1

1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )

WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )

4 )

Petitioners, )

5 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

7 Respondents. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )

UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

Petitioners, )

10 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3039

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

12 Respondents. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )

ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )

and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

15 Petitioners, )

vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3040

16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

17 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

100 Southeast 2nd Street

19 Miami, Florida

March 16, 1993

20 9:15 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.

DEPOSITION OF ALLEN S. LEFOHN

22 VOLUME I - A.M. SESSION

Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered

24 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for

the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of

25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.

1 APPEARANCES

2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE

LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and

3 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.

4 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636

5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

6 BY: ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.

ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD.

9 4100 International Place

100 Southeast 2nd Street

10 Miami, Florida 33131

BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQ.

12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

STEPHEN G. BARTELL, ESQ.

14 United States Department of Justice

Environmental and Natural Resources Division

15 General Litigation Section

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

16 Washington, D.C. 20004

ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

18 REGULATION

19 KEITH C. HETRICK, ESQ.

Assistant General Counsel

20 Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road

21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

PRESENT:

23 JIM GRIMSHAW

1 INDEX

2 Witness Direct Cross Redirect

ALLEN S. LEFOHN

By Mr. Nettleton: 5 -- 235

4 By Mr. Bartell: -- 233 --

By Mr. Hetrick: -- 235 --

6 EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION

7 1 8 The CV of Allen S. Lefohn

8 2 119 A letter dated March 1, 1993

from Mr. Blank

3 156 A document entitled The South

10 Florida Water Management District's

Methods for the Collection and

11 Interpretation of the Quality and

Quantity of Rainfall, 27 September

12 1989

13 4 156 A document entitled Surface

Water Improvement and Management

14 Plan for the Everglades, pages 158

through 162

5 159 A document entitled Rainfall

16 Total Phosphorus Concentrations and

Loadings in Everglades National

17 Park, prepared for Environ

Corporation and US Department of

18 Justice, by William W. Walker, Jr.,

August 1989

6 199 A document entitled Acid Rain,

20 A World-Wide Phenomenon: Perspective

from the United States

7 201 A document entitled Phosphorus

22 Concentrations in Rain and

Atmospheric Deposition in Florida, USA

8 203 A document entitled

24 Memorandum, to Maxine Cheesman,

from Larry Grosser, dated are

25 January 15, 1993

1 EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION

9 205 A document entitled NADP/NTN

3 Annual Data Summary, Precipitation

Chemistry in the United States,

4 1991, pages 20 and 21

5 10 208 A notice of deposition in

this case directed to Allen S.

6 Lefohn

1 Thereupon --

2 ALLEN S. LEFOHN

3 was called as a witness and having been duly sworn,

4 was examined and testified as follows:

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6 BY MR. NETTLETON:

7 Q. Dr. Lefohn, my name is Paul Nettleton. I

8 am an attorney representing the South Florida Water

9 Management District in the litigation that is going

10 on over the regulatory program that has been proposed

11 by the District.

12 I am going to be asking you a number of

13 questions. If you don't understand any of my

14 questions, please tell me and I will try to rephrase

15 them so that you are answering the question I am

16 asking. Okay?

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Would you state your name for the record?

19 A. My name is Allen S. Lefohn.

20 Q. What is your current address?

21 A. I work at A.S.L. & Associates, 111 North

22 Last Chance Gulch, Helena, Montana.

23 Q. What is your current position?

24 A. I am a research scientist and also the

25 president of my own firm.

1 Q. How long have you been president of the

2 firm?

3 A. Since 1981.

4 Q. Am I correct you are also the founder of

5 A.S.L. & Associates?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. In your role as president and research

8 scientist what role do you play for A.S.L.?

9 A. I am the only full-time person in the

10 firm. I am the chief scientist. I do about 98

11 percent of the work which means that I do the

12 analysis, I gather the data from other places around

13 the world and I draw conclusions, and then most of

14 the time I publish them in peer review literature.

15 At the same time, I have to worry about

16 things like who gets paid and who doesn't get paid

17 and things like that as the president of the company.

18 But most of my time is associated with the technical

19 part of the projects.

20 Q. How would you divide up the time

21 percentagewise that you do, research versus

22 administrative type work?

23 A. About 99 percent of the time research,

24 about one percent is administrative, because my wife

25 handles the problems associated with the paperwork of

1 the corporation.

2 Q. How many employees does A.S.L. have?

3 A. Myself full time, my research assistant

4 who goes to school is part time and my wife who is

5 bookkeeper and editor, who is also part time, and

6 occasionally I will have a graduate student or a

7 student from the local college who will be a research

8 assistant.

9 Q. Has that been essentially the organization

10 of A.S.L. since its inception?

11 A. With research students, they come and go.

12 Other than that, that's pretty much what it has been.

13 Most of my people -- my research assistant

14 who is part time has stayed for about six or seven

15 years and prior to that the other people stayed about

16 seven or eight years.

17 Q. Is it fair to say that A.S.L. is a

18 scientific consulting firm? How would you describe

19 your business?

20 A. It is scientific and it consults. That's

21 correct. I don't know what a scientific consulting

22 firm is. Those are big words. But it is scientific

23 and we consult.

24 Q. Do you advertise your services anywhere?

25 A. No. Well, let me go back. The

1 advertisement I do is based on word of mouth and the

2 research that I publish in the peer review

3 literature. People know me based on the research I

4 published.

5 Q. You don't place ads in magazines or

6 anything like that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Am I correct you have a bachelor of

9 science in chemistry?

10 A. Yes, and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry.

11 Q. Other than the bachelor and Ph.D., do you

12 have any other formal educational degrees or

13 certifications in any specific scientific

14 specialties?

15 A. Nothing other than those degrees that I

16 can think of at this time.

17 Q. I would like to go through your CV. We

18 can mark this as Exhibit 1.

19 (The CV of Allen S. Lefohn was marked

20 Lefohn Deposition Exhibit 1 for identification)

21 BY MR. NETTLETON:

22 Q. On the first page of Exhibit 1 in that

23 first paragraph there is the indication that your

24 research is directed at a better understanding of two

25 areas, the first is the quantification and

1 relationship between pollutant exposure and naturally

2 occurring processes.

3 Can you tell me what that means?

4 A. When we were working on the acid rain

5 issue it was taking deposition data, wet deposition

6 data, and relating that to some of the observed

7 chemical changes that were occurring to the

8 ecosystem, meaning to the aquatic components as well

9 as to the soils and such. And we were relating cause

10 and effect or attempting to better define cause and

11 effect.

12 In addition, for ozone and sulfur dioxide

13 which is air quality characterization, we were doing

14 likewise for vegetation assessment in human health.

15 Q. The second area is the possible effects of

16 air pollutants on human health in the ecosystem. Is

17 that different than what you just described?

18 A. The first part dealt with taking the

19 actual data, I mean the air quality for the wet

20 deposition data and relating that, and the second was

21 actually looking at the possible effects, what was

22 actually going on. We are dealing with spots on

23 plants or growth reduction and things like that.

24 They are slightly different.

25 Q. Further down in that paragraph there is a

1 reference to EPA's National Crop Loss Assessment

2 Network.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Can you tell me what that is?

5 A. The NCLAN program, the National Crop Loss

6 Assessment Network, was a multi-university system

7 sponsored by the United States Environmental

8 Protection Agency and over a period I think from 1978

9 to 1988.

10 What EPA was doing was essentially

11 sponsoring a very large program to gain some insight

12 into quantifying the response between ozone exposure

13 and crop loss in an attempt to better understand what

14 the effects are of smog on agricultural loss. When I

15 say ozone, I mean smog ozone.

16 Q. The last line of that paragraph refers to

17 you being an adjunct instructor of environmental

18 engineering at Montana Tech in Butte, Montana.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Are you are currently teaching any

21 courses?

22 A. Not at this time. I am occasionally

23 called upon to give a lecture or a seminar at Montana

24 Tech as well as other universities across the

25 country.

1 Q. What kind of courses have you been an

2 instructor in?

3 A. I have not been.

4 Q. So you are called upon to do seminars and

5 things of that nature?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Is that specifically related to

8 environmental engineering?

9 A. It is mostly associated with environmental

10 effects along the research that I have been doing,

11 not the engineering per se, actually the engineering

12 side.

13 I would like to also say that while I was

14 in graduate school or undergraduate school I was

15 responsible for being a teaching assistant which

16 allowed me to teach a laboratory. But that is not

17 associated with this particular item.

18 Q. What experience do you have in

19 environmental engineering?

20 A. Environmental engineering, I am not an

21 engineer but the environmental components of that,

22 with the school, Montana Tech. If you allow me, I

23 can explain what Montana Tech is.

24 Q. Sure.

25 A. Montana Tech is one of the premier

1 engineering schools in the country dealing with

2 mining, exploration for oil and things like that.

3 They have courses at the school dealing with the

4 environment and the ecological impact. So that as

5 their engineers graduate and go to work for the

6 mining industry, they have been exposed to the

7 environmental concerns. And that's the part that I

8 am asked to give lectures on occasionally, the

9 ecosystem sensitivity to air pollutants, deposition,

10 things like that.

