1

 

 

1 Division of Administrative Hearings

 

 

2 Department of Administration, State of Florida

 

 

3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE)

OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; )

4 and 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._____)

) VOLUME I

8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, )

INC.; UNITED STATES SUGAR )

9 CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE )

SOUTH, INC., )

10 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH

11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT) Case 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the )

12 State of Florida, et al., )

_____________Respondents._____)

13 )

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;)

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

15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

16 V ) DOAH

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT) Case 92-3040

17 DISTRICT, an agency of the )

State of Florida, et al., )

18 _____________Respondents._____)

 

 

19

Deposition of Kenneth Rutchey

20

Taken before Robin L. Merker, Court

21 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

Florida at large, pursuant to notice of taking

22 deposition filed by the Petitioners in the above cause.

 

 

23 - - -

Monday, February 7, 1992

24 319 Clematis Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

25 9:10 - 12:15 p.m.

2

 

 

1 APPEARANCES:

 

 

2 On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar

Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp,

3 and New Hope, Inc.:

 

 

4 Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts

One Biscayne Tower

5 Suite 3636

Two South Biscayne Boulevard

6 Miami, Florida 33131

By: MARK KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE

7

On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers

8 Cooperative, Roth Farms, Inc., and WEDGEWORTH

Farms, Inc.:

9

Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

10 123 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

11 BY: WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQUIRE and

CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE

12

On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:

13

Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.

14 100 Southeast 2nd Street

Miami, Florida 33131

15 BY: GREGORY M. CESARANO, ESQUIRE

 

 

16 On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of

America:

17

THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE

18 Assistant United States Attorney

155 South Miami Avenue

19 Suite 600

Miami, Florida 33130-1693

20

ALSO PRESENT:

21

JOE B. BIRCH, Ph.D.

22 EDWARD DOWNING

MICHAEL SOUKUP

23 MICHAEL STORY

 

 

24

 

 

25

3

 

 

1 - - -

 

 

2 I N D E X

 

 

3 - - -

 

 

4 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

 

 

5 Kenneth Rutchey

 

 

6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5

BY MS. RAEPPLE: 226

7

- - -

8

E X H I B I T S

9

- - -

10 Rutchey Exb. No. 1 8

Development of an Everglades Vegetation Map

11 Using a SPOT Image and the Global Positioning System

 

 

12 Rutchey Exb. No. 2 33

WCA-2A Field Data Collection Sites for 30

13 classes 10-2-91 to 1-13-92

 

 

14 Rutchey Exb. No. 3 56

WCA-2A Tree Islands

15

Rutchey Exb. No. 4 67

16 WCA-2A Accuracy Assessment 3-23 to 4-24-92.

 

 

17 Rutchey Exb. No. 5 80

Laboratory Notebook

18

Rutchey Exb. No. 6 105

19 WCA 3S for SPOT 5-11-92

 

 

20 Rutchey Exb. No. 7 105

WCA 3N for SPOT 5-11-92

21

Rutchey Exb. No. 8 108

22 Inland Wetland Change Detection in the

Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A Using a Time

23 Series of Normalized Remotely Sensed Data

 

 

24 Rutchey Exb. No. 9 196

Holeyland file, Bates Nos. 1220441 through

25 1220572

4

 

 

1

Rutchey Exb. No. 10 228

2 Color Map of WCA-2A, using SPOT image 4-4-87

 

 

3 Rutchey Exb. No. 11 273

Satellite imagery as of 1-25-93

4

Rutchey Exb. No. 12 278

5 Resume of Ken Rutchey

 

 

6 Rutchey Exb. No. 13 298

Memorandum dated 11-5-92 from Ken Rutchey

7

Rutchey Exb. No. 14 316

8 Memorandum dated 3-30-1990 from Michael Maceina

 

 

9 Rutchey Exb. No. 15 354

Latitudes and longitudes, coordinates

10

Rutchey Exb. No. 16 355

11 Review of Remote Sensing activities by John

Jensen.

12

Rutchey Exb. No. 17 357

13 Phosphorus data

 

 

14 Rutchey Exb. No. 18 364

Memorandum from Ken Rutchey and Les Vilchek

15 dated 10-22-92

 

 

16 Rutchey Exb. No. 19 370

Memorandum from Ken Rutchey dated 7-29-91

17

Rutchey Exb. No. 20 370

18 Memorandum from Ken Rutchey dated 6-18-90

 

 

19 Rutchey Exb. No. 21 373

Memorandum from Ken Rutchey dated 10-30-89.

20

Rutchey Exb. No. 22 382

21 WCA-2A fire records

 

 

22 Rutchey Exb. No. 23 384

Draft page of Everglades SWIM Plan with

23 handwritten note on back.

 

 

24

 

 

25

5

 

 

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

 

 

2

 

 

3 - - -

 

 

4 Thereupon,

 

 

5 Kenneth Rutchey

 

 

6 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

 

 

7 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

 

 

8 THE WITNESS: I do.

 

 

9 DIRECT (Kenneth Rutchey)

 

 

10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rutchey. My name is

 

 

12 Mark Kobelinski. Have you been deposed before?

 

 

13 A. Yes.

 

 

14 Q. You have, all right. Good. I think I

 

 

15 knew that.

 

 

16 And I think you're aware that a deposition

 

 

17 is a means by which people involved in litigation can

 

 

18 ask questions of individuals who may or may not have

 

 

19 facts dealing with the issues in the case under oath.

 

 

20 I'll be asking you a number of questions. I believe

 

 

21 one or another of the attorneys here will be asking you

 

 

22 some questions. I'd like you to answer to the best of

 

 

23 your ability as truthfully as possible. If you don't

 

 

24 understand a question, please let me know and I'll

 

 

25 attempt to rephrase it in a manner in which you can

6

 

 

1 understand. If you don't know the answer to a question

 

 

2 or don't remember, I don't know or I don't remember are

 

 

3 the best responses you can give.

 

 

4 If you do assume something, please let us

 

 

5 know. Otherwise we're going to go on our own

 

 

6 assumption that you are not assuming. If you feel

 

 

7 compelled to assume, please tell us.

 

 

8 Under those ground rules, you were served,

 

 

9 sir, I believe with a subpoena duces tecum?

 

 

10 A. Right.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 You were given a notice and, as I

 

 

13 understand it, you've gathered documents in response to

 

 

14 that?

 

 

15 A. Yes.

 

 

16 Q. You produced those all to us?

 

 

17 A. No.

 

 

18 Q. All right.

 

 

19 A. This morning I brought in, after reading

 

 

20 it further, a report. You might have this, you might

 

 

21 not. I don't think that was -- the C-51 study, you

 

 

22 said all publications that I've been involved in.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 A. And this is another one that was by Dewey

 

 

25 Worth in the early '80's, work that he did in

7

 

 

1 documenting the vegetation, and I have basically all

 

 

2 the data for that report since Dewey has now left the

 

 

3 District.

 

 

4 Q. Great, all right.

 

 

5 Well, we'll get some copies of that later.

 

 

6 A. And the other item I was asked to provide

 

 

7 was the digital data also.

 

 

8 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

9 A. The techs and I haven't put that all

 

 

10 together yet.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 A. I'm working on that.

 

 

13 Q. Now I note that you have a document there

 

 

14 in front of you, titled Development of an Everglades

 

 

15 Vegetation Map Using a SPOT Image and the Global

 

 

16 Positioning System. Is that the final or most recent

 

 

17 copy of that particular paper?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. All right.

 

 

20 And I know you did produce that; is that

 

 

21 correct?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. All right.

 

 

24 Well, why don't you give me few moments to

 

 

25 go through it. We weren't quite sure which was the

8

 

 

1 final version.

 

 

2 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

3 record.)

 

 

4 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right. We all set?

 

 

5 Why don't you mark that as 1?

 

 

6 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

7 Rutchey Exb. No. 1 for Identification.)

 

 

8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

9 Q. Mr. Rutchey, I've handed you what we've

 

 

10 marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 to your deposition,

 

 

11 which is a document entitled Development of an

 

 

12 Everglades Vegetation Map Using a SPOT Image and the

 

 

13 Global Positioning System, dated September of 1992,

 

 

14 Bates No. 1220147 through 1220440. Would you look

 

 

15 through that and identify that for me, please, if you

 

 

16 can?

 

 

17 A. This is the work that Les Vilchek and I

 

 

18 did, looking at vegetation in the Everglades and using

 

 

19 multispectral satellite data to delineate the

 

 

20 vegetation.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 And what portion of Everglades was that?

 

 

23 A. Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 When was this work done? When did you

9

 

 

1 start on this project?

 

 

2 A. I'd say initially right after the data was

 

 

3 acquired on 8-10-91.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 And when did you finish this project?

 

 

6 A. I'd say approximately eight months after

 

 

7 the actual -- all the data was collected and then maybe

 

 

8 another four months the final report was done.

 

 

9 Q. So that was just about September '92 is

 

 

10 when you finished up with this?

 

 

11 A. Yeah, I'd say that was the last, you know,

 

 

12 the revised. You know, you get comments back and...

 

 

13 Q. What we've marked Exhibit 1 is the final

 

 

14 product from that study, or are there any additional or

 

 

15 subsequent drafts?

 

 

16 A. There was drafts prior to this, yes.

 

 

17 Q. Were there any drafts subsequent to, after

 

 

18 this?

 

 

19 A. No.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Who is Les Vilchek?

 

 

22 A. He's a co-worker, same level as I am,

 

 

23 working for South Florida Water Management.

 

 

24 Q. What does he do?

 

 

25 A. He's -- he does pretty much what I do. He

10

 

 

1 has a strong background in aerial photography

 

 

2 delineation, dealing with aerial photography. He

 

 

3 worked with the National Wetland Inventory before he

 

 

4 came to the District and basically learned the image

 

 

5 processing from me, the digital image processing and we

 

 

6 used his background in aerial interpretation pretty

 

 

7 extensively in this project.

 

 

8 Q. Thank you.

 

 

9 Prior to August of '91, did you have any

 

 

10 experience in using satellite imagery, showing

 

 

11 vegetation through satellite imagery?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Could you just briefly take me through

 

 

14 when you first started doing that actually through

 

 

15 today, what your experience has been?

 

 

16 A. Okay.

 

 

17 I'd say I started, I would say it was in

 

 

18 '87 when I first became interested in this method. I

 

 

19 basically had done a lot of research in the Everglades

 

 

20 prior to that using standard ground reconnaissance, you

 

 

21 know, going out in the field as a biologist and looking

 

 

22 at vegetation, put a transect out. Basically that's --

 

 

23 the results of that are in contained in this report

 

 

24 that Dewey Worth did. But we saw there was so much

 

 

25 more out there that we weren't covering, so we wanted

11

 

 

1 to move on to maybe looking at the area in its

 

 

2 entirety. And then initially we started just taking

 

 

3 photographs from helicopters, putting poles out in the

 

 

4 fields so we can basically tell distances, so that when

 

 

5 we delineate the vegetation we can come up with an

 

 

6 acreage of what things were that we were delineating

 

 

7 were or so -- were on the ground.

 

 

8 And so we then basically moved to

 

 

9 satellite data and Dewey, you have to give Dewey the

 

 

10 credit. He's the one that really headed us in that

 

 

11 direction. I just sort of, I guess, tagged along. But

 

 

12 it piqued my interest and I became very interested in

 

 

13 it. In fact, it became my niche at the District. And

 

 

14 at that time we had the I2S system, which is an image

 

 

15 processing system and I learned it and I did some

 

 

16 initial work. And basically at this point I was

 

 

17 getting a real education at the District learning the

 

 

18 software and different techniques and...

 

 

19 Q. Put an approximate period of time around

 

 

20 this.

 

 

21 A. I'd say '87 to '89.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 A. I did a preliminary map of Water

 

 

24 Conservation Area 2A using a 1987 SPOT scene. And then

 

 

25 I started working on this -- this project, completed

12

 

 

1 this work. At this point I'm moving more now towards

 

 

2 using satellite imagery and aerial photography. I

 

 

3 consider all remotely sensed data or image processing

 

 

4 of data. That's it pretty well.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 A. Sums it up.

 

 

7 Q. You say a 1987 SPOT vegetative map, was

 

 

8 that -- what area was that?

 

 

9 A. Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

10 Q. With regard to the photo surveys using

 

 

11 helicopters for use in vegetative mapping, what period

 

 

12 of time was that?

 

 

13 A. (No response.)

 

 

14 Q. I believe you said you used, did some

 

 

15 photo surveys using helicopters where you put posts in

 

 

16 or poles in to mark --

 

 

17 A. That was before any actual digital image

 

 

18 processing. That was real early like, I'd say, in the

 

 

19 '81 through '85.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Do you recall what areas you did using

 

 

22 that method?

 

 

23 A. Basically it was sawgrass areas, tree

 

 

24 islands and slough areas.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

13

 

 

1 Was that in any of the Conservation Areas?

 

 

2 A. Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

3 Q. Did you cover the entire Conservation

 

 

4 Area?

 

 

5 A. No.

 

 

6 Q. Do you still have the results of those

 

 

7 surveillances or not?

 

 

8 A. Some of it.

 

 

9 Q. Did you publish a report or put out any

 

 

10 type of report based on that?

 

 

11 A. Basically all that work is probably in

 

 

12 here.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 A. We collected a lot of data and we put this

 

 

15 report together. We didn't use all the data. We used,

 

 

16 you know, we collected a lot of data, so it was...

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Going then towards this report which we

 

 

19 marked as Exhibit 1, if you could walk me through the

 

 

20 process.

 

 

21 And I believe, just for the record, the

 

 

22 copy that has been marked as Exhibit 1, I do not

 

 

23 believe has color photos on the back of it. I know

 

 

24 that you have another copy of that here -- is that a

 

 

25 fact, Mr. Rutchey --

14

 

 

1 A. Correct.

 

 

2 Q. -- of this report which does have color

 

 

3 photos?

 

 

4 A. (Shakes head up and down.)

 

 

5 Q. Feel free if, during the deposition you

 

 

6 need to refer to color photos as opposed to those black

 

 

7 and white photocopies to do so. We will then attach a

 

 

8 corrected one with the color photos to the deposition

 

 

9 itself.

 

 

10 If you could literally, from the point

 

 

11 where you became involved, walk me through the steps it

 

 

12 took to get to this final report, and if I need a

 

 

13 little more detail I'll ask you. Otherwise --

 

 

14 A. Okay.

 

 

15 Q. When did you -- I assume the first part of

 

 

16 that was selecting a -- well, you tell me. Step Number

 

 

17 1, when did you get the assignment?

 

 

18 A. Well, we got the imagery that was

 

 

19 collected on August 10, 1991 from SPOT data

 

 

20 multispectral imagery.

 

 

21 Initially the first thing we do is went

 

 

22 out and got ground truth information to rectify the

 

 

23 imagery.

 

 

24 Q. Before you get to that point, how was the

 

 

25 August SPOT imagery selected?

15

 

 

1 A. Basically the overriding consideration was

 

 

2 availability. In the Everglades we don't have a lot of

 

 

3 clear days where we have a satellite where it's totally

 

 

4 cloud free.

 

 

5 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

6 A. So that was why that one was selected.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Who actually made the selection of the

 

 

9 August 10, '91 SPOT imagery?

 

 

10 A. I did.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 And was this -- was SPOT imagery the only

 

 

13 satellite imagery that you considered at this point?

 

 

14 A. No, no. We looked at LandSat too. Again

 

 

15 the overriding consideration though was a scene that

 

 

16 was totally cloud free for that area.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 A. And there was some other work done using

 

 

19 LandSat in the Everglades, and they compared it to

 

 

20 SPOT, and they showed that SPOT was the better way of

 

 

21 looking at the vegetation and delineating.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 Who had done this LandSat work and

 

 

24 compared it to SPOT?

 

 

25 A. Terry Gilbert of Game and Fish.

16

 

 

1 Q. Did you consult with Gilbert with regard

 

 

2 to selecting the SPOT imagery?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. Had you worked with the LandSat before?

 

 

5 A. Yes.

 

 

6 Q. And did you concur with Mr. Gilbert's

 

 

7 opinion that SPOT would be a better imagery to use as

 

 

8 opposed to LandSat?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 What was the specific purpose or goal at

 

 

12 this point in time of the assignment? What were you

 

 

13 attempting to do?

 

 

14 A. Use satellite imagery to delineate the

 

 

15 vegetation in Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

16 Q. Any particular vegetation types or

 

 

17 literally all the vegetation you could?

 

 

18 A. All the vegetation we possibly could.

 

 

19 There was no emphasis on any specific species.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 And did you select 2A as the area of study

 

 

22 or was that just, again, part of the assignment?

 

 

23 A. Selected it. Because that's where I had

 

 

24 worked since my beginning of employment with South

 

 

25 Florida Water Management District, and that area also

17

 

 

1 has had the most work done in it in previous.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Was the assignment literally just to map

 

 

4 any area within the Water Conservation Areas, open area

 

 

5 selection? How was the assignment developed?

 

 

6 A. Basically just we mapped Water

 

 

7 Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

8 Q. I'm just curious whether or not the

 

 

9 assignment was we need to start doing a vegetative

 

 

10 mapping, and you said fine, I'd like to do 2A because

 

 

11 that's what I'm most familiar with. How was that

 

 

12 assignment developed?

 

 

13 A. I would say that the direction at that

 

 

14 point came from Dewey Worth to start off doing Water

 

 

15 Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

16 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

17 Did you review various SPOT imagery for 2A

 

 

18 and then select August 10 from a number of options or

 

 

19 was August 10 essentially the one that was proposed to

 

 

20 you?

 

 

21 A. Again, there wasn't a whole lot available

 

 

22 due to cloud cover. And it's -- I didn't want to go

 

 

23 back to a scene that was collected earlier because then

 

 

24 it makes it hard to ground truth. So I had to wait for

 

 

25 a scene to become available and then start working on

18

 

 

1 it.

 

 

2 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

3 In what format did you receive the August

 

 

4 10 SPOT imagery data?

 

 

5 A. In digital format.

 

 

6 Q. Did you still have those digital files?

 

 

7 A. Yes.

 

 

8 Q. Unaltered, unmodified?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Once you received the digital files for

 

 

12 the '80 -- excuse me -- 8-10-91 SPOT imagery, what did

 

 

13 you do next?

 

 

14 A. I went out, collected ground truth data

 

 

15 for rectification of the imagery. We collected 20

 

 

16 ground control points. That was the first thing we

 

 

17 did. Then we cut the actual area out that we were

 

 

18 interested in, which was Water Conservation Area 2A,

 

 

19 out of the imagery.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 So let me -- first, after getting the

 

 

22 data, I assume you load it on to a computer, then went

 

 

23 up to selected 20 sites to ground truth --

 

 

24 A. To ground truth for rectification

 

 

25 purposes.

19

 

 

1 Q. And what does ground truthing for

 

 

2 rectification purposes mean?

 

 

3 A. When you get the data it's not to any real

 

 

4 world map projection. So we wanted to get it into a

 

 

5 real world map projection using real world ground truth

 

 

6 information.

 

 

7 Q. Now in other words, when you get it, it

 

 

8 doesn't have the boundary of 2A drawn on it; is that

 

 

9 right? Is that --

 

 

10 A. No. The way you get a boundary is to cut

 

 

11 the imagery from the satellite, original satellite

 

 

12 data. This rectification is so that when you look at

 

 

13 an area and -- you know where the location is at.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 A. You don't know that when you first get it.

 

 

16 You have to establish ground controls and rectify it.

 

 

17 Q. So what are the types of sites you use for

 

 

18 that purpose?

 

 

19 A. Some of the fish camps within the area and

 

 

20 then points all the way around the outside perimeter.

 

 

21 Q. That including the structures?

 

 

22 A. I believe so.

 

 

23 Q. And did you do the 20 sites, inspection of

 

 

24 the 20 sites for ground truthing?

 

 

25 A. Les Vilchek and myself.

20

 

 

1 Q. Approximately how long did that take?

 

 

2 A. I would say a day to two days to collect

 

 

3 the information.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 What's the next step?

 

 

6 A. Okay.

 

 

7 Initially we took the raw data and did an

 

 

8 unsupervised classification and we chose 30 clusters.

 

 

9 We did the unsupervised classification within the 30

 

 

10 clusters. We tried to find areas that we can visit in

 

 

11 the field. And this was all based on the accuracy of

 

 

12 the GPS. So basically the imagery was initially

 

 

13 rectified to .4 RMS, root means square, it means that

 

 

14 pixel within it is accurate to approximately eight

 

 

15 meters.

 

 

16 Q. With regard to this process, how many

 

 

17 classes did you -- did the computer or did you collect?

 

 

18 A. 30 clusters.

 

 

19 Q. 30 clusters, all right.

 

 

20 Let me ask you this, perhaps as we go

 

 

21 through, for the sake of -- we received a fair number

 

 

22 of documents, a lot of which are, as you know, lists of

 

 

23 data. With regard to Step 1, which was selecting the

 

 

24 August 10, 91 imagery, did you produce any documents

 

 

25 specifically related to that fact?

21

 

 

1 I'm just trying to organize the documents

 

 

2 that you produced.

 

 

3 A. Could you repeat that question?

 

 

4 Q. You've produced to us about a foot and a

 

 

5 half of documents in the last few days.

 

 

6 A. Okay.

 

 

7 Q. We're trying to order them to understand

 

 

8 exactly what they are and identify them. Perhaps it

 

 

9 might be easiest to see which of those documents fit in

 

 

10 a particular project you were doing and in what steps.

 

 

11 I'm asking you, did you produce any documents with

 

 

12 regard to your selection of the August 10, 91 SPOT

 

 

13 imagery?

 

 

14 A. Yes.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 What documents would have you produced in

 

 

17 regard to that?

 

 

18 A. If I remember, all -- I think you have all

 

 

19 the GPS location points that were used in the

 

 

20 rectification process, in the ground truthing and in

 

 

21 the your analysis of the mapping project.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 I understand we probably have all the

 

 

24 documents. Our problem is trying to figure out which

 

 

25 documents are for what task. Are there specific

22

 

 

1 documents with relation to your selection of the August

 

 

2 10, '91 SPOT imagery?

 

 

3 A. I don't think so.

 

 

4 Q. With regard to your selecting 20 sites for

 

 

5 ground truthing and for rectification purposes, were

 

 

6 there any documents specifically related to that task

 

 

7 that you've produced to us?

 

 

8 A. I believe so.

 

 

9 Q. What would those look like?

 

 

10 A. Well, I identify them based on the folder

 

 

11 that I have them in.

 

 

12 Q. Well, we received those things clipped or

 

 

13 rubber banded together. There's the first batch,

 

 

14 perhaps if you went through that and can identify the

 

 

15 20 sites or the documents related to the 20 sites for

 

 

16 ground truthing.

 

 

17 While you're doing that, let me ask a

 

 

18 quick question. Are you aware that we received your

 

 

19 documents in two batches?

 

 

20 A. No.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 So that wouldn't help, telling you I

 

 

23 received it in Batch 1 or Batch 2.

 

 

24 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

25 record.)

23

 

 

1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

2 Q. It's not there. Okay. This is another

 

 

3 set of documents we received.

 

 

4 A. I don't see them.

 

 

5 Q. Okay. At the break we can take a closer

 

 

6 look at that.

 

 

7 Moving on to the next step that you

 

 

8 described to me as taking the raw data and looking at

 

 

9 the computer, doing an unsupervised classification,

 

 

10 would there be any specific documents generated from

 

 

11 that? Would the computer generate a particular file

 

 

12 or --

 

 

13 A. I believe all it's all digital. I don't

 

 

14 think there's any hard copy of that.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Now, do I understand correctly that the

 

 

17 computer collected more than 30 classifications, but

 

 

18 ultimately narrowed it down to 30?

 

 

19 A. No.

 

 

20 Q. How does that work?

 

 

21 A. I chose 30.

 

 

22 Q. Oh, you essentially told the computer I

 

 

23 want 30 classifications, go through and find them?

 

 

24 A. I want 30 clusters to be my final number

 

 

25 of classes.

24

 

 

1 Q. Okay. Well, you have to excuse me, I'm --

 

 

2 the difficulty is you have someone who is not expert in

 

 

3 your field deposing an expert in your field.

 

 

4 When it's an unsupervised classification

 

 

5 by the computer, does that mean the computer just goes

 

 

6 through and selects what it considers to be vegetation

 

 

7 of the same class or cluster?

 

 

8 A. Basically it looks at the band information

 

 

9 of the satellite data and clusters it out based on

 

 

10 means, basically it's a standard deviation, into 30

 

 

11 separate clusters.

 

 

12 Q. But you're the one that first plugs in to

 

 

13 the computer and tells it I want 30 to start with?

 

 

14 A. Right.

 

 

15 Q. So you could have done 40 and it would

 

 

16 have given you 40?

 

 

17 A. That's correct.

 

 

18 Q. Or you could have given it one and it

 

 

19 could have -- would have given you the entire map I

 

 

20 guess; is that essentially correct?

 

 

21 A. Yes, I think that's probably what would

 

 

22 happen.

 

 

23 Q. Did you write any memos or anything

 

 

24 related to that particular document?

 

 

25 A. Not to my knowledge.

25

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 After you received then the computer

 

 

3 classification of 30 clusters -- would that be the

 

 

4 appropriate term?

 

 

5 A. Yes.

 

 

6 Q. Okay. 30 clusters.

 

 

7 -- what was the next step you did?

 

 

8 A. Okay.

 

 

9 Basically, we tried to go out in the field

 

 

10 and identify what those clusters were.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 How did you go about doing that?

 

 

13 A. We used GPS, Global Positioning System,

 

 

14 and tried to pick a minimum of five points in each one

 

 

15 of these clusters, geographically locate it throughout

 

 

16 the area. And that's what we used for trying to

 

 

17 determine those 30 clusters.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 Just so I understand how you went about

 

 

20 determining the 30 clusters, did you print out a map?

 

 

21 Was there a map printed out of it showing the 30

 

 

22 clusters, where they were?

 

 

23 A. That's correct.

 

 

24 Q. All right.

 

 

25 Do you still have a copy of that map?

26

 

 

1 A. It's digital.

 

 

2 Q. All right.

 

 

3 Did you allow the computer to select the

 

 

4 sites where you would go out and ground truth or

 

 

5 determine what clusters represented or did you do it

 

 

6 yourself?

 

 

7 A. Did it myself.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 Do you have any type of map or -- showing

 

 

10 where those sites were that you visited for the

 

 

11 determination of classes?

 

 

12 A. Yes. I -- there might be a hard copy, I

 

 

13 can't remember. But there's definitely a digital copy.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 And in the digital copy, would it have the

 

 

16 coordinates of where you were going?

 

 

17 A. That's correct.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 How did you go about selecting sites you'd

 

 

20 visit?

 

 

21 A. It was based on whether we were able to

 

 

22 accurately navigate to them use GPS technology. There

 

 

23 was some inaccuracy in the actual GPS and some

 

 

24 inaccuracy in the rectification process of the

 

 

25 satellite imagery. So basically we determined that we

27

 

 

1 had to have a minimum of 3 by 3 pixel cluster in order

 

 

2 to accurately navigate to. In most cases we prefer to

 

 

3 have bigger than that.

 

 

4 Q. Now with a 3 by 3, you're talking about,

 

 

5 what is that, 60 meters squared?

 

 

6 A. 60 meters on side. 60 by 60 by 60 by 60.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 And how many sites did you go to identify

 

 

9 the clusters?

 

 

10 A. 129.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 And that was yourself who picked the 129

 

 

13 sites?

 

 

14 A. I would say I picked them along with Les

 

 

15 Vilchek.

 

 

16 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

17 What was the next step then, visiting the

 

 

18 sites?

