Environmental Impact Statement MAIN REPORT · 2016-03-02 · Type of poultry sheds : Tunnel-ventilated, fully-enclosed, climate-controlled . Maximum shed population : 50,000 birds

Intensive Livestock AgricultureThe Ranch Poultry Production Complex

Farm 4

Environmental Impact Statement

MAIN REPORT

Prepared by:

VOAG 4 Pty Ltd

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

SUBMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Prepared By: Name: Adam Williams, Associate Environmental Scientist

Qualifications: Bachelor of Environmental Science

Graduate Certificate of Environmental Management

Company: SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Address: 10 Kings Road, New Lambton, NSW, 2305

Development Application Applicant Name: VOAG 4 Pty Ltd

Applicant Address: 131 Fogarty Road, Tynong North VIC 3813

Land to be Developed: Lot 77 in Deposited Plan 720257 and Lot 78 in Deposited Plan 720258

“The Ranch Farm 4”, Back Hillston Road, Tabbita NSW

Parish of Denny County of Sturt Local Government Area of Carrathool

Development Description: Intensive Livestock Industry - Poultry Broiler Production Farm (refer Section 3)

Declaration We hereby certify that we have prepared the contents of this document and to the best of our knowledge:

• It has been prepared in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

• It addresses the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (1012) dated 2 February 2016 provided by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment;

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

• The information contained in the environmental impact statement is neither false nor misleading.

Name: Adam Williams SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Signature:

Date: 22 February 2016 Note: Cover page images courtesy of Australian Chicken Meat Federation and VOAG 4 Pty Ltd

The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Environmental Impact Statement

Page i Executive Summary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

VOAG 4 Pty Ltd (VOAG 4), a subsidiary of VOAG Pty Ltd (VOAG), seeks development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to develop an intensive poultry broiler production farm (The Ranch Farm 4 (the “Development”)) within a rural property in the area known as Tabbita approximately 26 kilometres (km) northwest of Griffith in south-western New South Wales (NSW).

The Development falls within the bounds of “local development” that is both “designated” and “integrated” under the provisions of Part 4 of the EP&A Act. It will require development consent from Carrathool Shire Council (Council), along with an environment protection licence (EPL) from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). It will also require consent from Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

A development briefing paper and an application for the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) was lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on the 18 December 2015, with SEARs 1012 issued on 2 February 2016. Consultation has been undertaken with other relevant State and local government agencies, surrounding residents and other relevant stakeholders.

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to address the SEARs and accompany the development application under Part 4 of the EP&A Act for the Development. In addition to describing the Development, this EIS contains a comprehensive and focused assessment of the associated planning and environmental matters to a level of detail commensurate with the scale of the Development, industry standards and the legislative framework under which it is permissible.

Concurrent Applications

On 15 December 2015 Council granted Development Consents DA 2016/017, DA 2016/022 and DA2016/023 to develop The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2 and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively. Given the environmental impact assessments for these three developments did not predict any significant adverse impacts on the local environmental or surrounding community, and responding to the increasing demand for poultry meat in the Australian market, VOAG is now seeking development consent for two more farms, being The Ranch Farm 4 (i.e. the Development) and The Ranch Farm 5 (subject to a separate development consent). Collectively, The Ranch Farms 1 to 5 are being referred to as The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. Development applications for The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 are being lodged concurrently in February 2016.

Furthermore, VOAG is also seeking development consent for The Ranch Farm 1 Expansion, The Ranch Farm 2 Expansion and The Ranch Farm 3 Expansion. Development applications for these developments are expected to be lodged concurrently in April 2016.

Cumulative impacts associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex have been addressed in this EIS.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

VOAG 4 seeks development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act for The Ranch Farm 4, where broiler birds will be grown for human consumption. Figure A shows the proposed location and configuration of the Development, and Table A contains a summary of some of the key elements of the Development.

Kidman

Way

Way

TABBITA

Huxl

eys

Road

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

Tysons Road

Tabbita

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 32DP756045

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 57DP756045

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 2DP756062

Lot 28DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Proposed Lot 3

ProposedLot 1

Proposed Lot 2

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 4

Lot 79DP720259

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 4

7DP

7560

45

Lot 54DP756045

Proposed Lot 6

FIGURE A

Development Layout

See Inset

INSET

LEGEND

Development SiteProposed lot subdivisionsDerelict dwelling to be demolishedExisting farm damsDrainage linesThe Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 -Proposed poultry shedThe Ranch Farms 1, 2 & 3 -Proposed water storage dam

The Ranch Farm 4 -Proposed poultry shed

The Ranch Farm 4 -Proposed water storage dam

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\FgA

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_De

velop

mentL

ayou

t_V1.d

wg

To be printed A4

Notes and Cautions:(1) Background satellite image sourced from Google Earth.(2) All boundaries and areas shown on this plan are approximate only and subject

to survey verification.0.0

N

KM0.625 1.25


Page iii Executive Summary


Table A – Summary of Proposed Development

Aspect Details

Purpose Birds grown for human consumption

Number of poultry production units (PPUs) One

Number of poultry sheds 16, each measuring 176 metres (m) long by 18 m wide

Type of poultry sheds Tunnel-ventilated, fully-enclosed, climate-controlled

Maximum shed population 50,000 birds

Maximum farm population 800,000 birds

Maximum bird density within sheds 18 birds per square metre (m2) (and will not exceed a density of 34 kilograms (kg)/m2)

Hours of operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

Production cycle length Approximately 9 weeks (63 days), comprising 7.5 weeks (53 days) of bird occupation and a 1.5 week (10 days) cleaning phase

Number of production cycles per year On average, approximately 5.7

The Development will comprise one poultry production unit (PPU) with 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds. Each shed will have the capacity to house 50,000 birds, equating to a site population of up to 800,000 birds.

In addition to poultry shedding, the Development also includes:

• Two new residences to house the farm manager and assistant farm manager;

• Various other infrastructure items to support the poultry production operation;

• Extension of water and electricity infrastructure to service the Development;

• The construction of a large on-site water storage dam (with associated water tanks, pumping and pipeline infrastructure), with a capacity of approximately 60 megalitres (ML); and

• Extension of the internal vehicular access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to the Development Site.

The disturbance footprint (including access roads, servicing infrastructure and support infrastructure) will be relatively small at approximately 18.3 hectares (ha) and the commercial activities associated with the poultry operation will be largely confined to the PPU. Where practicable, it is intended to continue using the land outside of the disturbance footprint within the Development Site for continued agricultural production purposes under some form of lease or share farming arrangement.

KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

The assessment of environmental issues associated with the Development has been multi-disciplinary and involved an environmental risk assessment and consultation with relevant State and local government agencies. As facilitated by the risk assessment, where a potential environmental impact/risk was considered unacceptable, or where a knowledge gap was identified, a specialist impact assessment was commissioned and appropriate management responses nominated. While the risk assessment did not identify any high ranking environmental risks, three medium ranking risks were identified relating to odour emissions; potential impacts to threatened flora and fauna resulting from clearing for vegetation corridors; and potential impacts upon Aboriginal heritage.

Neither the Development in isolation or The Ranch Poultry Production Complex as a whole are anticipated to pose any significant or long-term adverse impact to the local environment or surrounding populace. Table B provides a summarised overview of the assessment findings for the key environmental issues, including cumulative impacts.


Page iv Executive Summary


Table B - Overview of Environmental Assessment Issues

Environmental Aspect Key Assessment Findings

Land Use Conflict • The potential for conflict between the Development and the existing surrounding agricultural land uses is considered very low. The disturbance footprint (including access roads, servicing infrastructure and other support infrastructure) will be relatively small at approximately 18.3 ha and the commercial activity associated with the poultry operation will be largely confined to the PPU.

• Where, practicable, it is intended to continue using the land outside of the development footprint within the Development Site for continued agricultural production purposes (crop cultivation and/or livestock grazing) under some form of lease or share farming arrangement. On this basis, the Development will not deny access to large areas of viable agricultural lands nor significantly reduce the land area available for agricultural production.

Odour • Odour concentrations are predicted to meet the EPA’s criterion at all identified sensitive receptors for the Development in isolation and cumulatively with other proposed poultry developments.

Particulate Matter • A screening assessment using a continuous worst-case PM10 (particulate matter with a diameter of equal to or less than 10 microns) emission rate predicted a maximum 24-hour PM10 concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor well below the EPA criterion. Based on these initial screening level results and the identified level of risk associated with particulate matter from other similar studies, any further detailed modelling is not considered to be warranted.

Noise • Predicted operational noise levels are significantly below the most conservative applicable criteria.

• Any sleep disturbance noise impacts associated with the Development Site are considered negligible.

• The calculated road traffic noise level at the nearest roadside residential receivers meets the applicable criteria under all prediction scenarios.

• Noise levels from proposed construction activities are predicted to meet the “noise affected construction noise goals at all assessed sensitive receivers.

Traffic and Transport • Construction traffic is expected to be low and will be for only twelve months. The impacts arising from construction traffic are therefore expected to be low and the mitigation measures to be implemented to address operational traffic impacts are expected to be sufficient to also address construction traffic.

• The additional traffic to be generated by the Development is not expected to have any operational impacts on the external road network.

• The heavy vehicle routes are suitable for the types of vehicle movements that will be generated by the Development and have sufficient facilities to accommodate the additional traffic.

• Cumulative traffic from existing and proposed poultry developments in the area can be accommodated by Kidman Way.

Water Resources • Given the controlled environment in which the Development will operate, along with the environmental licensing conditions it will need to comply with, it poses a low risk to local water resources and no detectable impact is expected.

• Given that the disturbance footprint will comprise a relatively small portion of the Development Site, changes to the existing runoff/recharge pattern will be minor. This, combined with the depth of the water table, which according to the Department of Primary Industries Water (DPI Water) database records for the closest registered groundwater bore (GW002984) is located within the Development Site and has a standing water level of 89.3 m below ground level in the general area, leads to the conclusion that no detectable impacts to groundwater levels, yields or quality are expected. The nature of the strata and the water table depth will provide an adequate buffer against infiltration of any potential pollutants, such as turbidity and/or hydrocarbons.

• While the construction phase will include some excavation activities, there will not be any interaction with groundwater given the relatively shallow excavations and the depth of the water table.

• Based on the design of the surface water management system and the relatively low volume and quality of the surface water to be managed, there is negligible


Page v Executive Summary


Environmental Aspect Key Assessment Findings risk to local water resources as a result of runoff.

• There will not be any on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials and, therefore, no opportunities for the leaching of nutrients or other pollutants to surface water and groundwater.

• No detectable impact to surface water or groundwater is anticipated as a result of on-site sewage management. Aerated systems will be used and relatively low volumes of sewage will be generated by the on-site staff amenities and residences.

Biodiversity • The Development Site is highly modified and disturbed, primarily comprising treeless paddocks that have been consistently cropped and grazed for many years. However, the Development Site does enclose a section of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary and there is a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary. Site survey confirmed that the communities to the north and east of the Development Site correspond with Mallee Woodland and the communities to the south are Open Mallee Woodland. Neither of these two vegetation classes are mapped as threatened ecological communities under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

• While the Development will be predominantly located within areas that are already cleared, approximately 0.55 hectares of vegetation will be required to be removed to allow the construction of the infrastructure corridor between The Ranch Farm 3 site and The Ranch Farm 4 site. All remaining vegetation will be retained and will not be directly affected by the Development. The vegetation to be removed is Open Mallee Woodland. This vegetation community is not listed as a threatened ecological community under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act. Clearing will be compensated for by the extensive landscaping to be undertaken for the development using naturally occurring plant species.

• Based on the level of existing site disturbance and the strategic positioning of development infrastructure, including the construction of an internal infrastructure corridor, the risk of adverse impact on any threatened species, populations, ecological communities or on local biodiversity in general within the surrounding environment is likely to be negligible. Furthermore, the Development is highly unlikely to substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat, disrupt the lifecycle of local or migratory species, or result in an invasive species that is harmful to the local or migratory species.

Aboriginal Heritage • A search of the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) did not yield any records for Aboriginal sites recorded in or near the Development Site. No Aboriginal places have been declared in or near the Development Site.

• Assessment in accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010) removed the Development from the due diligence process at Step 2.

• Although not required by the Due Diligence process, the Proponent engaged an archaeologist to undertake visual inspection of the development areas in order to ground-truth the findings of the above desktop assessment.

• An Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment undertaken for the Development, including site survey did not identify any Aboriginal sites.

• In accordance with the due diligence process an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is not necessary.

Non- Aboriginal Heritage • There are no items of heritage significance located within the Development Site.

Visual Amenity • The proposed PPU is setback from Tysons Road by over 4,500 m, and from the adjoining Back Hillston Road by around 1,000 m. The nearest privately-owned residences are located approximately 3,900 m away.

• Analysis of topography reveals that there is a moderate change in elevation between the PPU and the nearest privately owned residences (10 m to 40 m) and there is significant intervening vegetation between the PPU and surrounding residences. Vegetation screens will be planted around the perimeter of the PPU,


Page vi Executive Summary


Environmental Aspect Key Assessment Findings which, once established, will visually screen the Development.

• There should not be any issues in terms of adverse lighting impacts (for example, light spill).

Bushfire and Incident Management

• The Development Site has been identified as containing bushfire prone land as mapped by the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS). A bushfire risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the RFS Guideline Planning for Bush Fire Protection (RFS, 2006).

• In accordance with the RFS Guideline (2006), the minimum setback from the vegetation for residential developments is 10 m, where the vegetation is located upslope of the development, or between 0° and 10° downslope of the site. As the residences are located over 50 m from the vegetation they are deemed to have an adequate Asset Protection Zone (APZ).

• The bushfire attack levels for the proposed development have been calculated in accordance with AS 3959-2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas. The residences were categorised as a low risk of bushfire attack, therefore there are no construction requirements.

Mineral Resources • The Development is adequately removed from the former quarries (Simpkins Pit and the Huxleys Pit are located approximately 1 km north east and 2 km north of the PPU, respectively).

• The disturbance footprint (including access roads, servicing infrastructure and support infrastructure) will be relatively small at approximately 18.3 ha and the commercial activities associated with the poultry operation will be largely confined to the PPU.

• It is therefore considered that the Development will have no impact upon the current or future use of the quarries.

JUSTIFICATION AND CONCLUSION

This EIS has assessed the proposed Development (i.e. The Ranch Farm 4) in accordance with the environmental planning context of the EP&A Act and its regulations and in accordance with the SEARs issued on 2 February 2016. All relevant regulatory requirements, the findings and conclusions of the specialist impact assessments and the findings of the stakeholder consultation activities have been considered and addressed in this EIS.

The potential for adverse impact on the local environment and surrounding populace has been minimised by selective siting of the PPU and adoption of various development design features, best management practices and mitigation measures. While the Development may result in some externalised impacts associated with air quality, noise emissions, traffic generation and vegetation clearing, the specialist impact assessments predict that the Development will comply with all relevant impact assessment criteria and can co-exist with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the specialist impact assessments have also assessed the cumulative air quality, noise emissions, traffic generation and vegetation clearing from The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. The Ranch Farms 1 to 5), with predictions concluding that these operations will also comply with all relevant impact assessment criteria. The impact to social amenity will be minimal, with no change to the day-to-day life of surrounding residents as a result of the Development and no additional demand for services or facilities.

It is considered that the Development can proceed without resulting in significant or long-term adverse impacts to the local environment and surrounding populace. It will be managed on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a site-specific Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), which will ensure that the commitments made in this EIS, along with relevant statutory obligations and conditions of development consent (including environmental licensing requirements), are fully implemented and complied with.

The Development is justified in socio-economic terms as a catalyst for increased economic activity within the Carrathool Local Government Area (LGA) and wider Griffith region, including positive employment and flow-on benefits.


Page vii Table of Contents

Table of Contents


1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1

1.2 Document Purpose 1

1.3 The Applicant 1 1.4 Development Site 2

1.5 Development Overview 2 1.6 Development Rationale and Objective 5

1.7 Consent Pathway 5

1.8 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements 6 1.9 Development Team 8

2 SITE DESCRIPTION 9 2.1 Overview 9

2.2 Zoning 9 2.3 Land Ownership and Proposed Subdivision 12

2.4 Vehicular Access and Road Network 12

2.5 Existing Land Use 14 2.6 Surrounding Land Use and Residences 14

2.7 Surrounding Poultry Operations 15 2.8 Meteorology 17

2.9 Soil and Land Capability 20

2.10 Water Resources 20 Surface Water 20 2.10.1 Groundwater 21 2.10.2 Flooding 21 2.10.3

2.11 Vegetation 21

2.12 Land Contamination 21 2.13 Bush Fire 22

3 PROPOSED POULTRY DEVELOPMENT 25 3.1 Overview 25

3.2 Concurrent Applications 28 3.3 Frequently Asked Questions 28

3.4 Separation Distances 30

3.5 Construction Activities 31 3.6 Poultry Shedding 34

Design 34 3.6.1 Stocking Density 34 3.6.2 Bedding Material 34 3.6.3


Page viii Table of Contents

Table of Contents


Feed and Water Lines 36 3.6.4 Lighting 36 3.6.5 Ventilation 36 3.6.6

3.7 Supporting Infrastructure 38 Farm Manager’s Accommodation 38 3.7.1 Ancillary Farm Improvements 38 3.7.2 Water Storage Dam 39 3.7.3

3.8 Hours of Operation 39

3.9 Production Cycle 39 3.10 Vehicular Access 40

Kidman Way – Tysons Road Intersection 40 3.10.1 Access to the Development Site 41 3.10.2 Wheel Wash 41 3.10.3

3.11 Traffic 42 Traffic Generation 42 3.11.1 Heavy Vehicle Route 44 3.11.2

3.12 Servicing 46 Electricity 46 3.12.1 Gas 46 3.12.2 Water Supply 46 3.12.3 Feed Supply 47 3.12.4

3.13 Chemical Use and Management 47 3.14 Waste Management 48

General Waste 49 3.14.1 Chemical Containers 49 3.14.2 Poultry Litter 49 3.14.3 Dead Birds 49 3.14.4 Sewage 49 3.14.5

3.15 Surface Water Management 50

3.16 Revegetation 50 3.17 Landscaping 51

3.18 Site Maintenance 51

3.19 Pest Control 52 3.20 Workplace Health and Safety 52

3.21 Animal Health and Welfare 53 3.22 Biosecurity 56

3.23 Mass Mortality Disposal Strategy 57

3.24 Operational Environmental Management Plan 59 3.25 Socio-Economic Aspects 59

Operational Employment 59 3.25.1 Capital Investment 59 3.25.2


Page ix Table of Contents

Table of Contents


Consumables and Flow-On Benefits 59 3.25.3

4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 61 4.1 Permissibility 61

4.2 Consent Pathway 61

4.3 Commonwealth Legislation 62 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 62 4.3.1

4.4 NSW State Legislation 63 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 63 4.4.1 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 63 4.4.2 Roads Act 1993 63 4.4.3 Water Management Act 2000 64 4.4.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 64 4.4.5

4.5 State Environmental Planning Policies 64 Infrastructure SEPP 64 4.5.1 SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land 65 4.5.2 SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development 65 4.5.3

4.6 Carrathool Local Environmental Plan 2012 66 4.7 Draft Carrathool Development Control Plan 2012 67

4.8 Other Considerations 67 Draft Riverina Regional Strategic Plan 67 4.8.1 Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2007 67 4.8.2

5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 68

6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT 70

7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 71 7.1 Land Use Conflict 71

Mitigation Measures 71 7.1.1

7.2 Odour 72 Existing Environment 72 7.2.1 Assessment Criteria 73 7.2.2 Impact Assessment 74 7.2.3 Mitigation Measures 78 7.2.4

7.3 Particulate Matter 79 Existing Environment 79 7.3.1 Assessment Criteria 79 7.3.2 Impact Assessment 79 7.3.3 Mitigation Measures 80 7.3.4

7.4 Noise 81 Existing Environment 81 7.4.1 Assessment Criteria 81 7.4.2 Impact Assessment 83 7.4.3


Page x Table of Contents

Table of Contents


Mitigation Measures 93 7.4.4

7.5 Traffic and Transport 94 Existing Environment 94 7.5.1 Impact Assessment 95 7.5.2 Mitigation Measures 99 7.5.3

7.6 Water Resources 100 Existing Environment 100 7.6.1 Impact Assessment 100 7.6.2 Mitigation Measures 102 7.6.3

7.7 Biodiversity 103 Existing Environment 103 7.7.1 Threatened Biota 104 7.7.2 Impact Assessment 105 7.7.3 Mitigation Measures 107 7.7.4

7.8 Aboriginal Heritage 109 Existing Environment 109 7.8.1 Due Diligence Assessment 109 7.8.2 Mitigation Measures 111 7.8.3

7.9 Non-Aboriginal Heritage 111 Existing Environment 111 7.9.1 Impact Assessment 111 7.9.2 Mitigation Measures 111 7.9.3

7.10 Visual Amenity 111 Existing Environment 111 7.10.1 Impact Assessment 112 7.10.2 Mitigation Measures 112 7.10.3

7.11 Greenhouse Gas 112 Emission Sources 112 7.11.1 Mitigation Measures 113 7.11.2

7.12 Socio-Economic Considerations 113 Overview 113 7.12.1 Economic Activity 114 7.12.2

7.13 Bushfire and Incident Management 114 Existing Environment 114 7.13.1 Impact Assessment 115 7.13.2 Mitigation Measures 117 7.13.3

7.14 Mineral Resources 118 7.15 Cumulative Impacts 118

Odour 118 7.15.1 Particulate Matter 118 7.15.2 Noise 118 7.15.3 Traffic and Transport 119 7.15.4


Page xi Table of Contents

Table of Contents


Biodiversity 119 7.15.5 Socio-Economic Considerations 120 7.15.6

8 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES 121

9 JUSTIFICATION AND CONCLUSION 126 9.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development 126

The Precautionary Principle 127 9.1.1 Intergenerational Equity 127 9.1.2 Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity 127 9.1.3 Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms 128 9.1.4

9.2 Analysis of Alternatives 128 General 128 9.2.1 Alternative Sites and Farm Layout 128 9.2.2 Consequences of Not Carrying Out the Development 129 9.2.3

9.3 Conclusion 129

10 REFERENCES 131

11 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND UNITS 134

TABLES Table 1 Summary of Proposed Development 2 Table 2 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements 6 Table 3 Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the Development Site 15 Table 4 Long-Term Meteorological Conditions 17 Table 5 Summary of the Proposed Development 25 Table 6 Separation Distances 30 Table 7 Estimated Traffic Generation for the Ranch Farm 4 - Production Cycle and Annual 43 Table 8 Estimated Traffic Generation for the Ranch Farm 4 - Daily and Peak Hours 43 Table 9 Estimated Traffic Generation for The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Daily

and Peak Hours 44 Table 10 Pasture Specification 51 Table 11 Stakeholder Consultation 68 Table 12 Odour Performance Criteria (DEC 2006b) 73 Table 13 Adopted Odour Impact Assessment Criteria 74 Table 14 Predicted 99th Percentile Odour Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors 75 Table 15 Adopted Criteria for Particulate Emissions 79 Table 16 Operational Noise Level Criteria 82 Table 17 Traffic Noise Criteria 83 Table 18 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Construction Noise Levels (dBA) 83 Table 19 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Operational Noise Levels- The Ranch Farm 4 Only 84 Table 20 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Operational Noise Levels – Cumulative 85 Table 21 Predicted Sleep Disturbance Noise Levels (dB) 87 Table 22 Construction Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Kidman Way 88 Table 23 Construction Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Tysons Road 88 Table 24 Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results - Kidman Way 89 Table 25 Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results - Tysons Road 90 Table 26 Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Kidman Way 92


Page xii Table of Contents

Table of Contents


Table 27 Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Tysons Road 93 Table 28 Future Forecast Traffic Volumes on Kidman Way South of Tysons Road (2028) 96 Table 29 Future Forecast Traffic Volumes (2028) – Cumulative 99 Table 30 Typical Annual Pollutant Load Removal Efficiencies for Vegetated Swales 102 Table 31 Bushfire Protection Measures 116 Table 32 Hazard assessment and APZ calculation 116 Table 33 Bush Fire Attack Categories 117 Table 34 Management and Mitigation Measures 121

FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Locality 3 Figure 2 Regional Locality Zoom 4 Figure 3 The Development Site 10 Figure 4 Zoning 11 Figure 5 Proposed Subdivision 13 Figure 6 Predicted Annual and Seasonal Wind Roses for the Development Site 19 Figure 7 Vegetation 23 Figure 8 Bushfire Prone Land 24 Figure 9 Development Layout 26 Figure 10 Poultry Production Unit Layout 27 Figure 11 The Ranch Poultry Production Complex 29 Figure 12 Supporting Infrastructure - The Ranch Farms 1 and 2 32 Figure 13 Supporting Infrastructure - The Ranch Farms 2, 3 and 4 33 Figure 14 Conceptual Poultry Shed Design 35 Figure 15 Heavy Vehicle Route 45 Figure 16 Proposed Landscaping 54 Figure 17 Predicted 99th Percentile Odour Concentrations for The Ranch Farm 4 76 Figure 18 Predicted 99th Percentile Cumulative Odour Concentrations 77 Figure 19 Vegetation Clearing 108

APPENDICES Appendix A Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Appendix B Air Quality Impact Assessment (SLR 2016a) Appendix C Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (SLR 2016b) Appendix D Traffic Impact Assessment (RoadNet 2016) Appendix E Engineer Design Drawings Appendix F Flora and Fauna Assessment (SLR, 2016c) Appendix G Environmental Risk Register Appendix H Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment (OzArk, 2016)


Page 1 Introduction


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

VOAG 4 Pty Ltd (VOAG 4), a subsidiary of VOAG Pty Ltd (VOAG), seeks development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to develop an intensive poultry broiler production farm (The Ranch Farm 4) within a rural property in the area known as Tabbita, approximately 26 kilometres (km) north-west of Griffith in south-western New South Wales (NSW). This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to support an application by VOAG 4 for development consent.

The Ranch Farm 4 (herein referred to as the Development) comprises the development of 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds, where broiler birds will be grown for human consumption, with associated support infrastructure and staff amenities. Each shed will have the capacity to house a maximum of 50,000 birds at any one time, equating to a total farm population of 800,000 birds. The Development will employ a total of four full-time employees, two of whom will live on site as a farm manager and assistant manager.

On 15 December 2015 Carrathool Shire Council (Council) granted Development Consents DA 2016/017, DA 2016/022 and DA 2016/023 to develop The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2 and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively. Given the environmental impact assessments for these three developments did not predict any significant adverse impacts on the local environmental or surrounding community, and responding to the increasing demand for poultry meat in the Australian market, VOAG is now seeking development consent for two more farms, being The Ranch Farm 4 (i.e. the Development) and The Ranch Farm 5 (subject to a separate development consent). Collectively, The Ranch Farms 1 to 5 are being referred to as The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. Development applications for The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 are being lodged concurrently in February 2016.


Cumulative impacts associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex have been addressed in this EIS.

1.2 Document Purpose

The purpose of this EIS is to enable consideration of the implications of proceeding with the Development. This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the EP&A Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation) and to meet the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs 1012) for the Development, which were issued by the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) on 2 February 2016 (refer Section 1.8).

In addition to describing the Development, the EIS presents a comprehensive and focussed assessment of the associated planning and environmental issues to a level of detail commensurate with the scale of the development and the legislative framework under which the Development is to be assessed and determined. The matters dealt with within the EIS are presented in a manner that addresses the specific requirements of the SEARs, as well as the requirements of other consulted government agencies and stakeholders.

1.3 The Applicant

The Applicant for The Ranch Farm 4 is VOAG 4, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of VOAG. VOAG operates a poultry broiler farm in Tynong North, Victoria, which has been operational for 14 years.


Page 2 Introduction


1.4 Development Site

The Development Site is located approximately 28 km north-west of Griffith and 19 km south-east of Goolgowi in the Riverina region of south-western NSW. It is positioned within Lot 77 in Deposited Plan (DP) 720257 and Lot 78 in DP 720258. The site comprises approximately 41.1 hectares (ha) of vacant rural land within the Carrathool Local Government Area (LGA). The general locality of the Development Site is shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The long-standing and existing use of the Development Site, as well as surrounding lands, is traditional agricultural production. The Development Site is highly modified and disturbed, primarily comprising treeless paddocks that have been consistently cropped and grazed for many years, however there is a portion of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary, and a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary.

1.5 Development Overview

VOAG 4 seeks development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act to develop an intensive poultry broiler production farm (the Development), comprising 16 poultry sheds where broiler birds will be grown for human consumption. Table 1 contains a summary of the key elements of the development.

Table 1 Summary of Proposed Development Aspect Detail

Purpose Birds grown for human consumption


Number of poultry sheds 16, each measuring 176 metres (m) long by 18 m wide




Maximum bird density within sheds 18 birds per square metre (m2) (and will not exceed a density of 34 kilograms (kg)/m2)




The Development will comprise one poultry production unit (PPU) with 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds. Each shed will have the capacity to house 50,000 birds, equating to a site population of up to 800,000 birds.

In addition to poultry shedding, the Development also includes:

• Two new residences to house the farm manager and assistant farm manager;

• Various other infrastructure items to support the poultry production operation;

• Extension of water and electricity infrastructure to service the Development;

• The construction of a large on-site water storage dam (with associated water tanks, pumping and pipeline infrastructure), with a capacity of approximately 60 megalitres (ML); and

• Extension of the internal vehicular access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to the Development Site.

CARRATHOOL - LGA

GRIFFITH - LGA

Griffith Yenda

Yoogali

Hanwood

Willbriggie

Groongal

YANCO

RAILWAY

WILBRIGGIE

TEMORAHILLSTON

JUNEEGRIFFITH

RAILWAYMURRUMBIDGEE RIVERLEETON - LGA

Goolgowi

Merriwagga

Gunbar

STURT HIGHWAY

Kidman

Way

MID WESTERN H

IGHWAY

BinyaState Forest

DennyState Forest

South West WoodlandNature Reserve

TabbitaState Forest

South West WoodlandNature Reserve

CocoparaNature

Reserve

LACHLA

N

RIVER

CabbageGa

rden

Creek

Wah

Wah

Creek

BLAND - LGA

Barellan

Mirrool

Creek

HAY - LGA

RAILWAY

Tabbita

DEVELOPMENT SITE

Barren Box Storageand Wetlands

Farm 61 PoultryProduction Complex


Jeanella PoultryProduction Complex

Rothdene PoultryProduction Complex

Maylands PoultryFarm B

ChickenHatchery

Poultry Processing ComplexPoultry Feedmill

Jeanella South PoultryProduction Complex

Tabbita Farm 2

Tabbita Farm 1

The Ranch Farm 1The Ranch Farm 2

Maylands PoultryFarm A

Tabbita Farm 3

Proposed The Ranch Farm 5

The Ranch Farm 3

ProposedTabbita Farm 4

0

To be printed A4

FIGURE 1

Regional Locality

2512.5KM

Tamworth

Sydney

Newcastle

Wollongong

Lithgow

Dubbo

Orange

Canberra

Broken Hill

Mudgee

Griffith

Development Site

Bathurst

Narrandera

Wagga Wagga

N

Goolgowi

KIDMAN

BURLEY GRIFFIN WAY

GRIFFITHHANWOOD

WAY

GOOLGOWI

MIDWESTERN

HWY

RANKINS SPRINGS

GRIFFITH - LGA

CARRATHOOL - LGA

LAKEWYANGAN

YOOGALI

NERICON

TABBITA

BEELBANGERA

BILBUL

YENDA

MID WESTERN

KIDMANW

AY

CARR

ATHO

OL

ROA

D

McKI

NLEY

ROAD

ROAD

RANK

INS

SP

RING

S R

OAD


Jeanella PoultryProduction Complex

Tabbita Farm 2

Rothdene PoultryProduction ComplexMaylands

Poultry Farm B

Wah

Wah

Creek

HWY

Tabbita Farm 1

Chicken Hatchery

Wah

Creek

Poultry Processing ComplexPoultry Feedmill



GRIFFITH

MirroolCreek

Jeanella South PoultryProduction Complex

The Ranch Farm 1The Ranch Farm 2

DEVELOPMENT SITE

The Ranch Farm 3

Proposed The Ranch Farm 5

MaylandsPoultry Farm A

Tabbita Farm 3

ProposedTabbita Farm 4

FIGURE 2

0

N

KM

7.5 15Notes and Cautions:(1) Background satellite image sourced from Google Earth.(2) All boundaries and areas shown on this plan are approximate only and

subject to survey verification.

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg2

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_Re

gLoc

Zoom

_V1.d

wg

To be printed A4

Regional Locality Zoom


Page 5 Introduction


1.6 Development Rationale and Objective

According to statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES 2015), the popularity of chicken meat has grown enormously over the last 30 years to the extent that it is currently the most consumed meat in Australia. Chicken meat production in Australia has increased from approximately 380,000 tonnes in 1989-90 to around 1.08 million in 2013-14, and it is expected to continue increasing to around 1.32 million tonnes in 2019-20.

Over 95 percent (%) of the chicken meat produced in Australia is consumed domestically. In 2012-13 Australians ate an average of 44.6 kg of chicken meat per person, compared to 36 kg in 2008-09 and just 13 kg in 1975. ABARES (2015) estimates that chicken meat consumption in Australia will continue to rise, reaching 49.2 kg per person in 2019-20. This trend is closely associated with price, nutrition and the industry’s innovation to provide a variety of chicken meat products.

Around 525 million broiler birds were processed in 2011 to satisfy domestic consumption needs, with NSW enjoying a significant portion of this production. Based on current growth projections, it is estimated that by 2019 this well need to rise to close to 650 million birds per year.

VOAG 4’s primary objective is to develop an intensive broiler production farm within the Griffith region, adopting best practice in design, operation and management, to meet the immediate and projected long-term demand for broiler/meat chickens.

A number of key factors need to be considered when identifying a suitable property for the development of an intensive poultry operation. The property needs to have access to a reliable water and power supply, be within reasonable distance from a chicken hatchery, feedmill and processing facility, and be sufficiently removed from sensitive receptors in consideration of potential odour emissions. Finding land suitable for the development of an intensive poultry operation can therefore be difficult.

The Development Site has been chosen following an extensive search by VOAG 4 for a suitable property in consideration of the above factors. The poultry industry has a high recognition factor in the Griffith region and provides a significant contribution to the economy. It includes Baiada’s chicken hatchery, poultry feedmill and poultry processing facility.

It is imperative that poultry broiler farms, such as the proposed Development, be allowed to exist in close proximity to the grain belt, a reliable water supply and interdependent hatchery, feedmill and processing facilities. The Development Site meets all of these requirements and has therefore been chosen by VOAG 4 as an appropriate site to establish an intensive poultry production farm to assist in meeting the demand for broiler chickens within the Australian market.

1.7 Consent Pathway

The proposed poultry development is classified as “intensive livestock agriculture”, which is defined in the Carrathool Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Carrathool LEP) 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 includes any of the following: a) dairies (restricted), b) feedlots, c) piggeries, d) poultry farms, but does not include extensive agriculture, aquaculture or the operation of facilities for drought or similar emergency relief.


Page 6 Introduction


The Development Site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the provisions of the Carrathool LEP. Intensive livestock agriculture is permissible with development consent within this zone, as such, the Development (as presented in this EIS) is permissible with development consent. The Development falls within the bounds of “local development” that is both “designated” and “integrated” under the provisions of Part 4 of the EP&A Act. The development proposal will require development consent from Council, along with an environment protection licence (EPL) from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

1.8 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

A development briefing paper and an application for SEARs was lodged with the DP&E on 18 December 2015, with SEARs 1012 issued on 2 February 2016 outlining the general requirements and key issues to be addressed within this EIS. In preparing the SEARs, the DP&E consulted with the following agencies and sought their input:

• EPA;

• Department of Primary Industries (DPI); and

• Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The SEARs and input received from the consulted agencies are contained within Appendix A. Table 2 lists the SEARs and references which section in this EIS these have been addressed.

