FARRELL FRITZ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EAB PLAZA Uniondale, New York 11556-0120 (516)227-0700 FACSIMILE: (516)227-0777

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER

(516)227-0624 [email protected] -^JlSUjrr, arv* JU ELAINE R. SAMMON k

January 15,2002

OUR FILE NUMBER 5653-117

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Hon. Janet Hand Deixler Secretary to the Siting Board 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12233-1350

Re: Brookhaven Energy Project - Case 00-F-0566

Dear Secretary Deixler:

Enclosed please find five copies of the Testimony and Exhibits of the witnesses on behalf of the Town of Brookhaven.

Very truly yours,

" ^/^j^^ /\ ^J^^-^7^5- Elaine R. Sammon

ERS:sk Enclosures

FFDOCS1\456835.1 FARRELL FRITZ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EAB PLAZA Uniondale, New York 11556-0120 (516)227-0700 FACSIMILE: (516)227-0777

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (516)227-0624 [email protected]

ELAINE R. SAMMON

January 10,2002

Via E-Mail and First Class Mail 5653-117

Hon. Walter T. Moynihan Office of Hearings and ADR, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza New York, NY 12233-1350

Hon. Daniel P. O'Connell Office of Hearings and Mediation Services N YS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, \st floor Albany, NY 12233-1550

Re: Brookhaven Energy Project - Case 00-F-0566

Dear Judges Moynihan and O'Connell:

Per your December 5, 2001 Order, enclosed are the Testimony and Exhibits of the witnesses on behalf of the Town of Brookhaven. These enclosures consist of:

Lee Koppelman - Direct Testimony Koppelman Exhibit A - Curriculum Vitae Koppelman Exhibit B - Cultural Resources: Historical and Archaeological

John Shafer - Direct Testimony Shafer Exhibit 1 - Curriculum Vitae Shafer Exhibit 2 - Three (3) site location maps titled Brookhaven, Blackstone, and Bellingham Energy, respectively. Shafer Exhibit 3 - Decommissioning cost analysis. E-mail contains detail. Regular mail contains summary only.

James F. Palmer - Direct Testimony Palmer Exhibit 1 - Curriculum Vitae Hon. Walter T. Moynihan Hon. Daniel P. O'Connell January 9,2002 Page 2

Palmer Exhibit 2 - Form 6 - VRAP Rating Sheet - Solzenitzyn (regular mail only) Palmer Exhibit 3 - Form 6 - VRAP Rating Sheet - Wolfgang (regular mail only)

D.T. Froedge - Direct testimony Froedge Exhibit 1 - Curriculum Vitae

Copies are being filed with the Secretary of the Siting Board and served on the active parties via first class mail today. E-mail copies are being served on participants on the active parties list who prefer e-mail service.

Very truly yours.

Elaine R. Sammon

ERS/sk Enclosures cc: Hon. Janet Hand Deixler, Secretary to the Siting Board

Active parties

FFDOCS1V455783.1 •^

NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Matter of the Application of

BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility Case No.: 00-F-0566 and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Generating Facility in the Town of Brookhaven, County of Suffolk.

TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

LEE E. KOPPELMAN Testimony of Lee E. Koppelman

Q. Please state your name and business address.

A. Lee E. Koppelman. My office address is the Center for Regional Policy Studies at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794-4395.

Q. What is your occupation?

A,iaI?a l"l9i0nal land use planner Since 1988- ' have been Leading Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Regional Policy Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. I am also a consultant on land use and zoning matters and I serve as the Executive Director of the Long Island Regional Planning Board.

Q. What is your educational background?

A. My undergraduate degree is from City College of New York's School of Engineering. I also have a Master of Science (Planning) from the Pratt Institute and a doctorate in Public Administration from New York University.

Q. I show you a 13 page document entitled "Lee E. Koppelman," marked Ex A Does this summarize your education, experience, and publications in the field of land use planning?

A. Yes it does.

Q. Please state your experience with land use planning and zoning in Suffolk

A. I was Director of Suffolk County's Department of Planning from 1960 to 1988 where my responsibilities were as follows:

I was Director of the Suffolk County Planning Department from 1960 to 1988 where my responsibilities included all issues dealing with land use matters e'q planning, zoning, review of subdivisions, etc. '

In addition I served as a Director of the Suffolk County Sewer Agency, Chairman of the Farm Protection Acquisition Committee, Chair of the Centralized Court Facilities Program, and numerous other specific planning studies.

From 1965 to the present, I have served as the Executive Director of the Long Island Regional Planning Board. In that capacity, my responsibility has been for ail aspects of comprehensive regional planning covering Nassau and Suffolk Counties. This has included major multi-million dollar studies dealing with solid waste management, groundwater protection, coastal zone management transportation, housing and energy. With regard to this latest item, I offer the following examples:

History of Long Island Regional Planning Board to energy issues on Long Island:

1. From 1960 to present, I worked with LILCO Rate Specialist O'Connor and his successors on annual population estimates of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Under my supervision, my office prepared the estimates based on building permits for developed land use: LILCO did their annual estimates based on meter counts, adjusted for household size; the printing expenses were borne by LILCO and currently bv LIRA.

2. Supported LILCO in their efforts to obtain local permits for Shoreham nuclear generating facility on an approximately 900 acre site at Shoreham, Town of Brookhaven. The Plant was built but decommissioned.

3. I served as Project Director of the first Comprehensive Energy Plan for Long Island, published in 1991.

4. I was Project Director of the Comprehensive Evacuation Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.

Q. Please state your experience with land use planning and zoning in the Town of Brookhaven.

A. I have served as Planning Consultant to the Town of Brookhaven for the past nine years.

In that capacity I served as the consultant to the Supervisor, Town Board and Planning Department on all planning matters related to the Town. A major part of that work included the responsibility for the preparation of Brookhaven's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which was based on the plan development of individual plans for each of the hamlets within the Town. This included the development of comprehensive hamlet land use plans for: the Longwood Alliance (Yaphank, Middle Island), Manorville, the Three Village Area, Mount Sinai, Sound Beach, Miller Place, Rocky Point, Shoreham/Wading River, Medford, Mastic, Shirley, Moriches, Center Moriches, East Moriches, Eastport and Gordon Heights.

In addition, I served as the Chairman of the Special Committee to Examine the Pros and Cons of a Ward System for the Town, and I have been and continue to serve as the Chairman of the Brookhaven Open Space Acquisition Committee, with the responsibility for recommendations in accordance with the Town's referendum allocating funds for open space acquisitions. Q. Are you aware of the provisions of the zoning code of the Town of Brookhaven?

A. Yes. The Zoning Code establishes zoning districts for residential, commercial, and industrial activities. Height and set back requirements are specified within particular districts. The Town Code also contains provisions relating to noise.

One of my responsibilities over the past nine years has been to recommend amendments to the existing code and, equally important, to recommend changes to existing zoning, which has affected hundreds of parcels in all three categories of residential, commercial and industrial usage. This has resulted in Town Board actions on their own motion to rezone a significant number of parcels, particularly in the J-2 category and in the industrial categories for more suitable uses. There were also major actions taken for the upzoning of residential parcels to preserve all the cultural, environmental and economic goals of the Town's overall planning. It is significant to recognize that zoning, as a planning tool, which in the main deals with use, bulk and density, is in its very essence, the legal mechanism by which town's strive to avoid "nuisance" and obnoxious uses. This governmental purpose has been true since the initiation of zoning in London centuries ago. By zoning regulation, government strives to improve the health, safety and general welfare of the populace by eliminating or controlling where absolutely necessary toxic, hazardous and other nuisance uses within developed communities.

Q. What is the purpose of zoning codes?

A. The concept of zoning is to protect the public health and safety and the public interest with respect to the use and development of land. Zoning came into use in the early part of the 20,h century and gradually began to displace attempts to regulate land development by means of complex covenants and restrictions in land titles. The contemporary concept of zoning is to regulate land use, bulk and density through zoning codes promulgated in response to comprehensive land use plans, taking a wide variety of factors into account, including aesthetics, overcrowding of land, visual impacts, noise, historic sites, traffic and transportation, among others.

Q. What are the Brookhaven Town Code's provisions relative to electric generating facilities?

A. Electric Generating plants are permitted as of right in the "L-4" zone, which includes the 900 acre property in the hamlet of Shoreham in the Northeastern part of the Town in which the Shoreham Nuclear facility was constructed, but was later decommissioned and dismantled. Electric generating plants are allowed only with a special use permit in the "L-1" zone, which includes the property proposed as the site for the Brookhaven Energy facility in this application. A special use is not a matter of right as is a permitted use. Rather, it is a use which may be allowed in an area subject to public hearings, environmental studies and conditions to mitigate the use's impact. It is not a matter of right. In my view, the site involved here would require so many cumulative variances that to permit the use would amount to a de facto rezoning. Further, the location of this giant plant on only 28 acres is far too small a site under all the circumstances, especially considering the location by the applicant of similar plants on sites of 147 acres and 129 acres. See discussion, page 13. Under such circumstances, the Special Permit should not be allowed at this site.

Q. Are you aware of Brookhaven Energy's plans to construct the Brookhaven Energy Facility at a site in Yaphank?

A. Yes. I have read Brookhaven Energy's description of the proposed project as set forth in Section 3 of its application in this proceeding. I have also read Sections 10, relating to land use and local laws, and 16, relating to the propose project's impacts on visual resources. These sources show that the proposed project would be constructed on a 28 acre site In the L-1 zone East of Sills Road and South of the Long Island Expressway.

Q. What is proposed to be built at this site?

A. There would be:

• Two 72 foot tall generation buildings, each housing a combustion and steam turbine.

• Two heat recovery steam generators, each with a 160 foot tall stack.

• Two air cooled condensers, each 90 feet high, 150 feet long and 90 feet wide.

• Two cylindrical water tanks, one 50 feet high and about 60 feet in diameter and the other 72 feet high and about 70 feet in diameter.

• Two standby diesel generators.

• An electric switch yard about 160 feet by 200 feet in area with towers, some exceeding 100 feet in height.

• Associated industrial control, storage and related buildings.

Figure 3-6 of the Application is an artist's rendering of the project. Layout of project facilities is shown at Figure 3-7, and elevations are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9.

Q. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the Longwood Plan?

A. No. In particular, I would single out the plans for the Longwood Alliance and the Shoreham/Wading River hamlets. In the applicant's submission there is an absolute misinterpretation of the direction, meaning, and objectives of the Longwood Plan. The applicant basically concluded that the plan stressed maximum protection within the Special Groundwater Protection Area (which is accurate), but it goes on to state that since the plan does not oppose quality light industrial uses to provide employment and tax base outside of the core area, heavy industrial use such as the plant is also appropriate. This is wrong. The hamlet plan absolutely does not endorse or support heavy industrial usage anywhere within the boundaries of the hamlet. The fact that the project is outside the boundaries of the SGPA does not support the applicant's conclusion that, therefore, their proposition is in accord with the planning objectives of the hamlet. The fact that the applicant's site is not in agricultural usage, or part of an open space corridor does not translate to mean that it is, therefore, an acceptable land usage.

Furthermore, while the Longwood Plan anticipates industrial development in the Longwood School District on the south side of the Long Island Expressway, the plant proposed by the applicant is far greater in size and visual impact than anything that was contemplated when the Plan was drafted.

The Shoreham hamlet plan is the only one of the hamlet studies that acknowledges an L-4 heavy industrial power generating land use zone in the entire Town of Brookhaven.

Q. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Brookhaven?

A. No. Absolutely not. As I stated above, the proposed use is not consistent with the Longwood Plan. In fact, the interpretation on the part of the applicant is diametrically inconsistent with the objectives of the Longwood Plan, and the Town of Brookhaven's officially adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing a very intensive heavy industrial usage, which is totally out of scale from the standpoint of bulk and density, as well as usage vis-a-vis visual pollution and noise pollution. It must be kept in mind that as the residential sections of the Yaphank community continue to grow the radical incompatibility between this massive generating facility and the residential community would only intensify the deleterious impact upon the overall community.

Q. Would a facility such as that being proposed be consistent with the hamlet plan for Shoreham?

A. Yes. It is my belief that this is the only area within the entire Town where such a facility would be a proper land use. This issue was first examined forty years ago when the original Long Island Lighting Company acquired approximately 900 acre's at Shoreham for the purpose of constructing a nuclear power plant. This was a proposition supported by the County of Suffolk at the time, and by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. In other words, the Town of Brookhaven and the County of Suffolk selected Shoreham as the place where Power Plants should be located because they are obnoxious intrusive uses which can easily be hidden at Shoreham and have a minimum impact on other properties, especially residential properties.

The nuclear power facility was decommissioned, but the 900 acre site is still eminently suited as an L-4 industrially zoned generating facility site. There is more than ample capacity for several major generating plants in situ.

I also stress that the response from the resident home owners to the survey sent in the initial preparation of the Shoreham hamlet plan indicates the general community understanding of the validity of this site for such usage, provided that good siting practices are followed.

I should also observe that this site has the advantage of being able to use water cooling instead of air cooling because of its frontage on Long Island Sound. In contrast, the Yaphank site would have air cooling, which projects massively in terms of its height and dimensions.

In other words, all arguments favor Shoreham.

Q. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the Code of the Town of Brookhaven?

A. No. The Project does not conform to Brookhaven's Town Code in certain significant respects, most notably a serious deviation from height limits. The Town Code is summarized at § 10.4.1 and Figure 10-15 of the application. The Applicant asserts that certain provisions of the Town Code are "unreasonably restrictive" and requests that the Siting Board override certain Code provisions. These include:

• Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of an Electric Generating Facility - general requirements established by § 85-29. At pp. 10-87 to 10-90 of the Application.the Applicant supplies information intended to support findings that would justify issuance of a special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which the Applicant asserts are "subsumed pursuant to PSL § 172, by the Article X process" by the Siting Board.

• Waiver of height and setback requirements established by § 85-308(B). At p. 10-91 of the Application the Applicant requests a Siting Board determination that the maximum building height requirement of 50 feet is unreasonably restrictive. At pp. 10-93 to 10-94 of the Application, the Applicant requests that the Siting Board waive stack and building setback requirements.

• Construction noise - see variance request with respect to Code § 50-8 at oo 10-79 to 80 of the Application.

• Issuance of Building Permit - see request for a waiver from § 85-17 of the Code, which requires issuance of a building permit at p. 10-85 of the Application.

• Tree clearance on site of 85% with offsets to be provided under Code 585- 308(B)(2)(b)(7). s

Such extreme deviations from special permit criteria would argue for denial of the permit.

Q. Does your testimony address the substance of each of the above enumerated Code provisions that the Applicant asserts are unreasonably restrictive?

A. No. My testimony focuses on the first two of the above items, which deal with the special permit, and the waiver of the height and setback requirements. I understand that the Town will address the other items separately.

Q. From a land-use point of view, how would waiver of the height and setback requirements and issuance of a special permit affect the Town and the Yaphank vicinity?

A. If the height and setback requirements are waived and the facility is allowed to be constructed at the proposed site, the Project will be the largest and most massive structure in the vicinity. It will dominate the scene for miles around, because of its stacks and tall structures, especially the pairs of generator buildings and air cooling condensers. The eye will be inexorably drawn to these structures, especially from nearby local roads, the Long Island Expressway and nearby residences and historic sites. The visual impact of the facility will overwhelm all other development in the area and in my judgment will be completely inconsistent with the land use plan and zoning in the area.

Q. Are there any sites that require a heightened review of the proposed project?

A. Yes, a listing of a site on either the National Register of Historic Places or State Register, or a determination that a property is eligible for listing on the State Register triggers heightened review of the proposed project. With respect to the proposed site in Yaphank, such sites include the Yaphank Historic District, and the Suffolk County Farm.

Q. Can you name some of the historic sites that trigger a heightened review of the project proposed in Yaphank?

A. Yes. The historic sites that trigger a heightened review of the project include the following sites, which are all in Yaphank and are listed as Historic Resources by the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission:

Yaphank Historic District James H. Weeks House William J. Weeks House Foundation Michael Hololob House Mary Louise Booth House Anthony House St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (listed on the National Register) Howell-Overhoff House Hammond House DeLaMarca-Kovarik House Homan-Gerard House and Mills (listed on the National Register) Gerard Mill Site Robert H. Hawkins-Jacobsen House/Homestead (on the National Register) Yaphank Community Shop Yaphank Garage Wittman Rabbitry Stroud House Lopped Trees Greener House Neuss-Williams House Sylvester Homan House Richard Homan House Yaphank Union Cemetery Engelbach House Overton-Mouzakes House Lakeview Building Joseph Hololob House Agnello House and Barn Herbert House and Milestone Cook House Ripple House Yaphank Presbyterian Church Presbyterian Parsonage Arthur Davis House John Ed Davis House Homan House Saggese House Serino B. Overton House Overton-Schmidt House Stills House and Pantentella House S. F. Norton House Swezey-Avery House Hoeffner House Isaac Mills/Nathaniel Tuthill House D. D. Swezey House Hawkins Cemetery Robert F. Hawkins/Dooley House Mini-replica Octagon Firehouse M. Homan House Site of Mordecai Homan House Philips House C. Dayton House S. N. Randall House Howell House Siegfried Park Camp Sobaco J. P. Mills House A. Cook House Long Island Railroad Bridge, Carmans River Southaven County Historic District Tallmadge Historic Trail, Mount Sinai, Middle Island, Coram. Yaphank County Historic Trust Area (listed on National Register; also listed as an Historic Area under the Brookhaven Code)1

See Ex B annexed hereto, pages 1-22 from Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission website.

The Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission is an Advisory Committee established by the New York State Legislature in 1993, under the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act.

The Suffolk County Almshouse Barn, on property immediately adjacent to the proposed site in Yaphank, is also listed on the National Register. Additionally, the Old Suffolk County Infirmary, also known as the County Home, located only 1.1 miles east of the proposed project site is eligible for listing on the State and National Register. Furthermore, the Carmans River, which flows through the immediate vicinity of the proposed Yaphank site, has been designated as a "Scenic River" and "Recreational River" by the New York State Legislature, under the New York State Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System Act. All of the aforementioned properties are within the viewshed of the proposed plant. All of these sites display a special character as well as special historical and esthetic interest and value for residents of, and visitors to, the Town of Brookhaven.

Q. Please describe the impacts that the project will have on the above-referenced historic sites.

A. The project will be visible from many if not all of the previously described historic sites in Yaphank. The project will cause severe and adverse changes in the quality of the listed historic properties, including the destruction of critical aspects of their viewsheds, and a jolting aesthetic diminishment due to the visual impact of the project's two air cooling condensers, each of which is the size of half a football field and is 80% taller than local zoning restrictions allow (where 50 feet is the limit), plus the additional impact of the 72-foot-high generator buildings that exceed the height ordinance, the 72-foot-high, 70-foot-diameter water tank, and the 100-foot-tall lighting towers and switchyard transmission structures. It is my opinion that these proposed structures are not capable of being screened or hidden to the extent required by the special character and historical and aesthetic value of the sites previously described.

1 All of the foregoing are listed as Historic Resources on the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission website at httpV/pb.state.nv.us/cpb plan vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm.

10 Q. Does the Applicant propose to mitigate the facility's visual impact? A. Yes. Section16 of the Application states at p. 16-1 the visual impact mitigation will include a neutral color scheme, more frequently spaced, reduced-height, shielded lights, and a planting program at affected residences or other sensitive vantage points.

Color elevation drawings of the proposed facility are included as figure 16-2, and show the facility from the North, South, East and West.

Q. Are the applicant's visual mitigation measures sufficient to minimize the Project's visual impact?

A. No. The sheer massiveness of the facility, especially the two 90 foot high air cooling condensers, each the area of half a football field, coupled with the 72 foot high generator buildings and stacks 160 feet high, as well as the other structures are not capable of being screened or hidden on the proposed site. The site is simply too small for the proposed Project, in my judgment.

Q. Would a variance from the 50 foot height limit for this Project at this site be consistent with sound zoning and land-use practice?

A. No, not in my opinion. In this case, a disproportionately large part of the project's cross sectional area would be in excess of the 50 foot elevation. This can be seen readily by drawing a horizontal line across the elevation drawings marked Figures 16-2 in Section 16 of the Application. The shortest of the two tanks is at elevation 50 feet. The huge generator buildings and air cooling condensers tower over this elevation. Granting a height variance in this case would be tantamount to re-zoning the area as "L-4," not simply allowing a single stack or tower to exceed the 50 foot elevation to accommodate a smaller, less massive structure for commercial or light industry use. As I said above, the percent of cross sectional area of the Project above 50 feet in height is greatly disproportionate, as compared to height variances more commonly granted for stacks or towers. Two building height variances of 80%, each of which would allow the construction of a building 90' high in a 50'zone that would cover half of a football field, plus three additional building height variances of 44% each are tantamount to a rezoning of the parcel. Such substantial and intrusive variances would never be granted to a private landowner who might develop the property. Why should it not be the same for a private electrical plant, especially when there are other sites such as Shoreham available? In fact, the Special Permit use for power plants should not be allowed on this site.

Q. Are there other comparable structures in the area?

A. No. The major reason that L-1 zoning has been designated for this area is that the industries would have to be "dry" in nature, meaning the prevention of groundwater pollution by the activity or storage of material that could potentially have a negative impact on groundwater; as well as the general limitation of these facilities in height to one story structures, which are far more compatible from a visual point of view to the

11 overall community.

In fact, throughout the entire Town of Brookhaven, the only structure of unusual height is the hospital and medical center at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, which at least architecturally does not constitute the visual height blight that this proposed power facility constitutes.

Q. Does siting this Project as proposed in Yaphank pose a significant land-use problem?

A. Yes. The proposed Project imposes unacceptable visual impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated, in my judgment. Relocating the Project from the proposed site in Yaphank to a less sensitive area could eliminate this problem.

If there were no other alternatives in Suffolk County for the siting of such a massive facility, this proposal would then have to be examined in that light. However, there are at least three other alternatives that, from a land use and zoning point of view, are far more suitable. The obvious location would be the existing generating site at Shoreham. In fact, it is my understanding that LIPA itself is proposing the location of two 80 MW facilities at that location. Due to the size of the site, and its other attributes, which include the direct availability of fuel oil supplies by way of tankers or lighters, and the current proposal for the extension of a new gas main from New England to that site, render that location a prime choice. On December 21, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a preliminary decision approving the construction of a 24-inch natural gas pipeline from Connecticut to Shoreham. [See decision at 97 FERC 61, 363]. Natural gas service to the Shoreham site is expected to commence in 2003, and could provide for a plant such as that proposed by the applicant.

It should also be noted that the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which itself is a heavy energy user, would also be an excellent location for a generating facility.

The third option (and these are not mutually exclusive) is the location of a generating facility at the 2900 acre former U.S. Navy/Grumman Calverton Airport in the Town of Riverhead. Almost 600 acres, including approximately one million square feet of extant industrial buildings, are currently in the development stage as a light industrial park. From a compatibility point of view, a plant at this location would be invisible and of sufficient distance from the residential developments primarily in the Baiting Hollow/Wading River area so that it would not constitute a deleterious impact.

Q. Are there other sites in the Town that could accommodate the Project without posing a land use problem?

A. Yes. There is ample land at Shoreham to accommodate the Project in the L-4 zone. In this location, the Project would have more space, be less visible to the public, and be less likely to cause noise problems. Other benefits could include use of closed-cycle or once-through cooling systems, which would eliminate the need for the

12 visually intrusive high air cooling condensers and their noise, as well as the energy penalty that they incur, making the Project more efficient as well as more acceptable from a land-use perspective. In addition, it may be possible to include back-up oil tanks for a project at the Shoreham site, because the groundwater conditions are less sensitive at that location than at the proposed site, at which back-up oil was eliminated Addition of back-up oil would enhance the Project's reliability, and in that manner enhance the public interest.

Q. Is the Shoreham site greatly superior to the Yaphank site in your opinion?

A. Yes, for the reasons given above.

Q. Is the land available at Shoreham?

A. The land zoned for power plants is available, and it is more than sufficient to accommodate several major generating facilities.

Q. Are other superior sites available in the area?

A. Yes, again as discussed above.

Q. How does the site proposed at Yaphank compare with sites of other 580 MW plants of similar size?

A. The proposed 28 acre Yaphank site is dramatically smaller than other sites accommodating plants of a similar size. For example, ANP sited its 580 MW plant in Bellingham, Massachusetts on a 129 acre site and sited its 580 MW plant in Blackstone, Massachusetts on a 147 acre site not immediately adjacent to historic sites as in Yaphank, but to active operating sand and gravel pits. Both Massachusetts plants are similar in size to that proposed for the inadequate 28 acre parcel in Yaphank. Applicant even recognizes that larger parcels are required for this size plant because they provide greater distances to buffer the adverse impacts of such a mega facility on the surrounding community, including its visual, historic, scenic recreational and residential resources. Thus, a larger parcel such as the 900 acres in Shoreham is greatly superior to the proposed 28 acre site in Yaphank. Applicant's 28 acre site at Yaphank is minute when compared with the 129 acre and 147 acre sites on which comparable plants have been approved in sister jurisdictions. This fact alone argues very strongly against the granting of a special use permit. See page 5. In addition there are no historic resources in the immediate vicinity of the Shoreham site comparable to those surrounding the Yaphank parcel.

FFDOCS1\451714.4

13 Exhibit A c Ex ®_ui8 ogcop

v \m*i LEE E. KOPPELMAN

EDUCATION

Undergraduate degree, City College of New York, School of Engineering Master of Science (Planning), Pratt Institute, Graduate School of Architecture Doctorate (Public Administration), New York University, Graduate School of Public Administration

LICENSES

Registered Landscape Architect, State of New York Licensed Professional Planner, State of New Jersey

PRACTICE

Private consulting practice in site planning and landscape architecture, 1950 to 1960. Director of Planning, Suffolk County Planning Department, 1960 to 1988. Executive Director, Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1965 to present. Leading Professor of Political Science and Director, Center for Regional Policy Studies, SUNY at Stony Brook, 1988 to present. Professor of Planning at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1967 to 1988. Adjunct Professor, Syracuse University Graduate School of Environmental Sciences, 1976 to 1983. Consultant, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1972 to 1978. Appointed (by Secretary of Commerce, Frederick B. Dent) to the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, 1973 to 1975. Appointed (by Lieutenant General W. C. Gribble, Jr., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to the National Shoreline Erosion Advisory Panel, 1974 to 1981. Appointed (by Governor Hugh Carey) as a Director of the New York State Urban Development Corporation, 1978 to 1980. Consultant, United Nations on Land Use and Coastal Zone Planning. Executive Director, The Bi-County Temporary Commission for Tax Relief on Long Island, 1991.

MAJOR RESEARCH

Project Director, 1.5 million dollar comprehensive regional development planning project (Section 701), from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, January 1965 through August 1970. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Major Research cont'd

•s prog• produced *. Hr* housing '^^ZJ^tZtT^ enliflcd "Residential Market ^alysiTOe final report B«er 8 ^ ^^^"r^^i^r^, pn,^ include a housing element.

SSe manage/s handbook relating coastal .one plannmg and management. 1974- 1976. Proiect Director 5.2 million dollar comprehensive areawide waste treatment management S^S (Section 208). from U.S. Environmental ProtecUon Agency, January 1975 through March 1978. ^ap-icc.dea.tspecitol.ywi^^^P^^^Xmr^ut is one of the major coastal zones m the Un,trtJ^";*• " .^ ^ ^d continues

Commerce), 1976 through 1980.

1982.

management practices. ^isptogmma.so^uc.a.WtSouree^a^^^^^

"ng ^L» and needed connols for nonpoin, sources of contammafon.

^ect Director, ^^^^ tZX•^

through December 1984. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Major Research cont'd

Project Director, USEPA Section 205(j) Grant to develop and initiate implementation of comprehensive groundwater protection programs in Critical Recharge Areas. $120,000 from January 1984 through present.

Project Director, $2,307,802 from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to characterize ash from waste management facilities and to investigate ash management options. 1987 through present.

Project Director, NYS ECON Art. 55 Grant to study the remaining seven Critical Recharge Areas. $300,000 from 1987 through present.

Project Director, Water Quality and Environmental Resource Protection in Great South Bay. $240,000 from New York State Department of State, June 1988 through September 1989.

Project Director, $40,000 from Mt. Sinai and Port Jefferson School Districts to plan for future relationship between the two districts. April 1987 through December 1988.

Project Director, $60,000 from New York State Education Department to develop a computer model for Educational Resources UtiUzation and Scholastic Outcome. July 1987 through September 1988.

Project Director, $70,000 grant from U.S. Department of Defense to undertake planning related to community impacts associated with the cancellation of the T-46 program and the closure of the Fairchild plant. August 1987 through September 1988.

Project Director, $80,000 from New York State Urban Development Corporation to conduct a labor force analysis of the Nassau-Suffolk region. January 1989 through December 1990.

Project Director, $40,000 from New York State Urban Development corporation to conduct a tourism marketing survey for the Nassau-Suffolk region. July 1989 through June 1990.

Project Director, $90,000 from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services to conduct a productivity and performance analysis of the department. February 1989 through December 1989.

Project Director, $70,000 from the New York State Urban Development Corporation to determine the dependent care needs of the Long Island workforce. July 1990 through June 1991. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Major Research cont'd

Executive Director, The Bi-County Temporary State Commission for Tax Relief onLong Island, $250,000, New York State Legislature, April 1991 to May 1993.

Project Director, $486,000 from the Federal Aviation Administration, to carry out a Feasibility Study for the use of Calverton Airport for commercial freight operations.

Project Director, $97,095 from the Long Island Lighting Company to identify low-income consumers on Long Island for participation in LILCO's energy packaging program.

Project Director, $200,000 from the Long Island Rail Road for a joumey-to-work analysis on the pattern of worktrips from Nassau and Suffolk to New York City as well as reverse commutation and an analysis of HUB development opportunities.

Project Director, $100,000 NYS Secretary of State. Land use segment of the Long Island Sound Study.

Project Director, $39,095. A budget analysis for the Office of the Mayor, Village of Freeport.

Project Director - an in-depth analysis and detailed report on the economic importance of Stony Brook University to the Long Island regional economy and the broader New York State region.

Project Director, $158,875 from the Long Island Lighting Company - "Satisfying the Requirements of the Clean Air Act and Preserving the Long Island Environment by Encouraging the Use of Alternative Fuel Vehicles."

Project Director, $100,000 from the New York State Department of Transportation to carry out a compressed work week/telecommuting demonstration program for the County of Suffolk and SUNY at Stony Brook.

AUTHORSHIP ACTrVITIES

Books

Koppelman, L, and J. DeChiara, 1968. Planning Design Criteria. Reinhold Publishing Corporation. 386 pp.

, 1974. A Methodology to Achieve the Integration of Coastal Zone Science and Regional Planning. Praeger Publishers. 116 pp. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Authorship Activities cont'd

Koppelman, Lee E., and J. DeChiara, 1974. Housing: Planning and Design. Prentice Hall. 500 pp.

, and J. DeChiara, 1975. Urban Planning and Design Criteria. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand. 646 pp.

, P. Weyl, G. Gross and D. Davies, 1976. The Urban Sea: Long Island Sound. Praeger Publishers. 225 pp.

, and J. DeChiara, 1978. Site Planning Criteria. McGraw Hill. 350 pp.

,etal., 1979. Long Island Comprehensive WasteTreatment Management Plan. Volumes 1 and 2. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 607 pp.

, and J. DeChiara, 1981. Urban Planning and Design Criteria. 3rd Edition. Van Nostrand. 700 pp.

, and J. DeChiara, 1982. Time Saver Standards for Site Planning. McGraw Hill. 700 pp.

, et al., 1982. Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 238 pp.

, J. R. Schubel, et al. 1991. Great South Bay. StateUniversity Press. 200 pp.

, A. Kunz, E. Tanenbaum, D. Davies, 1992. Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Areas Plan. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 600 pp.

, A. Kunz, F. Rosenberg, S. Forman. Financing Government on Long Island. NYS Temporary Commission for Tax Relief on Long Island. 1992. 196 pp.

, A. Kunz, F. Rosenberg, S. Forman. Financing Government on Long Island - Wcddng Paper Volume 1. NYS Temporary Commission for Tax Relief on Long Island. March 1993. 408 pp.

, A. Kunz, F. Rosenberg, S. Forman. Financing Government on Long Island-Working Paper Volume 2. NYS Temporary Commission for Tax Relief on Long Island. March 1993. 338 pp.

, A. Kunz, P. Kamer, D. Davies, T. Junor, 1993. Airport Joint Use Feasibility Study: Calverton Airport. Long Island Regional Planning Board. 248 pp. LEE E. KOPPELMAN

Editorial

Editorial Board of the Journal of Socio-Economic Planning Sciences; and the Journal of the American Institute of Planners.

Governmental Reports and Monographs

The following major reports were printed and released by the Suffolk County Department of Planning, Lee E. Koppelman, Director.

1960. People and Parks.

1962. Status of Planning in Suffolk County. (Paper delivered at Governor's Briefing held at the State University Campus, Stony Brook, N.Y., July 17, 1962.) Printed in Progress Report 1962.

1962. Population.

1962. Economic Base.

1962. Need and Feasibility for County Park Facilities.

1962. Local Government - An Analysis.

1962. Existing Land Use.

1964. Special Report - New York State Route 25A - Town of Smithtown.

1964. Social Planning Council.

1964. Need and Feasibility for a Mapping Program in Suffolk County.

1964. Planning for Open Space in Suffolk County.

1965. Park and Ride.

1966. Hauppauge - A Comprehensive Master Plan.

1980. Housing Report.

1980. Open Space Policy. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Governmental Reports and Monographs cont'd

1980. Impact of Proposed Peconic County.

1981. Phase n - Farmland Preservation Plan.

1981. Priorities Committee Report.

1983. A Plan for Mitigating the Environmental Impacts of Development in the Three Mile Harbor Watershed.

1985. Analysis of Dredging & Spoil Disposal Activity Conducted by Suffolk Countv.

1986. Hauppaupe Industrial Analysis.

1986. Town of Shelter Island - Planning. Environmental Investigations and Analysis.

1986. Lake Ronkonkoma - Clean Lake Study.

1987. Village of Port Jefferson Planning Study.

1987. Senior Citizen Study.

The following major reports were printed and released by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. The Board is now called the Long Island Regional Planning Board. Lee E. Koppelman, Executive Director.

1966. Proposed Bayville-Rye Bridge.

1967. The Status and Potential of the Marine Environment.

1968. Housing - Better Homes for Better Communities.

1968. Sales Tax Study.

1968. Existing Land Use.

1969. Transportation.

1970. Long Island Comprehensive Development Plan.

1970. Zoning: Inventory and Analysis.

1977. Energy Facilities Subplan for Nassau-Suffolk Counties Coastal Zone Management Plan. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Governmental Reports and Monographs cont'd

1978. Marine Fisheries Subplan - Coastal Zone Management Plan.

1978. Coastal Erosion Subplan - Coastal Zone Management Plan.

1979. Oil Spill Response Actions in Fire Island Inlet.

1980. Industrial Location Analysis.

1982. Land Use-1981.

1982. Commercial Development Analysis.

1983. Labor Force and Jobs Analysis.

1984. The Journey to Work to Major Employment Centers.

1987. Special Groundwater Protection Area Project for the Oyster Bay Pilot Area and Brookhaven Pilot Area.

1988. Long Island High Growth Area Off-Peak Study.Maximizing the Potential of Long Island's Defense Sector in an Era of Change.

1989. Proposed Long Island South Shore Hazard Management Program.

1994. Long Island Strategic Economic Development Plan.

1994. South Shore Mainland Hazard Management Program.

1994. Long Island Comprehensive Regional Development Plan Summary Report: 1990- 2010.

The following major reports were printed and released by the Center for Regional Policy Studies, SUNY at Stony Brook.

1992. Working Paper #1 - Municipal Government Operations. Revenues and Expenditures. 1960-1990.

1992. Working Paper #2 - Suffolk County Operations. Revenues and Expenditures. 1960-1990.

1992. Working Paper #3 - Municipal Solid Waste Operations.Operation and Plan. LEE E. KOPPELMAN Governmental Reports and Monographs cont'd

1992. Working Paper #4 - Taxation. Sales. Income Property. Analysis and Alternatives.

1992. Working Paper #5 - Nassau County Operations. Revenues and Expenditures. 1960-1990.

1992. Working Paper #6 - Police Operations. Nassau & Suffolk Counties.

1992. Working Paper #7 - Pre-School Handicapped Education.

1992. Working Paper #8 - Departmental Operations. Revenue & Expenditures 1960- 1990. Nassau & Suffolk Counties.

1992. Working Paper #9 - School Operations. Nassau & Suffolk Counties.

1992. Working Paper #10 - Policy Options.

1996. Groundwater and Land Use Planning: Experience from North America.

Articles

Koppelman, Lee E., 1973. Planning Options and Political Realities. Journal of Urban Analysis. Volume 1, pp. 153-174.

, 1974. "The Good, Bad and the Ugly - The Real World." Coastal Zone Management, The Coastal Imperative: Developing a National Perspective for Coastal Decision Making. Committee on Commerce, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 160-165.

, 1974. Coastal Zone Planning: A Case Study: Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Proceedings of the Environmental Planning Conference. Drexel University, pp. 359-384.

, 1975. Models for Implementing the CZM Act's Concept of State-Local Relations. William and Mary Law Review. Volume 16, Number 4. pp. 731-746.

_, 1976. Regional Planning at the Urban Fringe. Proceedings of the Environmental Planning Conference. Drexel University, pp. 275-296.

, and D. Davies, 1977. Conflicts in Uses and Misuses of the Tidal Water Zone. Coastal Recreation Resources in an Urbanizing Environment. Monograph, University of Massachusetts and MIT Sea Grant Program, pp. 81-92. 10 LEE E. KOPPELMAN Articles cont'd

Koppelman, Lee E., and J. Houseley, 1977. The Shoreline Erosion Control Act: Institutional and Legal Arrangements Necessary for Implementation. Journal of American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Volume 45, Number 4. pp. 7-12.

. D. Davies and O. Carroll, 1978. Coastal Zone Planning: An Integrated Approach. Coastal Zone '78. Volume IV. A.S.C.E. pp. 2553-2564.

. 1978. Legal/Institutional Issues in 208 Management. Legal. Institutional and Social Aspects of Irrigation. Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management A.S.C.E. pp 750- 765.

. 1978. Policy Issues in Waste Treatment Planning. Journal of Urban Analysis. Volume 5, Number 2. pp. 251-272.

. and D. Davies, 1978. Political Problems of Erosion Control. Proceedings. Technical Paper Number 7, A.S.B.P.A. and Florida Sea Grant Program, pp. 67-86.

. 1978. Land Use and Human Settlement. Hudson Basin Project. The Rockefeller Foundation, pp. 90.

,1978. Land Use: Changing the Ground Rules. New York Affairs. Volume 5, Number 2. pp. 62-75.

. and M. Moss, 1979. Consequences of Industrialization/Urbanization of the NewYork Bight. Chapter IV-A of MESA Handbook. 125 pp.

,andA. Kunz, 1979. Empty Desks: The Suburban School Dilemma. New York Affairs. Volume 5, Number 4. pp. 88-95.

. and S. Robbin, 1980. The Long Island Response to the Risks of Outer Continental Shelf Oil Production. Journal of Coastal Zone Management. Volumes 2, 3 and 4. pp. 163-185.

. et al, 1980. Coastal Land Use and Recreation. Report of North and Mid Atlantic Regional Conference on Ocean Pollution Research. Development and Monitoring. MIT Sea Grant Program. 10 pp.

,1981. A Cause-Condition-Effect Model for the Integration of Coastal Data with Land Use Inventories, Ecuador. Proceedings. Seminar on Coastal Area Management and Integrated Development of the Coastal Areas, Guayaquil, Ecuador, 18-27 May 1981. 22 pp.

—, 1982. Regional Planning in Suburban America, presented at Westfield State College, Westfield, Massachusetts, October 30, 1982. 25 pp. 11

LEE E. KOPPELMAN Articles cont'd

Koppelman, Lee E., 1982. Coastal Development Planning: Public Policy, Technology and Education in Support of Commerce, Industry and Resource Management, presented February 8,1982 at LaJolla, California and published in Coastal Resources Development and Management Needs of Developing Countries. National Academia Press.

, 1983. Political and Policy Responses to Sea Level Rise, Chapter 10, Sea Level Rise to the Year 2100. Hutchison Press, New York.

, and D. Davies, 1984. The Integration of Environmental Science and Regional Planning: The Past 20 Years - An Overview, presented at the national meeting of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, Baltimore, Maryland, April 16,1984.

, 1985. Planning for Groundwater Protection: Long Island Case Study, Chapter 4 in Planning for Groundwater Protection. Academic Press, Inc., (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich), Orlando, Florida. 66 pp.

, 1986. Architectural Design for Residential and Nonresidential Markets of the Mid 80^: The Housing Affordability Issue, presented May 7, 1986, Rutgers University Development Impact Analysis Conference, Washington, D.C. 38 pp.

, and D. Davies, 1987. Citizen Education and Participation. Magoon, Orville T., et. al., eds. Coastal Zone '87. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Seattle, Washington, May 26-29,1987. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York, Volume 4, pp. 3784-3797.

, and DeWitt Davies. "Management Priorities to Reverse the Decline of the Hard Clam Industry in Suffolk County, N.Y., U.S.A." pubhshed in Coastal Zone 89. Paper presented Tuesday, July 11, 1989, Charleston, South Carolina.

, "Maglev" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stony Brook, New York, Spring 1991, Volume 3, No. 2, pp. 217-225.

, and Pearl M. Kamer. "Anatomy of the Long Island Economy: Retrospective and Prospective" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stony Brook, New York, Spring 1994, Volume 6, No. 2, pp. 146-167.

, and Pearl M. Kamer. "Anatomy of the Long Island Economy: Retrospective and Prospective" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stonv Brook. New York. Fall 1994. Volume 7. No. 1.

, "The Quest for a Suffolk County Legislature" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stony Brook, New York. Spring 1996. 12 LEE E. KOPPELMAN Articles cont'd

Koppelman, Lee E., "Peconic County: The Myth and the Reality" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stony Brook, New York. Spring 1997.

"Environment vs. Development: Groundwater and Land Use Planning in Nassau and Suffolk Counties" in The Long Island Historical Journal. Stony Brook, New York. Fall 1997.

AWARDS

Certificate of Tribute, The Temporary State Commission on Water Resources Planning, May 1964.

Contemporary Achievement Medal for Regional Planning, Pratt Institute, May 1968.

Founder's Day Award (Scholastic Honor), New York University, April 1970.

Silver "Archie", special award for environmental preservation, Long Island Association, American Institute of Architects, Architectural Awards Program, 1971.

Gold Medal Community Benefactor Award, Long Island Association for Commerce and Industry, October 1971.

Distinguished Professor Awards, 1971 and 1972, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Department of Political Science.

Career Achievement Medal, Engineering and Architectural Alumni of the City College of New York, 1977.

Honorary Doctor of Laws, Long Island University, conferred at commencement C.W. Post College, May 21, 1978.

Elected to Sigma Xi, Honorary Scientific Society, January 1981.

W. Averell Harriman College Public Service Award, 1981 Commencement, SUNY at Stony Brook, May 17, 1981.

Honorary Affiliate Member, L.I. Chapter A.I.A., September 1981.

Citizen of the Year, National Society of Professional Engineers, L.I. Chapter, February 24, 1983.

Elected Honorary Member, American Institute of Architects, May 1984. 13

LEE E. KOPPELMAN Awards cont'd

Distinguished Alumnus Award, New York University, March 30, 1985.

Lone Eagle Award, Public Relations Society of America, February 24, 1986.

Medal of Honor, Long Island Association, May 15, 1987.

Distinguished Service Award, New York Metropolitan Chapter, American Planning Association, June 7, 1988.

Distinguished Leadership Award, National Honors Program, American Planning Association, May 1, 1989.

Third Annual Joseph Giacalone Award, April 22,1988.

Dedication of Lee E. Koppelman Nature Preserve, East Hampton, New York, August 11, 1989.

Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Dowling College, conferred at commencement, June 2, 1991.

Special Award for Excellence in the Craft of Political Science from the Department of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook, 1991.

Distinguished Service Award, New York Metropolitan Chapter, American Planning Association, June, 2000.

LISTINGS

International Dictionary of Biography Who's Who in the World Who's Who in America Who's Who in American Education Who's Who in the East Exhibit B a wm Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 1 of 22

7. Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological

7.1 Definitions of Terms

Before one can develop a more complete understanding of cultural resources, it is important to understand the nature of these resources and the terms used in pertinent sections of the Central Pine Barrens Plan. Accordingly, the following terms used in this section are defined as follows:

Aboriginal - Pertaining to native inhabitants (i.e.. the original Native American inhabitants of Long Island).

Adaptive Reuse - The retrofitting and preservation, as opposed to destruction, of an historic structure for a new purpose, (e.g., the use of an historic residence or for an office.).

Archaeological Resources - Material remains of past habitations or activities which may be below or above ground.

Cultural resource - As defined by the National Park Service in its "Cultural Resources Management Guidelines," cultural resources are:

Those tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, both living and dead, that are valued by or representative of a given culture or that contain information about a culture . .. and [they] include but are not limited to sites, structures, districts, objects and artifacts, and historic documents associated with or representative of peoples, cultures, and human activities and events, either in the present or in the past. Cultural resources also can include the primary written and verbal data for interpreting and understanding those tangible resources.

As commonly defined, these may be archaeological (that is, found beneath the surface) or above-ground resources.

These may include, but are not limited to:

1. Components of structures and features (houses, mills, piers, fortifications, earthworks, ditches and mounds, roads, etc.).

2. Artifacts of human manufacture (lithics, pottery, textiles, glass, etc.).

3. Intact or fragmentary objects and artifacts used by humans (crystals, shells, minerals, etc.).

4. By-products, waste products or debris resulting from the manufacture or use of human-made or natural materials (slag, dumps, shell middens, lithic scatters, etc.).

5. Organic material (vegetable and animal remains, etc.).

6. Human remains.

7. Intact, or components of, petroglyphs, pictographs, intaglios or other works of artistic or symbolic representation. http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 2 of'1

8. Components of shipwrecks.

9. Environmental and chronometric specimens (pollen, seeds, wood, shell, bone, charcoal, tree core samples, certain soils and sediments, etc.).

10. Paleontological specimens that are found in direct physical relationship with a prehistoric or historic resource.

11. Any locale considered sacred or otherwise of special importance to any particular living group.

Cultural Resource Survey - An analysis of a particular parcel undertaken to determine if cultural resources, either historic, prehistoric or archaeological, are present on or beneath the parcel. The Stage (Phase) I cultural resource survey is designed to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources in a project's potential impact area. To facilitate planning, the Stage I survey is divided into two logically progressive units of study: the Stage IA Literature Search and Sensitivity Study and the Stage IB Field ' Investigation. Stage (Phase) II investigations are conducted to obtain detailed information on the "integrity, limits, structure, function and cultural/historical context of an archaeological site" to determine if it is eligible for listing on the National Register. (1994 New York Archaeological Council standards (referenced in the Appendix)). Stage III investigations are more detailed than those conducted for Stage II investigations and are conducted if adverse impacts are anticipated to occur to an archaeological or historic resource either listed on or eligible for State or National Registers.

Disturbance - A cultural resource site is considered "disturbed" only when it can be documented that all potential cultural remains have been destroyed or removed from their original contexts. The presence of plowing or construction activities does not necessarily indicate total disturbance of a cultural resource. An example of disturbance would include a sand mine where surface and subsurface excavation and removal has extended well below the surface.

Historic - Any cultural resource dating from the period between the onset of written records (which on Long Island is typically placed around the time of first European contact in the sixteenth century) and 50 years ago.

Historic District - An area designated legally by a governmental body or agency in which historic resources are located and in which a particular set of regulations or guidelines apply to foster the preservation of the historic resources contained within the disttict. The designation also applies to an area which is generally recognized for its historic resources and is eligible for designation as an historic district.

Historically Significant - For purposes of this Plan, the criteria used to determine significance are those adopted for the National and State Registers of Historic Places or local municipalities.

Landmark - An historic structure, site, area or other form of cultural resource which has received a designation from a Municipal Cultural Resource Preservation Agency which grants the cultural resource additional protection beyond those afforded to non-landmark cultural resources.

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/voI2_chapter07.htm 1 /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological page 3 of -,-,

National Register - The National Register of Historic Places. An official listing of historic resources established and maintained by the Federal government to foster the preservation of particular cultural

Native American - Pertaining to the original aboriginal inhabitants of Long Island.

The New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) -A professional, non-profit organization comprised of professional New York State archaeologists whose purpose is to ensure maintenance of the highest standards in archaeological investigations and to foster archaeological resource preservation aSd education.

Paleontological - Pertaining to fossil evidence and/or remains (e.g., bones, leaves).

f•• n'^ ' Priu0r V^ time of written documentation. On Long Island, this period dates from roughly 10,000 B.C. to the 16th century.

State Register- The New York State Register of Historic Places. An official listing of historic resources established and maintained by New York State to foster the preservation of particular cultural resources.

7.2 Overview of Cultural Resources in the Central Pine Barrens

When Walt Whitman described the pine barrens in his writings he noted the:

wide central tracts of pine and scrub oak . . . monotonous and sterile. But many a good dav or half day I have, wandering through those solitary crossroads inhaling the peculiar and wild aroma. '

The Long Island pine barrens protection area contains a wealth of cultural resources. It contains areas with significant historic and/or archaeological resources worthy of preservation. These resources contribute both to the visual enhancement of the landscape and to present knowledge of land use and ecology in the Central Pine Barrens. Data collected from such resource sites can contribute to our knowledge of past climatic and precolonial ecological conditions, thereby assisting in the development of an ecological model of the Central Pine Barrens. In addition, many significant resources are located together with other sensitive resources such as wetlands. These significant cultural resources also trace with unusual fidelity, the heritage of this area of Suffolk County.

7.2.1 Prehistoric and Native American Resources

Native Americans, also referred to as American Indians, were the first human inhabitants of the Central Pme Barrens and all of Long Island. Archaeologists believe they arrived in the area around 12 000 years ago: however, most Native Americans feel that their presence has a much greater antiquity Archaeologists working on Long Island and elsewhere in the northeastern United States usually employ a system ot three periods to divide up the span of time between the first settlement of the region by Native Peoples and the arrival of the European explorers and colonists in the sixteenth century This chronological scheme is shown in the Figure 7-1.

The earliest inhabitants of Long Island are termed Paleo-Indians. Although the date of their initial arrival is not certain, it is fairly clear that they settled in the area not long after the retreat of the glacial ice that covered Long Island during the later stages of the Pleistocene glacial epoch. At that time. Long Island was not an island. Due to the lower level of the sea (atmospheric moisture was frozen as glacial ice), the hnp://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm i/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological p 4of^

shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean was hundreds of miles south of its present location. Further reflectine conditions of a landscape just emerging from the last "ice age," the vegetation was relatively treeless and mTmrnl^t ^.Tt of•d•A^ •d ^em Canada. Large mammals (mLtodon mammoth, etc.) roamed the Northeast and were hunted by Paleo-Indians using weapons ipped with a distinctive stone point that was grooved ("fluted") to facilitate its attachment to a spear or dan shaft Although little is known of Paleo-Indian lifeways, it is assumed (based on comparisons with modem hunting groups and archaeological information from better-known areas of North America) that group sizes were fairly small and that settlements were moved often during the course of a typical year

The Archaic period was characterized by the gradual development of more-or-less modem environmental conditions. Humans adapted to the abundant resources provided by the interior woodlands, ponds, nvers, and the coastal estuaries by exploiting a broad range of food (e.g nuts laree and small game, seed-bearing plants, fish. etc.). By 3,000 B.C.. Long Island was heavily populated with population of the entire island probably numbering in the thousands. Archaeological evidence of this apparent "population explosion" is reflected by the large number of archaeological sites dating to this period and by the size of the individual settlements, many of which exceed ten acres Late Archaic settlements (long and short term) are found in all types of environmental settings, including those which are now within the Central Pine Barrens of interior Long Island. '

The so-called Terminal Archaic (1,000 - 700 B.C.) is widely known as a period marked by the practice of elaborate funerary rituals. On Long Island, large cemetery complexes containing cremated human remains, stone bowls made from imported raw materials from Rhode Island, Connecticut and/or Pennsylvania, fishtail-shaped projectile points, red ocher, and other svmbolicallv important materials date to this time. During this age, pottery made its first appearance.

Archaeologically, little behavioral change was observable during the Woodland period Some artifact forms were altered (e.g., projectile point shape) and pottery seemed to become increasinglv important over time, but the long-established economic pattern of the exploitation of a broad range of natural resources continued. During the Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 1,000-1.500), agriculture (especially com and beans imported from the American tropics) became very important in the economies of native groups ivmg along the Hudson River and in what is now upstate New York. The importance of agriculture on Long Island during this time is still not well known, and is a topic much debated by archaeologists Regardless of the importance of foods like com, beans, and squash in the diet, it is clear that Native peoples on Long Island continued to hunt, gather, and collect the abundant products of the natural environment. This strategic use of a diverse range of available resources characterizes native economies on Long Island to the present day.

Native cultures were greatly changed with the European arrival in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Infectious diseases took a heavy toll and Indians were increasingly "marginalized" economically However, even though native communities were ravaged bv diseases and social disruption they maintained and nourished their traditional ways of life. There was continuitv in belief systems and the structure of social relations, despite the horrendous impact of infectious diseases introduced by the Europeans. These traditions continued well after European contact, and native peoples still actively maintain their ancestral communities and cultures. They live today on State-recognized reservations (Shinnecock and Poospatuck) and in enclaves throughout Long Island.

Figure 7-1: Prehistoric Chronology for Long Island Period Name Start End Characteristics Late Woodland 1000 a.d. 1500 a.d. Agriculture begins in Hudson River

http:/7pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 5 of22

and/or upstate New York, but status of Long Island agriculture at this time debatable. Middle Woodland Oa.d. 1000 a.d. Little change observable. Increased use of pottery. Early Woodland 700 b.c. 0a.d. Intensive use of coastal resources. Terminal Archaic 1000 b.c. 700 b.c. Elaborate burial customs and artifacts. First appearance of pottery. Stone bowls made from imported materials from elsewhere on East Coast. Late Archaic 4000 b.c. 1000 b.c. Increase in number of archaeological sites and size of settlements. Consumption of shellfish. Population numbering in thousands by 3000 b.c. Middle Archaic 6000 b.c. 4000 b.c. Appearance of modem flora and fauna. Earlv Archaic 8000 b.c. 6000 b.c. Beginning of adaptation to interior. Paleo-Indian 10.500 b.c. 8000 b.c. Arrived shortly after retreat of Late Pleistocene ice. Fluted projectile points on weapons. Small group sizes. Frequent movements of settlements during year.

Prehistoric and historic Native American archaeological sites have been found throughout the Central Pine Barrens. These include remote areas without standing water, moraines, areas adjacent to rivers and other surface waters, and coastal areas. A number of sites are known to be present in municipal lands.

7.2.2 Historic and Cultural Resources

In addition to prehistoric resources, many historic resources are found in both the Core Preservation Area and the Compatible Growth Areas. Although somewhat isolated from primary settlements in the colonial (period from approximately 1640 to 1776) and nineteenth century periods, this region traces an unusual variety of historic and cultural features warranting protection.

Historically, lumbering and woodcutting were among Suffolk County's most prominent industries. Before the Civil War. Suffolk was recognized as the first woodcutting county in New York State. Numerous cutting camps sprang up throughout the area to harvest hardwoods, such as white oak, to satisfy New York City's seemingly insatiable appetite for wood. It was used as a fuel and as a building material. Pine was harvested only after hardwoods became scarce. The completion of the Long Island Railroad's main line in 1844 provided a condition in which numerous large scale fires, triggered by engine sparks and cinders, routinely ravaged the young trees spared by the woodcutters. This situation, and the continuing annual fires in various parts of the region, may have perpetuated the "barrens" of today.

Manv other traditional activities occurred in the Central Pine Barrens. These activities included http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 6 of 22 cranberry and blueberry farming in the vicinity of the Peconic River, brickmaking, the use of water- powered mills for grinding grain and milling lumber, duck farming, crop farming, nursery farming, operation of taverns, inns and general stores, sandmining, tanning, harvesting of wood (such as Atlantic white cedar) for shipbuilding and shingles, operation of forges for manufacturing iron products from bog iron, charcoal-burning for manufacture of charcoal, operation of gun clubs and hunting lodges and creation of pine tree products from sap (including turpentine and pine-tar).

Extensive remnants of Suffolk's historic past, can be found within the pine barrens zone. The region is dotted with the remains of old carriage roads, townscapes and structures which remain in mute testimony as evidence to the former isolated, inland settlements. Although the pine barrens region is often overlooked in serious evaluations of Long Island's architectural and social history, the region contains excellent examples of American architecture reflecting the 18th through the early 20th century schools. The region was involved in various incidents during the Revolutionary War. Numerous landscape features, such as Camp Upton's World War I trenches, also trace Long Island's heritage. Furthermore, the area contains some of Long Island's most famous landmarks, including magnificent Victorian homesteads, elegant hunting lodges, and the structure which spawned an entire American architectural style, the Big Duck.

A map, prepared by the Suffolk County Department of Planning, showing many of the known historic sites of the Central Pine Barrens is referenced in the Appendix. However, it should be noted that this illustrates only some, not all, of the existing historic resources in the Central Pine Barrens and does not show archaeological or Native American sites.