 

 

19 A. We visited the sites and we wrote down

 

 

20 what we saw there and came back and wanted to see if

 

 

21 the cluster was accurate and it -- it had broken it out

 

 

22 into 30 clusters, whether they were all unique. And at

 

 

23 this point we determined they weren't unique, that

 

 

24 there was real heterogeneity with a number of clusters.

 

 

25 Q. Now prior to the visitation to the site,

28

 

 

1 how did you get to the site?

 

 

2 A. Either by air boat or helicopter.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 And you did that using GPS, I believe you

 

 

5 mentioned?

 

 

6 A. That's correct.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Once you got to the site, I believe you

 

 

9 stated you identified the vegetation?

 

 

10 A. That's correct.

 

 

11 Q. What would you do, check a site in the

 

 

12 center of the pixel, in the center of the 9 square or 9

 

 

13 pixels?

 

 

14 A. Approximately.

 

 

15 Q. Then how would you go about identifying

 

 

16 what was there?

 

 

17 Who would do that? Let's start with that.

 

 

18 A. We stuck with one person so that we

 

 

19 wouldn't -- it's just better if you do it with one

 

 

20 person than have a number of people working on that

 

 

21 aspect of it, because he stays consistent throughout

 

 

22 the process.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 A. And Les Vilchek was that person.

 

 

25 Q. Okay. All right.

29

 

 

1 Once you arrived at a site, where would he

 

 

2 look to make the identification?

 

 

3 A. If we were in a helicopter he would look

 

 

4 down at the site, because you want to try to determine

 

 

5 what the satellite was seeing. If you were on an air

 

 

6 boat, we have cages on the air boat, we got on top of

 

 

7 the cage and looked basically down so we can see was it

 

 

8 sparse or moderate or dense or what the prevailing

 

 

9 vegetation signature was for that area.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 With regard to the helicopter, were you

 

 

12 hovering, trying to hover at any particular level or...

 

 

13 A. Yeah, I'd say it was approximately 50

 

 

14 feet.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 A. 25 feet.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 You now -- as I understand it, you are in

 

 

19 the approximate, what you've identified as being in the

 

 

20 approximate center of a 9 pixel square, each pixel

 

 

21 being 20 meters by 20 meters. Was Les attempting to

 

 

22 identify the community in all 9 pixels or was he trying

 

 

23 to look at what he considered to be the boundary of

 

 

24 that center pixel?

 

 

25 A. I would say he was looking at a 20 meter

30

 

 

1 by 20 meter area.

 

 

2 Q. Was that something you discussed with him

 

 

3 so you know that or is that just your --

 

 

4 A. No, we discussed that.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Now at -- during this trip would you also

 

 

7 observe and take any notes if, for instance, if there's

 

 

8 a change in the type of vegetation surrounding -- from

 

 

9 what you've identified as the center pixel?

 

 

10 A. I believe he did that, yes.

 

 

11 Q. Now were there written documents? Were

 

 

12 there written observations from this trip?

 

 

13 A. I believe there is, yeah. I think he --

 

 

14 they might be included here somewhere.

 

 

15 Q. But he made field notes of every, all 129

 

 

16 visits?

 

 

17 A. I believe so, yeah.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 Was he keeping the field notes or were

 

 

20 you?

 

 

21 A. He kept them pretty much.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 Did you make any separate observations or

 

 

24 field notes of any sort?

 

 

25 A. No. I was basically the GPS man. I

31

 

 

1 also -- I put it in in navigating to points and making

 

 

2 sure we got to the right place.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 Now, is it your belief that the field

 

 

5 notes from these site visits were included in the

 

 

6 documents that were produced to us?

 

 

7 A. I think so, but I'm not positive.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 Can we go through and again identify those

 

 

10 so we can start segmenting out what these documents

 

 

11 are? If it's easier, as I said, take all the rubber

 

 

12 bands off.

 

 

13 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

14 record.)

 

 

15 THE WITNESS: This is in digital form. I

 

 

16 don't see the --

 

 

17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

18 Q. Let's set that aside for the moment.

 

 

19 Everything that's -- everything you have that relates

 

 

20 to the -- is it just that one document you have in your

 

 

21 hand or is there anything underneath that also?

 

 

22 A. Well, this actually gives you the

 

 

23 coordinate and what we saw there. I'll keep looking

 

 

24 through.

 

 

25 Q. Well, I'd like to see if we do have field

32

 

 

1 notes. Let's -- why don't we set that aside. I'll

 

 

2 identify that for the record in a moment. But if

 

 

3 there's anything else related to that visit to the 129

 

 

4 sites in the field and the identification of

 

 

5 vegetation.

 

 

6 A. I think this pertains to that too. I

 

 

7 think these are it. We actually made sheets up, field

 

 

8 inspection sheets. I think this is it.

 

 

9 Q. All right. Let me try find these here.

 

 

10 MR. CESERANO: You want the number?

 

 

11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes.

 

 

12 MR. CESARANO: 1202944.

 

 

13 THE WITNESS: No, this, I think, was for

 

 

14 ground truthing.

 

 

15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

16 Q. Why don't we put -- this is yours, and I

 

 

17 think you turned some stuff over here. I just want to

 

 

18 make sure.

 

 

19 MR. CESARANO: Pardon me, let me look at

 

 

20 this for a moment if I could.

 

 

21 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right. What does

 

 

22 that start with?

 

 

23 MR. CESARANO: 1203.

 

 

24 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right. And I think

 

 

25 we'll just mark this as a large composite

33

 

 

1 exhibit.

 

 

2 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

3 Rutchey Exb. No. 2 for Identification.)

 

 

4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

5 Q. Mr. Rutchey, did you -- were there any

 

 

6 photos taken during the three site visits, the 129

 

 

7 sites?

 

 

8 A. I think we did do it for this one, I'm not

 

 

9 sure.

 

 

10 Q. Who would have those photos?

 

 

11 A. I'd have to look in my slides for that,

 

 

12 because we have gone there on and off on different

 

 

13 things.

 

 

14 Q. Would they be in just slide form or would

 

 

15 you also have photos, do you know?

 

 

16 A. They'd be slides.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Who would have taken the -- snapped the

 

 

19 photo or slide or whatever, done the camera work?

 

 

20 A. Yeah, I -- if I recall, I don't think we

 

 

21 did it for this particular project, we didn't take

 

 

22 pictures. I'm not sure.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 A. I'd have to look.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

34

 

 

1 Mr. Rutchey, I'm showing you a composite

 

 

2 exhibit that we've marked as No. 2. There's actually a

 

 

3 number of different portions to it, but the first page

 

 

4 appears to be a photocopy of a possibly a file folder

 

 

5 which reads WCA-2A field data collection sites for 30

 

 

6 classes, 10-2-91 through 1-13-92. And all these

 

 

7 documents bear consecutive Bates numbers in the lower

 

 

8 right-hand corner, 1202881 all the way through 1203072.

 

 

9 Some of these are stapled together.

 

 

10 I'd ask you first of all, is this a -- one

 

 

11 entire file that you keep, this particular file?

 

 

12 A. It's not an entire file, it's a number of

 

 

13 different files.

 

 

14 Q. Perhaps -- because it was produced to us

 

 

15 in this consecutive order, I'd like you to go through

 

 

16 and perhaps see if you can identify each set, the first

 

 

17 portion of which is stapled together at 1202882. Do

 

 

18 you know what that particular document relates to?

 

 

19 A. This is the actual data that I sent to

 

 

20 John Jensen of the 30 ground truth sites and their

 

 

21 coordinate location.

 

 

22 Q. And it's actually referring to 129 sites?

 

 

23 A. Yes.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Now -- so this does relate to this initial

35

 

 

1 site identification of the 129 sites and the classes

 

 

2 that are listed there in this document. Where did you

 

 

3 get that information?

 

 

4 A. These are the classes that we determined

 

 

5 from looking during our aerial reconnaissance is the

 

 

6 site locations.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Just going through this top page here,

 

 

9 1202882, the first column there are a number of

 

 

10 numbers. What would that indicate?

 

 

11 A. Just basically it was a way of telling the

 

 

12 different ones apart, 1 through 129.

 

 

13 Q. So that's just essentially the numbers

 

 

14 that, for instance that first page we're on, 61, 63,

 

 

15 80, these are just the various sites; is that correct?

 

 

16 A. Um-hum.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 The next one is labeled class, I believe

 

 

19 you just stated that classification, you identified it

 

 

20 based upon your observations; is that correct?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. I'm still on Page 1202882.

 

 

23 A. Yes.

 

 

24 Q. The next has UTM.

 

 

25 A. That's correct.

36

 

 

1 Q. What is that UTM, coordinate?

 

 

2 A. Universal Transverse Mercator

 

 

3 Q. That's your GPS coordinates there?

 

 

4 A. Yes.

 

 

5 Q. All right.

 

 

6 Next document that, at least it's stapled

 

 

7 together, bears Bates No. 2202885 through 887. And

 

 

8 could you -- do you know what this document reflects?

 

 

9 A. I'm going to tell you these don't look

 

 

10 like they're in order to me. And not to have my

 

 

11 folders here, my original stuff, I'm guessing basically

 

 

12 what I'm seeing here.

 

 

13 Q. All right.

 

 

14 Well, to the best of your ability do you

 

 

15 do you recognize what this could be?

 

 

16 A. It's basically -- it's classes grouped

 

 

17 together and their location, such as Class 1 is -- you

 

 

18 see all together and Class 2 and so on, and so on to

 

 

19 30.

 

 

20 Q. This is based upon the original 129 sites?

 

 

21 A. I believe so.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 And the first column there says point old,

 

 

24 what does that mean?

 

 

25 A. I'm going to have to go back. We had two

37

 

 

1 sites, point old and -- well, not point old. And we

 

 

2 had new and old -- not new. It was basically two

 

 

3 different trips. We combined them together in the

 

 

4 final documents or data set.

 

 

5 Q. When you say two different trips, is this

 

 

6 all part of identification of the 129 sites where the

 

 

7 vegetation was?

 

 

8 A. Yes. Two different trips that basically

 

 

9 it might have been more than two trips, but at one

 

 

10 point in time we had one data set and then we had

 

 

11 another data set, then we combined them, the old data

 

 

12 set, old and new date set.

 

 

13 Q. Good classifications. All right.

 

 

14 Well, let me back up a moment. How long

 

 

15 did it take you to visit all 129 sites?

 

 

16 A. I think we did it over a period of two or

 

 

17 three months.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 And what months would those be?

 

 

20 A. I think it says right here on the

 

 

21 beginning of Exhibit 2, 10-2-91 to 1 -- it look likes

 

 

22 13-92.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 And did you go to all these sites?

 

 

25 A. Yes.

†⁏歡礮ഊഊ††††㈴†††††††††䅮搠摩搠祯甠杯⁴漠慬氠瑨敳攠獩瑥猿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††奥献ഊ‌††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††㌸ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††䤠扥汩敶

38

 

 

1 Q. I believe you said Les Vilchek did all the

 

 

2 identification. He also obviously went too.

 

 

3 A. Right.

 

 

4 Q. Did anybody else participate in the site

 

 

5 identification trips?

 

 

6 A. No.

 

 

7 Q. Approximately how many trips did it take?

 

 

8 A. Without having my folders, I don't recall.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 And did you visit certain sites more than

 

 

11 once?

 

 

12 A. I don't think so.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 I was just trying to understand why there

 

 

15 were two different data sets that you then merged.

 

 

16 A. I'm going to have to go back and look. I

 

 

17 remember that we collected one set and then we

 

 

18 collected another set, not repeating, two different

 

 

19 sets. We called one old and one new, and then we

 

 

20 combined it. That's the best of my knowledge, without

 

 

21 going back to my notes.

 

 

22 Q. All right.

 

 

23 Are those notes that you've produced to

 

 

24 us?

 

 

25 A. No, they're in -- it's basically in my --

39

 

 

1 yeah, they're probably here. But it's all -- not like

 

 

2 in my folders.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 So you had field notes then from this

 

 

5 aspect of the study?

 

 

6 A. Well, those were already part of that.

 

 

7 Q. We're coming up on those.

 

 

8 A. Right.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 Let's move on to the next document which

 

 

11 is Bates No. 120288 through 120291. And this likewise

 

 

12 has point new. My question would be that in the

 

 

13 approximately fourth column there, a number of data

 

 

14 points have 5 by 5 or 5 X 5. What does that refer to?

 

 

15 A. I believe that was if it had 5 by 5 pixels

 

 

16 or more, instead of a 3 by 3 pixel.

 

 

17 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

18 Moving on then to next stapled portion of

 

 

19 this, which bears Bates No. 1202892 through 1202898,

 

 

20 and what would this relate to?

 

 

21 A. These are all out of the software called

 

 

22 PFINDER, and it's our software that we use to

 

 

23 differentially correct our field GPS data. This is the

 

 

24 output.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

40

 

 

1 This is output from the unit you had out

 

 

2 in the field?

 

 

3 A. I'm not sure without having my folders in

 

 

4 front of me. I mean it's either output from the unit

 

 

5 in the field or it's the output after it's been

 

 

6 differentially corrected.

 

 

7 Q. All right. Let me just explore that for a

 

 

8 moment.

 

 

9 You have a GPS unit and it takes you to a

 

 

10 spot; is that correct?

 

 

11 A. That's correct.

 

 

12 Q. All right.

 

 

13 What are you -- how do you get to a spot

 

 

14 with a GPS unit?

 

 

15 A. You can enter way points into the GPS

 

 

16 unit, basically navigation points. You can navigate to

 

 

17 the point. The military's been jamming GPS signals

 

 

18 since the Gulf incident, so about the worse accuracy is

 

 

19 about a hundred meters. But there's -- we've found

 

 

20 that you can take that data set back to your office,

 

 

21 you have a community base station set up collecting GPS

 

 

22 data out of a known location that's been surveyed to

 

 

23 less than one centimeter. You can differentially

 

 

24 correct the recovery unit data to get an accurate

 

 

25 location of where you really were.

41

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 The unit itself, the recovery unit as you

 

 

3 called it, records then time and place, it was --

 

 

4 A. It records the time and the position.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Is that where you just press a button and

 

 

7 it does that for you, or how does it do it?

 

 

8 A. Pretty much press a button.

 

 

9 Q. So every time you got a spot that Les

 

 

10 would do a site identification you would press a

 

 

11 button, it would record the time and coordinates?

 

 

12 A. Right. We took a number of coordinates at

 

 

13 each place that we stopped, because that gives you

 

 

14 better accuracy the more you can average the data. And

 

 

15 basically we went to known benchmarks during our field

 

 

16 trips that we found, identified and checked the unit to

 

 

17 see how accurate we really were getting. And accuracy

 

 

18 ranged from three to seven meters.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 That was during all your visits to the 129

 

 

21 sites?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

25 record.)

42

 

 

1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

2 Q. The next document is Bates No. 1202899

 

 

3 through 1202904.

 

 

4 Can you identify what that document is?

 

 

5 A. Again, this is output from the PFINDER

 

 

6 software for GPS, PFINDER software.

 

 

7 It looks like we can take, for instance,

 

 

8 the first page, Site No. 61, these are all the points

 

 

9 that were collected at that site. And then this is

 

 

10 like until -- before we actually average it and get

 

 

11 then a final number.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Are these -- looking at 61, you have

 

 

14 approximately 10 readings there. I didn't count it, is

 

 

15 that about right?

 

 

16 A. Yeah.

 

 

17 Q. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yeah I think it's about

 

 

18 10. Is that all from the same holding spot or did you

 

 

19 actually move around to get those?

 

 

20 A. No, same spot.

 

 

21 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

22 And then going to the next document

 

 

23 1202905 through 909, what would this be?

 

 

24 A. Again, this is output from the GPS PFINDER

 

 

25 software.

43

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Just drawing your attention to the

 

 

3 leftmost column where it says text, and following

 

 

4 through, is that an identification of some sort?

 

 

5 A. In this case, not on that page, it

 

 

6 represents the site number.

 

 

7 Q. And the following pages?

 

 

8 A. Bug in the program. We were able to

 

 

9 overcome that bug by looking at the time in the second

 

 

10 column to determine where we were.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 In next document, 1202910 through 913,

 

 

13 what is that?

 

 

14 A. GPS PFINDER output.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Would that hold true likewise for the next

 

 

17 document, 1202914 through 2920?

 

 

18 A. That's correct.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 And next documents 1202921 through 927?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 And then drawing your attention to the

 

 

24 next four documents bearing Bates numbers 1202928

 

 

25 through 936, what are these documents?

44

 

 

1 A. PFINDER GPS data output.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 And looking at 1202937 there's handwriting

 

 

4 on there, it says this starts quote the new data set

 

 

5 quote. Now does that indicate that the new data set

 

 

6 essentially starts on December 3, '91 and went only

 

 

7 after that period? Is that how you'd read this?

 

 

8 A. Yeah, I'd say that's a fair statement.

 

 

9 Q. Does this help you recall as to why there

 

 

10 were two data sets?

 

 

11 A. No.

 

 

12 Q. On this sheet, this 1202937, there's

 

 

13 handwriting on here in a couple of places, it says

 

 

14 miss. What does that refer to?

 

 

15 A. I don't recall.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 Whose handwriting is that; do you

 

 

18 recognize it?

 

 

19 A. It looks like mine.

 

 

20 Q. Drawing your attention to 1202939, the

 

 

21 document goes through 940, the leftmost column in

 

 

22 handwriting, what are these, the handwriting identified

 

 

23 as 96, 104, 54 as I'm going through?

 

 

24 A. I think this means -- dealing with the

 

 

25 accuracy of GPS being a hundred meters, that when we

45

 

 

1 actually went to a site that we thought was that

 

 

2 cluster, so the unit was off a hundred meters, it threw

 

 

3 us outside the cluster when we went back and checked

 

 

4 it. So we missed a cluster. So we couldn't use the

 

 

5 ground truth statement, because we weren't at that

 

 

6 location. That's what miss means, we missed.

 

 

7 Q. Okay. All right. Fair enough.

 

 

8 Well, just look at 1202939, just so I

 

 

9 understand your first eight readings, are those all the

 

 

10 same site or are those different sites?

 

 

11 A. I would say they're different sites.

 

 

12 Q. Each of these represents a different site?

 

 

13 A. Um-hum.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 And then quickly finishing up the

 

 

16 following two documents, 1202941 through 943, these are

 

 

17 likewise GPS documents; is that right?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 What would do you when you missed a site,

 

 

21 would you go back on a different day?

 

 

22 A. We would try to attempt to go back to it.

 

 

23 Q. Did you ultimately locate all 129 sites to

 

 

24 your satisfaction?

 

 

25 A. Initially there were more sites, there

46

 

 

1 were -- we just never could get to them. They -- some

 

 

2 of the clusters broke out to just 3 by 3 pixels, and if

 

 

3 they were jamming for a hundred meters we never found

 

 

4 that site. We couldn't include it.

 

 

5 Q. Of the 129 original sites that you set out

 

 

6 to do, how many did you ultimately get to?

 

 

7 A. No, there was more than 129. Initially

 

 

8 there was 150.

 

 

9 Q. Oh, I see.

 

 

10 And do I understand correctly then that

 

 

11 you were able to get to a hundred -- get to 129 of the

 

 

12 150?

 

 

13 A. Right.

 

 

14 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

15 Then looking at Bates Nos. 1202944 through

 

 

16 1203016, the first page of which has -- states SFWMD

 

 

17 Environmental Sciences Digital Mapping Field Inspection

 

 

18 Sheet, what are these documents, sir?

 

 

19 A. These are the ground truth data, what we

 

 

20 saw there at the site depicting the vegetation.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 And who kept these, who prepared these

 

 

23 documents?

 

 

24 A. Les Vilchek.

 

 

25 Q. And he prepared these out in the field?

47

 

 

1 A. No.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 How would he record what he was seeing out

 

 

4 in the field?

 

 

5 A. On a piece of notebook paper or whatever,

 

 

6 then he came back in, he transcribed them to here.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Does he still retain his field book or his

 

 

9 field notes themselves?

 

 

10 A. I'm not sure. I sort of doubt it.

 

 

11 Those things, especially in your air boat,

 

 

12 they get all smudged up and get wet, so that's why we

 

 

13 did this.

 

 

14 Q. Now under a vegetation type, for instance

 

 

15 on the first page you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

 

 

16 10, 11 categories, how are the 11 categories selected?

 

 

17 A. Those are some of the major things that we

 

 

18 thought were out there initially, so to make it easier

 

 

19 so we don't have write them down every time we went to

 

 

20 a site, we made a list.

 

 

21 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

22 And I notice -- I draw your attention to

 

 

23 documents in the next rubber band set, which is 1203017

 

 

24 through 1273072. What are these documents?

 

 

25 A. The same. Ground truth information.

48

 

 

1 Q. All right.

 

 

2 And that is all -- this ground truthing

 

 

3 relates to the original visitation of the approximate

 

 

4 129 sites; is that correct?

 

 

5 A. I believe so.

 

 

6 Q. All right.

 

 

7 Are there any other documents then that

 

 

8 would relate to this portion or this task in the

 

 

9 project?

 

 

10 A. Just the digital data.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 Once you received these field notes or the

 

 

13 field inspection sheets, what would do you with them?

 

 

14 A. Basically we went to each of the clusters

 

 

15 to see if they had clustered out uniquely, and we found

 

 

16 that wasn't the case, that a lot of them exhibited

 

 

17 heterogeneity within a single cluster within -- based

 

 

18 on our field reconnaissance.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Who did that work?

 

 

21 A. I did that work.

 

 

22 Q. What was the type of recovery unit you

 

 

23 used for the GPS?

 

 

24 A. A PathFinder Basic.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

49

 

 

1 You've done all the field work, you have

 

 

2 all these field notes, you come back, what's the next

 

 

3 step in the process?

 

 

4 A. Well, once we determined that everything

 

 

5 just didn't cluster out the way we had hoped, we used

 

 

6 that data set to do a supervised classification.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 How did you go about doing that?

 

 

9 A. It's basically the computer does -- they

 

 

10 do -- you feed it the ground truth information and run

 

 

11 a supervised classification and you look at the

 

 

12 results, see if they mean anything, see if you have

 

 

13 unique spectral signatures for the final data. And we

 

 

14 determined that, yeah, we came up with initially 19

 

 

15 unique signatures based on that kind of ground truth

 

 

16 information. And we used those, initially we saw some

 

 

17 problem areas and we attacked those and came up with

 

 

18 one additional class.

 

 

19 Q. What was the additional class?

 

 

20 A. Periphyton.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 Now with supervised classification, a

 

 

23 little more detail there. Did you select 19 classes

 

 

24 based upon your review of field notes and make a

 

 

25 determination there were actually 19 identifiable

50

 

 

1 classifications out there, or did the computer then

 

 

2 select 19?

 

 

3 A. No, it's based on supervised, based on

 

 

4 ground truth data.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 So you took the data from your visits to

 

 

7 the 129 sites?

 

 

8 A. Um-hum.

 

 

9 Q. You yourself came up with 19 classes from

 

 

10 that?

 

 

11 A. Right.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Then you tell -- identify them to the

 

 

14 computer, the computer reruns the digital data to see

 

 

15 where it finds those classes?

 

 

16 A. Based on the spectral signature of those

 

 

17 data sites, basically the band information within those

 

 

18 areas. It's used in the supervised classification to

 

 

19 delineate based on these statistics.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Is this something you were doing or Les

 

 

22 was doing?

 

 

23 A. I was doing.

 

 

24 Q. All right.

 

 

25 Are there any documents related to that

51

 

 

1 particular activity?

 

 

2 A. Hard copy, no. Digitally, yes.

 

 

3 Q. What would have you digitally related to

 

 

4 this?

 

 

5 A. Well, we have all the seed locations for

 

 

6 the ground truth information. And basically all the

 

 

7 steps from there to the final supervised

 

 

8 classification, the output maps.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 You didn't make hard copies of the maps

 

 

11 though, is that you're saying?

 

 

12 A. No. Well, I did make hard copies of --

 

 

13 not hard copies, no, no, I didn't. Just digital.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 What was the next step?

 

 

16 A. Well the two problem areas, as I said, was

 

 

17 one was sawgrass/cattail sparse class, we knew from

 

 

18 aerial photography that we had a lot of, what we were

 

 

19 seeing in the southern end was periphyton that was

 

 

20 coming up as sawgrass/cattail sparse, so we wanted to

 

 

21 see if we can break that out. So we actually took that

 

 

22 class out of the supervised classification and ran an

 

 

23 unsupervised classification on that and broke it out

 

 

24 into, I believe it was five new spectral classes. We

 

 

25 look at each individually, looked at each of those

52

 

 

1 class individually and determined that we could break

 

 

2 out the periphyton from the sawgrass/cattail sparse

 

 

3 class. And then we came up with one additional class,

 

 

4 periphyton in the southern region.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 I believe you said you knew from aerial

 

 

7 photography that the sawgrass/cattail part showing up

 

 

8 in the southern end was actually periphyton.

 

 

9 A. Um-hum.

 

 

10 Q. That aerial photography you were reviewing

 

 

11 as part of this particular project?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 What aerial photography were you using?

 

 

15 A. We had an area flown approximately at the

 

 

16 same time by Southern Resource Mapping at 1:24,000

 

 

17 scale, color infrared.

 

 

18 Q. That was by who?

 

 

19 A. Southern Resource Mapping.

 

 

20 Q. Now you're talking about the area, you're

 

 

21 talking about all of WCA-2A?

 

 

22 A. That's correct.

 

 

23 Q. Do you recall approximately when they did

 

 

24 that?

 

 

25 A. I think it was -- I'd be guessing.

53

 

 

1 Q. Well --

 

 

2 A. It was within a year of this, the actual

 

 

3 data that we acquired, this satellite imagery.

 

 

4 Q. Within a year of August 10, '91?

 

 

5 A. Right.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Now did you retain the infrared

 

 

8 photography from that?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. Who is doing the vegetative identification

 

 

13 using infrared photography?

 

 

14 A. Both Les Vilchek and myself.

 

 

15 Q. Did you produce any of those infrared

 

 

16 photos?

 

 

17 A. No.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 Do you still retain those?

 

 

20 A. Um-hum, yes.

 

 

21 Q. With regard to the southern area which the

 

 

22 computer was identifying as sawgrass/cattail sparse,

 

 

23 and that you had determined from aerial photography was

 

 

24 periphyton, were there any of the 129 sites located

 

 

25 within that area?

54

 

 

1 A. I don't recall. The sites were pretty

 

 

2 well distributed through out the whole area, I would

 

 

3 guess yes.

 

 

4 (Thereupon, Mr. Downing entered the room.)

 

 

5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay. Let's take a five

 

 

6 minute break as long as Ed just came in.

 

 

7 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

 

 

8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

9 Q. Let's see the step No. 6 that we were

 

 

10 discussing, or at least I had written down, is

 

 

11 supervised classification, which was done after you had

 

 

12 visited 129 sites for the unsupervised. And were there

 

 

13 any documents generated for this particular step of the

 

 

14 project?

 

 

15 A. Just what's available digitally, to the

 

 

16 best of my knowledge.

 

 

17 Q. Is that -- did you have hard copies that

 

 

18 you produced to us?

 

 

19 A. I don't believe so.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 So the documents that you produced to us,

 

 

22 there are none related to this step?

 

 

23 A. The supervised?

 

 

24 Q. Yes.

 

 

25 A. Just the, you know, the ground truth

55

 

 

1 information and locations and what we saw there.

 

 

2 Q. Yeah, that's fine. We've already gone

 

 

3 through that?

 

 

4 A. Right.

 

 

5 Q. Okay. I appreciate that. I'm trying to

 

 

6 make some sense of what we have so we can sort of

 

 

7 follow along with what you did out there.

 

 

8 Now, you ended up with 19 and then you

 

 

9 added a 20th class of periphyton; is that correct?