Table 2 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements EIS Section General Requirements

The EIS must meet the minimum form and content requirements in clauses 6 and 7 of Schedule 2 of the EP&A Regulation.

Cover Pages, Executive Summary and main body of EIS

Key Issues

Strategic Context – including: • a detailed justification of the proposal and suitability of the site for the

development; • a demonstration that the proposal is consistent with all relevant

planning strategies, environmental planning instruments, development control plans (DCPs), or justification for any inconsistencies;

• details of how the proposal would interact/relate to other nearby poultry operations (including the farms which form part of ‘The Ranch’ Poultry Production Complex); and

• a list of any approvals that must be obtained under any other Act or law before the development may be carried out.

Section 1.6 and Section 9 Section 4 Section 2.6 and 7.15 Section 4

Air quality and odour - including: • a description of all potential sources of air emissions and odour

sources; • an air quality impact assessment in accordance with the relevant EPA

Guidelines; and • a description and appraisal of air quality impact mitigation and

monitoring measures.

Sections 7.2 (odour), Section 7.3 (particulate matter) and Appendix B

Waste management - including: • details of waste handling including, transport, identification, receipt,

processing, stockpiling and quality control; • details of waste management including poultry litter, manure and

disposal of dead birds for the proposal; and • the measures that would be implemented to ensure that the proposed

development is consistent with the aims, objectives and guidelines in the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021.

Section 3.14


Page 7 Introduction


Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements EIS Section Soil and water - including:

• a description of local soils, topography, drainage and landscapes; • the details of water usage including water supply and licences; • the details of sediment and erosion controls; • the details of stormwater, leachate and wastewater management

systems, water monitoring program and other measures to mitigate surface and groundwater impacts;

• an assessment of impacts to surface and groundwater resources, flooding impacts, and impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems; and

• a description and appraisal of impact mitigation and monitoring measures.

Sections 2.9 (soil and land capability), 3.12.3 (water supply) and 7.6 (water resources)

Traffic and transport - including: • details of road transport routes and access to the site; • road traffic predictions for the development during construction and

operation; and • an assessment of impacts to the safety and function of the road

network; and the details of any road upgrades required for the development.

Section 7.5 and Appendix D

Animal welfare, bio-security and disease management – including: • details of how the proposed development would comply with relevant

codes of practice and guidelines; • details of all disease control measures; and • a detailed description of the contingency measures that would be

implemented for the mass disposal of livestock in the event of disease outbreak.

Sections 3.21 (animal health & welfare) and 3.22 (biosecurity) Section 3.23

Noise - including: • a description of all potential noise sources during construction and

operation, including road traffic noise; • a noise and vibration assessment in accordance with the relevant

EPA Guidelines; and • a description and appraisal of noise and vibration mitigation and

monitoring measures.

Section 7.4 and Appendix C

Biodiversity – including: • accurate predictions of any vegetation clearing on site or for any road

upgrades; • a detailed assessment of the potential impacts on any threatened

species, populations, endangered ecological communities or their habitats, groundwater dependent ecosystems and any potential for offset requirements; and

• a detailed description of the measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset biodiversity impacts.

Section 7.7 and Appendix F

Visual – including an impact assessment at private receptors and public vantage points.

Section 7.10

Heritage – including Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage. Section 7.8 (Aboriginal Heritage) and Appendix H, Section 7.9 (non- Aboriginal Heritage)

Bushfire and Incident Management Section 7.13


Page 8 Introduction


1.9 Development Team

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) has been engaged to project manage the development application and prepare the EIS for the Development. The following specialist studies were also conducted to assist in the assessment of the Development:

• SLR – Air Quality Impact Assessment;

• SLR – Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment;

• RoadNet – Traffic Impact Assessment;

• SLR – Flora and Fauna Assessment; and

• OzArk – Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment.


Page 9 Site Description


2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Overview

The Development Site is located in the area known as Tabbita west of Back Hillston Road approximately 26 km north-west of Griffith and 19 km south-east of Goolgowi in the Riverina region of south-western NSW. It is positioned within Lot 77 in DP 720257 and Lot 78 in DP 720258, and comprises approximately 42.1 ha of vacant rural land within the Parish of Denny, County of Sturt and in the Carrathool LGA.

The nearest major town to the Development Site is Griffith, which is the service centre for the western area of the Riverina region. The Carrathool LGA covers approximately 1.9 million ha and has a population of approximately 2,600, residing in the town of Hillston, and villages of Goolgowi, Merriwagga, Carrathool and Rankin Springs. Rural land within the LGA is primarily used for agriculture, comprising traditional grazing as well as cropping, irrigated cropping and horticulture.

The topography of the Development Site is relatively flat, however there are vegetated hills along the eastern and northern boundaries. Elevations range from approximately 141 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the south to approximately 168 m AHD in the north-east. As evident in Plate 1 and Figure 3, the visual amenity of the Development Site is that of a rural property that has been significantly modified by historic land clearing and long-term agricultural production activities. However, as evident on Figure 3, the Development Site does enclose a section of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary, as well as a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary.

Plate 1 The Development Site

2.2 Zoning

Under the provisions of the Carrathool LEP, the Development Site and all surrounding land is zoned RU1 Primary Production, as shown on Figure 4. Intensive livestock agriculture is permissible with development consent within this zone.

KidmanWay

Huxl

eys

Road

Back

Hi

llsto

n R

oad

Tabbita Silo(closed)

Tysons Road

Privately OwnedSilo


Tabbita

Channel

R1

R2

R3

R5

R6 R7

R8

R10

R11

R12

R9

R13

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 79DP720259

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 40DP756045 Lot 54

DP756045Lot 2

DP1037422

Lot 47DP756045

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 22DP756045 Lot 28

DP756045

Lot 14DP756061

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 1DP1086493

Lot 28DP756064

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 1DP756064

Lot 2DP756062

Lot 7003DP94902

Lot 1DP1157807

Lot 14DP756064

Lot 2DP48742

Lot 13DP756064

Lot 2DP1086493

Lot 2DP788532

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 23DP756061

Lot 32DP756045

R4

Lot 27DP756045

Lot 21DP756045

Lot 30DP756061

TABBITA

Huxleys Pit

Simpkins Pit

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg3

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_De

velop

mentS

ite_V

1.dwg

0.0

To be printed A4


to survey verification.

N

2.51.25KM

To be printed A4

FIGURE 3

The Development Site

LEGENDDevelopment SitePrivately-owned dwellingDerelict dwelling to be demolishedCommercial premisesLocal Government Area boundaryRoadsWetland (Griffith LEP)Irrigation channelDrainage lineQuarry

See Inset

INSET

KidmanWay

TABBITA

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 32DP756045

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 79DP720259

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 40DP756045

Lot 54DP756045

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 47DP756045

Huxle

ys

R

oad

Back

Hi

llsto

n R

oad

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 22DP756045 Lot 28

DP756045

Lot 14DP756061

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 1DP1086493

Lot 28DP756064

Lot 1DP756064

Lot 7003DP94902

Lot 1DP1157807

Lot 14DP756064

Tysons Road

Lot 2DP48742

R1

R2

R3

R5

R6 R7

R8R10

R11

R12

R9

R4 Lot 13DP756064

R13

Lot 2DP1086493


Lot 2DP788532

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 23DP756061

Lot 39DP756045

Lot 52DP756062

Lot 7DP756064

Lot 30DP756061

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg4

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_Zo

ning_

V1.dw

g

0.0

To be printed A4

Notes and Cautions:(1) All boundaries and areas shown on this plan are approximate only and subject

to survey verification.(2) Zoning from Carrathool Local Environmental Plan 2012 & Griffith Local

Environmental Plan 2014

N

2.51.25KM

To be printed A4

FIGURE 4

Zoning

LEGENDDevelopment SitePrivately-owned dwellingDerelict dwelling to be demolishedCommercial premisesLocal Government Area BoundaryLot boundaryRoads

Environmental ConservationPrimary ProductionForestryInfrastructure

ZoneE2

RU1RU3SP2




2.3 Land Ownership and Proposed Subdivision

The majority of the development will be located within Lot 77 in DP 720257. A development application has been lodged with Council to subdivide Lot 77 in DP 720257 into three separate lots:

• Proposed Lot 6 with an area of approximately 41.1 ha (The Ranch Farm 4 site);

• Proposed Lot 7 with an area of approximately 42.3 ha (The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site); and

• Proposed Lot 8 containing the residual area of approximately 415.7 ha. Part of this lot will continue to be used for traditional agricultural production purposes and also will contain part of the internal access road connecting the Development Site to The Ranch Farm 5.

The conceptual layout of the proposed subdivision is illustrated on Figure 5.

VOAG 4 has entered into a conditional contract for the purchase of the Development Site (i.e. proposed Lot 6) from the current owner, with settlement subject to receiving development consent.

2.4 Vehicular Access and Road Network

Vehicular access to the Development Site (refer Plate 2) is currently gained via a driveway from Back Hillston Road running along the eastern boundary of The Ranch property (Lot 79 DP 720259 and Lot 78 DP 720258) before heading north-west through Lot 78 DP 720258. Back Hillston Road and Tysons Road connect the Development Site to Kidman Way (NSW State Route B87), which provides access to Griffith (the area’s major centre) and to the poultry industry service facilities (hatchery, feedmill and processing complex) located near Griffith and in Hanwood.

Plate 2 Existing Vehicle Access to The Ranch (Back Hillston Road)

Kidman Way is a State-controlled highway that is a designated B-double route and also an approved road train route. In the vicinity of the Development Site it is a two-lane, two-way rural highway with 3.5 m sealed lanes, sealed shoulders and grassed verges and table drains either side. It has a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour (km/h).

Tysons Road is a local rural road extending in an east-west direction from Kidman Way at its western end to Back Hillston Road at its eastern end, a total distance of approximately 2.6 km. The first 285 m of Tysons Road from Kidman Way is sealed and not line marked. Beyond this point it is an unsealed (dirt) road up to its intersection with Back Hillston Road. Tyson Road has a width of approximately 7 m (sufficient to accommodate two-way traffic) except near the intersection with Kidman Way where it widens out to 11 m or more to accommodate the turn paths of larger vehicles. There is no posted speed limit on Tysons Road and the open road speed limit of 100 km/h therefore applies. RoadNet (2016) observed the section of Tysons Road between the Kidman Way and the Development Site to be in good condition, and of a width suitable to enable large heavy vehicles up to the size of B-doubles to safely pass each other.

Kidman Way

Way

TABBITA

Huxl

eys

Road

Back

Hi

llsto

n R

oad

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 2DP756062

Tysons Road

R6 R7

R8

R10R9

R13

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 32DP756045

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157611 Lot 54

DP756045

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 66DP39646

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 63DP39646

Lot 47DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 57DP756045

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 7

Proposed Lot 6

Proposed Lot 8

Proposed Lot 4

Proposed Lot 3

Proposed Lot 8

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg5

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_Pr

opSu

bdiv_

V1.dw

g

0.0

To be printed A4


to survey verification.(3) Appropriate easements will be created

N

1.20.6KM

To be printed A4

FIGURE 5

Proposed Subdivision

LEGENDProposed subdivisionProposed poultry shedProposed water storage damPrivately-owned dwellingDerelict dwelling to be demolishedCommercial premisesRoadLot boundary




Back Hillston Road is a local rural road extending in a north-south direction from Kidman Way near Tabbita to Rankins Springs Road near Hillston at its northern end, a total distance of approximately 67 km. It crosses the State-controlled Mid-Western Highway (NSW State Route B64) at a point approximately 15 km northeast of Goolgowi, but otherwise intersects with only a few local rural roads, including Tysons Road at its southern end. It appears to have a similar formation width to Tysons Road and is an unsealed (dirt) road. There is no posted speed limit on Back Hillston Road and the open road speed limit of 100 km/h therefore applies.

2.5 Existing Land Use

The long-standing and existing use of the Development Site is traditional agricultural production, with the site primarily comprising treeless paddocks that have been consistently cropped and grazed for many years. However, as evident on Figure 3, the Development Site does enclose a section of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary and there is a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary.

2.6 Surrounding Land Use and Residences

The land surrounding the Development Site is characterised by traditional agricultural production and woodland vegetation (refer Plate 3). Additional land uses within the area include a privately-owned and operational silo on Tysons Road located approximately 4.6 km south-west of the Development Site, the GrainCorp Tabbita Silo, which is currently closed, located approximately 4.3 km to the south-west of Development Site, and JBS Australia’s Tabbita Feedlot (cattle feedlot) approximately 12.5 km to the west. Additionally there are two former Council operated quarries located to the north east of the Development Site. These developments are identified on Figure 3.

Plate 3 Surrounding Land Use




The Development Site is removed from any major urban areas and, as evident on Figure 3, there is a very low density of surrounding residential dwellings. Council has advised that Tabbita, which is located approximately 4.6 km south-west of the Development Site, comprises five residences (R6 to R10). The nearest privately-owned residence is identified as R11, located approximately 3.9 km west of the Development Site.

The locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Development Site are shown on Figure 3 and listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the Development Site Receiver ID Location Receptor Type Approximate Distance from

Development Site (km)

R1 Tysons Road, Tabbita Residential 5.1

R2 Back Hillston Road, Tabbita Residential 5.9

R3 Back Hillston Road, Tabbita Residential 7.7

R4 Kidman Way, Tabbita Residential 6.8

R5 Tabbita Lane, Tabbita Residential 6.8



R8 Kidman Way, Tabbita Residential 4.7 R9 Kidman Way, Tabbita Residential 4.6



R12 Youngs Lane, Tabbita Residential 4.6

R13 Kidman Way, Tabbita Commercial/Industrial 4.9

The dwelling identified on Figure 3 in Lot 79 in DP 720259 is derelict and uninhabitable. A complying development certificate was issued by Council on 15 June 2015 for the demolition of this dwelling (CDC 2015_016). This dwelling will be demolished prior to operation of the facility and has therefore been excluded from any assessments undertaken as part of this EIS.

2.7 Surrounding Poultry Operations

The Griffith region, including and increasingly the Carrathool LGA, is one of the major poultry centres for Australia. At the time of preparing this EIS, the following poultry developments were either existing or proposed (i.e. development application lodged or briefing paper lodged) within the vicinity of the Development Site:

Existing

• Jeanella Poultry Production Complex (ProTen) - approved by Council in 2012 under Development Consent DA 2013/005 and constructed in 2013. It is located approximately 23 km to north-west of the Development Site on the northern side of the Mid Western Highway. The Jeanella Complex comprises two PPUs, each with 12 poultry sheds (i.e. 24 poultry sheds in total), and accommodates up to 1,284,000 birds; and

• Jeanella South Poultry Production Complex (ProTen) – approved by Council in October 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/009. It is located approximately 23 km to north-west of the Development Site on the southern side of the Mid Western Highway. The Jeanella South development comprises 16 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 856,000 birds. At the time of preparing this document the first eight sheds were operational with the remaining eight under construction.




Approved (i.e. development consent issued but not yet constructed)

• The Ranch Farm 1 (VOAG 1) – approved by Council in November 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/017. This development will comprise eight poultry sheds to accommodate up to 400,000 birds and will be located approximately 2.8 km south of the Development Site;

• The Ranch Farm 2 (VOAG 2) – approved by Council in November 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/022. This development will comprise eight poultry sheds to accommodate up to 400,000 birds and will be located approximately 1.8 km south of the Development Site;

• The Ranch Farm 3 (VOAG 3) – approved by Council in November 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/023. This development will comprise eight poultry sheds to accommodate up to 400,000 birds and will be located approximately 800 m south of the Development Site;

• Tabbita Farm 1 (NMS Enterprises) – approved by Council in August 2015 under Development Consent DA 2015/040. This development will comprise 20 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,020,000 birds and will be located approximately 9.1 km west of the Development Site;

• Tabbita Farm 2 (NMS Enterprises) – approved by Council in September 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/005. This development will comprise 20 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,020,000 birds and will be located approximately 8.2 km west of the Development Site;

• Tabbita Farm 3 (NMS Enterprises) – approved by Council in December 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/018. The development will comprise 20 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,020,000 birds and will be located approximately 10 km west of the Development Site;

• Maylands Farm A (Lemic Holdings) – approved by Council in August 2015 under Development Consent DA 2015/041. This development will comprise 24 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,360,800 birds and will be located approximately 17 km north-west of the Development Site to the east of Goolgowi; and

• Maylands Farm B (Lemic Holdings) – approved by Council in November 2015 under Development Consent DA 2016/021. This development will comprise 24 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,360,800 and will be located approximately 14 km north-west of the Development Site to the east of Goolgowi.

Proposed (i.e. development application lodged or briefing paper lodged)

• Tabbita Farm 4 (NMS Enterprises) – poultry production complex proposed approximately 9.8 km west of the Development Site. The proposal comprises 20 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 1,020,000 birds;

• The Ranch Farm 5 (VOAG 5) – poultry production unit proposed approximately 0.4 km north of the Development Site. The proposal comprises 16 poultry sheds to accommodate up to 800,000 birds;

• The Ranch Farm 1 Expansion (VOAG 1) – continued construction and operation of approved The Ranch Farm 1 (see above) with the construction and operation of an additional eight poultry sheds. The expanded development will comprise 16 sheds to accommodate up to 800,000 birds;

• The Ranch Farm 2 Expansion (VOAG 2) – continued construction and operation of approved The Ranch Farm 2 (see above) with the construction and operation of an additional eight poultry sheds. The expanded development will comprise 16 sheds to accommodate up to 800,000 birds; and

• The Ranch Farm 3 Expansion (VOAG 3) – continued construction and operation of approved The Ranch Farm 3 (see above) with the construction and operation of an additional eight poultry sheds. The expanded development will comprise 16 sheds to accommodate up to 800,000 birds.

The locations of these existing and proposed poultry operations are shown on Figure 1.

As advised in Section 1.1, The Ranch Farm 4 (i.e. the subject of this EIS) is the fourth of five adjacent poultry farm developments proposed as part of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. Each of the five farms are subject to separate development applications.




On 15 December 2015 Council granted Development Consents DA 2016/017, DA 2016/022 and DA2016/023 to develop The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2 and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively. Given the environmental impact assessments for these three developments did not predict any significant adverse impacts on the local environmental or surrounding community, and responding to the increasing demand for poultry meat in the Australian market, VOAG is now seeking development consent for two more farms, being The Ranch Farm 4 (i.e. the Development) and The Ranch Farm 5 (subject to a separate development consent). Development applications for The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 are being lodged concurrently in February 2016.


This document addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the five farms (i.e. The Ranch Poultry Production Complex).

2.8 Meteorology

The Development Site is situated within the Riverina region of south-western NSW, which is generally dominated by a dry semi-arid climate and characterised by hot summers and cool winters. Rainfall levels are generally low, with the highest levels typically occurring in May and September. Summer rainfall tends to occur mainly from localised thunderstorms, with more consistent rainfall occurring in winter.

Long-term average data for temperature, rainfall and relative humidity has been sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BoM) automated weather station at the Griffith Airport (AWS 075041), while long-term average evaporation data has been sourced from the BoM’s automated weather station at the Griffith CSIRO (AWS 075028). While AWS075028 ceased operation in 1989, it appears to be the only BoM weather station within the area with evaporation data recorded and available. While daily evaporation rates may have changed slightly, the data provided between 1962 and 1989 provides a reasonable indication of typical rates.

Table 4 summarises this long term temperature, rainfall, humidity and evaporation data.

Table 4 Long-Term Meteorological Conditions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean Monthly Maximum Temperature (°C) for Years 1970 to 20151

32.9 32.1 28.6 23.9 19.2 15.5 14.5 16.6 20.0 24.0 28.1 30.9 23.9

Mean Monthly Minimum Temperature (°C) for Years 1970 to 20151

17.1 17.5 14.2 10.1 7.1 4.5 3.5 3.8 5.9 9.0 12.7 15.2 10.0

Mean Monthly Rainfall (mm) for Years 1958 to 20151

33.6 29.9 36.6 27.8 35.0 33.4 33.2 35.2 32.1 38.5 34.2 32.4 402.0

Mean Number of Days of Rain (>=1mm) for Years 1958 to 20151

2.9 2.7 2.9 3.1 4.1 4.7 5.5 5.6 4.7 4.5 3.4 3.3 47.4

Mean Monthly Evaporation (mm) for Years 1962 to 19892,3

269.7 224.0 186.0 105.0 62.0 42.0 49.6 71.3 102.0 151.9 213.0 251.1 1727.6

Mean Monthly 9 am Relative Humidity (%) for Years 1972 to 20101

49 58 60 66 78 87 88 79 70 56 56 49 66

Mean Monthly 3 pm Relative Humidity (%) for Years 1979 to 20101

28 34 37 41 53 63 62 54 47 37 35 31 43 1 Sourced from BoM AWS 075041 at Griffith Airport. Red = Highest Value Blue = Lowest Value 2 Sourced from former BoM AWS 075028 at Griffith CSIRO . 3 Based on mean daily rates.




Temperature

The local climate is characterised by very warm to hot summers and cool to mild winters. Mean monthly maximum temperatures range between 14.5 and 32.9 degrees Celsius (°C), with January being the warmest month. Mean monthly minimum temperatures range between 3.5 °C and 17.5 °C, with July being the coolest month. Autumn and spring are generally mild with sporadic temperature fluctuations.

Rainfall

Rainfall is, on average, relatively evenly distributed throughout the year, with October being the wettest month. Rainfall levels in the Riverina are generally low with the area also quite susceptible to periods of drought.

Evaporation

It is apparent that mean monthly evaporation exceeds mean monthly rainfall throughout the year. Evaporation is greatest during the warmer months of November through to February (inclusive), with mean monthly rates over this period exceeding 200 mm.

Relative Humidity

The area has a moderate relative humidity, with the winter months tending to be slightly more humid than other times of the year. The mean annual 9.00 am and 3.00 pm relative humidity is 66% and 43%, respectively.

Wind

The annual and seasonal wind roses generated for the Development Site by SLR (2016a) (refer Section 7.2) are presented in Figure 6. The annual wind rose in Figure 6 indicates that the Development Site experiences predominantly light to moderate winds (between 1.5 metres/second (m/s) and 8 m/s). Calm wind conditions (wind speed less than 0.5 m/s) are predicted to occur approximately 1% of the time.




Figure 6 Predicted Annual and Seasonal Wind Roses for the Development Site




The seasonal wind roses indicate that typically:

• In summer, winds are moderate to high and are experienced almost evenly from all quadrants with the exception of the north-western quadrant from which a low percentage of winds are experienced. Calm winds are experienced approximately 0.4% of the time during summer.

• In autumn, winds are moderate to high and are experienced almost evenly from all quadrants, with a slightly higher percentage of winds from the north-eastern and south-eastern quadrant and a lower percentage of winds from the north-western quadrant. Calm winds are experienced approximately 0.9% of the time during autumn.

• In winter, winds are moderate to strong and are experienced predominantly from the north-western quadrant, with very few winds from the south-eastern quadrants. Calm winds are experienced approximately 0.5% of the time during winter.

• In spring, winds are moderate to strong predominantly from the north-eastern and south-western quadrants with very few winds from the east and west-north west. Calm winds are experienced approximately 1.3% of the time during spring.

2.9 Soil and Land Capability

There is no specific soil profile information or soil landscape mapping within the vicinity of the Development Site. Information on land and soil capability (LSC) has been sourced from the NSW Soils and Land Information System (SALIS) managed by the OEH. The LSC dataset consists of eight classes (1 to 8) representing a decreasing capability of the land use based on a number of criteria, including biophysical characteristics and soil erosion hazard. Class 1 represents land capable of sustaining most land uses, including those that have a high impact on the soil (for example, regular cultivation), while Class 8 represents land that can only sustain very low impact land uses (for example, nature conservation).

The Development Site is broadly mapped by OEH as being LSC Class 4 land (moderate capability land). Class 4 land is defined as ‘land which has moderate to high limitations for high-impact land uses’, which will restrict land management options for regular high-impact land uses such as cropping, high-intensity grazing and horticulture. These limitations can be managed by specialist management practices.

2.10 Water Resources

Surface Water 2.10.1

The Development Site is located within the catchment of the Lachlan River (BoM 2015). The Lachlan River catchment occupies an area of around 90,000 km2 and begins in the Great Dividing Range near Gunning, flowing 1,400 km across western NSW to its junction with the Murrumbidgee River (Office of Water, 2011). The catchment supports numerous regional cities and towns including Cowra, Forbes and Young. The Development Site is situated on the southern edge of the catchment, near its boundary with the neighbouring catchment of the Murrumbidgee River. The Development Site is located approximately 70 km south-east of the Lachlan River at its closest point from, and approximately 47 km north of the Murrumbidgee River at its closest point (refer Figure 1).

At a more local level, an ephemeral drainage line runs on a north-east to south-west orientation across the southernmost end of the Development Site. A small farm dam is located to the east of where the ephemeral drainage line crosses the Development Site. The nearest notable waterway is Mirrool Creek, approximately 12 km south of the Development Site. A number of formed irrigation channels are a feature of the wider region; with the nearest significant channel; Tabbita Channel, located approximately 5 km from the Development Site (refer Figure 3).

No wetlands exist within the Development Site. The nearest area identified as a wetland in the Carrathool LEP is Barron Box Storage and Wetland (refer Figure 3), which is approximately 6.6 km to the south of the Development. Baron Box Storage and Wetland is the main irrigation and drainage water recycle point for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA).




Groundwater 2.10.2

The Development Site is located on the south-western edge of the Lachlan Fold Belt Groundwater Management Area (GMA), which is part of the NSW Murray-Darling Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources Water Sharing Plan (BoM 2015). The site lies within the Cobar Plains province of the Darling Geological Region (ASRIS 2015). The Lachlan Fold Belt GMA covers an area of 167,220 km2. It consists of Cambrian to Lower Carboniferous rock successions. Groundwater within the area is primarily used irrigation purposes.

A search of the Department of Primary Industries Water (DPI Water) on-line groundwater database identified 12 registered groundwater bores recorded within a 5 km radius of the Development Site. One bore (GW002984) is located within the Development Site. This is an old bore, drilled in 1931, and according to DPI Water database records has a standing water level of 89.3 m. The records in the BoM Australian Groundwater Explorer indicate that this bore is not currently functional. The remaining 11 bores are all old bores from the 1920-1930s with an “unknown” status and have standing water levels ranging from 33 m to 127 m.

The records associated with bores in the vicinity of the Development Site therefore suggest groundwater is relatively deep in the area.

Flooding 2.10.3

The Development Site is not considered flood prone land, with significant separation from the nearby waterways (refer Section 2.10.1 ).

2.11 Vegetation

Significant disturbance of the natural environment has occurred as a result of historic land clearing and long-term agricultural production activities in the surrounding area. The Development Site is highly modified and disturbed, primarily comprising treeless paddocks that have been consistently cropped and grazed for many years. However, as evident on Figure 7, the Development Site does enclose a section of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary and there is a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary.

Regional vegetation mapping compiled for the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority (now part of the Riverina Local Land Services) in 2011 by Eco Logical Australia has mapped the vegetation along the eastern boundary as being Inland Rocky Hill Woodlands. This vegetation community also extends north and west of the Development Site, where it intergrades with Sand Plain Mallee Woodland. Verification of the regional vegetation mapping was undertaking by SLR (2016) during site visits in order to confirm the vegetation communities occurring within the Development Site. The site survey confirmed that the communities comply with sub-units of Inland Rocky Hill Woodlands, with those to the north and east of the Development Site corresponding with Mallee Woodland and the communities to the south being defined as Open Mallee Woodland. Neither of these two vegetation classes are mapped as threatened ecological communities under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Some of the vegetated land within and adjoining The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site is mapped as “biodiversity” by the Carrathool LEP.

2.12 Land Contamination

A detailed testing and examination of soil samples from the Development Site has not been undertaken as it is held that the circumstances of this matter do not require such. The risk of discovering significant land contamination within the Development Site is considered to be minimal given the following:

• The long-term and existing use of the Development Site and adjoining lands is traditional agricultural production, primarily comprising cropping with some livestock grazing;




• There are no identified previous or existing land use activities that may have caused or attributed to significant soil contamination;

• The site is not listed on the EPA’s Contaminated Lands Register; and

• There are no known areas within the Development Site where toxic wastes, poisons or the like have been dumped or buried to cause or attribute to soil contamination.

On this basis, we believe that land contamination is unlikely to be an issue within the Development Site and further investigation is not warranted.

2.13 Bush Fire

Approximately 2.2 ha of the Development Site is mapped as bush fire prone land on the Carrathool Bush Fire Prone Land Map. Land mapped as being bush fire prone is located along the eastern vegetated boundary of the Development Site (refer Figure 8). There is also a corridor of vegetation to the south of the Development Site. The remainder of the land within the Development Site comprises treeless paddocks that have a low fuel level.

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 28DP756045

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 4

FIGURE 7

Vegetation

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg7

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_Ve

getat

ion_V

2.dwg

To be printed A4

0

N

M300 600

Notes and Cautions:(1) Background satellite image sourced from Google Earth.(2) All boundaries and areas shown on this plan are approximate only and

subject to survey verification.(3) Vegetation sourced from Eco Logical Australia (2011)

Woodland -Sand Plain Mallee Woodland

Open Mallee Woodland -Inland Rocky Hills Woodland

Mallee Woodland -Inland Rocky Hills Woodland(Bimble Box - White Cypress Pine)

Revegetating Patch

Veteran Tree (Kurrajong)

Hollow Bearing Tree

Vegetation Classes (SLR 2016)

LEGEND

Development SiteExisting farm damsDrainage linesThe Ranch Farm 3 (DA 2016/023)Proposed poultry shedThe Ranch Farm 3 (DA 2016/023)Proposed water storage dam



Lot 77DP720257

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 28DP756045

Proposed Lot 3

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 4

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

FIGURE 8Bushfire Prone Land

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg8

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_Bu

shfire

Pron

eLan

d_V1

.dwg

To be printed A4


to survey verification.(3) Bush Fire layer sourced from Bush Fire Prone Land Carrathool

0.0

N

KM0.625 1.25

Bushfire Prone Land(Vegetation)

Bushfire Prone Land(Vegetation buffer)

LEGEND





Page 25 Proposed Poultry Development


3 PROPOSED POULTRY DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Overview

VOAG 4 seeks development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act to develop an intensive poultry broiler production farm (The Ranch Farm 4) within the Development Site described in Section 2. The proposed location and configuration of the Development is shown on Figure 9, and Table 5 contains a summary of some of the key elements of the Development.

Table 5 Summary of the Proposed Development Aspect Details Purpose Birds grown for human consumption


Number of poultry sheds 16, each measuring 176 m long by 18 m wide




Maximum bird density within sheds 18 birds/m2 (and will not exceed a density of 34 kg/m2)




The Development will comprise one PPU with 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds, where birds will be grown for human consumption. Each shed will have the capacity to house 50,000 birds, equating to a site population of up to 800,000 birds. Figure 10 illustrates the configuration of the proposed PPU.

In addition to the poultry shedding, the Development also includes:

• Two new residences to house the farm manager and assistant farm manager (refer Section 3.7.1);

• Various other infrastructure items to support the poultry production operation (refer Section 3.7.2);

• Extension of water and electricity infrastructure to service the Development (refer Section 3.12);

• The construction of a large on-site water storage dam (with associated water tanks, pumping and pipeline infrastructure), with a capacity of approximately 60 ML (refer Section 3.7.3); and

• Extension of the internal vehicular access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to the Development Site (refer Section 3.10).

The disturbance footprint (including access roads, servicing infrastructure and support infrastructure) will be relatively small at approximately 18.3 ha and the commercial activities associated with the poultry operation will be largely confined to the PPU. Where practicable, it is intended to continue using the land outside of the disturbance footprint within the Development Site for continued agricultural production purposes under some form of lease or share farming arrangement.

Engineer design drawings for the Development have been provided as Appendix E.

Kidman

Way

Way

TABBITA

Huxl

eys

Road

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

Tysons Road

Tabbita

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 32DP756045

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 57DP756045

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 2DP756062

Lot 28DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Proposed Lot 3

ProposedLot 1

Proposed Lot 2

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 4

Lot 79DP720259

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 4

7DP

7560

45

Lot 54DP756045

Proposed Lot 6

FIGURE 9

Development Layout

See Inset

INSET

LEGEND

Development SiteProposed lot subdivisionsDerelict dwelling to be demolishedExisting farm damsDrainage linesThe Ranch Farms 1, 2 & 3 -Proposed poultry shedThe Ranch Farms 1, 2 & 3 -Proposed water storage dam



H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg9

_630

.1150

6_TF

4-EI

S_De

velop

mentL

ayou

t_V1.d

wg

To be printed A4


to survey verification.0.0

N

KM0.625 1.25

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>

>

>>

>>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

TRUCK WHEELWASH AREA

PROPOSEDWATERSTORAGE DAM

S

H

E

D

1

S

H

E

D

2

S

H

E

D

3

S

H

E

D

4

S

H

E

D

5

S

H

E

D

6

S

H

E

D

7

S

H

E

D

8

S

H

E

D

9

S

H

E

D

1

0

S

H

E

D

1

1

S

H

E

D

1

2

S

H

E

D

1

3

S

H

E

D

1

4

S

H

E

D

1

5

S

H

E

D

1

6

WATERTANKS 10 No

PASSING BAYS AT400.0m INTERVALS3.0m WIDE BY 35.0mLONG (TYP.)

PROPOSEDRESIDENCES

PROPOSED RICE HULLSHED (25.0 X 15.0m)

PROPOSED WORKSHOP(30.0 x 20.0m)

PROPOSEDCOOL ROOM(14.4 x 7.2m)

SILOS(TYP.)

CUT-OFFDRAIN

PASSING BAYS AT400.0m INTERVALS3.0m WIDE BY 35.0mLONG (TYP.)

FIGURE 10

0

N

M100 200 Notes and Cautions:

(1) Drawing sourced from Land Management Surveys (Melbourne) and editedfor report presentation by SLR.

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

0_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_P

PULa

yout_

V1.dw

g

To be printed A4

Poultry Production Unit Layout




3.2 Concurrent Applications

On 15 December 2015 Council granted Development Consents DA 2016/017, DA 2016/022 and DA 2016/023 to develop The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2 and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively. Given the environmental impact assessments for these three developments did not predict any significant adverse impacts on the local environmental or surrounding community, and responding to the increasing demand for poultry meat in the Australian market, VOAG is now seeking development consent for two more farms, being The Ranch Farm 4 (i.e. the Development) and The Ranch Farm 5 (subject to a separate development consent). Collectively, The Ranch Farms 1 to 5 are being referred to as The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. Development applications for The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 are being lodged concurrently in February 2016.

Furthermore, VOAG is also seeking development consent for The Ranch Farm 1 Expansion, The Ranch Farm 2 Expansion and The Ranch Farm 3 Expansion. Development applications for these developments are expected to be lodged concurrently in April 2016. This document addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the five farms (i.e. The Ranch Poultry Production Complex). A conceptual layout of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex is provided as Figure 11.

3.3 Frequently Asked Questions

Some important, and possibly contentious, facts about modern poultry broiler production, which have been verified by the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, are presented below.

Housing

Broiler birds are run in large open poultry sheds on bedding material. They are not kept in cages.

Feed

Broiler feed comprises between 65% and 90% grains, such as wheat, sorghum, barley, oats, lupins, soybean meal, canola and other oilseed meal and grain legumes.

Hormones

Hormones are not added to chicken feed or administered to commercial meat chickens in Australia. Hormone supplementation is a practice that has been banned internationally for over 40 years.

Growth

Chickens are NOT genetically engineered or modified. Around 50% to 60% of the improvement in broiler growth rates over the last 50 years is due to improved breeds of chicken. A further 20% to 25% is due to improved nutrition, with feed being specifically formulated to match the chicken’s precise nutritional requirements throughout its lifecycle, thereby optimising growth. Other gains made in meat chicken growth and performances are due to better husbandry techniques and health management.

Antibiotics

Antibiotic use is important in chicken meat production to ensure the overall health and wellbeing of the flock. Only antibiotics approved by Australia’s regulatory authorities are used and they are administered in accordance with strict regulatory guidelines. Antibiotics are usually delivered via drinking water (not in feed) and only a veterinarian can authorise and supervise these treatments.

Avian Influenza

Avian influenza and human pandemic influenza are different diseases. Surveillance continues to show that the H5N1 avian influenza virus is NOT present in Australia and Australia’s strict quarantine measures prevent the disease coming into Australia (Department of Agriculture 2015, Department of Health 2015).

Kidman Way

TABBITA

Lot 32DP756045

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 54DP756045

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 4

7DP

7560

45

Huxl

eys

Road

Back

Hills

ton

R

oad

Lot 48DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 2DP1157807

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 2DP756062

Tysons Road

Lot 28DP756045

Lot 57DP756045

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 2DP1157807

The RanchFarm 1

The RanchFarm 2

The RanchFarm 3

Lot 14DP756061

Lot 26DP756045

Lot 79DP720258

R6 R7

R8

R10R9

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 1DP720275

The RanchFarm 4

The RanchFarm 5

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

1_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_C

omple

xLay

outF

1-5_

V1.dw

g

0.0

To be printed A4

FIGURE 11

The Ranch Poultry Production Complex



N1.20.6

KM

To be printed A4

LEGENDDevelopment SitesProposed poultry shedProposed water storage damPrivately-owned dwellingDerelict dwelling to be demolished




3.4 Separation Distances

Separation distances are used to reduce the potential for adverse impacts upon the environment and surrounding receptors, including odour, noise and biosecurity, and traditionally extend across adjoining properties that are not owned by the poultry complex operator.

In terms of biosecurity, the Best Practice Management for Meat Chicken Production in NSW (DPI 2012) recommends:

• Locating new poultry farms as far apart as possible to minimise the risk of disease transfer between farms. There should be a minimum of 1,000 m to other intensive poultry farms (500 m when there are extenuating circumstances such as farms with a common owner or farms supplying the same processor); 3,000 m to commercial duck farms; and 5,000 m to poultry breeder farms; and

• Preferably locating new farms away from waterways and wetlands (ideally 3,000 m) that are used extensively by waterfowl, as these birds can carry avian diseases.

Table 6 lists the minimum separation distances afforded between the proposed PPU and notable surrounding features in the natural and built environments. The separation distances are approximate only and have been scaled from satellite imagery and topographic mapping as the shortest distances between the edge of the PPU (including catch drains) and edge of the feature being measured to.

Table 6 Separation Distances Feature Minimum Distance from

Proposed farm (m) Comments

Urban / residential area

5,100 Tabbita, south-west of the Development Site.

Surrounding residences

3,900 The nearest privately-owned residences are to the west of the Development Site.

Property boundaries 31 Southern boundary of Lot 77 in DP 720257.

Public road 1,018 Back Hillston Road (to the road corridor) Other poultry farm not owned by the applicant

8,050 Proposed Tabbita Farm 2 (refer Section 2.7) located to the west of the Development Site.

Other poultry farm owned by the applicant

646 Proposed The Ranch Farm 5 (refer Section 2.7) to the north of the Development Site.

Natural waterways 12,000 Mirrool Creek located to the south-west of the Development Site.

Wetland 6,600 The Barron Box Storage and Wetland is located to the south of the proposed poultry sheds location.

Notable vegetation 132 Vegetation within north-east corner of the lot.

As evident, the proposed Development is in accordance with the recommended best practice separation distances, being suitably removed from other intensive poultry operations (existing and proposed), sensitive receptors, waterways and wetlands. These separation distances will assist in minimising the potential for conflict between the poultry development and the local environment and surrounding populace over the life of the operation.

While other PPU locations were considered within the Development Site, the proposed layout is considered optimal in terms of required earthworks construction requirements and maximising the separation distance from the proposed The Ranch Farm 3 and The Ranch Farm 5 (refer Figure 11).




3.5 Construction Activities

A construction program will be developed to cover the required civil, structural, electrical and building works. Construction will involve the erection of temporary buildings and facilities, including light and heavy vehicle access and parking areas, equipment storage compounds, diesel generators, diesel compressors, services and amenities.

It is anticipated that the construction program will span approximately six months, commencing in July 2018, and involving around 30 personnel. Construction activities will include:

• Site preparation (including erosion and sediment control) and earthworks;

• Extension of the internal vehicular access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to the Development Site;

• Construction of the poultry sheds and ancillary infrastructure;

• Construction of the water storage dam (refer Section 3.7.3);

• Construction of two residences to house the farm manager and the assistance farm manager;

• Installation and/or extension of the required servicing infrastructure (water, electricity and gas);

• Construction of the surface water management system; and

• Site landscaping.

All construction activities will be undertaken during standard daytime construction hours, which in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) (Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2009) are:

• Monday to Friday - 7.00 am to 6.00 pm;

• Saturday - 8.00 am to 1.00 pm; and

• No construction work on Sunday and public holidays.

Traffic generated by the construction activities will travel along Kidman Way and Tysons Road and access the Development Site via the new site access (refer Section 3.10.2) to be constructed off Tysons Road and the new internal access road. Construction of the new site access and access road were approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 (DA 2016/017), The Ranch Farm 2 (DA 2016/022) and The Ranch Farm 3 (DA 2016/023) development consents (refer Figure 12). The Ranch Farm 4 development application is seeking approval for extension of the approved access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site (refer Figure 13), which will be undertaken at the commencement of the construction phase.

Once site preparation works have been undertaken, it is anticipated that the construction works will generate a low volume of traffic. This is expected to comprise a small number of light vehicle trips each day associated with construction workers, mostly concentrated around the construction shift start and finish times, and the occasional truck delivering materials throughout the course of a typical day.

Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be installed in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 1 (Landcom 2004, also referred to as the “Blue Book”) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (OEH 2012) to ensure no off-site impacts. Disturbed areas will be promptly rehabilitated and revegetated to a stable landform as described in Section 3.16.

As outlined in Section 2.10.2, a search of the DPI Water on-line groundwater database identified that one bore (GW002984) is located within the Development Site. DPI Water records indicate that this is an old bore, drilled in 1931 that is not currently functional. There are no visible signs of this bore at the surface. To avoid any potential for structural integrity issues during construction of the poultry farm, should the bore be present at all, VOAG 4 will undertake geotechnical assessment of the site prior to detailed design.

Kidman

Way

TABBITA

Back

Hi

llsto

n R

oad

Tysons Road

Tabbita

R6 R7

R8

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 79DP720259

Lot 2DP1157611

Lot 54DP756045

Lot 2DP1037422

Lot 47DP756045

Lot 25DP756045

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 1DP1086493

Lot 1DP48742

Lot 47DP658038

Lot 32DP756045

Proposed site entrance(DA 2016/017)

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

Proposed Lot 3

Proposed Lot 1

Proposed Lot 2

Proposed Lot 5

Tabbita

Channel

Water Mains PipelineTo Tabbita Channel

The Ranch Farm 3

The Ranch Farm 1

The Ranch Farm 2

CARRATHOOL - LGA

GRIFFITH - LGA

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

2_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_S

uppo

rtInfr

aF1-

2_V1

.dwg

To be printed A4



N

To be printed A4

FIGURE 12

Supporting Infrastructure The Ranch Farms 1 and 2

LEGENDProposed lot subdivisionsLocal Government Area boundaryDerelict dwelling to be demolishedIrrigation ChannelDrainage Line

Proposed internal access road

Proposed water mains pipeline

Proposed powerline

Proposed poultry shed

Proposed water storage dam



Proposed powerline

Proposed poultry shed

Proposed water storage dam



Proposed powerlineE

E

The Ranch Farm 2 (DA 2016/022)



E

0M

400 800

Lot 78DP720258

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

Proposed Lot 3

Proposed Lot 5

The Ranch Farm 3

The Ranch Farm 2

Proposed Lot 4

The Ranch Farm 4

To The Ranch Farm 5

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

Lot 77DP720257

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

EE

E

E

Proposed Lot 7

Proposed Lot 6

Proposed Lot 8

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

3_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_S

uppo

rtInfr

aF2-

3-4_

V1.dw

g

0

To be printed A4



N

600300M

To be printed A4

FIGURE 13

Supporting Infrastructure The Ranch Farms 2, 3 and 4

LEGENDDevelopment SiteProposed lot subdivisionsExisting farm damsDrainage Line

Proposed poultry shedProposed water storage damProposed internal access roadProposed water mains pipelineProposed powerline



E

The Ranch Farm 2 DA 2016/022

The Ranch Farm 3 DA 2016/023

E

The Ranch Farm 4

E




3.6 Poultry Shedding

Design 3.6.1

Each poultry shed will measure approximately 176 m long by 18 m wide, with a bird space of approximately 3,168 m2. They will have a wall height (to under the eaves) of approximately 2.7 m and will measure approximately 4.7 m to the ridge of the roof. The conceptual poultry shed design is illustrated on Figure 14 and engineering drawings are provided in Appendix E.

The poultry sheds will be separated laterally by a distance of approximately 15 m. Construction will comprise steel framework, zincalume corrugated iron roofs and cool room sandwich panel walls (two metal faces with a fully insulted core) using a non-reflective colour-bond type material in an appropriate shade, such as eucalyptus green. The sheds will have fully-sealed concrete flooring and will be surrounded by a dwarf concrete bund wall to prevent rainwater and runoff entering the sheds and to allow for the controlled discharge of wash down water from the sheds.

Stocking Density 3.6.2

The broiler “pick-ups” (shed thinning) will be governed by customer bird weight specifications and maintaining a maximum stocking density of 34 kg/m2 to align with the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards – Meat Chickens (RSPCA 2013).

Bedding Material 3.6.3

A relatively thick layer of clean and fresh floor bedding material, such as rice hulls, soft wood shavings or chopped straw, will be spread over the floor of the sheds prior to the placement of day old chicks. The bedding material will be delivered to the Development Site from a storage facility near Hanwood, to the south of Griffith. A new shed will be constructed within the Development Site to store floor bedding material upon delivery (refer Section 3.6.3).

(Source: Australian Chicken Meat Federation)

Plate 4 Fresh Bedding being Spread on the Shed Floor prior to Arrival of a New Batch of Chicks

Moisture levels within poultry sheds can potentially be a significant odour source. On this basis, the bedding material will be inspected daily to identify, remove and replace any areas with excess moisture, such as beneath water lines.

At the end of each poultry production cycle (refer Section 3.9) the spent bedding material (poultry litter) will be promptly removed from the sheds and transported off site in covered trucks. When possible, the handling of poultry litter will be avoided during adverse climatic conditions (such as strong winds). The shed ventilation systems will not be used during the removal of poultry litter.

17.85 17.85

2.66 4.6

4

SILOS

RAT WALL DOOR

COOLINGPAD SECT.

3.60

3.00

DOORWAY

DOORS 3.603.0

0RAT WALL

EXHAUSTFANS

DOOR

COOLING PAD ENDNOT TO SCALE

FAN DETAIL INSIDE SECTIONNOT TO SCALE

2.664.6

4

1.20

17.85

5.84

3.60

FAN BOX ENDNOT TO SCALE

VENTILATION FANSEXHAUST AIR VERTICALLY

1.2m ABOVE RIDGE LINE

4.64

1.20

172.0036.00

17.85

172.00

36.00

36.00

RAT WALL

0.5m RAT WALLDOOR

172.00

DOORWAY

VENTS (TYP.)

DOORWAYS

CONTROLROOM

DOOR

SILOS

SILOS

FAN BOX

FAN BOX

FAN BOX

3.60

COOLING PADS

COOLING PADS

COOLING PADS

COOLING PADS

ELEVATIONNOT TO SCALE

ELEVATIONNOT TO SCALE

PLAN VIEW (TYP)NOT TO SCALE

FAN EXHAUST

FAN EXHAUST

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

4_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_C

once

ptShe

d_V1

.dwg

To be printed A4

FIGURE 14

Conceptual Shed Design




Feed and Water Lines 3.6.4

Feed and water lines, as evident on Plate 5, will run the length of each poultry shed and will be automatically supplied by external silos and water storage tanks. Feed pans and water nipple drinkers (with drip cups) will be spaced along these lines at regular intervals so that the birds are never more than a few metres from food and water.


Plate 5 Interior of Typical Broiler Shed

Lighting 3.6.5

The primary source of external lighting will comprise one light fixture mounted at a height of approximately 3 m over the front and rear loading-unloading areas of each poultry shed. The light fixtures will be aimed downwards and only used during times of low light and/or heavy fog.

Uniform lighting will be provided within the poultry sheds to enable the birds to see the feed pans and water drinkers, with dark periods provided each day to allow the birds to rest. Reduced light has been found to minimise livestock stress and, as such, low lux internal lighting will be provided to promote calm. Control of light intensities will be via dimmer controls.

Ventilation 3.6.6

The use of tunnel ventilated sheds has grown to steadily replace poultry housing that conventionally relied on natural ventilation. Tunnel ventilation is easier to manage than natural ventilation and enables the grower to provide close to optimum conditions for bird health, growth and performance throughout the year. An additional benefit includes control over shed moisture, which is directly related to odour production, and reduced consumption of power and water.

The poultry sheds will be fully-enclosed, climate-controlled and tunnel-ventilated. The likely configuration of fans on each shed will be eight 40 to 55 inch ventilation fans at one end of the shed and will be housed within a fan box that is designed to direct exhaust vertically (refer Plate 6), and approximately two tunnel ventilation fans installed at one end of the sheds.

Water line

Feed line




A number of shed configurations and exhaust systems were investigated to identify the optimum design to minimise potential odour impacts at surrounding sensitive receptors. The final fan configuration will be dependent on availability and transport logistics during construction, and as such the configuration of fans may differ slightly, utilising a larger number of smaller fans for tunnel ventilation. This has been considered in the air and noise assessments, with the worst case results presented at the nearest receptors. The final fan configuration will provide optimised design for the proposed farm operation and will be within the predicted air quality and noise results presented in this EIS.

The extraction fans will uniformly draw air into the shed through minivents along the sides of the shed and later in the growing cycle across cooling pads and through tunnel vents. The air is pulled over the chickens and exhausted through the extraction fans. The fan box will be designed to vertically emit exhaust, with no obstruction (such as rain cap) at a height of 5.8 m above ground (refer Plate 7).

Temperature sensors within the sheds will allow the ventilation to be adjusted as required. Heating, which is anticipated to be required for up to 14 days of each production cycle, will be provided by wall mounted gas heaters.

Plate 6 Typical Broiler Shed Showing Ventilation Fans

Plate 7 Interior of a Typical Fan Box




3.7 Supporting Infrastructure

Farm Manager’s Accommodation 3.7.1

The scale and 24-hour nature of the operation will necessitate a farm manager and assistant farm manager to live on site. On this basis, and as shown on Figure 10, the Development includes the construction of two residential dwellings within the Development Site.

Vehicular access to the residences will be provided via the new access road to be constructed from Tysons Road to The Ranch Farm 4 site, via The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 (refer Section 3.10.2). Construction of this internal access road was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 (DA 2016/017), The Ranch Farm 2 (DA 2016/022), and The Ranch Farm 3 (DA 2016/023) development consents (refer Figure 12). VOAG 4 is now seeking approval for the extension of the internal access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site (refer Figure 13).

Overhead electricity infrastructure will be extended to service the dwellings (refer Figures 12 and 13), and potable water supply will be via rainwater collection (tanks) from the dwelling roofs. Sewage will be treated and disposed of via separate on-site aerated wastewater management systems installed and operated in accordance with relevant standards/guidelines and required Council approvals.

While the indicative location of these houses within the Development Site is shown on Figure 10, the final location and construction of the houses will be subject to the necessary Council approvals.

Ancillary Farm Improvements 3.7.2

In addition to the poultry shedding, ancillary improvements will be required at the Development Site to support the poultry production operation. This infrastructure will comprise:

• Staff amenities, including office space, toilets and change rooms;

• Dead bird chiller/chiller room (located near the site entrance for biosecurity reasons);

• Chemical storage;

• Generator shed;

• Workshop;

• Wheel wash facility (at the entrance to the Development Site);

• Feed silos, which will automatically dispense the feed into the poultry sheds (refer 8);

• Water storage tanks and associated piping and pumps;

• Poultry shed floor bedding material storage shed;

• Servicing infrastructure (electricity, gas and water supply);

• An engineered surface water drainage and management system; and

• Vehicular access roads.

The indicative locations of some of these infrastructure items are shown on Figure 10 and the engineering drawings in Appendix E. The final location of these infrastructure items will be subject to engineering design and the necessary Council approvals for construction.





Plate 8 Typical Feed Silos Servicing Poultry Sheds

Water Storage Dam 3.7.3

As explained in Section 3.12.3, the Development will involve the construction of a 60 ML water storage dam (with associated pumping and pipeline infrastructure) within the Development Site to ensure the operational water requirements of the Development can be readily met. The proposed location of this dam is shown on Figure 10. The final location and construction of the dam will be subject to site survey, engineering design and the necessary Council approvals.

3.8 Hours of Operation

While the PPU will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the majority of activity will be carried out between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm. As the birds reach their desired processing (slaughter) weight they will be removed from the sheds and transported from the Development Site between the hours of 7.00 pm and 4.00 pm, although for reasons of livestock welfare they will generally be removed overnight and in the morning when it is cooler and the birds are more settled.

There will typically be one daily shift for farm workers commencing at 7.00 am and finishing at 4.00 pm.

3.9 Production Cycle

The farm will have a growth cycle of approximately 63 days, with a maximum bird occupation of 53 days and a ‘down-time’ of around 10 days for shed clean out and preparation for the next batch of birds. There will be approximately 5.7 production cycles per year, with each cycle typically comprising the following steps:

1. Delivery of Bedding Material - clean and fresh bedding material, such as soft wood shavings, rice hulls or chopped straw, will be delivered to the PPU from a storage facility near Hanwood and spread over the floor of the poultry sheds.

2. Delivery of Chicks - day-old chicks will be transported from Baiada’s hatchery facility on the western outskirts of Griffith to the Development Site in ventilated chick boxes in specially designed air-conditioned rigid trucks. On arrival, the day-old chicks will be placed onto the floor of the poultry sheds, where they will initially be confined to a smaller area within the sheds (the ‘brooding area’) and given supplementary heating from gas heaters.

3. Chick Nurturing - chicks will be nurtured and grown within the poultry sheds, with their period of service depending on the live-weight of the birds. The desired processing age will primarily be




determined by customer weight specifications, however it is normally achieved between five and eight weeks of age.

4. Removal of Birds - as birds reach their desired processing weight, they will be removed from the poultry sheds and transported to Baiada’s processing complex near Hanwood in plastic crates designed for good ventilation and bird welfare. Shed thinning (partial depopulation) will occur at various times during the production cycle depending on the live-weight of the birds. Chickens will typically be harvested between 7.00 pm and 4.00 pm, although are generally harvested overnight and in the early morning when the air is cooler and the birds are more settled.

5. Removal of Poultry Litter - when all birds have been removed, after about eight weeks, the spent bedding material (poultry litter) will be removed from the sheds and transported off-site for disposal or re-use (refer Section 3.14.3).

6. Cleanout – the poultry sheds will be cleaned and sanitised to reduce the risk of pathogens and disease using high pressure water in preparation for the next batch of chicks. Additional activities will include scrubbing feed pans, cleaning out water lines, cleaning the feed silos and scrubbing fan blades and other equipment.

The maximum broiler density for tunnel ventilated sheds is typically 0.055 m2 of floor space per bird. VOAG 4 will conduct shed thinning (depopulation) to maintain stocking density below 34 kg/m2 of floor area in compliance with the maximum stocking density for domestic poultry in tunnel ventilated sheds recommended in the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards – Meat Chickens (RSPCA 2013). On this basis, shed thinning will typically occur on three occasions, these being at around day 32, day 38 and day 44 of the production cycle, with the final bird collection at day 53.

The average mortality rates for broiler poultry housed within tunnel-ventilated sheds are:

• Week 1 of production cycle (1 to 7 days of age) - 1.5% of population; and

• Weeks 2 to 8 of cycle (7 to 56 days of age) - 0.6% of population per week.

3.10 Vehicular Access

Kidman Way – Tysons Road Intersection 3.10.1

The traffic impact assessment prepared for The Ranch Farm 1 by RoadNet (2015) examined the potential traffic impacts of The Ranch Farm 1 in isolation and cumulatively for The Ranch Farms 1 to 3. As recommended by RoadNet (2015) the Kidman Way – Tysons Road intersection will be upgraded as part of the approved The Ranch Farm 1 development (DA 2016/017) to include a basic left turn treatment (BAL). This upgrade will ensure that the lane widths of Kidman Way are maintained commensurate with the roads designation as an approved B-double and road train route. The final configuration of the intersection upgrade will be subject to site survey, engineering design and Council approval (with RMS concurrence). Upgrade of the intersection to include BAL treatment is expected to take 2 to 3 weeks.

The following recommendations of RoadNet (2015) will also be implemented as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development (DA 2016/017):

• If found necessary during the design, Tysons Road will be widened at the intersection to accommodate the turn paths of vehicles up to the size of B-doubles; and

• Tysons Road will be linemarked on its approach to the intersection to include a centreline and hold line for the existing Give Way control, thereby encouraging orderly driver behaviour at the intersection.




Access to the Development Site 3.10.2

All operational traffic will travel along Kidman Way and Tysons Road to the new access to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex that will be constructed. To satisfy the requirements of The Ranch Farm 1 development consent (DA 2016/017), a section of Tysons Road (approximately 0.75 km) from the end of the sealed section to the proposed site access will be finished with a 150 mm gravel road-base. As recommended by RoadNet (2016), this section of Tysons Road will be sealed as part of The Ranch Farm 4 Development.

Construction of the new site access and access road to The Ranch Farm 1 was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development consent (DA 2016/017). An extension of the internal access road from The Ranch Farm 1 site to The Ranch Farm 2 site was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 2 development consent (DA 2016/022). A further extension of the internal access road from The Ranch Farm 2 site to The Ranch Farm 3 site was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 3 development consent (DA 2016/023). These works will be undertaken at the commencement of the construction phase for The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2, and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively (refer Figure 12).

The Ranch Farm 4 development proposal includes an extension of the access road from Farm 3 to Farm 4 (refer Figure 13). The internal access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site will involve the establishment of a 25 m wide easement. This access road will cross an ephemeral drainage line and subsequently a culvert will be necessary. Relevant design, including surface water management will be addressed with Council prior to the commencement of construction works. These proposed works will be located within previously disturbed areas and will not require the clearing of any native trees.

The alignment of the internal access road/infrastructure corridor has been selected to avoid clearing of vegetation where possible. The only clearing of vegetation associated with the access road/infrastructure corridor will occur where the proposed infrastructure is to extend north for approximately 220 m through existing vegetation (refer Figure 13). This will require clearing of approximately 0.55 ha of existing vegetation (refer Section 7.7). The remaining extents of the access road/infrastructure corridors will be aligned in an offset position so that existing vegetation along the perimeter of the current farm access tracks are not disturbed.

A one-way system will be established around the PPU to enable traffic to enter, exit and manoeuvre around the poultry sheds for loading-unloading and servicing activities in a forward direction to minimise the potential for traffic conflict and noise.

The internal roads will be constructed as all-weather rural-type roads able to accommodate the expected heavy vehicle movements and their turn path requirements.

The Development will not generate any construction or operational traffic along Back Hillston Road.

Wheel Wash 3.10.3

The potential for mechanical transmission of disease pathogens will be reduced through the installation of a wheel wash facility on the internal access road to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. All vehicles wishing to enter the Development Site will be required to pass through the wheel wash to remove dust particles from the wheels and chassis.

The wheel wash facility will be designed as a self-contained unit in order to minimise the potential for runoff. It is anticipated that a chemical sanitiser will be added to the wash water. Sensors will detect the vehicle and the wheel wash will automatically commence operation.

It is proposed to construct a turkey nest dam below the wheel wash facility to contain the full volume of water from the facility, captured rainfall, accidental overfill and/or periodic cleanouts. It is anticipated that the dam’s capacity will be around twice that of the wheel wash. Subject to soil sampling and engineering design, if necessary, the turkey nest dam will be compacted or lined to achieve a permeability of 10-9 metres per second.




3.11 Traffic

Traffic Generation 3.11.1

The majority of traffic generated by the Development will travel between the Development Site, Griffith and Hanwood (approximately 6 km south of Griffith on Kidman Way). The primary operational activities that will generate traffic are:

• Delivery of the poultry shed bedding material in rigid trucks from a storage facility located near Hanwood;

• Delivery of day-old chicks from Baiada’s hatchery facility located approximately 3 km west of Griffith on Snaldero Road in insulted pantechnicon trucks;

• Delivery of feed from Baiada’s feedmill facility located approximately 1 km south of Hanwood on the corner of Kidman Way and McWilliams Road in semi-trailers;

• Delivery of bulk liquid petroleum gas (LPG) from Griffith in rigid tankers;

• Removal of birds to Baiada’s processing complex located approximately 1 km south of Hanwood on the corner of Kidman Way and Murphy Road in semi-trailers;

• Removal of shed floor litter (spent bedding material) in semi-trailers to various locations;

• Removal of dead birds to Baiada’s processing complex, which includes a protein recovery/rendering plant, located approximately 1 km south of Hanwood on the corner of Kidman Way and Murphy Road in rigid trucks;

• Removal of general garbage in rigid trucks to disposal facilities located within the vicinity of Griffith; and

• Staff visits by cars (noting that a farm manager and assistant farm manager will live on-site).

Table 7 lists the anticipated traffic volumes to be generated by the Development over a typical nine week production cycle and over a typical year comprising 5.7 production cycles.




Table 7 Estimated Traffic Generation for the Ranch Farm 4 - Production Cycle and Annual Activity Vehicle Type Vehicles (Two Way Vehicle Trips)

Production Cycle (approx. 9 weeks)

Annual (approx. 5.7 cycles)

Heavy Vehicles Delivery of shed bedding material Twin axle rigid truck 30 (60) 171 (342)

Delivery of chicks Twin axle rigid truck 12 (24) 69 (138)

Delivery of feed Semi-trailer 180 (360) 1,026 (2,052)

Delivery of fuel Rigid tanker 2 (4) 12 (24)

Delivery of gas (LPG) Rigid tanker 4 (8) 23 (46)

Removal of birds Semi-trailer 180 (360) 1,026 (2,052)

Removal of birds – catching equipment transporter

Semi-trailer 40 (80) 228 (456)

Removal of birds – catching staff Bus 40 (80) 228 (456)

Removal of shed litter material Semi-trailer 72 (144) 410 (820)

Shed wash down equipment transporter Semi-trailer 40 (80) 228 (456)

Removal of dead birds Twin axle rigid truck 60 (120) 342 (684)

Removal of garbage Rigid truck 2 (4) 12 (24) Heavy Vehicle Sub-Total 662 (1,324) 3,775 (7,550)

Light Vehicles

Staff visits Car 160 (320) 912 (1,824)

Tradesman Ute/Van 18 (36) 103 (206)

Catching equipment maintenance Van 8 (16) 46 (92)

Shed litter material removal contractors Car 20 (40) 114 (228)

Shed wash down contractors Car 8 (16) 46 (92)

Light Vehicle Sub-Total 214 (428) 1,221 (2,442) TOTAL 876 (1,752) 4,996 (9,992)

Table 8 lists the anticipated daily traffic volumes and hourly traffic volumes during peak generating times, as calculated by RoadNet (2016).

Table 8 Estimated Traffic Generation for the Ranch Farm 4 - Daily and Peak Hours Vehicle Type Vehicles per Day

(Vehicle Trips) AM Peak Hour Movements

PM Peak Hour Movements

Light Vehicles 4 (8) 3 (2 in, 1 out) 3 (1 in, 2 out)

Heavy Vehicles 11 (22) 1 (1 in, 0 out) 1 (0 in, 1 out)

Total 15 (30) 4 (3 in, 1 out) 4 (1 in, 3 out)

Table 9 lists the expected daily traffic volumes and hourly traffic volumes generated by The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (including The Ranch Farms 1 to 3 Expansions) during peak generating times, as calculated by RoadNet (2016).




Table 9 Estimated Traffic Generation for The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Daily and Peak Hours

Vehicle Type Vehicles per Day (Vehicle Trips)

AM Peak Hour Movements

PM Peak Hour Movements

Light Vehicles 20 (40) 15 (10 in, 5 out) 15 (5 in, 10 out) Heavy Vehicles 55 (110) 5 (5 in, 0 out) 5 (0 in, 5 out) Total 75 (150) 20 (15 in, 5 out) 20 (5 in, 15 out)

The following points should be noted in terms of traffic volumes listed in Tables 7 to 9:

• It is estimated that close to 27% of the total traffic will be generated by light vehicles (car/ute/van);

• With the exception of live bird removal, which will generally occur between the hours of 7.00 pm and 4.00 pm, all transport activities will occur during daylight hours;

• There will typically be one daily shift for farm workers between 7.00 am and 4.00 pm each day;

• Heavy vehicle trips will be mostly spread over the nine week production cycle and will be distributed relatively evenly over the predicted delivery hours;

• There will be on average 30 vehicle movements a day associated with the Development, 22 of which will be heavy vehicles; and

• There will be on average 150 vehicle movements per day associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex, 110 of these movements will be heavy vehicles.

It is also noted that the traffic volume calculations used in the traffic assessment are based on the largest vehicle servicing the development being a semi-trailer, which provides a conservative estimate of traffic movements to and from the site. However, it is possible that future contractors may use B-doubles to service the site, which would result in less heavy vehicle movements. The current heavy vehicle routes servicing the Development Site are suitable for this purpose.

At this point in time there is no intention to service the Development using road trains. The applicant will consult with Council and RMS if this situation changes in the future.

Heavy Vehicle Route 3.11.2

Heavy vehicles will travel between the Development Site and facilities located near Griffith and Hanwood on a daily basis via Kidman Way. The designated B-double route, including through Griffith, is shown on Figure 15.

Day old chicks from Baiada’s hatchery facility located approximately 3 km west of Griffith on Snaldero Road will be delivered to the site in rigid trucks via Kidman Way. It is expected these vehicles can be accommodated on the local road network through Griffith.

Vehicles travelling to facilities near Hanwood will travel south to Griffith along Kidman Way, through Griffith via Kookora Street and Willandra Avenue, and back on to Kidman Way to Hanwood. The reverse will occur when travelling from Hanwood to the Development Site. This is currently a designated B-double route, an approved road train route and has adequate capacity to accommodate the heavy vehicles generated by the Development (RoadNet 2016).

GRIFFITH

KIDMAN

BURLEY GRIFFIN WAY

TEMORAROTO

RAILWAY

GRIFFITH

HANWOOD

WAY

GRIFFITH - LGA

CARRATHOOL - LGA

LAKEWYANGAN

YOOGALI

NERICON

TABBITA

BEELBANGERA

BILBUL

YENDA

ROAD

RANK

INS

SP

RING

S R

OAD

TABBITA LANE

KIDMANWAY

WARBURN

THARBOGANG


Wah

Creek

Mirrool

Creek

KIDMAN WAY

KIDM

AN W

AY

WILLANDRA AVE

KOOKORA ST

INSET

FIGURE 15

0.0

N

M4.0 8.0

Notes and Cautions:(1) Background satellite image sourced from Google Earth & NearMap.(2) All boundaries and areas shown on this plan are approximate only and


H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

5_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_H

eavy

Vehic

leRte_

V1.dw

g

To be printed A4

Heavy Vehicle Route

See INSET

LEGEND

Proposed development siteMain roadsHeavy vehicle routeRailwayLocal Government Area boundary - LGATownship




3.12 Servicing

Electricity 3.12.1

Reticulated electricity will be the Development’s principal source of energy and will be used to operate the tunnel ventilation systems, shed lighting, cooling pads, water pumps and staff amenities. Consultation with Essential Energy is underway to ensure appropriate arrangements are made for the extension and upgrade (if necessary) of the existing power supply infrastructure to service the requirements of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex.

The extension of overhead electricity infrastructure from the existing infrastructure in Tabbita to The Ranch Farm 1 site has been approved under DA 2016/017. The Ranch Farm 2 (DA 2016/022) approval included extension of the infrastructure from The Ranch Farm 1 site to The Ranch Farm 2 site. The Ranch Farm 3 development consent (DA 2016/023) approved to extend the power supply infrastructure from The Ranch Farm 2 site to The Ranch Farm 3 site (refer Figure 12). The Ranch Farm 4 development is seeking approval to extend the power supply infrastructure from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site. The indicative location of power supply infrastructure has been shown on Figure 13 and is subject to Essential Energy approval.

A 25 m easement will be established for installation of the powerline between The Ranch Farm 3 and The Ranch Farm 4. Where the easement goes through woodland, the cleared zone will extend 12.5 m on either side of the power line. In all other areas (i.e. where one side of the corridor is vegetated and one is cropping land), the powerline will be located 15 m from vegetation.

Emergency standby diesel generators will be installed for when power from the electricity grid is lost. They will be appropriately sited and housed to minimise noise emissions.

Gas 3.12.2

Heating of the poultry sheds, which is anticipated to be required for up to 14 days of each production cycle, will be provided by wall mounted gas heaters. LPG will be delivered to the Development Site in rigid tankers from Griffith and stored on-site in bulk tanks adjacent to the poultry sheds.

Water Supply 3.12.3

Poultry broilers are like any other livestock in that they need to drink water each day of their life-cycle. Water lines, with nipple drinkers and drip trays, will run the length of each poultry shed and will be automatically supplied by external water storage tanks.

Each shed will be temperature controlled by tunnel ventilation during the hotter months, with evaporative cooling pads used once the external air temperature reaches approximately 30 °C.

Based on industry acknowledged figures, the poultry operation will require a total water supply of around 50 ML per annum. This includes water supply for shed ventilation, bird consumption, shed cleaning and landscaping. The water requirement for The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. the five poultry farms) will amount to approximately 250 ML per annum. This water requirement will be soured via Murrumbidgee Irrigation under a high security water access licence (WAL), the purchase of which is currently being negotiated. Water will be pumped from a supply channel (the Tabbita Channel) located within Lot 1 in DP 1086493 on the western side of Kidman Way, to service each of the five poultry farms within The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. A 60 ML water storage dam will be constructed within the Development Site to ensure ready supply for The Ranch Farm 4 (refer Figure 9). The final constructed capacity and dimensions will be subject to engineering design and the required Council approvals.




The infrastructure required to convey water from the Tabbita Channel to The Ranch Farm 1 site was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development consent (DA 2016/017). The Ranch Farm 2 development consent (DA 2016/022) approved the extension of infrastructure from The Ranch Farm 1 to The Ranch Farm 2 site. The Ranch Farm 3 development consent (DA 2016/023) approved the extension of the water pipeline from The Ranch Farm 2 site to The Ranch Farm 3 site (refer Figure 12). The Ranch Farm 4 development will involve extending the water pipeline from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site (refer Figure 13).

As outlined in Section 3.7.3, the water storage dam will also collect surface water runoff (stormwater runoff from the poultry shed roofs and hardstand surfaces and operational runoff during shed clean out at the end of each production cycle) from the PPU. While the volume of surface water runoff entering the dam is anticipated to be minimal, it will augment water supply.

A 300 mm polyethylene (PE) pipe or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe laid within a 0.5 m trench will convey the stored water from the storage dam to an on-site treatment plant where the water will be filtered and chlorinated prior to being pumped in to the water storage tanks. Figure 10 shows the locality of the water treatment plant and water storage tanks.

