1

1 Division of Administrative Hearings

2 Department of Administration, State of Florida

3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and, )

4 WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

5 V ) DOAH

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3038

6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

7 Respondents. )

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )

8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

9 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH

10 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

11 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

12 FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

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

and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

14 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH

15 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) Case 92-3040

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

16 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

18 Deposition of Garth Redfield

19 Taken before April Y. Sapp, Court Reporter

and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at

20 large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed

by the Petitioners in the above cause.

21 - - -

Tuesday December 1, 1992

22 319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

23 9:44 - 11:40 a.m.

12:45 - 3:40 p.m.

24 - - -

1 APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar

3 Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,

and New South Hope, Inc.:

4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.

1800 Second Street, Suite 888

5 Sarasota, Florida 34236

By: JUDITH S. KAVANAUGH, ESQUIRE

On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:

7 South Florida Water Management District

3301 Gun Club Road

8 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

By: JACQUELYN BIRCH, ESQUIRE

On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:

10 United States Attorney's Office

155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627

11 Miami, Florida 33130-1693

By: MAUREEN DONLAN, ESQUIRE

On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:

13 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

123 South Calhoun Street

14 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

By: GARY PERKO, ESQUIRE

16 - - -

1 - - -

2 I N D E X

3 - - -

5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

6 Garth Redfield

BY MS. KAVANAUGH 6 156

8 BY MR. PERKO 147 167

1 - - -

2 E X H I B I T S

3 - - -

5 NUMBER PAGE

6 EXB. NO. 1 7

7 Subpoena of witness

8 EXB. NO. 2 84

9 ENR Project article by Newman & Redfield

10 EXB. NO. 3 95

11 STA Design folder

12 EXB. NO. 4 98

13 Description of Nutrient Threshold Research

14 EXB. NO. 5 99

15 Draft Everglades Nutrient Threshold Research Plan

16 EXB. NO. 6 100

17 Review of #4 & #5 by Kenneth Reckhow

18 EXB. NO. 7 105

19 Comments on Nutrient Threshold Study

20 EXB. NO. 8 107

21 Letter from Robert Wetzel

22 EXB. NO. 9 111

23 Everglades Plan for Research

24 EXB. NO. 10 113

25 Research Subcommittee composition

1 - - -

2 E X H I B I T S

3 - - -

4 NUMBER PAGE

6 EXB. NO. 11 118

7 Report of technical advisory panel

8 EXB. NO. 12 123

9 Review of research by Newman & Redfield

10 EXB. NO. 13 125

11 Review by Redfield to Whalen

12 EXB. NO. 14 130

13 Draft of cattails by Urban, Davis & Aumen

14 EXB. NO. 15 131

15 Letters to external review of #14

16 EXB. NO. 16 135

17 Memo from Dave Black to Nick Aumen

18 EXB. NO. 17 148

19 Proposal from University of Maryland

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 - - -

3 Thereupon,

4 Garth Redfield,

5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 DIRECT (Garth Redfield)

9 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

10 Q. Would you state your full name and

11 residence address for the record?

12 A. Garth William Redfield. 5869 Sundance

13 Court, Jupiter, 33458.

14 Q. Okay. And, Dr. Redfield, have you ever

15 been deposed before?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Well, in that case, I'll give you my intro

18 spiel.

19 You know that everything has to be answered

20 orally so if you nod your head, for example, the

21 court reporter or I will say, will you please answer

22 orally.

23 Do you understand that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The second thing is if I ask you a question

1 that you don't understand please ask me to repeat it

2 or to restate it. Our goal here is not to confuse

3 you. This is not a test. We're here to try and get

4 information.

5 So will you agree that you'll ask me to

6 restate my question if you don't understand it?

7 A. Yes.

8 MS. KAVANAUGH: Okay. Now I'm going to ask

9 the court reporter to mark this if you would.

10 (The document was marked Redfield

11 Exb. No. 1.)

12 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

13 Q. Dr. Redfield, I'm asking you to examine

14 that and tell me if you can identify that as the

15 subpoena request which you were served in this

16 matter?

17 A. Yes. That is the subpoena.

18 Q. Okay. And, if you'll note, it reflects on

19 the face of it and has an attached notice which

20 indicates that it's duces tecum.

21 Do you know what that means?

22 A. No.

23 Q. It means that you've been asked to bring

24 certain documents with you and if you would take a

25 look there at Exhibit 1 and there's a list of the

1 types of documents you were asked to bring with you.

2 Did you bring those documents with you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what effort was made to identify

5 documents responsive to these requests?

6 A. Went through all of my records looking for

7 documents that fit the request.

8 Q. And did you do that personally?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. And did anyone else at all assist

11 you in gathering these documents?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And who would that be?

14 A. Jackie --

15 THE WITNESS: What's your current last

16 name?

17 MS. BIRCH: Birch.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

19 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let the record reflect she

20 is newly married, not traveling under an alias.

21 THE WITNESS: I met Jackie when she had

22 another name.

23 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

24 Q. Are these records from your personal

25 records or did you make a search through the District

1 documents?

2 A. They're my personal records at work.

3 Q. Do you have any other records at home?

4 A. No. Not for District materials.

5 Q. So, I guess what I'm getting at, did you

6 search any of the other District files to find

7 documents responsive to this request?

8 A. No, I didn't.

9 Q. Okay. Now, could you describe for me your

10 education since -- well, post secondary?

11 A. Post secondary?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Three years in agriculture and biology at

14 Cal State Polytechnic at San Luis Obispo. Followed

15 by completion of undergraduate work in zoology at the

16 University of California at Davis. Followed by

17 Master's degree in ecology at Cal Davis and a

18 doctorate in ecology at Cal Davis. Completion in

19 '79.

20 Q. Okay. When you indicated you had three

21 years of -- was it agriculture?

22 A. Yeah. Agriculture then biology. Changed.

23 Q. So you changed your major?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Did you have any particular area of

1 concentration -- of study, rather, when you were

2 studying agriculture?

3 A. Dairy science.

4 Q. And when you switched your major to zoology

5 did you have any particular area of concentration?

6 A. Just zoology. General curriculum in

7 zoology. Prescribed curriculum.

8 Q. And in your Master's program did you

9 complete a Master's thesis?

10 A. No. I took an oral exam.

11 Q. Did you have an area of concentration?

12 A. Yes. Limnology, aquatic ecology, same

13 thing.

14 Q. Aquatic?

15 A. Aquatic ecology, lakes, streams.

16 Q. Okay. Streams also?

17 A. Rivers, wetlands, anything that's wet.

18 Q. Okay. And when you say aquatic ecology,

19 were you focusing on the flora or the fauna or the

20 hydrology or water quality? Is there any particular

21 area of focus?

22 A. Ah, at the Master's level, which is what we

23 were talking about, I took a variety of courses to

24 fill in blanks in my undergraduate training in

25 science, such things as study of algae; took courses

1 in statistics; took courses in water pollution,

2 biology. Might have to look at my transcript to see

3 other ones, but basically looking at my undergraduate

4 record and then filing in whatever was necessary to

5 fulfill a general degree in aquatic ecology. Not a

6 specific degree in one kind or another. The only

7 difference being that it was not marine oriented. It

8 was fresh water oriented. I don't claim to be a

9 marine scientist, although much of the training does

10 overlap.

11 Q. So your training, at least to the Master's

12 level, is primarily in fresh water wetland systems?

13 A. Fresh water aquatic systems including

14 wetlands, not specializing in wetlands. If anything,

15 specializing in lakes at that point.

16 Q. During your studies for your Ph.D did you

17 have to do a doctoral thesis?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And what was the subject?

20 A. It was plankton ecology in a sub-alpine

21 lake in the mountains of California.

22 Q. Which lake was that?

23 A. Castle Lake up near Mount Shasta, a

24 gorgeous lake.

25 Q. When you say plankton ecology could you be

1 a little more specific?

2 A. Studied the vertical migration of the

3 animals and its relationship to the growth of algae

4 in the lake; how the animals interact with the

5 microscopic plants, variety of subjects around that.

6 Q. When you say animals --

7 A. Animal plankton, small animals living in

8 the open water of the lake.

9 Q. So, as a lay person, would it be correct to

10 say you were studying relationships between plankton

11 and algae?

12 A. Between the animal plankton and the plant

13 plankton would be the way to say it.

14 Q. Okay. Microorganisms. All right. I got

15 it.

16 Now, during your Ph.D studies, did you

17 focus on any other areas?

18 A. No. I just continued in aquatic ecology.

19 I took very few courses for the Ph.D because I

20 completed them during the Masters so it was mostly

21 simply research and seminars. Seminars being on a

22 variety of subjects in current research.

23 Q. I'll be asking you about your publications

24 in a moment, but other than your thesis, did you

25 publish, either as a coauthor or principal author or

1 a sub-author any papers?

2 A. Yes. Towards the end of my doctorate I

3 began to publish. My first paper was in '79, I

4 believe. I'll have to look at my own resume to be

5 sure I've said that correctly, which was near the end

6 of my doctoral work.

7 Q. What was the topic?

8 A. That was on the vertical migration of

9 plankton.

10 Q. Do you recall publishing on any other

11 topics?

12 A. Well, I continued to publish. I went on

13 and did a second paper, again using the dissertation

14 data and a third paper followed a year or so later

15 from my dissertation. I think in total five of my

16 papers were based upon that work.

17 Q. These were based on the alpine lake

18 ecosystem?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. During your matriculation, including your

21 Ph.D work, did you study or take any course of study

22 involving swamp systems such as the Everglades?

23 A. No courses. No specific courses.

24 Q. Did you do any field work involving swamp

25 systems? I'll call them swamp systems. I'm sure

1 there's another name.

2 A. No.

3 Q. All right. Now, have you taken any post

4 graduate courses beyond your Ph.D? Have you

5 continued in your education?

6 A. Not in college courses, no.

7 Q. And have you attended seminars or otherwise

8 attended educational programs since that time?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So how do you keep current in the

11 literature and --

12 A. I have been involved, but I haven't taken

13 them. I've taught them on occasion. I have been an

14 adjunct professor several times.

15 Q. Tell me where you've been an adjunct

16 professor.

