australian agricultural company ltd aacoaustralian agricultural company ltd (aaco) proposes to...
TRANSCRIPT
Offices: Western Australia New South Wales Queensland Victoria Northern Territory
CONSULTING SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
Australian Agricultural Company Ltd
AACo
DRAFT Public Environmental Report (PER)
Volume One: Main Report
Meat Processing Facility Project (Livingston Locality, NT)
DW110057 January 2012
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 2 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Document Control Record Prepared by: Roz Walden & Justine
Shailes Approved by: Ray Hall
Position: Environmental Officers Position: Principal
Signed:
Signed:
Date: 03 February 2012 Date: 03 February 2012
REVISION STATUS
Revision No. Description of Revision Date Approved
1 First Issue 23 Jan 2012 Justine Shailes
2 Internal Review 2 Feb 2012 Justine Shailes
3 Final Review 3 Feb 2012 Ray Hall
Recipients are responsible for eliminating all superseded documents in their possession.
VDM Consulting (NT) Pty Ltd trading as EcOz Environmental Services ACN: 143 989 039 Winlow House, 3
rd Floor
75 Woods Street DARWIN NT 0800 PO Box 381, Darwin NT 0800 Telephone: +61 8 8981 1100 Facsimile: +61 8 8981 1102 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.vdmconsulting.com.au
RELIANCE, USES and LIMITATIONS
This report is copyright and is to be used only for its intended purpose by the intended recipient, and is not to be copied or used in any other way. The report may be relied upon for its intended purpose within the limits of the following disclaimer. This study, report and analyses have been based on the information available to VDM Consulting at the time of preparation. VDM Consulting accepts responsibility for the report and its conclusions to the extent that the information was sufficient and accurate at the time of preparation. VDM Consulting does not take responsibility for errors and omissions due to incorrect information or information not available to VDM Consulting at the time of preparation of the study, report or analyses.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 3 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Executive Summary
Australian Agricultural Company Ltd (AACO) proposes to develop a meat processing facility, located on Lot 4
Hundred of Cavenagh and Lot 5410 Hundred of Strangways, approximately 9km south of Noonamah and
50km south of Darwin, Northern Territory.
An application for an Extended Development Permit was submitted under the Planning Act 2009, and also
serves as the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the purposes of the Environmental Assessment Act 1982. The
Northern Territory Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage (the Minister); has determined
that this proposal requires formal assessment under the NT Environmental Assessment Act 1982 (EA Act) at
the level of a Public Environmental Report (PER). The Minister has provided Guidelines for the Preparation
of a Public Environmental Report, Meat Processing Facility Project, Livingstone Locality, NT (see Appendix
A). Three major key risks were identified in relation to this project:
Water resources:
o Significant consumption of Darwin water supply; and
o Management of wastewater and stormwater on site may lead to changes in surface water
quality, leaching into aquifers and pollution of downstream environments.
Land management:
o Risks of negative impacts on the integrity of the soil due to irrigation activities; and
o Risk of introducing wee species to the site and the region.
Community health and amenity:
o Risks to health and amenity through odour, noise, light, dust, mosquitoes and vermin; and
o Risks to traffic and rail safety through increased traffic.
This PER is the information provided so as to allow a formal assessment under the NT Environmental
Assessment Act 1982 (EA Act) at the request of the Northern Territory Minister for Natural Resources,
Environment and Heritage (the Minister).The PER will provide the Minister with the required information to
make informed recommendations to the Responsible Minister/relevant consent authority in accordance with
the EA Act.
Specifically, this PER has been developed to examine the environmental impact the proposed development
will have on the environment.
Legislative Framework This development must operate within a range of legislation including that related to environmental, cultural
and industry specific legislation at the Federal and Northern Territory legislation. A summary of the relevant
regulatory instruments is provided. The most relevant for this document:
Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 2011 (NT);
Environmental Assessment Act 1994 (NT);
Water Act 1992 (NT);
Public Health and Environmental Health Act 2011 (NT);
Northern Territory Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems 2011 (NT);
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Health Risks (Phase
1) 2006 (C’wlth); and
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 4 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (C’wlth governing body).
Project Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed development were considered. The Meat Processing Facility Project site was
selected as it best matched the following criteria:
Land tenure;
Sufficient land area for the operation and its associated activities;
Relatively short distance to Stuart Highway;
Accessibility to sealed road transport to bring live cattle to the site and take product off the site;
Relative proximity to East Arm Port;
Distance from sensitive land uses;
Suitable topography and soils for drainage and waste water systems;
Proximity to water, electricity and gas services;
Relative proximity to workforce and housing;
Relative proximity to community services;
Avoidance of sites with significant populations of threatened species; and
Avoidance of sites of archaeological, heritage or Aboriginal significance.
Alternative water management techniques were explored and are discussed within this report. A no
development option would result in the land continuing to be used for cattle grazing and hay production but
with a lost opportunity for employment and economic development for the Northern Territory.
Project Description
The project will require approximately 3% of the 600 ha site, 4 ha in the eastern portion of Section 5410 for
the main facility and a further 14 ha for wastewater treatment ponds and irrigation areas.
The facility is designed for a hot-boning operation, i.e. the carcass is boned and processed immediately after
slaughter. The processing capacity of the plant will be 1,000 head per day in two shifts. Key elements of the
facility include the main processing, the rendering plant (to create by-products), the wastewater treatment
system and the irrigation areas (treated water is used to both increase crop yield and dispose of treated
water through crop nutrient uptake.
At maximum capacity, the processing plant is expected to employ approximately 300 staff. Employment of
local residents is the preferred option however given the general labour shortage in Australia, it is also
expected that the facility will need to rely on foreign, skilled 457 visa workers.
The proposed project will facilitate development of a new and major market for the large and important cattle
industry which will reduce some of the impacts of the recent threats imposed on that industry.
Project Schedule
Construction is scheduled to commence March 2012 pending environmental and funding approvals and
operation is scheduled to commence by the end of 2012.
Risk Assessment
A preliminary risk assessment, focussing on environmental risks, was completed in accordance with the
existing Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 5 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
A combination of design and management measures will be applied to the project and its activities to either
eliminate threats or to reduce and manage them in order to ensure that appropriate safety and environmental
standards are maintained.
Management of Key Risks Water Resources
AACO have incorporated many water efficiency measures into the design of the facility. They have approval
to draw 2 ML per day from the Darwin water supply. A water balance indicates that without taking into
account water efficiency measures, a typical plant of the proposed capacity would only be expected to draw
1.8 ML.
The stormwater dams have been designed to balance out the water deficit identified in the separate water
balance calculations for the irrigation system. They are designed to be more than sufficient to provide the
water volumes required for the dilution requirements of the irrigation system.
AACO do not intend to draw additional water from the Darwin water supply for irrigation or dilution.
The management, treatment and use of waste water is a major aspect of the operations of the meat
processing facility.
A key component of the meat processing facility relating to water quality is the treatment of waste water used
in meat processing operations and associated by-product processing (e.g. rendering, composting, and
salting of hides), daily cleaning of the facility, and from staff amenities e.g. human effluent. The waste water
treatment system involves a series of anaerobic and aerobic ponds, before storage in a 2 cell treated water
storage dam for eventual irrigation of an area for cropping and haymaking. This final irrigation step is
designed to further remove any nutrients. The nutrients in this water will benefit the irrigated crops and
enhance hay production.
A Water Quality Monitoring Plan has been prepared so as to ensure that operations at the meat processing
plant are not impacting on surface and groundwater downstream and subsequently impacting aquatic
ecosystems and those who use the downstream waterways and groundwater for domestic and agricultural
uses, and recreation.
Land Management
Stormwater runoff dams have been incorporated into the proposal to manage the water deficit resulting from
irrigation requirements.
The nutrient-crop-water balance will be carefully monitored daily to ensure disposal of treated water and
maximisation of crop improvement is implemented. The EMP provides more detail on the design of the
wastewater treatment system (including irrigation).
A Weed Management Plan and a Stormwater and Sediment Control Plan have also been provided as part of
this PER.
Community Health and Amenity
A range of potential risks to community health and amenity were identified. The most significant of these
were odour, noise and dust. Community Health and Amenity issues have been addressed via design of the
facility as well as through the adoption of industry best practice management. In addition both a community
environmental committee and a procedure for community complaints will be established.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 6 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Management of Other Risks The other risks that have been identified include solid waste management, heritage protection, carbon
emissions and operational failure.
Solid Waste Disposal
Salt waste resulting from hide treatment will be contained within the building and evaporation pans and then
taken off site for either recycling or disposal at an approved waste disposal facility.
Site of compost area was selected as it is on high ground. Design will ensure runoff that comes in contact
with the compost area will pass through the sedimentation treatment structure and on to the stormwater
runoff dam. Up-gradient runoff will be diverted around the compost area. Temperature of the pile will be
monitored and will trigger required turning of the windrow. Monitoring and management in addition to the
siting and design of the composting area is expected to withstand Northern Australian climatic conditions
overing the compositing site will not be necessary.
The design of the proposed ponds in conjunction with filtering of the solids and blood will result in the
minimal accumulation of pond sludge. It is expected desludging will occur every 8-10 years and if possible
the sludge will be combined at best practice ratio with compost. If this is not possible it will removed from site
to an approved waste disposal facility.
AACO will develop a contingency plan for mass carcass disposal. The rendering plant will be considered as
a viable option for disposal of carcasses.
Heritage Protection
The proposed facility and its operations will not impact on any heritage sites.
The application recognises the streams and wetlands on the site as having natural values. The management
measures for these areas are covered in the Environmental Management Plan, Weed Management Plan and
Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan.
Carbon Emissions
The proposed facility will produce emissions of approximately 26,600 tonnes a year equivalent greenhouse
gases, well within Australia’s Meat Industry KPIs for beef plants.
AACO is developing a Carbon Footprint Reduction Plan, which aims to reduce its carbon footprint by 60%
over a 10-year period. Key initiatives that are currently being implemented across AACO’s business are
detailed further in the full report.
It is also important to note that significant reduction in transportation of cattle associated with a local meat
processing facility will also result in significant carbon emissions reductions across the Northern Australian
industry.
Operational Failure
The facility will be powered by gas. If this supply is interrupted, the facility has a mains power allocation that
it can draw on so as to maintain important activities. Continual processing will cease and the exposed
product will be “run off” and processed to a safe state.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 7 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Environmental Management A Draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) incorporating the findings of this PER (Appendix C) has
been prepared specifically for the Meat Processing Facility project. Informing the EMP, and attached as
Appendices to the PER are:
A Water Quality and Monitoring Plan that, in concert with the PER main report, describes the procedures and
processes for ensuring the proposed activities do significantly impact on the surrounding catchment.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which outlines the strategies for ensuring facility activity does not
cause erosion or sedimentation within the project site or surrounding catchment areas.
A Weed Management Plan describing the current weed situation, mitigation strategies and ongoing
commitments for management and reporting with particular emphasis on weeds of national significance.
This EMP is continually referred to as a Draft to allow for this progressive document to be updated as
necessary with the aim of achieving best practice environmental management. The EMP will be utilised in
the development of the Operational Management Plan for the Meat Processing Facility. All management
plans detail the monitoring programs and control measures employed to mitigate identified environmental
issues. These plans have been developed to be implemented across the entire life of the project including
both construction and operation.
Community Involvement and Consultation Extensive community consultation has been undertaken in relation to this project as part of the exception
Development Permit application process. Details of this are provided in the final section of the PER.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 8 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Contents 1 Document Map ...................................................................................................................................... 11
2 General Information ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Purpose of this Public Environmental Report .................................................................................. 14
2.2 Title of the Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Name and Address of Proponent .................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Land Tenure and Location ............................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Related Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 Development and Current Status of the Proposal ........................................................................... 17
2.7 Consequences of Not Proceeding with the Proposal ...................................................................... 17
2.8 Legislative Background .................................................................................................................... 17
3 Description of the Proposal ................................................................................................................ 25
3.1 Objectives, Benefits and Justification of the Proposal ..................................................................... 25
3.2 Overview of Operations ................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Layout of the Proposed Facility ....................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Schedule .......................................................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Employment and Business Opportunities ........................................................................................ 31
3.6 Financial Viability of the Proposed Facility ...................................................................................... 31
3.7 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 32
4 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Not Proceeding with the Proposal ................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Alternative Water Management Practices ....................................................................................... 34
4.4 Environmental Management Techniques ........................................................................................ 34
5 Risk ........................................................................................................................................................ 36
5.1 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 36
5.2 Risk Assessment Objectives ........................................................................................................... 36
5.3 Key Risks and Their Management .................................................................................................. 48
5.4 Other Risks ...................................................................................................................................... 70
5.5 Environmental Offsets ..................................................................................................................... 74
6 Environmental Management ............................................................................................................... 77
6.1 Introduction to the Beef Processing Facility Draft EMP ................................................................... 77
7 Community Involvement and Consultation ....................................................................................... 79
7.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 79
7.2 Consultation Strategy and Objectives ............................................................................................. 79
7.3 Ongoing Engagement Plan.............................................................................................................. 85
8 Involvement in the Preparation of the PER ....................................................................................... 87
8.1 Persons Involved in Preparation of this PER................................................................................... 87
9 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 88
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 9 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
9.1 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 88
10 References ............................................................................................................................................ 89
Tables
Table 2-1 Proposal History .............................................................................................................................. 17
Table 5-1: Criteria and consequence of the activity occurring. ....................................................................... 37
Table 5-2: Qualitative measures of likelihood. ................................................................................................ 38
Table 5-3: Risk rankings combining consequence with likelihood. ................................................................. 38
Table 5-4: Risk Assessment of the proposed Development. .......................................................................... 40
Table 5-5 Estimated Water Usage .................................................................................................................. 49
Table 5-6 Estimated Mass of Nutrients in Processing Wastewater ................................................................ 57
Table 5-7. Nutrient Content of Harvestable Irrigated Crops & Nutrient Uptake ............................................. 58
Table 5-8. Minimum Area (Ha) Required for Application of N & P in Wastewater ......................................... 59
Table 5.9. Wastewater Analysis Parameters.................................................................................................. 60
Table 5-10 Groundwater Analysis parameters ................................................................................................ 60
Table 5-11 Infonet Weed List within Project Area ........................................................................................... 62
Table 5-12 Summary of control methods ........................................................................................................ 64
Table 5-13 Emissions estimate for facility. ...................................................................................................... 72
Table 7-1 Individuals and groups consulted .................................................................................................... 82
Figures
Figure 2-1 Location of Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-1 Locality Plan ................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3-2 Building Locations .......................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3-3 Site Development Plan ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3-4 Operational Flow Diagram ............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 5-1 Road alignment .............................................................................................................................. 69
Appendices
Appendix A – PER Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix B – Exceptional Development Proposal .......................................................................................... 92
Appendix C – Environmental Management Plan ............................................................................................. 93
Appendix D – Water Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 94
Appendix E – Weed Management Plan........................................................................................................... 95
Appendix F – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan .......................................................................................... 96
Appendix G – Community Consultation Reports (Creative Territory Pty Ltd) ................................................. 97
Appendix H – Traffic Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 98
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 10 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following organisations, groups and individuals for their time, experience, input
and knowledge which assisted in the preparation of this report and the associated appendices.
June D’Rozario & Associates Pty Ltd – for providing the Application for an Exceptional Development
Permit (Appendix B)
Zinga & Associates Pty Ltd – for providing significant inputs including the Preliminary Environmental
Management Plan (Appendix C)
Meateng Pty Ltd – for providing significant inputs and engineering advice on the facility’s design,
specifications and capacity
Creative Territory Pty Ltd – for providing details in regards to public consultation and stakeholder
involvement
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 11 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
1 Document Map
PER Guideline Section
Detail Requested in PER PER Section / Appendix
General Content pg. 1-3
Copy of PER guidelines Appendix A
List of persons and agencies consulted during PER 7 Error! Reference source not found. Appendix G
Contact details for the proponent Section 2.3
Names of, and work done by, the persons involved in preparing the PER
Section 8.1
Expertise of the people involved in work contributing to the PER
Section 8.1
General Information
pg. 4
Title of the action/proposal 2.2
Name and postal address of designated proponent Section 2.3
Description of proposal location Section 2.4.1
Outline of project objective Section 2.4.3
Legislative background for the proposal Section 2.8
Background to the development of the action Section 3
How the project relates to other projects within the region
Section 2.5
Current status of the action Section 2.6
Consequence of not proceeding with action Section 2.7
Description of Proposal
General Aspects pg. 4
Objectives, benefits and justification for the action Section 3.1
Layout for the proposed action Section3.3
Schedule for all relevant aspects of proposal Section 3.4
Tenure/s and any native title issues concerning the proposal
Section 2.4
Relevant legislation Section 2.8
Standards, codes of practice and guidelines Section 2.8 and throughout document.
Employment and business opportunities, financial viability
Section 3.5
Greenhouse gas emissions 5.4.3
Storage, handling, containment and emergency management of hazardous substances
Section 5.3 and Section 5.4
Rehabilitation objectives Appendix E and Section 6
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 12 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Alternatives pg. 5-6
Not proceeding with action Section 4.1
Site Selection Section 4.2
Alternative Water Management Practices Section 4.3
Alternative Environmental Management Techniques Section 4.4
Risk Assessment pg. 6-7
Acknowledge and discuss project risks Section 5
Quantify and rank risks Section 5.2.2
Acknowledge uncertainty of risks Section 5.2.1
Potential scenario of benefits not reaching community Section 5
Residual Risks Section 5.2.2
Risk of Management Failure Section 5.5.2
Key Risks: Water Resources
– Significant Draw on Darwin’s
Water Supply pg. 8-9
Identify and incorporate into the facility design measures to improve water efficiency
Section 5.3.1
Identify internal reuse options for treated wastewater Section 5.3.1and Appendix C
Provide a detailed water balance Appendix C
Identify any requirement for use of drinking water to supplement irrigation water supplies in years of low rainfall
Section 4.3
Key Risks: Water Resources
– Impacts on Surface and
Ground Water pg. 9-10
Define maximum rainfall events Appendix D
Assess risks for rainfall events great than maximum Appendices C and D
Potential sites of and control measures to prevent groundwater infiltration
Appendix C
Water Quality Monitoring program Appendices C and D
Algal Blooms Section 5.2.2
Concentration of contaminants in water for irrigation Appendix C
Biological Inventory and base line study Appendix D
Biodiversity Monitoring program Section 5.2.2
Key Risks: Land
Management pg. 10-11
Consequences of low annual rainfall on crop management
Section 5.3.1
Scientific reasoning of fodder crop choice Section 5.3.2
Demonstrate irrigation system will have positive/neutral not negative impact on land quality
Section 0
Treatment options if wastewater parameters do not support irrigation – Use of pesticides
Section 0
Weed prevention methods Section 0 and Appendix E
Weed control plan Section 0 and Appendix E
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Appendix F
Key Risks: Community
Health & Amenity pg. 11-12
Treatment measures to reduce impact of noise, odour and dust
Section 0
Measures to mitigate unacceptable impacts of odour, dust, light and noise
Section 0
Odour – identify materials in Biofilter, maintenance requriements and performance under climatic extremes
Section5.3.3.1
Odour – Sources and impacts of odour, effectiveness of management measures, monitoring and contingency plans
Section 5.3.3.1
Noise – Baseline Study and noise management plan Section 5.3.3.2
Dust – Dust generation, mitigation measures, potential health issues
Section 5.3.3.4
Light – Proposed lighting layout and treatment options is light spill becomes a nuisance
Section 5.3.3.3
Biting Insects and Vermin – control measures Section 5.3.3.5 and Appendix C
Biting Insects and Vermin – compost storage method Appendix C
Biting Insects and Vermin - management plan Section 5.3.3.5 and Appendix C
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 13 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Traffic – intended treatment of the intersection, access road and rail crossing
Section 5.3.3.6
Other Issues: Solid Waste Management
pg. 13
Salt disposal or reuse methods Section 5.4.1
Susceptibility of compost to climate Section 5.4.1
Pond sludge removal Section 5.4.1
Contingency planning Section 5.4.1
Other Issues: Heritage
Protection pg. 13
Document the Anti-Aircraft Site Section 5.4.2
Intended Treatment of the wetlands Section 5.4.2
Other Issues: Greenhouse Gas
Production pg. 13-14
Estimation of greenhouse emission including discussion of methane generation of ponds
Section 5.4.3
Environmental Management
pg. 14
Management structure and relationship to environmental management
Section 4.4
Targets and objectives for environmental factors Appendix C
Proposed mitigation and enhancement measures, environmental protection outcomes
Section 6 and Appendix C
Performance indicators Appendix C
Proposed monitoring programs Section 4.4
Information on how land will be managed if taken out of production.
