1 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 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. 21 DEPOSITION OF ALLEN S. LEFOHN 22 VOLUME I - A.M. SESSION 23 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. 2 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. 7 ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 8 POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 9 4100 International Place 100 Southeast 2nd Street 10 Miami, Florida 33131 BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQ. 11 12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 13 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 17 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 22 PRESENT: 23 JIM GRIMSHAW 24 25 3 1 INDEX 2 Witness Direct Cross Redirect ALLEN S. LEFOHN 3 By Mr. Nettleton: 5 -- 235 4 By Mr. Bartell: -- 233 -- By Mr. Hetrick: -- 235 -- 5 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 9 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 15 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 19 6 199 A document entitled Acid Rain, 20 A World-Wide Phenomenon: Perspective from the United States 21 7 201 A document entitled Phosphorus 22 Concentrations in Rain and Atmospheric Deposition in Florida, USA 23 8 203 A document entitled 24 Memorandum, to Maxine Cheesman, from Larry Grosser, dated are 25 January 15, 1993 4 1 EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION 2 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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 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. 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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. 11 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 12 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. & 13 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. 14 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) 15 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 16 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. 17 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. 18 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 19 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. 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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. 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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. 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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. 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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? 40 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 41 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. 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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. 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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? 53 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 54 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 55 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 56 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? 57 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 58 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. 59 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? 60 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 61 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 62 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. 63 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 64 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? 65 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. 66 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 67 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. 68 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 69 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. 70 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 71 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. 72 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 73 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. 74 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 75 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? 76 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. 77 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. 78 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 79 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. 80 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? 81 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 82 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 certain chemicals, certain constituents in 20 analyzing the rain chemistry. And the purpose was to 21 get an idea of the major contributors and minor 22 contributors and see if you were coming close, that 23 the anions were balancing the cations. 24 Q. You have to bear with me because I may not 25 have a lot of knowledge in this area. 83 1 How does orthophosphorus play into that? 2 Why are you looking at that? 3 A. You are looking at all the minuses, the 4 chloride, the nitrate, et cetera, and then you are 5 looking at all the positives, the calcium, potassium, 6 ammonium, sodium and hydrogen, and you are saying if 7 I add up all the pluses do they equal the number of 8 minuses. 9 And if they do then you think maybe you 10 may be in the ballpark to measuring everything that 11 is important. If they don't, you begin to ask 12 questions, are you missing something in what you are 13 analyzing or is something wrong with your analysis. 14 Q. Which side of the line is the 15 orthophosphate on, the plus or minus? 16 A. PO4 is minus, it is three minus. 17 Q. When you were referring to the NADP data, 18 how did you relate the bulk deposition to the NADP 19 data? 20 A. It was difficult. Obviously one is 21 including the dry deposition with the wet deposition 22 in the bulk sample and whereas NADP had mostly 23 measured, at one time I believe they were measuring 24 dry deposition but it was not a continuous all the 25 way through thing. So basically what we were doing 84 1 is just getting an idea of which areas had heavier 2 deposition in certain areas or higher concentrations 3 in certain areas compared to other geographic areas. 