11 Q. Prior to A.S.L. you were the director of

12 International Research and Technology Corporation at

13 the Rocky Mountain office, is that right?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Can you tell me why you decided to leave

16 International Research and Technology?

17 A. They wanted to close the office down

18 because of a change in administration in Washington,

19 D.C. It was back in '81 when there was a new

20 president and they felt that the research I was doing

21 in Montana could be done on the East Coast, and on

22 the other hand I could help them out in getting

23 additional research projects by being in Washington,

24 D.C. so they asked me to leave Montana.

25 And I said no. So I formed A.S.L. &

1 Associates.

2 Q. While you were with International Research

3 and Technology, what was your role or duties and

4 responsibilities as director?

5 A. It was a small office. Once again I did

6 about 98 percent of the research. I had a secretary

7 who was part time. And the research involved

8 assessing the impacts of deposition and air

9 pollutants on coal-fired power plants in the Montana

10 area. And I think that basically was the major

11 project I was working on at the time.

12 Q. And prior to that you were with EPA?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Why did you leave EPA to go into the

15 private sector?

16 A. As you can tell from the resume, I have

17 been in EPA for about nine years and ultimately I

18 ended up in Montana with EPA working with the

19 Governor's office there. And I received a call

20 explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency

21 was going through a reduction in force and that in

22 order to save the position I was in I would have to

23 return to Corvallis, Oregon, which is a research

24 laboratory in EPA there, where I would have to return

25 in order to keep the slot I was in.

1 And once again, I did not want to leave

2 Montana so I said no again.

3 Q. As energy coordinator for EPA in 1978-1979

4 what were your duties and responsibilities?

5 A. It was similar to the responsibilities I

6 had from 1976 to 1978. It was a time that -- the

7 1973 time period was the oil embargo time period and

8 there was a lot of interest in using the coal in

9 Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota for things like oil

10 shale and oil gasification.

11 The state of Montana desired to have a

12 federal research employee on site who would be able

13 to work with the state out of the Governor's office

14 to essentially coordinate and keep track of the

15 federal research activities going on in the state of

16 Montana. And I was invited in 1976 to come out to

17 Montana with the federal government paying my slot,

18 paying for my slot and my position and everything,

19 and serve as a federal employee in the Governor's

20 office.

21 What that amounted to was keeping track of

22 the research and also communicating research results

23 to the state.

24 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record.

25 (Discussion off the record)

1 BY MR. NETTLETON:

2 Q. Prior to 1978 you were with the animal

3 ecology branch in Oregon. Can you tell me what you

4 did there?

5 A. Prior to 1976.

6 Q. I am sorry.

7 A. Yes. As branch chief I was responsible

8 for designing the Colstrip research program in

9 Montana which was an assessment, the project was

10 project was an assessment to better quantify the

11 cause and effect relationships between air pollution

12 and biological impacts.

13 In addition I was responsible for some

14 pesticide research which was soil microcosm research

15 where you apply pesticide and watch what happens to

16 the soil ecosystem.

17 And there is a third component which I

18 can't remember at this point. And I was a branch

19 chief for about 23, 24 people.

20 Q. Prior to that you were on the special

21 projects staff in Washington, D.C. for EPA?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. What type of projects did you work on

24 while you were there?

25 A. I was assigned to the office that was in

1 the Office of Research and Development of EPA in

2 Washington, D.C. And my responsibilities were

3 associated with two things.

4 One, there was a national eutrophication

5 survey program that I was responsible for the

6 monitoring part of that program. And it involved

7 locating helicopters or finding helicopters somewhere

8 in the United States, making them available, having

9 them outfitted, meaning the equipment put on the

10 helicopters and making sure the staff was able to do

11 the national survey.

12 It was a major program that President

13 Nixon at the time and Administrator Ruckelshaus had

14 as their top priority in the environmental program.

15 And there were three of us in Washington that ran

16 that program.

17 That was one project which took up most of

18 my time when I was in Washington, D.C. I was there

19 for 14 months.

20 The second project was the water bill

21 which was going through Congress at the time and my

22 responsibility was to coordinate the research part of

23 the bill from EPA's side and work with the Office of

24 Research and Development in putting together an

25 implementation strategy.

1 Q. With regard to the eutrophication program,

2 was your role more as an administrator or as an

3 actual research scientist?

4 A. It was both. Certainly a lot of my time

5 on that particular project was spent with identifying

6 resources and maximizing our ability to respond. But

7 somewhere along the line there had to be some

8 judgment as to which equipment one would put on the

9 platforms for the helicopters and such, where you

10 would put it, what the sensitivity levels were,

11 things like that.

12 Q. Did you do any of the field work with

13 regard to that?

14 A. No.

15 Q. When you talk about the water bill and

16 coordinating research, what do you mean by that?

17 A. It meant that, I can't remember the

18 numbers, the numbers were in the millions of dollars

19 per year that EPA was saying that it needed in order

20 to implement the water bill if it were enacted.

21 And my responsibility was pure paperwork

22 at that time in working with the various

23 organizations within the Office of Research and

24 Development to identify where the dollars would be

25 spent if they were real.

1 Q. Were there any other projects other than

2 those two?

3 A. Not that I can recall at this time in

4 Washington, D.C.

5 Q. And prior to that you were research

6 physical chemist at the Atmospheric Chemistry and

7 Physics Lab, is that correct, for EPA?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you tell me what your duties and

10 responsibilities there were?

11 A. Yes. I was responsible for the nine

12 months that I was there in North Carolina for taking

13 interferometer spectrometer measurements which

14 measured amounts of gases in the infrared region and

15 coupling that with a multiple reflection cell and

16 looking at the pollutants in air, in other words,

17 identifying what levels of pollutants.

18 Q. How was that done? I mean, how do you

19 identify the pollutants?

20 A. By the signature which means the

21 absorption at a particular part of the infrared

22 spectrum for the particular gas.

23 Q. Is that like a color spectrum type of

24 analysis?

25 A. It is like that but it is in the invisible

1 portion which means it is in the infrared.

2 It is what you would liken it to, if you

3 have the sun come in the room and you had a grading

4 that would spread the light out or a prism. In this

5 case the interferometer has a moving mirror and

6 depending upon the interference of the light and such

7 you got certain portions of the infrared spectrum

8 that the gases absorbed. And from that you could

9 tell which gas you had and how much.

10 Q. Were you actually doing the identification

11 of the gases?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What types of gases or parameters were you

14 looking for or identifying?

15 A. It has been a long time but certainly

16 there was water, the amount of water was always a

17 problem in terms of absorbing when you don't want it

18 to absorb.

19 Acetic acid was another and I can't

20 recall -- ozone, of course, was another gas.

21 Q. Reviewing your CV it is fairly apparent

22 you have done a lot of work with regard to ozone.

23 For my benefit can you give me a definition of what

24 ozone consists of?

25 A. It is O2, oxygen, plus an oxygen radical.

1 An O by itself conforming O3. And things that are

2 responsible for its formation are heat, volatile

3 organic carbon, VOCs, and nitric oxides.

4 Q. What is the principal source of the VOCs?

5 A. Automobiles.

6 Q. And the nitric oxides?

7 A. They come from varying sources, from

8 coal-fired power plants as well as automobiles,

9 essentially.

10 Q. Prior to going to EPA you were with NASA?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Can you tell me what you did with NASA?

13 A. That was a post-doc program. Following my

14 receipt of a Ph.D. at Berkeley I went down to what

15 was then called the Manned Spacecraft Center which is

16 now called the Johnson Spacecraft Center and my

17 responsibility was taking an interferometer and using

18 that to measure the emission from soils and

19 vegetation and getting the fingerprints, meaning the

20 unique spectral identification so that those could be

21 related to information obtained from a similar type

22 of, piece of equipment in a satellite or aircraft.

23 My measurements that I was taking was

24 ground level, were essential -- we were essentially

25 comparing that to what was coming down from manned

1 spacecraft platforms.

2 Q. In the next paragraph of your CV you make

3 reference to a multi-disciplinary staff. What do you

4 mean by multi-disciplinary staff?

5 A. Essentially, people such as my research

6 assistant have been with me for six or seven years

7 who can work on things like deposition data as well

8 as air quality data as well as things like that. And

9 my own background, of course, is both the wet

10 deposition and air quality and some of the biological

11 activity that is involved.

12 Q. What is the name of your research

13 assistant?

14 A. Janell Foley. She has copublished with me

15 on some research papers.

16 Q. Do you currently have a grad assistant?

17 A. Not at this time.

18 Q. When was the last time you had a grad

19 assistant working with you?

20 A. Two years ago, I believe.

21 Q. When you do have a graduate student

22 working with you where do they come from?

23 A. Carroll College, which is a local

24 four-year school in Helena, very good for medical

25 students and dentistry, et cetera, pre-med and

1 dentistry.

2 Q. Moving down to the technical areas that

3 are listed on that page 2 of Exhibit 1, there is a

4 reference to exposure and dose response

5 relationships.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you tell me what you mean by that?

8 A. The exposure is the concentration that is

9 observed outside in the air. For example, if you

10 measure deposition or you measure the air quality

11 concentration of a gas, that is exposure. Dose has

12 to do with how much gets inside the target or the

13 organism.

14 Q. What does the response aspect refer to?

15 A. The response aspect refers to injury, for

16 example, spots on plants, to damage which is the

17 economic loss that would be associated with growth

18 reduction or spots on lettuce or something like that

19 that couldn't be sold in the marketplace. But there

20 is a distinction.

21 Q. What is the meaning of wet chemistry?

22 A. Referring to wet deposition, for example,

23 sulfate, nitrate that would come out of the sky from

24 either rain or snow, and the analysis of those

25 samples to find out what the concentrations of the

1 species are.

