1 DANIEL JAMES SCHEIDT 2 3 Having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: 4 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 7 BY MR. SAMS: 8 Q State your name and business address for the 9 record, please. 10 A Daniel James Scheidt, U.S. Environmental 11 Protection Agency, 960 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia, 12 30605. 13 Q Mr. Scheidt, my name is Gary Sams. I'm an 14 attorney representing the Sugar Growers Cooperative, Wedgworth 15 Farms and Roth Farms in this case. I'll be asking you 16 numerous questions, and I know that you have previously been 17 deposed in this case so you probably understand the general 18 format. I would just like to emphasize to you that if you 19 have any difficulty understanding my questions, please say so 20 and give me an opportunity to rephrase them so that the record 21 will clearly reflect something that we're communicating about 22 and hopefully as much as possible avoid error. How long have 23 you worked for EPA? 24 A Just short of three years. 25 Q What is your current position with EPA? 5 1 A My position title is South Florida Watershed 2 Coordinator for the Water Management Division. 3 Q What are your responsibilities with respect to 4 the South Florida Watershed? 5 A I basically serve as a staff person for the 6 associate division director for the water division and attempt 7 to coordinate south Florida activities within the Water 8 Management Division as well as provide -- provide him with 9 technical information and background information about south 10 Florida issues. 11 Q Who is that individual? 12 A Mike McGhee. 13 Q How long have you held that position? 14 A I began to work for Mike on a detail around the 15 summer of 1993, and I was officially transferred into that 16 position sometime last fall, the fall of '93. I don't 17 remember the month specifically. 18 Q Since beginning work for Mr. McGhee in the 19 summer of '93, have you essentially had the same 20 responsibilities as you described a moment ago to me? 21 A Yeah, I'd say so. I would add I also continue 22 -- continue to serve in function with the mercury study in the 23 Environmental Services Division, so in effect I've been 24 wearing two hats. 25 Q How long -- well, let me change the question. 6 1 When did you begin working with the mercury study, and I 2 assume you're talking there about the mercury study in the 3 south Florida area, is that correct? 4 A That's correct. I first began to be involved 5 in the mercury study in south Florida I guess around 1992 when 6 the study was first discussed and started in the planning 7 process. 8 Q Were you involved with the planning process? 9 A Yes. 10 Q To whom did you report at that time? 11 A At that time, my supervisor was Alan Alwater. 12 Q Did you work with Dr. Stober? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What was your capacity in relation to Dr. 15 Stober's? 16 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 17 Q Was Dr. Stober also working on the mercury 18 study starting in 1992? 19 A Yeah. My recollection is thereabouts he began 20 working on the mercury project. 21 Q Let me ask it this way. What functions did you 22 perform in -- beginning in 1992 on the mercury study? 23 A Well, as Jerry began to plan and began to put 24 together the effort -- the study effort, I became involved, I 25 guess, as a resource person knowledgeable about the Everglades 7 1 and the south Florida system; and as time went on, there was a 2 series of planning meetings that were held with a number of 3 people, and I participated throughout many of those meetings. 4 The end result was actually formulating the study plan. 5 Q Is that the EMAP study plan? 6 A Right. 7 Q Have you been involved with any other study 8 plans regarding mercury in the Florida Everglades? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What -- what are they? 11 A There's a study plan in relation to the 12 Miccosukee tribe of Indians in south Florida that I've been 13 involved with, and then there would also be the predecessor 14 documents to the EMAP study proposal that I was involved with. 15 Q I believe you said you became a resource person 16 familiar with the Everglades system in your work in connection 17 with the development of the EMAP study. What is the basis for 18 your familiarity with the Everglades system? 19 A I used to work at Everglades National Park at 20 the research center prior to coming to EPA. 21 Q For how long was that? 22 A Roughly from 1982 to 1991 less a couple of 23 other interim positions during that time span. 24 Q Let me show you what I believe is a short form of 25 a copy of your resum which I'll ask the reporter to mark as 8 1 Exhibit Number 1, and ask if that's correct? 2 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.) 4 A This is a copy of a resum of mine, yes. 5 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 6 Q I see in the period 1988 to 1991 that you were 7 a National Park Service case agent to the U.S. Department of 8 Justice, etcetera. What is a case agent? 9 A Well, my specific functions at that time were 10 to serve as a National Park Service technical individual 11 basically assigned to the U.S. Department of Justice to work 12 on this particular lawsuit, and the title that I was given for 13 that duration was case agent. 14 Q When you refer to this lawsuit, are you 15 referring to the lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court by the 16 United States Government against the State of Florida? 17 A Right. 18 Q Did any of your duties in that connection with 19 those responsibilities involve the question of mercury 20 contamination in the Everglades? 21 A Not specifically. 22 Q Was that an issue that you had any awareness of 23 during that period of time? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Did you have any awareness of it as a potential 9 1 issue in the federal case? 2 A Not that I recall. 3 Q What was your role, if any, in connection with 4 mercury contamination issues at that time? 5 A As the individual at Everglades National Park 6 who's responsible for water quality and water quality issues, 7 I was involved with various water quality monitoring programs 8 that included the monitoring of mercury in surface water, and 9 there was an event that included sampling soils within the 10 park for mercury; and just in general as water quality data 11 would come in that would have information about mercury, there 12 would be some relevance there. 13 Q Were you the person at the park with that 14 primary responsibility to follow those data? 15 A I was the person responsible for water quality 16 and water quality data. 17 Q What, if you recall, were the types of water 18 quality data for mercury that you obtained while working at 19 the park in -- in the 1988 to '91 time frame? 20 A My recollection is that occasionally South 21 Florida Water Management District in their ongoing monitoring 22 programs would analyze water samples for mercury, so there 23 would be some information there. 24 Q Did that involve analysis for total mercury? 25 A My recollection is it was just total mercury. 10 1 Q Not methylmercury? 2 A I don't believe so. 3 Q Were there any other sources of mercury data 4 that you became aware of during that period of time? 5 A Yes. There was a soil sampling effort I 6 recall. 7 Q Who conducted the soil sampling? 8 A South Florida Water Management District. 9 Q Where was that conducted to the best of your 10 recollection? 11 A My recollection is they sampled various 12 structures throughout the South Florida Water Management 13 District as well as marsh stations within Everglades National 14 Park. 15 Q Are the data reflecting their soil sampling at 16 marsh stations within Everglades National Park among the 17 documents you've produced for us? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Would they be in the box of documents that were 20 provided to me earlier this week? 21 A I don't recall specifically when they may have 22 been produced to you or I'm not aware of boxes -- 23 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Could we go off the record 24 for a second? 25 MR. SAMS: Sure, we can go off the record. 11 1 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 3 Q Let me show you first a two-page document I'll 4 ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 2. Let me ask you 5 if that is a document showing the locations at which the South 6 Florida Water Management District samples were taken? 7 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 for identification.) 9 A Yes. 10 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 11 Q And let me show you another document which I'll 12 ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 3, and ask you if 13 those are the samples themselves? 14 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 for identification.) 16 A Exhibit 3 are the data for that particular 17 sampling event for peat. 18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 19 Q Now, as I understand it, there's another 20 document in your files somewhere that is a summary of these 21 data? 22 A That's right. 23 Q Since we weren't able to spot it quickly here, 24 what is the format of that document, if you can recall? 25 A There is maybe two or three pages of text, and 12 1 the last page of the document is a map using symbols to 2 differentiate mercury concentration in the peat for this 3 particular sampling event. 4 Q What, if you can recall, do the symbols 5 represent? 6 A The symbols represented different group -- 7 groupings of a range of mercury concentration in the peat. 8 Q To the best of your understanding, were all of 9 the data strictly limited to peat-type soils? 10 A My recollection is the sampling was specific 11 locations without regard to the soil type. 12 Q So it could have included such things as marl 13 or sand or whatever? 14 A I believe so. 15 Q Therefore, it's your understanding that the 16 label given it as peat sampling is a general description not 17 meant to be technically precise for all the points of 18 sampling? 19 A Right. 20 Q Was any further work ever based on these 21 sampling events to the best of your knowledge? For example, 22 were they mapped? Were these data mapped? 23 A Aside from the document I've already described, 24 I'm not aware of any other mapping. 25 Q Who -- who wrote the summary? 13 1 A My recollection is it was Richard Pfeuffer. 2 Q Of the Water Management District? 3 A Right. 4 Q Do you recall any technical conclusions that 5 were made in the summary? 6 A No, I don't. 7 Q Have these data been used in connection with 8 the later EMAP study? 9 A No. 10 Q Have they been used with respect to any 11 subsequent study that you know of? 12 A Not that I'm aware of. 13 Q Who did the actual analyses of the data? 14 A My recollection is that the Water Management 15 District hired a contract lab to do it. I don't recall the 16 lab name. 17 Q Did you obtain any other -- well, let me back 18 up. I believe you said you also obtained some data on mercury 19 in water? 20 A That's right. 21 Q Is that in what you've given us among your 22 produced documents? 23 A I don't believe so. 24 Q Do you no longer have possession of that? 25 A That's correct. 14 1 Q Who does? 2 A My presumption is there would be printouts -- 3 at least at the time I left the park, there were printouts of 4 those data in what used to be my office at the park, and the 5 source of the data was South Florida Water Management 6 District, so presumably they would also have that information. 7 Q Did you obtain any other mercury samples during 8 the period of '88 to '91? 9 A You're referring to mercury data? 10 Q Yes. 11 A Not that I recall. 12 Q Do you remember forming any conclusions based 13 on the data that you saw from the South Florida Water 14 Management District? 15 A My recollection at this point was that there 16 didn't seem to be any indication of unusually elevated 17 concentrations of mercury at the peat samples that were taken 18 within the park. 19 Q I think you mentioned that as your conclusion 20 at this time, which was I took to be responsive to my 21 question, meaning at the time you had those data. Have you 22 since seen other data suggesting the presence of unusually 23 elevated mercury levels in peat soils in the park? 24 A No. 25 Q Did you arrive at any other conclusions 15 1 concerning the mercury and the peat samples from the park back 2 during the '88-'91 time frame? 3 A I don't recall any specifically. 4 Q What about any conclusions concerning the 5 mercury in water quality data that you saw at that same time? 6 A I don't recall any conclusions. 7 Q Just to be sure I've got a complete 8 understanding, is it true then that you haven't at any time 9 seen data suggesting elevated mercury levels in peat soils in 10 the park? 11 A I'd say that I've seen data that indicate a 12 spatial -- that may indicate a spatial pattern in mercury 13 concentration, but I wouldn't characterize concentrations as 14 being unusually elevated at this point in time. 15 Q How do you define elevated in terms of mercury 16 content in peat soils in the park? What -- can you give me a 17 numerical breakpoint? 18 A Not specifically. At -- at this particular 19 time in 1989, the concern was that mercury was showing up in 20 fish in the Everglades system in elevated concentrations, and 21 the Water Management District initiated a sampling effort to 22 try to see if there seemed to be elevated concentrations in 23 the peat that may explain what was observed in the fish. And 24 at that point in time, the concentrations depicted in the data 25 here were not viewed as being particularly unusual or 16 1 elevated. The term elevated really is a relative term. It 2 depends on the context you're talking about. 3 Q Can you help by giving me a little bit more 4 about the specifics of the context? Feel free to examine the 5 data if that would assist in any way. 6 A My recollection, the data depict -- there's a 7 range of mercury concentrations there, and the one area that 8 seemed to have consistently the higher concentrations 9 according to these data were the -- was the Holey Land, and 10 compared to the other concentrations found throughout the 11 system, the concentrations found in the park at those marsh 12 stations was near the middle or lower end of the range of 13 concentration. 14 MR. SAMS: Off the record. 15 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 16 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 17 Q You mentioned the Holey Land as having elevated 18 mercury levels, could you describe what the Holey Land is? 19 That's not within the park, is it? 20 A No. 21 Q Where is it if you could place it on a map? 22 A It's just north of Water Conservation Area 3 in 23 the southwest corner of the Everglades agricultural area. 24 Q What is that area topographically, is it diked 25 or bermed area? 17 1 A I believe it is. 2 Q Could you give me an approximate size in acres? 3 A My recollection is it's on the order of 35,000 4 acres, give or take some. 5 Q Does it have structures through which water 6 comes in? 7 A I believe it does. 8 Q Does it have structures through which water 9 passes out? 10 A I believe so. 11 Q Do you happen to know where those are? 12 A My recollection is the structures through which 13 water passes out are on the southern edge of it where water 14 can flow from there into Water Conservation Area 3. I don't 15 recall as I sit here today where the inflow structures are. 16 Q Do you happen to know when the Holey Land was 17 diked and bermed? 18 A My recollection is it was -- well, there were 19 some recent modifications made to it, I believe, by the Water 20 Management District. Now, what state the dikes or berms were 21 in prior to that time I don't recall. 22 Q What purposes does it serve, if you know? 23 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you referring to the Holey 24 Land or the dikes? 25 MR. SAMS: The Holey Land. 18 1 A I'm not sure. 2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 3 Q Do you know whether it functions as a water 4 treatment area? 5 A That's possible, but I'm not sure. 6 Q Do you know whether it is farmed by 7 agriculture? 8 A My recollection is it is not. 9 Q Did you draw any conclusions from the fact that 10 it seemed to have the more elevated levels of mercury based on 11 the South Florida Water Management District data? 12 A No. 13 Q You indicated that you've seen a spatial 14 pattern of mercury although it would not necessarily be 15 something to which you would attach the description elevated. 16 Do you recall that statement essentially? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What is the spatial pattern that you've seen? 19 A It depends on the data source. 20 Q But these are all data sources subsequent, I 21 take it, to the South Florida Water Management District data 22 you've reviewed in the '88-'91 time frame? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Were the soils that were analyzed by South 25 Florida Water Management District for mercury in that '88 to 19 1 '91 time frame characterized in any other way such as percent 2 of organic carbon or any other parameter? 3 A I don't recall. 4 Q Looking at the South Florida Water Management 5 District data tables, which are the ones that apply to the 6 Holey Land? Are they the ones near the end of the locator 7 document? 8 A Yes. The stations identified on the locator 9 document is H-O-L-Y-S-D and then a numeral. 10 Q I see opposite those numerals on the data 11 tables further numbers following a dash that are one, two and 12 three in each case. Were those split samples, do you know? 13 A I don't recall. 14 Q With whom at the District, if anyone, did you 15 discuss these data? 16 A Richard Pfeuffer. 17 Q Anyone else? 18 A Not that I recall. 19 Q Did Mr. Pfeuffer express any conclusions from 20 these data to you? 21 A I don't specifically recall. 22 Q Did you discuss them with anybody at EPA at 23 that time? 24 A No. 25 Q Did you discuss them with anybody at the 20 1 Justice Department? 2 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I would instruct the witness not 3 to answer that question. 4 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 5 Q Did you discuss it with anybody else at the 6 park? 7 A Probably. 8 Q You have no recall? 9 A I can't specifically recall who at the park I 10 did or did not, you know, discuss it with as I sit here 11 several years later. 12 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Well, actually, let me rethink 13 this. You can answer him whether a discussion -- 14 whether there was ever something -- whether there was 15 ever a discussion with the Justice Department, but the 16 content of the discussion, however, would be 17 privileged, so you can answer his question with regards 18 to whether a meeting with the Justice Department 19 occurred with regard to this subject. 20 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 21 Q Go ahead and answer my question in that light, 22 if you would. 23 A I don't recall discussions with the Justice 24 Department about these data. 25 Q Let me show you another document that I'm going 21 1 to have the reporter mark as Exhibit 4. 2 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4 for identification.) 4 Q Actually that appears in stapled-together form 5 and has some notations on it that I'm sure are not yours. For 6 example, at the top of the first page and then at the bottom 7 of two pages, but other than the reference to Coleman 550 and 8 the reference to Government Exhibits 19-A and 19-B, do you 9 recognize these documents? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Is this a slightly longer or different version 12 of your resum ? 13 A The first part. 14 Q What is the second part? 15 A The last page is a one-page summary of 16 opinions. 17 Q Was that a summary of your opinions developed 18 earlier in connection with the present litigation? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Let me refer you to the bottom of the first 21 page of this document where it says Hydrology Program Manager, 22 National Park Service, etcetera, July 1987 to June 1988. It 23 says, responsible for all hydrology research and monitoring 24 projects required to assess park water conditions and 25 determine the effects of external water management on park 22 1 natural resources. What were your responsibilities in regard 2 to hydrology? 3 A I supervised the hydrology staff who were 4 involved with resource or monitoring projects. 5 Q Did that work include the hydraulics of the 6 water-flow system bringing water to the Everglades National 7 Park? 8 A I'm not sure I answer -- or understand the 9 question. 10 Q I'm focusing on water hydraulics and asking you 11 if the responsibilities you had included how and from where 12 and on what schedule water gets to the park? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did -- what work did you do in that capacity or 15 supervise in that capacity, I suppose I should say? 16 A Work with regard to hydrology or hydraulics as 17 you put it. 18 Q What particular work efforts, if you can 19 recall, did you supervise? Was an attempt made to understand 20 the schedule on which water was delivered to the park? 21 A There were various monitoring projects in place 22 to document water discharge into the park at all of the 23 structures, and there were also monitoring efforts in place to 24 document rainfall throughout the park, stage throughout the 25 park, pan evaporation. And then in addition to those 23 1 monitoring projects, there were -- were various studies 2 underway to analyze those data and draw interpretations. 3 Most, if not all, of the work that was done at the park at 4 that time was confined to the geographic area within the park, 5 as I recall. The staff though did get into the issues of 6 water management and water management activities outside the 7 park boundaries that may have an effect on the quantity of 8 water delivered to the park as well as its timing and 9 distribution. 10 Q Did the work involve analysis of how various 11 substances might flow from the Everglades agricultural area 12 through the system to the park? 13 A I don't remember specific efforts directed 14 toward that specific question. 15 Q Did -- it talks about water management -- in 16 your resum it talks about water management external to the 17 park, and the focus was apparently on its effect within the 18 park, is that correct? 19 A I believe that's correct, yes. 20 Q Was any analysis performed at that time of how 21 phosphorus might travel from the Everglades agricultural area 22 to the park? 23 A I don't recall a specific analysis directed 24 toward that. 25 Q Was there any analysis directed toward the use 24 1 of water within the Everglades agricultural area as it might 2 affect water quantity distribution, timing and quality to the 3 park? 4 A I don't recall a specific analysis during this 5 1987 to '88 time frame of that. 6 Q Did you continue to supervise hydrologists at 7 the park even after you no longer had that particular title? 8 A I don't believe so. Well, actually I need to 9 correct that. There is -- there's at least one hydrologist I 10 did continue to supervise that I recall. 11 Q In what capacity? 12 A On the water quality project. 13 Q The next item on your resum as case agent? 14 A No. More -- more focused toward the water 15 quality project manager aspect of my responsibilities. I had 16 a hydrologist assigned to me on that project. 17 Q To what extent have you gained an understanding 18 through the work that's reflected on your resum of the 19 hydraulics of water movement throughout the Everglades area 20 including the EAA, the water conservation areas and the park? 21 Do you have a general understanding? 22 A I believe I have a general understanding of 23 water management and water movement in the system. 24 Q Have you -- are you aware of any specific 25 studies concerning how water movement through the system might 25 1 affect the flow of phosphorus from the Everglades agricultural 2 area to the park? 3 A Would you repeat the question please? 4 MR. SAMS: Could you just read the question 5 back? 6 (Whereupon, the court reporter read back the 7 previous question.) 8 A I don't recall specific studies directed at 9 that. 10 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 11 Q Are you aware in some general way of studies 12 directed at that question? 13 A There would be a lot of general things written 14 about that through the years in various documents. 15 Q Do you know if there exist any studies of how 16 mercury might be transported from the Everglades agricultural 17 area to the park? 18 A I believe there's mention of that in various 19 study reports or documents. 20 Q Other than mention, do you know if anybody has 21 actually tried to definitively determine how that might occur? 22 A Not at this point. 23 Q Is such work planned to your knowledge? 24 A Such work has been discussed. 25 Q By whom? 26 1 A The people involved with the EPA mercury 2 efforts. 3 Q People such as yourself and Dr. Stober? 4 A Yes. 5 Q But so far as you know, nothing is actually 6 planned for implementation at this time? 7 A Not at this point. 8 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Would this be an okay time to 9 take a ten-minute bathroom break? 10 MR. SAMS: Sure. 11 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 12 Q Mr. Scheidt, I'd like to refer you back to 13 Exhibit Number 2, if I may. That's the list of peat sampling 14 locations. Could you identify for the record which of those 15 locations actually were within the park? 16 A Near the top of the first page, beginning with 17 NP-201 extending through EP and E1 at that point in time, 18 that's northeast shark slough, was not part of the park, but 19 that is within the area now that has been incorporated in the 20 park as the expansion area, so that is in the park now, but in 21 1989 it was not in the park. 22 Q Are those the only sampling locations on this 23 list that were from within the park? 24 A I believe so. 25 Q Let me show you a file that was produced from 27 1 among your documents that appears to be a file of newspaper 2 clippings. Was that, in fact, the file that you had kept? 3 A It appears to be, yes. 4 Q Is that -- does that file have mostly to do 5 with newspaper articles reflecting concern over the Everglades 6 either with respect to nutrient enrichment or mercury? 7 A This was specifically a file of news clips 8 about mercury. 9 Q Why did you keep a file on mercury? 10 A Well, it seemed pertinent to what I was doing, 11 and sometimes the clips are useful when one wants to recall 12 the chronology or history of events. 13 Q What is the period of time over which you've 14 maintained that file? You can feel free to refer to the 15 documents. 16 A Well, just generally speaking it'd be from 17 around 1989 or so when the issue first arose to present. 18 Q Would you agree that the articles reflect a 19 high level of public and regulatory concern over mercury 20 contamination in the Everglades? 21 A I'd say the articles reflect a fair amount of 22 press interest about mercury -- the mercury issue in the 23 Everglades. I'm not sure what else I'd conclude from it. 24 Q Do you know that to be a general public issue 25 in south Florida? 28 1 A My understanding is there's a lot of interest 2 about the mercury issue in south Florida. 3 Q Do you believe that there are elevated levels 4 of mercury in the Everglades? 5 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Objection to the extent that it 6 calls for speculation. 7 A My understanding is there are indications of 8 elevated concentrations of mercury in certain biota in the 9 Everglades. 10 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 11 Q Which biota are those? 12 A Certain freshwater fish, the Florida panther, 13 raccoons, alligators, bobcat, certain wading birds. That's 14 all I recall at the moment. 15 Q Has there been a level of concern about -- I'm 16 sorry, an elevated level of concern about the levels of 17 mercury in the diet of humans in the park? 18 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I object to the form of the 19 question. 20 A I'm not sure I understand the question. 21 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 22 Q Has there been public concern, to your 23 knowledge, expressed over the level of mercury in the diet of 24 human beings in the park -- or in the Everglades? Let me 25 broaden it that way. 29 1 A There has -- there has been some concern about 2 that issue. 3 Q Is that particularly focused on the Miccosukee 4 tribe of Indians? 5 A That is one aspect of it, but I'd suggest that 6 the fish consumption advisory that the Florida Health and 7 Rehabilitative Services issue is a reflection of that as well. 8 Q Does that advisory affect the entire Everglades 9 area? 10 A Almost. 11 Q Let me show you a set of graphs and ask you if 12 you prepared these graphs. I'll ask the court reporter to 13 mark them as Exhibit Number what, 5? 14 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5 for identification.) 16 A Yes, I prepared these. 17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 18 Q What was your purpose in preparing those? 19 A This was a preliminary look at the data from 20 our first sampling event with the EMAP study. 21 Q Were you preparing these in a general -- to 22 show in a general north-south direction any trends that that 23 display of the data might suggest? 24 A I prepared these to begin to look at the issue 25 of whether or not there seemed to be a spatial pattern in the 30 1 data. 2 Q Are they arranged on a north-south scale? 3 A Generally speaking. There would be some 4 exceptions to that. 5 Q How would we be able to identify which of the 6 unnumbered bars correspond with which sampling event? 7 A I presume you mean which sampling station? 8 Q Sampling station, thank you. 9 A From these graphs, you wouldn't be able to tell 10 that. 11 Q Can you tell me in general where you departed 12 from the north-south organization of these bar graphs? 13 A What I did was -- was just generally lump the 14 stations into geographic areas. There is some overlap from 15 north to south as to, you know, where those areas fall, and 16 there is some stations that don't really fit very well into a 17 particular geographic area. They're sort of transitional or 18 on the edge. 19 Q Are those the ones that appear between blank 20 brackets? At the top, I'm noticing there's the appearance of 21 a bracket around EAA, and there's a number of stations to its 22 left and then a number of stations to its right before you get 23 to what appears to be a bracket around WCA. Are those the 24 areas that didn't fall neatly into one category or another? 25 A Yes, those are some of those. 31 1 Q Have any other graphs of these data been 2 prepared? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What are those graphs? 5 A I believe those are cumulative frequency 6 distribution graphs of the different parameters that have been 7 prepared. 8 Q Is it fair to say that only two of these bar 9 graphs, as one progresses from the EAA to the WCA to the Big 10 Cypress to the park, tend to show increasing trends and that 11 those two are total mercury in mosquitofish and total mercury 12 in sediment? 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: You said increasing trends, 14 right? 15 MR. SAMS: Yes. 16 A That -- there may be that cursory appearance, 17 although I wouldn't want to draw that conclusion without any 18 statistical analysis. 19 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 20 Q Have you attempted to examine a statistical 21 analysis for that purpose? 22 A Not yet. 23 Q Do you have in your possession the correlation 24 work done at Gulf Breeze? 25 A I had some of it. 32 1 Q Have you considered whether the total mercury 2 in the sediment graph would be consistent with the South 3 Florida Water Management data that we examined in connection 4 with Exhibits 2 and 3? 5 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the form 6 of that question. I have no idea what you mean by 7 consistent. You can answer if you understand. 8 A No. 9 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 10 Q Would you expect to see total mercury in the 11 sediment higher in the Everglades National Park, for example, 12 than the Everglades agricultural area? 13 A I don't know what I would expect. 14 Q Have you identified any questions that are 15 worthy of further examination based on these graphs? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What questions have you identified? 18 A A cursory look at these based on this 19 particular sampling event at this particular point in time 20 would suggest that the spatial patterns that one might infer 21 from these for mercury and the different media are not 22 consistent. So one obvious question is why that would appear 23 to be the case. 24 Q By not consistent, what do you mean? 25 A Well, again a cursory preliminary look at this 33 1 would suggest that total mercury in sediment seems to be at 2 higher concentrations for the southern part of the system, but 3 the forms of mercury in water don't seem to fit or follow that 4 pattern. 5 Q What is scientifically interesting about that 6 apparent inconsistency? 7 A Well, from my perspective, the major issue is 8 trying to figure out what -- well, first of all, what is the 9 magnitude and extent of mercury contamination throughout the 10 Everglades system and the various media; and the thing that 11 has been driving this process is contamination of biota, so 12 one of the first steps is to figure out what the extent of 13 mercury contamination is in the various media and then begin 14 to try to figure out what the processes are, their accounting 15 for that, and what are the sources. And as one begins to look 16 at data, it leads one to various hypotheses and various types 17 of additional work or studies that may be undertaken to try to 18 answer those questions and better elucidate what is going on 19 and then what may be appropriate to do about it. 20 Q Are these apparent inconsistencies something 21 that EPA plans to address through ongoing studies? 22 A That's my understanding. 23 Q Would that be work under the current phase of 24 the EMAP program? 25 A My understanding is that throughout subsequent 34 1 phases of the EMAP study, there may be various efforts 2 undertaken to try to address some of the -- some of the issues 3 and get into some of the other processes or mechanisms that 4 may be a factor here. These, at this point, are things that 5 are being discussed, but I'm not sure what decisions or plans 6 have actually been made at this point. 7 Q When you referred to inconsistency between the 8 distribution of mercury in sediment versus the distribution of 9 mercury in canal water, were you in effect saying that all 10 other things being equal, you would expect to see the greatest 11 amount in canal water at the point where there's also the 12 greatest amount of mercury in the sediment? 13 A If other factors were not important or didn't 14 come into play, I think one would expect to see that. 15 Q Did you find any inconsistencies between the 16 amount -- or the distribution of total mercury in mosquitofish 17 versus the distribution of methylmercury in canal water? 18 A These data would appear in this depiction to 19 have a different sort of a spatial orientation or pattern. 20 Q I see that it's different. I'm going back to 21 the concept of things that may not be consistent and asking 22 you -- well, let me ask the question this way. All other 23 things being equal, would you expect to see total mercury in 24 mosquitofish and methylmercury in canal water to have similar 25 distributions? 35 1 A All other things being equal, I think that -- 2 well, that may be fair, but then that does make a lot of 3 assumptions. There's a lot of assumptions inherent in that 4 statement. 5 Q Have you discussed these graphs with Mr. 6 Stober? 7 A Yes. 8 Q As nearly and completely as you can, what did 9 you describe to him concerning these graphs -- what did you 10 say to him concerning these graphs? 11 A Well, in general terms, my recollection is the 12 appearance of a spatial pattern through some of the 13 parameters. And again, this is a preliminary look at it and 14 one wouldn't want to draw any conclusions without statistical 15 analysis. And this is a single event under specific 16 hydrologic conditions as well, so we're just getting started 17 on getting some information, getting some data and starting to 18 form some interpretations, but it's -- it's very premature to 19 draw conclusions. 20 Q Did you express to him your thought of 21 hypotheses that need to be examined based on these bar graphs? 22 A I don't recall everything that was discussed. 23 As I sit here, I can think of a couple of issues that were 24 discussed. One was the mercury forms in canal water and that 25 methylmercury accounts, according to these data, for a fairly 36 1 small fraction of the total mercury pool in the canal water 2 and that that would suggest there are other forms of mercury 3 present in the system, and it may be important to get a handle 4 on those at some point. Another issue that has been discussed 5 is the fact that these water samples were not filtered, and we 6 don't know at this point how much of that mercury that's 7 showing up as total mercury in the water may be in a dissolved 8 form or may be associated with particles; and that's another 9 critical question to begin to get an answer for. 10 Q Why is that a critical question to get an 11 answer for? 12 A Well, it's important in trying to get an 13 understanding of how mercury is cycling in the system and how 14 it's being transported in the system and is relevant to try to 15 get a handle on what the potential sources may be. 16 Q Were there any other issues you discussed with 17 Stober based on these data? 18 A I don't recall any off the top of my head as I 19 sit here this morning. 20 Q What would you conclude if the data gathered 21 within the Everglades area tended to show a statistically 22 significant inverse correlation between total phosphorus and 23 -- that is, total phosphorus in water and total mercury in 24 mosquitofish? 25 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I object to the form of the 37 1 question. 2 A I'm not sure. I think I'd have to think about 3 that awhile. 4 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 5 Q Is phosphorus an indicator of eutrophication? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Might it tend to suggest that biota are less 8 likely to uptake mercury in eutrophic versus oligotrophic 9 settings? 10 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form. 11 A Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the question. 12 You said it, you're referring to these data? 13 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 14 Q No. I'm referring to the assumption I gave you 15 about the assumed inverse correlation between total phosphorus 16 in water and total mercury in mosquitofish. 17 A I'm not sure what I would conclude. I've not 18 thought a lot about it, and -- and when one considers and 19 looks at parameters like -- like that in a specific sampling 20 event, I think one needs to be very, very careful because 21 there are a lot of processes that may be going on and sampling 22 events tend to give you a snapshot in time. The process 23 studies would be important for trying to unravel that or what 24 kind of relationships may or may not exist. To put it another 25 way, I think one needs to be careful about what's inferred 38 1 from data like these versus what's -- what kind of information 2 is gathered from process studies or other types of scientific 3 work. 4 Q Does EPA have any process studies going on at 5 the present time concerning the relationship of phosphorus and 6 mercury in the Everglades? 7 A I'm not aware of any. 8 Q Are any planned? 9 A There's -- there have been discussions to that 10 effect. I'm not sure what specifically is planned at this 11 point or isn't. I think I probably should just note that as 12 far as Region IV is concerned and the mercury efforts that 13 would be undertaken, Dr. Stober is the point person and the 14 single individual who would have the most to do with making 15 those decisions, so those questions would probably be better 16 addressed to Dr. Stober. 17 Q Have you discussed these graphs with Mr. 18 McGhee, did you say you had? 19 A No, I have not. 20 Q Has he seen these graphs? 21 A Not to my knowledge. I have not shown them to 22 him. 23 Q How many more sampling events of the type 24 reflected by the data from which you've produced these bar 25 graphs are intended? 39 1 A My understanding is there would be three more 2 events planned at this point. 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are we talking just about canal 4 sampling or -- 5 MR. SAMS: Yes. 6 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 7 Q Has any attempt been made to arrange the data 8 along any particular canal -- I'm referring to the data 9 resulting in the bar graphs -- to see how it may change as it 10 -- as the sampling takes place along a particular canal? 11 A I'm not aware of any attempt to arrange the 12 data like that. 13 Q Do you know how many replicate samples were 14 taken at each station? 15 A My recollection is it depended on the 16 particular station and it also depended on the media. 17 Q Did you participate in taking the samples? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Were you working with Dr. Ron Jones among 20 others? 21 A Dr. Jones was not in the field or involved in 22 the field effort. We -- we used his lab basically as a base 23 station, but he did not go into the field during this sampling 24 effort. 25 Q Did you head up the field sampling effort? 40 1 A Yes. 2 Q Are you familiar with the data developed by 3 Tamar Barkay on mercury methylation and demethylation in 4 Everglades soils? 5 A I have a little bit of familiarity with it. 6 Q What is your understanding of -- of those 7 studies? 8 A Well, the only thing I've seen is a short memo 9 and a one-page table. My understanding is she has a report. 10 I've not seen her report and I've not read her report, so I'm 11 not sure what kind of conclusions or understanding I could 12 draw when I haven't seen and read her report which would 13 document her methods and what kind of conclusions and results 14 she presents, and I've not seen any of that. 15 Q Let me show you a document and ask you if it's 16 the -- if it is -- has with it on the third page the table 17 that you've seen? 18 A No, I've not seen this document. 19 Q Let me get that back from you then. Was the 20 table you've seen a printed or typewritten table? 21 A Yes. 22 MR. SAMS: Do you guys want to break now? I can 23 look for that later. We can break for lunch for a 24 reasonable period. 25 MR. LIPSHULTZ: It's okay with me. What would 41 1 you like to do? 2 A It doesn't matter, whatever. 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: If you want to do a lunch break 4 now, that's fine with us. 5 MR. SAMS: Okay, why don't we do that. 6 (Whereupon, a lunch break was taken.) 7 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 8 Q Mr. Scheidt, I'd like to show you the third 9 page of the document that's been previously marked as Exhibit 10 Number 48 to Mr. Stober's deposition and ask if that is the 11 Tamar Barkay data table that you've seen? 12 A Yes. 13 Q I believe you said that we have very little 14 information on the processes actually occurring in terms of 15 mercury in the Everglades. Is this study an attempt to look 16 at the processes? 17 A Yes. My understanding is it would be an 18 attempt to start to look at certain processes. 19 Q Do you know why this work has not been followed 20 up with further studies of a similar kind? 21 A No. 22 Q Are you aware that Dr. Barkay has requested but 23 not succeeded in getting funding to follow up on this study? 24 A I believe I've heard mention of that. 25 Q Who told you that? 42 1 A My recollection is it's come up with Dr. 2 Stober. 3 Q Did he tell you why funding has not been 4 forthcoming? 5 A My understanding is that as a whole, the 6 mercury efforts that the Environmental Services Division have 7 proposed have not been completely funded. And given the money 8 that we -- we do have, there need to be decisions made about, 9 you know, where you spend it first, given that you don't have 10 enough money to do everything, and that's basically where we 11 -- where we sit at this point. 12 Q Is it your understanding that this work was 13 given a lower priority in deciding the use of funds to the 14 things that are currently ongoing? 15 A I'm not sure I'd say it was given a lower 16 priority. That -- my understanding is that particular work 17 was going on, in fact, simultaneously with the planning effort 18 of the EPA study; and my recollection is that Dr. Barkay's 19 work there was I believe funded my National Park Service. And 20 in the planning process that EPA was going through to try to 21 get our mercury efforts off the ground, it was a realization 22 that there was already, you know, something in place to begin 23 to look at methylation/demethylation processes. Now, she's 24 completed which -- at least that particular effort, as I 25 understand it, and what's next, you know, I'm not sure. 43 1 Q When you say there was something underway, 2 you're referring to the study -- 3 A Right. 4 Q -- that's in Exhibit 48? 5 A Correct. 6 Q I'd like to ask you about some documents that 7 we've received and aren't necessarily sure what they are. 8 Before I have this marked, I'd ask you to look at this 9 document which is a series of documents actually faxed to us, 10 meaning my firm, on February 24th, reference Ronald Jones 11 documents, and ask if you can identify the -- any or all of 12 the documents that are subject to that fax? Can you recognize 13 some of these documents? 14 A I -- I recognize part of it. The third page in 15 which has four columns, record number, station ID, longitude 16 and latitude is, I believe, a printout of the first 50 canal 17 stations that were sampled as part of the EMAP effort and 18 their longitude and latitude, and this appears to be a 19 document that I faxed Dr. Jones, that one page. 20 Q Would that actually be the third page of the 21 bunch? 22 A Yeah, it'd be the third page of the bunch after 23 these two letters or memos. 24 Q Are the next two pages fish data analyzed for 25 mercury for the 50-canal-station survey? 44 1 A That's what it appears to be. 2 Q The next page, is that simply the organization 3 of mercury concentrations in water and mercury concentrations 4 in fish from the 50 canal samplings? 5 A Yes, that's again what it appears to be. I'd 6 note that I did not generate these particular documents so -- 7 they look familiar, but I didn't produce them. 8 Q Can you tell what the next three pages would 9 be? 10 A The next few pages -- actually the rest of the 11 packet appears to be printouts generated in association with 12 the analysis or determination of mercury content in the fish 13 as a part of this 50-station-canal sampling effort. 14 Q Would those have been generated by Dr. Jones? 15 A Well, either by Dr. Jones, I believe, or the 16 people working with or for Dr. Jones on this project. I 17 believe they would be generated by his lab. 18 MR. SAMS: We'll have that marked as Exhibit 19 Number 6. 20 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 21 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 for identification.) 22 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 23 Q Just so I understand, to the best of your 24 knowledge, you think those fish data were then Jones's data 25 from the analysis of fish samples? 45 1 A Yes. 2 Q Let me ask you if you recognize this set of 3 documents. 4 A No. 5 Q Here's another set of documents marked Jones 6 depo 77 I'd like to ask you if you recognize. 7 A No, I've not seen any of this before. 8 Q Let me ask if you've seen that document. 9 A No. 10 Q Did you help draft the basis for the Miccosukee 11 mercury contamination study that we talked about a little bit 12 this morning? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I'm going to show you certain documents related 15 to it and ask you if you can identify them. The first one 16 I'll ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 7. 17 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 7 for identification.) 19 A Exhibit 7 is I guess what I'd call really a 20 compilation of three different documents. 21 Q Okay. What is the first one? 22 A The first one would be the first three pages 23 which are summaries of the work that the Centers for Disease 24 Control did in conjunction with the Miccosukee mercury study, 25 and these three pages are summaries prepared by the Centers 46 1 for Disease Control and summarize their results at this point. 2 The fourth page is a press release prepared by the Miccosukee 3 tribe on their letterhead. And then the last several pages 4 are photocopies of some of the press clips describing the 5 study -- the CDC study results and in response to this press 6 release. 7 Q What do you understand the general result of 8 this study to be? 9 A My understanding the general result of the CDC 10 effort to date is that the blood work indicates no elevation 11 of mercury among the people sampled. The concentrations -- 12 the blood-level concentrations, that fell well within what's 13 considered to be a normal range for the human population. And 14 as far as the diet of the Miccosukee people go according to 15 the survey, very little people -- very few people seem to be 16 eating wild game and -- and their consumption of freshwater 17 fish has decreased in recent years, apparently in response to 18 the posting by the State of Florida of the fish advisory. 19 Q So this study has to do with the current status 20 of health among people, not necessarily the levels among fish? 21 A Right. 22 Q I'll show you another document and ask the 23 reporter to mark it as Exhibit 8, and ask if you recognize 24 that document? 25 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 47 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 8 for identification.) 2 A Yes. 3 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 4 Q What is that document or what are those 5 documents? 6 A This is summary information or draft 7 information that was prepared by the Centers for Disease 8 Control again summarizing the -- the same effort. 9 Q Does this contain some of the data that led to 10 the conclusions that are displayed in the previous exhibit, 11 Number 7? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Has this study been completed at the present 14 time? 15 A I guess the best answer for that is that's 16 unknown at this time. Where it stands is CDC is awaiting the 17 results of the fish sampling that EPA has conducted, and there 18 are other sampling efforts that need to be completed. And 19 then once all those data are available and CDC sees those, 20 they'll make a decision as to whether there is another phase 21 required or they're finished with their work. 22 Q Have those fish data been developed at this 23 time? 24 A Some of the fish have been collected, but we do 25 not have data yet. 48 1 Q Who's analyzing the fish? 2 A EPA's arranged for a contract lab to do the 3 analysis. 4 Q Which lab is that? 5 A I believe it's Hazelton Labs in Madison, 6 Wisconsin. 7 Q Is that work ongoing at the present time? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Are there any preliminary results from that 10 work? 11 A For fish, no. 12 Q When are those results expected to be gotten by 13 EPA? 14 A I would expect them in the next -- sometime in 15 the next few months. 16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Counsel, I don't mean to 17 interrupt your questioning, but just with regard to the 18 Miccosukee documents, we had earlier talked about an 19 agreement simply to limit the use of these documents 20 and information to this litigation until such time as 21 the studies are officially released in deference to the 22 wishes of the Miccosukees, and I just wanted to get on 23 the record your agreement to that stipulation. 24 MR. SAMS: I think what we discussed is that 25 they will be limited to the litigation until released 49 1 or made available to other third parties. It there's 2 any difference, I don't know the technical meaning of 3 the word released, but if the media have them or other 4 people outside the government and the Miccosukee tribe 5 and their contractors, beyond that circle have access 6 to them, I would assume we would have equal access as 7 well. 8 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: When you say released by 9 third parties, you mean -- or released to third 10 parties, you mean by the official holders of the 11 documents? 12 MR. SAMS: Right. 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Sounds reasonable to me. 14 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Yes. 15 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 16 Q It's also my understanding, however, that what 17 we have put in the record so far is, in fact, already 18 released, is that correct? 19 A My understanding is Exhibit 7 would be 20 released. I don't know that Exhibit 8 was ever released to 21 the public. Exhibit 8 was a draft. 22 MR. SAMS: Well, in any event, until it is, 23 we'll be willing to limit its use to this litigation. 24 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Thank you. 25 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Thank you. 50 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Let me show you another document, Mr. Scheidt, 3 and ask if you recognize that document? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What is this document -- or what are these 6 documents? 7 A The first page is a memo that I wrote to Dr. 8 Napoleon Kotey of the Water Management Division of EPA in 9 Atlanta; and then the remainder of the document is summaries, 10 actually data of mercury concentration in ground water or 11 drinking water wells in conjunction with the Miccosukee study 12 and a brief summary of those data, and then the memo is 13 transmitting this from myself to Dr. Kotey. 14 Q What was the basic finding from this material? 15 A The basic finding was that the concentration of 16 total mercury in these specific water samples were all below 17 the detection limit of 0.2 micrograms per liter. 18 Q Is it also true that that means they were well 19 below the limit for drinking water? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q I take it, in simplified terms, that means that 22 no problem of mercury contamination of drinking water was 23 found by this sampling exercise? 24 A That's right. 