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 -- THAT HE ASKED.
Q. WELL, WHAT GENERALLY DID HE DISCUSS?
A. I THINK I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
Q. WELL, YOU SAY THAT YOU HAD THIS MEETING FOR
SIX HOURS THAT OCCURRED ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, AND I JUST
NEED AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE
MEETING.
A. AS I POINTED OUT, THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION WAS
OUR REPORT, AND THE DISCUSSION WAS -- WAS A FAIRLY
GENERAL ONE. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT --
THAT RELATE TO OUR REPORT, AS FAR AS THE HYDROLOGY,
BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY OF THE EVERGLADES AND, YOU KNOW,
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE INTERACTION OF PHOSPHOROUS AND
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 79
MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION. THOSE WERE THE GENERAL TOPICS
UNDER DISCUSSION. AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, ATTEMPTING TO
PARAPHRASE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, I REALLY CAN'T DO
THAT.
Q. WELL, OF THE AREAS THAT YOU JUST LISTED---
A. YES.
Q. ---WHAT GENERALLY DID THE DISCUSSION
ENCOMPASS?
A. I'M LOST. WHICH DISCUSSION?
Q. THE SIX-HOUR DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD IN
ATLANTA.
A. THAT'S WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WAS THE -- THE
GENERAL NATURE OF THE DISCUSSION IN OUR MEETING IN
ATLANTA.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF SPECIFIC
DISCUSSIONS OR SPECIFIC AREAS THAT YOU DISCUSSED?
A. WELL, AS I SAID, THE AREAS -- THE GENERAL
AREAS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS THE CHEMISTRY,
BIOLOGY, HYDROLOGY OF A SYSTEM AND, YOU KNOW, MORE
SPECIFICALLY, HOW PHOSPHOROUS AND THE EUTROPHICATION
PROCESSES PROCEED IN THE EVERGLADES AND ITS INTERACTION
WITH MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. WELL, WHAT WERE THE DYNAMICS OF THE
DISCUSSION? WAS SOMEONE ASKING A QUESTION AND SOMEONE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 80
ANSWERED THE QUESTION? WERE YOU JUST THROWING OUT
QUESTIONS? WERE YOU THROWING OUT SUBJECT AREAS?
A. IT WAS -- IT WAS THE LATTER.
Q. YOU WERE JUST THROWING OUT QUESTIONS?
A. IT WAS VERY MUCH A BACK-AND-FORTH DISCUSSION.
YOU KNOW, MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION WAS AMONG AND BETWEEN
COUNSEL.
Q. WAS MR. SAMS TALKING TO MR. GREEN?
A. PART OF THE TIME, YES.
Q. DID THE PARTICIPANTS, OTHER THAN MR. SAMS AND
MR. GREEN, HAVE QUESTIONS TO MR. SAMS AND MR. GREEN?
A. WELL, I MAY HAVE. I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IT WAS -- AS YOU CAN IMAGINE WITH
SEVERAL PEOPLE IN A ROOM, THERE WAS JUST -- IT WAS
BASICALLY JUST BACK-AND-FORTH DISCUSSION. THERE WAS
NOT A FIXED AGENDA OF ISSUES TO DISCUSS. IT WAS A
GENERAL DISCUSSION CENTERED AROUND OUR REPORT.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU REMEMBER ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS
MADE BY DR. PRESLEY?
A. WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT DISSOLVED ORGANIC
CARBON AND HOW THAT MIGHT BEHAVE, WHETHER HE HAD ANY
INSIGHTS ON THAT GENERAL ISSUE. AS FAR AS HOW
DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON MIGHT BE TRANSPORTED, AS I
RECALL, HIS IMPRESSION WAS THAT IT WOULDN'T GO VERY
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 81
FAR, BUT IT WAS -- IT WAS NO MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.
Q. DID DR. HENRY HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
A. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY
"COMMENTS." SHE CERTAINLY PARTICIPATED IN THE
DISCUSSION.
Q. DID SHE ASK ANY QUESTIONS?
A. I PRESUME SHE DID. AGAIN, I COULDN'T
PARAPHRASE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTION.
Q. DID YOU GO THROUGH THE DRAFT REPORT PARAGRAPH
BY PARAGRAPH?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY. LET'S TURN TO PAGE ONE OF THE
MARCH 17TH DRAFT REPORT. ON THIS PAGE, DO YOU RECALL
ANY COMMENTS OR ANY DISCUSSION BY ANY OF THE
PARTICIPANTS ON THIS PAGE?
MR. SAMS: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE
FORM OF THE QUESTION, BECAUSE THE WITNESS HAS
STATED THAT IT WAS A GENERAL DISCUSSION, NOT
ITEM-BY-ITEM. ARE YOU ASKING HIM WHETHER ANY
OF THE GENERAL DISCUSSION MIGHT HAVE ANY
RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT'S ON THE FIRST PAGE?
MS. HOGAN: UH-HUH, UH-HUH (YES).
A. WELL, LET ME READ THE FIRST PAGE.
Q. OKAY.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 82
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF THE
PARAGRAPHS HERE ON THE FIRST PAGE.
Q. OKAY. CAN YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. IS THERE A QUESTION?
Q. YES. DO YOU RECALL ANY OF THE SUBJECTS LISTED
ON THIS PAGE AS BEING DISCUSSED DURING THAT SIX-HOUR
MEETING?
A. I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION
ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT'S IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH,
SUPPORTING THE NOTION THAT ABIOTIC METHYLATION PROBABLY
OCCURS IN ADDITION TO BIOLOGICALLY-MEDIATED
METHYLATION, AND THAT THAT MAY BE IMPORTANT IN THE
EVERGLADES.
Q. OKAY. WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT DISCUSSION?
A. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.
Q. OKAY. THE THIRD PAGE, CAN YOU REVIEW THAT AND
THEN TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE TOPICS ADDRESSED
ON THAT PAGE WERE DISCUSSED DURING THE SIX-HOUR
MEETING?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
MR. SAMS: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE
FORM.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 83
A. REALIZE THAT THE TOPIC -- YOU ASKED ME IF THE
TOPICS ON THIS PAGE WERE DISCUSSED. EARLIER YOU ASKED
ME IF -- OR, IT'S MY IMPRESSION OF WHAT YOU WERE ASKING
ME WAS WERE THESE PARAGRAPHS DISCUSSED, AND REALIZE
THAT THESE TOPICS REOCCUR THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT---
Q. I SEE. OKAY. WELL, THEN, WERE THESE
PARAGRAPHS---
A. PERHAPS YOU COULD CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN.
Q. OKAY.
MR. SAMS: JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE YOU
ASKING HIM NOW WHETHER THE PARTICULAR
PARAGRAPHS WERE DISCUSSED?
MS. HOGAN: I'M ASKING HIM IF -- WHEN
THIS MEETING OCCURRED, IF THE SUBJECTS, THE
FORMAT, IF ANY OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED, IF
THIS---
MR. SAMS: I OBJECT, THEN, TO THE FORM,
BECAUSE ANY OF THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER.
MAYBE WE COULD GO OFF THE RECORD; MAY WE DO
THAT?
MS. HOGAN: SURE.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 84
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) WE'RE ON PAGE THREE?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY.
A. ON PAGE THREE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE
REPORT BY BARKAY AND -- WHICH, I THINK, IN GENERAL, WAS
TO CLARIFY OUR IMPRESSION OF THAT REPORT, WHICH BETSY
HENRY PARTICIPATED PRIMARILY IN THAT DISCUSSION.
Q. OKAY. WHAT DID THAT DISCUSSION CONSIST OF?
A. WAS MAINLY CONVEYING HER OPINION AS TO THE
NATURE OF THE REPORT -- YOU KNOW, DESCRIBING SOME OF
THE DETAILS THAT WERE IN IT, AND I REALLY DON'T RECALL
ALL THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT SHE SAID.
Q. WHAT WAS HER GENERAL OPINION OF THE REPORT?
A. WELL, ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT IS THAT IT WAS
ONLY ONE FAIRLY SIMPLE EXPERIMENT, AND IT'S HARD TO
DRAW A STRONG CONCLUSION FROM JUST ONE EXPERIMENT, THAT
IT WAS AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION AND SHOULD BE
REPEATED.
Q. OKAY.
A. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE, RELATED
TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THE INFLUENCE OF OXYGEN ON
METHYLMERCURY FORMATION, AND THAT WE HAVE OBSERVED IN
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 85
VERY LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONTENT WATERS THAT
METHYLMERCURY -- OR, MERCURY METHYLATION OCCURS IN THE
WATER COLUMN ITSELF AND NOT ONLY IN THE SEDIMENTS.
Q. OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "WE," YOU MEAN---
A. IN OUR PTI---
Q. ---PTI?
A. ---STUDIES OF ONONDAGA LAKE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
I DON'T RECALL ANY PARTICULAR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
PARAGRAPHS ON PAGE FOUR.
Q. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO PAGE FIVE.
A. THERE WAS SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH WITH RESPECT TO THE FOOD CHAIN. ONE TOPIC
THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND MUCH INFORMATION TO
PRESENT IN THE REPORT WAS THE HYPOTHESIS THAT MERCURY
BIOACCUMULATION IN THE EVERGLADES MAY BE EXACERBATED BY
THE FACT THAT THE SYSTEM IS NUTRIENT-STARVED AND THAT
MANY OF THE FISH SPECIES OR FISH FOOD ORGANISMS, IN
SOME CASES, HAVE A DIET THAT'S BASED ON DETRITUS AS
OPPOSED TO, LET'S SAY, PLANKTON OR PERIPHYTON COMMUNITY
ORGANISMS. AND THAT THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION OR SOME
STATEMENTS IN THE LITERATURE THAT THAT CAN AGGRAVATE OR
EXACERBATE BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. OKAY. THE DETRITUS?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 86
A. THAT -- COMMUNITIES THAT ARE DETRITUS-BASED.
AS THEY BECOME MORE AND MORE DETRITUS-BASED, THAT THAT
CAN AGGRAVATE BIOACCUMULATION.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THERE WAS SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE
OBSERVATION IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT METHYLMERCURY
ACCUMULATES IN PROTEIN, AS OPPOSED TO FATTY TISSUE.
THERE IS SOMETIMES A MISCONCEPTION THAT METHYLMERCURY
IS JUST SIMPLY LIPOPHILIC, AND THE OBSERVATION THAT
MERCURY STRONGLY BINDS IN FISH TISSUE IS SOMETIMES
OVERLOOKED. AS I SAY, IT WAS A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF
AN OBSERVATION.
Q. OKAY.
A. ULTIMATE AGREEMENT -- OR NOT -- I SHOULDN'T
SAY ULTIMATE AGREEMENT, BUT NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON THAT
TOPIC FROM ANYBODY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. AGAIN, IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE FIVE, IS
THIS PASSING DISCUSSION OF -- OR VERY GENERAL STATEMENT
REGARDING THE DETRITAL VERSUS PELAGIC FOOD WEBS,
ALTHOUGH I ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT; AND I THINK,
ACTUALLY, WE -- WELL, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT.
Q. PAGE SIX?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 87
A. THE PARTIAL PARAGRAPH ON THE TOP OF PAGE SIX,
I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WHERE WE WERE SIMPLY
AMPLIFYING THE POINT THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO
REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO GENERAL RELATIONSHIP FROM SITE
TO SITE TO SITE BETWEEN CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN
SEDIMENT OR WATER, AND RESULTING CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH
TISSUE. THAT IT'S A FAR MORE COMPLICATED SYSTEM THAT
ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND THE VARIOUS MECHANISMS BEFORE
THEY CAN MAKE THE APPROPRIATE LINKAGE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON THE
NEXT-TO-THE-LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE SIX, WHERE I WAS
POINTING OUT THAT THE EPA HAS PROPOSED SOME WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE GREAT LAKES THAT ARE EVEN MORE
STRINGENT THAN THESE THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE -- IN
THIS PARAGRAPH.
Q. WAS THIS PARAGRAPH CHANGED TO INCLUDE THAT
COMMENT?
A. NO, IT WAS NOT. IT WAS NOT A COMMENT; IT WAS
A---
Q. JUST AN OBSERVATION---
A. ---DISCUSSION AND, NO, WE HAVE NOT MODIFIED
THE REPORT TO TALK ABOUT OTHER CRITERIA AT THIS -- AT
LEAST, NOT YET.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 88
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THAT WAS, I THINK -- ON PAGE SIX, I BELIEVE
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT THIS PARAGRAPH -- LET'S
SEE, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THIS ONE OR NOT.
Q. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE SEVEN?
A. THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MAY HAVE CONTAINED A
LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN WE REALLY NEEDED TO -- TO
HAVE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I THINK WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE
TOPICS IN THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH ON PAGE SEVEN, ALONG THE
LINES TO SEE IF ANYONE HAD ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ON
THE NATURE OF ASSOCIATION OF METHYLMERCURY OR TOTAL
MERCURY WITH DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON. AND AS I
RECALL, IT WAS -- THERE WAS NOTHING NEW BEYOND WHAT WE
WERE ALREADY AWARE OF.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THAT'S ALL FOR PAGE SEVEN.
Q. WHEN YOU SAID IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE
SEVEN THAT IT MAY HAVE CONTAINED MORE INFORMATION THAN
YOU NEEDED TO HAVE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN?
A. THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION THERE THAT WAS NOT
GERMANE TO THE -- TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION OR POINT OF
THE REPORT, AND THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AND MIGHT
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 89
SERVE TO DETRACT THE READER IN FOLLOWING WHAT WE WERE
TRYING TO SAY.
Q. WHAT PORTIONS OF THE PARAGRAPH?
A. THE FIRST PORTION OF IT. I'M TRYING TO
REMEMBER IF WE -- THERE WAS -- I RECALL A PARAGRAPH
SIMILAR TO THIS OR, ACTUALLY, A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS
SIMILAR TO THIS, THAT WE ENDED UP TAKING OUT OF THE
REPORT. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE -- IF THIS MADE IT
TO THE FINAL REPORT OR THE FIRST PART OF THIS PARAGRAPH
WAS REMOVED.
Q. SO, IT'S THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NEGATIVE
CORRELATIONS WITH THE FISH MERCURY AND ALKALINITY,
CALCIUM, GROWTH RATE, pH?
A. CORRECT.
Q. AND THEN THE BOTTOM PART OF THE PARAGRAPH AS
WELL, OR JUST THAT TOP PART?
A. NO, WE CERTAINLY WANTED TO KEEP IN THE
DISCUSSION OF THE FIFTY-THREE FLORIDA LAKES, SINCE IT
RELATES TO FLORIDA SPECIFICALLY.
Q. OKAY. WE'RE ON TO PAGE EIGHT NOW?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF THE FLORIDA LAKE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 90
DATA AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF PHOSPHOROUS AND
CHLOROPHYLL, AND THAT WHEN ONE LOOKED AT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHLOROPHYLL AND FISH MERCURY
CONCENTRATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP
APPEARED TO BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, THEN IF ONE LOOKED
AT THE HIGHLY-RELATED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHOSPHOROUS
AND FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS. I THINK I POINTED OUT
AND I THINK BETSY PROBABLY ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN
ATTEMPTING TO RELATE MERCURY TO NUTRIENTS, THAT THERE
CAN BE MANY CONFOUNDING FACTORS, THAT IT'S NOT ALWAYS
SIMPLE TO INTERPRET THOSE RESULTS. THAT, IDEALLY, ONE
WOULD HAVE NOT ONLY PHOSPHOROUS DATA BUT ALSO
CHLOROPHYLL a DATA, WHICH IS A MEASURE OF HOW MUCH
PHYTOPLANKTON IS IN THE WATER COLUMN AND, IN FACT, IN
OUR CASE, HOW MANY PARTICULATES ARE IN THE WATER
COLUMN, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, WE BELIEVE. THAT
CHLOROPHYLL a IS ACTUALLY THE BETTER INDICATOR BUT,
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT BEEN MEASURED PREVIOUSLY TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE WITHIN THE EVERGLADES. IT SHOULD BE, BUT
IT'S NOT. AND, SO, AGAIN, IT WAS A SOMEWHAT GENERAL
DISCUSSION AND KIND OF GOING OVER HOW THOSE NUTRIENT
PRIMARY-PRODUCTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS WORK.
Q. OKAY. YOU SAID THAT CHLOROPHYLL a IS THE
BETTER INDICATOR OF---
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 91
A. I THINK FOR THIS PURPOSE, CHLOROPHYLL a WOULD
BE AN IMPORTANT PARAMETER TO MEASURE IN EVALUATING THE
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PHOSPHOROUS AND MERCURY
BIOACCUMULATION, YES.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THAT'S ALL FOR PAGE EIGHT.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. WE DID DISCUSS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE
PRESENT ON PAGE NINE. AND, OF COURSE, THIS IS STARTING
TO GET TO OUR KIND OF CENTRAL THESIS, THAT IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE INTERACTION OF PHOSPHOROUS
WITH THE CONCENTRATION OR MASS OF PARTICULATE MATTER IN
THE WATER COLUMN; HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH MERCURY; THE
IMPORTANCE OF BIODILUTION AND WHAT BIODILUTION REALLY
MEANS; THE FACT THAT IT'S REALLY NOT A RELEVANT CONCEPT
WITH RESPECT TO FISH TISSUE, BUT IS -- MORE OR LESS,
THE DEFINITION OF IT IS HOW IT RELATES TO PLANKTON IN
PARTICLES.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I THINK THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION OF THE
FACT THAT IT APPEARED THAT THIS IMPORTANT PROCESS HAS
SO FAR BEEN LARGELY OVERLOOKED IN THE EVERGLADES.
Q. THE PROCESS OF DILUTION?
A. BIODILUTION.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 92
Q. BIODILUTION.
A. YES.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR PAGE NINE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING IN ADDITION
TO WHAT I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED WAS DISCUSSED WITH
RESPECT TO THE PARAGRAPHS ON PAGE TEN.
Q. OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT THE FOOD WEB BASE ON
THE---
A. CORRECT. YEAH, WE'RE STARTING TO GET TO THE
POINT WHERE WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE SAME TOPICS THAT
WERE IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS.
Q. OKAY.
A. IT'S -- I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR PAGE TEN.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. ON PAGE ELEVEN ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH --
WELL, I GUESS I'VE ALREADY COVERED THAT. THAT IS THE
INTERACTION OR THE INFLUENCE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON
METHYLMERCURY PRODUCTION.
Q. THAT'S IN THE LAST SENTENCE?
A. YES, IN THE LAST SENTENCE.
Q. "SEVERAL WORKERS HAVE NOTED A DAMPENING OF THE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 93
DRAMATIC DIURNAL PATTERN OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CONCENTRATIONS IN EVERGLADE SYSTEM . . . ."
