DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF CASE NOS. 92-3038 FLORIDA, a Florida agricultural 92-3039 cooperative marketing association; ROTH 92-3040 FARMS, INC.; and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., 92-6796 92-6797 and 92-6799 92-6800 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., and FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., Petitioners, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, an Agency of the State of Florida, Respondent, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, THE FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY AND THE SIERRA CLUB, Respondent-Intervenors. ______________________________________________/ DEPOSITION OF: BOBBY JOE PRESLEY, Ph.D. TAKEN: March 30, 1994 Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. DEPOSITION OF: BOBBY JOE PRESLEY, Ph.D. TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DATE: Wednesday, March 30, 1994 TIME: Commenced at 9:00 a.m. Concluded at 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida REPORTED BY: ANITA M. PEKEROL, CCR, RPR, CP, CM. Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large. APPEARANCES: REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: JON M. LIPSHULTZ, ESQUIRE United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section 10th and Pennsylvania Avenues N.W. Room 7328 Washington, D. C. 20530 REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 REPRESENTING DEPARMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: DONNA LA PLANTE, ESQUIRE Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Atkeson Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. I_N_D_E_X _ _ _ _ _ WITNESS PAGE _______ ____ BOBBY_JOE_PRESLEY,_Ph.D. _____ ___ ________ _____ Direct Examination by Mr. Lipshultz 4 CERTIFICATE_OF_REPORTER 132 ___________ __ ________ E_X_H_I_B_I_T_S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ON_BEHALF_OF_UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA: __ ______ __ ______ ______ __ _______ NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE ______ ___________ ____ 1 Abbreviated resume of Bobby Joe Presley 5 2 Resume of Bobby Joe Presley 5 3 Tables and charts 60 4 Handwritten notes 63 5 Biochemical Partitioning of Mercury in the Everglades and Okefenokee Swamp Wetland Systems 97 6 Letter from B. J. Presley to Bill Green, 2-15-94 106 7 Letter from B. J. Presley, to Gary Sams, 3-3-94 112 8 Handwritten note 115 Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 4 1 P_R_O_C_E_E_D_I_N_G_S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 - - - 3 The following deposition of BOBBY JOE PRESLEY, 4 Ph.D., was taken on oral examination, pursuant to 5 notice, for purposes of discovery, for use as evidence, 6 and for such other uses and purposes as may be permitted 7 by the applicable and governing rules. Reading and 8 signing is not waived. 9 - - - 10 Thereupon, 11 BOBBY JOE PRESLEY, Ph.D., 12 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, 13 was examined and testified as follows: 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 16 Q Can you state your name and address, for 17 the record, please. 18 A I'm Bob Presley, Texas A&M University. 19 Q And your address, please? 20 A Oceanography Department, Texas A&M 21 University, College Station, Texas, 77843-3146. 22 Q Dr. Presley, my name is Jack Lipshultz. I 23 know we have met before, but I'm an attorney with the 24 Justice Department, in Washington, representing the 25 United States in this litigation. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 5 1 During your deposition today, should you 2 have any confusion about the questions that I'm asking, 3 please stop me and let me know. If you want to take a 4 break at any time, just feel free to say so and we'll do 5 that. 6 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to ask the 7 reporter to mark two exhibits, Numbers 1 and 2, 8 to the deposition to get started. 9 (United States of America Exhibits 1 and 2 10 marked for identification.) 11 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 12 Q Dr. Presley, Presley Exhibit 1 bears a 13 notation of "Abbreviated resume." Presley 2 just says 14 "Resume." Are these up-to-date documents, as far as you 15 know? 16 A Yes, as far as I know. Probably 1 is more 17 up-to-date than 2 is. This more fully version of my 18 resume, I don't think has been updated very recently. 19 It has September '91 on it. It may have had some 20 additions since then. 21 And this other one has at least 22 publications listed that go through '93. So, there are 23 two differences. The first one is an abbreviated 24 version, which some people prefer to see, and it is, 25 also, a more up-to-date version of my resume. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 6 1 Q When was Presley 1 last updated, as far as 2 you know? 3 A As far as I know, September of '91. 4 Q The abbreviated resume, maybe it will be 5 easier to refer to it that way. 6 A This has been updated within the last year. 7 I'm not sure of the date. It doesn't have a date on it. 8 I'm not certain when it was updated, but it has been 9 since these '93 publications were actually published, 10 which has been within the last six or eight months. 11 Q My main question would be whether there is 12 more current information on here that would be relevant; 13 such as additions or updates to your publication list or 14 experience list, that sort of thing. 15 There are some projects in which you are 16 listed as principal investigator, at least on the 17 expanded resume. And we would just like to ascertain 18 that we have as current and complete a list of that 19 information as possible. 20 A Well, there is certainly nothing that has 21 appeared in the published literature since this was 22 done, that I can think of. We may have a paper or two 23 submitted for publication, but I'm not even sure of 24 that. 25 Sometimes some of my students or some of my Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 7 1 colleagues submit something for publication that I 2 really have very little to do with, other than providing 3 an analytical service. And once in awhile, I'm not even 4 aware when something is actually submitted. 5 To the best of my knowledge, this is an up-to-date 6 version of my publication record. 7 Likewise, when it comes to grants and 8 contracts, it is very likely that we have some small 9 contracts and even grants in my lab that are not listed 10 here, simply because we're doing so many different 11 things. We probably have 30, 40 different small 12 projects going on in my lab. A couple of things which 13 have come up since this was produced. 14 I guess one way of looking at it is that I 15 do not have any version of a resume which I have 16 furnished to anyone else that is more complete than this 17 one is. 18 Q All right. I guess there are two ways of 19 going about this. One is, we could ask you to update 20 the resume for us, or I could just ask you now. When 21 you say that there might be things that you have done 22 that are not on this resume, we can just go through them 23 now to the extent that they have any conceivable 24 relevance to your involvement in this case. 25 A Well, I really don't believe that I am Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 8 1 involved in anything that has any real relevance to this 2 case. I mean, you might think, for example, my 3 involvement in what we call Lavaca Bay workshop in 4 Houston a couple of months ago has some relevance to 5 this case, in that a major topic of discussion at that 6 workshop was the behavior of mercury in nature. 7 And I guess I don't list this on the resume 8 anywhere, because it is just not the sort of thing that 9 I would normally list, I guess. I don't have a heading 10 here anywhere on my resume listing all of the symposia, 11 workshops, presentations that I have given, things like 12 that. 13 Q Well, with regard to things that do not 14 appear on either version of your resume that involve in 15 some way the mercury issue, is it possible for you to go 16 through the more significant ones here for the record, 17 so that we have some indication of what they are? 18 A Sure. I would say that the Lavaca Bay 19 workshop would be the main thing there. 20 Q The Lavaca Bay workshop, can you give me a 21 little more information on that? 22 A This was a workshop that was funded by the 23 Texas General Land Office. It was for the purpose of 24 discussing the current status of the ecological health 25 of a part of the Texas coastline, referred to as Lavaca, Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 9 1 l-A-V-A-C-A, Bay. 2 It is a place that has received some 3 attention from a pollution standpoint for a couple of 4 reasons, one of which is it was the site of a 5 chlori-Alkali plant back in the late '60s, early '70s, 6 which released mercury into the environment; which 7 resulted in high mercury in the fish and shellfish in 8 that area. And it resulted in a closure of the area by 9 the Texas Department of Health from taking fish and 10 shellfish. It has been a concern to local residents and 11 people in general. 12 There was, also, a major petrochemical 13 plant on the shores of the bay, which has received a lot 14 of attention from environmentalists concerned with the 15 discharges from this petrochemical plant into the bay. 16 So, the Texas General Land Office, as the 17 manager of State lands in Texas, decided to hold a 18 meeting of knowledgeable people to discuss environmental 19 problems in this bay, and to recommend research and 20 recommend possible solutions to some of the 21 environmental problems. That was the gist of the 22 workshop. We had about 60 or 80 people in from all over 23 the country for a two-day meeting. 24 Q Were there published materials that came 25 out of this workshop? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 10 1 A Not at this point, no. There were some 2 background papers that were produced by a few of us that 3 were distributed to the participants prior to the 4 workshop or at the workshop. But the actual proceedings 5 of the workshop or any summary of the deliberations of 6 the workshop have not been published. There is a draft 7 version of an executive summary of a proposed workshop 8 proceeding that had just recently been completed by Dr. 9 George Ward, from the University of Texas, and myself. 10 Dr. Ward wrote an executive summary, sent 11 it to me for editing and revision, which I did just 12 within the last week, and sent back to him. I did not 13 bring that document with me. It is certainly no secret, 14 and I can certainly make it available to anyone who 15 would be interested. 16 Q Are you expecting that that document will 17 be in final form sometime in the near future? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I would like to request that that be sent 20 to your counsel. He can send to us. I don't think we 21 need it tomorrow, or today, for that matter. 22 MR. PERKO: All right. 23 THE WITNESS: Sure. 24 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 25 Q What was the nature of your work in this Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 11 1 workshop. Did you do any field work in connection with 2 it? 3 A Not in connection with the workshop, no. I 4 have done a couple of small projects in Lavaca Bay. My 5 research group had a couple of years ago, and some of 6 that work and some of the data that resulted from that 7 work was discussed at the workshop, but this work was 8 not done, specifically, for the workshop. 9 One of the projects was done for the 10 National Sea Grant Program, funded by the National Sea 11 Grant Program, which comes under NOAA. And the other 12 piece of work was funded by the Texas General Land 13 Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Texas 14 Water Commission. A small project that we did for those 15 State agencies, which, essentially, involved two 16 sampling trips down to Lavaca Bay in the summer of '92, 17 and an analysis of sediments and organisms that we 18 collected, and some of the data from those trips. I 19 presented some of the data from those trips at the 20 workshop, and there was some discussion of that data. 21 Q Other than the Lavaca Bay workshop, are 22 there any other significant publications or 23 presentations, things of that nature, projects that you 24 have worked on, that involved mercury that do not appear 25 on either version of your resume? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 12 1 A No. The only other thing that comes to 2 mind, and this is even further afield, is that I now 3 have been informed, at least unofficially, that a 4 proposal I have written to NOAA to do some medical 5 analyses on dated cores, sediment cores, from various 6 places along the Gulf coast has been funded. And so 7 that would be another project that would come under 8 these recent grants and contracts, but it does not 9 involve Lavaca Bay. It may possibly involve Florida. 10 We proposed in the original work plan to 11 take a couple of samples from Tampa Bay, a couple of 12 samples from the Mississippi River delta and a couple of 13 samples from Galveston Bay. And these would be cores 14 that would be dated with lead-210, cesium-137 dating 15 techniques, in order to establish a history of 16 sedimentation in these areas. And then relate that 17 history to the metal and organic contaminate 18 concentrations in these sediments. That's a recent 19 project. It is not listed here. 20 I say we have a lot of very small projects, 21 where people just send us samples to analyze, and we 22 just send them back the data. Most of those are not 23 listed here. But as far as I can remember, none of 24 those deal exclusively with mercury, and none of those 25 require any interpretation of the data on our part. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 13 1 Very often, we don't even know, 2 specifically, where the samples come from. I don't 3 consider those significant with respect to any opinions 4 that I would have regarding this case or regarding the 5 behavior of mercury in general. 6 Q With regard to the proposal that you were 7 just discussing that you understand is going to be 8 funded, what is the time frame on that, if it does, in 9 fact, become funded? 10 A Well, the time frame on that, half of the 11 monies or part of the money is supposed to be provided 12 this fiscal year, and part of it next fiscal year. So, 13 the work will have to be started and completed within 14 the next couple of years. 15 Q Do you anticipate that any of the work will 16 be ongoing during this calendar year? 17 A Yes. In fact, we have already started some 18 of the work. We have collected the cores from the 19 Mississippi River delta, and we have sliced the cores up 20 into one centimeter intervals. We have taken aliquots 21 of those materials for metal analyses, and for organic 22 contaminate analyses and we have sent samples down to 23 Dr. Peter Santchi, at Texas A&M in Galveston, for 24 lead-210 analyses. 25 So, even though we have not been officially Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 14 1 informed in writing that we have the funding, we have 2 been told verbally. And I know the project manager, and 3 trust the project manager, so we're just going ahead and 4 doing the work, even though we haven't gotten the 5 official word from the grants and contracts office at 6 NOAA. 7 Q Who is the project manager? 8 A The project manager, the person most 9 directly involved in the thing, is a Dr. Natalie 10 Vallette-Silver in the NOAA office in Silver Springs, 11 Maryland. Her boss is Dr. Tom O'Connor, and his boss is 12 Dr. Andy Robertson. They keep changing the name of that 13 office up there. To tell you the truth, I don't know 14 exactly what they're calling themselves now, but it is 15 the Ocean Assessments Division. It is the Ocean 16 Assessments Division of NOAA. 17 Q Is part of that project going to involve 18 mercury analysis? 19 A Mercury will be one of the metals. We'll 20 look at, like, 15 different metals in these cores. 21 Mercury will be one of them. 22 Q Where will the mercury analyses be 23 performed? 24 A They will be performed in my lab. 25 Q Do you and Dr. Gary Gill share the same Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 15 1 lab? 2 A No. We're physically separated by about 3 150 miles. He is with the Texas A&M University branch 4 in Galvestion, Texas, and I'm at College Station. So, 5 we have quite a physical separation, and don't share any 6 laboratory or instruments. 7 Q Does your lab have the capability to 8 analyze trace levels of mercury? 9 A We certainly have the capability to analyze 10 what I would consider to be trace levels. That is, 11 levels down to a few tenths of a part per billion. We 12 have not, at this point, been in the ultra-trace 13 business. That is, down in the one part per trillion or 14 less concentration range. 15 Q To the best of your knowledge, does Dr. 16 Gill's lab have that ultra-trace capability? 17 A I believe he does. 18 Q Is the development of capabilities for 19 ultra-trace analysis something that falls within your 20 expertise, your experience? 21 A Yes. We can certainly do that, if we chose 22 to do so. We have not chosen to get into that business 23 at this point. 24 Q Let me ask you this: From your resume, it 25 appears that you have been a university professor for Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 16 1 about 25 years; is that right? 2 A Not quite 25, I don't think. Twenty-two or 3 23, something like that. 4 Q And I really have no intention of marching 5 you through your entire career at the university, but I 6 am interested in what aspects of your experience over 7 that time have given you knowledge or training which you 8 feel is appropriate for your testimony in this case. 9 I think the easiest way to get at this is 10 to first ask you to describe what your understanding is 11 of the subject matters to which you are expected to 12 testify at trial, and then we can perhaps go through 13 your experience and just get a sense of how that has 14 prepared you for that. 15 Let me ask you, first, what is your 16 understanding of the subject matter to which you are 17 expected to testify at trial? 18 A Well, as I understand it, I would be asked 19 to testify as to the distributions of mercury within 20 Florida. The concentrations of mercury within different 21 media, sediment, water, organisms, the behavior of 22 mercury. How mercury might move from one media to 23 another; things along that line. Also, analytical 24 aspects of determination of mercury at low levels in 25 different media. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 17 1 Q Let's stay on this topic for a little bit. 2 With regard to distributions of mercury in 3 Florida, what exactly do you mean by distributions of 4 mercury in Florida? 5 A Well, just what the concentration of 6 mercury is in soils, sediments, waters, plants in 7 different places within the State. 8 Q So, you are talking about geographic 9 distribution in that sense? 10 A Right. 11 Q And with regard to your analysis of 12 geographic distributions of mercury in Florida, are 13 there particular studies which you will rely on to form 14 opinions on that subject? 15 A Yes. I have looked at several documents up 16 to this point that give amounts of mercury in soils, 17 sediments, waters and organisms in different places 18 within Florida. 19 I have reviewed some published literature, 20 and I have reviewed some unpublished documents that have 21 been furnished to me. 22 Q What are those documents? What studies and 23 what publications are relevant to your analysis of 24 distributions of mercury in Florida? 25 A Well, anything that is available would Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 18 1 certainly be relevant. As I say, I have looked at a 2 number of different things. I'm sure that I can't give 3 you a total list of those off the top of my head here. 4 There have been various papers published. 5 For example, a publication by Lange, et 6 al., titled something like Concentrations of Mercury in 7 Large-Mouth Bass From 53 lakes in Florida. 8 Some of the data that is in documents that 9 were produced by Dr. Ron Jones I have looked at. I 10 think there was data, although I'm not certain, in some 11 of the EPA-generated documents that had to do with their 12 proposed work under the REMAP program. At least I 13 looked at that proposed scope of work. 14 I looked at some analyses that were 15 performed on samples that were collected by KBN 16 Engineering, and looked at a critique of a proposed 17 study plan by KBN by Watras. 18 I would have to review my own notes on some 19 of this stuff. But there have been a large number of 20 documents made available, in various formats, in the 21 course of my involvement in this case; some of which 22 appeared as exhibits in the Ron Jones deposition; some 23 of which appeared as exhibits in the Stober deposition. 24 Some of which have not appeared as exhibits in 25 depositions, but which I have found in our own library, Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 19 1 or which have been made available to me in other ways 2 for my review. 3 Q Do you have final opinions today, for 4 purposes of your expected testimony at this trial, for 5 purposes of analyzing the distribution of mercury in 6 Florida? 7 A I am not sure that I like to use the word 8 "final." I, certainly, have some impressions at this 9 point as to what the distribution of mercury is in 10 various media in Florida. 11 Q Well, let me just stop you there. Let me 12 explain to you the purpose of my question, so that there 13 is no mystery involved in this. We have a trial that is 14 scheduled to begin April 25th. And the purpose of this 15 proceeding is to find out what you're going to testify 16 to at that trial. 17 The question of whether you are planning to 18 do any additional analysis between now and the trial is 19 something that we don't need to discuss at this 20 deposition. 21 The idea and theory is that the experts, at 22 the time of their deposition, will be set on what 23 they're going to testify to. But whether or not that is 24 the case, I don't know, and I don't want to get into 25 that. All I'm trying to do here is find out what the Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 20 1 situation is. 2 I'm interested in distinguishing and 3 finding out from you whether, in your mind, you plan to 4 think about this more or do more analysis before you 5 testify at trial, or whether you have done all of the 6 work that you feel you need to do to prepare your 7 testimony at this point in time. 8 Is that relatively clear? 9 A Well, I guess it is relatively clear. Are 10 you asking me if I'm going to do anything else between 11 now and April the 25th? Is that the question? 