDITOR. AND THEN I HAD A
SEPARATE STACK OF MATERIALS THAT INVOLVED THE
ITEMS THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED WITH THE
DEPOSITION LAST SPRING. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT
WAS A SMALL SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT I HAD ASSOCIATED
WITH -- WELL THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO ME, AS WE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 456
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, BY THE LAW FIRM AND POSSIBLY
BY KBN. AND IT WAS FROM THAT STACK OF MATERIALS
THAT I JUST PULLED OFF ITEMS AND SENT THEM TO GARY
PERKO.
Q. WHERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU DIDN'T SEND TO
GARY PERKO?
A. THE DOCUMENTS OUT OF THESE TWO MATERIALS, TWO
STACKS OF ITEMS -- FILES, THAT I DIDN'T SEND TO
GARY PERKO WERE A COUPLE OF COPIES OF THIS, WHICH
WERE IN MY FILE -- THAT'S EXHIBIT 27 -- AND A
REPORT -- THE KADLEC-NEWMAN REPORT, WHICH WAS
SOMETHING WE HAD PROVIDED, I THINK, AT THE LAST
DEPOSITION. AND THEN ANOTHER REPORT BY A
CONSULTANT, AND I DON'T RECALL WHAT THAT WAS.
Q. WHERE IS THAT NOW?
A. THAT'S IN MY OFFICE.
Q. AND WHAT DOES IT RELATE TO?
A. IT RELATES TO WETLANDS, BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT
IT. SO, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
Q. SO, LAST WEEK WHEN YOU MET WITH -- LET ME GET IT
IN ORDER. WHO DID YOU MEET WITH?
A. I MET WITH CAROLYN RAEPPLE.
Q. RAEPPLE. OKAY. AND THEN YOU TALKED ON THE PHONE
WITH GARY PERKO?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 457
A. GARY PERKO CALLED FOUR OR FIVE DAYS BEFORE
CAROLYN.
Q. IN THE MEETING WITH CAROLYN, YOU HAD NO DOCUMENTS
THEN TO GO OVER WITH?
A. WELL, I PULLED OUT THE RE -- WHAT I HAD LEFT -- I
PULLED OUT THE FILE AND EXPLAINED TO CAROLYN WHAT
I HAD DONE -- THE FILE FOR THE JOURNAL ARTICLE
SUBMITTAL. AND THEN I SHOWED HER THE OTHER STACK
OF DOCUMENTS, AND THEN WE -- SHE READ THROUGH ALL
THE REQUESTS AND ASKED ME TO THINK EACH TIME ABOUT
WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE.
Q. I GUESS I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE OTHER STACK OF
DOCUMENTS.
A. YEAH.
Q. WHAT -- I THOUGHT YOU HAD SENT EVERYTHING TO
MR. PERKO EXCEPT A COUPLE OF THINGS?
A. YEAH. AND I SAY STACK, IT HAS THAT -- A FOLDER
WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED AT THE
PREVIOUS DEPOSITION, WHICH IS JUST SITTING IN MY
OFFICE.
Q. AND YOU DIDN'T BRING THOSE BACK?
A. NO.
Q. BECAUSE THEY HAD ALL BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE?
A. YES.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 458
A. OKAY.
A. AND THEN ABOVE THAT WAS THIS SHORT STACK OF THINGS
THAT I'D SINCE RECEIVED, AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY,
FROM THE LAW FIRM AND FROM KBN. THEY WERE JUST
SITTING ON TOP. AND SO---
Q. AND WHERE ARE THEY?
A. THEY'RE IN MY OFFICE. I PULLED THOSE OUT, AND I
BASICALLY SENT MOST OF THAT TO GARY PERKO AFTER
THE PHONE CONVERSATION.
MR. REID: DO I UNDERSTAND THE ONES THAT
HE KEPT ARE PART OF THIS PRIVILEGE CLAIM,
ALSO?
MS. RAEPPLE: THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE
PART OF THE PRIVILEGE CLAIM WERE ALL SENT TO
GARY PERKO. HE DOES NOT -- AS I RECALL, HE
DOES NOT STILL HAVE IN HIS FILE ANY OF THE
DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT WORK PRODUCT. THOSE
WOULD BE THE DOCUMENTS FROM HOPPING, BOYD,
GREEN, AND SAMS OR FROM KBN AT THE REQUEST OF
HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN AND SAMS.
Q. (BY MR. REID) SO, THE THINGS THAT YOU STILL HAVE
IN YOUR OFFICE ARE WITH REGARD TO LETTERS FROM
PEOPLE AND CONSULTANTS OR LAWYERS?
A. NO, THE ONLY -- NO. THE ONLY THING THAT I
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 459
REMEMBER THAT I HAVE IN MY OFFICE IS THIS REPORT
ON WETLANDS. IT'S ABOUT AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH
THICK; AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT, SO I DON'T
REMEMBER THE EXACT NATURE OF IT. BUT THE
CORRESPONDENCE COVER LETTERS AND SO FORTH FROM
THE LAW FIRM I SENT BACK TO GARY.
Q. NOW WHY'D YOU DO THAT?
A. HE ASKED ME TO PHOTOCO -- WHEN HE CALLED ME, HE
SAID HE WANTED AND I GUESS IN FULFILLING THIS
REQUEST, WANTED TO SEE EVERYTHING I HAD. AND HE
ASKED ME TO PHOTOCOPY, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO
PHOTOCOPY AND I HAD NO USE FOR IT. SO, I SENT IT
BACK TO HIM.
Q. AND YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED THOSE BACK YET FROM HIM?
YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THOSE PAPERS BACK?
A. OH, I DIDN'T EXPECT TO GET THEM BACK. I DIDN'T --
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'LL GET THEM BACK OR NOT.
Q. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THOSE ARE THE DOCUMENTS
THAT ARE UP IN YOUR OFFICE THAT YOU DIDN'T BRING
TO THE DEPOSITION?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S CORRECT. I CAN
IDENTIFY THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECORD, IF
YOU'D LIKE.
MR. REID: WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPROPER.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 460
YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED GREATLY ABOUT THIS
PROCESS OF TAKING DOCUMENTS OUT OF A WITNESS'
FILES AND NOT EVEN BRINGING THEM. WE HAVE NO
WAY TO TEST THE CLAIM AT ALL. AND THIS IS AN
INDEPENDENT WITNESS THAT IS NOT IN YOUR
EMPLOY, AND I DON'T SEE ANY BASIS FOR THIS
PRIVILEGE CLAIM. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE---
MS. RAEPPLE: NO, THE---
MR. REID: ---YOU KNOW, HE'S A STRANGER
TO THE TRANSACTION.
MS. RAEPPLE: THE PRIVILEGE CLAIM IS
VERY CLEAR. IT'S ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
PRIVILEGE CLAIM; WE HAD A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY; ALL OF THE
DOCUMENTS WERE MARKED PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL.
MR. REID: BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU
GAVE THEM TO A WITNESS WHO PREVIOUSLY
TESTIFIED AT THE LAST DEPOSITION HE WAS NOT
EMPLOYED BY YOU; HE WAS NOT YOUR EXPERT. SO,
ANY EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY CERTAINLY
DISAPPEARED IN APRIL WHEN THE WITNESS SAID HE
WAS NOT ON RETAINER BY YOUR CLIENTS. SO,
THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND ONCE -- I
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 461
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE CLAIMING THE PRIVILEGE
IS, BUT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT OF
CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ONCE IT'S GIVEN TO A
THIRD PERSON, IT'S WAIVED. AND THIS IS A
THIRD PERSON.
MR. FITZGERALD: I WOULD JOIN MR. REID
AND, AS I SAID YESTERDAY, I DON'T BELIEVE
THERE IS SUCH A WORK PRODUCT, "PRIVILEGE WITH
RESPECT." FIRST, TO A TESTIFYING EXPERT,
EVEN WERE HE RETAINED BY YOU, IF YOU REVIEWED
ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, WE WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO. SECONDLY, THE MERE PUTTING OF A STAMP OR
A LEGEND ON A PAPER DOESN'T TRANSLATE INTO
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. THIRDLY, THE WITNESS
HAS CLEARLY STATED, HE DIDN'T EVEN RECEIVE
SOME OF THOSE FROM ATTORNEYS, HE RECEIVED
THEM DIRECTLY FROM ANOTHER CONSULTING
OPERATION, AND I THINK MR. REID IS ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT. IT'S IMPROPER WITHOLDANCE.
MR. REID: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO
STATE FOR THE RECORD WHAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE?
MS. RAEPPLE: THERE ARE FOUR DOCUMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FOR PRIVILEGE. ONE
IS DATED JULY 12, 1993, A LETTER MARKED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 462
"PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL" FROM WILLIAM
GREEN OF HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN AND SAMS TO
PROFESSOR RECKHOW.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'M SORRY, CAN I HAVE
THAT DATE AGAIN, PLEASE?
MR. BURGESS: JULY 12TH.
MS. RAEPPLE: JULY 12, 1993.
(THEREUPON, MS. RAEPPLE
AND MR. BURGESS CONFER.)
MS. RAEPPLE: REGARDING NOLTE REVIEW OF
STA PLAN AND REBUTTALS BY KADLEC AND WALKER.
THE SECOND IS AUGUST 11, 1993, MEMORANDUM
MARKED "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL" FROM
JOHN GOOD OF KBN ENGINEERING AND APPLIED
SCIENCES, INC. TRANSMITTING A PARTIAL LISTING
OF W. WALKER SPREADSHEET FILES PER REQUEST OF
BILL GREEN.
