1 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and) WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 4 Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. vs. ) 92-3038 5 ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 7 Respondents. ) _________________________________ 8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC..;) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. 10 ) 92-3039 vs. ) 11 ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 12 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 13 Respondents. ) _________________________________ 14 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) 15 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 16 Petitioners, ) DOAH Case No. ) 92-3040 17 vs. ) ) 18 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 19 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 20 _________________________________ DEPOSITION OF MORRIS ROSEN 21 Taken before Barbara Bolton, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary 22 Public in and for the State of Florida at large, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in 23 the above cause. - - - 24 Thursday, March 4, 1993 319 Clematis Street 25 West Palm Beach, Florida 9:10 A.M. - 5:35 P.M. 2 1 - - - APPEARANCES: 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH 4 FARMS, INC.: 5 HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS, ESQUIRES 123 S. CALHOUN STREET 6 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32314 BY: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE 7 8 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: 9 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 10 4100 ONE CENTRUST FINANCIAL CENTER 100 S.E. SECOND STREET 11 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQUIRE 12 13 ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 14 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 15 155 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE SUITE 700 16 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130 BY: MAUREEN DONLAN, ESQUIRE 17 Also present: Curtis D. Pollman, Vice President 18 KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. 19 20 I N D E X 21 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 22 MORRIS ROSEN 23 BY MR. PERKO 4 24 25 3 1 E X H I B I T S 2 PLAINTIFF'S NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 1 SYNOPSIS OF RESUME OF MORRIS ROSEN 5 4 2 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION 72 5 3 LAB MANUAL 76 6 4 SEMI-ANNUAL LABORATORY STATUS 7 REPORT DATED 8/20/82 125 8 5 SEMI-ANNUAL LABORATORY STATUS REPORT DATED JANUARY 1, 1983 TO JUNE 30, 9 1983 129 10 6 MEMORANDUM DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1983 TO MORRIS ROSEN FROM LOUIS A. TOTH 139 11 7 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF 12 AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF ON THE PERIPHYTIC ALGAE OF CONSERVATION AREA 1 143 13 8 THE ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF 14 GYTTJA IN CONSERVATION AREA 2A 152 15 9 MARSH PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS, PHOSPHORUS CONTENT AND SPECIES 16 COMPOSITION OF EVERGLADES PERIPHYTON COMMUNITIES 154 17 10 MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 4, 1978 TO 18 MORRIS ROSEN FROM DAVID R. SWIFT 162 19 11 MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 27, 1975 TO DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 20 FROM MORRIS ROSEN 164 21 12 MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 3, 1979 TO FRED DAVIS FROM MORRIS ROSEN 166 22 13 SEMI-ANNUAL LABORATORY STATUS REPORT 23 DATED JULY-DECEMBER 1982 176 24 14 SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR USING UPLAND MARSH TO CONTROL WATER QUALITY 181 25 4 1 - - - 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 3 - - - 4 THEREUPON, 5 MORRIS ROSEN, 6 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly 7 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 8 THE WITNESS: I do. 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. PERKO: 11 Q. Would you please state your name for 12 the record, sir? 13 A. Morris Rosen. 14 Q. And where are you currently 15 employed, Mr. Rosen? 16 A. At the South Florida Water 17 Management District. 18 Q. And what is your current position? 19 A. Staff Planner. 20 Q. And what division do you work in? 21 A. Well, currently I'm on temporary 22 assignment to the Office of Counsel. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. My regular assignment is Lower 25 District Planning. 5 1 Q. Who do you report to? 2 A. Abe Cooper and Jackie Birch. 3 Q. Okay. Mr. Rosen, have you ever been 4 deposed before? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. My name is Gary Perko. I'm 7 an attorney for the Sugar Cane Growers 8 Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms and Wedgworth 9 Farms who are petitioners in the administrative 10 challenge of the Everglades SWIM Plan. I'm going 11 to be asking you a few questions about your 12 anticipated testimony in this proceeding as well 13 as other knowledge you may have that is relevant 14 to the issues in the case. If you don't 15 understand my question, please tell me and I'll 16 try to rephrase it. If you ever feel like you 17 need to have a break, just let me know and we'll 18 take a break, get a drink of water, whatever you 19 need. 20 MR. PERKO: First of all, I'd like 21 to have the court reporter mark this as Exhibit 22 Number 1. 23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Rosen-1 is 24 marked for identification.) 25 BY MR. PERKO: 6 1 Q. Mr. Rosen, I show you what's been 2 marked as Exhibit Number 1. Are you familiar 3 with this document? 4 A. Yes, it's my resume or curriculum 5 vitae. 6 Q. Is that a current resume? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is it complete to your knowledge? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. When did you prepare this resume? 11 A. Several months ago. 12 Q. I see on your resume here that you 13 graduated from the University of Connecticut in 14 1963. Is that correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And your major was in Botany? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. With a minor in Chemistry? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What particular aspects of botany 21 did you concentrate on? 22 A. Plant physiology. 23 Q. What type of plants? 24 A. Well, just general plant 25 physiology. I was not a specialist in any 7 1 particular taxonomic category. 2 Q. Once you left the University of 3 Connecticut you moved on to the Peace Corps. Is 4 that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you were there from 1963 to 7 1965? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. What did you do after you left the 10 Peace Corps? 11 A. I spent some time in the Air Force. 12 Q. And in what capacity? 13 A. I was a photo lab technician. 14 Q. What were your responsibilities as a 15 photo lab technician? 16 A. We did several things. Worked in a 17 photo aerial reconnaissance lab. 18 Q. Did you actually develop 19 photography? 20 A. To some extent, yes. A good part of 21 that time I spent ordering supplies, but I did do 22 some photographic developing, printing and 23 enlarging, running the developing machines. It's 24 been quite a while. I don't remember all the 25 details. 8 1 Q. Do you ever find the experience that 2 you had as a photo lab technician helpful in your 3 current position? 4 A. To a limited extent, yes. 5 Q. In what way? 6 A. Well, let's rephrase that question. 7 When you say current position, what I'm doing for 8 the District now or what I -- 9 Q. In your work for the District. 10 A. When I worked for the District? To 11 a very limited extent I provided some laboratory 12 background. 13 Q. Have you done any work for the 14 District with aerial photography? 15 A. I've used the GIS system to some 16 extent. 17 Q. For what purpose? 18 A. For planning purposes. 19 Q. Have you ever examined aerial 20 photography to identify types of vegetation? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You left the Air Force in 1968. Is 23 that correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. What did you do after that? 9 1 A. I went to work for the General Cigar 2 Corporation in their agricultural lab. 3 Q. And what did you do for the General 4 Cigar Corporation? 5 A. I was a laboratory technician. 6 Q. When you say laboratory technician, 7 what were your responsibilities? 8 A. I did some soil analysis. 9 Q. For what purpose? 10 A. Calibrated soil testing for cigar -- 11 or tobacco crops. 12 Q. When you say you did soil analysis, 13 what did you analyze the soils for? 14 A. Phosphorus, potassium, calcium and 15 magnesium. 16 Q. What techniques did you use? 17 A. We used extractions that were 18 locally deemed suitable for determining 19 fertilizer -- extracting available phosphorus 20 from the soils, and we used predetermined data to 21 make a fertilizer recommendation. It's the same 22 processes that they're using, what they call 23 calibrated soil analysis for the BMP's. 24 Q. For the best management practices? 25 A. Yes. 10 1 Q. In the Everglades? 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Or rule 40E63? 4 A. Whatever the rule is. 5 Q. What phosphorus concentrations did 6 you typically see in your work for General Cigar 7 Corporation? 8 A. I don't remember. 9 Q. What did you do after you left the 10 General Cigar Corporation? 11 A. I went back to graduate school. 12 Q. And where was that? 13 A. West Virginia University. 14 Q. And what did you -- what was the 15 purpose of your matriculation at West Virginia 16 University? 17 A. I went there to earn a Master's 18 degree in Agronomy. 19 Q. Did you have any specialty in 20 agronomy? Why did you go back to school? 21 A. I decided that if I wanted to 22 advance my career, I'd need more education than 23 just a Bachelor's degree. 24 Q. Did you focus on any particular 25 aspect of agronomy? 11 1 A. Well, my major professor was a 2 forage crops major, but I did have some soils 3 courses and I also minored in chemistry in my 4 Master's degree. 5 Q. Did you have any courses on water 6 quality or water quality sampling? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Did you have any courses on soil 9 sampling? 10 A. I did have some courses on soil 11 morphology where we looked at the soils. I had 12 courses on soil fertility, and in those courses 13 they dealt marginally with how to -- well, in the 14 soil fertility course a soil sampling for 15 purposes of making fertilizer recommendation was 16 discussed. 17 Q. Was the focus of your education to 18 assist farmers in developing fertilizer 19 recommendations for purposes of advising 20 agricultural interests? 21 A. It was more strongly in that 22 direction. It was not an environmental emphasis. 23 Q. Did you do any laboratory analysis 24 while at the West Virginia University? 25 A. Yes, I did. 12 1 Q. What type of analysis did you 2 perform? 3 A. Well, other than the course work 4 that I took which was fairly varied, I worked as 5 a research technician for approximately a year, 6 maybe a little longer, and we analyzed what was 7 called total non-structural carbohydrates in 8 forage samples, grasses and clovers, legumes, and 9 afalfa, that type of sampling. 10 Q. What was the purpose of that work? 11 A. Well, total non-structural 12 carbohydrates are a measure that is useful in 13 determining the quality of the forage with 14 respect to animal feeds, you know, how good a 15 quality animal feed it is so it was a fairly 16 useful test for that purpose. 17 Q. Did you have any experience with 18 analyzing nutrients while at the West Virginia 19 University? 20 A. No. But I did analyze nutrients -- 21 well, no. Well, let me back up on that. I'm 22 just thinking about my thesis research. We did 23 do some nutrient analysis on the samples that I 24 worked with. We did total -- kjeldahl nitrogen 25 analysis on those samples. 13 1 Q. Did you actually prepare a thesis 2 for your Master's? 3 A. Yes, I did. 4 Q. What was the title of that thesis? 5 A. I don't remember the exact title. 6 Is it listed here? 7 Q. Well, what was the general subject 8 matter? 9 A. I don't remember the exact title but 10 it had to do with intra-specific competition of a 11 forage grass, Timothy. 12 Q. What was the purpose of your thesis? 13 A. To learn how this grass reacted at 14 different planting densities and different 15 fertilizer regimes. 16 Q. Did you do any independent research 17 for your thesis, field work? 18 A. We did have -- well, we had some 19 greenhouse trials where we planted the plants at 20 different spacings and different -- with 21 different amounts of fertilizers. We had a 22 growth chamber study where we did the same thing 23 and we also did a field block study. 24 Q. Was your thesis ever published? 25 A. No, just in thesis form. 14 1 Q. And when did you receive your 2 Master's degree? 3 A. In 1973. 4 Q. What did you do after receipt of 5 your Master's? 6 A. Came to work for the District. 7 Q. And when was that? 8 A. In 1973. 9 Q. What was your first position with 10 the District? 11 A. I don't remember the exact title. 12 The title has changed several times. But I was 13 the soil chemist for the District. 14 Q. Did you have any specific 15 responsibilities as a soil chemist? 16 A. It was to provide analytical 17 services for all the environmental projects that 18 were going on or being started at the District 19 for the non-water samples, for the soil, sediment 20 and plant tissue samples that were coming in. 21 Q. Did you work on specific projects, 22 were you assigned to specific projects or did you 23 receive requests from different project managers? 24 A. I received requests from different 25 project managers and -- 15 1 Q. Could you provide me an example of 2 how you would receive a request, what the request 3 would ask you to do? 4 A. Well, they would collect samples in 5 the field, do the early preparations, the drying 6 and bring the samples to the lab. We'd log them 7 in, grind them and do the appropriate analyses on 8 the samples, after some discussion with the 9 project managers to determine what they needed. 10 Q. Do you have any idea of the 11 approximate number of projects you worked on, say 12 in a typical year? 13 A. Well, probably somewhere between a 14 half dozen and a dozen. 15 Q. When you say you took soil samples, 16 in what geographical areas did you take those 17 samples? 18 A. In the -- well, I didn't always 19 collect the sample. I sometimes made 20 recommendations to the project manager on how 21 they should collect their samples and they did 22 the sampling but in water conservation areas, in 23 the bony marsh and a few samples in Okeechobee 24 and the Taylor Creek and Nub and Slough area. 25 Q. How long did you serve as a soil 16 1 chemist for the District? 2 A. Until December of 1986. 3 Q. Approximately thirteen years? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What did you analyze soils for? 6 A. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, 7 magnesium, calcium, organic matter, particle size 8 analysis, inorganic carbon, and those were the 9 principal ones. There were probably some others 10 that we did occasionally on request. I don't 11 remember all the details. 12 Q. Do you remember any specific 13 projects that you provided soil analysis for? 14 A. Dave Swift's periphyton study, Steve 15 Davis' various projects. 16 Q. Let's take them one by one. When 17 you say Dave Swift's periphyton study, did that 18 result in a technical publication? 19 A. There is one in the process of being 20 published now. 21 Q. Do you remember the title of that 22 work? 23 A. No, I do not. 24 Q. Where was the -- what was the focus 25 of that study? 17 1 A. To the best of my understanding, Mr. 2 Swift was looking at relationships between 3 periphyton and nutrient levels in the water. 4 Q. And what did your involvement in 5 that study consist of? 6 A. I did the -- provided the analysis 7 of the periphyton samples and soil samples that 8 Mr. Swift collected. 9 Q. Did you actually collect the samples 10 yourself? 11 A. No, I didn't do any of the field 12 work. 13 Q. Do you know where these samples were 14 collected, what geographic area? 15 A. From the three water conservation 16 areas. 17 Q. WCA -- 18 A. WCA-1, WCA-2 and WCA-3. 19 Q. Over what period of time? 20 A. I'm not sure. I don't remember 21 exact dates. 22 Q. Could you give me a general idea? 23 Was it in the late seventies? 24 A. It started in the late seventies and 25 I believe it went through 1983. 18 1 Q. You said that data was collected 2 from approximately late seventies until 1983. Is 3 that correct? 4 A. I believe so. 5 Q. Why has it taken so long for the 6 report to be processed? 7 A. Well, there was a technical 8 publication put out after -- shortly after the 9 date it was first collected, but in light of some 10 of the new understanding of the metabolism of 11 periphyton, it was decided to reanalyze the data. 12 Q. When you say new understanding of 13 the metabolism of periphyton, what do you mean? 14 A. I believe that some things have been 15 learned since the original work was done about 16 the relationship of hardness and water pH to the 17 metabolism, so this factor was added to the 18 analysis to see if -- how it affected the 19 relationships. 20 Q. And how did it affect the 21 relationships? 22 A. I believe when areas were segregated 23 according to hardness of the water and pH that 24 some very good correlations that didn't 25 previously show up appeared. 19 1 Q. Correlations between what? 2 A. Statistical correlations between the 3 water chemistry or the water -- the phosphorus 4 levels in the water and the phosphorus levels in 5 the periphyton. 6 Q. Just let me make sure I understand 7 you correctly. When areas were isolated with 8 certain characteristics of hardness or pH, there 9 was a higher correlation between phosphorus 10 content in the water and phosphorus content in 11 the periphyton. Is that correct? 12 MR. NETTLETON: I'm going to object 13 to the form in that just for the record that he's 14 not here to testify about this particular study, 15 and I just want it understood that he's relaying 16 his understanding of someone else's study, so 17 that understood he can go ahead and answer it to 18 the best of his understanding. 19 A. Well, I believe they were not 20 necessarily physically segregated but eliminated 21 from the data set and the statistical analysis 22 was a little better focused. 23 Q. Besides phosphorus, what other water 24 chemistry variables were exumed? 25 A. As I remember, we also did total 20 1 nitrogen and calcium. I don't remember whether 2 we did other analyses or not for that particular 3 set. 4 Q. Who collected the water samples? 5 A. Dave Swift or his technicians. 6 Q. Do you recall who his technicians 7 were? 8 A. At various times he had -- Robert 9 Startzman as a technician, a woman by the name of 10 Suzette Green who is no longer with the District, 11 Dennis Cook who is no longer with the District 12 and one other gentleman who is still with the 13 District, but I can't think of his last name 14 right now. 15 Q. Were water samples for these various 16 parameters collected over the same time period as 17 the soil samples? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. At the same time as the soil 20 samples? 21 A. I don't know the exact sampling 22 regime but generally in the same time frame. 23 Q. Were the water samples collected in 24 each of the water conservation areas? 25 A. I am not sure of the exact sampling 21 1 setup, but I believe that's true. 2 Q. Did you participate in the analysis 3 of the water samples? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you done any other work with 6 Dave Swift? 7 A. No. 8 MR. NETTLETON: Let's go off the 9 record. 10 (A discussion takes place off the 11 record.) 12 BY MR. PERKO: 13 Q. What other projects have you worked 14 on or did you work on between -- or during your 15 tenure as a soil chemist between 1973 and 1986? 16 A. I did the soil and plant tissue 17 analysis for the bony marsh study, for -- 18 Q. Let's take that one. The bony marsh 19 study, who was the project manager for that 20 study? 