EPBC Act

Home

Traveston Crossing Dam - EPBC 2006/3150

Update, 12 February 2009

On 10 February 2009 a delegate of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts accepted a request from Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd, the 'proponent' of the project, to vary the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal. This variation removes the proposed realignment of approximately 10 km of the Bruce Highway from the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal.

The variation does not alter the current assessment of the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal.

The Queensland Department of Main Roads is investigating a proposed upgrade of the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway , which includes the section potentially affected by the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. Acceptance of the variation means that upgrade and relocation of the Bruce Highway will not be delayed by the Traveston Crossing Dam assessment process.

Update, 11 December 2008

A Senate Inquiry, by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, was tasked with examining all reasonable options, including increased dam capacity, for additional water supplies for South East Queensland including:

The findings of the Inquiry were detailed in a report produced by the Committee, entitled Options for additional water supplies for South East Queensland (August 2007).

The Australian Government has recently tabled a response to that report. Both the Senate Committee report and the Australian Government's response  are availble online.

Update, 25 November 2008

The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts commissioned a number of independent expert reviews to provide advice on the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal. The review topics and respective experts were:

The findings of the reviews conducted by Associate Professor Walker, Professor Bunn and Dr Kuchling determined that the reach of the Mary River to be inundated by the Traveston Crossing Dam contains important habitat for the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod, Australian Lungfish and the Southern Barred Frog that is critical to their ongoing survival. These experts also advised that it would be highly unlikely that the dam would provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat to support the self-sustaining populations of these species. The experts were also critical of many of the mitigation and offset measures proposed by the proponent.

The review by Drew Bewsher of the hydrological model used in the Draft EIS and Supplementary Report for the dam determined that the model (IQQM) was appropriate for modelling the impacts of the proposed dam on the Mary River hydrological regime. Mr Bewsher also reported that the underlying data and assumptions used in the EIS modelling were sound and that the model is capable of producing relatively accurate predictions. However, the reviewer did not extend his endorsement to the hydrological information selected by the proponent for presentation in the Draft EIS or its usefulness for the purposes of environmental impact assessment.

The reports can be viewed via the links below:

What and where is Traveston Crossing Dam?

The Traveston Crossing Dam proposal involves the construction and operation of a new dam on the Mary River, approximately 207 km from the mouth of the river and 27km upstream of Gympie, Queensland.  The dam was announced by the Queensland Government as part of the South East Queensland Water Grid – a network of water transfer pipelines between existing and proposed water storages, a water recycling scheme, a desalination plant and other measures.  The intention is to secure and increase the available water supplies in the rapidly growing South East Queensland region.

The proposal is for a storage of around 153,000 megalitres (ML), with an inundation area of approximately 3,000 hectares when full.  It is proposed to extract up to 70,000ML per year for urban water supplies.  The Queensland Government has indicated that no decision will be made about pursuing a possible Stage 2 until around 2035.  If Stage 2 is pursued, a separate referral and environmental impact assessment would be required.

What is the Australian Government's role?

The Australian Government is responsible for protecting matters of national environmental significance listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

These matters include:

Projects likely to have a significant impact on these matters must be assessed and approved by the Australian Government under the EPBC Act before they can proceed.

The Australian Government Environment Minister cannot intervene in a proposal if it has no significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, even though there may be other undesirable environmental impacts.

This is because under the division of powers between the Australian Government and the states, the states have the primary responsibility for environmental protection.  The Australian Government only has authority over the defined matters of national environmental significance.

States and territories are responsible for matters of state and local significance.

What matters are of particular interest to the Australian Government?

The following sections of the EPBC Act have been triggered by the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal:

For further information on each controlling provision see matters of national environmental significance

When will a decision be made?

The potential for impacts on matters of national environmental significance, including the Mary River turtle and other species was recognised at the start of the process. For this reason, the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal was designated 'a controlled action' under the EPBC Act. This means that mandatory assessment processes must be undertaken before a final decision can be made on the project.

As part of the mandatory assessment process, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project was released for a period of public comment. Many critical comments were submitted during this period, drawing attention to impacts on threatened species and other concerns.

At this stage, it is not appropriate for the Australian Government Environment Minister to comment on the proposal, as the assessment of those impacts is still ongoing and his decision-making role has not yet begun. There are a number of procedural stages that must occur before a final decision will be made on the proposal. These are discussed in detail below, including how public comments will be taken into account in the EPBC Act decision-making process.

What is the assessment process for this project?

To avoid duplication, the Australian Government has an agreement with Queensland that accredits specified assessment processes for the purposes of the EPBC Act.  This means that the Queensland Government will ensure that the impact assessment process includes the assessment of matters of national environmental significance and associated mitigation and offset measures as required by the EPBC Act.

Traveston Crossing Dam is being assessed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with that agreement.  This process is facilitated by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning for the Queensland Coordinator-General.

It is only after the Queensland process is completed that the project is submitted to the Australian Government Environment Minister for a decision under the EPBC Act.

What has happened so far?

The Traveston Crossing Dam referral was submitted on 15 November 2006 by Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd.  This makes them the ‘proponent’ of the action. 

On 29 November 2006 a delegate of the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Ian Campbell, decided that Traveston Crossing Dam was a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act due to the likely and potential impacts on matters of national environmental significance. This means that the proposal requires assessment and approval under the EPBC Act before it can proceed.

The Draft EIS for the project was released by the Queensland Government for public comment on 18 October 2007 and the comment period closed on 14 January 2008.  An Executive Summary of the Draft EIS is located on the Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning  website, with full documentation available from the Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd  website.

What is currently happening?

The proponent, Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd, has compiled a supplementary report in response to the issues raised in public submissions on the draft EIS. The draft EIS, together with this supplementary report, form the final EIS documentation presented to the Queensland Coordinator-General. This information will be considered by the Coordinator-General who will then issue a report evaluating the EIS documentation and the project.

This report will assess the potential impacts of the project, all proposed mitigation measures designed to protect matters of national environmental significance and any conditions that will be applied by the Queensland Government if they approve the project. No specific timeframes exist for the finalisation of the assessment report.

Once the report is finalised, the state assessment process is complete and the Coordinator-General will decide whether or not to approve the project under relevant State legislation. If the Coordinator-General approves the project, the report will then be formally submitted to the Australian Government and the EPBC Act decision making process begins.

Are these Queensland reports public?

The Queensland Coordinator-General’s assessment report and the final EIS documentation are made publicly available following the conclusion of the state assessment process.  It is a matter for the Coordinator-General and the Queensland Government as to whether the final EIS documentation is formally released for public display earlier.

Will the Australian Government Environment Minister be considering alternatives to the dam?

The Terms of Reference (PDF - 324 KB)  for the project's assessment required that the EIS discuss reasonable alternatives to the proposed dam. 

The draft EIS was made available for public comment and a large number of submissions were received. Many of the public submissions made on the draft EIS talked of alternatives to the construction of Traveston Crossing Dam, including demand management, raising Borumba dam (an existing dam higher in the Mary River catchment), rainwater tanks, stormwater harvesting and desalination.  The proponent's response to those comments is contained in the supplementary report to the draft EIS.

In making a decision on whether or not to approve the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam under the EPBC Act, the Australian Government Environment Minister will consider all relevant matters, including: alternatives to the dam that are presented in the draft EIS; public comments on those alternatives; the proponent's response to those comments in the supplementary report and the Coordinator-General’s evaluation of these issues in the assessment report.

What is the role of the Australian Government Environment Minister?

Once the Australian Government Environment Minister receives the assessment report from the Coordinator-General, the EPBC Act decision making process begins.  The Minister has 30 business days to make a final decision, though a number of steps are required before that decision can be made.

1. Reviewing the assessment information

After receiving the assessment report from Queensland, the Minister must consider whether he has sufficient information to make an informed decision about the proposed dam.  This can relate to the impacts of the proposed dam on matters of national environmental significance, measures to reduce those impacts, economic and social matters or any other relevant information the Minister may feel is required to inform his decision.

If further information is required, the Minister may request that it be provided by a suitable party, such as a scientific expert or the proponent.  The 30 business-day period is paused until the information is provided.

2. Making a proposed decision

After considering all of the relevant information that is available, the Minister will make a proposed decision on whether or not to approve the Traveston Crossing Dam.  The Minister must also identify draft conditions that he will apply, if he intends to approve the action.

3. Consultation Processes

When the Minister has made his proposed decision, he is required to consult on his proposed decision with the proponent and any Australian Government Ministers he believes have relevant administrative responsibilities.

The Minister’s proposed decision will take into account the issues raised by public submissions on the draft EIS.  The Minister may also decide to seek further public comments at this stage, though this step is not mandatory.  If public comments are sought, the relevant documentation would be released via the department’s website and electronic submissions would be encouraged.

Comments from the proponent, other ministers and the public, if invited, must be received by the Minister within 10 business days. This time frame is specified in the legislation.

4. Final decision

Following the close of comments, the Minister will again consider whether or not to approve the proposal, taking into account any relevant new issues raised through the consultation processes.  If the Minister believes further information is required, he may request that information be provided as outlined above.

The relevant environmental impacts on matters of national environmental significance, in addition to other economic and social matters, will be carefully considered by the Minister before he makes a final decision on whether or not to approve the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam under the EPBC Act.

5. Extending the timeframe for a decision

The Minister has the ability to extend the timeframe for making a decision, which is set at a default 30 business days.  This can be done at any stage of the decision-making process.  If the timeframe is extended, a notice will be published on the department’s website and in the government gazette.

What things will the Minister consider in making his decision?

The Minister will give due consideration to the final EIS documentation prepared by the proponent, public submissions on the draft EIS and the proponent’s response to those submissions, the report prepared by the Coordinator-General, the comments received in response to the proposed decision and the relevant recommendations of the associated Senate inquiry report.  The findings of the Paradise Dam compliance audit will be considered where relevant.  The Minister may also choose to take into account the environmental history of the proponent and its executive officers.

The department has also commissioned independent experts to review the hydrological modelling and the potential faunal impacts of the proposal.  The findings of these reviews will also be considered by the Minister, as well as other information that is relevant to matters of national environmental significance.

The Minister is required to take into account a number of guiding principles, referred to as ‘the principles of ecologically sustainable development’, listed in Section 3A of the EPBC Act.  One example of these principles is the precautionary principle:

“if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”
[EPBC Act, s 3A(b)]

Further information

Traveston Dam - EPBC 2006/3150

Referral detail

Information pages

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Resources

Search and create reports

Quick links

Before you download

Most publications are available as PDF files. Adobe Acrobat Reader  is required to view PDF files.

If you are unable to access a publication, please contact us to organise a suitable alternative format.

Key

   Links to another web site
   Opens a pop-up window