(see) - mid-coast council

. ,

313-317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah Myall River Pastoral Company Feb 2019 r----..--

.

MIO~COAST COUNCIL .

- 2 APR 2019

RECORDS

Statement of Environmenta

Effects (SEE)

Proposal for Mid Coast Council approval for:

(i) Construction of a shed for a robotic dairy

(ii) .

Installation of an on-site dairy effluent system

(iii) Installation of an on-site sewage system

Lot 2, DP 558790

Prepared for:

Myall River Pastoral Company

Prepared by

Nick Bullock and Associates I February 2019

313-317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah Myall River Pastoral Company

CONTENTS

1. Overview

2. Background

3. Existing and proposed infrastructure

4. Justification

5. Siting and integration

6. Other considerations.

Figures

1. Farm layout

2. Existing dairy

3. Proposed dairy shed ........................ (attached to report)

3.1 AOl - Sketch layout

3.2 A02 - Groundfloor Plan

3.3 A03 - Elevations 1

3.4 A04 - Elevations 2

3.5 OZ1811 4VMS’PL - Equipment floor plan

4. Proposed dairy effluent system ....... (attached to report)

4.1 Effluent infrastructure

4.2 Effluent reuse areas

4.3 Solids trap

4.4 Cross section of ponds

Feb 2019

Page 1

2

’4

9

11

24

3

5

5. Flood plans

5.1 Existing dairy 12

5.2 Proposed robotic dairy 13

6. Interpretation of soil sample for pond 14

7. Buffers: dairy, solids trap, manure storage,

effluent pond 18

8. Buffers: solid and liquid reuse area 23


Tables

1. Estimated costs

2. Interpretation of soils sample

3. Soils and landform suitability

4. Buffers: dairy shed

5. Buffers: Solids trap and manure storage areas

6. Buffers: effluent ponds

7. Buffers: Reuse areas

8. Vehicle movements

9. Water requirements

ANNEX 1 .

Soil test results and interpretation

1. Se018/043/1 & 2

2. -Se017/177Rl

3. Soil test interpretation: Se018/043/1&2

4. Soil test interpretation: Se017/177Rl

Feb 2019

8

10

15

19

20

21

22

24

27

313-317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah Myall River Pastoral Company Feb 2019

1. Overview

This proposal covers a new dairy and an on-site effluent disposal system located at 313-

317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah, NSW.

The proposal is submitted on behalf of Myall River Pastoral Company operated by John

and Kay Smith.

There are a number of components to this proposal:

. the construction of a shed to operate a robotic dairy for up to 280 milkers

. the installation and management of an on-site dairy effluent management

system for the dairy and holding yards

. the installation of an on-site sewerage management system for a toilet and

shower in the proposed dairy shed

The Smiths are proposing to construct and operate a robotic dairy for up to 280 cows on

the site. The dairy will be off-grid with sufficient solar PV panels, batteries and diesel

back-up. .

This report covers the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.

Two separate reports detail the proposed on-site effluent management systems:

. The dairy Effluent Management System Report details how the proposed dairy

and effluent infrastructure have capacity for up to 280 milking cows;

o this report is submitted with the DA.

. The on-site sewerage management system details the system for the toilet and

shower at the proposed robotic dairy.

o This report will be submitted asap after the DA application

Page I 1


2. Background

Myall Pastoral Company owns two lots in the Bulahdelah area, both classified as RU2

Rural Landscape.

. Lot 2 DP 558790, total area 458.89 Ha

. Lot 2 DP 615391, total area 371.11 Ha.

This proposal refers to Lot 2 DP 558790. This lot is naturally divided into 2 areas by a

50m high ridge covered with natural vegetation:

. The area to the" west of the ridge has an existing operational dairy along

Cabbage Tree Road. There is one dwelling on this portion of the Lot

. The area to the east of the ridge has 3 rural dwellings and is the site for the

proposed robotic dairy.

All dwellings on Lot 2 DP 558790 have on-site sewerage management systems approved

by Great Lakes Council.

The proposed robotic dairy will be located at 313-317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah, NSW

2423.

The property is well suited to a dairy enterprise with high rainfall, productive soils and

flat to undulating topography.

Figure 1 shows the land use for both Lots.

. The existing dairy is operated with a milk platform of 120Ha and runs 200 cows

through a 10 a-side swing-over dairy shed with its own existing dairy effluent

system.

o The existing dairy effluent system comprises a trafficable solids trap and

2 effluent ponds. Solids from the solids trap and liquid from the 2nd

effluent pond are spread over pastures.

. The proposed robotic dairy milking platform covers a total of 116 ha.

. There is approx. 113 Ha of native vegetation on Lot 2 DP 558790. This will not be

impacted by the proposed development.

. On Lot 2 DP 615 391 there are approx. 88 Ha available for grazing and approx.

283 Ha native vegetation.

The proposed robotic dairy shed is approx. 1.5km from Bulahdelah as the crow flies, and

3.5km upstream of the Myall River/ Crawford river junction.

Page I 2


Figure 1: Farm Layout

Page I 3


3. Existing and proposed infrastructure

3.1 Existing dairy

The existing dairy has been operational since 1960’s and improvements have been

made over the years:

. The existing milking shed was built in 1985

. The dairy effluent system was upgraded to the current system in about 1995 to a

design prepared by the Department of Primary Industries.

The dairy operates 7 days a week. Dairy operations include milking, paddock work,

delivery of feed and supplies, movement of cattle.

The existing dairy is operated over an area of 120Ha and runs 200 cows through a 10 a-

side swing-over dairy shed with its own dairy effluent system.

. The effluent system comprises a trafficable solids trap and 2 effluent ponds.

Solids from the solids trap and liquid from the 2nd effluent pond are spread over

pastures.