17 A. The first time was at George Mason

18 University in Fairfax, Virginia. That was -- again,

19 I don't have my resume in front of me, but I think

20 that was in 1980-'81, something like that. Taught a

21 seminar there in aquatic ecology with a professor --

22 jointly with a professor there named Ralph Jones or

23 R. Christian Jones.

24 Q. And you've taught other courses?

25 A. In -- taught at North Carolina State.

1 Q. Tarheels.

2 A. I taught limnology at North Carolina State

3 four years ago followed by another course in

4 limnology at the University of Montana three years

5 ago.

6 Q. Were these undergraduate courses?

7 A. Yes. Both. Graduates could take them.

8 Q. And when you say limnology, again, that's

9 the study of aquatic -- fresh water aquatic systems?

10 A. Including wetlands.

11 Q. Including wetlands. Okay.

12 And you indicated earlier that you haven't

13 yourself attended any courses?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Have you taught any other courses you can

16 think of?

17 A. No. Wait a minute. At North Carolina

18 State I taught another one, second semester in

19 grantsmanship and peer review and that was a seminar

20 for graduates.

21 Q. Okay. Could you describe your work history

22 since -- well, your post secondary work history, but

23 let me say I don't mean your college jobs at the gas

24 station or whatever, but relating to your area of

25 limnology.

1 A. My first position after graduate school was

2 as an ecologist with a company that no longer exists

3 called Nusac. That's N-u-s-a-c. It was a nuclear

4 utilities safeguards and auditing corporation which

5 at that time was in McLean, Virginia. I did

6 environmental consulting with them on lake management

7 and related subjects on a few other smaller jobs.

8 Q. When you say lake management, management

9 for what purpose, fish and wildlife?

10 A. Water quality. Stormwater management, any

11 management that involves keeping a lake healthy for

12 human use.

13 Q. For what purpose was this company concerned

14 about lake management?

15 A. They wanted to get involved in general

16 environmental science consulting and this was one

17 point of entering that field. They had several other

18 people that they hired in other areas such as human

19 ecology. They had sociologists that worked with us,

20 so on. I was the aquatic ecologist.

21 Q. Could you give me an example of any of the

22 projects you worked on?

23 A. The biggest one that I worked on was

24 diagnostic study of two lakes in northern Virginia,

25 diagnosing them -- diagnosing pollution problems with

1 the lakes and writing a report recommending remedial

2 actions.

3 Q. And how large were these lakes?

4 A. Quite small. Um, 50 to 100 acres.

5 Q. And what did you find to be their primary

6 problem?

7 A. Urban run-off.

8 Q. What --

9 A. Excessive nutrients.

10 Q. What remedial action was recommended?

11 A. Each lake was different, but a watershed

12 management plan development was recommended for both

13 involving the control of urban run-off, stormwater

14 run-off.

15 Q. When you say control, you mean retention,

16 treatment, what?

17 A. Yeah. Retention ponds, grassways, other

18 kinds of best management practices that could be

19 applied to an urban setting or suburban setting is

20 more accurate.

21 Q. What suburb was this?

22 A. Fairfax, Virginia and the Springfield area

23 of Virginia.

24 Q. Were there any waste water to wetlands type

25 scenarios utilized?

1 A. There were going to be. I don't think they

2 were ever implemented. There were going to be a

3 wetland system to be built. I recommended it for one

4 of the lakes. Turns out that it wasn't built, but

5 that was because of cost and they chose to do other

6 things.

7 Q. Did you prepare the design for the

8 wetlands?

9 A. Only preliminary.

10 Q. What was the size approximately of the

11 waste water wetlands?

12 A. Oh, boy. About equal to the lake. About

13 100 acres or more.

14 Q. What were --

15 A. Again, that's -- I'm just -- that's a long

16 time ago.

17 Q. Sure. I understand.

18 Do you recall the level of treatment you

19 were trying to achieve? Were there specific water

20 quality criteria that were trying to be met?

21 A. There were not specific criteria. We were

22 trying to reduce the input of nutrients

23 substantially, but not to meet a specific criteria --

24 criterion.

25 Q. Okay. And you indicated there were two

1 lakes. Were these both in Fairfax?

2 A. They were nearby, within 20 miles of one

3 another. One was technically located near Reston and

4 the other one technically located near Springfield,

5 Virginia in northern Virginia.

6 Q. And were these deep water lakes?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Shallow?

9 A. Yes. Both reservoirs. There's no natural

10 lakes in Virginia. There is one natural lake in

11 Virginia.

12 Q. These were constructed reservoirs?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. And after you left Nusac where else

15 did you go?

16 A. I went to the National Science Foundation,

17 a federal agency.

18 Q. And what were your duties there?

19 A. I was an associate program director for the

20 ecology program.

21 Q. Is there a difference between ecology as an

22 area of study and expertise and just limnology?

23 A. No. Ecology is just a broader term that

24 includes both terrestrial and aquatic systems.

25 Q. And do you feel you have expertise in

1 terrestrial systems as well as aquatic systems?

2 A. General expertise.

3 Q. As an ecologist?

4 A. That is not my specialty, but as an

5 ecologist, yes.

6 Q. Okay. And what were your duties as an

7 associate program director?

8 A. To run a program of peer review and

9 decision making to distribute grant moneys in

10 ecology.

11 Q. What criteria did you apply at that time

12 with the NSF when you were making decisions as to

13 whether or not grants should be issued? What types

14 of things?

15 A. Scientific merit was the primary value we

16 were looking for followed by other subtle things such

17 as innovation, affirmative action occasionally, but

18 primary scientific merit, quality, excellence as

19 judged through a peer review system.

20 Q. Okay. What type of peer review system was

21 utilized?

22 A. Each --

23 Q. What was the process?

24 A. The individuals seeking funds wrote

25 proposals, very extensive, detailed. These were then

1 subjected to external review and panel review after

2 the external review. From that process would come a

3 suite of reviews, obviously both internal and

4 external, and a recommendation to the panel as to

5 what they think should be done with the proposal.

6 From that decisions were made on which ones would get

7 funded from that information.

8 Q. And what type of analysis was performed,

9 for example, after receiving back the external peer

10 reviews to reconcile comments?

11 A. That was my job, exactly, to reconcile

12 those comments and to work in association with a

13 program director, exactly, side by side sharing the

14 burden to write up critiques analyzing the

15 information given and making the final decision as to

16 which ones should receive funding. Approximately

17 twice as many would have merit as we had money.

18 Q. Naturally.

19 And in that reconciliation process what

20 criteria did you use? How would you decide to give

21 more weight, for example, to one reviewer's comments,

22 perhaps, than another if they were conflicting?

23 A. Looking for scientific substance in the

24 review, reconciling the review against what was

25 actually written in the proposal, reconciling

1 philosophic review from one of substance, looking for

2 the relative importance of the comments made versus

3 just the number of comments. There might be a review

4 of two sentences that would have more value and be

5 more a target in one of three pages, so my job and

6 that of the director was to seek substance and then

7 use that to make the decisions.

8 Q. And at the NSF when sending things out for

9 external peer review was there any determination as

10 to final conflicts of interest?

11 A. Absolutely.

12 Q. What --

13 A. It was a major -- of major importance. We

14 had a series of detailed protocol that we would use

15 in screening the applicants' record and reviewers

16 which crossed that record in any way were precluded.

17 That's a simple way of saying it. In other words,

18 any person from the same institution who had worked,

19 co-authored in any way, contacted extensively,

20 obviously, not met, but -- were eliminated from the

21 review process.

22 Q. How did you determine if -- I can

23 understand where that cross referencing would reveal

24 those who might perhaps have a bias in favor of the

25 applicant, but how did you determine those who might

1 have a bias because the applicant was contradicting

2 perhaps their views on a particular issue?

3 A. That is something that we had to discover

4 through knowledge of the field. It was part of our

5 job to try to find those problem areas and not to

6 allow people to be hammered or hurt, damaged by

7 someone who was simply giving a philosophic or

8 political review. When those were discovered during

9 the review process they were dealt with during the

10 panel discussion. So, in other words, all the

11 reviews were essentially upon the table. If we found

12 one sticking out like a sore thumb, that it was

13 obvious the person had some problem and it wasn't

14 justified, then that review would be eliminated from

15 the -- from the process. But then once one learns

16 the bias exists in that individual we wouldn't use

17 them again for a similar review.

18 Q. For that topic?

19 A. In other words, there's human learning and

20 expertise in using the peer review system.

21 Q. And you indicated scientific merit was

22 obviously the crucial test. Was that both as to the

23 methodology to be used, for example if it were an

24 experimental technique, as opposed to the information

25 that was to be gleaned at the end? How did you --

1 A. Those two were extrinsical because in basic

2 research you are almost always at the cutting edge of

3 technology. If it were measurable it would have

4 already been measured. It's a simple way of saying

5 it. So usually the scientist is proposing to move

6 the science ahead with some new approach, some new

7 way of measuring something out there and so we always

8 had to judge the methods along with the idea. A good

9 idea with poor methods is worthless. Good methods

10 with a weak idea is not good. So, either way -- so

11 the two go hand in hand, I guess.

12 Q. Let me ask you, because I just don't know.

13 But in that -- in a typical application for a grant

14 to conduct research how is that set up? Does the

15 applicant propose a hypothesis and then propose the

16 steps through which he's going to test his

17 hypothesis?

18 A. Exactly.

19 Q. So the application gives a lot of detail

20 with both --

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. -- the hypothesis and methodology.

23 Does it also predict the results?

24 A. No. It usually predicts the question that

25 will be answered and that question should be

1 interesting to one's peers, otherwise you are not

2 going to get high ratings, but if the answer is

3 obvious, then it will get poor ratings for

4 innovation. It's nothing new; we already know that

5 kind of -- get that kind of response. The

6 investigator has to walk a fine line. If it's too

7 innovative people won't trust it as being doable. If

8 it's not innovative enough, it will be boring. It's

9 a fine line.

10 Q. Did you ever have a situation where a grant

11 application was -- was actually seeking to prove a

12 conclusion and -- in other words, working backward,

13 you have the conclusion that apples are red and the

14 entire methodology is intended to prove that apples

15 are red, whether they are or not. Maybe they're

16 green. What I'm saying is is in this type of

17 process, did you ever have a situation where the

18 purpose of the grant was to prove something that

19 someone just said this is the way it's going to be

20 and therefore you figure out whatever you have to do

21 to back it up scientifically?

