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.                 )
17 
   
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                           -  -  -

                                                 2

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          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
 6 
          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
 9 
          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
12 
          On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
13             Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
               123 South Calhoun Street
14             Tallahassee, Florida  32301
               By:  GARY PERKO, ESQUIRE
15 
   
16                         -  -  -

                                                 3

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:             DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  Garth Redfield
 7 
    BY MS. KAVANAUGH       6               156
 8  BY MR. PERKO                  147               167
   
 9 

                                                 4

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 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

                                                 5

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4  NUMBER                                              PAGE
 5 
 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

                                                 6

 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

                                                 7

 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

                                                 8

 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

                                                 9

 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

                                                 10

 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

                                                 11

 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

                                                 12

 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

                                                 13

 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

                                                 14

 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.

                                                 15

 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.

                                                 16

 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

                                                 17

 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?

                                                 18

 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

                                                 19

 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

                                                 20

 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

                                                 21

 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

                                                 22

 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

                                                 23

 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 --

                                                 24

 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

                                                 25

 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

                                                 26

 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

                                                 27

 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

                                                 28

 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?

                                                 29

 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.

                                                 30

 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.

                                                 31

 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

                                                 32

 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.

                                                 33

 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

                                                 34

 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

                                                 35

 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.

                                                 36

 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

                                                 37

 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.

                                                 38

 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

                                                 39

 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,

                                                 40

 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.

                                                 41

 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

                                                 42

 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 --

                                                 43

 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

                                                 44

 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

                                                 45

 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

                                                 46

 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

                                                 47

 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

                                                 48

 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

                                                 49

 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.

                                                 50

 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.

                                                 51

 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

                                                 52

 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 --

                                                 53

 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

                                                 54

 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

                                                 55

 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,

                                                 56

 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?

                                                 57

 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.

                                                 58

 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?

                                                 59

 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.

                                                 60

 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.

                                                 61

 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

                                                 62

 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

                                                 63

 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,

                                                 64

 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

                                                 65

 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

                                                 66

 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?

                                                 67

 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?

                                                 68

 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.

                                                 69

 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?

                                                 70

 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?

                                                 71

 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

                                                 72

 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

                                                 73

 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

                                                 74

 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?

                                                 75

 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.

                                                 76

 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

                                                 77

 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

                                                 78

 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

                                                 79

 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

                                                 80

 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

                                                 81

 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

                                                 82

 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

                                                 83

 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:

                                                 84

 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?

                                                 85

 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.

                                                 86

 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.

                                                 87

 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

                                                 88

 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

                                                 89

 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

                                                 90

 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.

                                                 91

 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

                                                 92

 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

                                                 93

 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

                                                 94

 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.

                                                 95

 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

                                                 96

 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

                                                 97

 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 --

                                                 98

 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

                                                 99

 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.)
 3 
 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.
 2 
 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

 1 
 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                         -  -  -
 3 
 4   The State of Florida,   )
 5   County of Palm Beach.   )
 6 
 7 
 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.
12 
13             Dated this ____ day of______________ 1992.
14 
15 
16 
17 
18                           _________________________
19                               Garth Redfield
20 
21 

                                                 171

 1                C E R T I F I C A T E
   
 2 
     The State of Florida     )
 3   County of Palm Beach.    )
   
 4 
               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.
11 
               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.
14 
               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.
18 
   
19 
   
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:
     cc:
     cc: