STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF ) FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural ) Cooperative Marketing Association, ) CASE NOS. 92-3038 ROTH FARMS, INC., and ) 92-3039 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 92-3040 ) and ) ) FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) ) _______________________ and ) FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) DEPOSITION ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, ) W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) OF and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) ) GARY N. BIGHAM 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 OF ) FLORIDA, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, THE ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and ) THE SIERRA CLUB, ) Respondent-Intervenors. ) ___________________________________ ) AT DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA MARCH 31, 1994 REPORTED BY: CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES MR. BIGHAM PAGE 2 APPEARANCES: SUGARCANE GROWERS GARY P. SAMS, ESQUIRE COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, HOPPING, BOYD, GREEN & SAMS ROTH FARMS, INC., 123 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC.: TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314 TELEPHONE: (904) 222-7500 FOR RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR: LISA B. HOGAN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 N.E. 4TH STREET 3RD FLOOR MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 TELEPHONE: (305) 536-4425 ALSO PRESENT: DR. RONALD JONES DR. ELIZABETH HENRY MR. BIGHAM PAGE 3 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S E X A M I N A T I O N I N D E X DEPONENT - GARY N. BIGHAM - 3/31/94 EXAMINATION: PAGES BY MS. HOGAN 5-133 ------------------------------------------------------- E X H I B I T S I N D E X NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED DEF. #1 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION - DUCES TECUM 13 DEF. #2 SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION OF EXPERT 19 & FACT WITNESSES OF PETITIONERS, SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ROTH FARMS, INC., AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC. DEF. #3 CURRICULUM VITAE OF GARY N. BIGHAM 23 DEF. #4 LETTER TO DR. MIKE SOUKUP FROM TAMAR 46 BARKAY AND RATHI KAVANAUGH, DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 DEF. #5 KBN REPORT ON WATER SAMPLING IN THE 50 HOLEYLAND, WATER CONSERVATION AREA-2A, AND THE EVERGLADES NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROJECT, DATED MARCH 1994 DEF. #6 KBN REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING AND 50 TISSUE ANALYSIS OF FISH COLLECTED IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, DATED MARCH 1994 DEF. #7 LETTER TO MR. WILLIAM H. GREEN FROM 56 GARY N. BIGHAM, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 1994 MR. BIGHAM PAGE 4 E X H I B I T S I N D E X NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED DEF. #8 MISCELLANEOUS DATA ON FLORIDA LAKES 65 DEF. #9 MISCELLANEOUS DATA FROM EMAP PROGRAM 66 SAMPLING DEF. #10 ADDITIONAL NOTES RELATING TO KBN DATA 68 DEF. #11 LETTER/REPORT TO WILLIAM H. GREEN 69 FROM GARY N. BIGHAM, DATED MARCH 17, 1994 DEF. #12 FAX TO GARY SAMS FROM BETSY HENRY, 121 SUBJECT: EXPERT REPORT - DRAFT, DATED MARCH 22, 1994 DEF. #13 FINAL DRAFT REPORT PREPARED BY PTI, 121 ENTITLED, THE INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHORUS ON MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION IN THE EVERGLADES, DATED MARCH 1994 ------------------------------------------------------- SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEPONENT 134 CERTIFICATION OF COURT REPORTER 135 MR. BIGHAM PAGE 5 STIPULATIONS ON MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION, WASHINGTON, D.C., THE DEPOSITION OF GARY N. BIGHAM MAY BE TAKEN BEGINNING AT OR AROUND 9:00 A.M. ON MARCH 31, 1994, AT THE HILTON HOTEL, 3800 HILLSBOROUGH ROAD, THE WALKER SUITE, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, AND WAS REPORTED BY CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES. THE SIGNATURE OF THE WITNESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY IS HEREBY REQUIRED. - - - - - - - - - - - WHEREUPON, GARY N. BIGHAM, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN: Q. GOOD MORNING. A. HI. Q. MY NAME IS LISA HOGAN, AND I REPRESENT THE UNITES STATES IN THIS MATTER. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR TESTIMONY THAT WILL BE GIVEN AT THE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 6 HEARING IN THIS MATTER. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I'LL TRY TO REPHRASE THEM FOR YOU, BUT WE WILL ASSUME IF YOU ANSWER, IT MEANS THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT I ASKED. A. YES. Q. OKAY. CAN YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? A. MY NAME IS GARY NEIL BIGHAM. Q. OKAY. AND WHAT IS YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS? A. IT'S 1601 TRAPELO ROAD, WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS. Q. WHERE IS YOUR PRESENT PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT? A. PTI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH PTI? A. APPROXIMATELY SIX AND A HALF YEARS. Q. AND WHAT ARE YOUR PRESENT DUTIES? A. I'M VICE-PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EASTERN REGION OF THE COMPANY. Q. OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE AT PRESENT? A. MY AREA OF EXPERTISE IS RELATED TO THE VALUATION OF THE TRANSPORT, AND FATE, AND EFFECTS OF TOXICANTS OR POLLUTANTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. Q. OKAY. HOW HAVE YOU GAINED THAT EXPERTISE? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 7 A. THROUGH A COMBINATION OF UNIVERSITY WORK AND A LITTLE OVER TWENTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED AT TRIAL BEFORE? A. YES, I HAVE. Q. IN WHAT MATTERS? A. THEY WERE VARIED. I GUESS THE FIRST ONE WAS AS A FACTUAL WITNESS THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE CONDUCT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS THAT WERE PERFORMED BY MY EMPLOYER AND SUBCONTRACTOR. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STYLE OF THAT CASE IS, THE NAME OF THE CASE? A. NO, IT'S QUITE -- QUITE OLD. IT WAS IN THE LATE SEVENTIES. I THINK IT WAS -- WELL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN -- IT INVOLVED TETRA TECH AND NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL. Q. OKAY. AND WHO DID YOU TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF? A. TETRA TECH, WHO WAS MY EMPLOYER AT THAT TIME. Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THE STYLE OF THE CASE OR THE CASE NUMBER, OR ANYTHING? DO YOU THINK YOU COULD PUT YOUR HANDS ON IT AND LOCATE THAT INFORMATION? A. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY -- I HAVE NOT RETAINED ANYTHING RELATED TO THAT. Q. WOULD TETRA TECH STILL HAVE INFORMATION ON IT? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 8 A. I HAVE NO IDEA. Q. WHO AT TETRA TECH COULD WE CALL TO FIND OUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE? A. YOU COULD CALL SOMEONE IN THEIR HEADQUARTERS OFFICE IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA? Q. DO YOU HAVE THE NAME OF ANYBODY THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY CONTACT? A. THE PRESIDENT. Q. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THAT CASE? A. I HAD BEEN THE RESIDENT MANAGER OF OUR OPERATIONS IN JUBAIL, SAUDI ARABIA, WHERE WE HAD A MULTIPLE-YEAR CONTRACT TO MEASURE A VARIETY OF MARINE WATER QUALITY, BIOLOGICAL -- MARINE BIOLOGY, SOME GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS, AND ALSO HAD A -- QUITE A LARGE AIR QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK THAT WAS INSTALLED. THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN TETRA TECH AND THE CONTRACTOR WHO INSTALLED THE AIR QUALITY MONITORING EQUIPMENT, NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL, AS TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM. AND SO MY TESTIMONY RELATED TO THE FACT THAT I WAS THE RESIDENT MANAGER AND INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE THING. Q. OKAY. HOW WAS THAT LITIGATION RESOLVED? A. I THINK IT WAS ULTIMATELY DROPPED. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 9 Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY OTHER LAWSUITS? A. YES. MORE RECENTLY I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN A CASE INVOLVING SHELL OIL COMPANY, AND I ACTUALLY DON'T REMEMBER THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF OTHER NAMES INVOLVED ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LOWRY LANDFILL IN THE DENVER AREA. AND I PROVIDED EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE NATURE OF SOME OF SHELL'S WASTE MATERIAL, AS TO WHETHER IT CONSTITUTED A HAZARDOUS WASTE OR NOT. Q. WHAT TYPE OF MATERIAL WAS IT? A. IT WAS SOLID RESIDUE FROM A PESTICIDE INCINERATOR, SO BASICALLY A SALT MATERIAL. Q. OKAY. WHEN WAS THIS, THIS LAWSUIT, THE SHELL OIL? A. IT WAS LAST YEAR, '93; AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, BUT--- Q. HAS IT BEEN RESOLVED YET? A. I BELIEVE IT WAS SETTLED, YES, LAST JUNE. Q. OKAY. AND SO, THE NATURE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT WAS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AS AN EXPERT? A. CORRECT. Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INVOLVEMENT? DID YOU -- WAS YOUR DEPOSITION TAKEN IN THAT? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 10 A. IT WAS, YES. Q. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER LAWSUITS THAT YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN? A. THE THIRD AND LAST ONE WAS, I THINK, EARLIER THIS YEAR. I WAS DEPOSED ON A MATTER REGARDING AN INSURANCE COMPANY AND A COMPANY THAT I HAD DONE WORK FOR IN THE PAST. I HAD, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, PREPARED A WORK PLAN FOR A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE BUNKER HILL MINE IN IDAHO. AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THERE WAS SOME LITIGATION BETWEEN THE COMPANY THAT OWNED THE MINE, GULF RESOURCES AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, AND THEIR INSURANCE CARRIER, REGARDING INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THAT. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS INTERESTED IN WHAT I REMEMBERED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORK PLAN FOR THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. Q. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER THE NAMES OF EITHER OF THE COMPANIES? A. WELL, GULF RESOURCES AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION WAS THE FIRM THAT I HAD WORKED FOR BEFORE, AND THE -- I BELIEVE IT WAS A GROUP OF INSURANCE CARRIERS, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO ALL WAS INVOLVED THERE. Q. ALL RIGHT. SO, THE GULF RESOURCES CASE, THAT WAS AN IDAHO CASE? A. WELL, IT'S LOCATED IN IDAHO. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 11 Q. WHERE WAS THE LAWSUIT--- A. IS IT AN IDAHO CASE? Q. ---FILED? A. I BELIEVE IT IS AN IDAHO CASE, YES. Q. AND WHAT ABOUT THE SHELL OIL CASE, WHAT STATE IS THAT IN? A. I PRESUME IT'S COLORADO. Q. AND THE TETRA TECH CASE, WHERE WAS THAT ONE? A. CALIFORNIA, I BELIEVE. Q. YOU SAY YOU HAVE BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE. WERE YOU DEPOSED IN ALL THREE OF THOSE CASES? A. YES. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU BEEN DEPOSED IN ANY OTHER CASES? A. NO. Q. DO YOU KNOW THE ATTORNEY FOR TETRA TECH IN THE FIRST CASE, THE NAME OF THE LAW FIRM? A. NO, I DON'T. Q. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE SHELL OIL; WERE YOU EMPLOYED BY SHELL OIL, THAT'S WHO YOU REPRESENTED? A. NO, I WAS EMPLOYED BY THEIR OUTSIDE COUNSEL. I CAN'T THINK OF THE FIRST NAME OF THE -- THE LAW FIRM. IT'S SOMETHING, HULTON AND SPAANSTRA, IN DENVER. Q. HOLTEN? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 12 A. HULTON, H-U-L-T-O-N, AND SPAANSTRA. Q. AND YOU JUST CAN'T REMEMBER THE FIRST NAME? A. NO. Q. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS FOR GULF RESOURCES? A. IN THAT CASE, I WAS NOT -- I WAS NOT RETAINED. I WAS DEPOSED; I WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. Q. OKAY. DID IN-HOUSE COUNSEL HANDLE THAT FOR GULF RESOURCES, OR DID THEY HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL? A. GULF HAD OUTSIDE RESOURCES -- OR OUTSIDE COUNSEL. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF THAT FIRM IS, OR WHO THOSE ATTORNEYS ARE? A. WILKIE, FARR AND GALLAGHER. Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU A COPY OF YOUR NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM. A. UH-HUH (YES). Q. AND ASK YOU IF THAT WAS THE NOTICE THAT YOU RECEIVED FOR YOUR DEPOSITION TODAY. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. YES, I RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL HAVE THAT MARKED AS THE FIRST EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 13 (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) ON PAGE SIX OF YOUR NOTICE, THERE'S A LIST OF DOCUMENTS, WHICH WE ASKED YOU TO PRODUCE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DEPOSITION THAT'S BEING TAKEN TODAY. A. YES. Q. AND I'D LIKE YOU TO GO THROUGH THAT LIST AND TELL ME IF YOU HAVE, IN FACT, PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE THERETO. HAVE YOU PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER ONE? A. YES, I BELIEVE A COPY OF MY CV WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE THAT WENT TO YOU. MR. SAMS: COULD I JUST MAKE ONE INQUIRY, SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR. WE SUBMITTED, IN EFFECT, A JOINT PRODUCTION FOR BOTH OF THE WITNESSES FROM PTI, BIGHAM AND HENRY, AND I ASSUME THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT PRODUCTION THAT CONTAINED BOTH OF THEM. IS THAT CORRECT? MS. HOGAN: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY YOU HAD IT LABELED. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 14 MR. SAMS: RIGHT, OKAY. Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HAVE YOU PRODUCED THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER TWO? A. YES. Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER THREE? A. YES. Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER FOUR? A. YES, THERE WEREN'T ANY. Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL OF THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER FIVE? A. YES. Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER SIX? A. YES. Q. AND THE SAME FOR REQUEST NUMBER SEVEN? A. YES. Q. ALL OF THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER EIGHT? A. YES. Q. ALL OF THE ITEMS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST NUMBER NINE? A. YES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 15 Q. THOSE RESPONSIVE TO NUMBER TEN? A. YES. Q. AND NUMBER 11? A. YES. Q. AND NUMBER 12? A. YES. Q. 13? A. YES. Q. 14? A. YES. Q. ALL ITEMS LISTED IN NUMBER 15? A. YES. Q. AND NUMBER 16? A. YES. Q. AND NUMBER 17? A. YES. Q. NUMBER 18? A. YES. Q. NUMBER 19? A. YES. Q. NUMBER 20? A. YES. Q. NUMBER 21? A. YES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 16 Q. 22? A. YES. Q. 23? A. YES. Q. 24? A. YES. Q. THOSE LISTED IN 25? A. YES. Q. 26? A. YES. Q. 27? A. YES. Q. 28? A. YES. Q. 29? A. YES. Q. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ALL THE ITEMS LISTED IN NUMBER 30? A. YES. Q. 31? A. YES. Q. 32? A. YES. Q. 33? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 17 A. YES. Q. THOSE LISTED IN 34? A. YES. Q. 35? A. YES. Q. 36? A. YES. Q. 37? A. YES. Q. THOSE LISTED IN 38? A. YES. Q. AND THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN 39? A. YES. MS. HOGAN: IN DR. HENRY'S DEPOSITION, YOU HANDED ME A LIST OF ITEMS THAT WERE PRIVILEGED, THAT WERE RETAINED BECAUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE, MR. SAMS, AND DOES THAT LIST APPLY TO MR. BIGHAM AS WELL? MR. SAMS: YES. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS? A. YES, I DO. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 18 Q. OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT AREAS AND ISSUES YOU'LL BE RENDERING OPINIONS ABOUT IN THIS MATTER? A. YES, I AM. Q. WHAT ARE THOSE AREAS? A. THERE ARE SEVERAL, THE FIRST BEING THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE LITERATURE RELATED TO INFLUENCE OF NUTRIENTS ON BIOACUMULATION OF MERCURY FROM THIS COUNTRY, ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND ALSO IN FLORIDA; AND BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A DEFINITE INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHORUS ON MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE DATA AVAILABLE FOR THE EVERGLADES AND BELIEVE THAT WE SEE THE SAME INFLUENCE IN THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM. WE HAVE ALSO -- OR I HAVE ALSO EVALUATED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE STA'S MAY PRODUCE OR MAY EXHIBIT THE SO-CALLED RESERVOIR EFFECT, WITH RESPECT TO INCREASED METHYLMERCURY BEING GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE WETLAND TREATMENT SYSTEM. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH A VERY DEFINITE CONCLUSION OR BE ABLE TO PREDICT EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO COME OUT IN THE EFFLUENT FROM THOSE. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT, AT BEST, THEY WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SOURCE OF METHYLMERCURY TO THE DOWNSTREAM EVERGLADES. HOWEVER I THINK THERE IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD MR. BIGHAM PAGE 19 BE A SOURCE OF MERCURY TO THE -- TO THE EVERGLADES. Q. OKAY. A. I THINK ON BALANCE, THAT GIVEN THE POTENTIAL RISK POSED BY MERCURY TO HUMAN HEALTH AND WILDLIFE, THAT THERE'S NO QUESTION BUT WHAT THIS SUBJECT SHOULD BE EVALUATED FURTHER, BY FURTHER INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM. Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT, WHICH WE RECEIVED FROM THE COOP, WHICH IS A SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION OF EXPERT AND FACT WITNESSES. I'D ASK IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT DOCUMENT? A. YES. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MARK THAT AS THE SECOND EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO BELOW WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) OKAY. ACCORDING TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR EXPECTED TESTIMONY IS THE FATE, TRANSPORT, AND EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 20 A. YES. Q. OKAY. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS AND OPINIONS WILL BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS OF MERCURY AND RELATED SAMPLING WITHIN THE EAA AND THE EPA; AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED SWIM PLAN ON MERCURY CONTAMINATION IN THE PROPOSED STA'S AND THE EPA. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? A. YES. Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, CAN YOU SUMMARIZE FOR US, PLEASE, THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR OPINIONS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S, AND THEIR EFFECT ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION? A. I'VE NOT LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT THE -- I GUESS WHAT YOU'D CALL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S. WE'VE REALLY EVALUATED THAT POINT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT IT WILL BE A WETLAND. IT WILL BE AN IMPOUNDMENT. IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT'S RECEIVING PHOSPHORUS OR NUTRIENTS, AND THAT IT WILL PROVIDE PROBABLY ADDITIONAL CARBON SOURCES TO THE SEDIMENT THAT WILL PROBABLY CREATE -- END UP CREATING CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONDUCIVE TO MERCURY METHYLATION. Q. OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE CONSTRUCTION, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CONSTRUCTION? A. WELL, I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE EXACT DIMENSIONS MR. BIGHAM PAGE 21 AND THE DESIGN, THE DETAILS OF THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. Q. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR OPINIONS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S AND THEIR EFFECT ON METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION; WOULD YOUR ANSWER BE THE SAME? A. WELL, AGAIN, NOT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION POINT OF VIEW, BUT JUST FROM THE CONCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW THAT YOU HAVE A SETTLING BASIN, SO TO SPEAK, WHICH IS THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, AND THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE ELEVATED METHYLMERCURY WITHIN THE SYSTEM. THIS GETS TO BE THE VERY DIFFICULT THING TO PREDICT, AS TO WHETHER THERE IS GOING TO BE INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OR NOT, WITHIN THE STA. THIS GETS AT A VERY -- OR A SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT ISSUE OF BEING ABLE TO PREDICT WHETHER THERE WILL BE A SUFFICIENT MASS OF PARTICLES IN THE WATER COLUMN OF THE STA TO ABSORB THE METHYLMERCURY, AND UNDERSTANDING AN EXACT MECHANISM AS TO THEN HOW THAT METHYLMERCURY IS GOING TO GET INTO THE FISH. THIS GETS TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE OF HOW PHOSPHORUS CAN AMELIORATE BIOACCUMULATION IN FISH TISSUE. AND EXACTLY HOW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE STA IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT. Q. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO THE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 22 EFFECT OF PHOSPHORUS ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION? A. YES. I THINK THAT AS YOU ADD PHOSPHORUS TO THE SYSTEM, YOU END UP INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF ORGANIC CARBON IN THAT SYSTEM. AND THEN A CRITICAL OR AN IMPORTANT STEP IS THAT CARBON THEN SETTLES OUT OF THE WATER COLUMN AND TENDS TO ENRICH THE SEDIMENTS, PROVIDING BOTH A CARBON SOURCE TO BACTERIA, AND ALSO ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE CONDUCIVE TO METHYLATION BY SULFATE REDUCING BACTERIA. Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO THE RESERVOIR EFFECT IN THE NORTHERN AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE NORTHERN -- THE NORTHERN LAKES, WHAT THAT IS CAUSED BY? A. THE EXACT CAUSE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CLEAR. MOST OF THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THE SO-CALLED RESERVOIR EFFECT IS MORE OR LESS SIMPLY NOTING THAT WHEN YOU FLOOD NEW AREAS THAT YOU END UP WITH ELEVATED METHYLMERCURY IN FISH TISSUE. THE EXACT MECHANISM AND CAUSE IS NOT WELL ESTABLISHED. Q. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO THAT EFFECT, THAT NORTHERN RESERVOIR EFFECT, AND HOW IT RELATES TO SUBTROPICAL WETLANDS, THE SUBTROPICAL STA'S? A. WELL, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY DIRECT OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESERVOIR EFFECT IN SUBTROPICAL AREAS, BUT I DO MR. BIGHAM PAGE 23 BELIEVE THAT ONE COULD REASONABLY EXPECT THE SAME KIND OF PHENOMENON COULD OCCUR. THE DIFFICULTY IS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IN UNDERSTANDING JUST HOW THINGS LIKE PHOSPHORUS COULD SERVE TO MITIGATE BIOACCUMULATION IN AN ACTUAL STA. IT SHOULD BE EXPECTED; IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PREDICT, RIGHT AT THIS TIME. Q. WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT IT TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT? A. I SAY IT SHOULD BE EXPECTED BECAUSE THE SO-CALLED RESERVOIR EFFECT HAS BEEN OBSERVED ELSEWHERE; THEREFORE, ONE SHOULD CONSIDER THE PROPOSED STA'S IN LIGHT OF THAT. BEING ABLE TO PREDICT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME, THOUGH, IS DIFFICULT AND A SUBJECT THAT REQUIRES MORE RESEARCH. Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT, AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? A. THIS IS A COPY OF MY RESUME. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. I'VE GOT THE SAME DOCUMENT. WE'RE GOING TO MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 3 - GARY N. BIGHAM MR. BIGHAM PAGE 24 DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS? A. SINCE ABOUT 1989, THE FALL OF 1989. Q. OKAY. DOES YOUR INVOLVEMENT INCLUDE WATER, SOILS, AND SEDIMENT? A. YES. Q. OKAY. WHAT HAS BEEN THE NATURE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT? A. I AM THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR A MAJOR INVESTIGATION OF MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION IN ONONDAGA LAKE, WHICH IS LOCATED IN UPSTATE NEW YORK. Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF A PROJECT MANAGER; WHAT DOES THAT ENCOMPASS? A. WELL, BASICALLY TO BE THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR IN CHARGE OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. Q. OKAY. IS THE EXTENT OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND METAL COMPOUNDS LISTED -- I MEAN, LIMITED TO THE ONONDAGA LAKE? A. THAT IS THE ONLY PROJECT INVOLVING NEW DATA COLLECTION IN MERCURY THAT I'M INVOLVED WITH, YES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 25 Q. WHAT OTHER PROJECTS HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED WITH, OTHER THAN THAT, OTHER THAN -- YOUR ANSWER IMPLIED THAT AT PRESENT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN SOMETHING PRIOR? A. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY OTHER FIELD DATA COLLECTION OF MERCURY-TYPE PROJECTS IN THE PAST, NO. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT IN OTHER PROJECTS, NOT NECESSARILY FIELD DATA COLLECTION, BUT OTHER PROJECTS OR OTHER STUDIES, REGARDING--- A. RELATED TO MERCURY? Q. TO MERCURY. A. YES, I HAVE. Q. AND WHAT ARE THOSE? A. WE RECENTLY COMPLETED A PROJECT FOR ALCOA THAT WAS A REVIEW OF MERCURY CYCLING AND BIOACCUMULATION LITERATURE THAT I WORKED WITH BETSY HENRY ON. Q. OKAY. ANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU WORKED ON? A. NO. Q. SO, YOU'VE NOT HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE ANALYSIS OR STUDY OF MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS IN WETLANDS? A. NO, I HAVE NOT. Q. WETLAND AREAS? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 26 A. NONE IN WETLANDS, NO. Q. IS ONONDAGA A LAKE OR A RESERVOIR? A. IT'S A LAKE. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE STUDY OF -- AN ANALYSIS OF MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS IN RESERVOIRS, MAN-MADE RESERVOIRS? A. NO. ONLY AN EVALUATION OF THE LITERATURE FROM THOSE KINDS OF PROJECTS. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY WORKS REGARDING MERCURY, OR MERCURY METHYLATION, OR MERCURY COMPOUNDS? A. YES, I'M THE CO-AUTHOR OF TWO POSTERS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE SETAC CONFERENCE LAST YEAR, OR THE SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, REGARDING SOME OF OUR RESULTS FROM ONONDAGA LAKE. Q. WHAT'S A POSTER? A. IT'S A FORM OF PRESENTATION AT A CONFERENCE. YOU PUT YOUR INFORMATION ONTO A POSTER, THAT'S, AS THE NAME IMPLIES, THAT'S PUT ON A WALL; AND THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WITH OTHERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING IT, RATHER THAN -- AS OPPOSED TO A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION. Q. OH, OKAY. IT'S NOT A PUBLICATION, IT'S NOT A PAPER OR A REPORT? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 27 A. IT'S A FORM OF A REPORT OR A PAPER. IT CONVEYS RESULTS OF A PROJECT, AS A TALK AT A CONFERENCE WOULD. Q. OKAY. A. AND WE -- I SHOULD ADD, WE PRODUCED COPIES OF THE TEXT AND GRAPHICS FROM THAT POSTER. Q. IN THE PRODUCTION? A. YES. Q. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLISHED WORKS? A. ONLY PROJECT-RELATED MATERIALS. THEY WOULDN'T QUALIFY AS PUBLISHED TECHNICAL LITERATURE. Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLISHED WORKS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF PHOSPHORUS OR PHOSPHATE? A. NO, I DON'T. Q. HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ANALYSIS OF PHOSPHORUS IN ANY OTHER AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS? A. IT HAS COMMONLY COME UP IN PROJECTS IN THE PAST. I CAN'T THINK OF A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE, BUT THE--- Q. OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR BACKGROUND IS MORE THE STUDY OF FRESHWATER NORTHERN LAKES; IS THAT YOUR BACKGROUND? A. NO, MY BACKGROUND IS FAR MORE VARIED THAN MR. BIGHAM PAGE 28 THAT. I'VE DONE A NUMBER OF INVESTIGATION IN MARINE WATERS, ESTUARINE WATERS, FRESHWATERS, RIVERS, LAKES, GROUNDWATER, NORTHERN LATITUDES, SOUTHERN LATITUDES, NORTH AMERICA, MIDDLE EAST. Q. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS, CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL, INVOLVED IN MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN BIOTA IN THE NORTHERN LAKE THAT YOU'VE STUDIED? A. LET ME ANSWER THAT WITH REFERENCE TO ONONDAGA LAKE, WHICH IS THE SYSTEM THAT IS THE ONE THAT I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH. IT'S ALSO THE SYSTEM, I THINK, THAT'S MOST RELEVANT TO THE EVERGLADES. WE FIND THAT MERCURY CAN BE METHYLATED WITHIN SEDIMENTS. WE'VE ALSO FOUND THAT MERCURY CAN BE METHYLATED WITHIN THE WATER COLUMN, WHERE THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN. WE FIND THAT PARTICLES IN THE WATER COLUMN PLAY AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT INFLUENCE ON THE LINKAGE BETWEEN MERCURY THAT IS -- METHYLMERCURY THAT'S BEING GENERATED AND BIOACCUMULATION. THAT IS, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE FACT THAT MERCURY ADSORBS TO PARTICLES AND THEN SETTLES BACK TO THE SEDIMENT, OR IT'S RECYCLED BACK TO THE SEDIMENT, IS A VERY STRONG AMELIORATING INFLUENCE ON BIOACCUMULATION. IT APPEARS THAT IN OUR ONONDAGA LAKE SYSTEM, THAT MERCURY -- THE METHYLMERCURY THAT IS NOT MR. BIGHAM PAGE 29 RECYCLED, WILL ADSORB IN ONE MANNER OR ANOTHER, TO ORGANIC AND INORGANIC PARTICLES IN THE WATER COLUMN, WHICH ARE THEN CONSUMED BY FISH, WHICH ARE IN TURN CONSUMED BY FISH-EATING FISH, WHICH LEADS TO BIOACCUMULATION. Q. OKAY. IF ONONDAGA IS A LAKE, AND THE RESERVOIR EFFECT IS APPLICABLE TO RESERVOIRS, DO YOU SEE THE RESERVOIR EFFECT IN ONONDAGA LAKE? A. NO. THE CONCEPT IS NOT RELEVANT TO ONONDAGA LAKE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED LAKE, AND YOU -- YOU'RE NOT FLOODING WHAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SOILS. THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SEDIMENTS. THE BOTTOM OF THE LAKE IS NOT RECENT SOIL. Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISM -- THE MECHANISMS, CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL, INVOLVED IN MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN BIOTA, IN RESERVOIRS? A. I THINK IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT I DESCRIBED WITH RESPECT TO ONONDAGA LAKE. THE DIFFERENCES ARE -- RELATE TO THE FACT THAT IN RESERVOIRS, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS AN ENRICHMENT IN THE SOIL/SEDIMENT, AN ENRICHMENT OF TERRIGENOUS ORGANIC MATTER, WHICH MAY FAVOR BACTERIAL ACTIVITY. THEN AS MR. BIGHAM PAGE 30 FAR AS THE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICLES IN THE WATER COLUMN, IN MOST CASES, THOSE INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT INCLUDE COMPLETE INFORMATION ON THE REST OF THE BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN THE WATER COLUMN. Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED BY OTHERS FOR YOUR ANALYSIS OF MERCURY PROBLEMS IN RESERVOIRS? A. NO, I HAVE NOT. Q. AND OTHER THAN, EXCUSE ME, ONONDAGA LAKE, HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED BY OTHERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERCURY PROBLEMS IN NORTHERN LAKES? A. WE, BY WHICH I MEAN MYSELF AND OTHERS IN PTI, HAVE RECENTLY SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO A COUNTY ORGANIZATION IN OREGON WITH RESPECT TO PREDICTING MERCURY IN A NEW RESERVOIR, BUT THEY HAVE NOT SELECTED A CONTRACTOR. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL ULTIMATELY BE WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL CONSULTED ON THAT MATTER. Q. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT RESERVOIR? A. I DON'T RECALL THE NAME OF IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S WITH DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON. Q. THIS RESERVOIR HASN'T BEEN CONSTRUCTED YET? A. NO. Q. WHEN IS IT PLANNED TO BE CONSTRUCTED? A. WELL, I THINK BASICALLY AS SOON AS THEY CAN RESOLVE THE MERCURY ISSUE. I THINK -- IT'S MY MR. BIGHAM PAGE 31 UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S BEING -- FINAL APPROVAL IS BEING WITHHELD, UNTIL THEY CAN EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE A PROBLEM IN THE RESERVOIR WITH RESPECT TO MERCURY. THERE IS ALSO SOME MERCURY-BEARING MINE TAILINGS WITHIN THE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT'S A POINT OF CONCERN. Q. MERCURY WHAT? A. SOME -- THERE'S A MERCURY, HISTORIC MERCURY MINE. Q. DID YOU SAY BAILING? A. TAILINGS. Q. TAILINGS? A. YEAH, T-A-I-L-I-N-G. IT'S--- Q. WHICH MEANS? A. ---SOLID WASTE FROM MINING OPERATION. Q. AND YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL IN FOR THE -- FOR THIS OREGON RESERVOIR PROJECT? A. CORRECT. Q. OKAY. WAS THAT PROPOSAL PRODUCED--- A. NO. Q. ---IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DEPOSITION? A. NO, IT WAS NOT, BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVERGLADES; AND THAT'S STATED IN THE PRODUCTION REQUEST. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 32 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROPOSALS IN TO STUDY ANY OTHER RESERVOIRS? A. NO, WE DO NOT. Q. HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED FOR ANY OTHER RESERVOIRS? A. WITH REGARD TO MERCURY? Q. UH-HUH (YES). A. NO. Q. I'M SORRY. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WETLANDS, EUTROPHIC WETLANDS, WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED RATES OF MERCURY METHYLATION? A. NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC WETLANDS. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EUTROPHIC WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY AND BIOTA? A. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS IN THE NEW JERSEY AREA THAT ARE -- I'VE SEEN SOME LIMITED LITERATURE ON -- THEY ARE ACTUALLY AN ESTUARINE SYSTEM, WHERE THAT'S -- THAT'S CONTAMINATED WITH MERCURY, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME EVALUATION OF METHYLATION AND SOME ELEVATED BIOACCUMULATION HAS BEEN NOTICED. Q. IS AN ESTUARINE SYSTEM THE SAME AS A WETLAND SYSTEM? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 33 A. WELL, IT'S -- I'M SORRY, IT'S LIKE A SALTWATER MARSH. Q. OH. AND WHAT PROBLEMS ARE THEY EXPERIENCING; THE LITERATURE WAS SAYING THEY WERE EXPERIENCING? A. THERE HAVE BEEN OBSERVATIONS OF ENHANCED BIO -- OR ELEVATED MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE. Q. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING THE CAUSE OF THAT IS? A. HISTORICAL INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES. Q. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER SALTWATER MARSH SYSTEMS OR EUTROPHIC WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA? A. OTHER THAN THE EVERGLADES, NO. Q. ARE THE EVERGLADES A EUTROPHIC WETLAND? A. IN GENERAL, NO. Q. IS IT A SALTWATER MARSH? A. NO. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED MERCURY METHYLATION? A. NO, I'M NOT. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA? A. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 34 Q. SURE. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS WHICH ARE EXPERIENCING INCREASED BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN BIOTA? A. NO, I'M NOT. Q. HAVE YOU BEEN CONSULTED ON THE NEW JERSEY ESTUARINE SYSTEM--- A. NO. Q. ---PROBLEMS? A. NO. Q. OKAY. PRIOR TO YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION, HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES AQUATIC SYSTEM? A. NO, I HAVE NOT. Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE EVERGLADES AQUATIC SYSTEM? A. YES. FROM MY READINGS IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, IT'S CERTAINLY AN INTERESTING AND DIVERSE ONE. IT'S A VERY LOW GRADIENT SYSTEM THAT IS FROM THE NORTH END TO THE SOUTH END THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE IS ON THE ORDER OF TEN FEET OR SO. SO, IT'S VERY FLAT. IT'S BEEN DIVIDED UP SOMEWHAT IN A SERIES OF LEVEES AND CANALS TO HELP DIRECT THE FLOW OF WATER THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM. Q. WHAT KINDS OF ANIMALS ARE PRESENT IN THE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 35 EVERGLADES? A. IT'S A -- IT APPEARS TO BE A VERY DIVERSE WETLANDS ECOSYSTEM, MUCH OF IT BASED ON DETRITUS, AND TO SOME DEGREE ON OTHER PRIMARY PRODUCERS TYPICAL OF PELAGIC SYSTEMS. THERE ARE, THEN, THE PERIPHYTON SEEMS TO BE A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE BUT A VERY IMPORTANT COMMUNITY OF ALGAE AND ASSOCIATED MACROINVERTEBRATES. THEN THERE IS A WIDE ARRAY OF HIGHER LEVEL CONSUMERS OF, YOU KNOW, OF VARIOUS FISH SPECIES AND PLANKTIVORES AND PISCIVORES FISH SPECIES. AND THEN A WIDE ARRAY OF WILDLIFE, ESPECIALLY AVIAN SPECIES THAT CONSUME THOSE FISH. THE MAMMALIAN PISCIVORES INCLUDE ANIMALS LIKE RACCOONS AND, OF COURSE, HIGHER UP ON THE FOOD CHAIN IS THE NOTORIOUS PANTHER. Q. WHAT KINDS OF PLANTS AND VEGETATION ARE PRESENT WITHIN THE EVERGLADES? A. THE AQUATIC PLANT COMMUNITY IS DOMINATED BY SAWGRASS, OF COURSE. AND THERE'S ALSO, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE AREA, CATTAILS, OR MIXED SAWGRASS/CATTAIL COMMUNITY SEEMS TO BE AN IMPORTANT OR A MAJOR PART OF THE PLANT COMMUNITY. Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM? A. YES, I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A MERCURY PROBLEM MR. BIGHAM PAGE 36 IN THE EVERGLADES. Q. AND IN GENERAL TERMS, WHAT DO YOU REGARD AS THE EXISTING MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES? A. THE EVIDENCE THAT I'VE RECENTLY SEEN INDICATES THAT IN SOME PISCIVOROUS FISH SPECIES, THAT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED ONE PART PER MILLION. IN SOME CASES TWO AND OVER THREE PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE HIGH, AND ESPECIALLY IN AN EVERGLADES-TYPE SYSTEM A POTENTIAL RISK TO WILDLIFE. IT CAN ALSO POSE A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK, IF -- TO INDIVIDUALS EATING FREQUENT MEALS OF THESE FISH. Q. DO YOU KNOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF THESE FISH IN THE SYSTEM? A. MOST OF THE SAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED SO FAR ARE FROM THE CANALS. THE DATA THAT I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH ARE THOSE COLLECTED UNDER THE EPA'S EMAP PROGRAM. THERE'S ALSO SOME DATA FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND GAME. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORIDA FISH AND GAME SAMPLES YET. THAT'S SOMETHING I'M STILL LOOKING AT. FROM THE EMAP DATA, HOWEVER, MOST OF THE HIGHLY ELEVATED FISH CONCENTRATIONS SEEM TO BE FROM THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE SYSTEM, THAT IS, NEAR THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK. Q. SO YOU'RE SAYING, IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. BIGHAM PAGE 37 THE HIGH LEVELS OF MERCURY ARE FOUND IN FISH IN THE CANAL SYSTEM? A. MOST OF THE SAMPLES I RECALL, I BELIEVE, WERE FROM CANALS, YES. Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HYDROLOGY OF THE EVERGLADES? A. IN GENERAL, YES. Q. CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THAT? A. THE SYSTEM OF COURSE STARTS AT LAKE OKEECHOBEE, WHERE THE WATERS FLOW GENERALLY SOUTHWARD WHERE THEY'RE UTILIZED IN THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, AND SOMEWHAT REGULATED BY THAT AREA. FLOWS PROCEED THROUGH A SYSTEM OF CANALS THEN TO THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS, OF WHICH THERE ARE THREE. THERE IS -- APPEARS TO BE CONSIDERABLE INTERACTION BETWEEN SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER, THAT IS THAT SURFACE WATER IS RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER, ESPECIALLY ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS. RAINFALL IS A VERY IMPORTANT SOURCE OF WATER TO THIS SYSTEM. IN FACT, SO MUCH SO THAT AS YOU GET TO THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SYSTEM, YOU'RE LARGELY DEALING WITH RAINWATER, AS OPPOSED TO WATER THAT ORIGINALLY LEFT THE LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND AGRICULTURAL AREA. Q. I BELIEVE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 38 MECHANISMS INVOLVING BIOACCUMULATION OF MERCURY INTO BIOTA. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE -- THAT THAT PROCESS IS THE SAME IN EVERY AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT? A. I THINK THE EXACT MECHANISM IS STILL NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD, AND THAT EACH ENVIRONMENT IS GOING TO -- OR LET ME RESTATE THAT. I BELIEVE THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT IS CONSISTENT AMONG ALL ENVIRONMENTS THAT WE DO NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. THERE WILL BE DIFFERENCES FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER, IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE ONE GETS PER UNIT MERCURY IN WATER, OR IN SEDIMENT, OR IN PLANKTON, THAT TYPE OF THING. BUT YET THE PROCESS OF BIOACCUMULATION OF MERCURY IS GOING TO BE PRESENT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY SYSTEM. Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY -- DO WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PROCESS THAT'S PRESENTLY OCCURRING IN THE EVERGLADES? A. WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME OBSERVATIONS OF MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE, WHICH CERTAINLY INDICATES THAT THERE'S BIOACCUMULATION GOING ON. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE -- THERE'S A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY HOW THAT OCCURS. FOR EXAMPLE, EXACTLY THE ROLE OF VARIOUS REGULATING MECHANISMS ON BIOACCUMULATION. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 39 Q. WHAT REGULATING MECHANISMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? A. WELL, THERE'S A LONG LIST OF THINGS. AN IMPORTANT ONE WOULD BE THE INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHORUS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND DEGREE OF EUTROPHICATION ON BIOACCUMULATION. Q. WHAT OTHER MECHANISMS? A. UM--- Q. EXCUSE ME, WHAT OTHER REGULATORS? A. OH, OTHER POTENTIAL REGULATORS IN THIS SYSTEM WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND HOW THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE BACTERIAL COMMUNITY -- WELL, BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC FACTORS THAT LEAD TO MERCURY METHYLATION. Q. DO YOU KNOW THE -- EXCUSE ME. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LIMITING FACTORS CONTROLLING BACTERIAL ACTIVITY IN THE EVERGLADES MARSH ARE? A. I WOULD PRESUME THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES WOULD BE AVAILABLE ORGANIC CARBON, IN THAT THE INFORMATION I HAVE RECENTLY READ INDICATES THAT THE PEAT PROVIDES -- OR THE ORGANIC CARBON PRESENT IN THE PEAT IS SOMEWHAT REFRACTORY, AND THAT BIOAVAILABLE ORGANIC CARBON WOULD BE A POTENTIAL CONTROLLING PARAMETER. Q. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER LIMITING FACTORS? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 40 A. OF COMPARABLE IMPORTANCE -- WELL, TEMPERATURE WOULD BE ANOTHER CONTROLLING FACTOR OF BACTERIAL ACTIVITY. Q. ANYTHING ELSE? A. NO. Q. IS IT TRUE THAT BIODILUTION IS SOMETHING THAT OCCURS IN ALL SYSTEMS? A. YES, I THINK IT CAN. FIRST OF ALL, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT BIODILUTION IS. BIODILUTION, I BELIEVE, OCCURS AT THE LEVEL OF THE PRIMARY PRODUCERS, OR ACTUALLY OF PARTICLES, BOTH ORGANIC AND INORGANIC, AND REFERS TO THE FACT THAT GIVEN A MASS OF MERCURY DISSOLVED IN WATER, THAT IT WILL TEND TO ADSORB ONTO THE AVAILABLE PARTICLES. AND AS YOU CAN EASILY IMAGINE THE MORE PARTICLES WE PUT INTO THAT SYSTEM, THE FURTHER THE AVAILABLE MASS OF MERCURY HAS TO SPREAD ITSELF, SUCH THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF METHYLMERCURY ON THOSE PARTICLES IS SMALLER OR IS, IN OTHER WORDS, DILUTED BY THE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF PARTICLES. AND IN EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS, WE'RE USUALLY TALKING ABOUT BIOGENIC PARTICLES OR PLANKTON; OR IN THE EVERGLADES, IT COULD BE PERIPHYTON. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SOURCES OF MERCURY ARE IN THE EVERGLADES? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 41 A. THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE APPEARS TO BE AERIAL DEPOSITION. Q. ARE THERE ANY SOURCES, POTENTIAL SOURCES? A. OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES ARE THE MERCURY THAT'S ALREADY SEQUESTERED IN THE SEDIMENTS IN THE SYSTEM. Q. ANY OTHER SOURCES? A. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. Q. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHOSPHORUS AND THE PRODUCTION OF METHYLMERCURY IN THE EVERGLADES? A. WELL, I THINK IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE EVERGLADES, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A -- PROBABLY WITHIN AN STA, OR ANY PLACE WHERE YOU'LL HAVE FAIRLY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF PHOSPHORUS THAT YOU CAN PRODUCE ADDITIONAL PHYTOPLANKTON OR BIOLOGICAL MATTER THAT ULTIMATELY SETTLES INTO THE SEDIMENTS, WHICH CAN PROVIDE CONDITIONS THAT ARE OPTIMUM FOR METHYLATION. Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES? A. NO, I HAVE NOT. Q. HAS A MERCURY PROBLEM BEEN USED ANYWHERE THAT YOU KNOW OF TO STOP CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR NUTRIENT POLLUTION? MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 42 A. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I MIGHT ADD THAT THE OPPOSITE HAS BEEN PROPOSED, THAT IS TO ADD PHOSPHORUS IN SOME CASES WHERE THERE WAS A MERCURY PROBLEM. Q. WHY? A. IT WAS PROPOSED THAT NUTRIENT ADDITION MIGHT LIMIT MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION. IT'S BEEN PROPOSED FOR SOME LAKES IN SWEDEN, ALSO FOR A SYSTEM WITH INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION OF MERCURY IN CANADA. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE LAKE IN SWEDEN IS, THE NAME OF IT IS? A. I BELIEVE IT WAS ACTUALLY A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. THEY HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF LAKES WITH MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION PROBLEMS. Q. WAS THE RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTED? A. I DON'T KNOW. Q. WHEN WAS THIS PROPOSED? A. IT WAS IN A PAPER THAT I BELIEVE APPEARED IN THE EIGHTIES. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT REFERENCE. Q. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY IMPLEMENTED THE RECOMMENDATION OR NOT? A. NO, I DO NOT. Q. WHAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT RECOMMENDATION; WHY WOULDN'T IT BE IMPLEMENTED? MR. SAMS: IF YOU KNOW. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 43 A. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT CASE TO -- I'M NOT AWARE OF ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AND PRO AND CON. I KNOW THAT -- I JUST KNOW THAT IT WAS PROPOSED IN A COUPLE OF CASES. Q. AND WHAT WAS THE SECOND CASE, WHERE WAS THE SECOND AREA? A. IN ONTARIO, CANADA. Q. DO YOU KNOW IF THE RECOMMENDATION WAS IMPLEMENTED THERE? A. NO, I DO NOT KNOW. Q. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE? A. I THINK THAT WAS ALSO IN THE EIGHTIES. I'M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT CITATION. Q. AND YOU BECAME AWARE OF IT IN WHAT MATTER, READING--- A. WELL, I'VE BEEN AWARE OF IT, BECAUSE THROUGH OUR STUDIES OF ONONDAGA LAKE, IT HAS TURNED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF PHOSPHORUS AND ITS INTERACTION WITH MERCURY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THAT SYSTEM, IN THAT ONONDAGA LAKE IS A EUTROPHIC LAKE. TO UNDERSTAND, OR TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN THAT LAKE AND MANY OF THE OTHER LAKES THAT HAVE BEEN STUDIED IN THE LITERATURE, YOU QUICKLY REALIZE THAT PHOSPHORUS AND THE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 44 ISSUE OF INFLUENCE OF EUTROPHICATION IS ONE OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES OR KEY REASONS FOR THE DIFFERENCES WE SEE IN ONONDAGA LAKE AND MORE OLIGOTROPHIC LAKE SYSTEMS THAT HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVELY STUDIED. Q. ARE YOU GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN THE EVERGLADES SWIM PLAN? A. GENERALLY FAMILIAR, YES. Q. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR BASIC UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW THEY'LL FUNCTION AND WHAT THEIR PURPOSE WILL BE? A. THEIR PURPOSE IS TO REMOVE PHOSPHORUS FROM STORMWATER, AND THEIR FUNCTION IS TO ACT AS BOTH A SETTLING BASIN AND A NUTRIENT REMOVAL THROUGH WETLAND VEGETATION. Q. OKAY. WHAT PRIOR EXPOSURE HAVE YOU HAD TO WETLAND TREATMENT AREAS? A. ONLY VERY GENERAL, SOME LIMITED READING OF THE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S? A. PROBABLY NOT ALL OF THEM. Q. OF THE ONES WHICH YOU ARE AWARE, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE STA'S? A. I'M AWARE THAT THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT ON MR. BIGHAM PAGE 45 THEIR EFFECTIVENESS, AND WHETHER THEY WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN REMOVING PHOSPHORUS AS SET OUT IN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN. Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE SOME CRITICISMS AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS, AND WHAT WAYS WON'T THEY BE EFFECTIVE? MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM. A. I'M REALLY ONLY FAMILIAR IN A GENERAL WAY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'VE REALLY SPECIFICALLY STUDIED. Q. I'M NOT SURE IF I'VE ASKED YOU THIS BEFORE, BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE IN METHYLATION IN OTHER CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS AROUND THE WORLD? A. NO, I'M NOT. Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STUDY CONDUCTED BY DR. TAMAR BARKAY ON METHYLMERCURY IN THE EVERGLADES AND WATER CONSERVATION AREA 2A? A. I'VE READ THE PAPER. I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT EXTENSIVELY. Q. CAN YOU SUMMARIZE FOR ME, IF POSSIBLE, WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS ABOUT WHAT DR. BARKAY'S FINDINGS SHOW? A. HER FINDINGS RELATED TO THE INFLUENCE OF NUTRIENTS ON BOTH METHYLATION AND DEMETHYLATION. Q. AND WHAT WERE HER FINDINGS? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 46 A. ACTUALLY, I DON'T RECALL HER FINDINGS IN DETAIL. Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. YES. THIS IS A LETTER FROM DR. BARKAY TO MIKE SOUKUP; I HAVE SEEN IT. Q. YOU HAVE SEEN THAT DOCUMENT? A. YES. THIS WAS -- I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT IN DETAIL, AND IT WAS A TOPIC THAT BETSY HENRY WAS FOCUSING ON. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 4 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE SEEN EXHIBIT NUMBER FOUR, HAVE YOU FORMED ANY OPINION AS TO THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN? A. NO, I HAVE NOT. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FINDINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED THEREIN? A. WELL, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M NOT FAMILIAR MR. BIGHAM PAGE 47 WITH THE -- EVERY DETAIL OF THE FINDINGS, NO. Q. SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE THEORIZED THAT IN AN AREA SUCH AS AN STA, THERE WOULD BE A NET METHYLATION OF MERCURY; AND IN OTHER AREAS, THERE WOULD BE AN AREA OF DEMETHYLATION AND THAT THE PROCESS OF DEMETHYLATION WOULD BE A STRONGER PROCESS OR A MORE SIGNIFICANT PROCESS THAN METHYLATION AS NET IN THE STA'S. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT THEORY? A. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY OTHER AREAS? ARE YOU STILL TALKING--- Q. WITHIN THE STA. A. WITHIN THE STA. OKAY, COULD YOU RE-READ THE QUESTION AGAIN? Q. SURE. SOME SCIENTISTS HAVE THEORIZED THAT IN AN AREA SUCH AS AN STA, THERE WOULD BE AN AREA OF NET METHYLATION OF MERCURY, AND THEN IN ANOTHER AREA THERE WOULD BE AN AREA OF DEMETHYLATION; AND THAT THE PROCESS OF DEMETHYLATION WOULD BE A STRONGER PROCESS, OR A MORE SIGNIFICANT PROCESS THAN THE METHYLATION AS A NET WITHIN THE STA. A. I THINK THEY'RE NOT UNREASONABLE THEORIES. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO PREDICT RIGHT NOW EXACTLY WHICH PROCESS, THAT IS METHYLATION OR DEMETHYLATION, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 48 I ALSO THINK THAT THOSE HYPOTHESES IGNORE THE ROLE OF PARTICLES IN CONTROLLING THE CONCENTRATION OR THE MASS OF METHYLMERCURY IN THE WATER COLUMN ITSELF. Q. AND WHAT ROLE IS THAT? A. IN THAT MERCURY -- METHYLMERCURY THAT IS ADSORBED TO PARTICLES, AND IT SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLES TO THE BOTTOM, BACK TO THE BOTTOM, RECYCLES MUCH OF THAT MERCURY. IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE OF MERCURY BEING METHYLATED AT THE SEDIMENT WATER INTERFACE, GETTING INTO THE WATER COLUMN, AND THEN JUMPING INTO THE FISH TISSUE OR BEING DEMETHYLATED. THE SYSTEM IS FAR MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, IN THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE DYNAMICS OF ADSORPTION AND HOW PARTICLE BEHAVIOR OR HOW THE PARTICLES BEHAVE IN THE WATER COLUMN, AND WHAT FRACTION OF THOSE PARTICLES ARE ULTIMATELY CONSUMED BY FISH. Q. AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT THEORY DOESN'T TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT? A. WELL, NO. REMEMBER, WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THIS CONCEPT OF BIODILUTION, AND THE ISSUE -- OR AS YOU POSED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER METHYLMERCURY OR, I'M SORRY, MERCURY METHYLATION OR DEMETHYLATION IS GOING TO BE THE DOMINANT FEATURE IS NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS POTENTIAL BIODILUTION. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 49 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON PARTICLE DENSITIES IN THE EVERGLADES MARSH? A. SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON PARTICLES DENSITIES IN THE EVERGLADES MARSH? A. NO, I DO NOT. I THINK THAT'S -- IT'S UNFORTUNATELY SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE INVESTIGATORS SO FAR. I HAVE SEEN SOME NUMBERS ON TURBIDITY; HOWEVER, YOU CAN'T DIRECTLY RELATE THAT TO MASS OF PARTICLES. IF IT EXISTS, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE PARTICULAR CONCENTRATION DATA. Q. WOULD YOU EXPECT MORE DEMETHYLATION OF MERCURY TO OCCUR IN THE STA'S THAN IN THE EAA PRESENTLY? A. I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS I WOULD SPECULATE THAT THEY MIGHT BE COMPARABLE, BUT I DON'T HAVE A BASIS TO KNOW IF THEY WOULD BE VASTLY DIFFERENT. Q. ARE THERE ANY STUDIES WHICH SHOW THAT SUBTROPICAL AND BOREAL LAKES BEHAVE IN SIMILAR WAYS? A. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION ON BOREAL LAKES. THERE'S VERY LITTLE ON SUBTROPICAL. FOR THAT REASON, I AM CERTAINLY NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COMPARE THE TWO. Q. I HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT, AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 50 (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. YES. THIS IS A REPORT BY KBN ON THEIR SAMPLING THEY CONDUCTED IN THE HOLEYLAND, WCA-2A, AND THE ENR FOR MERCURY IN WATER AND FISH. Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT DOCUMENT? A. YES, I HAVE. MS. HOGAN: I'M GOING TO MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 5 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT. A. UH-HUH (YES). THIS IS KBN'S REPORT ON AN ANALYSIS OF FISH TISSUE FROM THE SAME AREAS. Q. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY? A. YES, I HAVE. MS. HOGAN: I'M GOING TO MARK THAT AS YOUR NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 6 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) MR. BIGHAM PAGE 51 Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHAT DID THE KBN DATA SHOW? A. WE SUMMARIZED THE RESULTS AND OUR CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE KBN IN OUR EXPERT OPINION REPORT. Q. DO YOU HAVE A GENERAL OPINION, THOUGH, OR JUST -- CAN YOU JUST TELL ME GENERALLY WHAT IT SHOWED? A. WELL, I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST SUMMARY OF THOSE RESULTS ARE IN OUR FIGURE TWELVE, I BELIEVE, OF OUR REPORT, WHERE WE SHOWED THE RELATIONSHIP OF METHYLMERCURY AND WATER WITH RESPECT TO PHOSPHORUS, AND ALSO FISH TISSUE MERCURY WITH RESPECT TO PHOSPHORUS, FROM THE AREAS THAT WERE SAMPLED BY KBN. Q. OKAY. SO, YOU'D PREFER IF WE LOOKED AT FIGURE TWELVE TOGETHER? A. WELL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I THINK THAT PROBABLY MOST EFFICIENTLY ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. Q. HOW DID YOU USE THE KBN DATA IN THE COMPILATION OF THE REPORT -- YOUR REPORT, THE PTI REPORT. Q. WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE DATA THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED BY KBN, AND WE THEN WERE SEEKING TO PROVIDE AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THAT MEANT WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERACTION OF, EXCUSE ME, PHOSPHORUS AND FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 52 Q. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE KBN -- THE KBN STUDIES ARE SUFFICIENT OR WERE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE HYPOTHESIS STATED IN THE PTI REPORT? A. WELL, I THINK IT WAS A GOOD FIRST START. I THINK THEY COLLECTED A VERY USEFUL SUITE OF PARAMETERS IN THEIR STUDY. AS IN MOST CASES, MORE DATA IS ALWAYS BETTER, BUT I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT FOR US TO FORM AN OPINION. Q. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY TO PROVE THE HYPOTHESIS THAT YOU'VE STATED IN THE PTI REPORT? A. I THINK MORE INFORMATION SHOULD BE COLLECTED TO--- Q. SO, THEY WEREN'T SUFFICIENT? A. WELL, AS I SAID, IT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR US TO FORM OUR OPINION. AS FAR AS -- WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE PROOF. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME FURTHER INFORMATION DEVELOP, SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE FULL EXTENT, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE AREA THAT MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY PHOSPHORUS. Q. GOING BACK TO THE STA'S, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IF THE STA'S DID PRODUCE A RESERVOIR EFFECT, WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT AS THEY AGE, THE STA'S AGE, THAT THEY WOULD DEVELOP REDUCING CONDITIONS IN SEDIMENT, WHICH WOULD BE MR. BIGHAM PAGE 53 LESS FAVORABLE TO THE METHYLATION OF MERCURY, AS HAS BEEN SEEN IN THE NORTHERN RESERVOIRS? MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM. A. WELL, I THINK YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ITEMS IN THAT QUESTION. COULD YOU REPHRASE IT AND REPEAT IT, PLEASE? Q. IN THE LITERATURE THAT WAS PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FOR YOUR DEPOSITION TODAY, ONE OF THE ARTICLES DISCUSSED THAT THE NORTHERN RESERVOIRS, AFTER THEY AGE, BEGIN TO DEVELOP REDUCING CONDITIONS. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT ARTICLE? A. NOT ANY SPECIFIC ARTICLE THAT TALKED JUST ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF REDUCING CONDITIONS. Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT PHENOMENON THAT IS OCCURRING WITH RESERVOIRS? A. YES, YES. Q. OKAY. WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT SAME PHENOMENON TO OCCUR WITH STA'S? A. YES, I THINK IT'S LIKELY. Q. WHEN WERE YOU FIRST CONTACTED ABOUT POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION? A. IT WAS ABOUT MID-FEBRUARY. Q. AND BY WHOM WERE YOU CONTACTED? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 54 A. ACTUALLY, FIRST BETSY HENRY MENTIONED TO ME THAT WE HAD RECEIVED A CALL REGARDING THIS ISSUE. Q. OKAY. FROM WHOM DID SHE RECEIVE A CALL? A. IT WAS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WITH OUR CLIENT. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHO HAD CALLED HER FIRST. Q. FROM HOPPING, BOYD, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS WITH HOPPING, BOYD? A. CORRECT. Q. OKAY. AND WHAT DID DR. HENRY SAY TO YOU OF THAT INITIAL CONTACT? A. I BELIEVE SHE JUST MENTIONED THAT THE FIRM WAS INTERESTED IN OUR OPINION REGARDING BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN THE EVERGLADES, AND THAT WE WOULD -- THEY WERE INTERESTED IN MEETING WITH US TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER. Q. OKAY. AND THIS FIRST CONVERSATION WITH DR. HENRY ABOUT IT OCCURRED IN MID-FEBRUARY? A. SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, YES, I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE. Q. THEN WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION? A. WE MET WITH THE HOPPING, BOYD FIRM IN TALLAHASSEE. Q. OKAY. ABOUT WHEN WAS THAT? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 55 A. WELL, IT WAS JUST A FEW DAYS LATER; SO IT HAPPENED VERY QUICKLY. Q. AND WHAT OCCURRED AT THAT MEETING? MR. SAMS: MR. BIGHAM, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A GENERAL INSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS NOT TO DISCLOSE THE STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL TO YOU. HOWEVER, TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WITHOUT DOING SO, YOU'RE FREE TO PROCEED. A. COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? Q. WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT MEETING IN TALLAHASSEE? A. IN THE MEETING, THEY INQUIRED ABOUT AS TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ISSUES SUCH AS THE RESERVOIR EFFECT, BIODILUTION, OUR EXPERIENCE IN MERCURY ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE, ONONDAGA LAKE, AND PROVIDED US WITH SOME GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE EVERGLADES, AND THE MERCURY PROBLEM IN THE EVERGLADES. Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT YOU WERE BEING ASKED TO DO IN CONNECTION WITH THIS LITIGATION? A. WELL, WE WERE GIVEN THE GENERAL QUESTION AS TO DEVELOP WHAT WAS THE INTERACTION OF NUTRIENTS AND MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN A VERY GENERAL WAY. AND ALSO TO OFFER AN OPINION AS TO WHAT WE THOUGHT OR HOW MR. BIGHAM PAGE 56 WE THOUGHT THE STA'S WOULD BEHAVE WITH RESPECT TO MERCURY METHYLATION. Q. OKAY. AND, SO, AT THAT MEETING, DID YOU GIVE AN OPINION? A. NO, WE DID NOT. WE JUST DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN GENERAL. Q. THEN WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENED, IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR INVOLVEMENT? A. WE PREPARED A PROPOSAL, GENERALLY OUTLINING WHAT WE WOULD DO AND -- TO FORM AN OPINION. Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT, AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. YES, THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 7 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS EXHIBIT THIRTEEN TO DR. HENRY'S DEPOSITION. A. YES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 57 Q. AND DR. HENRY REPRESENTED THAT SHE DRAFTED THE PROPOSAL, AND THAT YOUR SIGNATURE IS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY SIGNED BY SOMEONE ELSE. THAT WAS BASIC PROTOCOL FOR PTI. IS THAT CORRECT? A. IT'S CORRECT THAT SHE DRAFTED THE LETTER. THE BASIC PROTOCOL IS THAT ANY PROPOSAL THAT CONTAINS COST INFORMATION BE SIGNED BY A PTI VICE-PRESIDENT. Q. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING THE PROPOSAL? A. I REVIEWED THE LETTER THAT WAS DRAFTED BY BETSY, AND I PREPARED THE COST ESTIMATE, YES. Q. WHY DIDN'T YOU SIGN THE LETTER? A. WHY DID I NOT SIGN THE LETTER? Q. UH-HUH (YES). A. I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS IN THE OFFICE AT THE TIME THIS WENT OUT. Q. DID YOU -- WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU REVIEWED THE LETTER, WHAT DID YOUR REVIEW CONSIST OF? A. MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS COMPLETE; THAT I AGREED WITH WHAT IT SAID; AND JUST GENERAL TECHNICAL, AND TO SOME DEGREE EDITORIAL REVIEW. Q. DID YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE LETTER? A. I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC CHANGES. I THINK MR. BIGHAM PAGE 58 IN GENERAL, THE LETTER WAS WELL DONE ON ITS FIRST DRAFT, AND WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO IT. Q. OKAY. YOU PREPARED THE COST ESTIMATES IN THE BACK? A. CORRECT. Q. WHY DID YOU PREPARE IT -- THE COST ESTIMATES IN THE BACK, AS OPPOSED TO DR. HENRY? A. WELL, GIVEN THAT I HAVE LONGER EXPERIENCE IN DOING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS; THAT MY JUDGMENT ON HOW MUCH EFFORT IT MIGHT TAKE TO DO THIS MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HERS. Q. OKAY. SO, IS IT A COMPANY POLICY THAT THE VICE-PRESIDENT PREPARES IT--- A. NO. Q. ---THE COST ESTIMATE? A. NO, NOT NECESSARILY, I JUST NEED TO APPROVE IT. Q. ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE BUDGET AND THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED IN THE ESTIMATE? A. YES. Q. ARE YOU ON BUDGET, BEHIND BUDGET, UNDER BUDGET? MR. BIGHAM PAGE 59 A. I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH ON BUDGET RIGHT NOW. Q. HAVE YOU BEEN PAID ANY PORTION OF THE -- THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S LISTED IN THE COST ESTIMATE? A. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T -- HAVEN'T TALKED TO OUR RECEIVABLES PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT. Q. OKAY. DO YOU EXPECT THAT THE ESTIMATE WILL INCREASE? A. THAT THE WHAT WILL INCREASE? Q. THAT THE ESTIMATE THAT YOU -- I DON'T HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE AMOUNT THAT YOU'VE ESTIMATED THE TOTAL COST WILL BE, DO YOU EXPECT THAT AMOUNT TO GO UP? A. AT THIS TIME, NO, I DON'T. Q. OKAY. YOU BELIEVE THE ESTIMATE WILL ENCOMPASS ALL OF YOUR ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CONSULTATION IN THIS MATTER? A. SO FAR, YES. I EXPECT THAT THIS WILL PROBABLY COVER OUR INVOLVEMENT THROUGH THE HEARING. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING AT THIS MOMENT THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THIS RIGHT NOW. Q. HOW MUCH IS THE TOTAL COST ESTIMATE? A. IT'S NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($98,274.00). MR. BIGHAM PAGE 60 Q. IN THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OREGON RESERVOIR PROJECT, HOW MUCH WAS THAT? A. WELL, IT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT SCOPE. I THINK IT WAS AROUND THIRTY THOUSAND, SOMETHING. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. Q. AND WHAT WERE YOU ASKED TO DO -- NO, YOU WEREN'T ASKED TO DO THAT ONE. WHAT DID YOU PROPOSE THAT YOU WOULD DO IN THAT PROPOSAL, THE OREGON PROPOSAL? A. THAT ONE INVOLVED SOME LIMITED SAMPLE COLLECTION OF SOILS AND OF -- WE WERE PROPOSING TO COLLECT SOME ORGANISMS ALSO FOR MERCURY ANALYSIS, AND TO PREPARE A REPORT. Q. A REPORT ON WHAT? A. A REPORT DESCRIBING OR EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOACCUMULATION RELATED TO THE TAILINGS, AND THIS FLOODING OF THIS RELATIVELY SMALL RESERVOIR. Q. OKAY. YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU WERE WORKING ON A PROJECT WITH THE ONONDAGA LAKE. A. YES. Q. THE CONSULTING PROJECT, WHAT IS YOUR COST ESTIMATE FOR THAT CONSULTING WORK? A. WELL, THAT'S ALSO QUITE A DIFFERENT SCOPE. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 61 THAT'S OVER SEVERAL YEARS. IT'S SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS. Q. DO YOU HAVE LIKE A SPECIFIC AMOUNT? A. WELL, WE, IN THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, WE DEVELOPED A BUDGET ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. Q. WHAT'S THE ANNUAL BUDGET? A. THIS YEAR IT'S AROUND A MILLION AND A HALF. Q. AND WHAT DOES THAT STUDY ENCOMPASS, WHAT WILL YOU DO? A. FOR THIS YEAR? Q. UH-HUH (YES). A. IT'S STRICTLY REPORT PREPARATION: DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT, ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. Q. WITH THE OREGON RESERVOIR PROPOSAL, HOW LONG DID YOUR -- HOW LONG WOULD YOUR CONSULTATION PERIOD LAST? A. I BELIEVE THAT ONE IS EXPECTED TO BE PRETTY SHORT, ON THE ORDER OF SIX TO NINE MONTHS. Q. CAN I HAVE THAT BACK? A. UH-HUH (YES). (THEREUPON, WITNESS HANDS EXHIBIT TO MS. HOGAN FOR REVIEW.) MR. BIGHAM PAGE 62 Q. IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE -- OF EXHIBIT SEVEN, IT'S STATED THAT THE MOTIVATING QUESTION FOR THIS REPORT IS, "`DO ELEVATED PHOSPHORUS LEVELS IN EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA DISCHARGE TEND TO MITIGATE MERCURY PROBLEMS IN FISH AND WILDLIFE?' OR, PUT ANOTHER WAY, `WOULD REDUCTIONS OF PRESENT PHOSPHORUS LEVELS IN EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA DISCHARGE BE LIKELY TO EXACERBATE EVERGLADES FISH AND WILDLIFE MERCURY PROBLEMS?' THE HYPOTHESIS WILL BE STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS: 1) OLIGOTROPHIC (LOW NUTRIENT) LAKES TEND TO HAVE HIGH RATES OF METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION, AND 2) THE EVERGLADES ARE COMPARABLE TO OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES WITH REGARDS TO METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION." WHAT IS MEANT BY THE EVERGLADES ARE COMPARABLE TO OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES WITH REGARDS TO METHYLMERCURY BIOACCUMULATION? A. IN THAT THEY HAVE LOW NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS, AND LOW RATES OF PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY. Q. OKAY. THIS PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY THE 23, 1994. THEN WHAT HAPPENED NEXT IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE LITIGATION? A. WELL, WE PROCEEDED TO EVALUATE THE LITERATURE, WELL, COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, EVALUATE THE INFORMATION/LITERATURE THAT WE DID HAVE, AND TO DEVELOP MR. BIGHAM PAGE 63 THE REPORT THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED. Q. WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE PREPARATION OF THE MARCH 17, 1994, DRAFT REPORT? A. MY INVOLVEMENT IN THAT REPORT WAS TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH BETSY HENRY, WHO IS THE PRIMARY AUTHOR. I DID SOME OF THE -- SOME OF OUR ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FROM THE EVERGLADES, ALSO OF THE DATA ON FLORIDA LAKES, AND THEN I'VE READ MOST OF THE REFERENCES -- WELL, WE BOTH READ THE REFERENCES AND TYPICALLY WOULD DISCUSS THEIR IMPLICATIONS TO OUR REPORT. Q. WHAT REFERENCES? A. THE REFERENCES CITED IN OUR REPORT. Q. OKAY. A. I ALSO PROVIDED A REVIEW OF THE DRAFT, IN ADDITION TO OUR, YOU KNOW, ALMOST DAILY DISCUSSIONS. Q. WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU DID SOME ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF DATA, WHAT DID THAT ANALYSIS CONSIST OF? A. I THINK MOST OF THEM END UP APPEARING IN THAT REPORT. FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKING AT THE NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN FLORIDA LAKES, THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS CONTAINED IN A PAPER BY LANGE, ET AL., AND EVALUATING THAT WITH RESPECT TO INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHORUS ON MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION IN THE FLORIDA LAKES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 64 Q. UH-HUH (YES). A. I ALSO DID SOME EVALUATION OF THE KBN DATA, AND AM STILL LOOKING AT THE EPA EMAP DATA. Q. DID YOU PREPARE GRAPHS OR CHARTS? WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE DATA? A. TYPICALLY, I WOULD PUT THEM INTO A SPREADSHEET FROM WHICH I CREATED GRAPHS, YES, WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, EITHER IN THE REPORT, OR IN THE SUBMITTAL OF MY PAPERS ON TUESDAY. Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU A DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. THIS IS A COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL THAT WE SUBMITTED ON TUESDAY. Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THAT MATERIAL? A. THESE ARE KIND OF MISCELLANEOUS SPREADSHEET FILES, AND SOME PLOTS OF DATA, MUCH OF IT FROM THE FLORIDA LAKES, FROM LANGE. THERE'S ALSO A COPY OF LANGE'S PAPER, AND SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE RECEIVED FROM HIM REGARDING PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN THOSE LAKES. IN FACT, THIS ENTIRE PACKAGE RELATES TO LANGE, OR TO THE FLORIDA LAKES DATA. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 65 (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 8 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) IS THIS THE DATA THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE DOING ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM LANGE? A. THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S ALSO A FIGURE IN OUR REPORT THAT IS THE -- I GUESS THE FINAL RESULT OF THIS ANALYSIS, YES. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER OF THE FIGURE RIGHT OFFHAND, OH, IT'S FIGURE SEVEN. Q. OKAY. SO, EXHIBIT EIGHT, THE RESULTS OF THAT DATA, OR THAT -- THE COMPILATION OF THAT DATA IS INCLUDED IN FIGURE SEVEN OF THE FINAL REPORT? A. YES. Q. THE MARCH 24 REPORT? A. YES. Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD. A. YES. THIS IS A COPY OF SOME OF THE EPA'S RESULTS FROM THEIR EMAP PROGRAM SAMPLING. THERE'S A SPREADSHEET OF THAT DATA THAT I PREPARED. THERE'S ALSO A DIAGRAM SHOWING LOCATIONS OF SOME OF EPA'S SAMPLING STATIONS. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 66 MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 9 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) MS. HOGAN: THAT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER--- COURT REPORTER: NINE. MS. HOGAN: ---NINE. Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HOW WAS THAT EXHIBIT, THAT DATA, USED IN YOUR REPORT, THE FINAL REPORT? A. WE USED IT ONLY IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE NOT HAD MUCH TIME TO ATTEMPT TO EVALUATE IT. SECONDLY, WE'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO DEVELOP OUR OWN SENSE AS TO HOW VALID THE DATA THEMSELVES ARE. SO, WE ONLY COMMENTED ON THESE -- ON THESE DATA IN A GENERAL WAY. I MEAN, SO FAR THEY SEEM TO SUPPORT OUR HYPOTHESIS, BUT IT'S -- IT'S AN AREA WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DO A -- TO DO FURTHER EVALUATION OF THE DATA. Q. SO, HOW WAS IT USED, IF IT WAS USED AT ALL IN YOUR REPORT? A. WELL, YES, YOU'LL FIND THE DISCUSSION TOWARD THE END OF THE SECTION ON SUPPORTING THE HYPOTHESIS. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 67 MS. HOGAN: I'M SORRY, CAN YOU READ BACK HIS ANSWER? (THEREUPON, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER APPEARING ON PAGE 66, LINE 22-25, INCLUSIVE, WAS REPEATED BY THE COURT REPORTER.) Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) THAT'S THE EPA DATA? A. CORRECT. Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW THE METHYLMERCURY AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN WATER RELATED IN THE EPA STUDY? A. YES. IN SOME EXTENTS, THAT IN AT LEAST IN SOME OF THE CANAL STATIONS THAT IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE CANAL, THERE WAS ELEVATED PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS THAT THERE WERE ALSO ELEVATED METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS, OR I SHOULD SAY TOTAL METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS. Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE EPA RESULTS ARE OPPOSITE TO THE KBN RESULTS? A. I DON'T -- I'M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I PRESUME THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PHOSPHORUS AND METHYLMERCURY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE KBN RESULTS ARE WITH RESPECT TO -- OR THE KBN DATA ARE FOR DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY, WHEREAS THE EPA RESULT IS FOR TOTAL MR. BIGHAM PAGE 68 METHYLMERCURY. I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THAT INTERPRETATION IS TO UNDERSTAND THE INFLUENCE OF PARTICLES. Q. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE EPA DISCUSSES TOTAL MERCURY, AND KBN DISCUSSES DISSOLVED? A. WELL, IT'S MY PRESUMPTION THAT THEY DO. I HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN ANY DETAILED INFORMATION ON EXACTLY HOW THEY DID THOSE ANALYSIS. (THEREUPON, MS. HOGAN AND DR. JONES CONFER.) Q. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. (THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) A. YES. THESE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL NOTES THAT I HAD IN MY FOLDER, RELATED TO THE KBN DATA. BOTH THEIR WATER QUALITY AND FISH TISSUE DATA. IT ALSO CONTAINS SOME INFORMATION FROM TETRA TECH'S PHOSPHORUS MODELING AND SOME DIAGRAMS THAT RELATED TO THEIR MODELING EFFORT. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 10 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) MR. BIGHAM PAGE 69 Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) HOW WAS EXHIBIT TEN USED IN THE FINAL DRAFT REPORT, THE MARCH 24, 1994, REPORT? A. MOST OF THE INFORMATION IN THESE NOTES APPEARS IN OUR FIGURE TWELVE, AS FAR AS SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP OF PHOSPHORUS TO FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS, AND TO METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS. Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT, AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT FOR THE RECORD. A. YES. THIS IS OUR DRAFT REPORT OF -- SUBMITTED ON MARCH 17TH, TO HOPPING, BOYD. MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR DEPOSITION. (THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 11 - GARY N. BIGHAM DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.) (THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED BY THE COURT REPORTER AND A SHORT BREAK WAS TAKEN.) MS. HOGAN: MR. SAMS, DID YOU WANT A COPY OF THIS? MR. SAMS: YES, PLEASE. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 70 Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WHO ELSE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PREPARATION OF THE MARCH 17, 1994, DRAFT? A. IN ADDITION TO BETSY HENRY, WHO WAS THE PRIMARY AUTHOR, AND THE INPUT FROM MYSELF, ANNE McDONALD, IN OUR OFFICE IN BELLEVUE HAD DONE SOME COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON OTHER LAKE SYSTEMS FOR US. Q. DID ANYONE ELSE WORK WITH YOU SPECIFICALLY ON YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA? A. ONLY BETSY, WHOM I WORKED DIRECTLY WITH. Q. OKAY. IN THE MARCH 17, 1994, REPORT, DRAFT REPORT, WHICH IS MARKED AS EXHIBIT ELEVEN--- A. UH-HUH (YES). Q. ---ON PAGE ELEVEN, THE REPORT STATED THAT THE RATES -- ELEVEN -- STATED THAT THE RATES OF METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION IN THE ABSENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS ARE UNKNOWN. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? MR. SAMS: COULD YOU POINT OUT FOR THE WITNESS WHERE THE STATEMENT IS ON THE PAGE? MS. HOGAN: SURE. IT'S IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN THE NINTH SENTENCE FROM THE BOTTOM. IT SAYS, "THE RATES OF METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION IN THE EVERGLADES IN THE ABSENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS ARE NOT KNOWN." MR. BIGHAM PAGE 71 Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DO YOU SEE THE STATEMENT? A. UH-HUH, YES I DO. Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? A. YES, I DO. INASMUCH THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON RATES OF METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION IN THE EVERGLADES. Q. OKAY. IT ALSO STATES THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHOROUS ENRICHMENT ON NET METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION. A. YES. Q. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? A. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL PROCESSES INVOLVED, AND IT TAKES MORE THAN JUST INFORMATION ON PHOSPHOROUS TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT NET EFFECTS. Q. OKAY. IT ALSO STATED THAT, "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE NET EFFECT OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? A. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, THAT IT'S -- WITH ANY CERTAINTY AT ALL TO MAKE A PREDICTION. Q. OKAY. DID YOU REVIEW THIS MARCH 17, 1994, DRAFT PRIOR TO ITS SUBMISSION TO WILLIAM GREEN, GARY MR. BIGHAM PAGE 72 SAMS, RICHARD Di GUILIO, AND DR. PRESLEY? A. YES. WELL, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE I REVIEWED A PREVIOUS DRAFT OF THIS REPORT. Q. OKAY. DID YOU MAKE COMMENTS TO THAT DRAFT? A. YES, I DID. Q. HOW WERE THOSE COMMENTS MADE? A. I READ THROUGH THE REPORT AND GAVE MY COMMENTS TO BETSY HENRY OVER THE PHONE. Q. VERBAL COMMENTS? A. YES. Q. OKAY. DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF YOUR MEETING -- EXCUSE ME. DID YOU TAKE NOTES WHICH REFLECTED WHAT COMMENTS YOU SUGGESTED? A. I HAD JUST MADE MARKS, HIGHLIGHTS, ON THE DRAFT REPORT OF THINGS I WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH BETSY, AND I DID NOT KEEP ANY SPECIFIC NOTES. Q. WHEN YOU MADE THE MARKS OR THE HIGHLIGHTS ON THE DRAFTS, DID YOU HAVE NOTES OUT TO THE SIDE; IS THAT HOW YOU KEPT TRACK OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD? A. IN GENERAL, YES. Q. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT DRAFT WITH THOSE NOTES? A. NO, I DID NOT KEEP THE DRAFT AT ALL. I THREW IT AWAY SHORTLY AFTER THE CONVERSATION. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 73 Q. OKAY. SO, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT -- YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT? A. NO, I DO NOT. Q. YOU THREW IT AWAY? A. YES. Q. OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COPY OF IT? A. NO, IT WAS ONLY MY OWN COPY. Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOUR COMMENTS WERE? A. YES. A COUPLE OF COMMENTS -- LET ME -- LET ME START AGAIN. IN GENERAL, MY COMMENTS RELATED TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT. I THOUGHT -- I DON'T HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENT OR ANY REAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGING THE TECHNICAL COMMENT. THERE WAS -- I THOUGHT WE MIGHT STREAMLINE THE REPORT A LITTLE BIT TO TAKE OUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WASN'T IMPORTANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE. I FELT THAT WE COULD -- SHOULD PROBABLY BE ADDING SOME MORE INFORMATION AND BEING A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE END. Q. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE TO THE REPORT? A. THOSE WERE THE MAIN ONES, AND NOTHING ELSE SPECIFIC THAT I CAN RECALL. Q. WERE THOSE COMMENTS INCORPORATED IN THIS MR. BIGHAM PAGE 74 MARCH 17TH DRAFT THAT WAS SENT? A. YES, THEY WERE. Q. WERE ANY OF YOUR COMMENTS NOT INCORPORATED? A. PROBABLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES THEY MIGHT BE SPECIFICALLY. Q. ALL RIGHT. SO, THEN, THIS DRAFT REPORT WAS SENT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LISTED ON THE TRANSMITTAL SHEET OF EXHIBIT ELEVEN, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED? A. WE HAD A SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN ATLANTA TO DISCUSS THE REPORT. Q. IS THAT THE MEETING THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH THE 18TH? A. CORRECT. Q. OKAY. WHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING? A. BETSY AND MYSELF, GARY SAMS, BILL GREEN, RICHARD Di GUILIO, BOB PRESLEY. Q. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT MEETING? A. IT WAS TO HAVE, MORE OR LESS, GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED TO -- FOR US TO HEAR AND DISCUSS ANY COMMENTS THAT OTHERS CARED TO OFFER. Q. AND HOW LONG DID THE MEETING TAKE? A. IT WAS AN ALL-DAY MEETING. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 75 Q. DID YOU MAKE ANY COMMENTS TO THE REPORT AT THAT MEETING? A. DID I PERSONALLY? Q. UH-HUH (YES). A. I DON'T THINK SO. I'D PRETTY MUCH ALREADY MADE MY COMMENTS TO BETSY, PREVIOUSLY. Q. DID YOU TAKE NOTES AT THAT MEETING? A. NO, I DID NOT. Q. DID YOU OBSERVE ANYONE ELSE TAKING NOTES AT THE MEETING? A. I THINK BETSY WAS TAKING MOST OF THE NOTES, SO THAT SHE COULD KEEP TRACK OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES WE MIGHT MAKE. Q. DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER DR. PRESLEY WAS TAKING NOTES? A. I RECALL HE HAD A PAD IN FRONT OF HIM. I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS WRITING THINGS DOWN. Q. DO YOU RECALL IF MR. SAMS WAS TAKING NOTES AT THE MEETING? A. NO, I DON'T. Q. OR MR. GREEN? A. NO, I DON'T. Q. OR DR. Di GUILIO? A. NO, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS TAKING NOTES. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 76 Q. OKAY. WHAT COMMENTS TO THE REPORT WERE MADE BY YOU? A. WELL, IT REALLY WASN'T MY PURPOSE AT THE MEETING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, AS IT WAS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION. I REALLY DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS DIRECTED TOWARDS AFFECTING CHANGES IN THE REPORT. Q. HOW DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION? A. IN SOME CASES, I WAS ASKING QUESTIONS TO GAIN FURTHER INSIGHT INTO THE EVERGLADES; ASKING OTHERS IF THEY MIGHT HAVE INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP US FORM OUR OPINION. Q. WHAT KINDS OF QUESTIONS DID YOU ASK? A. I WAS INTERESTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE FOOD CHAIN IN THE EVERGLADES; TO HELP UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER SYSTEMS WE'D STUDIED. Q. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DID YOU ASK? A. THAT WAS PROBABLY THE MAIN ONE THAT I WAS ESPECIALLY INTERESTED. Q. HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE REPORT? A. WELL, IT ENDED UP THAT IT DIDN'T, BECAUSE WE REALLY DIDN'T GET ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE FOOD CHAIN OF THE EVERGLADES. Q. HOW DID YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED MR. BIGHAM PAGE 77 THE REPORT? A. WELL, I CAN'T SPECULATE ON THAT. Q. NO, WELL, MY QUESTION -- IF YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FOOD CHAIN, WHAT IN YOUR MIND HAD YOU ENVISIONED USING IT FOR? A. JUST TO IMPROVE MY GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEM. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT -- YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NOTHING -- LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS NO SECTION OF THE REPORT ON EVERGLADES FOOD CHAIN THAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO WRITE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Q. SO, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION FOR WHAT REASON? A. AS I THINK I ALREADY SAID, JUST FOR MY GENERAL UNDERSTANDING. Q. WHAT COMMENTS WERE MADE BY DR. Di GUILIO? A. HE SAID HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO CONTRIBUTE ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. Q. ON WHAT PARTICULAR TOPIC? A. REGARDING THE EVERGLADES FOOD CHAIN. Q. OKAY. WHAT COMMENTS WERE MADE BY DR. Di GUILIO IN CONNECTION WITH THE DRAFT REPORT? A. I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL ANY REAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS THAT HE MADE ON THE REPORT. IN GENERAL, HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT, WAS MY SENSE. MR. BIGHAM PAGE 78 Q. DID HE ASK ANY QUESTIONS? A. YES, HE ASKED QUESTIONS. Q. WHAT QUESTIONS DID HE ASK? A. I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT HE ASKED. Q. WHAT AREAS DID HE INQUIRE INTO GENERALLY? A. WELL, IN GENERAL, HE WAS INQUIRING WITH RESPECT TO RELATIONSHIP ON PHOSPHOROUS TO MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION. Q. AND WHAT DID HE ASK? A. WELL, I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT HE -- TH