142

 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 
                          Volume II
18         Deposition of Douglas Robson, Ph.D.
   
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                           -  -  -
     Wednesday March 31, 1993
22   319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor
     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
23   9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
     1:03 - 2:50 p.m.
24                           -  -  -
                                                 143

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2        On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
           Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,
 3         and New South Hope, Inc.:
               Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
 4             One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
               Two South Biscayne Boulevard
 5             Miami, Florida  33131
               By:  ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQUIRE
 6 
          On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
 7             Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
               4000 International Place
 8             100 S.E. Second Street
               Miami, Florida  33131
 9             By:  DANIEL J. MCGRATH, ESQUIRE
   
10        On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:
               Assistant United States Attorney
11             Department of Justice
               155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627
12             Miami, Florida  33130-1693
               By:  THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE
13 
          On behalf of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative,
14             Roth Farms, Inc. and Wedgeworth Farms, Inc.:
               Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
15             123 South Calhoun Street
               Tallahassee, Florida  32314
16             By:  GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE
   
17         Also Present:  Dr. James T. McClave
                          Dr. James Grimshaw
18                         -  -  -
                                                 144

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:               DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  Douglas Robson, Ph.D.
 7 
    BY MR. PERKO             146
 8  BY MR. BLANK                            184
   
 9 
                                                 145

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  NUMBER                                  PAGE
 6  EXB. NO. 15                              152
 7  Calculations of standards for the Park
 8  EXB. NO. 16                              154
 9  Settlement Agreement
10  EXB. NO. 17                              157
11  Letter to Federico from Robson 7-9-91
12  EXB. NO. 18                              158
13  7-18-91 fax from Walker to Robson with
14  attachments
15  EXB. NO. 19                              159
16  Draft paper by Walker 5-15-91
17  EXB. NO. 20                              165
18  Draft paper by Walker 5-24-91
19  EXB. NO. 21                              171
20  Expert witness designation
21  EXB. NO. 22                              182
22  Disk print out
23  EXB. NO. 23                              236
24  3-12-90 handwritten notes
25 
                                                 146

 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                       -  -  -
 3   Thereupon,
 4                     Douglas Robson, Ph.D.,
 5    being by the undersigned Notary Public previously
 6   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 7            CONTINUED DIRECT (Douglas Robson, Ph.D.)
 8   BY MR. PERKO:
 9       Q.    Dr. Robson, just to remind you, you are
10   under oath.
11       A.    Right.
12       Q.    Do you understand that?
13             I just have a couple of follow up questions
14   from what we talked about yesterday.
15             You mentioned that you drafted Appendix E
16   to the SWIM Plan, is that right?
17       A.    Right.
18       Q.    How much of Appendix E did you actually
19   write?
20       A.    I thought I had provided you a copy of the
21   rough draft that I wrote.
22       Q.    Okay.
23             MR. MCGRATH:  I believe you did.  I believe
24        that was also an exhibit.
25             MR. PERKO:  Part of it was.  Unfortunately,
                                                 147

 1        it seems to have been separated in the copies
 2        that we received.  It's difficult to determine
 3        what you actually wrote.
 4   BY MR. PERKO:
 5       Q.    Did you write everything in the draft that
 6   you produced to us?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Did you write all of the narrative
 9   portion of Appendix E?
10       A.    I wrote all the narrative portion of that
11   in that draft, yes.
12       Q.    In that draft.
13             How does the final Appendix E differ from
14   your draft?
15       A.    Very slightly.  I did not write the
16   introduction.
17       Q.    Okay.
18       A.    And in the first paragraph --
19       Q.    Of page E-2?
20       A.    -- on page E-2 approximately the first half
21   of the first paragraph was not written by me.
22       Q.    Can you identify anything else that was not
23   written by you?
24       A.    On page E-10 there are two formulas for the
25   percent exceedance limit.
                                                 148

 1       Q.    I believe you previously testified that one
 2   of those formulas was written by Dr. Walker, is that
 3   correct?
 4       A.    Right.
 5       Q.    You don't recall which one or do you?
 6       A.    I still don't recall which one, but at
 7   least the preceding sentence, preceding first
 8   formula, was not written by me.
 9       Q.    Do you know who wrote it?
10       A.    I'm not sure.
11       Q.    Do you know who wrote the introduction?
12       A.    No.
13       Q.    Is there anything else that you did not
14   write in Appendix E?
15       A.    I don't believe so.
16       Q.    Dr. Robson, for the Taylor Slough and
17   Coastal Basin Phosphorus Limits in Appendix E, I
18   believe a 1984 base period is used, is that correct?
19       A.    That's correct.
20       Q.    Do you know why the 1984 base period was
21   used?
22       A.    My understanding is that we were obliged to
23   use the first year that we had records.
24       Q.    Do you know why you were obliged to use the
25   first year you had records?
                                                 149

 1       A.    I'm not sure that I know.  I thought it was
 2   the OFW requirement.
 3       Q.    So 1984 was the first year that you had
 4   data for, is that correct?
 5       A.    Right.
 6       Q.    Dr. Robson, have you discussed the Refuge
 7   phosphorus levels or ENP phosphorus limits with
 8   anyone from the Florida Department of Environmental
 9   Regulation?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Other than the brief discussion you had
12   with Dr. Walker and others during the settlement
13   negotiations regarding choice of methodologies to be
14   used in calculating the limits did you speak directly
15   with Dr. Walker during settlement negotiations?
16       A.    I have a problem understanding the
17   question.  What period are we referring to as far as
18   settlement negotiations?
19       Q.    From February 1991 until July.
20       A.    I don't recall any.
21       Q.    Did you speak to him at all while you were
22   drafting Appendix E?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    How many times did you speak to him during
25   that time period?
                                                 150

 1       A.    I would have to guess two or three times.
 2       Q.    And what did you discuss with Dr. Walker at
 3   that time?
 4       A.    These were discussions concerning
 5   discrepancies in the data I was analyzing versus the
 6   data that Walker was analyzing.
 7       Q.    Were those discrepancies in the Refuge data
 8   or the Park data?
 9       A.    I believe they were all in the Park data.
10       Q.    Did you ever resolve the discrepancies?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    How did you resolve them?
13       A.    Through George Shih.
14       Q.    How did Mr. Shih resolve the discrepancies?
15       A.    I don't know.
16       Q.    How many discrepancies were there?
17       A.    Again, I'm guessing, two or three.
18       Q.    Was it in the phosphorus concentration data
19   or the flow data?
20       A.    Both.
21       Q.    What effect did the discrepancies have on
22   your calculations relative to Dr. Walker's
23   calculations?
24       A.    The coefficients in my regression analysis
25   are slightly different from his.
                                                 151

 1       Q.    Are they higher or lower?
 2       A.    Some would be higher and some would be
 3   lower.  Other discrepancies is the one we just looked
 4   at just a moment ago.  We were looking at the formula
 5   for percent exceedance.
 6       Q.    Page E-10?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Page E-10?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    What was the discrepancy in those occasions
11   or formulas?
12       A.    It's explained in the sentence above the
13   first formula.
14       Q.    Okay.  You said that you and Dr. Walker
15   ended up with some different coefficients, is that
16   correct?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Did the calculations ultimately used in
19   Appendix E use your coefficients or Dr. Walker's
20   coefficients or a combination?
21       A.    Used mine.
22       Q.    In all circumstances?
23       A.    Yes.  Except the one I just pointed out.
24             MR. PERKO:  Would you mark this, please.
                                                 152

 1             (The document was marked Exb. No. 15.)
 2   BY MR. PERKO:
 3       Q.    Dr. Robson, yesterday I believe you
 4   testified that Mr. Federico or Dr. Federico expected
 5   you to eliminate the two stations in the Loxahatchee
 6   analysis on July 5, 1991, is that correct?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Why did July 5th stick out in your memory?
 9       A.    Because that was a long day for me.
10       Q.    Why was it a long day for you?
11       A.    That was the day that the Refuge and the
12   District met in Miami to try to come to -- to try to
13   negotiate an agreement with respect to the Refuge.
14       Q.    You were not present at that meeting?
15       A.    No.
16       Q.    Do you know who was?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    Prior to that meeting were there
19   discussions about which stations to eliminate?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    Were different combinations of stations
22   being discussed?
23       A.    I don't believe so.
24       Q.    Was it just the two --
25       A.    Yeah.
                                                 153

 1       Q.    -- whether the two should be eliminated?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    That was the single issue?
 4       A.    That's my recollection.
 5       Q.    Was there anything else that, to your
 6   knowledge, was discussed at the meeting on July 5th
 7   between the Refuge and the District?
 8       A.    Not to my knowledge.
 9       Q.    Dr. Robson, direct your attention to what's
10   been marked as Exhibit Number 15.  Do you recognize
11   this document?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    And what is this document?
14       A.    Document which I sent to Federico on July
15   5th.
16       Q.    What is reflected in the document?
17       A.    There are calculations of standards for the
18   Park.
19       Q.    Were these the standards that or the
20   calculations that were ultimately included in the
21   settlement agreement?
22       A.    Do you have a copy of the settlement
23   agreement?
24       Q.    I can give you one.
25             MR. PERKO:  I only have one copy, counsel.
                                                 154

 1             We can go ahead and mark this as 16.
 2             (The document was marked Exb. No. 16.)
 3   BY MR. PERKO:
 4       Q.    Dr. Robson, show you what's been marked as
 5   Exhibit 16.  Do you recognize that document?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    And what is it?
 8       A.    Settlement agreement.
 9       Q.    Does that help refresh your recollection as
10   to whether the calculations reflected in Exhibit
11   Number 15 are the ones ultimately included in the
12   settlement agreement?
13       A.    These are not.
14       Q.    Is it your understanding that the
15   calculations to be used in developing the Park limits
16   and Loxahatchee levels were agreed upon at the July
17   5th meeting?
18       A.    No.
19       Q.    No?  Do you know when they were agreed
20   upon?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Did Mr. Federico call you during -- on July
23   5th during that meeting?
24       A.    This makes me wonder whether I've got the
25   date correct, July 5th.
                                                 155

 1       Q.    Why does it make you wonder?
 2       A.    Because my recollection is that that dealt
 3   exclusively with the Refuge.
 4       Q.    Did -- when he instructed you to exclude
 5   the two stations from the Loxahatchee analysis, was
 6   Dr. Federico calling you from a meeting in Miami?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Did he call you more than once during that
 9   meeting?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    How many times did he call you?
12       A.    I don't recall.  Several.
13       Q.    And why did he call you several times?
14       A.    I was faxing him analyses of the Refuge
15   data with and without the exclusions.
16       Q.    How many analyses did you fax him?  Do you
17   remember?
18       A.    No, I don't.
19       Q.    Was it more than five?
20       A.    I doubt it.
21       Q.    Were there any differences in the analyses
22   other than the stations utilized?
23       A.    I don't believe so.
24       Q.    What effect did the elimination of the two
25   stations have on the limits or levels?
                                                 156

 1       A.    It would have lowered the limits.
 2       Q.    Do you know why there were discussions at
 3   that meeting regarding the elimination of those two
 4   stations?  Why was that an issue?
 5       A.    Are you saying stations?  Did you say the
 6   two stations?
 7       Q.    Yes.
 8       A.    I'm not sure what their discussion was.
 9       Q.    It's your understanding that they were
10   discussing whether or not to eliminate the two
11   stations?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Do you know if the elimination of the two
14   sampling dates was also discussed at that meeting?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Was it -- did Mr. Federico also instruct
17   you on -- at that time to eliminate the two sampling
18   dates?
19       A.    That's my recollection.
20       Q.    What effect did the elimination of those
21   two sampling dates have on the Refuge levels?
22             MR. FITZGERALD:  Counsel, you've asked and
23        answered that question four times, at least
24        three times yesterday and once this morning.  I
25        doubt the answer is going to change.
                                                 157