Section 4.1
Summary Table. Appendix C
Provision for periodic review. Appendix C
Public involvement and
consultation pg. 15
Public consultation methodology, and how feedback has influenced design and delivery of proposal
Section 7.2 and Appendix G
Outcomes of surveys, public meetings, and other consultation with interested parties including changes made to the proposal as a result of consultation.
Section 7.2 and Appendix G
Details of ongoing consultation. Section7.3 and Appendix G
Outline of negotiations and discussions with local government and the NT government.
Section 7 and Appendix G
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 14 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
2 General Information
2.1 Purpose of this Public Environmental Report
This Public Environmental Report (PER) is the information provided so as to allow a formal assessment
under the NT Environmental Assessment Act 1982 (EA Act) at the request of the Northern Territory Minister
for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage (the Minister). The PER will provide the Minister with the
required information to make informed recommendations to the Responsible Minister/relevant consent
authority in accordance with the EA Act. This PER has been prepared in accordance with the NRETAS
Guidelines for the Preparation of a Public Environmental Report, Meat Processing Facility Project,
Livingstone Locality, NT (NRETAS January 2012, Appendix A).
The key risks identified by the Northern Territory Government in these guidelines, through analysis of the
application for an Exceptional Development Permit (EDP), serving as Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Meat
Processing Facility Project, are:
Water resources:
Significant consumption of Darwin water supply; and
Management of wastewater and stormwater on site may lead to changes in surface water quality,
leaching into aquifers and pollution of downstream environments.
Land management:
Risks of negative impacts on the integrity of the soil due to irrigation activities; and
Risk of introducing weed species to the site and the region.
Community health and amenity:
Risks to health and amenity through odour, noise, light, dust, mosquitoes and vermin; and
Risks to traffic and rail safety through increased traffic.
2.2 Title of the Proposal
Meat Processing Facility – Livingstone Locality, NT
2.3 Name and Address of Proponent
Proponent: Australian Agricultural Company Limited (AACO)
Contact: Stewart Cruden, General Manager
Main Office: Level 1, 299 Coronation Drive, Milton QLD 4064
Postal Address: Level 1, 299 Coronation Drive, Milton QLD 4064
Phone: 08 8947 5440
Mobile: 0448 243 719
Email: [email protected]
The Australian Agricultural Company Limited (AACO) is developing this site and project. The facility will be
operated by a currently 100% owned subsidiary of AACO, North Australian Beef Ltd. (NABL).
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 15 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
2.4 Land Tenure and Location
2.4.1 Location
The application site comprises Lot 4 Hundred of Cavanagh and Section 5410 Hundred of Strangways (270
Blyth Road, and 2660 Stuart Highway, Livingstone). The location of the site is shown in Error! Reference
ource not found..
Figure 2-1 Location of Proposal
General
The site has an area of approximately 601ha, consisting of 484.7ha in Section 5410 and 116.4ha in Lot 4.
The land has a boundary to Stuart Highway of approximately 372m, and a boundary to Blyth Road of about
211m. The North-South rail corridor forms the north-eastern boundary of the land. Access to the site is from
a right of way in the southern tip of Section 5409, across the rail corridor. A water supply easement runs from
west to east across the middle of the site. The asset in the easement is a water pipeline. The land is used
for cattle-grazing and hay production, and the improvements on the land include a dwelling and farm sheds,
cattle yards, stock watering points, paddocks and fencing.
Sensitive Environments
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 16 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
The south western corner of the site contains streams and land units characterised by waterlogged soils.
The siting, design and operation of the proposed development will respond to these sensitive environmental
features.
Ground Water
There are no registered bores on the land. Records of bores drilled on rural living allotments around the site
indicate that water bearing zones are between 27 and 95 metres in depth, with yields varying between 0.5 to
5.0 litres per second. Records which included notes on water quality indicated good water quality.
Surface Water
Three second order (Strahler’s Order) streams associated with the Berry Creek system are present on the
land. The east branch runs on an east-west alignment through the centre of the site, while the southern
branch runs from a point near the intersection of Scrutton and Cornock Roads outside the site, through Lot 4
and to the south-western corner of Section 5410. The north branch runs roughly parallel to the western
boundary. Some of the western stream margins are well vegetated.
Heritage
A search of the NT Heritage database indicates that there are no registered heritage sites on the land. World
War II Livingstone Airfield, Camp and associated Anti-aircraft Gun Sites are located on sites or properties
neighbouring the site. The Airfield to the east of the property between the rail corridor and Stuart Highway
was nominated for inclusion on the NT Heritage Register in 2001, but in 2007 the Heritage Advisory Council
decided that, although the site possessed some heritage significance, it did not warrant inclusion on the
register. A request for information from records held by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority returned
advice that the Authority has no record of sacred sites within the site. See Appendix B.
2.4.2 Land Tenure
The proponent has secured an option to purchase a freehold title 601ha site on the western side of the
Stuart Highway at Noonamah Northern Territory, comprising Lot 4 Hundred of Cavenagh and Section 5410
Hundred of Strangways (270 Blyth Road, and 2660 Stuart Highway, Livingstone). The property is currently
known as Livingstone Valley Farm.
2.4.3 Objective
AACO is the largest producer of beef cattle in Australia, and supplies domestic and global markets. The
company owns 8 pastoral stations in the Territory, which are located from Victoria River Downs in the
Northern Territory through the Barkly Tablelands and Eastern Barkly region to the Queensland border.
The company’s key strategic objectives include enhancement of its supply chain management, and
developing a vertically integrated business by expanding its beef processing activities. In pursuit of these
objectives in the Territory, AACO wishes to develop a state-of-the-art meat processing plant in the Top End.
Through the proposed facility, AACO aims to strengthen the Northern Australian cattle industry and therefore
the local economy that is directly and indirectly affected by the industry. As the Industry currently has only 2
main markets for its cattle, the live export trade and trucking cattle to southern meat processing facilities, it is
vulnerable. A local processing facility will enhance the industry’s resilience to market risks (oil prices and live
trade restrictions), provide the industry with new value-added market options, and reduce costs, carbon
emissions and animal welfare concerns associated with the current long distance transportation of cattle to
interstate facilities.
2.5 Related Proposals
There are no known proposals in the area that would impact on this proposal or contribute to cumulative
impacts on or surrounding the site location.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 17 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
2.6 Development and Current Status of the Proposal
AACO’s Meat Processing Facility project is currently awaiting relevant environmental approvals before
project construction can proceed. A brief outline of the proposal’s development to date is listed in Table 2-1:
Table 2-1 Proposal History
Proposal History
August 2010 AACO announced intention to build a meat processing plant near Darwin
October 2010 AACO outlined the concept to Northern Territory producers and other interested stakeholders at a meeting at Parliament House in Darwin
February 2011 Business Case Completed
March 2011 AACO Board approval to complete the Preliminary Stage and Detailed Design
March 2011 Northern Australia Beef Pty Ltd incorporated
April 2011 Concept design finalised; Stu Cruden appointed as Managing Director
July 2011 Site secured by way of an option; Detailed planning and design commenced
September 2011 Application for Exceptional Development Permit (EDP) submitted under Section 38(1) of the Planning Act 1999; Application for EDP also serves as Notice of Intent (NOI) for the purposes of the Environmental Assessment Act 1994
January 2012 Public Environmental Report (PER) requested to provide information to the Minister of the Environment for this proposal under the Environment Assessment Act 1982
2.7 Consequences of Not Proceeding with the Proposal
It is expected that if the proposal was not to proceed, the Northern Australian cattle industry would forego the
opportunity to benefit from value-added exports, reduced transport costs, reduced product wastage and
increased herd productivity. More significantly, ‘business as usual’ as a viable strategy for the industry has
been negated as the industry is expected to capitulate under increasing external market risk resulting from
the currently limited market options available.
Industry development that enables market diversification is pivotal to securing a stable future for the Northern
Australian cattle industry. The proposed facility offers opportunities for the industry to diversify markets and
without such a development, the industry would be expected to experience decreased financial performance
due to external market forces such as oil prices and live trade export restrictions.
Other potential impacts of not proceeding with the proposal may include:
Abridged investment in local infrastructure;
Abridged training and employment opportunities for the local community; and
Abridged revenue for businesses that might otherwise have the opportunity to supply goods and
services to the facility and workers.
2.8 Legislative Background
The following section outlines key Commonwealth and State legislation, regulations, guidelines, standards
and codes of practice relevant to the operation of a meat processing facility in the Northern Territory.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 18 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
2.8.1 Commonwealth Legislation & Guidelines
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Under the Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act), any development requires assessment if they have the potential to affect one or more of seven
matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). The matters of NES include:
- World heritage properties;
- National heritage places;
- Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands);
- Threatened species and ecological communities;
- Migratory species;
- Commonwealth marine areas; and
- Nuclear actions (including uranium mining)
After conducting an EPBC search, it has been determined that an EPBC referral is not required for the Meat
Processing Facility. A potential heritage site was found on the adjacent transport corridor however the facility
is not considered likely to impact on the site nor has the site been included on the NT Heritage register.
The construction and subsequent operation of the facility will not adversely affect any of the seven matters of
NES.
National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Act 1998
An Act to provide for the implementation of national environment protection measures in respect of certain
activities carried on by or on behalf of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth authorities, and for related
purposes
There are a range of national strategies and industry standards relevant to the operation of a meat
processing facility. These range from health standards required for food production through to the National
Water Quality Management Strategy. The proposal will be a modern state-of-the-art facility, incorporating the
best available production and processing technology. In addition to meeting all legislative requirements, the
facility will be conducted in accordance with best practices endorsed by Australian Environmental Protection
Agencies and industry organisations. Due to the complexity of the legislative framework, only key
environmental legislation, regulations, standards and codes of practice will be discussed here.
2.8.2 NT Legislation
Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 2011
Section 12 of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act 1998 imposes a general environmental duty
to take all measures that are reasonable and practicable to prevent or minimise pollution or environmental
harm. In addition, there are general offences under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act in
relation to causing material or serious environmental harm. Section 14 of the Act imposes a duty to notify of
incidents causing or threatening to cause environmental harm.
AACO abides by this Act through its comprehensive and integrated Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP),
incorporating extensive environmental monitoring, which includes this Water Quality Monitoring Plan, as well
as other monitoring such as for odour, noise, soil impacts, energy and water usage etc. Responsible waste
management and pollution control is also achieved through the waste minimisation and management
procedures outlined in this EMP. Also, if any pollution incident was to occur, AACO would notify NRETAS
and the Department of Heath immediately and follow-up with sampling and corrective action to prevent
impacts.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 19 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Environmental Assessment Act 1994
The proponent requested that the application for an Exception Development Permit under the Planning Act
2009, serve also as a Notice of Intent under the Environmental Assessment Act 1994. As a result , the NT
Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage has determined that the proposal requires formal
environmental assessment at the level of a Public Environmental Report (PER).
Water Act 1992
The Water Act 1992 is the primary piece of legislation that governs water resource regulation and
management in the Northern Territory. The objective of the Act is “to provide for the investigation, allocation,
use, control, protection, management and administration of water resources”. Under section 16 of the Act,
the pollution of water is prohibited unless under the conditions of a waste discharge licence issued under
Section 74 of the Act. The Act, and also the issue of waste discharge licences, is administered by the NT
Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS).
It may be decided that AACO requires a waste discharge licence for effluent discharge into the upper
reaches of the Berry Creek system. This requirement will depend on the effectiveness of the waste water
treatment process in removing contaminants, and the uptake of nutrients through irrigation of crops and
haymaking. In the event that a waste discharge licence is required, the monitoring, reporting, and discharge
limits set by this licence will be incorporated into this Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Section 73 of the Water Act includes a process for identifying and declaring environmental values or
“beneficial uses” for specific waterways. These include environmental, cultural, and human use values, such
as for aquatic flora and fauna habitat, drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, recreation and aesthetics. This
section of the Water Act also provides for the establishment of Water Quality Objectives or Water Quality
Standards in order to maintain the “beneficial uses” declared for each waterway.
Beneficial uses have been declared for waterways within the Darwin Harbour region following consultation
with the Darwin community (for a detailed breakdown of these beneficial use declarations see Appendix A in
the NRETAS 2010 report Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region – Background Document).
NRETAS have developed specific Water Quality Objectives to maintain the beneficial uses declared for each
of these waterways (listed in Table 8 of NRETAS 2010). The beneficial use declarations and water quality
objectives set for the waterways downstream of the meat processing plant i.e. Berry Creek and the
Blackmore River are discussed in more detail in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989
A request for information from records held by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority returned advice that
the Authority has no record of sacred sites within the site. Appendix B.
Heritage Conservation Act 2008
A search of the NT Heritage database indicates that there are no registered heritage sites on or near the
land.
Livingstone WWII Airfield, Camp and Gun Site are in the transport corridor adjacent to the site, but this
complex was not recommended for inclusion in the Register. In any event, the proposal has no effect on the
airfield complex.
Planning Act 2009
Under section 38(1) of the Planning Act 2009, the proponent has lodged and application for an exceptional
development permit as the proposed site is zoned Rural (Zone R) under the NT Planning Scheme, within
which “premises used for the slaughter and dressing of animals, and includes the processing of meat from
such slaughter” (meat processing facility) is a prohibited use. The proposal meets the circumstances
described in section 38(2)(a) of the Planning Act.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 20 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Public Health and Environmental Health Act 2011
The Department of Health (DoH) has responsibilities under the Public and Environmental Health Act 2011 for
monitoring and managing public health risks and improving public health through regulation, health
promotion and other public health measures. DoH plays a key role in setting water quality compliance
values for recycled water and must be informed of any incident that poses a risk to public health. A recycled
water system such as that proposed for the meat processing plant must obtain approval from the Department
of Health under Regulation 17 of the Public Health (General Sanitation, Mosquito Prevention, Rat Exclusion
and Prevention) Regulations. The process to gain this approval is outlined in the Northern Territory
Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems (DoH 2011a).
Other legislation which is likely to apply to this proposal includes:
- Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act 2000
- Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 2011
- Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act 2009
- Weeds Management Act 2001
2.8.3 Other
Darwin Harbour Strategy
The Darwin Harbour Strategy (DHAC 2010) sets out the gaols and guidelines for policy and decision-makers
managing the sustainable development of Darwin Harbour. It was prepared by the Darwin Harbour Advisory
Committee (DHAC) following extensive consultation with all sectors of the Darwin Community. DHAC and
the Northern Territory Government report against the Darwin Harbour Strategy on a yearly basis, and
decisions made on developments within the Darwin Harbour catchment need to consider the cumulative
impacts on the Harbour’s environment; a highly valued asset to the people of Darwin.
Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region
As mentioned above (under NT Water Act), Water Quality Objectives have been developed for all waterways
within the Darwin Harbour region by NRETAS through its Water Quality Protection Plan for the Darwin
Harbour Region (background provided in NRETAS 2009). These Water Quality Objectives (listed in Table 8
of NRETAS 2010) were derived on the basis of the “Beneficial Uses” declared for waterways within the
Darwin Harbour catchment under the NT Water Act 1992. Beneficial uses identified for the Blackmore River
and Berry Creek catchments, which are downstream of the meat processing facility, are “environmental” –
habitat for flora and fauna, “agricultural” – irrigation water, “aquaculture” – both land and water based, and
“culture” - recreation and aesthetics. The “environmental” Beneficial Use category is the most stringent of
these in regards to water quality because the intent is to maintain the health of aquatic ecosystems, which
are the most sensitive receptor to water quality changes. Therefore, a water body that meets the
environmental beneficial use category will in almost all circumstances also meet the requirements of all other
beneficial uses. As such, the water quality objectives derived specifically for the Blackmore River and Berry
Creek catchments aim to protect the environmental values (marine and freshwater ecosystems) of these
waterways and are used in this Water Quality Monitoring Plan for assessing the quality of surface water in
the streams receiving run-off from the meat processing plant site.
Of relevance to this monitoring plan are the results of regular water quality monitoring conducted across the
Darwin Harbour region used each year to produce “Report Cards” detailing the environmental condition of
the Region’s waterways against the specified Water Quality Objectives (see the latest Report Cards at
http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/reportcards). Report Card results for
the Blackmore River and Berry Creek systems are shown in discussed in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 21 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Australian Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water 2008
The Australian Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (NHMRC 2008), developed by the
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), aim to protect the health of humans from threats
posed by the recreational use of waterways. These Guidelines are a tool for state and territory governments
to develop their own legislation and standards appropriate for local conditions and circumstances. Using
these Guidelines, the NT Department of Health has produced the document Guidance Notes for
Recreational Water Quality in the Northern Territory (DoH 2011b). This document outlines the trigger levels
for concentrations of microbial indicators of disease-causing pathogens in waters used for swimming (i.e.
enterococci and Naegleria fowleri). It also refers to the Australian Guidelines (NHMRC 2008) for limits of
toxic blue-green algae (i.e. the cyanobacteria Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and/or Microcystis aeruginosa).
These guideline limits are especially relevant to the waters downstream of the meat processing plant, which
are used for swimming throughout the dry season, in particular, the Berry Springs Recreational Area.
The NT Department of Health’s guidelines outline how site-specific trigger levels for microbial indicators may
be calculated based on the sampling and analysis of at least 20 samples. In the absence of this data,
generic trigger levels may be used. These generic levels are based on a traffic light system of green, amber,
and red modes to classify microbiological water quality suitable for swimming. The green mode stands for
'Surveillance: Open for Swimming' where enterococci is <50 per 100 mL, the amber mode indicates 'Alert:
Follow Up / Open for Swimming' where enterococci is between 50 and 200 per 100 mL, and the red mode
requires signs to be placed warning of the potential health risk of swimming in the water body, where
enterococci is >200 per 100 mL.
In regards to cyanobacteria in freshwater, trigger limits are outlined in Chapter 6 of the Australian Guidelines
(NHMRC 2008).
As outlined in Section 5 of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, microbial indicators will be analysed in surface
and groundwater samples taken downstream of the meat processing plant in accordance with the NT and
Australian recreational water guidelines.
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011
The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 developed by the National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC) and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) provide an authoritative
reference on what constitutes safe, good quality drinking water, and how it can be achieved and assured
(NHMRC 2011). The ADWG specify that drinking water should contain zero levels of disease-causing
organisms and provides guideline values for safe levels of specific chemicals.
The ADWG guideline values relate to the quality of water at the point of use (e.g. kitchen or bathroom tap).
They apply to reticulated water at the consumer’s tap, rainwater for drinking, and source water if it is to be
used without prior treatment, such as groundwater.