If the water requirement cannot be met via the water access licence, for example during times of drought, this is a commercial risk of the operator. If such a time presents itself, several options will be available including the purchase/transfer of additional water and/or reducing the operating capacity of the Development until the required water supply can be obtained.

Water Supply for the Residences and Staff Amenities

Potable water supply for the two residences and staff amenities will be via rainwater collection (tanks) from the roofs of the dwellings and amenities/office building.

Feed Supply 3.12.4

Broiler feed will be supplied from Baiada’s feedmill facility located approximately 1 km south of Hanwood on the corner of Kidman Way and McWilliams Road. Silos will be located between the poultry sheds and will automatically dispense feed into the sheds. Feed lines, with feed pans, will run the length of each poultry shed and will be automatically supplied by the external grain silos. The feed pans will be spaced at regular intervals so that the birds are never more than a few metres from feed.

The dietary formulation will vary with changes in the availability, price and quality of specific feed ingredients, season of the year and broiler flock age. The optimum and most economical combination of feed ingredients that meets the strict nutritional specifications at any particular time will be selected.

As previously mentioned, broiler feed comprises between 65% and 90% grains, such as wheat, sorghum, barley, oats, lupins, soybean meal, canola and other oilseed meal and grain legumes. Hormones are not added to chicken feed or administered to commercial meat chickens in Australia. Hormone supplementation is a practice that has been banned internationally for over 40 years.

3.13 Chemical Use and Management

The only chemicals that will be used at the Development Site will be for the following purposes:

• Sanitisation of the poultry sheds during the cleaning phase at the end of each production cycle;

• Sanitisation of vehicles passing through the wheel wash;

• Disinfection of the water supply;

• Pest and vermin control (when necessary); and

• Weed control (when necessary).




These chemicals will be purchased from a local chemical supply company and/or will be delivered to the site by the operator. It is common practice for shed sanitisation chemicals to be delivered to the Development Site a few days prior to the commencement of the cleaning phase to minimise on-site chemical storage requirements and time.

There will also be ten bulk LPG tanks on site (refer Section 3.12.2), along with one diesel tank which will be located at the generator shed (refer Figure 10).

The following management practices and mitigation measures will be employed to manage chemical use and storage within the Development Site:

• Staff members will be instructed in the proper use and handling of all chemicals used on site. If appropriate, this will include completion of training such as SMARTtrain or ChemCert (or similar).

• All chemical use will be undertaken in full compliance with the relevant statutory requirements, including the Pesticides Act 1999.

• Where appropriate, chemicals used will be approved by the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority as safe and fit for that particular use.

• A chemical storage container/shed that is appropriately sealed and bunded, and with appropriate signage, will be installed for the limited volumes of chemicals to be stored on site.

• The diesel and petrol will be stored in bunded tanks with overflow containers. These overflow containers will be regularly inspected and, when required, removed by a licenced contractor to prevent overflow and replaced. Any excess water collected in the bunded areas will also be removed by the contractor.

• Copies of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for each chemical and fuel used on site will be kept within the chemical storage facility and in the site office.

• Empty chemical containers will be returned to the chemical supply company and/or the operator for recycling, reuse or appropriate disposal. Alternatively a licensed contractor will be engaged to provide a chemical container pickup service for recycling, reuse or appropriate disposal. Any non-returnable chemical containers can be collected and managed via the drumMUSTER program.

Incident Management

• A Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (PIRMP) will be prepared as part of the Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) (refer Section 3.24).

• The actions specified on the chemical’s SDS will be implemented in the event of a minor chemical spill.

• In the event of a major spill, which is considered highly unlikely given the low volumes of chemicals to be stored on site and the above management measures, the following procedure will be implemented:

- The EPA and/or other appropriate regulatory authority will be contacted and advised of the nature of the chemical spill or incident, and any instructions issued by the authority will be strictly adhered to.

- Where possible, spilled material will be contained using vermiculite or similar absorbing material, and/or recovered using suitable containers.

- Any contaminated soil and/or absorption material will be collected, managed and disposal of as advised by the regulatory authority.

- Clean soil will be brought in once all contaminated material has been removed.

3.14 Waste Management

Appropriate systems will be implemented to ensure that each waste stream generated by the Development are effectively managed and/or disposed of off-site. No waste material will be disposed of on-site.




General Waste 3.14.1

Day-to-day general waste will be placed into enclosed skips and removed from the Development Site by a licensed contractor on a regular basis. This type of waste will be transported to and disposed of at a local landfill site. No waste material will be disposed of on-site.

Chemical Containers 3.14.2

The only chemicals that will be used at the Development Site will be for sanitisation and disinfection of the poultry sheds during the cleanout phase at the end of each production cycle, pest/vermin control and weed control.

Chemicals will be purchased from a local chemical supply company and/or will be delivered to the site by the operator. Empty chemical containers will be returned to the chemical supply company and/or the operator for recycling, reuse or appropriate disposal. Alternatively a licensed contractor will be engaged to provide a chemical container pickup service for recycling, reuse or appropriate disposal. Any non-returnable chemical containers can be collected and managed via the drumMUSTER program.

Poultry Litter 3.14.3

At the end of each production cycle a typical poultry shed of the size proposed will have around 225 cubic metres (m3) of poultry litter (spent bedding material), comprising around 100 m3 of soft wood shavings/rice hulls/chopped straw and 125 m3 of manure accumulated over the 7.5 weeks of bird occupation. The feed and water lines will be raised to the roof of the poultry sheds to allow the poultry litter to be removed by a contractor using a front-end loader or bobcat and loaded in to trucks for transport off site. The sheds will then be blown and swept to collect any remaining litter, before being washed (using high-pressure low-volume sprays), sanitised and disinfected. The management of the wash down water from the cleanout phase is discussed in Section 3.15.

Poultry litter is highly sought after as an organic fertiliser and/or rehabilitation agent for agricultural lands. On this basis, the litter collected from the sheds will likely be sold as a commercial raw product and/or directly to regional farmers.

For sound farm management and biosecurity reasons, it is not in VOAG 4’s interest to stockpile poultry litter near the poultry sheds due to the vulnerability of the younger birds coming in to commence cycle. As such, to ensure minimum opportunity for disease transfer, the litter will not be stored within the bounds of the Development Site and preferably not within close proximately of the Development Site. However this is largely out of VOAG 4’s control, with the destination and safe handling of the litter the responsibility of the transport contractor and/or end-user. The product does not pose a health threat to the community.

VOAG 4 will make every effort to ensure truck loads leaving the Development Site are covered to minimise emissions of odour and particulate matter.

Dead Birds 3.14.4

Dead birds will be collected from the poultry sheds on a daily basis and stored in an on-site chiller. A rigid truck will visit the site on a regular basis to collect the dead birds and transport them to Baiada’s protein recovery plant (rendering plant), which is part of the poultry processing complex, near Hanwood on Kidman Way. Dead birds will not be allowed to stockpile within the Development Site for biosecurity reasons.

Sewage 3.14.5

Sewage generated by the on-site staff amenities and residences will be treated and disposed of via separate on-site aerated wastewater management systems installed and operated in accordance with relevant standards/guidelines and Council approvals.




3.15 Surface Water Management

An engineered surface water management system will be installed and maintained throughout the life of the operation to mitigate the potential offsite impact of surface water runoff. The main water sources from the Development will be:

• Wash down water from within the poultry sheds at the end of each production cycle (approximately 5.7 times per year);

• Rainfall runoff from the shed roofs; and

• Rainfall runoff from the ground surfaces around the poultry sheds and additional improvements.

As outlined in Section 3.14.3, the sheds will be blown and swept (i.e. dry cleaning practices) before being washed using high-pressure low-volume sprays, sanitised and disinfected. Each poultry shed will be surrounded by a dwarf concrete bund wall to prevent rainwater and runoff entering the poultry sheds and to allow for the controlled discharge of wash down water from the sheds. The concrete bunds will have strategically located seepage holes to convey excess wash down water from the sheds into grassed swale drains between each of the sheds. Rainfall runoff from the shed roofs and from some of the surrounding surfaces will also be directed into these swale drains.

The swale drains will be designed to allow infiltration of the water into the topsoil for nutrient uptake by the grass, which will be regularly slashed. During heavy rainfall events, the swale drains will overflow to a perimeter table drains surrounding the sheds. The perimeter table drains will carry flow to the proposed 60 ML water storage dam (refer Figure 9). This series of drains will ensure all rainfall runoff from maintained on site and managed accordingly, mitigating any potential offsite impact to local water resources.

While the water captured in the drains will have some level of nutrients, the levels are predicted to be low given that the poultry sheds will be thoroughly blown and swept prior to being washed and the grassed swale drains will provide a very effective means of nutrient capture.

3.16 Revegetation

The most effective means of controlling erosion and sedimentation is through the establishment and maintenance of a healthy vegetation cover. General disturbance areas, that will not be sealed or actively utilised for operational activities, will be promptly rehabilitated to a stable landform and revegetated following completion of the construction/disturbance activities. Revegetation will generally be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:

• Where possible, topsoil will be re-spread to a minimum depth of 100 mm in the reverse sequence to its removal so that the organic layer containing any seed or vegetation is returned to the surface. Re-spreading on the contour will aid runoff control and increase moisture retention for subsequent plant growth. The re-spread topsoil will be levelled to achieve an even surface (avoiding a compacted or an over-smooth finish) and tilled.

• Re-vegetation will commence as soon as practicable, with a suitable pasture seed mix being spread over the disturbance area using a broadcast seeding method. For critical areas requiring quick re-vegetation or for areas where poor re-vegetation is identified, more intensive revegetation methods, such as hydromulching, may be considered.

• Appropriate fertiliser will be applied during the seeding operation.

A suitable pasture grass and legume mix for the Development Site has been provided in Table 10. However, all revegetation within 100 m of existing vegetation will be undertaken with species that are naturally occurring in the area, such as Acacia deanei, subsp. paucijuga (Green Wattle) Acacia lineata (Streaked Wattle), Acacia havilandiorum (Needle Wattle), Acacia doratoxylon (Currawang), Eremophila sturtii (Turpentine Bush), Eremophila mitchelii (Budda) and Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine).




Table 10 Pasture Specification

Species Rate (kg/ha)

Spring/Summer Autumn/Winter

Japanese Millet 20 5

Ryecorn/Oats 5 20

Couch Grass 10 8

Wimmera Ryegrass 5 10

White Clover 8 -

Lucerne 5 -

Sub Clover - 8

Serradella - 10

Consol - 2

All legumes (clovers and lucerne) will be inoculated with Rhizobia and lime pelleted to promote nodulation and facilitate subsequent nitrogen fixation.

3.17 Landscaping

As shown on Figure 16, appropriate landscaping will be undertaken to improve the visual and environmental amenity of the PPU. Additional benefits of landscaping at poultry production complexes include:

• Protecting the poultry sheds against any spray drift or off-target applications of chemicals from neighbouring agricultural land users;

• Reducing the magnitude and frequency of any adverse air quality impacts by effectively filtering air movement, which will enhance dust deposition and odour dispersion; and

• Providing a high level of light screening.

The proposed landscaping will comprise suitable tree and shrub species that are naturally occurring within the area and of differing growth habits strategically planted around the general perimeter of the PPU. The plantings will be based on relevant recommendations in Planning Guidelines Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses (Queensland Department of Natural Resources 1997), these being:

• A biological buffer of a minimum total width of around 40 m;

• Contain consistent, yet random, plantings of a variety of tree and shrub species of differing growth habits, at spacings of around 4 to 7 m;

• Include species with long, thin and rough foliage to facilitate the capture of spray droplets and dust particles;

• Provide a permeable barrier that allows air to pass through the buffer. The plantings will aim to achieve a porosity of around 0.5 (i.e. around 50% of the screen will be air space);

• Include species that are hardy and fast growing; and

• Foliage from base to crown (i.e. lower and upper storey vegetation) to ensure that the buffer is effective in slowing and filtering air movement at all levels.

VOAG 4 will progressively establish the landscape plantings, as practically possible, following bulk earthworks and construction of development infrastructure. A Landscaping Strategy will be prepared for inclusion in the site-specific OEMP (refer Section 3.24).

3.18 Site Maintenance

Regular and effective site maintenance is essential given issues such as odour, dust, noise, pests and flock health are directly related to site operation and management.




The Development will be managed in compliance with VOAG’s standard operating procedures. This includes a regular site inspection and maintenance program in order to minimise the potential for adverse environmental impacts, extend the life of farm equipment, reduce operating costs and maximise operational efficiency. Emphasis will be placed on keeping the insides of the poultry sheds and surrounding environment as clean as possible.

Maintenance activities will include:

• Regular inspection and maintenance of ventilation systems, feed lines and water lines to avoid blockages, spillages, leaks and uneven distribution;

• Regular examination and management of stocking densities and bird health within the poultry sheds;

• Daily inspection and removal of dead birds from within the sheds;

• Daily monitoring and maintenance of the bedding material to identify, remove and replace any areas with excessive moisture content (for example, under the water drinkers);

• Regular site slashing and mowing;

• Implementation of pest control measures (refer Section 3.19), which will primarily comprise a preventative baiting system;

• Regular inspection and maintenance of water supply pumps and pipelines to identify and fix any blockages or leaks; and

• Maintenance of the internal access roads to minimise tyre wear and dust emissions.

3.19 Pest Control

The presence of pest populations in and around poultry operations is a potential health hazard and an indicator of poor farm management. The Development Site will be managed in strict compliance with VOAG’s standard operating procedures. Emphasis will be placed on keeping the poultry sheds and surrounding environs as clean as possible to discourage pests from establishing residency within and around the Development Site.

The following pest control measures, which will form part of the site maintenance program and biosecurity commitment, will be employed:

• Implementation of a pest control program, which primarily comprises the installation and maintenance of baits as a preventative measure to prevent and control outbreaks;

• Dead birds will be collected from the poultry sheds on a daily basis and stored in on-site chillers prior to removal off-site;

• At the end of each production cycle, poultry litter will be promptly removed from the poultry sheds and transported off-site;

• Any feed or grain spills will be promptly cleaned up;

• Appropriate waste management practices/systems (refer Section 3.14) to ensure no on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials;

• The grass within the shed environs will regularly slashed and/or mown; and

• Appropriate sanitising agents will be used during the shed cleaning phase.

3.20 Workplace Health and Safety

The design, construction and operation of the Development will comply with all relevant workplace health and safety requirements. VOAG 4 understands that it has ‘duty of care’ obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (and its associated Regulation).




3.21 Animal Health and Welfare

The conditions under which broiler poultry are housed and the way that they are managed during their growing phase, transportation and processing are prescribed in several government and industry endorsed Codes of Practice designed to safeguard their health and welfare.

The company understands that bird welfare, flock performance and economic functioning go hand-in-hand. VOAG 4 has advised that it is committed to the standards of care and management detailed in the National Animal Welfare Standards for the Chicken Meat Industry (Australian Poultry CRC 2008), which is based on the model codes of practice for poultry production, Australian Standards, international and national guidelines for animal welfare. Key features of this commitment are discussed below.

Space Allowance

VOAG 4’s broiler pick-ups (shed thinning) are governed by customer bird weight specifications and maintaining a maximum stocking density of 34 kg/m2, which complies with the recommended maximum stocking density for domestic poultry in tunnel ventilated sheds RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards – Meat Chickens (RSPCA 2013).

S

H

E

D

1

S

H

E

D

2

S

H

E

D

3

S

H

E

D

4

S

H

E

D

5

S

H

E

D

6

S

H

E

D

7

S

H

E

D

8

S

H

E

D

9

S

H

E

D

1

0

S

H

E

D

1

1

S

H

E

D

1

2

S

H

E

D

1

3

S

H

E

D

1

4

S

H

E

D

1

5

S

H

E

D

1

6

FIGURE 16

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

6_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_P

ropL

ands

capin

g_V1

.dwg

To be printed A4

Proposed Landscaping

0



N

LEGEND

Development SiteProposed poultry shedProposed water storage damProposed project related residenceProposed landscaping

M100 200




Equipment

All equipment to which the birds have access will be selected and appropriately maintained to avoid injury, pain and stress. In addition, the automated shed control equipment will be regularly checked and maintained to ensure optimum efficiency.

Lighting

Uniform lighting will be provided within the poultry sheds to enable the birds to see the feed pans and water drinkers, with dark periods each day to allow the birds to rest. Reduced light has been found to minimise livestock stress and, as such, low lux internal lighting will be provided to promote calm.

Ventilation

The Development will comprise tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds. Tunnel ventilation is able to deliver the required environmental parameters throughout the entire year and poultry have an optimum environmental range for health, growth and productivity. The tunnel ventilation systems will be fully computer controlled and alarm monitored, with back-up power available via emergency standby generators.

Feed Supply

Feed lines will run the length of each poultry shed and will be automatically supplied by the external grain silos. Feed pans will be spaced at regular intervals so that the birds are never more than a few metres from feed and, in compliance with the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry (Primary Industries Standing Committee 2002), there will be a maximum of around 80 birds per feed pan at maximum density.

Water

Water lines will run the length of each poultry shed and will be automatically supplied by external water storage tanks. Nipple drinkers, with drip cups, will be spaced at regular intervals so that the birds are never more than a few metres from water and, in compliance with the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry (Primary Industries Standing Committee 2002), there will be a maximum of around 14 birds per nipple drinker at maximum density.

Inspections

The birds will be inspected on a daily basis for health, injury, distress, feed and water. Dead and injured birds will be removed for disposal or treatment in a humane manner.

Transportation

All measures will be taken to ensure that the birds are not subjected to any unnecessary stress during catching, transportation, loading and unloading. Both VOAG 4 and Baiada (operator of the chicken hatchery and poultry processing complex to service the Development) are fully committed to the standards of care detailed in the National Animal Welfare Standards for the Chicken Meat Industry (Australian Poultry CRC, 2008) and the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Land Transport of Poultry (Primary Industries Standing Committee 2006).




3.22 Biosecurity

Biosecurity refers to those measures taken to prevent or control the introduction and spread of infectious agents to a flock. It aims to prevent the introduction of infectious diseases, and prevent the spread of disease from an infected area to an uninfected area. Biosecurity plays a vital role in the incidence of disease and is an integral part of any successful poultry production system. The nature of each avian influenza outbreak that has occurred in Australia (seven between 1976 and 2013) suggests that one or more biosecurity deficiencies were involved in the spread of the virus. Improving biosecurity is the most important way that producers can prevent the spread of the virus (Primary Industries Ministerial Council 2011).

A copy of the National Farm Biosecurity Manual for Chicken Growers (Australian Chicken Meat Federation 2010) will be kept at the Development Site and staff will be provided with training in the relevant parts of the Manual and site specific biosecurity measures. The key biosecurity measures that will be implemented at the Development Site include, but will not be limited to, the following:

Farm Signage

Appropriate signage will be erected at the entrance of the Development Site to notify visitors of the biosecurity zone, direct them to contact the operator prior to proceeding.

Farm Isolation

The greater the separation distance between poultry operations the less opportunity there is for disease spread. Excluding proposed The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2, The Ranch Farm 3 and The Ranch Farm 5 developments, the Development is located over 7 km to any other intensive poultry operations (existing and proposed), which is well in excess of that recommended in Best Practice Management for Meat Chicken Production in NSW (Department of Primary Industries 2012).

Disease pathogens can survive for some time on people and clothes and, as such, isolation in time is also important. Time isolation allows equipment to be disinfected and allows personnel to shower and change clothing.

Single Age Farm

Vaccinated stock can become infected and show no clinical signs of disease, yet can transfer the disease to younger and/or more susceptible birds. To reduce the risk of disease transfer and outbreak, whole flock units with minimum age difference will be placed into each poultry shed. On this basis, the Development will operate on an ‘all in – all out’ shed placement and depopulation program.

Closed Flock

Birds on other sites may be exposed to different strains of organisms to which other flocks may not have developed immunity to. In addition, birds may have been exposed to a disease organism and not have developed clinical signs of the disease. Moving apparently healthy birds into a disease-free flock could mean introducing disease to a clean site. For these reasons, once a flock is placed, no new birds will be introduced from any other source.

Other Measures

Various other biosecurity measures will be implemented on a routine basis in accordance with the National Farm Biosecurity Manual for Chicken Growers (Australian Chicken Meat Federation 2010). These include:

• The poultry sheds and equipment will be sanitised and disinfected at the end of each production cycle;

• Dead birds will be removed from the poultry sheds on a daily basis and stored in an on-site chiller prior to removal off-site;




• At the end of each production cycle, poultry litter will be promptly removed from the poultry sheds and transported off-site;

• There will be no on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials;

• Poultry water supply will be filtered and chlorinated prior to being pumped in to the storage tanks;

• A vehicle wheel wash will be installed at the entrance to the Development Site;

• A pest control program will be implemented;

• Staff members working in direct contact with livestock will not be permitted to keep other bird species or pigs at their place of residence; and

• Staff members and visitors will not be permitted to travel between poultry operations without changing clothes and foot wear.

3.23 Mass Mortality Disposal Strategy

In the unlikely event of a major disease outbreak, the EPA and DPI will be contacted as soon as the breakout is suspected and will likely assume control of the site. Immediate measures will be implemented to isolate the infected sheds, effect strict quarantine procedures to prevent the spread of the disease, and notify all relevant stakeholders. Where permitted, urgent ring vaccination of flocks within the controlled area will be organised.

Upon confirmation that it is indeed an emergency animal disease (EAD) outbreak and immediate slaughter of farm stock is necessary, slaughter will be managed by the DPI in co-ordination with the EPA and technical service units of the poultry industry. The birds will be slaughtered within the poultry sheds.

A number of options exist for the disposal of bird carcasses and fomites. The Best Practice Management for Meat Chicken Production in NSW – Manual 2 Meat Chicken Growing Management (DPI 2012) lists the following mass disposal options subject to Council, EPA and DPI approval:

• Rendering (if facilities are available);

• In-shed composting;

• External composting;

• Disposal in a landfill site; and

• Burial on-farm.

The most appropriate option in the event of a mass mortality event will depend on a number of factors, including the scale of the outbreak, the ability of a render facility to accept the bird carcasses, the logistics and cost associated with transportation of carcasses off site, and a site’s suitability for burial. While on-farm burial has traditionally been the predominant disposal option in the poultry industry, this practice is now discouraged on the basis of significant environmental risks including potential groundwater impacts.

Emergency management agencies throughout Australia have now identified on-farm composting as an appropriate method of carcass disposal. The Biosecurity of Mass Poultry Mortality Composting (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) 2014)) investigated the feasibility of on-farm composting and the effectiveness of this disposal method in eliminating avian diseases in bird carcasses and litter. The investigation found that composting effectively restricts the spread of the disease and the composting can be undertaken in the poultry sheds or on the farm using poultry litter (bedding material and manure) as a bulking agent. Poultry carcasses rapidly decompose, usually within 14 days. After a further period of composting, the compost can be safely applied to land.

Studies conducted on the survival of the V4 vaccine strain of Newcastle disease virus during composting found that the virus was killed within the first five days of composting. Conditions monitored during the composting process suggested there is a wide safety margin and that the Newcastle disease virus and other EADs, such as avian influenza, are unlikely to survive for long (RIRDC 2014).




RIRDC (2014) advised that the successful implementation of composting as a disposal method during an EAD has been repeatedly demonstrated in the United States of America and Canada.

Although in-shed and external composting are possible, in-shed composting offers a number of advantages including better security and protection from wind, rain and scavengers. However in-shed composting can result in the affected poultry shed(s) being out of operation for many weeks as the composting process takes place. This is where on-site rendering and off-site burial have an advantage as disposal options, enabling the affected shed(s) to be cleaned, decontaminated and brought back into production in a much shorter period of time.

In consideration of the above, and pending the scale of the mass mortality event and advice from the DPI and EPA, the following options in order of preference will be implemented for the disposal of bird carcasses and fomites in the event of an EAD outbreak within the Development Site:

1. Rendering

The preferred option for mass bird disposal will be transportation to Baiada’s protein recovery plant, which is part of the poultry processing complex approximately 1 km south of Hanwood on the corner of Kidman Way and Murphy Road, for treatment and disposal. This would occur under the supervision of the DPI to ensure appropriate quarantine control and standard operating procedures are implemented in line with the relevant AUSVETPLAN disease strategy.

Carcasses and fomites will be loaded in to leak-proof containers within the poultry sheds and these containers would be transported in appropriate trucks disinfected on exit from the Development Site. The truck and operator would be independent from normal VOAG 4 and Baiada operations to minimise the risk of disease transfer to other poultry operations. All vehicles will be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after unloading.

Importantly, the volume of material treated and processed would not be allowed to exceed the protein recovery plant’s daily processing capabilities. If the plant does not have the capacity to accept the material, or if rendering cannot be achieved for another reason, the below alternative options will be considered and the most appropriate selected.

2. Landfill Disposal

Baiada has negotiated a designated portion of Council’s landfill for the mass disposal of chickens from the various contract production farms in the LGA. Council has advised that this landfill area has been appropriately sectioned and quarantined, providing safe disposal of birds in an EAD outbreak when the scale of the outbreak is such that the protein recovery plant (Option 1) cannot manage the volume of birds affected.

Landfilling would be undertaken with appropriately qualified supervision from the DPI, EPA and Council to ensure appropriate quarantine control and standard operating procedures are implemented in line with the relevant AUSVETPLAN disease strategy. Carcasses and fomites would be loaded in to leak-proof containers within the sheds and these containers would be transported in appropriate trucks disinfected on exit from the Development Site. The truck and operator would be independent from normal VOAG 4 and Baiada operations to minimise the risk of disease transfer to other poultry operations. All vehicles would be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after unloading.

Baiada and Council have entered into a two year agreement for this quarantined portion of the existing landfill from mid-2015 to mid-2017. During this time Baiada has committed to investigating other long term disposal options for their contract growers (including VOAG 4) in the event of a mass mortality.

3. In-shed Composting

If transportation of the bird carcasses to the protein recovery plant (Option 1) is not possible and transportation and disposal at Council’s landfill (Option 2) is not possible due to the scale of the mortality and/or other environmental constraints, the birds will be composted within the sheds. This would occur under the supervision of the DPI and EPA and in accordance with the standard operating procedures for mass poultry composting developed by RIRDC (2014).

RIRDC (2014) advises that the poultry carcasses rapidly decompose, usually within 14 days, and after a further period of composting, the compost can be safely applied to land.




3.24 Operational Environmental Management Plan

A site-specific OEMP will be prepared and implemented to ensure that the commitments made within the EIS, along with the conditions imposed by the development consent and EPL, are fully implemented and complied with.

The EIS Guideline – Poultry Farms (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1996) states:

an EMP is a technical document which is usually finalised during or after detailed design of the proposal following approval of the development application…..the level of detail required in an EMP is usually not considered necessary for an EIS.

On this basis, the OEMP will be prepared following development consent and prior to commencing operation. It will be prepared with reference to the Guideline for the Preparation of Environmental Management Plans (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources 2004), and will address the following key aspects:

• Development consent and environmental licensing requirements;

• Environmental management commitments and responsibilities;

• Surface water management strategy;

• Landscaping;

• Mass mortality disposal strategy; and

• Complaints and incidents management strategy.

3.25 Socio-Economic Aspects

Operational Employment 3.25.1

At full production The Ranch Farm 4 will require:

• One full-time farm manager (live on-site);

• One full-time assistant farm manager (live on-site); and

• Two full-time equivalent farm hands.

There will be times when additional labour will be called upon. The farm hand positions demand only low skill level and on-the-job training is provided.

There will also be several contract companies involved in the operation, including for bird catching, equipment maintenance, litter removal and shed wash down.

Capital Investment 3.25.2

The capital investment value (CIV) of the Development will be approximately $10 million. This will include the extension of the proposed internal access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to the Development Site.

Consumables and Flow-On Benefits 3.25.3

At this point in time, it is difficult to quantify the Development’s expenditure on the various consumable products and services that will be required for construction, operation and maintenance. Some examples include:

• Annual telecommunications, electricity, water and gas supply costs;

• Opportunities for local transport companies to participate in the haulage of materials to and from the site;




• Opportunities for local growers and suppliers to provide various goods, including bedding material, fuel, tyres, clothing and groceries; and

• Opportunities for local business to fulfil maintenance and servicing requirements.

The additional grain needed to fulfil the feed demand of the Development represents an increase in the potential market for regional farmers. It is estimated that The Ranch Farm 4 will consume around 28,000 tonnes of poultry feed per annum and The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. the five farms) will consume around 140,000 tonnes of poultry feed per annum, which represents a yearly recurrent expenditure of approximately $32.2 million (based on the average price of feed at the time this document was prepared).

With the amount of money that will be spent on consumables, along with the significant flow-on benefits, the stimulus to the local and regional economies will be substantial.


Page 61 Regulatory Framework


4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

4.1 Permissibility

The Development Site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the provisions of the Carrathool LEP 2012. The objectives of this zone include:

• 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 conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses within adjoining zones.

• To enable agricultural support facilities to be carried out on land within the zone in a manner which does not significantly reduce the agricultural and horticultural production potential of land in the locality.

The Development is classified as “intensive livestock agriculture”, which is defined in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plan) Order 2006 as:

the keeping or breeding, for commercial purposes, of cattle, poultry, goats, horses or other livestock, that are fed wholly or substantially on externally-sourced feed, and includes the operation of feed lots, piggeries, poultry farms or restricted dairies, but does not include the operation of facilities for drought or similar emergency relief or extensive agriculture or aquaculture.

Intensive livestock agriculture is permissible, with development consent, within the RU1 Primary Production zone.

4.2 Consent Pathway

The Development is classified as “local development”, requiring development consent from Council under Part 4 of the EP&A Act.

Designated Development

Under section 77A of Part 4 of the EP&A Act, The Ranch Farm 4 constitutes “designated development” by virtue of the fact that Clause 21(4)(a) of Schedule 3 of the EP&A Regulation declares livestock intensive industries that accommodate more than 250,000 birds to be designated development. As a result, the DP&E has been consulted as part of the development application process (including issuing of SEARs) and this EIS has been prepared to accompany the development application to Council.

The Development does not fall within the development classes/definitions listed in Schedule 4A of the EP&A Act as developments for which regional panels may be authorised to exercise consent authority functions of councils. On this basis, the applicable consent authority is Council.

Integrated Development

Under Section 91(1) of Part 4 of the EP&A Act, The Ranch Farm 4 constitutes “integrated development” by virtue of the fact that Clause 22(2) of Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environmental Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) declares livestock intensive activities that accommodate more than 250,000 birds to be a scheduled activity. As a result, the occupier the will need to hold an EPL administered by the EPA under Section 43 of the POEO Act.




4.3 Commonwealth Legislation

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 4.3.1

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places defined as matters of “national environmental significance”. An action that “has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance” may not be undertaken without prior approval of the Commonwealth Minister, as provided under Part 9 of the EPBC Act. Approval under the EPBC Act is also required where actions are proposed on, or will affect, Commonwealth land and its environment.

A Protected Matters Search was performed via the DoE website to ascertain if any matters of national environmental significance protected by the EPBC Act have been identified as occurring in, or relating to, the Development Site. The search area for the included the Development Site and a 10 km buffer around the Site. A copy of the search report is contained in Appendix F and a summary of the findings is presented below.

World Heritage Properties

The Development Site is not a World Heritage Property and there are no World Heritage Properties listed within the search area.

National Heritage

The Development Site is not a National Heritage Place and there are no National Heritage Places listed within the search area.

Wetlands of International Significance (RAMSAR Wetlands)

There are no RAMSAR wetlands protected by international treaty (RAMSAR Convention) within the proposed Development Site or surrounding search area.

Commonwealth Marine Areas

Not applicable. The Development Site is significantly removed from any Commonwealth marine areas.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Not applicable. The Development Site is significantly removed from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Threatened Ecological Communities and Threatened Species

The Protected Matters Search identified the following:

Four listed threatened ecological communities that may occur within the area –

- Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray- Darling Depression Bioregions;

- Grey Box (Eucalyptus macrocarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia;

- Weeping Myall Woodlands; and

- White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland.

• Fifteen listed threatened species, comprising seven bird species, two fish species, one frog species, two mammal species and three plant species, are identified as species that may occur or are likely to occur within the area.




Significant disturbance of the natural environment has occurred as a result of historic land clearing and long-term agricultural production activities in the surrounding area. The Development Site is highly modified and disturbed, primarily comprising treeless paddocks that have been consistently cropped and grazed for many years. However, as evident of Figure 7, the Development Site does enclose a section of remnant vegetation on the higher elevation areas along the Site’s eastern boundary and there is a narrow vegetated corridor along the Development Site’s southern boundary.

While the Development will be predominantly located within areas that are already cleared, approximately 0.55 ha of vegetation will be required to be removed to allow the construction of the infrastructure corridor between The Ranch Farm 3 site and The Ranch Farm 4 site (refer Figure 13). All remaining vegetation will be retained and will not be directly affected by the Development. As outlined in Section 7.7, the vegetation to be removed is Open Mallee Woodland. This vegetation community is not listed as a TEC under the EPBC Act.

On this basis, the risk of significant adverse impact on any threatened species, local populations, ecological communities or on local biodiversity within the surrounding environment is considered negligible.

Nationally Listed Migratory Species

The Protected Matters Search identified thirteen migratory bird species which may occur in the area. Given that the proposed disturbance footprint is highly modified and disturbed, the Development is highly unlikely to substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat, result in an invasive species that is harmful to migratory species becoming established in the area or disrupt the lifecycle of local or migratory species.

All Nuclear Actions

No type of nuclear activity is proposed.

In conclusion, the Development is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon any matters of national environmental significance and referral to the DoE is not considered necessary.

4.4 NSW State Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 4.4.1

The EP&A Act is the principal piece of legislation overseeing the assessment and determination of development proposals in NSW. The objects of the EP&A Act generally seek to promote management and conservation of natural and resources, while also permitting appropriate development to occur.

As outlined in Section 4.2, the Development Site falls within the bounds of local development that is both designated and integrated, and accordingly development consent is required under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. This EIS, which has been prepared to accompany the development application to Council, addresses the matters listed in Section 79C of Part 4 of the EP&A Act, as relevant to the Development.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 4.4.2

The POEO Act establishes the State’s environmental regulatory framework and includes licensing requirements for certain activities. As advised in Section 4.2, the Development is a scheduled activity under the POEO Act requiring the occupier to hold an EPL under Section 43 of the Act. The EPL will need to cover the scheduled activity of “livestock intensive activities” and the fee based activity of “bird accommodation”.

Roads Act 1993 4.4.3

The objectives of the Roads Act 1993 include, but are not limited to, regulating the carrying out of various activities in public roads.




The Ranch Farm 4 development will include sealing the section of Tysons Road, previously upgraded in accordance with The Ranch Farm 1 development consent DA 2016/017, between Kidman Way and the proposed site access to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (approximately 750 m in length).

As such, the Development is subject to the requirements of Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 in respect to gaining consent to erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public road.

The Roads Act 1993 specifies that a local council is generally the roads authority for all roads within its LGA except freeways. As such, Council is the relevant roads authority for the Development.

Water Management Act 2000 4.4.4

The Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) is intended to ensure that water resources are conserved and properly managed for sustainable use benefitting both present and future generations. As described in Section 3.12.3, the water requirement for The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. the five poultry farms) will be soured via Murrumbidgee Irrigation under a high security licence, the purchase of which is currently being negotiated. Water will be pumped from a supply channel (the Tabbita Channel) located within Lot 1 in DP 1086493 on the western side of Kidman Way, for The Ranch Farm 4, into a storage dam proposed to be established within the Development Site (appropriate easements will be created) (refer Figure 9). There will be no requirement for additional water access licences under the WM Act.

As described in Section 2.10, there are no naturally formed watercourses within the Development Site. As such, no works will be undertaken on waterfront land, and therefore no approvals in this regard will be required under the WM Act.