A. YES.
Q. WHAT IS MEANT BY "A DAMPENING"?
A. THAT THE EXTREME -- THAT THE HIGHS ARE NOT AS
HIGH AND THE LOWS ARE NOT AS LOW.
Q. AND WHEN IT SAYS "SEVERAL WORKERS," WHAT---
A. "HAVE NOTED A DAMPENING"?
Q. YEAH, BUT WHAT IS MEANT BY "WORKERS"?
A. OH, INVESTIGATORS; IT'S PEOPLE WHO HAVE
PUBLISHED IN THE LITERATURE.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. AGAIN, IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, I DON'T KNOW IF
THEY -- THAT THERE WAS ANY CONVERSATION DIRECTLY
LINKED TO THIS PARAGRAPH, BUT IT'S -- THERE WAS, OF
COURSE, DISCUSSION OF THESE TYPES OF TOPICS, AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT IN THE VERY NUTRIENT-POOR PORTIONS OF
THE EVERGLADES THAT DEMETHYLATION WAS SOMEHOW BEING
INHIBITED, ALSO, WHICH SEEMED TO BE A POSSIBILITY.
Q. IN THE NUTRIENT-POOR?
A. CORRECT.
Q. AND WHAT KIND OF DISCUSSION DID YOU HAVE ON
THAT?
A. WELL, THAT IT WAS A POSSIBILITY BUT THERE ARE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 94
NO DATA TO SUPPORT IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND IT'S
CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO.
Q. OKAY. THIS PARAGRAPH WAS TAKEN OUT, FROM
METHYLMERCURY TO THE WORD PRODUCTION ON PAGE TWELVE.
WAS THAT A SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE AT THAT MEETING?
A. I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THAT'S ALL ON PAGE ELEVEN.
Q. BACK ON PAGE ELEVEN, THERE'S A MENTION AGAIN
OF THE BARKAY STUDY. WAS THAT DISCUSSED AGAIN?
A. I DON'T RECALL ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEYOND
GENERAL DISCUSSION THAT I---
Q. MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY?
A. ---MENTIONED EARLIER, YEAH.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE TWELVE. I'M NOT SURE IF
IT WAS OF THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH, BUT THIS PARAGRAPH
REMINDS ME THAT WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE
EXTENT WITHIN THE WCA, OR THE WATER CONSERVATION AREAS,
OF THE INFLUENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS ON BIOACCUMULATION.
AND THAT, OF COURSE, THE EXTENT OF THE INFLUENCE ON
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 95
BIOACCUMULATION IS GOING TO COVER PRETTY MUCH THE SAME
AREA AS THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF THE PHOSPHOROUS, IS
THE EASY ANSWER TO THAT. HOWEVER, IT'S DIFFICULT TO
PREDICT THAT IN THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO
COUPLE SOME OF OUR INFORMATION WITH OTHER INFORMATION
ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PHOSPHOROUS THAT WE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO COME UP WITH. SO, THIS WAS AN AREA WE WERE
INTERESTED IN PURSUING FURTHER IF WE CAN GET MORE
INFORMATION ON IT.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS WE DISCUSSED
RELATIVE TO THE MIDDLE PARAGRAPH HERE ON PAGE TWELVE.
Q. THE ONE THAT BEGINS WITH "IN ADDITION"?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY.
A. WITH RESPECT TO THE EPA DATA AND THE FORM OF
THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US, WHICH WAS MAINLY SOME
BAR CHARTS, THAT THAT PRELIMINARY FORM OF THE DATA
COULD BE A LITTLE MISLEADING IN THAT IT DIDN'T GIVE
YOU ANY UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW SUCCESSIVE POINTS
WERE HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED. THAT IS, I MEAN, IT
COULD BE LIKE COMPARING ONE DATA POINT IN ONE LAKE TO
A DATA POINT IN ANOTHER LAKE AND NOT KNOWING THAT THEY
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 96
WERE TWO SEPARATE LAKES.
Q. OKAY.
A. AND THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PURSUE
FURTHER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT DATA SET.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. ALSO IN THAT PARAGRAPH WITH REGARD TO FIGURE
TWELVE, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION MORE OF CLARIFICATION
TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE
ATTEMPTING TO DEMONSTRATE HERE. AND THAT WHAT WE'RE --
THE MOST INTERESTING FEATURE HERE, MOST IMPORTANT
FEATURE, RELATES TO THE MAXIMUM VALUE THAT RELATES TO
ANY GIVEN PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATION.
Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A. THAT IS, THAT -- IF YOU LOOK ON FIGURE TWELVE,
THAT WE ARE ESPECIALLY INTERESTED HOW THE MAXIMUM
DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS -- LET'S SAY
AT -- YOU SEE HOLEYLAND C, YOU SEE WCA-F -- THAT, IN
THE REGION OF ZERO TO TWENTY MICROGRAMS TOTAL
DISSOLVED PHOSPHOROUS, THAT WE CAN HAVE -- THAT THE
MAXIMUM VALUES CAN BE FAIRLY HIGH. OF COURSE, WE CAN
ALSO HAVE SOME VERY LOW VALUES. BUT THE IMPORTANT
THING IS HOW HIGH DOES THE HIGH GET?
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 97
LIMITING THE MAXIMUM DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY
CONCENTRATION IN ADDITION TO PHOSPHOROUS, AND THAT MAY
EXPLAIN SOME OF THESE LOW POINTS. BUT WE'RE INTERESTED
IN RELATIONSHIP TO PHOSPHOROUS; HOW HIGH CAN THAT VALUE
BE? AND AS WE SEE IN THE REGION OF ZERO TO TWENTY
MICROGRAMS PER LITER, AS YOU SEE, DISSOLVED
METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS FROM THIS DATA SET WERE UP
TO POINT TWO FOUR NANOGRAMS PER LITER. HOWEVER, WHERE
THERE WERE INCREASED LEVELS OF TOTAL DISSOLVED
PHOSPHOROUS, LET'S SAY IN THE REGION OF FORTY TO SIXTY
MICROGRAMS PER LITER, THE HIGHEST VALUES AS
REPRESENTED, LET'S SAY, BY THAT POINT ENR-C, WAS ON THE
ORDER OF POINT ONE.
Q. AND, SO, WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION?
A. THE IMPLICATION HERE AND THE POINT THAT WE
WANTED TO GET ACROSS WAS THAT THIS FIGURE IS WHAT
DEMONSTRATES THAT -- BEST DEMONSTRATES THAT VARIOUS
LEVELS OF TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHOROUS SEEM TO CONTROL
THE MAXIMUM VALUE THAT CAN BE -- THAT WILL BE OBSERVED
WITH RESPECT TO DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY IN THIS CASE.
Q. OKAY.
A. THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONTROLLING INFLUENCE.
Q. WHY, EXCUSE ME, IS THIS DATA SET NOT LIKE
COMPARING DATA FROM DIFFERENT LAKES?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 98
A. YOU'RE REFERRING TO MY COMMENT ON THE EPA
DATA?
Q. YEAH.
A. THE REASON IS -- IDEALLY, I THINK THE BEST WAY
TO EVALUATE THE EPA DATA IS, FIRST OF ALL, LOOK AT THE
DATA THAT YOU KNOW ARE HYDRAULICALLY RELATED. THAT IS,
FOR EXAMPLE, PICK A CANAL AND YOU MIGHT FIND THAT THERE
ARE SEVERAL SAMPLE STATIONS IN THAT CANAL THAT GO FROM
UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM. OF COURSE, THESE CANALS ARE A
LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL IN THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS BREACHES
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY -- WITHDRAWALS OF WATER ALONG
THE WAY. BUT, NEVERTHELESS, THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD
REPRESENT A SYSTEM THAT'S MOST LIKE A RIVER, LET'S SAY;
AND ONE WHERE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ALREADY FROM
OTHER INVESTIGATIONS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD AS TO HOW
WATER QUALITY SHOULD BEHAVE.
SO, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S -- YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD
LOOK AT THOSE POINTS AND SEE WHAT SORT OF RELATIONSHIPS
WE SEE, BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE CANAL STATIONS -- FOR
EXAMPLE, THE NORTH NEW RIVER CANAL MAY BE TOTALLY
DIFFERENT HYDRAULICALLY FROM SOME OTHER CANALS. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE -- THERE ARE SOME STATIONS DOWN BY THE --
I BELIEVE IT'S THE L-67a CANAL. I DON'T HAVE THE MAP.
YES, DOWN BY L-67a WHICH ARE HYDRAULICALLY VERY, VERY
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 99
DIFFERENT. I MEAN, THAT'S ALMOST MORE LIKE STAGNANT
WATER THAN IT IS A RIVER. ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAREFUL
IN MAKING COMPARISONS BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
AND I THINK, TOO, ULTIMATELY YOU'RE GOING TO FIND
A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU OBSERVE IN THE CANAL
VERSUS WHAT YOU OBSERVE IN THE MARSH.
(THEREUPON, MS. HOGAN AND DR. JONES CONFER.)
Q. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THE FLOWS IN THE L-67a, THE
FLOW RATES?
A. I KNOW THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY BORROW CANALS
CONFINED BY A SINGLE LEVY. I DID HAVE SOME INFORMATION
ON FLOW RATES; I DON'T -- IT WAS IN ONE OF MY PAPERS
THAT WE PRODUCED. AS I RECALL, IT WAS PRETTY LOW.
THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF WATER BEING MOVED IN THAT
SYSTEM.
Q. OKAY. THAT'S IN ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU
PRODUCED?
A. CORRECT.
Q. OKAY. OKAY. ARE WE ON PAGE TWELVE?
A. YES, STILL ON PAGE TWELVE.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, IT'S JUST SOME
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 100
DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFERENCES IN CANALS. I THINK I HAD
ASKED FOR SOME INFORMATION ON WATER DEPTHS, WHICH I
GOT, WHICH INDICATED THAT THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE CANAL
SYSTEMS WATER DEPTHS ARE ON THE ORDER OF TWELVE TO AS
MUCH AS TWENTY FEET, AND THAT -- OF COURSE, THAT'S FAR
GREATER THAN THE DEPTH OF WATER THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE
MARSH SYSTEM.
Q. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THE
RELATIONSHIPS.
A. I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR PAGE TWELVE.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. ON PAGE THIRTEEN, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, I
BELIEVE, AS TO HOW DIFFERENCES IN SEDIMENTATION RATE
MIGHT INFLUENCE THE ULTIMATE CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY
IN SEDIMENTS IN THE CANAL OR IN THE EPA DATA SET; AND
THAT THIS CONCEPT OF BIODILUTION IS RELEVANT TO THAT
ISSUE, IN THAT IF YOU HAVE HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF
PARTICLES, WHICH WITH BIODILUTION HAS A RELATIVELY
LOWER CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY ON THOSE PARTICLES, THAT
THOSE TEND TO SETTLE OUT. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, YOUR
ACCUMULATION RATE OF THOSE PARTICLES ON THE BOTTOM IS
GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN SOMEPLACE FURTHER DOWNSTREAM,
LET'S SAY, WHERE THERE'S NO BIODILUTION, AND THAT THE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 101
ULTIMATE CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY IN THE SEDIMENTS
WOULD END UP BEING LOWER THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND
DOWNSTREAM, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT
COUNTERINTUITIVE.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. LET'S SEE. THERE WAS, CERTAINLY, DISCUSSION
OF WHAT SORT OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND.
IT STARTS TO GET INTO PAGE THIRTEEN AND CONTINUES ON TO
PAGE FOURTEEN. IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED
THE -- HOW LONG OR HOW EXTENSIVE AN INVESTIGATION MIGHT
BE. AS I RECALL, I THINK WE SETTLED ON THREE YEARS,
WHICH IS WHAT WE PUT IN THE FINAL DRAFT. WE -- YOU
KNOW, FOR COMPARISON, OUR STUDIES AT ONONDAGA LAKE ARE
RIGHT NOW SCHEDULED TO BE ABOUT FOUR YEARS. AND THE
DISCUSSION WAS ALONG THE LINE, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO
TELL EXACTLY HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE, BUT THESE
TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS DO TAKE QUITE A LONG TIME BY
THE TIME YOU'RE FULLY PREPARED TO DECIDE EXACTLY -- YOU
KNOW, MAKE THE FINAL PLANS FOR THE INVESTIGATION; DO
THE DATA COLLECTION, AND THEN, ESPECIALLY, TO PREPARE
THE REPORTS WHICH CAN -- SEEMS LIKE WE WERE ALWAYS
UNDERESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THAT TAKES.
Q. HOW DID YOU SETTLE ON THE THREE YEARS?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 102
A. WELL, THAT WAS, I THINK, THE BEST JUDGMENT OF
MYSELF AND BETSY, AS TO HOW LONG THAT PROCESS WOULD --
COULD TAKE. REALLY, MY FEELING IS THAT THAT'S PROBABLY
THE SOONEST THAT IT COULD BE DONE, REALISTICALLY; THAT
IT COULD CERTAINLY TAKE LONGER.
Q. WHAT TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS WERE DISCUSSED?
A. WE TALKED ABOUT REALLY TWO -- TWO THINGS. ONE
IS WHAT YOU MIGHT CLASSIFY AS MONITORING-TYPE STUDIES,
AND THAT IS REPEATED OBSERVATIONS, AND HOW LONG IT
WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO DO THAT AND WHAT SORT OF
PARAMETERS WOULD BE GOOD TO MONITOR. THE OTHER TYPES
OF STUDIES ARE MORE MECHANISTIC, YOU MIGHT CALL THEM,
IN NATURE, AND THAT IS MORE HIGHLY FOCUSED STUDIES
AIMED AT TRYING TO DETERMINE ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
MECHANISMS THAT MAY BE CONTROLLING BIOACCUMULATION, OR
SOMETHING LIKE DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF METHYLATION RATES
IN SEDIMENT AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE EVERGLADES.
Q. DID YOU DISCUSS THE AMOUNT OF MERCURY THAT
WOULD BE ACCUMULATING IN THE REST OF THE EVERGLADES
DURING THAT STUDY PERIOD, AND WEIGHING THAT IN TERMS OF
MORE MONITORING VERSUS MORE ACCUMULATION, MORE
METHYLATION?
A. NO, I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL ANY -- YOU KNOW,
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 103
THAT POINT COMING UP OR ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
Q. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
MR. SAMS: OBJECT TO THE FORM.
A. COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT QUESTION?
Q. WELL, AT PRESENT---
A. OR RESTATE? I'M SORRY.
Q. OKAY. AT PRESENT, THERE IS AN ACCUMULATION OF
MERCURY WITHIN THE SYSTEM NOW; MERCURY IS ACCUMULATING.
A. UH-HUH (YES).
Q. AND IF YOU DELAY CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S TO
STUDY THE EFFECTS OF PHOSPHOROUS ON THE
BIOACCUMULATION, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE
PROS AND CONS OF WAITING?
A. OH, YES, VERY MUCH SO. I MEAN, MY FEELING IS
THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S ULTIMATELY COULD
AGGRAVATE THE PROBLEM OF BIOACCUMULATION IN THE
EVERGLADES, CERTAINLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE STA'S.
AND THAT IT'S OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT THE PROBLEM BE
EVALUATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE STA'S.
Q. DO YOU THINK THAT THE METHYLATION THAT WILL
CONTINUE DURING THAT WAITING PERIOD IS GREATER THAN THE
POTENTIAL METHYLATION -- EXCUSE ME -- IS GREATER THAN
THE POTENTIAL BIOACCUMULATION THAT THE STA'S WOULD
PRODUCE DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, WITHIN THE STA'S?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 104
A. WELL, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A --
THE CURRENT CONDITION AND PAST CONDITION IS ONE WHERE A
LEVEL OF BIOACCUMULATION HAS BEEN OCCURRING THAT IS
VIEWED AS BEING UNACCEPTABLE -- AT LEAST BY THE STATE,
ACCORDING TO THEIR ADVISORIES -- AND, IN MY OPINION,
THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STA'S BEING CONSTRUCTED AND THE
RESULT OF PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL, TO THE EXTENT THEY DO
THAT, IS GOING TO AGGRAVATE THAT PROBLEM. I WOULD SAY
THAT THE TRADE-OFF IS -- THERE'S LITTLE QUESTION THAT
IT WOULD BE WORTH IT.
FINISH THE PAGE, HUH?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). WE'RE ON FOURTEEN?
A. CORRECT.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING FURTHER ON
FOURTEEN.
Q. OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE TABLES IN THE BACK.
A. UH-HUH (YES). TABLE 1, I DON'T THINK THERE
WAS ANY SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF THIS TABLE. IT'S
RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND JUST IS POINTING OUT
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OLIGOTROPHIC VERSUS
EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS.
THAT'S BASICALLY THE SAME THING WITH TABLE 2,
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 105
WHICH IS AGAIN PROVIDING GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
DIFFERENT TROPHIC-LEVEL SYSTEMS, THIS TIME IN TERMS OF
NUTRIENTS, CHLOROPHYLL a AND TRANSPARENCY MEASURED AS
SECCHI DEPTH.
NO -- NO PARTICULAR DISCUSSION OF TABLE 3 OR
TABLE 4 THAT I RECALL.
Q. OKAY. NOW WE'RE INTO THE FIGURES SECTION.
A. FIGURE 1, THE DIAGRAM SHOWS THE GENERAL
TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES IN AQUATIC SYSTEMS. THERE WAS
DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC, BUT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC
DISCUSSION DIRECTED AT THIS FIGURE.
Q. OKAY. WHAT WAS THE GENERAL DISCUSSION AS TO
THE TOPIC?
A. WELL, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THIS IS A CENTRAL
ISSUE TO THE WHOLE DISCUSSION OF BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN
THE ENVIRONMENT, SINCE THIS IS KIND OF A SUMMARY
DIAGRAM OF HOW IT ALL WORKS. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC
ISSUES OR -- THAT I CAN RECALL. IT WAS -- ONLY MUCH OF
OUR CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, HAD SOME BEARING OR WAS, IN
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, RELATED TO CYCLING OF MERCURY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. NO, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF
FIGURE 2 OR FIGURE 3. NO SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF
FIGURE 4 THAT I RECALL. WE HAD DISCUSSED THE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 106
INFORMATION PRESENTED IN FIGURE 5, IN THAT IT RELATES
TO SOME OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN ONONDAGA LAKE AND THE
NATURE OF BIOACCUMULATION, AND THAT THIS IS THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR THE
EVERGLADES. BUT IT WAS -- THE DISCUSSION WAS ALONG THE
LINE OF OUR EXPLAINING WHAT WE HAD DONE SO EVERYBODY
ELSE WAS -- WAS AWARE OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT'S IN
FIGURE 5.
Q. OKAY.
A. SIMILAR SITUATION WITH FIGURE 6, IN THAT THIS
RELATES SOME OF OUR ONONDAGA LAKE OBSERVATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO METHYLMERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN VARIOUS
COMPARTMENTS OF THE ONONDAGA LAKE SYSTEM. IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL MERCURY THAT IS REPRESENTED BY METHYLMERCURY, AND
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF THE FACT THAT IN LOWER
TROPHIC LEVELS, THAT THE FRACTION OF TOTAL MERCURY THAT
IS ACTUALLY METHYLMERCURY IS LESS THAN WHAT ONE
OBSERVES IN FISH.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF FIGURE 7, WHICH SHOWS
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
AND CHLOROPHYLL a IN THE LAKES, FLORIDA LAKES, IN THE
LANGE REFERENCE. SOME OF IT, FOR EXAMPLE -- YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, POINTING OUT AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 107
UNDERSTOOD THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY GETTING AT HERE IS
THE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION THAT CAN OCCUR IN
RELATIONSHIP TO ANY PARTICULAR CONCEN -- YOU KNOW,
CONCENTRATION OF CHLOROPHYLL a, THAT IT'S TO BE
EXPECTED THAT YOU WILL GET POINTS THAT ARE ANYWHERE
BETWEEN THAT MAXIMUM AND ZERO BECAUSE OF OTHER
INFLUENCES. BUT AS FAR AS TRYING TO ESTIMATE THE
ACTUAL INFLUENCE OF CHLOROPHYLL a, THAT WE'RE MOST
INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THESE MAXIMUM VALUES.
Q. WHAT WOULD THOSE OTHER INFLUENCES BE?
A. WELL, IN THE CASE OF LAKES, IT MIGHT BE
AVAILABLE LIGHT THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE THE FOOD; BUT IF
THE PLANKTON AREN'T ABLE TO PHOTOSYNTHESIZE, THEY'RE
NOT GOING TO UTILIZE THE AVAILABLE FOOD.
Q. WHAT WOULD THE INFLUENCES BE IN THE
EVERGLADES?
A. IN THE EVERGLADES, OTHER -- AT TIMES OTHER
NUTRIENTS MIGHT BE LIMITING. I DOUBT THAT LIGHT WOULD
BE THAT IMPORTANT. TEMPERATURE AT TIMES COULD BE
LIMITING THE ACTIVITY OF PLANKTON GROWTH.
Q. WHAT OTHER NUTRIENTS?
A. IRON IS A POSSIBILITY, I THINK. THAT'S KIND
OF A CLASSIC ONE. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE IN THE EVERGLADES. ANOTHER LIMITING FACTOR IN
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 108
THE CONCENTRATION OF CHLOROPHYLL a -- OR PHYTOPLANKTON
IS JUST THE RATE IT'S BEING EATEN BY OTHER ORGANISMS,
TOO. SOMETIMES YOU GET LESS THAN OPTIMUM
CONCENTRATIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING HEAVILY GRAZED.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY REAL PARTICULAR
DISCUSSION OF FIGURE 8, OTHER THAN THIS IS RIGHT OUT OF
LANGE'S PAPER, AND IT IS SHOWING QUITE CLEARLY THAT
THERE -- AS FAR AS THE LAKES IN FLORIDA, THAT THERE IS
AN INFLUENCE OF DEGREE OF EUTROPHICATION OR -- ON
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN FISH.
Q. OKAY.
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS WITH
FIGURE 9. I'M SURE WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE -- WHAT THE TOPIC MAY HAVE BEEN,
OR FIGURE 10.
Q. YOU DON'T RECALL DISCUSSIONS REGARDING
FIGURE 10?
A. WELL, NOTHING -- NOTHING SPECIFIC. IT'S JUST
ONE THAT WE CREATED USING OR BASED ON HAKANSON'S MODEL
TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THE PARAMETERS THAT GO INTO THE
EQUATION THAT HE DEVELOPED IN HIS 1988 PAPER. THAT IS,
THAT SEDIMENT MERCURY CONDUCTIVITY LAKE AREA AND pH
WERE FACTORS THAT HE FOUND TO BE RELEVANT TO FISH
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 109
MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN SWEDISH LAKES, WHEN HE
STUDIED A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF LAKES. THAT HE SAW A
FAIRLY STRONG EMPIRICAL ASSOCIATION WITH THESE
PATTERNS.
THE OTHER THING TO NOTE ON THIS IS THAT WE
CONFINED THE RANGE OF THESE GRAPHS TO THE RANGE OF
HAKANSON'S OBSERVATIONS. WE ALSO PUT FISH MERCURY
CONCENTRATION ON THE SAME SCALE, SO THAT THE SLOPE OF
THE LINE WOULD GIVE THE READER A SENSE OF HOW IMPORTANT
THAT VARIABLE MIGHT BE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT
LAKE AREA, THE SLOPE IS FAIRLY SMALL COMPARED TO
SOMETHING LIKE pH, INDICATING THAT THE pH IS A MORE --
WOULD BE A MORE IMPORTANT VARIABLE THAN -- OR MORE
SENSITIVE VARIABLE, I SHOULD SAY -- THAN LAKE AREA.
Q. DID YOU DISCUSS HOW THIS RELATES TO THE
EVERGLADES?
A. AT SOME POINT I'M SURE WE HAVE. THE -- AND
I'M SURE THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE AROUND THE POINT THAT
ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN TRYING TO TRANSFER
EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS FROM ONE AQUATIC SYSTEM TO
ANOTHER. WHETHER IT'S LAKES IN SWEDEN, THE LAKES IN
FLORIDA OR EVEN, PROBABLY, THAT COMMENT COULD APPLY TO
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM. THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BE DEALING -- IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 110
THE MECHANISMS AND WHAT'S REALLY CONTROLLING THINGS,
THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE APPROPRIATE DATA FROM THAT
PARTICULAR SYSTEM.
FIGURE 11, WE, OF COURSE, PROBABLY DISCUSSED THIS
IN THAT THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
RESULTS OF THE KBN SAMPLING IN WCA-2A. THERE WAS
NOTHING SPECIFIC TO THIS FIGURE OTHER THAN IT WAS
AGREED THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- THESE ARE THE RESULTS
OF THE DATA, AND THAT IT SHOWS A STRONG RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY AND TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS
CONCENTRATION.
Q. YOU'RE SAYING THIS DATA COMES FROM KBN?
A. CORRECT, AS IT MENTIONS THERE AT THE BOTTOM
WHAT THE SOURCE -- FROM KBN AND FROM THE DUKE
REPORT.
Q. OKAY.
A. AND THEN THE LAST ONE I THINK WE'VE ALREADY
DISCUSSED. I TALKED ABOUT FIGURE 12 EARLIER ON.
Q. OKAY. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DRAFT, DOES IT
PROMPT YOU TO REMEMBER ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSED IN ADDITION TO THE ONES THAT YOU'VE JUST
MENTIONED?
A. NO.
Q. OKAY.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 111
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THIS
WOULD BE A GOOD POINT TO TAKE A BREAK FOR
LUNCH. WHY DON'T WE RESUME IN ABOUT AN HOUR.
(THEREUPON, A LUNCH BREAK WAS
TAKEN FROM 12:25 P.M. TO 1:48 P.M.)
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN CONTINUES:
Q. SO, MR. BIGHAM, AFTER THE MARCH 18TH MEETING,
WHAT WAS THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
REPORT?
A. AFTER THAT MEETING, BETSY HENRY TOOK THE LEAD
IN FINALIZING THE REPORT; AND OTHER THAN FREQUENT
DISCUSSIONS OF HOW PROGRESS WAS GOING AND PROBABLY
SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES, I
REALLY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
REPORT.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY "TECHNICAL ISSUES," WHAT DO YOU
MEAN?
A. DISCUSSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL PAPERS WE HAD
READ; ANY FURTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO VARIOUS
MERCURY-CYCLING MECHANISMS, FOR EXAMPLE.
Q. DO YOU RECALL ANY OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS?
A. NO, I DO NOT RECALL ANYTHING SPECIFIC.
Q. OKAY. DID ANYONE ELSE BECOME INVOLVED IN THE
REPORT AFTER THE MARCH 18TH MEETING?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 112
A. YES. WE HAD, AS WE TYPICALLY DO IN PTI, A
SENIOR TECHNICAL REVIEW, AS WELL AS AN EDITORIAL REVIEW
OF THE REPORT. THAT WAS DONE IN OUR OFFICE IN
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON.
Q. AND WHO ARE THOSE PERSONS WHO DID THAT
TECHNICAL REVIEW---
A. LUCINDA JACOBS---
Q. ---AND THE EDITORIAL REVIEW?
A. ---AND ANNE McDONALD ALSO REVIEWED THE REPORT.
Q. OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THIS IS ANOTHER DRAFT OF OUR REPORT DATED
MARCH 22, 1994.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW THAT DRAFT REPORT?
A. NO, I DID NOT.
Q. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT AND ASK
IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
A. THIS IS THE TRANSMITTAL LETTER OF OUR EXPERT
REPORT DATED MARCH 24TH FROM ME TO GARY SAMS AND SIGNED
BY ME OR -- EXCUSE ME -- SIGNED FOR ME BY ANNE
McDONALD.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU DRAFT THIS LETTER?
A. NO, I DID NOT. BETSY HENRY DRAFTED THAT
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 113
LETTER.
Q. OKAY.
A. I WAS OUT ON LEAVE THE WEEK THAT THAT WAS
TAKING PLACE AT A FUNERAL.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW THIS LETTER?