 1             THE WITNESS:  It would have lowered them.
 2             (The document was marked Exb. No. 17.)
 3   BY MR. PERKO:
 4       Q.    Dr. Robson, are you familiar with what's
 5   been marked as Exhibit Number 17?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    What is that document?
 8       A.    It's a letter I sent to Mr. Federico on
 9   July 9th.
10       Q.    And what is it concerning?
11       A.    ENP interim and long term standards.
12       Q.    I direct your attention to paragraph 2 on
13   the first page.
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    States that, "I am working on a frequency
16   exceedance formula.  Since I am not certain how Bill
17   W calculated this in the first place, I have left a
18   message on his answering machine and am proceeding
19   with my own interpretation of what he had in mind.
20   George has sent me the relative data."
21             Did you ever resolve your uncertainty as to
22   how Dr. Walker calculated the frequency?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Is that reflected on page E-10 of Appendix
25   E, the two formulas you discussed a few moments ago?
                                                 158

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    No.  Okay.
 3             How did you resolve the uncertainty
 4   regarding the frequency exceedance formula?
 5       A.    As indicated here, it's through proceeding
 6   with my own interpretation and finding I was getting
 7   results almost identical to Walker.
 8       Q.    Did you do any additional work after July
 9   9, 1991 on the frequency exceedance formula?
10       A.    Probably during the next several days.
11       Q.    Were your calculations or Dr. Walker's
12   ultimately included in Appendix E?
13       A.    Both.
14       Q.    Both?
15       A.    As far as frequency exceedance, yes.
16             MR. PERKO:  Mark these, please.
17             (The document was marked Exb. No. 18.)
18   BY MR. PERKO:
19       Q.    Dr. Robson, I direct your attention to
20   what's been marked as Exhibit Number 18.  Do you
21   recognize this document?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    And what is it?
24       A.    It's a short listing of data, flows, S12-D.
25       Q.    On the first page there's a note that,
                                                 159

 1   "Attached differences in data bases may explain
 2   differences in frequency calculations."
 3             Is Dr. Walker referring to the
 4   discrepancies in the data that you discussed a few
 5   minutes ago?
 6       A.    I believe so.
 7       Q.    Does this help refresh your recollection as
 8   to how the discrepancies were ultimately resolved?
 9       A.    Somewhat.
10       Q.    How so?
11       A.    I still don't recall how George Shih
12   resolved these differences.
13       Q.    On the last page, there's a handwritten
14   note that states, "? treated missing conc. as 0? in
15   calculating flow-weighted mean."
16             How were missing concentrations treated in
17   Appendix E?
18       A.    As missing.
19       Q.    Were they treated as 0?
20       A.    No.
21             (The document was marked Exb. No. 19.)
22   BY MR. PERKO:
23       Q.    Dr. Robson, direct your attention to what's
24   been marked as Exhibit Number 19.  Do you recognize
25   this document?
                                                 160

 1       A.    I'm not sure that I have seen this before.
 2       Q.    You don't recall or -- just for the record,
 3   this is a report entitled -- draft report entitled,
 4   Derivation for Phosphorous Limits for Inflows for
 5   Everglades National Park prepared for the Department
 6   of Justice by William Walker dated May 15, 1991.
 7             Dr. Robson, you don't recall whether this
 8   is one of the reports by Dr. Walker that you
 9   reviewed?
10       A.    I don't remember.
11       Q.    Did you review any reports by Dr. Walker on
12   the Derivation for Phosphorus Limits for Everglades
13   National Park?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Do you recall how long the document was?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    Is it possible that this is the document,
18   you just don't know?
19       A.    Possible.
20             MR. MCGRATH:  Objection to form.  Anything
21        is possible.
22   BY MR. PERKO:
23       Q.    Dr. Robson, had you calculated phosphorus
24   limits for the Park prior to reviewing the report on
25   that subject by Dr. Walker?
                                                 161

 1       A.    Well, Walker had done it before I did and I
 2   had seen reports of his before I did the
 3   calculations.
 4       Q.    Let me direct your attention to page 7 of
 5   Exhibit 19 just bates page 0858974.  Last full
 6   paragraph, last sentence states that, "Despite the
 7   limited period of record for these basins, (six
 8   years, providing only three degrees of freedom for
 9   the regression) results are similar to those for
10   Shark River Slough."
11             Dr. Robson, as a statistician, would you
12   feel comfortable with placing reliance on a
13   regression with only three degrees of freedom for
14   error?
15       A.    Well, the reliability would be represented
16   by the standard errors on the regression
17   coefficients.
18       Q.    But are you comfortable with a regression
19   that relies on only three degrees of freedom?
20       A.    If that's all that's available, I'm obliged
21   to be.
22       Q.    Next paragraph, could you just read the
23   next paragraph, Dr. Robson, to yourself.
24             The last sentence of that paragraph states
25   that, "Because of these properties --" that are
                                                 162

 1   discussed in the paragraph, "-- computed limits for
 2   the flow-weighted mean are much more sensitive to
 3   outlier screening than the frequency criteria."
 4             Does this paragraph indicate a preference
 5   for the frequency exceedance model over the
 6   flow-weighted mean model?
 7             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me just object to the
 8        form to the extent that you're asking the
 9        witness to speculate as to the intent of the
10        author of the document and what his preference
11        was.
12             MR. PERKO:  Just asking for his
13        understanding.
14             THE WITNESS:  It appears to be slanted
15        towards that, yes.
16   BY MR. PERKO:
17       Q.    Do you agree with this paragraph?
18       A.    In part.
19       Q.    What part do you agree with?
20       A.    "Skewness increases the risk of Type I
21   error" and the last sentence, "because of these
22   properties, computed limits," etc.
23       Q.    "Because of these properties computed
24   limits for flow-weighted mean are much more sensitive
25   to the outlier screening than are the frequency
                                                 163

 1   criteria."  Is that what you're referring to?
 2       A.    I would say more sensitive.  I wouldn't put
 3   the "much" in.
 4       Q.    Okay.  Do you disagree with any statements
 5   in this paragraph?
 6       A.    I'm not sure about the validity of the
 7   claim that it increases Type II error because
 8   normally when you increase Type I error, you decrease
 9   Type II error.
10       Q.    Dr. Robson, yesterday you mentioned that
11   you may be relying on a paper by Hirsch in support of
12   your testimony.  I direct your attention to the
13   bottom of bates page 0858975.  There's a reference to
14   a paper by Helsel and Hirsch.  Is that the paper you
15   were referring to yesterday?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    Let me direct your attention to Table 2 on
18   bates page 0858979.  It's a table that illustrates
19   Limit Sensitivity to Station, Summary Statistic and
20   Outlier Screening.  In particular, I direct your
21   attention to the bottom of that table where it shows
22   the flow-weighted mean for station S332.  Without
23   Outlier Screening Limit Ranges are from the low of
24   21.2 to a high of 39.7 and the -- and With Outlier
25   Screening the Limit Ranges from a low of 8.0 to a
                                                 164

 1   high of 12.7, is that correct?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Does this demonstrate sensitivity to
 4   outliers?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Does this cause you any concern?  Does this
 7   sensitivity cause you any concern about using the
 8   flow-weighted mean methodology to set limits for the
 9   Park?
10       A.    It causes me concern over rejecting
11   outliers when using a flow-weighted mean.
12       Q.    Why does it cause you concern for rejecting
13   outliers?
14       A.    Because of the sensitivity.
15       Q.    Dr. Robson, I direct your attention to
16   bates page 0858993.  This is a table entitled,
17   Calculation of Frequency Criteria, Shark River
18   Slough.  At the bottom of the page is a reference to
19   the Shapiro Wilk Test for normality.  Are you
20   familiar with the Shapiro Wilk Test?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    And the next line states that, "W equals
23   .9227 w05 equals .8500 null hypothesis accepted."
24             Is that correct?
25       A.    That's what it says, yes.
                                                 165

 1       Q.    Do you agree with the phrase, "null
 2   hypothesis accepted" when testing for normality?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    No?
 5       A.    No.
 6       Q.    Why not?
 7       A.    Null hypothesis is never accepted on the
 8   basis of a statistical test.
 9       Q.    From a statistical standpoint how powerful
10   is the Shapiro Wilk Test when using only 13
11   observations?
12       A.    I don't know.
13             (The document was marked Exb. No. 20.)
14   BY MR. PERKO:
15       Q.    Dr. Robson, direct your attention to what's
16   been marked as Exhibit Number 20.  Do you recognize
17   this document?
18       A.    I recognize some of the figures.
19       Q.    Do you -- well, just for the record, this
20   is a draft report entitled, Derivation of Phosphorous
21   Limits for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
22   prepared for Environmental and Natural Resources
23   Division, U.S. Department of Justice by William
24   W. Walker.
25             Does that mean that you -- does your
                                                 166

 1   previous response mean that you do not recognize the
 2   narrative portion of this report?
 3       A.    I don't remember seeing it, no.
 4       Q.    Do you recall reviewing any reports by
 5   Dr. Walker on the Derivation of Phosphorus Limits For
 6   the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge?
 7       A.    I don't recall any.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Let me direct your attention to page
 9   2 which bears bates number 0870942.  Under item
10   number 5 there's an equation that utilizes the term,
11   "C to the negative .5."  Is that indicative of the
12   inverse square root?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Is this -- have you ever, in your
15   experience as a statistician, used the inverse of the
16   square root to transform data?
17       A.    I don't remember any specific instance
18   where I did.
19       Q.    In Appendix E you used the logs to
20   transform the data, is that correct?
21       A.    Correct.
22       Q.    As opposed to the inverse of the square
23   root, is that correct?
24       A.    Correct.
25       Q.    Next page bates 0870943.  First full
                                                 167

 1   paragraph states that, "The time term B sub 1 D
 2   provides a statistical handle for adjusting the
 3   standards to the baseline year (June 1978 through May
 4   1979.) I'm sorry.  First narrative paragraph, first
 5   sentence.
 6             What is your understanding of the phrase,
 7   "statistical handle" as it applies to the dummy
 8   variable to define the base year?
 9       A.    I would read this to mean that he's using
10   the dummy variable for adjusting standards.
11       Q.    To the baseline year?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Do you know why -- Appendix E uses the
14   dummy variable, does it not?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Why does it utilize the dummy variable?
17       A.    Pardon me?
18       Q.    Why does it utilize the dummy variable to
19   adjust the standards to the baseline year?
20       A.    Because at the top of the page D is defined
21   as dummy variable.
22       Q.    Why was the dummy variable utilized, then?
23       A.    Because we are obliged to adjust to the
24   baseline year.
25       Q.    Is there any other way of adjusting to the
                                                 168

