Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Assessment

Inland Rail - North Star to NSW/Queensland Border

Gwydir Shire, Moree Plains Shire

Current Status: More Information Required

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

The construction and operation of 30 kilometres of rail track and associated facilities between North Star and the NSW/Queensland border

EPBC

This project is a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and will be assessed under the bilateral agreement between the NSW and Commonwealth Governments, or an accredited assessment process. For more information, refer to the Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment's website.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_26082020_082522

Early Consultation (2)

Scoping Report
Scoping Report - Figures 1.1 and 3.1

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs_13032020_020610

EIS (61)

Chapter 0 – Executive Summary
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Strategic Context
Chapter 3 – Alternatives
Chapter 4 – Site Description
Chapter 5 – Planning and Assessment
Chapter 6 – The Proposal
Chapter 7 – Construction of the Proposal
Chapter 8 – Consultation
Chapter 9 – Rehabilitation Strategy
Chapter 10 – Assessment Methodology
Chapter 11 – Biodiversity
Chapter 12 – Heritage
Chapter 13 – Surface Water and Hydrology
Chapter 14 – Groundwater
Chapter 15 – Land Resources
Chapter 16 – Noise and Vibration
Chapter 17 – Air Quality
Chapter 18 – Sustainability
Chapter 19 – Climate Change Risk and Adaption
Chapter 20 – Traffic and Transport
Chapter 21 – Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment
Chapter 22 – Land Use and Property
Chapter 23 – Socio-Economic
Chapter 24 – Hazard and Risk
Chapter 25 – Waste Resource and Management
Chapter 26 – Cumulative Impacts
Chapter 27 – Environmental Management Plan
Chapter 28 – Conclusions
Chapter 29 – References
Chapter 30 – Glossary
Appendix A – Basis of Assessment
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 1
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 2
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 3
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 4
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 5
Appendix B – Biodiversity Technical Report 6
Appendix C – Consistency with Planning Strategies
Appendix D – Consultation Summary
Appendix E – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 1
Appendix E – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 2
Appendix F – Historical Heritage
Appendix G – Surface Water Quality 1
Appendix G – Surface Water Quality 2
Appendix H – Hydro & Flooding Technical Report 1
Appendix H – Hydro & Flooding Technical Report 2
Appendix H – Hydro & Flooding Technical Report 3
Appendix I – Economic Assessment
Appendix J – Construction Noise and Vibration 1
Appendix J – Construction Noise and Vibration 2
Appendix K – Operational Noise and Vibration
Appendix L – Air Quality
Appendix M – Traffic Impact Assessment 1
Appendix M – Traffic Impact Assessment 2
Appendix N – Groundwater
Appendix O – Social Impact Assessment
Appendix P – Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix Q – Climate Change Risk Assessment
Appendix R – Laboratory Certificates
Appendix S – Aquatic Biodiversity

Response to Submissions (15)

Biodiversity Assessment Report - revised Oct 21
Response to Submissions Report
Response to Submissions_AppA-AppD
Response to Submissions_AppE
Response to Submissions_AppF
Response to Submissions_AppG
Response to Submissions_AppH_FigP1
Response to Submissions_AppH_FigP2
Preferred Infrastructure Report
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppA-AppB
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppC
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppD
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppE
Preferred Infrastructure Report AppF-AppJ
Request RTS_16102020_042925

Additional Information (10)

Response to further RFI - various
Response to Request for Information - velocity
RFI Request for Additional Information_11062021_092725
NS2B PIR Letter re 1976 Flood Signed 10122020
Preferred Infrastructure Report
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppA-AppB
Preferred Infrastructure Report _AppC
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppD
Preferred Infrastructure Report__AppE
Preferred Infrastructure Report AppF-AppJ

