COMPLAINT DETAILS

NAME OF THE AGENCY BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT

Agency                         Forest Practices Board

What has the agency done that you wish to complain about?
(Please be as specific as possible and ensure that you provide details of events leading up to the action you are complaining about; provide relevant dates; and give the names of people you contacted).

Many local residents of German Town, Dublin Town, Gardiners Creek Road and St Marys have been in discussions with Forestry Tasmania (FT) and Forest Practices Authority (FPA) about a coupe FT propose to log on South Sister near St Marys – Coupe NI 114A since October 2003.  Despite many reasons why the residents do not want the logging to go ahead, FPA certified the plan (January 2005) and FT plan to log the coupe ‘soon’.  As yet we have no start up date for operations to recommence (the road work was started in February 2005 and completed in March 2005 however due to an application to Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal in February 2005 by 12 local residents, FT held off on the logging in 2005).

After applicants withdrew their case from the RMPAT hearing in October 2005 (one expert downgraded his risk assessment from landslide ‘likely’ to occur to ‘possibly’ occur which did not reach the threshold for the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act – EMPCA), I started to write once more to the Forest Practices Authority (FPA).  
(I had been in communication with FPA prior to lodgement of RMPAT application in February 2005)

Since the withdrawal of the application to RMPAT in late September 2005 I have once again started a dialogue with FPA (there was little point when the RMPAT Hearing was in process).
To follow is a list of letters written by me to FPA from October 7, 2005 until February 21, 2006).
The letters are in order of being written.  They are attached to this email as a Zip file titled ‘Letters 1 to 12 from F Daily to FPA’
Following the information about my letters is a list of replies from FPA (as well as the entire letter which are attached and appear as a Zip File titled ‘Letters FPA to F Daily’)

Summary of letters from Frances Daily to FPA
1)October 7, 2005 to Isobel Stanley, Chair of FPA requesting variation of the plan – specifically to remove the areas of subsidence over the Cardiff Mine from the harvest area.

2)October 24, 2005 to Isobel Stanley, Chair of FPA requesting a meeting between representatives of FT, Mineral Resources Tasmania and Save our Sisters (local community group of which I am a member) to ‘…discuss their opinions on the risks associated with harvesting on Coupe NI 114A’.

3)November 13, 2005 to Chris Mitchell, Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer for FPA to 
a) thank him for replying to letter 2) above in the absence of Isobel Stanley and 
b) to ask FPA to ‘…recommend to FT to refrain from logging the coupe until an independent survey has been carried out by Mineral Resources Tasmania or a person or persons identified by MRT to be suitably qualified and experienced’ and c) to ‘..call a meeting of relevant stakeholders to discuss this very important issue’.

The reason for asking for a meeting was that reports presented by FPA experts (Peter McIntosh and Barry Weldon) on September 28, 2005 to RMPAT had been found by myself and one expert representing Save our Sisters (Ralph Rallings) to contain false and misleading evidence about the coupe in question.  FT and FPA had assumed (wrongly) that applicants had withdrawn from RMPAT because our experts no longer supported our claims that a landslide may occur if harvesting went ahead.  This was false (and has since been clarified by Ralph Rallings in numerous letters to the current Minister, Bryan Green).
This letter has never been replied to

4)December 22, 2005 - 2 emails to Isobel Stanley, Chair of FPA asking her again to ‘..establish an independent survey by Mineral Resources Tasmania or a person or persons identified by MRT to be suitably qualified and experienced.’  
A review paper was included but as it had been scanned in two parts, two different emails were sent.  Due to the size of the review paper, the review was not included in the attached email however a Word document has been attached instead and is titled ‘Ralph Rallings’ Review Paper’.

5)January 16, 2006, email to Isobel Stanley, Chair of FPA stating that I was astonished and considered it extremely unprofessional that I should receive a letter from her addressed to both Mr David Clement and myself (in reply to my letters and other letters Mr Clement had sent to her).  
Many of the issues I had raised in my previous letters to her had been ignored.

I called on her again to ‘………organise a meeting between experts and Save our Sisters members so you can familiarise yourself with both sides of the story and then organise an independent review of the entire coupe.’
This letter has never been replied to

6)January 17, 2006 email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA
a) inviting him to South Sister to see for himself the inaccuracies of the coupe as outlined by Dr McIntosh and Mr Weldon in September 2005 and
b) requesting he meet with Ralph Rallings, Engineer representing Save our Sisters ‘…to obtain further information from regarding the said area’.  

I also reminded him that in a letter he had written to me on February 25, 2005 he had stated that 'I also advise you that the FPB will continue to consider any new information that is relevant to the logging of the coupe'. (see attached document titled ‘G Wilkinson to F Daily Feb 25 05 regarding investigation of new evidence’)
I informed him that I had new information relevant to the logging and hoped he would consider my request with urgency.

7)January 26, 2006 email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA providing information he requested as to why applicants withdrew from RMPAT.  In addition, I asked him 
a) again to visit the coupe to ‘..clarify for yourself the position of the ‘road batter collapse’, its relationship to the German Town Spring, ‘loading bay’ and ‘graben’ feature is extremely important and will help you to understand our concerns better’.  
b) requesting a meeting between experts, MRT, FPA, FT and SOS representatives ‘…to discuss the issues’ 
c) seeking a review by FPA on the evidence that had been presented by Ralph Rallings which would include the involvement of ‘..MRT or an independent panel…’

8)email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer (received February 3, 2006) pointing out inconsistencies in his email to me of February 2, 2006 namely 
a) ‘graben’ feature investigated by McIntosh/Weldon was not the correct feature as described by Stapledon (SOS expert) and therefore further investigations were warranted
b) ‘road batter collapse’ incorrectly shown on McIntosh/Weldon’s sketch and subsequently acknowledged as incorrect, held a position that according to Rallings was highly significant – ‘..again another reason to have experts involved who could do further survey work’ and 
c) stating that costs already spent should not deter FPA from further investigations ‘..as there are issues that continue to be outstanding and have not yet been addressed…’
I also wrote that the Tribunal (RMPAT) was not the only avenue for independent review but review was also possible by ‘..MRT or others perhaps appointed by MRT’. 

I informed him that ‘I believe that there have been many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings which is one reason I have been advocating for a meeting between parties.  It would be at a meeting that these issues could be easily and simply addressed and issues would become clear to all involved rather than making assumptions that are not always correct’.

Finally, I asked him again to ‘..visit the coupe as soon as possible with a meeting thereafter with experts and other involved parties.’

9)email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA (received on February 10, 2006).
I emailed him again this time with new evidence about other parts of the coupe namely
a) subsidence over the Jubilee Mine which had been pointed out to me by Ralph Rallings, engineer working for SOS.  The specific area of proposed subsidence was given and maps sent to show the area of concern.  I pointed out in this letter also that ‘Forestry Tasmania did not consider the Jubilee Mine prior to the certification of the plan according to Paul Rosevear in a conversation I had with Steve Manson and Paul following Minister Green’s visit to South Sister on February 11, 2005,’
b) changes to coupe water since roadworks in February 2005.  I gave two specific examples of how the groundwater had changed post roadworks (with photos provided) and informed him that ‘It is not predictable what groundwater changes may occur if harvesting goes ahead….This is why we are asking FT to refrain from logging the coupe.  It will be too late to reverse if negative changes occur’.

I wrote ‘Graham I trust you will keep to your word and investigate new claims I have made’ as well as ‘..a personal trip to South Sister…..involving MRT – in issues about the Jubilee Mine, landslips, the groundwater issues raised above and organise a meeting with stakeholders’.
There was no specific reply to this letter.