 1   baseline year?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    What other ways are there to adjust to the
 4   baseline year?
 5       A.    With what was used in the ENP.
 6       Q.    What was that --
 7       A.    That was regressing on time.
 8       Q.    -- time averaging?
 9       A.    No.  Regressing on time.
10       Q.    Why did you regress on time for the Park
11   limits but not for the Loxahatchee levels?
12       A.    For the Park we were dealing with annual
13   average so the seasonal effect had been eliminated.
14       Q.    Why is the seasonal effect important in
15   determining whether to regress on time?
16       A.    Otherwise there's seasonal variation in
17   response variable.
18       Q.    Farther down on the same page, paragraph
19   following states that "Observed and predicted values
20   are listed in Table 2.  Diagnostic checks indicate
21   that model residuals are independent of season,
22   serially independent and normally distributed."  Is
23   that correct?
24       A.    That's what it says, yes.
25       Q.    Do 14 data points provide -- are 14 data
                                                 169

 1   points sufficient to provide powerful tests of
 2   independence of season, powerful in a statistical
 3   sense?
 4       A.    Power is relative.  Power starts at a
 5   significance level and then goes all the way up to a
 6   hundred percent, so it would have some power.  I
 7   don't know how much.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Direct your attention to Table 4 on
 9   bates page 0870950 labeled, Sensitivity Analysis
10   Phosphorus Limit versus Stage for Various
11   Assumptions.
12             What does this table indicate, Dr. Robson?
13   Is this the sensitivity analysis that you mentioned
14   that Dr. Walker had performed yesterday?
15       A.    I don't remember the context in which I
16   referred to Walker's sensitivity.
17       Q.    Okay.  Do you recall if you reviewed this
18   sensitivity analysis before you drafted Appendix E?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  You mean independently from
20        this paper since he has testified he doesn't
21        recall seeing this paper?
22             MR. PERKO:  Yes.
23             THE WITNESS:  I don't recall having seen
24        this.
25   BY MR. PERKO:
                                                 170

 1       Q.    Did you review any sensitivity analysis
 2   performed by Dr. Walker prior to drafting Appendix E?
 3       A.    On either the Park or the Refuge?
 4       Q.    Let's start with the Park.
 5       A.    I don't recall any.
 6       Q.    What about the Refuge?
 7       A.    Oh.  Pardon me.  I meant for the Park I do
 8   recall.  For the Refuge I don't.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Did you yourself perform any
10   sensitivity analysis for the Refuge?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Let me direct your attention to Table 4
13   again.  Could you explain to me what this table
14   reflects?
15       A.    The entries in the main body of the table
16   are the limits calculated under the conditions
17   specified by the row heading.
18       Q.    What does the R squared column indicate?
19       A.    R square is variously known as a
20   coefficient of determination.
21       Q.    What significance do you attach to an R
22   square value?
23       A.    Depending on degrees of freedom available,
24   R square is the index measuring the goodness of fit
25   of the model.
                                                 171

 1       Q.    What do you mean when you say, "depending
 2   on degrees of freedom available"?
 3       A.    It's necessary to know what degrees of
 4   freedom to assess the significance of the R square
 5   value.
 6       Q.    If you had three degrees of freedom could
 7   you judge how significant -- the significance of an R
 8   squared value?
 9       A.    I'm trying to visualize a table of
10   significance levels and, no, I couldn't tell you
11   without looking it up in the table.
12       Q.    Let me direct your attention to items 7 and
13   8 on the table.  Number 7 is limits for the perimeter
14   stations and Number 8 is for the interior stations.
15   For the perimeter stations the R squared value is
16   71.6. For the interior stations the R squared value
17   is 55.1. Does this say anything to you about the
18   importance of station effects?
19       A.    I'd have to study this document in order to
20   answer that question.
21       Q.    Item Number 12 lists the limits for six
22   stations with the lowest geometric means.  It's my
23   understanding that for the long term limit levels for
24   the Refuge Appendix E utilized the "3 clean"
25   stations, is that correct?
                                                 172

 1       A.    Correct.
 2       Q.    Do you remember any discussion of using six
 3   clean stations?
 4       A.    No, I don't.
 5       Q.    Dr. Robson, is Dr. Walker a statistician?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    What is his area of expertise, to your
 8   knowledge?
 9       A.    My understanding would be he's a water
10   quality modeler.
11       Q.    Dr. Robson, yesterday you testified that
12   you attended the deposition of Dr. James McClave, is
13   that correct?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Did you prepare any written report or
16   critique as a result of that McClave deposition?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    Have you discussed the McClave deposition
19   with anyone at the District?
20       A.    No, I don't recall that I have.
21       Q.    I believe you also mentioned yesterday that
22   you were aware that Dr. McClave attempted to
23   determine whether there's a statistical correlation
24   between phosphorous inflows to the Refuge and
25   interior marsh concentrations, is that correct?
                                                 173

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Did you review the results of Dr. McClave's
 3   analysis?
 4       A.    I looked over the discovery material that
 5   was provided at the deposition.
 6       Q.    Did you formulate any opinions as a result
 7   of that review?
 8             MR. MCGRATH:  I just need to clarify
 9        something for the record.  Let me object to the
10        form.  The term, "review" in the acronym of
11        research community is a term of art and to the
12        extent that Dr. Robson said he looked at, which
13        may be a common --
14   BY MR. PERKO:
15       Q.    Did you develop any opinions as a result of
16   looking at the discovery materials produced by
17   Dr. McClave?
18       A.    No.  I don't have time enough to study it
19   in detail to develop opinions.
20       Q.    Do you intend to do any additional work in
21   reviewing the discovery materials produced by
22   Dr. McClave?
23       A.    Material I've already seen?
24       Q.    Yes?
25       A.    No.
                                                 174

 1       Q.    Do you have any opinion or do you recall
 2   Dr. McClave stating that he did not find a
 3   correlation between phosphorus and inflows to the
 4   Refuge and interior marsh concentrations?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Do you have any opinion regarding that
 7   conclusion?
 8             MR. MCGRATH:  I would just need to object
 9        to the extent that he's got no basis and has
10        testified he's done really no review of work.
11        The question is calling for a speculative
12        conclusion rather than an opinion.
13             MR. PERKO:  I'm asking if he has an
14        opinion.
15             THE WITNESS:  I reserve my opinion on that
16        issue because I haven't studied it.
17   BY MR. PERKO:
18       Q.    Do you also recall that Dr. McClave
19   questioned the sufficiency of the data for setting
20   phosphorus limits or levels?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Do you have an opinion regarding
23   Dr. McClave's concerns in that regard?
24             MR. MCGRATH:  I need to object to this line
25        of questioning.  You are basically asking one
                                                 175

 1        expert's opinion of another expert's opinion.
 2        There's a plethora of case law to say those are
 3        improper questions.  Again, also object to the
 4        form to the extent that the witness has
 5        testified he's done no background so there's
 6        been no foundation established for that basis.
 7             MR. PERKO:  He hasn't testified he's done
 8        no background regarding the sufficiency of the
 9        data.  He said he reviewed documents.
10             MR. MCGRATH:  Said he looked at documents.
11             MR. PERKO:  That's right.  Whatever.  I'm
12        asking him if he has any opinion regarding
13        Dr. McClave's conclusion that there was
14        insufficient data to set limits or levels.
15             MR. MCGRATH:  Just so the record reflects --
16             MR. PERKO:  I understand your objection.
17             MR. MCGRATH:  -- lack of foundation.
18             THE WITNESS:  My understanding is that we
19        are obliged to set levels based on the available
20        data.
21   BY MR. PERKO:
22       Q.    If you were not obliged to use the data
23   available would you consider the data sufficient to
24   develop limits for the Park?
25             MR. FITZGERALD:  Sorry.  You said for the
                                                 176

 1        Park?
 2             MR. PERKO:  Yes.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, I have a problem with
 4        the term, "sufficient."  A statistician always
 5        prefers a larger sample size.
 6   BY MR. PERKO:
 7       Q.    If you were not obliged to use the
 8   available data to develop limits, would you consider
 9   the data sufficient to derive limits -- reliable
10   limits for the Park?
11       A.    I still have a problem with sufficiency.
12       Q.    If you were not obliged to set limits based
13   on available data, simply asked if you would set
14   statistically reliable limits based on the data
15   that's available for the Park would you do that?
16             MR. FITZGERALD:  Object to the question.
17        You start out telling him not to consider the
18        data that's available and then you say assume
19        that's the data.  Could you clarify the
20        question?
21             MR. PERKO:  He was not obliged.
22             MR. MCGRATH:  I would object to the form of
23        the question as being somewhat incomprehensible.
24             I think if you had it read back you would
25        agree with me.
                                                 177

 1             MR. PERKO:  I'll withdraw the question.
 2             (The document was marked Exb. No. 21.)
 3   BY MR. PERKO:
 4       Q.    Dr. Robson, direct your attention to what's
 5   been marked as Exhibit Number 21 to this deposition.
 6   Do you recognize this document?
 7             For the record, I'll represent that this is
 8   a page out of the District's expert witness
 9   designation in the pending administrative challenge
10   to the Everglades SWIM Plan.
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Did you draft this portion -- the portion
13   pertaining to you of this document?
14       A.    I don't believe so.
15       Q.    Did you -- have you reviewed it before
16   today?
17       A.    I've seen it.
18       Q.    Did you provide any input to the District?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  At what point in time,
20        counsel?
21             MR. PERKO:  Prior to October 1992.  October
22        26, 1992.
23             THE WITNESS:  Input with respect to this?
24             MR. PERKO:  As to what this contained --
25        what is contained in your expert witness
                                                 178

 1        designation.
 2             MR. FITZGERALD:  Counsel, could you clarify
 3        something for me?  Are you asking did he provide
 4        information to draft this narrative or had he
 5        provided information to the District on the
 6        underlying areas?  It's not clear to me what
 7        you're asking.
 8   BY MR. PERKO:
 9       Q.    Let's start with the first question.
10       A.    Well, I have to say I don't remember.
11       Q.    Okay.  Did you provide input on the
12   underlying areas that are indicated in the expert --
13   your expert witness designation?
14       A.    I don't remember being asked to provide any
15   information like this.
16       Q.    Okay.  Under the heading, Subject Matter of
17   Expected Testimony, this document states that you're
18   expected to testify regarding "Review of statistical
19   methods utilized to develop phosphorous concentration
20   limits for inflows to the ENP and the Refuge."
21             Is that your understanding of the subject
22   matter of your expected testimony?
23       A.    Not my understanding.
24       Q.    What is your understanding of the subject
25   matter of your expected testimony?
                                                 179

 1       A.    Review the statistical analyses.
 2       Q.    Once again, I'm a little bit confused by
 3   your distinction of statistical methods and
 4   statistical analyses.  Why are you making that
 5   distinction?
 6             MR. MCGRATH:  I just point out for the
 7        record that this was asked and was answered
 8        yesterday.
 9             MR. PERKO:  I just want to make sure
10        there's no misunderstanding regarding what
11        Dr. Robson is expected to testify.
12             MR. MCGRATH:  I understand.  I'm just
13        noting it for the record.
14             THE WITNESS:  Reviewing methods would be a
15        much broader scope.
16   BY MR. PERKO:
17       Q.    How do you differentiate between methods
18   and analyses?
19       A.    Analyses is a series of calculations
20   dictated by a method.
21       Q.    Just so I understand you correctly, you do
22   not intend to provide testimony as to the
23   appropriateness of the statistical methods utilized
24   in Appendix E, is that correct?
25       A.    The correctness of the statistical methods --
                                                 180

