The hearing in the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal on Gunns Ltd v. Kingborough Council began today, 30 May 2005.
Considering that Gunns Ltd has recently sued a number of people who do not agree with its activities, this report will be strictly a bare bones outline of the proceedings. Regrettably, I feel obliged to refrain from comment on evidence given during today’s proceedings and from including background material which might otherwise have fleshed out the bones.
The hearing comes about as a result of a Development Application lodged by Gunns Ltd with the Kingborough Council earlier this year for new forestry activities in the Middleton district.
In a surprise vote, the council voted 9 to 3 to reject the Application which a council planner had recommended be approved subject to conditions.
This current hearing follows another hearing two years ago which resulted from a Gunns Ltd DA to the council after illegally logging a coupe in the same area in 2002.
On that occasion the council did not play a big part in the hearing. On this occasion, the council is the defendant, joined by six local residents.
The Tribunal, consists of Barry McNeil, Catherine Nicholson, and Chair Mr. Pitt
Mr. Shaun McElwaine is appearing for Gunns Ltd and Mr. Don Armstrong for the council. The residents are representing themselves.
All the witnesses called today appeared for Gunns Ltd. Witnesses for the council and the landowners will appear in the days to come, with 4 days set aside for the hearing.
The first witness for Gunns Ltd was Jason Bolch, a forest planner who has worked for Gunns Ltd since 2000.
Before his evidence was heard, it was revealed that a Forest Practices Plan which was different to the one lodged with the Development Application would be used by Gunns Ltd in this appeal. Considerable discussion ensued on whether the hearing should proceed on the basis of the new plan, or the original plan.
Mr Armstrong repeatedly made the point that he should not be obliged to play a game of Spot the Difference. The differences between the two plans should be clearly set out.
The Tribunal adjourned to consider the matter. When proceedings resumed, Mr McElwaine explained that in the copying process, some pages were copied out of sequence, leading to some confusion. He then went on to request that Attachment 2 of the Bolch proof of evidence should be removed, and deleted entirely. Mr Bolch then gave evidence on the Forest Practices Plan for coupe KB146a.
Archeology of the site
As part of that evidence he gave answers to numerous questions from Mr. Armstrong and the residents on matters such as how the various positions for the simulated views of the coupe were determined; on the archeology of the site regarding aboriginal artifacts; on how the access road would cross an old logging tramway; on how much the coupe boundaries had been reduced and on how the logging would be audited.
After lunch an archeologist with the Forest Practices Board gave evidence by telephone from Launceston on aboriginal artifacts. In her evidence, she said that she had searched the artifact database maintained by Forestry Tasmania and that generally, most artifacts are found after a burn rather than before it.
She was followed by surveyor Clifton Townsend who gave evidence on the surveyed sizes of the two coupes. This gave rise to consultation amongst the members of the Tribunal on whether or not it was relevant to include consideration of the size of areas of the catchment outside the planned coupe.
The next witness was Gregory Hickey, Forest Manager, Gunns Ltd., Triabunna, who answered questions related to the logging schedule for the two coupes. He also gave evidence that 1080 would not be used and that he would be happy to not use herbicides and pesticides. When questioned by one of the residents on planned pesticide use he said that in a coupe regenerated by seed (as these coupes would be) insect damage was not a problem, unlike in plantations. He also gave evidence on management of smoke and ash from the burns, with which he had eight years of personal experience.
He was followed by Gregory J. Hocking, Wildlife Biologist, Nature Conservation Branch, DPIWE, who gave evidence that the impact of the logging and subsequent suppression of wildlife such as possums would be for only 3 or 4 years and that numbers would soon rebuild from surrounding areas.
The final witness for the day was Mark Wapstra, Senior Ecologist with the Forest Practices Board. He gave evidence on a botanical assessment he had made on the coupes, with Mr. Armstrong questioning him so closely on the survey for threatened species and on the meaning of the “should” and “will” statements in Forest Practices Plans that Mr. McElwaine objected.
Mr. Armstrong further questioned Mr. Wapstra closely regarding the dominance of E . gobulus in the two coupes and in the area of the road between the two coupes. The hearing was adjourned to allow Mr. Wapstra to locate particular written information on this line of questioning.
The hearing resumes on Tuesday 31 May 2005 as soon after 10 a.m as possible. The hearings are open to the public and are on Level 1, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart and may continue until Thursday.
John Maddock was the founding secretary of Timber Workers For Forests Inc, whose independent and revealing reports on the forestry industry can be found on the website www.twff.com.au
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Gunns Ltd v. Kingborough Council, Day 2. 31 May 2005
The hearing of the Gunns Ltd Development Application to log two coupes at Middleton resumed this morning in the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal before Barry McNeil, Catherine Nicholson and Chairman Pitt.
Part of the site proposed to be roaded and logged is an Environmental Management Zone under the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000.