 

 

10 A. That's correct.

 

 

11 Q. What was the next step?

 

 

12 A. There was another problem area, tree

 

 

13 islands.

 

 

14 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

15 A. They were being classified to something

 

 

16 other than tree islands. And basically we went and

 

 

17 digitized the tree islands on the supervised

 

 

18 classification, ran another unsupervised classification

 

 

19 just on tree islands, ten spectral classes, and then

 

 

20 collapsed that down into four already existing classes,

 

 

21 and mosaicked them back into the output of the

 

 

22 supervised classification

 

 

23 Q. Now, is there any documentation related to

 

 

24 that step?

 

 

25 A. That's probably -- I did see something,

56

 

 

1 ground truthing of the tree islands, the visits that we

 

 

2 made to those, stated tree islands.

 

 

3 Q. Why don't we quickly identify that?

 

 

4 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

5 record.)

 

 

6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

7 Q. It might be the bottom thing in that

 

 

8 entire stack. Take a look at the -- I have it as the

 

 

9 very bottom. Is that -- yeah, look at that one. I

 

 

10 don't know if that's it, but...

 

 

11 A. Yes, I believe this is it.

 

 

12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't you mark that

 

 

13 as 3.

 

 

14 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

15 Rutchey Exb. No. 3 for Identification.)

 

 

16 BY MR. RUTCHEY:

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 Mr. Rutchey, drawing your attention to

 

 

19 what's been marked as Exhibit 3, and which record is a

 

 

20 document, bears Bates Nos. 1203073 through 1203105, and

 

 

21 the first page of which appears to be a cover, a file

 

 

22 cover, bearing the name WCA-2A tree islands and bears a

 

 

23 date of 2-20-92.

 

 

24 By the way, would February of 1992 be

 

 

25 about the time that you were doing this

57

 

 

1 reclassification of tree islands?

 

 

2 A. Yeah, this is the ground truthing of these

 

 

3 tree islands.

 

 

4 Q. Now, did this result in separate ground

 

 

5 truthing? In other words, did you go back out in the

 

 

6 field?

 

 

7 A. Yes.

 

 

8 Q. The third time you've gone out in the

 

 

9 field if I've counted correctly? Well, the third task.

 

 

10 First one was for, you referred to it as rectification,

 

 

11 that was your first field visit; is that right?

 

 

12 A. Field visits.

 

 

13 Q. Field visits, plural.

 

 

14 The second one was visits to the 129

 

 

15 sites, and this would be third set of visits you took

 

 

16 to the field?

 

 

17 A. That's correct.

 

 

18 Q. All right.

 

 

19 And there was -- Les Vilchek did this?

 

 

20 A. Both of us. Again, I'm the GPS and he's

 

 

21 the --

 

 

22 Q. All right. How many --

 

 

23 A. -- vegetation.

 

 

24 Q. How many sites did you visit?

 

 

25 A. I could count them, how many sheets are

58

 

 

1 here. Probably that's how many sites.

 

 

2 Q. All right.

 

 

3 A. It looks like 31.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 Let me draw your attention back to

 

 

6 something -- or before I do that, looking at what is

 

 

7 the Bates page of this document, 1203074, what would

 

 

8 this be?

 

 

9 A. That's the location of the tree islands'

 

 

10 approximately center points.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 Did you follow the same GPS technique of

 

 

13 taking a number of readings and then correcting it for

 

 

14 any distortion caused by the GPS system?

 

 

15 A. No, the tree islands are all fairly large

 

 

16 that we did digitized. And once you're navigating to

 

 

17 them, to your navigation points, you can see the trees,

 

 

18 so it wasn't necessary.

 

 

19 Q. Then drawing your attention then to the

 

 

20 field inspection sheets, which commences at 123075, in

 

 

21 the upper right-hand corner it says photo number R1-1.

 

 

22 Does that indicate that those photos were taken during

 

 

23 these visits?

 

 

24 A. I would say yes. Well, that's a good

 

 

25 point.

59

 

 

1 Q. I know, that's what I just noticed myself.

 

 

2 Going back then to Exhibit 2, I believe

 

 

3 start of the field sheets, it's at 1202944 --

 

 

4 A. Right.

 

 

5 Q. -- these likewise have photo numbers in

 

 

6 them. Does that refresh your recollection as to

 

 

7 whether or not photos were taken?

 

 

8 A. Obviously, yes, they were.

 

 

9 Q. All right.

 

 

10 Do you know whether or not those photos

 

 

11 are still retained?

 

 

12 A. I haven't looked at them if they are. I

 

 

13 haven't looked at them. I don't even recall them. But

 

 

14 if they are, I might have them.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Were they used for any purpose in

 

 

17 refreshing your recollection when making

 

 

18 identifications?

 

 

19 A. I don't think so. I think we used our

 

 

20 visual view of the area as we saw it in real time with

 

 

21 our eyes.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 Did you actually help Les with these or,

 

 

24 again, was he -- these are all just his notes as to

 

 

25 what he identified at the tree islands? I'm referring

60

 

 

1 back to Composite Exhibit 3.

 

 

2 A. He took the notes, but we would sit there

 

 

3 and he would tell me what he thought he saw there. And

 

 

4 we would, you know, between the both of us, I would

 

 

5 say, we came up with it. But he was the primary

 

 

6 person. But he would say this is what I see. I would

 

 

7 say well, you know, maybe sawgrass was 60 percent, he'd

 

 

8 say 70 percent. But we were pretty close. But we

 

 

9 still kept it to one person's view. I just wanted to

 

 

10 make sure he wasn't totally out of line. It's good to

 

 

11 have a second opinion there when you -- he's doing

 

 

12 that.

 

 

13 Q. Now with regard to the tree islands, did

 

 

14 you attempt to identify one entire tree island or were

 

 

15 you likewise attempting to identify a 20 by 20 pixel or

 

 

16 area?

 

 

17 A. Basically we were looking at the entire

 

 

18 tree island.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 So of the 31 sites, are these essentially

 

 

21 then 31 different tree islands?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 Any notation as to the approximate area

 

 

25 that was covered by the tree islands?

61

 

 

1 A. Repeat that again.

 

 

2 Q. Would you be able -- is there any notation

 

 

3 on these sheets which would tell me how large the tree

 

 

4 island was?

 

 

5 A. No.

 

 

6 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

7 Based upon these field trips, what did you

 

 

8 then do, how did you use this information?

 

 

9 A. We used this ground truth information, as

 

 

10 I said before, we cut out the tree islands from the

 

 

11 supervised classifications, 31 of them, and did

 

 

12 unsupervised classifications on them and made ten

 

 

13 clusters. Then we determined from this ground truth

 

 

14 information what those 10 clusters represented. And

 

 

15 some of them were duplication, so we collapsed it down

 

 

16 to four, which were already four classes we had within

 

 

17 the original 19 classes of supervised classification,

 

 

18 and then collapsed it -- well, collapsed to those four,

 

 

19 and then mosaicked it back into the supervised

 

 

20 classification.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 Just so I understand what you were doing

 

 

23 before, let me see if I understand what you're doing

 

 

24 here. A tree island in this case could actually be

 

 

25 comprised of approximately how many in this case, a

62

 

 

1 pixel being a 20 by 20 meter square?

 

 

2 A. Hundreds, if not thousands.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 When you went out there to a particular

 

 

5 tree island, were you attempting to identify all of the

 

 

6 various pixel types that were out there or were you

 

 

7 doing a general vegetation type for the entire tree

 

 

8 island?

 

 

9 A. Basically, no, we were trying to look at

 

 

10 from the point of -- I have to look here.

 

 

11 Q. You want to use your original, it has the

 

 

12 nice color photo?

 

 

13 A. Yeah.

 

 

14 Basically we were looking at tree islands

 

 

15 from the point of a sawgrass/brush mixture 1, which is

 

 

16 what we categorize it as, sawgrass/brush mixture 2, and

 

 

17 these are all delineated within a table by -- what we

 

 

18 mean by these categorizations, tree island and other

 

 

19 keys. It might have been just been sawgrass, in some

 

 

20 cases cattail.

 

 

21 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

22 What was the next step?

 

 

23 A. Okay.

 

 

24 Well, then we started mapping our accuracy

 

 

25 assessment of the overall map product.

63

 

 

1 Q. Once you did the tree islands, did you

 

 

2 then have what you believed to be a final or a pretty

 

 

3 much a final vegetation map?

 

 

4 A. That's correct.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 And is there -- is that the same one

 

 

7 that's attached to Exhibit 1?

 

 

8 A. That's correct.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 And that would be Bates -- would that be

 

 

11 Bates No. 1220435?

 

 

12 A. That's correct.

 

 

13 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

14 Go ahead, what was the next step then?

 

 

15 A. Map accuracy assessment. We generated 241

 

 

16 random points from the final supervised classification.

 

 

17 We used a stratified random sampling technique based on

 

 

18 class. And the number of points selected was based on

 

 

19 the required minimum of 204 for an 85 percent map

 

 

20 accuracy with an error of plus or minus five percent.

 

 

21 And this was based on the binomial formulas.

 

 

22 Q. Now 241, would that -- were you

 

 

23 essentially trying to get X number of samples for each

 

 

24 of the particular 20 classs?

 

 

25 A. Well, the stratified random sampling by

64

 

 

1 class implies that you're going to take samples within

 

 

2 each of the classes.

 

 

3 Q. Is that -- does it by necessity result in

 

 

4 a minimum number taken within each particular class?

 

 

5 A. No.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 And is there data showing approximately

 

 

8 how many were taken for each class?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Where would that be?

 

 

12 A. You might have it in hard copy. It's

 

 

13 definitely in digital form.

 

 

14 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

15 Once you determines these 241 points,

 

 

16 actually I believe then the computer then generates

 

 

17 these 241 points; is that correct?

 

 

18 A. That's correct.

 

 

19 Q. Is there a map showing the 241 points?

 

 

20 A. Yes, a map was generated digitally.

 

 

21 Q. You get the points out of that digital

 

 

22 map?

 

 

23 A. Yes.

 

 

24 Q. Did you produce that one?

 

 

25 A. It might be here, I'm not sure.

65

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 A. I'm not sure if it's in my files.

 

 

3 Q. All right.

 

 

4 You had 241 points. What did you do at

 

 

5 that point?

 

 

6 A. Basically you visit all these points out

 

 

7 in the field.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 A. Ground truth them and see if they are what

 

 

10 you said they were in the map.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 Were you able to visit all 241 points?

 

 

13 A. I believe so.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 A. If I remember correctly --

 

 

16 Q. I'm sorry?

 

 

17 A. In acquiring 241 points we were again

 

 

18 constrained when the computer said this is where it

 

 

19 will be, that it had to be within a minimum of a 3 by 3

 

 

20 pixel area. I mean if it fell on one pixel and it was

 

 

21 surrounded by other things, well then, we weren't

 

 

22 obviously going to find that area, so...

 

 

23 Q. With regard to -- is that an instruction

 

 

24 that you gave the computer to pick 241 sites, was to

 

 

25 make sure it was picking a 3 by 3 or a 9 pixel area?

66

 

 

1 A. (No response.)

 

 

2 Q. Do you understand my question?

 

 

3 A. Right. I understand.

 

 

4 I'm not sure how we actually went about

 

 

5 doing that. I can't remember if there was a way we

 

 

6 could do that on the computer or whether we just picked

 

 

7 the closest point that was -- met the minimum 3 by 3

 

 

8 requirement.

 

 

9 Q. Ultimately you ended up with 241 3 by 3

 

 

10 sites?

 

 

11 A. Or larger.

 

 

12 Q. Or larger.

 

 

13 A. Right.

 

 

14 Q. You visited these?

 

 

15 A. Right.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 Do you have documents related to those

 

 

18 visits?

 

 

19 A. I believe so.

 

 

20 Q. Similar to what we've already seen?

 

 

21 A. I think so.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 Why don't we flip this one over so we

 

 

24 don't get confused. That's the tree island one. And

 

 

25 let's see if we can -- you can just keep them there,

67

 

 

1 that's your set.

 

 

2 A. Okay.

 

 

3 Q. That too. You don't need to go through

 

 

4 that, that's the other. It will be probably be here or

 

 

5 in here.

 

 

6 A. I believe this is it.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 And you're -- could you read off the Bates

 

 

9 numbers? These are consecutive. Just take, if you

 

 

10 just look at the top page there.

 

 

11 A. 1202231.

 

 

12 Q. Through? The final page --

 

 

13 A. Yeah.

 

 

14 Q. -- of that entire.

 

 

15 A. Well, I'm make making sure all this is.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 Well, I'll take you through each and every

 

 

18 one, trust me.

 

 

19 A. 1202541.

 

 

20 Q. Okay. 2541. Okay good.

 

 

21 MR. KOBELINSKI: Mark this as Composite 4.

 

 

22 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

23 Rutchey Exb. No. 4 for Identification.)

 

 

24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

25 Q. Showing you then, Mr. Rutchey what's been

68

 

 

1 marked as Composite Exhibit 4, which bears the Bates

 

 

2 number you just read off into the record, the first

 

 

3 page of which appears to be a file cover reading WCA-2A

 

 

4 Accuracy Assessment, 3-23 through 4-24-92, is that the

 

 

5 period of time that you did the site visits for the

 

 

6 accuracy assessment?

 

 

7 A. Yes.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 Now I want to go through this, rather

 

 

10 quickly identify what we have inside here. The first

 

 

11 document in there which bears Bates No. 120232 through

 

 

12 36, is this a summary of the site visits to all 241

 

 

13 sites?

 

 

14 A. Yes.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 And so if I understand, isn't that, being

 

 

17 similar to a document previously identified in regard

 

 

18 to the 129 site visits, this is a summary based upon

 

 

19 the field notes and the visitations for the entire

 

 

20 field study?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 And what would be 1202237 through 40?

 

 

24 A. Well, the first part is the class number

 

 

25 that was assigned to each of the 20 classes.

69

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Now with regard to points, would that be

 

 

3 the 240 some-odd sites?

 

 

4 A. Well, it's 210 of them.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Were there only 210 sites then that were

 

 

7 visited?

 

 

8 A. No, there was 241, but it was collected,

 

 

9 again, two different times. There was a second set

 

 

10 that was added on, 31 sites.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 So those cover 210 sites. I can see that,

 

 

13 going along the columns here on this first page,

 

 

14 1202237, you have the points, you have the GPS

 

 

15 coordinates; is that correct?

 

 

16 A. (Shakes head up and down.)

 

 

17 Q. What would the, I guess it would be the

 

 

18 fourth column, which starts at the top of 10, 1, 2, 4,

 

 

19 1, 1 and et cetera? Is that class identification?

 

 

20 A. Yeah, but from looking at this I can't

 

 

21 tell whether that's what we saw in the field or what

 

 

22 was actually in the map, the final map that we

 

 

23 produced.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 What is the final column when it says

70

 

 

1 negative 1 everywhere?

 

 

2 A. It looks like a bug.

 

 

3 Q. A bug, all right.

 

 

4 When you went out to the field to make

 

 

5 these classifications of 241 sites, were you aware

 

 

6 already what the computer was identifying each site as?

 

 

7 A. Les wasn't. I wasn't either, no.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 The next document is 1202241 through 45.

 

 

10 It appears similar to what we just looked at, however

 

 

11 there's a fair amount of handwriting here. And drawing

 

 

12 your attention to that final, to the top of that where

 

 

13 the first page says final-map-CAT --

 

 

14 A. Um-hum.

 

 

15 Q. -- what are the numbers in that left-hand

 

 

16 first column, first one? It looks like possibly 19.41.

 

 

17 It's difficult to read. The next one is clearer,

 

 

18 18.34, 7.76 and down the line. Do you know what those

 

 

19 are?

 

 

20 A. I'd be guessing, but I think it's

 

 

21 percentage.

 

 

22 Q. Percentage of the entire area?

 

 

23 A. Percentage of each of these classes.

 

 

24 Q. All right. I'm afraid you lost me on

 

 

25 percentage.

71

 

 

1 Are you talking about what percentage of

 

 

2 WCA-2A is made up of those classes or what

 

 

3 percentage -- why don't you answer that.

 

 

4 A. These numbers in the first column --

 

 

5 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

6 A. -- okay, I believe they represent the

 

 

7 percentage of that class within Area 2. But again I'm

 

 

8 not sure. This is something I wrote on this paper two

 

 

9 years ago.

 

 

10 Q. All right.

 

 

11 Going along you have then the next column

 

 

12 or the, just class numbers 1, 2 through 20, and the

 

 

13 following column is a column of handwritten numbers,

 

 

14 41, 39, 9 16. Do you recall what those numbers are?

 

 

15 A. No.

 

 

16 Q. All right. Let's move along.

 

 

17 Drawing your attention then to a large

 

 

18 piece of map, which bears Bates No. 1202246, do you

 

 

19 recall what this is?

 

 

20 A. I believe this is our path that we

 

 

21 followed to look at the map accuracy assessment points.

 

 

22 Q. So this essentially has all 241 points on

 

 

23 here?

 

 

24 A. I think it's got the first 210.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

72

 

 

1 Did you -- were 31 points added on after

 

 

2 the initial 210?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. Why was that?

 

 

5 A. One of the things we wanted to know with

 

 

6 confidence is the cattail, and the stratified random

 

 

7 sampling didn't come up with enough points on that

 

 

8 cattail area. So we wanted to get more points to

 

 

9 verify whether the map was accurate in respect to

 

 

10 cattail. So we did a stratified -- another stratified

 

 

11 random sampling, checking 31 points within the cattail

 

 

12 zone. So an additional 31 sites were visited.

 

 

13 Q. All right.

 

 

14 When you say within the cattail zone,

 

 

15 which of the 20 classes were used for that stratified

 

 

16 selection?

 

 

17 A. (No response.)

 

 

18 Q. If you go back one, you can see the 20

 

 

19 classes, if that helps you.

 

 

20 A. Without actually seeing the digital data,

 

 

21 it's hard to be definite, but I would say it was

 

 

22 cattail dense, moderate, sparse cattail/brush mixture,

 

 

23 and I believe those are the only ones.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Do you recall whether sawgrass/cattail

73

 

 

1 mixture was reviewed, or part of that 31?

 

 

2 A. Oh, excuse me, yes, I would say those two.

 

 

3 I'm not sure.

 

 

4 Q. Would there be some documents in here that

 

 

5 we could look at to confirm that one way or the other?

 

 

6 A. It's all digital as far as I know.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 The next set within this composite exhibit

 

 

9 1202247 through 253, what are these? What are these

 

 

10 documents?

 

 

11 A. This is ground truth data and the first

 

 

12 page is GPS output, PFINDER output.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 And this is with regard to just these

 

 

15 seven sites?

 

 

16 A. That's correct.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Did you have any problems with the GPS

 

 

19 system during the inspection at 241 sites?

 

 

20 A. Other than the one I previously told you

 

 

21 about, as far as the navigation aspect.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 And is there a particular name that's

 

 

24 referred to as, I think there is, where the data is

 

 

25 that it's not telling you the accurate location, what

74

 

 

1 is that?

 

 

2 A. Well, you either have raw GPS data or you

 

 

3 have differentially corrected GPS data. The raw can be

 

 

4 off by as much as a hundred meters. Differentially

 

 

5 corrected, we found we could get it down to three to

 

 

6 seven meters.

 

 

7 Q. And did you have that type problem when

 

 

8 you were doing the site visitation at the 241 sites?

 

 

9 A. As far as the inaccuracy?

 

 

10 Q. Right.

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Now then, going on to the next document

 

 

14 which appears as Bates No. 1202254 through 2275, what

 

 

15 are these documents?

 

 

16 A. Again, it's GPS PFINDER output data along

 

 

17 with ground truth.

 

 

18 Q. Are these grouped into any particular

 

 

19 manner? For instance, are these grouped into classes?

 

 

20 A. It's probably grouped based on that day's

 

 

21 work that we went out, went out in the field.

 

 

22 Q. Oh, all right. Okay.

 

 

23 And if you would just then go through the

 

 

24 remainder of this exhibit and confirm that what we have

 

 

25 here then are similar GPS data sheets along with field

75

 

 

1 inspection reports, and that would be up through Bates

 

 

2 No. 1202500.

 

 

3 A. (Indicating.)

 

 

4 Q. Would -- through that Page 500, is that

 

 

5 the initial 210 sites?

 

 

6 A. Yes.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 And drawing your attention to Bates No.

 

 

9 1202501 through 541, what would these be?

 

 

10 A. This has the additional -- let me see. It

 

 

11 looks like 32 sites.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 A. That we visited.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 Now, looking at these documents here in

 

 

16 regard to the additional sites for the cattail accuracy

 

 

17 assessment --

 

 

18 A. Um-hum.

 

 

19 Q. -- does this help you determine what

 

 

20 classes were used or included in this?

 

 

21 A. No.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 Nothing in here would identify that?

 

 

24 A. You're asking -- well, could you repeat

 

 

25 the question?

76

 

 

1 Q. My question is, going back to -- on the

 

 

2 additional 31 or 32 sites for cattail accuracy, I'm

 

 

3 trying to see which of the 20 classifications were used

 

 

4 for that --

 

 

5 A. All right.

 

 

6 Q. -- random selection of 31 or 32 sites.

 

 

7 A. Again, I think it's -- without looking at

 

 

8 the digital data, I believe it was cattail dense, not

 

 

9 moderate, sparse and cattail brush mixture.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 A. And you added sawgrass/cattail mix, so I'm

 

 

12 not sure about that.

 

 

13 Q. I didn't mean to add it. I was just

 

 

14 asking whether or not it was part of it. To the best

 

 

15 of your recollection it was Classes 10, 11, 12 and 13?

 

 

16 A. Right.

 

 

17 Q. What about 15, which is brush/cattail

 

 

18 mixture?

 

 

19 A. I don't think so so. It started with 10.

 

 

20 Q. And would your digital file show which

 

 

21 classes were identified or used?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Was that 31 or 32 additional sites that

 

 

24 were added on?

 

 

25 A. It looks like 32.

77

 

 

1 Q. Would it make a total of -- the total

 

 

2 would be 242 points then?

 

 

3 A. No, it's 241. If we went back and

 

 

4 counted, I think it was a total of 241 altogether.

 

 

5 Q. All right. All right.

 

 

6 What was the next step then?

 

 

7 A. Okay.

 

 

8 So we did the map accuracy assessment.

 

 

9 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

10 A. And we came up with the results from that.

 

 

11 And we -- at that point we wanted to see if we can

 

 

12 better those results by collapsing the -- within

 

 

13 species density characteristics that we were trying to

 

 

14 break out using the 20 class map. For instance

 

 

15 sawgrass, we had a dense, moderate to sparse. Well,

 

 

16 maybe the satellite imagery was having a hard time

 

 

17 breaking out with a species with that fine line between

 

 

18 graduations of density. So we combined all the

 

 

19 sawgrass and all the cattail into one class and came up

 

 

20 with a 12 class map.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 A. Final map.

 

 

23 Q. Would there be a particular document

 

 

24 related to that step?

 

 

25 A. Yes. It's part of this paper. It's all

78

 

 

1 explained.

 

 

2 Q. Other than -- well, I understand the

 

 

3 explanation of the paper. Are any specific documents

 

 

4 going through that work step that you've produced?

 

 

5 A. Not to my knowledge. Digitally there is.

 

 

6 Q. All right.

 

 

7 And any additional steps after that?

 

 

8 A. We then did a map accuracy assessment on

 

 

9 that final 12 class map using the same data set that we

 

 

10 used on the 20 class map and came up with the overall

 

 

11 map accuracy.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Now as I understand it, you had -- then

 

 

14 you had the computer rerun the map using 12

 

 

15 classifications; is that correct?

 

 

16 A. We collapsed the 20 class map to a 12

 

 

17 class map, yeah.

 

 

18 Q. The computer would generate a new figure

 

 

19 showing just the 12 classes?

 

 

20 A. That's correct.

 

 

21 Q. Now, again, if I understand your testimony

 

 

22 that you did not make any additional field visits, then

 

 

23 you just took the data that was from the 241 sites

 

 

24 visited and used that for accuracy of the final map

 

 

25 with the 12 classifications?

79

 

 

1 A. That's correct.

 

 

2 Q. All right.

 

 

3 Any additional steps?

 

 

4 A. That about sums it up.

 

 

5 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

6 record.)

 

 

7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

8 Q. Mr. Rutchey, I'm going to hand you a

 

 

9 number of documents, see if you could identify what the

 

 

10 documents relate to.

 

 

11 MR. FITZGERALD: Give him a hint, these

 

 

12 are his documents?

 

 

13 MR. KOBELINSKI: We'll use that

 

 

14 definition.

 

 

15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

16 Q. Yeah, these are all from documents that

 

 

17 you've been looking at today in response to a duces

 

 

18 tecum that you've produced to us today in response to

 

 

19 the duces tecum; first of which is a laboratory

 

 

20 notebook, 1202643 through 688.

 

 

21 Do you know what that lab book relates to?

 

 

22 A. Yeah. This is the actual at the site that

 

 

23 we visited, it has in the left-hand margin the site

 

 

24 visited and what actually the pixels that were within

 

 

25 the imagery, 3 by 3 matrix of every one of them.

80

 

 

1 Q. This relates then to the paper we were

 

 

2 just discussing?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't you go ahead

 

 

6 and mark that.

 

 

7 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

8 Rutchey Exb. No. 5 for Identification.)

 

 

9 MR. KOBELINSKI: I will identify this

 

 

10 better for the record. What we've marked as

 

 

11 Exhibit 5 -- is that correct? -- is a

 

 

12 laboratory notebook. It bears Bates Nos.

 

 

13 1202643 through 688.

 

 

14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI

 

 

15 Q. Is that your notebook, sir?

 

 

16 A. Yes.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 Why don't we use just the first -- second

 

 

19 page of it which is 1202644 and it says Class 1. What

 

 

20 exactly does this reflect?

 

 

21 A. It almost jiggles my memory about old and

 

 

22 new, but I'll try to guess.

 

 

23 Um, basically this is the -- what was,

 

 

24 let's say, Site No. 4, for the ground truthing, what

 

 

25 the pixel data was, such as was it all -- in this case

81

 

 

1 it looks like on No. 4 that it was all one, which would

 

 

2 have been, it looks like sawgrass dense. So we had a

 

 

3 whole 3 by 3 dense homogeneous patch of dense sawgrass.

 

 

4 Q. Well, let me break this apart a bit, if I

 

 

5 can. On Page 1202644 in the left-hand margin outside

 

 

6 the grid there are two numbers written there, 4 and 5.

 

 

7 Do you see that?

 

 

8 A. Yeah.

 

 

9 Q. Is that site Site No. 4, is that what that

 

 

10 reflects?

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. All right.

 

 

13 Now, following across this grid of

 

 

14 approximately 30 or 40 squares across, this is a grid?

 

 

15 A. Yes.

 

 

16 Q. And within that, just following the row

 

 

17 next to 4, interspersed in there are, in six places,

 

 

18 are the number 1 space, space, 1, space, space, 1, et

 

 

19 cetera. What exactly does that mean? Is there a

 

 

20 reason you have 6 columns there? How would I -- how do

 

 

21 you interpret this?

 

 

22 A. Okay.

 

 

23 I separated them out. If you look -- I'm

 

 

24 going further on so you can understand better.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

82

 

 

1 A. If that's --

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Just give a Bates page and I'll turn

 

 

4 there.

 

 

5 A. 1202679.

 

 

6 Q. Done.

 

 

7 A. Okay.

 

 

8 Let's go -- let's go like 131 there in

 

 

9 upper right-hand site. Hold on one moment.

 

 

10 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

11 record.)

 

 

12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 131 appears to be on the upper right-hand

 

 

15 corner.

