November 13, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

is is just meant to show an overview of the 24 site. Had I gone back further and I do have -- there 25 is an old photograph, it’s really not very good, very 83 1 hard to see, from 1985 when the entire area here was 2 wooded. 3 It would have been continuous woodlands. 4 Q No, we understand -- 5 A But, so the point is the forest has changed but 6 the change here is you can see, well, not well, I’m 7 afraid, is limited and that’s all I was trying to use 8 these images to show. 9 Q So, there’s been, essentially in this 22 year 10 period and, perhaps, even going back further, this 11 stretch of forest is essentially stable, is that fair 12 to say? 13 A Stagnant would be a better word. 14 Q Stagnant. In other words, this level of tree 15 density, the tree canopy, all of that is essentially 16 the same over this period of time, is that right? 17 A It is a stagnant forest, yes. That’s a good way 18 to put it. 19 Q My question is a little bit different. 20 Essentially, you mean that the tree canopy, the extent 21 of woodlands, the density of tree, et cetera, is all 22 essentially the same throughout this 22-year period. 23 A Correct, it’s stagnant. 24 Q Thank you. 25 A It’s not evolving as it should. 84 1 Q Well that’s, perhaps, another issue, I simply 2 wanted to ask that limited question right now. Now, in 3 your report you make a statement at Page 2, the forest 4 consists primarily of large trees. The initial study 5 showed no trees under four inches in diameter within 6 the study plot. Would you just take us to the slide 7 that shows the study plot, I want to just identify 8 that. 9 A There you go. 10 Q It’s not easy to see, but there are -- 11 A I know, I -- oh, there you go. 12 Q That’s better, thank you, perfect. Thank 13 you. In that slide, roughly in the center and a little 14 bit, well, it looks like there’s a kind of fold down 15 the center of the picture and on both sides of the fold 16 there are some circles, you see that? 17 A Are you talking about this line here? 18 Q Yeah. It looks like a fold line, from an old 19 document. 20 A Okay. 21 Q And there are circle lines on both sides of 22 it. 23 A Correct. 24 Q Are those the study sites? 25 A Those are study plots, yes.

85 1 Q And those are the study plots that you 2 referred to on Page 2 of your report. 3 A Yes. Assigning in those particular study plots we 4 did not find any trees below four inches in diameter in 5 the initial study in 2019. 6 Q Now, just for reference I’m referring when I 7 say report to the October 16th, 2024 report that Mr. 8 Defer submitted. Well, you say, though, that -- 9 A I have mine. 10 Q -- in August of 2024, you did find small 11 stands of trees ranging from one to two inches. 12 A Correct. That was a non-statistical walk through 13 study. 14 Q Now, so, in fact, you do show trees under 15 four inches. 16 A No. The study that was done in -- this study does 17 not find any trees under four inches. Can you reduce 18 that for me, Joe. Yes. This is from the original tree 19 study. This is a statistical analysis. 20 Q Hang on, before you go further. That’s 21 referring to the blue bar graph which also has the word 22 histogram, is that correct? 23 A Yeah, that’s correct. A histogram -- 24 Q Hang on one second, please. Mr. Chairman, 25 for reference, there are no page numbers, so I’m going 86 1 at this point describe the slide so we have a 2 reference. Now, when I say histogram page that would 3 -- you would understand I’m referring to the blue bar 4 graph page, correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Okay. Now, in that page it begins, the blue 7 bar graph, at four inches in diameter, is that correct? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Now, you said at the last meeting that there was 10 no study made of trees below four inches because 11 they’re not counted. Is that what you said? 12 A They were not counted in this study, nor were they 13 found. 14 Q Well -- 15 A There were observational, there’s observational 16 work within the tree report and there’s statistical 17 work. 18 Q Now, what do you -- 19 A The observation -- this is the 2019 study, this is 20 the original study, this is the only statistical 21 analysis because everything, obviously, if you think of 22 the year, this was relevant in 2019. Statistically, we 23 did not find any. In observational walkthroughs we did 24 find some saplings and seedlings growing. Not many, 25 but, we found some, and I was very pleased to see them. 87 1 Q Where did you document these saplings 2 growing? 3 A You read it. 4 Q No, do you have a map showing where they were 5 growing? 6 A No. As I said, the 2024 walkthrough was not a 7 statistical

m. 87 1 Q Where did you document these saplings 2 growing? 3 A You read it. 4 Q No, do you have a map showing where they were 5 growing? 6 A No. As I said, the 2024 walkthrough was not a 7 statistical analysis because the statistical analysis 8 was designed to look at the area of disturbance 9 fundamentally. I can’t tell you that when we saw the 10 seedlings in our secondary walkthrough that they were 11 absolutely in the area of disturbance. 12 Q Well, do you have any ability to tell us 13 where these stands of trees that shows trees one to two 14 inches were found? 15 A No, they were -- as I stated, we did an 16 observational, non-statistical analysis, we walked 17 through. If I walk through today I could find them 18 again, probably because I would stumble on them as we 19 did the first time, second time, sorry. 20 Q Do you have any notes showing were you found 21 this? 22 A No. It was an observational walkthrough which is 23 a simple, non-statistical subjective observational note 24 saying we saw them. 25 Q And we have no ability to know where they are 88 1 on the site. 2 A Specifically, not from what I did, no. 3 Q And, we have no ability to know how widely 4 distributed these stands of trees were, based on what 5 you presented. 6 A Based on our observational walkthrough we saw very 7 few stands of young trees, which is why in the 2019 8 study, we found none. 9 Q Well, actually, that’s not what you say in 10 your report. You say you found small stands of trees 11 ranging from one to two inches. 12 A That’s in the 2024 non-statistical, non-analytical 13 walkthrough. It was a subjective walkthrough. 14 Q You don’t say there was very few, you just 15 say you found small stands of trees ranging from one to 16 two inches, isn’t that correct? 17 A Well, I will clarify to you that what I mean by 18 that is there were very few. 19 Q So, in other words, as an environmental 20 scientist you clarify orally after you cross examine 21 but you don’t put your specific findings in the report, 22 is that what you’re saying? 23 A I’ll try to answer this again, The 2019 study is 24 the statistical analysis and what I stand by. The 2024 25 walkthrough was people asking has the forest changed.

89 1 In my opinion it has not changed. In the forester’s 2 opinion that I took with me, it has not changed. The 3 forest is not regenerating. Might there be the odd 4 small three growing, might there even be a hundred odd 5 small trees growing, the answer is yes, there could be. 6 And, in fact, there might be 150. That does not make a 7 healthy forest. That’s the point of my conclusion not 8 the specifics of the number of trees and where they 9 are, the specific finding is, is this a healthy forest. 10 The answer is no. On a long-term basis, this is a 11 stagnant forest, as you pointed out, and it is a forest 12 that is not evolving properly as it should because of 13 excessive deer browse. 14 Q And, we only have your words to say because 15 you didn’t provide any notes of these observations of 16 the smaller trees, isn’t that correct? 17 A You have my word, I’m under oath and I’m telling 18 you the truth. 19 Q How come you have a documentation, a very 20 specific number on the histogram beginning at four 21 inches but, you don’t have any documentation of the 22 smaller trees that you observed? 23 A As I’ve testified to, this histogram is from the 24 2019 statistical analysis performed on the property. 25 The note referencing the small saplings and seedlings 90 1 is from a 2024 walkthrough of the property which was 2 requested by this board, that I go back and see that 3 property where it is a subjective, non-statistical 4 analysis. 5 Q You’ve answered my question as best you can, 6 I suppose, is that fair to say? 7 A I’ve answered your question accurately. 8 Q Now, you say also on Page 2, with limited 9 exception the trees observed were as large as 24 to 36 10 inch diameter at breast height. That’s on Page 2 of 11 the study. Do you recall that line? 12 A Which are we talking -- give me the date of the 13 report, please. 14 Q Your Page 2 of the October 16th report. 15 A Okay. 16 Q Item 3Ai. 17 A Yes, I see that. 18 Q Right. It says with limited exception the 19 trees observed were as large as 24 to 36 diameter at 20 breast height. Now, when were those trees observed in 21 that way in the 2019 study for the histogram? 22 A No, that particular area -- well, that’s from 23 both. That’s from the 2019 study where we looked and 24 measured trees and to the 2024 where I just did general 25 observations. 91 1 Q So, what you’re saying in Roman Numeral I 2 there, is

’s from 23 both. That’s from the 2019 study where we looked and 24 measured trees and to the 2024 where I just did general 25 observations. 91 1 Q So, what you’re saying in Roman Numeral I 2 there, is that with very limited exception the trees 3 were large in the 24 to 36 inch range, is that correct 4 A In what we observed on 2024, correct. 5 Q Well, let’s go to the histogram that’s on the 6 screen. If we could zoom in on little bit without 7 moving too much of the text. 8 A I’m not sure if we can -- I don’t know how to do 9 that. 10 Q Well, just a little bit. I have trouble 11 seeing that’s all. Good, perfect, thank you. Well, 12 what we actually see on this histogram is the exact 13 opposite of what you just read from your report because 14 the histogram shows virtually no trees from 24 inches 15 and higher and a heck of a lot of trees in the smaller 16 ranges, four inches, eight inches, 12 inches, et 17 cetera. Now, how do you explain this discrepancy 18 between the statistical analysis in the histogram and 19 your report where you said virtually all the trees were 20 in this high range when there are none shown virtually 21 in the histogram? 22 A Because we were looking for large trees when we 23 did our non-statistical analysis, so we were looking at 24 the biggest trees in the area. The four to eight to 12 25 inch, I would point out to you, four -- eight, 12 and 92 1 16 inch diameter trees are not small trees. What we 2 were noting is there are a number of larger trees and 3 we were walking through and saying, hey, there are a 4 number of larger trees here that we can observe, we did 5 not count them which is why in the October ‘16 report 6 one of the areas that, one of the recommendations, I 7 should say, I’m sorry, that we made was that we do an 8 additional study to try to identify some of the larger 9 trees in the area of disturbance to see if they could 10 be preserved. Now, we don’t know that we can because 11 we haven’t plotted them with a GPS system. Until we 12 plot them within a meter or so, we won’t know, for 13 example, the 36 inch tree that we saw that we say, hey, 14 we’d love to save this large oak for example, is it in 15 the middle of where the building is? I can’t say with 16 any certainty. 17 So, the reason that is in there is to support 18 the recommendation, which I made to the Board, that we 19 ask the applicant to allow us to go

re the building is? I can’t say with 16 any certainty. 17 So, the reason that is in there is to support 18 the recommendation, which I made to the Board, that we 19 ask the applicant to allow us to go forth with that GPS 20 study which would then identify trees of note that we 21 think we might be able to save if at all. 22 Q Can we go back to my question please? 23 A I think I just -- 24 Q No, you’re talking about large trees in the 25 area of disturbance that could be identified as

93 1 specimens. I didn’t get to that yet. I’m asking you 2 very simply, why is it that your report says that with 3 limited exception the trees observed were in the 24 to 4 36 inch category and your histogram shows the exact 5 opposite. 6 A Well, let me try to clarify again. That statement 7 is based on a walkthrough of the area looking for, we 8 were looking for large trees. It was inarticulate in 9 the way I’ve worded that paragraph. I should probably 10 have done it better, but, it is to state that when we 11 walked through it we were looking for bigger trees and 12 we found bigger trees because we looked for them. It 13 is not a statistical analysis, it is not meant to 14 compare to something that was done in a very rigid 15 statistically valid method. That statement is 16 subjective and they would not necessarily match. 17 Q But what seems to be then -- what seems to me 18 that a rigid statistical scientific method would be 19 more reliable than a visual that you do when you 20 casually walk through, isn’t that fair to say? 21 A That’s fair to say which also supports the 22 conclusion that the forest is stagnant and, therefore, 23 needs to be protected. 24 Q Well, it seems to me that if your histogram, 25 which is the scientifically rigid study shows mostly 94 1 smaller trees, four, eight, 12 inches and almost no 2 larger trees, that would be more reliable than what 3 you say at Page 2, 3Ai of your report. 4 A You’re conflating information. I can’t answer a 5 question that’s got conflated data. I’ve tried to 6 explain that but I apparently have been unsuccessful. 7 Q Well, with respect it’s your data. I’m not 8 conflating data, I’m not making it up, it’s yours. 9 A You’re interpreting differently than what I wrote. 10 I have stated what I wrote and what it means. I’ll do 11 it again if you’d like, but, what it says is -- 12 Q No, we can move on. You said what you had to 13 say, we can move on in the point unless you have 14 something new on that point to offer. 15 A I do not. 16 Q Okay. Now, you say your were looking for 17 large trees when you did that walkthrough but, when you 18 did the histogram you weren’t looking for large trees? 19 I’m trying to understand that. 20 A I did not say that. 21 Q Well, it sounds like that and I’m trying to 22 understand what you mean. 23 A What I said was, in the scientific survey when 24 you’re doing a tree survey,

