November 13, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

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