The dairy currently employs the equivalent of 4 full time staff equivalents.

The existing dairy shed operates up to 200 cows all year. . Cows are milked twice per day. Normal milking times are:

05:00am - 9:00am in the morning

02:30pm - 5:30pm in the afternoon

. Actual milking times may vary depending on farm workload or in case of

breakdowns or emergencies on the farm.

. Prior to milking, cows are moved via gravellaneways to the concrete holding

area at the dairy

. The purpose of the concrete holding yard is to capture manure in the effluent

system.

. The milking shed, plant and concrete holding yard are washed clean after each

milking. This takes up to half an hour after milking.

. All effluent is treated in the effluent system that was designed by DPI.

Page I 4


Page I 5


3.2 Proposed robotic dairy

3.2.1’ Proposed shed for robotic dairy

The proposal is to construct a new robotic dairy shed on the eastern part of Lot 2 DP

558790.

The dairy will be constructed in 2 stages:

o Stage 1: 3 robots will be installed, milking up to 210 cows.

o Stage 2: an additional robot will be installed to give a total of 4 robots, milking up

to 280 cows.

.

The plans for the proposed shed to be constructed for the robotic dairy are detailed in

Figure 3 attached to the DA, and includes plans and elevations.

3.1. Sketch view

3.2. Ground floor plan

3.3. Elevations 1

3.4. Elevations 2

3.5. Layout of equipment in shed

The shed will be a single story steel frame building with metal clad sandwich wall panels.

The shed will have a sloping skillion roof and be 6.977m high at its highest point. Solar

PV panels will be located on the roof.

In a robotic dairy, milking cows voluntarily move between pastures and the milking shed

to be milked. The robotic milking shed will be operational 24/7.

Whilst the 2 dairies will be operated separately, there will be common activities carried

out by existing staff, and some economy of scale. It is anticipated one extra staff will be

employed.

Page I 6


3.2.2 Proposed robotic dairy effluent system

The proposed effluent system includes a solids trap, an effluent pond and liquid and

solid effluent reuse areas.

The plans for the proposed dairy effluent are detailed in Figure 4, attached to the DA.

4.1 Effluent solids trap and ponds

4.2 Effluent reuse areas

4.3 Solids trap

4.4 Cross section of ponds

The dairy effluent system design is detailed in a separate report attached with the

Statement of Environmental Effects: Proposed Dairy Effluent Management System

The proposed effluent system comprises:

1. Concrete holding yards to capture all manure dropped whilst cows are at the

dairy

2. An open collection drain along the end of the concrete yard

3. 100mm upvc pipelines to drain sumps in the dairy shed to the effluent system

4. A concrete solids trap with side screen

5. Two 150mm diameter pipelines: one to drain the sump at the solids trap into the

effluent pond, another to drain effluent from the pt pond to the 2nd pond

6. Two effluent storage ponds with a total capacity of 2.3 ML, adequate for a 1 in

10 year wet year

7. Liquid and solids effluent reuse areas adequate for the proposed herd size

8. An effluent pump and effluent stirrer in the 1st pond delivering effluent to an

effluent traveler via a combination of 90mm and 63mm poly pipelines

9. A diesel firefighter pump (or equivalent) on the 2nd pond delivering effl ent to

the same effluent irrigation system.

The proposed robotic dairy shed will milk up to 210 -280 cows all year (Stage 1, Stage 2).

. Cows are milked at any time during the day or night

. Cows voluntarily walk via gravellaneways to the concrete holding area at the

dairy

. The purpose of the concrete holding yard is to capture manure within an effluent

system.

. The milking shed, plant and concrete holding yard are normally washed twice

per day. During prolonged wet periods the yards will be washed once per day to

limit the volume of water to be stored

. All effluent from the concrete yards and machine andvat wash will be treated in

the proposed dairy effluent system.

Page I 7


. All runoff from manure storage area~ will be captured in the effluent system via

open drains.

Page I 8


3.3 Estimated costs of proposed shed and effluent

systems

The estimated cost for the proposed shed, yards and effluent system is detailed in Table

1.

Table 1 Estimated cost of proposed shed and dairy effluent system

Item Estimated cost

Shed for dairy $ 95,000

Concrete for shed and yards $ 70,000

Earthworks $ 20,000

Effluent system: solids trap, pumps, sprays $ 55,000

TOTAL $ 240,000

Page I 9


4. Justification for proposal

The property (soils and infrastructure) on Lot 2 DP 558790 has the capacity to run more

cows than are currently milked, and increased herd sizes are essential to maintain dairy

viability in the future.

. Cost/ price pressures: costs continually increase which can not be passed on by

demanding increased milk prices. The only way for the Smiths to maintain

profitability is to spread costs over more units of production. ie this is a similar

justification for amalgamated councils needing to get bigger to spread cost

structures

. Issue of succession: increased scale is needed to ensure family succession and

continued operation of the dairy enterprise for the next generation.

However, the grazing areas of Lot 2 DP 558790 are divided by the natural barrier of a

50m high ridge. There is no way for cows to walk from one si e to the other. The only

way to increase productivity is to build an additional milking shed on the eastern side of

the Lot.

The decision to build a robotic dairy was made to ensure the whole enterprise continues

to be manageable with the existing labour resources, by improving the skill base of

existing labour and the addition of 1 staff member.

The existing dairy on the western side of the ridge on Lot 2 DP 558790 will continue to

operate with a through-put of up to 200 milking cows.

The proposed robotic dairy on the eastern side of the ridge on Lot 2 DP 558790 will be

run separately to the existing dairy operation, with a through-put of up to 280 cows.

!ypical stocking rates in~intensive dairy systems range from 2.5 up to 5 cows per hectare depending on capacity for pasture and fodder production and management

skill.

