Logging of Forest Coupe 892/522/13 at Dingo Creek on the Errinundra Plateau in East Gippsland is currently in progress and is unlawful.

The logging operation fails to comply with the Code of Forest Practices, which is a breach of the law (Hastings v Brennan & Anor; Tantram v Courtney & Anor [2005] VSC 37). The breaches are of s.2.3.6 which requires a strategy for the conservation of threatened species, protection of old trees, habitat trees and "old growth forest where necessary":
- There is no prescription being utilised to identify and protect old trees. In Coupe 843/501/10, which is immediately adjacent, old trees and hollow-bearing habitat trees were felled and left as waste in the clearfell.
- In this case the area is known Powerful owl habitat, and the area is zoned 'Special Management Zone' to achieve conservation of the Owl. The Management Plan, East Gippsland FMA (CNR 1995) requires conservation to occur "within the SMZ". Action Statement 192, 'Loss of Hollow-bearing trees', requires hollow-bearing trees to be conserved "to allow fauna dispersal". This requirement in not being met as there is no attempt to identify hollow-bearing trees or retain sufficient trees to allow fauna dispersal.
- Protection of old-growth forest is necessary in this case as the area was included in the Rainforest Site of National Significance (81 East Errinundra), to act as a "fire retardant buffer" on larger rainforest tracts to the east & south-east. To retain fire retarding properties requires the retention of the tall, sparse canopy associated with the old-growth stands, and the wet understorey characteristic of Wet Forest. Both of these attributes are lost when clearfelling occurs.

The logging operation fails to comply with s.2.3.7 of the Code of Forest Practices, which states that Sites of National Significance should be protected at the sub-catchment level, unless there is detailed planning to achieve full protection of rainforest. Similarly, the Management Plan requires 'special planning to protect rainforest values'. There is no detailed or special plan; the SMZ Plan lists standard rainforest prescriptions. In East Gippsland, unlawful rainforest prescriptions are often applied:
- The Code Prescribes minimum 40m buffers, but 20m buffers are applied to linear rainforest in East Gippsland. The Code requires other plans to exceed the Code's minimum requirements.
- Strict minimum size requirements of 0.4ha for a 'patch' or 20 x 100m for a 'linear strip' are applied, although this is not part of any rainforest definition, and contrary to the footnote in the Management Plan which says these are not to be strictly applied; if it has rainforest character, it's rainforest. The Rainforest Identification Key, prepared by Senior Botanist David Cameron, also has no minimum size requirements.
- Part of the logging included "Specialty Timber Logging", where non-eucalypt species are taken and sold. Sassafras stumps were found sawn through and Sassafras logs were seen on the log landing, so its safe to assume that Sassafras was included in those "Specialty Timbers".
- In the aerial photo you can see there is no retention of habitat zones, wildlife corridors or buffers on the rainforest. This coupe received even less protection than the average clearfell.