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 CONT