22 A. Not overtly, but, yes, that would happen.

23 Sometimes under reading between the lines, someone

24 was trying to prove an idea rather than disprove a

25 hypothesis. Usually they would get caught in that

1 process. Another scientist would not.

2 Q. That's one of the purposes of peer review?

3 A. The peer reviewer would say, wait a minute.

4 This person is not actually testing this hypothesis.

5 They're simply trying to gather more information

6 about red apples. We're not interested in that. We

7 think apples are red. Thank you very much. Don't

8 give him any money.

9 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. Does

10 the NSF fund that kind of a program?

11 A. Not unless there's some real, you know,

12 peer interest. There could be occasions. We had

13 some innovative different approaches to problems.

14 Q. Uh huh.

15 A. But they also had to be judged by other

16 scientists as being worthy of federal funding for

17 some reason or other and usually that kind of

18 approach would not receive favorable results.

19 Q. I wish all federal programs were done that

20 way.

21 Okay. Now, at the NSF you were associate

22 program director. Did you ever hold any other

23 position there?

24 A. No. That was my only position there. It

25 is -- that is a position that is considered to be

1 permanent and it is one which -- there's no direct

2 career path. It is just considered to be -- you grow

3 within that position. You can get promoted. There

4 are occasionally openings higher in the foundation,

5 but the vast majority of permanent employees are at

6 that program level. It's like being a field colonel

7 and if you want to make the jump to the next step,

8 it's a completely different kind of jump.

9 Q. So what you were doing is basically what

10 the NSF does?

11 A. That's right. We're the contact. We run

12 the whole system. We ran -- I don't do it any more --

13 the whole system that distributes the grant moneys,

14 that's right.

15 Q. And you left the NSF to come to the South

16 Florida Water Management District?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. What year was that? I have forgotten.

19 A. Almost exactly two years ago. January 1st

20 of '90.

21 Q. Before we leave the NSF, other than -- you

22 described some work you had at Nusac where you were

23 doing basically diagnostic studies of a water body

24 and its pollution impacts and possible remedies.

25 Other than that experience did you have any

1 experience with other projects where pollution

2 problems in a water body were being tested and

3 resolved in some way?

4 A. Yes. On my own time I continued to be a

5 consulting ecologist and I had a series of clients

6 where I dealt with lake management problems usually

7 involving, if not always involving, nutrient

8 contamination. My longest client was the City of

9 Reston, Virginia. I think for eight years I dealt

10 with them.

11 Q. And were these -- with the City of Reston

12 were you dealing primarily with artificial lakes?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. I'm trying to remember. I have been to

15 Reston. Isn't it a model city that uses a system of

16 berms and lakes to handle its stormwater?

17 A. Exactly.

18 Q. So was your role making sure that system

19 worked?

20 A. To monitor the health of the lakes is what

21 they hired me for. Not actually to do watershed

22 management. Look at the lakes; tell us what they're

23 doing. That's what I did.

24 Q. What criteria did you use to determine the

25 system was doing okay?

1 A. Monitored water quality, phosphorus levels,

2 occasionally nitrogen; look at chlorophyl levels in

3 the water transparency and wrote a report at the end

4 of each year summarizing those data and comparing

5 them to other lakes primarily through Carlson's

6 Trophic State Index, commonly used index of water

7 quality.

8 Q. Does the Carlson's Index apply to all water

9 bodies?

10 A. No. It was designed for lakes and it has

11 been used experimentally in other systems, but it was

12 not designed for other systems.

13 Q. When you say other systems, what other

14 systems experimentally, to your knowledge, has it

15 been used for?

16 A. I personally have not seen the papers, but

17 I have heard that it has been used for wetlands, but

18 I have not personally read that. It has been used

19 for reservoirs, which it was not designed for. It

20 was designed for natural lakes and there are problems

21 with that and there have been papers written about

22 those problems of using that index for reservoirs.

23 Q. Did you --

24 A. So it could be used, but it has to be used

25 with caution.

1 Q. Did you do the water quality sampling

2 yourself?

3 A. Yes. I went out on the lake in a boat and

4 enjoyed that very much.

5 Q. I bet you did. That's a nice spot.

6 Did you do the lab analysis?

7 A. No. That was done either by contract lab

8 or university depending upon which year.

9 Q. About how big are these lakes?

10 A. They're fairly small. They range from

11 about 30 acres to 50 acres.

12 Q. And did you also take -- do any study as to

13 the levels of the various parameters in the inflows

14 to these lakes?

15 A. No.

16 Q. So you were sampling out in the ambient

17 lake itself?

18 A. That's correct. Did not do stormwater

19 sampling or inflow sampling.

20 Q. Do you recall what the P levels would be on

21 an annual average? Phosphorus levels. I'm sorry.

22 A. Total phosphorus would be between 15 and 20

23 micrograms per liter.

24 Q. You'll have to translate that into parts

25 per million or parts per billion.

1 A. 15 to 20 parts per billion, slightly more

2 in some cases. I think the most would be 23 or

3 something like that, but it's in that ball park.

4 That's total phosphorus.

5 Q. And when you would apply the Carlson's

6 Index as to the trophic state, how does Carlson's

7 determine when a lake is starting to become

8 imbalanced, its trophic state is changing?

9 A. The Carlson's Index runs from 0 to 100 and

10 it was set up based on a suite of lakes ranging from

11 very pure lakes to very polluted lakes or very

12 nutrient enriched lakes and it is not designed for

13 switch points. It is designed for relative

14 comparison. Now, people use it commonly to say

15 Carlson's Index is at this level and this lake is

16 eutrophic, but I happened to know him personally. He

17 did not design the index for that. As a matter of

18 fact, he was trying to get away from that. He was

19 trying to come up with a scale that covered the whole

20 range and people have turned right back around and

21 they use the scale and then they put a label on it.

22 But that wasn't the intent. These particular lakes

23 were in the middle of the scale. They ranged in the

24 40s and low 50s if I remember right.

25 Q. You indicated -- well, you indicated you

1 had never been deposed before. Have you ever

2 testified in any proceedings before?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you consider yourself -- you've

5 indicated some areas that you had courses in during

6 the course of your study to become an ecologist. Do

7 you consider yourself a limnologist?

8 A. (Nods.)

9 Q. Do you feel you have any special expertise,

10 for example, in -- are you -- and I'm probably not

11 pronouncing this right -- algaeologist, a person who

12 studies algae?

13 A. No. I don't consider myself a specialist

14 in phycology.

15 Q. That's it. I knew that. Thanks.

16 That's p-h-y.

17 How about statistical analyses?

18 A. Just general knowledge. I'm not a

19 statistician.

20 Q. As part of being an ecologist?

21 A. Everybody has to know some, but, no, I'm

22 not a specialist in it.

23 Q. What about water chemistry analysis?

24 A. No. Again, same thing. Just general

25 training.

1 Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in

2 limnology?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Other than limnology is there any other

5 field which you feel you have special expertise in

6 beyond being an ecologist?

7 A. At the NSF my specialty was community

8 ecology, so instead of focusing on aquatic or

9 terrestrial, focused on functioning of natural

10 communities and that's what your program really

11 emphasized; some forests, grasslands, soil

12 communities, any assemblage of organisms and how it

13 is structured and how it functions, so that was an

14 area in which I specialized in and most of the grant

15 proposals were to work on bird communities, worm

16 communities, ant communities, etc., etc., groups of

17 organisms in different places.

18 Q. As part of the grants review process did

19 you have to review the financial feasibility of the

20 study? In other words, whether the amount they were

21 asking for was how much it was really going to cost?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. What kind of criteria did you apply in that

24 area?

25 A. Reasonableness. In other words, I mean

1 when you see a thousand proposals per year, it's

2 fairly easy to come up with what is normal cost for

3 doing a particular kind of study. But that's part of

4 the peer review process. In other words, other

5 scientists did see the budgets of these projects and

6 could comment upon in the review as to whether or not

7 they were reasonable and they would do so.

8 Q. You indicated you were a private consultant

9 while you were at the NSF as well. From the time you

10 left U Cal until you came to South Florida Water

11 Management District, what, if any, experience did you

12 have specifically with what I would characterize as

13 swamp systems, southern swamp systems? Have you

14 participated in any projects dealing with swamps?

15 A. No, I did not.

16 Q. Now, we've gone over your whole life.

17 Have you -- I'm sure you have published.

18 Do you have a list of those publications -- of any

19 publications somewhere?

20 A. Yes. They're on my resume.

21 Q. Do you have a resume with you by any

22 chance? I didn't see it in the box.

23 MS. BIRCH: That wasn't requested, but I do

24 have a copy.

25 MS. KAVANAUGH: We can just -- we'll get

1 that later.

2 THE WITNESS: I personally didn't bring it

3 with me.

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. Okay. Have you received any awards or

6 honors for your work in your field?

7 A. Yes. I received an award from the National

8 Science Foundation for outstanding work. I forget

9 what they called it. Outstanding performance or

10 something like that. The most direct award I

11 received was from the North American Lake Management

12 Society which was their most -- they give one per

13 year and it's called the Secchi Award which is

14 something only an aquatic scientist would know, but,

15 yes, it's a very prestigious award for outstanding

16 service to the field.

17 Q. Secchi Award?

18 A. S-e-c-c-h-i. He was an Italian in the

19 Papal Navy and he got bored to death and he came up

20 with a way to measure transparency in water because

21 he was bored.

22 Q. Now, you are a member of that association,

23 are you not?

24 A. Still am, that's correct. North American

25 Lake Management Society.

1 Q. I seem to recall, somewhere in the sea of

2 documents that I've looked at, you were involved with

3 peer reviews for articles for their publication.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Could you tell me a little more about that?

6 If you were a lawyer, you'd be the editor. Were you

7 the articles' editor?

8 A. I was the journal editor for a journal

9 called Lake and Reservoir Management for a period of,

10 I believe, seven years from, I believe, '85 to '92

11 until I came to -- maybe it was '91, but it was a

12 period of seven years.

