Original source · versioned page text
Ridgewood_12-002_Meteorology_L35815BH_221015
Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
22 October 2015
W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd
124 Top Forestry Road
Ridgewood QLD 4563
Attention: Mr David Milligan
Dear David
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling –
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds, Ridgewood
Further to your request, MWA Environmental has considered the following request from Noosa
Council1 in relation to an issue raised by the Cooroy No Boiler Farm Group regarding the
validity of the meteorological dataset applied in the odour dispersion modelling:
I am drafting the report to Council and ask you (and Ben) whether you can provide further
clarification about a specific issue raised by a submitter.
Simon Welchman from Katestone provided commentary about the odour modelling in a
response he gave to the Cooroy No Broiler Farm Group (attached).
In his commentary, Simon recommends that “prior to any approval being issued for the
poultry farm, a meteorological monitoring station should be installed on-site to collect
meteorological data and the meteorological model should be validated. Alternatively, the
on-site meteorological data should be assimilated into the meteorological model to ensure
that the meteorological model is representative of conditions at the site and the odour
dispersion modelling should be revised using the revised meteorological dataset.“ (p.2)
Can you please provide specific comments as to why an onsite weather station is not
required?
The meteorological modelling methods and outputs are presented in the Noise and Air Quality
Impact Assessment – Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds – 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood
(MWA Environmental, 31 July 2014).
1 Per email Mr Jack Lewis (Development Planner, Noosa Council, 20/10/15)
Max Winders & Associates Pty Ltd tas MWA Environmental
Level 15, 241 Adelaide St, Brisbane GPO BOX 3137, Brisbane Qld 4001
P 07 3002 5500 F 07 3002 5588 E [email protected]
W www.mwaenviro.com.au
ABN 94 010 833 084
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 15 pages
Page 2
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 22 October 2015
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling – Proposed Poultry Growing
Sheds, Ridgewood Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
MWA Environmental notes that:
1. The meteorological modelling has been undertaken in accordance with the regulatory
modelling guidance and is consistent with methods commonly applied for the
preparation of meteorological datasets for dispersion modelling at sites without on-site
meteorological monitoring data and sites where it is not feasible to undertake on-site
monitoring at a location that would provide data suitable for input to a model as
observation data.
2. The meteorological modelling methods applied by MWA Environmental have been
noted as acceptable in the Review – Odour Assessment of Proposed Poultry Farm
(Katestone Environmental, 2 February 2015)
3. The Noosa Council Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting Agenda (16
September 2014) states the following in response to the issue of ‘weather assumptions’
raised in public submission:
“Council’s environmental consultant2 has reviewed all of the assumptions, criteria
and meteorological data built into the odour modelling and consider them to be
appropriate for the proposed location of the potential odour sources.”
As such, the meteorological modelling methods are consistent with industry guidance
and have been acknowledged by Katestone Environmental and Pacific Environment Ltd
to be acceptable.
2 Pacific Environment Ltd
2
Page 3
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 22 October 2015
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling – Proposed Poultry Growing
Sheds, Ridgewood Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
Although acknowledging the meteorological modelling methods are appropriate, the Katestone
Environmental Review states the following:
Katestone notes that site specific meteorological monitoring data has not been collected
at the site. The MWA Report does not identify any meteorological monitoring stations in
close proximity of the site of the proposed poultry farm. As far as Katestone is aware,
there are no meteorological monitoring stations from which suitable site specific or site
representative data may be obtained. Consequently, the meteorological modelling results
have not been validated against meteorological observations. Given the relative
complexity of the terrain of the subject site and surrounds, it is not clear whether the
meteorological modelling has provided a reliable representation of dispersion
meteorology in the area surrounding the site. Consequently, it is recommended that, prior
to any approval being issued for the poultry farm, a meteorological monitoring station
should be installed on-site to collect meteorological data and the meteorological model
should be validated. Alternatively, the on-site meteorological data should be assimilated
into the meteorological model to ensure that the meteorological model is representative
of conditions at the site and the odour dispersion modelling should be revised using the
revised meteorological dataset.