 

 

16 A. Okay.

 

 

17 That Site 131, the computer is telling us

 

 

18 within that location of Site 131, of the accuracy of

 

 

19 the site location, that every pixel showed to be 20,

 

 

20 which this case was periphyton.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 A. If you look at the column over there we

 

 

23 say yes, it's 20, what we determined it to be. We went

 

 

24 out in the field and they came up to be 6, so this one

 

 

25 was wrong.

83

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 So this actually classification No. 6?

 

 

3 A. That's correct.

 

 

4 Q. This is out in the field, okay. So

 

 

5 reading next to 131 I have a box with nine 20's in it.

 

 

6 A. Right.

 

 

7 Q. On those 9 pixels in the computer I would

 

 

8 find them all as Class No. 20 --

 

 

9 A. Right.

 

 

10 Q. -- and that's why you have 20 written down

 

 

11 then in the third column. Over where 6 is is what

 

 

12 actually the field notes show?

 

 

13 A. That's correct.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 Now, just out curiosity, would that mean

 

 

16 to you that, according to your field observations, all

 

 

17 nine of those were Category 6 or is that the

 

 

18 predominant category within the nine?

 

 

19 A. What it means to me is that our computer

 

 

20 said that that 9 by 9 matrix was periphyton and our

 

 

21 field reconnaissance showed otherwise, in that it was

 

 

22 counted as wrong.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 How would you go about determining whether

 

 

25 your field observations showed all 9 pixels to be

84

 

 

1 Category 6?

 

 

2 A. You go out in the field and you ground

 

 

3 truth it and you write, like on field sheets, the

 

 

4 notes. And if it's not periphyton it's something other

 

 

5 then.

 

 

6 Q. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself.

 

 

7 Is that final column, where you have

 

 

8 written 6, does that indicate that that -- that all

 

 

9 nine pixels would be Category 6, or would 6 be

 

 

10 predominant of these nine, for instance, five out of

 

 

11 the nine were 6, would 6 be written there or would 6

 

 

12 and 4 or whatever classification?

 

 

13 A. I believe it represents predominant

 

 

14 vegetation that was at that site.

 

 

15 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

16 This is from the whole 141 site field

 

 

17 trips when you're doing the accuracy assessment?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Is this something that was out in the

 

 

21 field?

 

 

22 A. No.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 So this was developed after you took all

 

 

25 the field notes and did this back in the office?

85

 

 

1 A. Yeah. The only thing that pertained to

 

 

2 the field notes was, there are like four columns in

 

 

3 each one of these sets. The initial site number, the

 

 

4 pixel representation and in the computer what we

 

 

5 determined that the overriding majority was from that

 

 

6 pixel representation from that, up to that point that

 

 

7 was all computer-generated. The last column was the

 

 

8 only one that was derived in the field.

 

 

9 Q. I understand, okay. All right. This was

 

 

10 5.

 

 

11 MR. CESARANO: You want to put a rubber

 

 

12 band around Number 4, however many there were?

 

 

13 MR. KOBELINSKI: Oh, yeah, let's do that.

 

 

14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

15 Q. All right.

 

 

16 I show you a group of documents which bear

 

 

17 Bates No. 1202689 all the way through 1202772, and

 

 

18 actually that first 2689 appears to be a file folder

 

 

19 cover stating georectification points, areas 3N, 3S and

 

 

20 Holeyland. Could you just -- could we go through that

 

 

21 and tell me those sheets relate to?

 

 

22 A. This is a rectification that we did on

 

 

23 some satellite imagery of the area, what I call 3

 

 

24 North, everything north of Alligator Alley. Then 3

 

 

25 South, everything south, and Holeyland.

86

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Now this has not been related to the 2A

 

 

3 study?

 

 

4 A. No.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 When was this 3A study done?

 

 

7 A. I have it, it looks -- it appears this

 

 

8 initial data set was collected in May -- no, June,

 

 

9 1992.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Now, is this the rectification stage then

 

 

12 of the project, essentially using satellite imagery for

 

 

13 vegetative mapping of 3A?

 

 

14 A. Yes.

 

 

15 Q. All right.

 

 

16 When did you start that project?

 

 

17 A. Same dates, May to June, 1992.

 

 

18 Q. That using SPOT imagery?

 

 

19 A. This, yeah, for rectification, yes.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Are you still -- is an that ongoing

 

 

22 project right now?

 

 

23 A. Yes.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 What stage are you at in that project?

87

 

 

1 A. Basically we have the satellite imagery

 

 

2 rectified and we have some aerial photography that was

 

 

3 acquired from National Park Service cooperative

 

 

4 agreement that we did with them in acquiring NASA

 

 

5 photography.

 

 

6 Q. What is the date of the aerial

 

 

7 photography?

 

 

8 A. November, December, 1992.

 

 

9 Q. And that's infrared?

 

 

10 A. That's correct.

 

 

11 Q. Are you following essentially the same, I

 

 

12 have them as eight steps, but essentially the same

 

 

13 steps that you used for 2A for this project?

 

 

14 A. No.

 

 

15 Q. How are they different?

 

 

16 A. Using -- I'm using straight

 

 

17 photointerpretation of aerial photography as opposed to

 

 

18 a digital process.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Did this start with a SPOT imagery digital

 

 

21 information?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 Did there come a time you abandoned using

 

 

25 that?

88

 

 

1 A. Yes.

 

 

2 Q. Are you still going to use it?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 I misunderstood your response then. How

 

 

6 does this differ from the 2A study?

 

 

7 A. I'm going to be using more conventional

 

 

8 aerial photointerpretation methods as opposed to

 

 

9 digital.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 With regard to the digital, did you

 

 

12 complete the rectification of the digital information?

 

 

13 A. Yes.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Did you do an unsupervised classification?

 

 

16 A. Preliminary, yes.

 

 

17 Q. With approximately how many classs?

 

 

18 A. I tried a number of different classes.

 

 

19 Q. Approximately how many?

 

 

20 A. 25 to 150.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 The data that you have there, does that

 

 

23 just deal with the rectification set that you have

 

 

24 there, the sheet that I put in front of you?

 

 

25 A. Yes.

†††′㈠††††††††⁔桥⁤慴愠瑨慴⁹潵⁨慶攠瑨敲攬⁤潥猠瑨慴ഊഊ††††㈳††畳琠摥慬⁷楴栠瑨攠牥捴楦楣慴楯渠獥琠瑨慴⁹潵⁨慶攍਍ਠ†††′㐠††瑨敲攬⁴桥⁳桥整⁴桡琠䤠灵琠楮⁦牯湴映祯甿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††奥献ഊ‌††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††㠹ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††佫慹

89

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 How many rectification points did you use?

 

 

3 A. I don't recall. It's more than what was

 

 

4 used for Area 2A because it's a larger area.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Have you done any site visits to verify

 

 

7 the unsupervised the classifications?

 

 

8 A. Yes.

 

 

9 Q. Approximately how many?

 

 

10 A. I think maybe one or two field trips.

 

 

11 Q. Which have covered how many sites?

 

 

12 A. I don't recall. I'd be guessing. Maybe

 

 

13 50.

 

 

14 Q. Why don't we close that up?

 

 

15 And did you produce documents similar to

 

 

16 the field inspection sheets that we have seen with

 

 

17 regard to those, the 3A field inspection for the -- of

 

 

18 the unsupervised classes?

 

 

19 A. I don't believe any were generated.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Did you generate any field notes of what

 

 

22 you saw out there?

 

 

23 A. Yeah, they're probably around somewhere.

 

 

24 They might be in these piles or ...

 

 

25 Q. Why don't we find them. Why don't you

90

 

 

1 take a quick look?

 

 

2 A. I don't see it there.

 

 

3 Q. All right.

 

 

4 The other place it could possibly be is --

 

 

5 well that was -- you did go through that. That's

 

 

6 everything.

 

 

7 Do you believe you still have those?

 

 

8 A. They might have been in my folders or Les

 

 

9 Vilcheck might have them. It probably is still at the

 

 

10 raw data stage. I don't even think it's been

 

 

11 transcribed to these summary sheets that you --

 

 

12 Q. The raw data would be some sort of a field

 

 

13 notebook with notes on it?

 

 

14 A. Yeah, or just a pad similar to what you

 

 

15 have there.

 

 

16 Q. And Les Vilchek is assisting you with this

 

 

17 project?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Were you taking photos at the field sites,

 

 

21 photos as you did in 2A?

 

 

22 A. I don't believe so.

 

 

23 Q. Would your field notes reflect that?

 

 

24 A. Yeah. I don't think we did though.

 

 

25 Q. Do you recall approximately how many sites

91

 

 

1 you visited?

 

 

2 I know I asked that, but I don't recall

 

 

3 your answer. It was two dates I believe you said?

 

 

4 A. It would be a guess, 50.

 

 

5 Q. And when did you do that?

 

 

6 A. Oh, probably not too shortly after we

 

 

7 acquired that -- that data set.

 

 

8 Q. So probably late '92 or early '93?

 

 

9 A. Probably '92.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 After that field trip, did you then

 

 

12 perform a supervised classification?

 

 

13 A. No.

 

 

14 Q. All right. I'm getting a little too

 

 

15 disorganized, because I've jumped in the middle of it.

 

 

16 When did you start the 3A vegetative

 

 

17 mapping project?

 

 

18 A. Initially I think we made the first

 

 

19 efforts when we acquired the first SPOT satellite

 

 

20 imagery which was in May of '92.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 And is anyone else working on this project

 

 

23 other than Les Vilcheck and yourself?

 

 

24 A. No.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

92

 

 

1 After obtaining a SPOT imagery, I

 

 

2 understand you did a georectification of the map?

 

 

3 A That's correct.

 

 

4 Q. What was your next step?

 

 

5 A. We just basically analyzed the data, some

 

 

6 very preliminary analysis, in looking at it digitally

 

 

7 to see if we could get a feel for patterns in Area 3.

 

 

8 And we groundtruthed some of these pattern areas, some

 

 

9 very preliminary stuff.

 

 

10 Q. Is this different than the two day field

 

 

11 trip we were just discussing?

 

 

12 A. I think so.

 

 

13 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

14 The field notes from that?

 

 

15 A. We didn't find them. I think they're

 

 

16 available somewhere. Les probably still has them

 

 

17 somewhere.

 

 

18 Q. You just looked through everything we had

 

 

19 here. Do you recall seeing them?

 

 

20 A. No.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 After that field trip, did that result in

 

 

23 any type of modification to your map? Or was it just,

 

 

24 as I understand it, just a beginning to understanding

 

 

25 the vegetative communities at this time that were out

93

 

 

1 there?

 

 

2 A. Which map?

 

 

3 Q. You have a digitized SPOT imagery map of

 

 

4 3A; is that correct?

 

 

5 A. Correct.

 

 

6 Q. You georectified it?

 

 

7 A. Okay.

 

 

8 Q. Then I understand you analyzed the data

 

 

9 and, as you put it, made some site visits to look at

 

 

10 vegetative communities?

 

 

11 A. Right.

 

 

12 Q. As a result of these site visits, did you

 

 

13 change the map at all or start changing

 

 

14 classifications?

 

 

15 A. No.

 

 

16 Q. It was just to familiarize yourself with

 

 

17 the area?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. I gather from what you said, Area 2A

 

 

20 you've done a fair amount work in, is that right?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. And 3A you've not?

 

 

23 A. That's correct.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 After making this field trip with Les to

94

 

 

1 familiarize yourself with the communities, what was

 

 

2 your next step?

 

 

3 A. Basically we haven't done too much since

 

 

4 then.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 I believe you did say you did an

 

 

7 unsupervised classification of several of them?

 

 

8 A. That was part of the preliminary --

 

 

9 Q. Oh, all right.

 

 

10 A. -- just looking at the data and just

 

 

11 generally looking at it and trying to figure out land

 

 

12 patterns.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 You also said you made a second field

 

 

15 trip, the two day field trip to points selected?

 

 

16 A. Yeah, one, two days.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Is it -- just so I understand it, that

 

 

19 makes two field trips you made?

 

 

20 A. No, it's -- I mean this is going back a

 

 

21 while, but either one or two days we went out in the

 

 

22 field after we acquired the data and just have a

 

 

23 preliminary looking at data, trying to come up with

 

 

24 some generalized land patterns.

 

 

25 Q. Okay. I'm sure you're explaining it

95

 

 

1 perfectly. I just want to make sure I understand.

 

 

2 In my notes I had thought you had told me

 

 

3 you actually did go to a particular site to do some

 

 

4 site identification, that was approximately a two day

 

 

5 trip where you have field notes, but you have not

 

 

6 written up the inspection field inspection sheets for.

 

 

7 A. We did some very preliminary unsupervised

 

 

8 classifications. We had patterns and we visited them

 

 

9 and just tried to look at the general land patterns in

 

 

10 the area.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 A. That's as far as we got.

 

 

13 Q. I understand that.

 

 

14 Was this preliminary unsupervised site

 

 

15 inspection that you were doing one or two days, is that

 

 

16 the second field trip with regard to 3A?

 

 

17 A. The first one was for the actual

 

 

18 rectification.

 

 

19 Q. All right. What was the second one?

 

 

20 A. That's basically those one or two days was

 

 

21 the second.

 

 

22 Q. Just two trips then?

 

 

23 A. Two trips.

 

 

24 Q. I misunderstood you. Thank you.

 

 

25 And you finished that in late '92?

96

 

 

1 A. Approximately '92 sometime.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Have you done any additional work on the

 

 

4 vegetative mapping of 3A?

 

 

5 A. No.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Is there a reason it --

 

 

8 A. Just working on a lot of different things

 

 

9 and other projects and it's taken me away from it at

 

 

10 this point.

 

 

11 Q. Is that an ongoing project, the mapping of

 

 

12 3A?

 

 

13 A. Yeah, I would say so.

 

 

14 Q. Are you going to attempt to get new SPOT

 

 

15 imagery or never mind?

 

 

16 A. No.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Do you intend to use the May '92 SPOT

 

 

19 imagery?

 

 

20 A. Yes.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 Since approximately a year and a half has

 

 

23 passed since the collection of the May SPOT imagery,

 

 

24 how do you intend to ground truth it?

 

 

25 A. I don't. I plan to use that rectification

97

 

 

1 process to rectify a more current scene that's already

 

 

2 been acquired.

 

 

3 Q. What scene is that?

 

 

4 A. Basically it's late 1993.

 

 

5 Q. Is that SPOT imagery?

 

 

6 A. Yes.

 

 

7 Q. Do you recall what month of '93?

 

 

8 A. No, we -- no.

 

 

9 Q. All right.

 

 

10 Are you again then going to be using the

 

 

11 '93 SPOT imagery for the purpose of doing vegetative

 

 

12 mapping of 3A?

 

 

13 A. As part of the process, yes.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Will you also be using infrared as you did

 

 

16 with the aerial photography done with the National Park

 

 

17 Service?

 

 

18 A. That is a possibility, yes.

 

 

19 Q. Do you intend to use any infrared

 

 

20 photography?

 

 

21 A. Maybe.

 

 

22 Q. Do you already have it?

 

 

23 A. No.

 

 

24 Q. Okay. Are there plans to have it flown?

 

 

25 A. It's possible.

98

 

 

1 Q. Is it in the works?

 

 

2 A. No.

 

 

3 Q. Let me see what else I have here. Let me

 

 

4 see if we can identify it.

 

 

5 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

6 record.)

 

 

7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

8 Q. I'm showing you, sir, what has been marked

 

 

9 as Bates No. 1220375 through 1220400. Again this is a

 

 

10 document that you produced to us in response to your

 

 

11 notice of your deposition, the top of which appears to

 

 

12 be a file folder marked M. Koch.

 

 

13 Can you identify that for me, what that

 

 

14 relates to?

 

 

15 A. This is some work that Marguerite

 

 

16 initiated in a project that I was working on with her,

 

 

17 basically looking at transects in Area 2A. And she was

 

 

18 taking the lead on this. Basically we were looking at

 

 

19 the transition zone going from the impacted area to the

 

 

20 nonimpacted area of Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

21 Basically we were looking at hydrology, soils and

 

 

22 vegetation.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 When was that project being conducted?

 

 

25 A. This was pretty much right before she left

99

 

 

1 the District, and I don't remember the exact data she

 

 

2 left, but this is what I had done up to that point when

 

 

3 she left. I haven't done much with it since.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 Is that an ongoing project?

 

 

6 A. Not that I know of.

 

 

7 Q. Did you come to any conclusions from that

 

 

8 project?

 

 

9 A. No.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 To your knowledge, is anyone still working

 

 

12 on that project?

 

 

13 A. Not this specific one, no.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Is anyone working on a similar project

 

 

16 that you're aware of?

 

 

17 A. Yes.

 

 

18 Q. Who is that?

 

 

19 A. I'll not sure of all the players. There's

 

 

20 a number of people in my division working on looking at

 

 

21 transects and gradient changes within the transects

 

 

22 within Water Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

23 Q. Do you know who is the head of that

 

 

24 project?

 

 

25 A. Currently I believe it's Fred Sklar.

100

 

 

1 Q. Fred, could you spell that name?

 

 

2 A. S K L A R.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 And what do you understand the project is

 

 

5 doing?

 

 

6 A. Looking at -- well, collecting and

 

 

7 analyzing data along these transects within Water

 

 

8 Conservation Area 2A.

 

 

9 Q. Are these transects south of the 10

 

 

10 structures?

 

 

11 A. That's correct.

 

 

12 Q. And what type of data are they collecting?

 

 

13 A. All types of water chemical constituents,

 

 

14 soil data, algae, water depth, these areas are the

 

 

15 major components.

 

 

16 Q. Are they also doing vegetative

 

 

17 identification?

 

 

18 A. I believe at the points, the sites, yes.

 

 

19 Q. Do you know if they're using your

 

 

20 vegetative map that we've just been discussing, the 2A

 

 

21 vegetative map?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. And do you know what the purpose is?

 

 

24 A. I think its final purpose is to determine

 

 

25 why the area is becoming impacted due to the inflow

101

 

 

1 through the S-10 structures.

 

 

2 Q. Well, is it attempting to analyze the

 

 

3 causes for vegetative change?

 

 

4 A. Causes for vegetative change is one

 

 

5 component.

 

 

6 Q. What are the other components?

 

 

7 A. Water quality, soil phosphorus or soil

 

 

8 chemical constituents, change that occurs with

 

 

9 vegetation, things like that.

 

 

10 Q. Is there anything else?

 

 

11 A. There's probably other things, but that's

 

 

12 the ones I know about.

 

 

13 Q. Who is working with Fred Sklar on that

 

 

14 that you're aware of?

 

 

15 A. Peter Rawlik. We just hired a new woman,

 

 

16 I'm not each sure of her name at this point.

 

 

17 Q. You know her first name?

 

 

18 A. Miao, I think that's how you say it. Jim

 

 

19 Grimshaw, Paul McCormick, Jim Laing. I think that's

 

 

20 the major people. There could be others that I'm not

 

 

21 sure what their role in it.

 

 

22 Q. Peter Rawlik, how do you spell that name?

 

 

23 A. R A W L I K.

 

 

24 Q. All right. Let's see what's left.

 

 

25 Let me show you again a number of

102

 

 

1 documents that were received. Now they were banded

 

 

2 together, I don't know whether they're related to each

 

 

3 other, Bates No. 1220096 through 1220189. First page

 

 

4 is all handwritten. I believe it says on the bottom

 

 

5 WCA-2 period DAT, N R O W, N C O L S. Could you

 

 

6 identify that?

 

 

7 A. This is the data from the vegetative map

 

 

8 that Les Vilchek and I produced that shows various

 

 

9 aggregations in the number and rows of columns that

 

 

10 resulted from those aggregations.

 

 

11 Q. Now is this the 2A study we were just

 

 

12 discussing?

 

 

13 A. No.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 What area is this study?

 

 

16 A. This was within Water Conservation Area

 

 

17 2A.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 But this is a different project?

 

 

20 A. Yes.

 

 

21 Q. What project is this?

 

 

22 A. This is the paper I'm working on with

 

 

23 Jayantha Obeysekera, looking at scale issues as they

 

 

24 pertain to the Everglades.

 

 

25 Q. Could you just review what's in that and

103

 

 

1 see if that all relates to the same project?

 

 

2 A. No, it doesn't. It's not all pertaining

 

 

3 to this project.

 

 

4 Q. Okay. Hold on one moment.

 

 

5 Before I have you go through the documents

 

 

6 on this project with Jayantha Obeysekera, you're saying

 

 

7 it deals with scale issues with regards to the

 

 

8 Everglades. What exactly did that mean?

 

 

9 A. There's a number of these in existence or

 

 

10 being developed for the Everglades. And one of the

 

 

11 considerations of any model development is that you

 

 

12 consider the scale of what you're modeling or when

 

 

13 changes occur or what scale, and that's what this paper

 

 

14 is about. We're trying to figure out, at least for one

 

 

15 component or stated variable of a model, in this

 

 

16 particular instance it's vegetation, at what scale the

 

 

17 model should be looking at or addressing.

 

 

18 Q. All right.

 

 

19 And have you determined a proper scale to

 

 

20 look at for vegetation change?

 

 

21 A. It's very preliminary at this point.

 

 

22 We're in the data analysis.

 

 

23 Q. Okay. When did you start that project?

 

 

24 A. I'd say it was eight months, ten months

 

 

25 ago.

104

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 And how are you doing it, what's your

 

 

3 methodology?

 

 

4 A. Basically we have the original -- well,

 

 

5 basically we used the 12 class map output as opposed to

 

 

6 the 20 class map output. We aggregated it at a number

 

 

7 of different scales, aggregations going anywhere from

 

 

8 20 to a thousand and increasing by basically 40,

 

 

9 except -- with the exception of going from 20 to 40.

 

 

10 So each pixel is going to represent -- we have 20

 

 

11 meters, 80 meters, so on and so on, and we're looking

 

 

12 at those final map outputs using a program developed by

 

 

13 Monica Turner from Oakridge National Laboratories

 

 

14 called SPANS. And we're mainly interested in the

 

 

15 components, the fractal components of that program.

 

 

16 Fractals have been used to look at scale issues of all

 

 

17 types of physical phenomena, clouds, shorelines of

 

 

18 lakes, land cover. So we're -- this is resident in the

 

 

19 literature and we're using it to look at Everglades

 

 

20 vegetation.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 Have you ruled out any of those

 

 

23 classifications or sizes from 20 to 1,000 as yet?

 

 

24 A. The results at this point are very

 

 

25 preliminary.

105

 

 

1 Q. What do the preliminary results show?

 

 

2 A. Somewhere around 120 meters.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 Could you then identify by Bates numbers

 

 

5 which documents are related to that project starting

 

 

6 with initial page 1220096?

 

 

7 A. Everything up to 1220166.

 

 

8 Q. All right.

 

 

9 A. We've identified that.

 

 

10 Q. Let me show you two documents, or a

 

 

11 document, bears Bates No. 1202849 through 1202867, the

 

 

12 first page appears to be a file folder which indicates

 

 

13 WCA-3S for SPOT 5-11-92. What is that?

 

 

14 A. This is the sites that we visited in Water

 

 

15 Conservation Area 3, the satellite imagery we

 

 

16 previously spoke about, and those are Les's notes that

 

 

17 he had of all of his sites.

 

 

18 MR. KOBELINSKI: All right.

 

 

19 You can mark that as 6.

 

 

20 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

21 Rutchey Exb. No. 6 for Identification.)

 

 

22 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'd like to mark this as

 

 

23 7.

 

 

24 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

25 Rutchey Exb. No. 7 for Identification.)

106

 

 

1 MR. KOBELINSKI: For the record, I have

 

 

2 marked the document previously handed to Mr.

 

 

3 Rutchey as Exhibit No 6 that bears Bates No.

 

 

4 1202849 through 867 and has a first page which

 

 

5 appears to be a file folder labeled WCA 3S SPOT,

 

 

6 5-11-92.

 

 

7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

8 Q. I show you, Mr. Rutchey, what has been

 

 

9 marked as Exhibit No. 7, bears Bates No. 1202868

 

 

10 through 1202880 and appears to be a file folder on the

 

 

11 front which says WCA 3N for SPOT 5-11-92. I ask you if

 

 

12 you've ever seen that document before.

 

 

13 A. This is the same as the previous data set

 

 

14 but -- except for different days and south of Alligator

 

 

15 Alley.

 

 

16 Q. This again then relates to the 3A visit?

 

 

17 A. That's correct.

 

 

18 Q. Okay. Okay.

 

 

19 Next I'm showing you what's been marked as

 

 

20 Bates Nos. 12002773 through 1202848 and the front cover

 

 

21 which is Holeyland data for SPOT 5-11-92. Can you

 

 

22 explain what that is?

 

 

23 A. This is the same satellite imagery except

 

 

24 a different area. It's called the Holeyland area. And

 

 

25 this is a preliminary data analysis of that data and

107

 

 

1 some ground truth information along with some GPS

 

 

2 PFINDER output sets.

 

 

3 Q. That's a part of the 3A mapping then,

 

 

4 you're also mapping the Holeyland?

 

 

5 A. I would say Holeyland is a separate

 

 

6 project.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Is that Holeyland vegetative mapping still

 

 

9 an ongoing project?

 

 

10 A. I would say yes.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 Do you have any additional data or

 

 

13 documents you've produced related to this Holeyland

 

 

14 mapping?

 

 

15 A. I believe there is some here, yes.

 

 

16 Q. If you could go through and identify

 

 

17 those.

 

 

18 A. This is all that's left of yours.

 

 

19 Q. Leave that here.

 

 

20 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

21 record.)

 

 

22 THE WITNESS: I believe all this is

 

 

23 similarly related, somewhat related.

 

 

24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

25 Q. These various documents are all Holeyland,

108

 

 

1 also part of that project?

 

 

2 A. I pulled this out of that.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 MR. KOBELINSKI: And the witness has

 

 

5 identified documents bearing Bates No. 1220441

 

 

6 through 1220583, however he has taken out as

 

 

7 unrelated a document bearing Bates No. 1220491

 

 

8 through 1220494.

 

 

9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

10 Q. And these documents are, again, relate to

 

 

11 Holeyland mapping; is that correct?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 It appears to me we've finally identified

 

 

15 pretty much all the documents you've sent to us. We'll

 

 

16 just take a quick break for lunch and then we'll start

 

 

17 finding out what they mean. All right.

 

 

18 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken

 

 

19 from 12:10 to 1:25 p.m..).

 

 

20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

21 Q. All right, Mr. Rutchey. I remind you that

 

 

22 you're still under oath.

 

 

23 MR. KOBELINSKI: One thing before we get

 

 

24 on, why don't we mark this 8?

 

 

25 (Thereupon, the document was marked

109

 

 

1 Rutchey Exb. No. 8 for Identification.)

 

 

2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

3 8. Mr. Rutchey, I'm showing you what's been

 

 

4 marked as Rutchey Exhibit No. 8, which is a paper

 

 

5 bearing Bates No. 1220001 through 1220032, which is

 

 

6 entitled Inland Wetland Change Detection in the

 

 

7 Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A Using a Time

 

 

8 Series of Normalized Remotely Sensed Data. And I

 

 

9 gather this is a paper that you have participated in?

 

 

10 A. Yes.

 

 

11 Q. Is this the final draft of it?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Is this -- will this be published in any

 

 

14 type of a --

 

 

15 A. Yes, it's been accepted by the Journal of

 

 

16 Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote sensing.

 

 

17 Q. Do you know when it will be published?

 

 

18 A. They -- right now, I called them just the

 

 

19 other day. There's about an 18 month turn around for

 

 

20 papers that they have a backlog right now.

 

 

21 Q. This was sent out for peer review?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 And have you received peer review comments

 

 

25 back?

110

 

 

1 A. Jensen has all that.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 You didn't receive any peer review

 

 

4 comments?

