download gunyerwarildi-feedlot-eis.pdf

39 Frome Street PO Box 774

Moree NSW 2400 Ph 02 6752 1021

Fax 02 6752 5070 [email protected]

Other office: Goondiwindi,

Miles, Gatton, Brisbane www.smk.com.au

SMK CONSULTANTS surveying – irrigation – environmental - town planning

ABN 63 061 919 003

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 1

For a Proposed

20,000 HEAD CATTLE FEEDLOT

“Gunyerwarildi Station” Warialda

NSW 2402

Shire of Gwydir

Proponent:

Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd 845 O’Connell Road OBERON NSW 2787

Prepared by:

SMK Consultants 39 Frome Street

MOREE NSW 2400

March 2016

‘Gunyerwarildi Station’ – Feedlot Environmental Impact Statement 15-282

SMK Consultants of 118

SMK Consultants Pty Ltd

Document Control Project Reference: 15-282

Proponent: Ceres Agricultural Company Proposed 20,000 Head Beef Cattle Feedlot

Report No. 15-282

Prepared for: Ceres Agricultural Company Gunyerwarildi Station Warialda NSW 2402

Prepared by:

SMK Consultants P.O. Box 774 Moree NSW 2400 Contact: Hayley Greenham [email protected] Ph.02 6752 1021

Authors: Hayley Greenham B.Sc. Env. B.Bus. Environmental and Resource Consultant SMK Consultants, Moree

Reviewed by: Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor B.Sc. MEIANZ CIAg Director Senior Environmental and Resource Consultant SMK Consultants, Moree

Revision History

Revision No. Date Issued Reason/Comment

0 March 2016 Initial Issue for Client review

1 March 2016 Submission to Council for Application



CERTIFICATE Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (S.77)

Submission of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and meeting the requirements for clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. This Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared by SMK CONSULTANTS PTY LTD to accompany a Development Application made in respect of the development described as follows: Development: 20,000 Head Beef Cattle Feedlot Applicant: Ceres Agricultural Company Address: “Gunyerwarildi Station” Warialda NSW 2402 Land to be developed: Lots 4, 25,35, 36, 66 and 68 in DP 751084, Lot 8 in DP1093713. Environmental Impact Statement: The contents of this Statement as required by sections 230 and 231 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, are set out on the following pages. Certificate: I certify that I have prepared the contents of this Statement and to the best of my knowledge:

It has been prepared in accordance with Clauses 6 and 7 in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

It contains all available information that is relevant to the environmental assessment of the development to which the statement relates; and

The information contained in this Statement is neither false nor misleading. Signature: Date: 9 March 2016

Hayley Greenham B.Sc., B.Bus.

Environmental and Resource Consultant SMK Consultants



1 Executive Summary Applicant:

Ceres Agricultural Company Gunyerwarildi Station Warialda NSW 2402

Owner:

Pegela Pastoral Holdings PO BOX 10 Oberon NSW 2787

Land involved:

Lot 4 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 25 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 35 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 36 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 66 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 68 in Deposited Plan 751084 Lot 8 in Deposited Plan 1093713

Local Government Authority: Gwydir Shire Council Zoning: RU1 – Primary Production under the Gwydir LEP 2013

1.1 Background

Ceres Agricultural Company (Ceres) currently operates a 5,000-head cattle Feedlot on “Gunyerwarildi Station”, which is located within the Gwydir Shire approximately 30 km northwest of Warialda. “Gunyerwarildi Station” also supports broad acre cropping. Ceres operates several other freehold and leasehold properties in the local area that have similar land uses. The Proponent intends to enlarge the current cattle feeding enterprise into a long-term enterprise suitable for a maximum of 20,000-cattle on feed.

1.2 The Proposed Development

The proposal involves developing Feedlot pens and required infrastructure for an additional 15,000 head of cattle. The development will include the construction of approximately 100 new production pens stocked at 15 m2/SCU, hospital pens, manure stockpile areas, a carcass composting area, a system of sedimentation terraces, three main effluent holding ponds and an extension of the effluent irrigation area. The Feedlot will be designed, constructed and managed to Class 1 standards. Class 1 represents the highest standards of design and management. Ceres estimates that it will take approximately 9-12 months to complete the construction of the Feedlot after receiving consent from the Gwydir Shire and an amended environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The overall capital investment involves an



estimated $10 - $12M. The completed Feedlot is expected to generate an additional 30-40 full-time equivalent employment positions within the local area. “Gunyerwarildi Station” is a large, well-developed property supporting a 5,000 Head Cattle Feedlot and Feed Milling Facility. The existing infrastructure will be utilised to operate and maintain the Feedlot including the cattle handling facilities, feedmill with steam flaker, 7,000t grain storage system, commodity and machinery sheds, weighbridge, staff office, extensive grain and silage bunkers, cattle holding yards and formed gravel roads that provide all weather access for heavy vehicles.

1.3 Objective of the Development

The objective of developing the Feedlot is to improve the economic viability of the Ceres enterprise by finishing cattle using grain and fodder produced from the proponent’s properties or purchased from the region. Ceres has identified that they can produce a commodity (beef) for various existing markets, whilst value adding to their existing grain, fodder and cattle grazing operations. The Feedlot has the potential to process up to 60,000 head or more per year.

1.4 Potential Impacts of the Development

The potential biophysical impacts that can be associated with Feedlot developments include impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties from odour, potential disturbance to local flora and fauna as a result of constructing the Feedlot, potential impacts on surface and ground water quality if effluent is not managed appropriately, traffic generation in rural areas and an increase in the intensity of a farming operation. The site chosen for the expanded Feedlot is currently used for cultivation and holding cattle between production phases. The additional land to be utilised is considered as highly disturbed by historical farming operations. Groundwater quality is not vulnerable as the groundwater beneath the site is deep and protected by extensive layers of medium-heavy clay soils. The buffer zones available between the Feedlot and adjoining neighbours is extensive and to date has not been reason for complaint by residents. The local road network is heavily utilised by cattle trucks and grain trucks for transport of stock and grain toward eastern markets, however the local road network at present has truck restrictions related to bridge capacities along the main haul routes and road geometry in Warialda. Many of the additional truck trips to be generated from the expanded Feedlot will consist of existing vehicle movements which will be re-routed to service the Feedlot. An existing, licensed volume of groundwater will be used to deliver the required water to the expanded Feedlot. “Gunyerwarildi Station” may also use existing surface water through their harvestable right, which is permitted for use through the Feedlot site. This harvestable right water may be utilised to increase irrigation productivity. Watercourses will be protected through appropriate design of effluent controls, but also through the provision of vegetative buffers for filtering of any overflows during extreme events. The development will include programming of a sustainable effluent and composted manure plan to ensure that the nutrient generated from Feedlot waste is recycled to produce crops to be consumed through the Feedlot.

1.5 Justification for the Proposed Development

Providing the Feedlot is sited, built and operated as described in this EIS, this investigation predicts that there is no significant threat of serious or irreversible environmental harm that may occur as a result of the Feedlot construction. Ongoing monitoring will be used to confirm that the Feedlot is operating in an environmentally sustainable way. Good design and management and the provision of generous



buffers to watercourses will protect aquatic flora and fauna. The development is therefore justified on biophysical grounds. The development will benefit the local and regional economies. The construction phase will generate local employment opportunities and income for contractors in the local area. Once the Feedlot is operational, it will offer the equivalent of 30-40 full-time employment positions, additional work for those involved in haulage and the opportunity to purchase cattle, grain and fodder locally. Hence, the proposed Feedlot is justified on economic grounds. The additional employment is expected to be provided from the local community which would generate further stabilisation of the local economy. The potential social impacts of the Feedlot included an assessment of potential effects of odour, noise, dust and visual appearance in addition to Aboriginal and European heritage. Factors included in the assessment included site history, location, landscape features and available buffers. Consideration of these primary factors indicated that the site selected and the proposed high standards of design and management proposed, would minimise any potentially significant amenity impacts. The need to preserve inter-generational equity has been considered throughout the Feedlot planning phase for both the 5,000 head development which is approved and the 15,000 head extension. Environmental controls and procedures designed for the site, aim to protect existing natural resources, through a process of design and operation.

Economic

The proposed development involves a capital expenditure in the order of $11 M. Much of this cost will be incurred as a result of purchase of materials and development contracts that may not be available locally. However, the intent of the Proponent is to utilise local input that is available in order to generate a continued servicing arrangement from the local community. This has been achieved with the existing Feedlot to date. The result of this local provision of services includes an increase is wages and income for mainly Warialda but also other local centres such as Moree and Inverell. The direct employment of staff from the local area will boost local wages and potentially add to the stability of population levels in towns such as Warialda. The economic multiplier for wage inputs for similar developments and operations is in the order of seven (7) times. This would be considered significant.

Social

The existing Feedlot was the subject of a development application through the Gwydir Shire. As expected, the application resulted in some local concern in relation to operation of the site and subsequent generation of odour and traffic issues. The Feedlot has now operated for a period of approximately 2-years and no complaint has been received. The result of this existing operation has potentially provided some confidence in the local community that the Proponent can operate a Feedlot with minimal impact on local amenity and therefore the adjoining landholders should retain some confidence that they should not be burdened with the amenity impacts as an offset impact of the social benefits obtained from the development through improved employment availability and social stability this offers in the local towns and villages. The proposed development is considered to be sufficiently isolated to ensure that no direct social impacts occur in relation to odour, noise and other potential causes of impact to residents. The expanded business operation has the potential to create a requirement for additional housing and



other services in Warialda, such as schooling. This would be deemed as a positive social impact on the town.

Ecologically Sustainable Development

The design of the Feedlot and the operation practices presented by the Proponent are based on current best practice and guidelines. The aim of this best practice is to establish a potential for sustainability within the operation. This includes management and mitigation of impacts such as effluent and manure reuse, mitigation of odour issues across property boundaries and offsetting of remnant vegetation areas if clearing is required in order to develop the site. The Proponent has generally adopted sustainable practices of operation where applicable in order to meet current approvals. The principles of sustainability therefore already exist within the development. In order to operate the expanded site, the existing sustainability principles will be expanded to encompass the new facilities including the new pens, expanded effluent disposal areas and an extended manure reuse program. The proposed development footprint will require the removal of some existing native vegetation to enable construction of the Feedlot pens and ponds. The Proponent is proposing a voluntary offset area containing the same native vegetation to enable this clearing to occur. This process is considered to conform to current ecological sustainable principles.



Table of Contents

CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................................................................... III

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... IV

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................... IV 1.2 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................................... IV 1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................................... V 1.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................................... V 1.5 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ V

Economic .......................................................................................................................................................... vi Social ................................................................................................................................................................ vi Ecologically Sustainable Development ........................................................................................................... vii

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1 PROPONENT DETAILS ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 AUTHORS AND GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................................. 13

2 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................. 14

2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 PROPOSAL OUTLINE ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Feedlot Capacity ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Estimated Feedlot Cattle Turned Off per Year ................................................................................................ 15 Cattle Induction .............................................................................................................................................. 15 On Going Cattle Management ........................................................................................................................ 15 Pen Cleaning and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 16 Storage and Reuse of Effluent, Manure and Carcasses .................................................................................. 17 Water Requirements and Supply .................................................................................................................... 18 Feed Storage and Usage ................................................................................................................................. 19 Heavy Vehicle Movements - Anticipated ........................................................................................................ 19

2.3 FEEDLOT PLAN (INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION) ....................................................................................................... 21 Construction Phase ......................................................................................................................................... 21

2.4 DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 21 Feedlot Layout ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Pen Construction ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Pen Layout ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Pen Foundation and Preparation .................................................................................................................... 24 Pen Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Feed Bunks and Water Troughs ...................................................................................................................... 25 Roads .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Cattle Lanes and Drains .................................................................................................................................. 26 Manure Stockpile / Carcass Composting Area ................................................................................................ 26

Controlled Drainage Area .......................................................................................................................... 28 2.5 FEEDLOT SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.............................................................................................. 33 2.6 BY-PRODUCT REUSE AREA BUFFER FROM SENSITIVE SITES .................................................................................................... 34 2.7 HOURS OF OPERATION ................................................................................................................................................... 35

3 FEEDLOT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 35

3.1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 PEN CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................. 36 3.3 MANURE STOCKPILE / CARCASS COMPOSTING AREA MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 38

Manure Stockpile Management ..................................................................................................................... 38 Carcass Composting Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 38

3.4 EFFLUENT, MANURE AND COMPOST REUSE ....................................................................................................................... 38 Reuse Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Nutrient Budgets for Effluent and Manure Recycling ..................................................................................... 39 Salt Loadings from Effluent, Manure and Compost ........................................................................................ 41 Minimum Areas Required for Effluent and Manure Reuse ............................................................................. 42



3.5 FEEDLOT OPERATIONAL DETAILS ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Number of Persons Employed ......................................................................................................................... 42 Hours of Work ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Fire Management Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 43 Lighting ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 Vermin and Disease Control Measures ........................................................................................................... 44 Emergency Animal Disease and Mass Mortality Contingency Plans .............................................................. 44

4 STATUTORY MATTERS ........................................................................................................................................... 44

4.1 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSAL ................................................................................................................................... 44 Biophysical ...................................................................................................................................................... 44 Economic ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Social ............................................................................................................................................................... 45 Ecologically Sustainable Development ........................................................................................................... 46

4.2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Land Use Definition ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Zone RU1 – Primary Production ...................................................................................................................... 48 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ..................................................................................................................... 48 Heritage Conservation .................................................................................................................................... 48 Bushfire Hazard Reduction ............................................................................................................................. 49 Flood Liable Land ............................................................................................................................................ 49 Sensitive Land ................................................................................................................................................. 49

4.3 SECTION 94 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN ............................................................................................................... 50 4.4 STATE LEGISLATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 51

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ............................................................................................................. 51 The Heritage Act 1977 .................................................................................................................................... 52 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ........................................................................................ 52 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 .................................................................................................... 53 Rural Fires Act 1997 ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ...................................................................................... 54 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1997 ........................................ 54 Water Management Act 2000 ........................................................................................................................ 55 Native Vegetation Act 2003 ............................................................................................................................ 56

4.5 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT CODES ................................................................................ 56 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 30 – Intensive Agriculture .............................................................. 58 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Developments ............................... 58 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (SEPP 44) – Koala Habitat ......................................................... 60 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) – Remediation of Land .............................................. 60 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ............................................................................ 61 State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 ............................................................................... 61

4.6 FEDERAL LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................................................... 62 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .................................................................. 62

4.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND LICENCE REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................... 63 Development Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 63 Licences Required............................................................................................................................................ 63

5 IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITISATION OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 64

5.1 CONSULTATION............................................................................................................................................................. 64 Planning Focus Meeting.................................................................................................................................. 64 Summary of Key Issues ................................................................................................................................... 66

6 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 67

6.1 PROPERTY LOCATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 67 6.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES ............................................................................................................................................. 68

Neighbouring development ............................................................................................................................ 69 Proximity to Receptors .................................................................................................................................... 69

6.3 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 69 Internal Roads ................................................................................................................................................. 73 Property Entrance/ Exit off North Star Road .................................................................................................. 74

6.4 SOILS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 75



Soil Observations and Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 76 Interpretation of Soil Analysis Results for Effluent Reuse Area....................................................................... 77 Soil Permeability ............................................................................................................................................. 80 Land Management ......................................................................................................................................... 80

6.5 METEOROLOGICAL AND CLIMATIC DATA ............................................................................................................................ 81 Rainfall ............................................................................................................................................................ 81 Temperature and Evaporation ........................................................................................................................ 81 Wind Direction and Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 82 Humidity ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 Frosts .............................................................................................................................................................. 84

6.6 SURFACE WATER .......................................................................................................................................................... 84 Watercourses .................................................................................................................................................. 85

6.7 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................................ 85 6.8 EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORES .................................................................................................................. 88 6.9 TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................................... 88 6.10 FLORA AND FAUNA ................................................................................................................................................... 88

Biodiversity Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 89 Seven Part Test Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 90 Fauna Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 91

6.11 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ............................................................................................................................... 91 Aboriginal History ...................................................................................................................................... 91 Archaeological Survey of the Feedlot Site .................................................................................................. 92

7 IMPACT OF FEEDLOT ON THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 93

7.1 SURFACE WATER .......................................................................................................................................................... 93 7.2 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................................ 93 7.3 COMMUNITY ................................................................................................................................................................ 94 7.4 ECOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 94 7.5 RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................................. 95 7.6 BY-PRODUCT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 95 7.7 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................................ 96 7.8 WATER SUPPLY FOR THE FEEDLOT .................................................................................................................................... 96 7.9 SOILS AND SURFACE WATERS DURING CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 97 7.10 NOISE AND DUST...................................................................................................................................................... 97 7.11 VERMIN AND PESTS .................................................................................................................................................. 98 7.12 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 98 7.13 FIRE RISK AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 99 7.14 ANIMAL WELFARE AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 99 7.15 FLORA, FAUNA AND BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................. 100 7.16 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ............................................................................................................................. 103

8 MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................... 104

8.1 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PRIORITY ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 104 By-Products Management ............................................................................................................................ 104 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 105 Water Supply for the Feedlot ........................................................................................................................ 105 Soils and Surface Water ................................................................................................................................ 105

8.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR OTHER ISSUES ..................................................................................................................... 106 Noise and Dust .............................................................................................................................................. 106 Vermin .......................................................................................................................................................... 106 Traffic and Transport .................................................................................................................................... 107 Fire Risk and Management ........................................................................................................................... 107 Animal Welfare and Disease Management .................................................................................................. 107 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................................................................ 108

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................. 109

9.1 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 109 Areas of Potential Environmental Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 110 Monitoring Requirements under Environment Protection Licence ............................................................... 110 Gwydir Shire Consent Conditions .................................................................................................................. 111



9.2 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................................. 111 Management of Construction Impacts ......................................................................................................... 111

9.3 MANAGEMENT OF OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 111 Feedlot Operational Activities....................................................................................................................... 111 Training Programs for Operational Staff ...................................................................................................... 111 Achieving Compliance with Licensing and Approval Requirements .............................................................. 112

9.4 MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................................. 112 Key Environmental Monitoring Parameters ................................................................................................. 112

9.5 SITE REHABILITATION ................................................................................................................................................... 114 9.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 114 9.7 EMP REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................. 114

10 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 115

11 REFERENCE LIST ................................................................................................................................................... 117



1 Introduction This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by SMK Consultants on behalf of Ceres Agricultural Company to accompany a Development Application for a 15,000 head cattle Feedlot extension to the existing 5,000 Feedlot operation on the property ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’.

1.1 Proponent Details

The proponent is Ceres Agricultural Company. The applicant’s details are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proponent Details

The Proponent is Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd (ABN – 40 155 816 416), who trade as Ceres Agricultural Company. The existing Feedlot approval was obtained under the company name Pegela Pastoral Company. Since then, the Company has undergone a corporate restructure, hence the Company is now registered as Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd. Ceres Agricultural Company currently operate two property aggregations in New South Wales (NSW). The northern aggregation is located in the Gwydir and Moree Plains Shires and is based around Gunyerwarildi approximately 30 km northwest of Warialda. The other aggregation is located in the Oberon region. The details of the local aggregation are presented below:

Gwydir and Moree Aggregation The northern aggregation supports grain and fodder production, a 5,000 head cattle feedlot as well as cattle grazing.

“Gunyerwarildi Station” comprises a total of 6,370 ha. “Bundawarra”, “Yarran”, “Brentwood”, and “Strathalan” collectively comprise 2,063 ha of arable cropping land and grazing. “Postmans” comprises of approximately 1,600 ha of arable cropping land and grazing. These properties adjoin “Gunyerwarildi Station”, and have been included as part of the contiguous aggregation.

“Flaggys” comprises of approximately 145 ha of arable cropping land and 16 ha of grazing land. “Flaggys” is located adjacent to the south-eastern corner of “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

“Kurrajong Hills” is approximately 1600 ha of arable cropping land and is located approximately 5km south-west of “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

Other properties in the northern aggregation include “Brudle Park”, “Oaklands”, “Braden”, “Inverness” and “Lava Downs”. They include arable cropping land and grazing land located in the Moree Plains Shire.

Contact Name Mark Mason

Organisation Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd

ABN 40 155 816 416

Position Managing Director

Address

“Gunyerwarildi Station”

Warialda

NSW 2402

Phone number 02 6336 3033

Email [email protected]



The land is owned by Pegela Pastoral Holdings, which is a related entity to the applicant Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd. Appendix 1 presents a locality plan of Gunyerwarildi Station and a detailed site plan of the proposed Feedlot extension. Both plans are presented with a recent aerial image as an underlay. It is noted that the recent aerial photography available on this site was taken prior to the development of the existing 5,000 head Feedlot. The image shows the cattle yards developed prior to the Feedlotting operation and includes the Mill and other farm buildings.

1.2 Background Information

SMK Consultants were engaged by the Ceres Agricultural Company in 2015 to design an extension of the 5,000 head cattle beef Feedlot which was approved by Gwydir Shire Council under DA24-2012 and EPL 20463. The proposal involves increasing the capacity of the Feedlot to 20,000 head. SMK Consultants were instructed to prepare a development application for the proposal including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This document constitutes the resultant work of that request. The following primary assessment components form the EIS:

Submission and Response to Request for Director-General’s Requirements for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

Aboriginal and Cultural Heritage Assessment Flora/ Fauna Assessment Odour Assessment Design Storm Calculations Heat Stress Analysis Nutrient Balance and Soil Analysis Traffic Impact assessment Water Balance and Nutrient Balance Contamination Assessment

1.3 Authors and Guidelines

SMK Consultants have over 28-years of experience in preparing planning applications, layouts and construction of cattle and sheep Feedlots. This experience is incorporated in the design and assessment of the proposed development. The following reference documents have been used in the preparation of the design and supporting documents for the Feedlot at ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’. The documents provide best practice methods for operation and management:

NSW Feedlot Manual (NSW Agriculture et al. 1997); referred to as the NSW Feedlot Manual

EIS Guideline for Cattle Feedlots (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1996); referred to as the EIS Guidelines

Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW – Technical Framework (DEC 2006a); referred to as the NSW Odour Assessment Framework

Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW – Technical Notes (DEC 2006b); referred to as the NSW Odour Assessment Notes

Guidelines for development adjoining land and water managed by Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW 2010); referred to as Developments adjoining DECCW in the report.

Reference Manual for the Establishment and Operation of Beef Cattle Feedlots in Queensland (Skerman 2000); referred to as the QLD Feedlot Manual.



National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia 3rd Edition, Meat & Livestock Australia, 2012.

National Beef Cattle Feedlot Environmental Code of Practice 2nd Edition, Meat & Livestock Australia, 2012.

2 The Development Proposal

2.1 Objectives of the Development

The objective of expanding the Feedlot is to improve the economic viability of the existing cattle enterprise by providing facilities to feed a larger number of cattle using grain and fodder produced from Ceres farming operations as well as grain and cattle purchased from the region. The proponent has identified that they can produce beef for a range of markets, whilst value adding to their existing grain, fodder and cattle grazing operations. The key objective of this process is to produce consistent high quality beef for a range of specific markets, regardless of seasonal variations is grazing and crop productivity.

2.2 Proposal Outline

Ceres Agricultural Company (Ceres) proposes to extend their existing 5,000 head cattle Feedlot on “Gunyerwarildi Station” to a capacity for 20,000 head of cattle. The development site is located approximately 30 km northwest of the Warialda township. “Gunyerwarildi Station” is located in the Gwydir Shire and it supports broad acre cropping and extensive cattle grazing. Ceres operates several other freehold and leasehold properties in the local area that also support broad acre cropping and extensive cattle grazing. The Feedlot will be designed, constructed and managed to Class 1 standards as best described in Reference Manual for the Establishment and Operation of Beef Cattle Feedlots in Queensland (Skerman, 2000). There are four different ‘Classes’ that define appropriate standards of Feedlot siting, design, construction and management to limit odour nuisance to acceptable levels at nearby sites (e.g. houses, towns, public areas). Class 1 represents the highest standards of design and management and these standards will be fully incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the Feedlot. The development will include the construction of approximately 100 new production pens stocked at 15 m2/SCU, a series of new hospital pens, additional manure stockpile/carcass compositing area, three additional sedimentation terraces, additional effluent holding ponds and an expanded effluent irrigation area for the opportunistic effluent application for crop production based on the effluent captured from the whole Feedlot site. Existing infrastructure will be utilised to operate and maintain the Feedlot including the cattle handling facilities, induction yards, short term holding and settling yards, feed mill with steam flaker, 7000 t grain storage system, commodity and machinery sheds, weighbridge, grain bunkers, silage storages, staff office and formed gravel roads that provide all weather access for heavy vehicles. Ceres estimates that it will take approximately 9-12 months to complete the construction of the Feedlot, after receiving consent from the Gwydir Shire and an amended environment protection licence from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The overall capital investment involves an estimated $10 - $12M. The completed Feedlot is expected to generate an additional 30-40 full-time equivalent employment positions within the local area. The following sections summarise the proposed Feedlot development and operation at “Gunyerwarildi Station” to provide context to those reviewing this report not familiar with cattle Feedlots.



Feedlot Capacity

It is proposed that the Feedlot will have a maximum capacity of 20,000 head. The Feedlot has been designed for a stocking density of 15 m2/head within the Feedlot pens. It should be noted that the cattle receival yards associated with the Feedlot also process cattle which are to be produced as grass fed cattle and not processed through the Feedlot. The cattle yards therefore operate for short term receival and settlement of cattle prior to entering the Feedlot pens or being sent to open grazing paddocks on the Gunyerwarildi aggregation.

Estimated Feedlot Cattle Turned Off per Year

Ceres proposes to feed cattle to primarily meet domestic market specifications. If the Feedlot turns off cattle at 550 kg and operates at maximum capacity, then it will turn off an additional 55,000 head per year as a result of the additional 15,000 head capacity. Total turn-off would vary from year to year as a result of changing market requirements and feedlot specifications.

Cattle Induction

Cattle will be transported to the handling facilities located within a Controlled Drainage area (CDA) at the Feedlot site. These facilities are existing infrastructure. The cattle will be assessed individually on arrival for:

health (animal health treatments administered if required)

ID (each beast usually has a property specific tag added)

weight (recorded to assess growth rate) This process may be undertaken after a period of settling the cattle on a ration of good hay in the extended receival yard area. This will allow the cattle to settle after being trucked to the site and allow any initial issues to be assessed. Once processed, the cattle will be transferred to the production pens.

On Going Cattle Management

A specifically formulated feed ration will be prepared at the existing feedmill. The diet will be a blend of hay, silage, grain and supplements. It will be fed-out each day with feed trucks delivering the feed to the bunks. Spoilt feed will be removed as required. The feed ration will depend on age, time in the pen and market specification. Some cattle will be fed twice per day where others fed on a higher hay ration may be fed once per day and occasionally have self-feeders within the pens. Water troughs will be checked throughout the day to ensure all cattle have a continuous supply of fresh water. The water troughs will also be cleaned at least weekly. All cattle will be inspected daily. Any sick cattle will be isolated from the production pens and transferred to a designated hospital pen for treatment and monitoring. Any mortalities will be composted on-site. Cattle will be weighed as required to check growth rates using existing and new handling facilities to be incorporated in the overall pen layout. Once the cattle have reached the desired turnoff weight they will be loaded onto trucks and sent off-site for further processing.

Heat Stress The existing Feedlot operation utilises a weather station to monitor heat load in cattle through ration planning. The Feedlot manager adopts the principles prepared by Meat and Livestock Australia as follows:



Feedlot operators can minimize the heat load burden placed on animals during hot conditions by implementing a range of management strategies. These must be planned in advance and implemented in unison - activities undertaken in isolation and not as part of a broader approach are rarely effective. There are three main components to an effective excessive heat load (EHL) management plan:

1. A pre-summer review of the Feedlot's preparedness for an EHL event. This should include:

An examination of the Feedlot environment including the site characteristics, infrastructure and condition (upgrades to key elements such as shade and water can be implemented as needed).

A management review of the Feedlot's preparedness for an EHL event. The preparation of a summer nutrition program that considers the risk of EHL. The preparation of an EHL event strategy.

2. The development of a summer management program to reduce the risk of an EHL event and allow early detection of an event. 3. The preparation and implementation of an EHL event strategy when an EHL event is forecast or occurs.

The process utilises the cattle heat load calculator generated from within the Feedlot industry which is operated by the company Katestone.