21 A. I believe Steve Davis. At one time 22 Steve Davis was the manager. I'm not sure who 23 the current manager is. 24 Q. Where is the bony marsh? 25 A. It's on the Kissimmee River. 22 1 Q. What was the purpose of that study? 2 A. To learn the effects of nutrients on 3 a wetland. 4 Q. What type of wetland is the bony 5 marsh? 6 A. It's outside of the area of my 7 expertise. 8 Q. You said you did the analysis on I 9 believe you said the soil and leaf samples? 10 A. Plants, fish and leaf samples, yes. 11 Q. What parameters did you analyze 12 these samples for? 13 A. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, 14 calcium and magnesium. 15 Q. Do you recall generally what 16 concentrations of phosphorus you typically 17 observed? 18 A. No. 19 Q. If I could step back just for a 20 moment and talk about the work you did with Dave 21 Swift, do you know if the water quality data 22 collected as a part of that project is in the 23 current data -- in the District's current data 24 management system? 25 A. I believe it is. 23 1 Q. Do you happen to know the code name 2 for that data? 3 A. Not offhand. I'd have to refer to 4 index of project codes to determine that. 5 Q. Who would you -- if you wanted to 6 get ahold of that data, who would you ask? 7 A. Well, I could go directly to Dave 8 Swift and ask for his paper copy of the data or I 9 could go to one of the data managers. I believe 10 Tom Raishe is in charge of that database. 11 Q. When you say that database, what do 12 you mean? 13 A. The chemistry database. 14 Q. Do you know how to spell Tom 15 Raishe's last name? 16 A. R-a-i-s-h-e, I believe. 17 Q. Back to the bony marsh project, did 18 that result in a technical publication of any 19 sort? 20 A. I believe there were several 21 District tech pubs, technical publications -- 22 Q. And over what -- I'm sorry. Go 23 ahead. 24 A. -- put out on the results. I wasn't 25 involved in their preparations. 24 1 Q. Over what period of time did that 2 project last? 3 A. I'm not sure of the exact 4 termination date. It was still going on in 1986 5 when I left the laboratory. 6 Q. What other projects did you work on 7 in your tenure as a soil chemist? 8 A. The cattail and sawgrass studies 9 that were performed by various people in the 10 water conservation areas. 11 Q. When you say various people, who do 12 you mean? 13 A. Steve Davis was involved in those, 14 Lou Toth did some of them, and I believe Nancy 15 Urban also did some of them. 16 Q. What time period did these studies 17 cover? 18 A. Oh, let's see. Steve Davis was 19 involved for the entire thirteen years. I 20 believe Lou Toth came to work for the District in 21 the early eighties and his project went -- well, 22 the heavy sampling loads that he submitted to the 23 lab went through '89 -- excuse me -- '85. 24 Q. And what about Nancy Urban? 25 A. Her stuff went through the mid 25 1 eighties through '86, and I'm not sure how much 2 longer they went after '86. 3 Q. What was the general purpose of 4 these studies? 5 A. That's somewhat outside of the area 6 of my expertise. I wasn't involved in the 7 planning or the design of the studies, but I 8 believe generally it was to learn about nutrient 9 dynamics in the Everglades and in the Kissimmee 10 River Basin. 11 Q. What was the extent of your 12 involvement in these studies? 13 A. I provided the analytical services. 14 Q. What sort of analytical services did 15 you provide? 16 A. The analysis for the parameters that 17 we have mentioned. 18 Q. Just to make sure, what parameters 19 did you look at in these cattail and sawgrass 20 studies? 21 A. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, 22 magnesium. Did I mention calcium? And calcium. 23 Q. Any others? 24 A. I believe we may have done some 25 organic matter analysis and possibly some 26 1 particle size analysis on some of the soil 2 samples. I don't remember the details. 3 Q. When you say you provided analytical 4 services for these parameters, in what context? 5 Did you look at soils, plant tissue, water? 6 A. Soils and plant tissue. 7 Q. Did you perform or do any analysis 8 on water samples? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did you actually collect the soil 11 and plant samples that you analyzed? 12 A. Occasionally. Most of the time, no. 13 Q. What was the -- what geographic 14 areas were the samples taken? 15 A. Well, we'll go back to the previous 16 answer, in the water conservation areas. 17 Q. All three? 18 A. For one project or another, yes, all 19 three, the bony marsh and there were some samples 20 that were collected in Taylor Creek Nub and 21 Slough. 22 MR. PERKO: Would you like to take a 23 break, Mr. Rosen? 24 THE WITNESS: That would be fine. 25 (A brief recess is taken.) 27 1 BY MR. PERKO: 2 Q. Mr. Rosen, we were talking about 3 several projects that you've worked on during 4 your tenure as a soil chemist at the District 5 between 1973 and 1986. Did you participate in 6 the -- or did you interpret the results of any of 7 your analyses? 8 A. Exactly what do you mean by 9 interpret the results? 10 Q. Well, did you prepare any reports 11 that describe the significance of any of the 12 results of your analysis? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you contribute to any reports, 15 interpreting them? 16 A. Only the methods sections that 17 describe the analytical procedures. 18 Q. Going back to the cattail and 19 sawgrass studies, if you wanted to get your hands 20 on the soil and water quality data resulting from 21 those projects, who would you ask? 22 A. Probably -- well, I'd ask Steve 23 Davis for the paper copies of the work that he 24 did, Lou Toth for his work, reports from the work 25 that he did. 28 1 Q. Does all or do all the data from 2 these various projects eventually go to the 3 District's overall database? Is there one master 4 database containing all -- 5 A. For the water data there is. 6 Q. So if someone was to request all 7 water quality data for the Loxahatchee National 8 Wildlife Refuge, the District could compile all 9 that information from one database? 10 A. Well, that's not my area of 11 expertise but I believe so. 12 Q. If you wanted to get your hands on 13 that water quality data, who would you ask? 14 A. I would probably ask Tom Raishe for 15 starters. 16 Q. Are there any other projects that 17 you provided analyses for during your tenure as a 18 soil chemist? 19 A. I did a little bit of work on the 20 dairy phosphorus studies in Okeechobee County. 21 Q. Who was the project manager for 22 that? 23 A. I don't remember exactly, but I 24 believe it was Gary Ritter. 25 Q. Over what period of time did that 29 1 study encompass? 2 A. Well, I don't remember the starting 3 dates, but the sample collections I believe were 4 ongoing through the end of 1986, although they 5 were not very intensive. 6 Q. Did you actually collect samples? 7 A. I did collect some of the soil 8 samples. 9 Q. Was your involvement limited to soil 10 samples or did you work with other media? 11 A. It was limited to soil and sediment 12 samples. 13 Q. What parameters did you analyze 14 those samples for? 15 A. I don't remember all of the 16 parameters that we did on those, but we did do 17 phosphorus. 18 Q. Do you recall generally what 19 phosphorus concentrations you observed? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Did you work on any other projects 22 during your tenure as a soil chemist? 23 A. I did some analyses for Dr. Shih of 24 the University of Florida. 25 Q. What's his first name? 30 1 A. Sun-Fu but he goes by the name of 2 Tony. 3 Q. I just didn't want to get confused 4 with George. What type of analysis did you 5 provide Dr. Shih? 6 A. Nutrients, nitrogen -- well, it was 7 primarily plant tissue analysis. 8 Q. What was the purpose of that study? 9 A. I didn't have a hand in designing 10 the study and I'm not fully cognizant of all the 11 purposes, but I believe it was to learn about 12 water relations and water use in certain crops 13 that are growing in the Everglades ag area. I 14 also did some sampling in Chandler Slough in -- 15 let's see, I believe that would have been in the 16 seventies. I'm just looking to see what the date 17 is on the -- okay. The work that I'm talking 18 about now was a publication or the technical 19 report by Federico, Milleson, Millar and Rosen, 20 Chandler Slough. 21 Q. That's a separate project from the 22 work you did with Dr. Shih. Correct? 23 A. Yes. Although early on when Dr. 24 Shih was a District employee he did have some 25 involvement in that, but I collected soil samples 31 1 and analyzed them principally for phosphorus, 2 although I did also analyze for some other 3 parameters and I wrote the soil section of that 4 report. 5 Q. Did you interpret the results of 6 your analyses? 7 A. As best I could. 8 Q. And what was your conclusion? 9 A. With the data that we had 10 collected -- as I remember, all we did was learn 11 what the phosphorus levels were in different 12 areas in the slough and the different types of 13 soils, and it was fairly preliminary work so -- 14 Q. Did you attach any significance to 15 the levels that you observed? 16 A. I didn't carry the studies far 17 enough to -- either in time or do a detailed 18 enough -- collected an extensive enough data set 19 to make definitive determinations of the 20 phosphorus dynamics. 21 Q. Did you perform any estimates of 22 phosphorus retention? 23 A. No, I did not. 24 Q. Did anyone who participated in that 25 study perform estimates of P retention? 32 1 A. I'm not aware of that. 2 Q. What was the purpose of the Chandler 3 Slough study? 4 A. I'm not fully aware of all the 5 purposes. I was asked to collect data or collect 6 samples and analyze them, make some 7 determinations of what the chemical composition 8 of the soils were. 9 Q. Did that result in a -- did that 10 project result in a technical publication of any 11 sort? I'm sorry. 12 A. Well -- 13 Q. 78-2? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Was there any water quality sampling 16 performed in connection with that study? 17 A. I believe there was, but I was not 18 involved in that section of the publication. 