Pacific Environment Peer Review R1-1

In other area such as the Scenic Rim, Scenic Rim Regional Council requires a “Phantom House
Assessment”. Such an assessment examines whether the proposed development would limit a third
party’s ability to build on a nearby lot that is not included in the application or owned by the applicant.
The test applied is whether there is a reasonable house site not impacted by odour that can be
identified on each lot. Lots that may fall into this category for the subject site include Lot 20 on SP226606
and Lot 1 on SP100785. However, defining the suitability of these lots with regard to house sites is
beyond the scope of this work.

We note that this issue could easily be resolved by including the lots in the application.

Finally, we note that the odour contour extends into the front of Lot 1 on RP170382. However, as there is
already a house on the southern end of the lot (accessed off Jorgensen Road) this does not need to
be considered further.

2.3    Emissions Estimation
The odour emissions estimation methodology is summarised in Section 3.3.3 of the report. The
methodology appears to follow the methodology summarised in the Queensland Guidelines Meat
Chicken Farms (DAFF, 2012). The batch length and thinning regime does not appear to have been
included in the report. The emission profile shown in Attachment 7 (Standard Stocking, 16.75 birds/m2
initial stocking density) appears to show a standard thinning regime.

The use of a K factor of 2.2 is appropriate, and the emission profile shown in Attachment 7 (Standard
Stocking, 16.75 birds/m2 initial stocking density) appears consistent with that seen elsewhere. However,
we note that if the farm cannot be operated at a K factor of 2.2, the emissions from the farm (and thus
impacts) could be higher than predicted.

The reduction in stocking density as discussed is consistent with the industry moving toward RSPCA
requirements. The 16.75 birds/m2 is closer to free range densities than the RSPCA densities, but we
understand that the industry as a whole is moving to lower densities over time.

The use of a single point source with ‘rain hat’ option that conserves plume momentum and
incorporates thermal buoyancy is also considered to be appropriate.

Dust emissions estimation was detailed in Section 4.3.3. As the emissions estimation method is different
from the methodology we normally use, we cannot comment specifically on the method without
further analysis. However, the predicted dust impact shown in the report (i.e. Figure A2) is consistent
with that seen elsewhere, i.e., the predicted dust levels require a smaller buffer than that required for
odour.

2.4    Model selection and Setup
As with previous work, MWA has used the TAPM/CALMET/CALPUFF suite of models. This is consistent with
good practice.

The selection of modelling year (2008) was supported by the information provided in Attachment 5. This
consisted of wind roses and graphs. Although no statistical analysis was provided, a visual inspection of
the data confirms that the year 2008 appears to be consistent with long term trends. That year has
been determined as representative of long term weather patterns for a number of other areas of
Queensland.

We have not been able to review the model input files. However, the model setup as described in
Section 3.1 appears to be consistent with good practice.

With regard to the use of TAPM, the process involved the “nudging” of TAPM with observed data from
the Bureau of Meteorology’s Tewantin and Nambour weather stations. MWA used a radius of influence



9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx                                                                                3
Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230