Background Briefing on Northern Interconnector Pipeline

[DougHaigh_JenMercer]

This is posted at the request of SteveB:

Background Briefing on Northern Interconnector Pipeline Stage 1. (1/05/07)

Time line
1. On 22/03/07 Stage 1 of the Northern Interconnector Pipeline (Landers Chute to Morayfield) was referred to the Federal DEW for a decision as to whether the project required EPBC assessment.
The Federal referral document and assessment decision can be downloaded here.
www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=referral_detail&proposal_id=3359

2. On 14/04/07, the project was declared a significant project under the State Development and Public works Organization Act and an Initial Advice Statement and a draft Terms of Reference for an EIS under the State Development Act was released for public comment. Submissions close on 14/05/07.
General info from the CG department can be found here
www.coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au/major_projects/northern_pipeline.shtm
The IAS can be downloaded here www.coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/mp_northern_pipeline_IAS_13Apr07.pdf
The Terms of Reference for the EIS can be downloaded here
www.coordinatorgeneral.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/mp_northern_pipeline_draft_TOR_13Apr07.pdf

3. On 19/04/07, the Federal DEW decided that an assessment under the EPBC act would not be required. Apparently, no submissions requesting an assessment under the EPBC act were received.

Some important points from an initial scan of these documents.
The EIS and the federal referral only apply to Stage 1 of the project. (Landers Chute to Morayfield) Stage 2 (Connecting Lake McDonald) will be announced soon.

The proposal refers to the purpose of sending 65ML/day of ‘unallocated water’ down the pipeline from Maroochy and Caloundra Shires to Brisbane. (This is 23.74 GL/year).

The proposal states that much larger pipes (1290 mm diameter) are being used in some parts of the project to allow for another possible “future purpose” (this may be code for the transfer of Traveston Crossing water to Brisbane – pipes of this diameter would be appropriate for this purpose , but complete overkill for transferring 65ML/day).

Although the 23.74 GL/annum of water for this pipeline must come from sources within the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan area, I found no reference the plan, or to the effects of this additional extraction on the watercourses of the Mary Basin. Particularly with respect to the referral to the Federal Government, it would be unlikely that anyone reading the documents would be aware that the project entails the removal of at least an additional 23.74 GL/annum of water from the Mary Basin, or be aware of the likely consequences of this extraction on Matters of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC act.

Most of the water being extracted will most likely come from currently unused Town Water allocations from Baroon Pocket Dam on Obi Obi Creek. (Total TWS allocations from Baroon Pocket are about 36GL/year, of which only about 18.5 are currently used by Caloundra and Maroochy Shires).

Extra information may be obtained from the proponent’s website
www.srwpalliance.com.au


Some points from knowledge about the Mary Basin WRP, and studies done on the Mary Catchment.

IQQM modelling studies of the catchment conducted as part of the WRP show unequivocally that taking the full allocation out of Baroon Pocket Dam would have dire consequences for Obi Obi creek from the dam wall to the junction with the Mary. Long-term median flows would be reduced to less than half of the median flows in the current utilization scenario and there would be significant adverse impacts across all flow regimes. The APFD for the stream would be much greater than 2 along the entire length downstream of the dam.

There is no protection of environmental flows in Obi Obi Creek written into the WRP or into the iROL for the operation of Baroon Pocket dam.

Obi Obi creek is one of the most significant Mary River Cod habitats in the entire Mary system. Mary River Cod are a critically endangered EPBC species with a federally listed recovery plan under the act.

Obi Obi creek is also an important habitat for a number of federally listed EBPC species of stream frogs.

A number of State Government-funded Reports (Mary River Stream Processes Report, Mary Rehabilitation Plan, Obi Obi rehabilitation report, WRP hydrological modelling report) outline the severe consequences of taking the full allocation of water from Obi Obi creek.

It appears that the strategic reserve of 150GL/year referred to in the Mary Basin WRP is very vaguely defined and advice from NRW is that it can be taken from any part of the Mary Basin for any project identified as part of the SEQRWSS (eg. this pipeline). If stage 1 Traveston Crossing is only taking 70 to 80 GL/year, this leaves 70 to 80 that can be taken at whim from any watercourse in the plan area that SEQ can connect the pipe to (on top of existing allocations). This has worrying implications for the Maroochy , Mooloolah and Mary Rivers and especially Obi Obi and Six Mile Creeks – all of which can be accessed by this Northern Pipeline Interconnector in Stage 2.

There is very little effective protection of environmental flows in upstream reaches of these watercourses in the schedules in the WRP.

Confirmation that the ultimate intent of this pipe is to carry the Traveston Crossing water to Brisbane can be found in Caboolture Shire meeting minutes. www.caboolture.qld.gov.au/uploadedFiles/council/meetings/2006/Minutes%20OM%20061205.pdf

Suggested Course of Action
As many groups as possible with an interest in the Upper Mary, Obi, Maroochy and Mooloolah catchments familiarise themselves with the implications of this proposal, and co-operate in writing submissions on the TOR for the EIS. (DEADLINE is 14th MAY)

As many groups as possible formulate a case to present to the Federal DEW assessor (Alex Rankin) to reconsider her decision in light of the clear implications the project has for EPBC listed species (particularly the cod) on the grounds that the proponent did not provide any advice at all as to the likely implications of the project on stream flows and subsequent impacts on EPBC matters in the Mary. From the information submitted by the proponent it would have been impossible for the assessor to have any idea of the impact on these EPBC matters.

Start negotiations/lobbying as appropriate to have appropriate environmental flows provisions written into the operating rules for Baroon Pocket Dam, Lake McDonald and Borumba Dam. (in order of priority)

Monitor federal EPBC website for signs of Stage 2 referral and start preparing case for the protection of Six Mile Creek

Steve Burgess
MRCCC Waterwatch Officer
steve@mrccc.org.au
5482 4766

wurraglen@gmail.com
5484 3749

[mary's sister]

Between the barrage south of Maryborough and the hyper-salinity it has caused in the estuarine areas, the proposal for a mega-dam at Traveston and now this pipeline in the upper Mary, it certainly seems that the powers that be will not rest until every section of this incredible crucible of evolution is degraded beyond recovery.
_________________
Sisters of Mary is dedicated to appreciation, celebration and preservation of the Mary River.

[rogerwbbcc]

The cretins who are given the job of deciding if an 'action ' ( building a pipeline which is designed to suck the guts out of obi obi ) is likely to have a significant impact on a MNES ( COD) , only need to read the guidelines for a significant impact , to discover that they should be looking at the big picture , " Actions include, but are not limited to:extraction and diversion of water;Actions encompass site preparation and construction, operation and maintenance,, If there are matters of national environmental significance in the vicinity of your proposed action,
you need to consider whether there is potential for your proposed action to impact upon those
matters.


The proposed action should be considered at its broadest possible scope. This includes all stages and components of the action, all related activities,It is also necessary and important to consider off-site and indirect impacts of your proposed action on matters of national environmental significance.

4. Are any impacts of the proposed action on matters of national
environmental significance likely to be significant impacts? YES BRIZGA ET AL SAID SO ,
In order to decide whether an action is likely to have a significant impact, it is necessary to take into account the nature and magnitude of potential impacts. In determining the nature and magnitude of an action’s impacts, it is important to consider matters such as:
• the sensitivity of the environment which will be impacted;
• the timing, duration and frequency of the action and its impacts;
• all on-site and off-site impacts;
• all direct and indirect impacts;
• the total impact which can be attributed to the action over the entire geographic area affected, and over time;
• existing levels of impact from other sources; and
• the degree of confidence with which the impacts of the action are known and understood.

Indirect and offsite impacts include:
a) ‘downstream’ or ‘downwind’ impacts, such as impacts on wetlands or ocean reefs from sediment, fertilisers or chemicals which are washed or discharged into river systems;
b) ‘upstream impacts’ such as impacts associated with the extraction of raw materials and other inputs which are used to undertake the action; and c) ‘facilitated impacts’ which result from further actions (including actions by third parties) which are made possible or facilitated by the action. For example, the construction of a dam for irrigation water facilitates the use of that water by irrigators with associated impacts. NATHAN
Likewise, the construction of basic infrastructure in a previously undeveloped area may, incertain circumstances, facilitate the urban or commercial development of that area.*

It may be helpful to consider the following:
• ‘But for’ the proposed action would the indirect impacts occur? ( NO THE COD WOULD NOT GET SCREWED
• Is the proposed action a ‘material and substantial’ cause of the indirect impacts? ( YES THE COD WILL GET SCREWED)
• Are the potential impacts of any subsequent or third party actions known, or would they be expected to be known, by the person proposing to take the action (particularly where the subsequent or third party actions are an intended outcome of the proposed action)? (YES , BRIZGA ET AL SAID SO IN THE WRP)
If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’, then it is necessary to consider whether these impacts are likely to occur, and whether they are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. If so, as much information as possible should be provided to assist the Minister in determining whether the impacts are relevant, and whether approval under the EPBC Act is required. THEY BLOODY WELL DID NOT •

When deciding whether or not a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, the precautionary principle is relevant. Accordingly, where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of scientific certainty about the potential impacts of an action will not itself justify a decision that the action is not likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. THEY DID NOT NEED TO BECAUSE BRIZGA ET AL GAVE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY !
• When deciding whether or not a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, you should consider only the adverse impacts that the action is likely to have. Beneficial impacts cannot be offset against adverse impacts.

THIS IS WHAT RANKIN NEEDS TO BE TOLD , THE ALLIANCE CANT F@##$$%%^&&*** READ OR THEY ARE ALL CRETINS , ONE OF THE FORESAID STATEMENTS IS CORRECT, CRUSTY BIN LARFIN