19 Q. If I could back up if I could to the 20 work you did with Dr. Shih at the University of 21 Florida. You said the purpose of that study was 22 to learn about the water relationships and use in 23 the ag area. Is that correct? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. Did you perform any analysis on 33 1 water samples in connection with that study? 2 A. No, I did not. 3 Q. Did anyone else? 4 A. I'm not sure and I do not know where 5 the water samples were analyzed. 6 Q. Did that study result in a 7 publication of any sort? 8 A. Yes, it did. Shih and Rosen, 1985. 9 Q. Okay. Do you recall any other 10 projects that you worked on during your tenure as 11 a soil chemist? 12 A. Well, there were a lot of 13 miscellaneous samples that were brought into the 14 lab at various times for one reason or another. 15 I don't remember all the details. 16 Q. Would they be from any specific 17 geographical areas or -- 18 A. I believe I've already covered the 19 major -- you know, told you all the major 20 projects. There was -- well, one other project 21 that comes to mind was some well coring samples 22 that I did physical characterization of and I 23 believe also phosphorus analysis in the Kissimmee 24 River. The samples were in connection with some 25 litigation that I don't completely understand 34 1 that was going on at the time, and as a result we 2 worked up some chain of custody documents on 3 these particular samples which was not something 4 that we normally did in the lab. 5 Q. Is that the only project that you 6 recall preparing chain of custody documents for? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I'd like to refer you to Exhibit 9 Number 1, the list of publications. The third 10 publication is Shih, Federico, Milleson and Rosen 11 entitled, "Sampling Programs for Using Upland 12 Marsh to Improve Water Quality." What was the 13 purpose of that study? 14 A. I believe that was to get the data 15 from Technical Publication 78-2 into the 16 literature. As I've already said, Dr. Shih had 17 some involvement in the early planning of the 18 Chandler Slough study so -- 19 Q. So this was an outgrowth of the 20 Chandler Slough study? 21 A. Yes, it was. I believe it's really 22 the same data being written up for general 23 publication. I haven't looked at that in a while 24 so -- 25 Q. You mean the same data as that in 35 1 78-2? 2 A. In Tech Pub 78-2, yes. 3 Q. Did you do any estimates of P 4 retention in connection with this paper, 5 phosphorus retention that is? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did anyone else to your knowledge? 8 A. I'm not aware of whether anybody 9 else tried to do that. 10 Q. What was the extent of your 11 involvement in preparing this publication? Did 12 you draft any of the publications? 13 A. You're talking about Shih, Federico, 14 et al.? 15 Q. Right, 1979. 16 A. Other than the fact that I believe 17 it was drawn from -- the data for this 18 publication was drawn from 78-2, virtually none. 19 Q. So your name appears as a co-author 20 because you participated in the original 21 collection and analysis of the data? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. What about the first publication 24 listed in your resume Federico, Milleson, Millar 25 and Rosen? What was the extent of your -- 36 1 A. I wrote up the soils section. 2 Q. Did you review any other portions of 3 the paper? 4 A. I don't remember, but I did not have 5 any editorial authority over other sections. 6 Q. What about the second publication, 7 Gleason, Stone, Rosen, 1974? 8 A. I prepared -- well, I did the 9 analysis for that project and I believe I may 10 have written up the methods section for the 11 chemical analysis or written up notes which Dr. 12 Gleason incorporated into the methods section. 13 Q. What was the purpose of this study? 14 A. I believe Dr. Gleason was trying to 15 learn about nutrient uptake, the rates. 16 Q. Do you remember what the results of 17 this study were? 18 A. No, I have looked at the paper but 19 no. 20 Q. Do you recall if the paper included 21 any estimates of nutrient uptake rates? 22 A. I believe it did. I don't remember 23 what the rates were. 24 Q. Do you know why the study was never 25 published? 37 1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you know if it was submitted for 3 publication? 4 A. No, I don't know what the problems 5 with it were. 6 Q. Do you know if it was ever peer 7 reviewed? 8 A. No. 9 Q. When you say no, do you mean that -- 10 do you mean to say that you don't recall if it 11 was ever peer reviewed or that it was not ever 12 peer reviewed? 13 A. I do not recall or I do not know. 14 Q. I draw your attention to the final 15 publication listed in your resume, Shih and 16 Rosen, 1985. 17 A. All right. 18 Q. Was that an outgrowth of the work 19 that you did for Dr. Shih in the University of 20 Florida? 21 A. Yes, that is -- that's where I did 22 the work. 23 Q. What was your involvement in the 24 preparation of this paper? 25 A. I wrote up the methods section or 38 1 notes describing the methods section, and I 2 believe I did some editing to polish up the 3 English grammar a little bit. 4 Q. Did you interpret your results or 5 attach any significance to them? 6 A. No, I did not. 7 Q. Are there any other publications for 8 which you have appeared as a co-author or author 9 other than those listed in your resume? 10 A. Except for the current one, the 11 periphyton study by Grimshaw, Swift and Rosen, I 12 don't believe there are any others. 13 Q. What's the current status of the 14 periphyton study you just mentioned? 15 A. It's been accepted for publication. 16 Q. By whom? 17 A. I believe it's the Archives Fur 18 Biologie. I'm not sure the exact title but I 19 believe that's it. 20 Q. Did you actually draft any of that 21 paper? 22 A. I wrote up some notes on the 23 analytical methodologies for the periphyton and 24 the water chemistry. I reviewed the old 25 procedures that were performed in the water lab. 39 1 Q. When you say you reviewed the old 2 procedures in the water lab, what do you mean by 3 old? 4 A. The procedures that were being used 5 at the time that the analyses were done. 6 Q. And over what period of time were 7 those analyses done? 8 A. Well, for this particular paper it 9 was from the late seventies I believe through 10 1983. 11 Q. What procedures were used for 12 phosphorus water samples over that period of 13 time? 14 A. For water samples. 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. Well, they did orthophosphate and 17 they did total phosphate. 18 Q. What were the actual analytical 19 procedures used for those parameters? 20 A. I don't remember all of the details, 21 but it was a phosphomolybdic acid colorimetric 22 test. 23 Q. Phosphomolyb -- 24 A. Molybdic acid, and it was the 25 ascorbic acid variation. 40 1 Q. What geographical areas were the 2 water samples taken from that you reviewed the 3 procedures for? 4 A. The procedures were not 5 geographically -- you know, not unique to the 6 geographic area. 7 Q. I'm sorry. You said that you 8 reviewed the procedures for the water samples 9 that were done from the late seventies through 10 1983, and I'm trying to figure out what 11 geographical areas those water samples came 12 from. 13 A. Wherever the sampling sites are that 14 are defined in the project. 15 Q. When you say you reviewed the 16 procedures, were there records kept of the 17 procedures utilized or did you actually perform 18 the sampling? 19 MR. NETTLETON: I object to the 20 form. 21 A. No, I didn't. No, I did not perform 22 the sampling. I went back to the laboratory and 23 pulled out the notes and the procedural -- the 24 references to different laboratory procedures and 25 laid those out so that the methods procedure for 41 1 the report could be written up with accurate 2 information. 3 Q. You previously characterized these 4 procedures as the old procedures. Is that 5 correct? 6 A. I did use that word. 7 Q. How have they changed? 8 A. I am not aware of how they changed 9 or whether they have changed. What I meant by 10 that was the procedures that were in use at the 11 time that those analyses were done as opposed to 12 what they're currently doing in the lab. 13 Q. Did you review the quality control 14 procedures taken in connection with the water 15 quality sampling? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And what quality control measures 18 were taken? 19 A. For water samples? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Well, they used a series of four 22 standards plus a blank to calibrate the 23 instrument. They used a couple of internal QC 24 samples, I believe they were called QC-1 and 25 QC-2, to determine how well or how close -- what 42 1 the accuracy of the analysis was, how close they 2 could come to a known value. They used standard 3 additions to look for interferences and they used 4 repeated samples to determine precision. 5 Q. These standard additions to -- I'm 6 sorry? 7 A. Look for interferences. 8 Q. What were the standards? 9 A. I don't remember the details of 10 standard preparation, but generally or in a 11 general way they were chemical solutions that 12 contained a known concentration of the analyte, 13 if you're looking at phosphorus it contained a 14 known concentration. 15 Q. Do you know what the known 16 concentration was for phosphorus? 17 A. I don't understand your question. 18 Q. What were the actual concentrations 19 used for the standards for total phosphorus? 20 A. I don't remember. 21 Q. Is that data still on record at the 22 District? 23 A. I believe it should be available. 24 Q. And by that data I mean the quality 25 control data. 43 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Were the standard samples and blank 3 samples identified to the -- or I'm sorry, strike 4 that. Let me start over. Were the lab 5 technicians that actually performed the analysis 6 aware that the standard samples or blank samples 7 were not taken from the field? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall the concentration 10 range of the QC samples for total phosphorus? 11 A. For water samples? 12 Q. Right. 13 A. No. 14 Q. What about soil samples? 