12 Q Well, I asked you what you're going to 13 testify to. You listed five subject areas. And I 14 intend to sort of go through them one-by-one and ask 15 what your opinions are, what the bases are, et cetera. 16 That's what we do in these kind of things. 17 A Right. 18 Q I do want to know whether this is just your 19 initial impressions at this point in your mind, and 20 whether you intend to do more work, or whether you have 21 done all of the work that you feel is necessary or 22 appropriate, and whether I can have a sense from you 23 that this is your final opinion. 24 A Well, I certainly intend to do more reading 25 and more thinking about all of this between now and Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 21 1 April the 25th. There is no doubt about that. As I 2 read about and think about mercury and other trace metal 3 behavior all of the time, that's the business that I am 4 in on a daily basis. I read journal articles. I talk 5 to people on a daily basis about environmental 6 chemistry. But I certainly have some opinions, and some 7 ideas and some impressions about the situation in 8 Florida at this point. 9 Q The specific question that I'm interested 10 in, I understand that you are a professor, you do work 11 in these areas that is unconnected to this litigation 12 and you would be doing it, anyway? 13 A Right. 14 Q But it is significant for purposes of this 15 deposition or purposes of this proceeding to know 16 whether you intend any of that additional work to form a 17 part of the opinions of which you're going to testify at 18 trial. In other words, do you intend to do more work 19 that relates to your expected testimony in this trial? 20 A I expect to. I am not sure that I will, 21 but I expect to. 22 Q And that would relate to your opinions on 23 each of the subject areas that you identified; is that 24 correct? 25 A It could. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 22 1 Q It could? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Well, just for the record, I don't have a 4 problem with proceeding with the deposition on the basis 5 of what appears to be perhaps preliminary opinions. 6 MR. PERKO: Counsel, I don't think that is 7 accurate to what Dr. Presley has testified to. 8 He says he has some opinions at this point. You 9 are free to inquire into those as fully as you 10 want. 11 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I certainly will. All I'm 12 saying is that from my perspective, to the extent 13 that the situation arises where Dr. Presley is 14 contemplating testifying to work that was not 15 done as of today, we're going to need to redepose 16 him at some point. 17 MR. PERKO: I don't think that is 18 necessary. You have laid the foundation for 19 another deposition. And we can go through this 20 today and find out what opinions Dr. Presley has 21 at this point, and what he intends to do and if 22 that situation arises, we can address it. I 23 don't think that there is anything in the record 24 that suggests that there is a need for another 25 deposition at this point. You have not asked him Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 23 1 question one about the bases for his opinions or 2 so forth. 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Right. 4 MR. PERKO: I understand. 5 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I wasn't intending to start 6 an argument about it. It seems to me that he 7 said he might be doing more work that is relevant 8 to his testimony. 9 MR. PERKO: I think everyone in this case 10 will do more work that is relevant to the 11 testimony. That doesn't mean we have to retake 12 every deposition. 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: It doesn't mean we have to, 14 no, but we might. 15 BY ME. LIPSHULTZ: 16 Q Let's move on. 17 So, with regard to the distribution of 18 mercury in Florida, you said you have some impressions 19 at this point. Let me return to that later, just for 20 purposes of my own organization here, if you will, 21 before we dive into your impressions. 22 Let me go back to what I started out doing, 23 which was just getting an overview of your subject areas 24 and seeing how that relates to your experience. 25 I have in my notes here five different Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 24 1 items that you identified when I asked you what is the 2 subject matter of your testimony. I will read you back 3 what I have, and just ask you to tell me whether that 4 seems like a reasonably accurate description of what you 5 said, and whether there is anything else that I should 6 put on this list. 7 I have here distributions of mercury in 8 Florida, which we clarified as geographic distributions. 9 Concentrations in different organisms. The behavior of 10 mercury, which is a little bit unclear. Does that refer 11 to mercury cycling? 12 A Yes. That is another way to word it. 13 MR. PERKO: If I could just back up, I 14 believe you said concentrations of mercury in 15 different organisms. I believe Dr. Presley said 16 media. That would be a distinction. 17 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 18 Q Is that a more accurate way of describing 19 it? 20 A I think I said different media. For 21 example, organisms, sediments, soils, waters. 22 Q Thank you for that clarification. Mercury 23 movements from one media to another. 24 A Right. 25 Q And analytical aspects. I take it by Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 25 1 analytical aspects, you mean that you will provide 2 expert testimony regarding appropriate laboratory 3 procedures and interpretation of data and that sort of 4 thing? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Both of those, laboratory procedures and 7 data? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Is there anything else that should be on 10 this list? 11 A No. I think that about covers it. 12 Q Why don't we start with the last category 13 first. For some reason, I think that might be the 14 clearest way to do it. 15 With regard to analytical aspects of 16 mercury, which I have clarified as lab procedures and 17 data, can you give me an overview of what your 18 experience has been with regard to these analytical 19 aspects? 20 A Sure. One of the first large-scale 21 environmental monitoring programs ever funded was funded 22 by the National Science Foundation in about 1972. So, 23 that has been over 20 years ago. Samples of sediments 24 and organisms were collected along the east coast, the 25 west coast and the Gulf Coast of the United States. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 26 1 I was chosen to analyze those samples for 2 the Gulf Coast. As part of that sampling and analysis 3 effort, reference materials were made available by the 4 then National Bureau of Standards to all of the 5 participants, which I analyzed along with the people 6 that were doing the work on the east and the west coast. 7 We had a big meeting on that project at the 8 end of the project and compared the data. My data was 9 as good as or better than the people who were doing the 10 east and west coast work. And I would say from that day 11 forward, I have been well-known, and well-recognized and 12 well-respected in the environmental chemistry community 13 as a person who knows how to and does produce high 14 quality data on trace metal distributions in sediments 15 and organisms. 16 Since those days, I have been involved in 17 dozens of large environmental monitoring programs; the 18 most recent of which is the so-called status and trends 19 program, or what some people refer to as the mussel 20 watch program, which is now in its ninth year of funding 21 from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 22 Administration. It is probably the longest running of 23 all of these large environmental monitoring programs 24 that have ever been funded in the United States. 25 I have analyzed all of the samples from the Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 27 1 Gulf Coast for that program since its inception. We 2 have annual meetings, annual quality control, quality 3 assurance meetings, in conjunction with that program 4 every year; the latest of which was in Miami several 5 months ago. 6 Every year we're furnished blind samples 7 by, in this case, the National Research Council of 8 Canada's Environmental Chemistry Division. All of the 9 participants in the program analyze these materials, and 10 we discuss the results at the annual meetings; where 11 nine years in a row my laboratory has performed as well 12 as or better than any other laboratory in the country. 13 In its latest exercise, more than 50 14 laboratories, including a lot of EPA labs, were involved 15 in the intercalibration exercise. The results of those 16 things are available from NOAA to anybody that wants 17 them. And, as I say, my lab just has a very good 18 reputation for producing high quality analytical data. 19 Q I think you said trace metals analysis. I 20 guess I have two questions. One is, and perhaps you 21 have already answered this, within that category, would 22 that include mercury analysis? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So, you have been doing mercury analysis 25 since 1972; is that accurate to say? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 28 1 A Yes. 2 Q But is it, also, accurate to say that none 3 of this analysis has been ultra-trace mercury analysis? 4 A Yes, that would be fair. 5 Q Have you ever participated in any studies 6 at other labs in which you have performed ultra-trace 7 mercury analysis? 8 A If by ultra-trace, we can say -- or let me 9 define ultra-trace as, say, less than 10 parts per 10 trillion, the answer would be, no. I have not tried to 11 intercalibrate my techniques with techniques or data 12 from other laboratories that say less than 10 parts per 13 trillion or so level. 14 Q With regard to your analytical procedures 15 or analytical studies which involve mercury, what media 16 do you, typically, work with? 17 A We, typically, work with sediments and 18 organisms of various types. Occasionally with water, 19 but more with sediments and organisms. 20 Q What types of organisms? 21 A Well, you name it. We have analyzed 22 plankton, we have analyzed whales, we have analyzed 23 everything in between. 24 Q So, would it be accurate to say that it is 25 mostly fish and things that live in water? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 29 1 A Yes. We have done lots of things, though. 2 We had one project with the National Marine Fisheries 3 Service, where we did 660-some odd bird eggs. And in 4 that case, it was for mercury alone. 5 We have analyzed walrus livers. We have 6 analyzed whale blubber. We have analyzed bottlenose 7 dolphin tissue. Mostly aquatic organisms. But we have, 8 also, analyzed some bald eagle blood. We have analyzed 9 some insects from some national park someplace, Montana 10 or someplace. So, it has certainly been mostly aquatic 11 organisms, but some terrestrial organisms, too. 12 Q With regard to sediments, are you familiar 13 with the types of sediments that have been sampled in 14 the various studies that you earlier mentioned that 15 pertain to this case, the types of soils? 16 A I am familiar, in a general way, with the 17 different types of soils. 18 Q Has your experience involved analyzing 19 sediments that are similar to those types of sediments? 