10.3 Groundwater

10.3.1 Assessment of Impacts

10.3.1.1 Design and Siting

Inappropriate design, siting and operation of the proposed development above vulnerable groundwater resources or in salinity hazard areas may adversely impact on those resources unless suitable measures can be put in place to protect those resources.

10.3.1.2 Construction

Site preparation and construction activities would involve clearing of vegetation, cut and fill bulk earthworks to design levels, infrastructure construction etc.

Storage of fuels and lubricants has the potential to impact ground water if not stored and handled appropriately. There is considered to be minimal potential for contamination of ground water from fuel spills or leaking equipment during construction of the proposed development. However, measures shall be implemented to ensure fuels are stored appropriately and any accidental leaks or spills are minimised and managed.

10.3.1.3 Operation The following activities associated with the operation of the proposed development have the potential to adversely impact on groundwater:

 Leachate of liquid wastes through the liner underlying the controlled drainage area as a result of integrity failure or exceedance of design criteria.  Spills or leaks of hazardous chemicals or substances stored or used on-site such as fuels, chemicals etc.  Inappropriate storage of solid wastes such as outside of the controlled drainage area.  Inappropriate utilisation of solid and liquid wastes on-site such as high application rates and ponding of liquid waste.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 167 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.3.2 Mitigation Measures

10.3.2.1 Design and Siting

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to groundwater as a result of the proposed development:

 Site selection considered the natural attributes and general suitability of the site with respect to soil characteristics (texture, depth, permeability), groundwater depth, and hydrogeological formation  Geotechnical investigation conducted to determine those areas within the controlled drainage area where the permeability of underlying soil/rock strata exceeds the design permeability, thus requiring lining to prevent soil leachate movement  The liner shall be capable of remaining effective when subject to the physical effects of livestock, machinery and water flow  Runoff external to the controlled drainage area is diverted away from the controlled drainage area  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are sited so that they do not pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater quality as a result of leaching  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are designed to enable the sustainable use of liquid waste and any solid waste that is utilised on-site  Facilities to store hazardous materials are designed to meet relevant guidelines and Australian Standards for the storage of hazardous and dangerous goods and spill management.

10.3.2.2 Construction The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to groundwater during construction of the proposed development:

 Erosion and sediment control measures implemented and maintained to minimise erosion and the release of sediment  Construction of diversion banks to separate contaminated stormwater from clean water  Where soil lining materials are used in areas subject to traffic (including pen surfaces and parts of the drainage system subject to mechanical cleaning), or in drains exposed to flow velocities that would otherwise cause scouring, then:  Sufficient depth of these materials is laid to prevent failure of the lining under the normal conditions  The liner is constructed to achieve the specified design permeability.  Fuels and lubricants are stored in appropriately bunded areas  Maintenance of vehicles and equipment to minimise leaks of oil or fuel  Provision and implementation of procedures to manage spills on site.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 168 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.3.2.3 Operation The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to groundwater during operation of the proposed development:

 Development and implementation of emergency and contingency plans detailing methods to manage spills or other emergencies on site, such as pipe breakages, storage lagoon overflows, pump failures etc.  Groundwater extraction managed to ensure sustainable drawdown rates  Solid waste storage established within the existing feedlot’s controlled drainage area to prevent contaminated leachate into groundwater resources  The land application of solid and liquid wastes is made at rates consistent with the ability of soils and crops grown in the on-site utilisation areas to sustainably utilise the applied nutrients, salts and organic matter, under the climatic conditions prevailing at the site  Soil condition is monitored periodically and soil tests are used where there is potential for deterioration of soil condition  Application rate of liquid waste is controlled to ensure that excessive ponding does not occur  The liner of all elements of the controlled drainage area such as drains, sedimentation basin(s), flow control structures etc. is maintained to ensure the integrity and ongoing compliance with specified design criteria  Liquid wastes shall be stored, treated and sustainably applied to land on-site by irrigation. Section 10.7 details the measures which would be used to manage and treat liquid wastes from the site.

10.3.3 Conclusion

Activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed development have the potential to generate impacts to groundwater.

Various mitigation measures have been adopted in the design and siting of the proposed development to prevent or minimise adverse impacts to groundwater. Various mitigation measures shall be implemented to prevent or minimise adverse impacts to groundwater during construction and operation of the proposed development.

Due to the design, siting and mitigation measures proposed and depth and strata characteristics to groundwater (clay/siltstones), no adverse impacts to groundwater quality are predicted as a result of the proposed development.

Further, an impermeable barrier will be constructed between the contaminant and underlying strata using a liner made of compacted clay or other suitable compactable soil materials in areas such as drains, sedimentation basin(s) and storage lagoon(s). The clay liner shall have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-9 m/s (0.1 mm/day) for distilled water with 1 m of pressure head (MLA, 2012).

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 169 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.4 Surface water

10.4.1 Assessment of Impacts

10.4.1.1 Design and Siting

Inappropriate design and siting of the proposed development may adversely impact surface waters external to the development site such as changes to hydrology including drainage patterns, surface runoff yield, flow regimes and groundwater.

10.4.1.2 Construction

Site preparation and construction activities would involve clearing of vegetation, cut and fill bulk earthworks to design levels, infrastructure construction etc. The soil exposed during these activities has the potential to erode during rainfall events, resulting in sediment transportation and impacts to surface waters.

Storage of fuels and lubricants has the potential to impact surface water if not stored and handled appropriately. There is considered to be minimal potential for contamination of surface water from fuel spills or leaking equipment during construction of the proposed development. However, measures shall be implemented to ensure fuels are stored appropriately and any accidental leaks or spills are minimised and managed.

The sedimentation basin(s) shall be constructed as part of the early works and utilised as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan. All stormwater runoff from the disturbed areas shall be directed to this point using diversion banks as required.

10.4.1.3 Operation The following activities associated with the operation of the proposed development have the potential to adversely impact on surface waters:

 Uncontrolled release of liquid wastes from controlled drainage area as a result of overflows, integrity failure or exceedance of design criteria  Spills or leaks of hazardous chemicals or substances stored or used on-site such as fuels, chemicals etc.  Surface runoff from the inappropriate application of liquid wastes to land impacting water chemistry, clarity, nutrient and toxicants, for example  Inappropriate storage of solid wastes such as outside of the controlled drainage area  On-site utilisation of solid and liquid wastes.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 170 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.4.2 Mitigation Measures

10.4.2.1 Design and Siting

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to surface water as a result of the proposed development:

 The proposed development is sited above the height of a 100 year average recurrence interval (Q100) flood level  Site selection considered the natural attributes and general suitability of the location for draining and capturing runoff from the proposed development  A controlled drainage area designed to an acceptable hydrological standard that prevents unauthorised discharges of runoff from areas which have high organic matter and therefore a high pollution potential  A vegetated buffer of 100m is provided between controlled drainage areas and drainage lines  Runoff external to the controlled drainage area is diverted away from the controlled drainage area  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are sited so that they do not pose an unacceptable risk to surface water quality as a result of stormwater runoff  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are designed to enable the sustainable use of liquid waste and any solid waste that is utilised on-site  Any facilities to store hazardous materials are designed to meet relevant guidelines and Australian Standards for the storage of hazardous and dangerous goods and spill management  Elements of the controlled drainage area are designed to capture contaminated runoff from within those areas which have high organic matter and therefore a high pollution potential and safely divert it to a sedimentation system as discussed in Section 7.5.10  The sedimentation system is designed to provide flow velocities less than 0.005 m/s, and discharge to a storage lagoon as discussed in Section 7.5.10.1  Storage lagoon(s) are designed to store runoff from the controlled drainage area without spilling or overtopping at an unacceptable frequency as discussed in Section 7.5.10.2  Appropriately designed outlet weirs and by-washes are used to discharge excess runoff during overtopping or spill events in the sedimentation system and storage lagoon.

10.4.2.2 Construction The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to surface water during construction of the proposed development:

 Erosion and sediment control measures implemented and maintained to minimise erosion and the release of sediment  Construction of the sedimentation basin(s) during early works on the site in order to retain stormwater runoff on-site and minimise release of sediment off-site

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 171 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Construction of exclusion banks to separate contaminated stormwater from clean water and prevent contaminated runoff from entering surface water  Fuels and lubricants are appropriately stored in bunded areas  Maintenance of vehicles and equipment to minimise leaks of oil or fuel  Provision and implementation of procedures to manage spills on site.

10.4.2.3 Operation The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to surface water during operation of the proposed development:

 Development and implementation of emergency and contingency plans within the EMP detailing methods to manage spills or other emergencies on site, such as pipe breakages, lagoon overflows, pump failures etc.  Maintenance of buffer zones around drainage lines to prevent contamination of surface waters  Solid waste to be stockpiled within a controlled drainage area to prevent contaminated runoff into clean water areas  The land application of solid and liquid wastes is made at rates consistent with the ability of soils and crops grown in the on-site utilisation areas to sustainably utilise the applied nutrients, salts and organic matter, under the climatic conditions prevailing at the site  Soil condition is monitored periodically and soil tests are used where there is potential for deterioration of soil condition  Application rates of liquid waste is controlled to ensure that excessive runoff does not occur  All elements of the controlled drainage area such as drains, sedimentation basin, storage lagoon, flow control structures etc. are cleaned and maintained to ensure their integrity and ongoing compliance with specified design criteria  Liquid wastes shall be stored, treated and sustainably applied to land on-site by irrigation when available. Section 7.8.5 details the measures which would be used to manage liquid waste from the proposed development.  Design discharge events from the storage lagoon shall be directed to a natural grassed discharge area. This grassed area shall filter and disperse the liquid waste whilst allowing some infiltration.

10.4.3 Conclusion

Activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed development has the potential to generate impacts to surface waters.

Various mitigation measures have been adopted in the design and siting of the proposed development to prevent or minimise adverse impacts to surface waters. Various mitigation measures shall be implemented to prevent or minimise adverse impacts to surface waters during construction and operation of the proposed development.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 172 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Due to the design, siting and mitigation measures proposed, no adverse impacts to surface water quality are predicted as a result of the proposed development.

10.5 Flooding and Stormwater

10.5.1 Existing environment

10.5.1.1 Flooding

The climate, topography and location of the subject property in the upper slopes of the Booborowie Creek catchment, some 200m elevation above the Booborowie Creek results in no flooding of the subject property.

Subsequently, no flood studies have been completed within proximity to the subject property.

10.5.1.2 Stormwater

The subject property has stormwater catchment areas, which eventually discharge to natural drainage lines and eventually to Booborowie Creek or to land (infiltration/evaporation). There is no existing stormwater system due to the undeveloped nature of the proposed development site and its rural character.

Topography within the proposed development site is generally sloping to towards a central drainage line between the two controlled drainage areas. The drainage of the proposed development site is shown on Figure 12.

10.5.2 Assessment of Impacts

10.5.2.1 Flooding

Inappropriate design and siting of the proposed development may adversely impact flood prone land or on flood behaviour resulting in:

 detrimental increases in the potential flood affectation of other development or properties  cause avoidable erosion, siltation, destruction of riparian vegetation or a reduction in the stability of river banks or watercourses  risk to life  unsustainable social and economic costs to the community.

As the proposed development is located at an elevation of some 200m above Booborowie Creek, the development is not located in flood prone area.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 173 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.5.2.2 Stormwater

During the construction phase, construction activities will include stripping of topsoil and excavation to proposed design grade levels. The primary risk occurs when soils are exposed during earthworks. During this time, if adequate erosion and sediment control measures are not adopted suspended sediment and associated pollutants can be mobilised and transported into the downstream receiving environment. A series of erosion and water quality control structures and good site practices would be needed to minimise the potential for adverse impacts during construction.

Once the proposed development is operational, surface runoff quantities have the potential to increase due to the impervious surfaces and concentration of runoff. The main pollutants of concern will be those associated with livestock manure.

Build-up of pollutants from vehicles such as hydrocarbons and combustion derivatives, lubricating oil, rubber and heavy metals such as lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, chromium, and nickel on road surfaces is predicted to be negligible and are unlikely to disperse in rainfall events.

The stormwater runoff shall be retained in the controlled drainage system and sustainably utilised on-site. The controlled drainage and treatment system is outlined in Section 7.7.1.11 and 7.8.5 and the predicted stormwater runoff sustainably utilised on-site is outlined in Section 7.8.5.1.

The recommended mitigation measures for the management of stormwater during construction and operation are outlined in Section 10.5.3.

10.5.3 Mitigation Measures

10.5.3.1 Flooding

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts from flooding or to flood behaviour and stormwater as a result of the proposed development:

 The proposed development is sited above the height of a 100 year average recurrence interval (Q100) flood level  Site selection considered the natural attributes and general suitability of the site for draining and capturing runoff from the proposed development  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are sited so that they do not pose an unacceptable risk to surface water quality as a result of flood events  Solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are designed to enable the sustainable use of liquid waste and any solid waste that is utilised on-site.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 174 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.5.3.2 Stormwater

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts from stormwater as a result of the proposed development:

 Separation of ‘clean water’ and ‘dirty water’ during construction and operation with diversion banks and/or other relevant control structures diverting ‘clean water’ from undisturbed areas around disturbed areas  Implementation of erosion control techniques based upon effective use of construction practices, structural controls and vegetative measures. Erosion control measures would be temporary for the construction phase of the proposed development  Require regular maintenance of erosion control measures  The installation of appropriate sediment control measures to ensure that any eroded material is trapped and retained prior to leaving the construction site  Require regular maintenance and cleaning of sediment control measures  Controlled drainage area(s) designed to an acceptable hydrological standard that prevents unauthorised discharges of runoff from production pen areas which have high organic matter and therefore high pollution potential  Runoff external to the controlled drainage area is diverted away from the controlled drainage area to existing natural drainage lines  Elements of the controlled drainage area(s) are designed to capture contaminated runoff from within those areas which have high organic matter and therefore a high pollution potential and safely divert it to a sedimentation system as discussed in Section 7.5.10  A sedimentation system is designed to provide flow velocities less than 0.005 m/s, and discharge to a storage lagoon as discussed in Section 7.5.10.1  A storage lagoon designed to store runoff from the controlled drainage area without spilling or overtopping at an unacceptable frequency as discussed in Section 7.5.10.2  Appropriately designed outlet weirs and by-washes are used to discharge excess runoff during overtopping or spill events in the sedimentation system and storage lagoon  Vehicles are maintained to minimise leaks of hydrocarbons, lubricating oil etc.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 175 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.6 Biodiversity (Flora and Fauna)

10.6.1 Introduction

The loss and modification of native vegetation and habitat can present serious risks to the persistence of native flora and fauna.

The proposed development shall have no direct impacts on native vegetation and habitat as the proposed development site is currently cultivated cropping land and devoid of vegetation. No clearing of this vegetation is required and buffers from liquid and solid waste utilisation have been allowed to property boundaries and any existing vegetation.

Subsequently, no biodiversity assessment has been undertaken.

10.6.2 Assessment of Impacts

10.6.2.1 Direct Impacts

The majority of the subject property on which the development is proposed has been previously cleared, primarily for cattle grazing and cultivation purposes and has been impacted to varying degrees by weed invasion and overgrazing by stock and feral species. The impact of this action is that the remnant vegetation communities are now largely confined to small areas fringing draining lines and isolated clusters of paddock trees, with consequential habitat fragmentation effects on the indigenous biota.

A consequence of the intensive land-use activities is that pasture grasses and to a lesser extent weeds have colonised much of the subject property.

The proposed development shall have no direct impacts on remaining riparian areas fringing drainage lines as no clearing of this vegetation is required and buffers from liquid and solid waste utilisation have been allowed.

The proposed development shall have no direct impacts on vegetation communities within grazing areas as these areas have already been significantly modified from their native state for cropping and grazing and isolated clusters of paddock trees shall not be removed.

10.6.2.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts may be experienced on areas outside of or adjacent to the proposed development site as a result of the construction and/or operation. Such impacts would largely operate on a short to medium timeframe and would be minimised where possible through management procedures.

A range of indirect impacts could occur as a result of the proposed development, these include:

 Increased spreading of pest plants  Erosion or sedimentation in areas adjoining construction and operational activities V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 176 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Increased noise, dust and light from construction and operational activities.

10.6.3 Mitigation Measures

Impacts to biodiversity have been considered throughout the site selection and design process. Where possible, impacts to species and habitat of conservation significance have been avoided.

Management and mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise impacts on biodiversity during the construction and operation stages of the proposed development. These include:

 Clearing restricted to those areas required for development and firebreaks  Methods and communication tools to monitor road strike and mortality of wildlife  Any areas to be rehabilitated with species of local providence.

10.6.4 Conclusion

It is expected that, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed development would not impact biodiversity.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 177 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.7 Land Capability for Waste Utilisation

10.7.1 Introduction

The proposed development would produce solid and liquid waste during its operation and would require licensing approvals for utilisation of liquid and solid waste onto land. An Environment Protection Licence (EPL) would be required from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

The characteristics of the waste utilisation areas and their location relative to residences, surface waters, and groundwater need to be known. Assessment of these characteristics will identify the constraints to solid and liquid waste utilisation and assist with adoption and implementation of mitigation measures. The key factors governing the suitability of a site for solid and liquid waste utilisation are:

 Topography  Soil considerations  Proximity of surface and groundwater  Proximity of residences.

This section provides a review of the areas proposed for solid and liquid waste utilisation based on topography, soil, groundwater and surface water characteristics.

10.7.2 Existing Environment

10.7.2.1 Topography

The liquid and solid waste utilisation area comprises flat to gently undulating areas and is currently cultivated and cropped with winter cereals.

Due to the undulating nature of region and low volume of liquid waste available for utilisation, a fixed irrigation area and system is not proposed. Rather, when liquid waste is available for utilisation a slurry tanker will be used to distribute liquid waste onto the utilisation area.

10.7.2.2 Soil Characteristics

The characteristics of the soils in the proposed solid and liquid waste utilisation areas will impact on the suitability of the land for liquid and solid waste utilisation and level of management required.

As the liquid and solid waste from the proposed development shall be high in nutrients and possibly salts, it is important that the chemical properties of the soil are assessed to determine the management requirements for protecting against soil degradation which could result in:

 degraded soil structure  restricted plant growth

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 178 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 erosion  salinity  release of contaminants to surface or groundwaters.

10.7.2.3 Methodology

Assessment of the soil characteristics involved the following steps:

 Desktop review – prior to conducting fieldwork, discussions with relevant government stakeholders and the farm manager were undertaken, and collection and collation of land resource information covering the area. This allowed the soil groups on the subject property to be identified for follow-up subsurface assessment.  Soil analysis – Soil samples from pre-determined depths were forwarded to a NATA accredited laboratory for testing for a range of soil properties.

A land suitability assessment that focused on the investigation and determination of the surface conditions and capability of the land on which solid and liquid waste utilisation was undertaken.

Broadly, the utilisation area can be divided into two soil groups as outlined in Section 5.8. Although the utilisation area has been divided into two groups, these boundaries are not exact and often transitions between soils occur rather than an abrupt change from one distinct soil type to another. The soil boundaries are shown on Figure 14.

10.7.2.4 Surface water and Groundwater

The proposed development is required to be sited, designed, constructed and operated to prevent or minimise adverse impacts on groundwater and surface waters external to the developments’ controlled drainage area and external to solid and liquid waste utilisation areas (MLA, 2012a, Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA), 2006).

Potential impacts on current and future groundwater users and downstream surface water users and resources need to be considered. These risks can be minimised by ensuring:

 careful selection of suitable sites for solid and liquid waste utilisation  adequate buffer zone between solid and liquid utilisation area and drainage lines  annual application rates would be based on annual soil tests and not exceed nutrient recommendations for a particular crop, soil type or target yield  application of liquid wastes would occur prior to planting with timing and application rates based on soil moisture and nutrients levels  the plant/soil mantle within and down-gradient of the liquid waste utilisation area is capable of immobilising any potential contaminants in the liquid waste.  adequate buffer zone between solid and liquid waste utilisation areas and surface water and groundwater bores used as a domestic water source.

The proposed development and associated solid and liquid utilisation areas have been sited and designed to minimise any adverse impacts to groundwater and surface waters. Section 7.5 outlines

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 179 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

the siting and design considerations to minimise any adverse impacts to groundwater and surface waters. Further, Sections 10.3 and 10.4 outline the potential risks and mitigation measures proposed to minimise adverse impacts to groundwater and surface waters.  Review of strata log details for various groundwater bores on the subject property identifies the presence of one or more impervious geological strata such as compacted clay, cemented clay bands above the groundwater aquifer. These layers shall minimise deep percolation from reaching the aquifer.

10.7.2.5 Climate

Beef cattle feedlots can be located in a wide range of climates. However, climatic factors impact on a diverse range of issues. These include:

 heat and cold stress and animal welfare  water requirements (drinking, cattle washing)  animal productivity and feed conversion  odour  dust  drainage  waste management and utilisation.

The climate of the proposed development site is provided in Section 5.1. The climate of the area is typically Mediterranean (warm and temperate), characterised by higher winter rainfall than in summer and hot summers and cool winters. Table 5 shows that the mean annual rainfall for the proposed development site is about 456 mm/year with an annual average pan evaporation of 1700 mm.

10.7.3 Solid Waste Utilisation

The subject property has an existing cropping area incorporating about 885 ha as shown in Figure 21. This cropping area is available for liquid and solid waste utilisation. Due to the suitability of soil types on the subject property (Section 10.7.5) and the on-site generation of solid waste suitable for use as a soil conditioner and fertiliser, solid waste shall be utilised on the subject property. Composted solid waste shall be spread between spring and autumn after the harvest of the winter crops.

As shown in Table 27, it is expected that approximately 2,905 t of dry matter is available for utilisation after stockpiling. This equates to about 4,470 t of solid waste based on a moisture content of 35%.

Table 34 and Table 35 shows a nutrient balance that has been calculated for solid waste utilisation based on the available area for solid waste utilisation on the subject property and potential crop nutrient removal from winter oaten silage and barley harvested as grain. BEEFBAL (QPIF 2004) was used to estimate the volume of solid waste generated by the proposed development along with the nutrient composition of the solid waste.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 180 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

The average nutrient composition of the stockpiled solid waste is shown in Table 26 and a nutrient composition of 1.4% N, 0.5% P and 1.5% K (dry matter basis) was assumed based on nutrient composition analyses from solid waste samples taken from the existing feedlot’s solid waste stockpiles.

Table 34 – Solid waste nutrient balance (Oaten Silage) Units NitrogenPhosphorus Potassium Stockpiled solid waste kg DM/year 43,200 14,280 44,820 Available for crop uptake kg DM/year 34,560* 14,280 44,820 Nutrients removed** kg DM/ha/year 63 12 113 Minimum area required to utilise ha 550 1,190 396 all the nutrients available *Assumed 20% N volatilisation during spreading and from soil surface. **Assumed oaten silage yield 4.4 t DM/ha

As shown in Table 34, the limiting nutrient is phosphorus. The subject property’s waste utilisation area of 885 ha, can sustainably utilise some 75% (10,710 kg based on phosphorus) of the generated solid waste with the remainder being transported off site for utilisation in those years when no liquid waste is applied and oaten silage is grown.

Table 35 – Solid waste nutrient balance (Barley - grain) Units Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Stockpiled solid waste kg DM/year 43,200 14,280 44,820 Available for crop uptake kg DM/year 34,560 14,280 44,820 Nutrients removed** kg DM/ha/year 42 8 12 Minimum area required to utilise ha 822 1,785 3,735 all the nutrients available *Assumed 20% N volatilisation during spreading and from soil surface. **Assumed barley yield 2.5 t DM/ha

As shown in Table 35, the limiting nutrient is potassium, but as there is no recognised environmental impact from excess potassium, the next limiting nutrient is phosphorus. The subject property’s waste utilisation area of 885 ha, can sustainably utilise some 50% (7,140 kg based on phosphorus) of the generated solid waste with the remainder being transported off site for utilisation in those years when no liquid waste is applied and cereal crops only are grown.

The rationale for the use of solid waste on the cropping area of the subject property is to provide the appropriate agronomic conditions for the growth of crops and/or improved pasture on this area. Prior to the addition of solid waste to the solid waste utilisation area, soil and manure analysis would be undertaken to establish baseline nutrient levels and the required amount of solid waste for the crops to be grown as is the current practice.

The remainder of solid waste generated from the proposed development would be stockpiled within the solid waste and processing area before being transported off-site to be used on other farming properties owned by the proponent.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 181 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.7.4 Liquid Waste Utilisation

A sustainable liquid waste utilisation system will achieve a balance between the nutrients applied in the liquid waste with the nutrient requirements of the crop while protecting the environment from potential pollution in runoff and percolation.

Additionally, the amenity of the surrounding environment and meeting the needs on a social and ecological level are important considerations in sustainability.

There are a number of commercially available tools to assist with water and nutrient balance calculations such as WASTLOAD and MEDLI (Model for Effluent Disposal Using Land Irrigation (Gardner et al., 1996).

WASTLOAD, a spreadsheet model for calculating the sustainable spreading rates of solid and liquid wastes has been developed by PIRSA in 2006. MEDLI is a Windows® based computer model for designing and analysing effluent reuse systems for intensive rural industries, agri-industrial processors (e.g. abattoirs), sewage treatment plants and other effluent producers using land irrigation. MEDLI was developed jointly by the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control, the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (Gardner et al., 1996).

As outlined in Section 7.8.5.1 it is expected that approximately 28.4 ML of liquid waste is available for utilisation. As outlined in Section 7.8.5.1, if the liquid waste has 720 mg/L of nitrogen, this equates to 100 mm of irrigation providing some 720 kg/ha/year of nitrogen. Most crops and pastures have a limit to the amount of nitrogen that can be taken up by plants, therefore, often the main issue is to manage the amount of nitrogen, not the amount of water.

For the purposes of mass balance calculations, the nutrient composition of the liquid waste has been assumed to be 720 mg/l of Nitrogen and 120 mg/l of Phosphorus and 1400 mg/L of Potassium.

Table 36 and Table 37 gives the annual balance of nutrients in the liquid waste for utilisation for two cropping scenarios – oaten silage and barley harvested as grain.

Table 36 – Liquid waste nutrient balance (Oaten Silage) Units NitrogenPhosphorus Potassium Nutrients in liquid waste kg /year 20,400 1,700 42,575 Available for crop uptake kg/year 16,320* 1,700 42,575 Nutrients removed** kg DM/ha/year 63 12 113 Minimum area required to utilise ha 259 141 375 all the nutrients available *Assumed 20% N volatilisation during application and from soil surface. **Assumed oaten silage yield 4.4 t DM/ha

The existing area available for waste utilisation is 885 ha (Section 7.5.11.2). Table 36 shows that the most limiting nutrient is potassium, but as there is no recognised environmental impact from excess potassium, the next limiting nutrient is nitrogen.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 182 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

The behaviour of nitrogen in plant-soil systems is complex and includes additions and losses to the system as well as transformations of the forms of nitrogen. The capacity of an irrigation system to use nitrogen can be maintained and restored over time as the removal of nitrogen from liquid waste largely depends on biological processes. To calculate the nitrogen balance nitrogen inputs are compared with nitrogen losses.

The area required for complete nitrogen uptake is 259 ha when oaten silage is grown.

Table 37 – Liquid waste nutrient balance (Barley - grain) Units NitrogenPhosphorus Potassium Nutrients in liquid waste kg /year 20,400 1,700 42,575 Available for crop uptake kg/year 16,320 1,700 42,575 Nutrients removed** kg DM/ha/year 42 8 12 Minimum area required to utilise ha 388 212 3,548 all the nutrients available *Assumed 20% N volatilisation during application and from soil surface. ** Assumed barley yield 2.5 t DM/ha

Table 37 shows that the most limiting nutrient is potassium with nitrogen being the next limiting nutrient. The area required for complete nitrogen uptake is 388 ha when cereal crops are grown.

Subsequently, in years when 28.4 ML of liquid waste is available for utilisation and based on the modelled nutrient concentrations up to 40% of the waste utilisation area may have liquid waste applied.

10.7.5 Soil Suitability Assessment

The soils of the liquid and solid waste utilisation areas were characterised and assessed as to the suitability for liquid and solid waste utilisation. A number of soil cores were excavated and representative samples from 0-10cm depths were taken and analysed for a suite of chemical parameters.

The chemical properties of the depths sampled are presented in Table 38.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 183 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Table 38 – Soil analysis results – Chemical parameters Parameter Units S1 S2 S3 Depth (cm) 0-10 0-10 0-10

pH (CaCl2) 5.7 5.3 6.0 Conductivity µS/cm 153 136 166 Total Nitrogen mg/kg 75 - - Phosphorus – Colwell mg/kg 45 54 153 Potassium mg/kg 758 693 633 Organic Carbon % 1.52 1.61 1.54 Sodium mg/kg 120 46 69 Sulphur mg/kg 35.5 25.9 7.6 Exchangeable Sodium meq/100g 0.53 0.20 0.3 Exchangeable Potassium meq/100g 0.60 0.17 0.13 Exchangeable Calcium meq/100g 7.0 6.6 5.7 Exchangeable Magnesium meq/100g 2.1 1.9 1.8 Boron mg/kg 0.9 0.88 1.04 Copper mg/kg 3.5 3.29 3.46 Zinc mg/kg 2.06 2.12 3.52 Manganese mg/kg 27.27 35.09 20.11 Iron mg/kg 17.13 32.39 34.44

10.7.5.1 pH (CaCl2)

The pH of the soils range from neutral to mildly alkaline (pH 5.3 to 6.0) in the surface (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). These results are typical values expected for the type of soils encountered.

Soil pH in the range found at the soil monitoring sites is considered acceptable for pasture and crop growth and should not affect the availability of nutrients, toxic elements and chemical species to plant roots.

10.7.5.2 Total Nitrogen

Total nitrogen results from the soils sampled show a total N level of 75 mg/kg in the surface (0- 10cm). This value is considered low (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). High total N in the soil provides strong and stable structure and provides a plant nitrogen source after mineralisation by soil microbes.

10.7.5.3 Phosphorus

The surface (0-10cm) phosphorus concentrations range from 45 to 153 mg/kg. The surface phosphorus results are high and indicate that phosphorus levels are sufficient (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007).

10.7.5.4 Exchangeable Cations

The exchangeable calcium levels in the topsoil (10cm) are considered moderate (6.3-7.9 meq/kg) for these soils. Similarly, the exchangeable magnesium levels are considered moderate (1.6-

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 184 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

2.3 meq/kg). This suggests that the soils are not strongly leached and that plant growth would not be limited as a result.

The exchangeable sodium levels in the topsoil (10cm) are considered low to moderate (0.21-0.32 meq/kg).

Similarly, in the topsoil (10cm), the exchangeable potassium levels are considered high (1.19-1.53 meq/kg) in these soils.

10.7.5.5 Salinity

Salinity refers to the total dissolved salts in a liquid or in a soil solution. Salts are mostly added to the soil through soil formation, hydrologic processes and rainfall (DNR, 1997). However irrigation, especially with liquid waste can add significant quantities of salt to the soil. Electrical conductivity (EC1:5) and chloride levels were examined in the results from the soil sampling in the solid waste utilisation areas to establish current salinity levels.

The current EC1:5 levels in the soils indicate salinity is considered low (136-166 µS/m) for the surface soil. Crops that are moderately sensitive to salinity may be affected.

Annual monitoring of salinity shall identify any trends in soil salinity and potential accumulation of salts in the soils as a result of salts applied in the liquid and/or solid waste.

10.7.6 Irrigation System Components

10.7.6.1 Balancing (Wet Weather) Storage

Due to the variation in climate and weather patterns, there will be periods of wet weather when irrigation is not possible. Therefore, to prevent discharge of liquid waste from the site, during periods of wet weather the liquid waste shall be temporarily held in the storage lagoon(s) until conditions are suitable for irrigation.

As discussed in Section 7.5.10.2, the storage lagoon(s) have been sized such that an acceptable overtopping frequency is achieved.

10.7.6.2 Application Method

Application of liquid waste to land shall be via slurry tanker using a low pressure overhead spray system.

This type of system provides uniform application of the liquid waste and at a rate less than the permeability of the soil, suitability for the range of soil types on the subject property and crops to be grown and ease of management.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 185 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.7.6.3 Wet-Weather Discharge

Wet-weather discharge from a site is defined as the discharge of liquid waste from the subject property boundary.

Whilst, the storage lagoons(s) has been designed with an acceptable overtopping frequency in accordance with relevant guidelines, wet-weather discharge may occur particularly during periods of wet weather with a recurrence interval of greater than 1 in 20 years.

Therefore, during wet weather if discharge from the storage lagoon(s) is necessary, it shall be engineered and managed to occur in a controlled and organised manner. Ideally, during wet weather, a steady discharge at a uniform depth shall be considered. Liquid waste will be treated and diluted as it passes through grassed areas to lower reaches of the subject property so that “clean” runoff leaves the site at the boundary.

10.7.6.4 Irrigation System Management

10.7.6.5 Scheduling

Irrigation scheduling of liquid waste is dependent on three main factors:

 the quality of the liquid waste and nutrient requirements  the moisture content of the soil and the amount of water needed to water the root zone  weather considerations – wind rainfall and temperature.

Irrigation would occur only on suitable, selected areas within the proposed liquid waste utilisation area in any year. Irrigation scheduling would be closely supervised by the Farm Manager. The irrigation schedule would be established to sustainably manage the application of liquid waste and the volume of the storage lagoon(s). Liquid waste would be applied primarily during the months of March-May prior to the planting of winter crops.

10.7.7 Mitigation Measures

Sustainable management of liquid and solid waste utilisation will involve measures which include the operation, monitoring, and reporting for the systems. Annual review of the performance of the irrigation management system from data collected on operation and environmental performance will assist with identifying areas of risk and potential improvements to the system. Elements of the measures are outlined below.

10.7.7.1 Monitoring

The most important aspect of meeting environmental requirements as well as satisfying licence conditions is monitoring of the liquid and solid waste utilisation system.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 186 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Monitoring of the liquid waste irrigation system can be broken down into operational and environmental performance.

10.7.7.2 Operational Monitoring On the operational side, data needs to be collected to assist with day to day decisions regarding:

 irrigation scheduling  system management during irrigation to prevent over watering

To keep track of operational activities as they occur, records shall be kept such as volume irrigated, crop type, mass harvested and removed, stocking rates where applicable.

10.7.7.3 Environmental Performance Monitoring

The systematic collection of data to quantify the levels of potential pollutants in the receiving environment shall be undertaken to monitor environmental performance. These data provide essential information regarding environmental performance and non-conformances trigger the review of management strategies to ensure that environmental objectives are met.

To ensure that remedial action can be taken early, a suite of sampling and records are recommended as outlined in Section 7.8.15. In summary, these include:   volume of liquid waste stored and applied  liquid waste quality monitoring  soil monitoring  groundwater monitoring  climate – rainfall.