2 Q. Down at the bottom of page 2 there is a

3 reference to some work you did on the impacts of

4 substitute pesticides on model ecosystems. Do you

5 see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Have you created any ecosystem models?

8 A. No. In that role I was a manager of a

9 project in Corvallis.

10 Q. I am sorry?

11 A. I was a manager of the project in

12 Corvallis.

13 Q. What type of ecosystem was being modeled

14 there?

15 A. It was a microcosm which meant it was like

16 an aquarium without water. You essentially put soils

17 and such in a glass-encased environment and you apply

18 the pesticides and watch what happens to the

19 microcosms, to the ecosystem itself, what happened to

20 the various life within the soil system itself.

21 Q. Were you attempting to simulate any

22 particular area, geographic area?

23 A. It has been a long time on that and I am

24 not sure I can answer that fairly at this time.

25 I don't recall, to be truthful.

1 Q. When you say the effects on the life, what

2 life form, I am sorry, are you talking about?

3 A. Essentially it is the nutrient cycling

4 process. The organisms within soil, what happens

5 when you apply a pesticide on to the soil, what

6 happens to the cycling processes, are they disturbed,

7 if they are, how much.

8 Q. Would that be with the microbial

9 communities?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What types of pesticides were you looking

12 at?

13 A. I don't remember that at the time.

14 Q. Do you recall the results of that

15 analysis?

16 A. No. The reason for that is, that I may

17 have left EPA prior to results being published from

18 that project, and that I had a staff of about four or

19 five that were working on that at the time.

20 Q. Was this when you were out in Oregon?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you know whether the ecosystem model

23 that was used there was ever verified in the sense of

24 accurately predicting results?

25 A. I know -- let me say I believe that the

1 information that was gained from experiments were

2 transferred to the Office of Pesticides within EPA in

3 Washington, D.C. because my research assistant -- not

4 my research assistant, the person who was doing the

5 research was spending a lot of time in Washington,

6 D.C. working with the Office of Pesticides.

7 Q. Do you know if any verification research

8 was conducted?

9 A. No. I lost contact with that program.

10 Q. Right after that on page 2 you make

11 reference to the eutrophication survey program. Is

12 that what we just talked about a couple of minutes

13 ago?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. I don't recall whether you described it

16 before but could you tell me what the purpose of that

17 survey was?

18 A. Yes. I am going to say 1969, it was soon

19 after NEPA was passed, and CEQ, Council of

20 Environmental Quality was put together by President

21 Nixon, there was some confusion concerning the use of

22 phosphorus soaps and eutrophication activities

23 occurring in the Great Lakes as a result of the use

24 of these soaps.

25 And at the time a substitute was proposed

1 called, I believe it was called NTA that was going to

2 be a substitute for the phosphorus in soaps. The

3 government decided to encourage the use of NTA. At

4 the same time research had been initiated to explore

5 the possible carcinogenic activities, I believe, of

6 NTA. And the result was, I believe, that NTA was

7 found to be carcinogenic in large concentrations to

8 mice or such.

9 I do not fully understand that research,

10 it has been a long time.

11 The result was there was a lot of

12 confusion in that the government had said, we want to

13 move away from phosphorus soaps to NTA, then NTA was

14 found to be not the most optimum substitute for

15 phosphorus and so the EPA was asked, what are we

16 going to do.

17 And at a meeting in, it may have been 1970

18 or 1971, let me check when I was in Washington, in

19 about 1971, a meeting of Jesse Steinfeld who was the

20 Surgeon General, Russell Train, then head of CEQ, and

21 Bill Ruckelshaus who was the administrator of the

22 EPA, they had a joint meeting and said the nation and

23 the EPA was going to undergo a national

24 eutrophication survey which was to identify the

25 number of lakes in this country where tertiary

1 treatment activities would be most appropriate so

2 that the resources could be focused on those water

3 bodies that could show a response to the controls

4 using tertiary treatment.

5 I was then brought into the project as one

6 of three scientists who essentially helped design the

7 national eutrophication survey which involved the

8 National Guard at state level, helicopters out of St.

9 Louis being returned from Vietnam and oceanographic

10 equipment that was put on board the helicopter

11 platforms.

12 Q. What do you mean by tertiary treatment?

13 A. I am not qualified to go through that in

14 detail because I am not an engineer, but basically

15 there were several layers of treatment, secondary and

16 tertiary. Tertiary I believe at the time was the

17 most controllable type of engineering to reduce the

18 nutrients coming out from raw sewage and things like

19 that. Essentially it was controlled through the

20 sewage treatment plants.

21 Q. Did you reference a secondary treatment

22 system?

23 A. I talked about it, I did talk about it.

24 But to answer your question, it has been years for me

25 to tell you what the differences are between

1 secondary and tertiary treatment, only that tertiary

2 treatment activity was certainly a more restrictive

3 activity to reduce the pollutants coming out from

4 sewage treatment.

5 Q. What do you mean by restrictive?

6 A. I mean to reduce the nitrogen, the

7 phosphorus that would ultimately get into the water

8 body as a result of the treatment of sewage.

9 Q. Were any lakes in Florida involved in that

10 survey?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you recall what they were?

13 A. No. I am sorry, it has been 22 years

14 since then. I can tell you this, though, I believe

15 every state in the country participated in the

16 national eutrophication survey.

17 Q. Do you recall if Lake Okeechobee was

18 involved?

19 A. I don't remember.

20 Q. Was the EPA survey well received by the

21 scientific community?

22 A. I believe it received mixed response.

23 However, I had left the project in, what was it,

24 19 -- the project had gotten under way around 1971-72

25 and by that time it was delegated out to the field.

1 My responsibility was to work with the EPA

2 in Washington research labs to make sure that we

3 clearly stated what our mandate was and our goals and

4 got the resources.

5 And then I left that project because it

6 was delegated out to the Corvallis, Oregon, and Las

7 Vegas, Nevada EPA laboratory to essentially run the

8 project. There was a project officer in Washington,

9 D.C. but I don't remember his name right now.

10 Q. Do you recall what the result of the

11 survey was, what happened as a result of that survey?

12 A. It was the identification of water bodies

13 that were most receptive presumably to tertiary

14 treatment. There were lots of data that were

15 analyzed in terms of the chemical characterization of

16 each of the water bodies. Some were lakes, some were

17 reservoirs and I don't know what other water bodies

18 they were looking into.

19 Q. Can you define for me the term

20 eutrophication?

21 A. Essentially it is the addition of

22 nutrients into something like a lake with the result

23 that you have additional growth in the lake that

24 begins to reduce the oxygen content of that lake.

25 That's my general feeling, but not the definitive

1 scientific statement.

2 Without looking at a book or something

3 like that at this time I couldn't give you the true

4 scientific bottom line meaning. But that's

5 basically, it is the idea that you have nutrients

6 that are limited and what happens, as you put more of

7 those nutrients in you are going to have expanded

8 growth.

9 Q. With regard to freshwater systems is

10 phosphorus usually the limiting nutrient?

11 A. I am sorry, I don't believe I would like

12 at this time to discuss water chemistry because my

13 area of expertise is the characterization of

14 deposition and air quality.

15 Q. The data that was collected during the

16 survey, was that criticized by the scientific

17 community?

18 A. I truly lost contact with the project

19 after it was up and running.

20 What happened was several years after that

21 the EPA put out reports. I am sure there was lots of

22 debate.

23 Q. Turn to page 4 of Exhibit 1, please.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Under 1988, this is under the heading

1 Honors and Appointments, there is a reference to the

2 National Vegetation Survey/Forest Response Program.

3 Can you tell me what that is?

4 A. The National Vegetation Survey was a

5 project that the USDA Forest Service ran that had

6 deposition, wet deposition, ozone, sulfur dioxide,

7 nitrogen dioxide, meteorology, forest resources,

8 maybe even forest pest data in the data set, data

9 base.

10 And this was a project that Dr. Don Marks

11 of the US Forest Service out of Georgia ran and I

12 participated in that program, characterizing wet

13 deposition and air quality for the USDA Forest

14 Service. And as a result of that in 1988 I received

15 a certificate of appreciation.

16 Q. Can you tell me, first of all, what was

17 the survey about? What was the purpose of it?

18 A. Essentially they are looking at forest

19 health. And the concern was that the trees were

20 having reduced growth and they wanted to know whether

21 that was associated with natural causes or man-made

22 causes.

23 And it was not a lot of people going out

24 and gathering new data but actually the summarization

25 of existing data. To the best of my knowledge, I

1 don't recall, I don't recall but I think most of it

2 had to do with looking at what data was available and

3 characterizing that and putting it in a form to do

4 overlays of data sets to look for cause and effect

5 relationships.

6 Q. Do you recall what the conclusions were of

7 that survey?

8 A. I don't think there are conclusions. I

9 think it is a data set at this point.

10 Q. What was your involvement with that

11 survey?

12 A. I think I just indicated that, which was

13 to characterize the gaseous and the wet deposition

14 data.

15 Q. You didn't do any analysis to determine

16 cause and effect in that regard?

17 A. I don't think there was cause and effect.

18 I don't think there was effect type part, I think it

19 was the characterization of the data as they existed

20 but not the overlay as to here are effects, here's

21 what air quality was observed, what can we best say

22 what is causing that. To the best of my knowledge

23 they never put together a team to look at that.

24 However, it was indicated to me that when

25 they did, if they did one, they desired me to

1 participate in that too.