20 A Yes. Certainly, some of the sediments that 21 we have analyzed have been similar to the ones that 22 we're talking about here. I mean, soils and sediments 23 are, basically, an alumino-silicate material, with some 24 admixture of organic matter. 25 Some of the soils here in Florida or some Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 30 1 of the sediments here in Florida are more organic rich 2 than would perhaps be typical in other places; although 3 there are plenty of other places that, also, have 4 organic rich soils. So, I don't think the Florida 5 things are unique to such an extent that they're 6 something that I'm totally unfamiliar with. 7 Q Have you ever done any analysis of soils in 8 Florida? 9 A Well, we have certainly analyzed coastal 10 sediments from along Florida, both in the national 11 status and trends program, and a couple of other 12 projects we have had over here off and on over the 13 years. I don't recall, off of the top of my head, doing 14 any soils from on shore in Florida. I think my 15 analytical experience in Florida would be restricted to 16 the bays, and estuaries and near coastal zone. 17 Q Have you ever had occasion to analyze peat 18 soils, such as are found in the Everglades? 19 A Not that I can recall off of the top of my 20 head. As I said earlier, we're involved in a lot of 21 different projects with soils, and sediments and 22 organisms from a lot of different places. I think some 23 of the stuff that we did up on the north slope of Alaska 24 were peaty top soils. We may have looked at some things 25 from other places, but I can't say for sure. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 31 1 Q Did you review the Delfino sediment study? 2 A No, I have not seen that. I have seen 3 references to that. In fact, I have a note someplace in 4 my notes, that when I heard about the study or saw a 5 reference to it, I made a note to myself to try to get 6 that report. I have not been furnished that report and 7 I have not seen it. I would like to see it. That is an 8 example of the sort of thing that I might do between now 9 and April the 25th. 10 Q If I may, I think the area of the other 11 four subjects which you identified, perhaps for purposes 12 of talking about your experience, can be lumped 13 together, because they all involve, it seems to me, a 14 more general understanding of mercury in sort of a big 15 picture way. 16 Perhaps you can just give me an overview of 17 what your background is in that regard; understanding 18 how mercury interacts with the environment, and how it 19 is cycled and things of that nature? 20 A Well, again, a lot of these things are 21 interrelated. Some of the experience that I related to 22 you a moment ago certainly applies to mercury behavior. 23 Mercury is, of course, a metal; just like 24 cadmium, lead, selenium, arsenic, whatever. It has some 25 unique characteristics, but, also, some characteristics Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 32 1 in common with other metals. 2 I would just say that I have been in this 3 environmental chemistry of trace metal business for 25 4 years or so, since my graduate student days at UCLA, and 5 through all of my tenure at Texas A&M. This is just the 6 kind of thing that I do on a daily basis, is analyze 7 samples for trace metals and try to understand sources, 8 and sinks and transport pathways of metals in nature. 9 I teach a marine pollution course at Texas 10 A&M, where I, also, consider some of these subjects. 11 So, in addition to my research efforts over the years, 12 my teaching efforts have, also, involved the behavior of 13 trace metals, including mercury. 14 Q What has your experience been or what 15 specific aspects of your experience have touched on the 16 issue of mercury cycling in wetlands? 17 A I have not been involved in any programs 18 that were, specifically, targeted at wetlands, per se. 19 Q Have you, yourself, ever done any work, 20 whether it is the specific target of an investigation or 21 not, that involves trying to gain an understanding of 22 mercury cycling in the wetlands or in the wetlands 23 system, generally? 24 A No, I have not. I have not, personally, 25 had any research projects that I can recall that Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 33 1 involved wetlands. I have, certainly, read some papers 2 on this subject by a number of different authors, and I 3 have an interest in wetlands. We all do. 4 I have worked even in my Lavaca Bay work in 5 the salt marsh environment, bay and estuarine 6 environment, which, by most classifications, would be 7 classified as a wetland, but not a freshwater marsh type 8 of an environment such as you have here with the Florida 9 Everglades. 10 Q Outside of wetlands, have you done any work 11 that involves the issue of mercury cycling? 12 A Just the type of thing that I was 13 describing earlier. That all of my studies involve 14 questions of sources, sinks and transport pathways of 15 trace metals. So, that's what we mean by cycling; how 16 things move through nature; how materials move from 17 continents to oceans or move from waters to organisms, 18 or vice versa. 19 Q And some of that work involves mercury? 20 Analyzing in some specific context how mercury moves 21 through nature? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Is that a large number of projects, or a 24 small number of projects? 25 A I would say that almost all of the projects Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 34 1 that we have been involved in have included mercury. It 2 is, of course, one of the metals of most interest, along 3 with cadmium and lead. Mercury is, certainly, almost 4 always of interest in any environmental study. 5 Q And would those studies be listed on your 6 resume? Are they one of the studies that we discussed 7 not on your resume, but were discussed earlier in the 8 deposition? 9 A Most of these studies that are listed on my 10 resume, in looking at this abbreviated resume, under 11 recent grants and contracts that we just went down the 12 list here, all of these things, I believe Mercury would 13 have been one of the metals that was studied in each of 14 these projects. 15 Q Now, would these have involved ocean 16 environments? Is that the distinction that you were 17 drawing earlier? 18 A Most of these, most, if not all of these -- 19 well, most of these things that are listed in the resume 20 involve marine environment. The exception to this would 21 be this U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service contract that we 22 have, where we're sent samples from all over the U. S. 23 Most of that is probably not marine, but most of these 24 other things are marine. 25 A couple of the projects that are not Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 35 1 listed on here, we have had a contract with the Ohio 2 River Authority for several years now, and I don't list 3 it here, because it is just a small service contract, 4 where they send us like, oh, 60 or 80, I think it is, 5 fish fillets once or twice a year of fish that they have 6 collected from the Ohio River. And they send them to us 7 to be analyzed for cadmium, mercury and lead a couple of 8 times a year. And there is some other small contracts 9 like that that I have not listed here. 10 Q Other than your work on this case, have you 11 had occasion to do work that involves the issue of 12 mercury methylation or demethylation? 13 A I have not, personally, done research into 14 that question. We have talked a lot about that 15 question, and actually proposed to do some work on that 16 with our Lavaca Bay work, both the Sea Grant grant that 17 I had, and the contract that I had from the Texas state 18 agencies, where we were trying to better understand how 19 the commercial and sport fishery was being impacted by 20 mercury in Lavaca Bay. 21 Certainly, the question of methylation, 22 demethylation was recognized as being a very important 23 part of that process of contaminating a sport and 24 commercial fishery in Lavaca Bay. But the level of 25 funding and level of effort was such that we were not Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 36 1 able to pursue that particular part of the study, so it 2 was only a paper exercise. 3 Q What were you proposing to do? 4 A Well, we were certainly proposing to 5 analyze, again, different media within Lavaca Bay; the 6 sediments, the small infaunal organisms, the small 7 benthic organisms of various kinds, trying to get a 8 handle on where does methylation of mercury occur in 9 Lavaca Bay and where does mercury enter the food chain. 10 Does it come in through the benthic 11 organisms, or through the plankton that live in the 12 water column? Does it come into the food chain as 13 inorganic mercury, and then become methylated, or is it 14 methylated within the sediments. What factors regulate 15 the rate of methylation, these kind of things. Some of 16 these kinds of things we wanted to do, and still want to 17 do in Lavaca Bay, but we have not been funded to do that 18 kind of work and have not yet done it. 19 Q Is there more? 20 A I have just tried to familiarize myself 21 with what has been done other places, in order to 22 prepare for the eventuality that we will do these kinds 23 of things in Lavaca Bay. 24 Q One of the items that you mentioned, I 25 believe, and correct me if I am wrong, in your proposal Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 37 1 for Lavaca Bay was to gain an understanding of the 2 factors that affect the rate of methylation of mercury. 3 Had your proposal been funded, what, specifically, would 4 you have done to address that question? 5 A We would have looked at a number of things. 6 We would have looked just at the amount of methylmercury 7 that is in the sediments at different zones of the year, 8 different temperatures, different salinities, different 9 redox conditions, different habitats. That is, an open 10 bay bottom, versus salt marsh habitats. I can't 11 remember exactly what all else we have thought about as 12 being potentially important. 13 Q Would that be reflected in the proposal 14 itself? 15 A Some of these things would be. But, again, 16 we never fully developed a proposal to do this. Some of 17 these things were only mentioned in passing in the 18 original Sea Grant proposal we wrote, and, also, in the 19 proposal for Lavaca Bay. I mean, for State agencies. 20 Q But these written documents do reflect your 21 proposals regarding methylation to some degree? 22 A To some degree, yes. 23 Q I would like to request copies of those 24 documents. 25 A Okay. That's no problem. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 38 1 Q With regard to the specific procedures that 2 you would use to accomplish some of the results or 3 analysis that you were just describing, how would you 4 propose to do things such as sampling or analysis and 5 handling of the samples? What would be appropriate, if 6 you would give me an overview of the appropriate 7 protocol for doing that? 8 A Well, I'm not sure how much detail you 9 want. Certainly, the sampling, and storage and handling 10 of media, especially water has to be done under 11 so-called clean protocols in order to avoid 12 contaminating samples with mercury from extraneous 13 sources. This is really less important in the case of 14 methylmercury, than it is inorganic mercury, even though 15 the amounts of methylmercury will be much less in the 16 inorganic. It is just that the methylmercury is not 17 usually a contaminate in normal materials that are used 18 in sampling, and sampling handling and things like this. 19 I think, more specifically, if we got into 20 this kind of work at this point we would probably 21 cooperate with Dr. Gary Gill at our sister institution 22 and have him do the extremely low level work; whereas we 23 would concentrate on things at a somewhat higher level. 