13 Q. Did you --

14 A. At that point I was responsible for, as you

15 said, pier reviewing the articles.

16 Q. Did you send them out to other scientists?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. You do essentially the same function --

19 A. Same.

20 Q. -- as you did at the NSF?

21 A. Made the decisions.

22 Q. Reconciled the peer reviews and decided?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Was there a panel involved in that too?

25 A. No. At one time there was an editorial

1 board that would help me and act as the peer

2 reviewers, but I would still be the final decision

3 maker on the articles.

4 Q. Okay. Any other associations that you

5 belong to?

6 A. The International Society of Limnology,

7 Association of Biological Scientists, American

8 Society of Limnology and Oceanography. I think

9 that's all. I may be missing one. That's all I can

10 remember off the top of my head.

11 Q. Have you held offices in any of those?

12 A. Just the editor, editorial position.

13 Q. Okay. Now, two years ago you came to the

14 South Florida Water Management District?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And what is your position? Well, let me

17 ask you this. What was the position that you took

18 when you came to the District?

19 A. Division director for Environmental

20 Sciences Division.

21 Q. Okay. And what was your understanding of

22 what your duties would be?

23 A. To provide guidance and supervision for a

24 group of approximately 20 environmental scientists at

25 the District.

1 Q. When you say 20 environmental scientists,

2 are they all within your division or are they spread

3 in other divisions?

4 A. They were within the division. The

5 division no longer exists as that work unit.

6 Q. Okay. And what was the function of this

7 division? I mean what did it do?

8 A. To do research and to provide guidance on

9 environmental matters in South Florida for the

10 District.

11 Q. Do you recall who was in the division? I

12 mean, for example, was Marguerite Koch, was she part

13 of that division?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Nancy Urban?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Steve Davis?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Joseph Koebel?

20 A. He was hired after that division no longer

21 existed, but he did work for me for a time, yes.

22 Q. What about Nicholas Aumen?

23 A. Yes. I hired him. He no longer is in the

24 division.

25 Q. And when you say provide guidance I'm

1 trying to understand. Did you perform a function

2 similar to that that you performed at the NSF for the

3 District?

4 A. I have been asked on occasion to do peer

5 reviews for various projects, yes.

6 Q. Well --

7 A. But my primary job was not that, no.

8 Primary job was to provide administrative guidance,

9 managerial guidance for a group of people to do

10 science work, to do budgeting, to provide supervision

11 and scientific guidance.

12 Q. Were you involved at all in the decision

13 making process as to which research projects would be

14 conducted?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And how did that -- well, let's cut the

17 chase here. You say that unit no longer exists.

18 When did it change?

19 A. Approximately a year ago.

20 Q. And what is it called now?

21 A. The Research Department has been

22 reorganized into geographic -- into a geographic

23 split and there is now a division that deals with

24 Lake Okeechobee northward and another division that

25 does research on Lake Okeechobee southward,

1 Everglades, basically, and I run a third division

2 that is not geographically oriented that is to

3 provide support for the scientists in the other two

4 by helping them with publication and peer review and

5 providing guidance on how to write papers, how to

6 design projects effectively and we run a program of

7 expert assistance, providing outside people to our

8 staff to assist them when they need assistance.

9 Q. Okay. And when you say outside people does

10 that mean outside consultants?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. So I understand, you do not oversee the

13 Lake Okeechobee research group, is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Who oversees that now?

16 A. Nicholas Aumen recently was promoted to

17 that position about two months ago.

18 Q. Who held that before he did?

19 A. Shawn Sculley held it from the time that it

20 was formed until two months ago.

21 Q. And then we have the Everglades group, Lake

22 Okeechobee south?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Who heads up that?

25 A. Thomas Fontaine, Dr. Fontaine.

1 Q. How long has Dr. Fontaine held that

2 position?

3 A. Since the reorganization approximately a

4 year ago.

5 Q. Okay. And then your third group?

6 A. Research Appraisal Division.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. Research Appraisal.

9 Q. Now, do you -- tell me more about exactly

10 what it is that you do. Do you, for example, decide

11 if outside consultants are needed?

12 A. Yes. When a request is made -- you are a

13 staff member. You perceive that you need help. You

14 write out a request form; comes to me and I say, no,

15 you can't have that done. You can do it on your own.

16 It's not reasonable. Or I say, yes, it is

17 reasonable. Let's find you some help and we have a

18 process that we've gone through through an RFQ,

19 Request For Qualifications, and we have a pool of

20 experts that we can then use to help that staff

21 person.

22 Q. And when you say you have a pool of

23 experts, are these ones that have been identified as

24 potential contractors?

25 A. That is correct. Through the RFQ process

1 they have been identified as qualified to provide

2 assistance. Their resumes have been reviewed and

3 screened and, yes, you are qualified as an aquatic

4 ecologist or chemist or whatever.

5 Q. They haven't been necessarily hired?

6 A. And there is no implication that they'll

7 be. It's only that they submitted their credentials.

8 Q. Is there a list of those somewhere?

9 A. Sure.

10 Q. We're going to want that too.

11 So do you make any decisions unilaterally

12 that one of the other groups needs outside consulting

13 assistance?

14 A. No.

15 Q. So your division now is basically -- I'm

16 not trying to put words in your mouth. Is it correct

17 to say that it's a resource for the other ongoing

18 research projects at the District?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Who has the authority to ask for outside

21 consultants?

22 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

23 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

24 Q. Who at the District has the authority to

25 make a request? For example --

1 A. To make a request to me?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. The protocol that we have set up is that

4 the staff member needing assistance gets the approval

5 of his or her division director and that then comes

6 to me as an approved request and then I in turn have

7 the authority to say yea or nay to that.

8 Q. Okay. So, for example, using Marguerite

9 Koch as an example, she would make a request. I'm

10 assuming she is assigned to the Everglades group.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. She'd make a request to Dr. Fontaine?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. He would write off on it and then it would

15 come to you?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. After that if you decide yes, we need this,

18 does it then go into a formal contract proposal to

19 the board?

20 A. No, it does not.

21 Q. What happens then?

22 A. The RFQ process allows us to issue a

23 purchase order for a restricted amount of money for a

24 short period of time to get that work done. That's

25 the whole purpose of the RFQ process, to allow that

1 contractual relationship to exist.

2 Q. Has it got a cap on it of some kind as to

3 how much can be authorized?

4 A. Yes. 50,000 per year per person. In other

5 words, I might give one individual ten purchase

6 orders, but they cannot exceed 50,000 or you have to

7 drop back and go to a contracting process.

8 Q. I see what you are saying. Okay.

9 How many persons are on the list?

10 A. Approximately 65 at this moment and there

11 is another RFQ being processed as we speak which will

12 expand the list.

13 Q. Now, the RFQ, Request For Qualifications,

14 is that noticed somewhere? How does this get out to

15 the scientific community?

16 A. It is -- standard contracting procedures

17 are followed. It is advertised in several local

18 newspapers and it is sent to a number of individuals

19 that are identified as potentials, just from

20 reference lists, from any source. We find people

21 that are possible candidates and throw the RFQ at

22 them and see if they will respond.

23 Q. What's the one that's about to go out?

24 What are you seeking potential expertise in?

25 A. We have 21 areas identified which basically

1 cover all environmental science issues at the

2 District. Just kind of a shopping list, but we also

3 have identified six or seven areas where we

4 particularly need help. Not where we need help, but

5 where we particularly need to improve our expert

6 pool. So, for example, we might have very few people

7 who are hydrodynamicists so we are trying to get a

8 few more of those folks into the pool so that we can

9 use them if we need them.

10 Q. What are the six or seven areas that you

11 focused on as being areas where the District could

12 use a little bit more outside expertise?

13 A. I can remember a few of them off the top of

14 my head. Right now estuarine ecology, hydrodynamic

15 modeling, best management practices in agriculture,

16 and I believe that's all I can remember at this

17 moment. There's three or four others.

18 MS. BIRCH: Could you read the answer back.

19 (Thereupon, a portion of the record

20 was read by the reporter.)

21 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

22 Q. What's hydrodynamic modeling?

23 A. Movement of water across the landscape.

24 Q. All right. When you came to the South

25 Florida Water Management District, which you

1 indicated was about two years ago, which would put it --

2 in fact, I think I remember --

3 A. January of '90.

4 Q. I think I remember your first meeting.

5 A. Uh huh.

6 Q. At the time you were hired were you told

7 you would have any participation in the Everglades

8 SWIM planning process which was then ongoing?

9 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

10 MS. KAVANAUGH: Could you tell me your

11 specific objection so I can fix it?

12 Wait just a second.

13 MS. BIRCH: I think the question assumes

14 that he was told what -- something about what

15 exactly he was going to be doing. I think what

16 you are trying to ask him is when he came to the

17 District, what was his job or what was his

18 function. I don't know.

19 MS. KAVANAUGH: I asked him that and he

20 indicated it was to provide managerial guidance

21 to the 20 environmental scientists.

22 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

23 Q. What I want to know is were you given --

24 perhaps that's a better way as opposed to told --

25 were you given any responsibilities with regard to

1 the Surface Water Management and Improvement Act

2 process, the SWIM process?

3 A. Not directly, but in support. In other

4 words, I was not given direct planning responsibility

5 or authority for that planning process, no. As a

6 matter of fact, it was in another department, the

7 Planning Department.

8 Q. Beginning in January of 1990, did you have

9 any involvement, direct involvement in the Everglades

10 SWIM planning process which was ongoing at that time?

11 A. In a review capacity, in a support

12 capacity, yes.

13 Q. When you say in a review capacity, were you

14 part of the process or part of the group, rather,

15 reviewing the different drafts of the Everglades SWIM

16 plan?

17 A. Yes. And primarily through my people. In

18 other words, people within the division. Yeah. They

19 were the primary reviewers of various aspects of it.

20 Q. And did they in turn convey that to you?

21 I'm trying to understand.

22 A. Under some circumstances they did, but

23 often when they did it, they were asked

24 independently. They would go to Marguerite Koch. I

25 would look at that and/or the other thing. Sometimes

1 I was involved. Sometimes I was not involved in that

2 process.