Senior Ecologist with the Forest Practices Board Mark Wapstra continued to defend his site survey of the coupe for most of the morning, under very close questioning by Mr. Armstrong, several of those joined with the council and tribunal members.
Towards the end of this questioning Mr. Armstrong asked what would happen in a practical sense if a threatened species was found after logging began.
In answer, Mr. Wapstra observed that finding a threatened species on the Middleton site after logging began was not expected because it was unlikely loggers would recognise any. Drivers and officers were not expected to be botanists. In answer to the question from Mr. Armstrong asking if he was satisfied his surveys were adequate, Mr Wapstra replied “Absolutely” adding that the surveys done were appropriate.
The next witness for Gunns Ltd, surveyor Mr. Stephen Giudici, was questioned on the elevation model of the site he had created using cells of sides of 25 metres. He was unable to compare this model with the system used by the Forest Practices Code which used terms such as the “majority” of the slope since he was asked to derive the “average” slope. In response to a question from a resident he said that the accuracy of a GPS was reduced under a forest canopy. In answer to Mr. McElwaine he said that the system he used is both commonly used and accurate.
Before verifying the proofs of the next witness, Dr. Peter McIntosh, Forest Practices Board, Mr. McElwaine checked that he was using the documents earlier agreed.
Dr. McIntosh gave evidence related to water yield of the catchment and the proposed development area, the slope of the coupes, as well as the geomorphology, especially of the road area connecting the two coupes. There was extended discussion on the use of the Forest Practices Code term “majority” in relation to slopes.
A number of objections
A number of objections were made by Mr. McElwaine during questioning of this witness, the one causing the most excitement in the room related to a question relating to the effects of the crossing of a class 4 stream by an access road which was on a Private Timber Reserve and not on the site of the proposed development.
Responding to a question from a resident, Dr McIntosh said that the maximum water uptake by the young trees would be at year 20. Further questioning on this line was ruled out by the Chair as not being part of this hearing.
The final witness for the day was Bernard Walker, a consultant forester, who gave evidence on computer generated visual impacts of the logging.
Mr. McElwaine asked to use a Power Point presentation but withdrew his request when Mr. Armstrong requested a similar facility at later time.
The hearing adjourned early to allow further consideration of the use of Power Point.
John Maddock is a minuscule shareholder in Gunns Ltd, and as a Tasmanian resident also has in interest in Forestry Tasmania. He is unhappy with the management of both companies.
Dr Kevin Bonham
June 2, 2005 at 11:45
I would like to know if any evidence was or will be presented that there are any listed threatened species on this site that were not located in survey, or that there are any that are likely to be there but were not surveyed for. On the reporting above I cannot tell whether anything to do with threatened species is relevant to the case or whether questions about it were “just fishing.”
David Clement
June 3, 2005 at 03:28
While Mr Wapstra is of the view in this matter that drivers and officers are not botanists, and so not qualified or competent to identify threatened species, in the case of South Sister he asserts the contrary, that it is not necessary for him to conduct a field visit to locate, identify and flag the habitats ( rocky outcrops) of lichen and other epiphytes which he has prescribed (as the appropriate specialist for the forest Practices Board) should be protected by the establishment of machinery exclusion zones, since he states that these outcrops and exclusion zones can be identified and established on the run by machine operators during the course of felling and snigging, even though he recognises that many outcrops are so hidden by understorey as to be undetectable (presumably until the machine hits it – Bugger! I should have stopped 10m ago! thats a sensitive habitat, how did I miss that?)
Mr Wapstra even dictated the statement to protect the rocky outcrops which Forestry Tasmania then inserted into the Forest Practices Plan as a variation, word for word, approved on 17 February 2005.
But after some emails and discussions with Forestry, Mr Wapstra now feels that his qualification as an ecologist in this matter is only on a par with the machine operators, who he claims can follow his instructions as to how to identify and avoid disturbing the microclimates around a range of representative rocky outcrop habitats of varying sizes throughout the coupe in a range of representative topographical locations on different slopes and benches, while felling and snigging. A decent Union rep would be putting in for a major rate increase as a result of a job evaluation for machine operators!
Oh Dear, the life of an independent specialist serving the Regulator ,the Forest Practices Board, is not an easy one, particularly in the context of a Freedom of Information Act, but this is the cross they have to bear within a fully accountable and transparent forest practices system.
phill Parsons
June 3, 2005 at 07:05
This is the first part of a series following this hearing and is most instructive regarding the McElwaine method, his modus operandi and in the comments the telling of a tale to suit the tribunal vis Wapstra.
Taking out the evidence of each expert from previous hearings and comparing it with the evidence given at the hearing before which the expert is appearing against you may show some inconsistency and thus destroying the argument of that expert.
Tasmania may soon exhaust its credible expert witnesses.