As evident on Figure 9, there are no farm dams within the Development Site. The 60 ML water storage dam and the detention basin to be constructed as part of the wheel wash facility will be constructed as turkeys nest dams that do not capture runoff and, therefore, the maximum harvestable right does not apply.

Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 4.4.5

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) provides protection for threatened plants and animals native to NSW (excluding fish and marine vegetation) and integrates the conservation of threatened species into development control processes under the EP&A Act. The potential for impacts on flora and fauna as a result of the Development are considered in Section 7.7. The Development Site is highly modified and disturbed, having been cleared and under agricultural use for many decades.

Based on the historic land use of the Development Site, the level of disturbance within the proposed disturbance footprint, the strategic positioning of development infrastructure to avoid existing vegetation, the risk of adverse impacts on native flora and fauna is considered negligible.

4.5 State Environmental Planning Policies

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) are legal Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) prepared by the Minister to address issues significant to NSW. The following SEPPs are identified as relevant considerations for the Development.

Infrastructure SEPP 4.5.1

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP) provides a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services across NSW, along with providing for consultation with relevant public authorities during the development assessment process. The SEPP supports the effective delivery of infrastructure and service facilities across the State, along with improved regulatory certainty and efficiency.




Clause 104 of the Infrastructure SEPP specifies that development applications for new premises of a certain size or capacity (as specified in Schedule 3) must be referred to the RMS for comment and must consider the accessibility of the site and any potential safety, congestion or parking implications. The Development, which is defined as intensive livestock agriculture, does not appear to match any of the traffic-generating development categories listed in Schedule 3 of the SEPP.

Regardless, RMS were consulted during the preparation of this EIS (refer Section 5).

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land 4.5.2

The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) provides State-wide planning controls for the remediation of contaminated land. Clause 7(1) of SEPP 55 provides that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

• It has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

• If the land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.

A contaminated land assessment has not been undertaken at the Development Site as it is held that the circumstances of this matter do not require such. The risk of discovering significant contamination within the Development Site is considered to be minimal given the following:

• The long-term and existing use of the Development Site and adjoining lands is traditional agricultural production, including dryland cropping, irrigated cropping and livestock grazing;

• There are no identified previous or existing land use activities that may have caused or attributed to significant soil contamination;

• The site is not listed on the EPA’s Contaminated Lands Register; and

• We are unaware of any areas within the site where toxic wastes, poisons or the like have been dumped or buried to cause or attribute to soil contamination.

Considering the historical use of the land and the fact that the majority of the Development Site will continue to be used for agricultural production purposes (with the poultry operation being confined to a relatively small area), the land is considered suitable for the Development.

We believe that land contamination is unlikely to be an issue within the Development Site and further investigation under SEPP 55 is not warranted.

SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development 4.5.3

The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development (SEPP 33) regulates, amongst other things, the determination of development applications to carry out what is defined in SEPP 33 as development for the purposes of a "potentially hazardous industry" or "potentially offensive industry".

The only potentially dangerous good to be stored on site in a quantity that exceeds the storage screening threshold of 16 m3 in Applying SEPP 33 (Department of Planning 2011) is LPG. Approximately 30 m3 of LPG will stored on-site in above ground bulk tanks. The location and installed equipment will meet the requirements of AS/NZS 1596:2014 The Storage and Handling of LP Gas. There will be less than one delivery of LPG to the Development Site each month and the delivery will be undertaken in a specifically designed rigid vehicle by the gas supply company.

With the locational and engineering design controls for LPG, along with the low density of surrounding residences and the workplace health and safety management systems, the Development does not pose any significant risk to human health, life or property or the biophysical environment. We do not believe that the Development comprises a potentially hazardous or offensive industry within the meaning of these expressions in SEPP 33, and therefore a preliminary hazard analysis has not prepared.




4.6 Carrathool Local Environmental Plan 2012

Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) are legal EPIs that guide planning decisions for LGAs. They allow Council’s to supervise the ways in which land is used through zoning and development consents.

The Development Site is zoned RU1 Primary Production under the provisions of the Carrathool LEP 2012. The Development is classified as intensive livestock agriculture, which is permissible, with development consent, within the RU1 Primary Production zone. The two proposed residences, which will house VOAG 4’s farm manager and assistance farm manager, are ancillary and incidental to the poultry production operation and therefore also permissible as part of the Development.

Some of the vegetated land within and adjoining the Development Site is mapped as “biodiversity” by the Carrathool LEP. Land identified as “biodiversity” within the Terrestrial Biodiversity Mapping associated with Carrathool LEP should be managed in a way that facilitates maintenance of terrestrial biodiversity. Requirements to meet these aims are listed in Section 6.3 of the LEP and are as follows:

(1) The objective of this clause is to maintain terrestrial biodiversity by:

(a) protecting native fauna and flora, and

(b) protecting the ecological processes necessary for their continued existence, and

(c) encouraging the conservation and recovery of native fauna and flora and their habitats

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map.

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

(a) whether the development is likely to have:

(i) any adverse impact on the condition, ecological value and significance of the fauna and flora on the land, and

(ii) any adverse impact on the importance of the vegetation on the land to the habitat and survival of native fauna, and

(iii) any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity structure, function and composition of the land, and

(iv) any adverse impact on the habitat elements providing connectivity on the land, and

(b) any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

(4) 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 minimise that impact, or

(c) if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.”

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/epi+332+2012+pt.6-cl.6.3+0+N?tocnav=y




The Development has been designed to avoid the clearing of vegetation, where possible. Only approximately 0.55 ha of vegetation will be required to be cleared to allow for the construction of an infrastructure corridor between The Ranch Farm 3 site and The Ranch Farm 4 site. All remaining vegetation will be retained and will not be directly affected by the Development. As outlined in Section 7.7, the vegetation to be removed is Open Mallee Woodland. This vegetation community is not listed as a TEC under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act.

On this basis, the risk of significant adverse impact on any threatened species, local populations, ecological communities or on local biodiversity within the surrounding environment is considered negligible.

4.7 Draft Carrathool Development Control Plan 2012

Development Control Plans (DCPs) differ from EPIs in that they are never more than factors to be considered. DCPs are not legally binding even though they might spell out planning policy and development standards in quite specific terms.

The Draft Carrathool DCP 2012 is currently under review and, at the time of preparing this EIS, was not available and had not been adopted by Council.

4.8 Other Considerations

Draft Riverina Regional Strategic Plan 4.8.1

The Local Land Service Act 2013 requires the development of regional strategies to set the vision, priorities and strategy for the delivery of local land services, with a focus on appropriate economic, social and environmental outcomes. The Riverina Local Land Services (LLS) has prepared a draft strategic plan for the Riverina region and, at the time of preparing this EIS, the draft plan was with the Minister for review.

Without knowing the content of the draft regional strategic plan, we advise that the assessment of potential economic, social and environmental outcomes of the Development in this EIS has been multi-disciplinary and involved consultation with relevant government agencies. Emphasis has been placed on anticipation and prevention of potential environmental and social impacts, with commitment to best practice management and mitigation measures.

The economic outcomes of the Development, particularly in terms of direct and indirect employment and flow-on benefits, are anticipated to make a significant contribution to the local and regional economies.

Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2007 4.8.2

The Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2007 (Resolve Planning 2007) recognises that agriculture provides the economic base within the Carrathool LGA and that intensive forms of agriculture need to be catered for in the planning process, including consideration of potential environmental impacts and the return on invested capital. With pressures on other areas of farming, intensive agriculture is seen as an important contributor to the local economy and source of employment. The Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2007 states that there is a potential for intensive agriculture to further develop within the area.

The information provided within this EIS addresses the environmental constraints and management issues identified within the Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy 2007, including biodiversity, land recourses, site contamination, water resources, heritage and visual amenity.


Page 68 Stakeholder Consultation


5 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Consultation was undertaken with relevant State and local government agencies, surrounding residents and additional stakeholders during the preparation of this EIS. The SEARs (1012) require the following with regard to consultation:

During preparation of the EIS, you must consult with the relevant local, State and Commonwealth government authorities, service providers and community groups, and address any issues they may raise in the EIS. In particular you should consult with the:

• Environment Protection Authority;

• Office of Environment and Heritage;

• Department of Primary Industries;

• Department of Primary Industries – Water)

• Roads and Maritime Services;

• Rural Fire Service;

• Carrathool Shire Council; and

• The surrounding landowners and occupiers that are likely to be impacted by the proposal.

Table 11 provides a summary of the consultation undertaken with the government agencies and surrounding residents, including the purpose and key outcomes of the consultation. VOAG 4 has also undertaken consultation with Essential Energy, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Telstra and Baiada, in making the appropriate arrangements for servicing of the Development.

Table 11 Stakeholder Consultation Stakeholder Method Date Purpose of Consultation/Outcomes Council Site visit 3 December

2015 A site visit was undertaken with representatives from Council, OEH, VOAG 4, SLR and OzArk. The purpose of this site visit was; 1) to undertake a site inspection of the Development Site (including ecological and Aboriginal heritage survey) in consultation with Council and OEH, and 2) to meet with and consult the landowners of the Development Site.

OEH Site visit 3 December 2015

A site visit was undertaken with representatives from Council, OEH, VOAG 4, SLR and OzArk. The purpose of this site visit was; 1) to undertake a site inspection of the Development Site (including ecological and Aboriginal heritage survey) in consultation with Council and OEH, and 2) to meet with and consult the landowners of the Development Site.

DPI Water Phone call

15 February 2016

SLR consulted the DPI Water to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS would be lodged with Council 22 February 2016. Additionally SLR advised DPI Water to discuss the potential presence of a groundwater bore (GW002984) identified during a search of the DPI Water on-line groundwater database.

DPI Water Email 17 February 2016

SLR consulted the DPI Water to advise DPI Water that VOAG 4 have committed to undertaking a geotechnical investigation of the site prior to detailed design to avoid any potential for structural integrity issues should GW002984 still be present sub-surface.

Neighbouring landowners

Letters 19 February 2016

Letters were sent to the owners of each of the neighbouring properties by SLR (on behalf of VOAG 4) notifying them of the proposed development and provided contact details for the SLR contact should they require any additional information regarding the Development.

EPA Phone Call

24 February 2016

SLR will consult with the EPA to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS has been lodged with Council.


Page 69 Stakeholder Consultation


Stakeholder Method Date Purpose of Consultation/Outcomes OEH Phone

Call 24 February 2016

SLR will consult with the OEH to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS has been lodged with Council.

DPI Phone Call

24 February 2016

SLR will consult with the DPI to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS has been lodged with Council.

RMS Phone Call

24 February 2016

SLR will consult with the RMS to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS has been lodged with Council.

Rural Fire Service

Phone Call

24 February 2016

SLR will consult with the Rural Fire Service to discuss the proposed development and advise that the EIS has been lodged with Council.


Page 70 Environmental Risk Assessment


6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

A broad brush environmental risk assessment was conducted in December 2015 to:

• Identify those issues relating to the Development that represent the greatest risk to the local environment and surrounding populace; and

• Assist in setting (and justifying) priorities for the level of assessment required to address each identified risk within the EIS.

A qualitative risk assessment methodology, which was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Standard AS/NZS 31000:2009 – Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines, was utilised to provide a consistent and reliable approach. Where the individual risk(s) was considered unacceptable, or where a knowledge gap was identified, specialist studies were commissioned and appropriate management responses and/or mitigation measures were nominated.

The Risk Register, which is provided as Appendix G, was appended to the project briefing paper submitted to the DP&E when requesting SEARs (refer Section 1.8). The key issues that were specifically addressed in the risk assessment, in no particular order, are:

• Visual amenity;

• Land use conflict;

• Greenhouse gas;

• Air quality and odour;

• Noise;

• Waste management;

• Traffic and transport;

• Chemicals;

• Lighting;

• Poultry disease;

• Flora and fauna;

• Pest populations;

• Water resources;

• Heritage; and

• Socio-economic impacts.

The risk assessment did not identify any issues with a residual risk ranking (taking into account the proposed mitigation measures) of “high” (Level IV) or “extreme” (Level V). This can primarily be attributed to the location of the Development Site, including distance from urban areas, low density of surrounding residential dwellings, the nature of the existing environment and the mitigation measures to be employed. Three issues were assessed to have a residual risk ranking of “medium” (Level III) which were associated with potential odour emissions resulting from the Development; potential impacts to threatened flora and fauna resulting from clearing for vegetation corridors; and potential impacts upon Aboriginal heritage.

Section 7 contains a comprehensive and focussed assessment of the issues identified by the risk assessment to a level of detail commensurate with the risk rankings (significance of each issue). The majority of the issues have been investigated and reported on by SLR, with specialist consultants engaged to assess air quality (odour and particulate matter), noise, flora and fauna, Aboriginal heritage and traffic issues.


Page 71 Environmental Impact Assessment


7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The key issues associated with the Development warranting detailed investigation and reporting were identified through:

• The environmental context of the Development Site and surrounding locality (refer Section 2);

• The legislative framework applicable to the Development (refer Section 4);

• The broad brush environmental risk assessment (refer Section 6);

• The SEARs (SEAR 1012) issued by the DP&E (refer Section 1.8);

• Additional consultation undertaken with relevant local and State government agencies (refer Section 5); and

• Specialist studies completed as part of the preparation of the EIS for air quality (odour and particulate matter), noise, flora and fauna, Aboriginal heritage and traffic (refer Sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7 and 7.8).

The following sub-sections provide a summary of the potential environmental and social impacts of the Development and the measures that will be implemented to mitigate and manage these impacts.

7.1 Land Use Conflict

As described in Section 2.5, the primary surrounding land use is agricultural, which is consistent with the dominant land use across the region. The potential for conflict between the Development and the existing surrounding agricultural production activities is considered low. The footprint of the proposed poultry sheds and ancillary infrastructure will be relatively small at around 18.3 ha, and the commercial activity associated with the Development will be largely confined to this area. VOAG 4 has negotiated a share farming arrangement where the land outside of the disturbance footprint, where practicable, will continue to be utilised for agricultural production purposes (crop cultivation and/or livestock grazing). On this basis, the Development will not deny access to large areas of viable agricultural lands nor significantly reduce the land area available for agricultural production.

Mitigation Measures 7.1.1

The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise and manage the potential for land use conflict:

Construction

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be installed in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2012) to ensure no off-site impacts.

• Disturbed areas will be promptly rehabilitated and revegetated to a stable landform as described in Section 3.16.

Development Design • The engineered surface water management system described in Section 3.15 will be

implemented to provide long-term structural controls to manage surface water runoff and ensure no off-site impacts.

Operation

• The best management practices and mitigation measures described in Section 3.13 will be implemented and maintained for chemical use and storage.




• Vegetation screens will be established around the perimeter of the PPU as outlined in Section 3.17. In addition to screening the Development, the plantings will protect the poultry sheds against any spray drift or off-target applications of chemicals from neighbouring agricultural land users and reduce the magnitude and frequency of any adverse air quality impacts.

Environmental Complaints and Incidents

• A Complaints and Incidents Management Strategy will be prepared and implemented as part of the OEMP (refer Section 3.24) to ensure that all complaints and incidents relating to the poultry operation are promptly and effectively addressed. Appropriate documentation of complaint/incident handling will assist in identifying and implementing measures to negate the possibility of re-occurrence in the future.

7.2 Odour

Air quality is a sensitive issue associated with intensive poultry developments. Given the nature of such operations it is inevitable that there may be the intermittent release of fugitive odours during the poultry production cycle. However this statement is applicable to many agricultural pursuits. The odour produced in broiler farms, such as that proposed, is generally less than that associated with older poultry and also other intensive livestock operations such as piggeries and cattle feedlots. The poultry industry has come a long way over the previous 20 years and operates on the basis of continual environmental improvement driven by environmental legislation and community expectations. It is understood that odour issues are directly related to site operation, with good management practices playing a significant role in reducing the potential for emissions.

The proposed Development Site offers several advantages in terms of potential odour impacts, including being removed from any urban areas, low density of surrounding residences and significant separation distances.

SLR was engaged to undertake an assessment of air quality (odour and particulate matter) issues associated with the Development, including the potential for cumulative impacts with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex and Jeanella Poultry Production Complex, and other approved operations nearby (such as Tabbita Farms 1, 2 and 3, Maylands Farms A and B, and Jeanella South Poultry Production Complex). There are also further developments currently proposed, which may also influence cumulative impacts to local air quality (such as Tabbita Farm 4), which has also been taken into account. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (the Approved Methods) (DEC 2005), Technical Framework: Assessment and Management of Odours from Stationary Sources in NSW” (DEC 2006a) (the Odour Framework) and the Technical Notes: Assessment and management of odour from stationary sources in NSW (DEC 2006b) (the Technical Notes).

It is noted that VOAG is yet to finalise the proposed layout (including the number of additional sheds) for The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 Expansions, and subsequently the cumulative odour modelling undertaken by SLR (2016a) has not included these expansion proposals. Once the proposed layouts are finalised the cumulative odour associated with the expansions and other surrounding poultry developments, including The Ranch Farms 4 and 5, will be assessed within the respective EISs for The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 Expansions.

A copy of SLR’s Air Quality Impact Assessment (2016a) is contained within Appendix B, with the key findings for odour summarised below.

Existing Environment 7.2.1

Air Quality

Published information on existing air quality within the locality is limited, with no known monitoring sites in the vicinity. However, as the Development Site is situated in a rural area with no major sources of air pollution, the local air quality is likely to be good and concentrations of pollutants are unlikely to exceed air quality criteria.




Meteorology

Wind

The annual and seasonal wind roses (refer Figure 6 and Section 2.8) show that the predominant wind direction at the Development Site varies considerably from season to season. The most common wind directions throughout the year tend to come from the north-east, south-east, north-west and south-west. Overall the wind data shows light to moderate winds (between 1.5 m/s to 8 m/s), with calm wind conditions (wind speed less than 0.5 m/s) predicted to occur approximately 1% of the time.

Stability

Atmospheric turbulence is an important factor in air dispersion. As turbulence increases, the rate of plume dilution or diffusion increases. Turbulence is related to the vertical temperature gradient, which determines what is known as stability, or thermal stability.

The most well-known stability classification is the Pasquill-Turner assignment scheme, which denotes stability classes from A to F. Class A is described as highly unstable and occurs in association with strong surface heating and light winds, leading to intense convective turbulence and much enhanced plume dilution. At the other extreme, class F denotes moderately stable conditions associated with strong temperature inversions and light winds, which commonly occur under clear skies at night and in the early morning. Under these conditions plumes can remain relatively undiluted for considerable distances downwind.

The frequency distributions of stability classes estimated by SLR (2016a) from the CALMET meteorological data shows the combined frequency of E and F stability classes (i.e. the most critical for air quality impacts) is 47.6%. The frequency of neutral conditions is also relatively high, occurring 17.7% of the time. SLR (2016a) advises that this data is consistent with the expectations for sites in inland southern regions of Australia.

Mixing Height

Mixing height is an important parameter in air pollution meteorology as vertical diffusion or mixing of a plume is limited by the mixing height. The estimated diurnal variation of mixing height for the Development Site is presented in Figure 11 of the Air Quality Impact Assessment (SLR 2016a) (refer Appendix B). SLR (2016a) projected maximum mixing heights to occur in the mid to late afternoon, due to the dissipation of ground based temperature inversions and growth of the convective mixing layer.

Assessment Criteria 7.2.2

When assessing any development proposal with potential air emissions, it is necessary to compare the potential impacts with relevant air quality criteria. Such criteria are used to assess the potential for ambient air quality to give rise to adverse health or nuisance effects.

The Technical Notes (DEC 2006b) include ground-level concentration criterion for complex mixtures of odorous air pollutants. They have been refined to take account of population density in the area. Table 12 lists the odour ground-level concentration criteria not to be exceeded more than 1% of the time, for different population densities.

Table 12 Odour Performance Criteria (DEC 2006b)

Population of Affected Community Ground Level Concentration Criterion (Odour Units)

Urban area (> 2000) 2.0

~300 3.0

~125 4.0

~30 5.0




Population of Affected Community Ground Level Concentration Criterion (Odour Units)

~10 6.0

Single residence (< 2) 7.0

Council has advised that the area known as Tabbita, which is located approximately 5.1 km south-west of the Development Site, comprises five residences. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data for 2011 gave an average population per house of 2.4 people for rural communities in NSW. It is understood that the EPA adopts an average of 2.8 people per house. Conservatively adopting the EPA’s value, Tabbita has an estimated population of around 14 people. On this basis, SLR has adopted a conservative odour assessment criterion of 5 Odour Units (OU) for the five residences located in Tabbita. A criterion of 6 OU is considered to be appropriate for the isolated rural residences scattered around the Development Site (located a minimum of 3.9 km from the Development Site).

The adopted odour impact assessment criteria are summarised in Table 13.

Table 13 Adopted Odour Impact Assessment Criteria Receptor Odour Criterion (OU) R1 to R5 6.0

R6 to R10 5.0

R11 to R13 6.0

Impact Assessment 7.2.3

Overview

The air dispersion modelling conducted by SLR (2016a) was based on an advanced modelling system using the models TAPM and CALPUFF. This system substantially overcomes the basic limitations of steady-state Gaussian plume models, such as AUSPLUME.

TAPM is a three dimensional meteorological and air pollution model that predicts airflow important to local scale air pollution, such as terrain induced flows, against a background of larger scale meteorology provided by synoptic analyses. The TAPM prognostic model was used to generate the three dimensional upper air data required for CALMET modelling.

CALMET is a meteorological model that develops hourly wind and other meteorological fields on a three-dimensional gridded modelling domain that are required as inputs to the CALPUFF dispersion model. Associated two dimensional fields such as mixing height, surface characteristics and dispersion properties are also included in the file produced by CALMET.

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady state puff dispersion model that can simulate the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation and removal. Emission rates and source details, terrain and surface details, and meteorology are the three major model inputs.

Estimation of odour emissions from a poultry shed is a complex matter and depends on a number of inter-related parameters including, but not limited to, bird age/weight, ambient temperature, shed target temperature and ventilation rate. A literature review showed that a range of odour emission estimation methodologies have been used to calculate the potential odour emission rate from a typical climate-controlled (tunnel ventilated) poultry shed in publicly available odour impact assessment reports for different farms.

SLR (2016a) modelled the following two scenarios:

(1) The Ranch Farm 4 PPU in isolation; and




(2) The Ranch Farm 4 PPU plus other regional odour sources including the approved Tabbita Farms 1, 2 and 3, The Ranch Farms 1, 2, 3, and the proposed Tabbita Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 (refer Section 2.7).

Table 14 lists the 99th percentile odour concentrations predicted to be experienced at the identified sensitive receptors for the two scenarios. Contour plots showing the predicted odour concentrations for the two scenarios are shown on Figure 17 and Figure 18. It is noted that the odour contour plots do not reflect odour concentrations occurring at any particular instant in time, but rather illustrates a compilation of the predicted 99th percentile (88th highest) odour concentration at all locations downwind, taking into account all combinations of meteorological conditions modelled across the entire year.

Table 14 Predicted 99th Percentile Odour Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors

Receptor ID

Odour Criterion (OU)

99th Percentile Odour Concentration (OU)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 R1 6.0 0.3 2.1 R2 6.0 0.3 2.2 R3 6.0 0.2 1.1 R4 6.0 0.5 2.1 R5 6.0 0.5 2.3 R6 5.0 0.6 2.6 R7 5.0 0.6 2.8 R8 5.0 0.6 3.0 R9 5.0 0.7 3.3 R10 5.0 0.7 3.5 R11 6.0 0.5 4.6 R12 6.0 0.6 3.7 R13 6.0 0.6 3.9

As evident on Figure 14, the predicted incremental odour concentration (from the Development only) at all of the nearest receptors is predicted to be well below the relevant criterion, ranging from 0.2 – 0.7 OU. Cumulative odour concentrations shown on Figure 15 are also predicted to be well below the relevant criterion, with a maximum predicted odour concentration being 4.6 OU at R11. The highest concentration predicted within Tabbita is 3.5 OU at R10.




Figure 17 Predicted 99th Percentile Odour Concentrations for The Ranch Farm 4




Figure 18 Predicted 99th Percentile Cumulative Odour Concentrations





Odour issues are directly related to farm operation, with good management practices playing a significant role in reducing the potential for emissions. On this basis, the following design features, best management practices and mitigation measures will be applied to minimise the potential for odour impacts:

Development Design

• The poultry sheds will be fully enclosed, have adequate roof overhang (wide eaves) and dwarf concrete bund walls to reduce moisture in the sheds and will subsequently reduce the potential for odour emissions;

• The feed silos will be fully enclosed to reduce moisture levels (wet feed has also been identified as a potential odour source);

• The poultry sheds will be tunnel-ventilated, which will allow control over the moisture levels and promote optimum growing conditions and bird health. The increased airflow and improved feed conversion in tunnel-vented sheds helps to maintain bedding material within the optimal moisture range (NSW Agriculture 2004); and

• All sheds will be fitted with nipple drinkers and drip cups to minimise water spillage and reduce shed moisture.

Vegetation Screens

• Vegetation screens will be established around the perimeter of the PPU as outlined in Section 3.17 and shown on Figure 16. In addition to screening the Development, the plantings will act to effectively filter air movement, which will enhance dust deposition and odour dispersion.

• Vegetative screens act to increase the surface roughness and result in additional turbulence as the odour plumes pass through the permeable barrier (although this will be muted when the stability is high). Vegetative screens also act to partially remove fine dust particles, which also reduces the odour level in the plumes and gives a corresponding percentage reduction in the odour level as the plumes pass receptors downwind.

Operation and Maintenance

• Regular monitoring and maintenance of the tunnel ventilation systems and bird drinkers will be undertaken to avoid spillage, leaks and uneven distribution;

• Stocking densities and bird health within each of the poultry sheds will be regularly checked and, if necessary, appropriate corrective measures will be implemented;

• Daily monitoring and maintenance of the bedding material will occur to identify, remove and replace any caked material beneath drinking lines and/or areas with excessive moisture content;

• Poultry litter (spent bedding material) will be promptly removed from the sheds and generally transported off-site in covered trucks at the end of each production cycle during the clean-out phase. Wherever possible the handling of the material will be avoided during adverse climatic conditions, such as strong winds. The shed ventilation systems will not be used during the removal of bedding material;

• Dead birds will be collected from the sheds on a daily basis and stored in on-site chillers prior to removal from site;

• The insides of the poultry sheds and the surrounds will be maintained at all times to ensure a clean and sanitary environment; and

During sanitisation, the amount of air released from the sheds while any sanitising scent is present will be minimised and, if possible, a low scent sanitiser will be utilised.




7.3 Particulate Matter

As outlined in Section 7.2, air quality is a sensitive issue associated with intensive poultry developments. Given the nature of such operations it is inevitable that there may be the intermittent release of fugitive odours and particulate matter during the poultry production cycle, however particulate matter is typically not an issue for a well-run poultry broiler production farm.

Regardless, particulate matter was assessed by SLR (2016a) as part of the air quality impact assessment undertaken for the Development. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Approved Methods (DEC 2005). A copy of the Air Quality Impact Assessment (SLR 2016a) is contained within Appendix B, with the key findings for particulate matter summarised below.


There is no published information on existing air quality within the locality. However, as the Development Site is located in a rural area with no major sources of air pollution, the local air quality is likely to be good and concentrations of pollutants are unlikely to exceed any of the air quality criteria.


When assessing any development proposal with potential significant air emissions, it is necessary to compare the potential impacts with relevant air quality criteria. Such criteria are used to assess the potential for ambient air quality to give rise to adverse health or nuisance effects.

In its modelling and assessment guidelines, the EPA specifies air quality assessment criteria relevant for assessing impacts from dust generating activities (EPA 2005). These criteria are consistent with the National Environment Protection Measures for Ambient Air Quality (National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) 1998) (Air-NEPM). However, the EPA’s criteria include averaging periods, which are not included in the Air-NEPM and references to other measures of air quality, namely dust deposition and total suspended particulate matter (TSP).

Table 15 summarises the criteria for particulate matter relevant to the Development.

Table 15 Adopted Criteria for Particulate Emissions Pollutant Standard/Criterion Averaging Period Agency

TSP 90 µg/m3 Annual average EPA

Particulate matter < 10µm (PM10)

50 µg/m3 24-hour maximum EPA

30 µg/m3 Annual average EPA

Dust Deposition 2 g/m2/month Maximum incremental increase per month OEH

4 g/m2/month Maximum cumulative increase per month (Project and other sources)

OEH


Fugitive emissions of dust from construction activities, vehicle movements and shed cleaning operations are most appropriately managed by good site management and the implementation of dust suppression measures as outlined in Section 7.3.4. The significant separation distances between the Development and the nearest sensitive receptors will also reduce the risk of any off-site nuisance impacts from dust emissions.

To assess the potential off-site impacts of particulate emissions from the poultry shed stacks, SLR (2016a) completed screening level dispersion modelling based on PM10 emission rates measured in an Australian Poultry CRC study (2011), which measured emission concentrations and emission rates of PM10 for a number of broiler sheds. It was noted in the findings of this study that the concentration of particulate matter in the air exiting the sheds was highly variable and was influenced by ventilation rate, farm, bird age, season, microenvironment, litter management practices and other factors. The majority of the PM10 emission rates measured ranged from 5 to 50 mg/s per shed.




SLR (2016a) estimated particulate emission rates for the proposed poultry farm based on the CALPUFF model which was configured with a single stack source located at the centre of the farm, emitting at 6 m above ground level (same as odour release) with an exit velocity of 10 m/s and an emission rate of 0.8 g/s (based on 16 sheds emitting 50 mg/s PM10 each). The results of this modelling gave a maximum 24-hour average PM10 concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor of 0.9 µg/m3. This is well below the EPA criterion for ambient PM10 concentrations of 50 µg/m3 as a 24-hour average concentration and would not be expected to significantly impact on existing air quality given that PM10 concentrations in rural areas in Australia typically range from 10 to 30 µg/m3, with short-term elevated concentrations occurring as a result of regional events such as bushfires and dust storms.

Given that the screening assessment used a continuous worst-case PM10 emission rate it can be expected that actual PM10 concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors would be lower than the results given by the modelling (SLR 2016a). It would therefore be expected that the concentrations of particulate experienced at the nearest sensitive receptors (the closest of which is approximately 3.9 km from the Development Site) would be dominated by regional background sources.

Recent work performed for the Jeanella South Poultry Production Complex (856,000 birds) and the Euroley Poultry Production Complex (3,920,000 birds) (PEL, 2015) indicated that detailed dispersion modelling of particulates yielded a maximum 24 hour average PM10 concentration at a distance of approximately 2 km from operations of between 5 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3. Given that the Ranch Farm 4 will house a population of 800,000 birds, concentrations of PM10 at 2 km would be anticipated to be significantly lower than 5 µg/m3. Also, given that The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (The Ranch Farms 1 to 5) will house a total population of 2.8 million birds, the cumulative concentrations of PM10 at approximately 2 km would be anticipated to be lower than 10 µg/m3. The results of the screening level dispersion modelling study are therefore considered to appropriately reflect the minor risk associated with particulates resulting from the operation of The Ranch Farm 4 (SLR 2016a).

Although no dispersion modelling of nuisance dust (dust deposition) or longer term averages of concentration (annual average PM10 and TSP) have been performed, the use of the peak concentration of PM10 as an indicator of broader compliance is considered to be appropriate.

Based on these initial screening level results and the identified level of risk associated with particulate matter from other similar studies, any further detailed modelling is not considered to be warranted.


The following design features, best management practices and mitigation measures will be applied to minimise and manage the potential for emissions of particulate matter.

Construction

• Dust will be minimised by “wetting” down surfaces being worked/carrying traffic in dry conditions;

• Surface disturbance will be limited to the designated disturbance footprint required for construction;

• Disturbed areas will be promptly rehabilitated and revegetated to a stable landform as described in Section 3.16 to prevent/minimise windblown dust; and

• Where possible, vehicles on site will be confined to designated roadways.

Development Design

• The feed silos will be fully enclosed to both prevent the entry of rainwater and minimise emissions of dust/particulate matter when loading and unloading.

Operation

• Regular monitoring and maintenance of the tunnel ventilation systems will be undertaken to ensure optimal operating condition;

• Regular maintenance of plant and equipment will be undertaken to ensure optimal operating condition;




• Stocking densities and bird health within the poultry sheds will be regularly checked and, if necessary, appropriate corrective measures will be implemented; and

• Internal access roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise dust emissions and speed will be limited to 40 km/h on unsealed internal roads.

7.4 Noise

While noise generated by construction and operational activities has the potential to impact upon surrounding residences, noise has been demonstrated not to be an issue for well-managed poultry broiler production operations.

The Development Site offers several advantages in terms of potential noise impacts, including being removed from any urban areas, low density of surrounding residences and significant separation distances.

A noise impact assessment was conducted by SLR in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (EPA 2009), Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000) and the NSW Road Noise Policy (RNP) (DECCW 2011). Acoustic modelling was undertaken using SoundPLAN 3D modelling software (Version 7.4).

A copy of SLR’s Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2016b) is contained within Appendix C, with the key findings for noise summarised in the sub-sections below.

A summary of acoustic terminology used in the assessment is as follows:

• LA, the A-weighted root mean squared noise level at any instant.

• LA1, the noise level which is exceeded for 1% of the time.

• LA90, the level exceeded for 90% of the time, which is approximately the average of the minimum noise levels. The LA90 level is often referred to as the “background” noise level and is commonly used to determine noise criteria for assessment purposes.

• LAeq, the average noise energy during a measurement period.

• dB(A), noise level measurement units are decibels (dB). The “A” weighting scale is used to describe human response to noise.


The Development Site is in a quiet rural area with road traffic noise as the only significant noise source. SLR (2016b) therefore conservatively assumed that background levels would be less than LA90 30 dBA during all time periods, which is typical of a rural environment that primarily comprises traditional agricultural activities with some vehicle traffic on the road network.


Construction Noise

The Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009) specifically relates to construction, maintenance and renewal activities. It specifies standard construction hours as:

• Monday to Friday, 7.00 am to 6.00 pm;

• Saturday, 8.00 am to 1.00 pm; and

• No construction work on Sunday and public holidays.

For construction projects with a duration of greater than three weeks, a quantitative assessment is required, with comparison to relevant criteria. The criteria for work undertaken in the standard construction hours are:

• LAeq,15min equal to background plus 10 dB; or




• LAeq,15min 75 dB.

An LAeq criterion of background plus 5 dB is specified for work outside the standard construction hours.

Given the rural location of the Development Site, SLR (2016b) has adopted the Industrial Noise Policy’s (EPA 2000) default minimum rating background noise level (RBL) of 30 dB for all time periods, and subsequently a construction noise criterion of LAeq,15min 40 dB for residential receivers. A criterion of 70 dB was adopted for commercial receptors (when in use).

Operational Noise

The Industrial Noise Policy (EPA 2000) states that objectives for environmental noise are to account for intrusive noise and … to protect the amenity of particular land uses. To achieve this, limits are specified where the intrusiveness criterion essentially means that the equivalent continuous (energy-average) noise level of the source should not be more than 5 dB above the measured background level. Amenity is protected by noise criteria specific to land use and associated activities. Amenity criteria relate only to industrial-type noise and do not include road, rail or community noise.

As advised above, a minimum RBL of 30 dB for all time periods has been adopted by SLR (2016b) for the Development.

Table 16 summarises the adopted intrusiveness and amenity criteria adopted by SLR (2016b) for all sensitive receptors for the day, evening and night periods. The lower of the two (intrusiveness or amenity) apply, and are adopted as the impact assessment criteria.

