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 reference to a

4 plan, a response plan that I personally know of or

5 have been involved in.

6 Q. But have you heard of one?

7 A. The settlement agreement has reference to

8 non-compliance that I have seen in that agreement and

9 specific requirements thereof. It has nothing to do

10 with me, but it's there.

11 Q. What level of phosphorus are the STAs, to

12 your knowledge, designed to achieve? To what level

13 are they to treat?

14 A. 50 parts per billion interim standard.

15 Q. Do you know how that standard was

16 developed?

17 A. Only indirectly.

18 Q. Well, what's your understanding of how it

19 was developed?

20 A. It was empirically derived based upon

21 available -- best available technology and the

22 ability of wetland systems to take up nutrients and

23 the existing water quality in the EAA and when you

24 put all of those together -- I do not know how to do

25 it, but that's basically how it was done; I did not

1 do it, but that's the process that was gone through --

2 you come up with 50.

3 Q. When you say empirical data, what empirical

4 data? Do you know what empirical data was used?

5 A. The water quality data from EAA -- we have

6 20 years of it -- is what I mean by empirical data.

7 Best Management Practices, there's a lot of empirical

8 data on how well they can function and if you assume

9 that you know the mass of material that's leaving the

10 farms and you assume you can lower it by a certain

11 amount, you divide by the volume of water, you can

12 come up with a number and that's how 50 was derived.

13 Q. Do you know how much the STAs are estimated --

14 currently estimated to cost to construct and operate?

15 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

16 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

17 Q. You can still answer.

18 A. The only estimates that I know of are

19 literally ones that I have heard and seen in the

20 paper, three hundred twenty to four hundred billion --

21 million. I'm sorry. Million. But that's indirect.

22 I don't have firsthand knowledge of those numbers or

23 how they were derived.

24 Q. Okay. Was the ENR Project originally

25 designed to be an experimental project that would

1 provide the basis for the construction of the other

2 wetlands treatment areas? This would be the 1990

3 plan.

4 A. In the 1990 plan, not to provide a basis,

5 no.

6 Q. Do you recall whether under the 1990 plan

7 all of the water management or wetlands treatment

8 areas -- they had different names -- were to be

9 constructed under that plan simultaneously with the

10 ENR Project or after the ENR Project?

11 A. I believe --

12 MS. BIRCH: Time frame?

13 MS. KAVANAUGH: 1990.

14 THE WITNESS: I honestly don't know.

15 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

16 Q. Do you recall any difference?

17 A. From that particular plan?

18 Q. Do you recall whether there was a change in

19 the -- what was referred to in the 1990 plan as a WMA

20 or Water Management Area strategy, was there a change

21 in the strategy as articulated in the 1990 plan from

22 the plan that currently exists, the 1992 plan as far

23 as the sequence of construction of Water Management

24 Areas with regard to the ENR Project?

25 A. I really don't know.

1 Q. Now, you indicated that you really don't --

2 well, my understanding of your answer is that you

3 don't have any participation in the STA design

4 process under the current plan. Is that correct?

5 A. That's correct. No direct.

6 Q. Well, when you say no direct, you brought

7 with you today a file which I'd like marked as

8 Composite Exhibit 3.

9 (The document was marked

10 Redfield Exb. No. 3.)

11 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

12 Q. It has on the front of it -- in handwritten

13 letters it says, "STA Design" and it contains

14 letters, references to STA conceptual design meeting,

15 11-22-91; shows your attendance. I'm trying to

16 understand when you say you don't have any direct

17 involvement, what involvement do you have in the

18 design of the STAs?

19 A. None. I'm assuming you mean by design the

20 sizing, the location, the structure of these units

21 and I haven't had any direct involvement in sizing,

22 location, pump arrangements, you know. I just simply

23 haven't.

24 Q. What is your involvement with the STA

25 Program -- maybe that's a better way to put it -- now

1 being conducted by the District?

2 A. To provide research support for that

3 program, scientific input as requested.

4 Q. Well, do you attend meetings of the STA

5 Design Committee which apparently exists? I have

6 some minutes here from something called an STA

7 Conceptual Design Meeting with a blind carbon copy

8 going to Mike Soukup and it shows you as attending.

9 This would be November of '91. Would you just attend

10 the meetings for some purpose? Do you report to

11 someone or do you use what you learn at these

12 meetings in some fashion?

13 A. I have attended several meetings -- I don't

14 know how many -- for informational purposes to

15 provide any insights I might have, but it's been a

16 long time since I attended one of those meetings. I

17 still may be on a mailing list to get the minutes

18 from the meeting and I have a general interest in the

19 research such as the ENR.

20 Q. What is your current role with regard to

21 the ENR Program?

22 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered

23 two times.

24 MS. KAVANAUGH: Well, counsel, he's just

25 testified that he has some general interest

1 because of the ENR Project. I'm trying to find

2 out what is his involvement with the ENR Project

3 now.

4 THE WITNESS: Could I answer?

5 MS. BIRCH: Yeah. You can answer.

6 Same objection. Asked and answered.

7 THE WITNESS: I'm providing support for the

8 ENR Project as mentioned in my earlier answers

9 to questions through two assistance projects

10 that are going on right now.

11 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

12 Q. Which two assistance projects are those?

13 A. The one for Sue Newman on statistics and

14 the one for Joanne Roy on hydrological network

15 design.

16 Q. Other than that you have no role in the STA

17 or the ENR projects at this point in time?

18 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

19 Argumentative.

20 THE WITNESS: At this point I have no

21 direct role.

22 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

23 Q. Do you make presentations to the TOC

24 Committee with regard to the research programs that

25 are ongoing relating to --

1 A. If I were asked to, but at this moment, no

2 one's asked me to. So are you saying -- if your

3 question is what is my potential --

4 MS. BIRCH: There's no pending question.

5 MS. KAVANAUGH: Would you mark this one.

6 This will be marked Redfield Exhibit 4.

7 (The document was marked

8 Redfield Exb. No. 4.)

9 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

10 Q. Ask if you can identify that document.

11 A. This is a description of nutrient threshold

12 research from sometime ago.

13 Q. Did you participate in the preparation of

14 that?

15 A. I reviewed it and people who worked on it

16 worked with me at the time.

17 Q. I'm sorry. I didn't catch the end of it.

18 A. That was my role. I reviewed it and people

19 who worked on it worked for me at the time.

20 Q. At the time. Okay.

21 Did you participate in the preparation of

22 that report?

23 A. As a reviewer, yes.

24 Q. Have you participated in the meetings of

25 the Everglades Nutrient Threshold Advisory Group

1 which, as I understand it, is part of the TOC?

2 A. I'm not sure what you mean by the advisory

3 group.

4 Q. The Research and Monitoring Subcommittee of

5 the Everglades Technical Oversight Committee

6 consisting of apparently of David Lean, Kenneth

7 Reckhow and William Walker and Robert Wetzel.

8 A. Have I been there when they were there?

9 Q. Have you participated in their

10 deliberations? Have you provided them with input?

11 Have you responded to inquiries?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And did you participate in the

14 preparation -- is this report dated May 15, 1992

15 Redfield Exhibit 4, a report from that committee?

16 A. I do not remember the exact linkage to that

17 committee, but it did involve the committee. As it

18 says on the front cover, it is a joint contribution

19 from several agencies.

20 Q. Okay. Now, I want to hand you document

21 which I'd like marked Redfield Exhibit 5 --

22 (The document was marked

23 Redfield Exb. No. 5.)

24 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

25 Q. -- and ask you if this -- if you can

100

1 identify this document?

2 A. Just is another draft of the Everglades

3 Nutrient Threshold Research Plan.

4 Q. Okay. What, if any, role did you play in

5 the preparation of that document, Exhibit 5?

6 A. This document was generated by the four

7 authors based upon input from many people and I can't

8 remember how much input I had other than involvement

9 in some of the original input that they created this

10 from.

11 Q. Is Exhibit 5 a final version of Exhibit 4?

12 A. I do not know that.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MS. KAVANAUGH: Mark this one 6.

15 (The document was marked

16 Redfield Exb. No. 6.)

17 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

18 Q. Ask if you can identify this document?

19 A. Yes. It's a review by Kenneth Reckhow of

20 the same documents, 5 and 4 referenced earlier.

21 Q. At the top it has handwritten note that

22 says, "To Garth Redfield from Ken Reckhow." Was

23 Dr. Reckhow peer reviewing or was he asking you to

24 peer review these reports of which he's apparently

25 one of the authors?

101

1 A. He was asking me to distribute his input.

2 I was a postman for other people at the District. I

3 did exactly that.

4 Q. Okay. That's what I'm trying to

5 understand.

6 Was your role thus far in the Nutrient

7 Threshold Program that merely as a bureaucrat

8 managing the paper or do you have any substantive

9 scientific role in that research program as

10 represented by documents 4, 5 and 6?

