Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1988-11-15] British Columbia. Supreme Court Nov 15, 1988

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019505.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019505-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019505-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019505-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019505-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019505-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019505-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 9644  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 Vancouver B.C.  2 November 15, 1988  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  In the Supreme Court of British Columbia,  7 Vancouver, this Tuesday, November 15, 1988.  In the  8 matter of Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen at  9 bar, my lord.  10 THE COURT:  Miss Mandell.  11 MS. MANDELL:  Thank you.  If Miss Haeussler could take the  12 stand.  13  14 SYBILLE HAEUSSLER, resumed:  15  16 THE REGISTRAR:  I caution the witness you are still under oath.  17 THE COURT:  Miss Mandell.  18 MS. MANDELL:   Just prior to Ms. Haeussler continuing, I was  19 advised by Mr. Grant that the arguments respecting the  20 documents and scheduling, if it's convenient to all  21 parties, could be heard tomorrow.  I understand this  22 is convenient to Mr. Mackenzie and it's hoped that Ms.  23 Haeussler will be finished today.  24 THE COURT:  Yes, that's fine.  25  2 6 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MS. MANDELL (Continued)  27 Q   We were -- prior to breaking yesterday we were talking  28 about fire suppression.  Could you advise us what is  29 fire suppression?  30 A   Fire suppression is when humans or men actively tries  31 to put out a fire or prevent it from burning to the  32 extent that it would if left alone.  33 Q   And is the study of fire suppression part of the study  34 of vegetation dynamics?  35 A   Yes.  It's part of the study of fire ecology and  36 forest succession, yes.  37 Q   And is it an area which you would normally be involved  38 in in your area of study?  39 A   I would look at the effect that fire suppression has  40 on the structure and composition of forest  41 communities.  42 Q   And would a fire ecologist be an expert in this field?  43 A   Some of them would be.  44 Q   You mention --  45 A   The ecological impacts of fire suppression.  I want to  46 clarify this.  The actual techniques and that, that's  47 quite a different field altogether, and not something 9645  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 about -- that a fire ecologist would normally have  2 anything to do with.  3 Q   All right.  Yesterday you mentioned one fire  4 ecologist, Mr. Parminter.  Are there any other fire  5 ecologists to your knowledge who might have developed  6 a particular area of expertise in the area of fire  7 management or --  8 A   Yeah.  I forgot -- I said yesterday that John  9 Parminter was the only fire ecologist that I was aware  10 of, but I was thinking very narrowly of in terms of  11 someone who is looking at fire history and fire cycles  12 and in fact I know of at least there is a group of  13 fire ecologists in the Canadian forestry service, Dr.  14 Lawson Hawkes and Steve Taylor.  And there is also Dr.  15 Michael Feller at U.B.C.  But they look more at  16 impacts of prescribed burning, prescribed burning  17 techniques and impacts of that on the ecosystem.  So I  18 just wasn't thinking of the complete field when I said  19 that he was the only one that I could -- that I knew  20 of.  21 Q   All right.  At page 89 of the -- of exhibit book, tab  22 2, if you could turn to it.  There is your literature  23 cited for your study.  And I want to ask you with  24 reference to this literature the sources which you  25 consulted dealing with fire history and cycles.  And  26 if I could first take you to page 90 and ask you  27 whether Heinselman, which is the fifth author down, is  28 a source consulted by you in this area?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And at page 91 there is two references by Mr. -- is it  31 Mr. or Dr. Parminter?  32 A  Mr. Parminter.  33 Q   Mr. Parminter.  Are those two references also sources  34 consulted by you?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And at page 92, at the beginning of the page Mr. Pojar  37 is looking at ecosystem classification.  To your  38 knowledge did he also deal with history or cycles of  39 fire?  40 A   Yes.  There is some discussion of the fire origin of  41 stands and so on, yes.  42 Q   And later down the sixth item.  4 3 A  And —  44 Q   I am sorry?  45 A   There is another one right underneath it.  46 Q   All right.  Is that the Romme reference?  47 A   Yes. 9646  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 Q   That's the second one down in the column.  And the  2 sixth item, Mr. Smith, is that also a source dealing  3 with fire cycles and history?  4 A   That's right.  5 Q   And Mr. Tande has two references, also in the same  6 page.  Are those also dealing with fire?  7 A   They are.  8 Q   And at page 93 Mr. Van Wagner, which is the eighth  9 author cited, is he also in this area?  10 A   That's right.  11 Q   And Mr. Wein?  12 A  Wein and MacLean.  13 Q   Wein and MacLean?  14 A   Yeah.  That's also on that topic.  15 Q   Apart from these references are there any other  16 references to your knowledge which are available which  17 you consulted which deal with fire history and cycles?  18 A   There is quite an extensive literature on the topic  19 and I have been reading in it for quite a number of  20 years.  But most of it I didn't see as specifically  21 relevant, because it was for other parts of North  22 America.  It was more background knowledge.  I have  23 some of the references here, if you are interested.  I  24 don't know to what extent you -- whether I consulted  25 them or not, I can't say.  I don't really know.  26 Q   Are these the main sources, the ones that you cited?  27 A   The ones that I cited directly are the ones that I  28 wanted to specifically bring up in the context of this  29 study, but some of my other comments were based on  30 background knowledge based on reading of other  31 literature.  32 Q   And have you done any direct research yourself in this  33 area other than the consultation as you have described  34 it with reference to the literature?  35 A   No, I have not.  I have done fieldwork in which we  36 tried to estimate the age of stands and when the last  37 fire -- you know, the fire origin of the stand, but as  38 far as specific research directed to fire ecology, no,  39 I haven't done any.  40 Q   Is there much research in British Columbia in this  41 area?  42 A   No.  There is very little.  43 Q   All right.  Now, at page 29 at the last full paragraph  44 there, you state that:  45  46 "Organized fire suppression in the study region  47 has become increasingly effective over the past 50 9647  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 years."  2  3 In your examination of a forest, is it possible for  4 you to estimate if the fire has been one which has  5 occurred in the last 50 years or less?  6 A   You can tell by the age of the stand and you can see  7 evidence that the stand is of fire origin.  You can --  8 that's very common practice in -- when you do  9 ecological sampling.  You determine the age of stand.  10 Even the age of lodgepole pine stand, it's very easy  11 to determine right about when the stand first  12 regenerated.  And you can usually see evidence that  13 fire was the disturbance that caused the new stand to  14 develop.  Burned logs, standing or half fallen snags,  15 charcoal in the organic layers.  So you could identify  16 a stand that was less than 50 years old and had  17 originated from a fire.  18 Q   And without placing any magic on the year 50, could  19 you also identify a stand which has been burned longer  20 than 50 years?  21 A   Oh, yeah.  If the stand was 80 years old and was even  22 aged and had evidence of -- that fire had taken place,  23 certainly I don't see any problem with that.  24 Q   And is this something that you have done in the course  25 of your work?  26 A   Yes, I have.  Primarily in stands over the age of 50  27 years.  28 Q   All right.  At the top of page 30, you cite Smith and  29 say that he estimates -- and I am reading from the  30 first paragraph on page 30:  31  32 "Smith (1981) estimates that average fire cycles  33 in British Columbia may now be 10 times longer  34 than those in pre-settlement forests."  35  36 First of all, is this conclusion rebutted by anybody  37 to your knowledge?  38 A   I don't know of anybody that took Smith's work and  39 rebutted it.  Not -- to my knowledge I wouldn't -- it  40 wouldn't surprise me if somebody said no, it wasn't  41 ten, it was something else.  But I don't think anybody  42 has ever gone specifically.  I wouldn't like to reput  43 it.  I am not aware of it.  44 Q   All right.  And you then in the next paragraph cite  45 Parminter for the statement that:  46  47 "The impact of fire suppression varies with the 964?  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 forest type and the natural fire cycle.  In an  2 area where the fire cycle is on the order of 300  3 years the effects of 50 years of fire exclusion  4 are minimal, whereas in stands with a history of  5 understory fires at least every decade, the  6 effects of a similar period of fire exclusion  7 would be much more evident."  8  9 Is this conclusion by Parminter in your view  10 self-evident?  11 A   It is if you think about it and you understand what  12 happens.  Would you like me to explain it a bit?  13 Okay.  If the fire cycle was on the order of 300 years  14 that doesn't mean that every stand burns every 300  15 years.  It means that there is a probability  16 associated -- the chance that any particular spot on  17 the ground will burn and that might happen  18 approximately once every 300 years, but it could be  19 once every thousand years and so on.  So if you had --  20 if 50 years went by with no fire and the naturally  21 stand might only burn say on average once every 300  22 years, but it could be a thousand years, 50 years is  23 not going to be a big difference and you are not --  24 you wouldn't be able to say well, the reason this is  25 the way it is is because somebody suppressed fire.  2 6 You don't know for sure that it would have burned.  On  27 the other hand, there are many areas of North America  28 where -- there are some areas in North America where  29 there is abundant evidence that they had these light  30 understory burns as frequently as every six years.  31 There is evidence of scars in the annual rings of the  32 trees.  You can see the little bits of charcoal in the  33 annual rings.  You can date the fires.  And in an area  34 like that 50 years of fire suppression could have a  35 dramatic impact on understory vegetation on the  36 regeneration of tree species.  Because that might have  37 prevented four or five different fires and it is  38 fairly certain that at least one fire would have  39 happened in the 50 year period.  40 Q   Okay.  In the study area, is there any portion of that  41 area to your knowledge which still has a natural -- I  42 am sorry, a natural fire regime?  43 A  A natural fire regime.  I think -- okay.  Now, the  44 more remote an area is the less successful the fire  45 suppression efforts have been and the less attention  46 there has been paid at active fire suppression.  For  47 example, in the boreal forest we talked about 9649  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 yesterday, the northern part of the study that I  2 looked at, there isn't a lot of settlement.  There  3 isn't a lot of high timber values and in general  4 it's -- measures aren't necessarily taken to suppress  5 all fires.  And so what exists there may approximate  6 an annual fire regime.  Of course if buildings are  7 threatened, if property values are threatened, they  8 will still go out and put out the fire, if it's  9 decided that that's important to do.  And so nothing  10 is -- it can't be considered truly natural, but it  11 would approximate -- and of course in more settled  12 areas I don't think anything near the natural fire  13 regime is now in existence, because it's simply too  14 dangerous to allow fires to burn unchecked.  15 Q   All right.  At table four on page 27, if you could  16 turn to it, there you under "Approximate Fire Cycles"  17 indicate, very roughly speaking, and I know -- I want  18 to emphasize your qualification on this yesterday  19 that, you know, these are very rough figures, that the  20 average duration of most fire cycles in the study area  21 is approximately 200 to greater than 300 years, is  22 that correct?  23 A   I don't know if I would go quite that far, because as  24 you see for the areas D and E, which do cover a fairly  25 significant part of the area, I said less than 200  26 years.  And I wouldn't want to say how much less.  27 Q   All right.  So —  28 A   But there are large areas in which the study or the  29 higher elevation areas, the coastal areas where the  30 fire regime is is somewhere on that order.  31 Q   All right.  And do you have any reason to doubt  32 Smith's conclusion that the average fire cycle in  33 British Columbia are longer than those in  34 pre-settlement forests?  35 A   No.  I believe it's true that they are longer.  36 Whether it's ten times longer I couldn't say.  But I  37 do honestly believe that the fire cycle with fire  38 suppression, with people actively putting out fires,  39 that the fire cycle on average is now longer than it  40 was before there was fire suppression efforts taken.  41 But course of when you are talking about average fire  42 cycles in B.C., he's averaging the whole province and  43 takes in a lot of variation.  So that's --  44 Q   Would this conclusion in your view apply to the study  45 area?  46 A   The fact -- I wouldn't go any further than to say that  47 fire cycles are now longer in the study area than they 9650  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  would have been in the pre-settlement times.  Q   All right.  At the bottom of page 30 you say that:  "Evidence from other parts of North America  suggest that in the long term, fire suppression  will significantly affect the structure and  species composition of forests in the study  region, especially in high elevation or remote  areas that are not affected by other land  management practises."  Is this your opinion?  A   This is my opinion based on reading literature from  other parts, particularly the Western U.S. and some  parts of the Rocky Mountains, in Canada, where there  is research that shows that structure and species  composition of forest does change in the long term  when there is a period of fire suppression.  When I --  what I said high elevation areas or remote areas, I  thought that because those areas -- because fire is  the natural disturbance in those areas, the main ones,  you know, in the areas that aren't right out in the  coast where there is very little fire.  Because man is  actively suppressing fire, but he's not going in there  and imposing any other disturbances that might take  its place.  As in some of the lower elevation areas  man is actively suppressing fire, but he has imposed  some other type of disturbance which might in some way  offset it.  So off in those remote areas the lack of  fire may be the most -- the largest perturbation  imposed by man.  That's my opinion.  Q   All right.  And also on page --  THE COURT:  I am sorry, what other kinds of disturbances would  you have in mind?  A   Something like clear cutting or farming or land  clearing.  That kind of activity.  THE COURT:  Well, you would regard in each -- just taking the  two you mentioned as clear cutting and farming, you  would regard them both as within the generic  definition of disturbance?  A   That's right.  They affect —  THE COURT:  Agriculture?  A   They destroy plant matter,  a disturbance.  THE COURT:  All right.  Now, I guess  don't regard agriculture as being necessarily  permanent, do you?  That's what I think of as  in the ordinary world you 9651  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 A  Well, not in the long picture and certainly in the  2 Northwest you see a lot of land clearing followed by  3 natural succession where it's a fairly -- there is a  4 short period of time perhaps where an area is grazed  5 and then it is allowed to grow back.  And no one tends  6 to think of land clearing -- well, some of it is  7 longer term than others, obviously.  But I don't  8 think —  9 THE COURT:  Yes.  Down at the bottom of the valley the farming  10 may have -- may become established for several decades  11 at least, whereas somewhere else it may be five or ten  12 year --  13 A   Yeah.  Depends on --  14 THE COURT:  — operation at best?  15 A   -- how intensive the agriculture is and how -- yeah.  16 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  17 MS. MANDELL:  18 Q   You say at page 30, and this is with respect to  19 berries, and I am reading from the third full  20 paragraph on the page:  21  22 "...I do not -- "  23  24 I am reading from the third line:  25  26 "...I do not believe that fire suppression has so  27 far had a significant effect on the distribution  28 of any of the species covered in this report.  29 However, at specific locations, the abundance of  30 these species and certainly their crop production  31 will have declined greatly over roughly 50 years  32 of fire suppression.  I am certain that in some  33 parts of the study region, the abundance of early  34 serai habitats ideal for berry -- "  35  3 6 And you have included:  37  38 " -- root crop production has decreased as a result  39 of fire suppression.  In other areas, the effects  40 of fire suppression are far outweighed by the many  41 other disturbances imposed by European  42 settlement."  43  44 Is that your opinion?  45 A   That is my opinion.  46 Q   And can you explain it?  47 A   The whole thing.  Okay.  When I say the distribution I 9652  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 am speaking in terms of the maps.  I don't think that  2 fire suppression has caused a berry species that used  3 to grow on the coast and now it doesn't grow on the  4 coast but it does grow inland.  I don't think -- on  5 the big scale that I'm working at it just doesn't  6 strike me that there has been a change -- a  7 significant impact on the distribution.  However,  8 abundance I think can be affected if you look not on  9 the big scale but if you look at very specific site.  10 If you had a site that had huckleberries, for example  11 it was an opening and for some reason or other  12 somebody wanted to burn it and for some reason or  13 other someone said you can't burn this, over 50 years  14 is enough time for trees to grow over top this little  15 berry patch.  And the berry production -- and shaded  16 out to the extend that there is less berry production  17 than there was before or if it was saskatoon it might  18 even cause the species to in 50 years be very much  19 declining and bigger not only in berry production.  So  20 I feel comfortable with a statement like that, that  21 there are -- certainly may be locations of the study  22 area where somebody prevented -- you can't go out and  23 burn at will because of fire suppression policies.  If  24 somebody was prevented from burning a berry patch,  25 it -- or if an early serai habitat where somebody used  26 to pick berries, it doesn't -- even if there was no  27 active burning, it just was -- it just grew back,  28 naturally that berry production could have declined.  29 I don't have any problem with that statement.  30 Q   Okay.  31 THE COURT:  I am not sure that I grasp this paragraph  32 completely, and forgive me for looking at it through  33 eyes that may not be in focus.  You say that fire  34 suppression -- and I will put it another way.  At  35 specific locations, the abundance of these species  36 will have declined greatly over 50 years of fire  37 suppression.  Now, I would take that to mean that you  38 are saying that because of fire suppression the  39 production in some species has declined?  40 A   That's right.  In over 50 years what would naturally  41 happen if there were no fire in many of the productive  42 forest habitats is that an area that was open and had  43 predominantly shrub cover, trees could come in and  44 overtop the shrubs.  If for some reason the practices  45 prevented a fire from removing those trees, then those  46 shrubs would decline in vigour, could decline in  47 vigour, depending on the species and berry production 9653  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 would probably decline.  2 THE COURT:  From the point of berry production, then, fire  3 suppression is bad?  4 A   You can't make a general statement like that.  5 THE COURT:  Well —  6 A   I don't like to make generalizations.  7 THE COURT:  I am trying to merely make sure I understand what  8 you are saying and I think I understand what you mean.  9 But in the -- from the point of view in the context of  10 berry production, fire suppression over 50 years will  11 cause a reduction in berry production?  12 A   For some species in some habitats.  In other habitats  13 50 years probably doesn't have -- doesn't make a lot  14 of difference. And --  15 THE COURT:  All right.  But then you say in other areas the  16 effect of fire suppression, which is to make  17 production go down, is outweighed by many other  18 disturbances imposed by European settlement.  Does  19 that mean that it goes -- that the effect of fire  20 suppression on production is balanced or does it mean  21 it gets worse?  22 A   I'm trying to --  23 THE COURT:  In the point of view of production?  24 A   I can understand your confusion there.  I guess what I  25 was trying to get at was that fire suppression may not  26 be the big -- it -- okay.  Let me think this over.  If  27 you are looking for a scale magnitude of impacts, fire  28 suppression is one that could have a relatively big  29 impact in certain environments with certain species,  30 but in other places fire suppression has a relatively  31 minor impact and other types of disturbances have a  32 much greater impact.  So why worry about fire  33 suppression when there are other kinds of  34 disturbances?  35 THE COURT:  That's what is troubling me by outweighed.  36 A   Yeah.  This is a judgment here.  I wish I could -- I  37 am trying to think specifically what is my point on  38 this particular sentence.  Well, for example, if there  39 was -- say there was a patch of saskatoon in a low  40 elevation area in the Bulkley Valley and people  41 weren't allowed to burn.  And so if it was allowed  42 to -- if they weren't allowed to burn, the trees  43 gradually grew over and the berries -- the shrubs  44 started to decline and the berry production declined.  45 That is one possibility.  But what's far more likely  46 is that it was actually plowed up and there is now  47 grass there.  And so that is probably much -- much 9654  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 bigger on the scale of impacts, that's probably a much  2 greater impact.  That's what I was getting at.  It's  3 probably not a very logical statement to make in that  4 sense.  5 THE COURT:  Are you saying in other areas the effect of fire  6 suppression is not as serious qua production as many  7 other disturbances?  8 A   Yes, that's what I am trying to say.  9 MS. MANDELL:  10 Q   Okay.  So the word maybe "over-shadowed" might be  11 substituted for "outweighed"?  12 A   Yeah.  That might be the problem, that I didn't use  13 the best word there that I could have used.  14 THE COURT:  So fire suppression is bad so far as production is  15 concerned but other things are worse?  16 A   Yes.  Fire suppression can be bad but other things  17 could definitely be much worse.  18 THE COURT:  Thank you.  19 MS. MANDELL:  20 Q   And Ms. Haeussler, you used the Bulkley Valley as an  21 example where the plow might get to it before the fire  22 cycle is due.  Is the Kispiox Valley another such  23 example of a place where that principle might apply?  24 A  Well, any area in the study area where there are lots  25 of agricultural -- where the low elevations are in the  26 agriculture and the Kispiox Valley is one.  I outlined  27 yesterday that much of the ICHg3 and the SBSd in this  28 study area is presently in agricultural production.  29 Q   Okay.  If you could turn to page 31, there you deal  30 with the effect of logging and silviculture.  