24 It just isn't necessary, I don't think, for us to 25 duplicate the laboratory facilities that Dr. Gill has in Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 39 1 our own place. I think we would rather work 2 cooperatively with him in this kind of an undertaking. 3 Q Is that because he already has a lab with 4 ultra-trace capabilities up and running? 5 A Yes. Just in general, the administration 6 frowns on, and I think rightly so, two faculty members 7 in a given institution trying to compete with each other 8 or trying to exactly duplicate each other's activities. 9 Each of us likes to have his own niche. 10 Q Would you have proposed setting up and/or 11 studying microcosms to help get a handle on the 12 methylation issue? 13 A That is a legitimate way to do it, yes. I 14 think that is something that should be done. 15 Q Was that part of your proposal? 16 A I don't remember whether we, specifically, 17 proposed that or not. 18 Q When were you first contacted about getting 19 involved in this case? 20 A I don't remember the exact date, but it has 21 been a couple of months ago or so, two or three months 22 ago. It hasn't been very long ago. I have not been 23 involved in this thing very long. 24 Q Who contacted you? 25 A The first indication that I had of any of Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 40 1 this was a phone call from Gary Gill, who asked if I 2 might be interested in providing consulting services to 3 some people who were involved in a mercury contamination 4 problem in Florida. And I said, yes, I might be 5 interested. 6 He said, "Well, in that case, I will tell 7 them that and you may be getting a phone call from a Dr. 8 Curtis, I guess it is, Pollman, from KBN Engineering, or 9 from some lawyers. So, I said, fine. That was the 10 first that I heard about any of this. 11 Q Did Dr. Gill relate to you why he had 12 recommended you? 13 A Well, he knows my expertise and experience, 14 and, also, is a faculty colleague of mine, so that's the 15 reason he recommended me. 16 Q And did Dr. Gill tell you why he was not 17 going to be performing this job? 18 A Yes, he did tell me. I'm not sure I got 19 the story totally straight. I am not absolutely certain 20 that I have got the story straight yet. The whole 21 business here seems to be very complicated. It has been 22 hard for me to tell the players without a program, you 23 know. 24 Gill told me that he was involved in some 25 research in Florida. I thought it was for one of the Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 41 1 State agencies, but maybe that isn't the case. The 2 bottom line was, somehow or other, that it had been 3 decided that there was some conflict of interest, that 4 he might be perceived as having a conflict of interest, 5 and could then not act as a consultant for the group who 6 was interested in having a consultant. And, therefore, 7 he recommended me. 8 Q Since that time, have you consulted with 9 Mr. Gill, or Dr. Gill, I'm sorry, about this case? 10 A Only in passing. We have not had any 11 extensive discussions of this. I don't see him on a 12 daily basis. I have probably talked to him on the 13 telephone three or four times since I have been involved 14 in this. Maybe only once or twice about this case, and 15 then just in passing. 16 Q What have your conversations with him 17 involved? 18 A Well, as I say, it has just been passing 19 conversations. Nothing of any real substance. As far 20 as any scientific facts, or conclusions, or any actual 21 data, I have not discussed anything like this with him. 22 It has just been kind of, well, what is happening, okay? 23 I went to Miami and participated in Ron Jones' 24 deposition. Well, how did that go? Well, it was okay. 25 I didn't really learn anything new. Something like Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 42 1 that. There have been absolutely no specifics of any 2 kind. 3 Q After your initial conversation with Dr. 4 Gill, who contacted you next? 5 A I think Curtis Pollman contacted me, but 6 I'm not certain of that. I think he did. I think that 7 was the next contact. And then shortly after that, if 8 not prior to that, Bill Green contacted me. 9 Q From those conversations, we don't need to 10 go through all of these one by one, but I'm interested 11 in, basically, what your understanding was of what you 12 were asked to do with regards to this case. 13 A Well, just what we have discussed earlier. 14 Bill Green told me, just in the barest outline, what the 15 situation was over here, and that he was representing 16 agricultural interests, and that -- I'm not sure how he 17 worded it, now -- that there was a possibility that 18 agricultural activity could in some way be involved with 19 the mercury contamination problem, and that they needed 20 some expertise into mercury behavior, mercury cycling, 21 distribution of mercury in nature, analytical procedures 22 for determining mercury in different media, this kind of 23 thing, and did I feel qualified to provide those kinds 24 of consulting services, and I said I did. 25 Q Were you then or have you since been asked Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 43 1 to analyze the issue of what effect, if any, the 2 proposed stormwater treatment areas might have on the 3 mercury problem? 4 A Well, that has been a question of 5 discussion in most of the meetings that I have been 6 involved in since I have been involved in this case. In 7 the Ron Jones' deposition, in the Jerry Stober 8 deposition, in some of the conversations that I have had 9 with the attorneys in this case, yes, the stormwater 10 treatment areas and their possible involvement in 11 mercury cycling has come up several times. 12 Q Were you asked to look into that? 13 A I'm not sure that was exactly singled out 14 as something that I should look into. It probably was 15 among the things that were discussed. 16 Let me put it this way: I have not been 17 provided with a list of things that I should do, a 18 specific list of things to do. 19 Q Do you intend to offer testimony at trial 20 with regard to the issue of the effect, if any, of the 21 proposed stormwater treatment areas on the mercury 22 problem? 23 A I think it is likely that that would come 24 up, yes. 25 Q Do the documents that you have produced to Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 44 1 us represent all of the information that has been 2 provided to you or which you have reviewed thus far in 3 studying this case and coming up with your opinions? 4 A As far as I know, it does. I have been 5 provided with a lot of documents, some of which I 6 haven't read yet. 7 When I was ordered to produce my documents, 8 I told the lawyers that some of the documents that they 9 had sent to me, rather than me bundling them up and 10 sending them back, that is, things involved with, say, 11 the Jones deposition and the Stober deposition, I said, 12 "Well, you know, you have sent me these documents. 13 Instead of me sending them back and you simply provide 14 these for me, but as far as I know I have provided or 15 you have been provided everything that I have looked 16 at." 17 Q Have you done any written analysis that is 18 relevant to your work in this case? 19 A Only a couple of letters that I have 20 written to the lawyers, kind of giving my impressions, 21 say, of the Jones deposition, the Stober deposition. 22 That's the only thing I have written. 23 Q One of the documents that you produced to 24 us were an extensive set of notes that you took on Dr. 25 Jones' deposition. Do you intend to offer testimony at Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 45 1 trial with regard to any of the work that Dr. Jones has 2 done in this case? 3 I guess what I mean by that is not 4 necessarily whether you're going to look at his data and 5 see how that fits into the big picture with regard to 6 mercury, but whether you intend to offer testimony with 7 regard to Dr. Jones' techniques or something like that, 8 expressing an opinion about the methods used by Dr. 9 Jones? 10 A Well, if I'm asked a question related to 11 that, I would certainly answer the question, because I 12 formed some opinions about that. I was not asked to 13 take those notes at the Jones deposition. It is just 14 sort of force of habit, I guess, from going to seminars 15 over the years. I usually take a piece of paper and 16 start scribbling things down. For one thing, it kind of 17 keeps me awake. So, I didn't even give it a thought 18 that I took those notes. 19 Q I didn't mean to lock you into this for all 20 time. I'm trying to get a sense of whether this is a 21 focus of your effort or not. It sounds to me, if it 22 comes up in an incidental way, that you certainly 23 wouldn't want to preclude yourself from offering that 24 testimony, but it is not one of your primary focuses. 25 Is that a fair way to characterize it? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 46 1 A I think that is a fair characterization. I 2 have certainly not been asked to spend a lot of time 3 trying to understand how Dr. Jones does his work and to 4 comment on that, specifically. 5 Q Let me just go through a couple of other 6 specific things and ask you the same question with 7 regard to each; which is whether, other than perhaps in 8 an incidental way, you intend to offer testimony 9 critiquing each of the following: The mercury technical 10 committee interim report? 11 A I have read that report. I have a copy of 12 that report. I have not been asked by anyone connected 13 with this case to review that report and comment on it 14 up to this point. 15 Q Okay. The second thing is the EPA-DEP 16 South Florida Water Management District interagency 17 scope of work, and I guess by extension the EPA REMAP 18 study? 19 A I have a copy of that. I have read that. 20 I have not, specifically, been asked for my comments on 21 that document. But if I were asked questions at trial 22 regarding that document, then I'm familiar enough with 23 the document to offer opinions on it. 24 Q And the third question that I had regards 25 the PTI report. The titled begins Influence of Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 47 1 Phosphorus on Mercury? 2 A Well, my response there is about the same. 3 In this case, I guess I was, specifically, asked for 4 comments on that report. However I have not produced 5 any comments on that report, or at least have made no 6 written, produced no written comments on that report. 7 Verbally, I have told both the PTI people that are 8 involved in the report, and the lawyers, you know, given 9 them my impressions of that document. 10 Q What were your impressions of the document? 11 A My impressions of the document is that it 12 is, generally, well-written and informative, and I am in 13 general agreement with the contents. 14 Q And you may have just said this and I might 15 have missed it, but have you discussed that report with 16 the authors of the report? 17 A Yes. 18 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I think this would be a 19 sensible time to take a five-minute break. 20 MR. PERKO: Sure. 21 (Brief recess.) 22 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 23 Q Dr. Presley, what are the opinions that you 24 have with regards to mercury distribution in Florida? 25 A Well, I guess my main observation, I Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 48 1 wouldn't say this is an opinion, but the thing that has 2 impressed me from the reading that I have done since I 3 have been involved in this case is how serious the 4 mercury contamination problem is in Florida. 5 I perhaps heard a little bit about this off 6 and on over the years, and had heard of elevated levels 7 of mercury in some of the organisms in Florida. And 8 even our own national status and trends work along the 9 coast of Florida had shown some elevated mercury levels. 10 But I wasn't really aware of how extensive the problem 11 was and how serious the problem was. So, I would say 12 that is the number one thing that I have learned since 13 being involved in this case. 14 Q What specific facts indicate to you that 15 this is a serious, to use your word, problem in Florida? 16 A Well, the fact that the Health Department 17 has closed certain areas to fishing and have issued 18 advisories to people not to eat the fish. To me, this 19 indicates a serious problem. That's the way I am 20 arriving at the conclusion that it is a serious problem. 21 It is a serious public health problem. 22 And there are, also, indications, at least 23 anecdotal indications, of it being a serious ecological 24 problem to organisms other than humans. The famous 25 panther that was found dead that had mercury in its Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 49 1 liver, and some indication that this had something to do 2 with the death. And other just anecdotal comments that 3 I have seen in some of the documents that I have 4 reviewed that indicate at least the possibility that 5 mercury may be affecting organisms other than humans in 6 Florida. So, this indicates to me a serious situation. 7 A situation that is deserving of more research. 8 Q This all falls under the subject matter of 9 distribution of mercury in Florida. We had clarified, 10 through our discussion, that there was geographic 11 distribution of mercury in Florida. 12 I understand what you are saying about the 13 seriousness of the problem, but are there any opinions 14 that you have that relate to the geographic distribution 15 of mercury in Florida, specifically? 16 A Yes. Again, the impression that I have 17 from the documents that I have reviewed is that the 18 distribution is highly variable. That in some places -- 19 now, I'm really referring to distribution in organisms 20 at higher trophic levels, such as fish -- in some 21 places, the fish are much more enriched in mercury than 22 they are in other places. And in some cases, at least, 23 this is rather small scale variability. That is, scales 24 of miles or tens of miles show rather high variability. 25 And this is, I think, interesting and Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 50 1 potentially important. Whereas, the distribution from 2 the data that I have seen in soils and sediments seems 3 to be less variable than the concentrations in, say, 4 fish, for example. So, I have gotten some impressions 5 of the distribution of mercury, both in fish, and in 6 soils and sediments. And from the limited data that I 7 have seen in water, where, again, from my perspective, 8 at least, in my opinion, the variability in water is not 9 great. There is variability. 10 The variability in some cases is several 11 hundred percent, which some people might say is great 12 variability. But I guess I am more of the opinion that 13 since all of the levels are very low, that is, down in 14 the low parts per trillion level, I don't consider that 15 to be great variability. 16 Q Let me see if I understand you correctly. 17 You are saying that your impression, from the materials 18 that you have reviewed, is that there is highly variable 19 geographic distribution of mercury levels in higher 20 trophic organisms and sediments, but that the 21 variability in water samples is not as great? 22 A No. 23 Q That's not correct? 24 A No. I would say there is less variability 25 in the sediments in the water than there is in things in Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 51 1 higher trophic levels. 2 Q So, it is only higher trophic levels that 3 are variable in this sense, and sediments and water are 4 relatively not variable? 5 A Well, that is, basically, what I have said. 6 But I think that has to be qualified by saying that I am 7 referring more to the significance of the variability 8 than I am to the magnitude of the variability. That is, 9 both sediments and fish may be varying by the same 10 percentage, but the significance of the variability is 11 greater for the fish than it is for the sediments. 12 That's my opinion. 13 Q Why is the significance of the variability 14 greater for the fish than it is for the sediments? 15 A Because you can go anyplace in the world 16 and find a variability in sediments by factors of two, 17 or three, or four, or five. This is very common. This 18 is very common. There is nothing unusual about that. 19 Even higher variability than that. 20 In just naturally occurring pristine 21 sediments that have been unaffected by any human 22 activity, you would expect to find variability on the 23 order of factors of five to 10. But when you come to 24 fish and you see the same kind of variability, I think 25 it is surprising. That is, a given specie of fish, say, Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 52 1 large-mouth bass, as an example, I would expect to see 2 large-mouth bass from place to place within, let's say, 3 the State of Florida, knowing nothing else, I would 4 expect them to show less variability than the sediments 5 would. 6 Q And you are surprised because you see 7 variability in that regard? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Just so we're clear on this, when you are 10 referring to data that you reviewed that shows 11 variability or lack of variability, what is the 12 geographic area that you have seen data on that you are 13 considering? In other words, is it statewide, 14 Everglades only, some portions of the Everglades 15 protection area, that sort of thing? 16 A I'm talking about statewide. But even 17 within smaller geographic areas we see some of this 18 variability. That's what I was saying earlier. That it 19 is especially surprising to me to see the fish data so 20 variable, over apparently fairly small geographic 21 distances. It would not surprise me to see that with 22 the sediments, but it does surprise me to see that with 23 the fish. 24 Q Which fish data are you referring to, 25 specifically, with regards to this? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 53 1 A A specific example would be the Lange paper 2 on the 53 lakes. But even the data that was furnished 3 by Jones, I guess this was Jones data, I think it came 4 up in the Jones deposition, the mosquito fish along the 5 canals showed considerable variability. 6 Q For purposes of this issue that we're 7 discussing, have you considered or are you relying on 8 data from fish collected during the EAA sampling? 9 A I don't recall that particular data, no. 10 MR. PERKO: Counsel, perhaps you should 11 clarify by what you mean by EAA data. It is not 12 clear to me. 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I think that was a 14 confusing question. 15 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 16 Q What I was intending to say was, recently, 17 in 1994, fish sampling was done in connection with a 18 study by KBN. Are you familiar with that study? 19 A I think I looked at that just within the 20 last day or two, but I can't, specifically, remember, 21 and I don't even remember that there was fish data in 22 that. 23 Q Would it be helpful to you if I showed you 24 a copy of the report and asked you if that is something 25 that you recognize as having reviewed? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 54 1 A Sure. 2 Q We don't need to mark this as an exhibit, 3 but I'm showing the witness just to see if it is 4 something he reviewed. A document that bears the Bate's 5 Number DMW 0015, and bears a title Biological Sampling 6 and Tissue Analysis of Fish Collected in Palm Beach 7 County, Florida, by KBN Engineering. 8 A I don't think I have seen this one. 9 Q Why don't you flip through it and see if 10 maybe you have seen the data there in some other form or 11 something. If it is something you haven't seen, there 12 is no point asking questions about it, obviously. 13 A I was given a document similar to this, but 14 I'm not certain that it is this document, I believe just 15 last night. I don't remember looking at this. 16 MR. PERKO: If I could interject, Counsel, 17 Dr. Presley reviewed the KBN water sampling 18 report last night. I believe that is what he is 19 referring to. But I, also, believe that the KBN 20 fish data that you are referring to is referenced 21 in the PTI report. 22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Okay. 23 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 24 Q This particular report that I have handed 25 you is not one that you recognize as one that you have Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 55 1 reviewed, specifically, and on which your opinions are 2 based? 3 A. No, I do not recognize that. 4 Q Now, when you referred to the Jones data, 5 is there any distinction in your mind between that data 6 and data that was produced by Dr. Stober and Dan Schaidt 7 at EPA in connection with their depositions? 8 A No. I consider that to be the same data. 9 I was under the impression that that was the same data. 10 Q Yes, I believe it is, if we are referring 11 to the same thing. 12 So, the sources of data for your opinion 13 with regard to the variability in higher trophic level 14 organisms would be the Lange studies, and the EPA/Jones 15 studies? 16 A Yes. There might be some others, but I 17 can't, specifically, refer to other studies that I have 18 seen. I reviewed so many documents; some of them 19 published papers in the scientific literature, some of 20 them documents that have been furnished to me. I formed 21 some opinions. I have made some generalizations in my 22 own mind that are difficult for me to tie to specific 23 papers or specific documents, other than the ones that I 24 have just mentioned. 25 Q Which would be Lange and Jones? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 56 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, with regard to your opinions on the 3 distribution of mercury in Florida, and particularly now 4 we're talking about fish, you have expressed the opinion 5 that with regard to fish these distributions or the 6 levels are highly variable. 7 Do you have any other opinions with regard 8 to these data? 9 A Well, based on that high small scale, small 10 geographic scale variability, I conclude that the 11 factors which control the concentrations of mercury in 12 fish are local, local factors, not regional or global 13 factors. 14 Q What does that mean? I'm not clear on the 15 distinction. 16 A Well, just that. If you can have high 17 variability over a short geographic range, then it can't 18 be something of a global scale that is controlling that 19 variability. 