On the western side of the Lot, the existing milking platform covers a total of 120 Ha for

200 milkers, or a stocking rate of 1.66 milkers/ Ha.

On the eastern side of the Lot, the proposed milking platform covers a total of 116 Ha

for up to 280 milkers, or a stocking rate of 2.41 milkers/ Ha.

Given the value of land in the region and reductions in dairy terms of trade over time,

high productivity per hectare and per cow will be critical for the long term viability of a

modern, sustainable dairy enterprise.

Page 110


The Smiths have demonstrated continued excellence in their farm management and

have a sustainable dairy business that is currently meeting the challenges of a less than

favourable milk market.

The Smiths are excellent pasture and crop farmers and manage seasonal risk effectively

through a variety of strategies including on and off farm cropping and forward buying of

supplementary feeds.

The Smiths also seek professional advice where appropriate to assist with herd

management and nutrition and are capable of running a dairy production system that

runs 2.5 cows to the hectare or equivalent.

COW NUMBERS

It is estimated that total cattle numbers on Lot 2 DP 558790 will NOT significantly

change from the present levels when the proposed robotic dairy is operational. Table 2

sUl1)marises the estimated current and proposed cattle numbers.

Table 2. Estimated cattle numbers before and after robotic dairy

Class Current Proposed

Current dairy milkers 200 200

Robotic dairy milkers 280

Dry cows 40 60

Replacement heifers 150 60

Steers 200

TOTAL 600 600

Replacement heifer numbers at present are higher than" required to build up dairy cow

numbers for the proposed robotic dairy. In future this number will also be reduced by

joining heifers at a younger age.

Page 111


5. Siting and integration

the potential constraints and limitations for the proposed robotic dairy include:

1. Zoning

2. Flooding

3. Soils and landforms

4. Buffer distances

5.1 Zoning

Lot 2 DP 558790 and Lot 2 DP 615391 are zoned RU2, Rural Landscape.

. RU2 zoned land does not require consent for extensive agriculture, which

includes production of crops or fodder, grazing livestock, pasture based dairy

operation.

o However, farm buildings, sewerage systems, water supply systems do

require consent.

. SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008) allows construction of

farm buildings on RU2 land for agricultural activity, not for habitable purposes,

not in heritage or environmentally sensitive area.

o <7m high, <200m2, 20m from primary road, >50m from dwelling on

.

neighbours, >50m from waterbody.

o The proposed robotic dairy shed meets all these limitations except the

footprint is >200m2.

Mid Coast Council LEP shows some restrictions on both lots:

. 8.5m maximum height of building; the proposed shed has a maximum

height of6.977m, less than the maximum height in the LEP -

. Bush fire prone land (part only); the proposed shed is more than 10m from a

habitable building so a Bush Fire Report is not required.

o To the west, native vegetation is 130m away uphill an average slope

of 5%

o To the east, native vegetation is 1400m away, with Markwell Road

and the Myall River between

. LEP2014 - 2100 Flo d Planning Area (see below)

Page I 12


5.2 Flooding

Lot 2 DP 558790 is prone to flooding. Flood Certificate 85/2017 obtained from Mid

Coast Council indicates the extent of the 1% AEP flooding from the Myall River and

other minor watercourses including Black Camp Creek. The map also gives the 1% AEP

flood levels at selected locations on the property.

The flood extent has been superimposed on the layout of the existing dairy (Figure 5a)

and the proposed layout of the robotic dairy and effluent system (Figure 5b).

The proposed robotic dairy, solids trap and effluent pond are above the 1% AER flood

level. Part of the liquid reuse areas are within the flood area, but the effluent pond

provides over 200 days of storage so that irrigation is not required when soils are

saturated.

I’ iglll"l’ :’.1: "Ioot! Il’\ l’l, :Inti l’\i\1ing dair~ ,h(’d and t’lul’nl ’~,Il’n.

Page I 13


figurc 5.2: flood ICHls and proposed robotic dairy and ct11ucnt system

Page I 14


5.2 Soils and landform

A number of soil tests were taken, the locations are shown in Figure 6.

. At the location of the proposed effluent ponds

. In the proposed liquid effluent reuse areas.

Full results are included in the Annex 1 including:

. Soil sample results

. Copy of interpretation from Soil Conservation Service

Figure 6: Soil samples taken

5.2.1 Soils at effluent pond location

Soil samples were taken at 2 possible locations for the effluent pond.

The Soil Conservation Service/ DPI interpreted the soil test results.

. SC018/043/1 & 2 (pond site) whilst not ideal can be used for effluent pond

construction with careful compaction and management of soil moisture content

during compaction.

Both of the samples tested (O-400mm and 400-800mm) were clay

materials with high plasticity. High plasticity clays are generally suitable

for the construction of farm dams. However, the Emerson aggregate test

indicates that both of the samples tested (O-400mm and 400-800mm) had

Page I 15


low dispersion. As such samples with low dispersion may’be permeable

when used for the construction of a farm dam. The linear shrinkage also

indicates that both samples had high reactivity when used for the

construction of a small farm dam. Thus a high level of compaction, such

as can be achieved with a pad foot roller (or equivalent) at near

optimum soil moisture content is likely to be required to achieve a low

saturated hydraulic conductivity but also minimise the risk of cracking

through the embankment.

Construction notes are included in the Effluent Management System Report to

incorporate this interpretation including:

o Minimum batters of bank of 1:3 to be adopted

o Test materials dissimilar to the sample (0-800mm) if encountered during

construction

o Increase freeboard during construction to allow for settlement

o Install surface protection such as geofabric/rock where pipeline from solids

trap enters the pond

o Establish vegetation/ grass on batters to protect from soil erosion

. SC017/177Rl (alternate pond site) required clay or plastic linerto achieve an

adequately low saturated hydraulic conductivity.