3 Q. Were you involved in the drafting of the

4 Everglades SWIM Plan at all at this time? We're

5 talking now about the 1990 drafting process.

6 A. No.

7 Q. And when you say you sometimes were

8 involved in review, what types of things would you be

9 reviewing, you personally?

10 A. Miscellaneous documents where a scientific

11 opinion might be needed and I say miscellaneous only

12 because I honestly can't remember a specific at this

13 moment. But when one comes up I'll point it out.

14 Q. Were you asked, for example, to provide any

15 critique as to the restoration strategies that were

16 being drafted? Again we're talking about 1990.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Were you asked to review any of the

19 findings in that plan as to the environmental impacts

20 the plan was supposed to be addressing in 1990?

21 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

22 MS. KAVANAUGH: Could you tell me your

23 specific objection again so I can fix it?

24 MS. BIRCH: Findings.

25 MS. KAVANAUGH: You don't like the use of

1 the word, "findings."

2 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

3 Q. Were you ever asked to review the

4 statements of facts set out in the 1990 version of

5 the SWIM Plan as to their accuracy, the accuracy of

6 the literature cites that occurred in the plan in

7 support of those statements?

8 A. For the 1990 version the answer would be no

9 because that was done prior. Most of that was done

10 prior to my arrival at the District. So I arrived

11 when it was already an assembled document.

12 Q. And were you -- do you recall having at any

13 time -- again, we're talking about the 1990 version.

14 And I guess for clarity sake, do you recall whether

15 there was, in fact, a draft plan approved by the

16 District in September of 1990?

17 A. I can't recall the timing.

18 Q. Well, let me ask you this. To your

19 knowledge, was there an earlier approved draft of a

20 SWIM plan other than the one which was adopted this

21 past year in March?

22 A. Yes. There was an earlier version. When I

23 arrived there was a version, yes.

24 Q. Then, for clarity, when I say 1990 SWIM

25 Plan that's the one I'm talking about.

1 A. Yes. There was a draft SWIM Plan when I

2 arrived.

3 Q. Were you ever asked to review any of the --

4 conduct any kind of a peer review as to the

5 underlying data used to formulate the 1990 SWIM Plan?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Were you ever asked to conduct any kind of

8 a review as to the research programs the 1990 SWIM

9 Plan contemplated?

10 A. Not in the plan itself, but related to it,

11 yes. It's a little hard to answer it.

12 Q. For example, the 1990 SWIM Plan

13 contemplated a Water Management Area. They called

14 them WMAs.

15 A. Right.

16 Q. I believe one of them is now known as the

17 ENR or the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project.

18 A. Right.

19 Q. Did you get involved with the planning for

20 the any of the WMAs that were -- including the ENR

21 Project that were included in the 1990 draft the of

22 the SWIM Plan?

23 A. Yes. The ENR Project was within my

24 division.

25 Q. Okay.

1 A. I was not involved with it as part of the

2 1990 plan. I was involved with it from that point

3 on. In other words, when I arrived it became a

4 project within my work unit, and, yes, I was involved

5 in it.

6 Q. So you weren't involved in putting it into

7 the plan, you were involved in what was going to be

8 necessary to carry it out, is that correct?

9 A. That is correct. In other words, it had an

10 existence when I arrived.

11 Q. Do you recall any comments you made on the

12 1990 SWIM Plan at all? I want to say comments. I

13 mean critiques, suggestions for revision.

14 A. No. I really do not. If I run across them

15 later I'll be glad to point out that there was, but,

16 to my knowledge, I did not specifically critique that

17 plan or specifically have input to it.

18 Q. When you took the position with the

19 District, was -- I understand you've indicated what

20 you were hired to do, but were you also given any

21 specific assignments with regard, as I say, to the

22 Everglades SWIM planning, either its process,

23 developing the plan itself or implementing its

24 programs? Were you told you were going to have

25 specific assignments related to the Everglades SWIM

1 Plan, whatever it ultimately turned out to be?

2 A. Only as related to research which might be

3 needed.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. Research or monitoring at that time.

6 Research or monitoring that might be needed.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. In other words, falling within the

9 expertise of the people in my group.

10 Q. These were the environmental scientists?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Were there environmental scientists

13 assigned in the other divisions?

14 A. Yes, there were.

15 Q. There were?

16 A. There were and there are. Within the

17 Planning Department, for example, there are

18 environmental scientists.

19 Q. Is what they do different than from what

20 the environmental scientists in your group did?

21 A. They were not involved in field research.

22 It would be scientists who were planners.

23 Q. Were you given any assignments with regard

24 to water quality monitoring at that time, reviewing

25 their current system, critiquing any --

1 A. Parts of it, yeah. Yes, that would fall

2 within the expertise of the division we would be

3 asked to comment upon.

4 Q. Is there a separate division that conducts

5 the water quality sampling?

6 A. There were. Now there isn't. There was at

7 that time a water quality monitoring division called

8 the Water Quality Division.

9 Q. Who did that?

10 A. Tom Fontaine originally headed that. That

11 has now been divided into the two groups, Okeechobee,

12 Everglades.

13 Q. Okay. Now, we're going to get to the end

14 of -- chronologically the end of 1990.

15 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

16 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

17 Q. We were talking a few minutes ago about

18 your involvement with the 1990 version of the

19 Everglades SWIM Plan and you had indicated, I think,

20 in your testimony -- and correct me if I'm misstating

21 this -- you were assigned to the Everglades Nutrient

22 Removal Project, also known to all of us as the ENR

23 Project, is that correct?

24 A. Yes. It fell within my division.

25 Q. And what was your understanding of the

1 purpose of that project? What was it to accomplish

2 at that time in 1990?

3 A. It was to determine the conditions of

4 nutrient removal for Everglades vegetation.

5 Q. When you say conditions for nutrient

6 removal for Everglades vegetation, was the purpose of

7 the ENR, as you understood it to be at that time, to

8 determine nutrient removal processes in natural

9 Everglades vegetation?

10 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

11 MS. KAVANAUGH: What is your specific

12 objection, counsel?

13 MS. BIRCH: What do you mean by, "natural"?

14 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

15 Q. Tell me what you mean by Everglades

16 vegetation.

17 A. Vegetation which would invade the area

18 naturally, the area of the ENR naturally as opposed

19 to planted vegetation, which may not occur if it

20 weren't planted by man.

21 Q. Okay. I'm just trying to understand what

22 the ENR Project was. Was its purpose to study the

23 nutrient cycle in a natural Everglades system?

24 A. As -- yes. If one includes vegetation

25 communities in an enriched area as part of natural

1 Everglades vegetation.

2 Q. I guess what I'm asking you is was its

3 purpose to test the Everglades natural nutrient cycle

4 or was its purpose to determine if Everglades type

5 wetlands could be used to remove nutrients from

6 surface water? Was it a waste water management

7 system originally?

8 A. I'm only hesitating to be exact. My memory

9 of the project at that time -- I have to be careful.

10 Remember, we're in 1990 now.

11 Q. I know.

12 A. Because the project has changed and been

13 revised, it was designed, as the title says, to

14 determine nutrient removal capacity in the area of

15 the northern Everglades and to do science to

16 determine the reasons for the nutrient removal.

17 Q. When you say northern Everglades is there a

18 distinction in the ecosystem between the northern

19 Everglades or the middle Everglades or the southern

20 Everglades?

21 A. Yes. There are different soils and

22 vegetation types and there were historically in

23 various portions of the Everglades, of course,

24 included within the EAA today with peat soils.

25 Q. And are you familiar with the term,

1 Everglades Protection Area?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And is there a portion of the Everglades

4 Protection Area which is considered northern

5 Everglades habitat?

6 A. If we're just talking about peat soils,

7 yes, it would be the EAA. If that's a definition of

8 northern Everglades. We can draw the line anywhere

9 we want to and talk about what's included in that,

10 but relative to the ENR Project, which is what I was

11 referencing, that is the EAA area which is underlined

12 by peat soils. That's what I meant.

13 Q. Is the Water Conservation Area 1, is that

14 part of the same northern Everglades ecosystem?

15 A. Water Conservation Area 1, the Loxahatchee

16 Refuge, is a different -- has a different history and

17 it is not the same as the EAA soils and water

18 quality.

19 Q. When you say the EAA do you mean Everglades

20 Agricultural Area?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And when you are discussing the EAA ecology

23 as being northern Everglades, do you mean

24 historically before the farming or are you speaking

25 of the EAA as it is now?

1 A. The EAA as it is now, which can't be

2 completely separated from the history since it

3 wouldn't be there without the peat that was laid down

4 by northern Everglades vegetation.

5 Q. What I'm trying to understand is: Was the

6 ENR Project -- what was -- what was your

7 understanding -- that's what I'm trying to find out --

8 of the purpose of the ENR Project? Was its purpose

9 to get scientific information to support the

10 construction of wetland treatment areas? Was its

11 purpose to get science to try and figure out what was

12 happening out there? I mean what was its purpose?

13 A. Its purpose was to get science concerning

14 nutrient removal by wetlands vegetation and therefore

15 that science could be applied to the development of a

16 treatment system of some sort, yes.

17 Q. When you say wetlands vegetation was it

18 contemplated in 1990 that the wetlands vegetation

19 would be of a specific type?

20 A. At times in the development of ENR, various

21 types of vegetation were considered and I do not

22 remember the timing of the proposal of various

23 treatments, so I can't answer that exactly, but there

24 were -- there have been various vegetation types

25 considered during the evolution of the ENR Project.

1 Q. Was one of the -- was the ENR originally

2 conceived to determine the threshold level of

3 phosphorus that wetlands system of the Everglades

4 type could withstand without changing its vegetative

5 type?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. Was the original ENR Project

8 conceived to achieve a treatment level to a specific

9 concentration of phosphorus?

10 A. No.

11 The original?

12 Q. 1990 we're talking about.

13 Was the original project, the ENR Project

14 as it existed in 1990 to be used to develop

15 information in order to size wetlands for the

16 treatment of waste water?

17 A. No. That was not the intent, however,

18 there is no way of separating out quantitative

19 scientific information on nutrient removal from

20 sizing, so there would be no way to prevent it. If

21 you honestly knew the information, yes, you could use

22 it for sizing, but, no, that was not at that time a

23 design element of the ENR Project, to my knowledge.