Insects and Cattle Health On occasions, the conditions at the Feedlot would generate ideal conditions for various insects, especially flies. The prevalence of flies is an issue that can be managed through the use of baits and fly traps. The insect population will also be managed through appropriate manure pad management in the pens. The maintenance and repair of pen floors to avoid development of wet areas or bog areas is particularly addressed within the general pen maintenance activities. The generation of flies around the cattle is also identified as a health issue for the cattle. The management of flies therefore is of concern to cattle managers who closely monitor the fly population. It is noted that the flies that are attracted to the Feedlot have a relatively short flight distance and therefore travel from the Feedlot to neighbouring areas is considered as a minor issue. The Feedlot is almost surrounded by open cultivation country which does not encourage fly travel. The monitoring program can therefore concentrate on populations at the Feedlot site.

Pen Cleaning and Maintenance

The ideal pen floor is to consist of 50 mm depth of compacted moist manure referred to as the manure pad. The development of this pad may take up to 2-years of light grading and scraping. Once it is developed, maintenance activity will concentrate on scraping across the pens to remove manure that is in excess of the 50 mm layer and repair of areas where the pad is thinner. The Feedlot construction proposal will be based on machine control using GPS. There is potential to adopt the correct level and slopes for ongoing pen cleaning and maintenance based on GPS control to ensure that the pen surface is kept at the correct grades. This is also applicable to drains and laneways. In general, accumulated manure and spilt feed from the production pens and drains will be scraped using a box scraper and transferred to the manure stockpiles / carcass composting area on a regular basis. The proposed Feedlot cleaning and maintenance schedule is to be undertaken in accordance



with Class 1 standards for an Australian Feedlot. The schedule generally involves pen cleaning between drafts of cattle and major cleaning and pad maintenance every 2-3 drafts of cattle. Regular maintenance would occur after periods of rain.

Storage and Reuse of Effluent, Manure and Carcasses

Pens scrapings will be hauled to designated manure processing areas. The processing will involve active composting in stockpiles. A section of this area is to be identified for carcasses composting. The manure processing areas will be contained within the CDA. All runoff within the CDA is captured and managed through the pond system. Effluent will be drained via sediment terraces to settle solids and then the resulting liquid will be accumulated in ponds. The effluent will then be pumped or drained to a manifold system and applied to the designated effluent application areas via centre pivot irrigation. The application of effluent will be managed on a soil moisture and crop stage basis in additional to environmental factors such as wind direction and the risk of inversion layers developing in winter. Manure generated by the Feedlot will be spread onto broad acre cropping land managed by Ceres. The spreading rate will be determined from the nutrient reserves in the soil and nutrient demand of the proposed crop. The nutrients contained in the manure will be used to substitute (and / or reduce) the use of synthetic fertilisers that are applied to the cropping areas. Soil and manure sampling will be done on a routine basis. Soils will be sampled from a paddock prior to each manure application event in order to monitor soil nutrient levels and soil nutrient buffers. Accumulated sludge from the sedimentation terrace and effluent holding pond will be removed periodically and transferred to the manure stockpile area. The sludge will be incorporated with the stockpiled manure and applied to the cropping areas. The effluent application rate will be determined on soil moisture, nutrient demand and the crop type. A nutrient balance will be monitored and crop rotations will aim to achieve a long term sustainable system. Effluent will normally be applied on a moisture deficit basis to maintain crop production or for watering up a paddock ready for planting. Ceres propose to initially utilise manual soil moisture probes for checking moisture profiles. The option of electronic moisture probes would be assessed as a future planning tool if economics indicates a value for such technology for an opportunity irrigation system. The Feedlot operation will include an allowance for cattle deaths as a result of factors beyond management knowledge and procedures. A mortality rate of 0.3% of incoming cattle is expected. Mortalities will be composted on-site within the manure stockpile / carcass composting area within the CDA. Some manure and straw will be used to ensure there is sufficient carbon for the carcasses to effectively compost. This produces a useful product and effective composting also destroys pathogens and minimises odours, which means vermin are less attracted to the composting process. Composting carcasses will be kept separate from the stockpiled manure to ensure they can be effectively monitored and managed during the active composting phase. The matured carcass compost will be managed the same as stockpiled manure and spread onto cropping land. In the event of a mass death, an area within the designated effluent application area will be selected for disposal of carcasses. The soil beneath this area consists of heavy black and grey clays to a depth of 3m or more. This would provide an area where soil permeability is low and therefore the presence of a large burial will present a low risk of local contamination of groundwater or subsoil. The location of this site is not specifically marked on the plan. The intent is that the area would primarily be located within the north centre pivot circle. In the event of a mass death, appropriate authorities include LLS and potentially EPA would be contacted to review the cause and disposal process.



Water Requirements and Supply

Water in Feedlots is used for stock drinking purposes, dust suppression, feed processing, cattle wash-down, effluent management, general cleaning and staff amenities. Of these, stock water consumption is the most significant with up to 55 litres (L) of water used per head per day. Assuming the Feedlot was maintained at maximum capacity and total consumption was 60 L/head/day, the completed Feedlot would require a supply of approximately 438 Megalitres (ML) of water per annum. The proposed development will involve active irrigation production. This will include the opportunistic use of water captured in on-farm dams in combination with effluent generated from the Feedlot. A summer crop can utilise between 3-4 ML per season. If this water is available, it will be applied in order to maximise production. If it is not available, crop production will be limited to the available soil moisture. Water will also be required for steam flaking. Use of water at the steam flaker will not exceed 5 ML/yr. At present, the Feedlot obtains most of its water from the Eastern Recharge Groundwater source of the Great Artesian Basin. This is supplied from one bore at present. The bore is located on the property of “Bundawarra” (Lot 3 DP 826225) which is part of the Gunyerwarildi aggregation. The bore licence number is 90BL153356. An additional allocation has been procured with approval to site a new bore in the same area with the licence number 90WA19285. These bores will be the primary water supply source for the extended Feedlot. The reliability of this water is 100 percent. Details of the groundwater entitlement on “Bundawarra” that is available for Feedlot use are summarised below:

WAL15738

Share: 972 units

Water Source: Eastern Recharge Groundwater Source

Water Sharing Plan: NSW Great Artesian Basin Groundwater Sources 2008. The secondary water supply system to be utilised involves the property’s harvestable right. With a total aggregation of 10,233 Ha, the Proponent is entitled to a harvestable right of approximately 716 ML. The calculated Maximum Harvestable Right Dam Capacity results according to the Department of Primary Industries – Office of Water (DPI Water) are included as Appendix 2. The existing storage capacity is in the order of 100 ML allowing for small stock dams. The extended Feedlot proposal is to include expanded dam capacity to assist with irrigation of crops on an opportunity basis only. The use of harvestable right water for production is not essential and does not form a key component in this application. An option to obtain a surface water licence from Croppa Creek which runs through the centre of the property and pump this water into the new gully dam is also being investigated but does not form any critical role in this development application. Such a proposal would be subject to an application and investigation by DPI Water. Surface water captured in the gully dam would offer a lower cost alternative for supplying the Feedlot on the basis of pumping costs. However, surface water is not reliable and therefore the GAB water would be required as the primary system for stock water. Both chosen water supply sources can be utilised for Feedlotting. An existing pipeline transferring groundwater from “Bundawarra” to the Feedlot will be utilised. The system forms part of the internal watering system for the whole farm operation. Water quality is



considered to be potable and therefore this water can be utilised for staff consumption. Water quality is also considered suitable for the feedmill. The development proposal will include the installation of 8 additional water tanks. The northern section currently has 3 x 375,000L tanks. One additional tank will be added to the northern section, as shown on the site plan (Figure 1). This will provide a holding capacity of 1,500,000L. This will provide the equivalent of 3.5 days of water for the cattle in the northern section. Seven tanks will be installed to deliver water to the new southern sections. At a capacity of 375,000L each, seven tanks will provide a 2,625,000L additional supply. Total water storage is equivalent to 3.75 days of consumption. Under emergency conditions, the Feedlot would utilise existing ring mains connected to all water supplies on the property. This includes water from harvestable right dams. In the event of a bore collapse, breakage in the main line or other system failures, water could be drawn from alternative source for a short period. None of these alternative sources include water that is Licensed for stock and domestic purposes only.

Feed Storage and Usage

“Gunyerwarildi Station” will use its existing feedmill, commodity storage and feed preparation area for the Feedlot development. The existing infrastructure includes a steam flaker and feedmill, 7000 t grain storage system, 30,000 tonne grain bunker capacity, 5,000 tonne silage storage capacity and a weighbridge to manage throughput of the ration. The existing capacity of the mill is sufficient to feed the 20,000 head proposal. No expansion of the Mill is required. For design purposes, the cattle in the Feedlot would consume an average of approximately 11.5 kg of feed per day. The feed ration will range from an introductory hay ration for new cattle through to a balanced grain and hay ration for longer term feeding. The Milling operation includes a complete testing program of inputs, rations and manure testing to monitor feed consumption efficiencies based on input qualities. The aim of this monitoring process is to maximise ration efficiencies based on total tonnages of ration converted to beef. This method of monitoring also results in reductions in nutrient losses through manure, a lower potential for odour generation from the manure and a maximisation of feeding profits. The process is overseen by a Nutritionist. Ceres predict an annual average occupancy rate in the order of 85%. On this basis, the Feedlot will use approximately 72,000 t of feed per year. The prepared ration will include a combination of grain, hay, silage, straw and supplements. In an average season Ceres will produce approximately 40,000 to 60,000 tonne of the ration. The remaining ration requirements would be purchased from local growers and commodity suppliers on an as require basis. The option of off-farm storage will be utilised, such as leasing of existing bulk storages to accumulate grain during a harvest period.

Heavy Vehicle Movements - Anticipated

Vehicles will enter and exit via the North Star Road. The current operations at Gunyerwarildi involve up to fifteen (15) B-double movements per week. The entrance intersection has recently been upgraded to a B-double standard and approved by Council. At present, the local road being the North Star-Warialda road, is restricted to B-doubles. Road train use is not permitted; however, Council has indicated that they are currently reviewing bridge capacities with the intent of determining whether road train use is feasible. If road trains are permitted, they may potentially carry an additional 15 tonnes per load and therefore reduce overall truck traffic volume by as much as 30-percent. Table 2 shows the anticipated numbers of B-double movements that will be generated by the feedlot operation once the additional 15,000 head of cattle capacity is utilised, assuming:

Feed ration consumption will be approximately 11.5 kg per head per day



Average occupancy will be 85%

Gunyerwarildi will produce an average of 50,000 tonne of the ration

One third of ration produced in Moree Plains and trucked to the feedlot (16,650 t)

The remaining 22,000 tonnes will be trucked to the site in B-doubles

B-Double carrying capacity of 37 tonnes per unit

Cattle will be transported in dual deck trailers.

Cattle entering the Feedlot will weight approximately 430 kg, therefore a B-double will transport 80 head.

Cattle exiting the Feedlot for processing will weigh approximately 540 kg, therefore a B-double will transport 66 head.

Manure and compost will be transported on internal roads prior to reuse, therefore the vehicle movements associated with this activity are not considered in Table 2.

Some seasonal variations will occur.

Table 2: Summary showing predicted heavy vehicle movements to and from the Feedlot at 20,000 head capacity

Item Units Movements

Cattle Transport

Cattle in head/ y 60 000

Cattle out head/ y 59 800

Entry weight kg 430

Exit weight kg 540

No. of head / truck entry 80

No. of head / truck exit 66

Trucks – entry cattle trucks/ y 750

trucks/ wk 14

Trucks – exit cattle Trucks/ y 906

Trucks/ wk 17

Fodder

Annual feed intake - Imported t /y 38,650

Feedstuffs incoming Trucks/y 1074

Trucks/wk 21

TOTALS Trucks/y 2730

Trucks/wk 53

Trucks/day 7 - 8

The Proponent operates a small fleet of trucks for both cattle and fodder haulage. These truck movements are coordinated to ensure that trucks arrive with a load and leave with a load. On average, the Proponent’s trucks move approximately 40% of the inputs and outputs. If this continues, daily truck movements to and from the site would range between 5 and 10 on average. An additional 10-15 staff vehicles movements would occur on a daily basis. During grain harvest periods, the Feedlot would generally receive additional grain which would be stored in grain bunkers. This would result in a short term traffic peak of grain trucks. These truck trips would involve existing truck movements on the Shire roads which would be diverted to the Feedlot site.



The movement of cattle to and from the site would occur on a relatively continual basis. A minor peak occurs from Friday through to Monday as a result of deliveries of finished cattle to Abattoirs.

2.3 Feedlot Plan (Infrastructure and Construction)

This report provides the design calculations and construction recommendations for the major infrastructure items. These items primarily involve the Feedlot pad (base of pens), sedimentation terrace and effluent holding pond, the irrigation area and roads. The report does not include the detailed design for diversion banks, catch drains, diversion channels as these items would only be designed if development consent is granted for the Feedlot. The diversion bank design would be based on standard soil conservation guidelines in relation to waterway design to minimise erosion. The diversion banks would be of sufficient height to prevent all storm runoff from entering the CDA. The clean water would remain separated from the effluent within the CDA. The proponent intends to retain tree lines along the northern and western sides of the Feedlot as wind buffers. The buffers would potentially cool hot air in summer and reduce exposure to cold westerly winds in winter. The following sections outline the design specifications and recommendations that have been used to design the major infrastructure. Figure 1 shows the Feedlot layout highlighting the locations of the proposed production pens; hospital pen; sedimentation terrace, effluent holding pond, manure stockpile / carcass composting area, internal Feedlot roads, cattle yards, internal drains, clean stormwater diversion banks, contours and channel.

Construction Phase

Ceres estimates that it will take approximately 9-12 months to complete the construction of the Feedlot after receiving consent from the Gwydir Shire and an environment protection licence from the EPA. The design allows for the three new sections to be built as separate contracts, however all three areas will be built to the same specification.

2.4 Design Specification and Recommendations

This report provides the design calculations and construction recommendations for the major infrastructure items e.g. Feedlot pad (base of pens), sedimentation terrace and effluent holding pond. The report does not include the detailed design for diversion banks, catch drains, diversion channels as these items would only be designed if development consent is granted for the Feedlot.

Feedlot Layout

There will be approximately 100 primary pens constructed in the three (3) sections. The northern pens will be designed to accommodate 1500 head of cattle, with fifteen (15) pens arranged in three (3) rows stepped down the slope. The southern pens are separated into two (2) sections, South 1 and South 2. The site plan in Figure 1 details the proposed arrangement of the main features of the Feedlot, including the:

pens; cattle and feed lanes; catch and main drains; manure and compost stockpile; sedimentation terrace; and Effluent pond.



Pen Construction

Figure 1 presents plans of the proposed layout of the Feedlot site and shows a preliminary drawing of pens and fence arrangements for the additional 15,000 head. A total of 300,000m2 of pen space is planned to provide an average cattle density of 15m2 per head. The internal fence arrangement may be altered to provide some smaller pens. Pen construction will utilise the available natural slope to step the pens down the slope. The pens are to be configured in parallel rows with each pen having a separate feed road, cattle laneway and drain. The pen drains will carry effluent to main carrier drains which collect all internal runoff and direct this to the sedimentation terraces. The terraces will be designed to settle the solids in the effluent and then drain the remaining liquid into the holding ponds. The first stage will consist of earthworks to lay the foundations for pens. The design is based around a complete balance of cut to fill. The pond system will be the primary source of external fill material to create the uniform slopes of 2 percent in each pen area. The intent of the design is to provide a uniform pen slope. The cut/fill process will be undertaken using GPS controlled equipment and will result in a uniform side slope on each row of pens. The side slope is designed to allow construction of the pen drain at a specified depth of 200 – 300 mm below the cattle lane. The design will allow for adequate drainage and movement of manure from the pens into the sediment capture system. The drain slope of approximately 1 % has been chosen on the basis of the required extent of earthworks. Additional side slope is not practically available on the site. The general recommendations presented for Feedlots to allow manure transportation in the drains in 1%. The subsoil beneath the site is classified as a relatively impermeable heavy clay material. Additional heavy and highly plastic clays are available to line ponds if slightly porous subsoil layers are encountered during construction. These local clays provide ideal subsoil materials for construction of such sites as a mass burial pit. The material will be excavated using scrapers and then compacted in 150 mm layers in the pen area under laser control to achieve compaction in the order of 96-98% of dry density. Fill material will consist of in-situ CH clays. The construction works would be undertaken using a standard specification. This specification would include a requirement to obtain the compaction with a moisture content which is plus or minus 3 % of optimum to ensure that compaction uniformity is achieved. Local gravel will be utilised to construct all weather access to the central feed-lane area. The Proponent operates one main gravel pit on the site. This material can be crushed to form a suitable road base material. The gravel would be hauled to the site via internal roads.



Figure 1: Site Plan showing proposed pens and existing infrastructure including yards and sediment ponds.



The initial works would include construction of contour banks and stormwater diversion banks upslope of the site to manage runoff during both the construction and operational phases. The completed pen and pond areas would have a minimum of 450 mm depth of compacted clay material. Testing of the clays has indicated that the permeability of the clay available on the site meets NSW permeability recommendations of being below 1 x 10-9 m/s. The proposal will utilise sediment terraces. The intent of the terrace is to capture runoff from the Feedlot and allow the majority of solids to settle. This is achieved through a standard design process based on detention time as the effluent moves through the pond. The entry to the pond consists of an open channel. The discharge point from the pond is controlled by a drop board structure. The drop boards control the rate of discharge from the pond and therefore the detention time. The drop board provide a slatted discharge to minimise the discharge of solids.

Pen Layout

The completed development will include up to 150 production pens, with a stocking density of 15m2/head. There will be two primary pen sizes designed to accommodate different feeding programs. (Full pens and half pens)

Design 1 Design 1 will be used to construct up to 100 of production pens for cattle on a 21-day feeding program. Each pen will accommodate 100 head, for a total of 10,000 head, and an appropriate number of hospital pens. The pen dimensions are:

production pens: 30 m wide and 50 m deep

Design 2 Design 2 will be used to construct 50 or more of the production pens for cattle on a 70-100-day feeding program. Each pen will accommodate 200 head, for a total of 10,000 head, and an appropriate number of hospital pens. The pen dimensions are:

production pens: 60 m wide and 50 m deep Concrete feed bunks will run along the top fence of the pens. Water troughs will be shared between pens and these will be located on dividing fence lines near the drain end of the pens. The pens will be constructed with a finished slope from bunk to drain of approximately 2% (this will be set after a detailed earthworks plan has been completed). Pen cross slope will be designed to enable optimum side fall on the rear drains so that the drains are limited to a depth of approximately 300 mm to ensure only limited erosion occurs across the 5 m wide cattle lane at the back of the pens.

Pen Foundation and Preparation

The pen surface will be constructed to produce a smooth, uniform gradient, which will be durable under the constant loading of cattle hooves. The fundamental principles of pen foundation preparation are summarised below.

Clearing and Grubbing Topsoil will be stockpiled for post construction remediation of the exposed soils.



Foundation Construction The success of the foundation construction will have a profound effect on the ongoing maintenance costs of the Feedlot. To ensure a high standard of foundation is achieved, the pen foundation surface will be cut and / or filled as required to produce a smooth, uniformly sloped surface in accordance with the design gradients, levels and dimensions of the Feedlot.

Compaction The base of the Feedlot pens (and Feedlot complex) will be constructed from a suitable depth of compacted clay to provide a durable surface that minimises seepage of contaminated runoff from within the CDA.

Finished Surface The proponent intends to finish the surface with selected clay material. The option to construct a thin gravel layer to protect the clay has not been chosen on the basis of cattle health. Gravel pads can produce significant hoof issues and therefore the lack of stones in the finished pen floor will minimise hoof issues. The finished surface will therefore consist of a graded compacted clay based material. Once cattle are introduced onto this surface, manure scrapings will be managed through grading until a 50 mm compacted manure pad forms. Heavy traffic areas such as around water troughs and the feed trough will be concreted. Roads will be graveled. Where drains are built on steep slopes, course gravel may provide an option to reduce erosion. The gravel would provide a short term option until a grass cover can be developed if the Proponent determines that they wish to have grassed drains. The grass would create some additional issues in relation to management through wet periods. The walls of dams will be generally maintained in a zero till condition by applying biodegradable herbicides.

Pen Maintenance

Pen maintenance involves two general activities, mainly; planned maintenance and incident maintenance. Planned maintenance involves a scheduled grading and collection of manure from the pens at strategic intervals once the manure pad is developed to a depth of more than 50 mm. This work would involve grading of the pens to smooth the surface and repair of any scoured or damaged sections of the subgrade in the pen, including placement of selected fine gravels to re-inforce areas around troughs and fence lines. This maintenance would include grading and cleaning of drains and laneways. This work is undertaken during opportunities such as between drafts of cattle or when the Feedlot occupancy level is low. As a minimum, major work is undertaken on an annual basis. Incident maintenance would repair damaged sections after rain or extended wet periods where the cattle have dug into the pad. This is a common occurrence where cattle dig holes in the pad for comfort or pleasure. The holes are prone to catch water and therefore generate additional odour. This incident maintenance work is generally notified on a daily basis and undertaken on a weekly basis.

Feed Bunks and Water Troughs

Concrete feed bunks will run right along the top fence of the pens. These will provide 0.3 m of bunk space per SCU. The feed bunks will have a 3 m wide concrete apron that extends into the pen. A



concrete apron prevents pad wear for this high-use area. The aprons will slope away from the bunk to facilitate drainage. The concrete aprons will be constructed to withstand the loading of cleaning equipment. Prefabricated concrete water troughs will be installed along the dividing fence lines between two pens. The troughs will be situated towards the drain-end of the pens. This will allow dirty water released during trough cleaning or as a result of spills to be directed out of the pen and into the catch drains by via underground pipes. This will prevent the pen floors from being wetted during trough cleaning. Concrete aprons at least 2.5 m wide will be constructed around all water troughs. The aprons will be reinforced to withstand the loading of pen cleaning equipment. Design Specification

Concrete aprons should extend at least 3 m from the bunk and water troughs

they should be capable of withstanding heavy machinery during pen cleaning

Roads

A 5 m wide feed delivery road will be built along the top of each row of Feedlot pens. It will be constructed to:

slope away from the pen with a cross fall of approximately 2% to ensure adequate drainage. The road will be constructed to also act as a clean water diversion bank to direct clean water from above the pen area away from the Feedlot pen area below

produce a smooth finish to minimise wear and tear on feed trucks and reduce feed spillage.

Withstand high traffic volumes and wheel loadings

Provide reliable all-weather access to the feed bunks Design Specification

feed roads should be at least 5 m wide and slope away from the feed bunk

Cattle Lanes and Drains

A shared 5 m wide cattle lane and catch drain will be constructed across the bottom of each row of pens. The shared cattle lane and catch drain will divert contaminated runoff from the pens into the sedimentation terrace, which drains into the effluent holding pond. It will also be used to walk cattle to / from the handling facilities. Design Specification Catch drains should:

carry peak flow rates resulting from a design storm event with an average recurrence interval of 20 years at non-scouring velocities

provide embankment batters of 3:1 or greater

provide embankment freeboard of 0.3 m above the peak flow height

Manure Stockpile / Carcass Composting Area

Manure scraped from the pens will be stockpiled in the windrows on the manure stockpile / carcass composting area within the CDA. Figure 2 shows the location of the manure stockpiles / carcass composting areas. The total area of the manure stockpile / carcass compost areas shown is 3.4 ha. The following calculations approximate the annual mass of manure (dry and wet weight) that would be transferred to the manure stockpile and the minimum stockpiling area required to store the manure



(i.e. minimum surface area). The figures are calculated based on the total capacity of the Feedlot and as such are conservative in nature given the expected occupancy rate at the proposed Feedlot.

Solid Waste Production The total number of cattle: = 20 000 head Solid waste production per head/ year: = 1 tonne Manure production: = 20,000 x 1 t/ yr

= 20,000 t/ yr

Required Area Avg. stockpiled manure bulk density: = 0.6 t/m3 Volume of manure requiring stockpiling = 20,000 t / 0.6 t/m3

= 33,333 m3 The manure will be stockpiled at the Feedlot until it has been composted and is ready for field application. The compost windrows will be shaped like long triangular prisms to shed rainfall, as shown below. The average surface area of the face of the windrows will be 6.25 m2.

Annual Windrow length: 33,335 m3 / 6.25 m2 = 5,334 m Annual Surface Area required: 5,334 m x 5 m = 26,670 m2 (2.67 ha) The total area of the manure stockpile / carcass compost areas shown in Figure 2 is 3.4 ha. Hence, the proposed manure stockpile / carcass composting area provides sufficient space to stockpile manure and also sufficient area to compost carcasses. The manure windrows will be laid out to provide machinery access between each windrow. The National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia includes the nutrient concentrations of manure for the major nutrients:

Nitrogen (N) 2%

Phosphorus (P) 0.8%

Potassium (K) 2% Based on the above concentrations the following nutrient mass in manure for 20,000 head of cattle were calculated:

Nitrogen = 0.02 x 20,000 t = 400 tonne of N



Phosphorus = 0.008 x 20,000 t =160 tonne of P

Potassium = 0.02 x 20,000 t = 400 tonne of K

Carcass Composting Mortalities disposal will be by on-site composting. If a mortality rate of 0.3% is applied the Feedlot, out of 60,000 head per year, there will be a requirement to compost approximately 180 carcasses per year. Only a small area of the manure stockpile / carcass compost areas will be needed for this purpose. BEEFBAL is a Microsoft Excel worksheet model that can be used to determine the waste characteristics from a Feedlot (QPIF 2004). BEEFBAL was used to estimate the weight and nutrient content for Feedlot carcasses. Table 3 outlines the required calculations to approximate the annual mass and nutrient content of carcases. The following provides an estimate of nutrient addition to the manure used to compost the carcases. Table 3: Annual mass and nutrient content of Carcases

Average liveweight of a carcass 485 kg

Average mass of carcasses 180 carcasses x 485 kg

87 300 kg (87.3 t)

Average carcass nutrient content (liveweight) 25 g of N/kg; 6.9 g of P/kg; 1.8 g of K/kg

Average mass of N (87 300 kg x 25 g/kg) / 1000

2182.5 kg

Average mass of P (87 300 kg x 6.9 g/kg) / 1000

602.4 kg

Average mass of K (87 300 kg x 1.8 g/kg) / 1000

157.14 kg

The manure will be incorporated in the routine manure disposal program. The process takes up to 3-months if temperatures are optimised. The process can be odourous if disturbed and therefore these stockpiles remain untouched for the 3 to 4-month process while the carcase breaks down in the compost.

Controlled Drainage Area

Figure 2 shows a catchment plan for the Feedlot. The existing Feedlot operation is contained within an established CDA. The new pens have been separated into three separate areas, based on separate drains. On this basis, three separate sediment terraces are required to collected effluent runoff from the pens due to slope and elevation of the discharge points. The main pen areas within each new CDA include the pens, roads and drains. The unused areas immediately surrounding the CDA’s is to consist of grassed areas or gravelled roads. The proposal for runoff management involves extension of the existing diversion drain on the upslope (eastern) side of the Feedlot. This will carry clean water away from the CDA. The grassed areas separated from the pen areas but downslope of the diversion drains are to be captured in main drains and table drains associated within internal roads outside of the Feedlot pens. These drains will direct runoff captured from outside of the CDA’s into a collection and holding pond identified as the 45 - 50 ML balancing pond for irrigation. The collection drains will also capture runoff



from the original receival and holding yards. These yards are downslope of the pens and are identified as low impact effluent areas. The runoff from these yards will contain relatively minor amounts of manure. However, Feedlot activity will occur outside of the primary CDA areas and therefore management of these open areas is essential. This requirement is considered abnormal from the standard design as the typical feedlot would have all cattle active areas within the CDA. This proposal allows for continued use of the original cattle management facilities on the property. The pen areas are generally assigned a runoff coefficient of 0.8. The grassed areas are assigned a lower coefficient of 0.4. Rainfall on the pond is assigned a coefficient of 1. The following tables summarise the areas of the sub- catchments shown in Figure 2. The sub-catchment areas are used to calculate the design volumes for the sedimentation terrace and effluent holding ponds. Table 4: Controlled drainage area 1 - Catchment areas

Feature CDA 1 – Northern pens

Pen catchment (ha) 4.4

Pond catchment (ha) 1.4

Total area (ha) 5.7

Table 5: Catchment details for New Southern section 1

Feature CDA 2 –Southern section 1

Pen catchment (ha) 17

Pond catchment (ha) – Sediment terrace 1.1

Total area (ha) 18.1

Table 6: Catchment details for New Southern section 2

Feature CDA 3 –Southern section 2

Pen catchment (ha) 16.5

Pond catchment (ha) – Sediment terrace plus holding pond

3.8

Total area (ha) 20.3

An earthen diversion bank forms part of the existing development approval in that it is provided as a buffer between the 5,000 head and the adjoining National Park. The section of this bank that forms the buffer is built within the 184m calculated buffer between the Park the pens in the 5,000 head Feedlot. This section of bank within the buffer will be retained. The additional bank outside of this buffer will be altered to the new design. The Guidelines recommend that diversion banks should:

carry peak flow rates resulting from a design storm event with an average recurrence interval of 20 years at non-scouring velocities

provide embankment batters of 3:1 or greater

provide embankment freeboard of 0.5 m above the peak flow height The bank proposal will conform to the existing approval which requires a 1.5 m high bank, as well as the Guidelines. The borrow for the bank will be on the upstream side. The depth of this borrow will exceed guideline capacity requirements for storm events from the relatively small adjoining catchment.