11 A. I have had an advisory role as part of the

12 TOC meetings.

13 Q. Okay. And have you been advising

14 Dr. Reckhow and his group on the scientific aspects

15 of the Nutrient Threshold Program? Has that been

16 part of your participation?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Then that's what I'm trying to

19 understand is you indicated you had not had any

20 involvement, but apparently you have had involvement.

21 What role -- what information have you

22 provided to this group? Do you provide them with

23 your opinions or are you simply a funnel through

24 which data comes from the District to the group?

25 A. My role has been primarily the latter. I

102

1 had been a contact person and a distributor of

2 information, but I have been there during discussions

3 and I haven't been silent, so that's what I mean by

4 advisory.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And I have looked at these documents and

7 provided input as requested or as needed during

8 the -- their development.

9 Q. I'm going to direct your attention to

10 document 5 now, Redfield 5 and it's the third page.

11 None of the pages are numbered. It's the

12 introduction and it states, "Research needs to define

13 relationships between nutrient inputs from cultural

14 eutrophication and environmental damage to the

15 Everglades Protection Area are identified in the

16 Everglades Settlement Agreement."

17 Do you know of any information at the

18 District that documents the damage to the Everglades

19 Protection Area other than what has been described in

20 the Everglades SWIM Plan, the DER Water Quality

21 Violation Report, Mr. Nearhoof's report? Other than

22 that do you know of any documentation of damage in

23 the Everglades Park?

24 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

25 THE WITNESS: No.

103

1 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

2 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of the Nutrient

3 Threshold Study?

4 A. To define the point at which imbalance

5 occurs.

6 Q. And isn't it true that there's an interim

7 concentration level at 50 parts per billion

8 established by the settlement agreement?

9 A. It's true.

10 Q. And you indicated earlier that was based on

11 empirical data and certain other factors. Is the 50

12 parts per billion determined because that's the best

13 estimate of what an STA can produce or do you know of

14 any information that takes 50 parts per billion and

15 connects causally to a vegetative imbalance, for

16 example? Is it a technology driven standard or is it

17 a water quality based standard?

18 A. I was not involved in the derivation of

19 that standard, therefore my answer is purely non

20 scientific. I'm not authoritative in that subject.

21 Q. Okay. Are the STAs designed to achieve 50

22 parts per billion?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And is that based on an established

25 relationship between 50 parts per billion and any

104

1 ecological damage in the system?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. Could you describe that

4 relationship? You say yes. What is that information

5 that would support a causal connection between 50

6 parts per billion and damage to the ecosystem that

7 you know of?

8 A. As reviewed in the documents you referenced

9 earlier, the SWIM plan and the Nearhoof document,

10 there's substantial evidence of change below 50 parts

11 per billion, therefore it is almost certain that we

12 will have to make additional changes in the future to

13 assure that thresholds don't occur -- pardon me --

14 that changes don't occur.

15 Q. Are you familiar with the water quality

16 monitoring that has been ongoing in the Refuge? It

17 was until 1983, I believe. Are you familiar with

18 that data?

19 A. I'm not familiar with it. I know it

20 exists. I'm not familiar with it.

21 Q. Do you know what the interim ambient

22 concentrations the settlement agreement dictates are

23 for the Refuge?

24 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

25 THE WITNESS: I only know from the

105

1 settlement agreement.

2 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

3 Q. Do you know what it is? Do you know the

4 numbers?

5 A. That's derived station by station. That's

6 all I know.

7 Q. Do you know whether the District ever

8 proposed a higher standard than 50 parts per billion

9 for the Refuge?

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. Do you know whether the ambient standards

12 established by the settlement agreement is being met

13 without the construction of STAs --

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. -- currently right now?

16 A. I don't know that.

17 MS. KAVANAUGH: Okay. This will be 7.

18 (The document was marked

19 Redfield Exb. No. 7.)

20 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

21 Q. Let me hand you a document marked Redfield

22 7 and ask if you can identify that?

23 A. This document appears to be several

24 responses to comments on the Nutrient Threshold Study

25 plans.

106

1 Q. Did you prepare the document?

2 A. No. This is Frank Nearhoof is what I'm

3 reading from it, Bob Wetzel.

4 Q. Is it not a compilation of proposed

5 responses to comments apparently submitted with

6 regard to the Nutrient Threshold Program?

7 A. Yes. That's what it appears to be.

8 Q. And you -- it's in your file but you don't

9 know where it came from?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you have any role in reconciling the

12 peer review comments on the Nutrient Threshold

13 Program?

14 A. Which peer review comments?

15 Q. I hand you --

16 A. These peer review comments? I will respond

17 as soon as I understand the question.

18 Q. Okay. These documents 4, 5 and 6 reflect

19 that a Nutrient Threshold Program was circulated

20 between April and June of 1992. Did you circulate

21 that program for peer review?

22 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

23 Are you talking about these plans or what

24 program are you talking about?

25 MS. KAVANAUGH: I'm talking about the

107

1 Nutrient Threshold Study. It's the same thing

2 we've been talking about for the past 15 or 20

3 minutes.

4 THE WITNESS: As reflected in this?

5 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

6 Q. And as reflected in this.

7 A. I may have circulated it, yes.

8 Q. Okay. And what I'm asking is --

9 And I might as well I have you mark this.

10 This will be 8.

11 (The document was marked

12 Redfield Exb. No. 8.)

13 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

14 Q. And I ask if you can identify this letter?

15 A. Yes. This is a letter from Robert Wetzel,

16 University of Alabama.

17 Q. And is it addressed to you?

18 A. It is addressed to me, Anthony Federico and

19 Michael Soukup.

20 Q. And is it not offering comments on the

21 Nutrient Threshold Program?

22 A. It is.

23 Q. So do you recall receiving that letter?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you incorporate those comments in any

108

1 peer review of the Nutrient Threshold Program?

2 A. I personally did not. They were

3 distributed.

4 Q. Who was in charge of addressing the peer

5 review comments on the Nutrient Threshold Program, if

6 you can recall?

7 A. Dr. Fontaine along with the scientists

8 working under him.

9 Q. Did you offer any comments on the Nutrient

10 Threshold Program, written comments?

11 A. I'm not certain if I offered written

12 comments. I may have.

13 Q. Okay. Did you participate in the

14 development of the criteria for that research

15 program?

16 A. Define criteria so I understand the

17 question.

18 Q. Okay. For example, as we indicated earlier

19 when one develops a research program, you usually

20 have research objectives. And we have various drafts

21 of this document. What is your understanding as to

22 the criteria to be utilized in determining what the

23 threshold level of phosphorus is that will trigger an

24 imbalance in the system?

25 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

109

1 MS. DONLAN: Form.

2 THE WITNESS: That is what the study is to

3 determine.

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. Okay. Does the settlement agreement

6 establish an indices for imbalance that you can

7 recall?

8 MS. BIRCH: Object to relevancy.

9 THE WITNESS: No.

10 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

11 Q. Do you know what the Florida Class III

12 Water Quality Standard Narrative Nutrient establishes

13 as the criteria for determining if there's a

14 violation based on an imbalance of the system?

15 A. It is to be determined.

16 Q. Okay. Are there factors other than water

17 quality which will affect the balance of a vegetative

18 system in the Everglades?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what are those factors?

21 A. Availability of water, species involved,

22 soil type, water chemistry, fire, freezing.

23 Q. You say availability of water. You mean

24 hydroperiod?

25 A. Yes.

110

1 Q. What about physical alteration of the

2 topography such as by digging a canal?

3 A. That may have an effect, yes.

4 Q. Based on your knowledge of the Nutrient

5 Threshold Program -- Research Program --

6 Let me maybe ask you this. Is the program

7 finalized? Is, in fact, the later document, the June

8 document, the final program? I think that's document

9 number 5. Do you know if this is the final program?

10 A. I don't know if that's the final program.

11 The -- you have in your possession the latest copy of

12 the Everglades Research Plan.

13 Q. But it doesn't contain the program itself,

14 does it?

15 A. The program itself? It contains the plans.

16 Q. Does it define the goals of the research?

17 Does document 5 as does document 4 defines objectives

18 of the research, goals of research?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is that set out in this November 23,

21 1992 --

22 A. The goals should be reflected in the

23 current document, yes.

24 Q. Okay.

25 MS. KAVANAUGH: This is a composite

111

1 exhibit; up to 9 now.

2 (The document was marked

3 Redfield Exb. No. 9.)

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. I'm going to hand this to you. This was in

6 your file with a big rubber band around it. It

7 consists of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

8 eight, nine documents and ask if you can identify

9 this Composite Exhibit 9?

10 A. That is the latest version of the

11 Everglades Plan For Research.

12 Q. Could you, since, I have just gotten it

13 this morning, could you find in there where this plan

14 describes the Nutrient Threshold Program -- Research

15 Program for me? It would be faster.

16 A. Science relative to threshold issues is

17 contained in two sections of the plan. They don't

18 have specific labels -- pardon me -- they don't have

19 numbers.

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. One is the title, Determine Thresholds of

22 Nutrient and Other Parameters that Cause Ecological

23 Imbalance. And the second is, Determine Non-nutrient

24 Water and Sediment Water Quality Criteria that

25 Prevent Ecological Imbalance.

112

1 Q. Okay. Did you prepare these documents?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Who did?

4 A. A number of staff members within the

5 Everglades research unit.

6 Q. Okay. Did you have any participation in

7 the preparation of these documents?

8 A. I -- not in recent time, no. Some of the

9 material contained in there is very old, therefore I

10 may be connected to it.

11 Q. From what you've said, Dr. Redfield, it

12 seems as if you were more involved at some point in

13 time with these Everglades issues than perhaps you

14 are now. Is that the case?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And when did that change?

17 A. No specific point. I simply have not been

18 needed, I guess, as much, so I haven't been attending

19 as many meetings and so forth.

20 Q. And you indicated you don't have any

21 specific responsibilities with regard to the

22 implementation of the SWIM plan. But it's correct

23 that you do serve on the subcommittee -- one of

24 subcommittees at the TOC, Research and Science or

25 Research and Development or something like that you

113

1 listed here?

2 A. I do serve on that subcommittee, yes.

3 Q. Okay. What does that subcommittee do as

4 part of the TOC?

5 A. As monitoring and research issues arise the

6 committee can be asked to deal with them.

7 Q. Okay. And has that committee participated

8 in the development of the Nutrient Threshold Research

9 Program?

10 MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes. As described in the

12 documents that have already been reviewed.

13 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

14 Q. And you are listed on -- you are a primary

15 contact. You are listed here as agency

16 representative of TOC Research Subcommittee.

17 I guess we might as well go ahead and mark

18 that so it's in the record.

19 A. That is correct. I am a contact.

20 Q. And how --

21 MS. KAVANAUGH: If you would, mark this.

22 I'm sorry.

23 (The document was marked

24 Redfield Exb. No. 10.)

25 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

114

1 Q. And this is Redfield 10 and we'll ask if

2 that's a correct composition of the subcommittee in

3 question, the Research Subcommittee?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. To my knowledge that is the subcommittee.

7 Q. Do you participate on this committee as a

8 administrative employee of the District or are you on

9 this committee because of your expertise as an

10 ecologist and limnologist?

11 A. Both.

12 Q. What does this subcommittee do?

13 A. Reviews information relative to research to

14 be conducted under the auspices of the TOC.

15 Q. Okay. Is the Everglades Nutrient Threshold

16 Program one of the research programs to be conducted

17 under the auspices of the TOC?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did your committee review that plan?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And did you provide comments on that plan?

22 A. Yes. I have provided comments on that

23 plan.

24 Q. So you did participate in the development

25 of the Everglades Nutrient Threshold Program?

115

1 MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

2 THE WITNESS: As described in my answers to

3 previous questions, I have reviewed the plan,

4 yes.

5 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

6 Q. And you've offered comments also?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Did you offer those comments in writing?

9 A. I do not remember if I wrote -- made a

10 written review of the plan. I really -- I just

11 simply can't. I provided comments in writing. I

12 have had input.

13 Q. And to whom would you have provided that

14 input?

15 A. To the people involved in writing the plan.

16 Q. You indicated that this Research

17 Subcommittee of the TOC reviews the programs. Is

18 there a process through which these programs are

19 finalized? There's a vote of some entity. Who

20 decides what final form the research will take?

21 A. The -- the TOC recommends the research.

22 Final decisions on its implementation rest with the

23 District.

24 Q. With who at the District?

25 A. Well, if you assume the usual chain of

116

1 command, it would be the director of the Research

2 Department.

3 Q. Okay. Who is that?

4 A. Tony Federico.

5 Q. All right. And would your stepping out of

6 the subcommittee now, your role as a division

7 director, would you review these plans separate and

8 apart from that for purposes of funding or obtaining

9 outside consultants?

10 A. Would I?

11 Q. Or do you? Will you?

12 We'll take this plan in particular. How is

13 this plan going to become final if it's not final

14 now?

15 MS. BIRCH: Objection. The question calls

16 for speculation, if he actually knows.

17 MS. KAVANAUGH: All I want to know is the

18 procedure to be followed to implement these

19 research programs when they're ultimately

20 finalized.

21 MS. BIRCH: If he knows? Is that what you

22 are asking?

23 MS. KAVANAUGH: If he knows, of course.

24 THE WITNESS: They'll be reviewed

25 externally, open for comment and when that

117

1 process is finished and the TOC has recommended

2 them, then the District can implement them.

3 Exactly any more details than that, I'm not

4 aware of. I am not in the decision making chain

5 of command for doing that, for making that

6 judgment call.

7 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

8 Q. You would only come in if they put in a

9 request, for example, of some outside consultant

10 support?

11 A. Correct. If they specifically ask my

12 involvement, yes.

13 Q. Okay. Now, did you participate in the

14 review of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project in,

15 I guess it would have been the end of 1991, looks

16 like?

17 A. External review?

18 Q. Any review.

19 A. I participated in a peer review of the

20 Nutrient Removal Project if that's what you are --

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. And did you select the reviewers?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you recall who they were?

118

1 A. Yeah, if given a minute here. Dr. Richard

2 Gersberg, Dr. Ann Giblin. Boy, I'm drawing a blank

3 here. I must be tired.

4 Q. Do you want to take a break for a minute?

5 I'll just ask you some specific questions.

6 A. I'll remember in a minute.

7 Q. Was -- is there a technical advisory panel

8 specifically for the Everglades Nutrient Removal

9 Project that's part of the TOC?

10 A. Specifically for the ENR?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. No.

13 Q. Oh. Well, all right.

14 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let me hand you this

15 document. If you would, mark that one.

16 (The document was marked

17 Redfield Exb. No. 11.)

18 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

19 Q. And this will be Redfield 11. And ask if

20 you can identify that?

21 A. This is a report of a technical advisory

22 panel for the ENR Project.

23 Q. And this is separate and apart from the

24 TOC, is that right?

25 A. This panel existed prior to the formation

119

1 of the TOC.

2 Q. Okay. And did you have any input as to the

3 selection of the panel members?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And what was the -- your role with regard

6 to this Technical Advisory Committee?

7 A. People who worked for me organized it.

8 Specifically Steve Davis was the primary organizer.

9 Q. Were you a member of the panel?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you serve a scientific role in the

12 panel's activities? Again, I'm asking you. Or were

13 you primarily the agency contact?

14 A. I was the agency contact.

15 Q. Now, did this panel develop a research

16 plan?

17 A. No.

18 Q. You indicated earlier there was a peer

19 review of an ENR Research Plan in 1992. Where did

20 that plan come from?

21 A. ENR Research Plan was developed by the

22 Everglades group.

23 Q. Okay. That is the District Everglades

24 group?

25 A. Correct.

120

1 Q. Or the -- that was developed internally?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And you sent it out for peer review, is

4 that correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And did you select the peers who were going

7 to review it?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. All right. And you remembered two of them.

10 Do you remember any more?

11 A. There was one from East Carolina

12 University. Someone from East Carolina whose name

13 slips me right now. I'm just drawing a blank. If I

14 see the list I'll -- I can verify them for you.

15 Q. Let's see. I'm going to hand you two

16 documents because there appear to have been several

17 drafts of something called an Everglades Nutrient

18 Removal Project Research Plan. The one you have

19 there is dated, Redfield 11, December 1991. Okay.

20 You've indicated that was an internally generated

21 report.

22 A. Wait a minute. I never indicated that.

23 Q. I'm sorry. Is that the result of --

24 A. This is an advisory report. This is --

25 Q. Of the advisory panel, right. Okay.

121

1 That was established you said by Dr. Davis

2 or Mr. Davis, Steve Davis?

3 A. That's correct. He was the organizer.

4 Q. What became of that report if you know?

5 A. This was -- has been used by the research

6 as the part of the ENR development process.

7 Q. Okay. Did you reconcile the peer review

8 comments with regard to that report and make any

9 recommendations as to changes or was that done by

10 someone else?

11 A. I did not reconcile them, no.

12 Q. Did someone?

13 A. They were given to researchers to

14 reconcile. Primarily Sue Newman.

15 Q. Sue Newman, okay.

16 Did you ever see a final program based on

17 that original report?

18 A. The latest version of the ENR Plan would be

19 that program.

20 Q. Have there been subsequent peer reviews of

21 the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project?

22 A. Subsequent to this advisory panel?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. Referenced in Number 11?

25 Q. Yes.

122

1 A. Yes. If I've got my timing correct, there

2 was external peer review that you mentioned a few

3 moments ago.

4 Q. And is that the -- I'm trying to see if we

5 have a copy of it here. Do you know if there's a

6 copy of that document in the documents you provided

7 to us today?

8 A. I do not remember if that was in the

9 documents. It has been widely distributed and

10 discussed publicly at the board meeting.

11 Q. And the status of that plan is also set out

12 somewhere in this exhibit, Composite Exhibit -- I

13 think it's 9.

14 A. Yes. The word, "Optimize the STAs" is in

15 the title.