 

 

5 A. Nope.

 

 

6 Q. Was the document revised after it was

 

 

7 peer-reviewed?

 

 

8 A. I'm not sure.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 Are the documents that you've produced to

 

 

11 today -- which, if any, of the documents -- when I say

 

 

12 today, in response to this notice of deposition.

 

 

13 Which, if any, of these documents that are remaining

 

 

14 relate to this paper?

 

 

15 A. That are remaining? Probably none.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 And of the documents previously marked,

 

 

18 which, if any, relate to this paper?

 

 

19 A. The original 129 ground truth sites and

 

 

20 their locations and what we found there.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 What about the accuracy analysis for the

 

 

23 241 sites?

 

 

24 A. I believe that was sent too, but I don't

 

 

25 think that was used in this paper.

111

 

 

1 (Mr. Downing entered the room.)

 

 

2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

3 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

4 What was your participation in this paper,

 

 

5 what did it encompass?

 

 

6 A. Basically just provide the original data

 

 

7 set.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 And the data set you provided to -- was

 

 

10 that Dr. Jensen?

 

 

11 A. Right.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Is there a list of data sets you can just

 

 

14 tick off for me?

 

 

15 A. Yeah, the 129 ground truth sites is one

 

 

16 and then all the original multispectral satellite

 

 

17 imagery data sets that we used in this analysis along

 

 

18 with the final 20 class and 12 class vegetation maps

 

 

19 that I produced, Les Vilcheck and I produced.

 

 

20 Q. All right. I can't write as fast as she

 

 

21 can.

 

 

22 The original digital data set, right?

 

 

23 From the August of '91 or '92? August '91, yeah,

 

 

24 August 10, '91 digital data set; is that right?

 

 

25 A. Right.

††††㈵††††††䄮††剩杨琮ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱ㄲഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††ㄲ㤠杲潵

112

 

 

1 Q. 129 ground truth sites?

 

 

2 A. Right.

 

 

3 Q. And the final 20 class and 12 class

 

 

4 digital map data sets; right?

 

 

5 A. Correct.

 

 

6 Q. Was there anything else?

 

 

7 A. And all the original multispectral data

 

 

8 sets that were used in this paper.

 

 

9 Q. Now you're referring to, if I understand

 

 

10 correctly, data sets for April 4, 1987?

 

 

11 A. That's one.

 

 

12 Q. January 17, 1982?

 

 

13 A. Yeah.

 

 

14 Q. April 2, 1976 and and February 22, 1973?

 

 

15 A. That's correct.

 

 

16 Q. Now did you just send him the original

 

 

17 digital data set you had for those four dates?

 

 

18 A. That's correct.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 You had not manipulated them to any

 

 

21 extent?

 

 

22 A. No.

 

 

23 Q. Other than providing these data sets to

 

 

24 Dr. Jensen, what other participation did you have in

 

 

25 this paper?

113

 

 

1 A. That's about it.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Did you draft any portions of it?

 

 

4 A. No.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Do you know what Marguerite Koch's

 

 

7 participation was in this paper?

 

 

8 A. She provided the soil or water phosphorus

 

 

9 data.

 

 

10 Q. Did she perform any analysis comparing

 

 

11 vegetation to the porewater data?

 

 

12 A. I'm not sure.

 

 

13 Q. What about Sunil Narumalani? Last name is

 

 

14 N A R U M A L A N I, his first name is S U N I L.

 

 

15 A. I'm not sure what his role was in this.

 

 

16 You'll have to talk to Dr. Jensen about that.

 

 

17 Q. Have you ever met Dr. Narumalani?

 

 

18 A. Yes.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 What exactly is his specialty, if you

 

 

21 know?

 

 

22 A. I'm not sure. I just met him a conference

 

 

23 one time. I know what he looks like. He's an image

 

 

24 processing -- I think he's got a doctorate basically

 

 

25 in -- basically digital image processing. That might

114

 

 

1 not be a right term, but that's what his field of

 

 

2 expertise was.

 

 

3 Q. What was Dr. Jensen's role with regard to

 

 

4 this paper?

 

 

5 A. He was the primary author.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 To your knowledge is he the one that

 

 

8 conducted most of the analysis?

 

 

9 A. Right.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Drawing your attention then, sir, back to

 

 

12 Rutchey Exhibit 1, the 2A vegetative analysis, and I

 

 

13 have a few questions on some of the steps you had taken

 

 

14 with regard to what I have written, Step 4, I'm talking

 

 

15 about after the computer had gone through and broken

 

 

16 out the information into the 30 classifications or

 

 

17 clusters, and at which point I believe you said 154

 

 

18 sample sites were selected by the computer; is that

 

 

19 correct?

 

 

20 A. No, we just chose 30 classes, within each

 

 

21 one of those clusters we attempted to find five ground

 

 

22 truth sites.

 

 

23 Q. Oh, okay.

 

 

24 So the computer didn't generate the five

 

 

25 sites, that was something that you mechanically did?

115

 

 

1 A. That's correct.

 

 

2 Q. Okay. Pardon me.

 

 

3 And as I understand the criteria, was that

 

 

4 finding a -- essentially a three by three pixel square,

 

 

5 in other words, nine pixels in the same classification;

 

 

6 is that correct?

 

 

7 A. That was the minimum, right, requirement.

 

 

8 Q. And you, of course, would take more than

 

 

9 that.

 

 

10 With regard to locating the the test sites

 

 

11 what -- what was the exact instrument that you used?

 

 

12 It might be in here somewhere.

 

 

13 A. The exact instrument?

 

 

14 Q. Yes.

 

 

15 A. It was called ERDAS. It's a software

 

 

16 image processing software package.

 

 

17 Q. But I'm talking about going out on the

 

 

18 site, what GPS equipment did you use to find the actual

 

 

19 sites, to find the sites with?

 

 

20 A. GPS basic unit.

 

 

21 Q. Is there one standard GPS basic unit or

 

 

22 are there different models of that?

 

 

23 A. There's different models.

 

 

24 Q. Do you know what model you had?

 

 

25 A. That's the name of it.

116

 

 

1 Q. Okay..

 

 

2 I believe also you mentioned that there

 

 

3 was a base station. Where was the base station

 

 

4 located?

 

 

5 A. At the South Florida Water Management

 

 

6 District, Gun Club Road.

 

 

7 Q. Are you responsible for that base station?

 

 

8 A. Yes.

 

 

9 Q. And how many -- as I understand base

 

 

10 stations, they keep track of the various satellites; is

 

 

11 that correct?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Do you know what particular type of base

 

 

14 station this was?

 

 

15 A. It's a Trimble Pathfinder community base

 

 

16 station.

 

 

17 Q. Does that -- how many satellites did that

 

 

18 keep track of at any given point in time?

 

 

19 A. Well, it varied from then till now. Right

 

 

20 now it can track up to nine.

 

 

21 Q. Then what about back in '91?

 

 

22 A. We didn't have a full ephemeris window

 

 

23 back then, window of opportunity. They didn't have all

 

 

24 the satellites in place.

 

 

25 Q. You lost me on that term.

117

 

 

1 A. Ephemeris.

 

 

2 Q. All right.

 

 

3 What were you operating with in 1991?

 

 

4 A. I don't remember the exact number, but our

 

 

5 window was limited in that actual span of time that we

 

 

6 can acquire an accurate GPS data. You can actually ask

 

 

7 the software for when the window is open that you can

 

 

8 acquire the data based on the geometry of satellites in

 

 

9 space, the available satellites in space.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Was this then one of the governing factors

 

 

12 as to when you would go on the site visits or field

 

 

13 visits?

 

 

14 A. Within a day, yes.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Perhaps if you would walk me through,

 

 

17 again, the GPS portion of it. How would you plan out

 

 

18 the site visit from the GPS aspect?

 

 

19 A. Well, I had my points I wanted to visit.

 

 

20 I put that coordinate into the GPS unit. I'd navigate

 

 

21 as best I could to that point.

 

 

22 Q. All right.

 

 

23 You were saying you had to -- perhaps I

 

 

24 misunderstood. I thought you told me you first had to

 

 

25 contact someone to find out whether or not the base

118

 

 

1 unit could read or contact certain satellites. Take me

 

 

2 from the initial step if you would.

 

 

3 A. I would look at the data, window of

 

 

4 availability, and figure out the span of time that I

 

 

5 needed to be out there in order to collect, you know,

 

 

6 accurate GPS data. So I go out during that time and

 

 

7 visit a point, log it over a period of two to three

 

 

8 minutes, that way you have multiple points, it makes

 

 

9 sure your final solution is more accurate. Take it

 

 

10 back, differentially correct each one of those points,

 

 

11 average the solution from that, and come up with a

 

 

12 point that you were really at when you went out in the

 

 

13 field.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 With regard to the window of availability,

 

 

16 who do you contact to find out what it is or is this

 

 

17 just a publication that you view through --

 

 

18 A. No, it's all in -- what you can do is any

 

 

19 almanac, that unit logs, whenever you're looking for

 

 

20 data, you can download that to the computer and it can

 

 

21 figure out from that almanac when the windows of

 

 

22 opportunity are open for collecting GPS data.

 

 

23 Q. All right.

 

 

24 Now this almanac is in the base unit or is

 

 

25 that in the unit you're taking out in the field?

119

 

 

1 A. It's in both.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 A. It's in both.

 

 

4 Q. Is that something you load in right before

 

 

5 you go out in the field, this almanac?

 

 

6 A. No. The almanac is generated

 

 

7 automatically. You don't have to -- just take the unit

 

 

8 out, let it make contact to the satellites. It

 

 

9 automatically puts an almanac in there, you can

 

 

10 download that almanac into your PFINDER software.

 

 

11 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

12 The first time you are going out there,

 

 

13 you have a window of opportunity, window of

 

 

14 availability. You're starting at, I don't know where

 

 

15 you would start, the 10 structures or on the --

 

 

16 A. For which?

 

 

17 Q. For the first trip you took out there.

 

 

18 A. For rectification?

 

 

19 Q. No, the 129.

 

 

20 A. It was random where I start, Site 1. Not

 

 

21 really known.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 What do you do then? Do you punch in

 

 

24 coordinates for the first place you want to go?

 

 

25 A. Right.

†††′㌠††††††††⁗桡琠摯⁹潵⁤漠瑨敮㼠⁄漠祯甠灵湣栠楮ഊഊ††††㈴††⁣潯牤楮慴敳⁦潲⁴桥⁦楲獴⁰污捥⁹潵⁷慮琠瑯⁧漿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††剩杨琮ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱㈰ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††坨敲攠摯

120

 

 

1 Q. Where do you get those coordinates?

 

 

2 A. That came from -- that's been asked and

 

 

3 answered.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 So where do you get those coordinates?

 

 

6 A. Asked and answered.

 

 

7 Q. But you have to -- I don't remember the

 

 

8 answer, sir, can't you just say?

 

 

9 A. It's part of this report. You've already

 

 

10 asked that question.

 

 

11 Q. All right. I don't have it written down,

 

 

12 sir, you have to respond to my question. You can't

 

 

13 just say asked and answered.

 

 

14 THE WITNESS: I have to keep answering --

 

 

15 if he asks me the same question over and over do

 

 

16 I have to keep answering?

 

 

17 MR. CESARANO: Well, why don't you go

 

 

18 ahead and answer it once more. Maybe he'll

 

 

19 write it down this time.

 

 

20 THE WITNESS: Unsupervised, the

 

 

21 classification within each of 30 clusters we

 

 

22 tried to find five sites. That would have made

 

 

23 150 and we found 129. That's where the sites

 

 

24 came from.

 

 

25 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

121

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 But where did you get coordinates

 

 

3 themselves? I still don't understand.

 

 

4 A. The coordinates are part of the digital

 

 

5 imagery, we rectified it.

 

 

6 Q. So it's part of the digital package you

 

 

7 received, the data?

 

 

8 A. Well, no. You use the -- the

 

 

9 rectification points to rectify the original imagery.

 

 

10 Then you have a real world map projection, then when

 

 

11 you point to an area, you know the location within the

 

 

12 software.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 The computer tells you the --

 

 

15 A. Right.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 Did you -- did you assign any error as to

 

 

18 the rectification as to whether or not there was any

 

 

19 error in that?

 

 

20 A. Yes, it was a root mean square of .4.

 

 

21 Q. By mean, what as far as meters?

 

 

22 A. Eight meters.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 So you're about to start your trip, you

 

 

25 punch your coordinates for the first site; is that

122

 

 

1 correct?

 

 

2 A. Yes, it could be the first site, yeah,

 

 

3 probably start at one.

 

 

4 Q. Whichever one starts with, I'm just trying

 

 

5 to follow through and understand the procedure.

 

 

6 A. Okay.

 

 

7 Q. I guess it's directional, it just takes

 

 

8 you there?

 

 

9 I've never used a GPS unit, I'm just a

 

 

10 lawyer, okay.

 

 

11 How do you get out there, you punch it in

 

 

12 and there's a little arrow?

 

 

13 A. If we -- depending on the method, yeah,

 

 

14 it's basically that simple. It's -- you put way points

 

 

15 in and you navigate to them, and it basically tells you

 

 

16 your bearing and where you need to go and bearing and

 

 

17 direction. And it has actually a little compass thing

 

 

18 that says well, you should turn this way, a little bit

 

 

19 this way, and when you get there, you know, within a

 

 

20 certain distance and it, you know, like we could get

 

 

21 down almost to where it says you're on the spot.

 

 

22 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

23 Now you talked about taking several

 

 

24 readings, if I understand it correctly?

 

 

25 A. Right.

†††′㌠††††††††⁎潷⁹潵⁴慬步搠慢潵琠瑡歩湧⁳敶敲慬ഊഊ††††㈴††⁲敡摩湧猬⁩映䤠畮摥牳瑡湤⁩琠捯牲散瑬礿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††剩杨琮ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱㈳ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††佮捥⁹潵

123

 

 

1 Q. Once you get to the spot, what do you do?

 

 

2 A. I take a number of readings over a period

 

 

3 of two to three minutes, and that varied depending on

 

 

4 whether we used the helicopter or airboat.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 With the helicopter how many readings

 

 

7 would you take?

 

 

8 A. Five. It's hard for a helicopter to hover

 

 

9 for two to three minutes in one exact spot.

 

 

10 Q. And with an airboat?

 

 

11 A. Probably over a period of two minutes,

 

 

12 three minutes, one every 15 seconds, approximately

 

 

13 maybe ten altogether, if I remember correctly,

 

 

14 that's...

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 How do you physically do a reading? What

 

 

17 do you do? Is that something you just program into the

 

 

18 machine itself?

 

 

19 A. Right. The machine actually logs the

 

 

20 data. You can actually set the machine to collect data

 

 

21 at intervals based on where you're at, you can say the

 

 

22 interval, say collect data every fifteen minutes and it

 

 

23 will log your position every fifteen minutes and store

 

 

24 it.

 

 

25 Q. Just trace your path then using that data?

124

 

 

1 A. Right.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 A. You could use it for that purpose also.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 What did you have it set then for this

 

 

6 particular -- your field trips?

 

 

7 A. I don't understand the question.

 

 

8 Q. I thought you said you could set it

 

 

9 automatically to read?

 

 

10 A. Oh, it was -- I'm not -- I don't remember

 

 

11 exactly, but in the field I think it was every 15

 

 

12 seconds and in the plane, I think it was every --

 

 

13 helicopter -- every five seconds.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Would you still have the -- well, all

 

 

16 right.

 

 

17 Before I find out what you have, this is

 

 

18 presumably recording in some sort of a computer or some

 

 

19 data base --

 

 

20 A. Um-hum.

 

 

21 Q. -- out in the field?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. What do you with it when you get --

 

 

24 A. We download it into the PFINDER GPS

 

 

25 software.

125

 

 

1 Q. That automatically takes in -- looks at

 

 

2 the input from the base station, determines where you

 

 

3 actually were, in case there was a type of

 

 

4 interference?

 

 

5 A. That's correct.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Do you still have those files for the 129

 

 

8 trips --

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. -- 129 station trips?

 

 

11 I assume, from looking at those files, I

 

 

12 would be able to tell approximately how many readings

 

 

13 there were and how close together, et cetera?

 

 

14 A. Yes.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Would I be able to identify what

 

 

17 satellites you're looking at from those files or no?

 

 

18 A. Not from those hard copy files. I have

 

 

19 the original digital data and I think there's a way

 

 

20 that you can actually look at that and tell what

 

 

21 satellites it was using to determine position.

 

 

22 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

23 You had actually identified some GPS data

 

 

24 for me earlier in the deposition, and essentially, if I

 

 

25 understand what you just said, I could then pretty much

126

 

 

1 look at everything you just explained, with the

 

 

2 exception of what satellites from this hard copy

 

 

3 readout; is that right?

 

 

4 A. Right.

 

 

5 Q. With what you identified earlier in the

 

 

6 deposition I can find out whether you're reading from

 

 

7 five seconds apart or 15 seconds apart or how many, all

 

 

8 that?

 

 

9 A. Yes,

 

 

10 Q. That's all in here?

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. When you get back say, how many stations

 

 

13 do you visit in one trip?

 

 

14 A. I would say 30 or 40 in a day was a good

 

 

15 trip, depending on whether you're using helicopter or

 

 

16 airboat.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 And then the down load the 40 stations

 

 

19 with the various readings for them; is that right?

 

 

20 A. Right.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 Is there -- you've mentioned a software

 

 

23 package that's done, automatically plugs in to give you

 

 

24 where, where you actually were. Is this sort of

 

 

25 automatic for each station?

127

 

 

1 A. No.

 

 

2 Q. How does it work?

 

 

3 A. You download the data and you combine that

 

 

4 data with the base station data that was collected at

 

 

5 the same exact time. And then the software, it's

 

 

6 differentially corrected the data, you want to make

 

 

7 sure you do each individual point even though they're

 

 

8 pretty much the same site, you want to average them.

 

 

9 After that's pretty simple.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 That computer program, does it take into

 

 

12 account whether they're reading the same satellite and

 

 

13 all that stuff?

 

 

14 A. They have to read the same satellite or it

 

 

15 won't work.

 

 

16 Q. That part, the program itself?

 

 

17 A. Yeah.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 After you get the readout it's corrected.

 

 

20 Do you then average those 10?

 

 

21 A. That's correct.

 

 

22 Q. Or if its, for instance an airboat

 

 

23 station?

 

 

24 A. Correct.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

128

 

 

1 The data that we have to -- we have the

 

 

2 corrected 10 prior to averaging or do we have raw data?

 

 

3 A. You have all three. You have the raw

 

 

4 data, you have the raw data that's been differentially

 

 

5 corrected, and you have an average of that

 

 

6 differential, the corrected raw data.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 And based upon the your analysis, how

 

 

9 close do you believe you were to the spot you were

 

 

10 actually looking for?

 

 

11 A. Well, I know the accuracy of the GPS unit

 

 

12 was in the range of three to seven meters because of

 

 

13 our trips. We would go to a known survey site out in

 

 

14 the field that we were doing our field reconnaissance,

 

 

15 we differentially corrected that data set, so we knew

 

 

16 throughout the process we were in a range of three to

 

 

17 seven meters.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 After you, you know, took the 125 field --

 

 

20 went to 129 sites out in the field, at that point, as I

 

 

21 understand it, you went from 30 classes down to, I

 

 

22 believe, it was 19 is what you said; is that right, and

 

 

23 then added periphyton later on?

 

 

24 A. No.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

129

 

 

1 A. This has been asked and answered again.

 

 

2 Q. Sir, you have to understand, you've done

 

 

3 this, you're out there, you spent over a year doing it.

 

 

4 We, on the other hand, are trying to read something,

 

 

5 understand what you did. We do not have the memory

 

 

6 that you do. If I asked this morning, I apologize if

 

 

7 you stated something I didn't pick up on immediately,

 

 

8 but it will happen where I ask a question where perhaps

 

 

9 you believe you've given me the information I was

 

 

10 seeking. All right. It's perhaps a frustrating

 

 

11 process, but it needs to be done. Okay?

 

 

12 A. Okay.

 

 

13 My answer to that is my first deposition I

 

 

14 got asked the same thing over and over again 20

 

 

15 different ways and the guy knew exactly what he was

 

 

16 doing. I think you're doing it too, but that's okay.

 

 

17 If you want my answer, I'll keep answering.

 

 

18 MR. CESARANO: If I think he's beating you

 

 

19 up I'll let you know, okay. I don't think we've

 

 

20 gotten there yet.

 

 

21 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

 

22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI

 

 

23 Q. Using the phrase, I am not tempted to beat

 

 

24 you up, all right. You're not being tested in this

 

 

25 case, I'm just out trying to really figure out what it

130

 

 

1 does, okay? All right. I'm attempting to.

 

 

2 Then it shows that you visited 129 sites

 

 

3 is what I have. You then did a supervised

 

 

4 classification, at which point you got down to, I

 

 

5 believe it says 19, and ultimately you added an

 

 

6 additional one class; is that correct?

 

 

7 A. That's correct.

 

 

8 Q. All right. That's perhaps what I asked.

 

 

9 And again, I don't want to misread or try

 

 

10 to read into my notes, but after the 129 sites you

 

 

11 actually went from 30 down to 19 plus the periphyton?

 

 

12 A. After the 129 we used that ground truth

 

 

13 information to do supervised classification and --

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 A. -- came up with 19 classes.

 

 

16 Q. All right.

 

 

17 Now, in the -- your paper there's

 

 

18 discussion here with regard to preparing ellipses from

 

 

19 sample band combinations?

 

 

20 A. Okay.

 

 

21 Q. In Exhibit 1, as I understand it, you have

 

 

22 three bands for the satellite?

 

 

23 A. That's correct.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 How do you go about comparing these

131

 

 

1 ellipses of sample bands, do you look at all three?

 

 

2 A. Yes, and combinations of all the bands, if

 

 

3 you find anything unique within any combination that

 

 

4 makes it separate.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 And you have, if I recall correctly --

 

 

7 Drawing your attention, just for a moment

 

 

8 if I could, back to what's marked as Exhibit 8, and if

 

 

9 you would turn to the back of that, Bates 1220026,

 

 

10 actually they skipped a page it's marked 4, but it's

 

 

11 between Page 1220026 and 27, and I know this is not

 

 

12 your piece, but is this essentially what you were doing

 

 

13 for the cattail paper, drawing this type of an ellipse?

 

 

14 A. The computer makes -- actually makes the

 

 

15 ellipse, but it is a fair analogy, yes.

 

 

16 Q. And is the computer able to do it for just

 

 

17 two bands at a time, does it do all three bands at

 

 

18 once?

 

 

19 A. It does two bands at a time.

 

 

20 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

21 Do you have a file showing that type of

 

 

22 information, the ellipse and comparison of the bands?

 

 

23 A. Yes, it's all digital.

 

 

24 Q. All right.

 

 

25 So we don't have a hard copy of that?

132

 

 

1 A. No.

 

 

2 Q. All right. Get back to where I was.

 

 

3 Once the computer does that, does the

 

 

4 computer statistically determine which ones are close

 

 

5 enough to do vegetative identification or is that

 

 

6 something that the operator or the scientist doing it

 

 

7 does? How is that done?

 

 

8 A. Well, I think it's a combination of the

 

 

9 two, where the computer generates the ellipse, you

 

 

10 analyze the data, determine, to see if there's overlap

 

 

11 between the ellipses or whether, indeed, we have unique

 

 

12 spectral characteristics for selected classes of

 

 

13 vegetation.

 

 

14 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

15 Who did the review of the ellipses, was

 

 

16 that you or Mr. Vilchek?

 

 

17 A. That's me.

 

 

18 Q. All right. All right.

 

 

19 Now with regard to the color infrared

 

 

20 photography that you obtained for October 10, '91,

 

 

21 okay.

 

 

22 A. No -- October 10?

 

 

23 Q. Of 1991.

 

 

24 A. Color infrared?

 

 

25 Q. Yeah.

133

 

 

1 A. Oh, maybe it was that day. I said it was

 

 

2 within a year, okay. It's fair.

 

 

3 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

4 Did you go through and attempt to locate

 

 

5 the color infrared photos that had the 129 points, is

 

 

6 that how you went about doing this or is it a different

 

 

7 method?

 

 

8 A. I think we used that as an aid in the

 

 

9 process, looking at that photography. It was just an

 

 

10 extra piece of detail. We didn't rely on it too

 

 

11 heavily. We mainly used -- we drove this process

 

 

12 digitally basically, but that was an extra data set

 

 

13 that it was -- that it was referred to it, yes.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Was -- just so I understand how you used

 

 

16 it, so whether or not you were doing a homogeneous

 

 

17 community or were you actually able to do vegetative

 

 

18 identification with the infrared photography?

 

 

19 A. Basically I think when we used it it was

 

 

20 like, for instance, when we had the periphyton problems

 

 

21 we looked overall, we could see periphyton in the south

 

 

22 end, and I don't think we used it too much in the 129

 

 

23 ground truth sites.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Now, with regard to 20 classes then, and

134

 

 

1 I'm just going to use the -- where is the one we have

 

 

2 marked?

 

 

3 Drawing your attention in Exhibit 1 to Bates

 

 

4 Page 1220435, Page 17 of the document, you have 20

 

 

5 listed right there. The sawgrass dense, is there a

 

 

6 percentage coverage that was used for that?

 

 

7 A. Yes, it's a table that goes along with

 

 

8 each of these classes.

 

 

9 Q. Actually let me find -- and that table is

 

 

10 at Page 19, also Bates No. 1220437?

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Now with regard to that, it refers to

 

 

14 greater than or equal to 70 percent evenly distributed;

 

 

15 the balance in open water. Okay.

 

 

16 What are the types of vegetation you would

 

 

17 have out in 2A other than sawgrass and open water?

 

 

18 What mixes would you find, if any?

 

 

19 A. I think this list here pretty well

 

 

20 characterizes the types of vegetation you would see in

 

 

21 Area 2A.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 That would be sawgrass in open water,

 

 

24 sawgrass and cattail interspersed to varying degrees,

 

 

25 sawgrass/cattail and brush, sawgrass/brush,

135

 

 

1 sawgrass/broadleaf and cattail. And broadleaf, what

 

 

2 type of plants were those?

 

 

3 A. Sagittaria species or Pontederia species.

 

 

4 Q. Is that like a water plant?

 

 

5 A. Yeah, I would say it's a -- it's a wetland

 

 

6 species, yes. All the -- all these are pretty much

 

 

7 wetland species.

 

 

8 Q. And again, it may sound silly, I know what

 

 

9 sawgrass looks like, I know what cattail looks like, I

 

 

10 know what they would look like. Are these, the

 

 

11 broadleaf, are these low in the water type plants or

 

 

12 are they, again, grass macrophyte-type plants?

 

 

13 A. They're -- they could be, I'd say, average

 

 

14 two to two and a half feet, maybe 3 feet. And we would

 

 

15 call them broadleaf because the leaves on them were

 

 

16 rather broad.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 Do you have any low water type plants?

 

 

19 You know what I mean by that?

 

 

20 A. Are there any occurring in --

 

 

21 Q. Bladderwort. Did you have bladderwort in

 

 

22 2A?

 

 

23 A. Bladderwort is a submerged species.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 A. It occurs throughout the area, yes.

136

 

 

1 Q. All right.

 

 

2 Does that, the bladderwort, if it's there

 

 

3 with the sawgrass, do the two cohabitate in various

 

 

4 communities?

 

 

5 A. Yes.

 

 

6 Q. Does that affect the spectral signature?

 

 

7 A. I don't think so, because it's submerged.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 So does the depth of the water affect the

 

 

10 spectral signature?

 

 

11 A. It could, yes.

 

 

12 Q. How could water depth affect the spectral

 

 

13 signature?

