December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM Page 85 to 88 of 100 22 of 38 sheets 85 THE WITNESS: If you have a current copy.1 Is that all right Counselor, if I use his copy?2 MS. McGOVERN: Sure.3 THE WITNESS: We used a 4 to 8 inch range.4 So it's, I'm comparing kind of -- I'm not comparing5 apples to apples with that. But the 4 to 8 inch range6 we would have come up with, it's about 70 trees. That7 size range.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: 4 to 8, 709 trees per acre?10 THE WITNESS: 4 to 8, yeah.11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: What about --12 THE WITNESS: It's tough to compare 6, you13 know, it's a big range.14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Do you have15 anything above 8 inches?16 THE WITNESS: Yes, we have trees in the 8 to17 12 range and we went 12 to 16, 16 to 20 and the numbers18 drop pretty -- these are numbers of trees we found in19 the areas. So we went from 70 in 4 to 8. 8 to 12 we20 dropped to 30. Then we dropped, 12 to 16 we dropped to21 10, below 10. When we get above 16 to 20 you're going22 to get into 1, 2, 3, 4. That's a little better for me23 to see. So you just see as they get bigger and bigger,24 which is not unusual by the way, that is get really big25 86 trees, 36 inch diameter trees, that's a big tree. So1 you see fewer and fewer of that kind of tree anywhere.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: If you were3 to add up all the trees 4 inches or greater, can we get4 a number for that so we can compare it to 6 inches or5 greater that was in the earlier study?6 THE WITNESS: I'll look and see. Again,7 because we're doing different ranges, because they use8 the 2 to 6, which is an inaccurate range to work with in9 the first place, it's not an accurate study. In that10 regards when you say 2 to 6, I got to eliminate11 everything up between 2 and 3.9.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: I'd be fine13 with 4.14 THE WITNESS: I can try. I couldn't do it15 off the top of my head.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: So I would17 like to know what your study showed the total number of18 trees per, or average number of trees per acre 4 inches19 or greater.20 THE WITNESS: You want to compare what was21 the, what was theoretically the exhibit that was a prior22 study against these findings to see if there's any23 difference. Am I understanding you correctly?24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Correct.25 87 MR. AFRAN: Where the difference is.1 THE WITNESS: Either or.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT

ings to see if there's any23 difference. Am I understanding you correctly?24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Correct.25 87 MR. AFRAN: Where the difference is.1 THE WITNESS: Either or.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: If you have3 it by 6 inches that would be great, if not I'm happy to4 kind of adjust the math.5 THE WITNESS: I can try and -- I can try. I6 can't promise what I come up with, but I can try,7 certainly.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Thank you. I9 mean, should be a way to do it. You were able to put it10 on the histogram.11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm just not sure of12 it's accuracy, that's all I can tell you right now. I13 just don't know.14 MR. AFRAN: When that's done we appreciate a15 copy at the time it's posted and sent to the Mayor.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Second17 question I have is, I'm a little unclear about the18 forest, the characterization of the forest. Is it a19 stagnant forest or a stable forest or not?20 THE WITNESS: Well, I suppose it depends who21 you talk to. My professional opinion this is what I22 call a stagnant, non-regenerating forest. That means as23 time continues, using that histogram as an example24 regarding those other numbers.25 88 COUNCIL PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD: Right.1 You're going to have a few smaller.2 THE WITNESS: The problem is your smaller3 trees, when they get above that -- when they get to that4 4 inch category and above they're going to be okay. The5 problem is, forget the 2 inches and below, the seedling6 loss, the rate of the seedling lost is so substantial7 and then virtually, if you had a chance to look at the8 number of supplemental, I know you have nothing else to9 do with your time ever, but if you ever get a chance to10 read all that stuff, you will see there are a number of11 studies that show forests like this, and the reason they12 call it stagnant is because you don't get the13 replacement of the older dying trees with the seedlings.14 Whatever's in that range is what you got. And when I15 say the forest is stagnant and unhealthy, understand,16 you and I may not be on this earth by the time this17 forest regenerates to some level. We're talking about a18 forest, I'm talking 100 year window, not 5-year window.19 So I'm looking at a long-term health for the forest over20 long periods. So to answer your question, what will21 happen is if you don't get that seedling growth, if that22 continues to

-year window.19 So I'm looking at a long-term health for the forest over20 long periods. So to answer your question, what will21 happen is if you don't get that seedling growth, if that22 continues to occur as it's been doing when you're23 getting deer eating it and other animals, then you're24 going to have a number of negative environmental25