16 Q. There we go. We're now looking at the

17 Composite Exhibit 9 and it's a document entitled,

18 Research Implementation Plan: Optimize Operation of

19 Stormwater Treatment Areas for Nutrient Removal.

20 Did you prepare this document?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Did you prepare any of these documents?

23 A. No.

24 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

25 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

123

1 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

2 Q. I am going to hand you this --

3 MS. KAVANAUGH: Mark whatever the next

4 document is. Let's see.

5 (The document was marked

6 Redfield Exb. No. 12.)

7 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

8 Q. -- and ask if you can identify this

9 document. You might want to compare it to Number 2,

10 Exhibit 2.

11 A. This is someone's review of the document,

12 whichever number it was, on the research and

13 monitoring components by Sue Newman and Redfield. I

14 do not recognize whose review it is, whose input it

15 is and it's not signed.

16 Q. Okay. Direct your attention to the comment

17 at the bottom of the page. We're now talking about

18 Exhibit 12. There's an underlined sentence there and

19 then a handwritten comment.

20 A. I cannot read it.

21 Q. Maybe you can read it. I had a little

22 trouble, but I ask if you can make out what the

23 handwritten comment is?

24 A. I can't read the first word. "Other WQ

25 unclear. PHS one thing here. Calcium, etc.,

124

1 important too?" That's all I can make out.

2 Q. That doesn't give you a clue as to perhaps

3 who wrote the comment?

4 A. No. It really doesn't.

5 Q. Now, if you would take a look at Exhibit 2,

6 just tell me if there's a corresponding change to the

7 text of that particular sentence.

8 A. The sentence has been changed, yes.

9 Q. And what's been added to the paragraph?

10 A. "Calcium, iron and aluminum" has been added

11 along with other changes. The paragraph is not

12 identical.

13 Q. But you don't know -- did you make those

14 changes to that paragraph?

15 A. No. I personally did not make them. Sue

16 Newman made them. I did see the changes, though. I

17 remember seeing them.

18 Q. The sentence states, "The extent of

19 nutrient uptake is a function of loading, hydrology,

20 water depth, soil type, vegetation and retention

21 time."

22 Are all of those factors that determine

23 nutrient uptake in a wetlands system?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And by loading, is that a function of water

125

1 quality?

2 A. Yes.

3 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let's mark this one.

4 (The document was marked

5 Redfield Exb. No. 13.)

6 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

7 Q. Dr. Redfield, I'm going to ask you if you

8 can identify this Exhibit 13?

9 A. Yes. This is a review written by me to

10 Paul Whalen on a DER document.

11 Q. And what was -- do you recall the

12 circumstances under which that was prepared? What

13 was it for?

14 A. It was a review of a document from DER

15 summarizing Everglades impacts.

16 Q. Would that be the Nearhoof report?

17 A. I believe it was written by Frank Nearhoof.

18 He may have written more than one report, but I

19 believe, yes, it was authored by him.

20 Q. I direct your attention to comment at (1)

21 on the first page of Exhibit 13. It states,

22 "Nutrient-induced impacts are only suggested by data

23 in a suite of publications. Since a host of factors

24 determine plant community structure, the

25 observational data in District publications does not

126

1 document nutrient-induced changes."

2 Direct your attention to that first

3 paragraph marked paragraph 1. Was that your opinion

4 in February of 1992, that the District publications

5 did not document nutrient-induced changes as

6 referenced in the DER report?

7 A. Yes. That was my opinion at the time.

8 Q. And is that your opinion now?

9 A. No.

10 Q. What is your opinion now?

11 A. That nutrients are more important than

12 suggested by that assertion at the time.

13 Q. And what, if any, new information have you

14 received that would alter that opinion?

15 A. Merely a closer look at some of the

16 documents referenced in the SWIM plan and the

17 additional personal discussions with many scientists

18 during the TOC process and other interactions.

19 Q. And when you say it's your opinion that

20 nutrients play a major -- a more major role --

21 A. Than reflected by that sentence, which

22 read, "The nutrient-induced impacts are only

23 suggested by data." My opinion now is that I would

24 say, "strongly suggested." In other words, I feel

25 more strongly now that they're important than I did

127

1 however long ago, about a year ago.

2 Q. When you say your discussions in TOC, can

3 you remember any specific data presented to the TOC

4 that has brought you to this different conclusion?

5 A. I'm trying to separate SAGE from TOC. For

6 example, there was a recent day long review of

7 evidence presented to SAGE.

8 Q. Was this the --

9 A. Which?

10 Q. Was this the one -- was Dr. Richardson

11 present at this one?

12 A. Yes, he was.

13 And there has been ongoing reviews as we

14 have authored papers that suggest more strongly to

15 me, than was true a year ago, that nutrients are

16 important.

17 Q. Are the other factors you described equally

18 important in your opinion?

19 A. No. They're not equally important.

20 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether

21 hydroperiod effects are a greater factor in

22 nutrient-induced impacts than merely the presence of

23 nutrients themselves in an Everglades ecosystem?

24 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Dr. Redfield isn't

25 an expert in hydrology.

128

1 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

2 Q. All right. Says here, paragraph one of

3 Exhibit 13. This is in February of 1992. You state,

4 "For example, nutrient and hydroperiod effects are

5 extremely hard to tease apart for macrophyte

6 communities and almost all cases of cattail expansion

7 are associated with both water level and nutrient

8 concentration gradients. More qualifiers --" well,

9 you reference a specific text.

10 Is that still your opinion?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And has the information you indicate that

13 you have heard in SAGE and TOC in any way affected

14 your opinion that hydroperiod plays a role in plant

15 community impacts?

16 A. Yes. It does play a role and it has been --

17 my opinion has been changed by TOC and SAGE

18 interactions, yes.

19 Q. It has or hasn't?

20 A. It has a role to play, yes.

21 Q. I direct your attention now to paragraph 8

22 of this document where you state, "Nutrients are

23 important but not necessarily sufficient to induce

24 change." The sentence before that you state,

25 "Remember that almost all areas of cattail expansion

129

1 are also areas near structures with altered

2 hydroperiods."

3 Has your opinion changed with regard to

4 those two statements? We're now looking at paragraph

5 8 of -- on page 2 of Exhibit 13.

6 A. My opinion, as with the earlier statement,

7 has changed and is more clear now after the

8 additional information that I have heard in a year,

9 yes. The fundamental assertion here, however,

10 remains to be true. It's very hard to separate the

11 two primary factors.

12 Q. When you say primary factors, you mean

13 hydroperiod and nutrients?

14 A. Uh huh, yes.

15 Q. What about other factors such as fire? Is

16 that a factor in plant communities within the

17 Everglades?

18 A. It absolutely is.

19 Q. And has the District done a study of the

20 vegetative communities as affected by fire, drought

21 and some of these other factors, to your knowledge?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I'm going to hand you a document --

24 MS. KAVANAUGH: This will be 14.

130

1 (The document was marked

2 Redfield Exb. No. 14.)

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. Ask if you can identify that document?

6 A. This is a Draft Manuscript by Urban, Davis

7 and Aumen on cattails in the Everglades.

8 Q. That is a draft. Do you know whether there

9 was ever a final report issued?

10 A. That report -- I'm trying to get the exact

11 status of it. I believe it is -- it has been

12 submitted for publication, but it may be revised upon

13 peer review comments externally, so I can't call

14 it -- what I'm saying I can't call it final, but

15 that's the state it's in. It's been submitted.

16 Q. To your knowledge, was that report prepared

17 as part of the TOC process?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Was that just --

20 A. This is a study that existed many years

21 before TOC was ever thought of.

22 Q. And did you select the external peer

23 reviews -- peer reviewers for this report?

24 A. Ah --

25 Q. Let me hand you this. Let's do it this

131

1 way. This is going to be Exhibit 15. It's a

2 composite exhibit. It's stapled together. It was in

3 your file.

4 (The document was marked

5 Redfield Exb. No. 15.)

6 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

7 Q. I'm going to hand you Composite Exhibit 15

8 and ask if you can identify those letters?

9 A. These were letters for an external review

10 of the Redfield 14 document, Urban, et al.

11 Q. And do you know who selected the external

12 peer reviewers?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. And if you would look at the last letter,

15 is that not a letter from Dr. Martin Maffei?

16 A. Maffei, yes.

17 Q. I'm sorry. I always say that wrong.

18 Can I ask you on what basis you chose

19 Dr. Martin Maffei as an external pier reviewer?

20 A. He had seen an earlier draft, made

21 constructive inputs to it and we'd like to see what

22 he thought of the later draft.

23 Q. Isn't it true that one of the major

24 contentions of the federal government, including

25 Mr. Maffei's agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

132

1 Service, in the federal litigation, was that cattail

2 densities were increasing in the Everglades area,

3 particularly in the Refuge, because of nutrients as

4 being the primary factor?

5 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the

6 question. The assumptions in the question are

7 that Dr. Redfield knew what the contentions in

8 the federal lawsuit were. And it's a compound

9 question.