 1   statistical analyses.  Sorry.
 2       Q.    Would you consider the decision to utilize
 3   a dummy variable in the equations in Appendix E a
 4   decision regarding statistical methods or statistical
 5   analysis?
 6       A.    That would be a decision based on an
 7   analysis.
 8       Q.    Just so I understand you correctly, you
 9   may, for example, provide testimony as to the
10   appropriateness of the decision to use a dummy
11   variable in Appendix E?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Next category, Dr. Robson, states that
14   under Substance of Facts and Opinions, "Expert will
15   support opinions expressed within and conclusions of
16   the SWIM Plan as to the matters described above."
17             Is that an accurate statement assuming we
18   substitute the phrase "statistical analysis" for
19   "statistical methods"?
20       A.    Is there any legal jargon involved in this
21   statement?
22             MR. MCGRATH:  Just pointing out, for the
23        record, I mean it's obvious that this is an
24        unknown situation.  This was prepared -- my
25        understanding, it was prepared by counsel in
                                                 181

 1        having to comply with all the various deadlines
 2        and discovery, so to the extent that Dr. Robson
 3        doesn't understand it, that may be quite
 4        natural.
 5   BY MR. PERKO:
 6       Q.    Let me ask you this, Dr. Robson.  Is it
 7   your understanding that you will be providing
 8   testimony that will support opinions expressed in the
 9   SWIM Plan?
10       A.    Well, you're using the same words that are
11   used here.  I still don't know whether this is legal
12   terminology when you say, "support opinions."
13       Q.    What -- what opinions do you anticipate
14   providing at the final hearing in this matter --
15             MR. MCGRATH:  I've got to object to the
16        form of that question --
17   BY MR. PERKO:
18       Q.    -- at this time?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  -- because essentially this
20        last day and a half of his testimony has been
21        eliciting the nature of his opinions.
22             Read the transcript.  We'd be essentially
23        going over everything that you got from this
24        witness in the last day and a half.
25   BY MR. PERKO:
                                                 182

 1       Q.    Can you answer the question, Dr. Robson?
 2       A.    I don't really know what to expect.
 3       Q.    Do you anticipate testifying regarding any
 4   matters that we have not discussed previously in this
 5   deposition?
 6       A.    No.
 7             (The document was marked Exb. No. 22.)
 8   BY MR. PERKO:
 9       Q.    Dr. Robson, let me direct your attention to
10   what's been marked as Exhibit Number 22.  I represent
11   for the record this is a print out of the index to
12   one of the disks that you provided in connection with
13   this deposition and it indicates that either a sector
14   anomaly encountered or cluster anomaly encountered
15   for a number of different files.
16             Did you copy the disks that you provided in
17   connection with this deposition or were they copied
18   by someone at the District?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  Gary, just so I understand
20        the question, are you asking in the context of
21        copying for purposes of producing to you?
22             MR. PERKO:  Yes.
23             MR. MCGRATH:  Okay.
24             THE WITNESS:  I made copies on my computer.
25   BY MR. PERKO:
                                                 183

 1       Q.    Do you know if all the disks were readable
 2   when you sent them?  Did you check to see if they
 3   were readable?
 4       A.    I don't know if I checked them all or not.
 5       Q.    Okay.
 6             MR. PERKO:  Counsel, just for the record,
 7        this was labeled disk number 11 and we simply
 8        can't read it.  If there is a copy of the disk
 9        that we can read --
10   BY MR. PERKO:
11       Q.    Let me ask you this, Dr. Robson.  Do you
12   have a copy -- copies of the data provided in those
13   disks that you provided on your hard drive?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Okay.  So --
16       A.    Sorry.  I have it on floppies.
17       Q.    On floppies, okay.
18             MR. PERKO:  Counsel, I just request if we
19        could, to make sure that we get a copy of disk
20        number 11 if, in deed, it is available.
21             MR. MCGRATH:  Sure.  As soon as this
22        deposition ends I'll take a look into it and see
23        what the story is.
24             MR. PERKO:  I have no further questions.
25             Thank you, Dr. Robson.
                                                 184

 1             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
 2              CROSS (Douglas Robson, Ph.D.)
 3   BY MR. BLANK:
 4       Q.    Dr. Robson, my name is Bob Blank.  I am the
 5   attorney for the Florida Sugar Cane League and I'm
 6   here today representing the League and U.S. Sugar
 7   Corporation and New Hope South, Inc. and, as
 8   Mr. Perko stated, if I ask you any questions that you
 9   don't understand, would you please just let me know
10   and I'll try and rephrase the question.
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    I'll try not to cover too much of the
13   ground that we've already covered, but I do have a
14   few questions for clarification purposes you've
15   already covered.
16             Going back to Exhibit 21 which is your
17   witness designation, I believe I understand the
18   distinction you're making between statistical methods
19   and statistical analyses.
20             Did you review the statistical methods that
21   were utilized in Appendix E to determine the
22   phosphorus limits for the Park and the Refuge?
23       A.    I reviewed those that were used in Appendix
24   E.
25       Q.    Did you review any other methods used to
                                                 185

 1   calculate limits for the Park and the Refuge?
 2       A.    No.  Not to calculate limits.
 3       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether the
 4   methods utilized in Appendix E were the most
 5   appropriate methods to be utilized in determining
 6   limits for the Park and Refuge?
 7             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me make -- reiterate the
 8        form objection when we're using the term, "most
 9        appropriate."
10             THE WITNESS:  I would have a problem with
11        that word also.
12   BY MR. BLANK:
13       Q.    What's your problem with the term?
14       A.    There may be many other methods one could
15   examine.
16       Q.    Are there other methods that you would
17   consider to be more appropriate than the ones that
18   were utilized?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  Did you ask if there -- did
20        he review other methods that are more
21        appropriate?
22             MR. BLANK:  Would you read back the
23        question, please?
24             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
25              was read by the reporter.)
                                                 186

 1             THE WITNESS:  I've indicated that my
 2        opinion was that the tolerance limit would be
 3        more appropriate than the confidence limit.
 4   BY MR. BLANK:
 5       Q.    Would that apply for both the Park and the
 6   Refuge?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    What is the statistical method called or
 9   known as the weighted least squares?
10       A.    It's a method in which individual
11   observations may be assigned different weights in
12   calculating the residuals from squares that is to be
13   minimized.
14       Q.    Does this method account for differences in
15   sample sizes between sampling dates?
16       A.    It could if they were random samples on
17   each date, if they were random samples.
18       Q.    What do you mean by random samples?
19       A.    If they represent observations that are
20   independent and identically distributed.
21       Q.    Are you using the word, "random" in a
22   statistical sense?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Is the least squares the way -- is the
25   least squares method appropriate to use to fit a
                                                 187

 1   regression model when the response variable itself is
 2   an average?
 3       A.    It could be depending on how weights are
 4   calculated.
 5       Q.    Did you consider using weighted least
 6   squares to calculate limits for the Refuge?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    Why not?
 9       A.    I didn't see any circumstance where that
10   would be appropriate.
11       Q.    Have you ever been to the Refuge?
12       A.    Once.
13       Q.    Where did you go?
14       A.    We took an airboat tour.  This was back in
15   December '90 I guess it was.
16       Q.    Was this part of your original orientation
17   meeting that you testified about --
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    -- before?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    Did you go to the 16 sampling stations?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    Why not?
24       A.    I was a passenger on the airboat.  I had to
25   go wherever it went.
                                                 188

 1       Q.    Did you ask to go to the 16 sampling
 2   stations?
 3       A.    At that point I wasn't aware of the
 4   existence of these stations.
 5       Q.    You previously testified concerning some
 6   discussions you had with Dr. Federico on July 5th
 7   concerning deletion of sampling dates and station
 8   locations for the Refuge, is that correct?
 9       A.    Correct.
10       Q.    What advice, if any, did you give to
11   Dr. Federico or the District as to whether stations
12   CA1 and CA2 should be eliminated when determining
13   limits for the Refuge?
14       A.    I did point out that the sample size at
15   these two stations was substantially less than at the
16   other stations.
17       Q.    Did you therefore advise them that those
18   two stations should be eliminated?
19             MR. MCGRATH:  Just let me object to the
20        extent that his involvement in that decision
21        making process, there have been questions asked
22        and answers given on that matter, but I mean
23        Dr. Robson can answer the question if he can.
24             THE WITNESS:  I wouldn't say I advised
25        them.  I pointed out the unequal sample sizes.
                                                 189

 1   BY MR. BLANK:
 2       Q.    Did you in any way object or express
 3   concern with regard to eliminating those two stations
 4   from the data base?
 5       A.    No, I did not.
 6       Q.    And what about elimination of the sampling
 7   dates, 7903 and 7906, did you express concerns or
 8   reservation about eliminating those sampling dates
 9   from the Refuge data base?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Can you tell me who developed or selected
12   the methods that were utilized in Appendix E?
13       A.    It was a combination of Walker and myself.
14       Q.    Can you identify for me in general terms --
15   because I think we have covered this to some extent
16   in your prior testimony -- which methods are
17   attributable to Walker and which are attributable to
18   you?
19       A.    Pages 48 on I --
20       Q.    Are you referring to Exhibit 8, sir?
21       A.    I'm sorry.
22             Well, it's from page E-25 onward I
23   attribute to myself.
24       Q.    And the methods prior to page E-25?
25       A.    Walker.
                                                 190

 1       Q.    Those methods you attribute to Dr. Walker?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    I think you previously testified you had
 4   two contracts with the District, is that correct?
 5       A.    Correct.
 6       Q.    Can you tell me what the terms of those
 7   contracts were?  Let's start with the first one.
 8             MR. MCGRATH:  It's been asked and answered.
 9             MR. BLANK:  Not in the way I'm asking it,
10        counsel.
11             THE WITNESS:  By term you mean duration?
12   BY MR. BLANK:
13       Q.    No.  I mean what were the terms of your
14   employment?
15       A.    No response.
16       Q.    Would you like me to clarify the question?
17       A.    No.  I'm trying to visualize those
18   contracts and I'm having trouble.  I don't remember.
19       Q.    Do you remember by what method you were
20   paid?  Were you employed on an hourly basis?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    With regard to both contracts?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    What was your hourly rate?
25       A.    $75.
                                                 191

 1       Q.    Are you presently under contract with the
 2   District?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    At the same hourly rate?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    The present contract that you have with the
 7   District, can you tell me what the scope of that
 8   contract is, what has the District asked you to do?
 9             MR. MCGRATH:  This also has been asked and
10        answered.
11             THE WITNESS:  I'm to attend depositions,
12        prepare for.
13             MR. MCGRATH:  Before you continue, just so
14        that I am clear, are you asking just the nature
15        of his understanding of what he was retained for
16        or are you asking the scope as it may have been
17        defined in a written contract?
18             MR. BLANK:  Well, I think all he can
19        probably answer to is his understanding.  I'm
20        asking what his understanding is of what he's
21        required to do under his existing contract.
22             THE WITNESS:  My understanding is I am to
23        serve as an expert witness and to assist
24        attorneys at depositions.
25   BY MR. BLANK:
                                                 192

 1       Q.    Have you been requested to prepare any
 2   written reports?
 3       A.    Not in the contract.
 4       Q.    When did this second contract commence?
 5       A.    I'm sorry.  There's been an amendment to
 6   the second contract, which is fairly recent.  Second
 7   contract itself came on in around May of '91.
 8       Q.    Okay.
 9       A.    Something like that.
10       Q.    Since May of '91 have you prepared any
11   written reports concerning this case?
12       A.    Yes, I have.
13       Q.    And what are those reports?
14       A.    I prepared a draft in Appendix E.
15       Q.    Let me ask the question a different way.
16   Do they include any reports that we have not already
17   identified here today?
18       A.    Not that I know of.
19       Q.    In the context of the production of
20   documents in connection with your deposition did you
21   provide copies of all written reports or memoranda
22   that you would have prepared in connection with this
23   case?
24       A.    All I could find.
25       Q.    Were there some that you know of that you
                                                 193

