Approved 8/12/10
TOWN OF WELLESLEY
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
May 26, 2010, 4 PM
DPW Park and Tree Conference Room
Attending: Neal Seaborn, Chair, Paul Cramer, Vice Chair, Heidi Gross, Secretary, Ursula King (departing at 5 PM), Janet Hartke Bowser, NRC Director.
Arriving Late: Joan Gaughan (arriving at 5:10 PM).
Guests: Mike Quinn, DPW, Kent Warren, DPW, Dave Hawkins, Consulting Arborist with Urban Forestry Solutions Inc., Jim Goodhue, Representing Town Counsel’s Office.
Public Voice
No one attending the meeting spoke at Public Voice.
Update on NRC FY10 Expenses
Ms. Bowser updated the NRC on a number of upcoming expenses, including hydro-raking at Morses Pond, pest remediation at the NRC Office, and Environmental Education promotional materials. The NRC gave their approval for all expenses.
Discussion Regarding the Tree Loss Appraisal Report (dated May 11, 2010) by Dave Hawkins, Consulting Arborist on the Boulder Brook Reservation Tree Removals
Ms. Bowser introduced Mr. Hawkins, who was hired by the NRC to provide the tree loss appraisal report for the Boulder Brook Reservation tree damages caused by an abutter without the Town’s authorization. Ms. Bowser stated that Mr. Quinn and his staff evaluated the site and have counted, measured, and identified the trees that were cut and damaged and the NRC requested an additional appraisal from Mr. Hawkins to inspect the site and to provide recommendations and estimates for tree damages.
Mr. Hawkins stated that on April 27, 2010, he met with Mike Quinn and Kent Warren of the DPW at the Boulder Brook Reservation, at which time he inspected the area affected by the cutting and documented the damage. Prior to this meeting, Mr. Quinn provided him with the data that he and his staff recorded at the site in order to assist Mr. Hawkins with his assessment and to check the data’s accuracy. Mr. Hawkins stated that his scope of work on this consulting project was to review the Wellesley Tree Loss Data List, check its accuracy and identify to the best of his ability the number, size, and type of trees that were removed or damaged. He was asked to provide the landscape value of the trees and provide recommendations and associated costs for repairing damage to the site. This assignment involved the
following steps:
· Review the Wellesley Tree Loss Data
· Meet with DPW personnel at the site and determine the scope of the tree damage
· Identify, count and measure the trees that were cut and damaged and compare Urban Forestry Solutions data with the Wellesley data
· Calculate the landscape value of the trees
· Provide recommendations and estimate costs for damage repair
· Submit a report of all findings.
Mr. Hawkins stated that his report is intended to estimate the monetary damage to the Boulder Brook Reservation by appraising the landscape value of the damaged trees while providing recommendations and associated costs for potential repair of the affected areas. He stated that this report is not intended as a proposal or plan for performing the recommended work. He stated that any costs associated with the tree value and site repair are estimates only and are based on his 32 years of experience in arboriculture and urban forestry in the landscape profession. He stated that it is his understanding that the information in his report, dated May 11, 2010, may be used to seek damages resulting from the unauthorized tree removals performed by persons or entities responsible for damaging the trees.
Mr. Hawkins reviewed his report with the NRC, including his specific observations and several photographs included in his report. In summary, he stated that the cleared portion of the reservation is now more open than the uncut woodland changing the character of the area. Mr. Hawkins stated that stumps, brush, and wood from the cut trees are now scattered on both sides of the trail, on top of the cliffs, and in the woods along the slope south of the trail. In addition, he noted that some of the felled trees are hung up in nearby trees while other felled trees damaged or destroyed smaller trees and undergrowth. He also explained that the cut on top of the cliffs were left where they fell creating a potential hazard to the users of the section of trail below the cliffs. Mr. Hawkins stated that the
trees cut on the Boulder Brook Reservation land have affected the aesthetics, safety and character of this woodland. He noted that the area is now more open, has less canopy cover with cut trees, stumps, and brush left throughout the site. Overall, he stated that the debris is unsightly and has changed the appearance of what was previously natural woodland that surrounded the hiking trail both along the sides and overhead. He stated that the damage to the Reservation, as stated in his report, can be partially addressed by improving the aesthetics of the area, controlling the invasive plant population and managing the trees and shrubs that will start to re-grow in the impacted area. He stated that his recommendations are described in further detail in his report.
Mr. Hawkins discussed the appraisal methods that he used to value the damage to the trees cut or damaged at the Boulder Brook Reservation. He outlined the 3 methods of appraisal that were used, which can be found in the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraiser’s Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition. These 3 methods are the Trunk Formula Method, the Replacement Cost Method and the Cost of Repair Method of Plant Appraisal. He stated that both the Trunk Formula Method and the Replacement Cost Method are based on replacement, adjusted for size (Trunk Formula Method only), and then depreciated according to pre-determined categories.
Mr. Hawkins explained in detail the Trunk Formula Method and how it places a value on trees generally considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock in normal landscape operations (trees over 6” caliper). In this case, 44 trees removed or damaged at Boulder Brook fall into this category. He stated that the determination of a tree’s value is based on the installed cost of a 2.5 – 3.0” caliper nursery-grown tree and then increased in proportion to the tree’s size. Mr. Hawkins explained that the formula places a dollar amount on each square inch of trunk area and then adjusts the amount according to the tree’s size, species, condition and location in the landscape. He stated that further descriptions of each of these criteria are found in his report.