20 Q In other words, what you are saying is, if 21 it were something of a global scale, you would expect to 22 see the levels rising, generally, at a roughly equal 23 rate or something like that? 24 A Yes, I would expect to see less 25 variability. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 57 1 Q What are some of the local factors that you 2 think could explain these trends that you are seeing? 3 A Well, I think it could be any number of 4 different things. We're talking now about water bodies, 5 we're talking about lakes, we're talking about canals, 6 rivers, whatever. And so all kinds of factors, such as 7 temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen 8 concentration, dissolved organic matter concentrations, 9 type of vegetation, type and abundance of plankton and 10 other microscopic organisms, the soil type, sediment 11 types. There may be some others. 12 Q Do you plan or do you have an expectation 13 that you will testify at trial regarding the reasons why 14 you are seeing this variability in fish data? 15 A I think that that is a probability, yes. 16 Q Will your testimony involve offering an 17 opinion as to what factors, local or otherwise, are 18 causing these trends? 19 A I think I will offer an opinion as to what 20 factors could possibly explain this. 21 Q Those would be the ones that you just 22 listed? 23 A Yes, those, and perhaps others that I may 24 have left out of the list, because I think there are a 25 large number of factors that could play a role. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 58 1 Q Well, this could be an important issue, so 2 if you are concerned that you may have left out some 3 factors, I could ask the reporter to read back your 4 response and see if there is anything that you can think 5 of that you might add to that list. 6 A Well, one thing that occurs to me, that I 7 could add to the list, would be, say, nutrients, 8 nitrate, phosphate levels, for example. I can't think 9 of any others. We could list chlorophyll a, but that is _ 10 really just a measure of the plankton amounts in the 11 water. That is kind of redundant. Even major ions, 12 such as calcium and sulfate, could be added to the list. 13 Q Was there anything else that you intended 14 to add to that list? 15 A No. 16 Q With regard to these possible factors, what 17 data or studies have you reviewed which would give you 18 information that would be relevant to your opinions 19 regarding the factors that might explain these trends? 20 A Well, some of these documents that we have 21 discussed, the Lange document, for example, does contain 22 data on some of these parameters that we have just 23 listed. And the paper does, in fact, draw some 24 conclusions or express some opinions as to which of 25 these factors they think are more or less important. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 59 1 The other data that we have discussed, 2 also, contains data on some of these factors. Such 3 things as electrical conductivity, which is a measure of 4 the total dissolved solids in the waters, is given in 5 the EPA/Jones data. I believe dissolved organic carbon 6 is given there. I think calcium and sulfate are given 7 there. So, there is data available that would allow one 8 to try to correlate mercury in fish with other 9 parameters. 10 Q Have you done any such correlations? 11 A I have not at this point done any specific 12 statistical work to try to correlate these data. I have 13 only gotten a general view of the things. 14 Q What sources did you look to to get that 15 general view? 16 A The ones that I have already mentioned. 17 Q And would that be the data themselves that 18 we are talking about? 19 A I have looked at both the data themselves 20 and, also, looked at, say, in the case of the Lange 21 paper, at their own conclusions and summary of their 22 data. 23 Q Have you reviewed any correlations that 24 anyone has attempted to make of the EPA data? 25 A Yes. I was provided with those Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 60 1 correlations. I didn't study them in great detail, but 2 I did look through that and did note what correlations 3 seemed to be significant and what didn't. 4 Q That would be the EPA correlations? 5 A The EPA correlations. 6 Q Well, I have a bunch of different copies of 7 certain tables from your documents that appear 8 identical. I have not made multiple copies of them yet, 9 but maybe I can look at one version of it. They aren't 10 exactly the same, but they come from the same source. 11 I'll have one marked as an exhibit. 12 (United States of America Exhibit 3 marked 13 for identification.) 14 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 15 Q I have had marked as Exhibit 3 a document 16 that, on the first page at least, should bear the 17 caption E Map for Region four, Everglades 1993 Cross 18 Correlation of All Variables. 19 A Right. 20 Q Is this what you were referring to, the 21 data you reviewed regarding correlations? 22 A Yes. This is something that I have looked 23 at previously. 24 Q You said you had looked at this and noted 25 some or drawn some conclusions from this. Can you tell Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 61 1 me what conclusions you have drawn from this data? 2 A This has been a while ago. I would not be 3 able to summarize the conclusions that I drew from this. 4 I have some notes on this someplace. I did notice, in 5 going through this table of correlation coefficients, 6 that certain ones of the correlations were statistically 7 significant, while others of the correlations were not 8 statistically significant. But there are so many of 9 them that at this point I couldn't accurately tell you, 10 you know, which are and which aren't. 11 Q Do you intend to offer opinions at trial as 12 to which of these correlations are statistically 13 significant? 14 A If I am asked to, I will try to do so. I 15 will review my notes on this. I did make some notes on 16 this. 17 Q Where would your notes be? 18 A There may have been some notes in the 19 handwritten notes that were provided. 20 Q Would they have been notes on a version of 21 this itself, or a separate document? 22 A No, a separate document. Perhaps in my 23 notes on the Stober deposition. 24 Q Would it be useful for us to try to find 25 those, or are those just, also -- if you have some sort Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 62 1 of significant opinions on this that we should get on 2 the record in this deposition, I would like to do what I 3 can to facilitate that. If it is simply a matter of you 4 are not in a position to express such opinions at this 5 point, that's fine, too. We just need to be clear, for 6 the record, one way or the other. 7 MR. PERKO: Is that a question, counsel? 8 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Yes. 9 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 10 Q Do you have any opinions, sitting here 11 today, on these correlations? 12 A I have the general opinion that some of 13 these correlations are statistically significant, while 14 others are not statistically significant. But it would 15 take me 30 minutes or so to go back through this, 16 especially in view of the fact that some of these pages 17 overlap, and it is a little difficult to follow this. 18 It would take me a while to go back through and try to 19 figure out what is what here and what caught my 20 attention the first time through. 21 Q Is there some document in your other 22 documents, some particular document, that we can try to 23 look for which would help you remember what analysis you 24 had done? Should I try to find the notes from Schaidt's 25 deposition? Would that be helpful? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 63 1 A It might. 2 Q Okay. A copy of those notes were provided 3 by your counsel this morning. Perhaps we can just have 4 that marked as Exhibit 4. 5 (United States of America Exhibit 4 marked 6 for identification.) 7 THE WITNESS: I don't see anything in this 8 document. Perhaps I am wrong. I thought I 9 remembered making a few notes someplace on this, 10 on these correlations, but maybe not. 11 BY MR. LIPSHULTZ: 12 Q So, sitting here today, your testimony with 13 regard to these correlations is that there appear to be 14 statistically significant correlations among some of 15 these parameters? 16 A Right. 17 Q But you are unable, sitting here today, to 18 say which ones in particular you would put into that 19 category? 20 A Well, I can look at the table and tell you 21 which ones are significant and which ones aren't. 22 Q I'm not asking you to do this as sort of an 23 academic exercise or anything else. It is just that if 24 this is something that you expect to testify to, I just 25 want to know what your testimony is going to be. That's Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 64 1 all. 2 If you don't intend to testify as to 3 correlations among the EPA measured parameters, then we 4 don't need to inquire into this any further. 5 A I'm not sure what the question is, or what 6 my response should be here. It is probable that I will 7 again review these correlations in an attempt to try to 8 better understand the relationship between mercury in 9 fish and other variables. But sitting here right now, I 10 can't tell you -- I have no real opinions as to the 11 significance, as opposed to the statistical 12 significance, of any of these relationships. 13 Q Just so I have a complete understanding of 14 this, you have testified as to the relative lack of 15 variability in the sediment and water samples, and the 16 relative presence of variability in the fish samples. 17 You have testified regarding factors that may possibly 18 explain these trends among the fish samples. And you 19 testified that there may be some correlations, although 20 at this point you are not prepared to testify as to any 21 more detail on that issue. 22 My question is simply going to be whether 23 there are other opinions that you have at this time that 24 relate to the general topic of the geographic 25 distribution of mercury in Florida? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 65 1 A I would like to clarify what you just said 2 as far as absolute variability. I think my statements 3 were that while the absolute variability within water 4 and sediment may be just as great as that within the 5 fish, that I was more surprised with the variability in 6 the fish data than I was in the water and sediment data. 7 Q I'm glad you made that clarification, I 8 wouldn't want to inadvertently mischaracterize your 9 testimony. The purpose of my question was really not so 10 much to restate what your statement was. It was just to 11 make sure that I got everything and give you an 12 opportunity to say whether there are other opinions that 13 fall under this general topic. 14 Are there any other opinions that fall 15 under this general topic? 16 A The general topic being? 17 Q Geographic distribution of mercury in 18 Florida. 19 A I'm not sure whether I have expressed this 20 opinion or not, but my opinion is certainly that the 21 mercury concentrations in sediments, soils and water are 22 not unusual, in my opinion, in Florida. 23 Q In sediments, soils and water? 24 A Right. 25 Q And on what data or studies is that opinion Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 66 1 based? 2 A Just my general knowledge of mercury 3 concentrations in sediments and soils from different 4 parts of the world. The data that I have reviewed from 5 Florida does not indicate any unusual concentrations. 