And if I  31 could first ask you whether or not the effect of  32 logging and silviculture on forest succession is an  33 area which you study as part of your area of  34 expertise?  35 A   Could you say that again?  36 Q   Whether the effect of logging and silviculture on  37 forest succession is an area which you study as part  38 of your area of expertise?  39 A   I do.  Yes.  40 Q   And you have a particular area of interest in the area  41 of silviculture?  42 A   That's right.  43 Q   If I could turn you to your -- to the exhibit book and  44 to tab one of it, if you could identify for us the  45 areas in your present work experience and your  46 projects which deal with silviculture.  When you are  47 speaking first as your present situation as a partner 9655  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 in Skeena Forestry Consultants, have you in the course  2 of your work here conducted silviculture projects?  3 A   Yeah.  The vast majority of the projects that we do  4 are related to silviculture in one way or another.  5 Q   All right.  And at page two under "Current Projects"  6 you have listed four.  Are those projects or any of  7 them related to silviculture?  8 A   "Current Projects."  Yes.  The first one is definitely  9 related to silviculture.  The second one is  10 instructing to the silviculture institutes and so  11 upgrading the knowledge of silviculturists, that would  12 be relating to silviculture.  The third one is a data  13 base for silviculturists, yes.  So that's relating --  14 that's supposed to improve silviculture practice.  And  15 this research plan was part of a project that is --  16 that also relates to silviculture.  17 Q   And at page 3 you have identified four past projects.  18 Are any or all of them related to silviculture?  19 A   Okay.  Those are not four projects.  Those are four  20 general areas in which we carried out a number of  21 projects.  I might say that all the work that I do is  22 either in forest ecology or silviculture and forest  23 ecologist is base -- or silviculture to an extent is  24 just applied forest ecology, taking the principles of  25 forest ecology and applying them to the growth of  26 trees.  And so all of the work that -- almost all of  27 the work that I do, because there is -- that is one of  28 the big markets for forest ecologists is in  29 silviculture.  So virtually all of this information is  30 in some way related to silviculture.  31 Q   And if you could turn to --  32 A   Except for this Tribal Council work here.  33 Q   Turn to page four under "Publications."  Is the first  34 two publications listed related to silviculture?  35 A   Okay.  My thesis on the topic is a  36 silviculturally-related thesis.  This site preparation  37 guide is very directly silviculture.  Definitely  38 silviculture.  39 Q   And the fourth item where you did work with Coates in  40 1986, is that also related to silviculture?  41 A   Right.  That is a guide written for silviculturists to  42 improve their knowledge of vegetation.  43 Q   And the last three works which you did with people  44 among others, Mr. Pojar, is any of those -- are any of  45 those projects related to silviculture?  46 A  Well, this is the classification that we developed for  47 the Northwest and part of this -- in addition to 9656  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 describing the ecosystems, you develop silviculture  2 interpretations.  You say, well, here is a  3 classification, so what does it mean for silviculture?  4 So a big section of each of those reports is devoted  5 to how those different ecosystems should be managed  6 and what silviculture practices are appropriate and so  7 on.  8 Q   And if you could -- and do you keep current with the  9 literature on silviculture?  10 A   Yes, I do try to.  11 Q   Could you explain to us what is silviculture?  12 A  As I said before, it is the practice of applying  13 knowledge of ecology and so on to the -- pardon me.  14 Let me step back.  In broad terms it is the science of  15 growing trees as a crop and -- well, that's a good  16 enough definition of it.  17 Q   And could you explain to us in terms of that science,  18 are there different management regimes which are used  19 in the province and in the study area?  20 A   Pardon me?  That's a bit of a broad question.  21 Q   It is very broad.  I will try and bring it down a bit.  22 In the -- in the silviculture field, are there any  23 general management practices which a logging company  24 or any company involved in the area would be applying  25 when they were seeking to log in the study area?  26 A  Well, anything they do would -- could be construed as  27 a management practice.  I am not sure if I can answer  28 that question.  I am not -- any -- there is logging  29 going -- there is logging going on.  There is  30 silviculture being practiced.  I think you'll have to  31 repeat the question one more time.  I just don't think  32 I understand.  33 Q   I will get at it another way.  Are you familiar with  34 the logging and silviculture practices in the study  35 area?  36 A   I am.  37 Q   And in the management and silviculture practices is  38 there any practice that's either followed or  39 encouraged to generate the management of the berry  40 species or to encourage the berry production for the  41 species that you've looked at in order to avoid  42 negative impacts?  43 A   Negative impacts on berry production?  44 Q   Uh-huh.  45 A   Okay.  I'm not aware of any silvicultural practices  46 carried out in the study region specific -- which are  47 carried out specifically to avoid negative impacts on 9657  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 berry production.  The objective of silviculture is  2 the growth of trees.  If there is concern about the  3 impact on a resource for other users, sometimes  4 measures are taken, in case of wildlife browse.  There  5 may be notification to recreationists that herbicides  6 are being sprayed in an area where they may wish to go  7 pick berries.  But I am not aware of any specific  8 practices taken out in the Northwest to encourage  9 berry production or that any specific direct action is  10 taken to minimize impact on berry production.  11 Q   Okay.  If you could turn to page 31, there you talk  12 first about logging and you say that:  13  14 "Logging activity in the study region increased  15 steadily during the first century-and-a-half of  16 European presence, then expanded dramatically in  17 the 1960s."  18  19 What do you --  20 A   Can you get the page for me?  21 Q   Sorry.  Page 31.  On what do you base this statement?  22 A   I base that on general knowledge.  I don't -- I didn't  23 have to read that anywhere.  24 Q   Okay.  And then you say:  25  26 "A natural fire cycle of 150 to 300 or more years  27 has been replaced in many areas by a logging  28 rotation on the order of 70 to 200 years."  29  30 A   Okay.  Those figures, 150 to 300 and 70 to 200, are  31 used by way of example rather than that -- I don't  32 want to be tied to those figures.  But the point that  33 I was trying to make is that prior to the settlement  34 by the Europeans there was a cycle of natural  35 disturbance and fire was the -- in -- at least in the  36 Interior portions of the study, was the predominant  37 natural disturbance factor.  And fire suppression  38 practices now have changed that and in many cases the  39 chance of wild fires is very much reduced.  But in  40 place of that disturbance they have now imposed a  41 logging rotation which might occur every 70 to 200  42 years.  Stands are managed with the idea that at the  43 age of somewhere in that range, between 70 and 200  44 years, they will be relogged again.  And then they  45 will be reforested and harvested again.  So we are  46 talking in the really long term.  But this is the  47 way -- this is the idea behind the management is that 965?  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 there is a continuous rotation.  And so you can see  2 this as replacing the natural disturbance cycle with a  3 man-made disturbance cycle.  4 Q   All right.  And at this stage, based on your research  5 and the knowledge which is available, can you  6 generalize as to whether or not this change in  7 disturbance pattern will have any effect on the  8 berries in the claims area?  9 A  Well, I like to say that the impacts could really --  10 are really variable.  You can speculate for a given  11 species for a given area what -- if you knew exactly,  12 you know, what the fire cycle was and what the  13 rotation was, you could speculate on what the  14 difference between those two disturbance regimes would  15 be.  But there is a lot of variation and it's  16 extremely difficult to generalize.  It's pretty  17 speculative.  And it really depends on the environment  18 and on the species you are talking about.  19 Q   With respect to the species that you have studied,  20 could you provide any examples at this point, just  21 with respect to this change in disturbance that we  22 have talked about?  Just --  23 A  And as an example.  Okay.  I say in my report on the  24 coast it will probably be an increase in berry  25 production since rotations are not much shorter than  26 previously.  And I should say in the shortrun it could  27 mean an increase in berry production.  As I said in my  28 report, berry crops of these coastal species are  29 higher in open conditions in the young stands when  30 there is an abundance of berries with no overtopping  31 trees than there are in the understory.  The shrubs  32 are still there, but berry production tends to be  33 lower in the shade than in the open.  And if you look  34 at the age structure of the forests before the clear  35 cut logging took place on the coast, there was a vast  36 predominance of old growth stands, 300 plus years old.  37 Now if you look at age structure, you have a  38 significant proportion of young stands under the age  39 of 30 years.  And I would say that probably -- on  40 average probably there is higher berry production as a  41 result of that in the shortrun as a result of that  42 logging.  In other areas there may be less.  And  43 different species, different areas.  That's just an  4 4 example.  45 Q   All right.  You then go on at page 31 to say:  46  47 "Silvicultural practises such a prompt restocking 9659  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 of conifers and brush control have only recently  2 begun to affect berry abundance, but they may  3 become important in the future."  4  5 At this stage and based on your knowledge personally  6 and from your research, can you say whether or not the  7 effect of silviculture practices will have effects in  8 either the short or the long term on the berry species  9 you studied?  10 A  Well, I could come up with a few examples where prompt  11 restocking of conifers and brush control might affect  12 berry abundance.  I will give you one example that you  13 see in the SBSe sub zone and that's the medium  14 elevations in the Interior Plateau and somewhat lower  15 elevations of the SSF.  Now, these are the areas that  16 have quite an abundance of black huckleberry.  And in  17 the past, fires were often left to regenerate  18 naturally.  And if you have a big wildfire with  19 relatively sparse seed source, it can take a very long  20 time for a fire to regenerate naturally in some  21 places.  So there is an extended period of time where  22 it's relatively open and there is a good cover of  23 huckleberries and various things.  Currently now there  24 is somewhat more aggressive rehabilitation of fires.  25 The idea is to get them stocked more rapidly than it  26 would happen naturally.  And so there is the practice  27 of windrowing and burning, or the snags are knocked  28 over because they get in the way of machines and  29 planters and they are dangerous.  So they are knocked  30 over.  Then their windrowing consists of bulldozing  31 all the debris into big piles which are then burned.  32 And in the bulldozing process the forest floor is  33 removed and pushed aside.  Now, this process to my  34 mind has -- could have quite an impact on the black  35 huckleberry, the presence and abundance of that  36 species.  It would probably recover fairly slowly from  37 such an extreme disturbance if the scarification or  38 the bulldozing was deep.  And other species such as  39 willows are prone to invade those areas.  And so that  40 kind of active restocking of the forest which  41 probably -- you know, which tends to occur now, may  42 have a negative impact on berries.  Another example  43 might be the spraying of herbicides.  I have been  44 reading some literature on saskatoon and it's  45 sensitive to glyphosate and hexazinone, two commonly  46 used herb --  47 THE COURT:  I am sorry, you are going to have to spell the 9660  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 words.  2 A   Glyphosate, g-1-y-p-h-o-s-a-t-e, and hexazinone,  3 h-e-x-a-z-i-n-o-n-e  4 Now, saskatoon is sensitive to these chemicals.  5 And if an area had abundant saskatoon and that were  6 perceived to be competing -- that the brush complex on  7 the site was perceived to be competing or  8 negatively -- having a negative impact on the trees,  9 these herbicides could be sprayed and they would  10 probably kill or set back the saskatoon and that could  11 have a negative impact on berry production.  Depends  12 on the species of those, because, say, huckleberry is  13 not quite as sensitive to these chemicals.  14 MS. MANDELL:  15 Q   And what about the coast huckleberry, is there any --  16 A   You were talking about longer term impacts?  17 Q   Uh-huh.  18 A   This is an area that is being addressed in Alaska by  19 Paul Alaback and the group studying the impact of  20 modern silviculture practices over the long term on --  21 they are interested in the effect of wildlife habitat.  22 And they -- they are concerned that modern  23 silviculture practice may lead to a reduction in  24 huckleberry abundance, because huckleberry -- the red  25 huckleberry and others species are important browse  26 for the deer.  So they have looked at it from this  27 angle.  And what they are finding is that the natural  28 process of forest succession on this outer coast,  29 where these huckleberries are very abundant, stands  30 gradually get older and older.  The stand opens up as  31 the trees become larger, as they start to decay and  32 fall over, and there is a lot of light in the forest  33 understory.  The light levels are quite high.  And in  34 this situation you can get abundant huckleberries in  35 the understory and then if there is a subsequent  36 disturbance, there is a good growth of shrubs and good  37 berry production.  And in the forest understory there  38 is quite a few shrubs.  So from the perspective of  39 wildlife, they are feeding on the shrubs.  With the  40 modern silviculture practice you have -- they don't  41 allow -- or the policy would not be to allow the stand  42 to reach such an age where it gets very open and trees  43 start to decay and fall over.  There is relatively  44 prompt restocking, fairly dense.  Goes through a  45 period when the stand is young of very dense tree  46 growth.  There is very little light in the understory.  47 It shades out most of the understory of the 9661  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 vegetation.  There is very little in the understory  2 except moss.  So there -- and if the natural  3 succession isn't allowed to proceed to the stage where  4 the stand opens up, it's rather -- it's logged and the  5 cycle is started over again.  There is concern that  6 these species will never have a chance to become  7 established as they once did.  And that other  8 management practices such as thinning might have to be  9 done to open up the stand and let the light in so that  10 the shrubs can establish.  11 Q   All right.  And would this then have effects in the  12 long term?  13 A   Yeah.  If you could picture it as foresters tend to  14 think in terms of several rotations, although that's  15 thinking a long ways ahead, 70 years, there is no  16 shrubs in the understory.  You go another 70 or a  17 hundred years until you log again, and there is no  18 shrubs in the understory.  And over the long term they  19 could potentially be wiped out or certainly greatly  20 declined in abundance.  But this is looking into the  21 future now.  Who knows.  22 Q   All right.  At page 31 you deal with residential  23 settlement and agriculture.  And again, is this an  24 area which you would normally look to to see its  25 effect on forest succession as a part of your area of  26 study?  27 A   Normally.  I work mainly in the area of silviculture  28 and forestry rather than agriculture.  I have in the  29 past looked at the scope of the land clearing and  30 agricultural activities in the Skeena watershed.  And  31 I would certainly consider the effect of that  32 cultivation -- I researched the subject of  33 cultivation, the effect of cultivation on many shrub  34 species and so on.  35 Q   All right.  36 A   But it's not something that I do all the time or very  37 often.  38 Q   You say at page 31:  39  40 "Land clearing for residential settlement and  41 agriculture has affected only a small percentage  42 of the total land in the study region, but the  43 relative impact of these activities on berry and  44 root production is out of proportion to the land  45 area affected."  46  47 And can you just explain that statement? 9662  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 A  Well, for a certain species such as the -- I thought  2 that -- oh, how could I say that?  I don't know if I  3 could say it in here any other way than I said it.  4 That those particular lands where -- the intensive  5 cultivation that -- and land clearing, you know, with  6 houses on it has a fairly dramatic impact on the  7 natural species composition of the forest as you could  8 well imagine.  And those particular areas may well be  9 areas that have -- that are more -- among the more  10 productive for berry production.  And so if the total  11 land area was 80 per cent alpine tundra and 20 per  12 cent -- just to really simplify the case, the total  13 land area was 80 per cent alpine tundra and 20 per  14 cent agricultural bottom land, and you completely  15 plowed up the 20 per cent bottom land, you wouldn't  16 have lost 20 per cent of your berries, because the  17 other -- the remaining 80 per cent was all the alpine  18 tundra.  I am trying to --  19 Q   Yeah.  20 A   That was the extreme case, just so you could picture  21 what I am trying to get at.  And I thought this was  22 particularly important for species such as saskatoon  23 and high bush cranberry.  Other ones such as Vaccinium  24 tend not to be found in these argicultural bottom  25 lands.  26 Q   Vaccinium is V-a-c-c-i-n-i-u-m?  27 A   Yeah.  Those are the huckleberries and blueberries.  28 Q   All right.  And is this a permanent -- from your point  29 of view is this a permanent displacement of the  30 saskatoon and high bush cranberry or is it --  31 A   No.  Nothing is permanent.  32 Q   Okay.  And finally you say at page 31 regarding  33 grazing and wildlife that:  34  35 "Lands bordering on the prime agricultural lands,  36 have been extensively grazed by livestock,  37 particulary cattle.  Several of the plant species  38 are browsed by livestock, and in areas of heavy  39 grazing their distribution and productivity may  40 have been significantly affected."  41  42 Can you explain that statement?  43 A  Well, I talked about the effect of agriculture which  44 is a fairly intensive cultivation, building of houses.  45 For a relatively long term you don't allow the natural  46 vegetation to restablish itself.  The less heavily  47 used areas, usually on the border -- the higher -- 9663  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 slightly higher elevations or the less productive  2 lands, often they are just cattle, open range grazing  3 or maybe they were cleared once or twice and then  4 allowed to grow back.  So the impacts are less  5 dramatic.  However, many of the species are browsed by  6 livestock, saskatoon, high bush cranberry, and they  7 get, you know, a healthy shrub with large cover or  8 leaf area can be reduced down to a small stubby shrub  9 that isn't able to produce many berries.  And you can  10 see areas where the grazing is quite heavy and  11 basically areas tend to go to grass and short-lived  12 annuals and perennial herbs that are able to tolerate  13 the grazing load a little better.  14 Q   Okay.  If I could ask you to turn to tab three of  15 your -- of the exhibit book, can you identify whether  16 this is the contract of employment which you entered  17 into between yourself and the Tribal Council?  Just  18 look at the back page and see if it's your signature.  19 A   Okay.  Yeah.  This is a photocopy of the contract that  20 I signed.  21 MS. MANDELL:  I ask that that be marked as the next exhibit.  22 THE COURT:  All right.  23 THE REGISTRAR:  Next exhibit will be 801.  24  25 (EXHIBIT 801:  Contract between Sybille Hauessler and  26 the Tribal Council)  27  2 8    MS. MANDELL:  29 Q   If I could turn you to paragraph two where there --  30 your work which you are to complete was set out and if  31 you can look at paragraph B you were asked to:  32  33 "design and conduct a field experiment to test the  34 ripe berries of seven shrub species for their  35 sugar content or for other characteristics that  36 would affect their overwinter preservation by  37 drying."  38  39 Did you do that aspect of the contract?  4 0 A   I did.  41 Q   And did you report upon it to the Tribal Council?  42 A   I did.  43 Q   What were in general terms the conclusions which you  44 drew?  45 A   I -- in general I concluded that my experiments  46 weren't sufficient to draw any significant conclusions  47 about the -- I couldn't state with any confidence 9664  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 about the characteristics that might affect overwinter  2 preservation for drying.  3 Q   Is it possible from your point of view to do such an  4 experiment which could lead to conclusions of any  5 confidence?  6 A  Well, with very narrowly defined terms of reference  7 and very elaborate experimentation involving actual  8 drying trials and so on, I imagine something could be  9 done, but that wasn't the scope of the work that I was  10 contracted to do.  11 Q   All right.  And at page 32 of your report which is  12 again tab 2 and onto page 34, there you describe the  13 effects of volcanic eruption in the study area.  Why  14 did you address your mind to this area?  15 A   Oh, that was in my terms of reference.  I was told  16 that there had been a volcanic eruption that date that  17 I specified.  I am trying to find the page.  18 Q   It's on page 32.  19 A   Yeah.  I was told that this volcanic eruption did take  20 place.  I am familiar with the area.  I have been  21 there quite frequently.  And I was asked to comment on  22 the effect that this might have had on the production  23 of berries of the species I was asked to -- and what  24 impact this might have on trade.  25 Q   And did you find anything there which in your view led  26 you to any conclusions regarding the berry species?  27 A  Well, I talked about the general effects that it could  28 have.  I think I laid out pretty much the impressions  29 that I got.  Nothing really detailed.  You know, you  30 need a lot more information to say anything really  31 specific.  32 Q   I noticed at page 34 that you made reference to Hunn  33 and Norton in 1984 who had concluded that:  34  35 "... the effects of volcanic activity on resource  36 species were normally of short duration and were  37 probably mitigated by social and cultural  38 responses.  In the same way, the destruction of  39 habitat and spread of fires created by the Tseax  40 volcanic eruption may have forced a restructuring  41 of food gathering habits among the inhabitants of  42 the Lower Nass Valley, and may have encouraged  43 some additional trade with the adjacent groups in  44 the early years following the catastrophe."  45  46 Is this assumptions you have made on the basis of Hunn  47 and Norton? 9665  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 A   Yeah.  I read the paper and they looked into a similar  2 topic that I had looked into except with respect to  3 the Mount St. Helen's eruption and they speculated on  4 how this might compare with past volcanic activity.  5 And I thought it sounded reasonable, the conclusions  6 they drew, and I thought there wasn't any reason to  7 believe that this situation would be dramatically  8 different here.  It was assumptions that I based  9 reading this paper.  10 Q   All right.  I'd like -- I have got about perhaps five  11 minutes left.  I would only now like to draw you to  12 the report and review for clarification your  13 assumptions and the different portions of your report  14 which may require further explanation.  15 My lord, I am in your hands as to whether or not  16 we take the break now or continue.  17 THE COURT:  It's more convenient to you if we carry on?  18 MS. MANDELL:  It is.  19 THE COURT:  Let's do that.  2 0    MS. MANDELL:  Thank you.  21 Q   Yesterday we went through some of the assumptions and  22 clarifications which you were able to make for us  23 regarding your report.  And I'd like to now go through  24 the report and ask you to explain and review for us in  25 addition to the assumptions which we talked about  26 yesterday, other assumptions and clarifications which  27 may assist the court in giving weight to the aspects  28 of your report.  First, if I can say in general terms  29 throughout your report you refer to the Gitksan and  30 Wet'suwet'en territories.  Did you assume for the  31 purposes of your study the boundaries of those  32 territories?  33 A   I did assume them.  They were told to me and I just  34 assumed that that's where they were.  35 Q   And did you also assume for the purpose of your study  36 that the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en lived in those  37 territories?  38 A   I did.  39 Q   All right.  At page six of your report you state at  40 the last sentence of the first full paragraph:  41  42 "It also seems possible that the territories  43 are located at the logical hub of trade among  44 groups living within these three distinct  45 ecological units."  46  47 Did you assume the conclusion which you drew about 9666  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 logical hub of trade?  2 A   I just -- I made that conclusion -- I am not sure how  3 to answer -- how to say what did I assume.  It was an  4 assumption that I made based on common sense.  5 Q   All right.  6 A   Rather than any specific knowledge of trading  7 relationships.  8 Q   Would it be fair to say that it was your speculation?  9 A   Speculation, yes, I would say that.  10 Q   At page seven you deal with the fact that the  11 biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification operates at  12 two levels.  First is the ecosystem level which  13 classifies small units of land which you rejected as  14 being helpful in the broad view that you were looking  15 at, but you did say there that:  16  17 "This classification level is too detailed to be  18 of much use in the overview descriptions of this  19 report, but may become useful in the future for  20 describing and inventorying individual House  21 territories and for future resource  22 decision-making in those territories."  23  24 Did you assume House territories?  25 A   I did.  This was something that I just assumed  26 existed.  27 Q   All right.  At page nine in the second paragraph at  28 the end of it you say:  29  30 "While several biogeoclimatic variants have been  31 recognized within the study region, only one  32 variant (the ICHg3) is shown on the map -- "  33  34 And these are the words I would like to draw to your  35 attention:  36  37 " -- because of its central significant to the  38 Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en economy."  39  40 Did you assume the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en economy for  41 the purposes of the study?  42 A   I did, yes, I assumed that information.  43 Q   And you say this in addition to the remarks you made  44 yesterday, that you reviewed the literature and took  45 from that what you needed to in order to do the work  46 that you did.  You reviewed the -- yesterday you  47 mentioned that you had -- in table one of the legend 9667  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  7  8  9  Q  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  MR.  WILLMS  25  26  27  28  A  29  MR.  WILLMS  30  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  A  34  35  THE  COURT:  36  A  37  38  39  40  THE  COURT:  41  42  A  43  THE  COURT:  44  MR.  WILLMS  45  46  THE  COURT:  47  you had made reference to a number of ethnobotanical  sources --  Oh, right.  -- to familiarize yourself with?  Yes.  I guess I am thinking in larger terms of the  economy in central significance.  This was assumed.  I  didn't look into this in detail.  I did look into the  use of plants.  All right.  At page 16 you say in the middle of the  second paragraph:  "Western red cedar, a very important commodity  for aboriginal peoples, is absent from this  region."  Which page is that?  Page 16.  Thank you.  How do you know that western red cedar is an important  commodity for aboriginal peoples?  That's common knowledge.  Certainly among foresters.  All right.  I don't need to assume that I -- I mean I know that.  :  My lord, I object.  Aboriginal peoples is very  broad term.  And I don't know whether western red  cedar is very important to people living on the  Prairies.  That's not what I meant.  :  I realize that's not what the witness meant, but  that's a broad statement which the witness has just  adopted and I object to it.  Well, in that sense what did you mean by aboriginal?  Well, I meant that western red cedar was a tree that  was used by Indians and I -- that's common knowledge.  Indians in the study?  Well, I don't need -- I don't want to specify which  group of Indians and where they live, because that's  not my area of expertise.  But I think it's perfectly  acceptable to make a statement of that nature.  Well, you are talking there about aboriginal peoples  in the area as with study?  In the study area.  Does that help you, Mr. Willms?  :  Well, I don't think it does, but that's what the  witness wants to say, that's what the witness can say.  What region are you talking about?  You are talking  about the Northern Territory there, are you?  North -- 966?  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 A   Yeah.  I am talking about the species occurs in these  2 areas and when I made the statement, "western red  3 cedar, a very important commodity for aboriginal  4 peoples," is absent from this region.  So --  5 THE COURT:  That's north of Cranberry Lake?  6 A   Oh.  7 THE COURT:  Is that what you mean?  8 A   Cranberry Junction.  9 THE COURT:  All right Cranberry Junction.  Sorry.  10 A   Yeah.  11 THE COURT:  And Gisgagas?  12 A   Basically, yeah.  13 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  14 MS. MANDELL:  15 Q   Can I ask you -- I don't want to blur the waters, but  16 are you saying that as a forest ecology -- as a person  17 in forest ecology you are aware that red cedar is a  18 commodity which has been used by Indian people in a  19 manner different from other people?  20 A   Yes.  I am aware as a citizen of British Columbia and  21 as a forester who knows what western red cedar is and  22 what its like.  I am aware of that.  23 Q   All right.  24 THE COURT:  You can't help that, can you?  25 MS. MANDELL:  26 Q   On the same page you say:  27  28 "The ICHg3 — "  29  30 And this is in the middle of the last paragraph:  31  32 " -- is of central significance to the Gitksan  33 people because it is the location of almost all of  34 the village sites -- "  35  36 And if I could stop there and ask you how do you know  37 that it's the location of almost all of the village  38 sites?  39 A   That's partly assumed and partly based on my general  40 knowledge of the study area.  I know about the present  41 village sites where people live.  So I am not talking  42 about -- and I am assuming about past village sites.  43 Q   All right.  And you say "and the centre of Gitksan  44 economic activity"?  45 A   That is an assumption.  46 Q   All right.  At page 23 you pose four questions with  47 respect to the study of forest ecology and forest 9669  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 history of the study region.  And questions three and  2 four, I would like to ask you first of all whether or  3 not you posed those questions or were they posed by --  4 A   I am sorry,  5 Q   Page 23.  I'd like to ask you first whether you posed  6 those questions?  7 A   I posed them as a result of the terms of reference I  8 was given.  I wrote those questions up, but they --  9 they arose out of the terms of reference that I was  10 given and I guess that's what I can say.  I don't  11 think I went to answer each of them specifically.  12 Q   All right.  And were those questions the questions  13 which a person who was studying the area of fire  14 ecology and fire history in this region would normally  15 pose?  16 A  Well, yeah.  If you were studying the fire history it  17 would be reasonable to pose questions about -- on  18 those topics, yes.  19 Q   All right.  Now, at page 28 you talk about burns by  20 Indian people and I am speaking now about the first  21 full paragraph.  Could you explain where the  22 information for that paragraph comes from?  23 A   This is information I haven't cited, but it comes from  24 background reading that I've done on the topic of fire  25 and fire history and fire ecology.  I found two  26 references that I have read in the past.  One by  27 Grewell published in '85 and another one by, oh, I  2 8 can't remember.  29 Q   Stewart?  30 A   Stewart in 1963.  These are part of symposia.  The  31 symposia both on the ecological system in which people  32 did discuss the aboriginal use of fire, and in a lot  33 of other papers on a more conventional forestry topic.  34 It seems to be fairly common topic at these symposia.  35 There is usually a couple of papers on it.  36 Q   Did you assume that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en also  37 burned?  38 A   I did assume that.  39 Q   All right.  And at page 29 under "Fire and Fire  40 Suppression," you there deal with the effects of  41 European settlement, and if you could explain where  42 the information for this section comes from.  This is  43 the first —  44 A   I am sorry?  45 Q   Page 29.  This is under "Fire and Fire Suppression."  46 A   Okay.  47 Q   I am just now referring to the paragraph which deals 9670  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  with the effects of European settlement, and if you  could explain where the information for that paragraph  is taken.  A   This is just something that I wrote from my general  knowledge and past reading.  Q   All right.  And at the last paragraph of that last  sentence of that paragraph you say:  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  MS  "These corridors were also used by native people  and tend to be climatically predisposed to fire."  A   Okay.  I assumed that the corridors were used by  native people.  That's an assumption.  But the  business about climatically predisposed to fire, that  is based on my knowledge of the study area and my  analysis of the climate and the vegetation in those  areas.  Q   All right.  What's the serai forest?  Serai is -- means early successional, which means the  type of vegetation that would develop shortly after a  disturbance.  Young -- young.  Thank you.  MANDELL:  Q   At page 30 the second to the last paragraph, the last  sentence you say:  "If fire suppression policies have been  responsible for preventing periodic burning  of certain Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en berry patches,  then it is very likely that they have caused a  decline in the crop production of those berry  patches."  here you are assuming the Gitksan and  uwet'en people did practice burning?  I am assuming that,  f they did, then you are saying that it's your  on that there would be a decline in the crop  ction?  ey were -- if these practices were prevented by  suppression, yeah, that's my opinion,  ight.  And at page 31 you say under "Residential  ement and Agriculture" that with respect to those  probably they are the same lands that were most  ly used by aboriginal peoples, do you assume that  you generalize?  Now,  Wet's-  A  Yeah,  Q  And i  opini  produ  A  If th.  fire  Q  All r.  Settl.  lands  heavi  or do 9671  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  A  Where is this statement?  Q   I am sorry, you say:  "The valley bottom lands that have been alienated  for residential and agricultural purposes -- "  And then the words --  A   I say "probably because of their favourable climate."  That is something that I -- that is an opinion that I  had and I guess based on some -- I guess it's my  opinion and I think it makes sense.  Q   All right.  So you are saying that if aboriginal  people were there, then you assume that this is the  land they would use because of its climate and its --  A   Productivity and accessibility.  Yeah.  MANDELL:   All right.  Those are the end of my questions.  If I could ask your lordship to mark as exhibits Map  2, and Madam Registrar has suggested that perhaps that  could be given the number 358-2, and the legend which  she asks be given the number 358 sub A.  COURT:  Any objection?  WILLMS:  No, my lord.  KOENIGSBERG:  No.  COURT:  All right.  So the map will be 358-2 and the other  one is 358-2A.  REGISTRAR:  358-A.  COURT:  258 or 358?  REGIS!  COURT:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  MS.  17  18  19  20  21  THE  22  MR.  23  MS.  24  THE  25  26  THE  27  THE  28  THE  29  THE  30  31  32  33  34  MS.  35  36  THE  37  MR.  38  39  THE  40  MS.  41  MR.  42  MS.  43  THE  44  MS.  45  THE  46  THE  47  THE  RAR:  358  l-A.  358-A.  All right.  (EXHIBIT  358-2:  Map  2)  (EXHIBIT  358-A:  Legend)  MANDELL:  And if I could also have marked tab 2 of the  exhibit book as an exhibit.  REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit 802.  WILLMS:  My lord, I object to part of it and I have got an  argument on part of it.  COURT:  What is it you are asking be marked now?  MANDELL:  Exhibit 2, the extracts from the report.  KOENIGSBERG:  You mean tab 2.  MANDELL:  Tab 2.  COURT:  Of tab 2 of —  MANDELL:  The exhibit book.  COURT:  What was it —  REGISTRAR:  And 801 is tab 3.  COURT:   Yes.  All right.  What is your convenience in that 9672  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Ms. Mandell  1 connection?  You are tendering the report as the next  2 exhibit?  Mr. Willms, you are opposing that, are you?  3 MR. WILLMS:  In its present form, yes, my lord.  4 THE COURT:  All right.  Do you want to argue it now?  5 MR. WILLMS:  I am prepared to argue it now, my lord.  6 THE COURT:  All right.  7 MR. WILLMS:  My friend has set out a number of assumptions which  8 we have dealt with.  Does your lordship wish to take a  9 break?  10 THE COURT:  Oh, let's finish this.  Something going on  11 downstairs.  12 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the single point is this -- and does your  13 lordship have the brief of authorities on experts that  14 I handed up?  15 THE COURT:  Yes.  16 MR. WILLMS:  It's a black binder.  It was referred to in the  17 argument related to -- well, the argument that I have  18 is based on one -- on two cases that are in that.  19 THE COURT:  Oh.  All right.  No, those books of authorities are  20 downstairs.  Miss Mandell, are you able to stay for  21 this argument?  22 MS. MANDELL:  Yes, I will stay for this argument.  I have got a  23 little bit of time.  And if your lordship wishes to  24 take the break, my plane doesn't leave until 1:30 now.  25 THE COURT:  Oh, all right.  We will take the morning adjournment  26 now and I will see if I can find that book of  27 authorities.  It's a book of authorities.  28 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  It says "Authorities Respecting Opinion  2 9 Evidence."  30 THE COURT:  All right.  31  32 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED PURSUANT TO MORNING RECESS)  33  34 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  35 a true and accurate transcript of the  36 proceedings herein to the best of my  37 skill and ability.  38  39  40  41  42 Laara Yardley,  43 Official Reporter,  44 United Reporting Service Ltd.  45  46  47  9673 9673  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (Proceedings resumed following short recess)  2  3 THE COURT:  Tell me, Mr. Willms, aren't you going to  4 cross-examine on the report.  5 MR. WILLMS:  Am I going to cross-examine on the report?  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 MR. WILLMS:  I am going to cross-examine on the parts of the  8 report that are properly admitted in evidence, yes.  9 THE COURT:  All right.  Because it seems to me if you are going  10 to cross-examine on the report, those parts in issue  11 at least were going to go in anyway.  12 MR. WILLMS:  And the extracts, my lord, they are not lengthy.  13 THE COURT:  All right.  14 MR. WILLMS:  But it's — and perhaps while — I could usefully  15 outline the areas before I turn to the reference, and  16 it's based on these three points, my lord, the three  17 points are -- this is the first --  18 MS. RUSSELL:  Excuse me, my lord, we do have an extra copy of  19 that report, if you want.  20 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  We know it by heart, my lord.  21 THE COURT:  I have the authorities committed to memory too but  22 it might be useful to be reminded.  23 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, three points, in my submission, are clear  24 from the evidence given by this witness on her  25 qualifications.  The first is that in the area of the  26 ecology and berry chemistry of food plants, this is  27 the very first report she has ever done, so it's the  28 very first time that she has embarked in this area of  29 investigation.  Secondly --  30 THE COURT:  No one should ever do anything for the first time?  31 MR. WILLMS:  Not in court.  That's my submission, my lord, not  32 in court.  The second point is that in terms of fire  33 ecology, she acknowledges that there are other people  34 that are experts in the field, that she has done no  35 direct research herself and what she done is  36 essentially a literature review.  37 The third point is the acknowledgement by the  38 witness that anything with respect to aboriginal  39 peoples or aboriginal habits is something that she has  40 read, that she has no background in that area  41 whatsoever and it's with that in mind that I turn and  42 ask your lord to turn to tab 4, which is a decision of  43 the Alberta Court of Appeal, Regina and Anderson.  And  44 it's this page, 206, in decision of the Chief Justice  45 of the Court of Appeal, and the issue that arose here  46 was the use by a particular witness to references to  47 textbooks, an expert witness, and the Chief Justice 9674  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 starting at the line, "I agree" part way down page  2 206, said this:  "I agree with what my brother Beck  3 has said with reference to the use of textbooks.  As  4 all evidence is given under the sanction of an  5 oath..."  6 THE COURT:  What tab was that?  7 MR. WILLMS:  Tab 4 my lord, page 206:  8 "As all evidence is given under the sanction of  9 an oath or its equivalent it is apparent that  10 textbooks or other treatises as such cannot be  11 given as evidence.  The opinion of an eminent  12 author may be, and in many cases is, as a matter  13 of fact, entitled to more weight than that of the  14 sworn witness but the fact is if his opinion is  15 put in the form of a treatise there is no  16 opportunity of questioning and ascertaining  17 whether any expression might be subject to any  18 qualification respecting a  particular case.  A  19 witness would not be qualified as an expert if  20 his opinions were gained wholly from the opinions  21 of others and the faith that is to be given to  22 the opinion of an author of a treatise must come  23 through the faith in and the witness and the  24 confidence to be placed in the witness' opinion,  25 in theory is not to be derived from the  26 confidence in the author with whose opinion he  27 agrees."  28 " And I just stop there, my lord, and say that in  29 respect forest ecology this witness has already said  30 forest fires, fire ecology, that she spoke to Mr.  31 Parminter, personal communication, she has read some  32 books, she has done no direct research herself and  33 insofar as these three points are inter-related, fire  34 ecology, aboriginal people's and berries, this witness  35 is eminently unqualified to give any opinions or make  36 any statements with respect to those three.  And that  37 is the -- somewhere here -- and, my lord, I have  38 outlined the extracts in the report, pages 28, 29, and  39 30, which I say all of those extracts, because of the  40 witness' lack of expertise in the area of anthropology  41 respecting aboriginal actions, in respect of fire  42 ecology, because it's just a literature review, and in  43 respect of the effect on berries, because this is her  44 first report in respect of berries, I say that all of  45 that is inadmissible.  It's not just entitled to less  46 weight, it's inadmissible.  47 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Well, let me ask you this Mr. Willms, 9675  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 with respect to this being the witness' first  2 adventure into a report on berries, you don't suggest,  3 do you, that it becomes inadmissible because it's her  4 first report?  5 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I suggest —  6 THE COURT:  Einstein my never have done a report on relativity  7 until very late in his career, but surely that  8 wouldn't prevent his opinion from being received,  9 would it?  10 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, that is why I am not objecting to the  11 opinion of the witness on where the berries are and  12 what effects -- you know, where they grow well and  13 don't grow well.  That's why I am limiting this to the  14 very narrow issue I have handed up to your lordship.  15 THE COURT:  Secondly, because there are other people who may  16 have made fire a sub specialty, surely you're not  17 suggesting that that means that only those people with  18 that kind of highly specialized training could give an  19 opinion on the consequences of fire?  20 MR. WILLMS:  Well, that's —  21 THE COURT:  If that were so, you would say a general surgeon  22 couldn't give an opinion on a broken bone because an  23 orthopaedic surgeon would have greater skill in broken  24 bones, wouldn't you?  25 MR. WILLMS:  I would put it this way, my lord, I would say a  26 general surgeon shouldn't venture in to neurosurgery  27 because he has done some surgery.  28 THE COURT:  Lots of general surgeons in British Columbia do  29 neurosurgery when there is no one else available.  30 They would prefer not to but --  31 MR. WILLMS:  Well, they may do the surgery, my lord, but I would  32 to them giving evidence about the proper way to do it.  33 THE COURT:  Why can't a forester, I don't say that in any  34 pejorative sense, but this witness is trained in  35 matters of forestry, why can't she -- fire is a big  36 part of forestry, why can't she be of assistance in  37 connection with fire?  38 MR. WILLMS:  And forestry.  But that's — the portions that I am  39 suggesting that she can't give evidence about is the  40 linking and it's an interwoven linking to what it does  41 over the long run to berries.  42 THE COURT:  Well I don't — doesn't — it seems to me that that  43 is a matter that would go only to weight, wouldn't it?  44 If it's within her general specialty, surely she can  45 assist me.  We are all in relative degrees of  46 knowledge about these things.  I worked in a fire  47 crew, but I could certainly be assisted by somebody 9676  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 with more knowledge than that.  And it's not something  2 that I have, what is somebody called a habitual --  3 MR. WILLMS: Familiarity.  4 -- familiarity with these things.  I am just trying to  5 cut away some of the preliminary bases for your  6 objection.  And you say you're only objecting now to  7 the linkage between past and present.  You did say it  8 was one of the grounds of your objections was that  9 there were other people that studied fire with greater  10 intensity than the witness has.  Are you maintaining  11 that as a ground of objection?  12 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I am maintaining all three of the bases  13 for the single objection.  All three of the bases to  14 the objection that there is inter-related on these  15 pages, the three concepts of what fire does to berries  16 and what aboriginal use was made of fire and berries.  17 And it is that opinion, and it's -- in particular it's  18 the "if then" opinion that's on page 12 -- the extract  19 that I handed up to your lordship, they are numbered,  20 there was a much longer document before, but you will  21 see at the top of page 12, the "if fire suppression  22 policies have been responsible, then it's likely that  23 it's caused the decline."  Now, all of what precedes  24 leads up to that "if then" proposition, and it's my  25 submission that this witness is unqualified to give  26 that opinion.  I mean, there are assumptions made by  27 reading texts, of which the witness has no personal  28 knowledge whatsoever, such as aboriginal use and the  29 references to Turner, fire ecology is from Mr.  30 Parminter over the phone, and the berry and the effect  31 on the berries, there is no direct studies whatsoever.  32 There is a supposition based on no expertise.  And, in  33 my submission, that all leads up to that line there,  34 and it's all inter-woven and if that line's gone the  35 rest of the extracts that I have handed up are  36 unnecessary in any event.  37 THE COURT:  Well, I am — I tend to be against you on the  38 question of that sentence, "if fire suppression  39 policies have been responsible for the periodic  40 burning of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en berry patches,  41 then it is very likely they have caused a decline in  42 the crop production."  That seems to me to be a matter  43 within her specialty.  It's tentative, or it's  44 hypothetical, if these things have happened, then it's  45 likely something has resulted.  Do you say that's not  46 within the expertise of a person who has studied and  47 makes her living out of the study of forests and what 9677  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 goes on in forests?  2 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, my lord, silviculture, as I understand it,  3 refers to the trees.  Yes, I do maintain that.  4 THE COURT:  All right.  Well, I don't think I can accede to that  5 objection.  I don't think that you can study  6 silviculture without having an understanding of the  7 flora in the forests, what goes on there.  It may that  8 be there is on another sub specialty of botany that  9 deals only with the underbrush, but I wouldn't prevent  10 the witness from giving an opinion of that kind.  I  11 want to hear, on the question of the connection or  12 early use by both aboriginals and Europeans, but I  13 haven't you, Ms. Koenigsberg?  14 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  My lord, I guess I'd have to say that I think  15 that the issue on the parts that my friend, Mr.  16 Willms, has referred to, stay in the report.  In my  17 submission it would go to weight because, in my  18 submission, you're at or near her area of expertise.  19 I do have more difficulty, although I believe it's now  20 been cleared up, I do have a lot more difficulty with  21 comments made throughout the report which are related  22 solely to aboriginal use, trade patterns and so on,  23 because we are not at or near her area of expertise,  24 and I don't believe that the land use practice aspect  25 of her training and her experience, although  26 considerable, has any relationship to historical use  27 or economic use of aboriginal peoples, as it's posited  28 in the report.  And that it is inter-woven,  29 unfortunately, in paragraphs which clearly are within  30 her expertise.  But I think we now have dealt with  31 them, just to save myself standing again, I think we  32 have dealt with all of those, although I am still  33 checking them off, as now assumptions.  And if they  34 are dealt with in that way I don't see the point of  35 carving up the paper.  36 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Well, Ms. Mandell, are you content with  37 what Ms. Koenigsberg has said, are these historical  38 matters to be treated as assumptions?  39 MS. MANDELL:  Except the only qualification is with respect to  40 the index, which was set out yesterday where there was  41 reference made there to the Turner and Kuhnlein and  42 the people who influenced the witness' knowledge about  43 the use made by Indian people of these berry species,  44 which is part of the literature that she would consult  45 normally in the land management question of the study  46 area.  Certainly with respect to the Gitksan-  47 Wet'suwet'en trade or their economy, I'd say all of 967?  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 that are assumptions.  2 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  My lord, maybe I could just respond to that,  3 and I am not ad idem with Ms. Mandell on that, I would  4 say Mr. Willms's objections and the parts of the case  5 are particularly apposite to this area.  When an  6 expert  witness is not qualified in an area, then the  7 reading of materials by persons who may be or appear  8 to be qualified in an area should not be part of their  9 expert opinion, in my submission.  10 THE COURT:  All right.  Anything else, Mr. Willms?  11 MR. WILLMS:  Nothing further, my lord.  12 THE COURT:  Well, as with all of these matters, one has to take  13 authorities with a certain scepticism -- that's  14 probably not the right word -- with care, because the  15 Anderson case was a case where an unfortunate man had  16 been had been found guilty of murder and was about to  17 be executed and, of course, judges are exceedingly  18 careful, in such a case, to ensure that if that  19 indignity is to be carried out that it be done  20 properly.  I think that a -- that one cannot become,  21 one cannot put into evidence the opinion of someone  22 else just because he has read it.  But if it is in the  23 same area of expertise as the witness, the witness is  24 not required to purge his or her mind of related  25 matters that he or she has acquired from others.  And  26 those matters, in my view, go to weight rather than to  27 admissibility, to the extent that the witness has got  28 information solely from another source, by reading it,  29 then that would not be admissible.  And I would not  30 give any weight to it.  But if it's information that  31 confirms or corroborates or supports what the witness'  32 own investigation and experience tells her, then it  33 seems to me that it's a matter that is of some weight.  34 I think, therefore, that the report may be marked  35 as the next exhibit, which would be Exhibit 802, I  36 believe, but that all the historical matters that are  37 mentioned or those that relate to the early use of  38 these lands, both by aboriginals and by European  39 settlers, are to be deemed as assumptions and not as  40 statements of opinion and not as proof of the facts  41 that are stated as matters of history.  42  43 (EXHIBIT 802:  REPORT OF SYBILLE HAEUSSLER)  44  45 THE COURT:  Are you ready to cross-examine, Mr. Willms?  46 MS. MANDELL:  My lord, if I could be excused?  47 THE COURT:  Yes.  Have a pleasant trip. 9679  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1    MS. MANDELL:  Thank you.  2  3    CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLMS:  4  5 MR. WILLMS:  Could Exhibit 358-2 be put before the witness,  6 please?  And could you turn to map two, please.  7 Q   Now, this map represents your opinion of the  8 biogeoclimatic land classification in January of 1987?  9 A   No.  As I indicated -- as it's indicated on this map,  10 and on my draft it says as of 1985, information  11 obtained from the Forest Service as of 1985, and I  12 think somewhere on this map I requested that they put  13 "boundary subject to change."  14 Q   But, it's 1985 then, not 1987?  15 A   I believe that's the correct time.  I can't find the  16 little comment.  17 Q   And this map and the other maps that you prepared,  18 that is maps three through ten, indicate conditions  19 for as far back as the climate remained constant?  20 A   Yeah, I assumed that -- I can't assume -- yes.  Yes.  21 Q   So if the climate has changed in the last 100 to 200  22 years, you don't know whether this biogeoclimatic land  23 classification would have been the same 100 or 200  24 years ago?  25 A   I think that's very unlikely based on the age of the  26 trees, since 100 or 200 years most of the trees  27 studied for the -- in the sampling were older than  28 that age.  So, I am not sure -- that seems -- can you  29 say the question again so I can answer it directly?  30 Q   If the climate has changed in the last 100 or 200  31 years, you do not know whether this biogeoclimatic  32 land classification is the same as it would have been  33 100 or 200 years ago?  34 A   If the climate had changed, I wouldn't know if it were  35 the same?  That's a rather twisted question.  I  36 don't -- I don't think that -- I believe that this  37 classification is relevant to 100 to 200 years ago  38 based on the age of the forests that were sampled to  39 develop the classification.  I believe that.  40 Q   You have -- you said -- you described climax forests,  41 and are climax forests the end result of an ecological  42 succession?  43 A   I think — yes.  44 Q   And when you get to a climax forest it's one of a  45 relatively stable species composition?  46 A   Relatively stable, yes.  47 Q   Now, in the boreal region of British Columbia and the 9680  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 drier parts of central and southern B. C, it's  2 difficult to find forest stands older than 150 years,  3 isn't it?  4 A   That's right.  5 Q   And in some areas the classification has to be  6 developed primarily with stands that are about 70  7 years old?  8 A  About -- it is developed with as mature stands as one  9 can find and I -- I would say for the southern  10 interior those stands were substantially older than 70  11 years, somewhere closer to 150.  But --  12 Q   Well, I am suggesting that in the areas that I have  13 just mentioned, the boreal regions of British Columbia  14 and the drier parts of the central and southern  15 portion of the province, that most of the stands that  16 have been used in the biogeoclimatic mapping are 70  17 years or older but that's --  18 A   Oh, 70 years or older.  I thought you said around 70  19 years.  They are -- certainly the "or older" part I  20 will agree with.  21 Q   How much in the area of map two is older than 150  22 years?  23 A   I can't answer that question.  2 4 Q   You don't know?  25 A   No.  Well, what is older?  If you gave me a more  26 specific question I could try to answer it.  How much  27 of this map is older than --  28 Q   Yes.  29 A   You will have to --  30 Q   Are there any distinctive portions or any distinctive  31 biogeoclimatic zones in map two that you know is older  32 than 150 years, on average?  33 A   The four -- I am sorry, that question can't be  34 answered as it's been asked.  You have to say the  35 forest -- where the majority of -- I can't answer that  36 question the way it's asked.  It doesn't make sense to  37 me.  38 Q   Well, let's go to the Hazelton variant, the ICHg3, is  39 it the case that in that variant climax vegetation is  4 0              uncommon?  41 A   That is true.  42 Q   And so not much of the vegetation, not much of the  43 timber in that area is older than 150 years, is it?  44 A   Not much.  The majority is not.  The majority is  45 definitely younger than 150 years, I assume.  46 Q   Now, the map that you produced as of January, 1985,  47 that would have been different during the Little Ice 9681  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  A  10  11  12  Q  13  14  A  15  16  17  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  MR. GRANT  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  THE COURT  33  MR. GRANT  34  35  MR. WILLM  36  Q  37  38  39  A  40  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  A  Age, wouldn't it, the classification would have been  different?  That's right.  The Little Ice Age.  And since the Little Ice Age the climate in the area  has warmed, hasn't it?  What do you specifically mean by the Little Ice Age?  I am referring to the Little Ice Age which extended  some say beginning in the 1300s into the 1850s?  I am afraid I haven't studied that subject of the  Little Ice Age, the effect of Little Ice Age on  northwestern British Columbia.  You don't know what the effect of the Little Ice Age  on that biogeoclimatic map would be, do you?  No, I -- the effects would be very diverse.  I can't  make a simple answer to that.  If you would give me a  specific example perhaps I could -- I could give you  an answer.  What I suggest is that this map is a snapshot of  around 1985?  That is correct.  But that it's not much use in going back, even as far  as the Little Ice Age?  :  Well, what my friend has indicated that it appeared  from the Little Ice Age, 1300 to 1850, I think it's  unfair for him to ask the witness as far as the Little  Ice Age, unless he tells here what region -- if he is  going to 1850 to 1300, I think those are relevant  dates.  My recollection is that the evidence -- I  don't recall it going back as far as 1300.  But he has  given those dates here to this witness and I think he  should tell here what dates he is referring to.  :  I think one of the other experts agreed with that.  :  1300?  In my mind, it was a different date but  that's fine.  3:  1300, I believe.  Well, let's just go back to the end of the Little Ice  Age, obviously the climate has warmed since then,  hasn't it?  I wouldn't want to say yes or no for the entire study  area.  That's not an area of my expertise.  Do you know what the regional climate has done in the  study area over the last 200 years?  No, I do not.  Now, biogeoclimatic mapping uses vegetation and  geology to predict areas of common climate; is that  right?  Say that again? 9682  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Biogeoclimatic mapping uses vegetation and -- maybe I  2 am wrong, maybe it's geography -- to predict areas of  3 common climate?  4 A   That is not -- no, it's sort of the other way around.  5 Climatic soils or geological and vegetation  6 information is used as the base for mapping areas of  7 similar ecosystems.  So that the climate is part of  8 the data base.  You don't predict climate.  9 Q   I am showing you what are some extracts from  10 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification in British  11 Columbia by Mr. Pojar and Mr. Klinka and Mr.  12 Meidinger; you referred to and relied on this in  13 preparing your report?  14 A   No, as I said, this was published after -- I used  15 Pojar 1983 in the preparation of any report.  I have  16 since read this, however.  I have looked it over.  I  17 am familiar with this publication.  18 Q   This publication was forwarded to us from your files,  19 this is something that you reviewed before giving  20 evidence in this case today?  21 A   I have seen it, yes.  I guess I can say I reviewed it.  22 Q   If you turn to page eight, I am in -- under 4.1,  23 Synopsis, and the report says:  "To show relationships  24 among ecosystems in form, space and time, the BEC  25 system..."  and that's the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem  26 Classification, do you recognize that?  27 A   That's right.  28 Q   Is that the system you used?  29 A   That is the system I used.  30 Q   "...organizes the ecosystems at local, regional and  31 chronological levels."  You agree with that?  32 A  That's right.  33 Q  "The purpose of the local level of integration is to  34 organize ecosystems according to similarities and  35 composition and structure of their vegetation and  36 sites."  Do you agree with that?  37 A   Yes, I agree with that.  38 Q   "This is done by vegetation and site classifications  39 producing vegetation and site units."  You accept  40 that?  41 A   I accept that.  42 Q   "The purpose of the regional level of integration is  43 to organize ecosystems according to similarities in  44 their distribution in a vegetation-inferred climatic  45 space."  Do you agree with that?  46 A  A bit hard to understand.  47 Q   Well, do you agree with that? 9683  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   I agree with that, this is a description of the  2 classification, yes.  3 Q   And if I am wrong, doesn't this mean that you look at  4 the vegetation to infer areas of common climate?  5 A   To a degree, you do.  That isn't what you originally  6 asked me.  You asked me whether you used vegetation  7 and soils to predict climate and I said no, that's not  8 what you do in the classification.  You use  9 information -- do you understand the difference?  I  10 think there is a distinction there.  It's not the  11 purpose of the classification to predict climate.  The  12 purpose it is to classify or group similar ecosystems,  13 based on their vegetation, their soils and their  14 climate.  I see quite a distinction between those two  15 points.  16 Q   Well, correct me if I am wrong, but are you -- is  17 there enough climatic data available to tell you from  18 the climatic data alone, the areas of common climate?  19 A   No, the climatic stations are spaced widely apart and  20 one has to make some assumptions about or interpolate  21 to some degree, yes.  22 Q   And isn't it one of the methods of interpolating  23 between climatic stations the vegetation that exists?  24 A   Yes, I agree with that.  25 Q   So that what I am suggesting is that you are using,  26 because you have knowledge of the vegetation of the  27 area, you're using that vegetation to predict areas of  2 8 common climate?  29 A   I -- okay.  I disagree with your use of the word  30 predict, and when you say "predict climate" I see  31 something like because hemlock grows here and here the  32 mean number of degree days is 2002, and because  33 hemlock grows there, there the mean number of degree  34 days shall be 202 or something like that.  No one ever  35 does with the biogeoclimatic classification and that  36 is what you seem to be saying by "predicting" climate.  37 What you do is you infer that the ecosystem  38 characteristics in that area are similar to any other  39 area simply because the vegetation and the soils are  40 the same because your climatic data support the fact  41 and the information you have on climate supports that  42 as well.  43 Q   All right.  44 A   Based —  45 Q   Maybe if I just explain what I mean by predict.  If  46 you have got a climatic data control area at point A  47 and a climatic control data at point B, and you have 9684  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 similar vegetation between A and B and you have  2 similar geology between A and B, you then assume or  3 infer that the climate between A and B is the same?  4 A   You infer -- it's up to the climatologists to make  5 predictions about the climate, when it gets  6 specifically climatic data.  And the climatologists  7 are working on the subject.  The people doing the  8 biogeoclimatic classification, when it -- they would,  9 in a general sense, make that kind of an inference,  10 however they wouldn't go so for as to predict climate  11 I don't think.  I don't -- I am not really comfortable  12 with that suggestion.  13 THE COURT: What are you mapping in biogeoclimatic mapping?  14 A   You are mapping ecosystems and an ecosystem is an  15 expression of the complete environment, including the  16 vegetation and soils and so on. And it's quite  17 different to me than to be predicting, predicting  18 climate, which is sort of narrow when you think of  19 quantifying certain parameters, such as temperature,  20 precipitation, evapotranspiration and all that.  I am  21 just not comfortable with that statement and I would  22 prefer to state it the way I stated it.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   Could you turn to page 15 of the classification  25 document and down to the paragraph, the second  26 paragraph on the left hand column "The zonal  27 classification follows", do you have that paragraph?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   You will see that starting with the second line the  30 report says:  "However, because of problems with  31 climatic data and analysis, zonal" and then there is a  32 parenthesis "(climatic climax) plant associations are  33 used to provide a link between regional climate and  34 ecosystems."  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   You agree with that?  37 A   I agree with that.  38 Q   "And this linkage results from the application of the  39 zonal concept (originally part of the Russian  40 tradition of vegetation and soil classification) to  41 that of the biotic area of vegetation zone."  42 A   "Or vegetation zone."  43 Q   Now, the last sentence:  "The resulting biogeoclimatic  44 units define large geographical areas with similar  45 climate and further stratify the original vegetation  46 units into climatically consistent classes."  All  47 right? 9685  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Now, what I am suggesting to you is that what you have  3 done in your biogeoclimatic map, is taken from the  4 ministry of forests, some detailed analysis of the  5 vegetation that is there; is that right?  6 A  Vegetation, soils and topographic information.  7 Q   Soils and topographic information?  8 A   The climatic data are also taken, not at the site but  9 the data are looked at.  10 Q   The climatic data is pretty scanty for most of that  11 area?  12 A   Have you seen -- pretty scanty?  In some areas it's  13 quite extensive, there have been quite extensive field  14 stations, short-term stations have been done.  15 Q   Let's use the word short-term, it's pretty short-term?  16 A   It is.  17 Q   In terms of climate assessment; is that right?  18 A   It is.  19 Q   In fact, it's mostly in the 1900s, 1920 and on in most  20 of this area that climatic data has been recorded?  21 A   That's true.  22 Q   So that what you are doing here is you're relying  23 primarily on vegetation, soils, and some climatic data  24 to, in effect, fill out whole zones of similar, what  25 you call biogeoclimatic units?  26 A   That's right.  27 Q   Was there a late migration of cedar into the ICHg3?  28 A   That's not my area of expertise.  I can't answer that  29 question.  30 Q   Now, if you could just turn for a moment to map three,  31 this is still the soapberry map, in the upper right  32 hand corner you have got the symbols "abundant,  33 common, uncommon and uncommon to rare."  And I think  34 you said in your evidence in chief that you don't know  35 what density of berry to area is in the common area,  36 for example?  37 A   No, I don't, I am not quantifying it.  38 Q   You're just saying that it's kind of like less, there  39 is less and more sort of a range for the middle range  40 in there?  41 A   Yes, I could -- yes.  42 Q   And in respect of each of the species that you have  43 mapped, the same comment applies, it's a sort of a  44 less to more rather than there is this much here or  45 this much there?  46 A   I agree with that.  47 Q   What papers or articles have you written prior to 9686  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  THE COURT:  7  8  A  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Q  19  A  20  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  Q  30  31  A  32  33  MR. GRANT:  34  35  MR. WILLMS  36  Q  37  38  A  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  45  A  46  47  being retained to give evidence in this case in  respect of any of the berry species that you  investigated here?  Okay, the vaccinium membranacium, the vaccinium  avalifolium alaskaese --  You are going to to have spell those for the  reporter.  I can use the common names. Oval leaf blueberry, black  huckleberry, Alaska blueberry and high bush cranberry,  I was author of two publications put out by the  ministry of forests on the -- one was a comprehensive  literary review on those species, their otocological  characteristics and the second one was a summary of  the field knowledge and personal knowledge of  silviculture combined with literature to produce a  handbook on the response of those species to  silvicultural treatments.  Is one of them the report you did in 1986?  It's published in '86, yes.  The Haeussler/Coates and  Coates/Haeussler.  Those are the two?  Those are the two.  And you have cited one of them, the Haeussler and  Coates?  I think they are both in my CV.  I didn't cite the  Coates and Haeussler in the report, because similar  information were in the two reports and for the  citations that I used it wasn't necessary.  So is it fair to say you were working on that  contemporaneous with your work on this?  It was prior to.  I had completed both of those  projects before I took on this project.  I think they are both cited at page four of the CV.  It's 800.  :  Oh, the CV.  I was looking at her report.  Now, turning back to map two, that was based on  ministry of forests data and personal communications?  And personal experience.  And we went over what the  information was based on.  Map two, I am sorry, I  thought we were talking about map three.  Can you ask  the question again?  Map two, I think you said it was based on ministry of  forests data and personal communications in some  instances?  Yes, and I failed to mention that when I worked for  the ministry of environment I transferred a lot of the  ministry of forests' information on to a -- I am sorry 9687  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I didn't mention this earlier but I am not sure it  2 makes a lot of difference -- when I worked for the  3 ministry of environment I transferred a lot of  4 ministry of forests information on to a map scale of  5 one to 250,000 and I used those base maps extensively  6 in this preparation of this particular one.  But it's  7 the same information, it just got transferred to a  8 variety of different scales and to different base  9 maps.  10 Q   Who else did you have personal communications with in  11 order to prepare that map?  12 A   Jim Kojar, ministry of forests in Smithers -- I am --  13 I had a lot of personal communications during that  14 period in relation to the berries and the mapping and  15 I can't remember exactly who I spoke to on which  16 topic.  17 Q   I am just dealing with map two now.  18 A   I know you are.  And I indicated in my report, and  19 also in the letter, about the people I spoke to and I  20 could list them again for you but I couldn't at this  21 point say whether when I was talking to a specific  22 person, whether we discussed the map and the berries  23 or just the berries.  And two of the people I  24 indicated -- I know I talked to Ray Coupe about the  25 classification in this area here and I talk to Craig  26 Delong in the classification in this area and the lack  27 of classification in this area, and I talked to Jim  28 Pojar quite a bit about the mapping.  I can't remember  29 all of the people.  But I do have them written down in  30 various places.  And I just don't remember the events  31 that well.  32 Q   Could you put Exhibit 796 —  33 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I will take two minutes and then I will  34 move on to a different topic.  35 THE COURT:  Well, it's time to adjourn but if you —  36 MR. WILLMS:  I have two questions, my lord, and that's all.  37 THE COURT:  Exhibit 796?  38 MR. WILLMS:  Exhibit 796.  39 Q   Did you prepare this map?  40 A   Yes, this is the map I prepared.  41 Q   Did you prepare everything on that map?  42 MR. GRANT:  I think some of this was printed out.  43 A   I am not -- I am trying to remember, I didn't do this  44 handwriting on the corner.  I am not sure to  45 with|were} what detail.  I don't know about these  46 purple -- these red lines, things like that, is that  47 what you're getting at? 96?  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   Let's flip this up, is all of the line drawing and all  3 of the colouring on this map, was that all prepared by  4 you?  5 A   I assume so.  I haven't examined it really carefully  6 to make sure nobody has adjusted it but I would take  7 this as my work here.  8 Q   And what about the overleaf biogeoclimatic units of  9 northwestern British Columbia?  10 A   That legend, yes, I prepared that but there is some  11 marking on there that wasn't done by me.  12 Q   When you say here under sub boreal spruce zone,  13 boundaries under review, what do you mean by that?  14 A   This process of classification is ongoing and the  15 names of the sub zones change and that's why I tried  16 to say the map was prepared as of 1985, because a  17 classification is -- it's not an absolute -- you group  18 things that are most similar and a year later you  19 might decide well, I would prefer to put this  20 particular valley with that one or I will change the  21 name of this unit or I will subdivide this unit and  22 create another variant, and this is going on all the  23 time.  You can't ever have the final version of the  24 map, okay?  25 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  This would be an appropriate time.  26 THE COURT:  All right.  You're not going to finish in afternoon,  27 are you, Mr. Willms?  28 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, I will.  29 THE COURT:  You think you will?  What have we got do tomorrow?  30 How long will that argument take?  31 MR. GRANT:  Mr. Mackenzie and myself would have anticipated it  32 would be a total of 40 minutes and I asked -- and then  33 there is another half hour, housekeeping, we call it  34 housekeeping, including schedule discussion and other  35 matters we wish to raise.  36 THE COURT:  How much pressure will you be under this afternoon  37 to finish?  38 MR. WILLMS:  Not much, my lord.  39 THE COURT:  Well, I have — I am running very late for a lot of  40 other things today.  Could we come back at quarter  41 after two then?  And, if necessary, I am happy to sit  42 later this afternoon.  43 MR. GRANT: I have indicated to Mr. Willms we may ask you that  44 for the witness but see how we are then.  45 THE COURT:  In view of what Mr. Willms says it sounds like we  46 can finish this afternoon.  47 MR. GRANT:  Ms. Koenigsberg might have something to say. 9689  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I do have cross-examination.  I don't  2 anticipate it will be very lengthy.  3 THE COURT:  All right.  2:15 please.  4  5  6  7  8 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  9 a true and accurate transcript of the  10 proceedings herein to the best of my  11 skill and ability.  12  13  14  15  16  17 Wilf Roy  18 Official Reporter  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  4 7 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT) 9690  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2 THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Willms.  3  4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLMS:  5 Q   Ms. Haeussler, do you have Exhibit 802, your report?  6 Would you turn in that report to page 30, please.  And  7 in that report you refer at the end of the second  8 paragraph to J. Parminter, personal communication  9 August, 1985.  I am showing you two pages of a  10 document that was forwarded to us by your counsel.  11 Are those your notes of that personal communication  12 with Mr. Parminter?  13 A   Yes, they are.  14 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, could that be Exhibit 784-26, please.  15 THE REGISTRAR:  784-26.  16  17 (EXHIBIT 784-26: Tab 26. B.C. Cross Exam Bood, Copy of  18 Handnotes by S. Haeussler re conversation with J.  19 Parminter)  20  21 MR. WILLMS:  22 Q   Are all of the -- is all of the handwriting on these  23 two pages yours?  24 A   It is.  25 Q   Down near the bottom you have a note, "some thoughts"  26 and then "Fort Nelson" adjacent to it?  Do you see  27 that?  28 A   That's right.  29 Q   Are these your thoughts or were these Mr. Parminter's  30 thoughts?  31 A   I don't recall right -- can I read them over?  32 Q   Please do.  33 A   I believe those are his.  I wouldn't be a hundred per  34 cent certain.  If they are his, then they would be  35 after the conversation some things that I wrote down  36 as a result of the conversation.  37 Q   All right.  Just on the -- you say:  38  39 "In the north fire suppression did not come into  40 effect in any significant way until the mid  41 1960s"?  42  43 A   That's right.  44 Q   Is that from your own observations as well?  45 A   No.  This is the Fort Nelson T.S.A.  And I don't have  46 observations from that area.  47 THE COURT:  T.S.A., timber sale area? 9691  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  A  2  THE COURT:  3  4  5  A  6  7  MR. WILLMS  8  Q  9  10  11  A  12  13  14  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  22  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  28  Q  29  A  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  39  40  A  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Timber supply area.  And when you are talking about the north, are you  talking about Fort Nelson north or the rest of British  Columbia north?  We were discussing his research onto the fire history  of the Fort Nelson T.S.A.  But that's what you were referring to, though, in your  report, wasn't it, at page 30, the personal  communication?  I was -- he was -- we were talking in general in that  personal communication.  That is a general statement.  That doesn't refer specifically to the Fort Nelson  T.S.A.  Well, just referring to the area of Map 2, would you  agree that fire -- and I am just reading on "some  thoughts, Fort Nelson."  Would you agree fire  suppression is mainly effective on small fires in  accessible areas?  We are speaking here of the north, the Fort Nelson  T.S.A., and I would agree with that statement, mainly  effective.  Okay.  And I am asking about Map 2 now.  Oh, the whole area of Map 2?  Yes.  I don't think that these comments relate to the whole  area of Map 2.  No, I am asking for your own opinion.  My own opinion, no, it would be quite -- the situation  would be quite different in the central area where  it's more accessible.  It's quite a different  situation.  Small fires in accessible areas.  There is  much more concerted effort to suppress fires in  these -- in the more central portion of the study  area, because it -- and it is more accessible.  These  statements do relate to the Fort Nelson area.  All right.  Well, what I am getting at is are they  only related to Fort Nelson or do they relate to the  Map 2 area as well?  They don't apply over the whole area, no.  I don't  think that the comment "fire suppression is mainly  effective on small fires in accessible areas," no.  Fire suppression takes place on large fires in  accessible areas and in small fires in not so  accessible areas.  So no, that statement isn't  truly -- I wouldn't think that statement was  completely applicable to all of the area of Map 2. 9692  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  Q  A  Now, what about down -- you have got "in more remote  areas fires" and then what is that, "generally -- "?  "Generally a lightning cause."  I made a spelling  mistake on lightning.  "And in most areas fires generally lightning  caused become so large by the time they are  detected that little control can be achieved and  they are basically natural."  Now, does that apply to any of the Map 2 area?  I was speaking here about the north, the boreal  forest, and we did discuss that earlier today when I  was asked whether in any of these areas have something  that approximates a natural fire regime, and I said  that up in the north meant that the fire suppression  efforts aren't as intense as for the south.  I think  that kind of a comment would apply to the boreal  forest area well away from the highways where there  wasn't a lot of valuable property and so on that  wanted to be protected.  Now, what other fire research did you rely on in  coming to your conclusions about the map area?  Something in addition to Mr. Parminter that you have  cited there?  Which conclusions are those?  Well, at the end of that long paragraph -- that  paragraph on the impact of fire suppression, you cite  J. Parminter personal communication, August 1985.  Yeah.  This statement:  "In an area where the fire cycle is on the order  of 300 years the effects of 50 years of fire  exclusion are minimal, whereas in stands with a  history of understory fires at least every decade,  the effects of a similar period of fire  exclusion -- "  THE COURT:  I am sorry.  A       "-- would be much more evident."  THE COURT:  I am sorry, witness, the reporter can't possibly  take it down.  A   I am sorry.  I will slow down.  That sentence, would  you like me to repeat that?  THE COURT:  Yes, you will have to do that, please.  A  "In an area where the fire cycle is on the order  A  Q  A 9693  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 of 300 years the effects of 50 years of fire  2 exclusion are minimal, whereas in stands where the  3 history of understory fires at least every decade,  4 the effects of a similar period of fire exclusion  5 would be much more evident."  6  7 That is something he told me over the phone.  8 MR. WILLMS:  9 Q   And you wrote it down?  10 A   No, I did not.  11 Q   Oh.  12 A  At least I don't see it anywhere on here and these are  13 the only notes that I have relating to that  14 conversation.  15 Q   All right.  Did you put anything that you have written  16 down here in your report?  17 A   I am not -- I don't -- not totally familiar with  18 what's on here and I would have to look this over  19 carefully to determine that.  20 Q   Well, please read both pages.  21 MR. GRANT:  While she is doing that, my lord, I may have missed  22 something, but my friend indicated that this would be  23 Exhibit 784-26.  Is there a sub A?  I don't have a  24 784-25.  25 THE REGISTRAR:  784-25.  26 THE COURT:  784-25, that is Mr. Hatler's prospectives on the  27 inventory of caribou.  28 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  It's not in in book.  That's fine.  29 A   There is several things in these two pages of notes  30 that do appear in our -- related to somehow in my  31 report, but I can't tell you -- I think one of the  32 comments is not taken directly from the phone  33 conversation.  I am not certain.  34 MR. WILLMS:  35 Q   Well, let's carry on with the "some thoughts" in the  36 Map 2 area.  Are there -- and I am down to the line:  37  38 "There are some in between fires --"  39  40 I am on the exhibit on your note.  You have got that?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Yes.  43  44 "-- lightning caused fires in accessible locations  45 where suppression has some effect."  46  47 Am I reading that right? 9694  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  10  11  12  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  24  THE COURT:  25  A  26  MR. GRANT:  27  28  29  THE COURT:  30  MR. WILLMS  31  Q  32  A  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Q  40  41  A  42  43  Q  44  A  45  46  47  Yeah.  "There are some in between fires, for example,  lightning caused fires in accessible locations  where suppression does have some effect."  Does that apply to the Map 2 area?  That would -- I -- I think those general comments that  relate to the Fort Nelson T.S.A. would include this  northern part of the map area.  Those kind of general  statements probably do apply in this area.  The boreal  or the area that I referred to as the north ecoregion.  And then you have got a note:  "In addition prescribed fire is widely used for  grazing wildlife and domestic stock.  This has  gone on for a long time in certain locations."  And then what valley is that?  Kechika.  Where is that?  It's -- I think it might be right off the edge of this  map.  It's -- I think it's just out here.  K-e-c-h-i-k-a?  That's right.  The witness was indicating just on the second area  of the second column of typescript at the bottom of  that was where she was indicating on the map.  Oh.  All right.  Does that have application in the Map 2 area?  I believe that -- this is something that I am not  familiar with, the prescribed burning practices in --  over near Fort Nelson.  And I believe it's much more  widespread.  There is some prescribed burning for the  guide outfitters, and I believe that it's much more  widespread in that area further east.  But I couldn't  say for sure.  Is there any prescribed burning whatsoever in the  claims area?  Certainly there is prescribed burning in the claims  area.  For wildlife and domestic stock?  For wildlife, I wouldn't want to say for -- I  believe -- yeah, I think there is for domestic stock  and there is other types of prescribed burning as  well. 9695  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  THE  COURT:  2  A  3  THE  COURT:  4  A  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  7  8  A  9  10  11  THE  COURT:  12  13  A  14  15  16  THE  COURT:  17  A  18  THE  COURT:  19  20  A  21  22  THE  COURT:  23  24  A  25  26  27  THE  COURT:  28  A  29  MR.  WILLMS  30  Q  31  32  33  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  A  42  MR.  WILLMS  43  44  45  46  47  Where is the Kechika valley, please?  I believe it's just to the east of the map area.  In the central region?  All right.  Do you know where it is?  I think right here.  Okay.  The witness is pointing in the area of where  the northern Wet'suwet'en territories' triangle is, so  it's around the third column.  What I mean is it's off the edge -- off the map over  here.  If we had a map of British Columbia I could  find it for you.  It's all right.  It's just off the east edge of  the —  I don't -- I'm not a hundred per cent certain on that.  I would rather see a map.  But that's where I believe  it is.  It's definitely in the Fort Nelson T.S.A.  In the Fort Nelson T.S.A.?  Or I believe it's in Fort Nelson T.S.A.  The east edge of this map is a long way from the  Fort Nelson T.S.A., isn't it?  It gets close, in the top, in the far right, does it  not?  Well, maybe at the top, but the central part you are  a long way from Prince George.  Yeah.  The discussion was relating to a study that he  had done in the Fort Nelson T.S.A. in the boreal  forest.  All right.  These particular notes.  Now, I am finished with that exhibit, but can you keep  Exhibit 802 and turn to page 21.  And from page 21 on  to page 51 is a portion of the report that you  actually did.  Your report goes from page 52 on  through 88?  That's right.  All right.  And I am showing you here I believe what  is -- and this is provided by your counsel, a draft of  what is chapter two, the first draft of what is  chapter two of Exhibit 802.  Can you just take a look  at that and confirm that?  That's right.  :   All right.  My lord, Exhibit 784-27.  (EXHIBIT 784-27:  Tab 27, B.C. Cross Exam Book, First  Draft of April 1986 from Ex. 802 - S. Haeussler  Report) 9696  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  And I'll just -- I want to put a few documents  2 together, so maybe I'll put the next document to you  3 and you can keep those separate, my lord.  Just for  4 the time being, from the three-ring binder.  5 Q   I am showing you a letter dated December 9, 1985 from  6 Mr. Overstall to yourself.  Is that a letter that  7 refers to this draft that has "October 1985" printed  8 and then a line with "revised April '86" written in on  9 it?  10 A   I imagine -- yeah.  I think so.  11 MR. WILLMS:   All right.  Could that letter be Exhibit 784-28,  12 my lord.  13  14 (EXHIBIT 784-28:  Tab 28, B.C. Cross Exam Book, Letter  15 dated Dec. 9, 1985 to S. Haeussler from R. Overstall)  16  17 THE COURT:  Yes.  18 MR. WILLMS:  19 Q   And Ms. Haeussler, what you did after you received the  20 letter which is marked 784-28, you revised your report  21 and have a copy dated May 1986?  22 A   That's right.  23 MR. WILLMS:   And can that be Exhibit 784-29, my lord.  24 THE COURT:  I am sorry, this is a revision of 784-27 or of 802?  25 MR. WILLMS:  It's a revision of 784-27.  26 THE COURT:  So that will be 784-29 then.  27 THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  28  29 (EXHIBIT 784-29:  Tab 29, B.C. Cross Exam Book, Second  30 Draft of May 1986 of Ex. 802, S. Haeussler Report)  31  32 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, I might make it clear that the original  33 report had some Roman numeral pages at the beginning  34 which are not in the exhibit that has been marked by  35 my friends, and it also had some pages after the end  36 of the discussion of the berries, and these drafts  37 that I have put forward to the witness here, the  38 portions that have been excluded in the ultimate  39 report, I haven't put in these drafts.  The drafts are  40 longer just as the report was longer as well.  41 THE COURT:  Yes.  42 MR. WILLMS:  Now —  43 MR. GRANT:  Just to be clear, my lord, we delivered, of course,  44 all of the drafts, the section that's excised as well  45 it's been delivered to my friends.  4 6 THE COURT:  I assumed that.  4 7 MR. GRANT:  Yes. 9697  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  MR.  WILLMS  2  Q  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  7  THE  COURT:  8  MR.  GRANT:  9  THE  COURT:  10  MR.  GRANT:  11  THE  COURT:  12  MR.  GRANT:  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  THE  COURT:  20  MR.  GRANT:  21  22  THE  COURT:  23  MR.  WILLMS  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  Q  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  A  :  Yes.  Now, if you can turn to page --  Well, one thing I don't know is when were the drafts  delivered?  With the report?  No.  What happened was this report of Ms. Haeussler  was delivered in February 1987 by my friend.  That's the 802?  802, in the entirety of 802.  In February '87?  February of 1987.  Yes.  And then what happened is a basically as you recall  Miss Mandell was dealing with the question of  disclosure of the argument that you ruled on last  week.  But when the drafts came to counsel's attention  that these drafts existed, they were dealt with in the  same manner as other documents, that is they were  delivered ahead of that ruling.  Right.  Because we became aware that they were extant  drafts.  All right.  Now, if you can turn at the same time in these three  drafts, starting in 784-27, which is the draft, could  you turn to page 3.  Sorry, it's your first draft.  Oh.  If you can turn to page three of your first draft.  This one.  That's the draft that has the date "revised April  1986" written on it.  If you could turn at the same  time in the letter, to page two of the letter, and  then turn in the second draft to page three, that is  784-29.  Now, you will see that in Exhibit 784-27 you  ended the third paragraph with the statement:  "Not coincidentally the Gitksan and the Nishga who  occupy these transitional areas have a culture and  native economy that is transitional between that  of typical Coastal and Interior Indian groups."  And you cited Turner.  Do you see that?  That's right.  And then on page two of Mr. Overstall's letter to you,  which is Exhibit 784-28, you'll see the note under  P.3, para 3, last sentence in his letter to you?  That's right. 969?  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And he says this statement:  2  3 "Nishga and Gitksan culture is too simplistic and  4 may contradict other evidence we will be  5 presenting."  6  7 The sentence should be omitted.  Do you see that?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And in fact, on the second draft, 784-29, that  10 reference and the reference to Turner has been  11 deleted, hasn't it?  12 A   That's right.  13 Q   And in your ultimate report, Exhibit 802, that  14 reference to Turner isn't there, is it?  15 A   No, I don't believe it is.  16 Q   You deleted the reference to Turner because Mr.  17 Overstall told you to?  18 A   He asked me to and, yes, I did.  19 Q   However, you left other references to Turner in your  20 report, didn't you?  21 A   I did.  Those were relating to native use of the  22 berries.  This is relating to some cultural and native  23 economy.  And that -- I felt that was -- I thought  24 that was a fair comment that it was rather simplistic  25 and since it wasn't an area that I felt -- well, this  26 was a quote that I found and I thought it was useful  27 in this report, but I agreed with Richard that it was  28 a bit simplistic and so I took it out.  29 Q   Well, perhaps you could turn in Exhibit 803 -- sorry,  30 802.  31 MR. GRANT:  Can you give which one that is to the witness.  32 MR. WILLMS:  33 Q   Exhibit 802 is your report.  34 THE REGISTRAR:  Tab 2.  35 MR. WILLMS:  36 Q   Tab 2.  37 A   Uh-huh.  38 Q   Page 21.  Now, you have left in there, and I am after  39 the words, "Eight-berry producing shrubs," you have  40 got a discussion in there ending with the  41 documentation in the ethnobotanical literature of  42 British Columbia?  43 A   Uh-huh.  44 Q   And you refer to the table below?  45 A   That's right.  46 Q   Which includes Turner?  47 A   That's right. 9699  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  Q  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  12  Q  13  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  20  21  22  Q  23  24  25  MR.  GRANT:  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  THE  COURT:  35  36  MR.  WILLMS  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  A  And part of your discussion there from Turner is trade  goods in that paragraph?  I mean you got that from  Turner, didn't you?  Pardon me?  I am not following.  Which paragraph?  Well, the assumption here in paragraph one.  This part, I felt that this was -- in my terms of  reference that were given to me before I began the  study, these kind of statements were made and those  were assumptions that I made which were supported by  the -- by this information here, but those are  primarily assumptions that were given to me.  And so these assumptions were given to you, the  assumption that you made about the transitional  between Coast and Interior that you took out was an  assumption that you made?  It wasn't given to you?  No, that wasn't given to me.  I was -- in reviewing  the literature on this topic I came across this  discussion by Turner of the transitional zone and I  thought that was interesting, so I put it in.  And  it -- it was not something that was part of the terms  of reference I was given.  So the terms of reference that you have got in here as  your underlying assumptions were the ones that Mr.  Overstall agreed with?  Wait.  Wait.  Wait.  My friend is combining about  three different kind of concepts here, I think.  First, what Mr. Overstall gave the witness.  Second,  what her terms of reference are and third, what her  assumptions were.  And I think that the combination of  assumptions and terms of reference is apples and  oranges.  I don't think I need to rule on that.  I think my friend can rephrase it.  Mr. Willms can put another question and avoid  whatever difficulty there is, if any.  Who was it that gave you your terms of reference?  Richard Overstall.  All right.  And the references to the aboriginal  references --  In this first paragraph.  On page 21?  Uh-huh.  Of Exhibit 802?  Yes.  Those were given to you by Mr. Overstall?  The -- I'm -- I want to make this perfectly clear. 9700  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 You are not just speaking of these references in the  2 table.  You are speaking of --  3 Q   No.  4 A   -- the sentence:  5  6 "These plant species were chosen for study  7 because of the importance of their berries to the  8 aboriginal economy of northwestern B.C.  The  9 berries were capable of being preserved and  10 were especially important as a source of nutrition  11 during the winter and early spring months."  12  13 Those are assumptions that I made based on the terms  14 of reference and discussions I had with Richard  15 Overstall prior to beginning the study.  And there has  16 also been much discussion of their use as trade goods.  17 That is also -- that should be included with that  18 previous comment.  19 Q   On the last page of the letter from Mr. Overstall to  20 you, 784-28, Mr. Overstall -- and it's page six.  Do  21 you see the page numbers are at the bottom?  Mr.  22 Overstall says he's going to assemble some 19th  23 century documents describing pre-industrial vegetation  24 of the region.  Did he do that for you?  25 A   He did send along some large quantities of reports  26 from early explorers and things.  27 Q   All right.  And did he send you other reference  28 material for you to review as well?  2 9 A   He from time to time sent me papers that he thought  30 would interest me.  And I -- yes, I think -- I recall  31 one on aboriginal burning in Australia.  I think that  32 would have been about it aside from this historical  33 material.  34 MR. WILLMS:   Now, my lord, I'm -- it may help to clean up a bit  35 if the 784-27 and 28 can be put away.  I am going to  36 refer to 784-29.  37 THE COURT:  All right.  38 MR. WILLMS:  39 Q   And just referring to that, you sent the revised  40 report that's dated May 1986 to Mr. Overstall?  41 A   I believe so.  I can't remember.  42 Q   And I'm showing you a letter dated January 15, 1987,  43 and this is a letter -- you will see Mr. Overstall  44 refers to in paragraph one, "incorporate the  45 ecological classification paper into the main May 1986  46 report."  And he's referring there to the report we  47 have marked 784-29, is that right? 9701  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A  Which report is which?  Which report is which?  2 Q   Yeah.  When he says "incorporate the ecological  3 classification paper into the main May 1986 report,"  4 that is this report you have in front of you right  5 now.  6 A   That's the main May 1986 report.  7 MR. WILLMS:   And that's the report that's been marked 784-29.  8 And, my lord, I would ask that this letter be marked  9 784-30.  10  11 (EXHIBIT 784-30:  Tab 30 B.C. Cross Exam Book.  Letter  12 dated January 15, 1987 from R. Overstall to S.  13 Haeussler)  14  15 THE COURT:  Thank you.  16 MR. WILLMS:  17 Q   Now, in the 784-30 you did incorporate some of these  18 suggestions.  For example, you had another draft paper  19 which you incorporated into Exhibit 802 as chapter  20 one?  21 A   That's right.  22 Q   And just referring to Exhibit 784-29, you'll see, and  23 I am just skipping item two, the berry sampling.  24 That's not in your report any more?  25 A   No.  26 Q   Not the one marked in court?  27 A   No, it's no longer in there.  28 Q   Now, item three he said, "omit descriptions of rise  29 root and axe," and you'll see in 784-29 you have got  30 on pages 39, 40 and 41 a description of rise root and  31 axe and you've omitted them in the final?  32 A   That's right.  33 Q   Did Mr. Overstall tell you why --  34 MR. GRANT:  Just a second.  What pages did you refer to?  35 MR. WILLMS:  36 Q   I referred to pages 39, 40 and 41 of Exhibit 784-29.  37 A   Okay.  38 Q   All right.  You did you omitted them?  39 A   I did.  4 0 Q   Did Mr. Overstall tell you why to admit them?  41 A   In this letter he says this focuses the report on the  42 biogeoclimatic zones and the berries.  So it  43 restricted it strictly to berries.  And I assume  44 that's the reason.  45 Q   There is a reference in the letter 784-30, the letter  46 January 15 to a copy of your ecological classification  47 paper with comments from Jim Pojar.  Were the comments 9702  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 written on the paper or were they separate?  2 A   I am sure I don't remember.  Maybe both.  3 Q   All right.  4 A   You have to show me specifically what --  5 Q   Well, I am at a loss, I am sorry, because I don't have  6 a copy of any comments from Jim Pojar, nor a marked-up  7 draft by anybody.  8 A  Well, I —  9 Q   So —  10 A   I submitted everything in my file.  11 Q   You don't recall?  12 A   I have -- I have a letter -- okay.  The question was  13 did he mark on the paper or -- he wrote -- there was a  14 letter and I am trying to remember if there were  15 comments on the paper.  I am pretty sure there were  16 comments on the paper.  A little bit with red ink or  17 something.  18 Q   All right.  And it also says, "together with a few  19 from myself."  From Mr. Overstall.  Did he write a  20 separate document too?  21 A   I don't remember which -- there was a lot of going  22 back and forth.  Is it in this letter?  23 Q   Yes.  I am just reading from --  24 A   Right at beginning.  25 Q   -- the very beginning.  26 A   Okay.  I am -- "I enclose a copy -- "  okay.  The  27 comments from Richard were probably in the text of the  28 report.  29 Q   Written on the draft?  30 A   I presume so, yeah.  I think I remember -- I think I  31 remember the ones that Jim wrote on, but I don't  32 recall specifically Richard's comments.  33 Q   All right.  34 A   But I -- they are probably written on the draft.  35 Q   Did you keep the draft?  36 A   There were a lot of drafts.  You didn't get a copy of  37 the draft.  I assume then that I threw it away.  I  38 gave them everything that I had.  There were a lot of  39 drafts and I don't know which was which.  40 Q   All right.  And you don't have any of your file left?  41 A   I gave everything on the topic -- I brought all my  42 drafts down and gave them to the lawyers.  There is --  43 it's very likely that I threw some away because there  44 were numerous copies of the same thing and I moved  45 several times, so I whittled things down.  46 Q   Now, just referring to Exhibit 802 and Exhibit 784 at  47 the same time and I am on page 21 of Exhibit 802. 9703  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  21?  2 MR. WILLMS:   21, my lord.  3 THE COURT:  Yes.  4 MR. WILLMS:  5 Q   And page one of Exhibit 784-29.  6 A   This one?  7 Q   Yes.  Page one, yeah.  Got it.  Now, you'll see if you  8 start reading at the top of page 21 of Exhibit 802 it  9 starts "Eight-berry producing shrubs."  10 A   Right.  11 Q   And that's the middle paragraph in your draft?  12 A   That's right.  13 Q   All right.  Why did you take the first paragraph out?  14 A   Because it was no longer the introduction and I moved  15 the introduction to the beginning of the report.  The  16 objectives of the study are.  And I believe they are  17 now in the front of the report.  Is that true?  18 Q   Well, I have —  19 A   Or -- do we have the complete report?  There is so  20 many reports.  21 MR. GRANT:  My understanding, my lord, is that the introduction  22 is not put into the exhibit, but my understanding is  23 that the introduction is in the report that was  24 delivered to my friends.  But Miss Mandell, because of  25 objections of my friends, including extensive  26 objections relating to the introduction from my review  27 of the correspondence, edited the report so that to  28 avoid unnecessary argument over what my friends would  29 consider admissible and not admissible.  30 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, if the witness says that it was  31 moved to another section which is no longer in, I  32 accept that.  33 THE COURT:  Is that the case?  34 A   Do believe -- I have to admit that I no longer can  35 keep all these reports clear in my mind.  I do have a  36 copy of it right here.  May I refer to it?  37 THE COURT:  Certainly.  What is it you are looking at now?  38 A   This is my unedited final report and --  39 MR. GRANT:  Just a second.  I have an unmarked copy of that.  I  40 am not sure if that one is marked.  41 A   Okay.  Okay.  There is my statement of opinion.  There  42 is an introduction on page one of my unedited final  43 report, but it's not in here.  It's in the table of  44 contents, introduction, page one, but then you move  45 over there and it's not there.  It's on -- it starts  46 on page two.  But I definitely wrote -- it's missing.  47 I definitely wrote an introduction which I moved and 9704  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 it had this type of -- just to say chapter one says  2 this, chapter two says this, chapter three says this.  3 Rather than having halfway through the report sounding  4 like you are starting over a report.  5 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I recall why I asked the question now.  I  6 don't have a page one either and anything that has  7 been given to me by my friends.  So --  8 MR. GRANT:  Well, the copy the witness looked at -- sorry, my  9 lord, I have been relying on the table of contents as  10 well which, of course, was edited out of the 802.  The  11 copy that I have which was going to -- was the full  12 copy for the court initially to be filed doesn't have  13 it and I don't have that page.  I suspect that -- I  14 don't know.  I can't really --  I would hypothesize  15 about the problem.  But obviously it wasn't in.  16 MR. WILLMS:  17 Q   Now, paragraph -- and I am staying with page one of  18 Exhibit 784-29 and continuing on to page 21 of Exhibit  19 802.  It appears that after the line "Eight-berry  20 producing shrubs," that the text of the paragraph has  21 been rewritten.  Do you see that?  22 A   That's right.  I removed the reference to the two root  23 plants.  We discussed that earlier.  I took those two  24 plants out of the report at the request of Richard.  25 Q   But then the text that follows --  2 6 A   Oh.  27 Q   -- has been rewritten as well.  28 A   Oh, well, okay.  I will have to reread it.  I think  29 it's fairly similar, is it not?  30 Q   Well, it is similar but it's rewritten.  31 A  Well, I did -- I did rewrite, because I wanted it to  32 flow from chapter to chapter, and I had shifted  33 material all over and I had taken references out to  34 species.  I can't concentrate very well on these two  35 paragraphs, but I don't see that it's very different.  36 Q   Well, for example, you talk in your draft about  37 because of their possible use as trade goods, and then  38 in your final you say there has been much discussion  39 of their use as trade goods.  Was that something Mr.  40 Overstall suggested could be tightened up a bit?  41 A   No.  I don't recall.  I mean we could look through the  42 letter and see if he makes a comment about that.  But  43 that probably would have been a stylistic change that  44 I made.  I don't recall.  I think that sentence is a  45 little long and got too many commas in and that may be  46 the reason why I broke it into two sentences.  47 Q   Do you have a letter -- and I am sorry to come back to 9705  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  14  15  16  Q  17  A  18  19  Q  20  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  A  30  Q  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  A  39  40  Q  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  THE COURT  46  47  this, but you don't have any recollection of a letter  from Mr. Overstall? You think he wrote on the report  itself?  We have that letter -- you think there might be  something before that?  Well, remember I asked you about the first line of the  January 15 letter where Mr. Overstall says he is  "sending you the paper with comments from Mr. Pojar  together with a few from myself"?  We had -- we looked at a letter earlier from -- a  letter earlier.  I remember that letter from him with  comments and suggestions.  I don't recall another --  this is a letter.  There is the body of the letter.  I  don't believe there would have been anything -- I  think the comments would have been in the text.  In the text itself?  But I really -- honestly I can't remember. I put all  my information in the file.  Now, in your report is it fair to say that berry  production for each of the species studied increases  with exposure to full sunlight?  Say that again.  Is it true that berry production for each of the  species that you studied increases with exposure to  full sunlight?  I think in general that's a fair statement.  And you have described the effect that fires have on  removing the forest canopy?  That's right.  All right.  And that allows direct sunlight into these  berry shrubs?  That's right.  Now, logging does the same thing in terms of removing  the forest canopy, doesn't it?  That's right.  Some of these berries that you have investigated do  not respond well after a fire?  They are slow to recover I think is what I said and  that's -- yeah, that's what I would say.  So that with a logged removal of the forest canopy  versus a fire removal of the forest canopy there are  some fire side effects that logging doesn't have?  Logging in and of itself.  I would agree with that.  Now --  :  I am sorry, what are you saying that logged removal  the canopy has some consequences that are not the same  as with the fire? 9706  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  A  2  MR. WILLMS  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  25  Q  26  27  A  28  Q  29  30  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  36  A  37  THE COURT:  38  A  39  MR. WILLMS  40  A  41  42  43  44  45  MR. WILLMS  46  Q  47  Yes.  I think I go along with that.  It's more that fire can have a detriment because it  has a soil -- it may get into the roots, for example.  It may increase the competitive vegetation?  I wouldn't use the word detriment.  I would say it's a  different impact.  Because just for example, burning  might stimulate more vigorous resprouting if the shrub  in the forest understory was decadent.  So in the --  you have -- you can't make these -- you can't say it's  detrimental as a broadcast statement like that.  Certain -- certainly the impact of -- if there is  burning as opposed to logging alone, initially right  after the fire there probably would be more shrubs  there if it was just logged as opposed to burned or  logged and burned.  But whether that is detrimental, I  wouldn't like to say that.  On Map 2, do you know what area of Map 2 in terms of  hectares has been logged in the last ten years?  No, I couldn't make a statement like that.  Referring to the Map 2 area, do you know what area in  hectares was destroyed by fire in the last ten years?  No, I -- I couldn't tell you that off the top of my  head either.  Do you know what area of Map 2 has been saved by fire  suppression techniques in the last ten years?  No, I don't know that number either.  Is it fair to say that you don't know whether the area  logged is greater than the area saved by fire  suppression?  That is fair to say.  And I do -- I referred to that  in my report to -- would you like me to find that  reference, that section?  Well, as long as you agree with that statement I don't  think it's necessary.  Okay.  Yeah.  I make that comment in the report.  The area logged is greater than --  No, no.  That —  :  That she doesn't know.  That I don't know to what extent the amount of logging  might offset the -- you understand the amount of  burning, that there are these different types of  disturbances and they might tend to compensate for one  another.  If the area logged is greater than the area saved by  fire suppression, presumably there would be no general 9707  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 negative effect on the overall berry habitat, would  2 there?  3 A   You have -- you are assuming a few things here.  You  4 are assuming that saving is good for berries and  5 logging is bad for berries.  6 Q   No, no.  7 A   I am sorry.  I have to -- maybe you say it one more  8 time and I can --  9 Q   Let's assume that the area logged exceeds, is greater  10 than the area saved by fire suppression.  All right?  11 A   So — okay.  There is —  12 Q   There is more logging than there is forest protected  13 from fire.  14 A   Right.  15 Q   All right.  Over the Map 2 area.  16 A   Okay.  17 Q   Generally, then, can you at least say that there would  18 presumably be no overall negative effect?  19 A   Those are two quite different things and I wouldn't  20 want to say that what the net effect was.  Whether it  21 was positive or beneficial and it would depend where  22 and in which species.  I wouldn't want to make a  23 statement like that.  Because the -- it's very  24 complex.  I just -- I might have to think about that  25 for awhile to see if I can answer it better.  You have  26 to really try to -- there would -- if the area -- if  27 the total area that didn't burn because of fire  28 suppression, if the amount logged was greater than  29 that —  30 Q   Yes.  31 A   -- then there would be no net effect?  32 Q   No negative effect.  33 A   I couldn't say -- I could -- I couldn't support that  34 kind of a statement.  I wouldn't make that kind of a  35 statement.  I just don't think you could have enough  36 information to make a kind of a statement.  37 Q   Well, isn't the important effect of a fire removal of  38 the forest canopy for berry production?  39 A   That's part of it.  That's an important part of it.  40 Q   Isn't that the most important part of it?  41 A   That's a little bit of a value judgment there.  The  42 most -- I would say it's probably one of the most  43 important factors are the increased light availability  44 following the removal of overstory, but things like I  45 said stimulating of resprouting and maybe there is a  46 nutritional -- you know, there is -- there is a  47 variety of factors. 970?  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Well, I thought you --  2 A   Change.  3 Q   -- said in your report that fire suppression would  4 have a negative effect on berry production?  5 A   I said -- I said, yes, in specific situations it  6 would.  7 Q   All right.  And I am suggesting what if you substitute  8 logging to open forest canopy for the fire suppression  9 which protects the forest canopy, are you saying you  10 can't give any opinion about that at all?  11 A   I can, but you are asking for a general statement.  A  12 generalization.  This is -- has no negative, overall  13 negative effect, and I don't -- I think that would be  14 a little bit too much of a sweeping statement to make.  15 I think that certainly -- if you asked me does logging  16 to some extent offset the effect of fire, the loss of  17 fire, I would say yes.  It does offset it to the  18 degree -- the degree to which it offsets it I said in  19 my report I can't say that.  I wouldn't want to say  20 whether we have a net benefit or a net loss in the  21 amount of berries.  It's just too sweeping a statement  22 and it would depend on the species in the area.  There  23 is too many factors involved to make that kind of a  24 generalization.  25 Q   Well, turn to page 30 of Exhibit 802.  26 A  Which is 802?  27 Q   Exhibit 802 is tab 2 and it's page 30 and at the  28 bottom -- and you don't do it in any particular --  29 with particular berries or anything like that.  That  30 long paragraph in the middle of the page ending with  31 your:  32  33 "If fire suppression policies have been  34 responsible for preventing periodic burning of  35 certain Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en berry patches,  36 then it is very likely that they have caused a  37 decline in the crop production of those berry  38 patches."  39  40 A   Yeah.  Certain.  And I make -- I am assuming there  41 that there it is not substituted by logging.  I am  42 just saying if you had a patch and if it grew over  43 with trees and you were prevented from burning it,  44 then it is quite likely that the berry production  45 would decline.  And I am not saying but then it's also  46 possible that it could have been logged.  You see that  47 gets in too much speculation. 9709  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   I am asking you to speculate that the fire suppression  2 is replaced in the same location with logging.  3 A   Okay.  Okay.  You are creating a scenario.  This  4 particular berry patch that I have in mind when I make  5 this statement, suppose it were logged.  6 Q   Yes.  7 A   That would certainly offset to some degree the loss of  8 berry production that was made by -- that -- yeah, to  9 some degree.  I wouldn't be able to say whether you  10 had better berries if you burned or whether you had  11 better berries if you logged, or more.  I wouldn't be  12 able to say that.  13 Q   Well, can't you say that with respect to, for example,  14 the Alaska blueberry or the black huckleberry or the  15 red huckleberry which takes a longer time?  16 A   If you gave me those specific species, I am prepared  17 to comment.  So, yeah, if you give me a specific  18 example and you asked my opinion --  19 Q   Well —  20 A   -- I will give an opinion.  21 Q   All right.  Well, what about those three?  They don't  22 respond well after a fire, do they?  23 A  My feeling on -- my opinion would be that in the short  24 term logging without burning there would be more  25 berries than logging with burning in the very short  26 term.  Yeah.  I would think so.  That if you logged  27 and didn't burn.  But I couldn't speculate about maybe  28 ten, 15 years down the road or anything.  Because  29 there would be -- you have to consider how fast their  30 regeneration took place and so on.  But I would think  31 that the damage to those shrubs would be greater with  32 the burning.  And it also depends on the intensity of  33 the fire.  Some of these fires are quite light.  So  34 it's -- really it's a big thing to speculate.  And I  35 tried to stay away from those kind of sweeping  36 statements.  Because I just think, you know, there is  37 a lot of different factors to consider.  38 MR. WILLMS:  Time for the afternoon adjournment, my lord?  39 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  40  41 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED PURSUANT TO AFTERNOON RECESS)  42  43  44  45  46  47 9710  S. Haeussler (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true  2 and accurate transcript of the proceedings  3 herein to the best of my skill and ability.  4  5  6  7 Laara Yardley, Official Reporter  8 United Reporting Service Ltd.  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 9711  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED FOLLOWING SHORT BREAK)  2  3    CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLMS:  (Continued)  4  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Referring to map two, the forests that are in the  7 ICHg3 and the SBSD zones are -- and I am on your fire  8 frequency map at page 26 of your report -- they are  9 there within the letters C and D; is that right?  10 A   I will have to refer to the map.  Primarily D.  11 Q   Primarily D?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And so those forests in that area are susceptible,  14 once they start burning, they burn readily?  