Two different guideline values are given for each potential contaminant:
a health-related guideline value, which is the concentration or measure of a water quality
characteristic that, based on present knowledge, does not result in any significant risk to the health
of the consumer over a lifetime of consumption, and
an aesthetic guideline value, which is the concentration or measure of a water quality characteristic
that is associated with acceptability of water to the consumer, e.g. appearance, taste and odour.
As outlined in Section 5 of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan, water quality analysed in groundwater samples
taken downstream of the meat processing plant will be in accordance with the ADWG.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 22 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Health
Risks (Phase 1) 2006
The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1) 2006
(NRMMC 2006) have been produced by the, Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC),
Environment Protection and Heritage Council, and the Australian Health Ministers Conference to provide
guidance on best practice for water recycling. These Guidelines provide a risk assessment framework that is
applicable to the recycling of water from stormwater, grey water, and treated sewage sources. The
Guidelines are not mandatory but designed to provide an authoritative reference that can be used to support
beneficial and sustainable waste water recycling. They are referred to in the development of this Water
Quality Monitoring Plan for the meat processing plant, specifically in relation to assessing the quality of water
in the effluent storage dam and used in irrigating the cropping area.
Northern Territory Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems 2011
The Northern Territory Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems 2011 (DoH 2011a) align the
principles outlined in the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (see above) to the NT Department of
Health approvals process for large recycled water systems that generally service more than 150 EP. These
guidelines provide practical advice for obtaining approval to install and operate a recycled water system in
the NT and have been referred to in developing this Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the meat processing
plant.
ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000
The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Guidelines for Fresh
and Marine Water Quality 2000 (ANZECC 2000a) do not apply directly to recycled water, however they
provide an outline for setting water quality criteria. These guidelines, along with the associated document
Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting (ANZECC 2000b) provide guidance on
designing and implementing water quality monitoring and assessment programs, and have been referred to
in developing this Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the meat processing plant.
2.8.4 Australian Quarantine Inspection Service - AQIS
In addition to the environmental legislative framework, the meat processing industry is subjected to a vast
and extensive range of legislation, regulations, Australian Standards and guidelines. AACO’s compliance to
regulatory instruments will be stringently audited and inspected by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry’s, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Following is a list of the regulatory instruments
AACO will need to take into consideration throughout their operations.
Export Legislation
Export Control Act 1982
Export Control (Prescribed Goods-General) Order 2005
Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders 2005
Other Legislation relating to Exports (Fees and other Export commodities)
Australian Standards
Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for
Human Consumption (SCARM 80)
Guidelines
Approved Arrangement Guidelines - Meat
Animal welfare
Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 23 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
AMIC Animal Welfare Standards 2nd Edition
AEMIS - Australian Export Meat Inspection System
Australian Export Meat Inspection System (AEMIS) information package
AAO Deed of Obligations form
Chemicals
Guidelines for the acceptance of chemical compounds
List of chemical compounds accepted for use by AQIS available from the AQIS website
Codes of Practice
Code of hygienic practice for refridgerated packaged foods with extended shelf life
Equipment
Construction and equipment guidelines for export meat establishments
Equipment Approvals
Electronic records
Guidelines on the use and control of electronic records for statutory compliance
Quick Guide for Use and Control for Statutory Compliance
Self Audit Checklist
Meat safety and hygiene
Meat Safety Quality Assurance (MSQA)-2nd Ed
Meat Hygiene Assessment (MHA)-version 2
Health
Code of Practice for Small On-Site Sewage and Sullage Treatment Systems and the Disposal or
Reuse of Sewage Effluent
Food Safety Standards
Other
Export Meat Manual-Volume 2
Manual of Importing Country Requirements
Halal Certification of Red Meat
Laboratories-Microbiological Testing of Meat and Meat Products
Approved Laboratory Program
General requirements for laboratories
Approved Methods Manual
AQIS Checklist v 20111027
AQIS approved laboratories for microbiological testing of meat and meat products
AQIS approved laboratories for testing beef trim for E. coli O157:H7
AQIS approved testing methods for microbiological testing of meat and meat products
NRS Residue Testing-Approved Laboratories
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 24 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
BSG Targeted Residue Testing Programs
NRS approved laboratories for chemical residue testing
European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS)
The European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS)
Resources
AQIS Meat Program Agreement 2007-2010
Consultative committees
EMIAC (Export Meat Industry Advisory Committee)
EMIAC Finance Subcommittee
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 25 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
3 Description of the Proposal
3.1 Objectives, Benefits and Justification of the Proposal
3.1.1 Objectives
Objectives for the Beef Processing Facility project can be summarised to:
Increase market options for the Northern Australia cattle industry;
Operate in an environmentally sustainable manner;
Improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the NT cattle industry; and
Create and support socio-economic opportunities for the local communities.
3.1.2 Benefits
Benefits for proceeding with this project include:
Economic and employment opportunities;
Opportunities for local and the northern Australian cattle industry;
Training opportunities;
Positive legacy for future generations; and
Create a profit for shareholders.
3.1.3 Justification
A large number of cattle due to age and weights greater than 350 kilograms are not suitable for the live
export trade and live export is a volatile and high risk market due to Australia’s heavy reliance on one key
market, namely Indonesia. The nature of the extensive cattle grazing properties, their remoteness and the
seasonality of the NT exacerbate the restrictions associated with Indonesia only accepting cattle of weight
less than 350kilograms.
Advantage of Local Beef Processing Facility:
Significant reduction in transport costs to southern meat processing facilities resulting in a reduction in oil price risk for the Northern Australia cattle industry;
Significant reduction in transport distance resulting in a minimisation of product wastage due to reduced cattle weight loss associated with transport;
Significant animal welfare benefits associated with lower truck transport distances or avoidance of the live export market;
Reduction of industry carbon emissions resulting from reduction in transport distances; and
Opportunity for the Northern Australia cattle industry to benefit from the low cost production of a modern beef processing facility.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 26 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
3.2 Overview of Operations
The facility will occupy about 4 ha in the eastern portion of Section 5410. A further 14 ha will be required for
waste water treatment and disposal. These area requirements amount to approximately 3% of the parcel
area.
Upland areas will be used as irrigated pasture paddocks, using treated water from the facility operations, to
optimise nutrient uptake and hay production. Although only one area can be utilised with the available water
resources, three areas have been identified as a contingency if nutrient levels exceed acceptable limits, or
other unforeseen circumstances arise.
The facility is designed for a hot-boning operation, i.e. the carcass is boned and processed immediately after
slaughter. The processing capacity of the plant will be 1,000 head per day in two shifts.
The plant is designed to enable future expansion, as markets for additional processed beef products grow.
Key components of the facility include:
Process Floor and associated areas;
Carcass chilling, sorting and feed to boning operations;
Boning and packing area and packaging material store;
Freezing and chilling systems, frozen and chill storage, carton sorting, palletising and despatch
zone;
Rendering Process;
Biofilter;
Hides Processing;
Covered livestock holding yards;
Refrigeration engine room;
Amenities, workshop, offices, training suite of buildings;
Livestock unloading facility;
Wastewater treatment ponds;
Composting;
Irrigated Agricultural Areas; and
Community Precinct facility to provide support for employees.
For a more detailed explanation on the key processes involved, refer to the EDP Application, Appendix B).
3.3 Layout of the Proposed Facility
The following 3 pages contain layout diagrams of the proposed facility. Figure 3-1 provides a diagram of the
whole site including irrigation areas; Figure 3-2 Building Locationsis a diagram of the building locations and
includes the wastewater treatment system and composting area; and the third diagram is the site
development plan for the building area. More detailed maps and plans can be found in the EDP Application
(Appendix B).
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 27 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Figure 3-1 Locality Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 28 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Figure 3-2 Building Locations
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 29 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Figure 3-3 Site Development Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 30 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
The diagram below depicts the general operations indicating the output of product, wastewater and solid wastes. A more detailed explanation is provided in application for an EDP (Appendix B).
Figure 3-4 Operational Flow Diagram
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 31 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
3.4 Schedule
Construction of the facility is expected to take 8 months with construction projected to commence in March
2012 and the facility to be operational by the end of 2012.
It is proposed to construct the Meat Processing Facility in two phases with the final processing capacity of
500 cattle per shift operating 2 shifts per day (1000 cattle per day). During the initial phase it is expected the
facility will operate only one shift (8 hours), processing 240 head of cattle. Operations will be increased within
the earliest possible time frame depending on staff availability, training, livestock and market logistics,
operations. Firstly, operation will be increased to an 8 hour shift processing the full 500 head and then on to
the final capacity of 1000 head (processing 500 head per shift over 2 eight hour shifts).
3.5 Employment and Business Opportunities
The multi-million dollar facility will provide employment opportunities for approximately 240 various
construction staff during the construction stage which is expected to take eight months to complete.
At maximum capacity, the processing plant is expected to employ approximately 300 staff with 270 staff to
be employed in the processing rooms and the balance of staff employed in management, administration &
maintenance. The Plant will be operating on 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week. The company will be
sourcing local staff in the first instance however it is expected that staff will also be sourced from other parts
of Australia and internationally.
AACO is committed to employing Indigenous staff and has set a target of 10% Indigenous staff employment.
An innovative employment contract will allow for job sharing arrangements to help overcome the general
labour shortage in Australia, it is also expected NABL will need to rely on foreign, skilled 457 visa workers. It
is likely most of these workers will be sourced from the Philippines and India due to the requirement that they
are skilled in meat processing and the high English proficiency standards set.
The Allana Group, AACO’s largest shareholder, has offered to assist in the sourcing of eligible 457 visa meat
processing workers with the company having considerable experience in sourcing meat processing staff in
India and the Philippines.
AACO. also has a firm commitment to training staff and over the longer term it would be hoped more of the
staff are long term residents. As the facility is designed to operate year round in perpetuity, it offers local
residents a stable employment option as opposed to other industries such as construction and tourism.
The main objectives of the proposal (Section 3.1) highlight the significant business opportunities for the
Northern Australian cattle industry. In addition to industry benefits, the proposal will create opportunities for
local businesses to provide products and services to both the facility and the workers.
3.6 Financial Viability of the Proposed Facility
Northern Australian Beef Ltd is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Australian Agricultural Company Ltd
AACO currently own eight (8) pastoral stations in the Northern Territory and operate a total of 18 stations
across NT and Queensland, while also operating three (3) feedlot facilities. They also lease other properties.
AACO currently run over 660,000 cattle, with a combination of live shipment cattle (NT), store market cattle
and grain finished Wagyu and cross-breed slaughter cattle.
The AACO Meat Processing Facility is part of a Northern Australian integrated business model being
developed by AACO.
AACO will supply about 35% of the proposed annual processing numbers when operating the facility at full
capacity, the rest coming from other pastoral / cattle stations in the NT.
The advantages of supporting a modern state of the art, NT Beef Processing Facility will be of significant
financial reward in the areas of transport costs, herd productivity and reduced carcase weight loss as well as
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 32 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
improvements in the areas of animal welfare, carbon emissions and ongoing employment opportunities, both
within the facility and the wider community.
The facility will have the ability to operate 12 months of the year, supply a full range of markets around the
world, with a focus on Asia.
It will be designed to process manufacturing cattle with low costs, high productivity and diverse revenue
streams maximising returns per body; while design features with allow for flexibility to process prime cattle in
the future, as well as added value products processing.
For the project to be viable and sustainable, infrastructure to the site for roads, rail, water, power, gas, and
the port utilities and community benefits will need government funding. If funding cannot be secured, the
feasibility of the project will need to be reassessed.
3.7 Existing Land Use
The site is currently used for a combination of cattle grazing and hay production. Hay production is in
operation on approximately 50% of the site area. Cattle are grazed on areas of the site not suitable for hay
production, constituting an area of approximately 25%. The remaining 25% of the total site area are
wetlands. Grazing is not currently restricted in the riparian zone.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 33 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
4 Alternatives
4.1 Not Proceeding with the Proposal
Under the proposed development, the fencing of riparian areas (including significant areas that are currently
cleared) will permit the sensitive environment to naturally revegetate, offering improved outcomes for the
river catchment. If this proposal does not go ahead it is likely that these improved outcomes will not
eventuate, as cattle grazing of the riparian zones would be expected to continue.
Should the project not proceed to development, the land would continue to be utilised for cattle grazing and
hay production. This would result in a missed opportunity for the Northern Territory economy, particularly
with regard to job opportunities for Rural Darwin and regional communities associated with the cattle
industry. The development of a new and major market for the large and important cattle industry will reduce
some of the impacts of the recent threats imposed on that industry.
Various upgrades to infrastructure that accompany this proposal, including community and supportive
amenities such as ambulance, daycare, and training facilities would not be offered to the community in the
event that this proposal does not go ahead.
AACO are committed to developing this facility in accordance with environmental and industry best practice,
facilitating robust management and mitigation of potential environmental impacts. It is possible that other,
less regulated and progressive industries could apply to develop this site should this proposal not be
approved.
4.2 Site Selection
The proponent considered a total of 5 sites in the Top End before selecting the application site as the
proposed location for its meat processing facility.
For reasons of site owners’ privacy, it is not appropriate to disclose property details that would identify the
sites. The sites are identified by their general locations as follows:
Site A – Wishart locality in the Hundred of Bagot
Site B – Weddell locality in the Hundred of Ayers
Site C – Bees Creek locality in the Hundred of Strangways
Site D – Coomalie Creek locality in the Hundred of Howard
Site E – Livingstone locality at the boundary of the Hundreds of Strangways and Cavenagh (the
selected site)
The sites were assessed against criteria, including:
Land tenure;
Sufficient land area for the operation and its associated activities;
Relatively short distance to Stuart Highway;
Accessibility to sealed road transport to bring live cattle to the site and take product off the site;
Relative proximity to East Arm Port;
Distance from sensitive land uses;
Suitable topography and soils for drainage and waste water systems;
Proximity to water, electricity and gas services;
Relative proximity to workforce and housing;
Relative proximity to community services;
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 34 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Avoidance of sites with significant populations of threatened species; and
Avoidance of sites of archaeological, heritage or Aboriginal significance.
Sites were graded for each criterion as follows:
High – meets the criterion;
Medium-High – does not meet the criterion and requires some intervention and cost to meet the
criterion;
Medium-Low – does not meet the criterion and requires extensive intervention and cost to meet the
criterion; and
Low – not capable of meeting the criterion.
In order of suitability, the site selection analysis resulted in the sites being ranked in the following order:
1. Site E
2. Site D
3. Site A
4. Site B
5. Site C
The application site was selected because, of all the sites considered, it aligns best with the stated criteria.
4.3 Alternative Water Management Practices
AACO have identified and developed numerous measures for efficient water management use in an effort to
reduce the necessary extraction of potable water from Darwin’s water supply. Power & Water division of the
NT Government have approved AACO’s application of 2 ML daily water draw and have provided AACO with
a letter confirming supply of this required level.
The water efficient measures proposed in both the design and management practices of the facility have
enabled AACO to decrease the estimated daily water supply requirements and move the target from 2 ML
down to 1.4 ML. As draw on Darwin’s water supply has been identified as a significant concern, AACO’s
water management strategies and plans are explained further in 5 of this report.
4.4 Environmental Management Techniques
AACO are committed to incorporating state-of-the-art technology and best environmental management
practices in both the facility design and management strategies. AACO recognises that best practice
environmental planning facilitates while enhancing the economic prosperity and viability of the facility. AACO
also acknowledge the proposal’s significance within the local community and economy and therefore
recognises the importance of addressing the concerns of the local community especially in regard to the
environment. It is on this basis that an integrated Environmental Management strategy has been adopted.
The elements of AACO’s environmental management strategy include:
Environmentally sustainable facility design;
Environmental management plan;
Environmental monitoring plan;
Environmental management structure; and
Community committee component
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 35 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Environmentally Sustainable Facility Design
AACO have identified that the use of environmentally sustainable design components as the most
economical way to reduce environmental impacts. Therefore they have included many design features that
minimise impacts, most notably in the areas identified as typically high impact in a meat processing facility,
which are considered to be water, waste and odour management.
Examples of these design features include:
1) The incorporation of a rendering plant that offers an additional revenue stream by producing by-
products that alternatively would become solid waste requiring disposal;
2) Installation of a biofilter which captures and filters odour from the key source (rendering building);
3) The use of treated waste water to irrigate crops which provides an alternative method of wastewater
disposal to discharging into the catchment as well as increases crop yield through nutrient
enhancement; and
4) The use of stormwater runoff dams to capture and reuse to supplement irrigation to minimise the
draw on Darwin’s water supply
Environmental Management Plan
An Environmental Management Plan has been developed which outlines the plans, strategies and measures
that will be implemented by AACO in order to minimise the risk to and impact of the facility’s operations on
the surrounding environment. A provision for annual review is included that will allow for the:
Evaluation of performance against agreed environmental management commitments;
Reassessment of risks; and
Identification and incorporation of improvements made to best practice methods over time.
Environmental Monitoring Plan
A robust monitoring plan has been developed in order to facilitate ongoing identification of environmental
impacts that may arise. The early detection of change is critical in minimising any adverse environmental
impacts. The unified environmental management approach uses this monitoring plan as a precautionary
measure given that within an integrated approach the aim is to eliminate environmental impacts through
design and management practices.
Environmental Management Structure
AACO have developed a clear organisational structure that outlines the roles and responsibilities for
environmental management of the facility’s operations. It is this structure that will provide accountability for
the overall performance of the facility in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
Community Committee
In addition to the internal management structure and planning, AACO will establish a community committee
that will participate in regular forums to raise any concerns in regards to the operations of the facility.
These components of the integrated Environmental Strategy incorporate all key environmental techniques
considered best practice. Should more effective alternatives to any of the components be identified, AACO
will remain open to changing the strategy accordingly.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 36 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5 Risk
5.1 Risk Assessment
This risk assessment chapter aims to identify the potential risks associated with the proposed Beef
Processing Facility project. Any future variations of a substantive nature may influence the findings of this
risk assessment, and thus may require revision of this document. The terms of reference are as defined in
the guidelines to the PER (Appendix A).
5.2 Risk Assessment Objectives
Solid environmental risk assessment provides a project management team with an analysis of issues,
prioritisation of issues, and the ability to make informed decisions (Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO
31000:2009 Risk Management). Continual awareness of risk management “enhances and encourages the
identification of greater opportunities for continuous improvement through innovation” (Australian Standard
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management). Specific benefits of risk assessment to this project include:
1. comprehensive understanding of potential impacts upon the environment;
2. no surprises;
3. the ability to take advantage of opportunities based on project confidence;
4. improved decision making, planning, performance and effectiveness, via improved information;
5. improved efficiency;
6. improved stakeholder relationships and general reputation;
7. improved due diligence, accountability and governance; and
8. the potential improved wellbeing of employees and the public.
The success of risk management and/or addressing any risks will be measured and identified through the
Facility Management Plan (FMP) process so as to ensure that risk management remains a reliable and
valuable tool for the project managers and regulators.
5.2.1 Risk Assessment Methods
The methods used for this Environmental Risk Assessment follow those described in the Australian Standard
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management. Evaluation of potential impacts has been guided by the US
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for ecological risk assessment (e.g. US EPA 1998) and
background information detailed in this PER.
Environmental risk assessment and management provides a formal set of processes that help when making
decisions affecting the environment, project design, and project development. Risk assessment also assists
decision-makers to deal with uncertainty. The risk assessment process is designed to minimise uncertainty
associated with potential and actual risks and hazards.