Figure 2: Controlled Drainage Plan of Feedlot Proposal



Sedimentation Terrace Effluent runoff from within the CDA will gravitate via the catch drains into a sedimentation terrace. The intended design function of the sedimentation terrace is to reduce the velocity of contaminated effluent to allow settling of suspended solids (manure) before entering the effluent holding pond. The settled sediments can then be collected and combined with manure scrapings for disposal on cultivation fields. Sedimentation terraces are typically wide and shallow storages having a designed top water level (TWL) less than 1.2 m. The base of the terrace will slope gently (approximately 0.1%) towards a control weir that regulates discharge from the terrace into the effluent holding pond. Control weirs typically consist of a concrete base and horizontal timber slats that can be removed for cleaning purposes (see Photograph 1). After each runoff event the sedimentation terrace will drain completely (down to bed level).

Photograph 1: Typical control weir from a Sediment terrace

With each runoff event manure is deposited in thin layers over the base of the terrace, which allows the material to dry. The dried manure is then removed at the earliest possible opportunity and transferred to the manure stockpiles / carcass composting area. Appendix 4 presents the detailed design of the pond system based on Guideline recommendations.

Table 7: Summary of dimensions and capacities of new sediment terraces

Location Capacity (m3) Dimensions

Northern section 866 1 D x 12 W x 78 L

Southern section 1 3,333 0.6 D x 48 W x 150 L

Southern section 2 2,700 0.6 D x 52 W x 146 L

These quantities have been incorporated into the feedlot design as minimum volumes and dimensions.

Effluent Holding Ponds The intended design function of the effluent holding pond is to temporarily store effluent from major storms or extended wet periods so that pond overtopping events are limited to extreme events only. Effluent will be irrigated onto cropping land on an opportunity basis to ensure storage capacity becomes available for ongoing runoff events. The irrigation may involve application onto fallow cultivation or actively growing crop if ponds fill during such periods to ensure that the pond capacity is maintained. This would occur on the principle that the effluent is then stored as soil moisture for the next cropping event. The design specification in accordance with the NSW Feedlot Manual is presented below:



Holding ponds should:

be able to accommodate the greater volume produced from either: o a design storm having an average recurrence interval of 1 in 20 years; 24-hour duration

and using runoff coefficients of 0.8 from Feedlot pens, roadways and other hard stand areas and 0.4 for grassed areas within the CDA; or

o the balance of runoff from the CDA (making allowance for evaporative losses and withdrawals for irrigation) in a 90th percentile wet year. Volumetric runoff coefficients of 0.3-0.5 should be applied.

provide embankment freeboard of 1 m above the top water level

provide embankment batters of 3:1 or greater and embankment width of at least 5 m for safe machinery access during construction and cleanout

incorporate a spillway to cater for the peak flow rate from a design storm having an average recurrence interval of 1 in 50 years at non-scouring velocity

Methodology presented in the NSW Feedlot Manual was used to calculate the minimum required effluent holding pond volumes. There are two (2) methods of analysis required under the Guidelines, mainly:

Method 1: Major storm event based on a 1 in 20 ARI; 24-hour duration for specific time of concentration for the catchment

Method 2: Annual water balance based on a 90th percentile wet year

For the proposed development, two new holding ponds are required, mainly a northern pond for the northern section 1 and a southern pond to capture runoff from the two southern sections. The proposal for a 40 - 50 ML balancing pond for the northern irrigator to capture cleaner internal runoff from grassed area and existing cattle yards has also been assessed in the following calculations. The following describes the inputs and calculations used by the two methods to determine the respective effluent holding pond volumes. Appendix 4 presents detailed calculations for the pond designs.

Method 1 – Major Storm Event The Manual recommends that the pond capacity should be based on a 1 in 20 year; 24-hour duration rainfall event for the catchment. In accordance with the NSW Feedlot Manual the following runoff coefficients were used: 0.8 for the Feedlot pens and other hard catchment areas, 0.4 for grassed areas and 1.0 for rainfall falling on the effluent holding pond. Local rainfall data used to calculate the volume was obtained from long term daily records in Warialda. A 1 in 20-year storm event with a 24 hr duration at Warialda produces 135 mm of rainfall in total. The following table presents a summary of the three ponds.

Table 8: Holding Pond Design Method 1 (Major Storm Event)

Pond Location Minimum Pond Capacity (ML)

Proposed Pond Capacity (ML)

Northern holding pond 6.3 7

Southern holding pond 41.2 45

Irrigation Holding pond 21.3 25



Method 2 – Annual Water Balance The NSW Feedlot Manual annual water balance method requires effluent holding ponds to be able to retain the balance of runoff from the CDA, while making allowances for irrigation in 90th percentile wet year. To improve the accuracy of the prediction, rainfall additions and evaporative losses from the pond should be included in the calculations. In accordance with the NSW Feedlot Manual a runoff coefficient of 0.4 was applied to hard and soft areas (the allowable range is 0.3-0.5) and 1.0 for the effluent holding pond. A coefficient of 0.3 was applied to the areas outside of the main CDA’s which includes the cattle yards, non-pen areas and grassland between the Feedlot areas that are below the upslope diversion structures. Potential effluent irrigation demand is calculated from 90th percentile rainfall, average annual evaporation and a crop factor. FAO (1998) provides crop factors for numerous crops and it was used to select a suitable factor for cereal crops, as the Proponent will grow either silage or grain on the effluent reuse area. Crop factors range from 0.4-1.15 through the various crop growth stages, therefore an average of 0.7 was used for the water balance calculations. The catchment areas determined for the three CDA’s were used in the calculations for Method 2. Method 2 requires an iterative approach to calculate the minimum effluent holding pond volume using monthly time-steps. Firstly, pond dimensions were proposed. The available effluent irrigation area of 90 ha was used. The pond dimension inputs were then modified to ensure that the pond had sufficient capacity to retain runoff from the Feedlot in the current month, as well as any stored effluent from the previous month if irrigation could not drawdown the holding pond. Calculations are presented in appendix 4. The following table presents a summary of the required pond capacities based on the two methods. The larger effluent holding pond volume was calculated using Method 2. The effluent holding pond will have a top water level capacity of 33 ML to meet this requirement.

Table 9: Dimensions of the Proposed Effluent Holding Ponds

Pond Location Method

1 Method

2 Required Volume

Northern 7 ML 6.8 ML 7 ML

Southern 45 ML 43.4 ML 45 ML

Balance Pond 25 ML 33 ML 33 ML

Total 77 ML 83.2 ML 85 ML Note: The dimensions of the holding pond were determined using internal batters of 3:1.

The pond design as presented, conforms to these criteria.

2.5 Feedlot Separation Distances from Sensitive Receptors

The general principle adopted for selection of the feedlot site is summarised in the following excerpt: Feedlots should be sited so as not to cause unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property off-site or with off-site commercial activity (ARMCANZ, 1997). Accordingly, Feedlots should be separated from sensitive receptors by a sufficient distance to limit any adverse impacts resulting from odour, dust, noise or aesthetic considerations to an acceptable level.



The following plan shows the location of receptors in relation to the feedlot site.

Figure 3: Closest Identified Sensitive Receptors

The above figure presents an aerial image locating the closest individual receptors to the Feedlot complex including respective separation distances. As part of the existing approval for 5,000 head, the Proponent continues to develop a tree buffer between the existing Feedlot pens and the adjoining Gunyerwarildi National Park. The Park is referred to as a low use public area. At present there is no public access to the Park. However, a minimum buffer distance of 184m was determined during the approval of the existing Feedlot to be acceptable if an additional tree buffer was planted between the Feedlot and the Park boundary. Trees have been planted to achieve this, however issues such as the amount of feral and native wildlife attracted to the cattle ration in the feed troughs of the existing Feedlot in addition to weather factors has not resulted in any significant active growth in the planted trees and the loss of many of the trees from animal damage. The planting and maintenance of the required tree buffer continues to be a key management operation to meet the requirements of the existing approval. This will also be extended to incorporate a tree buffer for the adjoining boundary of Park area. The above figure 2 includes the location of this tree buffer as required under the existing and proposed development conditions.

2.6 By-Product Reuse Area Buffer from Sensitive Sites

The Proponent intends to utilise all solid waste generated on the feedlot site, as a fertilizer additive to their dryland cultivation program. The nutrient and other organic matter captured in the manure



composting process provides a form of slow release fertilizer and soil improvement product for cropping areas. The spreading program would involve applications of between 5 and 20 tonnes per hectare on a rotating basis to maximise application efficiencies. Appropriate buffer zones will be adhered to between reuse areas and sensitive sites. The following table presents recommended minimum buffer zones based on the NSW Feedlot Manual. Groundcover will be maintained in the buffer zones to act as a vegetative filter for any sediment or nutrient that is transported off the reuse areas in stormwater runoff. The overall farm plan for Gunyerwarildi shows the effluent, manure and compost reuse areas on “Gunyerwarildi Station” and the buffer zones outlined in the following table.

Table 10: Recommended Buffer zones from sensitive receptors for effluent and manure application

Sensitive site Buffer zone (m) Reference

Rural Farm Residence 200 Victorian Code for Cattle

Feedlots

Watercourse and public use areas

100 NSW Feedlot Manual

Property boundaries 50 NSW Feedlot Manual

Drainage lines 30 NSW Feedlot Manual

There are sufficient buffers provided between the boundary of the manure and compost reuse areas and any potentially sensitive sites, including rural farm residences. Appropriate buffers are similarly available between the effluent reuse area and potentially sensitive sites.

2.7 Hours of Operation

The existing feedlot and proposed feedlot will need to be capable of operating 24-hours per day and 7-days per week. The potential for night time activity is minimal in that this would only occur under emergency conditions. The Proponent intends to implement restrictions on access to the weighbridge during normal operating times. The proposal would involve the weighbridge being open to external deliveries between 7 am and 6 pm. The Proponent’s truck may utilise the weighbridge outside of the hours on occasion. During harvest periods, the weighbridge would require extended hours to operate whilst harvesting continues.

3 Feedlot Management

3.1 Construction Management

Once approval is obtained, the Proponent will lodge construction plans under a construction certification phase. The detail of this process will remain dependent on the conditions issued by the Consent authority. In general terms, the construction process would involve engagement of appropriate contractors, establishment of Construction Management Plans, an earthworks phase for each section, installation of the water and fence system, installation of the shade system, construction of roads and construction



of the cattle management yards. The final works would involve installation of the centre pivot systems for effluent recycling. In order to commence earthworks on the site, the following general Erosion Management Plan would be presented to the selected earthworks contractor. The Proponent would require that the basic principles presented in the plan were implemented as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan which would be required for acceptance of any earthworks tender for site development.

Table 11: General Erosion Management Plan

Preliminary Erosion Management Plan

Operational Objective

To minimise erosion around the construction site and movement of soil into nearby drainage lines and watercourses.

Performance Criteria

The construction of the Feedlot complex does not impact on surface water quantity or quality.

Implementation Strategy

Minimise disturbance of soil around the construction site.

Maintain a perimeter zone (20m) of grass around the site for the duration of the construction activities if available

Install silt barrier fences at strategic locations.

Install hay bale sediment barriers in minor drainage lines.

After completion of the operational works, all sediment control devices will be maintained until groundcover is re-established in disturbed areas surrounding the feedlot construction works.

Stabilize disturbed areas after completion of works.

Monitoring

Monitoring Responsibility: Site Manager/ Project Manager Following each rainfall event:

Inspect the integrity and effectiveness of the hay bale sediment barriers.

Inspect the integrity and effectiveness of temporary storm water diversion channels and earthen contour banks.

Corrective Action

Repair and or replace the hay bale sediment barriers, diversion channels and contour banks.

Add new erosion mitigation strategies as required

3.2 Pen Cleaning and Maintenance

The Feedlot will be managed in accordance with Class 1 standards as best described in the QLD Feedlot Manual. Class 1 represents the highest management standards (i.e. industry best practice). The following table summarises the proposed Feedlot infrastructure checking, cleaning and maintenance schedule for the Feedlot.

Table 12: Schedule for Infrastructure Maintenance

Cleaning, Checking & Maintenance Schedule

Frequency and / or Action

Removal of Spilt Feed Weekly

Elimination of Wet Patches Weekly

Repairs to Potholes Weekly

Feed Troughs Cleaned and swept when necessary



Cleaning, Checking & Maintenance Schedule

Frequency and / or Action

Cleaned after rain Weekly clearing of spoilt food and residue

Water Troughs Daily inspection for leaks and broken valves Drained and cleaned Weekly or as required

Under Fence Cleaning

Monthly cleaning (or after manure obstructs pen drainage) Cleaned after rain Cleaned between cattle drafts Any buildup of manure to be removed before wet weather is predicted

Pen Cleaning At intervals between drafts of cattle once the manure pad is developed, not exceeding 10 – 12 weeks

Pen Surface

Checked after runoff events and repaired as required Repaired after rain Graded and mounded between cattle drafts Scraped back to suitable pad level on 3-occasions per year

Diversion Banks and Drains After runoff events and repaired as required Graded and scraped as required Weed Management as required

Sedimentation System Checking After runoff events and repaired as required

Sedimentation System Cleaning Cleaned as soon as practically possible after manure has dried enough to handle with machinery

Holding Pond Checking After runoff events and repaired as required

Holding Pond Cleaning Drawn down annually and sludge removed when effective capacity is reduced 25%

Evaporation Pond

Level reviewed after runoff events De-silted as sediments rise to a depth of 0.5 m Annual bank grading Pumped out when water available

Manure Stockpile Windrowed as manure is hauled from pens and pond

Roads Graded Annually

Regular cleaning and maintenance in and around the Feedlot, in accordance with Class 1 specifications will minimise odour emissions and reduce the risk of any amenity impacts on neighbouring sensitive receptors. Regular cleaning:

reduces manure build up within the pens which reduces overall odour emanating from the Feedlot

eliminates wet spots in the Feedlot pens, which reduces fly breeding areas and also reduces odours.

The machinery to be used for pen cleaning and maintenance activities includes:

skid steer loader – under fence cleaning and removal of solids from around feed and water troughs.

front-end loader to remove manure out of the pens and stockpile area.

rigid and articulated tip trucks for removing manure from the pens to the manure stockpile / composting area, loading manure and compost for transport to the reuse areas



front-end loader for mixing and aerating the manure windrows and carcass compost.

3.3 Manure Stockpile / Carcass Composting Area Management

Manure Stockpile Management

Manure removed from the pens will be laid out in windrows on a purpose built compacted clay pad with the long axes perpendicular to the land contours to ensure free drainage. The stockpiled manure will decompose anaerobically. Anaerobic bacteria break down the organic matter, reducing the total dry weight of the manure. The nitrogen content is reduced by its conversion to gaseous forms that are released to the atmosphere during the decomposition process. The concentration of other less volatile and less soluble nutrients such as phosphorus, increase in the stockpile as the volume of manure decreases. The anaerobic decomposition process generates considerable heat. Temperatures up to 54o C are commonly experienced. The heat generated in well-managed stockpiles is considered to be sufficient to sterilise any weed seeds and a significant proportion of potentially harmful pathogens contained in the manure. The manure stockpiles are actively turned over to encourage complete composting.

Carcass Composting Procedure

The expected number of mortalities per year is 180 animals (approximately 87 t of carcasses). The majority of carcass mass is moisture and will evaporate, significantly reducing the mass remaining after composting. The mass of carcasses is considered negligible when compared to the mass and nutrient content of manure that will be handled. Carcasses will be composted in separate windrows to the bulk manure windrows. The following summarises the construction and management of a carcass compost windrow:

place at least 0.3 m of sawdust or straw on the base of the pad before placing the carcass. This ensures the carcass has high carbon material underneath it to absorb leachate

cover each carcass with at least 0.5 m of manure before placing the next carcass, but don’t stack more than two high

use the high carbon covering material to shape the top of the windrow like the top of a triangle to shed rainfall

ensure the carcass is always well covered. Good coverage assists the composting process by adding a carbon source, and is essential for controlling odours and in deterring vermin from disturbing the windrow

allow carcasses to decompose for around 4 weeks before turning active composting may last for up to 4-8 months

after active composting leave the composted windrow to mature for at least 3-4 months. Since effective aerobic composting of mortalities is a low odour process, the mortalities composting area is not expected to be a significant odour source. Mortality composting is preferred to burial which can pose a risk to groundwater if the base of the burial pits is not properly sealed.

3.4 Effluent, Manure and Compost Reuse

Effluent, manure and compost will be treated as a by-product from the operation of the Feedlot which has significant value as a farming input. The nutrient content of these by-products will be accounted for in all cropping enterprises run by Ceres. The term “by-product” collectively refers to effluent from the holding ponds, and stockpiled manure and compost from the manure stockpile/carcass composting area.



Appendix 1 includes a plan, ‘Property Plan showing Cultivation Landuse on Gunyerwarildi Aggregation’, that shows the cultivation areas available for manure/ composting spreading. This includes an area of approximately 8011 hectares. The effluent reuse area is included in the layout plans, also in Appendix. This includes a total area of 90 hectares. The by-products will replace a large amount of other fertilizers that would otherwise be trucked-in for use in the broad acre cropping enterprise on “Gunyerwarildi Station”. Ceres will apply the by-products to existing cultivated areas to improve crop production and soil quality. The crops will be harvested as hay, silage and grain to use at the Feedlot. The above figure presents the original effluent, manure and compost reuse areas on “Gunyerwarildi Station” and the proposed buffers to sensitive sites. (e.g. watercourses, remnant woodlands, drainage lines and property boundaries). This plan was approved under the existing 5,000 head development. No new areas for by-product use are available on the farm.

Reuse Methods

Effluent from the holding pond will be applied to land through two centre pivots covering an area of approximately 90 hectares in total. Additional centre pivot circles can be developed if required. The application of effluent through the two pivots would occur at a potential application rate of 14 mm per hectare, allowing a total application for the pivots of up to 12.6 ML per pass. Manure and compost will be applied using a tractor towed multi-purpose spreader. The rate of application would vary from 5 tonnes per hectare for dryland and more sensitive areas through to 20 tonnes per hectare when anticipation of high yields is possible for summer silage crops on a full moisture profile.

Nutrient Budgets for Effluent and Manure Recycling

Effluent Irrigation Budget This Section provides a nutrient balance to determine the minimum land area required to sustainably reuse the nutrients in the effluent taking into account the nutrient demand of the crops to be grown on the effluent reuse area. The proposal allows for development of two centre pivots, mainly a 26 Ha Pivot and a potentially 64 Ha pivot. The cropping program to be undertaken on the two pivot areas needs to consider the nutrients contained in the effluent. In the case of an extreme wet year, the effluent would be applied to empty the dams and management would then need to development an appropriate cropping program to utilise the nutrient applied. This may involve a 2 to 5 year cropping program to utilise nutrient applied in an extreme wet year. Ceres currently grows a range of crops during both winter and summer. The following provides typical yield from crops to be grown and average nutrient removed during harvest.

Table 13: Typical Dry Matter Yield and nutrient content of dry matter removed through harvest

Crop Yield Nutrient Removed kg/Ha/Year

N P K

Lucerne 15 450 45 270

Dryland winter cereal 4 80 12 20

Forage sorghum 20 40 60 480

The following table presents average concentration of various parameters for feedlot effluent after settlement in a pond. The data presents a summary of effluent concentrations for effluent assessed



from feedlot sampling undertaken by SMK Consultants. The concentration of effluent will vary considerably as a result of the ration, cleaning of pens and holding times for the effluent. The table also provides an estimation of nutrient generated from the feedlot based on average annual runoff of 1.18 ML/Ha for the pens.

Table 14: Effluent Concentrations Nutrient Average concentration

in effluent (mg/L) Average annual production

(USDA Rainfall runoff model – 52 ML/y) tonnes

N 148 7.7

P 40 2.1

K 460 23.9

Na 260 13.5

Ca 100 5.2

Mg 72 3.7

Cl 620 32.2

SAR 4.6

EC dS/cm 1

The proposed two centre pivot areas shown in Figure 1 will be used for summer and winter cropping. The following table presents calculations to identify the Minimum area requirement for the most effective crops for utilisation of the key nutrients being N, P and K applied as irrigation. The calculations do not include a loss of nutrient through the system from natural processes such as volatilisation of N. The intention of the calculations is to provide a conservative estimate of the annual requirements for nutrient recycling through the effluent disposal program.

Table 15: Calculation showing disposal area requirements for average annual runoff and 90-Percentile wet year for recycling of all nutrient generated through effluent from the Feedlot

Nutrient Average concentration

in effluent mg/L

Average annual production

t/year

Area required for complete uptake of key Nutrient (Ha)

Long term Average runoff

Silage Lucerne

N 148 7.7 19.2 17.1

P 40 2.1 34.7 46.2

K 460 23.9 49.8 88.6

The above table provides a mass balance assessment to determine the area of two key crops to be grown under the centre pivot irrigation system to produce hay for the Feedlot. The balance identifies an average runoff year where the feedlot would generate approximately 1.18 ML per Ha from pens. The table indicates that a typical crop rotation would require additional fertilizer. The effluent irrigation area would be subject to crop rotations including other crops not included in the above table. The table identifies that the long term average recycling of nutrient would occur with crop rotations within the 90 Ha irrigation area. For a 90-percentile wet year, the calculations indicate a potential require for the potassium generated from such an extended wet year, is sufficient to grow 104.5 Ha of silage to provide a net balance and avoid issues of accumulation of nutrient in the soil. On this basis, management would need to factor the use of silage to recover the nutrient available in an extreme wet year. In such a year, soil moisture



levels would remain high and therefore yields from the silage may increase above the average yield of 20 tonnes per hectare indicated as the base crop. The irrigation area would be subjected to annual or bi-annual pre-planting soil tests to monitor soil nutrient levels and therefore provide a basis for ongoing planning of the cropping cycles that meet the Feedlot’s requirements as well as manage nutrient applied through the effluent.

Manure Production and Application Ceres proposes to spread the composted manure on existing cultivated areas in the summer and early autumn months prior to planting mainly winter cereals. Table 15 shows a nutrient balance that has been calculated for manure reuse areas assuming potential crop nutrient removal from winter wheat harvested as grain. Current research of feedlots indicated an annual production of 0.8 to 1.2 tonnes per head per annum of total manure. Once this loses moisture through the various handling and composting processes, the expected remaining total solids are in the order of 0.45 tonnes per head per annum. For a 20,000 head feedlot, total annual production to be used in preparing a mass balance for solids is therefore in the order of 9,000 tonnes. A mortality rate of 0.3% would generate approximately 70 mortalities per year (approximately 34 t of carcasses). BEEFBAL (QPIF 2004) calculated that 70 carcasses would only add 850 kg of N, 235 kg of P and 61 kg of K at the start of composting process.

Table 16: Primary nutrient production and cropping area requirements for 20,000 head feedlot

Nutrient Average

concentration in manure

Average nutrient

production tonnes

Winter cereal Ha

Grain sorghum Ha

Forage sorghum

Ha

Maize Silage

Ha

N 2.18 % 196.2 2,452.5 1226.25 490.5 392.4

P 0.8 % 72.0 6,000 3000 1200 960

K 2.32 % 208.8 10,440 8700 435 556.8

Ceres propose to utilise the manure and nutrient as a soil enhancement and a replacement for fertilizers. The above table provides a nutrient budget for primary dryland crops to be grown with assistance from the composted manure from the feedlot. The above table indicates a range of crops which can be included in a dryland cultivation rotation plan for the uptake of nutrients and for supply of crop to the Feedlot ration. The intent of the cropping rotation plan would be to produce some of all crops but utilise crops such as silage to reduce any accumulation of nutrient such as P and K in the soil. The table indicates that winter cereal does not utilise a lot of P or K, however a winter cereal can be followed by a silage crop which would utilise much larger amounts of these primary nutrients to enable a long term balance to be achieved.

Salt Loadings from Effluent, Manure and Compost

The concentration of salts in stockpiled manure and effluent is heavily influenced by the amount of salt in the diet, salts in the water supply and the amount of evaporation from the effluent holding pond (duration of storage). If the salts applied are not used or leached, then soil electrical conductivity levels will gradually increase.



It is important to monitor salt levels in the soil and this will be done on a regular basis. Monitoring would include samples of manure, effluent and soil to where effluent or manure is applied. The monitoring would provide ongoing data for management to determine the trend in soil salinity and potential crop rotation or procedures such as dilution of effluent that may need to occur. Soil and water data to date has not identified any significant salt issues in the soil, effluent or manure.

Minimum Areas Required for Effluent and Manure Reuse

The minimum land required for a sustainable effluent and manure reuse program is based on the uptake of the primary nutrients of N, P and K. For effluent, the sustainable area for N is smaller than the irrigation area and therefore it is expected that additional N maybe required. The sustainable application of P and K through the irrigation system will require various crop rotations including the two examples provided in table 15. The use of a lucerne crop to lower the K levels would be a key part in the crop rotation to provide a nutrient balance when soil nutrient data is indicating a rise in P and K levels. For manure, the sustainable crop rotation program will need to be varied to ensure the uptake of P and K. Continued cropping of winter cereals such as wheat would require a manure spreading program to cover up to 10,444 hectares. There is approximately 8011 hectares available on the Gunyerwarildi aggregation and an additional 8209 hectares on the Proponent’s Moree Plains aggregation. However, the intention is to utilise the manure at Gunyerwarildi. The intention is to apply the manure at a rate of 5 tonnes per hectare on a 5-year cycle. Average annual application rate would therefore be approximately 1.1 tonnes per hectare. Farm management intend to monitor the soils prior to each application in order to create a history of application and a nutrient budget to monitor soil nutrient levels and crop uptake balances.

3.5 Feedlot Operational Details

Number of Persons Employed

The operation and management of the completed Feedlot will employ up to 30-40 full time staff members.

Hours of Work

Hours of work will normally range between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm for both weekdays and weekends. This includes during construction and operation. The main tasks likely to occur during these times include feed preparation and distribution, cattle handling, induction and dispatch, pen cleaning and manure management. Some heavy vehicle movements are likely to occur outside normal operating hours (e.g. in summer, as it is desirable to transport cattle either at night or in the early hours of the morning for animal welfare reasons). The Feedlot will require the flexibility to allow strategic heavy vehicle movements outside of the normal operating hours. It should be noted that all trucks hauling cattle and materials to and from the site are required to weigh off across the weighbridge. The Proponent has implemented a policy of restricting the hours of operation across the weighbridge as a management procedure to control the flow of vehicles to and from the site outside of normal operating hours. The weighbridge generally operates between 7am and 6pm, 7-days per week. Some exceptions during harvest periods and receival of cattle from distant source will occur outside of these hours. It is predicted that the operation



of vehicles outside of these hours would potentially impact staff on site and not neighbouring properties or the local road network.

Fire Management Strategy

There will be no be flammable chemicals (fuel) stored near the Feedlot site, as existing facilities on “Gunyerwarildi Station” will be used to support the construction and operation of the Feedlot. There will be a graded road around the Feedlot (inside the CDA) that will act as a firebreak and also provide access for fire-fighting vehicles. The buffer between the eastern boundary of the Feedlot complex and property boundary that adjoins Gunyerwarildi NP will be cultivated and managed, including planting of trees (see Photograph 2). The Gunyerwarildi NP has a high density of vegetation right up to the boundary of “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

Photograph 2: Photograph showing land management between Feedlot and National Park

Ceres plans to retain a permanent fire break zone along this boundary fence as a buffer zone to the NP to minimise the risk of a fire originating from Gunyerwarildi NP impacting on the Feedlot site. The fire break would consist of a road or 5 – 10 m wide cultivation strip that is not cropped or planted to trees. It is noted that the boundary strip is heavily grazed by native animals originating from the Park. The Milling complex includes workshops, grain storages and sheds. Fuel and chemicals are stored in this area. The fuel is stored in appropriate facilities with approved separation buffers and fire control facilities (Fire extinguishers). Chemicals are delivered to the farm on an as required basis. The majority of these chemicals consist of non-flammable herbicides. The storage and management of fuel and chemicals is undertaken in accordance with appropriate WH&S Policies. The Rural Fire Service will be contacted in the event of a fire. Staff will fight the fire, if it is reasonably safe to do so. Ceres has the following fire-fighting equipment based on the property:

three 4WD ute mounted units

Bedford truck with 2000 L tank

D6 dozer

grader (contracted by Ceres Agricultural). If initial firefighting attempts are unsuccessful, or too dangerous, all staff would be evacuated to a safe area and the cattle let out of the pens into the surrounding paddocks.