15 A   That depends on the type of forest.  For example, the  16 species composition such as a deciduous forest perhaps  17 might burn less readily than that a lodgepole pine  18 forest.  19 Q   So if it was a coniferous forest, lodgepole pine, and  20 it was a fire that was in the canopy of the forest and  21 not a fire along the ground, is it a fire that would  22 spread or could spread quite readily?  23 A  More readily than in some other area?  It would  24 depend -- I presume if it was a crown fire it was  25 already well established.  2 6 Q   And —  27 A   I have a little difficulty answering this question.  28 I -- the spread -- the rate at which the fire spreads  29 would depend more on the weather conditions and the  30 topography.  31 Q   And wind?  32 A  And wind and temperatures and condition of the fuels,  33 rather than on which particular zone it was in.  34 Q   Once a fire like that had started, and I am talking  35 about a fire that would take the canopy  of the forest  36 in the ICHg3 or the SBSD zone, how would you supress  37 that fire, how would you stop it?  38 A   Okay.  I don't consider myself an expert in fire  39 suppression techniques.  What's normally done is fire  40 guards are built, they use topography, natural  41 topographic breaks, they build fire guards, there  42 is -- bombers are used.  I am afraid you would have to  43 ask a fire suppression expert for more details than  44 that.  45 Q   The burning that you have given evidence about in your  46 report, which affects berry production, is the burning  47 which removes the forest canopy? 9712  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   I would think both a surface fire or a crown fire  2 would affect berry production.  3 Q   But it's the crown fire that gets that sunlight to the  4 berry crop?  5 A   I guess you could say that.  6 Q   And is it fair to say that once a fire gets going in  7 this region in the summer, when it's hot, and I am  8 talking about the ICHg3 and the SBSD, that unless it's  9 supressed by either nature, that is rainfall, or man,  10 that large areas can be burnt?  11 A   Yes, large areas can be burnt, given appropriate  12 forest cover and weather conditions.  13 Q   And would you say that in the absence of fire  14 suppression that man-made fires, canopy fires in that  15 area might get out of control?  16 A   In the absence of fire suppression, would man-made  17 fires get out of control?  18 Q   Canopy fires I am talking about.  19 A   Certainly, it could get out of control.  20 Q   Any of the berry species that you have discussed in  21 your report, is it possible to cultivate any of those  22 berry species or can they only grow in the wild?  23 A   It's possible to cultivate them, yes.  24 Q   And in your opinion would cultivation increase the  25 relative production of a crop over a particular area?  26 A  What do you mean by over a particular area?  27 Q   Well, let's say that you took an area that had been  28 burned and immediately adjacent to it took an area  29 where you -- same area but you cultivated the berries  30 in that area rather than letting mother nature take  31 its course, could you get better production out of the  32 cultivated area?  33 A   I don't think any have been cultivated to the extent I  34 could answer that question.  If the techniques, if you  35 knew the proper techniques for managing the species  36 you could potentially get higher production but I  37 don't think the techniques are available because none  38 of these species have been cultivated, to any great  39 extent, certainly not in this, to my knowledge, not to  40 any great extent in this part of the province.  41 Q   All right.  Now, if you you can have in front of you  42 page 358-A, and that's the back page on map two, and  43 at the same time open your report, Exhibit 802, to  44 page five, starting with page five of Exhibit 802, did  45 you prepare table one?  4 6 A   I did.  47 Q   And did you send table one off to the cartographer to 9713  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 be reproduced?  2 A   I submitted the report to Richard and I believe he  3 passed it on to the cartographer.  4 Q   Referring to the exhibit, 358-A, and you will see that  5 there is a replication of table one in green?  6 A   That's right.  7 Q   And if you look down to the bottom on present day  8 economic activities, and compare table one for the  9 Interior, with the green on 358-A for the Interior,  10 you will see that berry picking has been added to  11 Exhibit 358-A and it's not on table one?  12 A   Yes, I noticed that myself.  13 Q   You didn't do that; is that right?  14 A   I don't recall ever doing it.  I was surprised when I  15 saw that there.  16 THE COURT:  Where is this, please?  17 MR. WILLMS:  The very bottom of the Interior column, my lord, in  18 the green, you will see that after agriculture there  19 is berry picking.  2 0    THE COURT:  Oh, yes, yes.  21 MR. WILLMS:  22 Q   And, Miss Haeussler, you will see under the north that  23 appears berry picking has been added to table one  24 there as well?  25 A   That's right.  26 Q   Somebody else added that?  27 A  As far as I can recall.  I don't recall having done  28 that myself.  29 Q   It's certainly not your evidence that berry picking is  30 a present day economic activity having the same  31 importance as the other ones you have listed there, is  32 it?  33 A   No, and if I had done it myself I would have put berry  34 picking on the coast.  I find it unusual that it's  35 missing from the coast when it's present in the  36 interior and the north.  But I don't recall having put  37 those there.  38 Q   And then you will see that agriculture is in the  39 Interior, it's been added as well?  40 A   Oh, there is an error here on my table.  The  41 agriculture should be under the Interior rather than  42 the north and that's a computer problem with the  43 carriage return and possibly there is an earlier  44 version where it was corrected.  Yeah, that's my  45 mistake on this table and I probably -- what I did, I  46 was -- I noticed it earlier -- yeah, that agriculture  47 should be in the Interior on both of those tables. 9714  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Not on the north unit.  2 THE COURT:  Whereabouts -- on both those tables you mean  3 agriculture should be deleted from the north and added  4 to the Interior?  5 A   That's correct.  6 MR. WILLMS:  Those are all my questions, my lord.  7 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg?  8  9    CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KOENIGSBERG:  10  11 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  12 Q   Miss Haeussler, there are numerous other berry and  13 food plants growing in northwestern British Columbia,  14 coastal climate and the interior, other than those  15 which you have listed, are there not?  16 A   That's right.  17 Q   And they would include raspberries?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Gooseberries?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Bunch berries?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   Wild crab apple, does that qualify as a berry?  24 A   No, it's a palm.  It's not considered a berry.  25 Q   And it's —  26 A   But if you use the term loosely, and I will -- I will  27 say, yeah.  What the heck?  28 Q   And low bush cranberries?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   Chokecherries?  31 A   Yes, again, they are not all berries, but I  32 understand, I think I know what --  33 Q   And kinnikinick, did I pronounce that correctly?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   And wild strawberries?  36 A   Right.  37 Q   Are there any of the berries or food plants that I  38 have just listed, which are so rare in any of the,  39 either coastal, interior or north, that they would not  40 be worth discussing in the same category with those  41 which have been listed as being present?  42 A   Over the study areas as a whole are any of them so  43 rare that they would not be worth discussing?  The  44 crabapple is one, I wouldn't call it rare, but it's  45 not -- it's less abundant than those other ones.  But  46 they are all quite common and widespread.  47 Q   Now, I would like to just deal with the biogeoclimatic 9715  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  9  Q  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  24  25  26  27  28  A  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  35  36  A  37  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  A  43  44  45  Q  46  A  47  THE COURT  zone classification.  You have told us, and I don't  think there is any real difficulty with this, that the  maps that we have looked at from two through 11, show  the inherent capability of the landscape to support  the species in question, they don't show an actual  distribution of any of the species?  Yes, I use that term cap capability fairly loosely,  but, yes, I think so, yes.  They don't reflect, I think you told us, any data?  I think they do reflect some data.  They don't reflect  quantatative estimates of the amount of berries  present.  You have made a distinction in the maps between two  different kinds of classifications, if I can call it  that, or two different levels for the classification,  one was where the biogeoclimatic zone is based upon  information, some form of data in the ministry of  forests?  Somebody has been on the ground and made  some observations about species being present?  I am not -- is there a question here? I don't follow  you.  Yes.  Well, I want you to confirm or not what I am  saying, there are two uses that you made of the  biogeoclimatic zone classification in the maps, one is  where it reflects actual data of some sort, someone's  observations, and the areas where there is  extrapolation?  I am really having a little trouble understanding what  you say so I wouldn't want to confirm it because what  you're saying doesn't make complete sense to me.  I  don't understand it.  All right.  Let's go at it backwards from the way I  started.  In your maps, we could take any one of them, you  divided the areas into zones, biogeoclimatic zones?  Only on map two.  That's the only one that shows the  zones.  Let's look at map two.  Okay.  In some areas, where you have a zone, let's take the  northern zone, you had little or no actual data?  There was -- the field sampling was not -- there  wasn't a lot of field sampling of ecological plot  data, no.  So you extrapolated?  Right.  Okay.  :  I am sorry, Ms. Koenigsberg, I am not sure what 9716  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 you're talking about by the northern territory.  Are  2 you talking about the northern area shown on the  3 tables or the northern area shown on the map?  4 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I believe the northern area shown on the map.  5 A   I think it's the same thing --  6 THE COURT:  What do you call the northern area?  7 A  We are talking in general terms here and I think --  8 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  9 Q   Maybe we can be a little more specific to assist his  10 lordship.  Roughly, where would you draw the line of  11 the northern biogeoclimatic zone?  12 A   There is no northern biogeoclimatic zone.  I define  13 three ecoregions, one of them I called the north and  14 the -- you can see here where the purple, which is  15 called ESSF, and you switch over to a blue called SWB,  16 if you looked around for that boundary that would be  17 the southern boundary of that north ecoregion.  18 Q   I am sorry, I am being not precise enough.  And when  19 we talk about ecoregions, that's a terminology which  2 0 you have developed?  21 A   I -- I -- specifically for this report, just to give  22 it a name, so that we could use that name and wouldn't  23 have to say classification unit.  24 Q   Okay.  And just tell us, using the northern ecoregion,  25 what defines that as northern?  26 A  At low elevations you have the true boreal forest, and  27 it is classified as such by -- in the biogeoclimatic  28 land classification, in other classifications of  29 forest regions of Canada, it is widely recognized that  30 the true boreal forest does extend into this -- that  31 this is basically the southern limit of the true  32 boreal forest and then at higher elevations you have  33 the sub alpine equivalent of the true boreal forest.  34 So it is based on, primarily, the biogeoclimatic  35 classification which shows these two zones but also on  36 other people's interpretation of where the taiga is  37 distributed in Canada. The boreal forest and taiga are  3 8 similar.  39 THE COURT:  What is that word?  40 A   Taiga, T-A-I-G-A, it's equivalent, it also -- it means  41 boreal forest.  42 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  43 Q   Is there a difference between what's encompassed in  44 boreal forest and what's encompassed in taiga?  45 A   Depend on people's interpretation.   Some people think  46 of the taiga as boreal, once the forest becomes less  47 productive and more stunted and sparse and open, other 9717  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 people use the terms in -- they interchange them.  2 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  3 Q   Okay.  Now, we have got three ecosystems, correct?  4 A   Three ecoregions?  5 Q   Ecoregions, yes.  Sorry.  6 THE COURT:  Sorry, you have got the north and we have got the  7 pink one, is that the central one?  8 A  As an overview map, we had three ecoregions, the  9 coast, the interior and the north.  10 MR. GRANT:  They are referred to on the extended legend of map  11 two, North America map on the Exhibit 358-A, my lord.  12 THE COURT:  What do you call the coast, the blue or the green?  13 A   The coast is -- you can roughly make it out on this  14 map as where you switch from CWH to SBS or from ESSF  15 to mountain hemlock, there is no actual boundary shown  16 on this map.  What you would have to do is overlay the  17 map, the boundaries on that little map on to this one  18 to find the -- it's basically the coast map, it  19 includes all of the coast ranges and once you're into  20 the east side of the coast ranges you would either be  21 into the interior or the north unit.  22 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  23 Q   Is there a correspondence between what you have  24 designated as ecoregions, the three ecoregions, and  25 the biogeoclimatic zone?  26 A   Yes, I intended -- I created that classification to  27 give you a big picture then I went to the more  28 detailed classification, but my intention was that  29 they could be overlain on one another.  Yes.  That's  30 what the triangles show, they show the relationships  31 for each of those -- on the overleaf of map two, for  32 each of the ecoregions you have a distinct sequence of  33 biogeoclimatic zones within the ecoregions.  34 Q   Okay.  And the biogeoclimatic zone, another way to  35 describe that very generally would be a macroclimate?  36 A   It represents an area of broadly similar macroclimate  37 but you couldn't -- the zone is much more than just a  38 climatic discriptor, so I wouldn't use those terms  39 interchangably, no.  40 Q   Would being able to use the word macroclimate at least  41 in some contexts as equivalent to biogeoclimatic zone  42 indicate that climate is one of the major factors in  43 determining biogeoclimatic zone?  44 A   I agree with the second half of your sentence but I  45 don't really follow your point on the first half of  46 the sentence.  The climate is one of the major  47 determining factors in -- yes. 971?  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q   In classifying zones?  2 A   That's right.  3 Q   Is that fair?  4 A   That's fair.  5 Q   What you're predicting, and I will come back to the  6 predicting if it gives you difficulty in the question,  7 but for the moment don't stick on that one, what  8 you're predicting when you have classified a huge area  9 like this, biogeoclimatically, is that you will find  10 certain soil types with certain vegetation, and when  11 we say vegetation with this classification system, we  12 are emphasizing trees; is that correct?  13 A   No, we are talking about the complete community,  14 because there are descriptions of the type of plant  15 communities that occur across the landscape within  16 those zones and plant associations -- no, not strictly  17 trees.  18 Q   Are these trees one of the major vegetation factors  19 that you're looking at in identifying something as  20 being a particular biogeoclimatic zone?  21 A   Yes, trees are probably the dominant type of biomass  22 on most of the ecosystems with the exception of some  23 of the higher elevations.  They are one of the more  24 important factors in delineating these.  25 Q   So we are looking at soils, we are looking at climate  26 and we are looking at certain vegetation with maybe an  27 emphasis on trees because they are the most dominant?  28 A   Okay.  29 Q   We classify, as you have done on these maps, we are  30 predicting that we will find in the zone classified, a  31 certain soil type, a certain vegetation and a certain  32 climate?  33 A  We know -- yes, I think that's an over-simplification,  34 but I don't object to that statement.  35 Q   Now, if I can come back to the first part of what I  36 was trying to discuss with you, when you have  37 extrapolated rather than having any or very many, I  38 guess you called them data points, from which to  39 classify a zone, you have predicted in the truest  40 sense of the use of the word when we talk about  41 classifying with this particular classification?  42 A  When you are speaking about the biogeoclimatic  43 classification, most of this has been overflown or  44 driven, so the predictions, to some extent you follow  45 the elevation line and assume that I saw it on this  46 side of the valley, I didn't see it on this side of  47 the valley but at the same elevation I would place it 9719  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 in the same zone or sub zone.  2 Q   When you get on the ground, in any one of the zones  3 that you have classified, whether it's ICHg or  4 whatever, when you get on the ground what you find may  5 be quite different, vegetatively, from what you would  6 assume is there from the classification that you have  7 made on the maps, isn't that so?  8 A   I am not certain I -- I think a person who is familiar  9 with the mosaic of vegetation that occurs within a  10 particular zone or sub zone or variant, doesn't find  11 it to be a lot different.  Generally you find pretty  12 much what you expect to find.  I mean, you don't get  13 big surprises in the vegetation because it's not all  14 that diverse.  15 Q   One other defining factor, if you will, that we have  16 talked about in trying to grapple with what a  17 biogeoclimatic zone means, it is based on, I believe  18 you put it, climax vegetation?  19 A   That's right, it is.  20 Q   Old growth?  21 A   It is based on the concept of a climatic climax, yes.  22 Q   So to the extent that you're not classifying by going  23 and looking at what's there and then saying, it's X  24 and Y and G, therefore, I have an XYG zone, but rather  25 you are extrapolating from more general information,  2 6 than whether it's old growth or new growth would make  27 a big difference, wouldn't it?  28 A   I think I understand what you mean and I think the  29 answer is yes, but you might want to say that question  30 one more time.  I find it a little difficult to follow  31 your questions.  32 Q   If we are dealing with -- if the classification system  33 is based on climax vegetation, that is, it's developed  34 from --  35 A   Yes, they use it, the concept of climax as -- it's a  36 central concept in deciding that an area belongs to a  37 zone or sub zone, yes, that's correct.  38 Q   And the system, the biogeoclimatic zone system as it's  39 applied for instance to these maps, you have a  40 classification which has been developed in relation to  41 climax vegetation?  42 A   That's right.  43 Q   Then when we apply it to this situation, if we don't  44 have climax vegetation, it won't be surprising if we  45 don't have much correspondence in many species between  46 what's on the ground and what our classification would  47 predict? 9720  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A   Our classification doesn't predict that we find climax  2 forests everywhere.  I disagree with what you say  3 because the classification just because -- a  4 description -- this is -- this is fairly complex and I  5 wasn't sure that I really wanted to get into it.  The  6 climax -- the classification is based on the concept  7 of the zonal ecosystem and that is that given -- I  8 think we could spend an awful lot of time on this and  9 I think I should probably backtrack and just try to  10 answer your question a little more simply.  11 You know what the climatic climax vegetation looks  12 like for that zone, and you have described it as part  13 of the classification, that doesn't mean you expect to  14 find it wherever it is.  You know that there is a  15 mosaic of ecosystems across the landscape, there is a  16 range of sites which range from wet sites to dry  17 sites, there is a range of successional conditions,  18 young forests, old forests, you know what you have  19 from field experience from sampling from a wide  20 variety of data sources from information about the  21 types of communities that recur across the landscape  22 within that zone and you don't find things  23 dramatically different from what you would expect.  24 Q   If I can -- I will try and translate for my purposes  25 what you have just said, at least in part.  26 You have said that within a broad classification,  27 and a biogeoclimatic zone classification is a very  28 broad classification?  29 A  At that level is broad.  That level is a regional  30 level.  31 Q   And it's made up of a range that -- the geography is  32 made up of a range of sites?  33 A   That's correct.  34 Q   Topographically?  35 A   Right.  36 Q   Climatically?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And forest succession or vegetation succession?  39 A   Hm-hmm, that's right.  4 0 Q   And that would vary?  41 A   Yes, the community varies with time, with site and  42 soil conditions and with local climatic differences,  43 within the zone or within the sub zone.  So the zone  44 or sub zone is not uniform, it has a range of  45 conditions.  46 Q   Okay.  If we turn to, for instance, map six, which is  47 dwarf blueberries, I believe that you say in your 9721  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 report and in the legend, that dwarf blueberries in  2 the ICHg3 are abundant?  3 A   Yes, I believe they are abundant in the ICHg3.  4 Q   Is the ICHg3 a zone or a sub zone?  5 A   It's a variant.  The three.  6 Q   I am sorry, could we even say a sub sub zone?  7 A   Yes, a variant is a sub sub zone, right.  It's one  8 notch smaller, one level smaller than a sub zone.  9 Q   If we could just agree on a very general description,  10 if we talked about biogeoclimatic zone as one level of  11 information which is very broad --  12 A   Right.  13 Q   Then we will talk about the next level of information  14 as a sub zone?  15 A   That's correct.  16 Q   And even a third level of information, which is a  17 variant, which we could call a sub sub zone?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   When we talk about sub sub zones we have begun to  20 describe much more precisely, and in a much narrower  21 area, a site?  We still may not have described a  22 specific site?  23 A   I don't like to use the term site because at the  24 regional level you are talking about a range of sites.  25 When I talk about a site, I think of something more  26 uniform than a sub sub zone.  27 Q   A sub sub zone is still so broad that we could find a  28 variety of topography?  29 A   That's correct.  30 Q   And we probably would find a variety of vegetation?  31 A   Oh, yes, definitely.  32 Q   We might not find too much variety in climate?  33 A  A macroclimate you have like -- we like to think is  34 relatively uniform at that scale.  But local climate,  35 of course, varies in smaller -- climate at a smaller  36 scale, changes, you know, south slopes, north slopes,  37 that kind of variation.  38 Q   And when you say in your text that you expect to find  39 dwarf blueberries as abundant in the sub sub zone,  40 ICHg3?  41 A   That's correct.  42 Q   That is not based on going out and looking at the  43 ground in that area and counting berry shrubs?  44 A   It's certainly not based on counting berry shrubs.  