Monitoring would be undertaken in accordance with the requirements outlined in the EPL and using techniques outlined in EPA guidelines.

10.7.8 Conclusion

The proposed development shall generate substantial volumes of liquid and solid waste. Liquid waste would be collected in the controlled drainage area and drain into the sedimentation basin(s) and then into the storage lagoon(s). Solid waste shall be scraped from the pen surface and stockpiled in a dedicated storage area within the controlled drainage area of the existing feedlot.

The characteristics of the waste utilisation areas and their location relative to residences, surface waters, and groundwater have been assessed to identify the constraints to solid and liquid waste utilisation and assist with adopting and implementation of mitigation measures. The key factors governing the suitability of a site for solid and liquid waste utilisation are:

 Topography  Soil considerations V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 187 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Proximity of surface and groundwater  Proximity of residences.

It is concluded that topography of the utilisation areas are well-suited to the type of application methods proposed. The liquid waste utilisation area has well-graded, uniform slopes and liquid waste shall be applied with mobile slurry tanker. Therefore, there no issues associated with poor drainage and ponding are expected.

The characteristics of the soils in the proposed solid and liquid waste utilisation areas are well suited for waste application as they are suitable for cropping, have moderate to high water holding capacity, not prone to waterlogging within the root zone and can withstand cultivation without incurring significant erosion. Further, the subject property has been a cropping property for some time. This suggests that the soils are suitable for application of liquid and solid waste.

The proposed development and associated solid and liquid utilisation areas have been sited and designed to minimise any adverse impacts to groundwater and surface waters. Various mitigation measures include riparian buffers and sustainable utilisation of applied nutrients.

The proposed development has some 885 ha of land available for the utilisation of liquid and solid waste. Based on the estimated solid waste generation, some 50%-75% is able to be utilised on-site. The remaining solid waste shall be transported off-site for utilisation on adjoining properties on by the proponent.

The proposed development incorporates on-site utilisation of liquid waste from the storage lagoon(s) to land via irrigation.

A sustainable liquid waste irrigation management system will achieve a balance between the use of liquid waste for irrigation with the nutrient requirements of the crop while protecting the environment from potential pollution. Additionally, the amenity of the surrounding environment and meeting the needs on a social and ecological level are important considerations in sustainability.

The assessment investigated the soil characteristics and concluded that the soil is capable of absorbing the level of nutrients contained within the liquid waste. The assessment also confirmed the area available for waste utilisation (885 ha) is adequate to sustainably irrigate the liquid waste.

Overall, the assessment concluded that there is sufficient land available with characteristics suitable for the sustainable application of all the liquid and a proportion of solid waste.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 188 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.8 Noise and Vibration

10.8.1 Introduction

This section discusses the potential impacts from noise and vibration associated with the proposed development; including mitigation measures when practicable.

The sources of noise emissions from the proposed development include:

 Plant and machinery used to construct the proposed development  Feed storage and processing equipment (electric motors, conveyors, roller mills) and mobile plant (feed trucks, tractors, front-end loaders etc.) during operation of the proposed development.  Livestock  Livestock, feed commodity and solid waste transport vehicles both on-site and off-site.

Potential noise impacts are expected to be minimal based on the implementation of a number of mitigation measures, the location of the proposed development and the absence of nearby residential facilities will limit any adverse impacts.

The sources of vibration from the construction and operation of the proposed development include:

 Continuous construction activities such as bulk earthworks machinery, vibrating compactors  Infrequent activities such as occasional dropping of heavy equipment, loading and unloading steel.  Feed processing equipment such as the grain movement and milling system  Livestock, feed commodity and solid waste transport vehicles.

No blasting, impact pile driving or jack hammers shall be used during the construction of the proposed development.

10.8.2 Assessment of Impacts

There is potential for impacts of noise on nearby residences and other sensitive land uses as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed development.

Due to the large separation distances from the proposed development and sensitive receptors (single rural residences being a minimum of some 3 km), the topography and landform and lack of certain vibration generating activities (blasting, jack-hammering, piling), it is predicted that no sensitive receptor shall be potentially impacted by vibration as a result of the construction and/or operation of the proposed development.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 189 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.8.2.1 Construction

Each stage of the proposed development is estimated to take approximately 5-6 months depending on weather conditions to construct after receiving development consent from the Regional Council of Goyder and an environment protection licence from the EPA (SA). The primary equipment that may be used during the construction of the proposed development is shown in Table 39. Jack hammers, pile-drivers and blasting shall not be used during construction.

Table 39 – Main equipment used in construction

Type Purpose Bulldozer (large) Vegetation clearing, topsoil clearing, bulk earthworks Scraper Bulk earthworks, sedimentation basin / storage lagoon construction Excavation of soil for pens, sedimentation basin (s), storage lagoon(s), Excavator drains Grader Finish grading, road base preparation, trimming roads Trucks Haulage of materials to site Batch Plant Concrete batching Concrete Truck Placement of concrete for feed bunks, aprons, structural foundations etc.

Table 40 outlines the range of equipment that may be used during the construction of the proposed development along with typical sound pressure levels. The sound pressure levels shown in Table 40 are generalised values of construction machinery and equipment that have either been reproduced from Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (SA) (2014) or Australian Standard 2436 (Australian Standards, 2010).

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 190 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Table 40 – Typical sound power level from construction equipment (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (SA), 2014) Equipment Sound Pressure Level dB(A) Source 7m 20m 50m 100m 200m *

eq eq eq eq eq max max max max max L L L L L L L L L L

(15min) (15min) (15min) (15min) (15min) Asphalt Truck/Sprayer 106 81 81 72 72 64 64 58 58 52 52 Backhoe 104 79 83 70 74 62 66 56 60 50 54 Batch Plant 116 91 90 82 81 74 73 68 67 62 61 Bobcat (skid-steer loader ) 85 76 68 62 56 Bulldozer (large) 108 92 95 83 86 75 78 69 72 63 66 Bulldozer (small) 106 90 93 81 84 73 76 67 70 61 64 Chainsaw (4-5hp) 110 89 92 80 83 72 75 66 69 60 63 Cherry picker 80 71 63 57 51 Compactor 113 88 79 71 65 59 Compressor (silenced) 101 76 67 59 53 67 Concrete Truck 109 84 85 75 76 67 68 61 62 55 56 Concrete Vibrator 103 78 80 69 71 61 63 55 57 49 51 Delivery Truck 107 83 88 74 79 66 71 60 65 54 59 Dump Truck 117 83 90 74 81 66 73 60 67 54 61 Dump Truck (50t) - loaded 110 76 90 67 81 59 73 53 67 47 61 Dump Truck (50t) - 117 83 90 74 81 66 73 60 67 54 61 unloaded Tracked Excavator (5t) 100 77 68 60 54 48 Tracked Excavator (45t) 107 83 90 74 81 66 73 60 67 54 61 Forklift 106 81 72 64 58 52 Front-end loader 113 88 90 79 81 71 73 65 67 59 61 Generator 99 78 81 69 72 61 64 55 58 49 52 Grader 110 85 90 76 81 68 73 62 67 56 61 Hand tools (electric) 102 77 68 Hand tools (pneumatic) 116 91 82 Hand-held vibrating 83 74 66 60 54 compactor Jackhammer 121 96 87 79 73 67 Loader moving with full 105 76 67 70 59 53 47 bucket Mobile Crane 104 88 91 79 82 71 74 65 68 59 62 Road Truck 107 83 88 74 79 66 71 60 65 54 59 Roller 82 88 73 79 65 71 59 65 53 59 Scraper 116 85 98 76 89 68 81 62 75 56 69 Tub Grinder & Mulcher (40- 116 91 95 82 86 74 78 68 72 62 66 50hp) Vibratory Roller 108 84 85 75 76 67 68 61 62 55 56 Water Cart 107 82 83 73 74 65 66 59 60 53 54 Welding Equipment 105 80 85 71 76 63 68 57 62 51 56 *A-weighted sound power levels - Typical mid-point

Due to the rural location, construction activities would be limited to between 6 am and 6 pm for Monday to Friday and between 7 am and 5 pm on Saturdays and Sundays with no construction activities undertaken on Public Holidays.

There are a number of residential receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development potentially impacted from construction noise. An indicative noise factor at these receptors for rural living taken from the Environmental Noise Policy (2007) is shown in Table 41.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 191 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

During construction, it is expected that the use of bulldozers and scrapers would occur together. Subsequently, predicted noise levels at these receptors have been calculated from noise attenuation data for combined sources and are shown in Table 42.

Table 41 – Applicable noise criteria during construction Outside recommended Maximum Construction Recommended standard standard hours Noise Levels hours (7am-10pm) (10pm-7am) dB(A) dB(A) Rural Living 47 40

Table 42 – Predicted sound power levels at nearby residential receptors Nearest Activity Distance Predicted A- A-weighted Deduction from Exceedance from closest weighted Receptor Sound A-weighted Sound – Standard edge of Sound Power Power Level1 Hours development Power Level at Level Source m db(A) db(A) db(A) R2 2,715 117 85 33 No R3 2,780 117 85 33 No R4 3,120 117 86 32 No R5 3,860 117 89 29 No R6 2,785 117 85 33 No Notes: 1. Deduction from A-weighted Sound Power Level obtained from Figure B1 and Table D1 in AS2436-2010 – Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites.

The predicted construction noise levels presented in Table 42 show that no exceedance of the noise limit is expected at any receptor locations. All receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development are located a considerable distance from the proposed development site. As a result, there are expected to be minimal adverse noise impacts from construction activities on residential receptors.

10.8.2.2 Operation

Noise generated from the operation of the proposed development would be from the infrequent operation of machinery and equipment on the site and from animal noise.

The proposed development would operate between 6 am and 6 pm seven days per week, fifty two weeks a year. Activities including the receipt and dispatch of cattle, feeding, cleaning and maintenance would occur throughout the day. Pens would be periodically cleaned using a front-end loader and the manure placed into compost stockpiles.

Increased noise from cattle would generally occur during loading and unloading of cattle and any situations where cattle may be distressed. Stress impacts upon cattle growth, and would therefore be minimised to ensure cattle are healthy and well thereby ensuring optimum growth.

Table 43 below indicates the predicted noise levels during various operational activities associated with the proposed development.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 192 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Table 43 – Typical sound power level from operational equipment (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (SA), 2014) Typical Sound Power Type Activity Level (db(A)) Feed processing plant Grain movement, processing 95 Truck (<20t) Ration delivery, solid waste transport 107 Ration preparation, pen cleaning, solid waste Front-end loader 105 stockpiling/processing Tractor General activities 100 Water cart Dust suppression 107 Trucks (>20t) Incoming/outgoing cattle, feed commodities 107

Based on data from Table 43 and predicted A-weighted Sound Power Level at residential receptors (Table 42), noise generation from the operational activities of the proposed development at residential receptors does not exceed the background noise level measurement by more than 5dB(A) for intrusive noise for daytime, evening or night time periods.

Further, noise generation from the operational activities of the proposed development at residential receptors is not expected to exceed the acceptable noise levels for amenity criterion due to the considerable distance between the development site and receivers shown in Figure 23, the typical sound power levels of operational equipment (Table 43) and the relatively short periods of continuous activity.

10.8.2.3 Off-site Traffic

Increased traffic generation on Hills Road and the Goyder Highway would result in an associated increase in traffic noise. However, due to the numbers of existing traffic on these roads, the similarity of vehicles generated by the proposed development with those currently using these roads and the few sensitive receptors within close proximity to the roads, the potential increase in traffic noise is not expected to impact upon sensitive receptors. Subsequently, traffic arising from the development should not lead to an increase in existing noise levels of more than 2 dB at sensitive receptor locations.

10.8.3 Mitigation Measures

As discussed in 10.8.2, noise generation from construction or operational activities of the proposed development at residential receptors is not expected to exceed the acceptable noise levels. However, the implementation of the following management and mitigation measures would further minimise the potential for noise as a result of the proposed development.

10.8.3.1 Construction

While the proposed construction activities have limited potential for impact on the local ambient noise environment, noise management strategies can be applied which would further reduce the potential for noise issues during the construction period. Mitigation measures shall be implemented

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 193 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

to confirm assumptions made in the assessment and to investigate reasonable and feasible noise mitigation measures if necessary. The mitigation measures shall include:

 Carrying out all noisy construction works during the standard daytime construction hours  Scheduling construction to minimise multiple use of the noisiest equipment or plant items near noise sensitive receptors  Strategic positioning of plant items to reduce the noise emission to noise sensitive receptors where possible  Awareness training for staff and contractors in environmental noise issues  Minimising the use of horn signals and consideration of alternative methods of communication  Switching off any equipment not in use for extended periods during construction work  Minimising heavy vehicles’ entry to site and departure from site outside the nominated construction hours  Consideration of the positioning of construction plant / processes  All plant and equipment required would be well maintained and regularly serviced  All plant and equipment would be installed with the appropriate noise attenuation apparatus  Retrofitting reversing alarms that are quieter and display less annoying characteristics  Maintaining a suitable complaint register. Should noise and/or vibration complaints be received, undertake noise and/or vibration monitoring at the locations concerned.

10.8.3.2 Operation

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures would minimise identified potential noise impacts as a result of the proposed development:

 Low-stress cattle handling techniques employed to manage cattle to ensure they are handled quietly and efficiently  Carrying out all noisy activities such as feed processing during the standard daytime operational hours  Awareness training for staff and contractors in environmental noise issues  Minimising the use of horn signals and consideration of alternative methods of communication  Switching off any equipment not in use for extended periods  Minimising heavy vehicles’ entry to site and departure from site outside the nominated operational hours  All plant and equipment required would be well maintained and regularly serviced  All plant and equipment would be installed with the appropriate noise attenuation apparatus  Retrofitting reversing alarms that are quieter and display less annoying characteristics  Maintaining a suitable complaint register. Investigate all non-vexatious noise complaints.  Selection of machines that are inherently free of or have low vibration  Vibration-producing machinery shall be supported on stiff structural components, and be provided with efficient vibration isolation systems

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 194 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Maintenance of plant and equipment machinery – ensuring rotating parts are balanced, vibration isolators are functioning as intended etc.

10.8.4 Conclusion

Activities associated with the construction and operation of the proposed development has the potential to generate noise impacts. However, there are very few residential (sensitive) receptors in close vicinity of the noise sources of the proposed development. These residential receptor locations are shown in Figure 23, with the nearest residential receptor located approximately 2,715 m away from the proposed development.

Subsequently, due to the large separation distances, the topography and landform between the proposed development and sensitive receptors and lack of certain vibration generating activities (blasting, jack-hammering, piling), it is predicted that no sensitive receptor shall be potentially impacted by vibration as a result of the construction and/or operation of the proposed development.

No adverse noise impacts are expected at sensitive receptors during the noisiest construction activities, which are bulk earthworks. Further, the activities generating these noise impacts would be temporary in nature and predicted noise levels from these activities meet the SA EPA construction noise criteria.

Operational activities involve noise generating equipment such as feed storage and processing equipment (electric motors, conveyors, roller mills) and mobile plant (feed trucks, tractors, front- end loaders etc.) on-site. Due to the significant distance to the nearest sensitive receptor and as the operational activities of the proposed development are consistent with the activities of the existing agricultural activities of the surrounding area, the noise generated from the proposed development is not expected to create a significant impact on the surrounding environment.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 195 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.9 Landscape and Visual Amenity

10.9.1 Visual Character of surrounding landscape

The landscape surrounding the subject property on which the development is proposed is characterised by undulating, low, moderate and high areas of relief, with moderate to high ranges.

The ridges and spurs of the Hallet Hill Range fringing the eastern boundary of the proposed development site (average elevation 650 metres AHD) are the main physical features of the surrounding area as shown in Photograph 17.

The ranges are aligned predominately in a north-south orientation, while the spurs generally run from the ridgeline down to the west. The broad valleys to the west of the range are approximately 540 metres AHD and are characterised by broad shallow flat-bottomed valleys between prominent north-south ranges/ridgelines with general slopes in the order of 4-5 % as shown in Photograph 18.

The native vegetation has been almost totally cleared with only small isolated pockets of mature trees remaining. Previous landholders have planted extensive avenues of trees for shelter belts along property boundaries with local province vegetation as shown Photograph 5.

Photograph 17 – Visual character of Hallet Hill Range

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 196 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Photograph 18 – Visual character of undulating landscape to the south

10.9.2 Visual character of subject property

The topography of the proposed development site and the surrounding land is gently undulating with avenues of trees for shelter belts along property boundaries and internal fence lines with local province vegetation.

The proposed development site slopes north to south from approximately 585 m AHD to 555 m AHD at about 5%.

The proposed development site is currently cultivated cropping land with only a few paddock trees. Shelter belts containing mature trees line the site boundary as shown in Photograph 19.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 197 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Photograph 19 – Visual character of proposed development site

10.9.3 Visual receivers

The surrounding area to the proposed development comprises agricultural land with the main activity being cropping and beef cattle/sheep grazing. As shown in Figure 23, there are few residences located within 3 km of the proposed development site. A viewpoint assessment was undertaken to assess the impact that the proposed development may have on any potential visual receivers.

Each identified potential visual receiver was assessed with respect to:

 View type from the receiver (e.g. permanent or intermittent views)  Distance from the receiver to the proposed development  Sensitivity of the receiver (e.g. residences have a higher sensitivity than a road user).

A field inspection was undertaken to identify and assess potential viewpoints. If the viewpoint was deemed to be a visual receiver, it was then classified as high, medium or low. A brief analysis of potential viewpoints is illustrated in Table 44.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 198 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Table 44 – Sensitive receiver visual assessment Distance to Identifier Type of Viewer development Type of View Sensitivity complex R1 Towns > 100 persons 4,880 Not visible N/A R2 Rural Residence 2,715 Not visible N/A R3 Rural Residence 2,780 Not visible N/A R4 Rural Residence 3,120 Not visible N/A R5 Rural Residence 3,860 Not visible N/A R6 Rural Residence 2,785 Not visible N/A R7 Towns > 100 persons 725 Not visible N/A R8 Towns > 100 persons 11,000 Not visible N/A R9 Hills Road users 1,000 Obstructed N/A R10 Goyder Highway users 1,500 Obstructed N/A

As indicated in Table 44, it was established that all of the closest residences do not have direct views to the proposed development and would not be visually impacted by the development.

Generally, there are three main factors contributing to the lack of a direct view of the proposed development. The primary factor is due to the topography and tree shelter belts between each receiver and the proposed development. The topography and vegetation obstructs the view of the majority of the potential surrounding viewpoints. Secondly, the considerable distance between the receiver and the proposed development minimises the probability of a sensitive view of the proposed development. Thirdly, the siting of the proposed development further east of the existing development some 1-1.5 km from Hills Road and the Goyder Highway.

Photograph 20 illustrates the view looking from Hills Road at the access to the subject property to the proposed development site. The undulating topography of the area ensures that no sensitive view of the proposed development can be obtained from Hills Road as shown in Photograph 20.

Photograph 21 illustrates the view looking from the Goyder Highway at the Hills Road intersection to the proposed development site. Due to the topography of the surrounding land and remaining vegetation, the proposed development would not be visible from the Goyder Highway.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 199 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Photograph 20 – View of proposed development site from Hills Road

Photograph 21 – View of proposed development site from Goyder Highway

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 200 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.9.4 Assessment of Impacts

10.9.4.1 Visual Absorption Capacity

Visual absorption capacity is the level of visual contrast of the proposed development to the context in which it is placed. The existing landscape consists of vegetated shelter belts along property boundaries and fencelines, as detailed in Section 5.5 and shown in Photograph 5 and Photograph 19. These vegetation communities are located between the Goyder Highway and the proposed development.

The proposed development site consists of open cultivated areas on gentle slopes surrounded by low hills and rises and undulating topography. These landscape characteristics are typical of the local area.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the nature of the agribusiness undertaken in the local area. As such, the elements associated with the proposed development are generally consistent with infrastructure usually associated with these agricultural activities.

The siting of the proposed development further east of the existing development increases the distance between the larger elements (pens, storage lagoons etc.) of the development and receivers, which would enhance the absorption capacity of the existing viewshed.

It is considered that the amount of vegetation fringing fencelines and property boundaries surrounding the proposed development, the undulating topography and the distance between the receivers and the proposed development minimises the potential visual impact due to the visual absorption capacity of the existing environment.

10.9.4.2 Viewpoint Assessment

The potential visual impact of the proposed development would be a result of construction activities and the impact of the final built form on the environment.

As discussed in Section 10.9.3, there are relatively few sensitive visual receivers to the proposed development. An inspection of the site and surrounding area was undertaken to determine the sensitivity of nearby receivers to the proposed development.

The impact assessment verified the location of these receivers to the proposed development, as shown in Figure 23. The assessment took into account the nature of the landscape, topography, the distance between the receiver and the proposed development as well as the type of view experienced. The assessment concluded that due to the topography of the landscape and level and form of existing vegetation, no residential receivers would experience any level of visual impact as a result of the proposed development.

All of the selected viewpoints, as shown in Table 44, would experience no visual impact.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 201 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.9.5 Mitigation Measures

As discussed in 10.9.4, the proposed development is not expected to impact on the visual amenity of sensitive receivers or the landscape character of the area due to the implementation of the following management and mitigation measures:

 Provision of adequate separation distances between the proposed development and sensitive receivers as shown in Figure 23.  Existing vegetative shelter belts around proposed development as a wind break and vegetative filter.

10.9.6 Conclusion

There are few receivers surrounding the proposed development as indicated in Table 44, with the closest residential receivers located some 2,715 m from the proposed development. Further, the site where the development is proposed is some 1,000 m from the property boundary adjoining the local access road – Hills Road. This setback area contains stands of vegetation and screens the proposed development from road users.

The views of the proposed development from these viewpoints were assessed by taking into account the visual absorption capacity of the proposed development and the types of views experienced from these viewpoints. The type of view took into account the type of viewer, the nature of the view and also the distance to the proposed development.

As a result, the viewpoint assessment indicated that there was expected to be no visual impact from the proposed development.

The assessment deemed that the nature of the proposed development would be consistent with the existing agricultural activities in the surrounding area although on a larger scale. It is considered that the proposed development would assimilate into the local landscape due to the nature of the development and the high visual absorption capacity of the surrounding landscape.

Overall, it is expected that the proposed development would not create any visual impacts to receivers in the surrounding area.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 202 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.10 Pest Animals and Weeds

10.10.1 Introduction

This section discusses the potential impacts from pest animals and weeds that have the potential to become established as a result of the proposed development; including mitigation measures when practicable.

Pest animals and weeds are a constant risk for the primary producers, as they can have a serious impact on agricultural production and market access.

Pest animals can be defined as native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human species of animal that is currently troublesome locally, or over a wide area, to one or more persons, either by being a health hazard, a general nuisance, or by destroying food, fibre, or natural resources.

In South Australia, established pest animals include foxes, rabbits and feral goats and their effect may be seen on public and private land across the state. Flies, rats and mice may also impact on the environment as well as on animal and human health and welfare.

The problems caused by pest animals vary but include; competing with native wildlife for food and habitat; preying on livestock and wildlife; grazing pressure on pastures, crops and native plant communities. They may also spread weeds, contribute to erosion, waterway degradation and become nuisances to human activities which may, in turn, be responsible for stress in rural communities. Human and animal diseases may also be introduced and spread through these animals.

Weeds are non-native plant species that are in the early stages of establishment and have the potential to become a significant threat to biodiversity if they are not managed. Weeds are often grouped in categories depending on their characteristics and impacts with many occurring in more than one category. Categories include:

 Noxious weeds  Weeds of National Significance  National Environmental Alert List Weeds  Water weeds  Native plants considered weeds  Non-saleable weeds.

In South Australia, under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 all landholders in certain areas are required to control certain serious weeds. These are known as noxious weeds.

10.10.2 Assessment of Impacts

Whilst, the local area has been colonised by a range of pest animals such as foxes and weeds, the potential for the proliferation and spread of these weeds and pest animals or introduction and invasion of other weeds or pest animal species is an important consideration for the proposed development. V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 203 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

The construction of the proposed development requires the movement and transport of machinery, equipment and people to the site. Subsequently, these activities are potential vectors for the introduction of weeds if not effectively managed. The key activities to be managed include:   Movement of people, vehicles and machinery  Clearing vegetation  Movement of soil and vegetation.

A risk of increased pest species populations exists from food waste introduced during construction activities. Subsequently, mitigation measures will predominately focus on reducing the amount and access to food waste by pest species.

The operation of the proposed development requires the movement and transport of livestock, feed commodities, and people to the site. Subsequently, these activities are potential vectors for the introduction of weeds if not effectively managed. The key activities to be managed include:

 Movement of livestock, feed commodities and vehicles  Pen cleaning, drain and sedimentation basin cleaning  Solid waste (manure, carcasses, spoilt feed, human waste) handling, storage, processing and movement  Movement of solid wastes  Feed storage and processing  Ration delivery, spoilage and spillage.

Incoming livestock and grains and roughages can carry weed seeds from other areas. Weeds can be easily imported from different regions or states because livestock and fodder can travel significant distances by road within a 24-hour period.

10.10.3 Mitigation Measures

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures shall minimise identified potential impacts from pest animals and weeds as a result of the operation of the development:

 A ‘mitigation hierarchy’ of first avoiding, then minimising and then mitigating the impact shall be adopted  A weed survey will be undertaken prior to construction to identify the overall abundance and diversity of weed species across the proposed development site and adjacent land  Earthmoving machinery shall be cleaned down prior to entering the proposed development site  Earthmoving machinery shall be cleaned down on-site as soon as possible upon completion of works and leaving the proposed development site if advised by the Construction Manager or operators notice the presence of weeds in the construction area

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 204 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Timely control of initial weed populations around the proposed development, such as, along fence lines, drainage structures, in tree plantings etc. Weeds in these areas experience little competition and can produce large quantities of seed  Control of weeds around the proposed development also reduces any potential fire hazard. Control shall be achieved by regular mowing or herbicide application. Knockdown or residual herbicides (or a combination of the two) shall be used depending on whether the weeds have emerged, the time of year and the weeds present  Prior to importing livestock and /or feed commodities (grains, roughages) from known weed infestation areas (e.g. bathurst burr, calthrop), the weed status of materials and vehicles shall be determined from the supplier  A pest management program shall be implemented to control pest animal species already present, using acceptable methods as well as identifying potential pest species, their likely distribution and methods to prevent their spread  Pest animal species populations near the proposed development shall be monitored  Established pest animals shall be controlled and their spread prevented  Pest animal control programs shall use the most humane, target specific, cost effective and efficacious techniques available  Mice and rat populations will be mitigated:  primarily through the solid waste management schedule outlined in Table 28 (i.e. minimise feed wastage and spillage to minimise likelihood of attracting vermin)  implementing a baiting program if the vermin population reaches a nuisance level.  Fly breeding sites shall be mitigated using measures such as:  Integration of design features, such as pen foundation and slope to facilitate pen drying, wide feed bunk and water trough aprons and wide fence panels, to make cleaning aprons, under fences and drains that are known potential breeding sites easier or more effective  Several control methods such as biological, chemical and physical methods following integrated pest management (IPM) principles shall be used  Best practice sanitation methods such as solid waste management practices (pen cleaning, under-fence cleaning) and schedules as outlined in Table 28 to minimise fly breeding sites  Controlling weeds and keeping grass and other vegetation short, particularly around pens, drains, sedimentation systems and storage lagoons makes it more difficult for flies to find resting places and reduces the vegetation–manure interface, a preferred breeding substrate for stable flies  Mortalities shall be removed from the pen area on a daily basis if required and taken to the manure stockpile area of the existing development for composting. Carcasses shall be covered with manure to prevent scavenging by pest animals.  Human waste shall be managed appropriately and in accordance with any relevant statutory requirements.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 205 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.11 Other Hazards and Risks

10.11.1 Human Health and Safety

Disease which is naturally transmissible from animals to people is classified as a zoonosis. More than 200 zoonoses have been identified involving all types of agents, bacteria, parasites, viruses, prions, fungi and others. Zoonoses are common and the diseases they cause can be serious.

Zoonotic diseases can spread through a variety of means such as working closely with livestock or by coming in contact with soil or water contaminated by animals. In Australia, the two most common and important zoonoses disesases are Q Fever and Leptospirosis.

Q Fever is primarily a risk to workers in the livestock, agriculture, veterinary and meat industries, and therefore has been considered as part of this assessment for the proposed development.

Q Fever is an infection resulting from the organism Coxiella burnetii, and was first identified in Australia in the 1930s and the infection became known as “Query” fever as the cause of the illness was then unknown. Q Fever is caused by a small bacterium-like organism that multiplies inside the cells of various organs of infected cattle.

Coxiella burnetti can also exist in a variety of domestic and wild animals without the animal displaying apparent signs of infection. In Australia, Coxiella burnetti is maintained in the wild by kangaroos, bandicoots and rodents. Domestic animals such as goats, cattle and sheep and their ticks also often carry the organism.

Humans are infected by breathing the organism in droplets or dust contaminated by the placenta, birth fluids, faeces or urine of infected diseases.

The Coxiella burnetti organism is very resilient and it has the ability to withstand harsh environmental conditions. It has been found to be resistant to heating, drying and sunlight and to survive for more than a year at 4°C in a dried state (O’Neill, 1997).

Leptospirosis is a contagious disease which infects both animals and humans. It is caused by bacteria called Leptospira. There are over 200 different strains of Leptospira found worldwide, with infections being most prominent in areas that have a hot and humid climate. Leptospirosis is considered an occupational hazard for many people who work outdoors or with cattle, for example farmers, veterinarians, abattoir workers, and therefore has been considered as part of this assessment for the proposed development.

In South Australia, there are two strains of Leptospira that are frequently identified in dairy and beef cattle:

 Leptospira hardjobovis  Leptospira pomona.

Both the strains may also cause severe illness in humans.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 206 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Leptospira bacteria occurs most commonly in cattle (and pigs), rodents and wild animals. They colonise the kidneys of infected animals and, in females, they also colonise the reproductive tract.

Leptospirosis is also spread in contaminated water supplies, food, pastures and soil. Many infected animals do not display any illness. These apparently healthy carriers are the main source of infection for other cattle as well as for humans. The bacteria can live for a long time in surface fresh water, damp soil, vegetation and mud, but are very quickly killed on dry soil or by sunlight (Zelski, 2007).

The organism is present in the urine of infected animals and enters the human body through damaged (e.g. scratched and abraded) skin or through linings of the eyes, mouth or nose.

10.11.2 Animal Welfare and Disease management

10.11.2.1 Animal Health

The welfare of cattle is an important consideration to maximise cattle growth and productivity and thus profitability. The main potential risk to cattle health in a feedlot environment is disease as animals reside in close contact. The main causes of feedlot disease are:

 nutrition – deficiencies or excess  infections  injuries.

The illnesses and diseases which affect cattle, particularly in feedlots include:

1. Nutritionally-based diseases

 Deficiency of energy – pregnancy toxaemia, ketosis, fatty liver, poor weight gain or weight loss  Excess of energy – acidosis, rumenitis, polioencephalomalacia, nutritional diarrhoea  Deficiency of minerals (calcium) – transport tetany  Deficiency of dietary fibre – indigestion, acidosis, feedlot bloat, inanition, liver abscesses, dietary diarrhoea  Excess of rough, unpalatable, indigestible fibre – impaction, poor weight gain and production.

2. Infectious diseases

 Respiratory infections/ pneumonia – runny noses, fever, depression and rapid breathing.  Bovine Ephemeral Fever (3-day Sickness)  Foot rot and foot abscess  Pink Eye

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 207 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Diarrhoea (infectious)  Ringworm.

3. Stress diseases

 Heat stress  Transport stress.

10.11.3 Biophysical Environment

Risks to the biophysical environment would include the impacts of pests, odour, dust and solid and liquid waste utilisation on the receiving environment.

10.11.4 Assessment of Impacts

10.11.4.1 Human Health

Q Fever and Leptospirosis are debilitating diseases. These infections are important and continuing public health problems in rural areas. Workers employed at the proposed development are at risk of contracting leptospirosis during normal cattle handling activities.

Q Fever and Leptospirosis illness may last for weeks or months, forcing the affected person to take considerable time off work. Relapses are common, with a ‘washed out’ feeling which may persist for months. Leptospirosis infection can cause serious problems for pregnant women and can prove fatal to a human foetus.

Leptospirosis in humans is a notifiable disease in Australia.

10.11.4.2 Animal Health and Disease Management

The welfare of cattle is an important consideration to maximise cattle growth and productivity. Therefore the proposed development has been designed to the highest of animal welfare and disease management standards and would be operated to ensure that the health and wellbeing of cattle is maintained and the potential for disease and spread of disease minimised.

Cattle for the proposed development may be sourced from multiple sources (markets or properties) and hence are high risk for introduction and spread of disease. The main causes of disease in lot-fed cattle are:

 nutrition – deficiencies or excess  infections  injuries.

There are various health disorders routinely encountered in beef cattle feedlots. These can be broadly categorised as:

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 208 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Disease in special at-risk groups – new arrivals, fat cattle, late pregnancy/calving cows  Disease caused by faulty feeding or feedstuffs – acidosis, impaction, indigestion, bloat  Disease caused by faulty handling or faulty facilities – injuries, wounds, heat stress  Disease caused by infectious agents – viruses, bacteria, internal or external parasites.

Heat stress is a significant animal welfare issue in beef cattle feedlots. Heat stress occurs when an animal cannot effectively control body heat and the body temperature rises to dangerous levels leading to reduced feed intake, poor production and, if not adequately controlled, death. There are a number of factors that can influence heat stress in feedlot cattle. These include:

 high humidity and air temperature over an extended period  an accumulation of manure within the pen  poor drainage and air circulation  lack of effective shelter  lack of options to reduce body temperature in the animal  breed effect, with Bos taurus cattle recognised as more susceptible to heat stress.

Maintaining animal health and preventing disease in the proposed development is going to depend greatly on the experience of:

 stockmen – who have to be both skilled animal handlers and observers  consulting veterinarian  animal nutritionist.

10.11.4.3 Biophysical Environment

An assessment of odour and dust, and measures proposed to minimise these impacts have been considered and outlined in Section 10.1.

An assessment of solid and liquid waste management and measures proposed to mitigate these impacts have been considered and outlined in Sections 10.2 and 10.7.

An assessment of pest animals and weeds, and measures proposed to mitigate these impacts have been considered and are outlined Section 10.10.

Assessments of the impacts to surface water and groundwater along with measures proposed to mitigate these impacts have been considered and outlined Sections 10.3 and 10.4.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 209 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.11.5 Mitigation Measures

The existing feedlot is accredited under the National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme (NFAS). Subsequently, welfare issues for the proposed development will be adequately covered in the feedlots’ Quality Assurance manuals, which are given both off-site and field audits.

