Weed Control Audit

Information

Document No.
Self Assessable Code audit assessment
Landholders name
Conducted on
Prepared by
Assessment Officer conducting audit
- Jake Betros
- Jo Hardy-Page
- Susan Crowley
- Errol Sander
- Lana Alty
- Jillian Pritchard
- Didi (Ding) Tian
- Brian Smith
- Bradley Coome
Location (enter street address)
Lot on Plan
Departmental Officers supporting audit
- Evan Brown
- Jake Betros
- Jo Hardy-Page
- Angela Mason
- Susan Crowley
- Errol Sander
- Lana Alty
- George Bourne
- Kari Paton
- Jillian Pritchard
- Peter Webley
- Kathryn Madigan
- Didi (Ding) Tian
- Stephanie Keedy
- Susan Cunningham
- Phillip Fishburn
- Jason Countryman
- Brian Smith
- Bradley Coome

Weed Control

Date and time at commencement of audit
Is the site safe to enter?
What other people are present at audit?
Do you have owner's consent to enter the property?
Date and time the Owner gave consent to enter the property
Owner signing consent to enter
DNRM authorised officer acknowledging consent to enter

Aspects for discussion with landholders

What records were kept of the clearing audit?
- diary entries
- photographs
- drawings
- current SAC
- instructions to contractors
- GPS coordinates
- maps identifying areas to be cleared
- departmental correspondence
What other records were kept of the clearing activities?
Were there any problems with the code? If Yes, provide details
When fully applied, did the code achieve a good outcome?

Audit Assessment

Has the landholder notified DNRM?
What is the Department's notification number?
Site Assessment (for each question, where possible, inspect 5 sites for weed management)
Enter site location (select GPS coordinates)
Record date and time to commence site audit
Take representative photograph/s as required
1.0 Providing access specifically for weed control - consider access
1.1 Have weed control access tracks, necessary to gain access for weed control, been limited to 5m in width? (refer to page 9 of the code) Score: Yes (5m or less) = 5; Mostly (5-6m) = 3; Generally (6-7m) = 2; No (more than 7m) = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
1.2 Do weed control access tracks show signs of accelerated soil erosion? (refer page 9 of the code) Score: No (95%+ of area ok) = 5; Yes (5%+ of area has obvious erosion/gullying) = 0
1.3 Have weed control access tracks destabilised the banks of any watercourse or watercourse crossing? (refer page 9 of the code) Score: No = 5; General crossing instability = 3; Minor crossing instability = 2; Yes = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
2.0 Weed control application limitations - mechanical and herbicide
2.1 Has the clearing of remnant vegetation necessary to allow for access track construction and weed control been in line with recognised best practice and was it reasonable considering the terrain, economics of weed control and the extent of the infestation? (refer page 9 of the code) Score: Yes (generally) = 10; Mostly (some additional clearing) = 5; No (obviously excessive) = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
2.2 Has mechanical weed control retained all habitat trees, retained trees? (refer page 11 of the code) Score: Yes (90%+ of retained or habitat trees intact) = 5; No = 0
2.3 Where weed cover is estimated at < 50%, has mechanical weed control retained 50% of trees 15-19cm DBH? (refer to page 11 of the code, where weed cover is >50% refer to page 13 of the code) Score: Yes (50%+ of trees 15-19cm DBH intact) = 5; No (more than 50% cleared) = 0
2.4 Has the use of any herbicide or the manner in which it was applied result in the death to retained, habitat or the majority of other native trees greater than 2m in height? (refer page 12 of the code, look for areas of high mortality with no signs of mechanical disturbance) Score: Minor(<10% mortality) = 5; Some (<20%) = 3; Noticeably (<30%) = 2; Yes (>30%) = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
3.0 Weed control application limitations - consider aerial application
3.1 Has aerial application of herbicides utilised herbicides that are selective and are not broad spectrum? (Look for areas of high mortality, refer page 12 of the code) Score: minor (<10%mortality) = 10; (<20%) = 5; Yes (>20%) = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
4.0 Limitations in dense regional ecosystems - consider density
4.1 In dense regional ecosystems has the use of herbicides been limited to direct application such as cut stump, basal spray, injection, splatter gun or foliar spray and not resulted in the opening of the tree canopy (other than where the weed plant dominated >50% of the tree canopy)? (look for groups or clumps of dead trees, refer page 13 of the code) Score: Yes = 5; Minor canopy opening = 3; Score: No = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
5.0 Wetlands and watercourse protection - consider watercourse protection
5.1 Has machinery been kept out of the no machinery zone? (machinery can cross but must not disturb, blade up. Refer page 14 of the code) Score: Yes (90%+) = 5; No = 0
5.2 Have access tracks running parallel to a wetland or watercourse been located >10m from the defining bank? (consider this practically, what gives the best result/outcome. Refer page 14 of the code) Score: Yes (90%+) = 5; No = 0
6.0 Protecting the soil - consider accelerated soil erosion
6.1 Has mechanical clearing for weed control retained at least 50% ground cover (dead or alive) in each 50 by 50 metre area? (at least 40-50% of ground cover has been retained, refer page 16 of the code) Score: Yes (retained 50%+) = 5; Mostly (40-50%) = 3; No (<40% retained) = 0
Take representative photos of audit site
6.2 Has accelerated erosion been prevented in the weed management area? (obvious erosion caused as a result of human activity, refer page 16 of the code) Score: Yes (no erosion) = 5; No (bad erosion) = 0
Identify areas of interest in drawing as required
Record date and time for site audit completion
To do another site audit, go back to top and select another site

Completion of property audit

What information was provided to the landholder?
Landholder's comments on outcomes of audit
What questions did the landholder have in relation to the audit?
Record any additional notes for this property
Add any further drawings required to assist in showing the outcomes of the audit for this property
Add any additional photographs as required to assist the property audit
Audit Recording Officer
Landholder confirming audit outcomes
Authorised Officer
Completion of property audit