10) email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA (received February 20, 2006) outlining my disappointment to read ‘..your conclusion that In view of the above, I must inform you that I do not find anything in your emails of 3rd and 10th February 2006 that would justify the expenditure of further public monies and resources on continuing investigations’.  

I went on to say that 
‘…I would like here to point out to you that you wrote to me on February 25, 2005 and stated:  ‘I also advise you that the FPB will continue any new information that is relevant to logging of the coupe.’  In my email to you of February 9, 2006 I gave you new information about the following: 
•subsidence over total extraction areas of Jubilee Mine
•Changes to coupe water since roading
‘However your email below states that you cannot’…justify the expenditure of further public monies and resources on continuing investigations’.  You completely ignored my ‘new’ evidence and hid again behind the costs incurred by FT and FPA in this case!

‘Why did you state that you would continue to consider any new information that is relevant to the logging of the coupe”
‘Why should further public monies be an excuse when local residents’ water supply, local residents’ livelihoods etc are at risk?
The royalties of the coupe are so little in comparison to the damage that may occur if harvesting is to proceed.  Is this a reason to ignore new evidence and not spend more public money?!’

I then proceeded to remind him that 
‘..there have been two variations to the FPP of Coupe NI 114A which was originally signed on January 5, 2005?
BOTH of these variations have come about because of information provided to FPA (then FPB) by myself….and Environmental Defender’s Office.

‘You often comment that 
1) various ‘..internal and external specialists’ have been consulted and written reports about the coupe however these ‘expert assessments’ were not provided prior to the certification of the plan i.e. the FPP was certified using ‘expert reports’ from FT’s Sandra Roberts (who in her own words claimed ‘I never pretended to be a geohydrologist’ and FPA’s Dr McIntosh.  External reports were sought after certification, the majority of which were sought for the RMPAT hearing
2) sufficient funds have already been spent on investigating the coupe.  Does this mean that genuine concerns should be ignored because the costs to FT/FPA are ‘too much?

‘I am stunned by the lack of readiness to ascertain whether 1) subsidence has occurred over the Jubilee Mine and 2) verification of the changes to groundwater observed by myself (and others) since roading nearly one year ago.

‘I find it incredible that despite your claim that ‘FPB will continue to consider any new information’ my ‘new’ evidence outlined in my email of February 9, has been side stepped and ignored!  It is obvious that there is (and probably never has been) any willingness on the part of FPA to seriously investigate any new claims. 

‘One can only ask why
1) FPA now go back on their word and refuse to investigate new claims
2) the Tasmanian experts, Mineral Resources Tasmania are not invited to give advice about topics which are their specialty (subsidence, geology, groundwater etc) (you continually avoid answering this question) and 
3) why requests to sit together and discuss these issues with various experts and other stakeholders is also constantly ignored (in essence refused).’

I finished with my letter with ‘I implore you to answer these questions above as soon as possible’

11)email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer (received February 22, 2006) stated

‘I am somewhat confused about your intentions regarding consideration of 'new information' presented to you.
In your letter of February 25, 2005 you stated that you would '...consider any new information that is relevant to the logging of the coupe'.  
In your email below (February 20, 2006) you '...confirm that the FPA will continue to consider any new and substantive information relating to the proposed selective logging of a small, stable section of land at South Sister.'  The bolding and underlining is mine as I am unsure about what you are describing.  It may be Slide B that you refer to (Dr McIntosh insists Slide B is stable) or perhaps it could be the entire coupe.  If so, then it would seem doubtful that you are aware of the instability of certain parts of the coupe e.g. Cardiff Mine (which is certainly not stable having visible subsidence), possible areas of subsidence over Jubilee Mine (outlined to you in an earlier email) and also the areas south of the coupe which are most certainly not stable (recent slides were mentioned by McIntosh, Stapledon, Rallings in their various reports of the past 12 months).
 