15 A. I have some vague recollections of 16 what they were, but I'd have to look at my notes 17 to -- 18 Q. Mr. Rosen, if you were to the 19 laboratory's performance at low concentration 20 levels for total phosphorus, what quality control 21 measures would you use? 22 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 23 A. I don't understand the question. 24 Q. For example, if you were concerned 25 about the quality of the data at concentrations 44 1 as low as twenty parts per billion, what 2 concentration ranges would you introduce in the 3 QC samples? 4 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 5 A. May I ask a further question? 6 Q. Do you know the answer to the 7 question I just asked? 8 A. There's not enough information in 9 that question to give a good answer. 10 MR. PERKO: I'm going to let him ask 11 the question. 12 MR. NETTLETON: I don't want to 13 start that precedent so if you want to just ask 14 him. 15 BY MR. PERKO: 16 Q. You can go ahead and ask your 17 question. 18 A. May I ask? 19 MR. NETTLETON: Go ahead. 20 A. You've told me the lower limit of 21 your samples. You haven't told me anything about 22 what range of how far above the lower limit or 23 how wide a range of samples we're looking at. 24 Q. Would you like to take a break? 25 A. I'm okay but if you'd like to, 45 1 that's fine. 2 Q. While I'm waiting for inspiration on 3 that last question, to the best of your 4 recollection does that -- our previous discussion 5 cover the projects that you worked on during your 6 tenure as a soil chemist? 7 A. The major or significant projects 8 are covered. 9 Q. In your -- go ahead. 10 A. There were some other samples that 11 were submitted by other parts of the District on 12 occasion, you know, other than environmental 13 sciences. 14 Q. Did you spend most of your time in 15 the lab actually performing analysis of the 16 samples? 17 A. Yes, with the assistance of one 18 technician. 19 Q. And who was that? 20 A. For the major part of the time, for 21 most of the thirteen years was Ann Marie Superchi 22 who is currently working in the Regulation 23 Department. 24 Q. Did anyone else assist you? 25 A. Pedro Rodriguez Vasquez who is still 46 1 in the lab. And in the seventies there was a 2 succession of technicians who worked for me for 3 short periods of times. I don't remember the 4 dates and I'm not sure that I can remember all of 5 the names. 6 Q. I may have already asked you this 7 question, but did you perform any analysis of 8 water samples? 9 A. Occasionally I would assist in the 10 water lab, you know, do some technical work when 11 things were slow in the soils lab to help them 12 out, but generally, no, I did not. 13 Q. Back to my previous line of 14 questioning regarding QC samples. Let's say that 15 you're -- assume that you're concerned about the 16 quality of total phosphorus, analytical results 17 for samples that have total phosphorus 18 concentrations of less than twenty ppb. 19 A. You're talking about less than 20 twenty ppb? 21 Q. Less than twenty ppb? 22 A. Or twenty ppb as the minimum. 23 Q. Less than twenty ppb. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. What would you use as the range of 47 1 standard concentrations to develop your standard 2 curve? 3 A. Are there any samples higher than 4 twenty ppb in this data set? 5 Q. No. 6 A. All right. I would try to -- 7 MR. NETTLETON: I'm going to object 8 to the form but you can go ahead and answer. 9 A. Try to develop -- well, I would set 10 twenty ppb as the high standard and work down I 11 believe geometrically. I would have the next 12 standard at half of that and the next one at 13 roughly half of that. 14 Q. How would you -- what would you use 15 as the concentration of reference samples or QC 16 check samples to evaluate lab performance for 17 concentrations within this range, i.e. less than 18 twenty ppb? 19 MR. NETTLETON: I object to the 20 form. 21 A. It wasn't in my area to devise water 22 QC samples so -- 23 Q. Who would be responsible for 24 developing water QC samples? 25 A. Well, who -- are you talking 48 1 about -- 2 Q. With the District. 3 A. Position wise or historical record 4 of the people who actually did it? 5 Q. If you recall the names. 6 A. I do recall some of the names. 7 Q. Who might that be? 8 A. Towards the end of the time that I 9 was in the lab a chemist by the name of Leslie 10 Teets was the quality control director. 11 Q. Does the District have any quality 12 control manuals? 13 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 14 BY MR. PERKO: 15 Q. That are used as a reference guide? 16 A. Currently? 17 Q. Currently. 18 A. I'm not really sure what their 19 current procedures are. I've had no involvement 20 with the lab since the end of 1986, but -- 21 Q. What about prior to 1986? 22 A. I believe they used the EPA manual 23 on quality control, although this was -- I wasn't 24 directly involved in the decisions on devising 25 procedures for the water lab or determining the 49 1 quality control. All I know is what I've seen in 2 the record, but I believe they use the EPA manual 3 for quality control procedures, and I believe 4 they use AWA manual for selecting the actual 5 analytical procedures that they used. 6 Q. If you wanted to determine what QC 7 procedures were actually used prior to 1986, how 8 would you go about doing that? 9 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 10 THE WITNESS: Is it all right if I 11 answer? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Sure. 13 A. I'd go back to the laboratory 14 records and find out what documents they had that 15 describe their procedures. 16 Q. I believe you previously stated that 17 you served as a staff chemist or soil chemist 18 from 1973 to 1986. Is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What position did you have after 21 you -- after 1986? 22 A. Well, it had various titles, but I 23 was involved in water conservation programs for, 24 if I remember the correct name of the division, 25 it was Water Supply Planning and Management, and 50 1 I don't remember if that's the exact title but 2 Carl Woehlcke was the division director. 3 Q. How long did you serve in that 4 position? 5 A. Well, until the reorganization of 6 the District where the Planning Department was 7 formed, the job responsibilities sort of evolved 8 from one division to another, and it was not 9 really that much of a change in responsibilities. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. You know, it was a gradual evolution 12 to planning, and it was more planning oriented 13 tasks all along. 14 Q. Let me back up a little bit. When 15 you left the chemistry lab in 1986, you went to 16 what was to become the Planning Department. 17 Right? 18 A. Well, it was -- all of these, at 19 that time all of these divisions, the Chemistry 20 Lab and the Water Quality and the Environmental 21 Science Division were in one large department 22 called Resource Planning which has since been 23 split up into Research, Planning and Evaluation, 24 and I went from one of the more research oriented 25 sections to a planning oriented section. 51 1 Q. When you say you went from a 2 research oriented -- 3 A. Well, the chemistry lab. 4 Q. So you consider the chemistry lab to 5 be a more research organization. 6 A. Yes. I believe -- well, I'm not 7 sure where it is in the current structure of 8 things, but it's definitely not in planning. 9 Q. What were your new responsibilities 10 in your new job? 11 A. We worked on various water 12 conservation programs. The Xeriscape project was 13 a big part of it. We put together materials to 14 be used in the Xeriscape project such as the 15 Xeriscape Plant Guide and some of the other 16 pamphlets that the District distributes. 17 Q. What was the Xeriscape project? 18 A. It was a project to encourage sound 19 landscaping practices in South Florida so that 20 water used for landscaping purposes could be 21 minimized. 22 Q. What other type of programs did you 23 work on? 24 A. Well, the techniques and procedures 25 that we learned in working on these programs were 52 1 carried over and we started working on 2 irrigation -- or I started working on irrigation 3 demands for water supply plans in the lower east 4 coast which is my current position. That's my 5 official title. 6 Q. What is your official title now? 7 A. Staff Planner. 8 Q. Do you have any role in evaluating 9 the water supply demands for the lower east 10 coast? 11 A. Yes. Well, up till November of '92 12 I was quite heavily involved in that. 13 Q. What were your responsibilities in 14 that regard? 15 A. We collected data on crop acreage 16 for different crops and different types of 17 agriculture in the lower east coast, Dade County, 18 Broward County and the eastern and western 19 sections of Palm Beach County, the eastern 20 section of Hendry County, and we took this data 21 and tried to develop estimates of water -- future 22 water needs in an average and in a two in ten -- 23 a statistical two in ten drought year using the 24 Blaney-Criddle evapotransforation equations that 25 the Regulation Department uses in permitting. 53 1 Q. Do you utilize any hydrologic 2 modeling, computer modeling in that capacity? 3 A. Not hydrologic modeling. No, we 4 were just trying to develop demand estimates, and 5 this data was turned over to somebody else for 6 hydrologic modeling purposes. 7 Q. Did you also look at the water 8 supply demands of the urban areas of the lower 9 east coast? 10 A. We have looked at that to a limited 11 extent, but I did not have any involvement in the 12 estimates that went into any of the water supply 13 plans. It was decided that other methodologies 14 would be more appropriate than the methodologies 15 that we were developing with the exception of 16 golf courses. We did look at golf course 17 estimates because that was a water -- or a land 18 use type that lent itself to the same 19 methodologies that we used for agriculture. 20 Q. Are you aware of any analysis 21 performed to estimate the effects of SWIM Plan 22 implementation on water supply in the lower east 23 coast? 24 A. I have not been involved in natural 25 systems analysis. 