This Risk Assessment aims to assess the risks and identify management practices to mitigate potential
impacts resulting from the project. The objectives for the risk assessment were specifically:
To identify the hazards and resultant risks to the environment from the project as a whole, and
threats from environmental aspects to the project;
To rank and prioritise risks through a risk assessment process; and
To evaluate the risks and identify management measures to mitigate the risks.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 37 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
This involves the value judgment determination of key assumptions based on existing knowledge as well as
determining a level of tolerable risk. The tolerable risk approach utilises the As Low As Reasonably
Practicable (ALARP) concept and helps identify and rank risks and potential risks according to the ability of
the project to manage the risk. This method identifies risks that are either –
Intolerable - risk cannot be justified or managed,
Tolerable - risk can be managed, or
Acceptable - risk is minimal and requires little if any intervention or management.
Aspects and activities are evaluated against AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 by allocating a qualitative measure of
likely consequence (Table 5-1) and likelihood (Table 5-2). From these a risk ranking has been developed for
each aspect. Risks with rankings in the extreme and high categories are considered to be significant and will
be addressed in particular, and those in the low and moderate categories addressed by accepted practices
for each of the activities.
Table 5-1: Criteria and consequence of the activity occurring.
Consequence
1 Insignificant No measurable impact on the environment. No injuries. Low-nil financial loss.
2 Minor
Minor, temporary environmental impact. No publicity likely and no stakeholder concerns. First aid treatment required. Medium-low financial loss.
3 Moderate
Substantial temporary or permanent minor, localised environmental damage. Stakeholder enquires (this may include government, unions or public). Medical attention required. High-medium financial loss.
4 Major
Substantial or permanent environmental damage. Prosecution possible. Loss of company credibility and high stakeholder interest. Permanent injuries. High financial loss.
5 Catastrophic
Widespread severe and permanent environmental damage. Major stakeholder and media interest. Prosecution likely. Permanent injury or death. Extreme financial loss.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 38 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-2: Qualitative measures of likelihood.
Probability/Likelihood
A Rare Practically impossible, will only occur in exceptional circumstances. Has never occurred in the industry.
B Unlikely Could occur at some time but highly unlikely. Has occurred in the industry previously.
C Moderate Might occur at some time. Has occurred in associated companies previously.
D Likely Known to occur or will probably occur in most circumstances. Has occurred several times/year in associated companies.
E Almost Certain
Common or repeating occurrence. Is expected to occur several times/year in any associated business.
The likelihood of an event occurring provides a measure of the known or anticipated frequency of
occurrences. Combining likelihood with consequence provides guidance on risk levels of each aspect and
enables ranking of priorities. The risk levels used in this risk assessment are given below in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Risk rankings combining consequence with likelihood.
Consequence
Lik
elih
oo
d
1 2 3 4 5
A 1 3 6 10 15
B 2 5 9 14 19
C 4 8 13 18 22
D 7 12 17 21 24
E 11 16 20 23 25
Where: Red = extreme risk intolerable Purple = high risk intolerable or tolerable Yellow = medium risk tolerable or acceptable Green = low risk acceptable
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 39 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5.2.2 Assessment of risks
This section applies the risk assessment methods described above to AACO’s development proposal. The
likelihood of each risk was determined with consideration of AACO’s proposed mitigation strategies,
management actions, controls and procedures. Table 5-4 first identifies the inherent risk without
management action. Mitigation and minimisation measures that management implement, affects the
consequences and/or likelihood of the impacts. As a result the table identifies the remaining residual risk
once management measures have been taken into account. It is acknowledged that not all risk can be
eliminated and some may remain high or moderate risks. These risks are best managed by continual and
regular monitoring alongside current best management practices. The majority of risks identified through this
assessment process closely align with the three primary environmental issues identified in the Guidelines,
namely:
1. Water resources:
Significant consumption of Darwin water supply; and
Management of wastewater and stormwater on site may lead to changes in surface water
quality, leaching into aquifers and pollution of downstream environments.
1. Land management:
Risks of impacting on the integrity of the soil due to irrigation activities; and
Risk of introducing weeds species to the site and the region.
2. Community health and amenity:
Risks to health and amenity through odour, noise, light, dust, mosquitoes and vermin; and
Risks to traffic and rail safety through increased traffic.
This section will examine these and other risks, the following section (Section 5.3) will look at the
management of the key risks.
Table 5-4 shows the outcomes of this analysis. Further information on environmental management
strategies is available in the EMP (Appendix C).
This risk assessment has prioritised the areas of risk and their level of importance and has guided the
development of this PER and the ongoing EMP’s.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 40 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-4: Risk Assessment of the proposed Development.
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
Water
supply Avoidable
consumption of Darwin’s water supply
4 E 23
- Irrigation management, Stormwater capture dams, Treated wastewater in cattle yards,
- Controls regulated under Australian Quarantine Services (AQIS)
- Plant design – Dept Layout Flowing contour and footprint
- Dedicated Standard & Temperature Flow Lines - Overhead mist sprays for cattle washing - Sensor flow controls - Reduced hose nozzle sizing - Efficient process design & Introduction of
process efficient techniques - Disciplined cleaning practises & management - Efficient cleaning system - Reviewing options for 3
rd Part Contract
Laundry service - Storage & re-use of Storm water – Fire Hydrant
Supply - Re-use of Treated waste water – Nutrients for
Land
3 B 9
Septic Treatment Plant
Adverse impacts on downstream water
quality 3 C 13
- EMP
3 B 9
- Septic treatment plant in accordance with the Department of Health’s Code of Practice for Small On-site Sewage and Sullage Treatment systems and the Disposal or Re-Use of Sewage Wastewater
- Waste Management and Pollution Control Act
wastewater treatment system
Discharge to the environment in
extreme weather events
Contamination of groundwater
Downstream water quality impacts Algal blooms in
downstream
4 C 18
- Maintenance of freeboard of 0.5m Q100 72 hr ESCP
- Water Management Plan including monitoring - Ponds designed, constructed and operated to
best practice guidelines developed by Australian EPA’s and authorities including Food Science Australia and CSIRO
- Distance from residential properties and surface water drainage
- Irrigation Management Plan
3 B 9
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 41 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
environments Odour
- waste minimisation method includes capture in three ponds for use as irrigation of pasture paddocks
Stormwater
Impacts on water quality downstream of
the proposal
Increased sedimentation and
erosion
3 C 13
- Management of stormwater through Infrastructure design around processing facility
- ESCP - Freeboard in catchment dam - ESCP
2 B 5
Land Management
Soil Negative impact on
soil integrity 2 C 8
- ESCP - Irrigation Plan - EMP including monitoring
2 B 5
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 42 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
Weeds
Introduction/spread of weeds
Changes to riparian vegetation
communities
3 D 18
- Reduce the size of current weed infestations - Develop networks with appropriate groups and
organizations weed control/management - Prevent weed seed spread to clean locations;
and - Encourage sub-catchment approach to weed
control/management - To manage pest populations to minimise
localised damage to the environment and protect against greater threats from the spread of exotic disease or noxious weeds.
- Development of a Weed Management Plan - Management of composting material to
minimise weed seed spread - Watercourse Management - To protect
ecosystems along the watercourses within AACO property boundaries through tactical riparian zone management
- ESCP - riparian margin within which no structures will be located, and fencing these areas to promote their revegetation
2 D 12
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 43 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
Health and Amenity
Odour
Increase in unpleasant odours
impacting on community
3 E 20
- Foul air from point sources will be collected near roof level of the building and ducted to a biofilter (efficiency of 95 – 98%)
- manage manure stockpiles and wastewater - designing the complex to meet the
recommended separation distances from houses of 500 m from the meat processing plant and 1,000 m from the rendering plant
- installation of state-of-the-art purpose-designed machinery and equipment
- Enclosing the Render Plant and all material sent to the rendering plant will be fresh
- The waste water ponds will be designed, constructed and operated to best practice guidelines developed by Australian EPAs and industry authorities (including Food Science Australia/CSIRO).
- aerated ponds located away from plant boundaries
- maintaining adequate reduction-oxidation potential in the aerobic system, and desludging when accumulated solids rise to within 30 cm of the water surface
- regular cleaning out of animal waste from yards and pens
2 C 13
Air Quality
Dust from cattle holding yards
impacting on visual amenity/health
(impacting neighbours)
2 D 12
- Maintenance of vegetative cover over the site. - Establishment of a tree break around the
perimeter of the site. - Sealing access roads, vehicle maneuvering
surfaces, and car parks - Lairage pens will be sealed. - Holding yards will be surfaced with crushed
rock compound.
2 B 5
Noise
Increased traffic noise disturbance to
neighbours 2 D 12
- Attendance of heavy vehicles on the site will take place when ambient noise levels are highest, ie. in daylight hours
2 B 5 Construction and operation noise
impacting neighbours
- The walls of the meat processing plant will be constructed of insulated panels.
- The refrigeration engine room will be
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 44 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
Health and Amenity
constructed of concrete tilt-up panels.
Cattle noise from stockyard/holding
yards may concern neighbours
- Animal holding pens are located as far from existing houses as practical.
Traffic/Rail
Increased likelihood of accidents
2? D 12
- The railway crossing will be relocated to the north so that it intersects the railway at a safer right angle. Flashing light and audible train warning signals will be installed.
2 C 8
Increased commute times for locals
- Traffic Impact Study
increased pressure on public
infrastructure
- Byrne Design are currently preparing drawings and a cost estimate for the upgrades to the entrance intersection as required by NT Roads. This exercise is expected to be complete early 2012. Overhead intersection lighting will be provided.
Mosquitoes Increased incidence of mosquito borne
disease 3 B 9
- ensure that all areas around the plant, as well as that associated with meatworks infrastructure, are well drained to eliminate shallow standing water and the potential for mosquito breeding
- regularly mow or slash grassed or vegetated areas around the plant and infrastructure, and control any vegetation that establishes at treatment or storage ponds
- routinely carry out inspections and monitor key areas with the potential for mosquito breeding
- implement control operations including routine spraying of insecticides as warranted
- record the findings of the on-going regular inspection program and any preventative or control operations (eg. spraying) undertaken
3 B 9
Vermin Changes in biodiversity
2 B 5
- It is standard practice and an AQIS requirement to set and maintain vermin baits around a meat processing facility. It is not
2 B 5
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 45 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
Spread of vermin to neighbouring
properties
expected to have any vermin issues around the meat processing facility.
- Control measures for vermin on the site
Light
Disturbance to neighbours
2 B 5
- External lighting will be selected and positioned to be downward and inward facing towards the meat processing facility. Lighting spectrum will be selected to minimise the attraction of flying insects, as a food safety issue.
2 B 5 Potential impact on
fauna
Solid Waste Management
Waste disposal Solid waste
Excessive discharge of nutrients into the
environment
3 D 17
- The trade waste system will include several stages and separation of flows to improve organic nutrient removal of the system, and decrease irrigation dilution requirements
3 C 13
Impacts on visual amenity
- AQIS regulation - Packaging waste will mainly comprise cartons
and plastic materials. These will be baled for removal to the municipal recycling depot. Other trash will be collected in receptacles and removed by licensed contractors for disposal at approved sites.
Increased sedimentation
- ESCP
Increased odour Impacting neighbours
- Removal of manure stockpiles and wastewater from stock holding yards/pens
Salt Waste Contamination to
downstream environments
3 C 13
- Erosion and sediment control
3 C 13
- Salt laden wash down - water will be collected and transported to
covered evaporation pans.
- dried salt is removed from site by an authorised contractor and trucked off site.
Power/Energy
Infrastructure failure Increased odour due
to breakdown of biofiltration system?? 3 D 17
- In this instance “continual” processing will cease and the exposed product will be “run off” ( processed to a safe state).The onsite genset will have the capacity to “make safe” the following areas until full power is restored. Beef
3 C 13
Management failure Procedural failure
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 46 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
on the processing chain, meat cuts, offal & by-products, maintain freezer temperatures and environmental functions.
- EMP
Cultural and Heritage
Sites of significance Heritage sites
Destruction or damage to sites
3 B 9
- Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the NT Heritage Register check
- The site is already cleared and disturbed
3 B 9
Climate change
GHG emissions Impact air quality 2 D 12
- The dominant greenhouse gas produced by AACO’s operations is methane from enteric fermentation. The business is currently focusing on making the herd more productive, so that meat is produced with a reduced level of enteric emissions
- Due to the nature of meat processing, greenhouse gases will be emitted from daily operating of the meat processing facility. During construction, the main sources of emission will be burning of fuels for running mobile plant and equipment and use of electricity. The emissions will increase during commissioning and stages of production, until the facility is fully operational.
- The integration of meat processing and rendering operations is a significant resource recovery and waste minimisation strategy. The principle at work is that material that would otherwise be waste is given a commercial value and treated as a co-product rather than waste;
- By its processes, rendering removes significant amounts of carbon from the environment. Beef fats and protein have high carbon content, which would release CO2 and methane if unwanted parts of the carcass are disposed of by burial, incineration, or decomposition in
2 C 8
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 47 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Issue Aspect Potential Impact
Inherent Risk
Management Measures
Residual Risk
Cons* L/hood* Risk
Ranking Cons L/hood
Resid Risk*
landfill; - Nutrients in processing wastewater are
considered valuable, and will be recovered and applied to pastures, which in turn will improve fodder yields and provide a carbon sink;
- Heat will be recovered from the rendering plant, and will be re-used to produce hot water for other processing activities;
- Animal waste will be converted into a product of commercial value, and will be applied to maintain and improve soil condition on and off the site; and
- The facility will reduce considerably the distances that cattle have to be transported, reducing fuel use. In some cases, the reduction in distance will be from 3,000 km to 1,200 km.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 48 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5.3 Key Risks and Their Management
5.3.1 Water Resources
Water Efficiency Measures
Because of Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS), health regulations, and best practice
requirements, there are few opportunities to reduce potable water usage for continuous and end-of-day
cleaning of operators, equipment and building.
The following management and mitigation measures have been identified to assist in reducing the overall
consumption of water onsite:
Irrigation management, stormwater capture dams, reuse of treated wastewater in cattle yards;
Controls regulated under Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services (AQIS);
Plant design, Layout Flowing contour and footprint;
Dedicated pressure and flow modulated hot water reticulation;
Overhead mist sprays for cattle washing;
Sensor flow controls;
Reduced hose nozzle sizing;
Efficient process design & introduction of process efficient techniques;
Disciplined cleaning practises & management;
Efficient cleaning system;
Reviewing options for 3rd
party contract laundry service;
Storage & re-use of storm water – fire hydrant supply; and
Re-use of treated waste water – nutrients for land.
Through the implementation of water efficient facility design, harnessing of water reuse options and
development and monitoring of efficient and disciplined operational procedures and practice, the facility has
identified that draw on the Darwin’s water supply is expected to be reduced from 2 ML per day to 1.4 ML per
day (Appendix D).
Wastewater Reuse Options
Significant water savings (approximately 20%) are possible where treated water from the storage dam is
reused in practices such as cattle washing, hosing of race ways and stockyards, and paunch and gut
washing. As mentioned in the previous section, the reuse of treated water is limited within the facility under
stringent health and quarantine standards and requirements.
Water Balance
The following water balance is based on a “typical” meat processing plant. It is expected that with the water
efficient design and the reuse of treated water in the holding yards, rendering, paunch washing (press screw
operator) and plant services, the water use required will be approximately 30% less than this estimate.
Therefore AACO water efficient methods are more than sufficient to ensure that even in the event of low
rainfall, no more than the requested and approved amount of 2 ML will need to be drawn from Darwin’s water
supply.
As the irrigation activities associated with the development have complex water requirements, a separate
comprehensive water balance is provided in the EMP. This water balance identifies a water deficit which has
been accommodated for by the stormwater runoff dam which will be constructed to supplement irrigation.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 49 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-5 Estimated Water Usage
ESTIMATED WATER BALANCE KL/day % of Total
Vari
ab
le w
ate
r u
se
Stockyards
Stock watering 18.76 1.00% 24.00%
Stock washing 131.32 7.00% 450.24 kL
Stockyard washing 225.12 12.00%
Truck washing 75.04 4.00%
Slaughter and evisceration
Viscera table wash sprays 112.56 6.00% 14.00%
Head wash 56.28 3.00% 262.64 kL
Carcase wash 75.04 4.00%
Carcase splitting saw 18.76 1.00%
Paunch, gut and offal washing
Paunch dump and rinse 93.8 5.00% 17.00%
Tripe / bible washing 56.28 3.00% 318.92 kL
Gut washing 112.56 6.00%
Edible offal washing 56.28 3.00%
Fix
ed
Wate
r U
se
Rendering Rendering Separators 18.76 1.00% 1.50%
Rendering plant wash down 9.38 0.50% 28.14 kL
Sterilisers and wash stations
Knife sterilisers 112.56 6.00% 10.00%
Equipment sterilisers 37.52 2.00% 187.6 kL
Hand wash stations 37.52 2.00%
Amenities
Exit / entry hand, boot and apron wash stations
75.04 4.00% 7.00%
Personal amenities 56.28 3.00% 131.32 kL
Plant Cleaning
Wash down during shifts 37.52 2.00% 22.00%
Cleaning and sanitising at end of shift 318.92 17.00% 412.72 kL
Washing tubs, cutting boards and trays 56.28 3.00%
Plant Services
Condensers 37.52 2.00% 1.50%
Cooling tower makeup 18.76 1.00% 28.14 kL
Boiler feed makeup 18.76 1.00%
Refrigeration defrost 9.38 0.50%
Total Daily Water Requirements (kL) 1876 100.00%
Per Unit of production (kL/tHSCW) - based on Water Use of "typical" MLA Processing Plant
7
Total Units of production (HSCW) - AACO Meat Processing Facility (268 HSCW x 1000 Head) 268,000
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 50 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Additional Irrigation Water Requirements
Fodder crop selection combined with the nutrient uptake capability and nutrient harvested from the soil (plant
system) determines the level of dilution required for wastewater to be applied. AACO intend to initially only
use the southern irrigation zone on the map (Appendix F). The stormwater dams have been designed so as
to be more than sufficient to provide the water volumes required for the dilution requirements of the irrigation
system.
AACO do not intend to draw additional water from the Darwin water supply for irrigation or dilution.
It is important to note that an inadequately managed water balance for the irrigation system is detrimental to
the potential crop yield and therefore directly impacts the economic interests of the proponent. As a
consequence, a detailed irrigation management plan including scheduling will be employed by AACO under
which water requirements of the system will be planned and monitored.
5.3.1.1 Surface and Groundwater Impacts
Potential surface and groundwater impacts are identified and discussed in detail in the Water Quality
Monitoring Plan (see Appendix D). Please refer to this plan for a complete understanding. The following
information is a brief summary.
The focus of water quality monitoring at the meat processing plant is to ensure that operations are not
impacting on surface and groundwater downstream and subsequently impacting aquatic ecosystems and
those who use the downstream waterways and groundwater for domestic and agricultural uses, and
recreation. All hazardous contaminants potentially in waste water from the meat processing plant are listed
and discussed in the water quality monitoring plan. The risk of these contaminants to surface water and
groundwater quality, aquatic ecosystems, and water users downstream of the facility are also discussed.
A key component of the meat processing facility relating to water quality is the treatment of waste water used
in meat processing operations and associated by-product processing (e.g. rendering, composting, and
salting of hides), daily cleaning of the facility, and from staff amenities e.g. human effluent. As such, the
water quality monitoring plan includes the specific surface water and groundwater sites to be monitored, the
contaminants to be measured, as well as the timing and frequency of sampling, and proper sampling
procedures aimed at detecting any impacts from especially the waste water treatment system. It also
outlines the requirements and responsibilities for data recording, interpretation, regular reporting, review, and
response to correct any contamination issues.