The Effluent Pond sample (Lab No 1) was classified according to the

unified soil classification system (USeS) as inorganic silt-fine sand with

low plasticity (ML). This sample was moderately dispersive (0%) and had

low linear shrinkage (LS). Due to the low proportion of clay, as well as the

very high proportion ’of silt plus fine sand, this sample was poorly suited

for the construction of an effluent storage pond. This sample would have

a low wet strength, be highly erodible, subject to settlement and

slumping, and may be permeable. Thus, to minimise risk of failure:

ensure good compaction at near optimum soil moisture content;

decrease batter grades to less than 1:3 (V:H); reduce the head of water

on the wall; increase freeboard to allow for settlement; line the dam

with clay material, plastic liner or similar; establish vegetation/grass on

batter to protect from soil erosion; and install surface protection such as

geofabric/rock where concentrated flow may enter the dam.

5.2.2 Soils and landform in reuse areas

Soils and landform in the reuse areas have been compared tothe DEC (2004) Guidelines.

Table 3 below summa rises the results. The full results are included in Annex 1.

Page I 16


Table 3’ Soil sample in the reuse areas.

0-30cm samples SAMPLE

SOIL Limitations from DEC (2003) Guidelines 0-20 em

Silty clay

Nil Moderate Severe loam

Exchangeable Na % 0-5 5-10 >10 2.3

EC dS/m <2 2-4 >4 0.02

Effective CEC (cmol/kg) >15 3-15 <3 5.4

Emerson agrregrate test 4,5,6,7,8 2,3 1 8

Phosphorous sorbtion (kg/Ha) high moderate low 380 (high)

30-60cm samples SAMPLE

from DEC (2003) Guidelines 20-60 em

Nil Moderate Severe Silty Clay

Exchangeable Na % <10 >10 3.1

EC dS/m <4 4-8 >8 0.01

Emerson agrregrate test 4,5,6,7,8 2,3 1 3(1)Phosphorous sorbtion (kg/Ha) high moderate low 340

Sat hydraulic conductivity (mm/hour) 20-80 5-80 <5 28

Available water capacity (mm/m) >100 <100 270

Soil pH Cacl2 6-7.5 3.5-6.0 <3.5 4.5

Depth to seasonal water table (m) >3 0.5-3 <0.5 >3

Depth to bedrock (m) >1 0.5-1 <0.5 >1

LANDFORM Limitations

Slope for sprinkler irrigation <6 6-12 >12 <6

none oroccasional frequent

Flooding rare- "

none

Landform crests, concave drainage crests

convex slopes lines &

slopes & and incised

plains footslopes channels

Surface rock Nil 0-5 >5 Nil

Page 117


The shaded cells in the table indicate moderate limitations to the irrigation of effluent.

However, generally the reuse areas are very suitable for application of liquid effluent.

. The soils have slightly low CEC; application of effluent will increase organic

matter and improve the CEC.

. .

The soils have an Emerson aggregate test of 3 (1) which indicates potential for

dispersion. However, maintaining high levels of vegetation cover eliminates the

risk of erosion.

. The top soils (0-30cm depth) have moderate - high capacity to sorb

phosphorous. Even so, proposed application rates over the liquid effluent reuse

area are at maintenance levels for high producing dairy pastures; the is no

reliance on sorbtion of phosphorous

. The soil pH is a moderate limitation in the guidelines; however, the recorded pH

levels are typical of dairy pastures on the mid north coast, with no restriction on

pasture production. Lime will be applied to increase pH on the advice of a

qualified agronomist.

5.3 Buffers

The minimum buffer distances detailed in the Environmental Management Guidelines

for the Dairy Industry NSW (July 2008) are compared to buffer distances achieved in

Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 below and illustrated in Figures 7 and 8.

The buffers that are not met are listed and discussed in the sections below.

The bores marked on the plans are taken directly from the NSW Office of Water

database. The closest of these bores has been superimposed on the proposed robotic

dairy and effluent plans, but these are more than 500m from the proposed

development and do not show on the plans included in the SEE report

Existing neighbours’ dwellings have also superimposed on the farm plan.

From NSW Office of Water database:

Locations of nearest bores

.

.

i

\, .

~GmCH~,

Bu/ahde/ah

\,8ulahdelah

~

I-

i’"’." ’,,<, m

Page 118


Figure 7.1 : Buffers for dair). solids trap, eflluent ponds

Page I 19


5.3.1 DAIRY SHED

The dairy shed has significantly more than the minimum buffer distances required in the

Dairy Industry Guidelines

TABLE 4. BUFFERS TO DAIRY SHED

Minimum in Actual distance

guidelines achieved

Boundary fence SOm SOOm

Existing neighbours’ residence 200m SOOm

Water courses to dairy

Major river or creek 100m 480m

Minor or intermittent creek SOm 170m

Dry runoff/ erosion gully on property 10m

Road

Low usage (1-50 vehicles/day) SOm 63m

Well used road for pasture based dairy 100m SSOm

Bore or well 100m >SOOm

Reservoir 800m Not applicable

I. i:,:ur(’ 7.2 : Ih-Iail or

hulTer’ al !lain and

(’fIl",’nl pond,

Page I 20


5.3.2 Solids trap, manure storage areas

The proposed solids trap areas meet all minimum buffers in the Dairy Industry

Guidelines, except the following buffers:

. the boundary with the Crown land running through the Lot

. the gravel road on the strip of Crown Land

Manure storage areas will be located so that all minimum buffers are met.

TABLE S BUFFERS TO PROPOSED SOLIDS TRAP AND STORAGE AREAS


guidelines achieved

Boundary fence sOm 40m

Existing neighbours’ residence 200m s20m

Water courses to sedime-ntation trenches


Minor or intermittent creek, wetland. sOm 90m

Dry runoff/ erosion gully on property 10m 90m

Road

Low usage (1-50 vehicles/day) SOm 40m

Well used road for pasture based dairy 100m ssOm

Bore, well or spring supplying potable water 100m >sOOm


The gravel track, whilst it is located on Crown Land, is rarely used - the main users are

the Smiths themselves and also Mid Coast Water staff to inspect the weir on the Myall/

Crawford rivers.

- - The main potential risk from the solids trap andmanure storage areas are odours, flies

and insects.

. Solids trap: during normal operation this risk is minimal as a thick crust of fibrous

material forms on top of the solids in the trap, which blocks all odours and

minimises likelihood of flies and insects as wet or liquid surfaces are covered

When the solids trap is cleaned out there is a higher risk for odours, flies and

insects as the sludge and liquid can have strong odours. However,these risks will

be minimised by

o either directly spreading sludge onto paddocks

Page I 21


o or the sludge from the solids trap will be covered with dry manure

scraped from other areas to reduce emission of odours.

. Manure storage areas: during normal operation this risk is minimal as the

manure stockpiles will be regularly spread onto paddocks.

5.3.2 Effluent pond

The proposed effluent ponds meet all minimum buffers in the Dairy Industry Guidelines,

except the following buffers:

. The pond is less than Sam from the dairy shed.

. the boundary with the Crown land running through the Lot

. the. gravel road on the strip of Crown Limd

. the waterway to the south.

TABLE 6. BUFFERS TO PROPOSED POND


guidelines achieved

Dairy shed to effluent pond Sam 4Sm

Boundary fence Sam Sm

Existing neighbours’ residence 200m 520m

Water courses to sedimentation trenches


Minor or intermittent creek, wetland Sam 20m

Dry runoff/ erosion gully on property 10m 100m

Road

Low usage (1-50 vehicles/day) Sam Sm

Well used road for pasture based dairy 100m SSOm

Bore, well or spring supplying potable water 100m >SOOm


The main potential risk from the effluent ponds are odours, flies and insects. However,

during normal operation this risk is minimal as the effluent pond will be lightly loaded.

The dairy is 4Sm from the effluent pond. In the past the Food Authority has required a

minimum buffer of 4Sm between dairy and effluent ponds; currently, the Food

Authority does not prescribe a minimum buffer but requires the effluent disposal

system that has no likelihood of contaminating food (milk). However, the 45m can be

used as a guide.

Page I 22


The ponds will be constructed with compaction at optimum moisture content to ensure

banks are impermeable and reduced risk to the waterway. The waterway is an

intermittent creek and only flows when the large 16 ML dam overflows. This dam has a

limited catchment and in future will be the main source of water for the dairy and

milking cows - so that it is highly unlikely there will be flow in this waterway.

As stated above, the gravel track, whilst it is located on Crown Land, is rarely used - the

main users are the Smiths themselves and also Mid Coast Water staff to inspect the weir

on the Myall/ Crawford rivers.

5.3 Liquid and solids effluent reuse areas

The liquid and solid effluent reuse areas proposed meet minimum buffers set out in the

Industry Guidelines

TABLE 7. BUFFERS TO LIQUID and SOLID EFFLUENT REUSE AREAS


guidelines achieved

Dairy shed SOm 200m

Boundary fence 10m 100m

Existing neighbours’ residence 100m 100m

Water courses to reuse areas


Minor or intermittent creek SOm SOm

Dry runoff/ erosion gully on property 10m SOm

Road

Low usage (1-50 vehicles/day) 20m 20m

Well used road for pasture based dairy SOm 100m

Bore, well or spring supplying potable water 100m 4S0m


The potential risks from spreading liquid and solid manure and sludge include odours,

nuisance insects, and nutrient runoff into the waterways.

By maintaining the minimum buffers these risks are minimized.

In addition, all solids will be stored on the manure storage areas until conditions (of

solids and paddocks) are suitable for spreading, eliminating risk of runoff.

Page I 23


Figure 8: Buffers to effluellt reuse areas


6. Other considerations

6.1 Vehicle movements & Access from Markwell Road

The vehicle traffic to and from and around the farm includes the milk tanker, grain truck, hay

truck, farm stock truck, farm vehicles including utes, tractors and motorbikes carrying out

normal farm activities.

Table 8 below summarizes the current level of activity and the proposed truck movements.

Table 8 Estimated vehicle movements

Truck type Activity EXISTING for PROPOSED for

existing dairy proposed and

existing dairies

Milk tanker Pick up milk from Every 2 days Every 2 days

vat. 183 times/ year 183 times/ year

Grain truck Deliver grain 30 times/ year 40 times/ year

Hay truck Deliver hay o times/ year o times/ year

Farm stock truck Move or sell cattle 4 times year 8 times/ year

Move calves

There will be some slight increase in truck movements to supply grain and move or sell stock,

but the most frequent road user, the milk tanker, will remain the same along Markwell Road

as the truck will turn into the proposed dairy when collecting milk from the existing dairy.

The entry access road from Markwell Road and the access road to the dairy will be upgraded

to accommodate milk tankers. This work is covered by a separate Public Works Permit.

6.2 Lights, noise

The robotic dairy operates 24/7 so there are potential risks of light and noise nuisance from

the robotic dairy operation to neighbour’s. These risks are mitigated in part by buffer

distances of over 500m to the closest neighbors’ house.

. The fact that the Smiths own house is the closest dwelling some 150m from the

robotic dairy shed provides incentive to maintain low levels of light and noise.

Risks of light and noise issues will also be mitigated by attention to detail in selection and

placement, but also ensuring regular maintenance:

Page I 25


. care will be taken with light selection and placement to ensure lighting is subdued,

especially at night, and there will be no bright floodlights directed away from the

shed. At night low wattage lighting is only normally required at each robot and these

will be set on a sensor to operate only when cows enter the milking shed.

. the robots themselves are quiet in their operation. There is no data on dBA during

operation, but anecdotally, robotic milking machines can not be heard from a

distance of 30- 40 m from the dairy

. the milk vacuum pumps potentially pose the highest risk for noise at the dairy. The

pumps to be used emit noise levels of 76 dB(a) at 1m from the pump and 69 dB(a) at

1m from the exhaust when operated at 1425 rpm.

o For comparison, typical noise levels are: living room music: 76 dB, vacuum

cleaner 70 dB, background music 60 dB, conversation at home 50 dB, library

40 dB

o Also dB is logarithmic, so that 70 dB is twice as loud as 60dB, 60dB twice as

loud at 50 dB etc

o The milk vacuum pumps will be housed within an enclosed room of the shed.

The roller door access to this room is used every 2 days during tanker pick-up

and will normally be kept shut to minimize noise.

o The exhaust will be located on the western wall, directed away from any

neighbours houses.

o These pumps will be installed with variable speed drives to control the speed

of operation depending on load, rather than constantly operating at full revs.

o The pumps will only operate at full revs during washing and spikes during peak

milk production. Machine washing takes place twice a day and runs for

approx. 30 mins. These will be timed to occur during daylight hours.

o During milking the pumps will be operating at approx. 50-60% of typical revs,

and during idling approx. 15-20%.

o There is no data on noise reduction by reduction in revs but it is estimated

d,uring milking noise levels of 60 - 65 dB and during idling 55-60 dB(a).

. the gates in the yards will be automatically operational 24/7 to direct cows to the

correct pasture area after milking. Rubber sleeves will be installed on the metal gate

fabric so that there is no metal-on-metal noise when gates are opened and losed

. there will be minimal use of utes and bikes between 6:00pm to 6:00am, except in the

case of emergencies.

. the diesel genset used as backup for the solar PV- battery power supply will be

located on the western side of the dairy shed away from neighbours and fitted within

a sound-reduction casing, if necessary.

. Potentially noisy machinery, such as compressors, will be selected to minimize noise

issues and located to shield noise away from neighbours.

Page I 26


6.3 Privacy, and views

The proposal does not impact on the privacy and views of any neighbours.

6.4 Flora and Fauna

The proposal is located on farmed grazing areas with improved dairy pastures.

The proposal does not require clearing and will not impact on, the flora and fauna.

6.5 Social and economic impact

The proposal will improve the viability of the current dairy enterprise, the dairy effluent

system will reduce the fertilizer requirement for pastures.

In addition, increasing milking cow numbers will increase employment by 1 staff.

6.6 Water supply

6.6.1 Existing dairy operation

Water supply for the existing dairy is from a dam on the property. The location of the pump is

shown on Figure 2. This dam has been adequate for the dairy operation for the last 50 years,

but recent dry years has P,ut a strain on supply. An Approval to construct a bore has been

obtained for the existing dairy from the Office of Water and currently test bores are being

drilled.

Dairy cattle obtain most of their drinking water from the trough reticulation system, with

minimal access to creek.

6.6.2 Proposed robotic dairy

The proposed robotic dairy and milking herd will be supplied with water from the 16 ML dam

on the property. With its limited catchment, this dam is likely to have 15-35 ML inflows

depending on rainfall.

Page I 27


Water requirements at the robotic dairy are estimated to be approx. 17 ML/ year,

summarized in Table 9. The existing dam will have sufficient capacity (storage and refill) to

meet this demand.

Table 9: Estimated water demand on robotic dairy

Nr L/ day ML/ year

280 100 L/ day 10.2

60 35 L/ day 0.8

60 20 L/day 0.4

Dairy cows

Dry cows

Heifer

Dairy shed 1 16000 L/ day 5.8

Houses 3 200 L/ day 0.2

TOTAL 17.5-

6.7 Approvals and licences

The current dairy has a licence to operate a dairy from Food Authority.

A licence will be obtained from the Food Authority for the proposed robotic dairy.

6.8 Power s’upply

The existing 3 Phase power supply is adequate for the existing milking shed. No changes are

proposed.

Power for the proposed robotic milking shed will be from a stand-alone solar PV system with

batteries and diesel genset backup. The system will be made up of: . 100 kWp solar PV panels

. 100 kWh batteries

. 150 kVa back-up diesel genset.

Page I 28


ANNEX 1: Soil test results and interpretation

SC018/043/1&2

I’L., r-esour-ce \-aboratorlESAGGRCG ’t&. qOCIC AND SOil T1E5TINI)

ABN:15 1’J1 !>12!J".lO

Sydney: 1211 Boden Road !::)even Ht!!s NSW 21471 PO Box 45 Pondle HtI NSW 2145

Ph: tfl?19G74 7711 I Fax: (021 91)74 77551 Email: lIlfo@’resourcel comau

Test ReportCustomer: SESL Australia Ply LId

Project: 47352A

Location: 16 Chilvers Rd, Thomleigh NSW 2120

Job number: 18-0052

Repon number: 1

Page: 1 of 1

Soil Index Properties

Sampling method: Samples tested as received Test method(s): AS 1289.1.1,2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1

.3.4.1

Results

Laboratory sample no. 14768 14769

SC018/043/1 SC018/04312

Customer sample no. 0-400mm- 400-800mm -

47352A: 1 47352A: 2

Date sampled 16104/2018 16/04/2018

.,

CLAY, trace of silt CLAY. trace of silt

Material description and sand, brown and sand. brown

mottled orange mottled orange

Liquid lim~ (%) 85 98

i

’Plastic limit (%) 26 29

-

Plasticity index (%) 59 69

--

Linear shrinkage (%) 18.0 19.5

Cracking 1 Curling 1 Crumbling -

~ =- -,

Sample history Nrdried Air dried

Preparation Dry sieved Dry sieved

Approved Signatory: ~.-e -;;::> c. Greely

_

Date: 30/04/2018

^ NATA

V ,J

~’1(;1lI t;llro fC’fI

~;:’m~~~~ Accredited for compUance with ISO’lEC 17025. NATA Accredrte<l LabOralOf)’ Nu~: 17062

R5.v9f t of1

Page I 29

313-317 Markwell Road, Bulahdelah My!,!1I River Pastoral Company Feb 2019

SC018/ 043/1&2 (continued)

Page 1

"S~~bMultiple Analysis Profile

Sample Drop Off: ’16 Chilvers Road Tel: 1300 30 40 80

Thomlei9h NSW 2120 Fax: 1300 64 46 89

Mailing Address: PO Box 357 Em: [email protected] au Pennant Hills NSW 1715 Web: \yww.sesl com au

Tests.re under II ~tysvs=em te!’loeclO:S~ wrth 1$09001- 2DO!l R~ I1I1

eonc\lniom.llnuml’ Ih.lil’l ~.repretelltltl~_ ’tlIe :.haIIl’IO’l toe re ede.cep!1r’I MI

Batch W: 47352 SampleW: 1 Date Instructions Received: 28/3/18 Report Status: 0 Draft (!) Final

Client Name: Soli Conservation Service Project Name: SC018/043

SESL Quote N’:

Sample Name: SCOI8/043/1 0-400mm. Descrtptloh: Soli

Test Type: SCS_EWl

Client Contact:

Client Order N’:

Address:

Lynn Dunn

800203186

PO Box 3935

parramatta NSW 2124

USCS

Unit Result

% 0 ICLASS 5 I

% 23.2 IpH units 5.63 IpH units 4.57 IdS/m 0.07

Sieve % Retained by mass

>2.0 (>1..18) 0.35

0.2’ 2.0 (0.15 .1.18) 1.09

0.02.0.2 (0.02.0.15) 24’.13

0.002.0.02 9.78

<0.002 64.62

CH

Analysis

I Dispersibility in H20

I Emerson aggregate Class

I Moisture Content

I pH 1:5 in H20

I pH (1 :5) CaCI2

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Particle Size Analysis

(Complete)

Gravel

Coarse Sand

Fine Sand

Silt

Clay

Atterberg Limits

Liquid limit

Plastic limit

Plasticity index

Linear shrinkage

% 85

26

59

18

%

%

%

Analysed by SESL Australia Ply Ltd. NATA # 15633 Analysed by Resource Laboratories, NATA # 17062. Report # 18.0052

Results only requested.

NB: PSA complete method

Note: sieve sizes differ from requested. Correct sieve sizes to be used when 0.2 and 2.0 mm sieves arrive.

~J,\Jo-"’\.l)k’./1 Consultant: ’

~ ,

() Michelle Murphy

Authorised Signatory:

Simon Leake

~.~(~:. ’ Date Report Generated 3/05/2018

Page I 30


SC017/ 177R1

^ NATA

V,l.CCJlEOIfW rOR

TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

~

Approved for Release by: ~. ,~ . Craig Hunt

Technical Officer

Accredited for compliance with ISOIIEe 17025 - Testing

Accreditation No. 14173

DPI Environmental Laboratory Page 1 of 2

Report No. WN180356

Laboratory No. Units Limit of 1 2

Client’s 10 Reporting SC017/172 SC017/172

/2 /3

Exchangeable Cations

Aluminium cmol(+)lkg 0.1 0.41 0.54

Caldum cmol(+)lkg 0.03 3.1 2.2

Potassium cmol(+)/kg 0.01 0.68 0.36

Magnesium cmol(+)lkg 0.007 1.1 0.86

Sodium cmol(+)lkg 0.03 0.12 0.13

CEC (ellectIVe) cmol(+)lkg 0.20 5.4 4.1

Calcium/Magnesium 2.9 2.6

Percent Aluminium Saturation % of ECEC 7.5 13

Exchangeable Calcium % of ECEC 58 54

Exchangeable Potassium % of ECEC 13 8.7

Exchangeable Magnesium % of ECEC 20 21

Exchangeable Sodium % of ECEC 2.3 3.1

Percentage

Page I 31


SC017j177Rl(Continued)

RepOl1 No:

Client Reference:

SCOI71177RI

Nick Bullock

NBA Consulting 64 Marbuk Avenue

POl1 Macquarie NSW 2444

SOIL CONSERV A TION SERVICE

Scone Research Centre

Page 2 of 3

LabMelhod CIA/S C2A/4 C2 /4 C8 /I C8AI3

N"

Sample leiEC

pHpH Psorp Avail I’

(dS/m) (CaCI,) (m~/kd (mdk l

I Effluenl Pond 0.01 5.4 4.1 nl III

2 Top Soil 0-20cm 0.02 5.8 4.6 380 10

3 Subsoil 20-60clll 0.01 5.6 4.5 340 lit

111=1101 tested

Method 1’713/2 Pa.1ic1e Size Allalysis ("!o) PSAl2 P9M 1’21132 P3/A2 P4/AI PMII PI3A/J

S",np1cld l’lay silt fsand (’ sonel gr:lvd D% EATLL PI. PI LS

USCS Texture(%,) ("!o)

.

("!oj (%1

1 Effluenl Pond 10 39 50 I 0 45 3(3) 22 19 3 1.0 ML III

2 Top Soil 0-20cm 111 111 III 111 III 111 S 111 111 III 111 111 Silty clay loam

.l S"bsoil 20-60cm III III III III 111 nl 3( II III 111 III 111 111 Silt)’ clay

ttl~

nl=nol tested

Page I 32


SC017/ 177R1 (continued)

Report No:

Client Reference:

UJv.-

SCOI71177RI

Nick Bullock

NBA Consulting 64 Marbuk A venue

Port Macqllarie NSW 2444

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Scone Research Centre

Feb 2019

LabMelhod PI7Clt P17CII 1’1813/3(%)

No

Sample IdSaturated hydralllk

13D (M~/mJ). Fe (1).3 har) WI’ (15 harl AWC.

conduC’ti\’,ity (mm/hrl

I EfIlllcnt POlld "I III nt III nt

2 T p Soil 0-20cm 28 1.05 35 R ’27

, SlIh,oil 20-60cm III III 32 7 25

- - ,

Field capacity f}C ’- wlltmg pOInt (W P and :1\’:ul:lhlc watcl caprlclly (A \Vel - mOisture content (%) hy weight UD’" ::;: bulk density of rccol1llxlctcd 11131CI;:11 :It which hydraulic conductivity was dctermined

111=1101 Ie sled

Il=not ;wail;lble

END OF TEST REPORT

Page 3 of 3

Page I 33


Soil interpretation SC018/043/1&2

Soil Conservation Service

18 Robert Street

PO Box 26

Morpeth NSW 2321 Tel: 0408446132

W’Nw.scs.nsw.gov.au

17 May 2018

Nick Bullock

NBA Consulting

64 Marbuck Ave

Port Macquarie NSW 2444

Dear Mr Nick Bullock

Re: Soil test report SC018/043R1

Please find below. an Interpretation of the soil test results for two soli samples (0-400mm and 400-

800mm) from John & Kay Smith for the construction of a farm effluent storage pond. The

interpretation was based on the soil test report Report Ref No.’ 181050 (Issue Date.’ 3/05/18)

proVided by SESL Australia and the soil test report Job number 18-0052 (Date. 30/04/2018)

proVided by Resource Laboratories following the guidelines provided by Crouch et at. (2000) and

Hazleton and Murphy (2007)

Interpretation

Both of the samples tested (0-400mm and 400-800mm) were clay materials with high plastiCity.

High plasticity clays are generally suitable for the construction of farm dams However. the

Emerson aggregate test indicates that both of the samples tested (0-400mm and 400-800mm) had

low dispersion. As such, samples with low dispersion may be permeable when used for the

construction of a farm dam. The linear shrinkage also indicates that both samples had high

reactivity when used for the construction of a small farm dam. Thus a high level of compaction,

such as can be achieved with a pad foot roller (or equivalent) at near optimum soli moisture content

e I Loca.l La.nd ~,~

Services

www.scs.nsw.gov.au

Soil Conservation Service is a business unit of Local Land Servicesc-=-)~~) C-=-?’ ) C-=-)~ ) T=:’- T=- T=

Page I 34


Soil interpretation SC018/043/1&2 (continued)

Soil Conservation Service

is likely to be required to achieve a low saturated hydraulic conductivity but also minimise the risk of

cracking through the embankment.

If you have any queries, please contact me on 0408446 132.

Kind regards

JffpStephen Young

Senior Environmental Officer

References

Hazelton, PA and Murphy, B.W., 2007, Interpreting soil test results: what do all the numbers

meam?, 2nd ed, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood Vie, Australia.

Crouch, R.J., Reynolds, K.C., Hicks, R.W., and Greentree, D.A., Soils; 2000, Their Properties and

Management, 2nded., Eds. Charman and Murphy, Oxford University Press, Melbourne,

Australia.

Specialists in environmental protection, rehabilitation and land management

www.scs.nsw.gov.au

2

Page I 35


Soil interpretation SC017/177Rl

~\\,1; I ’.

!i~ Soil Conservation Service

Experienced people protecting your resources

7ef’ Gund)’ Road. Scone ~4S"/J 2327 PO BO,tt 283. Zccne ~SS"I! 2331

P: 0265444202

F 0:; G545 :s:n

r.~, 0408 446 t 32

Nick Bullock

NBA Consulting

64 Marburk Avenue

Port Macquarie NSW 2444

8 November 2017

Dear Nick Bullock

Soil analysis - John Smith, Myall River, Bulahdelah

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has ana lysed three soil samples for Ref: John Smith,

Myall River, Bulahdelah (Soil test report SC017/177R1). An interpretation of the soil test

results for the construction of an effluent storage pond has been provided beiow.

Effluent Pond (Lab No 1)

The Effluent Pond sample (Lab No 1) was classified according to the unified soil

classification system (USCS) as inorganic silt-fine sand with low plasticity (ML). This sample

was moderately dispersive (0%) and had low linear shrinkage (LS). Due to the low

proportion of clay, as well as the very high proportion of silt plus fine sand, this sample was

poorly suited for the construction of an effluent storage pond. This sample would have a low

wet strength, be highly erodible, subject to settlement and slumping, and may be permeable.

Thus, to minimise risk of failure: ensure good compaction at near optimum soil moisture

content; decrease batter grades to less than 1:3 (V:H); reduce the head of water on the wall;

increase freeboard to allow for settlement; line the dam with clay material, plastic liner or

similar; establish vegetation/grass on batter to protect from soil erosion; and install surface

protection such as geofabric/rock where concentrated flow may enter the dam.

This interpretation was based on the soil samples being representative, and literature

guidelines. If you have any queries, please contact me on 0408446 132.

Yours sincerely

)/(’Ij, I(;VpSR Young

Senior Environmental Officer

Page I 36

(see) - mid-coast council

Documents