Table 16 Operational Noise Level Criteria Period1 Adopted RBL

(dB)2 Intrusiveness Criterion LAeq(dB)

Acceptable Amenity Criterion LAeq(dB)

Operational Noise Criteria LAeq(dB)

Residential Day 30 35 50 35

Residential Evening 30 35 45 35

Residential Night 30 35 40 35

Commercial (when in use) N/A N/A 65 65 Notes: 1. Day: 7.00 am to 6.00 pm; Evening: 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm; Night: 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. On Sundays and Public

Holidays: Daytime 8.00 am to 6.00 pm; Evening 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm; Night-time 10.00 pm to 8.00 am. 2. An RBL of 30 dB has been assumed for a rural environment.

Sleep Disturbance

The potential for sleep arousal has been assessed using the guidance provided in the Industrial Noise Policy (EPA 2000) and associated Application Notes (last updated July 2012) and the RNP (DECCW 2011). The Industrial Noise Policy suggests that the LA1(1minute) level of 15 dBA above the RBL is a suitable screening criteria for sleep disturbance for the night-time period. The RNP also provides the following conclusions from research on sleep disturbance:

• Maximum internal noise levels below 50 to 55 dBA are unlikely to awaken people from sleep.

• One or two noise events per night, with maximum internal noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA, are not likely to affect health and wellbeing significantly.

The night period background noise levels around the Development Site are likely to be less than or equal to LA90 30 dB. Therefore, a sleep disturbance criterion of LA1,1minute 45 dB (30 dB + 15 dB) for residential receiver locations has been adopted for the Development. No sleep disturbance criteria is applicable for commercial receivers.




Traffic Noise

The RNP (DECCW 2011) applies different noise limits dependent upon the road category and type of development/land use. Table 17 provides the applicable traffic noise criteria for the Development.

Table 17 Traffic Noise Criteria Road Assessment Criteria (dBA)

Day (7 am – 10 pm) Night (10 pm – 7 am) Kidman Way LAeq, (15 hour) 60 (external) LAeq, (9 hour) 55 (external)

Tysons Road LAeq, (15 hour) 55 (external) LAeq, (9 hour) 50 (external)


Construction Noise

The construction period for the Development is expected to take around twelve months with all construction activities to be undertaken during standard daytime construction hours.

SLR’s (2016b) modelling predictions for construction noise associated with the Development are presented in Table 18. No exceedance of the construction noise criteria is predicted.

Table 18 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Construction Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor ID Predicted Noise Level LAeq(15minute)

(dBA) Construction Noise Goal LAeq(15minute) dBA

Calm Prevailing Winds Noise Affected Highly Noise Affected Earthworks

R1 – R12 <30 <30 40 75

R13 <30 <30 70 when in use

Shed/Infrastructure Construction

R1 – R12 <30 <30 40 75

R13 <30 <30 70 when in use

As construction of the five farms within The Ranch Poultry Production Complex will be undertaken consecutively, there will not be any cumulative construction noise impacts.

Operational Noise

The primary noise sources associated with the operation of an intensive poultry broiler operation are:

• Continuous operation of ventilation fans;

• Operation of heaters and water pumps;

• The mechanical feed delivery system and feed silo refill pump and auger;

• Heavy vehicle movements;

• Occasional tractor and other farm type machine and vehicle movements; and

• Night movements of trucks and forklifts during bird delivery and collection.

Ventilation fans have been identified as the primary continuous noise generating activity. Feed silo refill and bird delivery/collection have been identified as the primary intermittent noise generating activities. All of these sources were modelled in the noise assessment, and all primary noise sources were conservatively assumed to be operating and/or occurring simultaneously.




SLR (2016b) modelled the following two scenarios:

(1) The Ranch Farm 4 PPU in isolation; and

(2) The Ranch Farm 4 PPU with the approved The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 PPUs, the proposed The Ranch Farm 5 PPU.

Tabbita Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4 have not been considered for the cumulative operational noise assessments, due to the distance between them and the Development Site (refer Section 2.7).

It is noted that VOAG is yet to finalise the proposed layout (including the number of additional sheds) for The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 Expansions, and subsequently the cumulative noise modelling undertaken by SLR (2016b) has not included these expansion proposals. Once the proposed layouts are finalised the cumulative noise associated with the expansions and other surrounding poultry developments, including The Ranch Farms 4 and 5, will be assessed within the respective EISs for The Ranch Farms 1, 2 and 3 Expansions.

Table 19 and Table 20 list the maximum noise levels predicted for these two operational scenarios.

Table 19 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Operational Noise Levels- The Ranch Farm 4 Only Receptor Period Predicted Noise Level LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Operational Noise

Criteria LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Calm Prevailing

Winds Temperature Inversion

R1 Day <30 <30 N/A 35

Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A 35

Evening <30 <30 N/A 35

Night <30 <30 <30 35

R2 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R3 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R4 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R5 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R6 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R7 Day <30 <30 N/A 35






Receptor Period Predicted Noise Level LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Operational Noise Criteria LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Calm Prevailing


Night <30 <30 <30 35

R8 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R9 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R10 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R11 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R12 Day <30 <30 N/A 35



Night <30 <30 <30 35

R13 Day <30 <30 N/A

65 when in use Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A

Evening <30 <30 N/A

Night <30 <30 <30

Table 20 Calculated LAeq, 15minute Operational Noise Levels – Cumulative Receptor Period Predicted Noise Level LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Operational Noise

Criteria LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Calm Prevailing


R1 Day <30 30 N/A 35 Day (hot weather) <30 30 N/A 35 Evening <30 30 N/A 35 Night <30 31 31 35

R2 Day <30 <30 N/A 35 Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A 35 Evening <30 <30 N/A 35 Night <30 <30 <30 35


R4 Day <30 <30 N/A 35 Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A 35 Evening <30 <30 N/A 35




Receptor Period Predicted Noise Level LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Operational Noise Criteria LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Calm Prevailing


Night <30 <30 <30 35 R5 Day <30 <30 N/A 35

Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A 35 Evening <30 <30 N/A 35 Night <30 <30 <30 35

R6 Day <30 <30 N/A 35 Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A 35 Evening <30 30 N/A 35 Night <30 30 30 35







R13 Day <30 <30 N/A

65 when in use Day (hot weather) <30 <30 N/A Evening <30 <30 N/A Night <30 <30 <30

The results presented in Tables 19 and 20 indicate that operational noise levels are significantly below the most conservative applicable criteria in the INP and therefore there should not be any notable operational noise impacts associated with both The Ranch Farm 4 and the overall The Ranch Poultry Production Complex.




Sleep Disturbance

Sleep disturbance criteria typically only apply to the night period, which is defined in the INP as 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. Sleep disturbance is generally caused by short duration noise sources that give rise to a significant increase to noise emission over and above general operational noise. In assessing sleep disturbance, typical LAmax noise levels of acoustically significantly plant and equipment to be used at the Development Site were used as input to the noise model. LAmax noise level predictions were made at the nearest residential locations surrounding the Development Site under worst-case weather conditions at night, and the results are presented in Table 21. The use of the LAmax noise level provides a worst-case prediction since the LA1(1minute) noise level of a particular event is likely to be less than the LAmax.

Table 21 Predicted Sleep Disturbance Noise Levels (dB) Location Period Predicted Sleep Disturbance

Noise Level Lmax (dBA)

Sleep Disturbance Noise Goal (LA1 (1minute)) (dBA)

R1

Night-time

<30

45

R2 <30

R3 <30

R4 <30

R5 <30

R6 38

R7 42

R8 40

R9 38

R10 35

R11 <30

R12 <30

R13 N/A N/A

As evident in Table 21, the predicted LAmax noise levels are below the most conservative applicable criteria in the INP and therefore there should not be any sleep disturbance noise impacts associated with the Development.

Road Traffic Noise

During Construction

Construction related road traffic noise predictions associated with sensitive receivers are provided in Table 22 and Table 23. As construction of the three farms associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex will be undertaken consecutively, there will not be any cumulative construction road noise impacts.




Table 22 Construction Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Kidman Way Scenario Road

Description Receiver Location & Offset Distance

Prediction Results LAeq (dBA) Criteria LAeq, (period)

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour) 10pm to

7am

Scenario 1 Construction (2018 – No Build)

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 N/A

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 N/A

R3 (779m) 35 N/A

R4 (1110m) 33 N/A

R5 (2229m) <30 N/A

R6 (179m) 45 N/A

R7 (60m) 52 N/A

R8 (38m) 55 N/A

R9 (24m) 57 N/A

R10 (18m) 59 N/A

R11 (738m) 36 N/A

R12 (2607m) <30 N/A

R13 (662m) 36 N/A

Table 23 Construction Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Tysons Road Scenario Road


Prediction Results LAeq, (1 hour)

Criteria LAeq, (1 hour)

Day (7 am–10 pm)

Night (10 pm–7 am)

Day (7 am–10 pm)

Night (10 pm–7 am)

Scenario 1 Construction (2018 – No Build)

Tysons Road

R1 (3815m) <30 N/A

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 N/A

R3 (3698m) <30 N/A

R4 (2364m) <30 N/A

R5 (2981m) <30 N/A

R6 (580m) 32 N/A

R7 (500m) 33 N/A

R8 (193m) 39 N/A

R9 (50m) 47 N/A

R10 (168m) 40 N/A

R11 (4269m) <30 N/A

R12 (7219m) <30 N/A

R13 (1466) <30 N/A

As evident in Tables 22 and 23, the predicted road traffic noise levels at the nearest roadside sensitive receivers meet the criteria detailed in the RNP under all prediction scenarios.




During Operation

Road traffic noise levels from the Development have been predicted using with the Federal Highway Administration Model --- the FHWA. The modelling allows for traffic volume and mix, vehicle speed, reflections off building surfaces, ground absorption and shielding from ground topography and physical noise barriers. All reported noise levels are “facade-corrected”, that is, predicted noise levels have been adjusted upwards to include a notional 2.5 dBA reflection within the noise model computation. The predicted levels are for receiver points 1.5 m above the external ground level.

SLR (2016b) modelled four scenarios for the purposes of the road traffic noise impact assessment:

• Scenario 1 (no build) – 2018 assumes existing traffic volumes without the proposed development.

• Scenario 2 (build) – 2018 assumes existing traffic volumes with the proposed development in operation.

• Scenario 3 Future (no build) – 2028 assumes future traffic volumes without the proposed development in operation.

• Scenario 4 Future (build) - 2028 assumes future traffic volumes with the proposed development in operation.

The predicted road traffic noise levels during operation of the proposed farm on both Kidman Way and Tysons Road are presented in Table 24 and Table 25 respectively.

Table 24 Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results - Kidman Way Scenario Road


Prediction Results LAeq (dBA) Criteria

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

Scenario 1 (2018) – No Build

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30

R3 (779m) 35 <30

R4 (1110m) 33 <30

R5 (2229m) <30 <30

R6 (179m) 45 36

R7 (60m) 51 43

R8 (38m) 54 46

R9 (24m) 57 49

R10 (18m) 58 50

R11 (738m) 35 <30

R12 (2607m) <30 <30

R13 (662m) 36 <30

Scenario 2 (2018) – Build The Ranch Farm 1 The Ranch Farm 2 The Ranch Farm 3 The Ranch Farm 4

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30

R3 (779m) 35 <30

R4 (1110m) 33 <30

R5 (2229m) <30 <30

R6 (179m) 45 37

R7 (60m) 52 44

R8 (38m) 55 47

R9 (24m) 57 49

R10 (18m) 59 51




Scenario Road Description

Receiver Location & Offset Distance


Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

R11 (738m) 36 <30

R12 (2607m) <30 <30

R13 (662m) 36 <30


Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30

R3 (779m) 35 <30

R4 (1110m) 33 <30

R5 (2229m) <30 <30

R6 (179m) 45 37

R7 (60m) 52 44

R8 (38m) 55 46

R9 (24m) 57 49

R10 (18m) 59 50

R11 (738m) 36 <30

R12 (2607m) <30 <30

R13 (662m) 36 <30

Scenario 4 (2028) –Build The Ranch Farm 1 The Ranch Farm 2 The Ranch Farm 3 The Ranch Farm 4

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30

R3 (779m) 36 <30

R4 (1110m) 33 <30

R5 (2229m) <30 <30

R6 (179m) 45 37

R7 (60m) 52 44

R8 (38m) 55 47

R9 (24m) 57 50

R10 (18m) 59 51

R11 (738m) 36 <30

R12 (2607m) <30 <30

R13 (662m) 37 <30

Table 25 Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results - Tysons Road Scenario Road



Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am


Tysons Road

R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30

R3 (3698m) <30 <30

R4 (2364m) <30 <30

R5 (2981m) <30 <30

R6 (580m) <30 <30

R7 (500m) <30 <30







Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am

R8 (193m) 30 30

R9 (50m) 38 38

R10 (168m) 30 30

R11 (4269m) <30 <30

R12 (7219m) <30 <30

R13 (1466) <30 <30

Scenario 2 (2018) – Build The Ranch Farm 1 The Ranch Farm 2 The Ranch Farm 3 The Ranch Farm 4

Tysons Road

R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30

R3 (3698m) <30 <30

R4 (2364m) <30 <30

R5 (2981m) <30 <30

R6 (580m) 30 30

R7 (500m) 30 30

R8 (193m) 37 37

R9 (50m) 45 45

R10 (168m) 38 38

R11 (4269m) <30 <30

R12 (7219m) <30 <30

R13 (1466) <30 <30


Tysons Road

R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30

R3 (3698m) <30 <30

R4 (2364m) <30 <30

R5 (2981m) <30 <30

R6 (580m) <30 <30

R7 (500m) <30 <30

R8 (193m) 30 30

R9 (50m) 39 39

R10 (168m) 31 31

R11 (4269m) <30 <30

R12 (7219m) <30 <30

R13 (1466) <30 <30

Scenario 4 (2028) –Build The Ranch Farm 1 The Ranch Farm 2 The Ranch Farm 3 The Ranch

Tysons Road

R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30

R3 (3698m) <30 <30

R4 (2364m) <30 <30

R5 (2981m) <30 <30

R6 (580m) 30 30

R7 (500m) 31 31

R8 (193m) 37 37

R9 (50m) 45 45







Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am Farm 4 R10 (168m) 38 38

R11 (4269m) <30 <30

R12 (7219m) <30 <30

R13 (1466) <30 <30

Table 26 and Table 27 provide the modelling results for the cumulative operational road traffic noise levels associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex.

Table 26 Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Kidman Way Scenario Road



Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (9 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (15 hour)

7am to 10pm


7am Scenario 2 (2018) – Build

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30 R3 (779m) 35 <30 R4 (1110m) 33 <30 R5 (2229m) <30 <30 R6 (179m) 45 37 R7 (60m) 52 44 R8 (38m) 55 47 R9 (24m) 57 50 R10 (18m) 59 51 R11 (738m) 36 <30 R12 (2607m) <30 <30

R13 (662m) 37 <30 Scenario 4 (2028) – Build

Kidman Way R1 (3083m) <30 <30

60 55

R2 (2649m) <30 <30 R3 (779m) 36 <30 R4 (1110m) 33 <30 R5 (2229m) <30 <30 R6 (179m) 45 38 R7 (60m) 52 45 R8 (38m) 55 47 R9 (24m) 58 50 R10 (18m) 59 51 R11 (738m) 36 <30 R12 (2607m) <30 <30 R13 (662m) 37 <30




Table 27 Cumulative Operational Road Traffic Noise Prediction Results – Tysons Road Scenario Road



Day (1 hour)

7am to 10pm

Night (1 hour)

10pm to 7am

Day (1 hour) 7am to 10pm


7am Scenario 2 (2018) – Build

Tysons Road R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30 R3 (3698m) <30 <30 R4 (2364m) <30 <30 R5 (2981m) <30 <30 R6 (580m) 30 30 R7 (500m) 31 31 R8 (193m) 37 37 R9 (50m) 46 46 R10 (168m) 38 38 R11 (4269m) <30 <30 R12 (7219m) <30 <30

R13 (1466) <30 <30 Scenario 4 (2028) – Build

Tysons Road R1 (3815m) <30 <30

55 50

R2 (4084m) <30 <30 R3 (3698m) <30 <30 R4 (2364m) <30 <30 R5 (2981m) <30 <30 R6 (580m) 30 30 R7 (500m) 31 31 R8 (193m) 38 38 R9 (50m) 46 46 R10 (168m) 38 38 R11 (4269m) <30 <30 R12 (7219m) <30 <30 R13 (1466) <30 <30

Tables 24 to 27 indicate that the predicted road traffic noise levels meet the criteria detailed in the RNP under all prediction scenarios at the nearest roadside residential receivers.

The predicted road traffic noise levels presented in Table 24 for Kidman Way indicates that existing background (no build) road traffic noise levels during the daytime are already approaching the criterion of LAeq(15hour) 60 dBA. The build scenarios show a marginal increase of 1 dBA above the background road traffic noise levels. A marginal noise level increase of 1 dBA is considered to be not audible by most people (SLR 2016b).


While SLR (2016b) concludes that the Development will have negligible impact on local amenity with respect to noise impacts, VOAG 4 will take reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise noise emissions. As listed below, a range of design features, best management practices and mitigation measures will be applied to minimise and manage potential noise impacts.

Construction

• Construction activities will be restricted to the following standard daytime hours:

- Monday to Friday - 7.00 am to 6.00 pm.

- Saturday - 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.




- No construction work will take place on Sundays or public holidays.

• Plant and equipment operators will be instructed on how to minimise noise generation at all times. Measures may include avoiding the operation of noisy plant and equipment simultaneously; and

• All plant and equipment will be maintained to meet regulatory and industry standards, as well as ensure optimal operating conditions.

Operation

• Plant and equipment operators will be appropriately instructed on how to minimise noise generation at all times. Measures may include avoiding the operation of noisy plant and equipment simultaneously;

• Noise generating equipment purchased by the operator will comply with relevant occupational health and safety requirements;

• Emergency standby diesel generators will only be used when power from the electricity grid is lost and they will be appropriately sited and housed to minimise noise emissions;

• All plant and equipment will be maintained to meet regulatory and industry standards, as well as to ensure optimal operating conditions;

• A unidirectional traffic movement system, via a one-way circulation road around the perimeter of the PPU, will be established to minimise the use of reversing alarms;

• Internal access roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise noise levels; and

• Suitable signage will be erected to direct traffic, limit traffic speed and minimise night time noise levels.

7.5 Traffic and Transport

As outlined in Section 3.11.1, the Development is expected to generate additional operational traffic amounting to approximately 7,550 heavy vehicle movements per year, along with 2,442 light vehicle (car, van, ute) movements associated with staff, contractors and tradesmen. The majority of traffic will travel between the Development Site, Griffith and Hanwood via the Kidman Way.

RoadNet was engaged to undertake an assessment of traffic-related issues associated with the Development, including the potential for cumulative impacts with other traffic-generating developments in the area. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with relevant Council and RMS standards. A copy of RoadNet’s Traffic Impact Assessment (2016) is contained within Appendix D, with the key findings provided below.


Existing traffic volumes

As described in Section 2.4, The Ranch Poultry Production Complex is bordered by two local roads; Tysons Road and Back Hillston Road. Tysons Road, where the proposed site entrance will be located, connects to the Kidman Way. RoadNet (2016) derived existing traffic volumes along the Kidman Way from an RMS mobile counting site approximately 700 m south of Tysons Road (the traffic volumes and daily traffic flow profile at this site are expected to be representative of what also occurs on Kidman Way nears its intersection with Tysons Road).

The most recent traffic data available from the RMS mobile site dates back to the period from Tuesday 22 November 2011 to Tuesday 13 December 2011. The data shows relatively low traffic volumes on Kidman Way during the survey period. Average traffic volumes during the weekdays were approximately 1,100 vehicles per day (two-way), reducing at the weekends to provide an overall 7-day average daily volume of 987 vehicles per day (two-way).




Analysis of the data by RoadNet (2016) indicated:

• Traffic volumes along Kidman Way generally increase during the morning to a peak of 75 vehicles per hour between 8.00 am – 9.00 am and 9.00 am – 10.00 am, and then remain at a level between 60 and 70 vehicles per hour during the middle part of the day before peaking again in the afternoon to 81 vehicles per hour between 4.00 pm – 5.00 pm. The volumes then reduce again with an overnight low of 3 vehicles per hour recorded between 1.00 am - 4.00 am;

• Existing traffic volumes during the development peaks for The Ranch Farm 4 proposed development (i.e. around 7.00 am and 4.00 pm, corresponding to the start and end times for the daily farm workers shift) are approximately 51 vehicles per hour and 81 vehicles per hour, respectively;

• There is some variation throughout the day between northbound and southbound volumes, however, the directional split for the full 24 hour period is approximately 50:50;

• Heavy vehicle numbers contribute up to approximately 20% of the total daily traffic volumes, however, during the night-time the proportion of heavy vehicles is expected to be much higher; and

• Weekday traffic volumes were observed to be slightly higher than weekend volumes over the survey period.

RoadNet (2016) also conducted an onsite traffic count in June 2015 at the intersections of Tysons Road and Kidman Way. The count indicated a two-way peak hour volume along Kidman Way of 110 vehicles per hour between 3:45 pm and 4:45 pm, including 22 heavy vehicles. Only two vehicles were observed to turn into Tysons Road and one vehicle out during the survey period (i.e. 1.5 hours).

While the volume of traffic observed along Kidman Way from the traffic survey was higher than that identified from analysis of the RMS traffic data for the same time period, the overall order of magnitude was considered similar (RoadNet 2016). RoadNet (2016) noted that given the different times of year associated with each survey and the different baseline assumptions (i.e. average 7-day traffic volume versus weekday spot count) this was to be expected, however, since the hourly volumes were so low the differences were insignificant. The survey indicated that there is very little traffic currently using Tysons Road via its intersection with Kidman Way during the afternoon peak period. This is consistent with site observations which confirm a limited number of existing and operational access points along the length of Tysons Road.

For the purpose of the traffic assessment, RoadNet (2016) used the highest average hourly traffic volume of 81 vehicles per hour in 2011 (41 vehicles per hour southbound, 40 vehicles per hour northbound) from analysis of the RMS data, with an allowance for traffic growth to represent the future traffic volumes along Kidman Way at the Tysons Road intersection during each of the development peak hours. This equates to examining the worst case (highest hourly volume) scenario on a typical (average) day. In addition, a nominal allowance of one vehicle per hour turning into Tysons Road from each direction and one vehicle per hour turning out of Tysons Road in each direction during the development peak hours was assumed, along with 10 vehicles per hour in and out (i.e. each way) over a full day. These assumptions reflect the very low background traffic volumes that were observed to be currently using this road.


Construction Related Impacts

There is not expected to be a significant impact to the external road network during construction of the Development. Construction of the poultry sheds, internal roads and other features will generate some heavy vehicle movements associated with deliveries of materials and equipment, as well as construction site worker trips to the site. However, the volume will be low, and is not expected to impact on the operation or safety of the external road network.




Construction traffic will likely originate from Griffith and will follow Kidman Way to the Development Site. RoadNet (2016) concluded that the transport routes to be used by the Development are suitable for the types of vehicle movements that will be generated and will be able to readily accommodate the traffic generated with no further upgrades to any roadways or intersections required (apart from the upgrade to the Kidman Way - Tysons Road intersection being proposed as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development proposal (DA 2016/017)).

The cumulative traffic impacts of a number of known developments in the study area, including the existing Jeanella Poultry Production Complex, the existing Jeanella South Poultry Farm, Maylands Farms A and B, Tabbita Poultry Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4 and The Ranch Poultry Production Complex have been examined. The analysis concludes that the resulting volumes on the relevant sections of those roads collectively used by some or all of the developments are still predicted to be relatively low at the design year of 2028 and easily accommodated by these roads. As such, the cumulative traffic impacts of the known developments are expected to be low.

Operational Traffic Movements

As detailed in Section 3.11, the Development is expected to generate additional operational traffic amounting to approximately 9,992 vehicle movements per year, of which 7,550 will be heavy vehicle movements. On average, this is equivalent to approximately 30 vehicle movements per day, of which 22 will be heavy vehicle movements. The majority of traffic generated by the Development will travel between the Development Site, Griffith and Hanwood via Kidman Way.

RoadNet (2016) advises that the additional traffic generated by the poultry operation will not impact on the safety or operation of the external road network. The additional traffic anticipated to be generated by the Development, compared with existing vehicle movements on the Kidman Way, is presented in Table 28.

Table 28 Future Forecast Traffic Volumes on Kidman Way South of Tysons Road (2028) Existing Traffic Vehicle Trips per Day

Additional Generated Traffic Vehicle Trips per Day*

Percentage Increase

Cars Heavy Vehicles

Total Cars Heavy Vehicles


Total

1,000 249 1,249 6 22 28 <1% 8.8% 2.2% *excludes minor volume of traffic generated to/from Kidman Way north of Tysons Road

The expected increase in light vehicle trips as a result of the Development is anticipated to be approximately six per day, with most of these movements expected during the peak periods at the start and end of a 7.00 am to 4.00 pm shift. This additional traffic, representing less than 1% increase in light vehicle movements, will have minimal impact on Kidman Way and the external road network.

Heavy vehicles on Kidman Way are expected to increase by approximately 8.8%. RoadNet (2016) advises that this higher percentage increase is due to the relatively low volume of heavy vehicles in the background traffic. The increase in heavy vehicles as a result of the Development represents approximately 1 vehicle per hour during the peak periods.

Kidman Way / Tysons Road Intersection

As discussed in Section 3.10.1, access to the Development (and The Ranch Poultry Production Complex) will be achieved via Tysons Road and its existing intersection with Kidman Way. RoadNet’s (2016) assessment of the increase in traffic volumes that will occur on Kidman Way at this intersection concluded that the additional trips are not expected to have any adverse operational impacts on the external road network. RoadNet (2016) noted that for the low volumes involved that the intersection will continue to operate at a level of service ‘A’ with minimal delays and queuing.

Notwithstanding, the following road improvements/upgrades will be undertaken as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development (DA 2016/017):




• Upgrade of the Kidman Way – Tysons Road intersection to include a BAL treatment at the intersection to supplement the existing BAR layout. This upgrade will ensure that the lane widths of Kidman Way are maintained commensurate with road’s designation as an approved B-Double and road train route;

• If found necessary during the design, Tysons Road will be widened at the intersection to accommodate the turn paths of vehicles up to the size of B-doubles; and

• Tysons Road will be linemarked on its approach to the intersection to include a centreline and hold line for the existing Give Way control, thereby encouraging orderly driver behaviour at the intersection.

These road works have re-assessed by RoadNet (2016) to ensure a safe intersection configuration is provided for the types of vehicles and movements that will be generated by The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. the five poultry farms). The assessment concluded that the proposed upgrades are suitable to accommodate the Development.

These upgrades were assessed as part of The Ranch Farm 1 EIS and will be subject to that development consent and approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. As such, they have not been considered further in this document.

Proposed Site Access Driveway

As discussed in Section 3.10.2, all operational traffic will travel along Kidman Way and Tysons Road to the new access to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex that will be constructed. To satisfy the requirements of The Ranch Farm 1 development consent (DA 2016/017), a section of Tysons Road (approximately 0.75 km) from the end of the sealed section to the proposed site access will be finished with a 150 mm gravel road-base. As recommended by RoadNet (2016), this section of Tysons Road will be sealed as part of The Ranch Farm 4 Development.

Construction of the new site access and access road to The Ranch Farm 1 was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 development consent (DA 2016/017). An extension of the internal access road from The Ranch Farm 1 site to The Ranch Farm 2 site was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 2 development consent (DA 2016/022). A further extension of the internal access road from The Ranch Farm 2 site to The Ranch Farm 3 site was approved as part of The Ranch Farm 3 development consent (DA 2016/023). These works will be undertaken at the commencement of the construction phase for The Ranch Farm 1, The Ranch Farm 2, and The Ranch Farm 3, respectively (refer Figures 12 and 13).

The Ranch Farm 4 development proposal includes an extension of the access road from Farm 3 to Farm 4 (refer Figure 13). The internal access road from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site will involve the establishment of a 25 m wide easement. This access road will cross an ephemeral drainage line and subsequently a culvert will be necessary. Relevant design, including surface water management) will be addressed with Council prior to the commencement of construction works. These proposed works will be located within previously disturbed areas and will not require the clearing of any native trees.

The alignment of the internal access road/infrastructure corridor has been selected to avoid clearing of vegetation where possible. The only clearing of vegetation associated with the access road/infrastructure corridor will occur where the proposed infrastructure is to extend north for approximately 220 m through existing vegetation (refer Figure 13). This will require clearing of approximately 0.55 ha of existing vegetation (refer Section 7.7). The remaining extents of the access road/infrastructure corridors will be aligned in an offset position so that existing vegetation along the perimeter of the current farm access tracks are not disturbed.

The Development will not generate any traffic along Back Hillston Road.




Heavy Vehicle Routes

As discussed in Section 3.11.2, heavy vehicles will generally travel to and from the Development Site from facilities located in and around Hanwood and Griffith on a daily basis via the Kidman Way. The traffic volume calculations used in the traffic assessment are based on the largest vehicle servicing the Development being a semi-trailer, which provides a conservative estimate of traffic movements. However, it is possible that future contractors may use B-doubles to service the Development Site.

A designated B-double route currently exists along Kidman Way, which is also an approved road train route. The daily volume along this route is currently low. The additional 22 heavy vehicle trips per day (approximately one in each of the peak hours for the development) along the Kidman Way are not expected to have any significant traffic impacts.

RoadNet (2016) concluded that the transport routes to be used by the Development are suitable for the types of vehicle movements that will be generated and will be able to readily accommodate the traffic generated with no further upgrades to any roadways or intersections required (apart from the upgrade to the Kidman Way - Tysons Road intersection which is part of The Ranch Farm 1 development proposal (DA 2016/017)).

Peak Activity Traffic Generation

In addition to the typical traffic volumes that might arise on an average day in the production cycle, there are also peak traffic generating periods for the development. These peak periods are typically associated with specific activities such as bird placement at the beginning of the cycle, live bird removal at the end of the cycle and litter placement and removal. These activities could potentially give rise to higher numbers of vehicle movements, and heavy vehicles in particular, at these times.

To assess peak traffic generation, RoadNet (2016) used data provided by Baiada to undertake an assessment of traffic throughout the production cycle (63 days) for The Ranch Farm 4. This assessment identified that the peak traffic generating activities during the production cycle were associated with live bird removal on day 54 (82 vehicles per day and 164 trips per day) and litter removal/shed cleanout on day 57 (85 vehicles per day and 170 trips per day).

These peak daytime activities associated with the litter removal/shed cleanout represent the worst case scenario in terms of traffic operations on the state highway road network. RoadNet (2016) identified that these activities would result in approximately seven vehicles per hour (14 trips per hour) over between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm. This is an increase from the four trips projected to occur during the peak hours (7.00 am to 8.00 am and 4.00pm to 5.00 pm) as derived by RoadNet (2016) using cycle average volumes.

While the peak traffic generating activities result in volumes that are higher than the cycle - average volumes, the increase in hourly traffic volumes is relatively modest and is not expected to result in any significant impacts to road safety or operation.

Cumulative Impacts

An assessment of cumulative traffic volumes was undertaken by RoadNet (2016) for the following developments:

• The Ranch Poultry Production Complex;

• Jeanella Poultry Production Complex (existing);

• Jeanella South Poultry Production Complex (existing);

• Maylands Farm A;

• Maylands Farm B;

• Tabbita Poultry Farm 1;

• Tabbita Poultry Farm 2;




• Tabbita Poultry Farm 3; and

• Tabbita Poultry Farm 4 (briefing paper lodged).

The results presented in Table 29 show that cumulative traffic impacts collectively result in an increase of 26 to 37% to the total daily volumes on the subject sections of Kidman Way at the future design year of 2028. While the forecast percentage increase in heavy vehicle movements is substantially higher at 87 to 130%, however the resulting volumes are still low and easily accommodated on Kidman Way (RoadNet, 2016).

Although there is a substantial increase in the volume of traffic predicted to use Tysons Road when compared to the estimated current usage, the total predicted volume of 170 vehicles per day is still extremely low and is not predicted to result in any capacity or operational issues, particularly if the road is sealed as recommended (RoadNet 2016).

Table 29 Future Forecast Traffic Volumes (2028) – Cumulative Road Background Traffic

Vehicle Trips per Day Additional Generated Traffic Vehicle Trips per Day

Percentage Increase

Cars Heavy Vehicles



Total

Tysons Road (east of Kidman Way)

10 10 20 40 110 150 400% 1,100% 750%

Kidman Way (north of Tysons Road)

1,002 247 1,249 112 214 326 11% 87% 26%

Kidman Way (south of Tysons Road)

1,000 249 1,249 132 324 456 13% 130% 37%

Based on the information that was available at the time of undertaking the assessment, the cumulative impacts of the known developments appear to be acceptable and do not require additional road improvements or upgrades (RoadNet 2016).


In addition to the road upgrades works that are part of The Ranch Farm 1 development (see Section 3.10), the following road works and mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent and/or minimise potential traffic related issues:

Internal Access Road

• The internal access road between The Ranch Farm 3 site and The Ranch Farm 4 site will be constructed to a suitable strength and width to accommodate the expected heavy vehicle movements and their turn path requirements.

• The section of Tysons Road, previously upgraded in accordance with The Ranch Farm 1 development consent DA 2016/017, between Kidman Way and the proposed site access to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (approximately 750 m in length) will be sealed.

Operation and Maintenance

• All operational traffic will enter and exit the Development Site via the dedicated site access driveway off Tysons Road (i.e. no operational traffic will utilise the existing access driveway from the Back Hillston Road).

• All internal roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise noise and dust emissions and provide safe driving conditions.

• The internal roads will be maintained within the PPU to enable heavy vehicles to enter, exit and manoeuvre in a forward direction.

• Suitable signage will be erected indicating internal traffic direction and speed limits to ensure the orderly and safe use of the site, as well as to minimise the potential for traffic conflict and noise.




• All internal roads will be maintained clear of obstruction and used exclusively for the purposes of transport, loading-unloading and parking. Under no circumstances will these areas be used for storage of goods or waste products.

• Heavy vehicles will follow designated B-double and road train routes, when travelling between the Development Site and servicing facilities in and around Griffith and Hanwood.

7.6 Water Resources


An overview of existing local surface water and groundwater characteristics is provided in Section 2.10. In summary:

• The Development Site is situated on the southern edge of the catchment of the Lachlan River, near its boundary with the neighbouring catchment of the Murrumbidgee River. It is located approximately 70 km south-east of the Lachlan River and approximately 47 km north of the Murrumbidgee River (refer Figure 1).

• There are no significant waterways, surface water bodies or tributaries within the bounds of the Development Site as is evident on Figure 8. The nearest notable natural waterway is Mirrool Creek, approximately 12 km south of the Development Site.

• A number of formed irrigation channels are a feature of the wider region; with the nearest significant channel being Tabbita Channel located around 5 km from the Development Site.

• The nearest wetland area is Barron Box Storage and Wetland, which is approximately 6.6 km to the south of the Development Site.

• The Development Site is not considered flood-prone land, with significant separation from the nearby waterways.

• The Development Site is located in the Lachlan Fold Belt Groundwater Management Area (GMA), which is part of the NSW Murray-Darling Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources Water Sharing Plan. The Development Site lies within the Cobar Plains province of the Darling Geological Region. Groundwater within the locality is primarily used for irrigation, as well as stock watering and domestic purposes.

• A search of the DPI Water on-line database identified 12 bores within a 5 km radius of the Development Site. One bore (GW002984) is located within the Development Site, and the drilling records indicate a standing water level of 89.3 m. This bore is no longer functional.


Overview

Many traditional agricultural practices have the potential to impact upon surface and groundwater resources. Livestock grazing on river flats, cultivating immediately adjacent to waterways and the application of agricultural chemicals can all contribute significant loads of faecal bacteria, nutrients and turbidity to water resources.

The potential for adverse impact to surface and groundwater resources from the development of intensive poultry production farms is, in comparison, very low.