25 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Did you want to mark this as an 51 1 exhibit? 2 MR. SAMS: Oh, I'm sorry, I'll have that marked 3 as Exhibit Number 9. 4 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 9 for identification.) 6 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record for a second. 7 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 8 MR. SAMS: Let the record show that there are 9 several other Miccosukee mercury contamination study- 10 related documents that have been produced for 11 discovery; and as to those which are going to be made 12 exhibits here, the same stipulation would apply that we 13 made just a moment ago concerning the use of such 14 documents. 15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: That's acceptable to us. 16 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 17 Q I'd next like to show you what the reporter 18 will mark as Exhibit Number 10 and ask you, if you could, to 19 identify that set of documents. 20 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 21 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 10 for identification.) 22 A Yes. These are very preliminary calculations 23 that I made. 24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 25 Q What was your purpose in making these 52 1 calculations? 2 A Basically to help me in my thought process as 3 we proceed through the study as to what some of the 4 possibilities might be as to mercury -- mercury's existence in 5 the Everglades system. 6 Q When were these notes made? 7 A I'd say a few weeks ago. I don't remember a 8 specific date. 9 Q Sometime earlier this year? 10 A Yes, it would have been this year. 11 Q Approximately when? 12 A I'd say sometime during February. 13 Q I assume the heading means total mercury? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Was that the focus of the entire document or 16 set of notes? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I see your first point of focus was export in 19 EAA water. Opposite that appears a number 5 kilograms per 20 year. What does the 5 kilograms per year describe? 21 A That describes a rough estimate of what the 22 mass of total mercury exported from the EAA in surface water 23 might be, given certain assumptions. 24 Q What was the source of that number? 25 A The source of the number was a calculation made 53 1 at the top of the last page. 2 Q Could you walk me through that calculation? 3 A I've assumed that water discharge from the EAA 4 is south of 800,000 acre feet per year. 5 Q What was the source of that number? 6 A That's, I believe, information from the South 7 Florida Water Management District's Everglades swim plan, 8 average -- average number on an annual basis. 9 Q Is that net discharge from the EAA? 10 A That would be the volume of discharge through 11 the S-5A, 6,7 and 8 structures. 12 Q So that's not reduced for flow coming in, this 13 is the gross outflow of the EAA? 14 A The total volume of water passing through those 15 four structures in a year. 16 Q Okay. Then what did you do with that? 17 A Took that and multiplied it times average total 18 mercury concentration for water, and then the rest of it -- 19 the rest of the numbers there basically are conversions to get 20 to units. 21 Q Where did you get your average? 22 A I believe that's a rough average water 23 concentration for the first 50-station sampling event in 24 September of '93. 25 Q It took the 50 stations and simply averaged 54 1 those numbers, those 50 concentrations? 2 A No. I believe it's an average of the EAA 3 stations, strictly not all 50. And again, that's based on a 4 single sampling event, and these are very quick and rough 5 calculations more for my personal thought process than 6 anything. I also note that I haven't verified the 7 calculations. There's possibilities of math errors or unit 8 errors here. 9 Q Going back to the first page, the second line 10 down says something -- a set of numbers preceding fish, what 11 is that? 12 A It's 31 times 10 to the 6th. 13 Q What does that number represent? 14 A That represents the calculation done on the 15 second page of the document, then again, given certain 16 assumptions. 17 Q Now, I see the next line is inflow to ENP in 18 surface water, it says 1 kilogram per year. What's based -- 19 what's that based on? 20 A I believe that's a very -- again a very rough 21 calculation assuming a water concentration -- an average water 22 concentration from the water data that are available and 23 multiplying times the appropriate discharge for those 24 particular structures. 25 Q Was that done based on the 50-canal sampling? 55 1 A Yes. 2 Q What volume was -- was used on this inflow to 3 ENP? 4 A Five hundred thousand acre feet. 5 Q What's the source of that number? 6 A I believe I got that from -- again from water 7 budgets in the Everglades swim plan for those particular -- 8 annual discharge for those particular structures. 9 Q Now, the next line is wet deposition to south 10 Florida, and parenthesis guess, close parenthesis, 4 kilograms 11 a year. Was that an estimated number, what is that number? 12 A That's a very rough estimated number. I don't 13 have any actual data for mercury concentration in wet 14 deposition, so I assumed a value from the literature in making 15 this calculation; and again it's a very rough, and all these 16 calculations would have some errors associated with them based 17 on uncertainty and variability. And at the time -- I'll, you 18 know, repeat at the time I made these calculations were my 19 personal thought basically and certainly not intended for any 20 sort of public dissemination. 21 Q Did you arrive at any conclusions about what 22 further analysis would be needed in connection with the EMAP 23 study based on these notes? 24 A Well, in a general way it identified to me 25 certain unknowns about mercury in the system that it would be 56 1 good to get a handle on. 2 Q What were those unknowns? 3 A One is quantifying the atmosphere conditions of 4 mercury from a -- from the urban areas. 5 Q What else? 6 A Quantifying the soil, degassing or evasion of 7 mercury. 8 Q Anything else? 9 A The particle transport issue in water. 10 Q Anything else? 11 A Quantifying wet and dry deposition. 12 Q Anything else? 13 A The need for process studies. 14 Q Would that include methylation/demethylation 15 studies? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What others would that include? 18 A That'd probably be the major one in my mind in 19 addition to things related to particles. 20 Q As I understood our discussion this morning, 21 the work on particle transport while there's been some 22 discussion is not really something that's been initiated yet, 23 is that correct? 24 A Right. 25 Q Methylation/demethylation we've also discussed. 57 1 It was addressed by the Barkay work, but currently there's no 2 further work going on in that area, is that correct? 3 A Not that I'm aware of, that's right. 4 Q Is an effort being made to determine the 5 contributions from urban areas? 6 A My understanding -- by urban areas, I assume 7 you mean air emissions? 8 Q Actually, I had in mind neither one. 9 A My understanding is there's a study that the 10 State of Florida and others have been involved with beginning 11 to try to get a handle on air emissions. 12 Q Is that commonly called the FAMS, F-A-M-S 13 study? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What about water-borne transport from urban 16 areas? 17 A I recall some discussion about one -- one 18 structure in particular, but as far as the Everglades are 19 concerned, water from the urban areas as a general rule is not 20 transported westward back into the Everglades, so the urban 21 water is not a source water for the Everglades, generally 22 speaking. 23 Q Is that always so or just a general rule? 24 A That's true with the exception of the S-9 25 structure and it's assumed one is speaking in terms of surface 58 1 water. There may be some ground water interaction moving back 2 westward to the protective levy system and then back in the 3 Everglades, but as far as surface water goes, the S-9 4 structure is the only one that discharges westward from an 5 urban area back into the Everglades, the only structure I'm 6 aware of anyway. 7 Q Where is that structure? 8 A It's on the eastern edge of Water Conservation 9 Area 3, in Broward County. 10 Q Is any work going on on soil degassing? 11 A I'm not aware of any in the Everglades. 12 Q What about wet and dry deposition? 13 A The FAMS study. 14 Q I take it because these were just process of 15 thinking through certain functions, you are saying, in effect, 16 you aren't prepared to scientifically sponsor these numbers? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Pardon me, if I'm going back over old ground, 19 I'll just try to be brief. Does your work at present involve 20 both mercury and nutrient issues as far as the Everglades is 21 concerned? 22 A Yes. 23 Q I'd like to just ask you about various 24 documents in your file that we can try to understand whether 25 they have any relevance to anything. Here's a 1974 document 59 1 by Ogden, et.al. that was in your files, and I wondered if you 2 had used that for any purpose during the five years or so that 3 you've been working on the Everglades phosphorus and/or 4 mercury issues? 5 A I guess I've used it just as a general 6 reference as part of the historic literature. It contains 7 information about concentration of mercury in biota. It's of 8 some interest for that reason. 9 Q Do you know whether anybody has done work to 10 update this study? 11 A There have been more recent efforts that are 12 similar. I'm not sure that they're specifically to update 13 this study, but others have looked at mercury in biota more 14 recently. 15 Q How does this older document help, does it help 16 to establish a baseline for comparison? 17 A It may be helpful in that sense. 18 Q But it has no special significance to the work 19 you're doing or have been doing for the last say five years? 20 A I'd say it's -- it's one of the few documents 21 -- historic documents about mercury in biota that exists. And 22 the mercury concern is one of the specific issues that this 23 report raised. 24 Q That was back in 1974. From your work with the 25 park and then with EPA since 1982, I guess, pretty much, do 60 1 you have any idea why people just started getting around to 2 really homing in on that issue 15 years later? 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I object to the form of the 4 question. Go ahead. 5 A Basically, my understanding of a little bit of 6 the history is that the idea of monitoring contaminants or 7 metals or pesticides in biota is something that has been 8 suggested from time to time; and various agencies have not 9 pursued it for budgetary reasons as much as anything. And 10 with the monitoring that the State of Florida did around 1989 11 that indicated there was a mercury contamination problem with 12 fish in the Everglades, there was a renewed interest. 