THE THIRD IS AN OCTOBER 12, 1993,
MEMORANDUM MARKED "PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL" FROM FAYE BAIRD OF KBN
ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES, INC.
TRANSMITTING A LISTING OF WILLIAM WALKER
SPREADSHEET FILES.
AND THE FOURTH IS AN UNDATED LETTER
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 463
MARKED "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL" FROM
GARY PERKO OF HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN AND SAMS
TO PROFESSOR RECKHOW REGARDING REVIEW OF
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT AND DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT KADLEC.
MR. REID: NOW, WERE THERE DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE SENT UP BY DR. RECKHOW FOR THE --
I'LL ATTEMPT---
Q. (BY MR. REID) DR. RECKHOW, FOUR DOCUMENTS WERE
LISTED AND YOU JUST HEARD THAT. ARE THOSE THE
ONLY DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SENT TO MR. PERKO?
A. I DIDN'T CHECK CAREFULLY WHAT I SENT.
Q. WAS IT MORE THAN FOUR DOCUMENTS?
A. I CAN'T REMEMBER. I JUST -- I LOOKED AT THAT --
AS I MENTIONED, I LOOKED AT THAT STACK OF
MATERIALS AND JUST SENT HIM WHAT I HAD.
Q. IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE MOST OF THOSE DEALT WITH AN
ANALYSIS OF WORK BEING DONE BY BILL WALKER.
A. SOME OF IT INVOLVED WALKER'S WORK, YEAH.
Q. AT LEAST THREE DID; IT MAY HAVE BEEN ALL FOUR.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MR. FITZGERALD: I THINK ONE WAS KADLEC.
Q. AND ONE WAS KADLEC.
A. CERTAINLY THAT SOME OF THEM WERE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 464
Q. AND THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE
REPRESENTATION MADE BY COUNSEL THAT YOU WOULD BE
FINALIZING OPINIONS AFTER ANALYSIS OF DATA
REVIEWED OR RELIED UPON BY WILLIAM WALKER AND
ROBERT KADLEC. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THE DOCUMENTS
THAT YOU SENT TO MR. PERKO ARE PRECISELY THE KIND
OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS DISCLOSURE
THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
A. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I DIDN'T LOOK AT THOSE
DOCUMENTS, AS I SAID YESTERDAY.
Q. THEY WERE SENT TO YOU---
A. YES.
Q. ---THEY STAYED IN YOUR FILE---
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. ---AND THEN YOU MAILED THEM BACK TO THE LAWYER?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK AT THEM?
A. I WASN'T INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THEM.
Q. WHY WERE THEY SENT TO YOU?
A. YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHO SENT THEM TO ME.
MR. REID: ARE THERE OTHER DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED PRIVILEGED THAT WERE
SENT BACK BY DR. RECKHOW?
MS. RAEPPLE: I CANNOT RECALL IF
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 465
DR. RECKHOW GAVE ME THE ORIGINALS OR COPIES
OF THE LETTERS TRANSMITTING HIS ARTICLE FOR
PUBLICATION. MY RECOLLECTION IS HE DID GIVE
ME THE ORIGINALS, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN
PRODUCED TO YOU.
MR. REID: WHERE ARE THEY? HERE?
MR. FITZGERALD: YEAH.
MR. REID: YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THEM?
MR. FITZGERALD: YEAH.
MR. REID: WERE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT
WERE SENT, HOWEVER, IN THIS PACKAGE TO --
BACK TO MR. PERKO OTHER THAN THE FOUR THINGS
YOU LISTED TODAY?
MS. RAEPPLE: NO.
MR. REID: SO, THE FOUR THINGS HE SENT
WERE ALL PRIVILEGED, AND THEY RESIDE IN
TALLAHASSEE AS WE SIT HERE TODAY?
MS. RAEPPLE: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. (BY MR. REID) NOW, YOU WE'RE WORKING BACK,
APPARENTLY, AND YOU TOLD ME ABOUT MEETING
YESTERDAY OR -- STRIKE THAT -- LAST WEEK FOR A
COUPLE HOURS. AND THEN YOU TOLD ME BEFORE THAT
YOU HAD A CONFERENCE ON THE TELEPHONE WITH
MR. PERKO. WHEN WAS THAT CALL?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 466
A. THE CALL WAS LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON, ABOUT TEN DAYS
AGO.
Q. AND TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT TELEPHONE CALL.
WHAT THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS -- WHAT EACH SAID TO
THE OTHER.
A. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS I HAD THAT -- AS
I RECALL, HE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS I HAD
THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PRODUCED FOR THIS
DEPOSITION. AND, SO, WE DISCUSSED THAT, AND I PUT
THE PHONE DOWN AND WENT OVER TO LOOK AT THIS --
THE FILE AND THE STACK OF DOCUMENTS AND TOLD HIM
WHAT I HAD. HE ASKED ME TO PHOTOCOPY EVERYTHING
AND SEND IT TO HIM, AND I TOLD HIM I FELT THAT
WASN'T NECESSARY. AND RATHER WE -- INSTEAD WE
AGREED THAT I WOULD PHOTOCOPY THE LETTERS OF
TRANSMITTAL FOR THE JOURNAL ARTICLE AND JUST SEND
HIM THESE ITEMS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION THAT
CAROLYN MENTIONED. AND THAT WAS IT.
Q. DID YOU TELL HIM AT THE TIME YOU HAD NOT LOOKED AT
THOSE DOCUMENTS?
A. I DON'T THINK I DID.
Q. NOW WHEN YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THEM, I WANT
TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN. YOU MEAN YOU
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 467
DIDN'T READ THEM AND ANALYZE THEM AND RELY ON
THEM, OR DO YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THE
WORDS ON THE PAGE?
A. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WHEN THEY CAME IN I
UNDOUBTEDLY LOOKED TO SEE BRIEFLY WHAT THEY WERE;
DECIDED I WASN'T INTERESTED IN GOING FURTHER AND
SET THEM ASIDE.
Q. SO, IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THEM
OR READ THEM AT ALL?
A. IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT I WAS COMPLETELY
IGNORANT OF WHAT WAS IN THE DOCUMENT, THAT'S
CORRECT.
Q. YOU LOOKED AT THEM ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT YOU
WEREN'T GOING TO LOOK AT THEM FURTHER FOR WHAT YOU
WERE DOING IN THIS CASE.
A. THAT'S -- FOR WHAT I WAS DOING AT THE TIME AND
WHAT I WAS DOING WITH REGARDS TO THE RESEARCH WITH
SONG.
Q. SO, AS IN ANY AREA OF EXPERT STUDY, SOME THINGS
YOU -- WHEN YOU LOOK AT DATA YOU KEEP SOME AND YOU
GET RID OF SOME, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T RELATE; IS
THAT RIGHT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. AND IN THIS CASE YOU MADE THE JUDGMENT THAT THOSE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 468
FOUR DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT BE PART OF WHAT YOU WERE
GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO.
A. I WASN'T THINKING AT ALL ABOUT TESTIFYING; I WAS
THINKING ABOUT DOING SOME RESEARCH, AND I FELT
THEY WEREN'T IMPORTANT.
Q. AND WHY DID YOU FEEL THAT THEY WEREN'T IMPORTANT?
A. I DON'T RECALL ENOUGH ABOUT THEM TO BE ABLE TO
ANSWER THAT.
Q. SO, THE ONLY WAY WE COULD KNOW WOULD BE FOR YOU TO
LOOK AT THEM OR FOR SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT THEM NOW
TO DETERMINE WHY YOU THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T
IMPORTANT?
A. TO BE EXACT, YES. TO ANSWER THAT WITH ABSOLUTE
ASSURANCE. I CAN SPECULATE THAT THEY DIDN'T
RELATE TO THE STATISTICAL ISSUES THAT WE WERE
WORKING WITH.
Q. BEFORE THAT, TELL ME THE NEXT TIME YOU'VE TALKED
WITH ANY ATTORNEYS ABOUT -- OR ANY SCIENTISTS --
ABOUT THIS CASE.
A. YOU SAID BEFORE I---
Q. BEFORE PERKO.
A. BEFORE PERKO?
Q. I'M TRYING -- JUST GOING -- WE'RE GOING IN REVERSE
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER IN A SENSE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 469
A. OKAY. I'M SURE -- LET'S SEE GARY PERKO WOULD'VE
BEEN AROUND, LET'S SAY, JANUARY 20TH. I'M SURE IN
THE PRECEDING MONTH I, IN JUST CASUAL
CONVERSATION, SPOKE WITH CURT RICHARDSON A FEW
TIMES.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
A. I CAN'T REMEMBER OTHER THAN TO SAY, "I HAVE A
DEPOSITION COMING UP." AND HE MIGHT HAVE
COMMENTED THAT HE HAS A DEPOSITION COMING UP, AND
THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF IT.
Q. SO, YOU DIDN'T DISCUSS WITH CURT RICHARDSON ANY OF
THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY OF THE EVERGLADES-RELATED
MATTERS?
A. THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN RECALL SAYING TO CURT
WITH REGARDS TO SUBSTANCE WAS THAT IT WAS MY
INTENT TO TALK ABOUT THE WORK IN THIS EXHIBIT 27.
AND THAT WAS WHAT I EXPECTED WOULD BE THE ESSENCE
OF MY COMMENT, AND THAT I HAD NOT DONE ANY
ANALYSIS WITH REGARDS TO ANY OF THE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS, STA DESIGNED AND SO ON. AND THAT WAS
JUST MY -- A POINT THAT I RECALL VOLUNTEERING TO
HIM.