In addition to monitoring any impacts on downstream surface and groundwater sites, this plan also includes
the requirements for day-to-day operational monitoring of water quality throughout the waste water treatment
system such as the water flowing into the treated effluent storage dam and subsequently used in irrigating
the cropping area.
Incident response sampling and monitoring is also outlined, which is required in order to determine any
impacts from unexpected pollution incidents and determine the best response for correcting any impacts, as
well as for providing details of the incident to the relevant authorities.
Legislation and water quality guidelines relevant to water quality at the meat processing facility are outlined,
as well as a description of the site’s environmental characteristics relevant to water quality.
Surface Water
Importantly in regards to surface water, the meat processing plant is located at the very top of the Berry
Creek catchment, which meets the Blackmore River about 15 km downstream of the site. From here, the
Blackmore River extends for a further 8 km to where it flows into Darwin Harbour. The lower reaches of the
Blackmore River and Berry Creek are estuarine and tidally influenced. Surprisingly, despite the very large
tidal range and strong tidal currents that occur within Darwin Harbour, hydrodynamic models (e.g. Williams et
al. 2006) show the Harbour is not well flushed, especially in its upper reaches. This is largely because
incoming (flood) tides are larger than outgoing (ebb) tides, leading to the trapping of fine sediments. As
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 51 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
such, nutrients and other contaminants flowing into the Harbour from catchments such as that of the
Blackmore River may become an issue in the upper estuary if sources of these contaminants are not
managed appropriately.
Stream flows in the region reflect annual rainfall patterns, with flows typically commencing during December
and January, and reaching maxima during periods of heavy rainfall between January and March. By June,
most rivers have ceased to flow, except for the Howard River and spring fed Berry Creek (Fukuda and
Townsend 2006), which are supplied by aquifer fed groundwater during the dry season (Tien 2006).
Three second order (Strahler’s Order) streams associated with the Berry Creek system drain the property
incorporating the meat processing plant. The east branch runs on an east-west alignment through the centre
of the site, while the southern branch runs from a point near the intersection of Scrutton and Cornock Roads
outside the site, through Lot 4 and to the south-western corner of Section 5410. The north branch runs
roughly parallel to the western boundary. The stream margins are well vegetated and as mentioned above;
a 50 m wide fenced off buffer zone will be established around these streams in order to protect them from
erosion and to allow riparian vegetation to act as an extra filter for run-off from the irrigation area and
stormwater run-off from around the processing facility infrastructure. Similarly, a wetland area located in the
southwestern corner of the property will also be fenced off.
The NRETAS Aquatic Health Unit monitors a number of freshwater and estuarine sites in the Berry Creek
and Blackmore River catchment as part of their annual reporting of environmental condition of waterways
within the Darwin Harbour Region (see NRETAS 2010, NRETAS 2009, and the Report Cards available at:
http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/reportcards. Freshwater monitoring
sites DW73, DW46, and DW31 are located downstream of the meat processing plant, and a large number of
estuarine sampling points are also located downstream of the meat processing plant in the lower Blackmore
River and Upper Darwin Harbour estuary. The latest Report Card results from monitoring of these sites
show a decrease in waterway condition from a rating of “B” in 2009 to “C” in 2011. This is likely due to the
increase in agricultural and urban development within the catchment. Notably, monitoring results show
elevated concentrations of nutrients (ammonia, total N and total P). Results of surface water sampling
undertaken as part of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan will be compared against the annual results reported
by NRETAS in these Report Cards. Also, the Water Quality Objectives for the Blackmore River catchment
will be used to assess the surface water samples collected downstream of the plant.
NRETAS also regularly monitor macro invertebrates at the freshwater monitoring sites in order to detect any
changes to aquatic biota caused by impacts from the catchment. The diversity of macro invertebrates
sampled at the sites is compared against the AUSRIVAS index and given a rating. The rating for the three
sites located downstream of the meat processing plant (DW73, DW46, and DW31) has always been “A”
which means the biological diversity matches that of a natural and un-impacted stream. This data provides a
useful baseline and any changes in this rating in future Report Cards detected following establishment of the
meat processing plant will be closely monitored.
Groundwater
Groundwater aquifers in the region of the meat processing plant are typically very shallow, and recharge is
via the direct infiltration of rainwater (for more information on groundwater of the Darwin region see Haig and
Townsend 2003). Significantly, groundwater is the only source of water flow into Berry Creek during the dry
season (Tien 2006), and as such, is extremely important in maintaining aquatic ecosystems within this
waterway, which are adapted to its perennial nature. Similarly, the maintenance of flows in Berry Creek
throughout the dry season results in it being a popular area for swimming and water-based recreation (e.g.
Berry Springs Recreational Area).
In regards to groundwater bores in the region, there are currently no registered bores within the property of
the meat processing plant. However, records of bores drilled on rural living allotments around the site
indicate that water bearing zones are between 27 and 95 metres in depth, with yields varying between 0.5 to
5.0 litres per second. Records which included notes on water quality indicated good water quality. For more
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 52 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
detailed information on groundwater across the meat processing plant site see the Hydrogeology report
prepared by Zinga and Associates (Sept. 2011).
Property owners directly downstream of the site (i.e. those across the western boundary) were contacted in
regards to requesting permission to sample their groundwater bores. However, despite publically available
records showing the presence of registered bores in the area, none are currently utilised and several
property owners were unable to locate the registered bore identified on their land. It is therefore suggested
that at least one groundwater monitoring bore be established down gradient of the meat processing plant in
order to monitor groundwater quality flowing from under the plant and associated irrigation areas and treated
effluent storage ponds. This is especially important given there are groundwater bores used for domestic
and agricultural purposes further distant downstream of the meat processing plant and also the potential for
more bores to be established on rural subdivisions developed downstream of the site.
A large number of registered bores are located across the southern boundary of the site, however these are
only partially down-gradient of the meat processing plant, unlike those on the western side. Several property
owners in this area have been contacted and have granted permission for their bores to be monitored as part
of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Similarly, several property owners located north and east of the site
have been contacted and have granted permission for their bores to be monitored, however all these bores
are up-gradient of the site and therefore would only act as control sites since they would not receive any
groundwater flows from beneath the meat processing plant.
Environmental Values, Hazards, and Risks Regarding Surface and Groundwater Downstream of the Plant
Environmental values of downstream surface and groundwater systems are reflected in the beneficial uses
declared for the Berry Creek and Blackmore River Systems, under the NT Water Act. These are
“environmental” – aquatic ecosystems and habitat for flora and fauna, “agricultural” – irrigation water,
“aquaculture” – both land and water based, and “culture” - recreation and aesthetics. Sensitive uses of the
surface water and groundwater downstream of the meat processing plant include swimming, such as the
popular waterhole at Berry Springs Recreational Area, borewater used as drinking water and for watering
stock and crops, also water extracted for use in downstream aquaculture projects.
Aquatic ecosystems are the most sensitive environmental value impacted by changes in water quality.
Therefore, maintaining water quality to protect aquatic ecosystems will in almost all cases also protect the
other beneficial uses, for example, lower contaminant levels will affect aquatic organisms before they affect
people swimming in a waterway. This is except for disease-causing pathogens and toxic algal blooms,
which present the highest risk to humans using the surface water and groundwater systems for swimming,
drinking, agriculture, and aquiculture.
Table 5.5 outlines typical water usage for the meat processing plant. Water from these activities will be
directed to the waste water treatment system and eventually used to irrigate the cropping area. The largest
water use is for cleaning of stockyards and cleaning and sanitising the slaughtering areas. Potential
contaminants from all activities within the meat processing plant and associated cattle yards, by-products
processing (e.g. rendering, composting, and salting of hides), and staff amenities include:
- Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from most areas of the plant, includes human sewerage
- Organic material from most areas of the plant, includes human sewerage
- Cleaning and sanitising chemicals, surfactants, from most areas of the plant
- Salt from salting of cow hides
- Lubricants, hydrocarbons, and other engineering materials in the workshops
- Pesticides on cropping area
- Weed material on cattle and cattle feed and manure
- Metals and hydrocarbons in run-off from car parks and buildings
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 53 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
- Pharmaceuticals and other contaminants from human effluent and cattle manure
- Algal toxins from blue-green algae growing in treated effluent ponds and other water storage dams
A comprehensive list of chemicals used within meat processing plants is provided in the Water Quality
Monitoring Plan.
The following scenarios are identified as potential water quality risks stemming from the meat processing
operations based on the potential contaminants listed above and the proposed waste water treatment
system:
- Contamination of Berry Springs swimming area with disease-causing pathogens or toxic blue-green
algae (i.e. the cyanobacteria Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and/or Microcystis aeruginosa) requiring
closure of the area to visitors in order to protect human health.
- Contamination of the Berry Creek system (including Berry Springs swimming area) with excessive
organic material and nutrients leading to eutrophication, causing algal blooms, death of aquatic
organisms, and loss of biodiversity.
- Contamination of waterways further downstream of Berry Creek (i.e. Blackmore River and Darwin
Harbour) with excessive organic material and nutrients leading to eutrophication, algal blooms, death of
aquatic organisms, and loss of biodiversity.
- Contamination of Berry Creek, Blackmore River, and Darwin Harbour with other contaminants
originating from the meat processing plant including detergents, salts, surfactants, pesticides, metals,
hydrocarbons, sediments, pharmaceuticals and other constituents found in treated human sewerage
and waste water from the plant.
- Impacts on the estuarine ecosystems in the lower Berry Creek, Blackmore River, and Upper Darwin
Harbour (Middle Arm), where hydrodynamic models have shown that tidal flushing does not readily
remove nutrients and other contaminants out to sea (i.e residence time at the mouth of the Blackmore
River is typically around 50 days).
- Contamination of groundwater bores located down gradient of the meat processing plant with disease-
causing pathogens and other contaminants hazardous to human health and preventing the use of these
bores by surrounding landholders as a water supply.
- Contamination of groundwater aquifers in the region with nutrients, salts, detergents, surfactants,
hydrocarbons and other contaminants associated with the meat processing operations, noting that
groundwater provides the only source of water sustaining flows in Berry Creek throughout the dry
season, which could impact on the aquatic ecosystems of this waterway.
- Contamination risk of groundwater is increased during the wet season when groundwater levels are
close to the surface and potentially receiving water contained within the treated effluent ponds and
storage dam.
- Contamination of the soils receiving treated water irrigation, causing salinity and / or the breakdown of
soil structure and its capacity to absorb nutrients and support plant growth. Soils may also be impacted
by waterlogging.
- Eutrophication, algal blooms, and the generation of offensive odours within the treated water and
stormwater storage dams. These dams could also result in the concentration of contaminants and salts
through evaporation.
- Release of un-treated or semi-treated effluent during extreme storm events, through the overspilling or
structural failure of the treated effluent storage dam or any of the other areas containing polluted run-off
such as the holding dam or the usually contained areas of cattle yards, composting area, and salt ponds
causing short-term impacts to aquatic organisms and riparian vegetation of Berry Creek, the Blackmore
River, and Darwin Harbour.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 54 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
- Die-off of riparian vegetation along the natural streams immediately downhill of the irrigation areas due
to excessive nutrients, salts, and other contaminants associated with the treated water irrigation,
especially in the event of accidental release of un-treated or semi-treated water during extreme rainfall
events Long-term waterlogging due to excessive irrigation may also cause die-off of riparian vegetation.
- Transport of manure, salts, and other wastes from the cattle yards, holding pens, composting areas, and
salt pans in stormwater run-off during extreme rainfall events, if the capacity of containment measures
around these areas were to be exceeded.
- Encouragement (through nutrient-supply) of aquatic weed growth in the streams downhill of the irrigation
areas, also further downstream in Berry Creek and the Blackmore River.
- Encouragement (through nutrient-supply) of wetland and terrestrial weed growth along the banks of
streams downhill of the irrigation areas, also further downstream in Berry Creek and the Blackmore
River.
- Insufficient breakdown of organic material and other contaminants, and insufficient settling of solid
material in the anaerobic and aerobic treatment ponds due to excessive overloading with sewerage and
wastewater, resulting in higher concentrations of contaminants in water used to irrigate.
- Insufficient uptake of nutrients by the irrigated crops due to unbalanced supply or overloading of
nutrients in irrigation water, or from insufficient water, waterlogging, salinity, sodicity, and soil
degradation, or other factors affecting plant growth such as disease, pests, or toxic chemicals in the
irrigation water.
- Insufficient uptake of phosphorus by the soil, which is assumed will occur in addition to plant uptake of
phosphorus; i.e the soil fails to absorb the predicted 112 kg/Ha included in the calculation of irrigated
crop area required for uptake of the applied nutrient load.
- Erosion of cropping and cattle grazing areas, and any exposed soil areas around the meat processing
plant contributing sediment, organic material, and nutrients to waterways.
Mitigation measures outlined in the EMP aim to prevent the above scenarios and include at minimum:
- a best practice waste water treatment system of aerobic and anaerobic ponds, treated effluent storage
dam, and irrigation system (as also described in the above sections of this report), where extensive
studies and calculations have determined the area of irrigation required to take up the nutrients. Also
the size required for the treated effluent storage dam, stormwater storage dam, composting and cattle
yard run-off holding dam, and the containment areas for the cattle yards, composting area, and salt
pans has been calculated to ensure that extreme storm events do not result in the overspilling or failure
of these dams and containment areas.
- the soils are suitable, and the land units on which the meat processing plant and irrigation area is sited
are compliant with the intended land use (i.e. not waterlogged).
- Manure and other organic pollutants present in the 12 cattle yards (each 20 m x 40 m) and composting
area will be prevented from release into the environment. The yards and composting area will be fully
contained as “controlled drainage areas” and extraneous run-on water will be diverted around. Manure
from the cattle holding yards will be regularly scraped and taken to the composing area. In addition, a
specially designed sedimentation and treated water holding system will treat run-off water from within
the yards and composting area where solids are separated from the liquid portion, mainly by settling,
prior to the runoff entering a holding dam (see the EMP for a detailed description of the sedimentation
and holding dam treatment system). The treated run-off from this holding dam will then be pumped to
the main treated effluent storage dam for subsequent disposal by irrigation.
- Waste emanating from humans on the site will be treated by installing a type approved package
sewage treatment plant in accordance with the Department of Health’s Code of Practice for Small On-
site Sewage and Sullage Treatment systems and the Disposal or Re-Use of Sewage Effluent.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 55 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Outflows from the sewerage treatments system will subsequently be pumped to the treated effluent
storage dam.
- Erosion and sedimentation on the site will be prevented through the application of the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan prepared as part of this PER. Buffer zones of at least 50 m have also been
established around the 3 main streams and wetland area on the site in order to protect these streams
from erosion and further filter any nutrients and contaminants from run-off from the irrigation area and
around the meat processing plant (e.g. car parks).
- Regular water quality monitoring (as outlined in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan) of downstream
surface and groundwater as well as operational monitoring of treated water prior to irrigation
application will give early warning of any issues with the waste water system and allow rapid response
to correct these issues. The location, frequency, and timing of water quality monitoring takes into
account the above-listed risks.
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
The water quality monitoring program will include the following at minimum:
- 6 surface water quality sites (5 downstream of the plant and one control site located in an equivalent
stream north of the plant but outside the plant’s catchment) to be sampled and assessed at least 4
times per year depending on flows in the streams downstream of the plant (it may not be possible to
sample during the dry season when the streams are dry. The most important time to sample will be
early dry season recessional flows (April/May) which are most representative and comparable from
year to year.
- 7 groundwater monitoring sites comprising 3 existing bores south of the site, 3 existing bores up
gradient of the site (control sites), and one groundwater bore to be established directly down gradient
of the plant. These will be sampled and assessed at least twice per year, once at the end of the wet
season and once at the end of the dry season.
- Operational monitoring will be undertaken at least monthly in the treated effluent storage dam,
stormwater storage dam, and holding dam (receives water from composting area and cattle yards).
The frequency of sampling and parameters measured for operational sampling will vary depending on
plant operations occurring at the time and the information needs for controlling the waste water
treatment system to ensure optimal water balance and removal of contaminants. As such the program
suggested in the water quality monitoring plan is only an indicative representation of operational
monitoring and may be adjusted following the verification and validation process required by the
Department of Health prior to commissioning of the system.
In summary, the most relevant guidelines used for assessing the different components of this water quality
monitoring plan are as follows:
Surface water downstream:
- NRETAS Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region, specifically for Berry Creek and
Blackmore River (NRETAS 2010)
- NT Department of Health Guidance Notes for Recreational Water Quality in the Northern Territory
(DoH 2011b)
- The Australian Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (NHMRC 2008)
Groundwater downstream:
- NRETAS Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region, specifically for Berry Creek and
Blackmore River (NRETAS 2010)
- The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 (NHMRC 2011)
Operational monitoring of treated effluent storage dam and irrigation water:
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 56 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
- The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1)
2006 (NRMMC 2006)
- NT Department of Health Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems 2011 (DoH 2011a)
Incident monitoring:
- The most relevant guidelines depending on the nature of the incident, e.g. pollution of surface waters
or groundwaters or only the treated effluent pond.
All monitoring data will be recorded and maintained in a central database and made available to the
authorities on request. This data will also be used to report annual environmental performance against the
criteria in the plant’s EMP. This annual review of water quality monitoring results will also allow for the
improvement and enhancement of this Water Quality Monitoring Plan in line with monitoring results and any
upgrades to the meat processing plant.
5.3.2 Land Management
Land management and irrigation practices shall not adversely impact or degrade soils or groundwater
resources. Weeds will be controlled to prevent the spread to surrounding areas. Details on the strategies to
address these statements is below.
Management of Water Deficit
The key to irrigation cropping is in scheduling the application of water so that the crop always has sufficient
water for growth i.e. normally water lost by evapo-transpiration is replaced when the soil moisture holding
capacity is depleted by about 50%.
Practical operation of the irrigation system requires knowledge of the soil type and profile depth, rooting
depth of the crop or pasture and the available water capacity of the soil i.e. amount of water per metre depth
of soil. AACO plans to establish a soil based measurement and recording system to track soil moisture and
help make decisions on when and how much irrigation water to apply.
Within the design and limits of the irrigation system, the operation will endeavour to avoid under watering and
thus retarding crop growth, as well as over watering, causing surface ponding, runoff and/or deep drainage
of applied water from the soil profile.
The wastewater irrigation system will operate under a deficit irrigation regime.
An irrigation system employing a deficit irrigation strategy generally has the following characteristics (MRC,
1995):
• water is applied more frequently than normal (every 2-3 days) and in smaller quantities;
• the top 30 cm of soil is maintained at >50 % of the moisture storage capacity for the first 2-3 weeks
after planting a crop;
• in dry weather, frequent irrigations are carried out aiming to maintain the moisture content of the top
30 cm of soil above 30 % of capacity;
• irrigation only ever supplies up to 85 % of the soil moisture storage capacity;
• the limited water is applied at the crop growth stage when it is of most benefit eg. the sensitive stage
for lucerne and perennial pastures is just after hay is made and with cereal crops it is generally at
flowering and seed formation; and
• almost full crop production can be achieved with a 15-30 % saving on the normal irrigation
requirement.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 57 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Even adopting a deficit irrigation strategy it is apparent that additional irrigation water in the order of between
500 and 600ML is required. To address this situation it is intended that a series of three 200ML storage
dams will be designed and constructed. These dams are to be sited downgradient of each of the irrigation
areas to harvest wet season stormwater runoff.
Irrigating the available water at the crop growth stage when it is of most benefit will help maximise production
and thereby the uptake of applied nutrients.