Mr. Hawkins then explained the Replacement Cost Method in detail and indicated that it is not an estimate for actual replacement, but is based on the cost of replacing a plant of the same or comparable species and size in the same location, and then adjusting or depreciating according to the assigned species rating, condition and location. He stated that in the event that a cut tree is not available in a nursery, a tree of similar species and growth characteristics is used and then adjusted according to the cut tree’s species rating. Mr. Hawkins explained that the final installed cost for a tree less than 6” in diameter is generally 3 times the wholesale cost of that tree. He stated that similar to the Trunk Formula Method, the Replacement Cost Method adjusts or depreciates the values of the trees and
that it is not an estimate for actual replacement.
Mr. Hawkins reviewed in detail the Trunk Formula calculations found in Table 1 on pages 10-13 of his report, and then Mr. Hawkins also reviewed in detail the cost of replacement calculations in his report and his appraisal summary. The cost of repair and the trunk formula calculations are based on his recommendations for improving the aesthetics and safety of the woodland near the trail while addressing woodland management issues brought forth by the tree cutting. As indicated in his report, the total cost of damages based on the Trunk Formula Method and the Replacement Cost Method total $116,092 and his Cost of Repair or Cost of Cure calculations total $21,600 for a total tree loss appraised value of $137,692.
Mr. Hawkins stated that the approach to assessing the value of the trees is in his opinion the best approach to provide a rational justification on which he used to defend the assessed damages. He stated that the primary assumption of this approach is that the trees cannot be replaced given the site conditions and constraints and the size of many of the trees removed. Mr. Hawkins was asked to provide some background on his experience in providing expert testimony in cases of tree removals. He stated that he has testified 20 times in court regarding tree removal cases. He stated that recently he was involved in a case in the Springfield District Court which involved a private land owner versus a logger and in this situation; he used the same method that he used in the Boulder Brook case, which relied on the
Trunk Formula Method and the Replacement Cost Method. Mr. Hawkins was asked how much he charges for expert testimony and he replied that his fee is $200 per hour.
Mr. Cramer inquired as to whether or not there was anything unique about the Boulder Brook Reservation tree removals and he replied that he has not seen many situations where there were tree removals on public conservation land, but there was a similar situation at Wachusett Mountain. Mr. Cramer asked Mr. Hawkins how long it would normally take 5 men to take down the 2 trees that were originally proposed to be removed. Mr. Hawkins replied that it would likely take ½ hour. Mr. Cramer said that he wanted to qualify that Mr. Hawkins’ report was a public document and that there was a provision in the report, specifically, Provision 6 on page 16 stating that the contents of the report cannot be conveyed to anyone in the public without the express written consent of the consultant. Mr. Hawkins stated that he
hereby gives permission to release the report to the public and it will hereby be considered a public document once so determined by Town Counsel. Mr. Cramer asked Mr. Hawkins when he has testified in court, what issues he has been challenged on. Mr. Hawkins stated that in a Boston Land Court case Rider vs. Bourges, which was a situation in the Town of Beverly that involved agricultural property and that the main challenge was regarding the replacement costs. He stated that in a case at the Worchester District Court, a judge had trouble understanding the methods used to calculate the value of the trees in reaching agreement for a settlement. Mr. Cramer asked if the methods used by Mr. Hawkins in the Boulder Brook Reservation report were similar to methods employed generally in this country and Mr. Hawkins replied “yes” that his methods were similar to methods used throughout the United States, and that similar methods are also applied in Europe, and
Mr. Hawkins stated that these methods are found in the Council for Tree and Landscape Appraiser’s Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition. Mr. Cramer asked Mr. Hawkins whether or not he has seen triple damages applied under tort law for negligence. Mr. Hawkins replied “yes” that in the Beverly case they had to prove negligence and triple damages were applied.
Ms. King asked Mr. Hawkins whether or not there are any other prevailing damage appraisal methods used. Mr. Hawkins replied “yes” that there is a real estate damage appraisal method used but that there is some debate regarding its reliability. This approach is based on the cost of replacement, as in an apple orchard, and the value of the product of the trees and not necessarily the trees themselves. He stated that he is confident that the method that he has used in the Boulder Brook Reservation damage appraisal tree
estimate is a sound and rational method, especially since the trees cannot easily be replaced. He stated that this is the method that he is most comfortable in defending should this situation lead to litigation. Mr. Cramer asked Mr. Hawkins if he thought that the work done at the Boulder Brook Reservation was done by amateurs, or were these trained tree workers. Mr. Hawkins replied that from an arborist view, these workers knew what they were doing and their goal was to get the trees on the ground, and that they made good cuts and their chain saws were sharp and they were likely experienced tree cutters.
Mr. Seaborn asked Mr. Quinn, Mr. Warren, and Mr. Goodhue if they had any questions for Mr. Hawkins and all replied in the negative. Mr. Seaborn thanked the DPW and Mr. Hawkins for their work on this matter and stated that the NRC will follow up with Town Counsel and further discuss the matter with Mr. Goodhue in Executive Session. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Warren left the meeting at this point.
Executive Session to Discuss Unauthorized Tree Removals at the Boulder Brook Reservation and Potential Litigation
After a motion was made and seconded, each NRC Member was individually polled and voted 4-0 in favor of entering into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the unauthorized tree removals at the Boulder Brook Reservation and potential litigation, and the NRC will exit Executive Session and return to Public Session for the sole purpose of adjournment.
Adjournment
After a motion was made and seconded, the NRC voted 4– 0 to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted:
Janet Hartke Bowser
NRC Director
| 