4 But we weren't trying to say adding up all 5 the NADP information could give us a direct match on 6 the magnitude of the total bulk. We were just trying 7 to get a better idea of what might have gone into the 8 bulk sample, making up the bulk sample recognizing 9 that we didn't have a lot of dry dep information from 10 NADP. 11 Q. Again, what bulk sampling are you talking 12 about? This is bulk sampling that you or your 13 researchers -- 14 A. No, USGS and others and Jim Lodge had 15 gotten. These data, people, scientists had gone out 16 in the early years and just gathered this, this data. 17 Q. Were you attempting to establish any kind 18 of relationship between the NADP data and anybody 19 else's data for whatever purpose? 20 A. Well, the mathematical relationship we 21 were not trying to establish. We were trying to get 22 an idea of what deposition looked like closest to the 23 sources, the sources meaning the power plants. And 24 so we used the bulk data to give us a ballpark figure 25 and used the more refined data coming from the NADP 85 1 to try to see if similar type spatial distributions 2 occurred. 3 Q. What is involved in bulk sampling? 4 A. A bucket that is out there or some 5 container that is out there and it gathers both wet, 6 if you have a wet event, and dry samples. And you 7 can collect that sample daily and save it, 8 refrigerate it in some cases, not refrigerate it in 9 other cases or you just have it sit out there as what 10 was happening in some of the samples in Canada, they 11 just let it stay out for four weeks, 30 days. 12 Q. Have you personally been involved in 13 setting up any type of sampling stations for 14 measuring bulk deposition? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you been involved in, personally 17 involved in setting up any stations for monitoring 18 wet deposition? 19 A. The actual setting up, no. 20 Q. What types of steps or precautions would a 21 scientist normally take to insure that a monitoring 22 station is properly set up to collect either dry or 23 wet deposition? 24 A. I don't feel qualified to go through the 25 quality assurance program, but I will tell you that 86 1 before I use data I go to the source that collected 2 the data, the agency or the organization such as the 3 National Atmospheric Deposition Program or the EPRI 4 program, and the data that he asks for to be analyzed 5 or the data that are offered to me to be analyzed by 6 those organizations I do not accept it unless the 7 organization has verified that the data tape they 8 were about to send represents essentially the best 9 quality data that are available from their 10 organization that they are aware of. In other words, 11 if someone does a preliminary quality assurance scan 12 on data and if the final scan has not been done and 13 the data have not been appropriately signed off on, I 14 do not use those data. 15 Q. What do you mean by a quality assurance 16 scan? 17 A. There are different levels. For example, 18 when data are first entered their initial scans that 19 they look for high concentrations or low 20 concentrations and they look for, they, meaning the 21 organization, looks for outliers that might give them 22 a hint that something is wrong with the analysis or 23 something is wrong with the recording of the data 24 that followed that analysis. 25 That is a preliminary scan. 87 1 Then there are more detailed levels of 2 quality assurance checking that goes on. Sometimes 3 they look at notebooks to make sure that the 4 procedures have been adequately followed in the 5 field. And they look at notebooks in the laboratory. 6 And those take several months to complete 7 and sometimes a year or more. 8 That has resulted many times in my having 9 to delay my analysis for over a year from the day we 10 actually submitted it simply because it doesn't make 11 sense to use preliminarily screened data and drawing 12 conclusions and then having someone say, something is 13 wrong with the data. 14 Q. What do you mean by having someone sign 15 off on the data? 16 A. What it is, for example, with the 17 Environmental Protection Agency, when I go through a 18 normal request for air quality data, by law the 19 states must submit their data to the regional office 20 of EPA within 90 days, I believe it is within 90 days 21 or 120 days, somewhere in that area, following the 22 collection of the data. What that means is if you 23 gather your last set of data on December 31, three to 24 four months later you are required by law to submit 25 those data to the organization. 88 1 The states have the right to pull those 2 data back out of the data base once they have 3 completed their submission of data to do a last check 4 on the quality assurance. The Environmental 5 Protection Agency will wait up to something like 6, 7 6 or 8 months following that December 31 date before it 7 begins to use its own data because it is aware the 8 data base is constantly changing. 9 So somewhere around July or August I will 10 start to talk with EPA about obtaining those data. 11 And my first question is, are you complete with the 12 scanning of the data and the region is completed, et 13 cetera. If the answer is yes, the data are now in 14 good shape, I will essentially ask for a transfer of 15 the data. 16 In fact, if they say a particular state is 17 still looking at its data, I will back off and say 18 please inform me when that state has completed its 19 quality assurance review. 20 Q. I still don't know what you mean by signed 21 off, though, signed off by who? 22 A. Essentially it is the agency, the people 23 in the trend section of the Environmental Protection 24 Agency who put out the annual trends report, the 25 people look for non-attainment indications across the 89 1 United States, essentially make the decision sometime 2 in the third quarter of the year that the data are 3 now complete. And that's what I mean by signed off. 4 The data will always change. There is 5 always some state that is going to change a 6 particular set of data within, for example, an air 7 quality data base. But 99 point whatever percent is 8 pretty much stable at that point. 9 Q. What kind of changes occur in the data 10 base? 11 A. A state may discover going back, well, for 12 example, the AIRS data base which is the air quality 13 data base in 1986 came into being. Prior to that 14 there was a data base called SAROAD. 15 In 1986 the change was made and several 16 sites were withdrawn from the AIRS data base simply 17 because the states made a decision if they only had 18 six months worth of data for a particular site they 19 just dropped the site. So it is those types of 20 things that occur. 21 In some cases the sulfur dioxide 22 concentrations may have been very, very high for a 23 particular site for a sick year and the air quality 24 district decided to go back and confirm whether or 25 not they could have had a particular level, high 90 1 level that they were observing and they concluded 2 that it wasn't real. They hadn't looked at it for X 3 number of years but they changed it. So there are 4 things that happen but most of the data base is 5 stable within about six months following the last 6 submission of data. 7 Q. The two examples that you just stated I 8 believe referred to the agency or state pulling back 9 the entire set of data. Are there occasions where 10 the data is simply changed? 11 A. I don't know what you mean by changed. 12 Q. The numbers change. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Why or how does that come about? 15 A. Well, with the example I made was that a 16 high concentration was observed by a particular 17 district, and, for example, for sulfur dioxide, and 18 it checked its books or checked its calibration 19 procedures or something for that particular week by 20 the person that was running the equipment and they 21 conclude in a collective way that there was something 22 wrong with that measurement so they in fact change 23 that to a missing value and then resubmit the data 24 for that data set for that year back in the data base 25 for that site. 91 1 Q. So that would involve resubmitting the 2 data base absent the questioned specific points of 3 data, then, as opposed to their changing the actual 4 data? 5 A. No. They would actually change the data 6 directly in the computer right from an office. They 7 can go directly on line to that data set and change 8 it. 9 Q. When you say change, again, I just want to 10 see, make sure I am clear, are there occasions when 11 an agency or a state will actually change the number 12 that was originally submitted as opposed to just 13 eliminating a particular data point entry, say, if it 14 is a hundred parts per million and they change it to 15 a thousand or vice versa or would they if there is a 16 question in data point, would they just eliminate it 17 as a missing value? 18 A. More than likely they would, if there is 19 some uncertainty as to what the absolute value was 20 they would change that to a missing value. However, 21 there are cases when it has happened where a 22 particular set of data submitted by a quasi-federal 23 organization was off by a factor of 10, the whole 24 data set from that organization. We found it, we 25 reported it to the US Environmental Protection 92 1 Agency. They notified the quasi-federal agency and 2 the change was made. 3 Q. What quasi-federal agency was that? 4 A. It was TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority. 5 They were off by a factor of 10 in all the numbers. 6 Q. On any particular parameter or all 7 parameters? 8 A. I think it was ozone. 9 Q. Are there data sets that are not submitted 10 to EPA that you rely upon or not required to be 11 submitted to EPA? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Other than what you just described, do you 14 go through any type of verification exercise with 15 regard to data? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What do you do? 18 A. We will scan the data and look at the 19 percentiles of the data, get an idea of what the high 20 concentrations look like, what the low concentrations 21 look like. Based on our research, my research 22 experience, I have a pretty good idea when something 23 doesn't look right. 24 I get data from all over the world and 25 simply because of the research, of the nature of the 93 1 research I do. So we will run a preliminary scan of 2 the percentiles and if something doesn't look right I 3 don't hesitate to pick up the phone and talk directly 4 to the investigator, the people. 5 Q. Describe that process to me. Tell me, 6 what would you do if you found something that didn't 7 look right? 8 A. Let's presuppose I found a high value that 9 was very high. 10 More than likely I have the data because 11 the investigator is wanting to do a research project 12 with me. I do a lot of work where, essentially 13 volunteer work that I will work with a researcher who 14 has already published his or her piece of work in 15 terms of this is what I have done, this is what I 16 found type of thing, and they want to do further 17 analysis. 18 What I would do is pick up the phone and 19 call Dr. X and say, those data that you sent me for 20 such-and-such site such-and-such time, they don't 21 look right, could you please take a second, look at 22 it on this day, this day and this day, this is what I 23 am finding. 24 And they will actually go back working 25 with their technicians, go back to that information, 94 1 bring it on to their PC or mainframe, look at it and 2 then call me back and say, it is fine, we had a 3 lightning storm that night and this is what happened, 4 or those data are in error, please disregard those 5 three values or four values. And both have happened 6 to me. 7 Q. Are you familiar with any problems that 8 exist in collecting dry deposition data? 9 A. I am familiar, I have read and I have 10 heard about, that there are problems. I have not 11 specifically attempted to solve those problems. But 12 I have been made aware that there is a large amount 13 of uncertainty. 14 Q. What specific problems or concerns are you 15 aware of concerning the collection of reliable dry 16 deposition data? 17 A. I think the collection efficiency is one 18 question that is always there in terms of the design 19 and how well the data are gathered. 20 I have not gotten into the physics of the 21 actually possible errors that might be associated 22 with the uncertainty. But I am aware that that seems 23 to be an ongoing challenge, to develop the ultimate 24 way to measure dry deposition. 25 Q. Are you aware of what the accepted method 95 1 of collecting dry deposition is in the scientific 2 community? 3 A. I guess I am not aware of the accepted 4 method. In my conversations with Dr. Bruce Hicks of 5 NOAA, they have been designing a lot of equipment 6 that measures dry dep, especially during the acid