 

 

14 A. Based on whether you have ground exposed

 

 

15 and you have periphyton out there, it's to what level.

 

 

16 Sometimes periphyton is floating, sometimes it's at the

 

 

17 bottom. So, you know, that could really affect the

 

 

18 spectral characteristics of what you're seeing. That's

 

 

19 why you ground truth what you're actually seeing.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Would the bladderwort, if it's a submerged

 

 

22 plant, affect the spectral signature to the same extent

 

 

23 that water depth would affect the signature?

 

 

24 A. I don't think so.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

137

 

 

1 Would you have sawgrass stands, be they

 

 

2 dense, moderate or sparse, going with periphyton?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. Where would that fall in this -- the 20

 

 

5 classes?

 

 

6 A. We didn't break it down. We took a

 

 

7 dominant, if it was dominantly periphyton or all

 

 

8 periphyton. Typically, we broke it out and if it was

 

 

9 dense sawgrass, could possibly be periphyton in this

 

 

10 case or not, dense, sparse sawgrass --

 

 

11 Q. And in cases where you had sparse sawgrass

 

 

12 and periphyton, what would it be listed as?

 

 

13 A. Now say that one more time.

 

 

14 Q. In a case where you had sparse

 

 

15 sawgrass/periphyton, which classification would it fall

 

 

16 into?

 

 

17 A. From our field we would -- we would

 

 

18 probably call that sparse sawgrass.

 

 

19 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

20 Would that hold true also for cattail

 

 

21 sparse, cattail and periphyton?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. With regard to sawgrass sparse, is that

 

 

24 equal or to 30 percent coverage, what is the low end of

 

 

25 30 percent?

138

 

 

1 A. I'm not sure. I think it was like five or

 

 

2 ten percent.

 

 

3 Q. Are there notes as to that low end, as to

 

 

4 what the low end was?

 

 

5 A. I'm sure they're somewhere. I -- I would

 

 

6 say less than 30 percent means from 1 to 30 percent.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Would that same definition hold true for

 

 

9 sparse cattail, 1 to 30 percent?

 

 

10 A. Yes.

 

 

11 Q. Okay. That's a broad question.

 

 

12 What difficulties did you find in mapping

 

 

13 the sparse sawgrass?

 

 

14 A. (No response.)

 

 

15 Q. You mentioned periphyton. Anything else?

 

 

16 A. I think the major problem I had in this

 

 

17 mapping out effort was the periphyton community,

 

 

18 because even though there might have been sawgrass

 

 

19 sparse or sparse cattail, the dominant signature still

 

 

20 came back as periphyton. That's why this map effort

 

 

21 mostly suffered in most of its inaccurate -- in its

 

 

22 overall accuracy is because of the periphyton

 

 

23 community.

 

 

24 Q. Was there any predominant place where you

 

 

25 had periphyton throughout WCA-2A?

139

 

 

1 A. In the southern region when we have a lot

 

 

2 of open slough areas down there, sparsely vegetated

 

 

3 areas.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 Now, did the fact that you're using the

 

 

6 August SPOT imagery data set, compared to your field

 

 

7 trips which extended all the way through April of '92,

 

 

8 did the changes in water levels or vegetation as a

 

 

9 result of the dry season impact at all the study?

 

 

10 A. I don't think so.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 Was there any way to test whether or not

 

 

13 it did?

 

 

14 A. No.

 

 

15 Q. Is there a difference in the spectral

 

 

16 imagery from August to, for instance, January or

 

 

17 February?

 

 

18 A. If you had satellite imagery, yes,

 

 

19 probably.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 What would those differences be?

 

 

22 A. Basically vegetation goes through various

 

 

23 stages, different vegetation browning out or if there's

 

 

24 a drought some of it just dies out totally. So

 

 

25 hydroperiod and time of year can affect what you're

140

 

 

1 seeing in satellite imagery.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Does the time of year for the plant, as I

 

 

4 guess you put that, brownness, does that also impact

 

 

5 the reflective values and spectral imagery?

 

 

6 A. I think so.

 

 

7 Q. On the sites for the 241 points, my notes

 

 

8 are a bit confused. On that 241, when you're doing the

 

 

9 accuracy, was that based again upon a 3 pixel by 3

 

 

10 pixel or were those just randomly generated by the

 

 

11 computer without that, any of that type of requirement?

 

 

12 A. There was a stratified random sampling by

 

 

13 class. And yes, they had to meet a 3 by 3 meter, a 3

 

 

14 by 3 pixel minimum requirement.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 On that, if I could draw your attention

 

 

17 back to Rutchey No. 4, that's the laboratory notebook,

 

 

18 and I believe you pointed out latter pages in this

 

 

19 document, essentially Bates No. 1202674 through the

 

 

20 remainder, 1202688, reflect the sites, the pixels based

 

 

21 upon the computer generation, and that -- then your

 

 

22 field data inspection; is that correct?

 

 

23 A. 4, Item 4 in the thing.

 

 

24 Q. The fourth item?

 

 

25 A. Is the field data.

141

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Going through a, just to the first page,

 

 

3 1202674, Site 116, all 9 pixels are 4. The next one,

 

 

4 Site 196, it's a split of 5 and 4, 5 being 7, 4 being

 

 

5 18. And just randomly going through this, only

 

 

6 approximately 1 out of every 4 to 1 out of every 6

 

 

7 actually has all 9 pixels being the same. You have

 

 

8 having the same classification, that varies from page

 

 

9 to page. But does -- how would you deal with pixels

 

 

10 that did not have all 9 the same vegetation class?

 

 

11 A. I stated in the paper we used a minimum

 

 

12 of -- required minimum of 5 out of 9 meeting majority

 

 

13 status and called it, that pixel cluster that item, or

 

 

14 that classification.

 

 

15 Q. Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood that.

 

 

16 You're saying all nine did not require the

 

 

17 same classification, they just had to be a majority?

 

 

18 A. Majority.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Then, when you're doing your accuracy

 

 

21 analysis, would you be looking to see whether or not

 

 

22 the field test matched on all 9 pixels?

 

 

23 A. (No response.)

 

 

24 Q. In other words -- do you understand what

 

 

25 I'm saying?

142

 

 

1 A. Um-hum.

 

 

2 Q. As opposed to getting it to the point

 

 

3 which we believed to be in the middle pixel, would you,

 

 

4 as I understood it before, look at 20 by 20 when you

 

 

5 were doing your field tests for these 241, would you

 

 

6 look at all 9 surrounding, in other words, the -- all 9

 

 

7 pixels that you were analyzing?

 

 

8 A. We would look at what data we got back

 

 

9 from the GPS, correct the data. We would make a

 

 

10 similar 3 by 3 pixel representation as you see here,

 

 

11 pick the majority out of what it was and then look at

 

 

12 that majority value or classification and compared it

 

 

13 to what we got from the field. And if it was the same

 

 

14 we'd count it as correct, and if it wasn't, we counted

 

 

15 it as wrong.

 

 

16 Q. All right.

 

 

17 Just so I understand how this works then,

 

 

18 if you could go back to the second page of this

 

 

19 document, this one where we were looking at Site No. 4

 

 

20 originally right there.

 

 

21 A. Okay.

 

 

22 Q. And we had gone away from this because you

 

 

23 had thought we could look at another page earlier. You

 

 

24 have next to 4 in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, you have 7

 

 

25 columns, excuse me, rows, okay. And in the first,

143

 

 

1 fourth, and seventh you have noted in this case 1, 1

 

 

2 and 1 there. Are those the computer-generated

 

 

3 classifications for Site 4?

 

 

4 A. If I remember correctly -- I don't

 

 

5 remember.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 To the right of that are then some

 

 

8 additional 1's. Again, they're in the first, fourth

 

 

9 and then there's one in the fifth and two in the 7th.

 

 

10 Are these again dealing with Site No. 4?

 

 

11 A. I believe so.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 Does that refresh your recollection at all

 

 

14 as to how this was done?

 

 

15 A. Okay.

 

 

16 This is how it was done.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 A. That's basically what this initial 4

 

 

19 data set was, we actually went and looked at 7 pixels

 

 

20 by 7 pixels instead 3 pixels by 3 pixels. What you see

 

 

21 here in this first part of this data set is that

 

 

22 representation. So let's go back to 4. Basically in 4

 

 

23 in the first column you see 1 at each one of the

 

 

24 corners.

 

 

25 Q. And 1 in the middle.

144

 

 

1 A. Right. So this basically, to me,

 

 

2 everything was 1.

 

 

3 Q. Now, is that computer generated?

 

 

4 A. That's computer generated. Now when, this

 

 

5 other one next to it, you see 1's in each corner, but

 

 

6 two 1's in the middle, you see 1, it's the whole --

 

 

7 Q. Right.

 

 

8 A. The pixels in that area are something

 

 

9 other than 1, so what -- what this is, I went beyond

 

 

10 the original 3 by 3 in this particular data set.

 

 

11 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

12 Just -- so you would then be looking at

 

 

13 the four corners, the middle points on the outside and

 

 

14 the center?

 

 

15 A. Right. But it was something other than --

 

 

16 if the corner was something other than 1 I would put 1

 

 

17 here, I would put the next 1 in, so on and so on, if it

 

 

18 was other.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 So for instance, on No. 4 I'm looking at

 

 

21 the right-hand side where this said Old 1. Okay.

 

 

22 A. Right.

 

 

23 Q. Looking at the upper left-hand, or where

 

 

24 it says 1 there, then four pixels in a box that are

 

 

25 blank, were those observed at all or or those would

145

 

 

1 automatically be taken as 1 unless marked otherwise or

 

 

2 just literally looked at 3, 6 points, 9 points.

 

 

3 A. No, I looked at all of them. I didn't

 

 

4 want to write 1's in every one of these little boxes,

 

 

5 so I made my own little method of how this -- how to do

 

 

6 it. And the one that you're pointing out --

 

 

7 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

8 A. -- you see -- can see there's 1's in all

 

 

9 corners, but on the bottom one you see a 1 directly

 

 

10 below the middle pixel, that means everything behind

 

 

11 was something other than that.

 

 

12 Q. Right.

 

 

13 A. Weren't.

 

 

14 Q. Okay. Okay.

 

 

15 But, for instance, what about to the right

 

 

16 of where that pixel, that 1 would have been if it was

 

 

17 sawgrass?

 

 

18 A. To the right, if you look to the right and

 

 

19 there's a 1, then that means everything in between

 

 

20 between was a 1.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 So everything blank other than the 1, for

 

 

23 instance, below those two double 1's are sawgrass,

 

 

24 dense sawgrass?

 

 

25 A. That's correct.

146

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Is there any way to tell what the two

 

 

3 blank ones that we don't know what they are, what they

 

 

4 are that goes in those grids, what are the two missing

 

 

5 squares, what vegetation are they?

 

 

6 A. It's available digitally.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 All of this data is available digitally?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Does the digital data contain more

 

 

11 information than that then?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 Just so I understand, the digital data set

 

 

15 then was not taken from those sheets, but rather this

 

 

16 is a summary of the digital data set?

 

 

17 A. This is created from the digital data,

 

 

18 right.

 

 

19 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

20 When there's a discussion of map accuracy

 

 

21 of 81 percent in the paper, okay. And that discussion

 

 

22 was found at -- on Page 9 of Exhibit 1 which bears

 

 

23 Bates No. 1220427, 80.9 percent.

 

 

24 A. Okay.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

147

 

 

1 Is that an accuracy as to boundaries

 

 

2 reflected by the map or an accuracy as to vegetative

 

 

3 type within those boundaries?

 

 

4 A. That's an overall map accuracy of

 

 

5 everything within the boundaries.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Does the 80.9 percent apply to each class

 

 

8 of the 12 classes?

 

 

9 A. No, it applies to the overall map accuracy

 

 

10 of the whole vegetation project.

 

 

11 Q. How would you determine it as to the

 

 

12 various classes?

 

 

13 A. How would you determine the accuracy as to

 

 

14 the various classes? That was done for some classes,

 

 

15 if you look at 1220439, Table 3.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 A. And you can see what -- the column, users

 

 

18 accuracy. We did that for some of them.

 

 

19 Q. Now, this shows all 241, all the -- all

 

 

20 the various samples there?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. Would looking at this refresh your

 

 

23 recollection as to which classes were included in the

 

 

24 31 or 32 additional tests or sample sites?

 

 

25 A. No.

148

 

 

1 Q. All right.

 

 

2 Users accuracy tells you the accuracy of

 

 

3 whether or not the vegetative class that's actually

 

 

4 shown by the map is what's in the field, is that --

 

 

5 A. (Shakes head up and down.)

 

 

6 Q. All right.

 

 

7 What does user accuracy mean?

 

 

8 A. I think you had hit a little bit.

 

 

9 Basically, if you -- if you point to an area on the map

 

 

10 you go out in the field to see if indeed that's what

 

 

11 you're seeing on the map is correct.

 

 

12 Q. All right.

 

 

13 A. Compared to to producer accuracy, the

 

 

14 producer accuracy, if you went out in the field and got

 

 

15 a GPS point and documented what you saw there, and you

 

 

16 went back to the map to see if that indeed was there.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 Why would that be different?

 

 

19 A. It's two different ways of looking at a

 

 

20 map. They're going to be different numbers. That's --

 

 

21 I can't answer it any better than that.

 

 

22 Q. But is it still -- are you still

 

 

23 essentially just trying to figure out whether or not

 

 

24 the map reflects reality under both scenarios?

 

 

25 A. To a point, yeah. It's basically looking

149

 

 

1 at commission and omission errors.

 

 

2 Q. And the conditional KAPPA on the

 

 

3 right-hand side means what?

 

 

4 A. This is being used, now a KAPPA statistic

 

 

5 is being used to -- in image processing projects to

 

 

6 report the error.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 If I am reading your page, Bates No.

 

 

9 1220439 of Exhibit 1, if I'm reading this correctly,

 

 

10 your -- let me withdraw that.

 

 

11 When you say this is -- I'm looking at the

 

 

12 20 class map, 70.9 accuracy, is that average of

 

 

13 accuracy a producer accuracy?

 

 

14 A. No, I would say not.

 

 

15 Q. What does the 70.9 come into as compared

 

 

16 to user accuracy?

 

 

17 A. The 70.9 represents the overall map

 

 

18 accuracy as to the whole entire vegetation project.

 

 

19 User accuracy and producer accuracy has to be looked at

 

 

20 separately.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 How do you get then the overall map

 

 

23 accuracy? How do you calculate this?

 

 

24 A. Well, the KAPPA statistic takes into

 

 

25 account the user accuracy, producer accuracy, which is

150

 

 

1 really commission and omission errors and you have this

 

 

2 in KAPPA.

 

 

3 Q. All right.

 

 

4 It's -- in other words, it's a statistical

 

 

5 manipulation of the two to get what the overall

 

 

6 accuracy is?

 

 

7 A. What is your definition of overall

 

 

8 accuracy?

 

 

9 Q. All right.

 

 

10 That's on Page 1220439, overall accuracy

 

 

11 70.9 percent of a 20 --

 

 

12 A. Basically, what that represents is an

 

 

13 overall map accuracy. How many out of that 241 points

 

 

14 that are visited in the field, what -- what percentage

 

 

15 of them were correct.

 

 

16 Q. Oh, okay. That's all right. That's fair.

 

 

17 Is there a means of determining that

 

 

18 accuracy on a class by class basis?

 

 

19 A. Yes, that's basically what user accuracy

 

 

20 is.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 For user accuracy there are only six

 

 

23 classes that have a user accuracy number. Why is what?

 

 

24 A. You had to meet a minimum requirement of

 

 

25 numbers. I could find that for you.

151

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

3 record.)

 

 

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. Page 7, second

 

 

5 paragraph are the results. In order to show any

 

 

6 significance or do it statistically right you

 

 

7 had to have a minimum of 19 field sites.

 

 

8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 But that's for user accuracy; is that

 

 

11 correct?

 

 

12 A. (No response.)

 

 

13 Q. Let me just make -- the reason I ask is,

 

 

14 for instance, on the producers accuracy, I see numbers

 

 

15 there for 15, 15, and 11. If you read that across from

 

 

16 on the 20 class map, 15 for Class 5, 15 is for Class

 

 

17 10, and 11 for Class 20.

 

 

18 A. Okay.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Is there a different minimum number for

 

 

21 user as opposed to producers accuracy?

 

 

22 A. Un-hum. I would say I'm not sure. I feel

 

 

23 the method that people who are experts in the field

 

 

24 such as Russel Congalton, Rosenfield, Lins-Fitzpatrick

 

 

25 (sic), Michael Story, people who have expertise in the

152

 

 

1 field, and I use their methods and --

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 A. -- that's -- this is state of the art

 

 

4 here.

 

 

5 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

6 Now, from this particular matrix, is there

 

 

7 a means -- I'm talking again on Page 21, Bates No.

 

 

8 1220439, perhaps the easiest example would be Map Class

 

 

9 1, Class 1, ground truth Class 1, and the number there

 

 

10 that says 41. It's on the exhibit. You following

 

 

11 where I'm at, upper left-hand corner of that?

 

 

12 A. Okay.

 

 

13 Q. Does that mean 41 sites, you went to 41

 

 

14 sites?

 

 

15 A. Okay.

 

 

16 Within Class 1 I visited 45 sites.

 

 

17 Q. I read it across then to 40 -- of the 45,

 

 

18 41 were Classification 1 based upon your field visit?

 

 

19 A. That's right.

 

 

20 Q. Two were Classification 2, and one was

 

 

21 Classification 4, one was a Classification 11?

 

 

22 A. Correct.

 

 

23 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

24 If I recall correctly, you had stated that

 

 

25 you had tested an additional 31 sites dealing with the

153

 

 

1 cattail to better determine the accuracy of the model

 

 

2 with regard to the cattail?

 

 

3 A. That's correct.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 Given those additional 31 sites, if I read

 

 

6 this correctly, sawgrass/cattail dense and sawgrass

 

 

7 sparse, you don't actually have an accuracy figure, but

 

 

8 it was your recollection that those 31 sites didn't

 

 

9 include those two categories?

 

 

10 A. I think I said I wasn't sure.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 Do you recall now or?

 

 

13 A. No.

 

 

14 Q. Do you believe that they did or just

 

 

15 really have no idea one way or the other?

 

 

16 A. I'd have to go back and look.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 And with regard to the cattail, cattail

 

 

19 dense, cattail moderate, cattail sparse, the only one

 

 

20 that has sufficient is cattail dense?

 

 

21 A. In the 20 class map.

 

 

22 Q. Based upon that, were you able to

 

 

23 determine how accurate it was for cattail mapping

 

 

24 purposes?

 

 

25 A. I'd say, if you were looking just at dense

154

 

 

1 cattail, that cattail is -- on that we were right 68

 

 

2 percent of the time.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 What about the other categories of

 

 

5 cattail?

 

 

6 A. For the 20 class map sawgrass/cattail

 

 

7 dense, 62 percent.

 

 

8 Q. All right.

 

 

9 And sawgrass/cattail sparse 58 percent?

 

 

10 A. Yes.

 

 

11 Q. Of the 17 samples of cattail, sparse, No.

 

 

12 12, only 7 came in correctly; is that right?

 

 

13 A. Yes.

 

 

14 Q. If I asked you to, given all the data

 

 

15 you've collected, would you be able to give me a

 

 

16 percentage of accuracy as to identification of cattail?

 

 

17 Not the different various categories, but just cattail

 

 

18 itself? Is there any way for you to determine that?

 

 

19 A. I would use the 12 class map to answer

 

 

20 that.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 A. And No. 2, I would say overall for

 

 

23 sawgrass/cattail, I'd say that we were 70 percent

 

 

24 accurate. And for cattail by itself, we're 72 percent

 

 

25 accurate. And for cattail/brush we're a hundred

155

 

 

1 percent accurate.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 That's where you're collapsing the three

 

 

4 cattail categories just into one category of cattail;

 

 

5 is that correct?

 

 

6 A. Yes.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

9 record.)

 

 

10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 Drawing your attention back to Exhibit 1,

 

 

13 Page 21, which is Bates No. 12200439, users accuracy is

 

 

14 essentially a -- just a simple percentage looking at,

 

 

15 you know, how many field -- how many sites did I check

 

 

16 that the computer told me was, for instance,

 

 

17 Classification 1, how many times was it correct. Is

 

 

18 that essentially correct, user accuracy is just a

 

 

19 percentage, right?

 

 

20 A. (Shakes head up and down.)

 

 

21 Q. Straight, simple. All right.

 

 

22 If I looked at map accuracy, overall

 

 

23 accuracy, 80.9 percent for the 12 class map, would that

 

 

24 be just doing that for every single one of the

 

 

25 classifications, again as a simple math on that, or is

156

 

 

1 it more complicated than that?

 

 

2 A. No, it's pretty simple. What you do is

 

 

3 look at the diagonal of the numbers that were correct.

 

 

4 Q. Oh, I never thought of that. Look at

 

 

5 that.

 

 

6 A. All right?

 

 

7 Q. Neat.

 

 

8 A. All right.

 

 

9 So I add those up up and you have 241, you

 

 

10 take that percentage of that and that's the overall.

 

 

11 Q. Kaboom. That's marvelous, that's great.

 

 

12 When we were discussing earlier accuracy

 

 

13 with regard to 20 class map, you had stated there was a

 

 

14 minimum number of 19 that was necessary, okay; is that

 

 

15 correct?

 

 

16 A. Right.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 Does that change if -- when you go down to

 

 

19 the 12 class map?

 

 

20 A. No.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 The only reason -- it could just be that

 

 

23 you added this to a class, but Class No. 6 in the 12

 

 

24 class map you only had 12 sites and you had run it for

 

 

25 that particular class?

157

 

 

1 A. Well, you should have proofreaded (sic) my

 

 

2 paper.

 

 

3 Q. Well, that's just -- that's just pure math

 

 

4 anyway, just reading across. That technically can be

 

 

5 done for every column. If I understand you correctly,

 

 

6 for statistical significance you have to have 19 or

 

 

7 more samples. Is that essentially what' you've

 

 

8 determined?

 

 

9 A. Yes.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Now, with regard to the categories, I see

 

 

12 that you have on the immediately preceding page that

 

 

13 we've been looking at is where you collapsed 20

 

 

14 categories down to 12 categories. But just so I

 

 

15 understand the -- either the 20 or the 12, I'm looking

 

 

16 at Page 19 of this exhibit which bears Bates No.

 

 

17 1220437, and with regard to sawgrass/cattail dense, if

 

 

18 I understand the description you have there, which is a

 

 

19 mixture of Cladium jamaicense and Typha domingensis,

 

 

20 vegetative cover excludes aquatics greater than or

 

 

21 equal to 60 percent. In that category if, for

 

 

22 instance, the combined cattail/sawgrass was 90 percent,

 

 

23 it would fit within Category No. 4; isn't that correct?

 

 

24 A. If it was 90 percent?

 

 

25 Q. Of cattail/sawgrass, that would clearly

158

 

 

1 fit within that category?

 

 

2 A. Yes.

 

 

3 Q. All right.

 

 

4 What if it was 80 percent sawgrass and 10

 

 

5 percent cattail and 20 percent open water, that would

 

 

6 still be in Category 4?

 

 

7 A. Yes.

 

 

8 Q. What about the opposite, 10 percent

 

 

9 cattail, 80 percent sawgrass, 20 percent water?

 

 

10 A. Yes.

 

 

11 Q. What about the lower end of that, for

 

 

12 instance, what if it's one percent cattail, 89 percent

 

 

13 or 95 percent sawgrass and 4 percent water?

 

 

14 A. I believe it was 10 percent -- I'd have to

 

 

15 go back and look.

 

 

16 Q. Where would you look to see that?

 

 

17 A. Notes. I'm not -- Les probably has it,

 

 

18 that determination.

 

 

19 Q. Do you recall, since you have looked

 

 

20 through a fair amount, not in great detail, I

 

 

21 understand that, but you have looked through a fair

 

 

22 amount of documents that were produced, do you know

 

 

23 whether or not that would be reflected in what you sent

 

 

24 to us or produced to us?

 

 

25 A. I don't think so.

159

 

 

1 Q. But as you sit here you recall it being

 

 

2 approximately a 10 percent cutoff?

 

 

3 A. I think so.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 So, for instance, in either direction, if

 

 

6 it was 5 percent cattail and 95 percent sawgrass, that

 

 

7 would be marked as a pure sawgrass stand?

 

 

8 A. You might almost determine this from the

 

 

9 ground truth data sheets what the cutoff was. I think

 

 

10 we only -- it might even be down to 5 or 10 percent,

 

 

11 but I don't recall.

 

 

12 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

13 Does the same analysis hold true for

 

 

14 sawgrass/cattail sparse?

 

 

15 A. (No response.)

 

 

16 Q. And by that I mean if, for instance, only

 

 

17 a 50 percent coverage and it's cattail and sawgrass, it

 

 

18 could either be 40 percent sawgrass and 10 percent

 

 

19 cattail or the opposite 10 percent sawgrass and 40

 

 

20 percent cattail?

 

 

21 A. Yes.

 

 

22 Q. All right.

 

 

23 Now, with regard to Category No. 6, that

 

 

24 one is, you know, perhaps this might be alone, but

 

 

25 that's very specific as to how many -- how that

160

 

 

1 sawgrass/cattail/brush is divided up. That's not just

 

 

2 any combination of them, if I understand correctly.

 

 

3 A. Right.

 

 

4 Q. All right.

 

 

5 It's greater than or equal to 70 percent

 

 

6 sawgrass and less than or equal to 30 percent cattail

 

 

7 brush, or cattail or brush?

 

 

8 A. Right.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 What would happen if you had 60 percent

 

 

11 cattail and -- I don't care, let's just hypothetically,

 

 

12 so we understand, 60 percent cattail -- excuse me,

 

 

13 sawgrass. 30 percent or 20 percent cattail, and 20

 

 

14 percent brush. Where would that show up in this?

 

 

15 Well, before I ask that hypothetical,

 

 

16 would you ever find a community like 60 percent

 

 

17 sawgrass, 20 percent cattail and 20 percent brush?

 

 

18 A. I'm sure it's possible.

 

 

19 Q. Do you recall ever seeing anything like

 

 

20 that?

 

 

21 A. I've seen vegetation mixed in all

 

 

22 different amounts.

 

 

23 Q. All right.

 

 

24 Given that, where would -- if I came

 

 

25 across this out in the field, where would I put that?

161

 

 

1 A. I need a pen.

 

 

2 Q. I'm sorry.

 

 

3 A. What now? 60 sawgrass, 20 cattail, 20

 

 

4 brush you want this? 60, 20, 20.

 

 

5 Q. Sawgrass/cattail/brush.

 

 

6 A. Okay.

 

 

7 I don't see a place to put that. That's

 

 

8 probably a function of we're not finding that

 

 

9 particular combination in our ground truth sites.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 In the larger, if you go to larger

 

 

12 categories, would it fall in? I mean you obviously

 

 

13 have the detailed description of larger -- the 12 class

 

 

14 map, under a 12 class map, how would I determine the

 

 

15 description of the classes?

 

 

16 A. Well, you -- like for sawgrass, you know

 

 

17 that it's basically dense, moderate, and sparse

 

 

18 vegetation. You just would take the present class map

 

 

19 and combining it all together and that would equal

 

 

20 sawgrass in the 12 class map.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 So for instance, when -- the one I just

 

 

23 gave, 60 percent sawgrass, 20 percent cattail, 20

 

 

24 percent brush, would that just fall into No. 2?

 

 

25 A. Well, I can't put it in anywhere, because

162

 

 

1 we didn't have that percentage as an actual ground

 

 

2 truth site, those percentages, so we didn't make a

 

 

3 category for it.

 

 

4 Q. Okay.

 

 

5 How did you, for No. 6, again, as I said 6

 

 

6 is perhaps the most detailed of your descriptions.