Lighting

Some lighting upgrades may be required around cattle handling facilities to allow for night loading and unloading of cattle. However, no lighting is proposed for the Feedlot pens. Any outdoor lighting installed will comply with Australian Standard AS1158.1.1 (1997 – Road Lighting) and AS4282 (1997 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting). The isolation of the site from neighbouring residents is considered to be sufficient to avoid any offsite impacts.

Vermin and Disease Control Measures

Fly, mice and rat populations will be managed primarily through the Feedlot management schedule. (i.e. minimise feed wastage and spillage to reduce the likelihood of attracting vermin). If the vermin population reaches a nuisance level the Feedlot will implement a baiting program. The program would include placement of fly baits to manage bush flies and other baits around the milling area to manage outbreaks of mice. Other disease control measures, in particular Q Fever, is managed through the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme and Workplace Health and Safety Regulation. The existing feedlot is accredited and it is intended the completed feedlot will be fully compliant upon completion.

Emergency Animal Disease and Mass Mortality Contingency Plans

Emergency animal disease outbreak and / or mass mortality contingency plans have been developed as part of the existing Feedlot operation. The mass burial pit if required, is to be located within the northern centre pivot circle or immediate adjoining paddock. The soil in this area consists of 3m or more of heavy black clay with a permeability rate of less than 1 x 10-9 m/s. In the event of a mass death, Ceres would excavate an appropriate pit according to the scale of the deaths. Management protocol includes advising LLS of the mass deaths in addition to EPA. The cattle would be buried and covered by 1m of clay once an investigation is completed to determine the cause of the deaths.

4 Statutory Matters The development proposal is considered both designated and integrated development under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This Section of the report describes how the proposed Feedlot will address and / or comply with the local planning policies; state and federal legislation and relevant guidelines. The applicable policy and / or objects of each piece of legislation is provided, followed by a statement outlining how the development will address and / or comply with the planning policies; and state and federal legislation.

4.1 Justification for the Proposal

Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000 requires a detailed justification of the proposal and suitability of the site for the proposed extension of the Gunyerwarildi Feedlot. The following justification considers the potential biophysical, economic and social impacts and compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

Biophysical

The potential biophysical impacts associated with the proposed Feedlot include:

destruction of minor flora and fauna habitat

potential impacts on local surface water during extreme rainfall events

use of artesian water under approvals issued by DPI Water



application of effluent and manure to cultivation paddocks for the recycling of nutrients from the feedlot which may alter soil nutrient levels.

The existing feedlot was located on a cultivation paddock adjoining the original cattle yards and induction pens that had originally formed the primary centre for cattle management on Gunyerwarildi. The new 15,000 head feedlot extension is to be built in sections on either side of the existing feedlot. The northern pens are to be located within cleared cultivation. The pond system for these pens is downslope. The ponds are to be located in an area of open Bimble box woodland and therefore some clearing is required. The clearing will be restricted to approximately 1.9 hectares. Drains associated with the ponds will be constructed along existing cleared fence and road areas through the woodland. The southern section 1 will be located on cleared cultivation land. The southern section 2 area will require removal of approximately 8-single paddock trees within a cultivated improved pasture area. The sediments ponds for the two southern sections will be located in cleared improved pasture areas. The main holding pond for the two southern sections is to be located on the edge of a section of open Bimble box woodland. The construction of this pond will require the removal of approximately 20-trees at the eastern edge of this woodland remnant. The Proponent will provide a voluntary offset area of Bimble box woodland along the western side of the feedlot which is located between the feedlot and the irrigation area. This woodland will be retained as a voluntary offset for clearing of the southern pens. The whole development is to be located in a highly disturbed and modified habitat area that has to date been utilised for either cultivation, improved pasture development or temporary holding paddocks for cattle. The loss of habitat and therefore potential Biophysical impact of the proposal is considered to be minimal. The preservation of a voluntary offset area which will be retained as a permanent remnant woodland is considered satisfactory in relation to species, habitat composition and local fauna corridor links with other woodland areas such as the adjoining National Park.

Economic

The development is considered to have positive benefits for the local and regional economies. The construction phase will generate employment opportunities and income for contractors in the local area. Once the Feedlot is operational it will offer the equivalent of 30-40 full-time employment positions, additional work for those involved in haulage and the opportunity to purchase cattle, grain and fodder locally. This would increase local income levels and potential spending in nearby towns such as Warialda. Hence, the proposed Feedlot is justified on economic grounds.

Social

The potential social impacts of the Feedlot were assessed in the EIS, taking into account the potential effects of odour, noise, dust and visual appearance on amenity; and aboriginal heritage. The Feedlot is considered to be remote from adjoining neighbours. The Feedlot is to be constructed to a class 1 standard. On this basis, no significant amenity impacts are predicted. Aboriginal heritage was considered and appropriate additional investigations were undertaken in consultation with the traditional land owners. The investigation concluded that the feedlot extension would not impact on known or newly identified sites of significance or artefacts. Based on the results of site investigations, the project can be considered justified on social grounds.



Ecologically Sustainable Development

Ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD) is defined as:

Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased. (DPM 1990)

ESD is integrated into NSW environmental legislation and government policy. Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1979 lists four guiding principles to assist in achieving ESD. They are:

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.

Inter-generational equity: the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity: conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

Improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources: environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as polluter pays, full life cycle costing, and utilising incentive structures / market mechanisms to meet environmental goals.

Precautionary Principle The Feedlot site can be developed in accordance with relevant Guidelines. Providing the Feedlot is sited, built and operated as described in this EIS, the development can operate as a sustainable long term activity. No substantial threats of serious or irreversible environmental harm were identified. In addition, environmental monitoring will be used to confirm that the Feedlot is operating in an environmentally sustainable way.

Intergenerational Equity It is not expected that the Feedlot will have any significant adverse environmental effects due to the suitability of the site and the proposed high standards of design, construction and management. Hence the proposed Feedlot provides for ‘intergenerational equity’.

Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity The extension of the feedlot is to occur on highly degraded habitat and areas currently used for cultivation. The adjoining areas of remnant vegetation in addition to the adjoining National Park will be preserved in their current condition. Biological diversity should therefore be maintained at the current level as feedlot is considered to have minimal impact on the surrounding natural habitat. Management intends to maintain appropriate and recommended buffers to woodlands and watercourses that will protect the integrity of the adjoining habitat. These buffers are set out in the proposal management documentation and mainly refer to the application of effluent and manure.

Valuation and Pricing of Environmental Resources Protection of amenity and natural resources has been considered throughout the Feedlot planning phase. The proposed environmental controls will add significant cost to the proposed development and they will provide an opportunity to enhance the existing environmental resources. The establishment of a permanent offset area will be beneficial to the feedlot as an improvement in the micro-climate within the feedlot area as well as providing habitat to species that would be beneficial to the feedlot (bats, predatory insects). The voluntary offset area of “like for like” Bimble box woodland is considered to fulfil best practice.



In conclusion, the proposed Feedlot can be justified on bio-physical, economic, social and ESD grounds.

4.2 Local Environmental Plan

The Gwydir Shire is a local government area in the New England region of New South Wales. The shire was established in 2004 when the Yallaroi, Bingara and a portion of the Barraba shires were merged. The northern boundary of the Shire is located adjacent to the border between New South Wales and Queensland. The Gwydir Local Environmental Plan 2013 (GLEP) is the current local government planning policy for the Gwydir Shire. The framework of the GLEP is derived from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. “Gunyerwarildi Station” is located in Zone RU1 – Primary Production of the Gwydir Shire. The particular aims of the GLEP are as follows:

a) to encourage the proper management, development and conservation of environmental, economic and social resources in Gwydir,

b) to facilitate economic growth and development consistent with the aim specified in paragraph (a) and that:

i. minimises the cost to the community of fragmented and isolated development, and ii. facilitates the efficient and effective delivery of amenities and services, and

iii. facilitates stimulation of demand for a range of residential, enterprise and employment opportunities and promotes agricultural diversity, and

iv. utilises, where feasible, existing infrastructure and roads when considering new development and future potential development,

c) to facilitate development in accordance with flood management planning, d) to facilitate development that is compatible with adjoining and nearby uses, e) to facilitate development that is appropriate in scale and type to the characteristics of the zone, f) to identify, protect and conserve places of European heritage significance and Aboriginal

heritage and cultural significance, g) to identify, protect, conserve and enhance natural assets.

Comment The proposed development is considered consistent with aims of the Local Environment Plan. In particular, the proposal will facilitate economic growth within the region through the support of surrounding grazing enterprises and existing service providers.

Land Use Definition

According to the GLEP, a Feedlot is defined as a land use involving “intensive livestock agriculture”. Intensive livestock agriculture is further defined in the GLEP as the keeping or breeding, for commercial purposes, of cattle, poultry, pigs, goats, horses or other livestock that are fed wholly or substantially on externally-sourced feed, and included any of the following:

(a) dairies (restricted); (b) Feedlots; (c) piggeries; and (d) poultry farms;

but does not include extensive agriculture, aquaculture or the operation of facilities for drought or similar emergency relief.



Comment The intended land use, as defined in the GLEP as intensive livestock agriculture, is a permissible land use, with development consent, within the RU1 – Primary Production zone.

Zone RU1 – Primary Production

The GLEP states that the objectives of the zone are: To encourage sustainable primary industry production by maintaining and enhancing the

natural resource base. To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and systems appropriate for the area. To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands. To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

Comment The proposal meets all objectives as prescribed by the GLEP 2013 for zone RU1. This development application allows for the expansion of a proven financially and environmentally sustainable operation, based on the production of a core primary industry. The protection of natural resources and places has been fully taken into consideration in the planning for this development. The continued utilisation of the land will minimise fragmentation and alienation. The proposal is not considered to conflict with the adjoining land uses, veritably the proposal is likely to enhance the potential of surrounding grazing enterprises. Other land uses include the Gunyerwarildi National Park, which is surrounded by land managed by the proponent. The proposed development is therefore considered to be both compatible and consistent with the surrounding land uses and would be considered to satisfactorily meet the objectives of the RU1 Primary Production Zone.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

The Feedlot development is not located on land which is classified as environmentally sensitive under the GLEP.

Heritage Conservation

Section 5.10 of the GLEP deals with heritage items and heritage conservation areas. These are listed in Schedule 5 of the GLEP. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

a) To conserve the environmental heritage of Gwydir, b) To conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas,

including associated fabric, settings and views, c) To conserve archaeological sites, d) To conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

Comment The proposal is not in the vicinity of any heritage items in accordance with Council’s Local Environmental Plan or under State or Federal legislation. The investigation of the development site involved a combination of a previous comprehensive archeological assessment which assessed the whole of the site subject to the new development proposal. This was further supported by additional ground search undertaken by Traditional Land holder representatives. The conclusion to the study indicated that no items of heritage significance are present on the new development area. No sites of European heritage would be disturbed by the proposal.



Bushfire Hazard Reduction

Section 5.11 of the GLEP deals with land that is considered bushfire prone and may require bushfire hazard reduction work. Bushfire hazard reduction work authorised by the Rural Fires Act 1997 may be carried out on any land without development consent. Bushfire Hazard Reduction Work includes the following:

a) The establishment or maintenance of firebreak on land, and b) The controlled application of appropriate fire regimes or other means for the reduction or

modification of available fuels within a predetermined area to mitigate against the spread of a bushfire,

But does not include construction of a track, trail or road.

Comment The development does not involve the erection of any buildings or dwellings. The extension will be primarily located on an existing cleared area of land, with minimal clearing required for the sedimentation and holding ponds. The majority of the area will be bare of vegetation and other readily flammable materials. Some reduction work will be undertaken to minimise the bushfire hazard to the development. A firebreak will be maintained around the development footprint. All weather roads will provide access for fire-fighting and the firebreak will provide access around the Feedlot. Water from on-site storages will provide an adequate supply for fire-fighting purposes.

Flood Liable Land

Section 6.2 of the GLEP deals with flood liable land. Flood liable land is land that is at or below the flood planning level. The flood planning level is defined as the level of a 1:100 ARI (average recurrent interval) flood event plus 0.5 metre freeboard. The GLEP states that development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

a) is compatible with the flood hazard of the land, and b) will not significantly adversely affect flood behaviour resulting in detrimental increased in the

potential flood affection of other development or properties, and c) incorporates appropriate measures to manage risk to life from flood, and d) will not significantly adversely affect the environment or cause avoidable erosion, siltation,

destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses, and

e) is not likely to result in unsustainable social and economic costs to the community as a consequence of flooding.

Comment The Feedlot site is located above flood liable land based on anecdotal evidence from Ceres. The access road between the Mill and the Feedlot crosses Croppa Creek. Based on history of flows in the creek, the access may be cut for 1 day during a major flood event and potentially 2-3 per year. Contingency plans for storage of fodder at the Feedlot site are in place for the existing and proposed development.

Sensitive Land

Section 6.3 of the GLEP deals with land that is identified as “Sensitive” on the Sensitive Lands Map. The objective of this clause is to protect sensitive land by minimising the adverse impacts of development on such land. Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:



a) The development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

b) If that impact cannot be reasonably avoided by adopting feasible alternatives – the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimised that impact, or

c) If that impact cannot be minimised – the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

Comment The Gwydir Shire was consulted extensively during the planning phase. Gunyerwarildi Station was not included in the areas identified as ‘Sensitive’ on the Sensitive Lands Map and the Shire did not raise any concerns about the site being considered sensitive land. Minimal vegetation removal will be required for the proposed Feedlot extensions.

4.3 Section 94 Development Contribution Plan

The Gwydir Development Contributions Plan No. 1 – Traffic Generating Development 2011 is relevant to this proposal. This plan was developed to ensure the operation of traffic generating development does not adversely impact on local roads and allow Council to assess the demand for road maintenance, repair and reconstruction arising from traffic generating development. Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 enables Council to levy contributions from developers for the provision of public amenities and services required as a consequence of development. Traffic generating development is considered as those developments that:

Require the use of road haulage vehicles to support the operation of the enterprise; Generate additional traffic movements above levels of traditional agricultural activities; Developments which include the following enterprises:

o Wool scouring plants o Abattoirs o Rendering Plants o Saleyards o Wood or timber milling or processing works including wood preservation works o Wineries or associated works o Warehouses o Light industry o Intensive Agricultural Enterprises

Feedlots Poultry farms Piggeries Dairies

o Composting Works o Transport Terminals o Grain Storage Complex o Feedmills o Extractive Industries o Mine o Rural Industry

Comment The proposed development is for an extension to an existing Feedlot. This is considered a traffic generating development under the Gwydir Development Contributions Plan. Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Council may include a condition of consent that details the following:



Require land to be dedicated free of cost; Require money to be contributed for works and facilities to be provided in the future; Require money to be contributed towards the cost of works in kind, in satisfaction of Section

94 requirements; or Require or accept a combination of any of the above.

In applying Section 94 contributions the Council must be fair and reasonable, and as such the contributions levied on development with the Gwydir Shire are limited to essential or base-line works.

4.4 State Legislation

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 The objects of this Act are as follows: (1)

(a) the conservation of nature, including, but not limited to, the conservation of: (i) habitat, ecosystems and ecosystem processes, and (ii) biological diversity at the community, species and genetic levels, and (iii) landforms of significance, including geological features and processes, and (iv) landscapes and natural features of significance including wilderness and wild

rivers, (b) the conservation of objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of cultural

value within the landscape, including, but not limited to: (i) places, objects and features of significance to Aboriginal people, and (ii) places of social value to the people of New South Wales, and (iii) places of historic, architectural or scientific significance,

(c) fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation,

(d) providing for the management of land reserved under this Act in accordance with the management principles applicable for each type of reservation.

(2) The objects of this Act are to be achieved by applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

(3) In carrying out functions under this Act, the Minister, the Director-General and the Service are to give effect to the following: (a) the objects of this Act, (b) the public interest in the protection of the values for which land is reserved under this

Act and the appropriate management of those lands.

Comment The proposal includes minor clearing within a highly degraded open bimble box woodland area that is currently utilised for cultivation and cattle production. In order to limit the impact of clearing additional land, the Proponent has included an area of like woodland as a permanent offset area. The offset provides an area of approximately 21 hectares of land in replace of clearing of approximately 1.9 hectares. An extensive archaeological survey was completed for the whole area covered by the existing 5,000 head feedlot as part of the existing development application. The original survey extended beyond the boundaries of the new development proposal. The extended survey concluded that there are no visible or recorded sites of archeological significance within the development proposal. The development work will include excavations and therefore appropriate actions will be enforced if objects of Indigenous or European heritage are encountered during this work.



The eastern boundary of the development site (Lot 68 – Deposited Plan 751084) shares a boundary with the Gunyerwarildi National Park (Gunyerwarildi NP). The Gunyerwarildi NP was treated as a “public use area” for the purpose of determining a suitable separation distance between the Feedlot development and the shared property boundary. These considerations protect the objectives of the Act.

The Heritage Act 1977

The objects of this Act are as follows: a) to promote an understanding of the State’s heritage, b) to encourage the conservation of the State’s heritage, c) to provide for the identification and registration of items of State heritage significance, d) to provide for the interim protection of items of State heritage significance, e) to encourage the adaptive reuse of items of State heritage significance, f) to constitute the Heritage Council of New South Wales and confer on it functions relating to the

State’s heritage, g) to assist owners with the conservation of items of State heritage significance.

Comment There are no known non-indigenous heritage items identified within or near the development site.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides the framework for NSW Planning Legislation. Under this Act, local councils prepare Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) that specify planning controls for specific parcels of land. The Act also provides for State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Regional Environmental Plans (REPs). Applicable SEPPs are discussed below. The objects of this Act are:

a) to encourage: i. the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial

resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

ii. the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

iii. the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, iv. the provision of land for public purposes, v. the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and

vi. the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

vii. ecologically sustainable development, and viii. the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and

c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

Comment



The EIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of this Act. It provides an environmental impact assessment and details of how the Feedlot will be developed and operated to protect the environment, the community and provide for ecologically sustainable development.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The objects of this Act are as follows: a) to conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development, and b) to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and

ecological communities, and c) to protect the critical habitat of those threatened species, populations and ecological

communities that are endangered, and d) to eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary

development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and e) to ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological

communities is properly assessed, and f) to encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities

by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management.

Comment This EIS has been prepared as per the requirements of this Act. A threatened species assessment and assessment of matters of national significance has been included as Appendix 6 and Appendix 7, respectively. The new Feedlot pens will be constructed in an area that is highly disturbed and currently used for agricultural purposes. Some clearing will be required for the construction of the sediment and effluent ponds. The flora and fauna assessments concluded the Feedlot development will have no significant impact on NSW and / or Commonwealth listed threatened species, populations or ecological communities if the Feedlot construction and effluent, manure and compost reuse occurs as detailed in this report. Buffer distances have been proposed to ensure that impact is minimal from the activities associated with the development including spreading effluent, manure and compost. The vegetation along the creeks through the property has also been excluded from Feedlot uses to protect biological diversity and provide wildlife corridors and habitats.

Rural Fires Act 1997

The objects of this Act are to provide: a) for the prevention, mitigation and suppression of bush and other fires in local government

areas (or parts of areas) and other parts of the State constituted as rural fire districts, and b) for the co-ordination of bush firefighting and bush fire prevention throughout the State, and c) for the protection of persons from injury or death, and property from damage, arising from

fires, and d) for the protection of the environment by requiring certain activities referred to in paragraphs

(a)–(c) to be carried out having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development described in section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

Comment The development does not involve the erection of any buildings or dwellings. The Feedlot will be located on an existing cleared area of land. The pen area will be free of vegetation and other readily flammable materials. A firebreak will be maintained around the development footprint. All weather



roads will provide access for fire-fighting and the firebreak will provide access around the Feedlot. Water from on-site storages will provide an adequate supply for fire-fighting purposes.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, it is an offence to cause water, air, noise or land pollution. The Act requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Feedlots with a capacity greater than 999 head. The objects of this Act are as follows:

a) to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in New South Wales, having regard to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development,

b) to provide increased opportunities for public involvement and participation in environment protection,

c) to ensure that the community has access to relevant and meaningful information about pollution,

d) to reduce risks to human health and prevent the degradation of the environment by the use of mechanisms that promote the following:

i. pollution prevention and cleaner production, ii. the reduction to harmless levels of the discharge of substances likely to cause harm to

the environment, iii. the elimination of harmful wastes, iv. the reduction in the use of materials and the re-use, recovery or recycling of materials, v. the making of progressive environmental improvements, including the reduction of

pollution at source, vi. the monitoring and reporting of environmental quality on a regular basis,

e) to rationalise, simplify and strengthen the regulatory framework for environment protection, f) to improve the efficiency of administration of the environment protection legislation, g) to assist in the achievement of the objectives of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

Act 2001

Comment The existing Feedlot is licensed under the POEA Act with the EPL 20463. When a new consent is issued for expansion of the feedlot, an application is to be lodged to amend this Licence accordingly. This EIS is considered to address the objectives of the Act. The EIS provides an assessment of the suitability of the site and the effectiveness of the proposed design and management procedures in protecting natural resources and the community. Specific recommendations for environmental monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of the protection measures are included.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1997

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act is the central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act protects the environment, particularly matters of National Environmental Significance (Protected Matters). The Act streamlines the national environmental assessment and approvals process, protects Australian biodiversity and integrates management of important natural and cultural places. This Act aims to:

a) provide for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance;

b) conserve Australia's biodiversity; c) protect biodiversity internationally by controlling the international movement of wildlife;



d) provide a streamlined environmental assessment and approvals process where matters of national environmental significance are involved;

e) protect our world and national heritage; and f) promote ecologically sustainable development.

Under the EPBC Act an action will require approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister if the action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance and the environment on Commonwealth land. Matters of National Environmental Significance are:

1. Listed threatened species 2. Migratory species 3. RAMSAR wetlands of international importance 4. The commonwealth marine environment 5. World heritage properties 6. National heritage properties 7. Nuclear actions

Comment This EIS includes an assessment of measures designed to protect the environment, promote the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources, promote biodiversity conservation and provide for the protection and conservation of heritage. Ceres has been operating the existing Feedlot to very high management standards. It is intended to extend this approach to environmental protection to the proposed development. An Environmental Assessment was undertaken and identified that no National Environmental Significance matters or Commonwealth land is likely to be impacted by the proposal. It was concluded that an approval from the Commonwealth Minister is not required. A copy of the Environmental Assessment has been included in Appendix 7.

Water Management Act 2000

The Water Act 1912 came into force at the turn of the last century and represented a different era in water management in NSW. This Act is being progressively phased out and replaced by the Water Management Act 2000. However, some provisions are still in force. The objects of the Water Management Act 2000 are to provide for the sustainable and integrated management of the water sources of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations and, in particular:

a) to apply the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and b) to protect, enhance and restore water sources, their associated ecosystems, ecological

processes and biological diversity and their water quality, and c) to recognise and foster the significant social and economic benefits to the State that result from

the sustainable and efficient use of water, including: i. benefits to the environment, and

ii. benefits to urban communities, agriculture, fisheries, industry and recreation, and iii. benefits to culture and heritage, and iv. benefits to the Aboriginal people in relation to their spiritual, social, customary and

economic use of land and water, d) to recognise the role of the community, as a partner with government, in resolving issues

relating to the management of water sources, e) to provide for the orderly, efficient and equitable sharing of water from water sources, f) to integrate the management of water sources with the management of other aspects of the

environment, including the land, its soil, its native vegetation and its native fauna,



g) to encourage the sharing of responsibility for the sustainable and efficient use of water between the Government and water users,

h) to encourage best practice in the management and use of water.

Comment The objects of this Act were considered throughout the planning and design phases of this development. Feedlots require a secure and reliable water supply to operate. Ceres will utilise existing water access Licenses to supply water to the feedlot. The water storages to be built as part of the Feedlot are considered permissible under the Act as they will be capturing effluent runoff. The use of this water through the centre pivot system is also considered permissible. There are no levee structures to be constructed within the adjoining floodplain of Croppa Creek. The watercourses and groundwater in the vicinity of the property will be protected through rigorous design and management practices, including good effluent, manure and compost reuse methods. Appropriate buffers are to be maintained in order to minimise the risk of stream pollution.

Native Vegetation Act 2003

The objects of this Act are: a) to provide for, encourage and promote the management of native vegetation on a regional

basis in the social, economic and environmental interests of the State, and b) to prevent broad scale clearing unless it improves or maintains environmental outcomes, and c) to protect native vegetation of high conservation value having regard to its contribution to such

matters as water quality, biodiversity, or the prevention of salinity or land degradation, and d) to improve the condition of existing native vegetation, particularly where it has high

conservation value, and e) to encourage the revegetation of land, and the rehabilitation of land, with appropriate native

vegetation, in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Comment This EIS has been prepared as per the requirements of this Act. The proposed extensions will involve an area of land that is mostly cleared and currently used for agricultural purposes. The construction of the effluent and sediment ponds will require minimal clearing. The proposed clearing will be offset by the retention of “like for like” woodland. The voluntary offset woodland area is part of the overall design of the site as the woodland is to be preserved to maintain the micro-climate of the feedlot site. The clearing is considered permissible for the purpose of the development of farm infrastructure.

4.5 State Environmental Planning Policies and Development Codes

The following table presents a summary and comment on State Environmental Planning Policies and development code relevance to the proposed development.

Table 17: State Environmental Planning Policies and Development Codes

SEPP No. & Codes Title Relevance

No. 1 Development Standards Not Relevant

No. 14 Coastal Wetlands Not Relevant

No. 15 Rural Land sharing Communities Not Relevant




No. 19 Bushland in Urban Areas Not Relevant

No. 21 Caravan Parks Not Relevant

No. 26 Littoral Rainforests Not Relevant

No. 29 Western Sydney Recreation Area Not Relevant

No. 30 Intensive Agriculture

Refer to following section for Intensive Agriculture

No. 32 Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land)

Not Relevant

No. 33 Hazardous & Offensive Development

Refer to following section for Hazardous & Offensive

Development

No. 36 Manufactured Home Estates Not Relevant

No. 39 Spit Island Bird Habitat Not Relevant

No. 44 Koala Habitat Protection

Refer following section for Koala impact review

No. 47 Moore Park Showground Not Relevant

No. 50 Canal Estate Development Not Relevant

No. 52 Farm Dams and Other Works in Land and Water Management Plan Areas

Not Relevant

No. 55 Remediation of Land

Refer following section for Remediation of Land

Review

No. 59 Central Western Sydney Regional Open Space and Residential

Not Relevant

No. 62 Sustainable Aquaculture Not Relevant

No. 64 Advertising and Signage Not Relevant

No. 65 Design & Quality Residential Flat Development Not Relevant

No. 70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) Not Relevant

No. 71 Coastal Protection Not Relevant

Affordable Rental Housing 2009 Not Relevant

Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Not Relevant

Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008

Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004

Not Relevant

Infrastructure 2007

Refer following section for Infrastructure Review

Kosciuszko National Park—Alpine Resorts 2007 Not Relevant

Kurnell Peninsula 1989 Not Relevant

Major Development 2005 Not Relevant

Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries 2007

Not Relevant

Miscellaneous Consent Provisions 2007 Not Relevant

Penrith Lakes Scheme 1989 Not Relevant

Rural Lands 2008

Refer following section for Rural Land Review

State and Regional Development 2011 Not Relevant




Sydney Drinking Water Catchment 2011 Not Relevant

Sydney Region Growth Centres 2006 Not Relevant

Three Ports 2013 Not Relevant

Urban Renewal 2010 Not Relevant

Western Sydney Employment Area 2009 Not Relevant

Western Sydney Parklands 2009 Not Relevant

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 30 – Intensive Agriculture

The aims of this Policy are: a) to require development consent for cattle Feedlots having a capacity to accommodate 50 or

more head of cattle, and piggeries having a capacity to accommodate 200 or more pigs or 20 or more breeding sows, and

b) to provide for public participation in the consideration of development applications for cattle Feedlots or piggeries of this size, and

c) to require that, in determining a development application for cattle Feedlots or piggeries of this size, the consent authority is to take into consideration the following, so as to achieve greater consistency in environmental planning and assessment:

a. the adequacy of the information provided in the statement of environmental effects or environmental impact statement accompanying the development application, and

b. the potential for odours to adversely impact on the amenity of residences or other land uses within the vicinity of the site, and

c. the potential for the pollution of surface water and ground water, and d. the potential for the degradation of soils, and e. the measures proposed to mitigate any potential adverse impacts, and f. the suitability of the site in the circumstances, and g. whether the applicant has indicated an intention to comply with relevant industry codes

of practice for the health and welfare of animals, and h. the consistency of the proposal with, and any reasons for departing from, the

environmental planning and assessment aspects of any guidelines for the establishment and operation of cattle Feedlots or piggeries published, and made available to the consent authority, by the Department of Agriculture and approved by the Director of Planning.