A. NO, I DID NOT.
Q. NO. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. THIS IS A COPY OF OUR FINAL REPORT.
Q. DID YOU REVIEW THAT REPORT?
A. I'VE REVIEWED EARLIER DRAFTS, AS I EXPLAINED
EARLIER. I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH AND REVIEWED, PER SE,
THIS PARTIC -- FINAL DRAFT.
Q. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE
FINAL DRAFT UNTIL TODAY?
A. NO. I'VE SEEN IT, BUT I HAVEN'T REVIEWED
IT---
Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY---
A. ---WORD FOR WORD, PAGE FOR PAGE.
Q. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY INPUT IN THAT FINAL
REPORT, OTHER THAN THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE
MARCH 18TH MEETING?
A. I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT WOULD
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 114
HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING I SAID AFTER THE
18TH MEETING.
Q. DID YOU SEE THAT REPORT PRIOR TO IT BEING SENT
OUT TO THE PEOPLE ON THIS MARCH 24, 1994, LIST?
A. NO, I DID NOT SEE IT BEFORE IT WENT OUT---
Q. OKAY.
A. ---THE FINAL. MY FEELING WAS THAT IT WAS IN
VERY GOOD ORDER, AND I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH IT GOING
OUT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER REVIEW ON MY PART BECAUSE OF
THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT, AS WELL AS THE EDITORIAL
AND TECHNICAL REVIEW IT RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO MY LAST
REVIEW.
Q. OKAY. DR. BIGHAM, IS IT COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT
EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS DON'T HAVE MERCURY PROBLEMS?
A. EXCUSE ME, BUT IT'S MR. BIGHAM.
Q. I'M SORRY.
A. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
Q. IS IT COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT EUTROPHIC SYSTEMS
DON'T HAVE MERCURY PROBLEMS?
A. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE
UNITED STATES, PROBABLY NOT. I THINK WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY OF THOSE RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING
RESEARCH ON BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY, I WOULD EXPECT THAT
THEY WOULD BE AWARE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAVE BEEN
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 115
OBSERVED BETWEEN DEGREE OF EUTROPHY AND
BIOACCUMULATION, YES.
Q. SO, THEY WOULD BE FAMILIAR?
A. AMONG MERCURY RESEARCHERS, I WOULD THINK SO.
Q. OKAY. WHAT IS THE BASIC HYPOTHESIS OF THE
MARCH 24, 1994, DRAFT REPORT?
A. THE BASIC HYPOTHESIS OF THIS REPORT, I GUESS
TO BOIL IT DOWN TO ONE CENTRAL THEME, IS THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT PHOSPHOROUS THAT IS CURRENTLY -- OR
WHERE IT IS PRESENT AT ELEVATED LEVELS AS WE SEE IN
THE WCA-2A PROVIDES AMELIORATING OR MODERATING
INFLUENCE ON THE AMOUNT OF METHYLATION THAT OCCURS IN
THE FISH.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DO YOU AGREE WITH THE
HYPOTHESIS STATED IN THE REPORT?
A. YES, I DO.
Q. OKAY. DID I CUT YOU OFF?
A. (NODS NEGATIVELY.)
Q. WHAT CRITICISM DO YOU HAVE, IF ANY, OF THE
HYPOTHESIS AS STATED IN THE REPORT?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 116
A. I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE ANY CRITICISM
WITH THE HYPOTHESIS AS STATED IN THE REPORT.
Q. DOES THE REPORT IDENTIFY SPECIFIC MECHANISMS
WHICH CAUSE BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN THE
PRESENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS?
A. COULD YOU RESTATE -- SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?
Q. YES. DOES THE REPORT IDENTIFY SPECIFIC
MECHANISMS WHICH CAUSE BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY
IN THE PRESENCE OF PHOSPHOROUS?
A. IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC MECHANISMS.
I WISH WE COULD.
Q. OKAY. WHAT EXPERIMENTS OR STUDIES HAS PTI
CONDUCTED TO PROVE THE HYPOTHESIS THAT'S BEEN STATED IN
THE REPORT?
A. THE STUDIES WE'VE CONDUCTED TO PROVE THE
HYPOTHESIS HAS REALLY BEEN THE WORK REPORTED IN OUR
REPORT. THAT IS, WE HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO CONDUCT ANY
EXPERIMENTS. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE APPROXIMATELY
SIX WEEKS WE HAVE HAD AVAILABLE WAS TO REVIEW ALL THE
LITERATURE AND INFORMATION WE COULD GET OUR HANDS ON
AND ASSIMILATE IN THAT PERIOD TO EVALUATE THAT SPECIFIC
ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT PHOSPHOROUS SEEMS TO HAVE A
MELIORATING EFFECT ON MERCURY BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. OKAY.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 117
A. AND WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO, AS COMPLETELY AS
POSSIBLE, DISPLAY ALL THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT WE
COULD COME UP WITH IN OUR REPORT.
Q. ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS BASED ON
OTHER THAN THE CORRELATION BETWEEN PHOSPHOROUS
CONCENTRATION AND THE MERCURY IN FISH?
A. PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL BIT OF
INFORMATION THAT IT'S BASED ON, IF I WERE TO TRY TO
SIMPLIFY THE ANSWER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, IS OUR -- ARE
THE EXTENSIVE OBSERVATIONS WE'VE MADE IN ONONDAGA LAKE
AND THE SYSTEM THAT WE'VE BEEN STUDYING FOR THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS. AND IN ATTEMPTING -- WELL, NOT IN
ATTEMPTING BUT IN COMPARING OUR OBSERVATIONS IN THAT
SYSTEM TO THE OLIGOTROPHIC LAKES, WHERE BEHAVIOR OF
MERCURY AND BIOACCUMULATION HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY
STUDIED.
IT HAS HIGHLIGHTED TO US, PERHAPS MORE THAN ANYONE
ELSE WHO HAS BEEN RESEARCHING THE BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY
IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTS, THE VERY BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE RELATIONSHIP OF MERCURY IN WATER AND
MERCURY IN FISH. THAT IS, THAT IN OLIGOTROPHIC
SYSTEMS, A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF MERCURY IN
WATER -- OR SEDIMENT, FOR THAT MATTER -- SEEMS TO
ULTIMATELY TRANSLATE INTO UNACCEPTABLY HIGH OR CAN
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 118
TRANSLATE INTO UNACCEPTABLY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF
MERCURY IN FISH.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IN OUR SYSTEM IN ONONDAGA LAKE,
WHICH IS TYPICALLY REFERRED TO AS HYPEREUTROPHIC, WHERE
WE HAVE LOTS -- LOTS AND LOTS OF PHOSPHOROUS, WE HAVE A
RELATIVELY HIGH CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY IN WATER AND
SEDIMENT, YET IT DOES NOT LEAD TO CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN FISH.
BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, IT SEEMS QUITE CLEAR
TO US THAT PHOSPHOROUS AND THE RESULTS OF -- OR THE
EFFECTS OF EUTROPHICATION SEEM TO BE LARGELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DIFFERENCE.
Q. WHAT EXPERIMENTS OR STUDIES HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS -- NOT NECESSARILY
BY YOU, BUT JUST IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?
A. I THINK THERE'S A GENERAL ABSENCE OF
EXPERIMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO SPECIFICALLY
PROVE THIS HYPOTHESIS OF PHOSPHOROUS/BIOACCUMULATION
RELATIONSHIP. MOST OF THE INFORMATION IN THE
LITERATURE RELATES JUST TO EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION, THAT
THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. I'M NOT OF YET AWARE OF
ANYONE WHO'S BEEN ABLE TO OR HAS ATTEMPTED TO DESIGN
AND CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS THAT REALLY GET TO THE ISSUE OF
DEFINING THE MECHANISMS AND REALLY PROVING THE POINT.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 119
IT'S WELL TO SUBSTANTIATE IT, BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT
MORE INFORMATION I THINK NEEDS TO BE COLLECTED.
Q. IS THE EFFECT OF PHOSPHOROUS AND
BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY DIRECT OR INDIRECT?
A. WELL, IT'S VERY MUCH INDIRECT, AND I THINK
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT FACT THAT NEEDS TO BE
RECOGNIZED AND IS OFTEN OVERLOOKED. AND WE TALKED
ABOUT SOME OF THAT THIS MORNING, AND THAT IS THAT
THE -- WE BELIEVE THAT THE PHOSPHOROUS HAS A STRONG --
CAN HAVE A STRONG INFLUENCE ON THE MASS OF PARTICLES IN
THE WATER COLUMN. AND, IN TURN, WHICH TENDS TO ADSORB
SOME OF THE METHYLMERCURY TO THE EXTENT THOSE PARTICLES
SEDIMENT OUT TO -- OR SETTLE OUT TO THE SEDIMENT
RENDERS THEM UNAVAILABLE FOR BIOACCUMULATION. THAT'S A
VERY KEY ISSUE. SO, IT'S AN INDIRECT PROCESS AND ONE
OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO STUDY, TOO.
Q. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE LOWER CONCENTRATIONS OF
MERCURY IN FISH AND STILL HAVE LARGER ABSOLUTE MASS OF
METHYLMERCURY IN THE SYSTEM?
A. ABSOLUTELY. IN FACT, ONONDAGA LAKE IS
PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES THAT I CAN THINK OF
OF WHERE THERE'S NO QUESTION BUT WHAT THAT'S TRUE.
COURT REPORTER: EXCUSE ME, YOU SAID
WHAT LAKE?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 120
WITNESS: ONONDAGA, LET'S SEE IF I HAVE
THE SPELLING OF IT HERE, O-N-O-N-D-A-G-A.