7.2.3 List of Historic Resources within Brookhaven

The following is a list of historic resources in the Central Pine Barrens portion of the Town of Brookhaven. A more extensive description of these resources is cited in the Appendix. However, this list is by no means all-inclusive of all historic resources in Brookhaven:

Coram Historic District, Coram

Site of Richard W. Smith Tavern and Town Pump, Coram

Coram Mini-District, Coram

Lester H. Davis House, Coram

Natural Swamp and Clay Area, Coram

St. Francis Church. Coram

Isaac Smith House, Coram

Walter Overton House, Coram

S. B. Swezey House. Coram

Washington Memorial Park, Coram

Site of Phannemiller/Ephelant House, Coram

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological page 7 of -,-,

Brewster Terry House, Coram

Hammond/Higgins/Manzoni House, Coram

Site of I. Overton House & Cider Mill, Coram

Gordon Heights District, Gordon Heights

Mary AME Zion Church, Gordon Heights

Mr. Lowry's Casino, Gordon Heights

Gordon House/McNeese Casino, Gordon Heights

Community Missionary Baptist Church, Gordon Heights

Mrs. Armstrong's House, Gordon Heights

The Ebenezer Sabbath Day Church, Gordon Heights

St. Michaels Recreation Center, Gordon Heights

H. D. Petty House, Middle Island

Site of Brewster House. Middle Island

Bayles House, Middle Island

Milestone, Middle Island

Middle Island Historic District, Middle Island

Hudson House, Middle Island

Site of Swezey House, Middle Island

Middle Island Presbyterian Church. Middle Island

Union Cemetery, Middle Island

Lopped Tree. Middle Island

Davis House. Middle Island

Swezey Brick House. Middle Island

"The Elephant Tree." Middle Island

George Albing House. Middle Island

hnp://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_voI2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological paee g 0f 99

Charles Edwards House, Middle Island

Edwin Edwards House, Middle Island

Major Leek House, Middle Island

Hurtin House Archaeological Site, Middle Island

Methodist Church, Middle Island

Dayton House, Middle Island

School Administration Building, Middle Island

Davis House, Middle Island

Cathedral Pines County Historic Trust Area, Middle Island

Randall Cemetery at The Ridge, Ridge

Randall House. Ridge

New York State Fire Tower. Ridge

Trenches and Bunkers, Town Rifle Range, Ridge

Robert Randall House, Ridge

Lustgarten Neon Sign. Ridge

Cooperative Hunting Area Station, Ridge

Longwood (Smith) Estate, Ridge (listed on the National Register)

The Ridge School. Ridge

Brookhaven National Lab/Camp Upton, Upton

Trenches at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton

Yaphank Historic District, Yaphank

James H. Weeks House, Yaphank

William J. Weeks House Foundation, Yaphank

Michael Hololob House. Yaphank

Mary Louise Booth House. Yaphank

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1 /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 9 of ^

Anthony House, Yaphank

St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Yaphank

Howell-Overhoff House, Yaphank

Hammond House, Yaphank

DeLa Marca-Kovarik House, Yaphank

Homan-Gerard House, Yaphank

Gerard Mill Site, Yaphank

Robert H. Hawkins-Jacobsen House/Homestead, Yaphank (listed on National Register)

Yaphank Community Shop, Yaphank

Yaphank Garage, Yaphank

Wittman Rabbitry, Yaphank

Stroud House, Yaphank

Lopped Trees. Yaphank

Luhly House, Yaphank

Greener House, Yaphank

Neuss-Williams House, Yaphank

Sylvester Homan House, Yaphank

Richard Homan House, Yaphank

Yaphank Union Cemetery, Yaphank

Engelbach House. Yaphank

School. Yaphank

Overton-Mouzakes House. Yaphank

Lakeview Building, Yaphank

Joseph Hololob House. Yaphank

Agnello House and Bam. Yaphank http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1 /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 10 of 22

Herbert House and Milestone, Yaphank

Cook House, Yaphank

Ripple House, Yaphank

Yaphank Presbyterian Church, Yaphank

Presbyterian Parsonage, Yaphank

Arthur Davis House, Yaphank

John Ed Davis House, Yaphank

Homan House, Yaphank

Saggese House, Yaphank

Serino B. Overton House, Yaphank

Overton-Schmidt House, Yaphank

Stills House and Pantentella House, Yaphank

S. F. Norton House, Yaphank

Swezey-Avery House, Main Street

Hoeffner House, Yaphank

Isaac Mills/Nathaniel Tuthill House. Yaphank

D. D. Swezey House. Yaphank

Hawkins Cemetery, Yaphank

Robert F. Hawkins/Dooley House. Yaphank

Mini-replica Octagon Firehouse, Yaphank

M. Homan House. Yaphank

Site of Mordecai Homan House. Yaphank

Philips House. Yaphank

C. Dayton House. Yaphank

S.N. Randall House. Yaphank

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 11 of 22

Howell House, Yaphank

Siegfried Park, Yaphank

Camp Sobaco, Yaphank

J. P. Mills House, Yaphank

A. Cook House, Yaphank

Long Island Railroad Bridge, Carmans River

Southaven County Historic District, Yaphank

Yaphank County Historic Trust Area (listed on National Register)

Hudson House, Lake Panamoka

Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rocky Point

Robinson Bam, Rocky Point

RCA Communications Sites (Radio Central), Rocky Point

Howell House, Rocky Point

Solomon Townsend/Jeremiah Petty Forge, Calverton

Brown's Store, Calverton

Brown's Bog Earthen Dam/Cranberry Bog, Calverton

Manorville Depot Historic District, Manorville

Sts. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church, Manorville

Manorville Bible Protestant Church, Manorville

Raynor House, Manorville

Yeager House. Manorville

General Store. Manorville

The Maples. Manorville

Morgan House. Manorville

Lutheran Church (Morgan Property), Manorville http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1 /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 12 of 22

Punk's Hole, Manorville

Peterson House, Manorville

Holman House/C. Robinson House, Manorville

Robinson Family Cemetery, Manorville

H. Husted House, Manorville

H. Cozin House, Manorville

Robinson House. Manorville

Old Long Island Railroad Track/Right-of-Way (County Road 91 R.O.W.), Manorville

A. B. Lane House, Manorville

Manorville School (West Manor School), Manorville

Raynor House, Manorville

Schoolhouse, Manorville

Elicha Carter House. Manorville

E. Ahley/Landrella/Schneitzer House, Manorville

L. Carter Bam, Manorville

Mrs. R. Briggs House, Manorville

Manorville Cemetery, Manorville

Cascer Garage, Manorville

South Manor - Brookfield Historic District, Manorville

Brookfield Presbyterian Church, Manorville

Carter House (North) Site. Manorville

Carter House (South) Site. Manorville

Brookfield Cemetery, Manorville

Wading River Road Cemetery, Manorville

Wading River Road Lopped Tree, Manorville http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological pa„e j3 0f -n

Robinson House. Manorville

S. Davis House, Manorville

M. Raynor House, Manorville

Raynor House, Manorville

South Street Lopped Tree, Manorville

Davis House, Manorville

R. Heinrich House/P. Julian House, Manorville

Thomas Clark Memorial, Manorville

Ruins of Marion DeLavarre Tomb, Eastport

Beebe/Barrett House. Eastport

Hunters Garden. Manorville

Rock Hill, Manorville

Tallmadge Historic Trail, Mount Sinai. Middle Island. Coram. Yaphank

Synagogue Stones, Mount Sinai

7.2.4 List of Historic Resources within Riverhead

Riverhead Town contains numerous historic resources. Many are located along the Peconic River where a number of mills and forges were found. The following is a list of historic resources in the Central Pine Barrens portion of the Town of Riverhead. A more extensive description of each of these resources is referenced in the Appendix. This list is by no means all-inclusive of historic resources in Riverhead:

Gilbert Raynor House, Manorville

Davis-Johnson Cranberry Bogs, Manorville

Lopped Tree. Manorville

Grumman Airport. Calverton

Babylon Rod and Gun Club. Manorville

Mill Site. Manorville

Rychlinski Blueberry Farm. Manorville

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological pa j 4 of ^

Calverton Pickle Factory, Calverton

Central Hotel, Calverton

Calverton Depot, Calverton

Dickinson House, Calverton

Peconic Mills, Calverton

Warner's Duck Farm, Calverton

Old Forge and Swezey Ice House, Calverton

Camp Wauwepex, Wading River

The Horn Tavern Farm, Wading River

Robert Cushman Murphy County Park - River Road and Swan

Pond Historic Areas, Manorville

7.2.5 List of Historic Resources within Southampton

Although a number of historic resources are likely to be present in the Central Pine Barrens area of Southampton, no comprehensive inventory was available for inclusion in this section However these sites constitute a partial listing:

Black Duck Lodge. Hubbard County Park, Flanders

Flanders Men's Club, Flanders

The Big Duck. County Site, Flanders

James Benjamin Homestead (Old Benjamin Homestead), Flanders (listed on National Register)

7.2.6 Central Pine Barrens Sites Listed on the National Register

There are a number of sites in the Central Pine Barrens which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These are as follows:

James Benjamin Homestead (Old Benjamin Homestead), Flanders

St. Andrew's Episcopal Church. Yaphank

Longwood (Smith) Estate, Ridge

Robert Hawkins Homestead, Yaphank

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpbj3lan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm ^4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological paee 15 of ^

Homan-Gerard House and Mills, Yaphank

No single, all-inclusive and comprehensive history or inventory of all known cultural resources currently exists for the Central Pine Barrens. There are, however, separate histories on certain topics in many locations. In addition, there are incomplete inventories such as those cited previously.

7.2.7 Existing Public and Private Programs

The following is an overview of existing public and private programs within the Central Pine Barrens for the protection, preservation and restoration of cultural resources and demonstration programs of traditional industries of the Central Pine Barrens.

7.2.7.1 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation administers various State laws and regulations concerning cultural resources in the State. These include the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 and Certified Local Government Programs (copies of pertinent laws and regulations are referenced in the Appendix).

The Historic Preservation Act requires that projects sponsored or funded by the State be reviewed for potential impacts to cultural resources; establishes a State Register of Historic Places (similar to the National Register of Historic Places); provides a degree of protection for sites and structures listed on the State Register; and establishes a State Board for Historic Preservation to provide for review of State- sponsored or funded projects which may have impacts on cultural resources.

The Historic Preservation Act was also designed to encourage and assist local governments and private organizations to develop and undertake local preservation programs and activities for the preservation, maintenance and restoration of historical, archaeological and cultural resources. This includes the preparation of "Local Historic Preservation Reports" which cover the current status of local preservation programs; analyzes current preservation problems and proposals for the preservation of cultural resources. In addition, the Historic Preservation Act provides for enactment of local laws and regulations for historic preservation including transfer of development rights, local preservation boards, designations and acquisitions.

The State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation also administers the Certified Local Government program. This program is authorized by the amended National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and provides for grants-in-aid. via the State Historic Preservation Office, to local governments for historic preservation purposes. Aid is available to those local governments which have enacted a local program for historic preservation which meets certain minimum standards (generally requiring stronger local preservation regulations than most municipalities currently have) set forth by the Federal government and the State. As far as is known, none of the local governments within the Central Pine Barrens have preservation programs which have been certified. There are. however, other local governments on Long Island which have received certification for their preservation programs and which are near the Central Pine Barrens. These are the Villages of Sag Harbor and East Hampton.

The State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation also provides review comments to municipalities in regard to potential impacts of development projects on cultural resources. The office informs municipalities of the presence of any known cultural resources in proximity to a site for which information is requested. Part of such information includes New York State Building Inventory Forms known as "Blue Forms," which contain a written and photographic synopsis of cultural resources, hnp://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological pa j 6 of -^

primarily historic structures, in the State and which are completed by interested parties However some files and information maintained by this agency may not be current. State Parks currently has only onT park site in the Central Pine Barrens, Brookhaven State Park located in Ridge and Shoreham which is undeveloped at present. There are no immediate plans for development of the site as a State Park.

State Parks currently conducts some interpretive demonstration programs at active, developed State Parks located outside of the Central Pine Barrens such as the Caleb Smith State Park in Smithtown State Parks has no current plan for traditional industries demonstration programs nor programs for ' restoration of cultural resources in the Central Pine Barrens because these would be provided only for State Parks and the one State Park in the Central Pine Barrens is undeveloped. If Brookhaven State Park were to be developed or another site were to be acquired by State Parks within the Central Pine Barrens then the need for such a traditional industries demonstration program could be evaluated.

7.2.7.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act

The current version of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires that impacts to cultural resources be considered when reviewing projects. Part 617, Section 617 11(5) of the SEQRA regulations requires that agencies consider the potential for a project to result in:

the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.

In addition. Part 617, Section 617.12(9) of the SEQRA regulations designates as a Type I action:

any Unlisted action (unless the action is designed for the preservation of the facility or site) occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to. any historic building, structure facility site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or that has been proposed by the New York State Board on Historic Preservation for a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer for nomination for inclusion in said National Register or that is listed on the State Register of Historic Places.

7.2.7.3 U.S. Department of the Interior and the Federal Government

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593 (issued in 1971) set forth the Federal government's regulatory program for preservation of cultural resources (copies are cited in the Appendix). The Preservation Act authorizes the Department of the Interior to establish and maintain the National Register of Historic Places (which includes all types of cultural resources), provides for and encourages a national program of cultural resource protection, provides for grants-in-aid to the states and local governments for cultural resource preservation and delegates certain preservation duties and responsibilities to the States. The Executive Order (11593) requires Federal agencies to consider potential impacts of Federally sponsored or funded programs on cultural resources.

On Long Island and in the Central Pine Barrens, the implementation of these Federal regulations is visible in protection of sites via designation to the National Register and National Landmark status through programs administered by the State as agent for the Federal government and through preservation funds disbursed via the State.

7.2.7.4 The New York State Museum

http:/7pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/voI2_chapter07.htm ! /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological page 17 0f-n

The State Museum, located in Albany, responds to queries from municipalities regarding potential impacts of development projects on prehistoric and archaeological cultural resources, and the presence of any known cultural resources in proximity to specific sites. As part of this service, the State Museum will also rate a site according to whether or not it contains, or is adjacent to. features which represent a high probability or sensitivity for the presence of such cultural resources. This helps determine the need for a Cultural Resource Survey. Special forms are used for the inquiries and are referenced in the Appendix. The State Museum also maintains a registry of Cultural Resource Surveys.

7.2.7.5 Suffolk County Historic Trust

The definition of "distinctive historical significance" of the Suffolk County Charter is established by:

1. The National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, as authorized under the Federal Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

2. The National Trust for Historic Preservation as set forth in Historic Preservation Tomorrow - Revised Principles and Guidelines, National Trust for Historic Preservation and Colonial Williamsburg, 1976.

The Historic Trust concerns itself with all aspects of the preservation of historic buildings, fences, street furniture, trees (including lopped trees), kettleholes, roads, roadsides, boundary ditches, and historic landmarks. These include, but are not limited to: residences and out buildings; commercial and industrial structures and areas; farm buildings; accessory buildings; engineering works (including trestles, bridges, towers, canals, piers, dry docks, wharfs, waterworks, etc.); lighthouses; government buildings; railroad ' stations and other railroad facilities; educational buildings (including schools and academies);' abandoned religious structures; fortifications and ramparts; Indian fields and village sites; cemeteries and village greens; and archaeological sites and their environs.

The Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation and its Board of Trustees, together with the Director of Historic Services, should, in most instances, be the stewards of properties dedicated to the Historic Trust with custodianship for each property to be decided individually. In most cases, the Department of Parks will also have custodianship, but it is possible that a particular property, or an item, may be entrusted to the custodianship of another, e.g., another County department or even a local historical society or organization. In the case of roads or highways dedicated, the Department of Public Works normally would be the logical steward, except that the Director of Historic Services should be responsible for supervising such a road's historic integrity.

Dedication of County-owned historic properties to the Historic Trust is resolution of both the Suffolk County Legislature and County Executive. The resolution dedicating County-owned property to the County Historic Trust must specify the purpose(s) for which the property may be used.

Unless authorized by charter law approved upon mandatory referendum, property owned by the County and dedicated under this section to the County Historic Trust shall not be taken nor otherwise disposed of. nor shall it be used for any purpose not specified in the resolution by which the property was dedicated.

Details of Historic Trust dedication and management can be found in the Suffolk County Historic Trust Manual, revised edition 1975 (copy of which is cited in the Appendix). Alteration or change of any Historic Trust site owned by the County is considered a Type I action under SEQRA and requires the preparation and submission of a special form and documentation (copy is referenced in the Appendix) Through the County Trust, the Director of Historic Services of the Countv Parks Department have been hnp:/7pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 18 of 22 involved in the restoration of historic structures in County Parks.

7.2.7.6. Suffolk County Department of Parks and Recreation

The Suffolk County Department of Parks has a number of sites within the Central Pine Barrens. These include Hubbard County Park in Flanders, Cranberry Bog County Nature Preserve in Riverhead. Southaven County Park in Yaphank and Robert Cushman Murphy County Park along the Peconic River, as well as several other undeveloped parklands.

There are currently no demonstration programs of traditional industries within the Central Pine Barrens provided at any of these parks. The traditional activity of hunting does have long-established roots in several of these sites, some of which contain former hunting lodges and gun clubs. Hunting continues in several of these County parks. The Suffolk County Parks Department is currently researching and analyzing the possibility of providing programs within these sites which would replicate traditional industries which formerly occurred in each particular park site.

Traditional industries which occurred within or adjacent to these sites included cranberry farming, milling of lumber and grain, cordwood production and harvesting of Atlantic white cedar for shipbuilding and the manufacture of shingles. An example of a demonstration program might center on Cranberry farming. It formerly occurred at both the Cranberry Bog County Nature Preserve and the Robert Cushman Murphy Park. The county possesses the tools which were used by the original farmers of the area. They could be used if a demonstration program is initiated. The infrastructure of the bog system could be restored as part of the program. Other potential demonstration programs could revolve around sawmills and grist mills, since such milling operations occurred within or adjacent to several of the above-named parks.

In addition, the possibility of providing an actual structure for holding interpretive programs, including those related to traditional industries demonstrations, could be examined. Several of the County sites contain historic structures, and those of more recent vintage could perhaps be restored for such educational uses. The potential for cooperative efforts in conjunction with other agencies and organizations could also be examined. It should be noted that this agency has prepared an inventory of archaeological and historic resources for many of its properties in the Central Pine Barrens.

7.2.7.7 Town of Southampton

The Town of Southampton does not have a comprehensive listing of known cultural resources within the Central Pine Barrens. However, the Town does have a Town Historian who maintains historical records of the Town and provides guidance and input with regard to historical structures in the Town.

Town Law #40 provides some oversight with regard to historic structures. It also established a Town Landmark committee and procedures for providing protection of sites designated as Town Landmarks. This Committee advises the Town Board on historic sites and structures, and works in conjunction with the Town Planning Board and Town Planning Department in protecting historic sites (more detailed information is referenced in the Appendix). The Town Planning Department utilizes SEQRA, the State Historic Office Archaeological Sensitivity Map, Suffolk County Archaeological Association archaeological sensitivity map and other criteria (including the presence of certain ecological or geological features such as outwash plains north of the Ronkonkoma Moraine, ponds, streams, kettleholes and estuaries) to determine when a Cultural Resource Survey should be conducted for development sites. The use of certain land use techniques such as clustering has been employed to provide protection for archaeological sites when they are discovered. The Town is restructuring its land http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 19 of 22

use programs and is currently preparing an update of its comprehensive plan which will include an inventory of cultural resources.

7.2.7.8 Town of Riverhead

The Town of Riverhead has an Historic Landmarks Committee and an Architectural Review Board which review some projects on historic sites. A survey of historic sites was conducted by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities in 1977 for historic structures in the Town. More recently, an historic structures survey is being conducted for a Business Improvement District in the Town. Additionally, the Town has a Town Historian who provides input regarding historic sites and cultural resources.

7.2.7.9 Town of Brookhaven

In the Town of Brookhaven, Chapter 85, Article XVII of the Town Code establishes an Historic District Advisory Committee, Town Historic Districts. Town Landmarks and procedures for reviewing potential impacts to Historic Districts and Landmarks, such as proposed demolitions (a copy of the pertinent code section is cited in the Appendix).

The Historic District Advisory Committee advises the Town Board and Planning Board with regard to impacts on Town Historic Districts and Town Landmarks. There are currently two Town Historic Districts in Brookhaven in the Central Pine Barrens: the Yaphank Historic District which encompasses Main Street and a portion of Yaphank-Middle Island Road in the center of Yaphank and the Longwood Historic District which encompasses wholly Town-owned land located on the north and south sides of Longwood Road, east of Smith Road and west of William Floyd Parkway in Ridge. The Town Historic District Advisory Committee has also prepared and published a comprehensive handbook to be used in review of projects in historic districts and those involving historic landmarks and for use in renovation and restoration of structures and sites (a copy is referenced in the Appendix).

The Town Department of Planning, Environment and Development currently reviews projects for potential impacts on cultural resources. The Division of Environmental Protection maintains an inventory of prehistoric, archaeological and historic sites (both in graphic map form and written form) which it utilizes in determining the potential for impacts on such resources by development. During the course of SEQRA reviews, the Division requests the preparation of Cultural Resource Surveys for development projects which may have an adverse impact on cultural resources. This is based on consultation with other agencies including New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), review of the cultural resource maps, site inspections and procedures established by the Division's former part- time Cultural Resource Analyst/Archaeologist.

An informal agreement between the Division of Environmental Protection and the Building Division requires review of all demolition permit applications for potential impacts to cultural resources, prior to issuance of the permit. If significant cultural resources, such as an historic house, are determined to be present, mitigation and alternatives are investigated. These include the preparation of a Cultural Resource Survey or Building Survey and/or the potential for donating the structure to a cultural resource preservation organization.

The Town Historian preserves and maintains Town historical records and provides historical information in response to queries. The Historian is also responsible for the maintenance of Town- owned historic cemeteries. The Town Historian is responsible for overseeing restoration of certain Town-owned historic structures, especially the Smith Estate at Longwood. and for overseeing the http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_voI2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1 /4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological pa 20 f ^

Town's annual Longwood Fair held every September at the Smith Estate. The primary theme of this fair is historic. The Town fair includes demonstrations of traditional industries, though •t necTss^lv those directly transferable to the Central Pine Barrens, and provides a forum for various hi^ric pre^on organizations. H^-^ivauun

7.2.7.10 The Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities

The Society for Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA) owns, preserves and maintains several historic sites on Long Island. In addition, this organization provides expert input, upon request to various agencies and organizations in regard to cultural resource preservation. It also maintains an 317 1S 0 rgan,Zati0n haS n0 0fflcial ro,e but was involved Y^riTtYork State Historic Resourcesp ' InventoryT for Brookhaven Town' in the 1970s and ^early completing 1980s It the was New also involved in the inventories conducted for Riverhead Town. The organization does not maintain any histonc structures or sites, or archaeological sites, within the Central Pine Barrens and is not interested at this time in management of cultural resources in the Central Pine Barrens. Additional commentarv trom this organization is referenced in the survey in the Appendix.

7.2.6.11 The Suffolk County Archaeological Association

The Suffolk County Archaeological Society (SCAA) is concerned with the discovery, preservation and study of archaeological resources in Suffolk County. The Society includes professionally-trained members who provide technical input on archaeological resources, upon request, to both public and private agencies and organizations. In addition, the Society is involved in fostering education about such matters and has published an extensive body of research publications in the field.

The Society also sponsors a series of demonstration programs. These are the Long Island Native Life and Archaeology program at the Hoyt Farm Preserve in Commack and the Colonial Life and Technology Program (detailed descriptions of these programs are referenced contained in the Appendix), both of which are open to the general public. The SCAA notes that there is a movement towards increasing student awareness and participation in such programs, especially to foster a sense of StCWcJTQSni p.

Consideration could be given to the possibility that this organization could be involved in programs related to Central Pine Barrens industries, perhaps even occasionally housed in appropriate Central Pine Barrens sites. This organization would be interested in the management of cultural resources in the Central Pine Barrens as it originated the first Cultural Resource Survey of Suffolk County in 1978 The SCAA has attempted to obtain funding to have this inventory updated but has been unable to procure such ftrnds. The SCAA believes that a comprehensive, current inventory of cultural resources in the Central Pine Barrens should be conducted to guide development. It further recommends the hiring of a ftill or part-time archaeologist or cultural resource analyst to guide Commission decisions and review of matters involving cultural resources and to ensure the quality of Cultural Resource Surveys conducted in the Central Pine Barrens. Additional commentary from this organization is referenced in the survev in the Appendix. J

7.2.7.12 Manorville Historical Society

The Manorville Historical Society is a chartered historical societv which is concerned with the collection, preservation and dissemination of information regarding the history of Manorville, and with he preservation, repair and restoration of historic sites in Manorville. This organization is also involved in the acquisition and preservation of books, manuscripts, pictures, relics and other articles of historic

http://pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological Page 71 of''

interest related to Manorville. Additionally, the Manorville Historical Society is involved in the recognition of historic sites and their designation as landmarks.

This organization currently leases the former West Manor Schoolhouse which it is in the process of restoring. It is also currently involved in the protection of area cemeteries thus ensuring that they receive proper care. The Society recommends more care be granted to historic sites, especially cemeteries, and that development review provide for a greater accounting of, and protection for, cultural resources. Additional commentary is provided in the survey referenced in the Appendix.

7.2.7.13 Yaphank Historical Society

The Yaphank Historical Society is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1974. It is devoted to the promotion and encouragement of historical research. Subject areas of particular interest are: the gathering and dissemination of information concerning the early history of the Yaphank Fire District; the gathering and preserving of books, manuscripts, papers and relics relating to the early history of ' Yaphank and contiguous areas; marking areas of historic interest with monuments and markers; acquiring or obtaining custody of historic places; acting as the unofficial caretaker of the Town's Yaphank Historic District; promoting the preservation and restoration of all historic structures and sites within the Yaphank Fire District and surrounding areas; and, providing historical research materials for public use and education. It also maintains inventories of historic sites in the area.

It does not regularly review development projects but provides comments to them if the Society determines that the project has the potential to have an adverse impact on cultural resources. The Society is responsible, via a cooperative effort with Suffolk County, for the maintenance and management of the Robert Hewlett Hawkins House (ca. 1850 and listed on the National Register) located on Yaphank Avenue. The Society is also prepared to be involved in the restoration and management of other historic sites in the area within the Central Pine Barrens. Additional commentary from this organization is referenced in the survey in the Appendix.

7.2.7.14 The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy owns and/or manages a number of holdings in the Central Pine Barrens. At present, there are no identified cultural resources on these sites. The Nature Conservancy has stated that if they did encounter such resources, they would be protected and included in management plans for their sites and would cooperate with other agencies in their protection. However, cultural resources are not contained within the mission of this organization. Additional commentary from this organization is cited in the survey in the Appendix.

7.2.7.15 Suffolk County Historical Society

The Suffolk County Historical Society was founded in 1886. Its primary purpose is to collect, preserve and interpret the history of Suffolk County, including that of the Central Pine Barrens. The Society has three main areas of operation: a museum open to the public, a research library and archives available for public use and a department of education which is responsible for providing educational programs for schools. The Society holds exhibitions on various historical topics and prepares and conducts interpretive program of traditional industries from Suffolk County's past. This organization could provide interpretive and demonstration programs of traditional industries of the Central Pine Barrens.

7.2.7.16 Other Organizations

hnp:/7pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm 1/4/02 Chapter 7: Cultural Resources: Historic and Archaeological page 2? po

The Suffolk County Cooperative Extension operates the Suffolk County Farm which is located in Yaphank just outside and south of, the Central Pine Barrens boundaries. The farm provides intemretive programs which include demonstrations of fanning activities which formerlv occurred in the CeSS Pine Barrens. Consideration could be given to tapping the technical expertise of the farm staff in developing demonstration programs of traditional Pine Barrens industries.

th CentI 1 Pine Barre ^f ^f ^^ ^ fI ? 1 ^ 0^ Bethpage Village Restoration in Nassau County a recreation of an historic village of the mid-19th Century, may be able to provide technical input concerning historical issues. Some of their programs could be emulated in the Central Pine Barrens Vanous traditional trades of the mid-1800s are demonstrated at the Restoration including blacksmhhing hat-making, farming and operation of a general store. In addition, the Restoration has extensive technical expertise in restoration of historic sites. The Shinnecock Nation, whose reservation is located in Southampton east of the Central Pine Barrens, annually sponsors a pow wow on Labor Day weekend as part of their continuing program of cultural awareness. In addition, the Shinnecocks have recentlv developed a cultural center and museum in Southampton and a program of weekend interpretive and traditional industries camps for non-natives.

hnp:/7pb.state.ny.us/cpb_plan_vol2/vol2_chapter07.htm j/4/02 NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Matter of the Application of

BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility Case No.: 00-F-0566 and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Generating Facility in the Town of Brookhaven, County of Suffolk.

TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

JOHN H. SHAFER JOHN H. SHAFER

***#*****

1 Q. Please state your name, affiliation, title, address, and whom you are

2 representing in this proceeding.

3 A. I am John H. Shafer and I reside at 137 Unionville Road, Feura Bush,

4 NY, 12037. I am currently Vice President and part owner of Spectra Environmental

5 Group, Inc. and President of Spectra Engineering, P.C. (SPECTRA) located at 19

6 British-American Boulevard in Latham, NY, 12110. Spectra Engineering, P.C. is the

7 infrastructure arm of the Spectra Group that is responsible for all design, cost

8 estimates and other aspects of civil infrastructure engineering projects. As the

9 Professional Engineer owner, I stamp many plans which require me to technically

10 participate in the plan's development. In this proceeding, SPECTRA is serving as an

11 environmental consultant representing the Town of Brookhaven in the Brookhaven

12 Energy, LP permitting and Article X certification process.

13 Q. Please describe your educational background.

14 A. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the

15 University of Detroit in Detroit, Michigan in 1961 and a Post Graduate Degree in

16 Traffic Engineering from Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut in 1965. 1 Q. Please describe your professional experience. A. Since graduation, I have been employed for about 40 years in the civil, 2 transportation and infrastructure engineering field. The first 28 years were with the 3

4 NYS Department of Transportation, with the last serving as the Assistant Commissioner for Engineering and Chief Engineer. I then served as Executive 5 Director of the New York State Thruway Authority for 8 years and have been in the 6 private sector with environmental engineering firms since 1995. I joined SPECTRA 7

8 early in 1999. Q. Please briefly describe your professional experience in each of these. 9 A. For the first 18 years with the NYSDOT, I had increasingly 10 responsible positions in long range planning and project development. This included 11 origin-destination travel surveys, travel forecasting, computer assignments of traffic 12 to highway networks, and development of long range transportation plans, including 13 costs and schedules, throughout New York. This work led to leadership positions in 14 the development of large scale projects for the Department. For numerous major 15

16 transportation corridors across the state, this experience included mapping. development of alternative locations for highway facilities and detailed evaluation of 17 their environmental, transportation and cost impacts. This preliminary design work 18 would then be turned over to designers to create plans, specifications and estimates 19

20 for bidding and construction. For 5 years I served as Director of Traffic Engineering and Safety with 21

3 , resp„„5ibilityforaUaspec«ofsaf^onNewYorkhighWays. This included baffle

2 signs, signals and pavement markings, ftom specifications to costs to their

3 replacement schedules. This also included motor carrier safety, the Manual of

4 Uniform Traffic Control Devices and high accident location studies with appropriate

5 constructed remedial actions.

6 For the 5 years as Chief Engineer, responsibilities included all aspects of real

7 estate activities, transpormtion research, the design of all state highway and bridge

8 improvements, bidding of construction contracts and the eonstrucdon work itself.

9 The value of this design and construction work amounted to about $1 billion per

10 year. ,, I„ my g years with the Authority, we implemented E-Z pass, rebuilt the 40

12 year old travel plazas, unplemented an older driver program and rebuilt the long

, 3 neglected 650 mile system of pavement and bridges into the current superhighway.

,4 As a professtonally trained civil engineer, I stayed directly involved in all aspects of

15 planning, design, implementation and finances.

16 Q. Did your work with NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority involve

17 you in work requiring the demolition of strucmres?

