Checklist of Mandatory Documentation Required by ISO 45001 en

Central Highlands Development Corporation
Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant

Feasibility Study
January 2015
Executive summary
This report is subject to, and must be read in conjunction with, the limitations set out in Section
1.4 and the assumptions and qualifications contained throughout the Report.
This Feasibility study was undertaken to assess the viability of a meat processing facility within
the Central Highlands Queensland, with numerous aspects assessed in determining the
feasibility. The study reviewed the existing status and future projections of the cattle industry,
assessed four sites within the Central Highlands, assessed economic viability based on a cattle
supply and transport basis, examined the level of both industry and community support, looked
at market and export trade opportunities and provides an indicative cost estimate, to build and
operate a plant. This report outlines the detailed methodology involved in these assessments
and provides a legislative guide to approval requirements. A detailed SWOT analysis and risk
assessment is presented within the Report. The key findings of the feasibility study are
highlighted within this executive summary.
Cattle Industry Review

Queensland is the largest cattle producer in Australia. In terms of numbers, approximately 12.6
million and 2.2 million head of cattle were in Queensland and the Northern Territory respectively
(Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) 2012). This is 52% of the Australian total. The methods of
selling have been assessed by ABARES and indicate that in 2012-13 the proportion of cattle at
auction was 41%, over the hook (livestock delivered directly to the abattoir) was 31% and
paddock sales was at 27%. The split of selling methods is driven by a range of factors:
The larger herd sizes in northern Australia compared with southern Australia favours
direct selling methods such as over the hooks (i.e. direct to processors) or in the
paddock;
Live export producers in northern Australia typically sell out of the paddock; and
Auction sales are most favoured by producers who have smaller herds and who sell in
smaller lot sizes.
In 2012, meat processing plants certified for export included Townsville, Rockhampton, Biloela
and southeast Queensland, where the southeast Queensland plants were processing cattle
from feedlots in the Darling Downs area. Feedlots in Queensland include those owned/operated
by JBS Swift, Teys Australia, Nippon Meat Packers Australia (now known as NH food Australia),
AACo, Stanbroke and the Northern Australian Pastrol Company (ABARES 2012). Queensland
Country Life identify that more than 90 abattoirs were lost from the Australian agricultural
landscape between 1980 and 2005 (Queensland Country Life 2014b). This was partly due to
changes in labour laws leading to shift working of plants, expansion of plants to gain economies
of scale and changes in livestock / processing supply chains.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) provide industry projections for the cattle industry. A mid-
year update was released in July 2014, the update was required as outflow of cattle herds is
historically high, while inflows have been constrained. The increased outflow has occurred as a
result of widespread drought conditions resulting in increased slaughter rates and above trend
death rates. The drought has also affected carcass weight, with significantly lighter cattle being
slaughtered, however this is noted to be an anomaly with carcass weight predicted to increase
post 2015 (depending upon weather conditions).
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | i
The Central Highlands and Darling Downs regions were identified as having approximately 23%
of Queensland’s beef enterprises and carried 10% of the state’s beef herd (ABARES 2012). The
region is noted to support a range of cattle production systems including breeding for the store
trade in the western region where soils are less fertile and in other areas producers may breed
and finish cattle suitable for the domestic market. Some producers were noted to breed and
produce feeder cattle which are finished on-farm in opportunity feedlots or in the many
commercial feedlots in the region.
The Central Highlands is characterised by high-productivity grazing land with a gross value of
total agricultural produce in 2010-2011 attributable to cattle and calves being $207 million
(DAFF 2013). In 2012 the ABS identify that there were 1,085 business and 11% of the
population employed by agriculture, forestry and fishing industry in the Central Highland local
government area (ABS 2014a).
Industry and Stakeholder Consultation

During the stakeholder consultation process over 100 people were either contacted directly by
phone, during face to face meetings or responded to the community survey access via on the
(Central Highlands Development Corporation (CHDC) website.
The feasibility study received 60 responses from the community survey, over 25 producers
within the Central Highlands were individually surveyed, numerous livestock agents and
transports were contacted as well as government and industry body stakeholders within the
meat and cattle industry. Overall the majority of the stakeholders contacted or surveyed were in
favour of a meat processing plant within the Central Highlands. Key points identified were:
Increased competitiveness within the meat processing industry;

Opportunity for service kills and specialised niche marketing;
Increase job opportunities, economic benefits and diversity within the community;
Potential concerns were environmental, social and water supply impacts; and
Good level of support from producers and cattle industry as a whole.
Legislation Review
Table 1 provides a summary of Commonwealth and State environmental and planning
legislation and that may be applicability to the project dependant on the eventual site utilised.
Table 1 Summary of Applicable Legislation
Legislation Responsible License / Permit / Approval

Authority
Environmental Department of Not applicable but site dependant
Protection and Environment Based on a desktop assessment and field
Biodiversity observations it is unlikely that the project will have
Conservation Act 1999 significant impact upon MNES.
(Commonwealth)
Aboriginal Cultural Department of Applicable
Heritage Act 2003 Aboriginal and No known values at the site, Duty of care
Torres Strait Guidelines to be complied with (e.g. cease work if
Islander and items found).
Multicultural Liaison with the Cultural Heritage body and
Affairs undertake further cultural heritage assessment
where required.
ii | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Legislation Responsible License / Permit / Approval
Authority
Environmental Department of Applicable
Protection Act 1994 Environment and Duty of Care and Duty to Notify. Construction
Heritage activities to be managed in accordance with a
Protection CEMP.
Applicable
Approvals for Environmentally Relevant Activity
(ERA) required.
Applicable
A search of both registers has been undertaken.
Lot 11 on DSN867 (northern site) is listed on the
EMR.
Fisheries Act 1994 Department of Applicable
Agriculture, Works proposed within a watercourse.
Fisheries and Requirement to apply for a Water Way Barrier
Forestry Works approval under SPA. Applies to Lot 30
DSN741 (southern site) where construction would
occur in or nearby Springsure Creek.
Land Protection (Pest Department of Applicable
and Stock Route Natural Resources No approvals required, but required to control
Management) Act 2002 and Mines weeds as per local Pest Management Plan.
Nature Conservation Department of Applicable
Act 1992 Environment and Sites that have mature vegetation that may
Heritage contain protected flora species and may be
Protection habitat to fauna species and places for breeding.
A site flora and fauna survey would be required as
part of notification process to DEHP prior to
clearing. Should Protected species be identified
further plans and actions, such as species
management plans, may be required.
Queensland Heritage Department of Not applicable
Act 1992 Environment and No places identified in the desktop search.
Heritage
Protection
Sustainable Planning Department of Applicable
Act 2009 State Relates to assessable development under
Sustainable Planning Development, Schedule 3 e.g. MCU for ERA, any relevant
Regulation 2009 Infrastructure and operational works (ie. For clearing of native
Planning vegetation, waterway barrier works).
Transport Infrastructure Department Applicable
Act 1994 Transport and Sites are adjacent to and will require works within
Main Roads 25 m of a state-controlled road and/or rail.
Vegetation Department of Applicable
Management Act 1999 Natural Resources Mapped Category B vegetation proposed to be
and Mines cleared (western and southern sites).
Water Act 2000 Department of Not Applicable
Natural Resources No proposal to take waters from a declared
and Mines watercourse.
Location Assessment
The outcome of the location assessment determined that the western site located on the
Capricorn Highway on Lot 13 of DSN800086 obtained the highest score against the selection
criteria. Common attributes shared by all sites include:
Good access to roads and highway suitable for transport;
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | iii
Good access to waste facilities;
No identified cultural heritage sites;
Require upgrades to road accesses;
Require upgrades to gain access to rail;
Require significant upgrades for water and power supply; and
Require bulk gas supply.
The scores for each site are shown in Table 2 along with the identified pros and cons for each
site.
Table 2 Summary of Location Assessment Grading
Site Score Pros of Site Cons of Site
North of 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

Emerald
Mapped as cleared vegetation – Significant upgrades to allow access
Lot 11 DSN867 very limited risk of listed species rail required.
being present. Close to sensitive sites (urban areas
Master Study for potential land and homesteads).
use in process.
Risk of emissions from neighbouring
Close proximity to Emerald landholders.
water supply and suitable Poor topography for drainage.
electrical power supply options.
Insufficient land available for
vegetation buffer.
Listed on EMR – potentially
contaminated land site.
West of Emerald 89 Sufficient area available. Land tenure requires conversion to

freehold.
Lot 13 Topography suits drainage
DSN800086 system and land appears to be Close to one sensitive site
mostly black soil for irrigation (homestead).
and cropping.
Vegetation mapped as least concern
Sufficient land to allow for and endangered regional ecosystems.
vegetation buffer. Access to suitable electrical power to
supply demand will need further
investigation.
East of Emerald 87 Sufficient area available. Land tenure is freehold and privately
Lot 1 SP224248 Topography suits drainage owned (Not Council owned land).
Lot 5 RP897556 system and land appears to be Zoned Special Industry - Land set as
mostly black soil for irrigation side for potential Inland Port Facility.
and cropping.
Close to some sensitive sites (urban
Sufficient land to allow for areas and homesteads).
vegetation buffer. Located near cotton areas - some risk
Mapped as cleared vegetation – of spray drift.
very limited risk of listed species
being present.
Close proximity suitable
electrical power supply options
(further investigations required).
Rail Study undertaken as part of
Proposed Inland Rail Port
Facility.
iv | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
South of 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

Emerald
Sufficient land to allow for Close to some sensitive sites (urban
Lot 30 DSN741 vegetation buffer. areas and homesteads).
Unsuitable distance from saleyard and
other activities.
Creek dissects property limiting use for
drainage, treatment system and
irrigation.
Vegetation mapped as of-concern
communities and will need to be
cleared.
Supply of required electrical power
demand not feasible.
Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability

The Central Highlands municipality is home to over 850,000 cattle or 7% of the Queensland
beef cattle herd. In 2009/10 there were approximately 186,000 cattle movements to slaughter
originating the Central Highlands municipality, and 486,000 from the total study area, including
nearby municipalities of Blackall - Tambo, Barcaldine, Longreach, Rockhampton and Isaac.
Following the recent drought, Queensland abattoirs are expected to remain supply constrained
as herds gradually rebuild. Current estimates suggest there is 12.5% latent processing capacity
within existing abattoirs in Queensland. If slaughter rates continue to rise on trend, this latent
capacity will be exhausted around 2020.
Despite this latent processing capacity, there appears to be a considerable shortage of abattoir
capacity for the provision of service and processing kills, catering for a growing range of niche,
branded or value added products, including wagyu, organic, certified grass-fed and MSA.
Consultation suggests that a large number of cattle are being transported south to Casino and
as far as Victoria and South Australia for access to service killing and processing, with one
supplier flagging the possibility of processing 30,000 head per annum in a future Emerald
abattoir.
Meat Supply Chain

The road network linkages that connect the cattle origins (farms) and destinations (abattoirs)
impact the vehicle types that may be utilised for the transport of product within the Meat Supply
Chain.
Figure 1 depicts the road network linkages between the 16 shires (origins) and existing abattoirs
(destinations) and has been used to determine the likely routing and truck configurations
applied in the transportation of product.
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | v
Source: GHD
Figure 1 Origin/Destination Linkages (routing)
vi | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Transport Cost Assessment
Table 3 below details whether shires are likely or unlikely to use an Emerald based processing
facility based upon the value chain least cost results. The shires that are likely to possess
contestable cattle volume are also shown within the table.
Table 3 Key Findings on Whether or not Emerald Would Be Used
Shire (origin) Least Cost Abattoir Is the Shire likely to use

(destination) Emerald?
Barcaldine Emerald Yes
Barcoo Emerald Yes
Blackall - Tambo Emerald Yes
Burke Townsville No
Carpentaria Townsville No
Central Highlands Emerald Contestable (Rockhampton)
Cloncurry Townsville No
Diamantina Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
Flinders Townsville No
Isaac Mackay Contestable (Mackay)*
Longreach Emerald Yes
Mckinlay Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
Mount Isa Townsville No
Quilpie Brisbane Contestable (Brisbane) *
Richmond Townsville No
Winton Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
* Based on achieving potential savings achieved through the use of rail from abattoir to port
The results from the supply chain cost model found that a processing facility at Emerald would
be well positioned on transport and distribution costs to provide a competitive offering within the
shires of Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall - Tambo and Longreach. A processing site in Emerald
was also found to likely provide additional competition for cattle volume within the shires of
Central Highlands, Diamantina, Isaac, Mckinlay, Quilpie and Winton.
Considering the shires for which an Emerald processing facility potentially offers supply chain
cost savings, the cattle supply would be most likely sourced from existing Rockhampton facility
demand. That is an Emerald facility offers Meat Supply Chain cost savings to four of the five
shires that Rockhampton was calculated as being the current least cost option.
One major factor why Emerald has Meat Supply cost efficiencies over Rockhampton is due to
the more expensive (on a per head basis) live transit leg of the supply chain is shorter, and that
these cost savings are greater (on a per head basis) than the longer post processing (chilled
meat and distribution legs).
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | vii
Skilled Labour
As at March 2013, the Central Highlands unemployment rate was 2.8% (DEEWR 2013). Once
churn in the employment market is taken into account, this figure essentially represents full
employment (CHDC 2014). For a new facility to be supported by a skilled workforce, recruitment
support would also need to come from neighbouring regions.
Meat processing shift hours allow for the employment of local workers with family requirements,
which enables staff to undertake parental duties directly after school hours. A location near
Emerald for a meat processing plant allows for local recruitment as well as potentially attracting
additional workers to the area due to the existing community infrastructure, range of available
schools and shopping centres.
For the recruitment of any skilled specialist labour from oversea, meat working positions do not
form part of the approved list of occupations under the subclass 457 visa program, thus
businesses will need to enter into a Labour Agreement. A Labour Agreement is a formal
agreement negotiated between the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the
employer. Duration of a Labour Agreement is typically valid for 3 years.
Market and Export Trade Opportunities
The major markets for the export of Australian beef include Japan, Korea, and the US which
account for over 60% of Australian export trade (MLA 2013). The Middle East and other Asian
countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand are important growth markets for Australian
beef, driven through rapid income growth and an associated increased demand for quality
imported beef which cannot be supplied by their domestic markets.
The export prices for frozen beef and veal have remained relatively flat over the past 25 years,
while chilled meat has enjoyed moderate growth in the Korean and Japanese markets
extending its premium over the frozen product. Australia has a strong reputation as being a
consistent supplier of quality beef, providing significant opportunity for growth in niche and
targeted beef products.
Cost Estimate
For a project of this size, it is expected, using a current industry cost database, the likely capital
expenditure requirements for a 450 head / shift plant operating 1 shift per day 240 days per year
is of the order of AUD $ 73,000,000 to $83,000,000. This figure has been developed utilising
industry and proprietary historical cost data and where possible verified against the current
market. The sensitivity of this capex range is +/-20%. This cost estimate is primary for the
construction of processing plant facilities and excludes service connections and other
requirements external to the actual processing plant.
SWOT and Risk Assessment

A risk assessment has been undertaken based on the optimal location (West of Emerald). A
summary of the identified residual risks determined to be still high after mitigation measures are
implemented are provided. Eight high residual risks were identified across four risk areas with
the residual risk being held by the meat processor and livestock transporter:
Transportation – lack of supply;
Access to infrastructure – high cost for electrical power and constrained water supply
(purchase of water allocation required);
Health and safety – operational staff and interaction between heavy and light vehicle on
public roads; and
viii | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Financial – competition from other processors and live export.
A meat processing facility in the Central Highlands would provide a feasible plant due to its
central location on a major road network subject to availably of viable cattle supply and access
to sufficient water and power supply. The challenges faced by a meat processing facility in the
Central Highlands are similar to those faced by many meat processing operators across
regional Australia and include competitive markets, changes in the operating environment and
government legislation.
Regional Economic Benefit

The establishment of the processing facility would deliver direct regional economic benefits
through employment during construction and operation of the facility. Our estimates suggest the
facility would employ a total of 168 staff each shift in the following roles:
Slaughter & Offal 50
Boning 90
Maintenance 6
Rendering 2
Administration 20
Other indirect regional economic benefits will be derived from:
Improved transport infrastructure, including road upgrades;
Supply chain savings: Estimated at approximately $5.6M per annum, of this $3.4M in
supply chain benefits would be generated from cattle supplied from the Central Highlands
shire. These benefits would likely be shared between producers and the abattoir
operator;
Value adding to agricultural output: including access to niche or higher value markets,
reduced reliance on transport infrastructure particularly during the wet season and
opportunities for finishing, lot-feeding and feed production; and
Supply of supporting goods and services including training, trade services, retail and
wholesale trade, hotels and restaurants, communications services, other business
services, recreational and other services and dwellings.
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | ix
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope and Limitations ..................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Limitations .......................................................................................................................4
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 An Environmental Scan of the Northern Australia and Associated Meat
Processing Sectors ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Consultations with Producers and Stakeholders ..............................................................5
2.3 Cost Modelling for Construction and Operation ................................................................ 5
2.4 Recommendations on Optimum Locations to Provide Maximum Benefit for the
Regions Producers .......................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Transport and Supply Chain Capability and Integration .................................................... 6
2.6 Vegetation Impacts and Impediments .............................................................................. 6
2.7 Accessibility of Infrastructure, Water and Power .............................................................. 7
2.8 Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability of Slaughter ............................................................ 7
2.9 Market and Export Trade Opportunity .............................................................................. 8
2.10 Skilled Labour Availability ................................................................................................ 9
2.11 Risk Analysis – Commercial, Economic and Strategic Issues ........................................... 9
2.12 Regional Economic Benefit ............................................................................................ 10
3. Review of Northern Australia Cattle Industry and the Associated Meat Processing
Industry ................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Northern Australia ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Central Queensland ...................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Central Highlands .......................................................................................................... 20
4. Industry and Stakeholder Consultation .................................................................................... 22
4.1 Overall Summary of Respondents – Cattle Producers, Livestock Transport and
Livestock and Meat Marketing ....................................................................................... 22
4.2 Cattle Producers............................................................................................................ 22
4.3 General Cattle Industry.................................................................................................. 30
4.4 Community Survey ........................................................................................................ 37
4.5 State and Local Government ......................................................................................... 40
5. Legislative Summary ............................................................................................................... 43
5.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) ....................... 45
5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 ............................................................................ 45
5.2 Environmental Protection Act 1994 ................................................................................ 45
5.3 Fisheries Act ................................................................................................................. 46
5.4 Nature Conservation Act 1992 ....................................................................................... 47
5.5 Vegetation Management Act 1999 ................................................................................. 47
x | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
5.6 Sustainable Planning Act 2009 ...................................................................................... 47
5.7 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 .................................................................................. 47
5.8 Water Act 2000 ............................................................................................................. 48
5.9 Planning Advice ............................................................................................................ 48
6. Location Assessment .............................................................................................................. 50
6.1 Environmental Constraints............................................................................................. 52
6.2 Utilities, Services and Infrastructure Accessibility ........................................................... 59
6.3 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................... 67
6.4 Queensland Heritage Register....................................................................................... 69
6.5 Transport Corridors and Location Access ...................................................................... 69
6.6 Optimal Location Assessment ....................................................................................... 71
7. Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability ....................................................................................... 75
7.1 Cattle Numbers ............................................................................................................. 75
7.2 Annual Slaughter Numbers............................................................................................ 77
7.3 Seasonality of Supply .................................................................................................... 78
7.4 Market Forces and Producer Practices .......................................................................... 80
7.5 Projected Throughput .................................................................................................... 85
8. Meat Supply Chain .................................................................................................................. 89

8.1 Definition of the Supply Chain........................................................................................ 89
8.2 Origins .......................................................................................................................... 90
8.3 Destinations .................................................................................................................. 91
8.4 Transport Network ......................................................................................................... 97
9. Transport Cost Assessment .................................................................................................. 100

9.1 Approach..................................................................................................................... 100
9.2 Transport Cost Outcomes............................................................................................ 101
9.3 Competitiveness .......................................................................................................... 107
9.4 Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 108
10. Skilled Labour Availability ...................................................................................................... 109

10.1 Labour Pool ................................................................................................................. 109
10.2 Overseas Labour ......................................................................................................... 109
10.3 Indigenous Labour ....................................................................................................... 110
10.4 Other Labour ............................................................................................................... 110
10.5 Training Opportunities ................................................................................................. 110
11. Market and Export Trade Opportunities ................................................................................. 111
11.1 Export Market Trends .................................................................................................. 111
11.2 Domestic Market Trends.............................................................................................. 114
12. Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 116
12.1 Cost Limitations........................................................................................................... 116
12.2 Key Plant Features ...................................................................................................... 116
12.3 Estimated OPEX Inputs ............................................................................................... 119
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | xi
12.4 Operating Expenditure Estimate .................................................................................. 120
12.5 Capital Expenditure Estimate....................................................................................... 122
13. SWOT Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 123
14. Risk Analysis......................................................................................................................... 125
14.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 125
14.2 Risk Parameters.......................................................................................................... 125
14.3 Consequence Guidance .............................................................................................. 126
14.4 Likelihood Guidance .................................................................................................... 130
14.5 Risk Level ................................................................................................................... 130
14.6 Risk Management Actions ........................................................................................... 131
14.7 Remaining Risk ........................................................................................................... 131
14.8 Risk Analysis ............................................................................................................... 132
15. Regional Economic Benefit.................................................................................................... 134
15.1 Qualitative Analysis ..................................................................................................... 134
16. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 136
17. Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 137
Table index
Table 1 Summary of Applicable Legislation .................................................................................. ii
Table 2 Summary of Location Assessment Grading .................................................................... iv
Table 3 Key Findings on Whether or not Emerald Would Be Used.............................................. vii

Table 4 Northern Australia Cattle Industry .................................................................................. 13
Table 5 Feedlots within Central Highlands Regional Council ...................................................... 21
Table 6 Summary of Applicable Legislation ................................................................................ 43

Table 7 Exploration and Mining Leases ...................................................................................... 58
Table 8 Summary of Location Assessment Grading ................................................................... 73
Table 9 Cattle Supply in Study Region ....................................................................................... 75
Table 10 Results of Supply Chain Cost Analysis .......................................................................... 86
Table 11 Meat Supply Chain Product Types................................................................................. 89
Table 12 Cost Curve Truck Types .............................................................................................. 101
Table 13 Least Cost Live Transit Supply Chain Costs ................................................................ 102
Table 14 Least Cost Live Transit Supply Chain Costs ................................................................ 103
Table 15 Least Cost Value Chain Abattoir .................................................................................. 103

Table 16 Live Transit by Rail (Farm to Abattoir).......................................................................... 106
Table 17 Post Processing Product by Rail (Abattoir to Port) ....................................................... 106
Table 18 Key Findings on whether or not Emerald Would Be Used ............................................ 107
xii | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Table 19 Current Tariffs and Quotas (MLA 2014d) ..................................................................... 113
Table 20 Meat Processing Plant Full Time Equivalent Staff Estimate.......................................... 117
Table 21 Potential Waste Water Contaminants .......................................................................... 119
Table 22 Solid Wastes ............................................................................................................... 120
Table 23 Energy Usage ............................................................................................................. 120
Table 24 Operating Expenditure Profile ...................................................................................... 121
Table 25 Central Highland Meat Processing Facility SWOT Analysis .......................................... 123
Table 26 Description of Risk Parameter ..................................................................................... 126
Table 27 Consequence Descriptors ........................................................................................... 127
Table 28 Likelihood Descriptors ................................................................................................. 130
Table 29 Risk Assessment Matrix .............................................................................................. 130
Table 30 Risk Summary – Medium to Extreme Risks ................................................................. 133
Table 31 Indicative Staff Numbers.............................................................................................. 134
Table 32 Summary of Feasibility ................................................................................................ 136
Figure index
Figure 1 Origin/Destination Linkages (routing) .............................................................................. vi
Figure 2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Australia’s Cattle Producing Regions ............................................................................. 11

Figure 4 Value of Agricultural Output – Queensland and the NT .................................................. 12
Figure 5 Methods of Selling Beef Cattle in Northern Australia (1994-95 – 2012-13) ..................... 14
Figure 6 Drivers of Change in Livestock Marketing ...................................................................... 14

Figure 7 Central Portion of Lot Showing Existing Infrastructure .................................................... 50
Figure 8 Central West Portion of Lot in Partially Cleared Area ..................................................... 51
Figure 9 Eastern Portion of Lot with Existing Infrastructure in Background ................................... 51
Figure 10 Looking West Across Lot toward Minerva Hills National Park ......................................... 52
Figure 11 Mature Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) ............................................................................ 54
Figure 12 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Northern Site ..................................................... 59

Figure 13 Sewer Connection Point – Northern Site ........................................................................ 60
Figure 14 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Western Site ...................................................... 62
Figure 15 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Eastern Site ....................................................... 64

Figure 16 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Southern Site..................................................... 66
Figure 17 Australian Adult Cattle Slaughter (MLA 2014c) .............................................................. 76
Figure 18 Australian Cattle Herd by State (MLA 2014c) ................................................................. 76

Figure 19 Australian Live Exports to Indonesia, Historical and Forecast (MLA 2014) ..................... 77
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 |
xiii
Figure 20 Seasonality Regions (DAFF 2012)................................................................................. 78
Figure 21 Seasonality of Abattoir throughput, Queensland (2003-2013) (DAFF 2012).................... 79
Figure 22 Emerald Saleyard throughput by Month ......................................................................... 79
Figure 23 Per Capita Consumption of Meat in Australia (1962-2011) (Wong et al. 2013) ............... 81
Figure 24 Income and Own Price Elasticity Summary .................................................................... 81
Figure 25 MSA Grading Numbers and Registered Producers in QLD (2003/04 – 2013/14) ............ 82
Figure 26 Indicative throughput by Origin ...................................................................................... 87
Figure 27 Cattle (Meat) Supply Chain............................................................................................ 89
Figure 28 Central Highlands Meat Processing Feasibility Shires .................................................... 90
Figure 29 Emerald Proposed Abattoir Sites - Destination............................................................... 91
Figure 30 Mackay Abattoir Site - Destination ................................................................................. 92
Figure 31 Townsville Abattoir Sites - Destination ........................................................................... 93
Figure 32 Dinmore (Brisbane) Abattoir Site - Destination ............................................................... 94
Figure 33 Rockhampton Abattoir Sites - Destination ...................................................................... 95
Figure 34 Port of Brisbane – Exports ............................................................................................. 96

Figure 35 Meat Supply Chain Transport Network (Road) ............................................................... 97
Figure 36 Origin/Destination Linkages (Routing)............................................................................ 98
Figure 37 Study Area Rail Network Map ...................................................................................... 105

Figure 38 Beef and Cattle Exports Volume and Value (2005-06 to 2012-13) ................................ 111
Figure 39 Average Export Prices for Australian Beef and Veal on Principal Overseas
Markets (1988-2013) ................................................................................................... 112
Figure 40 Global Beef Production................................................................................................ 112
Figure 41 Australian Beef and Veal Use ...................................................................................... 114
Figure 42 Annual Per Capita Beef and Veal Consumption ........................................................... 114
Appendices
Appendix A – Environmental Database Searches
Appendix B – Location Assessment Matrix
Appendix C – Transport Model Assumptions
Appendix D – Preliminary Concept Drawings
Appendix E – Risk Assessment
xiv | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The development of a meat processing facility in the Central Highland’s region of Queensland
has been identified as having potential economic benefits for cattle producers due to the area’s
rural focus on grazing and cattle breeding for Northern Australia. This potential benefit is
reflected in The Queensland Agricultural Audit for Central Queensland, which identified niche
opportunities such as the diversification and branding of beef cattle production. This focus on
the cattle industry and meat processing is also consistent with the Queensland’s Agriculture
Strategy which outlines the State’s aim to double agricultural production by 2040.
A key issue for cattle production is the dependence on the good transport infrastructure for
reliable movement of materials and produce to market, while meat processors need a good and
reliable supply of quality cattle, from regional feedlots and finishing paddocks. The linkages
between cattle producers, intensive livestock facilities, transport networks and meat processes
are critical to the feasibility of a meat processing facility in Queensland’s Central Highlands.
Another issue is the sustainability of the market within Central Queensland due to the existing
availability of four existing meat processors along the East Coast (from Mackay to
Rockhampton). The inclusion of niche markets for meat processing, and integrated supply
chains to ensure value added products can be fed into the market will assist in the viability of a
meat processing facility in the Central Highlands.
GHD has been engaged to undertake this study for and on behalf of the Central Highlands
Development Corporation (CHDC) and the Central Highlands Regional Council (CHRC).
1.2 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to outline the feasibility study outcomes of developing and
operating a meat works facility within the Central Highlands region; four sites located around
Emerald have been identified and investigated as indicative sites for a potential meat
processing plant location. Three sites assessed are owned or in leasehold by Council with one
site, east of Emerald privately owned. Council sites could be utilised as the meat processing
site, subject to negotiations will Council.
1.3 Scope and Limitations
1.3.1 Study Area
The Central Highlands region was the main focus region of the study however the project also
took into account adjacent regions and transport corridors, including Rockhampton, Isaac,
Barcaldine, Blackall - Tambo, Longreach Regional and other Central West Councils.
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740 | 1
Sourced from CHDC website: http://www.centralhighlands.com.au/showcase.
Figure 2 Study Area
1.3.2 Feasibility Study Scope
GHD have analysed the feasibility of Emerald as a location for a meat processing plant to
identify the economic viability and provide recommendations for future actions.
The Feasibility study includes:

An environmental scan of the Northern Australia and associated meat processing sectors;
Consultations with producers and stakeholders;
Cost modelling for construction and operation;

Recommendations on optimum locations to provide maximum benefit for the regions
producers;
Transport and supply chain capability and integration;
Vegetation impacts and impediments;
Accessibility of infrastructure, water and power;
Market and export trade opportunity;
Cattle supply and seasonal viability of slaughter;
Skilled labour availability;
Risk analysis – commercial, economic and strategic issues; and
Regional economic benefit.
It is understood that the information generated from this Feasibility Study will provide a
benchmark upon which the following strategies can be linked to and further developed:
2 | GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Market the Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant investment and economic
opportunity for the Central Highlands region;
Analysis of agricultural sector opportunities to develop local and regional strategies; and
Input into a future agricultural strategic planning and project development.
1.3.3 Study Sites
Four sites have been identified as potential locations for the proposed development of a meat
processing facility. These sites were selected predominately based on CHRC ownership/lease
arrangements and comprise four compass points; north, south, east and west from Emerald.
The eastern site is privately owned.
It should be noted that an operator may not necessarily select the same sites to develop,
however the feasibility study completed for the below sites would act as a guide and source of
information to any feasibly assessment completed for alternative locations within the region.
North of Emerald
The site is located at 47 Kingower Road also described as Lot 11 on DSN867. The site is
located approximately 6 km north of Emerald CBD on the Gregory Highway within the Central
Highlands Regional Council. It is identified as Freehold owned by Central Highlands Regional
Council and covers an area 399,580 m 2.
West of Emerald
The site is located approximately 14 km west of Emerald CBD on the Capricorn Highway and is
identified as Lot 13 on DSN800086. The site tenure is identified as Leasehold but is currently
undergoing transfer to Freehold status and covers an area of 1,165,000 m 2.
East of Emerald
The site is located approximately 21 km east of Emerald CBD on the Capricorn Highway and is
identified as Lot 1 on SP224248 (2,416,000 m 2) and Lot 5 on RP897556 (1,214,000 m2). The
site tenure is freehold and privately owned (not Council owned property).
South of Emerald
The site is located south of Emerald on the Gregory Highway approximately 3 km north of
Springsure and is described as Lot 30 on DSN741. It is identified as Freehold and covers an
area 457,400 m2.
1.4 Limitations
This report has been prepared by GHD for Central Highlands Development Corporation and
may only be used and relied on by Central Highlands Development Corporation for the purpose
agreed between GHD and the Central Highlands Development Corporation as set out in Section
2 of this report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Central Highlands
Development Corporation arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied
warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those
specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no
responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring
subsequent to the date that the report was prepared. The opinions, conclusions and any
recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described within this
report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.
GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Central Highlands
Development Corporation and others who provided information to GHD (including Government
authorities), which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of
work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including
errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.
Care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information in this report; however, the
authors cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or
opinions based on this information contained in this report. Readers should rely on their own
enquiries in making decisions concerning their interests. The inclusion of trade or company
names in this report does not imply endorsement of any company. The authors are not liable to
any third party for any losses, costs or expenses resulting from any use or misuse of the
information contained in this report.
2. Methodology
2.1 An Environmental Scan of the Northern Australia and
Associated Meat Processing Sectors
GHD reviewed the cattle and meat processing industries within Northern Australia, from new
meat processing facilities in Darwin, the proposed facilities in Cloncurry through to existing
facilities within Queensland. GHD have reviewed available media information and industry
databases (including ABS survey figures and etc). GHD examined regional cattle production
numbers, meat processing facilities (including cull rates per year) and investigated the general
challenges facing the industry in Northern Australia.
2.2 Consultations with Producers and Stakeholders

Consultation with producers and stakeholders was undertaken jointly between GHD and
principal staff at Brennan Mayne. Consultation with regional producers, feedlot operators, stock
and station agents, transport companies and relevant state government departments were
undertaken. Consultation focused on both producer and meat processing industry requirements
to determine the level of support by these groups and endeavour to quantify the potential to add
value by meeting specifications required for the higher value niche markets. Industry
consultation was undertaken via phone and face to face meetings (in the local Emerald area).
2.3 Cost Modelling for Construction and Operation

Wiley Pty Ltd, as sub consultant to GHD, assisted with the cost modelling based on a
preliminary concept design (indicative).
A concept block plan has been developed indicating:
Site layout and site area;
Basic floor plan layout and flow; and

Estimated floor areas for cost planning purposes.
Meat processing facilities are highly specialised facilities to construct. Through the assembled
GHD team’s extensive experience in design and construction of abattoirs, a database of actual
costs across aspects of a meat processing facility has been developed. The block concept plan
developed enabled the Cost Planners to apply these actual cost data rates to establish a capital
cost estimate.
This preliminary concept design and cost estimate was based on a brief which documents the
following key information and / or assumptions:
Capacity – cattle/day; weight range;
Operational information – slaughter and boning operation shifts proposed (single/double);
Chilling and/or freezing of carcass (cartons and offals);
Rendering on-site or despatch to alternative;
Blood handling;
Hides handling and despatch;
Level of automation proposed, in particular to storage and retrieval systems and
palletising;
Export or domestic markets;
Proposed fuel for hot water generation or steam; and
Proposed wastewater disposal.
GHD reviewed the initial feasibility findings to provide the cost estimating team with a list of
assumptions against which to complete the study.
2.4 Recommendations on Optimum Locations to Provide

Maximum Benefit for the Regions Producers
A location review process was undertaken to provide CHDC and CHRC with the optimal site.
The potential sites nominated for the development were assessed to determine if they are
suitable options for a processing facility and has benefit to regional producers. The selected
sites were reviewed at a high level to assist in minimising the risk from transport, services
(water, gas and power) and environmental constraints. This section of the feasibility study also
identifies a range of planning matters likely to be required by State and Commonwealth
legislation.
2.5 Transport and Supply Chain Capability and Integration

To deliver a successful outcome, a new facility located in Central Queensland needs to deliver
the efficient use of existing transport infrastructure to minimise capital expenditure. This can be
realised through integrated planning of the transport system to achieve optimal utilisation of
vehicles (in turn minimising the size of the fleet), and the ability to identify and respond to
bottlenecks in the supply chain.
GHD have undertaken a two task process which includes definition of the supply chain, an
assessment of transport system capability and have provided an optional assessment of the
benefits of a range of integration models.
Task 1 (definition of the supply chain) identified the transport infrastructure and key routes
used between farms and the processing facility within the catchment area, as well as the
destination markets and routes used for the distribution of processed goods.
Task 2 (a high level assessment of transport system capability) identified the base level of
usage for the transport infrastructure, and estimated the proportional uplift in vehicle
numbers resulting from the development of a facility.
2.6 Vegetation Impacts and Impediments