Q. AND WHY DID YOU FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO VOLUNTEER
THAT POINT TO HIM?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 470
A. I WAS JUST -- A POINT OF INTEREST, POINT OF
INFORMATION. I WAS NO -- IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY
ANY QUESTIONING, AS I RECALL.
Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAD
BEEN DESCRIBING YOUR WORK IN AN INACCURATE WAY TO
ANYBODY?
A. I HAD NO SPECIFIC REASON TO BELIEVE THAT.
Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY GENERAL REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT?
A. WELL, I FELT THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN EXPECTATION ON THE PART OF
SOME THAT WE WOULD BE USING THE MODELS DEVELOPED
IN THIS PAPER TO -- THAT WE, THAT IS ME AND SONG
QIAN -- WOULD BE USING THE MODELS IN THIS PAPER TO
ACTUALLY EVALUATE DESIGNS, AND THAT HAD NEVER BEEN
MY INTENT. AND I DIDN'T WANT IT TO -- I GUESS I
FELT I WANTED TO MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THAT'S WHAT
WAS THE NATURE OF OUR EFFORT.
Q. AND WHAT DID MR. RICHARDSON SAY IN RESPONSE TO
THAT?
A. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE JUST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT.
Q. CAN YOU USE YOUR WORK TO EVALUATE STA DESIGN?
A. WE'VE GONE OVER THAT -- WENT OVER THAT QUITE A BIT
YESTERDAY. IF THE STA DESIGN CRITERIA FALL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THE DATA SET USED TO FIT THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 471
CROSS-SECTIONALLY NADB MODEL, AND THE STA'S
FUNCTIONED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THE WETLANDS IN
THE DATA SET ON CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE IMPORTANT
FOR PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING, THEN I WOULD FEEL
REASONABLY CONFIDENT USING THOSE MODELS.
Q. AND WORKING BACK, WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME YOU HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE -- LAWYER OR OTHERWISE?
A. I'M CERTAIN I SPOKE OFF AND ON, JUST VERY BRIEFLY,
WITH SONG QIAN ABOUT THE DEPOSITION. AND IT WAS
JUST TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IT WAS COMING UP.
Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU TALK IN ANY SUBSTANCE ABOUT THE
DEPOSITION WITH HIM?
A. I DON'T RECALL SAYING ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE ABOUT
THE DEPOSITION WITH HIM.
Q. BEFORE THAT?
A. ACTUALLY, ONE THAT I MISSED -- IT WAS ABOUT A WEEK
AGO, I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH BILL WALKER.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?
A. BILL CALLED; LEFT A MESSAGE, AND I CALLED HIM
BACK. AND HE HAD CALLED TO -- AGAIN, SOMETHING WE
WENT OVER YESTERDAY -- HE HAD CALLED TO ASK ME IF
I WAS INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO BE A CO-CHAIR
WITH HIM OF THE MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
TOC. AND THERE'S A MEETING THIS WEEK AND IN A
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 472
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
Q. AND ARE YOU?
A. I TOLD HIM I WAS.
Q. OKAY.
A. AND THEN I TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS PAPER,
EXHIBIT 27 -- AS I HAD SEEN BILL IN SEATTLE IN
EARLY DECEMBER AND TOLD HIM THAT THE PAPER WAS
WRITTEN AND THAT I HAD RECOMMENDED THAT HE BE A
REVIEWER. I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS A REVIEWER, AND
HE SAID NO THAT THE JOURNAL DIDN'T SEND IT TO HIM.
AND I TOLD HIM, "WELL, I'LL SEND YOU A COPY." AND
I FORGOT. AND SO WHEN HE CALLED, IT REMINDED ME
THAT I HAD TOLD HIM I WOULD SEND HIM A COPY. SO,
I TOLD HIM I WOULD PUT ONE IN THE MAIL, AND I DID.
Q. AND BEFORE THAT?
A. PROBABLY A COUPLE TIMES DURING THE FALL BILL GREEN
CALLED TO UPDATE ME WITH REGARDS TO A DEPOSITION,
AND WHETHER A DEPOSITION WAS GOING TO OCCUR AND
WHAT DATES WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
Q. DID YOU DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF
YOUR WORK FOR THE CASE WITH BILL GREEN IN ANY OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
MS. RAEPPLE: LET ME CAUTION THE WITNESS
NOT TO REVEAL ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 473
MR. REID: WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THIS
CONFIDENTIALITY?
MS. RAEPPLE: ANY WORK PRODUCT -- ANY
INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T RELATE TO HIS
TESTIMONY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS
TESTIMONY THAT WOULD REVEAL THE THOUGHT
PROCESSES OR STRATEGIES OF BILL GREEN IN
RELATION TO THIS LITIGATION.
Q. (BY MR. REID) SO, I'M CLEAR -- THEN, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO TELL ME -- WELL STRIKE THAT. SHE CAN'T
REALLY INSTRUCT YOU NOT TO -- SHE CAN'T INSTRUCT
YOU NOT TO ANSWER, SINCE YOU'RE NOT HER CLIENT.
SO, I WILL ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. ARE YOU GOING
TO TELL ME WHAT YOU AND BILL GREEN DISCUSSED WITH
REGARD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY OF THESE MATTERS?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER TALKING TO BILL GREEN ABOUT
SUBSTANCE ON THIS AT ALL. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT
WE STRICTLY TALKED ABOUT DATES AND AVAILABILITY,
AND WHETHER THIS WAS ON OR WHETHER IT WAS NOT ON.
Q. WELL, YOU TOLD ME HE GAVE YOU UPDATES ABOUT THE
CASE. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A. BY UPDATES, WHETHER, BASICALLY WHETHER IT WAS ON
OR NOT ON, BECAUSE I---
Q. SO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVERY TIME YOU TALKED TO
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 474
BILL GREEN THE SUBJECT OF YOUR WORK OR YOUR
OPINIONS OR THE EVERGLADES LITIGATION IN GENERAL
NEVER CAME UP?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
A. THE ONLY THING I CAN REMEMBER IS GENERAL COMMENTS
ABOUT WHERE THIS WAS. WHETHER IT WAS BEING
SETTLED AND THERE WOULD BE NO DEPOSITION, OR
WHETHER THERE WOULD BE DEPOSITIONS. I DON'T
RECALL ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH BILL GREEN INVOLVING
THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF OUR WORK. HE---
Q. DID HE EVER -- I'M SORRY.
A. NOW, HE MAY HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THIS
PAPER -- ABOUT SUBMITTED, COMPLETED -- WELL HE
KNEW IT WAS COMPLETED, BUT SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED.
IT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT TO
BE THE CASE.
Q. HOW DID HE KNOW THE PAPER WAS COMPLETED?
A. BECAUSE HE HAD -- IT'S -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT
DURING THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER HE HAD CALLED OFF
AND ON TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE STATUS; WHERE -- WHEN
IT WAS TO BE READY. I'D KEPT PROMISING HIM IT
SOONER THAN WE ACTUALLY FINISHED IT. IT DRAGGED
ON FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.
Q. NOW, THESE ARE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS FROM THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 475
ONES YOU JUST DESCRIBED?
A. YEAH. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT ONES. THOSE ARE
EARLIER, SAY, DURING THE SUMMER.
Q. OKAY. NOW, DID YOU DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR
WORK OR YOUR OPINIONS AT THAT TIME WITH BILL
GREEN IN ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER. WE MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE
NATURE OF THE PAPER, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER
ANYTHING. I DON'T RECALL SAYING ANYTHING SPECIFIC
TO HIM ABOUT THE MODELS AND THEIR SPECIFIC
APPLICATION AS WE -- DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
BECAUSE WE WERE STILL IN A STAGE OF COMPLETION OF
THE ANALYSIS IN THE PAPER. SO, IF WE HAD THE
SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS, IT MAY HAVE DEALT MORE
WITH THE STATUS OF THE PAPER.
Q. ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS -- WE'RE BACK INTO THE
SUMMER NOW -- WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN BILL GREEN?
A. ACTUALLY, ONE OTHER CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED,
MAYBE -- WELL THREE WEEKS TO A MONTH AGO, I SPOKE
BRIEFLY WITH NICK AUMAN OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT CONVERSATION?
A. THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK I DESCRIBED
YESTERDAY ON LAKE OKEECHOBEE. AND IN THE COURSE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 476
OF THE CONVERSATION, HE -- I'M PRETTY CERTAIN I
RAISED THE ISSUE THAT I WAS EXPECTING A DEPOSITION
IN THE NEXT MONTH, AND HE TOLD ME IT WAS HIS
EXPECTATION THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, FIFTY-FIFTY
CHANCE THAT THINGS MIGHT STILL BE RESOLVED. AND
THAT WAS THE ESSENCE OF -- THAT WAS THE END OF IT.
Q. ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY?
A. I PROBABLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH -- LATE LAST
SPRING -- WITH RON MUNSON FROM TETRA TECH AND
MAYBE WITH CURT POLLMAN WITH KBN. AS I MENTIONED
YESTERDAY, I RECALL SENDING A COPY OF THIS PAPER,
EXHIBIT 27, TO RON MUNSON; AND I THINK I MAY HAVE
SENT ONE TO CURT POLLMAN.
Q. WHEN?
A. OH, AFTER THE PAPER WAS DONE -- SEPTEMBER,
OCTOBER. AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN TO FULFILL A
REQUEST FROM EACH OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WHEN THE
PAPER WAS DONE, PLEASE SEND A COPY.
