December 11, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

3 of 38 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 100 01/08/2025 12:06:06 PM 9 of 10,000 square feet with no methodology stating how1 they selected the plots. Utilizing this method -- they2 utilized approximately 2.2 percent of the property, I3 don't know if they selected the plots because they saw4 heavy tree growth or not. 2.2 percent utilizing a tree5 survey is statistically invalid. Proper tree surveys6 must use anywhere, depending on the method, between four7 and five percent and the plots must be randomized.8 There's no evidence that these plots are randomized.9 Our tree study was utilized creating randomized plots on10 -- excuse me, on the current site plan, which is why we11 focused on the area of disturbance. We used 22 plots12 and overall sampled approximately four percent of the13 property utilizing what's then continued a mean system14 utilizing a rolling mean, which is considered a15 statistically valid method of reducing the number of16 plots you might use. So let me explain that. We might17 have used 50 plots had we wanted to get five percent.18 But after seeing 22 plots and using the rolling mean19 method of analysis, which is all explained in the tree20 report, what we determined is there's no variability.21 We don't need to do more plots to get the same numbers22 to get to the same end. This tree study, or whatever23 you wish to call it, you can call it a tree study, but I24 wouldn't give it that credibility, this particular25 10 drawing used 10,000 square foot plots, which might tell1 me more about trees in that 10,000 square feet, because2 again, that's 10,000 square feet, but did not utilize3 sufficient quantity or covering of land and does not4 explain it used a rolling mean. There's no proof of non5 bias, as far as I can tell it could be a bias plot. And6 one of the interesting elements of it as well is it7 either misidentifies trees by species because it8 recognizes a bur oak. A bur oak is not indigenous in9 our area, so either they missed identified it, and it's10 very common to misidentify oaks by the way, that's not11 unusual in the woodland area. So either they12 misidentified it or someone put it there. As to why13 someone would put it there, I don't know.14 Put what, on the chart or on the grounds?15 Q. No, the bur oak. Identifying one of the trees as16 A. a bur oak. Bur oak is not indigenous to our area.17 Well, that doesn't mean that it's not

t know.14 Put what, on the chart or on the grounds?15 Q. No, the bur oak. Identifying one of the trees as16 A. a bur oak. Bur oak is not indigenous to our area.17 Well, that doesn't mean that it's not growing.18 Q. We have lots of things that aren't indigenous.19 That's true. But bur oak is not that common a20 A. find. It's more likely it's an indicator that it's21 misidentified. My point being, there are enough flaws22 in this entire methodology that it had no validity to23 me. This has no validity in my mind and therefore I24 wouldn't have used it, even if it had been submitted,25 11 even if I had seen it, again, for the reasons cited.1 It's statistically invalid. It does not have2 methodology, does not cover sufficient quantity of area.3 It's not non bias, it has no randomization and as far as4 site plan, that isn't near what we're working off of.5 Having said all that --6 You said -- go ahead.7 Q. -- it does anything, it comes up with a number of8 A. trees per acre that could be higher depending on how you9 read it. If that's true and it was accurate then it10 would only corroborate my study which says the forest11 isn't defined and that the number of trees per acre is12 defined because trees are dying. And we know ash are13 dying and we know that for a fact and we know beech will14 be. So, yes, I did review it after you had posted it15 and I discount it completely.16 Why do you say there's an indication it would17 Q. mean trees are dying, explain that?18 Well, if it shows a higher concentration and some19 A. people may say, depending on how you choose to read20 this, you can pick and choose numbers off of this thing21 any way you like. But the simple fact is it's a22 statistically invalid and meaningless piece of paper.23 Why don't you answer my question. Why do you say24 Q. it means trees are dying?25 12 If it shows a higher concentration of trees, my1 A. study, the study we did, would show fewer trees per2 acre, if it does that then my point being, all it would3 mean -- so for example, if you read off of this, Exhibit4 O-3. By the way, I'm using what is off the website, is5 that allowable, Counsel?6 We'll put it up on the screen eventually.7 Q. I just opened it up.8 A. It's the same document. I have no problem with9 Q. that. Go ahead.10 Okay. You know, this is showing here average of11 A. trees certain size, 2 inches or greater. Two inches are12 not

pened it up.8 A. It's the same document. I have no problem with9 Q. that. Go ahead.10 Okay. You know, this is showing here average of11 A. trees certain size, 2 inches or greater. Two inches are12 not trees technically, that's another flaw with the13 study. It shows 558 trees per acre then it shows 18214 trees per acre 6 inches or greater. That -- okay, so15 it's 182, it's actually showing less trees per acre than16 we calculated and as I stated earlier --17 Well, that's because you're taking away all the 218 Q. inch trees?19 Two inch are saplings. They are not trees nor20 A. are they defined as trees in the ordinance in West21 Orange.22 Well, that's the category you're referring to is23 Q. 2 to 6 inches?24 I understand that.25 A.