54 1 Q. You would consider -- 2 A. I am aware that this is going on, 3 but I'm not involved in it. I don't know 4 anything about their methodologies. 5 Q. Who is involved in it? 6 A. I'm not really sure who all the 7 players are. 8 Q. Do you recall any names? 9 A. I believe Dave Black is marginally 10 involved. 11 Q. Cal Neidrauer? 12 A. Cal Neidrauer is involved in over- 13 all modeling. I don't know -- since I'm not 14 involved in this project directly, I don't know 15 the limits of the role of each person. 16 Q. Is Paul Trimble involved in that 17 analysis? 18 A. I believe so. 19 Q. Ron Santee? 20 A. I would say that he probably is, 21 too. 22 Q. Do you recall any others that might 23 be involved in that? 24 A. I believe at one time Dewey Worth 25 had some involvement in this. 55 1 Q. Anyone else? 2 A. Some of the GI -- the people who 3 work on the GIS system have some involvement. 4 Q. Who might that be? 5 A. Brent Moll was involved, I believe. 6 Q. Anyone else? 7 A. Some of the technicians who actually 8 operate the computers and do the work. Jimmy 9 Cramp comes to mind. And I'm not sure just how 10 heavily some of the other technicians in the 11 Lower District Planning are involved in that. 12 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the 13 results of that analysis thus far? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Who at the District would you ask to 16 find out the results of that analysis? 17 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 18 A. Probably the first person that I 19 would go to is Cal Neidrauer. I'm not sure 20 whether he would give me the answers that I would 21 be asking, if I was asking these questions, or 22 whether he would direct me to somebody else. As 23 I said before, I have no -- 24 Q. I understand -- 25 A. -- direct involvement in this 56 1 project. 2 Q. I'd like to back up just for one 3 second. We talked about the periphyton study 4 that you participated in with Jim Grimshaw and 5 others. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You mentioned that you looked at the 8 procedures utilized collecting water samples or 9 analyzing water samples of the data in the late 10 1970's through 1983. Correct? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Is that the same data that Millar 13 published in the early 1980's? 14 A. I'm not positive, but I believe Dave 15 Swift collected his own water samples for that 16 project. 17 Q. Are you familiar with the technical 18 publication authored by Paul Millar regarding 19 water sampling that he performed in the 20 Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you know if the data that you 23 looked at in connection with your work with 24 Grimshaw and others was the same data utilized to 25 develop the phosphorus limits for Loxahatchee 57 1 that are included in the Everglades SWIM Plan? 2 A. No, I do not. I've had no 3 involvement in developing those limits. 4 MR. PERKO: Why don't we take a 5 five-minute break. 6 (A brief recess is taken.) 7 BY MR. PERKO: 8 Q. Mr. Rosen, I'd like to go back to 9 our discussion of the Gleason, Stone and Rosen 10 study in 1974, Nutrient Uptake and Rates of 11 Nutrient Deposition in Conservation Area 2A. Are 12 you aware of any concerns expressed regarding the 13 technical credibility of this study? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Would you have any reason to doubt 16 the veracity of the data in the study? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Or the quality of the data? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Before we took a break we talked 21 about your responsibilities as a staff planner. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you recall any other 24 responsibilities that you haven't discussed 25 previously? 58 1 A. No. I think we've pretty generally 2 covered the major areas of responsibility. 3 Q. Okay. And you are currently not 4 assigned to the Planning Department. Is that 5 correct? 6 A. Well, my -- for payroll purposes my 7 position is still in the Planning Department, but 8 I'm currently not doing any work for them. 9 Q. Okay. And you're currently assigned 10 to the Office of General Counsel. Is that 11 correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. When were you reassigned to the 14 General Counsel's Office? 15 A. In November of 1972. 16 Q. '92? 17 MR. NETTLETON: '72? 18 A. I'm sorry. 19 Q. The case isn't that old. 20 A. In November of '92. I'm sorry. 21 Q. How did your responsibilities change 22 when you were reassigned to the Office of General 23 Counsel? 24 A. Well, I stopped doing water supply 25 planning work and started doing tasks that were 59 1 assigned to me by the Office of Counsel. 2 Q. What type of tasks? 3 A. Well, in a general way I was asked 4 to provide technical assistance to the Office of 5 Counsel for the Everglades lawsuit. 6 Q. What type of technical assistance? 7 A. Well, I have been assigned to 8 provide technical assistance for the remedy part 9 of the lawsuit. 10 Q. When you say the remedy part of the 11 lawsuit, what do you mean? 12 A. Well, it's my understanding that the 13 lawsuit has been broken up into two sections, 14 and, you know, I'm not an attorney so I don't 15 understand all the legal ramifications, but it's 16 been broken up into the harm and the remedy. 17 Q. What remedies have you looked at? 18 A. I've looked at STA's, best 19 management practices and alternatives -- 20 alternative methods of eliminating phosphorus 21 from the water. 22 Q. What alternatives have you looked 23 at? 24 A. Well, I haven't had a chance to read 25 all the literature on this yet, but I have looked 60 1 at chemical -- various versions of chemical 2 precipitation and coagulation. 3 Q. What about direct filtration? 4 A. That falls into that category. It's 5 one of the variations of that. 6 Q. When you say you provide technical 7 assistance, what do you mean? 8 A. Well, I'm still learning the job, 9 but it's my understanding that I'm supposed to be 10 a go-between from the scientists and engineers to 11 the attorneys to explain these various proposals 12 that come along to them in terms that they can 13 understand. 14 Q. Does your technical assistance 15 involve any critique or evaluation of the 16 different alternatives? 17 A. Yes, it does. 18 Q. To what extent? Do you provide 19 Office of Counsel with recommendations as to the 20 different alternatives? 21 MR. NETTLETON: I'm going to object 22 at this point. He's been listed to testify in 23 the area of QA/QC and I don't have any problem 24 asking anything about that. With regard to other 25 areas I also don't have a problem with you asking 61 1 his opinions even though he's not designated in 2 those areas and he can answer to the extent he 3 can. But when you're asking what his opinions 4 are in the Office of Counsel for purposes of 5 litigation, I think that's too specific and 6 regard that to be work product. 7 MR. PERKO: Let me rephrase it then. 8 BY MR. PERKO: 9 Q. Do you have an opinion as to the 10 most feasible phosphorus treatment alternative? 11 A. As I have said, I haven't read all 12 of the literature yet. It's quite extensive and 13 some of it is engineering and I'm having to learn 14 the engineering aspects, so I have not yet formed 15 an opinion. 16 Q. You said that you essentially act as 17 a go-between between the scientists and the 18 attorneys. What scientists have you worked -- do 19 you work with? 20 A. Well, I'm reviewing the papers by 21 the scientists for the various interests. Duke 22 Wetlands Center work, the work by the 23 representatives of the Federal Government and the 24 work by in-house scientists and engineers at the 25 District as well as the ones that we have 62 1 contracted with. 2 Q. What work of the scientists of the 3 Federal Government have you reviewed? 4 A. Well, I haven't actually read any of 5 their work yet. I have on my agenda to read some 6 of William Walker's papers on STA sizing. 7 Q. What other papers are on your 8 agenda? 9 MR. NETTLETON: Again, I'm going to 10 object at this point. Anything that's on his 11 agenda would be there at the direction of counsel 12 from my understanding of how he's testified so 13 far, and I think that's clear of record so I 14 think that would constitute work product. If you 15 want to ask him specifically about anything, if 16 you want to raise something and ask him if he's 17 reviewed it and whether he has opinions or 18 anything about it, I don't have a problem with 19 that, but asking him -- what you're doing now is 20 asking him what he's been asked to do by Office 21 of Counsel and what he's assisting Office of 22 Counsel with, and I think that constitutes work 23 product. 24 MR. PERKO: Are you instructing him 25 not to answer? 63 1 MR. NETTLETON: Yes. 2 BY MR. EARL: 3 Q. Have you reviewed any of Ron Jones' 4 work? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you plan to? 7 A. I'm not sure. 8 Q. Have you reviewed the reports of 9 Brown and Caldwell? 10 A. Yes, some of them. 11 Q. Which ones? 12 A. I've read the executive summary of 13 the BMP report, the best management practices 14 study. I've in a very cursory manner read their 15 report on alternatives. 16 Q. Is that the report that was released 17 in mid February? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you recall the conclusions of 20 that report? 21 A. No, I do not. 22 Q. Do you recall the critique of the 23 STA's included in that report? 24 A. No. 25 Q. What is your overall impression of 64 1 the Brown and Caldwell report released in mid 2 February? 3 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. 4 A. Could you clarify what you're 5 looking for? 6 Q. Do you think it was a thorough 7 analysis? Do you think -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you believe it included a 10 competent analysis of the alternatives? 11 A. I haven't formed an opinion on that 12 yet. 13 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether 14 the alternatives discussed in that report merit 15 further consideration? 16 A. I would say yes, they do merit 17 further consideration. 18 Q. You're smiling. 