Based upon the terrain and ground cover at the site, with surrounding ridgelines and vegetation
associated with the orchard use at or above the height of a potential anemometer, MWA
Environmental does not consider that an on-site meteorological station could be reasonably
operated at a location that would provide data suitable for assimilation into the meteorological
model.
MWA Environmental installed a weather station on Lot 21 on SP226606 on 11 November 2014
for the purpose of characterising wind directions, not wind speeds necessarily, over a period of
three months when the applicant was undertaking baseline dust monitoring at locations
adjacent to Top Forestry Road. The weather station has remained at Lot 21 on SP226606
since installation which provides a total monitoring period of nearly 12 months.
The intent of the weather station was to determine whether sufficient frequencies of winds from
the road to the monitoring locations occurred during the dust monitoring period. The weather
station was located as shown on Figure 1 below on one of the minor ridgelines at the site. The
anemometer height was 1.8 metres above ground level. The weather station was not installed
or sited with the intent of generating data for input to or validation of the meteorological model
as this element of the odour assessment had previously been acknowledged as acceptable in
the Noosa Council Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting Agenda (16 September 2014)
(refer above).
3
Page 4
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 22 October 2015
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling – Proposed Poultry Growing
Sheds, Ridgewood Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
Figure 1: Location of On-Site Weather Station
Whilst the overall station siting is reasonable for the analysis of wind directions within the local
area, the vegetation in proximity to the weather station would have the potential to influence
the station-recorded wind speeds at the 1.8 metre above ground level anemometer height.
This specific siting constraint also dictates that a higher percentage of calm wind conditions are
expected to be measured at the 1.8 metre above ground level anemometer height.
Photographs showing the weather station at the location shown on Figure 1 are included as
Attachment 1.
MWA Environmental considers that the on-site weather station may be used as a basis for
validation of acceptable model prediction of wind direction distributions on an annual and
seasonal basis.
4
Page 5
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 22 October 2015
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling – Proposed Poultry Growing
Sheds, Ridgewood Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
The use of the 1.8 metre height wind speed data as a basis for validation of model
prediction of wind speeds and frequency of calm conditions at a 10 metre above ground
level height3 is not considered reliable by MWA Environmental for the following reasons:
1. The 1.8 metre height anemometer is affected by local vegetation and terrain variations
which would significantly reduce wind velocities and increase the likelihood of calm
conditions as compared to a 10 metre height.
2. Although MWA Environmental has extrapolated the 1.8 metre height wind speeds to
estimated 10 metre height wind speeds using the common Power Law method based
upon Irwin Rural wind profile exponents4, this relationship is intended to be applied for
extrapolating 10 metre wind speeds to greater heights and is not as reliable for
adjustments to heights so close to the ground surface, particularly for stable
atmospheric conditions commonly associated with low wind speeds. This is noted in
the following extract from Australian Standard AS3580.14-2011 - Methods for sampling
and analysis of ambient air - Part 14: Meteorological monitoring for ambient air quality
monitoring applications:
A comparison of the CALMET model predicted wind roses for the meteorological grid node
nearest to the weather station location and the on-site weather station recorded wind roses5 is
provided as Attachment 2.
A graphical comparison of the wind direction distributions for the CALMET model and the on-
site weather station is provided as Attachment 3.
Given the natural variability in wind patterns year-to-year and that the monitoring data is for
2014/2015 compared to the 2008 model year, the overall distribution of wind directions
predicted by the model on an annual and seasonal basis is considered to:
1. Correlate well to the observed on-site wind directions; and
2. Capture key local and seasonal characteristics.
As expected for the reasons stated above, wind speed data derived from the on-site weather
station 1.8 metre anemometer height indicates more frequent occurrence of wind speeds
below 0.5 metres per second. This is largely considered to be an artefact of the wind speed
measurement height and the local surface roughness in proximity to the anemometer rather
than demonstrating a model performance issue. The wind roses demonstrate acceptable
model prediction of frequencies of higher wind speed categories where the shortcomings of the
wind shear extrapolation method are less significant.
3 As per model predictions and Australian Standard meteorological station guidance
4 Which are generally acknowledged to be imperfect for rural sites with high surface roughness such as the
poultry farm site
5 Wind speeds extrapolated to 10m above ground level height by the common Power Law method based upon
Irwin Rural wind profile exponents
5
Page 6
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 22 October 2015
Re: Response to Issue Raised in Submission Regarding Meteorological Modelling – Proposed Poultry Growing
Sheds, Ridgewood Ref: L35815/BH/12-002
Overall, to the extent feasible considering the on-site weather station siting constraints,
the observed data is considered to validate acceptable performance of the
meteorological model.
I trust that the above information is suitable for your requirements. If any clarification or
additional information is required please contact the undersigned on (07) 3002 5500.
Yours sincerely
Ben Hyde
Environmental Engineer
6
Page 7
MWA Environmental Attachment 1
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Soe (
Page 12
MWA Environmental Attachment 2
Page 13
Table1 Comparison of seasonal wind roses for Ridgewood
CALMET Weather Station Key
Annual
Calms 0.05% Calms 0.59%
Summer
Calms 0.09% Calms 0.97%
Autumn
Calms 0% Calms 0.64%
Winter
Calms 0.05% Calms 0.36%
Spring
Calms 0.05% Calms 0.36%
Page 14
MWA Environmental Attachment 3
Page 15
Table 2 Seasonal Wind Direction Distributions for Ridgewood
Summer Autumn Annual
24 32
30.4
30
22 21.3
28
20
26
18.117.9
18 24
15.8 15.7 22 21.2
16
20
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
13.8
14
18
15.9
12 16
14.5
OBS DATA OBS DATA
14
10 9.1 MODEL DATA MODEL DATA
8.8
12
10.2 18
8 9.9 9.9
10 9.3
16.6
6.5 6.2 16.4
6 8 7.2 7.5 7.5
5.1 5.1 16
4.3 4.5 5.8 5.8
4.0 4.2 14.7
3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6 6 4.8 4.7
4 3.3 4.3 4.4 14.1
2.9 2.9 3.0 3.7
2.1 2.4 4 3.1 3.0 14
1.8 2.0 2.3
2 1.5 2.2
1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7
0.9 2 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.8
12 11.7
0 0
10.9
N - NNE - NE - ENE - E - ESE - SE - SSE - S - SSW - SW - WSW W - WNW NW - NNW - N - NNE - NE - ENE - E - ESE - SE - SSE - S - SSW - SW - WSW W - WNW NW - NNW -
Percentage (%)
NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW - W WNW - NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW - W WNW - NW NNW N
10 9.3
Wind direction Wind direction
OBS DATA
Winter Spring 8
6.8
7.5
MODEL DATA
6.2
18 18 5.8 5.9 5.9
6 5.3 5.4
5.2 5.1 5.1
4.8
16.0 4.4
16 16 15.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7
15.2 4 3.3
14.5 14.6
2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5
14.1
14 14 1.8 1.7 1.7
2
12.9
12.2 12.4
12 12
0
10.9
N - NNE - NE - ENE - E - ESE - SE - SSE - S - SSW - SW - WSW W - WNW NW - NNW -
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
9.8 10.0 10.1 NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW - W WNW - NW NNW N
10 10
9.2 9.2 Wind direction
8.6 8.7 8.5
8.2 8.2
OBS DATA OBS DATA
8 7.5 8 7.4
6.8 MODEL DATA MODEL DATA
6.3 6.5
6.3 6.2 6.3
5.9
6 5.5 5.6 6 5.6
4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7
4.2 4.4 4.2
4.1 3.9
4
3.9
4
3.8 3.7 3.9 3.6
3.3
2.9 3.0 3.0
2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7
1.9
2 1.5 1.6 2 1.4
1.4
1.0 1.1 1.0
0.9
0 0
N - NNE - NE - ENE - E - ESE - SE - SSE - S - SSW - SW - WSW W - WNW NW - NNW - N - NNE - NE - ENE - E - ESE - SE - SSE - S - SSW - SW - WSW W - WNW NW - NNW -
NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW - W WNW - NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW - W WNW - NW NNW N
Wind direction Wind direction
Page 16
360 315 270 225 135 Model Predicted Wind Direction ray 3 90 45 90 Wind Direction 135 180 Observed Wind Direction 225 270 315 360