Q. DOES THIS RELATE BACK TO THE REPORTS THAT WE HAD
TALKED ABOUT LAST APRIL THAT YOU WERE SENDING TO
DIFFERENT PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE GIFT THAT WAS
GIVEN---
A. NO, NO. TO ME IT WAS A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY.
SOMEONE'S INTERESTED IN MY RESEARCH, AND I SEND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 477
THEM A COPY. JUST LIKE I SENT A COPY TO BILL
WALKER.
Q. AND YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAD ANYTHING TO
DO WITH THIS LITIGATION?
A. I'D BE NAIVE IF I DIDN'T.
Q. DO YOU KNOW -- STRIKE THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THE
CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN.
A. I RECALL NOTHING OTHER THAN THE VAGUE RECOLLECTION
THAT I HAD RON MUNSON'S ADDRESS ON MY DESK FOR
SOME TIME WITH A NOTE THAT WHEN THE PAPER WAS
COMPLETE, SEND IT TO HIM. AND I THINK I HAD THE
SAME THING FROM CURT POLLMAN, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN
ON THAT LATTER ONE.
Q. SO, THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY REACTIONS TO THE
PAPER?
A. NO.
Q. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THEY'RE USING THE
PAPER?
A. NO.
Q. WOULD THAT MATTER TO YOU?
A. YES.
Q. BUT YOU HAVEN'T ASKED ANYBODY?
A. NO.
Q. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'RE USING THE PAPER?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 478
A. I DON'T KNOW.
Q. AND OVER -- AND AS I RECALL SOME OF THESE
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DESCRIBED CAME
FROM EITHER MUNSON OR POLLMAN?
A. I DOUBT IF THEY CAME FROM MUNSON; THEY MAY HAVE
COME FROM POLLMAN.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY WERE SENT TO YOU, BY THE WAY?
A. I DON'T KNOW. AS I MENTION -- AS I RESPONDED HALF
HOUR AGO OR SO TO A SIMILAR QUESTION, YOU'D HAVE
TO ASK THE PEOPLE WHO SENT THEM.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. OTHER PEOPLE YOU'VE TALKED TO SINCE LAST APRIL?
A. I THINK THAT'S IT.
Q. HOW ABOUT -- HAVE YOU CORRESPONDED WITH ANYBODY
ABOUT THIS CASE?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER TOLD ANY ATTORNEY THAT YOUR OPINIONS
WERE FINALIZED IN THIS CASE?
A. NO.
Q. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT YESTERDAY.
AFTER THE APRIL DEPOSITION, WHAT IS THE FIRST
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 479
THING THAT YOU DID WHICH ULTIMATELY, I GUESS, LED
TO EXHIBIT 27?
A. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITH REAL ASSURANCE. I DON'T
RECALL EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE AND WHAT OUR NEXT
STEPS WERE. WE JUST PROCEEDED OVER THE COURSE
OF FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS TO DO ANALYSIS AND WRITE
DRAFTS, AND RE-DO ANALYSES AND WRITE MORE
DRAFTS UNTIL IT CULMINATED IN THIS PAPER IN
SEPTEMBER '93.
Q. WELL, AS OF APRIL THERE WAS REALLY -- WAS THERE
ANY PART OF THIS PAPER THAT WAS IN WRITING?
A. I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER ANYTHING WAS IN
WRITING.
Q. WHAT IS THE TOPIC OF MR. QIAN'S DISSERTATION?
A. HIS DISSERTATION INVOLVES THE USE OF NONPARAMETRIC
BAYES ANALYSIS TO MODEL PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING IN
WETLANDS.
Q. HOW DOES THE PAPER FIT INTO HIS DISSERTATION?
A. THE PAPER GAVE HIM SOME GOOD EXPERIENCE IN
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; GAVE THE COMMITTEE ASSURANCE
THAT HE COULD DO THAT ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTAND IT;
GAVE HIM SOME KNOWLEDGE OF WETLANDS AND WETLANDS
DATA; AND GAVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE WHAT
HE WANTED TO DO FOR A DISSERTATION; AND FORMED
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 480
SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ANALYSIS FOR HIS
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL.
Q. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE PAPER? WOULD IT BE A
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF WHAT THE DISSERTATION'S GOING
TO BE, A SORT OF "CLIFF NOTES VERSION" OF THE
DISSERTATION OR---
A. NO, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT---
Q. ---ONE CHAPTER OF THE DISSERTATION?
A. ---IT PERHAPS MIGHT BE ONE CHAPTER, BUT IT IS --
THIS -- IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NORMALLY WOULDN'T
EXPECT BUT HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, AS I
EXPLAINED YESTERDAY, I HAD BEEN INTERESTED IN
THIS MODELING APPROACH, GENERALIZED ADDITIVE
MODELS, FOR SOME TIME. AND THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT
SONG HAD WITH THESE DATA TO LOOK AT WETLANDS
PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING. GAVE EACH OF US AN
OPPORTUNITY WE WERE LOOKING FOR, THAT IS TO
EXPLORE A MODELING RELATIONSHIP AND LOOK AT A DATA
SET AND TO WRITE A PAPER PRIOR TO ACTUALLY
UNDERTAKING A DISSERTATION. SO, THE DISSERTATION,
THE NONPARAMETRIC BAYES ANALYSIS, IS A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF ANALYSIS THAN WHAT HE'S UNDERTAKEN HERE,
AND AT BEST THIS WILL FORM A CHAPTER.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU MEAN
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 481
BECAUSE OF THIS LITIGATION?
A. WELL, THE GIFT GAVE A PERSON, WHO OTHERWISE HAD
LITTLE FUNDING, SOME FUNDING FOR A YEAR. AND ALSO
THROUGH THAT EFFORT, HE OBTAINED DATA THAT HE
MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF -- THE NORTH AMERICAN
DATABASE AND THE WCA-2A DATA. AND THE ACCESS TO
KNOWLEDGEABLE SCIENTISTS IN THE WETLANDS CENTER
CONCERNING WETLANDS.
Q. AND THE GIFT WOULD BE THE TWO TWENTY THOUSAND
DOLLAR ($20,000.00) GIFTS?
A. YEAH.
Q. OF WHICH HE RECEIVED SIXTEEN THOUSAND ($16,000.00)
TOTAL OR OF EACH GIFT?
A. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO THE
ACCOUNTING; THE WETLANDS CENTER DID THAT. I THINK
SIXTEEN THOUSAND ($16,000.00) FROM -- PRETTY
CERTAIN SIXTEEN THOUSAND ($16,000.00) FROM ONE
GIFT.
Q. SO, ALL HE GOT WAS SIXTEEN THOUSAND ($16,000.00)?
A. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T -- THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT
RIGHT BUT, AGAIN, I DIDN'T DO THE ACCOUNTING.
Q. BUT YOU DO KNOW THAT THE TOTAL GIFT WAS FORTY
THOUSAND ($40,000.00).
A. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WERE TWO GIFTS OF
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 482
TWENTY THOUSAND ($20,000.00) EACH.
Q. NOW, WHEN YOU WERE HERE IN APRIL, DID YOU AT THAT
TIME UNDERSTAND THAT A PAPER SUCH AS EXHIBIT 27
WAS IN THE WORKS?
A. I HAD HOPES THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT DONE SOMETIME.
Q. AND DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD BE THAT PAPER
THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THE "SUMMARY," IF YOU
WILL, OF THE OPINIONS THAT YOU WOULD BE CALLED ON
TO GIVE IN THIS LITIGATION?
A. I HAD NO IDEA. I WASN'T THINKING AT ALL ABOUT
THAT.
Q. YOU HADN'T DISCUSSED THAT WITH ANYBODY?
A. NO.
Q. SO, AT THAT TIME YOU DIDN'T -- YOU WERE HOPING
THERE WOULD BE A PAPER, BUT YOU HAD NO IDEA THAT
IT WOULD HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THIS LITIGATION?
A. NO, THAT'S UNFAIR TO SAY THAT. I WOULD, AGAIN,
WOULD HAVE BEEN NAIVE TO THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T
HAVE, BUT I WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT THE LITIGATION
WHEN DOING THIS PAPER. THE LITIGATION WAS NOT A
MAJOR CONCERN TO ME.
Q. WELL, IN APRIL YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT THERE WAS A
PAPER IN THE WORKS.
A. I DID MENTION THAT SONG WAS WORKING ON
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 483
NONPARAMETRIC REGRESSION, AS I RECALL, AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS IS.
Q. SURE. YOU TOLD US THAT HE WAS GOING -- THAT HE
WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING HIS PROPOSAL---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---OF HIS DISSERTATION---
A. THAT'S---
Q. ---WHICH YOU SAID WOULD GO TO COMMITTEE IN LATE
SUMMER, AND THEN IT WOULD TAKE SOME PERIOD OF
TIME -- SEVERAL YEARS -- TO COMPLETE. DO YOU
REMEMBER SAYING ALL THAT?
A. THAT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT.
Q. YOU DIDN'T MENTION THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PAPER
IN THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS. SO, WHAT I'M TRYING TO
FIND OUT IS, DID YOU KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE
PAPER?
A. I CERTAINLY DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A
PAPER. THIS EVOLVED OVER THE SUMMER.
Q. NOW, LOOKING AT EXHIBITS 23 AND 25 OF YOUR
DEPOSITION, THESE WERE MARKED AND YOU LOOKED AT
THESE THE LAST TIME AS WELL. DO YOU RECALL?
