630

 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
                          Thursday, February 10, 1994
20                        8:10 a.m. - 5:45 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                          - - - - - - -

                                                 631

 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
   
22                         -   -   -

                                                 632

 1                              INDEX
 2   Witness          Direct    Cross    Redirect  Recross
 3   RONALD D. JONES
 4   By Mr. Sams                 633
 5 
 6                         JONES EXHIBITS
 7     Exhibit 75  Plan                                 633
 8     Exhibit 76  IAG                                  645
 9     Exhibit 77  Results of analysis                  676
10     Exhibit 78  Map                                  681
11     Exhibit 79  Mercury study plan                   751
12     Exhibit 80  Fax with attachments                 753
13     Exhibit 81  Map                                  758
14     Exhibit 82  Bar graphs                           769
15     Exhibit 83  "Cooperative Agreement"              801
16     Exhibit 84  Document                             802
17     Exhibit 85  Document with Bates No. 8530         803
18     Exhibit 86  Document with Bates No. 8488         808
19     Exhibit 87  "Calculations of Miccosukee          818
20                 Indian Loading to ENP"
21     Exhibit 88  Document from Mark Maffei            824
22                            -  -  -

                                                 633

 1   Thereupon --
 2                      RONALD D. JONES
 3   was called as a witness and, having been previously
 4   duly affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
 5             MR. SAMS:  Good morning, again.
 6             I would like to continue to identify, or have
 7        you identify, a few more documents, if I may.
 8             The first of those I will have marked as
 9        Exhibit 75.
10          (The document referred to was thereupon
11   marked Jones Exhibit 75 for Identification.)
12                   CROSS EXAMINATION
13   BY MR. SAMS:
14       Q.    I would ask you, Dr. Jones, if you recognize
15   the exhibit that has been marked No. 75?
16       A.    Yes, I do.
17       Q.    The acknowledgment states, "Discussions with
18   Dr. Ron Jones of Florida International University were
19   very helpful in the development of this plan."
20             Is that a correct representation of your
21   relationship to this plan?  And I would note, of
22   course, that the sentence continues and relates to, as
23   well, analytical procedures and specification for
24   mercury detection and specification.
25       A.    Speciation.

                                                 634

 1       Q.    I'm sorry.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  You're asking if he was
 3        helpful?
 4             MR. SAMS:  I would ask if that correctly
 5        represents his participation.
 6       A.    You know, that was acknowledged for that,
 7   that I was involved in discussions.
 8       Q.    What was your specific role in the
 9   development of the plan?
10       A.    This is not my plan.  This is the United
11   States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV'S
12   plan, and as such, the plan was developed by the
13   authors here, which would be Greer Tidwell, Jerry
14   Stober and Delbert Hicks, and, I guess, I would not
15   consider this to be my plan.  I did have discussion,
16   but the plan was generated by them.
17       Q.    Can you give me an approximate date that the
18   plan was generated?
19       A.    It would have to be following the meeting I
20   had in Athens, which we had discussed from that letter,
21   one of the previous exhibits.
22       Q.    Can you recall your discussions with the
23   authors concerning this plan, at least in general?
24       A.    In general.
25       Q.    Could you identify for me, then, what the

                                                 635

 1   general subject matters of those discussions were?
 2       A.    There were two major areas.  One I would call
 3   conceptual areas, and the other I would call analytical
 4   areas.
 5       Q.    Let's take conceptual areas.
 6             Could you tell me with a bit more substance,
 7   what the conceptual areas consisted of?
 8       A.    Predominantly, the various hypotheses that
 9   needed to be considered when examining mercury
10   contamination in the Everglades.
11       Q.    What were those hypotheses that you discussed
12   with them?
13       A.    Again, this is to the best of my
14   recollection.  It's not a -- maybe it's an incomplete
15   list, because of the time involved here.
16       Q.    All I can ask is that you state to me what
17   you remember.
18       A.    The idea of mercury contamination, the
19   sources, predominantly subjects such as burning of
20   sugar cane, came up, power plant and incinerator
21   emissions, and then the -- as another source that we
22   considered, was fungicides, mercurial containing
23   compounds that were used or are being currently used in
24   agricultural and other land use practices.
25             The other area in that -- another area under

                                                 636

 1   that, would have been the general microbial cycling
 2   hypothesis for mercury and its relationship to nutrient
 3   enrichment, particularly phosphorus.
 4       Q.    What is that hypothesis?
 5       A.    I believe I've stated it several times
 6   already, but --
 7       Q.    In the context of these discussions, what was
 8   it?
 9       A.    It was the same as previously stated, is what
10   I'm getting at.  Basically, that increased microbial
11   activity due to increased nutrient levels in the
12   ecosystem, will alter the rates at which mercury is
13   mobilized, transformed in the system.
14       Q.    Did the conceptual discussion of that
15   hypothesis in the context of the discussions concerning
16   this paper, include the examination of pathways by
17   which mercury would find its way to higher organisms?
18       A.    We discussed that.  My input and interest in
19   that was at the level of the mosquitofish that I spoke
20   of yesterday, not necessarily in -- we had a discussion
21   concerning food web or biomagnification of mercury in
22   the ecosystem.
23       Q.    Just so I understand your last response, are
24   you saying that your interest was at the level of
25   mosquitofish, but there was a broader discussion

                                                 637

 1   concerning the entire food web in the ecosystem?
 2             I'm just trying to get clarification, because
 3   I wasn't sure I understood your response.
 4       A.    That, I believe, would be a fair restatement
 5   of my statement.
 6       Q.    Did you then limit your involvement in the
 7   conceptual discussions to the level of mosquitofish, or
 8   were you also a participant in the broader discussion
 9   concerning the food web as a whole?
10       A.    It was -- I was a participant in the complete
11   discussions on all levels.
12       Q.    I know we talked yesterday about what I
13   called the ubiquity of the mosquitofish.  I don't know
14   what the right word is, maybe its ubiquitousness or
15   something, but whatever it is, conceptually, can you
16   help me understand why that would be a break point for
17   your interest?
18       A.    I wouldn't -- maybe I mischaracterized it, if
19   you are interpreting it as a break point of my
20   interest, meaning, gee, I'm not interested in anything
21   lower or anything higher.  I just happen to have an
22   interest in that particular organism, because of its
23   ubiquitous nature, and it's used, perhaps, as an
24   indicator in the system.
25       Q.    If you know, Dr. Jones, where do mosquitofish

                                                 638

 1   fit into the ecosystem?  What do they eat and what
 2   organisms eat them?
 3       A.    I have a general knowledge of -- actually, I
 4   think I have little better than a general knowledge of
 5   the ecology of the Everglades, and the mosquitofish is
 6   a component of that.
 7             The information as to what they feed on, and
 8   how they fit exactly into the food web, and the food
 9   chain, would be a question better posed to someone
10   else.
11             However, to the best of my ability, I think I
12   can be fairly accurate with that organism.  It's just
13   that I, you know -- an ichthyologist may tell me that
14   that's not really correct.  I don't believe that's the
15   case.
16       Q.    With that qualification, if you would -- the
17   record will reflect the qualification.  If you can,
18   with that qualification, give me your best answer, I
19   would appreciate it.
20       A.    The mosquitofish, Gambusia, is a very
21   omnivorous organism, meaning that it eats a large
22   variety of different organisms in the environment.
23             It's a short-lived species.  It's a very
24   drought tolerant organism.  It has a very rapid
25   generation time.

                                                 639

 1             The organisms that would feed on it, would be
 2   basically anything that's bigger than it is, at any
 3   stage in its life.
 4             So, depending on whether you are referring to
 5   the juveniles, the organism, Gambusia, is a live
 6   bearer, meaning it gives birth to living young, so it
 7   does not lay eggs, if you will.
 8             I believe the term is "ova vivibre."
 9       Q.    I won't try to pick that one up in any
10   further questions.
11       A.    I'm giving you the opportunity.
12             So, where it fits into the food web would
13   have to depend upon its size, basically, is what I was
14   getting at.
15             So, to say what organisms use it, I think is
16   a question that cannot be answered other than to say a
17   large variety of other higher trophic levels feed on
18   this particular organisms.
19       Q.    In addition to its presence throughout the
20   Everglades, are there any of those factors that you
21   have just described, that it eats a large variety of
22   other organisms, that it's short-lived, that it has a
23   rapid generation time, et cetera, that make that a
24   matter of particular interest or focus for you?
25       A.    My reason for being interested in that

                                                 640

 1   particular -- in some of those characteristics were,
 2   for instance, because it is omniverous, it would not be
 3   selectively feeding on any one organism.
 4             There are other fish, other organisms out
 5   there that are very particular about their diet.  They
 6   will literally starve to death in the absence of the
 7   appropriate food organism.  Gambusia is not such an
 8   organism.
 9             The other aspect of its, I guess, physical
10   nature, is that they're a very small fish.  They don't
11   achieve -- we don't have any fishermen going out there
12   trolling for Gambusia.  They are a couple of
13   centimeters in length, would be their maximum length.
14             Therefore, analytically, I'm able to analyze
15   the entire fish for mercury, which is, in fact, what a
16   higher organism -- they don't eat fillets.
17       Q.    As you said.  How is it important that the
18   Gambusia doesn't selectively feed?
19       A.    It gives a broader base, indicating mercury
20   presence in the organic form, in the environment.
21       Q.    If I may ask you, Dr. Jones, to turn to the
22   bottom of page 10, and where it appears that the --
23   there's a statement of the hypothesis followed by three
24   corollaries.
25             I would ask you if that hypothesis, and its

                                                 641

 1   three corollaries, are a statement consistent with your
 2   own input to the discussions?
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Would you show me where the
 4        hypothesis begins, in your opinion?
 5             MR. SAMS:  Certainly.  It's the third short
 6        paragraph up on the page, about one fourth of the
 7        way up on page ten.
 8       A.    Starting, "The above brief explanation"?
 9       Q.    Correct.
10       A.    I've read the material, but I've forgotten
11   the question.  Can I have it read back to me?
12       Q.    Or I can attempt to rephrase it.
13             I was asking if that statement of the
14   hypothesis of this portion of the paper, and its three
15   corollaries, is consistent with your own contribution
16   to the discussions that you were involved in with the
17   authors?
18       A.    Again, I remind you that I did not write this
19   particular thing, but I do believe that it is
20   consistent with the discussions that we had.  I may not
21   have written it in this exact same manner.
22       Q.    This may be to pick a nit, and I don't mean
23   to be quarrelsome.  If I could ask you for a moment to
24   focus on your input to the discussions.
25             Just by way of explanation, your response to

                                                 642

 1   me was it's consistent with your discussions, and what
 2   I'm trying to make sure of is, that it's consistent
 3   with your, Dr. Jones', input to the discussions.
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  I think you've asked this
 5        question and he'S answered it multiple times, Mr.
 6        Sams, and you've asked him for his hypothesis and
 7        he'S given it to you.
 8             I was going to object to your question,
 9        because it was a multi-question, including both
10        the hypothesis and the three corollaries.
11             Maybe a remedy would be for you to break the
12        question back down.
13             MR. SAMS:  Really, all I'm trying to do here
14        is to make sure that this is consistent with what
15        Dr. Jones said in these discussions, and that's
16        what I believe I asked him, and what he said was
17        it's consistent with the discussions.
18             I'm simply trying to make sure that his
19        answer is regarding his own input.
20             MS. PONZOLI:  I think he answered that, and I
21        don't think you are going to be able to marry him
22        to someone else'S words, and he'S made that quite
23        clear, that you cannot marry him to those words.
24             MR. SAMS:  Unless you are instructing him not
25        to answer, I would like to see if he can answer my

                                                 643

 1        question.
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  I would object, that he has
 3        answered your question multiple times.  As you are
 4        aware, I rarely instruct him not to answer.
 5             Would you read the question back again, since
 6        Mr. Sams and I have discussed this at length?
 7                  (The question referred to was thereupon
 8                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
 9       A.    There may be some additions that, to this
10   material, that we did not discuss.  I could not
11   identify those, because of the broad, general nature of
12   the discussions which generated this material.
13       Q.    Were you involved with other aspects of the
14   effects that might lead to the increased availability
15   of mercury in the context of these discussions, such as
16   hydroperiod management or fluctuations?
17       A.    We discussed that.
18       Q.    Did you express any view on that, in the
19   course of the discussions?
20       A.    I'm certain I did.
21       Q.    Can you recall what it was?
22       A.    No.  I'm sorry, I cannot.  It's been too long
23   ago.
24       Q.    If you would look again at page 10, I would
25   ask you to focus on the first two complete paragraphs

                                                 644

 1   that appear on that page, and see if those in any way
 2   refresh your recollection.
 3       A.    It tells me that we discussed hydroperiod,
 4   which I believe I already indicated.  I still don't
 5   remember the specific nature of the discussions dealing
 6   with hydroperiod.
 7             This would appear -- these two paragraphs
 8   would appear to be modifications of one of the
 9   documents that was introduced yesterday, my proposal
10   from Everglades National Park.
11             So, I don't know whether this came from
12   discussions at the time, or modifications of that
13   language being placed into this particular document.
14       Q.    Do you have any reason to disagree with these
15   modifications of your paper?
16             MS. PONZOLI:  You mean that appear anywhere
17        in these two paragraphs, Mr. Sams?
18             MR. SAMS:  Yes.
19       A.    I'm going to have to take my time and read it
20   more carefully to answer that question.
21       Q.    That's fine.
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Under his present working
23        hypothesis?  We're in an area of ongoing research.
24             MR. SAMS:  Yes.
25             MS. PONZOLI:  We're not in an area of

                                                 645

 1        defined --
 2             MR. SAMS:  Yes, that's fine.  I'm interested
 3        in his present state --
 4       A.    Again, you are referring to this as a paper,
 5   and I believe it's a plan of study, and I would
 6   consider it more of a proposal.
 7       Q.    That explanation is satisfactory with me.
 8             (Pause.)
 9       A.    I'm in general agreement with the information
10   contained in these two paragraphs.
11             It is not all descriptive.  Some of it is
12   discussing plans for results, how the results are to be
13   used by the Environmental Protection Agency, I assume.
14   But the descriptive portion I'm in general agreement
15   with, that it's a good working hypothesis.
16             MR. SAMS:  The next document from your files,
17        I would like to have identified as Exhibit No. 76.
18          (The document referred to was thereupon
19   marked Jones Exhibit 76 for Identification.)
20   BY MR. SAMS:
21       Q.    Can you identify that document for me, Dr.
22   Jones?
23       A.    Yes, I can.  It's an IAG, sent to me by --
24   looking at the last page -- Mr. Delbert Hicks of the
25   Environmental Protection Agency in Athens.

                                                 646

 1       Q.    Do you know the purpose of this document?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    What is that?
 4       A.    It's the document necessary to transfer funds
 5   from one government agency to another.  And in this
 6   case, between Environmental Protection Agency and the
 7   Department of Interior, National Park Service.
 8       Q.    Is this related to work which you have
 9   performed?
10       A.    Yes, it is.  Or am still performing.
11       Q.    On the textual portion, with a title that
12   says, "An investigation of mercury contamination in the
13   Everglades ecosystem," I would like to refer you to the
14   second page -- actually, it appears to be fax page
15   006 -- and refer you to the second complete paragraph
16   down, starting with the third sentence.  "These
17   parameters to be measured include."
18             It says, "These parameters to be measured
19   include, but are not limited to," and then it specifies
20   certain ones.  Are the ones specified there, the ones
21   that you are measuring?
22       A.    Not necessarily.
23       Q.    Which ones are you not measuring?
24       A.    A number of -- this work, as I said, is
25   underway.  We have not occupied the transects yet, or

                                                 647

 1   done much of the sampling that EPA proposed in this
 2   particular document, and therefore, the list of
 3   parameters that we are measuring, or are planning to
 4   measure, are changing.
 5             If I get a request for discussion about what
 6   parameters are, that we should measure on the upcoming
 7   field sampling, I will give my input into that, but we
 8   are not doing this at the moment.
 9       Q.    You are not doing this work at the moment?
10       A.    This refers to the transect sampling, and we
11   have not occupied one of the transects for mercury,
12   yet.  As I indicated to you yesterday, if I wasn't
13   here, we probably would be.
14       Q.    Is it your intention to measure for all these
15   specified items?
16       A.    We have eliminated some items, and I believe
17   added several others.
18       Q.    Could you tell me what has been eliminated
19   and what has been added?
20       A.    I will attempt to, to the best of my
21   recollection.
22             We may or may not measure methanogenesis.
23             In all likelihood, we will not measure
24   particulate organic carbon.
25             By doing this, I'm not excluding -- if we

                                                 648

 1   decide next week to add one of these items or add
 2   something else, I am not promising you that that will
 3   not occur.  I'm just indicating at this time what we
 4   have intentions to or do not have intentions to make
 5   measurements of.
 6             We also are planning on measuring sulfate
 7   concentrations, and that is not on this list.
 8             I don't see, maybe I'm missing it, total
 9   phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphate in the water
10   and soils.  That may be included up in the document
11   somewhere else.
12       Q.    Will you be looking at Gambusia?
13       A.    I'm sorry.  This paragraph just refers to the
14   soils and sediment analysis, but yes, we will, if
15   there's water.
16       Q.    Will you be looking at other organisms?
17       A.    It is possible, but I can't tell you with any
18   certainty on that.
19       Q.    Can you tell me why it's uncertain whether
20   you will be looking at methanogenesis?
21       A.    The amount of work in the time frame, limits
22   the number of types of analyses that we can do.  That
23   is a particular interest of mine.  That is a particular
24   interest of mine, and it may just have to go away
25   because of time constraints.

                                                 649

 1       Q.    Recognizing that you have not said that it's
 2   a certainty, why are you at least considering dropping
 3   particulate organic carbon?
 4       A.    Again, we're interested in the particulate
 5   organic carbon.  Experience in the particular areas
 6   where the proposed transects exist, would indicate that
 7   it is a relatively minor portion of the thing, and what
 8   we have done is -- I'm sorry.  I must correct that.
 9   What we will be measuring will be total organic carbon
10   in these waters, with the -- with the size exclusion on
11   the size of particles included in that.  So, dissolved
12   and particulate should be TOC, or total organic carbon.
13       Q.    Where are the transects located on which this
14   work will be conducted?
15       A.    I'm not entirely certain of that, based on
16   that I don't know what they're referring to as
17   transects.  I do know that they will be occupying the
18   same transects that I have occupied -- that they will
19   be the same -- they'll be along the same transects that
20   I occupied previously, the S-12C transect, in
21   Everglades National Park, and the east-west transect in
22   Loxahatchee, and perhaps the, I believe the S-10C
23   transect in Water Conservation Area 2A.  That's to the
24   best of my knowledge.
25       Q.    Are those transects identified in the EMAP

                                                 650

 1   study document, to the best of your knowledge?
 2       A.    I believe they are.
 3       Q.    Is conductivity a parameter which you will be
 4   measuring?
 5       A.    Yes.  It's on the list.
 6       Q.    Will water samples be filtered in the field
 7   to allow dissolved measurements?
 8       A.    We are in the midst of a series of
 9   discussions, and tests, experiments in the laboratory
10   now, and discussions amongst those of us involved in
11   this project as to the role of dissolved, and I would
12   like to put "dissolved" in quotes, or parentheses, or
13   whatever, because that is an extremely subjective and
14   almost impossible to define term in the context of
15   Everglades water.  But we are -- that is an area of
16   discussion at the moment, so I cannot answer that
17   question adequately.
18       Q.    Can you tell me why it's an almost impossible
19   area in connection with Everglades water?
20       A.    It's really a very difficult area in most
21   things.  "Dissolved" really refers more to -- it's
22   easiest to describe in terms of true soluble chemical
23   salts, in that then there's an interaction with the
24   water that causes them to go from their solid form to
25   being dissolved.  I don't know how else to say it

                                                 651

 1   simply.
 2             In the aspect of, you know, what is dissolved
 3   and what is particulate, or not dissolved, those have
 4   mostly been functional definitions that have been used.
 5   The ability of a sample to pass through a certain size
 6   filter.
 7             In the case of the Everglades samples, we
 8   have a lot of humic material, large, organic molecules,
 9   that are actually filterable, but yet, they would never
10   settle out to the bottom of a glass.
11             So, you know, certain people'S definition may
12   be that those are dissolved.  Others may be that that's
13   indeed not truly a dissolved compound.  And also
14   depending upon the type of filter you use, what the
15   actual compound, whether the filter is made of glass or
16   Teflon, polycarbonate, it will remove different
17   portions of this material.
18       Q.    Is dissolved material more bioavailable than
19   particulate material?
20       A.    Not necessarily.
21       Q.    Why not?
22       A.    Bioavailability in dissolved material -- I
23   can dissolve arsenic.  It doesn't have anything to do
24   with its, you know, bioavailability or its utilization.
25             There are a number of compounds that can be

                                                 652

 1   dissolved, that don't necessarily -- it doesn't have a
 2   relationship.
 3       Q.    Let's focus on the bioavailability of mercury
 4   in Everglades systems.
 5             Does the mercury have the potential to become
 6   bound up with particulate matter?
 7       A.    Certainly.
 8       Q.    Is there any difference reflected in whether
 9   it's bound up with particulate matter in the water
10   column versus in the sediments, as far as its
11   availability to higher trophic organisms may be
12   concerned?
13       A.    I don't believe you intended that question to
14   be impossible to answer, but it is, as such, due to
15   the -- there are different organisms in water versus
16   the sediment.
17             So, you have -- that's a question I can't
18   answer.
19       Q.    What is the nature of the debate that's -- or
20   discussion, I guess, on this subject?  What are the
21   viewpoints that describe the range of the discussion?
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Excuse me.  I don't understand
23        the question, Mr. Sams.
24             MR. SAMS:  I believe he said that he'S in
25        discussion with others.  He particularly alluded

                                                 653

 1        to his lab, concerning whether to measure
 2        particulate or dissolved organic carbon, and I'm
 3        really asking, what are the respective viewpoints
 4        that are under consideration?
 5       A.    You just said organic carbon.  Do you mean
 6   mercury?
 7       Q.    No.  I meant to say dissolved organic carbon.
 8       A.    We are not having a discussion as whether we
 9   should measure dissolved or particulate organic carbon.
10   I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your question.
11       Q.    Is the discussion concerning the use of
12   filters to filter out organic matter?
13       A.    No, it's not.
14       Q.    Do you know whether dissolved mercury is more
15   available to algae than mercury in a particulate form?
16       A.    That would be, again, a situation that would
17   depend upon where the algae were growing, and what -- a
18   number of other parameters.  I would assume that there
19   would be some differences, but they could be either
20   making it more available or making it less available or
21   have no effect at all.  So, the whole gamut could be
22   covered.
23       Q.    Are the discussions you have been having
24   involving filtration of samples in the field?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 654

 1       Q.    Who are those with?
 2             MS. PONZOLI:  Asked and answered.
 3       A.    Predominantly, with the people at EPA.  Jerry
 4   Stober would be the person I'm discussing it with the
 5   most.
 6       Q.    With whom else are you discussing it?
 7       A.    It's a general topic of discussion.  I am
 8   discussing it with Jerry.  Jerry is discussing it with
 9   others of -- I know he says he'S spoken to the people
10   at Battelle.  That he'S spoken to their, you know,
11   chemists on staff there, with -- that's the only two
12   groups that I am certain that he'S discussed it with.
13   I know there are others, but I couldn't be more --
14       Q.    Have you expressed a viewpoint in the course
15   of the discussions?
16       A.    I wouldn't call it a viewpoint.  I think that
17   what we are trying to do is ascertain the importance of
18   measuring mercury on particles, and mercury in filtered
19   samples, and again, given the constraint of time,
20   effort, costs, we are trying to define what are the
21   necessary components to be measured.  What do we want
22   to measure?
23             A number of people discussing this aspect are
24   from other areas.  They're not familiar with the
25   Everglades.  So, they're saying, "Gee, you should

                                                 655

 1   measure dissolved or you should measure particulate,"
 2   based on some lake in Minnesota.
 3             It doesn't pertain to the Everglades.  We
 4   need to define it for our situation, and we are in the
 5   process of doing that.
 6       Q.    Other than time, effort and cost, in other
 7   words, setting those aside, what are the competing
 8   scientific considerations?
 9       A.    I don't believe there are.  I would not
10   consider them competing scientific considerations.  I
11   think the only constraint here is time, effort and
12   cost.
13             The opportunity for all -- we all would like
14   to go on, as scientists, and measure every possible
15   parameter, no matter how remotely related to our
16   hypothesis or our working parameter.  We can't do that,
17   so we have to pare the list down somewhere.
18             I don't believe there are any sort of
19   competing scientific -- at least not in our
20   discussions, that has not been the reason.  We would
21   like to measure all components.  We will measure those
22   that we can do within the time constraints of
23   helicopter sampling and things like that.
24       Q.    I notice that back on the list of parameters,
25   on the document that has fax page 006 at the top, there

                                                 656

 1   is total nitrogen.
 2             Is that still intended to be included?
 3       A.    We will, in all likelihood, measure total
 4   nitrogen on soil and water samples.
 5       Q.    What is the purpose of that measurement?
 6       A.    In this case, it happens to be a measurement
 7   that we can make very easily.  The numbers come along
 8   with other analyses that we're doing for carbon, or
 9   that we're doing in our routine water analysis.  So, it
10   just happens to be something that's included there.
11             Like I said, I was surprised that total
12   phosphorus wasn't on the list.  It should have been
13   total phosphorus/total nitrogen, but I did not prepare
14   this document.
15             MR. SAMS:  Your counsel has requested a short
16        break in order to confer with others.  We will do
17        that at this time.
18                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
19                  after which the following proceedings
20                  were had:)
21   BY MR. SAMS:
22       Q.    Dr. Jones, if suspended mercury and dissolved
23   mercury could have different bioavailabilities in the
24   Everglades, how would the research that we've been
25   discussing enable you to sort that out?

                                                 657

 1       A.    The research that's contained within this
 2   document, or the --
 3       Q.    Within this document.
 4       A.    I believe I just answered and told you that
 5   we are examining suspended versus dissolved mercury and
 6   those aspects, because we want to know whether we're
 7   going to have to analyze those to -- and that would be
 8   in addition to the study.
 9             If, indeed, it turned out that we had to know
10   all of the components, we would change that, because at
11   the moment, it is not included in this study design,
12   this particular study design.
13       Q.    Is it included in another study design?
14       A.    I told you what we -- since this is ongoing
15   work, and we are in fact doing that now, it's part of
16   that, the design of that study.
17       Q.    What is the time frame of the study that we
18   are -- have been discussing this morning?
19       A.    I've heard everywhere from six to ten years,
20   of which we're two years into the project now.
21   Approximately.
22       Q.    Have any written reports of results been
23   generated from the first two years' effort?
24       A.    I told you what reports have been done for
25   the abstracts.  We are in the process of producing a

                                                 658

 1   report, or I should say, the Environmental Protection
 2   Agency is in the process of producing a report, of
 3   which I will have some input to.  And you have portions
 4   of the data to be included in that report, and some of
 5   the figures.
 6       Q.    Do your files include any draft of text for
 7   any portion of the report?
 8       A.    No.  Not as such.
 9       Q.    Do they include any graphical portrayals of
10   the data?
11       A.    Yes, they do.
12       Q.    Were those made available to us?
13       A.    Yes, they were.
14       Q.    Back when I discussed with you the areas in
15   which you had participated in discussions with the
16   authors of the report that was Exhibit No. 75, the
17   Stober and Hicks report, in which you are acknowledged
18   as a participant in the discussions, I believe you also
19   indicated that part of the discussion was the potential
20   sources of mercury in the Everglades.
21             Were you party to that discussion as well?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    I think you enumerated some sources, which I
24   don't need to ask you to repeat.
25             Are you of the view that all of those sources

                                                 659

 1   which you previously enumerated, are worthy of focus in
 2   the ongoing studies?
 3       A.    Our ongoing studies, my laboratory, I can't
 4   speak for all of EPA'S activities, are focusing on none
 5   of those.
 6       Q.    Including -- when you say, "None of those,"
 7   are you including agricultural land use practices?
 8       A.    My interest in mercury is in the process and
 9   analytical end of the thing.
10             Some of the data generated in my laboratory,
11   because of where the samples are collected from, can be
12   used in a modeling effort, or could be used in a
13   modeling effort that has to do with sources in the
14   sinks of mercury.
15             Therefore, I may be at some time involved in
16   discussion of that particular issue.  It is, however,
17   not the focus of myself or my group.  In the context of
18   this study, I should add.
19       Q.    What ideas did you contribute, if any, to the
20   discussion of potential sources, during the
21   discussions?
22             MS. PONZOLI:  I think it's been asked and
23        answered.
24       A.    The major contribution that I had towards the
25   source argument -- I shouldn't use the word "argument"

                                                 660

 1   there.  That, to me, means something different than it
 2   does to you.  To the source of the discussions, was
 3   that it is my opinion that the naturally occurring
 4   mercury in the sediment, in the soils of the Everglades
 5   system, is the major source of mercury for cycling in
 6   the system.
 7             MR. SAMS:  Would you read that answer back,
 8        please?
 9                  (The answer referred to was thereupon
10                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
11   BY MR. SAMS:
12       Q.    How do you define naturally occurring mercury
13   in the sediments or soils in the Everglades, versus
14   anthropogenic contributions?
15             MS. PONZOLI:  Anthropogenic sources of
16        mercury?
17             MR. SAMS:  Yes.
18   BY MR. SAMS:
19       Q.    Can you follow any of that?
20       A.    Yes, but you answered -- the distinction.
21   The distinction I'm making is between naturally
22   occurring allochtonous, if you want to start playing,
23   and anthropogenic mercury, and I was saying that the
24   mercury that's naturally occurring, is the major
25   source.  There's more of that material that was

                                                 661

 1   geologically deposited or is just there because of the
 2   global deposition of mercury, than that that is coming
 3   from anthropogenic or man caused sources here.
 4             There is a global mercury problem everywhere
 5   on the planet.  Mercury is elevated in the atmosphere.
 6   It's been going up, especially in the Northern
 7   Hemisphere.  So there has been an increased deposition
 8   of mercury.  But that's occurring in a fairly
 9   ubiquitous, to go back to one of our favorite words,
10   manner.
11             So, when we talk about the Everglades
12   sources, when I spoke of power plants or cane burning
13   or those types of things, those are specific
14   anthropogenic sources for the Everglades.
15       Q.    Does your answer mean that you consider the
16   major source of mercury in the Everglades, to be that
17   which was present before any influence by man?
18       A.    Not necessarily.
19       Q.    What is the exception that you would take
20   with that restatement?
21       A.    Mercury is still being deposited.  It's an
22   ongoing process.  Mercury goes up into the atmosphere
23   and then comes down from the atmosphere and is
24   deposited.
25             So, as soil processes -- soil builds up in

                                                 662

 1   the Everglades, these processes are still continuing.
 2   So, therefore, it's not just the stuff that was there,
 3   you know, since prior to, you know, January 1, 1994.
 4   It's the stuff that also fell down there today and will
 5   fall tomorrow.
 6       Q.    You would agree, I assume, in fact, I think
 7   you said, that some of what falls today and will fall
 8   tomorrow, comes from man-made sources.  Is that
 9   correct?
10       A.    From man'S activities.  You know, "man-made
11   source," makes it sounds like we're manufacturing
12   mercury.  But, yes, there are definitely global
13   impacts.
14       Q.    Is any of that falling within your definition
15   of "natural"?
16       A.    It would not fall within my definition of
17   "natural mercury," but it would fall within any
18   definition of something that we can't do a whole lot
19   about.  You know, we can't stop the mining of gold and
20   the use of mercury in that, in Brazil.
21       Q.    Could you give me an idea of the scope of
22   man'S activities that you would place within the
23   category of things we can't do anything about?
24             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm going to object to the
25        broad nature of this question.  It's ranging far

                                                 663

 1        beyond anything I brought this witness here to
 2        answer.
 3             MR. SAMS:  It's within the context of this
 4        discussion.
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  We've gone down the rabbit
 6        trail and more some.  I'm not instructing him not
 7        to answer.
 8   BY MR. SAMS:
 9       Q.    I need your definition.
10             MS. PONZOLI:  The scope of man'S activities
11        that we can do nothing about?
12             MR. SAMS:  That was his choice of a
13        construct, and I'm respecting that choice and now
14        I'm asking him to help me understand how he drew
15        that line.
16       A.    I'm referring to, at that point, you know,
17   activities that we can't do anything about or much
18   about, are those things which are outside of the
19   control of -- particularly, I guess it would be the
20   United States.  We can't go and dictate to another
21   country how they -- what they do to their environment,
22   although I believe we've tried it on a number of
23   occasions.
24             Those are the types of things.  There's also
25   some types of, particularly with mercury and with

                                                 664

 1   mining, tailings and waste that have occurred so long
 2   ago, in other words, mining operations that occurred in
 3   the 1800'S or whatever, and there are huge piles of
 4   slag and waste products from these means, that exist.
 5             Another thing we can't do, we can't control
 6   volcanos, and natural events, that put mercury into the
 7   atmosphere.  Those types of general things are what I'm
 8   referring to.
 9             There are some things that are less
10   controllable than passing a law that says do not use
11   mercury batteries, or they have to be disposed of
12   properly, or dispose of green, if you will, fluorescent
13   lighting, those types of things.
14             I'm having trouble trying to figure out what --
15             MS. PONZOLI:  You're not compelled to give
16        your philosophy of life.  That's kind of my
17        objection.
18             I would like this line of inquiry to end.
19   BY MR. SAMS:
20       Q.    I take it you would include within the
21   category of things we can do something about, some of
22   the other sources that you have mentioned, sugar cane
23   burning --
24       A.    I said we had discussions as to -- those
25   things were included.  I don't know that the source --

                                                 665

 1   the strength of cane burning.  I've seen some figures
 2   that would seem to indicate that it's not a major
 3   source of mercury into the atmosphere.  I've seen some
 4   other figures that seem to indicate that it's a
 5   tremendous source of mercury into the atmosphere.  But
 6   these are items, as I indicated right at the onset of
 7   this, are not aspects that I'm currently discussing, or
 8   currently examining in the laboratory.
 9             They were, however, subjects that we
10   discussed as things that needed to be included in any
11   complete study, which may mean that we include some
12   things that are insignificant to the problem.
13       Q.    Have you given any thought to how you would
14   quantitatively define a background nutrient level that
15   would take into account this division between things we
16   can do something about and things we can't do something
17   about?
18       A.    Referring specifically to phosphorus, here?
19       Q.    No.  I'm referring to mercury.
20       A.    You said nutrient.
21       Q.    I'm sorry.
22       A.    You're going to have to -- under that
23   context, I've lost the question.
24       Q.    For purposes of defining a mercury
25   background, have you given thought to how to

                                                 666

 1   distinguish between things we can do something about,
 2   which as I take it, would not be part of the natural
 3   background in your view, and things we cannot do
 4   something about, which I take it would be part of the
 5   natural -- let me back up.
 6             The things which we can't do something about,
 7   which would be part of the natural background, and
 8   things we can do something about, which would not be
 9   part of the natural background?
10             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm going to object to the form
11        of the question.
12             I'm not even sure what a mercury background
13        means.  So, if Dr. Jones can answer it, he'S
14        certainly welcome to.
15       A.    I will just state again, that this is not an
16   area of active research.  There are others in the State
17   of Florida.
18             I'm aware of a report by KBN, I believe it's
19   the KBN report, outlining the various sources of
20   mercury in the State of Florida, placing some numbers
21   and some constraints on them, making a fairly detailed
22   discussion of each one of those, and its potential role
23   in the cycle, or in the mercury background, including
24   things that we can easily control, things that we can't
25   easily control, things that we cannot control, and I

                                                 667

 1   would refer you to that document to answer your
 2   question.
 3       Q.    As part of your work, do you intend to
 4   attempt to identify a natural background concentration
 5   of mercury in the Everglades?
 6       A.    It may -- as I indicated before, the work
 7   that we are performing in our laboratory, the numbers
 8   that we are generating from the analysis of the
 9   samples, may aid in that type of a determination.  It
10   is not the principal goal of my laboratory at the
11   moment.  We are concerning ourselves predominantly with
12   the analytical and processes involved in the cycles of
13   mercury in Florida.
14       Q.    From a scientific standpoint, was mercury
15   being cycled in the Everglades before human influence?
16       A.    Certainly.
17       Q.    In general, can you describe for me the
18   mechanisms by which that was occurring?
19       A.    The mechanisms would be the same mechanisms
20   that are occurring now.
21             What we have hypothesized, is that the rate
22   at which these various processes or mechanisms has
23   changed.
24       Q.    Would man-induced drying and flooding of the
25   Everglades effect mercury cycling, that is the rate of

                                                 668

 1   mercury cycling?
 2       A.    It's possible.
 3       Q.    Do you have a view of whether it's likely or
 4   not?
 5       A.    I am fairly certain that it would be likely.
 6   It would be the magnitude of that effect.  Again,
 7   everything is -- the cycles are taking place.  It's
 8   just the rate at which they are occurring.
 9       Q.    Are you aware of any studies ongoing to
10   determine the magnitude of that effect?
11       A.    It is one of the goals of the particular
12   research that we are conducting.  When we get to that,
13   if we get to that, depends upon the availability of
14   funding, and again, the priorities placed on the
15   project.
16       Q.    At this time, it has not been authorized or
17   funded.  Is that correct?
18       A.    At this time, we have a lot of freedom as to
19   what has been authorized or funded.  So, I would
20   hesitate to say that it has not been funded or
21   authorized, because if I were to say that that was my
22   top priority, it could be work that would be conducted
23   immediately.
24             It is not my top priority, and therefore, it
25   is not taking place at the moment.  We do have

                                                 669

 1   intentions to do it at some time in the future.
 2       Q.    Why is it not your top priority?
 3       A.    My priority at the moment, as I've indicated
 4   on numerous occasions, is to look at the effects of
 5   eutrophication on the cycle of mercury, the phosphorus
 6   impacts, and so that is my top priority, and also, we
 7   are working on analytical methodologies, trying to
 8   continually improve those.  So, those are the two
 9   current priorities in my laboratory.
10       Q.    Why is the effect of eutrophication of a
11   higher priority than looking at hydrology and its
12   impact?
13             MS. PONZOLI:  Mr. Sams, you are
14        cross-examining him on ongoing research in an area
15        of the case that you are presenting, not we, and I
16        think this is a wholly improper line of
17        questioning.  I see no point in it.
18             I also think that at some point, it's
19        harassment.  You know, I don't know how long I'll
20        let this go on, but at some point I'm going to
21        move for a protective order to stop this, until
22        you say why you have to cross-examine a researcher
23        in an area that we are not presenting in this
24        case, on why he chooses to prioritize one piece of
25        research over another piece of research.  I think

                                                 670

 1        it's harassment.
 2             MR. SAMS:  You will have to make that
 3        decision at the time you make it.
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  I certainly will, but I think
 5        you are going to continue to hear that you are in
 6        a wholly inappropriate line of questioning, and
 7        that you are abusing the process, quite honestly.
 8             MR. SAMS:  I have little doubt that I will
 9        hear that continuously.
10   BY MR. SAMS:
11       Q.    Until your counsel stops you, I would
12   appreciate your answer.
13       A.    The --
14             MS. PONZOLI:  To the extent that you feel
15        comfortable explaining your research, Dr. Jones --
16             MR. SAMS:  I'm sorry.  This is instructing
17        the witness.
18             MS. PONZOLI:  I will instruct the witness, I
19        will, and I will move for protective order, Mr.
20        Sams, if you do not show some consideration for
21        the inappropriate line of inquiry that is
22        continuing to go on day after day.
23             We are into the second day of Dr. Jones'
24        research, without any showing by your client or
25        your side, as to why we are spending two days on

                                                 671

 1        his ongoing research.
 2             Dr. Jones, you are not compelled to answer
 3        all questions regarding your research.
 4             You are here to give your opinions that the
 5        United States will offer at trial.  I will allow
 6        you to give factual answers as to what you are
 7        doing, but you are not compelled to give opinions
 8        on ongoing research.  That is not part of what the
 9        United States is offering you for at this time.
10             You may read back the question that is
11        pending from Mr. Sams.
12                  (The question referred to was thereupon
13                  read by the reporter as above recorded.)
14       A.    Given that the cycles -- the organisms that
15   transform mercury, bacteria, the parameter that would
16   have the greatest effect would be that parameter which
17   is limiting their activity.  It is my opinion that that
18   parameter in the Everglades system, is the availability
19   of phosphorus, and not the availability of water.
20   Therefore, we have chosen to, or I have chosen, to
21   examine the phosphorus hypothesis first.
22       Q.    Dr. Jones, what is the basis for your
23   scientific opinion that it is phosphorus, not water,
24   that effects mercury cycling in the Everglades?
25             MS. PONZOLI:  Did you say that was your

                                                 672

 1        scientific opinion, Dr. Jones?
 2             I apologize that I didn't follow your answer
 3        closely enough.
 4       A.    The question -- I was going to have to change
 5   your question.
 6             MS. PONZOLI:  You cannot change his question.
 7        You only answer his question.
 8             THE WITNESS:  Restate it.
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  You're not restating his
10        question.  I wanted to know if you said it was
11        your scientific opinion, because I didn't recall
12        you had said that.  Did you say that?
13             THE WITNESS:  Not in the context of the
14        question that's pending.
15             MS. PONZOLI:  Then, it can't be answered.
16        Your question is improper.  It assumes something
17        he never said.
18             MR. SAMS:  Could you read back the witness'
19        last response, please?
20             MS. PONZOLI:  Why don't you read the question
21        with it?
22                  (The portion of the record referred to
23                  was thereupon read by the reporter as
24                  above recorded.)
25   BY MR. SAMS:

                                                 673

 1       Q.    What is the basis for the opinion that you
 2   expressed in that response, Dr. Jones?
 3       A.    Microorganisms, hydrology, or water
 4   availability to a bacteria, is considerably different
 5   than that necessary for fish.  A bacteria coated with a
 6   micron or two of water, has got all the water it needs.
 7   It may or may not have all of the nutrients it needs.
 8   And under this circumstance, water would not be
 9   limiting.  What is limiting would be phosphorus, and
10   therefore, phosphorus would be the parameter of most
11   interest.
12       Q.    Is there any other basis for the opinion that
13   you expressed in the response that the court reporter
14   read back?
15       A.    That is my reason.
16       Q.    Looked at on an Everglades system basis,
17   could the effect of man induced drying and flooding, be
18   as great as the effect of nutrients in causing the
19   cycling of mercury?
20             MS. PONZOLI:  I have my continuing objection.
21       A.    Drying, man induced drying and flooding, also
22   effects the release and availability of phosphorus and,
23   my opinion is that because of that, and then separating
24   out the effects of nutrients or phosphorus, by drying
25   and flooding, that, therefore, the drying would not

                                                 674

 1   have as significant an effect as the nutrients or
 2   phosphorus.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Could we take a break?
 4             MR. SAMS:  Sure.
 5                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
 6                  after which the following proceedings
 7                  were had:)
 8   BY MR. SAMS:
 9       Q.    Dr. Jones, would you agree that flooding,
10   even in the absence of phosphorus in the Everglades
11   soils, could lead toward anaerobic conditions?
12       A.    I've indicated in previous testimony, during
13   these proceedings, that flooding, alone, in the native
14   Everglades soils, does not lead to anaerobic conditions
15   of that soil, in and of itself.
16       Q.    So, it is your view that flooding in the
17   absence of phosphorus, cannot lead to anaerobic
18   conditions.  Is that the gist of your response?  In the
19   Everglades soils.
20             MS. PONZOLI:  You've restated his answer in a
21        different way.
22       A.    Yes.  Anaerobic conditions -- the data that
23   was questioned on yesterday, I believe, dealing with
24   oxygen and redox, we've probably well gone into the
25   answers of how phosphorus affects that, and what the

                                                 675

 1   native or pristine Everglades conditions are like.
 2             Just flooding, in and of itself, is not a
 3   factor in redox or oxygen in the soils.
 4       Q.    Would your last response be the same
 5   regardless of the depth or duration of flooding?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Does redox vary naturally with the season, in
 8   the Everglades?
 9       A.    I don't know.
10       Q.    Is that one of the things that your ongoing
11   research effort would show, or determine?
12       A.    One of the parameters being measured is EH,
13   if you will, which is a measurement or an estimation of
14   redox.
15             Given that the samplings occur in a seasonal
16   manner, at various times during the year, then that
17   will be a parameter that will be elucidated.
18       Q.    Does soil redox potential in the Everglades,
19   vary diurnally?
20       A.    It could.
21       Q.    Is that one of the things that your study
22   will examine?
23       A.    This particular study will not.
24       Q.    Will another study examine that, if you are
25   aware of one?

                                                 676

 1       A.    It is our intent to make those measurements
 2   in the context of another study.
 3       Q.    What is the other study?
 4       A.    The phosphorus impact, or what we are
 5   referring to as the Class III dosing study.
 6             MR. SAMS:  I would like to show you another
 7        document, which we will mark as Exhibit No. 77.
 8          (The document referred to was thereupon
 9   marked Jones Exhibit 77 for Identification.)
10   BY MR. SAMS:
11       Q.    Could you identify for me, Dr. Jones, what
12   document or documents comprise Exhibit No. 77?
13       A.    I believe these are the results of the
14   analysis for mercury of the water and soil samples
15   collected on the United States entry into the EAA for
16   sampling.
17       Q.    When were they collected, Dr. Jones?
18       A.    I believe that the date is indicated on the
19   first two -- three pages of the document, which are the
20   compilation of the field notes, or the station
21   location.
22       Q.    Could you identify for me, by column, the
23   information that is in the columns that are contained
24   on those first two pages?
25       A.    Yes.  The first column consisting of an

                                                 677

 1   integer that's circled, would be the site number, if
 2   you will.
 3             The second set of three numbers -- as an
 4   example, I believe the first one reads 44-34-11, and
 5   you will have to forgive me, but I believe that that's
 6   range -- it's township, range, section.  Something like
 7   that, you know.  Without the map, I can't figure that
 8   out, but that's what that is.
 9             The next series of numbers with a -- with two
10   degree designations on them -- for example, the first
11   one reads, the line with the one, reads, 26 degrees,
12   40.8716, and then there's a slash 80 degrees, 54.6017.
13   Those would be the GPS coordinates, latitude and
14   longitude.
15             The next column contains the designation,
16   "UT," which refers to universal time.
17             Then the last column, again, with three
18   numbers separated by colon, example, 15:04:13, is
19   indeed the universal time.
20       Q.    And the final column is the date of the
21   sampling?
22       A.    Yes.  I'm sorry, yes.  23 March 1993, which
23   is at the head of that, would be the date that the
24   samples one through six were collected -- one through
25   seven were collected, and 24 March, 1993, would be

                                                 678

 1   eight through the next.
 2       Q.    Have you mapped these locations?
 3       A.    Yes, I have.
 4       Q.    Was that map provided to us?
 5       A.    I saw a big color copy of it sitting over in
 6   the corner before.  I don't know that it's still --
 7   that it still exists.
 8       Q.    Is the map which I'm showing you in a
 9   laminated form, that map?
10       A.    Yes.  Could I get a copy, laminated?  It's
11   much nicer than my version.
12             MS. PONZOLI:  You should have something for
13        four days of this.
14             MR. SAMS:  Perhaps we can inquire whether the
15        court reporter has a laminating process.
16   BY MR. SAMS:
17       Q.    Dr. Jones, I note that this map appears to be
18   in two portions, an upper and a lower.
19             Can you tell me how one would read these data
20   against either the upper or the lower map?
21       A.    I'm going to stand up.
22       Q.    Is there somewhere we can put this that's
23   more -- that's fine.
24       A.    I definitely want this framed.
25             Yes.  On the lower map, each one -- there are

                                                 679

 1   sections that are colored, and then there's, again, an
 2   integer in a circle, and that would correspond with the
 3   integer in a circle.
 4             For instance, in this section here, there's a
 5   one.  That would mean that this is indeed the same one
 6   that is here.
 7       Q.    Would the record correctly reflect that that
 8   example happens to be the uppermost colored square and
 9   circled integer?
10       A.    Yes, that's correct.
11       Q.    So, the circled integers that you are
12   speaking of, are those appearing in green?
13       A.    It would appear that they're in green
14   throughout the map.
15             Now, again, this was created at one time.  I
16   was taken out to these locations by the Co-op --
17             MS. PONZOLI:  Owner representatives.
18       A.    Owner representatives, and they represented
19   to me that we were, indeed, at the particular section
20   under indication.
21             I recorded the GPS figures on there, given
22   that we were to place this on a GIS system, and it
23   would tell me that indeed I was not at that section.
24   Then, the coordinates here would hold, rather than the
25   representation I was given by the parties taking me.

                                                 680

 1             MR. SAMS:  I'm going to have the court
 2        reporter mark this as Exhibit No. 78, just so it
 3        can be identified to the record.
 4             THE REPORTER:  Are you keeping custody of
 5        that?
 6             MR. SAMS:  I need to confer with one of my
 7        colleagues, who fortunately is in the next room
 8        today, in order to determine.  We may have the
 9        basic map from which this was reproduced, and I
10        was going to discuss with other counsel, I might
11        as well do it now, if that's true, whether we --
12        whether it would be the consensus that we take
13        this map or just simply provide additional
14        reproductions, which can always be checked against
15        the original to make sure that they're what's
16        here.  We simply were unable given the short time,
17        to laminate more than one copy.  I have no problem
18        with furnishing multiple laminated copies,
19        especially for Dr. Jones' wall, but I just would
20        like to find some way that's mutually agreeable,
21        to do this.
22             MS. PONZOLI:  I don't want to make it overly
23        difficult for you, but it is my preference that
24        exhibits be attached to the deposition, and not
25        floating separately.  Just because of the volume

                                                 681

 1        of the documents in this case means that when we
 2        go back with the deposition, we have to begin to
 3        locate what was the appropriate map.
 4             There are color reproductions of this in all
 5        of our possession, and I guess I would suggest
 6        that if you have one, or can provide one, that
 7        that be attached, and that the court reporter
 8        duplicate that for all of us, when he returns the
 9        depositions.
10             MR. SAMS:  I don't have that with me, but I
11        believe you furnished it to us.  I have no
12        objection to furnishing it back to you, or to
13        sending you the copies, which you can verify are
14        true copies, and then you sending them on to the
15        court reporter.  I can't offer him the paper
16        version today, is what I am saying.
17             MS. PONZOLI:  I would prefer you offer it to
18        the court reporter, and that paperwork be handled
19        between you and the court reporter, since you are
20        taking the deposition.  I don't want to take that
21        responsibility.
22             MR. SAMS:  Fine.  I would like the laminated
23        version marked Exhibit 78, if I could.
24          (The document referred to was thereupon
25   marked Jones Exhibit 78 for Identification.)

                                                 682

 1             MS. PONZOLI:  Off the record.
 2             (Discussion off the record.)
 3   BY MR. SAMS:
 4       Q.    I still need to ask you a few more questions
 5   to orient myself to Exhibit No. 78.
 6             What does the upper map portray?  I believe
 7   our discussion about the numbers in green circles
 8   applies to the lower map.  There appear to be some
 9   difference of the squares and an absence of circled
10   numbers on the upper map.
11             Can you tell me what the difference is?
12       A.    Yes, I can.
13       Q.    What is that?
14       A.    These are two separate maps.  They're
15   together, because I use them in that manner.  The top
16   map has a code here, indicating the ownership of the
17   properties, and the bottom map was the map that I used
18   in the field to determine which sites we would go to on
19   what date, and those are circled in pink, and then
20   there's a large number 15, 16, 23, 30, 31, for
21   instance, that indicates -- that indicates, I believe,
22   the date that I wanted to go sampling.
23             I believe the -- there were a number of
24   different things that either delayed or whatever, so I
25   can't -- for instance, I think our first date in was

                                                 683

 1   the twenty-third, and so, even though our -- our first
 2   date was the twenty-third, it would appear from the
 3   number one being in here, that we actually visited
 4   that, instead of on the sixteenth, that we visited it
 5   on the twenty-third of March.
 6             I don't know whether they're referring to the
 7   sixteenth of March or the sixteenth of February, but,
 8   you know, that was my intention, I believe, at the time
 9   I wrote this out, to just indicate what number of days
10   we would need for access and where we would go.
11       Q.    So, by reference to the first two pages of
12   data that you have given us, utilizing the numbers in
13   the first column, the site numbers, we can identify
14   those sites on the map and then rely on the --
15   necessarily, rely on the dates shown on the map, but
16   rather rely definitively on the dates shown in the last
17   column?
18       A.    That is correct.  These were an approximation
19   of how we were going to try and accomplish the work.
20       Q.    Does the upper map indicate any discrete
21   data, other than ownership of the parcels at which the
22   samples were taken?
23       A.    I do not believe so, and to the extent that
24   this upper map is -- the lower map is indeed where we
25   collected samples.  The upper map was used to -- also

                                                 684

 1   in some of the negotiations of allowing entry and
 2   access.  So, there's a significant amount of time
 3   between the production of this and this particular --
 4   the top map and the bottom map.  So, I can't guarantee
 5   that all of the little squares are the exact same
 6   sections.  It would appear to be that, but --
 7       Q.    But it might differ?
 8       A.    It might differ.  The bottom map is the map
 9   that's associated with the sampling.
10       Q.    Very good.  Was the selection of sampling
11   sites, one which you made?
12       A.    I participated in the selection of sampling
13   locations.
14       Q.    With whom did you participate?
15       A.    Attorneys from, I think, probably almost all
16   parties.
17             MS. PONZOLI:  Mr. Sams, you were not part of
18        that process.  There were a protracted number of
19        hearings, where there was enormous resistance from
20        all sections of the industry to any entry, and
21        these are -- these merely reflect semi-willing
22        owners of property to allow us on their property
23        within certain bands.
24             They have little more significance than that.
25        It was a very difficult entry, and there were very

                                                 685

 1        few people who were willing to let us come on
 2        their property.
 3             I think, if you review the DOAH hearing
 4        records, which I know you were not part of, but
 5        certainly your client was, this was most
 6        difficult, and we had a great deal of difficulty
 7        in obtaining any sites to obtain entry.
 8             MR. SAMS:  I'm sure those records will speak
 9        for themselves.
10             MS. PONZOLI:  They certainly do.
11             MR. HYDE:  There was a more difficult entry
12        made to try to get access to publicly owned land.
13             MS. PONZOLI:  But you were allowed to go
14        where you wished to go.  We were not.  We were
15        only allowed to go where certain owners would
16        allow us to.
17             MR. SAMS:  This is hardly a trial of that
18        issue.  As to all those matters, the record speaks
19        for itself.  I wasn't intending to ask Dr.
20        Jones --
21             MS. PONZOLI:  Open old wounds.
22             MR. SAMS:  I can't do much about wounds, but
23        I wasn't intending to ask Dr. Jones about the
24        legal proceedings, in any event.
25   BY MR. SAMS:

                                                 686

 1       Q.    Dr. Jones, what I am interested in is whether
 2   any principles of scientific interest are reflected, in
 3   your viewpoint, or from your viewpoint, in the array of
 4   sites chosen and their relative locations?  And by
 5   that, since the word "chosen" seems to open volumes, I
 6   would just point out, what I mean is those ultimately
 7   resulting.
 8       A.    Yes, there is some scientific reasoning
 9   behind the particular locations reflected here.
10       Q.    Could you describe that reasoning, please,
11   sir?
12       A.    There are varying depths of soil throughout
13   the Everglades Agricultural Area, varying land use
14   histories, if you will.
15             The attempt was made to encompass as many of
16   those as possible with the caveat on there that often a
17   sample site was not available for sampling due to
18   the -- due to the lack of, I believe, willingness by
19   the owner or some other legal issue, which you
20   indicated I don't have to speak to.
21       Q.    Any other factors besides depths of soil and
22   land use histories that influenced the array of
23   locations?
24       A.    Trying to encompass as large of a geographic
25   area as possible.

                                                 687

 1       Q.    Any others?
 2       A.    Soil types.
 3       Q.    Any others?
 4       A.    It was of interest to -- particularly for
 5   phosphorus -- to sample the mill locations.
 6       Q.    Are some of those represented on the map?
 7       A.    Yes, they are.
 8       Q.    Are they distinguished from field locations
 9   by any indicator?
10       A.    The map contains a -- I will use as an
11   example, it says Atlantic Sugar Association,
12   Incorporated, and then there's a little icon that looks
13   like a glob here.  It looks like a sugar mill on the
14   original.
15       Q.    Would a pyramid-like shape perhaps be a fair
16   layman'S --
17       A.    Yes, a pyramid with a smoke stack on it.
18       Q.    Very good.
19             While I'm on that same general subject, are
20   there any other symbols reflecting discrete types of
21   situations?
22       A.    I don't believe there are.  I think there are
23   just numbers in the rest of the squares.
24       Q.    Just to satisfy what may be curiosity, alone,
25   I see two, which appear to be sections, bisected at an

                                                 688

 1   angle, that have little triangles instead of little
 2   squares.  I'm assuming that the triangles represent
 3   nothing more than parcels, shape, in some fashion.  Is
 4   that correct?
 5       A.    I drew in that portion of the section to make
 6   it more clear.
 7       Q.    The list of factors you gave me of had
 8   several topics.  Are there any others that -- any other
 9   criteria for selection of this array of sites that you
10   employed, or that were employed?
11       A.    The original set of criteria were somewhat
12   tempered by the availability of dates that we could
13   make access, and those types of things.
14             So, I would have to say what you have there
15   is a complete list of criteria that were finally used.
16       Q.    For what reason did dates for access become a
17   factor?
18       A.    If you were to review the documents produced
19   by the United States for entry and access, there were a
20   number of things that were lands under, say, different
21   activities.  Due to the limited time frame involved,
22   allowed for our access, we were not able to have
23   certain of those activities.
24             There are certain agricultural practices that
25   take place during the summer, that are seasonal, and if

                                                 689

 1   we had intended to examine those, under the relatively
 2   short time frame there, not all of those activities
 3   were taking place.  So, that was dropped as a criteria.
 4       Q.    What types of activities are you referring
 5   to?
 6       A.    Active growth of, you know, cane, or pumping
 7   of water on and off the fields.  Harvesting of cane.
 8   Vegetable production.  At different stages, the
 9   agricultural practices associated with the area.
10       Q.    Were any hydrologic considerations taken into
11   account in defining this array of sites?
12       A.    They were taken into consideration and,
13   again, it was an item that became very difficult to
14   control because of the industry'S hesitance to allow us
15   to enter onto certain portions, certain pieces of
16   property.
17       Q.    To the extent that they were taken into
18   account, treating that hesitance as a given, how are
19   they reflected within this array of sites?
20       A.    For the most part, the array of sites does
21   not indicate that there.  There are, though, some
22   exceptions to that, in that several of the sites were
23   chosen because of their location adjacent to canals in
24   the EAA.
25       Q.    Is there a way by which one can identify that

                                                 690

 1   in examining the map?
 2       A.    Yes.  You might want to get a cleaner version
 3   of that, because you can't see this whole thing, but I
 4   believe -- I believe --
 5       Q.    I see canal names.
 6       A.    Yes.  There's a canal here, and I believe
 7   it's the -- I would want to say North New River, but --
 8   Miami Canal, at this point, perhaps.
 9             Anyway, there are several locations that were
10   adjacent to that canal, and if you were to go through
11   the area and see, that would be how you would identify
12   the parcels located adjacent to canals.
13       Q.    Why were those sites chosen for locations
14   adjacent to canals?
15       A.    It was hoped that the entry would occur at a
16   time when the agricultural activities would have
17   involved either pumping water on or off of fields.
18       Q.    You say that it was hoped that that would be
19   the case.  Was it the case?
20       A.    It was not.
21       Q.    Is that uniformly true?
22       A.    Although I observed some parcels -- some
23   water being moved in the EAA during the time of our
24   access, it was not on any -- there was no water being
25   pumped on or off of any of the parcels that we

                                                 691

 1   examined, to the best of my knowledge.
 2             There, I'm relying upon the honesty of the
 3   people who took us to these various locations, because
 4   that was the question they were asked upon entry of the
 5   property.
 6       Q.    And their response was that water is not
 7   being pumped on or off?
 8       A.    That's correct.
 9       Q.    Do you have any reason, based on what you
10   observed, to believe that was a misrepresentation?
11       A.    No.  In fact, I'm -- we did want to collect
12   water samples.  So, it was important that we -- we had
13   locations where there was water in both the field
14   ditches, the laterals, and I also wanted to collect
15   tissue samples.  So, it was important from that aspect,
16   also.  And the one area of good cooperation was in the
17   employees taking me to the appropriate location.  So, I
18   feel that they were not deceiving me in any way.
19       Q.    Why did you desire to obtain data when water
20   was being pumped on or off the fields?
21       A.    Although this represents a relatively broad
22   area that's covered, it would have been very nice if we
23   could have got an indication of how much material was
24   coming off of fields, and how much material was going
25   onto fields.

                                                 692

 1             Under the ideal situation, every location
 2   would have had water going on it someplace, and coming
 3   off it at another place, or we would have been able to
 4   sample multiple occasions.
 5       Q.    Were there any other hydrologic aspects,
 6   besides, I guess, the two you have mentioned?  They may
 7   be one and the same, adjacency to canals, and the
 8   desire to obtain data while water was being pumped on
 9   or off the fields.  Any other hydrological factors in
10   the choice of locations?
11       A.    Not in the choice of locations.
12       Q.    If I could refer you back to the data now
13   that's been marked Exhibit No. 77, I'd like to walk
14   through that, just so I have the best understanding I
15   can get of what is shown there.
16             On the first page, I see a reference to --
17   two references, I guess, to fish.
18             Can you tell me what those references are?
19       A.    The first one, it says "Fish from main.
20   Other samples, field," I believe, or -- I --
21       Q.    That may be a fair interpretation.
22       A.    Not all of these notes were written by
23   myself.  I had two different people accompanying me, so
24   I -- I'm reading.
25             That would indicate that the fish sample was

                                                 693

 1   taken from the main canal, and the other sample was
 2   taken from the field lateral or ditch, and I -- if I
 3   had the original notes, I might be able to make that
 4   out, but I can't -- I can't tell from this copy.
 5       Q.    Unfortunately, this is the best copy we have.
 6             Are you looking at the word in parentheses?
 7       A.    Yes, I am.
 8       Q.    You are unable to identify what that means?
 9       A.    Yes, I am.
10       Q.    The same general sense of the next reference
11   to fish, about half a dozen lines down?
12       A.    Yes.  Generally speaking, some of these field
13   ditches, even though they had water in them, were so
14   anoxic, that it was impossible to collect anything --
15   living fish in them.  It was an experience.
16       Q.    There's only one reference that I spot on the
17   second page referencing fish.  It's after item, or
18   site, 32.
19             Would that have been a point at which a fish
20   was collected, as well?
21       A.    When we refer to "fish" here, I should point
22   out to you that we also had -- we had -- this is
23   basically referring to animals.  We collected fish,
24   crayfish, the little fresh water shrimp, Palmonetes.
25             Whatever was available, we took whatever

                                                 694

 1   number of individuals was allowed under the order
 2   granting entry and access.  So, the designation,
 3   "Fish," does not necessarily mean fish only, and it
 4   also means there were a number of species.
 5       Q.    Aquatic critters?
 6       A.    Aquatic critters, yes.
 7       Q.    Were those aquatic critters ultimately
 8   analyzed for data?
 9       A.    Some of them were.  Not all of them.
10       Q.    Are the data which reflects their analysis,
11   found in other pages of this document?
12       A.    I believe so.
13       Q.    Could you try to direct me to those pages?
14       A.    Okay.  The summary of the results of the
15   soils and sediments are -- there's a fax page number,
16   it says P.06.  I believe it's the fourth page of the
17   document.  It starts there and continues on to --
18   continues through page 8 of the fax number on top.
19       Q.    Those are soils and sediment samples?
20       A.    It says nanograms per gram, so I'm assuming
21   those would be soils and sediments, yes.  And then
22   there's a designation indicating which page the actual
23   sample analyses are on.
24       Q.    Are those, then, designations referring to
25   subsequent pages of this document?

                                                 695

 1       A.    Yes.  And unfortunately -- well, maybe -- I
 2   believe that that would refer to the handwritten number
 3   in the upper right hand corner of the page.
 4       Q.    You're talking about pages that would be best
 5   read if turned sideways?
 6       A.    That is correct.
 7       Q.    Do those start with -- it appears they may be
 8   out of order.
 9       A.    That was my ascertation, also.
10       Q.    Although they appear in my copy to be the
11   order in which we received them.
12             I thought I saw two page ones.  No, I think
13   I'm seeing a seven and confusing it with a one.
14       A.    To make it easier, there are -- the first
15   seven pages, hand-numbered, are the analysis of the
16   water samples for total mercury.
17       Q.    Those would correspond with fax pages 9
18   through 15?
19       A.    That's correct.
20       Q.    So, those are water samples?
21       A.    Then the fax pages starting with 16, and --
22             MS. PONZOLI:  9 through 15 are water?
23             THE WITNESS:  9 through 15 are water.  And
24        16 -- it would appear that the remainder would be
25        the sediment and soils.

                                                 696

 1   BY MR. SAMS:
 2       Q.    Dr. Jones, I think maybe just for purposes of
 3   clarifying the record, we can note that the fax was
 4   submitted in two installments, and you're talking about
 5   the remainder of the first installment and all of the
 6   second installment, which would be pages 16 of the --
 7   fax pages 16 through 28 of the first installment, and
 8   then fax pages 2 through 8 of the second installment.
 9   Does that appear to you, to be a correct summation?
10       A.    That appears to be correct.
11             MS. PONZOLI:  Those are all soils and
12        sediments?
13             THE WITNESS:  Soils and sediments.
14   BY MR. SAMS:
15       Q.    Is there any particular reason that you would
16   have kept the pages in this order, in your file?
17       A.    I'm -- in the order that they're occurring?
18   You mean --
19       Q.    Yes.
20       A.    You mean one through seven and one through
21   twenty?
22       Q.    I'm referring to the one through seven, and
23   then one, nine, three, four, five.
24       A.    No, that's a two.  They're in the appropriate
25   order.

                                                 697

 1       Q.    Okay.
 2       A.    They are in the one -- they're one through
 3   twenty, and they were in the appropriate order, with
 4   the exception of a fax cover sheet stuck in the midst.
 5       Q.    Fine.  Why don't we, having identified the
 6   document by parts, go back, if you would, to page 6,
 7   fax page 6?  For the record, since this has been an
 8   extended discussion, I note that we are still in
 9   Exhibit No. 77.
10             You have there a series of four columns.  The
11   sample ID number is what?
12       A.    There are in that column, designations that
13   would be E, S and G, and then followed by, say, for
14   instance, the first thing says E-1.
15             That would indicate sediment, meaning that it
16   came from the field ditch, and one would indicate the
17   sample location.
18       Q.    So, "E" is sediment?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    And "1" is location?
21       A.    That's correct.
22       Q.    Would that match the numbers in green that
23   appeared on the bottom portion of the map which is
24   Exhibit 78?
25       A.    To the best of my knowledge.  What I know

                                                 698

 1   they certainly match is the circled integer on page 1
 2   of Jones 77.
 3       Q.    And the intention of that, at least, was to
 4   match the numbers appearing on the lower half of the
 5   map?
 6       A.    As so indicated.
 7       Q.    Then S stands for?
 8       A.    Soil.
 9       Q.    And again, it's followed by the location.
10       A.    That's correct.
11       Q.    Then G?
12       A.    G represented the -- the S samples were
13   collected using core devices, and the G samples were
14   collected as grab samples, as previously described in
15   my deposition.
16       Q.    So, G, again, is a soil grab sample.  Is that
17   correct?
18       A.    Right.
19       Q.    Rather than sediment.
20       A.    Correct.  The sediments were collected --
21   every place you see an E, that means it was collected
22   from an aquatic location, either a field ditch or a
23   lateral or whatever was associated with that particular
24   location, and the S and G, represent samples, composite
25   samples collected in the fields themselves.

                                                 699

 1       Q.    Then the next column --
 2       A.    Is the average concentration of total mercury
 3   in nanograms per gram.
 4       Q.    Was that as measured in your laboratory?
 5       A.    These are the results from our laboratory.
 6       Q.    What is that number reflecting an average of?
 7       A.    You would have to go to the pages of data,
 8   and you would find that there are the replicate
 9   analyses, I believe.
10       Q.    Could you direct me to that page, so I can --
11       A.    Well, it says on E-1, so it would indicate
12   that's on pages 1 and 2.  So, if you were to go and
13   find the samples that are labeled E, at the bottom of
14   page -- of the handwritten page 1, in the top
15   right-hand corner, it would be page 16 of the fax, the
16   bottom there is an E-1 -- E-1-1, and followed by
17   another E-1-1, and if you proceed to the top of the
18   next page, it would say E-1-2, E-1-2, E-1-3, E-1-3.  It
19   would be an average of all of those numbers, which
20   represent the triplicate sample collected, the three
21   replicates.
22       Q.    Were split samples provided to anyone?
23       A.    John Davis took water samples.  I do not
24   believe anyone collected any soil samples, but I --
25       Q.    That's to the best of your knowledge?

                                                 700

 1       A.    That's to the best of my knowledge.
 2   Nobody -- we had gone in with the intention of
 3   providing splits, and to the best of my knowledge, they
 4   were never requested.
 5       Q.    Did you subsequently split the samples that
 6   you took for any purpose?
 7       A.    Other than analysis in the laboratory --
 8       Q.    Your laboratory?
 9       A.    Yes.  Not with a third party or second party.
10       Q.    And the standard deviation is calculated
11   within your laboratory?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Is there a similar summary table for the
14   water samples?
15       A.    No, there is not.
16       Q.    Is that something you intend to prepare?
17       A.    The water samples, I believe, are already
18   summarized in that fashion on the data sheets.  So, it
19   has not been pulled out by individual.
20             I have no intention at the moment of
21   producing another table, but for my own ability to
22   interpret these numbers, I may do that at some time.
23       Q.    If we could focus for a moment on the water
24   samples, and I will just look, for convenience, at page
25   09 of the fax.

                                                 701

 1       A.    Okay.
 2       Q.    The first two columns are the actual date the
 3   sample was collected, followed by the actual date on
 4   which it was analyzed in your lab?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    What is the sample ID column?  Is that --
 7   does that correspond with the location shown on the map
 8   in Exhibit 78?
 9       A.    Yes, it does, or in, more accurately, the
10   numbers on the first page of Jones 77.  I'm sorry.
11       Q.    That's fine.  Is the next column, again,
12   total mercury, in parts per thousand?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Followed --
15       A.    I'm sorry.  You said parts per thousand.
16       Q.    Parts per trillion.  I'm sure I misspoke.
17       A.    I'm used to seeing PPT, meaning parts per
18   thousand, too.  But in this case, it means parts per
19   trillion.
20       Q.    And the next two columns are the -- are
21   averages and standard deviations.
22             Help me for a moment.  I see, for example,
23   site one, for example, several -- well, multiple means
24   and standard deviations.
25             Can you explain how that was arrived at?

                                                 702

 1       A.    Yes.  The number reported in the column
 2   labeled "Hg PPT," that is a number that is generated
 3   from between 3 and 5 individual analyses on the -- the
 4   machine, okay?
 5             The sample volume -- I'm sorry if I go a
 6   little too much into it, but I don't see any other way
 7   to do it.
 8       Q.    Educate me.
 9       A.    We place a sample, a 125 milliliter sample,
10   in the machine.  The needle goes in a programmable
11   number of times and makes anywhere between one and 20.
12   We can program the machine to make that many analyses
13   on that individual sample.
14             I cannot tell you whether we were using three
15   or whether we were using five individual analyses of
16   this 125 milliliter sample.  I believe it, to the best
17   of my recollection, to be five.
18             Therefore, that number is, in itself, an
19   average, a mean of those five replicates.  That's
20   how -- the machine just automatically averages them and
21   gives you that number.
22             The second number in the column then, is the
23   result of the second split of that sample, analyzed
24   again, three to five times.  The standard deviation is
25   then calculated.  In this case it really should be --

                                                 703

 1   it gives the impression that it's a standard deviation
 2   calculated off of two numbers, which I'm not certain
 3   that's even possible.  What it really is, is the
 4   standard deviation of, in this case, ten -- the ten
 5   individual analyses, and this would just be the number
 6   given to us by the software program on the mercury
 7   analyzer.
 8       Q.    Now we get into a real need for help here.
 9             Take the first two rows.  I'm not sure I'm
10   correctly reading them, but it appears that one is
11   0.651, the first row.  The second one is 0.3009.
12             Each of those, to the best of your
13   recollection, is the result of five stabs of the
14   needle?
15       A.    Three to five, and five to my best
16   recollection, yes.  I believe we were using five at
17   this time.
18       Q.    So --
19       A.    I'm sorry.  I just wanted to check to make
20   sure we're correct so far.
21       Q.    Fine.  So, the mean, if it were five stabs of
22   the needle, each, the mean would be -- would represent
23   ten stabs of the needle, the first row and the second
24   each representing five of those?
25       A.    Into two different -- into a --

                                                 704

 1       Q.    A split?
 2       A.    A sample comes to the laboratory in a bottle.
 3   It is split for analysis.  Each one of those splits is
 4   analyzed five times.  That result is reported in the
 5   column where the .0 -- 0.651 and the 0.3009, you're
 6   correct, and so, yes, the next column represents ten.
 7       Q.    So, the mean is a mean calculated from the
 8   ten?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  I'm
 9   just trying to gain an understanding here.
10       A.    And my answer to you would be, not trying to
11   confuse you, but the answer to that is no.
12       Q.    Okay.
13       A.    Because the mean is the mean of -- it's the
14   average of 0.651 plus 0.3009, divided by two.  Okay?
15       Q.    Okay.  Fine.
16             MS. PONZOLI:  Of two numbers, not ten.
17             MR. SAMS:  I understand.
18   BY MR. SAMS:
19       Q.    So, it's the mean of the two numbers, just
20   before it, and then the standard deviation.
21       A.    This is where it gets fun, because the
22   standard deviation is of the ten pokes of the needle.
23             Actually, the standard deviation under this
24   case, is the standard deviation of the first five pokes
25   of the needle, the standard deviation of the second

                                                 705

 1   five pokes of the needle, added together and divided by
 2   two.
 3       Q.    Averaged?
 4       A.    Averaged.  Okay?
 5       Q.    My math is old math, but I think I get there
 6   whether I -- either way, mathematically.
 7       A.    There are ways that you would not.  In other
 8   words, you are dealing with a concept that -- your old
 9   math is incorrect.  I'm sorry.
10       Q.    My old math was arithmetic, so, what the
11   hell.
12       A.    I just think you are viewing it incorrectly,
13   and I'm sorry, but that is not correct.
14       Q.    Well, you may not have increased my
15   understanding, but you at least have helped me with
16   these numbers.
17             N represents what?
18       A.    That indicates that there were two splits.
19   In other words, we took the sample bottle from the
20   field, that was collected in the field, and divided it
21   into two portions and analyzed those.
22       Q.    Then we have a general head that seems to
23   extend over the remaining columns, but perhaps I'm
24   wrong.
25             To what does the statement, "If there was a

                                                 706

 1   replicate of the same sample run on the day of
 2   analysis, a replicate with a smaller S per station" --
 3   what does that mean?
 4       A.    I have to -- there's a double asterisk,
 5   equals, by that.
 6       Q.    Correct.  I see a double asterisk down about
 7   six or -- well, a dozen rows, and again, once, twice,
 8   over on the -- on each of the succeeding next several
 9   pages.
10       A.    Yes.  I'm just -- I'm pretty sure I know what
11   this is, but I want to make sure that my explanation is
12   exact, so that we don't have to come and revisit this
13   sometime in the future.
14             One of the things that we do, very often, is
15   analyze samples in a random order.  In other words, we
16   will put them in the refrigerator and as we pull them
17   out we analyze them, rather than saying okay, here's
18   all of these samples that came from this exact sample
19   location, and we're going to analyze that.
20             One of the things we want to know in our
21   laboratory, not necessarily for the purpose of this
22   test or anything else, is, how well does the sample
23   analyzed on one day, compare to a sample analyzed a
24   week later, or another day or certain types of times.
25   It's something that gives us some information about how

                                                 707

 1   reliable and reproducible our results are.
 2             If you will look down this, you will notice
 3   that we tried to, for the most part, tabulate the
 4   analysis date.  The analysis date doesn't necessarily
 5   match the sample collection date, but yet, we're trying
 6   to average those particular types of things.
 7             So, with most cases, there are one, two,
 8   three sets of -- the three bottles were analyzed and
 9   split, each one, but you will see in some cases, there
10   are four, four sets -- eight twos, for instance,
11   meaning that there were four analyses conducted on that
12   particular sample.
13             Therefore, that asterisk says, if the
14   replicate of the same sample run on the day of
15   analysis, the replicate with the smaller S, and I
16   believe that would probably be standard deviation, is
17   used in the per station calculation, meaning the set of
18   five samples that gave us the best reliability, were
19   used in making that calculation.
20             The reason we have to run multiple samples
21   with this machine, and why there are -- in all
22   analytical instrumentation, there's some sort of -- you
23   can't just, you know, go and grab something off the
24   street to operate that.  There are machine errors that
25   are made.

                                                 708

 1             Sometimes the needle, for instance, in this
 2   particular machine, will decide that it doesn't want to
 3   go into the bottle anymore, and it wants to bend itself
 4   into very interesting shapes.
 5             So, you will find that there are some
 6   analyses that we, you know -- are tossed out because of
 7   that.  I cannot attest to saying that's the reason one
 8   of these things was chosen or another, but it's a
 9   pretty standard procedure, that if you have made
10   multiple analyses of a sample, and one of them gives
11   you better standard deviation than the others, you
12   choose that set.
13             To the best of my knowledge, that's the
14   reason for the double asterisk.
15       Q.    Backing up from the standard deviation
16   column, one column, we have a mean to which the
17   standard deviation relates.
18             What is that the mean of?
19       A.    It would be the mean of all three bottles
20   analyzed in duplicate.
21       Q.    Is it the average of other calculated means,
22   or is it a mean of a summed set of numbers?
23       A.    At the risk of making this painful, to the
24   best of my knowledge, it is the average of the three
25   values in the column labeled, "Per sample mean," okay?

                                                 709

 1   If you would like me to, I can make a calculation and
 2   determine that.
 3       Q.    If it's very quick, go ahead.
 4       A.    I would feel better if I would be allowed to
 5   do that, just so that we're --
 6             (Pause.)
 7       A.    Yes, that is correct.  I remember when I used
 8   to do math without a calculator.
 9       Q.    What is the symbol up near the column heads
10   that says, "N equals 60 R," asterisk?
11       A.    You got me.  I don't -- I don't know.  I'm
12   sorry.  I don't --
13       Q.    I'm at a loss to find a single asterisk, so
14   it may be a designation that plays no role here.
15             Can you spot anywhere that that symbol is
16   employed?
17       A.    I cannot.  And it may have something to do
18   with the instrument setting.  It just happens to have
19   showed up here in the thing.  I really am sorry.  I
20   cannot tell you what that is.  I'm sure it can be
21   researched.
22             By looking at it right now, I would say that
23   it has no significance to these data sheets or the
24   interpretation of the data there.
25       Q.    Then I think, again, the next two columns

                                                 710

 1   simply repeat the collection and analysis dates that
 2   appeared in the first two columns.  Is that correct?
 3       A.    Yes.  When -- we have sometimes very wide
 4   tables and it helps us to visualize that.
 5       Q.    The same thing for the final ID column, I
 6   believe, correct?
 7       A.    That's correct.
 8       Q.    Taking the first four rows, did those come
 9   from the same bottle, those data points?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Can you break it down by bottle to help me
12   understand?
13       A.    I'm sorry.  You said four rows.  I'm having
14   trouble with the four.
15       Q.    I see a collection date, 3/23, it appears
16   four times, at sample location one.
17       A.    There actually are -- there are actually six
18   3/23s.  I think the Xerox makes that look like an 8,
19   but it's not.  It's 3/23.
20       Q.    Then, would I actually be correct in saying
21   there are eight 3/23s?  Well, let's see.  No.  Six
22   inside one?
23       A.    Yes, there are six 3/23s at one.
24       Q.    Were those six taken from the same sample
25   bottle?

                                                 711

 1       A.    They were not.
 2       Q.    How many sample bottles do they represent?
 3       A.    To the best of my recollection, this
 4   represents three sample bottles.
 5       Q.    Each of which was, in turn, split for
 6   analysis?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    If we could, then, let's go over to fax page
 9   16.  These, I believe you stated earlier, are the soil
10   and sediment samples with the designations you provided
11   me of S, G and E.  Correct?
12       A.    That is correct.
13       Q.    In the first column, after the letter, is the
14   number of the sample site, the next number, where it
15   says, S-19-1.  Is the 19 the sample site?
16       A.    That would be my assumption.  I have no
17   reason to believe that that's not the case.  It looks
18   logical.
19       Q.    What is the number following the 19?
20       A.    In the case of the soil samples with the S,
21   there were three cups of soils, three sample
22   containers, three individual subsamples, if you will.
23       Q.    Were these split for analysis?  Is that why
24   you have two ones, two twos, two threes?
25       A.    Yes.  They would have been analyzed twice.

                                                 712

 1   Two ampules would have been analyzed.
 2       Q.    Could you briefly walk me through what the
 3   next several columns indicate?
 4       A.    The next -- the thing that says one ML, SLUR,
 5   plus 2 ML HN03, just indicates what we did.  We took 1
 6   milliliter of the soil, slurry, and added it to 2
 7   milliliters of nitric acid, and digested it.
 8       Q.    I take it up above, where it says, "Slurry
 9   prepared using 45 ML of 5 percent HCL," is an
10   indication of how you uniformly prepared the slurry
11   from the samples you obtained from the field?
12       A.    That's correct.  The next column?
13       Q.    Yes.
14       A.    "Drift, correct, HD PPT, nanograms per
15   liter," and then it gives the value.  That's the drift
16   corrected concentration of the sample.
17       Q.    What is "drift"?
18       A.    During some of the higher temperature -- I'm
19   sorry, some of the higher concentration samples,
20   cycling of the air-conditioner and everything like that
21   causes a predictable up and down drift in the machine,
22   and this is just values that we did at the time to
23   correct them for that drift.
24             We have, subsequent to these analyses,
25   modified the instrument, so that it is no longer

                                                 713

 1   subject to temperature induced drift.
 2       Q.    Was there any other factor inducing drift
 3   which you recognized?
 4       A.    We have not found -- since we have corrected
 5   the -- actually, I went and rewired the instrument, and
 6   since I have done that, there is no other drift that we
 7   have detected.
 8       Q.    How did you arrive at the magnitude of drift?
 9       A.    What you have here represented are the
10   results of the analyses for the soil.  You do not have
11   the results of all of the base line standards and other
12   types of things that are conducted along with this
13   particular analysis.
14             So, there are many of those reflected, or
15   many of those that are conducted, but they're not
16   reflected here in the data.  In other words, we have
17   samples that we specifically put in to make those
18   determinations.
19       Q.    I may have misheard you, but you said, "put
20   into"?
21       A.    Put into the sequence on the sample tray.
22       Q.    What does the -- if you would continue across
23   to the next --
24       A.    The next column is, "Hg PPT nanogram per
25   liter."

                                                 714

 1             If I'm not mistaken, that is a -- that is the
 2   value of the mercury taking into account the dilution
 3   that we made on it, actual volume dilutions, for
 4   instance, into one melds, two melds, and a certain
 5   portion of that is a solid, so it corrects for the
 6   volume considerations.
 7             If you notice, we have here a concentration,
 8   nanograms per liter, and yet we're analyzing soils,
 9   which the ultimate value is going to be expressed in
10   nanograms per gram, which is a unit weight, not a unit
11   of volume.
12             What this represents is really just a series
13   of numbers to end up with that -- this calculation.
14             If you so desire, you could give this to one
15   of your experts and I'm sure that they could take these
16   numbers and figure out what we did.
17             I hesitate to do that without looking at the
18   formulas that are imbedded in this particular spread
19   sheet.  I can give you to the best of my knowledge what
20   these columns represent.
21             The next column is, "Drift corrected Hg PPT
22   minus background."
23             It just means that the acid that we add, and
24   the water, with the hydrochloric acid, it has a certain
25   amount of mercury in it, and this represents a

                                                 715

 1   subtraction of that background, that reagent blank, if
 2   you will.
 3             The second -- the next column, I'm sorry,
 4   says, "Hg PPT," asterisk, "40."  The standard dilution
 5   that we made was one to 40 dilution, to put them into
 6   the machine.
 7             Simply, that should represent the drift
 8   corrected Hg PPT, minus the background, multiplied by
 9   40.
10             The next column is dry weight, 5 ML/50 ML.
11   That is how much solid we're getting a weight.  We're
12   trying to get at the weight of the soil analyzed.
13             Then we have the next column, which is dry
14   weight per milliliter.  I think that's fairly
15   explanatory.
16             "Drift corrected, total Hg, nanograms per
17   gram," is then the -- using the weight and the other
18   calculations to come up with the final concentration in
19   that sample, which in this case would be 70.02
20   nanograms per gram.
21             The next column is, "Drift corrected average
22   standard," and that would be the average of those two
23   numbers in the previous column.
24             Then the average -- got a problem here.  I'm
25   not sure I know what the last column represents.

                                                 716

 1             I do.  Yes.  It's the average of the three --
 2   the three replicate S cups, the soil, and the reason it
 3   says "No G," is because it didn't include the grab
 4   sample at that point.
 5             Then I believe the number immediately
 6   underneath that, is the standard deviation, because it
 7   says "AVG" at the top, and the next line, "STD."
 8             I believe that's average and standard
 9   deviation.  Not average, something else.
10       Q.    I think that covers all the types of tables
11   appearing in here.  Does it?
12       A.    I'm just going through to make sure.
13             That's correct.
14       Q.    Let me see.  Does this, then, cover all of
15   the sampling which you collected as set out in Exhibit
16   77, for water, sediment and soils?
17       A.    Mercury analysis.
18       Q.    Mercury analysis, right.
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Did you do other analysis of water, sediment
21   or soils --
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    -- from this same visit?
24             Where are those documents reflecting that?
25       A.    I know where my -- there are -- they would

                                                 717

 1   have been in the production at an earlier time.
 2             I believe this represents some of the
 3   material that I had misplaced in an incorrect folder,
 4   and thought had been turned over by the U.S. Attorney's
 5   Office, and indeed had not.
 6             The values for the other parameters were
 7   produced at an earlier date.
 8       Q.    Are they among the documents which have been
 9   identified in the record of this deposition as
10   exhibits?
11       A.    I do not recall, to be honest.  I just don't
12   recall.  I believe that some of them were.  In fact, I
13   know that at least the total phosphorus values for the
14   water were either in these documents or in the
15   documents that were produced in the first two days of
16   the deposition.
17             MR. SAMS:  Off the record.
18             (Discussion off the record.)
19   BY MR. SAMS:
20       Q.    Dr. Jones, I realize we have a lot of
21   exhibits here, but if you could accommodate us and try
22   to identify that document, I would appreciate it.
23       A.    The document I will hopefully be able to
24   identify, does not mean that there's not additional
25   contained within these exhibits, because right now, I

                                                 718

 1   recall one of them vividly.  I don't recall whether the
 2   other information was contained in other exhibits.
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Off the record.
 4             (Discussion off the record.)
 5   BY MR. SAMS:
 6       Q.    Dr. Jones, have you been able to identify
 7   from exhibits previously marked and attached to this
 8   deposition, other data?
 9       A.    Yes.  I found one set of data.  There is
10   still a set that has not been produced so far as
11   exhibits.
12       Q.    What exhibit number is that?
13       A.    I have Jones Exhibit No. 8.
14       Q.    Could you hand me the exhibit while we're
15   searching for our copy?
16             These are, I take it from the titles, surface
17   water samples, only.  Is that correct, Dr. Jones?
18       A.    They're water samples.  These are the results
19   of the water samples collected in the EAA.
20       Q.    Did you also analyze the soil or sediment
21   samples for phosphorus?
22       A.    Yes, I did.
23       Q.    Do those appear in a document formated
24   similarly to Exhibit No. 8, if you can recall?
25       A.    To the best of my knowledge, they do.  There

                                                 719

 1   may be -- they may be able to have a slightly different
 2   designation, but it should be in this format, amongst
 3   other forms.
 4       Q.    Does the same data appear in other forms,
 5   that is the phosphorus data for sediment and soil
 6   samples?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    What are the other forms in which they
 9   appear?
10       A.    Less organized tabular fashion.  In other
11   words, I believe, not necessarily organized in a
12   consecutive series of numbers, one through 38.
13       Q.    Dr. Jones, I would refer you on Exhibit No.
14   8, to the concentration column, and note that there are
15   approximately six values that are in the thousands of
16   parts per billion of phosphorus.
17             Do you have any explanation for why those
18   numbers are so high, when most of the other numbers
19   appear to be anywhere from zero all the way up to -- I
20   see a couple that are a little above 500?
21       A.    Yes.  If I may consult Jones 78, I guess the
22   explanation is you have some pretty dirty water some
23   places in the EAA.
24       Q.    Is that the only explanation that's available
25   to you?

                                                 720

 1       A.    Also, at least one of these high values is
 2   associated with the sugar mill.
 3             Without making a complete evaluation of every
 4   one of these in correlation, which I don't care to do
 5   from this map, because of the same reason that I've
 6   indicated, that I'm not certain that those numbers are
 7   exactly the same as the numbers on the first page of
 8   Jones 77, but there are just some -- you know, those
 9   are not -- I mean, the numbers are correct for
10   phosphorus.
11       Q.    Can you recognize which of these numbers
12   associates with the sugar mill?
13       A.    Number seven, which says, "Atlantic Mill
14   Pond," on the first page of Jones 77.
15             Number 18, which is the Co-op sugar mill.
16             MS. PONZOLI:  But those numbers don't
17        necessarily coordinate with this map?
18             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  That's why I say, I
19        don't like to rely on this map.  I'm assuming that
20        they're correct.
21             MS. PONZOLI:  I say that, because 18 here
22        would not appear, by my knowledge, to be the Co-op
23        sugar mill.
24             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Then, as I indicated,
25        the numbers on Jones 77 and those designations,

                                                 721

 1        are the correct ones.  This was produced prior to
 2        the entry.  This was -- to give me a count.  This
 3        was produced during the entry.
 4             MR. SAMS:  Just for clarity, let the record
 5        reflect that the item prepared prior to the entry
 6        as referred to by Dr. Jones, was Exhibit No. 78.
 7             MS. PONZOLI:  Just for my clarity, Jones 8
 8        and Jones 77, the numbers do --
 9             THE WITNESS:  Jones 77 is the document to use
10        to determine the station locations.
11             Jones 78 is a document that I -- to the best
12        of my knowledge, was produced prior to the entry,
13        and therefore the numbers may not correlate, and
14        in fact after reviewing -- having someone here
15        looking at the number and looking at this
16        document, realize that the correlation may be of
17        less of a nature than I thought it was previously.
18       A.    20 is also associated with the Okeelanta
19   Mill.
20             Do you wish me to continue down this list?  I
21   think the comparison can be made very easily.
22       Q.    There's a little bit of ambiguity in some of
23   the language chosen.
24             I take it the other two mills are 34 and 38,
25   but is that --

                                                 722

 1       A.    For instance, on 34, the Bryant Mill, the
 2   water and fish were collected in a peripheral canal.
 3   They weren't collected from the ponds.
 4             Then 38 was the other one?  38 was the
 5   Osceola Mill.
 6             MR. HYDE:  Excuse me just for interrupting
 7        you.  You discussed site 20 as possibly being a
 8        mill site, too?
 9             MR. SAMS:  I think he identified that as a
10        mill, Bill.  I think that was the reference to
11        Okeelanta.  Was that, Dr. Jones?
12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  According to Jones 77, I
13        believe I did represent that.
14   BY MR. SAMS:
15       Q.    I see that mills appear to account for all
16   the values that I described as being in the thousands
17   of parts per billion, except nine and nineteen.
18             Could you reflect for a moment on the
19   locations of nine and nineteen, and give me your best
20   description of what those sampling locations were?
21       A.    Well, nine says that the water sample came
22   from a field ditch at 44-38-34.  Where that is on the
23   plat map, we have to --
24       Q.    Do you recall any more about the
25   circumstances of that water body?

                                                 723

 1       A.    No.  But John Davis has the whole thing
 2   videotaped, if you want -- I wonder if you reviewed
 3   that.
 4       Q.    How about 19?
 5       A.    Other than I have the notation that this was
 6   corn, no.  Other than what it says here.
 7       Q.    Do you have any record from which you would
 8   be able to identify whether that was from a ditch, or a
 9   pond, or standing water in a field?
10       A.    I have noted on all occasions, to the best of
11   my recollection, when the samples of water were taken
12   from someplace other than the lateral, field lateral,
13   if my understanding of what you -- the correct
14   definition of these various types of ditches and things
15   are.  I believe the field ditches flow into a lateral,
16   which flow into a secondary or primary canal, and my
17   technique was to label them when we took them in
18   someplace other than the -- what I would refer to as
19   the lateral.  In other words, if it says -- if it does
20   not say taken from the field ditch, the water sample
21   should have come from the lateral, at that location.
22       Q.    So, to the best of your recollection, the one
23   labeled "Corn," which is No. 19, would have been from a
24   lateral?
25       A.    That's correct.

                                                 724

 1       Q.    Give me your best description of the
 2   distinction between a field ditch and a lateral?  I'm
 3   not asking you to claim special expertise, but whatever
 4   distinction you made to connote the difference.
 5       A.    I relied on not my -- I didn't rely on myself
 6   to make that designation.  I had requested the -- I
 7   don't want to say industry representative -- the
 8   industry employee who took me to the locations to take
 9   me to these particular types of locations, to the best
10   of their knowledge, and they took me to, you know, the
11   particular area.
12             So, we would park the vehicles.  They would
13   lead me to an area, park the vehicles, and so my
14   assumption was that what they told me was a lateral,
15   was a lateral, and what was a field ditch was a field
16   ditch.
17       Q.    You took it at face value?
18       A.    I took it at face value.  That's correct.
19   And also, from my understanding of what, you know -- my
20   understanding of at least, of what, you know, what the
21   agricultural practices are in that area, to the best of
22   my understanding, they were indeed correct in what they
23   were telling me.  They weren't deceiving me in any way.
24       Q.    In simplest terms, is a lateral something
25   that receives drainage from a number of field ditches?

                                                 725

 1       A.    To the best of my understanding, that's
 2   correct.
 3       Q.    And then, does the lateral convey it to a
 4   canal?
 5       A.    To a secondary or to a canal, a main canal or
 6   whatever.  You know, an increasing scale of water
 7   handling is the way I view it.  I don't know that
 8   that's an accurate representation.
 9       Q.    I believe when you referred to site 34, you
10   said that that was at a mill, but from a peripheral
11   canal, not a pond, or words to that effect.
12             Assuming that is what you said, can you
13   distinguish that one, if it's distinguishable, from the
14   other mills, and where you got the samples at the other
15   mills?
16       A.    My understanding is that I got -- I wasn't
17   able to obtain fish from a number of the mill sites, as
18   you can imagine, but the water samples were
19   predominantly collected on those sites in the settling
20   ponds, if they were available, if they had water in
21   them.  If they didn't, then they were collected from
22   the nearest associated body of water or canal.  And in
23   this case, the peripheral canal, I believe, was across
24   the road, leading to the mill or running around the
25   mill.  I'm not sure how it is.

                                                 726

 1       Q.    In some instances you actually collected the
 2   water samples from within a settling pond?
 3       A.    Oh, yes.
 4       Q.    Did you make notes or otherwise attempt to
 5   characterize the way in which those settling ponds were
 6   constructed or operated?
 7       A.    No, I did not.
 8       Q.    So, you don't have any basis on which to
 9   distinguish which might have been lined, which might
10   have been unlined, which might have discharged in one
11   fashion or another?
12       A.    I have some knowledge of that from the
13   standpoint that I have recollections and I remember a
14   number of characteristics of these.  I don't know if
15   you have ever walked into a settling pond at a sugar
16   mill.  It's apparently a very pleasant place for
17   maggots and a very unpleasant place for scientists.
18   So, I have some memories that I will probably never be
19   able to forget.
20       Q.    You know what was found within it.  Did you
21   study the hydrolics of the individual pond?
22       A.    No.  Like I said, I just have some general
23   recollections of the area.  To be more specific, I
24   would have to actually refresh myself, you know, where
25   the Atlantic Mill was, what date I actually went on

                                                 727

 1   there, perhaps even view a photograph of it, to remind
 2   me of the particular occasion.  But I did not make a
 3   detailed study of the hydrolics of these areas.
 4       Q.    Have you developed any graphic presentations
 5   of these data or the data that are reflected in Exhibit
 6   77?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    Did you take any other data besides total
 9   phosphorus and total mercury?
10       A.    In the water samples?
11       Q.    I'm referring, actually, to the entire group
12   of field visits made during this time period.  Water,
13   sediment, soils.
14       A.    The soil samples we still have, but I have
15   not made any additional measurements, other than those
16   that have been provided, as of yet.
17       Q.    How about the water?  Have you made any
18   additional measurements --
19       A.    The water samples have been discarded, and
20   the only analyses that were done on the water samples
21   were total mercury and total phosphorus.
22       Q.    Why did you not do methylmercury?
23       A.    We were not set up at the time to make those
24   analyses.
25       Q.    That was at the time of analysis?

                                                 728

 1       A.    At the time of sample collection and
 2   analysis, the methylmercury was still in its -- we were
 3   waiting on an instrument to be received from England.
 4       Q.    Did you do any analysis of the fish s