10 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

11 Q. What's the date of that letter, sir?

12 A. January 1992.

13 Q. At that time had the Everglades Settlement

14 Agreement been signed?

15 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

16 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

17 MS. KAVANAUGH: Because I don't know the

18 exact date.

19 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

20 Q. Were you aware of the contentions of the

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to

22 vegetative imbalances in the Everglades Protection

23 Area in January of 1992?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was their contention?

133

1 A. That nutrients were driving changes in

2 vegetation.

3 Q. And is that not an interest in that

4 particular issue which could create a conflict as far

5 as Dr. Maffei's impartiality in the review of a

6 report discussing other factors than nutrients

7 affecting the protection of cattails in the

8 Everglades area?

9 A. It could potentially, yes.

10 Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Maffei submitted

11 positive or negative comments about this report?

12 MS. BIRCH: Objection to form. The

13 assumption -- you are assuming he submitted

14 comments.

15 THE WITNESS: I do not remember if he

16 responded to this peer review request. He may

17 have. I simply don't remember if we got written

18 comments back from him.

19 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

20 Q. Where would those comments be if they were

21 in the District's records, any peer review comments

22 that were submitted with regard to that draft report?

23 A. They are given to the authors of all

24 manuscripts to respond to.

25 Q. So it would be in Miss Urban's files?

134

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. Do you recall if any changes were made to

3 that July draft?

4 A. In response to these reviews?

5 Q. Well, those reviews, apparently, were

6 solicited in January of 1992.

7 A. Right. Right.

8 Q. Do you recall whether changes were made to

9 the July draft which is Exhibit 14?

10 A. Yes. Extensive changes were made in

11 response to reviewer input.

12 Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Maffei was one of

13 the peer reviewers of that July draft?

14 A. No, I do not. I do not remember seeing

15 comments back from him. They may exist. I simply

16 don't remember.

17 Q. Do you remember whether he was on the list

18 of external peer reviewers?

19 A. No. To my knowledge, he was asked one time

20 to review the draft. I do not remember any other

21 times. Pardon me. He reviewed an early version a

22 long time ago, completely different from this. Then

23 he reviewed this version as per the letter and, to my

24 knowledge, that is his involvement in this draft.

25 Q. Okay. Well, Exhibit 14 is dated July of

135

1 '92. Your letter soliciting comments is dated

2 January of 1992. Was there not a draft prior to this

3 July draft?

4 A. Yes, there was.

5 Q. And that was what was attached or enclosed

6 apparently?

7 A. That is correct. An earlier version of

8 this manuscript was given to these reviewers, yes.

9 Q. And you are saying that you don't remember

10 whether, as a result of your January letter, any

11 comments came back from Dr. Maffei?

12 A. I do not remember, that's correct.

13 Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you a document.

14 Let's mark it 16. Ask if you can identify that?

15 (The document was marked

16 Redfield Exb. No. 16.)

17 THE WITNESS: This is a memo from Dave

18 Black to Nick Aumen through me. Yeah. And he

19 is reviewing a draft of the Urban, et al. paper.

20 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

21 Q. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention

22 particularly to the last paragraph, which I believe --

23 which is on page 3 and if you note at the bottom of

24 page 2 of the document, Mr. Black is apparently

25 recommending that that paragraph be included in the

136

1 Urban report.

2 MS. BIRCH: What was the question?

3 MS. KAVANAUGH: I'm just asking him to look

4 at the paragraph.

5 THE WITNESS: Yes. I see the paragraph.

6 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

7 Q. Could I have it back for just a second?

8 A. (Complies.)

9 Q. States here and this is a recommendation by

10 David Black.

11 Who is David Black by the way?

12 A. He's a scientist in the Planning

13 Department.

14 Q. Is he still with the Planning Department?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Was he part of an internal peer review of

17 the Urban paper?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And do you know what -- why he was selected

20 to conduct the review?

21 A. He wasn't necessarily selected. Internal

22 review is open. We simply distribute it and people

23 can comment as they choose to.

24 Q. He suggests including paragraph that

25 states, among others, "There's no support for the

137

1 concept of a simple and immediate relationship

2 between nutrient levels and vegetation change." He

3 says, "On the other hand, the results are consistent

4 with the idea that nutrients can interact with other

5 variables in a way that leads to significant

6 vegetation change."

7 Do you agree with that?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. Okay. He is referencing dosing studies and

10 he indicates and says -- in particular it says,

11 "Invasion of cattails at the site of the Everglades

12 National Park dosing study years after the cessation

13 of nutrient additions should serve as a warning."

14 Do you know what he meant by that? Why

15 would he want to include a statement like that, to

16 your knowledge? Has there been an invasion of

17 cattails at the dosing study in the Park, do you

18 know?

19 A. I don't know firsthand.

20 Q. Has someone told you that there was?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Who?

23 A. I don't remember, but I have heard it.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. So secondhand.

138

1 Q. Okay. He states, "Untested combinations of

2 factors, such as fire, freezing, unusual hydrology

3 patterns or population fluctuations of insects or

4 diseases could make the system suddenly respond years

5 later to the stress of altered nutrient levels."

6 Do you agree with that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So, would you agree with the proposition

9 that the mere introduction of nutrients is not in and

10 of itself a triggering mechanism for vegetative

11 changes?

12 A. Depends. I do not agree with that.

13 Depends on the extent and circumstances.

14 Q. Do you know of any data in the District's

15 files that would indicate that the introduction of

16 nutrients alone without any of the other factors as

17 described by Mr. Black or as we've discussed today,

18 will cause a vegetative change in an Everglades

19 system that's otherwise stable?

20 A. Yes. In periphyton.

21 MS. BIRCH: Read the question and then the

22 answer back.

23 (Thereupon, a portion of the record

24 was read by the reporter.)

25 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

139

1 Q. What information do you have that would

2 support the introduction of nutrients alone will

3 change the periphyton community in the Everglades?

4 A. I personally have not -- don't have that

5 information.

6 Q. On what are you relying when you say that,

7 then?

8 A. A review that has been distributed and

9 published of the data of David Swift; primarily of

10 David Swift, who is a District researcher.

11 Q. And would those be the technical

12 publications that Mr. Swift has -- the District has

13 published -- pardon me -- authored by Mr. Swift?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Or is there other unpublished data as well?

16 A. No. As far as I know it's all been

17 published.

18 Q. I don't have those in front of me, but my

19 recollection is that Swift also concluded that other

20 chemical aspects of surface water such as PH affect

21 the periphyton community. Isn't that what he says?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So it wouldn't just be nutrient presence

24 alone. Based on his reports, there are other

25 factors, other water chemistry factors?

140

1 A. There can be other factors.

2 Q. I hand you back Redfield Exhibit 15 and the

3 letter to Dr. Maffei. Referencing -- you have some

4 handwritten notes. Is that your handwriting --

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. -- on that letter?

7 A. It is.

8 Q. You reference the version of the report

9 that you apparently were circulating to Dr. Maffei

10 as, "better presenting our case." What did you mean

11 by that?

12 A. The case of the data being discussed in the

13 paper; the data being reviewed, analyzed, synthesized

14 in the paper.

15 Q. So by "our case" --

16 A. Our case has nothing to do with any other

17 context. It's not a legal case. That's not what was

18 being said.

19 Q. By "our case," though, you meant the

20 District's case as being presented for that

21 particular proposition as being presented in the

22 Urban paper, is that correct?

23 A. Scientific case is what I meant.

24 Q. For?

25 A. That the paper is a better scientific

141

1 presentation than the earlier draft. That's what I

2 meant. In other words, we have improved, did a

3 better analysis of our information.

4 Q. And, Dr. Redfield, you don't -- you

5 indicated earlier you don't remember any comments --

6 specific comments, positive or negative from

7 Dr. Maffei, is that correct?

8 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

9 THE WITNESS: That is correct. And -- but,

10 however, may I say, that I do remember now a

11 meeting where his thoughts were discussed.

12 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

13 Q. And what were his thoughts?

14 A. He was concerned about the way we had

15 analyzed the data, what statistics were used. That

16 was the primary thing, details were laid for that --

17 Q. Do you recall --

18 A. -- and he met with us and I don't remember

19 if he gave us anything in writing, but he discussed

20 his feeling.

21 Q. Do you recall whether Dr. Maffei indicated

22 concern that the report could lead to the conclusion

23 that factors other than nutrient concentrations

24 played a larger role in the cattail proliferation in

25 the Everglades Protection Area?

142

1 A. Yes. He may have expressed that concern.

2 Q. And did any of the other peer reviewers

3 express that concern to your recollection?

4 A. I honestly can't respond to that because I

5 don't remember if they said the same things that he

6 did.

7 Q. Do you recall if the Urban report was

8 altered as a result of Dr. Maffei's comments?

9 A. It was comments relative to the importance

10 of the nutrients. No, it was not changed. As a

11 matter of fact, I think he walked away from a meeting

12 strongly believing that we had done a very good job

13 in presenting the information. In other words, I

14 think he learned more from the interaction than we

15 did.

16 Q. Is that report also included in this

17 research planning, the Urban report and final draft?