18 A. Yes, I was directly involved in many aspects of the rehabilitation

19 program for the state highway/bridge system. This ranged from the overall dollars

20 expended each year on pavements, bridges, buildings and/or equipment to the

2, specifics of costs for each project. At the Authority, I was intimately involved in 1 project level long term cost effectiveness decisions on such items as bridge deck repair or replacement, the cost of new wastewater treatment plants and whether to 2 proceed, and the rebuilding of a Division Office building. Each of these projects had 3 major demolition aspects. Also relevant, was my personal involvement in the 4 reconstruction of the Thruway's 26 travel plazas. These were new facilities, with a 5 major cost element being demolition of the existing restaurant buildings, fuel 6 facilities, including underground tanks, and wastewater treatment plants. At each 7

8 facility, demolition issues arose regarding contaminated soils, disposal of construction and demolition debris and disposal/salvage of mechanical and electrical 9

10 equipment. Q. What is your professional experience after leaving government 11

12 service? A. Since joining the private sector, 1 have been involved in a variety of 13 professional consulting roles. These have ranged from preliminary design of a new 14 bridge over the Hudson River in Glens Falls, New York to numerous large new 15 highways and/or bridges in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, New 16 Hampshire and West Virginia. While with SPECTRA, I have completed traffic 17 studies with recommendations for several mining projects, and I manage an 18

19 Infrastructure Group doing bridge design, surveying, railroad design and construction, cell-tower site design, municipal water works and subdivisions for 20

21 private developers. . Q. Have any of these projects involved the demolition of existing 22

5 1 structures? A. Yes. The most difficult aspect of the preliminary engineering for the 2

3 replacement bridge over the Hudson River in Glens Falls was demolition of the

4 existing 90 year old concrete structure. Demolition had to be done while maintaining

5 two lanes of vehicular traffic. The old structure was over the Feeder Canal,

6 penstocks for a hydroelectric plant, and the historic Cooper's Cave and adjacent to

7 two operating paper mills.

8 Several demolition techniques were evaluated and costed before selecting the

9 final approach. Another project in New York where I was directly involved was the

10 replacement of 11 structures over the Long Island Expressway in Queens. Existing

11 deteriorated bridges had to be replaced with much of the work being done at night.

12 This required specialized demolition scaffolding techniques, including all cost

13 estimating, so that no debris fell beneath the structure. The Route 52 project in New

14 Jersey called for the replacement of two existing bascule bridges and the connecting

15 roadway between Somers Point and Ocean City. Preliminary engineering for the

16 bascule bridges included demolition of the steel moveable structures, including

17 mechanical and electrical equipment over the Intracoastal Waterway, without

18 disrupting either vehicular or boat traffic. In general, literally every infrastructure

19 rehabilitation project has a major demolition aspect, with the cost of demolition.

20 whether there are contaminated portions of the existing structure and the cost of

21 disposition of the materials often driving the engineering decisions.

6 1 Q. Have you been involved in any power plant projects?

2 A. With SPECTRA, I was involved in the Athens Generating plant

3 review, particularly in compliance filings. Currently, I am project manager for the

4 SPECTRA review of all Rockland County projects, i.e. Mirant Bowline 3 and

5 Ramapo Energy, and the Glenville Energy project. I am also involved in the

6 Bethlehem Energy project and the Besicorp Cogeneration project proposed in

7 Rensselaer, New York. All of these are Article X projects at different stages in the

8 certification process.

9 Q. Are you acquainted with the civil and mechanical aspects of power

10 plant design and construction?

11 A. Yes, I have reviewed the actual design plans for a plant in

12 Massachusetts designed by Bechtel as a prelude to reviewing their plans for the

13 Athens Generating plant. I have also reviewed the detailed plans submitted as part of

14 Mirant's application for the Bowline 3 plant in Haverstraw, New York, and the

15 Ramapo Energy project in the Town of Ramapo, New York.

16 Q. Have you evaluated power plant decommissioning or demolition procedures

17 and costs for any power plant other than the proposed Brookhaven Energy facility?

18 A. 1 have reviewed in detail the Decommissioning Plan and costs for the

19 Athens Generating plant submitted as a Compliance Filing and the Decommissioning

20 Plans submitted by both Mirant Bowline and Ramapo Energy as part of the

21 certification processes before adjudicatory hearings. 1 Q. Do you have any other relevant professional experience?

2 A. I have served on several National Committees for the Transportation

3 Research Board, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program and the

4 American Association of State Highway/Transportation Officials. I am currently

5 President of the Institute for Infrastructure Asset Management, a not-for-profit

6 company affiliated with the Incubator Program at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,

7 Troy, New York. The Institute fosters long term cost-effective management of

8 infrastructure capital assets through research, education and special studies.

9 Q. What, if any, professional certifications do you have?

10 A. I am a licensed professional engineer in New York, #042790-1.

11 Q. Does your curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1 fairly and

12 accurately represent your civil engineering experience to date?

13 A. Yes, except that it does not reflect my work with power plants in the

14 Article X context.

15 Q. What is SPECTRA'S role in the Brookhaven Energy project?

! 6 A SPECTRA is under contract with the Town of Brookhaven to review all

17 application materials relative to this project and to advise on all technical aspects of

18 interest to the Town. We also actively represent the Town's interests in all technical

19 matters arising in the Article X certification process, including, if necessary,

20 testimony on any issues adjudicated at hearings.

21 Q. What is your personal role in this work? 1 A. I have been serving as project manager of all technical work and

2 itechnical reviewer for certain technical topics.

3 Q. What technical topics would that include?

4 A. I have personally reviewed the entire Brookhaven Energy Application

5 and subsequent materials, but have focused more specifically on sections dealing

6 with water supply, local laws, traffic and transportation, and civil engineering site

7 layout issues. Q. Would you please state the topics of the application to which your 8

9 testimony is addressed? A. My testimony will address three topics. These are (1) the size of the 10

11 site for the proposed facility at Yaphank as compared to the sites of two other

12 comparable facilities in Massachusetts; (2) traffic management during construction if

13 the Project is built at the proposed Yaphank site; and (3) site restoration and

14 decommissioning, if the Project is built at the Yaphank Site. Q. Have you made a comparison of the size of the proposed Yaphank site 15

16 with the sizes of sites for comparable Projects? A. Yes. Brookhaven Energy's response to the Town's Infoimation 17

18 Request B-l shows that American National Power, Brookhaven Energy's parent

19 company, has recently built two air cooled 580 MW combined cycle combustion

20 turbine plants, quite comparable to the Brookhaven Energy plant proposed at the

21 Yaphank site, at sites in Blackstone and Bellingham, Massachusetts. Information

22 available at web sites for these two projects maintained by the Commonwealth of

23 Massachusetts indicates that these sites are 147 and 129 acres respectively in area.

9 1 This compares to the 28 acres for the proposed Yaphank site. Maps that compare

2 these sites are attached as Exhibit 2.

3 Q. What do you see as the relevance of such different site sizes?

4 A. TheBrookhavenplant will occupy over half the 28 acre site; in

5 contrast, the comparable facilities in Massachusetts occupy a little over 10% of the

6 site.

7 Q. How, in your opinion, do these different figures relate to the

8 Brookhaven plant's overall impacts?

9 A. Ingeneral, they relate to the relative impacts of a plant on its

10 surroundings, i.e., the ability of a developer to "buffer" the plants from neighboring

11 properties and from those who will be exposed to the plant on a daily basis.

12 Q. What are some of the impacts of a plant that would be influenced by

13 the lack of such a buffer zone?

14 A. Certainly, visual impacts come to mind. An examination of Fig. E-2

15 of the Application and Responses to Town Information Request B-4 that included

16 photosimulation Views 14, 78 and 79 shows a huge industrial facility superimposed

17 onto a treed parcel that is surrounded by other forested parcels. Without buffering

18 space, the horizontal and vertical scale of the facility are striking.

19 Another impact that would be somewhat mitigated on a larger, more

20 appropriate site would be noise. In addition to the physical factor of noise

21 dissipating with distance, added buffer space would allow further mitigation by

22 means of berms and retaining some of the existing tree coverage.

23 Another impact that would be mitigated through additional buffer space

10 1 would be the nearby deposition of emissions from on-site diesel engines, during both

2 construction and operation. Lastly, a larger site would allow additional

3 sedimentation areas to handle stormwater runoff and any accidental spills of

4 contaminated and/or hazardous materials.

5 Q. What is your overall conclusion from having prepared and evaluated

6 these comparative site maps and from your experience in other New York Article X

7 cases?

8 A. Given the amount of open land in this part of Long Island and the

9 pattern of site size in other cases, it appears that the Yaphank site is too small for a

10 facility as massive as that which is proposed. At Yaphank, only 4.6 acres of the site

11 is proposed to remain undisturbed.

12 Q. Based on your review, have you made a judgment as to the adequacy

13 of Brookhaven Energy's proposals with respect to traffic management during

14 construction in the event that the Project is authorized to be constructed at the

15 Yaphank site?

16 A. Yes. The Application is lacking important technical information on

17 the traffic impacts and certain other aspects of the project and on proposed measures

18 to mitigate negative traffic impacts.

19 Q. Could you be more specific?

20 A. To begin, there is only a brief section in the Application devoted to

21 highway traffic safety, and that section is inadequate. Table 15-3 contains accident

22 data from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, but only included total

23 accidents and accidents per year for a three year period.

11 1 Q. Why is that inadequate?

2 A. The number of accidents in a year, or even a three year period, is not

3 an indicator of the safety of a route without the exposure rate. For example, the

4 safety implications of 24 accidents over a three year period on a highway carrying

5 25,000 vehicles per day is very different than another highway with the same

6 number of accidents, but carrying 100,000 vehicles per day.

7 Q. In your opinion, what is the correct method of describing a route's

8 safety performance?

9 A. Each route segment and each intersection should be examined for

10 their accident rates, calculated in accidents per million vehicle miles, and these rates

11 should then be compared to a statewide average rate for similar highway facilities.

12 Q. Can you provide an example using the above figures?

13 A. Yes. Using a route segment length of 2 miles, the route carrying

14 100,000 vehicles per day with 24 accidents over a three year period would have an

15 accident rate of. 13 accidents per million vehicle miles. A two mile segment of the

16 route carrying 25,000 vehicles per day and the same 24 accidents over the three year

17 period would have an accident rate of .52 accidents per million vehicle miles. When

18 exposure is considered, this route has an accident rate that is 4 times higher than the

19 one carrying the higher traffic volumes.

20 Q. Is there a norm that would be used, from a traffic safely standpoint, to

21 compare these two example routes?

22 A. The NYSDOT, and most other highway operating agencies, use the

23 statewide average, by facility type, to determine whether a particular highway

12 1 segment is experiencing an accident rate that is above average. Again, using the

2 above hypothetical examples, if the statewide average accident rate was, say, .40

3 accidents per million vehicle miles, one route segment would be well above and the

4 other would be well below average.

5 Q. How does this relate to Brookhaven Energy's Application?

6 A. Only providing the number of accidents tells virtually nothing about

7 the operational safety now, during construction or during plant operation of the

8 surrounding highway system that will be impacted. Accordingly, there is no

9 information provided about the safety aspects of Sills Road, the Long Island

10 Expressway Service Roads and other nearby routes. Therefore, there is no indication

11 of the expected traffic safety implications of the Brookhaven Energy facility.

12 Q. In your opinion, what other technical aspects of the project, if any, are

13 missing from the Application?

14 A. The project will generate up to 647 vehicle trips during the peak

15 construction period and the Application contains traffic volume information expected

16 during Peak Hours as well as information about nearby school bus routes. The

17 document also contains a statement that the bulk of the 647 vehicle trips will occur at

18 times other than Peak Hours and during school bus times. Unfortunately, there is no

19 description of what techniques will be used by the developer to ensure that these

20 vehicle trips generated by the plant construction will arrive before these other peak

21 traffic flows are using the local highway system.

22 Q. Were there any questionable assumptions with respect to the highway

23 network used in the applicant's traffic analysis?

13 1 A. Yes, it assumed that proposed new ramps from the Long Island

2 Expressway to the service roads between Exits 66 and 67 would be constructed.

3 These were assumed to exist for purposes of modeling future traffic volumes and for

4 Level-of-Service analyses.

5 Q. And why would you question the inclusion of these ramps?

6 A. From my years of experience at the Department of Transportation, I

7 know that the Department carries many more projects in the planning and design

8 stages than they ultimately receive funds to construct. Since inclusion of these ramps

9 would have such a dramatic effect on the congestion points on the nearby highway

10 system if the plant were to be built, there should be some documented assurances

11 from the Department that these ramps will be built in the near future. Without such

12 assurances, they are just lines representing proposals on a map.

12 Q. Are there any other important omissions in the Brookhaven

14 Application relative to traffic and transportation?

15 A. Yes, there are three other areas that should have been analyzed in the

16 Application documents. First, the Application contains no discussion of the impacts

17 on traffic flows and safety of different performance characteristics for trucks (longer

18 acceleration and deceleration times/distances) on a high speed facility such as Sills

19 Road. Second, since the traffic from the Long Island Expressway is discussed as the

20 major source of ambient noise levels, there should be a discussion in the Application

21 how traffic noises, including construction trucks, were incorporated in the noise

22 modeling. Lastly, Table 15-12 lists posted bridge load limits in the Town of

23 Brookhaven. Given the size of the construction project and the number of trucks

14 1 expected to deliver heavy loads of concrete, steel and other construction materials

2 and equipment, the Application should contain a discussion of measures that will be

3 taken by the developer to preclude such heavy vehicles from using load posted

4 bridges. 5 Q. What is your opinion of the traffic mitigation measures proposed by

6 the applicant? 7 A. The only mitigation measure proposed is to construct a second left

8 turn lane (west to south) on the westbound approach at the intersection of Long

9 Island Avenue at Sills Road (CR 101). The commitment to build this additional

10 capacity is conditioned on no other developer constructing the lane beforehand.

11 Given the amount of traffic to be generated by the proposal, particularly during

12 construction, it appears the applicant's proposed mitigation measures are minimal

13 due to their assertion that the increment of traffic growth resulting from the plant is

14 small compared to the existing levels of traffic and future traffic growth generated by

15 other developments to be built. However, Figures 15-12 and 15-13 show Peak Hour

16 traffic growth figures at several nearby intersections resulting from construction of

17 the plant to be 20% and above, with the highest being at the site access of around

18 40%.

19 Q. From your review of the application and the supporting data, are there

20 other locations where the plant's traffic, in your opinion, warrants mitigation

21 measures? 22 A. Yes. There are three other locations, in addition to the one proposed

23 by the applicant. They are at the LIE eastbound off ramp at Exit 66/Sills Road, the

15 1 intersection of Sills Road with Horseblock Road and the intersection on Sills Road at

2 the plant entrance, one leg of which is proposed as a construction lay-down area.

3 Q. Could you elaborate on the first location?

4 A. Per Table 15-7, the intersection of the LIE eastbound off-ramp at Exit

5 66 with Sills Road shows a Level of Service (LOS) of E (severe congestion) during

6 the AM Peak Hour under Existing, No-Build and Construction traffic levels for both

7 the Ambient No-Build and Build scenarios. With significant amounts of the 647

8 additional vehicle trips using this intersection approach during the peak construction

9 period, this level of congestion is unacceptable and mitigation should be proposed

10 and included as a condition for certification.

11 Q. Please elaborate on the second location cited above.

12 A. Table 15-8 shows the intersection of Sills Road and Horseblock Road

13 having a LOS of E during the PM Peak Hour under Existing, No-Build and

14 Construction traffic levels for both the Ambient No-Build and Build scenarios.

15 Again, given the 647 added vehicle trips during construction of the plant, and that a

16 significant number would utilize this intersection, such levels of congestion are

17 unacceptable and mitigation measures are clearly warranted.

1 g Q. What is the issue with regard to the third location mentioned?

19 A. If the construction lay-down area is on the west side of Sills Road,

20 directly across from the proposed plant's entrance, large volumes of construction

21 workers, equipment and material deliveries will have to cross Sills Road at the

22 existing traffic signal to access the site on a daily basis. The application mentions

23 signal timing improvements but other measures would be required to ensure adequate

16 1 levels of safety at this location. Based on the high traffic volumes on Sills Road,

2 their high approach speeds and the relatively high volumes crossing Sills Road

3 during the construction period, this location can be expected to experience higher

4 levelsandseverity of both right angle and rear end collisions. Accordingly,

5 measures should be proposed to mitigate such expectations.

6 Q. Are there any other traffic mitigation measures that you believe

7 should be incorporated into this project?

8 A. While the Yaphank Fire Department is located quite near the

9 proposed site, due to the potential size of a fire or other emergency and the relatively

10 long response times and distances from other fire/rescue locations, mitigation should

11 include preemption equipment at critical intersections so that approaching emergency

12 vehicles can be given priority as they approach intervening signalized intersections.

13 Q. From your traffic engineering background and your recent experience

14 with power plants and other large developments, what are some of the mitigation

15 measures commonly used that should be included with respect to this application?

16 A. I've already mentioned the emergency vehicle traffic signal

17 preemption equipment and the developers commitment to add a left turn lane on

18 westbound Long Island Avenue at Sills Road. Other locations with heavy turning

19 movements where additional lanes should be considered include the northbound Sills

20 Road turn to the westbound LIE, the LIE eastbound off ramp at Sills Road and Sills

21 Road at Horseblock Road. Other possible measures include traffic officers at peak

22 construction periods, advance warning/destination signs and/or highway advisory

23 radio guiding workers and deliveries to the site, written notices and training of

17 1 workers and truck drivers regarding arrival and departure times and routes, and

2 significant and on-going public information so that residents and motorists from out

3 of the area have access to information about construction staging and the associated

4 traffic volumes and patterns.

5 Q. What is your overall conclusion with regard to the traffic analysis of

6 impacts and mitigation measures proposed in the application?

7 A. My opinion is that the network chosen for analysis and the analysis

8 itself is appropriate, with the exception of the safety evaluation. The facts as

9 presented make a strong case for increased levels of congestion, at nearby

10 intersections in particular, as a result of the plant's construction. This is true

11 particularly during the construction phase. Lastly, 1 believe the application falls far

12 short of providing appropriate and warranted measures to mitigate these traffic

13 impacts.

14 Q. Doyouhaveanopinion with respect to the Applicant's

15 decommissioning analysis?

16 A. Yes. In my opinion, the Applicant's decommissioning material does

17 not cover likely scenarios, fails to describe specific resources that would be needed

18 for any scenario, and fails to identify a mechanism that would fund the Applicant's

19 removal of the physical plant and the restoration of disturbed areas.

20 Q. Could you be more specific why, in your professional experience, you

21 believe the Applicant's decommissioning material is deficient?

22 A. The Applicant's material states that the decision to cease operations

23 permanently and decommission the project will be solely at the discretion of

18 1 Brookhaven Energy and will be based on commercial considerations, i.e., it is no

2 longer economically viable. This means that decommissioning could take place at

3 any point during the three year construction or the 40 year operational period.

4 Accordingly, a decommissioning plan and account must be adequate over that entire

5 time frame. Brookhaven Energy's falls short of that standard.

6 Q. Is there any aspect ofthe decommissioning material that the Town

7 supports?

8 A. Yes. The Performance Criteria for decommissioning are quite

9 complete and the Phasing discussed should result in restoration ofthe site to a green

10 field condition.

11 Q. Why then do you find the overall material to be deficient?

12 A. It is deficient because the cost analysis and the finances are not

13 sufficient to cover the entire time frame mentioned above. In the cost analysis, the

14 applicant assumes that the scrap value ofthe equipment, buildings and structures on

15 site is sufficient to cover the complete demolition ofthe above ground portion ofthe

16 Project. Much ofthe equipment and many ofthe structural components, piping and

17 appurtenances would, when new, have a salvage value that would offset some ofthe

18 cost of demolition. When new, electrical component parts such as the combustion

19 turbines, the HRSG's and the steam generators could command high resale prices

20 from other generating companies in the expanding, privatized electric generating

21 market. Accordingly, the Applicant's approach assumes that these high resale values

22 would offset decommissioning costs, resulting in the proposal for a much smaller

23 Decommissioning Account than would be required under any other scenario.

19 1 Q. Why do you think this scenario is less likely than others?

2 A. If DEC grants the required permits, the Siting Board grants the

3 certificate, and the project is financed and built, then there are no circumstances short

4 of a natural disaster that I can envision that would prevent the operation of the plant.

5 Q. Can you describe other scenarios that would be more likely than one

6 where new equipment would command high salvage value?

7 A. There are many, but two come to mind immediately. One is an

8 equipment explosion on start-up that is severe enough so that the owner decides not

9 to rebuild and operate the facility. The entire plant would have to be dismantled,

10 possibly with environmental damage and consequences, and there would be

11 significantly less equipment salvage value to off-set the cost of decommissioning and

12 restoration.

13 Q. How likely is this scenario of equipment explosion?

14 A. Within the last year, two plants in New York, Mirant's Lovett and

15 Cayuga's South Glens Falls, have experienced explosions, so the above scenario is

16 very realistic.

17 Q. What other scenario do you think is likely?

1 g A. The second possible scenario is where the plant operates for, say, 20

19 years or longer and, due to a significantly changed electric energy market, the owner

20 decides to cease operation. The salvage value of equipment on-site would be

21 severely diminished by wear and tear and obsolescence.

22 Q. Do either of these more likely scenarios effect the anticipated cost of

23 decommissioning the plant?

20 1 A. Yes. In both ofthese scenarios, an order of magnitude larger

2 Decommissioning Account would need to be in place to cover dismantling costs.

3 Q. Have you evaluated the adequacy ofthe financial arrangements

4 proposed to fund decommissioning of the Brookhaven Energy facility?

5 A. Yes. The Applicant's proposals with respect to decommissioning and

6 restoration of the site are found at § 10.6 of the application.

7 Q. What is your evaluation of the Applicant's proposals relative to the

8 specific resources available?

9 A. The structure of financial assurance is inadequate and the amounts are

10 an order of magnitude low. During the construction of the plant, a letter of credit

11 would be available in favor of the overseeing authority (e.g., the Town of

12 Brookhaven) in the amount of $500,000 for the first year of construction, increasing

13 to $ 1,000,000 for the second year of construction and further increasing to

14 $ 1,500,000 for the remainder of the construction period. A letter of credit would

15 make funds immediately available, but the amounts are insufficient to cover any

16 meaningful decommissioning. Once construction is complete, a Decommissioning

17 Account would be created with its use and disposition subject to a future agreement

18 with the Town. The Applicant "expects" to deposit $50,000 into the Account each

19 year. The basis for this expectation or the source ofthe deposits is not known. Such

20 an account should be adequate in amount to dismantle the Energy Facility, at any

21 stage of construction or operation, remove it from the site, remove the foundations

22 and return the area to a clean, graded and seeded lot. The Decommissioning Account

23 does not provide such assurances and the amounts will not accomplish the stated

21 1 goals.

2 Q. Why are the amounts in both the construction letter of credit and the

3 Decommissioning Account inadequate?

4 A. Let me begin in general terms. Clearly, the most likely

5 decommissioning scenario would be operation for a decade or more, then

6 dismantling the entire energy facility with no or minimum salvage value of the

7 structures and equipment. The removal sequence would generally be the reverse of

8 construction, although in decommissioning, some activities could be performed in

9 parallel. This would decrease the amount of time required, and that would be

10 reflected in the overall costs. The general approach would be removal of piping,

11 mechanical systems and electrical systems including equipment, conduit and

12 instrumentation first. This would be followed by dismantling all buildings and

13 siding, structures and structural steel, demolishing above ground concrete structures

14 and excavating and cutting foundations below ground. Lastly, dismantling and

15 removal of all temporary trailers and facilities, sealing of underground utilities, final

16 grading of the site, topsoil and seeding and removal of all silt fences after final

17 grades have been established with vegetation. This general decommissioning

18 process would entail hauling off and disposing of tons of construction debris and the

19 necessary environmental controls as well as handling and disposal of non-hazardous

20 materials contaminated by petroleum or chemicals and/or hazardous materials. The

21 overall scope of the energy project will entail the permanent disturbance of several

22 acres for the plant and another several acres temporarily disturbed during

23 construction. The project will entail several hundred workers on site for over two

22 1 years and the overall cost to construct the project is in the range of several hundred

2 million dollars. Based on cost per square foot of building, acres disturbed or the cost

3 of labor as a typical proportion of overall cost, leads to the conclusion that the

4 security instrument proposed during construction of $500,000 increasing to

5 $1,500,000 and the estimated cost of $1.5 million during operation ($3.3 million less

6 equipment salvage value) are orders of magnitude less than what actual decommis-

7 sioning costs of such a hugh construction project would be under any reasonably

8 likely scenario.

9 Q. Have you performed any cost analysis to support that conclusion?

10 A. Yes. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a Decommissioning Cost Analysis that

11 describes a three phased approach to construction of the Brookhaven Energy facility.

12 In general terms. Phase 1 includes site and underground work. Phase 2 includes

13 foundations, tank and transfer equipment and all major buildings and phase 3

14 completes the project with the inclusion of piping, mechanical systems, power

15 generation equipment, instrumentation and controls. To calculate decommissioning

16 costs, the approach was to reverse this construction sequence and to cost each

17 individual element of each phase. For some elements, the costs were calculated

18 based on the time, labor, materials and equipment to be utilized. For other elements,

19 typical costs per square or cubic foot were used.

20 Q. Specifically, what sources have you used as your basis for estimating

21 time, labor, materials and equipment necessary for decommissioning?

22 A. The principal sources were Heavy Construction Cost Data, 12,h

23 Edition, R.S. Means, 1998, the NYSDOT Weighted Bid Price Book, 1/01/00 to

23 1 12/31 /OO, and discussions with other professionals and estimating experience.

2 Q. What are the results of your analysis?

3 A. The cost of decommissioning the entire plant would be, by phase:

4 Phase 3 - $7 million. Phase 2 - $4 million and Phase 1 - $1 million. Adding

5 engineering and contingencies brings the total to about $ 15 million. It is this more

6 detailed work that confirms that decommissioning costs are grossly underestimated

7 and the financial arrangements to cover them are inadequate by an order of

8 magnitude.

9 Q. Are there any benchmarks from your other power plant work that

10 allow a comparison to decommissioning costs anticipated with respect to

11 Brookhaven Energy?

12 A. Yes. In the Athens Generating case, the Applicant submitted a

13 compliance document that included their decommissioning plan.

14 Q. Is the Athens Generating Plant similar to the plant proposed by

15 Brookhaven Energy for purposes of estimating decommissioning costs?

16 A. It is similar in several respects. Athens will be using three turbine

17 trains in one building with one exhaust stack where Brookhaven Energy would have

18 two trains, with two buildings and two stacks. However, 1 would expect much higher

19 costs on Long Island for dismantling Brookhaven compared to Athens.

20 Q. Did you review the Athens Generating decommissioning plan?

21 A. Yes. Athens utilized a similar three phased approach and concluded

22 the cost of dismantling the entire plant would be $19.14 million, in current dollars.

23 Q. What does this suggest to you?

24 1 A. That our approach to the analysis of Brookhaven decommissioning is

2 one that is generally accepted and that our cost estimate is more likely reflective of

3 decommissioning costs than is a cost estimate orders of magnitude lower.

4 Q. What is proposed with respect to performance criteria for residual

5 petroleum and chemical contamination?

6 A. The Application does not acknowledge that petroleum or chemical

7 contamination may occur over time at the site. The plant design appropriately calls

8 for double walled piping and containers. However, spills and other accidental

9 releases are likely to occur over an operating life of years or decades, contaminating

10 the secondary containment structures. Over the 40 year projected life of the plant,

11 human error and mechanical failure would likely result in some unintended residual

12 petroleum and chemical contamination. While the Application states that all spills

13 occurring as part of the operation must have been remediated following any such

14 event, dismantling would require decontamination, to some level, of tanks, piping

15 and other mechanical equipment utilized to handle petroleum and chemicals during

16 operation of the facility. To protect the public health, welfare and safety,

17 decommissioning should address how such equipment decontamination would take

18 place, to what standards and the expected approach to disposal of contaminated

19 and/or hazardous materials resulting from decontamination of structures used during

20 operation and those unintentionally contaminated through unplanned release.

21 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

22 A. Yes.

25 1 End of John H. Shafer Testimony

**********

FFDOCS1\455746.1

26 Exhibit 1

SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. SPECTRA ENGINEERING, P.C.

John H. Shafer, P.E. Vice President

Education: BS, Civil Engineering, Univerity of Detroit Yale University Bureau of Highway Traffic, Highway Safety Federation Fellow

Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, New York

Professional Affiliations: Co-Founded, Upstate Section Institute Transportation Engineers Committee on Highway Safety - AASHTO Committee on Roadway Environment - National Safety Council N.C.H.R.P. - Updating Highway Capacity Manual TRB National Advisory Committee on 3R Standards Co-Vice Chairman - 1-95 Corridor ITS Coalition Executive Panel - NYS Transportation Engineering Alliance Chairman - Institute for Infrastructure Asset Management

Professional Experience:

Mr. Shafer has over 38 years of experience in the fields of transportation and infrastructure systems, including project design and construction, program development and cost effectiveness. His background includes 28 years with the NYSDOT; 8 years with the NYS Thruway Authority; and 3 years with Earth Tech, Inc. During his last five years of service at the NYSDOT, Mr. Shafer served as the Chief Engineer, and then moved to the NYS Thruway Authority where he served as Executive Director. At RUST/ Earth Tech, Mr. Shafer served as the Director of the Northeast Transportation Program, establishing offices in New York City and Boston and growing the business from SI million to over $10 million, and engineering personnel from 10 to over 100. Since joining SPECTRA, he has assisted in the strategic planning for large environmental permitting, performed the transportation aspects of this work and has directly participated in the infrastructure design capabilities of the firm. Mr. Shafer has also been actively involved in the studies underway by the Institute for Infrastructure Asset Management affiliated with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, all of which have dealt with long term cost effectiveness of engineered facility assets.

Mr. Shafer possesses a wide range of experience in transportation rehabilitation projects; including the DOT's Rebuild New York Program, CAD Design and the NYS Thruway's $1.7b Rebuilding Program, Travel Plaza Reconstruction, EZ Pass electronic toll collection and moveable barriers on the Tappan Zee Bridge. John H. Shafer Page 2

Mr. S^ .as T ^ — .e =0 e MT,n £S£ S^rSSot oft work has included the new interstate ^ f ^ .^ ^ structure over the mtercoastal Waterway Long Island Expressway in New ^($1^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ involved in ^ between Ocean City and SommersPomt New Jersey^ ^j New ^ and the e H dSO design and construction of a new bridge ^ * " " ^ , ojects above all included major engifeering of new mobile communications facihue.^ and ^.^ of various

^ nrUWay A^ While with -^S Th= Auth^nty ^~^Z Z development of the urgency design for the T^wa^S^^^^^^^^^ Schoharie Creek during construction design of the Thruway bypass that was built ^.^^ demolition and removal of the collapsed of the replacement bridge. The key COmP°^ °^ could be reopened. In addition, stmcmre in the shortest possible time so tha a major interstate^ ^ r ^^^ Mr. Shafer has been credited with establishing fundmg ^"d ^e °pm conducting cost- rehabilitation program and a bridge insPf-"J^^^^^^ Ind state standards. Mr. b effective biennial inspections of J^way ndge^ n"•^*"• interchanges throughout the state ^t^^^t'X^^^ publicUte Pa-rship for cost sharing the demolition and rebuilding of all 26 travel plazas.

Other major accomplishments include ^f~e^ Management Systems and the assumption of re pons.Wity for the N ^ Newburgh) N.Y. transportation economic development P^ ^f^t^o^^^ ^^U^r^:^^it ^r^hout .e ^1^ sy^ w.. several hundred thousand electronic tags in user vehicles. A ru^fPnaineer Mr Shafer was responsible for all real estate Ch En n r NTS Department of Transportation As fu f ^ '7 .^ _roiects for the Department. He activi J. and the design and construction ^^^ fj / Services Divisions supervised the Real Estate, ^e^^^^^^ accomplishment, in record and coordinated all their activities. Mr-^f• Lctly,einge/payment and successfullyprogram negotiatedfor ^t^^^^^^^^rrTonstruction of the Southern Tier Expressway on reservation land.

Prior to serving as the ^^C.ef^er M.^^ ^^d^f fhe^e ^VSrin^ -side appurtenances, hazardous materials regulations/school bus inspections, local highway assistance, etc.

Before taking on responsibility of the Traffic and ^^^^^^^

r^eTZS ^irr^ S^^statement on the Southern Tier Expressway. Exhibit 2 c ®_

-0g

i mm NOTE PROPERTY UN6S ARE APPROXIMATE I I OUTUNE DEUNEATES APPROXIMATE AREA NECESSARY I j PROPERTY UNE SOURCE: MAPTECH USCS TOPOGRAPHIC SERIES, ' ' TO ACCOMMODATE A 2-UNrr AIR COOUNG SYSTEM ' ' BELLPORTQUAD SUCH AS THAT PLANNED FOR THE aROOKHAVEN ENERGY SITE

SITE LOCATION MAP SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP. INC. 19 British American Blvd. BROOKHAVEN ENERGY //MT Latham, NY 12110 SUFFOLK CO.. NY .PROJ. No.: 01201 DATE: 1/4/02 SCALE: 1"= 750' DWG. NO. 01201002 FIGURE r

l .-DEUNEATESAPPROXlMATEAMANECeSARrTO I 1 p „ |, Y„„£ NOTE: pRoPERTYllNEsTfc APPROXIMATE R0 E T P^ ASOMMODATE A 2-UNn-AIR COOUNC SYSTEM SUCH | 1 PROfK^UME SOURCES: AS THAT PLANNED FOR THE BROQICHAVEN ENERGY SfTE http;//www.state.ma.us/dep/entrgy/black/loais.htm http://www.geocofnm.com

SITE LOCATION MAP SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. BLACKSTONE ENERGY 19 British American Blvd. ///MT Latham, NY 12110 WORCESTER CO.. MA FIGURE .PROJ. No.; 01201 DATE: 1/4/02 SCALE: 1"= 750' DWG. NO. 01201001 "wow I , DEUNEA-reS APPROXIMATE AREA ACCOMMODATING* i 1 „„„,„,.„, SOURCES: I I J-UNirAlRCOOUNCSYCTEMON-mEBEUINCHAM | | PROPERTY UNE http://www.sute.ma.us/dep/eneray/black/hxus.htm http://www.geocomm.com

SITE LOCATION MAP SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP. INC. 19 British American Blvd. BELUNGHAM ENERGY Latham. NY 12110 NORFOLK CO.. MA .PROJ. No.: 01201 DATE: 1/4/02 SCALE: 1"= 750' DWG. NO. 01201001 FIGURE Exhibit 3 c is

e \m*i 1M CSD BrookHaven Energy Plant Decommissioning Estimate

Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1

Building Demolition and Disassembly 0.3 $1,239,769.88 0,7 $2,892,796.34

Excavation and Removal of Footings 1 $955,490.17

Structural Concrete Slabs & Mechanical 0.7 $2,271,798.15 ._ 03 $973,627.78 Equipment Pads

5 RCP Removal 1 $36,882.51

m Pavement/Roadway Removal 0.4 J75,271.96 0.6 $112,907.93

hi Gravel Removal 0.5 $29,138.84 0.5 $29,138.84

Catch Basins and Manholes 1 $6,420.64

Landscaping Renewal 1 $84,942.00 •a- in Hydro Seed and TopSoil 1 $570,290.39

CD Miscellaneous Demolition 0.7 $29,080.58 0.3 $12,463.11 m

ID Dumping Fees 1 $1,450,185.02 ID "a- en Hauling Fees 1 $1,056,567.59

Utilities 1 $149,453.08

| $981,480,11 | $7,128,340.67 I $3,866,424,12 1 0 o —'J Decomissioning Pricing $981,480.11 $8,109,820.77 $11,976,244.89 CO (N ^ S) at Each Phase G) CM E -^

"2 NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Matter of the Application of

BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility Case No.: 00-F-0566 and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Generating Facility in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County.

TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

J. F. PALMER 1

2 Q. Please state your name, title, affiliation, and address.

3 A. My name is James F. Palmer. I am an independent consultant

4 residing at 22 Perkins Drive, Essex Junction, Vermont 05425.

5

6 Q. On whose behalf are you testifying in this proceeding, and what is

7 the subject matter of your testimony.

8 A. I am representing Spectra Engineering, P.C. and offering testimony

9 on behalf of the Town of Brookhaven regarding the visual impact issues associated

10 with the Brookhaven Energy electric generating facility, proposed to be located in

11 the Town of Brookhaven.

12

13 Q. Please describe your educational background.

14 A. I received a B.A. in political science and environmental studies from

15 the University of California at Santa Cruz. I have also earned a MLA, professional

16 graduate degree in Landscape Architecture, and a Ph.D. in Forestry/Natural Resource

17 Planning, both from the University of Massachusetts, at Amherst.

18

19 Q. Could you briefly describe your professional experience. 1 A. Yes. I am currently an Associate Professor on the Faculty of

2 Landscape Architecture at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

3 with teaching and research responsibilities. I have been on the faculty since 1980.

4 Before joining SUNY, I was employed as a Research Associate and Research

5 Assistant at the University of Massachusetts during the years 1975 - 80. I have also

6 worked as an independent consultant on numerous projects since 1976.

7

8 Q. Do you have any special experience that qualifies you to evaluate

9 the visual impact issues associated with the Brookhaven Energy electric generating

10 facility?

11 A. Yes. Landscape visual quality assessment was the focus of my

12 graduate education in landscape architecture. In 1975,1 developed a procedure to

13 determine how landscapes are classified. In 1983,1 wrote a major review of visual

14 assessment methods and, in 1986,1 co-edited a primary reference book on visual

15 assessment. I also co-authored the Visual Resource Assessment Procedure for the

16 US Army Corps of Engineers in 1988. The Corps' VRAP is used as the visual

17 assessment framework for the proposed Brookhaven Energy power generation

18 facility. I have conducted research comparing the visual quality judgements of

19 people from 8 different countries (Palmer et al., 1990), and on demonstrating the

20 long-term and short-term stability of scenic quality judgements (Palmer, 1997,

21 1998). I have also published peer-reviewed research critical of the validity and 1 reliability associated with visual quality assessment (Palmer & Hoffman, 2000) and

2 the accuracy of visibility assessment (Palmer & Felleman, 1992). Examples of

3 projects I have worked on include identifying perceived landscape types in the

4 Connecticut River Valley (Palmer, 1977), on Cape Cod (Palmer, 1983) and on the

5 Appalachian Trail (Palmer, 1983), assigning human values to wetlands in Juneau,

6 Alaska (Palmer & Smardon, 1989), mapping the perceived spaciousness of the Dutch

7 landscape (Palmer & Roos, 1998), assessing the visual effects of varying the size,

8 pattern, and intensity of clearcutting in the White Mountains (Palmer, 1998) and the

9 public acceptance of wind power turbines in Vermont (Palmer, 1996, 1997). In the

10 mid-1980s I worked with ED AW (a large landscape design and planning firm) to

11 design a study evaluating the perceived visual impacts associated with a proposed

12 high-level nuclear waste depository (Congress subsequently selected a site and halted

13 the EIS process). This past summer I was an expert witness concerning the visual

14 and recreation impacts associated with locating a 345 kV transmission line across

15 down east Maine.

16

17 Q. Does your curriculum vitae, attached hereto as Exhibit JFP- 1,

18 fairly and accurately represent your experience to date?

19 A. Yes, it does.

20 Q. What specific sections of the Article X Application for this project

21 have you reviewed? 1 A. I have reviewed those sections pertaining to the assessment of the

2 visual impact of the proposed project contained primarily in chapter 16 and

3 Appendix K. I have also reviewed relevant portions of chapter 10, the Applicant's

4 testimony, and their responses to the Town's interrogatories.

5

6 Q. Have you reviewed any of the Applicant's illustrations that

7 demonstrate the change in the viewshed that will occur because of the project?

8 A. Yes, I refer you to several visual simulations that were provided

9 by the Applicant. These computer generated simulations present "with" and

10 "without" visual contrasts from various viewpoints in the project vicinity. For

11 instance, I refer you specifically to viewpoints 14, 77, 78, 79 and 80. Viewpoint 77

12 is shown in the Application as Figure 16-13, and Viewpoint 80 is shown in the

13 Application as Figure 16-14, whereas the remaining viewpoint simulations were

14 transmitted to the Town ofBrookhaven as part of an interrogatory response. As

15 indicated in Table 16-2 of the Application, Viewpoints 14 and 77 are from the Long

16 Island Expressway, Viewpoints 78 and 79 are from the Old Town Road, and

17 Viewpoint 80 is from Route 101. These and other simulations clearly show the

18 significant change and stark contrast that this proposed project will have in

19 comparison to the existing conditions. While the Applicant is making efforts to

20 mitigate the visual impacts, they are constrained by the extraordinary size of the

21 proposed facility and the relatively small size of the proposed site. 1 Q. Do you have any concerns with how these illustrations were

2 prepared?

3 A. Yes, I have several. First, the simulations were too small. They

4 should be at least 8-by-10 inches for proper viewing in a report. Second, their

5 resolution is too coarse to clearly show distant details. The applicant's December 27,

6 2001 responses to the interrogatories indicate that the images were printed with a

7 resolution of 550-by-367, even though they were taken at a much higher resolution.

8 This has the effect of diminishing the visual impact of distant objects. Finally, there

9 is improbable variation in the coloration of the project among the various

10 simulations. For instance compare Viewpoint 80 from the Application to

11 Viewpoints 78 and 79. These views are all from the southeast on Route 101.

12 However, Viewpoint 80 shows a white building with low contrast against the light

13 sky, while Viewpoint 78 shows a dark gray building and Viewpoint 79 shows a

14 purple building. 1 am not in a position to evaluate other possible errors at this time.

15

16 Q. As a co-author of the original VRAP document, do you have any

17 other concerns with how the VRAP visual impact assessment was conducted?

18 A. Yes. First, the VRAP was designed for Army Corps of Engineers

19 water resources projects, with the expectation that it would be applied within the

20 Corps' planning process. While VRAP may be flexible, it is important to recognize

21 that it is being used here outside of its intended purpose. Second, the visual 1 simulations and the VRAP visual impact evaluation were done without forecasting.

2 This is clearly a serious flaw in the analysis. Forecasting is a central issue within the

3 Corps' planning process (see the Principles and Guidelines). The VRAP responds to

4 this by making it clear that comparisons made for evaluating visual impacts are

5 between the future conditions with and without the project (see pages 45, 46, 48,

6 50-53, 68 and Figure 12 of the VRAP publication). Forecasting must be done unless

7 there are no expected changes for the area, which is not the situation in Brookhaven.

8 In the case of the Brookhaven Energy proposal, there are two significant aspects

9 resulting from a forecasted future. First, most of the vegetative cover will be

10 removed in the "vacant forest" similarity zone on and around the site. This will

11 make the proposed project much more visible than indicated in the analysis. Second,

12 the applicant indicates that there are a munber of projects proposed within the study

13 area that will create enhanced opportunities for viewing the Brookhaven Energy

14 facility, perhaps from upper story windows. These and other probable changes in the

15 area are not taken into account.

16

17 Q. Do you have any other concerns about how the VRAP was

18 performed and how this might affect the potential visual impacts of the project?

19 A. Yes, I have concerns with significant impacts that were ignored by

20 the applicant and with the manner in which the results of the analysis are reported.

21 As indicted above, the VRAP is designed to be responsive to the Corps' planning 1 process. On page 9 of the VRAP manual it states: "As such, the [VRAP] is

2 quantitative, systematic, and tractable." In preparing visual analysis FORM 6, the

3 evaluator assigns a quality to each visual resource that is then changed into a numeric

4 value. "The visual compatibility of the with and without-project alternatives is also

5 rated in terms of three modifiers - Spatial Dominance, Scale Contrast, and

6 Compatibility. Although not shown on FORM 6 or described in these procedures, a

7 numerical system could also be applied to the modifier ratings, to compare with and

8 without-project conditions." It is within the spirit of the VRAP to make a

9 quantitative summary of these modifier ratings, as well as indicate how a project will

10 change the fundamental visual resource components. As part of their December 27,

11 2001 response to interrogatory B-42, Brookhaven Energy provided the Town and

12 DPS staff copies of the raw data sheets completed in the field. I was able to use

13 these forms to assign a numerical system to the modifier ratings. It is relatively

14 straight forward to change the 3-level ratings obtained from the field sheets to a

15 numeric value by assigning "0" to the least impact, "-1" to the moderate impact, and

16 "-2" to the severe impacts. These two forms are attached as Ex. JMP-2. If this were

17 done, the summary for the modifier ratings would range between 0 and 24 for each

18 viewpoint. The visual impact assessment value derived from the visual resource

19 components ranges between 0 and 12. The summary ratings from each of

20 Brookhaven Energy's two evaluators are shown in the table below.

21

8 1

2 Table 1. Summary of Viewpoint Evaluations from Two Evaluators.

3

Visual Impact Assessment Value Modifier Ratings Summary

5 Viewpoint Evaluator # 1 Evaluator # 2 Evaluator # 1 Evaluator # 2 6 7 0 0 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 8 20 -2 -2 -15 -11 9 30 0 0 -4 -0.5 10 36 -1 -1 -11 -10 11 48 -1 -1 -7 -7 12 62 0 0 0 0 13 75 -1 0 -3 -2

14 80 0 -2 -10 "• .:'• -5ir • 15 85 0 0 -3 -3 16

17 The Visual Impact Assessment Value is an index of how the project will change

18 landscape components. This is typical of the very large projects in which the Army

19 Corps of Engineers is involved. These include making dams or moving mountains.

20 This project is not near water, and it does not significantly alter the landform. The

21 effects of removing vegetation are not evident, because the assessment does not

22 forecast future conditions. Therefore, the Visual Impact Assessment Value is not

23 sensitive to changes, as shown in the table. 1 However, the table also shows that the Modifier Ratings are very sensitive to

2 changes in visual composition and quality caused by the proposed project. In the

3 table, Viewpoints 20, 36 and 80 are heavily impacted, and Viewpoints 30, 48, 75 and

4 85 are also significantly impacted. This represents two-thirds of the evaluated

5 viewpoints. It is therefore important that the meaning and significance of the

6 Modifier Ratings be discussed in the application. It is inappropriate that the

7 applicant chose to ignore them.

8

9 Q. In your opinion, what should the record say as to the meaning and

10 significance of the Modifier Ratings?

11 A. These high modifier ratings indicate that from several important

12 viewpoints the project will be visually incompatible, out of scale, and dominant in

13 the context of its surroundings. These aspects of the project's visual impact are not

14 represented by the Visual Impact Assessment Value.

15

16 Q. Are there other issues you wish to point out?

17 A Yes. This summary table also raises the issue of errors and

18 reliability. The second evaluator's ratings of spatial dominance at Viewpoint 80

19 indicated least impact while the first evaluator's ratings indicated severe impact.

20 (This result is reflected in the shaded cell of the table.) I believe that any reviewer of

21 this analysis seeing the simulations for Viewpoint 80 would conclude that the second

10 1 evaluator made an error recording his ratings. If the spatial dominance ratings were

2 changed to the severe rating they warrant, then this value changes from -5 to -13. I

3 have attached the FORM 6 ratings for viewpoint 80 as Exhibits 2 and 3 (for

4 evaluators #1 and #2).

5

6 Q. What are your other concerns about how the VRAP was

7 implemented?

8 A. The visual analysis appears to focus on the public or quasi-public

9 visibility of the proposed facility. Clearly, in an urban/suburban area, there are many

10 opportunities for high visual impacts from private lands. It is equally important to

11 consider these views.

12 Furthermore, from the December 27, 2001 response to the

13 interrogatories, it is clear that the applicant has attempted to restrict the viewpoints

14 selected for analysis to those representing average conditions within a landscape

15 zone (B-50). The VRAP is clear that the viewpoints should be chosen because they

16 represent: a. typical view locations; b. typical viewer activities or expectation; c.

17 potential project visibility (VRAP, page 48-49). It is inappropriate to restrict the

18 analysis of a viewpoint with many potential viewers because it is "short-term" or

19 "not representative of a landscape zone." The very point of the visual impact

20 analysis is to evaluate the worst case views of interest, primarily to local residents

21 and passersby, as well as other representative views.

11 1 Q. Do you have any concerns about how the crane study was

2 conducted?

3 A. Yes. According to the Applicant's response to Town

4 interrogatories, the crane study was conducted for a 26-hour time period between

5 October 5 and 6, 2000. This time period does not seem adequate to ensure that there

6 was widespread local awareness of the crane or the significance of it being there.

7 Although there was some notification to public media prior to the crane study, there

8 was no specific request for the public to contact Brookhaven Energy to report if the

9 crane was visible. Therefore, the extent of public awareness and effectiveness of the

10 cranestudy as part of the public involvement program is uncertain. Furthermore,

11 since the crane study was conducted in early October, it is likely that the deciduous

12 trees in the project vicinity still held the majority of their leaves (e.g., see images

13 from Viewpoints 20, 75 and 80). From a worst case perspective, the crane study

14 would have been more effective later in the year.

15

16 Q. Could you briefly characterize the visible elements of the proposed

17 project?

18 A. According to Section 3.2.3 of the Application, the proposed project

19 will include two 72-foot tall generation buildings, two 90-foot tall condensers, and

20 two water storage tanks (50 and 72 feet tall). Additionally, there will be two 160-foot

21 tall exhaust stacks, a 100-foot emergency diesel generator stack, and an 80-foot

12 1 backup fire pump stack. The area around the project site is currently vacant forested

2 land. However, it is zoned for light industrial uses, and I understand from the

3 application that several projects are being proposed.

4

5 Q. Did you review the Brookhaven Town code sections pertaining to

6 L-l industrial zoning and did you find any concerns there?

7

8 A. Yes I did. The Brookhaven Town code Provision 85-308 sets forth

9 the permitted uses and building requirements within an L-l zoned industrial district.

10 As stated in the code, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall give a special permit for

11 electric generating facilities, so long as, among other criteria, (I) the maximum

12 building height is fifty (50) feet, and (2) a minimum thirty percent (30%) of the lot

13 remains natural and undisturbed (or 15% if the applicant conveys to the Town of

14 Brookhaven an acceptable parcel of property).

15

16 The proposed facility covers too much of the site and is much taller and more

17 massive than envisioned as acceptable by the Town code. As this area reaches its

18 development capacity, Brookhaven Energy's proposed facility will be significantly

19 out of character with other development and the other uses will be exposed to

20 significant visual impacts. It is the intent of the Town code to prevent such impacts.

21 Dr. Lee Koppleman's testimony provides additional information related to the topics

13 1 of land use and zoning issues.

2

3 Q. What is the size of the proposed site and why is it important?

4 A. According to the Application, the site size is 28 acres. As

5 indicated on sheet no. 2 (see Site Development Plans for Brookhaven Energy

6 Project), 23.4 acres, or 84% of the site will be disturbed during construction and only

7 4.6 acres of the natural vegetation will remain. This degree of disturbance indicates

8 that the selected site will only provide a minimum amount of buffer area. Although,

9 approximately 5 additional acres will be revegetated, this revegetation will take one

10 or two decades before it provides any meaningful visual buffer. The relatively small

11 size of the site and the lack of any significant buffer from adjoining property is

12 illustrated in Figure E-2 of the Application. For comparison, American National

13 Power, the parent company of Brookhaven Energy, has recently permitted two

14 similar-sized power plants in Massachusetts (Blackstone and Bellingham) on sites

15 that were 127 and 149 acres in size. These larger sites provide far more room for a

16 natural buffer and visual screening. See testimony by Mr. John Shafer for more

17 specifics on these two projects.

18

19 Q. Do you have any final thoughts concerning the Brookhaven Energy

20 proposed facility's visual impacts and their analysis?

21 A. The applicant's own analysis has shown that this project will have

14 1 significant visual impacts. The site is too small for a project of the magnitude being

2 proposed, and the structures are too high and massive. These impacts will only

3 become more apparent as the area continues to develop. Overall, I do have two major

4 concerns about the visual impact analysis. First, the analysis does not include a

5 forecast of the known and anticipated land use changes in the area. Forecasting is a

6 central feature of the VRAP and in this case can be expected to change the results of

7 the analysis. My second concern has to do with how the analysis is reported. Only

8 the least critical aspects of the visual impact analysis were reported. The Modifier

9 Ratings, which clearly indicate the severe nature of the visual impacts, must also be

10 reported and interpreted. I also think that the simulations illustrating the visual

11 impacts need to be larger and have a higher resolution. There should also be greater

12 concern for accuracy in the facility's color.

13

14 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

15 A. Yes it does.

16 FFDOCS1\455789.1

15 Exhibit 1

January 2002

JAMES F. PALMER

Landscape Assessment Environment and Behavior Research Environmental and Public Dispute Resolution

Work address: Residence: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry 22 Perkins Drive Syracuse, New York 13210-2787 Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Voice: 315 470-6548 Voice: 802 879-1126 FAX: 315 470-6540 Internet: [email protected]

EDUCATION

1969-72 University of California at Santa Cruz, Kresge College, B.A. Double major: politics and environmental studies.

1973-76 University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, M.L. A. Fields of study: landscape planning, visual assessment, computer applications. Thesis: "Numerical Landscape Taxonomy."

1976-79 University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Department of Forestry, Ph.D. Fields of study: natural resource planning, environment and behavior interactions, survey methods. Dissertation: "Perceptual Research as a Recreation Management Tool: Classifying and Describing National Scenic Trail Environments."

1980 Past U.S. Civil Service Eligibilities: Research Forester GS-11/12, Landscape Architect GS-11, and Statistician GS-11/12.

CURRENT POSITION

1992- ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, Faculty of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Teaching responsibilities focus on preparing both undergraduate and graduate students to conduct required independent research. Current research interests include community perceptions of environmental quality, cross-cultural landscape perception, impact assessments of non-market resources, communication and interpretation of planning and design information, and environmental conflict resolution.

Faculty of Environmental Studies. Member of Environmental Policy and Democratic Processes graduate area of study. James F. Palmer January 2002

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

1992-96, 98-99 Curriculum Director of professionally accredited Bachelor of Landscape Architecture program. Instituted a lower division program after 20 years of only accepting transfer students; revised upper division program.

1996-97 Curriculum Director, Masters of Science, a new second professional masters degree for students with a B.L.A.

1992-95 Adjunct Faculty, Social Science Program, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

1985-92 SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIA1E, Faculty of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

1988 Acting Director, Institute for Environmental Policy and Planning.

1981-87 Curriculum Director of Environmental Studies, a program that grew from 75 to more than 175 upper division students. Additional responsibilities included graduate and undergraduate instruction, and research.

1981-85 RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Curriculum Director for Environmental Studies program, graduate and undergraduate instruction, and research.

1980-81 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Prime responsibility for three graduate and one undergraduate required courses in Landscape Architecture. Additional responsibilities included research development and curriculum planning.

1979-80 RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Research Director for: "Residential Energy Conservation," USDA, DOE, and Massachusetts Cooperative Extension; "Lowell National Historical Park Economic Impact Analysis," National Park Service, and "Off-road Vehicle Usage on Federally Managed Coastal Parklands," National Park Service.

1978 ASSOCIATE SOCIAL SCIENTIST/RESOURCE PLANNER, Carlozzi, Sinton & Vilkities, Inc., Amherst; Survey Director for: "Attitudes Toward Flood Management," U.S. Army corps of Engineers.

2 James F. Palmer January 2002

1975-78 RESEARCH ASSISTANT, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Directed: "Investigations Leading to Improved Management and Security of the Appalachian Trail," National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and American Conservation Foundation. Contributed to: "Visual Design Resources for Surface-Mine Reclamation," National Endowment for the Arts; "Visitor Center Design Evaluation," National Park Service; and "Environmental Impact Assessment Review Program," Department of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts.

1974 PLANNING INTERN, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, Bow.

1972-73 COLLEGE PLANNER, Kresge College, University of California, Santa Cruz. James F. Palmer January 2002

RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

1999- CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R. Hawks) and PROJECT MANAGER, "The Northern Frontier Special Resource Study," contract for $140,000 sponsored by the Boston Support Office, National Park Service.

1999-00 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Perceptions of the Syracuse Urban Forest," cooperative agreement for $14,960 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1998-01 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R. Hoffman), "Visual Quality of Forest Management Treatments," sponsored by the New York State Center for Forest Research and Development for $42,150.

1996-98 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R. Hawks), "Evaluating Scenic Resources: A Community Tool Kit," sponsored by Scenic America and the National Park Service for $3,500.

1994-98 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Modeling Landscape Perceptions," cooperative agreement for $33,845 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1992-95 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Developing a Rule-Base for the NE Decision Model's Aesthetics Goals," cooperative agreement for $78,631 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1991-95 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Awareness of Visual Quality Objectives by Forest Visitors and Managers," cooperative agreement for $40,000 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1992-93 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Forest PhotoCD," cooperative agreement for $1,000 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1991-93 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Aesthetic Impacts of Timber Harvesting on Middleground Vistas," cooperative agreement for $35,000 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1991-92 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Usefulness of Mensuration Data to Describe Scenic Value," cooperative agreement for $12,300 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1988-90 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Investigating the Relationship Between Inventory Measures and the Scenic Quality of the Forest," cooperative agreement for $13,450 from the U.S. Forest Service.

4 James F. Palmer January 2002

1988-90 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with J.P. Felleman), "Incorporate Accuracy and Precision Estimates in Landscape Visibility Analysis," cooperative agreement for $13,450 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1986-87 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R.C. Smardon), "Testing for Explanatory Variables to Assess Change in Perceived Visual Quality Due to Introduction of Development Activity in Natural/Rural Landscapes," grant for $15,272 from the Landscape Architecture Research Group (United Kingdom).

1986 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R.C. Smardon), "Socio-cultural Assessment of Wetland Values for Land Use Planning in Juneau, Alaska," contract for $21,625 with the City of Juneau, Alaska.

1985-88 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Allegany State Park Management Survey," contract for $17,500 plus matching services from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

1984-87 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Influence of Season and Time Since Harvest on Forest Aesthetics," grant for $39,250 from USDA Cooperative State Research Service.

1984-87 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Evaluating the Quality of Day Use of State Parks in New York State," cooperative agreement for $8,000 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1984-86 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R.C. Smardon), "Development of Visual Impact Assessment Methodology," contract for $49,000 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1983-84 INVESTIGATOR (with R.C. Smardon), "A Convergence Analysis Approach for a National Landscape Architecture Research Program," grant for $11,259 from the Landscape Architecture Foundation and George Gund Foundation.

1983-84 CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with T.R. Day and R.C. Smardon), "Simulating Visual Management Alternatives for Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Overlooks," contract for $15,900 from the National Park Service.

1982-84 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. "Residents' Characterization of their Residential Greenspace Resource," grant for $24,094 from the U.S. Forest Service.

1981-83 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (with R.C. Smardon), "A Study of the Utility of "Neighborhood Stands' as a Management Unit for Urban Forestry," grant for S21,695 from the U.S. Forest Service.

5 James F. Palmer January 2002

1981-83 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, "Cross-cultural Perceptions of International Landscape Scenes," fellowship and development grant for $3,800 from the Research Foundation of State University of New York. INSTRUCTION GRANTS AND CONTRACTS 2001 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with R. Smardon), "Visual Workshop," a one day training course. Budget of $4,491 from Monroe County Environmental Management Council, New York.

1998 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with D. Reuter & T. Toland), "Visual Simulation Workshop," a one day training course for New York State agencies at Syracuse, New York. Budget of $4,000 from New York State Professional Employees Federation.

1998, '01 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with J.P. Felleman & R.C. Smardon), "Visual Assessment Refresher Course," a two day training course for New York State agencies at Albany, New York. Budget of $4,000 from New York State Professional Employees Federation.

1998, '99 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (coordinated by Donald Floyd), "Communications Technology," a 10 day training course for USES foresters. Budget of $74,000 (each year), sponsored by the US Forest Service Program of Advanced Study in Silviculture.

1989 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with S.J.R. Sheppard & R.C. Smardon), "Visual Assessment Technology for Transportation Projects," a three day training course for CalTrans landscape architects. Budget of $9,000 sponsored by University of California/Berkeley Extension.