Irrigation Management Plan
NABL intends that a site specific Irrigation Management Plan will be developed detailing the necessary
procedures to maintain optimal performance of the treated water irrigation system and ensure that any
adverse environmental impacts are minimised.
Best management practices will be employed to ensure that the system is environmentally sustainable
including nutrient management, irrigation scheduling and deficit irrigation strategies as well as a
comprehensive monitoring program to demonstrate the environmental performance of the system.
Nutrient concentrations
The critical irrigation design parameter is determined by comparing the area necessary for hydraulic and
nutrient loading rate and then selecting the largest area. The total volume of the nutrient rich water to be
generated from the proposed processing facility has been calculated as 337ML per year.
The nutrients in processing water are generally regarded as a valuable resource for the growth of crops and
fodder. When properly applied the nutrient rich treated water will have beneficial effects on soil fertility e.g.
soil organic matter, soil organisms and physical characteristics such as soil structure.
It should be noted that the treated water will be analysed prior to irrigation to enable fine tuning of irrigation
practices and the water management operations overall.
Table 5-6 Estimated Mass of Nutrients in Processing Wastewater
Wastewater
Constituent
Concentration
(mg/Litre)
Wastewater
Content
(Kg/day)
Nutrients
Generated
(T/annum)
Total Nitrogen 120 110.76 40.4
Total Phosphorus 40 36.9 13.5
Ref: Meat Research Corporation (1995)
Table 5-6 estimates the mass of the key nutrients in the wastewater generated annually and are based on
typical concentrations of these constituents in processing wastewater. The key nutrient uptake rates for a
number of crops are outlined in Table 5-7 below.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 58 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-7. Nutrient Content of Harvestable Irrigated Crops & Nutrient Uptake
Note 1. . Refer NSW Agriculture, 1997
2. Ref: Meat Research Corporation (1995)
In summary:
• Relatively large cropping areas are required to utilise the nutrients applied in the wastewater;
• Controlling and managing the wastewater nutrients is the critical design issue rather than the
hydraulic loading;
• Additional irrigation water is essential to help maximise the harvestable yield of the crop i.e.
calculations for hydraulic loading indicate an area of 28.3 hectares is required but to utilise the
nutrients in wastewater growing lucerne an area of 84 hectares is required;
• The proposed Environmental Monitoring Program, including analysis of treated water prior to
irrigating and soils analysis, will verify the quality of the final treated water and help determine the
effect of wastewater applications; and
• Application rates and land and soil management practices can then be subject to fine-tuning and be
modified to ensure implementation of a sustainable treated water reuse system.
Overall, the land terrain, soils, crops, scheduled irrigation and monitoring comprise a dynamic and fully
integrated environmental management system which must be operated and managed daily in a responsive
fashion, allowing for variable seasonal rainfall conditions, temperatures, evaporation rates, fodder and
nutrients harvested, soil erosion control etc.
Fodder crop choice
Blue Pea is a tropical legume that responds to dry season irrigation and is considered a suitable companion
to a tropical grass such as Rhodes Grass, a highly productive perennial grass. A paddock with Rhodes
Grass and Blue Pea as a companion crop is high yielding and a gross user of the key plant nutrients in
processing treated water.
Lucerne, another perennial fodder crop, can be grown in the NT and with good management will produce an
average yield of approximately 12 tonnes per hectare. It will be a useful option in a rotational cropping
program but lucerne is not likely to persist longer than about three seasons due to disease problems arising
from the extended seasonal hot and humid weather experienced in the tropical north (O’Gara, F, 2007).
Table 5-8 indicates the minimum area required for applications of wastewater where applied nutrients are in
balance with the nutrients taken up by the various crops and including an allowance of 112 kg/hectare for
Phosphorus sorption in the soil profile.
Soil storage is an important sink for Phosphorus and it is well known that many light textured soils in
Australia “fix” Phosphorus making it largely unavailable for plant growth. The capacity of a soil to absorb
Crop Estimated Yield
(t/ha) Nitrogen % and (kgs/ha)
Phosphorus %
and (kgs/ha)
Forage Sorghum 15 1.8 (270) 0.3 (45)
Forage Oats 5 1.5 (75) 0.3 (15)
Guinea Grass 22 1.25 (275) 0.44 (97)
Rhodes Grass
/Blue Pea
15
10
(240)
3 (300)
0.16 (24)
0.44 (44)
Lucerne 12 3.5 (420) 0.4 (48)
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 59 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Phosphorus varies widely but the typical soil to be irrigated with wastewater is expected to have a
Phosphorus sorption capacity of in excess 1200 Kg/hectare.
Table 5-8. Minimum Area (Ha) Required for Application of N & P in Wastewater
Note 1. A loss of 25 % of applied Nitrogen due to volatilisation is included
2. Includes an allowance of 112 Kg/Ha P sorption in the soil annually – assuming P sorption capacity of 1200
Kg /Ha and a 10 year life of the area for wastewater irrigation
A 72 hectare crop of lucerne will take up the mass of nitrogen contained in the treated water from the
proposed facility, allowing for a 25% loss of applied Nitrogen through volatilisation, and an area of 281
hectares is required to utilise the Phosphorus applied in the treated water. When Phosphorus sorption of
112Kg/Ha is added to the equation the area of lucerne required for applied Phosphorus is 84 hectares.
Remembering that the critical design parameter is determined by selecting the largest area calculated,
assuming the nominated rate of Phosphorus sorption, with a Lucerne crop the critical area is determined by
the Phosphorus loading rate.
The area of Rhodes Grass/Blue Pea necessary to take up the phosphorus in the treated water (allowing for
112 Kg/Ha of P sorption) is 75 hectares.
Improved capacity and management
The basic objective with any irrigation system is to supply sufficient water to meet the needs of the crop,
prevent water stress and thereby help to maximise plant productivity and overall crop yield. Maintaining the
capacity of soil to grow crops or pastures will prevent soil degradation, for example, through soil structural
decline, salinisation, chemical contamination, soil erosion or otherwise.
The system needs to match the nutrients applied in the treated water with that taken up by the crop or
immobilised in the soil. The nutrients in processing treated water are generally regarded as a valuable
resource for the growth of crops and fodder. When properly applied the nutrient rich treated water will have
beneficial effects on soil fertility generally e.g. soil organic matter, soil organisms and physical characteristics
such as soil structure.
Irrigating the available water at the crop growth stage when it is of most benefit to help maximise production
and thereby the uptake of applied nutrients. Treated water will be analysed prior to irrigation to enable fine
tuning of irrigation practices and the treated water management operations overall.
To operate an environmentally sustainable and productive treated water reuse system it is essential that the
daily/weekly management of the water treatment and irrigation system is responsive to seasonal variations.
Analysis of treated water prior to irrigating and soils analysis will verify the quality of the final treated water
and help determine the effect of wastewater applications (see Table 5.9). Application rates and land and soil
management practices can then be subject to fine-tuning and be modified to ensure implementation of a
sustainable treated water reuse system.
Crop Nitrogen1
Phosphorus P + Psorp.2
Forage Sorghum 112 300 86
Forage Oats 404 900 106
Guinea Grass 110 139 65
Rhodes Grass
/Blue Pea 56 199 75
Lucerne 72 281 84
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 60 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5.9. Wastewater Analysis Parameters
Test Parameter Comment
Total Nitrogen Measures nitrogen for calculating N balance ie. that applied & removed in hay
Ammonium-N Measures nitrogen available or potentially lost through volatilisation
Nitrate-N That nitrogen in solution & readily available to plants
Total Phosphorus Measures phosphorus for calculating P balance ie. that applied & removed in hay
Electrical Conductivity & Chloride Wastewater salinity
Sodium Absorption Ratio Wastewater sodicity
Excessive nutrients and pesticide use
There is a long history of experience of this type of water treatment system and the resulting treated water
quality generated from properly designed and managed systems. This proposal complies with best industry
practice and is based on CSIRO Guidelines. Problems with parameters mainly arise from overloading or
poor maintenance of the pond system.
To determine the key constituents in treated water and to facilitate proper irrigation management practices it
is intended that the treated water be regularly analysed. Refer to Table 5-9 above which lists the wastewater
analysis parameters. In addition to this, regular monitoring of the groundwater will also take place (Table 5-
10)
As deterioration in the land, or failure of the cropping, will not only negatively impact on the environment but
will also have a direct impact on the profitability of the business, maintaining successful irrigation practices
are a critical part of AACO’s overall business strategy.
Table 5-10 Groundwater Analysis parameters
Test Parameter Unit of Measure
Frequency 1
Comment
pH no units Annually A measure of acidity or alkalinity
Available Phosphorus mg/L “ Measures phosphorus available for plant
uptake
Electrical Conductivity
dS/m Quarterly Indicates salinity
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/L “ Nitrate-N is readily transported in water
Standing Water Level metres “ Often fluctuates seasonally
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 61 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Pesticides will be used to supplement crop production. The potential pesticides used are identified in the
appendices of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan at Appendix D, however it is likely that they would only be
required. A pesticide management and storage protocol is to be prepared and storage and handling will
comply with relevant Australian Standards.
Weed Management
Weed invasion threat has been identified as a considerable risk to the land management of the site and
surrounding properties. The potential for weeds to invade and establish on the site is high over the life of
project. Potential Sources included are:
Initial Construction Phase:
1. Soil disturbance from earthworks and the frequent movement of construction vehicles to and
from the site
2. Weeds could potentially be imported to the site on construction and landscaping materials, and
on the clothing of construction workers
Operational Phase:
1. Trucks movements to bring the cattle on-site
2. Cattle movement on and around the grazing land
3. Composting and Storage Dam areas
4. Riparian and revegetation zones, existing weeds proliferating
5. Spread of existing weed infestations due to disturbance and vehicle traffic;
The proliferation of environmental weeds on and adjacent to the site may have significant environmental
impacts, including:
reduction of biodiversity
impacts on recreational activities
impacts on landscape and lifestyles
degradation of water quality
increased risk of fire.
Legislative obligation
The relevant legislation to this Plan is the NT Weeds Management Act 2001, which states that the owner
and occupier of land must:
a) Take all reasonable measures to prevent the land being infested with a declared weed;
b) Take all reasonable measures to prevent a declared weed or potential weed on the land spreading
to other land; and
c) Within 14 days after first becoming aware of a declared weed that has not previously been, or known
to have been, present on the land, notify an officer of the presence of the declared weed.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 62 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-11 Infonet Weed List within Project Area
Class A weed – To be eradicated
Gamba Grass Andropogon gayanus
Class B weed – Growth and spread to be controlled
Olive Hymenachne Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Hyptis Hyptis suaveolens
Bellyache Bush Jatropha gossypiifolia
Mission Grass (perennial) Pennisetum polystachion
Mission Grass (perennial) Pennisetum polystachion subsp. polystachion
Salvinia Salvinia molesta
Sicklepod Senna obtusifolia
Spiny-head Sida Sida acuta
Flannel Weed Sida cordifolia
Paddy`s Lucerne Sida rhombifolia
Branched Porterweed Stachytarpheta australis
Grader Grass Themeda quadrivalvis
Class C: Not to be introduced to the Territory (All sp. Listed under Class A and B)
Species with no status
Neem Azadirachta indica
Calopo Calopogonium mucunoides
Clustering Fishtail Palm Caryota mitis
Golden Shower Cassia fistula
Gambia Pea Crotalaria goreensis
Purple Crabgrass Digitaria violascens
Indian Heliotrope Heliotropium indicum
Red Natal Grass Melinis repens
Mission Grass (annual) Pennisetum pedicellatum
Lippia Phyla nodiflora var. nodiflora
Spearpod Ruellia tuberosa
Bitter Broom Scoparia dulcis
Singapore Daisy Sphagneticola trilobata
American Rat`s Tail Grass Sporobolus jacquemontii
Caribbean Stylo Stylosanthes hamata
Townsville Lucerne Stylosanthes humilis
Shrubby Stylo Stylosanthes scabra
Cinderella Weed Synedrella nodiflora
Weed Management Plan
The Weed Management Plan (Appendix E) outlines the precautions and procedures that will be implemented
for preventing the entry of weeds onto the site and the spread of existing weeds during the life of project.
A robust monitoring plan has been developed in order to facilitate ongoing identification of environmental
impacts that may arise. The early detection of change is critical in minimising any adverse environmental
impacts. The integrated environmental management approach uses this monitoring plan as a precautionary
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 63 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
measure given that within an integrated approach the aim is to eliminate environmental impacts through
design and management practices.
This Plan has been written to achieve the following specific objectives:
Ensure weeds are not introduced to the site;
Avoid spread of weeds;
Minimise areas of soil disturbance Ensure weeds are not introduced to the lease parcel via imported
materials such as processing equipment, machinery and stores;
Monitor the success of the weed management strategies; and
Ensure ongoing rapid weed detection and respond.
Weed colonisation within the site will be controlled through prevention, monitoring and early eradication. The
site has been divided into the different zones based on the proposed land use. Site characteristics such as
soil and hydrology are identified to develop specific weed management measures for individual zones so as
to maintain the land in a healthy condition. These zones in order of their conservation priority are listed
below:
1. Streams and Riparian zone
2. Wetland zone
3. Grazing land zone
4. Pasture/Irrigation zone
5. Infrastructure zone
The commencement of weed monitoring will coincide with the commencement of site development. The aim
of the monitoring is to confirm the success of all objectives specified within this Management Plan and as per
agreements with land owners and current managers.
The following information in Table 2 is extracted from the NT Government’s (2009) Weed Management
Handbook, and outlines the potential treatments for those weed species identified through the infonet search
tool.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 64 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Table 5-12 Summary of control methods
Specific weed management practices are detailed in the Weed Management Plan in Appendix E of the PER.
5.3.3 Community and Health amenity
AACO have a two tier Environmental Management Committee system involving both plant and Community
personnel who meet regularly and will address any issues that arise regarding community and health
amenity, in addition, a complaint register will be kept to keep track of any incident complaints received from
the community.
5.3.3.1 Odour
Rendering is an evaporative process that produces a condensate stream which sometimes can create an
offensive odour. In addition to this, other areas of the facility, such as the holding pens and used water
treatment ponds, may also emit odours from time to time. AACO have proposed various management
strategies to overcome this problem and these are discussed in more detail below.
Render plant
The rendering plant will be enclosed in a building designed for the air extraction rate to produce negative
pressure to capture emissions. Foul air from point sources will be collected near roof level of the building
and ducted to a biofilter.
The biofilter consists of an open bed of rice hull or woodchip and compost. The foul air from the render plant
point sources is humidified in a water spray column before distribution to biofilter cells. The humidifier
saturates the foul air and prevents the filtration media from drying out. The design incorporates an up-flow
through a plenum, which ensures the foul air is distributed evenly over the biofilter and seeps up through the
filtration media.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 65 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
A bacterial film formed in the moist filtration media will degrade gases in foul air, and treated air is vented to
the atmosphere at the surface of the biofilter, at which stage odour is reduced to indiscernible levels.
CSIRO reports that odour removal efficiencies of 95% to 98% have been reported for these types of
biofiltration systems (Reference: CSIRO/Food Science Australia Odour Management Meat Technology
Update April 2002).
The collection of point source foul air and ducting to a biofilter allows mechanical ventilation systems to vent
residual low-odour air in the rendering building into the atmosphere.
In addition to design measures to reduce odour, all material sent for rendering will be fresh, as the rendering
process is part of the continuous processing cycle. Rendering fresh material is a recognised factor in odour
reduction.
A biofilter requires monitoring of incoming air temperature to prevent overheating. Controls halt airflow if air
temperature is exceeded. Controls monitor moisture content of filter material, and initiate water sprays when
required. A biofilter includes a system to avoid, manage and or release the catchment of rainwater.
The facility will have its own power generation including a backup system and mains connection specifically
for critical infrastructure, that will be used should there be any problems with power to the facility, in this
instance continual processing will cease and the exposed product will be “run off” or processed to a safe
state. Extreme wet and dry conditions should not affect biofilter operation.
Further detail on management of odour is available in the Environmental Management Plan (Appendix C)
Water Treatment ponds
The water treatment ponds will be designed, constructed and operated to best practice guidelines developed
by Australian Environmental Protection Authorities and industry authorities (including CSIRO).
The best practice method of controlling odour from anaerobic ponds is to establish a stable crust on the pond
with minimal perforation over a small area around the water inlet.
Regular monitoring of pond conditions and ensuring that the discharge into a downstream unit is submerged
on entry will ensure that odours are not detectable beyond the plant boundary.
Odour emissions from aerated ponds are not considered to be a concern if the pond is located away from
facility boundaries, and the ponds are not overloaded such that they become anaerobic. The odour from
aerobic ponds typically has an “earthy” smell, which is not offensive.
Anaerobic ponds are extremely effective at reducing BOD and SS (>80%). AACO will undertake desludging
in accordance with best practice guidelines so as to ensure the ponds are not overloaded however this is
expected to take place only every 8-10 years.
Animal yards
AACO will ensure that odour is suppressed from animal yards in line with best practice guidelines,
specifically:
Regular cleaning out of animal waste from yards and pens;
Cattle holding yards are a controlled drainage area; and
Collection and composting of manure and paunch content in accordance with the detailed description set out
in Section 6.0 of the Zinga and Associates Pty Ltd Environmental Management Plan (Appendix C)
Meat processing plant
The meat processing plant will be enclosed in a mechanically ventilated building to provide a controlled
environment. It is a requirement for an export plant to have no odour penetration from sources outside the
building. Consequently, the meat processing plant is not an odour source.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 66 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
The Composting Operation
The manure and organic matter collected from various sources associated with the proposed facility
including the cattle holding yards and unloading area, solids cleaned from sedimentation structures and the
fibrous paunch contents from the so called “green stream” as well as sludge from the water treatment ponds
(only every 8-10 years) are to be subjected to composting.
Composting involves the microbial conversion of biodegradable organic matter over a minimum period of 6
weeks into relatively stable humus by thermophilic organisms under controlled conditions and in accordance
with Australian Standard AS 4454-1999.
It is generally conducted under aerobic conditions facilitated by regular turning of material stockpiled in
windrows to remove released moisture, remove excess heat, release the carbon dioxide generated by the
process and to introduce atmospheric oxygen.
The end product of composting has little odour and should not cause any offensive odour emissions.
As an alternative it maybe an option to remove the composting material to an approved facility such as that
of an existing fertiliser manufacturer. Should this option be explored, the proponent will consult with the
appropriate authorities to ensure it is done in an environmentally responsible manner and in accordance with
relevant legislation.
5.3.3.2 Noise
The facility borders the Stuart Highway and a rail corridor, and these features are the principal sources of
noise in the locality of the facility. Other, background noise can be attributed to general rural noise and
potentially the cattle holding yards located to the north of the facility. The facility will be located towards the
eastern side of the property, close by these existing noise sources.
Noise is regulated under the Northern Territory’s Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, 2011.
AACO will undertake measures to ensure that noise does not impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
AACO have an Environmental Management Committee who meet regularly and will deal with any issues that
arise regarding noise, in addition, a complaints register will be kept to keep track of any emission complaints.
Baseline noise conditions are currently being recorded. If noise complaints arise from the operations of the
facility then a noise management plan will be developed that ensures the cumulative noise levels from all
aspects of the site do not cause environmental nuisance.
In addition, AACO will control noise through the following strategies:
The refrigeration engine room will be constructed from tilt-up concrete panels and will have noise
attenuation;
The rendering plant will be a complete packaged plant, including all equipment from raw material
bins to road freight loadout;
The administration and staff amenities building, and community building will be of masonry
construction with colorbond roof;
Animal holding pens are located as far from existing houses as practical; and
Attendance of heavy vehicles on the site will take place when ambient noise levels are highest, i.e. in
daylight hours.