Vegetation impacts and impediments is a key aspect that was required to be addressed for the
project to reduce the potential for threatened species to be present at the potential sites. GHD
have undertaken a desktop assessment that informs the site inspection including:
Flora Survey Guidelines for - Protected Plants, Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act);
Flora Survey Trigger Map area;
Regulated Vegetation Management Map and Vegetation Management Supporting Map;
Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act) Protected Matters search tool; and
Wildlife Online database for species records.
The preliminary desktop assessment indicates that a number of potential project areas have
flora species within the DEHP Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map area. GHD have
undertaken a field survey utilising one GHD representative (who is suitably qualified) as part of
the optimal site assessment.
The output from the above process includes:
A list of species and vegetation communities identified under both the EPBC Act and NC
Act and any known records; and
An identification of any vegetation constraints or other ecological issues impacting
potential site locations.
Fauna
During the desktop study the relevant government databases were searched and in correlation
with the flora desktop review GHD identified fauna habitat linkages, critical refuges (e.g. along
riparian corridors), and important habitat areas and their integrity for the project areas. Targeted
fauna surveys were not undertaken. However, during the flora survey opportunistic observations
of fauna species, animal habitat and/or animal breeding places was undertaken. The
opportunistic survey assisted in determining if further targeted investigations are recommended
and if permits or approvals may be required.
2.7 Accessibility of Infrastructure, Water and Power

Linked to the optimal site assessment (Section 2.4), GHD reviewed available power, water and
existing infrastructure (roads and buildings) as well as any existing approvals for four potential
locations. Service providers (such as Council, Sunwater and Ergon) were contacted to assess
availability of key services. Council and the Department of Transport and Main Roads were
contacted to review road and rail network accessibility.
2.8 Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability of Slaughter

GHD reviewed the current supply of cattle to slaughter in the local region, in terms of overall
volume and seasonal trends. This analysis primarily drew on statistics from the following
sources:
ABS agricultural commodities;
National Livestock Identification System (NLIS); and
Meat & Livestock Australia / National Livestock Reporting Service (saleyard surveys,
historical slaughter and live export data).
The different aspects of this analysis are discussed below.
Cattle Numbers in the Region
GHD have compiled statistics on the number of cattle currently on properties in the study area,
by statistical division and/or shire. Wherever possible cattle numbers were disaggregated by
age and type (e.g. wieners, breeding stock etc).
Trends in regional cattle numbers have been presented to demonstrate any overall trends and
the isolated impacts of drought.
Cattle Available for Slaughter
Cattle numbers were compared to the annual number of cattle becoming available for slaughter
(using NLIS data by shire) and drawing on feedback from consultation with local producers and
stakeholders (see Section 2.2).
The analysis also considers how competition from the live export market (particularly from
Townsville) affects the availability of cattle for slaughter.
Seasonality of Supply
GHD has used NLIS data to present the prevailing trends in seasonality of supply. Evaluation of
the underlying reasons for these trends, including:
Feed availability;
The structure of breeding programs;
Wet-season shutdowns in Northern Queensland; and
Infrastructure closures.
Changed Market Forces and Producer Practices

Drawing on desktop analysis and consultation with local producers and stakeholders (see
Section 2.2), GHD have outlined some key market forces and associated changes in producer
practices which are likely to influence throughput and viability of a Central Highlands meat
processing facility. These are likely to include:
Herd productivity and breeding;
Improved finishing and feedlotting; and
Price premiums (e.g. MSA accreditation, PCAS, Organic & Wagyu).
Projected Throughput
Drawing on the analysis above GHD have developed throughput projections for a Central
Highlands meat processing facility. These projections have been based on supply only, without
consideration of the design and capacity of the facility.
2.9 Market and Export Trade Opportunity

GHD have evaluated the export and domestic market opportunities which will underpin the
viability of a Central Highlands meat processing facility.
Export Market Trends
The report presents global trends in meat proteins, with consideration of population growth,
supply/demand balance, competitors (US, Argentina, Brazil and competing proteins), and
emerging customers (South-East Asia, China and the Middle East).
Key data sources:
US Department of Agriculture market information; and
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Domestic Market Trends

GHD have presented Australian trends in meat (particularly beef) consumption and markets,
with emphasis on:
Market growth and penetration;
Competition from other protein sources (lamb, chicken pork etc);
Competition from imported product; and
Changing consumer trends and preferences.
Key data sources:
ABARES (Agricultural Commodities Outlook);
ABS (updated census); and
Meat & Livestock Australia / National Livestock Reporting Service (Industry Projections,
economic insights).
2.10 Skilled Labour Availability

A review has been undertaken of the labour skill base within Central Queensland required to
support a meet processing facility and the availability of staff as well as the ability to train
Central Highlands based staff to fill key roles within the meat processing facility. GHD has:
Reviewed available industry and government databases (such as census data);
Consulted with Emerald based training and employment facilitators to gauge skill base
available in the Central Highlands;
Assessed the seasonality of the workforce due to meat processing seasonal shutdowns
(typically December to February);
Reviewed Labour resources (based on census data); and
Reviewed available information of skilled labour availability within Central Queensland
and the wider State of Queensland.
2.11 Risk Analysis – Commercial, Economic and Strategic Issues

An assessment of the risk was made of a number of factors associated with this project. These
risk factors are related to both the optimal site assessment and to the study itself. The areas
where risks have been drawn from include:

producers;
Transport and supply chain capability;
Any vegetation impediments;

Cattle supply and seasonal viability of slaughter; and
Skilled labour availability.
An assessment of risk was carried out addressing these key areas with relevant team members.
This assessment also incorporated outcomes of discussions that have been held with the
CHDC and CHRC representatives and other stakeholder issues identified during the project.
For the risk assessment, GHD has undertaken a SWOT analysis to identify the key risks and
opportunities associated with each option. The analysis considered commercial (e.g. financing),
economic (e.g. changes in market demand and supply) and strategic (e.g. institutional factors)
issues. The risk analysis was based on a likelihood and consequence matrix. Risk impacts were
categorised into High (H), Medium (M), and Low (L) risk impacts. A suggested action plan or
strategy to manage each of the impacts identified has been developed.
2.12 Regional Economic Benefit
Measuring regional economic impact can be undertaken in different ways depending on the
resources available.
Qualitative Analysis
Under this base option GHD identified and discussed the regional economic benefits from the
development. These benefits included:
Employment during construction (direct);
Employment during operation (direct);
Increased farm returns for cattle;
Increased cattle production in the region; and
Local flow on benefits to local businesses (e.g. supply of good and services).
Where reasonably possible, GHD has quantified benefits drawing on information obtained from:
Stakeholder consultation (see Section 2.2); and
Other evidence, including a review of publically available studies into economic benefits
from meat processing facilities e.g.:
– The economic impact of the proposed AAco abattoir (Acil Tasman fir AACo 2012).
– Red Meat Processing Sector Contribution to Regional Economies (GHD for Meat &
Livestock Australia 2010).
3. Review of Northern Australia Cattle
Industry and the Associated Meat
Processing Industry
3.1 Northern Australia
3.1.1 Overview
The Australian cattle industry can be split broadly into southern and northern industry. The
Australian cattle industry can be split broadly into a southern and northern industry. Figure 3
shows key cattle producing regions in Australia in 2011. Queensland is the largest cattle
producer in Australia. In terms of numbers, approximately 12.6 million and 2.2 million head of
cattle were in Queensland and the Northern Territory respectively (Meat and Livestock Australia
(MLA) 2012). This is 52% of the Australian total.
Source: Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) 2012
Figure 3 Australia’s Cattle Producing Regions
The cattle industry is the dominant agricultural industry in Queensland and the Northern
Territory by value (Figure 4).
3500
3000
2500
2000
$ Million
Queensland
1500 Northern Territory
1000
500
0
Cattle Sugarcane Fruit and nuts
Source data: National Farmers Federation 2012
Figure 4 Value of Agricultural Output – Queensland and the NT
The Queensland and northern Australian cattle industry is geared strongly towards exports with
more than two-thirds of Queensland’s beef exported (AgForce 2014).
Compared with southern Australia, the cattle industry in northern Queensland is typically
characterised by larger farms (by area) with a larger number of head per farm1. This is primarily
due to climatic factors and the lower quantity and quality of pasture in northern Australia
compared with southern Australia (ABARES, 2013a).
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)
identify that the average financial performance of Australian beef cattle farms is estimated to
have declined in 2013-14 as a result of lower beef cattle prices due to increased cattle turn-off
from continued dry seasonal conditions. For example, ABARES have forecast in eastern
Australia that the number of cattle slaughtered in 2013-2014 as a proportion of average herd
numbers to be 37 %, the highest since 1998-99. This has resulted in an overall decrease in
cattle herd size in Australia as producers do not have sufficient pasture to support large herds.
As such procedures are sending older cattle to slaughter and purchasing/owning fewer younger
cattle. (ABARES 2014a).
As shown in Table 4, there is a high degree of aggregation in the beef cattle industry with 4% of
the farms accounting for 41% of the cattle. Northern Australia is presented by ABARES as being
Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia, with 97% of the businesses
presented in Table 4 being in Queensland. One of the differing characteristics between northern
Australia and southern Australia are seasonal and climatic factors which influence quality of
pasture.
1
Northern Australia defined here as Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western
Australia.
Table 4 Northern Australia Cattle Industry
Herd Size No. of Farms Share of Farms (%) Share of Beef Cattle (%)
100 head or less 580 7 0
100-200 head 1,250 14 1
200-400 head 1,500 17 3
400-800 head 1,970 23 9
800-1,600 head 1,460 17 13
1,600-5,400 head 1,520 18 32
5,400 head or greater 350 4 41
Total 8,630 100 100
Source: ABARES 2014a

Note: data excludes major feedlots and is based on average between 2010-11 and 2012-13.
3.1.2 Cattle Selling Trends
The methods of selling have been assessed by ABARES and indicate that in 2012-13 the
proportion of cattle at auction was 41%, over the hook (livestock delivered directly to the
abattoir) was 31% and paddock sales was at 27%. Figure 5 presents the proportion of northern
Australian cattle sold by the various means.
The split of selling methods is driven by a range of factors:
The larger herd sizes in northern Australia compared with southern Australia favours
direct selling methods such as over the hooks (i.e. direct to processors) or in the
paddock;
Live export producers in northern Australia typically sell out of the paddock; and
Auction sales are most favoured by producers who have smaller herds and who sell in
smaller lot sizes.
Figure 5 Methods of Selling Beef Cattle in Northern Australia (1994-95 –
2012-13)
Source: ABARES 2014a
Rapid changes in the livestock selling industry have occurred over the past decade, including
the acceleration of direct selling methods, changes in the operating environment and increasing
regulations. Figure 6 describes some of the factors that have influenced these trends.
Figure 6 Drivers of Change in Livestock Marketing
• Increased 'over the hooks' sales

Acceleration of
• Growth of AuctionsPlus
direct selling
methods • Integration of supply chains (between lotfeeders,
processors and retailers) and producer alliances
• Escalating running costs

• Changed Council priorities and requirements for Local
Changes in the Government
operating
• Urban growth and development
environment
• Improved technology and transportation
• Agglomoration of saleyards
• Onsite WHS and work safety regulations

• Disease and traceability requirements
Increased • Animal welfare and husbandry standards
regulations • Environmental and effluent requirements
• Producer accreditations and requirements
• Transportation and saleyard design guidlines
These factors have resulted in increased operating costs and increased competition for
livestock. At some Council owned saleyards these factors and increased pressure from other
areas for funding have created a need for the saleyard facility to ‘stand alone as a viable
business entity’.
Feedlots are a managed facility where livestock are provided a balanced diet for the purpose of
producing beef at a consistent quality and quantity. In 2013 the cattle turnoff from feedlots in
Queensland was reported to be 1,581,591, an increase of approximately 25% of 2008 numbers
(Australian Lot Feeders Association 2014). The feedlot capacity for Queensland in June 2014
was reported to be 589,648 head of cattle.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) maintains details of monthly livestock slaughtered and
amount of meat produced. In September 2014 800,207 head of cattle and calves were
slaughtered and 220,421 t of beef was produced (ABS 2014b). It was reported that the number
slaughtered was up 12% on last year potentially due to ongoing draught conditions; however
the increase in slaughter rates did result in an increase in the volume of meat produced.
Live exports became a significant trade for the northern Australian Beef industry in the 1990’s,
however recent overseas restrictions have resulted in changes in the industry. The northern live
cattle export region includes the northern regions of Queensland, Northern Territory and
Western Australia, while the central and southern regions of Queensland and the Northern
Territory only undertake a very minor proportion of live cattle export. A study of the risks on the
beef industry determined that in northern Australia, 49% of the cattle sent to domestic slaughter
went to Northern meat processing, the remainder going to southern Australia (ABARES 2012).
The study found that the factors that would influence the capacity to establish meat processing
facilities include:
Continuity of supply of stock;
Competitive access to markets;
Reliable source of skilled labour;

Cost effective transport, energy supply and potable water; and
Coordinated feed on and livestock aggregation services.
3.1.3 Meat Processing Facilities
In 2012, meat processing plants certified for export included Townsville, Rockhampton, Biloela
and southeast Queensland, where the southeast Queensland plants were processing cattle
from feedlots in the Darling Downs area. Feedlots in Queensland include those owned/operated
by JBS Swift, Teys Australia, Nippon Meat Packers Australia (now known as NH food Australia),
AACo, Stanbroke and the Northern Australian Pastrol Company (ABARES 2012). Queensland
Country Life identify that more than 90 abattoirs were lost from the Australian agricultural
landscape between 1980 and 2005 (Queensland Country Life 2014b). An assessment of meat
processing facilities provided by ABARES (2012) indicates the following:
Northern Territory:
– Export facility at Batchelor, 100 km south of Darwin, was mothballed in 2003, Windy
Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd have a proposal to reopen the facility with a 5
year lease to process up to 250 head per day of cattle, buffalo and camels (ABC Rural
2011).
– Export facility, Livingston Beef (AACo), 50 km south of Darwin proposed to process up
to 1,000 head of cattle.
– Export facility at Katherine (Teys Australia), mothballed in 2001 and being dismantled
as did not meet current health and environmental standards.
– Smaller local works include one at Oenpelli (Gunbalanya Meat Supply Pty Ltd)
processing 50 head per week and two other works that have been closed (Berrimah,
Darwin (Litchfield) and Tennant Creek (Barkley Meats).
Northern Western Australia currently has no large scale works open:
– Broome closed in 1993.
– Derby closed in the 1970s.
– Kununurra is non-operational.
– Wyndham closed in 1985.
– Glenroy closed in 1964 (processed 60 head a day).
– Yeeda have ‘boutique’ works in Broome, potentially processing 100 head per week.
Queensland:
– Dinmore Brisbane (JBS Swift) operates at 9 shifts over 5-day rotation processing
1,675 head per shift.
– Beenleigh Brisbane (Teys Australia) has a 1,428 head per day capacity for grain-fed
cattle sourced from a feedlot at Condamine.
– Beef City Toowoomba (JBS Swift) operate 5 days processing 1,092 head per day of
grain-fed cattle (mainly sourced from the Beef City feedlot).
– Eagle Farm (IMT Food Services) with a capacity to produce 200 tonnes/week has
undergone a recent redevelopment (Queensland Country Life 2013).
– Warwick (John Dee Warwick Pty Ltd) is a family owned processing plant sourcing
cattle from the company’s Yarranbrook feedlot (situated near Inglewood), the plant
can process 120,000 head of cattle a year (John Dee Pty Ltd 2014).
– Grantham (Stanbroke Beef Pty Ltd).
– Oakey Beef Exports (NH Foods Australia) have a capacity of up to 1,200 head per day
of grain-fed cattle (British and European Cross steers, sourced from feedlot at
Whyalla) and high quality grass-fed cattle predominantly sourced from the Darling
Downs and throughout Queensland.
– Gleneagle (Highchester Quality Meats) processing approximately 500 calves and 80
cattle a week (Australian Meat Industry Council 2012).
– Kilcoy (Kilcoy Pastoral Company) processing more than 800 100-day grain-fed cattle a
day (Kilcoy Pastoral Company 2014).
– Biloela (Teys Australia) have a daily capacity of 703 head of grass-fed cattle sourced
from within a 150 km radius.
– Gympie (Nolan Meats) has capacity for 2,500 head cattle per week, the feed lot
operations (one company owned and three custom) supply approximately 70% of the
cattle processed at the plant (Nolan Meats 2014).
– Rockhampton (JBS Swift) operate 6 days processing 696 head per day of grass-fed
animals.
– Rockhampton (Teys Australia) is Australia’s largest single shift slaughter with a
capacity of 1,731 head per day.
– Mackay (Thomas Borthwick & Sons / NH Foods Australia) have a capacity in excess
of 750 head, certified for organic beef production and specialising in high quality,
chilled grass-fed beef sourced from central Queensland cattle.
– Townsville (JBS Swift) operate 5 days processing 903 head per day of grass-fed beef
cattle from northern and central Queensland and the Northern Territory.
– South Townsville (Horizon Gourmet Meats) is a small facility.
– Works that have closed over the last few decades include Mareeba, Cape River,
Queerah, Mt Isa, Ross River, Bowen and Innisfail.
In 2010/2011 a study was undertaken for the feasibility of the establishment of an abattoir in
northern Western Australia (ABARES 2012). The study found that:
Meat processing would not be viable without government assistance;
If a plant were to be established, Broome in the Kimberly region would be a preferred
location;
Before an abattoir was designed attention would be needed to developing a feed-lot
sector; and
An abattoir might be disadvantaged by the then proposed Livingstone Beef facility in the
Northern Territory.
The new beef processing plant in northern Australia has recently been approved. The Australian
Agricultural Company Limited (AACo) announced the start of full commercial operations at
Livingstone Beef, 50 km south of Darwin, after environmental approval was granted 31 October
2014. It has been identified that Livingstone Beef is a beef processing facility that will produce
chilled and frozen boxed manufacturing beef including the export of beef, hides and rendered
products. While the facility has the capability to process 1,000 head of cattle a day, AACo aim to
operate a full shift processing 520 head a day by March 2015 (Queensland Country Life,
2014a). AACo identify that stock will be sourced from the Northern Territory, and depending
upon supply, the northern areas of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (AACo
2014).
As a result of the AACo facility, Queensland Country Life (2014b) identify that near Broome,
Jack Burton of Yeeda Australia Rangeland Meat has been seeking investment in a smaller
abattoir to ship Halal- and EU- accredited box meat. The article also highlights that in southern
areas of Queensland there is adequate large-kill capacity but the possibility of new smaller or
multi species facilities is being probed in several areas.
3.1.4 Industry Projections
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) provide industry projections for the cattle industry. A mid-
year update was released in July 2014. The update was required as outflow of cattle herds is
historically high, while inflows have been constrained. The increased outflow has occurred as a
result of widespread drought conditions resulting in increased slaughter rates and above trend
death rates. The drought has also affected carcass weight, with significantly lighter cattle being
slaughtered, however this is noted to be an anomaly with carcass weight predicted to increase
post 2015 (depending upon weather conditions).
The June quarter feedlot survey identified that Queensland had 481,487 head of cattle on feed,
while this was a decrease on the June 2013 quarter, the figure is steady in comparison to the
March quarter (MLA 2014b). The survey identified that grain fed exports increased 2% from the
previous quarter, and 9% from the previous year. However, grain and fodder prices rose for a
second consecutive quarter placing pressure on feedlots and cattle producers.
The drought conditions have occurred in heavily populated cattle regions, impacting the number
of calves born. As a result of the outflow, Australia’s herd forecast is expected to fall to a two
decade low of 26.1 million by July 2015. The projections found that while the improvement in
global cattle and beef prices has not been felt in Australia due to high outflow, it is likely that
when the supply of cattle in Australia contracts, likely from late 2014, the Australian cattle prices
are anticipated to increase by up to 40%. There are situations however that could affect this
cattle price increase, including:
Significant worsening drought conditions;
An unprecedented third failed northern wet season;
Significant appreciation in the AUD$;
Market access issues;
Food safety incidents;
Animal disease outbreaks; and
Global economic fragilities (MLA 2014a).
The 2014-2020 outlook published by MLA indicates that the change for 2020 on 2013 data
includes cattle numbers anticipated to decrease by 4% (the majority of this occurring in 2014
and 2015), beef exports remaining steady, live cattle exports increasing by 24% and domestic
utilisation decreasing by 10%.
3.2 Central Queensland

The Central Highlands and Darling Downs regions were identified as having approximately 23%
of Queensland’s beef enterprises and carried 10% of the state’s beef herd (ABARES 2012). The
region is noted to support a range of cattle production systems including breeding for the store
trade in the western region where soils are less fertile and in other areas producers may breed
and finish cattle suitable for the domestic market. Some producers were noted to breed and
produce feeder cattle which are finished on-farm in opportunity feedlots or in the many
commercial feedlots in the region.
The 2011-12 Land Management Practices Survey (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013)
identified that in Central Queensland region 74 % or more of agricultural businesses had cattle
on their properties, with the number of feedlots ranging between 13 and 26. The survey found
that the average age of livestock entering feedlots in Queensland was 16 months with an
average spend of 100 days within the feedlots.
Further information is provided by the ABARES for the Fitzroy region which includes Banana,
Central Highlands, Gladstone, Rockhampton and Woorabinda local government areas. The
region statistics identify that in 2011-12 the gross value of agricultural production for the Fitzroy
Regional was $904 million, of which 66% was from cattle/calves. The number of beef cattle
farms for 2011-12 was identified to be 2,035, 65% of the total farms (ABARES 2014b).
The 2013 Agricultural Land Audit conducted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF) reported the Banana, Central Highlands, Gladstone, Rockhampton and
Woorabinda local government areas as being part of Central Queensland, approximately 74%
of the land area was identified as being used for grazing. Production systems (grazing) include:
Producing yearling or weaner steers (for grass and grain finishing);
Breeding and finishing cattle targeting European Union, Japanese ox and domestic
markets;
Stud breeding farms (DAFF 2013); and
The Central Queensland region agricultural value is identified as being significantly

impacted by rainfall.
The key findings of the 2013 Agricultural Land Audit include:
There are opportunities to expand intensive animal industries, particularly where cropping
occurs (for ease of access to food);
There is potential for additional irrigation development as construction of further storage
infrastructure is investigated, however mining water use, for example from the Fitzroy
River, impacts current water availability;
Further development of the region’s agricultural industries is dependent upon the
provision of infrastructure for transportation of materials and produce;
The mining industry provides competition for resources, including water, land and
services;
There is an opportunity to target niche markets, such as certified organic beef or targeting
the European Union, through enhanced production specifications;
Some of the challenges faced in the region include lack of reliable telecommunications,
reduced availability for specialist consultants, biosecurity issues and degradation of
natural resources;
It was recommended to expand cattle feedlots in the lower Fitzroy region where meat
processing plants are in closer proximity (this may impact upon the feasibility of a meat
processing plant at Emerald); and
Improving calving rates and enhanced herd and business management will improve
productivity of beef production systems (DAFF 2013).
In 2007, the Fitzroy Industry and Infrastructure Study (State of Queensland 2007), identified land
suitable for the development of approximately ten 15,000 head cattle feedlots. However due to
the then restrictions on the availability of three-phase power constraints would need to be
addressed (DAFF 2013).
Within Central Queensland there are a large number of cattle feedlots and on-farm opportunistic
operations that transport cattle to Rockhampton, Biloela or out of the region (DAFF 2013). The
2013 Agricultural Land Audit found that the meat processing capabilities within the region are
currently sufficient to process cattle from within the region and are currently not under pressure
(DAFF 2013). As mentioned in Section 3.1.3, there are a number of meat processing plants that
source cattle from Central Queensland as well as other areas, these include:
Dinmore Brisbane (JBS Swift) (1,675 head per shift);
Oakey Beef Exports (NH Foods Australia) (1,200 head per day);
Biloela (Teys Australia) (703 head per day);
Rockhampton (JBS Swift) (696 head per day);
Rockhampton (Teys Australia) (1,731 head per day);
Mackay (Thomas Borthwick & Sons / NH Foods Australia) (750 head per day); and
Townsville (JBS Swift) (903 head per day).
Oakey Beef Exports, operated by NH Foods Australia, is an Aus Meat A+ and BRC Global
Standards accredited facility that operates under the principals of HACCP under Approved
Arrangement Guidelines, regulated by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Services (NH Foods
Australia 2014). The plant is a fully integrated slaughtering, fabricating, chilling, freezing and
rendering facility that processes up to 1,200 cattle per day. The majority of the grain-fed cattle
are British and European cross steers, sourced from a NH Foods Australia integrated feedlot at
Whyalla in Queensland. However other grass-fed cattle are sourced from the Darling Downs
and throughout Queensland.
Mackay, Thomas Borthwick & Sons, operated by NH Foods Australia, is an Aus Meat A+ and
BRC Global Standards accredited facility that operates under the principals of HACCP under
Approved Arrangement Guidelines, regulated by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Services
(NH Foods Australia 2014). The facility produces organic and non-organic products sourcing
cattle from Central Queensland.
3.3 Central Highlands
Agricultural Industry
The Central Highlands is characterised by high-productivity grazing land with a gross value of
total agricultural produce in 2010-2011 attributable to cattle and calves being $207 million
(DAFF 2013). In 2012 the ABS identify that there were 1,085 business and 11% of the
population employed by agriculture, forestry and fishing industry in the Central Highland local
government area (ABS 2014a).
The 2013 Agricultural Land Audit identified the Central Highlands as projected to have strong
population growth over the coming years. The audit found that:
Urban and peri-urban expansion in the Central Highlands may impact upon availability of
land for future commercial scale agriculture;
Infrastructure investment, such as the Fairbairn Dam and associated channels, have
influenced irrigated agriculture, with reliable water supply also enabling increases in cattle
feedlot development;
The Central Highlands cropping zones are important as they offer alternate production
zones to the Darling Downs; and
Emerald is identified as forming an important hub for rail and road transport of agricultural
inputs and commodities. Recent flooding events highlighted the transport infrastructure
concerns when access to Rockhampton was restricted for an extended period (DAFF
2013).
Between 2001 to 2012 agricultural land values in the region increased from between 70% to
200% (DAFF 2013). Agricultural land values are believed to have since declined from previous
peaks.
Saleyards
Within the Central Highlands local government area Council operate the Emerald saleyards,
other saleyards are present at Biloela, Moura, Springsure, Gracemere and Rolleston.
Feedlots
There are a number of feedlots within Central Queensland. The Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry maintain a dataset of feedlots through the Intensive Livestock
Environmental Regulation Unit (ILERU). The 2013 Agricultural Land Audit results provide data
for land shown as currently being used for cattle feedlots, where feedlots have a capacity
greater than 150 head. The audit identified that there are 59 feedlots within Central Highlands
Regional Council, refer to Table 5 (DAFF 2013).
Table 5 Feedlots within Central Highlands Regional Council
Capacity Town/Locality Capacity Town/Locality

(head) (head)
2,000 Duaringa / Boolburra 650 Injune / Arcadia Valley
150 Capella / Crinum 150 Arcadia Valley via Injune / Arcadia

Valley
20,000 Comet / Comet 999 Rolleston / Arcadia Valley
500 Gindie via Emerald / Comet 10,000 Dingo / Mackenzie
999 Blackwater / Comet 450 Dingo / Jellinbah
499 Comet / Comet 1,000 Capella / Mount Macarthur
150 Emerald / Comet 499 Capella / Retro
150 Emerald / Comet 499 Capella / Retro
300 Springsure / Cona Creek 4,000 Capella / Retro
8,640 Springsure / Cona Creek 250 Capella / Retro
500 Springsure / Arcturus 150 Moura / Mungabunda
499 Emerald / Arcturus 4,000 Emerald / Wyuna
500 Capella / Hibernia 150 Moura / Goomally
999 Capella / Hibernia 999 Duaringa / Gainsford
499 Capella / Hibernia 2,000 Dingo / Dingo
150 Capella / Hibernia 750 Duaringa / Duaringa
499 Capella / Hibernia 250 Duaringa / Duaringa
499 Springsure / Minerva 3,000 Duaringa / Duaringa
150 Anakie / Lochington 1,000 Duaringa / Duaringa
3,000 Springsure / Albinia 500 Moura / Oombabeer
2,000 Springsure / Albinia 500 Springsure / Orion
500 Capella / Carbine Creek 999 Springsure / Orion
405 Emerald / Fork Lagoons 150 Springsure / Orion
150 Clermont / Cheeseborough 999 Rolleston / Rewan
250 Gindie / Gindie 150 Emerald / The Gemfields
1,500 Gindie / Gindie 150 Rubyvale / The Gemfields
499 Rolleston / Coorumbene 150 Capella / Lowestoff
999 Gindie / Emerald 500 Capella / Lilyvale
750 Injune / Arcadia Valley 250 Capella / Lilyvale
200 Arcadia Valley via Injune /

Arcadia Valley
Source: State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2013
4. Industry and Stakeholder Consultation
4.1 Overall Summary of Respondents – Cattle Producers,
Livestock Transport and Livestock and Meat Marketing
A survey of Cattle Producers, Livestock Transport and Meat Processing respondents was
hosted by Brennan Mayne Agribusiness (BMAg). The survey was carried out through phone
interviews and e-mailed survey questionnaires. The following provides a summary of survey
findings for each of the respective questions asked of over 25 respondents.
The respondents were predominately Cattle Producers, but a presentative number of
respondents were from the businesses associated with the cattle industry (livestock transport &
marketing).
With the feedback received, N/A means that the respondent was not asked a particular
question, or did not answer a particular question.
The feedback received from the cattle industry has been incorporated into the feasibility
assessment and provides the level of support cattle produces and the general cattle industry
have for a meat processing plant within the Central Highlands.
4.2 Cattle Producers

The following provides a summary of survey findings for each of the respective questions
received from Cattle Producer respondents.
Question 1 – How satisfied are you with the current processor options? (1 least – 5 most)
40% of the respondents scored 4 (mostly satisfied), 30% scored 3, 20% scored 2, 10% scored 1
(least satisfied).
Question 1 10%
40%
20%
30%
1 2 3 4
Comments were varied in nature but reflected the producers’ cattle production focus. Comments
provided by respondents to this question included:
With different processors there appears to be discrepancies with the grading of the
carcass;
Use of meat processing standards and grading generally differ between processors;
Lack of competition with current processors; and
Issues with distance to processors.
Question 2 – Do you think an additional new processing facility would improve this?
Eighty-eight (88%) of the respondents answered yes and 12% no.
Question 2
12%
88%
Yes No
Producers generally gave a strong to focusing on niche markets and service skills. Comments
provided by respondents to this question included:
Focus more on niche markets, either direct or service killing for branded label product;
Currently trucking long distances for a service kill to obtain better yield;
More opportunities with less freight costs, more options in logistics;
Better beef – less stress (duration of freight, etc);

Live export would have an impact on any new processing plant; and
More competition within the industry is always healthy.
Question 3 – What is the approximate number of cattle you sell each year?
28% between 500-1,500 head per year

44% between 1,000-5,000 head per year
17% between 5,000-10,000 head per year
11% over 10,000 head per year
Question 3
11%
17%
28%
44%
500-1000 hd 1000-5000 hd 5000-10000 hd 10000+ hd
Most producers (72%) fall between 500 to 5,000 head sold per year. Comments provided by
respondents to this question included:
Sells between 1,000-5,000 head of their own cattle and 5,000-10,000 head of customer’s
cattle; and
Sells approximately 30,000 head per year to a variety of meat processors.
Question 4 – What is the approximate percentage (%) of your turn off cattle which are
slaughter cattle?
Respondents answered 8 at 100%, 1 at 99%, 1 at 95%, 2 at 90%, 1 at 65-90%, 1 at 75%, 1 at
30% 1 at 20% and 1 at 9% (currently increasing stock).
Question 4
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100%
100% 75% 99% 65-90% 95% 90% 9% 20% 30%
The majority of producers sell the bulk of their cattle to slaughter. Comments provided by
Percentage and months of slaughter depends on the weather, sometimes send feeders
to southern feedlots;
Prefer to finish on grass if able;

100% if I could send them to Emerald; and
Gone away from slaughter cattle due to dissatisfaction with processors.
Question 5 – What is the approximate percentage (%) of your slaughter cattle that are
sold direct to processors or through saleyards?
Direct to Processors - 4 at 95%, 9 at 100%, 1 at 99%, 1 at 98% and 1 at 9% (currently building

herd).
Through Saleyards - 3 at 5%, 1 at 2%, 2 at 1%.
Sold Privately – 1 at 100%, 1 at 90%.
Question 5
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Direct to Processors Through Saleyards
The bulk of producers sell cattle direct to processors, with a few selling privately.
Comments provided by respondents to this question included:
Sells all themselves after being service killed;
Sells 100% cull cows, heifers and steers;
Sells 100% to processors commented they sold 40% to live export through an Agent last
year, 40% to feedlot, 20% to works due to kill space unavailable in a timely manner;
Sells feeder heifers only occasionally to regulate stocking rate due to seasonal
conditions;
9% to Processors and 1% to Saleyards – commented they sell 90% privately; and
Sells direct to processors as no extra commission/selling fees.
Question 6 – What is the approximate quarterly percentage (%) of your slaughter cattle
turnoff?
Jan–Mar 1 at 5%, 3 at 10%, 1 at 14%, 2 at 15%, 3 at 20%, 2 at 25%, 1 at 30%, 2 at 40%,
2 at 50%
Apr-Jun 1 at 5%, 2 at 10%, 1 at 15%, 3 at 20%, 3 at 25%, 2 at 30%, 1 at 33%, 2 at 35%
Jul-Sep 1 at 10%, 3 at 20%, 4 at 25%, 2 at 30% and 1 at 35%, 1 at 40%, 1 at 50%, 1 at 60%,
1 at 65%
Oct–Dec 1 at 10%, 1 at 15%, 2 at 20%, 5 at 25%, 3 at 30%, 1 at 33%, 2 at 40%
Question 6
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Cattle for slaughter turnoff appear to be reasonably spread throughout the year with a peak in
July to September.
Producers sell all types all year;
Sell evenly 100/week;
Producer’s turnoff will be dependent on season; and
One Producer supplies the majority of turnoff when the generally supply is shortest, also
commented this could change when or if supplying a more niche market.
Question 7 – Do you think this would change if a processor was closer?
94% answered No, and 6% Yes.
Question 7
6%
94%
Yes No
The majority of producers wouldn’t change their slaughter turnoff practices even if a processing
plant was in Emerald. Comments provided by respondents to this question included:
Could depend on if there were different market specifications;
Would still try to supply majority of turnoff when supply is shortest;
Most of turnoff is direct to processor now, a closer processor wouldn’t change that;
May change due to space available and price offered, not necessarily because closer;
and
Possibly if a service kill facility that could meet specific markets.
Question 8 – Do you supply a specific market (PCAS, MSA, Organic, Waygu or branded
product)?
88% answered Yes, and 12% No.
Question 8
12%
88%
Yes No
A large proportion of producers were targeted in their approach to the market: Number of
respondents supplying to particular markets - MSA 7 producers, EU 10 producers, Wagyu 4
producers, Organic 5 producers, PCAS 5 producers, HQB 2 producer, Trade 1 producer, 100
Day 1 producer, GF 60/70 Day 1 producer, GF 100 Day 1 producer, EU Grass 1 producer.
Question 9 – If no, are you interested in selling to one of the above markets?
50% answered Yes, and 50% No.
Question 10 – Do you sell cattle utilizing a service kill arrangement?
87% answered No, and 13% Yes.
Question 10
13%
87%
Yes No
The majority of producers don’t use a service kill but a few stated they would if available.
Question 11 – Relative to your closest processor, is Emerald further or closer?

