Module 5 - VicForests

4 3BAudit Findings
The audit identified some inconsistencies across ten VicForests coupes, where Forest Coupe Plans
stated that habitat trees would be marked in the field, but were observed during the audit not to have
been marked. These issues were not recorded as non-compliances, as adequate habitat trees were
assessed as having been retained. However, the issue represents an area for improvement in the
consistency of information contained in Forest Coupe Plans.
Rainforest
The management of rainforest was assessed as appropriate in most cases, with some good practices
noted during the audit. However, the audit also identified several instances of non-compliance both
directly with the Rainforest Compliance Element and with other Compliance Elements where areas of
rainforest were involved, including two non-compliances with Major EIA risk ratings.
The audit found that rainforest had generally been identified appropriately by VicForests and the
Auditor noted several examples of good practice in delineating rainforest boundaries for ease of
management, in one case using an adjacent ridgeline as a boundary (C10) and in another case,
mapping a straight boundary around ‘fingers’ of rainforest (C20).
Based on field measurements of the sampled sections of rainforest buffer, rainforest was assessed as
having been appropriately identified and buffered on six of the eight VicForests coupes where it was
identified as occurring in Forest Coupe Plans (C1, C3, C16, C19, C20 and C21). Of the sample of
1,820 m of rainforest buffer measured during the audit, it was found that harvesting activities had been
excluded and the specified buffers applied on the whole length. Audit field measurements were
unable to be taken for one coupe (C10) due to fading light at the end of the day, although observations
were able to be made.
While compliance could not be quantified based on sampled length for this coupe (C10) machinery
disturbance of soil and vegetation was observed. On a second coupe (C12), machinery disturbance
was observed on a section of rainforest buffer other than the measured sample. On both coupes, the
disturbance was observed to be within the rainforest buffer and extended into the rainforest itself. In
one instance (C12), the excluded areas appeared to have been impacted during firebreak
construction, where a machine was observed to have entered in two locations (Refer to Appendix K,
Photograph 5). In the second instance, it appeared that a machine had entered in at least one
location. In both instances, the presence of rainforest had been identified in the Forest Coupe Plan
and maps and tapes delineating the rainforest buffer edge were observed on one coupe (C12). Both
EIA risk ratings were assessed as Major.
32 42807504/01/01