A. OH, YEAH, YES.
Q. AND I THINK YOU IDENTIFIED ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE AS
THE BEST STATEMENT OF WHAT SONG QIAN'S
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 484
DISSERTATION PROJECT WAS GOING TO BE.
A. I MAY HAVE.
Q. IN BEGINNING TO WORK ON THE PAPER, DID YOU EVER
SEE ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE THOSE TWO EXHIBITS
AGAIN?
A. YOU MEAN IS THERE ANYTHING IN THESE EXHIBITS THAT
LOOKS LIKE THE PAPER; IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?
Q. WELL, YEAH. YOU CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. THAT WASN'T
EXACTLY MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, WHEN YOU
STARTED WORKING, DID SOMEBODY WALK IN TO YOU WITH
THESE TO GRAPHS AND SAY, "WE'VE GOT THIS MUCH
ALREADY, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE PAPER," OR
ANYTHING SUCH AS THAT?
A. NO.
Q. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THOSE AT ALL, OTHER THAN IN
YOUR TWO DEPOSITIONS?
A. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THESE AT ALL. I HAVEN'T
LOOKED AT THESE, CERTAINLY, SINCE THE LAST TIME
YOU SHOWED THEM TO ME AT THE DEPOSITION.
Q. OKAY. AND AS I RECALL, YOU HAD NOT SEEN THEM --
YOU COULDN'T REMEMBER FOR SURE THAT YOU HAD SEEN
THEM EVEN BEFORE YOUR DEPOSITIONS.
A. WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, BUT THAT LOOKS
LIKE MY HANDWRITING ON ONE OF THEM. SO---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 485
Q. ON THE LEFT-HAND BOTTOM?
A. YEAH.
Q. OKAY. SO, THE SECOND VERSION, THE VERSION --
EXHIBIT 23, WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED PRELIMINARY, YOU
THINK YOU MADE SOME NOTES ON?
A. YEAH. THOSE ARE MY HAND -- THAT'S MY HANDWRITING.
Q. BUT, AS I RECALL, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO ACTUALLY
WROTE THIS PAPER?
A. NO, I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q. AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHY YOU LOOKED AT IT?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER, AT THIS POINT, NO.
Q. AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE
VERSION -- STRIKE THAT -- AND YOU ALSO, AS I
RECALL, DID NOT KNOW WHY THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT
TO MR. GHERINI.
A. I DON'T KNOW.
Q. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PRELIMINARY GRAPH
THERE WAS A SECTION THAT SUGGESTED THE NEED FOR
TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED HECTARES TO REMOVE
PHOSPHORUS FLOWING IN THE WCA-2A. AND THAT
SECTION WAS REMOVED FROM THE SECOND VERSION, NOT
IDENTIFIED AS PRELIMINARY.
A. I SEEM TO RECALL WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, YEAH.
Q. NOW, LOOKING AT EXHIBIT 25, THE LAST PART THAT I
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 486
HAVE CIRCLED, WHICH WAS THE PART THAT WAS OMITTED
FROM 23. THAT SEEMS TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES SUCH AS
STA DESIGN -- AT LEAST IN SIZE -- AND PHOSPHORUS
UPTAKE AND THE LIKE; DOES IT NOT?
A. WELL, IT TALKS ABOUT SIZE OF STA'S AND---
Q. AND IT ALSO WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE.
A. WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE BEFORE,
AND I STAND ON WHAT I SAID.
Q. WELL, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WHETHER THIS PAPER --
THIS PARAGRAPH---
A. IF IT SAYS THE WORD "PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE" THEN IT
DOES TALK ABOUT IT.
Q. NOW, THIS LANGUAGE OR THIS PARAGRAPH -- IS THERE
ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THIS IN EXHIBIT 27?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. WELL, SIMILAR TO THE EXTENT THAT WE LOOKED AT
WCA-2A. WE DIDN'T COMMENT ON SPECIFIC DESIGN
AREAS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL.
Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EXHIBIT 23 OR 25, DEPENDING ON
THE VERSION, WAS A "FIRST CUT," IF YOU WILL, OF
WHAT ULTIMATELY BECAME EXHIBIT 27?
A. NO.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITS
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 487
23 AND 25 WERE?
A. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT I HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
I JUST DON'T REMEMBER THEM.
Q. AND TO THE EXTENT THEY USED THE WORD "UPTAKE,"
THAT HAS NO MEANING TO YOU?
A. I'VE STATED.
Q. HAVE YOU LOOKED OVER THIS PAPER THIS MORNING OR
YESTERDAY OR---
A. NO, AS I SAID TO YOU A MOMENT AGO, I HAVEN'T
LOOKED AT THAT SINCE YOU LAST SHOWED IT TO ME.
Q. WELL, I SEE A BUNCH OF FORMULAS AND I SEE SOME
DISCUSSIONS OF STATISTICAL METHODS AND ALL THAT,
WHICH SORT OF SEEMS TO BE IN YOUR AREA OF
EXPERTISE. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS,
WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS IF YOU WEREN'T
DOING IT?
A. WELL, CAN I SEE IT?
MR. REID: YEAH. LET'S TAKE A
BREAK. AND WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT IT,
AND WE'LL WALK AROUND FOR A MINUTE.
IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
(THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN
FROM 10:30 A.M. TO 10:51 A.M.)
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 488
EXAMINATION BY MR. REID CONTINUES:
Q. YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT 23? I HOPE
I'M SAYING THE RIGHT NUMBER.
MR. FITZGERALD: 23 OR 25, IT'S ONE OR
THE OTHER.
MR. REID: OKAY.
A. YEAH. YES.
Q. ALL RIGHT. HAVING LOOKED AT IT NOW, CAN YOU SHED
ANY MORE LIGHT ON ITS GENESIS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
TO EXHIBIT 27?
A. I CAN'T WITH REGARDS TO ITS GENESIS. I CAN SAY
THAT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD THE ANALYSIS IN SECTION 4,
STATISTICAL METHOD, WAS DONE BY SONG. AND MY
SUSPICION IS THAT THAT CAME ABOUT THROUGH SONG'S
WORK IN GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING, I GUESS, IN
THAT SUMMER AFTER I HAD TALKED TO HIM ABOUT USE OF
THAT METHOD IN HIS RESEARCH.
Q. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE SUMMER BEFORE LAST?
A. NO, IT SAYS AUGUST -- IT SAYS '92, YEAH, SUMMER
BEFORE LAST.
Q. OKAY. AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING WHY A
PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT, PERHAPS, BEARS ON
DISPUTED ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION WOULD HAVE BEEN
DROPPED FROM BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 489
THE REPORT THAT'S NOT PRELIMINARY.
A. NO, I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q. NOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST APRIL AFTER YOUR
DEPOSITION, AND I THINK YOU SAID -- OR I WAS
ASKING YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT -- AS YOU SAT
THERE, YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE POSSIBILITY OF A
PAPER BEING GENERATED IN THE SHORT TERM. TELL ME
WHO FIRST MENTIONED TO YOU THE POSSIBILITY OF
HAVING A PAPER IN THE SHORT TERM THAT WOULD
PRECEDE, IF YOU WILL, THE DISSERTATION PROCESS
THAT YOU DESCRIBED.
A. I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THE IDEA OF THE PAPER WAS
SOMETHING THAT I SUGGESTED TO SONG AT SOME POINT,
SAYING, "LOOK, WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PUT
TOGETHER A PAPER FOR SUBMITTAL TO A REFEREED
JOURNAL," FROM THE WORK HE WAS DOING AND LOOKING
AT WETLANDS PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING.
Q. AND THAT SUGGESTION DIDN'T COME FROM ANY LAWYERS?
A. NO.
Q. AND IT DIDN'T COME FROM ANYBODY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GIFT?
A. NO.
Q. WHERE WOULD -- STRIKE THAT. WHEN WE TALKED LAST
TIME IN APRIL, YOU INDICATED YOUR FILING SYSTEM,
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 490
WHICH WAS A SERIES OF PILES AROUND YOUR OFFICE;
AND YOU SAID YOU HAD A PILE ABOUT SONG'S
DISSERTATION. WHERE IS THAT PILE?
A. I HAVE A FILE ON SONG. SO, EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED
WITH HIS DISSERTATION MUST BE IN THAT FILE.
Q. AND WHERE IS THAT FILE?
A. IT'S IN MY OFFICE IN A FILING CABINET.
Q. AND DID YOU REVIEW THAT WITH ANY OF THE LAWYERS
BEFORE THIS DEPOSITION, AS TO WHETHER IT WAS
CALLED FOR BY ANY OF THE REQUESTS?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T REMEMBER PULLING OUT
THE FILE. IT SEEMS TO ME WE SPOKE -- IT SEEMS TO
ME WE DID SPEAK ABOUT THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL
AND DETERMINED THAT IT WASN'T PART OF THIS
REQUEST.
Q. AND WHEN YOU HAD THAT DISCUSSION, DID YOU ALSO --
OR AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, DID YOU REVIEW YOUR
TESTIMONY IN THE PREVIOUS DEPOSITION WHERE YOU
SAID THAT SONG'S DISSERTATION WOULD BE THE BASIS
OF THE OPINIONS THAT YOU WOULD GIVE IN THIS CASE?
A. NO.
Q. IF YOU ASSUME THAT THAT'S A FACT, THEN HIS
DISSERTATION MATERIAL WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THIS
LITIGATION, WOULDN'T IT?