45 It's very much based on going out and seeing the shrub  4 6              on the ground almost wherever you go.  47 Q   You participated in a study in 1985, did you not, 9722  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 of -- called A Guide to the Interior Cedar Hemlock  2 Zone and and that's the ICHg?  3 A   That's right, I wrote that, or a major portion of that  4 paper quite a few years earlier and it was published  5 in 1985.  6 Q   I am just showing you some parts of it, it's quite a  7 lengthy paper, isn't it?  8 A   That's right.  9 Q   I am not going to take you through too much detail,  10 but I have just copied out the pages here in which  11 you're describing what you found?  12 A   Right.  13 Q   In relation to some of the species that are mapped in  14 the exhibit before the court?  15 A   Hm-hmm.  16 Q   And in this study in 1985, that was published in 1985,  17 it was based on going out and looking and --  18 A   Collecting data from mature forests, yes.  19 Q   And we had assumed from the map that we would find  20 dwarf blueberries to be abundant, would we not, at the  21 ICHg level?  22 A   On the ground in that variant, it is very abundant.  I  23 think I know what you're leading up to but I will let  24 you get there yourself.  25 Q   What I am leading up to is that when we look at the  26 data it doesn't correspond with our predictions from  27 the general mapping on the ground, does it?  28 A   That's correct.  These are based on, the descriptions  29 here are based on the climax, most of them, there are  30 some others that follow, most of them are based on the  31 vegetation in what we assume to be climax or near  32 climax stands.  And as I indicated in my description  33 of the zone and the sub zone, serai or young  34 vegetation, extremely abundant in the ICHg3, it  35 dominates the landscape.  These particular stand  36 descriptions that are here are not characteristic of  37 the communities that dominate the landscape.  This is  38 what they would look like if succession was allowed to  39 proceed for several hundred years.  What I say about  40 dwarf blueberry is that it tends to be abundant in  41 young serai conditions and as the forest succession  42 proceeds and you get these type of communities  43 developing, the dwarf blueberry will disappear.  44 Q   In other words, in your text, in a variety of areas,  45 you have given us much more specific information about  46 where it is that we might expect to find or not find  47 any of these eight species? 9723  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A   That's right.  You can't take the data strictly from  2 here, from these descriptions of climatic climax  3 vegetation.  You can find some serai types in here  4 though, right?  5 Q   Yes.  But, for instance, just testing one of the  6 things that you said, you looked at, and we don't all  7 have to turn to map four, but map four maps Saskatoon  8 berries abundant --  9 A   That's right, it is.  10 Q   — in ICHg3?  11 A   That's right, it is.  12 Q   In 1985, when you looked at that, you found a variety  13 of conditions for Saskatoon and, for instance, you  14 show it in three areas?  15 MR. GRANT:  Just a moment.  Can I clarify something?  Is my  16 friend is referring to this guide or is my friend  17 referring to the report?  Because she says 1985, and  18 that's when this was published, but as Ms. Haeussler  19 has described it, she did it before.  Her report is  20 from 1985.  So I want to be clear for the record what  21 she is referring to.  22 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  23 Q   What I am referring to is the document which was  24 published in 1985, which contains what I guess we will  25 call for shorthand, data, as opposed to just  26 predictions, is that fair?  In other words --  27 A   I think this is definitely supported by data, yes.  28 Q   It represents going out on the ground and observing  29 and making notes of your observations?  30 A   That's right.  31 Q   And you have already told us the maps don't purport to  32 do that?  33 A   That's right, they don't purport -- they are broad  34 categories and they don't purport to pinpoint any  35 particular location that berry is there.  36 Q   But interestingly enough, if we look at the Saskatoon  37 data -- I am not sure I can find the page -- what you  38 were looking at in 1985 in your study that's  39 published, were, if ICHg3 is a sub zone or sub sub  40 zone, you were looking at smaller and smaller areas,  41 you were looking at what are called ecosystem  42 associations?  43 A   I am not sure I followed that sentence, that question.  44 Q   For instance, you looked at -- you went to particular  45 areas characterized by specific vegetation?  46 A   That's right.  This -- yeah, when you do the field  47 sampling, on this kind of a scale.  You're down on the 9724  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 ground.  An ecosystem association, yes.  2 Q   And you sample by ecosystem association?  3 A   Yeah.  4 Q   And you found 11, you classified the ICHg3 into 11  5 ecosystem associations, do you recall that?  6 A   Yes, I believe you.  Right.  7 Q   And within those 11, Saskatoon was poor, meaning low  8 cover or not being consistently present in the hemlock  9 moss association which itself occurred widely within  10 that sub zone, correct?  11 A   The ecosystem association, that is all sites that are  12 capable of having the hemlock moss vegetation at  13 climax, so if they were allowed to proceed to climax  14 the type of the vegetation that you would expect to  15 develop is a hemlock overstory with a moss understory,  16 and, yes, Saskatoon is not abundant in that climax  17 community.  Can I go on?  The point is it is an early  18 successional species, it occurs following.  When that  19 ecosystem association is not at climax, when it's a  20 serai condition, then one would expect it more  21 abundantly.  22 Q   Correct.  23 A   Okay.  24 Q   And the point of all of that is that we can't, with a  25 great deal of confidence, assume anything about the  26 berry, the actual today or even yesterday's, berry  27 distribution in abundance, from the mapping of the  28 biogeoclimatic zone as is shown in these maps?  29 A   I disagree.  30 Q   What data are you aware of which would be generally  31 consistent with the biogeoclimatic zone?  32 A   Sorry, I can't answer that question.  That -- I am  33 afraid that didn't make sense.  Could you ask that  34 question again?  35 Q   Let me put it this way:  Isn't it true that in any  36 instance where you have actually gone out and looked  37 in the particular area where you expected to find a  38 species in abundance, just using the biogeoclimatic  39 zone, not the little -- the sub sub zone, just the  40 biogeoclimatic zone which is shown on these maps, have  41 you found the berry species in actual abundance?  42 A   I really don't follow what you're saying.  I think I  43 have an idea what you mean to say but it doesn't make  44 sense.  And I can't answer the question because you  45 will have to phrase if in another way.  What you're  46 saying, I don't think I can answer.  47 Q   When you have gone out in the field -- 9725  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   -- and you have looked for berry species?  3 A   That's right.  Okay.  4 Q   And you have looked in an area where you would have  5 predicted from the biogeoclimatic zone classification  6 system alone that it was abundant?  7 A   I would never predict the abundance Saskatoons from  8 the climax vegetation.  I base that on my  9 understanding and my knowledge of the successional  10 patterns on that ecosystem.  11 Q   That's my point.  You couldn't, with a great deal of  12 confidence, predict where you would find the berry  13 species, any of the eight, from the classification  14 that's shown in the maps?  15 A   The classification system is -- does enable you to  16 predict if you are aware of the successional patterns  17 that are characteristic of that zone, sub zone or  18 variant.  Strictly looking at the description of a  19 climatic ecosystem isn't sufficient but you have to  20 understand that what kind of a community would there  21 be following clear-cutting, and that is very  22 consistent.  It isn't random, it doesn't -- and you  23 can -- that information -- I feel very comfortable  24 with that information, it is embodied within the  25 classification although the book would be this thick  26 if you wanted to describe all of those possible  27 variations.  28 Q   That's right, if you wanted to increase the chances  29 that's your prediction --  30 A   No, no, that's not the point.  I am not increasing the  31 prediction, I am just describing -- I -- in this --  32 the purpose of this description is not to tell me  33 whether Saskatoon is present or not and I don't use  34 this to -- this is, merely -- this describes the --  35 this describes what the vegetation of a mature -- of a  36 climax or near mature forest would look like, okay?  37 It doesn't tell me anything about what a early serai  38 stand would -- what the vegetation would be.  But that  39 doesn't mean that I can't -- that I don't know within  40 that zone that there are specific patterns of  41 succession.  42 MR. GRANT:  The witness was referring, for the record, to the  43 guide, the published guide, my lord.  44 A   I am having a little trouble explaining myself because  45 the questions are hard to answer.  4 6    MS. KOENIGSBERG:  47 Q   Dealing with the maps, you have got one turned to map 9726  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 four, it tells you that Saskatoon berry is abundant in  2 a very large area indicated by ICHg3 and probably  3 other systems as well?  4 A   Yes, it is abundant in those areas and -- yes.  5 Q   With what degree of confidence could you go to any of  6 the area indicated by the colouration and expect today  7 to find Saskatoon berries in abundance?  8 A   I feel very confident that within there I would find  9 abundant Saskatoons.  10 Q   But you couldn't do it from this broad categorization,  11 could you?  12 A  Well, certainly.  I know that this area belongs to the  13 ICHg3 sub zone.  That conveys to me a great deal of  14 information.  It conveys to me the information that's  15 contained in here, it conveys to me information  16 that -- on successional patterns which is not  17 published in here, and I know what types of  18 communities you will find, early successional  19 communities you will find within the ICHg3.  I know  20 when I leach the ICHg3 and go up in elevation to the  21 ICHgl I find different communities and different -- I  22 don't see the problem.  23 THE COURT:  How do I know, by looking at this map, what is  24 ICHg3?  25 A   You have to refer back to the other map.  So what I  26 have done here, I have interpreted the information for  27 you. I put --  28 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Sorry.  29 A   That's fine.  30 MR. GRANT:  Maybe the witness can continue her explanation.  31 A   No, there wasn't anything more to say.  32 THE COURT:  Is everything that's shown in pinky colour ICHg3?  33 A   Pinky colour?  34 THE COURT:  Well, I don't know.  35 MR. GRANT:  Map four.  36 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  If you look at map two —  37 THE COURT:  I am looking at map four.  38 A   Okay, map four, pink.  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  There is no pink.  My lord, I think you're  40 thinking of the pink colour which is on the legend of  41 map two, which was an ecosystem.  42 THE COURT:  I am sorry.  I thought I was looking at map four and  43 I am looking at map six.  44 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  The witness in her report used the colour pink  45 for ICHg3 and when the maps were made I believe they  46 used a rather paler colour of green.  47 A   I used the pale green too. 9727  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 THE COURT:  How do I know what is ICHg3 on map four?  2 A   The only way you could tell that is to overlay the two  3 maps.  4 MR. GRANT:  Map two shows it.  5 THE COURT:  All right.  6 A  Map two, yes.  7 MS. KOENIGSBERG:   ICHg3, my lord, covers — maybe I should let  8 the witness do this, but sort of the, trying to think  9 of something that resembles the area.  If you will --  10 if you fold up, without making a crease, map two.  11 THE COURT:  I just want to know where I would get the  12 information from.  I don't particularly want to know  13 at the moment.  14 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  It covers, up the Kitwanga River, the Skeena,  15 the Bulkley River Valley.  16 THE COURT:  I don't need to know that.  I just wanted to know  17 where to find it.  Thank you.  18 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  19 Q   When you say that you know where to go to find  20 abundant species of certain kinds of berries, you were  21 using a great deal more information than the  22 information contained or the maps, isn't that so?  23 A   On this map here?  24 Q   Yes.  25 A   Yes, certainly, far more information.  All that does  26 is outline the extent of the zones and sub zones.  27 Q   If you look at map four, what's mapped there?  2 8 A   Yeah.  29 Q   That's the same, the same statement would hold true,  30 would it not?  31 A   The statement was, again?  32 Q   That you're using a great deal more information --  33 A  Well, this is -- this represents my information.  This  34 is what I think -- this is what the information about  35 the abundance of Saskatoon.  So, of course I used a  36 lot of information to produce this map, yes,  37 definitely.  38 Q   Does it show areas that are logged versus areas that  39 are burned?  40 A   This map, no.  41 Q   Does it even show areas that are burned?  42 A   No, it does not.  43 Q   Isn't that one of the things that you would look at  44 that would assist you with your confidence level in  45 finding abundance?  46 A  We are talking on here about a very broad regional  47 scale.  Within -- at this scale I know that there 972?  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  A  is -- there is a mosaic of communities across the  landscape.  I know that serai communities are very  abundant, I know that Saskatoon grows in serai  communities in the ICHg3 very commonly on a wide range  of sites.  I don't need to know where it's logged and  not logged to know that Saskatoon is therefore  abundant.  Do you understand the difference?  Yes.  If it was a smaller scale and more specific, if I had  to say, here is a clear-cut, here is a forest, or  larger scale, if it was a local scale map rather than  a broad regional map, then I would need that  information.  But at this scale I don't need that  information.  All I need to know is about the mosaic  of plant communities occurring across the landscape to  know the relative abundance of serai communities and  old growth forest.  Would you agree with me that weather conditions would  be important as well?  Weather conditions?  No, they wouldn't affect the  abundance of the species.  Berries, perhaps, but not  the species.  I am sorry, berries?  Oh, yeah, but this is a map of the species, not of the  berries.  That map doesn't tell us how abundant the berries are?  No, although if there is no species there is no  berries and if there is more of the bush, one would  expect to find more of the berries but not, you know,  there is not 100 percent correlation.  There are a lot of things that affect the abundance of  berries, more things than affect actually the  abundance of the species?  Yeah, once you have the species present there are a  variety of factors that affect the abundance of  berries, that is true.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Those are all my questions, my lord.  THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Grant?  I note the time and I am prepared to -- I don't  think I would be very long.  No, doesn't the witness want to get away?  Yes.  Let's stay and finish.  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT 9729  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Grant  1    RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT:  2  3 MR. GRANT:   Could I have Exhibit 756, briefly, madam registrar?  4 Q   I just wanted to ask you a few questions to clarify a  5 few of the answers you gave earlier.  6 One of the documents that was put to you was this  7 map which you had drawn, which I understand was the  8 basis for Exhibit 358-2, the biogeoclimatic zone, you  9 said on this map that there may have been some  10 additions and you referred to the legend, now are you  11 referring to the pencilled-in notations beside some of  12 the colours and the little writing there?  13 A   That's right.  I -- that's not my writing.  14 Q   Thank you.  Just want to clarify that, because there  15 was an exhibit stamp on that as well.  16 On Exhibit 784-26, the gray book, I just wanted to  17 clarify your notations here of the Parmenter  18 discussion.  Mr. Willms focused you on the bottom of  19 the first page some thoughts, Fort Nelson, and then  20 there is some writing below that.  Is that entire  21 discussion on the bottom of that page relating to Mr.  22 Parminter's discussion or research in the Fort Nelson  23 T.S.A.?  24 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Grant, she said it also applied to the  25 boreal.  26 MR. GRANT:  No, he asked if those same comments would apply, I  27 am asking when she discussed it with Mr. Parminter,  28 did she discuss whether it applied ot the boreal  29 forest or was it just --  30 A  We talked about his studies on the Fort Nelson T. S.  31 A. and these notes relate to that discussion.  Whether  32 in the conversation we gave some broader, I don't  33 recall.  34 Q   Okay.   Now, you were asked by Mr. Willms about the --  35 he clarified with you that fire -- the reason that  36 fire is important for berry production is because it  37 takes off the canopy, then he said, well if you log  38 you can take off the canopy as well.  Do you remember  39 that discussion, he was asking you about the relative  40 relation of the logging versus --  41 A   Yes, I think so.  42 Q   You are familiar with the logging practices --  43 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I object.  Logging was dealt with in  44 chief.  This isn't anything new that came up on  45 cross-examination.  This is something that came up in  46 chief when Ms. Mandell was leading the witness on  47 logging.  This isn't proper re-examination. 9730  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Grant  1  THE  COURT  2  3  MR.  GRANT  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  20  21  22  THE  COURT  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  MR.  GRANT  30  31  32  33  34  THE  COURT  35  36  MR.  GRANT  37  Q  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  A  45  46  Q  47  :  We had a lot of evidence in chief on logging, Mr.  Grant.  :  I will try to focus on one question.  There was a relationship -- I am not trying to get  back into the logging, my lord, what I am trying to  establish is the relationship between, which is a  relationship, as my friend focused on, on between  logging practices supplanting fire suppression.  I  submit that was not raised on direct. That's the only  point.  I don't want to discuss the logging generally.  Can you -- if you -- is the -- is the impact --  is the removal of the canopy by fire or by logging  neutral as far as berry production is concerned in  light -- that is, in light of the logging practices  within the study region?  Is the removal -- okay, is the effect of fire versus  logging neutral?  No it is not, the impacts are quite  different  because fire can affect many things,  including depth of humus layers, there would be damage  to the above ground parts of the plant versus  possibly --  :  You know, I think this is unfair.  This was fully  covered by the -- it wasn't fully covered, it was  embarked upon and covered to a great extent by Ms.  Mandell and now if you are going to, as it were, take  the evidence and wrap it up in a package and put a  ribbon on it and your friends don't have another  chance to challenge that.  :  The only point I was trying to lead, my friend posed  a hypothesis, which I, from my recollection of the  evidence on direct, it had never been set up, which  was that, basically, your -- it's just your canopy  removal and has the same effect.  :  The witness made it abundantly clear that things of  a doubtful nature are full of uncertainty.  :  I won't go any further.  Ms. Koenigsberg asked you a question about with  reference to the maps and take the -- not the  biogeoclimatic but say any of the berry maps you  produced, and I -- my notation of her question to you  was whether you agreed that we can assume nothing  about berry data from the maps, and you said "I  disagree."  I remember saying I disagree.  I can't remember the  question, the statement that led up to that.  Okay.  We can assume nothing from the maps about berry  data.  And you said that you disagreed with that 9731  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  THE  MR.  THE  A  Q  A  COURT  A  COURT  GRANT  COURT  I am afraid I  statement?  I would disagree with what you said.  don't recall the conversation.  I noted what her question was and that's what my note  of her question was.  Why do you disagree?  I am afraid I can't recall the context of that  statement and it makes it hard for me to answer the  question.  Well, didn't she go on and tell me all that?  I don't recall.  She told me about the conflict in the mapping if you  know the progression of the forest.  Thank you.  That's all.  I need not pursue it.  She said these maps are based on climax vegetation  or forest, and if you know what the progression of  forest is you can have some reasonable confidence in  the maps as indicators of where you might reasonably  expect to find berries.  My lord, I that what happened is she said that  afterwards and I probably didn't note it at the same  place.  I have no further redirect, my lord.  KOENIGSBERG:  My lord, I forgot to mark A Guide To Interior  Cedar and Hemlock zone and we referred to it.  GRANT:  I would ask that the entire -- if my friend is  putting it in, the entire document.  KOENIGSBERG:  Perhaps my friend will want the entire  document in but not only was it not referred to it  runs to almost 200 pages and all we did refer to were  the data pages, if you will.  Are you asking for something more than these pages  139 to  -- these aren't even sequential.  KOENIGSBERG:  They were chosen as those data pages which  were in the area that the mapping is in.  And, of  course, it is an enormous article.  Well, there is recent authority in the Court of  Appeal when you put a document to the witness the only  part that goes in automatically is the part that you  used for cross-examination.  I concede that I am doing this out of an abundance  of caution.  Ms. Haeussler was the witness of Ms.  Mandell, generally. I haven't had a chance to compare  these excerpts with the rest of it, whether there's an  explanation --  What are you saying should go in, Ms. Koenigsberg?  All you handed up just a couple of pages you referred  to.  KOENIGSBERG:  I would even suggest that in fairness to what  MR. GRANT  MS.  MR.  MS.  THE COURT  MS  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MS. 9732  S. Haeussler (For Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Mr. Grant is suggesting that it all should go because  2 that's all of the relevant data out of it.  But we  3 could just put the few pages that were referred to.  4 THE COURT:  Well, I think what I will do is put this in as the  5 next exhibit, which will be --  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 803.  7 THE COURT:  — Exhibit 8 03, and Mr. Grant when you have had a  8 chance to look at it, you may apply to have more of  9 the document than that admitted as you deem fit and  10              pursue it with me at that time.  11  12 (EXHIBIT 8 03: EXCERPT FROM A GUIDE TO INTERIOR CEDAR  13 AND HEMLOCK DOCUMENT)  14  15 MR. GRANT:  It's just a question of whether there are other  16 parts have been put forward to explain what's being  17 put in.  18 THE COURT:  All right.  That will be Exhibit 803.  Anything else  19 this afternoon?  All right.  You want Ms. Haeussler to  20 be excused?  21 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  22 THE COURT:  Thank you.  You are finished and you are excused and  23 we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.  24  25  26  27  28 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  29 a true and accurate transcript of the  30 proceedings herein to the best of my  31 skill and ability.  32  33  34  35  36  37 Wilf Roy  38 Official Reporter  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items