18 A. No.

19 Q. No, it's not?

20 A. This is a paper of data collected by the

21 District, synthesizing it and publishing it. That's

22 a plan for Everglades research; completely different.

23 Q. Has the Urban report been finalized and

24 published?

25 A. It is being considered by a journal as we

143

1 speak.

2 Q. And which journal is that?

3 A. Aquatic Botany, I believe. I'm not

4 positive. I believe that's right.

5 Q. After the Everglades Settlement Agreement

6 was signed -- I notice you have a copy of it in your

7 TOC file -- were you given a copy of it just as a

8 division director?

9 A. Uh huh, yes.

10 Q. When you attended the TOC meetings were you

11 also given a copy of it?

12 A. I may have been.

13 Q. And what was your understanding as a member

14 of the TOC Subcommittee of the role of the settlement

15 agreement in the Everglades Restoration Program the

16 TOC is reviewing?

17 A. The settlement agreement created the TOC.

18 Q. Right.

19 But I'll give you a hypothetical. If your

20 committee, the Research Committee came to the

21 conclusion, for example, that the STAs were

22 inappropriate for forest reduction study, because

23 they were scientifically unfeasible, or for whatever

24 reason, what is your understanding of whether -- of

25 TOC's ability to recommend actions other than what

144

1 are set out in the settlement agreement?

2 A. TOC is exactly empowered as it says in the

3 settlement agreement. It is a Technical Oversight

4 Committee and it deals with technical issues. If

5 there were a technical issue that came up on the

6 subject you mentioned, then TOC would have a right

7 and be mandated to give a recommendation to the

8 District --

9 Q. And --

10 A. -- on that issue.

11 Q. The -- for example, if the Nutrient

12 Threshold Study came up with a finding that the

13 Everglades could handle 100 parts per billion, then

14 the process, as I understand it, would be the

15 subcommittee would recommend that, say that to TOC

16 and then TOC would go back to the District?

17 A. And make a recommendation, yes, based on

18 that, but it is a technical oversight committee, not

19 a policy oversight committee.

20 Q. I understand. I understand. I just was

21 trying to discern whether -- what role the settlement

22 agreement played in your deliberations; as a

23 fundamental criteria or as a goal that's opened to

24 scientific scrutiny in the course of your

25 deliberations. That's my editorial comment.

145

1 MS. KAVANAUGH: I'm running out of steam.

2 I really don't have anything else.

3 MR. PERKO: I've got a couple of things.

4 MS. KAVANAUGH: I need time to look at the

5 documents.

6 MR. PERKO: Mark this, please.

7 (The document was marked

8 Redfield Exb. No. 17.)

9 MR. PERKO: Judy, are you going to have

10 additional questions?

11 MS. KAVANAUGH: Yeah. Let me go ahead.

12 The problem is I haven't read through all the

13 documents.

14 MR. PERKO: I would like to. I have some

15 questions that could fill up some time. I'd

16 like to reserve the time to do that.

17 MS. BIRCH: I'd like to state for the

18 record the subpoena that Dr. Webber -- wrong

19 deposition -- Dr. Redfield received stated that

20 the documents were to be produced at the time of

21 deposition which was this morning.

22 MS. KAVANAUGH: I understand that.

23 MS. BIRCH: Most of the documents -- some

24 of them you can see were produced previously

25 under public records, but if you need more time

146

1 to review it, we're willing to sit here and

2 wait.

3 MR. PERKO: That's fine. However you want

4 to handle it.

5 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let's take a look at these

6 documents. We'll take the time.

7 MR. PERKO: Can we unmark that, then?

8 (Whereupon, Exhibit 17 was withdrawn.)

9 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

10 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

11 Q. I only had one more question, so why don't

12 I go ahead and finish up?

13 I noticed in some of the documents or one

14 of the documents you produced, Dr. Redfield, that

15 there's some minutes from something called Everglades

16 Restoration Committee. Are you member of a

17 Everglades Restoration Committee at the District?

18 A. I don't know what committee that is,

19 Everglades Restoration Committee. Can you show me

20 the document?

21 Q. I'll try. This was the document I was

22 referencing, but it doesn't reference a committee.

23 Do you know of an Everglades Restoration

24 Committee?

25 A. I don't know of a committee entitled that.

147

1 MS. KAVANAUGH: Well, I don't have any

2 other questions.

3 CROSS (Garth Redfield)

4 BY MR. PERKO:

5 Q. Dr. Redfield, you were previously -- you

6 previously testified about the RFQ process and you

7 stated that the -- that there's an outstanding RFQ

8 seeking additional expertise in hydrodynamic

9 modeling.

10 A. Uh huh.

11 Q. Are there currently any hydrodynamic

12 modelers in the expert pool at the RFQ process?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Who are those?

15 A. I can't -- off the top of my head, the only

16 one I can remember is -- it's a French name -- Mora

17 Sainteux, (phonetic.) I can't spell it for you. He's

18 from University of Colorado. There are several

19 others. I simply don't remember them. There's 70

20 people on the list and that's not my area of

21 expertise.

22 Q. Whose area would that be at the District?

23 Who would be responsible?

24 A. Obeysakera.

25 Q. Do you know if there are any hydrodynamic

148

1 modelers under consideration for inclusion in the

2 expert pool?

3 A. The RFQ is on the street and we have not

4 received any backing.

5 Q. Have you targeted any specific modelers?

6 A. Yes. The RFQ was sent to several whose

7 names we got, but I cannot name those names to you.

8 Q. Would Mr. Obeysakera or Dr. Obeysakera know

9 that?

10 A. Yes. He should.

11 MR. PERKO: Mark this 17 again.

12 (The document was marked

13 Redfield Exb. No. 17.)

14 BY MR. PERKO:

15 Q. Dr. Redfield, I'd like to draw your

16 attention to what's marked Exhibit 17. Will you

17 identify that document, please?

18 A. This is a proposal from the University of

19 Maryland to conduct research for the District.

20 Q. What type of research?

21 A. Modeling of landscape dynamics.

22 Q. Do you know if this proposal has been

23 granted?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. When was that if you know?

149

1 A. Approximately a few months after this date.

2 Say in the fall of '91. I don't know the exact date.

3 Q. Has that work begun yet?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you know who the -- who at the District

6 is overseeing that project?

7 A. It was over seen by the gentleman whose

8 name is on here, Mr. Dewey Worth. He has

9 subsequently left. There is a new gentleman who will

10 be overseeing it under Dr. Fontaine. So, in other

11 words, the ultimate responsibility is Tom Fontaine's.

12 Q. Do you know who the new gentleman is?

13 A. Fred Sklar. That's S-k-l-a-r.

14 Q. What type of modeling is the subject of

15 this contract? What is the purpose of the model?

16 A. Ecological modeling at the landscape level,

17 trying to tie together the factors that have been

18 discussed in this deposition into a predictive model

19 that will allow the prediction of vegetation change

20 across the landscape.

21 Q. And, by factors discussed in this

22 deposition, what specifically do you mean?

23 A. Nutrients, hydroperiod are the primary

24 ones. There also may be fire added in and localized

25 structures like canals, that sort of thing; the

150

1 uniqueness of the landscape of this model.

2 Q. Why is that unique?

3 A. Because they are modeling what happens

4 across the landscape. They're trying to -- if you

5 can visualize a video screen with a map that changes

6 before your eyes, this model will generate such a map

7 based upon its mathematical construction.

8 Q. Is that on a grid by grid basis?

9 A. Yes. Cell by cell.

10 Q. How large are the cells?

11 A. You are asking a non-modeler, but I think

12 there are a thousand square meters in this model.

13 That is my recollection.

14 Q. Am I correct in summarizing what you just

15 said, that the purpose of this is to try to determine

16 vegetative changes associated with the different

17 factors? Is it looking at any other impacts

18 associated with those factors?

19 A. You are getting beyond my knowledge because

20 I'm not -- I have not been recently involved in the

21 model and I really don't know how far they're taking

22 it, so that's just beyond my current knowledge.

23 Q. Do you know if, for example, if the

24 modeling effort is trying to determine water supply

25 impacts downstream?

151

1 A. Yes. Water supply will be considered.

2 There is an important hydrological component to the

3 model.

4 Q. Could you briefly describe what that

5 important hydrological component is?

6 A. It will try to determine the use of water

7 by the landscape. That's a simple way to say it. In

8 other words, you put water in one end and the model

9 will predict how much will come out the other end.

10 It is not directly, to my knowledge, to be used for

11 water supply planning, but it could be used

12 indirectly for water supply planning by giving you

13 some information about the demand of water by the

14 natural system.

15 Q. Will the modeling consider

16 evapotranspiration?

17 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. What was the

18 word before transportation?

19 MS. KAVANAUGH: Evapotranspiration. Called

20 ET.

21 BY MR. PERKO:

22 Q. I believe. Let me take a look at this.

23 There are three tasks set forth in the proposal. Do

24 you know if all three of those tasks were approved?

25 A. No. I really don't. I can tell you -- if

152

1 you read them to me, I can tell you what I know about

2 them, but I cannot respond.

3 Q. Okay. Let me go ahead and do that. Let me

4 refer you to page 7, which briefly outlines the

5 different tasks.

6 A. Task 1 has been begun, but I don't know its

7 current state. I don't know exactly how far along it

8 is.

9 Q. How about Task 2?

10 A. I don't believe Task 2 has been -- any

11 extensive work has been done on Task 2. That is a

12 big task. It's building the model.

13 Q. Task 3?

14 A. No. That's going to be done whenever the

15 model is done, which will be however long. I don't

16 know how long.

17 Q. Okay. Dr. Redfield, I'd like to refer you

18 to the first page of exhibit -- Redfield Exhibit 17,

19 which is dated May 24, 1991 and bears your signature

20 titled, Observations on the Proposal entitled,

21 Modeling Landscape Dynamics in the Everglades Basin,

22 Florida by Robert Costanza. Could you identify that

23 page for me and tell me briefly what it is?

24 A. Those are my comments as requested on

25 this -- on the attached proposal to do research for

153

1 the District.

2 Q. Who requested your comments?

3 A. Dewey Worth.

4 Q. Okay. Whose name is referenced in there?

5 If I could refer you to specific comment number 2,

6 you stated that, "The prediction of landscape changes

7 is at the heart of the lawsuit and we must have a

8 tight plan of attack with clear responsibilities in

9 this effort - trust me academic arrangements aren't

10 enough."

11 To which lawsuit were you referring?

12 A. The federal lawsuit.

13 Q. Okay. Why did you believe that prediction

14 of landscape changes was at the heart of the lawsuit?

15 A. The expansion of cattails is one of the

16 major drivers in the lawsuit and that's a landscape

17 found.

18 Q. And was it your understanding or is it your

19 understanding that this model will predict changes in

20 vegetation types at specific places?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. Why did you reference the lawsuit in

23 your comments?

24 A. Because it was on everybody's mind. That's

25 all.

154

1 Q. Was this modeling effort an outgrowth of

2 the lawsuit?

3 A. No. Not directly.

4 Q. And specific comment number 5 you state

5 that, "The work should be done on site in

6 collaboration with Tom Fontaine, Tom James,

7 Marguerite Koch and others who are currently involved

8 in the District's research and modeling efforts on

9 the Everglades."

10 I believe you previously stated that

11 Dr. Fontaine is the -- has the ultimate

12 responsibility at the District for oversight of this

13 project, is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is Mr. James involved in the project, do

16 you know?

17 A. No longer. That's a year old and he's no

18 longer in that group.

19 Q. Okay. How about Dr. Koch?

20 A. Yes. She's still in that group.

21 Q. Does she have any participation in this

22 modeling effort?

23 A. At this moment, she doesn't, no, to my

24 knowledge.

25 Q. Does anyone else -- are you aware of anyone

155

1 else at the District besides Dr. Fontaine that is

2 involved in this modeling effort?

3 A. The person I just mentioned, Fred Sklar,

4 will be directly involved in it.

5 Q. Anyone else?

6 A. There will be support by other modelers

7 such as Obeysakera. Who else? I can't think of

8 anybody else right now. But there will be others,

9 I'm sure. It's a large undertaking.

10 Q. Do you know when is it anticipated that

11 this project will be complete?

12 A. No, I don't.

13 Q. In specific comment number 1, you state

14 that, "This model --"

15 Let me back up. You state that, "We cannot

16 get into a mode of supporting modeling in which we do

17 not have a direct collaborative role - this model

18 will be too controversial and strategic for that kind

19 of relationship." What did you mean by strategic?

20 A. The model is going to be used as part of

21 very important decision making in environmental

22 management; water supply planning, water quality

23 planning, water resource management in general.

24 That's what I meant by strategic. In other words,

25 it's important.

156

1 Q. Do you know of any specific projects that

2 will rely upon the results of this modeling effort?

3 A. No, I don't. This is a tool. It's being

4 developed as a tool. When it's available, it will be

5 used for decision making, but I can't predict what

6 those specific decisions will be, no.

7 Q. Okay. Do you think that it will be used

8 in, for example, the STA Design Project?

9 A. No. I don't think it will be.

10 Q. How about the nutrient threshold research?

11 A. No. This model is inapplicable. It's an

12 apples and oranges kind of a project.

13 MR. PERKO: I have nothing further.

14 MS. KAVANAUGH: Can I see that for a

15 second?

16 REDIRECT (Garth Redfield)

17 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

18 Q. Just a couple of quick questions.

19 It says here on page 2 of this Exhibit 17

20 at the summary, "We propose to create a spatial

21 landscape dynamics model of the Everglades Basin,

22 Florida, including coupled hydrologic, sediment,

23 nutrient, and vegetation dynamics."

24 I don't understand. You just said that

25 this would not be used at all in the nutrient

157

1 threshold research, that it was a matter of apples

2 and oranges.

3 Isn't -- is this model designed to predict

4 vegetation changes in the Everglades landscape based

5 on the various factors that affect vegetative change?

6 A. Yes. And it will use the nutrient

7 threshold research. It will use the nutrient

8 threshold. Not the other way around.

9 Q. So this model will use the threshold data

10 for triggering vegetative changes that come out of

11 the Nutrient Threshold Research Program?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And that will be intact -- in Task 2, it

14 says, "Task 1 will assemble vegetation data, evaluate

15 and translate the existing hydrologic models into our

16 format and software."

17 I assume that's the computer format, is

18 that correct?

19 A. As far as I know.

20 Q. In says, "Task 2 will add the sediment,

21 nutrient, and vegetative dynamics to the model."

22 As part of Task 2 the research that results

23 from the Nutrient Threshold Research Program will be

24 somehow calibrated or -- excuse me -- inputted into

25 this model, right?

158

1 A. It could be, yes. I have not seen -- this

2 is an early draft, remember, so I can't comment on

3 anything that's going on today.

4 Q. Do you know whether they intend to -- in

5 the final project is it your understanding or do you

6 have any knowledge as to whether they are also going

7 to include in, perhaps, the hydrologic data, does

8 that include climatic changes; drought, flood?

9 A. I presume it does, yes. I can't imagine

10 building a hydrologic model without doing that.

11 Q. What about fires?

12 A. I'm assuming that. I have not read that

13 recently enough to -- specifically to be sure of that

14 answer. I presume fire is being included, but I have

15 not read that document recently enough to know.

16 Q. What about physical operation of the

17 Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project

18 such as digging new canals, operational changes, will

19 that be able to be factored into this model?

20 A. I'm virtually positive, yes.

21 Q. And Mr. Sklar is the person at the District

22 who would have the most knowledge about this now?

23 A. Correct.

24 MR. PERKO: Do you know how to spell his

25 name?

159

1 THE WITNESS: S-k-l-a-r.

3 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

4 Q. I notice that your observations here in

5 Exhibit 17 are dated May 24, 1991. And I have to ask

6 you. Isn't it true that the settlement negotiations

7 were going on at this time?

8 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy.

9 MS. DONLAN: Objection.

10 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

11 Q. You still get to answer.

12 A. I don't know. I just didn't keep track of

13 it. I don't know if they were.

14 Q. Well, then, when you state, "The prediction

15 of landscape changes is at the heart of the lawsuit,"

16 you were saying that without any knowledge as to

17 whether or not there were settlement negotiations

18 ongoing, is that right? I'm trying to understand.

19 A. The lawsuit could have been settled or not.

20 That statement was still true.

21 Q. All right. Was this model to be used to

22 test the cattail expansion contention in the federal

23 lawsuit?

24 A. No.

25 Q. But isn't it true that the cattail

160

1 expansion was at the heart of the lawsuit?

2 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Relevance and

3 argumentative.

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. Isn't that true?

6 A. The effect of nutrient -- nutrients of the

7 Everglades was at the heart of the lawsuit. And the

8 effect of that was -- cattail expansion was part of

9 it, yes.

10 Q. It states here in paragraph 4 of your

11 observations, it says, "Most importantly, while

12 sufficient data probably exists to do a good job of

13 modeling the system hydrologically, extending to

14 environmental consequences is extremely problematic."

15 Why was that your opinion? I mean what do

16 you mean by extremely problematic? If you want to

17 look at it, it's in paragraph 4.

18 A. I agree with the statement.

19 Ecology is and the behavior of organisms in

20 nature is infinitely more difficult to predict than

21 the movement of water which follows more simple

22 physical principles. It's that simple.

23 Q. Isn't it -- in this case isn't it true all

24 of the surface water in the planning area is moved

25 based on the specific regulatory schedules

161

1 established for the movement of surface water? This

2 isn't a situation where you have a naturally flowing

3 water body, for example?

4 A. True.

5 Q. And the nutrients which are transported

6 from one place to another in the Central and Southern

7 Florida Flood Control Project are transported based

8 on where the District sends the water pursuant to the

9 operational schedule, isn't that true, regardless of

10 what the impact is once it gets there?

11 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

12 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

13 Q. Is this a system --

14 A. Nutrients are moved with water.

15 Q. Is this a system where nutrients are

16 flowing, for example, downstream by virtue of natural

17 operations?

18 A. In some parts of the system, they do move

19 great distances under natural heads.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. Other parts of the system are moved

22 entirely through our structures.

23 Q. Your structures move the water with

24 whatever is in them, correct?

25 A. That's correct.

162

1 Q. Do you know whether this model takes into

2 account the -- well, it may not be possible.

3 Does this model take into account the

4 nutrient concentrations in the water at the point it

5 is picked up by the District's system? Let's say it

6 enters a District canal and then factors in

7 additional nutrients that are added to the system as

8 it's transported by the canal to some other location

9 in the project. Does that -- is the project's

10 operation taken into account in this model?

11 A. It would have to be, but that is my

12 personal answer. It is not based on my current

13 reading about this model, because I have not read

14 about the recent version of the model, so I'm not

15 sure. Logic would indicate there's no other way to

16 build a model, however.

17 Q. Do you know whether the water quality data

18 exists to plug into the model as to ambient water

19 quality within each of the thousand square meter

20 cells that the model addresses?

21 A. We have the largest water quality network

22 outside the Netherlands in South Florida. We do not

23 have it on a square kilometer basis, however.

24 Q. And isn't it true that there are some

25 inconsistencies in the water quality data base of the

163

1 District as it currently exists?

2 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

3 THE WITNESS: I'm not qualified.

4 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

5 Q. Have you played -- you've testified earlier

6 that you had no involvement in the settlement

7 negotiations and you did not develop the -- or you

8 were not -- excuse me -- involved in the development,

9 for example, of the 50 parts per billion standard or

10 the interim concentrations that are set out on the

11 settlement agreement.

12 Based on Exhibit 17 and your reference to

13 the lawsuit have you had any participation at all in

14 strategic decisions to address the issues raised in

15 the Everglades federal lawsuit or in the litigation

16 we're in right now, the SWIM Plan litigation?

17 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy of the

18 federal lawsuit and form of the question.

19 THE WITNESS: As mentioned a number of

20 times in this deposition, I have been involved

21 in research planning and some of that stems from

22 requirements of the settlement of the lawsuit as

23 well as a number of other legal mandates.

24 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

25 Q. Have you ever participated in meetings at

164

1 the District where strategies were discussed to

2 insure that the settlement agreement was implemented

3 as written to justify the settlement agreement?

4 MS. DONLAN: Object to the form.

5 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy and

6 form of the question.

7 THE WITNESS: I don't understand that

8 question.

9 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

10 Q. This data, for example, that's going to be

11 generated from this model and the Everglades Nutrient

12 Threshold Research Program and the -- as a result of

13 the implementation of the ENR Project, none of that

14 existed at the time the settlement agreement was

15 executed, did it?

16 A. Yes. The ENR Project existed long before

17 the settlement.

18 Q. The project did, but it had not been

19 constructed?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. There's no data generated yet from that

22 research?

23 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

24 THE WITNESS: The idea was in place.

25 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

165

1 Q. I think you stated when you first came on

2 board it was in fact your project. Have you

3 participated in any discussions at the District where

4 the -- where research was identified as being

5 necessary to sustain the interim concentrations, the

6 discharge, 50 parts per billion concentration set out

7 in the settlement agreement?

8 MS. DONLAN: Object to the form of the

9 question.

10 MS. BIRCH: Object to relevancy.

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

13 Q. Okay. So do you know where those

14 standards, as set out in the settlement agreement,

15 came from?

16 MS. BIRCH: Objection. Asked and answered.

17 Objection to relevancy.

18 THE WITNESS: The question?

19 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

20 Q. There was a settlement agreement. Do you

21 know where they came from? You said you had no

22 participation in preparing them.

23 A. Yes. This morning you asked that question

24 and I answered it. I told you the approach that I

25 knew about to derive the 50 parts per billion.

166

1 Q. Right.

2 Who at the District was involved in

3 preparing the 50 parts per billion standard? Who

4 would have the most knowledge that you know of?

5 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy of any

6 of this.

7 THE WITNESS: Tom MacVicar was at all the

8 meetings.

9 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

10 Q. Who at the District has the most knowledge

11 about the technical basis for the interim phosphorus

12 concentrations established by the SWIM Plan and the

13 settlement agreement for the Park and the Refuge?

14 MS. BIRCH: Are you asking him if he knows?

15 MS. KAVANAUGH: Yeah.

16 THE WITNESS: You are asking me who at the

17 District?

18 BY MS. KAVANAUGH:

19 Q. It wasn't you. Do you know who it was that

20 participated in the development of those standards at

21 the District?

22 A. The only person for sure I know is

23 MacVicar.

24 Q. And who at the District is most

25 knowledgeable about the design of the STAs

167

1 established in the Everglades SWIM Plan?

2 A. Gary Goforth.

3 MS. KAVANAUGH: I don't have anything else.

4 RECROSS (Garth Redfield)

5 BY MR. PERKO:

6 Q. If I could just follow up with a couple

7 more questions. I previously asked you a couple of

8 questions about the RFQ outstanding for additional

9 expertise in the area of hydrodynamic modeling.

10 In what area is that -- has that need been

11 identified? Is there a specific project that that

12 need has been identified for?

13 A. No. There is a general need to be able to

14 predict water movement and to review our ability to

15 do that.

16 Q. Besides the modeling efforts set forth in

17 Exhibit 17 are you aware of any other modeling

18 activity being conducted on or by or on behalf of the

19 District to determine downstream impacts of the

20 Everglades Restoration Project?

21 A. I'm not aware of any.

22 Q. Who would be aware of that if, in deed,

23 additional modeling efforts are being undertaken?

24 A. Dr. Fontaine.

25 MR. PERKO: Nothing further.

168

1 MS. DONLAN: I have no questions.

2 MS. KAVANAUGH: Are you going to instruct

3 him? Are you going to tell him about signing?

4 Do you guys waive?

5 MS. BIRCH: We always sign. We always

6 read. We're not waiving.

7 MS. KAVANAUGH: We want a complete set of

8 what you brought. These are just the exhibits.

9 I don't know exactly the best way to handle

10 that.

11 MR. PERKO: So do I.

12 MS. BIRCH: It seems to me the best way to

13 handle it is to put everything back in the box

14 that was produced and to copy it. The ones that

15 are the exhibits, just to leave the numbers on

16 the documents and I'll instruct the copy company

17 to leave the numbers on.

18 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let's make sure the numbers

19 aren't covering up anything. That's fine with

20 me. You'll be willing to copy them all?

21 MS. BIRCH: It's not too far from here.

22 MS. KAVANAUGH: Let me get my set and I'll

23 send you a copy of these that will go with the

24 deposition.

25 (Witness excused.)

169

2 (Thereupon, at 3:40 p.m.,

3 the deposition was concluded.)

170

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 - - -

4 The State of Florida, )

5 County of Palm Beach. )

8 I hereby certify that I have read the

9 foregoing deposition by me given, and that the

10 statements contained therein are true and correct to

11 the best of my knowledge and belief.

13 Dated this ____ day of______________ 1992.

18 _________________________

19 Garth Redfield

171

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

The State of Florida )

3 County of Palm Beach. )

I, April Y. Sapp, Court Reporter and Notary

5 Public, State of Florida at large, do hereby certify

that Garth Redfield was by me first duly sworn to

6 testify the whole truth; that I was authorized to and

did report said deposition in stenotype; and that the

7 foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 169, inclusive,

are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand

8 notes of said deposition.

9 I further certify that the said deposition

was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth

10 and that the taking of said deposition was commenced

and completed as hereinabove set out.

I further certify that I am not attorney or

12 counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or

employee of any attorney or counsel or party

13 connected with the action, nor am I financially

interested in the action.

The foregoing certification of this

15 transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the

same by any means unless under the direct control

16 and/or direction of the certifying reporter.

17 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my

hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1992.

20 _______________________________

April Y. Sapp,

21 Notary Public, State of Florida

at large. My commission expires

22 August 3, 1993.

DATE: December 14, 1992

TO: Dr. Garth Redfield

c/o Legal Department

3301 Gun Club Road

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

RE: Sugar Cane versus SFWMD

Please take notice that on December 1, 1992, you

gave your deposition in the above referred matter.

At that time you did not waive signature. It is now

necessary that you sign your deposition.

Please come to our office, 319 Clematis

Street, Fifth Floor, West Palm Beach, Florida, at any

time between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, to sign the deposition.

Notice that this address may be different than the

one where you gave your deposition.

If you do not appear to sign your

deposition within thirty (30) days, the original will

be forwarded to the attorney who requested your

appearance for deposition, for filing with the Clerk

of the Court. If you wish to waive your signature,

sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this

page and return to us.

Very truly yours,

MUDRICK, WITT, LEVY & CONSOR

REPORTING AGENCY, INC.

____________________________

April Y. Sapp

NOTARY PUBLIC

I do hereby waive my signature:

______________________________

Dr. Garth Redfield

cc: