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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 MR. GREEN, AND TO THE OTHERS TO WHOM YOU SENT THIS DOCUMENT, LIKE MR. MUNSON AND MR. POLLMAN? A. NO. NO. Q. WOULD YOU EXPECT, BASED ON YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH THEM, DR. POLLMAN AND MR. MUNSON TO BE AWARE OF THOSE TYPE OF CONSTRAINTS OR CONCERNS? A. I THINK THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THEY WOULD BE. I DON'T KNOW THEM WELL ENOUGH. Q. OKAY. BUT YOU DIDN'T TELL THE ATTORNEYS. A. NO. MR. REID: BIG MISTAKE. Q. WHEN MR. GREEN CALLED YOU KEEPING YOU UP-TO-DATE AND ALL THAT, DID HE EVER INDICATE THAT HE WANTED YOU TO KEEP THOSE CONVERSATIONS CONFIDENTIAL? A. NO. Q. OKAY. I NOTICED EXHIBIT 9 THAT YOU PROVIDED US LAST TIME AROUND -- THAT WAS FROM KBN -- THAT IT ALSO SAYS "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL." IS THAT THE SAME TYPE OF DOCUMENT THAT -- I NOTICED ONE OF THE FOUR DOCUMENTS WAS A KBN ORIGINATED MEMO OR DOCUMENT OF SOME SORT -- THE SAME KIND OF LEGEND "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL"? A. I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS -- PRIVILEGED OR DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 512 CONFIDENTIAL WAS ON THAT OR NOT. Q. DR. RECKHOW, AT ANY TIME DURING THIS PROCESS DID MR. GREEN OR MR. PERKO OR ANYONE ELSE, OTHER THAN SAYING, "GIVE ME THOSE DOCUMENTS," DISCUSS WITH YOU KEEPING CONFIDENTIAL THE WORK YOU WERE DOING? A. NO. NO. ON THE CONTRARY, THE WORK WAS ALWAYS -- WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT, MORE THAN ONCE BILL GREEN MENTIONED TO ME THAT THE GIFTS TO THE WETLAND CENTER WERE IN SUPPORT OF SCIENCE. AND SO I TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD. Q. SO, YOU ALWAYS -- AT LEAST WITHIN YOUR CONTEMPLATION, DID NOT VIEW ANY OF THIS THAT YOU HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN, THAT SORT OF RELATES TO THE EVERGLADES, AS A CONFIDENTIAL UNDERTAKING OR PRIVILEGED UNDERTAKING. A. NO. Q. THE WORK THAT DR. WALKER HAS DONE TO MODEL RESPONSE OF WETLANDS IN A PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE PERSPECTIVE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT DATA SET OR DATABASE HE'S USING? I SAW THAT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED AS LISTINGS OF WALKER DATA FILES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THOSE, BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT DATABASE HE IS USING? DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 513 A. I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN WHAT HE'S USING. Q. WHAT'S A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS? A. THAT'S A QUANTITATIVE STUDY TO ESTIMATE THE DEGREE TO WHICH SOME VARIABLE OF INTEREST, SAY THE RESPONSE VARIABLE OUTLET CONCENTRATION, CHANGES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF CHANGES IN OR MANIPULATIONS OF SOME QUANTITY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE; A PREDICTOR VARIABLE OR A PARAMETER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q. WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIGH SENSITIVITY? DOES THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE VALIDITY OR APPLICABILITY OF THE MODEL? A. I BELIEVE THAT'S REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT WHAT'S THOUGHT TO BE A RELATIVELY SMALL CHANGE IN SOMETHING ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, A PREDICTOR VARIABLE, HAS A REASONABLY LARGE EFFECT ON THE RESPONSE VARIABLE, P OUT, THE VARIABLE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. Q. DOES THAT IMPLY YOU BETTER TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT YOUR MODEL? A. THAT SUGGESTS TO YOU THAT -- WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE ANALYSIS, BUT IT MIGHT SUGGEST YOU TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT YOUR MODEL. IT MIGHT SUGGEST IF YOU'RE IN THIS SITUATION THAT YOU GO OUT AND OBTAIN MORE DATA TO IMPROVE YOUR DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 514 ESTIMATE OF THAT TERM. Q. IS THAT RELATED TO THE CONCEPT OF "ROBUSTNESS" THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY, TOO? A. NOT IN THE WAY I WAS USING THE WORD "ROBUSTNESS." Q. IN THE LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL, HOW DO YOU DO A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS? A. YOU COULD DO IT IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. AN EASY WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE TO -- IF, LET'S SAY YOU WERE INTERESTED IN THE SENSITIVITY OF THE PREDICTION TO CHANGES IN -- PREDICTION OF OUTLET CONCENTRATION TO CHANGES IN LOADING, YOU COULD SYSTEMATICALLY VARY THE LOADING TERM AND SEE HOW THE OUTLET CONCENTRATION CHANGES AS A CONSEQUENCE. Q. IN THE ANALYSIS DONE FOR THE EXHIBIT 27 MODELS, IS THERE AN EQUIVALENT OF A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN THERE? A. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE IS, NO. Q. CAN ONE BE DONE? A. OH, EASILY, YEAH. WE WERE CONCERNED IN THAT MODEL WITH THIS TRYING TO ASSESS PREDICTION ERRORS. AND SO WE SPENT SOME TIME ON THAT, BUT NOT SENSITIVITY. Q. AND THE PREDICTION ERRORS ARE THOSE DASHED LINES? A. THOSE ARE THE DASHED LINES, BUT ALSO IN THOSE BOX DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 515 AND WHISKER PLOTS YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF PREDICTION ERROR. Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE SAME DATA SET AS KADLEC AND NEWMAN, BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE DATA SET YOU ACTUALLY USED. YOU INDICATED YOU INDICATED YOU DO HAVE THAT ON DISK, HOWEVER. A. WE BROUGHT IT. Q. YOU DON'T HAVE IT ON DISK? A. YES, HERE IT IS. MR. FITZGERALD: THANK YOU. COULD WE GO AHEAD AND MARK THIS AS EXHIBIT TWENTY--- COURT REPORTER: EIGHT. MR. FITZGERALD: ---EIGHT AND THEN MAKE COPIES FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE ROOM. (THEREUPON, THE DISK REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NO. 28 - KENNETH A. RECKHOW DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND THOSE STUDENT DECISION-MAKING NOTES ON THE EVERGLADES, WERE YOU? A. NO, I MENTIONED IT TO CAROLYN THIS MORNING. I'LL LOOK FOR IT. I HAD TIME TO GO BACK AND GET THAT OUT. Q. DR. RECKHOW, IN THIS COMPILATION OF THE NORTH DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 516 AMERICAN DATABASE, I SEE MISSING VALUES BUT I SEE NO ZEROS. A. YES, YOU WILL. KEEP LOOKING. Q. I DO? A. BE PATIENT. Q. MAYBE IT'S JUST ME. I FOUND ONE ZERO. A. KEEP GOING. Q. FIVE ZEROS. A. CORRECT. Q. OUT OF--- A. THREE HUNDRED PLUS. Q. THREE HUNDRED PLUS. SO, THERE'S FIVE ZEROS. THIS DOESN'T TELL ME THOUGH HOW, IN TRANSLATING THE DATABASE INTO YOUR MODEL, YOU HANDLED DETECTION LIMIT ISSUES. A. WITH REGARDS TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU WERE ASKING YESTERDAY ON THE ZEROS, WHAT WE DID WHEN I WENT BACK WAS PLOT THAT PARTICULAR FIGURE OF INTEREST IN THE PAPER WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, EXCLUDING THE NOT AVAILABLE, THE MISSING VALUES, AND THEN REPRODUCED THE PLOT WITH THE ZEROS REMOVED. Q. ARE THESE THE SAME -- NO ZEROS INCLUDED IN THIS ONE. YOU'RE STILL SHOWING ZERO CONCENTRATION PHOSPHORUS OUT? DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 517 A. VERY LOW, BUT NOT ZERO. IT'S THE SCALE. Q. OKAY. A. WHICH LEADS ME TO SPECULATE THAT WITH ONLY FIVE OF THREE HUNDRED PLUS THAT THE MODEL REFITTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ZEROS WOULD CHANGE VERY LITTLE. Q. HOW ABOUT DETECTION LIMIT ISSUES, IS THERE CONSIDERABLY MORE NOT AVAILABLE DATA POINTS THAN THERE ARE ZEROS? A. THEY WERE JUST ELIMINATED. THE NA'S ARE NOT AVAILABLE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE ARE DETECTION LIMITS OR OTHER REASONS WHY THE DATA DIDN'T EXIST. BUT THEY WERE JUST OMITTED WHEN THERE WAS A--- Q. LET'S MAKE THE TWO GRAPHS THAT YOU RERAN YESTERDAY 29A AND 29B IN WHATEVER ORDER IT IS. (THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED BY THE COURT REPORTER.) (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE MARKED AS DEPOSITION EXHIBIT NO. 29A & 29B - KENNETH A. RECKHOW DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MR. FITZGERALD) DID YOU EVER DISCUSS WITH DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 518 DR. WALKER USING A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, AS OPPOSED TO A LINEAR REGRESSION METHOD--- A. USING WHAT? Q. A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS? A. BAYESIAN ANALYSIS? I'M NOT SURE -- I MAY -- I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING -- I MIGHT HAVE WHEN WE MET IN SEATTLE IN EARLY DECEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER. BUT HE HAS A COPY OF THIS PAPER AND IF HE READS THINGS THAT I SEND HIM--- Q. I SENT HIM ONE TOO, SO I'M SURE HE'S READ IT BY NOW. IN FACT, I KNOW HE HAS. WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE DATA SET USED BY KADLEC AND NEWMAN, DO YOU RECALL HOW THEY TREATED THE BELOW DETECTION LIMITS OR ZERO VALUES? A. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T. Q. OKAY. IN EXHIBIT 10 -- I'M SORRY, EXHIBIT 12 OF YOUR EARLIER DEPOSITION, DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAD PRODUCED, THERE IS A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR THE FIRST ORDER MODEL AND A REGRESSION FOR THE FIRST ORDER UPTAKE MODEL. THE R2 VALUE IS 93.3 ON THAT FIRST ORDER UPTAKE. DO YOU RECALL THIS DOCUMENT? THE RED TAB IS THE PAGE THAT IT'S ON. A. YEAH, IT LOOKS FAMILIAR, YES. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THIS? DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 519 A. DO I KNOW WHERE--- Q. YOU KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM? A. WHERE THIS CAME FROM? Q. YEAH. A. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT BILL WALKER DID. Q. DID YOU EVER ANALYZE HIS WORK THERE TO DETERMINE IF, IN FACT, IT FAIRLY REFLECTED -- OR THAT THE CORRELATION VALUE FAIRLY REFLECTED THE DATA? A. I DID LOOK AT THIS AND HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SOME THINGS, AND I ONLY VAGUELY REMEMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME I PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS TO SOME -- THIS LOOKS LIKE RICHARDSON'S OR SOMEONE ELSE'S HANDWRITING. I DON'T REMEMBER THE NATURE OF MY COMMENTS, BUT THE CONCERN I HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THIS R SQUARED IS -- AND IT'S NOT A SERIOUS CONCERN, BUT IT DOES GET AT THE POINT THAT I HAD RAISED WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT TEN MINUTES AGO. AND THAT IS THAT THE BULK OF THE POINTS ARE SCATTERED HERE AT THE LOWER LEFT CORNER, AND THERE ARE ONLY A FEW OUT HERE. AND SO THERE'S A LARGE REGION OF THIS PLOT WHERE THERE'S VERY LITTLE INFORMATION. Q. UH-HUH (YES). DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 520 A. AND THIS POINT TEN SERVES EFFECTIVELY LIKE A LEVER ARM AND GIVES AN ILLUSION OF POSSIBLY A MORE PRECISE FIT THAN MIGHT BE WARRANTED, BECAUSE MUCH OF THE OBSERVATION IS DOWN HERE IN THIS LOWER CORNER. THIS R SQUARED WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER SIGHTED UNDER A LOG TRANSFORMATION OF BOTH "Y" AND "X" AXES. Q. DR. WALKER DID DO LOG TRANSFORMATIONS, DIDN'T HE; HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? A. NO, AND, AGAIN, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT THAT WELL. BUT I DON'T CONSIDER THAT A SERIOUS CRITICISM. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A PATTERN IN THESE DATA, AND I DON'T REMEMBER MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. I DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS WORK. I GUESS IT WAS ALMOST A YEAR AGO. Q. IN EXHIBIT 15 IN YOUR EARLIER DEPO, "EFFECTIVE PHOSPHORUS RETENTION IN WETLANDS, FACT OR FICTION?", WHICH IS SIGHTED AS A SOURCE OF REFERENCE--- A. YES. Q. ---IN 27, UNFORTUNATELY THE PAGE NUMBERS IS INACCURATE. WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE LAST PAGE OF TEXT, IT SAYS, "DUE TO THE LACK OF DETAILED INFORMATION ON SYSTEM OPERATION CONDITIONS SUCH AS DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 521 DEPTH OF WATER FOR SURFACE FLOW SYSTEM, pH VALUE, AND SUBSTRATE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO EXPECT THE STATISTIC ANALYSIS" -- IT SAYS STATISTIC ANALYSIS -- "WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION OF P RETENTION FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS." AND THIS IS DR. RICHARDSON AND KRAFT. "EVEN THROUGH THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS PRESENTED IN THIS PAPER ENSURES THE AUTHOR THAT FURTHER RESEARCH OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS IS VALUABLE. ALSO, THIS STUDY TELLS ME THAT IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE ON OPERATION CONDITION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEMS, SINCE THE DIFFERENCE OF P RETENTION CAPACITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT SYSTEMS IS SIGNIFICANT." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? A. SOME OF THAT I DON'T FEEL QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON. COULD YOU REPEAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OR TWO? Q. "DUE TO THE LACK OF DETAILED INFORMATION OF SYSTEM OPERATION CONDITIONS SUCH AS DEPTH OF WATER FOR SURFACE FLOW SYSTEM, pH VALUE, AND SUBSTRATE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO EXPECT THE STATISTIC ANALYSIS WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION OF P RETENTION FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS. EVEN THROUGH"--- DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 522 A. OKAY, JUST -- YEAH. JUST THAT FIRST SENTENCE. THAT'S A -- SO THE LAST FEW WORDS WERE "UNCONSTRUCTED WETLANDS." IT DIDN'T REFER TO A SPECIFIC WETLAND, BUT JUST MADE A GENERAL STATEMENT--- Q. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS. A. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. Q. OKAY. THE AUTHORS GO ON TO SAY -- WELL, THE AUTHORS IN THAT PAPER, THEY USED A REGRESSION ANALYSIS SIMILAR TO DR. WALKER'S APPROACH; DID THEY NOT? A. ON THAT PAPER? I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION WHAT THEY DID. Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FINAL STATEMENT OF THAT -- THE DIFFERENCE OF OPERATION CONDITIONS, THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF--- A. COULD YOU READ IT AGAIN, PLEASE? Q. "THIS STUDY TELLS ME THAT IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE ON OPERATION CONDITION OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM SINCE THE DIFFERENCE OF P RETENTION CAPACITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT SYSTEMS IS SIGNIFICANT." A. I CAN'T SAY WHAT THIS STUDY TELLS THEM, BUT WITH REGARDS TO THE CONCLUSION, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE; DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 523 ALTHOUGH, SINCE I'M NOT A WETLANDS SCIENTIST, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BASIS FOR COMMENT ON THAT. Q. DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE TO USE THE NATIONAL DATABASE VERY CAUTIOUSLY IN USING IT AS A CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE TO CONSTRUCT A MODEL, IF, IN FACT, THERE IS SUCH GREAT VARIATION AMONGST WETLANDS GENERALLY? A. THAT'S -- THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR STATEMENT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T AGREE WITH. THAT FIRST SENTENCE YOU READ I SAID I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT. Q. IN EXHIBIT 17, WHICH WAS FAXED TO YOU BY HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN AND SAMS ON NOVEMBER 30, 1992, ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T SAY WHO, IT'S JUST ON THEIR LETTERHEAD; IT'S A KBN DOCUMENT, PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, DATED 20 NOVEMBER '92, BIWEEKLY UPDATE, SEVERAL PAGES LONG. ON THE PAGE NUMBERED THREE OF THE DOCUMENT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE DUKE WETLAND PHOSPHORUS MODEL, AND IT SAYS THAT "KEN RECKHOW AND HIS GRADUATE STUDENT, SONG QIAN, ARE RESTRUCTURING SONG'S ANALYSIS, WHICH IN TURN WILL FORM THE BASIS OF HIS DISSERTATION. SONG IS PREPARING AN OUTLINE THAT WILL DESCRIBE THE FOLLOWING THREE COMPONENTS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 524 WETLANDS TRAPPING OF PHOSPHORUS. FIRST, WCA-2A INPUT/OUTPUT DATA AND MODEL. THE INITIAL PART OF THIS ANALYSIS HAS BEEN COMPLETED USING SMOOTHING ALGORITHMS AS APPLIED TO SCATTER PLOTS AND ADDITIVE MODELS." THAT WAS IN 20 NOVEMBER '92. IS THAT CORRECT THAT THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AT THAT TIME? A. I SUSPECT THAT THAT'S REFERRING TO THE EXHIBITS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AT THE BREAK BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME SMOOTHING ANALYSIS IN THAT EXHIBIT WHERE THE TWO MEMOS, ONE OF WHICH WAS MINE AND ONE OF WHICH WAS FROM GHERINI. Q. THE SECOND ITEM WAS THE KADLEC-NEWMAN CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA ANALYSIS EMPIRICAL MODEL; WAS THAT EVER DONE? A. WELL, OF COURSE, WE USED THE KADLEC-NEWMAN ANALYSIS AND DATABASES AS THE BASIS FOR THIS EXHIBIT 27 PAPER. Q. THAT'S NOT ABSOLUTE CORRECT, IS IT? YOU DIDN'T USE THEIR ANALYSIS, YOU JUST USED THEIR DATABASE. A. WELL, WE USED THEIR ANALYSIS AS THE STARTING POINT, AND THEN IT WAS LOOKING AT THAT GRAPH IN PART THAT WAS REPRODUCED AS OUR SECOND FIGURE THAT--- DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 525 Q. THE GRAPH THAT YOU LOOKED AT AND SAW A CLOUD OF DATA--- A. YES, YES. Q. ---AS OPPOSED TO A LINEAR PATTERN? A. YES, YES. Q. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. AND FINALLY, WALKER DATA AND MODEL ANALYSIS USING BASIC MODELING SCHEME ADOPTED BY WALKER BUT PERFORMING THE STATISTICAL AND ERROR ANALYSIS DIFFERENTLY. A. YEAH, I RECALL FROM THAT THAT AT THAT -- I GUESS AT THAT POINT -- I KNOW AT ONE TIME WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT PURSUE EXTENSIONS OF WALKER'S WORK, BUT AS DISSERTATIONS SOMETIMES DO, THIS HAS EVOLVED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. Q. SO, THAT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE FINAL DISSERTATION PROPOSAL; IS THAT CORRECT? A. NO. NOT AT ALL. Q. IN EXHIBIT 20, "PROPOSED RESEARCH ON WATER QUALITY MODEL FOR WCA-2A," AND THEN HANDWRITTEN IS "DUKE WETLAND CENTER, APRIL 1992." IN THE INTRODUCTION IT SAYS, "THIS PROPOSED RESEARCH INTENDS TO STUDY THE HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY DATA OF WCA-2A AND USE BAYESIAN ANALYSIS TO COMBINE THE FIELD DATA WITH THE RESULTS FROM RICHARDSON AND CRAFT (1991) DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 526 AND DAVIS (1990)." WAS THAT, IN FACT, DONE? A. NO. Q. WILL IT BE DONE? A. NO, I DON'T -- NO. Q. WHY THE CHANGE IN FOCUS? A. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR REASON BUT, AGAIN, PICKING UP ON A STATEMENT A MOMENT AGO, DISSERTATIONS EVOLVE. AND WE HAD BEEN THINKING ABOUT THE GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING WORK FOR SOME TIME; AND WE COMPLETED THAT, I BELIEVE, SUCCESSFULLY AND HAD IN OUR MINDS FOR SOME TIME DOING A BAYESIAN ANALYSIS THAT, STARTING SOMETIME LAST SPRING OR SUMMER, BECAME A NONPARAMETRIC BAYESIAN ANALYSIS. AND I GUESS IT, OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, IT'S BECOME CLEARER TO US THAT THIS NADB APPEARS TO BE A GOOD DATA SET WORTH STICKING WITH. AND THEN THE REMAINING QUESTION IN MY MIND IS -- WITH REGARDS TO DATA -- IS WHETHER WE STAY WITH WCA-2A. BUT I JUST DIDN'T EVEN REMEMBER THAT THAT HAD BEEN SAID AND THAT SEEMS TO HAVE LONG AGO BEEN LEFT BEHIND. Q. IN JUNE OF '92 IN EXHIBIT 21, CAPTIONED THE SAME "RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON PHOSPHORUS MODELING FOR WCA-2A." THIS IS "SONG S. QIAN AND CURTIS J. DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 527 RICHARDSON, DUKE UNIVERSITY WETLAND CENTER". THERE IS A STATEMENT UNDER PHASE II, "ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FRESHWATER WETLANDS USED FOR POLLUTANTS REMOVAL." IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT. IT SAYS, "WE ARE GOING TO DO AN EXTENSIVE LITERATURE REVIEW, COLLECT DATA FROM WETLAND SITES ALL OVER THE WORLD AND STUDY THE GENERAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE MOVEMENT AND THE STORAGE OF PHOSPHORUS IN WETLAND SYSTEMS." HAVE, IN FACT -- OR HAS, IN FACT, THAT BEEN DONE WITH REGARD TO COLLECTING DATA FROM WETLAND SITES ALL OVER THE WORLD? A. NO. WE'VE MADE USE OF THE NADB. Q. SO, WE GOT A LITTLE LESS AMBITIOUS. A. YES. Q. IS THERE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE A WORLDWIDE DATA SET LIKE THAT? A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. Q. IT TALKS, AS WELL, ABOUT IN PHASE I FINISHING MOST OF IT WITHIN ONE MONTH AFTER THE RECEIPT OF RAINFALL DATA. WAS THE DAILY RAINFALL DATA FOR WCA-2A AND RAINFALL CHEMISTRY DATA INCORPORATED IN THE NONPARAMETRIC DATA EXPLORATORY TECHNIQUES UTILIZED IN EXHIBIT 27? DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 528 A. I CAN'T BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS A WATER AND PHOSPHORUS SOURCE. Q. SO, IT WOULD BE SIMPLY INCORPORATED IN THE DATABASE, BUT UNDISTINGUISHED? A. I THINK SO. I CAN'T BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, THOUGH. THAT'S THE NADB. Q. THERE'S NO RAINFALL COLLECTION OR WATER CHEMISTRY DATA IN THAT, IS THERE -- IN THE NADB IN EXHIBIT 28? A. NOT DISTINCT. Q. NOT DISTINCT. SO, AND THERE IS NO RAINFALL UNIQUE PARAMETER OR COEFFICIENT IN ANY OF THE FORMULAE IN EXHIBIT 27? A. NO. Q. OKAY. WHERE DID YOUR NOTION ARISE THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL SHORT-CIRCUITING OR HYDROLOGIC FLOW PROBLEM IN 2A? A. I CAN'T POINT TO ANY SINGLE TIME OR PERSON OR REFERENCE THAT THAT CAME FROM. BUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, I'VE SEEN CONGRADIENT GRAPHS OF CONCENTRATION CONTOURS; I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE, REALLY, ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE; I'VE LOOKED AT MATERIALS. AND ANY ONE OF DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 529 THOSE SOURCES, I'M SURE, HAS CONTRIBUTED SOME TO THAT IMPRESSION. Q. YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC SOURCE OR PERSON WHO--- A. I CAN'T SAY, "IT WAS THIS PERSON AT THIS TIME WHO ALERTED ME TO THAT." Q. AM I CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REAL CONCERN THERE IS THE ARIEL EXTENT. THE PARAMETER THAT CHANGES IN YOUR FORMULA, IF, IN FACT, THERE'S A SHORT-CIRCUITING -- YOUR FLOW VALUES CHANGE PER AREA. A. YEAH. IT PRIMARILY IS AN AREA ISSUE -- THE CONTRIB -- WHAT I MIGHT CALL "THE CONTRIBUTING AREA," THE AREA THAT'S--- Q. THE INFLOW DOESN'T--- A. NO. Q. THE LOADING DOESN'T CHANGE AND THE CONCENTRATION OUTPUT -- FOR THE DATA SET--- A. YEAH. Q. ---NOT THE PREDICTION SO MUCH, BUT THE -- THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. SO, YOU COULD STILL ACCOUNT FOR THAT. YOUR MODEL, ALTHOUGH IT HAS THAT ASSUMPTION BUILT IN, YOU COULD MODEL WITHOUT THAT FACTOR, ALTHOUGH YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE A VERY GOOD PREDICTOR. DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 530 A. WELL, WE DID. OF COURSE, WE HAVE DEPTH AND NOT AREA, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT FOR THAT--- Q. SO, HYDRAULICS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN THIS MODELING EFFORT IN YOUR VIEW? A. IT'S ONE OF MANY FACTORS THAT ONE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND SIMILAR TO STUDIES THAT I'VE DONE IN LAKES, IF I'M LOOKING AT INPUT/OUTPUT IN-LAKE CONCENTRATIONS AND HAVE AN OBVIOUS SITUATION OF A MAJOR LAKE INFLOW SHORT-CIRCUITING IMMEDIATELY TO THE OUTFLOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF INCLUDING THAT LAKE IN A DATA SET WHERE IT'S CONTRARY TO TYPICAL LAKE BEHAVIOR. Q. OF