2 Q. Under a number of your technical reports

3 and publications you have done some articles on

4 Kriging. Can you tell me what Kriging is?

5 A. It is a mathematical technique that allows

6 you to interpolate and take data from several data

7 points and estimate what the concentration

8 information would be in a specific geographic area,

9 so that if you have a lot of air quality data, for

10 example, ozone, you are able to take the points where

11 the monitors are and interpolate the information to

12 predict or estimate what the air quality might be in

13 a general region.

14 Q. Are there accepted mathematical formulas

15 that are used?

16 A. There are various models that are used in

17 Kriging.

18 Q. Can Kriging also be used to estimate

19 compositions or components of wet deposition?

20 A. I don't know what you mean by

21 compositions.

22 Q. The contents of various parameters in wet

23 deposition or concentration levels.

24 A. Kriging has been used for concentration in

25 deposition.

1 Q. Is there any advantage to Kriging versus

2 interpolation?

3 A. Well, there are different ways to

4 estimate. The one over R squared technique and some

5 of the other techniques that are used, mostly do not

6 give you an air estimate. With Kriging you are able

7 to get some idea of the confidence of your estimate

8 and that's why I have used it in the past for the

9 work I've done and that's why EPA asked me to review

10 what they did back in 1985.

11 Q. On page 6 of your CV, the second technical

12 report listed from the bottom, is entitled The

13 Characterization of Atmospheric Exposure and

14 Deposition Data in Support of EPA's Environmental

15 Monitoring and Assessment Program.

16 Can you tell me what that report is about?

17 A. I will have to take a few seconds to think

18 about that.

19 Q. Okay.

20 (Pause)

21 A. Yes. The EMAP program is associated with

22 developing indices that give you some idea in advance

23 that something might be happening to your ecosystem.

24 What I mean by that, the forest, the

25 desert, the agricultural areas, marine areas and the

1 wetland areas.

2 I was asked by the EMAP program to write a

3 chapter or a section dealing with how to characterize

4 exposure in deposition data in potentially biological

5 meaningful terms that could relate to these indices

6 if and when there were changes in the indices, and

7 the flag went up, yellow or red flag, whatever,

8 saying changes are occurring here, what could they

9 be. And so I wrote that chapter for them.

10 Q. When you are talking about

11 characterization, what do you mean?

12 A. In the area of air quality for, let's say,

13 sulfur dioxide you measure 8,760 hourly values this

14 year. You have an individual way you can take those

15 hourly measurements, one way to is to take a simple

16 arithmetic mean and you smear the information at that

17 point, meaning you just put it all in one pot and say

18 there is one average.

19 In the area of research that I have been

20 involved in, the higher concentrations are more

21 important than the lower concentrations so the

22 mathematics of what we have been doing have been

23 associated with how to design the indices that we use

24 for exposure such that they focus on the higher

25 concentrations. So for us using simple arithmetic

1 means are inappropriate.

2 Q. Are appropriate?

3 A. Inappropriate. And the discussion of that

4 chapter involved why you focus on the peaks, the peak

5 concentrations and how you take the data and put it

6 in a form that gives the researchers who worry about

7 the effects part a better handle on what the exposure

8 looks like.

9 Q. Was there a particular geographic area

10 that was involved in this mapping?

11 A. No. It is a national program. Well, the

12 EMAP program is not a mapping program. It is a

13 national program in scope. What they asked me to do

14 was write a general chapter.

15 Q. Were there any types of conclusions that

16 resulted from your work in this chapter?

17 A. The conclusion that I drew is that based

18 on the higher concentrations being more important

19 than the lower concentrations from a biological

20 perspective, one would characterize the air quality

21 and deposition in the particular form that I

22 discussed in the chapter. So they were bottom line

23 conclusions, yes.

24 Q. Am I correct that your work in this regard

25 did not relate to any specific site that you were

1 trying to analyze?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. What chemical parameters were you dealing

4 with in that chapter?

5 A. I know for sure we were dealing with

6 ozone. With the wet deposition information I do

7 not -- I can not recall without seeing the paper

8 right now.

9 I am sure it would have been pH and it may

10 have been sulfate and there may have been others but

11 I can't recall at this point.

12 Q. Do you recall whether nutrients were

13 looked at?

14 A. I don't think they were.

15 Q. The next report listed there is Natural

16 Processes and Their Possible Importance on the

17 Chemistry of Selected Lakes in New York and

18 Massachusetts. Can you tell me what that was about?

19 A. The coauthor with me on that report was

20 Dr. Ed Krug. We were looking at the possible

21 importance of the soils and vegetation in

22 contributing to the acidification of lakes that

23 previously had been thought to be, acidification

24 thought to be caused directly by acid deposition.

25 What we covered in that report was the

1 various processes, soil processes that could be

2 occurring that would result in acid going off into

3 the lakes or streams.

4 Q. What conclusions did you reach?

5 A. A very important conclusion, that is that

6 the natural processes were contributing to the

7 acidification of lakes and streams.

8 And our work essentially which

9 complemented the work that Dr. Krug had published in

10 1983 and I published in 1985, our work ended up being

11 the driving force for the National Acid Precipitation

12 Assessment Program concluding that natural processes

13 do play very important roles in the acidification of

14 lakes.

15 Q. What specific soil or natural processes

16 were you looking at?

17 A. Dr. Krug is a soil scientist on that and

18 it has been a long time since I looked that at that

19 for me to accurately tell you exactly what processes

20 were occurring, but that is in that piece, plus we

21 did publish a paper in the peer review literature

22 based on this work. I know it is described in here.

23 Q. The middle of page 7, you have a report

24 entitled Characterizing Mountain Cloud Chemistry Data

25 in Support of the Spruce-Fir Research Cooperative

1 Effort.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you tell me what that was about?

4 A. Yes. That was a short report.

5 We had a meeting at the State University

6 of New York in 1988, I believe, that resulted in

7 about 15 scientists from across the United States

8 meeting and talking about the best way of handling

9 mountain cloud chemistry data.

10 The idea there is that they were gathering

11 cloud information, wet deposition information and

12 ozone and nitrogen dioxide information and how best

13 to put the data into a form that would allow once

14 again for cause and effect analysis.

15 And I, of course, played a key role in the

16 characterization of those data. At that point we

17 were not analyzing the data, we were talking about

18 what to do with the data. That was a short report.

19 Q. So you didn't reach any conclusions as to

20 the cause and effect?

21 A. No. Once again we focused on the peaks

22 being important.

23 Q. A few reports further down is one entitled

24 Atmospheric Deposition and Its Possible Effects on

25 the Chemistry of Lake Kanacto, is that right?

1 A. Kanacto.

2 Q. And Lake -- I won't even try it, another

3 lake. Can you tell me what that report is about?

4 A. Yes. The report you previously referred

5 to at the bottom of page 6 was kind of the beginning

6 of exploring natural processes and their possible

7 importance, and then in that last report that you

8 just referred to was actually saying, okay, now let's

9 focus on two sites, let's look at the ecosystem that

10 surrounds those lakes and let's draw some conclusions

11 concerning the possible contribution of natural

12 versus anthropogenic to the acidification of those

13 lakes.

14 Once again, Dr. Krug and I were coauthors

15 on that report, which ultimately was published in the

16 peer review literature.

17 Q. Do you recall what your conclusions were

18 there, were the natural processes causing the

19 acidification?

20 A. It has been a while but I know for at

21 least one of the lakes and I forgot which one, that

22 we felt that natural processes were playing a very,

23 very important role. In the other I think it was, it

24 could be playing an important role but the data were

25 insufficient to be able to draw conclusions as to

1 weighting one from the other.

2 Q. Other than the natural processes, what

3 were the other sources?

4 A. Anthropogenic meaning man-made deposition

5 and possible land use changes that man had made to

6 the environment.

7 Q. Such as what kind?

8 A. Forest -- deforestation. An awful lot of

9 that area had been logged in the last part of the

10 century and such. So there were drastic changes made

11 to the ecosystem, but actually we also considered the

12 possibility of deposition itself. It was very

13 difficult to separate those components out for one of

14 at least, at least for one of the two lakes.

15 Q. Again, do you recall what the natural

16 processes were that were being looked at?

17 A. They were soil processes again and -- but

18 the actual soil processes, no.

19 Q. Page 9, there is a reference in there

20 toward the top to ANC Measurement Protocol. Can you

21 tell me what that is? It is four down, Review of ANC

22 Measurement Protocol?

23 A. That is acid neutralizing capacity. And I

24 was asked by the quality assurance office of the

25 Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.

1 to join up with a gentleman named Dr. Jim Kramer in

2 the university in I believe Ontario, McMaster

3 University in Ontario and we looked at the protocol

4 that EPA was using to measure the importance of

5 organics in the acid neutralization capacity. And it

6 has been a long time for me to explain in detail

7 exactly all that.

8 But Dr. Kramer and I looked at the

9 techniques that were being used and assessed whether

10 or not the techniques that were being used were going

11 to be sensitive enough to identify the possible

12 importance of organics in the contribution of the

13 acidification of the water bodies.

14 Q. When you refer to organics, are you

15 referring to pesticides?

16 A. Mostly it was natural organics. These

17 areas were in forests and such, forest ecosystems.

18 Q. Three reports from the bottom on page 9 is

19 a Summary and Evaluation of Aquatic and Terrestrial

20 Sensitivity Mapping and Selected Aquatic Models. Can

21 you tell me what that report is about?