Comment The proposed development meets the definition of intensive agriculture, as a cattle Feedlot with capacity to accommodate greater than 50 head of cattle. This development also meets the criteria for integrated development. This EIS has addressed the policy aims of SEPP No 30. In particular, it assesses the potential for odour, water pollution and soil degradation; and measures to mitigate any potential adverse impacts. The proposal is for an extension to an existing site that has been considered suitable for the intended purpose and complies with all relevant industry codes. The applicant, Ceres will continue to manage the Feedlot to ensure a very high standard of animal welfare and health.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Developments

SEPP 33 applies to any proposals which fall under the policy’s definition of ‘potentially hazardous industry’ or ‘potentially offensive industry’. A ‘potentially hazardous or offensive industry’ means a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example,



isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would either: Potentially hazardous industry Pose a significant risk in relation to the locality:

a) to human health, life or property, or b) to the biophysical environment,

and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment. Or Potentially offensive industry Emit a polluting discharge (including for example, noise) in a manner which would have a significant adverse impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, and includes an offensive industry and an offensive storage establishment. This Policy aims:

a) to amend the definitions of hazardous and offensive industries where used in environmental planning instruments, and

b) to render ineffective a provision of any environmental planning instrument that prohibits development for the purpose of a storage facility on the ground that the facility is hazardous or offensive if it is not a hazardous or offensive storage establishment as defined in this Policy, and

c) to require development consent for hazardous or offensive development proposed to be carried out in the Western Division, and

d) to ensure that in determining whether a development is a hazardous or offensive industry, any measures proposed to be employed to reduce the impact of the development are taken into account, and

e) to ensure that in considering any application to carry out potentially hazardous or offensive development, the consent authority has sufficient information to assess whether the development is hazardous or offensive and to impose conditions to reduce or minimise any adverse impact, and

f) to require the advertising of applications to carry out any such development.

Comment SEPP No 33 applies to proposals falling under the definition of ‘potentially hazardous industry’ or ‘potentially offensive industry’. This proposal could be considered a potentially offensive industry, as the extension to the existing Feedlot has the potential to generate adverse odour emissions. Under SEPP No 33 the permissibility of industrial proposals is linked to safety and pollution control performance. The SEPP aims to ensure the merit of proposals are properly assessed before being determined. It aims to ensure that developments can only proceed if they are suitably sited and can demonstrate that they will be built and operated with an adequate level of safety. This EIS demonstrates that the Feedlot is suitably sited. The main waste products from the Feedlot are manure, effluent and compost. However, these can be sustainably reused on-site as an alternative to inorganic fertilizers. The Feedlot will not produce hazardous waste products. While all Feedlots produce some odour, this will be minimised through good design and management. Additional protection is provided through separation distances between the site, the closest residences and other areas with sensitive land uses. Hence, nuisance odours are not expected at nearby residences or other surrounding areas with sensitive land uses.



State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 (SEPP 44) – Koala Habitat

This Policy aims to encourage the conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas, to ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of koala population decline. The SEPP aims to achieve this by:

requiring the preparation of plans of management before development consent can be granted in relation to areas of core koala habitat;

encouraging the identification of areas of core koala habitat; and encouraging the inclusion of areas of core koala habitat in environmental protection zones.

The land included in the local government areas listed under Schedule 1 is subject to assessment under this Policy. The Policy provides the following definitions:

Core Koala Habitat means an area of land with a resident population of koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a population.

Guidelines means the guidelines, as in force from time to time, made for the purposes of this Policy by the Director.

Potential Koala Habitat means areas of native vegetation where the trees of the types listed in Schedule 2 constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component.

Comment The Gwydir Shire is included, as the former Yallaroi Shire, in Schedule 1 of SEPP 44 and therefore an assessment of Koala Habitat is required. An assessment of potential koala habitat was undertaken in accordance with SEPP 44. The following listed Koala Food Tree Species have been previously identified within the property area:

Bimble Box (Eucalyptus populnea) River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) White Box (Eucalyptus albens)

The site inspection of the proposed development area revealed the subject area is substantially cleared and only Bimble Box was identified in the areas that would require clearing. However, these trees do not comprise at least 15% of the total trees in either the upper or lower strata. Further, no records of a resident population or sighting exists for the project area. The area has been heavily modified for operation of an existing Feedlot, cultivation and cattle production. The existing activity on the site is considered to be a deterrent for a local Koala population. The adjoining Gunyerwarildi National park may on occasion be utilised by Koalas, however this area is managed by NSW National Parks and it is assumed that management includes appropriate actions to retain suitable habitat for Koalas. Consequently, the development area is not considered to constitute ‘potential koala habitat’ within the provisions of SEPP 44. On this basis, the requirements of the SEPP 44 do not need any further consideration in this assessment.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) – Remediation of Land

The purpose of this policy is to provide a state-wide planning approach to the remediation of land. In particular, this policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing the risk of harm to human health or other aspects of the environment. SEPP 55 aims to achieve this:

a) by specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work, and



b) by specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out a remediation work in particular, and

c) by requiring that a remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.

Comment The proposed development site is used for agricultural purposes including grazing and cropping, in association with the existing Feedlot. It is unlikely historical grazing and cropping operations of the site would have resulted in contamination of the site. During an inspection of the property no evidence of visible contamination from current or post practices was identified. Further, the subject land is not identified as being potentially contaminated and is therefore considered to be suitable for the intended use. It was accordingly determined that no further investigation under SEPP 55 was required.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The aim of this Policy is to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by: a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for

infrastructure and the provision of services, and b) providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and c) allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government

owned land, and d) identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure

and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure development, and

f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the assessment process or prior to development commencing.

Comment This development meets the criteria for Integrated Development. This EIS has addressed the policy aims of SEPP – Infrastructure. The Feedlot will continue to use state roads and existing power infrastructure. The expected vehicle movements and types of vehicles pertaining to the operation of the Feedlot are detailed in this report.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008

The aims of this Policy are as follows: a) to facilitate the orderly and economic use and development of rural lands for rural and related

purposes, b) to identify the Rural Planning Principles and the Rural Subdivision Principles so as to assist in

the proper management, development and protection of rural lands for the purpose of promoting the social, economic and environmental welfare of the State,

c) to implement measures designed to reduce land use conflicts, d) to identify State significant agricultural land for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing viability of

agriculture on that land, having regard to social, economic and environmental considerations, e) to amend provisions of other environmental planning instruments relating to concessional lots

in rural subdivisions. Comment The Shire supports the use of land for cattle Feedlots within zone RU1 Primary Production under the Gwydir Local Environmental Plan, 2013. This development does not include the erection of any buildings or dwellings, or subdivision of land.



4.6 Federal Legislation

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The objects of this Act are: a) to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment

that are matters of national environmental significance; and b) to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically

sustainable use of natural resources; and c) to promote the conservation of biodiversity; and d) to provide for the protection and conservation of heritage; and e) to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment

involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples; and f) to assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia’s international environmental

responsibilities; and g) to recognise the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use

of Australia’s biodiversity; and h) to promote the use of indigenous peoples’ knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of,

and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge.

In order to achieve its objects, the Act: a) recognises an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in relation to the environment by

focusing Commonwealth involvement on matters of national environmental significance and on Commonwealth actions and Commonwealth areas; and

b) strengthens intergovernmental co-operation, and minimises duplication, through bilateral agreements; and

c) provides for the intergovernmental accreditation of environmental assessment and approval processes; and

d) adopts an efficient and timely Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval process that will ensure activities that are likely to have significant impacts on the environment are properly assessed; and

e) enhances Australia’s capacity to ensure the conservation of its biodiversity by including provisions to:

i. protect native species (and in particular prevent the extinction, and promote the recovery, of threatened species) and ensure the conservation of migratory species; and

ii. establish an Australian Whale Sanctuary to ensure the conservation of whales and other cetaceans; and

iii. protect ecosystems by means that include the establishment and management of reserves, the recognition and protection of ecological communities and the promotion of off-reserve conservation measures; and

iv. identify processes that threaten all levels of biodiversity and implement plans to address these processes; and

f) includes provisions to enhance the protection, conservation and presentation of world heritage properties and the conservation and wise use of RAMSAR wetlands of international importance; and

g) includes provisions to identify places for inclusion in the National Heritage List and Commonwealth Heritage List and to enhance the protection, conservation and presentation of those places; and

h) promotes a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation through:

i. bilateral agreements with States and Territories; and



ii. conservation agreements with land-holders; and iii. recognising and promoting indigenous peoples’ role in, and knowledge of, the

conservation and ecologically sustainable use of biodiversity; and iv. the involvement of the community in management planning.

Comment This EIS includes an assessment of measures designed to protect the environment, promote the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources, promote biodiversity conservation and provide for the protection and conservation of heritage. Through extensive consultation, and tailoring of the proposal, Ceres have developed a cooperative approach to the protection and management of the environment. In particular, the traditional land owners were involved in an archaeological survey and will be involved in the future management and preservation of artefacts found; a flora and fauna assessment was undertaken and the included recommendations have been adopted; and there has been ongoing consultation with neighbouring land holders, council and government agencies. The development is not considered to have potential impacts on matters of National significance. This assessment is included as Appendix 7.

4.7 Development Application and Licence Requirements

Development Assessment

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, local Councils / Shires prepare Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) that specify planning controls for specific parcels of land. The subject land is zoned RU1: Primary Production. The operation of a cattle Feedlot in RU1 represents a permissible land use of Intensive Livestock Agriculture. Consent from the Gwydir Shire is required to expand the currently operational 5,000 head Feedlot, to a 20,000 head Feedlot. Under Schedule 3, Clause 21 of the EP & A Regulation 2000, beef cattle Feedlots that will accommodate more than a 999 head in a confinement area and rear or fatten them (wholly or substantially) on prepared or manufactured feed are considered a designated development and an EIS must be submitted with the development application. The proposed expansion of the 5,000 head Feedlot to a capacity for 20,000 head of cattle is considered to be Designated Development under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal also requires approval under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and the Water Management Act 2000 and is therefore considered Integrated Development. As part of the integrated assessment process the Shire must refer therefore development application and EIS to the other relevant state agencies for assessment.

Licences Required

Livestock Intensive Activities are considered Scheduled Activities under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997 (POEO Act). The Feedlot currently operates under Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 20463. Once approval is issued from the Gwydir Shire Council for the expansion, the application will need to be lodged with the NSW EPA to amend some conditions on the Licence to enable use of the site for 20,000 head. No other Licences are required for the operation other than water licences which have been discussed previously.



The Feedlot is operated as an accredited cattle Feedlot. This is an option that the Proponent has embraced to ensure that appropriate quality standards are maintained and the cattle can be sold as feedlot cattle.

5 Identification and Prioritisation of Issues

5.1 Consultation

Throughout the course of preparing this EIS, there has been extensive consultation with various local and state government agencies. These include:

Gwydir Shire Council (GSC)

Crown Lands (CL)

Department of Primary Industries – Agricultural Land Use Planning Unit (DPI Ag)

Department of Primary Industries - Water (DPI Water)

Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries (DPI Fisheries)

Department of Planning and Environment (NSW P&E)

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Office of Environment and Heritage – National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)

Moree Local Aboriginal Land Services In particular, a Planning Focus Meeting (PFM) was conducted to identify site-specific issues that needed to be addressed.

Planning Focus Meeting

SMK Consultants facilitated an on-site PFM on 21st January 2016 for a proposal to develop a 20,000 head Feedlot on the property of ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’. This meeting provided an introduction to some of the key contacts at the relevant local government agencies. The meeting details are listed in the following table.

Table 18: Planning Focus Meeting Summary

‘Gunyerwarildi Station’ Feedlot – Planning Focus Meeting Summary

Meeting Date 21st of January, 2016

Meeting Time 11 am

Meeting Location

‘Gunyerwarildi Station’

Attendees

Name Company

Mark Mason

Ceres Agricultural Company

Amy Collins

Jack Vivers

Rod Edmonds

James Walker

Peter Taylor SMK Consultants



‘Gunyerwarildi Station’ Feedlot – Planning Focus Meeting Summary

Hayley Greenham

Michael Lewis NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Todd Andrews NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI)

Sally Balmain North West Local Land Services

Adam Marshall Member for Northern Tablelands

Apologies

Glen Pereira Gwydir Shire Council (GSC)

Christie Jackson NSW DPI – Water

David Geering Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

George Barrott-Brown

OEH - National Parks and Wildlife Services

All persons associated with the meeting received a summary of the feedlot proposal and a summary of notes obtained from the meeting for further comment. The summary and notes were incorporated in the EIS documentation. In particular, the following section provides specific comments of the discussion at the PFM.

Additional Issues and Comments The nominated effluent and reuse areas will be nominated in the EIS and a requirement for

annual soil testing incorporated into the operating procedures to ensure good management of the areas. Testing would include phosphorous, nitrogen and sodicity.

The possibility of installing tail-water drains for the effluent reuse areas. This will be dependent on the water balance and area reserved for reuse.

The proponent does not expect any issues with sodicity, the area is not vulnerable and salt is not added to the feed ration. Additionally, the stockpiled manure is tested on a monthly basis, which will continue.

It was decided the although a clear pass was obtaining using a Level-1 Odour Assessment, that an Advanced Level-1 Odour Assessment would be able to incorporate more detail that is considered relevant for the site. The advanced assessment will be included in the EIS.

The Gunyerwarildi National Park (NP) was debated in terms of ecological value, biosecurity and hunting issues. The park is considered a safe haven for pest species, including feral pigs. The planted buffer zone and crops have been adversely impacted by the foraging activities of pest species.

The existing buffer of 184m to the NP, which was included in the conditions of consent, will remain in place. The proponent intends to maintain the vegetation in the buffer. The proposed development does not encroach on the NP.

The proposed clearing will include approximately 8 Bimblebox trees, in an area that is not considered to be an Endangered Ecological Community. The appropriate offset areas will be established.

The existing operations address dust through site management including the use of gravel roads and low speed limits, there is a watering tank on-site if required.

There will be additional truck movements on the local road network (as addressed above). Adam Marshall, Member for the Northern Tablelands considered the development would



benefit from long-term improvements to the roads. It was agreed that road train access would result in increased efficiency and fewer truck movements. The proponent would like to see upgrades to the roads and has been a co-contributor to the development of the Warialda Bypass.

The intersection for Gunyerwarildi Station will be upgraded in line with the North Star road being upgraded to road train access.

The feedmill capacity will be detailed in the EIS, including current and proposed capacity. Complaints – Only complaints received by Council related to odour and fly populations that

adjoining landholder attribute to intensive grazing of cattle in grass paddocks around the edge of the Ceres aggregation, and not in relation to the Feedlot operation itself.

Road reserve at front entrance – There is a Council road reserve that the Council engineers indicated is fenced into Gunyerwarildi and Council are happy to release this land to Ceres through a road closure application. This is unclear, and SMK Consultants will look into it.

The proposal will result in employment opportunities for between 30-40 full-time staff, with carry on impacts to the local community. The proponent actively supports local business with an inherent desire to maintain services within the region.

The meeting included a site inspection of the existing Feedlot pens and proposed site for the extension of the pens, sediment and holding ponds.

Summary of Key Issues

The following table outlines the key issues identified during the planning and consultation phases of the Feedlot development including the specific issues outlined in the DGRs; and the general issues identified during consultation with state agencies and traditional owners.

Table 19: Summary of Key Issues

Specific issues identified DPE EPA DPI Ag

DPI Lands

DPI Water

DPI Fisheries

OEH GSC Section

Strategic Context including a justification of the project, its consistency with planning instruments and list of approvals.

✓

✓ 4

Waste Management including details of the proposed handling, stockpiling, reuse and disposal measures. Consistency with the WARR Strategy.

✓ ✓

2.2.6, 2.4.9, 3.3, 3.4, 7.6,

8.1.1

Animal Welfare, Biosecurity and Disease Management including compliance with relevant codes of practice and guidelines, disease control measures and contingency measures.

✓ ✓

2.2.4, 7.14,

8.2.5, Appendix 16

Disposal of mortalities management of mortalities under normal and mass death conditions.

✓ ✓

3.5.6

Air Quality, Odour and Dust including potential sources of air emissions and odour; an air quality impact assessment consistent with EPA Guidelines and proposed mitigation and monitoring procedures.

✓ ✓

7.7, 8.1.2,

Appendix 5

Noise and Vibration including potential impacts of construction, operation and traffic sources in accordance with the relevant EPA guidelines. Outline of the

✓ ✓

✓ 7.10, 8.2.1



Specific issues identified DPE EPA DPI Ag

DPI Lands

DPI Water

DPI Fisheries

OEH GSC Section

proposed mitigation and monitoring measures.

Water Resources including licensing and approvals under the relevant legislation and consistency with any relevant Water Sharing Plan.

✓ ✓ ✓

2.2.7, 8.1.3, Appendix 2

Soil and Water including a description of soils, the water management system, effluent system, and any required floodplain management. An assessment for the potential of existing on-site contamination and details for sediment and erosion controls, including impact mitigation and monitoring measures.

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.9,

8.14, Appendices

12 & 14

Groundwater including potential impacts on water sources and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Details of lining requirements to meet the minimum permeability requirements.

✓

✓

6.7, 6.8, 7.2, Appendix 14

Surface Water including management systems for the protection of surface and groundwater from runoff from pens, effluent evaporation ponds and manure application, to prevent offsite discharge.

✓

✓

6.6, 7.1, 7.9,

8.1.4

Traffic and Transport including details on road transport routes and access to the site; traffic predictions and an assessment of the safety and function of the road network.

✓

✓

2.2.9, 2.4.7, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 7.12, 8.2.3

Biodiversity including any vegetation clearing, an assessment of potential impacts on threatened species including measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset biodiversity impacts.

✓

✓

6.10, 7.15, 8.2.6,

Appendices 6,7 & 15

Aquatic Ecology including an aquatic ecological assessment.

✓

6.6.1, Appendix 9

Visual including an impact assessment. ✓ ✓ 7.3 Heritage Impacts including Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage. ✓

✓

6.11, 7.16, Appendix 8

Gunyerwarildi National Park, impacts and access.

✓

✓

2.5, 6.2, Appendix 11

Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment ✓

6.2.1,

Appendix 10

6 Description of the Existing Environment

6.1 Property Location

“Gunyerwarildi Station” is located approximately 30 km north of the Warialda township in the Gwydir Shire. Appendix 1 presents a locality plan highlighting the property in reference to the Warialda township, in addition to major watercourses and drainage lines in the region. Appendix 1 also includes a cadastral plan highlighting the lots of land associated with “Gunyerwarildi Station”, the proposed



Feedlot site and other nearby properties are owned by Pegela Pastoral Holdings, a related entity to Ceres Agricultural Company Pty Ltd. The following table shows the lot and DP numbers of the land associated with “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

Table 20: "Gunyerwarildi Station" Real Property Description

Lot No. Plan No. Lot No. Plan No.

4 DP751084 100 DP751084

14 DP751084 105 DP751084

17 DP751084 131 DP751084

18 DP751084 132 DP751084

24 DP751084 133 DP751084

25 DP751084 136 DP751084

31 DP751084 137 DP751084

34 DP751084 138 DP751084

35 DP751084 119 DP751084

36 DP751084 1 DP751133

37 DP751084 8 DP751133

38 DP751084 9 DP751133

43 DP751084 10 DP751133

53 DP751084 11 DP751133

54 DP751084 12 DP751133

55 DP751084 16 DP751133

56 DP751084 18 DP751133

57 DP751084 20 DP751133

58 DP751084 29 DP751133

59 DP751084 55 DP751133

60 DP751084 30 DP751133

61 DP751084 53 DP751133

62 DP751084 1 DP1093713

66 DP751084 2 DP1093713

67 DP751084 3 DP1093713

68 DP751084 4 DP1093713

69 DP751084 5 DP1093713

79 DP751084 6 DP1093713

80 DP751084 7 DP1093713

81 DP751084 8 DP1093713

82 DP751084 6 DP131026

83 DP751084 7 DP131026

86 DP751084 10 DP131026

96 DP751084 12 DP131026

6.2 Surrounding Land Uses

Gunyerwarildi Station is located in a rural zoned part of the Gwydir Shire and is surrounded by grazing and cultivation properties. The property surrounds the western edge of Gunyerwarildi National Park, which is access through the applicant’s property. Gunyerwarildi National Park was created in December 2005 and covers an area of approximately 316 ha. The park is surrounded by the Proponent’s land. An open crown road traverses the proposed Feedlot development and provides legal access to the Gunyerwarildi National Park. There is no formed road on this crown road. NPWS utilise internal Ceres



roads to access the Park under an informal agreement at present. Discussions were undertaken with NPWS to relocate this access to enable closure of the Crown road. The preferred method would involve creation of a “track in use” easement between the Warialda-North Star road via Ceres internal roads to link with the Park. The discussions reached a preliminary agreement prior to the decision of Ceres to expand the Feedlot. The processing of a formal agreement stopped until the final layout for the 20,000 head was determined. Once this is finalised, Ceres intends to continue the discussions and formalise the easement for access to the Park for NPWS. Discussions occurred with NPWS representatives during the preparation of this application. Advice was provided to them that the formalisation of this agreement would continue once Ceres determined whether the Feedlot proposal could process. Appendix 11 presents a copy of the original agreement documentation presented by NPWS. This document has not been signed. The plan of the easement will require minor modification to align with the road system to be developed with the new Feedlot. Work will proceed on this agreement during the review of the EIS and development application phase.

Neighbouring development

Correspondence with the Gwydir Shire Council indicated that there were no nearby development applications. This correspondence is included as Appendix 3. A Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment (LUCRA) was also undertaken and is included as Appendix 10.

Proximity to Receptors

Appendix 5 includes a plan showing the location of the nearest residences (receptors) to the Feedlot site including the Gunyerwarildi NP, which is considered a “public use area”. The Feedlot has been sited within the central northern part of the Proponent’s property and is therefore relatively isolated from adjoining landholder residences.

6.3 Existing Infrastructure

“Gunyerwarildi Station” is a large, well developed property and the existing infrastructure will be utilised to operate and maintain the expanded Feedlot. The existing infrastructure includes cattle handling facilities, steam flaker and feedmill, extensive grain and storage facilities, machinery sheds, weighbridge, offices, residences and formed internal gravel roads that were purpose built to provide all weather access for heavy vehicles. The following photographs show some of the existing infrastructure. The Gwydir Shire provided development consent to construct the steam flaking mill, steam chest, silos and commodity storage shed in October 2010 (Development Application No: DA 10/2010). The Gwydir Shire provided development consent to develop the 5,000 head cattle Feedlot in December 2015. There are seven existing residences on “Gunyerwarildi Station”, which are occupied by Ceres employees. There are two houses located within 400m of the feedlot pens.



Photograph 3: Existing Cattle Handling Facilities

Photograph 4: Grain Storage Silos, Steam Flaker and Feedmill



Photograph 5: Commodity Storage Shed

Photograph 6: Machinery Shed



Photograph 7: Weighbridge and grain sampling facility

Photograph 8: Internal Road Crossing of Croppa Creek



Photograph 9: Formed Gravel Road between Feedlot and Feed Mill

Photograph 10: Newly completed Intersection onto Warialda North Star road

Internal Roads

Photograph 9 shows the existing, internal formed gravel road that connects the Feedlot site to North Star Road. The road is 11 m wide and it allows two B-double trucks to pass safely without one of the trucks pulling off the formed part of the road. Ceres maintains the road surface using its own equipment and crushed rock from a quarry on ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’.



Property Entrance/ Exit off North Star Road

Traffic enters / exits “Gunyerwarildi Station” from North Star Road. North Star Road is a sealed state road. Traffic generated by the Feedlot is distributed evenly from both directions at this intersection. The area is approved for B-Doubles on the RMS Restricted Access Vehicle (RAV) Map. The Gwydir Shire is currently reviewing the potential to increase truck size and weight on this local road. Truck traffic on this road is generally seasonal. Peak truck traffic periods are associated with grain harvest periods. Throughout the remainder of the year, truck traffic generally consists of stock haulage trucks. Vehicles exiting ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’ experience the following:

Sight distance from the exit onto North Star Road is 300 m to the west; and 250 m to the east.

Photographs 12 and 13 show the sight distance from the Gunyerwarildi exit onto North Star Road and into the property.

Photograph 11: North Star Road (Westerly Aspect)

Photograph 12: North Star Road (Easterly Aspect)

The intersection was constructed under the existing Consent for the Feedlot. The design and completion of the intersection was approved through the Gwydir Shire Council.



6.4 Soils

Geology of the area generally consists of tertiary basalts, with soils a mix of grey and brown clay / clay loams (Morgan & Terrey 1992). A site inspection took place on the 22nd of December, 2015 and again on the 12th of January, 2016. Soil samples were collected from the proposed site location and the effluent reuse area. The subsoil samples were analysed by TriLab in Brisbane for permeability, and East West Laboratories in Tamworth analysed the soil chemical characteristics. Appendix 12 presents the respective laboratory analysis results.

Photograph 13: Typical Soil profile beneath Feedlot site

In general, the soil profile across the development site consists of a light sandy loam surface layer generated from soil washing from the upper slopes in the adjoining National Park. This is underlain by various layers of brown and red heavy plastic clay material that is naturally dense and showing signs of low permeability in the form of white carbonate layers. The deeper subsoil below 3m or more contains gravelly clay materials which is extremely dense. The gravel material includes shales and some minor basalt material. The soil pits across the site indicated a relatively dense impermeable structure. Soil across the lower floodplain area which is cropped and to be included in the effluent disposal area consists of heavy grey-black clay. Appendix 12 includes an EM 31 survey across the effluent disposal area. The survey shows that the soils are relatively consistent across the whole of the surveyed area. The variations in apparent conductivity were attributed to soil moisture resulting from a recent cropping removing a significant amount of soil moisture and an area of poorer crop production where soil moisture was higher. Soil analysis results will be used to determine the suitability of the soil for the intended purpose of the development.



Soil Observations and Analysis

The site inspection conducted by SMK Consultants on the 22nd of December 2015 resulted in several test pits being excavated to a depth of approximately 3 metres or more to determine subsoil characteristics and obtain samples for permeability analysis. The following map indicates the location of each test pit. Samples were collected from test pits 1-3 and analysed for permeability. The results are discussed in Section 6.4.3.

Figure 4: Location of Soil Test Pits

The following tables describe the typical soil profiles and physical characteristics observed at each test pit.

Table 21 - Soil Characteristics at TP 1

Depth (mm) Colour Texture

0-600 2.5 YR 3/4 Dark red, dry cracking Sandy loamy clay

600-1400 2.5 YR 4/6 Red, carbonate modules Medium heavy clay

1400-2300 2.5 YR 6/8 Light red, carbonate modules Medium gravelly clay

2300-3000 7.5 YR 4/3 Brown, with mudstone Medium gravelly clay

3000-3500 10 YR 8/8 Yellow, with sandstone Light gravelly clay

Table 22: Soil Characteristics at TP 2


0-1300 2.5 YR 3/4 Dark red, dry cracking Sandy loamy clay

1300-2300 7.5 YR 8/2 Pinkish white, calcareous soft segregation and organic matter

Medium heavy clay

2300-3400 10 YR 8/8 Yellow, with organic matter and roots Light clay





0-200 7.5 YR 7/8 Reddish yellow Light sandy clay

200-1100 2.5 YR 4/6 Red Medium heavy clay

1100-2700 10 YR 8/8 Yellow, with white sandstone Light gravelly clay



0-1100 10 YR 2/1 Black, calcareous soft segregations Medium heavy clay

1100-2800 7.5 YR 4/1 Grey Medium loamy clay

2800-3800 10 YR 8/8 Yellow, sandstone at 3800mm

Light gravelly clay, forming sandstone



0-800 2.5 YR 2.5/4 Dark reddish brown Medium loamy clay

800-1200 7.5 YR 8/2 Pinkish white, calcareous soft segregation and organic matter

Medium heavy clay

1200-1800 10 YR 8/8 Yellow, sandstone at 1800mm

Light sandy clay soil and calcium carbonate nodules

Four (4) samples were collected from the proposed effluent reuse area using a random sampling technique to a depth of 300mm. These samples are considered representative of the reuse area which is regularly used for broad acre cropping. Table 26 provides the GPS coordinates of the 4 sample sites, which is considered representative of the topsoil in the effluent reuse area.