COURSE, VEGETATION WILL ALTER FLOW PATTERNS. A. THAT'S RIGHT. Q. AND I TAKE IT FROM THAT THAT YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT A SUBSURFACE FLOW WETLAND TO REACT OR FUNCTION THE SAME AS A SURFACE FLOW WETLAND. A. PERHAPS NOT. Q. HOW ABOUT A FORESTED WETLAND? A. I'M OPEN TO INFORMATION ON THOSE SORTS OF CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE WETLAND SCIENTISTS, AND AT APPROPRIATE TIMES WOULD BE WISE TO SEEK THAT INFORMATION. BUT I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE IT DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 531 MYSELF. Q. WHAT'S SONG QIAN'S BACKGROUND IN THE WAY OF HYDROLOGY AND WETLANDS ENGINEERING? A. SONG'S TRAINING IS IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING. AND MY RECOLLECTION FROM HIS STUDIES SEVERAL YEARS AGO AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY, WHEN HE WAS HERE FOR A YEAR, AND IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IS THAT HIS BACKGROUND IS NOT UNLIKE MINE OR BILL WALKER'S WITH REGARDS TO GRADUATE STUDIES. Q. OKAY. THAT GETS YOU UP THROUGH ACADEMICS. HAS HE DESIGNED A WETLAND ANYWHERE? A. NOT OTHER THAN PERHAPS AS A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT IN A CLASS. Q. SO NO GROUND TRUTHING OF HIS THEORIES, THEN? A. YEAH. MR. FITZGERALD: OKAY, NOTHING MORE. I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH DOCTOR. WITNESS: THANK YOU. (THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED BY THE COURT REPORTER.) (THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN FROM 11:53 A.M. TO 12:10 P.M.) DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 532 EXAMINATION BY MS. RAEPPLE: Q. DR. RECKHOW, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. FIRST, WITH REGARD TO DOCUMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED MARKED "PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL," WHAT IS YOUR PRACTICE WITH REGARD TO RELEASING THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES? A. I WOULD NOT GIVE THEM OUT AND WOULD BASICALLY HONOR THE TITLE OR STATEMENT AT THE TOP THAT THEY'RE PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. Q. WITH REGARD TO EXHIBITS 29A AND 29B, THE GRAPHS THAT YOU BROUGHT, WHICH FIGURE IN EXHIBIT 27 DO THOSE REPRODUCE? (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. FIGURE FIVE. Q. IS EXHIBIT 29B A PRECISE REPRODUCTION OF FIGURE FIVE OTHER THAN THE DATA POINTS BEING REFLECTED AS DOTS INSTEAD OF CROSSES? A. IT SHOULD BE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) Q. THANK YOU. YESTERDAY YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF STATISTICAL MODELS THAT YOU HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE PAST. APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN DEVELOPING STATISTICAL MODELS THAT CAN BE USED FOR PREDICTIVE PURPOSES? DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 533 A. ABOUT TWENTY YEARS. Q. ARE ANY OF THOSE MODELS -- OR HAVE ANY OF THOSE MODELS BEEN USED IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION FOR PREDICTIVE PURPOSES? A. YES, A NUMBER HAVE. SEVERAL OF THEM ARE IN EPA PUBLISHED GUIDANCE MANUALS DEALING WITH LAKE WATER QUALITY MODELING, AND THEY'VE BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD. Q. AND ARE THEY USED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY? A. USED BY EPA; I'VE TAUGHT SHORT COURSES FOR EPA ON THE USE OF THE MODELS. THEY'RE USED BY STATE AGENCIES, USED BY PROJECT CONSULTANTS. Q. WITH REGARD TO EXHIBIT 27, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE ANALYSIS THAT SONG QIAN DID THAT IS REFLECTED IN THAT EXHIBIT? A. YES. YEP. WELL, SONG DID THE ANALYSIS. THE APPROACH CAME ABOUT THROUGH SOME IDEAS I'VE HAD FOR SOME TIME ON THE USE OF GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODELING, AND IT WAS -- ESSENTIALLY ALL THE ANALYSIS WAS UNDER MY GUIDANCE. HE WOULD DO ANALYSIS SOMETIMES AT MY DIRECTION AND SOMETIMES AFTER DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 534 UNDERTAKE. Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED ALL OF THAT ANALYSIS? A. YES. Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF SONG QIAN'S ANALYSIS REFLECTED IN EXHIBIT 27? A. YES. Q. YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF THE MODELS REFLECTED IN EXHIBIT 27. CAN THOSE MODELS BE UTILIZED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS BY OTHERS WHO WOULD BE SO INTERESTED? A. MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY COULD. Q. AND WHEN WE REFER TO MODELS IN EXHIBIT 27, WHICH EQUATIONS IN EXHIBIT 27 ARE YOU REFERRING TO? A. EQUATION FOUR IS THE GENERALIZED ADDITIVE MODEL, BASED ON THE NADB, IS ONE. AND EQUATION TEN IS ALSO A POSSIBLE USEFUL PREDICTIVE MODEL, WHICH IS OUR NONPARAMETRIC -- OR NONLINEAR MODEL. Q. LOOKING AT EQUATION FOUR, THE RESPONSE VARIABLE IS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE--- A. THAT'S CORRECT. Q. ---EQUATION. IS THAT CORRECT? AND THAT IS WHAT? A. THAT IS THE LOG OF THE OUTLET CONCENTRATION OF PHOSPHORUS PLUS ONE. DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 535 Q. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS EQUATION CAN BE USED TO PREDICT OUTPUT CONCENTRATION OF PHOSPHORUS? A. THAT'S CORRECT. Q. WHAT IS THE FIRST ELEMENT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE EQUATION? A. THAT'S A CONSTANT, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO AN INTERCEPT TERM IN A SIMPLE REGRESSION INVOLVING A SLOPE IN AN INTERCEPT. Q. AND IN THIS FORMULA, IS THAT CONSTANT -- THE VALUE OF THAT CONSTANT SHOWN IN THE PARAGRAPH BELOW EQUATION FOUR? A. YES. IT'S F = .3404. Q. WHAT IS THE SECOND ELEMENT IN EQUATION FOUR? A. "S" REFERS TO A SMOOTH FUNCTION AND "SP" REFERS TO THE FACT THAT IT'S THE SMOOTH FUNCTION FOR THE PREDICTOR VARIABLE LOG "Pin." AND IT CHARACTERIZES THE SMOOTH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VALUES OF LOG "Pin" IN THE DATA SET AND THE FUNCTION THAT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE MODEL AS AN ADDITIVE TERM. Q. CAN THE VALUE FOR THAT SECOND ELEMENT BE READ OFF OF FIGURE SIX? A. YES. Q. WHAT IS THE THIRD ELEMENT IN EQUATION NUMBER FOUR? A. "SQ" IS A SMOOTH FOR THE PREDICTOR VARIABLE LOG DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 536 "QS + 1" AND IT IS A SMOOTH IN THE SAME SENSE AS THE SMOOTH "SP" IS IN THE SECOND TERM, WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED IN THAT FIGURE SIX. Q. IS THERE A FIGURE FROM WHICH THIS THIRD ELEMENT CAN BE READ? A. YES, THAT'S FIGURE SEVEN. Q. AND WHAT IS THE FINAL ELEMENT IN EQUATION FOUR? A. THAT'S THE SMOOTH FOR THE PREDICTOR VARIABLE LOG "LIN" AND THAT'S FIGURE EIGHT. Q. OKAY. TURNING TO EQUATION TEN, AGAIN THE RESPONSE VARIABLE IS OUTPUT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A. YES. LOG OF OUTPUT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION PLUS ONE. IT CAN BE USED TO PREDICT OUTLET PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION. Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE FIRST ELEMENT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF EQUATION TEN? A. THAT'S AN ALPHA SIMILAR TO THE ALPHA IN EQUATION FOUR. IT'S ANALOGOUS TO AN INTERCEPT TERM. IT'S A CONSTANT. Q. WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THAT ALPHA; IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE IN EQUATION FOUR? A. IT COULD BE. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE GIVEN IN THE PAPER. WE HAVE THAT IN OUR ANALYSIS. I DON'T SEE IT IN THE PAPER, THOUGH. DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 537 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THAT ALPHA IS THE SAME AS THE ALPHA IN EQUATION FOUR? A. THERE'S NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT IT SHOULD BE. Q. WHAT IS THE SECOND ELEMENT IN EQUATION TEN? A. THAT'S A SMOOTH FOR THE PREDICTOR VARIABLE LOG "PIN," AND WE DON'T HAVE A GRAPH SHOWING THAT. Q. THAT CANNOT BE READ OFF OF FIGURE SIX? A. NO. FIGURE SIX IS THE SMOOTH FOR THE MODEL IN EQUATION FOUR. THIS IS A SMOOTH OF THE SAME PREDICTOR VARIABLE IN FIGURE SIX, BUT IT IS THE SMOOTH IN THE MODEL IN EQUATION TEN. AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IN THE PAPER, WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD FAR TOO MANY FIGURES TO INCLUDE THAN WOULD -- I SUSPECT, AN EDITOR WOULD ALLOW. SO, WE HAD TO CUT OUT FIGURES THAT OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFORMATIVE, AND WE DECIDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE MODEL IN EQUATION FOUR TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN THE MODEL IN EQUATION TEN. Q. THEN, IF SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO UTILIZE THIS PAPER TO PREDICT OUTFLOW OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO UTILIZE EQUATION TEN WITH NOTHING FURTHER? A. NOT DIRECTLY, NO. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. EQUATION FOUR COULD BE USED WITH THE FIGURES; EQUATION TEN DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 538 NEEDS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM US -- AVAILABLE FROM US. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE NORTH AMERICAN DATABASE INCLUDES DATA FOR CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS? A. NO, I DON'T. Q. YOU TESTIFIED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE FROM A CROSS-SECTIONAL DATABASE A SUBSET, AND THAT THE CHOICE OF THAT SUBSET WOULD BE BASED ON THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS BEING COMPATIBLE -- THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE WETLANDS THAT ARE IN THE SUBSET BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WETLAND FOR WHICH YOU'RE TRYING TO PREDICT. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? A. YES. Q. WOULD YOU MAKE THE DECISION YOURSELF AS TO WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS TO FOCUS ON IN CHOOSING THAT SUBSET, OR WOULD YOU RELY ON SOME OTHER PERSON WITH DIFFERENT EXPERTISE? A. I WOULD RELY, IN PART, ON SOME OTHER PEOPLE. I HAVE, ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPERIENCE DESCRIBED IN THIS PAPER, SOME IDEA OF SOME OF THOSE VARIABLES; BUT I WOULD BE WISE TO CONSULT WITH AT LEAST ONE WETLAND SCIENTIST WHOSE OPINIONS I VALUE TO DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 539 IDENTIFY OTHER POSSIBLE IMPORTANT FACTORS. Q. WOULD CURTIS RICHARDSON BE SUCH A WETLAND SCIENTIST? A. YES. Q. REFERRING TO EXHIBIT 15, MR. FITZGERALD READ TO YOU SEVERAL SENTENCES OFF OF WHAT HE INDICATED WAS THE LAST PAGE OF TEXT. AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT AGREE, I BELIEVE, WITH THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS, "DUE TO THE LACK OF DETAILED INFORMATION ON SYSTEM OPERATION CONDITIONS SUCH AS DEPTH OF WATER FOR SURFACE FLOW SYSTEM, pH VALUE, AND SUBSTRATE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, IT IS NOT REALISTIC TO EXPECT THAT STATISTIC ANALYSIS WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION OF PHOSPHORUS RETENTION FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS." DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? A. YES, I DO. Q. WHY DO YOU NOT AGREE WITH THAT SENTENCE? A. BECAUSE IT'S TOO BROAD IN ITS CONCLUSION WITH REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WILL NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND I BELIEVE FROM WHAT I HAVE UNDERTAKEN, AS PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT 27, THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER CERTAIN INTERESTING QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE FEASIBILITY OR USEFULNESS OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FROM DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 540 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Q. WOULD ONE OF THOSE INTERESTING QUESTIONS BE THE PREDICTION OF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION OUTFLOW? A. YES. (THEREUPON, MS. RAEPPLE AND MR. BURGESS CONFER.) Q. WITH REGARD TO SONG QIAN'S DISSERTATION PROPOSAL, DID YOU RELY ON THAT DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXHIBIT 27? A. NO. ON THE CONTRARY, THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL RELIED ON EXHIBIT 27. MS. RAEPPLE: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. MR. FITZGERALD: TAKE IT AWAY, RICK. MR. BURGESS: NONE, THANK YOU. ------------------------------------------------------- (THEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED AT 12:27 P.M.) ------------------------------------------------------- DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 541 NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY I, KENNETH H. RECKHOW, HAVE READ THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF MY DEPOSITION AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PRECEDING 311-540 PAGES CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF MY TESTIMONY. ______________________________ KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW, Ph.D. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, THIS THE ____ DAY OF ________________, 1994. _______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _______________________________ DR. RECKHOW VOLUME II PAGE 542 NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY C E R T I F I C A T E I, CAROL S. YOUNG, A NOTARY PUBLIC, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT KENNETH HOWLAND RECKHOW WAS DULY SWORN BY ME PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION, AND THAT SAID DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN BY ME, AND TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 311-540, CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE SAID WITNESS. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS WERE PRESENT AS STATED IN THE CAPTION. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT OF COUNSEL FOR, OR IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION, NOR AM I INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS ACTION. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SUBSCRIBED MY NAME, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994. _____________________________ CAROL S. YOUNG CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES 2551 ALBEMARLE AVENUE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 26, 1995