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Do you want to make that an 14 exhibit or not? 15 MR. SAMS: I don't think so. 16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Maybe we should just read into 17 the record what we were talking about just for clarity 18 purposes. 19 MR. SAMS: That's fine. The document under 20 discussion is a document numbered PB-235359, 21 Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenols and Heavy Metals 22 in Upper Food Chain Levels, Everglades National Park 23 and Vicinity, John C. Ogden, et.al., Everglades 24 National Park, prepared for the Department of the 25 Interior, March 1974. 61 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Let me show you another document and ask you 3 what that document is. 4 A This document is really several different 5 documents that were in my file that have ended up being 6 stapled together but really aren't associated with each other. 7 Q I'm going to have the reporter mark it as 8 Exhibit Number 11, and ask you, if you could, to go through 9 and indicate what the various documents are. 10 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 11 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 11 for identification.) 12 A The first page is a transmittal letter from 13 Richard Pfeuffer at the South Florida Water Management 14 District to myself dated June 12th, 1992, which was a letter 15 he used to transmit -- I believe he used to transmit Exhibits 16 2 and 3 to me. 17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 18 Q Those are the ones that we looked at earlier 19 this morning? 20 A Yes. 21 Q What is the next document? 22 A The next two pages are graphs of mercury 23 concentration in large-mouthed bass fillets at the L-67A 24 canal. These are hand plots that I drew. 25 Q Were you able to draw any conclusions from 62 1 those graphs? 2 A Well, a couple of things. One is that these 3 data would indicate that all the bass that had been sampled at 4 this particular location had concentrations around a part per 5 million or higher which is of interest because that's the 6 concentration that is considered high enough that people 7 should not be eating these fish for human health purposes. 8 The concentration EPA uses is 0.6, so this would suggest that 9 for some reason all of the -- all of the large-mouthed bass 10 based on this data set at this particular location have 11 excessive mercury concentrations. And then the rest of it was 12 just looking at a concentration in weight and seeing if there 13 seemed to be a relationship in plotting it out by fish sample 14 in given years, and I'm not sure what I would conclude from -- 15 from that part of the exercise. 16 Q What is the next document? 17 A Well, beginning with, I guess, with the fourth 18 page of this package, the fourth and fifth pages are maps, in 19 effect, of south Florida from Lake Okeechobee down that have 20 plotted on them sampling locations for large-mouthed bass with 21 the mean and range and number of bass collected. This is a 22 depiction of total mercury based -- well, based on data that I 23 had and again, this is something -- the handwriting is my 24 handwriting. 25 Q Are there more than one source of data that you 63 1 used in compiling these maps? 2 A This is a compilation of data that was received 3 from Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 4 Q Do you recall what -- when these bass were 5 analyzed, that is, when they were taken for analysis? 6 A My recollection is this would have been a 7 database gathered roughly from the late '80's through the time 8 that I created this, which was probably at least a year ago, 9 and the information that existed at that point in time. 10 Q Were you able to draw any conclusions based on 11 this material? 12 A Well, these data would indicate that there are 13 fish at various locations throughout the system that have 14 concentrations in excess of .6 milligrams per kilogram or 1 15 milligram per kilogram or 1.5, whatever number one wants to 16 use for human health concern. 17 Q Is there any other conclusion that you might 18 draw from these data? 19 A I don't believe so. 20 Q What is the next document? 21 A There's a page titled mercury contamination in 22 the Everglades that's dated October 15th, 1992, which is 23 basically a one-page briefing statement describing the -- this 24 issue. 25 Q Who wrote this? 64 1 A I can't remember if I wrote this or if Jerry 2 Stober wrote this or if we wrote it together, but I had a hand 3 in it anyway. 4 Q Does it accurately represent your thinking at 5 the time? 6 A I believe so, yes. 7 Q Have you seen any evidence to suggest that the 8 last sentence before the word activities may not describe what 9 is actually occurring in the Everglades? 10 A I would describe that last sentence as a -- 11 well, the sentence just prior to the word activities as a -- 12 basically, as a possibility or hypothesis. 13 Q Have you seen any evidence that might tend to 14 cast doubt on that hypothesis? 15 A I'm not sure I'd say I've seen evidence that 16 either cast doubt on it or substantiate it at this point. I'd 17 suggest it's an open hypothesis. 18 Q What are the next series of two pages that 19 appear to be notes? 20 A They're two handwritten pages or pages that 21 Jerry Stober wrote as part of thinking through what may be 22 described as a problem-solving process in relation to the 23 mercury issue in the Everglades. This was again part of the 24 thought process and planning study and trying to figure out to 25 tackle the issue, very much a draft-type document. 65 1 Q Do you know when Dr. Stober prepared this set 2 of notes? 3 A I don't specifically remember. I might add 4 just to clarify that there's a second set of handwriting on 5 there as well. 6 Q It appears in the margins of the other 7 basically? 8 A Yeah, and at the bottom of the second part of 9 that; and that second set of handwriting is mine, so really we 10 have two sets of handwriting here. 11 Q Did you participate in discussions with Dr. 12 Stober that led to the creation of this set of notes? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What is the final document? 15 A The final document is a one-page document that 16 I prepared. 17 Q What does the abbreviation TMDL mean? 18 A I don't remember and I'd rather not speculate. 19 Q But you wrote that document? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Would it be detection limit? 22 A No. It would refer to some sort of a 23 concentration that would be the maximum, either a maximum dose 24 or a concentration that's deemed desirable or acceptable, and 25 I can't remember specifically what the -- what the initials 66 1 are and I wouldn't want to, you know, speculate. 2 Q Let me show you a document and ask if you're 3 familiar with that document? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What is that document? 6 A It's a final project report for a study that 7 Doctors Delfino and Chrisman were the principal investigators 8 on, titled Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Mercury in 9 Everglades and Okefenokee Wetlands Sediments, and it's dated 10 June 30th, 1993. 11 Q Have you arrived at any conclusions based on 12 that document? 13 A I'm not sure I'd say that I've arrived at 14 conclusions. I've read it and basically, you know, taken in 15 the information that's there and, you know, consider it in 16 considering the mercury issue. 17 Q Does it tend to indicate increasing amounts of 18 mercury exist in the soils throughout the Everglades within 19 the last three to five years that mercury has been increasing, 20 in other words? 21 A I don't specifically remember that conclusion 22 being drawn as a whole in that report. 23 MR. SAMS: Why don't we take about a five-minute 24 break. I want to look at something here. 25 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 67 1 MR. SAMS: Let the record reflect that the 2 document just discussed was dated June 30th, 1993, and 3 entitled Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Mercury 4 in Everglades and Okefenokee Wetlands Sediments. 5 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 6 Q Let me show you another document that was in 7 your file and ask you if you can identify that for me. 8 A Yes. This is a copy of a memo and document, 9 and the document is a FY94 implementation plan for the 10 Ecosystems Management Team of the Athens Environmental 11 Research Laboratory. This is a document that was sent to me. 12 Q What does this document and in particular the 13 attachment describe? 14 A It describes some of the proposed research 15 activities that the Environmental Research Lab in Athens is 16 proposing to undertake in FY94. 17 Q Is that the fiscal year beginning when in '94? 18 A The fiscal year, FY94 begins in October of 19 1993. 20 Q So it's the one currently underway? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Are these projects as they regard the 23 Everglades all underway? 24 A I'm not sure. 25 Q Would you know if you were to examine? 68 1 A Well, no, I wouldn't. My understanding is that 2 the funding aspects for this particular effort described in 3 this package are still up in the air, and I'm not sure what 4 has and has not been initiated specifically and -- or for that 5 matter, whether it won't be initiated. 6 Q I'd like to have that document marked as 7 Exhibit Number 12, is it? Do you happen to know what time 8 table it's on for the decisions to be made concerning these 9 projects? 10 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 11 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 12 for identification.) 12 A No. 13 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 14 Q Let me show you a set of notes that I'll ask 15 the reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 13. 16 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 17 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 13 for identification.) 18 Q Were those your notes? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What was the meeting in question? I notice the 21 date February 1, '93. 22 A My recollection is this was a mercury internal 23 review meeting that was undertaken in order to try to plan the 24 EPA EMAP mercury effort and the -- you know, the study of the 25 ecological risk assessment of mercury contamination in the 69 1 Everglades. This was a meeting held February 1st and 2nd, 2 1993. 3 Q Were you present at the meeting? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Who else was present? 6 A My recollection is there were perhaps 20 people 7 present at the meeting. I'd be pretty hard-pressed to name -- 8 Q Was it an internal EPA meeting? 9 A No. There were people outside of EPA there as 10 well. 11 Q Representatives of state agencies? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Department of Environmental Regulation in 14 Florida, Mr. Atkeson -- Dr. Atkeson? 