1989 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with M.R. Potteiger & R.C. Smardon), "Visual Assessment Procedures," a three day training course for public and private practitioners at the University of Southern Maine. Budget of $8,500 sponsored by Maine section of the Boston ASLA Chapter.

1988 PROJECT COORDINATOR. "Dispute Resolution Workshops," training grant of $7,000 for a three day workshop form NYS/UUP Professional Development and Quality of Working Life Committee.

1988 LEAD FACULTY (with R.S. Hawks & R.C. Smardon), "Analysis and Evaluation of Aesthetic Quality," a one week national training course at Washington, DC. Budget of $26,000 from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, on contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. James F. Palmer January 2002

1988 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with R.S. Hawks, M.R. Potteiger & R.C. Smardon), "Landscape Architecture: Visual Assessment," a three day training course for New York State agencies at Albany, New York. Budget of $6,000 from New York State Professional Employees Federation.

1987 LEAD FACULTY (with R.S. Hawks & R.C. Smardon), "Analysis and Evaluation of Aesthetic Quality," a week long national training course at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Budget of $25,000 from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, on contract to the U.S. Army corps of Engineers.

1986 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with T.R. Day, J.P. Felleman, R.S. Hawks & R.C. Smardon), "Aesthetic Resources: Identification, Analysis and Evaluation," a week long national training course at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Budget of $22,800 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1986 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with R.S. Hawks, M.R. Potteiger & R.C. Smardon), "Landscape Architecture: Visual Assessment," a three day training course for New York State agencies at Syracuse, New York. Budget of $5,300 from New York State Professional Employees Federation.

1985 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with J.P. Felleman, R.S. Hawks & R.C. Smardon), "Aesthetic Resources: Identification, Analysis and Evaluation," a week long national training course at San Francisco, California. Budget of $27,000 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1983 ASSOCIATE FACULTY (with J.P. Felleman, R.S. Hawks, R.A. Lambe & R.C. Smardon), "Aesthetic Resources: Identification, Analysis and Evaluation," two week long national training courses at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Budget of $44,000 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1982 CO-LEAD FACULTY (with R.S. Hawks & A.E. Watson), "Rural Conservation Short Course," a week long national workshop at Cazenovia, New York. Budget of $55,000 from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ACTIVITIES

2001- Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. for Town of Brookhaven: "Brookhaven Energy 580-megawatt natural gas-fired electric generating plant."

2001- Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Veague, P.A. for International Paper: "Bangor Hydro-Electric 345 kV transmission line."

7 James F. Palmer January 2002

2001 Communities Master Planning Project, West Central Adirondacks, New York: "Visioning Workshops for Forestport, Inlet, and Old Forge." (with Robin Hoffman)

2000 Central Vermont Public Service Corporation: "Peterson Dam Valuation."

1996-98 Vermont Environmental Research Associates: "Public Acceptance of the Wind Power Project in Searsburg, Vermont."

1994 H. Dominie, Inc.: "Visual Assessment Survey for Mount Redington Windfarm."

1991-92 City of Rome, NY: "Community Needs Survey, Comprehensive Planning Program."

1990 Stetson-Harza: "New York Planning Federation Membership Survey."

1990-95 Neil Katz and Associates: An Associate in communication and conflict resolution.

1990-91 Stetson-Harza: "Public Recreation Use of Two Vermont Hydroelectric Projects."

1989 Regulatory Negotiation Team for Scenic Character, Maine: "Theory and Methods of Visual Assessment."

1987 New England Studies Program, University of Southern Maine: "Creation of the Center for New England Town Design."

1985-87 EDAW, Inc., San Francisco, CA: "Visual Resources Environmental Study for the High-level Nuclear Waste Salt Repository."

1986-87 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Training Division, Huntsville, AL: "Refining the Environmental Planning Course Series."

1982-85 Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc., Boston, MA: "Aesthetic Impacts Associated with ORV Use on Beaches."

1982-83 Westside Inner City Association, Syracuse, NY: "Housing Needs Survey."

1981-83 National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC: "Rural Visual Assessment."

1981-82 For Spacious Skies, Boston, MA: "Environmental/Sky Awareness Study."

1981 Urban League, Springfield, MA: "Camp Atwater Environmental Program."

8 James F. Palmer January 2002

1980-81 Massachusetts Cooperative Extension, Amherst, MA: "Residential Energy Conservation."

1979 Charles T. Main, Inc., Boston, MA: "Visual Impact of Ultrahigh Voltage Conductor Systems."

1978 U.S. Forest Service, Berkeley, CA: "Cyber Conversion of PREVIEW Computer Graphics Software."

1976 Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, MA: "Community Inventory of Visual Resources."

TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES

2001- LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (5 then 7 students in Copenhagen, Denmark) 2000- LSA799 Capstone Proposal Development 2000- LSA800 Capstone Studio 2000 LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (7 students in Sydney, Australia) 1997 LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (4 students in Siracusa, Italy) 1997-98 LSA553 Visual Landscape Assessment 1997-99 LSA330 Landscape and Site Assessment 1996 LSA326 Landscape Architecture Design Studio I 1995 LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (6 students in The Netherlands) 1993 LSA596 Digital Photography 1991-96 LSA656 Landscape Visual Simulation 1991- LSA640 Research Methodology 1990-93 EIN560 Negotiating Environmental Disputes 1990-94,96-98 LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (supervised 42 internships with the National Park Service in the Denver Service Center, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Everglades NP, Yellowstone NP, Rocky Mountain NP, Fort Stanwix NM, and Naches Tres National Parkway) 1990, 92 SOS621 Mediation, Institute on Creative Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University 1990 ENS796 Technical Issues in GIS 1990 ENS696/EST496 Application Issues in GIS 1989 ENS696/EST496 Introduction to GIS 1989 ENS696/EST496 Environmental Negotiation

9 James F. Palmer January 2002

1988 CHP400 Honors Seminar: Managing Environmental Conflicts 1985 ENS796 Urban Ecosystems (with 4 instructors) 1984 LSA425 Orientation for Experiential Studio and LSA524 Experiential Landscape Studio Design (Barcelona, Spain and San Francisco, California) 1983 LSA696 Special Topics: Rural Conservation 1983 LSA496 Graphic Analysis and Presentation 1982 LSA696 Special Topics: Global 2000 Seminar 1982 LSA652 Community Development Process 1982 CHP410 Honors Seminar: Future Environmental Condition 1981 LSA621 Community Design Studio II 1980-84 LSA697 Topics and Issues of Community Design and Planning 1980-84 LSA650 Behavioral Factors of Community Design 1980-84 EIN390 Social/Cultural Influence and Environmental Form

1980- Various graduate and undergraduate independent readings, projects and internships.

THESES SUPERVISED

PhD Brown, S. 1999. Teaching with a GIS Using Existing Grade 7 through 12 Curricula, (co-major with S. Shannon, Landscape Architecture)

Hoffman, R.E. 1997. Testing the Validity and Reliability of Slides as Representations of Northern Hardwood Forest Conditions, (co-major with C. Dawson, Forestry Faculty)

Polkinghom, B. 1994. The Influence of Regulatory Negotiations on EPA as an Institution, (co-major with R. O'Leary, degree from Maxwell School, S.U.)

Soubra, N. 1993. A Study of Islamic Environmental Ethics, Policies, and Laws.

Ariso-Campa , A. 1991. Forest (Text)ures: Assessing Semiotic Dimensions of Visual Landscapes.

McKnight, M. 1990. Socialization into environmentalism: Development of Attitudes toward the Environment and Technology. 220 pp.

Wong, K.K. 1989. Scenic quality and cognitive structures of urban environ- ments: The role of scene attributes and respondent characteristics. 129 pp.

10 James F. Palmer January 2002

Sanford, R.M. 1989. The cultural approach to environmental preference research. 145 pp.

MLA Perkins-Wilson, M. 1995. Re-imaging the designer's role in community participation. 134 pp.

Arany, J. 1988. Content, impact and dialogue: Landscape Architecture Magazine's Sphere of Influence. 283 pp.

Lilien-McDonough, D. 1987. Guidelines for outdoor garden site selection, design, and activity use at a geriatric facility: The Jewish Home of Central New York. 77 pp.

Fraser, C.H.S. 1983. A comparison of user activities and perceptions in adventure and contemporary playgrounds. 306 pp.

MS Myers, E.B. 1994. A sense of community: Aspirations and experiences in a small conservation land trust. 96 pp.

Landis, C. 1990. News from the land: A course in nature writing in America. pp.115.

Palmer, P.O. 1989. An evaluative study of three urban plazas in downtown, Syracuse, New York. 160 pp.

Dullea, D.E. 1987. Strangers bearing gifts: Script for a video documentary. Ill pp. plus video tape.

Sanford, R.M. 1984. A review of archaeological significance, sites, and legal considerations, with an evaluation of perceptions among New York archaeologists. 279 pp.

ACADEMIC COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

Faculty of Landscape Architecture 2001 Chair, Faculty Search Committee, Environmental Land Use Planning 1998- Doctoral Program Study Committee 1993-96, 98-99 Director, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture curriculum 1996-97 Director, Masters of Science in Landscape Architecture 1993- Faculty Promotion and Tenure Review Committee 1990- Computer Committee 1986-99 Director, Landscape Imaging and Analysis Laboratory 1983 Faculty Search Committee

11 James F. Palmer January 2002

1981-85 Curriculum Director, Environmental Studies 1981 Environmental Studies Curriculum Revision Committee 1981 NEA Fellowship Advisor 1980 MLA Curriculum Revision Committee 1980 ES/BS Curriculum Revision Committee

Faculty of Environmental Studies 1996 Faculty Search Committee 1996 Faculty Promotion and Tenure Review Committee 1991 Task Force on the GPES PhD Program 1985-87 Curriculum Director, Environmental Studies 1985-86 Environmental Scholars Award Committee 1983-84 GPES Curriculum Revision Committee

College of Environmental Science and Forestry 2001- Learning Action Forum, Faculty Committee on Instruction 2001 Facilitator, ESF's summer Academy on Student Advising and Mentoring. 1999-2001 Faculty Executive Committee and Chair, Committee on Research 1997-99 Faculty Academic Affairs Committee 1995- Council for Geo-spatial Modeling and Analysis 1994-95 Task Force on Gender in the Workplace 1994 Task Force to Establish Networked Slide Printing, Chair 1993-95 Lower Division Program Committee 1992-95 Undergraduate Assessment Committee 1990-91 Task Force on Research, Middle States Accreditation Committee 1989-97 Apple Computer Technical Support Coordinator 1989-90 Search Committee for Assistant Director, Academic Computing 1987-89 Faculty Executive Committee and Syracuse University Senator 1987-95 Ad Hoc Committee for Geographic Information and Analysis 1987 Advisory Committee on Communication Instruction Needs 1986-95 Coordinator, Cultural Values Research, Inst. for Env. Policy and Planning 1986-90 "Walk-around Representative" for the NYS Department of Labor 1986-87 College-wide Safety Committee 1986 Public Service Recognition Task Force 1984-86 Forest Management Advisory Committee 1982-87 Advanced Early Admissions Advisor 1984 Faculty Subcommittee on Recruitment, Admissions, and Advisement 1981-82 Subcommittee on Curriculum and Program Review

Syracuse University 1992-95 Computer Services Advisory Committee 1991-95 Campus Mediation Center, Executive Bd. (1991-3), Faculty Advisor (1992-3) 1991-93 Executive Committee, Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflict 1988-91 Research Data Center Advisory Committee

12 James F. Palmer January 2002

1987-89 University Senator 1987-90 Senate Committee on Curricula 1987 Ad Hoc Planning Committee, Nat'I Center for Geographic Info, and Analysis 1987 Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development Project 1986-92 Faculty Liaison to Computer Services 1986-87 Research Data Center Study Group 1986-95 Advisory Committee, Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflict 1985-90 Honors Council

PUBLIC and PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

2000- Advisory Board, MLA Program, Anhalt University, Bemburg, Germany 2000 Steering Committee, National Center for Landscape Change (initial workshop) 2000-2002 Steering Committee, Scenic Summit 1999 Chair, CSLA Visiting Accreditation Team, Program in Landscape Architecture, University of Toronto 1999-2000 Member, Parks Commission, Fayetteville, NY 1998- Member, ASLA task force on Annual Meeting's LandNet Pavilion. 1997- Roster of Visiting Evaluators, Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board, American Society of Landscape Architects. -- Chair, University of Toronto Review Team, 1999 1994- Chair, ASLA Open Committee on Computers in LA. 1994- Editor, Computers: the Newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computers. 1994-95 Member, ASLA task force to decide the future of DesignNet 1994-99 Member, Parks Committee, Fayetteville, NY 1993-94 Advisory Council, Nautilus--The CD ROM Information Service 1992-95 Overseas Correspondent, Landscape Research (UK) 1992- Founder and manager, LArch-L an electronic forum for Landscape Architecture on Internet. 1992-95 Board of Directors, New Justice Conflict Resolution Services, Syracuse, NY 1991-93 New York State Public Policy Dispute Resolution Forum - Coordinating Committee, 1992-3 - Funding Committee, 1992-3 1991- Advisory Committee, NED (a.k.a. Northeastern Decision Model), NE For. Exp. Sta., USFS -- Executive Committee, 1992- - Chair of Aesthetics Working Group, 1992-. - Member, Social Ecology Working Group 1990-94 Mediator, Victim-Witness Assistance Center, Onondaga County District Attorney's Office 1989-95 Mediator, Campus Mediation Center, Syracuse University - Faculty Advisor, 1992/3

13 James F. Palmer January 2002

1989 Oral Examiner, NYS Civil Service for Citizen Participation Specialist 1989-91 F. Franklin Moon Library Association, V. Pres. 1989/90, Pres. 1990/91 1988-89 Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, Statewide Project Review Panel 1987-88 Conference Planning Committee, Resolve-A Center for Dispute Settlement 1984 Urban Vegetation Committee, Syracuse Conservation Advisory Council

PEER REVIEW SERVICE

1998 Technical Assistance Visit to review the research work unit description for the USFS Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Burlington, VT. 1997- Reviewer, Small Communities Grants Program, Dunn Foundation 1995 Proposed competencies for NPS design and planning personnel. 1995 Problem Analysis Two: Perception, Choice Modeling, and Decision Research, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Chicago, Illinois 1989-93 Research Needs Subcommittee, Transportation Research Board 1988 Research Work Unit, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Chicago, Illinois 1987 National Recreation Strategy: Customers Commission Report 1982 Problem Analysis, Urban Forestry Research Unit, U.S. Forest Service, Syracuse, New York

Journals Coastal Zone Management Journal, Environmental Management, Environmental Science and Policy, Forest Science, Journal of the American Planning Association, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Landscape Journal, Landscape Research, Landscape and Urban Planning, Leisure Sciences, Northeastern Science Journal, Northwester Science, Journal of Ohio Science, Reclamation & Revegetation Research, UD Review, Urban Design and Preservation Quarterly

Conferences American Society of Landscape Architects, Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture, Environmental Design Research Association

Grants Great Lakes Research Consortium, Mclntire-Stennis Program (ESF)

Software SAS 6.1 for the Macintosh, MacGIS, Forest Stewardship Planning Guide

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Society of Landscape Architects, Member ~ Chair, Open Committee on Computers, 1994- -- Editor, Computing newsletter, 1994- Environmental Design Research Association,

14 James F. Palmer January 2002

- Awards Committee, 1980 & 1981 International Association for Landscape Ecology - Awards Committee, 2000 Landscape Research Group (United Kingdom) - Overseas Correspondent, 1992-1995 United University Professions -- Chapter V.P. for Professionals, 1983-87

HONORS AND AWARDS

2000 Merit Award, ASLA Professional Awards Program 1999 Certificate of Appreciation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for contributions to NED-1 1998 Merit Award, ASLA Professional Awards Program 1998,99 SUNY-UUP Development Award 1995 Visiting Fellow, Staring Centrum, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 1995 Certificate of Appreciation, ESF Faculty for contributions to the campus computer networking. 1994 Friends of Moon Library Award for "exemplary contributions as a scientific literacy and information scholar" 1993 Outstanding Planning Project for Community Research in Comprehensive Planning, American Planning Association, New York Upstate Chapter 1989 NYS/UUP Professional Development Award 1987 Certificate of Appreciation, United University Professions 1985 Commendation from the Faculty, SUNY CESF 1985 NYS/UUP Professional Development Award 1982, 89 Honors Program Professor, Syracuse University 1981 Member, Honor Society Sigma Lambda Alpha 1979 First Award, Environmental Design Research Association 1977 Member, Honor Society Xi Sigma Pi 1977 Citation, Progressive Architecture Awards Program 1973 Honorary Associate, University of California, Kresge College 1972 College Honors, University of California, Kresge College 1969 Honors at Entrance, University of California

15 James F. Palmer January 2002

BOOKS, BOOK CHAPTERS, EDITED VOLUMES, AND MONOGRAPHS

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Mapping special places: Tool 1-2. /« O, Say Can You See: A Visual Awareness Tool Kit for Communities. Washington ,DC: Scenic America. 6 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Taking a photographic sample of your community: Tool II-2. In O, Say Can You See: A Visual Awareness Tool Kit for Communities. Washington, DC: Scenic America. 6 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Using photographs to evaluate local visual resources: Tool II-3. In O, Say Can You See: A Visual Awareness Tool Kit for Communities. Washington, DC: Scenic America. 8 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Using slides to evaluate local visual resources: Tool II-4. In O, Say Can You See: A Visual Awareness Tool Kit for Communities. Washington, DC: Scenic America. 6 p.

Palmer, J.F., and R.S. Hawks 1999. Imaging the ftiture: Tool III-5. In O, Say Can You See: A Visual Awareness Tool Kit for Communities. Washington, DC: Scenic America. 4 p.

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer and J.P. Felleman (eds.). 1998. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, (translated into Chinese by Cribb, Wang and Chen). Taipei, Taiwan: Garden City Publishing, Ltd.

Palmer, J.F. 1998. Clearcutting in the White Mountains: Perceptions of Citizens, Opinion Leaders and U.S. Forest Service Employees. [NYCFRD 98-01] Syracuse, NY: New York Center for Forestry Research and Development, SUNY ESF. 166 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1996. Modeling Spaciousness in the Dutch Landscape. Report 119. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Agricultural Research Department, Winand Staring Centre. 92 p.

Neumann, T.W., R.M. Sanford and J.F. Palmer. 1995. Managing archaeological cultural resources as environmental resources: An aid for local governments. In J. Lemons (ed.) National Environmental Policy Act. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc. pp. 51-59.

Palmer, J.F. 1993. Case study: Dennis, Massachusetts, visual survey for comprehensive planning. In R.C. Smardon and J.P. Karp The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp. 54-62.

16 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F and R.C. Smardon. 1993. Case study: Assessment of amenity wetland values in Juneau, Alaska. In R.C. Smardon and J.P. Karp The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp. 173-181.

Palmer, J.F. and R.C. Smardon. 1989. Measuring human values associate with wetlands. In L. Kriesberg, T. Northrup and S. Thorson (eds.) Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 156-179.

Sanford, R.M., T. Neumann and J.F. Palmer. 1989. Developing local cultural resource policy through environmental impact assessments: a case study in Central New York. In R.V. Bartlett (ed.) Policy Through Impact Assessment: Institutionalized Analysis as a Policy Strategy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, pp. 107- 117.

Smardon, R.C, T.R. Day, J.F. Palmer, T. Redway and L. Reichardt. 1988. Historical overview and landscape classification of vistas and rural landscapes along the Blue Ridge Parkway. In F.P. Noe & W.E. Hammitt (eds.) Visual Preferences of Travelers Along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Washington, DC: National Park Service. Science Publication Series No. 18. pp. 105-141.

Palmer, J.F., T.R. Day, R.C. Smardon, A. Redway and L. Reichardt. 1988. Simulating and evaluating management practices. In F.P. Noe & W.E. Hammitt (eds.) Visual Preferences of Travelers Along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Washington, DC: National Park Service. Science Publication Series No. 18. pp. 142-157.

Smardon, R.C, J.F. Palmer and J.P. Felleman (eds.). 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 374 pp.

R.C. Smardon, J.P. Felleman & J.F. Palmer. Chapter 2: Decision-making model for visual resources management and project review, pp. 21-35.

J.F. Palmer. Chapter 5: Environmental perception, pp. 63-77.

Palmer. J.F. (guest editor). 1984. Special issue—nature in the city. Urban Ecology 8(3): 185- 284.

Palmer, J.F. 1983. Visual quality and visual impact assessment. In K. Finsterbusch, L. Llewllyn & CP. Wolf (eds.) Social Impact Assessment Methods. Sage Publications.. pp. 263-284.

17 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1983. Assessment of coastal wetlands in Dennis, Massachusetts. In R.C. Smardon (ed.) The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values of Wetlands. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun Co. pp. 65-80.

Palmer, J.F. 1981. Approaches for assessing visual quality and visual impacts. In K. Finsterbusch & C.P. Wolf (eds.) Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson & Ross. pp. 284-301.

Palmer, J.F. and E.H. Zube. 1976. Numerical and perceptual landscape classification. In E.H. Zube (ed.) Studies in Landscape Perception. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, pp. 70-142.

Cole, N.F., M. Ferraro, R. Mallary. J.F. Palmer and E.H. Zube. 1976. Visual Resources for Surface-mining Reclamation. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts. 131 pp.

Zube, E.H., J.H. Crystal and J.F. Palmer. 1976. Visitor Center Design Evaluation. NPS Rep. No. 1024. Denver, Colorado: National Park Service. 70 pp.

JOURNAL and PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

Palmer, J.F. and R.E. Hoffman. 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 149-161.

Palmer, J.F. 2000. Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landscape Journal 19(1/2): 166-178.

Twery, M.J., H.M. Rauscher, D.J. Bennett, S.A. Thomasma, S.L. Stout, J.F. Palmer, R.E. Hoffman, D.S. DeCalestra, E. Gustafson, H. Cleveland, J.M. Grove, D. Nute, G. Kim and R.P. Kollasch. 2000. NED-1: Integrated analysis for forest stewardship decisions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27(1): 167- 193.

Palmer, J., and J. Roos-Klein Lankhorst. 1998. Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 43(1-3): 65-78.

Palmer, J.F. 1997. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning 37(1/2): 109-113.

Palmer J.F. 1996. Perceptions of large scale landscape spaciousness. /« R. Scarfo (ed.) Our Community, Our Neighborhood. Proceedings of the Annual CELA Conference, August 7-10, 1996, Spokane, Washington. Washington, DC: Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture, pp. 81-88.

18 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J. 1996. Architecture, ritual practice and co-determination in the Swedish office, (book review) Ecumene 3(2):231-232.

Rauscher, H.M., M. Twery, J. Palmer, R. Hoffman, S. Stout, J. Steinman, P. Kollasch, D. Bennett, L. Thomasma, J. Hombeck, and C.V. Worth. 1995. Northeast Decision Model design document, [computer disk insert: 3,633 KB hypertext document with 813 chunks and 978 links] AI Applications 9(3): 85.

Palmer, J.F., S. Shannon, M.A. Harrilchak, P. Gobster, and T. Kokx. 1995. Esthetics of clearcutting alternatives in the White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Forestry 93(5): 37-42.

Shannon, S., J. Palmer, M.A. Harrilchak, P. Gobster, and T. Kokx. 1994. The use of digital imaging in assessing and guiding U.S. Forest Service visual resource management. R.G. Ribe, R.Z. Melnick and K.K. Cairn (eds.) CELA 1993: Public Lands/scapes, pp. 67-75.

Hoffman, R.E. and J.F. Palmer. 1994. Validity of using photographs to represent visible qualities of forest environments. In J.D. Clark (ed.) History and Culture: Proceedings of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture 94 Conference. Landscape Architecture Foundation/Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture: Washington, DC. pp. 160-169.

Deming, M.E., C. Doble and J.F. Palmer. 1994. Trends in the Introductory Design Studio. /nJ.D. Clark (ed.) History and Culture: Proceedings of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture 94 Conference. Landscape Architecture Foundation/Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture: Washington, DC. pp. 94-106.

Palmer, J.F. and E. Buhmann. 1994. A status report on computers. Landscape Architecture 84(7): 54-55.

Neumann, T.W., R.M. Sanford and J.F. Palmer. 1992. Managing archaeological cultural resources as environmental resources: An aid for local governments. The Environmental Professional 14:117-125.

Palmer, J.F. and R.C. Smardon. 1992. (Retrospective comments on the LAF research agenda), pp. 177-178/« Most important question. Landscape Journal 11(2): 160-181.

19 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. and J.P. Felleman. 1991. The importance of topographic error in visibility modeling and its representation for decision making. In L. Brink (ed.) Selected Works: Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture 90 Conference. Washington, DC: Landscape Architecture Foundation, pp. 201- 205 (reprinted in LaLUP #18: 43^7)

Buerger, R., J. Palmer and T. More. 1990. The recreation beach environment: perceptual differences of users, employees, and the public. The Journal of Recreation and Leisure 10(1): 59-75.

Palmer, J.F. 1990. Home environments (review oiDesign in Familiar Places: What Makes Home Environments Look Good, S. Brower) Landscape and Urban Planning 18(1): 69-70.

Palmer, J.F., S. Alonso, K. Dong-hee, J. Gury, Y. Hernandez, R. Ohno, G. Oneto, A. Pogacnik, and R. Smardon. 1990. A multi-national study assessing perceived visual impacts. Impact Assessment Bulletin 8(4): 31-^8.

Palmer, J.F. 1989. Faculty statistics: A profile of landscape architecture programs. Landscape Architecture Magazine 79(5): 106-108.

Palmer, J.F. 1989. (review of Meanings of the Garden, M. Francis & R.T. Hester [eds.]) Environment and Behavior 21(1): 101 -103.

Palmer, J.F. 1989. Environments and people, {rtview otResearch on Environments and People—Methods, Quality Assessment, New Directions, R. Ulrich, et al. [eds.]) Landscape and Urban Planning 17(1): 83-84.

Henderson, J.E., R.C. Smardon and J.F. Palmer. 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers visual resources assessment procedure. Transportation Research Record 1189. pp. 67-71.

Smardon, R.C, T.R. Day and J.F. Palmer. 1988. The Blue Ridge Parkway study: landscape management—history, classification, simulation and evaluation. Transportation Research Record 1127-11.

Palmer, J.F., R.C. Smardon and J. Arany. 1984. Summary of the landscape architect research needs survey. CELA 84: Teaching on the Crest of the Third Wave. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. pp. 382-389. (abridged reprint in Agora, Winter 1984, pp. 17-19).

Palmer, J.F. 1986. Beyond dilemmas. {reView of Ethics in Planning hyM.VJachs). American Land Forum 6(2):70-71.

20 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1984. Nature in the city—introduction. Urban Ecology 8(3): 187-188.

Palmer, J.F. 1984. Neighborhoods as stands in the urban forest. Urban Ecology 8(3):229-241.

Palmer, J.F. and P. Dryfoos. 1983. The impact of residential energy audits on energy conservation behavior. CIB Congress 1983 Proceedings. Stockholm, Sweden: The National Swedish Institute for Building Research.

Palmer, J.F. 1983. A visual character approach to the classification of backcountry environments. Landscape Journal 2(1): 3-12.

Gross, M., J. Mullin and J.F. Palmer. 1981. Assessing economic impacts of urban recreation development: Lowell National Historical Park. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2(2): 159-174.

Palmer, J.F. and P. Dryfoos. 1981. The impact of residential energy audits on energy conservation behavior. In Osterberg, Tieman and Findlay (eds.) Design Research Interactions. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 348-356.

Palmer, J.F., and J.H. Crystal. 1979. Evaluating the accessibility of designed environments: National Park visitor centers. In A. Seidel & S. Danford (eds.) Environmental Design: Research, Theory and Application. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 307-316.

Brush, R.O., and J.F. Palmer. 1979. Measuring the impact of urbanization on visual quality: land use change in the Northeast. In G.H. Eisner and R.C. Smardon (eds.) Our National Landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, California: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 358-364.

Palmer, J.F. 1979. Constructing a wildland visual resource inventory. In G.H. Eisner and R.C. Smardon (eds.) Our National Landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, California: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 109-116.

Palmer, J.F. 1979. The conceptual typing of trail environments: a tool for recreation research management. In T. Daniel, B.L. Driver and E.H. Zube (eds.) Assessment of Amenity Resource Values. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-68. Fort Collins, Colorado: Rock Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 14-20.

Palmer, J.F. 1978. The Kresge College residential environment and life-styles survey. In W.E. Rogers and W.H. Ittelson (eds.) New Directions in Environmental Design Research. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 213-225.

21 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1978. An investigation of the conceptual classification of landscapes and its application to landscape planning issues. In S. Weidemann and J.R. Anderson (eds.) Priorities for Environmental Design Research. Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 92-103.

Palmer, J.F. 1977. Perceptual classification for landscape planning. Landscape Research (United Kingdom) 2(3): 17-19.

Zube, E.H., J.F. Palmer and J.H. Crystal. 1976. Evaluating NPS visitor centers. Design and Environment 7(3):34-37. (reprinted in Park Practice-Trends 14(3):38-40).

NON-REVIEWED ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS

Biscombe, J.R., J.E. Hall, and J.F. Palmer. 2001. Universal campsite design: an opportunity for adaptive management. In G. Kyle (comp. ed.) Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-276. Newtown Square, PA: USD A, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, pp. 150-154.

Palmer, J.F. 2000. Recreational use of wetlands in Juneau, Alaska. In G. Kyle (comp. ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-269. Newtown Square, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, pp. 62-66.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Professors and teachers do different work. (Letter to the editor.) Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(September 3, 1999): B13.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Public gets the big picture. (Letter to the editor.) LAND, 41(4): 14.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Recreation participation and scenic value assessments. /« Vogelsong, H.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1998 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-255. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 199-203.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Letter from the chair. Computing 11(2): 1. [Newsletter of the ASLA Professional Interest Group on Computing]

Palmer, J.F. 1998. Letter from the chair. Computing 11(1): 1. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

22 James F. Palmer January 2002

Doble, C.S., and J.F. Palmer. 1998. Student success in landscape architecture: the application of new criteria and measures. Research in Design Education: Proceedings of the EAAE/ARCC Conference. (April 14-17, 1998, School of Design, Raleigh, NC) pp. 111-116.