Another major contributor to controlling these emissions is the installation of state-of-the-art purpose-
designed machinery and equipment, as intended in this proposal. For example, Food Science Australia (a
CSIRO venture) notes in its publication Noise Control in Processing Areas:
“The purchase of new plant, the design of the area in which it is to be installed and the design of new
workplaces generally, provide an opportunity for cost-effective noise control measures. All new plant and
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 67 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
equipment should specify maximum noise emission data, and this should be a consideration in future
purchases. Although many meat processing facilities rarely enjoy new plant opportunities, when these do
arise, the issue of noise generation should be part of the design brief.”(ref: CSIRO/Food Science Australia
Noise Control in Processing Areas Meat Technology Update November 2006)
An attendant factor is maintenance of machinery and equipment, to ensure that performance is not
compromised. In addition to daily cleaning of all equipment, and routine maintenance, the plant will close
down for one month (January/February) each year to allow for comprehensive servicing and maintenance of
all machinery and equipment used in the operation.
5.3.3.3 Light
External security lighting will be installed around the buildings. External lighting will be selected and
positioned to be downward and inward facing towards the meat processing facility. Lighting spectrum will be
selected to minimise the attraction of flying insects, as a food safety issue.
Overhead lighting will be provided at the upgraded intersection on the Stuart Highway. The railway crossing
will be relocated to the north so that it intersects the railway at a safer right angle. Flashing light and audible
train warning signals will be installed.
5.3.3.4 Dust
Dust may be generated, chiefly during construction works; however ongoing dust may occur due to cattle
and vehicular movement, and crop harvesting.
During construction ground condition and wind will be monitored and water tanker spraying will occur as
required.
Livestock trucks will travel on sealed roads. Trucks will be washed in public truck washing facilities.
Livestock trucks already frequent the property, adjacent properties, and Darwin Port along the Stuart
Highway.
Composting stockpiles moisture content will be monitored and sprayed as required.
Crop harvesting has operated on the property for over twenty years and it is intended to continue. However,
because of irrigation, the soil will be less dust prone than the current conditions. Crop harvesting will be
delayed if adverse wind conditions prevail and there exists the potential for the generation of dust.
The design of the proposal includes the following additional measures to control dust:
Maintenance of vegetative cover over the site;
Establishment of a tree break around the populated perimeter of the site;
Sealing access roads, vehicle manoeuvring surfaces, and car parks;
Cattle pens will be sealed; and
Holding yards will be surfaced with compacted clay.
5.3.3.5 Mosquitoes, Vermin, Pests and Disease
The proposal will be a modern state-of-the-art facility, incorporating the best available production and
processing technology, and will be conducted in accordance with strict AQIS requirements and best
practices endorsed by Australian EPAs and industry organisations.
The World Trade Organization works with the Trade and Market Access Division of the Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) to facilitate technical market access for exporters of agricultural
products, including live animals and animal products. Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock is
currently in force and exporters must comply with the standards to be permitted to export livestock by the
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 68 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). In addition, meat processing facilities are also
governed by standards and regulations under AQIS and the NT Department of Health which specifies
standards for transportation of food, control of pests and food standards.
Dams and ponds are not protected by buildings or trees and are wind exposed to reduced likelihood of
harbouring mosquitoes.
It is standard practice and an AQIS requirement to set and maintain vermin baits around a meat processing
facility. It is not expected to have any vermin issues around the meat processing facility.
AACO will develop an Integrated Pest & Disease Management Program including:
strategic use of crop rotations;
use resistant varieties of fodder crops;
pest monitoring & beneficial insects;
cultural measures e.g. to disrupt pest lifecycles; and
selective pesticides (e.g. systemic seed dressings).
A pesticide management and storage protocol is to be prepared.
Specific mosquito management includes:
ensure that all areas around the plant, as well as that associated with meatworks infrastructure, are
well drained to eliminate shallow standing water and the potential for mosquito breeding;
regularly mow or slash grassed or vegetated areas around the plant and infrastructure, and control
any vegetation that establishes at treatment or storage ponds;
routinely carry out inspections and monitor key areas with the potential for mosquito breeding;
implement control operations including routine spraying of insecticides as warranted; and
record the findings of the on-going regular inspection program and any preventative or control
operations (eg. spraying) undertaken.
5.3.3.6 Traffic and Rail Safety
The proposal will increase traffic generation to and from the site. Heavy vehicle attendance at the site each
working day will include 7 to 8 cattle road trains, 12 container trucks carrying processed meat, and two
containers of rendered products. In addition to this there will be a number of employees travelling to and
from the facility with parking for up to 255 vehicles. This number exceeds the requirement of the Planning
Scheme, under which 128 bays would be required. The increased number is to accommodate demand
during the change of shift period.
Heavy vehicle movements will be segregated from normal traffic, with road trains and trucks directed to
holding yards and loading docks on the northern and western side of the complex, and employee and visitor
parking located on the eastern side.
To ensure safety of vehicles attending the site and operational efficiency of access, AACO commissioned a
specialised traffic impact study by i3 Consultants. See Appendix H.
The study found that peak hour trip generation for light vehicles is likely to occur between 2:00 pm and 3:00
pm daily. This period accommodates the shift changeover period, when there will be overlap between
people leaving and entering the site. The study estimates that a total of 190 trips will be generated during
this peak period.
The heavy vehicle trip generation peak period is identified as 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, when a total of 30 cars
and 22 heavy vehicles is estimated.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 69 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Vehicle access to the site will be from the existing access point in Stuart Highway. This access point is
currently by a right of way in the southern tip of Section 5409.
It is proposed to formalise the right of access by excising this small piece from Section 5409 and
consolidating it with Section 5410. A sale agreement between the owner of Section 5409 and AACO has
been executed, and is subject to the application for EDP being approved (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5-1 Road alignment
Access to the site also requires crossing the rail line bordering the north-eastern boundary of the site.
The existing alignment of the access way to the railway is not suitable for the proposed development, and
the access alignment will be reconfigured to improve turning movements and safety of heavy vehicles
leaving and entering the Stuart Highway.
The traffic effects of the proposal on local amenity are addressed in the following ways –
Despite availability of access from local roads, all access will be restricted to Stuart Highway, from
the existing access point to the site; and
The buildings and facilities are to be sited and fenced such that no vehicles attending the site will
have reason to travel down Livingstone and Cornock Roads.
All operational and safety measures recommended in the Traffic Impact Study are to be adopted and the
operator of the AustralAsia Railway, Genessee and Wyoming Australia Pty Ltd (GWA), has indicated that it is
supportive of recommended improvement measures, as they will expand overall safety at the rail crossing.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 70 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5.4 Other Risks
5.4.1 Solid Waste Management
Salt Waste
Salting of hides is to be carried out in a separate fully contained and bunded hide shed located adjacent to
the rendering plant. Wash down volumes from the hide conditioning area are to be minimised. Salt laden
wash down water will be collected and transported to covered evaporation pans. The waste salt water
volume would be in the order of 5000 litres per week or 1000 litres per day.
Two evaporation pans are operated with one drying out while the other is being filled. The pans will be
constructed with a concrete base so that mechanical means such as a tractor with scraper blade can be
used to collect the dried salt. The pans will have double ended trafficable entry/exit ramps to facilitate
recovery of the dried salt.
The dried salt is removed from site by an authorised contractor and in the event that reuse or recycling of the
salt is not possible, the salt will disposed of at an approved waste disposal facility.
Treatment of Compost
Key features of the proposed composting area have been incorporated to minimise potential adverse
environmental impacts on surface and groundwater. These measures include:
the site has been selected in part because it is above the land that experiences periodic and seasonal inundation by stormwater and is not flood prone
extraneous runon stormwater has been diverted away and safely conveyed to natural drainage
the composting area forms a fully contained “controlled drainage area”
construction will ensure that a properly compacted clayey base with a gravel surface lining be established to ensure all weather access and to minimise the downwards movement of salts
a specialised sedimentation system has been incorporated into the design ie. a trafficable sedimentation terrace to separate and settle solids entrained in runoff
runoff is to be directed to a runoff holding dam before it is regularly drained to the treated water storage dam for subsequent irrigation
In the wet season, storm water runoff passing through the compost was identified as a potential risk to surface and ground water contamination. The Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifies that stormwater runoff originating up-gradient of cattle holding yards, cattle pens or composting area is diverted around these areas and allowed to flow into natural drainage
Runoff falling on these areas is filtered through the sedimentation structures transferred to a holding to allow
any residual solids to settle and is then introduced into the stormwater runoff dam.
Monitoring of temperature and moisture will be undertaken to optimise the rate of composting. Regular
turning of the windrow will be employed to stimulate and control heat production and should the composting
material become too dry, supplemental water will be added.
Monitoring and management in addition to the siting and design of the composting area is designed to
withstand Northern Australian climatic conditions. Covering the compositing site will not be necessary.
Removal of Pond Sludge
It is relevant to note that the proposed meat processing plant incorporates:
Modern ‘state of the art’ design and processing technologies;
Waste minimisation and source reduction operations;
Product recovery technologies to recover valuable by-products; and
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 71 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Separation of the ‘red’, ‘green’ and salt streams, e.g. the latest screening and Press Screw
Separator equipment.
Thus the proposed plant will generate a high quality water from the treatment system and therefore far less
pond sludge than traditionally is the case.
Nevertheless, routine desludging operations, mainly associated with the multi-celled anaerobic ponds, will be
undertaken and the frequency of which is estimated to be at 8-10 year intervals.
Sludge removed from the ponds will be delivered in “leak proof” containers to the “controlled drainage area”
that is the composting area. Sludge will be mixed in appropriate proportions with other solid material and
subsequently be subject to the aerobic composting process.
Contingency Plans for Disease Outbreak
In accordance with Australian Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cattle in Beef Feedlors (1996) and the
appropriate provisions of the Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Cattle (1992)
AACO will develop a contingency plan for a mass mortality event including provisions for mass carcass
disposal. The rendering plant is offered as an option for carcass disposal.
5.4.2 Heritage Protection
The Anti-Aircraft Gun Site referred to in the NRETAS Guidelines for the Preparation of a Public
Environmental Report, Meat Processing Facility Project, Livingstone Locality, NT (NRETAS January 2012,
Appendix A) is not located on the site of the project and will not be impacted by the project’s activities. It is
therefore not within the scope of this project to document the Anti-Aircraft Gun Site.
The application recognises the streams and wetlands on the site as having natural values. The Stormwater
and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and the Environmental Management Plan describe in detail the
measures to be implemented to protect natural values of the site. Riparian zones will be fenced to prevent
damage from cattle and permit natural revegetation. The weed management identified the riparian zone as
an area of significance given the change in use. This zone will be monitored in order to identify and address
any weed issues as they arise.
Information supplied by Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the NT Heritage Register indicate that
there are no registered items of cultural or heritage value on the application site.
Livingstone WWII Airfield and Camp are in the transport corridor adjacent to the site, but this complex was
not recommended for inclusion in the Register. In any event, the proposal has no effect on the airfield
complex.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 72 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Production
Due to the nature of meat processing, greenhouse gases will be emitted from daily operating of the meat
processing facility. During construction, the main sources of emission will be burning of fuels for running
mobile plant and equipment and use of electricity. The emissions will increase during commissioning and
stages of production, until the facility is fully operational. The table below indicates the sources of emissions
from the facility (Table 5.9).
Table 5-13 Emissions estimate for facility.
t CO2-e / year GJ / year
Summary of Emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Total Energy
Natural Gas (boiler & gensets) 15,399
15,399 300,000
Diesel - transport 70
70 1,000
Diesel - non-transport 87
87 1,250
LPG 79
79 1,300
Refrigerant Leakage
Not
Estimated
0 0
Waste emission - septics 44
44 0
Waste emission – plant (anaerobic
methane) 95371
9,537 0
Waste emission - composting 1369
1,369 0
Electricity
0 0 0
26,584 0 26,584 303,550
Reportable if exceed thresholds Exceeds
Threshold
Below
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold
Current Threshold2 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
MLA KPI
using 567 kgCO2-e/t HSCW
36,348
and expected 64105 tHSCW/year
The proposed facility will produce emissions of approximately 26,600 tonnes a year equivalent greenhouse
gases, well within Australia’s Meat Industry KPIs for beef plants.
AACO, including AACO is developing a Carbon Footprint Reduction Plan, which aims to reduce its carbon
footprint by 60% over a 10-year period. Key initiatives that are currently being implemented across AACO’s
business, or which will be implemented in the near term future includes:
1 MLA, Industry environment sustainability review 2010, section 7 – Greenhouse gas emissions for beef plants.
2 National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 73 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Improvement to herd efficiency
AACO owns the largest cattle herd in Australia (approximately 660,000 head). The dominant greenhouse
gas produced by AACO’s operations is methane from enteric fermentation. The business is currently
focusing on making the herd more productive, so that meat is produced with a reduced level of enteric
emissions. In the last few years, AACO has aggressively culled unproductive breeding females from its
herd.
Pasture efficiency
Improved pasture use will reduce methane emissions. At this site AACO plan to use legume-based pasture,
pasture mapping technologies and prevention of energy stress by altering herding techniques and
introducing new supplement products.
AACO in general has committed significant resources into pasture research. The research projects use
advanced technologies, including LIDAR (light detection and ranging) lasers, unmanned aerial vehicles, and
NDVI (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index) to improve understanding of energy efficiency of pasture
resources. This knowledge will enable the company to graze its pasture resources in a way that will reduce
methane emissions.
Research conducted at CSIRO’s Lansdown Research station near Townsville has found that cattle fed on
leucaena (a legume) in northern Australia emit less methane than cattle grazed on tropical grasses.
In addition to the matters outlined above, key sustainability issues relevant to the proposed development are:
The integration of meat processing and rendering operations is a significant resource recovery and
waste minimisation strategy. The principle at work is that material that would otherwise be waste is
given a commercial value and treated as a co-product rather than waste;
By its processes, rendering removes significant amounts of carbon from the environment. Beef fats
and protein have high carbon content, which would release CO2 and methane if unwanted parts of
the carcass are disposed of by burial, incineration, or decomposition in landfill;
Nutrients in processing water are considered valuable, and will be recovered and applied to
pastures, which in turn will improve fodder yields and provide a carbon sink;
Heat will be recovered from the rendering plant, and will be re-used to produce hot water for other
processing activities;
Animal waste will be converted into a product of commercial value, and will be applied to maintain
and improve soil condition on and off the site; and
The facility will reduce considerably the distances that cattle have to be transported, reducing fuel
use. In some cases, the reduction in distance will be from 3,000 km to 1,200 km.
AACO will undertake to minimize greenhouse gas emissions as reasonably practicable in accordance with
the Northern Territory Government’s objectives.
AACO will also adopt the following measures in accordance with the Australian Government’s guidelines and
National Carbon Offset Standard:
Implement an ongoing program to monitor levels of emissions;
Report emissions in accordance with government requirements;
Periodically investigate the opportunity to further reduce emissions; and
Identify and consider national and state eligible offset schemes for residual emissions.
To this end, management will implement industry best practice during the design, construction and operation
stages of the project, to minimize environmental emissions.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 74 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
5.4.4 Operational Failure
Should there be any failure in either management of the site or infrastructure (e.g. power outage) continual
processing will cease and the exposed product will be “run off” and processed to a safe state. Power is to be
supplied via on site gas fired generators. As there will be several generators, there will be on site backup. In
addition to this, if the gas supply is interrupted, the facility has a mains power allocation that it can draw on
so as to maintain important activities. Backup power will be targeted to “make safe” the following areas until
full power is restored:
Beef already on the processing chain;
meat cuts;
offal & by-products;
maintain freezer temperatures; and
environmental functions.
In addition, the facility will be shut down for one month each year (January/February) to allow for general
maintenance to ensure optimal plant performance.
5.5 Environmental Offsets
The following section has been developed with reference to the NT Governments Draft NT Environmental
Offsets Policy (2010).
The intent of the policy is to ensure no net loss of environmental quality, and that offsets are designed to
compensate for significant residual damage that cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated at reasonable cost
for actions requiring formal assessment under the NT Environmental Assessment Act.
This policy requires identification of impacts or detriments that cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated at
reasonable cost: information on the risks of failure of management actions, and identification of appropriate
offsets.
5.5.1 Unavoidable Impacts
Unavoidable impacts are considered to include:
Clearing of vegetation to facilitate construction of facilities;
Temporary odour impacts;
Temporary and localised reductions in downstream water quality; and
Net increase in waste (compared to a no-development scenario).
5.5.2 Management Failure
Failure to manage abstraction of water from Darwin’s water supply will potentially result in increases in
‘cease to flow’ events, reduction in availability of water for local communities, death of riparian vegetation,
impacts on fodder crops, and loss of production time due to reduction in availability of water for processing.
Failure to manage clearing may result in excessive clearing, changes to hydrology and landform, direct
impact on vegetation through removal of flora over a wide area, indirect impacts to fauna through removal of
habitat.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 75 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Failure to manage wastewater treatment systems, compost areas and the use of waste water for irrigation of
fodder crops and other uses may impact upon soils and surface water quality, as well as impacting upon
groundwater resources.
5.5.3 Identification of Appropriate Offsets
The overall methodology applied to the proposal is that indicators of environmental sustainability have been
identified, based on the best current knowledge and available information, that are judged to provide the best
practical and objective measures of sustainability.
As the development is occurring on a pastoral lease, and in a heavily utilised and therefore highly disturbed
part of the lease, the offsets plan needs to be appropriate to that situation. The land owners and leasers of
that land are eager to pursue a fully integrated environmental “system” at the site.
The design of the facility and the proposed operations satisfy three fundamental pollution reduction and
environmental management principles, namely:
minimization of wastewater volumes through implementation of State Of The Art processing designs
and water use efficiencies;
beneficial utilization of wastewater using effective treatment, storage & irrigation;
recycling composted organic matter on an environmentally sustainable basis.
This will be the focus of the offsets plan proposed by AACO; however consultation will take place moving
forward to determine if this is the most appropriate offsets for the proposed mining operation. Consultation
will be done with land owners and land managers, government, and the general public.
Other components of the offset proposal are as follows:
The riparian zone and wetland are to be fenced off. Currently they are in poor condition, impacted
through cattle grazing land use. Fencing will allow these areas to naturally regenerate and cattle will
not be permitted to enter these areas and they will be actively managed for weeds. AACO plan to
provide a 50m fenced buffer around the existing water flow paths on the property so as to allow
these to revegetated into riparian zones. The majority of these areas are currently cleared and used
for grazing;
Carbon offsets are to be provided with the establishment of fodder crops on site, to be irrigated with
treated wastewater, providing a carbon sink on the site. Methods for measuring carbon sequestration
are being developed and will enable estimates to be made of the effectiveness of fodder crops as
carbon sinks, and will be documented in a Carbon Management Plan;
The establishment of a Meat Processing Facility in Darwin will provide a more sustainable and cost-
effective alternative for livestock suppliers in the Top End. Furthermore, by investing in the NT
economy (cattle industry) AACO contributes to ongoing viability of the industry through investments
in environmental technologies, industry advances, research opportunities and the provision of
training and local employment opportunities; and
AACO will consider options for contributing to better management of other pressing environmental
issues, ensuring that measurable benefits are developed to determine that the offset is of equivalent
value to residual impacts. While the focus will be on carbon offsets, AACO will look for other
opportunities that may exist;
Finally, an Environmental Monitoring Plan is proposed focused primarily on the detection of impacts
on soils, groundwater, and surface water, as outlined in the Environmental Management Plan
(Appendix C).
