Gippsland Environment Group Inc
Lobbying against environmental threats on the unceded lands of the GunaiKurnai, Yaitmathang, Ngarigo and Bidwell Peoples
Formal Complaint and Request for Urgent Intervention — Pre burn damage to Yellow Bellied Glider habitat within the Nowa Nowa Lyles Break Planned Burn
Serious and avoidable damage to habitat for the nationally listed threatened species—Yellow Bellied Glider associated with pre-burn mechanical works by Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMV)
GunaiKurnai Country: This forest is critical habitat and unburnt in the 2019/20 bushfires
Nowa Nowa Lyles Break Planned Burn (GP-TBO-NOW-0368)
7 ha was burnt by FFMV over two days on the 24th and 31st October 2025 | Total area planned to be burnt is 406 ha
Survey date: 09-11-2025
Report created 17-11-2025
Summary
FFMV reopened a decommissioned logging access road during pre-burn preparation works within the interior of this planned burn and felled trees around the old logging coupes and within the Toe Rag Creek buffer/exclusion zone—an area that was excluded from logging when the coupes were originally cut.
This creek exclusion zone and the surrounding forest supports an active presence of several EPBC-listed threatened species, including large forest owls, Yellow-bellied Gliders, Greater Gliders, Glossy Black Cockatoos and Grey-headed Flying-foxes.
Felled old hollow trees were left on site, while many mature solid trees were removed and according to DEECA, taken elsewhere for domestic firewood collection.
Take Action
Write to those in charge requesting this burn be removed from the schedule/or if not it must be referred as a controlled action. Burning this site will result in further damage to Yellow Bellied Glider habitat, feed and den trees. All the details at the bottom of the page.
Legislative Compliance Concerns
Gippsland Environment Group believe the impacts documented in this survey provide evidence of a serious failure of compliance with statutory requirements under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Over 120 felled trees, along the creek in logging exclusion zones
During November 2025, Gippsland Environment Group surveyed two unnamed tracks, around old logging coupes, in the western section of the burn, for a distance of approximately 8km along two creek lines, in the interior of the planned burn area, and adjacent to regenerating logging coupes. More than 120 trees were felled. See below map and GPS data.
Trees, many of them solid, felled into active Yellow bellied Glider Habitat and removed from the site
Significant numbers of the felled trees were solid trees, and these had been removed from the site. The majority of the trees were felled in what was the original Toe Rag Creek logging exclusion zone beside the coupes.
Old hollow trees felled, despite the known presence of threatened hollow dependant species
Approximately 28 large old hollow-bearing trees were also felled, despite the visible presence of active Yellow-bellied Glider - Petaurus australis (VU EPBC) feed trees and Victorian Biodiversity Atlas records of Sooty Owls - Tyto tenebricosa (EN FFG)
Below: Old hollow trees felled into Toe Rag creek - into what was the buffer/logging exclusion zone beside the old logging coupes.
Below: Trees felled into active Yellow bellied Glider Habitat. Old hollow trees that could have been Glider den trees were felled into and around active Yellow-Bellied Glider feed trees - indicated by red arrows
Below: Trees felled into the creek, many solid - these were removed from the area
Trees were felled into Toe Rag creek buffer - what was a logging exclusion zone, beside the old logging coupes. Trees were felled around active Yellow Bellied Glider feed trees. None of the felled trees were mountain grey gums; most were stringybark and some ironbark, indicating deliberate selection. The felled hollow bearing trees were left on-site - the solid felled trees were removed to log piles and have since disappeared.
Below: The site appeared to have been a logging operation
Additional signs of logging activity - including log piles and stripped bark - were observed along Lyles Break and Smarts Break. None of the felled trees were mountain grey gums; most were stringybark and some ironbark, indicating deliberate selection. This appears to have been a logging operation. The trees had been been removed from these log piles by the time GEG surveyed the site on 09-11-2025
Below: Total area of planned burn site in green Red outline indicates approximate area surveyed
Below: Surveyed area - a small area of the total planned burn and recorded around 120 felled trees
GEG surveyors followed the edge of the old logging coupe along a former logging road - that appeared to have been re-opened, beside the Toe Rag Creek buffer/exclusion zone—an area not permitted to be logged when the coupe was originally logged.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 8:52 AM Sam X Quigley (DEECA) wrote:
Dear Gippsland Environment Group,
Thank you for your correspondence dated 25 November 2025 regarding tree-felling activities within the Nowa Nowa–Lyles Break planned burn site (GP-TBO-NOW-0368). I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Gippsland Environment Group. Please find the below responses to your specific queries.
1. Were these trees felled by Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMVic)?
I can confirm that as part of FFMVic’s operational planning and preparedness for delivery of the Lyles Break planned burn, hazardous tree removal was undertaken. These activities are routinely undertaken as part of pre-treatment safety preparations for the purposes of reducing the risk of hazardous tree dangers and impacts to personnel during planned burn operations.
2. What happened to the logs that were removed from the site?
Hazardous trees that were treated and deemed suitable for domestic firewood collection were moved from the burn site to nearby domestic firewood collection areas for access by the community. Otherwise, all other treated trees remained in situ or moved so not to obstruct the road or verge. No logs were authorised to be removed from this site for any other purpose.
3. Why were trees allowed to be felled into creek lines?
Within the Nowa Nowa – Lyles Break planned burn is an old logging coupe and the intent is to exclude this area from the planned burn. Vegetation along the Bruthen – Nowa Nowa Road is planned for treatment, and Toe Rag Creek has been identified as the primary control line, a natural break, to prevent the spread of fire into the old logging coupe. The existing coupe boundary track, to the immediate east of Toe Rag Creek, has been identified as the secondary control line were fire to cross the creek, and therefore, hazardous tree treatments have occurred along this secondary control line, along which, firefighters will be actively patrolling during the planned burn. Hazard trees that represent a risk to firefighters or may increase the potential of a breach of control lines during planned burn operations are required to be removed in line with FFMVic’s Planned Burning Control Line Preparation Standards and Joint Standard Operating Procedures.
4. Was a biodiversity assessment undertaken prior to this work?
A biodiversity assessment was carried out by biodiversity specialists for this burn, which is standard for all planned burns that are planned under the Joint Fuel Management Program. The biodiversity assessments included mitigations that were to be implemented for these works and these mitigations were incorporated into the burn plan, including during preparatory activities involving the treatment of hazardous trees. More information on how FFMVic manages biodiversity values for fuel management activities can be found athttps://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/bushfire-fuel-and-risk-management/plants-and-animals.
5. What actions will be taken to investigate and address this incident?
FFMVic is committed to ongoing improvement and refining our practices to deliver the best outcomes that balance the safety of people and protecting the environment. I have reviewed this operation in light of your concerns and, while I am satisfied that no further investigation is necessary, this has given me the opportunity to review FFMVic activity at this treatment and has identify areas that FFMVic will enhance and further refine.
Thank you for raising these concerns with me.
If you require further information regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me, alternatively, you can contact the local DEECA A/District Manager, Chris Odd at DEECA.
Regards,
Sam Quigley
Deputy Chief Fire Officer | Director, Forest and Fire Operations - Gippsland
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action
Gippsland Environment Group seeks clarification on the following:
-
Was an on-ground biodiversity assessment undertaken prior to this work?
-
Why were trees allowed to be felled in and around active Yellow Bellied Glider feed trees?
-
Substantial hollow bearing trees were felled in this operation. Did pre-felling assessments assess for Yellow Bellied Glider den trees?
-
Why were trees allowed to be felled into creek lines?
-
What actions will be taken to investigate and address this incident?
GEG requests the burn be removed from the schedule/or if not it must be referred as a controlled action
Burning this site will result in further damage to Yellow Bellied Glider habitat, feed and den trees and GEG requests that this burn be removed from the schedule, or if not removed, it must be referred to the Federal Environment Department as a controlled action
GEG has requested a written response.
GEG lodged this report with EPBC Compliance on 16 December 2025. We requested to be kept informed of all findings and actions taken. The Environment Compliance and Enforcement division of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water refuses to disclose outcomes. This is not a transparent system and doesn't instil confidence in the process.
Systemic failure to comply with statutory obligations
This case study is not isolated and demonstrates systemic failure to comply with statutory obligations, lack of transparency, and cumulative damage to threatened species and ecological communities across Gippsland.
-
Lack of independent oversight: DEECA/FFMV both implement and regulate burns.
-
Non-transparent reporting: EPBC Compliance refuses to disclose outcomes; burn plans and species data are not publicly available
-
Reliance on outdated data: Planning often uses Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), which may be >18 months out of date.
-
Destruction of critical habitat: Hollow-bearing trees, rare flora, and fauna refugia are routinely destroyed by burning and machinery.
-
Failure to enforce Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988: No accountability for loss of threatened species or habitat.
-
Cumulative impacts ignored: Past fires, repeated burns, and habitat loss are not considered in planning.
Full report here
To EPBC Compliance and Enforcement at the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Gippsland Environment Group felled tree survey -damage to Yellow Bellied Glider Habitat in Nowa Nowa Lyles Break planned burn GP-TBO-NOW-0368
Date of survey 09-11-2025
Date of report 17-11-2025
Take Action
Write to those in charge requesting the burn be removed from the schedule/or if not it must be referred as a controlled action. Burning this site will result in further damage to Yellow Bellied Glider habitat, feed and den trees.
Ask for independent oversight and protection of biodiversity in planned burns
Parks and Reserves take up around 50% of the state's planned burn targets. There is no protection for biodiversity, habitat or threatened species in planned burns, even within Parks and Reserves.
Fire management planning is happening, without independent oversight with the Department self-assessing and evaluating their own operations. FFMV do not monitor the efficacy of their planned burns in preventing bushfires.
In Victoria there is no mandatory Code for protection of biodiversity values in planned burn operations that takes into account obligations under the EPBC Act
There is no publicly available information on how operations are planned and how impact on threatened species is minimised and avoided
FFMV do no on- ground pre or post-burn survey for fauna, flora or habitat
FFMV rely on desktop data from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas in planning which is outdated and does not show most recent records. This was highlighted by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office’s report Protecting Victoria’s Biodiversity (2021)
According to the Victorian Auditor General’s report Reducing Bushfire Risks. Victorian Auditor General (2020). “With the exception of some isolated case studies, DELWP does not know the effect of its burns on native flora and fauna”
Re efficacy of planned burns in preventing bushfires:
“We’ve understood for a long time now that logging can make bushfires worse, but it’s only in the last few years that evidence is showing that prescribed burning could be doing the same thing,” lead researcher Professor David Lindenmayer, ANU
Contact those responsible
Ask them to put independent oversight in place and regulate impacts using up-to-date science.
You can send also send an email HERE 👉🏽 https://vnpa.org.au/action-minister-give-native-forests-proper-oversight/
Steve Dimopoulos MP – State Min for Environment
Email: reception.dimopoulos@ecodev.vic.gov.au
Phone: 03 862 43101
Jacinta Allan – Premier of Victoria
Email: jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Phone: 03 9651 5000
Vicki Ward Minister for Emergency Services
Email: vicki.ward@parliament.vic.gov.au
Phone: 1300 358 704
Murray Watt – Federal Min for Environment
Email: Minister.Watt@dcceew.gov.au
Phone: 02 6277 7920
Office of Conservation Regulator, Kate Gavens
Email: conservationregulator@deeca.vic.gov.au