Further, the implementation of the following management and mitigation measures shall minimise identified potential impacts from hazards and risks as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed development:

 Maintaining animal health through biosecurity and animal health programs, including the use of vaccines, plays an important role in reducing the risk of zoonotic diseases.  All personnel working with or handling animals shall take precautions to minimise the risk of infection from animal-borne diseases. Because different zoonotic diseases behave differently, avoiding specific infections requires an individual approach. The following practices shall be implemented to provide a high level of general protection.  Good personal hygiene practices such as washing hands after handling animals and before preparing or eating food or smoking cigarettes shall be implemented.  Hygienic food preparation: Food-borne diseases can be largely avoided through correct processing and hygienic food preparation.  Personnel shall be vaccinated for those zoonoses for which vaccinations are available, for example Q Fever.  Personal protective equipment such as gloves, boots and aprons or overalls shall be worn when handling animals. Cuts and scratches shall be covered with waterproof plasters.  Pest animals such as rats can carry zoonotic diseases and control programs will reduce the likelihood of transmission to people.  Employees are trained to understand the mechanisms of disease introduction and spread, including via cattle, feedstuffs, people, vehicles, machinery and equipment, feral animals and wildlife, and solid and liquid waste.  The existing feedlots preventive herd health plan outlines animal health prevention and treatment.  Implementation of herd management systems that support rapid and accurate trace-back and trace-forward of livestock.  Livestock are vaccinated against major preventable diseases.  Early identification of animal health issues through daily monitoring, observation and assessment of livestock for a range of key behavioural indicators. Experienced stockmen are usually very good observers, and less experienced staff shall be trained in observation techniques.  Accurate diagnosis of animal health issues backed by the local veterinarian.  Separation of sick cattle into hospital/treatment pens for treatment and convalescing.  Prudent use of antibiotics to manage infectious disease, reduce livestock pain and suffering, and to minimise losses due to disease.  Destruction and disposal of infected and exposed susceptible animals.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 210 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

 Development and implementation of a heat stress management plan to mitigate excessive heat stress events. The plan should include procedures and equipment for dealing with an excessive heat load event including:  regular removal of manure  diet changes to reduce metabolic heat produced during digestion  more frequent water changes to ensure cool, good quality water is available at all times  provision of shade and activation of additional cooling (irrigation) equipment  trigger points for when to activate the plan  for example during periods of prolonged high temperature and humidity, or forecasted extreme weather conditions.  Sufficient capacity of water required to supply cattle is available on-site  Sufficient capacity of feed required to supply cattle is available on-site  Implementation of best practice solid and liquid waste management techniques including regular cleaning of pens, drains and sedimentation basin of manure and composting of mortalities  Preparation of a contingency plan to manage the disposal of large numbers of mortalities.

Subsequently, due to the mitigation and management measures proposed, the proposed development is not expected to impact on human health.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 211 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.12 Land Use

The proposed development shall be located in a rural area. The subject property on which the development is proposed is surrounded by other predominantly beef cattle/sheep grazing and dryland cropping landholdings. The majority of rural land to the east and south-east is owned by the proponent. The Hallet Hill Range lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed development site.

The subject property consists of some 1,578 ha across a number of parcels and is irregular in shape. Road access to the proposed development is from Hills Road, a council controlled road. Hills Road intersects with the Goyder Highway some 1.5 km south-west of the proposed development site.

The subject property on which the development is proposed has been historically used for dryland agriculture (cereals (wheat, barley, oats) and beef cattle and sheep grazing) and is located in a rural area which encourages agricultural uses.

10.12.1 Surrounding Land Use

The subject property on which the development is proposed is situated at the southern extent of the Hallet Hill Range on its western side. The surrounding land uses include:

 Rural  Rural residences  Infrastructure/services

10.12.1.1 Rural

Rural land uses dominate the surrounding area and include land used for beef cattle and sheep grazing and irrigated and dryland agriculture. The area is also scattered with infrastructure that supports these activities such as sheds, livestock handling facilities, shearing sheds and rural residences.

A wind farm known as Hallet Hill No 2 is located on the Hallet Hill Range to the east of the proposed development site. The wind farm provides power for the south eastern Australian electricity grid.

The surrounding land holdings are of similar size in area to the subject property on which the development is proposed.

10.12.1.2 Transport Infrastructure

The subject property on which the development is proposed is accessed from Hills Road, a local government road. Hills Road joins the Goyder Highway some 1 km to the south-west of the subject property.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 212 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

10.12.1.3 Service Infrastructure

The subject property on which the development is proposed is not connected to the electricity network grid. Subsequently, electricity requirements for the existing feedlot development are generated on-site by diesel powered generators as shown in Photograph 4.

10.12.1.4 Proposed Land Use

The proposed development would continue, but intensify, the existing rural land uses of the surrounding area. The proposed development would utilise the administrative and infrastructure capacity such as office buildings and feed processing facilities of the existing feedlot to operate the development.

10.12.2 Assessment of Impacts

10.12.2.1 During Construction

The construction of the proposed development and elements such as access roads, production pens, sedimentation basin(s) and storage lagoon(s) is not expected to adversely impact surrounding land uses. There is the potential for dust and noise to be generated during construction. However, potential impacts to air quality and implementation of prescribed mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.1 shall ensure that sensitive receivers would not be adversely impacted from construction activities.

10.12.2.2 During Operation

The operation of the proposed development would substantially intensify the agricultural activities on the site, with some 10,552 head (9,083 SCU) of cattle to be located within the proposed development at full capacity. This is in addition to the existing feedlot which currently has a capacity of 6,090 head (4,409 SCU).

Operation of the proposed development would provide employment for some 20 full time equivalent personnel. Noise, odour and traffic have the potential to affect surrounding land users. Measures would be implemented to minimise noise and odour, and increases in traffic are not expected to significantly affect receivers adjoining Goyder Highway.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 213 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

11. Environmental Management Plan

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is a procedural document which outlines the environmental goals of the proposed development, the safeguard measures to be implemented, the timing of the implementation in relation to the progress of the proposed development, responsibilities for implementation and management, and a review process.

The key objectives of the EMP include:

 Ensuring the works are carried out in accordance with appropriate environmental statutory requirements and relevant non-statutory policy as is detailed in this development application  Operations and environmental protection measures shall be planned to minimise environmental risks and comply with specified environmental protection requirements  Ensuring that works are carried out in accordance with the objectives and requirements presented in this development application  Ensuring that works are carried out in such a way as to minimise the likelihood of adverse environmental impact occurring  Ensuring that works are carried out in such a way as to manage the impact of the works on nearby sensitive receivers  Implement environmental management principles and practices to conserve and protect environmental resources through, amongst approaches, the efficient use of energy and water, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity, vermin and pest control, minimising waste and preventing pollution  Communicate with our employees, local communities, contractors, suppliers, and other interested third parties to encourage an environmentally responsible culture  Monitor the effectiveness of the environmental protection measures  Response procedures which will initially contain, then remedy, any environmental incidents that may occur  Identifying management responsibilities and reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance with the EMP  Providing clear procedures for management of environmental incidents including corrective actions  Improve environmental protection measures and revise the EMP promptly when deficiencies are identified.

The scope and content of the EMP will be a function of the proposed development’s potential environmental impacts as outlined in this development application. The EMP, shall include, but not be limited to those elements identified and described in Table 45 and in accordance with the procedures documented in the Princess Royal Feedlot NFAS manual.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 214 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Table 45 – Typical EMP structure Section Description Background Introduction Purpose and Scope

Objectives Legal and Other Requirements Legislative and Other Requirements Approvals, Permits and Licences Environmental Policy Environmental Management Framework Obligations, Roles , Responsibilities and Authority Certification and Approval Environmental Aspects and Impacts Objectives and Targets Environmental Induction Competence, Training and Awareness Training and Awareness Processes for external and internal communication in Consultation and Communication relation to the environmental aspects Incident Investigation, Reporting and Recording Incident and Emergency Management Environmental Emergency - Preparation and Response Environmental Inspections Monitoring Inspections, Monitoring and Auditing Auditing Reporting Non-conformances, Corrective, Preventative Actions Review and Improvement Review of environmental controls and procedures Document Control and Records Document Control Management Environmental Records

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 215 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

12. References

Agriculture Victoria, 2008, Salinity and the Growth of Forage Species, Note Number: AG0284, Agriculture Victoria, The State of Victoria.

Animal Health Australia (AHA), 2012, Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines – Land Transport of Livestock, AHA, Canberra.

ARMCANZ, 2004, National guidelines for beef cattle feedlots in Australia, 2nd Edn, SCARM Report 47, Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC.

AUS-MEAT, 2011, NFAS Rules and Standards (April 2011), AUS-MEAT Limited, Brisbane, Qld. https://www.ausmeat.com.au/audits-accreditation/nfas-feedlot-assurance/who-owns-and-operates- nfas.aspx

BoM, 2016a, Climate statistics for Australian locations Data System - Summary statistics MT BRYAN POST OFFICE. Retrieved 28.04.2016, Commonwealth of Australia 2016, Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_041100.shtml

BoM, 2016b, Rainfall IFD Data System. Retrieved 28.04.2016, Commonwealth of Australia 2016, Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/has/cdirswebx/cdirswebx.shtml

Charmley E, Stephens ML, Kennedy PM, 2008, Predicting livestock productivity and methane emissions in northern Australia: development of a bio-economic modelling approach. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 109–113.

Charmley E, Eady, S, McSweeneny, C, 2011, Strategies for measuring and reducing methane emissions from beef cattle in northern Australia, pp 73-80, In R. Holroyd (ed) Proceedings of the Northern Beef Research Update Conference, Darwin, Australia, Northern Australia Beef Research Council, Park Ridge, Australia.

Davis, RJ and Watts, PJ, 2006, Environmental Sustainability assessment of the Australian Feedlot Industry – Part A: Water usage at Australian Feedlots, Meat and Livestock Australia, project FLOT.328 Final Report, Sydney, NSW.

Davis, RJ, Wiedemann SG and Watts, PJ, 2009, Quantifying the Water and Energy Usage of Individual Activities within Australian Feedlots Part A report: Water Usage at Australian Feedlots, Meat and Livestock Australia, project FLOT.0339 Final Report, Sydney, NSW.

Davis, RJ, Watts, PJ and McGahan, EJ, 2010, Quantification of feedlot manure output for BEEF- BAL model upgrade, RIRDC Project No. PRJ-004377, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Davis, R, Wiedemann, S, and Watts, P, 2010a, Quantifying the water and energy usage of individual activities within Australian feedlots -Part A report: Water usage at Australian feedlots 2007-2009. Meat & Livestock Australia Limited No. B.FLT.0350, North Sydney, NSW.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 216 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

DCCEE, 2012, National Inventory Report 2010, Volume 1. The Australian Government Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra, Australia. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/climate change/greenhouse-gas-measurement/publications/national- inventory-report-2010.

Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA) (PIRSA) (2006) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia, Second Edition, February 2006, Department of Primary Industries and Resources, The Government of South Australia.

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts - Science Delivery, 2016, SILO Climate data (The Long Paddock), The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation), Brisbane, QLD.

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), 2016a, NatureMaps (version 3.0), Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, State of South Australia, Adelaide, Accessed April 2016.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 1997, Salinity management handbook, Scientific Publishing, Resource Sciences Centre #222, Department of Natural Resources, Queensland.

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (SA), 2014, Management of Noise and Vibration: Construction and Maintenance Activities, Operational Instruction 21.7, Version 4, The Government of South Australia, Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide, SA

Department of the Environment, 2015, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: National Inventory Report 2013 Volume 1. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT.

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), 2016b, WaterConnect, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, State of South Australia, Adelaide, Accessed April 2016.

Dong, H, Mangino, J, McAllister, TA, Hatfield, JL, Johnson, DE, Lassey, KR, Aparecida de Lima, M, Romanovskaya, A, Bartram, D, Gibb, DJ, and Martin, JHJ, 2006, Emissions from livestock and manure management. In 'IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.' (Eds S Eggleston, L Buendia, K Miwa, T Ngara, K Tanabe.) Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan)

Eckard RJ, Grainger CJ and de Klein CAM, 2010, Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production—a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.

Gardner, T, Atzeni, M, McGahan, E, Vieritz, A, and Casey, K, 1996, ‘MEDLI – a computer model to help resolve environmental conflict in intensive rural industries’, Presented at Resolving Environmental Conflict, Institution of Engineers, Australia. Brisbane, November 1996.

Global Methane Initiative, 2011. Global methane emissions and mitigation opportunities. Viewed online at https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 217 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Hall, J, Maschmedt, D & Billing, N 2008, The soils of southern South Australia, South Australian land and soil book series South Australia Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide, SA.

Hazelton, PA and Murphy BW, 2007, Interpreting soil test results: what do all the numbers mean? [2nd ed.], ISBN 0 643 09225 0. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Lott, S, Powell, E and Sweeten, J, 1994, ‘Manure Collection, Storage and Spreading’ in Designing Better Feedlots, Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.

McGahan, EJ and Tucker, RW, 2003, Resource Manual of Development of Indicators of Sustainability for Effluent Reuse in the Intensive Livestock Industries: Piggeries and Cattle Feedlots. Project No 1816, Australian Pork Limited, Canberra Australia, May 2003.

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2012a, National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia 3rd Edition, Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW.

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2012b, National Beef Cattle Feedlot Environmental Code of Practice 2nd Edition, Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW.

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2015a, Beef Cattle Feedlots: Design and Construction, Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW

Meat and Livestock Australia, 2015b, Beef cattle feedlots: waste management and utilisation, Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW

Nicholas, P, Watts, W, Heinrich, N, Hudson, N and Bell, K 2014, Development of an Odour Emissions Model for Australian Feedlots, Part A: Sampling Results – Odour Emissions from Australian Feedlots, Project No. B.FL T.0369 Final Report, Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW.

Omerod, R, Galvin, G, D'Abreton, P, Fitzmaurice, L and Watts, P, 2014, Development of an Odour Emissions Model for Australian Feedlots, Part F: Emissions Estimation and Model Application, Project No. B.FL T.0369 Final Report, Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, NSW.

O’Neill, J, 1997, Q-Fever Information Kit for the Australian Meat Industry, Meat Research Corporation (now Meat and Livestock Australia), Sydney, NSW.

Primary industries and Regions, 2012, Animal welfare guidelines for animals in poor condition (Sheep and Cattle) 2012, Primary industries and Regions, 2012, Government of South Australia.

Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2004, BEEFBAL - a nutrient mass balance model for beef cattle feedlots, v9.1 – May 2003, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, accessed September 2015< http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/environment/1240.html >.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 218 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Rengasamy P, and Churchman GJ, 1999, Cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations and sodicity. In ‘Soil analysis and interpretation manual’. (Eds K Peverill, et al.) pp. 35–50, CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.

SCARM, 2004, Primary Industries Standing Committee Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Cattle, 2nd Edition, (2004), PISC Report 85, CSIRO, Australia.

Skerman, A, 2000, Reference manual for the establishment and operation of beef cattle feedlots in Queensland, Information Series QI99070, Queensland Cattle Feedlot Advisory Committee (FLAC), Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.

Seaman, RL, 2002, Wetland Inventory of the Northern Agricultural Districts South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Standards Australia, 1997, AS 4282:1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting, Sydney, Australia.

Standards Australia 2003, Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: Soil compaction and density tests - Determination of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using standard compactive effort. (AS 1289.5.1.1 -2003), Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW.

Standards Australia, 2010, AS2436-2010 – Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites, Sydney, Australia.

Strahler, A. N. 1952, Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography, Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 63, 1117-42. van Sliedregt, H, McGahan, EJ and Casey, KD, 2000, Predicting waste production from feedlot cattle, Unpublished Confidential Report prepared for Cattle and Beef CRC (Meat Quality) Sub- program 6 - Feedlot Waste Management, DPI Intensive Livestock Environmental Management Services, August 2000, Toowoomba, Queensland.

Watts, PJ, Tucker RW, and Casey, KD 1994, Water System Design. Section 4.6 in Designing Better Feedlots. Ed. PJ Watts and RW Tucker State of Qld Dept Primary Industries Publications no. QC94002

Wiedemann, SG, Henry, B, McGahan, EJ, Grant, T, Murphy, CM and Neithe, G, 2013, Resource use and Greenhouse Gas emissions from the Australian beef industry: An analysis of trends from 1981-2010, Project No B.CCH.2032, Final Report, Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney.

Winchester, CF and Morris, MJ 1956, Water Intake Rates of Cattle, Jour. of Animal Sci. 15:722 740.

Zelski, R, 2007, Leptospirosis in cattle herds, Primefact 445, State of New South Wales (Department of Primary Industries), Tocal.

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 219 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

Appendix A.

Foundation and clay lining of feedlot pens, pads and drainage system

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 220 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia

Appendix C. – Clay lining of feedlot pens, pads and drainage system Preamble Runoff from the feedlot pad contains organic and mineralised manure constituents that could pose a significant ecological hazard if they were released, uncontrolled, into the environment. If a groundwater assessment indicates a high potential for contamination of underground water resources because of leaching of nutrients through permeable, underlying soil or rock strata, an impermeable barrier will be needed between the contaminant and the groundwater. This is required if the permeability of underlying soil/rock strata exceeds 0.1mm/day (3.5 cm/year). This impermeable barrier is generally created using a liner made of compacted clay or other suitable compactable soil materials. Where these materials are not available, a synthetic liner (polymembrane) may be used. Synthetic liners tend to be expensive, require specialist installation and are hard to protect from damage by cattle and cleaning equipment. Clay liners tend to be the most common form employed in feedlot construction, and the following section outlines the characteristics of suitable clay lining material.

Design standard sClay liners should have a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-9 m/s (0.1mm/ day) for distilled water with 1 m of pressure head. sClay liners must be of sufficient depth so that the integrity of the structure is maintained throughout the general working of the feedlot.

Clay liners Clay liners are commonly used in industry for a range of contaminants including liquid effluent. For a given soil, permeability is related to soil particle composition, moisture content and level of compaction; and there are limits to the permeability that can be achieved at any level of compaction. In-situ and laboratory measurement of permeability is difficult, and relatively inaccurate. Also, some soil types, because of their physical and chemical properties, are impermeable in-situ, but fail to meet the design standard when measured in the laboratory. For these reasons, rather than relying on permeability standards, this section provides guidance on specifications for materials and construction methods to be used for clay lining. The specifications in Table C.1 provide guidance on the selection of the correct materials for use in the liner. Soils may need to be mixed or engineered to produce a material that meets the specifications.

56 Appendix C. – Clay lining of feedlot pens, pads and drainage system National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia

Table C.1 Specifications for clay liner materials Soil characteristic Acceptability criterion Test method Percentage fines More than 25% passing 75 μm sieve AS 1289 3.6 More than 15% passing 2 μm sieve Liquid Limit Less than 70 AS 1289 3.1.2 Plasticity Index More than 15 AS 1289 3.3.1 Emerson class number 5 to 6 AS 1289 3.8.1 Areas to be clay lined within the controlled drainage area include: seffluent catch drain ssedimentation system sholding ponds smanure stockpile and composting pad sany area where contaminants are stored or handled. Because of the formation of a low permeability soil-manure interface layer, clay lining is not generally required on the feedlot pen and yard areas. Trafficability of clay lined materials The liner should be trafficable for cattle and equipment. To ensure that the integrity of the liner is maintained, the depth of the liner should be sufficient to ensure that equipment does not damage it during harvesting of manure. The minimum depth recommended for the clay liner is 300 mm after compaction. Periodic repair of the liner will be necessary due to the wear and tear associated with cattle traffic and normal cleaning operations. The mechanical strength of liners can be tested using the Californian Bearing Ratio (CBR) test, which was developed for measuring the load-bearing capacity of soils used for building roads. The test is performed by measuring the pressure required to penetrate a soil sample with a plunger of standard area in both the saturated and dry conditions at a specified compaction. The minimum standard for CBR wet and dry is 20%. Particular attention should be applied to the load-bearing capability of areas where cleaning or harvesting of dry waste is undertaken, including: sfeedlot pens seffluent catch drain ssedimentation system smanure stockpile and composting pad.

Appendix C. – Clay lining of feedlot pens, pads and drainage system 57 National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots in Australia

Construction All areas to be clay lined should be cleared and grubbed, stripped of top soil and prepared to the required levels and gradients by cutting and filling. The surface of the excavated area should also be tined before the clay material is placed to produce a satisfactory bonding surface. The clay lining material should be placed in layers of 150 mm (±50 mm). Each layer should be tined, wetted to ±2% of optimum moisture content (AS 1289 5.1.1) and compacted to the required compaction (relative to the maximum dry density, AS 1289 5.4.2) that is needed to achieve the required permeability of 1mm/day.

58 Appendix C. – Clay lining of feedlot pens, pads and drainage system

Appendix B. Groundwater bore logs and Hydrogeological Report

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 221 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

WELL DISCHARGE TEST ANALYSIS MACKERODE STATION

Prepared for Princess Royal Station

AGT Report No: 2008/16 Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND 1

2. DRILLING RESULTS 3

3. DISCHARGE TESTING RESULTS 3 3.1 Step Discharge Test Results 4 3.2 Constant Discharge Test Results 6 3.3 Recommended pumping rate for well P.N 129800 10

4. IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 14 4.1 Impact on adjoining existing users 14 4.2 Impact on the Booborowie Valley 15

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16

6. REFERENCES 16

APPENDIX 1 DISCHARGE TEST RESULTS 17

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

Figure 1 Mackerode Station Well Location 2 Figure 2 Step Test Data and Corrected Data (well 129800) 5 Figure 3 Constant Discharge Test, Drawdown and Residual Drawdown (well 129800) 7 Figure 4 Drawdown vs √Time for Step Test and Constant Discharge Test (well 129800) 8 Figure 5 Drawdown vs Time for Various Discharge Rates (well 129800) 9 Figure 6 Water Levels of Observation Wells During Constant Discharge Test 11 Figure 7 Conductivity vs Time for Constant Drawdown Test (well 129800) 12

Table 1 Drilling Summary ...... 3 Table 2 Data of Surrounding Wells...... 14

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

1. BACKGROUND

The proprietors of Princess Royal Station are seeking development application to construct a beef cattle and lamb feedlot on Mackerode Station, on section 214, Hundred of Ayers. It is proposed to water the feedlot from groundwater, and to that end two wells (wells P.N. 129800 and P.N. 129293) have been established near the proposed feedlot (figure 1).

Based on the original Development Application (June 2007), total annual consumption has been estimated at 78.5 ML for the feedlot. Surface storage capacity of 500,000 litres will be provided to meet peak 2 day water requirement of between 460,000 – 480,000 litres. Assuming 100% stocking for 12 months, and based on an average daily consumption of 33.8 L/d and 3 L/d for cattle and sheep, respectively, an average supply of 7.5 L/s is required for 8 hr pumping periods per 24 hrs. The yields of the two wells were reported as being 5 L/s and 3 L/s for wells PN 129800 and 129293, respectively, presumably based on airlift test during well development after drilling.

Concerns have been expressed about the impact of this extraction on the groundwater resources of the Booborowie Valley groundwater system and on nearby adjoining existing users‐ this was exacerbated by the lack of information on the capacity of each well.

The proponents of the feedlot subsequently undertook a well discharge testing program on the higher yielding of the two wells (well Permit Number 129800). The results and analysis of this test are presented in this report.

Page 1

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 1 Mackerode Station Well Location

Page 2

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

2. DRILLING RESULTS

The drilling results as documented in the driller’s reports are summarized below:

Table 1 Drilling Summary

PN 129293 PN 129800

Lithology 0‐8m: clay and shale 0‐6m: clay and shale

8‐25m: weathered siltstone 6‐15m: soft brown sandstone

25‐114m: firm grey sitstone 15‐61m: grey brown siltstone

Water cuts (yield) 99‐100m (2.25 L/s) 29‐33m (2 L/s), 50‐51m (3L/s)

107‐108m (0.75 L/s)

Casing 150mm PVC 0‐34m 150mm PVC 0‐26m

Salinity 1,700mg/L 2,300mg/L

Airlifted yield 3 L/s 5 L/s

3. DISCHARGE TESTING RESULTS

Discharge testing on the production well (PN129800) was carried out by staff from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC). Testing consisted of a 3 stage step test of 5 hrs duration followed after overnight recovery by a 24hr constant discharge test. The step discharge test is used to derive the well yield‐drawdown relationship whilst the constant discharge test provides more regional information on the aquifer properties.

During pumping, the conductivity of the water (which is a measure of salinity) was continuously monitored with an in line probe.

Drawdown and conductivity field data are tabulated in appendix 1.

Page 3

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

3.1 Step Discharge Test Results

Pumping for the step test began at 1050hrs and ceased at 1550hrs on the 26/3/08.

The step test was carried out in 3 steps of 100 minutes each at rates of 2.5 L/s, 5 L/s and 7.5 L/s, respectively.

The step test results are used to determine the relationship between well drawdown, discharge rate and duration of pumping, in the form of the following equation: s = aQ + bQ logt + cQ2

Where, s is drawdown in metres

Q is the discharge rate in m3/min

t is pumping duration in minutes

a and c are constants related to the well efficiency

b is the aquifer loss component of the drawdown

The plot of drawdown data versus the logarithm of time is shown in figure 2. Also shown in figure 2 are the plots for steps 2 and 3 corrected for the antecedent pumping conditions ie it shows the expected drawdown if each step had been started from zero drawdown conditions.

From step 1 and corrected steps 2 and 3 drawdown data, the following well drawdown equation was determined: s = 2Q + 6Qlogt + 9Q2

The results for steps 2 and 3 however show that the rate of drawdown is not constant (ie does not fit on a straight line), suggesting the presence of boundary conditions –ie the flow of water to the well is not radial but is linear along a fracture, suggesting that the bedrock aquifer is not densely fractured and the water bearing fractures are not connected

This equation, which assumes radial flow condition, is therefore only valid for pumping times up to approximately 100 minutes, after which time the drawdown values can be extrapolated using an analytical equation for linear flow conditions (refer section 3.2).

Page 4

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 2 Step Test Data and Corrected Data (well 129800)

Page 5

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

3.2 Constant Discharge Test Results

The constant discharge test commenced at 0940hrs on 27/3/08 and ceased at 0940hrs on the 28/3/08.

At the start of the pumping, the Standing Water Level (SWL, also known as Static Water Level) was still 0.35m below the SWL measured at the start of the step discharge test‐ ie the water level had not yet fully recovered between the stop of the discharge test at 1550 hrs on the 26.03.08 and 0940hrs on the 27.03.08, suggesting possible dewatering. This was taken into account when plotting the data.

Drawdown responses were measured in the pumping well P.N 129800 and also in wells P.N 129293, 1103 and Bore A (figure 1). Pumping was commenced at a discharge rate of 6.5 L/s, but this was reduced to 5 L/s after 1,100 minutes of pumping to ensure that the well did not “fork” towards the end of the 24 hr pumping period.

On cessation of pumping, the recovery in the pumping well and the 3 observation wells were monitored for 24hrs.

The plots of drawdown and residual drawdown for the pumping well are shown in figure 3.

The drawdown response is typical of linear flow conditions, or strip or long narrow aquifer, ie the rate of drawdown increases with time. The residual drawdown plot is affected by the reduction in pumping rate towards the end of the test, reducing the recovery water level starting point by some 3+m. This suggests that the residual drawdown plot would have intersected the t/t =1 line at s >0m, suggesting that there has been some dewatering.

For a strip or long narrow aquifer, the plot of drawdown versus √time should typically be linear.

Accordingly the drawdown during the constant discharge test was plotted against √time until the 1100 minute pumping period (when the discharge rate was reduced to 5l/s). Figure 4 shows a reasonable fit to a straight line response,

Page 6

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 3 Constant Discharge Test, Drawdown and Residual Drawdown (well 129800)

Page 7

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 4 Drawdown vs √Time for Step Test and Constant Discharge Test (well 129800)

Page 8

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 5 Drawdown vs Time for Various Discharge Rates (well 129800)

Page 9

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

with a change in slope observed at √t = ~18 minutes (or ~300 minutes after the start of pumping). The straight line response confirms that the fractured rock aquifer behaves as a long narrow aquifer, whilst the change in slope indicates that the water level has dropped below the first water cut in the well after about 300 minutes of pumping, resulting in an increase rate of drawdown after that time.

The observed drawdowns and inferred trend lines (taking into account the change in slope were then used to plot drawdowns for various pumping rates and pumping durations ( refer section 3.3, figure 5)

As previously indicated, three existing wells were used as monitoring wells during the constant discharge test (figure 1). The distance of each observation well from the pumping well is as follows:

P.N. 12293: approximately 1.5 km to the NW.

6630‐1103: approximately 1 km to the N.

Well A: approximately 1.5 km to the SE.

Figure 6 shows that the water levels in the 3 observation wells have not been affected by the pumping. Both this observation and the apparent dewatering suggest that the aquifer system is compartmentalized.

Conductivity (mS) of the water pumped from the production well during the constant discharge test is shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that the conductivity is essentially stable at approximately 3,700 μS (2,150 mg/L).

3.3 Recommended pumping rate for well P.N 129800

The drillers report shows that water cuts were intersected between 29 to 33m and 50 to 51m below ground. The main water cut is between 50‐51m, and it is therefore important that the pump depth is not greater than 49m below ground. With a SWL of some 25m, measured at the end of summer, the available maximum drawdown in the well is some 24m.

Plots of drawdowns for various pumping rates and pumping durations are shown in figure 5. This suggests that the well could be pumped at 7.5 L/s for some 8 hrs, or 6.5 L/s for some 18 hours. However, the step discharge test

Page 10

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 6 Water Levels of Observation Wells During Constant Discharge Test Page 11

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Figure 7 Conductivity vs Time for Constant Drawdown Test (well 129800)

Page 12

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

showed that after pumping at an average of some 5 L/s for 5hrs, there was still some 0.35 m of residual drawdown after some 18 hrs of “rest”. Similarly during the constant discharge test, after pumping for 24 hrs at an average of 6 L/s (allowing for the fact that the rate was reduced from 6.5 L/s to 5 L/s for the last 7 hrs of the test), the residual drawdown was still 2.3m after 24 hrs of “rest”. Therefore if pumping cycles are repeated before full recovery is achieved, there will be a cumulative drawdown effect which will be additional to the drawdown produced when the well is pumping.

In the long term, well yield will depend on the frequency and size of recharge events. This cannot be determined from a pumping test, and but can be estimated by monitoring the water level response due to known extraction over many years. However, the estimated 1‐2 year yield has been found to be a good indication of long‐term sustained yield. This has been calculated below, based on the additional assumption that the well will be pumped 8 hrs a day for 365 days.

One year yield

The drawdown can be given approximately by the following equation: s= s1 + s2 , where s is the estimated maximum drawdown s1 = drawdown for 364 days at the average rate Q/3, s2 = drawdown for 8 hrs at 2Q/3

For Q = 2.5 L/s, the 1 year drawdown was estimated at some 40m, using the drawdown equation for radial flow to approximately determine the drawdown for the first 100 minutes of pumping at 0.8 and 1.6 L/s, and thereafter extrapolate the drawdown based on the √t relationship. This suggests that the long term yield from this well is of the order of 1.5‐2.5 L/s for 8 hr per day pumping cycles.

However, this does not take into consideration any minor primary porosity from the bedrock matrix due to possible presence of micro‐fractures. The significance of the matrix yield can only be determined by undertaking a constant discharge test of at least 72 hrs duration, taking care that to minimize the risk of recirculation during the test. Alternatively, by carefully monitoring the water level of the well at the start of each pumping cycle when the feedlot operation is established‐ the risk being that the long term yield may prove to be inadequate to sustain the operation of the feed lot once established. A staged development in this case would therefore be prudent.

Page 13

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

4. IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

As documented by Water Search Pty Ltd (letter report dated 06 September 2007), the area is underlain by calcareous shales overlying sandstones and siltstones. Groundwater occurs in fractures/joints within the formation and yields of wells completed in this type of formation are dependent on the intensity of fracturing, their interconnection and openness.

The driller’s reports for the 2 wells indicate that the water bearing fractures were intersected in siltstone.

As previously indicated, some concerns have been raised in relation to the impact of the proposed development on adjoining existing users and on the groundwater resources of the Booborowie Valley Groundwater Basin.

4.1 Impact on adjoining existing users

The limited available well data derived from the DWLBC drillhole data base from immediately surrounding wells (figure 1) are tabulated below:

Table 2 Data of Surrounding Wells

Well ID Depth SWL Yield Salinity

1102 85m 35m 0.08 L/s 2240mg/L

1103 36m 17m ‐ 2675mg/L

1104 51m 28m ‐ 2372mg/L

1105 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2613mg/L

3208 64m 24m 0.40L/s ‐

The status of the above wells is not known.

As previously indicated, water levels were also measured in wells PN 129293, 6630‐1103 and well A (figure 1) during the constant discharge test on well PN 129800

As shown in figure 6, these did not respond during the test, supporting Water Search opinion that pumping from the two new wells should not have any adverse impact on any existing groundwater users locally. This is not to say it

Page 14

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

will not have any impact in the long term, but given the likely compartmentalised nature of the system and the general tightness of the bed rock (ie generally very low yielding wells), it is unlikely to have a long term significant impact.

4.2 Impact on the Booborowie Valley

The link between the fractured rock aquifer to the east of the Booborowie Valley has been documented (Cobb and Smith 1977). There has not been any significant hydrogeological investigative work since that time, however a more recent review of the monitoring data from the area (Magarey and Deane 2005) concludes that “the water resources of Booborowie area are at least close to, if not at, the sustainable limits of use”.

The groundwater budget derived from the 1977 investigations shows that the subsurface inflow into the valley fill sediments from the adjacent bedrock is of the order of 50 ML/year, which is about 10% of the total subsurface inflow. This inflow of 50 ML/year is effected over an estimated 14km flow width.

It must be stressed that these estimates are order of magnitude estimates only, given the complexity of the valley sediments/bed rock interface and the lack of data on the hydraulic characteristics of the wide range of rock types and the connectivity between the two aquifer systems.

The proposed development is located some 6 km to the east of the southern tip of the Booborowie Valley, and groundwater flow is generally westerly towards the valley.

Given a flow width of 2‐4km (compared to some 14km for the whole valley length) and the likely compartmentalised nature of the aquifer at the site, the inflow from that area towards the valley flow is therefore expected to be minimal.

Whilst it is accepted that significant additional development along the eastern flank of the Booborowie Valley will have some impact on its water balance, albeit small, any impact from the proposed development per se is not expected to be measurable.

Given the hydrogeological complexity of fractured rock systems and the lack of aquifer properties, the use of numerical modelling techniques to predict the impact of any additional development in the bedrock aquifer on the Booborowie Valley basin, may not provide reliable results‐ at least unless it is supported by extensive hydrogeological investigations which is difficult to justify given the size of the resource.

Page 15

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• The discharge test undertaken on well PN 129800 indicate that the flow is linear.

• Water levels in surrounding wells that were monitored during the 24 hr discharge test (1.5 km NW, 1 km N, 1.5 km SE) did not respond to the pumping.

• Whilst pumping from the compartmentalised/discreet fracture system is expected to have minimal impact on existing users and on the in flow to the Booborowie Valley basin, the converse is that the long term sustainable yield from well PN 129800 may be significantly less than the tested short term yield.

• Whilst the short term yield of the tested well PN 129800 can be as high as 5‐6 L/s for 8hr pumping cycles, the long term yield for a pumping regime of 8hrs per 24 hrs will possibly be less than 2 L/s – unless there is some flow contribution from any primary porosity from the bedrock matrix.

• The significance of the matrix yield can only be determined by undertaking a constant discharge test of at least 72 hrs duration, taking care to minimize the risk of recirculation during the test. Alternatively, by carefully monitoring the water level of the well at the start of each pumping cycle when the feedlot operation is established‐ the risk being that the long term yield may prove to be inadequate to sustain the operation of the feedlot once established. A staged development, with appropriate monitoring of groundwater extraction and water levels, is therefore prudent.

6. REFERENCES

Cobb, M.A., and Smith, P.C., (1977). Underground Water in the Booborowie Valley. Report Book N0: 77/22. Department of Mines, South Australia

Magarey, P. and Deane, D., (2005).Booborowie Valley Groundwater Monitoring Status Report 2005. DWLBC Report 2005/31.

Page 16

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

APPENDIX 1

STEP TEST DATA

Page 17

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Princess Royal Station Step Test Production Well

Well Permit No.: 129800 Pumping commenced on 26/3/08 at 10:50am Pumping ceased on 26/3/08 at 15:50pm Pump Depth = 46m Static Water Level = 25.93m below measurement point Measurement point = 1.1m A.G.L. Test performed by D.Harrison

Time Drawdown Pump Rate (min) (m) (L/s) 1 0.170 2.5 Pump Started 2 0.970 3 1.210 4 1.255 5 1.300 6 1.320 7 1.420 8 1.430 9 1.460 10 1.445 2.5 12 1.520 14 1.560 16 1.585 18 1.610 20 1.640 22 1.620 24 1.640 26 1.670 28 1.700 30 1.720 2.5 35 1.760 40 1.800 45 1.845 50 1.880 55 1.915 60 1.945 70 2.000 80 2.060

Page 18

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

90 2.115 Rate Changed to 100 2.170 2.5 5L/s 101 3.450 5 102 3.590 103 3.670 104 3.710 105 3.740 106 3.770 107 3.800 108 3.820 109 3.850 110 3.890 5 112 114 3.980 116 4.010 118 4.045 120 4.085 122 4.115 124 4.150 126 4.185 128 4.210 130 4.245 5 135 4.310 140 4.415 145 4.525 150 4.600 155 4.670 160 4.740 170 4.850 180 4.970 190 5.070 Rate Changed to 200 5.160 5 7.5L/s 201 6.730 7.5 202 6.890 203 6.960 204 7.015 205 7.045 206 7.100 207 7.150 208 7.185 209 7.220 210 7.255 7.5

Page 19

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

212 7.450 214 7.505 216 7.560 218 7.620 220 7.670 222 7.730 224 7.770 226 7.830 228 7.885 230 7.940 7.5 235 8.065 240 8.185 245 8.310 250 8.420 255 8.525 260 8.635 270 8.855 280 9.050 290 9.240 300 9.475 7.5 Pump Stopped

Page 20

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

PRINCESS ROYAL STATION STEP TEST

Date Time DO EC pH mV Temp Remarks

26-Mar 10:50 Start of Test 26-Mar 11:00 0.0%S 2.39mS 7.25pH 96.mV 18.6oC 26-Mar 11:10 0.1%S 2.40mS 7.22pH 100.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 11:20 -0.1%S 2.39mS 7.22pH 101.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 11:30 1.8%S 2.39mS 7.23pH 102.mV 19.2oC 26-Mar 11:40 0.3%S 2.40mS 7.24pH 104.mV 19.1oC 26-Mar 11:50 1.1%S 2.39mS 7.24pH 103.mV 19.0oC 26-Mar 12:00 1.9%S 2.39mS 7.25pH 105.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 12:10 2.5%S 2.39mS 7.25pH 105.mV 19.0oC 26-Mar 12:20 1.9%S 2.39mS 7.25pH 105.mV 19.2oC 26-Mar 12:30 1.8%S 2.40mS 7.25pH 106.mV 19.1oC 26-Mar 12:40 1.8%S 2.39mS 7.24pH 102.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 12:50 1.7%S 2.39mS 7.25pH 103.mV 18.9oC 26-Mar 13:00 5.1%S 2.39mS 7.24pH 102.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 13:10 8.9%S 2.39mS 7.26pH 100.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 13:20 6.6%S 2.39mS 7.28pH 102.mV 18.6oC 26-Mar 13:30 2.6%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 103.mV 18.9oC 26-Mar 13:40 1.8%S 2.40mS 7.29pH 104.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 13:50 3.4%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 104.mV 18.6oC 26-Mar 14:00 1.8%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 106.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 14:10 39.9%S 2.39mS 7.28pH 107.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 14:20 16.3%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 107.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 14:30 26.6%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 108.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 14:40 26.4%S 2.39mS 7.28pH 109.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 14:50 26.6%S 2.39mS 7.29pH 111.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 15:00 26.0%S 2.39mS 7.28pH 111.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 15:10 25.5%S 2.39mS 7.27pH 110.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 15:20 26.4%S 2.39mS 7.27pH 110.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 15:30 24.9%S 2.39mS 7.28pH 112.mV 18.8oC 26-Mar 15:40 37.6%S 2.82mS 7.30pH 109.mV 18.7oC 26-Mar 15:50 5.7%S 2.82mS 7.30pH 110.mV 18.8oC End of Test

Page 21

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Princess Royal Station 24 Hour Constant Discharge Test at 6.5 L/s Production Well

Well Permit No.: 129800 Pumping Commenced on 27/3/08 at 09:40am Pumping Ceased on 28/3/08 at 9:40am Pump Test = 46 m Static Water Level = 26.28m below measurement point Measurement Point = 1.1m above ground level Test Performed by D. Harrison & D. Bryant

The following drawdown calculations have used the static water level of 25.93m from the previous step test data.

Time Drawdown Pump Rate (min) (m) (L/s) 0 0.00 6.5 1 3.26 2 3.79 3 4.02 4 4.19 5 4.31 6 4.42 7 4.50 8 4.59 9 4.64 10 4.70 6.5 12 4.82 14 4.91 16 5.03 18 5.11 20 5.18 22 5.29 24 5.34 26 5.41 28 5.47

Page 22

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

30 5.53 6.5 35 5.71 40 5.88 45 6.01 50 6.14 55 6.25 60 6.36 70 6.56 80 6.75 90 6.92 100 7.07 6.5 120 7.39 140 7.72 160 8.09 180 8.41 200 8.70 250 9.40 300 10.15 350 10.99 400 12.05 450 13.05 500 13.88 6.5 550 14.92 600 15.72 650 16.66 700 17.38 750 18.25 800 19.08 850 20.04 900 21.01 950 21.97 1000 22.90 6.5 Flow rate reduced to 4 L/s 1100 19.74 4 at 1080mins 1160 17.60 1200 19.01 5 Flow rate increased to 5L/s 1300 19.44 at 1160mins 1400 20.05 1440 20.31 5 Pump Stopped

1441 15.87 Recovery 1442 15.52 1443 15.24 1444 15.01

Page 23

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

1445 14.83 1446 14.61 1447 14.43 1448 14.23 1449 14.01 1450 13.80 1452 13.36 1454 13.04 1456 12.67 1458 12.35 1460 12.10 1462 11.83 1464 11.57 1466 11.34 1468 11.10 1470 10.90 1475 10.47 1480 10.16 1485 9.89 1490 9.68 1495 9.50 1500 9.32 1510 9.02 1520 8.75 1530 8.50 1540 8.30 1560 7.93 1580 7.59 1600 7.25 1620 6.95 1640 6.67 1690 6.08 1730 5.68 1790 5.16 Pump removed at 1820 1870 4.64 mins 2106 3.61 New Measurement Point= 2855 2.29 0.33m A.G.L.

Page 24

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

PRINCESS ROYAL STATION C.D. TEST Date Time DO EC pH mV Temp Remarks

27-Mar 9:40 Start of Test 27-Mar 9:50 -3.3%S 4.00mS 7.37pH 111.mV 18.3oC 27-Mar 10:00 -2.9%S 3.98mS 7.32pH 111.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 10:10 -2.9%S 3.98mS 7.29pH 112.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 10:20 -2.6%S 3.98mS 7.26pH 105.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 10:30 38.3%S 3.98mS 7.25pH 104.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 10:40 39.4%S 3.97mS 7.24pH 107.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 10:50 3.4%S 3.96mS 7.23pH 101.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 11:00 35.6%S 3.95mS 7.23pH 108.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 11:10 -0.1%S 3.95mS 7.22pH 106.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 11:20 1.4%S 3.93mS 7.22pH 104.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 11:30 40.8%S 3.92mS 7.21pH 107.mV 18.9oC 27-Mar 11:40 41.6%S 3.92mS 7.21pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 11:50 15.6%S 3.91mS 7.21pH 108.mV 18.9oC 27-Mar 12:00 12.9%S 3.90mS 7.21pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 12:10 42.6%S 3.89mS 7.21pH 106.mV 18.9oC 27-Mar 12:20 40.9%S 3.87mS 7.21pH 106.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 12:30 10.9%S 3.86mS 7.21pH 108.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 12:40 16.6%S 3.86mS 7.21pH 101.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 12:50 8.1%S 3.83mS 7.21pH 105.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 13:00 5.1%S 3.84mS 7.21pH 105.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 13:10 30.6%S 3.83mS 7.21pH 111.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 13:20 28.4%S 3.82mS 7.21pH 102.mV 18.9oC 27-Mar 13:30 28.6%S 3.81mS 7.21pH 106.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 13:40 37.9%S 3.84mS 7.21pH 101.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 13:50 39.6%S 3.83mS 7.21pH 105.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 14:00 2.4%S 3.82mS 7.21pH 104.mV 18.8oC 27-Mar 14:10 25.5%S 3.81mS 7.21pH 106.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 14:20 35.8%S 3.80mS 7.21pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 14:30 26.9%S 3.78mS 7.21pH 112.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 14:40 41.1%S 3.78mS 7.21pH 106.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 14:50 42.2%S 3.78mS 7.21pH 107.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 15:00 43.3%S 3.77mS 7.21pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 15:10 2.1%S 3.80mS 7.22pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 15:20 2.6%S 3.75mS 7.22pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 15:30 0.1%S 3.78mS 7.22pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 15:40 9.7%S 3.77mS 7.22pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 15:50 6.3%S 3.77mS 7.22pH 106.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:00 13.4%S 3.76mS 7.22pH 107.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:10 13.1%S 3.76mS 7.22pH 116.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:20 16.6%S 3.75mS 7.22pH 107.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:30 36.9%S 3.74mS 7.22pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:40 20.9%S 3.73mS 7.22pH 113.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 16:50 16.4%S 3.74mS 7.22pH 113.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 17:00 30.9%S 3.72mS 7.23pH 106.mV 18.6oC

Page 25

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

27-Mar 17:10 17.0%S 3.73mS 7.23pH 104.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 17:20 15.9%S 3.73mS 7.23pH 112.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 17:30 4.9%S 3.72mS 7.23pH 113.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 17:40 5.1%S 3.87mS 7.23pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 17:50 4.6%S 3.86mS 7.23pH 111.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:00 4.9%S 3.85mS 7.24pH 107.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:10 4.2%S 3.84mS 7.23pH 106.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:20 4.2%S 3.83mS 7.24pH 111.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:30 4.4%S 3.82mS 7.24pH 111.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:40 4.1%S 3.81mS 7.24pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 18:50 4.0%S 3.79mS 7.24pH 106.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:00 3.7%S 3.79mS 7.24pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:10 3.8%S 3.78mS 7.25pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:20 4.0%S 3.77mS 7.25pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:30 0.4%S 3.78mS 7.25pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:40 -0.4%S 3.76mS 7.25pH 108.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 19:50 -0.1%S 3.76mS 7.26pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:00 0.0%S 3.75mS 7.26pH 112.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:10 1.7%S 3.75mS 7.27pH 102.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:20 1.6%S 3.75mS 7.28pH 105.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:30 0.0%S 3.74mS 7.29pH 109.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:40 -0.2%S 3.73mS 7.29pH 102.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 20:50 -0.3%S 3.72mS 7.29pH 107.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 21:00 -0.3%S 3.72mS 7.30pH 107.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 21:10 1.9%S 3.72mS 7.29pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 21:20 2.4%S 3.70mS 7.29pH 110.mV 18.6oC 27-Mar 21:30 -1.9%S 3.72mS 7.30pH 100.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 21:40 -1.9%S 3.71mS 7.30pH 102.mV 18.7oC 27-Mar 21:50 2.5%S 3.74mS 7.31pH 107.mV 18.5oC 27-Mar 22:00 2.2%S 3.73mS 7.30pH 109.mV 18.4oC 27-Mar 22:10 2.1%S 3.73mS 7.31pH 105.mV 18.4oC 27-Mar 22:20 2.0%S 3.73mS 7.32pH 110.mV 18.3oC 27-Mar 22:30 2.1%S 3.73mS 7.33pH 103.mV 18.3oC 27-Mar 22:40 -0.3%S 3.72mS 7.33pH 109.mV 18.2oC 27-Mar 22:50 2.1%S 3.72mS 7.33pH 110.mV 18.2oC 27-Mar 23:00 -1.2%S 3.72mS 7.34pH 105.mV 18.2oC 27-Mar 23:10 -1.2%S 3.72mS 7.35pH 106.mV 18.2oC 27-Mar 23:20 -0.5%S 3.72mS 7.35pH 101.mV 17.5oC 27-Mar 23:30 1.7%S 3.71mS 7.38pH 109.mV 17.1oC 27-Mar 23:40 2.3%S 3.71mS 7.41pH 100.mV 17.0oC 27-Mar 23:50 2.2%S 3.71mS 7.41pH 97.mV 16.9oC 28-Mar 0:00 -0.9%S 3.71mS 7.42pH 109.mV 16.7oC 28-Mar 0:10 1.7%S 3.71mS 7.40pH 108.mV 16.5oC 28-Mar 0:20 1.6%S 3.71mS 7.39pH 113.mV 16.3oC 28-Mar 0:30 1.6%S 3.70mS 7.40pH 109.mV 16.1oC 28-Mar 0:40 1.8%S 3.71mS 7.40pH 108.mV 16.1oC 28-Mar 0:50 1.8%S 3.70mS 7.39pH 117.mV 16.2oC 28-Mar 1:00 1.9%S 3.71mS 7.41pH 108.mV 16.1oC 28-Mar 1:10 1.8%S 3.71mS 7.40pH 119.mV 15.5oC 28-Mar 1:20 2.0%S 3.71mS 7.39pH 118.mV 14.9oC 28-Mar 1:30 2.0%S 3.71mS 7.41pH 110.mV 14.3oC

Page 26

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

28-Mar 1:40 1.8%S 3.72mS 7.41pH 124.mV 13.9oC 28-Mar 1:50 1.9%S 3.72mS 7.42pH 114.mV 13.5oC 28-Mar 2:00 1.9%S 3.71mS 7.43pH 121.mV 13.2oC 28-Mar 2:10 2.0%S 3.71mS 7.43pH 107.mV 12.9oC 28-Mar 2:20 1.9%S 3.71mS 7.44pH 121.mV 12.6oC 28-Mar 2:30 1.8%S 3.71mS 7.45pH 109.mV 12.3oC 28-Mar 2:40 1.8%S 3.72mS 7.46pH 116.mV 12.1oC 28-Mar 2:50 1.8%S 3.72mS 7.47pH 100.mV 11.8oC 28-Mar 3:00 -1.7%S 3.72mS 7.51pH 94.mV 11.5oC 28-Mar 3:10 -2.0%S 3.72mS 7.53pH 104.mV 11.2oC 28-Mar 3:20 -2.1%S 3.72mS 7.59pH 87.mV 10.9oC 28-Mar 3:30 -2.0%S 3.71mS 7.67pH 86.mV 10.7oC 28-Mar 3:40 -2.0%S 3.72mS 7.73pH 53.mV 10.4oC 28-Mar 3:50 -2.2%S 3.72mS 7.76pH 78.mV 10.1oC 28-Mar 4:00 -2.4%S 3.72mS 7.78pH 72.mV 9.9oC 28-Mar 4:10 -2.3%S 3.72mS 7.89pH 56.mV 9.6oC 28-Mar 4:20 -2.2%S 3.72mS 7.91pH 54.mV 9.4oC 28-Mar 4:30 -2.3%S 3.72mS 7.94pH 56.mV 9.1oC 28-Mar 4:40 -2.3%S 3.72mS 8.02pH 22.mV 8.9oC 28-Mar 4:50 -2.3%S 3.72mS 8.05pH 25.mV 8.7oC 28-Mar 5:00 -2.3%S 3.72mS 8.09pH 34.mV 8.4oC 28-Mar 5:10 -2.3%S 3.73mS 7.77pH 68.mV 8.2oC 28-Mar 5:20 -2.2%S 3.72mS 7.83pH 67.mV 8.1oC 28-Mar 5:30 -2.3%S 3.73mS 8.14pH 20.mV 7.9oC 28-Mar 5:40 -2.3%S 3.72mS 8.21pH 11.mV 7.8oC 28-Mar 5:50 -2.1%S 3.73mS 8.21pH 33.mV 7.6oC 28-Mar 6:00 -2.1%S 3.72mS 8.25pH 40.mV 7.4oC 28-Mar 6:10 -2.0%S 3.72mS 8.24pH 38.mV 7.3oC 28-Mar 6:20 1.9%S 3.72mS 8.36pH 44.mV 7.1oC 28-Mar 6:30 1.7%S 3.72mS 8.45pH 46.mV 7.0oC 28-Mar 6:40 1.8%S 3.72mS 8.48pH 72.mV 6.8oC 28-Mar 6:50 1.8%S 3.72mS 8.64pH 47.mV 6.6oC 28-Mar 7:00 1.5%S 3.72mS 8.58pH 77.mV 6.5oC 28-Mar 7:10 1.8%S 3.72mS 8.61pH 85.mV 6.4oC 28-Mar 7:20 1.6%S 3.71mS 8.48pH 113.mV 6.3oC 28-Mar 7:30 1.5%S 3.71mS 8.36pH 116.mV 6.2oC 28-Mar 7:40 1.5%S 3.71mS 8.41pH 124.mV 6.2oC 28-Mar 7:50 1.1%S 3.72mS 8.47pH 129.mV 6.5oC 28-Mar 8:00 -2.0%S 3.73mS 8.52pH 107.mV 6.9oC 28-Mar 8:10 -2.4%S 3.74mS 8.03pH 132.mV 7.7oC 28-Mar 8:20 0.0%S 3.70mS 7.55pH 117.mV 18.7oC 28-Mar 8:30 2.3%S 3.69mS 7.47pH 111.mV 18.8oC 28-Mar 8:40 2.8%S 3.69mS 7.39pH 113.mV 18.8oC 28-Mar 8:50 2.9%S 3.68mS 7.33pH 112.mV 18.8oC 28-Mar 9:00 3.2%S 3.67mS 7.29pH 110.mV 18.9oC 28-Mar 9:10 3.4%S 3.66mS 7.27pH 111.mV 18.9oC 28-Mar 9:20 3.5%S 3.65mS 7.25pH 110.mV 18.9oC 28-Mar 9:30 4.0%S 3.66mS 7.24pH 111.mV 19.0oC 28-Mar 9:40 3.7%S 3.66mS 7.23pH 111.mV 18.8oC End of Test

Page 27

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

Princess Royal Station 24 Hour Constant Discharge Test at 6.5L/s Observation Wells

Western well Well Permit Number = 129293 Static Water Level = 21.67m below measurement point at 08:53am Measurement Point = 0.31m above ground level

Water Date Time Time Time Level minutes hours (m) 27/03/2008 8:53 0 0 21.67 9:59 66 1 21.67 11:04 131 2 21.67 12:04 191 3 21.67 13:10 257 4 21.67 14:07 314 5 21.67 15:18 385 6 21.67 16:12 439 7 21.67 17:08 495 8 21.68 18:15 562 9 21.68 19:07 614 10 21.67

28/03/2008 9:10 1457 24 21.67 10:12 1519 25 21.67 11:30 1597 27 21.67 13:10 1697 28 21.67 14:45 1792 30 21.67 21:02 2169 36 21.66

29/03/2008 8:46 2873 48 21.665

Northern well Well Permit Number = Static Water Level = 26.84m below measurement point at 08:45am Measurement Point = 0.28m above ground level

Water Date Time Time Time Level minutes hours (m) 27/03/2008 8:45 0 0 26.84 9:50 65 1 26.84 10:52 127 2 26.84 11:55 190 3 26.84

Page 28

Mackerode Station hydrogeological investigations

13:00 255 4 26.84 14:00 315 5 26.84 15:10 385 6 26.84 16:05 440 7 26.835 17:00 495 8 26.84 18:05 560 9 26.84 19:00 615 10 26.84

28/03/2008 9:20 1475 25 26.84 10:22 1537 26 26.84 11:22 1597 27 26.83 13:00 1695 28 26.83 14:40 1795 30 26.82 20:53 2168 36 26.815

29/03/2008 9:10 2905 48 26.805

Eastern Well Well Permit Number = Static Water Level = 37.43 below measurement point at 09:09am Measurement Point = 0.22m above ground level

Water Date Time Time Time Level minutes hours (m) 27/03/2008 9:09 0 0 37.43 10:14 65 1 37.43 11:20 131 2 37.43 12:22 193 3 37.43 13:23 254 4 37.43 14:25 316 5 37.43 15:22 373 6 37.43 16:20 431 7 37.43 17:23 494 8 37.43 18:30 561 9 37.43 19:22 613 10 37.43

28/03/2008 9:00 1431 24 37.43 10:00 1491 25 37.43 11:45 1596 27 37.43 13:30 1701 28 37.43 15:00 1791 30 37.42 21:24 2175 36 37.41

29/03/2008 8:31 2842 47 37.415

Page 29

DHNO Unit_No Unit_Number Obs_No drillhole_class Aquifer Orig_drilled_depth Orig_drilled_date max_drill_depth max_drill_date late_open_depth late_open_date late_permit_no cased_to case_min_diam purpose latest_status latest_status_date swl rswl water_level_date TDS EC salinity_date pH pH_date yield yield_date mga_easting mga_northing hundred plan parcel Title map_250k map_100k map_50k map_10k map_2_5k map_1k water_info salinity water_chemistry geophys_log drill_log lith_log 65639 6630‐1023 663001023 WW 36.58 17/01/1968 36.58 7/03/1968 6.1 152 DOMSTK OPR 15.24 548.63 17/03/1968 2545 4563 7/03/1968 6.5 7/03/1968 1.26 17/01/1968 301977.91 6283405.43 KINGSTON H200700 S281 CT 5976 576 SI5405 6630 1 7 f 5Y Y N NNN 65711 6630‐1095 663001095 WW Nnt 30.48 5/10/1973 30.48 5/10/1973 152 298530.98 6283891.4 AYERS H230100 S521 CT 5352 110 SI5405 6630 1 7 g 1 N N N N NN 65712 6630‐1096 663001096 WW Nnt 33.53 29/09/1973 33.53 29/09/1973 30.48 102 10.66 531.31 29/09/1973 2372 4255 3/10/1973 7 3/10/1973 299340 6284010.41 AYERS D1942 B26 CT 5548 750 SI5405 6630 1 7 g 2 Y Y N N NN 65713 6630‐1097 663001097 WW 32 29/09/1973 32 29/09/1973 19.81 152 10.67 532.2 29/09/1973 2309 4145 29/09/1973 6.5 29/09/1973 299090.98 6283406.41 AYERS D1942 B26 CT 5548 750 SI5405 6630 1 7 g 5 Y Y N N NN 65714 6630‐1098 663001098 WP 2 2/10/1973 2 2/10/1973 SOK 213 387 10/10/1973 6 10/10/1973 300426.91 6284246.4 AYERS H230100 S412 CT 5337 476 SI5405 6630 1 7 f 1N Y N NNN 65715 6630‐1099 663001099 WW 21/10/1973 21/10/1973 102 2067 3715 10/10/1973 7 10/10/1973 300348 6284052.37 AYERS H230100 S412 CT 5337 476 SI5405 6630 1 7 g 3 N Y N N NN 65716 6630‐1100 663001100 WW Nya 36.8 2/10/1973 36.8 2/10/1973 152 18.3 585.77 2/10/1973 1664 3000 2/10/1973 7 2/10/1973 301122.98 6283999.43 AYERS H230100 S413CT 5976 576 SI5405 6630 1 7 f 1Y Y N NNN 65717 6630‐1101 663001101 WP 1 2/10/1973 1 2/10/1973 0.8 579.65 2/10/1973 154 280 10/10/1973 6 10/10/1973 300643.97 6284054.41 AYERS H230100 S413 CT 5976 576 SI5405 6630 1 7 f 1Y Y N NNN 65718 6630‐1102 663001102 WW 85 31/03/1988 31/03/1988 20970 35 523.11 26/04/1988 2239 4020 2/10/1973 7 2/10/1973 0.08 31/03/1988 299995.97 6282567.43 AYERS D2033 B27 CT 5469 103 SI5405 6630 1 7 k 3 Y Y N N NN 65719 6630‐1103 663001103 WW Nya 36.58 2/10/1973 36.58 2/10/1973 102 17.3 564.16 2/10/1973 2675 4790 2/10/1973 7 2/10/1973 300901.96 6282460.43 AYERS D2033 B27 CT 5469 103 SI5405 6630 1 7 l 1 Y Y N N NN 65720 6630‐1104 663001104 WW 51 21/09/1973 51 21/09/1973 102 28 515.3 21/09/1973 2372 4255 2/10/1973 7.5 2/10/1973 299673.98 6281544.41 AYERS H230100 S893 CT 5470 237 SI5405 6630 1 7 k 5 Y Y N N NN 65721 6630‐1105 663001105 WW Nya 152 2613 4680 2/10/1973 6.5 2/10/1973 300669.98 6280917.42 AYERS H230100 S890 CT 5470 237 SI5405 6630 1 7 p 1 N Y N N NN 65726 6630‐1110 663001110 WP IRR 2185 3925 8/08/1957 298154.93 6282524.36 AYERS H230100 S897 CT 5553 646 SI5405 6630 1 7 k 1 N Y N N NN 65746 6630‐1130 663001130 WW 30.48 26/09/1973 30.48 26/09/1973 15.24 152 298853.97 6280205.4 AYERS H230100 S497 CT 5442 674 SI5405 6630 1 7 q 6 N N N N NN 65750 6630‐1134 663001134 WW Nnt 36.58 22/09/1973 36.58 22/09/1973 2795 5000 22/09/1973 7 22/09/1973 299276.99 6281181.41 AYERS H230100 S509 CT 5460 983 SI5405 6630 1 7 q 2 N Y N N NN 65751 6630‐1135 663001135 WW Nnt 36.37 22/09/1973 36.37 22/09/1973 9 152 ABD 29 492.35 22/09/1973 2848 5092 2/10/1973 7 2/10/1973 297790.98 6281836.35 AYERS H230100 S511 CT 5460 983 SI5405 6630 1 7 j 4Y Y N NNN 65783 6630‐1167 663001167 WW 30.48 26/09/1973 30.48 26/09/1973 6.1 152 1130 2045 2/10/1973 7 2/10/1973 300273.94 6280138.42 AYERS F186674 A162 CT 5442 674 SI5405 6630 1 7 q 4 N Y N N NN 65784 6630‐1168 663001168 WW 13.6 6/10/1973 13.6 6/10/1973 ABD 300421.95 6280079.37 AYERS F216507 A118 CT 5442 674 SI5405 6630 1 14 b 3 N N N N NN 66408 6630‐1792 663001792 WW Nnt 58.4 10/05/1988 58.4 10/05/1988 0 10/05/1988 20945 BKF 10/05/1988 298021.98 6283229.44 AYERS F203931 A93 CT 5379 975 SI5405 6630 1 7 h 4 N N N N YN 196699 6630‐3208 663003208 WW Nya 64 16/01/2003 64 16/01/2003 64 16/01/2003 60468 64 127 STK 24 586.24 16/01/2003 0.4 16/01/2003 300772.68 6282886.67 AYERS D2033 B27 CT 5469 103 SI5405 6630 1 7 l 1 Y N N N YN 240361 6630‐3420 663003420 WW 114 2/04/2007 114 2/04/2007 114 2/04/2007 129293 34 150 21.5 518.45 2/04/2007 1845 3320 2/04/2007 3 2/04/2007 299620.38 6282495.07 AYERS D2033 B27 CT 5469 103 SI5405 6630 1 7 k 2 Y Y N N YN 240362 6630‐3421 663003421 WW Nya 62 29/04/2007 62 29/04/2007 62 29/04/2007 129800 26 150 24.7 535.33 29/04/2007 2364 4240 28/03/2008 5 29/04/2007 300501.98 6281628.29 AYERS D2033 B28 CT 5469 103 SI5405 6630 1 7 l 6 Y Y N N YN DHNO Unit_Number Aquifer Easting Northing Zone Unit_No Obs_No obs_date swl rswl pressure temperature dry_ind anom_ind pump_ind measured_during data_source Comments 65639 663001023 301977.9 6283405 54 6630‐1023 17/03/1968 15.24 548.63 NNU DEWNR 65712 663001096 Nnt 299340 6284010 54 6630‐1096 29/09/1973 10.66 531.31 NNU DEWNR 65713 663001097 299091 6283406 54 6630‐1097 29/09/1973 10.67 532.2 NNU DEWNR 65716 663001100 Nya 301123 6283999 54 6630‐1100 2/10/1973 18.3 585.77 NNU DEWNR 65717 663001101 300644 6284054 54 6630‐1101 2/10/1973 0.8 579.65 NNU DEWNR 65718 663001102 299996 6282567 54 6630‐1102 26/04/1988 35 523.11 NNU DEWNR 65719 663001103 Nya 300902 6282460 54 6630‐1103 2/10/1973 17.3 564.16 NNU DEWNR 65720 663001104 299674 6281544 54 6630‐1104 21/09/1973 28 515.3 NNU DEWNR 65751 663001135 Nnt 297791 6281836 54 6630‐1135 22/09/1973 29 492.35 NNU DEWNR 196699 663003208 Nya 300772.7 6282887 54 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 24 586.24 NND DEWNR 240361 663003420 299620.4 6282495 54 6630‐3420 2/04/2007 21.5 518.45 NND DEWNR 240362 663003421 Nya 300502 6281628 54 6630‐3421 29/04/2007 24.7 535.33 NND DEWNR DHNO Unit_No Obs_No log_date logger_name depth_from depth_to lith_code description 66408 6630‐1792 10/05/1988 THOMAS I C 0 3 TPSL 66408 6630‐1792 10/05/1988 THOMAS I C 3 13 SHLE Yellow shale 66408 6630‐1792 10/05/1988 THOMAS I C 13 58.4 ROCK Blue rock 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 THOMAS D D 0 1 TPSL dirt 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 THOMAS D D 1 23 SHLE yellow shale 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 THOMAS D D 23 48 ROCK blue rock 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 THOMAS D D 48 49 ROCK broken blue rock 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 THOMAS D D 49 64 ROCK blue rock 240361 6630‐3420 2/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 0 8 CLYU CLAY and shale 240361 6630‐3420 2/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 8 25 SLST Weathered SILTSTONE 240361 6630‐3420 2/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 25 114 SLST Firm grey SILTSTONE 240362 6630‐3421 29/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 0 6 CLYU CLAYand shale 240362 6630‐3421 29/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 6 15 SDST Soft brown SANDSTONE 240362 6630‐3421 29/04/2007 MAYNARD S R 15 61 SLST Grey‐brown SILTSTONE DHNO Aquifer Unit_No Unit_Number Obs_No Collected_date Collected_time TDS EC pH Sample_type Anomalous_ind Test_Place extract_method Measured_during data_source Easting Northing Zone 65639 6630‐1023 663001023 23/01/1968 2530 4536 6.7 S N D DEWNR 301977.9 6283405 54 65639 6630‐1023 663001023 7/03/1968 2545 4563 6.5 S N PUMP F DEWNR 301977.9 6283405 54 65712 Nnt 6630‐1096 663001096 3/10/1973 2372 4255 7 S N WMLL F DEWNR 299340 6284010 54 65713 6630‐1097 663001097 29/09/1973 2309 4145 6.5 S N F DEWNR 299091 6283406 54 65714 6630‐1098 663001098 10/10/1973 213 387 6 S N U DEWNR 300426.9 6284246 54 65715 6630‐1099 663001099 10/10/1973 2067 3715 7 S N WMLL F DEWNR 300348 6284052 54 65716 Nya 6630‐1100 663001100 2/10/1973 1664 3000 7 S N F DEWNR 301123 6283999 54 65717 6630‐1101 663001101 10/10/1973 154 280 6 S N U DEWNR 300644 6284054 54 65718 6630‐1102 663001102 2/10/1973 2239 4020 7 S N U DEWNR 299996 6282567 54 65719 Nya 6630‐1103 663001103 2/10/1973 2675 4790 7 S N WMLL F DEWNR 300902 6282460 54 65720 6630‐1104 663001104 2/10/1973 2372 4255 7.5 S N WMLL F DEWNR 299674 6281544 54 65721 Nya 6630‐1105 663001105 2/10/1973 2613 4680 6.5 S N WMLL F DEWNR 300670 6280917 54 65726 6630‐1110 663001110 8/08/1957 2185 3925 S N U DEWNR 298154.9 6282524 54 65750 Nnt 6630‐1134 663001134 22/09/1973 2795 5000 7 S N WMLL F DEWNR 299277 6281181 54 65751 Nnt 6630‐1135 663001135 2/10/1973 2848 5092 7 S N WMLL F DEWNR 297791 6281836 54 65783 6630‐1167 663001167 2/10/1973 1130 2045 7 S N PUMP F DEWNR 300273.9 6280138 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 25/03/2008 14:40 2415 4330 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 25/03/2008 15:50 2358 4230 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 25/03/2008 17:00 2364 4240 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 26/03/2008 11:00 2347 4210 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 26/03/2008 12:30 2358 4230 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 26/03/2008 14:10 2358 4230 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 26/03/2008 15:50 2358 4230 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 9:50 2352 4220 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 11:20 2347 4210 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 13:00 2364 4240 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 14:40 2352 4220 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 16:20 2358 4230 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 18:00 2380 4270 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 19:40 2386 4280 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 21:20 2397 4300 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 27/03/2008 23:00 2404 4310 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 28/03/2008 1:30 2409 4320 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 28/03/2008 4:00 2375 4260 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 28/03/2008 7:20 2375 4260 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 240362 Nya 6630‐3421 663003421 28/03/2008 9:40 2364 4240 S N GL PUMP M DEWNR 300502 6281628 54 DHNO Unit_No Obs_No completion_date total_depth final_depth current_depth permit_no Bkf_ind case_from case_to case_min_ case_material pcem pcem_frompcem_to pz_from pz_to pz_min_diametpz_type pz_material pz_aperture drill_from drill_to drill_diam drill_meth well_dev_mwell_dev_dur Comments 65639 6630‐1023 17/01/1968 36.58 N 0 6.1 152 N 6.1 36.58 UKN 65639 6630‐1023 7/03/1968 36.58 N N 65711 6630‐1095 5/10/1973 30.48 30.48 30.48 N 152 N 65712 6630‐1096 29/09/1973 33.53 33.53 33.53 N 0 30.48 102 N 30.48 33.53 UKN 65713 6630‐1097 29/09/1973 32 32 32 N 0 19.81 152 N 19.81 32 UKN 65714 6630‐1098 2/10/1973 2 N N 65715 6630‐1099 21/10/1973 N 102 N 65716 6630‐1100 2/10/1973 36.8 36.8 36.8 N 152 N 65717 6630‐1101 2/10/1973 1 N N 65718 6630‐1102 31/03/1988 85 20970 N N 0 85 OH 55 85 130 ROT 65719 6630‐1103 2/10/1973 36.58 36.58 36.58 N 102 N 65720 6630‐1104 21/09/1973 51 51 51 N 102 N 65721 6630‐1105 N 152 N 65746 6630‐1130 26/09/1973 30.48 30.48 30.48 N 0 15.24 152 N 15.24 30.48 UKN 65750 6630‐1134 22/09/1973 36.58 N N 65751 6630‐1135 22/09/1973 36.37 36.37 36.37 N 0 9 152 N 9 36.37 UKN 65783 6630‐1167 26/09/1973 30.48 30.48 30.48 N 0 6.1 152 N 6.1 30.48 UKN 65784 6630‐1168 6/10/1973 13.6 13.6 13.6 N N 66408 6630‐1792 10/05/1988 58.4 0 20945 Y N 0 58.4 180 RTA 196699 6630‐3208 16/01/2003 64 64 64 60468 N 0 64 127 PVC N 47 64 127 SC PVC 3.2 0 64 165 RTA AIRL 2 New well 240361 6630‐3420 2/04/2007 114 114 114 129293 N 0 34 150 PVC N 34 114 OH 0 114 165 RTA Water sup 240362 6630‐3421 29/04/2007 62 62 62 129800 N 0 26 150 PVC N 26 61 OH 0 61 165 ACR+RTA Water sup

Appendix C. Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) EPBC Online Database Search Results

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 222 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 18/05/16 13:54:11

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

Coordinates Buffer: 5.0Km Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: 1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 2 Listed Threatened Species: 17 Listed Migratory Species: 10

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: None Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 12 Whales and Other Cetaceans: None Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: None Regional Forest Agreements: None Invasive Species: 28 Nationally Important Wetlands: None Key Ecological Features (Marine) None Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) [ Resource Information ] Name Proximity The coorong, and lakes alexandrina and albert wetland 150 - 200km upstream

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ] For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps. Name Status Type of Presence Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Critically Endangered Community likely to occur Australia within area Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Critically Endangered Community may occur Woodland of South Australia within area Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer [906] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Fish Galaxias rostratus Flathead Galaxias, Beaked Minnow, Flat-headed Critically Endangered Species or species habitat Galaxias, Flat-headed Jollytail, Flat-headed Minnow may occur within area [84745] Maccullochella peelii Murray Cod [66633] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Plants Acacia glandulicarpa Hairy-pod Wattle [8838] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Acacia menzelii Menzel's Wattle [9218] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caladenia gladiolata Bayonet Spider-orchid, Clubbed Spider-orchid [8079] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caladenia macroclavia Large-club Spider-orchid [55012] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Caladenia tensa Greencomb Spider-orchid, Rigid Spider-orchid [24390] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Caladenia woolcockiorum Woolcock's Spider-orchid [55023] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caladenia xantholeuca White Rabbits, Flinders Ranges White Caladenia Endangered Species or species habitat [55025] may occur within area

Dodonaea procumbens Trailing Hop-bush [12149] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Olearia pannosa subsp. pannosa Silver Daisy-bush [12348] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Prasophyllum pallidum Pale Leek-orchid [20351] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Reptiles Aprasia pseudopulchella Flinders Ranges Worm-lizard [1666] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Tiliqua adelaidensis Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard, Adelaide Blue-tongue Endangered Species or species habitat Lizard [1270] known to occur within area

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Migratory Wetlands Species Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Extra Information Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of Presence Birds Alauda arvensis Skylark [656] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Turdus merula Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Capra hircus Goat [2] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Plants Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist's Species or species habitat Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] likely to occur within area

Cenchrus ciliaris Buffel-grass, Black Buffel-grass [20213] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera Boneseed [16905] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Genista sp. X Genista monspessulana Broom [67538] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Olea europaea Olive, Common Olive [9160] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Pinus radiata Radiata Pine Monterey Pine, Insignis Pine, Wilding Species or species habitat Pine [20780] may occur within area

Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species habitat Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] likely to occur within area

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silver Nightshade, Silver-leaved Nightshade, White Species or species habitat Horse Nettle, Silver-leaf Nightshade, Tomato Weed, likely to occur within area White Nightshade, Bull-nettle, Prairie-berry, Satansbos, Silver-leaf Bitter-apple, Silverleaf-nettle, Trompillo [12323] Tamarix aphylla Athel Pine, Athel Tree, Tamarisk, Athel Tamarisk, Species or species habitat Athel Tamarix, Desert Tamarisk, Flowering Cypress, likely to occur within area Salt Cedar [16018] Name Status Type of Presence Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report. This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of International and National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database: - threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Coordinates

-33.58041 138.84486 Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales -Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia -Parks and Wildlife Commission NT, Northern Territory Government -Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland -Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia -Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT -Birdlife Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -South Australian Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence Forestry Corporation, NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

© Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia +61 2 6274 1111

Appendix D.

Geotechnical Report

V01R02 RU050500 – DA – Proposed Beef Cattle Expansion – Burra, SA Uncontrolled when Printed Page 223 of 223 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 29/07/2016

DPTI Information Request – DA 422_E003_16 Beef Cattle Feedlot Expansion Princess Royal Station Hills Road, Burra, SA

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 1 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

DOCUMENT STATUS RECORD

Prepared for: Ilira Pty Ltd ATF Bob Rowe Class Trust and Sihero Pty Ltd ATF Simon Rowe Class Trust - trading as Princess Royal Station (ABN - 65 050 531 556).

DPTI Information Request DA 422_E003_16 – Proposed Beef Cattle Document Title: Feedlot Expansion, Princess Royal Station, Hills Road, Burra, SA

Project No: RU05050O

Document File Name: RU05050O 422_E003_16 PRS Feedlot Information Request V01R02

Version Date Description No Prepared Signature Approved Signature V01R01 28/03/2017 Draft for client review Rod Davis Brendan Ostwald V01R02 31/03/2017 Submission to DPTI Rod Davis Brendan Ostwald

Notes Recipient Copies Department of Planning ,Transport and Infrastructure 1

Disclaimer Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of production. This report has been prepared on the information collected at the time and under the conditions specified in the

report. All findings, conclusions and recommendations are based on the aforementioned circumstances. This report is for the use of Princess Royal Station and no responsibility will be taken for its use by other parties. This report should remain together and be read as a whole. Where geotechnical testing has been undertaken, it should be noted that soil conditions can vary significantly even over relatively short distances. Under no circumstances will any claim be considered because of lack of description of the strata and site conditions as shown in the report. In addition, the contractor shall be responsible for satisfying themselves as to the nature and extent of any proposed works and the physical and legal conditions under which the work would be carried out, including means of access, type and size of mechanical plant required, location and suitability of water supply for construction and testing purposes and any other matters affecting the construction of the works.

Copyright: The contents of this report are copyright and subject to the copyright Act 1968. Extracts or the entire report must not be reproduced without the written permission of Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd.

Citation: Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd, 2017, DPTI Information Request DA 422_E003_16 – Proposed Beef Cattle Feedlot Expansion, Princess Royal Station, Hills Road, Burra, SA, Project No: RU05050O V01R02, Dalby, QLD.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 2 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 4 List of Tables ...... 4 List of Photographs ...... 5 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Response to Information Requested ...... 7 2.1 EPA Reference - 33947...... 9 2.2 Odour ...... 9 2.3 Sedimentation basins and storage lagoons ...... 14 2.3.1 Construction details Category 2 liner...... 17 2.4 Manure and mortality composting ...... 20 2.4.1 Siting of compost works ...... 25 2.4.2 Design of composting facilities...... 29 2.5 Hazardous chemical storage...... 33 2.6 Temporary cattle storage paddock ...... 36 2.6.1 Induction pen area ...... 36 2.6.2 Dispatch ...... 37 2.6.3 Hospital pen ...... 38 2.6.4 Construction of pen flooring and stormwater management ...... 38 2.6.5 Mitigation of adverse impacts ...... 39 2.7 Construction of additional wastewater lagoon existing development ...... 39 2.7.1 Proposed construction details ...... 41 2.8 Commissioner of Highways (Email correspondence Simon Neldner 16/12/16) ...... 45 2.8.1 Further detail on traffic distributions ...... 45 2.8.2 Requirement for further upgrades to the Goyder Highway / Hills Road junction (beyond that already required for DA 422/0064/07)...... 45 2.9 DPTI ...... 45 2.9.1 Controlled Drainage Area ...... 45 2.9.2 Engineered Site Earthworks Plan ...... 52 2.9.3 Site Plan ...... 58 3. References ...... 60 Appendix A...... 61 Appendix B...... 62

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 3 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Cadastral plan ...... 8 Figure 2 – Separation distances surrounding waste disposal areas ...... 11 Figure 3 – Separation distances to sensitive receivers ...... 13 Figure 4 – EPA wastewater lagoon construction - Risk Assessment Matrix – CDA 1 – Wastewater lagoon ...... 15 Figure 5 – EPA wastewater lagoon construction - Risk Assessment Matrix – CDA 2 – Wastewater lagoon ...... 16 Figure 6 – Wastewater lagoon typical cross section ...... 18 Figure 7 – Wastewater lagoon construction specifications ...... 19 Figure 8 – Existing solid waste storage and processing area ...... 26 Figure 9 – ‘1956 River Murray Floodplain’ (Bloss et al 2015) ...... 27 Figure 10 – Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection Area and the South East Water Protection Area ...... 28 Figure 11 – Existing development practical completion ...... 32 Figure 12 – Extended catchment area – Existing development ...... 40 Figure 13 – Proposed wastewater lagoon – Existing Development - Risk Assessment Matrix ...... 42 Figure 14 – Proposed wastewater lagoon – Existing development - Plan ...... 43 Figure 15 – Proposed wastewater lagoon – Existing development – Cross-section ...... 44 Figure 16 – Controlled drainage area – CDA 1 ...... 48 Figure 17 – Controlled drainage area – CDA 2 ...... 49 Figure 18 – Proposed Development - Overall site plan ...... 53 Figure 19 – Layout plan – CDA 1...... 54 Figure 20 – Layout plan – CDA 2...... 55 Figure 21 – Section views – CDA 1 ...... 56 Figure 22 – Section views – CDA 2 ...... 57 Figure 23 – Site plan – Existing development ...... 59

List of Tables

Table 1 – Real property description ...... 7 Table 2 – Separation distances surrounding waste disposal areas ...... 10 Table 3 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 1 (Manure) ...... 22 Table 4 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 2 (Manure) ...... 22 Table 5 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 1 (Mortalities) ...... 23 Table 6 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 2 (Mortalities) ...... 23 Table 7 – Estimated solid waste available for utilisation ...... 24 Table 8 – Storage quantities ...... 34 Table 9 – Induction/hospital pen dimensions ...... 37 Table 10 – Controlled drainage area catchment details ...... 47 Table 11 – Sedimentation basin design details ...... 50 Table 12 – Storage lagoon design ...... 51

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 4 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

List of Photographs

Photograph 1 – Existing solid waste storage and processing area diversion bund (Southern wall) .. 30 Photograph 2 – Existing solid waste storage and processing area diversion bund (Northern wall) .. 31 Photograph 3 – Hazardous material minor quantity storage ...... 35 Photograph 4 – Diesel storage tank and bund ...... 36

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 5 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

1. Executive Summary

Background

Princess Royal Station (PRS) is a regional, diversified and integrated family business, based in the mid-north district of South Australia near Burra.

Central to the business’ operations is the intensive finishing of beef cattle. High-performance Angus cattle are fed scientifically formulated rations in a SA EPA licensed 4,409 SCU feedlot on ‘Mackerode’ Station, near Burra. The feedlot is known as Princess Royal.

The proprietors of PRS, have lodged a development application (422/E003/16) to expand their existing Princess Royal feedlot on ‘Mackerode’ Station from 4,409 SCU to 13,492 SCU of cattle- on-feed, thereby increasing annual throughput from 22,000 head to some 58,400 head per annum depending on market type.

The Development Assessment Commission (DAC) has been appointed as the relevant planning authority for the development proposal.

Ostwald Bros continues act on behalf Ilira Pty Ltd ATF Bob Rowe Class Trust and Sihero Pty Ltd ATF Simon Rowe Class Trust, the applicant for the abovementioned development application.

This report and the attached supporting documents comprise a response to all of the items outlined in the requests for information issued by the Environment Protection Authority dated 30th November 2016 (EPA Reference: 33942) and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure dated 16th December 2016 by email from Simon Neldner.

Each item raised in the request for information correspondence is outlined in the following sections followed by the corresponding response.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 6 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

2. Response to Information Requested Four additional parcels of land have been acquired by the proponent since the development application was lodged in October 2016. These additional parcels shall be utilised for waste disposal. No infrastructure shall be placed on these parcels. The proponent wishes to include these parcels in the Development Application 422_E003_16. The additional parcels are provided in Table 1. An updated cadastral plan is provided in Figure 1. Table 1 – Real property description Title Property Plan Type Parcel Type Type and Folio Area Hundred Name and Number and Number Volume Ha Portions included initial DA ‘Mackerode’ D2033 B27 CT5475 736 144.2 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ D2033 B28 CT5475 736 102.2 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ D79570 QP2 CT6055 756 6.4 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ D79570 QP3 CT6055 756 207.0 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ D79570 QP4 CT6055 756 42.5 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE61 CT5839 748 32.4 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE62 CT5839 748 37.2 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216521 AL308 CT5638 50 67.4 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216521 AL309 CT5638 50 71.4 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216521 AL310 CT5638 50 32.3 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216521 AL311 CT5638 50 32.7 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216521 AL312 CT5638 50 47.3 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H216787 AL119 CT5649 487 254.1 Kingston & Kooringa ‘Mackerode’ H216787 AL120 CT5649 487 52.6 Kingston & Kooringa ‘Mackerode’ H218385 AL102 CT5845 539 39.7 Kingston & Kooringa ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE216 CT5475 737 47.1 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE217 CT6055 757 30.8 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE218 CT5475 737 43.7 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100** SE894 CT5469 103 28.1 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE151 CT5813 820 87.8 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE283 CT5709 509 67.6 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE284 CT5709 508 40.1 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ H200700 SE285 CT5534 3 27.1 Kingston ‘Mackerode’ F11137 AL8 CT5488 704 36.3 Kingston & Kooringa Additional portions to be included ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE890 CT5470 237 68.7 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE891 CR5764 826 0.6 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE892 CR5764 827 0.86 Ayers ‘Mackerode’ H230100 SE893 CT5532 42 143.8 Ayers Total Area 1,792 ** Location of proposed additional wastewater lagoon – existing development

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 7 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

2.1 EPA Reference - 33947

2.2 Odour

The sources of odour proposed by this DA are the cattle feedlots, the wastewater lagoons and the solid waste storage/composting area.

1. Confirm which solid waste disposal to land category is proposed and the associated recommended separation distances to waste disposal areas (having regard to page 34 and Table 9 on page 35 of the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of cattle feedlots in South Australia, second edition (2006)

With reference to the solid and liquid waste disposal to land categories outlined on page 34 of the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of cattle feedlots in South Australia, second edition (2006), the proposed methods of solid and liquid waste disposal are included in Category B, Category C and Category D. Subsequently, as more than one category of disposal to land is used, Category D method which requires the greatest separation distance has been used to determine the separation distance from various receivers.

Disposal method B  Solids that have been completely composted – The manure stored in the stockpile is aged and not actively aerobically composted. Subsequently, the solid waste does not meet the definition of compost as defined in the EPA’s Compost Guideline (2013).  effluent having a solids content of not more than 1%

Disposal method C  Mechanical spreaders in combination with “ploughing-in” type equipment. Typically, the solid waste is spread and may remain on the surface for 1-2 weeks prior to sowing of crops.  downward effluent discharge nozzles.  discharged material is not projected to a height of more than 2 metres above ground level

Disposal method D  All effluents that are discharged or projected to a height in excess of 2 metres above ground level.  Liquid effluent in which water remains visible on the soil surface for periods in excess of one hour.  Separated solids or sludge (except fully composted solids) that remain on the soil surface for more than 24 hours (i.e. Are not immediately ploughed in). Typically, the settled solids from the sedimentation basin and sludge removed from the wastewater lagoon is transferred to the solid waste stockpile and carcass compost area where it is combined with solid waste from the pens, then aged prior to spreading. The solid waste may remain on the surface for 1-2 weeks prior to sowing of crops.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 9 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 2 – Separation distances surrounding waste disposal areas

Disposal Method D Compliant Reference Large towns >2000 persons 2000 Yes Figure 2 Towns >100 persons 1500 Yes Figure 2 Small towns >20 persons 1000 Yes Figure 2 Rural farm residence not owned by 500 Yes Figure 2 feedlot Public area (minimum value) 200 Yes Figure 2 Public road – except as below 200 Yes Figure 2 Public road – unsealed with less than 50 vehicles per day excluding feedlot 50 Yes Figure 2 traffic Major watercourse 200 Yes Figure 2 Other watercourses as defined by a blue line on a 1:50000 current SA 100 Yes Figure 2 Government topographical map Property Boundary 20 Yes Figure 2

Land has been identified on the subject property as being suitable for application of solid wastes as shown in Figure 2 along with the proposed buffers to sensitive sites (e.g. watercourses, vegetation communities, drainage lines and property boundaries. The amount of land available for solid waste utilisation is approximately 550 ha.

The rationale for the use of solid waste on the dryland farming area of the subject property is to provide the appropriate agronomic conditions for the growth of crops and/or improved pasture on this area. Prior to the addition of solid waste to the solid waste utilisation area, soil and manure analysis would be undertaken to establish baseline nutrient levels and the required amount of solid waste for the crops to be grown.

The remainder of solid waste generated from the proposed development would be transported off- site for utilisation. For clarity, all solid waste generated by the proposed development shall be stored, processed and stockpiled in the dedicated solid waste storage and processing area within controlled drainage areas. This applies to solid waste that is destined for both on-site and off-site utilisation.

The solid waste removed off-site is intended to be used as a soil conditioner and organic fertiliser from cropping operations on other farming properties in the Mid North District owned by the proponent. The proponent has over 60,000 acres of land across the following properties:

 Ayers Park  Mullaby  Belcunda  Newikie  Caroona Station  Princess Royal Station  Curburra  Polville  Kercolo  Razorback  Mt. Bryan  Stud Park

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 10 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

C) OSTWAlD BllOSPTYLTD AIIN: 91 ~ 11580!1 11111.__II,.,.,. II(OitwrM h ...Lid iiiWI ·~··~"'-~ilmGyiiOC -~ aJWfltdllc*--.wll4 ..... • -~pilotWlfllllll- .,OIIDoalllh ...

.111m!. l CADASTRALII'EOAMATION SDIRm FROM HAPLAND- SOUTIIAUSTRALIA DEPARTMENTOf ENVRONt1ENT,WATER ANDNATURAL RESOW!CES IDEW~I HAV 2016AND ACCURACY IS LIHITm. Z. t!AGE SDW!CmFROM GOOGLE EAR111 111 HAY 2016 1 DTI£R FEATW!ESHAY HAVEBEEN DI61TISmFROM PLANS OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHSAND ACCW!ACY IS LMltD

·~~ ~)~ ostWaldi

A,!DIBJO Dllll I•• ~ lnit An OSlWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300678925 r.x: Bmal: I~so I'CI&.ClOC1UII Web: www.oatwalcllro&.ClllmJIII l'rcltKt PRINCESSROYAL STATION - DA422-E003-16- REaUESTFOR INFORMATION D_.,Tide SEPARATIONDISTANCES TO LlaUID ANDSOLID WASTE UTILISATION AREAS

Sealte I= 10,000!AI) I= 20,000 (A3) o,._ A,ID IDMII24103f!017 AppnMid BJO Dellpd A,ID Ddlm WGS84 IZone LITM54H l'rcltKtNa. BidsNo

RUOSOSOO

DnlMI& No. liHue RUOSOSOO-PRS-WUA-02 A

2. Provide a map showing the distance between sensitive receivers and: a. Wastewater lagoons, and b. Solid waste storage/composting areas/s.

The separation distance between sensitive receivers and wastewater lagoons and solid waste storage and carcass composting areas is shown in Figure 3.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 12 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

C) OSTWALDBROS PTY LTD r-1 --- ... ------rl--___,.,----/1---r------r\----=~==------7-r------r/-----:~?.--1'11r1/T"""/____,/,..------..,.,,__,I I AIIN;91~115oot 'lllll--.clllht~o('o.e-Nh,.~tllld ·~··~"'-~ilmdyllll --~ clljlyfll'tliKDI ... wtll, ,..,.,.., • -ce p~~erW!IIIIn-,o..~~~..,.,. w .tmm.! 1. CADASTRALIIIFORHATIDN SOURCED FROH HAPI.At

230100 ·~~ 897 ~)~ ostWaldi

24103117!A !ISSUE FOR REVIEW !RJD!BJO DID 1111111 ~ lnft App OSlWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone; llOO 678925 Fax: -1:1 a::oI"'O.())ftt ... Wf!b; -.CIIlWIIcllrouom.111 ProJect PRINCESSROYAL STATION - DA422-E003-16- REQUESTFOR INFORMATION

~Tide SEPARATIONDISTANCE TO SENSITIVERECEIVERS FROM WASTEWATERLAGOONS AND SOLIDWASTE STORAGE AND CARCASSCOMPOSTING AREAS

ScMa 1: 15,000(AI) I" 30,000(A3)

o..- RJD IDabl2-4111312017 Appnwed BJO Dellpd RJD Dcum WGS84 IZone UTMS*i ProJectNo. BidsNo

RUOSOSOO

~No. IRa RUOSOSOO-PRS-IR-SD-03 A

2.3 Sedimentation basins and storage lagoons

3. Complete and submit the risk assessment matrix contained at Appendix 1 of the EPA’s Wastewater Lagoon Construction Guidelines (2014) to determine the appropriate construction and liner category for the proposed wastewater lagoons.

The risk assessment matrix contained at Appendix 1 of the EPA’s Wastewater Lagoon construction guidelines (2014) was used to determine the appropriate construction and type of liner required for the proposed wastewater lagoons.

The EPA uses a risk-based approach when determining the construction and type of liner required for a particular lagoon proposal by considering groundwater, wastewater characteristics and nature of the wastewater lagoon.

By considering the site-specific environs including groundwater, wastewater characteristics and nature of the wastewater lagoon, the risk assessment matrix results in a risk rating of 39 for the proposed wastewater lagoons in the development as shown in Figure 4.

A risk assessment matrix rating of 39, is placed in the range (25-44) for a Category 2 liner. The Table of Suggested Construction and Lining Categories (SCL) shown in Appendix 2 of the EPA’s Wastewater Lagoon Construction Guidelines (2014) outlines the preferred level of risk management for a Category 2 liner.

The Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA), 2006) state that wastewater lagoons should be lined with an impervious material, e.g. compacted clay and/or synthetic membrane to prevent seepage. All compacted clay linings should have a minimum compacted thickness of 600 mm. Subsequently, the wastewater lagoon shall have a clay lining with a minimum compacted thickness of 600 mm.

SA A risk assessment matrix rating of 39, is placed in the range (25-44) for a Category 2 liner. The Table of Suggested Construction and Lining Categories (SCL) shown in Appendix 2 of the EPA’s Wastewater Lagoon Construction Guidelines (2014) outlines the preferred level of risk management for a Category 2 liner.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 14 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

APPENDIX 1 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Instructions: Select one category under each criteria by clicking 'Y' in the blue column opposite the category. Additional explanati Appendix 3A.

SITE: Princess Royal Feedlot - Proposed Expansion - CDA 1 - Wastewater Lagoon

Points Yes/No Score Notes/Comments 1 Groundwater occurrence 1a none 0 1b confined 0.2 Y 0.2 The groundwater in the area is confined. Refer 1c semi-confined 2 groundwater assessment report (Appendix B of the 1d unconfined (covered) 6 DA report) 1e unconfined 10 2 Aquifer type 2a Clay or crystalline rock 0.25 The area is underlain by calcareous shales 2b Silt, fractured rock or limestone 3.75 Y 3.75 overlying sandstones and siltstones. Refer to bore logs and groundwater assessment report (Appendix 10 2c Sand,gravel or Fill B of the DA report) 3 Minimum distance of groundwater from base of lagoon liner 3a greater than 50m 0 The typical depth to groundwater in the vicinty of the 3b >20m to 50 m 0.1 Y 0.1 proposed wastewater lagoons is in the order of 25- 3c >10m to 20 m 1 30m. With a typical holding pond depth of 3-4m - The 3d >5m to10 m 2 minimum distance from the base of the lagoon liner is 3e >2m to 5 m 6 > 20m. Refer to bore logs and groundwater 3f 2 m or less 10 assessment report (Appendix B of the DA report) 4 Groundwater usage 4a Not Likely 0.5 Groundwater is the principal source of water of the 4b Possible 2.5 proposed development. Refer Section 7.5.1 of the 4c Current 10 Y 10 DA report 5 Groundwater salinity 5a >10 000 mg/L 0 Groundwater is the principal source of water of the 5b >5000 to10000 mg/L 0.2 proposed development. Refer Section 7.5.1 of the 5c >1500 to 5000 mg/L 3 Y3 DA report 5d 1500 mg/L or less 10 6 Nominal capacity of lagoon (excluding freeboard) 6a Small (5ML or less) 0.2 The nominal capacity of the wastewater lagoons is 6b Medium (>5ML to 10ML) 1.2 >10ML but less than 30ML for CDA 1. Refer Section 6c Large (>10ML to 30 ML) 4.8 Y 4.8 2.8.1. 6d Very Large (>30ML ) 10 7 Max lagoon water depth 7a 1m or less (evaporative) 0.2 The nominal design depth of the wastewater lagoon 7b >1m to 3m (aerobic/facultative) 1.2 for CDA 1 is >3m but less than 6m. Refer Section 7c >3m to 6m (anaerobic) 4.8 Y 4.8 2.8.1 7d deeper than 6m 10 8 Nature of wastewater (see Appendix 3A for definitions) 8a contaminated stormwater 0.2 8b treated wastewater 0.8 The wastewater to be stored in the lagoons is 8c composting/landfill 4.2 stormwater runoff from the pen area pens and solid 8d organic/nutrient 4.2 Y 4.2 waste storage and processing aea which is high is 8e reactive 6.4 organic matter. Refer Section 7.5.9 of the DA report 8f hazardous 10

Rating 38.6

Preliminary category 2 A. Is the lagoon located within 100m of a watercourse? N 2 B. Is there potential groundwater that may intersect the base of lagoon liner? N 2

RECOMMENDED CATEGORY 2

EPA USE ONLY FOR ASSESSOR: Suggested Category and reasons:

ASSESSOR (name and signature) :

PEER REVIEWER (name and signature ):

Category supported : ______Date: ______APPENDIX 1 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Instructions: Select one category under each criteria by clicking 'Y' in the blue column opposite the category. Additional explanati Appendix 3A.

SITE: Princess Royal Feedlot - Proposed Expansion - CDA 2 - Wastewater Lagoon

Points Yes/No Score Notes/Comments 1 Groundwater occurrence 1a none 0 1b confined 0.2 Y 0.2 The groundwater in the area is confined. Refer 1c semi-confined 2 groundwater assessment report (Appendix B of the 1d unconfined (covered) 6 DA report) 1e unconfined 10 2 Aquifer type 2a Clay or crystalline rock 0.25 The area is underlain by calcareous shales 2b Silt, fractured rock or limestone 3.75 Y 3.75 overlying sandstones and siltstones. Refer to bore logs and groundwater assessment report (Appendix 10 2c Sand,gravel or Fill B of the DA report) 3 Minimum distance of groundwater from base of lagoon liner 3a greater than 50m 0 The typical depth to groundwater in the vicinty of the 3b >20m to 50 m 0.1 Y 0.1 proposed wastewater lagoons is in the order of 25- 3c >10m to 20 m 1 30m. With a typical holding pond depth of 3-4m - The 3d >5m to10 m 2 minimum distance from the base of the lagoon liner is 3e >2m to 5 m 6 > 20m. Refer to bore logs and groundwater 3f 2 m or less 10 assessment report (Appendix B of the DA report) 4 Groundwater usage 4a Not Likely 0.5 Groundwater is the principal source of water of the 4b Possible 2.5 proposed development. Refer Section 7.5.1 of the 4c Current 10 Y 10 DA report 5 Groundwater salinity 5a >10 000 mg/L 0 Groundwater is the principal source of water of the 5b >5000 to10000 mg/L 0.2 proposed development. Refer Section 7.5.1 of the 5c >1500 to 5000 mg/L 3 Y3 DA report 5d 1500 mg/L or less 10 6 Nominal capacity of lagoon (excluding freeboard) 6a Small (5ML or less) 0.2 The nominal capacity of the wastewater lagoons is 6b Medium (>5ML to 10ML) 1.2 >10ML but less than 30ML for CDA 1. Refer Section 6c Large (>10ML to 30 ML) 4.8 Y 4.8 2.8.1. 6d Very Large (>30ML ) 10 7 Max lagoon water depth 7a 1m or less (evaporative) 0.2 The nominal design depth of the wastewater lagoon 7b >1m to 3m (aerobic/facultative) 1.2 for CDA 1 is >3m but less than 6m. Refer Section 7c >3m to 6m (anaerobic) 4.8 Y 4.8 2.8.1 7d deeper than 6m 10 8 Nature of wastewater (see Appendix 3A for definitions) 8a contaminated stormwater 0.2 8b treated wastewater 0.8 The wastewater to be stored in the lagoons is 8c composting/landfill 4.2 stormwater runoff from the pen area pens and solid 8d organic/nutrient 4.2 Y 4.2 waste storage and processing aea which is high is 8e reactive 6.4 organic matter. Refer Section 7.5.9 of the DA report 8f hazardous 10

Rating 38.6

Preliminary category 2 A. Is the lagoon located within 100m of a watercourse? N 2 B. Is there potential groundwater that may intersect the base of lagoon liner? N 2

RECOMMENDED CATEGORY 2

EPA USE ONLY FOR ASSESSOR: Suggested Category and reasons:

ASSESSOR (name and signature) :

PEER REVIEWER (name and signature ):

Category supported : ______Date: ______

4. Provide construction details of proposed wastewater lagoons having regard to the completed risk assessment matrix and the wastewater lagoon construction guidelines (2014).

Having regard to the completed risk assessment matrix, the wastewater lagoon construction guidelines (EPA, 2014) and the Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA), 2006), the proposed wastewater lagoons shall be constructed with clay and lined with a minimum of 600mm of compacted clay that achieves a design permeability of 1 x 10-9 m/s in accordance with the construction details for a Category 2 liner as outlined in Section 2.3.1.

Figure 6 illustrates a typical cross-section through the wastewater lagoon and Figure 7 outlines the specifications for construction of the wastewater lagoons.

2.3.1 Construction details Category 2 liner

The construction and liner details of a Category 2 liner are provided in Appendix A.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 17 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017 r------,ICamNMDBRos~uoMN: 91 099 115.

LEGEND 'lllllaa..-riiii»,.,,Cllllolllld .. ~Lirltltld il~llit~l'wins_,...ilmf1110C ~,..., ··dllc*-~w!r4.... Ill 1131 s I s EI'BANKHENTCLAY CORE •-ctptlotW~M~n-.,Cllllolllldh~

~Z/fi'l/J EMBANKMENT SURFACE t I CLAY~IIG

SURFACELEVEL rDESIGN WATERLEVa (NATlJRALSURFACE-ISOmm)

Q.AYMAltRIAL SUITAIII..E FOR UNING 911l1RDD (STANDAAD COMPAC110N)wm-IIN «TO~ OFOMC Olt HI.... UM300mm COMPACTB>CLAY UNEil (9tiX IIDD OXTO +:ZXOHC)

IN-SIT\JCLAY MAltRIAL SUITAIII..E FOR CXlRE9BRDD (STANDARDCOMPACTlON) wm-IIN ifiTO~ OFOMC

CLAYHAltRIAL MTAIII..E fOR I.IIIING91XIIDD (STANDAAD COI'I'ACTlON)WllliiN ift TO +2SOF OMCOR MINIMIA160Ciml COI'I'ACTIDa..AT l.lllfA ('8% liDO OXTO +2%OMC)

·~~ $ TYPICALSECTION THROUGH SEDIMENTATION BASIN AND WASTEWATERLAGOON ~) SCALE1: ISO(H) I:SOM WEIRVERTICAL BOARDS (SEE DETAILS DWG RUOSOSOO.SBW-lOA) ~ ostWaldi OUTLETWEIR CONCRETE BLOCK WAll. (SEEDETAILS DWG RUOSOSOO.SBW-lOA),

OUTLETWEIR BASE SlAB (SEEDETAILS DWG RUOS0500.SBW-20A)-....

Q.AYMA'TBUAI. SUITABLE FOR Ute!G 9IIIROO(STANDARD COMPACTlON) WITHINift TO +2SOF OMCOR MINIMIA1l0CmmCOHPACnD CLAYUl'&. (981 111011171 ISSUEfOP. REVIEW A,IDIBJO liDO OXTO +2%OMC) UNDER CONCIIETli SI.AI A I I Delli l•ue ~ 111ftApp SEDIMENrAOONBASIN AND STORAGE LAGOON EARTHWORKS: OSlWALD BROSPTY LTD

1. TOPSOILTO BE STRIPPED TO A MINIMUMDEPTH OF 150mmAND STOCKPILED ONSITE Phone: 1300678 925 fa: (07) 4669 9450 AS DIRECTEDBY SUPERINTENDENT. Bmal: lnlo@oltwMIII'CI&.CXIftUII 2. SUBGRADEPREPARATION UNDER EMBANKMENT· SCARIFY TO DEPTH OF 150mm we: -.oatwa~c~~-- BELOWSTRIPPING LEVEL AND MOISTURE CONDITION BEFORE BEING RECOMPACTED l'rcltKt TO THEREQUIREMENTS AS SHOWNON THE DRAWINGS. PRINCESSROYAL STATION­ 3. REMOVEAt« UNSUITABLEMATERIAL AT SUBGRADELEVEL AND REPLACEMENT WllH DA422-E003-16- REQUESTFOR SELECTEDFILL MATERIAL (IF REQUIRED) INFORMATION 4. EMBANKMENTAND ClAY CORETO BE CONSTRUCTEDFROM SUITABLE MATERIAL TYPICALSECTION THROUGH SEDIMENTATION BASIN DnlMI& Tide $ EXCAVATEDFROM SEDIMENTATION BASIN ISTORAGE LAGOON FROM BELOW SOOmm OUTLETWEIR AND WASTEWATERLAGOON NATURALSURFACE. SEDIMENTATIONBASIN - 5. MOISTURECONTENT OF SELECTED CLAY CORE AND CUTOFF 1RENCH WILL BE IN THE CLAYUNING NOTES: SCALE1: ISO(H) 1:50 M WASTEWATERLAGOON RANGEOF +2%• 0%WET OF OPTIMUMMOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) AND COMPACTED TYPICALSECTION TOACHIEVE A FIELDDRY DENSITY NOT LESS THAN 98% OF lHE STANDARD 1. MATERIALSUITABLE FOR CLAY LINING: LABORATORYMAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCEWllH 1.1. CLASSIFIEDAS CL, a.. CH, SC OR GC IN ACCORDANCEWITH AS1726. 1.2. PERCENTAGE FINES· MORETHAN 25% PASSING 75um AS1289.5.3.1 EACHLAYER OF THE OUTER EMBANKMENT WILL BE COMPACTED PRODUCE MORETHAN 25% PASSING 2um 6. TO A Sealte I= ISO(AI) I= lOll (Al) FIELDDRY DENSITY OF AT LEAST98%OF lHE STANDARDLABORATORY MAXIMUM 1.3. PLASTICITYINDEX> 10% o,._ RJD DMII 1110112017 DRYDENSITY DETERMINED INACCORDANCE WllH AS1289.5.3.1AND HAVE A 1A. LIQUIDLIMIT- 3CH!O% MOISTURECONTENT OF :t2% OFOMC. ApplvWid BJO Dellpd RID 7. CUTOFFTRENCH TO EXTEND tHROUGH UPPER LAYERS OF UNDERLYING Ddlm WGS84 1:zone UTM54H 2. PERMEABILITY<1 X 1ol mls. IMPERMEABLECLAYEY MATERIAL (KEYED IN 500mmMINIMUM). l'rcltKtNo. I BidsNo B. 150mmOF TOPSOIL TO BE SPREAD ON EXTERNAL Et.eANKMENTS AND CREST UPON RUOSOSOO COMPlETIONOF BULK EARlHWORKS. tit~!ty ' 715 910 1t!r5 1~1~5 115m SCALE ------1:1!10 (A1) 1:300 (.U) 9. THEFREQUENCY OF MATERIAL TESTING SHALL BE AS OUTLINED ON DRAWING No DnlMI& No. JlAue RU050500-PRS-IR.CNA-07. RUOSOSOO-PRS-IR-WLXS-0A ICOSTWALDBROSf'TYLll) ABit 91 ~ 115C09 BULKEARTHWORKS NOTES: CAmE LANES(NOT ADJOININGPENS} NOTES: GENERALNO'TU: 'lllll.__ .. dlefltt9MrII( OliN! IN rr,IJIIw 1. REMOVEALL TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 1. REMOVEALL TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE lt~tlt~,...... t,., ... lllll ...... aff«.._ 11714.,.111 2. THETOP 100mm (TOPSOIL) FROM EXISTING SURFACE OVER PROPOSED SITE TO BE WI1HBULK EAR1HWORKS NOTES. llle_"',_...,_II(OIIMIIIhl'lrl*'-.... 1. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. MAKEHIMSELF FAMILIAR WITH lHE SADEPARTMENT OF STRIPPEDAND STOCKPILED IN ACCORDANCEWI1H 1HE DRAWINGS AND AS DIRECTED 2. PROOFROLL SUBGRADE TO DETECT ANY SOFT SPOlS. SOFT SPOTS SHALl BE PLANNING,1RANSPORT AND INFRASlRUcnJRE (DP11) CONDITIONS OF CONSENT BY1HE SUPERINTENDENT. REMOVEDAND BACKFILLED WI1H APPROVED SUBGRADE MATERIAL. REGARDINGCONSTRUCTION I OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED WORKS AND SHALL COMPLY 3. TOPSOILSUITABLE FOR REUSE IS TOBE STOCKPILED ONSITE IN A LOCATIONAGREED 3. ALL TOBE PLACED IN MAXIMUM150mm LAYERS, MOISTURE ADDED AS REQUIRED AND WI1H1HESE CONDITIONS. TOBY THE SUPERINI'ENDENI'. COMPACTEDTO 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPACTION) WITHIN :1:2% OF OPTlMUM 2. LEVELSAND GRADIENTS AT JUNCTIONS TO EXISTING WORKS AS SHOWN ARE INDICATIVE 4. OTHERMATERIAL SUITABLE FOR REUSE (e.g ClAY elc) IS TOBE STOCKPILED ONSITE IN MOISTURECONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCEWITH AS1289.5.1.1. ANDSHALL VARY AS REQUIREDTOACHIEVEASAn8FACTORY1RANSITION. A LOCA110NAS DIRECTEDBY 1HE SUPERINI'ENDENI'. 4. ALLPROPOSED CATTLE LANES (NOT ADJOINING PENS OR THAT ARE ALSO DRAINS) TO 3. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. OBTAIN1HE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING SERVICES PRIOR TO 5. THECONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE MATERIAL IJVHICH IS UNSUITABLEFOR COMPAC110N BEFINISHED WI1H 200mm COMPACTED 1HICKNESS OF SELECT CLAY/GRAVEL MATERIAL Nff EXCAVATION. ANDREPLACE WI1H SUITABLE MATERIAL FOUND ONSITE. SUPPLIEDFROM SITE WON MATERIAL 4. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. COORDINATElHE WORKSWI1H 1HE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES 6. COMPACT1HE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL TO 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPAC110N) 5. GRAVELPAVEMENT COURSES TO BE PLACED AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AND ANDSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REINSTATING Nff EXISTlNGSERVICES IJVHICH BECOME WI1HIN:1:2% OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCEWI1H COMPACTEDTO 98% ROD STANDARD COMPAC110N INACCORDANCE WI1H AS1289.5.1.1. UNCOVEREDOR DAMAGED DURING lHE CONSTRUCTIONPERIOD. AS1289.5.1.1. 6. ALLCATTLE LANES ARE TO BE EXCAVATED I FILLED AND TRIMMED AS REQUIRED TO 5. Nff AI.TERATIONS REQUIRED TO EXISTING SERVICES TO BE CARRIED OUT AS DIRECTED 7. SUBGRADETO BE RIPPED TO A DEPTHOF 151lmm, MOISTURE ADDED AS REQUIREDAND ACHIEVEA CONSTANTGRADIENT AS DEFINEDBY 1HE NATURAL SURFACE AND 11E IN TO BY1HE SUPERINTENDENT. COMPACTEDTO 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPAC110N) WI1HIN :t2% OF OPTIMUM CATTLELANES ADJOINING PENS. 6. ALLDESIGN LEVELS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE FINISHED SURFACE LEVELS. MOISTURECONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCEWI1H AS12811.5.1.1. 7. ALLLEVELS ARE SHOWN IN METRESTO AHD. 5. FILLMATERIAL TO BE PLACED IN MAXIMUM1!llmm LAYERS, MOISTURE ADDED AS SEDIMENTAnON BASIN AND STORAGE LAGOON EAR'I1IWORKS: 8. BENCHMARKS-REFERMOSEL STEED DRAWING C0951E12.2 REQUIREDAND COMPACTED TO 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPAC110N) WI1HIN :1:2% OF 9. ALLCONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WI1H 1HE RELEVANT STANDARD SPECIFICA110NS, OPTIMUMMOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCE WI1H AS1289.5.1.1. 1. lHE TOP11Mnm FROM 1HE EXISTING SURFACE OVER PROPOSED SEDIMENTATION/ DRAWINGSAND BY-LAWS OF 1HE RELEV.ANT AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT AUSTRALIAN 6. EXCAVATEDMATERIAL UNSUITABLE FOR REUSE SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN 1HE STORAGELAGOON TO BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED ONSITE AND REUSED AS COVER STANDARDS.THIS INCWDES, BUT IS NOTLIMITED TO, REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOYDER STOCKPILEAREA NOMINATED BY lHE SUPERINTENDENT. FOREMBANKMENTS ASDIRECTED BY SUPERINTENDENT. (RCG),SA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND INFRAS1RUC1\JRE AND 7. ALLEAR1HWORKS VOWMES.ARE SOLID AND DO NOT ALLOW FOR COMPAC110N, 2. lHE CONTRACTORSHALL REMOVE MATERIAL WHICH IS UNSUITABLEFOR COMPAC110N 1RANSPORT(DP11), BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA (BCA) AND SA ENVIRONMENT BULKINGOR LOSSES. ANDREPLACE WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FOUND ONSITE. PROTEC110NAtmiORnY (EPA). 8. ALLEAR1HWORKS ARE DESIGNED TO STRIPPED SURFACE (UNLESS 01HERWISE 3. COMPACTlHEREPLACEMENT MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCEW111-11HE BULK 10. EARTHWORKSSHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCEWI1H AS3798 (REFER ALSO TO NOTED).STRIPPED SURFACE IS SOmmLOWER 1HAN 1HE SURVEYED NAlURAL SURFACE EAR1HWORKSNOTES. BULKEAR1HWORKS NOTES). ANDIS REPRESENTEDON ALL DRAWINGS ASSUMING A TOPSOIL STRIP OF 1tnrm. 4. SUBGRADEPREPARA110N IN ACCORDANCE WI1H 1HE BULK EARTHWORK NOTES. 11. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. CHECKALL INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON NATURALSURFACE IS NOTSHOWN IN THESEDRAWINGS WI1H RESPECT TO DESIGN 5. SEDIMENTATIONBASIN IN-SITU CLAY MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR LINING 98% ROD CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, ON SITE, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFWORKS. SURFACES(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). (STANDARDCOMPAC110N) WI1HIN 0% TO +2% OF OPTlMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) 9. THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WI1H SA DEPARIMENT PLANNING, 1RANSPORT AND IN ACCORDANCEWITH AS1289.5.1.1 OR MINIMUM 30()1111 COMPACTED CLAY UNER (98% SETOUTNO'TU: INFRASTRUCTURE(DPTl) CONDITlONS OF CONSENT REGARDING EARTHWORKS. 1HE ROD0% TO +2% OMC) ON EMBANKMENTS AND BED. CONTRACTORSHALL ENSURE THATlHE PROPOSED EAR1HWORKS WILL NOT CAUSE 8. STORAGELAGOON IN-SRU CLAY MATERIAL SUITABLE FORLINING98% RDD (STANDARD EROSIONOR SEDIMENT DEPOSITS WI1HIN OR ADJACENT TO 1HE SITE. COMPAC110N)WI1HIN 0% TO +2% OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) IN 1. AU.SETOUT MUST RELATE TO PERMANENT ONSITE BENCHMARKS. 4~ .. 10. TOPSOILTO BE SPREADON BATTERSTO RAISE LEVEL TO PEN SURFACE AS REQUIRED. ACCORDANCEWI1H AS1289.5.1.1 OR MINIMUM 4!llmm COMPACTED CLAY LINER (98% 2. AU.SETOUT POINT'S (UNLESS IDENTIFIED AS OFFSETS) REPRESENT FINISHED DESIGN ROD0% TO +2% OMC) ON EMBANKMENTS AND BED SURFACES. PENAND ROADWAY SUBGRADEAND PAVEENI'NOTES: ~) 3. COMPACTlHE REPLACEMENTMATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WI1H 1HE BULK CLAYUNING NOTES! EARTHWORKSNOTES. ~ 1. REMOVEALL TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE 4. EXCAVATEDMATERIAL UNSUITABLE FOR REUSE SHALl BE DEPOSITED IN ANAREA 1. MATERIALSUITABLE FOR CLAY LINING: WITHBULK EARTHWORKS NOTES. NOMINATEDBY THE SUPERINTENDENT. 1.1. CLASSIFIEDAS CL. CL, CH, SC OR GC IN ACCORDANCEWill-I AS1726. ostWald~ 2. PROOFROLL SUBGRADE TO DETECT ANY SOFT SPOlS. SOFT SPOTS SHALl BE I I 1.2. PERCENTAGEFINES- MORE1HAN 25% PASSING 751111 REMOVEDAND BACKFILLED WI1H APPROVED SUBGRADE MATERIAL. MORETHAN .25% PASSING 2um PEN,DRAIN AND ROADWAY NOTES: 3. FILLTO BE PLACED IN MAXIMUM 1!llmm LAYERS,MOISTURE ADDED AS REQUIREDAND 1.3. PLASTICnYINDEX> 10% COMPACTEDTO 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPACTION) Will-liN :1:2%OF OPTIMUM 1.4. UQUIDLIMIT· 30-60% 1. CLEARALL PROPOSED PEN, DRAIN AND ROADWAY AREAS AND REMOVE VEGETA110N AND MOISTURECONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCEWI1H AS1289.5.1.1. TOPSOILIN ACCORDANCEWITH BULK EARTHWORKS NOTES. 4. BULKEARTHWORKS FOR PENS AND CATCH DRAINS IS TOFINISH 200nn BELOW1HE 2. PERMEABILnY< 1 X 10" mls. 2. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. MAKEHIMSELF FAMILIAR WI1H 1HE SA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, FINISHEDSURFACE LEVELS. 1RANSPORTAND INFRAS1RUC1\JRE (DP11) AND SA ENVIRONMENT PROTEC110N AU1HORnY 5. BULKEARTHWORKS FOR FEED ROADS IS TO ANISH300mm BELOW1HE FINISHED (EPA)CONDmoNS OF CONSENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION I OPERA110N OF THE PROPOSED SURFACELEVELS • SAMPLINGOF MATERIAL: WORKSAND SHALL COMPLYWI1H THESE CONDITIONS. 6. GRAVELPAVEMENT COURSES TO BE PLACED AT OP11MUM MOISTURE CONTENT AND 3. LEVELSAND GRADIENTS AT JUNCTIONS TO EXISTING WORKS AS SHOWN ARE INDICA11VE AND COMPACTEDTO 98% ROD STANDARD COMPACTION IN ACCORDANCE WI1H AS12811.5.1.1. 1. EARTHWORKS,SELECTED BACKFILL AND SELECTED FILL SHALL BE TESTED IN 2.fi03117JA !IWEFOR.REYIEW !IIJD!BJO SHALlVNff ASREQUIRED TO ACHIEVEASAllSFACTORYTRANSmON. 7. AU.PROPOSED PEN AND DRAIN AREAS TO BE FINISHED WI1H 300mm COMPACTED ACCORDANCEWI1H 1HE FOLLOWING AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS: 4. 1HECONTRACTOR SHAll. OBTAIN1HE LOCATIONS OF AU. EXISTING SERVICES PRIOR TO ANY 1HICKNESSOF SELECT ClAY ANDCLAY/GRAVa MATERIAL SUPPUED FROM SITE WON DID lllue Am111dmem: lnlt App 1.1. AS1.289.1.1-2001 PREPARATIONOF DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES FOR TESTING EXCAVA110N. MATERIAL. U AS1289.2.1.1-2005 DETERMINAllONOF MOISTURE CONTENT OS SOIL- OVEN OSTWALDBROS PTY L 1D 5. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. COORDINATElHE WORKSWI1H 1HE RELEVANT AU1HORmES AND 8. AU.PROPOSED ROAfNIAY AREAS TO BE FINISHED WITH 30()1111 COMPACTED DRYINGME1HOD (STANDARD ME1HOD) SHALl BERESPONSIBLE FOR REINSTA11NG Nff EXISTINGSERVICES WHICH BECOME 1HICKNESSOF SELECT GRAVEL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FROM SITE WON MATERIAL. 1.3. AS1289.3A.1-2008 DETERMINAllONOF LINEAR SHRINKAGE OF A SOIL UNCOVEREDOR DAMAGED DURING 1HE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 9. PENS,DRAINS AND ROADWAYS ARE TO BE EXCAVATED/FILLED AND TRIMMED AS 1.4. AS1.289.3.6.1-2009 PAR11CLESIZE DISTRIBUTION (STANDARD METHOD) 6. ANYAI.. TERA TIONS REQUIRED TO EXISTING SERVICES TO BE CARRIED OUT AS DIRECTED BY 1HE REQUIREDTO ACHIEVE A CONST.ANTGRADIENT AS DEFINED BY THE PROPOSED Phone:=9400 1.5. AS1289.5.1.1-2003 DETERMINAllONOF DRY DENSITY/MOISTURE CONTENT ,_Elmd: I "'" 9450dlnuam.au SUPERINTENDENT. FINISHEDSURFACE LEVELS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS AND 1HE RELEVANT SECTIONS I RELATION(STANDARD COMPAC110N) w• ---'d'--CGIIWI 7. AU. DESIGNLEVELS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE ANISHED SURFACE LEVELS. DETAILS. 1.6. AS1289.5.3.1-2004 FIELDDENSITY- SANDREPLACEMENT ME1HOD I'NjKt 8. AU. LEVELSARE SHOWN IN METRESTOAHD. 10. EXISTINGROADWAYS ARE TO BE BUll TUP I TRIMMEDAS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A 1.7. AS1.289.5.4.1-2007 COMPACTIONCONTROL TEST- DETERMINATIONOFDRY PRINCESSROYAL STATION - 9. BENCHMARKS-REFERGENERAL NOTES. SATISFACTORYTRANSITION BETWEEN EXISTING FEEDLOT INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS DENSITYRAllO DA422-E003-16- REQUESTFOR 10. AU.CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WI1H 1HE RELEVANT STANDARD SPECIFICA110NS, (e.g.PRODUCTION PEN/CATTLE HANDLING/WEIGHBRIDGE/FEEDMILL) ANDNEW WORK. 1.8. AS1.289.6.1.1-2014 DETERMINAllONOF CBR- STANDARDME1HOD FOR INFORMATION DRAWINGSAND BY-LAWS OF 1HE RELEV.ANT AUTHORITIES AND RELEVANT AUSTRALIAN 11. GEOTECHNICALTESTING HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT ONSITE TO DATE AND SHOULD REMOULDEDSPECIMEN STANDARDS.THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOTLIMITED TO, REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOYDER (RCG), SA BEUNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFWORKS. 1.9. AS1.289.7.1.1-2003 SHRINKAGEINDEX OF A SOIL-SHRINK-SWELLINDEX "'-'111111• DEPARTMENTOF PLANNING, 1RANSPORT AND INFRAS1RUC1\JRE (DP11), BUILDING CODE OF NOTESAND DETAILS AUSTRALIA(BCA) AND SA ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AU1HORITY (SA). 2. lHE FREQUENCYOF TES11NG SHALl BE: GENERALI BULK 11. EARTHWORKSSHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCEWITH AS3798 (REFER .ALSO TO BULK SOLIJWASTE STORAGEAREAEARIIMORKS: 2.1. DETERMINATIONOFTHE DRY DENSITY RAllO EARTHWORKSNOTES). EARTHWORKI PEN, DRAINS, 2.1.1. SUBGRADE:ONE TEST PER 10,000 ~OF COMPACTED MATERIAL, 12. lHE CONTRACTORSHAll. CHECKALL INFORMA110N AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON 1HESE 1. REMOVEALL TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE ROADS/SEDIMENTATION WI1HA MINIMUMOFTEN TESTS. DRAWINGS,ON SITE, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFWORKS. WITHBULK EARTHWORKS NOTES. 2.1.2. PENSELECTED BACKFILL AND SaECTED FILL: ONE TEST PER BASIN/ STORAGELAGOON 2. SUBGRADEPREPARA110N IN ACCORDANCE WI1H 1HE BULKEAR1HWORKNOTES. 7,!ll0 m3OF COMPACTED MATERIAL, WITH A MINIMUMOF TEN SaiiB ASSHOWN 3. IN-SITUCI..AY MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR LINING 98% ROD (STANDARD COMPAC110N) EROSIONAND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTU: TESTS. WITHIN0% TO +2% OF OPTlMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (OMC) IN ACCORDANCE WI1H Dt.wn ., Dauo 2410l12017 2.1.3. CLAYCORE/CUT-OFF TRENCH: ONE TEST PER 150m3, WITH A AS1289.5.1.1OR MINIMUM 300nln COMPACTED CLAY LINER (98% ROD 0% TO +2% OMC) Appi'OWid BJO D•,.._d IIID MINIMUMOF SEVEN TESTS. ONBED. 1. DIVERSIONDRAINS AND SEDIMENT PONDS, AS NECESSARY, SHALL BE INSTALLED 2.1.4. STORAGELAGOON EMBANKMENT FILL: ONE TEST PER 2,500 m3, DMin NA Zo•• NA ONSITEPRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OFANY WORKS. WI1HA MINIMUMOF SEVEN TESTS. l'rclectNo. BlqNo 2. ALLEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALl BE INSPECTED AFTER 2.1.5. GRAVELPAVEMENT: ONE TEST PER 1,000 ~ WI1HA MINIMUMOF RUOSOSDD EACHRUNOFF PRODUCING RAINFAll. EVENT. TENTESTS. 2.1.6. CLAYUN lNG: ONE TEST PER 2,500 m3, WI1H A MINIMUMOF SEVEN ~No. 1.,. TESTS. RUOSOSDO-PRS-IR-CNA-07A

5. Clarify whether wastewater irrigation would occur on the subject site. If so, demonstrate that irrigation would occur having regard to the EPA’s Wastewater irrigation management plan guidelines (2009).

The Mediterranean climate of the region results in winter dominant annual rainfall of about 456 mm/year and an annual average evaporation 1700 mm. Subsequently, the site has a rainfall deficit of about 1244 mm/year.

Irrigated cropping is currently not undertaken on the subject site as it is not possible to reliably grow crops and improved pastures due to the lack of available irrigation water. It is expected that no irrigation of effluent will be undertaken on the subject site with the expanded development.

Therefore the effluent, the majority of which is derived from the winter rainfall, needs to be stored until it can be utilised safely.

In a below-average rainfall year all the stormwater runoff generated from the existing feedlot is used for dust suppression (access roads, feed roads), construction water (pen repairs and maintenance) and landscaping (tree races, grassed areas) during summer months. The existing wastewater lagoon is dry for pro-longed periods.

In an average rainfall year all the stormwater runoff generated from the existing feedlot is utilised by dust suppression (access roads, feed roads), construction water (pen repairs and maintenance) and landscaping (tree races, grassed areas) during summer months with any remaining effluent evaporated.

The expanded development includes the construction of new feed roads. Subsequently, all the stormwater runoff generated from the expanded development is expected to be utilised through dust suppression (feed roads), construction water (pen repairs and maintenance) during summer months with any remaining effluent evaporated. Effluent may also be treated and recycled through the cattle wash facility as soaking water and/or yard washing water.

2.4 Manure and mortality composting

6. Advise how many tonnes of compost (i.e. the total of manure and carcasses would be produced each year.

The proposed development shall generate solid waste comprising manure scraped from pens, composted mortalities, waste feed (spillage and spoilage), settled solids from the sedimentation basins and sludge from the wastewater lagoons. Manure scraped from pens is the largest of the solid wastes generated.

Various studies have assessed the estimation of manure output from lot-fed beef cattle with typical levels in the order of 1 tonne DM/head/year. McGahan and Tucker (2003) report typical excretion rates 1-1.2 t DM/head/year.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 20 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

McGahan and Tucker (2003) recommend using a mass balance approach to estimate the quality and quantity of solid waste generated by beef cattle feedlots. One such method is the predictive model known as BEEFBAL (QPIF 2004). BEEFBAL can be used to estimate waste characteristics from a beef cattle feedlot. BEEFBAL is a Microsoft Excel worksheet model. BEEFBAL was designed initially as a nutrient budgeting tool for beef cattle feedlot operations, but has been modified to include the Dry Matter Digestibility Approximation of Manure Production (DMDAMP) model for predicting the organic component of waste composition and quantification. The dry matter digestibility (DMD) approximation of manure production (DMDAMP) predicts the amount of TS, VS and FS (or ash) excreted by animals using DMD (van Sliedregt et al. 2000). The model requires data on herd numbers, feed ingredients and quantity fed. The digestibility of each feed ingredient is used to predict the TS, VS and FS (or ash) excreted by an animal using mass balance principles.

Feed digestibility improvements in beef cattle feedlots using secondary processing, such as steam flaking, have enhanced feed digestibility and potentially reduced manure production since the time of the McGahan and Tucker (2003) study.

BEEFBAL_V9.1_TI (QPIF 2004) was used to estimate the volume of solid waste generated by the proposed development along with the nutrient composition of the solid waste.

The volatile solids in the excreted manure quickly decomposes on the pen surface. Davis et al (2010) measured a reduction in VS by:

 60–70% after 20 days  70% after 35 days  75% after 80–100 days.

Davis et al (2010) measured the VS/TS ratio of harvested manure (at pen cleaning) to range between 0.60–0.68, with an average of averages 0.64. It is proposed that pen cleaning will occur at intervals not exceeding 10 weeks. Subsequently, some 70% of the VS is lost on the pen before manure is harvested, corresponding to about a 56% reduction in TS.

BEEFBAL was used to estimate the weight and nutrient content for solid waste from the proposed development. Input data for BEEFBAL was taken from herd data, quantity fed and feed ingredients respectively (Table 22, Table 23 and Table 24 of the Development Application – Proposed Beef Cattle Feedlot Expansion report). The estimated solid waste generated from the proposed development is shown in Table 3 and Table 6. The BEEFBAL inputs and outputs for the scenarios modelled are provided in Appendix A.

The mass-balance model estimates manure excretion on a daily basis based on feed intake. Subsequently, any ration that is spilt or spoilt as a result of environmental conditions (e.g. rainfall) and is not consumed by the animals (and subsequently ends up in the pen with manure) is accounted for in the daily intake in the mass balance calculations. Further, the mass of spilt or spoilt feed is expected to be negligible compared to the volume of manure generated.

Similarly, any settled solids and sludge that is generated in the sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon originates from excreted manure. The mass-balance model allows partitioning of excreted manure into that remaining on the pad and that exported to the sedimentation basin / wastewater lagoon (and accumulating as sludge). The mass-balance modelling assumes that no manure is exported off the pad. Subsequently, settled solids and sludge that have accumulated in the

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 21 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

sedimentation basin and/or wastewater lagoon has already been accounted for in the manure excreted component of the mass-balance.

In reality, some sediment shall be suspended in the liquid effluent and settle as sludge in the wastewater lagoon.

Table 3 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 1 (Manure) Parameter Units Mass t/day t/year Fresh manure excreted Dry mass 8.9 3,290 Wet mass @85%MC 59.6 21,930 Scraped from pad Dry mass* - 1,645 Wet mass @50%MC - 3,290 Removed from stockpile Dry mass - 1,645 Wet mass @35%MC - 2,531 *50% dry matter loss on the pad

Table 4 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 2 (Manure) Parameter Units Mass t/day t/year Fresh manure excreted Dry mass 11.4 4,180 Wet mass @85%MC 75.7 27,870 Scraped from pad Dry mass* - 2,090 Wet mass @50%MC - 4,180 Removed from stockpile Dry mass - 2,090 Wet mass @35%MC - 3,216 *50% dry matter loss on the pad

BEEFBAL estimates the mass of mortalities and the dry matter of composted mortalities has been estimated based on an average carcass moisture content of 60% (Michell et al, 1989). Table 6 the estimated mass of mortalities generated in the proposed development.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 22 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 5 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 1 (Mortalities) Parameter Units Mass t/day t/year Mortalities Dry mass 0.10 25 Wet mass @60%MC* 0.17 62 Removed from stockpile Dry mass - 25 Wet mass @35%MC - 38 *The fluid content, including water, comprise an average of 60% of the total body weight of a beef animal (Michell et al., 1989).

Table 6 – Estimated solid waste generated CDA 2 (Mortalities) Parameter Units Mass t/day t/year Mortalities Dry mass 0.13 32 Wet mass @60%MC* 0.22 79 Removed from stockpile Dry mass - 32 Wet mass @35%MC - 49 *The fluid content, including water, comprise an average of 60% of the total body weight of a beef animal (Michell et al., 1989).

The total estimated solid waste available for utilisation from the proposed development (9,083 SCU) is shown in Table 7.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 23 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 7 – Estimated solid waste available for utilisation Parameter Units Source Manure/Feed/Sludge Mortalities Dry Mass t/year 3,735 57 Wet Mass @35%MC t/year 5,746 87

7. Demonstrate that the existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area has adequate capacity to store and process the additional manure and mortalities that would be generated by the expanded feedlot.

Stockpiling of solid wastes from the existing feedlot is undertaken in open windrows up to 3 m high rather than in large piles. The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is approximately 240 m in length and 67 m wide, giving an area of about 16,000 m2.

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area does not have adequate capacity to store and process all the additional solid waste that would be generated by the expanded feedlot.

Subsequently, each controlled drainage area of the expanded development shall have a dedicated solid waste storage and processing area. The controlled drainage area of each development site has been amended to include this area. The sedimentation basin and storage lagoon capacity have been amended to reflect the additional hard area included in the controlled drainage area.

The storage, processing and/or composting of solid wastes shall be undertaken on a suitably designed and constructed area within CDA 1 and CDA 2 respectively. The main design criteria include:  Impervious base  Good drainage  Provision of sufficient area.

The solid waste storage and carcass composting area shall be constructed using the specifications outlined in Figure 7. Figure 16 and Figure 17 shows the location of the solid waste storage and carcass composting area within CDA 1 and CDA 2 respectively.

The solid waste storage area shall have a floor slope of 1-3% to ensure drainage. The solid waste storage area was sized based on the estimated volume of solid waste produced from BEEFBAL (QPIF, 2004) and assuming each solid waste windrow is triangular shaped, with 1 vertical to 2 horizontal batters (1V:2H) and no higher than 3 m and a bulk density of solid waste of about 0.6 t/m3.

Based on a scraped manure moisture content of 50%, this translates into some 3,290t and 4,180 t of wet scraped manure per year from CDA 1 and CDA 2 respectively. With the assumed windrow dimensions some 7,000 m2 and 9,000 m2 of pad area is required to store and process harvested manure from CDA 1 and CDA 2 respectively. Allowing additional space for carcass composting and solid waste processing equipment, screening etc, the solid waste storage and carcass composting area shall encompass an area of some 8,000 m2 (0.8 ha) for CDA 1 and 9,000 m2 (0.9 ha) for CDA 2. V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 24 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

8. Demonstrate that the existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is designed and constructed having regard to the EPA’s Compost Guideline (2013).

2.4.1 Siting of compost works

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is located in the north-west of the existing development. The area receives solid waste (manure, mortalities, spoilt feed etc) from the existing development.

The EPA recommends that the operation of composting facilities is avoided in the following locations:

 1,000 m to land that is for sensitive use. o Sensitive use as defined in section 3(1) of the Environment Protection Act 1993, sensitive use means – a) use for residential purposes; or b) use for a pre-school within the meaning of the Development Regulations 1993; or c) use for a primary school; or d) use of a kind prescribed by regulation.

 Within the floodplain known as the ‘1956 River Murray Floodplain’ or any floodplain subject to flooding that occurs, on average, more than one in every 100 years

 Within the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection Area and the South East Water Protection Area as declared under Part 8 of the EP Act

 Within 100 m of a bank of a major watercourse (eg Murray, Torrens and Onkaparinga Rivers), or within 500 m of a high-water mark.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 25 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

©OSTWALD BROS PTYLTD ABN: 91 099 115 009

This document~ the property of OstwaldBros Prt Ltd and is copyrightI t is confidential. Persons receiving~ m ay not use, reproduce,copy or discloseexcept with, and onlyt o the extent of, prior writtenconsent o f OstwaldBros P!y Ltd.

NOTES, 1. CADASTRAL INFORMATIONSO URCED FROM MAPLAND - SOUTH AUSTRALIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCESIDEWNR ) MAY 2016 AND ACCURACYIS LIMITED. 2. IMAGESO URCEDF ROM GOOGLEEA RTHTH MAY 2016 3. OTHER FEATURESMAY HAVE BEEN DIGITISED FROM PLANS OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ACCURACYI S LIMITED

~... ~~ ~)g

ostviald~

ISSUE FOR REVIEW I RJD I BJO

Date Issue Amendment lnit App

OSTWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300 678 925 Fax: (07) 4669 9450 Email: [email protected] We b: www.ostwaldbros.com.au Project PRINCESS ROYAL STATIO N - DA422-E003-16 - REQUESTFO R INFORMATION

Drawing Title

SOLID WASTE PROCESSINGA REA - EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

Scales I= 1,200 (AI) I= 2,400 (A3) Drawn RJD IDate 24/03/2017 Approved BJO Designed RJD Datum WGSB4 IZone UTM54H Project No. Bldg No RU050500

Drawing No. I Issue RUOSOSOO- PRS-IR-ESW-08 I A

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is located over 1000 m from land that is for sensitive use. The closest sensitive use is a rural residence located some 2,785 m west of the existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area as shown in Figure 3.

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is not located on a floodplain. The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is sited in the upper catchment some 200m above the elevation of Booborowie Creek and therefore is not subject to flooding.

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is located at Mt Bryan over 90 km from the closest point of the ‘1956 River Murray Floodplain’ at Morgan as shown in Figure 9.

The existing feedlot solid waste storage and processing area is not located within the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Protection Area and the South East Water Protection Area as declared under Part 8 of the EP Act as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 9 – ‘1956 River Murray Floodplain’ (Bloss et al 2015)

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 27 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Streaky Bay

ROBINSON BASIN

Sceale Bay

PENONG

THULINIPPIE

PORT VENUS BAY KENNY

TALIA SPRING CREEK

BAROOTA POLDA

BEETALOO KAPPAWANTA AND Port Pirie BRAMFIELD BASINS NEVER Elliston NEVER CREEK

SHERINGA Sheringa Beach

TOD RIVER MURRAY RIVER

Gawler NORTH Port PARA Lincoln EYRE PENINSULA MOUNT SOUTHERN BASINS LOFTY RANGES CARRIBIE PARA WURLIE ADELAIDE Murray Bridge TOOKAYERTA MARION CREEK Tailem Bend

MIDDLE Cape Jervis RIVER Kingscote Meningie NORTH WEST RIVER

Salt Creek

Bordertown

SOUTH EAST Water Protection Areas South Australia Robe

Mount Water Protection Areas Gambier

Name: agaetjens 0 100 ± Date: 6/01/2014 File: \\EPA\GIS_MXDs\GIS14\GIS14_0001 Kms

DEH Stan dar d

The existing solid waste storage and processing area is located at Mt Bryan and not within 100 m of a bank of a major watercourse (e.g. Murray, Torrens and Onkaparinga Rivers), or within 500 m of a high-water mark as demonstrated in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Subsequently, the existing solid waste storage and processing area satisfies the EPA’s Compost Guideline (2013) for siting of compost works.

2.4.2 Design of composting facilities

The existing solid waste storage and processing area is located within a dedicated area within the controlled drainage area of the existing feedlot as shown in Figure 8. All solid waste is stockpiled in open windrows within this area. As composting of carcasses is undertaken using manure no additional feedstocks are required for composting.

The existing solid waste storage and processing area has been constructed with a 4% downgrade that directs stormwater runoff and leachate from the area to the existing sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon that services the existing development.

The existing solid waste storage and processing area has been constructed on a low permeability clay liner with a minimum thickness of 300 mm as recommended by Rural Solutions SA report dated 28th June 2007. The subsoil at the site of the existing solid waste storage and processing area is clay. Testing by the Geotechnical Laboratory of AS James Bear at Kapunda indicated that its suitability for a low permeability clay lining. The material met the standard described in the Reference Manual for the Establishment and Operation of Beef Cattle Feedlots in Queensland; Appendix E, Clay lining of drains, sedimentation systems, holding ponds and manure stockpile areas.

Clean stormwater is prevented from entering the existing solid waste storage and processing area by earthen diversion bunds on the northern, eastern and southern sides of area. An access road is constructed along the top of the earthen diversion bund on the eastern side of the area. The earthen diversion bund along the northern and southern sides is shown in Photograph 1 and Photograph 2 respectively.

Stormwater runoff and leachate from the solid waste storage and processing area is directed to the existing sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon that services the existing development.

The sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon have been sized to hold a 1:20 year high winter rainfall and 1 in 100 year 1 hour storm event (34.9 mm/hr) above the high winter rainfall storage level from the existing feedlot’s controlled drainage area which includes the area on which the existing solid waste storage and processing is located.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 29 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Earthen diversion bund

Diversion drain

Photograph 1 – Existing solid waste storage and processing area diversion bund (Southern wall)

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 30 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Solid waste storage and carcass composting area

Earthen diversion bund

Diversion drain

Photograph 2 – Existing solid waste storage and processing area diversion bund (Northern wall)

Wallbridge & Gilbert (Consulting Engineers, Adelaide) conducted a practical completion inspection of the constructed development in August 2011 and confirmed that the civil works undertaken on- site are consistent with the design intent of the civil works drawings, the details contained in the Rural Solutions SA report dated 28th June 2007 and subsequent condition of the development approval.

A copy of the Wallbridge & Gilbert practical completion response is provided in Figure 11.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 31 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Figure 11 – Existing development practical completion

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 32 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

2.5 Hazardous chemical storage

Reference: EPA’s Bunding and spill management Guidelines (2012) (the Bunding Guidelines’)

9. With reference to the EPA’s Bunding and spill management Guideline (2012), provide details to demonstrate that the proposed bund or spill containment system would appropriately contain hazardous chemicals and leaks.

The range of hazardous substances that may be stored during the operation of the proposed development were outlined in the Section 7.8.10 of the Development Application. These included;

 agricultural chemicals – herbicides, pesticides, veterinary chemicals etc.  cleaning agents  detergents and their byproducts  engine coolant  oil, grease, lubricants  diesel, petrol fuels  solvents.

No agricultural herbicide chemicals shall be stored at the proposed development site. Herbicides are appropriately stored on another cropping property owned by the applicant in a chemical storage shed. In the event weeds need to be controlled at the proposed development, the required volume of mixed product shall be brought to the site by the cropping team and applied to the area to be treated.

A small volume of veterinary chemicals are stored on-site at the induction/hospital area in climate controlled receptacles. The quantity of veterinary chemicals stored on-site is less than 5L.

All hazardous materials proposed to be stored on-site are liquids and shall be stored above-ground. The quantities of hazardous chemicals shall be kept to a minimum, commensurate with their usage and shelf life. With the exception of diesel fuel, hazardous materials shall be stored in steel drums (205L) or HDPE containers (20L) located in a dedicated secured shipping container facility as shown in Photograph 3.

A shipping container dedicated for storage of small volumes of hazardous materials contained in drums storage is provided on-site and shown in Photograph 3. The shipping container has a floor area of 6m x 2.4m and a small lip (25mm) on the floor at the entrance. The shipping container is sealed on the floor and rear sides. In accordance with the EPA’s Bunding and spill management guideline (2012), the bunded area is able to contain at least 25% of the total volume of the stored products as the material to be bunded is contained in drums and other small containers.

Diesel fuel shall be stored in a 15,000L above-ground steel tank. Diesel fuel is currently stored in a 15,000L above-ground steel tank with spill containment system as shown in Photograph 4. No additional diesel storage tanks are proposed for the expanded development.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 33 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 8 – Storage quantities

Maximum Storage Substance Quantity Use pack size Option Agricultural chemicals - Nil Weed control Off-site Plant & machinery Shipping Cleaning agents/detergents 20L 20L maintenance container Plant & machinery Shipping Engine coolant 20L 80L maintenance container Plant & machinery Shipping Oil/grease/lubricants 205L 410L maintenance container Diesel 15,000L 15,000 Plant and machinery fuel Bulk Tank Shipping Petrol 205L 80L Motorcycle fuel Container Plant & machinery Shipping Solvents 20L 20L maintenance/repairs container

As diesel fuel is a combustible liquid (AS1940) and poses a risk to the environment, the storage facility shall have a spill containment system appropriate for the nature and pollution risk of diesel in accordance with relevant guidelines and Australian Standards.

Subsequently, in accordance with EPA’s Bunding and spill management guideline (2012), the net capacity of the bunded compound for the diesel storage facility should be at least 120% of the net capacity of the tank or 18,000L.

The existing diesel storage tank is located within a bund with floor and walls constructed of concrete. The bund has an internal floor area of 30.16 m2 (8m (L) x 3.77m (W)). The bund wall is 600mm high. The capacity of the bund is 18,096 m3 or 18,096L. Taking into consideration storage tank foundations, the bund has a capacity of 120% of the storage tank within the bund.

The bund floor and walls are constructed of reinforced concrete which is impervious to the contents of the diesel contained in the tank within the bund. The wall is 130 mm thick and provides sufficient strength and structural integrity to ensure that it is unlikely to burst or leak in ordinary use, and does not have a damp course.

Subsequently, the existing bund and spill containment systems would appropriately contain spills and leaks of hazardous substances contained on-site.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 34 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Photograph 3 – Hazardous material minor quantity storage

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 35 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Photograph 4 – Diesel storage tank and bund

2.6 Temporary cattle storage paddock

10. Provide details about the construction and use of the induction/hospital pen area including, but not limited to: a. Dimensions b. Cattle numbers and density c. Typical length of time cattle would be held in this area d. Construction of pen flooring e. Stormwater management, and f. How adverse impacts would be mitigated.

The induction/hospital pen area comprises two separate areas within the controlled drainage area of the existing feedlot development.

2.6.1 Induction pen area

The induction pens are located on either side of the processing shed as shown on Figure 8.

There are seven induction pens. The dimension of each pen is provided in Table 9.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 36 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 9 – Induction/hospital pen dimensions

Pen No Width Depth Area Pen Density Pen Type m m m2 m2/head Induction 1 6-14.4 22.8 300 12.5 Induction 2 14.9 22.8 340 12.5 Induction 3 14.4 22.8 328 12.5 Induction 4 16.2 33.6 544 12.5 Induction 5 16.5 27.4 452 12.5 Induction 6 16.3 21.1 344 12.5 Induction 7 16.2 8.75-15.0 224 12.5 Induction 8 20 55 1100 12.5 Dispatch 9 20 55 1100 12.5 Dispatch 10 20 55 1100 12.5 Dispatch 11 20 55 1100 12.5 Dispatch 12 40 55 2200 12.5 Dispatch 13 40 55 2200 12.5 Dispatch 14 40 55 2200 12.5 Dispatch 15 40 55 2200 12.5 Dispatch 16 40 55 1100 20-25 Hospital

There is no set day for cattle to arrive at the existing development. Typically, cattle arrive in B- Double livestock transport with approximately 70-80 animals per vehicle depending on market type. Cattle are unloaded at the arrival/dispatch facility and placed in two or more induction pens to await processing.

Cattle numbers inducted vary, but on-average around 1500 per month are inducted. Cattle are held for no more than 7 days in the induction pens. The livestock team processes cattle Monday to Friday and the processing facilities are located within the processing shed. The location of the processing shed is shown on Figure 8.

The induction process includes scanning each animals RFID tag, recording age and sex and two site identification tags are given to the animal. Any required vaccinations are given at this stage of the process. The animals are then sent to production pens for growing out.

2.6.2 Dispatch

The first row of 8 production pens (Pens 55 m x 40 m) closest to the processing shed (Pens 8-15) are dispatch pens. Cattle can be held in these pens for approximately 7 to 10 days prior to dispatch.

The location of the dispatch pens are shown on Figure 8.

Cattle dispatched from the existing development for processing vary, but on-average around 1500 per month exit the existing development. Typically, cattle will exit the feedlot Mondays and Tuesdays, but this may also vary.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 37 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

2.6.3 Hospital pen

Early detection and treatment of ill and injured cattle is critical in optimising welfare and productivity and minimising mortalities. Hospital pens are used to treat and hold sick or injured cattle before they are returned to their production pen or exit from the feedlot.

The hospital pen is located on the end of a row of production pens as shown on Figure 8. The dimension of the hospital pen is provided in Table 9.

The number of cattle held in the hospital pen depends on the number of ill or injured animals. Sick or injured animals are stocked at a lower density in the hospital pen than in production pens. Typically, 50% more pen space is provided for sick cattle in the hospital pens approximately 20-25 m2/SCU. Further, more feed bunk space is provided for sick cattle in the hospital pen approximately 450‐600 mm of bunk space per head than in production pens (250mm/head).

The length of time cattle are held in the hospital pen varies and depends on their illness or injury, treatment program etc. Once animals have recovered from their illness they are returned to the production pens or sent to slaughter as salvage.

2.6.4 Construction of pen flooring and stormwater management

The induction/hospital pen area was constructed at the same time as the production pens, sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon of the existing development during 2010.

Construction of the processing shed and induction pens commenced in January 201, followed by Pens 8-15 and then the rest of the pens followed.

The existing induction/hospital pen area is located within the controlled drainage area of the existing feedlot as shown on Figure 8. The runoff from the processing shed roof drains into sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon. The existing induction/hospital pen area has been constructed with suitable crossfall that directs stormwater runoff and leachate from the area to the existing sedimentation basin and wastewater lagoon that services the existing development.

The existing induction/hospital pen area has been constructed on a low permeability clay liner with a minimum thickness of 300 mm as recommended by Rural Solutions SA report dated 28th June 2007. The subsoil at the site of the existing solid waste storage and processing area is clay. Testing by the Geotechnical Laboratory of AS James Bear at Kapunda indicated that its suitability for a low permeability clay lining (Refer Appendix D 422/E003/16 Development Report Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd, 2016). The material met the standard described in the Reference Manual for the Establishment and Operation of Beef Cattle Feedlots in Queensland; Appendix E, Clay lining of drains, sedimentation systems, holding ponds and manure stockpile areas (Skerman, 2000).

Wallbridge & Gilbert (Consulting Engineers, Adelaide) conducted a practical completion inspection of the constructed development in August 2011 and confirmed that the civil works undertaken on- site are consistent with the design intent of the civil works drawings, the details contained in the Rural Solutions SA report dated 28th June 2007 and subsequent condition of the development approval.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 38 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

A copy of the Wallbridge & Gilbert practical completion response is provided in Figure 11.

2.6.5 Mitigation of adverse impacts

The implementation of the following management and mitigation measures minimise identified impacts to soils, surface water, groundwater and air quality.

 Runoff external to the controlled drainage area is diverted away from the controlled drainage area  A controlled drainage area designed to an acceptable hydrological standard that prevents unauthorised discharges of runoff from areas which have high organic matter and therefore a high pollution potential  Geotechnical investigation conducted to determine those areas within the controlled drainage area where the permeability of underlying soil/rock strata exceeds the design permeability, thus requiring lining to prevent soil leachate movement  The pens are designed with adequate slope to maximise drainage and encourage rapid drying of the pen surface after rainfall  The catch and main drains designed with adequate and uniform slope to maximise drainage and encourage rapid drying after rainfall

2.7 Construction of additional wastewater lagoon existing development After a recent site visit, EPA requested the area to the north of the existing feedlot development in which cattle are temporarily held for backgrounding prior to entry into the feedlot be included in the controlled drainage area of the existing development. Subsequently, this requires revision of the original developments drainage calculations to ensure that the existing wastewater lagoon can adequately contain runoff from the expanded area.

Mosel Steed surveyed the extended catchment area and determined its area to be 9.647 ha. Figure 12 illustrates the extended catchment area.

Walbridge and Gilbert reviewed the revised catchment area and calculated the capacity of the sedimentation basin and existing wastewater storage lagoons to ensure that sufficient capacity to accommodate the runoff from May to October with an average reoccurrence interval of 20 years was available. An embankment freeboard of 900mm above the top water level was adopted in accordance with EPA guidelines. Based on the revised catchment area, the minimum capacity of the wastewater lagoon was calculated to be approximately 6,900kL (6.9ML).

Taking into consideration existing on-site wastewater storage there is a shortfall of approximately 4,670 kL (4.67ML) to meet capacity for the revised catchment area. Two options are proposed to cater for this shortfall depending on practicalities, construction timing and cost. Option 1 is to extend the southern embankment of the existing wastewater lagoon by some 12m to the south towards the access road. This is the preferred option and is shown on Figure 8. Alternatively a separate wastewater storage lagoon of approximately 10,000 m3 could be constructed on the north- western corner of the site. This is the least preferred option.

The proposed separate wastewater storage lagoon (Options 2) is to be located on land described as Plan type 230100, Parcel SE894 and Title type CT5469 as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 12.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 39 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CROSSFALL ON TRACK WITH SW !>.LE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ PROPOSED STORAGE \ \ LAGOON \ \ VOLUME @l SETTLING LAGOON \ \ TOP WATER LEVEL CDA2 \ \ 10000m' 9.647ha TRANSFER PIPE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ~:=::=::=:::::..J ADDITIONAL LAGOON \ TOP OF BANK RL: 589.15 \ 3 ~ o BUFFER STOARGE LEVEL RL: 588.85, VOLUME: 4400m 3 TOP WATER LEVEL RL: 588.25, VOLUME: 2230m \ TANK \ \ ( \ \ \ \ \ \

IMPORTANT NOTE: This plan was prepared 0 40 80 120 160 200 ----- MAJOR CONTOUR for the purpose of designing new ADDITIONAL FEEDLOT CATCHMENT L constructions on the land and should not SCALE METRES MINOR CONTOUR be used for any other purpose. The title 6 Gr.M5 Sln!et ~ 5554 E boundaries shown hereon were not 0888213544 ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE A I EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN marked by the author at the time of the M survey and hove been determined by plan - DATUM: PLANE 11.4 21/11/16 PROPOSED LAGOON ADDED BLOCKS 27 & 28 • .._•• e+!f*' '.am.a.~ COORDINATE G PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE dimensions only and not by field Mosel Steed IIWII I Jdoom... HEIGHT DATUM: PSM6630 1094 RL521.117m AHD ---- measurement. Services shown hereon 11.3 17 /II /16 VOLUME UPDATED IN D 2033 101144516398 EASEMENT hove been located where possible by field 11.2 09/11/16 CATCHMENT AREA E survey. CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2.0 metre FEEDLOT CATCHMENT BOUNDARY Prior to any demolition, excavation or 11.1 08/11/16 CATCHMENT AREA N construction on the site, the relevant 11.0 04/11/16 ORIGINAL ISSUE Nar-.1 : ~llllcllt : a.. : ~- SURVEY DATE: 26 05 15 & 03 11 16 authority should be contacted for possible 0883627900; 0885325200 ;0888421228; 0885594283 location of further underground services REV DATE DESCRIPTION CLIENT: PRINCESS ROYAL STATION D and detailed locations of all services. BOOBOROWIE REFERENCE: C09051E11.4 21111/16 BAL This note is on integral port of this plan. ADDITIONS & AMENDMENTS SHEET 1 OF I

2.7.1 Proposed construction details

The design geometry of the proposed additional wastewater storage lagoon is shown Figure 14 and Figure 15. This design may not be constructed if the existing storage lagoon can be practically extended.

The construction of the proposed additional wastewater storage lagoon or extension of existing storage lagoon will be the same as the storage lagoons on the current site, lined with a minimum thickness of 600 mm of compacted clay which has a hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-9 m/s or less to prevent seepage into groundwater. The subsoil at the site of the proposed wastewater storage lagoon is clay, CH classification, which was tested previously by the Geotechnical Laboratory of AS James Bear at Kapunda and meets the standards set out in Appendix 4A of EPA guidelines for lagoon construction.

In accordance with EPA guidelines and risk matrix, the proposed wastewater storage lagoon will meet the category 1 set out in Appendix 2 of the guidelines. To meet the permeability measures, the following procedures will be used by the construction contractors;

 All surfaces to be cleared and grubbed, stripped of topsoil and prepared to the required levels and gradients by cutting and filling. This will involve over excavation to accommodate the required thickness of clay lining while ensuring that the final design gradients, levels and dimensions are achieved.  Clay lining is to be placed in progressive, uniform, horizontal layers, not exceeding 200 mm in thickness prior to compaction.  Each layer will be compacted to produce a field dry density of at least 95% of the standard maximum laboratory dry density achieved through rolling.  Following compaction, final trimming of all clay lined areas must be carried out to produce a smooth uniform surface.

Wastewater captured in the storage lagoon will be evaporated or used for dust suppression around the development. Construction and quality control will be undertaken by S.C. Heinrich & Co. Pty. Ltd.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 41 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

APPENDIX 1 RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Instructions: Select one category under each criteria by clicking 'Y' in the blue column opposite the category. Additional explanations are provided in Appendix 3A.

SITE: Princess Royal Feedlot, Hills Road, Booborowie, South Australia.

Points Yes/No Score 1 Groundwater occurrence 1a none 0 Y 0 1b confined 0.2 1c semi-confined 2 1d unconfined (covered) 6 1e unconfined 10 2 Aquifer type 2a Clay or crystalline rock 0.25 Y 0.25 2b Silt, fractured rock or limestone 3.75 2c Sand,gravel or Fill 10 3 Minimum distance of groundwater from base of lagoon liner 3a greater than 50m 0 Y 0 3b >20m to 50 m 0.1 3c >10m to 20 m 1 3d >5m to10 m 2 3e >2m to 5 m 6 3f 2 m or less 10 4 Groundwater usage 4a Not Likely 0.5 Y 0.5 4b Possible 2.5 4c Current 10 5 Groundwater salinity 5a >10 000 mg/L 0 5b >5000 to10000 mg/L 0.2 5c >1500 to 5000 mg/L 3 Y 3 5d 1500 mg/L or less 10 6 Nominal capacity of lagoon (excluding freeboard) 6a Small (5ML or less) 0.2 6b Medium (>5ML to 10ML) 1.2 6c Large (>10ML to 30 ML) 4.8 Y 4.8 6d Very Large (>30ML ) 10 7 Max lagoon water depth 7a 1m or less (evaporative) 0.2 7b >1m to 3m (aerobic/facultative) 1.2 7c >3m to 6m (anaerobic) 4.8 Y 4.8 7d deeper than 6m 10 8 Nature of wastewater (see Appendix 3A for definitions) 8a contaminated stormwater 0.2 8b treated wastewater 0.8 8c composting/landfill 4.2 8d organic/nutrient 4.2 Y 4.2 8e reactive 6.4 8f hazardous 10 , A, 15/3/2017 11:31 AM,A,mjeffs ,

REV. DATE DESCRIPTION DRAFT ENG. CHKD MACKERODE STATION BURRA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA EFFLUENT POND

SITE PLAN C I:\2009\07July2009\C090784\C090784-C20.dwg DRAWING NUMBER When sheet printed full size, the scale bar is 100mm. A1 Job Number Sheet No. Rev. 0 50 100mm

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Design Drawn

PRELIMINARY ISSUE MWRJ MWRJ C090784 C20 , A, 15/3/2017 11:29 AM,A,mjeffs ,

REV. DATE DESCRIPTION DRAFT ENG. CHKD MACKERODE STATION BURRA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA EFFLUENT POND

SECTIONS C I:\2009\07July2009\C090784\C090784-C21.dwg DRAWING NUMBER When sheet printed full size, the scale bar is 100mm. A1 Job Number Sheet No. Rev. 0 50 100mm

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Design Drawn

PRELIMINARY ISSUE MWRJ MWRJ C090784 C21

2.8 Commissioner of Highways (Email correspondence Simon Neldner 16/12/16)

2.8.1 Further detail on traffic distributions

A traffic impact assessment has been produced by Wallbridge & Gilbert.

2.8.2 Requirement for further upgrades to the Goyder Highway / Hills Road junction (beyond that already required for DA 422/0064/07).

A traffic impact assessment, produced by Wallbridge & Gilbert has been prepared to address the following matters: a) Assess the Goyder Highway / Hills Road junction against the relevant Austroads Guides and Australian Standards to identify the level of turn treatment required for the proposed junction to accommodate the movements associated with the development; b) Detail the expected traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed development, including: i) Daily volumes; ii) Peak development volumes; and (if different to the above); iii) Development volumes during AM and PM peak times for Hills Road. c) Assess and provide details (including diagrammatic representation) of the traffic distribution of traffic to/from the site; d) Specify the largest vehicle anticipated on site and provide turn paths demonstrating that this vehicle can enter and exit in a forward direction.

The traffic impact statement is provided in Appendix A.

2.9 DPTI

2.9.1 Controlled Drainage Area

The information request has resulted in a design review of the proposed development design. As a result of the design review a solid waste storage area has now been incorporated into the controlled drainage area of each site.

The proposed development shall have two discrete controlled drainage areas. The controlled drainage areas are referred to as CDA 1 and CDA 2. Each controlled drainage area shall include the following elements:

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 45 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

 production pens  cattle lanes  feed lanes or alleys  run-off catch drains  sedimentation system  solid waste storage area  storage lagoon.

The controlled drainage area is divided into three main sub-component areas, each of which has different runoff characteristics. These areas are:

 pen area – areas containing cattle and covered with manure e.g. production pens.  hard catchment – areas with a high runoff yield including feed roads, cattle lanes, catch/main drains, solid waste storage, sedimentation basin etc.  soft catchment – areas with a low runoff yield such as grassed and other vegetated areas within the controlled drainage area.

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the revised controlled drainage area plan for the proposed development including solid waste stockpile area. The location of each controlled drainage area along with their respective pen, hard and soft areas is shown on Figure 16 and Figure 17. Table 10 summaries the areas of the sub-catchments shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17. The sub- component catchment areas are needed to calculate the design volumes for the sedimentation basin and storage lagoon (Table 11 and Table 12) for each controlled drainage area respectively. Varying runoff coefficients are applied to the different sub-catchments depending on surface characteristics as outlined in the Guidelines for Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA), 2006).

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 46 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 10 – Controlled drainage area catchment details CDA 1 CDA 2 Runoff Sub-Component Catchment Area Area Coefficient Ha Ha Pens – production 6.00 7.63 0.8 Hard – feed roads, cattle lanes / drains, sed basin / solid 0.8 4.20 4.01 waste Soft – grassed areas 2.09 3.42 0.4 Storage Lagoon – inside crest surface area 0.62 0.94 1.0 Total 12.91 16.0 -

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 47 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

C) OSTWAlD BllOSPTY LTD

I =o\\\\\W~\\\ \ \ / I ~ :1\ , \ \ , II ~'::7~::.,~h ..t.Jn r------, ·~··~"'-~ilmGyiiOC -~ aJWfltdllc*--.wll4 ..... • -~pilotWlfllllll- .,OIIDoalllh,. I \ \\ I \ I ~:.~- EXJSnNGDEVrrMENT I \ !Iilli L ______j 1. CADASTRALIII'ClRHATION SOURCED fROM ~ HAPLAND• SOUTHAUSTRALIA DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONHENT. WATER rr Allll NATURALRESOURCES CDEWNRI MAY 2016AND ACCIJIACY IS LHTED. 'I 2. IMAGESOURCED fRDH GOOGI.EEARTt#" 'I MAY2016 3. OTHERFEATURES MAY HAVE BEEN DIGITISEDFROH PLANS OR AERIAL r PHOTOGRAPHSAND ACCURACY IS LIMITm I ' H \t/I Q; I ~ I I

\ ,,'\ \ \ ·~~ \ '\\\ \ \\ ~) '\' ~ LEGEND ostWaldi .• PRODUCTIONPEN AREA • HARDAREA- ROADS

HARDAREA - CATTLELANES/CA Tat DRAIN/MAINOAAIN

• HARDAREA- smt1ENTATIDNBASIN

• SOFTCAKifiiENT AREA(GRASS ETCI

• STORAIELAGOON CATDIMENT AREA 231031171A I ISSUEfOP. REVIEW I A,IDI BJO Dllll I•• ~ lnit An OSlWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300678925 r.x: Bmal: I~so I'CI&.ClOAUII Web: www.oatwalciii'O&.ClllmJIII l'rcltKt PRINCESSROYAL STATION DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION - PROPOSEDFEEDLOT EXPANSION o_.,Tide PROPOSEDCONTROLLED DRAINAGEAREA 1 PLAN

Sealte I= I,COO(AI) I= 2,000(All

Dr.wn A,ID DMII 2:J10312017 AppnMid BJO Dellpd RID 1 Ddlm WGS84 Zone UTM54H LAGOONCATCHMENT AREA /// , ...DAIII.IAr-c ...... clr ////A BidsNo l'rcltKtNa.

RUOSOSOO

DnlMI&No. lAue RU050500-PRS-IR-CD1-18 A C) OSTWAlDBllOSPTYLTD - - I A1111t91 ~ 11580!1 11111.__II,.,.,. II(OitwrM h ...Lid iiiWI ·~··~"'-~ilmGyiiOC -~ aJWfltdllc*--.wll4 ..... • -~pilotWlfllllll- .,OIIDoalllh ...

• HARDAREA -ROADS/SOLID WASTE STORAGE \ HARDAREA- CATTLELAIIESICATCH DRAIN/MAIN DRAII .tmm!. \ 1. CADASTRALNDRMATIIJI SDIRCm FROM MAPI.Ait)- SOUTHAUSTRALIA \ • HARDAREA- SfDIHEMTATIONBASIN DEPARTMENTOFENYIRDMIENT, WATER ' ANDNA TIRAL RESOURCES IDEWNAI HAY • SOfT CATDIHENTAREA [GRASS ETCI 2016AND ACCURACY IS LIMITED. '\ 2. IM~SDIIICED fROM llOOilLE EARTH"" \ • STORAGELAGOON CATCittENT AREA MAY2Gt6 l OTHERFEATURES HAY HAYUEEN \ DI61TISmfROM PLANS DR AERIAL ' \ PlllTDCiiAPHSAltl AC:QJRACYIS LI'IITED \ \ HARDCATCHMENT AREA" CATnE LANE/DRAIN """ \ CRAINAGEIH~ '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ CATCHMENTAREA \ FEEDROADS \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ·~~ \ ~) '\ ~ \ \ \ ostWaldi

231031171A I ISSUEfOP. REVIEW I A,IDI BJO Dllll ,.... ~ [nit An OSlWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300678925 r.x: Bmal: I~so I'CI&.ClOC1UII Web: www.oatwalcllro&.ClllmJIII l'rcltKt PRINCESSROYAL STATION DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION - PROPOSEDFEEDLOT EXPANSION D_.,TIIIe PROPOSEDCONTROLLED DRAINAGEAREA 2 PLAN

Sealte I= I,lOCI (AI) I= 2,400 (A3) Dr.wn A,ID DMII 2:J10312017

AppnMid BJO Dellpd A,ID Ddlm WGS84 Zone LITM54H l'rcltKtNa. BidsNo

RUOSOSOO '8ll. z , , 7, , 918 ,ere,r SCAU:•J-11 ------1:1,200 (A1) 1:2,400 (A3) D...... No. lAue RUOSOSOO-PRS-IR-CD2-17A

Table 11 summarises the input parameters used to determine the minimum required volume of the sedimentation basin. Table 11 – Sedimentation basin design details Parameter Units SA Guidelines CDA 1 CDA 2 Time of concentration hours Tc 0.19 0.30 Time of concentration minutes Tc 11.5 17.7 Rainfall Intensity mm/hr Itc,20 70.7 55.7 3 Peak flow rate m /s Qp 1.47 1.16 Lambda  2.5 2.5 Length:Breadth ratio at TWL L/W ~8 ~2.4 Design flow velocity m/s v 0.005 0.005 Required volume m3 V 1,998 1,575 Volume proposed (minimum) m3 V 2,000 1,600

There are several acceptable methods for determining the time of concentration of a small catchment. The time of concentration (Tc) is the time taken for rain that has fallen in the farthermost part of a catchment to flow to the discharge point. Thus after Tc, the whole of the catchment is contributing to the discharge and the peak flow (Q) will only occur after this time. The methodology outlined in the National Feedlot Guidelines (MLA, 2012a) was used to determine the time of concentration of each catchment.

The rainfall intensity was selected from Intensity-Frequency-Duration (IFD) design rainfalls for the site for an average recurrence interval of 20 years and duration equal to the time of concentration of the catchment. The IFD design rainfalls for the site were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM, 2016).

The minimum calculated volume for CDA 1 and CDA 2 is 1,998 m3 and 1,575 m3 respectively calculated by the method outlined in the SA Feedlot guidelines. The sedimentation design volume for CDA 1 and CDA 2 shall be a minimum of 2,000 m3 and 1,600 m3 respectively. The geometry of each sedimentation basin shall be shaped with existing topography to minimise land reshaping and earthworks.

Figure 16 shows the location of the sedimentation basin in relation to the production pens for CDA 1. Figure 17 shows the location of the sedimentation basin in relation to the production pens for CDA 2.

The criteria outlined in the Guidelines for Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia (Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA), 2006) was used to calculate the required storage lagoon volume and design parameters.

The revised storage lagoon volume is provided in Table 12. The storage lagoon for CDA 1 and CDA 2 have a minimum design maximum operating level (bywash) volume of 14.70 ML and 18.5 ML respectively as shown in Table 12

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 50 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Table 12 – Storage lagoon design Parameter Units CDA 1 CDA 2 Pen area m2 60,000 76,250 Hard area m2 41,968 40,109 Soft area m2 20,870 34,221 Lagoon area m2 6,201 9,443 May-Oct Rainfall mm 406 406 Safety Factor 1.25 1.25 Required lagoon volume kL 14,650 18,400 Proposed lagoon volume kL 14,700 18,500 Proposed lagoon volume ML 14.70 18.50

The storage lagoon shall have a bywash capable of discharging the peak flow from the controlled drainage area from a 50-year ARI design storm.

A minimum freeboard of at least 900 mm shall be provided between the crest of the discharge weir and the crest of the storage lagoon embankment.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 51 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

2.9.2 Engineered Site Earthworks Plan

A detail survey of the proposed development site was conducted by a registered surveyor (SA) to obtain all relevant site information such as existing infrastructure, natural features and natural surface levels for contouring.

The survey data was reduced and a digital terrain model for volume calculations of the proposed design surface created.

Figure 19 provides the earthworks volumes for Controlled Drainage Area 1. Figure 20 provides the earthworks volumes for Controlled Drainage Area 1.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 52 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

C OSTWALD BROS PTY LTD ABN: 91 099 115 009 EXISTING STORAGE This document is the property of Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd and LAGOONS is copyright. It is confidential. Persons receiving it may not use, reproduce, copy or disclose except with, and only to N the extent of, prior written consent of Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd.

W E

S

EXISTING FEED MILL

EXISTING FEED PENS

PROPOSED CDA 1

PROPOSED SOLID WASTE STOCKPILE AREA

PROPOSED STORAGE LAGOON

30/03/17 A ISSUE FOR REVIEW P.G. R.D. Date Issue Amendment Init App

OSTWALD BROS PTY LTD

Phone: 1300 678 925 Fax: (07) 4669 9450 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ostwaldbros.com.au PROPOSED SEDIMENTATION BASIN Project

Drawing Title

PROPOSED CDA 2 PROPOSED STORAGE LAGOON

Scales 1= 2,500 (A1) 1= 5,000 (A3) PROPOSED SOLID WASTE Drawn P.G. Date 30/03/17 OVERALL SITE PLAN Legend: STOCKPILE AREA Approved BJO Designed R.S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Datum WGS84 Zone UTM54H Project No. Bldg No

Drawing No. Issue ©OSTWALD BROSPlY LTD ABN: 91 099 liS 009

PROPOSED CDA 1 Thisdocument is !he propertyof Ostwald Bros Pty ltd and is copyrightIt is confidential.Persons receiving n may not uso, reproduce,capy ar discto.eexcept with, and onlyto the extent of.prior written consent af OstwaldBros Pty Ltd.

4~· ~)g ostWald~

30/03/171 A I ISSUEFOR REVIEW I P.G.I R.D.

Date Issue Amendment lnit App

OSTWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300 678 925 Fax: (07) 4669 9450 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ostwaldbros.com.au Project PRINCESSROYAL STATION E DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION - w~ PROPOSEDFEEDLOT EXPANSION Drawing Title s CDA 1 - LAYOUT PLAN

LAYOUTPLAN Legend: Scales I= 1,250 (AI) I= 2,500 (A3) Drawn P.G. Date 30/03/17

~ Designed R.S. PROPOSEDCDA 1 EXISTINGSURFACE CONTOURS AT 2.0m INTERVALS Approved BJO .."" Name Balance (m3) Datum WGS84 Zone UTMS4H / Project No. Bldg No 18,617 ~ ,j5 T T 0 ,r ,r T 2ro 2r 250m CDA 1 EWORKS SCALE JoiWioL I 1=1,250 (A1) <;,/ RU050500 7 'b· DESIGNCONTOURS AT 2.0m INTERVALS

/ Drawing No. Issue RUOSOSOO-!R-EW-19 I A © OSTWALDBROS PlY LTD 'IA-.---:/"/-"'\ ~~....,...---,-,/r-:/r-/,--'"\....,~~-----....\-J:j7:'/r/--r-.....,.Nt:_r71"<0-._:------...\---N"J7<7J,..,.,=r-~~--.J".....------=::::::::::"'==,------==----=-----==--/~-:_;;;;;----=--:__;;;;'"'-----::,.....----/-,---/-,----//"----::::,..----/-;r---- I ABN: 91 099 liS 009

Thisdocument is !he propertyof Ostwald Bros Pty ltd and is copyrightIt is confidential.Persons receiving n may not uso, reproduce,capy ar discto.eexcept with, and onlyto N the extent of.prior written consent af OstwaldBros Pty Ltd.

w~ E s

PROPOSED CDA 1

PROPOSED CDA 2

4~· ~)g ostWald~

~---

30/03/171 A I ISSUEFOR REVIEW I P.G.IR.D. Date Issue Amendment lnit App ) OSTWALD BROSPTY LTD PROPOSED STORAGE Phone: 1300 678 925 LAGOON Fax: (07) 4669 9450 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ostwaldbros.com.au Project PRINCESSROYAL STATION DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION - PROPOSEDFEEDLOT EXPANSION

Drawing Title Legend: CDA 2 - LAYOUT PLAN

PROPOSED SOLID WASTE EXISTINGSURFACE CONTOURS AT 2.0m INTERVALS STOCKPILE AREA / '-)/ LAYOUTPLAN '0· DESIGNCONTOURS AT 2.0m INTERVALS Scales I= 1,250 (AI) I= 2,500 (A3) / Drawn P.G. I Date 30/03/17 PROPOSEDCDA 2 Approved BJO Designed R.S. Datum WGS84 IZone UTMS4H Name Balance (m3) Project No. Bldg No 1 ~ ~J5 5,0 75 1r 1r 2r 2r 25rm SCALE j;;W;L T T 1=1,250 (A1) CDA2EWORKS 24,437 RU050500

Drawing No. I Issue RUOSOSOO-IR-EW-20 I A ©OSTWALD BROSPlY LTD ABN: 91 099 liS 009

NATURALSURFACE LEVEL- - DESIGNSURFACE LEVEL Thisdocument is !he propertyof Ostwald Bros Pty ltd and is copyrightIt is confidential.Persons receiving n may not uso,reproduce, capy ar discto.eexcept with, and onlyto the extent of.prior written consent af OstwaldBros Pty Ltd ------....."' -, ..- -- ~~- DATUM 554.00 iS CUT DEPTH ~ /FILL ~ -f ~ ij ! 9

~ DESIGij LEVEL ! 5 ~ ~ ~ ! Ill Ill Ill ~ :R :R ....Ill :II ! ~ ill ;! ... EXISW~GLEVEL .."' ~ :R ~ i i ~ ~ IR :A gIll q ~ CHAII~AGE ! ! I I I I I ..0 ..•

SECTION(]) HORIZONTALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 (A3) VERTICALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 (A3)

NATURALSURFACE LEVEL--, - DESIGNSURFACE LEVEL

r.....,.------j ____ ~'-.... ------r-- --- DATUM 556.00 ...... -- --- /--:"::~ IQ :I IQ a ill a :S :R ~ ~ ~ ii ~ ~ ~ ~ iii !i! ~ CUT I :;; .. .. J .. /FILL DEPTH '1 'I' ~ ~ ~ 'I' '1 ~ .. :t .. ~ 'I' 'I' ! 1 "f "" = • "' "' Ill i ~ ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ill ~ ~ DESIGij LEVEL !i • ~ ~ 91 ill !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! i ill 91 :R !:; g l;; II! ~ ill II II 2 II; ;II ~ :1! . ~ Ill ;II :1! ::1 J EXISTII~GLEVEL =§i I ill ~ ; ill ~ ~ ~ :R ~ 1i! :ii :ii ! ~ i ; !!! ~ !!! ~ !!! ~ ; 4~· i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i CHM~AGE .. ti 2 ~ ; ~ ~ g s a i !! !!i a! ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ~ !:! ~ ~ e) I ~~~

SECTIONED HORIZONTALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 (A3) ostWald~ VERTICALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 (A3)

NATURALSURFACE LEVEL- - DESIGNSURFACE LEVEL !: -- ~ t' ---'""'-- - - J. -- - DATUM 564.00 ------~ ---r- ~ 30/03/17 A ISSUEFOR REVIEW P.G. R.D. ~ :il Ill 1:1 ID Ill ::1 Ill --- . a .., . . ,. . ii ~ ~ !!! I! ii 10 !I! :1 IE !!! ~ ::! ::! m ::i .J ~ :;; ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~ J CUT/FILL DEPTH ~ :t 't 'I' : 5 "' ! " Date Issue Amendment lnit App If"' "' "' "' "' "' c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; 5 il! g iii !i! !q .. DESIGij LEVEL '" ~ .. ~ OSTWALD BROSPTY LTD ..:' !); c; ! !;; &; &; ! !); .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ &; &; ~ ~ &; ~ ~ &; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'&; &; ~ ~ ~ 0 .. ;;; :ij ;:; :; :; ii'i . ;; ~ =i ~ ;;i II! ~ :II r;; : 1::; ~ 1:; ::! r; ~ :; :II :5 ~ $ !!i "'':a EXISTII~GLEVEL e; &; &; Phone: 1300678 925 ~ &; "'&; ~ &; &; ~ 1R ; :R 1!! :R rR rR rR rR :R"' ~ ! ill ! ! ; ; ill ill 1!! rR "':R !R :R ; 31 !I! Fax: (07) 4669 9450 f I!! Email: [email protected] Web: www.ostwaldbros.com.au CHAII~AGE ! ! I I I I I I I I ~ ~ "" I i I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ Project c:~ -, PRINCESSROYAL STATION " SECTION DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION - fA\ HORIZONTALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 (A3) PROPOSEDFEEDLOT EXPANSION s VERTICALSCALE: 1=750 (A1); 1=1500 {A3) ~c \!V "'t, Drawing Title m CDA 1 - SECTIONVIEWS ,_..! ..0 13"'

,,(! Scales ~ SECTIONDETAILS ASSHOWN Drawn P.G. Date 30/03/17 ic PROPOSEDCDA 1 '.... Approved BJO Designed R.S• ""~~ . Datum WGS84 Zone UTMS4H 3p sp s,o 7p ap ep ,arm Project No. Bldg No SCALE Jo 1=750 (A1) tw.wJ T RU050500

Drawing No. Issue RUOSOSOO-IR-EW-21 A T DATA A AD E SROY 330

0 0 ~ ~ 1/l 1/l Q Q

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ u__, u__, I D :r: 0 )>__, J>__, c c ::<: ::<: en en en en m ~ = = 0.000 562.00 = 0.000 555.72 =

10.000 562.4 7 l 10.000 556.11 I 20.000 562.11 I ~ ~ 20.000 556.46 557.311 1.927 l en 30.000 56330 c: "';:;! 40.000 563.73 566.4 70 2.737 30.000 556.14 560.720 3.112 \\ ...,(") 50.000 564.19 566.252 2.051 \\ 40.000 557.22 564.000 6.779 I ~ 60.000 564.64 566.034 1391 50.000 557.60 562.213 4.679 I 70.000 565.19 565.195 0.707 I 10.000 565.70 566.172 0.470 60.000 557.91 560.000 2.022

90.000 566.21 566.365 0.160 -o 70.000 55131 560.000 un i 100.000 566.12 566.665 -0.152 10.000 551.10 560.000 1.201 110.000 567.46 566.965 -0.492

120.000 561.04 56 7.265 -0.710 90.000 551.26 560.000 0.736

ao.ooo 561.75 517.565 -1.115 II II 100.000 559.71 560.000 un OIUI en 140.000 569.49 567.513 -1.912 00 110.000 56030 560.000 -0.295 m 150.000 570.24 570.717 054 7 ~~

("') 160.000 570.19 571.000 0.112 uo.ooo 560.90 562.366 1464 ""'C II II ...., ::::0 -I no.ooo 57151 571300 -0.275 gg "' 0 00 ao.ooo 56150 564.ooo 2.491 ""'C 0 0 •o.ooo 572.23 s7uoo -0.634 en 140.000 562.09 562.500 0.410 m z 190.000 572.76 571.900 -0.161 0 200.000 573.33 572.200 -1.126 150.000 562.65 562.500 -0.146 () 0 210.000 573.95 572.117 -1.751 m 160.000 563.20 563512 0.312 ~ 220.000 574.61 575.402 0.791 0 no.ooo 563.71 564.994 3 "' ~ 230.000 575.31 575.635 0327 II I 240.000 576.10 575.935 -0.166 100.000 564.47 565.U6 0.661 ~ en 250.000 576.97 576.235 -0.732 .,.661 565.00 565.360 0361 260.000 577.93 576.535 -1391 ...., "' 270.000 571.16 576.135 -2.025 II II 210.000 579.76 576.973 -2.719 """" §§ 29o.ooo 510.66 51o.on -0.639 en c: 300.000 511.61 510.270 -1410 "';:;! ...,n .!!. 1\ 0 ~3~10~.ooo~~51=3.~00~51=0~5~71,__-=2.~~~1r-----_,HI\ ~ 8 ~32~0~.ooo~~s~~~4.~43~51~0~.. ~791-~-~35~s~~~----~~~ 1 330.000 515.71 511.170 -4.612 rr----'

340.000 517.10 511470 -5.634

350.000 511.44 511.143 -6.597

360.000 519.74 514.632 -5.111

370.000 591.06 514.905 -6.156

310.000 592.44 515.205 -7.234

390.000 593.12 515.505 -1312

400.000 595.19 515.105 -9.390

410.000 59650 516.105 -10.400 \

420.000 597.66 516.032 -11629

430.000 591.41 590.446 -7.967 \ \

440.000 599.. 595.446 -3.732

450.000 599.13

460.000 600.4 7

470.000 601.23

410.000 602.06 \

;;o 0 n CJ 0 c il )> ~ ~- N oil~- 0 coil I V1 z 0 p 1/1 0 rn I n -I ;;o I Ci rn z ~ < I i'ii N ~ N 1/1 r~e r )> " -a. BROS

2.9.3 Site Plan

An amended site plan that incorporates the backgrounding areas to the north of the production pens is provided and shown in Figure 23. The amended site plan provides the additional area to be captured by the existing sedimentation basin and storage lagoon.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 58 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

©OSTWALD BROS PTYLTD ABN: 91 099 115 009

This document~ the property of OstwaldBros Prt Ltd and is copyrightI t is confidential. Persons receiving~ m ay not use, reproduce,copy or discloseexcept with, and onlyt o the extent of, prior writtenconsent o f OstwaldBros P!y Ltd.

NOTES, 1. CADASTRAL INFORMATIONSO URCED FROM MAPLAND - SOUTH AUSTRALIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCESIDEWNR ) MAY 2016 AND ACCURACYIS LIMITED. 2. IMAGESO URCEDF ROM GOOGLEEA RTHTH MAY 2016 3. OTHER FEATURESMAY HAVE BEEN DIGITISED FROM PLANS OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ACCURACYI S LIMITED

~... ~~ ~)g

ostviald~

ISSUE FOR REVIEW I RJD I BJO

Date Issue Amendment lnit App

OSTWALD BROSPTY LTD

Phone: 1300 678 925 Fax: (07) 4669 9450 Email: [email protected] We b: www.ostwaldbros.com.au Project PRINCESS ROYAL STATIO N - DA422-E003-16 - REQUESTFO R INFORMATION

Drawing Title

OVERALL SITE PLAN

Scales I= 2,750 (AI) I= 5,500 (A3) Drawn RJD IDate 24/03/2017 Approved BJO Designed RJD Datum WGSB4 IZone UTM54H Project No. Bldg No RU050500

Drawing No. I Issue RUOSOSOO- PRS-IR-SP-23 I A

3. References

Bloss C., Montazeri M. and Eckert G., 2015, Flood mapping of the River Murray floodplain in South Australia, DEWNR Technical report 2015/57, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide

Davis, RJ, Watts, PJ and McGahan, EJ, 2010, Quantification of feedlot manure output for BEEF- BAL model upgrade, RIRDC Project No. PRJ-004377, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Department of Primary Industries and Resources (SA) (PIRSA) (2006) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Cattle Feedlots in South Australia, Second Edition, February 2006, Department of Primary Industries and Resources, The Government of South Australia.

McGahan, EJ and Tucker, RW, 2003, Resource Manual of Development of Indicators of Sustainability for Effluent Reuse in the Intensive Livestock Industries: Piggeries and Cattle Feedlots. Project No 1816, Australian Pork Limited, Canberra Australia, May 2003.

Michell, AR, Bywater,RJ, Clarke, KW, Hall LW, Waterman, AE, 1989, Veterinary Fluid Therapy, Oxford; Boston: Blackwell Scientific ; Chicago, Ill: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989.

Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd, 2016, Development Application – Proposed Beef Cattle Feedlot Expansion, Princess Royal Station, Hills Road, Burra, SA, Project No: RU050500 V01R01, Dalby, QLD.

Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2004, BEEFBAL - a nutrient mass balance model for beef cattle feedlots, v9.1 – May 2003, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, accessed September 2015< http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/environment/1240.html >.

Skerman, A, 2000, Reference manual for the establishment and operation of beef cattle feedlots in Queensland, Information Series QI99070, Queensland Cattle Feedlot Advisory Committee (FLAC), Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. van Sliedregt, H, McGahan, EJ and Casey, KD, 2000, Predicting waste production from feedlot cattle, Unpublished Confidential Report prepared for Cattle and Beef CRC (Meat Quality) Sub- program 6 - Feedlot Waste Management, DPI Intensive Livestock Environmental Management Services, August 2000, Toowoomba, Queensland.

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 60 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Appendix A.

Construction and liner specifications

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 61 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

Wastewater lagoon construction

Appendix 2 Table of suggested construction and lining categories

1 The EPA may consider an alternative lining technology or combination other than those suggested in this table provided the proponent can demonstrate that it would achieve a similar or better outcome than that prescribed under the relevant category.

2 High risk lagoons (e.g. those with large capacities or located in sensitive areas) may be required to submit an ‘As Constructed Report’ (ACR).

3 The EPA may consider a lower construction and lining category than the one determined from Appendix 1 if risk management measures are to be implemented with approval from the EPA.

4 Please refer to Appendix 3B for definition of key technical terminologies.

Ponds lined with clay materials Ponds lined with geomembrane materials

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6

Lining and If clay is used If clay is used • 1.5 mm thick • 1.5 mm thick • Double HDPE lining • Site generally not quality HDPE or HDPE or (1.5 mm thick or suitable for • Minimum 300 mm thick • Minimum 300 mm thick assurance greater# greater# greater for each wastewater clay liner (or 2 layers compacted clay liner with liner) # with CQA plan lagoon with minimum of 150 k≤1x10-9 m/s (or 2 layers • Leakage • CQA plan for for HDPE placement construction mm compacted with minimum of 150 mm detection HDPE unless effective thickness each) compacted thickness required placement or drainage control each) If GCL is used: • CQA plan for • A combination of is put in place • Construction Quality subgrade HDPE liner (1.5 mm • Minimum 300 mm soil • If to be allowed, Assurance (CQA) plan for preparation. thick or greater; with confining layer (<10 mm apply category clay lining that includes CQA plan for HDPE grain size). • Leakage determined after Level 1 supervision (in placement as in detection Question (A) in accordance with AS category 4) and a required Appendix 1 plus 3798:2007) unless other clay liner (with CQA drainage CQA measures are plan as in category 2) provision. undertaken in accordance • CQA plan for with AS 1289 and subgrade preparation Appendix 4A with the approval of the EPA.

18 Wastewater lagoons construction

Ponds lined with clay materials Ponds lined with geomembrane materials

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6

• CQA plan for subgrade • Leakage detection preparation required

If GCL is used

• CQA plan for GCL placement

• Minimum 300 mm soil confining layer (<10mm grain size).

• CQA plan for subgrade preparation

Subgrade Minimum 150 mm subgrade preparation to provide a sound and stable base for liner construction or installation. Subgrade preparation should include compaction until no rutting or pumping is observed. Workmanship should be supervised by a suitably qualified and experienced professional. Level 2 Supervision may be required.

# Appropriate thickness of HDPE liner must be determined by the proponent’s engineer/consultant based on wastewater characteristics, groundwater/aquifer characteristics, climatic factors and warranty considerations.

19

Appendix B.

Traffic Impact Statement

V01R02 RU05050O – Cattle Feedlot DA 422_E003_16_16 – DPTI Information RequestUncontrolled when Printed Page 62 of 62 © Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd 31/03/2017

TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT

KNet File No: 5079846 PROJECT: Princess Royal Feedlot, Burra-Spalding Road / Hills Road Junction DRAWING NO. SHEET NO. AMENDMENT NO. 3-85465 51 1 LOCATION: Burra-Spalding Road / Hills Road Junction, Booborowie

BACKGROUND Ilira Pty Ltd ATF Bob Rowe Class Trust and Sihero Pty Ltd ATF Simon Rowe Class Trust (trading as Princess Royal Station) own and operate a beef cattle feedlot known as Princess Royal Feedlot on Mackerode Station, near Burra.

Princess Royal Feedlot is accessed from Hills Road off the Burra-Spalding Road. The existing development was approved in 2008 and constructed in 2010.

To cater for the additional vehicle movements and B-Double access along Hills Road, a condition of the development approval (422/0068/07) was an upgrade of the Burra-Spalding Road/Hills Road Junction including widening to accommodate B-Double turn paths.

Princess Royal Station are now proposing to expand Princess Royal Feedlot and this will generate vehicle movements in addition to those generated by the existing development.

Current AADT volumes along Burra-Spalding Road in the vicinity of the junction are approximately 400 vehicles per day (vpd), with 17.5% heavy vehicle traffic.

PROPOSAL The proposal involves an upgrade of the Burra-Spalding Road/Hills Road Junction and the sealing of the Hills Road approach to the junction to accommodate the proposed volume of vehicle movements and B-Double access from the existing and expanded development.

The proposed arrangement is indicated in the attached Traffic Control Plan (Drawing 8- 85465 Sheet 51).

IMPACTS The arrangement will:  Improve access to and from the Burra-Spalding Road for all vehicles due to the sealing of the Hills Road approach.  Accommodate the turn paths for 26m long B-Double vehicles.

Traffic Volumes It is projected that the feedlot will develop approximately 22 trips per day, or five trips during the peak hour. It is anticipated that the additional traffic volumes will have a minimal impact on the operation of the junction.

Traffic Impact Statement Rev E Page 1 of 3 Lane Widths Proposed traffic lane widths on the junction approaches are outlined below. Corner widening is provided for the junction to accommodate turning movements for a 26m long B Double design vehicle.

Burra-Spalding Road  3.5m eastbound traffic lane  3.0m westbound traffic lane Hill Road  9.0m carriageway width, no centreline

Turn Path Analysis Turn path analysis has been undertaken on the junction arrangement using a 26m long B Double design vehicle for all movements. Design vehicles and movements are in accordance with Austroads Design Vehicle and Turning Path Templates Guide.

Lighting There is currently no street lighting, and this is consistent with other junctions of this type along the Burra-Spalding Road.

Sight Distance Sight lines along the Burra-Spalding Road are considered adequate and beyond the recommended minimum Safe Intersection Sight Distance of 300m indicated by Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Part 4A Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections.

Based on a 110km/h speed limit, a design speed of 120km/h was adopted for the Burra- Spalding Road approaches. Required Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) for a design speed of 120km/h, based on a reaction time of 2.0 seconds, is 325m, as specified by Austroads Guide to Road Design, Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections, Table 3.2. The available sightlines at the junction are outlined in the following table.

Approach Required SISD Available SISD Meets Requirement Burra-Spalding Road 325m >400m Yes (Westbound) Burra-Spalding Road 325m >400m Yes (Westbound)

A design speed of 70km/h was adopted for the Hills Road analysis. Based on the narrow width of Hills Road (5m travel path) and the presence of a number of horizontal curves on approach to the junction, this speed is considered to be suitable. Approach Sight Distance (ASD) for a design speed of 70km/h, based on a reaction time of 2.0 seconds, is 95m, as specified by Austroads Part 4A, Table 3.1.

Approach Required ASD Available ASD Meets Requirement Hills Road 92m 130m Yes

The required sight distances are achieved on both of the Burra-Spalding Road approaches and on Hills Road. Signage To improve the delineation of the Burra-Spalding Road for traffic approaching along Hills Road, particularly at night, a D4-SA2-1 Bidirectional Hazard Board is proposed to be installed at the head of the junction.

The D4-SA2-1 is the only new sign to be installed as part of the upgrade. It is considered that the T-Junction Rule will function adequately and no additional signage is considered necessary.

Traffic Impact Statement Rev E Page 2 of 3 OUTCOME The works proposed will assist in improving the safety of the Burra-Spalding / Hills Road Junction and accommodate the maximum size vehicle that will legally use the junction. The signage proposed is considered to be in accordance with AS1742.2. The junction has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes resulting from the feedlot development.

CONSULTATION The upgrade has been developed liaison with officers from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT CERTIFICATION AND ENDORSEMENT Select one of the following: For proposals with standard traffic control devices only I certify that the installation, alteration or removal of the traffic control devices described in this TIS and shown on the attached plan(s) is appropriate to achieve the desired traffic management and road safety outcomes at the location, and is in accordance with the Australian Standards, DPTI’s Code of Technical Requirements and DPTI’s Operational Instructions, and I endorse this traffic impact statement. or For proposals with non-standard traffic control devices I certify that the installation, alteration or removal of the traffic control devices described in the TIS and shown on the attached plan(s) is an appropriate treatment at the location and I endorse this traffic impact statement.

PREPARED BY: Name: Heath Blacker Date: 28.02.17 (Traffic Control Device Proposer) Position: Traffic Engineer

Signed: ENDORSED: Name: Date: (Recognised traffic engineering practitioner) Signed: Position:

Traffic Impact Statement Rev E Page 3 of 3 LEGEND NOTES: SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 1. TRAFFIC CONTROL DETAILS AND RETROREFLECTIVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS INSTALLED IN NEW BITUMEN EDGE ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTRALIAN STANDARD 'AS 1742 MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES' BARRIER LINE AS MODIFIED BY THE DPTI 'CODE OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LEGAL USE OF TRAFFIC UNBROKEN LINE CONTROL DEVICES', AND THE DPTI 'PAVEMENT MARKING MANUAL'. 1 SIGN - SINGLE POST 2. FOR SIGN INSTALLATION DETAILS 1 EXISTING TREE REFER TO 'DPTI MASTER SPECIFICATION, PART R49 - INSTALLATION OF SIGNS'.

3. DESIGN VEHICLE TURNING PATHS USED WERE: 26m B-DOUBLE ALL TURNS

SIGN DETAILS No. CODE DESCRIPTION 1 D4-SA2-1 BI DIRECTIONAL HAZARD BOARD N

HILLS ROAD

RELOCATE EXISTING ROAD NAME SIGN TO BACK OF SHOULDER

GUIDE POSTS AROUND APRON. GUIDE POSTS AROUND APRON.

REFER STANDARD SPECIFICATION REFER STANDARD SPECIFICATION 10m UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN 10m

UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN LINE 3.3 3.5 BARRIER LINE 48m UNBROKEN LINE 48m UNBROKEN LINE BARRIER LINE

3.0 3.0 UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN LINE

D4-SA2-1

BURRA - SPALDING ROAD

32468 2008/15647/01 ROAD No. 3692/NCRN BURRA - SPALDING ROAD JUNCTION OF HILLS ROAD 26+0.196km Government of South Australia 26+0.361km TRAFFIC CONTROL

LM LM Peter Short 1 NOTES UPDATED, COODINATES INCLUDED W&G Department for Transport, Manager, N&W Region 5079846 3-85465 51 1 No. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION BY CHECK ACCEPTANCE DATE 100 MILLIMETRES ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE Energy and Infrastructure HB HB 2/11/10 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED -33.585031 138.830214 LEGEND NOTES: SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 1. TRAFFIC CONTROL DETAILS AND RETROREFLECTIVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS INSTALLED IN NEW BITUMEN EDGE ACCORDANCE WITH AUSTRALIAN STANDARD 'AS 1742 MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES' BARRIER LINE AS MODIFIED BY THE DPTI 'CODE OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LEGAL USE OF TRAFFIC UNBROKEN LINE CONTROL DEVICES', AND THE DPTI 'PAVEMENT MARKING MANUAL'. 1 SIGN - SINGLE POST 2. FOR SIGN INSTALLATION DETAILS 1 EXISTING TREE REFER TO 'DPTI MASTER SPECIFICATION, PART R49 - INSTALLATION OF SIGNS'.

3. DESIGN VEHICLE TURNING PATHS USED WERE: 26m B-DOUBLE ALL TURNS

SIGN DETAILS No. CODE DESCRIPTION 1 D4-SA2-1 BI DIRECTIONAL HAZARD BOARD N

HILLS ROAD

RELOCATE EXISTING ROAD NAME SIGN TO BACK OF SHOULDER

GUIDE POSTS AROUND APRON. GUIDE POSTS AROUND APRON.

REFER STANDARD SPECIFICATION REFER STANDARD SPECIFICATION 10m UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN 10m

UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN LINE 3.3 3.5 BARRIER LINE 48m UNBROKEN LINE 48m UNBROKEN LINE BARRIER LINE

3.0 3.0 UNBROKEN LINE UNBROKEN LINE

D4-SA2-1

BURRA - SPALDING ROAD

32468 2008/15647/01 ROAD No. 3692/NCRN BURRA - SPALDING ROAD JUNCTION OF HILLS ROAD 26+0.196km Government of South Australia 26+0.361km TRAFFIC CONTROL

LM LM Peter Short 1 NOTES UPDATED, COODINATES INCLUDED W&G Department for Transport, Manager, N&W Region 5079846 3-85465 51 1 No. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION BY CHECK ACCEPTANCE DATE 100 MILLIMETRES ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE Energy and Infrastructure HB HB 2/11/10 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED -33.585031 138.830214 NOTES: 80 THICKNESS TYPE COMPACTION 40mm AC10M A15E BINDER 1. THE SERVICES INFORMATION INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND MEDIUM PRIME (NOMINAL RATE 1.0L/m² 10mm S15E PRIME TO BE APPLIED TO BASE COURSE 150mm PM1/20 QG 98% MODIFIED 1 DETAILS PROVIDED BY SERVICE AUTHORITIES. DTEI, ITS SERVANTS OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE PRIOR TO SEAL APPLICATION) FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE USE OF THIS SERVICES INFORMATION . THIS DESIGN MAY INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVICE CONFLICT AND / OR ENCROACHMENT WITHTIN 2x100mm layers PM2/20 QG 96% MODIFIED 1

SAFETY CLEARANCES REQUIRING ASSESSMENT AND APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF TECHNICAL SUBGRADE 98% STANDARD REGULATOR AND SERVICES AUTHORITIES. IF DURING CONSTRUCTION, FOUND TO BE WITHIN 2 METRES OF SAPN SERVICES, FURTHER INFORMATION TYPE 1 - FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION TO BE SOUGHT (BEFORE WORK CONTINUES).

THICKNESS TYPE COMPACTION 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 100mm

2x100mm layers PM2/20 QG 96% MODIFIED 1 3. BINDER APPLICATION RATE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY DPTI. SUBGRADE 98% STANDARD

60 TYPE 2 - SHOULDER N THICKNESS TYPE 1 40mm AC10M A15E 10mm S15E PRIME EXISTING PAVEMENT TYPE 3 - ASPHALT OVERLAY

PAVEMENT TREATMENT LEGEND

LOCALLY GRADE OUT NEW BATTER TYPE 1 - 40mm AC10M A15E BINDER, 10mm S15E PRIME, 150mm PM1/20 40 SLOPE TO TIE INTO EXISTING QG 98% MODIFIED, 2x100mm layers PM2/20 QG 96% MODIFIED,

TYPE 2 - 2x100mm layers PM2/20 QG 96% MODIFIED,

TYPE 3 - 40mm AC10M A15E OVERLAY, 10mm S15E PRIME, (PLANE OUT EAST AND WEST ENDS ONLY OVER 5m) PRIME AND TACK COAT AS REQUIRED.

BURRA SPALDING 20

LOCALLY GRADE CHANNEL TO LOCALLY GRADE CHANNEL TO DRAIN AWAY FROM NEW DRAIN AWAY FROM NEW INTERSECTION INTERSECTION

MATCH TO EXISTING SHOULDER MATCH TO EXISTING SHOULDER 1 MC10 100 120 140 160 20 40 60 SAW CUT LINE 80 0 SAW CUT LINE

BARRIER LINE MC00 2.0

32468 2008/15647/01 ROAD No. 3692/NCRN BURRA - SPALDING ROAD JUNCTION OF HILLS ROAD 26+0.196km Government of South Australia 26+0.361kn GENERAL CONSTRUCTION

LM LM Peter Short 1 PAVEMENT DETAILS UPDATED W&G W&G 4 0 2 4 6 8 Department for Transport, Manager, N&W Region 5079846 3-85465 50 1 No. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION BY CHECK ACCEPTANCE DATE 100 MILLIMETRES ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE Energy and Infrastructure HB HB 2/11/10 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED -33.585031 138.830214 I I I I - -

...- ,., -0 7' I - 4-,'1"1• •

~

REF. STRING MC10 R.L.539.000

0 DESIGN LABEL ....,...., 0 0~ n:: 0 --=~ :::;; :::;;

t

REF. STRING MC10 R.L.539.000 REF. STRING MC10 R.L.539.000

DESIGN LABEL 0 0 ..., 0 DESIGN LABEL 0 0 0 n:: (f) Vi n:: :::;; :::;; w w :::;;

0 en..- o m ...... 0 1'0 n lO m n 0 DESIGN OFFSET ...---v tO ,..," 0 ~ 0 0 DESIGN OFFSET 0 r-: u) Ill .q: ,.; t') 0 I I I I I 0 I 0 ,.._ I' L.{)CX) tO OW 0 CD l{) 1"0 tO ..;;t 1'0 t') ,.._ m t01"1 ..- OOHJHXJ OCHO "'d" J"'") N ,.._ DESIGN LEVEL "' m. mm . . m . moooowwoo...... woo. . co . "' 0 00 0 DESIGN LEVEL 0 00 0 000000 00 0 0 ...- ...-...­ -.t ...- ...-...- ...- ...-...- ...- ...- ...- -.t ...- ...- "

! -s.rrP· 1. ~

REF. STRING MC10 R.L.539.000 REF. STRING MC10 R.L.539.000

DESIGN LABEL 9$2 DESIGN LABEL $2 o~ n::o 0 --=~ :::;;:::;; :::;;

0"<1- Ill l{) O'l (.0 ..--- '¢ 0 t') t') 000 00 000 ...- ..---!""---'"''"' ..---0 1.0co ,.._ 0 -.t ~t

1'-l!l ,.._ ,.._ 00 Ill oo cor-- 0 Ill OJO'l 1'1') 0 1'- 1""1 v 1'- ll) t') t') l!lt') Ill ooo 00 N ~ ,.._ "',.._ ~

~~------~---~---~------~---~------~------~------rP~Ro~JE~CT~N-o.,---~~FIL-E-No-,------r------___ A_D ___ N_o_._3_6_9_2_/_N_C ___ R_N------~~ f ~' 32468 2008/15647/01 ~ •8 • DESIGNNo., SURVEYNo SURRA- SPALDING ROAD ~ \~I PROJECTSTARTROADRUNNINGDISTANCE' JUNCTION OF HILLS ROAD i ...... _, 26+0.196km J. ...."' Government PROJECT END ROAD RUNNING DISTANCE' "' of South Australia 26+0.361km CROSS SECTIONS SHEET 2 (MC1 0) "' DESIGNm DRAFTED' ACCEPTED FOR USE' ACCEPTANCE FORM KNET No.' DRAWING No.' SHEET No.' AMEND No.' LM LM Peter Short CHECKED' CHECKED' TITLEiilanager, N&W Region 5079846 3-85465 53 A HB HB DATE' 2/11/10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH DP013 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED I I I I I - -

-2.0/. -1.0/. -1.0/.' ~~ ~I£xY I

REF. STRING MCOO R.L.540.000

0 0 0 DESIGN LABEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (/) w u w (/) 0 ...: w u ~ u w ...:

0 0 ~ 0 L{) 0 0 0 0 DESIGN OFFSET 0 L{) 0 0 0

~ .,. -0.8/. -0.9/.' -3.9'· -1.0:1. 1.0/.' -1.0/.' /-1.0/. I 7 LY I

REF. STRING MCOO R.L.539.000 REF. STRING MCOO R.L.540.000

0 0 ~ ...., DESIGN LABEL ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ;:2 0 0 0 DESIGN LABEL 0 0 0 0 0 (/) 0::: u 0::: (/) 0 ...: w ~ ~ ~ w ...: (/) w u w (/) w u ~ u w ...:

0 01 ~ 0 0

-0.2:1.

REF. STRING MCOO R.L.539.000

0 0 ~ ....,...., DESIGN LABEL ~ 0 0 0 Vi 0::: u 0::: ~0 :it w ~ ~ ~ 13..:

CH. 10.000

PROJECT No.' FILE No.' 32468 2008/15647/01 ROAD No. 3692/NCRN I@ DESIGN No., SURVEY No' SURRA- SPALDING ROAD ' PROJECT START ROAD RUNNING DISTANCE' JUNCTION OF HILLS ROAD \:::!!:/ 26+0.196KM ' Government PROJECT END ROAD RUNNING DISTANCE' of South Australia 26+0.361KM CROSS SECTIONS SHEET 1 (MCOO) ' SCALES' DESIGNm DRAFTED' ACCEPTED FOR USE' ACCEPTANCE FORM KNET No.' DRAWING No.' SHEET No.' AMEND No.' LM LM Department for Transport, Peter Short 3-85465 52 1 ? T i ~ ~ CHECKED' CHECKED' TITLEiilanager, N&W Region 5079846 A No. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION BY CHECK ACCEPTANCE DATE f... 100 MILLIMETRES ON ORIGINAL DRAWING ~ ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE Energy and Infrastructure HB HB DATE' 2/11/10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH DP013 UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED I I I