15 A Tom Atkeson was there. Yeah, I guess he is 16 with Department of Environmental Protection at this point in 17 time. 18 Q South Florida Water Management District 19 representatives? 20 A I'm not sure. 21 Q What was the topic, cost/benefit of mitigation, 22 as you recall it? 23 A I don't remember specifically. 24 Q Do you have a general recollection? 25 A No. 70 1 Q Do you know what was discussed under the topic, 2 sources/sinks, rate of transfer between? 3 A Not specifically. 4 Q No general recollection either? 5 A No. And maybe I can just help by saying there 6 -- there have been a series of meetings like this, and as I 7 sit here a year later, it is difficult to differentiate, you 8 know, what specifically was said or went on at what meeting or 9 who was present. 10 Q Can you recall why you placed a star beside the 11 point, mercury is the stressor, period, others things 12 contribute to release something or other in transport? 13 A My recollection is there was some discussion 14 about the concept of indicators that one might measure in an 15 ecosystem and stressors and there was discussion about what is 16 an indicator and what is a stressor; and in relation to 17 mercury, the suggestion was made that mercury is a stressor, 18 period, and that there may be a variety of things that 19 contribute to the release of mercury, the uptake of mercury, 20 the transport of mercury or so forth, but for purposes of this 21 planning exercise, mercury would be viewed as the stressor. 22 MR. SAMS: Did we mark that one? 23 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I think we did, yes. 24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 25 Q I'd like to show you a document that appears to 71 1 be a handwritten memo from you to Mr. Hicks -- is it Dr. Hicks 2 -- and Dr. Stober dated 6/17/92 and ask if you recognize that. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you recognize the article that's attached to 5 it? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Have you for any purpose relied on the Simons 8 article that's attached there? 9 A Not especially. I would also note that this is 10 incomplete; the whole article doesn't appear to be here. 11 Q Do you know whether the Simons article is part 12 of the peer-reviewed literature? 13 A I'm not familiar with the review process of 14 that particular journal. 15 Q Let me show you another document and ask you if 16 you recognize it? 17 A Yes. 18 MR. SAMS: I'll ask the court reporter to mark 19 that Exhibit Number 14. 20 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 21 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 14 for identification.) 22 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 23 Q What is that document? 24 A This is a conceptualization showing a potential 25 methyl -- methylation -- mercury methylation profile. This is 72 1 a depiction that I drew by hand. 2 Q Where were you showing methylation to occur in 3 this profile? 4 A This again is another one of these documents 5 for thought processes and planning purposes, and what I've 6 depicted here is methylation activity being highest at the 7 soil-water interface to the upper portions of the surface 8 soil, but this is not based on data for the Everglades. It's 9 a conceptualization of what's been published for other systems 10 and how it may relate to the Everglades system. If what's 11 been observed in other systems is, in fact, what is observed 12 or takes place in the Everglades, but I don't know that at 13 this point. 14 Q So you've not specifically sought to verify 15 this through data? 16 A Not specifically, but it was used in designing 17 the -- the EMAP study in figuring out what media to sample and 18 where in those media to sample. 19 Q So this concept was utilized in formulating 20 that study? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Let me show you another document and ask you if 23 those were the fish tissue data that you used in creating a 24 map that we discussed earlier. 25 A This is a depiction of some of those data. I'm 73 1 not sure if this is the particular document I used for that 2 map because there are different versions of this document. 3 Q Have you used this document for any other 4 purpose? 5 A No. 6 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Do you want this back or -- I'm 7 sorry. 8 MR. SAMS: I'm trying to figure out -- let's go 9 off the record for a second. 10 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 11 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 12 Q Then these were not all of the data you used in 13 making that map, but these are some of them? 14 A I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the map and 15 compare it to this to see if this is the iteration of the data 16 set that I used. And I also should clarify there was another 17 -- at least one other spatial depiction of the data that I did 18 that we haven't seen yet today based on these same data. 19 Q Could you describe that one for me? 20 A It's sort of an oblique view of south Florida, 21 south of Lake Okeechobee that has bars, in effect, a 3-D view 22 and the bars depict the mean concentration of total mercury in 23 large-mouthed bass fillets, and there is various copies of 24 that that show -- one shows the mean, one shows the min, one 25 shows the max concentration and so forth. 74 1 Q Let's go ahead and mark this Exhibit Number 15. 2 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 15 for identification.) 4 MR. LIPSHULTZ: That's the same thing we were 5 just talking about, right? 6 MR. SAMS: Yes. 7 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 8 Q Let me show you two pages that may be the 9 minimum and maximum depictions that you were referring to, are 10 they? 11 A Yes. 12 MR. SAMS: I'd like to have this marked as 13 Exhibit Number 16. 14 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 16 for identification.) 16 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 17 Q What was your purpose in attempting to arrange 18 these data, what were you attempting to discern? 19 A Looking at whether or not there seemed to be a 20 spatial pattern with the mercury concentration in the large- 21 mouthed bass fillets for this system, with the information in 22 hand at that point in time. 23 Q Did you find such a spatial pattern? 24 A These data would suggest that there is a 25 spatial pattern. 75 1 Q What is it? 2 A There seems to be a region or zone around Water 3 Conservation Area 2 and 3 and extending southward into the 4 park, that -- where all of the large-mouthed bass that have 5 sampled have a concentration that exceed a part per million or 6 a concentration of .6 part per million, whatever number one 7 wants to look at. 8 Q Could you conclude from these data why that 9 spatial distribution occurred? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you seen other data from which you could 12 conclude why that spatial distribution occurred? 13 A No. 14 Q Have you seen any data that would suggest why 15 it occurred? 16 A No. 17 Q Is that answer inclusive of data you've seen up 18 until now? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Is part of the EMAP study effort to determine 21 why that distribution occurs? 22 A In part. 23 Q How will EMAP lend itself to doing that? 24 A Well, EMAP will attempt to determine what kind 25 of spatial patterns exist in the various media to better 76 1 assess the magnitude and extent and distribution of mercury 2 throughout the system in the various media, and once that 3 information is in place, that may lead to other efforts to 4 better define the sources and the mechanisms and the processes 5 that are resulting in this distribution of mercury in fish, 6 large-mouthed bass or other fish. 7 Q Is that left to a stage of the EMAP work that's 8 beyond this stage currently underway? 9 A Yes. I would say the EMAP work will hopefully 10 provide a useful foundation. 11 Q Let me show you another document that appears 12 in your file. It reads, mercury in Florida-related research 13 projects, 1992 to 1997, and ask if you can identify that 14 document for me. 15 A It's a summary of research projects in Florida 16 having to do with mercury for 1992 to 1997. 17 Q For the five-year period? Is it an EPA 18 summary? 19 A My recollection is it's a summary prepared by 20 Jerry Stober. 21 Q Can you identify from this document what the 22 project total is for the whole? 23 A I believe one would have to add several numbers 24 from several pages to come up with the whole. 25 Q Does this have anything to do with your 77 1 particular work, other than you may have work related to one 2 or more of these projects? Are you responsible for helping 3 develop this kind of data? 4 A No. 5 Q Let me show you another similar document and 6 ask if the same thing holds true for that? 7 A This new document I prepared. 8 Q What is that document, the new one? 9 A The new document is a summary I was asked to 10 prepare that pulls together EPA's activities in the south 11 Florida ecosystem and EPA's expenditure of funds in that 12 ecosystem. 13 Q That may be multiple copies. 14 A Yeah, actually the original document is a 15 four-page document. 16 Q In fact, if you could hand it back, I think I 17 can separate the copies. I just handed you my whole set. 18 Now, all I have is a two-page document from your file, does 19 that mean there are two pages missing? 20 A The entire document's four pages, but there are 21 only two pages that are pertinent to mercury. 22 Q And these are they? 23 A Right. 24 Q So are all the projects on here having to do 25 with mercury in the south Florida area, is that the correct 78 1 understanding? 2 A Not all of the projects on these two pages have 3 to do with mercury. 4 Q Which ones do? 5 A On the first page, there are two items, the 6 fourth item, mercury study for the Miccosukee tribe of Indians 7 and actually there's two things listed there. The first item 8 refer -- refers to the CDC effort that we talked about 9 previously, and then the next item refers to the EPA effort 10 that we also talked about. And then the second page of the 11 document, all of that has to do with mercury efforts in south 12 Florida. 13 Q How current is this document, what's its date? 14 A August 3rd, 1993. 15 MR. SAMS: We'll mark that document then as 16 Exhibit Number 17. 17 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 17 for identification.) 19 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Do you have an extra copy 20 of that there? 21 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 22 Q Let me show you another document that's 23 actually a brief message that appears to be to you and a fax 24 and attachment. Mainly, I'm interested in the attachment, did 25 you prepare that? 79 1 A Yes. 2 Q What is that a summary of? 3 A It's the attachment, which is the last page, of 4 the document. It is text on two issues; one is the Everglades 5 Nutrient Threshold Research and Nutrient Water Quality 6 Criteria Development, and the second issue is Mercury 7 Contamination in the Everglades;