Palmer, J.F. 1998. The 1996 status report on computers in landscape architecture. Computing 1 l(l):2-5. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

Palmer, J.F. 1998. Internet resources for landscape professionals. Computing ll(l):5-6. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

Palmer, J.F. 1997. National Parks: can the old dog learn new tricks? In Kuentzel, W.F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-232. Radnor, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 69-71.

Twery, M. J., D. J. Bennett, R. P. Kollasch, S. A. Thomasma, S. L. Stout, D. S. deCalesta, J. Hombeck, J. Steinman, G. Miller, M. Grove, H. M. Rauscher, E, Gustafson, H. Cleveland, J. F. Palmer, R. E. Hoffman, B. McGuinness, N. Chen, and D. Nute. 1997. NED-1: an integrated decision support system for ecosystem management. In 1997 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention and Exposition Technical Papers, Volume 4: Resource Technology Institute. Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress of Surveying and Mapping, pp. 331-343.

Palmer, J.F. 1997. Letter from the chair. Computing 9(2): 1. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

Palmer, J.F. 1997. The 1996 status report on computing skills and training in landscape architecture. Computing 9(2):2-5. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing] [reprinted in Upstate Landscapes 14(1) 7-10, spring 1997]

Hoffman, R.E. and J.F. Palmer. 1996. Silviculture and Forest Aesthetics within Stands. Syracuse, New York: The New York Center for Forestry Research and Development. 37 p.

Hoffman, R.E., J.F. Palmer and M.A. Harrilchak. 1996. Silviculture and Forest Aesthetics: An Annotated Bibliography. Syracuse, New York: The New York Center for Forestry Research and Development. 36 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1996. From the editor. Computing 9(1 ):1. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

23 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer J.F. 1996. Modeling Landscape Spaciousness: A Dutch Example. Occasional paper 11. Syracuse, NY: Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute, SUNY ESF. 52 pp.

Palmer, J.F, D.G. Pitt and W.A. Freimund. 1996. The virtual landscape: trends in computing. Computing 9(l):2-5, 8. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

Palmer, J.F. 1996. Destinations along the information highway. Computing 9(1): 6-7. [The newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computing]

Hoffman, R.E. and J.F. Palmer. 1996. Comparing quantitative and qualitative approaches to characterizing forest environments. In Proceedings of the 1995 Society of American Foresters Convention. [October 28-November 1, 1995, Portland, Maine] Bethesda ,MD: SAF. pp.243-244.

Palmer, J.F. and D.G. Pitt. 1995. The virtual landscape: visual assessment and spatial data analysis techniques. Trend Trackers. Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium, May 14-17, 1995. St. Paul, Minnesota: National Recreation Resources Planning Conference, p. 37.

Bahrenburg, G. and J. Palmer 1995. Recreation challenge and environmental effects of mountain biking. In Dawson (ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-218. Radnor, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 9-14.

Hoffman, R. and J. Palmer 1995. Comparing quantitative and qualitative approaches to characterizing forest recreation environments. In Dawson (ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-218. Radnor, Perm.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 84- 89.

Hoffman, R.E. and J.F. Palmer 1995. Validity of using photographs to simulate visible qualities of forest recreation environments. In G.A. Vander Stoep (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-198. Radnor, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 83-89.

Palmer, J.F. 1995. ASLA Spotlight on Jim Palmer, Founder of LArch-L. (http://www.asla.org/asla) (The first in a series of ASLA's 'bimonthly discussion group that commences with an online interview with a leader in the profession of Landscape Architecture.")

24 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. D.G. Pitt and W.A. Freimund. 1995. The virtual landscape: converging trends from artificial intelligence, geographic information systems, and digital visualization technologies in visual landscape assessment. In J.L. Thompson, D.W. Lime and W.M. Sames (compilers) Proceedings of the 4th International Outdoor Recreation & Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, pp. 362-369.

Palmer, J.F. and M.J. Twery. 1995. NED: A user controlled decision-support system for forest recreation environments. In J.L. Thompson, D.W. Lime and W.M. Sames (compilers) Proceedings of the 4th International Outdoor Recreation & Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, pp. 376-380.

Palmer, J.F. 1995. From the Editor: Greeting and Salutations!. Computing: The Newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computers in LA. Spring 1995: 1.

Palmer, J.F. 1995. Destinations along the information highway. Computing: The Newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computers in LA. Spring 1995: 1-3.

Palmer, J.F. 1995. Educational issues of computing in Landscape Architecture. Computing: The Newsletter of the ASLA Open Committee on Computers in LA. Spring 1995: 3-5.

Palmer, J.F. 1995. The role of values in landscape architectural education. Focus on Teaching and Learning at ESF 6(1): 1-3.

Palmer, J.F. 1994. The Use of Computers and Simulation Technology by Landscape Architects on National Forests, (report distributed to all US Forest Service landscape architects on the service-wide Data General system) 16 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1994. Landscape architecture as a Renaissance education. Focus on Teaching and Learning at ESF 5(2): 9-11.

Palmer, J.F. 1994. The use of computers in landscape architecture programs. CELA Forum on Education 3(2): 2-3.

Palmer. J.F.. S. Shannon, M.A. Harrilchak, P. Gobster and T. Kokx. 1993. Long term visual effects of alternative clearcutting intensities and patterns. In G.A. Vander Stoep (ed.) Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-185. Radnor, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 84-88.

25 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. and K.D. Sena. 1993. Seasonal scenic value and forest structure in Northeastern Hardwood stands. In G. A. VanderStoep (ed.) Proceedings of the 1992 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 176. Radnor, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 115-121.

Palmer, J.F. 1993. A Status Report on Computers in Landscape Architecture. (Posted to the Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum, [email protected], on April 5, 1994).

Palmer, J.F. 1993. Computer use in landscape architecture programs. Computer Letter: ASLA Open Committee on Computers 1(1): 14-15. (posted to the Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum, [email protected], on September 13, 1993).

Palmer, J.F. 1993. Values in landscape architecture education, (posted to the Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum, [email protected], on December 20, 1993).

Palmer, J.F. and J.P. Felleman. 1992. The representation of error in visibility modeling. In G.A. Vander Stoep (ed.) Proceedings of the 1991 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-160. Radnor, Perm.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 230-233.

Palmer, J.F. 1991. The determination of scenic quality from river attributes. In J. A. Kusler and S. Daly (ed.) Wetlands and River Corridor Management. Berne, NY: Association of State Wetland Managers, pp. 172-177.

Palmer, J.F. 1991. "Representing error in GIS modeling." In K. Beard & B. Buttenfield (co- leaders) NCG1A Initiative Seven Position Papers: Visualization of the Quality of Spatial Data. Orono, Maine: NCGIA. 6 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1991. Census mapping project. ALUG: Apple Library Users Group Newsletter, 9(3): 79-82. (Reprinted in Summer 1991 issues of LaLUP no. 19 and L.A. Computer News 4(4): 6-8, March 1992 issue of URISA News, No. 121 and in Summer 1992 issue of InfoTEXT, issue 32: 10-11.)

Palmer, J.F. and R. Sanders. 1991. Regarding the responsibilities of university instruction. Focus On Instruction, 2(2): 1-4. (Comments and a reply appear in 2(3): 4.)

Palmer, J.F. 1990. Aesthetics and quality of life. Appendix V./« Ecosystems and their Human Values (48th Meeting of the Chief of Engineers' Environmental Advisory Board, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi) pp. VI-VI5.

26 James F. Palmer . January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1990. Aesthetics of the northern hardwood forest: influence of season and time since harvest. In T. More, M. Donnelly, A. Graefe and J. Vaske (ed.) Proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-145. Radnor, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 185-190.

Palmer, J.F. 1989. Attitudes toward the management of Allegany State Park. In T. More, M. Donnelly, A. Graefe and J. Vaske (ed.) Proceedings of the 1989 North- eastern Recreation Researchers Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-132. Broomall, Penn.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, pp. 57-61.

Palmer JF and R.C. Smardon. 1989. Human-use values of wetlands: an assessment in Juneau, Alaska. In J. Kusler, S. Daly and G. Brooks (ed.) Urban Wetlands. Berne, NY: Association of State Wetland Managers, pp. 108-114.

Palmer JF and R C. Smardon. 1989. Visual amenity value of wetlands: an assessment in Juneau, Alaska. In J. Kusler, S. Daly and G. Brooks (ed.) Urban Wetlands. Berne, NY: Association of State Wetland Managers, pp. 104-107. (reprinted in LaLUP-ASLA Open Committee Landscape/Land Use Planning Letter, Winter 1990, 14: 18-20.)

Palmer J.F. and R.C. Smardon. 1989. Measuring human values associate with wetlands: comparing public meetings and sample surveys. PARC Working Paper 8. Syracuse, New York: Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts, Syracuse University. 28 pp. + appendices.

Palmer JF 1989. Residents'characterization of their residential greenspace resource. In T. Greg (ed.) Healthy Forests, Healthy World. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Forests, pp. 373-379.

Buerger, R.B., J.F. Palmer and T.A. More. 1989. The recreational beach environment: perceptual differences ofusers, employees and the public. In D.H. Hickox (ed.) The Great Lakes: Living With North America's Inland Waters. Bethesda, MD: American Water Resources Association, pp. 269-278.

Smardon R.C, J. Smith, J.F. Palmer and S. Winters. 1988. Assessing human-use values of wetlands with the City/Borough of Juneau, Alaska. In R.J. Borden and J. Jacobs (eds.) Human Ecology Research and Applications. (Selected papers from the Second International Conference of The Society for Human Ecology, October 18-19, 1986, Bar Harbor, Maine). College Park, Maryland: Society for Human Ecology, pp. 228-232.

27 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1988. Attitudes toward the management of Aliegany State Park: findings from surveys of the general public, past users and advisory task force. ESF IEPP Publication No. 88-3. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 79 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1988. Neighborhood stands: an analogy for urban environmental management. Trends 25(3): 44-47.

Palmer, J.F. 1982. Behavioral performance standards for interpretive centers. Leisuregram Autumn, pp. 7-9.

Palmer, J.F. and E.H. Zube. 1980. Behavioral performance standards for interpretive centers. In J. Masey (ed.) Integrating Natural and Cultural History. Derwood, Maryland: The Association of Interpretive Naturalists, pp. 160-165.

Palmer, J.F. 1980. A status report of off-road vehicle usage in coastal National Parks. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. Vol. 9: Human Impacts on Natural Resources. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (NTIS No. PB81- 100109).

Palmer, J.F., E.H. Zube and J.H. Crystal. 1980. Visitor and staff perceptions of National Park Service visitor centers. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. Vol. 6: Sociology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (NTIS No. PB81-100075).

Palmer, J.F. 1980. Perceived attributes characterizing backcountry environments. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks. Vol. 6: Sociology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (NTIS No. PB81-100075).

Palmer, J.F. 1978. Citizenassessment of coastal visual resource. In Coastal Zone 78. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1019-1037.

28 James F. Palmer January 2002

TECHNICAL AND CONSULTING REPORTS

Palmer, J.F, and R.E. Hoffman. 2001. West Central Adirondacks Communities Master Planning Project: A Summary Report of Workshops Held in the Towns of Forestport, Inlet, and Webb. Syracuse, NY: SUNY-ESF Council for Community Design Research.

Palmer, J.F. 2000. How the public values street trees: A study for Re-Leaf Syracuse. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF. 23 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1999. Modeling Landscape Perception. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF. 31 p.

Palmer, J.F., S. Shannon, M. Harrilchack, P. Gobster and T. Kokx. 1999. Visual resources: Esthetics of clearcutting—alternatives in the White Mountian National Forest. In White Mountain National Forest Monitoring Report: 1988. pp.23-25.

Palmer, J.F. 1997. Public Acceptance Study of the Searsburg Wind Power Project: Year One Post-construction. South Burlington, VT: Green Mountain Power Corp. 57 p. + appendices.

Palmer, J.F. 1997. Perceptions of Clearcutting Alternatives: Saco Visitor Center and Mountain Conservation Center. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF. 19 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1996. Public Acceptance Study of the Searsburg Wind Power Project: Pre- construction Baseline. South Burlington, VT: Green Mountain Power Corp. 60 p. + appendices.

Fellows, M.O., J.J. Kimberlin and J.F. Palmer. 1995. Summary findings from the 1995 ESF Working Environment Survey. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF. 8 pp. + appendices.

Palmer, J.F. 1994. Useof Computers in Landscape Architecture Programs. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. 13 p.

Deming, M.E., C. Doble and J.F. Palmer. 1994. A Study of the Trends among Introductory Design Studios. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. 14 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1994. A Status Report on Computers in Landscape Architecture. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. 7 p.

Hoffman, R.E., J.F. Palmer and M.A. Harrilchak. 1994. Silviculture and Forest Aesthetics within Stands. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. 33 p.

29 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1993. ForestView: A demonstration of PhotoCD technology. Syracuse, NY: SUNY ESF, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. 15 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1992. "Moving Forward to the Year 2000: A Community Survey" Rome, New York: City of Rome Comprehensive Planning Program. 113 p.

Palmer, J.F. and K.D. Sena. 1992. "Seasonal scenic value and forest structure in northeastern hardwood stands" Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 23 p.

Palmer, J.F. 1992. "Signs and signals of the future of landscape architecture: A white note" Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 5 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1991. Clyde River Hydroelectric Project Recreation Survey. Utica, New York: Stetson-Harza.

Palmer, J.F. 1991. Essex Number 19 Hydroelectric Project Recreation Survey. Utica, New York: Stetson-Harza.

Palmer, J.F. 1990. Aesthetics and quality of life. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 10 pp.

Neumann, T ., R.M. Sanford and J.F. Palmer. 1990. A theoretical perspective: Cultural resources as environmental resources, (presented at the first national conference Cultural Conservation: Reconfiguring the Cultural Mission, sponsored by the Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, May 16-18, 1990.)

Palmer, J.F., in collaboration with Alonso, Dong-hee, Gury, Hernandez, Ohno, Oneto, Pogacnik and Smardon. 1988. Cross-cultural assessment of visual impact simulations. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 40 pp.

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer, A. Knopf, K. Grinde, J.E. Henderson and L.D. Peyman-Dove. 1988. Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction Report EL-88-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 71 pp. plus appendices.

Palmer, J.F. 1988. The allocation of faculty resources at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

30 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F. 1988. Geographic sources of socio-economic community data. In R.C. Smardon and K. Thau (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on Government and the Grass Roots: Strengthening Environmental Protection through Community- Agency Partnership. (Blue Mountain Lake, New York, August 23-25, 1987) Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, p. 75-79.

Smardon, R.C., and J.F. Palmer. 1987. Mendenhall Valley, Juneau, Alaska: an example of environmental preservation vs. development conflict, (presented at the Intractable Conflicts Workshop, October 23, 1987, Cazenovia, New York). Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 27 pp. plus appendices.

Palmer, J.F. 1987. Classification and salary disparity of SUNY research professionals. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. pp.21.

Sanford, R. and J.F. Palmer. 1987. Respondent characteristics and the perception of attributes and fees in day-use state parks. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 26 pp. plus tables, figures and appendices.

Palmer, J.F. 1986. A folio of graphs for discussion: describing accredited landscape architecture programs and their faculty's activities. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 16 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1986. Residents'characterization of their residential greenspace resource. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 42 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1986. An examination of instructional productivity and scholarly excellence among landscape architecture faculty. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 12 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1984. Salary disparity for professionals. Syracuse, New York: CESF Chapter, United University Professions. 8 pp. plus attachments.

Palmer, J.F. 1984. A retrospective evaluation of the Blue Ridge Parkway photo-questionnaire. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Palmer, J.F. 1984. Work load assessment: a report to the faculty of the School of Landscape Architecture. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 8 pp. plus attachments.

Palmer, J.F. 1983. Aesthetic resources course evaluation. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 28 pp.

31 James F. Palmer January 2002

Palmer, J.F., R.C. Smardon and J. Arany. 1983. Interim report: landscape architecture research agenda. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 22 pp.

LeVeque, T.R. and J.F. Palmer. 1983. Cazenovia's visual resource. Cazenovia, New York: Cazenovia Community Resources Project. 24 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1983. Neighborhood variations in the character and perceptions of the urban forest. Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 24 pp.

Felleman, J.P., R.S. Hawks, R.A. Lambe, J.F. Palmer and R.C. Smardon. 1983. Aesthetic Resources: Inventory, Analysis and Evaluation, (multi-sectioned short course reader prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, revised 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988). Syracuse, New York: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Szczech, J.B., L.L. VanHouten and J.F. Palmer. 1983. Handicapped accessibility reviews of selected apartments. Syracuse, New York: Housing Services for the Aging. 92 pp.

Palmer, J.F. 1982. Deposition relating to the Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc., et al., plaintiff, versus James G. Watt, as he is United States Secretary of the Interior, et al., defendants, and Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association, intervenor defendant. 119 pp.

Palmer, J.F., R. Hawks and A.E. Watson (eds.). 1982. Rural Conservation Short Course Notebook, (multi-sectioned short course reader prepared for the National Trust for historic Preservation). Syracuse, New York: SUNY college of Environmental Science and Forestry.

Palmer, J.F. and R.C. Smardon. 1982. Visual impact assessment: off-road vehicles on Cape Cod National Seashore beaches. Syracuse, New York. 27 pp.

Gross, M., G.W. Hayes, J.R. Mullin and J.F. Palmer. 1980. Lowell National Historical Park economic impact analysis. NPS Report No. 1548. Denver, Colorado: National Park Service. 70 pp.

Palmer, J.F. and S.P. Leatherman. 1979. Off-road vehicle usage on federally managed coastal parklands. NPS Coop. Res. Unit Rep. No. 46. Amherst, Massachusetts: The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts. 59 pp.

32 James F. Palmer . January 2002

Hayward, D.G., CD. Jones, L. Birenbaum, M.L. Miller and J.F. Palmer. 1978. Investigating the nature of visitor experiences at Old Sturbridge Village. Amherst, Massachusetts: The Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts. 21 pp.

Carlozzi, A.A., J.F. Palmer, C.A. Carlozzi, A. Elkins, C.L. Moore and K. Ruckenbach. 1978. Attitudes toward flood management in Northampton, Massachusetts: a case study. Waltham, Massachusetts: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 173 pp.

Carlozzi, C.A., J.F. Palmer and W. Hendrix. 1976. Report of group one. In The National Park Service's Responsibilities for Urban Park Lands: A Report to the National Park Service. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, pp. 8-13.

Cooney, T.W. and J.F. Palmer. 1975. Natural resource inventory. Bow, New Hampshire: Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. 130 pp.

33 James F. Palmer January 2002

INVITED RESEARCH WORKING MEETINGS

Building Quality Communities: The SUNY Network, Syracuse, NY, 1 November 2001. Council for Community Design Research, SUNY-ESF. Facilitator: morning and afternoon problem solving discussions.

Workshop in Landscape Change, Santa Barbara, California, 25-27 January 2001. National Science Foundation. Keynote Speaker. "Landscape Perception."

SMS Constituent Analysis, Chicago, Illinois, July 28-29, 1998. North Central Forest Experiment Station, US Forest Service.

The Shire Conference: Teaching Ecology in Landscape Design and Planning Programs, Skamania, Washington, July 16-19, 1998. University of Oregon's The Shire: John Yeon Preserve for Landscape Studies. Facilitator: "Education Outcomes."

Wind Power and the Environment: Doing it Right in the Northeast, US Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute, July 14-15, 1998, Wilmington, Vermont. Presentation: "Public Acceptance Studies."

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, NED Social Ecology Working Group, Baltimore, Maryland, November 5-7, 1997.

Human Dimensions Framework Workshop, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 7-11, 1997. Office of Ecosystem Management, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Presentation: "Aesthetic Dimensions." Facilitator: "Framework Application."

Evaluating Scenic Resources: A Community Toolkit, National Park Service and Scenic America, Syracuse, New York, December 11-13, 1996. Host and Participant.

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, NED Core Team Meeting, Syracuse, New York, October 16-17, 1996. Host organizer. 'NED beta version evaluation workshop."

Randolph G. Pack Institute's 'Cracker Barrel,' October 18, 1996, in Syracuse, New York. Co- convener andfacilitator: "Computer visualization in participatory environmental decisions."

Wind Turbine Verification Program Workshop, US Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute, September 19-20, 1996, Wilmington, Vermont. Presentation: "Public Acceptance Studies."

34 James F. Palmer January 2002

Visual Simulation Task Force, US Forest Service, February 16-17,1995, Salt Lake City, Utah. Presentation: "The use of computers and simulation technology by Landscape Architects in the US Forest Service."

Nu Chapter of the Honor Society of Sigma Lambda Alpha, April 28, 1994, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, New York. Presentation: "Landscape Architecture as a Renaissance Education."

Visual Simulation Task Force, US Forest Service, November 8-10, 1993, Salt Lake City, Utah. Presentation: "What the future holds for visual simulation."

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Northeast Decision Model Review, Radnor, Pennsylvania, June 23-24, 1993. Presenter: "Aesthetics Module Progress Report."

Aesthetics Working Group, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USFS, Syracuse, New York, December 16 and 17, 1992. Meeting host and presenter: "Northern hardwood forest aesthetics," "Aesthetic effects of clearcutting," and "Aesthetics rule base development.".

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Northeast Decision Model User Group Review, Latham, New York, November 19, 1991. Presentation: "Forest Aesthetics Expert System."

National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Initiative Seven Specialist Meeting: Visualization of the Quality of Spatial Data, Castine, Maine, June 8-12, 1991. Panelist and Presenter. "Representing error in GIS modeling."

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Northeast Decision Model Silvicultural Systems/Cutting Methods Field Tour for Wildlife. Water and Aesthetics Resources, Kane Experimental Forest, PA, Femow Experimental Forest WV and Cooper's Rock State Forest WV, June 5-7, 1991. Aesthetic Resources Expert.

PARC Workshop on Intractable Conflicts, Cazenovia. October 23, 1987. Presenter: "Environmentalist versus development interests in Juneau, Alaska."

Sharing Resources, Syracuse, New York, April 9-11, 1987. Invited speaker: "Leading edges of visual analysis."

Planning Livable Communities, Buffalo, New York, September 12-13, 1985. Invited speaker: "Role of neighborhood greenspace."

Urban Impact Assessment, New York City, June 14-15, 1985. Workshop facilitator: "Issues in urban visual assessments."

35 James F. Palmer January 2002

Future Landscapes in the Northeast, Pomona, New Jersey, May 24-25, 1985. Invited speaker: "The Cape Cod landscape."

IAIA Annual Meeting, May 24-25, 1984. Invited speaker: "Experiences in teaching aesthetic resources impact assessment."

Landscape Research Needs, Washington, DC, April 26-27, 1983. Workshop facilitator: "Social meaning of landscapes."

The National Park Service's Responsibility for Urban Park Lands Workshop, Amherst, Massachusetts, October 12-13, 1976. Workshop recorder: "Group one report."

Perceived Environmental Quality Indices (PEQIs) Research Workshops, Amherst, Massachusetts, April 28-29, and June 5-6, 1975. Workshop recorder: "Scenic and recreation environments," and "Air, water, and sonic environments."

36 James F. Palmer January 2002

SYMPOSIA and CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. August 9-11, 2001, San Louis Obispo. Presentation: " Technology Is Changing the Nature Of Landscape Architecture Practice: How Should Education Respond?"

Virtuality in Landscape Architecture, Bemburg, Germany. May 3-4, 2001. Keynote Speaker. "The Future Practice of Landscape Architecture."

Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. August 3-6, 2000, Guelph, Ontario. Presentation: "Three short stories: the slash at Cuyler Hill."

Northeastern Recreation Research, 1-4 April, 2000, Boulton Landing, New York. Presentation: "A Small Experiment in Universal Campsite Design."

Our Visual Landscape, 23-27 August 1999, Ascona, Monte Verita, Switzerland. Presentation: "Landscape Umpires: Is It Enough to Call 'em As We See 'em?"

Fifth World Congress, International Association for Landscape Ecology, 29 July - 3 August 1999, Snowmass Village, CO. Presentation: "Human Perception of Landscape Patterns."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 11-13 April 1999, Boulton Landing, New York. Presentation: "Recreation Values Associated with Wetlands." Panelist: "Issues in Preferences and Trends for Forest Recreation."

CELA Conference, Arlington, Texas, October 22-25, 1998. Presentation: "Reliability of Assessing Landscape Visible Qualities."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 5-7 April 1998, Boulton Landing, New York. Presentation: "The link between recreation participation and visual quality assessments of clearcuts."

Twelfth Annual Landscape Ecology Symposium, 16-19 March 1997, Durham, North Carolina. Presentation: "Visual Assessment of Clearcutting Alternatives: Local citizens. Opinion Leaders, and U.S. Forest Service Employees."

Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. June 7-10, 1996, Spokane, Washington. Presentation: "Landscape perception and landscape change," and "Perceived landscape spaciousness."

Annual Meeting of the Classification Society of North America, June 13-15, 1996, Amherst, Massachusetts. Presentation: "Perceptual Classification of Landscapes."

37 James F. Palmer January 2002

Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, May 18-23,1996, University Park, Pennsylvania. Presentation: "Visual assessment of clearcutting alternatives: local citizens, opinion leaders, and USFS employees."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 31 March - 2 April, 1996, Boulton Landing, New York. Presentation: "National Parks: Can the Old Dog Learn New Tricks?"

Annual Landscape Ecology Symposium, 26-30 March 1996, Galveston Island, Texas. Presentation: "Perceived Landscape Spaciousness."

Congress of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, 27-31 August 1995, Toulouse, France. Presentation: "Local Perceptions of Landscape Change."

Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium, and the 1995 National Recreation Resources Planning Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota, May 14-17, 1995. Computerized Poster: "Assessing the virtual landscape." Presentation: "The virtual landscape: visual assessment and spatial data analysis techniques."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April, 9-11, 1995. Presenter (with G. Bahrenburg): "Recreation challenge and environmental effects of mountain biking" and (with R. Hoffman): "Visual characterizations of forests by recreational participation."

CELA94: History and Culture, Long Beach, Mississippi, September 7-10, 1994. Presenter (with R. Hoffman): "Validity of using photographs to simulate visible qualities of forest recreation environments" and (with M.E. Deming and C. Doble): "Trends in the Introductory Design Studio."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April 10-12, 1994. Presenter (with R. Hoffman): "Validity of using photographs to simulate visible qualities of forest recreation environments."

Teaching Tools for the 90's: Beyond Computers, OnCenter, Syracuse, NY, November 3, 1993. Presentation: "Using HyperCard and PhotoCD in teaching."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April 18-20, 1993. Presenter: "Long term visual effects from alternative clearcutting intensities and patterns."

Teaching Tools for the 90's: A Conference on Higher Education, OnCenter, Syracuse, NY, November 19, 1992. Poster session: "Visual Landscape Simulation."

38 James F. Palmer January 2002

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April 5-7, 1992. Presenter. "Usefulness of mensuration data to describe scenic values of the notheastem forest."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April 6-8, 1991. Presenter. "Viewshed mapping error and its representation."

CELA 90, Denver and Beaver Creek, Colorado, October 4-7, 1990. Presenter. "Viewshed Mapping Error and its Representation," and Moderator. "Planning and Design."

Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, April 19-22, 1990. Presenter. "Cross-cultural assessment of visual impact simulations."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, February 25-27, 1990. Presenter. "Aesthetics of the Northeastern forest: The influence of season and time since harvest."

ASLA 89, Orlando, Florida, November 18-21, 1989. Presenter. "Assessing the human use values of wetlands."

Wetlands and River Corridor Management, Charleston, South Carolina, July 5-9, 1989. Presenter. "River attributes and the perception of scenic rivers."

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Saratoga Springs, New York, April 3-5, 1989. Presenter. "How should we seek out the public's will concerning the management of Allegany State Park?"

SAF '88: Healthy Forests, Healthy World, Rochester, New York, October 16-19, 1988. Presenter. "Perceptions of residential greenspace."

Wetlands '88: Urban Wetlands and Riparian Habitat, Oakland, California, June 26-29, 1988. Presenter. "Human-use values in wetland evaluation."

CELA 88, Pomona, California, June 20-25, 1988. Presenter. "Incorporating visual values into the Wetland Evaluation Technique."

Government and the Grass Roots, August 23-25, 1987, Minnowbrook, New York. Presenter. "Information sources available to citizens for evaluating hazardous waste sites."

Colloquium on Hazardous Substances Management, Cazenovia, New York, June 15-16, 1987. Presenter. "Investigating public perceptions of hazardous substances."

39 James F. Palmer January 2002

Public Participation Workshop, Syracuse, New York, March 5-6,1987. Presenter. "Environmental conflict resolution methods."

CELA 86, Helen, Georgia, September 10-13, 1986. Presenter: "Public and professional landscape perceptions" and "Describing accredited landscape architecture programs and their faculty's activities."

ASLA 85, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 12-15, 1985. Presenter. "Landscape architecture research agenda."

CELA 85, Urbana, Illinois, September 18-22, 1985. Workshop presentations: "Photo questionnaire development and use," and "Scholarship and landscape architecture faculty."

EDRA 16, New York City, June 10-13, 1985. Presenter: "The perception of landscape visual quality by environmental professionals and local citizens," and workshop participant: "Vernacular landscapes in environmental and social change."

APA International Planning Conference, Montreal, Quebec, April 20-24, 1985. Presenter: "Innovative methods for urban visual quality analysis."

CELA 84, Guelph, Ontario, July 25-27, 1984. Workshop and contributed paper: "Landscape architecture research needs."

EDRA 15, San Luis Obispo, California, June 28-July 2, 1984. Presenter: "Residents' images and preferences of their front yards."

AAAS Annual Meeting, New York City, May 24-29, 1984. Contributed paper: "Neighborhood variation in the character and perceptions of the urban forest."

EDRA 83, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 23-26, 1983. Presenter: "Contextual fit in the landscape."

Futures—Syracuse University Honors Convocation Week, Syracuse, New York, January 24-28, 1983. Convenor: "Future community form and environmental quality."

Global 2000—Which Path to the Future, Silver Bay, New York, October 15-20, 1982. Invited speaker: "Key findings from global assessments," and. presenter: "Doing your own geographic analysis with the Global 2000 data."

