View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
August 2016 | Page 1 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
Prepared for South West Group
August 2016
Project Number TW16002
Asset Management | Civil Engineering | Environmental Services | GIS & Spatial Intelligence | Waste Management
August 2016 | Page 2
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Version Description Date Author Reviewer
0a Internal Review 10/5/16 RPC RMC
1a Released to Client 18/5/16 RPC RMC
1b Internal Review 21/7/16 RPC RMC
2a Released to Client 21/7/16 RPC RMC
3a Client Feedback Incorporated 4/8/16 RPC RMC
Approval for Release
Name Position File Reference
Ronan Cullen Director & Waste Management
Section Leader TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Signature
Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and cannot be
used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from Talis Consultants Pty
Ltd.
August 2016 | Page 3
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2 Regional Waste Management Strategy and Optimum Location ............................................ 3
2.1 Method 1 – Equidistance Model ........................................................................................... 4
2.2 Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Landfill Location ............................................................. 5
3 Modern Waste Management Facility ...................................................................................... 7
3.1 Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................................................. 7
3.2 Modern Waste Management Facility Schematic Layout ...................................................... 7
3.2.1 Entry Point .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Reuse Shed ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.3 Community Recycling and Drop off Facilities ................................................................... 8
3.2.4 Materials Recovery Facility ................................................................................................ 8
3.2.5 Resource Recovery Facilities ............................................................................................. 8
3.2.6 Engineered Landfill............................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Development Timeframe ...................................................................................................... 9
4 Site Selection Process ........................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Site Selection Criteria .......................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Geospatial Model ............................................................................................................... 14
4.3 South West Group Workshop 1 ............................................................................................ 15
4.4 Identification of Areas of Interest ......................................................................................... 15
4.5 Sites of Interest .................................................................................................................... 16
4.6 South West Group Workshop 2 ............................................................................................ 16
4.7 Evaluation of Sites of Interest ............................................................................................... 16
4.8 Preferred Sites ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.9 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.10 Future Tasks ......................................................................................................................... 16
5 Area of Interest ..................................................................................................................... 17
August 2016 | Page 4
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
5.1 Optimum Location ............................................................................................................. 17
6 Sites of Interest ...................................................................................................................... 18
7 Multi Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................................ 20
7.1 Aspects and Criteria ........................................................................................................... 20
7.2 Weightings and Scoring ...................................................................................................... 20
7.3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 22
7.3.1 Crown Vs Freehold Rankings ........................................................................................... 23
7.4 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24
7.5 Preferred Sites ..................................................................................................................... 25
8 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 27
8.1 Highest Ranked Sites Commentary ..................................................................................... 27
8.2 Tenure ................................................................................................................................. 28
8.3 Phase 2 Detailed Site Investigations and Feasibility Assessments ........................................ 29
9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 30
Tables
Table 3-1: Project Delivery Phases
Table 4-1: Site Selection Criteria
Table 4-2: Geospatial layers and authors
Table 6-1: Sites of Interest for further evaluation
Table 7-1: Summary of Multi Criteria Analysis aspects and criteria
Table 7-2: Ranking of Sites of Interest
Table 7-3: Ranking of Crown Land Sites of Interest
Table 7-4: Ranking of Freehold Land Sites of Interest
Table 7-5: Scenario Weightings for Sensitivity Analysis
Table 7-6: Sensitivity Analysis Results
Table 7-7: Preferred Sites Warranting Further Investigation
August 2016 | Page 5
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Diagrams
Diagram 1-1: Participants of the South West Group
Diagram 2-1: Waste Management Hierarchy
Diagram 2-2: Equidistance Model
Diagram 2-3: Hypothetical Regional Landfill Model
Diagram 3-1: Project Timeline
Diagram 4-1: Site Classification System
Diagram 4-2: Site Selection Process
Figures
Figure 1: Typical Landfill Schematic Layout
Figure 2: Typical Community Recycling Centre Schematic Layout
Figure 3: Area of Interest
Figure 4: Sites of Interest
Appendices
Appendix A: Multi Criteria Analysis
August 2016 | Page 1
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
1 Introduction
The Bunbury-Wellington Group of Councils, Capes Regional Organisation of Councils and the Warren
Blackwood Group of Councils, collectively titled the South West Group, consist of the Local
Government Authorities (LGAs) shown in Diagram 1-1. Significant growth has been experienced across
the Region particularly in the LGAs along the coastline. The draft South West Regional Blueprint (the
Blueprint) forecasts that this growth will continue, reaching an estimated regional population of
500,000 by 2050. This population growth presents both a challenge and opportunity in relation to
waste management across the region.
Diagram 1-1: Participants of the South West Group
It is widely regarded that regional collaboration is an effective solution for efficient waste management
systems. Through collaboration, greater volumes of waste are generated, presenting economies of
scale to support options that may not be feasible at an individual LGA level. These collective options
can provide best practice services and/or support compliance with Government legislation and
policies. These merits are well recognised by members of the South West Group with a number of
members facing similar waste management challenges.