22 A. Yes. The Electric Power Research

23 Institute in Palo Alto, California, asked me to

24 review the various models that were being used in the

25 acid rain area. And there was the Hendrikson Model

1 and several other models. And they asked me to

2 review what some of the weaknesses and strengths were

3 of those models.

4 Q. What type of models are we talking about?

5 A. Some of them had to do with chemistry

6 within the lake in terms of relationship between

7 carbonate, calcium and magnesium and pH of the lake.

8 One of the other models I recall was a

9 Canadian model had to do with sulfate, with the

10 sulfate in the lake and the linking of the calcium

11 and magnesium.

12 There was an attempt here to essentially

13 try to get a handle on what concentrations of things

14 like sulfate and how they drove the pH of the lake

15 itself, how they defined the pH of the lake.

16 In one case one of the models was

17 misinterpreted and there was an attempt to link the

18 sulfate that was deposited in the lake with the pH in

19 the lake.

20 Q. What is meant by terrestrial sensitivity

21 mapping?

22 A. It has been a while on that.

23 It may have had to do with the sulfate

24 content or the aluminum content of the soils and how

25 that related to the pH of the water body itself. The

1 idea being that changes in the soil might be driving

2 the chemistry of the lake itself, similar to what we

3 were saying about the natural contribution of

4 organics within soils to forming or shaping the

5 chemistry that was going on either in the rivers or

6 the lakes.

7 Q. When you are talking about the soils, are

8 you talking about the soils underlying the water

9 or --

10 A. No. Well, on the land. And the water

11 goes through those soils and then gets into the water

12 body itself.

13 Q. On page 10, the second listed report, A

14 Review and Assessment of the Effects of Pollutant

15 Mixtures on Vegetation Research Recommendations.

16 Can you tell me what that report is about?

17 A. Yes. EPA undertook a very novel exercise.

18 About 1983 they came to me and asked how much

19 information was available concerning what was known

20 about the combination of sulfur dioxide, ozone and

21 nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, because prior to

22 that time exposure experiments had been done in a

23 laboratory where plants were fumigated with what we

24 call square wave type exposures which means constant

25 concentrations. And the concern that EPA had was

1 they were using pollutant mixtures in the laboratory

2 that were not really observed in the real world.

3 So what EPA did, asked if I would evaluate

4 the data and draw conclusions concerning what

5 pollutant mixtures were in the atmosphere and in what

6 concentrations and when did they occur.

7 As a result of my work and work of other

8 researchers who were summarizing what was known about

9 the effect of pollutant mixtures on vegetation

10 itself, we held a workshop in 1983 and in January of

11 1984 we published the summary report. And I was

12 responsible as one of the coeditors for its

13 publication.

14 Q. What pollutant were you looking at?

15 A. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide and

16 ozone.

17 Q. Was that all?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What conclusions did you reach?

20 A. That the EPA was using, or not just EPA

21 but the research activities that were being conducted

22 were using types of exposures that would be

23 inappropriate in helping to set a standard. In other

24 words, the data themselves could help discuss the

25 mechanisms that were involved in the effects that

1 were observed but might not be very much help in

2 helping to set the level and form of the standard to

3 protect against such mixtures.

4 Q. Two reports down from there, The Possible

5 Importance of Naturally Occurring Soil Processes in

6 Defining Short Term pH Depressions Observed in US

7 Surface Waters, what was that report about?

8 A. Once again, the theme, we are going

9 backwards in time, of course.

10 Q. Right.

11 A. In 1983 I -- it was well-known both from

12 Dr. Krug's publication in Science Magazine and from

13 the work that I was doing in the 1982 and 1983 period

14 that naturally occurring soil processes could be

15 defining the short term pH depressions that were

16 being observed.

17 Prior to that time it was thought that

18 whether the streams were receiving high

19 concentrations of hydrogen or low pH events during

20 the fall runoff or the spring melt, that that was

21 totally attributable to acid from deposition falling

22 on snow or falling in rain and running off directly

23 into the surfaces, and that what I did was explore

24 the possibility that in fact the water was

25 percolating through the soil, picking up the hydrogen

1 content within the soil and taking that off into the

2 surface waters.

3 And I did a report, I was asked to do a

4 report for EPA that summarized that and that's what

5 that was about.

6 It was heavily peer reviewed and accepted.

7 Q. In this research you have done with, in

8 conjunction with Dr. Krug, what conclusions have you

9 reached regarding organic acid, acidification of

10 water bodies?

11 A. I think I earlier stated that, that they

12 in fact do play a very important role in some areas

13 of the country. To be specific, in the Florida area

14 here, the acidification of the lakes from the survey,

15 there was a lake survey performed by the government,

16 showed that Florida had a large percentage of,

17 perhaps a greater percentage of acid lakes than in

18 other parts of the country, yet the acidification EPA

19 felt was not playing an extremely important role here

20 in Florida.

21 NAPAP, National Acid Precipitation

22 Assessment Program, concluded that there were some

23 areas in the United States that did have acidified

24 lakes where acidification was playing a minor role

25 from acid rain but the acidification processes from

1 natural processes were playing a more important role.

2 Q. Do you recall which particular areas of

3 Florida were involved?

4 A. I am sorry, on that I do not.

5 Q. Do you recall, in any of this research

6 where your conclusions concerning water bodies, would

7 that apply to wetlands as opposed to lakes?

8 A. Dr. Krug would be the more appropriate

9 person to ask on that one simply because he is a soil

10 scientist.

11 Q. Do you recall whether any of the research

12 was done in wetlands as opposed to lakes?

13 A. EPA's research or our research?

14 Q. Either one, regarding --

15 A. Our research -- I believe some of our

16 research in the New York area certainly did involve

17 some wetland areas. EPA's may have. It has been a

18 long time since I have read the several volume

19 reports on the lake survey and some of the

20 conclusions.

21 EPA did draw conclusions I believe in

22 chapter 9 of the National Acid Precipitation

23 Assessment reports. There were a series of reports.

24 They were called State of Science reports. And so

25 some bottom line conclusions are found in there.

1 I participated in the State of Science

2 efforts but not in those chapters.

3 Q. A few reports down is entitled A Review

4 and Assessment of the EPA's National Crop Loss

5 Assessment Network Program.

6 I think we talked about that program

7 earlier, but can you just tell me what your role was

8 in that?

9 A. In the program or in the report?

10 Q. Well, in the review and assessment.

11 A. Yes. We are going backwards again so I

12 have to turn my clock in reverse.

13 In 1983 I was asked by the American

14 Petroleum Institute to review the major

15 accomplishments and some of the weaknesses associated

16 with the EPA's National Crop Loss Assessment Network.

17 And my role in 1983 was essentially to work with my

18 peers, some of whom were participating in that

19 program, to essentially -- I was then responsible for

20 drawing conclusions based on the information, written

21 information that I had received from my peers as well

22 as from the government.

23 That was the report in May of 1983. By

24 1985 I had been asked by the United States

25 Environmental Protection Agency to actually join the

1 National Crop Loss Assessment Network based on the

2 critique that I had done of the program in that my

3 major emphasis there was that they, I felt very

4 strongly they were not properly handling some of the

5 air quality characterization information in an

6 appropriate way.

7 And its response to me, meaning the

8 agency, was to invite me to participate by reviewing

9 with Dr. Jennifer Logan and several others the

10 Kriging techniques that EPA was using. I believe it

11 was '84 and '85, we were asked to do that.

12 And there were five of us that reviewed

13 and evaluated Kriging technique. This information

14 was very important because it was feeding directly

15 into the economic assessment loss estimates for the

16 nation.

17 Q. I believe you said that you criticized the

18 way that EPA was handling --

19 A. Critiqued.

20 Q. Critiqued. Can you tell me what the

21 nature of your critique was?

22 A. Yes. It later was supported in the

23 criteria document of 1986 by the United States EPA

24 for the criteria document for ozone, and that is that

25 the agency was characterizing its ozone data in 7

1 hour average information.

2 What that meant is they were looking only

3 at a time period 9:00 in the morning until 1600 in

4 the afternoon, 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon, and

5 averaging that information.

6 The criticism was that, and it was

7 constructive criticism, was that with peaks being

8 important, the high concentrations being important,

9 that they were averaging out the information and that

10 ultimately for the same seven hour average over a

11 growth season you could end up with some exposure

12 regimes with peaks and some without.

13 EPA in 1986 agreed and concluded that the

14 long-term average was an inappropriate way to

15 characterize ozone exposure for vegetation effects

16 research.

17 Q. Why is it in your view the peaks that are

18 the important aspect in the effects of whatever

19 parameter you are looking at?

20 A. Well, for vegetation.

21 Q. Okay, for vegetation effects.

22 A. That is not a general global statement.

23 For vegetation, it had to be based on the

24 biological experiments. That was the key to it.

25 And I helped design the exposure regimes

1 in 1983 with the US EPA in Corvallis that essentially

2 had some exposure regimes that had peaks in them and

3 some that didn't but with the same seven hour mean.

4 What EPA found was that in fact even with

5 the same 7 hour mean they had more damage, more

6 growth reduction on their agricultural crops with

7 those exposures that had the peaks in them.

8 Q. With regard to the research you have done

9 in this regard, what specific chemicals or compound

10 or what have you determined the peaks are that are

11 the important aspect of the effect on vegetation?

12 A. Sulfur dioxide, ozone and possibly

13 nitrogen dioxide. Those are the three major

14 pollutants that are in the national ambient air

15 quality standards.