 

 

7 MR. CESARANO: On here, on this

 

 

8 classification?

 

 

9 THE WITNESS: 19?

 

 

10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yes.

 

 

11 MR. CESARANO: Okay.

 

 

12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

13 Q. How did you come up -- for Classification

 

 

14 No. 6 on the 20 class, how did you come up with these

 

 

15 percentages?

 

 

16 A. Basically we would have looked at 129

 

 

17 ground truth sites and we -- from that we best

 

 

18 determined what we could break out as far as being

 

 

19 classes. And basically we used that information to --

 

 

20 gathered information to seed the original multispectral

 

 

21 imagery to come up with unique statistical data. At

 

 

22 that point we didn't know if this was indeed unique.

 

 

23 When we actually looked at it using the ellipse command

 

 

24 when we ran ellipses, when we do the bands, red versus

 

 

25 infrared or red versus green band, we tried to see if

163

 

 

1 that would make it unique, and that's -- basically that

 

 

2 process drove it to the 19 classes.

 

 

3 Q. All right.

 

 

4 Now, if -- could you look at, pull out for

 

 

5 a moment No. 8, yeah. There it is, right in front of

 

 

6 you. And I'd like you to go to Bates Page 1220027.

 

 

7 Is that an original one that you have with

 

 

8 you?

 

 

9 MR. CESARANO: That might be mine.

 

 

10 THE WITNESS: That's not the original.

 

 

11 Nobody has the original except for me.

 

 

12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 Let me just -- we have a copy. Have you

 

 

15 experienced -- I mean you've got copies of this before,

 

 

16 but notice how the colors aren't coming out exactly the

 

 

17 same. Is that just a function of the copying?

 

 

18 A. Yeah.

 

 

19 Q. As far as -- have you experienced that?

 

 

20 A. I think so.

 

 

21 Q. Okay. All right. It's difficult for us

 

 

22 to tell.

 

 

23 Looking at -- looking at the 1991 map on

 

 

24 this page, where is the brush here? Where did you see

 

 

25 brush?

164

 

 

1 A. Personally I don't ever look at my data

 

 

2 like this.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 A. This is -- this for a final representation

 

 

5 of something to show because we can't give them a

 

 

6 computer, so they can say give me all brush out of

 

 

7 this.

 

 

8 Q. What, for instance, if you're looking at

 

 

9 the actual photo digital set, you just type in brush

 

 

10 and it comes on screen without any other colors?

 

 

11 A. Basically that's pretty much it, yeah.

 

 

12 Q. Okay.

 

 

13 To your recollection then, since we don't

 

 

14 have that capability right here, on the 1991 map, as I

 

 

15 understand this, the 1991 map is based upon your WCA-2A

 

 

16 paper; is that correct?

 

 

17 A. Right.

 

 

18 Q. Looking at the southern end of WCA-2A, is

 

 

19 that cattail or is it that brush do you recall?

 

 

20 A. On this map it's it's cattail.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 And if I understand your analysis of your

 

 

23 2A paper, that carries approximately an 80.9 or 80

 

 

24 percent accuracy of that being cattail all down there?

 

 

25 A. No.

165

 

 

1 Q. All right. Then I don't understand.

 

 

2 What accuracy would there be with regard

 

 

3 to cattail in that area?

 

 

4 A. Why don't we use the map that I generated

 

 

5 as opposed to the one that Jensen generated, because I

 

 

6 don't want to speak for his map.

 

 

7 Q. All right. Yours has 12 colors, it's

 

 

8 harder to see. All right.

 

 

9 Well, using yours, which would be on

 

 

10 page -- hold on, let me get to that. That's on Rutchey

 

 

11 Exhibit 1, and I believe you're directing us to your

 

 

12 Page 18, Bates Page 1220436?

 

 

13 A. That's correct.

 

 

14 Q. All right.

 

 

15 Now, are you able to tell from this --

 

 

16 again the lower half of that, that's cattail?

 

 

17 A. That's what that map is depicting.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 And under the overall accuracy, if I

 

 

20 understand it correctly, that means that 80.9 or 81

 

 

21 percent accuracy of that cattail, that lower half?

 

 

22 A. No.

 

 

23 Q. What is the accuracy of that cattail?

 

 

24 A. Okay.

 

 

25 Let's go back to this. I'm just going to

166

 

 

1 point something out here going from the 20 class map to

 

 

2 the 12 class map. We put a stipulation in here and in

 

 

3 our -- in the authors' view that there is on Page 9,

 

 

4 page nine, third paragraph down.

 

 

5 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

6 But whether or not it's monotypic, there

 

 

7 is an 81 percent chance you have cattail in that area?

 

 

8 A. That's an 81 percent chance that if I go

 

 

9 for any pixel or location within this entire classified

 

 

10 image that it will be, correct.

 

 

11 Q. All right. Let me do it a different way.

 

 

12 Drawing your attention to a couple of

 

 

13 pages earlier than that, or is it perhaps just one page

 

 

14 earlier, your page 17 of Exhibit 1, Bates 1220435, this

 

 

15 actually has the cattail sparse and cattail moderate

 

 

16 indicated; is that correct?

 

 

17 A. That's correct.

 

 

18 Q. All right.

 

 

19 And if I understand correctly, what

 

 

20 percentage then chance is there this accurately

 

 

21 reflects the cattail that you found in the southern

 

 

22 half of 2A?

 

 

23 A. Well, if you look at user accuracy for the

 

 

24 12 class map, overall we have 72 percent so there's a

 

 

25 72 percent chance that if you go to an area that says

167

 

 

1 cattail that it's going to be correct in a 12 class

 

 

2 map.

 

 

3 Q. Okay. 12 class map. All right.

 

 

4 Is that 72 percent though influenced by

 

 

5 the overall accuracy of mapping the dense cattail?

 

 

6 A. I would say that that's possible.

 

 

7 Q. With regard to the transition zones where

 

 

8 you have sawgrass and cattail mixed -- and again, as I

 

 

9 understand it, this will not indicate whether we're

 

 

10 dealing with, you know, five percent sawgrass and 95

 

 

11 percent cattail or 95 percent sawgrass and 5 percent

 

 

12 cattail -- you have around a 60 percent chance of that

 

 

13 being accurate?

 

 

14 A. To which one now?

 

 

15 Q. I'm talking about the 20 class map. The

 

 

16 sawgrass and cattail mix. And we're talking dense or

 

 

17 sparse, either/or.

 

 

18 A. It appears to be about 62 for the dense

 

 

19 and 58 for the sparse.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Now the dense is located, let's see that's

 

 

22 No. 4. Is that, the dense located primarily, if I read

 

 

23 your map correctly, up below the 10 structures and then

 

 

24 a portion of it below the 7 structures?

 

 

25 A. Yes.

††††㈳††⁹潵爠浡瀠捯牲散瑬礬⁵瀠扥汯眠瑨攠㄰⁳瑲畣瑵牥猠慮搠瑨敮ഊഊ††††㈴††⁡⁰潲瑩潮映楴⁢敬潷⁴桥‷⁳瑲畣瑵牥猿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††奥献ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱㘸ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††佫慹

168

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 And now the No. 6 -- and again, I'm -- I

 

 

3 apologize, but I'm dealing only with colors as opposed

 

 

4 to on a computer I'd be doing something different. Do

 

 

5 I understand correctly with 6, with the

 

 

6 sawgrass/cattail/brush, that is primarily below the

 

 

7 S-10D and S-10C, and that then also again to the east

 

 

8 of the S-7?

 

 

9 A. (No response.)

 

 

10 Q. If I'm reading the colors correctly.

 

 

11 A. I would say it's below all three

 

 

12 structures in this region or here, the mid section

 

 

13 going from north to south, south of these structures

 

 

14 and then...

 

 

15 Q. And you're -- because there's some there,

 

 

16 is that what you're saying?

 

 

17 A. Now you said we're on sparse, right?

 

 

18 Q. I'm looking at No. 6, what I thought I had

 

 

19 mentioned was sawgrass/cattail/brush.

 

 

20 A. Okay. All right. Yes.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 But -- so that's essentially, for the most

 

 

23 part, that's below S-10D and C and then to the right of

 

 

24 S-7?

 

 

25 A. Right.

†††′㐠††匭㜿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††剩杨琮ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱㘹ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††佮⁴桯獥

169

 

 

1 Q. On those areas, if I read the description

 

 

2 correctly, are greater than or equal to 70 percent

 

 

3 sawgrass and the remainder is a mixture of cattail and

 

 

4 brush?

 

 

5 A. That's correct.

 

 

6 Q. And the gray which surrounds it goes then

 

 

7 further down, a mixture of sawgrass and cattail without

 

 

8 any means of determining the percentages. Did you

 

 

9 attempt to -- I mean, for instance, in going out and

 

 

10 doing your sampling, did you attempt to break apart or

 

 

11 get more specific in the sawgrass/cattail mixes?

 

 

12 A. As stated previously, I can't recollect if

 

 

13 the 31, if the additional 31, 32 additional classes

 

 

14 that we went out, whether that was --

 

 

15 Q. I didn't explain myself well. In the 20

 

 

16 classes you have sawgrass/cattail mix dense and

 

 

17 sawgrass/cattail mix sparse, these are 4 and 5.

 

 

18 A. Okay.

 

 

19 Q. But the dense and sparse actually refers

 

 

20 to the overall vegetative cover as opposed to the

 

 

21 percentages between cattail and sawgrass. Do you

 

 

22 understand what I'm saying?

 

 

23 A. No.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Well, the description on sawgrass/cattail

170

 

 

1 dense says vegetative cover excluding aquatics, is

 

 

2 greater than or equal to 60 percent.

 

 

3 A. Okay.

 

 

4 Q. But it does not get into a breakdown

 

 

5 between how much is cattail, how much is sawgrass.

 

 

6 A. Okay.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 So, for instance, on sawgrass/cattail

 

 

9 dense, if I was mapping sawgrass it would probably be

 

 

10 fair to include that as sawgrass if I look at change in

 

 

11 sawgrass, because for all we know, 85 percent of it

 

 

12 could be sawgrass with 15 percent cattail, or likewise,

 

 

13 if I was looking at mapping cattail I could do it the

 

 

14 other way, because I don't know if it's 85 percent

 

 

15 cattail or 15 percent sawgrass. Where would you fit it

 

 

16 in if you were going to analyze sawgrass and cattail

 

 

17 change?

 

 

18 A. Fit what in?

 

 

19 Q. That category, sawgrass/cattail mix.

 

 

20 A. It could be in this -- okay, dense, it's

 

 

21 greater than 60 percent and it's a composite of

 

 

22 sawgrass and Typha domingensis.

 

 

23 Q. Dense is just referring to percentage

 

 

24 cover, not percentage cover of cattail or percentage of

 

 

25 sawgrass?

171

 

 

1 A. That's correct.

 

 

2 Q. Just vegetative cover?

 

 

3 A. Right.

 

 

4 Q. Did you attempt at all to see if you

 

 

5 could, spectrally with the imagery, identify

 

 

6 classifications within the mix, sawgrass/cattail for

 

 

7 instance, greater than 50 percent sawgrass, less than

 

 

8 50 percent cattail?

 

 

9 A. No.

 

 

10 Q. You didn't attempt to do it at all, or

 

 

11 just it couldn't be done?

 

 

12 A. We used, on the original 129 ground truth

 

 

13 data sites, the information from that to determine

 

 

14 these classes. And I -- we didn't try to break it down

 

 

15 out by density function because, as you can see from

 

 

16 the 12 and 20 class map, when you start breaking things

 

 

17 out, single species or mixed species by how dense they

 

 

18 are, you know, you end up having more error.

 

 

19 Q. But, for instance, we were just looking --

 

 

20 that's what I tried to see, if we could draw any

 

 

21 conclusions in No. 6, the sawgrass/cattail/brush

 

 

22 mixture which if there's a large stand of -- it's in

 

 

23 the middle of sawgrass/cattail mixture, we know that's

 

 

24 over 70 percent sawgrass; right?

 

 

25 A. Yes.

††††㈳††⁴桥楤摬攠潦⁳慷杲慳猯捡瑴慩氠浩硴畲攬⁷攠歮潷⁴桡琧猍਍ਠ†††′㐠††潶敲‷〠灥牣敮琠獡睧牡獳㬠物杨琿ഊഊ††††㈵††††††䄮††奥献ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††‱㜲ഊഊ††††‱††††††儮††佫慹

172

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Where would I find the initial 30 classes?

 

 

3 Is that somewhere around? The computer originally

 

 

4 generated it, I think it was.

 

 

5 A. Yes, it's in digital.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Did you -- when the computer generated

 

 

8 that 30 it didn't say Class 1 sawgrass dense, I mean it

 

 

9 just says here are 30 classes, is that --

 

 

10 A. That's correct.

 

 

11 Q. All right.

 

 

12 Did you -- you went off to the field, you

 

 

13 look for these 30 sites, essentially try to pick 150,

 

 

14 you got down to 129. Did you literally end up with 30

 

 

15 specific classes you identified?

 

 

16 A. No.

 

 

17 Q. I don't think -- I'm maybe not explaining

 

 

18 myself. I guess the question is, did you at one point

 

 

19 actually have 30 defined classes which you then

 

 

20 narrowed to 19 plus the periphyton, or did you -- did

 

 

21 you just determine you could only identify 19 classes

 

 

22 then plus periphyton?

 

 

23 A. I did an unsupervised classification,

 

 

24 broke it down out into 30 clusters, used that ground

 

 

25 truth I used for analysis and applied it to the

173

 

 

1 supervised classification and came up with a final

 

 

2 classified map composed of 19 classes.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 So there are 30 -- that's why I was,

 

 

5 perhaps when I was asking the question I kept saying 30

 

 

6 classes, you use clusters, now that's a distinction you

 

 

7 were drawing?

 

 

8 A. Yes. There weren't 30 classes, there were

 

 

9 30 clusters. Classes, clusters, the word can be used

 

 

10 interchangeably in the analysis.

 

 

11 Q. But 30 clusters weren't defined as, for

 

 

12 instance, those descriptions of what the classes are?

 

 

13 A. No.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Based upon your review of ellipses --

 

 

16 remember we talked about that -- do you recall whether

 

 

17 or not you can actually break apart these mixtures of

 

 

18 sawgrass/cattail whether you can break it down into --

 

 

19 into whether you have over 50 percent cattail, less

 

 

20 than 50 percent cattail sawgrass?

 

 

21 A. It's possible, but I just used the 129

 

 

22 original ground truth site information, that's what I

 

 

23 used. I didn't try to go in and break out density

 

 

24 functions within -- well, I take it back. I did try

 

 

25 that, but I found that's where a lot of error can occur

174

 

 

1 if you try to break out the density function of a

 

 

2 single class such as sawgrass dense, moderate, sparse.

 

 

3 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

4 Looking at the map, the final map of the

 

 

5 12 classes which is on Page 18, again, I'm dealing with

 

 

6 colors, it's difficult to tell, tree island there

 

 

7 actually appears, I guess from both of our maps, there

 

 

8 are only a few communities up in northern 2A that are

 

 

9 still classified as tree islands?

 

 

10 A. Tree islands, right.

 

 

11 Q. And there's no way to -- well, I guess

 

 

12 there is. Where is Exhibit 1? This isn't a color one.

 

 

13 Well, the ellipsoid or teardrop shaped

 

 

14 areas that appear to be tree islands out in the middle

 

 

15 of 2A, those are no longer healthy tree islands?

 

 

16 A. I would say no.

 

 

17 Q. Are those primarily cattail or brush or

 

 

18 what are they?

 

 

19 A. I would say they're composed of tree

 

 

20 island, sawgrass brush mixture 1, where if we were

 

 

21 going to use the 12 class map we'll -- you'd say

 

 

22 sawgrass brush, possible tree island and those are the

 

 

23 two major ones.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Looking at Exhibit 8 for a moment, I

175

 

 

1 apologize for jumping back and forth, but your work was

 

 

2 the foundation for 8, so I need to at times go back and

 

 

3 forth to understand what was done.

 

 

4 On Page 20, which is Bates No. 1220020,

 

 

5 there is a calculation by hectares of the brush,

 

 

6 brush/cattail, cattail/sawgrass and sawgrass/cattail.

 

 

7 Is that something you also did in relation to your

 

 

8 mapping of of 2A?

 

 

9 A. Yes, basically it's Table 2, page 20.

 

 

10 Q. On Exhibit 1?

 

 

11 A. Exhibit 1.

 

 

12 Q. But that --

 

 

13 A. The numbers in parentheses represent

 

 

14 hectares.

 

 

15 Q. Thank you. All right.

 

 

16 I need to switch gears for just a moment

 

 

17 with regard to the Exhibit 8. And I believe you had

 

 

18 stated you had provided Dr. Jensen with the five

 

 

19 digital data sets for the five maps, okay.

 

 

20 Did you ever do any analysis of those maps

 

 

21 to determine vegetative mapping from them?

 

 

22 A. Just the 1991, 8-10-91, my data set.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 Did you ever review his work to determine

 

 

25 its accuracy or understand it?

176

 

 

1 A. No.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Have you ever worked with the LandSat MSS

 

 

4 imagery?

 

 

5 A. Very briefly.

 

 

6 Q. Okay. When was that?

 

 

7 A. Back initially, probably 1987, when I

 

 

8 first started looking at remotely sensed data sets I

 

 

9 just basically was looking at it, trying different,

 

 

10 various image processing techniques on it.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 And am I correct you selected the SPOT

 

 

13 imagery over the LandSat MSS for a reason?

 

 

14 A. Yes.

 

 

15 Q. What was that reason?

 

 

16 A. Better resolution.

 

 

17 Q. With a 20 by 20 as compared to 79 meters

 

 

18 by a 79 meter picture?

 

 

19 A. That's correct.

 

 

20 Q. You had mentioned that during the period

 

 

21 of time, '81 through '85, you had done some vegetative

 

 

22 mapping with using helicopters. Did you ever -- I

 

 

23 believe you stated that it was contained primarily in a

 

 

24 report out here. Have you ever attempted to compare

 

 

25 your mapping from the helicopter to the maps in the --

177

 

 

1 in your report which is Exhibit 8?

 

 

2 A. No.

 

 

3 Q. Okay.

 

 

4 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

5 record.)

 

 

6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

7 Q. Just a few questions from my notes with

 

 

8 regard to the data you sent to Dr. Jensen.

 

 

9 You stated you sent to him the data from

 

 

10 the 129 site visits or site investigations. Did you

 

 

11 also send him the data from the 241 field sites?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Okay. There was perhaps an inaccuracy in

 

 

14 my notes.

 

 

15 Now, this is sort of a broad question, but

 

 

16 without going into it heavily, in Exhibit 5, in the

 

 

17 laboratory notebook we were looking at -- and there's

 

 

18 really no need to pull it out, but how -- the 9 pixel

 

 

19 often had more than one vegetative class in the pixel.

 

 

20 However, when you went and produced a map similar to,

 

 

21 for instance, the one on Page 17 of Exhibit 1, Bates

 

 

22 No. 1200435, you don't see that much in the way of

 

 

23 variation. There is some, but how does the computer,

 

 

24 when it's doing colors, just take a predominant, like

 

 

25 within a, for instance, a 9 pixel, how does it do that,

178

 

 

1 create the map?

 

 

2 A. The final -- all that is going through an

 

 

3 algorithm. It's a -- it's a smoothing out of the

 

 

4 entire -- it takes out the salt and pepper effect so

 

 

5 that visually it looks pleasing, as you know, if you --

 

 

6 Q. As opposed to just a scattering of colors,

 

 

7 little dots?

 

 

8 A. Right, right. And that's perfectly

 

 

9 acceptable, that's what everyone does. It's -- we

 

 

10 still have the original digital data.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 I would assume then that when you

 

 

13 calculated the hectares or hectares or whatever the

 

 

14 correct pronunciation is of each category, that was

 

 

15 based upon the 20 by 20 pixels, not the smoothed or how

 

 

16 do you --

 

 

17 A. It's based on the unsmooth data, right.

 

 

18 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

19 With regard to -- and perhaps this is

 

 

20 going off the 2A paper, but with regard to Exhibit 8,

 

 

21 Dr. Jensen's collaboration with you, who selected the

 

 

22 four additional dates to look at?

 

 

23 A (No response.)

 

 

24 Q. You had the data, I believe you testified,

 

 

25 but who went back and selected those dates?

179

 

 

1 A. I believe he did. It wasn't me.

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 You didn't participate in that selection?

 

 

4 A. No.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 As a follow-up on the -- on the GPS, when

 

 

7 I believe you went -- said you went to a number of

 

 

8 known benchmarks, is that what they're called, or known

 

 

9 stations with known positioning accuracy; is that

 

 

10 correct?

 

 

11 A. Right.

 

 

12 Q. When you did that would you hover or would

 

 

13 you land at those sites?

 

 

14 A. Those sites we actually went to physically

 

 

15 on the ground.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 And in the helicopter would you always

 

 

18 hover or would you land?

 

 

19 A. I would say that we didn't do it every

 

 

20 single trip.

 

 

21 Q. You lost me.

 

 

22 A. We didn't actually go to a known control

 

 

23 every single trip out of all the trips we took. It was

 

 

24 intermittently throughout the process.

 

 

25 Q. When you were using a helicopter and

180

 

 

1 visiting 129 sites or, for instance, 241 sites, did

 

 

2 you, in the helicopter, would you ever land or would

 

 

3 you always just hover over the site?

 

 

4 A. Hover.

 

 

5 Q. Drawing your attention to Exhibit 1, Page

 

 

6 9 and if you see at the bottom there it says

 

 

7 interpretation of final maps, I want to draw your

 

 

8 attention immediately preceding that there is a

 

 

9 discussion there with the regard to the -- the

 

 

10 difficulties caused by the bright signature of floating

 

 

11 periphyton. And you conclude that there may be

 

 

12 infrequent times when periphyton is either absent or

 

 

13 submerged which would mask this problem.

 

 

14 Are any particular times you had in mind

 

 

15 that would be -- would allow for that problem to be

 

 

16 avoided or perhaps lessened?

 

 

17 A. Oh, okay.

 

 

18 Q. I didn't let you get to the page, did I?

 

 

19 A. Yeah. I would say in South Florida

 

 

20 periphyton tends to float in the summer months, and in

 

 

21 the winter, depending on hydrology of the area, could

 

 

22 be totally absent if there -- if the area gets pretty

 

 

23 dry, even then though it could, if it goes dry, it

 

 

24 forms almost like a calcareous, crusty surface that's

 

 

25 white in appearance.

181

 

 

1 Q. Would winter months then be a -- perhaps a

 

 

2 time when you would have less of the brightness from

 

 

3 the periphyton?

 

 

4 A. It's possible. If there's water on,

 

 

5 covering it, most of the area, then it would be at

 

 

6 the -- most likely at the bottom. Not too much of it

 

 

7 floats up in the winter months. But the drawback of

 

 

8 collecting satellite imagery in the middle of winter is

 

 

9 that vegetation isn't at its best as far as

 

 

10 differentiation. It will sometimes, if we have a

 

 

11 freeze, it tend to all brown out and look the same.

 

 

12 Whereas, in spring, and up almost through early fall,

 

 

13 you have a unique differentiation in spectral

 

 

14 characteristics of vegetation, it's at its most robust

 

 

15 growing stages.

 

 

16 Q. Are there particular times of the year

 

 

17 then that for different vegetative classes it would be

 

 

18 better to look at?

 

 

19 A. In my opinion, from spring to early fall

 

 

20 is the best.

 

 

21 Q. For all classes?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Other than periphyton?

 

 

24 A. Yeah.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

182

 

 

1 A. Periphyton is not really a vegetation,

 

 

2 it's like an algae.

 

 

3 Q. But periphyton can mask during that period

 

 

4 is what you were saying?

 

 

5 A. Yes.

 

 

6 Q. Okay.

 

 

7 Spring meaning what?

 

 

8 A. I'd say, depending on the previous winter,

 

 

9 it's going to depend on freezes, it would be as early

 

 

10 as March and go as late as, again depending how cold

 

 

11 fronts move through, it gets as late as September

 

 

12 November.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 And would that hold true with regard to

 

 

15 cattail and sawgrass then, that during the -- for

 

 

16 instance, you did August, would that be about the best

 

 

17 time, in your opinion, for distinguishing cattail and

 

 

18 sawgrass?

 

 

19 A. I would say in that range. If you look at

 

 

20 all the preceding data the hydrology and cold fronts.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 A. That happens to be worse time of the year

 

 

23 to, also to acquire satellite data in South Florida.

 

 

24 Q. Because of the cloud cover?

 

 

25 A. That's right.

183

 

 

1 Q. Having done this, is there a particular

 

 

2 class of vegetation that you believe is the easiest to

 

 

3 map in the Everglades?

 

 

4 A. Well, I looked at it as a total project,

 

 

5 mapping the vegetation. I wasn't looking for any one

 

 

6 particular species to map. I wanted a clear picture of

 

 

7 what was there on the ground before I started doing

 

 

8 this work. And we did just look at specifying things

 

 

9 like cattail. This is like back when I first started

 

 

10 learning image processing, when we were doing it and we

 

 

11 would try to pick out one specific species. People do

 

 

12 that. But on this project I looked at everything as

 

 

13 equal and I just wanted to do a realistic

 

 

14 representation of what was on the ground.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 Well, see if we are doing this clever

 

 

17 technique, looking at the diagonal, looking at the 12

 

 

18 category map, looking at Page 21 of Exhibit 1, Bates

 

 

19 No. 1220439. I have to add up these numbers again.

 

 

20 If you add up on this wonderful diagonal

 

 

21 all the numbers, you come up with 195. Which, of

 

 

22 course, then if you divide 241 you actually come up

 

 

23 with 80.91 percent, which is exactly what you have,

 

 

24 80.91 percent. Now, if I exclude Category 1, in other

 

 

25 words, your mapping of sawgrass from that, I take 195

184

 

 

1 correct identifications, subtract out 99 which leaves

 

 

2 me with 96 correct identifications, and then divide

 

 

3 by -- I assume I divide by 140; is that correct? 241

 

 

4 less 101 or do I -- is it 241 less 99?

 

 

5 A. You'll have to tell me, because I wouldn't

 

 

6 do this.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 Well, I'm just trying to look at your

 

 

9 overall accuracy for all categories, for all categories

 

 

10 but sawgrass. How would you tell me --

 

 

11 A. For sawgrass?

 

 

12 Q. No, for everything but sawgrass. I want

 

 

13 to know what the accuracy is.

 

 

14 A. I don't think I can tell you just looking

 

 

15 at this data that's provided.

 

 

16 Q. Well, why not? What else would you need

 

 

17 to know?

 

 

18 A. Because this data is looking at the whole

 

 

19 entire area, I mean not looking at one specific

 

 

20 species.

 

 

21 Q. Well, user accuracy, you've used simple

 

 

22 math to tell me it's 70 percent accurate at mapping

 

 

23 sawgrass/cattail and 72 percent at cattail, and that's

 

 

24 again just using simple math. I'm just trying to, if

 

 

25 you take out sawgrass, determine what would be the

185

 

 

1 overall accuracy for all other species.

 

 

2 A. I don't know how to determine that.

 

 

3 Q. Couldn't you just take out the sawgrass

 

 

4 category?

 

 

5 A. I'm not sure.

 

 

6 Q. Well, let me ask you this, if your

 

 

7 instruction was to map every category but Category 1,

 

 

8 would you come up with the same map, just with a lot of

 

 

9 blanks in there?

 

 

10 A. How would I map everything but Area 1?

 

 

11 How would I know how to mask it out in the imagery if I

 

 

12 didn't know what it was?

 

 

13 Q. Well, you can identify it, but I'm saying

 

 

14 once you identified it you can mask it out. Could you

 

 

15 go to the computer and ask it to give you a map of

 

 

16 Categories 2 through 12?

 

 

17 A. Yes, that is after the fact, after I've

 

 

18 classified it.

 

 

19 Q. Yes, I understand that, okay.

 

 

20 And once you have that map, could you

 

 

21 determine what the accuracy of those categories are?

 

 

22 A. I'm not -- I'm not sure.

 

 

23 Q. Okay.

 

 

24 A. This gets into some pretty heavy

 

 

25 statistics. I'd have to go back and read. It might --

186

 

 

1 it might be simple statistics, but I'm not going to

 

 

2 guess.

 

 

3 Q. Well, I'm not asking you to guess, but I'm

 

 

4 just saying how would you go about determining accuracy

 

 

5 of your mapping of Category 2?

 

 

6 A. On the 12 class map?

 

 

7 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

8 A. My accuracy?

 

 

9 Q. Um-hum.

 

 

10 A. I would say it's 70 percent.

 

 

11 Q. But you did that by saying that out of 50

 

 

12 sample you were able to -- 35 were mapped correctly; is

 

 

13 that right?

 

 

14 A. Right.

 

 

15 Q. You just divided it out?

 

 

16 A. Right.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 What about with regard to Category 5?

 

 

19 What's the accuracy?

 

 

20 A. 72.

 

 

21 Q. Okay.

 

 

22 You did that based upon out of 36 samples

 

 

23 26 were correct; is that correct?

 

 

24 A. That's correct.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

187

 

 

1 Now with regard to overall accuracy of all

 

 

2 12 categories, that's 80.9 percent; is that correct?

 

 

3 A. That's correct.

 

 

4 Q. And you did that by adding up all the

 

 

5 correct hits which were 195 and dividing by 241?

 

 

6 A. That's correct.

 

 

7 Q. All right.

 

 

8 Now if I want to know just Categories 2

 

 

9 through 12, wouldn't I follow the exact same thing

 

 

10 you've done following the rows,, et cetera, just add up

 

 

11 everything but Category 1 and divide by the number of

 

 

12 attempts?

 

 

13 A. I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and

 

 

14 read.

 

 

15 Q. Well, what you would read?

 

 

16 A. I want to know what's the legitimate thing

 

 

17 to do. You're telling me. You're not an expert, so I

 

 

18 don't know if your way of looking at is correct. And I

 

 

19 don't know in my head if it's correct, so I'm not going

 

 

20 to say that you're correct.

 

 

21 Q. Okay. All right. Fair enough.

 

 

22 If you reclassed 2 through 12 as one class

 

 

23 similar to your reclassifying the 20 classes into 12

 

 

24 classes, all right, so now you end up with a 2 class

 

 

25 map --

188

 

 

1 A. Now say that one more time.

 

 

2 Q. You reduced your 20 classes into 12

 

 

3 classes; is that correct, by adjoining certain classes?

 

 

4 A. That's correct.

 

 

5 Q. What if we reclass a 12 class map into 2

 

 

6 classes, one being Category 1 and other one being

 

 

7 Category 2, and Category 2 being what is currently

 

 

8 Categories 2 through 12. Would you then be able to

 

 

9 determine the user accuracy for your new Category 2?

 

 

10 A. I wouldn't do that.

 

 

11 Q. Well, you did 12 from 20.

 

 

12 A. Because it made sense to take like species

 

 

13 or same species that have different densities within

 

 

14 the environment and clump it together. It doesn't make

 

 

15 sense to take different species of vegetation and clump

 

 

16 them together. That just doesn't make sense to do

 

 

17 that. Why would I do that?

 

 

18 Q. Well, why did you start with 20 classes

 

 

19 instead of 12 if there weren't differences between the

 

 

20 classes?

 

 

21 A. Because I worked with all the ground truth

 

 

22 information I had available to me and came up with the

 

 

23 initial 19 and added one additional, came up with 20

 

 

24 class map.

 

 

25 Q. Okay.

189

 

 

1 Then why reduce down to 12? If you saw

 

 

2 distinctions between 20 different classes why did you

 

 

3 just go down to 12?

 

 

4 A. Because I wanted to see if the error that

 

 

5 was associated, the margin of error that was associated

 

 

6 in the 20 class map was a function of trying to break

 

 

7 out the densities, characteristics of individual

 

 

8 species such as sawgrass, dense, moderate and sparse.

 

 

9 I wanted know from that the problem. That, in my mind

 

 

10 that made sense, because it's all one species and is

 

 

11 the satellite imagery able to tell that boundary of

 

 

12 density within that species and --

 

 

13 Q. But sawgrass dense, moderate, and sparse

 

 

14 had your highest accuracy in the 20 class map?

 

 

15 A. That's correct.

 

 

16 Q. Well, then, how could that account for

 

 

17 your inaccuracy -- let me rephrase, maybe I

 

 

18 misunderstand what you were saying.

 

 

19 Why would you collapse down sawgrass if it

 

 

20 has the highest accuracy in 20 classes?

 

 

21 A. I didn't just do it for sawgrass. I did

 

 

22 cattail, sawgrass/cattail mixture, whatever the other

 

 

23 ones that are shown on Page 20 of Exhibit 2.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 Well, look at the 20 class map which is

190

 

 

1 the Category 1, it had sawgrass dense, 91 percent

 

 

2 density; is that correct?

 

 

3 MR. CESARANO: The 12 or the 20?

 

 

4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

5 Q. The 20.

 

 

6 A. The 20.

 

 

7 Q. Yeah, the overall accuracy is better than

 

 

8 12 class. I'm just talking about overall accuracy of

 

 

9 the 12 class map.

 

 

10 A. I don't think you can look at it that way.

 

 

11 Q. Okay. Why not?

 

 

12 A. I'd have to read about that. You're --

 

 

13 you're comparing a single species classification

 

 

14 accuracy to the overall accuracy of the collapsed map

 

 

15 of the same original work. You're trying to make a

 

 

16 comparison, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

17 Q. All right.

 

 

18 Would it have improved the overall

 

 

19 accuracy of the map if you had combined categories,

 

 

20 original Categories 4 and 5, which included sawgrass,

 

 

21 with sawgrass in the 12 category map?

 

 

22 A. I thought we broke it out based on things

 

 

23 looking similar. And sawgrass is unique and we

 

 

24 considered sawgrass/cattail to be unique. And when we

 

 

25 collapsed them we kept all the sawgrass together and

191

 

 

1 when we collapsed sawgrass/cattail we kept it

 

 

2 altogether.

 

 

3 Q. Well, I understand that, but you also

 

 

4 thought it was unique when you prepared the map using

 

 

5 20 categories, didn't you?

 

 

6 A. Yes, it was unique.

 

 

7 Q. But you had three different categories for

 

 

8 sawgrass, sawgrass/cattail dense, sparse and then

 

 

9 sawgrass/brush, all three of these being unique

 

 

10 categories.

 

 

11 A. That's correct.

 

 

12 Q. All right.

 

 

13 Then I'm at a little bit of a loss as to

 

 

14 why collapse them if they're unique.

 

 

15 A. To see -- I'll answer this again, this has

 

 

16 already been asked and answered, but I wanted to see if

 

 

17 the inaccuracies that the 20, original 20 class map was

 

 

18 trying to break out density functions within a single

 

 

19 species such as sawgrass dense, moderate and sparse.

 

 

20 And that was where most of my error was associated

 

 

21 with.

 

 

22 Q. Okay.

 

 

23 But you didn't just break out the single

 

 

24 species. I guess that's where I'm getting confused,

 

 

25 because you also combined other species into one class,

192

 

 

1 for instance sawgrass/cattail mixture is combined three

 

 

2 different ones which include brush.

 

 

3 A. But it's also all similar. So sawgrass

 

 

4 dense, moderate, and sparse goes to 1, sawgrass,

 

 

5 sawgrass/cattail mixture dense and sparse and

 

 

6 sawgrass/cattail/brush mixture go to sawgrass/cattail.

 

 

7 It makes sense. I don't understand what your problem

 

 

8 is at this point.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 Well, what did you conclude then going

 

 

11 from 20 to 12 was the inaccuracy of the map due to

 

 

12 attempts to distinguish between dense and sparse

 

 

13 vegetation?

 

 

14 A. Overall accuracy was appreciably increased

 

 

15 by 10 percent. But, I have to go back and read this.

 

 

16 When you look at KAPPA statistics there's a test that

 

 

17 you can see if there's a significant difference between

 

 

18 the two maps.

 

 

19 MR. CESARANO: Page 7 or 6?

 

 

20 THE WITNESS: It's a pairwise test. I'm

 

 

21 going read it almost word to word. If you look

 

 

22 at Page 6, at the bottom, last two paragraphs,

 

 

23 and then top of the Page 7 that explains what

 

 

24 I'm -- if you want me to read it, I'll read it.

 

 

25

193

 

 

1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

2 Q. Okay.

 

 

3 Is your conclusion that there is a

 

 

4 difference, statistical difference between the two?

 

 

5 A. No.

 

 

6 Q. All right.

 

 

7 I guess it's no significant difference?

 

 

8 A. That's correct.

 

 

9 Q. All right. Okay.

 

 

10 I guess my question then is, why did you

 

 

11 include the 12 vegetation map?

 

 

12 A. I thought it was a matter of interest to

 

 

13 people who were interested in this kind of research to

 

 

14 see the method that I used to determine that this

 

 

15 overall process of looking at the two maps and

 

 

16 considering the density function within a species might

 

 

17 have been a cause for my error in my initial map. I

 

 

18 wanted to show the steps I went through to try to show

 

 

19 what I did and I think it was -- well, it got accepted

 

 

20 for publication, so I think they thought it was

 

 

21 interesting.

 

 

22 Q. Is it based upon though -- that there's no

 

 

23 statistical difference, does that mean then the 20

 

 

24 category map is as accurate as 12 category map?

 

 

25 A. I would say that's a fair statement.

194

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 Why didn't you use the 20 categories to

 

 

3 Exhibit 8, the -- Dr. Jensen's study with you?

 

 

4 A. You're going to have to ask Dr. Jensen.

 

 

5 Q. Let us move on to another area.

 

 

6 (Thereupon, Mr. Birch left the room.)

 

 

7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

8 Q. As I understand from this morning's

 

 

9 testimony, you've also been involved in vegetative

 

 

10 mapping of the Holeyland; is that correct?

 

 

11 A. Yes.

 

 

12 Q. When did you start doing that?

 

 

13 A. I think initially when we acquired the May

 

 

14 1992 SPOT satellite imagery.

 

 

15 Q. Had you done any other vegetative mapping

 

 

16 or analysis of the Holeyland prior to your obtaining

 

 

17 the SPOT imagery?

 

 

18 A. No.

 

 

19 Q. Let me look through my notes so I don't go

 

 

20 over it.

 

 

21 According to my notes I don't think we

 

 

22 really discussed the Holeyland, so I'm -- I'm trying

 

 

23 not to repeat myself, but after obtaining the May 1992

 

 

24 SPOT imagery, what did you do with regard to the

 

 

25 Holeyland?

195

 

 

1 A. I did some very preliminary data analysis

 

 

2 of the imagery. I rectified the imagery. I broke

 

 

3 something out of the imagery through that preliminary

 

 

4 process and then I just sort of stopped at that point.

 

 

5 Q. Okay.

 

 

6 Are you still attempting to map the

 

 

7 Holeyland?

 

 

8 A. I've heard recently that I might be put

 

 

9 back on that.

 

 

10 Q. Did you actually produce any type of

 

 

11 Holeyland vegetative maps?

 

 

12 A. Just -- just depicting cattail.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 What are those maps from?

 

 

15 A. Actual field reconnaissance using GPS.

 

 

16 Q. Is this in relation to the May 92 SPOT

 

 

17 imagery?

 

 

18 A. No.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 When did you do the mapping that you

 

 

21 produced of the Holeyland?

 

 

22 A. I don't have an exact date, but it's -- I

 

 

23 think our effort was in '92 or early '93.

 

 

24 Q. Would that be late '92, early '93?

 

 

25 A. I think so. I'm not positive.

196

 

 

1 Q. Okay.

 

 

2 You had identified this packet which is

 

 

3 Bates Nos. 1202773 through 2848 as part of the

 

 

4 Holeyland data. Is that related to your SPOT analysis

 

 

5 of the Holeyland?

 

 

6 A. Yes, this is -- this is the preliminary

 

 

7 work that we did.

 

 

8 Q. Okay.

 

 

9 Now that's different than your mapping

 

 

10 just using GPS?

 

 

11 A. That's right.

 

 

12 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

13 record.)

 

 

14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

15 Q. Did you also produce documents with regard

 

 

16 to Holeyland mapping outside of SPOT imagery?

 

 

17 A. Yes.

 

 

18 Q. Is that something that you identified this

 

 

19 morning?

 

 

20 A. I'm not sure.

 

 

21 Q. All right.

 

 

22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Mark that as 9.

 

 

23 (Thereupon, the document was marked

 

 

24 Rutchey Exb. No. 9 for Identification.)

 

 

25

197

 

 

1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

2 Q. All right.

 

 

3 Mr. Rutchey, I'm showing you what's been

 

 

4 marked as Rutchey Exhibit No. 9, which is a number of

 

 

5 Bates stamped documents bearing 1220441 through

 

 

6 1220583, and the first page of which has, appears to

 

 

7 again be a file folder stating Holeyland.

 

 

8 Why don't we have you put all this other

 

 

9 stuff we have in front of -- I guess that's yours.

 

 

10 (Thereupon, a discussion was held off the

 

 

11 record.)

 

 

12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

13 Q. And if you could go through this and tell

 

 

14 me -- well, just identify it for me, if you would, is

 

 

15 this -- are these documents related to your Holeyland

 

 

16 mapping just using GPS?

 

 

17 A. Yeah, I would say this is.

 

 

18 Q. All right.

 

 

19 I note that you've pulled out a number of

 

 

20 documents, those documents that you pulled out are not

 

 

21 part of that mapping effort?

 

 

22 A. (Shakes head side to side.)

 

 

23 Q. Is that right?

 

 

24 A. Yeah.

 

 

25 Q. Let me quickly read off the Bates numbers.

198

 

 

1 First item you've pulled out bears Bates

 

 

2 Nos. 1220491, through 494. And this is a December 6,

 

 

3 1993 memorandum from Garth Redfield. There is a single

 

 

4 page, Bates No. 1220465 and is a scale indicator of

 

 

5 WCA-2A vegetation. I assume this is part of that scale

 

 

6 analysis you're doing with Obeysekera?

 

 

7 A. That's correct.

 

 

8 Q. Next is Bates Page 1220526 and 1220527

 

 

9 which states Holeyland soils, 1990 and 1993.

 

 

10 Did you ever do a comparison of the

 

 

11 vegetation with the Holeyland soils?

 

 

12 A. No.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 Do you know if anyone else has?

 

 

15 A. Yes.

 

 

16 Q. Who has done that?

 

 

17 A. It's -- it's being looked at, it has been

 

 

18 looked at and it's still being looked at by a number of

 

 

19 people.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 Anyone within the District?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Who?

 

 

24 A. Sue Mewman, Tom Fontaine, me.

 

 

25 Q. Excuse me?

199

 

 

1 A. Ken Rutchey.

 

 

2 Q. Oh, I thought you said Mike --

 

 

3 A. Marie Pietrucha.

 

 

4 Q. Can I ask you to spell the last name?

 

 

5 A. I'll guess it. I should have said no.

 

 

6 P I E T R U C H A.

 

 

7 Q. Okay. Anyone else?

 

 

8 A. There are other people, but I don't know

 

 

9 their names.

 

 

10 Q. Anyone outside of the District that you're

 

 

11 aware of doing that?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. Who?

 

 

14 A. I don't know their names.

 

 

15 Q. Okay.

 

 

16 You mentioned that David Lane was looking

 

 

17 at transects below the S-10's. Do you know if he's

 

 

18 looking at the Holeyland?

 

 

19 A. No.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 And you say -- are you still currently

 

 

22 doing this?

 

 

23 A. Yes.

 

 

24 Q. Okay.

 

 

25 And where does -- where does that project

200

 

 

1 stand?

 

 

2 A. Parts of the paper have been written. And

 

 

3 basically we're in the data analysis part of the paper

 

 

4 at this point.

 

 

5 Q. Are you working with someone on that

 

 

6 project?

 

 

7 A. Yes.

 

 

8 Q. That is?

 

 

9 A. The people I just mentioned.

 

 

10 Q. Okay.

 

 

11 Sue Newman, Tom Fontaine, Marie Pietrucha

 

 

12 and yourself?

 

 

13 A. And I guess there's one other person,

 

 

14 George Shih is being involved too.

 

 

15 Q. Do you have a draft of that paper already?

 

 

16 A. I think that you have a draft introduction

 

 

17 to the paper and that's all that's been -- I don't know

 

 

18 if I saw that here. It's not in this pile. It's not

 

 

19 in this pile.

 

 

20 Q. All right. We'll try to take a look for

 

 

21 it on the break.

 

 

22 What are divisional responsibilities

 

 

23 between -- the division of responsibilities between the

 

 

24 five of you with regard to that particular project?

 

 

25 A. What is the division? I think Tom

201

 

 

1 Fontaine has taken the lead. Sue Newman's doing a lot

 

 

2 of data analysis and looking at all aspects of the

 

 

3 project, all components and George Shih is also helping

 

 

4 in that effort. And there's also, my latest

 

 

5 understanding is that there's a person outside the

 

 

6 District that's taking a look at that data.

 

 

7 Q. Do you know who that is?

 

 

8 A. I don't know his name.

 

 

9 Q. Okay.

 

 

10 A. My part, I wrote the introduction to the

 

 

11 paper. And I've put a lot of the data sets together

 

 

12 there that are being used in the analysis. And I'll

 

 

13 probably be involved in looking at the results. The

 

 

14 discussion session and conclusion, I believe, probably

 

 

15 all of us will be looking at them. Marie's mainly

 

 

16 looking at GIS aspects of it, making maps.

 

 

17 Q. Okay.

 

 

18 What are the components to the project?

 

 

19 A. Water quality, soil phosphorus or soil

 

 

20 chemical constituent data, vegetation, muck fires,

 

 

21 water supply and that's hydrology.

 

 

22 Q. With regard to vegetation, are you looking

 

 

23 at all vegetative types or just some specific species?

 

 

24 A. At this point it's just been specifically

 

 

25 cattail.

202

 

 

1 Q. Okay. Okay.

 

 

2 This all started with the two page

 

 

3 document 122526 and 527 which you have excluded. This

 

 

4 has soil P as part of the data you're using for that

 

 

5 project?

 

 

6 A. Yes.

 

 

7 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

8 And the next document you've taken out, or

 

 

9 two documents -- no, the document you've taken out of

 

 

10 that Holeyland pack is Bates No. 1223537 which is

 

 

11 Holeyland water quality monitoring network. All right.

 

 

12 That and that next one you've taken out is

 

 

13 Bates No. 122576 and then you have excluded 1220556

 

 

14 through 1220572, which are all in a file called

 

 

15 Holeyland vegetation map. What are these vegetation

 

 

16 maps?

 

 

17 A. I have them in the file, I got them from

 

 

18 someone, probably Dewey. I think this is an attempt by

 

 

19 the Department of Transportation to use, I believe it

 

 

20 was using MS data, LandSat data MS in December of 1982.

 

 

21 That's all I know about it.

 

 

22 Q. You've not used these for anything?

 

 

23 A. No.

 

 

24 Q. All right.

 

 

25 Then we're listing as Rutchey Exhibit No.

203

 

 

1 9, Bates No. 1224441 through 1220583 excluding those

 

 

2 Bates Nos. I just pulled out as documents that truly do

 

 

3 not belong in this file. Is that accurate, Mr.

 

 

4 Rutchey?

 

 

5 A. Your initial question was to pull out the

 

 

6 files that didn't pertain to the mapping of cattail.

 

 

7 Q. Okay.

 

 

8 A. And I pulled those out.

 

 

9 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

10 These were there for a different purpose

 

 

11 then?

 

 

12 A. Yes.

 

 

13 Q. That being?

 

 

14 A. That they were part of the overall

 

 

15 Holeyland project.

 

 

16 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

17 Well, for purposes -- I guess we'll just

 

 

18 include them then. I'll just put them at the bottom,

 

 

19 we can take care of the Bates Nos..

 

 

20 With regard to the Holeyland vegetation

 

 

21 project, given your work with the WCA-2A SPOT image of

 

 

22 2A, did you attempt to just use the classifications you

 

 

23 used there to map out the Holeyland?

 

 

24 A. You'd have to look at every scene that you

 

 

25 get. It's a unique scene. You cannot apply the

204

 

 

1 statistical information from one satellite imagery to

 

 

2 another. That depends, but...

 

 

3 Q. Well, do you have the same type vegetative

 

 

4 communities?

 

 

5 A. I would say there's similarities, yes. I

 

 

6 consider it to be a disturbed Everglades environment.

 

 

7 Q. Would you consider 2A to be a disturbed

 

 

8 Everglades environment?

 

 

9 A. Would I? I consider 2A to have an

 

 

10 impacted zone and a nonimpacted zone.

 

 

11 Q. Okay.

 

 

12 In the impacted zone, would you consider

 

 

13 that disturbed, since that's the term you used for the

 

 

14 Holeyland?

 

 

15 A. Yes.

 

 

16 Q. Okay.

 

 

17 And do you find -- you find sawgrass in

 

 

18 the disturbed zone in 2A; is that correct?

 

 

19 A. Yes.

 

 

20 Q. Okay.

 

 

21 And do you find sawgrass in the Holeyland?

 

 

22 A. Yes.

 

 

23 Q. Cattail in the disturbed zone in 2A?

 

 

24 A. Yes.

 

 

25 Q. Cattail in the Holeyland?

205

 

 

1 A. Yes.

 

 

2 Q. Sawgrass/cattail mixed in the 2A?

 

 

3 A. Yes.

 

 

4 Q. Mixed in the Holeyland?

 

 

5 A. Yes.

 

 

6 Q. Are there any vegetative communities that

 

 

7 you find in the Holeyland that are not in 2A?

 

 

8 A. Oh, I'd have to go -- I wouldn't say

 

 

9 there's what I would consider to be tree islands in the

 

 

10 Holeyland and polignum/brush mixture.

 

 

11 Q. You would not find that in the Holeyland?

 

 

12 A. Well, you might find it, but I don't

 

 

13 recall seeing it.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Is there anything in the Holeyland that

 

 

16 you wouldn't find in 2A?

 

 

17 A. Well, not that I -- they have typical

 

 

18 Everglades vegetation.

 

 

19 Q. Okay.

 

 

20 Then, given all of your work with ground

 

 

21 truthing that you did in 2A, could you use just SPOT

 

 

22 imagery and statistical analysis to just create cattail

 

 

23 map for the Holeyland?

 

 

24 A. No.

 

 

25 Q. Why not?

†⁎漮ഊഊ††††㈵††††††儮††坨礠湯琿ഊ‌†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††′〶ഊഊ††††‱††††††䄮††䉥捡畳攠

206

 

 

1 A. Because every satellite image that is

 

 

2 acquired, that satellite imagery acquired from space is

 

 

3 on a different day and every day has unique qualities

 

 

4 about it. The atmosphere, the angle of the acquired

 

 

5 satellite imagery. There's just a number of things

 

 

6 that could come into play, you cannot apply it, it just

 

 

7 isn't done.

 

 

8 Q. Well, okay. Can't you correct for the

 

 

9 atmosphere, the angle and all that?

 

 

10 A. You can do that over time if the areas are

 

 

11 in the same location, but not -- not separate

 

 

12 geographically. We're talking about two different

 

 

13 areas from each other.

 

 

14 Q. Okay.

 

 

15 Why would that matter?

 

 

16 A. Well, I'm not -- this is all technique in

 

 

17 change detection. It's not my expertise, and I'm not

 

 

18 going to get into all the -- my opinions of what.

 

 

19 Q. Can you try and do it?

 

 

20 A. No. You can't. You shouldn't do it. You

 

 

21 can't do that.

 

 

22 Q. All right.

 

 

23 Then looking at Exhibit 9, how did you do

 

 

24 your mapping?

 

 

25 MR. CESARANO: That's 9.

207

 

 

1 THE WITNESS: Okay.

 

 

2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

 

 

3 Q. I'm sorry, Composite 9.

 

 

4 A. Basically we used the original May 1992

 

 

5 satellite image. All we did was a preliminary analysis

 

 

6 of that data. We did not make a final vegetation map

 

 

7 from that. Basically what we did, and we're -- the

 

 

8 only one date of this whole cattail mapping project was

 

 

9 1992, we went out in the field, it was Les Vilchek,

 

 

10 myself and Sue Newman. And we encircled areas with the

 

 

11 GPS unit within the Holeyland and got basically their

 

 

12 boundary and we each independently estimated percentage

 

 

13 cover that we saw in a boundary. And then we compared

 

 

14 our results. I don't think we have deviated from each

 

 

15 other more than 10 percent. So from that we took an

 

 

16 average and came up with a percentage cattail within

 

 

17 each of those zones.

 

 

18 Q. Okay.

 

 

19 I see that you are looking at one of the

 

 

20 first documents in Exhibit 9, and that bearing Bates

 

 

21 No. 1200442 through 446, which is a memo from yourself,

 

 

22 Les Vilchek, Everglades Systems Research Division, to

 

 

23 Maura Merkal dated October 21, 1992; is that correct?

 

 

24 A. That's correct.

 

 

25 Q. All right.

208

 

 

1 Now, it's -- I'm looking at Bates page

 

 

2 1220445 of this Holeyland cattail distribution in 1992,

 

 

3 and G has 0.75 percent cattails, that's a large area

 

 

4 there?

 

 

5 A. Um-hum.

 

 

6 Q. What is that? I mean how does it equate,

 

 

7 for instance, to -- I don't know, number of cattails or

 

 

8 percentage of cattail within a percent acre, but number

 

 

9 of cattail within an acre, just a couple of plants?

 

 

10 What -- what does that mean?

 

 

11 A. The last number there in the table tells

 

 

12 us.

 

 

13 Q. Okay.

 

 

14 I'm just trying to visualize what .75 of 1

 

 

15 percent cattail means. Am I looking at an acre, a

 

 

16 representative acre, with just a couple sporadic

 

 

17 plants, is it just a different type of growth pattern

 

 

18 out there which resulted in this?

 

 

19 A. You would -- I mean you want to know how

 

 

20 much an acre, what --

 

 

21 Q. What would I see in area G?

 

 

22 A. I would take 43,560 square feet and

 

 

23 multiply it by, you know, the point -- I guess it would

 

 

24 be .0075, and that would be your answer of square feet

 

 

25 that you'd find in an acre.

209

 

 

1 Q. Would I find it though just interspersed

 

 

2 everywhere, individual plants?

 

 

3 A. Yeah.

 

 

4 Q. There wasn't, for instance, a growth --

 

 

5 clumps of cattail just interspersed?

 

 

6 A. That's possible too, but it wasn't big

 

 

7 enough to happen such as those other polygons. I mean

 

 

8 we're not mapping something less than significant.

 

 

9 We're not going to go after the clump of cattail and

 

 

10 try to delineate it. In this area it was pretty sparse

 

 

11 so we just --

 

 

12 Q. All right.

 

 

13 A. I'll estimate we -- I think we all came up

 

 

14 with like 1 percent or something.

 

 

15 Q. Less than one percent is essentially what

 

 

16 you called it?

 

 

17 A. I think we used the figure that Game and

 

 

18 Fish used in the previous mapping.

 

 

19 Q. Okay. All right.

 

 

20 A. Which map are we looking at?

 

 

21 Q. I was looking at this within Bates No.

 

 

22 1200445.