Original source · versioned page text
Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment W D Milligan 31 July 2014
Attached to the e-mail MCU12/0184 - Covering email for Noise & Air Quality Impact Assessment & Traffic Engineering Report (Separately registered). A Link to the Traffic Survey video is in email..
NOISE AND AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED POULTRY GROWING SHEDS
124 TOP FORESTRY ROAD
RIDGEWOOD
Prepared for:
W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd
Prepared by:
MWA Environmental
31 July 2014
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 77 pages
Page 2
MWA Environmental
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
MWA Environmental
Level 15 241 Adelaide Street Job Name: Ridgewood
GPO Box 3137 Brisbane 4001
Job No: 12-002
Telephone: 07 3002 5500
Facsimile 07 3002 5588 Original Date of Issue: 31 July 2014
Email: [email protected]
DOCUMENT DETAILS
Title: Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment – Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds – 124
Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood
Principal Author: Mr Ben Hyde
Client: W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd
Client Address: 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood QLD 4563
Client Contact: Mr David Milligan
REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY
Version Number Date Issued By Checked By
1 Report 5/11/12 BH PAK
2 Updated Report 31/07/14 BH PAK
3
4
5
6
7
8
DISTRIBUTION RECORD
Destination Version Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Client (electronic) 1 1
File Copy 1 1
MWA Enviro Library 1 1
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 3
MWA Environmental
CONTENTS TABLE
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT ................................................................................. 1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................... 2
1.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 2
2.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT........................................................... 4
2.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS .......................................................................... 4
2.2 REVELANT NOISE CRITERIA ................................................................... 6
2.3 NOISE MODELLING .................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 SOURCE NOISE DATA ......................................................................... 9
2.3.3 RESULTS OF NOISE MODELLING................................................... 10
2.3.4 DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC NOISE ........................... 13
2.4 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................... 13
3.0 ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 14
3.1 ODOUR ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .............................................. 14
3.2 RELEVANT ODOUR AMENITY GUIDELINE ........................................ 14
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF ODOUR MODEL ........................................................ 15
3.3.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA............................................................... 15
3.3.2 GEOPHYSICAL DATA ........................................................................ 16
3.3.3 ODOUR EMISSION RATES ................................................................ 17
3.3.4 ODOUR SOURCE REPRESENTATION............................................. 19
3.4 ODOUR MODELLING RESULTS.............................................................. 20
3.5 SUMMARY OF ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................. 21
4.0 DUST IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 22
4.1 DUST ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .................................................. 22
4.2 RELEVANT DUST GUIDELINES ............................................................. 22
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF DUST MODEL ............................................................ 22
4.3.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA............................................................... 22
4.3.2 GEOPHYSICAL DATA ........................................................................ 23
4.3.3 DUST EMISSION RATES.................................................................... 23
4.3.4 DUST SOURCE REPRESENTATION ................................................ 23
4.3.5 AMBIENT DUST CONCENTRATIONS ............................................. 24
4.4 DUST MODELLING RESULTS ................................................................. 24
4.5 SUMMARY OF DUST IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................... 26
5.0 TOP FORESTRY ROAD DUST .......................................................... 27
6.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 28
FIGURES
ATTACHMENTS
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 4
MWA Environmental
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
MWA Environmental has been engaged by W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd to prepare
a Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment for a proposed development of eight
(8) poultry growing sheds at Ridgewood.
The assessment has addressed the following issues:
• Noise Impact Assessment
• Odour Impact Assessment
• Dust Impact Assessment
The impacts of the proposed development have been assessed against the
following relevant Policies and Guidelines:
• Queensland Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008
• Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008
• Queensland Ecoaccess Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from
Developments
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site has a real property description of Lot 21 on SP226606 and a
street address of 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood.
The site is approximately 7 kilometres west of Cooroy.
The location and extent of the subject site is shown on Figure 1.
The site is currently operated as a commercial avocado farm with extensive
terracing off ridgelines throughout the site. The use of the site for commercial
horticulture is proposed to continue in conjunction with the broiler farm.
The topography of the site is comprised of a main ridgeline running generally
north-south through the centre of the site, with several smaller ridgelines
branching off to the west.
The current nature of the site is shown on the aerial photograph included as
Figure 2.
Ridgewood 12-002 1 31 July 2014
Page 5
MWA Environmental 1.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES Land uses surrounding the site are generally rural properties. A number of smaller rural properties are situated to the south of the subject site, along Top Forestry Road. State Forest adjoins the subject site to the west. The subject site and surrounding properties are heavily vegetated which will assist in the dispersion of odour and dust emissions from the proposed poultry sheds. The minimum setback distance between the proposed poultry sheds and a surrounding residence is approximately 850 metres. The majority of surrounding dwellings are elevated above the level of the proposed poultry sheds, with intervening gullies. These topographical features are likely to assist in minimising the impacts of odour and dust emissions from the poultry sheds during the typical worst-case dispersion conditions (i.e. calm, stable conditions) as the odour plume will tend to drain into the gullies rather than be transported directly to elevated residential dwelling locations. The surrounding land uses are shown on the aerial photograph included as Figure 2. For the purposes of this assessment twenty-eight (28) of the surrounding residences have been identified as R1 to R28 as shown on Figure 3. 1.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is proposed to construct poultry growing sheds on the subject site as a two stage development. Stage 1 of the development will comprise five sheds (Shed 1 to Shed 5), with the further three sheds (Shed 6 to Shed 8) to be constructed as Stage 2 of the development. This assessment has addressed the impact of the full poultry farm development (i.e. Stage 1 and Stage 2). A stand-alone assessment of Stage 1 was not warranted as noise, odour and dust emissions will all be lower for Stage 1 as compared to the full development. The farm will be accessed via the existing roadway through the site off Top Forestry Road. The sheds are proposed to be 100 to 130 metres long by 16.0 to 16.5 metres wide aligned along the ridgelines through the site. Necessary earthworks to supplement the existing terracing will be undertaken to provide level pads for the sheds and service roadways. Ridgewood 12-002 2 31 July 2014
Page 6
MWA Environmental
The sheds will be constructed to current best practice standards including the
following elements:
• efficient computer-controlled tunnel ventilation system;
• insulated panel roof and wall construction;
• nipple drinkers with spill cups.
The locations of the proposed poultry sheds on the subject site are shown on
Figure 4.
Based upon typical commercial stocking densities, the proposed sheds will have
the capacity to be stocked with 26,800 to 34,840 birds per shed with numbers
thinned at stages during the batch cycle. On the basis that all sheds are stocked
at the same time, the potential number of birds within the farm is in the order of
230,000 birds.
The tunnel ventilation fans for the proposed sheds will be located as follows:
Shed 1: Eastern Wall
Shed 2: South-western Wall
Shed 3: Northern Wall
Shed 4: Southern Wall
Shed 5: Northern Wall
Shed 6: North-eastern Wall
Shed 7: Western Wall
Shed 8: Western Wall
Ridgewood 12-002 3 31 July 2014
Page 7
MWA Environmental
2.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
2.1 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
To characterise the current ambient noise levels at the locality a noise datalogger
was located on the site for an eight day period in February 2012.
The noise datalogger location is shown on Figure 5.
Weather conditions during the monitoring period were variable and included heavy
rainfall and elevated wind speeds on some days. The weather affected periods were
removed from the ambient noise monitoring data prior to analysis. It was also noted
during site inspections that insect (cicada) noise was evident at some locations on
the site. Whilst the noise datalogger was installed at a location that was not affected
by significant insect noise during the day period, the monitoring data was clearly
affected by insect noise during the evening period. Consideration has been given to
this seasonal insect influence in the derivation of background noise levels.
Table 1 below provides the minimum, maximum and average statistical noise levels
recorded at the noise datalogger location.
Table 1: Recorded Range of Datalogger Recorded Noise Levels – dB(A)
17 to 24 February 2012 – 15-Minute Samples
RECORDED STATISTICAL NOISE LEVELS - dBA
PARAMETER PERIOD
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE
Daytime (7am-6pm) 45.7 68.8 60.5
L1 Evening (6pm-10pm) 48.3 58.5 52.4
Nighttime (10pm-7am) 35.0 60.0 49.6
Daytime (7am-6pm) 41.5 65.6 55.5
L10 Evening (6pm-10pm) 46.1 56.9 50.8
Nighttime (10pm-7am) 31.9 55.4 46.2
Daytime (7am-6pm) 34.0 55.8 45.2
L90 Evening (6pm-10pm) 42.2 52.5 46.3
Nighttime (10pm-7am) 29.4 48.5 40.0
Daytime (7am-6pm) 40.0 61.4 53.0
Leq Evening (6pm-10pm) 45.0 55.5 48.8
Nighttime (10pm-7am) 31.3 52.7 44.2
The complete results from the noise datalogger location are presented as a trace of
noise level versus time for the statistical noise level descriptors L1, L10, L90 and Leq in
Attachment 1. The traces presented in Attachment 1 are of the data filtered to
exclude weather and extraneous influences.
Ridgewood 12-002 4 31 July 2014
Page 8
MWA Environmental
The measured Rating Background Noise Levels (RBLs) at the noise datalogger
location, calculated in accordance with the Ecoaccess Guideline: Planning for Noise
Control, are:
7am to 6pm RBL: 39 dB(A)
6pm to 10pm RBL: 45 dB(A) (affected by insect noise) – adopt 36 dB(A)
for purposes of assessment
10pm to 7am RBL: 34 dB(A)
Ridgewood 12-002 5 31 July 2014
Page 9
MWA Environmental
2.2 REVELANT NOISE CRITERIA
Part 4 Section 10 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy (2008) provides
‘controlling background creep’ noise criteria for the assessment of amenity impacts
for an activity involving noise. Considering the nature of noise emissions from a
poultry farm the ‘controlling background creep’ criteria specified for ‘noise that varies
over time’ and for ‘noise that is continuous’ are both relevant, as follows:
10 Controlling background creep
(1) This section states the management intent for an activity involving noise.
Note—
See section 51 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008.
(2) To the extent that it is reasonable to do so, noise from an activity must not be—
(a) for noise that is continuous noise measured by LA90,T—more than nil
dB(A) greater than the existing acoustic environment measured by LA90,T;
or
(b) for noise that varies over time measured by LAeq,adj,T - more than 5dB(A)
greater than the existing acoustic environment measured by LA90,T.
As such, the adopted noise criteria for the assessment of impacts from the proposed
development are that:
• Noise from ventilation fans which operate continuously for extended periods
throughout the batch cycle, measured as the LA90,T, does not exceed the
existing LA90 (background) noise; and
• Noise from catch-out and feed deliveries (including vehicle movements,
forklifts, feed transfer blowers) which operate intermittently for limited periods,
measured as the LAeq,T, does not exceed the existing LA90 (background) noise
by more than 5 dB(A).
As a conservative methodology for determining the design noise limits for the
proposed development, the adopted Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy (2008)
‘controlling background creep’ noise criteria have been assessed based upon the
Rating Background Levels (RBLs) determined in accordance with Planning for Noise
Control guideline (refer Section 2.1).
Ridgewood 12-002 6 31 July 2014
Page 10
MWA Environmental
Consideration has also been given to the potential for catch-out activities and feed
deliveries to cause sleep disturbance if these activities occur at night. The adopted
sleep disturbance criterion is an Lmax noise level of 45 dB(A) within a bedroom.
Considering a noise attenuation of 7 dB(A) through an open window1 this relates to
an external Lmax criterion on 52 dB(A) at surrounding residential dwellings.
The adopted design noise criteria for the various activities and periods of the day
which are specified in Table 2 below were calculated in accordance with the above
methodology.
Table 2: Adopted Design Noise Criteria – dB(A)
ADOPTED
ACTIVITIES ADOPTED CRITERIA PERIOD NOISE LIMIT
BACKGROUND
Queensland LA90
7am to 6pm 39 dB(A)
Environmental 39 dB(A)
Background
Protection (Noise)
+ 0 dB(A)
Ventilation Policy 2008 LA90
assessed as 6pm to 10pm 36 dB(A)
Fans 'Controlling 36 dB(A)
L90 from the
Background Creep':
activity
(a) for noise that is LA90
continuous noise 10pm to 7am 34 dB(A)
34 dB(A)
Queensland LAeq
7am to 6pm 39 dB(A)
Environmental 44 dB(A)
Background
Protection (Noise)
+ 5 dB(A)
Policy 2008 LAeq
assessed as 6pm to 10pm 36 dB(A)
Catch-out 'Controlling 40 dB(A)
Leq from the
Activities & Background Creep':
activity
Feed Deliveries (b) for noise that LAeq
varies over time 10pm to 7am 34 dB(A)
38 dB(A)
LAmax
Sleep Disturbance 10pm to 7am n/a
52 dB(A)
1 AS3671 states approximately 10 dB(A) noise reduction through a façade with 10% open area. Thus
approximately 7 dB(A) noise reduction through a façade with 20% open area. A typical 1200x1800
sliding window relates to approximately 10% open area. A large 2100x2300 sliding glass door
represents approximately 20% open area. Thus, 7dB(A) noise reduction is conservatively adopted
based upon a large sliding glass door in the affected façade. Openings larger than 20% open area are
unlikely to be necessary for ventilation.
Ridgewood 12-002 7 31 July 2014
Page 11
MWA Environmental
2.3 NOISE MODELLING
2.3.1 METHODOLOGY
To enable assessment of noise from the proposed poultry farm, a detailed noise
model has been established using the SoundPLAN 7.3 software applying the
ISO9613 standard. This model is an accepted regulatory model that allows input
of terrain specific data and source noise data as sound power level spectra.
The model was established over an area of 5.5km x 5.5km including the subject
site and the surrounding sensitive receptors. The terrain within the model domain
was derived from 3 arc-second NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
(SRTM) digital elevation data.
The noise modelling undertaken considered meteorological conditions as per the
methodology of the ISO9613 standard, with a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius2
and 70% humidity, a temperature inversion and the following wind conditions as
per the worst-case assumptions of ISO9613:
As such, given the above meteorological assumptions, it is considered that the
results of the noise modelling represent the resultant noise levels of the proposed
development during worst-case noise propagation conditions.
The SoundPLAN 7.3 model was setup to represent noise emissions from the
following scenarios representing continuous ventilation fan noise and intermittent
catch-out and feed delivery noise:
2 Aside from ambient temperature modelled at 25 degrees Celsius for the ventilation fans during
‘high ambient temperature’ scenario
Ridgewood 12-002 8 31 July 2014
Page 12
MWA Environmental
Table 3: Summary of Noise Modelling Scenarios
SCENARIO SOURCES SOURCE TYPE
Point Source (assume Lmax =
Truck Mounted Blower
Leq)
Feed Delivery 3
Truck movement on access
Moving Point Source (Lmax
road (1 two-way movement per
and Leq assessed)
hour at 10 km/h)
Truck movement on access
Moving Point Source (Lmax
road (1 two-way movement per
and Leq assessed)
hour at 10 km/h)
Catchout 3
Point Source (assume Lmax
Forklift at eastern end of sheds
2 dB(A) above Leq)
Shed Ventilation Fans
12 Fans per shed Point Sources (L90 assessed)
(7am to 10pm)
Shed Ventilation Fans
(10pm to 7am at High
10 Fans per shed Point Sources (L90 assessed)
Ambient Temperature
>25oC )
Shed Ventilation Fans
(10pm to 7am at Low
5 Fans per shed Point Sources (L90 assessed)
Ambient Temperature
<10oC)
The modelled noise source locations are shown on the model layout included in
Attachment 2.
2.3.2 SOURCE NOISE DATA
The source noise level for the shed ventilation fans were determined from
measurements undertaken by MWA Environmental at an existing farm modern
poultry farm. The modelled sound power level for the ventilation fans is detailed
in Table 4 below. The directivity of the fans was represented in the model.
3 Leq assessment includes cumulative fan noise
Ridgewood 12-002 9 31 July 2014
Page 13
MWA Environmental
Table 4: Ventilation Fan Sound Power Level Spectra – dB(A)
SOUND POWER LEVEL SPECTRA - dB(A) AP
SOURCE
31Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz 8kHz dB(A)
Ventilation Fan
61.7 74.1 76.8 79.6 86.8 87.4 84.0 76.7 68.3 91.8
(per fan)
Source noise levels for catch-out activities (i.e. forklifts, trucks) and feed
deliveries (i.e. feed transfer blower, truck) were taken from previous
measurements undertaken by MWA Environmental at similar facilities.
The modelled source sound power levels are summarised in Attachment 3.
2.3.3 RESULTS OF NOISE MODELLING
The results of the SoundPLAN 7.3 modelling are provided in Attachment 4 as
contours of predicted resultant noise levels on an aerial photograph base.
The predicted resultant noise levels at the nearest residential dwellings locations
(refer to Figure 3) are summarised in Table 5 below for the ‘continuous noise
sources’ (ventilation fans) and Table 6 below for the ‘intermittent noise sources’
(catch-out activities and feed deliveries).
Ridgewood 12-002 10 31 July 2014
Page 14
MWA Environmental Table 5: Predicted Leo Noise Levels at Surrounding Residences - Continuous Noise Sources (Ventilation Fans) — dB(A) PREDICTED Loo — dB(A) Fans 10pm to | Fans 10pm to ee Fans 7am to 7am High 7am Low els 10pm Ambient Ambient Temperature Temperature R1 27 26 25 Comply R2 25 24 23 Comply R3 25 25 23 Comply R4 25 24 22 Comply R5 26 26 24 Comply R6 29 29 27 Comply R7 23 22 19 Comply R8 22 21 16 Comply RQ 28 27 25 Comply R10 18 17 14 Comply R11 14 13 11 Comply R12 13 12 7 Comply R13 19 19 16 Comply R14 22 21 19 Comply R15 22 22 20 Comply R16 22 21 20 Comply R17 22 21 20 Comply R18 18 17 15 Comply R19 15 14 11 Comply R20 21 21 18 Comply R21 28 28 26 Comply R22 22 21 20 Comply R23 24 23 22 Comply R24 28 27 25 Comply R25 28 28 26 Comply R26 26 25 24 Comply R27 24 23 22 Comply R28 26 25 23 Comply CRITERION 36 34 34 Ridgewood 12-002 11 31 July 2014
Page 15
MWA Environmental
Table 6: Predicted Leq & Lmax Noise Levels at Surrounding Residences –
Catch-out and Feed Delivery including Fan Noise - dB(A)
PREDICTED Lmax – dB(A) PREDICTED Leq – dB(A)
RESIDENCE COMPLY ?
FEED FEED
CATCH-OUT CATCH-OUT
DELIVERY DELIVERY
R1 29 29 28 28 Comply
R2 27 27 26 26 Comply
R3 28 28 26 27 Comply
R4 27 27 26 26 Comply
R5 29 29 27 27 Comply
R6 33 33 30 30 Comply
R7 25 25 24 24 Comply
R8 25 25 23 23 Comply
R9 37 37 29 29 Comply
R10 26 26 20 20 Comply
R11 17 19 15 17 Comply
R12 16 17 13 15 Comply
R13 20 21 20 20 Comply
R14 24 23 23 22 Comply
R15 24 24 23 23 Comply
R16 23 23 23 22 Comply
R17 22 22 22 22 Comply
R18 19 19 19 19 Comply
R19 16 17 16 16 Comply
R20 23 23 22 22 Comply
R21 30 29 29 29 Comply
R22 23 23 22 22 Comply
R23 26 25 25 25 Comply
R24 29 29 28 28 Comply
R25 29 30 29 29 Comply
R26 27 27 26 27 Comply
R27 26 25 25 25 Comply
R28 27 27 27 26 Comply
CRITERION 52 38
The results of the modelling indicate that the adopted noise amenity criteria will
be readily satisfied at all surrounding residences.
Therefore the assessment conducted demonstrates that the proposed poultry
farm can operate without causing unreasonable noise amenity impacts at the
surrounding residences.
Ridgewood 12-002 12 31 July 2014
Page 16
MWA Environmental 2.3.4 DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC NOISE Traffic projections indicate that the proposed development will generate in the order of 4 vehicle movements (i.e. 2 in, 2 out) average per day. This minor traffic generation has no potential to cause any regulatory traffic noise planning levels to be exceeded at residential land uses. The overall impact on the existing acoustic environment from development generated traffic will be negligible. 2.4 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT The noise assessment and modelling conducted indicates that the proposed development will comply with the relevant noise amenity criteria at all surrounding residences. The minor traffic generated by the proposed development has no potential to cause any regulatory noise amenity criteria to be exceeded at residential land uses. As such, it is recommended that the proposed development be approved with reasonable and relevant conditions in relation to noise amenity impacts as would be expected for any development of this nature. Ridgewood 12-002 13 31 July 2014
Page 17
MWA Environmental 3.0 ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 ODOUR ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Detailed odour dispersion modelling has been conducted using the CALMET / CALPUFF modelling system to assess the exposure of surrounding sensitive receptors to odour emissions from the proposed poultry sheds. The modelling has been updated from the November 2012 report in accordance with requests made by Council through the peer review process in 2013. The odour emission rate models and dispersion modelling methods are generally in accordance with the Best Practice Guidance for the Poultry Industry – Plume Dispersion Modelling and Meteorological Processing (PAE Holmes for DEEDI, May 2011). The CALMET / CALPUFF modelling system considers 3-dimensional unsteady state meteorology and is appropriate for modelling pollutant transport on a regional scale and for complex terrain and coastal zones. The CALMET / CALPUFF modelling system simulates the effects of spatially and time varying meteorology on pollutant transport within the model domain, including chemical transformation and removal. CALPUFF considers emissions as a series of puffs that if emitted at a sufficient frequency simulate a continuous emission. This representation of the plume as a series of puffs allows the pollutant transport to vary spatially across the model domain in accordance with the 3-dimensional meteorological field. A site-specific 3-dimensional prognostic meteorological dataset generated by TAPM was processed using the CALMET program to provide meteorological inputs in a form suitable for the CALPUFF dispersion model. The terrain and land use resolution was refined to a 100 metre grid for the CALMET / CALPUFF modelling to ensure a suitable representation of the terrain at the locality. CALMET prepares 3- dimensional meteorological data for each hour of the CALPUFF run based upon the prognostic meteorological data produced using TAPM. The CALMET model was set up within a 10 km x 10 km area surrounding the subject site with the CALPUFF model configured to model dispersion within a 5 km x 5 km area surrounding the subject site. The topography of the subject site and surrounding area was sourced from NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM3) digital elevation data at a resolution of 100 metres. A receptor grid of 100 metre resolution was modelled over the domain. 3.2 RELEVANT ODOUR AMENITY GUIDELINE For the assessment of complex mixtures of odorants, the Queensland Ecoaccess Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from Developments recommends a 2.5 Odour Units 99.5th percentile 1 hour average odour criterion as being appropriate for the assessment of the odour amenity of a residential land use. Ridgewood 12-002 14 31 July 2014
Page 18
MWA Environmental
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF ODOUR MODEL
3.3.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA
No site-specific meteorological data was available for this assessment. In the
absence of site-specific data, following the conventional methodology for
assessment, the TAPM software was utilised to develop a prognostic
meteorological model which generated a year of representative hourly
meteorological data for the subject site. The Year 2008 was selected as a year
relatively consistent with long-term meteorological trends.
A brief analysis of the Year 2008 compared to long-term average conditions at
the nearest Bureau of Meteorology station (Tewantin) is provided in
Attachment 5.