COURT REPORTER: THANK YOU.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DOES ELEVATED PHOSPHOROUS
EQUATE TO ELEVATED BIOMASS?
A. IN A NUTRIENT-LIMITED SYSTEM, IT WILL. THAT
IS, IF YOU START FROM VERY LOW PHOSPHOROUS
CONCENTRATIONS AND YOU ADD PHOSPHOROUS TO A
PHOSPHOROUS-LIMITED SYSTEM, IT WILL RESULT IN INCREASED
BIOMASS. HOWEVER, YOU CAN GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S
VIRTUALLY SATURATED WITH THE NUTRIENT, IN WHICH CASE
ADDITIONAL INPUT OF THE PHOSPHOROUS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT
IN INCREASING THE BIOMASS.
Q. DO YOU KNOW THE DENSITY OF THE PHYTOPLANKTON
IN THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES?
A. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY CELL COUNTS OF
CHLOROPHYLL a MEASUREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE
EVERGLADES. I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THAT.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WE NEED TO MARK THAT
EXHIBIT AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT TO YOUR
DEPOSITION.
MR. SAMS: LISA, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE
MARKED THE ONE PRIOR TO IT, SO YOU MAY WISH
TO HAVE THE ONE THAT YOU'RE JUST MARKING
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 121
IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RECORD.
MS. HOGAN: OH, ALL RIGHT. THAT
EXHIBIT -- WHY DON'T WE DO THIS DIFFERENTLY.
LET'S MARK THIS ONE AS EXHIBIT 12 -- THAT
ONE, THAT'S EXHIBIT 12.
COURT REPORTER: OKAY. LET ME GET THAT
STICKER OFF OF THAT ONE.
MS. HOGAN: AND THEN WE'LL MARK THAT ONE
AS EXHIBIT 13.
(THEREUPON, THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED
TO ABOVE WERE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S
EXHIBITS NOS. 12 & 13 - GARY N. BIGHAM
DEPOSITION - FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT. EXHIBIT 12 WAS
THE MARCH 22, 1994, DRAFT, AND EXHIBIT 13 WAS
THE MARCH 22, 1994, DRAFT.
WITNESS: 24TH.
MS. HOGAN: WHAT DID I SAY?
WITNESS: 22ND.
MS. HOGAN: 22ND. OH, I'M SORRY.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) MR. BIGHAM, DID YOU REVIEW ANY
OF THE DATA PERTAINING TO ALGAL DISTRIBUTION AND
PRODUCTIVITY DONE BY SWIFT OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 122
A. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD ACCESS TO THAT.
Q. OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA IS BEING STIMULATED BY THE
PRESENCE OF SULFATE, AND THAT IT'S THE SULFATE THAT'S
CAUSING THE METHYLATION IN THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES?
A. COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE?
Q. UH-HUH (YES). DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA IS BEING
STIMULATED BY THE PRESENCE OF SULFATE, AND THAT IT'S
THE SULFATE THAT'S CAUSING THE METHYLATION?
A. I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SULFATE IN SOME
CASES OR PARTS OF THE SYSTEM MAY BE STIMULATING
METHYLATION. HOWEVER, THE LIMITED REVIEW OF THE EPA
DATA THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO FAR LOOKS LIKE
SULFATE IS BEING REMOVED -- OR SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS
ARE BEING REMOVED MORE BY DILUTION THAN THEY ARE BY
UTILIZATION. THAT IS, OVER TIME IN A PARCEL OF WATER,
THE PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATION DROPS RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
THE SULFATE CONCENTRATION DROPS AT ABOUT THE SAME RATE
THAT CONDUCTIVITY IS REDUCED, WHICH SUGGESTS DILUTION
AS OPPOSED TO UTILIZATION.
Q. MR. BIGHAM, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE BROOKS AND RAND DATA?
A. WHICH BROOKS RAND DATA?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 123
Q. THE METHYLMERCURY COMPENDIUM.
A. YES, I HAVE.
Q. OKAY. AND WHAT DID THAT DATA SHOW, IF YOU
REMEMBER?
A. WELL, THERE WERE DISSOLVED METHYLMERCURY
VALUES WHICH WE INCLUDED IN OUR REPORT, AND IT SHOWED
THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF METHYLMERCURY WAS -- LET'S
REFER TO A FIGURE -- YEAH, HERE IT IS -- FIGURE 11,
WHICH SHOWS THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED MERCURY
WAS INCREASING AS TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHOROUS
DECREASED.
Q. IS THAT DATA INCLUDED IN THE KBN REPORT?
A. I BELIEVE IT WAS.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU
REVIEWED FRONTIER GEOSCIENCE DATA IN THE KBN REPORT,
MAYBE AS OPPOSED TO BROOKS AND RAND DATA?
A. IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE.
Q. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT WE MARKED THE KBN REPORT
AS EXHIBIT -- THAT RIGHT THERE -- OKAY, EXHIBIT 5 AND,
I BELIEVE, EXHIBIT 6.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 124
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENTS.)
A. WHAT'S THE QUESTION?
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED OR SEEN BROOKS AND
RAND DATA ON METHYLMERCURY?
A. I'M LOOKING AT THE KBN REPORT, AND I DON'T SEE
MENTION TO BROOKS RAND.
Q. SO, YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THAT
DATA?
A. NO, I'M HAVING TROUBLE REMEMBERING WHICH --
EXACTLY WHICH DATA SET MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY
BROOKS RAND. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING HERE THAT SUGGESTS
THAT IT'S WITHIN THE KBN REPORT.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN BROOKS AND RAND DATA
BEYOND WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
KBN REPORT?
A. WELL, YES. BROOKS -- BROOKS RAND HAS DONE A
LOT OF MERCURY ANALYSIS FOR ME IN ONONDAGA LAKE, AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S A FAMILIAR NAME, AND I MIGHT EASILY GET
IT MIXED UP---
Q. HAVE YOU SEEN BROOKS AND RAND DATA REGARDING
THE EVERGLADES?
A. I DON'T IMMEDIATELY RECALL WHICH DATA SET THEY
MAY HAVE DONE, IF ANY.
Q. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DATA
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 125
BEFORE? WELL, I'M GOING TO HAND YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT
AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
A. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE.
Q. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY DATA PRODUCED BY
WILLIAM PATRICK IN CONNECTION WITH METHYLMERCURY?
A. I SAW A REPORT THAT HE HAD DONE SOME TIME AGO
THAT DEALT WITH CONCENTRATIONS OF MERCURY IN SOILS AND
IN SUGAR CANE, AND WAS -- APPEARED TO BE AT THE ISSUE
OF SUGAR CANE OPERATIONS BEING A SOURCE OF MERCURY.
Q. DID YOU PRODUCE THAT REPORT?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T USE
IT. IT WAS JUST KIND OF ACCESSORY INFORMATION BECAUSE
WE HAD NO INTENT OF PURSUING THAT, THE SPECIFIC ISSUE
OF MERCURY SOURCES.
MR. SAMS: FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE I
FORWARDED THAT TO COUNSEL FOR THE
UNITED STATES SIMULTANEOUSLY THIS PAST
WEEKEND WITH FORWARDING IT TO PTI; SO, I
WOULD REPRESENT THAT IT'S BEEN PRODUCED.
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) ALL RIGHT. LET ME HAND YOU
THIS DOCUMENT, MR. BIGHAM, AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN
IDENTIFY IT?
(THEREUPON, WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.)
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 126
A. YES. THIS IS A REPORT BY BILL PATRICK AND
OTHERS ON MERCURY IN SOILS AND PLANTS IN THE FLORIDA
EVERGLADES SUGAR CANE AREA.
Q. THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO BEFORE?
A. CORRECT. THIS IS -- THIS IS THE REPORT BY
PATRICK THAT I HAVE SEEN.
Q. WHAT REPORT -- EXCUSE ME. WHAT IS THE DATE OF
THAT REPORT?
A. IT'S NOT DATED, ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME
HANDWRITTEN NOTATION THAT IT'S -- PROCEEDINGS OF
MERCURY CONFERENCE, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, IN 1992.
Q. OKAY. IS THAT THE ONLY PATRICK DATA THAT YOU
HAVE SEEN REGARDING MERCURY IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. YES, IT IS.
(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN
OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION
WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED
BY THE COURT REPORTER.)
Q. (BY MS. HOGAN) OKAY. YOU'VE SPOKEN
FREQUENTLY TODAY ABOUT ONONDAGA LAKE AND THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE UP THERE, OR THE WORK THAT PTI HAS DONE.
CAN YOU GIVE ME A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT WORK YOU'VE
DONE; WHAT ANALYSIS YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN?
A. AT ONONDAGA LAKE?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 127
Q. YES.
A. YES. LET ME START BY SAYING THE OBJECTIVE
OF THE WHOLE EXERCISE IN ONONDAGA LAKE IS TO TRY TO
UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISMS OF MERCURY CYCLING IN
BIOACCUMULATION SUFFICIENTLY IN ORDER TO RECOMMEND A
REMEDY FOR BIOACCUMULATION. TO THAT END, WE HAVE
TAKEN A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF SAMPLES OF SEDIMENTS OF
THE LAKE, MONTHLY WATER SAMPLES OVER ABOUT A
NINE-MONTH PERIOD. WE HAVE MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
OF -- WELL, I SHOULD SAY WE'VE LOOKED AT -- WE HAVE
ANALYZED VARIOUS MERCURY SPECIES IN THE WATER SAMPLES.