derstand that. 20 A I did not say that. 21 Q Well, it sounds like that and I’m trying to 22 understand what you mean. 23 A What I said was, in the scientific survey when 24 you’re doing a tree survey, you’re looking for what’s 25 there and you do so in a statistically valid method 95 1 using a statistically valid pre-survey methodology. 2 For example, it states that you will use a GPS locator, 3 you will use GIS, you will locate your study plots 4 within a specific area if that is what you were 5 assigned to do. It says further that your study plots 6 must be of a specific size. They’re 100 square feet, 7 actually statistically 10 by 10. You also look at -- 8 and you do counts. You do counts, you do 9 identifications, you then subject all of that to a 10 statistical analysis. 11 What I stated about the trees when we walked 12 through in 2024, which, again, was at the request and I 13 don’t know which meeting, forgive me for not 14 remembering that, it was, can you please walk through 15 and see if the forest has changed. In that discussion, 16 in that walkthrough, we decided to look, again, 17 subjectively, hey, are there any large trees here that 18 are worth saving, let’s start looking at the larger 19 trees and see if there are some things here, we might 20 have some nice specimen trees, let’s see if we can work 21 with the developer later and save some of these 22 specimen trees, which would be to everybody’s benefit, 23 if they can be saved. 24 So, the secondary component is subjective and 25 not a statistically meritorious analysis. It is my 96 1 professional opinion based on observations in the field 2 which, scientifically, observations in the field have 3 value. Can I support those observations with 4 statistical analysis, I cannot. 5 Q Would you agree that the state of deer browse 6 on our forests has been essentially the same since the 7 early 1990's? 8 A I couldn’t answer that. 9 Q Why can’t you answer, you’re a biological, 10 environmental scientist? I thought you had knowledge - 11 - 12 A Are you talking about this forest? I wasn’t here 13 looking at it in 1990. 14 Q No, I’m asking you in general, is the 15 subject, is deer browse in our forest essentially the 16 same over this period of time? 17 A Deer browse has gotten worse since 1990. 18 Q Well, has it -- are you in a position to 19 state the extent of change in deer browse in our New 20

essentially the 16 same over this period of time? 17 A Deer browse has gotten worse since 1990. 18 Q Well, has it -- are you in a position to 19 state the extent of change in deer browse in our New 20 Jersey forests, northern, New Jersey, not the pine 21 barrens, over this time period? 22 A No. You would have to study a specific forest to 23 do that. You’d have to actually have a forest analysis 24 which I did, I add to my report in there for Essex 25 County, where they very specifically hire someone to go

97 1 out and do a survey of deer population with various 2 recommendations on what to do with that population. 3 Unless you do that, you can’t determine specific 4 numbers, no. 5 Q Have you done that with this forest? 6 A No. 7 Q Now, let’s go back to the study map, if you 8 can. I don’t know which frame it is. 9 A Bear with me. All right. When you say the study 10 map -- 11 Q The one with the circles. 12 A Okay, thank you. Go ahead. 13 Q If we can enlarge a little bit. Okay. Now, 14 who chose these study plot locations? 15 A Amy Greene Environmental who did the work for me. 16 Q All right. Well, you don’t -- 17 A It’s done -- 18 Q -- you don’t mean Amy Greene, but you mean 19 her company? She’s -- 20 A That’s what I said, Amy Greene Environmental, 21 yeah. Not her -- I don’t know that personally she was 22 there. 23 Q Right, no, no. I think she sold the company. 24 A I was, but she wasn’t there. 25 Q I’m just clarifying it, the company -- 98 1 A She was still owning the company at that time. 2 Q Now, the foresters or arborists you work with 3 chose those sites, is that correct? 4 A It’s selected through using a statistical analysis 5 methodology using GIS and plotting surveys. It’s a 6 randomized study. No one went out and said give me a 7 circle right here because I want to see that circle. 8 As I’ve testified before, this is a randomized study, 9 that’s what you do to make it statistically valid. 10 11 Q Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. It’s not 12 randomized you only focused on the area of disturbance, 13 isn’t that correct? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Okay. And it seems like the -- well, so, who 16 decided which particular study plots on this map would 17 be examined? 18 A The foresters in the field. 19 Q Okay. They decided where to look and study 20 in the different locations. 21 A They were charged, as I was, to look at the area 22 of disturbance as we knew it and to develop the study 23 methodology for randomized plotting in the area of 24 disturbance, which is what they did. 25 Q Why didn’t you do study plots in other parts 99 1 of the forest besides from the area of disturbance? 2 A The primary concern was to determine the area of 3 disturbance and the impact that development would have 4 on that area because the rest of the forest was not 5 being disturbed. 6 Q But, you’re using the results from these 7 circled areas to discuss the health of the