Table 26: GPS Coordinates of Sample Sites in Effluent Reuse Areas

Site Number Easting Northing

1 258460.10 6759881.27

2 258909.76 6759630.17

3 254187.41 6760190.17

4 258806.25 6760234.57

The soil samples were analysed by East West Pty Ltd. Appendix 12 shows the laboratory results.

Interpretation of Soil Analysis Results for Effluent Reuse Area

pH pH is a measure of the soils acidity and alkalinity, which provides an indication of the activity of the hydrogen ion (H+). Acidic and alkaline soils effect the availability of nutrients and soil biological activity, impacting on soil fertility and overall plant growth. The soil samples were analysed using a 0.001M CaCl2 solution. This type of pH test is considered more reliable in assessing acidity and varies less with different seasons. Sample 1: pH 7.79 – mildly alkaline Sample 2: pH 7.69 – mildly alkaline Sample 3: pH 7.49 – mildly alkaline



Sample 4: pH 7.85 – moderately alkaline The results indicate surface soils in the proposed effluent application area are mildly - moderately alkaline, with a pH range of 7.49 -7.85 (CaCl2). This level of alkalinity is within the optimum range for field crops such as barley (6.25-7.85) and lucerne (6.5 – 7.5).

Nitrogen (N) Extractable Nitrate-N is a measure of the highly mobile form of inorganic nitrogen in the soil that is available to plants and susceptible to leaching. A high level of total N in the soil contributes to increased organic matter, which aids in strong and stable structure and provides a plant nitrogen source after mineralisation by soil microbes. Sample 1: Extractable Nitrate-N – 12.3 mg/kg Sample 2: Extractable Nitrate-N – 12.5 mg/kg Sample 3: Extractable Nitrate-N – 16.9 mg/kg Sample 4: Extractable Nitrate-N – 7.7 mg/kg The sampling results indicate the extractable Nitrate-N content of the surface soil was within the desired range of 10-50 mg/kg.

Phosphorus (P) Colwell-P measures the labile, ready available phosphorous in the soil and the phosphorous that is susceptible to potential leaching. The Grain Research & Development Corporation suggested critical values for phosphorous availability in subsoils in northern vertosols are <10 mg/kg and >100 mg/kg. Phosphorous Buffering Index (PBI) indicates the ability of the soil to remove soluble phosphorous, such as fertiliser applications. The results for Site 1 indicate the Colwell-P concentration in the soil was 9.9 mg/kg with a buffer index of 121 mg/kg. The results for Site 2 indicate the Colwell-P concentration in the soil was 24.0 mg/kg with a buffer index of 122 mg/kg. The results for Site 3 indicate the Colwell-P concentration in the soil was 17.8 mg/kg with a buffer index of 83.1 mg/kg. The results for Site 4 indicate the Colwell-P concentration in the soil was 9.5 mg/kg with a buffer index of 141 mg/kg. These values are within the critical range of Colwell-P levels and considered a PBI category of low, with phosphorus readily available (Moody 2007).

Potassium (K) Exchangeable Potassium (K) is essential for plant growth. Clay soils have a higher nutrient holding capacity and require higher levels of available K than other types of soils. The exchangeable potassium measured at Site 1 was 428 mg/kg which is considered high (>300 mg/kg). The exchangeable potassium measured at Site 2 was 418 mg/kg which is considered high (>300 mg/kg). The exchangeable potassium measured at Site 3 was 411 mg/kg which is considered high (>300 mg/kg). The exchangeable potassium measured at Site 4 was 411 mg/kg which is considered high (>300 mg/kg).

Cation Exchangeable Capacity (CEC) CEC is the total capacity of the soil to hold and exchange cations. It generally provides a buffer effect to fluctuations in pH, nutrient availability, calcium levels and soil structure. Good fertile soils with high clay content and moderate to high organic matter levels usually have a cation exchange capacity of 10 or higher (DPI, 2004). The most dominant cations in soils are calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), potassium (K+), sodium (Na+) and in very acidic soils aluminium (Al3+).



The sum of the Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+ concentrations give an approximate value of CEC called the Effective CEC (ECEC), which has been used to calculate the exchange capacity of the soil at the site. The desired range for the ECEC is between 5-25 Cmol/kg. Sample 1: ECEC – 66.5 Cmol/kg Sample 2: ECEC – 58.9 Cmol/kg Sample 3: ECEC – 51.2 Cmol/kg Sample 4: ECEC – 66.4 Cmol/kg The ECEC for the soil samples at Gunyerwarildi Station exceeded the desired range to a depth of 30cm. The exchange was dominated by exchangeable calcium and magnesium cations in the sub soil. The presence of the calcium is beneficial. The presence of a high level of magnesium is a natural condition of these soils. The high level of magnesium can affect soil structure for highly plastic clays in relation to soil pod formation.

Electrical Conductivity (EC) The electrical conductivity (EC) of soil is influenced by the concentration and composition of dissolved salts and therefore EC levels are considered an indicator of salinity. Salts increase the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current, so a high EC value indicates a high salinity level. Generally, an EC 1:5 water extract <0.15 dS/m is considered as low and will not affect plant growth. Sample 1: EC – 0.17 dS/m Sample 2: EC – 0.15 dS/m Sample 3: EC – 0.12 dS/m Sample 4: EC – 0.19 dS/m Samples 2 and 3 were below the preferred level of 0.15 dS/m, whilst samples 1 and 4 were slightly above the preferred level of dissolved salts. High EC levels can be caused by too much fertiliser, salty irrigation water or saline groundwater, and can be exacerbated by extended dry periods. Soil texture will also influence the degree to which the amount of salt present in the soil will affect plant growth. Therefore, the most useful and reliable measure of salinity (ECe) accounts for soil texture by applying a conversion factor. Gunyerwarildi Station predominantly consists of light to medium clays, and as such the appropriate conversion factor is a multiplication of 8.6. The ECe results for the samples are: Sample 1: EC – 1.46 dS/m Sample 2: EC – 1.29 dS/m Sample 3: EC – 1.03 dS/m Sample 4: EC – 1.63 dS/m The ECe results ranged between 1.03-1.63 dS/m. This is within the criteria, 0-2 dS/m, for low salinity (lowest category) and indicates that there are no salinity issues at the site. Note: If comparisons were to be made between alternative prospective sites with varied soil types an ECe conversion factor would need to be applied to each of the various soil types.

Calcium/ Magnesium Ratio The ratio of exchangeable calcium to exchangeable magnesium provides a guide to a soil's structure and any potential problems that might be influencing soil drainage, root development and subsequent



plant growth. Well-structured soils have a calcium-to-magnesium ratio greater than 2:1. It is unlikely for soils within NSW to be affected by either a calcium or magnesium deficiency. Sample 1: Ca/Mg Ratio – 1.73 Cmol/kg Sample 2: Ca/Mg Ratio – 1.65 Cmol/kg Sample 3: Ca/Mg Ratio – 1.77 Cmol/kg Sample 4: Ca/Mg Ratio – 1.67 Cmol/kg The soil tested at Gunyerwarildi Station was considered low. When the Ca/Mg ratio is less than 2, it can be more difficult for plants to take up potassium and soil structure can be adversely impacted through increased dispersion. Gypsum and lime are common ways of adding additional calcium to the soil.

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) The exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) is often used as an indicator of soil sodicity. A soil is considered non-sodic if ESP is less than 6%, sodic if ESP is between 6-15% and strongly sodic if ESP is greater than 15%. Sample 1: ESP – 2.75% Sample 2: ESP – 2.01% Sample 3: ESP – 1.98% Sample 4: ESP – 3.69% The results from the each of the soil samples were below 6% and therefore indicated non-sodic soils. The recorded ESP level will not contribute to soil structure decline or low infiltration rates at any of the sites.

Soil Permeability

Three (3) samples of clay material from the site was tested for saturated hydraulic conductivity using the test method AS 1289.5.1.1 – Standard Compaction. This is a compacted soil test used to determine soil permeability under optimum moisture content of the soil. The samples were remoulded to a target of 98% of standard dry density and at 100% optimum moisture content. The following Table 27 summarises the test results.

Table 27: Permeability of Sub-Soils

Sample ID Density Ratio (%) Optimum moisture content (%) Permeability k(20) (m/sec)

Test Pit 1 97.8 15.2 2.4 x 10 -10

Test Pit 2 97.8 17.0 2.1 x 10 -10

Test Pit 3 98.4 13.6 2.2 x 10 -09

The results indicate in situ clay soil is available that meets the required permeability of < 1 x 10-9 m/s, as required for Feedlot ponds and pens in Australia. This test was conducted in a NATA registered laboratory and the certificate of analysis is presented in Appendix 11.

Land Management

“Gunyerwarildi Station” incorporates physical barriers (contour banks) and routine management practices to conserve the land, and the condition of the soil. Based on the Practical Guide to Soil Erosion (Miller 2008) developed for the Border River Catchment Management Authority (CMA) there are two main land management classes present on “Gunyerwarildi Station”. They are:

Land Class 2 which covers the areas adjacent the Croppa and Sugarloaf Arm Creeks, which are relatively flat with a low erosion potential



Land Class 3 covers the gently sloping areas where contour banks have been installed to minimise erosion and allow grazing and cropping to occur without adversely impacting the landscape.

Ceres practices minimum tillage as part of its winter and summer cropping program and uses precision guidance (GPS equipment) for planting, spraying and spreading fertiliser to minimise overlap (i.e. wastage of inputs). The majority of cereal stubble is conserved to maintain groundcover and minimise erosion potential from overland flow of stormwater. Much of the property has been retained for grazing of improved pastures to maintain the grass-fed enterprise. This is generally undertaken on steeper areas that are less suitable for cultivation.

6.5 Meteorological and Climatic Data

The following information is based on Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) information for Warialda Post Office (Site: 054029) and Moree Aero (Site: 053115), which are the closest recording station to ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’ that could provide comprehensive datasets. The climate is typical of a semi-arid environment with typically long hot summers and a winter of cool clear days. Rainfall is extremely variable throughout the year and potential evaporation of over 2,000 mm annually.

Rainfall

The average annual rainfall for Warialda is 686.5mm. The summer months usually provide the best falls, with the remaining months providing generally even falls. Summer rain tends to be more variable than winter rain due to the incidence of thunderstorms in summer.

Table 28: Monthly Rainfall Data from the Warialda Post Office 1878-2015

Monthly Rainfall (mm)

Mean

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year

86.4 79.1 63.8 40.4 43.7 45.4 45.2 39.1 43.1 58.2 70.3 72.3 686.5

Median 72.6 63.5 48.3 29.9 33.4 38.1 40.6 34.4 35.7 49.8 57.1 58.9 660.8

90th percentile 177.7 159.7 140.3 89.0 102.8 90.8 83.0 79.2 92.0 112.9 145.0 135.7 915.5

Historical Records The highest daily rainfall recorded in Warialda was 231.0mm on the 11th of February 1976 and the highest monthly rainfall recorded was 362.7mm in January 1910. The highest annual rainfall recorded in Warialda was 1205.2mm in 1879 and the lowest annual rainfall was 304.6mm in 1919.

Design Storm IFD Data The Bureau of Meteorology website provided Rainfall Intensity-Frequency-Duration (IFD) data for storm events at the proposed development site. A 1 in 20-year storm event with a 24-hour duration produces 130.3mm of rainfall in total. A 1 in 100-year storm event with a 1-hour storm duration produces 72.1mm of rainfall.

Temperature and Evaporation

Average maximum temperatures range from 18-20°C in the winter months to 32-33°C in the summer months. Average minimum temperatures range from between 4-5°C in the winter to between 18-20°C in the summer. In winter the minimum is below zero on an average of 9.2 days. In summer, on average, more than 36.8 days’ reach 35°C or higher. Records show a slight increase in the minimum temperature with time.



Annual evaporation is generally over 2,000 mm in Moree, with potential evaporation the greatest in January and lowest in June.

Table 29: Temperature and Evaporation Data from Moree Aero 1995-2015

Mean Monthly Temperature and Evaporation Levels

Max. (°C)


33.7 32.7 30.9 27.0 22.4 18.9 18.0 20.4 24.6 28.1 30.6 32.4 26.6

Min. (°C) 20.0 19.5 17.0 12.5 8.1 5.8 4.4 5.2 8.9 12.7 16.4 18.3 12.4

Evap. (mm) 313.1 252 238.7 168 114 78 83.7 120.9 171 238.7 273 303.8 2372.5

Wind Direction and Frequency

The closest recording station that could provide accurate long term wind data was Moree, located approx. 65km south-west of ‘Gunyerwarildi Station’. Table 30 shows prevailing wind observations from the Moree aerodrome based on observations recorded at 9am and 3pm.

Table 30: Wind Data from Moree Aero 1995-2015


Wind Direction (9am)

NE NE NE E E E E NE NE N NE N NE

% of Total Observations

40% 38% 35% 30% 35% 35% 35% 25% 30% 35% 32% 40% 28%

Wind Direction (3pm)

N N N SW SW SW SW SW W/ SW

SW N N SW

% of Total Observations

28% 22% 18% 25% 32% 25% 32% 28% 25% 22% 25% 28% 22%

The prevailing wind as recorded at 9 am blows is dominated by winds from the north-east and east.

The prevailing wind as recorded at 3 pm blows is dominated by winds from the south-west and north.



Figure 5: Wind rose, Moree Aero Site No. 053115, 9am and 3pm Observations

Site specific data was available from the proponent’s on-site weather station. The weather station records the direction and intensity of the prevailing wind conditions. Observations were available from October 2014 to January 2016. These measurements are summarised in Table 31 and presented as a wind rose in Figure 6.

Table 31 -Wind Data from Gunyerwarildi Station 2014 - 2016

Direction

Daily Summary

N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW

No. Observations 37 68 49 58 37 27 10 21 16 21 42 18 17 9 12 17

% Total Observations

8% 15% 11% 13% 8% 6% 2% 5% 3% 5% 9% 4% 4% 2% 3% 4%

The prevailing wind as recorded over a period of 24 hours is dominated by winds from the north-north-east and east-north-east.



Figure 6: Wind rose, Gunyerwarildi Station, Daily Observations (created with http://enviroware.com)

This is generally consistent with the long term trends identified in the wind patterns recorded at the Moree site. Both indicate normal wind conditions with no individual wind direction occurring greater than 60% of the time.

Humidity

Humidity in Moree is generally quite low. Relative humidity is generally higher during winter than summer. The 9 am mean relative humidity varies from 75% in June to 50% in October. The 3 pm mean relative humidity varies from 46% in June to 30% in October.

Frosts

Winter frosts occur Frosts occur when the ground temperature is less than 0°C. In Moree this happens an average of 26.6 days a year, with winter frosts occurring on average 7.5 days a month.

6.6 Surface Water

The existing Feedlot has been sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on surface waters external to the Feedlot CDA.

The proposed development of the Feedlot complex is not located in a flood prone area. The Feedlot complex is sited above the height of a 100-year average recurrence interval (Q100) flood.

The proposed Feedlot complex is to be enclosed within a CDA with appropriate diversion banks installed to divert clean water away from the Feedlot site.



The Feedlot waste utilisation areas are designed to enable the sustainable use of effluent and any solid waste that is utilised on site. The effluent reuse areas are not flood prone during minor to medium flood events. They are subject to some flooding during extreme flood events.

Watercourses

Two ephemeral watercourses pass through “Gunyerwarildi Station” – Croppa Creek and Sugarloaf Arm Creek. There are other small drainage lines on “Gunyerwarildi Station” that drain into the aforementioned creeks. An Aquatic Ecological Assessment has been included in Appendix 8. The report identifies a system of ephemeral streams through the property. Croppa creek includes several semi-permanent waterholes that are rain fed. No wetland is present. The assessment includes an outline of the potential impacts of the development on aquatic ecology and details the management and mitigation strategies to be implemented by the proponent to address these impacts. Figure 7 shows separation distances between the Feedlot site and nearby sensitive sites including Croppa Creek, Sugarloaf Creek and groundwater bores. Surface water from the dams is used for stock and domestic purposes on “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

Figure 7: Surface Water plan showing major stream and the Proponent’s land

6.7 Groundwater

In January 2016, DPI Office of Water provided groundwater bore search results within a 5 km radius of the Feedlot development site. The data showed there are 12 bores recorded near “Gunyerwarildi Station”. Ceres assessed the Office of Water data and confirmed the existence of the boreholes shown in Figure 9. Table 32 shows the drilled depth, depth to water bearing aquifer and the standing water level (SWL) for some of the bores shown in Figure 8.



Figure 8: Groundwater Sources

Table 32 shows the bores near the Feedlot development were drilled to depths between 66-139 m with water bearing aquifers not being encountered until 27 m below surface level (refer to Bore GW006774). The strata logs for the bores show clay layers varying from 0.9-22 m deep were encountered during drilling. Table 32: Summary of Groundwater Bore Logs

Bore Licence No. Distance from

Feedlot Site (m) Drilled Depth (m)

Depth to Water Bearing Aquifer

(m) SWL (m)

GW 970033 250 unknown unknown unknown

GW 006774 1,135 71 27 unknown

GW970054 1,295 unknown unknown unknown

GW 901613 1,470 75 54 unknown

GW 901614 1,480 66 57 unknown

GW 965319 1,765 unknown unknown unknown

GW 009126 2,110 91 80 78

GW 970037 2,300 unknown unknown unknown

GW022372 3,830 101 51 44

GW 009654 3,910 110 105 86

GW968288 4,575 66 52 42

GW 004989 4,645 65 42 unknown

There is no shallow groundwater table beneath the development area. Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE’s) are defined as ecosystems which have their species composition and their natural ecological processes determined by groundwater (ARMCANZ & ANZECC, 1996). No high priority GDE’s, as included in Schedule 4 of the Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Great



Artesian Basin Groundwater Source, have been identified within 50kms of the proposed development site. Figure 9 includes ecosystems with the potential to have a groundwater interaction that would define the systems as being dependent on a groundwater source. Croppa Creek has been identified as having moderate potential for groundwater interaction.

Figure 9: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Map

The proposed feedlot is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the potential GDE’s based on the following:

The completed feedlot is to be located on compacted impermeable soil. The local clay soils had an impermeability of less than 1 x 10-9 m/s. Given the relatively small scale of the development and existing impermeable attributes of the soil, it is unlikely the proposal will have an adverse effect on groundwater recharge.

The area is located above the Great Artesian Basin, which is a deep aquifer protected by extensive layers of medium-heavy clay soils. Shallow aquifers are uncommon in the region and typical groundwater tables are approximately ≥27m below ground. The soil in the area is considered impermeable. It is therefore considered unlikely that any potentially contaminated seepage could have an effect on the water quality of deep underlying or adjoining groundwater systems.

The proposed site is greater than 50kms from the nearest identified high potential or priority GDE and no works will occur within 250m of Croppa Creek.

Given the suitability and existing characteristics of the site it is unlikely that the proposed development will have any potential impacts on the surrounding habitat, groundwater levels or connectivity



between groundwater sources. Accordingly, there is no potentially significant threat to GDE’s within the vicinity of the site.

6.8 Existing Groundwater Monitoring Bores

The existing Feedlot has been required to install monitoring bores as part of the EPL. Seven (7) monitoring bores have been installed as part of the existing operation under the provisions of the current approval. The bores have been drilled to approximately 15m in depth but do not intercept any groundwater layers. Appendix 14 presents representative logs for these monitoring piezometers.

6.9 Topography

SMK Consultants surveyed the Feedlot site using an RTK GPS unit. Based on the results from the site survey the natural slope on the development site ranges between 1.5-2.0% in a west and south-westerly direction. The topography of the local area comprises extensive creek flats along both Croppa Creek and Sugarloaf Arm Creek, which sit at approximately 340 m AHD and a series of low lying hills rise to approximately 400 m AHD. Based on the 1: 50 000 topographic maps the Feedlot sits at approximately 360 m AHD. The topography between the Feedlot and neighbouring residences is summarised below:

residences east of the Feedlot site: the topography rises to the top of the Gunyerwarildi NP, then slopes down gently at approximately 1-2% to the receptors.

residences south, west and north of the Feedlot site: the topography slopes down gently to the creeks / drainage lines, then rises gently at approximately 1% to the receptors.

The Gunyerwarildi NP is located upslope of the Feedlot site and the highest point of the NP is approximately 380 m AHD.

6.10 Flora and Fauna

The development site is considered to be highly disturbed by agricultural operations including the existing feedlot operation, intensive cattle grazing and cultivation of the area to be developed. The habitat across the primary development site consists various grasses and weeds resulting from cultivation. The open woodland areas support some mature trees and some suckers but have a limited understorey layer as a result of heavy use of these areas for shade protection by cattle. A detailed flora and fauna assessment was undertaken by Envirofactor for the existing development of the 5,000 head feedlot. The assessment was prepared in March 2012 and included an assessment across the extended Feedlot site and effluent, manure and compost reuse areas. The report was provided by the Proponent to assist in the documentation to be lodged with the development application. Additional flora and fauna traverses were undertaken across the primary development area as an update to the original report. The following sections refer to the report completed by Envirofactor, as included in Appendix 15, with the inclusion of an updated Threatened Species list, as included in Appendices 6 and 7. A more recent site inspection was undertaken by SMK Consultants for the proposed clearing required to accommodate the sediment and holding ponds for the feedlot expansion area.



Biodiversity Assessment

The Envirofactor report described the area surrounding the Feedlot site as an area of undulating hills with highly fertile soils. Given past agricultural practices, the area has been extensively cleared for dryland cropping. The remnant native vegetation is subsequently “confined to sandstone ridges, small patches and scattered paddock trees within cropping paddocks, areas of crown land and linear strips along rivers, roadsides and Travelling Stock Reserves”. The remnant vegetation on “Gunyerwarildi Station” comprises a mosaic of grassy woodlands and derived grassland communities. The condition of these remnants is highly variable (from poor to very good) depending upon current livestock grazing management and proximity to cultivation areas. Two field inspections were undertaken as part of the original assessment. These were carried out on the 5th of December 2011 and the 23rd January 2012. The inspection of adjoining weeping Myall woodlands identified two threatened flora species, mainly Belson’s Panic (homopholis belsonii) and Lobed redgrass (bothriochloa biloba). Lobed redgrass (bothriochloa biloba) was listed as vulnerable at the time of the report, but has been delisted in both Queensland and New South Wales since 2013. On the 22nd of December 2015 SMK Consultants carried out a site inspection of the areas proposed for the Feedlot extension. The majority of the area has been fully cleared with some additional clearing required to accommodate the sediment and holding ponds. The areas surveyed in 2015 are shown in Figure 10. These areas are all subject to minor clearing if the proposed development is approved. The following details the species subject to clearing as identified by SMK Consultants.

Section 1 - Northern Sediment and Effluent Holding Ponds This section contained approximately 180-200 trees, and was dominated by Bimble Box (Eucalyptus populnea) and Wilga (Geijera parviflora). Silver-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus melanphloia) was present, sometimes forming a sub-dominant species associated with variations in soil type. Other species included some Rosewood (Alectryon oleifolius) and scattered White Cypress Pine (Cypress glaucophylla). The area was representative of a North-west Slopes Dry Sclerophyll Woodland with approximately 50-80% cover. The area has been logged and subjected to clearing for fence and road construction. This section was largely compatible with the findings of the 2012 assessment. The immature Wilga identified in the earlier assessment had thrived and were beginning to dominate the over storey.

Section 2 – Southern Sediment Pond This section contained approximately 150 trees, and was dominated by immature White Cypress Pine (Cypress glaucophylla) which suggests that the area has been previously cleared. Other species were scattered and could be considered as paddock trees. Such species included Bimble Box (Eucalyptus populnea), Silver-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus melanphloia) and Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla). This section would have originally supported a Cypress Pine Woodland with between 40-60% cover over sandstone ridges which is a similar woodland to parts of the adjoining National Park.

Section 3 – Southern Holding Pond This section contained approximately 120 trees, and was dominated by a combination of Silver-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus melanphloia), Wilga (Geijera parviflora) and immature White Cypress Pine (Cypress glaucophylla). Other species present included Bimble Box (Eucalyptus populnea) and Rosewood (Alectryon oleifolius). This section was typical of Silver-Leaved Ironbark Grassy Tall Woodland with approximately 50-70% over-storey cover. This area is dissected by a road and includes several internal fences.

Paddock trees



Adjacent to Sections 2 and 3, in the site of the southern pens were a number of scattered paddock trees. This mostly included Ironbark species and Yellow Box (Eucalyptus mellidora).

Figure 10: Areas to be subject to minimum clearing for development of effluent ponds.

Voluntary offset area The voluntary offset area as shown in Figure 10 covers an area of 21.9 hectares of woodland dominated by similar species to the areas to be cleared to enable the feedlot to be constructed. The voluntary offset area includes a wide range of tree species and tree maturity. The western denser edge includes mature Bimble box. The eastern and northern sections are part of the same woodland as described for the above section 1. The voluntary offset area has had less disturbance from cultivation and grazing than sections 2 and 3 to be subjected to some clearing. The voluntary offset area is located within the same corridor as the woodlands to be affected by the feedlot and therefore similar fauna distribution would occur. The area of voluntary offset is approximately 9 times the area of the woodland area to be affected by the feedlot.

Seven Part Test Conclusions

The project area on “Gunyerwarildi Station” is an extensively cleared and cultivated landscape interspersed with network of predominantly linear corridors of remnant native vegetation along creeks and gully lines. These remnant areas support a mosaic of native vegetation communities including:

River red gum tall woodland / open forest

Poplar box–Yellow box–Western grey box grassy woodland

Silver-leaved ironbark grassy tall woodland

Grey box-cypress pine-red gum woodland

Weeping myall open woodland

Queensland bluegrass-redleg grass-rat’s tail grass-speargrass-panic grass derived grassland.



Vegetation on the project area is contiguous on its eastern boundary with Gunyerwarildi NP, native vegetation remnants south of Croppa Creek and to the west on the Travelling Stock Route along the North Star Road. The project area is considered to provide habitat for:

thirteen threatened flora species

forty-three threatened fauna species

two endangered populations. Additionally, the creeks and their floodplains on the project area comprise the “aquatic ecological community in the natural drainage system of the lowland catchment of the Darling River”, an endangered ecological community under NSW Fisheries Management Act. A 7 parameter test is presented in appendix 6.

Fauna Assessment

The primary assessment of the area was undertaken in 2012 by Envirofactor and the report is presented in appendix 15. This report provided detail of the development area and surrounding habitat. The development that triggered the requirement for the fauna assessment occurred on open cultivation land. The surrounding habitat was not subject to clearing or degradation as a result of the development. The new development adjoins the original development and therefore fauna species would remain the same. An updated Matters of National Significance Assessment was undertaken and is included in appendix 7. The region is considered to provide habitat for on ecological community, 16 threatened flora and fauna species and eight migratory species listed under State and Commonwealth legislation. These species are considered to be located within remnants of woodland and open grassland in the area surrounding the feedlot operation. The proposed development is essentially contained within the developed area within these remnants. The area is heavily utilised by the current operation.

6.11 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The proposed development area was subjected to a detailed archaeological study in 2011. Suzanne R Hudson Consulting conducted the survey and report preparation in conjunction with Traditional Land owners. The area of the study incorporated the new development area in addition to surrounding lands. This report is presented as part of this EIS. Additional field work was undertaken for the new development in order to determine whether the existing works had uncovered any new site or artefacts. The additional investigation undertaken in 2015 was undertaken by the original Traditional owner representative.

Aboriginal History

Hudson (2011) described a long history of aboriginal movement understood to have taken place in this area. It was undertaken mainly for ceremonial and social gatherings and in indigenous society, rituals associated with men’s or women’s business, initiations, funerals and corroborees were held from time



to time. Use of wetlands by indigenous people was dependent upon water being present for drinking, hunting, gathering and fishing opportunities.

Archaeological Survey of the Feedlot Site

An archaeological survey of the Feedlot site was completed by Suzanne R Hudson Consulting on 20 January 2011. The scope of the assessment required that an archaeological survey be undertaken in consultation with registered Aboriginal Groups whom have an interest in the survey area. Two groups registered an expression of interest to participate in the survey process. These following groups were involved in the site survey:

Moree Aboriginal Land Council – Charlie Groves

Kwiembal people (traditional land owners) – Liza & Vicky Duncan The archaeological site survey identified five aboriginal stone tool assemblages. It was recommended that the Feedlot development proceed after there has been a collection of the stone tools found in-situ. The following table provides the GPS coordinates of the five stone assemblages that were identified during the survey.