Further - 13%, <100 km Closer – 0%, 100-200 km Closer – 40%, 200-300 km Closer – 47%
Question 11
13%
47%
40%
Further <100 km closer

1-200 km closer 2-300 km closer
The majority of producers (87%) would be at least 100 kilometres closer for travel distance.
Question 12 – What impact does the distance to processors have on your business (cost,
marketing options, transit losses, logistics, etc)?
The producers stated cattle condition at processors impacted market requirements while freight
costs were highlighted as a major factor in direct cost to producers. Producers also highlighted
the difficulty with road train restrictions and logistics required to get cattle to processors.
Question 13 – If there was a processing plant in Emerald, do you think it would create
greater marketing opportunities for your cattle business? (1 least – 5 most)
44% of the respondents scored 5 (most satisfied), 25% scored 3, 19% scored 4, 12% scored 1
(least satisfied).
Question 13
12%
44%
25%
19%
1 2 3 4 5
The majority of producers felt there would be some greater marketing opportunities but there
were still a few producers who felt there would be little changed in there marketing approach.
Distance to Port not favourable, logistically not feasible from a meat perspective;
More marketing opportunities now than I require;
Not the way we do business at the moment, except for added competition. Any new plant
would improve marketing options;
Paddock to plate type market opportunities;
May sell to different markets, more competition;

The increase in competition alone would have major benefits; and
If the plant processes the MSA, PCAS or other markets.
Question 14 – Do you grain or crop finish cattle?

56% of the respondents said yes, and 44% no.
Question 14
44%
56%
Yes No
Question 15 – If no, would this be a viable option?
67% of the respondents said no, and 33% yes.
Question 15
33%
67%
Yes No
A large proportion of producers wouldn’t change to grain or crop finishing if a meat processing
plant was in the Central Highlands. Comments provided by respondents to this question
included:
Due to niche market the demand outstrips supply, e.g. organic;
I'm happy with the price I'm receiving and the kill space available; and
Possibly depends on economics.
General Comments – Cattle Producers
A range of general comments was received covering a range of advice and potential issues.
Plant would need lots of freezing capacity and labour may be an issue;
Organic cattle suppliers are located throughout Queensland and Northern NSW. The
majority of our suppliers are in Central and Central western Queensland. Organic
producers currently have cattle processed in Southern Queensland, which is a
considerable distance from our central/central west suppliers;
A processing plant near Emerald would be 30/40% less freight, more options in logistics,
better beef - less stress (duration of freight, etc);
More labour would be required, which would diversify the town further;
Emerald has supported mining and horticulture in the past so it will for beef processing in
the future;
Central location to draw cattle from a large area of Central Queensland higher carrying
capacity country;
A lot of the support industry is already there;
Capital could be a problem so may be some overseas investment could be helpful; and
The past has shown us in Queensland that beef processing is a very specialised and
difficult business at times, therefore experience in operation integration into niche markets
and a very good knowledge of efficient processing would be required.
4.3 General Cattle Industry
The following provides a summary of survey findings for each of the respective questions asked
of the Livestock Transport and Marketing as well as other beef industry respondents.
Question 1 – Do you think a meat processing plant near Emerald would benefit your
Business? (1 not at all - 5 a lot)
51% of the respondents scored a 4 or 5 (would benefit their business a lot), while some stated
there may be negative impacts to the livestock transport industry.
Question 1
13% 12%
12%
38%
13%
12%
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Comments received were varied but focused on their particular industry.

It would be more efficient to have processing facilities located closer to the livestock and
then transport the beef to port/major distribution centres;
Having a processing plant at Emerald would allow access to cattle on both sides of the
tick line;
Negative impact could be fewer cattle at Emerald saleyards; and
Use would be dependent of ownership structure of plant assuming external ownership

(not currently in the Central Queensland processing market) or a co-operative.
Question 2 – Do you think an additional new processing facility would benefit the Beef
Industry? (1 not at all - 5 a lot)
50% of the respondents scored a 5 (would benefit the beef industry a lot), 25% scored a 4, 13%
a 2 and 1% N/A.
Question 2
13% 12%
25%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
The majority of respondents (75%) felt a new processing plant would benefit the beef industry,
with a more competitive market seem as the key advantage.
Another outlet for beef can only help the beef industry. It would provide greater
competition in the processing sector and would allow greater volumes of cattle to be
processed;
This would help the industry, especially in dry times where there is a greater need to turn
off greater numbers than the current processing sector can handle;
Emerald is surrounded by productive grass finishing country. There is also grain supply
from local growers - enough to support a grain finished supply of cattle; and
A processing plant near Emerald would reduce livestock transport considerably, thereby
reducing cost of production as well as the carbon footprint.
Question 3 – Do you think a meat processing plant near Emerald would benefit the
Emerald Community? (1 not at all - 5 a lot)
50% of the respondents were N/A, 25% scored a 5 (a lot), 13% scored a 4 and 12% scored a 3.
Question 3 12%
13%
50%
25%
1 2 3
People surveyed within the livestock support industry were less inclined to comment on the
benefit to Emerald Community but those that did felt it would be a benefit. Comments provided
by respondents to this question included:
Positive for people in town;
Potentially Yes - overall, but there are both positives/negatives impacts;

Potential for social impacts, would recommend a Social impact assessment be
undertaken as part of any approval process; and
Solid base for employment as the industry is more permanent, without the highs and lows
of other industries.
Question 4 – What percentage (%) of your business is derived from the beef industry?
Although a large proportion of respondents failed to answer this question, of those that did the
major were heavily involved in the beef industry.
63% were N/A. 25% of respondents scored 75% and 12% of respondents scored a 100%.
Question 5 – Are you concerned about the carbon foot print of your product?
Carbon foot print impacts were not deemed as a major concern from most respondents based
on the low level of feedback.
63% were N/A. 25% of respondents said no, 12% of respondents said yes.
The reliance of fossil fuels in livestock transport has a great bearing on carbon emissions
associated with beef production;
The processing of beef uses a considerable amount of energy. This is compounded in
many older facilities due to inefficient infrastructure. Building a new state of the art facility
near Emerald through improvements in technology would maximise energy efficiency and
minimise the environmental impact; and
By being centrally located to a large supply of cattle, it would in turn reduce transport
distances and therefore minimise its carbon footprint.
Question 6 – How well do you believe that the current processor structure is able to
support the beef industry into the future?

Current structure is sufficient if capacity managed better, extra capacity could be used
today but is that ongoing;
The major processors have a lot of power at the moment, another Meatworks would help;
There is a disconnect between producer and processor;
Existing processors are very reliant on labour with a new plant there is the potential for
more automation;
Meat Processing is a very capital intensive industry - not well suited to debt capital due to
the cyclical nature of profitability within the industry; and
A new plant with the right structure could allow more producer engagement in the industry
and better marketing into more niche markets.
Question 7 – How well do you believe the Central Highlands region could support such a
development? (1 not at all - 5 a lot)
50% of respondents were N/A, 25% of respondents scored each of both 4 and 5 (a lot).
Question 7
25%
50%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Of those that responded to this question the majority felt that the Central Highlands could
support a new meat processing plant.
Comments centred on being different in the market place rather than following lead of main
players in the processing industry.
Question 8 – Do you think that Government funds for such a development would be a
sound investment in the long term viability of the beef industry?
63% of respondents were N/A. 25% of respondents answered yes, and 12% no.
Question 8
25%
63%
12%
Yes No N/A
Although most respondents failed to answer this question, a few people support government
investment in a meat processing plant in the Central Highlands.
On the back of very positive projections on global protein / beef demand, Government
funds for such a development would be a very sound investment;
By investing in this sector, it would lead to greater competitiveness and efficiency within
processing and in the long term lead to greater returns at the farm gate;
De-centralisation of the processing sector could assist producers; and
Encouraging employment in regional centres.
Question 9 – Are there industry trends / demands that would support a meat processing
plant in Emerald?
63% of respondents were N/A. 37% of respondents answered yes.
Question 9
37%
63%
Yes No N/A
Of those that responded, all stated that the current beef market could support a meat
processing plant near Emerald. Comments provided by respondents to this question included:
A lot of graziers are doing it tough at the moment and are looking for a new outlet closer
to home. Feedlots in the area could help with supply;
Increased livestock transport costs - Emerald being more centrally located would reduce
this expense;
A greater focus on animal welfare compliance - reduced transport distances would
improve animal welfare;
Abattoirs need to source an adequate supply of labour and they need to be located near
towns that have the infrastructure to support this workforce;
Emerald has developed in the past decade through the boom in the resource industry - it
would be well placed to provide the necessary labour requirements; and
Fly in fly out employment is on the rise. The regular flights to Emerald would be a great
asset to a processing facility.
Question 10 – What percentage (%) of your high value product comes from the CQ
region?
63% of respondents were N/A. 37% of respondents answered 75%.
Question 10
37%
63%
<25% 50% 75% 100% N/A
Question 11 – Do you think that there is room for your high value product % to increase if
there was a processing plant closer?
63% of the respondents were N/A. 37% of the respondents answered yes.
Question 11
37%
63%
Yes No N/A

Yes but closer to ports - not closer to cattle. It would make our business more competitive
in the Central Queensland region; and
The region is extremely well suited to Organic/natural grass fed beef production - this is
due to the lands inherent fertility and reliable rainfall.
Question 12 – Do you source a particular beef product from the CQ region?
63% of the respondents were N/A, 37% of the respondents answered yes.
Question 12
37%
63%
Yes No N/A
Question 13 – Would you be interested in being involved in a processing plant if it were

to be developed?
63% of respondents were N/A. 37% of respondents answered yes.
Question 13
37%
63%
Yes No N/A
Question 14 – If yes, in what capacity would you be interested in a processing plant if it

were to be developed?
50% of the respondents were N/A. 20% chose each Run and Customer.
Question 14
10%
20%
50%
20%
Own Run Cust N/A
Question 15 – Is near Emerald an appropriate location?
50% of respondents answered yes. 25% of respondents chose No and 25% were N/A.
Question 15
25% 50%
25%
Yes No N/A
Transporting staff via bus is option, so facility can be anywhere with bussed staff;
Meat processing plant will need rail, road, water, energy, thus site should be picked
based on access to these utilities; and
Yes due to workforce requirements, available accommodation, good cross roads access,
good range of shopping, education, and social infrastructure.
Question 16 – What do you think could be the negative impacts of having a meat
processing plant in Emerald?

Mining resource requirements may have an impact on available skill base;
Potential for impact to social aspects of Emerald community will need to be managed;
Environmental impacts to vegetation such as brigalow or other listed communities or
species, development will need to consider any offsite impacts to environment;
Negative impact to industry profile if types of meat produced changes, focuses of meat
industry change due to processor targets; and
Potential for impacts such as odour nuisance to neighbouring properties.
Question 17 – What do you think could be the positive impacts of having a meat
Create work within a different industry in addition to the existing cotton / citrus / mining
industries;
Job growth in the regional as well helps local producers;
More competition for product; and
Not new industry for the region as existing cattle industry in the area just a different
aspect of the cattle industry.
Question 18 - Additional Comments

Social impact assessment (SIA) highly recommended early in any potential development;
Service kill co-operative to supply meatworks but not own meatworks;
Meatworks focus on niche markets or specialist producer e.g. PCAS; and
Water allocation maybe a problem but use of medium security water should be possible.
4.4 Community Survey

A web based community survey was hosted by Central Highland Development Corporation
(CHDC). The survey had notification on the CHDC web page (http://www.chdc.com.au/) and
through the CHDC eNews. The survey was open online for a period of just over three weeks up
until 5 pm 3rd December, 2014. The following provides a summary of survey findings for each of
the respective questions received from 60 respondents. The feedback from the community has
been incorporated into sections of the feasibility study where appropriate.
Question 1 - Are you involved in the beef industry in any way?

Fifty-three percent (53%) of the respondents answered ‘Yes’. The remaining respondents were
a mix of local community who identified themselves within the following industries:
Water treatment;
Hospitality and retail;
Home duties;
Mining;
Transport; and
Automotive.
Question 2 - Do you think a meat processing plant near Emerald would benefit your
Business?
The graph below summarise responses to question 2 where a response of ‘1’ is not at all and a
response of ‘5’ is a lot.

Many identified a reduction in transport and freight costs as a benefit to the regional cattle
industry; and
A number of respondents believed that there would be flow on effects that would benefits
businesses based in Emerald.
Question 3 - Do you think a meat processing plant near Emerald would benefit the Beef
Industry
Reduction in transport and freight costs would benefit beef industry; and
Increased competition in meat process was seen as a positive for the industry.
Question 4 - Do you think a meat processing plant near Emerald would benefit the
Emerald Community?
Increased employment opportunities and diversity; and
Believed it would extend employment opportunity across the region not just Emerald.
Question 5 - How well do you believe the Central Highlands region could support such a
development?

Sufficient cattle producers and cattle supply from the Central West to support
development; and
Emerald community and services are in place and ready to support the development.
Question 6 - Is near Emerald an appropriate location?
Ninety-four percent (94%) of the respondents answered ‘Yes’. Comments provided by

Clermont identified as alternative location; and

Suggested to be located away from existing sale yards and sufficiently enough distance
from residents of Emerald so as to limit odour issue.
Question 7 - What do you think would be the best ownership structure for a meat
processing plant in Emerald? E.g. one of the existing processors; a co-operative (with
the ability to provide service kills for specific market outlets); external investor;
government; other.

A co-operative was clearly identified as the preferred structure (25 of the 54
respondents); and
An existing processor or external investor were the second most popular options for
ownership structures (10 respondents each).
Question 8 - What do you think could be the negative impacts of having a meat
Environmental concerns were raised by 13 of the 50 respondents, mostly odour related
issues and concerns;
Increased transport and heavy vehicle movements through Emerald;
Increased out of town workers (FiFO and 457 visa); and
Concerns over water supply issues.
Question 9 - What do you think could be the positive impacts of having a meat
Increased employment opportunities and diversity in employment options (41 of the 57
respondents);
Economic benefits to Emerald and region (18 of the 57 respondents);
Reduced transport and freight costs for producers and processors; and
Increased competition in the meat processing markets.
Question 10 - Any other comments you wish to add?
Several respondents were in favour for the development and wanted to see it progress;
and
Respondents were in favour of the increased diversity and economic boost the
development would add to the Emerald region.
4.5 State and Local Government
4.5.1 Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM)
Initial advice from DNRM officers with regards to vegetation clearing is that the meat processing
facility will trigger the Vegetation Unit’s involvement in assessing the development application
because it would involve an MCU and there is no exemption for abattoirs.
The western site has mapped areas of category B endangered regional ecosystems. If areas to
the east of this site only are to be cleared (mapped category B least concern regional
ecosystem including bendee/lancewood and lemon scented gum) then no offsets are required.
A possible discussion with forestry about potential clearing of lemon scented gum would need to
occur.
With regard to the Brigalow in the southwest corner of the lot the preferred option would be to
avoid the Brigalow altogether. Should the Brigalow need to be cleared an option to be
considered is obtaining an assessment of the Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV)
to increase the area of Category X vegetation and possibly getting the mapped Brigalow
regional ecosystem removed. Currently under this process however the Brigalow would likely be
mapped as endangered regrowth because it is on lease land. There would be a need to prove
the regrowth had been retreated since 1989 then it could go to Category X.
4.5.2 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)
The Central Queensland office of the EHP was contacted regarding the Departments
requirement of meat processing as an Environmentally Relevant Activity (EPA). Approval and
ongoing compliance requirements were generally discussed, with details corresponding to those
outlined by Council Planning Officers as well as addressed within Section 5 of this report.
4.5.3 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
The Policy Unit of DAFF’s Animal Services Section was contacted regarding the general status
of the beef industry in Queensland and government policy regarding the future of the beef
industry, specifically meat processing. Advice was provided in line with the Queensland
Government draft Meat Industry Action Plan 2014 – 2016 (DAFF 2014).
4.5.4 TradeStart, Trade & Investment Queensland
The regionally based TradeStart Advisers in Rockhampton and Barcaldine were contacted
regarding opportunities within the export market for the beef industry. A general discussion was
also undertaken regarding the current status of the beef industry and the need to align any meat
processing with direct export markets on a city or regional basis within the export market to
enhance export opportunities.
4.5.5 Ergon
With regard to supply of electrical power to the proposed development and the required power
demand of 4.5 MVA, Ergon provided the following insights for the project:
Required power demand would require drawing from a 22 kV line or greater. There are a
22 kV and 66 kV lines in the region that would require significant works to access.
A demand of 4.5 MVA added to the 66 kV network is considered a substantial draw likely
to require some form of management during periods of peak demand. Much of this will
need to be investigated further if the project progresses to a planning and phase.
Ergon provided the following comments with regard to each of the proposed development
sites:
– The northern site would be preferred provided a suitable 22 kV line route through
Emerald can be acquired.
– The western and eastern sites are some distance from 22 kV lines however the
required power supply may still be possible. The eastern site is close to a 66 kV power
line which would be suitable.
– Southern site (north of Springsure) should be ruled out. It is not possible to deliver 4.5
MVA over 60 km on 22 kV lines. This power demand over the 60 km distance would
require 66 kV power lines which are not considered feasible.
4.5.6 SunWater
The following insights and information was provided by SunWater.
Water Allocations
SunWater does not currently have water allocations for sale in the Nogoa McKenzie.
There is an active water allocation market in the area. Local real estate agents and
WaterFind could assist.
The development may require high priority water allocations which are more resilient
during drought periods. Consider discussions with local DNRM contacts to convert
between medium priority (irrigation) allocations to high priority allocations.
Channel Access for Transportation of Water Allocation

Existing customers in the channel system currently have the system at capacity.
Access would be on the basis of no peak flow rate meaning that at times when the
channel is operating at capacity no water could be taken. Peak periods could extend for
6-8 weeks at a time.
The proponent would be responsible for building a pipeline to transport water from the
channel (or dam) to site.
The government announced (11 December, 2014) the decision to transfer the SunWater
channel systems, including the Emerald system, to a locally owned and managed
business (one for each of the channel schemes referred to as a local management
arrangement). A public call for expressions of interest for individuals to sit on the
boards has been released.
Discussions with Water Traders in the Central Highlands have identified the availability of
medium security water through the purchase of water allocations. These allocations should be
readily available and based on historic access should be suitable for the use by a meat
processing facility in the long term.
4.5.7 Central Highlands Regional Council (CHRC)
Initial feedback from CHRC is that the proposed meat works will trigger an impact assessment.
CHRC have advised that a meat processing plant will be considered “High Impact Industry”
under the definition schedule of the Emerald Shire Council (Amendment No. 3) 2013 planning
scheme. It is confirmed that an Impact Assessable development application would need to be
made to Council under the current Planning Scheme.
CHRC have advised GHD that a new Planning Scheme will be available for public viewing in the
New Year and that this may impact on the nature of the application.
For any sites proposed for development that are heavily vegetated and may hold significant
ecological values, CHRC have recommended that a site survey be carried out to ensure
assessment under the EPBC Act is not required.
With regard to the proposed development, CHRC have advised that their major concerns will
involve:
Traffic impacts on local government roads;
Stormwater management including quality;
Buffers to nearby / adjoining sensitive receptors;
Visual amenity;
Effluent disposal and treatment; and
Impacts on stock routes.
CHRC have recommended that a pre-lodgement meeting be held prior to the project
progressing to design phase.
5. Legislative Summary
Table 6 provides a summary of Commonwealth and State environmental and planning
legislation and their applicability to the project.
Table 6 Summary of Applicable Legislation
Legislation Responsible Activity License / Permit /

Authority Approval
Environmental Department of Action that has, will have Not applicable
Protection and Environment or is likely to have a Based on a desktop
Biodiversity significant impact on any assessment and field
Conservation Act of the matters of observations it is unlikely
1999 environmental that the project will have
(Commonwealth) significance (MNES). significant impact upon
MNES.
Aboriginal Cultural Department of Require those conducting Applicable
Heritage Act 2003 Aboriginal and activities in areas of No known values at the
Torres Strait significance to take all site, Duty of care
Islander and reasonable and practical Guidelines to be complied
Multicultural measures to avoid with (e.g. cease work if
Affairs harming cultural heritage. items found).
Liaison with the Cultural
Heritage body and
undertake further cultural
heritage assessment where
required.
Environmental Department of Where ‘serious and Applicable
Protection Act Environment material environmental Duty of Care and Duty to
1994 and Heritage harm’ is caused or Notify. Construction
Protection threatened. activities to be managed in
accordance with a CEMP.
Requiring Environmentally Applicable
Relevant Activities Approvals for
(prescribed activities are Environmentally Relevant
generally industrial Activity (ERA) required.
activities but also include
some agricultural
activities) to be licenced.
Management of soil Applicable
disposal for land listed on A search of both registers
the EMR or CLR has been undertaken. Lot
11 on DSN867 (northern
site) is listed on the EMR.
Fisheries Act 1994 Department of Works within waterways Applicable
Agriculture, that involve erecting a Works proposed within a
Fisheries and barrier to fish movement watercourse. Requirement
Forestry across a watercourse. to apply for a Water Way
Barrier Works approval
under SPA. Applies to Lot
30 DSN741 (southern site)
where construction would
occur in or nearby
Springsure Creek.
Legislation Responsible Activity License / Permit /
Authority Approval
Land Protection Department of Control and management Applicable
(Pest and Stock Natural of declared plants and No approvals required, but
Route Resources and animals. required to control weeds
Management) Act Mines Management of stock as per local Pest
2002 routes. Management Plan.
Nature Department of Removal or disturbance of Applicable
Conservation Act Environment protected fauna and flora Sites that have mature
1992 and Heritage (clear native vegetation, vegetation that may contain
Protection tamper with native fauna protected flora species and
and/or tamper with animal may be habitat to fauna
breeding places). species and places for
breeding. A site flora and
fauna survey would be
required as part of
notification process to
DEHP prior to clearing.
Should Protected species
be identified further plans
and actions, such as
species management
plans, may be required.
Queensland Department of Works associated with Not applicable
Heritage Act 1992 Environment places registered under No places identified in the
and Heritage the Act. desktop search.
Protection Incidental discovery of
artefacts and their
protection.
Sustainable Department of Provides legislative Applicable
Planning Act 2009 State framework for Relates to assessable
Sustainable Development, assessment process. development under
Planning Infrastructure Schedule 3 e.g. MCU for
Regulation 2009 and Planning ERA, any relevant
operational works (i.e. For
clearing of native
vegetation, waterway
barrier works).
Transport Department Work within, in relation to Applicable
Infrastructure Act Transport and or within 25 m of road Sites are adjacent to and
1994 Main Roads reserves or rail land. will require works within
25 m of a state-controlled
road and/or rail.
Vegetation Department of Clearing of native Applicable
Management Act Natural vegetation. Mapped Category B
1999 Resources and vegetation proposed to be
Mines cleared (western and
southern sites).
Water Act 2000 Department of Destroy vegetation, Not Applicable
Natural excavate or place fill in a No proposal to take waters
Resources and watercourse. from a declared
Mines Taking or interfering with watercourse.
water flow.
5.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC)
The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires that
a person must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on
any of the matters of national environmental significance without approval from the Australian
Government Minister for Department of Environment. An action can be defined as a project, a
development, an undertaking, an activity or a series of activities, or an alteration of any of these
things.
It is determined that an EPBC Act referral is unlikely to be required. Should a further site survey
be undertaken and the presence/absence of threatened species is confirmed further review of
EPBC Act requirements is recommended.
5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

In Queensland, both Commonwealth and State legislation protect Indigenous cultural heritage.
Three pieces of Commonwealth legislation serve to protect Australia’s heritage. These are the
EPBC Act, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Commonwealth) and the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The primary piece of Queensland legislation
protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage sites is the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
(Queensland).
Measures are required to be put in place to comply with the duty of care under the Aboriginal
Cultural Heritage Act 2003. If at any time during the works contractors, excavate, relocate,
remove or harm a cultural heritage find, there is need to notify the cultural heritage body
immediately and seek their advice on how best to proceed.
5.2 Environmental Protection Act 1994

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) and the subordinate Environmental Protection
Regulation 2008 (EP Reg) provide the principal environmental protection legislation for
Queensland.
5.2.1 Environmentally Relevant Activities
Environmentally Relevant Activities (ERA’s) are identified under Schedule 2 of the

Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (EP Reg) and one or more may be relevant to the
proposed meat processing plant.
ERA 25 relates to meat processing, and consists of either of the following—

(a) processing 1000t or more of meat or meat products in a year, whether or not the
processing includes rendering; or
(b) rendering 100t or more of meat or meat products in a year, if the meat or meat
products are not otherwise processed.
The relevant activity does not include—

(a) processing meat or meat products involving only chilling, curing, drying, freezing,
packaging or smoking the meat or meat products; or
(b) processing meat or meat products in retail premises, including, for example, butcher
shops and supermarkets.
If the threshold of the activity is identified as a ‘concurrence ERA’ then an MCU for an ERA
development application will be required under SPA. An Environmental Authority (EA) is also
required to operate an environmentally relevant activity and can be applied for concurrently with
the MCU for ERA application and is assessed by EHP.
Animal effluent and residues, including abattoir effluent is identified as a ‘regulated waste’ under
Schedule 7 of the EP Reg and as such additional ERAs may also apply to meat processing
plant activities such as:
ERA 8 – chemical storage;
ERA 57 – waste management activities such as regulated waste storage;
ERA 60 – regulated waste disposal; and
ERA 63 – sewage treatment.
5.2.2 General Environmental Duty
Under Section 319 of the EP Act, a person must not carry out any activity that causes, or is
likely to cause, environmental harm unless the person takes all reasonable and practicable
measures to prevent or minimise the harm (the general environmental duty). To demonstrate
compliance with Section 319, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is
recommended should the project proceed.
5.2.3 Environmental Protection Policies
Environmental Protection Policies (EPPs) are statutory policies developed under the EP Act:
Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 - The key potential air quality impact is dust
due to the volume of earthworks required. A CEMP should be developed to assist a
Construction Contractor with compliance with the EPP Air;
Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 - Noise during construction is temporary
and may be sourced from machinery use, transportation and general construction site
noises (for example talking). The works may cause some local nuisance. A CEMP should
be developed to assist a Construction Contractor with compliance with the EPP Noise;
and
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 - The project involves works within
waterway due to the nature of the project. A CEMP should be developed to assist a
Construction Contractor with compliance with the EPP Water.
5.3 Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act, administered by DAFF protects fish habitat. The Fisheries Act requires
approvals be sought for certain works in declared fish habitats, regulates fish passage by
requiring applications for waterway barrier works and requires permits for the damage, removal,
pruning or trimming of marine plants under the SPA.
For works proposed within a watercourse there is a requirement to apply for a Water Way
Barrier Works approval under SPA. This may apply in the case where development is proposed
at Lot 30 DSN741 (southern site) and construction would be required in or across Springsure
Creek.
5.4 Nature Conservation Act 1992
The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) and associated Nature Conservation (Wildlife
Management) Regulation 2006 (NC Wildlife Reg) provide a framework for the conservation of
nature in Queensland. One of the primary mechanisms by which this objective is to be achieved
is through the declaration of and the specification of management principles and intents for
wildlife species of particular conservation significance.
Under the NC Act all native wildlife is protected. The NC Wildlife Reg lists the conservation
status of protected wildlife and the principals governing its taking and use.
5.5 Vegetation Management Act 1999

The Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act) regulates vegetation clearing and applies to all
tenures and attention is drawn to the following aspects.
5.5.1 Regulated Vegetation
The Queensland Herbarium has mapped regulated vegetation across areas of Queensland
which are used as triggers under the VM Act for determining where clearing is assessable
development under the Act. The VM Act seeks to regulate the clearing of native vegetation to
preserve remnant ‘Endangered’ and ‘Of Concern’ regional ecosystems, vegetation in areas of
high nature conservation values and areas vulnerable to land degradation.
5.5.2 Essential Habitat
In accordance with the SDAP Module 8: Native vegetation clearing, if clearing of essential
habitat cannot be avoided clearing either does not exceed the width or area identified in the
SDAP or an environmental offset is required.
5.6 Sustainable Planning Act 2009

The SPA is the principal planning legislation for Queensland and set outs the integrated
development assessment system (IDAS). IDAS is applicable for all assessable development
under local government planning schemes and other State legislation rolled into the IDAS
system. Assessable development under the SPA can be either exempt, self-assessable, code
assessable or impact assessable.
The Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) is the process under the SPA used for
assessing and approving development permit applications. The Department of State
Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) is the State Assessment and Referral
Agency (SARA), the single lodgement point and assessment manager or referral agency for all
development applications where the state has an interest. SARA commenced on 1 July 2013
and provides a coordinated approach to state development assessment.
5.7 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
5.7.1 Main roads
If works are within proximity to a state controlled road, then it is likely the Department of
Transport and Main Roads (TMR) will be identified as a technical agency to any development
application and provided the opportunity to assess the development application and provide
conditions.
In addition, works within a state controlled road will require a road corridor permit; additional
information is available at http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-and-
development/Other-matters-requiring-approval/Road-Corridor-Permit.aspx
5.7.2 Rail
If works are within proximity to a rail corridor, then it is likely the Department of Transport and
Main Roads (TMR) will be identified as a technical agency to any development application and
provided the opportunity to assess the development application and provide conditions or
advice.
In addition, works on or near rail corridor land will require a wayleave permit; additional
information is available at
http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/NETWORKSERVICES/THIRDPARTYCORRIDORACCESS/
Pages/ThirdPartyCorridorAccess.aspx
5.8 Water Act 2000

The taking or interfering with water from a watercourse, as defined under the Water Act 2000,
for any purpose other than for stock or domestic purposes, requires the relevant authorisations
(i.e. a water licence) under the Water Act 2000.
5.9 Planning Advice
5.9.1 Central Highlands Regional Council (CHRC)
Initial advice from CHRC is that a meat works is considered an industrial use and best fits the
definition of “high impact industry” (meat and meat product manufacturing) under the Planning
Scheme for Emerald Shire Council (Amendment No.3) 2013.
The development would constitute an Impact Assessable development application under the
current Planning Scheme. It was noted by CHRC that a new Planning Scheme will be
introduced in 2015 and that this may impact on the nature of the application.
CHRC advised that as assessor of the development that they would be interested in the
following aspects of the project:
Traffic impacts on local government roads;
Stormwater management including quality;

Buffers to nearby / adjoining sensitive receptors;
Visual amenity;
Effluent disposal and treatment; and

Impacts on stock routes.
5.9.2 Material Change of Use (MCU)
Making a material change of use of premises is defined in Section 10 of the Sustainable

Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and means:
(a) The start of a new use of the premises; or
(b) The re-establishment on the premises of a use that has been abandoned; or
(c) A material increase in the intensity or scale of the use of the premises.
The meat processing plant would constitute the start of a new use on the proposed premises.
In the rural zone, making a material change of use for all uses in the industrial use class (other
than specific provisions relating to low impact industry) is an Impact Assessable development,
requiring assessment against the planning scheme in its entirety and public notification.
In the special industrial zone, making a material change of use for high impact industry is also
Impact Assessable.
Operational works associated with a material change of use are generally code assessable,
requiring a development approval under the Planning Scheme for Emerald Shire.
6. Location Assessment
Four sites have been identified as potential locations for the proposed development of a meat
processing facility.
North of Emerald
The site is located at 47 Kingower Road also described as Lot 11 on DSN867. The site is
located approximately 6 km north of Emerald CBD on the Gregory Highway within the Central
Highlands Regional Council. It is identified as Freehold owned by Central Highlands Regional
Council and covers an area 399,580 m 2.
Figure 7 Central Portion of Lot Showing Existing Infrastructure
West of Emerald
The site is located approximately 14 km west of Emerald CBD on the Capricorn Highway and is
identified as Lot 13 on DSN800086. The site tenure is identified as Freehold and covers an area
2
of 1,165,000 m .
Figure 8 Central West Portion of Lot in Partially Cleared Area
East of Emerald
The site is located approximately 21 km east of Emerald CBD on the Capricorn Highway and is
identified as Lot 1 on SP224248 (2,416,000 m 2) and Lot 5 on RP897556 (1,214,000 m2). The
site tenure is privately owned freehold land.
Figure 9 Eastern Portion of Lot with Existing Infrastructure in Background
South of Emerald
The site is located south of Emerald on the Gregory Highway approximately 3 km north of
Springsure and is described as Lot 30 on DSN741. It is identified as Freehold and covers an
area 457,400 m2.
Figure 10 Looking West Across Lot toward Minerva Hills National Park
6.1 Environmental Constraints

Desktop assessments were undertaken for each of the proposed sites and included the
following state and commonwealth database searches:
State:
– Flora Survey Guidelines for - Protected Plants, Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC
Act).
– Flora Survey Trigger Map area.
– Regulated Vegetation Management Map and Vegetation Management Supporting
Map.
– Wildlife Online database for species records.
– Queensland herbarium searches.
Commonwealth:
– Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
Protected Matters search tool.
A field survey was conducted over a 2 day period utilising one suitably qualified GHD
representative as part of the optimal site assessment. During the flora survey opportunistic
observations of fauna species, animal habitat and/or animal breeding places were undertaken.
Government database searches in correlation with the field survey enabled GHD to identify
fauna habitat linkages, critical refuges (e.g. along riparian corridors), and important habitat
areas and their integrity for the project areas.
Please refer to Appendix A for Database Mapping and Searches for the four sites.
6.1.1 Vegetation
North - Lot 11 DSN867

The lot is cleared of vegetation for cropping and grazing with the exception of limited stands on
the perimeter boundary.
A search of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) Regulated Vegetation
mapping identifies the site is free of regulated vegetation. The Vegetation Management Act
1999, essential habitat database search, does not identify any mapped areas as essential
habitat for flora species.
The site is mapped as high risk for protect plants as per the Protected Plants Flora Survey
Trigger Map (DEHP).
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates six plant species identified under the
Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as least concern and one only species, King Blue-
grass, vulnerable (NC Act) and listed as endangered under Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Report identifies one endangered flora species or
species habitat likely to occur in the area, Dichanthium queenslandicum (King Blue-grass). One
record for King Blue-grass was identified in the Queensland Government Wildlife Online search
identified under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 as vulnerable.
EPBC identified threatened ecological communities listed as endangered (community may
occur within area) include:
Natural grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin;
and
Weeping Myall woodlands.