 1   didn't find?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    What would those be?
 4       A.    The paper that I mentioned concerning
 5   Seasonal Kendall Test and --
 6             MR. MCGRATH:  He's asking you for documents
 7        and papers that you have prepared, so to the
 8        extent if you're referring to another
 9        publication, you've looked at, we're focusing
10        now on your work product and are there documents
11        or, you know, reports of your work product that
12        you know exist but you couldn't find and didn't
13        produce?  That's what we're focusing on right
14        now.
15             MR. BLANK:  Thank you, counsel.
16             THE WITNESS:  No.
17   BY MR. BLANK:
18       Q.    Are there any documents or reports that you
19   couldn't find that you will be relying on with regard
20   to your anticipated testimony in this case?
21       A.    Again, that I prepared?
22       Q.    No.  That anyone prepared.
23       A.    That published paper that I mentioned
24   earlier.
25       Q.    Is that the paper -- excuse me.  Which one
                                                 194

 1   was that?
 2       A.    That was concerning the impact of serial
 3   correlation on the Seasonal Kendall Test.
 4       Q.    This was the one by Hirsch I believe it
 5   was?
 6       A.    Hirsch was one of the authors.
 7       Q.    Okay.  Can you tell me what the detection
 8   limits were for total phosphorus during the period of
 9   records for the Everglades National Park?
10       A.    Started out at two and ended up at four.
11       Q.    Parts per billion?
12       A.    Yeah.
13       Q.    Do you know when the change occurred?
14       A.    I don't recall.
15       Q.    Do you recall how values at or below the
16   detection limit were treated in the analysis of
17   phosphorus limits for the Park?
18       A.    They were set to four.
19       Q.    Who made that decision?
20       A.    Walker.
21       Q.    Did you agree with that decision?
22       A.    I don't have a better alternative.
23       Q.    Was there a change in the detection limits
24   for total phosphorus during the period of record for
25   the Refuge?
                                                 195

 1       A.    I don't recall when that change took place.
 2   I don't know.
 3       Q.    Do you recall if any of the samples of
 4   phosphorus concentration values and the samples taken
 5   for the Refuge were adjusted in your analysis to the
 6   detection limit?
 7       A.    I seem to recall that there were some at
 8   four.
 9       Q.    Did you ever review the field data or the
10   raw data for the Refuge?
11       A.    I was asked that question yesterday and my
12   response was I couldn't recall whether I had been
13   provided with raw data or with data that appears in
14   Appendix E.
15       Q.    So your answer is you don't recall?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Can you tell me what are the sources for
18   phosphorus input into the Refuge?
19       A.    I don't feel I'm qualified to identify all
20   sources.
21       Q.    What sources do you know of?
22       A.    There are the inflow structures.
23       Q.    Which structures are you referring to?
24       A.    I could make a mistake in identifying these
25   structures.  I didn't analyze the inflow data.  I'll
                                                 196

 1   guess S5.  I guess there's other ones.
 2       Q.    Is your problem that you just don't recall
 3   the nomenclature used to designate those structures?
 4       A.    I don't remember the structures themselves.
 5       Q.    You don't remember their names or you don't
 6   remember seeing those structures?
 7       A.    I probably saw them during the helicopter
 8   tour during that orientation.
 9       Q.    Was it your understanding when you were
10   working on Appendix E that the limits being
11   established for the Refuge were to be utilized to
12   regulate inflows from District structures into the
13   Refuge?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Did you ever request from the District or
16   anyone else the inflow -- the data from the inflow
17   structures?
18       A.    No.
19       Q.    Why not?
20       A.    I had the understanding that Walker had
21   examined the data and found no correlation in the
22   particular analyses that he did and, in the time
23   schedule I was working under, I would not have had
24   time myself to pursue that.
25       Q.    What was the time schedule you were working
                                                 197

 1   under?
 2       A.    The date that is paramount in my mind is
 3   July 5th, that my analyses had to be essentially
 4   completed by July 5th.
 5       Q.    And when did your analyses commence?
 6       A.    Again, you're referring to the Refuge?
 7       Q.    Yes, sir.
 8       A.    I'm vague on that.  I first worked on the
 9   Park and I'm not sure exactly when I started working
10   on the Refuge data.
11       Q.    Well, I think you just testified that you
12   were working under some time pressure or abbreviated
13   schedule that had to be completed by July 5th.  Can
14   you tell me approximately how much time prior to July
15   5th you commenced this work?
16       A.    I would guess approximately a month.
17       Q.    And your prior testimony was that you
18   understood that Dr. Walker attempted to determine a
19   correlation between inflows into the Refuge and
20   phosphorus concentration levels at the interior marsh
21   stations?
22       A.    I have a vague recollection of that, yes.
23       Q.    Did you ever review any of Dr. Walker's
24   work in that regard?
25       A.    No, I did not.
                                                 198

 1       Q.    Can you tell me who told you that
 2   Dr. Walker had attempted to determine a correlation?
 3       A.    My recollection is that this came up during
 4   one of those meetings that I attended.
 5       Q.    As a statistician were you concerned or
 6   troubled by the fact that Dr. Walker wasn't able to
 7   find a correlation knowing that these interior marsh
 8   limits were going to be used to regulate inflows?
 9             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me just object to the
10        form of that question in so far as it may
11        mischaracterize testimony which is of record
12        because I don't recall there being any testimony
13        regarding this witness knowing that Dr. Walker
14        did not or could not correlate inflows.
15             MR. BLANK:  I don't understand your
16        objection, counsel.
17             MR. MCGRATH:  Well, your question is based
18        on this witness' knowledge that there was not a
19        correlation or that he knew that someone else
20        had determined there was not a correlation and I
21        am not aware of anything on the record that
22        establishes that fact which is the basis for
23        your question.
24             MR. BLANK:  Do you understand the question --
25             MR. MCGRATH:  I'm objecting to the form.
                                                 199

 1             THE WITNESS:  I think so.
 2             MR. BLANK:  -- Dr. Robson?
 3             THE WITNESS:  It is an issue that I would
 4        pursue if I had the time.
 5   BY MR. BLANK:
 6       Q.    If you determined that there is no
 7   correlation or let me -- I'm going to ask you two
 8   questions now.
 9             If you would determine that there is no
10   correlation between inflows into the Refuge and the
11   phosphorus concentration levels in the interior marsh
12   would you consider it improper to utilize the interim
13   or the long term limits set in Appendix E as a basis
14   of regulating inflows?
15             MR. MCGRATH:  Just for the record, let me
16        object to the form, number one, to the extent
17        that you're asking the witness to speculate.
18        Number two, to whatever extent you used the
19        term, "improper."
20             THE WITNESS:  I would have second thoughts
21        including wondering about the quality of the
22        data involved.
23             MR. BLANK:  Well, Doctor, that's something
24        we all wonder about.
25             MR. FITZGERALD:  Move to strike.
                                                 200

 1   BY MR. BLANK:
 2       Q.    When you say, "wondering about the quality
 3   of the data involved," are you referring to the data
 4   for the Refuge?
 5       A.    What I had in mind was the data on the
 6   inflow.
 7       Q.    Why would you be concerned about the
 8   quality of that data?
 9       A.    If I could find no correlation, then, well
10   both data would be somewhat suspect.
11       Q.    Do you have any concerns regarding the
12   quality of the data used in Appendix E to establish
13   the marsh limits for the Refuge?
14       A.    My understanding is that we're obliged to
15   set limits based upon the data that are available.
16   There is nothing we can do now about the quality of
17   the data.
18       Q.    I don't think your answer was responsive to
19   my question, Doctor.
20             Do you have concerns regarding the quality
21   of the data?
22       A.    Well, I thought I answered your question.
23   I'll have to say no, I don't have concerns.
24       Q.    What steps did you take to insure that the
25   data that you analyzed for the Refuge was, in fact,
                                                 201

 1   good data?
 2       A.    By good data, you mean no errors in data
 3   entries?
 4       Q.    Yes.  Or truly representative of the
 5   concentration levels that existed when the samples
 6   were taken.
 7       A.    I would have no way of knowing that.
 8       Q.    Did you inquire concerning the methodology
 9   that was utilized to collect the samples?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Who did you inquire of?
12       A.    Federico.
13       Q.    What did you ask him?
14       A.    What platform was used in collecting the
15   samples.
16       Q.    Excuse me?
17       A.    What platform was used in collecting the
18   samples.
19       Q.    What do you mean by platform?
20       A.    Boat or airboat or helicopter.
21       Q.    What did he tell you?
22       A.    Helicopter.
23       Q.    What else did Dr. Federico tell you
24   concerning the methodology of collection?
25       A.    He explained that a bucket was lowered from
                                                 202

 1   the helicopter to collect the samples.  Is that what
 2   you --
 3       Q.    Yes.
 4             Did he tell you anything else?
 5       A.    He did, but I don't remember.
 6       Q.    Was this communication you had with
 7   Dr. Federico verbal?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    You never received a written report from
10   the District concerning the methodology of collection
11   for the Refuge?
12       A.    No, I did not.
13       Q.    Did you ever request one?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Was it your understanding, then, that all
16   samples utilized in Appendix E were collected from a
17   helicopter?
18       A.    Not necessarily all samples.
19       Q.    Could you identify which ones were not?
20       A.    No.
21             MR. MCGRATH:  With respect to that
22        question, I just want to clarify.  Are you
23        talking about with respect to the Refuge in
24        Appendix E or talking about Appendix E as a
25        whole?
                                                 203

 1             MR. BLANK:  All of my questions now are
 2        directed to the Refuge.
 3             MR. MCGRATH:  Okay.
 4             Thank you.
 5             THE WITNESS:  That was my understanding.
 6   BY MR. BLANK:
 7       Q.    Excuse me.  Now I am confused.
 8       A.    Talking about the Refuge.
 9       Q.    Was it your understanding that all samples
10   for the Refuge were collected from a helicopter?
11       A.    Not necessarily, no.
12       Q.    But you cannot identify which ones may not
13   have been collected from a helicopter?
14       A.    I don't know for sure, no.
15       Q.    Do you know whether the helicopter landed
16   prior to collecting the sample?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    I'm talking about landed in the Refuge.
19       A.    Yeah.  No, I don't know.
20       Q.    Do you believe that Dr. Federico told you
21   that the samples were collected by lowering a bucket
22   from the helicopter?
23       A.    Yeah.
24       Q.    What effect would the problem of rotor wash
25   of the helicopter have on the sample?
                                                 204

 1       A.    I don't know.
 2       Q.    Wouldn't that tend to contaminate the
 3   sample?
 4             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me object to the form to
 5        the extent it's outside --
 6             MR. BLANK:  He's just testifying of his own
 7        knowledge, counsel.
 8             MR. MCGRATH:  I realize that.  But,
 9        obviously, any opinion by a statistician on the
10        subject matter of the question would be
11        speculation.
12             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
13   BY MR. BLANK:
14       Q.    Was it your understanding that the 16
15   sampling stations were permanent locations?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    And was it also your understanding the
18   helicopter returned to the same location each time it
19   sampled a station?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    How was the station located?
22       A.    I don't know.
23       Q.    Do you know if those stations were marked
24   during the sampling period?
25       A.    I don't know.
                                                 205