Table 33 – GPS Coordinate of Stone Assemblages

Site Number Easting Northing

1 259675 6760067

2 259806 6760126

3 259931 6760270

4 260312 6760169

5 260179 6759391

The study recommended that the stones be removed from the site prior to the development proceeding. The traditional land owners, the Kwiembal people, supported the collection of the items for storage and preservation. It is understood that these items are now in storage at the Moree Plains Shire Art Gallery who keep a major collection of Aboriginal items from many sources and locations in the region. It is uncertain whether the items were removed by the Traditional owners or others. There are no records to identify the movement of the stones. No clear record is available at the Moree Art gallery to identify these stones. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that the stones were moved. The stones are not present at the locations where they were identified. The fences have not been moved at these locations. As a part of the new assessment process for this proposal, an additional field study was undertaken by Charlie Groves who was present during the original survey in 2011. This supplementary assessment was undertaken to provide additional detail on the subject area for the expansion of the Feedlot. The survey and inspection of the site did not identify any sites or objects to be considered as significant or require further investigation. It was recommended that the project proceed on the basis that if items or sites of cultural heritage are identified during the work to be undertaken, that this work should cease until further investigation is undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of traditional owners. This report has been included as Appendix 7. No non-indigenous heritage items have been found near the development site.



7 Impact of Feedlot on the Existing Environment This Section discusses the potential impacts of the Feedlot development on the existing environment and the proposed mitigation measures and monitoring strategies that will be incorporated if development consent is granted. The monitoring strategies will also be included in the EMP framework as proposed in Section 10. Section 5 identified several priority issues related to the Feedlot development that should be assessed based on their potential impact to the existing environment. Table 34 summarises these issues and also provides the report reference for where the baseline conditions and potential impacts of the Feedlot on the surrounding environment have been described; and the proposed mitigation measures.

Table 34: Assessment of Potential Feedlot Impacts

Specific Issues identified by the Agencies Section Describing existing

environment and potential Impacts

Section Describing mitigation, management and/ or

monitoring

By-product management: how manure, effluent and compost will be contained, stored and reused without adverse impacts to the environment.

5 6.3.5, 6.5.8, 6.5.9, 6.5.10, 7.1,

7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 9.1.1

Air quality: how odour emissions from the Feedlot will be minimised.

6.6, 8.2 9.1.2

Water supply for the Feedlot: how this will impact on potential or actual use by surrounding land users.

5.6, 5.7, 6.3.6, 6.3.7, 8.3 9.1.3

Soil, surface water and groundwater: how these natural resources will be protected during construction, during the operation of the Feedlot; and from the land reuse of effluent, manure and compost.

5.4, 5.6, 5.7 9.1.1

7.1 Surface Water

The proposed Feedlot development will involve construction within a controlled drainage area to confine and manage runoff from the feedlot that may include manure. The containment of runoff within this area is designed to meet the requirements of NSW Policy in relation to protection of surrounding water courses or dams. The intent of the design is to contain and manage all effluent and manure generated on the site to enable controlled and sustainable use of the nutrient rich wastes for crop production. An appropriate management proposal has been developed and is to be adopted by the Proponent. NSW Policy involves limiting the release of potentially nutrient rich wastes to periods of extreme weather only. This process would ensure that any such releases would occur when appropriate dilution of the wastes can occur and no concentrated waste enters local watercourse systems.

7.2 Groundwater

The existing Feedlot has been sited and designed to prevent or minimise adverse impacts on groundwater.

The Feedlot complex and its associated waste utilisation areas are not located above groundwater resources that are considered vulnerable.

The Feedlot complex will be underlain with in situ soil materials that meet the required permeability standards for a lining to mitigate against potential groundwater contamination.

The Feedlot complex is not sited in a salinity hazard area, nor is the area prone to risk or salinity. The proposed design will minimise the risk of new salinity outbreaks.



The storage and use of hazardous materials does not pose an unacceptable risk to the pollution of groundwater.

A network of 7-piezometers has been established on the site to date to monitor groundwater in the immediate feedlot area to a depth of 15m. No groundwater issues of either contamination or rising water tables have been identified to date. The proposed development will involve construction of two more piezometers to monitor the expanded feedlot operations. Monitoring bores 8 and 9 will be established. Bore 8 is to be located immediately below the new holding pond for the southern section. Bore 9 is to be located below the whole feedlot site which would represent a down slope point for monitoring of the whole site. The proposed location of these bores is indicated in Figure 2. The specific location of these bores will be subject to further discussion with NSW EPA. An existing shallow stock bore is located further to the west and adjacent to Croppa Creek. This is considered to be too far removed from the Feedlot to be of practical value to monitor potential groundwater issues. The network of piezometers form part of the existing EPL and are monitored for compliance purposes. The bore monitor upslope and downslope groundwater to determine quality of groundwater moving toward the site and quality of groundwater moving downslope of the feedlot. To date, no issues have been identified.

7.3 Community

The Feedlot is sited in areas away from incompatible land uses. o The existing Feedlot site is in an area designated for rural primary production under the

Gwydir LEP 2013. The proposed development for an extension to the Feedlot is allowable, with consent, on the site.

The Feedlot development does not detract significantly from visual amenity. o The existing Feedlot and proposed development site take advantage of the natural

screening provided by the undulating topography and dense vegetation. o The Feedlot is not visible from any public roads.

The Feedlot is sited and designed so that odour, dust and noise generated by the development do not unreasonably impact community amenity.

o The proposed development and design of the facilities comply with management criteria and required minimum separation distances.

The Feedlot development does not compromise a site having significant archaeological or heritage values.

o The proposed development complies with all relevant archaeological and heritage legislation and regulations.

The siting and design of the Feedlot considers road safety and traffic issues. o Siting distances improved and road issues cleared up

The storage and use of hazardous materials does not pose an unacceptable safety risk. o Stored in accordance with guidelines.

7.4 Ecology

The Feedlot is sited and designed so that it does not have a significant impact on threatened or endangered species.



o Proposed clearing of areas with remnant native vegetation complies with relevant guidelines etc.

o Does not unduly impact on essential habitat for threatened or endangered species. o The Proponent has presented a voluntary offset area to be preserved in replacement

for the area to be cleared for the feedlot development. The voluntary offset area is part of the same woodland area and therefore species are the same. The area to be preserved will benefit the microclimate with the proposed development

The Feedlot is sited and designed so that the impact of pests and weeds on the local ecosystem is minimised.

o Disposal of carcasses by means that do not unduly attract pests and feral or native animals

o Design allows required control of pests, weeds and feral animals to be effectively undertaken

o Design minimises the potential for native animals to use the Feedlot as a major source of food or shelter

The storage and use of hazardous materials does not pose an unacceptable pollution risk.

7.5 Resources

The feedlot intends to use existing groundwater allocation to supply all water to the feedlot. This allocation has been subject to the GAB Water Sharing Plan and extensive modelling and review by DPI Water and others. The entitlement is considered secure and the use of this water from the aquifer is considered sustainable. The feedlot will utilise both electricity and diesel to operate the facility. No other significant resources will be consumed at the site other than agricultural produce.

7.6 By-Product Management

The Feedlot will need to manage, store and reuse large amounts of manure and contaminated runoff, and a small number of cattle mortalities that will be composted. The effluent, manure and carcass compost (by-products) can be managed and reused in place of inorganic fertilisers in crop production. Hence, they are considered to be valuable resources, not waste products. The characteristics of the by-products that make them valuable as fertilisers (nutrients) also mean that they have the potential to adversely impact:

soils of reuse areas through over-application of nutrients

water quality through eutrophication of surface waters and / or groundwater resulting from unintentional releases of effluent (e.g. effluent holding pond spill), seepage through Feedlot complex facilities (e.g. pens, drains, sedimentation terrace, manure stockpile / carcass compost areas or effluent holding pond) or poor effluent and manure reuse practices,

native vegetation may not be able to survive or grow in the presence of high soil nutrient reserves that could result from poor effluent and manure reuse practices.

The by-products also produce odours. However, this is not considered to pose a significant risk to amenity (see Section 8.1.2). The design of the Feedlot has been prepared in accordance with current Best Practice and is considered to be meet the relevant State and National Guidelines for construction of a sustainable Feedlot



operation. Analysis of the manure and effluent reuse program indicates that there is sufficient land to utilise the waste products for production of crops which can be recycled back through the feedlot.

7.7 Air Quality

Odour nuisance is a significant consideration for any cattle Feedlot. A Level 1 odour assessment was undertaken to determine the potential impact of primarily odour from the 20,000 head feedlot development. The assessment indicated a “pass” in accordance with the relevant legislation. A pass indicates that the potential for the Feedlot’s odour to impact on adjoining landholders is considered acceptable. The risk is considered to be sufficiently infrequent to be considered acceptable. This result is mainly attributed to the available buffer distances from the feedlot to the closest residences. The Feedlot adjoins a National Park which is classified as a low use public area. The level 1 odour assessment utilised the same parameters for the calculated separation distance from the Park as the previous assessment for the approved 5,000 head feedlot. The calculation relied upon the presence of a woodland between the Feedlot and the Park. Authorities had agreed to the planting of a tree buffer to create this woodland in order to disperse odour. This tree buffer is still a work in progress. Extension of the Feedlot to 20,000 head would require the presence of this tree buffer unless an alternative can be developed. Discussion with Council and EPA on this matter concluded that further action is required to establish the tree lines under more concentrated management to ensure that the trees are protected from animals moving to the Feedlot from the Park as well as overcoming weather issues and dry growing seasons. No other issues relating to odour, dust or noise are considered to be of concern as a result of the Feedlot extension. As identified above, this can be attributed to the available separation distance between the Feedlot and neighbours as well as the level of management adopted on the site, mainly the operation of a Class 1 Feedlot standard.

7.8 Water Supply for the Feedlot

It is intended that an existing GAB Eastern Recharge Zone groundwater entitlement located on the property of “Bundawarra” will be used as the primary water supply for the Feedlot. Ceres has constructed a pipeline to transfer groundwater from “Bundawarra” to “Gunyerwarildi Station”. The “Bundawarra” bore is licensed to supply 486 units (equivalent to 486 ML in a year of 100% allocation). The proponent also intends to capture surface runoff via harvestable rights on “Gunyerwarildi Station”, to serve as a secondary water supply for uses other than the Feedlot. The feedlot would utilise between 400 and 420 ML per annum at an occupancy rate of 85%. This water includes cattle consumption, dust suppression, Feed milling and staff requirements. The Feedlot proposes to construct up to 3 ML of tank storage on mounds above the site for water storage purposes. Calculations indicate that this is sufficient to meet required onsite storage in the case of a break-down in the water supply system. In the event of a failure of the bore on Bundawarra, the option exists to utilise the stock watering system to divert water to the feedlot site. The stock water system includes connections to surface dams and water tanks placed throughout the property for stock watering in the paddocks.



7.9 Soils and Surface Waters during Construction

During construction soil erosion is a risk to occur once topsoil and / or groundcover is removed. Eroded soil poses a risk to surface waters (turbidity and nutrients). To overcome this risk, construction contractors will need to submit appropriate construction management plans to the Proponent to ensure that site runoff is managed during the earthworks phase.

7.10 Noise and Dust

This section assesses the potential impact from noise generated by the proposed development. The NSW Industrial Noise Policy requires noise from new developments to be assessed to meet the following noise criteria:

Intrusiveness criterion: continuous noise levels from the source should not exceed more than 5 dB above the background noise level; and

Amenity criterion: this describes an acceptable noise level (ANL) specific to the type of land use and associated activities within the area. The project fits the description of a ‘rural’ receiver type.

The NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000 provides acceptable ambient noise levels that can be received by ‘rural’ receivers. These are outlined in the following table.

Table 35: Noise Level Criteria

Period Intrusiveness Criterion1 Amenity Criterion2

Day (7am-6pm) 40 dB LAeq, 15 minute 50 dB LAeq, Day

Evening (6pm-10pm) 35 dB LAeq, 15 minute 45 dB LAeq, Evening

Night (10pm-7am) 35 dB LAeq, 15 minute 40 dB LAeq, Night Notes: 1. Intrusiveness criterion is LAeq, 15 minute ≤ rating background level + 5; 2. Amenity criterion given in Table 2.1 & 2.2 of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

During the construction phase the operation of earthmoving machinery will be a noise source. Noise sources during the operation of the Feedlot would include the Feed mill, vehicle movements transporting grain and cattle to / from the Feedlot, and the cattle in the Feedlot. Each one of these operations also has the potential to create dust. Noise sources from the operation of the existing feed mill, commodity storage and feed preparation area were assessed by the Gwydir Shire under a separate development application. The Gwydir Shire provided development consent to construct the steam flaking mill, steam chest, silos and commodity storage shed in October 2010 (Development Application No: DA 10/2010). The feed milling equipment is enclosed and emits relatively low levels of noise.

Noise attenuation between the feedlot site and the closest receptor has been determined to be sufficient based on the available buffer distances to meet the above criteria. The level of noise that reaches a receptor is affected by the following factors:

the nature of the surrounding terrain the atmospheric conditions the frequency and tonal qualities of the noise

In a rural area such as Gunyerwarildi, background levels throughout the day and night are mainly affected by what is described as environmental noise which include insects, animals and wind in the



trees. Calculation of a project specific noise level would generally be below 35 dB(A) which is considered acceptable within the Guidelines. Cattle in the Feedlot make very little noise. The potential noise sources from the site would be dominated by vehicle movements. This would include trucks moving to and from the site as well as the feed wagon and light vehicles. Other noise would include tractors from field operations but this would be considered as normal noise for a farming area. The Feed mill is mostly electrically powered and noise levels are below 50 dB(A). Using standard noise attenuation calculations, this noise would reduce to approximately 24 dB(A) at the property boundary. The attenuation between the mill area and Warialda-North Star road is in the order of 40-60 dB(A), dependent on height of the noise emission. On this basis, noise emissions at the Mill can range between a constant 85 to 105 dB(A) before standard noise levels are increase in the public area on the road reserve. The closest residence not associated with the Feedlot operation is located at a distance of approximately 5.5 km to the east of the site. Noise attenuation over this distance is significant and therefore noise emissions from the Mill, including trucks and milling operations would not disturb the amenity at this residence. Noise impacts are not considered to be a potential issue from the proposed development.

7.11 Vermin and Pests

Vermin such as rodents and flies can be attracted to Feedlots by the ready availability of feed and a moist cattle pad. The Proponent undertakes a management program to avoid outbreaks of flies or rodents around the feed ration areas and the feedlot pens. This program is considered to be satisfactory in relation to preventative measures such as a clean-up schedule as well as adoption of eradication programs such as fly traps and baits. The odour level from the Feedlot pens is low as the design of the Feedlot ration is based on optimising feed efficiency which therefor generates a lower level of nutrient and energy in the manure pad. This program also aims to reduce the fly population. On this basis, appropriate vermin and pest management practices are to be adopted for the Feedlot operation.

7.12 Traffic and Transport

The existing Feedlot operation was predicted to generate approximately 17 heavy vehicles per week which is equivalent to approximately 3 trucks per day. This varies as a result of deliveries of cattle and sourcing grain and other parts of the feed ration. The expansion of the site to a capacity for 20,000 head of cattle will result in an increased requirement for truck movements. Calculations presented in 2.2.9 of this report identified a potential for up to 53 trucks per week or between 7 and 8 trucks per day. The trucking schedule will generally result in these trucks arriving or departing throughout the day and therefore this equates to approximately one truck per hour. The increase in truck numbers will result in increases in vehicles movements along the Warialda-North Star road which is a two-lane bitumen sealed road with current limitations for trucks up to a B-double



in size. Visual observations along this road indicate 3 to 4 truck movements per hour. Most of these trucks consist of cattle or grain trucks. The Warialda- North Star road is considered to be a main arterial road between the grain and cattle areas in the northwest part of the Gwydir Shire and markets to the east such as Inverell. The net increase of potentially one truck per hour is not considered to be significant in relation to road safety and road maintenance. Weight restrictions will remain on this road as a result of weight restrictions on one or more of the original bridges along this road. Traffic numbers on this road are expected to increase if the Gwydir Shire is successful in constructing a by-pass around Warialda as well as upgrading the bridges which currently restrict load sizes. It is expected that significantly more cattle trucks will utilise this road as well as grain trucks. If this occurs, the additional numbers generated by the proposed development will provide a minor contribution to the increased traffic. Traffic peaks occur during harvest periods. The Proponent has extensive storage for grain and hay at the Mill area and much of the production from Gunyerwarildi does not travel along Shire roads. If grain is hauled from outside of the property, this is generally undertaken by the Proponents truck fleet. These trucks are utilised to haul both cattle and grain, however the number of trips per day is limited due to distance travelled. The frequency of truck movements to and from the feedlot would remain the same, regardless of the origin or destination of the loads. The Proponent has joined with Council and supports the upgrade of the local road network. The long term aim of this is to enable the safe use of road trains. The use of road trains would reduce the truck numbers associated with the Feedlot by approximately 30-percent. This is considered to be highly beneficial, however it is only practical if the roads are suitable for road trains. Other road users such as school buses must be considered in any decisions on road safety.

7.13 Fire Risk and Management

There is a bushfire risk, particularly given the proximity to Gunyerwarildi NP. Appropriate management plans are already in place and form part of the existing development consent conditions associated with the 5,000 head feedlot operation.

7.14 Animal Welfare and Disease Management

It is in the proponent’s interest to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and disease management. The Proponent operates the existing site under the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme (NFAS) (accreditation certificate is included as Appendix 17). This scheme incorporates an extensive animal welfare documentation and procedural activities. The Proponent intends to continue with this accreditation for the expanded site and therefore animal welfare policy and processes on the site will be externally audited on a regular basis to maintain the accreditation. This is considered satisfactory in order to preserve the welfare of cattle and horses associated with the Feedlot. The Proponent intends to include shading structures in the new feedlot development. This is based on the intension to feed cattle for longer periods and therefore some cattle will finish off at much larger weights when compared to the current Feedlot operation. The welfare of these cattle needs to be carefully monitored in relation to stresses, such as heat during summer periods. The Proponent operates a weather station which includes a “black-globe” which provides cattle comfort analysis and



feed ration planning data for constant monitoring and planning forward for cattle welfare. This is considered to be standard practice and highly beneficial to avoid mass deaths from heat exhaustion.

Heat Stress Heat stress in cattle is generally measured by Accumulated Heat Load Units (AHLU), which describe the amount of heat that may potentially be stored in the body. Cattle will generally accumulate heat during the day, and dissipate this heat during the night. Throughout the summer months there is potential for insufficient cooling relief overnight, and cattle may enter the following day with an accumulated heat load. The potential accumulated heat load that an individual may carry varies as a result of the surrounding environmental conditions and livestock tolerance. The ability of livestock to tolerate heat load varies depending on factors such as cattle breed, health status, coat colour, degree of finish, and pen conditions. Cattle fed through the feedlot will be selected on a breed basis to ensure that the cattle are either acclimatised to local conditions or can tolerate the high summer temperatures experienced in this region. Cattle will be regularly monitored and allocated to pens based on type, size, and condition. The feedlot will be managed to Class 1 conditions with open pens and a maintained manure pad depth between 30-50mm.

7.15 Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity

The Feedlot development has the potential to impact flora, fauna and their habitats through the potential loss and / or degradation of adjoining remnant native vegetation as a result of the movement of nutrients, contaminants and sediments in surface water and / or leakage into groundwater systems from the Feedlot site and / or effluent, manure and compost reuse areas. Some clearing is also required to construct the pond system and southern pens. The potential impact on remnant habitat and therefore flora and fauna is predicted to be limited. The site to be developed around the existing feedlot operation is substantially altered from the natural habitat. The majority of the area has been cleared and cultivated. Some remnants of partially cleared Bimble box woodland are present within the footprint of the southern section, including the main holding pond. Development of the northern section will require construction works within the adjoining Bimblebox woodland as a result of the requirement to place the ponds downslope of the pens. The clearing is to be limited to approximately 1.9 Ha of open woodland. The Proponent intends to informally voluntary offset this clearing by establishing a voluntary offset area over the remaining less disturbed woodland of approximately 21 Ha. The design of the proposed development is confined by the requirement for a voluntary offset distance along the eastern boundary and use of the available slope. On this basis, for the Proponent to achieve the 20,000 pen capacity and meet requirements for capture of runoff from within a controlled drainage area, the area of 1.9 Ha can unavoidably be disturbed. NSW OEH provides an outline of assessing biodiversity offsets. The intention is to utilise the principles of this policy for major projects, however the same principles can be applied to more minor development which requires some clearing. OEH list 13-Principles to follow. The assessment of the offset area under these 13-Principles is presented below:



Table 36: OEH 13-Principles Principle Comment

Impacts must be avoided first by using prevention and mitigation measures.

The proposal has been modified to the maximum extent to fit the land available within the confines of the sloping land and the adjoining NP. The design has been optimised to fit the development site. The clearing is necessary to maintain appropriate mitigation buffers and an effective drainage system.

All regulatory requirements must be met

The intended area of voluntary offset is not a necessity under other legislative requirements.

Offsets must never reward ongoing poor performance

The Feedlot will be operated to Class 1 standards, including management of buffers between the active working area and adjoining areas of native vegetation

Offsets will compliment other government programs

The Feedlot adjoins a NP. The area of voluntary offset will secure an extension of this Park and a permanent corridor consisting of similar habitat and species. The incentive for the proposal would enable the Proponent to clear 1.9 Ha in replace of conserving an adjoining 21 Ha of the same woodland for aesthetic and micro-climatic benefits to the existing and proposed development.

Offsets must be underpinned by sound ecological principles.

The woodland to be included in the voluntary offset is part of the area to be cleared. The area to be cleared is generally isolated from the main body of the woodland by existing works including roads and drains. The exclusion of the voluntary offset from feedlot related activity will potential enhance its biodiversity as it would act as a shelter for fauna and remove heavy grazing pressure to enable ground and mid-storey species to regrow. The Bimble box woodland has been heavily cleared in the region for grazing and cultivation, however similar woodland is preserved in the adjoining NP. To ensure the long term viability of the voluntary offset area, management intends to fence and protect the area of feedlot related activity, including potential impacts from the feedlot.

Offsets should aim to result in a net improvement in biodiversity over time.

The areas to be cleared are currently subjected to regular degradation from grazing cattle and cultivation. The long term potential stability of the habitat in the 1.9 Ha area to be cleared is considered poor. The voluntary offset area has not been subjected to intense grazing or cultivation and therefore retains a higher quality of habitat and potential for regeneration of natural species in the ground and mid-stories as a result the retention of a natural seed bank. The removal of grazing pressure from the 21 Ha would encourage an improvement in biodiversity.

Offsets must be enduring The clearing of the 1.9 Ha will be permanent as the area will be subject to earthworks for construction of pens and ponds. The Proponent has acknowledged that the voluntary offset would be permanent. The area is unsuitable for Feedlot development or cultivation. The long term risk of clearing or activities occurring in the offset area that may result in its decline, are limited.

Offsets must be quantifiable. The clearing is to involve 1.9 Ha of Bimble box woodland remnant at the eastern and north ends of the feedlot site. The primary species in these areas has been documented as part of this EIS. The offset area supports the same format of woodland, although it is considered to be less degraded due to a lack of intensive grazing pressure causing a loss of ground cover. The Woodland is on considered a threatened community. The level of security offered by the Proponent consists of a survey plan and submission of notification in the form of development application documentation to indicate that creation of the offset. The



Principle Comment

submission of this offset proposal under applications through the Environment, Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is considered to be binding. It is expected that if the application is approved, the preservation of the offset would be included as a condition of consent for the development. Any action to mismanage or degrade the offset area would therefore be a breach of the consent issued under the EP&A Act.

Offsets must be targeted The area of offset forms part of the same Bimblebox woodland that is to be cleared to enable the development to occur. The area is therefore considered “like for like”. The offset area supports the same ecological community.

Offset must be located appropriately

The offset area adjoins the areas to be cleared. It has the same or similar ecological characteristics.

Offsets and their actions must be enforceable through development consent conditions, Licence conditions, conservation agreements or contracts

The Proponent intends to submit the proposal of an offset of 21 Ha in replace of clearing 1.9 Ha of the same woodland remnant as part of the development application to be lodged under the EP&A Act to the Gwydir Shire. The proposal forms part of the development application. If the application is approved, the documentation will form part of that approval and therefore a binding agreement under the EP&A Act. If the Proponent or future owner of the property proposes a change to the offset, they would be required to submit an application to the consent authority (Council) to alter the consent conditions. IN addition to the EP&A Act, the proponent will be required to lodge a plan of the proposed development that includes the offset area under the POEO Act to obtain an amendment to the existing EPL. This site plan will therefore be registered and form part of the EPL.

In following the principles, it has been established that the clearing is unavoidable to develop the Feedlot on this site and the site is considered the best option for the proposal if the Proponent wishes to proceed with this scale of development. This would suggest that an offset is established to replace the habitat to be cleared in preference to requesting clearing without and offset area. The area to be cleared has been significantly degraded as a result of intense agricultural and grazing activity. The area has been previously subjected to clearing and has resulted in the loss of most of the ground and mid-storey species. The area of 21 Ha to be used as a voluntary offset is part of the same woodland to be cleared. Species biodiversity through this woodland is considered to be continuous. The 21 Ha area is currently fenced and preserved. Some grazing may occur on occasions; however, the area is not subject to any extensive impacts from the existing or proposed feedlot development. The Proponent is not seeking a Bio-Banking agreement under the NSW Biodiversity Bio-Banking and Offset Scheme. This is not being sought as the area to be cleared is considered minor and of low Biodiversity value. The clearing will involve isolated trees and a small area which has been subjected to significant activity from clearing and agricultural activity. The Flora and Fauna report presented in appendix 15 presents a detailed assessment of the Feedlot and surrounding area. The area subject to clearing is considered to be open Bimblebox woodland which is not listed as a threatened community. The clearing would not cut major fauna corridors. The voluntary offset area is considered to be part of a fauna corridor which has connection to the adjoining National Park. The area is surrounded by cleared cultivation to the south and west and does not create a corridor to the local riparian corridors.



The Proponent has indicated that the long term management of the remaining remnant woodland to be preserved as a voluntary offset will continue along the similar management processes that have been adopted to date. These include fencing and minimal disturbance within the area. The woodland is to be preserved as part of the Feedlot operation in order to provide some improvement to air temperatures from westerly winds as the wind moves through the woodland. This may provide some cooling of air masses that moves off the adjoining black soil cultivation area. Mitigation measures for protection of the remaining woodland would include:

Establishment of a minimum distance of 25 m between the Feedlot and / or effluent, manure and compost reuse and the edge of remnant vegetation patches.

For remnants with grassy groundcover this edge is defined by the outer most grass tussocks, while for any wooded vegetation with predominantly bare ground this edge is defined by the outside edge of the canopy of the outermost trees.

These measures were adopted as part of the existing Feedlot operation and were recommended by Envirofactor during the 2012 assessment of Flora and Fauna. The woodland remnant surrounding the southern and western edge of the Feedlot and not included in the voluntary offset area was originally utilised as part of the grazing operations prior to the Feedlot development. The operations included two house, yards, a wool shed and various holding paddocks. The houses and yards will be maintained and are outside of the 21 Ha offset area which will be fenced off and protected from ongoing activity at the site. The woodland will therefore be able to regenerate with minimal pressure from the surrounding activity associated with the Feedlot operation. The same woodland would have originally extended into the adjoining National Park and covered a major part of the sloping land on Gunyerwarildi. The remnant area to be retained as part of the Feedlot development is therefore an important area of privately owned habitat but is considered to be well represented across the landscape.

7.16 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

During the assessment of the site prior to the development of the existing Feedlot, a comprehensive archeological assessment was undertaken by Sue Hudson Consulting. This has been included as Appendix 8. The archaeological survey identified Aboriginal stone tool assemblages near the Feedlot site. The traditional land owners supported the collection of the items for storage and preservation. It is understood that these items are now stored at the Moree Plains Shire Art Gallery but full detail of the movement of these artifacts is not available. The stones were moved from the site as they were not present during the additional archaeological investigation undertaken for this development proposal. The original archaeological study assessed the 5,000 head feedlot and surrounds. The new feedlot pens are to be constructed within the boundaries of this original survey and study. On this basis, an additional targeted assessment was undertaken by Charlie Groves from the Moree Aboriginal Land Council to examine the area to be subjected to the new pens and related infrastructure. This supplementary assessment was undertaken to provide additional detail on the subject area for the expansion of the Feedlot. The survey and inspection of the site did not identify any sites or objects to be considered as significant or require further investigation within the construction area. This is potentially due to the significant activity that has occurred on the development site including cultivation and clearing or the original



vegetation. The additional survey included a targeted approach along fence lines and erosion areas which were identified as the most likely area to find artefacts. The conclusion from the additional investigation was that there were no identifiable or visible artefacts including scarred trees within the footprint of the new development area. It was recommended that the project proceed on the basis that if items or sites of cultural heritage are identified during the work to be undertaken, that this work should cease until further investigation is undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of traditional owners. This report has been included as Appendix 8. No non-indigenous heritage items have been found near the development site.

8 Mitigation Measures

8.1 Mitigation Measures for the Priority Issues

The priority issues include: 1. By-product management 2. Air quality 3. Water supply for the Feedlot 4. Soils and surface water

By-Products Management

The impact of Feedlot by-products on the surrounding environment will be mitigated through:

The adoption of a high standard (Class 1) of design, construction and manure management within the Feedlot complex. The standards to be adopted are fully described in Sections 6 and 7 of this report. They will effectively prevent adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater.

Best practice methods for the reuse of by-products to the cultivated areas of “Gunyerwarildi Station”.

To reduce the likelihood of impacts due to effluent, manure or compost, Ceres will implement buffer zones between the Feedlot complex and reuse areas and sensitive sites.

Effluent, manure and compost will not be applied within: o 200 m of rural farm residences (the actual distance provided will be 560 m) o 100 m of watercourses and public areas o 50 m of property boundaries o 30 m of drainage lines.

By-products will only be spread under suitable weather conditions. They will not be spread just before heavy rain is expected, as this is likely to result in nutrient export in runoff.

Irrigation of effluent will not occur during strong winds and be suspended if strong winds occur during the course of an irrigation

Irrigation is not to occur during inversion conditions that would risk extended travel of odour onto adjoining properties

Groundcover will be maintained in the buffer zones to act as a vegetative filter for any sediment or nutrient that is transported off the reuse areas in stormwater runoff.

All parts of the Feedlot complex expected to have contact with contaminated runoff, manure or effluent will have compacted, low permeability surfaces (coefficient of permeability of less 1x10-9 m/s) to ensure protection of surface water and groundwater by using suitable clay



Soil testing should be undertaken prior to any spreading of effluent, manure or compost to establish baseline characteristics for the:

The integrity of the completed earthworks in the Feedlot complex will be monitored according to the Feedlot schedule for infrastructure checking, cleaning and maintenance (see Table 12).

Air Quality Separation Distance The Level 1 method shows that the Feedlot site is well separated from the closest receptors to prevent amenity impacts (e.g. odour, dust and noise) from the operation of the Feedlot. This is important in preventing odour nuisance. However, good design, construction and management are to be maintained to the stated standard in order to minimise emissions. The Feedlot is to be managed in accordance with Class 1 standards as described in relevant Feedlot Guidelines. Class 1 represents the highest management standards (i.e. industry best practice). This will include but no limited to:

Construction and maintenance of the pen floors with a slope of at least 2% using suitable clay that can be compacted to provide a low permeability, durable all weather surface.

Optimising minimum stocking density of 15 m2/head in order to maintain the manure pad at appropriate moisture levels

Clearing manure from under fence lines and out of catch drains to allow contaminated runoff to drain freely out of the pens and eliminate wet manure patches.

Removing spilt feed from around the Feedlot

Implementing the Feedlot infrastructure checking, cleaning and maintenance schedule for the Feedlot

The Feedlot manager will plan the schedule for infrastructure checking, cleaning and maintenance and maintain a record of these activities. The record will provide prompts / reminders prior to the scheduled date of critical activities such as pen cleaning so there is capacity to be able to complete activities on time.

Water Supply for the Feedlot

Groundwater is to be obtained from the “Bundawarra” bore to supply the Feedlot. The bore is to be monitored to maintain records of standing water level in addition to appropriate servicing of the pump and related infrastructure. The Feedlot operating plan will need to include appropriate back-up plans for supply of water to the cattle in the event of a pump or bore failure at Bundawarra. These plans are to include appropriate systems including plans of the systems to deliver water to the Feedlot in the event of a failure at the primary water source.

Soils and Surface Water

The sedimentation and effluent evaporation pond are designed to contain water in the event of a 90th percentile wet year and a 1-in-20-year weather event. The existing Feedlot has been sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on surface waters external to the Feedlot controlled drainage area. The following key points form the basic mitigation measures aimed at avoiding potential contamination of surface waters outside of the CDA:



Ensure that Feedlot activity is not located in a flood prone areas - The Feedlot complex is sited above the height of a 100-year average recurrence interval (Q100) flood.

The proposed Feedlot complex is to be enclosed within a controlled drainage area, with appropriate diversion banks installed to divert clean water away from the Feedlot site.

The Feedlot waste utilisation areas are designed to enable the sustainable use of effluent and any solid waste that is utilised on site.

The application of effluent is to be undertaken in accordance with appropriate management actions to avoid surface runoff of effluent

The application of manure should occur on cultivated land prior to a cropping pass to incorporate the manure

Recommended buffer zones around native vegetation and stream areas are to be maintained

The storage and use of hazardous and dangerous materials is to occur in accordance with relevant legislation to ensure spillages are contained.

8.2 Mitigation Measures for Other Issues

This section describes issues that pose less risk to the surrounding environment and local amenity; and will be mitigated or eliminated through the adoption of best practice design and management. They are summarised below. 1. Noise and dust 2. Vermin 3. Traffic and transport 4. Fire risk and management 5. Animal welfare and disease management 6. Flora and fauna 7. Aboriginal heritage

Noise and Dust

Noise and dust from the construction and operation of the Feedlot will be mitigated by:

Maintaining current separation distances: o 3230 m buffer between the Feedlot site and closest receptor (Receptor A). o 4,990 m buffer between the existing feedmill, commodity storage and feed preparation

area and closest receptor (Receptor C).

only using machinery fitted with complaint mufflers during both the construction and the operation of the Feedlot.

requesting that truck drivers do not use engine brakes when entering / exiting “Gunyerwarildi Station”

setting a low speed limits on “Gunyerwarildi Station” to minimise the generation of dust on internal roads. (25 km/h through Feedlot area and 40 km/h between Mill and Feedlot as per current signage)

using water trucks to minimise dust from roads and the Feedlot site during construction.

using a cattle stocking density that minimises dust generation (the cattle urine and manure add moisture to the pen floors)

avoiding spreading of very dry manure

Vermin

Fly, mice and rat populations from the operation of the Feedlot will be mitigated:

primarily through the Feedlot management schedule (i.e. minimise feed wastage and spillage to reduce the likelihood of attracting vermin).

implementing a baiting program if the vermin population reaches a nuisance level.



Traffic and Transport

Traffic impacts will be mitigated by:

Where practical, limiting the access of trucks moving to and from the feedlot to normal operating hours as outlined above

Maintaining the intersection approved under the existing development consent for the intersection onto the Warialda-North Star road

Recommendation to truck despatches to allow a suitable time separation when travelling along local roads (15-minute minimum between trucks)

Supporting the Gwydir Shire to improve the use of the Warialda-North Star road as a safe haulage route within the Shire to link the North Star region through to Warialda onto the Gwydir Highway

Fire Risk and Management

The source of fire risk to be feedlot site has been identified as the adjoining National Park. Current consent conditions have identified the need to maintain a fire break between the Park and the Feedlot. This is to be maintained and extended to cater for the expanded site. In addition to the creation of permanent fire breaks, “Gunyerwarildi Station” maintains the following fire-fighting equipment:

three 4WD mounted firefighting units

Bedford truck with 2000 L tank as a supply vehicle

D6 dozer

Grader (contracted by Ceres Company) for maintaining roads and fire breaks. If initial firefighting attempts are unsuccessful, or too dangerous, all staff would be evacuated to a safe area and the cattle let out of the pens into the surrounding paddocks. The Rural Fire Service will be contacted in the event of a significant fire. Staff will fight the fire, if it is reasonably safe to do so.

Animal Welfare and Disease Management

As the primary factors for cattle welfare, a consulting veterinarian and nutritionist will oversee the health and welfare of the cattle. The Proponent intends to operate the site in accordance with the Feedlot industry’s quality assurance system, the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme (NFAS). The NFAS requires all accredited Feedlots to adhere to the Code of Practice, along with all other relevant environmental, animal welfare and food safety legislation. Under this government and industry managed program, every accredited Feedlot is independently audited each year to ensure compliance. The cattle will be treated with various vaccines to minimise the potential contraction of disease or infection. In particular, this should help to decrease the occurrence of respiratory problems referred to as Bovine respiratory diseases (BRD). The vaccines would also reduce other cattle health issues in the feedlot. Feedlot staff will be required to undergo vaccination procedures for potential cattle related diseases, including Q-Fever. Disease management for staff is covered under the NFAS and WHS documentation. All cattle will be inspected at least daily to check their welfare (including individual pen walks by Feedlot staff). Any sick cattle will be isolated from the production pens and transferred to a designated hospital pen for treatment and monitoring.



Emergency animal disease outbreak and / or mass mortality contingency plans will be developed as part of the Feedlot operational / environmental management plan (if development consent is granted). A suitable site for mass burial of mortalities will be identified that has clay soil. It will be separated from the Feedlot complex and groundwater bores.

Heat Stress Whilst management can undertake effective actions improving livestock tolerance to heat loads, uncontrollable climatic conditions may also predispose feedlot cattle to high body heat loads and increase the risk of heat stress. These conditions can include:

A recent rain event A high ongoing minimum and maximum ambient temperature A high ongoing relative humidity An absence of cloud cover with a high solar radiation level Minimal air movement over an extended period (4-5 days) A sudden change to adverse climatic conditions

For this reason, current and forecasted climatic conditions should be continuously monitored, especially during summer. The Heat Load Index (HLI) has been developed as an indicator of the environmental heat load placed on cattle and is updated every hour. The HLI threshold for the proposed feedlot site was determined by the MLA Risk Analysis Program to be 99 – shade between 3.0-5.0 m2/head. This suggests stock would begin to accumulate heat load units when the forecasted HLI exceeds the threshold. The heat stress assessment indicates the potential occurrence of a heat stress event is within the recommended guidelines, with an extreme risk of heat stress due to an event duration of 3 or more days to be less than 1 event in 11 years. The Gunyerwarildi Station feedlot will implement an action plan for the management of feedlot operations under excessive heat loads, a draft document has been included in appendix 16. The HLI will be continually monitored through the Katestone Weather Predictor and the introduction of a site specific weather station. Additionally, the HLI Threshold will be recalculated accordingly with changes to feedlot conditions. Routine management procedures in heat stress events will include the:

Installation of extra temporary water troughs; Implementation of a heat load feeding strategy; Strategic cleaning of high manure deposition areas; and Monitoring of physical signs and animal behaviours (panting; water consumption).

Flora and Fauna

Impacts to flora and fauna described in Section 5.9 will be mitigated by:

Using best practice methods in the reuse of by-products to the cultivated areas of “Gunyerwarildi Station”. This will involve spreading nutrients at sustainable rates and at times when plant growth is likely to result in good uptake and not spreading when heavy rainfall is imminent and runoff or solids transport is likely.

To reduce the likelihood of impacts to the surrounding environment from the reuse of effluent, manure or compost Ceres will implement buffer zones between reuse areas and sensitive sites. The buffer zone recommendations from the NSW Feedlot Manual and the flora and fauna assessment completed by Envirofactor (2012) are presented below:

o 200 m of rural farm residences (the actual distance provided will be 560 m) o 100 m of watercourses and public areas



o 50 m of weeping Myall woodlands and / or remnant vegetation supporting Myall woodlands

o 50 m of property boundaries o 30 m of drainage lines.

Groundcover will be maintained in the buffer zones to act as a vegetative filter for any sediment or nutrient that is transported off the reuse areas in stormwater runoff.

9 Environmental Management Plan Ceres Company proposes to implement an Environmental Management Plan once the Feedlot approval is determined through the Consent Authority. This plan will form part of the overall Management Plan system which is currently implemented on the property. This Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Gunyerwarildi Feedlot is designed to ensure that appropriate environmental management practices are followed during construction and operation. It aims to:

application of best practice environmental management;

implementation of the commitments made in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Feedlot;

compliance with environmental legislation; and

that environmental risks associated with a project are properly managed

a review mechanism so that continual improvement is achieved each year. The EMP scope will include a framework for managing or mitigating environmental impacts over the entire life of the proposed Feedlot development (establishment, operation and site rehabilitation in the event of permanent Feedlot closure). The Feedlot Manager will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of this EMP. The plan will aim to include sufficient section and detail to provide induction for existing and new staff. The document will outline the roles and responsibilities of all employees and the procedures and parameters that the Feedlot has been designed by and intends to operate by. The following provides an outline of the primary contents of the document.

9.1 Design, Construction and Management Standards to Protect the Environment

This section of the EMP will provide a summary of the design, construction and management standards that will protect the environment. The highest standards of design and management have been incorporated into the Feedlot development to provide very good protection of the environment. These include:

confinement of the Feedlot within a CDA. This will contain contaminated runoff, manure and effluent until it can be sustainably reused.

compaction of the Feedlot pens, roads, drains, sedimentation terrace, effluent holding pond and manure stockpile / carcass composting area to achieve a coefficient of permeability not exceeding 1x10-9 m/s.

pen slope that promotes drainage and therefore enhances drying of the manure on the pad

effluent drainage system and holding pond able to contain a 1 in 20 year, 24-hour storm OR the runoff produced in a 90th percentile wet year (less evaporation and runoff).

manure and effluent reuse rates determined from the nutrient reserves in the soil and the nutrient demand of the proposed crop.

composting of mortalities within the CDA.



routine cleaning, checking and maintenance in accordance with the following:

Table 37: Gunyerwarildi Feedlot Maintenance Schedule

Cleaning/ checking/ maintenance practices Frequency and/ or action

Removal of spilt feed Weekly

Elimination of wet patches Weekly

Repairs to potholes Weekly

Removal of feed residues Weekly

Clean water troughs Weekly

Under fence cleaning Monthly (or after manure obstructs pen

drainage)

Pen cleaning At intervals not exceeding 10 weeks

Pen surface checks After runoff events and repaired as required

Diversion banks and drains After runoff events and repaired as required

Sedimentation system checking After runoff events and repaired as required

Sedimentation system checking Record of manure depth, cleaning when reaches

50% of design total depth

Holding pond checking After runoff events and repaired as required

Holding pond cleaning Drawn down annually and sludge removed when effective capacity is reduced by 25%

Areas of Potential Environmental Vulnerability

This section of the EMP will identify areas of potential environmental vulnerability, including.

By-product management: how manure, effluent and compost will be contained, stored and reused without adverse impacts to the environment.

Air quality: how odour emissions from the Feedlot will be minimised.

Water supply for the Feedlot: how this will impact on potential or actual use by surrounding land users.

Soils and surface water during construction: how these natural resources will be protected during construction.

Noise and dust: how noise and dust during construction and operation will be mitigated (including traffic generated noise); and its potential impact on nearby receptors.

Dust and vermin: what strategies will be used to minimise flies, rats and mice.

Traffic and transport: traffic numbers and how safe access will be provided at the property entrance / exit; impact on local roads.

Fire risk and management: contingencies and plans to manage fire risk.

Animal welfare and disease management: how positive animal welfare outcomes will be achieved; and preparedness for major disease outbreaks and mass mortalities.

Flora and fauna: how the Feedlot will mitigate impacts to existing flora and fauna; and threatened species, populations or ecological communities; or their habitats.

Aboriginal heritage: how the Feedlot will mitigate impacts to aboriginal heritage.

Monitoring Requirements under Environment Protection Licence

The EMP will as a minimum include a current copy of the EPL. The monitoring requirements are to be listed for easy and clear understanding of the location of monitoring points and the parameters to be monitored. This section will also refer to the Annual Environmental Report to be submitted for the annual EPL Return documentation.



Gwydir Shire Consent Conditions

The EMP is to include a copy of the consent issued by Council. If monitoring is required under the consent, details of the monitoring and reporting are to be summarised in conjunction with EPL monitoring programs.

9.2 Management Strategy

This section of the EMP will provide an outline of the strategy that will be used to demonstrate that sound environmental practice during the establishment, operation and rehabilitation (in the event of closure) of Gunyerwarildi Feedlot.

Management of Construction Impacts

Planned Construction Activities and Potential Impacts The engagement of construction contractors will occur during the construction and development of the Feedlot site. As part of the contractual documentation, the Proponent will request Construction Environmental Management Plans from contractors who are involved with substantial earthworks outside of a formed controlled drainage area. The primary content of the plans will address the key matters outlined in the following table.

Table 38: Erosion and Sediment Controls

Operational Policy

To minimise erosion around the construction site and movement of soil into nearby drainage lines and watercourses.

Performance Criteria

The construction of the Feedlot complex does not impact on surface water quantity or quality.

Implementation Strategy

Minimise disturbance of soil around the construction site.

After completion of the operational works, all sediment control devices will be maintained until groundcover is returned to pre-construction levels.

Stabilize disturbed areas after completion of works.

Ensure adequate grass cover is established and maintained along the length of any storm water diversion channels.

Use sediment barriers along the length of the storm water diversion channels to restrict flow velocity (until sufficient groundcover is established).

Monitoring

Following each rainfall event:

Inspect the integrity and effectiveness of sediment barriers.

Inspect the integrity and effectiveness of temporary storm water diversion channels and earthen contour banks.

Corrective Action

Repair and or replace sediment barriers, diversion channels and contour banks.

Add new erosion mitigation strategies as required.

9.3 Management of Operational Impacts

Feedlot Operational Activities

This section will outline the main operational activities at the Feedlot.

Training Programs for Operational Staff

This section will summarise proposed environmental training.



All employees, contractors and sub-contractors will undergo general environmental awareness training, plus training on their specific responsibilities under this EMP. The training will be designed to ensure all employees understand their obligation to exercise due diligence in protecting the environment. Environmental training will include site induction, overview of EMP, environmental emergency response training, familiarity with site environmental controls and specific training for those involved in managing effluent and manure. The need for additional or revised training will be considered and implemented during system reviews. Gunyerwarildi Feedlot will keep environmental training records including: who was trained, when, who provided the training and general details of what the training covered.

Achieving Compliance with Licensing and Approval Requirements

This section will identify how it is proposed to measure that compliance with licensing and approval requirements and due diligence have been achieved. It will be completed when the conditions are provided.

9.4 Monitoring

A monitoring program will be developed for the Feedlot. This will be designed to take into account the community and the natural resources of the site. It will incorporate key environmental indicators that would demonstrate the ecological sustainability of the Feedlot. It will outline the need for and use of targeted environmental monitoring, monitoring intervals and reporting procedures

Key Environmental Monitoring Parameters

The following tables include examples of typical:

environmental monitoring points

complaint registers

EPA monitoring frequency summary

sample analysis parameters

Table 39: Environmental Monitoring Points

Type of monitoring point

Type of discharge point and monitoring

Description of location

Purpose of monitoring

Community complaints Number of complaints received per month

To confirm that the Feedlot is not creating nuisance at nearby residences

Cattle numbers Number of cattle Feedlot pen area To confirm that cattle numbers are not exceeding licensed capacity (which could increase environmental risk)

Discharge in event of effluent holding pond spill

Overflow point: estimated volume and quality of effluent spilt

Effluent holding pond

To use in assessing likely environmental harm in the event of an effluent holding pond spill

Discharge of irrigation of effluent reuse area

Quality and quantity of effluent discharged for irrigation to land

Effluent irrigation area

To use in assessing whether effluent reuse rates are sustainable



Manure quality and quantity monitoring

Quantity and quality of manure removed from stockpile areas

Manure stockpile areas

To use in assessing whether manure reuse rates are sustainable

Soil quality monitoring Soil properties Effluent reuse area To use in assessing whether effluent reuse rates are sustainable

Soil quality monitoring Soil properties Manure reuse area To use in assessing whether manure reuse rates are sustainable

Table 40: EPL Monitoring Frequency

Type of Monitoring Point

Monitoring Requirements Monitoring Frequency

Chemical Analysis Required?

Community complaints Number of complaints received, recorded and issue investigated

As required N/A

Cattle numbers Number of cattle in pens at the end of each month

Feedlot pen area N/A

Weather Weather analysis Continuous N/A

Discharge in event of effluent evaporation pond spill

Estimate quantity of effluent discharged for irrigation representative sample

When a spill occurs Yes


Representative sample mass

Annually if manure is removed from the stockpiling

areas

Yes

Soil quality monitoring

Representative sample mass Annually if effluent reuse has occurred

Yes

Soil quality monitoring

Representative sample mass Annually if manure reuse has occurred

Yes

Table 41: EPL Sample Analysis Parameters


Parameter Units Frequency Sampling Method

Community complaints Complaints

received Number of Complaints

As received Complaints Phone Line

Cattle numbers Number of

Cattle in Feedlot

Head Monthly Count (Stock records)

Discharge in event of effluent holding spill

Volume ML As discharged Composite Volume Estimated (In the Event of Spill)


Mass T As removed from stockpiling areas

Soil quality monitoring (manure reuse areas)

Total N NO3-N Total P

Available P Available K

Total Organic C Cl Ph

CEC

Mg/Kg Mg/Kg Mg/Kg Mg/Kg Mg/Kg

% Mg/Kg

Ph Units Meq/100 G

Annually if manure of

effluent reuse has occurred in

that year

Composite




Parameter Units Frequency Sampling Method

Exch Ca Exch Mg Exch K

Exch Na ESP

Meq/100 G Meq/100 G Meq/100 G Meq/100 G

%

9.5 Site Rehabilitation

In the event of permanent Feedlot closure, a site rehabilitation plan will be required. The general scope of this plan will outline the process of utilising remaining effluent and manure, removing the manure from pens, removing the feedlot infrastructure, revegetation of the site and as a final works when the site is stabilised, removal of the runoff control channels and ponds.

9.6 Environmental Management Report

An Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR) will be prepared and submitted in accordance with the conditions of the environmental protection licence. This will include monitoring data gathered and analysed in accordance with the conditions of the applicable environmental protection licence. A copy of each AEMR will be kept by Ceres for at least four years.

9.7 EMP Review

The EMP developed for the proposed development is based on the predicted operations in accordance with the design proposal. Some procedural matters may require amendment during the development and operational phases and therefore the EMP will need appropriate review and updating on an as required basis. The principles of the review triggers are indicated below: This EMP will be reviewed:

When there is a change in the scale of the Feedlot operation

Following a significant environmental incident

Where a need to improve environmental performance is identified; and

Annually when the AEMR is prepared. The Feedlot Manager will review the EMP at least annually to confirm that it is relevant to the operations of the Feedlot, being properly followed and that it is promoting effective environmental protection. In particular, the results of the monitoring program will be assessed to ensure the Feedlot is providing a high standard of environmental protection. Where results suggest otherwise, deficiencies in the EMP or its implementation will be recorded along with specific action plans with dates to remedy these. All staff members will be made aware of changes to the EMP through a meeting. If significant changes are made to the EMP it will be submitted to the EPA and the Gwydir Shire for review and acceptance. Over time, the EMP is to be incorporated into whole operation management and therefore will become an Operational Environmental Management Plan. The intent of this change is to ensure that the EMP becomes part of regular management and staff training and therefore can be utilised in a similar manner to a “Work Method Statement”.



10 Conclusion This review and assessment of the Feedlot extension at Gunyerwarildi presents a proposal which is considered to meet current Feedlot Guidelines, statutory policy and best practice. The assessment has indicated that the Feedlot can be operated in accordance with sustainable principles and result in minimal harm to the surrounding environment. The proposal involves minor clearing; however, as part of the development proposal the Proponent intends to retain a voluntary offset area consisting of part of the same woodland. The offset is approximately 21 hectares against clearing of approximately 1.9 hectares. The proposal meets the general offset principle policy which is recommended by OEH. The Voluntary Offset would form part of the approval conditions under the EP&A Act as these documents would be referred to when consent would be issued. The soil and land available on the property has been assessed in relation to construction of the Feedlot and operation of an effluent and manure disposal program. The clay base beneath the Feedlot and ponds meets the required standard of impermeability in order to prevent the contamination of aquifers beneath the site. There is sufficient land owned by the Proponent to undertake a sustainable disposal program for both manure and effluent. The investigation has established base line data; however, this data has already been submitted under the existing EPL. Appropriate buffer dimensions are available for disposal areas. These need to be adopted by the Proponent. The development will potentially benefit local and regional economies. The construction phase will generate local employment opportunities and income for contractors in the local area. Once the Feedlot is operational it will offer the potential for 30-40 permanent staff in addition to the services of local contractors and service providers. This is considered beneficial to the surrounding rural communities including Warialda where in many cases, employment opportunities are stagnating. The additional income and security of employment would benefit the local economy. The potential social impacts of the Feedlot were assessed in relation to potential effects of odour, noise, dust and visual appearance on amenity. The site is considered to be relatively isolated in relation to recommended Guideline buffers. The impacts of operating the existing 5,000 head Feedlot and the proposed high standards of design and management, have to date caused no significant amenity loss. Assessment of the cumulative impact of an additional 15,000 head capacity has identified that the available buffers will continue to act in dispersing potential impacts to a level that is considered acceptable, according to published State and National Guidelines for Feedlots. Potential impacts on aboriginal heritage were extensively examined during the development of the existing 5,000 head site which included assessment of the land to be occupied by the additional 15,000 head. Additional survey and assessment was undertaken over the area to be developed for the 15,000 head and no additional sites or artefacts were identified. The opinion of the representative of the Local Aboriginal Community has indicated that the proposed new site will not impact on matters of Aboriginal significance. However, if new sites or artefacts are encountered during construction, appropriate actions will be necessary to manage and preserve the discoveries. This would be in accordance with the NP&W Act. The new development is to be located on land that is considered as highly disturbed by historic farming and grazing activities and present a low value natural habitat. The additional pen area will utilise existing infrastructure including yards, roads and the Milling operation on Gunyerwarildi. This is



preferable when compared to developing a green field site which would require disturbance of a much larger area to achieve the Proponent’s objectives for a 20,000 head Feedlot. In relation to inter-generational equity, the development proposal has been designed in accordance with best practice and operational procedures to maintain the site as a sustainable operation are to be adopted. The net effect on inter-generation equity should therefore meet the expectations and principles of published guidelines. In conclusion, the proposed Feedlot can be considered as justified on bio-physical, economic, social and ESD grounds. Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Hayley Greenham BSc BBus Peter Taylor BSc MEIANZ CIAg

Environmental and Resource Consultant Senior Environmental and Resource Consultant



11 Reference List Armcanz and Anzecc 1997, National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian Guidelines for Sewerage Systems, Effluent Management, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra, ACT.

Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW, 2009. Interim Construction Noise Guideline. NSW Government, Sydney. EIS Guideline for Cattle Feedlots (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1996); referred to as the EIS Guidelines Environment Protection Authority. 2006. Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW – Technical Framework (DEC 2006a); referred to as the NSW Odour Assessment Framework Environment Protection Authority. 2006. Assessment and Management of Odour from Stationary Sources in NSW – Technical Notes (DEC 2006b); referred to as the NSW Odour Assessment Notes Guidelines for development adjoining land and water managed by Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW 2010); referred to as Developments adjoining DECCW in the report Meat and Livestock Australia. 2012. National Beef Cattle Feedlot Environmental Code of Practice (2nd Edition). Meat and Livestock Australia. Meat and Livestock Australia. 2012. National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia (3rd Edition). Meat and Livestock Australia. Miller, W. (2008) Practical Guide to Soil Erosion: A guide to preventing, assessing and treating soil erosion on your farm. Border River Catchment Management Authority. Moody, P.W. (2007) Interpretation of a single-point P buffering index for adjusting critical levels of the Colwell soil P test. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 45. 55-62 NSW Department of Agriculture. 1997. The New South Wales Feedlot Manual. NSW Agriculture, Sydney. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities. DEC, Sydney. NSW Environment Protection Authority. 2000. NSW Industrial Noise Policy. EPA, Sydney. NSW Government. 1979. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. NSW Government, Sydney. NSW Department of Primary Industries Agriculture. (2004). Testing and Assessing Soil. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/resources/soils/testing/interpret (Accessed 2016).

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/resources/soils/testing/interpret



Office of Environment and Heritage. Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS). http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/awssapp/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fawssapp (Accessed 2016). Primary Industries Standing Committee. 2004. Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Cattle (PISC Report 85). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Reference Manual for the Establishment and Operation of Beef Cattle Feedlots in Queensland (Skerman 2000); referred to as the QLD Feedlot Manual in this report. Slavich, P.G. and Petterson, G.H. (1993). Estimating the critical conductivity of saturated paste extracts from 1:5 soil:water suspensions and texture. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 73-81.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/awssapp/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fawssapp

download gunyerwarildi-feedlot-eis.pdf

Documents