16 Q. Have you conducted any similar research to

17 formulate any opinions concerning the effects of

18 peaks in nutrient concentrations on vegetation?

19 A. Not nutrients, but pH was one that we were

20 looking at, hydrogen ion.

21 Q. I am sorry?

22 A. Hydrogen ion.

23 Q. Is it surprising that the peaks in the

24 three compounds that you referenced had a cause and

25 effect relationship?

1 A. Well, there were two types of exposure,

2 there was chronic which is long-term exposure and

3 acute which is a short-term concentration.

4 Certainly from our standpoint up into the

5 1980s there was nothing in the literature to our

6 knowledge that indicated for growth reduction, for

7 damage that peaks could be solely attributable to the

8 effects. It was only after we designed the

9 experiments, ran them and published it that we had

10 the definitive stuff, material that we could then

11 cite in the literature to draw the conclusions that

12 we drew.

13 Would it be a surprise? No. But the

14 bottom line on that there is as a scientist you can't

15 say I think and then run over the hill so it was

16 necessary to design the experiments and then

17 implement them and draw conclusions.

18 Q. If at any time you want to take a break,

19 let me know.

20 A. I am fine. I am just thirsty because I am

21 doing all the talking.

22 Q. If we turn to page 16 under your technical

23 publications, I refer you to a published article,

24 Krug and Lefohn, The Importance of Natural Processes

25 in Understanding Ecosystem Change: A Case Study of

1 Limed Lakes. Is that essentially the same stuff we

2 were talking about before?

3 A. For New York, yes.

4 Q. Is that the outcome of the study we

5 discussed concerning the two lakes?

6 A. Yes. A lot of my research, most of it, in

7 fact, ends up in reports and is converted over into

8 the peer review literature. It is very important

9 that that be done.

10 Q. On page 19, the article four up from the

11 bottom, Possible Importance of Forest Soil Processes

12 in Defining Surface Water pH Depressions.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Have we spoken about that one before?

15 A. I believe so. In 1983, that was one of

16 those you asked me about in 1983 that I had done for

17 EPA.

18 That work was turned into a peer review

19 publication in 1985 in the Journal of Air Pollution

20 Control Association. That was the work I had done

21 for EPA that was a summarization of possible

22 importance of natural processes.

23 Q. Did any of your conclusions you had

24 reached in your original preliminary reports change

25 or did you alter them at all by the time you

1 published your conclusions?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge, what was in

3 the EPA report, the bottom lines were transferred

4 into the peer review paper. Certainly the words may

5 have changed but I do not believe the conclusions

6 changed at this time, without looking at them side by

7 side. I still believe what I did in 1983, what I

8 just said in 1985 and what I said now. EPA -- not

9 EPA-- the National Acid Precipitation Assessment

10 Program pretty much confirmed in writing in their

11 final report what we said.

12 Q. On page 21, the second listed article, An

13 Alternative Use of the Environmental Impact

14 Statement, et cetera, can you tell me what that

15 article is about?

16 A. I am not sure I can. This was work that I

17 was associated with in outreach efforts with the

18 state of Montana when I was a federal employee within

19 the Governor's office. I don't think I can at this

20 point, I am sorry.

21 It is just that at that point of my career

22 we were involved in a lot of outreach efforts in the

23 communication of science to the decision-makers as

24 well as to the public and I believe that the article

25 I wrote in that digest did reflect some of the

1 outreach efforts I was doing at the time.

2 Q. Let me try to really tax your memory and

3 move down to the second from the bottom, a 1973

4 article entitled Detection of Atmospheric Pollutants

5 at Parts per Billion Levels.

6 A. You are not taxing me on that one, I will

7 do okay on that one.

8 Q. Tell me what that is about, please.

9 A. Yes. The interferometric work I had

10 talked about in the research at Triangle Park in

11 North Carolina, we coupled the interferometer with a

12 multiple reflection cell and what that paper

13 discusses is the sense, being able to detect the

14 acids at very low concentrations using the

15 interferometer coupled with the long pass multiple

16 reflection cell.

17 Q. Again, what specific atmospheric

18 pollutants were you concerned with there?

19 A. The same ones I talked about very early, I

20 think it was acetic acid and ozone and some of the

21 other pollutants.

22 Q. Let's try 1972, the next page, Remote

23 Sensors and Their Application to Oceanographic

24 Monitoring, can you tell me what that article is

25 about?

1 A. Yes. I was in Washington, D.C. at the

2 time and Bill Sayers was in the Office of Research

3 with me. And what we discussed was using infrared

4 spectrometers, I believe it was infrared

5 spectrometers and other remote sensors from, it may

6 have been either from aircraft and/or satellites or

7 in aircraft or satellites but actually remote sensing

8 techniques to fingerprint pollution such as oil

9 pollution and other things, and also photography to

10 be used in ways to identify where the pollution was

11 going and perhaps the times where it might have come

12 from.

13 Q. The remote sensing was being used to

14 locate the pollutants themselves?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Have you been involved in any remote

17 sensing in regard to the biota or vegetation?

18 A. Vegetation, yes, through the work I did at

19 NASA as a post-doc.

20 Q. Can you describe that for me?

21 A. Yes. The interferometric work that I was

22 doing at NASA involved taking the spectral signatures

23 under a controlled environment in the laboratory and

24 comparing that to the aircraft remote sensing

25 information as well as to the multi-spectral

1 information that is provided from satellite

2 platforms, manned satellite platforms. Several of my

3 colleagues at NASA in fact were responsible for

4 design of the equipment and I was working with them

5 in terms of the spectral region that they were

6 designing the equipment for and then the signature.

7 Q. What type of vegetation were you locating

8 and identifying?

9 A. It was like crops and forests.

10 Q. Did you find that was essentially

11 successful in identifying? I mean, were you able to

12 identify accurately the crop covers and types of

13 vegetation through the remote sensing?

14 A. We had difficulty because of the

15 association of the atmosphere interfering at times

16 with the spectral signature that was occurring. At

17 other times, though, for inventory purposes it was

18 found to be an excellent tool. Some of my colleagues

19 at Michigan and Purdue in fact had used that for that

20 purpose. And it is being used today many times for

21 that purpose.

22 Q. Since this time period, I think you were

23 at NASA '69 to '71, have you been involved in any

24 remote sensing since then with regard to vegetation?

25 A. Not that I can recall at this time.

1 Q. Attached to your resume is a corporate

2 philosophy and background document. Is that from

3 your company?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Let me back up a second.

6 This resume or CV, is this your most

7 current CV that you have?

8 A. No. I say no because almost everything is

9 in place except for the peer review publication list

10 because that is always changing. In fact, a paper

11 was accepted last night.

12 So, for example, on page 14, the first

13 publication under Technical Publications, Lefohn,

14 Tilton and Foley, is in press, Lefohn and Foley

15 underneath that, has been published and the Lefohn,

16 McEvoy, Tingey, et cetera, has just been published.

17 And there is one other publication which is not

18 listed there that has just been accepted.

19 Q. What is that publication?

20 A. It deals with the characterization of air

21 quality in Norway. It just has been accepted by

22 Atmospheric Environment. There is one other

23 publication I have in press -- I am sorry, in

24 preparation.

25 Q. What is that one?

1 A. That one deals with mainly ozone, it deals

2 with the changes of exposure regimes as a function of

3 attainment and non-attainment areas in the United

4 States, done with EPA, coauthors.

5 Q. Other than those additions is your CV that

6 we have attached here up to date, to the best of your

7 knowledge?

8 A. To the best of my knowledge.

9 Let me check one thing.

10 Yes, it is, to the best of my knowledge.

11 Q. With your extensive background in the

12 research concerning acid rain, have you reached any

13 conclusions as to what acid rain, what effects it is

14 causing?

15 A. Globally?

16 Q. Globally, in the United States.

17 A. My conclusions are similar to the

18 conclusion of the National Acid Precipitation

19 Assessment Program and those conclusions were

20 published I believe in the fall of 1990. And those

21 were as follows.

22 Acid is falling in the United States and

23 as well as other parts of the world, meaning pH

24 around 5.3, 5.4 or less. But the linkage between the

25 acidification of rainfall and effects is not really

1 well defined at this point.

2 There are some lakes in the United States

3 where man has directly contributed, humans have

4 directly contributed to the impacts. There are other

5 water bodies in the United States where in fact that

6 is not the case and natural processes have

7 predominated.

8 In regard to vegetation, the acidification

9 at ambient levels of pH appear to have little effect

10 on growth on crops in the United States and

11 similarly, to the forests in the United States.

12 And that has been borne out by the bottom

13 lines conclusions of NAPAP. And my information was

14 published in the early eighties and my conclusions

15 have not changed.

16 Q. On page 1 of the corporate philosophy and

17 background document, under the first bullet at the

18 bottom refers to the development of vegetation

19 exposure-response relationships.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Again, what types of compounds are you

22 looking at or constituent as far as exposure and the

23 response thereto?

24 A. For vegetation most of the work has been

25 focused on ozone, sulfur dioxide and we were working

1 on pH when I was working with the Forest Service in

2 some of their research in the late eighties,

3 deposition of hydrogen.

4 Q. On the next page under the second to last

5 bullet, under the same category, wet chemistry

6 evaluations in relationship to biological effects.

7 Can you describe what you mean by that?

8 A. Yes, I just did. It is the pH

9 relationship to effects.