 1       Q.    If they were not would that introduce more
 2   uncertainty or variability into your analysis of the
 3   limits for the Refuge?
 4       A.    It would depend on accuracy with which they
 5   did return to the same location and upon the
 6   magnitude of the local variation.
 7       Q.    Didn't the model or the analysis used in
 8   Appendix E for the Refuge assume permanence?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    If they did not return to the same site
11   each time they sampled would that assumption be
12   valid?
13       A.    Yes.  If the location is that target area,
14   I think you return to the same target area.
15       Q.    What do you mean by target area?
16       A.    I don't know.
17       Q.    Well, I don't understand your answer.
18   Could you explain it a little further?
19       A.    How large, what the precision is and their
20   ability to return to exactly the same point.
21             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me object to the question
22        as being vague and to the extent that you're
23        referring to returning to the sampling site or
24        not returning to the sampling site, I mean what
25        degree of -- are we talking about missing it by
                                                 206

 1        a foot, by a mile?
 2             MR. BLANK:  That's what we're getting ready
 3        to get into, counsel.
 4             MR. MCGRATH:  Okay.
 5             MR. BLANK:  I think my question was phrased
 6        in the term, "precise."
 7             MR. MCGRATH:  Precise is not necessarily a
 8        well defined precise term.
 9   BY MR. BLANK:
10       Q.    Well, what we're dealing here with, Doctor,
11   are we not, is spatial variability if, in fact, the
12   samples were not taken at precisely the same
13   location?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Do you have any opinion as to the distance
16   from the original sampling location that would
17   introduce spatial variability for additional samples?
18       A.    No, I don't.
19       Q.    How would you determine that?
20       A.    I couldn't determine it from the existing
21   data.
22             Are you asking me how I would design an
23   experiment?
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    Well, this would involve taking clusters of
                                                 207

 1   point samples at a number of locations.
 2       Q.    In the Refuge?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    Would it also necessitate being able to
 5   determine at this time the precise location of the
 6   original 16 sampling stations?
 7       A.    No.  I don't think that's necessary.
 8       Q.    Why not?
 9       A.    Because whatever spatial variation there is
10   around the target location will simply go into the
11   error variance and have the effect of increasing the
12   error variance.
13       Q.    The error variance of what?
14       A.    The residual variance around the fitted
15   model.
16       Q.    Are you talking about the existing model?
17       A.    Any model.
18       Q.    Well, Appendix E establishes 14 compliance
19   stations for the Refuge, does it not?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    As a statistician would you feel
22   comfortable with establishing compliance stations
23   that cannot be precisely located?
24       A.    I would only say that in future the same
25   level of precision should be used in locating
                                                 208

 1   stations that's been used during the POR.
 2       Q.    Do you know what that level of precision
 3   was?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    I think you previously testified that you
 6   had never been to the sampling stations.
 7       A.    Right.
 8       Q.    Do you know what type of hydrological
 9   variability exist between those stations?
10       A.    I have seen maps, but I haven't retained
11   that in my mind.
12       Q.    Is your answer therefore no or you don't
13   recall?
14       A.    I don't recall.
15       Q.    What type of maps did you see?
16       A.    I believe they were contour maps.
17       Q.    Have you seen any maps other than contour
18   maps?
19       A.    I don't believe so.
20       Q.    Do you know how the regulatory stage for
21   the Refuge is established?
22       A.    I don't know.  I think I answered that
23   question yesterday and I left it up to the judgment
24   of the subject matter specialists.
25       Q.    Would you look at Exhibit 8, Table 6?  It's
                                                 209

 1   on page E-18.  Do you see that table I'm talking
 2   about?
 3       A.    I do.
 4       Q.    Can you tell me why missing values were
 5   coded as 0?
 6       A.    That was a decision I made simply because
 7   it was easy for my computer to recognize the cells
 8   that contained 0.
 9       Q.    Would you then look at Table 9 on E-22?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Why were missing values coded as 1 on that
12   table?
13       A.    Because on calculating geometric means I'm
14   taking a product of the entries across the row.
15       Q.    Again, that was a decision that you made?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    With regard to your 0 coding on Table 6 is
18   it possible that in any of your analyses that a
19   missing value could have been read as 0 instead of as
20   a missing value?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Why not?
23       A.    My analyses were all run on data sets using
24   the 1 as the --
25       Q.    You did not run any analyses using all 16
                                                 210

 1   stations and all 16 dates?
 2       A.    Yes.  But in those analyses the 0s were
 3   replaced by 1s.
 4       Q.    You are certain of that?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Did you provide us with copies of those
 7   analyses?
 8       A.    They would be in floppies that I provided
 9   and any print outs I could find would have been
10   included.
11       Q.    Okay.
12             MR. BLANK:  Why don't we take a lunch
13        break.
14             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
15             MR. BLANK:  Could you read back the last
16        question and answer?
17             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
18              was read by the reporter.)
19   BY MR. BLANK:
20       Q.    Dr. Robson, would you take a look back at
21   Table 9 on page E-22?
22             MR. MCGRATH:  Exhibit Number 8?
23             MR. BLANK:  Exhibit Number 8.
24   BY MR. BLANK:
25       Q.    Do you see that table?
                                                 211

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Can you tell me what accounts for the
 3   missing values on Table 9?
 4       A.    Well, you can't see it without counting the
 5   number of missing values in a row, but let's see.  In
 6   the first column the -- there's one missing value, so
 7   that mean of 13.5 listed for the first column
 8   station, geometric mean 13.5 would have been
 9   calculated by taking the product of all 14 or the sum
10   of the logs of all 14 and in the case of some of the
11   logs, then you would divide by 13 instead of 14
12   because there was one missing value.
13       Q.    All right.  But do you know why that value
14   was missing?
15       A.    I don't know.
16       Q.    Did you make any efforts to inquire of the
17   District as to why that value was missing?
18       A.    Not that specific value, no.
19       Q.    Any of the values on Table 9?
20       A.    It was my understanding that there were
21   sampling dates when no samples were taken from
22   certain stations.
23       Q.    I'm sorry.  Could you repeat your answer?
24       A.    It was my understanding that there was
25   sampling dates in which no sample was taken from some
                                                 212

 1   stations.
 2       Q.    Do you know why no sample was taken --
 3       A.    No, I don't.
 4       Q.    -- from those stations?
 5       A.    No.
 6       Q.    Do you know if field notes or log books
 7   were kept by the individuals that collected the
 8   samples?
 9       A.    I don't know.
10       Q.    Did you ever ask to see those?
11       A.    No, I didn't.
12       Q.    Can you tell me why a ten percent rejection
13   limit was selected for the Refuge?
14       A.    It was my understanding that this was
15   agreed upon by the parties concerned.
16       Q.    Who did you receive that understanding
17   from?
18       A.    Well, that understanding was based on the
19   fact that I heard no objections to the use of the ten
20   percent level.
21       Q.    Who suggested using the ten percent level?
22       A.    I'm not sure.
23       Q.    When did you first become aware that a ten
24   percent level was being suggested be utilized?
25       A.    Again, I'm not sure.  Probably in May or
                                                 213

 1   June.
 2       Q.    Did you conduct any analysis to determine
 3   whether the ten percent rejection level was
 4   appropriate to utilize for the Refuge?
 5       A.    I wouldn't know how to conduct such
 6   analysis.
 7       Q.    So your answer is no?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    On the same exhibit, Doctor, would you turn
10   to page E-16.  In the second sentence of the first
11   paragraph, it states, "Sampling at these permanent
12   stations was initially bimonthly but became sparser
13   later in this POR as seen in the data Table 6."
14             Do you see that sentence?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Can you tell me why sampling at the 16
17   stations was initially bimonthly and then reduced?
18       A.    I don't know why.
19       Q.    Did you inquire?
20       A.    I don't recall inquiring.
21       Q.    In the regression model used for the
22   Loxahatchee limits, is it correct that the only
23   predictor variables are stage and an indicator
24   variable distinguishing the base period from later
25   dates?
                                                 214

 1       A.    You used the term, "predictor variable"?
 2       Q.    Yes, sir.
 3       A.    Those are the only dependent variables that
 4   were used, yes.
 5       Q.    Does the model therefore assume there is no
 6   year to year variability that is not accounted for by
 7   stage?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Would you explain your answer, please.
10       A.    We have the base year variable.  That
11   accounts for differences between base year and
12   subsequent years.
13       Q.    What about year to year variability after
14   the base period?
15       A.    Any variability after the base period
16   that's not explained by stage goes into the residual
17   variance.
18       Q.    What do you mean by residual variance?
19       A.    It means squared area.  That's measure of
20   the magnitude from the departure from the fitted
21   model observed by this fitted square and averaged.
22       Q.    Going back to the permanence of the 16
23   interior marsh stations do you understand that the
24   model for the Refuge does not provide an estimate of
25   the average phosphorus concentration in the entire
                                                 215

 1   refuge?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Could these stations be considered random
 4   effects if you wanted to use the Refuge data to
 5   estimate average phosphorus concentration in the
 6   entire Refuge?
 7       A.    I doubt it.  I don't know how the 16
 8   stations were originally selected.
 9       Q.    Do you know who selected them?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    What additional data do you feel would be
12   required if you wanted to estimate the average
13   phosphorus concentration in the entire Refuge?
14       A.    The probability sample of locations in
15   which to take samples.
16       Q.    How many additional samples would you feel
17   would be necessary?
18       A.    I don't have a feeling.  The more you take
19   the more precise you get.
20       Q.    Do you know of any statistical method or
21   test that could be utilized to determine the
22   appropriate sample size in order to adequately model
23   the entire Refuge?
24       A.    I don't know what you mean by model.  I
25   don't know what model you're referring to.
                                                 216

 1       Q.    If you were to prepare or create a model in
 2   order to estimate or establish average phosphorus
 3   concentration throughout the Refuge, is there a
 4   statistical method or test that you would utilize to
 5   determine the adequacy of the sample size for that
 6   purpose?
 7       A.    Adequacy is an undefined term.  I'd have to
 8   say no.
 9       Q.    Okay.  I believe you answered this question
10   before, but I'd like to ask it again, just to make
11   certain that I understand your answer.
12             Did you consider deriving separate models
13   for each station in the Refuge?
14       A.    I analyzed the model in which I included
15   station effects.
16       Q.    But did you try fitting station specific
17   models?
18       A.    I'm sorry.  Again, I'm not sure what you
19   mean by -- I fit a model with certain specific
20   effects in the model.
21       Q.    But you did not develop a model for each
22   station as I understand it.
23       A.    That's correct.  I did not.
24       Q.    On page E-17 the sentence at the top of the
25   page, "Reasons for missing values in the POR are
                                                 217

 1   unknown at this time but may have resulted from a
 2   lack of water to sample at a station due to low stage
 3   in the marsh."
 4             Do you see that sentence?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Did you write that sentence?
 7       A.    I did.
 8       Q.    Are the reasons now known?
 9       A.    I don't know.
10       Q.    Does that mean they are now -- they still
11   remain unknown?
12       A.    They are unknown to me.
13       Q.    Okay.  That's what I was asking you.
14             Do you have any knowledge that station
15   CA1-1 and CA2 are more difficult to sample for some
16   reason at low stages than the other 14 stations?
17       A.    I'm not sure.
18       Q.    Are you saying you don't know?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Can you explain why there's a missing
21   observation at station CA-1 in March of '79 when
22   stage was at 15.21 of a value of stage that you
23   consider to be too low to be able to include in
24   observations from this date in your model?
25       A.    That was not my understanding of the reason
                                                 218