24 Q. What were the design criteria for the ENR

25 Project if you remember?

1 A. In 1990 I believe at that time there were a

2 series of cells that were set up which were to be

3 monitored for chemical and physical processes

4 occurring as water moved through the cells and then

5 various experimental designs have been applied to

6 that basic design in the last two years, as the

7 project we know today evolved, so and I honestly

8 don't remember exactly what the design configuration

9 was at the time you are referencing.

10 Q. Were you involved in the design?

11 A. The original design, no. It did exist when

12 I arrived at the District.

13 Q. Do you know who did design the original

14 project?

15 A. The very original one, Steve Davis would

16 have had a strong oversight role in it and Marguerite

17 Koch would have had a role in it and the very

18 original design would have been -- would have

19 involved my predecessor, Walt Dineen, as the

20 overseer, as the division director in charge.

21 Q. Did you review the ENR Project when you

22 came -- when you took the position, did you -- were

23 you presented with this and said, Here, Dr. Redfield,

24 what do you think of this?

25 A. Not in that way, no.

1 Q. What exactly were you asked to do if you

2 remember?

3 A. I was asked to continue the process of

4 planning and development for the project in

5 cooperation with the engineers who were responsible

6 for, of course, the physical aspects of the project.

7 Q. That would be Mr. Schattner and his group?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Were the -- did you have any input at that

10 time regarding the ENR Project from federal

11 government agencies?

12 A. Not that I know about. Input. I'm trying

13 to think.

14 Q. For example, were federal consultants or

15 agency representatives present in any meetings where

16 the ENR Project was discussed that you can remember?

17 A. Not that I can remember. Obviously, we had

18 a lawsuit going on at that time and there were

19 very -- there were constraints on any interaction,

20 but I cannot remember a time in 1990 when federal --

21 there was federal representation.

22 Q. And when you first came on board at the

23 District were you given any responsibilities relating

24 to the lawsuit at all?

25 A. No.

1 Q. You were lucky.

2 We're now moving towards the end of 1990.

3 And you indicated earlier you don't remember exactly

4 when the 1990 plan was approved, but I'll represent

5 to you it was in September of 1990.

6 When, if ever, during the end of 1990 did

7 you become aware of any desire to change the then

8 approved September 1990 SWIM Plan?

9 A. I really don't know.

10 Q. During that time frame did you become aware

11 of any effort to change it?

12 A. I don't know what you mean by change. I

13 really can't respond to the question.

14 Q. Okay. Were you invited to or did you have

15 any participation at all in the settlement

16 negotiations?

17 A. No.

18 Q. You did not attend any meetings?

19 A. Did not attend any meetings. I was not

20 asked to and was not given any responsibility in the

21 settlement negotiations at all.

22 Q. Do you recall any meetings of technical

23 staff, in-house District technical staff where the

24 settlement demands of the United States, for example --

25 and I'll give you one example -- the 50 parts per

1 billion which has now been adopted as the interim

2 discharge phosphorus standard into the Refuge, where

3 that was discussed?

4 MS. DONLAN: Object to the form.

5 MS. KAVANAUGH: Give me your specific

6 objection.

7 MS. DONLAN: As to settlement demands of

8 the United States. Improper characterization.

9 MS. KAVANAUGH: You don't like the term,

10 "demands."

11 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

12 Q. Where the proposal to adopt a 50 parts per

13 billion standard was discussed.

14 MS. BIRCH: Just like to make a standing

15 objection regarding the relevancy of any of the

16 settlement negotiations, settlement process. I

17 object that it does not and will not lead to any

18 admissible discovery.

19 MS. KAVANAUGH: As you know, the hearing

20 officer's already ruled on that and, in fact,

21 has given us permission to explore this area,

22 but your objection is noted.

23 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

24 Q. Again, I'm asking you to think back down

25 the lane of memory here to early 1991 and do you

1 recall attending any meetings? And individuals who

2 would be present would be persons like Dr. Elzerman,

3 Mr. MacVicar, Mr. Federico, where the proposal which

4 was on the table, including the 50 parts per billion

5 interim standard for the Refuge, the ambient standard

6 for the Refuge, the ambient standard for the Park was

7 discussed?

8 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the

9 question.

10 MS. KAVANAUGH: Could you give me your

11 specific objection, counsel?

12 MS. BIRCH: You are asking a compound

13 question.

14 MS. KAVANAUGH: Well, I don't think I am.

15 MS. BIRCH: Are you asking him does he

16 recall specific people being present at the

17 meeting or are you asking him does he recall a

18 specific number, a target being discussed?

19 MS. KAVANAUGH: I asked if he attended any

20 meetings where the proposals for these standards

21 were discussed and, in order to refresh his

22 memory, I described some of the individuals who

23 might have been present at the meeting.

24 THE WITNESS: I knew of meetings as a

25 secondary, you know, indirect matter of hearsay,

1 but I did not participate in the meetings nor

2 was I asked to.

3 As you are jogging my memory, the only

4 memory I have is incidentally attending a

5 meeting for an hour or so out of interest in

6 which some of those players were present, but

7 they were not discussing anything, any of the

8 issues that you mentioned. I don't -- frankly,

9 I don't remember what they were discussing, but

10 I remember that MacVicar was there and several

11 other people and I don't remember why I walked

12 into it, but I did; just listened to the

13 discussion for awhile, but I did not play a

14 direct role in the subjects that you have

15 mentioned. In other words, I was not asked for

16 my opinion, nor did I give it.

17 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

18 Q. So if your name is listed in the

19 handwritten notes of an individual as being present

20 at a meeting, at this point what you are saying, from

21 your independent recollection, you don't recall

22 attending such meetings?

23 A. If I walked into the meeting, as you

24 mentioned, I could have been listed by someone in

25 their handwritten notes. That's fair enough. But my

1 presence was incidental and I did not contribute to

2 the meeting. I only remember that one. If it

3 happened to be two, fine.

4 Q. Were you ever given any instructions

5 whatsoever as an employee of the District as to your

6 ability to discuss the Everglades SWIM Plan, once the

7 settlement negotiations had begun, with individuals

8 who were not part of the settlement negotiations?

9 A. No. Because I had no direct involvement.

10 There was no reason to give me any instructions on

11 that. I had nothing to contribute.

12 Q. Who's Dr. Allen Elzerman?

13 A. First of all, by the way, I knew him prior

14 to him coming here, so -- he is a chemist from

15 Clemson.

16 Q. And during 1991 was he a consultant to the

17 District?

18 A. I don't know the date, but he has been a

19 consultant to the District. I don't know. I believe

20 he was during that period of time. But that's

21 guessing on my part. I had no direct role in his

22 contracting.

23 Q. A --

24 A. I don't know whether he is at this moment.

25 He has been, yes, because I've seen him at the

1 District. I know he was there.

2 Q. Is he a consultant now, to your knowledge?

3 A. I do not know if he is at this moment. As

4 I say, I do know he has been. Whether or not there's

5 a contractual relationship today, I don't know.

6 Q. Do you have, in your current role where you

7 do research appraisal, do you play any role at all in

8 the District retention of outside consultants to

9 assist them in the Everglades controversy, the

10 litigation?

11 A. Yes.

12 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

13 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

14 Q. Do you have any oversight role in the

15 District's hiring of consultants in the Everglades

16 litigation?

17 A. Not oversight.

18 Q. Do you have any participation in the

19 selection of consultants?

20 A. Advisory.

21 Q. Advisory, okay.

22 The reason -- that's why I'm asking. You

23 don't know if Dr. Elzerman is a consultant yet.

24 Would not his being a consultant have been part of

25 your job?

1 A. No. No. No.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. He can be used as a consultant by any

4 department in the District having nothing to do with

5 me. So, in other words, I'm saying scientific

6 consultants do not come through my division

7 necessarily. Some do. For example, the Planning

8 Department has a whole series of consultants. I

9 don't even know who they are.

10 Q. So the Planning Department has the ability

11 to hire consultants on their own, is that correct?

12 A. (Nods.)

13 Q. Is that a yes?

14 A. That's a yes.

15 Q. Got you.

16 Who makes the decision as to hiring those

17 consultants to the Planning Department, if you know?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. Do they have a peer review process similar

20 to -- an appraisal process similar to what you use in

21 selecting consultants from your list?

22 A. Not to my knowledge.

23 Q. You indicated you knew Dr. Elzerman before

24 he -- before you came to the District. What is his

25 area of expertise?

1 A. Aquatic chemistry, particularly water

2 quality, QAQC.

3 Q. You indicated that you had no involvement

4 whatsoever in the development of the 50 parts per

5 billion standard. Did you have any involvement in

6 the development of any of the standards, the ambient

7 standards which were ultimately embodied in the

8 settlement agreement and the current Everglades SWIM

9 Plan?

10 A. No. No involvement.

11 Q. And were you asked to critique or review

12 the current version of the Everglades SWIM Plan?

13 A. Yes. As part of a mass distribution of

14 that plan, but, no, not in any specific instruction

15 or -- that I remember, but, yes, I have been given

16 the plan. I've had it mailed to me. I've seen

17 drafts of it, yes, as a general staff member.

18 Q. Were -- have you had any involvement in

19 developing the time frames for the implementation of

20 the Everglades restoration programs as embodied in

21 the current version of the Everglades SWIM Plan?

22 A. No.

23 Referencing restoration programs?

24 Q. Construction of the STAs, for example.

25 A. No.

1 Q. Did you have any involvement at all in the

2 effort to design a modeling program to -- for the

3 STAs to determine the size of the STAs, for example?

4 I believe at one point proposed as Appendix F and it

5 was modeling strategies relating to the STA Program.

6 A. No. I did not have involvement in that.

7 Q. Do you know who did?

8 A. If I've -- Appendix F, I believe, is

9 Dr. Fontaine's model is what you are referencing.

10 Q. Uh huh. Okay.

11 Now, perhaps it would be easier, rather

12 than going one by one, if you could just tell me

13 what, if any, involvement you have in what is

14 commonly called the Everglades Restoration

15 Initiative. That seems to be the term that's used

16 when speaking of the settlement proposal terms.

