NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) director of regional operations south Nigel Sargent said Forestry Corporation had allegedly breached regulations by not properly marking important trees needed to protect native animal habitat and the environment.

"To maintain biodiversity in the forest, the Integrated Forestry Operations Approval requires loggers to mark and retain a number of habitat trees and mark the boundaries of environmentally sensitive areas where logging activities are not permitted," he said.

A fine of $15,000 was given for allegedly not marking an adequate number of trees for retention, as well as $15,000 for allegedly not marking the boundary of an environmentally-sensitive area as an exclusion zone, required to protect the habitat of the powerful owl.

READ ALSO: Forestry Corporation again accused of misconduct in Tantawangalo forest, EPA investigates

"The EPA investigation followed information received from the community," Mr Sargent said.

"The community can be confident that any alleged non-compliance during forestry operations will be investigated."

A Forestry spokesperson said the corporation recognised it "didn't completely comply" with a regulation in recent operations that required staff to physically mark some trees with spray paint.

"While the unmarked trees were left untouched in the forest as required, we understand the importance of strictly following the regulations in all circumstances," the Forestry spokesperson said.

"Our staff have been reminded of their obligations to strictly comply with the regulations.

"It is worth noting that the regulations have since been updated and we have provided staff with additional training to inform them of the requirements of future operations."

READ ALSO: 'Stripping forests for chicken feed': Claims taxpayers paid just $150 per woodchip load

Greens NSW MP and spokesperson for forestry David Shoebridge said the $30,000 fine was significant in comparison to previous penalty notices that have been issued.

"However, Forestry Corporation has proven itself to be resistant to improving its practices and almost incapable with complying with the limitations in its licence," he said.

He said the corporation was essentially a "resource company", which considered these sorts of fines as "a cost of doing business".

"Because it's far cheaper to pay the fine than change exploitative operational practices," Mr Shoebridge claimed.

"This is one of the reasons why Forestry has been so keen to move to a desktop assessment of their proposed harvest areas and we're likely to see more, not less, of this damage being done in the future, without policing on the ground as we move forward into this kind of desktop assessment."

The EPA said penalty notices were one of a number of tools it can use to achieve environmental compliance including formal warnings, official cautions, licence conditions, notices and directions and prosecutions.

It said this instance it issued a penalty notice, and the notice recipient may pay the penalty notice, seek a review, or elect to have the matter determined by a court.