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 28 submissions
Simon Doolin
Support
NORTH STAR , New South Wales
Message
Please see my submission for my quarry for the inland rail,
thank you, can you please notify me when you recieve it please,
cheers Simon
Attachments
Crown Lands
Comment
,
Message
Crown Lands provides the following comments and requests:
1) Please provide a copy of the following plans to the Department for review and comments when available:-
 Construction Environmental Management Plan
 Biodiversity Management Sub-Plan
 Biosecurity Management Sub-Plan
 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
 Flora & Fauna Sub-Plan
 Reinstatement & Rehabilitation Plan
 Rehabilitation & Landscaping Management Sub-Plan
 Soil Management Sub-Plan
 Stormwater Management Sub-Plan
2) The proponent should note a proposal outlining the details and future maintenance of level crossing has not been forwarded to the Department for assessment and consent. Please forward a copy.
3) Where the proposed rail alignment has the potential to impact on existing Travelling Stock Reserves (TSRs), the proponent should also consult and reference the Department to identify potential solutions for treatment of rail and TSR interfaces.
4) Consultation should be made with Local Land Services (LLS) and the Department should the proposed rail maintenance access roads are required through Crown land, including TSRs. A licence will be required for any earthworks involved prior to works commencing.
5) It is noted that some of the proposed laydown areas and proposed sewage treatment plant are located on Crown land, including TSRs. A detailed proposal should be forwarded to the Department and LLS for consultation and comments. A licence will be required through the Department for such the site occupation, storage and access, prior to works commencing.
6) Works on waterways may require a licence through the Department, in particular for the new proposed 11 bridges and the viaduct. A detailed proposal including designs and location of fencing and signage should be forwarded to the Department for consultation and comments.
7) The proponent should first consult with LLS on any propose acquisition over TSRs under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. An acquisition application is to be lodged with the Department who is responsible for the making of the final decision as the landowner.
8) Where there is intended earthwork and site rehabilitation is required, the proponent should consult with the Department and LLS prior to commencement of works. Rehabilitation plan should be agreed to by all parties prior to works commencement.
9) Details on fauna passage and fauna fencing, including designs, should be forwarded to the Department for comments should the location comprise of Crown land (including TSRs).
10) Detailed design on aquatic fauna should be forwarded to the Department for comments when available.
11) Where disturbed soil is to be re-used for filling, the proponent should take all necessary measures including spraying to minimise the potential spread and/or introduction of weeds at site.
12) The proponent to notify the Department as soon as practicable should any heritage site/item be identified on Crown land (including TSR).
13) The Department notes ongoing access may be required via Crown land for the below proposed borrow pits in which the proponent is required to confirm with the Department if this would be the case forward. The proponent should note the use of the below Crown roads and TSRs are permitted and consistent with the public’s right of passage and “right of access” under Section 75 of the Local Land Services Act 2013 respectively. The Crown roads and TSRs shall not be used in ways that are inconsistent with the purpose otherwise. The proponent will be liable for any damage brought to the access tracks including but not limited to the repair of access track’s surface and maintenance work as required. However, any forms of work should be consulted and obtain prior written approval from the Department and LLS.
• “Site 5” may require ongoing access via TSR Lot 16 DP 756015 managed by LLS,
• “Site 7” and “Site 9” may require ongoing access via Crown roads under the Department’s management and subject to current Enclosure Permits,
• “Site 13” may require ongoing access via TSR Lot 7304 DP 1158724 and Lot 7003 DP 1059798 managed by LLS and the Department respectively.
Natural Resources Access Regulator
Comment
Wollongong , New South Wales
Message
This is a pre-approval major project referral which must be sent to the Landuse Enquiries team at [email protected] for a coordinated response with DPIE Water rather than direct to NRAR.
DPI Fisheries
Comment
,
Message
DPI Fisheries submission attached
Attachments
WaterNSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Thank you for the opportunity for WaterNSW to provide comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Inland Rail – North Star to the QLD border. The proposal is unlikely to impact on any WaterNSW lands or infrastructure, however it is noted that a number of groundwater monitoring stations are located along the proposed route. WaterNSW does not have any other comments to make regarding this project.
We request the Department continues to consult with WaterNSW regarding proposals on land adjacent to and impacting on WaterNSW infrastructure, land or assets due to the potential for impact on water quality and water supply. Please email all correspondence using the address [email protected]
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Comment on Historic Heritage attached.
Attachments
Department of Transport
Comment
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
TfNSW cluster-wide response will be provided By Northern Region and Outer Metropolitan team. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
DPI Agriculture
Comment
CALALA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached
Attachments
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
NARROMINE , New South Wales
Message
I strongly question the incorrect data, lack of business case, costings, rate of return, route changes resulting in social & environmental high impacts, inflexible time frames and so on. This change to the Western alignment will increase track length, transit time, construction costs and landholder impact. None of this stacks up or passes the pub test. This entire project is a farce and a lie. It is detrimental to thousands with benefit to only a few. The NS2B is just one example. There are many sections with the same issues. Costs for this project will blow out greater than NBN with NIL return. Taxpayer funding should not to be spent without appropriate planning & due diligence.
Andrew Knop
Object
NARROMINE , New South Wales
Message
The following comments relate to ARTC’s decision to move the preferred alignment from the East (Base Case) to a new West alignment as submitted in the NS2B EIS.
In the face of repeated and frustrated community demands for ARTC to produce evidence for their alignment changes and decisions ARTC released the Inland Rail Melbourne to Brisbane Route History 2006 -2019 document in January 2020. This document was submitted by ARTC to the Australian Parliament Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Inquiry ‘Management of the Inland Rail project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Commonwealth Government’ as their account of the selection process used. The IR Route History document has been cited by ARTC at our Narromine to Narrabri CCC meetings as the definitive reference for all questions relating to route selection issues. It has also been referenced in recent CCC correspondence as being a foundational support document for IR Project EIS’s including the NS2B and pending N2N EIS’s.
In reviewing the IR Route History document after its release, I found multiple “historical” maps modified and misrepresented. I brought this to the Senate Committees attention as potentially false and misleading information tabled to Parliament and will be presenting information for the Senates consideration and review at the next available hearing. The presentation of deliberately false and misleading information to Parliament can be viewed as contempt.
At the N2N CCC meeting in February I brought some of the document’s N2N issues to the attention of other CCC members and representatives of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC). The issues were clear and acknowledged by all those who reviewed them. I followed up the discussion with a formal email to DITRCC outlining my serious concerns regarding the accuracy and integrity of ARTC’s Senate submission and the Route History document, no formal response addressing those concerns has been provided to date (over six months now). I have however noticed that ARTC has quietly deleted the original document from their web site and substituted a modified document with some N2N maps corrected. The new document has no editorial reference to any of the changes made, even though the publication is ISBN registered. Our community is very familiar with ARTC failure to follow protocols particularly relating to consultation, procedural fairness and procedural bias. It is concerning to note ARTC can’t even be bothered to follow basic internationally recognised protocols for ISBN use (ie create a 2nd edition, describe the changes and register the document with a new ISBN).

My EIS attachment Appendix 1. contains evidence of falsified information in the IR Route History document specifically relating to the NS2B project. It directly relates the NS2B EIS Chapter 3 and SEAR requirement 2(g) describe how alternatives to and options within the project were analysed to inform the selection of the preferred alternative / option. The description must contain sufficient detail to enable an understanding of why the preferred alternative to and options(s) within the project were selected;
If it is found that ARTC have deliberately falsified information and data, the EIS must be rejected and the organisation held to account.
Attachments
Department of Natural Resources Mines and Energy
Comment
BRISBANE CITY , Queensland
Message
Please refer to the attached letter (signed by ED-South Region) and submission on behalf of Ms Linda Dobe, Deputy Director-General, Natural Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Queensland Government.
Attachments
Alan Pearlman
Comment
NORTH STAR , New South Wales
Message
The North Star to Border Inland Rail EIS fails to address the serious safety implications of the rail crossings proposed for the road approximately 10 kilometres north of North Star at thee properties Ohmi and Wearne (a further 14 kilometres north)
Governments have been trying to eliminate level crossings for some time and the safety implications for these two intersections have not been addressed.
Any Traffic count that has been done in the last 3 years does not reflect the true volumes of traffic as the district has had the 3 lowest production levels in living memory.
When Inland Rail is running, vehicles travelling north through North Star will have already crossed the railway line up to 3 times. This will lead to traffic pileups and driver frustration especially behind the bigger road trains at harvest time.
The solution to this problem is simply to keep the road to the east of the railway line from 'Ohmi' through to 'Wearne'. The cost to do this is estimated at $7 Million for the 14 km of new road (A shire council estimate).
There will be a saving of around $1m in level crossing costs, and more importantly lives will be saved as the existing road has several blind corners and several deceptive inclines.
Bottom line is, lives will be saved and in the scheme of things $7m is nothing when there is a project with a budget of $11 Billion plus.
The road is an essential thoroughfare for the entire district and is also a school bus route. Please do not dismiss this request as our community is most anxious that this oversight is rectified.
Signed
Alan Pearlman
For and on behalf of the North Star, Croppa Creek and Yallaroi District
Richard Doyle
Object
BOGGABILLA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission
Attachments
Andrew Mackay
Object
BOGGABILLA , New South Wales
Message
My objection to the NS2B alignment selection and the associated problems it will cause are listed in my attachment.
Attachments
Ian Uebergang
Object
NORTH STAR , New South Wales
Message
I support the project but the E.I.S. concerns must be addressed.
Attachments
Robert Mackay
Object
BOGGABILLA , New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern, attached is my submission regarding the North Star to Border Inland Rail Project. I would like to thank you for your time in allowing me to respond to the project and voice my concerns and comments. I wish you all the best with your adjudication on this matter.
Sincerely Robert Mackay 'Budleigh' Boggabilla NSW - Affected landholder
Attachments
Donald Cranney
Comment
Yelarbon , Queensland
Message
Please read the attachment below.
I support the inland rail from Melbourne to Yelarbon.
For reasons that I have written in the attachment I would like to see the rail go from Yelarbon, north to the Leichhardt Highway, through the forestry, to Gladstone Harbour.
Attachments
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES DIVISION
Comment
,
Message
Please find attached TfNSW submissions
Regards
Carmel Hannelly
Attachments
Toomelah Aboriginal Land Council
Comment
Boggabilla , New South Wales
Message
Please see atttached
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-9371
EPBC ID Number
2018/8222
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
Gwydir Shire, Moree Plains Shire

Contact Planner

Name
Belinda Scott