19 A. But that's all I would say about 20 that. 21 Q. Is there a reason why you're 22 reluctant to say anything else? 23 A. I haven't done enough, you know, 24 enough reading or any independent research to 25 form an independent opinion that will either 65 1 agree with or contradict what is in the report. 2 Q. Have you reviewed the reports 3 submitted by Burns and McDonald? 4 A. Some of them. I don't remember 5 exactly which ones I've looked at. 6 Q. Have you reviewed the conceptual 7 design memorandum dated March 31st, 1992? 8 A. I looked very briefly at some of the 9 conceptual design documents and decided that I'd 10 put those aside and look at them again at a later 11 date. 12 Q. Why did you put them aside? 13 A. They were quite extensive and I 14 decided that I needed to look at some other 15 things before I got into those. 16 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the work of 17 Robert Kadlec regarding phosphorus uptake rates? 18 A. I have read the District report by 19 Kadlec and Sue Newman on that and I'm just now 20 starting to get an understanding of the 21 engineering aspects of that project. I have not 22 yet formed an opinion. 23 Q. Are you familiar with the eight 24 meters per year settling rate constant? 25 A. Yes. To a limited degree. 66 1 Q. Do you have an opinion as to the 2 validity of that constant? 3 A. No. Well, the validity of eight 4 meters per year being the correct number or the 5 concept of that? 6 Q. The reliability of that estimate. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you have an opinion as to how 9 certain that estimate might be? 10 A. No. 11 Q. What would it take to develop an 12 opinion as to the uncertainty of that settling 13 rate? 14 MR. NETTLETON: I object to the 15 form. Again you're going way outside his 16 designated area of expert testimony. If you're 17 asking for his personal opinion I'll allow him to 18 answer but -- 19 MR. PERKO: Just his personal 20 opinion. 21 A. Given unlimited time and resources 22 or within practical constraints given the legal 23 and political climate? 24 Q. Given the practical constraints. 25 A. I'm not sure that I could set up a 67 1 study to do that and come up with data that's any 2 better than what other people have already come 3 up with. 4 Q. What about the ideal situation if 5 you had unlimited time and resources? 6 A. I'd probably set up some sort of a 7 sampling program where we would look at 8 sedimentation. 9 THE WITNESS: Do you have a problem 10 with this, Paul? 11 MR. NETTLETON: It's your personal 12 opinion and as long as the record is clear that 13 this is not your area of testimony. 14 A. And do some direct measurements of 15 soil accumulation and phosphorus accumulation and 16 cycling in the samples for a period of ten or 17 twenty years. 18 Q. Where would be the appropriate place 19 to do that? 20 A. I guess the ideal place would be in 21 a small or in a study area, and I haven't formed 22 an opinion on what size that study area should 23 be, that mimics the management or the design and 24 management alternatives of an STA. 25 Q. Could it be done with the ENR 68 1 project? 2 A. Probably. I'm not that familiar 3 with the ENR project yet so I don't know 4 whether -- I can't say what differences there are 5 in the design of the ENR project from the 6 conceptual designs of the STA's. 7 Q. Do you believe that such a study 8 should be performed before the STA's are actually 9 constructed? 10 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection to 11 the form. You can answer of your personal 12 opinion. 13 A. Ideally that would be nice, but I'm 14 not fully cognizant of all the political and 15 legal ramifications of doing that so I can't say 16 for sure. 17 Q. You stated previously that you 18 reviewed papers submitted by the scientists for 19 the Duke Wetlands Center. Is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What papers have you reviewed? 22 A. Some of the annual reports, and I 23 don't have a list of the particular chapters and 24 report numbers that I looked at. 25 Q. Have you focused on any particular 69 1 aspects of those reports? 2 A. I was interested in learning how Dr. 3 Richardson came up with his estimate of the 4 settling rate constant and in comparing his work 5 with the work of Kadlec and -- well, I haven't 6 yet looked at any of Walker's papers directly but 7 what I would -- comparing Richardson's work with 8 the work of Kadlec -- Walker which as far as I 9 understand right now although there are some 10 minor differences are pretty similar. 11 Q. You're talking about a comparison of 12 Dr. Richardson's work with that of Kadlec/Walker? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. How did Dr. Richardson's estimates 15 compare with Dr. Kadlec's? 16 A. As I recall, his estimates were 17 subject to change over time, but when I -- prior 18 to the January SAGE meeting I believe his 19 estimates were roughly half of what Kadlec/Walker 20 were recommending or predicting. 21 Q. Do you have an estimate as to the 22 reliability of Dr. Richardson's estimates? 23 A. Well, there were several areas that 24 Walker and Kadlec criticized his work on and I 25 really haven't gone far enough in my readings or 70 1 understanding of the process to form opinions on 2 the validity of -- you know, personal opinions on 3 the validity of the work. All I know is what the 4 SAGE committee finally adopted as a recommended 5 value. 6 Q. Have you also reviewed work of 7 District in-house scientists? 8 A. To a limited extent. 9 Q. Whose work have you taken a look at? 10 A. I have briefly looked at some of the 11 work of Marguerite Cook. 12 Q. Anyone else? 13 A. Not that I know that I can remember 14 right now. 15 Q. Why did you look at Marguerite 16 Cook's work? 17 A. I was curious about the work that 18 was done on soils. 19 Q. Why were you curious? 20 A. I'm interested in soil science. 21 Q. Did you believe it was relevant to 22 the settling rate controversy? 23 A. I haven't formed an opinion on that. 24 Q. Are you aware of any criticisms of 25 Dr. Cook's work? 71 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was there a particular aspect of Dr. 3 Cook's work that you looked at? 4 A. Not that I can remember. 5 Q. Mr. Rosen, you previously in 6 connection with our discussion of Dr. 7 Richardson's settling rate estimates, I believe 8 you said that you were aware of some criticisms 9 that Drs. Walker and Kadlec had raised. Are you 10 aware of any documents that discuss those 11 criticisms? 12 A. I am aware of documents that discuss 13 it. 14 Q. Could you describe those documents? 15 A. I haven't put together a 16 bibliography on this so I can't -- 17 Q. Do you remember any in particular? 18 A. No, I can't remember the titles. 19 Q. Were they memoranda? 20 A. I don't remember. 21 Q. Were the documents submitted to 22 SAGE? 23 A. I believe that may have been where 24 some of the documents appeared. 25 Q. Are you aware of any that were not 72 1 submitted to SAGE? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you attend all the SAGE meetings? 4 A. I have been since January. 5 Q. Mr. Rosen, I'd like to show you what 6 I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 7 Number 2. 8 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Rosen-2 is 9 marked for identification.) 10 BY MR. PERKO: 11 Q. Do you recognize what's been marked 12 as Exhibit Number 2? 13 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record 14 I note that this is the notice that was sent out 15 by Peeples, Earl which was subsequently cancelled 16 and I understood that you guys may have renoticed 17 it or something. Is there a separate notice? 18 Because I've been out of the office since then. 19 MR. PERKO: There is a separate 20 notice, but we did not attach any duces tecum. 21 MR. NETTLETON: Okay. 22 A. Well, I don't understand all of the 23 legal ramifications of this, but as I understand 24 it this is a notice to produce documents for this 25 deposition. 73 1 Q. Did you review it with the 2 District's attorneys? 3 A. With the paraprofessionals who were 4 responsible for collecting the documents and 5 reproducing them, yes. 6 Q. Who would that be? 7 A. Charron. 8 Q. Follins? 9 A. Follins. 10 Q. Did you assist Miss Follins in 11 identifying responsive documents? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. Approximately how many documents did 14 you identify? 15 A. Well, there was a laboratory 16 procedures book that was used in the soils lab 17 and there were several references that I had used 18 over the years as a source of information on 19 performing different types of laboratory analysis 20 on soil and plant tissue samples which I produced 21 references for. Because they were hard bound and 22 copyrighted books I did not produce actual 23 copies. 24 Q. Did you identify any other 25 responsive documents? 74 1 A. I don't remember. I think that is 2 pretty much it. I believe I identified the 3 current locations of data that was generated by 4 the lab in the thirteen years that it was in 5 operation. 6 Q. When you say the thirteen years that 7 it was in operation, do you mean the thirteen 8 years that you worked at the lab or has the lab 9 ceased operation? 10 A. The soil section of the lab has 11 ceased operation. 12 Q. You say this document showed the 13 current locations of the data. What type of 14 data? 15 A. The results that were generated. 16 Q. For what analyses? 17 A. Phosphorus and the other parameters 18 that were analyzed. 19 Q. And what materials were analyzed? 20 Did that include soils? 21 A. The plant tissue samples and the 22 soil samples. 23 Q. What about water samples? 24 A. No. I'm talking about the soils 25 section of the lab and not the water chemistry 75 1 lab which is still in operation. 2 Q. Why did the soils lab stop 3 operation? 4 A. I am not fully aware of all of the 5 reasons but an administrative decision was made 6 that for one reason or another that these 7 services were no longer needed. 8 Q. Do you know if there are any 9 concerns about the quality of the data being 10 produced by the lab? 11 A. No, there were never any concerns 12 about the quality of the data. 13 Q. How were the soils -- how are soil 14 samples processed by the District currently? 