 1   for establishing that threshold of 15.42.
 2       Q.    Isn't that what the first sentence of the
 3   paragraph on E-17 says?
 4       A.    Well, no, it doesn't say that 15.42 is the
 5   stage at which --
 6       Q.    Where are you getting 15.42?
 7       A.    Toward the bottom of that paragraph.
 8       Q.    Well, I was asking about 15.21.
 9       A.    But your question I thought pertained to
10   the 15.42 -- 15.21 being less.
11       Q.    That's correct.  Less than your 15.42
12   threshold.
13       A.    Right.  But my understanding of that 15.42
14   threshold was not -- that stages below that were too
15   low to take a sample.
16       Q.    I'm not sure that still answers my
17   question, but what I'm trying to understand is why we
18   had a value at station 2 on a date when we had a
19   stage of 15.21 whereas we had missing values on other
20   dates when the stage was higher.
21       A.    I don't know why.
22       Q.    Okay.  Did you inquire?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    The next sentence on page E-17, "The POR
25   data include stage measurement of three marsh gauges
                                                 219

 1   CA1-7, 9 and 8C on each sampling date and the average
 2   of these three readings is taken as an index of stage
 3   for the marsh on that date."
 4             Do you see that sentence?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Did you write that sentence?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Do you have any knowledge of how the stage
 9   index you're referring to there relates to the actual
10   stage at all 16 or 14 marsh stations?
11       A.    I can't know because I've never seen the
12   stages at these other stations.
13       Q.    Do you have any data at all that would
14   indicate the amount of variability in stage at each
15   station on any given sampling date?
16       A.    No, I do not.
17       Q.    Do you know if any such data exists?
18       A.    I don't know.
19       Q.    Did you inquire as to whether any such data
20   existed?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Do you have any idea of a possible bias of
23   index of stage when used to estimate the average
24   stage in the whole marsh area?
25             MR. MCGRATH:  Object.  Asking for
                                                 220

 1        speculation to the extent you're looking for
 2        this witness to testify about possibilities.
 3             MR. FITZGERALD:  Could I get the question
 4        read back?
 5             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 6              was read by the reporter.)
 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, I'm not sure what you
 8        mean by bias.  An index is intended to be
 9        proportional to, not equal to.
10   BY MR. BLANK:
11       Q.    You don't understand the question?
12       A.    No, I don't.
13       Q.    What I'm asking you is do you think there
14   is any bias that results from using the index of
15   stage the way it's been used in the model for the
16   Loxahatchee?
17       A.    I still have a problem with the term,
18   "bias."  The average for these three gauges is not
19   intended to represent the average for the entire
20   marsh.  As an index it's suppose to be proportional
21   to and the proportional factor is unknown.
22       Q.    All right.  How about when it's used to
23   estimate just the average stage of each of the 16 or
24   14 stations?
25       A.    Same.  Same argument applies.
                                                 221

 1       Q.    It's not used for that purpose?
 2       A.    It's used for that purpose as an index.
 3   It's intended to be proportional to, but not equal to
 4   the average for those 16 stations.
 5       Q.    Okay.  Would you look at the next sentence
 6   on E-17.  "Excessively low stage introduces potential
 7   biases in the field process of collecting a water
 8   sample from a helicopter while also impairing
 9   precision through missing values."
10             Did you write that sentence?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    How does a low stage produce a missing
13   value?
14       A.    Well, it was my understanding that at a
15   sufficiently low stage it was not possible to collect
16   a water sample from a helicopter.
17       Q.    From which stations?
18       A.    From the stations where the stage is
19   lowest.
20       Q.    Do you know which ones they are?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Going back to the stage index, since the
23   three stations are an index, is it important to use
24   exactly or precisely the same stations to measure the
25   stage index when determining compliance?
                                                 222

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Would the result be biased if these
 3   stations were changed?
 4             MR. FITZGERALD:  Counsel, you are asking
 5        about the locations of CA1-7, 9, 8C, those
 6        stations?
 7             MR. BLANK:  Correct.  The stage.
 8             MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  That would produce a
10        bias.
11   BY MR. BLANK:
12       Q.    The next sentence, "This exclusion is
13   implemented hereby establishing a threshold stage of
14   15.42 feet MSL per acceptance of five sampling dates
15   in the POR and in the future compliance monitoring
16   record."
17             Do you see that sentence?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Did you write that sentence?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    How was that threshold stage of 15.42
22   determined?
23             MR. MCGRATH:  Again, I believe this was
24        asked and answered but the witness can answer
25        it.
                                                 223

 1             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
 2   BY MR. BLANK:
 3       Q.    Would you turn to page E-50?
 4       A.    Five-oh?
 5       Q.    Yes, E-five-oh.
 6             And read the first paragraph on that page.
 7       A.    Okay.
 8       Q.    Did you read that paragraph?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Can you now tell me where the 15.42 came
11   from?
12       A.    No.
13       Q.    Thank you.  Just wanted to make sure I
14   wasn't missing something.
15             On page E-18, Doctor, Table 6, would you
16   look at observations for station 7 on February of
17   '80?
18       A.    I'm sorry.  Which station was that?
19       Q.    7, CA1-7.  Do you see the value there, 96?
20       A.    Yes, I do.
21       Q.    Does that correspond to February of '80?
22       A.    Right.
23       Q.    And would you also look at the value for
24   CA1-9, station 9 on June of '80?
25             MR. FITZGERALD:  Counselor, can you tell me
                                                 224

 1        where you are finding a June '80 sampling event?
 2             MR. MCGRATH:  Yeah.  I can't find it.
 3             MR. FITZGERALD:  I can't find a June '80.
 4             MR. BLANK:  You can find it in a couple of
 5        places but I think the important thing is
 6        whether the witness can find it.
 7             THE WITNESS:  No, I can't.
 8             MR. FITZGERALD:  June?
 9   BY MR. BLANK:
10       Q.    Did I say June?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    I meant July.
13             Thank you.
14             MR. FITZGERALD:  There was no trick to it.
15        I couldn't find it.
16   BY MR. BLANK:
17       Q.    July of '80.
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Do you see the value 169?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    And look at station 12 on 9-80.
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    Do you see the value 494?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    And station 15 on 9-80?
                                                 225

 1       A.    121.
 2       Q.    Yes.
 3             Do you have any explanation as to why these
 4   numbers appear so large both relative to the same
 5   station on different sampling dates and relative to
 6   other stations on the same sampling date?
 7       A.    I don't know why.
 8       Q.    Did you inquire as to why --
 9       A.    No, I did not.
10       Q.    -- that was?
11             Turning to page E-20, their regression
12   models.  Was a weighted regression used to account
13   for the fact that the response variable is an average
14   based on a sample size that was not constant over all
15   sampling dates?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    Why was a step change chosen to model an
18   increase in phosphorus levels?
19       A.    This was incorporated simply as a contrast
20   between base year and subsequent years.
21       Q.    And, again as I understand it, that wasn't
22   your decision to do it in that fashion, is that
23   correct?
24       A.    That's correct.
25       Q.    Do you know of any event in the Refuge
                                                 226

 1   system that would have caused a step change in
 2   phosphorus levels in the marsh between the base
 3   period and later dates?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    Did you consider other models that used a
 6   linear or quadratic term to model increasing
 7   phosphorus concentrations?
 8       A.    Could you read the question again?
 9             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
10              was read by the reporter.)
11             THE WITNESS:  You mean linear quadratic in
12        time?
13             MR. BLANK:  Yes.
14             THE WITNESS:  I didn't, no.
15   BY MR. BLANK:
16       Q.    Do you know if anyone did?
17       A.    It's my understanding that Walker did.
18       Q.    Did you see the results of his analysis?
19       A.    I believe I saw them on the screen of his
20   lap top computer.
21       Q.    Did you request a copy so that you could
22   analyze it?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Why not?
25       A.    Well, he was running the same regression
                                                 227

 1   program that I was running, so I would get the same
 2   results that he got.
 3       Q.    Is it true that the model that you used
 4   with regard to the Refuge assumed the slope of the
 5   line relating phosphorus concentration to stage is
 6   the same in both time periods?
 7       A.    That would be one way of putting it.
 8       Q.    Is your answer yes?
 9       A.    Pardon me?
10       Q.    Is your answer yes?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Did you look at other models that included
13   an interaction term between time periods and stage?
14       A.    No, I did not.
15       Q.    Why not?
16       A.    It -- I'm not sure what you mean by time
17   period.
18       Q.    I'm talking about the difference between
19   the base year and subsequent years.
20       A.    It didn't occur to me to do so.
21       Q.    Would you turn to page E-3, same exhibit
22   and look at the last sentence on that page, the
23   sentence that reads, "This rule allows a ten percent
24   risk of false rejection in contrast to the usual five
25   percent or one percent risk allowed in scientific
                                                 228

 1   practice but the larger the risk of false rejection
 2   the smaller the risk of erroneously accepting the
 3   baseline hypothesis."
 4             Do you see that sentence?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Does that sentence apply equally to the
 7   model used for the Refuge?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Do you know, sir, how often sampling will
10   occur to determine whether the average phosphorus
11   concentration in the marsh is above what it would
12   have been in the base period?
13       A.    I don't remember.
14       Q.    Did you consider any methods from the field
15   of statistical procession control to set a limit for
16   phosphorus and the action that should be taken if
17   limit is exceeded?
18       A.    No.
19       Q.    Why not?
20       A.    If the limit is exceeded, then that
21   triggers action of a committee of experts.
22       Q.    Is it your understanding, sir, that if the
23   limit is exceeded the action that is taken will not
24   be enforcement?
25       A.    We're getting outside my scope now.
                                                 229

 1       Q.    Well, you can simply say you don't know if
 2   that's your answer.
 3       A.    Okay.  I don't know.
 4       Q.    Did you perform any calculations to compute
 5   the costs of making a Type I or Type II error?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    Why not?
 8       A.    I wouldn't know the costs involved.
 9       Q.    Would you assume just for the moment that
10   there is no serial correlation between sampling dates
11   and assuming that the model for the Refuge is
12   adequate to describe the system and assuming that the
13   phosphorus concentrations behave as if they were in
14   the base period, can you tell me the probability or
15   do you know what the probability is of at least one
16   geometric mean being above the interim limit over a
17   period of one year?
18       A.    This would depend on the frequency of
19   sampling during the -- one of the conditions under
20   the conditions you specified that's calculable using
21   binomial theorem.
22       Q.    Do you know what the formula would be for
23   calculating it?
24       A.    1 minus .9 of the power end.
25       Q.    Did you say 29?
                                                 230

 1       A.    .9.
 2       Q.    .9. okay.  Thank you.
 3             Turn to page -- I think we're already there
 4   on E-20, are we not?
 5             MR. FITZGERALD:  We're on E-3.
 6             MR. BLANK:  We're back on E-20 now.
 7   BY MR. BLANK:
 8       Q.    I'm looking at the last sentence of the
 9   last full paragraph, the sentence which reads, "These
10   "clean 3" were adopted as representing the cleanest
11   TP condition during the POR."
12             Do you see that sentence?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Did you write that sentence?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Assuming that the marsh is impacted by
17   inputs from stations 5A and 6, the District
18   structures we referred to before, do you know of any
19   geographical and/or hydrological reasons why stations
20   5, 6 and 16 would be the "cleanest" stations out of
21   the 14 considered?
22       A.    No, I don't.
23       Q.    How do you know that the difference in
24   phosphorus concentrations between the three "clean"
25   stations and the other 11 stations isn't due to some
                                                 231