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 491
A. THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL CONTAINS NOTHING THAT I
CAN THINK OF THAT ISN'T ALREADY PRESENTED IN
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETAIL IN EXHIBIT 27 CONCERNING
SPECIFIC ANALYSES OF WETLANDS TRAPPING DATA. IT
CONTAINS MATERIAL AS IN EXHIBIT 27 AND THEN GOES
ON TO DESCRIBE MODELING APPROACHES HE INTENDS TO
USE, THE NONPARAMETRIC BAYES METHOD, FOR HIS
PROJECT. BUT NO APPLICATION OF THAT METHOD TO
THIS SITUATION; JUST A PROPOSAL TO DO THAT.
Q. NOW, THE REPORTS THAT YOU WERE SENDING, I THINK,
EVERY WEEK OR EVERY TWO WEEKS TO EITHER BILL GREEN
OR TO SOME DESIGNEE ABOUT MR. QIAN'S PROGRESS, DID
THOSE JUST SUDDENLY STOP AFTER YOUR DEPOSITION?
A. AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, YES.
Q. WHY DID THEY STOP?
A. I DIDN'T SEND ANY MORE.
Q. WHY DIDN'T YOU SEND ANY MORE?
A. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT SENDING ANY MORE.
Q. WELL, WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO SUDDENLY DECIDED TO
STOP AFTER THIS DEPOSITION?
A. TO ME, SENDING THOSE REPORTS EVERY WEEK WAS A
WASTE OF MY TIME. I DID IT AS A COURTESY WHEN IT
WAS REQUESTED, JUST TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WAS
BEING DONE. AND THEN AFTERWARDS I DECIDED NOT TO
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 492
DO IT ANY MORE.
Q. AND NOBODY ASKED YOU TO KEEP DOING IT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. AND SO, SINCE LAST APRIL, THEN, YOU HAVEN'T
REPORTED ABOUT MR. QIAN'S PROGRESS TO ANYBODY ELSE
CONNECTED WITH THIS LITIGATION?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION, ASKED AND
ANSWERED.
A. I CAN'T RECALL, OTHER THAN THE PHONE CONVERSATIONS
THAT I'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW ANYONE ELSE IS USING
EXHIBIT 27, CONNECTED WITH THIS LITIGATION?
A. NO.
Q. WOULD THAT MATTER TO YOU?
A. YES.
Q. HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF THE LAWYERS WHETHER OR NOT
YOUR WORK IS BEING USED BY OTHER EXPERTS IN THE
CASE?
A. NO.
Q. JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING, IF SOMEONE SAID THAT
YOU WERE -- YOU OR YOUR GRADUATE ASSISTANT WERE
WORKING ON A PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE MODEL -- WOULD THAT
BE ACCURATE?
A. IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN HAVE DEALT WITH THE WORD
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 493
"UPTAKE" AND NOT HAVE TO BRING IT UP AGAIN AND
REMIND YOU---
(TELEPHONE RINGS.)
Q. I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP. SOMEONE MADE THIS STATEMENT
ABOUT YOU---
A. WELL, I'LL---
Q. ---AND I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IF---
A. ---STATE IT AGAIN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEONE
IS USING THE WORD "UPTAKE," AND I'M COMFORTABLE
SAYING WE'RE WORKING ON A PHOSPHORUS TRAPPING
MODEL. BUT UNLESS I UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEONE IS
USING THE WORD "UPTAKE," I'M RELUCTANT TO JUST SAY
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING. BECAUSE TO ME THE WORD
"UPTAKE" IMPLIES A BIOLOGICAL ACTION, AND WE ARE
NOT EXPLICITLY LOOKING AT BIOLOGY.
Q. AND THIS SAME PERSON APPARENTLY REPRESENTED THAT
YOU WERE NOT WORKING ON AN ECO-SYSTEM MODEL.
WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MODEL THAT ANY OF THE
OTHER EXPERTS ARE WORK -- WITH A MODEL THAT ANY OF
THE OTHER EXPERTS ARE WORKING ON?
A. OTH--
Q. SO -- GO AHEAD.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 494
A. OTHER THAN THE MODEL PROPOSED IN THAT REPORT BY
KADLEC AND NEWMAN, WHICH WE USE AS A TAKING-OFF
POINT IN OUR PAPER, NO, I'M NOT.
Q. WHAT ABOUT A MODEL BEING DONE BY TETRA TECH?
A. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
Q. COULD YOUR WORK IN EXHIBIT 27 BE USED AS PART OF A
BROADER EFFORT IN MODELING WITH REGARD TO THE
EVERGLADES?
A. I THINK THAT IT COULD.
Q. AND HOW WOULD IT BE USED?
A. IT WOULD BE USED TO PREDICT OUTLET PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATION FROM THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES THAT WE
HAVE IN THE MODEL, WHICH INCLUDE INFLUENT
PHOSPHORUS AND AERIAL WATER LOADING.
Q. AND WHAT? I'M SORRY.
A. AERIAL WATER LOADING.
Q. YOU DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S DOING THAT OR NOT?
A. NO, I DON'T.
Q. HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING THAT MAKES YOU THINK
SOMEBODY MIGHT BE DOING THAT?
A. NO, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT MAKES ME THINK
SOMEONE MIGHT BE DOING THAT.
(THEREUPON, MR. REID REVIEWS NOTES.)
Q. WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP AS FAR AS EXHIBIT 27 GOES;
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 495
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING WITH IT NEXT?
A. WELL, WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE JOURNAL,
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, FROM THE EDITOR AS TO
WHAT THEIR DECISION IS WITH REGARDS TO ACCEPTANCE,
ACCEPTANCE WITH REVISIONS, OR REJECTION; AND THEN
WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE.
Q. THERE WAS SOME TALK YESTERDAY ABOUT THE DATABASE
BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT WAS USED AT THE
TIME SONG QIAN PREPARED THE PAPER. DO YOU RECALL
THAT TESTIMONY?
A. WE TALKED ABOUT A VARIETY OF THINGS, AND ONE OF
THE POINTS RAISED WAS THAT THERE'S A NEW AND
PRESUMABLY IMPROVED NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE. AND
ONE POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER
WOULD BE IF WE COULD GET A HOLD OF THOSE DATA
QUICKLY ENOUGH, WE MIGHT LOOK AT THE DATA AND
REFIT THESE MODELS. AND, POSSIBLY, IF WE FEEL
MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THOSE DATA FROM THE NEW AND
REVISED NADB, IS TO INSERT NEW MODELS INTO THE
PAPER, ASSUMING IT'S ACCEPTED AND WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR REVISION. BUT THAT WILL DEPEND ON
OBTAINING THE DATA AND FEELING -- AND REFITTING
THE MODELS AND FEELING THAT IT'S WORTH DOING.
Q. IS THERE ANY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN USING THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 496
WCA DATABASE AND THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE?
MR. BURGESS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT QUITE A BIT YESTERDAY, AND WE
TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE PAPER. THE WCA-2A
DATABASE IS A DATABASE ON A SINGLE WETLAND AT
DIFFERENT POINTS IN SPACE AND TIME. THE NORTH
AMERICAN DATABASE, OF COURSE, IS DATA POINTS ON
SEVERAL WETLANDS. AS I EXPRESSED IN THE PAPER,
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WATER MOVEMENT AND PHOSPHORUS
MOVEMENT IN WCA-2A, AND WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THE
AREA IDENTIFIED AS BEING PART OF WCA-2A IS
INVOLVED IN -- IS INVOLVED IN THE PHOSPHORUS
TRAPPING. AND OUT OF CONCERN FOR THAT, I'M
HESITANT TO USE A MODEL OF THE NATURE THAT WE HAVE
THAT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY CONSIDER THE WATER
MOVEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREDICTION.
THE CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE, WHILE
ACKNOWLEDGING IN QUESTIONING YESTERDAY THAT WE
INDEED DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE HYDRAULICS IN
THOSE WETLANDS, I FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE
OF A CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE WHICH GIVES YOU A
BROAD BASIS FOR INFERENCE. YOU HAVE THE BEHAVIOR
SUMMARIZED FROM MANY WETLANDS, AND THEY HAVE SOME
COMMONALITY OF RESPONSE, AS SUMMARIZED IN THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 497
MODEL. AND I FEEL MORE CONFIDENT THAT THAT MODEL
COULD BE APPLIED UNDER CONSTRAINTS THAT I
DESCRIBED TO YOU EARLIER AND CONSTRAINTS THAT I
DESCRIBED TO YOU YESTERDAY.
Q. HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN ANY CONTESTED MATTERS
BEFORE?
A. NO.
Q. IF THE HEARING WERE TOMORROW, WOULD YOU BE
COMFORTABLE, UNDER OATH, TESTIFYING ESSENTIALLY ON
THE BASIS OF EXHIBIT 27 WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING
ELSE TO IT?
A. YES.
Q. AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT YOU GO THROUGH,
YOU HAVE THE DATABASE THAT IS THE RECORDING OF A
VARIETY OF MEASUREMENTS OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE
TAKEN OVER PERIODS OF TIME.
A. OR STATISTICAL SUMMARIES OF THOSE MEASUREMENTS.
Q. OKAY. PHOSPHORUS AT CERTAIN LEVELS, DEPTH OF THE
WATER AT CERTAIN LEVELS, WHATEVER -- DISSOLVED
OXYGEN, WHATEVER THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE RECORDED?
A. YES.
Q. AND YOU HAVE ASSUMED THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
PHOSPHORUS IS ENTERING A SYSTEM; IS THAT RIGHT?