Rural Conservation Short Course, Cazenovia, New York, September 19-25, 1982. Conference co-organizer, presenter: "Community based scenic resource assessments," and project facilitator: "Locating the North Country Trail through Pompey."

40 James F. Palmer January 2002

EDRA 13, College Park, Maryland, April 17-20, 1982. Symposia organizer: "Nature in the city," and presenter. "Neighborhood stands and urban forestry."

AAAS Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 3-8, 1982. Contributed paper: "Residential energy conservation behavior."

Socio-Economic Aspects of Energy, Cortland, New York, November 13-14, 1981. Presenter: "Improving residential energy conservation."

EDRA 12, Ames, Iowa, April 2-6, 1981. Presenter: "The impact of residential energy audits on energy conservation behavior."

AAAS Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, January 3-8, 1981. Contributed paper: "Approaches to visual impact assessment."

AIN 80, Brewster, Massachusetts, October 6-10, 1980. Presenter: "The role of interpretive specialists in designing interpretive center."

Second Conference on Scientific Research in National Parks, San Francisco, California, November 20-30, 1979. Presenter: "Visual quality and perceived attributes along the Appalachian Trail," and "Current ORV management practices in coastal National Parks."

EDRA 10, Buffalo, New York, June 6-10, 1979. Presenter: "Designed accessibility for everyone."

Our National Landscape, Incline Village, Nevada, April 23-25, 1979. Presenter: "Guidelines for budgeting a wildland visual resources inventory."

National Urban Forestry Conference, Washington, DC, November 13-16, 1978. Presenter: "The role of urban environments along a National Scenic Trail."

EDRA 9, Tucson, Arizona, April 8-11, 1978. Presenter: "Programming a residential college environment," and "Classifying National Scenic Trail environments."

Coastal Zone 78, San Francisco, California, March 14-16, 1978. Presenter: "Local perceptions of the coastal zone."

EDRA 8, Urbana, Illinois, April 17-22, 1977. Presenter: "Conceptual classification of landscapes."

Massachusetts Audubon's Focus Outdoors Nature College, South Hadley, Massachusetts, June 30-31, 1976. ^orfcs/iop/earfer: "People-sized technology."

41 James F. Palmer January 2002

Landscape Assessment Conference, Amherst, Massachusetts, November 15-16, 1973. Multi- media event: "Landscape conversation pieces."

42 James F. Palmer January 2002

INVITED PUBLIC LECTURES

"Landscape Assessment Workshop", Bemburger Kolloquien zur Landscape, Fachhochschule Anhalt, Bemburg, Germany, 1-2 May 2001.

"How would a landscape ecologist study people (or an environmental psychologist critters)?". Staring Centrum, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 18 October 1995.

"Visual Landscape Assessment", Bemburger Kolloquien zur Landscape, Fachhochschule Anhalt, Bemburg, Germany, 6 November 1995.

"Representation of Error in Visibility Analysis", Fachhochschule Anhalt, Bemburg, Germany, 7 November 1995.

"A Landscape Ecological Approach to Studying Perceptions of Landscape Change: Dennis, Massachusetts", Staring Centrum, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 16 November 1995.

"Evaluating the Use of National Park Visitor Centers", School of Architecture, Kingston University, Surry, England, 21 November 1995.

"Spaciousness in the Dutch Landscape", Staring Centrum, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 19 December 1995.

"Long Term Visual Effects of Altemative Clearcutting Intensities and Pattems," Canadian Institute of Forestry, Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 21, 1995.

"Quality of ESF's Working Environment," SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, July 17, 1995.

"Environmental Conflict and Negotiation," Rural Resources Roundtable, Environmental Finance Center, Maxwell School, Syracuse University, April 26, 1995.

"Visual Sensitivity to Altemative Clearcutting Scenarios," Dept. of Landscape Architecture & Environmental Planning, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, February, 15, 1995.

"Visual Assessment as a Community Planning Tool," Dept. of Landscape Architecture & Envi- ronmental Planning, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, Febmary, 15, 1995.

"Scholarship and the Role of Mentoring," ESF's Second Annual Faculty Mentoring Colloquium, Syracuse University Faculty Center, December 15, 1994.

43 James F. Palmer January 2002

"Clearcutting and Scenic Quality in the White Mountains." North Country Council, Littleton, New Hampshire, November 9, 1994.

"Working with Multi-party Conflicts." College of Natural Resources, Cornell University March 28,1994.

"A Continuum of Public Participation in Forest and Environmental Policy Disputes." Program for the Analysis and Resolution of Conflict Brown Bag Seminar, March 24, 1993.

"Moving Forward to the Year 2000." Rome Industrial Development Corporation, and Rome Area Chamber of Commerce, September 9, 1992.

"Visual Assessment Issues" and "Obtaining and Presenting Digital Images." Visual Assessment Standards and Technology, SUNY ESF, June 12, 1992.

"Digital Photography Instruction on a Shoe String." Teaching Tools for the 90's: A Conference on Higher Education, Syracuse University, November 15, 1991.

"Forestry Aesthetics." Ontario Advanced Forestry Program, Petawawa Forestry Institute, Ontario, June 21, 1991.

"Aesthetics and Quality of Life." Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, Vicksburg, Mississippi, May 16-18, 1990.

"Classification, Cognition and Environmental Science." OPES Roundtable Discussion Group, Syracuse, March 23, 1990.

"The Future of Landscape Architectural Education." School of Design, North Carolina State University, February 12, 1990.

"Data Visualization." Teaching Tools for the 90^, an Apple Computer sponsored seminar, Syracuse University, November 14, 1989.

"Dirty Stuff: A Simulated Environmental Negotiation." CNY Chapter of SPIDR, April 4, 1989.

"Statistical Analysis on the Macintosh: DataDesk Professional and FASTAT." Syracuse University Workstation Applications Fair, March 28, 1989.

"Human Values of Wetlands in Juneau, Alaska." Technology Club of Syracuse, March 9, 1989.

"Pragmatic Statistical Analysis." Macintosh Users Group of Syracuse, October 12, 1988.

44 James F. Palmer January 2002

"Processing and Reporting Statistics on the Macintosh." SUNY ESF Macintosh Users Group, October 11,1988.

45 James F. Palmer January 2002

PAST CONFLICT RESOLUTION ROSTER PLACEMENTS

American Arbitration Assoc. for construction and environmental arbitrations or mediations. (#121097)

Listed in Martindale-Hubbell's Dispute Resolution Directory.

Campus Mediation Center, Syracuse University, for community disputes.

Farmers Home Administration for farmer-creditor mediations. (#468)

Victim-Witness Assistance Center, Onondaga County District Attorney's Office, for criminal referrals and community disputes.

PUBLIC PLANNING WORKSHOPS Facilitator. "Special Places and Opportunities: Forestport, Inlet, and Webb" workshops for the West Central Adirondacks Communities Master Planning Project. July 30- August 1,2001.

MEDIATIONS, FACILITATIONS and RELATED TRAINING

Mediator. Campus Mediation Center, Syracuse University Mediator. Dispute Resolution Center, Onondaga County DA's Office Trainer/Lecturer "Communication and Conflict Resolution Skills Workshop," USDI National Irrigation Water Quality Program, Denver, Colorado, September 20, 1993.

Trainer/Lecturer Coming to Resolution - How to Deal with Environmental Problems," Environmental Issues and the Community Program Series, sponsored Syracuse University by the US EPA and Central New York Coalition of Local Governments, March 2, 1993.

Trainer/Lecturer "Conflict and the Job of the Planning Board Member," The Basic Planning Board Course, SUNY ESF, October 21, 1992. March 24, 1993. March 29, 1994.

Trainer/Lecturer "Public Policy and Environmental Disputes," Institute on Creative Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University, June 1-6, 1992.

Facilitator. "Town Meeting on Events in the Middle East" workshop for the Shine Center, Syracuse University, January 25, 1991.

Trainer/Lecturer. "Communication and Conflict Resolution Skills Workshop", Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, Colorado, August 13-15, 1990.

46 James F. Palmer January 2002

Trainer/Lecturer. "Public Disputes" section of Mediation Skills, Syracuse University Summer Peace Institute, June 7, 1990.

Facilitator/Trainer. New Jersey Student Leadership Development Institute for Citizenship, Human Relations and Change, Stokes State Forest, New Jersey, April 27-29, 1990.

Facilitator. "Cultural Diversity on Campus" workshop for the Shine Center, Syracuse University, March 15, 1990.

47 James F. Palmer January 2002

TRAINING COURSES TAKEN

Introduction to Arc View GIS, January 9-10, 2001, Syracuse, New York. Staff: Nick Colas, ESRI Certified Instructor.

Curriculum Design Institute, June 19-22, 2000, Syracuse, NY. Staff: Daniel Apple, Pacific Crest.

Process Education Teaching Institute, 13-15 December 1999, Syracuse, NY. Staff: Daniel Apple, Pacific Crest.

Practices and Procedures for the Commercial and Construction Arbitrator, March 5, 1992, Staff. American Arbitration Association, Syracuse, New York.

Interpersonal Mediation Training, October 27-29 and November 14, 1989. Staff from Campus Mediation Center, Syracuse University.

Geographic Resources Analysis Support System, September 18-22, 1989. Staff Fred Limp, IDT Space Remote Sensing Center at the John C. Stennis Space Center, MS.

Environmental Negotiation Workshop, October 13-15, 1987, Stony Point, New York. Staff: G. Bingham, The Conservation Foundation, and J. Marks, ENDISPUTE, Inc.

Third National Conference on Environmental Dispute Resolution, May 29-30, 1986. Staff. G. Bingham, The Conservation Foundation, and L.E. Susskind, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Conflict Management in Organizations, April 9-12, 1985, Denver, Colorado. Staff. M.M. Golten, B. Mayer, C.W. Moore and S.T. Wildau, Center for Dispute Resolution.

48 Exhibit 2 z \mn +6T8453199! T-232 P.05/CT ?-T94 0cH5-3C C8:32 ?roB--RC ENVIRONI«NTAL CORP.

OQ-F-0566 Brookhaven Energy Proier^r Visual Resources Asseggmcnt Prooed^e VIEWPOINT ASSESSMENT FORM 6 BASIC J DETAILED i/j/t* KMrt Project Name Date Location ^^ffi/b^f^Time Viewpoint Map Referenceji Weather Alternative Personnel Project Details and Comments

Use the letter 'A" for with plan condition. Use the letter "B" for without plan condition.

Special Considerations

Landscape Composition Inconspicuous Significant Prominent With Plan X Without Plan A The following will give you the vaiuo for Special Considerabons. A sum of 3 or more distinct, 1-2 average, and 0 minimal. —. Docs this zone contain an)- Cultural or Historical Landmarks? Yes (I) ^0 <0) >/ ! Is this zone, or area within it, known lor its distinct visual \ T \J, • quality and/ or wildlife obseivation? Is this zx)ne free from pollution and litter? -i -Ue there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource? Total: 0 Exhibit 3 c

o g

etiqmx^ 0ct-35-3C C8:32 Fron-TRC ENVIRCNUENTAi. CORP. m84S3m* T-232 P.05/07 F-T94

Brookhaven PHPI-^V Prniect. Visual Resources Assessment Procedure 0Q-F-O566 VIEWPOINT ASSESSMENT FORM 6 BASIC DETA[LED Project Name Date /O Location fC*L- CQL Time Vlewpoint Map Refeienceii oSL Weather Alternative . Personnel £^R Project Details and Comments

Use the letter 'A" for with plan condition. Use the letter "B" for without plan condition.

en •c .1 5 •I 60 5 fi, 8 « m fill i u (3 < Q WCi U *en Jj «< 3 S.U1U

Water Resources ^/? AJ&t*.t- Landform ^/S <5C. rto£. ^ Vegetation ^ S(L Mot Landuse *7a ^CL. Al< User Activity Att^- Special Considerations We n Landscape Composition Inconspicuous Significant Prominent j With Plan i

Without Plan

The following will give you the valuo for Special Considerations. A sum of 3 or more distinct. 1-2 average, and 0 minimal. Does this zone contain any Cultural or Historical Landmarks? Vesq) No(0) yS Is this zone, or area within it, known for its distinct visual quality and/or wildlife observation? Is this rone free from pollution and litter? ^ Are there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource? Total ? NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In the Matter of the Application of

BROOKHAVEN ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility Case No.: 00-F-0566 and Public Need to Construct and Operate a 580 Megawatt Generating Facility in the Town of Brookhaven. County of Suffolk.

TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY

OF

D. T. FROEDGE D. T. FROEDGE

*********

1 Q. Please state your name, affiliation, title, address, and whom you are

2 representing in this proceeding?

3 A. I am D.T. Froedge, and I reside at 11 Fairfield Drive, Kennebunk, Maine,

4 04043. I am currently President of GeoSonics Inc., Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc., and

5 Philip R. Berger & Associates, Inc. In this proceeding, I am representing Spectra

6 Environmental Group, Inc. (SPECTRA), as a noise consultant. SPECTRA is serving

7 as an environmental consultant representing the Town of Brookhaven in the Brookhaven

8 Energy LP permitting and Article X Certification process.

9 Q. Please describe your educational background?

10 A. In 1965, I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics and

11 Mathematics from Western Kentucky University. I completed a Master's Degree in

12 Physics and Electronics at the University of Tennessee in 1967. In 1969,1 completed

13 the necessary course work for a Ph.D. in Program Physics and Mathematics from

14 Auburn University.

15 Q. Do you have any Professional Affiliations that would be relevant?

16 A. Yes. 1 was Founding Director of the Society of Explosives Engineers and

17 remain a member. I serve on the Radio Frequency Radiation Hazards on Electric

18 Blasting Caps Subcommittee of the American National Standards Institute. I also serve

19 with the Environmental Committee and Community Noise Taskforce of the National

1 1 Crushed Stone Association. I am a member of the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society

2 and the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers. I am

3 President of the Kentucky Blasting Conference and a Licensed Blaster in the states of

4 Kentucky and Pennsylvania. I am also a Licensed Professional Engineer in the states

5 of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Texas.

6 Q. Please describe your professional experience?

7 A. Since completing my Ph.D. course work in 1969,1 have been employed

8 with General Dynamics, as a Senior Aerosystems Engineer, the Commonwealth of

9 Kentucky, as Advisor to Office of the Governor, Structural Demolition, as a Consultant,

10 Commonwealth of Kentucky, as Director of the Division of Explosives and Blasting,

11 and with Southern Explosives, Inc., as a Research Director.

12 Q. Please describe your relevant professional experience in a bit more detail?

13 A. I have dual professional roles at GeoSonics, Inc., that of president and the

14 primary design engineer for sound measurement equipment manufactured by

15 GeoSonics, Inc. I have co-authored a community noise control manual published by the

16 National Stone Association. As an independent consultant, I have advised and

17 conducted noise studies for a diverse clientele, including the New York Department of

18 Environmental Conservation, several quarry outfits in New York State, and various

19 environmental consulting companies.

20 Q. Does your curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1, fairly and

21 accurately represent your experience with noise studies to date?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What is SPECTRA'S role in the Brookhaven Energy project? 1 A. SPECTRA is under contract with the Town ofBrookhaven to review all

2 application materials relative to this project and to advise on all technical aspects of

3 interest to the Town. SPECTRA also actively represents the Town's interests in all

4 technical matters arising in the Article X certification process including, if necessary,

5 testimony on any issues adjudicated at hearings.

6 Q. What is your personal role in this work?

7 A. I have reviewed and prepared comments on all sections of the

8 Brookhaven Energy Application and Appendices that discuss noise.

9 Q. Specifically, your testimony is directed to what portions of the

10 Application?

11 A. My testimony will address inconsistencies and shortcomings in the noise

12 projection calculations for the generating facility, as presented by the Applicant.

13 Q. Has your review suggested any concerns with respect to noise proj ection?

14 A. Yes. The completeness of the noise source data supplied by the

15 Applicant and the validity and methodology of the noise projection calculations based

16 on those data raise serious questions.

17 Q. What is the basis of your concerns regarding the completeness, validity,

18 and methods of noise data manipulation?

19 A. My concems arise from my review ofthe Brookhaven Energy Projection

20 Application and various supporting documents to that application, calculations I have

21 made in an attempt to duplicate the Applicant's noise projections, and disclaimers made

22 by the Applicant regarding their noise projections.

23 Q. Let's start with your concems regarding the completeness ofthe noise 1 data and projections as presented in the Application. Can you please elaborate?

2 A. Yes. As an example, I would like to refer to Appendices N5 and N6 of

3 the Application. In these appendices the Applicant presents a list of various plant

4 components and associated noise levels. Some of the components listed include spectral

5 noise content, while others present only a total sound pressure level. The Applicant

6 implies that the data in these appendices were used in its noise projection calculations.

7 It is unclear why certain components of the proposed facility were listed with spectral

8 noise content and others were not.

9 Q. Are you saying that Appendices N5 and N6 are incomplete without

10 spectral content data listed for each plant component?

11 A. Yes. To independently validate and re-construct the noise projections

12 presented by the Applicant, spectral noise data for each facility component should be

13 supplied.

14 Q. Have you attempted to duplicate the noise projection calculations with

15 the spectral noise content and sound pressure levels as they are provided in the

16 Application?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you find difficulty in duplicating the calculations?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What aspects of duplicating the calculations proved difficult?

21 A. As I have previously mentioned, there are some equipment components

22 that list spectral noise content while others list only the total sound pressure level. For

23 example, in Appendix N5, the Steam Turbine description indicates that a sound pressure 1 level of 91 dB(A) should be maintained, but there is no spectral content provided.

2 Q. Why does a lack of spectral noise content cause difficulty in duplicating

3 the noise projection calculations?

4 A. Whenonehasasourceofnoise, the sound pressure level created by the

5 noise decreases with distance from the source. The observed decrease is due, in part,

6 to atmospheric (molecular) absorption of the noise. When noise levels from a source

7 of sound are projected and sound pressure levels at given distances from the source are

8 estimated, it is standard practice to incorporate noise attenuation due to atmospheric

9 (molecular) absorption. Molecular absorption is frequency dependent, and to

10 incorporate molecular absorption into a noise projection calculation the spectral content

11 of the noise source must be given. Molecular absorption of sound cannot accurately be

12 applied to total sound pressure levels. Appendices N5 and N6 of the application do not

13 provide spectral content for all facility components listed; therefore, the data are

14 incomplete and accurate noise projections cannot be calculated.

15 Q. Did the Applicant apply atmospheric (molecular) absorption to noise

16 projections for facility components listed with only total sound pressure levels in

17 Appendices N5 and N6?

18 A. The data and text give little to no indication as to what assumptions were

19 made to account for attenuation due to molecular absorption. It is unclear as to

20 whether or not molecular absorption was included as part of the noise attenuation for

21 all the operational equipment listed without spectral content in Appendices N5 and N6.

22 The Applicant's response to B-l 1 of the Town's Second Set of Information Requests

23 indicates that the pieces of equipment listed without spectral noise content in 1 Appendices N5 and N6 will be located inside the turbine building, the cladding of which

2 "is specified to ensure that the plant as a whole achieves the required far field noise

3 levels." The specifications are not described in sufficient detail to make this statement

4 acceptable. Most available software for calculating noise projections requires spectral

5 content data. The software used for the Applicant's noise projection calculations is

6 proprietary and is not available to other users (as per the Applicant's response to B-9

7 from the Town's Second Set of Information Requests).

8 Q. Now that we have established that the Application is incomplete with

9 regard to noise source data, let's discuss your concerns regarding the validity of the noise

10 projections presented by the Applicant. Have you attempted to duplicate the Applicant's

11 noise projections?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In general, what were your results?

14 A. For the most part, my results were similar.

15 Q. Were there any significant differences?

16 A. Yes. Inclusion of the noise from the flue gas system, of which the gas

17 turbine sound power level is described as 140 dB or greater in Appendices N5 and N6,

18 would result in noise levels exceeding those presented in the Application. My

19 calculations show that at 200, 400, 800, and 1000 feet from the plant the total sound

20 power levels of the operating facility, not including background noise, without the gas

21 turbine will be 70,64, 57. and 55 dB(A), respectively. Adding the turbine, for which no

22 attenuation was set forth, increases those numbers to 103, 96, 88, and 85 dB(A),

23 respectively. These levels are well beyond the limits proposed in the Application. 1 According to B-21 of the Applicant's response to the Town's interrogatories, the sound

2 pressure level from the flue gas system was included in all of the Applicant's noise

3 projections. The Town asked to see the calculations that support the Applicant's

4 inclusion of this source in its noise projections, but the Town's request was not granted.

5 I presumed the Applicant's calculations would explain how this component was

6 attenuated, as it must have been to achieve its calculated results. As it stands now, my

7 independent calculation of the noise projection from this source does not agree with the

8 Applicant's projection.

9 Q. Does the discrepancy imply potential violations of the Town of

10 Brookhaven local Noise Code or noise levels that would exceed the criteria necessary

11 to meet a CNR of "C"?

12 A. Yes. Without clear verification of the calculations and associated

13 attenuation factors used to arrive at the predicted noise levels presented in the

14 Application, my calculations, with regard to the flue gas system, show that the Town of

15 Brookhaven local Noise Codes could potentially be violated. It is also questionable as

16 to whether or not the criteria necessary to meet a CNR of "C" could be met. Including

17 the flue gas system in the noise projection calculations increases the dbA at the nearest

18 residence at a distance of 2000 feet to 76 dbA. This exceeds the residential, commercial,

19 and industrial designations in the Town of Brookhaven local Noise Codes, to a distance

20 well beyond the closest residence. While someone may have an explanation of how

21 generated noise will conform to the Code, the explanation is not provided in the

22 Application or the responses to the Town Information Requests. Apparently, the

23 Applicant's calculations resulted from use of a proprietary computer program that 1 generated the noise projections. If the program does what it is said to do, it should be

2 able to clearly indicate any assumptions or attenuation factors utilized in the calculations

3 and render simple calculations that back up the results. If the results of a program

4 cannot be verified by an independent party, it seems questionable as to whether the

5 program should be relied on to make regulatory decisions.

6 Q. Does this discrepancy reflect an error in the data as presented by the

7 Applicant?

8 A. The Applicant, in its response to B-21 of the Town's Second Set of

9 Information Requests, maintains that the gas turbine exhaust sound power levels were

10 included in all of the noise calculations. The response to B-21 does not provide the

11 calculations used to arrive at the predicted noise levels, as requested by the Town.

12 Perhaps other attenuation factors were included in the calculations that are not explicit

13 in the text of the Application and Appendices. In any case, the information provided in

14 the Application and its Appendices is insufficient to recreate the projected noise levels

15 as presented by the Applicant in Tables 11-10, 11-11, and 11-12 of the Application.

16 Q. What, if any, additional discrepancies did you come across in your

17 review of the noise projection calculations that cause you to question the validity of the

18 Applicant's noise projections?

19 A. In Table 8 of page 29 in Appendix N, the distance loss for 2000 feet is

20 presented as 38 dB.

21 Q. Why is this number questionable?

22 A. Sound levels from a noise source generally decrease according to the

23 "inverse square law," where the change in sound pressure level is in inverse proportion

8 1 to the square of the distance from the sound source. A 6 dB reduction in sound results

2 from every doubling of the distance at distances greater than 50 feet from a sound

3 source. This provides for a sound loss of approximately 32 dB at a distance of 2000

4 feet, 6 dB less than the loss shown in Table 8 of Appendix N.

5 Q. Is a 6 dB difference significant?

6 A. If a distance loss of 38 dB over 2000 feet was assumed in all the

7 calculations used to derive the Applicant's noise projections, then its projections could

8 potentially be in error. There is insufficient information regarding the derivation of this

9 distance loss to firmly conclude the significance.

10 Q. Let us turn our attention to your concerns regarding the methodology of

11 the noise projections as presented in the Application. What gives you pause regarding

12 the methodology employed in the Application?

13 A. The introductory paragraphs ofAppendicesNS and N6 explain that each

14 appendix contains the acoustical requirements of the equipment listed to maintain a

15 CNR of "D" and "C," respectively. It is my understanding that the Applicant has now

16 committed to meeting a noise criteria of just CNR "C," which binds the applicant not

17 to exceed a projected noise level of 46 dB(A) at the nearest residence. From my review

18 of the Application, the Applicant took the not-to-exceed-46 dB(A) criteria and "back

19 calculated" what the permissible noise from the generating facility could be in order not

20 to exceed the 46 dB(A) criteria at the nearest residence. From there, once the Applicant

21 calculated what the permissible noise level of the generating facility could be, it

22 assigned a sound pressure level, and in some cases spectral noise content, to the

23 different plant components, the sum of which would not exceed what it calculated the 1 overall far field noise from the facility should be in order to maintain a CNR of "C."

2 The Applicant states in both Appendix N5 and N6 that the sound pressure levels

3 and spectral noise content for the facility's component parts are "design criteria." The

4 following quotation is from both appendices N5 and N6, "ALSTOM Power does not

5 guarantee the below values for each piece of equipment; rather they are provided as

6 guidelines for equipment design so that the overall required far field noise levels can be

7 achieved." The term "below values" refers to the sound power level and spectral noise

8 content of the component parts of the generating facility listed in Appendices N5 and

9 N6. Ultimately, this statement suggests that the noise projection calculations were

10 based on equipment that does not exist and has yet to be designed and built. There is

11 nothing contained in the Application that suggests the spectral noise content and sound

12 pressure levels provided in the Application can be verified through field tests or are

13 even feasible to design and manufacture. What Appendix N5 and N6 actually represents

14 is the Applicant's "Wish List" for what they want the noise from the facility's component

15 parts to be. This calls into question the validity of all the Applicant's noise projections

16 because they are based on design criteria, which are not guaranteed, rather than on actual

17 noise levels produced from the individual facility components. The quoted statement

18 provides a guarantee for the far field noise projections, as opposed to the individual

19 components, but it is questionable as to whether the far field noise projections can be

20 met, because the far field noise comprises all the individual noise sources. If the

21 individual components of the noise cannot be guaranteed, neither can the far field noise.

22 Additionally, there is no pre-installation noise testing protocol in place, or contingency

23 plan if the component parts of the facility cannot be manufactured to the noise design

10 1 criteria. After everything is considered, the noise projection methodology employed

2 by the Applicant is flawed because it attempts to calculate noise projections and

3 guarantee far field noise based on equipment that does not yet exist. If the Applicant

4 cannot guarantee the sound pressure levels of the noise sources that will comprise the

5 generating facility, then it cannot guarantee that it will not exceed a CNR of "C" at the

6 nearest residence.

7 Q. Do you have any other comments on the Application?

8 A. Yes. The compliance monitoring plan, as proposed in the Application,

9 is insufficient for its purpose. Levels projected by the Applicant at the nearest current

10 residence are near ambient. The readings taken during the compliance monitoring plan

11 would be ambiguous because the ambient levels would mask the readings of the plant

12 noise levels. Measurements at several sites, at various distances, including at the

13 property line should be conducted periodically in order to verify compliance with the

14 noise codes, and to provide the data necessary to reduce the noise levels should a new

15 business or residence be constructed at a closer location.

16 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

17 A. Yes.

18

19 End of D.T. Froedge Testimony

**********

FFDOCS1V455797.1

11 Exhibit 1

DT FROEDGE, PE.

Consultant in Blasting Seismology & Explosives Technology President GeoSonics Inc., Warrendale, PA

President Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc., Hazleton, PA

EDUCATION B.S. in Physics & Mathematics, Western Kentucky University, 1965 M.S. in Physics &. Electronics, University of Tennessee, 1967 Ph.D. Program Physics & Mathematics, Auburn University, Course work completed, 1969

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

President, GeoSonics Inc., 1988 - Present

President, Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc., 1995 - Present

President, Philip R. Berger & Associates, Inc., 1986 - Present, Executive VP 1980-1986

Research Director, Southern Explosives, Inc., 1978 - 1980 Responsible for development and testing of new explosives products

Director, Division of Explosive & Blasting, Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1972 - 1978 Responsible for the administration of ail state laws and regulations concerned with explosives and blasting operations. Directed a staff of engineers and physicists who monitored blasting operations throughout Kentucky: Developed training courses in the handling and application of explosives. Served as explosives consultant on projects contracted by the Department of Highways and by the Division of Capital Construction.

Consultant, Structural Demolition. 1978 -1986 Consultant for a variety of contractors on structural demolition projects including steel and masonry bridges, are bridges, buildings and stacks. Advisor to Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1972 Provided technical evaluation and recommendations on legislation concerned with Department of Mines and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources, & Public Service Commission.

Senior Aerosystems Engineer, General Dynamics, 1969 - 1970 Design and testing of navigational and electronic systems for F- 111 Fighter Aircraft.

SOCIETY AND COMMITTEE MEMBERSfflPS Society of Explosives Engineers - Founding Director, Treasurer, 1975 - 1990 Sigma Xi - The Scientific Research Society American National Standards Institute - Subcommittee, Radio Frequency Radiation Hazards on Electric Blasting Caps National Crushed Stone Association - Environmental Committee & Community Noise Taskforce American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical & Petroleum Engineers Kentucky Blasting Conference, President Licensed Blaster - Kentucky and Pennsylvania Licensed Professional Engineer - Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, North, Carolina and Texas

NOISE EXPERIENCE

Co-Author of National Stone Association Community Noise Control Manual

Primary design engineer for sound measurement equipment manufactured by GeoSonics Inc.

Consultant for Lane Construction's proposed Brainard Quarry in Nassau County, New Yolk

Consultant and noise measurements for New York Department of Environmental Conservation proposed Sour Mountain Quarry in Fishkill, New York

Consultant and noise measurements for draft environmental impact statement for the William E. Daily mine in Hoosick, New York

Consultant and noise study for Clinton County Landfill site in Clinton County, New York

Consultant and noise measurements for Grigg's Consulting on Warren W. Fens Inc., Ward Sand & Gravel Bank in Scheghticoke, New York

Consultant and noise measurements for draft environmental impact statement for Domain Sand & Gravel expansion in Dover, New York

Consultant for Spectra Environmental for draft environment Environmental Impact Statement for Smith, Basin mine Site in Washington, New York