The analysis indicates that the Year 2008 is sufficiently representative of long-
term trends to be applied for the purpose of this assessment. There are
variations in the frequency of winds from various directions and speeds as
compared to long-term averages but these are evident for any year when
compared to long-term averages. The odour objective being assessed relates to
the 44th ‘worst’ 1 hour periods of each year for each receptor location. The ‘worst’
conditions for odour dispersion are typically associated with lower (less than 3
metre per second) wind speed conditions. The analysis indicates that wind
speeds during 2008 were lower than long-term averages and thus may be
considered a conservative year in this regard.
Observed wind speeds and wind directions for the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
stations at Tewantin and Nambour were incorporated into the TAPM model as
assimilation data. Considering topographical influences, Nambour was given a
radius of influence of 5km over 2 vertical levels and Tewantin given a radius of
influence of 15km over 2 vertical levels.
TAPM has been used to predict meteorological parameters specific to the area
surrounding the subject site including temperature, wind speed, wind direction
and stability classification. The model accesses databases of surface
characteristics (terrain height, soil and vegetation) and synoptic weather analyses
provided by CSIRO to carry out these analyses. TAPM is able to process the
output data to produce input meteorology files suitable for input to the CALMET /
CALPUFF modelling system i.e. hourly predictions of meteorological parameters
over a full year and generation of surface, upper air and geophysical data files.
Technical discussion of the model algorithms, inputs and model validation studies
are provided in the Part 1: Technical Paper (Hurley, 2002) and Part 2: Summary
of Verification Studies (Hurley et al, 2002)4,5.
4 Hurley, P.J. (2002) The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) Version 2: User Manual. Aspendale: CSIRO
Atmospheric Research Internal Paper.
5 Hurley, P.J. (2002) The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) Version 2: Part 1: Technical Description.
Aspendale: CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper.
Ridgewood 12-002 15 31 July 2014
Page 19
MWA Environmental
The centre coordinates for the model grid were Latitude -26o27’30” and Longitude
152o51’, representing the central location of the site.
The following nested model grids were applied to the TAPM modelling:
50 x 30km grid (total area 1500km x 1500km)
50 x 10km grid (total area 500km x 500km)
50 x 3km grid (total area 150km x 150km)
50 x 1km grid (total area 50km x 50km)
50 x 300m grid (total area 15km x 15km)
The 300m grid is considered to provide sufficient resolution of the terrain, land
use and soil types at the locality.
Twenty-five vertical grid levels were modelled.
The TAPM model was setup to generate a site-specific meteorological data file
for the locality, based upon synoptic analysis data for the representative Year
2008, as provided by CSIRO.
The TAPM output was processed using the CALTAPM software to produce a 3-
dimensional data file suitable for input to the diagnostic CALMET model as an
‘initial guess field’. The CALMET model further resolved the prognostic
meteorology to a finer terrain, land use and soil type resolution of 100 metres
over a 10 x 10 km area covering the subject site and surrounding region for the
purpose of dispersion modelling.
Analysis of the CALMET derived meteorology for the site including a wind rose,
wind frequency graph, monthly average temperatures graph and tabulated
stability class analysis is contained in Attachment 6.
3.3.2 GEOPHYSICAL DATA
Topographic input data to the CALMET/CALPUFF model was derived from 3 arc-
second NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation data.
The digital elevation data was used to develop a 100 metre terrain grid for input
to the model.
A 100 metre grid spacing land use dataset was generated for input to the
CALMET/CALPUFF model utilising the TAPM database with refinement based
upon review of aerial photography of the site and surrounds to delineate forested
land and cleared areas.
Ridgewood 12-002 16 31 July 2014
Page 20
MWA Environmental
3.3.3 ODOUR EMISSION RATES
The Odour Emission Rate (OER) from a source is ultimately determined by the
odour concentration of air being emitted and the volume of odorous air being
emitted:
OER (OU.m3/sec) = Odour Concentration (OU) x Ventilation Rate (m3/sec)
The variation of the Ventilation Rate within poultry sheds is reasonably well
defined and managed by computer control systems. The following key factors
influence the variation of shed ventilation rate:
• Bird age / target temperature
• Number of birds
• Individual bird mass
• Ambient temperature and humidity
The Odour Concentration within poultry sheds varies significantly depending
upon shed design, ventilation system and farm management standards. The
following key factors influence the odour concentration within poultry sheds:
• Litter moisture content and thus anaerobic biological activity, which is
affected by:
o Frequency of litter replacement
o Water spillage from drinkers
o Effectiveness of drying by ventilation system
o Management (removal) of wet litter
o Litter depth
• Bird body and excrement odour (influenced by feed)
Over many years, various odour estimation methods have been developed and
applied for the purposes of representing emissions from poultry sheds.
An odour estimation method which has been applied to the modelling of
numerous poultry farm developments in South East Queensland in recent years
is the ‘K Factor Method’ developed by Pacific Air & Environment6. This method
estimates odour emission rates based upon the following relationship:
6 Ormerod, R. and G. Holmes (2005), Description of PAE Meat Chicken Farm Odour Emissions Model.
Ridgewood 12-002 17 31 July 2014
Page 21
MWA Environmental
OER = 0.025 K A D V0.5
where:
OER = odour emission rate (OU.m³/s)
A= total shed floor area (m²)
D= average bird density (in kg/m²)
V= ventilation rate (m³/s)
K= scaling factor between 1 and 6 where 1 represents an
extremely well designed and managed shed
Modelled odour emission rates from a poultry shed are varied each hour
depending upon these factors and relevant sub-factors (e.g. ventilation rate
dependent upon bird age, target temperature, ambient temperature etc.).
For the purposes of this assessment, odour estimations have been based upon
the ‘K Factor’ formula with emissions from each shed varied hourly dependent
upon:
• Bird age / target temperature
• Ambient temperature
• Number of birds
• Individual bird mass
Ingham’s has advised that policy for broiler sheds is to maintain compliance with
RSPCA recommendations for bird densities for improved animal welfare. In
order to maintain compliance with RSPCA guidelines, Ingham’s has advised that
all sheds are to be stocked at a maximum initial stocking density of 16.75 birds
per square metre with a maximum target mass density of 32 kg/m2 at any stage
during the growing cycle. MWA Environmental has modelled bird growth and
catch-out profiles in accordance with these stocking specifications.
It is noted that previous modelling undertaken by MWA Environmental was based
upon a stocking density of 18.5 birds per square metre. The new Ingham’s policy
for a maximum stocking density of 16.75 birds per square metre in response to
the RSPCA recommendations will reduce potential bird numbers on-site and
odour emissions from the proposed poultry sheds.
Emissions from the proposed poultry sheds have been based upon a standard
stocking program of all sheds being stocked over a two day period. This default
stocking method is a worst-case assessment for the purposes of odour emissions
as it can result in peak emissions from all sheds occurring simultaneously.
Considering the results of recent monitoring commissioned by MWA
Environmental and programs undertaken by the Queensland Department of
Employment, Economic Development and Innovation at a range of comparable
modern farms in South-East Queensland, it has been assumed that the proposed
modern broiler sheds will achieve a ‘K Factor’ of 2.2 when operated to best-
practice standards.
Ridgewood 12-002 18 31 July 2014
Page 22
MWA Environmental A chart demonstrating the odour emissions from one of the proposed poultry sheds over a year is included as Attachment 7. 3.3.4 ODOUR SOURCE REPRESENTATION Odour emissions from the tunnel-ventilation fans were modelled as point sources located at the appropriate end of each shed and representing the extent of the initial mechanically mixed plume. Thermal buoyancy of the exhaust plume is represented in the dispersion modelling from the target internal temperature of the shed for the specific bird age. Emissions from each of the proposed sheds were represented as a single point source. Ridgewood 12-002 19 31 July 2014
Page 23
MWA Environmental
3.4 ODOUR MODELLING RESULTS
Plots of the model-predicted 99.5th percentile 1 hour average odour concentrations
over the model domain are included in Attachment 8.