A. IN WHAT EXERCISE HAVE WE---
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 498
Q. IT'D BE -- JUST IN THE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT SORT
OF THE GENERAL APPROACH TO WHAT YOU DO. YOU
ASSUME A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PHOSPHORUS, IF THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, COMING INTO THE SYSTEM?
A. WE'RE -- I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF
THE QUESTION. WE---
Q. WELL, ULTIMATELY, YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT
AFFECTS THE CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF PHOSPHORUS
THAT COMES IN VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF PHOSPHORUS THAT
GOES OUT.
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. OKAY. SO, YOU START WITH DATA WHICH WOULD, I
GUESS, BE SAMPLINGS AT STRUCTURES OR AT INFLOWS --
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY THAT.
A. YES. YES.
Q. AND THEN YOU MEASURE -- YOU FIND THE DATA THAT
TELLS YOU HOW MUCH PHOSPHORUS, BASED ON DATA TAKEN
AT OUTFLOWS?
A. YES.
Q. AND THEN YOU KNOW ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS ABOUT
THAT SYSTEM FROM THE OTHER DATA THAT PEOPLE HAVE
COLLECTED.
A. YES.
Q. AND THEN YOU JUST START PUTTING THEM ON GRAPHS TO
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 499
COMPARE AND CONTRAST HOW CERTAIN THINGS AFFECT
OTHER THINGS.
A. YES. THAT'S RIGHT.
Q. OKAY. AND YOU MIGHT FIND OUT THAT AS ONE THING
INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF PHOSPHORUS LEAVING IS
ALWAYS HIGHER OR IT MIGHT BE LOWER, FOR INSTANCE.
A. THAT'S RIGHT.
Q. AND THEN YOU WOULD END BY SAYING THAT -- YOU WOULD
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AND SAY, "THEREFORE,"
HYPOTHETICALLY, "THE BEST THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY
DO IF YOUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS, WOULD BE
TO REDUCE THE PHOSPHORUS COMING IN."
A. WELL IN OUR---
Q. HYPOTHETICALLY.
A. WELL, HYPOTHETICALLY ONE COULD DO THAT.
Q. OKAY.
A. YEAH.
Q. NOW, DO YOU DO THAT? DO YOU GET TO THAT POINT?
A. OUR OBJECTIVE IN THIS WORK, EXHIBIT 27, IS NOT TO
GET TO THAT SPECIFIC A POINT. WHAT OUR OBJECTIVE
IS IS TO DEVELOP STATISTICAL MODELS DESCRIBING THE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT YOU WERE JUST REFERRING TO,
WITH THE PURPOSE OF PREDICTING OUTLET PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATION, IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THE MODEL
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 500
MIGHT BE USED AS YOU DESCRIBED.
Q. SO THAT -- A REGULATOR, FOR INSTANCE, OR SOMEBODY
TRYING TO REGULATE MIGHT TAKE YOUR MODEL AND
DETERMINE THAT THE BEST THING WE CAN DO WOULD BE
TO REGULATE DEPTH OF WATER; OR THE BEST THING THAT
WE COULD REGULATE WOULD BE TO REGULATE THE AMOUNT
OF PHOSPHORUS LOADING COMING IN, ASSUMING WE WANT
TO GET TO A CERTAIN RESULT GOING OUT.
A. MODELS LIKE THOSE THAT WE'VE FITTED MIGHT BE USED
TO EXAMINE THOSE QUESTIONS.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE IN
THE EVERGLADES TO REDUCE THE LEVEL OF PHOSPHORUS
BEING DISTRIBUTED TO THE WCA'S?
A. NO, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT.
Q. WHY?
A. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THE---
Q. CAN ANYBODY TELL ME THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
BASED ON YOUR WORK?
A. BASED ON OUR WORK, IF THE DESIGN CRITERIAS -- AND
AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
DATA IN THE NADB, ONE COULD USE THE MODEL'S
EQUATION TO PREDICT HOW VARIOUS PHOSPHORUS INPUTS,
PHOSPHORUS LOADING, SUMMARIZED IN AN AERIAL
LOADING AND AN INFLUENT CONCENTRATION -- WHAT THAT
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 501
MEANT IN TERMS OF OUTLET CONCENTRATION.
Q. YOU JUST SAID IF THE -- GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING
OF THAT SENTENCE. YOU JUST SAID IF THE CRITERIA
WERE THE SAME? SAY THAT SENTENCE AGAIN, BECAUSE I
WANT TO ASK YOU WHAT YOU MEANT BY -- YOU'VE SAID
THAT SEVERAL TIMES TODAY.
A. WELL, WE DISCUSSED THIS---
Q. YEAH.
A. ---QUITE AT LENGTH YESTERDAY
Q. I APOLOGIZE. WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU HOME EARLY.
DON'T WORRY.
A. OKAY.
Q. THE REASON THAT WE DID THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR
DEPOSITION KEPT GETTING CHANGED. I HAD ORIGINALLY
PLANNED---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---JUST SO YOU KNOW, I HAD ORIGINALLY---
A. OKAY.
Q. ---SCHEDULED MYSELF TO BE HERE BEFORE NOON
YESTERDAY. I WAS THEN TOLD YOU COULDN'T BE
AVAILABLE TILL TUESDAY; I THEN CHANGED THINGS.
AND THEN I FOUND OUT THURSDAY, I GUESS, THAT IT
WAS GOING TO START TODAY. SO, I APOLOGIZE.
A. OKAY.
††††††††††䄮†⁏䭁央†ഌ
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 502
Q. THE SENTENCE THAT I---
A. YEAH. THE---
Q. ---REPEAT THE SENTENCE FIRST. I DIDN'T WRITE IT
DOWN AS YOU SAID IT.
A. WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN. I CAN'T REPEAT IT WORD FOR
WORD. I DON'T REMEMBER. WHEN APPLYING A
STATISTICAL MODEL LIKE THIS ONE, YOU HAVE A
GREATER CONFIDENCE THAT THE MODEL IS APPROPRIATE
FOR AN APPLICATION SYSTEM, A WETLAND, IF THE DATA
USED TO FIT THE STATISTICAL MODEL -- LET ME PUT IT
ANOTHER WAY. IF THE SYSTEM FOR WHICH YOU WANT TO
APPLY THE MODEL IS SIMILAR TO THE SYSTEMS USED
FROM WHICH DATA WERE OBTAINED TO FIT THE MODEL --
SIMILAR TO ON ALL RESPECTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT
DETERMINANTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF INTEREST.
Q. AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY---
A. RELATIONSHIP OF---
Q. ---SIMILAR TO?
A. SIMILAR TO MEANS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU FEEL
THAT DEPTH IS IMPORTANT AS A PREDICTOR VARIABLE OR
AS A DESIGN VARIABLE, AND YOU HAVE A
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE CONTAINING WETLANDS
WITH -- INTERSPERSED OVER THE RANGE OF A MEAN
DEPTH OF SIX FEET TO TWENTY-FIVE FEET; AND THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 503
WETLAND OF INTEREST IS THIRTEEN FEET, FOURTEEN
FEET, FIFTEEN FEET. YOU KNOW IT'S RIGHT IN THE
MIDST OF THAT RANGE, AND SO YOU HAVE A HIGHER
DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THAT MODEL IS
APPROPRIATE IN THE SENSE YOU'RE INTERPOLATING---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---AS OPPOSED TO EXTRAPOLATING AND APPLYING IT TO
A WETLAND WHERE THE DEPTH IS THIRTY FEET AND
OUTSIDE THE RANGE.
Q. DON'T YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, ALREADY, WITH
REGARD TO THE WCA'S?
A. YOU MEAN---
Q. AS COMPARED TO THE NADB?
A. YOU MEAN THE SPECIFIC SYSTEMS THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED IN SOUTH FLORIDA?
Q. YEAH.
A. I JUST HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT. MY INTEREST HERE
WAS TO DEVELOP A MODEL AND NOT TO APPLY IT IN A
PARTICULAR CASE.
Q. AND WHO WOULD -- WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD APPLY
THIS MODEL? A STATISTICIAN?
A. A STATISTICIAN COULD BUT, IN FACT, PROBABLY AN
ENGINEER WHO KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT WETLANDS AND
KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT APPLICATION OF MODELS, AND
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 504
THOUGHT ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT I JUST RAISED.
Q. BUT AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ANY
HELP IN DESIGNING A SYSTEM THAT WOULD HELP THE
EVERGLADES, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS?
MS. RAEPPLE: OBJECTION TO FORM.
A. NOT AS I SIT HERE TODAY.
Q. YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT THERE'S A CHART HERE THAT
SHOWS DEPTH OF WATER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
INDIVIDUAL CRITERIA, HYPOTHETICALLY, OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT?
A. THERE ISN'T A CHART OR GRAPH OR TABLE THAT
EXPLICITLY SHOWS THAT, AS I RECALL. WE COULD GET
THAT OUT OF THE DATA, I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN. IF WE
WANTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WE COULD GO IN AND
ASK IT.
Q. I'M SURE YOU'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT I'LL ASK
AGAIN. IN YOUR APPROACH IN CREATING THE MODEL,
HAVE YOU COMBINED WCA-2A DATA WITH THE NATIONAL
DATA, OR HAVE YOU CREATED MODELS THAT USE ONLY THE
NATIONAL DATA AND MODELS THAT USE ONLY THE WCA-2A
MODEL -- OR DATA?