6 Q What data from Florida have you reviewed? 7 A Well, the data that we have just been 8 talking about here. The EPA data. Data in the 9 documents that I have been provided. 10 Again, I would have to go through and try 11 to dig out the sediment data. But from what sediment 12 and soil data I have seen, the concentrations are 13 relatively low, if you want to use that term, or 14 relatively what I would call normal or close to 15 worldwide averages of soils from elsewhere. 16 Q So, when you say they're normal, do you 17 mean normal compared to levels that you see in the world 18 as a whole? 19 A Exactly. 20 Q Because I believe what you initially said 21 was that these are normal for Florida. I want to make 22 sure that I have this clear. 23 A Normal. In my opinion, normal for the 24 world. 25 Q So, what we're seeing in Florida, or on the Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 67 1 basis of these studies that you have reviewed, you would 2 consider normal in the context of the world as a whole? 3 A In soils and sediments, yes. 4 Q Have you attempted to formulate or do you 5 have any opinions regarding possible interrelationships 6 between the levels of mercury that the data reflect in 7 fish, as compared to either mercury levels in water or 8 mercury levels in sediments? 9 A Well, the little bit of data that we have 10 seen, that I have seen, as I recall, seem to show a 11 better relationship between mercury in fish and mercury 12 in sediments than they do mercury in fish and mercury in 13 water. I am referring, specifically, now to the Jones 14 EPA data. The Lange data, which is the only other thing 15 we have, specifically, discussed here this morning, I 16 don't believe they had any sediment data or perhaps even 17 any water data, as I recall. 18 Q Oh, I am sorry. Did you say that your 19 review of the data suggests that the sediments data 20 correlates well with the fish data? 21 A In a positive way, yes. 22 Q What exactly does that mean? When you see 23 more mercury in sediments, you, also, see more mercury 24 in fish? 25 A Yes. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 68 1 Q And with regard to sediments and water -- 2 was it sediments and water was the contrast? 3 A Right. 4 Q And you would see less in sediments and 5 more in water, or the other way around? 6 A No, we were talking about fish. And we're 7 really just talking at this point about this one data 8 set. The Jones EPA data for the 50 stations along the 9 canals seemed to show that where the water was low in 10 mercury, the fish were high, and vice versa. But where 11 the sediments were high, the fish were high. That's my 12 recollection of the data. 13 Q Do you intend to offer any opinions at 14 trial with regard to explanations or possible 15 explanations of those trends? 16 A Well, the only conclusion that you could 17 draw from that data, if you have no other data, is that 18 somehow the fish seem to be getting the mercury from the 19 sediments, rather than from the water column. That's 20 the conclusion that I would draw based on this data. 21 Q Is that an opinion to which you expect to 22 testify at trial? 23 A That's an opinion that I will offer at 24 trial if I'm asked that question. 25 Q And what studies or data would support that Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 69 1 opinion? 2 A At this point, the only data I have seen 3 that supports that opinion is the data that we have just 4 referred to. 5 Q The EPA data? 6 A The EPA Jones data on the 50 stations along 7 the canals. 8 Q Are there any other opinions that you can 9 think of that you intend to offer with regard to 10 geographic distributions of mercury in Florida? 11 A I think just to back up a little bit, going 12 back to my opinion that the amount of mercury in the 13 fish is controlled by local factors, which at this point 14 are not well understood, that these local factors, many 15 of which I listed, could be in some way altered by human 16 perturbances. And that, therefore, human perturbances 17 of the environment might influence the amount of mercury 18 that you have in fish. 19 Q What human perturbances are you referring 20 to? 21 A I am referring to, essentially, anything. 22 But, specifically, things like building dikes, building 23 canals, a change in the water flow, building 24 impoundments, anything along that line, building 25 highways, bridges. Anything that humans might do to Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 70 1 physically alter the environment, I think. Could alter 2 some of these parameters that I listed earlier; such as 3 redox potential, abundance and type of plant life, 4 whatever. And that these, in turn, might influence the 5 amount of mercury in fish. 6 Q How does redox potential affect these 7 processes? 8 A Well, the dogma is, among the experts in 9 this field, that methylation of mercury is related to 10 redox potential. 11 Q In what way? 12 A In the way that methylation occurs, the 13 rate of methylation is greatly enhanced under 14 intermediate redox conditions. That is what we call 15 mildly reducing conditions. And that the rate of 16 mercury methylation would be much slower under oxidizing 17 conditions. And, although this is less well-documented, 18 probably under strongly reducing conditions. 19 Q Are oxidizing conditions and strongly 20 reducing conditions sort of at the opposite ends of the 21 spectrum? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know what typical redox potential is 24 in the Everglades? 25 A Well, depending on where in the Everglades. Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 71 1 Q Are you familiar with the redox potential 2 of peat soils that you find in the Everglades? 3 A I haven't seen any actual data on that. My 4 guess would be that the redox potentials would be low. 5 Q And why would that be? 6 A Because redox potentials are, essentially, 7 always low in the presence of large amounts of organic 8 matter. 9 Q How would that affect the methylation 10 process? 11 A That could enhance methylation. 12 Q It would enhance methylation? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I guess I'm confused. I thought what you 15 earlier said was that methylation increases under 16 intermediate conditions. 17 A I'm considering this as an intermediate 18 redox condition that you are just describing. If you 19 had a sulfate ion present, which could be reduced to 20 sulfide, and the build-up of hydrogen sulfide in the 21 peat soils, thereby giving what I'm defining as highly 22 reducing conditions, then the rate of methylation, in my 23 opinion, would be slowed down. 24 Q That was a little bit of a side road. I am 25 going to get myself too confused if I pursue it all the Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 72 1 way right now, so I may pick that back up later. I am 2 trying to stay somewhat organized in what I was doing 3 here, which was to go through the original subject 4 matters that you identified. 5 As I understand it, at least, I have been 6 asking you up until now a series of questions that 7 relate to the subject matter heading of Geographic 8 Distributions of Mercury in Florida. And this 9 discussion of methylation sort of came in as an aside, 10 with the clarification that you offered towards the end 11 of that discussion. 12 My question is, before we leave the topic 13 of geographic distributions of mercury in Florida, are 14 there any other opinions that fall into that category 15 that you feel we should get on the record? 16 A Not that I can think of. I guess, again, I 17 would just like to emphasize my opinion that the 18 behavior of mercury is largely controlled by local 19 conditions, and it varies from place to place. The 20 amount of mercury in the various media vary from place 21 to place, due to local changing conditions. 22 And that regional and global changes are 23 less important than the local conditions to the behavior 24 of the mercury. I would not expect, for example, 25 long-range transport of mercury along the canals. I Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 73 1 would not expect this to be a significant factor in 2 determining the regional distribution of mercury. 3 Q Long-range transport is not a factor in the 4 distribution of mercury. Why would that be? 5 A I don't think that this is an important 6 process. I don't think it is an important process in 7 determining the regional distribution of mercury. We're 8 talking here about variability in both the amount of 9 mercury from place to place within, let's say, South 10 Florida, and, also, in the behavior of mercury from 11 place to place within South Florida. 12 And what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, 13 both of these things are controlled largely by local 14 conditions, not by regional or global conditions, and by 15 local processes, not regional and global processes. And 16 as an example of this, let's just take a specific 17 example. I don't think the amount of mercury in the 18 Everglades in the park has anything to do with the 19 amount of mercury in soils, let's say, in the Everglades 20 agricultural area; just to take two areas that are 21 geographically separated. 22 Q Why do you feel that way? 23 A Well, I feel that way for the reasons that 24 we have just gone over. And this is just a restating. 25 All I'm doing now is restating the opinion that I Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 74 1 expressed earlier, that things are controlled on a local 2 scale, more so than they are on a regional or global 3 scale. 4 Things are controlled by the type of 5 vegetation, the amount of vegetation. All of the 6 parameters that I listed having to do with the type of 7 water that you have, the conditions in the water that 8 you have, the type of soils you have, the conditions in 9 the soils you have, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 10 Q Are you drawing any distinction in your 11 analysis between levels of total mercury and levels of 12 methylmercury? 13 A No. I think there is certainly a 14 distinction, but, in my opinion, these local factors 15 govern both the amounts of total mercury and the amounts 16 of methylmercury, and the behavior of total mercury and 17 the behavior of methylmercury. 18 Q So, is it fair to say that your opinion is 19 that if you see higher levels of total mercury or if you 20 see higher levels of methylmercury in one particular 21 area, say Everglades National Park, that that is due to 22 conditions that are existing in Everglades National 23 Park, and not, in your opinion, due to conditions that 24 may be existing in a different location, such as the 25 Everglades agricultural area? Accurate Stenotype Reporters, Inc. 75 1 A That's my opinion. 2 Q And that opinion is based on the data that 3 you have seen, such as the EPA/Jones studies and the 4 Lange study? 5 A On that, and just my general knowledge of 6 geochemistry, and my experience with both mercury and 7 other metals other places. 8 Q And with regard to the latter, your 9 experience and your knowledge, can you give me a 10 description of what it is that you know about how 11 mercury works, and how mercury travels or doesn't 12 travel, from your other knowledge and experience that 13 leads you to the conclusion about local factors here? 14 A Well, as I have just said, my experience 15 has been that mercury and other metals vary on small 16 geographic scales due to