468

 1           DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
       DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
 2 
   
 3   SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE     )
     OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and  )
 4   WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,             )
                      Petitioners,      ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
 5        v.                            )
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
 6   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
 7                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
 8   FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;   )
     UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;   )
 9   and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,          )
                      Petitioners,      )
10        v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
11   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
12                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13   FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE        )
     ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;     )
14   W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,      )
     and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,           )
15                    Petitioners,      )
          v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
16   SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
     DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
17   of Florida; et al.,                )
                      Respondents.      )
18  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
                          100 S.E. 2nd Street
19                        Miami, Florida 33131
                          Wednesday, February 9, 1994
20                        8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
   
21               DEPOSITION OF RONALD D. JONES
   
22             Taken before BRIAN GARY BERKOWITZ, Shorthand
     Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
23   Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
     Deposition filed in the above cause.
24                          - - - - - - -

                                                 469

 1                       APPEARANCES
   
 2    ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS SUGAR CANE GROWERS
      COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC. AND
 3    WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.
   
 4         HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS
           123 South Calhoun Street
 5         Tallahassee, Florida 32314
           BY:  GARY P. SAMS, ESQ.
 6              WILLIAM H. GREEN, ESQ.
   
 7    ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE,
      INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., AND NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.
 8 
           EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A.
 9         One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
           Two South Biscayne Boulevard
10         Miami, Florida 33131
           BY:  WILLIAM L. HYDE, ESQ.
11              ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.
   
12    ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA
      WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
13 
           STANLEY J. NIEGO, ESQ.
14         South Florida Water Management District
           3301 Gun Club Road
15         West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
   
16    ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
17 
           SUZAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQ.
18         Assistant United States Attorney
           99 N. E. 4th Street
19         Miami, Florida 33132
   
20    ALSO PRESENT:
           B. J. PRESLEY
21         TRUMAN E. DUNCAN
           JOHN A. DAVIS
22 
                           -   -   -

                                                 470

 1                              INDEX
 2   Witness          Direct    Cross    Redirect  Recross
 3   RONALD D. JONES
 4   By Mr. Hyde       471
 5   By Mr. Sams                 503
 6 
 7                         JONES EXHIBITS
 8     Exhibit 60   Documents with Bates No. 8626       486
 9     Exhibit 61   Documents with Bates No. 9462       492
10     Exhibit 62   Group of documents                  503
11     Exhibit 63   Results produced by Battelle        542
12     Exhibit 64   Documents containing Appendix C     545
13     Exhibit 65   Documents with Bates No. 8058       556
14     Exhibit 66   Documents beginning
15                  "Environmental Parameters"          578
16     Exhibit 67   Barkay study                        589
17     Exhibit 68   Request to Dr. Soukup               594
18     Exhibit 69   Report by Rathi Kavanaugh           597
19     Exhibit 70   Report re Dr. Barkay                601
20     Exhibit 71   Contract                            605
21     Exhibit 72   Portion of a document               606
22     Exhibit 73   Letter from Mr. Finger              608
23     Exhibit 74   Document with blue cover            611
24                             -  -  -

                                                 471

 1   Thereupon --
 2                      RONALD D. JONES
 3   was called as a witness and, having been first duly
 4   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 5                    DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6   BY MR. HYDE:
 7       Q.    Dr. Jones, just to remind you once again,
 8   that you are still under oath.
 9             Dr. Jones, when we left off the other day,
10   you had committed to examining some of your files, at
11   least, and making some determinations as to some data
12   that we had been discussing, at least in a tabular
13   form, and I think it was Jones Exhibit No. 16,
14   yesterday.
15             Did you in fact go back and examine your
16   files?
17       A.    I did.
18       Q.    What did you do?
19       A.    I went back, pulled the data from the --
20   examined the appropriate folder, file folder, and
21   concur with your description of this data, as
22   representing analysis of samples collected along with
23   the sugar cane, with their exact entry and access into
24   Everglades National Park.
25       Q.    Just to be clear, so these were the samples

                                                 472

 1   that you took while you were on that entry and access?
 2       A.    These were the samples that I took after
 3   examining my notes, field notes.  I am not certain that
 4   I collected all of the soil samples.  Su Jewell may
 5   have collected a couple of the soil samples.
 6       Q.    Is Su Jewell someone who works with you?
 7       A.    She works with Loxahatchee National Wildlife
 8   Refuge.
 9       Q.    Was she taking the samples under your
10   supervision?
11       A.    At the time, if she would have collected any
12   of the samples, then she would not have been under my
13   supervision, because I would not have been along.
14       Q.    You mean you wouldn't have been along on the
15   helicopter?
16       A.    With her.  We went a number of days together.
17   On the days she would have collected those samples, she
18   would have done them on her own.
19       Q.    Did you bring that file folder with you?
20       A.    I brought the material that it contained.
21       Q.    Could we take a moment and examine that?
22       A.    Sure.
23             MR. HYDE:  Off the record.
24             (Discussion off the record.)
25             MR. HYDE:  We would like -- it appears to be

                                                 473

 1        DRJ Bates Nos. 00009462 through 9463, and then
 2        8601 through 8665.  That, apparently, is the
 3        extent of it.
 4             The other document is a notebook, I take it,
 5        of field notes, for lack of a better term, and it
 6        is DRJ Bates number 00009281 through 9284, and
 7        there's also a small map of South Florida
 8        included, which is Bates number 9285, DRJ.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  As you can see, Mr. Hyde, all
10        of these pages are Bates numbered and have been
11        turned over to you previously.
12             Dr. Jones is providing a courtesy second
13        copy.
14             MR. HYDE:  We appreciate that.  It's nice to
15        have them in one fell swoop, so they can all be
16        together for future analysis.
17             MR. HYDE:  Let's take a break here and make
18        copies.
19                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
20                  after which the following proceedings
21                  were had:)
22   BY MR. HYDE:
23       Q.    Dr. Jones, concerning your Loxahatchee
24   related sampling, could you please describe in a fairly
25   summary fashion, your part in the analysis of the

                                                 474

 1   samples taken during the League's sampling in the
 2   Refuge?
 3       A.    Samples were transported to my laboratory, by
 4   Refuge staff, and we then analyzed them in the normal
 5   manner that we would for either water or soil samples.
 6       Q.    Did you do the sampling yourself in the
 7   field?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Who did that for you?
10       A.    Refuge staff.
11       Q.    Could you be more specific?  Do you know who
12   those individuals were?
13       A.    I know that Su Jewell participated in that
14   sampling.  I do not -- and I know there were others.  I
15   don't know who they would be.
16       Q.    How did you handle the samples once they were
17   delivered to your lab?
18       A.    In the customary manner.  We generally would
19   place them in the refrigerators or freezers that we use
20   for storing the samples, if we were not going to be
21   doing the analysis immediately.
22             Generally, the samples were analyzed as
23   rapidly as they could be, so in some cases they would
24   not have received any kind of refrigeration or
25   freezing, because we would have started the analytical

                                                 475

 1   procedures at the time of sample receipt.
 2       Q.    How long did it take for the final ones, to
 3   get them completely done?
 4             I didn't say that quite right.  You just said
 5   that you tried to do that as quickly as possible.  How
 6   long did it take to do the whole batch?
 7       A.    There are certain steps in the process, which
 8   you can hold the samples indefinitely.  For instance,
 9   for soils, once they're dried and ground, there's no
10   appreciable changes in the phosphorus content, so that
11   time would vary.
12             It could be as rapidly as one to two days, or
13   it could have extended for a considerable period of
14   time, depending upon how busy we were in the
15   laboratory.
16       Q.    These were water samples, weren't they?
17       A.    They're water and soil samples.
18       Q.    They were.  Okay.
19             Dr. Jones, do your lab notes reflect how long
20   the water samples were held?
21       A.    The analysis date would be on the file, along
22   with the date of sample collection.  So, you could
23   determine that.
24             We would -- these were total phosphorus
25   samples, so, therefore, there is no -- it'S not

                                                 476

 1   critical as to when -- what length of time you hold the
 2   samples.
 3       Q.    Did you do any pre-treatment of the samples?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    Did you do anything to remove any detritus
 6   suspended solids from the samples?  We're speaking here
 7   about the water samples, obviously.
 8       A.    I understand.  These samples were not
 9   collected by myself or my staff, and therefore, some of
10   the samples contained material that they should not
11   have.
12             In one case there was a small fish in one of
13   the bottles.  We did not analyze the fish.  We did,
14   however, make a note that that sample was suspect.
15       Q.    Were the exact same procedures used on all of
16   these water samples?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    How many bottles were you given for each of
19   the sampling stations?
20       A.    I believe two.  I'm not -- not certain at the
21   moment.  Our general procedure is to collect duplicate
22   samples at every location.
23       Q.    Were the bottles treated differently?
24       A.    The individual -- no.  They were treated in
25   the same manner.

                                                 477

 1       Q.    You did analyze each bottle.  Is that
 2   correct?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    Did you turn over total phosphorus values for
 5   each of the samples?
 6       A.    I turned over the value for -- for that
 7   particular station, those particular sites.
 8       Q.    Do you have the replicate values for those
 9   particular stations?
10       A.    Machine output might still be in the folders.
11   Generally, we don't -- we don't produce that.  I
12   believe it's the same mechanism which the League has
13   turned their data over to us.  I don't know if that's
14   true for sure.
15       Q.    I've been advised that the League did provide
16   replicate values.  So, if it's possible, we would like
17   to obtain copies of the replicate values as well.  I
18   presume that wouldn't be too difficult an operation.
19   Would it?
20       A.    They're going to be buried amongst all the
21   other analysis we do for Florida Bay, White Water Bay,
22   the regular output, other students' projects and things
23   like that.  But I think there's -- you know, we
24   probably have computer forms from the output of the
25   machine that we could produce.

                                                 478

 1       Q.    We would like to get a copy of them.
 2       A.    Okay.
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  We would, of course, ascertain
 4        that you did give us the replicates.  I take your
 5        word that you did.
 6             MR. HYDE:  I was advised by Dr. Davis that we
 7        did.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  I have no knowledge whether you
 9        did or didn't.
10             THE WITNESS:  From my standpoint, I did not
11        see any machine output from them.
12             MS. PONZOLI:  It would be reciprocal.  If, in
13        fact, we did not receive your machine output with
14        the replicates, then you would provide that to us?
15             MR. HYDE:  Certainly.
16             We're talking about replicate values here as
17        opposed to machine output.  We don't need Dr.
18        Jones' machine output.  We just want the replicate
19        values.
20             THE WITNESS:  That would require me to go
21        back to all of the machine output, and pull the
22        samples and tabulate them.
23             MR. HYDE:  Okay.
24             THE WITNESS:  You're not going to receive
25        that in the next couple of weeks.

                                                 479

 1             MS. PONZOLI:  In other words, this is a long
 2        task, is what you are telling Mr. Hyde?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  It can take me several
 4        weeks to do this.
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  Of straight work.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Of going digging through the
 7        thousands of pages of material we have of machine
 8        output, yes.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Mr. Hyde, I'm going to attempt
10        to reconstruct what you did in fact turn over to
11        us, and if we in fact matched what you were
12        turning over, and it's going to take Dr. Jones two
13        straight weeks of personal work to bring this up,
14        then there may be a problem in producing it.
15             We will make an honest effort to produce it,
16        if it can be done easier, and if you have done
17        that in the past for us.
18             If not, then I think we will have to address
19        the problem again.
20             MR. HYDE:  Okay.  Let's just move on at this
21        point, but hopefully, we can resolve this fairly
22        easily.
23   BY MR. HYDE:
24       Q.    Were any parameters other than total
25   phosphorus, measured in these samples?

                                                 480

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Was the information that you turned over, a
 3   reflection of one of the samples, or was it an average
 4   of the two samples?
 5       A.    It would be an average of whatever samples
 6   were collected.  This data was only analyzed for the
 7   purpose of seeing whether the League's data was
 8   reasonable.  We didn't have any -- I have not looked at
 9   these data since the tabulation of this table.
10       Q.    Are the field notes that are presently being
11   copied, the field notes of that particular expedition?
12       A.    They are.  Well, I'm -- we have been talking
13   about Loxahatchee.
14       Q.    Correct.
15       A.    Then, the answer for that would be no.
16       Q.    Because you weren't the person that conducted
17   the field sampling efforts?
18       A.    That's correct.  The field notes may be
19   attached to the back of that entire file.  They would
20   be Su Jewell's notes, and I'm almost certain they were
21   attached to the back of those.
22       Q.    Have you, yourself, collected any samples at
23   any of the Refuge 16 sampling stations that are
24   identified?
25       A.    I have not, under this scenario.  In other

                                                 481

 1   words, I've been in the Refuge many times, and I may
 2   have been at one of those sites, and collected a
 3   sample.  I would not have been able to identify it as
 4   one of the 16 stations.
 5       Q.    So, you have visited one or more of these 16
 6   stations?
 7       A.    I've been over a large geographic area of the
 8   Refuge.  I'm just saying that I may very well have
 9   something that fits latitude and longitude.  I wouldn't
10   have any idea whether that represented one of the 16
11   stations or not.
12       Q.    So, you have analyzed other samples than the
13   samples that were collected by Ms. Jewell at this
14   League sampling effort?
15       A.    No.
16       Q.    Were you consulted by Ms. Jewell, or whoever
17   collected these samples, as to the proper method for
18   collection?
19       A.    I spent a day at the Refuge, instructing Ms.
20   Jewell on what I would consider to be appropriate
21   methodology for collecting these particular samples.
22             I'm not certain that she collected the
23   samples.  In some cases, for instance, on my entry into
24   the EAA, the samples that I collected, for instance,
25   were for the League, to my knowledge.  In some cases,

                                                 482

 1   were collected for Dr. Davis.  He would toss me the
 2   bottle and I would fill it up, and I don't know if that
 3   was -- as not being in the Refuge, I don't know what
 4   manner those samples were collected.  They may have
 5   been collected by Refuge staff, and they may not have
 6   been, now that I think of it.
 7       Q.    Have you compared the data collected in these
 8   samples, with the data collected by the League's
 9   consultants and the Water Management District?
10       A.    For the Refuge?
11       Q.    Yes.
12       A.    Briefly.
13       Q.    How well do you think they agree with each
14   other?  That's not a good way of putting it.
15             Are these data results consistent with each
16   other?
17       A.    There are certain consistencies.  There would
18   appear to be some inconsistencies, and those have not
19   been resolved.
20             I have given the data to Refuge staff, and I
21   am assuming that they are -- will be making those
22   interpretations, perhaps consulting with me, as to my
23   opinions on that, but that has not taken place yet.
24       Q.    Do you have any explanation as to these
25   apparent differences between the data samples?

                                                 483

 1       A.    Without -- I haven't gone into enough
 2   specifics to see whether there are really differences.
 3   I just say there appear to be some differences.  There
 4   appear to be a lot of consistency.  We have not made
 5   any kind of detailed discussion, so I don't have any
 6   opinion at this moment on that.
 7       Q.    The next question concerns any sampling
 8   efforts you might have done in the Refuge, since
 9   January of 1991.
10             Have you done any sampling there, other than
11   that which Ms. Jewell apparently did, on the League's
12   entry and access sampling effort?
13       A.    I may have, but I don't believe so.  That's a
14   fairly long period of time, and I'm having trouble
15   remembering '91 and '92 as to, you know, exactly what
16   locations I sampled in the EPA.
17       Q.    Dr. Jones, I'd like to ask you a few
18   questions about several of the specific documents that
19   are in that batch that are currently being copied.  The
20   first one is Bates number DRJ 8630.  Maybe I can just
21   provide it to you.
22             What I'm looking at here is in the final
23   column.  Under "TP concentration," there are several
24   values that were typewritten in, and then apparently
25   stricken through, and some changes were made to them.

                                                 484

 1             Can you explain what those changes are?
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  This document is among the ones
 3        that you are going to attach as a composite
 4        exhibit, as soon as the court reporter brings the
 5        copies back.  Is that accurate?
 6             MR. HYDE:  Yes, it is.
 7             MR. BLANK:  We believe so.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Why don't we make it an exhibit
 9        now, Mr. Blank?
10             THE WITNESS:  I don't know why it has two
11        sides.  None of the stuff I had, had two sides.
12             MS. PONZOLI:  We may have copied it that way.
13             MR. BLANK:  It was my understanding that the
14        file folder he turned over, was a part entry and
15        access file folder.
16             Did it have more at Loxahatchee, also?
17             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't know, but it's clear
18        from at least the way we keep our records, the
19        fact that those arrived Bates stamped, they were
20        all turned over to you.
21             You would have taken them, because we only
22        Bates stamped what you took, when we did that
23        supplemental production.  You took those
24        somewhere.
25             MR. BLANK:  These are our copies that we have

                                                 485

 1        right now.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  I mean the ones that are being
 3        copied presently by the court reporter, were also
 4        taken.
 5             MR. BLANK:  That may be.  Some of them were
 6        probably illegible, is why we needed other copies.
 7        The field note copies certainly were, what we got.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  I can't be responsible for the
 9        copier.
10             MR. HYDE:  We're not blaming you for that.
11             Can we take a brief break here and you can
12        check on the status of that copying effort?
13                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
14                  after which the following proceedings
15                  were had:)
16   BY MR. HYDE:
17       Q.    Dr. Jones, I'd like you to turn your
18   attention to the Loxahatchee data, specifically 8630.
19             MR. NIEGO:  Are we going to mark these?
20             MR. HYDE:  Yes.  Why don't we just say this
21        is composite Exhibit 60?
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Are you including the field
23        notes, or are they separate?
24             MR. HYDE:  We will do them separately.  I
25        think they're already in the record, anyway.

                                                 486

 1             MR. SAMS:  What number are you doing, Bill?
 2             MR. HYDE:  Let's just mark as Exhibit 60, the
 3        Loxahatchee data, beginning with Bates number
 4        8626, through 8663.  Excuse me, 665.  8665.
 5          (The document referred to was thereupon
 6   marked Jones Exhibit 60 for Identification.)
 7       A.    Yes, sir.  What page?
 8       Q.    8630.
 9             Can you explain to me, Dr. Jones --
10       A.    One moment, please.
11       Q.    I'm sorry.  It should be about four pages
12   back.
13       A.    I'm just about there.
14       Q.    As I was saying earlier, in the far right
15   column, under "TP concentration," there are some
16   handwritten values that are set forth in line one and
17   line five.
18             Can you explain to me what those are supposed
19   to represent?
20       A.    Yes.  It says, "Greater than 60 parts per
21   billion."
22       Q.    Why did you strike out these actual values
23   that were set forth in line one?  For example, 941.47.
24       A.    When I examined this data, as required, I was
25   being responsible for the numbers that are here before

                                                 487

 1   turning it over to Loxahatchee.  You see a number like
 2   941 or 947 or anything greater than -- I think probably
 3   anything greater than, under -- in this circumstance,
 4   right around 90 parts per billion, it indicates that --
 5   a machine overload, that there was an air bubble or
 6   something in that particular series of samples, so it
 7   went off scale, and since these have not been replaced
 8   with anything else, apparently, I was out somewhere at
 9   the time, and these samples were no longer recoverable.
10             In other words, we couldn't go back into the
11   refrigerator and pull out additional samples to rerun
12   these samples.
13             So, the only thing I could say is, it's
14   greater than 60.
15       Q.    Why did you choose 60?
16       A.    That's the -- let's see.  This is total
17   phosphorus in water.  Probably close to the value of
18   the -- the high standard, which was two micromolar.  It
19   doesn't mean you cannot measure values higher than
20   that, but I didn't ascertain what full scale was.
21   Probably it was greater than, you know, 89.18 or 89 --
22   something like that.  I don't know what that value
23   would be.
24       Q.    Also on that same page, under the first
25   column, H2O bottle ID, there is a 4 and 4-F, as well as

                                                 488

 1   an 8 and 8-F.
 2             Are these replicate values?
 3       A.    I don't know.  That's not my -- these kind of
 4   samples, again, were not collected by myself, and I
 5   don't know what the designations are.
 6       Q.    This is just the way the bottles were labeled
 7   when they came to you for analysis?
 8       A.    That's correct.  And these are the results of
 9   those analyses.
10       Q.    Do you have any idea as to who would know
11   whether they're replicate values?
12       A.    There are a series of field notes attached to
13   the back, and the person to ask would have to be
14   whoever collected them for the Refuge, which would
15   either be Su Jewell or whoever else.  I assume.  I'm
16   assuming these samples were collected by the Refuge.
17       Q.    On several other pages of the materials
18   you've turned over to us, there are similar match-ups,
19   8 and 8-B, 14 and 14-B, 19 and 19-B.
20             I can provide those pages to you, if you want
21   to look at them.  I think they're in -- actually, 8632
22   is another -- let me just ask you about Bates number
23   8632.  There are similar match-ups, under H2O bottle
24   ID, of 5, 5-A, 6, 6-A.  Do you know what they are?
25       A.    I do not.

                                                 489

 1       Q.    So, you don't know whether they're replicate
 2   values, either?
 3       A.    No, I don't.
 4       Q.    Dr. Jones, do you have any idea as to where
 5   these samples were taken as reflected on the front
 6   page, 8626?
 7       A.    I do not.
 8       Q.    Again, would that be, in all likelihood, Su
 9   Jewell or someone associated with her?
10       A.    Refuge staff.
11       Q.    Do you have any chain of custody forms or any
12   other records that would reflect such information?
13       A.    The samples are turned over by the Refuge to
14   us.  They would maintain any kind of -- they would know
15   who handles the samples, in our laboratory.  The
16   samples are handled by -- it would be rather silly to
17   have a chain of custody, to say they moved from one
18   room to the next.
19       Q.    All you did was analyzed the samples given to
20   you, and that's the extent of it?
21       A.    At this time, I have not been asked to make
22   any interpretation of this data.
23       Q.    Would that likewise be true about both the
24   sediment and the water sampling for the Loxahatchee
25   Refuge?

                                                 490

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    I just wanted to be clear.  Just one final
 3   question in this regard, just to clarify the point.
 4             Concerning all the information that's
 5   contained in the Loxahatchee total -- the Loxahatchee
 6   data, beginning with Bates number 8626, you didn't
 7   collect these samples and don't know where they were
 8   taken from.  Correct?
 9       A.    I did not collect the samples.
10             In this file, there are a number of samples
11   that I do know where they were taken from.  The samples
12   that have some other non-descript characteristic,
13   especially those that appear to have maybe reference
14   to, perhaps, League entry and access, I don't know
15   where those samples were taken from.
16             This file does contain samples that I do know
17   the location.
18       Q.    Could you give me some examples?  Would you
19   just identify what these samples are?
20       A.    They're rainfall collectors, for instance.
21       Q.    Could you identify a particular page?
22       A.    The first one would be 8633, DRJ.
23       Q.    Okay.
24       A.    That has got a series of rainfall collectors
25   on it.

                                                 491

 1       Q.    Are there any other that you know the
 2   location of?
 3       A.    There are additional samples with the same
 4   designation, "Rainwater."
 5       Q.    So, you would know all the rainwater samples?
 6       A.    Yes.  And I assume that some of the other
 7   samples, for instance, on DRJ 00008653, that has what
 8   would appear to be the 15 stations or 16 stations.  I
 9   mean, I assume that those numbers are referring to
10   that.
11             So, there are some things that -- I just
12   don't want the statement to be reflected in the record
13   as if I don't recognize any of this data.
14       Q.    Let me ask you, then, specifically, about
15   pages 8626 through 8632.  That's the first six pages of
16   the document.
17             Do you know the locations of those samples?
18             MS. PONZOLI:  It's been asked and answered.
19       A.    The first four pages, which have numerical
20   one through four at the bottom, typewritten in,
21   starting with 8626 and going through 8629, represent
22   sediment samples, and as I have answered previously, I
23   don't know what those samples represent.
24             You then went through, I believe, was it
25   through 8631?

                                                 492

 1       Q.    32.
 2       A.    Those samples have some consistency with it.
 3   It appears that they're water samples, that they may be
 4   from the 16 stations.  I just don't recognize, as I
 5   indicated before, all of the designations.  For
 6   instance, the Fs, and the A, and the questions that you
 7   have asked me, and I've answered before.
 8       Q.    Let me ask you to turn your attention now to
 9   pages 8645 -- 8646.
10             Do you know where these samples were taken?
11       A.    Other than, it says, "Loxahatchee," gives me
12   a date, and then it says, "Sawgrass/cattail mix, SG
13   plus W mix, C plus P, canal edge."  Those types of
14   things.
15             Other than that, no, I don't know what those
16   would be, without going and asking Refuge staff.
17             MR. HYDE:  Let's label the other group of
18        documents which begins with Bates number DRJ
19        00009462, as Exhibit 61.
20          (The documents referred to were thereupon
21   marked Jones Exhibit 61 for Identification.)
22   BY MR. HYDE:
23       Q.    I'd like you to turn your attention in this
24   document to DRJ 8620.
25             Beginning on that page is a collection of

                                                 493

 1   data, which concerns Loxahatchee total phosphorus
 2   surface water, and as you go into the next several
 3   pages, your sample bottle designation as reflected in
 4   this document, goes through 38.
 5             Can you explain to me the purpose of that
 6   numbering system, if you know?
 7       A.    Yes.  These are the results of my samples
 8   collected in the Everglades Agricultural Area, entry
 9   and access.
10             MS. PONZOLI:  I believe they are already an
11        exhibit in this deposition, Mr. Hyde.
12   BY MR. HYDE:
13       Q.    So, you know that the notation at the top of
14   the page, EAA, reflects the fact that it's really your
15   EAA samples?
16       A.    These pages are already an exhibit and have
17   been marked, and we've discussed them.
18       Q.    Dr. Jones, the record of your notebook, or
19   the copies of your notebook, is none too clear, even on
20   this particular draft, and it appears to be only three
21   pages.
22             Could you just quickly read that into the
23   record, for our benefit?
24       A.    Read the notebook?
25       Q.    Yes.

                                                 494

 1       A.    The original --
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Yes, you can read the original.
 3       A.    I have enough trouble with my handwriting,
 4   let alone when it's in that state.
 5       Q.    Obviously, just do it line-by-line, if you
 6   can.
 7       A.    I'm sorry.  I am not -- I have a bad eye, and
 8   I don't read well.
 9       Q.    That's quite all right.  Take your time.
10       A.    You will have to excuse me.
11             The first line says, "6/22/93, ENP nutrient
12   dosing site."
13             The second line says, "8:50 a.m., Davis,
14   Qualls, Dennis," I have "Gus," and I'm not sure whether
15   I've got his last name down there.  "Almos."
16   A-L-M-O-S.
17             The next thing, entry, is, next line, is
18   "2:15 p.m., L67, in dense cattail area, very atypical
19   of rest of system.  Sample number EP-11 H2O two sed."
20       Q.    S-E-D?
21       A.    S-E-D, period.
22             The next line says, "3:00 p.m. west of EP-1
23   in cattail area.  Sample number EP-2."  That was a line
24   immediately below that.  I'm sorry.
25             The next line is, "4:00 p.m., sawgrass, still

                                                 495

 1   in impacted area west of EP-2.  Sample number EP-3."
 2   Those were two lines.
 3             There's a blank line now.
 4             There's another line that says, "6/23/93,
 5   Davis, Qualls, Dennis, Richardson."
 6             The next line is, "9:15 a.m., S-332, Taylor
 7   Slough, cattail area, south of structure, pumping full,
 8   sample EP-4," and that was comprising three lines
 9   there.
10             The next line starts, "10:00 a.m.,
11   approximately 75M southwest:  Or SW, "of EP-4,
12   Eleocharis."
13             The next line is, "Marsh water only,
14   EP-5-soil is marl and peat mix.  Greater than 50
15   percent marl."
16             There's now another line, and it says, "11:00
17   a.m., approximately 500MN of EP-4.  Marl and
18   sawgrass - no cattail.  Complete cover of periphyton,
19   EP-6."
20             That was three lines there.
21             The next series of lines starts with, "11:30
22   a.m., approximately 1KM south of EP-4.  Sagittaria
23   Rhynchospora" -- I'm sorry.  That's either Rhynchospora
24   or it might be Rhyzophera, because I believe they were
25   mangroves, and so it could be that.

                                                 496

 1             "Some sawgrass, periphyton and marl soil,
 2   EP-7."
 3             That was, again, a series of three lines.
 4             The next notation begins, "1:45 p.m., south
 5   of EP-7, cattail, marl and bird rookery to south and
 6   north.  Sample EP-8."  Again, that was three lines.
 7             The next line begins, "2:30 p.m., W of EP-8,
 8   approximately 50M sawgrass, sample EP-9 H2O only."  Two
 9   lines.
10             The next line, or the next notation, begins,
11   "2:45 p.m., E of EP-8, approximately 200 meters,
12   sawgrass and Rhynchospora."  Or it may be "Rhyzophera."
13             "Sample, EP-10, H2O only."  And that ends
14   page DRJ 00009281.
15             The next page, DRJ 00009282, begins, "23 June
16   '93, continued.
17             "3:30 p.m., approximately 2KM N of TSB,
18   Eleocharis, marsh - center of slough, sample EP-11."
19             That was two lines there.
20             The next begins, "4:00 p.m., approximately
21   2KM, south of TSB Eleocharis."  I believe that's my
22   scrawl for, "Marsh, center of slough, sample EP-12."
23   Two lines.
24             Now the next begins, "5:10 p.m.,
25   approximately 3KM W of U. S. 1 on c-111, sawgrass, red

                                                 497

 1   mangrove, marl soil, sample EP-13, no soil."
 2             Three lines there, now begin with, "5:30
 3   p.m., approximately 3KM W of U. S. 1, off C-111, south
 4   of EP-13, approximately 3KM, sawgrass, many dwarf reds,
 5   marl, soil, H2O only, sample number EP-14."  And
 6   there's a blank line.
 7             We go to "24 June, 1993.  Davis, Qualls,
 8   Richardson and Birch.
 9             "8:55 a.m., approximately 100M S of S-12C,
10   yuck," exclamation point.  "Sample number EP-15."
11             That was two lines.
12             "10:05 a.m., approximately, 100M S of first
13   culvert, east of S-12C, number EP-16 only water."
14             The next series of lines, "11:15 a.m.,
15   approximately 700 meters W of S-12C - humongous
16   sawgrass.  Number EP-17 H2O only."
17             Then there's a blank line.
18             "25 June, 1993, Davis, Qualls, Richardson,
19   Birch, Jewell and Anderson."
20             Given the legibility of this handwriting, I
21   am assuming that these are notes written by Su Jewell.
22             MS. PONZOLI:  If they're notes written by Su
23        Jewell and not your notes, --
24             MR. HYDE:  I would still like to have it read
25        into the record, because the copy is still poor.

                                                 498

 1             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't mind, but you need to
 2        understand that he is interpreting someone else's
 3        handwriting.
 4             MR. HYDE:  So noted.
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  If you are going to ask someone
 6        else to do that same task, I suggest we wait and
 7        have them do it.
 8             MR. HYDE:  I don't know that we will.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Can we stipulate that's not
10        going to happen?
11             MR. HYDE:  No.
12             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm asking we not do it twice.
13             MR. HYDE:  I don't think it will happen
14        twice.
15       A.    Continue.  The next line reads, "08:30.
16   Number EP-18.  Approximately 6," she has .6, sorry, "M
17   south of 12C center, two grabs and one water.  Short,
18   sparse sawgrass."  That was two lines.
19             The next line starts, "09:35, number EP-19,
20   site is 100 feet," I believe is that notation.  There's
21   a single slash at the right-hand corner of that number.
22   "North of Ron's target, near trees.  1.4 miles south of
23   structure center.  Two grabs and one water.  Very open,
24   short sawgrass, rich periphyton, bedrock at surface,"
25   and that ends that page.

                                                 499

 1             We now go to page DRJ 00009283.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Are these continuing in what
 3        you believe to be Ms. Jewell's handwriting?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, they are.
 5       A.    It appears to be a "10/30, EP-203.3 miles
 6   south of last station, EP-19," in parentheses.  "In
 7   center, two grabs and one water, no target seen here.
 8   Very open, sparse, short sawgrass, and Eleocharis, four
 9   miles south of 12C."
10             The next lines begin, "11:45," it looks like
11   "EP," I'm assuming it is, "EP-21, 8.0 miles south of
12   S" -- no, I'm sorry, "of 12C, on center, two grabs, one
13   water, sparse, very open sawgrass."
14             That was three lines.
15             The next series -- the next series begins,
16   "14:20, EP-22, lateral one-quarter - one-half mile east
17   of EP-18.  One water sample only, no grabs.  Medium
18   density sawgrass, some Rhynchospora."
19             There's a blank line, and then we begin with
20   notes that were once again, recorded by myself.
21             The next line begins, "28 June, 1993, Qualls,
22   Davis, Richardson, Dennis."
23             The next entry begins, "08:30, west of EP-21
24   by 2MI, west of NDS in Eleocharis, sample EP-23, H2O
25   only."

                                                 500

 1             That was three lines.
 2             Beginning the next entry is, "10:12, east of
 3   EP-21, sawgrass marsh, sample EP 24, H2O only."  Two
 4   lines.
 5             The next entry begins, "11:50, W of," it
 6   looks like 4 something L, and I cannot read that at the
 7   moment.  You would have to -- I'm sorry.  I can't make
 8   that out.
 9             "EP-25.  Sawgrass and marl."  That was two
10   lines.
11             The next entry begins, "12:55, E of four mile
12   S-T" -- four mile station.  That must be mile, M, in
13   the previous line.
14             "Sample EP-26, H2O only."  Two lines.
15             Now the next line begins, "2:40 p.m., east of
16   EP-19, one-half MI, Pinnacle Rock, EP-27, H2O only."
17             Two lines, and the next entry begins, "3:45
18   p.m., W of EP-19, EP-28, H2O only."
19             The next line, "4:40 p.m., W of 18, 0.25MI,
20   sample number EP-29, H2O only."
21             Move on to the next page, which is DRJ
22   00009282.  It starts with the notation, "23 June '93,
23   continued."
24             The next entry is --
25       Q.    Excuse me, Dr. Jones.  I think you read DRJ

                                                 501

 1   9282, and I think you meant 9284.
 2       A.    I read 9282?  Did I -- 9281 -- I'm sorry, it
 3   was double-sided.  I'm sorry, I flipped the page back
 4   over the other way.
 5       Q.    Okay.
 6       A.    I was reading from page, the wrong page.
 7             I'm now on DRJ 00009284, and the first line
 8   of this page reads, "29 June, 1993, Davis, Richardson,
 9   Qualls, Dennis."
10             The next entry is, "EP-30, 9:00 a.m., Big
11   Cypress, south of Fill Road, approximately 200 feet,
12   H2O."
13             The next entry is, "9:40 a.m., approximately
14   250 feet west of EP 30, EP-31, H2O only."
15             The next entry, "10:35 a.m., approximately
16   500M east of EP-30, Rhynchospora and some sawgrass.
17   EP-32."
18             The next entry is, "11:25 a.m., approximately
19   200M S of EP-30, Eleocharis and sawgrass, EP-33, H2O
20   only."
21             The next entry is, "1:05 p.m., approximately
22   1KM west of EP-33.  Sample EP 34.  Eleocharis."
23   Something I don't recognize.  Sorry.
24             Then "Sagittaria," it looks like an
25   "EP-20" -- I'm sorry, "H2O only."  That's what it is.

                                                 502

 1             The last entry is, "1:30 p.m., approximately
 2   2KM south of EP-30, sawgrass, willow, sample EP-35."
 3             That finishes the notebook.
 4       Q.    Dr. Jones, can I safely presume that when you
 5   use the letter M, you mean meters?
 6       A.    When I use the letter M.  I can't attest to
 7   what Su Jewell did in her notes, when she used the
 8   letter M.
 9             MR. HYDE:  Thank you, very much.
10             I'm going to turn you over now to Mr. Sams.
11        I appreciate your patience.
12             MR. SAMS:  Did that receive an exhibit
13        number?
14             MR. HYDE:  We didn't mark it as an exhibit
15        number.
16             MS. PONZOLI:  It's previously in the record,
17        Mr. Sams.
18             MR. SAMS:  Can we go off the record and take
19        five minutes?
20             MR. HYDE:  Fine.
21                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
22                  after which the following proceedings
23                  were had:)
24             MR. SAMS:  Dr. Jones, good morning.  My name
25        is Gary Sams.  I'm a member of the law firm that

                                                 503

 1        represents the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative, and
 2        Wedgworth and Roth, who are parties to this
 3        proceeding.
 4             The first area I would like to ask you some
 5        questions about, is in the area of mercury, and
 6        I'm going to refer you to certain documents which
 7        were produced for us, I believe last week, in
 8        response to the notice to produce which we served
 9        in this case.
10             The first document appears to be composite
11        documents, a composite exhibit, and I believe it
12        will be number 62.
13          (The document referred to was thereupon
14   marked Jones Exhibit 62 for Identification.)
15                     CROSS EXAMINATION
16   BY MR. SAMS:
17       Q.    I'd like to ask you to examine it, please.
18             I believe all these were together when we
19   received them.
20             Can you tell me what the documents are here,
21   and whether they cover the same or different subjects?
22       A.    First let me state that this document was
23   produced a year ago, not last week.
24       Q.    Thank you.  With that correction.
25       A.    They in all likelihood were produced

                                                 504

 1   together.  This is not the complete contents of the
 2   file that this document, or this series of documents,
 3   would have been contained in.
 4       Q.    Is it your statement, however, that they
 5   would have been contained in the same file?
 6       A.    I believe so.
 7       Q.    Could you identify the document that appears
 8   on the first -- as the first page, and is printed in
 9   hand?
10       A.    I don't recognize the handwriting.  I'm not
11   saying it's not in my file.  I'm just saying I don't
12   recognize the -- I don't recognize the handwriting.
13   Nor do I recognize this particular document.
14       Q.    When you say you don't recognize the
15   handwriting, does that mean you don't -- you can't
16   identify the author?
17       A.    That's correct.
18       Q.    If we could skip the next page, and go to the
19   third page, could you identify that document for me?
20       A.    It's hard to identify it precisely, because
21   the description of the document, I believe, is obscured
22   by what looks like, perhaps, a Post-it or something
23   like that, up in the corner.
24             But I'm assuming that it's a portion of the
25   cooperative agreement between the United States

                                                 505

 1   Department of Interior, Everglades National Park, and
 2   Florida International University.
 3       Q.    Is this a draft?
 4       A.    I have no way of knowing whether it's a
 5   draft.  I can say that it's obviously not the final,
 6   signed copy of it, because there are no signatures on
 7   the second page.
 8       Q.    What was the purpose of this cooperative
 9   agreement?
10       A.    It says, "Master agreement."  We had for nine
11   years now, a cooperative agreement between Everglades
12   National Park and Florida International University, for
13   conducting of cooperative research and training.
14       Q.    I see in the second "Whereas" clause, the
15   reference to the desire to conduct research on water
16   quality to evaluate the enhanced presence of methylated
17   mercury in the food chain, et cetera.
18       A.    I'm sorry.  Where are you at?
19       Q.    The second "Whereas" clause.
20       A.    Okay.
21       Q.    Was that the specific purpose of this
22   individual document, to the best of your ability to
23   recall?
24       A.    I would assume that -- these are documents
25   that I don't prepare.  These are prepared by the

                                                 506

 1   National Park Service.  Their intent, I can't speak to.
 2       Q.    I believe you said that FIU and the Park
 3   Service, or the Park, have had a nine year existing
 4   master cooperative agreement.  Is that correct?
 5       A.    We're in the ninth year of that agreement, I
 6   believe.
 7       Q.    So, it would have commenced approximately
 8   1985?
 9       A.    About.  It's been renewed.  It's been renewed
10   once since then.  So, this is the second such agreement
11   that we've entered into with them, with the Park.
12       Q.    Did you have a role in developing the
13   agreement?
14       A.    The master agreement?
15       Q.    Yes.
16       A.    The original master agreement, I did not.
17   The second master agreement, I was the principal author
18   for FIU.  Well, I was the principal -- after we turned
19   it over to the attorneys and they did their stuff.
20       Q.    Did you have a role in developing this
21   particular cooperative agreement?
22       A.    Without -- there's an obscured portion of
23   this thing.
24       Q.    Perhaps I can cut through that.
25       A.    Yes.  That leaves me with a problem, because

                                                 507

 1   we do these things as subagreements, and I'm not
 2   familiar whether they're still using the subagreement
 3   routine, or whether it's a master agreement, or how
 4   they're doing it anymore in the Department of Interior,
 5   National Park Service.
 6       Q.    Would it help you to turn to the last two
 7   pages of this composite?
 8       A.    Master agreement.  It has, "Master agreement
 9   CA-5280-8-8007."
10       Q.    Correct.
11       A.    I believe that is -- doesn't have the -- the
12   Post-it note on it.  I'm not certain it's the same
13   thing, but -- the first page appears to be the same,
14   but the second page is definitely different, and it
15   would appear that the second page of the first document
16   is the final page of this.  So, I mean, they're -- I
17   think they were put together in the wrong order.
18       Q.    Let me refer you to the very last page of the
19   composite, and ask you if that appears to be the second
20   page of the cooperative agreement that we've been
21   discussing, which appears to be the third and fourth
22   pages?
23       A.    It's very possible, because of the
24   enumeration along the left-hand column, that it fits
25   with the -- with the numbers there.

                                                 508

 1             Now, that's --
 2       Q.    Assuming that's correct, does the information
 3   on that final page of the composite, help you to
 4   identify the subject study?
 5       A.    Yes, it does.
 6       Q.    Did you participate in developing that study?
 7       A.    Yes, I did.
 8       Q.    Was that study ultimately approved and
 9   funded?
10       A.    Yes, it was.
11       Q.    I note on, again, on the last page of the
12   composite, that the third paragraph identifies certain
13   deliverables and certain dates for interim and final
14   reports.
15             Were there interim and final reports
16   delivered by the dates indicated there?
17       A.    In the form of data turned over, yes.  The
18   final report -- this is an ongoing project, so it is
19   under continuation.
20       Q.    No text?  Just data?
21       A.    There are -- in the master agreement, which
22   you don't have here, I mean the master cooperative
23   agreement, there are a number of things that say how
24   reports and such -- what they may constitute.
25             Our general mechanism and the agreement we

                                                 509

 1   have in my particular laboratory, is that we do that in
 2   the form of scientific publications, abstracts,
 3   presentations and the like.
 4             So, we don't -- we do not prepare Everglades
 5   National Park reports, if you will, to be bound by the
 6   Park Service.
 7             So, this agreement has to be taken into
 8   context with the master agreement between Florida
 9   International University and the National Park Service.
10   Actually, between the State of Florida and the Park
11   Service.
12       Q.    If you could continue to refer to the last
13   page of the composite, below the two report dates, it
14   says, "A copy of all reports shall be submitted to
15   Everglades National Park," and names -- identifies the
16   official and address.
17             Were any reports other than data, submitted
18   to the Park?
19       A.    Like I said, this is a continuing project,
20   and I do not believe so.  In fact, I know there were no
21   reports submitted to the Park.
22       Q.    Were data submitted to the Park?
23       A.    Data were submitted to Dr. Michael Soukup,
24   and --
25       Q.    Were those data provided among the documents

                                                 510

 1   which were produced for us?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Could you recall from memory, the format in
 4   which those data were produced for us?
 5       A.    I mean, values of total mercury in water,
 6   values of total and methylmercury in soils and sediment
 7   of Everglades National Park, and Water Conservation
 8   Area 3A.
 9       Q.    I'll show you another document, and ask you
10   if those are the data that you are referring to?
11       A.    No.
12       Q.    Referring you again to the last page of the
13   composite exhibit, paragraph number 2, it appears to
14   provide for payment to FIU in an amount not to exceed
15   $341,871.
16             Is that the dollar amount for which this work
17   was performed?
18       A.    This work is under continuation.  It has
19   received -- there's additional funds placed into this
20   particular account.  Much of the work outlined in this
21   particular cooperative agreement has not been completed
22   for a number of reasons.
23       Q.    What are those reasons?
24       A.    Predominantly, the need to develop specific
25   analytical methods for working in Everglades soils and

                                                 511

 1   waters, for mercury analysis.
 2       Q.    Have those methods been developed?
 3       A.    We are, at the current time, working on them.
 4       Q.    When you refer to "we," to whom are you
 5   referring?
 6       A.    My research group at the University,
 7   particularly the -- those people associated with the
 8   mercury project.
 9       Q.    Anyone outside the University?
10       A.    The people in the Environmental Protection
11   Agency.
12       Q.    Who are the principal persons?
13       A.    Dr. Jerry Stober.
14       Q.    Is there anyone else at EPA, with whom you
15   deal particularly on this issue?
16       A.    For mercury?
17       Q.    Yes.
18       A.    Jerry would be my principal contact.  There
19   are people working for Jerry, that I have had times to
20   speak with, but --
21       Q.    Have any publications or reports other than
22   to the Park, been generated under this agreement?
23       A.    We have submitted two abstracts at this time,
24   one where I'm principal author, and another where, I
25   believe, Jerry Stober is principal author.

                                                 512

 1       Q.    To whom have you submitted the one of which
 2   you are the author?
 3       A.    It's for a conference occurring sometime
 4   later this year, and I'm sorry, I don't remember
 5   exactly which conference it would be.  It's in the
 6   documents.
 7       Q.    Do you know to whom Jerry Stober submitted
 8   his abstract?
 9       A.    To the same group.  We were both requested to
10   submit abstracts by Tom Atkeson, who is the State's
11   mercury coordinator.
12       Q.    Are those the only publications or written
13   reports that have been generated in connection with
14   this study?
15       A.    We have a standard operating procedure, SOP,
16   that, as I indicated the other day, has been produced
17   in the documents, would have been in the file with this
18   mercury material, and then the first draft of this
19   analytical paper that we're working on now, but that
20   has not been sent to the agency.
21       Q.    Are there any other reports or written
22   publications that have been produced in connection with
23   this study?
24       A.    Not to my knowledge.
25       Q.    Would you know if Mr. Stober had produced

                                                 513

 1   any?
 2       A.    No, I would not, unless he sent them to me.
 3       Q.    What is EPA's role in this ongoing study?
 4       A.    I think I indicated to you that they have
 5   supplemented this particular study.  It has grown from
 6   this initial document, and project, into a much
 7   expanded project.
 8             This particular effort involved Dr. Tamar
 9   Barkay at EPA, and the laboratory in Gulf Breeze.
10             Since that time, I'm no longer cooperating.
11   We're no longer working together on this project.
12             This is not the appropriate document to be
13   using, for me to try to describe what EPA's role is.
14   It's not contained in it.
15       Q.    I assume EPA has a role besides funding, but
16   tell me if that's correct or incorrect.
17       A.    Yes.  They do.
18       Q.    What role does Jerry Stober play in
19   connection with the study?
20       A.    Dr. Stober, I believe, is the person who is
21   essentially in charge of EPA's interests or aspects of
22   the, if you will, South Florida Mercury Study.
23       Q.    Does the Florida Department of Environmental
24   Protection, have a role in connection with this study?
25       A.    No, they do not.

                                                 514

 1       Q.    Does the South Florida Water Management
 2   District, have any such role?
 3       A.    No, they do not.
 4             I'm sorry.  They may be collecting some
 5   samples from structures for us to be analyzed in my
 6   laboratory.
 7       Q.    You say they may be.  Is that a future
 8   possibility?
 9       A.    I have sent bottles up to the district in
10   November, and they have yet to collect any samples and
11   send them to my laboratory, under this project.  So,
12   they may or may not collect them.  I don't know if they
13   will.
14       Q.    Did the FIU-National Park Service cooperative
15   study that's reflected in Exhibit 62, later evolve into
16   the EPA South Florida Mercury Study?
17       A.    No, it didn't.
18       Q.    Why are you in doubt about whether the South
19   Florida Water Management District will analyze the
20   samples that you referred to as having sent to them?
21       A.    They won't analyze them.
22       Q.    What is the doubt that you have about their
23   role?
24       A.    I just have not received any samples from
25   them, that they've collected yet, so, you know -- if I

                                                 515

 1   would have had, you know, a monthly or biweekly set of
 2   samples coming from the district, then I would know
 3   what their involvement is.  That this is an arrangement
 4   made by the EPA, not by myself.
 5       Q.    You referred to analytical methods that are
 6   still under development.  Without having developed the
 7   analytical methods, how were you able to complete the
 8   mercury analysis that's reflected in the data that you
 9   turned over on production?
10       A.    There are a number of different types of
11   mercury analysis.  The types of analysis that we made
12   for the production did not involve any of the
13   experimental methods, or they involved methodologies
14   which we had worked out prior to that time, and as I
15   pointed out, those are reflected in our SOP.
16       Q.    Within you refer to "they," are you referring
17   both to methods that had been worked out prior to that
18   time, and experimental methods, or only the latter of
19   those two?
20             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.  I think it's
21        confusing.  Do you understand?
22             THE WITNESS:  I do not understand.  I'm
23        sorry.
24   BY MR. SAMS:
25       Q.    It's an attempt on my part to elucidate an

                                                 516

 1   answer that was compounded, not necessarily
 2   grammatical.
 3             What I'm trying to learn, Dr. Jones, is, with
 4   respect to the experimental methods, first of all, were
 5   those ones that you relied on in developing the data
 6   that you have turned over?
 7       A.    Some of the data that I've turned over.
 8       Q.    What are those experimental methods, and if
 9   you can give me a general description, the data
10   produced by them?
11       A.    The primary experimental method would be the
12   measurements of methyl -- the organic species of
13   mercury in soils and water, development of extraction
14   techniques and things that work for the Everglades
15   system in particular.  And the data, to answer the
16   second part of your question, the data would be those
17   reflecting the analysis of organic mercury in sediment,
18   in water.  I should say the speciation.  I'm sorry.
19       Q.    When you refer to "speciation," are you
20   referring to methylated mercury?
21       A.    That would be one of the species.
22       Q.    Could you identify the others?
23       A.    There are a number of organic forms of
24   mercury, and we are able to identify a number of those
25   different forms.

                                                 517

 1             I can't identify, you know, exactly the --
 2   all of the species that we can currently chromatograph.
 3   Some of them are not of a scientific interest in the
 4   system, so we don't particularly look for them.
 5       Q.    Could you identify for me, at least those
 6   species of mercury which you do intend to analyze in
 7   your study?
 8       A.    I won't give you an exhaustive list, because
 9   if we have a compound of unknown composition, we will
10   plan to determine it, using other techniques, what that
11   compound is.
12             Right now those species predominantly
13   represent themselves as monomethylmercury,
14   dimethylmercury, monoethylmercury, diethylmercury,
15   methylethylmercury, phenylmercury, monophenylmercury,
16   biphenylmercury, and the combinations thereof, if you
17   will.
18             I really -- we could go on to a list of
19   probably 20 compounds that we have interest in, and
20   have seen at the moment.
21       Q.    I appreciate that.  As a non-scientist, it's
22   a bit of torture for me to repeat what you laboriously
23   just stated.
24             I assume that's -- those are the species that
25   you have a present intent to analyze for?

                                                 518

 1       A.    We have a present interest in those species.
 2       Q.    What is the basis for your interest?
 3       A.    Those particular species are the species of
 4   which we would expect, based on the body of the
 5   scientific literature, to represent the range of
 6   organic mercury compounds that we might observe in the
 7   environment.
 8       Q.    If I may, I would like to refer you to the
 9   document that appears to start on page 6 of the
10   composite, Dr. Jones.
11       A.    Is this it?
12       Q.    That's it.  It's "Environmental parameters
13   effecting," et cetera.
14       A.    I have it.
15       Q.    First, I would like to refer you actually to
16   the third page of that document.  About a third of the
17   way up from the bottom there are -- there appears the
18   statement, "The basic design of the project will be
19   divided into two sections."
20             Do you find that spot in the document, Dr.
21   Jones?
22       A.    Yes, I do.
23       Q.    Item one below it reads, "Field
24   determinations of mercury content and speciation."
25             When was this document first created, to the

                                                 519

 1   best of your knowledge?
 2       A.    In its context here, I'm having difficulty.
 3   There are other ways that I could have been presented
 4   this particular document, that would let me know
 5   exactly that date.
 6             The only thing I can do would be to go to the
 7   third page of the document -- no, it doesn't have a
 8   date on it.  I'm sorry.  I don't think there's any way
 9   for me to --
10       Q.    May I refresh your memory or offer you that
11   opportunity, by referring to the last page of the
12   composite?
13       A.    Yes.  Please do.
14             The only thing I could guess would be the --
15   from the reports --
16       Q.    If I could refer you to paragraph 2, it
17   appears that there's an amount proposed for fiscal year
18   1991.  Does that help refresh your memory?
19       A.    '91 is a possible date.  I mean in 1991.  But
20   fiscal year monies are not necessarily committed, you
21   know, in October of the year, whatever.  I'm assuming
22   it's in that time frame, though.  I mean, that would
23   seem reasonable to me.
24       Q.    If that does seem reasonable, referring back
25   now to the third page of the environmental parameters

                                                 520

 1   document, does that mean that since the '91/'92 time
 2   frame, you have been working on the development of
 3   methods for determining mercury speciation?
 4       A.    We have been, but that's not necessarily
 5   based on the material on the third page of this
 6   document, or that's not necessarily the reasoning.
 7       Q.    When did you start working on the development
 8   of methods for mercury speciation?
 9       A.    After this document was compared -- prepared,
10   because under this circumstance here, we were not
11   planning on doing the speciation of mercury.  This was
12   to be done by Mr. Nicolas Bloom, I believe, and with
13   help from the EPA laboratory in Gulf Breeze.
14             They did not develop that capability, to my
15   knowledge.  They did not develop that capability, and
16   therefore, we took it on ourselves to develop the
17   capability in the laboratory.
18       Q.    I believe you indicated that you were no
19   longer cooperating with the EPA lab at Gulf Breeze.
20             Was that the reason?
21       A.    No.  Just -- I'm now cooperating or working
22   with the EPA laboratory in Athens, and not with the ERL
23   in Gulf Breeze.
24       Q.    I'd like to refer you to the second page of
25   the environmental parameters document.

                                                 521

 1             At the top of the page, there's an incomplete
 2   paragraph.  Counting down, eleven lines -- ten, eleven,
 3   there begins the statement, near the end of the line,
 4   "In fact, marl depositing communities continue to
 5   function and should serve to sequester a significant
 6   portion of the inorganic mercury they are exposed to."
 7             Do you find that statement there?
 8       A.    Yes, I do.
 9       Q.    How does that sequestering occur?
10       A.    The formation of insoluble or relatively
11   insoluble mercury salts.
12       Q.    By "sequestering," you mean what?
13       A.    Removing from one component of the community
14   into another, where it is less likely to interact.
15       Q.    In somewhat layman's terms, does that mean
16   decreased biological availability of the mercury?
17       A.    It could.
18       Q.    But not necessarily?
19       A.    It could, but not necessarily.
20       Q.    Why does it not necessarily mean decreased
21   biological availability?
22       A.    It depends on a number of parameters, both
23   biological and physico-chemical parameters of the type
24   of marl deposit or the type of deposit that it's in.
25       Q.    Could you indicate in general terms for me,

                                                 522

 1   the biological parameters that may affect the degree of
 2   sequestering?
 3       A.    Microbial activity associated with the soils
 4   or sediments.  Perturbation, bioperturbation.
 5       Q.    What is "bioperturbation"?
 6       A.    For instance, a burrowing organism, that
 7   would disturb the soil by burrowing into it.
 8       Q.    Do any other principal ones come to mind?
 9       A.    I'm sure there are others, but at the moment
10   those would seem to be the key features.
11       Q.    You also, I believe, mentioned a
12   physico-chemical factors.
13             Could you identify the principal ones of
14   those that might affect the sequestering?
15       A.    The morphology of the particles, the -- their
16   surface characteristics, and the associated ionic and
17   chemical interactions that would take place on those
18   surfaces.
19       Q.    Has your study examined the effects of those
20   factors, and by that I mean both the biological and
21   physico-chemical, that you've identified, on the
22   sequestering of inorganic mercury in marl soils?
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Is that intended as part of that study?
25       A.    I would hope so.

                                                 523

 1       Q.    Who would make that decision?
 2       A.    Myself.
 3       Q.    What will be the basis for your decision?
 4       A.    This area of study is a very interesting area
 5   of study.  It has a large number of researchers working
 6   in the mercury problem, in Florida.
 7             There are limits to the funding.  There are
 8   limits to the times and the resources, and it just
 9   depend on which of the problems I would find most
10   interesting and appealing to proceed with at the
11   moment.
12             Given enough time, most things will be done
13   by either our laboratory or by other laboratories, and
14   that's sort of the way the thing will work out, but
15   it's sort of an iterative process.
16       Q.    When you say it's interesting, are you
17   speaking of that from a perspective of a scientific
18   academician, or are you speaking from a perspective --
19   some other perspective?
20       A.    I'm speaking from a multiple -- multiple
21   perspectives.  Actually two.  As a scientist, I'm
22   interested because it's a very interesting scientific
23   problem.
24             I also am concerned about the environment I
25   live in.

                                                 524

 1             So, I'm interested in it from the same
 2   standpoint that any concerned citizen would be
 3   interested in something that may affect our lives.
 4       Q.    Do you consider it something that is
 5   important to study in the South Florida mercury
 6   initiative?
 7       A.    I think it's important.  I'm not sure of
 8   where that importance lies compared to other problems
 9   in the South Florida mercury initiative.
10       Q.    What mercury salts are formed in marl, if you
11   know?
12       A.    That's a question that I really don't think
13   can be answered.
14       Q.    Why can it not be answered?
15       A.    It's a -- it doesn't make sense,
16   scientifically.  It's not a question that would be
17   answered, or asked, by -- what would be formed depends
18   upon what's there.  I mean, you have to give me the
19   list of compounds possibilities, and then I can give
20   you the answer on what salts might be formed.
21       Q.    Are you aware of the composition of marl in
22   the Everglades?
23       A.    In general, major characteristics.
24       Q.    If you would, take those characteristics as
25   the basis for your answer.  What mercury salts would

                                                 525

 1   you expect to be formed?
 2       A.    In the formation of a marl matrix, with
 3   mercury, it would always be serving as just another
 4   metal.  It would complex, if you will, with -- I don't
 5   even know if "complex" is the word I would choose.
 6             I'm trying to do this in a manner that both
 7   of us can understand when we read the transcript.
 8       Q.    I appreciate that.
 9       A.    Mercury is not, obviously, the dominant
10   element in marl.  The dominant elements would be things
11   like calcium, magnesium, and then the various anionic
12   components, such as carbonates, sulfates, chlorides,
13   and mercury just would form within that matrix.
14             So, whether we actually have something such
15   as mercuric sulfate forming, or whether it's a
16   combination of calcium, magnesium, mercury, in a
17   sulfate, or carbonate, the list is endless.  It's one
18   of those things where you would draw it out and put
19   little Ns or Xs for the numbers of these types of
20   complexes.
21       Q.    I think you mentioned Mr. Nick Bloom,
22   earlier.
23             What kind of work does he do in connection
24   with the study?
25       A.    None, to my knowledge.

                                                 526

 1       Q.    In 1991, '2 and '3, would he have been
 2   capable of speciating mercury?
 3       A.    I believe so.  You know, you would have to
 4   ask him.  I've only spoken to him on one occasion.  Two
 5   occasions.  I'm sorry.
 6       Q.    Do you know his reputation in the scientific
 7   community for analysis of mercury, and mercury
 8   compounds?
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't think it's the job of
10        my expert to qualify or comment on other experts.
11             I'm not telling him not to answer, but I
12        don't think that's what he's here for, and I
13        certainly don't think we've indicated he's going
14        to be offering that type of testimony.
15   BY MR. SAMS:
16       Q.    If you can answer it, I would appreciate it.
17       A.    I have no reason to doubt Mr. Bloom's
18   qualifications or -- I have no basis for -- on that,
19   other than just reading his papers and the literature,
20   and two conversations with him on the telephone.
21       Q.    How long have you been involved in the
22   scientific analysis of mercury and mercury compounds in
23   waters, soils, sediments and aquatic biota?
24       A.    Other than some just very, very rudimentary
25   training that I had at EPA and in my student days,

                                                 527

 1   some -- just since the initiation of this particular
 2   study.
 3       Q.    Have you published any works concerning
 4   mercury in the environment?
 5       A.    Other than the abstracts, which are under
 6   consideration for publication at the moment, and the
 7   paper that, as I indicated, we're working on now, no.
 8   And those have not been published at the moment.
 9       Q.    Are you consulted by others for your analysis
10   of mercury problems in the environment?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    With whom have you consulted?
13       A.    I've done some work for the Dade County DERM,
14   whatever, Environmental Resource Management.
15             I do work for EPA.
16             I've done work for -- I should say consulted
17   in the area.  I have been and am working with the
18   Department of Environmental Protection in helping them
19   set up their laboratory for mercury analysis.
20             There's a group called Research Institute,
21   RTI, Research Triangle Institute, that have visited my
22   laboratory on a couple of occasions, and have me under
23   contract to help them.  I believe that that's an EPA
24   project, though, also.  I'm not sure.
25             And I have been requested in consultation at

                                                 528

 1   the EPA laboratory in Cincinnati.
 2             I've done mercury analysis for one of the --
 3   I believe it's the DOE, U.S. Department of Energy
 4   laboratory, in Arizona.  I can't think of it right now.
 5   For looking at mercury samples for them.
 6             I'm currently, as of -- I'm assuming I'm
 7   receiving samples from South Florida Water Management
 8   District, tissue samples to be analyzed for mercury.
 9             I've analyzed tissue samples for Everglades
10   National Park.
11             I've analyzed some tissue samples for one of
12   the National Wildlife Refuges, or bird sanctuaries, if
13   you will, I don't know which one, in the Keys.  Without
14   going back and looking through the files, I can't pick
15   that up.
16             And I've done work for various other people
17   on campus, for doing mercury analysis for them.
18       Q.    Which of the items that you have listed, and
19   I'll go back through the list to aid you, have included
20   work concerning mercury analysis for the Everglades?
21   If you could just indicate yes or no, as I come to
22   them, I would appreciate that.
23       A.    Sure.
24       Q.    Dade County DERM?
25       A.    That was Biscayne Bay and the canals in

                                                 529

 1   Miami.
 2       Q.    In Miami?
 3       A.    Along the -- in Dade County.  Let's put it
 4   that way.  I don't believe there were any of those in
 5   the, what we would consider, say, the EPA, the
 6   Everglades Protection Area.
 7       Q.    Was the product of any of that work, turned
 8   over to us in response to our request for production?
 9       A.    I doubt it.  I don't believe it comes under
10   the -- I don't believe it comes under either of the
11   requests for production.
12       Q.    What form did the product take?
13       A.    Mercury values.  Total mercury values for
14   those water samples.
15       Q.    Any mercury speciation values?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    When was that done?
18       A.    I believe it would have been early last year,
19   but I -- I could be off by half a year.
20       Q.    Next you mentioned EPA.  What work have you
21   done for them?
22       A.    Are we going "Yes" and "No" down this, or --
23       Q.    Well, that's good.  Yes.
24       A.    The answer is, yes.  I have done work in
25   Everglades samples for EPA.

                                                 530

 1       Q.    Are those all reflected in the documents
 2   you've produced for us?
 3       A.    Yes, they are.
 4       Q.    Did that involve total mercury?
 5       A.    It involves total and speciated mercury.
 6       Q.    Was the speciated mercury done on samples
 7   collected in water?
 8       A.    It has been, but I believe for this -- for
 9   this particular incident that I'm talking about, it was
10   done in soils, or sediments.
11       Q.    Based on your response, let me ask, have you
12   also speciated mercury in water for EPA?
13       A.    We are in the process of doing that.  We have
14   not been requested to analyze any specific samples of
15   water for EPA, at this time.
16       Q.    When you say, then, that you are in the
17   process, what do you mean?
18       A.    We have analyzed some samples that are of
19   interest to EPA, but they have not requested that we
20   analyze specific samples for them, for speciated
21   mercury.
22       Q.    For what reason are those samples of interest
23   to EPA?
24       A.    Simply because they show some values of
25   methyl and other species of mercury in water, in the

                                                 531

 1   area of which they're interested in, in the Everglades.
 2       Q.    What area is that?
 3       A.    Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay.
 4       Q.    I'm not sure I understood your response.
 5             Do you mean Lake Okeechobee and Florida Bay?
 6       A.    No, I said from Lake Okeechobee to Florida
 7   Bay.
 8       Q.    Were all those data provided to us in the
 9   response to our request for production?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    What other work have you done for EPA, if
12   any, speciating mercury?
13       A.    Other than in the development of the
14   technique, none.
15       Q.    So, I take it you have not done any
16   speciating -- strike that.
17             Where is the DEP lab that you helped set up
18   for mercury analysis?
19       A.    I think you added a little more to it than I.
20   I didn't say I helped them set up.  I said they're
21   consulting me in the setup of their laboratory in
22   Tallahassee.
23       Q.    What'S the status of that project?
24       A.    I have a meeting with, I believe it's Mr.
25   Fitzpatrick, next Monday -- no, I'm sorry, the Monday

                                                 532

 1   following -- to discuss that, and I will know at that
 2   time what the status is.
 3       Q.    Do you know their time frame?
 4       A.    Their time frame has changed a lot.  I
 5   believe they were intending to be up and running by
 6   now, and I do not believe that that's the case, but, as
 7   I said, my next meeting with them is in two weeks.
 8       Q.    Do you know why they are not up and running?
 9       A.    No.  I have no idea.
10       Q.    I would like to show you a document that I
11   believe I showed you before, and ask, if we may jump
12   back one agency on the list, if that is the speciation
13   data for mercury that you provided EPA?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    What has been the nature of your consultation
16   with RTI?
17       A.    They sent -- on the telephone, we've had
18   several -- I've had several conversations with them,
19   and then, they sent one of their people down to observe
20   my laboratory, and subsequently, requested to put me on
21   a consulting contract for additional development of
22   methodologies and work dealing with clean lab
23   protocols, sampling protocols and analytical protocols,
24   in the mercury analysis.
25       Q.    Is that an interlab effort, by which multiple

                                                 533

 1   labs would be involved?
 2       A.    I don't know what RTI is doing in that
 3   aspect.  I just know that they're interested in -- that
 4   they're under contract from EPA, to do something, and
 5   I'm assuming it has to do with development of mercury
 6   methods for EPA, but you would have to speak to the
 7   people at RTI, or EPA.
 8       Q.    As to the last two we've been discussing, DEP
 9   and RTI, I take it that, but correct me if I'm wrong,
10   that neither has involved the development on your part
11   of data concerning mercury in the Everglades?
12       A.    Neither of those have involved data
13   production.  That's correct.
14       Q.    What about your consultation with the EPA lab
15   in Cincinnati?  Does it involve data production for the
16   Everglades?
17       A.    There were some data produced by our
18   laboratory, and the laboratory in Cincinnati, with
19   Everglades -- samples collected in the Everglades.
20       Q.    Were there other labs involved in that
21   effort?
22       A.    Yes, there were.
23       Q.    What were they?
24       A.    The laboratory in Athens, Georgia, EPA, in
25   the RSD, and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.

                                                 534

 1       Q.    Were the results of that work as it relates
 2   to the Everglades, provided to us in response to our
 3   notice to produce?
 4       A.    That work was provided to you.  The results
 5   were.
 6       Q.    What's the nature of your work with the
 7   Department of Energy lab in Arizona?
 8       A.    They sent me a number of samples collected
 9   from volcanos around the world, to analyze for mercury.
10       Q.    Was there any involvement of data from the
11   Everglades?
12       A.    There's no active volcanos in the Everglades,
13   or inactive, for that matter.
14       Q.    Was the work for either the DOE lab in
15   Arizona, or the consultation with the EPA lab in
16   Cincinnati and others, involved with the speciation of
17   mercury?
18       A.    At present, no.
19       Q.    Is such work intended?
20       A.    The possibility exists.
21       Q.    I take it that that work is -- such work has
22   not formally commenced.  Is that correct?
23       A.    That's correct.
24       Q.    Then you mentioned work with South Florida
25   Water Management District, and I believe you said

                                                 535

 1   tissue samples to be analyzed.
 2       A.    Yes.  I received notice last week that they
 3   would be sending me the tissue samples of -- that were
 4   collected on the League's access to, or the Co-op's
 5   access, I don't know whose access, anymore, to the ENR
 6   and various other areas, in that EPA.
 7       Q.    When will they be sending you those tissue
 8   samples?
 9       A.    I don't know that they've all been collected
10   yet.  I'm not aware of the status on that.  I would
11   assume that it would be within the next few weeks.  But
12   that's a guess.  I'm just guessing.
13       Q.    Are those tissue samples ones that have
14   already been collected, to the best of your knowledge?
15       A.    I think I just said that I -- I believe that
16   there are some -- that I don't know the status of the
17   collection.
18             I know that there are some samples that have
19   been collected.  I don't know whether there are
20   additional samples to be collected.  I have received
21   nothing in my laboratory.  So, without seeing a chain
22   of custody, I don't know the status.
23       Q.    Will that work involve total mercury or
24   speciation?
25       A.    It would be total mercury.

                                                 536

 1       Q.    I believe you also indicated that you have
 2   done some mercury analysis for Everglades National
 3   Park.  Presumably, that was on the -- or concerning,
 4   the Everglades.  Is that correct?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Was that limited to tissue samples?
 7       A.    I believe it was.  I've done -- the majority
 8   of my work has taken place within Everglades National
 9   Park.  So, you know, there are other things that I'm
10   not considering under these -- these are side issues.
11             They're side projects that you've asked me
12   about.
13             So, I'm analyzing soils under the main
14   program, but I believe these were all tissues that I'm
15   speaking of here.
16       Q.    Have those results been produced for us?
17       A.    I do not believe so.
18       Q.    Why were they not produced?
19       A.    They were from bald eagles and white-tailed
20   deer, blood samples, and I did them as a service to
21   Everglades National Park, turned the data over to them,
22   and I did not maintain copies of that in my files, nor
23   would it be, I think, responsive to the request.
24       Q.    To whom did you turn it over at the Park?
25       A.    I know that one set went to, is it Sonny

                                                 537

 1   Bass, at the Park, and another set of samples was done
 2   for -- he was the curator in the museum.  And I don't
 3   remember his name right now.  Somehow, Anderson seems
 4   to stick in my mind, but I could be incorrect in that.
 5       Q.    When did you analyze those samples,
 6   approximately?
 7       A.    I would say around two years ago, but again,
 8   that's very approximate.
 9       Q.    Do you know what the purpose of acquiring
10   your analysis was for the Park?
11       A.    No, I don't.
12       Q.    Did you do it under a contract?
13       A.    Oh, no.  I believe I just said I did it as a
14   favor or as a service, to them.
15       Q.    Who is Sonny Bass?
16       A.    Somebody who works at the Park.
17       Q.    Do you know what role that individual plays?
18       A.    I've met Sonny on occasion, meaning that he's
19   been in the lunchroom the same time that I've been
20   there, but I don't have a lot of interaction with him.
21   So, I don't know what his role is in the Park.  I
22   assume he has something to do with wildlife.
23       Q.    You indicated that you had also done analysis
24   of samples collected at a National Wildlife Refuge or
25   bird sanctuary, in the Keys.

                                                 538

 1             When was that work done?
 2       A.    Late last year.
 3       Q.    To whom was it provided?
 4       A.    I don't know.  These were samples that
 5   were -- a technician received a telephone call.  He was
 6   a little more generous than I would have been, and
 7   volunteered to do some analysis for them for free, and
 8   we did the analysis, sent them the results, and that
 9   was the end of it.
10       Q.    Did you keep a record of those results?
11       A.    I don't have a formal piece of paper record
12   on there.  There may be, depending on how long ago they
13   were done, they still may be on the -- on the analysis
14   system in the files.
15       Q.    Is the name of the person for whom that work
16   was done as a favor, by the technician, unknown to you?
17       A.    Yes, it is.  It may have been told to me at
18   one time, but it wasn't something that I committed to
19   memory.
20       Q.    I think you then finally mentioned a category
21   of others on the FIU campus.
22             Did any of that work include the analysis of
23   mercury associated with the Everglades?
24       A.    No.
25       Q.    Can you generalize for me about where -- let

                                                 539

 1   me back up.
 2             Can you generalize for me based on your work
 3   for EPA, in which you have speciated mercury, where
 4   water methylmercury samples are the highest, and I
 5   would like to ask you, if you could, to focus on the
 6   basic geographical categories of Lake Okeechobee, Water
 7   Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park and
 8   Florida Bay.
 9       A.    Based on the data I produced?
10       Q.    Yes.
11       A.    My data?
12       Q.    Yes.
13       A.    I can't.
14       Q.    Did you provide for us the data on Lake
15   Okeechobee that you did for EPA?
16       A.    I didn't do any work for EPA on Lake
17   Okeechobee.
18       Q.    I believe you indicated that you had
19   speciated mercury in soils, and water, from Lake
20   Okeechobee to Florida Bay.
21             Did I recall correctly, your prior statement?
22       A.    I believe you're incorrectly characterizing
23   what I said.
24             I believe the interest that EPA has was from
25   Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay.  The samples that I've

                                                 540

 1   analyzed have not necessarily been from Lake Okeechobee
 2   or from Florida Bay.
 3       Q.    Where have the samples that you've analyzed
 4   been from?
 5       A.    Analyzed for?
 6       Q.    For EPA.
 7       A.    Analyzed for --
 8       Q.    For mercury.
 9       A.    What form --
10       Q.    Methylmercury.
11       A.    Water Conservation Area 3A, and the canal
12   sampling locations.  This would be for the sediment.
13       Q.    Is it sediment in both cases, Water
14   Conservation Area 3A and the canals?
15       A.    I've done sediment in both cases.
16       Q.    For --
17       A.    Canal sediment, in sediment, or soil from the
18   Water Conservation Area.
19       Q.    What column --
20       A.    In Water Conservation Area 3A.
21       Q.    Fish tissue?
22       A.    Those would have been in the canal stations
23   throughout the whole system.
24       Q.    When you refer to the whole system, to what
25   are you referring?

                                                 541

 1       A.    The area from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay,
 2   and we have done some additional work in -- with fish
 3   collected in Everglades National Park.
 4       Q.    Were all those data produced for us?
 5       A.    Yes, they were.
 6       Q.    The mystery document appears again.  Are
 7   these those data?
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  You refuse to ask him what it
 9        is?
10       A.    I wish you would do that.  No.
11       Q.    With prompting, I will now puncture the
12   suspense, and ask, what are these data that I've been
13   showing you?
14       A.    These are -- I'm going to take just a moment
15   to go through the document.
16             MR. NIEGO:  Have we identified it on the
17        record?
18             MS. PONZOLI:  No.  We keep handing it to him.
19             MR. SAMS:  I'll mark it if he can identify
20        it.
21             (Pause.)
22       A.    I can identify it.  These are results
23   produced by Pacific -- Battelle Pacific Northwest
24   Laboratory, of water, methylmercury content, and soil
25   methylmercury analyses performed by them on the 50

                                                 542

 1   canal stations surveyed that was conducted by EPA and
 2   our laboratory.
 3             MR. SAMS:  I'd like to have this document
 4        marked as Exhibit No. 63, I believe.
 5          (The document referred to was thereupon
 6   marked Jones Exhibit 63 for Identification.)
 7   BY MR. SAMS:
 8       Q.    Dr. Jones, now, with respect to the document
 9   that's been marked as Exhibit 63, do you have a map
10   showing the 50 canal stations at which these data were
11   collected?
12       A.    Yes, I do.
13       Q.    Was that furnished in response to discovery?
14       A.    Yes, it was.
15       Q.    Is it part of some other document?
16       A.    I haven't seen it in anything that's been
17   produced as exhibits thus far.  It would have been in
18   the -- it would not have been in the file containing
19   this information.
20             This information was produced in the material
21   that you received, was it last week?  Maybe -- yes.
22   Yes.  It would have been in a document produced
23   earlier.
24       Q.    Earlier than last week?
25       A.    Yes.  Meaning in -- in January or whenever my

                                                 543

 1   documents were taken the first time.
 2             MR. GREEN:  For the record, we can't find it.
 3             MR. SAMS:  Off the record.
 4             (Discussion off the record.)
 5                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
 6                  after which the following proceedings
 7                  were had:)
 8   BY MR. SAMS:
 9       Q.    Could you describe with specificity, on the
10   record, Dr. Jones, the map that would show the
11   coordinates of the locations from which the data in
12   Exhibit No. 63 were taken?
13       A.    We use a different designation for the
14   samples in our laboratory, but they do have
15   similarities to the column labeled "Sponsor ID," and
16   that -- if you look at that, you would find that there
17   is a series of samples, basically ranging between one
18   and fifty, with some other numbers representing samples
19   that were taken at the top, the surface table samples
20   that were taken at the bottom of the water column, and
21   replicate samples.  But that's basically in the sponsor
22   ID.
23             So, the document in question would be a
24   document that would not have, necessarily, the sponsor
25   ID on it, but would have those dots, and then have

                                                 544

 1   individual numbers, one through fifty, associated with
 2   each one of those -- each one of those dots, along with
 3   an additional document attached to it that has numbers
 4   one through fifty, with latitude and longitude
 5   expressed.
 6       Q.    Now, could you describe what document would
 7   be required to translate the information from the map
 8   and from the attached document that you just described,
 9   to the data as organized in your Exhibit -- your
10   deposition Exhibit No. 63?
11       A.    That would require a document that has a
12   listing of the sponsor ID along with our designations
13   of one through 50 replicate and top -- surface or
14   bottom sample.
15             That document -- actually, I shouldn't call
16   it a document, because it doesn't exist.  I would have
17   to produce a document as such.  In other words, our
18   designations were given to these samples at the time,
19   on the bottles.  We labeled the bottles in a different
20   manner than EPA did.
21       Q.    Do I correctly understand you to say that it
22   would be necessary to look at the bottles themselves?
23       A.    Oh, no.  No.  I'm saying that for you to do
24   it, you would require the production of a document that
25   has a cross-reference between these things.  It could

                                                 545

 1   be done.  It just has not been produced, because it's
 2   not necessary for my analysis in the laboratory.
 3             MR. SAMS:  Dr. Jones, I'm going to show you a
 4        document that we will label Exhibit No. 64.
 5          (The document referred to was thereupon
 6   marked Jones Exhibit 64 for Identification.)
 7   BY MR. SAMS:
 8       Q.    I would ask you to turn to the back of that
 9   document, to what is labeled, "Appendix C," but bears
10   various page numbers, A, dash, followed by a number,
11   and in one case, no such number, and ask if that
12   document, or those pages, rather, reflect coordinates
13   for the 50 sampling locations that we have been
14   discussing?
15       A.    In Appendix C, labeled from page A-1 through
16   A-39?
17       Q.    Through the end of the document, yes.
18       A.    No, they don't.
19       Q.    What do those numbers represent, if you know?
20       A.    They represent the first cycle or the cycle
21   0, for the EMAP grid land, if you will, stations that
22   we will be occupying, not the canal stations.
23       Q.    When you say that, "we will be occupying,"
24   first, who are "we"?
25       A.    The Environmental Protection Agency and my --

                                                 546

 1   the group that the Environmental Protection Agency
 2   sends down for the purpose of sampling, and people from
 3   my laboratory.
 4       Q.    What will take place at these locations?
 5       A.    We will collect water, if available, fish, if
 6   available, periphyton and soil cores at these
 7   locations, along with other -- making other
 8   measurements on site, and then analyze those primarily
 9   for mercury, phosphorus, bug density, things like that.
10   I think those parameters are listed in this document.
11       Q.    Would the mercury analysis be speciated?
12       A.    We have every intention of doing speciation
13   on these mercury analyses.  Whether we do that on every
14   analysis or whether we do it on a subset, has yet to be
15   determined.
16       Q.    When is that work planned to be accomplished,
17   if you know?
18       A.    The initial round of some of this was
19   scheduled for this week.  It got precluded by these
20   proceedings.
21             I don't know when rescheduling is taking
22   place.  I would think sometime this summer.
23       Q.    Can you tell me whether the pages beginning
24   A-1 and going to the end, which I will assert would
25   appear on their face to skip certain page numbers and

                                                 547

 1   skip around, represent the order of those pages in your
 2   file?  Can you tell?
 3       A.    This document, if I'm not mistaken, is
 4   labeled "Draft," and I can't tell without looking, but
 5   I'm very certain that a document of this exact type of
 6   nature, whether it's this particular draft or not, was
 7   presented in a blue, dark blue, plastic binding which
 8   was removed upon Xeroxing.
 9             The entire document was produced.  Whether
10   all pages were Xeroxed and -- in other words, whether
11   this is the complete document, I don't know without
12   going back to the original document and making that
13   comparison.  It would appear that pages are missing, or
14   that this is not the most recent version of that
15   document.
16             I see, for instance -- which would not have
17   been in the final version of this document.
18       Q.    Have any of your mercury related data been
19   withheld from production based on a claim of privilege?
20       A.    No.  There are still data that are in the
21   process of being produced, samples that are still being
22   analyzed in the laboratory, and as soon as those
23   samples are available, I'm assuming that we will
24   produce them, if necessary.
25       Q.    How many final EMAP stations will be sampled

                                                 548

 1   and analyzed for mercury as you understand the plan of
 2   the study?
 3       A.    I would have to go to the document and pull
 4   out that number.  It's --
 5       Q.    Could you give me an order of magnitude?
 6       A.    In the hundreds, I believe.  I don't believe
 7   it goes into the thousands, but it could very well
 8   approach a thousand.
 9       Q.    What precisely do you expect your work to be
10   in that regard?
11       A.    Analysis of, at the moment, soils for methyl
12   and speciated mercury.  Analysis of fish, tissues, for
13   methylated mercury.  I'm sorry, not methylated mercury.
14   I'm sorry.  Total mercury.
15             Analysis of water, in all likelihood, for
16   total mercury.  We may end up doing the speciated
17   mercury on the waters, also.  And then the measurement
18   of a number of other sort of characterizing parameters,
19   such as phosphorus levels and EH pH, those types of
20   things in the field.
21       Q.    Could you give me as complete a list of those
22   types of things as you can?
23       A.    There is a complete list in this document,
24   and in the later version of this document, and I really
25   hesitate to go down and list all of those off, unless

                                                 549

 1   you will allow me to stipulate to the fact that I may
 2   include some that we're not measuring, and I may
 3   exclude some that I just can't remember.
 4       Q.    Based on your testimony, the documents will
 5   speak for themselves.  But it is your testimony that's
 6   the complete list?
 7       A.    In the documents, yes.
 8             But if something between now and when we
 9   actually make the sampling would arise that would be of
10   interest, we may very well add that parameter, but I
11   cannot think of anything at this moment.
12       Q.    Why is there doubt about whether you will
13   analyze water column samples for speciated mercury
14   forms?
15       A.    We were expecting other laboratories to be
16   able to analyze Everglades samples with the same
17   ability that they've demonstrated for samples collected
18   elsewhere in the United States, and it turned out that
19   these laboratories were not able to analyze Everglades
20   samples.
21             So, we are having to -- the EPA is having to
22   rely upon our laboratory more heavily than was
23   initially planned on.
24             We were not planning on analyzing the water.
25   We were planning on sending that out to another

                                                 550

 1   laboratory for analysis.  That laboratory has
 2   demonstrated that they have difficulty with analyzing --
 3   I'm sorry, we were planning on sending the soils out to
 4   another laboratory.
 5             That laboratory has demonstrated difficulty
 6   in analyzing the soils.  We have that capability.
 7             So, this meant that there would be two
 8   aspects that we were measuring, water and soil, and we
 9   may not be able to do that volume of work in the
10   laboratory.
11       Q.    Just to make sure I understood your answer,
12   which was fairly long, in an effort to inform me, no
13   doubt, I think what I understood you to say is that in
14   taking on more than anticipated soil mercury speciation
15   work, due to workload considerations, you may have to
16   not do the water speciation work.
17             Is this a short form, fair summary of what
18   you said?
19       A.    We may take on the soils because we have
20   demonstrated our ability to analyze the soils for
21   speciated mercury, and allow another laboratory, which
22   has already demonstrated its ability to do the waters,
23   do the water.  In other words, split the tasks up.  It
24   will not be that speciated mercury will not be measured
25   in the water.  It's just that it will not necessarily

                                                 551

 1   be done in our laboratory.
 2       Q.    Has your laboratory been certified for the
 3   speciation of mercury in water?
 4       A.    At these concentrations, there is no such
 5   thing as certification for mercury analysis, at these
 6   levels.
 7       Q.    Has your laboratory been found satisfactory
 8   for that purpose by those in charge of the EMAP study?
 9       A.    The EPA has considered our laboratory to be
10   equal to if not superior to the other laboratories that
11   they're using.
12       Q.    Is that documented somewhere?
13       A.    No.
14       Q.    What is the lab that was found to be
15   unsatisfactory for soil mercury speciation?
16       A.    I didn't say unsatisfactory.  I believe they
17   don't have the detection limits at the moment for using
18   the Everglades soils, and that would be the Battelle
19   Pacific Northwest.
20       Q.    What is their detection limit for speciating
21   mercury in soils?
22       A.    You would have to ask them.
23       Q.    What is yours?
24       A.    All I can say is that it's low enough that we
25   can detect -- we can detect methylmercury in the

                                                 552

 1   majority of the samples, that's greater than the noise
 2   of the technique.  I don't have the exact numbers
 3   available.  It also depends upon the individual sample.
 4   I believe it's somewhere around .2 or .02 picograms per
 5   gram of soil.
 6       Q.    Do you have a way to convert that for me to
 7   parts per trillion?
 8       A.    It would only serve to confuse everyone,
 9   using the terminology of parts per million and parts
10   per billion in soil.  Because then the result is that
11   people want to make that comparison to water, and
12   they're not intercomparable in that way.
13             The regular terminology would be to express
14   it as -- in a weight per weight type of a context.  At
15   least that would be my type of a thing.
16             I could explain to you how that would be
17   done, but I couldn't tell you exactly what the numbers
18   are to make that conversion.
19       Q.    What is your detection limit for the
20   speciation of mercury in the water column?
21       A.    I can't recall offhand.
22       Q.    Is it less than one part per trillion?
23       A.    Oh, certainly.
24       Q.    Referring you back, if I may, to what was
25   previously discussed as Exhibit No. 63, which I believe

                                                 553

 1   you said was the results of analysis performed by
 2   Battelle, do you know whether the methylmercury numbers
 3   are above or below the level of detection for that lab?
 4       A.    The designation of U next to those numbers
 5   indicates that the numbers were below their level of
 6   detection, and they have -- they're uncertain at that
 7   point.  I don't know what their detection level is.
 8   The U just indicates that.
 9       Q.    Would the level of detection of your lab, be
10   sufficient to detect mercury in those concentrations?
11       A.    Which form?
12       Q.    The ones marked U?
13       A.    Which form of mercury?
14       Q.    Methylmercury.
15       A.    Depending upon the sample volume we use, yes.
16       Q.    Can you tell me why, in the column, "Total
17   mercury," while we're on this document, the initials
18   NA, not applicable, as per the code, appear numerous
19   times?
20       A.    They were asked -- Battelle was only asked to
21   analyze a select number of samples, just to make a
22   comparison with analysis from our laboratory.  They
23   were not asked to analyze all samples.  They were only
24   asked for total mercury.  They were only asked to
25   analyze a few of those.  Everything else would be

                                                 554

 1   listed as NA.
 2       Q.    Who was it that determined what to ask them?
 3       A.    EPA.
 4       Q.    Dr. Stober?
 5       A.    I am assuming.
 6       Q.    But you don't know that?
 7       A.    I don't know that.
 8       Q.    Do you know whether these are the analyses
 9   based upon which it was determined that their detection
10   level was insufficient to analyze speciated mercury for
11   the EMAP study?
12       A.    They were the set of samples that indicated
13   that they were unable to analyze the 50 canal stations
14   that we monitored.  Battelle is currently examining
15   their methods, seeing if they can boost their
16   sensitivity, if you will, or use larger sample sizes,
17   so that to bring their method into a range at which it
18   would work for the Everglades samples.
19       Q.    Did your lab do split samples analyses of
20   these done by Battelle?
21       A.    Which of them?
22       Q.    Methylmercury.
23       A.    For the water?
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    No.

                                                 555

 1       Q.    Did it do that for the sediment?
 2       A.    We did five sediments to demonstrate our
 3   capabilities in detecting methylmercury, speciated
 4   mercury, in these particular -- this particular series.
 5       Q.    Have you furnished your results to us --
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    -- in the production?
 8             What would the document that contains those
 9   results look like?
10       A.    A sheet of paper with, I believe, methyl and
11   ethylmercury concentrations listed, along with a sample
12   designator.
13             It is in these documents that have been
14   produced as exhibits.
15       Q.    When you said, "these documents produced as
16   exhibits," were you pointing to the ones that are in
17   the stack that Mr. Hyde examined you about over the
18   last couple of days?
19       A.    That's correct.
20             MR. SAMS:  Could we go off the record?  I'm
21        going to ask you to identify that document for us.
22        Any problem, Suzan?
23             MS. PONZOLI:  No.
24                  (Discussion off the record.)
25   BY MR. SAMS:

                                                 556

 1       Q.    I'm going to show you a document that will be
 2   marked as Exhibit 65, and ask you if, within that
 3   composite appearing document, it is possible to
 4   identify the lab results that we have just been
 5   discussing?
 6             MS. PONZOLI:  Shouldn't it be 64?
 7             MR. SAMS:  No, 65.
 8          (The document referred to was thereupon
 9   marked Jones Exhibit 65 for Identification.)
10   BY MR. SAMS:
11       Q.    Do you recall the question?  It was whether
12   it's possible to identify those data as part of this
13   composite document.
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Are those the data that appear on the page
16   which has the Bates stamp at the lower right-hand
17   corner, DRJ 00008058?
18       A.    That's correct.
19       Q.    Are those data related to the following
20   pages, 8059 through 8062?
21       A.    They are not.
22       Q.    Are they related to any of the other pages in
23   this document?
24       A.    I'm going to go through that.
25             (Pause.)

                                                 557

 1       A.    There are -- there is data in this document
 2   on page 000008063, that are related to this data set.
 3       Q.    How are they related?
 4       A.    These are the -- our sample station numbers
 5   and the fifty stations for total mercury analysis, for
 6   the sediments that are reflected at the same time.
 7             MR. SAMS:  We can break here, if you like.
 8                  (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken
 9                  from 12:10 p.m. to 1:35 p.m., after
10                  which the following proceedings were
11                  had:)
12   BY MR. SAMS:
13       Q.    Dr. Jones, let'S go back to the discussion we
14   were having about the collection of soil samples,
15   water, fish tissues, and their analysis in support of
16   the EMAP study.
17             Did you or your lab, or your University, bid
18   on the water analyses?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    Was that a sole sourced contract, as far as
21   you know?
22       A.    No.  It wasn't that type of a contract.  It's
23   done through the cooperative agreement.
24       Q.    What is the current level of committed and
25   spent funding that your lab has received under the

                                                 558

 1   cooperative agreement?
 2       A.    If I could refer to my CV, I might be able to
 3   give you that information.  I believe it's Jones
 4   Exhibit 1.
 5             (Pause.)
 6       A.    There's an additional supplement that's not
 7   on here, as I indicated in the first day of my
 8   deposition, but it would appear to be somewhere
 9   between -- in the eight to $900,000 range from the
10   period starting in June of 1991.
11             That refers to the dates when the University
12   actually received the money, not actually to the
13   inception of the project.
14       Q.    How much of that eight or nine hundred
15   thousand represents work yet to be performed?
16       A.    One of the supplements we have, the
17   University hasn't even received.  That hasn't gone
18   through the IAG, yet, and I would think that there's
19   probably around three hundred thousand dollars
20   remaining in that account.
21       Q.    Is that your principal source of outside
22   funding, other than direct University funding?
23       A.    For --
24       Q.    For the activities of you and your lab.
25       A.    It's one of the principal sources.  It is not

                                                 559

 1   the principal source.
 2       Q.    What is the principal source?
 3       A.    Currently, the project with the most, if you
 4   will, dollars per year, if you will, associated with
 5   it, are the Department of Interior, National Park
 6   Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service commitment to
 7   determination of the -- the numerical interpretation of
 8   the Class III water quality criteria.
 9       Q.    What's the level of funding commitment
10   combined, of that effort, if you can estimate it for
11   me?
12       A.    I believe in that account, at the moment, is
13   around $850,000.
14       Q.    Does that include funds expended as well as
15   funds remaining in the account?
16       A.    I have expended a very limited amount, number
17   of funds in there.  I would expect my expenditures at
18   this point are less than $2,000 in that project, but
19   I'm not certain without looking at budget sheets.
20       Q.    How are you compensated for your services in
21   regard to this litigation?
22       A.    I am on a consulting contract with the United
23   States Department of Justice.
24       Q.    What is the amount of that contract?
25       A.    I'm not certain what it is for this year.  I

                                                 560

 1   think it's on the order of fifty or sixty thousand
 2   dollars.
 3       Q.    Is any part of the expenditures of the money
 4   on the work for developing a numerical version, I will
 5   use my paraphrase, of the narrative Class III nutrient
 6   standard, contingent on the outcome of these
 7   proceedings?
 8       A.    Not to my knowledge.
 9       Q.    So, in other words, that's fully authorized
10   and proceeding, but subject to your comment that it
11   was, or your testimony, that it was only a small amount
12   that had been spent?
13       A.    The money is presently at the University, and
14   I could expend up to $850,000, if I wanted to, if I
15   felt that that could be justified.
16       Q.    Going back once again to the sampling and
17   analysis work in support of the EMAP study, who made
18   the final determination as to which lab was most
19   accurate for the various purposes, soil, fish tissues
20   and water?
21       A.    I don't know that a determination was made as
22   to which laboratory was most accurate.  Determinations
23   were made as to the compatibility of data produced in
24   these -- the laboratories, but there was no
25   determination as to the accuracy, that I made.  If that

                                                 561

 1   determination has been made, it would have been EPA,
 2   and I would assume by that, that Jerry Stober would
 3   have made that determination.
 4       Q.    Has anyone questioned the results of your
 5   lab's mercury speciation analyses or, by that I mean,
 6   raised a concern about their accuracy?
 7       A.    Not to my knowledge.
 8       Q.    Do you have a definite schedule and list of
 9   deliverables for your work under the two main contracts
10   we've discussed, the first being the amount, roughly
11   800 to 900,000, and the other one, the one you
12   described as prime, that included the National Park
13   Service as one of the contractors?
14       A.    We've got two questions, the first question
15   pertaining to the mercury study, where there is no
16   schedule of deliverables.
17             That is strictly adhered to from the
18   standpoint that there are certain things that the
19   contracting officers place in there, and those things
20   are, in many cases, necessary for the execution of the
21   contracts to appease the attorneys on both sides, and
22   then they get extended by agreements by the responsible
23   officer, such as Jerry Stober, in this circumstance,
24   because we don't know how long certain aspects of the
25   research are going to take, field logistics and things

                                                 562

 1   like that.
 2             So, some dates are outlined in some of the
 3   agreements that you have.  Those are not necessarily
 4   dates that say that on that time, I have to have
 5   something produced.  We have a lot of flexibility,
 6   depending upon the responsible officer in the
 7   government.
 8             The second set of documents -- the second set
 9   of resources have the same stipulation to them, that
10   they are -- that there are dates, specific dates, that
11   are written in the contracts when they are executed in
12   the regional office.  However, those dates are only as
13   firm as the accountable officer.  In this case, those
14   would be Dr. Michael Soukup, and I believe, Mr. Birkett
15   Neely.
16       Q.    By whom are they employed?
17       A.    Department of Interior.  Dr. Michael Soukup
18   is the director of the South Florida and Caribbean
19   research program of the National Biological Survey in
20   Miami, and Mr. Birkett Neely is, I believe, the Refuge
21   manager for Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
22       Q.    Are your authorizations to proceed under the
23   two contracts, I'll call them, that we've been
24   discussing, memorialized in writing?
25       A.    There are contracts that have been executed

                                                 563

 1   and signed by the University attorneys, and the
 2   necessary contracting officers in the Federal
 3   Government.
 4       Q.    Are those the contracts to which you have
 5   referred as saying they have a lot of flexibility,
 6   depending on the contract officer?
 7       A.    Yes.  Especially in the circumstance of those
 8   that are -- are under the cooperative agreements
 9   between either Everglades National Park or between the
10   National Park Service and the Florida International
11   University Cooperative Park Studies Unit.
12       Q.    Let me take you back, if I may, to what I
13   think is Exhibit No. 62, that we discussed this
14   morning.
15             If I could -- do you have it handy there?
16             If I could get you to refer to the
17   environmental parameters paper within it?
18             First, did you author that document?
19       A.    Yes, I did.  I would prefer that you refer to
20   this as a proposal or a scoping document or something.
21   It is not a paper, which has a different meaning to me
22   than perhaps --
23       Q.    Fine.  Near the bottom of the second page,
24   counting up, about nine lines, do you see the sentence
25   that starts, "Soils of the Everglades are"?

                                                 564

 1       A.    Yes, I do.
 2       Q.    Would you examine that sentence and the
 3   others that follow to the bottom of the page, for a
 4   moment?
 5             (Pause.)
 6       Q.    What do you mean when you say, "Soils of the
 7   Everglades are not highly reduced"?  That is, what is
 8   your standard for determining what is highly reduced?
 9       A.    It's a bit of a subjective term, in that --
10   well, your opinion of what's highly reduced and my
11   opinion of what's highly reduced may vary, but to avoid
12   that and I guess give you a little bit of an
13   explanation of what I consider to be highly reduced,
14   would be soils that have the reduction of sulfur
15   compounds taking place.
16             Therefore, the production of hydrogen
17   sulfide, and also soils that would be methanogenic in
18   nature.  In other words, that they produce methane.
19   They utilize CO-2 as their terminal electron receptor.
20   Those would be examples of highly reduced soils or
21   highly reduced conditions.
22       Q.    Have you measured how much oxygen Everglades
23   soils have in their pore waters when they're flooded?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Where are those data found?

                                                 565

 1       A.    In a paper.  I would like to refer to my CV
 2   again, if I can.
 3       Q.    Please.
 4       A.    The published profiles, in the form of a
 5   scientific paper, are found in a paper authored by
 6   Bachoon and Jones, dated 1992, titled, "Potential rates
 7   of methanogenesis in sawgrass wetlands with peat and
 8   marl soils in the Florida Everglades," in Soil Biology
 9   and Biochemistry, Volume 24, and pages 21 through 27.
10       Q.    I would draw your attention in this area of
11   the document that we've been referring to, to the last
12   sentence of the page.
13             It says, "Thus, despite the presence of
14   flooded soils, we would expect mercury methylation to
15   be limited."
16             How reducing do conditions have to get for
17   there to be mercury methylation in Everglades soils?
18   Have you attempted to determine that?
19       A.    That is an area we are currently studying,
20   doing experimentation in the laboratory.
21             This statement being in a proposal prior to
22   the initiation of work, is based upon the literature.
23       Q.    Does that include literature that you have
24   written?
25       A.    At this time, it would not, for mercury.

                                                 566

 1   Like I said, this was the proposal to do mercury.
 2       Q.    That's based on other literature that you can
 3   name, or just the literature, generally?
 4       A.    I can name some specific authors and journals
 5   where that material is found, and there are others that
 6   are -- that are more general, that I can't elucidate or
 7   name at the moment.
 8       Q.    The balance of the proposal refers to the
 9   establishment of microcosms.  That's a
10   mischaracterization, actually.
11             In the balance of the proposal, there's
12   reference to the establishment of microcosms, and in
13   particular, for example, at the top of the last page,
14   there's a statement, "We will establish microcosms
15   using soils and sediments collected in the field."
16             How are those microcosms maintained?
17       A.    You're going to have to be more specific.
18       Q.    Are they created in your lab?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    What I'm driving at is, how are they created,
21   and then how are they maintained?  In what condition?
22       A.    We have a series of microcosms that are in
23   the laboratory, that have been constructed.  We have
24   placed sediment in them, checked the electronics in
25   various control mechanisms, and are currently in the

                                                 567

 1   process of establishing these, meaning the next time I
 2   can get down in the field to collect the soil, we will
 3   establish these microcosms for the purpose of
 4   completing this portion of the study.
 5             We have been delayed in actually collecting
 6   data from these microcosms because of the need to
 7   develop methods for speciating mercury in the soils of
 8   the Everglades.  We have not completed that work, or
 9   are at a point where we can conduct those analyses,
10   which means we are now able to establish the microcosms
11   for mercury speciation work.
12       Q.    How much soil do you intend to include in a
13   microcosm?
14       A.    The microcosms, if I'm not -- without having
15   the dimensions here, there is a document, again, that
16   was in my documents, whether you all Xeroxed it or not
17   I can't attest to, but there was a document that has
18   the actual dimensions of these microcosms.
19             I believe that the soil column is 20
20   centimeters in depth in these microcosms, and they're
21   in a piece of standard two inch PVC pipe.  So, whatever
22   that internal diameter is, seven or eight -- six or
23   seven centimeters, would be approximately the diameter
24   of those, but you do have the dimensions.  Or they were
25   produced.

                                                 568

 1       Q.    What kind of organisms are to be included in
 2   the microcosms?
 3       A.    Only the microbial community that would come
 4   along with the soil collected in the field.
 5       Q.    Were microcosms such as these used at one
 6