Consequently, in 2014 Talis Consultants Pty Ltd (Talis) was commissioned by the South West Group to
prepare a Regional Waste Management Strategy in order to assess strategic options for long term
August 2016 | Page 2
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
regional waste management solutions that provide more sustainable solutions for current and future
generations.
A key finding of this Regional Waste Management Strategy was that, the South West Group relies on
landfilling for the majority of waste disposal requirements, and that there will be a continued need for
this in the future, even with resource recovery options in use. However, none of the currently operating
landfills managed by the South West Group, are adhering to best practice siting and design standards
as set out in the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) Best Practice Environmental
Management (BPEM) for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills Guidelines (Best
Practice Landfill Guidelines). As non-compliant landfill operations such as this are becoming
progressively scrutinised by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) it was identified that there
is a legitimate need for the South West Group to control a landfill adhering to Best Practice Landfill
Guidelines.
Therefore the Regional Waste Management Strategy published in July 2015, made a key
recommendation that the South West Group:
‘7. Further progress the Waste Disposal Strategy concept of a Regional Landfill by undertaking the
following:
Site Selection Study focussing on the Optimum Location identified within the Regional Waste
Management Strategy;
Undertake a Technical and Financial feasibility assessment of the Preferred Sites.’
As a result of this recommendation, the South West Group has engaged Talis Consultants to undertake
a Site Selection Study with the objective of selecting a suitable site for a modern waste management
facility.
This report outlines the works completed and key findings arising from the Site Selection Process with
the key objective of identifying Preferred Sites that warrant further, more detailed consideration.
August 2016 | Page 3
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
2 Regional Waste Management Strategy and Optimum
Location
As mentioned in Section 1, the Regional Waste Management Strategy was prepared in order to assess
strategic options for long term regional waste management solutions. This will assist the South West
Group shift towards a more sustainable consumption cycle, reduce the environmental footprint of the
treatment of residues through best practice disposal and give consideration to the long term waste
management implications of the forecasted population in 2050.
A variety of potential Strategic Options were identified across the various levels of the Waste
Management Hierarchy to assist the South West Group in progressing towards more sustainable waste
management systems. The Waste Management Hierarchy (Diagram 2-1) is an internationally
adopted principle and concept which lists waste management options in order of preference
according to their sustainability and environmental impacts.
Diagram 2-1: Waste Management Hierarchy
As stated in the Regional Waste Management Strategy, the disposal of waste through landfilling is the
least preferred approach to waste management in accordance with the Hierarchy. However even in
the best performing resource recovery systems a portion of residue waste will always require landfilling
following any resource recovery process. This includes residues produced from thermal Waste-to-
Energy facilities such as fly-ash and bottom ash. In addition, disposal was identified as the main waste
treatment method within the Region for a variety of reasons including relatively small volumes and
cost.
The Regional Waste Management Strategy outlined that the DER currently assesses the compliance
of landfill developments in accordance with the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA)
Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) for the Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation
of Landfills Guidelines (Best Practice Landfill Guidelines). This is typically undertaken on a case-by-case
basis depending on a variety of factors including evidence of historic environmental pollution or
seeking approval for expansion of existing landfill cells. This has been evident across the Region over
the last five years or so. However, there is the potential that the DER will begin to adopt a blanket
approach to enforcing compliance with the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines across all landfills.
August 2016 | Page 4
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
To determine the most suitable approach for the South West Group regarding the development of
landfills within the Region, a financial assessment of the aspects of establishing a Local or Regional
Landfill was undertaken. It was identified that for a LGA to develop a landfill in accordance with the
Best Practice Landfill Guidelines by itself catering for 15,000 tonnes per annum, it will cost
approximately $150per tonne of waste, considering both capital and operational costs. The total cost
per tonne to develop, own and manage a Regional Landfill by all within the South West Group could
cost $28 per tonne of waste. The difference between a Local Landfill and Regional Landfill cost is
therefore $122 per tonne. The significant savings generated within the Regional Landfill model arise
from the economies of scale that are produced when the capital and operational costs are spilt
amongst a group of LGAs. In particular, the savings achieved via the split of the operational costs are
far greater than the capital costs across the life of the landfill.
To identify the most preferred location for the development of a Regional Landfill in the South West
Region, Talis utilised two approaches to determine a suitable location to concentrate further site
investigation works:
1. Method 1 – Equidistance Model; and
2. Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Site Model.
2.1 Method 1 – Equidistance Model
In order to further investigate the sources of waste generation within the South West Region, Talis utilised
data from ABS to determine the location of key population nodes. These population nodes provided
additional geographical information as to the location of waste generation. Utilising the population
nodes and the waste generated per capita for each LGA in the South West Group, Talis calculated
the quantity of waste (not including recyclables) produced within each population node.