15 A. They are contracted out. 16 Q. To whom? 17 A. I'm not directly involved in the 18 contracting procedure so I don't know where they 19 are contracted -- where they are being contracted 20 currently. In the years immediately after the 21 lab was shut down I did sit on a couple of the 22 contract review committees that selected a 23 vendor. I believe I did that in 1987 and again 24 in 1988. 25 Q. Do you recall any of the vendors 76 1 that are currently being used? 2 A. Would you rephrase the question? 3 Q. Do you recall the names of any of 4 the vendors that are currently being used to 5 process soil samples by the District? 6 A. No. 7 MR. PERKO: Can I have this marked 8 number three. 9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Rosen-3 is 10 marked for identification.) 11 BY MR. PERKO: 12 Q. Mr. Rosen, if you could please look 13 at what has been marked as Exhibit Number 3 and 14 tell me if you recognize this document. 15 A. Well, it says lab manual. I will 16 have to look inside to see if I do recognize it 17 or not. 18 Q. Take your time. 19 A. All right. This is the laboratory 20 procedures manual that was used in the soils lab 21 to perform the different analytical procedures 22 that were used. 23 Q. Is this the lab procedures manual 24 that you identified? 25 A. Yes, it is. 77 1 Q. Does it include the several 2 references that you identified? 3 A. The next page includes the 4 references. The next page after contents, the 5 one that has the title references at the top. 6 Q. Okay. Does this include the 7 document revealing the current locations of data 8 generated by the lab over the thirteen years that 9 it was in operation? 10 MR. NETTLETON: I object to form. I 11 don't know that he testified there was a document 12 identified as that but maybe you want to clarify 13 that. 14 A. I believe that it does not include 15 that. 16 MR. PERKO: We haven't received 17 that. Just for the record this lab manual along 18 with Mr. Rosen's resume were the only two 19 documents that were received, and if there's 20 additional responsive documents we'd like a copy 21 of it. 22 MR. NETTLETON: If there are, I'm 23 not aware of them. That's why I was saying I'm 24 not sure that his testimony was correctly 25 understood but -- 78 1 BY MR. PERKO: 2 Q. Well, let me ask you was there 3 another document that you identified as 4 responsive to the notice duces tecum? 5 A. There may not have been a formal 6 document. I'm not sure exactly what you're 7 getting at. Could you -- 8 Q. You previously testified that you 9 had identified some locations of data. 10 A. Are you looking for the locations of 11 those data? 12 Q. No, I'm trying to find out what you 13 identified. 14 MR. NETTLETON: Maybe I can clear it 15 up. I think what he's asking is is there a 16 document that -- 17 MR. PERKO: Right. 18 MR. NETTLETON: -- that identifies 19 the location of the data as opposed to just you 20 knowing or identifying it through your own mental 21 processes. 22 A. Apparently there is not. I didn't 23 remember whether I'd written a list of locations 24 for Charron or not, but apparently since I don't 25 see it in here, there is not a written list of 79 1 locations. 2 Q. Why did you identify those locations 3 as responsive to this notice duces tecum? 4 MR. NETTLETON: I object to the 5 form. 6 BY MR. PERKO: 7 Q. Well, let me just take you through 8 the notice duces tecum. If you would I'd like to 9 refer your attention to page seven of Exhibit 10 Number 2. 11 A. What is Exhibit Number 2? 12 MR. NETTLETON: That's the notice. 13 BY MR. PERKO: 14 Q. That's the notice duces tecum. 15 A. Oh, okay. Page seven. 16 Q. Under the heading documents to be 17 produced. Number one requests, "Any and all 18 documents relied upon in preparing, formulating, 19 developing, authoring, co-authoring, reviewing 20 and/or organizing anticipated expert testimony 21 related to the subject matter of this action. 22 A. You said item number two? 23 Q. Number one. 24 A. Number one. 25 Q. Are you aware of any other documents 80 1 that are responsive to this request other than 2 the lab manual that's identified as Exhibit 3 Number 3? 4 A. I gave Charron Follins a verbal 5 explanation of where the data is currently 6 stored. 7 Q. Do you -- 8 A. Apparently it was not written down 9 and formalized as a document. 10 Q. Okay. Do you intend to rely upon 11 that data in developing any expert testimony in 12 this case? 13 A. Not on any data that hasn't already 14 been produced by other witnesses. 15 Q. Do you intend to rely upon any data 16 in developing or in support of expert testimony 17 in this case? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you intend to rely upon any 20 documents other than Exhibit 3 in support of 21 opinions, expert opinions in this case? 22 A. No. I don't believe that I do. 23 Q. Mr. Rosen, what is your 24 understanding of the testimony that you're 25 expected to provide in these proceedings? 81 1 A. It's my understanding that it's 2 supposed to be related to quality control in the 3 lab and the applicability of the methods that 4 were used. 5 Q. Quality control in the lab and -- 6 I'm sorry? 7 A. The applicability of the methods 8 that were used for analyzing the samples that 9 were presented to the lab. 10 Q. Do you intend to testify as to the 11 quality control for both water and soil samples? 12 A. Prior to 1986? Yes. 13 Q. What, if any, data will you rely 14 upon in formulating your testimony? 15 A. No specific data set, just my 16 knowledge of the procedures that were used. 17 Q. Do you anticipate giving any 18 specific opinions regarding the quality control 19 procedures and methods of analyzing samples? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And what are those opinions? 22 A. My opinion is that with respect to 23 phosphorus analysis the quality control 24 procedures were more than adequate for the 25 samples that were submitted to the lab. 82 1 MR. PERKO: Could you read that 2 back, please? 3 (The reporter reads the pending 4 question.) 5 BY MR. PERKO: 6 Q. And when you say the samples 7 submitted to the lab, over what period of time 8 were you referring to? 9 A. For the period up to or through 10 1986. 11 Q. How far back does that period 12 extend? 13 A. Well, in the case of the soil 14 samples to about 1974 when I started actually 15 analyzing samples and in the case of water 16 samples I would say around 1977 or '78 when Dave 17 Swift started to do his research. 18 Q. What quality control procedures were 19 utilized for the samples submitted by Dave Swift 20 from 1977 or 1978 on? 21 A. Are you talking about water or 22 soil? 23 Q. Water samples. 24 A. Water samples. Well, they're the 25 same procedures that I mentioned earlier for the 83 1 water lab, the four standards plus a blank in 2 calibrating the instrument, the QC-1 and QC-2 3 samples for accuracy. There were round robin 4 samples that were submitted to the lab as an 5 overall estimate of the quality of the work done 6 by the lab, although these samples were not tied 7 to any one specific project, and I don't remember 8 the exact dates when these were processed by the 9 lab, the fact that there was a fifteen percent 10 threshold on the various quality control measures 11 of the lab for water samples. 12 Q. Could you explain what do you mean 13 by fifteen percent threshold? 14 A. Well, if the reported results for an 15 accuracy sample was outside of a fifteen percent 16 plus or minus range for the expected value of 17 that sample or the known value, the results of 18 the run could be accepted or rejected. 19 Q. What was the procedure established 20 for determining whether the results would be 21 accepted or rejected on the basis of the fifteen 22 percent threshold? 23 A. That the known or the value for that 24 sample in the particular analytical run fall 25 within that fifteen percent plus or minus range. 84 1 Q. So would you automatically reject 2 all samples submitted at the same time as that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So if, for example, the QC sample 5 was twenty percent above the known value, you 6 would reject all the samples that were submitted 7 with the QC sample? 8 A. All of the samples that were 9 processed with that particular analytical run or 10 batch of samples that were being analyzed at the 11 same time on that particular day. 12 Q. How did you determine how many 13 samples to include within a batch? 14 A. Are you talking about water samples 15 or soil samples? 16 Q. I guess I'm trying to determine how 17 many -- 18 A. All right. There are two different 19 answers for the two different parts of the lab. 20 I need to know which -- 21 Q. Well, for water samples. 22 A. For water samples. I was not 23 directly involved in that procedure, but I 24 believe their policy was to try to analyze all of 25 the samples that had been submitted to the lab 85 1 the previous week. 2 Q. So -- 3 A. For each parameter. 4 Q. When you say that you weren't 5 directly involved, what assurance do you have 6 that this fifteen percent threshold requirement 7 was actually observed? 8 A. I don't know firsthand. 9 Q. How would you determine if it was? 10 A. I guess, well, to determine for any 11 particular set of samples, one would have to go 12 back to the actual laboratory raw data sheets 13 that are currently being stored off site which 14 comprises about thirty boxes of materials and 15 look for the actual results of the quality 16 control samples. 17 Q. Do you intend to do that for 18 specific sets of data? 19 A. Not unless I'm asked by somebody to 20 do it for a particular reason. 21 Q. So at this time you expect that your 22 testimony would be a general opinion that the 23 QA/QC procedures followed between 1977 or '78 24 through 1986 for water samples was appropriate. 25 A. Yes. 86 1 Q. Are you aware of any instances in 2 which water samples submitted for total 3 phosphorus were not submitted with QC samples? 4 A. No. The QC samples were not 5 submitted by the project managers. 6 Q. Is it possible that the lab could 7 have processed total phosphorus samples without 8 including QC samples? 9 MR. NETTLETON: