1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 3 4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988 5 6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040 7 8 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural ) 9 Cooperative Marketing Association, ) ROTH FARMS, INC., AND ) 10 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) ) 11 and ) ) 12 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 13 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) ) 14 and ) ) 15 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, ) 16 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and ) HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 17 Petitioners, ) vs. ) 18 ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 19 DISTRICT, an Agency of the State ) of Florida. ) 20 Respondent, ) and ) 21 ) MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF ) 22 FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) 23 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and ) 24 the FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and ) SIERRA CLUB, ) 25 Intervenors. ) 2 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S 3 4 KEITH C. HETRICK, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 5 Department of Environmental Regulation State of Florida 6 Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road 7 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 8 WILLIAM S. HYDE, Equire 9 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 10 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 11 12 PAUL L. NETTLETON, Esquire Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 13 4100 One Centrust Financial Center 100 S.E. Second Street 14 Miami, Florida 33131 15 RONALD D. JONES, Ph.D. 16 Associate Professor, Biological Sciences Florida International University 17 University Park, Miami, Florida 33139 18 19 DEPOSITION OF JAMES R. PRATT, taken on 20 behalf of the Intervenors, on the 11th day of March, 1993, pursuant to the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure, in the offices of the U.S. Attorney, 155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor, 22 Miami, Florida, 33130, before me, Phil Berglan, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary 23 Public in and for the State of Florida. 24 25 3 1 JAMES R. PRATT, Ph.D., 2 a witness being produced, sworn and examined 3 on behalf of the Intervenors does hereby 4 deposeth and saith as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. HETRICK: 7 Q. Mr. Pratt, my name is Keith 8 Hetrick. I represent the Department of 9 Environmental Regulation in this lawsuit. I 10 am going to be taking your deposition today. 11 Have you ever had your deposition taken 12 before? 13 A. No. 14 Q. What I am going to do is ask you a 15 series of questions, basically just to find 16 out what you know and find out what your 17 opinions are in this case. 18 When I ask you the question, you 19 need to answer the question. Your attorney 20 may object to some of the questions, but you 21 still need to answer the question unless he 22 instructs you not to answer. If you don't 23 understand my question, stop me, and I will 24 rephrase it. We will go slow. 25 If you want to take a break, if you 4 1 need -- if you are tired, just let me know, we 2 will stop the depo and take a five-minute or 3 whatever, 15-minute break. If you are tired 4 and you need to break, we will take a break. 5 When I ask you questions, you know, 6 like I said, if you do not understand the 7 question, let me know, because I will assume 8 otherwise that you understood the question 9 and the answer is as you have given it. From 10 that point, are you okay with this? 11 A. Sure. 12 MR. HYDE: By the way, it's Doctor 13 Pratt. 14 MR. HETRICK: Okay. 15 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Doctor Pratt, 16 Let's start out basically with the document 17 production. Your attorney and I have kind of 18 gone through this. 19 I issued a cross notice of 20 deposition yesterday since I am the one 21 actually taking the deposition, but it's a 22 reiteration of what the United States issued 23 in terms of documents produced. Have you 24 reviewed that notice? 25 A. Yes, we spoke about this last 5 1 night. 2 Q. Are there any specific documents 3 which you will rely on at the hearing in 4 forming your opinions that you have not 5 produced in this case? 6 A. No, I don't believe so. 7 Q. I am going to start out with what I 8 have as Exhibit 1, and this is your curriculum 9 vitae that was supplied to me by your 10 attorney. Let's start -- I want to start with 11 your education on your resume'. It says in 12 1971, you received a BA in Biology. 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Did you have a particular area of 15 concentration? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you have any particular course 18 work emphasis in that degree? 19 A. No, it's a fairly general biology 20 degree. 21 Q. It says a Bachelor of Arts; it was 22 not a Bachelor of Science? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. Your resume' says you obtained a 25 Master's Degree in 1981. 6 1 A. Right. 2 Q. Was there a thesis connected to that 3 degree? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Of what did that thesis consist? 6 A. It's listed in the publication list 7 in -- I worked on protozoa and some -- I think 8 it should be No. 1 on the publication list. 9 Q. Can you tell me what page. 10 A. Page 5. I worked on protozoan 11 communities in a pond on a wildlife refuge. 12 Q. Can you explain to me on your 13 resume', it says, "Graduate Theses," on Page 14 5; are these a series of papers? 15 A. Right. Those are my current and 16 former graduate students and the topics of 17 their theses. 18 Q. And your thesis though is referred 19 to -- 20 A. It's listed in the publications. 21 Q. Under No. 1? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that's the one you did in 24 connection with your Master's thesis? 25 A. Correct. 7 1 Q. Can you tell me what your hypothesis 2 was in that thesis and what you studied, more 3 specifically? 4 A. We were -- I was examining seasonal 5 differences in communities as driven by just 6 seasonal cycles in looking at the structure of 7 protozoans that existed on surfaces in this 8 pond. 9 Q. What was the hypothesis? 10 A. I guess the hypothesis would be that 11 there were seasonal differences. 12 Q. What was your conclusions that you 13 reached in that? 14 A. We found that the communities were 15 driven strongly by -- changes in the 16 communities were driven strongly by rainfall, 17 and that those seemed -- those types of events 18 seemed to have a marked influence on the 19 community structure. 20 Q. Was there any conclusions reached, 21 and this may be a compound question, but were 22 there any conclusions that you reached that 23 had to do with any kind of water quantity flow 24 distribution as affecting those species? 25 A. Do you mean in terms of hydrological 8 1 variables? 2 Q. Exactly. 3 A. No, we didn't measure any 4 hydrological variables. 5 Q. Tell me about your Ph.D. in zoology 6 which, according to your resume', was in 1984; 7 was there a specialization involved in that? 8 A. Well, there is no technical 9 specialization involved in that in terms of 10 the degree title. 11 The work I did was, again, 12 principally on protozoa and the dissertation 13 research was basically a laboratory variation 14 of a biogeographical problem. 15 We were using protozoa on artificial 16 substrates, in this case polyurethane foam, as 17 models of organisms immigrating to islands. 18 Q. What was the hypothesis that you 19 were working in connection with? 20 A. Our hypothesis was that the 21 colonization of islands was limited by the 22 availability of propagules, meaning organisms 23 that could colonize those islands, and what we 24 did essentially was remove sources of species 25 at various times to see what the effect was on 9 1 the colonization of islands in a laboratory 2 situation. 3 Q. What kinds of systems were you 4 trying to, if you were trying to, make 5 inferences on? 6 A. I think it's a fairly basic question 7 about the way species arrive on islands 8 unrelated in any necessary way to particular 9 types of organisms. 10 Q. What kinds of islands? 11 A. Well, again, in a theoretical sense, 12 we were using artificial substrates as 13 targets, essentially, and testing the idea 14 that islands are basically targets in that 15 depending on what the flow of things to the 16 islands was that influenced the success of 17 colonization. 18 As part of that dissertation, we 19 applied this idea of laboratory manipulated 20 colonization type dynamics through examining 21 the effects of toxic chemicals on the eventual 22 colonization of islands. 23 Q. What did you find with respect to 24 the toxic effect of chemicals on colonization 25 of islands? 10 1 A. What we found was that there was a 2 very significant and very sensitive effect of 3 toxic chemicals on the model organisms that we 4 were using, on their ability to colonize 5 islands. 6 Q. What kinds of toxic chemicals are 7 you referring to? 8 A. The work that is in the dissertation 9 just reports the results of experiments on 10 cadmium, which is a heavy metal toxic. 11 Q. Did you have to defend that thesis? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is that referenced here in your -- 14 A. I think it's, again, on the 15 publication list. 16 Q. Can you point out where. 17 A. It's Item 3 on the publication list. 18 Q. Was that the only published work in 19 connection with your Ph.D. -- 20 A. No. 21 Q. -- thesis? 22 A. No. 23 Q. What other -- 24 A. There is a series of papers -- well, 25 maybe a series is generous, but there are at 11 1 least two papers that represent work that are 2 chapters in the thesis. They are numbered 3 five and six on the publication list. 4 Q. These were in relation to your 5 thesis? 6 A. Right, migration of species during 7 early colonization, export of species. There 8 was a related paper that -- 9 Q. Are these -- excuse me -- but these 10 two papers, for example, five and six, were 11 subparts of the dissertation which is 12 identified in Publication 3? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. You said there were others? 15 A. There is another paper here that 16 contains parts, at least partially contains 17 work that was done in relation to the 18 dissertation. That is publication 19 No. 8, "Laboratory tests evaluating the 20 effects of cadmium on freshwater protozoan 21 communities." 22 Q. What is cadmium? 23 A. It's a heavy metal. 24 Q. What kinds of systems did you 25 identify? 12 1 A. Well, it's found in industrial 2 discharges and makes its way to both 3 freshwater and marine systems from industrial 4 discharges. Cadmium is used as a pigment and 5 has been used as a pigment base in paints and 6 a variety of other things. 7 Q. If we go to your employment, what I 8 would most like to focus on right now is your 9 present employment; and if you could describe 10 for me your work situation right now, what it 11 is you do, where you work, what it involves. 12 A. I have two responsibilities that are 13 defined in terms of my letter of appointment. 14 One is to teach senior level courses in a 15 program called, "Undergraduate Degree Granting 16 Program," called, "Environmental Resource 17 Management." 18 My contracted time there is 60 19 percent of my effort and the other 40 percent 20 of my effort is research. And my letter of 21 appointment indicates that I am supposed to 22 spend my research or spend my time doing 23 research on ecology. It's fairly broadly 24 defined. 25 Q. That was going to be my next 13 1 question. 2 A. Well, I mean, that's the extent of 3 the written appointment. 4 Q. What does your research on ecology 5 actually entail? Have you focused it a bit 6 more? 7 A. Yes, we work exclusively with 8 microorganisms. And my definition of 9 microorganisms is not exclusively bacteria, 10 but includes, I guess, what I say to people is 11 things that you can't see unless you look at 12 them through a microscope. 13 Q. How would you describe those 14 microbes? How would you describe those 15 things? 16 A. Well, hypothetically, it involves a 17 large number of organisms ranging from some of 18 the worms and things like that down to 19 protozoa and algae and bacteria and some 20 fungi. 21 Q. Is there a focus on any particular 22 aspect or any particular organism in your 23 research or study more than the others or do 24 you concentrate in any one area? 25 A. I have done most of the taxonomic 14 1 work, meaning work where we actually put names 2 on organisms with protozoa. I have done some 3 taxonomic work with algae, but our work on 4 model communities really involves a large 5 diversity of organisms. 6 We have worked with organisms that 7 -- basically organisms that colonize surfaces, 8 and that includes essentially everything from 9 bacteria to fungi, to worms, including 10 protozoa and algae and a variety of things. 11 So our test systems that we have 12 developed for a variety of investigations have 13 involved all of those arenas. 14 Q. Do you do any consulting work? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is that outside the scope of your 17 contract with the university, or is it in 18 connection with your work with the 19 university? 20 A. What do you mean by that? 21 Q. Well, do you have any contracts 22 outside with private parties, outside the 23 scope of your employment with the university? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Let me be more specific: Do you 15 1 have any contracts to conduct research outside 2 the scope of your work with the university? 3 A. No. 4 MR. HYDE: Just to be sure that you 5 understand what the answer means -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am not sure. 7 MR. HYDE: You are talking about 8 research and certainly Doctor Pratt is doing 9 some work for the League. I don't know that 10 he necessarily considers that to be, quote, 11 "research," in the sense that many scientists 12 do in doing original fieldwork and the like. 13 Would that be a fair characterization? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I guess -- 15 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Let me ask you 16 this: Do you have a contract with the League 17 to serve as an expert in this case on their 18 behalf, a written contract? 19 A. I am not sure I have an answer for 20 that. 21 MR. HYDE: There is a letter of 22 agreement. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess that is 24 right. 25 MR. HYDE: I think the term is used. 16 1 There is an agreement whereby Doctor Pratt is 2 to provide services to our law firm on behalf 3 of the League, United States Sugar 4 Corporation, and New Hope South, Inc. 5 The contract is one of the listed 6 documents for which we have claimed 7 privilege. You are free to inquire into the 8 general terms of that relationship, the amount 9 reimbursed, et cetera. 10 MR. HETRICK: In a general sense, 11 before I get to that, would you consider it -- 12 let's go off the record for a second. 13 (A brief off-the-record discussion 14 was here had). 15 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) It's my 16 understanding, Doctor Pratt, that you have a 17 letter of agreement to work with the League. 18 You have been hired by the League in this 19 case; is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Do you have any similar other types 22 of arrangements, similar to this type of 23 agreement, with any other entity or party? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you ever had any type of 17 1 agreement similar to what you have right now 2 with the League where you are hired to 3 provide, in effect, consulting services? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How many occasions? 6 A. I guess, in round numbers, I would 7 say probably a half dozen times. 8 Q. Over what span of time? 9 A. Let's say the last seven or eight 10 years. 11 Q. What types of cases did those 12 include? 13 A. I provided some services similar to 14 what I have provided here in terms of document 15 review and opinions in a Toxic Clean Water Act 16 case a few years ago. 17 Q. Well, let me just stop you right 18 here. It's about a half dozen maybe -- do you 19 have a recollection of those cases? 20 A. Well, I think that's the only other 21 thing that I guess would reasonably be called 22 a case in the sense of we -- 23 Q. Were they legal cases? 24 A. There was litigation either in place 25 or pending. All of the other times that I 18 1 have done consulting for people, it's largely 2 been related to either -- well, sometimes 3 collecting organisms and identifying them, 4 evaluating cases of potential impact. 5 Sometimes some of the work that we 6 have done has strictly been background data 7 collection for people around landfill sites 8 and those types of things. 9 Q. Can you go back and talk to me or 10 tell me about the gist of each of the 11 litigation matters that you were involved in, 12 the substance of the case, what the issues 13 were, starting with maybe the first one and 14 give me an approximate time. 15 A. There is only one other where 16 litigation was involved. And that was -- I 17 don't know how specific you want me to be. 18 Q. What state was it in? 19 A. Pennsylvania. 20 Q. What were the issues involved in the 21 case? 22 A. It was a case where an advocacy 23 group had sued an industry over waste 24 discharge into a stream. And I was asked to 25 evaluate discharge, monitoring reports as well 19 1 as stream biology data, basically data that 2 had been collected by a consulting firm or 3 individual private consultants, to essentially 4 comment on the possibility of there having 5 been adverse impacts to the stream from this 6 waste discharge. 7 Q. Who were you hired by, the advocacy 8 group or the industry? 9 A. Yes, the advocacy group. 10 Q. What year was that? 11 A. 1988. 12 Q. Did that case go to trial? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did it settle, do you know? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you were not deposed in that 17 case? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Is that the only other litigation 20 matter you have been involved in? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Were you paid by the advocacy group 23 in that case? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. A fee? 20 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. At that time, did you also work for 3 the Pennsylvania State University? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you consider that employment on 6 behalf of the advocacy group to be outside the 7 scope of your work with the university, in 8 other words, not connected to the university? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you had any other employment 11 relationships with private entities, outside 12 the scope of your work with Pennsylvania State 13 University, besides the one with the advocacy 14 group even if it was not a litigation matter? 15 A. Do you mean in relation to 16 consulting-type work? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. How many instances? 20 A. I would say there probably have been 21 four or five times when I have been asked to 22 collect organisms and identify them and 23 provide a background data set for somebody to 24 store for future reference. 25 Q. What kinds of groups asked you to do 21 1 that? 2 A. I have done most of this work 3 through intermediaries, typically consulting 4 engineers who are, for one reason or another, 5 not qualified to collect organisms and 6 identify them. 7 Q. In connection with their business? 8 A. Right. In connection with 9 developing site data for permits. Almost all 10 of that work has been in relation to landfill 11 permits in roughly the same time, maybe a 12 little later. 13 Q. Toxic hazardous waste cleanup 14 type? 15 A. No, no, these are strictly -- well, 16 I won't stay strictly, because in many cases I 17 don't believe I know. But I would say, in 18 general, that they are municipal landfills. 19 In the late 1980s, there was a surge 20 of repermitting of landfills, and some of the 21 information that was asked for was basic 22 biological data from streams in the vicinity 23 of these landfills. 24 Q. Were all of those groups, those four 25 or five groups that hired you, located in 22 1 Pennsylvania? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Have you done any work in that 4 sense, in the sense of consulting work, 5 outside the scope of the university and not 6 including the litigation matters outside of 7 Pennsylvania? 8 A. That's a good question....not that I 9 recall. 10 Q. One last question on this point: In 11 regard to the work that you have done with 12 these various entities as a consultant, as a 13 paid consultant, whether it be the four or 14 five groups or the two litigation matters you 15 said that's been done in the past several 16 years, in general; is that the time frame? 17 A. It's been basically since the time I 18 got my Ph.D., yes. 19 Q. What percent of your time do you 20 spend outside the scope of your university 21 work handling these matters versus handling 22 all of your university duties, would you say, 23 if you had to allocate time? 24 A. That's a good question. I would say 25 something on the order of one to five percent, 23 1 somewhere in there. 2 Q. One being the outside? 3 A. Well -- 4 Q. Twenty percent of your time maybe 5 handling outside matters? 6 A. I guess -- do you mean in terms of 7 how many hours I actually work, or how many 8 hours I get paid for? 9 Q. Well, if you are like me, it's how 10 many hours you get paid for. I mean -- 11 A. That's why I say sort of one to five 12 percent. I am not sure I could be more 13 specific than that. 14 Q. I want to go back to your education 15 and I am wondering if you could tell me, in 16 any of your degrees, what your training has 17 been in the area of microbial ecology. 18 A. Well, we could start with my 19 Bachelor's Degree. 20 Q. Let's start with your Bachelor's 21 Degree. 22 A. I had this sort of standard 23 microbiology, introduction to general 24 microbiology course for that through a 25 lecture/lab type course, typically five-credit 24 1 type introductory course. That probably is 2 the extent of my background in microbial work 3 at the Bachelor's level. 4 At the Master's level, there would 5 -- well, there would effectively be none. I 6 can say that I took a course that was called, 7 "Experimental Ecology." It was a full summer, 8 a 40-hour a week course where we worked on 9 the, quote, "lakes," which were really ponds, 10 one of which I eventually did my Master's 11 thesis research on. 12 And, in that regard, we did quite a 13 bit of plankton type work in all of these 14 systems looking at the microbes in the 15 plankton. 16 At the Ph.D. level, I took a senior 17 level course in aquatic microbiology and a 18 graduate level course entitled, "Advanced 19 Aquatic Microbiology." 20 Those were both microbial ecology 21 courses in the sense of dealing with 22 environmental organisms, meaning organisms 23 that were found, essentially, in fresh water. 24 In addition, I have taken two 25 courses, a protozoology course which focused 25 1 on freshwater protozoa and a course on 2 freshwater diatoms. All of those happened at 3 the Ph.D. level. I guess I don't believe, if 4 you looked at my transcript, that you would 5 find additional specific course work that said 6 microbial ecology. 7 Since that time, I was involved in a 8 training workshop, and I believe that actually 9 appears on the curriculum vitae, in applying 10 gene probe techniques to the study of 11 microbial ecology. I guess probably because I 12 just did that last summer, and the copy of my 13 CV is dated December, 1991. So that would 14 have been July of 1992, that I did that. 15 Q. I am going to ask you a couple of 16 other areas and if these terms are 17 interchangeable, let me know, because we don't 18 need to keep rehashing these over and over 19 again. If you could tell me what kind of 20 course work you have had, starting from your 21 Bachelor's Degree on up in bacteriology. 22 A. I haven't had any specific course 23 work in bacteriology other than the courses I 24 have just described to you. 25 Q. Did the course that you just 26 1 described to me relate to bacteriology? 2 A. Yes, they were certainly all focused 3 on bacteria, as the definition of 4 microorganisms, with the exception of the two 5 courses that I just mentioned or the two 6 courses I mentioned, the course on freshwater 7 diatoms and the course on protozoa. 8 Q. What about course work in mineral 9 cycling? 10 A. Well, the advanced aquatic 11 microbiology course that I took focused on 12 mineral cycling. That was the interest of the 13 person who taught it. 14 Q. What about specific course work on 15 -- well, how about chemistry, any course work 16 in chemistry along the way? 17 A. Yes, I have the usual sweep of 18 undergraduate inorganic and organic chemistry 19 courses. I have not taken any specific course 20 work other than a course in molecular biology 21 that I think could reasonably be called a 22 chemistry course at the graduate level. 23 Q. In the courses that you have 24 described to me so far pertaining to microbial 25 ecology, what training have you had in 27 1 microbial ecology in the area of bacteria and 2 fungi? 3 A. Are you asking something that's 4 different from what you have already asked? 5 Q. If it's not different from what you 6 have already answered, just tell me the 7 courses that -- which courses you have taken 8 that had to do specifically with bacteria and 9 fungi. 10 A. Well, the introductory course I had 11 as an undergraduate and the two courses 12 identified as microbiology that I took as a 13 graduate student dealt very nearly completely 14 with bacteria. 15 There was some course work on fungi, 16 but in terms of culturing, in terms of actual 17 manipulation of fungi, that wouldn't have 18 happened in the laboratory sections of those 19 courses that I described. 20 We certainly worked exclusively with 21 bacteria except when we got fungi growing in 22 our cultures. 23 Q. We talked about your education 24 experience in these various areas, what 25 courses have you taught and we can go through 28 1 them again, these areas, if you want, but 2 dealing with bacteriology, mineral cycling, 3 microbial ecology -- 4 A. I have not ever taught a course in 5 bacteriology. The courses that I have taught 6 are in relation to -- let me just see if I 7 have a list here. 8 THE WITNESS: Is there a list of 9 courses taught in this? There is a page in 10 this -- 11 MR. HYDE: Courses taught, Page 3. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't have Page 3. 13 MR. HETRICK: You don't have Page 14 3? 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 MR. HETRICK: Do you have Page 3? 17 MR. NETTLETON: I don't have Page 3 18 either. 19 MR. HETRICK: Off the record. 20 (A brief off-the-record discussion 21 was here had). 22 A. If we want to run through the 23 list -- 24 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Yes, let's run 25 through the list. 29 1 A. -- of courses that are on my -- 2 Q. Of these courses taught, on your 3 list here, which deals specifically with 4 bacteriology? 5 A. Well, there is a coverage of 6 bacteria in introductory biology and the 7 principles of biology courses. Those are 8 basic courses. As I said, I have not ever 9 taught a course that specifically deals with 10 just the biology of bacteria. 11 Q. What about mineral cycling? 12 A. Well, again, I will say mineral 13 cycling is taught in introductory biology and 14 the principles of biology course. It's also 15 taught in advanced ecology courses and we 16 cover that in a course I teach now on the 17 effect of pollutants on aquatic systems in 18 relation to disruption of mineral cycles by 19 pollution. 20 Q. You may have covered it, I know some 21 of this overlaps, but what aspects of 22 microbial ecology do you consider to be 23 included in any of these courses? 24 A. Well, there is microbial ecology, 25 again, taught in the introductory courses, and 30 1 I also teach aspects of the microbial ecology 2 in an ecotoxicology course that I teach. 3 That's basically an environmental toxicolocy 4 course. 5 Q. Which one is that? 6 A. It's the one entitled, 7 "Ecotoxicology," because that is the kind of 8 work that I have, you know, I have worked 9 with, microorganisms, and so I teach aspects 10 of microbial ecology in that protozoology -- 11 well, let me back up -- in the course, 12 Effects of Pollutants on Aquatic Ecosystems, 13 we teach mineral cycling in that course. 14 I have taught the role of protozoa 15 in nutrient and mineral cycles in the 16 protozoology course. 17 Q. Do any of those courses deal with 18 cycling of phosphatase -- I am sorry, 19 phosphates? 20 A. Phosphates, yes. 21 Q. Which ones? 22 A. Well, probably the same courses I 23 have just listed for you. Certainly the two 24 introductory courses in "The Effects of 25 Pollutants on Aquatic Ecosystems" certainly 31 1 dealt with it, since that is a major concern 2 in pollution of aquatic systems. 3 Q. Do you consider the term, "microbial 4 ecology," to be a broad term which encompasses 5 the study of bacteria and fungi? 6 A. No, I wouldn't restrict it to the 7 definition that you just gave. 8 Q. Would it include bacteria and fungi? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What else would it include besides 11 bacteria and fungi? 12 A. Well, I believe it includes the 13 activities in ecology of things that might 14 reasonably be called microorganisms, meaning 15 things that interact with bacteria and fungi 16 including algae and protozoa, worms, rotifers, 17 and those types of things. 18 Q. Would the term, "geochemical 19 ecology" -- do you recognize that term? 20 A. I can interpret that term. I am not 21 sure that I have heard that. 22 Q. Would your interpretation be such 23 that you would view geochemical ecology to be 24 interchangeable with the term, "microbial 25 ecology"? 32 1 A. No. 2 Q. Could you tell me what your 3 interpretation of that term is, first of all, 4 and then how it differs from microbial 5 ecology? 6 A. I would say that geochemical ecology 7 would be a subset of microbial ecology. And I 8 think what you are saying is that geochemical 9 ecology would basically be the study of 10 mineral cycles. 11 I would agree that that is a 12 component of microbial ecology, but it's not 13 -- I don't see that as the -- I guess I don't 14 see those two terms as being synonyms for each 15 other. 16 Q. Which courses here, if any -- I 17 guess the same courses that you have described 18 dealing with microbial ecology would also 19 apply to geochemical ecology being a 20 subcomponent? 21 A. I think that's a fair statement 22 since we cover geochemical cycles in many of 23 these courses. 24 Q. Have you ever had any specific 25 courses, yourself, on geochemical ecology? 33 1 A. Yes, in the context of an advanced 2 graduate level course in aquatic microbiology, 3 where virtually all of the content of the 4 course was on geochemical cycles. 5 Q. Doctor Pratt, is it your 6 understanding that you have been designated as 7 an expert in this case by the Sugar League in 8 your area of expertise? 9 A. Yes. 10 MR. HETRICK: I am not going to 11 offer this as an exhibit unless you want to. 12 This is his area of designation that you have 13 stated. 14 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) I am going to get 15 into this, but I would have one quick question 16 or one fundamental question, I guess, and that 17 is: What do you consider yourself to be an 18 expert in in this case, what area or what 19 would you consider your title to be as far as 20 your expert item? Do you consider yourself, 21 for example, as a microbial ecologist, a 22 geochemical ecologist, a bacteriologist, what 23 is your title in this case? 24 MR. HYDE: I am just going to make a 25 general objection. You asked about five 34 1 different questions. 2 MR. HETRICK: That's true. 3 MR. HYDE: Maybe you can do one at a 4 time. You may go ahead and answer if you 5 can. 6 A. You want me to put a title on my 7 expertise? 8 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Area of expertise 9 yes. 10 A. I guess I would have no trouble 11 saying that my expertise is in microbial 12 ecology. 13 Q. That will save me some time. If you 14 could take a look at your CV and the 15 publications on that, there are a few areas I 16 am specifically interested in. 17 The first one is, if you glance 18 through your publications, and there are quite 19 a few here, there is, beginning on Page 5, are 20 45 publications and you get into book 21 chapters, and on and on. 22 If we could thumb through this, 23 starting at Page 5, and maybe you could point 24 out to me which specific publications might 25 refer to microbial ecology. 35 1 A. It might be easier to -- 2 Q. Say which ones don't? 3 A. Yes. Would that be easier? 4 Q. That would be fine. 5 A. According to the definition, I 6 guess, that I have already given you, which 7 may be a little broader than some, I would say 8 No. 4 does not. That's a paper on snails, 9 basically. 10 Seventeen, which is on Page 6, is a 11 fairly general paper. Then I guess I should 12 call your attention to -- there is a sequence 13 of papers here, and I am not sure how you 14 would like to deal with these, but starting 15 with 19, there is a paper called, "Substrate 16 Associated Microfauna." 17 There actually are several of those 18 with titles similar throughout the list that 19 are literature reviews that I wrote for the 20 Water Pollution Control Federation. So I am 21 not sure that they could really be called 22 research. 23 What you would see in a CV that was 24 sorted slightly differently was that those 25 papers were pulled out because they are simply 36 1 literature reviews, but that's one. I guess 2 paper No. 21 is one that is sort of a 3 borderline paper. 4 That paper is about rotifers. To my 5 mind, rotifers are microorganisms, but they 6 are bicellular and they are only 7 microorganisms in the sense that you can't see 8 them without a microscope. 9 Paper 22, again, is a more general 10 paper, as is paper 25. And then, again, 31 is 11 a literature review paper as is 34. Paper 12 No. 33 is a description of a new species of 13 aquatic organisms so I guess technically 14 that's not exactly ecology. 15 Again, papers No. 42 and No. 44, 16 those are literature review papers. Do you 17 want to go through the book chapters as well? 18 I think that the book chapters are largely 19 similar to the open literature papers. 20 Q. If we could go through those -- 21 A. Okay. I will just say paper 15 on 22 wetlands. That's a more general paper on the 23 use of wetlands for treatment and it doesn't 24 really -- it is not exclusively microbial 25 ecology. Paper 16 there, that's on Page 9, 37 1 is, again, a somewhat more general paper, as 2 is paper 17. 3 Paper No. 19 is also a paper that is 4 more general than simply microbial work and 5 then clearly paper No. 21 focuses on, mostly 6 on, invertebrates, somewhat broadly defined. 7 I think that's about it unless you want to get 8 into the sponsored reports. 9 Q. Yes, I would like to go through -- 10 A. You would to go through all of 11 them? 12 Q. Yes, and, again, we are talking 13 about which ones do not have to do with -- 14 A. Right. Well, let's just go through 15 them then. The book that John Cairns and I 16 published has quite a bit more in it than 17 simply microbial ecology, and I am the editor 18 of that. 19 Q. Is there a chapter in that book on 20 microbial ecology? 21 A. I have a chapter published in that 22 book that's listed in the book chapters that 23 we have just been through. In the book 24 reviews, the second and third reviews have 25 really nothing to do with microbial ecology in 38 1 terms of modeling. 2 Software package one is a more 3 general book on river pollution. Then the 4 distribution, the limited distribution reports 5 go -- 6 Q. Before you get to that, let me ask 7 you: No. One, under book and software, says, 8 "Review of a Functional Biology of the 9 Protozoa"? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How does that have to do with 12 microbial ecology? 13 A. This was a book basically on 14 functional biology including the ecology of 15 protozoa, protozoa and microorganisms. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. I think the only two papers in the 18 limited distribution reports that are not -- 19 that would be No. 7, a thing I wrote on how to 20 manage small streams, and No. 9, which is a 21 basic standard toxicological study involving 22 fish and invertebrates. 23 Q. Keep going. 24 A. There are a couple of things here, 25 this artificial -- do you want to go down -- I 39 1 mean, there isn't anything until we get into 2 the "In Preparation" things. 3 Q. Tell me where you are picking up. 4 A. Well, I am on the middle of Page 5 11. At the bottom of that list of -- well, at 6 the top of that list, these are things that 7 are -- I don't believe any of which have 8 appeared. 9 Q. What does it mean by "In 10 Preparation"? 11 A. Meaning just that, at the time that 12 I wrote this, they were being prepared. 13 Q. Are they still being prepared? 14 A. Yes. Let me just look real quickly 15 and see -- I guess this paper, the fourth 16 paper in that list, "The ecological 17 consequences of species loss" has actually 18 been submitted and published. The final paper 19 there was not ever submitted and so it really 20 shouldn't even be on the list. 21 Q. Are there any other papers in 22 general, whether or not they deal with 23 microbial ecology, that are in preparation? 24 A. I don't think I have them with me 25 but there are certainly -- well, yes, I have a 40 1 current CV. The one you have is basically a 2 year and a half old or very nearly that. So 3 there are additional papers here that are not 4 listed. 5 Q. Do any of those papers have to do 6 with microbial ecology? 7 A. Essentially all of them. 8 Q. Do any of those papers specifically 9 focus on the Everglades? 10 A. No. 11 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record 12 for clarification, I was looking at two 13 different things here, but the one that you 14 have marked as Exhibit 1 is December, 1991. I 15 have in my file and what we made a copy of 16 Page 3 from is dated June, 1992. 17 MR. HETRICK: That's not correct. 18 What we want to do for the record is, I will 19 make a copy of Page 3 on mine, since this is 20 the one we are attaching for the record. You 21 will still supply us with an updated CV? 22 THE WITNESS: Sure. 23 MR. HYDE: Do you have one with 24 you? 25 THE WITNESS: Probably not. 41 1 MR. HYDE: No problem with that. 2 THE WITNESS: I think, in general, 3 the only differences would be some additions 4 to the publication list and potentially some 5 differences in the grant and contract list. 6 MR. NETTLETON: Doctor, I don't want 7 to get out of turn, but what is your most 8 recent CV dated, do you know? 9 THE WITNESS: I have one dated -- I 10 mean, it's sort of updated monthly. So I mean 11 I have one that could conceivably be dated 12 March of this year. 13 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Do any of the "In 14 Preparation" reports focus on any water body 15 in Florida? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Okay. If we can continue going 18 down, we are at abstracts right now, and tell 19 me which ones do not have to do with microbial 20 ecology. 21 A. Well, I suppose No. 10, "New species 22 of peritrich ciliates from Australia." That's 23 a strictly a taxonomy paper. And, again, I 24 will say -- let's see where is this -- No. 22 25 which is on Page 13, "Testing changes in the 42 1 community structure." That's a general 2 statistical treatment. Other than that, there 3 are none. 4 Q. If you take a look back to the CV 5 under the publications, if you glance through 6 it starting with Page 5, you will see in the 7 right and left-hand margins, I guess, the 8 first appearing on Page 8, an asterisk by 9 No. 5 at the bottom of the page and then on 10 Page 9, 15 is circled, and asterisks on the 11 right margin. Page 10, there are numerous 12 asterisks. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Page 11 there is an asterisk, Page 15 12 there is an asterisk, and Page 13 there is 16 an asterisk. Do you know why those asterisks 17 appear? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you ever seen those asterisks 20 on any -- 21 A. Not until today. 22 Q. Not until today? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you know what they might mean? 25 A. No. 43 1 Q. Would you know who put them there? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Let me go back to your witness 4 designation. I don't have another copy, but 5 have you seen this designation? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. When did you first see this 8 designation? 9 A. Earlier this morning. 10 Q. You have not seen it before today? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did you help draft that designation 13 at any time? 14 A. Not directly. 15 Q. How about indirectly? 16 A. I mean -- I am sure that I was asked 17 to say what my areas of expertise might be. 18 That would be the extent of it. 19 Q. Do you agree with what -- 20 MR. HETRICK: Do you want to offer 21 that as an exhibit? 22 MR. HYDE: If you want to, it's your 23 deposition. I just would note for the record 24 that this is something that was prepared some 25 time ago. I don't think it was prepared by 44 1 the attorneys. I think that -- 2 MR. HETRICK? This is part of a 3 pleading. It's basically Peeples, Earl & 4 Blank's witness designation, if we can note 5 that for the record. I think that's clear 6 enough and that is what we have in our files. 7 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Do you agree with 8 what is stated on that designation? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you discussed testifying on any 11 other areas other than what is listed on that 12 designation with anyone? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Let me get into a few preliminary 15 questions. Can you tell me when your first 16 contact with the League was about this case? 17 A. I would say my first contact would 18 have been -- I will say sometime in the winter 19 of 1992. I am not certain about that. I 20 really need to look at my -- 21 Q. Approximately? 22 A. Yes, I believe I was called on the 23 phone and I don't remember if it would have 24 been late 1991, or early 1992. 25 Judging from the date on the CV, I 45 1 would assume that is something that I probably 2 sent to somebody, you know, in that time 3 period, late 1991, early 1992. 4 Q. So they contacted you? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Can you tell me who the contact 7 person was. 8 A. Dennis Stotts. 9 Q. And it was by phone? 10 A. The initial contact was by phone. 11 Q. Who is Dennis Stotts? 12 A. He is an attorney at Peeples, Earl & 13 Blank. 14 Q. Did you have any contact with Dennis 15 Stotts after that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. About how many times? 18 A. Well, probably three or four times 19 by telephone. 20 Q. Was anyone else present -- well, 21 first of all, was it a conference call? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Was your testimony concerning this 24 case discussed throughout those meetings or 25 any particular meeting? 46 1 A. When you say testimony -- 2 Q. Anticipated testimony at the 3 hearing. 4 A. I will have to think -- I have to 5 think if I have an answer to that. 6 Q. Let me ask you another question: 7 Did they ask you or tell you that you might be 8 testifying at the hearing? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you had any contact with anyone 11 else besides Dennis Stotts concerning this 12 case? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Who might that be? 15 A. Well, in addition to Mr. Hyde, I 16 spoke on the phone one day with someone from a 17 consulting firm, I believe. 18 Q. Who might that have been? 19 A. I don't think I can tell you that 20 person's name. It's possible -- well, I might 21 be able to get it from my phone log, but it 22 was what I would call an inconsequential 23 conversation in the sense that a person mostly 24 called to introduce himself and said he might 25 be calling me back for some additional 47 1 questions that he might have. That was about 2 it. 3 Q. Do you recall what group that person 4 might have worked for? 5 A. No, I probably would really have to 6 see a list of -- I have never seen any 7 paperwork from him or anything else. I 8 probably have it in a phone log somewhere. 9 Q. Is it accessible to you? 10 A. Like today? 11 Q. Maybe not today -- 12 A. Yes. If I wrote it down, it's in my 13 phone log in my office. 14 Q. Is that the only conversation you 15 might have had with that person? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. HETRICK: Off the record for a 18 minute. 19 (A brief pause was here had). 20 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Does the name 21 Hutcheon Engineers sound familiar to you? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Will you try to get us that name? 24 A. (No response). 25 MR. HYDE: If he has it, if he will 48 1 provide me with it, I will get it to you. We 2 are not sure it's going to produce anything 3 relevant to this proceeding, but we will try 4 to do so. 5 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Have you ever been 6 contacted by any other party besides the 7 League in this case? 8 MR. HYDE: Perhaps you should 9 specify -- 10 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Have you ever been 11 contacted by anyone else in this case besides 12 the League or someone working with the League 13 as a consulting -- 14 A. No. 15 Q. Have you ever been contacted by the 16 Florida Sugar Cane Cooperative? 17 A. No. 18 MR. HYDE: Actually it's the Florida 19 Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative. 20 MR. NETTLETON: Actually it's the 21 Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida. 22 MR. HYDE: You are right. 23 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Do you have any 24 other letter of agreement with anyone else 25 concerning this case besides the League? 49 1 A. No. 2 Q. Have you ever spoken with anyone in 3 the League besides the League's attorneys and 4 the one individual that you mentioned that was 5 a consultant? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Were you ever given any written 8 information about this case by the League or 9 their attorneys? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can you tell me what you were 12 given. 13 A. I was given a huge pile of stuff to 14 read. 15 Q. If you can try to recall what you 16 might have been given. 17 A. I can summarize for you. I was 18 given a copy of the settlement, something 19 called the "Settlement Agreement," which you 20 probably have a much better idea what it is 21 than what I do. 22 Mine has a little yellow tag on the 23 front that says, "Settlement Agreement." I 24 was given two copies of a report by Frank 25 Nearhoof. 50 1 Q. Two copies? 2 A. Two copies, an early draft and a 3 later draft. 4 I have received, in addition, a 5 variety of copies of other reports and papers, 6 some of which I have requested and some of 7 which were given to me initially. It was a 8 pretty good-sized stack. 9 Q. Is that it? 10 A. Yes, everything I was given was 11 basically -- well, most of what I was given 12 was either referenced in the Nearhoof report 13 or was in some way related information to 14 that. 15 There is, I mean, there is more to 16 the stack of things that I have than simply 17 references in that report. 18 Q. So references in the Nearhoof 19 report -- 20 A. You shouldn't mistake that I have 21 them all. I don't. I have some. 22 Q. But you mentioned some other 23 references not having to do -- or outside the 24 scope of the Nearhoof report? 25 A. Well, yes, I have been given -- I 51 1 was given, initially, other documents. Some 2 of them were drafts of papers or reports, a 3 couple of things by Doctor Jones. I think 4 there is a couple of published papers by 5 Doctor Jones. 6 Most of the other information that I 7 have been given is, with the exception of 8 those things, are reports that are not in open 9 literature. 10 Q. What do you mean by "reports not in 11 open literature"? 12 A. Well, meaning things like reports to 13 the National Park Service, South Florida Water 14 Management District reports, things that I 15 couldn't just go to my library and copy. 16 Q. You mentioned that there were a 17 variety of reports that were given to you and 18 you have talked about the Nearhoof report, 19 drafts of -- documents and drafts of papers by 20 Doctor Jones, maybe some published papers and 21 reports not in the open literature; can you 22 recall for me specifically what kinds of 23 information that you specifically requested? 24 A. Some of those reports, the Park 25 Service reports and South Florida Water 52 1 Management District reports, are things that I 2 requested. I believe that all of the things 3 that I requested are things cited in the 4 Nearhoof report that I asked to have copies of 5 because I couldn't obtain them in some other 6 way. 7 Q. Do you intend to rely on these 8 documents in forming opinions that you have 9 with regard to this case? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Doctor Pratt, I am going to show you 12 our production request, which is also the 13 United States production request, and your 14 attorney has told me -- and correct me if I am 15 wrong, Bill -- but that there is a four-page 16 summary which we are going to get into and 17 identify as an exhibit here shortly, which 18 states the essence of his opinion and that's 19 all the documents that he has: 20 But on Item 6, it requested all 21 documents that you might rely upon in 22 formulating your opinion, and it was 23 represented to me that pretty much it was, in 24 general, the publications stated in this paper 25 and I am just -- 53 1 What I would like to know is where 2 the other documents are referred to, six, that 3 he specifically identified here that he is 4 relying on in formulating his opinion to 5 analyze Frank Nearhoof's papers. 6 MR. HYDE: Let me respond as 7 follows: First of all, we didn't receive your 8 request, that is the department's request, 9 until yesterday. So I presume we are looking 10 at simply the United States request, and I 11 think it's up to the United States to object 12 if they have any objections. 13 Secondly, I did talk with 14 Ms. Ponzoli, the United States Assistant 15 Attorney, regarding the provision of what 16 documents she needed because of all the things 17 that Doctor Pratt has done in the past and 18 that specifically related to his 19 publications. She said that if she needed any 20 specific documents listed on his CV that she 21 would later inquire of me. She never did so. 22 Third, I regard the seven and eight 23 to be in the nature of original documents that 24 are separate and apart from the documents that 25 we all have in this case. Certainly all of 54 1 the things that Doctor Pratt just mentioned 2 are within the possession of the Department of 3 Environmental Regulations and you are entitled 4 to inquire into them. 5 I see no reason to produce documents 6 in this proceeding or in this deposition that 7 you already have, in the past, for some time. 8 In fact, the Nearhoof documents almost all -- 9 well, Mr. Nearhoof was a department witness 10 and he has all of those documents himself. 11 Certainly one could look at the 12 documents which we provided to you and see 13 that it is a critical review of Mr. Nearhoof's 14 paper, in which case I think all one has to do 15 is look at the referencing contained in 16 Mr. Nearhoof's paper. You are entitled to 17 inquire into them and to the extent that I 18 think that you want to inquire, but please 19 feel free to do so. 20 I just don't regard this request as 21 a need to produce documents that everybody 22 already has anyway. 23 MR. HETRICK: I don't disagree with 24 that. I am specifically interested in Item 25 No. 6. 55 1 MR. HYDE: Excuse me, No. 6? 2 MR. NETTLETON: Let me just state 3 that I do agree with it to some extent and 4 that's certainly not the position when he was 5 taking another deposition, and I wish that at 6 some point everyone would agree on what 7 position that someone is going to take. 8 We also noticed Doctor Pratt's 9 deposition back in October. It certainly 10 wasn't my interpretation, my request for all 11 documents relied upon and that was not -- I 12 did not cross notice this particular 13 deposition. And I was not under the 14 impression that there was a need to do that in 15 order for all parties to obtain the benefits 16 of production. But I don't intend to present 17 any argument on the record, I just wanted to 18 state that. 19 MR. HETRICK: Let me also clarify. 20 My agreement is more or less as to the cross 21 notice because that cross notice came to you 22 yesterday and I was notified of the case. As 23 of Sunday, there was no time within the rules 24 that I had to file the cross notice. However, 25 as to, you know, what needs to be produced for 56 1 each witness, I think it's all documents 2 within his possession, at least that he has 3 access to: 4 You know, that we need to have, that 5 he has formulated an opinion on or relied in 6 formulating an opinion on so that we can ask 7 about those. I think the Nearhoof paper and 8 the SWIM Plan are probably documents that 9 still need to be produced if he specifically 10 relied upon those. However, you know, we can 11 take care of some of that by phone but No. 6 12 is specifically documents that he has relied 13 upon in formulating his opinion, and we don't 14 have this. 15 MR. HYDE: Well, you do have them. 16 You don't have a list of them. We didn't 17 produce them a second or third time because 18 they are in fact documents that were produced 19 by the respondent in this case including the 20 United States and the South Florida Water 21 Management District and the Department of 22 Environmental Regulations. 23 MR. HETRICK: But don't they go 24 beyond the publications in this paper? 25 MR. HYDE: Well, they go beyond the 57 1 publications in the paper but they are in 2 effect, your, that is, the respondent's, 3 publications. 4 I think that, for example, when we 5 deposed Steve Davis, he had or listed at the 6 beginning of his deposition a bunch of papers 7 that he might rely upon. And I think that we 8 didn't necessarily have them with us. 9 They certainly were within our 10 possession, as these documents are certainly 11 within your possession, and if you want to ask 12 any questions about them, as I said earlier, 13 you are entitled to do so. But I don't regard 14 this as being a duty to produce for the third, 15 fourth, four, fifth or tenth time documents 16 that were in fact produced for us from the 17 respondent's files. 18 MR. HETRICK: I think at the very 19 least we are entitled to know what documents 20 he has relied upon or given a list of 21 something so we can go and explore -- at the 22 very least. 23 MR. HYDE: I think he has identified 24 them generally. If you want a specific list 25 of all the documents in his file, I guess we 58 1 would be glad to provide them to you. 2 I think that the sum and substance 3 of his testimony is contained in papers that I 4 did provide to you called the "Critical 5 Review," and I think it fairly and completely 6 covers the opinions which we intend to offer 7 him for. 8 MR. HETRICK: I understand. I 9 appreciate that. I am not disagreeing with 10 that. I do think I still disagree with your 11 characterization of what needs to be produced 12 in this case. I think the documents that he 13 specifically relies on need to be produced. I 14 am not going to waive that argument, but I 15 think -- 16 MR. HYDE: Why don't you ask him 17 more specific questions. I think he has 18 talked about the documents that he has looked 19 at and certainly know about his review of the 20 Nearhoof report. You can inquire into which 21 of those documents which he references in the 22 Nearhoof report and to the extent he is able 23 to identify any other documents, he can do so, 24 and if you still feel the need to have another 25 list, we can prepare a list subsequent to this 59 1 deposition and cover that area. 2 MR. HETRICK: Well, why don't we 3 take a five-minute break. 4 (A brief recess was here had). 5 MR. HYDE: I would just like to 6 state a clarification for the record. I think 7 there may have been some confusion earlier as 8 to the documents that Doctor Pratt may have 9 relied upon and those that he is relying upon 10 for purposes of his expert testimony and 11 documents that he may have reviewed in 12 conjunction with this case. 13 It had been my position that these 14 documents were already in the possession of 15 the respondent and henceforth did not need to 16 be produced yet again. 17 However, in the interest of 18 accommodating other aims, we will be glad to 19 make available to the respondent, specifically 20 the District and DER, documents that Doctor 21 Pratt has in fact reviewed so they can 22 determine whether there is anything in those 23 documents that they would like to copy and 24 utilize for their own purposes, and if need 25 be, arrange for a follow-up deposition to deal 60 1 with new areas of inquiry that aren't 2 otherwise covered in this particular 3 deposition. Is that satisfactory? 4 MR. HETRICK: I will state for the 5 record that my main concern, again, has to do 6 with Paragraph 6 of our cross notice of taking 7 of deposition, which is essentially the same 8 as the United States, and has to do with any 9 and all documents relied upon in preparing, 10 forming an opinion including reviewing and/or 11 organizing anticipated expert testimony. 12 And Doctor Pratt has stated that he 13 has both received copies of reports from the 14 League and requested certain reports be given 15 to him and that many of those reports 16 consisted of documents and cites referenced in 17 the Nearhoof paper which were many and 18 numerous drafts of papers and reports by 19 Doctor Jones published. 20 And then he also stated that his 21 review also consisted of reports not in open 22 literature, such as the National Park Service 23 reports. We have not had a chance to 24 specifically review the specific documents 25 that Doctor Pratt stated he has looked at or 61 1 reviewed and that's, in our viewpoint, 2 critical to Section 6 of our request of the 3 cross notice, and we would reserve the right 4 to recall him and question him as to those 5 documents which Mr. Hyde has said he will 6 produce. I believe that's it. 7 MR. HYDE: Just one final comment is 8 that I think we did provide you with the 9 documents which did indicate that he conducted 10 a review of that Nearhoof paper. I think one 11 could reasonably anticipate that if one has 12 reviewed the Nearhoof paper, one might also be 13 looking to the references cited therein. But, 14 be that as it may, we will do what I outlined 15 we would do on my earlier statement. 16 MR. NETTLETON: I would like to 17 state for the record I agree with DER and also 18 on behalf of the District the only documents 19 that I know of that were produced were the CV 20 and a four-page document entitled, "Critical 21 Review." 22 MR. HYDE: I provided a second 23 document or a third document this morning 24 which Doctor Pratt brought to my attention 25 last night for the first time. 62 1 MR. HETRICK: Do you want -- 2 MR. NETTLETON: I have not seen that 3 yet. 4 MR. HYDE: It's a letter dated 5 December 10th, 1992, from Maureen Donlan, to 6 William Green, and Dennis Stotts which has a 7 couple of attachments to it but what it was 8 provided for was not for the attachments so 9 much as for the text of the cover letter, in 10 particular, Paragraph 3 which is on Pages 1 11 and 2. 12 MR. HETRICK: Off the record. 13 (A brief off-the-record discussion 14 was here had). 15 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Doctor Pratt, can 16 you tell me any reports you might have looked 17 at which were not in open literature other 18 than the National Park Service reports that 19 you stated earlier that you had reviewed? 20 A. Do you mean other than the sort of 21 not well-defined list I gave you to begin 22 with? 23 Q. You stated not in open literature 24 and then you cited the National Park Service 25 reports; are there any other reports? 63 1 A. There are one or two reports from 2 the South Florida Water Management District. 3 Q. Did you request those reports? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Why did you request those reports? 6 A. Because they were cited in the 7 Nearhoof report and I wanted to see the 8 original information on which his statements 9 were based. 10 Q. Did you find that information useful 11 in your evaluation of the Nearhoof report? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In what respect? 14 A. Well, it provided me with the 15 original author's statements for comparison to 16 what Mr. Nearhoof said the author said. In 17 addition, I was -- I mean there is some 18 selfishness in here in that I was interested 19 in seeing what the real information was. 20 Q. Did you find the information 21 supplied to you in the National Park Service 22 report consistent with Frank Nearhoof's cite? 23 A. I actually don't recall. I would 24 actually like -- you know, I would like to -- 25 I would have to put those things on the table. 64 1 Q. And we will. 2 A. Fine. 3 Q. I tell you what, when you reviewed 4 all of the various documents that you reviewed 5 in this case that were either papers that you 6 requested or papers that were supplied to you 7 by the League, what was the general purpose of 8 the review of those documents? 9 A. Well, I was asked to prepare a 10 review of the Nearhoof report, and the 11 additional papers were either supplied to me 12 or I asked for them just to obtain some more 13 extensive information than was cited in the 14 report. 15 Q. Were you ever asked to review any 16 documents other than the Nearhoof report? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What documents might that contain? 19 A. The other thing I was asked to 20 review was a letter from Maureen Donlan to 21 Mr. Green and Mr. Stotts containing the 22 description of the alkaline phosphatase 23 methodology, and I was asked to comment on 24 that. 25 Q. Where is that document? 65 1 A. That's -- 2 Q. This December 10th, 1992? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. When were you asked to review that 5 document? 6 A. The letter to me would have been 7 sometime in late January, I believe. 8 Q. Of this year? 9 A. Yes, that's right. 10 MR. HETRICK: Let's go ahead and 11 mark this as Exhibit No. 2. 12 (Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was here 13 marked for identification purposes by the 14 court reporter). 15 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Was it your 16 understanding that you would be primarily 17 offering opinions with respect to the Nearhoof 18 paper? 19 A. Yes. I mean, that's what I was 20 asked to comment on. 21 Q. And all of the support information 22 was in support of your review of the Nearhoof 23 paper? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Was there any other primary focus of 66 1 your testimony that the League had 2 conversations with you about that you might be 3 testifying to, other than the Nearhoof paper? 4 A. No, not until I received this other 5 letter to read. 6 Q. You say you were contracted by the 7 League in the winter of 1992? 8 A. Yes, it was either late 1991, or 9 early 1992. 10 Q. Do you regularly speak with them? 11 A. No. 12 Q. About how often would you say, on 13 the average, and I will let you pick out an 14 average, that you might speak with them? 15 MR. HYDE: You are getting 16 perilously close, Counselor, to privileged 17 communications. 18 MR. HETRICK: I haven't asked the 19 substance to anything. 20 MR. HYDE: Just as a warning. 21 A. I would say that I have, in total, 22 over the time of -- since my first contact 23 that I have probably spoken to someone four or 24 five times. 25 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Was the 67 1 information that you reviewed, any of the 2 information that you reviewed, discussed with 3 your attorneys? 4 A. (No response). 5 MR. HYDE: Object to the form of the 6 question. I think it's rather vague. 7 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Was any of the 8 information that you requested, or were given, 9 supplied to you by the League, was any of that 10 information discussed specifically with the 11 League? 12 A. No -- do you mean -- 13 Q. Was it simply just used in your 14 analysis or did you ever have any 15 conversations with your attorney about the 16 information that was supplied to you? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You say you have a letter, an 19 agreement, with the League for your services; 20 is that correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you are being paid by the League 23 in this case; is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you tell me what your 68 1 arrangements for payment are for services? Is 2 it an hourly rate, is it a monthly rate, is it 3 a one-time fee? 4 A. It's an hourly rate. 5 Q. Do you receive the same hourly rate 6 for testifying as for document review? 7 A. That's a good question. I don't 8 know if I know the answer to that. 9 Q. Is it just an hourly rate for any 10 activity you spend on this case? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Are you paid by the League or the 13 League's attorneys? 14 A. I have only been paid by the 15 League's attorneys. 16 Q. So would you consider yourself to be 17 a consultant retained by the law firm of 18 Peeples, Earl & Blank? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Are there any other sources of 21 income that you have that are related to this 22 case or Everglades issues? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Have you ever been hired by the 25 Florida Department of Environmental 69 1 Regulations to do any work for the department? 2 A. I don't know -- can I ask you a 3 question about that? 4 Q. Sure. 5 A. Several years ago we did some work 6 for the Florida Institute of Phosphate 7 Research. They are independent; is that 8 right? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. So then the answer is no. 11 Q. You mentioned the Florida Institute 12 of Phosphate Research, what did that consist 13 of? 14 A. Several years ago we had a contract 15 with them to look at recovery of lakes in the 16 phosphate mining region. 17 Q. Where, in Florida, were you looking? 18 A. Polk County. I believe all of the 19 work took place in Polk County. 20 Q. Who were you hired by in that case? 21 A. When I was a student and then after 22 I received my Ph.D., we, meaning John Cairns, 23 who was my major professor at Virginia Tech, 24 had a contract with the institute for the 25 research project. 70 1 Q. Did you reach conclusions in your 2 research? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What were your conclusions, do you 5 recall? 6 A. We were asked to evaluate the 7 recovery of lakes that were reclaimed under 8 the rules in place at the time and really 9 asked to determine how rapidly the lakes 10 recovered, based on the water chemistry and 11 looking at biological communities. We 12 concluded that the lakes could not be 13 distinguished from natural and old previously 14 mined lakes in the region within approximately 15 two years of the time they were reclaimed. 16 Q. What was the significance of that? 17 A. I think the institute was interested 18 in knowing just how quickly those lakes could 19 be expected to support something like a 20 natural community after they had been 21 manipulated. They are basically old mine pits 22 that been regraded, hydrologically filled from 23 rainfall and groundwater. 24 Q. What was your conclusions with 25 respect to the timing involved in restoration 71 1 of those lakes? 2 A. Well, as I said, we concluded that 3 within approximately two years of the time 4 that we defined the age of the lake, based on 5 the completion of the earthmoving activities, 6 that the lakes could not be distinguished from 7 other lakes in the region. 8 Q. What was the process involved in 9 restoring the lakes, do you know? 10 A. Well, it's presently an earthmoving 11 process. In other words, it's a matter of 12 taking a mine pit and regrading it so that it 13 looks like a lake, planting the upland areas 14 with grass. I mean, there is a plan for 15 planting around the upland areas to stabilize 16 the soil. 17 Q. What kinds of plants? 18 A. It's mostly grass. I mean, 19 typically what happens is that fertilizer and 20 grass seed and straw are placed on the 21 regraded lake margins, and then there is some 22 erosion work that's done on a perpetual basis 23 if there is heavy rainfall, but mostly it's 24 just regrading to get the lakes within some 25 depth criteria. 72 1 There are sloped criteria for the 2 shoreline area and out into the lake, and 3 essentially the restoration process is one of 4 physically manipulating the shoreline of these 5 former mine pits. 6 Q. Is that the only work you have done 7 in Florida until now? 8 A. Yes -- well, no, that's not true. 9 We -- it's the only time I have actually had 10 my feet in the state for a research project. 11 We did some laboratory toxicity testing on a 12 contract with the Environmental Protection 13 Agency for the pulp mill discharge into the -- 14 Amelia River, I believe that's right -- at the 15 same time they were doing some other testing. 16 Q. When did that occur? 17 A. It would have been 1986, I believe. 18 Q. This was after the Institute of 19 Phosphate? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And where was that location, what 22 county? 23 A. Amelia River, Amelia Island -- it's 24 -- I don't know. It's within a stone's throw 25 of Jacksonville. 73 1 Q. I think I might have asked you this 2 before: You said you have not been deposed 3 before as an expert witness? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Have you ever been involved in 6 litigation where you have been deposed as a 7 fact witness? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you ever been involved in any 10 litigation matter in which you served as a 11 witness against the Florida State Department 12 of Environmental Regulations? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Or the South Florida Water 15 Management District? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Or the United States Government? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Doctor Pratt, I am going to ask you 20 some general questions about the Everglades. 21 Are you familiar with the Everglades? 22 A. Yes, at least in a general way. 23 Q. You say in a general way, maybe you 24 can explain to me how you might be familiar 25 with the Everglades. 74 1 A. Well, I mean, from reading about 2 them, my reading in association with reading 3 the reports. And from, I guess, the -- just 4 general knowledge. 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Everglades 6 or were you familiar with the Everglades 7 before you were employed by the League? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. In what way? 10 A. Well, I think in a general 11 understanding of the Everglades ecosystem in 12 terms of where does -- you know, how extensive 13 it is. 14 Q. Had you read articles on it? 15 A. Probably, but I couldn't quote you a 16 specific article. 17 Q. Had you done any research on the 18 Everglades prior to your employment with the 19 League? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Have you ever set foot in the 22 Everglades? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Let me make this clear: Are you 25 familiar with the term, "Everglades Protection 75 1 Area," consisting of Water Conservation Area 2 1, Water Conservation Area 2, 3 and the 3 Everglades National Park? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Have you ever set foot in any of 6 those areas or been in them? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Have you ever spent any time in 9 those areas doing any research? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Have you ever -- I might have asked 12 you this: Have you ever conducted any 13 research on the Everglades? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Are you familiar with the adopted 16 SWIM Plan of the South Florida Water 17 Management District? 18 A. I do not believe that I have read 19 that document. 20 Q. Have you ever seen that document? 21 A. Not to my knowledge. Although -- 22 unless I have -- unless it's one of the 23 thousands of things that I seem to have read. 24 Everything I have read is pretty relevant. 25 Q. I am not going to offer this as an 76 1 exhibit, but the document is entitled, 2 "Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for 3 the Everglades, Planning Document, March 13th, 4 1992." Have you ever looked at that document 5 at all or seen that document? 6 A. No. 7 Q. This is entitled, "Surface Water 8 Improvement and Management Plan for the 9 Everglades, Supporting Information Document," 10 dated March 13th, 1992. Have you ever seen 11 this document? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So you have conducted no review of 14 either of these previous two documents? 15 A. No. I haven't looked at anything 16 that's been that attractive. The fourth 17 generation Xeroxes are not always the easiest 18 things to read. 19 Q. Have you ever reviewed any drafts of 20 what, to your understanding, might have been 21 the SWIM Plan? Have you ever reviewed any 22 drafts of the SWIM Plan? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you intend to review the SWIM 25 Plan or any drafts of the SWIM Plan prior to 77 1 the hearing in this case? 2 A. That's a good question. 3 MR. HYDE: I don't intend to ask him 4 to do so. That's not his charge. 5 MR. HETRICK: Then I assume that if 6 he does and states any opinions different -- 7 MR. HYDE: Certainly if he does 8 review any documents and develops any 9 additional opinions or testimony, you will be 10 apprised of that fact. 11 MR. HETRICK: Far in advance of the 12 hearing, I presume. 13 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Have you ever 14 attended any meetings in Florida associated 15 with the development of the adopted SWIM Plan? 16 A. By that do you mean -- 17 Q. I mean -- 18 A. -- public hearings? 19 Q. -- public hearings. 20 A. No. 21 Q. Meetings with department staff? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Meetings with South Florida Water 24 Management District staff? 25 A. No. 78 1 Q. Meetings with other scientists? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Conferences you might have attended 4 specifically on the Everglades? 5 A. No. 6 Q. I know we have covered this, 7 generally, but I don't think I have actually 8 asked you this specific question, but it's 9 your understanding that your expertise in this 10 case as a microbial ecologist, are there 11 specialties in your area of designation from 12 an academic standpoint? 13 A. I am not sure I understand what you 14 are saying. 15 Q. Well, are there specialties from an 16 academic standpoint that might apply to your 17 testimony in this case? Microbial ecology is, 18 from what I understand, has various subsets 19 including geochemical facets of it, are there 20 other facets of it -- 21 Well, first of all, let me ask: Can 22 you describe to me what other emphasis or 23 subsets of microbial ecology that exist 24 besides geochemical? 25 A. Well, I think there is a spectrum of 79 1 scientific interests that fall under this 2 broad beam of microbial ecology. People who 3 work on feeding interactions, who eats whom, 4 for example, at the microbe level, would 5 certainly be a microbial ecologist. 6 In a broad sense, they might be 7 interested in or can produce information that 8 has meaning in geochemistry in terms of things 9 like carbon cycling. 10 And the same would be true for 11 people who are biologists, people who study 12 algae, since algae take up nutrients. I guess 13 those people who are interested in algal 14 ecology would be a subdiscipline within this 15 broad topic of microbial ecology. 16 There are also people who use 17 microorganisms as indicators of pollutant 18 stresses, fairly broadly defined ranging from 19 nutrients to toxic contents. I think those 20 people think they are microbial ecologists and 21 I would agree with them. 22 Q. Stop right there. 23 MR. HETRICK: Can you repeat that 24 last question. 25 (The requested material was here 80 1 read as recorded by the court reporter). 2 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) For those 3 individuals who study microorganisms as an 4 indicator of pollutant stresses, they would in 5 general call themselves microbial ecologists? 6 A. I think some of them do. 7 Q. Is there anything else that they 8 would consider themselves to be? 9 A. They might call themselves applied 10 ecologists. They might call themselves 11 ecotoxicologists. 12 Q. Is that about all you can think of 13 as to various subsets or specialties within 14 the broad, broad spectrum of interests of 15 microbial ecology? 16 A. Well, I mean, there are people who 17 work on the systematics of these organisms, 18 the taxonomists, who may consider themselves 19 to have an ecological interest, meaning they 20 are interested in the distribution variability 21 of those organisms. 22 There is also a number of people who 23 work in a general area that has become known 24 as bioremediationists meaning the use of 25 microorganisms to degrade foreign materials in 81 1 soils and water, to some extent, and waste 2 streams. 3 Q. What did you consider to be your 4 focus in this case with respect to microbial 5 ecology? 6 A. My research interest in my 7 background is -- focuses on the effects of 8 pollutants on microbial communities. 