A. WE DID THAT LATTER---
Q. THE SEPARATE?
A. ---THE SEPARATE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 505
Q. OKAY. AND YOU HAVEN'T, AT THIS POINT AT LEAST,
TRIED TO COMPARE THE TWO TO SEE IF THE SAME
APPROACH WORKS?
A. WE HAVEN'T, AT THIS POINT, TRIED TO COMBINE THE
TWO. WE'VE COMMENTED THAT OUR LEVEL OF DISCOMFORT
WITH THE WCA-2A DATA, AS I MENTIONED, WITH REGARDS
TO THE WATER POLLUTANT MOVEMENT. AND AS I
MENTIONED YESTERDAY, I'M NOT CERTAIN WE WILL -- IN
THE NONPARAMETRIC BAYESIAN APPROACH THAT SONG
PROPOSES TO USE IN HIS DISSERTATION, AS DESCRIBED
AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS PAPER -- IT'S OUR
INTENT TO POOL DATA SETS. THAT'S, AS I MENTIONED
YESTERDAY, THAT'S WHAT A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS ALLOWS
US TO DO -- POOL INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO POOLING
DATA SETS. I'M NOT SURE WE WILL DO THAT WITH
WCA-2A. SONG AND I HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT; WE
HAVEN'T TALKED WITH THE COMMITTEE ABOUT IT YET.
BUT MY CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS VERY SIMPLE MODEL FOR
WCA-2A, WHICH BASICALLY LOOKS AT INPUTS, OUTPUTS
AND VARIOUS AGGREGATE MEASURES OF THE WETLAND
DEPTH AREA -- I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE
FOR A WETLAND LIKE THAT, WHERE IT APPEARS THAT
THERE'S AN AREA THAT'S NOT EFFECTIVELY INVOLVED IN
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 506
TRAPPING. THAT THE HYDRAULICS AND THE WATER
MOVEMENT ARE SUCH THAT YOU MIGHT THINK IT'S OF
SOME DEGREE OF SHORT-CIRCUITING.
Q. YOU SAY YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A HIGH
DEGREE OF TRAPPING IN THAT AREA?
A. NO. NO, I'M SAYING THAT I'M UNEASY ENOUGH ABOUT
THE INPUTS AND OUTPUTS AND THE DEPTH AREA
REPRESENTING THE TRAPPING OF THAT WETLAND. I
THINK THE HYDRAULICS ARE IMPORTANT ENOUGH IN THAT
WETLAND THAT THE SIMPLE MODEL THAT WE HAVE MAY BE
INADEQUATE FOR DESCRIBING OR FOR PREDICTING OF A
WETLAND TO THAT NATURE. SO, I'M NOT SURE WE WILL
CONTINUE TO USE THE WCA-2A DATA SET.
Q. IS WALKER DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
YOU'RE DOING?
A. I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN HE IS. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO
HIM.
Q. IS IT A DIFFERENT APPROACH, OR IS HE TRYING TO
REACH THE SAME TYPES OF CONCLUSIONS BY US---
A. I'M SURE HE'S TRYING TO REACH THE SAME TYPES OF
CONCLUSIONS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. HIS
EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE IS, I THINK, IS STRONGER
THAN MINE IN ENGINEERING AND, SAY, LOOKING AT
HYDRAULICS AND WATER MOVEMENT AND USING A VARIETY
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 507
OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TYPES OF MODELS. AND SO
THAT IS AN AREA THAT HE'S LIKELY TO FOCUS ON.
WHEREAS, MY EMPHASIS IS MORE IN THE STATISTICAL
METHODS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON. SO MY
HUNCH IS THAT HE'S WORKING IN A -- PURSUING A
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TACT.
MR. REID: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
EXAMINATION BY MR. FITZGERALD CONTINUES:
Q. SO, THE TWO OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SKIN A CAT;
YOU'RE JUST USING DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY.
A. THAT'S RIGHT.
Q. AND IF YOUR METHODOLOGY FALLS WITHIN SOME
REASONABLE RANGE -- WHATEVER YOU DEFINE REASONABLE
AS -- OF THE RESULTS DR. WALKER WOULD ACHIEVE IN
DOING LINEAR REGRESSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR WORK
AND HIS WORK COULD ACTUALLY END UP SORT OF
COMPLIMENTING OR CONFIRMING IN A BROAD SENSE---
A. YEAH.
Q. ---THE NUMBERS?
A. YES.
Q. IN LINEAR REGRESSION, TO THE DATA SETS THAT YOU
LOOKED AT, EITHER THE NADB OR THE WCA-2A, WOULD
AN "R" VALUE OF .84 TO .93 BE CONSIDERED A GOOD
FIT?
††††††††††††䘠呉ിഌ
††††††††††††䥆㽔
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 508
A. IF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WAS DONE WELL AND THE
"R" WAS TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DATA -- AND I
SAY THAT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS
WHERE MODELS ARE SUMMARIZED WITH A CORRELATION OR
AND R SQUARED WHERE IT WAS AN INAPPROPRIATE
SUMMARY AND WAS MISLEADING WITH REGARD TO THE
STRENGTH OF IT. BUT IF IT WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED,
THEN I -- THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD "R" VALUE.
Q. OKAY.
A. BUT I LIKE TO LOOK AT "R'S" FROM A RELATIVE
PERSPECTIVE. HOW GOOD MIGHT WE EXPECT THE
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS?
Q. IF YOU TOOK THE NATIONAL DATABASE AND INSTEAD OF
POOLING THE DATABASE INTO A SINGLE MODEL, YOU
INSTEAD CONSTRUCTED OR EVALUATED ALONG THE LINES
THAT YOU DID WITH 2A AND DID FIFTY SEPARATE
MODULAR EVALUATIONS, WOULD THAT ACT IN A
CONFIRMATORY WAY OR CONFIDENCE BUILDING WAY?
A. DESCRIBE THAT AGAIN. I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR---
Q. WELL, YOU DID A MODEL TO FIT THE DATA SET FOR 2A.
THE NATIONAL DATABASE HAS DATA SETS FOR "X" NUMBER
OF -- YOU COULD DO THE SAME THING FOR EACH
INDIVIDUAL.
A. OH, I SEE.
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 509
Q. YOU AND MR. QIAN IN THE FIRST MODEL YOU DID, IN
EXHIBIT 27, COLLECTED ALL THE DATA---
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. ---SETS FROM THE NADB AND DID ONE MODEL TO FIT THE
WHOLE DATA SET, BECAUSE YOU FELT THAT THERE WAS A
COMMONALITY RESPONSE IN THE NADB.
A. YES.
Q. YOU COULD DO THE SAME THING ON AN INDIVIDUAL
WETLAND BASIS; COULD YOU NOT?
A. YES, WE COULD.
Q. I REALIZE IT WOULD BE A LONG PROCESS, BUT THAT
COULD BE DONE AS IT WAS DONE FOR 2A?
A. YES. IF I WANTED -- IF I HAD THE RESOURCES AND
WANTED TO FIT A STATISTICAL MODEL LIKE THIS TO
PREDICT OUTLET CONCENTRATION WITH THESE PREDICTIVE
VARIABLES, AND HAD AT MY DISPOSAL THE NADB, AND
ALSO HAD INPUT/OUTPUT DATA ON A WETLAND, AND
DIDN'T HAVE THE CONCERNS LIKE I HAVE WITH WCA-2A,
THE HYDRAULIC CONCERNS; I WOULD CONSIDERED USING A
BAYESIAN OR EMPIRICAL BAYES ANALYSIS TO POOL THE
SEPARATE ANALYSES FROM THE WETLAND OF INTEREST AND
THE CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA TO DEVELOP A PREDICTIVE
MODEL. AND MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WOULD BE BETTER
THAN THE MODEL FROM EITHER THE CROSS-SECTIONAL
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 510
DATA SET OR THE INDIVIDUAL WETLAND SEPARATELY.
Q. AND AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, IF YOU THEN DID AN
EVALUATION USING EXPERTS OF THE APPROPRIATE
DISCIPLINES TO REMOVE FROM THE BROAD
CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE OUTLIER DATA SETS
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE OF HYDROLOGY, BECAUSE OF
SPECIES COMPOSITION, BECAUSE OF WHATEVER FACTOR IS
A PARAMETER OF INTEREST THAT YOU THINK IS
IMPORTANT, IT WOULD GET PROGRESSIVELY BETTER IN
TERMS OF ITS PREDICTIVE VALUE?
A. THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION.
Q. OKAY. THE COMMONALITY OF RESPONSE IN THE NADB
THAT YOU REFERENCE, YOU NEVER REALLY SAID WHAT
THAT COMMONALITY WAS. ARE YOU REFERRING THERE TO
THE FACT THAT, BY AND LARGE, WETLANDS REMOVE
PHOSPHORUS; IS THAT THE COMMONALITY?
A. IN A SENSE, I AM. I'M, IN EFFECT, SAYING THERE IS
A WETLAND SCIENCE, AND IN THAT WETLAND SCIENCE
THERE ARE CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS OF BEHAVIOR THAT
ARE THOUGHT TO OCCUR IN WETLANDS IN GENERAL.
Q. MR. REID WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE CAUTIONS YOU
IMPOSE ON ANYONE WHO WAS WILLING TO JUMP ON THEIR
CHARGER AND TAKE OFF WITH EXHIBIT 27 AS THEIR
WEAPON. DID YOU COMMUNICATE THE CAUTIONS TO THE
DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 511
ATTORNEYS AT THE TIME YOU PROVIDED THIS, AND TO