10 Q. On page 2 and continuing on to page 3 you

11 list a number of data bases. Can you tell me what is

12 in the EPRI SURE Wet Chemistry data base?

13 A. The typical eight or nine ions of

14 chemistry that the National Atmospheric Deposition

15 Program has measured plus there were certainly other

16 ions that were in there too, I can not remember all

17 of them at this point, but the EPRI SURE data base

18 collected its information not necessarily in the same

19 time scale as NADP, but measured similar type

20 chemistry.

21 Q. Did they collect data on nutrients?

22 A. I believe so. I believe at first they did

23 have some data on orthophosphate. They may have

24 collected some data on orthophosphate and I know they

25 have nitrate information.

1 Q. I am sorry?

2 A. They do have nitrate information.

3 Q. Do you know if they collected any total

4 phosphorus data?

5 A. I can not recall at this time.

6 Q. Is the EPRI SURE Wet Chemistry data base

7 publicly available?

8 A. Yes, through EPRI.

9 Q. Do you know what geographic area that EPRI

10 was sampling from?

11 A. I am going to say mainly the east and

12 midwest.

13 Q. Would the east include Florida?

14 A. I don't recall. I am sorry.

15 Q. Can you tell me what is in the NADP Wet

16 Chemistry data base?

17 A. Yes. Now, they did measure

18 orthophosphate, they do have calcium, magnesium,

19 potassium, ammonium, sodium, sulfate, chloride and

20 hydrogen conductivity and some of the other

21 measurements that were in there, and those were

22 mainly reported as wet precipitation samples on a

23 weekly basis, about 200 stations, and there are some

24 in Florida.

25 Q. Do you know whether they are collecting

1 any total phosphorus data?

2 A. From a paper that I read from Dr. Grimshaw

3 it appeared that they weren't because of the

4 mathematics that he had to do.

5 Q. The next data base is the MAP3s?

6 A. 3 S.

7 Q. 3 S. I am sorry.

8 What can you tell me about that data base?

9 A. Yes, similar type chemicals that I

10 mentioned previously that NADP had plus there was

11 total organic I believe or total acidity measurements

12 that were measured. And that I believe was an event

13 network, event-based network.

14 Q. What does that mean?

15 A. It means it captures the sample for a

16 particular day versus integrating it over a whole

17 week. It doesn't average over a whole week, it takes

18 it for the event.

19 Q. Do you know whether there is any nutrient

20 data collected in that data base?

21 A. I am going to say orthophosphate and

22 nitrate. And there is ammonium data, nitrate and

23 orthophosphate.

24 Q. Do you know what geographic area that

25 covers?

1 A. I believe there were nine stations for

2 MAP3s and I can mention some of the stations and I

3 will be incomplete in what I say because I can't

4 recall all nine.

5 There was Ithaca, New York, there was

6 Brookhaven, New York, there was I believe Penn State

7 in Pennsylvania, there was a site in Ohio, there was

8 a site in Delaware and a few others. And I do not

9 recall if there were any sites in Florida.

10 Q. Do you know what time period the samples

11 were collected for that data base?

12 A. For the MAP3s?

13 Q. Right.

14 A. I think that was the event samples. You

15 mean the years?

16 Q. Right.

17 A. Okay, I am sorry.

18 1976 was the earliest and the program

19 stopped I believe in the late eighties, may have been

20 '88 or '87.

21 Q. Do you know if that data base is publicly

22 available?

23 A. It is available through the Department of

24 Energy. Whether it is publicly available, in what

25 form, I do not know but they do have summary reports.

1 Q. Do you know where the summary reports are

2 located? Are they published somewhere?

3 A. They are government, they are through the

4 government printing office.

5 Q. Department of Energy reports?

6 A. Yes, or through their contractor.

7 Q. Back up a second to the EPRI SURE data

8 base. Do you know what time period over which those

9 samples were collected?

10 A. It may have been -- I believe it was the

11 late seventies.

12 Q. That was it, just in the late seventies?

13 A. I believe so.

14 Q. When you said that EPRI you believe was

15 publicly available, do you know whether there are any

16 restrictions or requirements to be a member of EPRI?

17 A. Oh, no, anyone can call.

18 Q. Going to the next data base, the UAPSP Wet

19 Chemistry.

20 A. The utility, it is a utilities data base

21 for wet chemistry.

22 Q. Can you tell me what parameters are

23 included in that data base?

24 A. I think it is similar once again in the

25 MAP3s data base and the EPRI SURE, and I think mainly

1 it is the same set of chemicals again. I think it is

2 event based, again.

3 Q. Is it your understanding that would also

4 include orthophosphate data?

5 A. I don't know on that particular data set.

6 Q. Do you know what time period the data was

7 collected for that data base?

8 A. Yes. I would have assumed, it probably

9 was a continuation or a building upon of the EPRI

10 SURE. The EPRI SURE would have started probably

11 around something like '77 or '78 and run into '79,

12 '80.

13 The UAPSP I believe picked up in '81 and

14 ran through the end of the 1980s.

15 So when I previously said I thought '77 to

16 '80 for the EPRI SURE, there was built overlap

17 between the two data sets so it may have moved into

18 the early eighties when EPRI SURE stopped.

19 Q. Do you know what geographic area the

20 sampling in the utility data base includes?

21 A. Yes. With the UAPSP once again I think

22 there was the northeast and midwest and there were

23 some sites in the Rocky Mountain area and I believe

24 there were sites in the south. I am fairly certain

25 there were sites in the south.

1 Q. What about Florida?

2 A. It is in the south but I can not tell you

3 for sure.

4 Q. Do you know if the UAPSP data base is

5 publicly available?

6 A. Yes, it is publicly available through the

7 Electric Power Research Institute. At least they can

8 tell you where to go to obtain the data.

9 Q. Can you tell me why the EPRI data base and

10 then the UAPSP data base was created in the first

11 instance?

12 A. I can guess. I was not --

13 MR. BLANK: Don't guess.

14 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to why it was

15 created?

16 A. I can tell you how the data were used and

17 that probably may give you some inkling as to why the

18 data were collected, but the actual key words of why

19 EPRI set up this huge data base I would feel

20 uncomfortable talking about. But basically, it was

21 used for modeling and the characterization of

22 deposition.

23 Q. What type of modeling?

24 A. Source receptor type modeling in terms of

25 the type of emissions and concentrations that were

1 observed in the area where the emissions were

2 occurring and long range transport. And there was

3 interest also in the Canadian American contributions

4 to one another.

5 Q. Do you know why the NADP data base was

6 established?

7 A. Once again I can tell you the use but the

8 actual specific reasons that NADP was listed in its

9 government reports I don't recall at this point but

10 it was used for similar type purposes.

11 Q. What about the MAP3s data base?

12 A. That goes back all the way to '76 and I

13 don't recall the exact key words that the Department

14 of Energy used for its creation but in fact it also

15 formed a data set that was used to characterize where

16 the concentrations were falling and the amounts.

17 Q. Have you used any of these data bases with

18 regard to your work related to this case?

19 A. Not to draw any conclusions.

20 Q. How have you used them?

21 A. Just basically I identified what sites are

22 available in Florida concerning NADP.

23 Q. Did you review and analyze the NADP data

24 to reach any conclusions?

25 A. No.

1 Q. If we could go, I want to try to go

2 through this fairly quickly, but the other data bases

3 that are listed there, I will just name them for the

4 record: the EPA AIRS Air Quality, the EPRI SURE/ERAQS

5 Air Quality, the National Park Service Air Quality,

6 Tennessee Valley Authority Air Quality, Environment

7 Air Quality Data, Province of Ontario Ozone Data,

8 Province of British Columbia Ozone Data. First of

9 all, with regard to any of those, do you know which

10 if any collected data on nutrients?

11 A. Those are all gaseous air quality data

12 sets, meaning ozone, SO2 and nitrogen dioxide. Not

13 everyone has all three pollutants but that's what

14 they are.

15 Q. Do you know if any of those data bases can

16 contain any information on nutrient constituents in

17 the air or in rainfall or wet deposition or dry

18 deposition?

19 A. As listed there, I do not believe any of

20 them are associated with wet deposition. In terms of

21 their air quality component, the EPRI SURE, of

22 course, did carry wet dep which we talked about

23 previously but there it talks about air quality.

24 Q. Am I correct that none of these data bases

25 then would include any data concerning nutrient

1 content of the air, so to speak, or dryfall?

2 A. To the best of my knowledge, they do not,

3 as listed as air quality. The organizations may in

4 fact have gathered data that pertain to that but

5 those data I do not have and they have not been

6 involved in the air quality work that I have done.

7 Q. Can you tell me what the purposes of those

8 other data bases we have just listed are, what they

9 were created for?

10 A. The United States Government and Canadian

11 Government are responsible to their populations to

12 monitor and enforce the national ambient air quality

13 standards in the United States and I believe they are

14 called goals or objectives in Canada. And as a

15 result of that, the provinces have their own data

16 base which they report to Environment Canada on a

17 routine basis. And that is the Province of Ontario

18 and the Province of British Columbia.

19 The Environment Canada Air Quality data

20 base represents data from the provinces as well as

21 additional monitoring that the federal government and

22 Canada has done, but the bottom line on that is to

23 monitor the health of the environment and how

24 accurately they are meeting or how adequately they

25 are meeting their goals and objectives.

1 The United States, for

2 attainment/non-attainment purposes, the states and

3 local governments are required by law to monitor and

4 report to the United States EPA on a routine basis

5 the quality of its air so that

6 non-attainment/attainment status can be designated.