17 Have you been involved or were you involved

18 in the development of EAA Regulatory Program?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Did you have any input at all to the

21 regulatory program and the underlying technical

22 support for that program --

23 A. No.

24 Q. -- for example?

25 A. You are still referencing the EAA Program?

1 Q. Regulatory program.

2 A. No, I did not.

3 Q. For example, you indicated that one of the

4 RFQs, whatever those things were, RFQs related to

5 BMPs or Best Management Practices?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Which are part of the Everglades -- excuse

8 me -- the EAA Regulatory Program. Is your role -- is

9 your role limited to finding consultants as opposed

10 to development of the program itself? I guess what

11 I'm trying to find out --

12 A. For the BMPs our role is to provide support

13 for any BMP related science that the District may be

14 involved in on Lake Okeechobee or the Everglades. It

15 doesn't matter where it is. That's an area -- for

16 example, we had the loads model that we have

17 constructed on Lake Okeechobee. That is an area

18 right now that we particularly need to get reviewed

19 and that is one of the reasons why we have requested

20 experts in that area.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. The experts can be used for other issues.

23 Q. As I say, once they come to the District,

24 do you supervise them in any way?

25 A. The experts?

1 Q. Uh huh.

2 A. Only in setting up purchase orders for

3 their expertise.

4 Q. Do you develop their work tasks?

5 A. I screen their work tasks. It comes across

6 my desk for review, yes, scopes of work.

7 Q. Since you came to the District have you had

8 any role or any responsibility in reviewing the water

9 quality data base the District has developed

10 in-house?

11 A. Yes. Indirectly through my people who work

12 with parts of the data base.

13 Q. And have you ever had occasion that you can

14 recall to offer an opinion as to whether that data

15 base is adequate or inadequate?

16 A. No. I have not offered an opinion.

17 Q. Do you have an opinion?

18 A. I'd have to be asked to -- a specific --

19 about a specific data set and, if I know enough about

20 it, I'll be glad to give you my opinion, but, no, not

21 in general.

22 Q. Have you had any involvement with a -- with

23 the development of quality assurance plans for the

24 water quality monitoring the District conducts?

25 A. Through my people who have contributed to

1 that plan and I have seen parts of it, but I have not

2 directly written or contributed myself to that water

3 quality plan.

4 Q. Do you know whether that -- the Water

5 Quality Assurance Plan has in the past met DER's

6 standards for water quality analysis? Has there been

7 a problem with that, to your knowledge?

8 A. I don't have firsthand knowledge, only

9 secondhand knowledge of problems with that plan.

10 Q. Are you familiar with the Central and

11 Southern Florida Flood Control Project?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And do you have any role in your position

14 with determining whether or not the purposes of that

15 project are being met by District? The operation of

16 the project, do you have any role in the day to day

17 operation of the project?

18 A. No. Not in operations or maintenance, no.

19 Q. Now, do you have specific scientists

20 assigned to you now?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And who are they?

23 A. Dr. Herbert J. Grimshaw, Mr. Joel VanArman,

24 Miss Kim O'Dell, Miss Nancy Urban, technician Glenn

25 Inton (phonetic) and two people that are just being

1 hired.

2 Q. Now, Mr. VanArman, I believe, is listed as

3 one of the drafters of the Everglades SWIM Plan.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Was he assigned to you at that time?

6 A. No, he was not.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. He's been assigned to me since the

9 reorganization.

10 Q. That was about a year ago?

11 A. Uh huh. Nine months.

12 Q. Was he assigned to you before or after the

13 March 13, 1992 version of the SWIM Plan was drafted?

14 A. He -- during a transition period he

15 continued his responsibilities, whatever they were,

16 because I was not involved in making those

17 assignments, prior to coming under my supervision.

18 Since he has been under my direct supervision, he has

19 not contributed to SWIM plans. He has been doing

20 other activities with me.

21 Q. So --

22 A. What he did before that time and during the

23 transition time I was not responsible for. He was

24 continuing responsibilities he had.

25 Q. So you were not supervising him in SWIM

1 Plan responsibilities at that time?

2 A. That's right. It was a transition period

3 where he was finishing up old duties and then, as he

4 did that, he came under my supervision and since that

5 time has been involved in a variety of things.

6 Q. With regard to the 1991 SWIM Plan do you

7 have any responsibilities relating to the

8 implementation of that plan?

9 A. The implementation of it?

10 Q. Uh huh.

11 A. To provide whatever support might be needed

12 for the research aspects of the plan.

13 Q. Okay. For example, you indicated that the

14 ENR Project was assigned to you as it appeared in the

15 earlier 1990 SWIM Plan. Do you continue to have

16 responsibility for the ENR Project?

17 A. No. It is now within the Everglades

18 Division under Dr. Fontaine's responsibility.

19 Q. Why was it transferred?

20 A. It wasn't transferred. It just went as

21 part of the organization, so all the Everglades

22 research is now under that division, so it naturally

23 was included.

24 Q. So that would have been approximately nine

25 months ago?

1 A. Approximately nine months ago, right,

2 almost a year.

3 Q. And do you have any scientific role at all

4 in the ENR Project?

5 A. From time to time, yes, asked to be

6 involved; organized a peer review of the project

7 eight or nine months ago and would continue in that

8 role today as an indirect supporter for we're

9 providing some assistance to the project, for

10 example.

11 Q. When you say you organized a pier review --

12 we'll get to the documents later -- did you peer

13 review the project yourself?

14 A. No.

15 Q. And -- but did you go through the

16 reconciling process with regard to the peer review of

17 the ENR Project?

18 A. Only in a general way. That reconciling

19 process continues. The project continues to be

20 modified as a result of the input, so it's an ongoing

21 process. No, I didn't specifically reconcile.

22 That's up to the researchers.

23 Q. Who would that be?

24 A. The people who are doing the research on

25 the project.

1 Q. I'm trying to understand.

2 A. In other words, I'm not responsible for the

3 project.

4 Q. How about this: What is the peer review

5 process as it exists at the District? We went

6 through how it exists at the NSF. How do they

7 conduct a peer review at the District?

8 A. In this case, a plan for a project is sent

9 out to the reviewers who are allowed to comment on

10 any and all aspects of it. Those comments are then

11 brought back and given to the people responsible for

12 developing the project and they are expected to

13 respond to them and get any additional advice that

14 they need in responding to them.

15 Q. Do you know who the individuals are for the

16 ENR Project?

17 A. ENR Project is under the Everglades

18 Division so it's Dr. Fontaine's responsibility to see

19 to it that the changes are made to it as appropriate.

20 The direct scientist responsible is Dr. Sue Newman,

21 among others, but she is a primary person. There are

22 others.

23 Q. Who selected the external reviewers for the

24 ENR Project?

25 A. I had primary responsibility for that with

1 suggestions from a variety of other people. In other

2 words, I didn't sit in a closet and do it. I talked

3 to people about it.

4 Q. Did you also review whether there were

5 potential conflicts of interest --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- among those external reviewers?

8 A. To the extent that I could from both

9 looking at resumes and discussing with other people,

10 yes, I did screen them for conflict of interest.

11 Q. Is Dr. Martin Maffei one of those

12 reviewers?

13 A. The peer review I did, no, he was not.

14 Q. Are there two sets of peer reviews that

15 would apply for -- that applied to the ENR Project,

16 one that you prepared and then yet another comment?

17 A. There have been several pier reviews of the

18 ENR Project. I'm not sure which one you're thinking

19 of.

20 Q. The most recent one, which I think was this

21 spring.

22 A. The one I had in mind was the external peer

23 review by, I believe it was six people, and, no, no

24 federal people were involved with that. Those were

25 people, as a matter of fact, all outside the State of

1 Florida.

2 Q. Okay. I guess I'm trying to understand the

3 process. You indicated that when you are selecting

4 external peer reviewers you attempt to eliminate

5 anyone who might have some sort of conflict or

6 inherent bias, is that correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Is there some sort of a -- what appears to

9 be missing here -- is there some sort of reconciling

10 process that you're involved in once those reviews

11 come back, you package it up and send it out to

12 whoever has the project?

13 A. There is a reconciling process where the

14 individuals responsible for the project are expected

15 to respond to the review and the department director,

16 actually, wants to see to it that that is done. So,

17 yes, there is follow up. You can't just have peer

18 review and no response.

19 Q. Who ultimately decides as to how to

20 reconcile critical comments for the ENR?

21 A. That's on a case by case basis.

22 Q. For the ENR Project who would ultimately

23 decide?

24 A. I -- ultimately the department director.

25 Q. So in the case of the ENR Project

1 Dr. Fontaine?

2 A. Well, he's division director but if there

3 were -- ultimately the department director is

4 responsible for in the Research Department. So

5 ultimately he would decide on what was happening with

6 that project, but the most proximal person is, of

7 course, Dr. Fontaine, yes.

8 Q. Who is the department director?

9 A. Tony Federico.

10 Q. And do you report to Mr. Federico also?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And so does the lake research group?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Have you been given any instructions by

15 Mr. Federico, Mr. Creel, Mr. MacVicar, upper

16 management at the District with regard to consulting

17 with federal agencies on Everglades matters?

18 A. No. I have been given no instructions.

19 Q. What is the status of the ENR Project right

20 now, if you know?

21 A. It's being built --

22 Q. And --

23 A. -- constructed right now. The tractors are

24 rolling.

25 Q. And do you have any participation at all in

1 the ENR Program at this time?

2 A. Not directly, but in support, as issues

3 arise, I can be involved.

4 Q. When you say as issues arise, can you think

5 of an example?

6 A. Any perceived need for more information or

7 more external input would result in a request to me

8 that I would respond to.

9 Q. Have you had any requests this year?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Could you describe those?

12 A. Um, I have two requests being processed

13 now. One for -- from Dr. Sue Newman to get outside

14 assistance in looking at the statistical aspects of

15 the project, the data collection regimes that are

16 proposed to be used, to perfect those, help perfect

17 those, improve them.

18 Q. Uh huh.

19 A. The second one is from Joanne -- what's

20 Joanne's last name -- Roy to review the hydrological

21 monitoring network of the project. So both of those

22 are to get outside experts to provide additional

23 design assistance for the project.