WE'VE ALSO ANALYZED FOR METHYLMERCURY AND TOTAL
MERCURY IN PHYTOPLANKTONS, ZOOPLANKTON, NUMEROUS FISH
SPECIES.
WE HAVE DONE A -- BASICALLY, A MASS BALANCE OF
MERCURY FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. WE'VE ALSO MONITORED
THE MERCURY IN TRIBUTARIES THAT COME INTO THE
ONONDAGA LAKE. WE ARE PREPARING A NUMERICAL MODEL
DESIGNED TO SIMULATE THE -- OR BE ABLE TO SIMULATE THE
CYCLING OF MERCURY, VARIOUS MERCURY SPECIES WITHIN THE
LAKE, AND ALSO TO MODEL THE PROCESSES OF
BIOACCUMULATION.
Q. AND HOW MANY YEARS DID YOU SAY YOU ENVISIONED
YOUR STUDY TAKING BEFORE ITS COMPLETION?
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 128
A. WE STARTED IN, I THINK IT WAS LATE '89.
HOPEFULLY, I'M NOT -- I MAY BE OFF A YEAR, BUT WE SPENT
MOST OF 1990 DEVELOPING A WORK PLAN, A VERY
COMPREHENSIVE WORK PLAN, WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN '91.
WE THEN CONDUCTED THE FIELDWORK THROUGHOUT 1992. AND I
DON'T RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER OF SAMPLES, BUT THERE ARE
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF MERCURY ANALYSES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT ALL TOGETHER, AND THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF
OTHER DATA THAT WERE COLLECTED ALONG WITH THAT. THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS THAT WERE ANALYZED
IN SEDIMENT TISSUE AS WELL. THERE WERE OTHER CONCERNS
BEYOND JUST -- JUST MERCURY, BUT CERTAINLY THE FOCUS OF
THIS INVESTIGATION IS MERCURY.
SO, THERE WAS QUITE AN EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF -- IT
TOOK A WHILE TO GET THE DATA BACK FROM THE LABS TO DO
CAREFUL QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL, EVALUATION
OF THOSE DATA, AND START PERFORMING THE ANALYSES.
THERE WERE SOME REPORTS PRODUCED IN '93 FOR THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, AND THEN THERE ARE -- THE MAJOR
INTERPRETIVE REPORTS ARE BEING PRODUCED THIS YEAR. AND
WE WILL -- SOME OF THOSE REPORTS WILL GO INTO NEXT
YEAR. SO, ALL IN ALL, IT'S ROUGHLY A FIVE-YEAR TIME
SPAN.
Q. OKAY. AND YOUR BUDGET FOR THE FIRST YEAR --
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 129
NOT NECESSARILY YOUR BUDGET, I GUESS. HOW MUCH DID IT
ACTUALLY COST TO DO THE THINGS THAT YOU DID DURING THE
FIRST YEAR OF THE PROJECT?
A. WELL, THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY A MILLION
DOLLARS.
Q. FOR THE FIRST YEAR?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND FOR THE SECOND
YEAR -- NOT SPEND FOR THE SECOND YEAR -- HOW MUCH DID
YOU CHARGE FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DID FOR THE SECOND
YEAR?
A. THE COST OF ALL THE FIELDWORK AND THE ANALYSES
THAT WE DID IN '92 WAS ON THE ORDER OF, I BELIEVE,
AROUND THREE MILLION DOLLARS. THAT INCLUDES ALL THE
LABORATORY ANALYSES.
Q. OKAY. WHAT ARE THE TOTAL COSTS FOR 1993?
A. THAT WAS -- I BELIEVE THAT'S AROUND TWO
MILLION. I ACTUALLY -- I THINK IT WAS AROUND TWO
MILLION.
Q. AND '94?
A. '94 IS AROUND ONE POINT TWO MILLION.
Q. AND '95, YOU BELIEVE, WILL BE THE LAST YEAR OF
THE PROJECT?
A. THAT'S WHAT THE SCHEDULE SAYS SO FAR.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 130
Q. HOW MUCH DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE COSTS TO BE FOR
1995?
A. HAVEN'T -- WE HAVEN'T ESTIMATED A BUDGET FOR
'94 [sic]. I DON'T REALLY KNOW YET; IT DEPENDS.
IT'S A LITTLE PREMATURE TO BE ESTIMATING THAT RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE THESE SCHEDULES CHANGE QUITE A BIT OVER TIME.
Q. OKAY. WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE
ONONDAGA LAKE?
A. IT'S APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES LONG, ONE MILE
WIDE. IT'S ABOUT SIXTY FEET DEEP AT THE MAXIMUM.
Q. I DON'T KNOW IF I ASKED YOU BEFORE, BUT WHAT
DID YOU BELIEVE THE SOURCES OF THE MERCURY WERE FOR
THAT LAKE?
A. THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE MERCURY TO THE LAKE
IS FROM ITS TRIBUTARIES. THERE IS SOME -- SECONDARY
SOURCES WOULD BE THE FLUX OF METHYLMERCURY FROM THE
SEDIMENTS. IN THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM, ATMOSPHERIC
DEPOSITION IS ALMOST INSIGNIFICANT SOURCE.
MS. HOGAN: OKAY. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A
TEN-MINUTE BREAK OR SO.
WITNESS: SURE.
(THEREUPON, A BREAK WAS TAKEN
FROM 2:26 P.M. TO 2:31 P.M.)
EXAMINATION BY MS. HOGAN CONTINUES:
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 131
Q. MR. BIGHAM, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERT
ON MERCURY CYCLING IN ONONDAGA LAKE?
A. YES, I DO.
Q. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERT IN MERCURY
CYCLING IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. I WOULD COUNT MYSELF AMONG THOSE WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THE TOPIC.
Q. IN THE TOPIC OF MERCURY CYCLING---
A. OF MERCURY CYCLING IN THE EVERGLADES. THERE'S
PRECIOUS FEW DATA AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE
DONE, BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND THEM AS WELL AS ANYONE.
Q. I WANT TO BE CLEAR. YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN
EXPERT ON MERCURY CYCLING IN THE EVERGLADES?
A. YES.
Q. OKAY. AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT?
A. BECAUSE OF MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENERAL MERCURY
LITERATURE, AND MY EXPERIENCE WITH INVESTIGATIONS IN
ONONDAGA LAKE, AND THE REVIEW OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO THE EVERGLADES THAT I'VE CONDUCTED WITHIN
THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.
MS. HOGAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS
FOR YOU AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
A. I HAVE ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD, IF I MAY.
Q. OKAY.
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 132
A. THIS GOES BACK TO SOME QUESTIONS EARLIER THIS
MORNING. YOU HAD ASKED ME THE NAME OF THE LAW FIRM IN
DENVER THAT I HAD WORKED FOR?
Q. OH, OKAY. YES.
A. AND---
Q. THAT WAS FOR THE GULF RESOURCES, IN CONNECTION
WITH THAT?
A. NO, NO. NO. IN CONNECTION WITH---
Q. SHELL OIL?
A. ---THE SHELL OIL CASE.
Q. OKAY.
A. IT WAS PARCEL, P-A-R-C-E-L; MAURO, M-A-U-R-O;
HULTIN & SPAANSTRA, S-P-A-A-N-T-R-A -- S-T-R-A,
PRONOUNCED SPAANSTRA.
COURT REPORTER: WAS IT PULTIN OR
HULTIN?
WITNESS: HULTIN, H-U-L-T-I-N. I THINK
IT'S T-I-N.
A. ALSO, THERE WAS ONE -- ONE RESPONSE I THINK I
MADE TO A QUESTION THAT I MAY HAVE MISSTATED SLIGHTLY.
AS I RECALL, YOU ASKED ME THIS MORNING A QUESTION
REGARDING HAD I STUDIED OR WAS I AWARE OF OLIGOTROPHIC
WET -- BEHAVIOR OF MERCURY IN OLIGOTROPHIC WETLANDS,
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MY ANSWER PRESUMED THAT YOU MEANT
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 133
OTHER THAN THE EVERGLADES, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU
SAID THAT, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT MY ANSWER
WAS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER THAN THE EVERGLADES.
Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER?
A. THAT I WAS NOT.
Q. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?
A. NO.
MS. HOGAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
------------------------------------------------------
(THEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED AT 2:34 P.M.)
------------------------------------------------------
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 134
STATE OF _____________________
COUNTY OF ____________________
I, GARY N. BIGHAM, HAVE READ
THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF MY
DEPOSITION AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE PRECEDING 132 PAGES
CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE
TRANSCRIPTION OF MY TESTIMONY.
______________________________
GARY N. BIGHAM
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC,
THIS THE ____ DAY OF ________________,
1994.
_______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
_______________________________
MR. BIGHAM PAGE 135
NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, CAROL S. YOUNG, A NOTARY PUBLIC, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT GARY N. BIGHAM WAS DULY SWORN PRIOR TO THE
TAKING OF THE FOREGOING DEPOSITION, AND THAT SAID
DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING 132 PAGES
CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE
TESTIMONY OF THE SAID WITNESS.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS WERE PRESENT
AS STATED IN THE CAPTION.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT OF COUNSEL FOR,
OR IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO THIS
ACTION, NOR AM I INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS
ACTION.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SUBSCRIBED MY
NAME, THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994.
_____________________________
CAROL S. YOUNG
CAROLYN Y. HALL & ASSOCIATES
2551 ALBEMARLE AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
DECEMBER 26, 1995