A search of the HERBRECS Database undertaken by Queensland Herbarium (Department of
Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA)) has returned 32 records:
One (1) record for a species identified, Dichanthium queenslandicum (King Blue-grass),
as a vulnerable plant species, as listed under Schedule 3 of the Queensland Nature
Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006;
Seven (7) records for a species listed as a naturalised species within Queensland; are
non-native species that have successfully established and are reproducing without
human intervention; and
The remaining records were species listed as having no status under the Queensland
Nature Conservation Act 1992.
West - Lot 13 DSN800086

mapping identifies a large area of the site mapped as regulated category B area (remnant
vegetation). The Vegetation Management Act 1999, essential habitat database search,
identifies:
A large portion of the site (central and eastern) as category B least concern regional
ecosystem; and
A small portion located in the south-west of the lot as category B containing endangered
regional ecosystem.
The identified endangered ecosystem, 11.9.1 (5%), is described as Acacia harpophylla
(Brigalow), Eucalyptus cambageana woodland to open forest on fine-grained sedimentary
rocks. The site visit confirmed the presence of mature and regrowth Brigalow located in the
western portion of the lot in the vicinity of the catchment dam (refer Figure 11).
Figure 11 Mature Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla)
Based on the Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map (DEHP) the site contains no areas of
mapped high risk protected plants.
No flora species were listed on the Queensland Government Wildlife Online search.
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Report identifies one endangered flora species or
species habitat likely to occur in the area, Dichanthium queenslandicum (King Blue-grass).
Identified threatened ecological communities listed as endangered (community may occur within
area) include:
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant);
and
A search of the HERBRECS Database undertaken by Queensland Herbarium (DSITIA) has
returned 135 records:
Twelve (12) records for a species were listed as a naturalised species within Queensland;
are non-native species that have successfully established and are reproducing without
It is recommended that a full vegetation survey be undertaken for the entire site and in particular
for those areas where clearing would be required.
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Lot 5 RP897556
The lots are cleared of vegetation for cropping, grazing and agricultural operations with the
exception of a limited stand in the south west corner.
mapping identifies the site is free of regulated vegetation. The Vegetation Management Act
1999, essential habitat database search, does not identify any mapped areas as essential
habitat for flora species.
The site contains no areas of mapped high risk protected plants as per the Protected Plants
Flora Survey Trigger Map (DEHP).
No flora species were listed on the Queensland Government Wildlife Online search.
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Report identifies no endangered flora species or
species habitat likely to occur in the area. Identified threatened ecological communities listed as
endangered (community may occur within area) include:
and

Three (3) records for a species were listed as a naturalised species within Queensland;
are non-native species that have successfully established and are reproducing without
South – Lot 30 DSN741
mapping identifies a large area of the site mapped as regulated category B area (remnant
vegetation). The Vegetation Management Act 1999, essential habitat database search,
identifies:
A large portion of the site (located centrally along Springsure Creek) as category B least
concern regional ecosystem; and
Another portion located in the north-west and north-east of the lot as category B
containing of concern regional ecosystems.
The site is mapped as high risk for protect plants as per the Protected Plants Flora Survey
Trigger Map (DEHP).
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates 10 plant species identified under the
Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as least concern and one only species, Eucalyptus
sicilifolia, listed as vulnerable (NC Act).
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Report identified three listed vulnerable flora species
or species habitat likely occur in the area, and one listed endangered species or species habitat
may occur within area, Dichanthium queenslandicum (King Blue-grass).
Identified threatened ecological communities listed as endangered (community may occur within
area) include:
and
Four (4) records identified as a vulnerable plant species, as listed under Schedule 3 of
the Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006:
– Marsdenia brevifolia (2 records)
– Eucalyptus sicilifolia (2 records)
Ten (10) records for a species listed as a naturalised species within Queensland; are
non-native species that have successfully established and are reproducing without
6.1.2 Fauna
The lot is cleared of vegetation for cropping and grazing and as such provides limited
opportunity for fauna habitat.
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates two reptile species identified under
the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as least concern have been sighted in the area:
Pseudonaja textilis (eastern brown snake); and
Tiliqua rugosa (blue-tongues lizard).
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Report identifies several bird (4), mammal (3) and
reptile (6) species listed as vulnerable and endangered where the species or species habitat
may occur within area. Numerous migratory bird species are identified as having the potential
for the species or species habitat likely to or may occur within the area.
The lot is largely covered in vegetation and as such provides opportunity for fauna habitat.
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates a number of amphibians, birds,
mammals and reptiles that are identified under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as
least concern has been sighted in the area. One species identified, Tachyglossus aculeatus
(short-beaked echidna) is listed as special least concern.
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Lot 5 RP897556

The lots are cleared of vegetation for cropping, grazing and agricultural operations and as such
provide limited opportunity for fauna habitat.
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates no species identified under the Nature
Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) have been sighted in the area.

The lot is sparsely covered in vegetation and as such provides opportunity for fauna habitat.
Queensland Government Wildlife Online search indicates a number of birds and reptiles that are
identified under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as least concern has been sighted
in the area.
6.1.3 Water Courses
A search of the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)

Development Assessment Mapping Online search tool indicates that no defined mapped
waterways (Qld waterways for waterway barrier works) are located on or adjacent to the study
site. The nearest mapped waterway is Retreat Creek (category 4 major) located approximately
2.5 km north of the study site.
A search of the DSDIP Development Assessment Mapping Online search tool indicates that no
defined mapped watercourses (Qld waterways for waterway barrier works) are located on the
lot. Mapped watercourses as category 1 (low) watercourse (Qld waterways for waterway barrier
works) are identified on adjacent lots to the south, north and south-east of the study site.
During the site visit a minor gully was identified entering the property on the north boundary to
the west and exiting the lot to the south west. The onsite dam overflows into the gully.
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Lot 5 RP897556

A search of the DSDIP Development Assessment Mapping Online search tool indicates that no
defined mapped watercourses (Qld waterways for waterway barrier works) are located on the
lot. A mapped watercourse as category 2 (moderate) watercourse (Qld waterways for waterway
barrier works) is identified on adjacent lots to the north of the study site and a mapped
watercourse as category 1 (low) watercourse (Qld waterways for waterway barrier works) is
identified on adjacent lots to the south of the study site.

A search of the DSDIP Development Assessment Mapping Online search tool indicates that the
watercourse known as Springsure Creek, that flows south to north down the centre of the lot, is
mapped as a category 4 (major) watercourse (Qld waterways for waterway barrier works).
6.1.4 Contaminated Land
Searches of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) Environmental

Management Register (EMR) and Contaminated Land Register (CLR) have been undertaken
for each of the sites.
A search of the DEHP EMR and CLR identified that Lot 11 DSN867 is listed on the EMR with
the site having been subject to the following Notifiable Activity pursuant to section 374 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1994: Pest Control - commercially operating premises where –
a. more than 200 L of pesticide are stored; and
b. filling or washing of tanks used in pest control operations occurs.
The site is not listed on the CLR.

A search of the identified that Lot 13 DSN800086 is not listed on the EMR or CLR.
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Lot 5 RP897556

A search of the DEHP EMR and CLR identified that neither Lot 1 SP224248 or Lot 5 RP 897556
are listed on the EMR or CLR.

A search of the DEHP EMR and CLR identified that Lot 30 DSN471 is not listed on the EMR or
CLR.
6.1.5 Exploration, Mining and Petroleum
Searches of the Queensland Government Mines Online Maps Info

(https://minesonlinemaps.business.qld.gov.au/) has been undertaken for each of the sites to
identify active exploration and mining leases. Table 7 summarises identified exploration and
mining leases for specified lots.
Table 7 Exploration and Mining Leases
Site Coal Petroleum
North - Lot 11 DSN867 Granted EPC 1168. Nil

The lease is over the northern section
of the lot only IE. north of the SunWater
irrigation channel
West - Lot 13 Granted EPC 2093. Nil

DSN800086
The West Emerald Project is located in
the Denison Trough. Exploration drilling
has recently been undertaken by
Cuesto Coal Limited. Drilling is
targeting thermal and PCI coal. See
more at:
http://www.cuestacoal.com.au/projects/.
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Granted EPC 927. PCA 153

Lot 5 RP897556
Granted ATP 1177
South – Lot 30 DSN471 Granted EPC 2932. Nil
Notes: EPC - Exploration Permits for Coal

PCA - Potential Commercial Area
ATP - Authority to Prospect
6.2 Utilities, Services and Infrastructure Accessibility
6.2.1 North - Lot 11 DSN867
Infrastructure
Existing buildings and infrastructure on site include:
Residential home;
Farm sheds; and
Fencing and gravel access road.
This infrastructure is associated with the former use of the site being a Department of Primary
Industry (DPI) research and development site.
Water
The existing infrastructure does appear to have a water supply. The source (rainwater,
groundwater) and quality of the water supply is unknown.
The subject site is currently not serviced by reticulated municipal water infrastructure and is
located approximately 1.9 km from existing water infrastructure. The closest connection point
would be the DN300 main which ends at Wills Road. This area is supplied via the Opal Street
Booster Pumps.
Under current modelling the minimum pressure at the possible connection point is
approximately 36 m. The closest connection is located within the residential subdivision to the
south of the site. However, in close proximity to the site is raw water infrastructure a connection
point potentially exists at the corner of Gregory Highway and Emerald Downs Road intersection.
Figure 12 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Northern Site
Irrigation Water
A SunWater irrigation channel bi-sects the property. A crossing is provided across the channel
for single vehicle access. The current crossing is not suitable for public access. It is understood
following discussions with Sunwater that a raw water supply from this system would not be
available as the resource has been fully allocated. Further discussions with Water Traders in the
Emerald area have identified the availability of medium security water resources that could be
easily purchased from existing water allocations.
Sewerage
The site is not currently serviced by reticulated municipal sewer infrastructure. The subject site
is located approximately 2.0 km from existing sewerage infrastructure. The closest connection
point would be pump station catchment PA B. The DN150 gravity sewer in the vicinity of Wills
Road discharges into DN225 and DN300 mains before Pump Station PA B. Pump Station PA B
then discharges to the Park Avenue STP.
The lowest point on the subject site is approximately 180 m AHD. And the Invert level of the
possible connection manhole is approximately 175 m AHD.
The single dwelling and ancillary buildings on site are serviced by onsite waste water treatment.
Figure 13 Sewer Connection Point – Northern Site
Electricity
Low voltage power is available along most road frontages of the property. There is a
transformer located adjacent to the existing buildings on the site which currently services the
house and the other structures.
To supply the required power demand would require significant upgrades to the network and
involve running a 22 kV line through Emerald, or alternatively linking in with the nearby 66kV
lines.
Adding 4,500 kVA demand to the 66 kV network is likely to be an issue and would require some
coordinated approaches between the operators and power suppliers around shifts to avoid the
peak period and/or call off during hot periods. These considerations should be investigated
further if the project progresses.
Telecoms
Telecommunication lines are located on all road frontages of the site. The existing homestead is
connected to a service located in Kingower Road.
Telstra’s Emerald Radio Tower is located on Emerald Downs Road at the end of the Kingower
Road. This is an indication that there is likely to be good band width available in close proximity
to the site.
The Telstra Dial Before You Dig information appears to indicate that there is a 100 mm diameter
conduit buried 40m into the property along the Gregory Highway. This may constrain the
development of the site, and should be confirmed with Telstra or a cable locator on the site.
6.2.2 West - Lot 13 DSN800086
Infrastructure
There are no structures on site and the only improvement is a small catchment dam at the
western end of the fenced property. While no significant infrastructure is located on the lot a
homestead is located approximately 700 m to the north.
Water
would be the DN150 main which runs along the Capricorn Hwy, terminating prior to Tyson
Road. This area is supplied via the Opal Street Booster Pumps. Under current modelling
(existing network demands only) the minimum pressure at the possible connection point is
approximately 30 m.
Potential competition for water resources may occur due to a proposed mining development,
The West Emerald Project, where Cuesto Coal Limited has commenced exploration drilling for
thermal and PCI coal. Alternatively this may be a potential to share the costs associated with
establishing the required water infrastructure and pipelines into the area with a second major
project.
Figure 14 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Western Site
Irrigation Water
A SunWater irrigation channel is located 5 km east of site crossing Capricorn Highway. It is

understood following discussions with SunWater that a raw water supply from this system would
not be available as the resource has been fully allocated. Further discussions with Water
Traders in the Emerald area have identified the availability of medium security water resources
that could be easily purchased from existing water allocations.
Sewerage
The site is not currently serviced by reticulated municipal sewer infrastructure and is located
approximately 12 km from existing sewer infrastructure. The closest connection point would be
associated with the PA Q local pump station catchment located in the vicinity of Hicks Street to
the east of the Central Queensland University campus. It is not known if there is sufficient
capacity available in the system for the proposed development.
On-site sewage treatment and disposal would be preferable for this site.
Telecoms
Telstra and Nextgen communication lines are located on the Capricorn Highway frontage on the
northern side of the corridor.
Electricity
The site is not currently serviced by an electrical supply. The subject site is located
approximately 3 to 5 km from existing low voltage power supply. These power supplies are not
suitable for the proposed project and required power demands. The homestead located 700 m
to the north of the lot appears to be connected to power.
Significant upgrades to the supply network would be required to achieve the necessary power
demand. It may be possible to run 22kVA lines to the site. This option would need to be
investigated further.
Potential competition for power supply may occur with a proposed mining development, The
West Emerald Project, where Cuesto Coal Limited has commenced exploration drilling for
thermal and PCI coal. Alternatively this may be a potential to share the costs associated with
establishing the required power supply lines into the area with a second major project.
6.2.3 East – Lot 1 SP224248 and Lot 5 RP 897556
Infrastructure
The majority of the study area is cleared for grazing and cropping. Three dams are located on
the site as well as:
Sheds an building on the western boundary to the south; and
Sheds, buildings and plant associated with cotton growing operations located on the
north eastern portion of the study site.
Infrastructure associated with Lot 5 RP897556 is currently operated by Louis Dreyfus
Commodities as a cotton gin and seed storage facility. Louis Dreyfus Commodities is a global
merchandizer of commodities and processor of agricultural goods, operating a network of
assets around the world. Infrastructure includes storage sheds (cotton and seed), cotton gin
facility, open air cotton stores (cotton fibre and seed), onsite dam and administrative buildings.
Water
Based on the existing infrastructure present on Lot 5 RP 897556 it would appear to have a
water supply. The source (rainwater, groundwater) and quality of the water supply is unknown.
Lot 1 SP224248 is currently not serviced by reticulated municipal water infrastructure and is
would be the DN80 main which runs east along the Capricorn Highway however this small sized
main is likely to have limited spare capacity. A DN200 is located a further 750 m upstream along
Chalcedony Road. This area is supplied via the Moodewarra Transfer Pump Station, which
transfers flows from the Opal Street WTP to the East Nogoa Reservoirs. Under current
modelling (existing network demands only) the minimum pressure at the possible connection
point is approximately 42 m. Alternatively, the development could connect to the East Nogoa
water supply zone (CHRC is currently constructing a second WTP at East Nogoa to reduce the
load on the Opal Street WTP and meet future demand). It is noted that this development site is
also located approximately 17 km west of the Comet water supply network.
Figure 15 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Eastern Site
Irrigation Water
A SunWater irrigation channel is located 11 km west of site crossing Capricorn Highway. It is

understood following discussions with SunWater that a raw water supply from this system would
not be available as the resource has been fully allocated. Further discussions with Water
Traders in the Emerald area have identified the availability of medium security water resources
that could be easily purchased from existing water allocations.
Sewerage
associated with the BG O local pump station catchment located in the vicinity of the intersection
of the Capricorn Highway and Chalcedony Road. It is not known if there is sufficient capacity
available in the system for the proposed development.
On-site sewage treatment and disposal would be preferable for this site.
Telecoms
Telstra and Nextgen communication lines are located on the Capricorn Highway and Boonie
Doon Road frontages. Communications lines enter the property to service the existing buildings
and infrastructure.
Electricity
Low voltage power is available along most road frontages of the property and supplied to the
existing buildings. High voltage lines (66kVA) are located just to the north of the site providing
power to Emerald from the Blackwater substation.
Upgrades to the supply network would be required to achieve the necessary power demand. It
may be possible to run 22kVA lines to the site, this option would need to be investigated further.
Alternatively sourcing power from the nearby 66kVA lines is also an option.
6.2.4 South – Lot 30 DSN471
Infrastructure
The largely free of any existing infrastructure with the exception of cattle sale yard holding pens
located in the far south western corner and shelters associated with the Gregory Highway rest
area in the south eastern corner of the lot.
Water
located approximately 960 m from existing water infrastructure. The closest connection point
would be the DN50 main which runs north along Quarry Street however this small sized main is
likely to have limited spare capacity. A DN100 is located a further 590 m upstream along Quarry
Street. This area is supplied via the Low Level zone Dame Street reservoir. Under current
modelling (existing network demands only) the minimum pressure at the possible connection
point is approximately 42 m.
It would appear that town water is supplied to the low risk prison camp located immediately to
the south of the lot. A large water tank and water fill point was observed at the truck wash-down
facility located beside the camp. Water supply was also observed feeding cattle troughs at the
sale yards. Water source is believed to be municipal water
Figure 16 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Southern Site
Irrigation Water
No identified irrigation waters identified.
Sewerage
the sewer line on Falls Creek Road associated with the Sewage Treatment Plant. It is not
known if there is sufficient capacity available in the system for the proposed development.
Telecoms
Telstra communication lines are located on the Gregory Highway and Dip Road frontages.
Communications lines enter the adjacent property to the south to service the existing buildings
and infrastructure.
Electricity
Low voltage power is available along most road frontages of the property and supplied to the
existing buildings located at the south western corner adjacent to the property.
To supply the required demand to site currently would not be possible, and even with upgrades
to the network, suppling this level of power demand to the site would not be feasible.
6.3 Cultural Heritage

A cultural heritage search for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage sites was
undertaken. The search was submitted to Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
and Multicultural Affairs (DATSIMA).
6.3.1 Cultural Heritage Search Results
The outcome of all Cultural Heritage Database and Register searches is that no Aboriginal
cultural heritage is currently recorded at the study sites. However, it is probable that the
absence of recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage places reflects a lack of previous cultural
heritage surveys of the area. Therefore, DATSIMA records are not likely to reflect a true picture
of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the area.
Where an activity is proposed under category 5 (construction) there is generally a high risk that
it could harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. In these circumstances, the activity should not
proceed without cultural heritage assessment.
Where an activity is proposed under category 5 (construction), it is necessary to notify the
Aboriginal Party and seek:
Advice as to whether the feature constitutes Aboriginal cultural heritage; and
If it does, agreement as to how best the activity may be managed to avoid or minimise
harm to any Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Please refer to DATSIMA website for a copy of the gazetted Cultural Heritage duty of care
guidelines, which set out reasonable and practical measures for meeting the duty of care:
www.datsima.qld.gov.au/atsis/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples/indigenous-cultural-
heritage
6.3.2 Registered Cultural Heritage Body

There is currently no registered Cultural Heritage body for the Lot 11 DSN867 area. The
Aboriginal parties for the area are:
QC12/18 - QUD644/2012 QC13/02 - QUD229/2013
Bidjara People #7 Western Kangoulu People
Trevor Robinson Queensland South Native Title Services Ltd
Mobile: 0414 459 624 Level 10, 307 Queen Street
Email: trobinson@qiwg.com Brisbane Q 4000
PO Box 10832, Adelaide Street
Brisbane Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880
E reception@qsnts.com.au

QC12/18 - QUD644/2012 QC13/02 - QUD229/2013
Brisbane Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880
QC12/18 - QUD644/2012 QC13/02 - QUD229/2013
QC08/5 - QUD216/08 Brisbane Q 4000
Bidjara People P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
Trevor Robinson F (07) 3229 9880
Mobile: 0414 459 624 E reception@qsnts.com.au
Email: trobinson@qiwg.com
East – Lot 1 SP224248 & Lot 5 RP897556
There is currently no registered Cultural Heritage body for the Lot 1 SP224248 and Lot 5
RP897556 area. The Aboriginal parties for the area are:
QC12/18 - QUD644/2012 QC13/02 - QUD229/2013
Brisbane Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880
6.4 Queensland Heritage Register

A search of the online DEHP Queensland Heritage Register was undertaken 2 December 2014.
No registered places were identified adjacent to the proposed locations. Identified places listed
on the Heritage register included:
Emerald Railway Station Complex – Clermont Street (Capricorn Highway), Emerald;
Old Rainworth Stone Store – Wealwandangie Road, Springsure; and

Springsure Hospital Museum – 13 Woodbin Street, Springsure.
6.5 Transport Corridors and Location Access
6.5.1 North - Lot 11 DSN867
Road
The site is accessed from Kingower Rd via Emerald Downs Rd from the Gregory Highway.
Emerald Downs Road is rural road in the order of 5-6 m wide bitumen sealed to within 100 m of
Kingower Road. Kingower Road is an unsealed formed gazetted road that is approximately
500 m long and provides access to the adjacent rural land use properties.
The current intersection between Emerald Downs Road and the Gregory Highway is a right turn
auxiliary lane for vehicles approaching from the south turning right into Emerald Downs Road.
Traffic counts would be required to ascertain the remaining capacity of the intersection.
The property has an informal gravel access to the Gregory Highway to the north of the irrigation
channel. Any significant use of this access is likely to attract the attention of the Department of
Transport and Main Roads with a request for a formal intersection.
Rail
The closest rail corridor is located 1 km to the west of the study site. To access the rail corridor
would require crossing the Gregory Highway, cropping land and potentially the SunWater
irrigation channel. Rail access is possible but will require extensive costs to install.
6.5.2 West - Lot 13 DSN800086
Road Access
The site is accessed from the Capricorn Highway via a minor access mapped as Wilga Downs
Road. Wilga Downs Road forms a road corridor that bisects the western portion of the property.
This access point currently traverses the rail corridor that runs east-west along the southern
boundary of the highway via a level crossing.
The Wilga Downs Road is a partially cleared track that appears to not have been formally
constructed or used. The current intersection between Wilga Downs Road and the Capricorn
Highway (at the study site) is limited and best described as a property access only. There are
no auxiliary lanes for turning vehicles. Any significant use of this access is likely to attract the
attention of the Department of Transport and Main Roads with a request for a formal
intersection. It should be noted that a well formed rural road some 5 km west of the study site is
also mapped as Wilga Downs Road.
Rail
The study site has direct unobstructed access to the rail corridor which forms the northern
boundary of the property. Rail access is possible but will require costs to install.
6.5.3 East – Lot 1 SP224248 and Lot 5 RP 897556
Road Access
The site is accessed from the Capricorn Highway via a minor access point located to the east of
the property which joins Boonie Doon Road running north-south along the eastern boundary of
the property. This access point currently traverses the rail corridor that runs east-west along the
southern boundary of the highway via a level crossing.
The current intersection between Boonie Doon Road and the Capricorn Highway is a minor
intersection incorporating auxiliary lanes for turning vehicles entering Boonie Doon Road. Any
significant use of this access is likely to attract the attention of the Department of Transport and
Main Roads with a request for a formal intersection.
Rail
The study site has direct unobstructed access to the rail corridor which forms the northern
6.5.4 South – Lot 30 DSN471
Road Access
The site is accessed from the Gregory Highway via a minor access point located at the south-
east of the property. Dip Road is a rural road in the order of 5 to 6 m wide and bitumen sealed.
The current intersection at the Gregory Highway is a minor intersection incorporating one
auxiliary lane for south bound turning vehicles entering the property. Any significant use of this
access is likely to attract the attention of the Department of Transport and Main Roads with a
request for a formal intersection.
Rail
The study site has direct unobstructed access to the rail corridor which forms the western
6.6 Optimal Location Assessment
Central Highlands Regional Council (CHRC) has identified one potential site for development of
a Meat Processing Facility. GHD in liaison with CHRC identified three other alternative sites
within the Central Highlands. The sites were assessed based on how well each location meets
each of 22 selection criteria (see Section 6.6.1). The criteria allowed for evaluation of the sites
according to multiple criterion for transport access, planning and social constraints, services
availability, proximity to possibly conflicting land uses, land characteristics including suitability of
the topography and soils, environmental matters and state of knowledge about the site.
Each site was graded for each criterion as:
High – meeting the criterion;
Medium-High – not meeting the criterion and requiring some intervention and cost to
make it suitable;
Medium-Low – not meeting the criterion and requiring extensive intervention and cost to
make it suitable; and
Low – Not capable of meeting the criterion.
A score (4 to 1 for High to Low respectively) for each site was determined and placed in a
simple matrix of site versus criteria and a total score determined for each site. A maximum
score of 88 for example would reflect a perfect site with a score of 22 denoting a completely
unsuitable site.
Scores for each criterion were determined from:

Inspection of road networks maps, the Planning Scheme, tenure documentation, and
utility network maps;
Inspection of Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Department of Natural

Resources of Mines vegetation mapping, hydrogeological publications and Fauna Atlas
data to determine land forms, soils, vegetation, ground water resources, and threaten
animal species respectively;
Site Inspection and Herbarium data to determine the presence of threatened species of
plants, detailed topography, soils, drainage, vegetation and adjacent land uses; and
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection database for Cultural heritage
sites (both Indigenous and European).
Inspection of the sites was conducted by GHD on the 18th and 28th November 2014.
6.6.1 Site Location Criteria
The following provides a list developed specific to the Central Highlands. The proposed site
should:
Have an appropriate land tenure;
Be accessible to road transport bringing in live cattle and taking away the finished product
(roads sealed, no inundation);
Be within a relatively short distance of the main highways;
Be accessible to the final point of shipment for overseas export;
Be away from sensitive sites (e.g. schools, residential areas);
Be distant enough from feedlots/large holding years to ensure that is flies, vermin, dust
and pesticides do not impact the day to day operations;
Be located to avoid lengthy road access through urban areas;
Suitably zoned for operating a food processing plant;
Avoid wind borne emissions of gas/condensate/smoke/dust from existing industries, and
enable control of emissions on- site and to the boundary (500 m buffer minimum);
Have a topography and soils suitable for construction drainage systems for waste water,
storm water and sanitary waste;
Have a land area sufficient for the envisaged operation with space for future expansion;
Be within ready access to a supply of potable water or can be made potable efficiently (a
requirement of USDA/EU licensed premises);
Be close to a supply of electricity, and gas if required;
Be close to public effluent systems or be large enough and suitable for establishment of a
waste water treatment system;
Be in relatively close proximity to a waste disposal facility;
Be protected by an all-round buffer zone including landscaping;
Not have significant populations of species threatened with extinction and listed under the
Nature Conservation Act and/or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act;
Not have significant habitat for listed migrant species (Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act);
Be located in an area without Aboriginal sacred sites or archaeological sites;

Be located away from site listed as Heritage under State and/or Commonwealth
legislation;
Without a history of heavy/light industry or other pollution of the soil/water; and if possible;
and
Have been subject to previous environmental investigations and approvals for industrial
development.
6.6.2 Assessment Outcomes
The outcome of the location assessment was that the western site located on the Capricorn
Highway on Lot 13 of DSN800086 obtained the highest score against the grading criteria.
Common attributes shared by all sites include:
Good access to roads and highway suitable for transport;
Good access to waste facilities;
No identified cultural heritage sites;
Require upgrades to road accesses;
Require upgrades to gain access to rail;
Require significant upgrades for water and power supply; and
Require bulk gas supply.
The scores for each site are shown in Table 4 along with the identified pros and cons for each
site. The completed location assessment matrix table is presented Appendix B.
Table 8 Summary of Location Assessment Grading
North of Emerald 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

Lot 11 DSN867 Mapped as cleared vegetation Significant upgrades to allow
- very limited risk of listed access rail required.
species being present.
Close to sensitive sites (urban
Master Study for potential land areas and homesteads).
use in process.
Risk of emissions from
Close proximity to Emerald neighbouring landholders.
water supply and suitable
Poor topography for drainage.
electrical power supply options.
Insufficient land available for
vegetation buffer.
Listed on EMR - potentially
contaminated land site.
West of Emerald 89 Sufficient area available. Land tenure requires

conversion to freehold.
Lot 13 DSN800086 Topography suits drainage
system and land appears to be Close to one sensitive site
mostly black soil for irrigation (homestead).
and cropping.
Vegetation mapped as least
Sufficient land to allow for concern and endangered
vegetation buffer. regional ecosytems.
Access to suitable electrical
power to supply demand will
need further investigation.
East of Emerald 87 Sufficient area available. Freehold land, privately owned

(not Council owned property).
Lot 1 SP224248 Topography suits drainage
system and land appears to be Zoned Special Industry - Land
Lot 5 RP897556
mostly black soil for irrigation set as side for potential Inland
and cropping. Port Facility.
Sufficient land to allow for Close to some sensitive sites
vegetation buffer. (urban areas and
homesteads).
Mapped as cleared vegetation
- very limited risk of listed Located near cotton areas -
species being present. some risk of spray drift.
Close proximity suitable
electrical power supply options
(further investigations
required).
Rail Study undertaken as part
of Proposed Inland Rail Port
Facility.
South of Emerald 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

Lot 30 DSN741 Sufficient land to allow for Close to some sensitive sites
vegetation buffer. (urban areas and
homesteads).
Unsuitable distance from
saleyard and other activities.
Creek dissects property limiting
use for drainage, treatment
system and irrigation.
Vegetation mapped as of-
concern communities and will
need to be cleared.
Supply of required electrical
power demand not feasible.
7. Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability
This section considers the potential supply of cattle to an Emerald processing facility, with
consideration to cattle numbers and herd composition, slaughter availability, seasonality of
supply, market forces and producer practices and projected throughput.
7.1 Cattle Numbers

The greater Central Highlands region is an important supply source of meat cattle within QLD.
The Central Highlands, Blackall - Tambo, Barcaldine, Longreach, Rockhampton and Isaac
regions contains almost 3 million head of meat cattle, or 24% of the comparable QLD herd, as
measured at the 2011 ABS agricultural census (Table 9). The Central Highlands municipality
alone is home to over 850,000 cattle or 7% of the Queensland beef cattle herd.
In 2009/10 there were approximately 186,000 cattle movements to slaughter originating the
Central Highlands municipality, and 486,000 from the total study area.
Table 9 Cattle Supply in Study Region
Meat
cows Beef breed All
Beef Total Proportion
and bulls/calves other Cattle
Municipality calves meat of QLD
heifers intended for beef turnoff
(other) cattle herd
1 service cattle
year
(‘000) (‘000) (‘000) (‘000) (‘000) % (‘000)
Central
370 17 153 311 851 7% 186
Highlands
Blackall -
126 5 37 95 263 2% 40
Tambo
Barcaldine 242 9 99 116 466 4% 28
Longreach 91 4 39 47 181 1% 21
Rockhampton 156 9 65 84 314 3% 56
Isaac 381 17 153 338 889 7% 155
Study Area 136 61 546 991 2,964 24% 486
QLD 6,001 290 2,448 3,711 12,450 100%

Source: ABS Agricultural Commodities Statistics 2010-11 (ABS 2013a), NLIS cattle movements to slaughter in 2009/10
(DAFF 2012)
7.1.1 Medium-Term Outlook
The number of cattle within any given region can be expected to experience short term
fluctuations, particularly driven by weather events such as drought. Periods of drought typically
result in more breeding cattle being slaughtered, providing a short term increases in abattoir
throughput, followed by a longer term period of constrained supply as producers focus on
rebuilding breeding herds.
The recent drought experienced across northern Australia resulted in the highest national
slaughter rates since 1978 (Figure 17) and a reduction in cattle numbers relative to other parts
of Australia where drought was not experienced (Figure 18). As a result Queensland abattoirs
are particularly supply constrained at present, and are expected to remain so in the coming
years as herd numbers rebuild towards previous levels.
Figure 17 Australian Adult Cattle Slaughter (MLA 2014c)
Figure 18 Australian Cattle Herd by State (MLA 2014c)
7.1.2 Longer-Term Outlook
Supply Numbers
While cattle numbers and slaughter rates vary due to seasonal and drought influences, over the
longer-term cattle numbers in Northern Australia are expected to steadily increase through
ongoing productivity improvements. Innovations which are expected to lift long term productivity
include improvements in herd genetics, breeding technology, animal nutrition, pasture varieties,
infrastructure, market access etc.
Competition from Live Exports
Export demand is a key factor influencing the numbers and slaughter levels of Australian cattle.
Currently Australia exports approximately 67% of its total beef and veal production, as well as
some 633,463 live cattle in 2012-13 (MLA 2013). At present, live exporters in northern Australia
are facing supply constraints regarding slaughter ready cattle, due to the lower national supply
as a result of the recent drought. Processors are also facing increased competition from the live
export trade, particularly as the Indonesian trade recovers (Figure 19) and with improved
Chinese market access due to the establishment of new a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)2.
Figure 19 Australian Live Exports to Indonesia, Historical and Forecast (MLA

2014)
7.2 Annual Slaughter Numbers

The availability of cattle for slaughter within a season is largely dependent upon cattle numbers
and the stability of the breeding cycle within the region of interest.
As discussed in Section 7.1, the northern region (including the Central Highlands region) has
been subject to supply constraints as a result of a recent drought. An event such as this, which
has acute impacts upon the supply of cattle numbers, will bring future implications for the
availability of slaughter ready cattle, stemming from a gap in the breeding cycle from rapid
culling activity.
The availability of cattle for slaughter within the Central Highlands region is likely to grow over
time as cattle farmers have improved incentives to finish cattle for slaughter stemming from
improved access to a processing facility.
A previous abattoir viability study (DAFF 2012) provided National Livestock Identification
System (NLIS) data for cattle movements to slaughter, for a range of municipalities, during the
2009/10 year3. This data, presented in Table 9 (page 75), shows approximately 186,000 cattle
were transported to slaughter from the Central Highlands, and 486,000 from the broader region.
The 2012 feasibility study estimated that 59% of cattle from the Central Highlands travel to
abattoirs in the Brisbane region for slaughter, while the remaining 41% are slaughtered in
abattoirs along the North East coast (e.g. Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville).
2
Resulting in the removal of tariffs on live animal exports of 10 per cent within four years
3
More recent NLIS data was not made available for this study
7.3 Seasonality of Supply
Seasonality of supply is a major issue that affects abattoir throughput and therefor profitability in
Queensland. Cattle supply in the Central Highlands region is affected by the impact of the wet
season which limits the capacity of properties to continue to supply slaughter ready cattle.
Isolated flooding events can damage transport infrastructure (such as roads and bridges), and
impede the movement of slaughter ready cattle which increases the cost of supplying during this
period. The wet season also disrupts the natural breeding cycle of cattle and a general
acceptance of a ‘downturn’ forms part of industry culture particularly within tropical locations.
The impact of the wet season is generally more severe for operations that extend further west,
on account of more limited infrastructure which is less resilient to a higher degree of
damage/disturbance from flooding (DAFF 2012).
The seasonality of supply across major cattle supply regions in Queensland was analysed in the
2012 DAFF study, which presented seasonal supply trends from three regions (Figure 20).
Figure 20 Seasonality Regions (DAFF 2012)

4
The results from the analysis, presented in Figure 21, show that the Gulf and MITEZ regions
have significantly reduced supply of slaughter ready cattle during the wet season period from
October-February. Therefore the wet season impacts are particularly pronounced in the
northern regions relative to the ‘central’ and therefore the Central Highlands region.
4
Mount Isa to Townsville Economic Zone
Figure 21 Seasonality of Abattoir throughput, Queensland (2003-2013) (DAFF
2012)
The above tends in seasonality of supply are consistent with the throughput at the local Emerald
saleyards. Source: Data provided by Central Highland Regional Council (November 2014)
Figure 22 below presents the monthly throughput since 2008, which show a moderate downturn
during the wet season months from November to February.
25000
Monthly Saleyard Throughput
20000
2008
15000 2009
2010
10000 2011
2012
5000 2013
2014
0
Source: Data provided by Central Highland Regional Council (November 2014)
Figure 22 Emerald Saleyard throughput by Month
While the Central Highlands region is subject to a moderate supply downturn associated with
the wet season, the development of a local meat processing facility in the locality would serve to
partially mitigate these impacts. Throughput capacity into the facility will be underpinned by
improved transport infrastructure into the facility. This will increase the resilience of
infrastructure to flooding related impacts (e.g. better drainage systems alongside roads), which
will in turn improve the prospects for producers to supply slaughter ready cattle during this
period.
The reduced transport costs associated with producers in the vicinity of the new facility will also
face a higher opportunity cost if they abstain from maintaining current production levels during
the wet season. In general, improvements to infrastructure and higher production capacity will
reduce incentives for producers to wind back operations during this season, serving as a
change agent to ensure stronger supply throughout the wet season.
7.4 Market Forces and Producer Practices

The Australian beef industry has continued to evolve and adapt in response to domestic and
international market forces. The beef industry is now responsible for producing an extremely
diverse product range for both domestic and international markets. Competition by overseas
suppliers to key export markets has also resulted in continued evolution in producer practises
which has continued to drive productivity growth. This section examines the key market forces
and producer practises which will influence the throughput and viability of a Central Highlands
meat processing facility.
7.4.1 Herd Productivity and Breeding
Total factor productivity for the northern beef region grew by an average of 1.3% per annum
between 1977-78 and 2009-10 (Gleeson et al. 2012). Productivity is a key determinant of
economic performance, profitability and international competitiveness, and these are key factors
which have motivated productivity gains within the northern beef industry. In response to
declining terms of trade, productivity growth has been vital to ensure that producers have
maintained international competitiveness (Gray et al. 2011).
The establishment of a meat processing facility will incentivise future productivity gains for
producers within the Central Highlands region. The proximity to a processing facility will
encourage producers to target product quality in order to maximise returns from the processing
facility. This will be achieved through improving the herd structure within surrounding regions,
through improved breeding programs and genetics. The presence of a processing facility will
provide the necessary incentive for producers in the region to drive productivity in order to
maximise the potential gains.
7.4.2 Herd Finishing and Lot-Feeding
The presence of a local abattoir would encourage producers to finish their cattle locally. Land
that is more productive in the region would increasingly focus on finishing cattle from properties
that are more breeder dominant. A processing facility in the Central Highlands would encourage
more intensive growing strategies, including pasture improvement and use of fodder, either
produced on property or from nearby irrigated agriculture (DAFF 2012).
7.4.3 Existing Latent Processing Capacity
Analysis of current and historic slaughter throughput in Queensland’s processing facilities

suggests there is latent capacity in the industry evidenced by its ability to accommodate higher
cattle numbers during peak periods. The Draft Queensland Beef Industry Action Plan 2014-
2016 (DAFF 2014), estimates that current facilities could absorb at additional 12.5% increase in
throughput. Should slaughter rates continue as per historic trends, this latent capacity will be
exhausted around 2020.
Despite the existence of latent capacity at present, The Action Plan suggests that further
investment prior to 2020 would be required to increase processing capacity. In addition to the
ongoing investment into existing facilities that supports continual improvements and efficiency
gains, the Action Plan predicts new facilities will require very significant investment to achieve
higher volume, lower unit cost processing establishments in order to stay competitive in the
global marketplace (DAFF 2014).
7.4.4 Product Substitution
The per capita consumption of beef in both the domestic and international market has been
subject to strong competition from a range of substitute meat products. Figure 23 (Wong et al.
2013) shows that the per capita consumption of beef in Australia has declined over the period
from 1962-2011 while consumption of substitute products such as chicken and pork have
increased.
Figure 23 Per Capita Consumption of Meat in Australia (1962-2011) (Wong et

al. 2013)
Wong et al. (2013) also summarised the income and own price elasticities across the five key
meat types, and these are shown in Figure 24. An average income elasticity of 0.77 for beef
suggests that for a 1% rise in income, households will increase their demand for this meat by
0.77%. In this context beef is considered a ‘normal good’ as opposed to a luxury good (>1%) or
an inferior good (<0%). An own price elasticity for beef of -1.23 suggests that for a price change
of 1%, consumers will reduce their demand by 1.23%. Therefore the demand for beef (and all
other meat types, chicken aside) is price elastic as the demand for beef will fall by a greater
degree than the magnitude of the price change.
Figure 24 Income and Own Price Elasticity Summary
Summary Income Elasticities Own-Price Elasticities

Statistics
Beef Lamb Mutton Chicken Pork Beef Lamb Mutton Chicken Pork
Mean 0.77 0.24 -0.65 0.47 -1.23 -1.33 -1.33 -1.31 -0.63 -1.48
Standard
0.10 0.08 0.37 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.29 0.08 0.15
Error
Median 0.54 0.21 -0.84 0.19 0.26 -1.22 -1.40 -1.20 -0.46 -1.37
Minimum -0.24 -0.72 -3.59 -0.93 -0.34 -2.18 -2.07 -4.26 -1.38 -3.99
Maximum 1.82 0.85 1.52 2.13 2.81 -0.42 0.02 1.39 -0.16 -0.25
Count 31 29 14 20 26 34 32 15 21 28
The consumption of beef is subject to a higher degree of product substitution and is particularly
sensitive to changes in price. These factors highlight a key challenge faced by the beef industry
in ensuring that demand for beef is not subject to excessive substitution by other meat products.
A detailed discussion of the domestic and export market trends for beef is reserved for Section
11 of this report, however strong potential exists for a local processing facility within the Central
Highlands to focus on processing products that have fewer substitution possibilities (see Section
7.4.5 below).
7.4.5 Demand for Premium or Differentiated Products
Australian and international beef consumers are continuing to demand beef products which can
be differentiated with respect to their quality and/or production attributes. Opportunities for future
growth in the domestic beef market will also be driven by product differentiation that is geared
towards product quality and traceability. Further discussion around premium meat products as a
consumer trend is discussed below.
MSA Graded Beef

MSA graded beef products aim to represent the industry leading standard in beef production
across all stages of the supply chain. The application of the MSA standards seeks to translate to
better eating quality beef, on the provision of the ideal supply chain practises, particularly during
slaughter, can influence the quality of the animal. MSA requirements apply at all stages of the
supply chain. This includes specifying on farm herd management standards such as cattle being
managed as a single mob for a minimum of 14 days prior to dispatch; transport standards from
farm/feedlot to abattoir and handling standards.
Nationally, the growth of MSA beef has been profound, with MSA grading numbers and
producers in QLD increasing exponentially since 2003/04 (Figure 25). Currently Queensland
produces 44% of Australian MSA graded cattle, from 16.56% of MSA registered producers.
Figure 25 MSA Grading Numbers and Registered Producers in QLD (2003/04 –

2013/14)
This demonstrates the growing demand for beef products that are associated with supply chain
traceability, product integrity and quality standards. Consumers value these attributes given the
complex nature of industrial food production. By choosing an MSA product, consumers are
given assurance that best practise standards have been maintained throughout the supply
chain.
MSA calculates and differentiates three levels of eating quality associated with its certified
products – 3 star (MSA graded) four star (Premium quality) and five star (Supreme quality). This
system provides a further level of product differentiation to the consumer.
The future opportunities for MSA beef are strong as consumers continue to demand product
that is produced by a consistent standard at varying degrees of quality. The operation of a
processing plant in the Central Highlands should have the capacity to meet the standards
specified by MSA.
The development of a Central Highlands facility would most likely create opportunities for
existing beef producers to become eligible for MSA grading. A prior constraint to meeting MSA
standards for producers in regional areas of QLD is that slaughter generally must occur within
36 hours of dispatch5, a criterion not feasible for many producers in regions who faced long
travel times to abattoirs (MLA 2007). Access to a facility that reduces travel times will improve
the incentive for cattle farmers to obtain MSA accreditation, an outcome which will align with
market trends towards more traceable meat products. This will improve the viability of beef
producers in the region given the strong nature of product substitution that occurs amongst
animal proteins.
Wagyu Beef
Wagyu is a Japanese breed of beef cattle which has been established as a premium beef breed
on account of the presence of marbling within the muscle. This characteristic contributes to
eating quality and status as a premium beef product. The wagyu breed was first introduced to
Australia in 1990, and 80-90% of domestic production currently being exported, particularly to
the Japanese market.
In 2012 the number of wagyu-infused cattle in Australia was estimated at 200,000, or
approximately 1% of the total cattle population. Within this group there was an estimated
100,000 joinings, from which approximately 15,000 head were exported live and approximately
65,000 were processed in Australia. In 2014 the number of joinings exceeded 120,000.
Queensland has evolved to become the major wagyu producing state in Australia, and is home
to 46% of Australia’s registered stud wagyu cattle (Wagyu International 2014). Queensland is
also home to some of the largest pastoral companies, which have increasingly focussed on
wagyu production. The three largest wagyu producers, by number of cattle on feed are AA Co
(31,000), Rangers Valley (10,700); and Stanbroke Pastoral (10,000) (Condon 2013).
Future market growth is expected to stem from boxed wagyu beef as consumer taste for animal
products, especially in developing countries continues to develop in line with growing income
and affluence. Significant opportunity exists in this market for producers in the Central
Highlands region to have access to a facility that can process wagyu breeds of cattle.
5
Cattle sold through an MSA accredited saleyard must be processed within 36 hours of dispatch from
farm. Direct consignment cattle must be processed within 48 hours from dispatch to slaughter, with a
maximum of 36 hours in road transport, which can also include a rest period of up to 12 hours.
Organic Beef
The demand for organically produced beef has continued to experience strong growth in recent
years. This has been driven from consumer preferences for food that is produced without the
use of pesticides or artificial fertilisers on account of perceived food safety and improved
product quality from such products. The production of organic beef avoids all prophylactic
chemical treatments and vaccinations with a view that the farming enterprise is a ‘closed
system’, that is, all required inputs are produced on-farm. In order to achieve this, organic beef
farms are typically a mixed enterprise consisting of pasture, crops and livestock. A variety of
pasture, grazing and soil fertility management techniques must be utilised to ensure continual
system productivity (McCoy 20026).
The farmer-gate value of sales from organic beef properties (including calves) was in excess of
$72M in 2012, growing from $34,456,100 in 2010. Queensland is the major supplier of
Australian certified organic cattle, representing 69% of the national holding value of cattle as of
2011 (Monk et al. 2012). If the new facility in the Central Highlands has capacity to process
organic cattle and other high value breeds then the future viability of the operation will be
improved given the strong demand growth for these products.
7.4.6 Service and Processing Kills
A service kill is a contractual arrangement whereby a processing facility performs the slaughter
and potentially the processing of cattle for a third party. Service kills can be performed for local
butchers within a region who hold cattle at the farm gate and require slaughtering services
without any associated processing, or for large producers, exporters or domestic marketers who
require full processing and packaging, before selling their specialty or branded meat.
A service kill arrangement allows producers of niche/high value products to ensure that the
maximum premium for their product can be captured as they retain control of the marketing
activities after the processing higher degree of premium for their product as they can engage in
the own marketing of their product. A proportion of producers are increasingly seeking to retain
control of their value-generated product, which is not usually possible via existing meat
processing facilities. There appears to be considerable existing demand for service kills
(including processing services) to be performed in the Central Highlands region, particularly in
wagyu, organic and for other niche or branded products, including MSA graded and certified
grass-fed products.
The nearest abattoirs providing service killing and processing services are located in the
Lockyer Valley near Brisbane (Stanbroke Pastoral) and at Casino in the Northern Rivers region
of NSW (the Northern Cooperative Meat Company Ltd) over 1,000 km South of Emerald. This
company is the only producer-owned beef processing cooperative in Australia as is
characterised by having a particularly high share of service kill arrangements; where
approximately 10% of the plant’s weekly throughput come from wagyu service kills alone
(Condon 2014).
Stakeholder consultation revealed a strong demand for service killing, with one supplier flagging
the possibility of processing 30,000 head per annum in a future Emerald abattoir. Service kills
represent a key opportunity for a Central Highlands facility to fill an identified market gap
servicing an increasing market of branded, niche or value added product. Overall, the demand
for service kills has the potential to make a major contributor to throughput, and assisting the
abattoir to differentiate from established facilities.
6
http://archive.agric.wa.gov.au/OBJTWR/imported_assets/content/aap/bc/bull4518.pdf
7.5 Projected Throughput
Consideration of the cattle numbers, slaughter availability, supply seasonality and wider market
forces, has informed GHD’s projected throughput assessment for a processing facility within the
Central Highlands region.
To evaluate potential throughput GHD applied a comparative supply chain cost analysis model,
similar to that used in the QDAFF (2012) report. The model evaluates supply chain costs that
could be expected from the operation of a local abattoir, versus the current lowest cost supply
chain option currently available to producers (Abattoirs in Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton
and Brisbane). The analysis compares the property to market supply chain cost for cattle in all
shires within the region, using a hypothetical new abattoir located in Emerald.
Table 10 presents the results of the supply chain cost savings that are associated from livestock
being diverted from the current least cost abattoir to a facility located in Emerald. The results
indicate that an Emerald based abattoir would be the least cost processing option for cattle
originating from the Central Highlands, Barcaldine, Longreach, Barcoo, Blackall - Tambo,
Winton, Diamantina and McKinlay Shires, representing a potential throughput of 345,828 cattle
per annum.
Table 10 Results of Supply Chain Cost Analysis
Livestock origin Current least cost Current least Emerald: Average Annual cattle Indicative Throughput Total net
abattoir cost abattoir: Supply potential movements to market annual
Supply chain chain supply slaughter share supply chain
costs costs chain which could savings
savings be captured
Shire Abattoir $/head $/head $/head No. % No. $
Central Highlands Rockhampton $38 $30 8 185,801 30% 55740 $448,669
Barcaldine Rockhampton $53 $45 8 27,666 20% 5533 $45,553
Longreach Rockhampton $59 $51 8 20,651 15% 3098 $25,510
Barcoo Rockhampton $72 $64 8 9,210 15% 1382 $11,414
Blackall - Tambo Rockhampton $59 $49 10 40,400 15% 6060 $61,802
Winton Rockhampton $65 $62 4 8,374 10% 837 $2,972
Diamantina Townsville $97 $94 2 14,025 10% 1403 $3,215
McKinlay Townsville $79 $76 3 18,849 10% 1885 $5,526
Subtotal 345,828
Isaac MacKay $36 $40 -3 155,267 15% 23290 -$76,008
Quilpie Brisbane $68 $70 -2 7,307 5% 365 -$680
Flinders Townsville $53 $69 -16 22,921 1% 229 -$3,671
Richmond Townsville $59 $76 -16 18,038 1% 180 -$2,948
Cloncurry Townsville $76 $82 -7 16,096 2% 322 -$2,119
Mount Isa Townsville $83 $89 -7 4,756 2% 95 -$650
Burke Townsville $88 $109 -21 10,798 1% 108 -$2,225
Carpentaria Townsville $84 $103 -19 15,455 1% 155 -$2,931
TOTAL 100,682 $513,431
It would be unrealistic to suggest an Emerald based facility could capture this entire throughput,
particularly given the supply chain savings are relatively small (<=$10 per head). It is also
important to acknowledge that the modelling exercise does not account for potential differences
in processing costs.
While an Emerald facility could only expect to capture a proportion of the market share from
municipalities where there is a supply chain saving, it is conversely true that the facility would
receive some cattle from municipalities where there is a higher supply chain cost (e.g. Isaac,
Quilpie, Cloncurry and Mount Isa) particularly if the facility catered for niche services including
service kills not available elsewhere.
For each municipality GHD applied an indicative estimate of the market share which could likely
be captured by an Emerald facility, drawing on the net change in supply chain costs, locality and
distance, demand for niche processing services and feedback from local stakeholders. This
exercise determined a potential throughput of approximately 100,000 head per annum. An
indicative breakdown of livestock by origin is provided in Figure 26 below.
Figure 26 Indicative throughput by Origin
This analysis would suggest the facility could be highly reliant on attracting throughput locally in
the Central Highlands and Isaac regions, with the remaining throughput being drawn from a
range of other municipalities.
7.5.1 Change in Throughput Over Time
Over a 10-20 year period the herd size within the study area would be expected to rise
moderately with general improvements in farm productivity and potentially increased export
opportunities. However, increasing herd size will likely be met by increased processing capacity,
through expansion of existing abattoirs and potentially other new entrants7, and increased
competition from the live export market. As a result it should not be assumed that an Emerald
based processing facility could substantially increase throughput over time as a result of
expanding cattle productivity. Instead, any increases in throughput will likely be the result of the
facility winning market share off other facilities and specific growth in the demand for service
kills.
7
New abattoirs have been proposed/considered in Roma and Cloncurry
8. Meat Supply Chain
8.1 Definition of the Supply Chain
The Meat Supply Chain considered within this study incorporates the transportation of livestock
(cattle) from farm to a domestic meat processing facility by road. From the processing facility
various product types (as listed below in Table 11) are transported for domestic and
international distribution and for further processing. A simplified graphic of the supply chain is
presented in Figure 27, which is the basis of further analysis in Sections 7 and Section 8.
Table 11 Meat Supply Chain Product Types
Product Types
Carcass
Hide
Boxed meat
Blood and bone
Offal
Source: GHD
Source: GHD
Figure 27 Cattle (Meat) Supply Chain
8.2 Origins
The Central Highland’s region (the proposed location of the new processing facility) is
surrounded by shires that possess a rural focus on grazing and cattle breeding. The cattle farms
within these shires are considered the origins for the Meat Supply Chain as they are the source
of livestock available for processing. For the purpose of this analysis, the supply of cattle is
assumed to be central to the shire in which they are located.
Sixteen shires have been considered as potential origin points and potential catchment for the
meat processing facility as shown in Figure 28.
The potential size of market for each of the shires based on historical processing levels is also
depicted in Figure 28. The highest producing regions within the catchment area are the Central
Highlands and Isaac shires, followed by Blackall - Tambo, Longreach, Barcaldine and Flinders,
which are located near the processing facility. Further to the West and North West, there are a
number of lower intensity producing shires that may be considered within the catchment area.
Source: GHD
Figure 28 Central Highlands Meat Processing Feasibility Shires
8.3 Destinations
The Meat Supply Chain comprises the transport of livestock from the origin shires to a number
of processing facilities. Cattle are transported from farm (or saleyard) to the processing facilities
(or feedlots), with producers likely to sell to processors offering greatest value chain cost
efficiencies (cost savings), which is typically demonstrated in the highest achievable sale price.
The proposed processing facility at Emerald will provide competition to other processing
facilities (such as Rockhampton, Townsville, Brisbane, Gympie and Mackay)8, where it has the
ability to capture throughput, by achieving greater value chain cost efficiencies. This can
arguably facilitate higher sale prices, as the lower costs (across the total supply chain) provide
buffer to an appropriate commercial margin. The intermediate processing facilities (existing and
proposed), secondary processing facilities and end market destination locations considered
within the Meat Supply Chain are outlined in Sections 8.3.1 to 8.3.4.
8.3.1 Proposed Intermediate Processing Abattoir
Emerald
Emerald is a small city located within the Central Highlands Region, Queensland and due to its
proximity to the origin shires within the Meat Supply Chain could potentially be used as the
location of an alternative meat processing facility. Figure 29 identifies the four potential site
locations at Emerald considered within the Meat Processing Feasibility Study and shows the
vehicle restrictions placed on the major roads to each of the destinations. As shown in Figure
29, access to Emerald is limited to Type 1 road trains, including B Triple configurations.
Source: GHD
Figure 29 Emerald Proposed Abattoir Sites - Destination
8
Facilities in Casino, and proposed facilities in the Northern Territory and the Cloncurry region have
not been included in the analysis
8.3.2 Existing Intermediate Processing Abattoirs
Mackay
Thomas Borthwick & Sons / NH Foods Australia abattoir currently operates in Mackay and has
a daily processing capacity of over 750 head. As shown in Figure 30 the existing abattoir site
location in Mackay on the corner of Main St and Temples Lane is limited to 25 m B Double
vehicles. However, increased payloads can be achieved with access to the Higher Mass Limits
Network.
Source: GHD
Figure 30 Mackay Abattoir Site - Destination
Townsville
Within Townsville, there are a number of abattoirs with the largest having a daily processing
capacity of 903 head of cattle and operated five days a week by JBS Swift. Livestock for
processing in Townsville is typically sourced from Central Queensland and the Northern
Territory.
Figure 31 below locates identified existing abattoir site locations in Townsville. The vehicle
combination restrictions placed on the major roads leading to abattoir locations are also shown.
As shown in Figure 31, access to Townsville is open to Type 1 and 2 road trains; but decoupling
will be required to reach the abattoirs for all configurations greater in size than B Triples.
Source: GHD
Figure 31 Townsville Abattoir Sites - Destination
Dinmore (Brisbane)
Dinmore is a suburb of Ipswich on the eastern coast of Queensland located approximately
50 km south-west of the Port of Brisbane. Located here is a JBS Swift abattoir which operates
nine shifts over a 5-day rotation and has a processing capacity of 1,675 head of cattle per shift.
Livestock for processing in Dinmore is sourced from Central Queensland. There are numerous
other processing facilities in Brisbane; however, for the purposes of this analysis, the Dinmore
facility has been considered as the location of a representative Brisbane facility.
As shown in Figure 32, direct access to Dinmore is limited to Higher Mass Limit 25 m B
Doubles. However, Higher Mass Limit (HML) and non-HML Type 1 road trains from the origin
shires within the Meat Supply Chain could also access Dinmore by decoupling trailers at an
acceptable distance from the abattoir. In addition, the Dinmore facility has access to the rail.
Source: GHD
Figure 32 Dinmore (Brisbane) Abattoir Site - Destination
Rockhampton
In Rockhampton there are two separate abattoirs with the largest being operated by Teys
Australia which has a daily processing capacity of 1,731 head of cattle. The other abattoir is
operated by JBS Swift and operates 6 days a week processing 696 head of cattle per day.
Livestock for processing in Rockhampton is sourced from Central Queensland.
As shown in Figure 33, direct access to Rockhampton is limited to Higher Mass Limit 25 m B
Doubles. However, Type 1 road trains from the origin shires within the Meat Supply Chain could
also access Dinmore by decoupling trailers at an acceptable distance from the abattoir.
Source: GHD
Figure 33 Rockhampton Abattoir Sites - Destination
8.3.3 Secondary Processing Destinations
In addition to the primary abattoirs within the Meat Supply Chain there may also be secondary
processing destinations where the product undergoes further value add processing. For
instance, blood and by-product may need to be transported from the abattoir to a secondary
rendering facility to be converted into pet food, and cattle hides may be transported to tanneries
for the production of leather.
8.3.4 End Market Destination (Post-Processing)
Exports (Meat Product)

The end market of the Meat Supply Chain servicing Central Queensland is largely the export of
processed meat product through the Port of Brisbane9. Product is transported to the port from
the abattoir in 20 foot refrigerated container as boxed meat (trim and prime cuts) and or in
carcass form depending on the market being serviced.
Figure 34 below depicts the Port of Brisbane which serves as the gateway for exports in the
Meat Supply Chain. The truck configuration restrictions placed on the major roads leading into
the Port of Brisbane are also shown to be limited to Higher Mass Limit 25 m B Doubles.
Source: GHD
Figure 34 Port of Brisbane – Exports
9
The export of containerised product can be done via liner services calling at the Port of Townsville.
Due to the number of services, frequency and capacity, Brisbane has been considered as the
preferred export gateway for chilled meat products
Domestic (Regional Meat)
The end market of the Meat Supply Chain servicing Central Queensland also includes the
movement of meat product in refrigerated containers to local Queensland distribution centres as
boxed meat (trim and prime cuts). The regional meat product volumes being transported are
secondary to the export market and likely to be influenced by the proximity of individual
abattoirs to local distribution centres.
Abattoirs with significant domestic end market volume may be able to achieve transport cost
efficiencies over those reliant solely upon export product due to shorter transport lengths.
8.4 Transport Network

The Central Queensland Meat Supply Chain is dependent on the transport network that
connects the cattle origins (shires), intermediate processing facilities (primary and secondary)
and end markets. The current Meat Supply Chain relies predominantly upon road based
transport and the available truck configurations are limited by network road capacities.
Figure 35 below depicts the road transport network capabilities for the Meat Supply Chain and
the truck configuration restrictions in place across the region. The origin/destination linkages
and the vehicle type limitations are discussed further in Sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2.
Source: GHD
Figure 35 Meat Supply Chain Transport Network (Road)
8.4.1 Origin/Destination Linkages (Routing)
The road network linkages that connect the cattle origins (farms) and destinations (abattoirs)
impact the vehicle types that may be utilised for the transport of product within the Meat Supply
Chain.
Figure 36 depicts the road network linkages between the 16 shires (origins) and existing
abattoirs (destinations) and has been used to determine the likely routing and truck
configurations applied in the transportation of product. Refer Appendix C1 for the assumed
route distances of each of the origin point and destination linkages within the Meat Supply
Chain.
Source: GHD
Figure 36 Origin/Destination Linkages (Routing)
8.4.2 Transport Network Limitations (Road)
The road network linking the Meat Supply Chain origin points and destinations dictates the
vehicle type, transit speed and whether or not a Higher Mass Limit (HML) type vehicle can be
utilised. These variables create transport network limitations and result in different cost rates per
head per kilometre for each of the routing options.
Appendix C1 details the transit speeds, route distances and assumed truck configurations that
can be utilised for origin point and destination pairings based upon the road network. Routes
achieving shorter travel distances, greater transit speeds and larger truck configurations
between the origin point and destination will lead to greater cost efficiencies (savings).
Section 9 describes the transport assessment process undertaken for the Central Highlands
Meat Processing Feasibility Study and provides further details on the transport network
limitations between the origin point and destination pairings.
9. Transport Cost Assessment
9.1 Approach
A supply chain cost model was built using first principles in order to estimate the transport costs
associated with the shire-abattoir pairings and to compare the total supply chain costs for an
Emerald meat processing facility. The modelling process involved the development of cost
estimation curves capable of capturing the changes in rates relative to the truck configuration,
transit speed, travel distance and operational model being applied.
Section 9.1.1 below examines the modelling process that was applied to calculate the supply
chain costs in further detail.
9.1.1 Modelling (Steps)
The modelling process was broken into two parts (Part A and B).
Part A - creation of cost curves for transporting livestock, meat product, hides, and blood and
by-product by truck.
Part B –building a supply chain model to apply the cost curves (Part A) as well as other costs
relating to shrinkage, processing and decoupling requirements.
Potential additional costs excluded from the model include failure to achieve MSA grading
timeframes and export shipping costs from the Port of Brisbane..
9.1.2 Key Assumptions
In order to determine the supply chain cost the product being transported was defined as.
Live cattle were assumed to be 500 kg (live weight);
The number of animals achieved per deck was based on to the lesser of truck mass or
volumetric capacities;
Transportable meat product was assumed to be 50% of live weight, blood and by-product
5% of live weight and hides 50 kg per head; and
Post processed number of head packed was assumed either to be limited by the truck or
reefer payload capacity.
Once the product assumptions were defined, likely transportation routes to be assumed for
shire-abattoir pairings based on the travel distance, road restrictions and limitations were
defined. From these assumptions the transportation distances and truck types for each of the
shire-abattoir pairings were specified. Transit speeds were set to match the values applied
within the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry report: Evaluating the
commercial viability of a northern outback Queensland meat processing facility. The travel
distances between the shire and abattoir were taken as the distance from a central point within
the shire to the abattoir which was assumed to be an appropriate average.
Travel distances for export meat were based on the distance from the abattoir to the Port of
Brisbane, whilst the distance to regional meat distribution centres was assumed to be to major
population centres within relative close proximity to the abattoir. Different per head per kilometre
rates were applied to the transport of export and regional meats and the model assumed a
70:30 end market split between export and regional meat.
Truck configurations were selected based on visual analysis of the likely road network route for
each of the shire-abattoir pairings (refer Section 8). This process included checking whether or
not higher mass limit (HML) truck types were able to be utilised. Appendix C1 provides further
details on the inputs to the supply chain cost model assumed and includes other assumptions
relating to processing cost penalties and decoupling requirements. Truck operational
assumptions were also made in order to develop the first principles transportation cost curves.
These assumptions are provided in Section 9.1.3 and Appendix C2.
A separate assessment of rail as an alternative to road was also undertaken in order to assess
the cost impact (refer Section 9.2.4) and Appendix C3 details the assumptions made
surrounding the cost for the use of rail.
9.1.3 Cost Estimation – Curves
Cost curves were developed in order to allow the cost modelling to better reflect the variations
between the different shire-abattoir pairing routing options, and were calculated for the following
segments of the value chain:
Farm to abattoir (live animal);
Abattoir to port/regional distribution centres (meat product);
Abattoir to other (blood and by-product); and
Abattoir to other (hides).
For each of the four segments a range of truck types were selected and cost curves calculated
based on their individual operational costs which were based factors such as the truck carrying
capacity, fuel consumption and the number of trucks required for freight task.
The truck types that were assumed are listed below in Table 12.
Table 12 Cost Curve Truck Types
Farm to Abattoir Abattoir to Port/ Abattoir to Other Abattoir to Other

Regional (blood and by- (hide)
Distribution product)
2 to 6 deck trucks B-double 3 axle rigid 3 axle rigid

(refrigerated Pantec)
(non-HML and HML)
2 to 6 deck trucks B-triple 6 axle rigid – with 6 axle rigid

(HML) reefer
(non-HML and HML)
6-axle artic 6 axle rigid – with 6 axle rigid (HML)

reefer (HML)
(non-HML and HML)
9.2 Transport Cost Outcomes

The costs of the live transit and post processing components were calculated for each of the
sixteen study area shires and the four existing abattoirs. The results were compared against the
costs calculated for a proposed facility at Emerald and the least cost option determined.
9.2.1 Live Transit (Summary)
Table 13 below presents the current least cost shire-abattoir pairing and the estimated cost for
live transit to a processing facility at Emerald. Based on the analysis live transit costs to
Emerald were found to offer potential savings for eight of the sixteen shire areas ranging from
just above $0 up to $19. On the other hand the most northern shires of Carpentaria and Burke
were found to be significantly higher to transport to Emerald than Townsville, at an estimated
additional cost of $22 and $24. The results unsurprisingly demonstrated that the shires
proximity to the processing facility was found to most heavily correlate with the per head costs
of transporting livestock.
Table 13 Least Cost Live Transit Supply Chain Costs
Shire Current Least Current Least Emerald: Average Potential

Cost Existing Cost Abattoir: Live Live Transit Live Transit
Abattoir Transit only costs Costs Savings ($/head)
($/head) ($/head)
Central Highlands Rockhampton 23.64 5.13 19
Isaac Mackay 15.24 14.46 1
Barcaldine Rockhampton 38.21 19.51 19
Quilpie Rockhampton 60.84 45.13 16
Longreach Rockhampton 44.63 25.93 19
Barcoo Rockhampton 57.56 38.83 19
Blackall - Tambo Rockhampton 44.81 24.15 21
Flinders Townsville 24.31 43.71 -19
Winton Townsville 36.68 36.51 0
Diamantina Townsville 68.30 69.38 -1
Richmond Townsville 30.82 50.54 -20
Mckinlay Townsville 50.39 50.84 -0
Cloncurry Townsville 47.24 57.20 -10
Mount Isa Townsville 54.12 64.33 -10
Burke Townsville 59.90 83.89 -24
Carpentaria Townsville 55.24 77.59 -22
Source: DAFF (2012)
9.2.2 Processed (Summary)
The supply chain costs for post processed product were calculated for each of the current
abattoirs.
As shown in Table 14, the cost analysis suggests that Emerald for post processing costs has
cost efficiencies over Townsville, which is located at a longer distance from the Port of
Brisbane. The model suggests that there is a potential $3 per head saving post processing
using Emerald in place of Townsville; however, this saving is relatively small and Emerald is
generally at a larger live transit cost disadvantage for the shires likely to utilise Townsville for
processing.
Table 14 Least Cost Live Transit Supply Chain Costs
Abattoir Current Post Emerald: Post Average Potential

Abattoir only costs Abattoir Costs Post Abattoir
($/head) ($/head) Savings ($/head)
All existing (average) $10.58 $25.11 -15
Townsville $28.49 $25.11 3
Mackay $21.06 $25.11 -4
Rockhampton $14.64 $25.11 -10
Brisbane $2.98 $25.11 -22
Source: GHD
9.2.3 Value Chain (Summary)
Table 15 combines the costs associated with the live transit and processed component of the
value chain (refer Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2. The results suggest that a processing facility in
Emerald offers the shires of Central Highlands, Barcaldine, Longreach, Barcoo, Blackall -
Tambo, Winton, Diamantina and Mckinlay potential savings ranging from $2 to $10 per head.
The cost impacts of using rail transportation as an alternative in the value chain are presented
in Section 9.2.4.
Table 15 Least Cost Value Chain Abattoir
Shire Current Least Current Least Emerald: Average

Cost Existing Cost Abattoir: Supply chain Potential
Abattoir Supply Chain Costs Supply Chain
Costs ($/head) Savings
($/head) ($/head)
Central Highlands Rockhampton $38.29 $30.24 8
Isaac Mackay $36.31 $39.57 -3
Barcaldine Rockhampton $52.85 $44.62 8
Quilpie Brisbane $68.38 $70.24 -2
Longreach Rockhampton $59.28 $51.04 8
Barcoo Rockhampton $72.20 $63.94 8
Blackall - Tambo Rockhampton $59.46 $49.26 10
Flinders Townsville $52.80 $68.81 -16
Winton Townsville $65.17 $61.62 4
Shire Current Least Current Least Emerald: Average
Cost Existing Cost Abattoir: Supply chain Potential
Abattoir Supply Chain Costs Supply Chain
Costs ($/head) Savings
($/head) ($/head)
Diamantina Townsville $96.79 $94.49 2
Richmond Townsville $59.31 $75.65 -16
Mckinlay Townsville $78.88 $75.95 3
Cloncurry Townsville $75.73 $82.31 -7
Mount Isa Townsville $82.60 $89.44 -7
Burke Townsville $88.39 $109.00 -21
Carpentaria Townsville $83.73 $102.70 -19
Source: GHD
9.2.4 Rail Transport Consideration
In addition to the road transportation supply chain cost assessment the potential to use rail
transportation where existing rail infrastructure exists was undertaken. The rail network was
visually assessed in order to determine shire-abattoir and abattoir-port pairings where
transportation was viable by rail (refer Figure 37).
A cost comparison was then undertaken both for live transit (shire-abattoir) and post processing
transportation (abattoir-port); and the results of this analysis are presented below.
Source: GHD
Figure 37 Study Area Rail Network Map
Live Transit (by Rail)
Table 16 below presents an indicative cost per head transport costs of using rail transport
compared with the cost of road transportation calculated.
The calculations demonstrate that rail is likely to produce a lower cost outcome to transport live
cattle by rail from Mt Isa and Cloncurry to Townsville, and from Longreach to Rockhampton.
These cost savings are unlikely to impact the direction of cattle volumes at Mt Isa and
Cloncurry, as they were already likely to go to Townsville. The potential cost savings of
approximately $5 per head from Longreach to Rockhampton on rail could reduce the cost
advantages of Longreach cattle volume going to Emerald.
Table 16 Live Transit by Rail (Farm to Abattoir)
Animal Cost/Head
To Rail TOTAL Truck Potential

siding Saving
Mount Isa Townsville $5.4 $42.0 $47.4 $54.1 $6.7
Cloncurry Townsville $5.4 $32.0 $37.4 $47.2 $9.9
Longreach Emerald $5.4 $20.9 $26.3 $25.9 -$0.3
Rockhampton Emerald $5.4 $13.6 $19.0 NA NA
Longreach Rockhampton $5.4 $34.4 $39.8 $44.6 $4.8
Source: GHD
Post Abattoir (by Rail)
Table 17 below present’s indicative post processing transport costs on per head basis by rail
and compares the results against the cost of transportation by road.
Post abattoir transport costs by rail appear predominantly cheaper than transport by road, with
the Emerald to Brisbane leg posting the highest potential saving of $5.50 per head. Assuming
that this saving is achievable, a potentially stronger position for Emerald may be achieved,
increasing competitiveness for Isaac market share.
Table 17 Post Processing Product by Rail (Abattoir to Port)
Reefer Cost/head
Reefers To siding Rail TOTAL Road Potential

Saving
Townsville Brisbane $3,825.0 $1.0 $34.7 $35.8 $38.0 $2.3
Mackay Brisbane $2,753.8 $1.0 $25.0 $26.0 $27.2 $1.2
Rockhampton Brisbane $1,831.3 $1.0 $16.6 $17.7 $18.0 $0.4
Emerald Brisbane $2,577.6 $1.0 $23.4 $24.4 $29.9 $5.5
Gympie Brisbane $545.3 $1.0 $5.0 $6.0 $2.1 -$3.9
Source: GHD
9.3 Competitiveness
Table 18 below details whether shires are likely or unlikely to use an Emerald based processing
facility based upon the value chain least cost results. The shires that are likely to possess
contestable cattle volume are also shown within the table.
Table 18 Key Findings on whether or not Emerald Would Be Used
Shire (Origin) Least Cost Abattoir Is the Shire likely to use

(Destination) Emerald?
Barcaldine Emerald Yes
Barcoo Emerald Yes
Blackall - Tambo Emerald Yes
Burke Townsville No
Carpentaria Townsville No
Central Highlands Emerald Contestable (Rockhampton)
Cloncurry Townsville No
Diamantina Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
Flinders Townsville No
Isaac Mackay Contestable (Mackay)*
Longreach Emerald Yes
Mckinlay Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
Mount Isa Townsville No
Quilpie Brisbane Contestable (Brisbane) *
Richmond Townsville No
Winton Emerald Contestable (Townsville)
* Based on achieving potential savings achieved through the use of rail from abattoir to port
9.4 Key Findings
The results from the supply chain cost model found that a processing facility at Emerald would
be well positioned on transport and distribution costs to provide a competitive offering within the
shires of Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall - Tambo and Longreach. A processing site in Emerald
was also found to likely provide additional competition for cattle volume within the shires of
Central Highlands, Diamantina, Isaac, Mckinlay, Quilpie and Winton.
Considering the shires for which an Emerald processing facility potentially offers supply chain
cost savings, the cattle supply would be most likely sourced from existing Rockhampton facility
demand. That is an Emerald facility offers Meat Supply Chain cost savings to four of the five
shires that Rockhampton was calculated as being the current least cost option.
One major factor why Emerald has Meat Supply cost efficiencies over Rockhampton is due to
the more expensive (on a per head basis) live transit leg of the supply chain is shorter, and that
these cost savings are greater (on a per head basis) than the longer post processing (chilled
meat and distribution legs).
Beyond the results presented in this section, it should also be noted that there are some factors
that could erode the supply chain cost advantages of utilising an Emerald facility; such as higher
processing costs. Furthermore, further studies should investigate the distribution of demand
within contestable shires to assess the competitiveness of the facility on a per farm basis
10. Skilled Labour Availability
10.1 Labour Pool
As at March 2013, the Central Highlands unemployment rate was 2.8% (DEEWR 2013). Once
churn in the employment market is taken into account, this figure essentially represents full
employment (CHDC 2014). For a new facility to be supported by a skilled workforce, recruitment
support would also need to come from neighbouring regions.
Findings from discussions with recruitment agencies indicated that competitive meat processing
plants within the Biloela / Rockhampton area sourced their labour through overseas options,
namely due to any skilled meat workers in the local area taking up higher paying positions in the
mining industry. Given the current downturn in the mining industry, there could be an available
supply of a limited number of qualified meat workers coming back into the beef industry and
there may be surplus of other skilled labourers to fulfil other positions that aren’t abattoir related
i.e. administration, management, transport drivers, trades assistants etc.
Meat processing shift hours allow for the employment of local workers with family requirements,
which enables staff to undertake parental duties directly after school hours. A location near
Emerald for a meat processing plant allows for local recruitment as well as potentially attracting
additional workers to the area due to the existing community infrastructure, range of available
schools and shopping centres.
The Central Highlands region has a range of affordable accommodation options to suit incoming
worker requirements (single lifestyle or family oriented).
Flexible working arrangements will also be important for attracting and maintaining workforce to
the area. This may include providing shift options to support drive in / drive out workers, and/or
shift splits that support a work/life balance.
10.2 Overseas Labour

Meat working positions do not form part of the approved list of occupations under the subclass
457 visa program; therefore businesses will need to enter into a Labour Agreement in order to
access overseas labour. Labour Agreements are the most commonly used program for
employers to sponsor overseas workers to work in Australia on a temporary basis.
A Labour Agreement is a formal agreement negotiated between the Department of Immigration
and Border Protection and the employer. Duration of a Labour Agreement is typically valid for 3
years.
To be eligible for a Labour Agreement, employers must provide evidence that:
There is a genuine and systemic shortage of skilled workers and demonstrate that there
are no suitably qualified Australian workers available to fill required role; and
Employers have a commitment to training Australians as part of the agreement.
To become a sponsor the general process for an employer you must demonstrate that your:
Business is a lawfully operating business;
Business meets training requirements (Australian businesses only);
Business agrees to the number of subclass 457 workers to be nominated;
Business has no relevant adverse information against the business; and
Australian businesses must also demonstrate their commitment to employing local labour
as well as non-discriminatory recruitment practices.
For further information regarding Labour Agreements please visit Department of Immigration
and Border Protection’s website http://www.immi.gov.au/Pages/Welcome.aspx.
10.3 Indigenous Labour

The Indigenous population makes up 3.7% of the total Central Highlands population (CHDC
2014). It can therefore be assumed that only a small percentage of indigenous people would be
available for labour. Depending on the eventual site location, there may be some opportunities
to work closely with indigenous groups to enhance employment opportunities.
10.4 Other Labour

There are positions within the industry that aren’t abattoir skilled related such as administration,
general packaging etc that could be filled by travelling workers seeking temporary employment
if suitably qualified Australian workers weren’t available to fill the required role. This situation
currently occurs at local fruit producing farms near Emerald where travelling workers fill fruit
picking roles and on-farm facilities are in place to allow accommodation of such workers.
Another agricultural producer in the area utilises Pacific Islander labour under a specific labour
agreement, which allows these agricultural works to fill fruit picking roles on a temporary basis.
However these options can be only be considered for none critical meat processing roles as this
type of labour is short term only, usually lasting up to 6 to 12 months and could present visa
issues if not properly investigated initially.
10.5 Training Opportunities

Due to the nature of the meat processing industry, meat process workers are generally trained
on the job by more experienced and skilled staff. Although due to the need for a range of skills
to operate and service a meat processing plant, specialised training packages could be
developed in collaboration with local training providers.
Due to Emerald’s central location, there exists a range of potential training facilities in the town,
which could be available to service this need. Within Emerald there are numerous private
training providers, which are predominantly focused on mine safety training but could also focus
on training relating to safety and other aspects within the meat processing industry.
The Central Highlands region is well serviced by the Central Queensland University, which
recently amalgamated with Central Queensland TAFE, with a campus in Emerald. In addition,
the Emerald Agricultural College offers a range of agricultural based training as well as a
number of short courses which could be tailored to be applicable to roles within the meat
processing industry.
11. Market and Export Trade
Opportunities
This section examines the export and domestic market for beef. The future market prospects for
beef are an important consideration when determining the viability of a processing plant given
that the demand for beef is underpinned by processing capacity.
11.1 Export Market Trends

In 2012-13 Australia was the world’s largest exporter of beef in value ($5.06 billion) and the third
largest exporter in tonnage (1,013,878 swt exported to more than 100 countries). This
represents 13% of Australia’s total farm export value and approximately 67% of all domestic
production (MLA 2013). Australia has a strong position in the market as being a consistent
supplier of quality beef.
However, as shown in Source: MLA (2013)
Figure 38, Australian beef export volumes have remained relatively flat in recent years, a trend
which can be explained by the increased substitution to other meat alternatives and greater
export competition for lower quality beef from South American producers in emerging markets.
The major markets for the export of Australian beef include Japan, Korea, and the US which
account for over 60% of Australian export trade (MLA 2013). The Middle East and other Asian
countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand are important growth markets for Australian
beef, driven through rapid income growth and an associated increased demand for quality
imported beef which cannot be supplied by their domestic markets.
Source: MLA (2013)
Figure 38 Beef and Cattle Exports Volume and Value (2005-06 to 2012-13)
The export prices for frozen beef and veal have remained relatively flat over the past 25 years,
while chilled meat has enjoyed moderate growth, in the Korean and Japanese markets
extending its premium over the frozen product (Figure 39). Further price premiums are available
for wagyu and organic beef.
Source: ABARES 2013b
Figure 39 Average Export Prices for Australian Beef and Veal on Principal
Overseas Markets (1988-2013)
In terms of global beef production, major gains have come from developing regions such as
Asia and South America, while output from more developed regions such as North America,
Europe and Australia have remained relatively stable or partially declined (Source: FAO 2014
Figure 40).
Source: FAO 2014
Figure 40 Global Beef Production
11.1.1 Trade Barriers
Table 19 lists the current tariffs and quotas which are imposed by key export market
destinations. While a range of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have been negotiated for key
markets including the US, China, Japan, Korea and Indonesia, access to these and other
markets are typically still subject to some forms of trade barriers. Many of the FTAs have
negotiated a progressive reduction in tariffs over a period of years until a tariff free year is
reached. The negotiation and enforcement of FTAs are an important mechanism to ensure
continued market access to key trading partners.
Table 19 Current Tariffs and Quotas (MLA 2014d)
Export Bound Quota/Applied Tariff Free Trade Zero

Market Tariff Agreement Tariff
Status Year
Japan 50% 38.5% (special safeguard of 50%). Under Under

new FTA, rate will move to 19.5% over an negotiation
18 year period for frozen beef, and to
23.5% over 15 years for chilled beef.
South 40% 40% Under

Korea negotiation
US (above 26.4% 408,214 tonne quota Completed 2022

quota) (expanding to 448,214 tonnes by 2022
under AUSFTA)
In quota: 0%; above quota 26.4%
(0% by 2022 under AUSFTA)
European 100%* 7,150 tonne quota (fiscal year)

Union * In quota: 20%;above quota: 12.8% + 141.4-
304.1 Euro/100 kg
European 0% Shared access to 48,200 tonne quota

Union In quota: 0%
grain-fed
beef
China 18.6% Tariffs of 12 to 25 percent on beef to be Completed 2024

removed over coming 9 years
Indonesia 50% 0-5% (0% for most tariff lines by 2020 Completed 2020
under AANZFTA) (ASEAN
FTA)
Taiwan 29%** NT $10/kg

('other
quality'
beef)
Canada 26.5% 35,000 tonne quota (calendar year)

(above In quota: 0%; above quota: 26.5%
quota)
Mexico 45% 20% - 25%
Philippines 40% 10% (0% in 2012 under AANZFTA) Completed 2012
Russia 55% Shared access to 11,000 tonne chilled beef

and 407,000 tonne frozen beef quotas
(calendar year)
In quota: 15% above quota: 50%
High Quality Beef exempted from quotas:
15% duty
Export Bound Quota/Applied Tariff Free Trade Zero
Market Tariff Agreement Tariff
Status Year
Thailand 51% 21.33% (0% by 2020 under TAFTA) Completed 2020
11.2 Domestic Market Trends

Australian beef consumption has remained relatively flat in recent decades, while exports have
grown consistently since 1984 (Figure 41). In 2012 the domestic market accounted for 34% of
total use, down from over 50% in the early 1980s.
Figure 41 Australian Beef and Veal Use
Domestic beef consumption per capita has been steadily declining (Figure 42), partly due to
increased consumption of substitute meats as discussed in Section 7.4.3. Other factors which
have suppressed the demand for beef include the reduced consumption of red meat for health
reasons.
Figure 42 Annual Per Capita Beef and Veal Consumption
Despite the competitive environment facing the future demand for beef, there is significant
opportunity for growth in niche and targeted beef products. The marketing of niche beef
products domestically, such as wagyu or organic beef (see Section 7.4.5), is advantageous
given an increased capacity to differentiate the product which reduces the product substitution
alternatives. The future market demand for these products is very strong given that their
characteristics, such as supply chain integrity, superior quality and animal welfare, align with the
preferences of a growing group of consumers who place strong value on product integrity and
quality. Therefore any future growth in the consumption of beef domestically is likely to stem
from products that have particular quality attributes given the mature and highly competitive
state of the domestic market.
12. Cost Estimates
12.1 Cost Limitations
Wiley & Co Pty Ltd (on behalf of GHD) has prepared the preliminary cost estimates set out in
this report (“Expenditure Estimate”) using information reasonably available to the Wiley
employee(s) who prepared this section of the report; and based on industry experience, and
assumptions made by Wiley.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of the feasibility study based on an
indicative concept design and must not be used for any other purpose.
The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs and other variables may
be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise
specified in this report, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in this
report. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the project can or will be undertaken
at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence,
notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there
remains a chance that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding
would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning
purposes will vary depending on the conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The
user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
12.2 Key Plant Features

The potential meat processing facility in the Central Highlands region should be constructed to
provide hygienic production, effective labour utilisation and energy efficiency as key design
input parameters and include the utilisation of best practice technologies such as high efficiency
motors, VSD control, energy recovery systems (e.g. waste heat recovery). Occupational health
& safety and operator ergonomics & wellbeing are also to key inputs to any potential plant to
reduce injuries, workers compensation, and staff turnover.
The plant will need to be designed to meet AQIS export requirements and more specifically the
import requirements of the EU, USDA, China, Russia, DEHP (QLD), Central Highlands Regional
Council and the relevant Australian standards. Process operations and production systems
should be designed to meet Halal requirements and comply with animal welfare, biosecurity and
environmental standards. An indicative plant based on the above features has been costed
based on the preliminary concept drawing and site location to the west of Emerald (see
Appendix D).
12.2.1 Capacity
The indicative plant has been costed to initially process 450 head per a single 7.6 hr shift, 5
days per week 240 days per year. The plant can be configured to allow future expansion to
operate over 2 shifts per day, and up to 6 days per week if required. The assumed slaughter
process will typically operate at a rate of 60 cattle per hour.
The large majority of cattle processed will be sourced from the local Central Highlands regions.
The average beast processed has been assumed to be 280 - 300 kg’s dressed carcase weight,
based on potential supply. While the average 290 kg average carcass has been adopted, the
plant could be configured to process 180 to 400 kg HSCW and categories to allow flexibility with
the plant’s production capabilities.
12.2.2 Products
Any potential plant should be configured to generally produce the full Ausmeat range of chilled
and frozen boxed products including red and green offal along with a full range of co products.
These include hides, tallow, meat and bone meal, and dried blood meal. It has been assumed
that hides will be removed following legging, salt cured and containerised prior to removal from
site. Edible offal (following evisceration), will be collected processed, chilled or frozen and
containerised to suit market requirements and export standards. Inedible offal, blood and other
process by-products will be utilised by on-site high temperature rendering facilities, whereas,
paunch content and yard wash-down solids would be processed in an on-site composting
facility.
12.2.3 Staffing
The expected staffing for the plant based on a high efficiency and productivity configuration
operating independently (i.e. no external management or Head Office service provision).
Further analysis of the manning and tasks should be undertaken should the potential meat
processing plant proceed. It is expected that efficiency will approach 3 carcasses / person /
workday. With Table 28 below outlines the estimated staff numbers based on typical production
line and support.
Table 20 Meat Processing Plant Full Time Equivalent Staff Estimate
Area No
Boning 90
Maintenance 6
Rendering 2
Administration 20
TOTAL 168
12.2.4 Overall Layout
The indicative layout of the facility consists of the following key production areas:
Stock receiving and unloading;

Cattle holding pens;
Cattle Ante Mortem yards;
Slaughter and offal processing;

Carcass chillers and chiller freezers;
Carcase loadout;
Offal carton handling, chilling and freezing facilities;
Rendering plant, meat meal, tallow and dried blood production;
Services and utilities;
Amenities and administration;
Truck access and roads;
Private vehicle and visitor parking;
Boning room with amenities;
Carton handling , chilling and freezing facilities; and
Cold store.
Construction materials and features should be consistent with the AQIS construction guidelines
for export establishments, and current industry best practice for processing areas which
consists of predominantly:
Concrete structural and wearing slabs;
Non- slip epoxy resin hi-build floor sealants;
Galvanised structural steel frame;
In-ground or under slab HDPE drainage;
Colourbond roofing and weather fascia’s;
Impervious Insulated panel ceilings and walls;
low energy lighting up to 1000 lux;
Hot Dipped Galvanised carcase overhead conveying systems;
Hygienic, Stainless steel pipe, metalwork, fittings and equipment within process area; and
Electrical and automation installation suitable for intensive wash-down.
It has been assumed that the plant will initially be configured for 1 shift operation. Future
expansion of carcase chilling and cold storage areas has been allowed for in the initial indicative
concept to allow for a second shift if required.
The rendering plant should be located on the “dirty” side of the site in close proximity to the
slaughter floor and boning room. The AQIS construction guidelines for an export establishment
recommend a minimum of 28 meters separation of the rendering plant from hygienic facilities.
12.2.5 Water
Water efficient plant and process design are key considerations for any potential meat
processing plant. Efficient water usage will be paramount for ongoing operations.
Water Requirements;
Drinking water for people and livestock;
Water for showers, toilets, hand basins;
Sterilisation and process requirements;
Washdown of process equipment, the slaughter house, offal and paunch processing,
chillers boning room etc;
Washing of livestock trucks after unloading; and
Firefighting.
Potable standard of water quality will be required for most of the above operations. Due to
export quality requirements, stormwater and recycled wastewater cannot be used in the meat
processing activities. Export establishments require compliance to the importing countries
requirements for water quality used for meat processing. It is expected that the overall plant
water consumption will be approach 1600 L/ Head.
12.2.6 Site Services
The indicative concept has included the following site services:

Refrigeration plant – Two stage Ammonia or Cascade CO2/Ammonia;
Evaporative air cooled ventilation to slaughter floor;
Steam generation and reticulation;
Water chlorination system (inclusion dependent on AQIS requirements);
Wastewater pre-treatment (screens, DAF, etc.); and
Stormwater collection and drainage.
12.3 Estimated OPEX Inputs
12.3.1 Water
Based on 450 cattle/day, the estimated water demand is approximately 720 kL/day. This would
be expected to increase to 1.3 – 1.4 ML / day for a 2 shift operation.
12.3.2 Wastewater
Where possible, the production of wastewater should be minimised and water recycling should
be adopted. The most efficient method to reduce waste water is to minimise the water usage in
the first place. Site wastewater (after removal of solids and blood) is expected to result from the
following sources:
Slaughter and evisceration;
Equipment sterilisation, wash stations, plant wash down;

Offal processing;
Chillers;
Truck washing and pen wash down; and

Amenities.
Typical Wastewater contaminant loads from the waste water streams would be expected to
contain the following loadings. This would increase proportionally for a 2 shift operation.
Table 21 below outlines the estimated level of contaminants in wastewater potentially produced
per day from the indicative meat processing plant.
Table 21 Potential Waste Water Contaminants
Contaminant Kg/ Day
COD 4,104
SS 1,480
Nitrogen 184
Phosphorous 65
12.3.3 Solid Waste Management
Solid waste could be collected for removal to on-site composting and solid waste processing
facilities. General plastics and packaging waste should be collected for disposal.
The major solid waste streams expected to be generated are:
Manure and associated material;
Solid waste residues arising from pre-treatment of effluent;
Disposable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and packaging material; and
General waste including office and canteen wastes.
Total solid waste output from the plant is expected to be as outlined in Table 22 below:
Table 22 Solid Wastes
Solid Waste Kg/Day
Paunch waste 5,040
Sludge & floats 4,320
Packaging 86
12.3.4 Energy Usage
The estimated total energy requirement for refrigeration, ventilation, equipment for process,
lighting, administration and electric forklift trucks is approaching 2.5 -3.5 MW.
Peak Electrical demand is expected to be approximately 2.4 MW. Boiler power required is
5 MW. Estimated total energy use during operation of the proposed meat processing facility is
summarised below in Table 23.
Table 23 Energy Usage
Service Energy
(GJ/day)
Electricity 155
Natural gas 181
TOTAL 336
12.4 Operating Expenditure Estimate

The operating expenditure profile of the indicative plant is estimated in Table 24. These figures
exclude external infrastructure charges (e.g. network charges, headworks charges, and capital
contribution fees that may be applicable).
Table 24 Operating Expenditure Profile
$/pa $/hd
Estimated TOTAL $18,634,000 $172.54

labour costs
Other Consumables $756,000 $7.00

Operating
Costs
Electricity (17c/kWh) $1,763,000 $16.32
Water ($2.00/kltr) $346,000 $3.20
Gas ($15/GJ) $653,000 $6.05
Maintenance Parts $864,000 $8.00
Insurances etc (1.8%) $1,138,000 $10.54
TOTAL (Estimate) $5,520,000 $51.11
Estimated Depreciation
fixed costs
Building (3%) $750,000 $6.94
Services (5%) $750,000 $6.94
Equipment (7%) $1,750,000 $16.20
Interest (8%) $5,200,000 $48.15
TOTAL (Estimate) $8,450,000 $78.24
PLANT $32,604,000 $ 301.89

Estimate
Note these figures are estimates only and should be considered to be +/- 30%.
12.5 Capital Expenditure Estimate
For a project of this size and located in Emerald, it is expected, using a current industry cost
database, the likely capital expenditure requirements for a 450 head / shift plant operating one
shift per day 240 days per year is of the order of AUD $ 73,000,000 to $83,000,000. This figure
has been developed utilising industry and proprietary historical cost data and where possible
verified against the current market. The sensitivity of this capex range is +/-20%.
Additionally cost estimates have been undertaken for wastewater treatment and irrigation of
effluent to land. Based on the assumptions provided within this report, GHD provides an
additional estimate of AUD $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 (+/- 20% sensitively) should be
considered if the site has sufficient and suitable land available for wastewater management.
Notable exclusions include the following:
GST;
Land;
Project Contingency;
Mobile plant and equipment;
Rock excavation;
Consumables;
Office equipment and fitout;
Spare parts;
Raw water treatment to potable standard;

Raw water storage;
Bio gas recovery;
Services and Infrastructure external to the site; and

Other similar items.
13. SWOT Analysis
A Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was performed based on
information collected through consultation and based on our understanding of the meat
processing industry and cattle industry in general.
Table 25 Central Highland Meat Processing Facility SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses
Good location to service cattle coming Water allocation required via Council or
in from the Western Queensland and landholder purchase.
the Northern Territory. Inability to control supply and demand
Location to cattle fattening areas due to seasonal factors. Climate change
(Central Highlands). could exacerbate this if the trend is
Central to main cattle production areas. towards less days of rainfall.
Type 1 road trains can access the Meat No access for Type 2 road trains.
Processing facilities directly, unlike No HML road access (post processing
Rockhampton and Mackay. disadvantage).
Council support.
Available agricultural based labour
force.
With reductions in mining workforce
increased availability of skilled trades.
Close to saleyards – Blackall, Roma,
Longreach and Emerald.
Good access to ports for export of meat
products.
Cost efficiency for rail transportation of
meat products to port.
Opportunities Threats
Extend marketing beyond the local area Competition for market share from
to target a wider and specific market. coastal meat processing facilities.
Opportunity to target the markets Lack of supply during drought or flood
directly selling into targeted city and conditions.
markets in China or Japan. Competition for supply from the live
Co-operative approach with regional export market (China FTA).
producers. Alternative meat processing facility
Service kills and packaging – Organic, proposals – Roma, Cloncurry,
Wagu, MSA. Townsville.
Opportunity for expansion due to site Increasing costs to producers to prevent
locations and adjacent irrigation areas. and insure against biosecurity threats
Side ventures – turf farms, cropping (e.g. through the QLD Cattle Industry
(from irrigated effluent), soil Biosecurity Fund).
conditioners. Changing OH&S and animal welfare
regulations require improved design
requirements.
Market share gets more targeted as
corporates expand and tend to deal
direct with main processors.
In summary, a meat processing facility in the Central Highlands would provide a feasible plant
due to its central location on a major road network subject to availably of viable cattle supply
and access to sufficient water and power supply. The challenges faced by a meat processing
facility in the Central Highlands are similar to those faced by many meat processing operators
across regional Australia and include competitive markets, changes in the operating
environment and government legislation.
14. Risk Analysis
14.1 Purpose
An assessment of the risk has been made of a number of factors associated with this project.
These risk factors are related to both the optimal site assessment and to the study itself. Risks
have been identified through consideration of the following:
producers;
Transport and supply chain capability;
Any vegetation impediments;
Cattle supply and seasonal viability of slaughter; and
Skilled labour availability.
An assessment of risk has been carried out addressing these key areas with relevant team
members. This assessment also incorporates outcomes of discussions that have been held with
the CHDC and CHRC representatives and other stakeholder issues identified during the project.
For the risk assessment, GHD has undertaken an analysis to identify the key risks associated
with each option. The analysis will consider commercial (e.g. financing), economic (e.g.
changes in market demand and supply) and strategic (e.g. institutional factors) issues. The risk
analysis is based on a likelihood and consequence matrix.
Risk impacts are categorised into Very High (VH), High (H), Medium (M), Low (L), Very Low (L)
and Insignificant risk impacts. A suggested action or strategy to manage each of the impacts
identified has been included.
14.2 Risk Parameters

Risk parameters have been based on the key components of the feasibility assessment
including site constraints, economic factors, and transportation limitations. The seven (7) risk
dimensions considered are described in Table 26 below.
Table 26 Description of Risk Parameter
Risk Dimension Description
Capability including Capacity of the facility to operate based on cattle supply,

cattle supply and transportation restriction or other capacity restricts.
transportation
restrictions
Occupational Health Impact on the physical well-being of employees, contractors,

and Safety (staff and communities in Central Highlands Region and the public in general.
public)
Legislative Compliance with regulatory requirements and the impact of failing to

Compliance & obtain approvals or comply. Including but not limited to Federal, State,
Approvals Local legislation.
Environment and Impact on the Environment, defined by Environmental legislation

Heritage including:
a. Ecosystems and their constituent parts including people and
communities.
b. Natural and physical resources.

c. Qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas.
d. Heritage values of places.
e. The social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned
in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d).
Sites could have Historic, Indigenous and Natural heritage values.
Financial An assessment of the potential for cost impacts to construction or

operation that could be incurred. This includes costs directly related to
the project itself and any flow on costs.
This would also cover return on investment.
Skilled Labour Impact on ability to construct and operate facility, in the context of
staff recruitment, staff retention and productivity.
Strategic issues Impact on strategy in developing or managing the meat processing

facility, political, community concerns or actions over activities.
Impact on compliance with Government commitments as opposed to
specific government policy/legislation.
14.3 Consequence Guidance

The consequence descriptors that follow, in Table 27, are based on consequences that could
occur if issues are not managed or based on the consequences of following management
actions. Users should consider possible direct and follow on consequences in the short and
long term, as it is possible that if an issue is left unmanaged, consequences can be
compounded over time and can lead to further consequences.
It should be noted that in a risk assessment the consequence does not change and only the
likelihood of that consequence occurring changes, i.e. the inherent likelihood of an event
occurring is a constant underlying factor.
Table 27 Consequence Descriptors
High Medium Low Very Low
Consequence if soil issue is not managed OR consequence of undertaking particular management actions
Capability including All activities cease and unable to conduct Some activities curtailed Some activities curtailed Minimal activities curtailed.
access to market and business. however in a significantly however one or more of
transport limitations Minor delays or minor
degraded production the significant
All activities cease and major production degradation.
rate. requirements of the
unacceptable delays in delivery of product.
production would not be
Full production not
Full production not possible within 28 met.
possible within 7 days.
days.
Full production not
possible within 24 hours.
Occupational Health One or more fatalities or life threatening One or more injuries or One or more injuries or Minor injury or ailment that
and Safety injuries or illness (including permanent illness requiring illness requiring does NOT require medical
disability). treatment by a physician treatment by a qualified treatment by a physician or
or hospitalisation. first aid person. a qualified first aid person.
Public or staff exposed to a severe,
adverse long-term health impact or life- Public or staff exposed to Exposure of public and
threatening hazard (including permanent a hazard that could staff to a hazard that
disability). cause injuries or could cause minor
moderate adverse health injuries or minor adverse
effects. health effects.
Legislative Potential exposure to significant damages Potential exposure to Minor technical legal Minor technical breach but
Compliance & involving one or more persons. large damages or challenge or legal no damages.
Approvals awards. breach
Prosecution with maximum penalty No monetary penalty.
imposed. Some legal constraints Minor damages or
imposed with up to half of monetary penalty.
Failure to obtain approvals – MCU, ERA,
maximum fine imposed.
Water Act and etc Non-compliance with
Department Policy
Adverse impact on the site’s heritage Impact on the site’s with Impact on the site’s Impact on the site’s
values, or a heritage asset on the site that heritage values, or a heritage values, or a heritage values, or a
is likely to either: heritage asset on the heritage asset on the heritage asset on the site,
Permanently destroy the heritage site, or Valued site, or Valued or Valued Environmental
values or Environmental Environmental Components on a site,
Components on a site, Components on a site, which is reversible and
Require an emergency commitment of which is reversible and which is reversible and meets any two of the
substantial resources (time and /or meets any two of the meets any two of the following criteria:
money) to remediate, or would take following criteria: following criteria:
more than 10 years to recover through 1. Would require minor
natural processes 1. Would require a 1. Would require a repair that will be
programmed programmed rectified during
Substantially alter in a way that is commitment of commitment of routine maintenance,
inconsistent with the heritage values, substantial resources (time or will take less than
any one of the following: resources (time and/or money) to one month for the
– Physical nature of a site or asset and /or money) to remediate, or will viability of the
remediate, or will take less than 2 ecosystems, or their
– Setting of the site or asset take >2 years for years for the constituent parts to
– Value of the site or asset for a the viability of viability of the recover.
community or group for which it is ecosystems, or ecosystems, or
2. Small scale on site
significant their constituent their constituent
and localised.
parts to recover. parts to recover.
– Use of a site as a cultural or 3. Very Low intensity.
ceremonial site. 2. Medium scale and 2. Small scale
contained on-site.
Significant negative impact on 3. Low intensity.
Environmental components identified for 3. Moderate intensity.
the site, especially those components
relating to state and federal environmental
legislation that is likely to:
• have an impact that meets any two
of the following criteria:
1. Permanent or irreversible.
2. Medium - large scale.
3. Moderate - high intensity.
> 200% increase in project development > 100 % increase in Between 20%-100% Less than 20% increase in
or operating cost. project development or increase in the project project development or
operating cost, i.e. more development or operating cost in the
For construction costs, potential payback
than double the cost. operating cost. following year.
period is not realised within 10 years.
For construction costs, Flow on costs that are No or minimal flow on
Flow on costs that are greater than 200%
potential payback period 60-100% of the cost of costs.
of the cost of the project.
of 5 years is not realised. the project.
Flow on costs that are >
100% of the project cost.
Serious negative affect on staff Major negative affect on Moderate negative Limited impact on staff
recruitment or retention, resulting in no staff recruitment or affect on staff recruitment or retention in
production capacity. retention, affecting major recruitment or retention, any area.
loss of productivity, > 5 affecting some loss of
Industrial action is about to be taken.
days lost. productivity, < 5 days
Skilled labour unavailable. lost.
Threat of Industrial
Action. Employee
representative
involvement.
Detrimental political or social impacts. Moderate political and Limited political or social Subject of local government
social impacts. impacts. action.
Subject of negative regulator attention.
Subject of a number of Subject of a Random complaints from
Non-realisation of a Council support &
parliamentary and parliamentary question the community.
commitment.
ministerial questions. or ministerial.
Low profile detrimental
Sustained community Organised community local media reports.
outrage. concerns and
complaints.
14.4 Likelihood Guidance
The likelihood descriptors detailed below in Table 28 should be used to determine the likelihood
of a consequence occurring at any time in the future. Users should note that the likelihood of the
consequence occurring could also change over time.
Table 28 Likelihood Descriptors
Rating Description
High High probability of the consequences occurring.

Has happened several times in the past five years OR has a > 60% chance of
occurring if the risk is not mitigated.
Medium Even (50%) probability of consequences occurring.

Has happened during the past five years but not in every year OR has a 40-
60% chance of occurring if the risk is not mitigated.
Low Low probability of occurrence but not negligible.

May have occurred once in the last 5 years, or has a 10-30% chance of
occurring in the future if the risk is not mitigated.
Very Low Very low probability of the consequences occurrence but not impossible.
Has not occurred in the past five years OR may occur in exceptional
circumstances, i.e. less than 10% chance of occurring if the risk is not
mitigated.
14.5 Risk Level

The Risk Assessment Matrix in Table 29 is used to assign a Risk Level (Insignificant to
Extreme) to a given risk.
The Risk Level (Table 29) for each risk dimension (Table 26) is determined by combining the
consequence (Table 27) and likelihood (Table 28) rating values. The Risk Level represents the
overall level of a risk. This framework follows a precautionary approach, in that if the parameter
is assessed as a Low Risk, but one dimension is assessed as a High Risk, the overall Risk
Level for that risk is considered to be High.
Table 29 Risk Assessment Matrix
Consequence Rating
LIKELIHOOD High Medium Low Very Low

RATING
High
Extreme Very High High Medium
Medium
Very High High Medium Low
Low
Very Low
Medium Low Very Low Insignificant
14.6 Risk Management Actions
For each risk GHD has documented appropriate management actions which could be taken to
manage risks, e.g. contingency planning, offsetting impacts, voluntary actions etc.
14.7 Remaining Risk

Remaining risk refers to the risk which is likely to exist following the implementation of the risk
management actions. The remaining risk is derived by considering if/how the risk management
actions will reduce the size of risk by downgrading the likelihood and/or consequences.
14.8 Risk Analysis
A risk assessment has been undertaken based on the optimal location (West of Emerald). A
summary of the identified residual risks determined to be Medium or higher is provided in Table
30, the full risk assessment spreadsheet is provided as Appendix E. Table 30 excludes Very
Low and Low residual risks, while the risk assessment did not identify any Very High or Extreme
residual risks.
Eight high residual risks were identified across four risk areas with the residual risk being held
by the meat processor and livestock transporter:
Transportation – lack of supply;
Access to infrastructure – restricted access to high priority water and electrical power;
Health and safety – operational staff and interaction between heavy and light vehicle on
public roads; and
Financial – competition from other processors and live export.
Twelve medium residual risks were identified across five risk areas with the residual risk being
held by the meat processor, producers and livestock transporter:
Transportation – costs and interaction between heavy and light vehicle on public roads;
Legislation – environmental, planning and food safety;

Environmental and heritage – environmental and cultural heritage restrictions;
Financial – lack of supply due to disease outbreak, market price and CapEx and OpEx
costs; and
Skilled labour – lack of skilled workers.
Table 30 Risk Summary – Medium to Extreme Risks
Residual Who Holds the

Risk Area Identified Risk
Risk Residual Risk
Transportation Lack of supply (General) High Meat Processor
Livestock
Transport Costs Medium
Transporters
Light and heavy vehicle interaction at

highway access as well as rail crossing - Medium All
restricting access
Infrastructure Restricted access to electrical power

High Meat processor
Access demand requirements (4,500kVA)
Limited access to high priority water (>200

High Meat Processor
ML / year required)
Transport of water to site (Pipeline >10 km) High Meat Processor
Healthy and
Employers - death, injury or accident High Meat Processor
Safety
Meat Processor /
Heavy vehicle movement increase - heavy
High Livestock
and light interaction
Transporter
Federal - EBPC - listed community or

Legislation Medium Meat Processor
species impacted
Local - Council legislation breach or MCU

Medium Meat Processor
unable to be obtained.
Food Safety Stds - Food Production

Medium Meat Processor
(Safety) Act
Vegetation Management / Nature

Environmental
Conservation Act - Vegetation Clearance Medium Meat processor
& Heritage
not allowed
Cultural Heritage Restrictions Medium Meat Processor
Lack of supply (competition from other

Financial High Meat Processor
processors)
Lack of supply (competition from live export

High Meat Processor
market)
Meat Processor /
Lack of supply (Disease Outbreak) Medium
Producers
Meat Processor /
Market Price Medium
Producers
CapEx Costs - Cost escalation Medium Meat Processor
OpEx Costs - Changing supplier costs

(packaging & etc), charging labour market Medium Meat Processor
costs
Skilled Labour Lack of skilled workers - boning, trades Medium Meat Processor
15. Regional Economic Benefit
15.1 Qualitative Analysis
A range of qualitative factors need to be considered when analysing the regional economic
benefits that will be generated from the construction of a processing facility in the Central
Highlands region. Direct benefits relate to additional employment, as well as the provision of
supply chain savings to producers in the region. Indirect benefits from the processing facility are
in the form of downstream demand for economic services and improved regional transport
infrastructure.
15.1.1 Employment During Operation
Operational cost estimates outlined in Section 12.2.3 estimate the facility would employ a total
of 168 staff each shift. A breakdown staff numbers by role is provided in Table 31 below.
Table 31 Indicative Staff Numbers
Staff Type Staff Number Per Shift
Boning 90
Maintenance 6
Rendering 2
Administration 20
TOTAL 168
Source: Wiley & Co Pty Ltd
Overseas Employment Opportunities

Given the relatively low unemployment rate within the Central Highlands region - 2.8% as at
March 2013 (DEEWR 2013), some of the employment requirements for the processing facility
may have to be met by workers from outside the region, or more broadly, from overseas
workers via a Labour Agreement10. If a proportion of the facility’s workers are sourced on a
temporary basis under a Labour Agreement, the wider Central Highlands region will benefit from
an increased demand for the provision of accommodation and services.
15.1.2 Employment During Construction
The construction of the processing facility will also generate temporary employment
opportunities. Indirect economic benefits will also result from a temporary increase in demand
for accommodation and services if the construction workers are sourced from outside the
region. Based on similar projects within Northern Australia, GHD estimates that the construction
of a processing facility for the Central Highlands region would support the equivalent of
approximately 230 full time workers over a period of 6-12 months.
15.1.3 Improved Transport Infrastructure
As outlined in Section 9, the successful operation of a processing facility within the Central
Highlands region would be matched with an appropriate level of road transport infrastructure.
Any improvements to the local and regional road network will also indirectly benefit all network
users. Benefits will be associated with reduced travel time which improves productivity and
efficiency of the transport system; reduced vehicle wear and tear through improved surface
condition; and increased infrastructure resilience to flood damage and corridor blockage. These
benefits must be weighed against the increased road traffic from heavy vehicles transporting
stock and product to/from the facility.
15.1.4 Supply Chain Savings
The supply chain savings which are estimated to occur as a result of the operation of a
processing facility in the Central Highlands, when livestock are diverted from their current lowest
cost abattoir, are outlined in Table 10 on page 86. This analysis suggests the net supply chain
savings from a 100,000 head per annum abattoir would total approximately $5.6M per annum,
of this $3.4M in supply chain benefits would be generated from cattle supplied from the Central
Highlands shire. These benefits would likely be shared between producers and the abattoir
operator.
15.1.5 Value Adding to Agricultural Output
An Emerald abattoir would likely provide opportunities for local producers to add value to their
livestock outputs. Producers are likely to have improved access to niche or higher value
markets, including MSA, organic, wagyu, grass-fed and other branded beef markets or
marketing options.
Local producers will also benefit from being less reliant on transport infrastructure particularly
during the wet season. This will likely reduce lost productivity during this period and allow
producers to adopt different breeding and marketing cycles.
Local producers may also accrue benefits in adapting their farm operations to focus on finishing
cattle or lot-feeding. Other producers may find additional opportunities producing grain and
fodder to support these finishing operations.
15.1.6 Additional Indirect Economic Benefits
An Emerald abattoir would generate indirect economic benefits through the need for supporting
goods and services including:
Retail and wholesale trade;
Trade services;
Transport;
Training;
Hotels and restaurants;
Construction and maintenance;
Dwellings;
Communications services;
Associated service industries;
Recreational and other services; and
Business services.
16. Summary
Table 32 below provides a broad summary of the parameters investigated in this study,
impacting on the feasibility of the plant. Each parameter was evaluated using the following
ratings:
Very unlikely or very low impact on feasibility
Unlikely or low impact on feasibility
Likely or major impact on plant feasibility
X Definite or extreme impact on plant feasibility

Table 32 Summary of Feasibility
Parameter Rating Comment

Community and Overall support, particularly from local producers.
industry support
Legislation No major legislative barriers identified.
Suitable Western site located on the Capricorn Highway on Lot 13 of

location DSN800086 obtained the highest score against the selection
criteria.
Access to High cost for electrical power and constrained water supply
infrastructure (purchase of water allocation required).
Cattle Risk of competition from other processors and live exports.
throughput Estimated 12.5% latent processing capacity in QLD, however there
is considerable shortage of abattoir capacity for the provision of
service and processing kills, catering for a growing range of niche,
branded or value added products.
Seasonality of Likely to experience a moderate downturn in supply, during the wet
supply season months from November to February. Susceptible to supply
constraints during times of drought.
Transport costs Likely to provide a cost-competitive alternative for cattle originating
from the following shires: Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall - Tambo,
Central Highlands, Diamantina, Isaac, Longreach, Mckinlay, Quilpie
and Winton.
Skilled Labour Low regional unemployment rate (2.8%) will necessitate recruitment
of workers from neighbouring regions and overseas.
Market and Opportunity for growth, particularly in niche and targeted beef
export trade products, in export and domestic markets.
opportunities
Health and Risk to operational staff and interaction between heavy and light
safety vehicle on public roads.
Cost of Cost estimate of AUD $73 - 83 M (+/-20%) to develop a 450 head /
construction shift plant operating 1 shift per day 240 days per year.
Operating costs Operating cost estimate of AUD $32.6 M per annum or AUD
$301.89 per head (+/-20%).
Regional Estimated 168 staff employed during operation of facility, with
economic additional indirect economic benefits derived from: Improved
benefit transport infrastructure; Supply chain savings; Value adding to
agricultural output and supply of supporting goods and services
17. Bibliography
AACo (2014). Northern Beef Processing Facility. Available at
http://www.aaco.com.au/operations/beef-processing-facility/, accessed 04/11/2014.
ABC Rural (2011). Northern Territory – Batchelor meatworks to re-open. Available at
http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/nt/content/201103/s3152010.htm, accessed
05/11/2014.
AgForce (2014). Protecting our Industry. Available at:
http://www.agforceqld.org.au/index.php?tgtPage=policies&page_id=58, accessed 04/03/2014.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2012).
Northern Australian beef industry Assessment of risks and opportunities. Available at
http://www.regional.gov.au/regional/ona/files/20120621-abares-final-report.pdf, accessed
05/11/2014.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2013a)
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2013) Australian Beef – Financial
performance of beef cattle producing farms, 2010-11 to 2012-13.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2013b)
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2013). Agricultural Commodity Statistics
2013. CC 3.0.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2014a).
Australian Beef – Financial performance of beef cattle producing farms, 2011-12 to 2013-14.
Available from http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-analysis, accessed
04/11/2014.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) (2014b).
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the Fitzroy region of Queensland, 2014 – About my region
14.27. Available at http://www.daff.gov.au/ABARES/Pages/publications/aboutmyregion.aspx,
accessed 06/11/2014.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013). 4630.0 – Agricultural Resource Management
Practices, Australia 2011-12. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4630.0main+features72011-12, accessed
06/11/2014.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013b). Agricultural Commodities Statistics 2010-11 cat
no 7121.0. Available at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/7121.0Main%20Features12010-
11?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=7121.0&issue=2010-11&num=&view,
accessed 3/11/14
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2014a). Central Highlands Local Government Area.
Available at
http://stat.abs.gov.au/itt/r.jsp?RegionSummary&region=32270&dataset=ABS_NRP9_LGA&geoc
oncept=REGION&maplayerid=LGA2012&measure=MEASURE&datasetASGS=ABS_NRP9_AS
GS&datasetLGA=ABS_NRP9_LGA&regionLGA=REGION&regionASGS=REGION, accessed
06/11/2014.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2014b). Livestock and Meat, Australia. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/7218.0.55.001Sep%202014?OpenD
ocument, accessed 12/11/2014.
Australian Lot Feeders Association (ALFA) (2014). Media Release – Grain fed cattle remain
steady. Available at http://www.feedlots.com.au/images/MR/mrjune14.pdf, accessed
06/11/2014.
Australian Meat Industry Council (2012). Queensland Edition – Knife and Steel. Available at
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/abattoirs-make-a-
comeback/2716545.aspx, accessed 12/11/2014.
Central Highlands Development Corporation (2014) Economic Profile. Central Highlands
Development Corporation, Emerald.
Condon, J. (2013). Wagyu supply chains emphasise big price premiums for F1 feeders.
Available at: http://www.beefcentral.com/production/wagyu-supply-chains-emphasise-big-price-
premiums-for-f1-feeders/, accessed 20/11/14.
Condon, J. (2014). ‘Bitter-sweet’ result, as Casino lodges record $26m pre-tax profit. Available
at: http://www.beefcentral.com/processing/bitter-sweet-result-as-casino-lodges-record-26m-
profit/?_sm_au_=iHVFS2f40Pjkj2T6, accessed 19/11/2014.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2012). Evaluating the commercial
viability of a northern outback Queensland meat processing facility. State of Queensland.
Available at: https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/64023/Viability-meat-
processing-facility_web-final_Part1.pdf, accessed 25/10/14.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2013). Queensland Agricultural Land
audit May 2013. State of Queensland. Available at http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/environment/ag-
land-audit, accessed 07/11/2014.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2014). Draft Beef Industry Action
Plan 2014-2016. State of Queensland. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations (2013). Small Area Labour Market Data (June), Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Environment (2013). Protected Matters Search Tool. Available at

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html, accessed 6/11/2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2013c). Wildlife Online. Available at
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/, accessed 6/11/2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2014). Protected Plants Flora Survey
Trigger Map. Available at http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/protected-
plants/map-request.php accessed on 6/11/2014.
Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2014), Regulated Vegetation Mapping. Available
at https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/forms/land-property/vegetation-map-request accessed
6/11/2014.
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (2013). SARA Mapping Online
System. Available at http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/about-planning/sara-mapping-online-
system.html, accessed 6/11/2014.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2014). FAOSTAT Production
Data (various). FAO Statistics Division. Accessed 28 November 2014, available at:
http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E.
Gleeson, T., Martin, P. and Mifsud, C. (2012), Northern Australian beef industry: Assessment of
risks and opportunities. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and
Sciences (ABARES) report to client prepared for the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum,
Canberra, May.
Gray, E., Sheng, Y., Nossal, K., Oss-Emer, M., and Davidson, A. (2011), Improving
productivity—the incentive for change, Australian commodities, vol. 18. no. 1, March quarter,
Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
JBS (2014). Our Facilities. Available at http://www.jbssa.com.au/OurFacilities/default.aspx,
John Dee Pty Ltd (2014). Our Company. Available at http://www.johndee.com.au/company.php,
Kilcoy Pastoral Company (2014). Welcome to Kilcoy Pastoral Company. Available at
http://www.kpc.com.au/index.php/en/, accessed 12/11/2014.
McCoy, S. (2002). Organic Beef: A production guide. Report prepared for the Department of
Agriculture and Food Western Australia.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2007). Meat Standards AustraliaTM MSA Standards Manual
for Beef Grading. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, August, ISBN 1 74036 660 3.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2012). National Livestock Identification Scheme. Available
at: https://www.nlis.mla.com.au.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2013). Fast Facts 2013: Australia’s beef industry.
Published by Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, September, North Sydney.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2014a). Australian cattle – Industry Projections 2014: Mid-
year update. Available at http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-
analysis/Beef/Forecasts/MLA-cattle-industry-projections-mid-year-update-2014, accessed
05/11/2014.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2014b). Lot feeding brief – Results for the June Quarter
2014 Feedlot Survey. Available at http://www.mla.com.au/NLRSReportDownload/Lot-Feeding-
Report-12-Sep-2014.PDF, accessed 06/11/2014.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2014c). MLA Australian cattle industry projections 2014.
Available at http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Trends-and-
analysis/Beef/Forecasts/MLA-cattle-industry-projections-2014, accessed 1/11/14.
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (2014d). Market Access Beef – Quotas and Tariffs.
Available at: http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets/Overseas-markets/Market-
access/Beef, accessed 19/11/2014.
Monk, A,, Mascitelli, B., Lobo, A., Chen, J., and Bez, N. (2012). Australian Organic Market
Report 2012, Biological Farmers of Australia Limited (BFA), Chermside, Brisbane, Australia.
Available at http://austorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Organic-market-report-2012-
web.pdf, accessed 23/11/14.
National Farmers Federation (2012). NFF Farm Facts. Available at: http://www.nff.org.au/farm-
facts.html, accessed 21/11/2014.
NH Foods Australia (2014). Australian Operations. Available at http://www.nh-
foods.com.au/company-facilities/, accessed 05/11/2014.
Nolan Meats (2014). Our Story. Available at http://www.nolan.com.au/our-story/our-story.aspx,
Queensland Country Life (2013). Brisbane welcomes new IMTFS board. Available at
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/brisbane-
welcomes-new-imtfs-board/2680583.aspx?storypage=1, accessed 12/11/2014.
Queensland Country Life (2014a). AACo’s Darwin plant open for business. Available at
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/aacos-darwin-plant-open-
for-business/2716461.aspx, accessed 04/11/2014.
Queensland Country Life (2014b). Abattoirs make a comeback. Available at
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/abattoirs-make-a-
comeback/2716545.aspx, accessed 12/11/2014.
Teys Australia (2011). Teys Processing. Available at
http://www.teysaust.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=24&lan
g=en, accessed 05/11/2014.
State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (2014). Agricultural
Audit – current cattle feedlots – Queensland. Available at
https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/agricultural-land-audit-queensland-series/resource/431f380b-
6d94-44a0-9e83-fb9d0cc2a0a7?inner_span=True, accessed 07/11/2014.
State of Queensland (2007), Fitzroy industry and infrastructure study, Queensland Government.
Wagyu International (2014). Wagyu around the World – Australia: History of Wagyu. Available
at: http://www.wagyuinternational.com/global_Australia.php, accessed 20/11/14.
Wong, L., Selvananthan, EA, and Selvananthan, S. (2013). Changing Pattern of Meat
Consumption in Australia. Griffith Business School, May.
Appendices
GHD | Report for Central Highlands Development Corporation - Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant, 42/18740
Appendix A – Environmental Database Searches
Appendix A1 – East of Emerald
06/11/2014 21:48:24
Lot: '1' Plan: 'SP224248'
Page 1
06/11/2014 21:48:26
Lot: '1' Plan: 'SP224248'
Page 2
06/11/2014 21:48:27
Lot: '1' Plan: 'SP224248'
Vegetation Management Act 1999 - Extract from the essential habitat database
Essential habitat is required for assessment under the:

• State Development Assessment Provisions - Module 8: Native vegetation clearing which sets out the matters of interest to the state for development assessment under the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009; and
• Self-assessable vegetation clearing codes made under the Vegetation Management Act 1999
Essential habitat for one or more of the following species is found on and within 1.1 km of the identified subject lot/s or on and within 2.2 km of an identified coordinate on the accompanying essential habitat
map.
This report identifies essential habitat in Category A, B and Category C areas.
The numeric labels on the essential habitat map can be cross referenced with the database below to determine which essential habitat factors might exist for a particular species.
Essential habitat is compiled from a combination of species habitat models and buffered species records.
The Department of Natural Resources and Mines website (http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au) has more information on how the layer is applied under the State Development Assessment Provisions - Module 8:
Native vegetation clearing and the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
Regional ecosystem is a mandatory essential habitat factor, unless otherwise stated.
Essential habitat, for protected wildlife, means a category A area, a category B area or category C area shown on the regulated vegetation management map-
1) (a) that has at least 3 essential habitat factors for the protected wildlife that must include any essential habitat factors that are stated as mandatory for the protected wildlife in the essential habitat
database; or
2) (b) in which the protected wildlife, at any stage of its life cycle, is located.
Essential habitat identifies endangered or vulnerable native wildlife prescribed under the Nature Conservation Act 1994.
Essential habitat in Category A and B (Remnant vegetation species record) areas:1100m Species Information
(no results)
Essential habitat in Category A and B (Remnant vegetation species record) areas:1100m Regional Ecosystems Information
(no results)
Essential habitat in Category A and B (Remnant vegetation) areas:1100m Species Information
(no results)
Essential habitat in Category A and B (Remnant vegetation) areas:1100m Regional Ecosystems Information
(no results)
Essential habitat in Category C (High value regrowth vegetation) areas:1100m Species Information
(no results)
Essential habitat in Category C (High value regrowth vegetation) areas:1100m Regional Ecosystems Information
(no results)
Page 3
06/11/2014 21:47:27
Lot: '1' Plan: 'SP224248'
Wildlife Online Extract
Search Criteria: Species List for a Specified Point

Species: All
Type: All
Status: All
Records: All
Date: All
Latitude: -23.585717
Longitude: 148.3525
Distance: 1
Email: reece.smith@ghd.com
Date submitted: Thursday 06 Nov 2014 21:48:19
Date extracted: Thursday 06 Nov 2014 21:50:02
There were no records retrieved for your selection
Disclaimer
As the DSITIA is still in a process of collating and vetting data, it is possible the information given is not complete. The information provided should only be used
for the project for which it was requested and it should be appropriately acknowledged as being derived from Wildlife Online when it is used.
The State of Queensland does not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for this information. Persons should satisfy themselves through independent
means as to the accuracy and completeness of this information.
No statements, representations or warranties are made about the accuracy or completeness of this information. The State of Queensland disclaims all
responsibility for this information and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages
and costs you may incur as a result of the information being inaccurate or incomplete in any way for any reason.
EPBC Act Protected Matters Report
This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other
matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.
Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are
contained in the caveat at the end of the report.
Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance
guidelines, forms and application process details.
Report created: 06/11/14 22:50:24
Summary
Details
Matters of NES
Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act
Extra Information
Caveat
Acknowledgements
This map may contain data which are

©Commonwealth of Australia
(Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010
Coordinates
Buffer: 1.0Km
Summary
Matters of National Environmental Significance
This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur
in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the
report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to
undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national
environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.
World Heritage Properties: None

National Heritage Places: None
Wetlands of International Importance: None
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None
Commonwealth Marine Areas: None
Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 2
Listed Threatened Species: 12
Listed Migratory Species: 8

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area
you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the
environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the
environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be
required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely
to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.
The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions
taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies.
As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the
Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a
place on the Register of the National Estate.
A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a
listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales
and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.
Commonwealth Land: None

Commonwealth Heritage Places: None
Listed Marine Species: 10
Whales and Other Cetaceans: None
Critical Habitats: None
Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None
Commonwealth Reserves Marine None
Extra Information
This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.
Place on the RNE: None

State and Territory Reserves: None
Regional Forest Agreements: None
Invasive Species: 20
Nationally Important Wetlands: None
Key Ecological Features (Marine) None
Details
Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ]

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from
recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened
ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location
data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.
Name Status Type of Presence
Natural Grasslands of the Queensland Central Endangered Community may occur
Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin within area
Weeping Myall Woodlands Endangered Community may occur
within area
Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ]

Birds
Erythrotriorchis radiatus
Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable Species or species
habitat likely to occur
within area
Geophaps scripta scripta
Squatter Pigeon (southern) [64440] Vulnerable Species or species
within area
Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda
Star Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern) [26027] Endangered Species or species
habitat may occur within
area
Rostratula australis
Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species
area
Mammals
Dasyurus hallucatus
Northern Quoll [331] Endangered Species or species
area
Nyctophilus corbeni
South-eastern Long-eared Bat [83395] Vulnerable Species or species
area
Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)
Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New Vulnerable Species or species
South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory) habitat may occur within
[85104] area
Reptiles
Delma torquata
Collared Delma [1656] Vulnerable Species or species
area
Denisonia maculata
Ornamental Snake [1193] Vulnerable Species or species
within area
Egernia rugosa
Yakka Skink [1420] Vulnerable Species or species
area
Furina dunmalli
Dunmall's Snake [59254] Vulnerable Species or species
area
Rheodytes leukops
Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Vulnerable Species or species
Turtle, White-eyed River Diver [1761] habitat may occur within
area
Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ]

* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.
Name Threatened Type of Presence
Migratory Marine Birds
Apus pacificus
Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species
within area
Migratory Terrestrial Species
Haliaeetus leucogaster
White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species
area
Merops ornatus
Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species
area
Migratory Wetlands Species
Ardea alba
Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species
within area
Ardea ibis
Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species
within area
Gallinago hardwickii
Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species
area
Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)
Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species
area
Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ]
Birds
Anseranas semipalmata
Magpie Goose [978] Species or species
area
Apus pacificus
within area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
within area
area
area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
area
Pandion haliaetus
Osprey [952] Species or species
area
area
Extra Information
Invasive Species [ Resource Information ]
Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced
plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to
biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo
and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit,
2001.
Birds
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard [974] Species or species
within area
Columba livia
Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species
within area
Passer domesticus
House Sparrow [405] Species or species
within area
Streptopelia chinensis
Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species
within area
Sturnus vulgaris
Common Starling [389] Species or species
within area
Frogs
Rhinella marina
Cane Toad [83218] Species or species
within area
Mammals
Canis lupus familiaris
Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species
within area
Felis catus
Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species
within area
Mus musculus
House Mouse [120] Species or species
within area
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species
within area
Rattus rattus
Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species
within area
Sus scrofa
Pig [6] Species or species
within area
Vulpes vulpes
Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species
within area
Plants
Cryptostegia grandiflora
Rubber Vine, Rubbervine, India Rubber Vine, India Species or species
Rubbervine, Palay Rubbervine, Purple Allamanda habitat likely to occur
[18913] within area
Hymenachne amplexicaulis
Hymenachne, Olive Hymenachne, Water Stargrass, Species or species
West Indian Grass, West Indian Marsh Grass habitat likely to occur
[31754] within area
Jatropha gossypifolia
Cotton-leaved Physic-Nut, Bellyache Bush, Species or species
Cotton-leaf Physic Nut, Cotton-leaf Jatropha, habitat likely to occur
Black Physic Nut [7507] within area
Parkinsonia aculeata
Parkinsonia, Jerusalem Thorn, Jelly Bean Tree, Species or species
Horse Bean [12301] habitat likely to occur
within area
Parthenium hysterophorus
Parthenium Weed, Bitter Weed, Carrot Grass, False Species or species
Ragweed [19566] habitat likely to occur
within area
Vachellia nilotica
Prickly Acacia, Blackthorn, Prickly Mimosa, Black Species or species
Piquant, Babul [84351] habitat likely to occur
within area
Reptiles
Hemidactylus frenatus
Asian House Gecko [1708] Species or species
within area
Coordinates
-23.58572 148.35249
Caveat
The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at
the end of the report.
This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining
obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped
locations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International
Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species
and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this
stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.
Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general
guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the
data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider
the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.
ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data
are used to produce indicative distribution maps.
For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans
and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated
under 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated
from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic
distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are
based solely on expert knowledge.
Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped:
- migratory and
- marine
The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports
produced from this database:
- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants
- some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed
- some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area
- migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers
The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:
- non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites
- seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent
Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.
Acknowledgements
This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the
following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:
-Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, New South Wales
-Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
-Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania
-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia
-Parks and Wildlife Service NT, NT Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts
-Environmental and Resource Management, Queensland
-Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia
-Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water
-Birds Australia
-Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme
-Australian National Wildlife Collection
-Natural history museums of Australia
-Museum Victoria
-Australian Museum
-SA Museum
-Queensland Museum
-Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums
-Queensland Herbarium
-National Herbarium of NSW
-Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria
-Tasmanian Herbarium
-State Herbarium of South Australia
-Northern Territory Herbarium
-Western Australian Herbarium
-Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra
-University of New England
-Ocean Biogeographic Information System
-Australian Government, Department of Defence
-State Forests of NSW
-Geoscience Australia
-CSIRO
-Other groups and individuals
The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided
expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.
Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Department of the Environment
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
+61 2 6274 1111
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)
ABN 46 640 294 485
400 George St Brisbane, Queensland 4000
GPO Box 2454 Brisbane QLD 4001 AUSTRALIA
www.ehp.qld.gov.au
SEARCH RESPONSE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGISTER (EMR)
CONTAMINATED LAND REGISTER (CLR)
Transaction ID: 50062236 EMR Site Id: 07 November 2014

This response relates to a search request received for the site:
Lot: 1 Plan: SP224248
EMR RESULT
The above site is NOT included on the Environmental Management Register.
CLR RESULT
The above site is NOT included on the Contaminated Land Register.
ADDITIONAL ADVICE
If you have any queries in relation to this search please phone 13QGOV (13 74 68)
Registrar
Administering Authority
Page 1 of 1
Reece Smith
From: Vanessa L Faulkner <Vanessa.Faulkner@datsima.qld.gov.au>

Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014 2:06 PM
To: Reece Smith
Subject: Cultural Heritage Search - 1951560 (Central Highlands Development Corporation
Ltd)
CompleteRepository: 4218740
Description: CHDC Meat Processing Feasibility
JobNo: 18740
OperatingCentre: 42
RepoEmail: 4218740@ghd.com
RepoType: Job
I refer to your application in which you requested advice on Aboriginal cultural heritage places recorded on the
above location.

The Cultural Heritage Database and Register search has been completed and I would like to advise that no
Aboriginal cultural heritage is currently recorded in your specific search area, from the data provided by you.
However, it is probable that the absence of recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage places reflects a lack of
previous cultural heritage surveys of the area. Therefore, our records are not likely to reflect a true picture of the
Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the area.

I note that, pursuant to the Cultural Heritage Duty of Care Guidelines, you have advised that the proposed
activity is a 'Category 5 activity'. As such, I take this opportunity to remind you that in accordance with those
Guidelines:‐

Where an activity is proposed under category 5 there is generally a high risk that it could harm
Aboriginal cultural heritage. In these circumstances, the activity should not proceed without cultural
heritage assessment.

Where an activity is proposed under category 5, it is necessary to notify the Aboriginal Party and seek:
(a) Advice as to whether the feature constitutes Aboriginal cultural heritage; and
(b) If it does, agreement as to how best the activity may be managed to avoid or minimise harm to any
Aboriginal cultural heritage.

I remind you also that the extent to which the person has complied with Cultural Heritage Duty of Care
Guidelines and the extent to which the person consulted with Aboriginal parties about the carrying out of the
activity, and the results of the consultation are factors a court may consider when determining if a party has
complied with the duty of care.

Please refer to our website www.datsima.qld.gov.au/atsis/aboriginal‐torres‐strait‐islander‐peoples/indigenous‐
cultural‐heritage for a copy of the gazetted
Cultural Heritage duty of care guidelines, which set out reasonable and practical measures for meeting the duty
of care.

There is currently no registered Cultural Heritage body for the 5 RP897556 area.

The Aboriginal parties for the 5 RP897556 area are:

QC12/18 ‐ QUD644/2012
Bidjara People #7
Trevor Robinson
1
Mobile: 0414 459 624

QC13/02 ‐ QUD229/2013
Western Kangoulu People
Queensland South Native Title Services Ltd
Level 10
307 Queen Street
Brisbane
Q 4000
Brisbane
Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on (07) 3033 0165.

Kind regards

Vanessa Faulkner | Policy Officer | Monday, Tuesday and Thursday
Cultural Heritage | Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs
6B Neville Bonner Building, 75 William Street, BRISBANE QLD 4000
T: 07 3033 0165 | F: 07 3238 3842

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************

The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it
is addressed. If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any
action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised. Opinions contained in the
message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities. If you
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
computer system network.
_____________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses
2
Reece Smith

To: Reece Smith
Ltd)
JobNo: 18740
OperatingCentre: 42
RepoType: Job
above location.


Guidelines:‐




of care.

There is currently no registered Cultural Heritage body for the 1 SP224248 area.

The Aboriginal parties for the 1 SP224248 area are:

QC12/18 ‐ QUD644/2012
Bidjara People #7
Trevor Robinson
1
Mobile: 0414 459 624

QC13/02 ‐ QUD229/2013
Level 10
307 Queen Street
Brisbane
Q 4000
Brisbane
Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880


Kind regards

T: 07 3033 0165 | F: 07 3238 3842

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************

_____________________
2
Appendix A2 – North of Emerald
06/11/2014 14:03:38
Lot: '11' Plan: 'DSN867'
Page 1
06/11/2014 14:03:40
Page 2
06/11/2014 14:03:41

Act 2009; and
map.
database; or
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
Page 3
06/11/2014 14:05:46

Species: All
Type: All
Status: All
Records: All
Date: All
Longitude: 148.1506
Distance: 1
The number of records retrieved = 11
Disclaimer
Kingdom Class Family Scientific Name Common Name I Q A Records
animals reptiles Elapidae Pseudonaja textilis eastern brown snake C 1

animals reptiles Scincidae Tiliqua rugosa C 1
plants higher dicots Caesalpiniaceae Lysiphyllum hookeri Queensland ebony C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Euphorbiaceae Adriana tomentosa var. tomentosa C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Malvaceae Sida pleiantha C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Mimosaceae Albizia lebbeck Indian siris C 1/ 1
plants monocots Poaceae Dichanthium queenslandicum V E 1/ 1
plants monocots Poaceae Paspalidium globoideum sago grass C 1/ 1
plants monocots Poaceae Iseilema vaginiflorum red flinders grass C 1/ 1
plants monocots Poaceae Bothriochloa pertusa Y 2/ 2
plants monocots Poaceae Hyparrhenia rufa subsp. rufa Y 1/ 1
CODES
I - Y indicates that the taxon is introduced to Queensland and has naturalised.
Q - Indicates the Queensland conservation status of each taxon under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The codes are Extinct in the Wild (PE), Endangered (E),
Vulnerable (V), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (C) or Not Protected ( ).
A - Indicates the Australian conservation status of each taxon under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The values of EPBC are
Conservation Dependent (CD), Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (E), Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (XW) and Vulnerable (V).
Records – The first number indicates the total number of records of the taxon for the record option selected (i.e. All, Confirmed or Specimens).
This number is output as 99999 if it equals or exceeds this value. The second number located after the / indicates the number of specimen records for the taxon.
This number is output as 999 if it equals or exceeds this value.
Page 1 of 1
Queensland Government Wildlife Online - Extract Date 06/11/2014 at 14:20:03
Report created: 06/11/14 15:23:14
Summary
Details
Matters of NES
Extra Information
Caveat
Acknowledgements

Coordinates
Buffer: 1.0Km
Summary



Extra Information

Details

within area

Birds
within area
within area
within area
area
Mammals
Dasyurus hallucatus
area
Nyctophilus corbeni
area
[85104] area
Plants
Dichanthium queenslandicum
King Blue-grass [5481] Endangered Species or species
within area
Reptiles
Delma torquata
area
Denisonia maculata
habitat known to occur
within area
Egernia rugosa
within area
Furina dunmalli
area
Lerista allanae
Allan's Lerista, Retro Slider [1378] Endangered Species or species
area
Rheodytes leukops
area

Apus pacificus
within area
within area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
within area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
area
area
area
Birds
area
Apus pacificus
within area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
area
area
within area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
within area
Pandion haliaetus
area
area
Extra Information
2001.
Birds
Columba livia
within area
Passer domesticus
within area
Frogs
Rhinella marina
within area
Mammals
Felis catus
within area
Lepus capensis
Brown Hare [127] Species or species
within area
Mus musculus
within area
within area
Sus scrofa
within area
Vulpes vulpes
within area
Plants
[18913] within area
[31754] within area
Jatropha gossypifolia
Cotton-leaved Physic-Nut, Bellyache Bush, Species or species
Cotton-leaf Physic Nut, Cotton-leaf Jatropha, habitat likely to occur
Black Physic Nut [7507] within area
within area
within area
Vachellia nilotica
within area
Coordinates
-23.46634 148.1506
Caveat
- migratory and
- marine
Acknowledgements
-Birds Australia
-Museum Victoria
-Australian Museum
-SA Museum
-Queensland Museum
-CSIRO
GPO Box 787
+61 2 6274 1111
ABN 46 640 294 485
www.ehp.qld.gov.au
SEARCH RESPONSE
Transaction ID: 50062140 EMR Site Id: 12527 06 November 2014

Lot: 11 Plan: DSN867

Address: GREGORY HWY
LEFT BANK 4720
The site has been subject to the following Notifiable Activity pursuant to section 374 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1994.
PEST CONTROL - commercially operating premises where -
(a) more than 200 L of pesticide are stored; and
(b) filling or washing of tanks used in pest control operations occurs.
CLR RESULT
ADDITIONAL ADVICE
Registrar
Page 1 of 1
Reece Smith

To: Reece Smith
Ltd)
JobNo: 18740
OperatingCentre: 42
RepoType: Job
above location.


Guidelines:‐




of care.

There is currently no registered Cultural Heritage body for the 11 DSN867 area.

The Aboriginal parties for the 11 DSN867 area are:

QC12/18 ‐ QUD644/2012
Bidjara People #7
Trevor Robinson
1
Mobile: 0414 459 624

QC13/02 ‐ QUD229/2013
Level 10
307 Queen Street
Brisbane
Q 4000
Brisbane
Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880


Kind regards

T: 07 3033 0165 | F: 07 3238 3842

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************

_____________________
2
Appendix A3 – Southern Location
11/11/2014 16:28:14
Page 1
11/11/2014 16:28:15
Page 2
11/11/2014 16:28:16

Act 2009; and
map.
database; or
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
Page 3
11/11/2014 16:28:43

Species: All
Type: All
Status: All
Records: All
Date: All
Longitude: 148.0954
Distance: 1
Date submitted: Tuesday 11 Nov 2014 16:33:37
Date extracted: Tuesday 11 Nov 2014 16:40:02
Disclaimer
animals birds Accipitridae Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle C 1

animals birds Artamidae Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird C 1
animals birds Artamidae Cracticus torquatus grey butcherbird C 1
animals birds Artamidae Strepera graculina pied currawong C 1
animals birds Artamidae Cracticus tibicen Australian magpie C 1
animals birds Cacatuidae Nymphicus hollandicus cockatiel C 2
animals birds Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested cockatoo C 1
animals birds Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckoo-shrike C 1
animals birds Columbidae Ocyphaps lophotes crested pigeon C 1
animals birds Columbidae Geopelia cuneata diamond dove C 1
animals birds Columbidae Geopelia striata peaceful dove C 2
animals birds Corcoracidae Struthidea cinerea apostlebird C 2
animals birds Corvidae Corvus orru Torresian crow C 3
animals birds Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven C 1
animals birds Cuculidae Centropus phasianinus pheasant coucal C 1
animals birds Falconidae Falco berigora brown falcon C 1
animals birds Maluridae Malurus melanocephalus red-backed fairy-wren C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Philemon citreogularis little friarbird C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Manorina melanocephala noisy miner C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Manorina flavigula yellow-throated miner C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Entomyzon cyanotis blue-faced honeyeater C 1
animals birds Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark C 2
animals birds Oriolidae Sphecotheres vieilloti Australasian figbird C 1
animals birds Pardalotidae Pardalotus striatus striated pardalote C 2
animals birds Phasianidae Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail C 1
animals birds Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus temporalis grey-crowned babbler C 2
animals birds Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus rainbow lorikeet C 2
animals birds Psittacidae Platycercus adscitus pale-headed rosella C 2
animals birds Psittacidae Aprosmictus erythropterus red-winged parrot C 1
animals birds Psittacidae Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus scaly-breasted lorikeet C 1
animals birds Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail C 1
animals reptiles Elapidae Pseudechis australis king brown snake C 1/ 1
animals reptiles Scincidae Anomalopus brevicollis C 1
plants higher dicots Acanthaceae Hypoestes floribunda var. floribunda C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Asteraceae Zinnia peruviana wild zinnia Y 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Byttneriaceae Commersonia johnsonii C 2/ 2
plants higher dicots Lamiaceae Plectranthus graveolens flea bush C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Mimosaceae Acacia angusta C 2/ 2
plants higher dicots Mimosaceae Acacia salicina doolan C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Myrtaceae Leptospermum neglectum C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Myrtaceae Eucalyptus exserta Queensland peppermint C 2/ 2
plants higher dicots Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sicilifolia V 2/ 2
plants higher dicots Oxalidaceae Oxalis radicosa C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Portulacaceae Grahamia australiana C 1/ 1
plants higher dicots Rhamnaceae Cryptandra speciosa subsp. strigosa C 1/ 1
Page 1 of 2
plants monocots Poaceae Melinis repens red natal grass Y 1/ 1
CODES
Page 2 of 2
Report created: 11/11/14 17:35:19
Summary
Details
Matters of NES
Extra Information
Caveat
Acknowledgements

Coordinates
Buffer: 1.0Km
Summary



Extra Information
Place on the RNE: 3

State and Territory Reserves: 1
Details

within area

Birds
area
within area
within area
area
Mammals
Dasyurus hallucatus
within area
Nyctophilus corbeni
area
South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory) habitat known to occur
[85104] within area
Plants
Aristida annua
[17906] Vulnerable Species or species
within area
Cadellia pentastylis
Ooline [9828] Vulnerable Species or species
within area
area
Marsdenia brevifolia
[64585] Vulnerable Species or species
within area
Reptiles
Delma torquata
area
Denisonia maculata
within area
Egernia rugosa
area
Furina dunmalli
area
Rheodytes leukops
area

Apus pacificus
within area
area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
area
Rhipidura rufifrons
Rufous Fantail [592] Species or species
area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
within area
area
area

Birds
area
Apus pacificus
within area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
within area
area
area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
area
Pandion haliaetus
area
Rhipidura rufifrons
Rufous Fantail [592] Species or species
area
area
Extra Information
Places on the RNE [ Resource Information ]
Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed.
Name State Status
Natural
Central Highlands Region QLD Indicative Place
Minerva Hills QLD Indicative Place
Mount Zamia Environmental Park QLD Registered
State and Territory Reserves [ Resource Information ]

Name State
Minerva Hills QLD

2001.
Birds
Acridotheres tristis
Common Myna, Indian Myna [387] Species or species
within area
Columba livia
within area
Passer domesticus
within area
Frogs
Rhinella marina
within area
Mammals
Bos taurus
Domestic Cattle [16] Species or species
within area
Felis catus
within area
Mus musculus
within area
within area
Sus scrofa
within area
Vulpes vulpes
within area
Plants
[18913] within area
within area
within area
Coordinates
-24.08883 148.09544
Caveat
- migratory and
- marine
Acknowledgements
-Birds Australia
-Museum Victoria
-Australian Museum
-SA Museum
-Queensland Museum
-CSIRO
GPO Box 787
+61 2 6274 1111
ABN 46 640 294 485
www.ehp.qld.gov.au
SEARCH RESPONSE

EMR RESULT
CLR RESULT
ADDITIONAL ADVICE
Registrar
Page 1 of 1
Reece Smith

To: Reece Smith
Ltd)
JobNo: 18740
OperatingCentre: 42
RepoType: Job
above location.


Guidelines:‐




of care.



QC12/18 ‐ QUD644/2012
Bidjara People #7
Trevor Robinson
1
Mobile: 0414 459 624

QC13/02 ‐ QUD229/2013
Level 10
307 Queen Street
Brisbane
Q 4000
Brisbane
Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880

QC08/5 ‐ QUD216/08
Bidjara People
Trevor Robinson
Mobile: 0414 459 624


Kind regards

T: 07 3033 0165 | F: 07 3238 3842

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************

_____________________
2
Appendix A4 – West of Emerald
06/11/2014 14:03:34
Lot: '13' Plan: 'DSN800086'
Page 1
06/11/2014 14:03:35
Lot: '13' Plan: 'DSN800086'
Page 2
06/11/2014 14:03:37
Lot: '13' Plan: 'DSN800086'

Act 2009; and
map.
database; or
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
(no results)
Page 3
06/11/2014 14:05:49
Lot: '13' Plan: 'DSN800086'

Species: All
Type: All
Status: All
Records: All
Date: All
Longitude: 148.0235
Distance: 1
Disclaimer
animals amphibians Bufonidae Rhinella marina cane toad Y 1

animals amphibians Hylidae Litoria caerulea common green treefrog C 1
animals amphibians Limnodynastidae Limnodynastes terraereginae scarlet sided pobblebonk C 2
animals amphibians Limnodynastidae Platyplectrum ornatum ornate burrowing frog C 1
animals amphibians Limnodynastidae Limnodynastes tasmaniensis spotted grassfrog C 2
animals birds Acanthizidae Smicrornis brevirostris weebill C 4
animals birds Accipitridae Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle C 2
animals birds Artamidae Cracticus nigrogularis pied butcherbird C 4
animals birds Artamidae Cracticus tibicen Australian magpie C 2
animals birds Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita sulphur-crested cockatoo C 1
animals birds Cacatuidae Nymphicus hollandicus cockatiel C 1
animals birds Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae black-faced cuckoo-shrike C 3
animals birds Casuariidae Dromaius novaehollandiae emu C 6
animals birds Columbidae Geopelia humeralis bar-shouldered dove C 1
animals birds Corvidae Corvus orru Torresian crow C 1
animals birds Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian raven C 2
animals birds Cuculidae Centropus phasianinus pheasant coucal C 1
animals birds Estrildidae Taeniopygia bichenovii double-barred finch C 2
animals birds Falconidae Falco cenchroides Nankeen kestrel C 1
animals birds Maluridae Malurus lamberti variegated fairy-wren C 2
animals birds Maluridae Malurus melanocephalus red-backed fairy-wren C 6
animals birds Meliphagidae Lichmera indistincta brown honeyeater C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Philemon corniculatus noisy friarbird C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Acanthagenys rufogularis spiny-cheeked honeyeater C 2
animals birds Meliphagidae Melithreptus brevirostris brown-headed honeyeater C 1
animals birds Meliphagidae Gavicalis virescens singing honeyeater C 4
animals birds Meliphagidae Manorina flavigula yellow-throated miner C 3
animals birds Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca magpie-lark C 1
animals birds Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum mistletoebird C 1
animals birds Pardalotidae Pardalotus striatus striated pardalote C 3
animals birds Phasianidae Coturnix ypsilophora brown quail C 3
animals birds Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus rainbow lorikeet C 2
animals birds Psittacidae Aprosmictus erythropterus red-winged parrot C 3
animals birds Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys willie wagtail C 2
animals mammals Dasyuridae Planigale maculata common planigale C 1
animals mammals Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus rabbit Y 3
animals mammals Macropodidae Macropus giganteus eastern grey kangaroo C 6
animals mammals Macropodidae Macropus robustus common wallaroo C 2
animals mammals Muridae Pseudomys delicatulus delicate mouse C 1
animals mammals Muridae Pseudomys desertor desert mouse C 1
animals mammals Muridae Mus musculus house mouse Y 1
animals mammals Peramelidae Isoodon macrourus northern brown bandicoot C 1
animals mammals Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus short-beaked echidna SL 1
animals reptiles Boidae Aspidites melanocephalus black-headed python C 1
animals reptiles Elapidae Suta suta myall snake C 2/ 1
animals reptiles Elapidae Pseudonaja textilis eastern brown snake C 1
Page 1 of 2
animals reptiles Elapidae Demansia psammophis yellow-faced whip snake C 1

animals reptiles Gekkonidae Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's gecko C 4
animals reptiles Scincidae Cryptoblepharus pannosus ragged snake-eyed skink C 2/ 1
animals reptiles Scincidae Ctenotus taeniolatus copper-tailed skink C 1
animals reptiles Scincidae Morethia boulengeri C 4
animals reptiles Scincidae Lygisaurus foliorum C 1
animals reptiles Scincidae Ctenotus spaldingi C 3
animals reptiles Scincidae Lerista fragilis C 4
animals reptiles Scincidae Ctenotus ingrami C 1/ 1
animals reptiles Scincidae Menetia greyii C 1
CODES
Page 2 of 2
Report created: 06/11/14 15:24:59
Summary
Details
Matters of NES
Extra Information
Caveat
Acknowledgements

Coordinates
Buffer: 1.0Km
Summary



Extra Information

Details

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co- Endangered Community may occur
dominant) within area
within area

Birds
within area
within area
within area
area
Mammals
Dasyurus hallucatus
area
Nyctophilus corbeni
area
[85104] area
Plants
within area
Reptiles
Delma torquata
area
Denisonia maculata
within area
Egernia rugosa
area
Furina dunmalli
area
Lerista allanae
Allan's Lerista, Retro Slider [1378] Endangered Species or species
area
Rheodytes leukops
area

Apus pacificus
within area
area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
within area
area
area

Birds
area
Apus pacificus
within area
Ardea alba
within area
Ardea ibis
within area
area
area
Merops ornatus
area
Myiagra cyanoleuca
area
Pandion haliaetus
area
area
Extra Information
2001.
Birds
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard [974] Species or species
within area
Columba livia
within area
Passer domesticus
within area
Streptopelia chinensis
Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species
within area
Sturnus vulgaris
Common Starling [389] Species or species
within area
Frogs
Rhinella marina
within area
Mammals
Canis lupus familiaris
Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species
within area
Felis catus
within area
Mus musculus
within area
within area
Rattus rattus
Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species
within area
Sus scrofa
within area
Vulpes vulpes
within area
Plants
[18913] within area
[31754] within area
within area
within area
Vachellia nilotica
within area
Reptiles
Hemidactylus frenatus
Asian House Gecko [1708] Species or species
within area
Coordinates
-23.54157 148.02353
Caveat
- migratory and
- marine
Acknowledgements
-Birds Australia
-Museum Victoria
-Australian Museum
-SA Museum
-Queensland Museum
-CSIRO
GPO Box 787
+61 2 6274 1111
ABN 46 640 294 485
www.ehp.qld.gov.au
SEARCH RESPONSE

EMR RESULT
CLR RESULT
ADDITIONAL ADVICE
Registrar
Page 1 of 1
Reece Smith

To: Reece Smith
Ltd)
JobNo: 18740
OperatingCentre: 42
RepoType: Job
above location.


Guidelines:‐




of care.



QC12/18 ‐ QUD644/2012
Bidjara People #7
Trevor Robinson
1
Mobile: 0414 459 624

QC13/02 ‐ QUD229/2013
Level 10
307 Queen Street
Brisbane
Q 4000
Brisbane
Q 4000
P (07) 3224 1200 | 1800 663 693
F (07) 3229 9880


Kind regards

T: 07 3033 0165 | F: 07 3238 3842

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************

_____________________
2
Appendix B – Location Assessment Matrix
4218740 CH Meat Processing _Site Selection Table
Central Highlands Meat Processing November 2014 - Site Assessment

Plant Feasibility Study
1 2 3 4
Criteria Item
North of Emerald Criteria Grading Score West of Emerald Criteria Grading Score East of Emerald Criteria Grading Score North of Springsure Criteria Grading Score
General Address 47 Kingower Road, Emerald Capricorn Highway (Selma) Capricorn Highway (Yamala) Capricorn Highway (Springsure)
Owner Central Highlands Regional Council Central Highlands Regional Council Central Highland Regional Council Central Highland Regional Council
Area 39.95 ha 116.5 ha 363.0 ha 45.74 ha
Block Shape Rectangular Rectangular Two blocks - Rectangular Rectangular
Easements Irrigation Channel Easement Road Easement (unused) Nil Nil
Distance from PO via road 6 km 14 km 21 km 3km N from Springsure / 64km S from Emerald
Lot & Plan Lot 11 on DSN867 Lot 13 on DSN800086 Lot 1 on SP224248; Lot 5 RP897556 Lot 30 on DSN741
1 Have an appropriate land tenure Freehold High 4 Leasehold under conversion to Freehold Medium-High 3 Freehold (Privately Owned) Medium-Low 2 Freehold High 4
2 Suitably zoned for operating an Abattoir Zoned Rural Medium-High 3 Zoned Rural Medium-High 3 Zoned Special Industry - Land set as side Low 1 Zoned Rural Medium-High 3
** Food processing included in Emerald for potential Inland Port Facility
Planning Scheme as High Impact Industry
(Impact Assessible)
** Meat processing plant is an
Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA 25)
under the EP Act.
3 Have a land area sufficient for the Limited area available due to irrigation channel Medium-Low 2 Sufficent area of expansion as well as High 4 Sufficent area of expansion as well as High 4 Limited area available due to Springsure Creek Medium-Low 2
envisaged operation with space for cleared neighbouring properties cleared neighbouring properties required setbacks
future expansion
** Size of facility and future expansion not
quantified
4 Have suitable area for a cattle depot Access is good and initial access area is flat and Medium-High 3 Access is good and initial access area is Medium-High 3 Access is good and initial access area is Medium-High 3 Access is good and initial access area is flat and Medium-High 3
viability for cattle depot flat and viability for cattle depot flat and viability for cattle depot viability for cattle depot
5 Be within a relatively short distance of Beside Highway High 4 Beside Highway High 4 Beside Highway High 4 Beside Highway High 4
the Highway
6 Be located to avoid lengthy road access Access is 6 kilometers for urban areas but risk of Medium-Low 2 One near residents but no urban areas - High 4 Several residential homesteads in area Medium-High 3 Some residential and public areas in area Medium-Low 2
through urban areas urban expansion as well as rural residental blocks Forestry buffer on two sides
located near site
7 Be accessible to road transport, Good sealed access - limited risk of inundation Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of inundation Medium-High 3
bringing in live cattle (roads sealed, no (short term only) inundation (short term only) inundation (short term only) (short term only)
inundation)
8 Be accessible to road transport to Good sealed access - limited risk of inundation Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of Medium-High 3 Good sealed access - limited risk of inundation Medium-High 3
taking away the finished product (roads (short term only) inundation (short term only) inundation (short term only) (short term only)
sealed, no inundation)
9 Require as little as possible upgrading Road access requires upgrading Medium-Low 2 Road access requires upgrading Medium-Low 2 Road access requires upgrading Medium-Low 2 Road access requires upgrading - Site was Medium-High 3
of road access previous Springsure Saleyards
10 Railway access Rail Access is possible but will require extensive Medium-Low 2 Rail Access is possible but will require costs Medium-High 3 Rail Access is possible but will require costs Medium-High 3 Rail Access is possible but will require costs to Medium-High 3
costs to install to install to install install
11 Be away from sensitive sites Near Homestead and other public facilities Low 1 One residential homestead located 800 m Medium-High 3 Some residential homesteads in area Medium-Low 2 Some residential and public areas in area Medium-Low 2
** Schools, Residential, Hotels/ Motels, to north (within forested area)
Childcare, Hospitals, Aged Care
12 Be distant enough from feedlots to Suitable distance from Emerald Saleyard and High 4 Suitable distance from Emerald Saleyard High 4 Suitable distance from Emerald Saleyard High 4 Unsuitable distance from saleyard and other Medium-Low 2
ensure that flies, vermin, dust and other feedlots and other feedlots and other feedlots activities
pesticides do not affect the day to day
operations
13 Avoid wind borne emissions of Risk of emissions from neighbouring landholders Medium-Low 2 No adjacent cotton cropping High 4 Located near Cotton areas - some risk of Medium-Low 2 No adjacent cropping High 4
gas/condensate/smoke/dust from spray drift
existing industries, and enable control
of emissions on-site and to the
boundary (500m buffer minimum)
14 Have a topography and soils suitable for Topography impacted with irrigation channel Medium-Low 2 Topography suits drainage system and Medium-High 3 Topography suits drainage system and land High 4 Creek disects property limiting use for both Medium-Low 2
construction of a drainage systems for dividing land but reasonable soil type for irrigation there is about 20ha of black soil for appears to be mostly black soil for irrigation drainage, treatment system and irrigation
waste water, storm water and sanitary irrigation and cropping and cropping
waste
15 Be within ready access to a supply of Reasonably close to water main - 1.6 kilometers Medium-High 3 Limited water access - nearest pipeline Medium-Low 2 Limited water access - nearest pipeline Medium-Low 2 Water accessible - nearest mapped pipeline Medium-High 3
potable water or can be made potable approximately 14km away approximately 21km away approximately 3km away
efficiently (a requirement of the USDA
and EU licensed premises)
** Initial estimates of consumption of
0.72ML/day i.e. ~8 L/s
16 Be close to a supply of electricity Close to Electrical Supply Medium-High 3 Electricity supply will required additional Medium-Low 2 Adjacent High Power Supply Medium-High 3 No high volume supply available based on Low 1
cost for access due to location Ergon advice
Page 1 4218740 CH Meat Processing _Site Selection Table

4218740 CH Meat Processing _Site Selection Table
1 2 3 4
Criteria Item
North of Emerald Criteria Grading Score West of Emerald Criteria Grading Score East of Emerald Criteria Grading Score North of Springsure Criteria Grading Score
17 Be close to a supply of gas Bulk gas supply required Medium-Low 2 Bulk gas supply required Medium-Low 2 Bulk gas supply required Medium-Low 2 Bulk gas supply required Medium-Low 2
18 Be large enough and suitable for Available land for treatment system but impeded Low 1 Available land for treatment system with High 4 Available land for treatment system with High 4 Creek disects property limiting use for both Medium-Low 2
establishment of a waste water by irrigation channel good gradient for gravity feeding dams good gradient for gravity feeding dams Drainage and treatment system and irrigation
treatment system
19 Have 30+ ha for irrigation Insufficent land available for irrigation - potential of Medium-Low 2 Sufficent land for irrigation - potential of Medium-High 3 Sufficent land for irrigation - potential of High 4 Creek disects property limiting use for both Medium-Low 2
** Irrigation not suitable during wet season, using third party agreement with neighbouring using third party agreement with using third party agreement with drainage, treatment system and irrigation
typically 3 months of the year cropping farms neighbouring cropping farms. Some soil neighbouring cropping farms.
improvement maybe required in non-black
soil areas.
20 Be in relatively close proximity to a Close to Emerald transfer station and waste High 4 Close to Emerald transfer station and waste High 4 Close to Emerald transfer station and waste High 4 Close to Springsure waste disposal facility but Medium-High 3
waste disposal facility (Emerald); disposal facility disposal facility disposal facility should Springsure become a transfer station
increased cost for shipping waste to Landfill in
Emerald.
21 Be protected by an all round buffer zone Due to restricted land space buffer zone almost Low 1 Sufficent land to allow for vegetation buffer. High 4 Sufficent land to allow for vegetation buffer - Medium-High 3 Sufficent land to allow for vegetation buffer. High 4
including landscaping impossible but will need replanting as cleared
landscape.
22 Not have significant populations of Mapped as cleared vegetation - very limited risk of High 4 Vegetation mapped most as least concern Medium-Low 2 Mapped as cleared vegetation - very limited High 4 Vegetation mapped most as of-concern Low 1
species threatened with extinction and listed species being present communities - area to south-west mapped risk of listed species being present communities as well as significant vegetation
listed under the Nature Conservation as endangered but doesn't need to be under Nature Conservation Act. Vegetation will
Act and/or Environment Protection and cleared and can be left as buffer zone and need to be cleared.
Biodiversity Conservation Act for existing light grazing.
23 Not have significant habitat for listed Mapped as cleared vegetation - very limited High 4 No species noted during site survey - Medium-High 3 Mapped as cleared vegetation - very limited High 4 No species noted during site survey - unlikely to Medium-High 3
migrant species (Environment restrict of listed species being present unlikely to obtain migratory species habitat. risk of listed species being present obtain migratory species habitat.
Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act)
24 Be located in an area without Aboriginal None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4
sacred sites or archaeological sites
25 Native Title Freehold land High 4 Leasehold under conversion to Freehold, Medium-High 3 Leasehold will need conversion to Medium-Low 2 Freehold land - Native Title extinguished High 4
Native Title will be addressed during this Freehold, Native Title will be addressed
process during this process
26 Be located away from sites listed as None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4 None identified in search High 4
Heritage under Queensland and/or
Commonwealth legislation
27 Without a history of heavy/light industry Listed on EMR - potentially contanimated land site Low 1 No history of Industial development or High 4 No history of Industial development or High 4 No history of Industial development or recorded Medium-Low 2
or other pollution of the soil/water recorded potential contamination. recorded potential contamination. potential contamination. Advice by Council - site
has possible cattle dip on site.
28 Have been subject to previous Master Study for potential land use in process. Medium-High 3 No know studies undertaken to date. Medium-Low 2 Rail Study undertaken as part of Inland Port Medium-High 3 No know studies undertaken to date. Medium-Low 2
environmental investigations and Investigation
approvals for industrial development
29 Other Notes Proposed Inland Rail Port Facility
77 89 87 77
Page 2 4218740 CH Meat Processing _Site Selection Table

Appendix C – Transport Model Assumptions
Appendix C Limitations
GHD has prepared the transport model assumptions and preliminary estimates (C1 to C3) set out in this report using information
reasonably available to the GHD employee(s) based on industry experience and readily available industry information.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of the feasibility study must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost
Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the
Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified in this report, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions
identified in this report. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the project can or will be undertaken at a cost which
is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the
level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance that the cost will be greater than the planning
estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning
purposes will vary depending on the conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select
appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Appendix C1 - Supply Chain Cost Model
Assumptions
SUPPLY CHAIN COST MODEL GENERAL PARAMETERS
ASSUMED DISTANCE (KM) FROM SHIRE TO ABATTOIR
ASSUMED NO. OF LIVESTOCK TRUCK DECKS FROM SHIRE TO ABATTOIR
ASSUMED TRANSIT SPEED (KM/HR) FROM SHIRE TO ABATTOIR
ASSUMED MSA COST (PER HEAD) FROM SHIRE TO ABATTOIR
DECOUPLING SWITCH TO PORT (0=OFF AND 1 = ON)
DECOUPLING SWITCH FOR LIVESTOCK TO ABATTOIR (0=OFF AND 1 =ON)
Appendix C2 - Cost Curve Truck Operation Curve
Assumptions
GENERAL PARAMETERS
TRUCK CONFIGURATIONS
LIVESTOCK
LIVESTOCK (HML)
PORT MEAT PRODUCT
REGIONAL MEAT PRODUCT
REGIONAL MEAT PRODUCT
Appendix C3 - Rail Transportation Assumptions
RAIL RATE ASSUMPTIONS
Distance Per tonne Animal
Origin Destination Reefer cost
(km) cost (live cost)
Charleville Brisbane 743 74.3 $ 37.2 $2,046
Mount Isa Cloncurry 200 20 $ 10.0 $551
Cloncurry Townsville 639 63.9 $ 32.0 $1,760
Townsville Mackay 389 38.9 $ 19.5 $1,071
Mackay Rockhampton 335 33.5 $ 16.8 $923
Rockhampton Gympie 467 46.7 $ 23.4 $1,286
Gympie Brisbane 198 19.8 $ 9.9 $545
Longreach Emerald 417 41.7 $ 20.9 $1,148
Emerald Rockhampton 271 27.1 $ 13.6 $746
Animal Reefer
Mass (tonnes) 0.5 27.538
Assume 10 cntk
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS
Animals to meat 50% %
Animals/reefer 110.2 qty
Assumed live transit length to siding 100.0 km @ $1.30 per deck/km (assumed)
Assumed cost/head/km $0.054 Assumes 24 head/deck
Distance to siding 25.0 km (assumed)
Reefer cost per head/km $0.041
Appendix D – Preliminary Concept Drawings
DAMappi
ngSyst
em –Pr
intScr
een Date: 06/11/2014 0 45 90 180 270 360
Metres
Department of Disclaimer:
This map has been generated from the information supplied to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for
State Development the purposes of Development Assessment Mapping Online but is a print screen only and should not be used for development application
(DA) purposes. For DA purposes the user should use the Print Report function to obtain a list of DA triggers. The map generated has
been prepared with due care based on the best available information at the time of publication. The State of Queensland holds no
Infrastructure and Planning responsibility for any errors, inconsistencies or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this
document are solely the responsibility of those parties.
© The State of Queensland 2014.
Legend
Dr awnPol
ygonLayer
Override 1
Cadast
r e(
10k)
Cadastre (10k)
CategoryAandBextr actf
r om t
her egul
ated
vegetat
ionmanagementmap
Category A on the regulated vegetation
management map
Category B on the regulated vegetation
management map
Wat
er r esourcepl
anni
ngareaboundari
es
Water resource planning area boundaries
Ar eawi
thi
n25m ofexi
sti
ngr ai
lway
Area within 25m of existing railway
Department of
DAMappi
ngSyst
em – Pr i
ntScreen
Disclaimer:
State Development This map has been generated from the information supplied to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for
the purposes of Development Assessment Mapping Online but is a print screen only and should not be used for development application
Infrastructure and Planning (DA) purposes. For DA purposes the user should use the Print Report function to obtain a list of DA triggers. The map generated has
been prepared with due care based on the best available information at the time of publication. The State of Queensland holds no
responsibility for any errors, inconsistencies or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this
© The State of Queensland 2014. document are solely the responsibility of those parties.
Date: 06/11/2014
Appendix E – Risk Assessment
CENTRAL HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CH Meat Processing Facility - Risk Assessment
Based on assessment of perferred location - West of Emerald

Risk Assessment Initial Likelihood Initial Consequences Initial Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Strategy Residual Likelihood Residual Consequence Residual Risk Who Holds the Residual Risk
Transportation
Competitive Market - Supply currently limited due to

drought conditions. Following recovery, it could take
Lack of supply (General) Medium High Very High Low High High Meat Processor
up to three years to reach normal stocking levels. Risk
expanded on in later sections under financial.
Escalating fuel costs due to tax changes. State Road

conditions impact on fuel consumption . Use of well-
Transport Costs Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium Livestock Tranporters
maintained road networks and integrated transport
via road trains.
Ensure main road upgraded for access intersection &

Restricted Vehicle Access from Highway Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
approvals obtained
Cattle transport vehicles have capacity to vary

locations. Transport Industry has overcapacity of
livestock vehicles. Alternative use of Rail is only viable
Limited Transport Vehicles Low Medium Medium from distance areas - Winton and Far western shires. Very Low Medium Low Producers / Meat Processor
It is believe that there is only a limited supply of cattle
freight trains although under current market
conditions these are not fully utilised.
Future use of highway for increasing heavy vehicle

traffic associated with Galilee Basin Mine
developments. Increased Light vehicle traffic to and
Light and heavy vehicle interaction at highway access
Medium Medium High from meat processing plant site. Use of bus to Low Medium Medium All
as well as rail crossing - restricting access
transport works from Emerald to reduce traffic and
vehicle crossing. Rail crossing and Highway access will
need to be upgraded.
Due to Central Highland location shrinkage risk is

Shrinkage impacts due to excess transportation times Medium Medium High Very Low Medium Low Producers / Meat Processor
reduced compared to other locations
Access to Infrstructure
Ensure water allocation available - through either

Restricted Access to water (>200ML / year required) Medium High Very High water allocation purchase or Council allocation Low High High Meat Processor
supply.
Funding required to install required pipeline and / or
purchase water allocation as well as need to obtain
Transport of water to site (Pipeline >10km)) Medium High Very High Low High High Meat Processor
landholder consent and relevant approvals for
alignment
Page 1 of 4 9/12/2014

Ensure electrical network can provide necessary

Restricted access to electrical power demand power demands. Funding required to install power
Medium High Very High Low High High Meat Processor
requirements (4,500kVA) lines as well as obtain landholder consent and
relevant approvals for alignment
Healthy and Safety
Death has occurred with Central Queensland in the

last 10 years. Injuries requiring medial treatment and
first aid are occurring regularly. Impact on works
Employers - death, injury or accident Medium High Very High compensation fees. Health and Safety requirements Low High High Meat Processor
in line with meat industry standards. Training of staff
to reduce risk of injury. Use of robotics to reduce
manual handling.
Neighbours - odour, dust and general health Health requirements - use of buffer zones, dust
Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
complaints suppression, biofilter and good separation distances
Health and Safety requirements - use of vegetation

General public - roads users (mostly odour related) Low Low Low Very Low Low Very Low Meat Processor
buffer, dust supprsssion and biofilter
Future use of highway for increasing heavy vehicle

traffic associated with Galilee Basin Mine
Heavy vehicle movement increase - heavy and light developments. Increased Light vehicle traffic to and Meat Processor / Livestock
Medium High Very High Low High High
interaction from meat processing plant site. Use of bus to Transporter
transport works from Emerald to reduce traffic and
vehicle crossing. Rail crossing and Highway access will
need to be upgraded. Traffic management plan etc.
Legislation
Vegetation / biodiversity offset or avoidance of listed

vegetation clearing. Compliance with approvals -
Federal - EBPC - listed community or species impacted Very Low High Medium Very Low High Medium
fencing of listed communities - to restrict access - light
grazing within area (as per existing conditions)
Meat Processor
State - EP Act, Water Act, Nature Conserv Act, Veg

Previous history on meat processing industry
Management Act, Work Healrh and Safety Act,
breaching environmental legislation in Central
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, Animal Care & Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low
Queensland. New plant will have lastest technology
Protection Act and etc - No approvals obtained and / & design - less reducing risk of legislation breaches -
or breach of legislation
Meat Processor
Local - Council legislation breach or MCU unable to be Council support - rural locations and good separations
Low High High Very Low High Medium
obtained. distances
Meat Processor
Page 2 of 4 9/12/2014

Food Safety Stds - Food Production (Safety) Act Low High High Must need Food Safety requirement to operate Very Low High Medium
Meat Processor
Aquis Export Requirements - Department of Certification required - failure to comply with restrict
Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low
Agriculture (Export Control Act) market to domestic only.
Meat Processor / Producer
Environmental & Heritage
Vegetation / biodiversity offset or avoidance of listed

Vegetation Management / Nature Conservation Act - vegetation clearing. Compliance with approvals -
Low High High Very Low High Medium Meat processor
Vegetation Clearance not allowed fencing of listed communities - to restrict access - light
grazing within area (as per existing conditions)
Ensure adequate land available for effluent irrigation

and manure composting - option for third party
Wastewater & waste management impacts Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
effluent reuse and reuse of biosolids on paddock or
for soil conditioning.
Community Impacts – Odour, air quality, noise Low Medium Medium Health requirements - use of buffer zones, dust Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
suppression, biofilter and good separation distances
As area undisturbed obtain CH Clearance before
Cultural Heritage Restrictions Low High High construction. CH searches through database found on Very Low High Medium Meat Processor
CH records.
Difficult to manage global impact - management plans

Climate Change Impacts - Flood / Drought / Extreme
Medium Low Medium in place to adjust for changing production levels as Low Low Low Meat Processor
weather
well as extreme weather events
Impact to soil - increases erosion, soil compaction Low Medium Medium Implement CEMP during Construction Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
Weed impacts Low Low Low Implement Weed Management Plan - Operations Low Low Low Meat Processor
Loss of grazing land Medium Very Low Low Poor quality grazing land - limited grazing potential Low Very Low Very Low Meat Processor
Financial
Facility needs to run at almost full capacity - Ensure

abattoir is cost competitive and also pursue niche
Lack of supply (competition from other processors) Medium High Very High Low High High Meat Processor
and/or premium market opportunities (e.g MSA, EU,
organic, wagyu, service kills) to bolster supply.
Page 3 of 4 9/12/2014

Facility needs run run at almost full capacity - Ensure

abattoir is cost competitive and pursue niche and/or
Lack of supply (competition from live export market) Medium High Very High Low High High Meat Processor
premium market opportunities (e.g MSA, EU, organic,
wagyu, service kills) to bolster supply.
Develop an Emergency Animal Disease (EAD) risk

management and contingency plan, dealing with the
following risk: Risk 1: Infection of livestock, Risk 2:
Lack of supply (Disease Outbreak) Low High High Market closures and the loss of income and staff, Risk Very Low High Medium Meat Processor / Producers
3: Movement restrictions and feed shortages, Risk 4:
Managing disease control activities, Risk 5: Managing
your obligations and responsibilities
Market price drive by export market and revenue

Market Price Low High High returns for mesat producing - Target specialist Very Low High Medium Meat Processor / Producers
producers /export Chinese market / market tracking
CapEx Costs - Cost escalation Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Meat Processor
Minimise opex costs by implementing the latest cost

OpEx Costs - Changing supplier costs (packaging &
Low High High saving technology e.g. robotics. Consider using staff Very Low High Medium Meat Processor
etc), charging labour market costs
on 457 visas.
Ability to meet all MSA requirements needs to be

MSA grading Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
considered - and the ability to obtain premium pricing
Skilled Labour
Use of 457 visas to supplement & train local

workforce. Currently increased availability of trades
due to reduced demand in the mining sector. Some
Lack of skilled workers - boning, trades Medium High Very High Very Low High Medium Meat Processor
available of experienced meat processor staff as
existing mining sector. Unskilled agricultural based
labour availabl via existing schemes
if just one shift - timing siutable to regional employee

Employment conditions restricting recruitment - base. Current emplyment market conditions are high
Low Medium Medium Very Low Medium Low Meat Processor
timing, approximately 6am to 3pm. volatile during mining sector but regional
unemployment remains low <4%.
Page 4 of 4 9/12/2014
GHD
Level 1 21 Wood Street
PO Box 494 Mackay Qld 4740 Australia
T: 61 7 4953 6300 F: 61 7 4951 4264 E: mkymail@ghd.com.au
© GHD 2015
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the
purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the
commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
N:\AU\Emerald\Projects\42\18740\WP\27304.docx
Document Status
Rev Author Reviewer Approved for Issue
No. Name Signature Name Signature Date
0 S.Hoban / J Broadway J Broadway P Jeston P Jeston 14/01/15
R.Smith /
G.Denholm
1 S.Hoban / P Jeston P Jeston 21/01/15
R.Smith /
G.Denholm
www.ghd.com

Checklist of Mandatory Documentation Required by ISO 45001 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Checklist of Mandatory Documentation Required by ISO 45001 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Central Highlands Development Corporation

Central Highlands Meat Processing Plant

Cattle Industry Review

Industry and Stakeholder Consultation

Increased competitiveness within the meat processing industry;

Legislation Responsible License / Permit / Approval

Site Score Pros of Site Cons of Site

North of 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

West of Emerald 89 Sufficient area available. Land tenure requires conversion to

South of 77 Freehold land tenure. Limited area available.

Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability

Meat Supply Chain

Figure 1 Origin/Destination Linkages (routing)

Shire (origin) Least Cost Abattoir Is the Shire likely to use

Barcaldine Emerald Yes

Barcoo Emerald Yes

Blackall - Tambo Emerald Yes

Central Highlands Emerald Contestable (Rockhampton)

Diamantina Emerald Contestable (Townsville)

Isaac Mackay Contestable (Mackay)*

Longreach Emerald Yes

Mckinlay Emerald Contestable (Townsville)

Mount Isa Townsville No

Quilpie Brisbane Contestable (Brisbane) *

Winton Emerald Contestable (Townsville)

Market and Export Trade Opportunities

SWOT and Risk Assessment

Regional Economic Benefit

8. Meat Supply Chain .................................................................................................................. 89

9. Transport Cost Assessment .................................................................................................. 100

10. Skilled Labour Availability ...................................................................................................... 109

Table 3 Key Findings on Whether or not Emerald Would Be Used.............................................. vii

Table 6 Summary of Applicable Legislation ................................................................................ 43

Table 15 Least Cost Value Chain Abattoir .................................................................................. 103

Figure 3 Australia’s Cattle Producing Regions ............................................................................. 11

Figure 6 Drivers of Change in Livestock Marketing ...................................................................... 14

Figure 12 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Northern Site ..................................................... 59

Figure 15 Water Reticulation Connection Point – Eastern Site ....................................................... 64

Figure 18 Australian Cattle Herd by State (MLA 2014c) ................................................................. 76

Figure 34 Port of Brisbane – Exports ............................................................................................. 96

Figure 37 Study Area Rail Network Map ...................................................................................... 105

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.3 Scope and Limitations

1.3.1 Study Area

Figure 2 Study Area

1.3.2 Feasibility Study Scope

The Feasibility study includes:

Cost modelling for construction and operation;

1.3.3 Study Sites

2.2 Consultations with Producers and Stakeholders

2.3 Cost Modelling for Construction and Operation

Basic floor plan layout and flow; and

2.4 Recommendations on Optimum Locations to Provide

2.5 Transport and Supply Chain Capability and Integration

2.6 Vegetation Impacts and Impediments

2.7 Accessibility of Infrastructure, Water and Power

2.8 Cattle Supply and Seasonal Viability of Slaughter

Cattle Numbers in the Region

Cattle Available for Slaughter

Changed Market Forces and Producer Practices

2.9 Market and Export Trade Opportunity

Export Market Trends

Domestic Market Trends