24 Q. When you had the project assigned to you

25 when you were first involved before the

1 reorganization, did you review the ENR Project and

2 its design as it existed? You indicated you weren't

3 involved in designing it, it was already designed

4 when you got here, but did you review that design?

5 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

6 THE WITNESS: What did you say?

7 MS. BIRCH: I just said, objection. Asked

8 and answered.

9 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

10 Q. Means you have to answer again because I

11 don't remember.

12 Did you review the design of the ENR

13 Project?

14 A. If you mean in the sense of writing

15 something formal, no, I didn't writing anything

16 formal. I did look at the design of the project,

17 discuss it with people, yes. If that's reviewing it,

18 yes, I did review it in that sense.

19 Q. Did you suggest any changes to the project?

20 A. No, I didn't.

21 Q. And has it been changed, however, since the

22 1990 version of the project?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you know what those changes are?

25 A. I -- really, I would be -- I can't give you

1 specifics. Some of the treatments have been changed

2 to reflect input from external people. The design of

3 the experimental cells has been changed in response

4 to external input. I can't give you the specifics,

5 but those are the general areas that have been

6 modified.

7 Q. Did you provide any input to the ENR

8 Project as it currently exists? Have you reviewed

9 the project? You indicated it went out for external

10 review. Was there -- did you review the project as

11 it currently exists?

12 A. I have reviewed it, but I have not provided

13 specific changes. I have not provided specific

14 guidance. I have been a facilitator, connecting

15 people together, suggesting things, but, no. In

16 other words, there's no -- I have not suggested a

17 specific action which has been taken, no, I have not

18 done that.

19 Q. Are you familiar with EPA's waste water and

20 wetlands criteria for using wetlands for stormwater

21 treatment?

22 A. I know of its existence, but I'm not

23 technically familiar with it.

24 Q. Do you know whether the 1990 ENR Project

25 was designed to comport to those regulations

1 promulgated -- excuse me -- those criteria

2 promulgated by EPA?

3 A. I do not know that, no.

4 Q. Did you have any discussions during the

5 time you were responsible for the ENR Project with

6 DER, the Department of Environmental Regulation, as

7 to the project and its ability to assimilate

8 nutrients?

9 A. I personally did not discuss the project

10 with DER, but it was discussed with DER by other

11 people.

12 Q. Who?

13 A. That I heard secondarily.

14 Q. Well, for example, do you remember who?

15 A. Sure. Dr. Newman would have interacted

16 with representatives of DER.

17 Q. But you didn't do that personally?

18 A. I did not personally interact with DER.

19 Q. Was Dr. Newman in charge of the project

20 when you were also working with it when you first

21 came to the District?

22 A. She was hired by me specifically for that

23 purpose.

24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

25 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

1 Q. We were talking about the ENR Project

2 before and now I want to talk a little bit about your

3 role in the STA Program that's been provided for in

4 the 19 -- the current version, the '92 version of the

5 Everglades SWIM Plan and what, if any, participation

6 have you had in the implementation of the Stormwater

7 Treatment Area Program?

8 A. None.

9 Q. Well --

10 MS. KAVANAUGH: Can you mark this.

11 (The document was marked

12 Redfield Exb. No. 2.)

13 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

14 Q. Now, Dr. Redfield, I'm handing you a

15 document and ask if you can identify that?

16 A. Yes. It's an article with Sue Newman and

17 myself about the ENR Project.

18 Q. And it states in its title -- I'll read the

19 title -- Research and Monitoring: Integral

20 Components in the Design and Operation of Stormwater

21 Treatment Areas.

22 I ask you does that refresh your memory?

23 Does the term, Stormwater Treatment Areas in this

24 article, refer to stormwater treatment areas of -- as

25 are provided in the Everglades SWIM Plan?

1 A. Yes, it does.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. The title was changed at some point. It

4 originally was the ENR projects; contains a single

5 paragraph on other stormwater treatment areas.

6 Q. But what was your participation in the

7 preparation of this article?

8 A. I was coauthor, junior author.

9 Q. Okay. And this article discusses -- I

10 direct your attention to, for example, the one, two,

11 three, four, fifth page of Redfield Exhibit 2.

12 A. Let's see. These aren't numbered. One,

13 two, three, four, fifth page?

14 Q. Table I.

15 A. Table I, right.

16 Q. It says, Scheduling of Research and

17 Monitoring Input into STA Development and Operation.

18 What is that and is it different from the ones that

19 are provided in the Everglades SWIM Plan?

20 A. No. That's one in the same.

21 Q. Okay. So when you indicated earlier that

22 you had nothing to do with the development of the

23 STAs provided in the Everglades SWIM Plan --

24 A. Statement was correct. This is just a

25 description of the program.

1 Q. I'm trying to reconcile it with the program

2 that appears to be represented in this article about

3 the design and operation of STAs. Were you simply

4 reviewing work that had been done by someone else?

5 A. That's correct. This is a description of a

6 process.

7 Q. Okay. Who, then, prepared the underlying

8 data regarding the design and operation of STAs as

9 referenced in this article?

10 A. Many people at the agency.

11 Q. Who has the primary responsibility for the

12 design of the STAs?

13 A. No one individual. The agency has the

14 responsibility.

15 Q. Okay. Is this describing -- this article,

16 Redfield Exhibit 2, describing the ENR Project?

17 A. Yes. Primarily.

18 Q. And it states in the last sentence of the

19 very first paragraph, Executive Summary, it states,

20 "The research conducted within the ENR Project is

21 essential to assure the success of the South Florida

22 STAs."

23 Was that your opinion in October of 1991?

24 A. Which paragraph?

25 Q. The first paragraph, last sentence.

1 A. The Executive Summary?

2 Q. Yes.

3 MS. BIRCH: What was the question?

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. My question was whether or not it was

6 Dr. Redfield's opinion in October of 1991 that, "The

7 research conducted within the ENR Project is

8 essential to assure the success of the South Florida

9 STAs."

10 A. Yes. That's correct.

11 Q. Is that still your opinion?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. This Executive Summary notes that there is

14 no operational precedent for the STAs. To your

15 knowledge, is there any operational precedent for the

16 STAs now?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Do you know whether the STAs, as planned in

19 the Everglades SWIM Plan, based on the schedule set

20 out in the SWIM plan, are to be constructed before

21 the research results from the ENR Project have been

22 completed?

23 A. Yes, they are.

24 Q. And isn't there a several year gap between

25 the estimated date they expect to have results from

1 the ENR Program and the date they plan to begin --

2 excuse me -- the District plans to begin constructing

3 the STAs?

4 A. Yes. There's a gap.

5 Q. How -- maybe I didn't understand your

6 testimony earlier, but how, if you know, would the

7 ENR Project data be essential to assure the success

8 of the South Florida STAs as indicated in this

9 article?

10 A. The data will provide treatment options to

11 be used in managing the STAs, not in constructing the

12 STAs.

13 Q. Not in constructing the STAs?

14 A. That's correct. The schedule to which you

15 referred is a construction schedule. The operation

16 is going to go on for a long period of time.

17 Q. Do you know of any precedent for STAs to

18 treat the volume of water that the STAs set out in

19 the SWIM plan will be treating?

20 A. I don't personally know of a precedent, no.

21 Q. And does not the size of the STAs relate to

22 the treatment efficiency of the STAs?

23 A. Yes. There's a relationship.

24 Q. So if the STAs were constructed wouldn't

25 you have to know how big they had to be before you

1 would know whether they would work?

2 A. You have to have an estimate of size, yes.

3 Q. What, if any, involvement have you had with

4 the Burns & McDonnell Study being conducted for the

5 District to design the STAs described in the

6 Everglades SWIM Plan?

7 A. No direct involvement. That's done through

8 another group.

9 Q. Do you have any involvement in reviewing

10 Burns & McDonnell's results?

11 A. I don't remember having done any. I may

12 have been on a distribution list for it, but I don't

13 remember having reviewed any, no.

14 Q. Are you a member of the Technical Oversight

15 Committee established by the settlement agreement?

16 A. I attend the committee occasionally. I'm

17 not a member, no.

18 Q. Do you participate --

19 A. There's only one agency member.

20 Q. Do you participate on any of the

21 subcommittees established under the Technical

22 Advisory -- excuse me -- Oversight Committee and I

23 will call that TOC, T-O-C from now on, the TOC

24 Committee?

25 A. Yes. I'm involved in two of the

1 subcommittees.

2 Q. Which two are those?

3 A. Research and Monitoring, I think, are two

4 of them.

5 Q. Are you involved in the any of the

6 committees relating to the STAs?

7 A. Well, I'm involved in the Research and

8 Monitoring Committees which may have a connection to

9 the STAs.

10 Q. When you were in charge of the ENR Project

11 prior to the reorganization, to your knowledge, what,

12 if any role, was the ENR Project to have in the

13 design of future water management areas, STAs,

14 whatever you want to call them, wetland treatment

15 systems?

16 A. It would have minimal impact on structural

17 design.

18 Q. Why would it not impact structural design?

19 A. Because of the time frames --

20 Q. A --

21 A. -- reference your earlier questions.

22 Q. Okay. But for the time frames would, in

23 your opinion, the ENR data be helpful in the design

24 of the future STAs?

25 A. Not necessarily.

1 Q. Why not?

2 A. Because the design is conservative in terms

3 of the land area, therefore, we will need additional

4 information in order to assure, reference the last

5 sentence in your earlier question about the last

6 sentence in the first paragraph. It says, "It is

7 essential to assure the success." That's exactly

8 what the ENR is for, to provide an insurance policy

9 to assure that the size selected will be operational,

10 will fulfill the needs.

11 Q. And what if it isn't? Do you know what, if

12 any, plans there are to address the problem if it

13 turns out that the ENR data indicates that the STAs

14 as planned and apparently as to be constructed before

15 the ENR data is in, are too large or too small or the

16 wrong size?

17 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form of the

18 question.

19 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

20 Q. You can still answer it if you understand

21 the question. I'll restate it if you don't.

22 A. Please restate it.

23 Q. Do you know of any plans at the District to

24 address the situation, should it occur in the future,

25 where the results from the ENR Project indicate that

1 the STAs as currently designed and planned will not

2 work?

3 A. I don't have a specific re