9 Q. What pollutants might you be 10 referring to? 11 A. Well, I have done a predominant 12 amount of my work with toxic chemicals but in 13 our laboratory, we have also worked with 14 things that are not overtly toxic meaning 15 complex waste streams from industries that 16 have everything from nutrients to toxicants in 17 them. 18 But if you look at most of my 19 published papers, you will see that most of 20 them are focused on the effects of compounds 21 that, I guess, would generally be considered 22 to be potentially toxic in the environment. 23 Q. What kinds of pollutants might you 24 be referring to in the context of your 25 testimony in this case? 82 1 A. That's a good question. I am not 2 sure that I would necessarily be -- well, be 3 referring to specific pollutants although -- 4 well, I am not sure. 5 Q. Just to the best of your ability. 6 A. I am not sure that there are things 7 -- are you asking what have I worked with 8 before that I might draw on in terms of 9 experience? 10 Q. No, what I am asking is you 11 mentioned that your research interests or 12 focus in this case would probably be on the 13 area of the effects of pollutants on microbial 14 communities, and so what I am interested in 15 finding out is what kinds of pollutants might 16 you be looking at or have you identified as 17 having an effect on microbial communities in 18 the Everglades? 19 A. Well, the pollutant of choice here 20 is phosphorus. If there are other compounds 21 that might enter into the picture in terms of 22 pesticides or chemicals of industrial origin, 23 they haven't appeared anywhere in any of the 24 documents that I have read, at least not in 25 any significant -- there has been no 83 1 significant mention of those. 2 Q. So your focus has been mostly on 3 phosphorus as a pollutant? 4 A. As a potential pollutant. 5 Q. Have you reached any conclusions 6 with respect to what effect phosphorus as a 7 pollutant might have on microbial communities 8 in the Everglades? 9 A. Well, I have certainly -- I 10 certainly know what the potential effect of 11 the phosphorus might be if it were a 12 pollutant, in the fact that it happens to be 13 the Everglades is to some extent a specific 14 question related to a more general pattern. 15 So, you know, the answer would be yes, at 16 least in a general way. 17 Q. What effect -- well, first of all, 18 do you consider phosphorus to be a pollutant? 19 A. When it's present in excess of -- 20 great excess of natural background. It's a 21 classical freshwater pollutant. 22 Q. Have you looked at any specific area 23 of the Everglades to determine whether or not 24 phosphorus is excessive with respect to any 25 natural background in that area? 84 1 A. In the Everglades, yes. I am not 2 sure I can answer that. 3 Q. Well, have you looked at water 4 Conservation Area 1 and made any 5 determinations as to whether or not phosphorus 6 exists in excess of what the natural 7 background is in that area, or have you looked 8 at Water Conservation Area 2 or 3 or the 9 Everglades National Park or have you -- 10 A. I have looked at those data, yes. 11 Q. Have you reached any conclusions? 12 A. There are -- I guess my conclusions 13 are that there are sampling sites that clearly 14 show elevated phosphorus levels in the water 15 column, at least at some times. 16 Q. Can you tell me where the location 17 of these sampling sites are? 18 A. I could if I had a map. 19 Q. Do you recall where these sampling 20 locations are specifically in the -- 21 A. I recall from some of the graphical 22 representations that -- I sort of remember 23 this by sampling station numbers from some of 24 the reports that show, at least graphically 25 show, what I would consider to be obviously 85 1 high phosphorus concentrations. 2 I want to say that it was Area 2. 3 If there is a map of the Water Conservation 4 Areas, I could probably point them out to you. 5 There was some figure like that in the 6 original Nearhoof report. 7 Q. I have this figure and we can Xerox 8 this. I will offer this as an exhibit or we 9 can refer to it. Does this help or not and 10 then I will identify it? 11 A. Yes, I think the place I recall was 12 from Water Conservation Area 2. I would have 13 to look at the other documents, you know, to 14 really give you an answer about the other 15 areas. 16 MR. HYDE: I think that Doctor Pratt 17 just indicated that he has seen such a 18 document attached to the Nearhoof report. Do 19 you have that available? 20 MR. HETRICK: Yes, I just haven't 21 offered it yet. 22 THE WITNESS: If you have the old 23 version, there are no figures in the new 24 versions, I think. 25 MR. HETRICK: I don't have the old 86 1 version. For the record, what Doctor Pratt 2 was just looking at is Page 7 of the 3 Everglades SWIM Plan Planning Document dated 4 March 13th, 1992. He was looking at a map. 5 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) And you pointed 6 out in general the area of that map which 7 is -- let me see, I can't see. 8 A. That is Conservation Area 2-A. 9 Q. Along the eastern perimeter? 10 A. I am actually not pointing to any 11 particular place in this. My recollection is 12 that there was a series of sampling stations. 13 I will say roughly running northeast to 14 southwest in that conservation area, some of 15 which showed elevated phosphorus. 16 MR. HETRICK: All right. I am going 17 to go ahead and offer Frank Nearhoof's 18 document as exhibit -- is it 3? Three, which 19 this is the one dated September, 1992. It has 20 draft typed, then September, 1992, on it. 21 A. Well, I should not refer to this 22 first report. 23 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Look at Figure 1 24 on there. I believe that's a better map. 25 A. Well, this is basically the same 87 1 map, only different. 2 Q. So we are looking at Figure 1 on 3 what has been marked as Exhibit No. 3, and 4 what are the areas that -- 5 A. Well, as I said before, still on 6 this figure labeled, "Water Conservation Area 7 2A," I believe, that's my immediate 8 recollection without referring to any other 9 documents. 10 Q. What kinds of problems can 11 phosphorus have on microbial communities with 12 respect to data that you have looked at and 13 what you have identified in the area of Water 14 Conservation 2A? 15 A. I am not sure I understand that. 16 Was that a general question about what 17 problems can phosphorus produce or -- 18 Q. What have you found? 19 A. -- water conservation area? 20 Q. Well, let's relate it specifically 21 to this water quality conservation area that 22 you consider to contain the sampling station 23 which you have looked at data. What 24 conclusions have you reached with respect to 25 the effects of phosphorus on microbial 88 1 communities in that area? 2 A. I am not sure I have an answer for 3 that. I don't think I have reached any 4 conclusions about this particular area. 5 Q. Have you reached any conclusions 6 with regards to the Everglades, in general, 7 based upon specific data that you have 8 reviewed? 9 A. In terms of the observable effects 10 of phosphorus on those communities? 11 Q. Right, on microbial communities. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you tell me what those effects 14 are. 15 A. I guess my conclusions are that it's 16 difficult to observe the effects on those 17 communities based on the available data. 18 Q. Have you formulated any opinions on 19 the effects of phosphorus on microbial 20 communities in any of those areas or in any 21 area of the Everglades? 22 A. Again -- 23 Q. I am not talking about causation, I 24 am just talking about the effects. 25 A. Can you state that again. 89 1 Q. Well, you mentioned early on that 2 your research in this case focuses on the 3 effects of pollutants on microbial communities 4 in the Everglades? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. You mentioned that the kinds of 7 pollutants that you are looking at is 8 phosphorus, so what I am trying to find out is 9 if you reached any opinions with regard to the 10 effects of the phosphorus acting as a 11 pollutant on microbial communities in the 12 Everglades. You have stated in your review of 13 data that phosphorus is present? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. And so do you consider phosphorus as 16 having any impact at all whatsoever on 17 microbial communities in the Everglades? 18 MR. HYDE: I would object to the 19 form of the question. I think it assumes 20 facts that are not in evidence, for one. For 21 another, it is certainly beyond the designated 22 area of his testimony which I have attempted 23 to provide you through the copy of his 24 Critical Review of the Nearhoof report. I 25 don't even know that Doctor -- I think, in 90 1 fact, Doctor Pratt has testified that he has 2 not looked at specific communities within the 3 Everglades. 4 So I would suggest that you tailor 5 your comments to what he did in response to 6 the Nearhoof report, and I think you will get 7 the answers to the questions that you want. 8 Q. Well, just one last question then. 9 Have you looked -- have you analyzed microbial 10 ecology in any specific area of the Everglades 11 or is it, your witness designation, that says 12 Everglades environment, what is meant by 13 Everglades and is that the entire -- what I 14 have identified to you earlier as the 15 Everglades Protection Area including Water 16 Conservation Area 1, 2 and 3, and Everglades 17 National Park, is that what you understand to 18 be the Everglades environment? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I am going to go ahead and offer as 21 Exhibit No. 4 what is entitled -- a document 22 -- "Critical Review." Are you familiar with 23 this document, Doctor Pratt? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you want to make sure? Take a 91 1 look through the pages and make sure I haven't 2 missed any. 3 One thing, before I get into this, I 4 want to go back and ask you one question: Do 5 you anticipate or expect to be asked to review 6 any other documents in your anticipated 7 testimony in this case which are different 8 from what you have already looked at? 9 A. I don't anticipate that unless other 10 documents are produced. 11 Q. Let's go back to Exhibit No. 3. I 12 just want you to take a look at Mr. Nearhoof's 13 paper. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Nearhoof's 16 paper, the paper -- this particular exhibit 17 dated September, 1992? 18 THE WITNESS: Do you know what the 19 date on my review is because it's actually 20 earlier? I think the date of my review is 21 actually earlier than this document. 22 MR. HYDE: I think the document that 23 was provided to Doctor Pratt was February of 24 1992. It's my understanding that the two 25 documents are not appreciably different. 92 1 A. This looks very similar to the 2 document that I reviewed in terms of having 3 figurative tables attached to it, and so I 4 believe this is substantially the same 5 document. 6 Q. (BY MR. HETRICK) Well, I am looking 7 at -- going to Exhibit No. 4 now, which is 8 your Critical Review, and at the top of the 9 document, on Page 1, it says, "Critical 10 Review," and underneath that it says, 11 "Nearhoof, F.L., Draft, 1992," and then 12 underneath that it says, "Technical Series, 13 Volume 3, No. 24"? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Is that not the same document as you 16 have before you here in Exhibit 3? 17 A.