 1   factor other than inputs from 5A and 6?
 2       A.    I don't know.
 3       Q.    Assume for a moment, no, absolutely no
 4   phosphorus inputs from 5A and 6.  Is it possible that
 5   there is a high probability that the 14 station
 6   average will exceed the long term limit?
 7             MR. MCGRATH:  Let me just object in calling
 8        for speculation, asking the witness to testify
 9        as to what's possible.
10             MR. BLANK:  You can scratch the possible.
11             Is there a high probability that the 14
12        station average will exceed the long term limit?
13             MR. FITZGERALD:  That's assuming no inflow?
14             MR. BLANK:  No inflows from 5 and 6.
15             THE WITNESS:  Are you going to specify a
16        period of time during what we're talking about?
17   BY MR. BLANK:
18       Q.    You can pick whatever period of time you
19   like, Doctor.
20       A.    If you pick a long enough period then the
21   probability will be high.
22       Q.    How long would be long enough?
23       A.    Well, you would apply the 1 minus .9 at the
24   power end.
25       Q.    Okay.  Inasmuch as you would be comparing a
                                                 232

 1   14 station average to a 3 station average, wouldn't
 2   it be even greater than 1 minus .9 of the power end?
 3       A.    You haven't included an assumption about
 4   how these 14 stations -- how these other 11 behave
 5   relative to the 3 and you gave me a lot of
 6   assumptions to begin with.
 7       Q.    Do you want the question repeated?
 8       A.    No.  I want to specify the assumption that --
 9   I can't answer the question without your having
10   specified an assumption concerning how these other 11
11   behave relative to the 3.
12       Q.    What type of assumption would you need?
13       A.    An assumption of homogeneity.
14       Q.    All right.  Why don't you make that
15   assumption?
16       A.    I can't see any reason why it would be
17   higher.
18       Q.    Would you turn to page E-25, the last
19   sentence of the first full paragraph, "Extreme
20   reluctance to delete data on purely statistical
21   grounds without external evidence of an anomaly was
22   built into the present criterion by requiring the
23   P-value for rejection of a datum be .0001 instead of
24   the customary .01."
25             Do you see that sentence?
                                                 233

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Did you write that sentence?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    How would you characterize the grounds for
 5   deleting the data at station C1 and C2, stations 1
 6   and 2, from consideration in fitting the model?
 7       A.    That deletion was based on subject matter
 8   considerations rather than statistical outlier
 9   analysis.
10       Q.    And how would you characterize the grounds
11   for deleting the data for the dates 3-79 and 6-79
12   from consideration in fitting the model?
13             MR. FITZGERALD:  Counsel, you are talking
14        about the ENP, not the model?
15             MR. BLANK:  No, sir, I'm not.
16             MR. FITZGERALD:  You were on page E-25,
17        right?
18             MR. BLANK:  Yes.
19             MR. FITZGERALD:  I may be seriously
20        mistaken, but I always thought the 12 structures
21        were in Everglades National Park, so I would
22        object to your question then as vague, if you're
23        implying not.
24             (Discussion held off the record.)
25   BY MR. BLANK:
                                                 234

 1       Q.    Are you confused, sir?
 2       A.    No.
 3             MR. FITZGERALD:  I'll read it in the
 4        record.
 5             THE WITNESS:  Well, those dates were
 6        excluded on the basis of this threshold stage
 7        15.42.  Again, that is -- that's a subject
 8        matter decision.
 9   BY MR. BLANK:
10       Q.    Okay.  How was the level of P-value .0001
11   arrived at?
12       A.    That's a reflection of my own extreme
13   reluctance to delete data on the basis of statistical
14   grounds.
15       Q.    But you did -- did you attempt an analysis
16   with different P levels that is different than .0001?
17       A.    No.
18             MR. FITZGERALD:  Before your next question
19        counsel, could I ask the court reporter to flag
20        about the last two or three pages and could I
21        have those three on an expedited basis?
22   BY MR. BLANK:
23       Q.    If you used a less stringent criteria of
24   .01 or .001 do you know which observations would
25   appear to be outliers?
                                                 235

 1       A.    Now are we referring to the Park or --
 2       Q.    How about the Refuge first?
 3       A.    I don't know.
 4       Q.    Would you know for the Park?
 5       A.    I could look through and identify some.
 6       Q.    How long would it take you sir, to do that?
 7       A.    Not long.
 8       Q.    I tell you what, Doctor, I'm not really as
 9   interested as I am in the Refuge.
10             Could you tell me if any of the
11   observations that we flagged on Table 6, that is for
12   stations 7, 9, 12 and 15 -- do you remember those
13   values of 69, 169, 494 and 121?
14             MR. MCGRATH:  Page E-18, Doctor.
15   BY MR. BLANK:
16       Q.    E-18.
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Could you tell me if any of those
19   observations would appear as outliers using a
20   criteria of .01 or .001?
21       A.    I at the moment don't know how to relate
22   this sample index to the data in the table.
23       Q.    You could make that calculation, though,
24   given time, could you not?
25       A.    Yes, I could.
                                                 236

 1       Q.    Okay.  Are you familiar with using outlier
 2   analysis as a screening tool to indicate which
 3   observations require further investigation and not
 4   necessarily whether they should be deleted?
 5       A.    I understand that is used, yes.
 6       Q.    Did you use it in this case in that
 7   fashion?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    And why not?
10       A.    I had no access to information attaching to
11   any one of these numbers.
12       Q.    When you say you had no access, what do you
13   mean?
14       A.    In field notes.
15       Q.    Did you request access to that data?
16       A.    No, I did not.
17             MR. BLANK:  Let me mark this as 23.
18             (The document was marked Exb. No. 23.)
19   BY MR. BLANK:
20       Q.    Do you have Exhibit 23 in front of you,
21   Doctor?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    Did you attend a settlement conference or
24   meeting on the 3rd of March?
25       A.    You mean the 12th of March?
                                                 237

 1       Q.    I'm sorry.  The 12th of March.
 2             And I will represent to you, Doctor, that I
 3   believe whoever took these notes, put the wrong year
 4   there.  I think it was probably '91 and not '90.
 5             But I see your name appears on the top of
 6   the page, is that correct?
 7       A.    That's correct.
 8       Q.    Do you know who took these notes?
 9       A.    No.
10       Q.    Do you remember attending the meeting
11   that's referenced by these notes?
12       A.    I don't remember the particular date.
13       Q.    Do you remember the meeting after reviewing
14   these notes?
15       A.    Okay.  Yes.
16       Q.    You do recall attending the meeting?
17       A.    I still don't remember the particular
18   meeting, but I was there.
19       Q.    Would you look at the last page, the one
20   that's bates stamped 0863594.  Do you note there's a
21   different date on the top of that page?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    Do you recall whether the meeting lasted
24   from 3-12 to 3-15?
25       A.    No, I don't recall.
                                                 238

 1       Q.    Do you recall any of the discussions that
 2   would be reflected on 3594?
 3       A.    Doesn't ring a bell.
 4       Q.    All right.  On this same page do you see
 5   the reference "marsh 12.4 PPB"?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    And then an arrow with the word, "if" over
 8   it?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Do you know what that refers to?
11       A.    No, I don't.
12       Q.    Do you see the word, "rainfall"?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    And then next to it 34.1?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Do you know what that value reflects?
17       A.    No, I don't.
18       Q.    Well, those three numbers, the number for
19   S5A, S6 and rainfall appear to be added together to
20   get 97.2, is that correct?
21       A.    They do add to 97.2.
22       Q.    Do you recall any discussions that would
23   indicate that the amount of phosphorus per year
24   entering the Refuge from atmospheric deposition would
25   equal 34 or 34.1 tons?
                                                 239

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    In your analysis of the limits established
 3   for the Refuge did you take into consideration in any
 4   way the amount of phosphorus inputted into the Refuge
 5   through atmospheric deposition?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    The phosphorus limits established in
 8   Appendix E are based on total phosphorus, is that
 9   correct?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Were you aware or are you aware of any
12   discussions relating to regulating based upon
13   orthophosphate rather than total phosphorous?
14       A.    I seem to recall hearing some discussion,
15   not participating in it because I'm ignorant in this
16   area.
17       Q.    You are ignorant in the difference between
18   ortho phosphorous and total phosphorus?
19       A.    Yes, I am.
20             MR. BLANK:  Can we take a short break?
21             MR. MCGRATH:  Yeah.  Sure.
22             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
23   BY MR. BLANK:
24       Q.    Dr. Robson, with regard to the stage gauge
25   readings for the Refuge and the three gauges at C1-7,
                                                 240

 1   9 and 8 were you provided the individual data for
 2   each of those gauges or simply provided averages?
 3       A.    I don't remember.
 4       Q.    Can you tell me whether any one of the
 5   gauges had consistently higher readings than the
 6   other two gauges?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    If that fact were true, that is that one
 9   gauge was consistently higher than the other two
10   gauges, what effect would that have had on the way
11   you utilized stage in your model for the Refuge?
12       A.    I would have been pleased to see that, but
13   it wouldn't affect the way I used it.
14       Q.    Why would you have been pleased to see it?
15       A.    It would tend to support the use of these
16   gauges as providing an index.
17       Q.    An index of what?
18       A.    Of stage.
19             MR. BLANK:  Okay.  I have no further
20        questions.
21             We would reserve, just for the record, the
22        right to resume Dr. Robson's deposition in the
23        event the computer disk that we were unable to
24        read has some information on it that would be
25        relevant to further questions for Dr. Robson.
                                                 241

 1             MR. MCGRATH:  That's understood.
 2             MR. FITZGERALD:  I reserve our right to
 3        object to it.  I assume it was timely provided.
 4        They had three weeks to call you and say:  Where
 5        is it?  Not that we necessarily object, but we
 6        reserve our right to do so.
 7             MR. MCGRATH:  I wanted to clarify while we
 8        were on the record.  There's the matter of the
 9        disk which I will represent I will look into.  I
10        was wondering, there was the -- you wanted an
11        updated version of the vita?
12             MR. PERKO:  Three things or four things
13        that I remember; disk, the updated vita, any
14        reports that Dr. Robson reviewed of Dr. Walker
15        and the Hirsch paper that he cited.  I'll send
16        you a letter confirming that.
17             MR. MCGRATH:  Is that it?
18             MR. BLANK:  Unless someone's got other
19        questions.
20             Thank you, Doctor.
21             I would be remiss if I didn't further thank
22        you for coming down here for us to take your
23        deposition.
24           (Witness excused.)
25 
                                                 242

 1           (Thereupon, at 2:50 p.m.,
 2            the deposition was concluded.)
 3 
                                                 243

 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 Douglas Robson, Ph.D. was by me first duly sworn
 6   to testify the whole truth; that I was authorized to
     and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that
 7   the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 241,
     inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of my
 8   shorthand 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_____________ 1993.
18 
   
19 
   
20                      _______________________________
                        April Y. Sapp,
21                      Notary Public, State of Florida
                        at large.  My commission expires
22                      August 3, 1993.