The model-predicted 99.5th percentile 1 hour average odour concentrations at the
representative surrounding residences (R1 to R28, refer Figure 3) are summarised in
Table 7 below.
Table 7: Model-Predicted 99.5th Percentile Odour Concentrations
1 HOUR AVERAGE
99.5th PERCENTILE
RECEPTOR
ODOUR
CONCENTRATION (OU)
R1 1.2
R2 0.6
R3 0.6
R4 1.1
R5 0.9
R6 1.2
R7 0.8
R8 1.5
R9 1.4
R10 0.8
R11 1.9
R12 0.9
R13 0.5
R14 0.4
R15 0.4
R16 0.7
R17 0.6
R18 0.5
R19 0.6
R20 0.6
R21 0.8
R22 0.5
R23 0.4
R24 0.4
R25 0.5
R26 0.4
R27 0.5
R28 1.2
The results of the modelling indicate that the proposed eight shed poultry farm can
operate in compliance with the relevant 2.5 Odour Units 1 hour average 99.5th
percentile odour amenity criterion subject to the implementation of best-practice farm
management practices.
Ridgewood 12-002 20 31 July 2014
Page 24
MWA Environmental 3.5 SUMMARY OF ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT The results of the detailed odour modelling indicate that the proposed eight shed poultry farm can be operated in compliance with the relevant odour guideline and thus not cause unreasonable amenity impacts at surrounding sensitive receptors. In order to minimise odour emissions, the poultry farm should be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with industry best-practice standards. On the basis of the assessment conducted, it is recommended that the proposed development be approved with reasonable and relevant conditions in relation to odour amenity impacts as would be expected for any development of this nature. Ridgewood 12-002 21 31 July 2014
Page 25
MWA Environmental
4.0 DUST IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 DUST ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Detailed dust dispersion modelling has been conducted using the CALMET /
CALPUFF modelling system to assess the exposure of surrounding sensitive
receptors to dust emissions from the proposed development.
Ambient dust data from the Queensland DERM has been considered in the
assessment.
Further information on the assessment methodology is provided in Section 3.1
above.
4.2 RELEVANT DUST GUIDELINES
The relevant dust guidelines are those specified in the Queensland Environmental
Protection (Air) Policy 2008, as follows:
Table 9: Applicable Dust Guidelines
AVERAGING
POLLUTANT GUIDELINE SOURCE
PERIOD
TSP Annual Average 90 µg/m3 EPP(Air) 2008
24 Hour Average
PM10 50 µg/m3 EPP(Air) 2008
(6th highest)
PM2.5 Annual Average 8 µg/m3 EPP(Air) 2008
PM2.5 24 Hour Average 25 µg/m3 EPP(Air) 2008
Dust Deposition Annual Average 120 mg/m2/day Common ERA Condition
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF DUST MODEL
4.3.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The dust modelling meteorological data is consistent with that described in
Section 3.3.1 above.
Ridgewood 12-002 22 31 July 2014
Page 26
MWA Environmental
4.3.2 GEOPHYSICAL DATA
The dust modelling geophysical data is consistent with that described in Section
3.3.2 above.
4.3.3 DUST EMISSION RATES
Emissions of dust from the poultry sheds were estimated using the National
Pollutant Inventory publication ‘Emission Estimation Technique Manual for
Intensive Livestock – Poultry Raising, Version 1.0 13 June, 2002’. The National
Pollutant Inventory lists a PM10 emission rate factor for broiler farms of 0.088
kg(PM10)/animal/year. Variable particulate emissions from each shed was
represented for Default Stocking and the Staggered Stocking scenarios.
The relative emissions of Total Suspended Particulates, PM10 and PM2.5 were
derived from information presented by Mirrabooka Consulting7 based upon a
report prepared by Holmes Air Sciences8.
TSP as % of Total Dust: 100%
PM10 as % of Total Dust: 77%
PM2.5 as % of Total Dust: 19% (assumed as half of PM5 fraction
reported by HAS (2003)
The individual particle size fractions were modelled as separate species in
CALPUFF, and then the overall TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were
grouped. This allows the model to more accurately characterise the rate of dust
deposition from the plume.
4.3.4 DUST SOURCE REPRESENTATION
The dust source representation in the model is consistent with that described in
Section 3.3.4 above.
7 Mirrabooka Consulting., 2006. Churchable Broiler Farm Noise, Odour & Dust Impact Study
8 Holmes Air Sciences, 2003. Proposed Broiler Farm at Karuah, Responses to Planning NSW Comments
Ridgewood 12-002 23 31 July 2014
Page 27
MWA Environmental
4.3.5 AMBIENT DUST CONCENTRATIONS
Available ambient air quality monitoring from the Queensland Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) is contained in Ambient Air Quality in
Queensland 2010 Annual Summary and Trend Report. A summary of the
ambient dust data applied to this assessment is provided in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Ambient Dust Data Applied to Assessment
AVERAGING
POLLUTANT AMBIENT SOURCE
TIME
Annual Conservative assumption of double Mountain
TSP 25.2 µg/m3
Average Creek Year 2010 PM10 annual average
24 Hour 75th percentile Mountain Creek Year 2010
PM10 15.4 µg/m3
Average PM10 24 hour average
24 Hour 75th percentile Rocklea Year 2010
PM2.5 6.7 µg/m3
Average PM2.5 24 hour average
Annual
PM2.5 5.5 µg/m3 Rocklea Year 2010 PM2.5 annual average
Average
DUST
- 40 mg/m2/day Conservative assumption
DEPOSITION
The ambient dust data applied to the assessment are considered to be
conservative given that the monitoring stations are located in areas in proximity to
higher densities of transportation and industry than is present adjacent to the
subject site.
4.4 DUST MODELLING RESULTS
The model-predicted dust concentrations and deposition rates at the surrounding
residences (R1 to R28, refer Figure 3) are summarised in Table 11 below.
The results of the dust modelling are included in Attachment 9 as plots of the model-
predicted particulate concentrations and deposition rates over the model domain.
