• Change text size
• Skip to content

EPBC Act

Home

• About us
• Contact us

Search

• Home
  • Atmosphere
  • Biodiversity
  • Coasts and marine
  • Heritage
  • Housing supply and affordability
  • Human settlements
  • Land
  • Living sustainably
  • Parks Australia
  • Water
  • EPBC Act

• EPBC Act
  • Reform of the EPBC Act
  • About the EPBC Act
    • History of the EPBC Act
    • Reports and statistics
    • Exemptions
    • Conservation agreements
    • Advisory committees
    • Lists under the Act
    • Glossary
  • Do you need approval?
  • What is protected
    • Heritage protection
    • Wetlands
    • Threatened species and ecological communities
    • Migratory species
    • Commonwealth marine areas
    • Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
    • Nuclear actions
  • Environment assessments
    • Assessment and approval process
    • Bilateral Agreements
    • Strategic assessments
    • Fisheries assessments
  • Permits and forms
  • Wildlife trade

• Public notices and invitations to comment
  • Nominate to the EPBC Act lists

• • Information for…
    • Farmers
    • Industry
    • Local governments
    • State agencies
    • Commonwealth agencies
  • Report a breach
    • Compliance and enforcement
    • Compliance auditing
    • Case judgements
  • Policy statements
  • Publications and resources
    • General
    • Agreements
    • Compliance and enforcement
    • Databases
    • Environment assessments
    • Flowcharts and processes
    • Policy statements
    • Reports

Northern Pipeline Interconnector - EPBC 2007/3686

Frequently asked questions

Download

• Northern Pipeline Interconnector FAQ (PDF - 275 KB)

The northern interconnector pipeline is a 48km bidirectional water supply pipeline (and associated infrastructure) from Landers Shute Water Treatment Plant to Cooroy and/or Noosa Water Treatment Plant.

Why was it approved?

The proposal was assessed under the bilateral agreement with Queensland for its potential to impact on nationally listed threatened species and migratory species.

The department is satisfied that, with the mitigation measures in place and with the conditions imposed, the impacts on federally protected matters will be acceptable.

To view the conditions imposed on the project, go to: www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=3686

Why can this pipeline go ahead given some of the same species are affected as with the Traveston Dam proposal, which was rejected?

While this project involves some of the same nationally protected species as those considered in the Traveston proposal, the scale of impacts from the construction and operation of this pipeline are considerably less.

Additionally, the proposed mitigation measures and the conditions imposed on the project mean that the impacts will not be unacceptable.

Why has the department made this final decision and not the minister?

Decisions are routinely delegated to the department, particularly where projects are not complex and where the scale of impacts is relatively low.

Will water be taken from Mary River?

As outlined in the company’s proposal, water will be drawn from both the Mary River (at Coles Crossing offtake) and the North Pine water treatment plant.

The transporting of water from the Mary River cannot exceed 20 megalitres a day or 6500 megalitres a year.

Water transported from the North Pine Water Treatment Plant will not result in more water extraction than has previously occurred under existing water allocations.

The department is of the view that the harvesting of water for the project is not likely to lead to unacceptable impacts on listed threatened species including the Mary River cod, Mary River turtle and Australian lungfish.

The project does not include any plans to source water from Lake McDonald for the pipeline.

To view the details of the Queensland pipeline proposal, go to:

www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=3686

Why wasn’t the proposed decision made public, as the Traveston Dam proposed decision was?

It is not common to publish proposed decisions—the decision to publish the proposed decision on Traveston Dam was something the minister felt he needed to do because of the extremely high and protracted level of public interest in the project.

Why is the department requiring the company to do more surveying and plans after approving the project?

Every proposal that is assessed is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Due to the particular facts of this project, including the relatively low scale of impacts and low level of risks associated with those impacts, the department was satisfied with this approach.

Did the federal assessment consider how this project would affect land owners?

The federal environmental assessment is focused on how the proposal might impact on nationally protected matters. State land easement issues are a matter for the proponent, landowners and the state government.

How many public submissions were made on this project?

There were 56 submissions received on the environmental impact statement and 19 submissions received on the supplementary environmental impact statement.

Most concerns related to the impact on nationally protected threatened species. All relevant submissions received were considered as part of the federal assessment.

The pipeline is large in diameter and size. What if the company wants to transport more water through the pipeline in the future?

The department has made its decision to approve the project based on the current proposal to transport up to 20 megalitres a day in a southerly direction and up to 65 megalitres a day in a northerly direction. If the company wants to transport more water than this, it may need to submit a new proposal to the department.