October 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM Page 53 to 56 of 203 14 of 80 sheets 53 at Duke Farms, their wooden posts have been in the1 ground in some cases over a decade without any rot. So2 I would say limited maintenance short of destruction by3 weather, that I can't make a prediction here.4 MR. ALPER: Is it feasible to have a5 maintenance manual for that, sort of like you have to6 have a maintenance manual for storm water systems?7 THE WITNESS: In the report that I submitted8 to the planning board you will see the New Jersey9 Department of Agriculture requirements for the deer10 fencing and that will reference what needs to be done.11 MR. ALPER: Okay.12 I think you were asked about this. Any idea13 how long it would take the undergrowth in the fenced14 area, as it starts to regenerate, how long would it take15 for it to absorb as much water as the trees and whatever16 underbrush is removed from the destruction?17 THE WITNESS: Well, you're looking really at18 two questions. The short answer is, I couldn't tell you19 the exact absorption rate as I mentioned earlier. There20 are such formulas for such things. But the general21 consensus would be, number one, as of right now in the22 deer fenced area you're not going to lose trees. No23 ones cutting them down. So all this would do is be an24 additive. Where trees are being removed, you heard25 54 significant testimony regarding storm water regulations1 and storm water design, that water is contained2 separately. The areas of the deer fencing will increase3 water absorption on those slopes over time. Using the4 data I've seen at the Duke Farms Foundation and5 elsewhere, within three to four years you're going to6 have significant undergrowth coming in. That's7 significant new plant growth which should increase8 absorption very quickly. As to absolute numbers, I9 can't give you those.10 MR. ALPER: There's a mention in your11 written report about using some GPS maps to point out12 specific trees to possibly preserve, is that something13 we can require as a condition?14 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I apologize, I did15 not actually reference my report per se. I was16 referencing the PowerPoint. In my secondary report I do17 make three recommendations for you that are in response18 to questions that have been raised by this board and by19 residents. The first one being what can we do, all20 though this is a indirect response, what can we do

dations for you that are in response18 to questions that have been raised by this board and by19 residents. The first one being what can we do, all20 though this is a indirect response, what can we do to21 protect trees that are in the disturbed area. Because,22 again, it doesn't per se have to be clear cut23 necessarily. I am recommending, I don't know that you24 can require, I defer to counsel what you can and can't25 55 require, but I do recommend that we can do what's called1 a GIS overlay or GPS overlay where using exact data2 points of latitude and longitude we can identify tree3 locations of species and particular trees that are of4 unique value and therefore see if those trees, for5 example we could set a parameter, every tree over 366 inches, and I'm just picking a number by they way, I'm7 not telling you that is the number. But we could say we8 want to know every tree of greater than 36 inches in the9 area of disturbance and which of those we might be able10 to preserve. I would recommend that that is a good11 thing to do, it is not very expensive, it is very quick12 to do and it would definitely give us more. Does that13 mean all those trees would be saved, absolutely not.14 Doesn't mean that all. If it's in the middle of a15 building it's not going to be there. But it gives us16 another point of reference to look at because those17 mature trees become seed trees going forward.18 MR. ALPER: Can you, just for the publics19 edification and ours, can you mention your other20 suggested conditions?21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, can you say that22 again.23 MS. MCGOVERN: For the record, your reports24 dated October 16, 2024.25 56 THE WITNESS: Is that what you're asking,1 date of the report?2 MS. MCGOVERN: I just want it as a reference3 point. I wanted it to be on the record what we were4 talking about.5 THE WITNESS: And what was your question?6 MR. ALPER: I was looking for your three7 other conditions you recommended.8 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Well, in that, and9 I'll restate it just for the record, October 16, 202410 report which was submitted, what we did here is two11 things in this report. One, it updates the 2019 tree12 study with 2024 field observations. We did not repeat13 the tree count, because there was really no need to do14 so. The forest has changed virtually not at all in15 those years. And in that situation what we noted, again16 consistently,

e did not repeat13 the tree count, because there was really no need to do14 so. The forest has changed virtually not at all in15 those years. And in that situation what we noted, again16 consistently, because this was raised by the public, has17 the forest changed. Have you looked at the forest18 again. The finding is that there is still lack of19 understory growth. There are very few shrubs, seedlings20 or wild flowers. As I noted earlier the primary finding21 of shrubbery in that area is what we call Japanese22 barberry, which is a highly invasive plant.23 Unfortunately, just as a side note, still sold at most24 garden centers in New Jersey, which I do not understand,25