Given the controlled environment in which the Development will operate, along with the environmental licensing conditions it will need to comply with, it poses a low risk to local water resources and no detectable impact is expected. Points to note in relation to the management of water on site include:

• The Development will largely be a dry operation, with no effluent generated as a result of the poultry-rearing itself;

• The Development Site is not located on flood-liable land and is removed from any identified watercourses or drainage features;




• The poultry sheds will have fully sealed concrete flooring and will be surrounded by a dwarf concrete bund wall to prevent rainwater and runoff entering the sheds;

• Appropriate systems will be implemented for chemical storage, handling and incident response;

• No on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials; and

• Improved flow from the sheds and surrounds will be managed via an engineered surface water management system (refer Section 3.15).

Due to the low risk, no water monitoring program is warranted.

During Construction

The proposed PPU is well removed from any naturally formed waterways, surface water bodies or tributaries, with no works to be undertaken within, or near, waterfront land. Notwithstanding, suitable mitigation measures will be implemented, as described in Section 7.6.3, to ensure the potential for any offsite impacts resulting from construction activities is minimised.

Construction activities could potentially impact upon water resources through changes to groundwater recharge as a result of soil compaction, loss of groundcover and generation of sediment-laden runoff. Given that the disturbance footprint of the PPU will be relatively small in comparison with the properties residual land, changes to the existing runoff/recharge pattern will be minor. This combined with the deep groundwater levels in the general area (NSW Office of Water 2009) leads to the conclusion that no detectable impacts to groundwater levels, yields or quality are expected. The nature of the strata and the water table depth will provide an adequate buffer against infiltration of any potential pollutants, such as turbidity and/or hydrocarbons.

While some excavation activities will be undertaken as part of construction to establish the water storage dam and surface water management features, there will not be any interaction with groundwater given the relatively shallow excavations and the depth of the water table.

A search of the DPI Water on-line groundwater database identified that one bore (GW002984) is located within the Development Site. DPI Water records indicate that this is an old bore, drilled in 1931 that is not currently functional. There are no visible signs of this bore at the surface. To avoid any potential for structural integrity issues during construction of the poultry farm, should the bore be present at all, VOAG 4 will undertake geotechnical assessment of the site prior to detailed design.

During Operation

Surface Water Management

The main operational water sources associated with the Development to be managed will be:

• Wash down water from within the poultry sheds at the end of each nine week production cycle (approximately 5.7 times per year);

• Rainfall runoff from the shed roofs; and

• Rainfall runoff from the ground surfaces surrounding the poultry sheds and additional improvements.

The potential for impact to local water resources through offsite discharge of surface runoff containing nutrients, chemicals or pathogens is considered negligible as all rainfall runoff will be captured and managed through a series of drains and maintained in the proposed 60 ML water storage dam, as described in Section 3.15.

While the water captured in the onsite surface water management system drains will have some level of nutrients, the levels are predicted to be low given that the poultry sheds will be thoroughly blown and swept prior to being washed and the grassed swale drains will provide a very effective means of nutrient capture. The typical annual pollutant load removal efficiencies for vegetated swale drains according to Australian Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia 2006) are presented in Table 30.




Table 30 Typical Annual Pollutant Load Removal Efficiencies for Vegetated Swales Pollutant Typical Removal

Total Suspended Solids 60-80%

Total Nitrogen 25-40%

Total Phosphorus 30-50%

Based on the design of the surface water management system and the quality and relatively low volume of water to be managed, there is negligible risk of nutrient high runoff flowing off site. The potential for impact to local water resources by runoff of nutrients, chemicals or pathogens is considered negligible.

The 60 ML water storage dam and the detention basin to be constructed as part of the wheel wash facility will be constructed as turkeys nest dams and therefore will not capture runoff from the property and the maximum harvestable right does not apply.

Solid Waste Disposal

Stockpiling and/or disposal of waste materials, especially poultry litter, dead birds and chemical containers, can result in leaching of nutrients and pollution to surface waters and groundwater. However, as outlined in Section 3.14, appropriate systems will be implemented to ensure that each waste stream generated by the Development is effectively managed and disposed of off-site. There will not be any on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials.

Sewage Disposal

The sewage generated by the on-site dwellings and staff amenities will be appropriately treated and disposed of via on-site aerated wastewater management systems installed and operated in accordance with the relevant standards/guidelines and required Council approvals. No detectable impact to surface water or groundwater is anticipated as a result the low volumes that will be generated, the on-site system standards/requirements, the available land area and separation distances.


The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to safeguard local water resources and/or minimise and manage potential adverse impacts:

Construction

• Disturbance will be limited to the smallest practicable area to allow for the essential site preparation and construction activities.

• All clean extraneous surface water from upslope will be diverted around areas of disturbance.

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control structures will be installed and maintained in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (OEH 2012) to prevent soil loss and sediment-laden runoff.


• VOAG 4 will undertake a geotechnical assessment of the site prior to detailed design to avoid any potential for structural integrity issues during construction of the poultry farm, if the groundwater bore (GW002984) is present. If the bore is located and if it has not previously been sealed, it will be decommissioned in consultation with DPI Water.

Development Design

• Each poultry shed will be fully enclosed and have concrete flooring.




• Each poultry shed will be surrounded by a dwarf concrete bund wall to prevent rainwater and runoff entering the sheds and to allow for the controlled discharge of wash down water from the sheds.

• The engineered surface water management system described in Section 3.15 will be implemented to provide long-term structural controls to manage surface water runoff and ensure no off-site impacts.

• On-site aerated wastewater management systems will be installed to manage the sewage generated by on-site staff amenities and dwellings in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and Council requirements.

Operation

• The surface water management system will be visually inspected on a monthly basis and following significant rainfall events. Any required maintenance work (desilting, regrading and/or reshaping) will be promptly undertaken to ensure the system’s design capacity is maintained.

• The grassed swale drains between the poultry sheds will be carefully managed to minimise soil disturbance and maximise infiltration of runoff, as well as regularly slashed to encourage continual grass growth and associated nutrient up-take.

• Dry-cleaning practices at the end of each production cycle will be maximised within the poultry sheds prior to washing with water to minimise the volume of wash water, along with the amount of poultry litter (and associated sediments and nutrients) washed out of the sheds.

• The waste management systems described in Section 3.14 will be implemented to ensure that each waste stream generated by the Development is effectively managed and disposed of off-site. There will not be any on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials.


7.7 Biodiversity


A Flora and Fauna Assessment (SLR, 2016c) was prepared for the Development. The assessment involved a site inspection on 3 December 2015 and desktop assessment of the Development Site.

Substantial disturbance of the natural environment within the Development Site has occurred as a result of historic clearing and long-term agricultural production. The modified nature of the vegetation, particularly cropped/grazed and mostly treeless paddocks, significantly limits the value of the area as habitat for native flora and fauna. The aerial photography that forms the backdrop to Figures 3 and 8 clearly show the limited extent of native woody vegetation cover within and around the Development Site. Native woodland vegetation occurs along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the Development Site, however these areas lie outside of the proposed disturbance footprint.

Regional vegetation mapping for the Murrumbidgee catchment (Eco Logical Australia 2011) shows that there are two vegetation classes mapped within the Development Site. These consist of:

• Inland Rocky Hill Woodlands. A large area of this community is mapped to the north-east of the Development Site; and

• Sand Plain Mallee Woodlands. This community is mapped to occur to the northwest of the Development Site.

Verification of the regional vegetation mapping was undertaking by SLR (2016) during site visits to confirm the vegetation communities occurring within the Development Site. The site survey confirmed that the communities comply with sub-units of Inland Rocky Hill Woodlands, with those to the north and east of the Development Site corresponding with Mallee Woodland and the communities to the south being defined as Open Mallee Woodland (refer Figure 7). Neither of these two vegetation classes is mapped as threatened ecological communities under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act.




A Veteran Tree (a tree which, because of its great age, size or condition, is of exceptional cultural, landscape or nature conservation value) is growing within an existing wheat field of the proposed Development Site. This Kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus subsp. Populneus) is likely to be greater than 200 years old and is in good condition and form (SLR 2016c). It is also currently utilised by a pair of Wedge-tailed Eagles (Aquila audax) for nesting purposes. The veteran tree and the typical surrounding landscape are shown in Plate 9.

Some of the vegetated land within and adjoining the Development Site is mapped as “biodiversity” by the Carrathool LEP.

Plate 9 The Development Site Looking West

Threatened Biota 7.7.2

SLR (2016c) completed a search of the OEH’s BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife to determine if any threatened species have been previously recorded within the Development Site or the surrounding locality. A copy of the search results is contained within Appendix F. The results of the database search reveal that one threatened flora species, 11 threatened species of fauna species and one endangered population have been detected within a 10 km radius of the Development Site. None of the threatened species recorded lie within the Development Site boundary.

The threatened fauna species recorded within a 10 km radius of the site comprised of 11 bird species, namely:

• Circus assimilis (Spotted Harrier);

• Hieraaetus morphnoides (Little Eagle);

• Pomatostomus temporalis (Grey-crowned Babbler – eastern subspecies);

• Calyptorhynchus lathami (Glossy Black-Cockatoo);

• Cacatua leadbeateri (Major Mitchell's Cockatoo);

• Polytelis swainsonii (Superb Parrot);

• Climacteris picumnus victoriae (Brown Treecreeper - eastern subspecies);

• Epthianura albifrons (White-fronted Chat);

• Melanodryas cucullata cucullata (Hooded Robin - south-eastern form);

• Petroica phoenicea (Flame Robin); and




• Stagonopleura guttata (Diamond Firetail).

There was also one endangered fauna population recorded within a 10 km radius of the site:

• Glossy Black Cockatoo (Riverina population) west of Tabbita.

The following endangered ecological communities (EECs) listed in the TSC Act have also been detected within a 10 km radius of the Development Site:

• Inland Grey Box Woodland in the Riverina, NSW South Western Slopes, Cobar Peneplain, Nandewar and Brigalow Belt South Bioregions;

• Acacia melvillei Shrubland in the Riverina and Murray – Darling Depression Bioregions;

• Sandhill Pine Woodland in the Riverina, Murray - Darling Depression and the NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions; and

• Myall Woodland in the Darling Riverine Plains, Brigalow Belt South, Cobar Peneplain, Murray-Darling Depression, Riverina and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions.

One threatened flora species - Austrostipa metatoris (a Spear Grass) was also found to occur within a 10 km radius of the Development Site.

A Protected Matters Search was also performed (refer Section 4.3.1) on the DoE website to ascertain if any matters of national environmental significance listed in the EPBC Act have previously been identified as occurring in or relating to, the Development Site. The search results contained in Appendix F are summarised as follows:

• Four listed threatened ecological communities that “may occur within the area” –

- Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray - Darling Depression Bioregions;

- Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia;

- Weeping Myall Woodlands; and

- White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland.

• Fifteen listed threatened species (and/or their habitats), comprising seven bird species, two fish species, one frog species, two mammal species and three plant species, are identified as species “that may occur or are likely to occur within the search area”; and

• Thirteen migratory bird species are identified as species (and/or their habitats) “that may occur or are likely to occur within the area”.


General

Based on the level of existing site disturbance and the strategic positioning of development infrastructure, including the construction of an internal infrastructure corridor, the risk of adverse impact on any threatened species, populations, ecological communities or on local biodiversity in general within the surrounding environment is likely to be negligible. The majority of the proposed footprint of the Development is highly modified and disturbed, having been cleared and repeatedly cropped and grazed for many decades.




As evident on Figure 19, the Development would be predominantly located within areas that are already cleared. The exception to this is the extension of the internal linear infrastructure corridor (road access, power and water) from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site. This infrastructure corridor will generally avoid the requirement to clear native vegetation, however a section of existing vegetation will require clearing to the south of the Development Site for this corridor. The vegetation corridor to be removed is approximately 25 m wide and approximately 220 m long, construction would therefore require the removal of approximately 0.55 ha of native vegetation (refer Figure 19).

Additionally it is noted that the proposed PPU layout has been modified during the preparation of the EIS to avoid the requirement to clear the Veteran Tree. To retain and protect this tree, an adequate tree protection zone has been provided from the edge of the PPU. This will also retain sufficient take-off distance for the Wedgetail Eagles. Based on the level of existing site disturbance within the intended Development disturbance footprint, the risk of adverse effects on local populations of native flora and fauna is likely to be negligible.

Threatened Biota

The proposed clearing will not require the removal of threatened flora species or the fragmentation of existing threatened ecological communities. It is unlikely that the proposed clearing will result in the removal of any significant fauna habitat, although it is recognised that the clearing for an access track will result in minor fragmentation of the existing vegetation corridors. However, as the proposed cleared infrastructure corridor will not exceed 25 m width, it is unlikely that the movement of birds will be affected, although the movement of reptiles and terrestrial mammals may be disrupted. It is, however, noted that there are no Recovery Strategies for any threatened reptiles and terrestrial mammals listed for Carrathool LGA.

Based on the level of existing site disturbance and the strategic positioning of development infrastructure, including the construction of an infrastructure corridor, the risk of adverse impact on any threatened species, populations, and ecological communities or on local biodiversity in general within the surrounding environment is likely to be negligible. The proposed disturbance footprint is highly modified and disturbed, having been cleared and consistently cropped and grazed for many decades. While there is some existing native woodland vegetation within the Development Site, this will largely be left undisturbed as a result of the proposed Development.

With respect to Section 5A of the EP&A Act:

• There is no possibility of a “viable local population” of any threatened species being reliant or dependent upon on the Development Site. Accordingly, the Development is not likely to render any such population at “risk of extinction” – factor (a).

• There is no “endangered population” of any species known or likely to occur or be present on the Development Site – factor (b).

• There is no “endangered ecological community” present on the Development Site – factor (c).

• The Development will not involve the removal or modification of any known or potential areas of important habitat for threatened species and will not result in any potential habitat becoming “fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat”. Accordingly, there is no likelihood of any adverse impact upon the “long-term survival” of any threatened species, population or endangered community “in the locality”. – factor (d).

• There is no “critical habitat” within the Development Site – factor (e).

• There are no relevant “recovery plans” or “threat abatement plans” – factor (f).

• The Development will involve the operation of one “key threatening process”, being Clearing of native vegetation. Although a small area of native vegetation will require clearing, it will not threaten the survival of any local populations of flora or fauna or of any local occurrence of threatened species, populations or ecological communities. No other key threatening processes are relevant – factor (g).




In light of the consideration of the seven factors under Section 5A of the EP&A Act above, the proposed Development is not “likely” to have “a significant effect” on threatened species, populations or ecological communities. A species impact statement is therefore not required.


The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to safeguard local flora and fauna:

Clearing

• Clearing of vegetation should be carried out with care, in order to minimise impacts on native flora and fauna.

• Temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed along the boundaries of proposed access roads prior to vegetation clearance to protect adjoining stands of native woodland.

• All native trees removed to allow construction of the proposed access roads will be placed within adjoining patches of native vegetation.

• Tree protection fencing, consistent with the specifications of Australian Standard AS 4979-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, will be installed around the tree protection zone of the veteran Kurrajong identified in Figure 7.

• Construction activities, particularly noise generating activities, within the vicinity of the veteran Kurrajong should be conducted carefully so as to avoid disturbance to potential breeding activities of the Wedgetail Eagle.

Construction

• Disturbance will be limited to the smallest practicable area to allow for the essential site preparation and construction activities.

• Appropriate erosion and sediment control structures will be installed and maintained in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (OEH 2012) to prevent soil loss and sediment-laden runoff.


• Revegetation along newly-created vegetation edges (e.g. alongside cleared access roads) using appropriate locally indigenous plant species. Fast-growing leguminous species will be planted. Appropriate species include Acacia deanei, subsp. paucijuga (Green Wattle) Acacia lineata (Streaked Wattle), Acacia havilandiorum (Needle Wattle), Acacia doratoxylon (Currawang), Eremophila sturtii (Turpentine Bush), Eremophila mitchelii (Budda) and Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine).

Operation

• Buffer planting around the perimeter of the poultry sheds is proposed. Any such planting within 100 m of existing patches of native vegetation will be undertaken using the above listed local native species.

• The engineered surface water management system described in Section 3.15 will be implemented and maintained to provide long-term structural controls to manage surface water runoff and ensure no off-site impacts.

• Maintenance of plantings, including weed control and replacement of plant losses, as required.

• Weed management practices will be implemented to avoid the introduction and spread of exotic species.

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157807

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Back

H

illst

on

Roa

d

Lot 77DP720257

Lot 78DP720258

Lot 2DP1157807

Proposed Lot 5

Proposed Lot 4

FIGURE 19

Vegetation Clearing

H:\P

rojec

ts-SL

R\63

0-Sr

vNTL

\630-

NTL\6

30.11

506 T

he R

anch

Far

ms 4

and 5

EIS

\06 S

LR D

ata\07

Dra

fting\C

AD\C

URRE

NT\F

ARM

4 EIS

FIG

URES

\Fg1

9_63

0.115

06_T

F4-E

IS_V

egCl

earin

g_V1

.dwg

To be printed A4

0

N

M200 400


subject to survey verification.(3) Vegetation sourced from Eco Logical Australia (2011)

LEGEND




Vegetation to be cleared




7.8 Aboriginal Heritage

An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment (OzArk, 2016) was prepared for the Development. The assessment involved a site inspection on 3 December 2015 and desktop assessment of the Development site.

Aboriginal heritage has been assessed in accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010 (the Code)) and the Guide to Investigation, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales (OEH, 2011), in order to meet the following assessment objectives:

Objective One: conduct a desktop assessment to locate any previously recorded Aboriginal sites in the Development Site;

Objective Two: to undertake a visual inspection of existing cropped and highly disturbed lands within the Development Site to determine if there is considered a presence of any Aboriginal objects, sites and sensitive landforms;

Objective Three: to undertake a pedestrian survey of proposed infrastructure corridors and identify and record any new Aboriginal objects, sites and sensitive landforms identified within the Development Site; and

Objective Four: assess the significance and likely impacts of the proposed works to any recorded sites and provide management recommendations.

The assessment undertaken for the Development and the outcomes of this assessment are detailed in the following sub-sections.


Landscape Context

As discussed in Section 7.7, significant disturbance has occurred as a result of historic clearing and long-term agricultural production within the Development Site, and particularly within the proposed disturbance footprint. This disturbance is clearly evident on the aerial photo in Figure 3, and as shown in Plate 9. The exception to this is the extension of the internal linear infrastructure corridor (road access, power and water) from The Ranch Farm 3 site to The Ranch Farm 4 site. This infrastructure corridor will generally avoid the requirement to clear native vegetation, however a section of existing vegetation will require clearing to the south of the Development Site for this corridor. The vegetation corridor to be removed is approximately 25 m wide and approximately 220 m long, construction would therefore require the removal of approximately 0.55 ha of native vegetation (refer Figure 19).

AHIMS Search

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), managed by the OEH, was conducted on 30 November 2015 for the Development Site (7.6 km x 5.2 km area, centred on the Development Site). The search of the AHIMS database showed that no Aboriginal sites have been recorded in or near the Development Site, nor have any Aboriginal places been declared in or near the Development Site. The AHIMS search reports are contained within Appendix H.

Due Diligence Assessment 7.8.2

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides exemptions to the offences for harming Aboriginal objects and places in certain circumstances, such as during emergency firefighting or bush fire hazard reduction work, or works by, or directed by, authorised OEH officers to protect or conserve Aboriginal objects. The proposed Development does not fall into any of the exemption categories listed under the NPW Act.




Application of the due diligence process involves working through a series of steps as set out in Section 8 of the Code, as follows.

Step 1 – Will the activity disturb the ground surface or any culturally modified trees?

Yes the activity will disturb the ground and as there are no culturally modified trees identified by desktop assessment in the Study Area, at this stage it is anticipated that none will be disturbed. Go to Step 2.

Step 2: Are there any:

a) relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature information on AHIMS?

b) No. The AHIMS search confirmed there are no previously registered Aboriginal sites or places in the Study Area any other sources of information of which a person is already aware?

No. Aboriginal community consultation is not a formal requirement of the Due Diligence process (DECCW 2010a Section 5). However, the Proponent has elected to consult with the Griffith Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) and to invite fieldwork participation to assist in informing decision making for the Study Area.

c) landscape features that are likely to indicate presence of Aboriginal objects?

Landscape features noted here include (DECCW 2010):

• within 200 metres of waters, or

• located within a sand dune system, or

• located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland, or

• located within 200 metres below or above a cliff face, or

• within 20 metres of or in a cave, rock shelter, or a cave mouth and is on land that is not disturbed land (see Section 5.2) then you must go to Step 3.

The Study Area is situated in a low lying plain landform with an open aspect. No permanent water sources traverse the area. The drainage information recorded on the topographic layer for the Study Area (Tabbita 1:50 000 Topographic Map 8029-N) revealed that two ephemeral drainage lines once traversed the Study Area. However, neither of these appear to exist today.

Although not required by the Due Diligence process, the Proponent has elected to apply the precautionary principle and proceed to visual inspection of the development areas in order to ground-truth the findings of the above desktop assessment.

Step 3: Can harm to Aboriginal objects listed on AHIMS or identified by other sources of information and/or can the carrying out of the activity at the relevant landscape features be avoided?

No: There are no known Aboriginal sites within 200 m of the Study Area or identified on the AHIMS search.

An answer of ‘no’ to Step 3 advances the process to Step 4.

Step 4: Does a desktop assessment and visual inspection confirm that there are Aboriginal objects or that they are likely?

No. The Study Area has been severely disturbed. The visual inspection assessed that there is a very low possibility of the activity adversely impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage values.




A ‘no’ answer for Step 4, removes the project from the Due Diligence Process at this step, moving it through to this outcome (DECCW 2010a):

AHIP application not necessary. Proceed with caution. If any Aboriginal objects are found, stop work and notify OEH. If human remains are found, stop work, secure the site and notify NSW Police and OEH.

A copy of the Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment, including details of the visual inspection and field survey undertaken by OzArk (2016) has been provided as Appendix H.


The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to safeguard Aboriginal heritage:

• Disturbance activities must be confined within the determined development areas. Should the project impacts change, including altering the impact area, then additional assessment may be warranted;

• All staff and contractors employed to undertake ground disturbance activities should undertake a heritage induction outlining the legislative protection of Aboriginal sites and objects; and

• If any Aboriginal objects are uncovered, all works will immediately cease in that locale and the OEH will be notified. The Unanticipated Finds protocol should be followed (refer Appendix H). Works will only recommence when an appropriate and approved management strategy has been agreed to by all of the relevant stakeholders.

7.9 Non-Aboriginal Heritage


Searches of the Australian Heritage Database, NSW Heritage Inventory and Carrathool LEP were undertaken on 19 January 2016. No items were listed within the proposed Development Site. The nearest listed item was the Hermits Cave Complex, located over 28 km to the south-east of the Development Site.


There are no items of heritage significance located within the Development Site.


Given that there are no items of non-Aboriginal heritage recorded within the Development Site or within the immediate surrounds, management/mitigation measures are not required.

7.10 Visual Amenity


The existing amenity of the Development Site and surrounding area is evident from the aerial photography that forms the backdrop to Figure 9.

The visual amenity of the Development Site is that of a rural property that has been significantly modified by historical land clearing and long-term agricultural activities. While there are limited elements of the natural environment remaining within the area, there are some tracts of existing native vegetation within and around the Development Site. Corridors of vegetation to the north and east of the site provide a natural screen from Back Hillston Road and surrounding properties.




The surrounding neighbourhood is also characterised by traditional agricultural production and there is a low density of surrounding privately-owned residences, with six located within a radius of 5 km of the Development Site.


The proposed PPU is setback from Tysons Road by over 4.6 km and from the adjoining Back Hillston Road by around 1 km. The nearest privately-owned residence (R11) is located approximately 3.9 km to the west of the Development Site.

Analysis of the topography reveals that there is a moderate change in elevation (approximately 10 to 40 m) between the PPU and the nearest receptors (R11 and Tabbita) and there is significant intervening vegetation between the PPU and surrounding residences. It is also worth noting that there is existing infrastructure associated with the silo operations (refer Section 2.6) between the Development Site and Tabbita (R6 to R10).

Given the separation distances, surface elevation changes and existing vegetation, it is unlikely that the PPU infrastructure will be visible from any residences and there is also unlikely to be any issues in terms of adverse lighting impacts (for example, light spill or glare) to surrounding residences and/or the local road network.


The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise the potential for adverse impact on the area’s visual amenity:

Development Design

• The poultry sheds will be constructed using a non-reflective colour-bond type material in an appropriate shade, such as eucalyptus green.

• External lighting will comprise individual light fixtures, with no broad area or flood lighting.

• Vegetation screens will be established around the perimeter of the PPU as outlined in Section 3.17. Once established, these plantings will visually screen development infrastructure and provide a high level of light screening once established.

Operation

• Each light fixture will be aimed downwards and will only be used when necessary during times of low light and/or heavy fog.

7.11 Greenhouse Gas

Emission Sources 7.11.1

The primary sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) from the Development are identified as follows.

Soil Disturbance

Soil carbon is both a source and a sink of GHG. Emissions typically occur from soil disturbance during the process of land use change. Estimates of emissions depend on the area of disturbance and the amount of carbon sequestered in biomass and soils, which differs by vegetation type, geography and climate (Australian Greenhouse Office).

The Development will be predominantly located within areas that are already cleared and highly disturbed, with the exception of approximately 0.55 ha of vegetation that will be cleared to allow the construction of a 25 m infrastructure corridor between The Ranch Farm 3 and The Ranch Farm 4 (refer Figure 19). Outside of this area, all other Development infrastructure will be positioned in treeless paddocks. On this basis the value of the soil within the proposed disturbance footprint is considered to be of relatively low value in terms of sequestering carbon.




Fossil Fuel Emissions

The Development will rely on reticulated electricity for running fans, pumps and lights, and LPG for heating sheds. Endeavours will be made to reduce costs associated with the construction and operation of the Development, with a reduction in energy consumption translating into lower operational costs. As research and development identifies areas where energy efficiency can be improved, VOAG 4 will endeavour to implement change to achieve cost reductions.

Over recent years, the poultry industry has moved towards new methods of shed construction and operation, with newer developments constructing larger sheds and using materials with higher insulation properties. Tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds, such as those proposed at the Development Site, improve efficiency by continuously monitoring parameters such as light, temperature, humidity and static pressure and adjusting the ventilation to suit conditions. On this basis, the Development will require less energy to regulate the internal conditions of the poultry sheds compared to older style poultry sheds. Further, it is understood that a series of larger sheds, as proposed, is more efficient and economical to operate than a greater number of smaller sheds.


The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to improve energy efficiency and abatement of GHG emissions:

Development Design

• Low lux internal shed lighting, which has a significantly reduced power demand compared to past lighting practices, will be installed within the poultry sheds.

Operation

• External lighting will only be used when necessary during times of low light and/or heavy fog.

• The integrity of the poultry sheds will be regularly checked to identify and rectify any air leaks, which place additional load on ventilation fans.

• Lighting, temperature, humidity and static pressure within the poultry sheds will be continuously monitored and automatically adjusted to suit conditions. This will avoid unnecessary electricity and LPG usage.

• Ventilation fans and heaters will be regularly maintained and serviced to ensure optimal performance and efficiency.

7.12 Socio-Economic Considerations

Overview 7.12.1

The potential for significant adverse socio-economic impacts as a result of the Development, including upon local land use and amenity, is considered minimal. Points to note in this regard include:

• The Development presents the opportunity for sustained economic activity within the region. The generated economic activity, unlike some other business ventures that are largely seasonal, will be all year round;

• The Development Site is isolated from urban areas and there is a very low density of surrounding privately-owned residences;

• The Development will employ best management practices and mitigation measures described in Sections 3 and 7 to minimise the potential for adverse impacts upon the local environmental and surrounding populace; and

• Where practicable, it is intended to continue using the land outside of the disturbance footprint within the Development Site for continued agricultural production purposes under some form of lease or share farming arrangement.




The impact to social amenity will be minimal, with no change to the day-to-day life of surrounding residents as a result of the Development and no additional demand for services or facilities.

Economic Activity 7.12.2

Commercial pursuits, regardless of size and by their very nature, increase economic activity within the locality in which they are situated. The poultry industry within the Griffith region is a perfect example of vertical integration, where each of the operations produce a different product or service and these combine to satisfy a common need, providing a very significant contribution to the local and regional economies.

Based on the information in Section 3.25, the net economic impact of the Development is anticipated to be one of significant benefit. Benefits include:

• The creation of an additional four full-time jobs, comprising one full-time site manager, one full-time assistant farm manager and two full time equivalent farm workers. This translates to up to four families receiving a benefit that would otherwise not be available. There will also be flow-on economic benefits into the wider community as a result of this increased employment;

• The Ranch Farm 4 will consume around 28,000 tonnes of poultry feed per annum and The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. the five farms) will consume around 140,000 tonnes of poultry feed per annum, which is a yearly recurrent cost of around $32.2 million (based on the average price of feed at the time this document was prepared); and

• Stimulus to local businesses through development construction activities, consumables and significant flow-on benefits.

It is obvious that there is substantial opportunity for the Development to create significant and sustained economic activity. The generated economic activity, unlike some other business ventures that are largely seasonal, will be all year round. The Griffith region, including the Carrathool LGA, is well known as a major centre for the chicken meat industry (broiler production and support/service facilities), providing significant employment. The Development will increase the supply of broiler poultry by up to 4.56 million birds per year. This is integral to the industry’s strategy for continued growth within both the Griffith region and NSW.

7.13 Bushfire and Incident Management


The Development Site has been identified as containing bushfire prone land as mapped by the NSW Rural Fire Service (refer Figure 9). A bushfire risk assessment has been undertaken to determine the appropriate Asset Protection Zones (APZ) for the residences that will be constructed on the site. The assessment follows the recommended procedures for calculating bush fire mitigation measures in the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Guideline Planning for Bush Fire Protection or ‘PBP’ (RFS, 2006).

For calculation of appropriate asset protection zones (APZs) for residential developments in bush fire prone areas, PBP adopts a methodology using:

• Predominant Vegetation;

• Effective slope; and

• Fire weather area.

The following sections provide an assessment of the above factors as applicable to The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site.




Vegetation Formation

The predominant vegetation within 140 m of the buildings has been classified by structure or formation using the system adopted by Keith (2004). Vegetation types give rise to resultant radiant heat (assumed under unmanaged conditions to represent an extreme scenario as the danger period is the lifetime of any proposed development) and fire behaviour characteristics. There are 12 vegetation formations (with sub-formations) identified in the RFS Guideline (2006).

There are two areas of vegetation within 140 m of the residences (refer Figure 7):

• An area of vegetation is located within the north-east corner of the Development Site, and extends further to the north and east outside of the Development Site. The vegetation is classed as Bushfire Prone Land by the RFS and has been mapped by SLR as Mallee Woodland; and

• A narrow strip of vegetation approximately 35 m wide runs along the southern boundary of the Development Site. SLR has mapped this vegetation as Open Mallee Woodland. Most of this vegetation patch had been previously cleared, with the exception of the occasional tree, with the result that there are very few over-mature trees and regenerating vegetation of age classes ranging from five to 10 years, and 25 to 45 years.

Both of these vegetation classes are consistent with the Semi-arid Woodlands Formation (Shrubby subformation) as described by Keith (2004). The RFS Guideline (2006) classifies Semi-arid Woodlands (Shrubby sub-formation) as having fuel load of 8 tonnes per ha.

Topography

The Effective Slope is that slope within the hazard which most significantly affects fire behaviour of the site having regard to the vegetation class found. Effective Slopes are classified within five slope classes, one being upslope and four being downslope, ranging from flat to 18 degrees in steps of five degrees. This recognises the reduced rate of spread inherent to fire travelling downslope and the restrictions imposed on development by slopes greater than 18 degrees. Effective Slope is measured from the closest point of the residence towards the fire hazard. .

The topography of the Development Site is relatively flat; however there are hills along the eastern and northern boundaries. The topographic location of vegetation in relation to the development site is as follows:

• The bushfire prone vegetation in the north-east is located upslope of the proposed residences, with a slope of less than 5 degrees; and

• The thin strip of vegetation along the southern boundary of the Development Site is located downslope of the proposed residences by less than 5 degrees.

The residences are located over 120 m from the upslope vegetation and over 50 m from the downslope vegetation.

Fire Weather Area

Fire weather assessment assumes a credible worst case scenario and an absence of any other mitigating factors relating to aspect or prevailing winds. The 1:50 year weather scenario for the greater Norther Riverina region (NSW Fire Area 19) has a Fire Danger Index of 80.


The RFS Guideline (2006) requires the assessment of a suite of bushfire protection measures that in total afford an adequate level of protection for development on bushfire prone land. The measures required to be assessed are listed in Table 31 below and are discussed in detail in the remainder of this section.




Table 31 Bushfire Protection Measures Bushfire protection measures Considerations Asset Protection Zones (APZ) Location and dimension of APZ building setbacks from vegetation including

prescriptions of vegetation management within the APZ. Building construction standards Provide a guide on the application of construction standards for buildings.

Access Assessment to include access and egress in and out of a developable area such as alternate access, operational response and evacuation options. APZ perimeter access to be considered as is design standards of roads.

Water supply and other utilities List requirements for reticulated water supply and hydrant provisions, and any static water supplies for fire fighting.

Asset Protection Zone

APZs are required for residential developments to determine the minimum setbacks required for habitable buildings in areas designated as bush fire prone. In accordance with the RFS (2006) Guideline, the APZ applicable to the Development was calculated based on the predominant vegetation type, slope, and fire weather (refer Table 32).

Table 32 Hazard assessment and APZ calculation

Direction Slope Vegetation Formation

Required APZ Proposed APZ

North-East vegetation (Bushfire Prone)

Upslope Semi Arid Woodland

10 m Residences located over 120 m from hazard.

Southern Vegetation along fenceline

Downslope 0-5°

Semi Arid Woodland

10 m Residences located 20 m from hazard.

In accordance with the RFS Guideline (2006), the minimum setback from the vegetation for residential developments is 10 m, where the vegetation is located upslope of the development, or between 0° and 10° downslope of the site. As the residences are located over 50 m from the vegetation they are deemed to have an adequate APZ.

Construction Standards

RFS (2006) identifies five categories of bush fire attack and three construction standards as described below:

• Low (no construction requirements) - Minimal attack from radiant heat and flame due to the distance of the site from the vegetation, although some attack by burning debris is possible. There is insufficient threat to warrant specific construction requirements.

• Medium (Construction Standard Level 1) - Attack by burning debris is significant with radiant heat (not greater than 12.5 kW/m2). Radiant heat is unlikely to threaten building elements (e.g. unscreened glass). Specific construction requirements for ember protection and accumulation of debris are warranted.

• High (Construction Standard Level 2) - Attack by burning debris is significant with radiant heat levels (not greater than 19 kW/m2) threatening some building elements (screened glass). Specific construction requirements for embers and radiant heat are warranted.

• Extreme (Construction Standard Level 3) - Attack by burning debris is significant and radiant heat levels (not greater than 29 kW/m2) threaten building integrity. Specific construction requirements for ember and higher radiant heat are warranted. Some flame contact is possible.

• Flame Zone - Radiant heat levels and flame contact likely to significantly threaten building integrity and result in significant risk to residents who are unlikely to be adequately protected.

The bushfire attack levels for the proposed development have been calculated in accordance with AS 3959-2009 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire-Prone Areas. Using the low woodland (semi-arid) vegetation formation, 0 - 5° slope and Fire Danger Index of 80, the categories of bushfire attack for different distance (m) of the site from the predominant vegetation class are shown in Table 33.




Table 33 Bush Fire Attack Categories

Vegetation and Slope Flame Zone Level 3 (Extreme) Level 2 (High) Level 1

(Medium) Low - No Requirement

Low Woodland (semi-arid), upslope of building

<7m 7-<10m 10-<15m 15 – 50m >50m

Low Woodland (semi-arid) downslope 0-5°

<8m 8-<11m 11-<17m 17 – 50m >50m

As the residences are located over 50 m from both the upslope and downslope vegetation, they are categorised as a low risk of bushfire attack, therefore there are no construction requirements.


Building Design

As the residences are located in an area categorised as low risk, there are no construction requirements.

Access

RFS (2006) requires an access design that enables safe evacuation away from a development whilst facilitating adequate emergency and operational response to the development. Developments in bushfire prone areas should have an alternate access or egress option depending on the bushfire risk, the density of the development, and the chances of the road being cut by fire for a prolonged period.

The development will have two access options: the primary access will be from the south via The Ranch Farm 3, however an alternate access in the event of a fire is available from the west via a farm track to Huxleys Road. These roads will comply with RFS (2006) and provide an alternative access/egress in opposite directions. The proposed access and egress complies with PBP.

Additionally, the site access road and powerline clear-zone will act as a perimeter road from the vegetation hazard to the east. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies PBP objectives in relation to perimeter access.

The internal access roads will also be designed and constructed in accordance with the PBP “Acceptable Solutions”. The proposal is able to satisfy these requirements.

Water Supply, Utilities and Landscaping

The following measures will be implemented to reduce bushfire risk:

• A dedicated water supply in accordance with Part E of the NSW Rural Fire Service Guidelines for Single Dwelling Development Applications (RFS 2007) will be installed at the Development Site;

• Overhead electrical transmission lines will be installed within a 25 m clear zone which was developed in consultation with Essential Energy;

• Any gas services will be installed and maintained in accordance with AS/NZS 1596-2008 The storage and handling of LP gas;

• The grounds will be managed to ensure a reduced fuel load throughout and a compliant APZ; and

• VOAG will include details of emergency bushfire management arrangements within the OEMP.




7.14 Mineral Resources

As outlined in Section 2.6, there are two former quarries located to the north east of the Development Site (refer Figure 3). The quarry known as the “Simpkins Pit” is located approximately 1 km north east of the proposed PPU, within Lot 77 in DP 720257, while the quarry referred to as “Huxleys Pit” is located approximately 2 km north of the proposed PPU. These quarries were previously operated by Council. It is understood from recent consultation with Council that the “Simpkins Pit” was recently relinquished to the landowner of The Ranch property. The current ownership of the “Huxleys Pit” is unknown.

The disturbance footprint (including access roads, servicing infrastructure and support infrastructure) will be relatively small at approximately 18.3 ha and the commercial activities associated with the poultry operation will be largely confined to the PPU. Furthermore, the PPU and associated infrastructure are adequately removed from the former quarries which would prevent the Development having any potential impacts upon future operations or exploration, should the owners of the quarries wish to recommence operations. It is therefore considered that the Development will have no impact upon the current or future use of the quarries.

7.15 Cumulative Impacts

Potential cumulative impacts associated with The Ranch Farm 4 and other developments (existing and proposed) were considered, where relevant, in the specialist impact assessments undertaken for the EIS and have been addressed in the above sections.

The potential for cumulative impact is primarily associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. The Ranch Farms 1 to 5) and other existing and proposed poultry farms (refer Section 2.7). The location of these developments is shown on Figure 1.

A summary of where cumulative impacts have been considered is provided below. For further details please refer to the relevant impact assessment sub-section above.

Odour 7.15.1

SLR (2016a) modelled the proposed Development with the proposed The Ranch Farms 1 to 5, and Tabbita Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4 to assess the potential for cumulative odour impact. A contour plot showing the predicted odour concentrations for this cumulative scenario is shown on Figure 15 in Section 7.2.3. In summary, SLR (2016) predicts that the odour concentrations will meet the EPA’s assessment criterion at all receptors for the cumulative impact scenario.

Particulate Matter 7.15.2

SLR (2016a) indicated that the screening level particulate emissions modelling showed that the PM10 levels of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex would be anticipated to be lower than 10 µg/m3 (SLR, 2016a), which is well below the EPA criterion of 50 µg/m3. Considering the distance between The Ranch Poultry Production Complex and surrounding sensitive receptors the proposed operations are unlikely to cause any significant elevation of particulate levels at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. Based on these initial screening level results and the identified level of risk associated with particulate matter from other similar studies, any further detailed modelling is not considered to be warranted.

Noise 7.15.3

A cumulative noise impact assessment of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex was undertaken by SLR as part of the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2016b). A summary of the assessment has been provided below.




Construction Noise

As construction of the five farms within The Ranch Poultry Production Complex will be undertaken consecutively, there will not be any cumulative construction noise impacts.

Operational Noise

The cumulative noise impacts of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex are significantly below the most conservative applicable criteria in the Industrial Noise Policy (EPA 2000) and therefore there should not be any notable operational noise impacts associated with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex. Cumulative results for all sensitive receptors, during day time, day time (hot weather), evening and night time conditions were less than 32 dB in all weather conditions (SLR 2016b).

Road Traffic Noise

As construction of the five farms within The Ranch Poultry Production Complex will be undertaken consecutively, there will not be any cumulative construction traffic noise impacts.

The predicted operational road traffic noise for The Ranch Poultry Production Complex meet the criteria detailed in the RNP under all prediction scenarios at the nearest roadside residential receivers (SLR 2016b).

Traffic and Transport 7.15.4

The cumulative traffic impacts of a number of known developments in the region, including the existing Jeanella Poultry Production Complex, Jeanella South Poultry Production Complex, Maylands Poultry Farms A and B, Tabbita Poultry Farms 1, 2, 3 and 4, and The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farms 1, 2, 3 and 5 were examined by RoadNet (2016) in conjunction with The Ranch Farm 4. The analysis concluded that the resulting volumes on the relevant sections of those roads collectively used by some or all of the developments (namely Tysons Road east of Kidman Way, Kidman Way north of Tysons Road and Kidman Way south of Tysons Road) were still predicted to be very low at the design year of 2028, even after allowing for the worst case traffic scenario, and easily accommodated by these roads. The cumulative impacts of the known developments were considered to be acceptable and no additional improvements or upgrades are necessary.

Biodiversity 7.15.5

The cumulative impacts of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex upon aspects of biodiversity were considered by SLR. The total area of vegetation clearing for all The Ranch Farm Poultry Production Complex (i.e. five farms) is 2.01 ha (it is noted that approximately 0.2 ha of vegetation removal has been approved as part of The Ranch Farm 1 Development (DA 2016/017) and The Ranch Farm 3 Development (DA 2016/023) for the establishment of a new site access from Tysons Road and the construction of a culvert). The impacts of this clearing to flora and fauna is assessed as minor and short term, being restricted to highly localised and small scale vegetation clearing. At a local scale, all proposed poultry sheds have been preferentially located in cleared areas and vegetation clearing is largely limited to that required for access corridors.

The main cumulative impact of the proposed developments is the progressive small scale loss of woodland vegetation and creation of gaps in the open woodland canopy. However, the narrow (25m) gaps to be created for access corridors are not likely to affect the movement and dispersal of common mobile fauna species such as birds, bats and ground mammals. Plant processes such as pollen and seed dispersal are unlikely to be affected.

While there are other developments approved within the locality, such as the Maylands Farm poultry facilities, these will require only small amounts of clearing and were not considered in terms of cumulative impacts.




Overall, the cumulative impact of The Ranch Farm 4 development, when considered in combination with other local developments, is likely to be minor at the local scale and negligible at the regional scale.

Socio-Economic Considerations 7.15.6

The cumulative socio-economic impacts of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex are anticipated to be of significant benefit and will include:

• The creation of an additional 20 full-time jobs (four per farm). This translates to up to 20 families receiving a benefit that would otherwise not be available. There will also be flow-on economic benefits into the wider community as a result of this increased employment;

• The Ranch Poultry Production Complex will consume around 140,000 tonnes of poultry feed per annum, which is a yearly recurrent cost of around $32.2 million (based on the average price of feed at the time this document was prepared); and

• Stimulus to local businesses through development construction activities, consumables and significant flow-on benefits.


Page 121 Management and Mitigation Measures


8 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES

VOAG 4 commits to the implementation of the development design, best management practices and mitigation measures outlined in Sections 3 and 7 for all activities associated with the Development. Table 34 summarises the key commitments made in this EIS.

Table 34 Management and Mitigation Measures Aspect/Commitment

General

VOAG 4 will implement all practicable measures to prevent or minimise any harm to the environment that may result from the construction, commissioning and operation of the Development. • VOAG 4 will carry out the Development generally in accordance with this EIS report. • The Development Site will not accommodate more than 800,000 birds at any one time. • Construction will be undertaken within the hours of:

a. Monday to Friday, 7:00 am to 6:00 pm; b. Saturday, 8:00 am to 1:00 pm; and c. No construction work will take place on Sundays or public holidays.

• The poultry development will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the majority of activities carried out between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.

Odour

Development Design • The poultry sheds will be fully enclosed, have adequate roof overhang (wide eaves) and dwarf concrete

bund walls to reduce moisture in the sheds and will subsequently reduce the potential for odour emissions; • The feed silos will be fully enclosed to reduce moisture levels (wet feed has also been identified as a

potential odour source); • The poultry sheds will be tunnel-ventilated, which will allow control over the moisture levels and promote

optimum growing conditions and bird health. The increased airflow and improved feed conversion in tunnel-vented sheds helps to maintain bedding material within the optimal moisture range (NSW Agriculture 2004); and

• All sheds will be fitted with nipple drinkers and drip cups to minimise water spillage and reduce shed moisture.

Vegetation Screens • Vegetation screens will be established around the perimeter of the PPU as outlined in Section 3.17 and

shown on Figure 16. In addition to screening the Development, the plantings will act to effectively filter air movement, which will enhance dust deposition and odour dispersion.

• Vegetative screens act to increase the surface roughness and result in additional turbulence as the odour plumes pass through the permeable barrier (although this will be muted when the stability is high). Vegetative screens also act to partially remove fine dust particles, which also reduces the odour level in the plumes and gives a corresponding percentage reduction in the odour level as the plumes pass receptors downwind.

Operation and Maintenance • Regular monitoring and maintenance of the tunnel ventilation systems and bird drinkers will be undertaken

to avoid spillage, leaks and uneven distribution; • Stocking densities and bird health within each of the poultry sheds will be regularly checked and, if

necessary, appropriate corrective measures will be implemented; • Daily monitoring and maintenance of the bedding material will occur to identify, remove and replace any

caked material beneath drinking lines and/or areas with excessive moisture content; • Poultry litter (spent bedding material) will be promptly removed from the sheds and generally transported

off-site in covered trucks at the end of each production cycle during the clean-out phase. Wherever possible the handling of the material will be avoided during adverse climatic conditions, such as strong winds. The shed ventilation systems will not be used during the removal of bedding material;

• Dead birds will be collected from the sheds on a daily basis and stored in on-site chillers prior to removal from site;




Aspect/Commitment

• The insides of the poultry sheds and the surrounds will be maintained at all times to ensure a clean and sanitary environment; and

• During sanitisation, the amount of air released from the sheds while any sanitising scent is present will be minimised and, if possible, a low scent sanitiser will be utilised.

Particulate Matter

Construction • Dust will be minimised by “wetting” down surfaces being worked/carrying traffic in dry conditions; • Surface disturbance will be limited to the designated disturbance footprint required for construction; • Disturbed areas will be promptly rehabilitated and revegetated to a stable landform as described in Section

3.16 to prevent/minimise windblown dust; and • Where possible, vehicles on site will be confined to designated roadways. Development Design • The feed silos will be fully enclosed to both prevent the entry of rainwater and minimise emissions of

dust/particulate matter when loading and unloading. Operation • Regular monitoring and maintenance of the tunnel ventilation systems will be undertaken to ensure optimal

operating condition; • Regular maintenance of plant and equipment will be undertaken to ensure optimal operating condition; • Stocking densities and bird health within the poultry sheds will be regularly checked and, if necessary,

appropriate corrective measures will be implemented; and • Internal access roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise dust emissions and speed will be limited

to 40 km/h on unsealed internal roads.

Noise

Construction • Construction activities will be restricted to the following standard daytime hours:

- Monday to Friday - 7.00 am to 6.00 pm. - Saturday - 8.00 am to 1.00 pm. - No construction work will take place on Sundays or public holidays.

• Plant and equipment operators will be instructed on how to minimise noise generation at all times. Measures may include avoiding the operation of noisy plant and equipment simultaneously; and

• All plant and equipment will be maintained to meet regulatory and industry standards, as well as ensure optimal operating conditions.

Operation • Plant and equipment operators will be appropriately instructed on how to minimise noise generation at all

times. Measures may include avoiding the operation of noisy plant and equipment simultaneously; • Noise generating equipment purchased by the operator will comply with relevant occupational health and

safety requirements; • Emergency standby diesel generators will only be used when power from the electricity grid is lost and they

will be appropriately sited and housed to minimise noise emissions; • All plant and equipment will be maintained to meet regulatory and industry standards, as well as to ensure

optimal operating conditions; • A unidirectional traffic movement system, via a one-way circulation road around the perimeter of the PPU,

will be established to minimise the use of reversing alarms; • Internal access roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise noise levels; and • Suitable signage will be erected to direct traffic, limit traffic speed and minimise night time noise levels.

Traffic and Transport

Internal Access Road • The internal access road between The Ranch Farm 3 site and The Ranch Farm 4 site will be constructed to

a suitable strength and width to accommodate the expected heavy vehicle movements and their turn path requirements.

• The section of Tysons Road, previously upgraded in accordance with The Ranch Farm 1 development




Aspect/Commitment consent DA 2016/017, between Kidman Way and the proposed site access to The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (approximately 750 m in length) will be sealed.

Operation and Maintenance • All operational traffic will enter and exit the Development Site via the dedicated site access driveway off

Tysons Road (i.e. no operational traffic will utilise the existing access driveway from the Back Hillston Road).

• All internal roads will be appropriately maintained to minimise noise and dust emissions and provide safe driving conditions.

• The internal roads will be maintained within the PPU to enable heavy vehicles to enter, exit and manoeuvre in a forward direction.

• Suitable signage will be erected indicating internal traffic direction and speed limits to ensure the orderly and safe use of the site, as well as to minimise the potential for traffic conflict and noise.

• All internal roads will be maintained clear of obstruction and used exclusively for the purposes of transport, loading-unloading and parking. Under no circumstances will these areas be used for storage of goods or waste products.

• Heavy vehicles will follow designated B-double and road train routes, when travelling between the Development Site and servicing facilities in and around Griffith and Hanwood.

Water Resources

Construction • Disturbance will be limited to the smallest practicable area to allow for the essential site preparation and

construction activities. • All clean extraneous surface water from upslope will be diverted around areas of disturbance. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control structures will be installed and maintained in accordance with the

Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (OEH 2012) to prevent soil loss and sediment-laden runoff.


• VOAG 4 will undertake a geotechnical assessment of the site prior to detailed design to avoid any potential for structural integrity issues during construction of the poultry farm, if the groundwater bore (GW002984) is present. If the bore is located and if it has not previously been sealed, it will be decommissioned in consultation with DPI Water.

Development Design • Each poultry shed will be fully enclosed and have concrete flooring. • Each poultry shed will be surrounded by a dwarf concrete bund wall to prevent rainwater and runoff entering

the sheds and to allow for the controlled discharge of wash down water from the sheds. • The engineered surface water management system described in Section 3.15 will be implemented to

provide long-term structural controls to manage surface water runoff and ensure no off-site impacts. • On-site aerated wastewater management systems will be installed to manage the sewage generated by on-

site staff amenities and dwellings in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and Council requirements.

Operation • The surface water management system will be visually inspected on a monthly basis and following

significant rainfall events. Any required maintenance work (desilting, regrading and/or reshaping) will be promptly undertaken to ensure the system’s design capacity is maintained.

• The grassed swale drains between the poultry sheds will be carefully managed to minimise soil disturbance and maximise infiltration of runoff, as well as regularly slashed to encourage continual grass growth and associated nutrient up-take.

• Dry-cleaning practices at the end of each production cycle will be maximised within the poultry sheds prior to washing with water to minimise the volume of wash water, along with the amount of poultry litter (and associated sediments and nutrients) washed out of the sheds.

• The waste management systems described in Section 3.14 will be implemented to ensure that each waste stream generated by the Development is effectively managed and disposed of off-site. There will not be any on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials.





Aspect/Commitment

Biodiversity

Clearing • Clearing of vegetation should be carried out with care, in order to minimise impacts on native flora and

fauna. • Temporary exclusion fencing shall be installed along the boundaries of proposed access roads prior to

vegetation clearance to protect adjoining stands of native woodland. • All native trees removed to allow construction of the proposed access roads will be placed within adjoining

patches of native vegetation. • Tree protection fencing, consistent with the specifications of Australian Standard AS 4979-2009 Protection

of trees on development sites, will be installed around the tree protection zone of the veteran Kurrajong identified in Figure 7.

• Construction activities, particularly noise generating activities, within the vicinity of the veteran Kurrajong should be conducted carefully so as to avoid disturbance to potential breeding activities of the Wedgetail Eagle.

Construction • Disturbance will be limited to the smallest practicable area to allow for the essential site preparation and

construction activities. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control structures will be installed and maintained in accordance with the

Blue Book (Landcom 2004) and Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads (OEH 2012) to prevent soil loss and sediment-laden runoff.


• Revegetation along newly-created vegetation edges (e.g. alongside cleared access roads) using appropriate locally indigenous plant species. Fast-growing leguminous species will be planted. Appropriate species include Acacia deanei, subsp. paucijuga (Green Wattle) Acacia lineata (Streaked Wattle), Acacia havilandiorum (Needle Wattle), Acacia doratoxylon (Currawang), Eremophila sturtii (Turpentine Bush), Eremophila mitchelii (Budda) and Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine).

Operation • Buffer planting around the perimeter of the poultry sheds is proposed. Any such planting within 100 m of

existing patches of native vegetation will be undertaken using the above listed local native species. • The engineered surface water management system described in Section 3.15 will be implemented and

maintained to provide long-term structural controls to manage surface water runoff and ensure no off-site impacts.

• Maintenance of plantings, including weed control and replacement of plant losses, as required. • Weed management practices will be implemented to avoid the introduction and spread of exotic species.

Aboriginal Heritage

The following best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to safeguard Aboriginal heritage: • Disturbance activities must be confined within the determined development areas. Should the project

impacts change, including altering the impact area, then additional assessment may be warranted; • All staff and contractors employed to undertake ground disturbance activities should undertake a heritage

induction outlining the legislative protection of Aboriginal sites and objects; and • If any Aboriginal objects are uncovered, all works will immediately cease in that locale and the OEH will be

notified. The Unanticipated Finds protocol should be followed (refer Appendix H). Works will only recommence when an appropriate and approved management strategy has been agreed to by all of the relevant stakeholders.

Non-Aboriginal Heritage

Given that there are no items of non-Aboriginal heritage recorded within the Development Site or within the immediate surrounds, management/mitigation measures are not required.




Aspect/Commitment

Visual Amenity

Development Design • The poultry sheds will be constructed using a non-reflective colour-bond type material in an appropriate

shade, such as eucalyptus green. • External lighting will comprise individual light fixtures, with no broad area or flood lighting. • Vegetation screens will be established around the perimeter of the PPU as outlined in Section 3.17. Once

established, these plantings will visually screen development infrastructure and provide a high level of light screening once established.

Operation • Each light fixture will be aimed downwards and will only be used when necessary during times of low light

and/or heavy fog.

Greenhouse Gas

Development Design • Low lux internal shed lighting, which has a significantly reduced power demand compared to past lighting

practices, will be installed within the poultry sheds. Operation • External lighting will only be used when necessary during times of low light and/or heavy fog. • The integrity of the poultry sheds will be regularly checked to identify and rectify any air leaks, which place

additional load on ventilation fans. • Lighting, temperature, humidity and static pressure within the poultry sheds will be continuously monitored

and automatically adjusted to suit conditions. This will avoid unnecessary electricity and LPG usage. • Ventilation fans and heaters will be regularly maintained and serviced to ensure optimal performance and

efficiency.

Bushfire and Incident Management

The following measures will be implemented to reduce bushfire risk:

• A dedicated water supply in accordance with Part E of the NSW Rural Fire Service Guidelines for Single Dwelling Development Applications (RFS 2007) will be installed at the Development Site;

• Overhead electrical transmission lines will be installed within a 25 m clear zone which was developed in consultation with Essential Energy;

• Any gas services will be installed and maintained in accordance with AS/NZS 1596-2008 The storage and handling of LP gas;

• The grounds will be managed to ensure a reduced fuel load throughout and a compliant APZ; and • VOAG will include details of emergency bushfire management arrangements within the OEMP.


Page 126 Justification and Conclusion


9 JUSTIFICATION AND CONCLUSION

9.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development

Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is a primary objective of environmental protection in NSW. The objects of the EP&A Act adopt the principles of ESD and it is defined under Section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 as:

6(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes. Ecologically sustainable development can be achieved through the implementation of the following principles and programs:

(a) the precautionary principle - namely, that 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. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the

environment, and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options,

(b) inter-generational equity - namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations,

(c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity - namely, that conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration,

(d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms - namely, that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as: (i) polluter pays - that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of

containment, avoidance or abatement, (ii) the users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of

providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste,

(iii) environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

The overall objectives of ESD are to use, conserve and enhance natural resources. This ensures that ecological processes are maintained facilitating improved quality of life, now and into the future.

VOAG 4 understands that social, economic and environmental objectives are interdependent, and acknowledges that a well-designed and effectively managed operation will avoid significant and/or costly impact or degradation. The commitments made in this EIS, in the form of development design, best management practices and mitigation measures, demonstrate a commitment to environmental due diligence. The OEMP (refer Section 3.24) that will be prepared and implemented following development consent will ensure on-going commitment to the principles of ESD over the life of the Development.




The Precautionary Principle 9.1.1

The precautionary principle holds that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

A detailed understanding of the issues and potential impacts associated with the Development has been obtained via consultation and assessment to a level of detail commensurate with the scale of the proposal, the characteristics of the Development Site and surrounds and the legislative framework under which it is permissible. Specialist impact assessments have been undertaken in accordance with current best practice for environmental impacts relating to air quality (odour and particulate matter), flora and fauna, noise, traffic, and Aboriginal heritage. Additional aspects, including waste management, water resources, and visual amenity, have also been addressed. Where there is potential for adverse environmental impact, VOAG 4 has adopted the recommendations of the specialist impact assessments and committed to the implementation of the operational management and mitigation measures. To this end, there has been careful evaluation undertaken in order to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment.

Intergenerational Equity 9.1.2

Intergenerational equity is centred on the concept that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. There is a moral obligation to ensure that today’s economic progress, which will benefit both current and future generations, is not offset by environmental deterioration.

The primary objective of the Development is to establish an intensive broiler production farm, adopting best practice in design, operation and management, within the Griffith region to augment the domestic supply of meat chickens and meet the increasing demand for poultry products within the Australian market. The mitigation measures and management strategies listed in Section 7 have been identified to minimise the potential for adverse impact upon the local environmental and surrounding populace. Emphasis has been placed on anticipation and prevention of potential impacts as opposed to undertaking later remedial action, such as siting of the poultry sheds within a disturbed, cropped paddock, inclusion of an engineered surface water management system in the design of the farm layout, and locating the sheds such that odour levels are minimised at all three of the nearest residential receptors.

These actions and initiatives will assist in ensuring that current and future generations can enjoy equal and equitable access to social, environmental and economic resources through the maintenance of the health, diversity and production of the environment.

Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity 9.1.3

The principle of “conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity” holds that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration for development proposals.

Based on the level of existing site disturbance, the risk of adverse impact on any threatened species, populations, ecological communities or on local biodiversity in general within the surrounding environment is considered negligible. As discussed in Section 7.7, the Development is highly unlikely to substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat, disrupt the lifecycle of local or migratory species, or result in an invasive species that is harmful to the local or migratory species.

While there is a small amount of vegetation to be removed, this vegetation is not an EEC and, based on the dimensions and landscape context, could not be considered a significant element of biodiversity or an important area of habitat for locally occurring threatened species.




Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms 9.1.4

The principle of “improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms” deems that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services. The cost associated with using or impacting upon an environmental resource is seen as a cost incurred to protect that resource.

VOAG 4 will bear the costs associated with the avoidance, minimisation, mitigation and management of potential environmental and social impacts.

9.2 Analysis of Alternatives

General 9.2.1

It is necessary to consider any feasible alternatives to carrying out the development having regard to its objectives, including a consideration of the consequences of not carrying out the development.

VOAG 4 has made a conscious decision to expand the company’s operations into NSW to meet the increasing demand for poultry products in the Australian market. The Griffith region is the obvious choice, with the necessary support/servicing facilities, including an interdependent hatchery, feedmill and processing complexes. The poultry industry within the Griffith area is a perfect example of vertical integration where each of the operations produce a different product or service and these combine to satisfy a common need.

The increasing role of the poultry industry within the region plays an ever increasing role in the development of local agri-business. It is widely appreciated that the poultry industry has a good strategic fit and high recognition factor within the Griffith region. Management and labour expertise are available, local transport contractors are geared to the industry, and the community generally understands and accepts the specialist operation.

Alternative Sites and Farm Layout 9.2.2

The principal siting requirements for a poultry broiler development, such as that proposed, include:

• Proximity to a chicken hatchery facility, such as Baiada’s hatchery located on the outskirts of Griffith;

• Proximity to a reliable poultry feed source, such as Baiada’s feedmill located near Hanwood just south of Griffith;

• Proximity to a processing facility (including protein recovery plant), such as Baiada’s processing complex located near Hanwood just south of Griffith;

• Proximity to major regional and State transport routes, such as the Kidman Way;

• Adequate separation distances between other poultry farms for biosecurity purposes;

• Adequate separation distances to surrounding residential properties;

• Appropriate land use zoning and surrounding land use activities; and

• Adequate access to a reliable supply of water and electricity.

Any investigation will reveal that finding a site that is both available and meets all of the above criteria is very difficult. Selection of alternative sites must be mindful of transport access to each of the abovementioned support/servicing facilities. The matter of a reliable water supply is crucial and the cost of satisfying the necessary power requirements is sometimes prohibitive. Finding a site that already has a compatible agricultural land use is also preferable, and limits the amount of clearing required to establish the poultry sheds which is advantageous from a biodiversity perspective.




Prior to proceeding with The Ranch Poultry Production Complex, an extensive search for suitable sites for construction of poultry farms in the wider Griffith region was undertaken. This search included numerous meetings and discussions with the different councils and real estate agents in the area. The Ranch Poultry Production Complex site was chosen as a result of this search process in consideration of the factors listed above. The Ranch Poultry Production Complex site meets all of these requirements and has therefore been chosen as an appropriate and desirable site to develop The Ranch Farms 1 to 5.

In addition to alternative development sites, alternative PPU sites within the Development Site were considered by VOAG 4. The proposed PPU location is considered optimal in terms of minimising earthwork and construction requirements, minimising vegetation disturbance and maximising the separation distance from the proposed adjacent poultry operations (i.e. The Ranch Farm 3 and The Ranch Farm 5). The proposed location also avoids fragmenting and/or alienating the residual land within the Development Site available for agricultural production.

Consequences of Not Carrying Out the Development 9.2.3

The Ranch Farm 4 development will increase the supply of broiler poultry by around 4.56 million birds per year, which is integral to the industry’s strategy for continued growth in both the Griffith region and NSW, create four full-time equivalent jobs and generate around $6.4 million in poultry feed sales annual (based on the average price of feed at the time this EIS was prepared). The development of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. The Ranch Farms 1 to 5) will further increase and strengthen these figures.

The consequences of not proceeding with the Development therefore include:

• Adverse economic impacts on regional grain growers as the opportunity to increase the current market generated by VOAG 4/Baiada would be lost;

• Adverse economic impacts on those local businesses, transport operators and goods suppliers that service the poultry industry;

• No additional employment opportunities or flow-on benefits; and

• Adverse economic impacts on VOAG 4 associated with the need to investigate development opportunities elsewhere, with related problems to the vertical integration of the poultry industry within the Griffith region.

If the development does not proceed, the Carrathool LGA and the wider Griffith region may miss the accompanying economic and social boost, while VOAG 4 may miss the opportunity to establish a broiler production complex in NSW and fulfil contractual arrangements with Baiada for the supply of chickens. From VOAG 4’s perspective, it is imperative that the Development be permitted to cater for the immediate and projected long-term demands from Baiada.

9.3 Conclusion

The proposed Ranch Farm 4 has been assessed in this EIS in accordance with the EP&A Act and its regulation, the SEARs and input received from other government agencies. The environmental impact assessment of the Development has been multi-disciplinary, with specialists engaged to assess the key aspects, and involved consultation with relevant government agencies, surrounding residents and other relevant stakeholders.




The potential for adverse impact on the local environment and surrounding populace has been minimised by selective siting of the PPU and adoption of various development design features, best management practices and mitigation measures. While the Development may result in some externalised impacts associated with air quality, flora and fauna, noise emissions and traffic generation, the specialist impact assessments predict that the Development will comply with all relevant impact assessment criteria and can co-exist with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the specialist impact assessments have also assessed the cumulative air quality, noise emissions, vegetation clearing and traffic generation from The Ranch Poultry Production Complex (i.e. The Ranch Farms 1 to 5), with predictions concluding that these operations will also comply with all relevant impact assessment criteria. The impact to social amenity will be minimal, with no change to the day-to-day life of surrounding residents as a result of the Development and no additional demand for services or facilities.

It is considered that the Development can proceed without resulting in significant or long-term adverse impacts to the local environment and surrounding populace. The Development will be managed on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a site-specific OEMP, ensuring that the commitments made in this EIS, along with relevant statutory obligations and conditions of development consent (including EPL requirements), are fully implemented and complied with.

The Development is justified in socio-economic terms as a catalyst for sustained economic activity within the Carrathool LGA and wider Griffith region, including positive employment and flow-on benefits.


Page 131 References


10 REFERENCES

Ahern, C. R., McElnea, A. E., & Sullivan, L. A. (2004). Acid Sulfate Soils Laboratory Methods Guidelines. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines, and Energy. Indooroopilly: Queensland Government.

ASRIS (2015) Australian Soil Resource Information System. Available: http://www.asris.csiro.au/

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2015) Publications – Department of Agriculture. Available: www.abareconomics.com.au/publications

Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc. (2010) National Farm Biosecurity Manual For Chicken Growers.

Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc. (2013) Australian Chicken Meat Federation Website. Accessed www.chicken.org.au.

Australian Poultry CRC (2011) Dust and Odour Emissions from Meat Chicken Sheds, Australian Poultry CRC, Project No – 04-45.

Australian Poultry CRC (2008) National Animal Welfare Standards for the Chicken Meat Industry.

Austroads (2010) Guide to Road Design, Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections.

Bureau of Meteorology (2015) Australian Groundwater Explorer. Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/explorer/map.shtml

Bureau of Meteorology (2015) Climate statistics for Australian locations - Summary Statistics Griffith Airport AWS, Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_075041.shtml

Bureau of Meteorology (2015) Climate statistics for Australian locations - Summary Statistics Griffith CSIRO, Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_075028.shtml

Department of Agriculture (2015) Avian Influenza or Bird Flu

Eco Logical Australia (2011) Composite Vegetation Map for the Murrumbidgee Catchment: NSW Keith Vegetation Class Allocation (prepared for Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water Project 10COFGIS-0007).

Engineers Australia (2006) Australian Runoff Quality.

Keith D. (2004) Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes, Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.

Landcom (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 1

NSW Agriculture (2004) Agnote DAI-315 Odour Management Options for Meat Chicken Farms.

NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (2009) Interim Construction Noise Guideline.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2006) Assessment and management of odours from stationary sources in NSW.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_075041.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_.shtml


Page 132 References


NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2010) Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW.

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011) NSW Road Noise Policy.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (2012) Best Practice Guidelines for Meat Chicken Production in NSW – Manual 1 Site Selection and Development.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (2012) Best Practice Guidelines for Meat Chicken Production in NSW – Manual 2 Meat Chicken Growing Management.

NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1996) EIS Guideline - Poultry Farms.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2000) Industrial Noise Policy.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) Erosion and Sediment Control on Unsealed Roads.

NSW Office of Water (2009) Lower Murrumbidgee Groundwater Sources Groundwater Management Area 002 Groundwater Status Report – 2009 Available: http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/548433/avail_ground_lower_murrum_report_2009.pdf

NSW Office of Water (2011) Water resources and management overview Lachlan catchment. Available: http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/547884/catchment_overview_lachlan.pdf

NSW Office of Water (2015) Maximum Harvestable Right Dam Capacity Calculator. Available: http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-licensing/basic-water-rights/harvesting-runoff/calculator

NSW Office of Water (2015) Real Time Water Data. Available: http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm

NSW Rural Fire Service (2006) Planning for Bushfire Protection: A Guide for Councils, Planners, Fire Authorities and Developers.

OzArk (2016) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Aboriginal Heritage Assessment.

Parliament of Australia (2010) How Much Australia Emits. Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChange/whyClimate/human/howMuch

Primary Industries Standing Committee (2002) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry 4th Edition.

Primary Industries Standing Committee (2006) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Land Transport of Poultry 2nd Edition.

Queensland Department of Natural Resources (1997) Planning Guidelines Separating Agricultural and Residential Land Uses.

Resolve Planning (2007) Carrathool Sustainable Settlement Strategy.

RoadNet (2015) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 1 Traffic Impact Assessment

RoadNet (2016) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Traffic Impact Assessment

RSPCA (2013) RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards – Meat Chickens.

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/548433/avail_ground_lower_murrum_report_2009.pdf

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/548433/avail_ground_lower_murrum_report_2009.pdf

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/547884/catchment_overview_lachlan.pdf

http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm


Page 133 References


Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) (2014) The Biosecurity of Mass Poultry Mortality Composting.

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Centre for Agriculture Health and Safety (2005) Occupational Health and Safety Risk in the Australian Poultry Industry.

SLR (2016a) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Air Quality Impact Assessment.

SLR (2016b) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

SLR (2016c) The Ranch Poultry Production Complex - Farm 4 Flora and Fauna Assessment.

The Ranch Poultry Production Complex – Farm4 Environmental Impact Statement

Page 134 Abbreviations, Acronyms and Units


11 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND UNITS

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics

AEMR Annual Environmental Management Report

AHD Australian Height Datum

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

BAL Basic left turn treatment

Carrathool LEP Carrathool Local Environmental Plan 2012

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CIV Capital Investment Value

Council Carrathool Shire Council

DCP Development Control Plan

DoE Commonwealth Department of the Environment

DP Deposited Plan

DP&E NSW Department of Planning and Environment

DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries

DPI Water Department of Primary Industries Water

EAD Emergency Animal Disease

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPI Environmental Planning Instruments

EPL Environment Protection Licence

ESD Ecological Sustainable Development

GHG Greenhouse gas

The Ranch Poultry Production Complex – Farm4 Environmental Impact Statement

Page 135 Abbreviations, Acronyms and Units


GMA Groundwater Management Area

ha hectares

kg/m2 Kilograms per square metre

km kilometres

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area

LPG liquid petroleum gas

MHRDC Maximum Harvestable Right Dam Capacity

MIA Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area

ML Megalitre

NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

NSW New South Wales

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan

PIRMP Pollution Incident Response Management Plan

POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

PPU Poultry Production Unit

RMS NSW Roads and Maritime Service

SALIS Soils and Land Information System

SDS Safety Data Sheet

SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

SISD Safe intersection sight distance

SLR SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

SSD Stopping sight distance

VOAG 4 VOAG 4 Pty Ltd

WAL Water access licence

Documents

Environmental Impact Statement MAIN REPORT · 2016-03-02 · Type of poultry sheds : Tunnel-ventilated, fully-enclosed, climate-controlled . Maximum shed population : 50,000 birds