7 And that's where the EPA air quality data base comes

8 in.

9 Q. Are you aware of any other industry or

10 governmental data bases that exist which would

11 include data collected concerning nutrient content in

12 rainfall?

13 MR. BLANK: When you say other, counsel,

14 you mean other than listed on his CV?

15 Q. Other than the ones listed on page 2 and 3

16 here of Exhibit 1.

17 A. Do you mind if I ask counsel a question

18 perhaps?

19 Q. Let me also exclude out the South Florida

20 Water Management District data.

21 A. I would like to ask counsel a question.

22 MR. BLANK: Do you understand his

23 question?

24 A. Could you rephrase that question, please.

25 Q. Are you aware of any other industry

1 sponsored or governmental sponsored data bases that

2 include data collected concerning nutrient content or

3 concentrations of rainfall?

4 A. I am aware of the USGS co-located the

5 sampling, I heard that was done from April through

6 June of 1992.

7 I am aware of, I believe there are two

8 sites in Florida that the sugar cane growers I

9 believe are funding that are going into the data base

10 within the District.

11 And I do not have details on but it is my

12 understanding that there may be additional monitoring

13 occurring in Florida that the industry may be doing

14 which I am not really receiving information on.

15 Q. Which industry are you referring to?

16 A. I believe the sugar cane growers. And I

17 have no information on that.

18 Q. First, with regard to the two sites that

19 you indicated are being funded by the agricultural

20 interests that is going into the District data set,

21 do you know what sites those are, where they are

22 located?

23 A. Yes. To be able to tell you exactly which

24 ones at this point compared to the wet/dry dep sites,

25 there are six sites for the wet/dry dep sites.

1 Specifically without looking at my notes which I

2 don't have here I do not feel comfortable in naming

3 them.

4 I know basically there were two of the

5 sites and I know approximately where they were

6 located but I do not their names right in front of me

7 at this point.

8 Q. Are you familiar with the area known as

9 the Everglades Agricultural Area?

10 A. I have heard of the Everglades

11 Agricultural Area. I would like you to define it for

12 me to compare it to the EPA and other acronyms.

13 Q. Just assuming it refers to the area of

14 land south of Lake Okeechobee bordered on the north

15 by the lake and on the south by the Water

16 Conservation Areas.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. Are you aware of whether the two sampling

19 sites you are referring to are within the EAA, the

20 Everglades Agricultural Area?

21 A. They are within, I believe they were

22 within EAA.

23 Q. You also mentioned that you are aware of

24 but have no information concerning some other

25 collection that the sugar industry may be doing. Do

1 you know where that is being conducted?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Do you know whether it is in the EAA or

4 outside the EAA?

5 A. I have not received any information on

6 that.

7 Q. How did you gain the knowledge that they

8 may be doing this?

9 A. Just through talking with counsel.

10 Q. Have you been asked to analyze any of that

11 data that is being collected?

12 A. I have been asked to look at the data.

13 Q. Have you seen any of the data?

14 A. I am sorry. Let me back up.

15 You were asking me about the data that I

16 know very little about, the data set?

17 Q. Right.

18 A. No, I have not been asked to look at that.

19 I thought you were referring to the District's data.

20 Q. Do you expect to be looking at their data

21 being collected, not the District data but industry

22 data?

23 A. I don't know.

24 Q. Do you know how many sampling sites there

25 are?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Let's move to page 7 on the second

3 document attached as Exhibit 1, under the heading

4 project cost control, the second paragraph makes

5 reference to monthly status report. Have you

6 prepared any monthly status reports with regard to

7 your work in this case?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. How many monthly status reports have you

10 prepared?

11 A. Probably five which are progress reports.

12 Q. In the next paragraph there is a reference

13 to special reports. What is included in the term

14 special report? Is that different than the progress

15 report in the generic sense?

16 A. Special reports sometimes are required by

17 clients concerning detail of the budgeting and such.

18 Q. Have you prepared any of these types of

19 special reports with regard to your work in this

20 case?

21 A. Not beyond the normal billing.

22 Q. Can you tell me when you prepared your

23 first or prepared and submitted your first progress

24 report with regard to your work in this case?

25 A. It may have been in early December.

1 Q. When was the last one?

2 A. The first of March.

3 Q. I assume by early December you mean 1992?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And the last one was March 1993?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. What is contained in these progress

8 reports?

9 A. Basically a paragraph that talks about

10 what we have done during the period of performance.

11 Q. Does it contain conclusions?

12 A. No.

13 MR. NETTLETON: I would like to take a

14 five minute break.

15 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,

16 after which the following proceedings

17 were had)

18 BY MR. NETTLETON:

19 Q. Dr. Lefohn, have you done any specific

20 research in the Everglades or the Everglades

21 ecosystem?

22 A. No, not specific research.

23 Q. Have you done any specific research in

24 wetlands?

25 A. No.

1 MR. BLANK: Counsel, let me just try and

2 clarify, when you say specific research, could you

3 define that a little bit? Are you referring to on

4 the ground experiments?

5 Q. How did you think I meant it when you

6 asked you --

7 A. On the ground experiments. Let me back

8 off and I would like to clarify that.

9 Well, if you could restate the question,

10 that would be helpful.

11 Q. I will allow you to explain if you want.

12 I already asked the question and you answered it.

13 A. Okay. The work that Dr. Krug and I did

14 looking at data that were obtained from the New York

15 area did in fact involve soil interface or

16 interaction with aquatic water bodies and such as

17 some of that that was wetland runoff and such but I

18 did not walk the land, Dr. Krug walked the land.

19 Q. So you analyzed data that came from what

20 you considered a wetland in New York, is that --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Other than that particular instance have

23 you had any involvement in wetlands research

24 including analysis of data?

25 A. We have looked at deposition data for the

1 United States, we have looked at the relationship

2 between hydrogen and sulfate in rainfall for sites

3 across the United States. Some of those areas no

4 doubt are wetland areas where the deposition fell.

5 Q. Have you done any research or written any

6 reports concerning the effects of that, whether it be

7 acid rain or whatever on wetlands communities?

8 A. Just the runoff issue concerning the

9 acidification of water bodies, but not per se on the

10 organisms or vegetation or such.

11 Q. So you are talking about just with regard

12 to the pH, then?

13 A. PH or aluminum.

14 Q. Is that limited to the New York

15 experience?

16 A. No. The work I did with Dr. Klock that we

17 referred to in the paper involved the State of

18 Washington, I think Idaho and maybe one or two other

19 states in the west that looked at this indirect

20 effect of acidification through the soil system.

21 Some of the areas may have been wetlands.

22 Q. Am I correct then from what you said you

23 did not look further to see what effect the

24 acidification would have on the biota of the system?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. What is Dr. Klock's area of expertise?

2 A. Soil science.

3 Q. That is the same as Dr. Krug?

4 A. Dr. Krug, similar. Dr. Klock was

5 interested more in using infrared, remote sensing

6 photographic techniques to inventory forests and such

7 looking for different species. Dr. Klock, though,

8 did in fact look, did involve himself in the project

9 of looking at different soil samples and what the

10 runoff characteristics might look like in the water

11 bodies.

12 Q. When you made reference to the wetlands in

13 New York, what is your definition of a wetlands?

14 A. I guess I did not have a scientific

15 definition at my disposal at this point to be able to

16 give that to you but Dr. Krug had talked about peats

17 and such in terms of soils that were -- that had a

18 lot of water in them with vegetation growth and the

19 net result of additional water runoff over that

20 vegetation interacting with the soils resulting in

21 chemistry changes.

22 Q. Do you have an understanding in your mind

23 of what you consider wetlands? Are there certain

24 characteristics that would define an area as a

25 wetland?

1 A. I am sure there are a full set but from my

2 vantage point was an area that basically had a lot of

3 vegetation growth with a great deal of water

4 associated with that vegetation growth.

5 Q. Any particular type of vegetation growth?

6 A. Not that I feel comfortable about giving

7 you the exact vegetation.

8 Q. Prior to your involvement in this case

9 have you done any research or written any reports

10 concerning or analyzing the phosphorus content of

11 rain or bulk deposition?

12 A. Bulk deposition values, I had looked at

13 before in the early years, dealt with things like

14 sulfate and nitrate and chloride and sodium and

15 potassium and ammonium. They were measured in the

16 early years by Dr. Jim Lodge and some of the early

17 investigators including the USGS that had published

18 some papers in 1965, reports in 1965, that had

19 gathered bulk samples, and the exercise we had gone

20 through was how to relate that or just getting an

21 idea of how those values look like compared to some

22 of the later NADP samples that started coming out in

23 1978.

24 Q. The various parameters I heard you mention

25 did not include any nutrients. Have you done

1 anything with regard to nutrient analysis in either

2 wet or dry deposition?

3 A. We had looked at some of the phosphorus

4 information in the early time period. It was mostly

5 I believe -- well, with NADP was the orthophosphate I

6 looked at.

7 It was just preliminary looking. There

8 were not a lot of conclusions that could be drawn by

9 us because a lot of the data were never published by

10 NADP. They were available in the data base but not

11 published. So consequently, on a case by case basis

12 we looked at some of the data.

13 Q. Why were you looking at the orthophosphate

14 data?

15 A. Just trying to get an idea on total cation

16 and anion balance.

17 Q. What was the purpose of looking at that?

18 A. There was always the concern that we were

19 missing