Module 5 - VicForests

4 3BAudit Findings
to be ineffective due to the minimum spacing distances between drainage structures not being met.
This non-compliance was assessed as having a Negligible EIA risk rating.
The audit identified that on two coupes (C10 and C18) where temporary roads were closed, an
effective barrier was not in place as required resulting in damage by vehicular traffic. These noncompliances
were determined as having Negligible EIA risk ratings. The Auditor acknowledges that
the use of traffic barriers in some locations has not always deterred entry and is one tool in a suite of
approaches needed to effectively close some roads. However, the required documents necessary to
close these roads had also not been prepared.
Recommendation 3 – It is recommended that VicForests and DSE review their respective systems to
manage the closure of roads to ensure that roads no longer required are permanently closed, as
required by the Code.
Evidence of DSE approval for temporary closures of permanent roads was not available for three
VicForests coupes (C7, C12, C23), resulting in No impact EIA risk ratings. The Auditor understands
that VicForests has now changed its procedure for seeking and recording closure approvals after
identifying weaknesses in the procedure previously in place.
The audit identified non-compliances on both DSE coupes where DSE permission to temporarily close
permanent roads during harvesting had not been recorded and written closure plans or traffic
management plans had not been developed. These non-compliances resulted in two No impact EIA
risk ratings for each of the two coupes.
4.2.7 Coupe infrastructure
General
The term ‘coupe infrastructure’ is used in this report to collectively describe log landings and dumps,
snig tracks and boundary tracks. Areas occupied by coupe infrastructure were observed to have been
generally minimised, as required by the Code. Landings established at a previous time or on adjacent
coupes were reused for harvesting four of the audited coupes (C14, C19, C20 and C23 (loading
bays)) and the appropriate siting of a landing minimised the need for soil excavation (C20) (Refer to
Appendix K, Photograph 13). The Auditor also noted a particularly good example of the minimisation
of the area and impact of snig tracks (C12) and also observed an instance when rehabilitation of a
landing had been halted by VicForests when soil conditions became too wet (C24).
42807504/01/01 45