On February 10th 2006 you received an email from me outlining 'new information that is relevant to the logging of the coupe'.
This information included:
•Subsidence over Jubilee Mine 
•slope of coal seam/tunnels of Jubilee Mine 
•changes to water on the coupe since roading one year ago
 
To date, you have not addressed this new information despite telling me in two emails that
 
'.....I do not find anything in your emails of 3rd and 10th February 2006 that would justify the expenditure of further public monies and resources on continuing investigations.  To the contrary, the recent work done by Dr McIntosh only serves to confirm our original findings that the proposed operations have negligible environmental risk' (February 15, 2006)
 
and

'Expert advice was sought in relation to the information contained in your emails of 3rd and 10th February 2006.  That expert advice confirmed again that the proposed operations have negligible risk.'
 
‘Dr McIntosh states in his report of February 15, 2006 that he '....made a further field visit to the northeastern part of coupe NI114A on 8 February 2006.'
 
‘As my email regarding the 'new information' did not reach you until February 10th I assume that Dr McIntosh did not return to the coupe prior to completion of his February 15 report.  As he said that he only visited the northeastern part of the coupe, I also assume that he did not visit the areas I have mentioned on February 8, 2006.
 
‘Therefore, can you please confirm to me whether 1) Dr McIntosh or anyone else has yet investigated the claims I raised regarding Jubilee mine and groundwater/surface water changes to the coupe and 2) if so, please can you forward their report?
 
‘The experts you mention below (except perhaps McIntosh) have not as far as I am aware, investigated any of the topics recently raised by me.  Indeed four of these six experts have only been employed as consultants AFTER the forest practice plan was certified i.e. their 'expert' knowledge did not contribute in any way to a decision about certification of the plan.
It is also interesting to note that many experts from outside Tasmania have been asked to contribute yet the government department responsible for geology and landslips has seemingly not been consulted - or at least not involved in investigations of the coupe (if they have, then where are their reports?).  If not, why not? 
 
‘Again I state that I am stunned by the lack of readiness to ascertain whether 1) subsidence has occurred over the Jubilee Mine and 2) verification of the changes to groundwater observed by myself (and others) since roading nearly one year ago.
 
‘Please can you confirm for me my above questions as soon as possible?’
 
(The questions in this letter have never been answered)

12) An additional email to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer (received February 22, 2006) which commented on the report of McIntosh provided to me on Feb 15, 2006.  In addition I concluded:

‘Instead of this emailing back and forth and ongoing confusion about whether people have identified the correct location of features, why don't you call a meeting between experts and other stakeholders as I have been proposing for the past few months?  Surely things can be settled more quickly and with less confusion.  It may also be cheaper.
 
Again I call on you to use Tasmanian expertise and invite MRT to any meetings/discussions’.

I received an email from Graham Wilkinson on February 27, 2006 which stated the following:

‘Dear Frances

Your two emails of 22nd February 2006 were brought to the attention of the board of the Forest Practices Authority at its meeting of 24th February and the Chair will be formally responding to you in writing this week.

Cheers, Graham’

On February 28, 2006 I received a letter from Isobel Stanley, Chair FPA which stated:

‘….The Forest practices Authority has been, and remains, willing to consider any new matters of substance in relation to the potential environmental impact of forestry operations within the subject coupe. However, the Forest Practices Authorities considered judgement is that none of the points of disagreement that you raise provide any grounds for altering the "negligible risk" assessment that has been made with respect to the proposed operations.’

She went on to say:

‘In view of the above the Forest Practices Authority considers that it cannot continue to engage with you on your points of disagreement. The Forest Practices Authority recommends that if you have any concerns about the Forest Practices Authorities role in the certification of the Forest Practices Plan then you should provide your evidence to the Tasmanian Ombudsman for independent review’

Replies to letters

Letter 1– Chris Mitchell, Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer replied (apparently in Isobel Stanley’s  absence) - Cardiff mine subsidence was apparently excluded from the harvestable area however they have not provided me with a copy of the variation to the original plan confirming this

Letter 2– Chris Mitchell, Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer replied (26th October) and stated

‘The Authorities view is that it is not prepared to take part in any such meeting as it is
satisfied with the expert evidence it has received and considers that the Forest
Practices Plan for coupe NIl14A at South Sister adequately addresses the issues of
land stability and groundwater supplies.’

Letter 3
No reply

Letter 4
No reply to my three letters addressed to her until January 3, 2006 when she wrote a JOINT letter to Mr David Clement and myself.  She made no specific mention of the actual letters I had written to her only
‘Thank you for your separate correspondence with respect to this matter’.

Letter 5
No reply from Isobel Stanley

Letter 6– replied by Graham Wilkinson

Letter 7- replied by Graham Wilkinson

Letter 8- replied by Graham Wilkinson

Letter 9– no specific reply

Letter 10- replied by Graham Wilkinson

Letter 11- replied by Graham Wilkinson but no questions answered

Letter 12 - replied by Graham Wilkinson however he did not answer my questions 

COMPLAINTS

1.Despite sending a community audit to FPA in February 2005, no answer was received by FPA until AFTER road works had begun on February 21, 2005. 
2.FPA have failed to properly consider issues raised by the community and scientific experts
3.FPA have failed to respond to new evidence presented to them despite me being provided with assurances that FPA would investigate any new evidence presented to them.  
4.Complaints have not been handled well e.g. 
a.Despite letters being sent to Ms Stanley from different community members (about different issues), Ms Stanley wrote a joint letter to myself and David Clement failing to address individual concerns outlined in our letters.
b.Despite making requests for a meeting between experts and other stakeholders to discuss the many miscommunications and assumptions requests were ignored
c.Despite making requests for Mineral Resources Tasmania, the ‘experts’ on geology, hydrogeology and landslips in Tasmania (or a person or persons selected by MRT), MRT were not formally consulted (and perhaps not informally consulted either).
5.Questions repeatedly asked in letters have not been answered e.g. questions to Mr Wilkinson regarding new evidence, providing reports regarding this ‘new’ evidence etc

Have you contacted the agency yourself to try and resolve the complaint?   Yes  √   
If yes, what happened?

See letters above

What do you hope to achieve by making a complaint?

I hope that the Ombudsman will consider the information provided and 
a) ask FPA to investigate the new evidence presented to them immediately and by a suitably qualified and experienced person or persons
b) formally involve Mineral Resources Tasmania or a person or persons identified by MRT as being expert in this field to do further investigations on the coupe before any harvesting starts i.e. investigate further the ‘graben feature’ identified by David Stapledon, the claims made by Ralph Rallings in his review report, investigate the area of apparent subsidence over Jubilee Mine and the groundwater changes since road works in February 2005.
c) ask FPA to respond to all questions written in the letters attached and where necessary, attach expert reports
d) call a meeting between parties (FT, FPA and experts of FPA, experts working for Save our Sister Group (Rallings, Leaman, Stapledon), Save our Sister group representatives, Mineral Resources Tasmania)  to resolve the dispute
e) call on the Minister to immediately suspend all forestry activities until the case has been resolved
I consider that many of the issues could have been resolved if FPA had been willing to meet with me (and other stakeholders) many months ago.  Despite repeated calls to do this they ignored this which has meant misunderstandings and miscommunications have continued.

Have you made this complaint to any other review body?   Yes   √ (not review but politicians) 
I have written persistently to the Minister of Forests, Bryan Green and often cc-ed these letters to the Premier (Lennon), the leaders of the Opposition parties (Hidding and Putt), all members of Lyons.  H. E. Bryan Green has never investigated the claims – only told me FT had planned the coupe well etc etc (see letters attached as a Zip file titled ‘F Daily to Bryan Green and other politicians’)

Signature of person making complaint        Date             March 9, 2006

   
Your signed authorisation is required before this office can consider your complaint. Please attach any relevant documents, but do not attach any originals and return the enclosed reply paid envelope.