October 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

19 of 80 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 203 11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM 73 done. One, I think you show a couple of pictures on1 tree parking.2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I will get there in a3 second. That?4 MS. KAPFERER: Yes.5 If I understand you correctly you said that6 these photos over time, because it shows that that's not7 a popular thing. So what would, if we were to look at a8 mature forest that it would be possible that --9 THE WITNESS: You would -- I'm sorry. What10 I said is this, over, and this, by the way, I didn't put11 every image that I looked at into this show. This slide12 show. I have looked back at images back to 1985, that's13 as far back as I can get a satellite image for this14 site. So to give you context, one change is this was15 wooded. Right. It's just woodland. What I would16 expect to see in here is, and this is a winter image17 admittedly, but what I would expect to see open areas, I18 would expect to see areas that are being cleared because19 of nature. Trees falling, dieing, etc., but with new20 growth coming in, which I won't see in the winter image21 of course, but as I start to look again at this other22 winter image, what I'm seeing is literally no change.23 This is not meant to be definitive, this is just24 illustrative of the forest being very consistent over25 74 time. Since 2002 to today these trees simply gotten1 bigger, which is a good thing, you know. I don't have a2 problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact3 that on the ground looking at this forest I don't see4 any change, even over five years with any understory5 growth. I see some growth, which I saw last time. Does6 that answer your question?7 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah. Then moving a bit8 further into your presentation I think you had a chart9 that was a histogram.10 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. This one.11 MS. KAPFERER: So when someone went out to12 measure the trees, you know, were there measurements13 done on trees that are less than four inches?14 THE WITNESS: You don't do measurements in a15 tree survey on anything under four inches. You observe16 they're there, but you don't take physical measurements17 of them.18 MS. KAPFERER: Right. So how would that19 show up then? Like, how would that be characterized20 then on this chart.21 THE WITNESS: You would see it by22 observation. You would just count them. They just23 didn't appear in the -- let me go back and be clear on24 this.

ould that be characterized20 then on this chart.21 THE WITNESS: You would see it by22 observation. You would just count them. They just23 didn't appear in the -- let me go back and be clear on24 this. These types of studies and histograms are not25 75 absolute. This is a statistical survey. I'm sure you1 understand. But this means in these circled areas we2 did not find any of those trees. On my second, when I3 did a walk-through in 2024, as noted earlier, we did see4 some saplings under four inches, but I would say to you,5 all-though we did not do a statistical measurement, they6 weren't statistically significant, and the basis of that7 is purely anecdotal and by response. Oh my goodness,8 there's sampling. And when you're that surprised at9 seeing one, that's not good.10 MS. KAPFERER: So what you're saying though11 is that on that chart there wouldn't -- that how, the12 number, how would you have a number there? I mean,13 right now it looks like zero.14 THE WITNESS: In those study plots they saw15 them, they would count them and put them there. Because16 they know they're under four inches. I mean, that's17 observationally we can tell you that. And when the18 arborist who is used to go out into that section, there19 were three of them actually. You know, easily through20 years of experience, okay, there's three inch saplings.21 We note down there were five of those. But that, again,22 on this 16 feet or ten feet outside these little plots,23 I'm not saying there can't be one, but that's not what24 you're studying because it messes up your statistics.25 76 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, could you repeat1 that, I couldn't hear you.2 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is, when you're3 doing this kind of a study, understand it's a4 statistical survey, it's not an absolute. No one is5 going in there and counting every single tree in that6 area. That's just not feasible. But when I say there7 are no saplings in the study area, I'm sorry, I'm not8 hitting the circle very well, I was never very good at9 those games. I could be here, which is outside of the10 study area and I could see a sapling potentially, but I11 wouldn't count it in my statistical study because it's12 not in the study plots. In 2024 as noted we did see13 some saplings but weren't doing a repeat of the14 statistical survey of the forest. We weren't recreating15 that survey, it was unnecessary in our

not in the study plots. In 2024 as noted we did see13 some saplings but weren't doing a repeat of the14 statistical survey of the forest. We weren't recreating15 that survey, it was unnecessary in our opinion.16 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you.17 I think I was confused when I saw that sign18 and I was pretty sure that would have to be more than19 zero. I'm just confused as to where the number was and20 how someone divided that number.21 So is the deer fence, is it practiced by22 other experts? I know you mentioned that the Department23 of Agriculture sounds like they have design guides or24 something like that. So are there other entities that25