Offsets will be designed to avoid risks of obligation, or cost-shifting. Costs of long-term maintenance, for all
parties involved, will be taken into account in building and assessing quality of offset arrangements.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 76 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Wherever possible, delivery of offsets will utilise skills and physical infrastructure available in the region or
show how local capability will be accessed in a reasonable time. In particular, AACO will seek the advice of
Holistic Land Managers with experience in carbon sequestration and local land managers with experience in
managing land in the NT.
AACO will give particular regard to offsets that have benefits for:
Local land managers;
Local communities; and
The management of pastoral land in the NT.
The period over which offsets will be maintained will be specified in any agreements. Any agreed offsets will be subject to monitoring to verify delivery of benefits. An agreed monitoring, reporting and review framework will be developed and upheld. . AACO will also consult with Government regulators throughout the design and selection process for offsets. Wherever possible, statements of detriment and of offset benefits will be based on agreed metrics.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 77 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
6 Environmental Management
6.1 Introduction to the Beef Processing Facility Draft EMP
This PER and the draft Environmental Management Plan (draft EMP, Appendix C) aim to address the issues
of concern highlighted in the Guidelines for the Preparation of a Public Environmental Report, Meat
Processing Facility Project, Livingstone Locality NT (see Appendix A).
Specifically, the major key risks identified in relation to this project are:
Accumulative effects of water extraction from Darwin’s water supply;
Impact of irrigation and wastewater treatment systems on soils;
Contamination of surface and/or ground water as a result of irrigation and water treatment systems;
Introduction or proliferation of weeds (introduced by trucks, spread via water treatment system);
and
Potential impacts on local community health and amenity.
6.1.1 Environmental Management
An essential part of AACO’s commitment to environmental management will be their compliance with
environmental performance obligations, which will be demonstrated throughout the Project by monitoring,
auditing and inspection, conducted internally by AACO and externally via relevant authorities (refer to Draft
EMP in Appendix C).
Additional to the EMP, AACO’s has a number of management plans to maintain environmental standards at
the project site. These include,
Water Quality Monitoring Plan (refer to Appendix D); and
Weed Management Plan (refer to Appendix E);
These management plans have been developed specifically for the Meat Processing Facility project and will
be utilised in the development of an Operational Management Plan (OMP) for the project. All management
plans detail the monitoring programs and control measures employed to mitigate identified environmental
issues. These plans have been developed to be implemented across the life of the project from construction
to full operation.
6.1.2 Introduction to the AACO Draft EMP
A draft EMP has been developed for the Beef Processing Facility project within the Livingstone locality of the
NT. This EMP is continually referred to as a Draft to allow for this progressive document to be updated as
necessary with the aim of achieving best practice environmental management.
The draft EMP has been prepared and designed to:
Be in accordance with industry best practice;
Summarise each commitment detailed in this PER and supporting documentation (e.g. management
plans):
Be strategic, ensuring appropriate environmental protection and impact minimisation techniques are
implemented throughout and following construction and operational activities at the project site; and
Describe the safeguards and controls to be employed to prevent, manage and monitor identified and
potential impacts of the project.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 78 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
6.1.3 Current and Future Locations of the EMP
The draft EMP is included in Appendix C of this document. It is anticipated that changes will be made to the
draft EMP to address comments that may be received through the public review phase for this PER. The
draft EMP will be finalised at the conclusion of the assessment, taking into consideration comments on the
PER, and incorporating recommendations and conclusions.
It is also anticipated that ongoing changes to the EMP will be necessary throughout the life of the facility:
To reflect newly available research or information;
To keep up with best practice environmental management; and
To respond to monitoring results with an adaptive management approach.
Thus, although the draft EMP may be finalised at the conclusion of the assessment, it will be updated each
year, and submitted to NT Government authorities as part of AACO’s annual OMP. The annually updated
EMP will be provided in a form suitable for inclusion in the OMP.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 79 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
7 Community Involvement and Consultation
7.1 Background
In mid-2010, the Australian Agricultural Company Limited (AACO) announced plans to develop a Food
Processing Facility in the Northern Territory.
Following extensive investigations, AACO announced on 21 September 2011 that it intended to lodge a
development application for the Food Processing Facility at a site at Livingstone Valley and undertake
community and stakeholder consultation.
Because AACO is a publicly listed company, it has an obligation to release information to the Australian
Stock Exchange in a timely manner. This requirement meant stakeholder consultation could not begin until
the formal announcement had been made.
7.2 Consultation Strategy and Objectives
The Consultation Strategy for the Food Processing Facility covers three broad phases:
Stage 1 - Approvals: This is the period of time from the initial inception of the proposal to construct the
facility through to final investment decision by AACO.
Stage 2 - Construction: The period from final investment decision until the commissioning of the facility.
Stage 3 - Operations: The period from the commencement of operations and continuing throughout the life
of the facility.
Each stage requires a different level of engagement as shown on the following graph.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 80 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Objectives for Stage 1 of the consultation were to:
Inform: Provide information about the proposal and its potential impact
Clarify people’s understanding of how a modern facility operates
Clarify people’s understanding of how it is proposed to manage this facility
Consult: Understand the particular concerns of residents
Understand the needs of government and stakeholders
Understand how the project impacts on individuals and groups of individuals
Evolve: Using intelligence gathered through consultation, improve planning and management for the
proposed facility.
7.2.1 Tools and Tactics Used
A broad range of consultation tools were used during the consultation. These included:
The hand delivery of information packages to neighbouring properties. See Appendix G.
A subsequent hand delivery of an update to a larger area surrounding the site. See Appendix G.
Information packages and site maps made available via the Offices of local members including Hon
Rob Knight, Kezia Purich and Gerry Wood. See Appendix G.
Personal invitations to 35 stakeholders via email, with 16 of these also contacted by telephone. See
Appendix G.
The establishment of a project website www.AACOnt.com.au which included a mechanism for
people to give feedback or request further information. See Appendix G.
The establishment of an information hotline, which received 19 calls from 14 individuals.
Five media releases, announcing:
That AACO was proceeding to lodge a development application. See Appendix G.
That AACO would be hosting a stall at the Coolalinga Markets on Saturday 15 October. See
“Community Stall” at Appendix G.
That the submission period for the development application would close soon and that
people were encouraged to have their say. (As per Community Update 21 October)
That the project would undergo environment assessment. See Appendix G.
That AACO had received guidelines for the PER and was proceeding to prepare its pubic
report. See Appendix G.
A community information stall at Coolalinga Markets on Saturday 15 October which was advertised
by NT News, the Litchfield Times, radio community service announcements, emails to stakeholders
and residents and flyers at local Shopping Centres and MLA offices.
Meetings with individuals and groups of individuals.
Records kept of all contacts made.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 81 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
7.2.2 Consultation Approach and Rollout
The day the announcement was made Creative Territory, a Darwin consultancy engaged by AACO to assist
with community consultation, hand delivered information packages to 59 neighbouring properties. A number
of packages were also hand delivered the following day. An electronic version of the package was emailed to
35 stakeholders including Government agencies, industry associations, Members of Parliament and interest
groups.
All these groups were offered the opportunity of formal briefings with Mr Stewart Cruden, General Manager
Northern Australia Beef, AACO. The decision for Mr Cruden to personally conduct all briefings with residents
and other stakeholders underlines the importance AACO places on the community engagement process.
Some briefings were also conducted by AACO CEO Mr David Farley.
Over the following six weeks, AACO made direct contact with 183 residents and stakeholders through a
variety of means. Some people were contacted multiple times through a number of different channels, as
shown in the following graphic.
*Note: Where multiple people were briefed in the same meeting, the meeting was counted only once.
The original hand delivery of packages to neighbouring properties was based on contacting properties in
immediate vicinity of the proposed processing site. However, it became clear early in the consultation that
the area of interest in the project was wider than originally anticipated so a broader area was delivered the
subsequent community package.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Method of Contact
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 82 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Individuals and groups consulted are shown in the following table:
Table 7-1 Individuals and groups consulted
Who Number
Reside in the general area 101
Members of Parliament or Local Government 19
Government agency staff 27
Stakeholder groups# 19
Individual members of stakeholder groups 10
Other individuals with an interest in the project
7
TOTAL 183
# Each stakeholder group is counted only once, even if contact was made with multiple representatives of that group
A total of 37 individual appointments were arranged with individuals and groups of people during which either
Mr Cruden or Mr Farley provided an overview of the project, answered questions and sought feedback.
7.2.3 General Attitude to the Proposal
In general, those people and stakeholders who availed themselves of personal briefings were satisfied that
their concerns would be addressed, although there were some individuals who remained strongly opposed.
Interestingly, very few of those who signed a community petition against the proposal or objected through the
formal development consent authority submission process had taken the opportunity to receive a briefing.
Positive 82%
Neutral 12%
Negative 6%
Attitude of people who were personally briefed
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 83 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
7.2.4 Topics Raised during the Consultations
A broad range of topics were raised during the consultation as shown on the following chart.
Among residents, the most common topic raised was the impact the project would have on the environment,
particularly water quality, the general amenity of the area and the impact of the project on the value of
surrounding properties. There was also great interest in the potential for local job opportunities and access to
proposed community facilities.
7.2.5 Response to Issues Raised
The community consultation process to date has provided valuable insights to allow AACO to evolve its
management plans for the Food Processing Facility.
Economic Benefits: The community says it is important that economic benefits are realised in the
local area.
As a result of the feedback, AACO has met with the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to
determine the best ways to maximise local benefits. AACO plans to use local equipment, services and
contractors wherever possible.
AACO also plans to employ local people during operations and particularly those who live in the immediate
vicinity. This would provide a more stable workforce. During this initial consultation phase, AACO was able to
establish a database of local people who have expressed an interest in working on the facility once
operational and this will be added to as consultation continues.
During the consultation, some people raised concerns that a workers camp would be established on site.
AACO was able to reassure people that it does not support a workers camp and all employees would be
housed within the local community.
General Amenity: The community expressed concerns about the general amenity of the area
including dust, traffic, noise, odours and light pollution.
Environment 25%
General amenity 16%
Water Quality 18%
Property values 12%
Economic benefits and jobs
17%
Community benefits
12%
Topics raised during consultations (Frequency of topic raised, %)
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 84 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
AACO was able to address all of these concerns in detail. See “Community Update – 21 October”, see the
Exceptional Development Proposal document Appendix B.
In relation to noise and traffic, the consultation enabled AACO to discuss appropriate times for truck
movements. The company has committed to limited truck movements to 6am to 7pm Monday to Saturday
and 9am to 3pm on Sundays.
A number of neighbouring properties had differing reviews with regard to tree buffers on site. For example,
some property owners are keen to see tree buffers established on their boundaries while others want to
retain their existing view. Engagement during the construction stage will enable AACO to determine a
detailed tree-planting program.
Environment: There were concerns raised about the impact of the facility on the environment and questions
as to how this would be managed.
AACO is using state-of-the-art technologies and processes to manage all aspects of the facility and is
particularly concerned to protect the environment both on-site and off-site. The Public Environmental Report
details more fully AACO’s commitments in this regard.
Water quality: A number of people expressed concerns about water quality downstream from the facility.
AACO has engaged EcOz Environmental Services, a Territory environmental consultancy, to undertake
water sampling and analysis in the vicinity of the facility. In order to obtain a complete picture of ground water
quality in the vicinity, EcOz will sample a number of bores in the area. A number of local residents including
neighbouring properties have agreed to participate in the testing program.
The testing includes both surface and ground water and sampling will take place both upstream and
downstream from the proposed facility. See the Fact Sheet “Water Quality Testing Information” which has
been given to residents participating in the program at Appendix D.
Again, the Public Environmental Report details more fully AACO’s commitments to protecting water in the
area.
Community Facilities: Community members were very happy that new community facilities would be
established and asked if these would be available to the broader community.
AACO’s plans include a child care centre and medical facilities. The company proposes these facilities be
made available to all residents in the vicinity.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 85 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
7.3 Ongoing Engagement Plan
If the Food Processing Facility proposal proceeds to the next stage, community engagement will be required
to assist AACO in developing and managing the facility on an ongoing basis.
Stage 2 - Construction
During the Construction Stage, the following strategy will be employed:
Strategy Purpose Tools
Inform Provides information to stakeholders about:
The Project
Project status
Tenders for work
Applying for jobs
Fact sheets
Public Displays
Website
Media Releases
Advertising
Mail outs
Consult AACO understands:
Information needs
Particular concerns
Needs of stakeholders
Website feedback channel
Telephone hotline
Meetings
Engage AACO becomes part of the community so it can contribute in a meaningful way
Participation in industry and professional groups
Sponsorships and support programs
Stakeholder engagement
Union engagement
Involve Involves stakeholders in the project itself
Establish Community Reference Group
Water testing program
Training
Evolve AACO makes decisions on development and management based on intelligence gathered from community consultation
Feedback database
Reporting to management
Complaints hotline
Stage 3 - Operation
During the Operation Stage, the following strategy will be employed:
Strategy Purpose Tools
Inform Provides information to stakeholders about:
The facility
The industry
Applying for jobs
Working with AACO
Supplying goods or services to AACO
Fact sheets
Public Displays
Website
Media Releases
Advertising
Mail outs
Facility tours
School visits
Consult AACO understands:
Information needs
Particular concerns
Needs of stakeholders
Website feedback channel
Telephone hotline
Meetings
Engage AACO becomes part of the community so it can contribute in a meaningful way
Participation in industry and professional groups
Sponsorships and support programs
School education program
Stakeholder engagement
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 86 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Union engagement
Collaborate Relevant stakeholders become part of the decision-making process in appropriate circumstances. AACO is able to change management practices to address issues as they emerge.
Ongoing Community Reference Group
Procedures and channels for complaints and issues handling
Water testing program
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 87 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
8 Involvement in the Preparation of the PER
8.1 Persons Involved in Preparation of this PER
Name Position Tasks
Stewart Cruden
AACO project Manager Information, direction, experience
Neville Rolls AACO Manager Information, direction, experience
Roz Walden Environmental Scientist PER Report Preparation and Compilation
Tracy Jones Community Liaison and consultation specialist
Community Liaison and consultation and communications
Jyoti Choudhary
Environmental Scientist Digital Data Requests, GIS Mapping, Weed Management Plan
Stephen Harvey
Consultant Engineer Facility Design
June D’Rozario
Planning Consultant Project Background and provision of Exceptional Development Permit
Dave Zinga Environmental and Agricultural Consultant
Environmental Management Plan
Ray Hall Manager and Principal Project Development, Document Review
Alice Parawa Administration Manager Project Administration
Justine Shailes
Senior Environmental Scientist Project Management, PER Report, Document Review
Keith Munson
Environmental Scientist GIS Mapping
Emma Murray
Environmental Scientist Water Quality Monitoring Plan
EcOz Environmental Services (EcOz) is a locally owned environmental consulting business providing
services to industry, communities and government in northern, western and central Australia. The company
was established in the Northern Territory in 1990. EcOz provides a broad range of environmental services to
a diverse range of local, national and international clients. EcOz have bioregional expertise in the wet/dry
tropics and the arid zones of Australia, and can provide a wide range of additional services and expertise
from national resources. EcOz work closely with their clients to provide rigorous and practical solutions to
environmental problems whilst maintaining integrity in environmental practice.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 88 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
9 Glossary
9.1 Glossary
AAPA Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority
E&H Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Environment and Heritage Division
EA Act Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act 1982
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Commonwealth)
ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
ILC Indigenous Land Corporation
ML Mega litres
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
NLC Northern Land Council
NOHSC National Occupational Health and Safety Commission
NOI Notice of Intent
NRETAS Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport
NT Northern Territory
PER Public Environmental Report
SEWPaC Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
WCD Water Control District
WDL Waste Discharge Licence
WMP Water Management Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 89 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
10 References
ANZECC 2000a, Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No 4, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra. See Table 3.4.1 for the guideline values for Toxicants. Available at: http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_marine_water_quality
ANZECC 2000b, Australian guidelines for water quality monitoring and reporting. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No 7, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra. Available at: http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_guidelines_for_water_quality_monitoring_and_reporting
ANZECC 1992, Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. Australian and New
Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC).
Australian Standard on Water Quality Sampling - Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples (AS/NZS 5667.1:1998)
Australian Standard on Water Quality Sampling – Part 6: Guidance on sampling of rivers and streams
(AS/NZS 5667.6:1998)
Australian Standard on Water Quality Sampling – Part 10: Guidance on sampling of waste waters (AN/NZS
5667.10:1998)
Australian Standard on Water Quality Sampling – Part 11: Guidance on sampling of groundwater (AN/NZS
5667.11:1998)
Australian Standard on Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds (AS 4482.1-2005)
DoH 2011a, Guidelines for Management of Recycled Water Systems, Environmental Health Branch, NT Department of Health (DoH), September 2011, Darwin. Available at: http://www.health.nt.gov.au/Environmental_Health/Wastewater_Management/index.aspx
DoH 2001b, Guidance Notes for Recreational Water Quality in the Northern Territory, Environmental Health Branch, NT Department of Health (DoH), July 2011, Darwin. Available at: http://health.nt.gov.au/Environmental_Health/Water_Quality/index.aspx#RecreationalWater
MLA 2009, Environmental best practice guidelines for the red meat processing industry; Wastewater Module, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), Sydney. Available at: http://www.redmeatinnovation.com.au/project-reports/report-categories/environment/environmental-best-practice-guidelines-for-the-red-meat-processing-industryNHMRC 2011, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh52
NHMRC 2008, Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh38
NRETAS 2009, Towards the Development of a Water Quality Protection Plan for the Darwin Harbour Region, Aquatic Health Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport (NRETAS), NT Government, Darwin. Available at: http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/quality/publication
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 90 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
NRETAS 2010, Water Quality Objectives for the Darwin Harbour Region – Background Document, Aquatic Health Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport (NRETAS), NT Government, Darwin. See Table 8 for the guideline values. Available at: http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/quality
NRMMC 2006, Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Health Risks (Phase 1) 2006, the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), Environment Protection and Heritage Council, and the Australian Health Ministers Conference, Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: http://www.ephc.gov.au/taxonomy/term/39
Skinner, L., Townsend, S. and Fortune, J. 2009, The impact of urban land use on total pollutant loads entering Darwin Harbour, Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Report 06/2008D, Darwin. Available at: http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/quality/publication
Tien, A. 2006, Influence of deep aquifer springs on dry season stream water quality in Darwin rural area.
Report No: 6/2006D. Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, Darwin.
Williams, D. and Wolanski, E. 2003, Darwin Harbour Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport, In ‘Proceedings: Darwin Harbour Region: Current knowledge and future needs'. (Ed. Working Group for the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee) pp. 3-4, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, NT Government, Darwin. Available at: http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-resource-management/water/dhac/publications
Williams, D. Wolanski, E. and Spagnol, S. 2006, Hydrodynamics of Darwin Harbour, In ‘The Environment in Asia Pacific Harbours’. Springer Netherlands.
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 91 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix A – PER Guidelines
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 92 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix B – Exceptional Development Proposal
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 93 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix C – Environmental Management Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 94 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix D – Water Monitoring Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 95 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix E – Weed Management Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 96 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix F – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 97 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix G – Community Consultation Reports (Creative Territory Pty Ltd)
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 98 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo
Appendix H – Traffic Impact Assessment
Client: Australian Agricultural Company Page 99 of 99
Doc No. DW110057-C0302-EIA-R-0001
Doc Title: PER Master AACo