Ridgewood 12-002 24 31 July 2014
Page 28
MWA Environmental Table 11: Model-Predicted Dust Concentrations and Deposition Rates Including Ambient TSP Annual “mn Pie Sey foES PM2s Dust GUIDELINE Average 24 Hour our pu Deposition (ug/m) Average PucIg0e puclage (mg/m?/day) (ug/m?) (ug/m’) (ug/m*) AMBIENT INCLUDED 25.2 15.4 6.7 5.5 40 R1 25.3 16.7 74 5.52 40.1 R2 25.3 16.2 7.3 5.51 40.0 R3 25.3 16.2 7.2 5.51 40.0 R4 25.3 16.4 7.2 5.51 40.0 R5 25.3 16.1 7.1 5.51 40.0 R6 25.3 16.3 7.2 5.52 40.0 R7 25.3 16.1 7.0 5.51 40.0 R8 25.3 16.9 7.3 5.52 40.1 RQ 25.3 16.7 7.2 5.52 40.1 R10 25.3 16.2 7.0 5.52 40.0 R11 25.4 17.0 7.3 5.53 40.1 R12 25.3 16.2 7.2 5.52 40.0 R13 25.2 15.9 6.9 5.51 40.0 R14 25.2 15.8 6.9 5.51 40.0 R15 25.2 15.7 6.8 5.51 40.0 R16 25.2 15.7 6.9 5.51 40.0 R17 25.2 15.8 6.9 5.51 40.0 R18 25.2 15.8 6.8 5.51 40.0 R19 25.3 15.9 6.9 5.51 40.1 R20 25.3 15.9 6.9 5.51 40.1 R21 25.3 16.3 7.0 5.52 40.2 R22 25.3 16.0 6.9 5.51 40.1 R23 25.3 16.0 6.9 5.51 40.1 R24 25.3 15.9 6.9 5.51 40.1 R25 25.3 16.0 6.9 5.51 40.1 R26 25.2 15.8 6.8 5.51 40.0 R27 25.2 15.9 6.9 5.51 40.0 R28 25.3 16.2 7.1 5.52 40.0 Guideline 90 g/m? 50 g/m? 25 g/m? 8 ug/m? 120 mg/m?/day The results of the modelling indicate that resultant particulate concentrations and deposition rates will comply with the relevant air quality objectives at surrounding residences. As such, it is concluded that the proposed poultry farm can operate without causing unreasonable dust nuisance or health impacts at sensitive land uses Ridgewood 12-002 25 31 July 2014
Page 29
MWA Environmental 4.5 SUMMARY OF DUST IMPACT ASSESSMENT The results of the detailed dust modelling indicate that the proposed eight shed poultry farm can be operated in compliance with the relevant air quality objectives and thus not cause unreasonable health or amenity impacts at surrounding sensitive receptors. On the basis of the assessment conducted, it is recommended that the proposed development be approved with reasonable and relevant conditions in relation to dust impacts as would be expected for any development of this nature. Ridgewood 12-002 26 31 July 2014
Page 30
MWA Environmental 5.0 TOP FORESTRY ROAD DUST Top Forestry Road is an unsealed roadway from the site entry point to the intersection with Old Ceylon Road. Observations by MWA Environmental and Lambert and Rehbein indicate that the road surface is of a particularly high standard with a well compacted base, likely due to previous high intensity usage by heavy vehicles associated with forestry activities to the west of the subject site. Forestry harvesting use of Top Forestry Road is not occurring at present but may occur in the future. Advice from Lambert and Rehbein is that a traffic count undertaken at the intersection of Top Forestry Road and King Parrot Lane in March 2014 generally showed around 90-100 vehicles per day with a peak of 121 vehicles per day. Assessment of traffic generation rates from the proposed broiler farm use by Lambert and Rehbein forecasts that the site will generate an additional 4 vehicles per day (2 in, 2 out) on Top Forestry Road. This is a relatively minor increase in the traffic and potential dust emission from Top Forestry Road which would not be expected to have any significant effect on potential dust nuisance at residences along the unsealed road. The peak 24 hour traffic volumes forecast to be generated by the broiler farm are in the order of 26 vehicles per day (13in, 13 out) which relates to a peak daily traffic in the order of 25% higher than the current average daily traffic volume. A peak day traffic volume 25% higher than the average daily flow would not be unusual for a rural unsealed road due to fluctuations in traffic associated with agricultural activities, as noted by Lambert & Rehbein from the traffic count data. The overall potential for unreasonable dust nuisance to be caused by approximately 20 days over a year on which the broiler farm will generate more than 20 vehicles per day is minor. On this basis, the relatively low traffic generation forecast for the development would not be expected to cause unreasonable dust amenity impacts at residences in proximity to Top Forestry Road. Dust emission potential from Top Forestry Road may be minimised through appropriate maintenance of the road surface and reduction of heavy vehicle speed. Ridgewood 12-002 27 31 July 2014
Page 31
MWA Environmental 6.0 CONCLUSION MWA Environmental has been engaged by W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd to prepare a Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment for a proposed development of eight (8) poultry growing sheds at Ridgewood. The assessment has addressed the following issues: • Noise Impact Assessment • Odour Impact Assessment • Dust Impact Assessment Ambient noise monitoring was conducted to characterise the existing background noise levels at the locality and to determine the appropriate noise amenity criteria for the assessment. A detailed computer noise model was setup to represent noise emissions from the proposed poultry farm. The results of the modelling demonstrate that the relevant Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 noise amenity criteria will be satisfied at all surrounding residences. Detailed odour modelling indicates that proposed eight shed poultry farm can operate in compliance with the relevant odour amenity guideline subject to the implementation of modern best practice standards for shed construction, ventilation and operational management. Detailed dust dispersion modelling indicates that particulate emissions from the proposed poultry sheds will not exceed the relevant Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 air quality objectives at surrounding sensitive land uses. The relatively low traffic generation forecast for the development would not be expected to cause unreasonable dust amenity impacts at residences in proximity to Top Forestry Road. Dust emission potential from Top Forestry Road may be minimised through appropriate maintenance of the road surface and reduction of heavy vehicle speed. As such, it is recommended that the proposed development be approved with reasonable and relevant conditions in relation to noise, odour and dust emissions and impacts. In order to minimise the potential impact of noise, odour and dust emissions from the proposed poultry farm, it is recommended that the site be operated in accordance with an effective Environmental Management Plan outlining procedures for the implementation of best-practice emissions management. MWA Environmental 31 July 2014 Ridgewood 12-002 28 31 July 2014
Page 32
MWA Environmental FIGURES Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 33
LEGEND
SITE
SWIFT PARK
DRAWING REFERENCES
Cadastral: © The State of Queensland (DERM) DCDB.
COOROY
Br
uc
e
Hi
Rooaadd
gh
w
ay
dss R
CCrr
rrd
oow
w
ford
s
wfo
Be
sA
lli WEST
Ass
raw
GGee
hh
Cr COOROY
Cra
L
vvee
C
ee
BB
Laa
rrss k
u
u
nne
e
RRoo Ro
ttttee
aadd ad
rrffll
y y
d
nnee
LLaa
nnee
Rooaad
tf
tfiirree LLaa
CARTERS RIDGE N
e
eyylloonn R
Rooaadd
SSppii
eeeekk R
C
rr
C
l l
ii C
C
Beell
ad
oyy B
Coooorro
C
Olldd
O
SITE
Ro
RIDGEWOOD 0 1 2
try
kilometres
res
dd
CLIENT
Fo
Rooaa
R
ed
e
ennsseenn W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD
Top JJoorrgg PROJECT
Unnam
CCee RIDGEWOOD
yyll
oonn
Noise and Air Quality
RRoo Impact Assessment
PP
EERWAH VALE Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds
aa
aadd
124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood
dddd
yy
TITLE
MM
Archer
eell
Road
oonn
LOCATION AND EXTENT
LLaa
OF SUBJECT SITE
nne
e
JOB RIDGEWOOD
JOB NO. 12-002
FIGURE 1
DATE 03/07/14 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE 1:65,000 (A4)
REV.
12-002-1
BELLI PARK
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
Page 34
rs
LEGEND
Site Boundary
B
Proposed Poultry Sheds
utte
DRAWING REFERENCES
rfl
y
N Aerial - Nearmap 25/01/10.
La
Cadastral - © The State of Queensland (DERM) DCDB.
Aerial is not orthorectified, overlays are best fit.
ne
s
an
Ev
d
Roa
Ki
ng
ylon
ek
Roa Pa ire
e
d rro itf
re
t p
C
S
C
La
lli
ne
Old
Be
roy
Coo
CLIENT
W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD
PROJECT
RIDGEWOOD
Noise and Air Quality
ad
Impact Assessment
Ro
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds
124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood
try
TITLE
ores
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
pF
OF SUBJECT SITE AND
To
SURROUNDING
Carroon Lane AREA
JOB RIDGEWOOD
JOB NO. 12-002
FIGURE 2
DATE 03/07/14 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE
ad 1:17,000 (A4)
en RoREV. 12-002-2
e ns
Jorg
00 375
375 750
750 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
metres
metres ABN 94 010 833 084
Page 35
rs
B
LEGEND
u
Site Boundary
tte
Proposed Poultry Sheds
rfl
y
Nearest Residences (R1-R28)
La
R28
ne
N
R23 R26 R27 DRAWING REFERENCES
Aerial - Nearmap 25/01/10.
Cadastral - © The State of Queensland (DERM) DCDB.
Aerial is not orthorectified, overlays are best fit.
R22 R24
R25 R28 s
an
Ev
d
R18 R20
Roa
R19 R21 R1
R2
ylon
ek
Roa K ire
e
d itf
re
ing p
C
S
C
Pa
lli
rr
Old
Be
R3 ot
roy
Coo
Lane
R4
R5
R6
R17
CLIENT
R7 W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD
PROJECT
R8 RIDGEWOOD
ad R9 Noise and Air Quality
Ro Impact Assessment
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds
124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood
TITLE
tr y
res
SURROUNDING
o
CRESIDENCES
arroon Lane
p F
To
R10 JOB RIDGEWOOD
FIGURE 3
JOB NO. 12-002
R11 DATE 03/07/14 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE
ad 1:17,000 (A4)
en RoREV. 12-002-3
e ns
Jorg
R16 R15 R12
R14
R13 Max Winders & Associates Pty Ltd tas MWA Environmental
00 375
375 750
750
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
metres
metres ABN 94 010 833 084
Page 36
CLIENT
W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD
PROJECT
RIDGEWOOD
Noise and Air Quality
Impact Assessment
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds
124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood
TITLE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JOB RIDGEWOOD
JOB NO. 12-002
FIGURE 4
DATE 03/07/14 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE 1:2,500 (A3)
REV.
12-002-4
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
Page 37
rs
LEGEND
Site Boundary
B
Proposed Poultry Sheds
utte
D Noise Datalogger Location
rfl
y
N
La
ne
DRAWING REFERENCES
Aerial - Nearmap 25/01/10.
Cadastral - © The State of Queensland (DERM) DCDB.
Aerial is not orthorectified, overlays are best fit.
s
an
Ev
d
Roa
Ki
ng
ylon
ek
Roa Pa ire
e
d rro itf
re
t p
C
S
C
La
lli
ne
Old
Be
roy
Coo
CLIENT
W DONALD MILLIGAN PTY LTD
Datalogger PROJECT
D
RIDGEWOOD
Noise and Air Quality
ad
Impact Assessment
Ro
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds
124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood
try
TITLE
ores
NOISE MONITORING
pF
LOCATIONS
Ca
To
rroon Lane
JOB RIDGEWOOD
JOB NO. 12-002
FIGURE 5
DATE 03/07/14 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE
ad 1:17,000 (A4)
en RoREV. 12-002-5
e ns
Jorg
00 375
375 750
750 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
metres
metres ABN 94 010 833 084
Page 38
MWA Environmental ATTACHMENT 1 Noise Datalogger Results Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 39
Aeq jo owiy = = Po Po Po Po = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa \ | DOA sence o1I—— ol1—— b1— 7107-94-21 - 466] eyeq - 200-21 POOmaBbp!yY 10} Sjane7 SION JedNSHeIS papsooey Ge 0€ SE Ov Sv os SS 09 so OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 40
Aeq jo owiy 7107-94-81 - 4a66o] eyeq - Z00-z1 Poomabply 10} sjane7 aSION jedNsHeIS papsooey yp MP MY WD &= = se Be Be ee ee x 7 2 2 9 Py 2 a = 2 ~ = 2 2 9 ” 2 a - 2 ny 7 ° a aaa iaa aaa aaaiaa aaa a aaa a aia ih PA a Ay ae VV VN, AJ VAAL / IN fh V \ \ / LAJ Vv ] SC OTTTKRY s9 OZ Does — QET———— —§ s OLT—— Ss FT —— (w)aP - dS
Page 41
GLE? Gb:oe Sile t GL:02 SL6L SL8L SLOL GLSL t SEL t SELL Aeq jo owiy = t SLEL nm S oa E SELL t SLOL r Sb6 r Gb:8 r GbZ r Gb:9 r Gb:S r Skv r GLE r Ske r Sk:b SL:0 DOA sence o1I—— ol1—— b1— 7107-94-61 - 4660] eyeq - 200-2} POomabply 10} sjane7 asION jedNsHeIS papsooey Ge OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 42
Aeq jo owiy = = Po Po Po Po = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa Does — QET———— —§ s OLT—— Ss FT —— 7102-94-02 - 40660] eyeq - Z00-Z1 Poomabply 10} Sjane7 asION jedNsHeIS papsooey Ge 0€ SE Ov Sv os SS 09 so OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 43
Aeq jo owiy = = rho ro ro ro = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO 4 4 4 4 4 4 u 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 au au 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa DOA sence o1— o— nW4— ZL07-494-12 - 4066] eyeq - 200-71 POOMaBbprY 10} SjaA97 BSION [edNSHe}S papsooey Ge OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 44
Aeq jo owiy = = rho ro ro ro = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO 4 4 4 4 4 4 u 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 au au 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa DOA sence o1— o— nW4— 7102-94-22 - 1066o] eyeq - 200-71 POOmaBbpryY 10} SjaA97 ASION [edNSHe}S papsooey Ge 0€ SE 09 so OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 45
Aeq jo owiy = = rho ro ro ro = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO 4 4 4 4 4 4 u 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 au au 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa LN V4 ~/ DOA sence o1— o— nW4— Z102-494-€2 - 106Ho] eyeq - 200-71 POOMaBHprY 10} Sj2A97 ASION [edNSHe}S papsooey Ge 0€ 09 so OZ (w)aP - dS
Page 46
Aeq jo owiy = = rho ro ro ro = = = = = = = = wo nN + oO o oo “NI oD oa os wo nm + oO o oo “NI @ oa aa wo nm =- oO 4 4 4 4 4 4 u 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 au au 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa oa \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Sz 0€ GE y s9 OZ DOA sence o1— o— nW4— Z102-494-rz - 106K] eyeq - Z00-71 POOMaBprY 10} Sj2A97 ASION [edNSHe}S papsooey (w)aP - dS
Page 47
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 2
SoundPLAN 7.3
Model Layout Plans
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 48
R23 R26
R27
R22
R24
R25 R28
R18 R20
R19 R21
R1
R2
R3
R4
Signs and symbols
R6 R5 Cadastral
R17 Shed
Receptor
R7
Point source
R8 Moving point source
Elevation line
R9
Ridgewood 12-002
Model Layout
R10
July 2014
R11
R16
R15
R14 R12
R13
Page 49
Ventilation Fans
Forklift at Sheds A/4
Feed Delivery Catch-out
Blower Forklift
Feed Blower at Sheds
Ventilation Fans
Ventilation Fans Signs and symbols
Cadastral
Shed
Receptor
Ventilation Fans Point source
Moving point source
1 two-way truck
movement per hour
Ventilation Fans
1
tw
o-w
ay
Ridgewood 12-002
tru
ck
m
ov
em
en
tp
er
ho
ur
Source Layout
July 2014
Scale 1:5000
0 25 50 100 150 200
m
Page 50
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 3
SoundPLAN 7.3
Sound Power Levels
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 51
Ridgewood - SoundPLAN Emission Library No Element name Unit 31.5 | 63 | 125 | 250 | 500 1 2 4 8 16 Sum Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz_| kHz | kHz | kHz | kHz | kHz 1| Fan - North Facing dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 2| Fan - South Facing dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 3| Fan - Shed 3 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 4| Fan - Shed 1 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 5| Fan - Shed 2 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 6| Fan - Shed 4 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 7| Fan - Shed 5 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 8| Fan - Shed 6 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1] 76.8] 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0] 76.7| 68.3 91.8 9| Fan - Shed 7 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1| 76.8| 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 10| Fan - Shed 8 dB(A)/unit 61.7| 74.1] 76.8] 79.6| 86.8| 87.4| 84.0| 76.7| 68.3 91.8 11| Car Lmax dB(A)/unit 57.5|_70.2| 80.4| 87.1| 90.3| 87.0] 84.0] 78.4| 69.0 94.0 12| Forklift gas average work dB(A)/unit 81.6| 85.6| 89.6/ 92.6| 95.6| 93.6] 88.6| 83.6 100.0 13| Feed delivery blower dB(A)/unit 61.2| 79.3] 99.3] 94.2| 94.4] 95.1] 93.4| 87.3 103.0 14] Truck Lmax dB(A)/unit 60.9] 77.9] 79.1] 81.9] 87.6] 90.6) 86.4] 81.4} 69.9 99.0 63.9] 79.6] 81.4] 84.9] 89.1] 87.9) 82.9] 76.9] 66.9 67.9| 78.9] 80.9] 87.9} 91.1] 88.9] 82.6] 72.6] 62.9 Max Winders & Associates Pty Ltd GPO Box 3137 Brisbane QLD 4000 AUSTRALIA SoundPLAN 7.3
Page 52
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 4
SoundPLAN 7.3
Predicted Noise Contour Plots
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 53
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW vlog Aine wido} 0} wez suey # WNWIxeyy 200-21 poomabpry BONOS JUIOg + loj\de00y IE peys [7 yeqsepeg —— sjoquwAs pue subis > 8v 8b => > Gv Sy => > ey ey => > 6€ 6€ => > 9€ 9¢ => >€e ee => >0€ 0g => > Le le=> (v)apP ul 06v1 |9A9| BSION
Page 54
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW plo Aine ainyesadwia) jueiquiy ybiy we, 0} wdo, suey # WNWIxeyy 200-21 poomabpry BONOS JUIOg + loj\de00y IE peus 277] yeqsepeg —— sjoquwAs pue subis > Ov 9b => > &y €y=> > Or Ov => > Le Le=> > ve ve=> > Le Le=> > 82 82 => > G2 Ge => (v)apP ul 06v1 |9A9| BSION
Page 55
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW plo Aine ainjyesadwia| jusiquiy MO] we, 0} wdo, suey # WNWIxeyy 200-21 poomabpry BONOS JUIOg + loj\de00y IE peys [7 yeqsepeg —— sjoquwAs pue subis > Ov 9b => > &y €y=> > Or Ov => > Le Le=> > ve ve=> > Le Le=> > 82 82 => > G2 Ge => (v)apP ul 06v1 |9A9| BSION
Page 56
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW vlog Aine @siONn uey Bulpnjou! bay Aiaaljag pee4 200-21 poomabpry gounos julod Bulaoy| @04NOS JUlog ) eS Joydeo9y pays leasepeg sjoquwAs pue subis >1S IG=> > 8V 8y=> > Gr Sy => > ey ey => > 6€ 6€ => > 9€ 9e => >€e €€ => > 0€ 0g => (v)apP ul bey] |9A9| BSION %
Page 57
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW vlog Aine xeuy Aaaljag peed 200-21 poomabpry gounos julod Bulaoy| @04NOS JUlog ) eS Joydeo9y pays leasepeg sjoquwAs pue subis >1S IG=> > 8V 8y=> > Gr Sy => > ey ey => > 6€ 6€ => > 9€ 9e => >€e €€ => > 0€ 0g => (v)apP ul xewy] |9A9| BSION
Page 58
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW vlog Aine @siONn uey Bulpnjou! bay7 inoyajea 200-21 poomabpry gounos julod Bulaoy| @04NOS JUlog ) eS Joydeo9y pays leasepeg sjoquwAs pue subis >1S IG=> > 8V 8y=> > Gr Sy => > ey ey => > 6€ 6€ => > 9€ 9e => >€e €€ => > 0€ 0g => (v)apP ul bey] |9A9| BSION
Page 59
AWINSWNOUIANS. BMW vlog Aine xewy7] jnoysjeg 200-21 poomabpry gounos julod Bulaoy| @04NOS JUlog ) eS Joydeo9y pays leasepeg sjoquwAs pue subis >1S IG=> > 8V 8y=> > Gr Sy => > ey ey => > 6€ 6€ => > 9€ 9e => >€e €€ => > 0€ 0g => (v)apP ul xewy] |9A9| BSION
Page 60
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 5
Analysis of Tewantin Meteorological Data
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 61
g00zm TTOz- 000z (44/w)) paads pum, fe € of 8 of ww @ WW er 4 st e W 6 8 § aus Wog uljueMal 32 00Z PUL TTOZ-000Z 40} speeds pul/m Jo WeIBOISI or a vo oT gt oz (96) a8equaoiad o1-so [| oz-or [| oe -oc or-oc i os-or og -os [| os -o9 J oor-oe (i oor=< [| (sau) daadS GNIM %OL'TT stujed = isv4 LS4M HLYON isva MeL HSL %8T'6T SUED HLNOS, HLYON LsamM 8007 unuemal Wog TLOZ - 0007 unuemal Wog
Page 62
BoM Tewantin 2000 - 2011 Percentage (%) 30 25 20 15 10 Histogram of Wind Speeds for 2000-2011 at Tewantin BoM site 0 2 4 5 8 9 1 13 15 17 18 21 22 24 26 28 30 31 33 35 37 39 Wind Speed (km/hr) 2003 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 <= «=m All Years Percentage (%) 30 25 20 1s 10 Histogram of Wind Directions for 2000-2011 at Tewantin BoM site 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Wind Direction (°) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011. <= = All Years
Page 63
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 6
Analysis of CALMET -Generated Site Meteorological Data
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 64
Table A6.1 Seasonal wind roses predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for 2008.
Summer Autumn Key
Calms 3.1% Calms 1.77%
Winter Spring Annual
Calms 3.67% Calms 3.62% Calms 3.03%
Page 65
Table A6.2 Diurnal wind roses predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for 2008.
00:00 – 05:00 06:00 – 11:00 Key
Calms 5.51% Calms 3.32%
12:00 – 17:00 18:00 – 23:00 Annual
Calms 0.91% Calms 2.37% Calms 3.03%
Page 66
Wind Class Frequency Distribution 55 50 TT TT 45.4 Calms 1.00 - 2.00 3.00 - 4.00 5.00 - 6.00 8.00 - 10.00 0.50 - 1.00 2.00 - 3.00 4.00 - 5.00 6.00 - 8.00 >= 10.00 Wind Class (m/s) Figure A6.3 Wind speed frequencies predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for 2008.
Page 67
35
30
25
Temperature ( C)
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Key
Whiskers = Minimum and Maximum
Box = 5th to 95th percentile
Dot = Mean
Figure A6.4 Monthly average temperatures predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for
2008.
50.0
46.7
45.0
40.0
35.0
29.8
30.0
Percentage (%)
25.0
20.0
15.0
11.5
10.0 8.8
5.0
1.8 1.4
0.0
A B C D E F
Stability Class
Figure A6.5 Stability Class Distribution predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for 2008.
Page 68
Mixing Height (m) 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key Whiskers = minimum and maximum Box = 5" to 95" percentile Dot = Mean 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Figure A6.6 Mixing Heights predicted for the Ridgewood site using CALMET for 2008.
Page 69
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 7
Graph of Hourly Odour Emissions Profile over 1 Year
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 70
Standard Stocking - Shed 1 Odour Emissions - 16.75 birds m² Initial Stocking Density
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
Odour Unit Emission Rate (ou/s)
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Page 71
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 8
Model-Predicted 99.5th Percentile Odour Contours
Standard Stocking Scenario
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 72
Odour contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A1 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
1-hour
Odour 2.5 odour units 12-002 23-07-2014
99.5th
Page 73
MWA Environmental
ATTACHMENT 9
Model-Predicted Dust Concentrations and
Deposition Rates
Ridgewood 12-002 31 July 2014
Page 74
PM10 contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A2 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
PM10 24-hour 6th 50 µg/m³ 12-002 23-07-2014
Page 75
PM2.5 contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A3 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
PM2.5 24-hour 25 µg/m³ 12-002 23-07-2014
Page 76
PM2.5 contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A4 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
PM2.5 Annual 8 µg/m³ 12-002 23-07-2014
Page 77
TSP contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A5 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
TSP Annual 90 µg/m³ 12-002 23-07-2014
Page 78
Dust Deposition contours from the Poultry Sheds for Standard Stocking Scenario
Averaging
Figure A6 Pollutant Guideline Units Job Date
Period
Dust
24-hour 120 mg/m2/day 12-002 23-07-2014
Deposition