Talis investigated a Regional Landfill situated at an equal distance from each of the LGA population
nodes. Therefore, a logistics model was developed which assumed that each LGA travels the same
annual distance relative to the total quantity of waste produced in the LGA.
The final Equidistance Model demonstrated that a Regional Landfill positioned off the Swan Coastal
Plain, and located so that each LGA within the South West travels the same total distance per annum,
cannot exist. As shown in Diagram 2-2, this occurs because there will always be a situation where a
participant will be required to travel further than another participant due to the variances with the
volume of waste that the LGAs generate and their individual location. Therefore, Talis investigated a
variety of hypothetical landfill locations to determine a preferred area for a regional facility utilising the
Hypothetical Regional Site Model.
August 2016 | Page 5
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Diagram 2-2: Equidistance Model
2.2 Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Landfill Location
The Hypothetical Regional Site Model determined the distance to the six Hypothetical Locations shown
in Diagram 2-3 below, from key population nodes within the South West. The total annual distance
travelled to and from each Location was calculated based on the number of trips required to transport
the annual quantity of waste produced by each LGA. The results of the calculations showed that the
total distance travelled to Location 3 is the smallest, followed by Location 2 and then Location 4
(Banksia Road Landfill).
Further forecasting analysis was also undertaken taking into account including long term waste
generation trends up to the year 2050. The analysis demonstrated that over time Locations 3 and 2
continued to be favourable positions for a Regional Landfill, while the scoring for Location 4 (Banksia
Road Landfill) was reduced. This was a result of a greater percentage of the total tonnes produced by
the LGAs of the CAPEROC in the years following 2020.
Therefore, Location 3 was identified as the most ideal distance from each of the LGAs currently and
in the longer term. However, Location 3 was placed on the Swan Coastal Plain to demonstrate its
effect on the model and it was anticipated that in reality a new best practice landfill would not be
supported by the DER on the Swan Coastal Plain. Therefore, Location 2 was identified as the most
suitable location for a regional landfill based on the distances travelled by each LGA to the facility.
August 2016 | Page 6
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
As discussed in Section 5, identifying this Optimum Location was critically important in determining the
Area of Interest for this Site Selection Study.
Diagram 2-3: Hypothetical Regional Landfill Model
August 2016 | Page 7
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
3 Modern Waste Management Facility
While this report is primarily focused on the identification of a site for a Regional Landfill, it is anticipated
that the selected site arising from this Study will incorporate complimentary waste management
facilities and initiatives that address the relevant levels of the Waste Management Hierarchy. A site
such as this is best described as a Modern Waste Management Facility, as landfilling operations form
only part of the sites activities.
However, it should be noted that the exact number of facilities and initiatives that will exist on the
selected site has not be determined. The Equidistance and Hypothetical Regional Site Models showed
that the South West Group covers a large geographic area and as such is limited by the tyranny of
distance. Therefore, the Regional Waste Management Strategy recommended that the South West
Group consider the development of a network of Local, Sub-Regional and Regional infrastructure and
services that combine to form a Regional Waste Management System that is efficient, cost effective
and achieves environmental desires.
This section provides an outline of a modern waste management facility and the phases and
timeframe for the delivery of such a facility.
3.1 Waste Management Hierarchy
As stated previously, the Regional Waste Management Strategy assessed a variety of potential
Strategic Options across the various levels of the Waste Management Hierarchy to assist the South West
Group in progressing towards more sustainable waste management systems. The Waste
Management Hierarchy (Diagram 2-1) is an internationally adopted framework which lists waste
management options in order of preference according to their sustainability and environmental
impacts.
As shown in Diagram 2-1, options which achieve outcomes higher up the Waste Management
Hierarchy are preferred over those located further down the Hierarchy.
Avoid and Reduce relate to waste minimisation and are normally implemented through waste
education and government policies and programmes. Some modern waste management facilities
have Education Centres to support these programmes and describe the activities at the site which
include Reuse, Recycling and Recovery as a means to minimise the quantity of waste sent to the
landfill for Disposal.
3.2 Modern Waste Management Facility Schematic Layout
Figure 1 shows a typical schematic layout of a modern waste management facility. The optimum
size of the site for the facility is approximately 100 Hectares (ha). A typical modern waste management
facility comprises the key elements outlined in the following sections.
3.2.1 Entry Point
Access to the site is controlled at a gatehouse and weighbridge with an adjoining administration
building. It is important that modern waste management facilities are secure and that all waste that
enters the site is inspected, weighed and recorded. The data collected is needed for management
of the site, regulatory compliance reporting and for future waste management planning. The entire
site will be fenced to control access.
3.2.2 Reuse Shed
As Reuse and Recycling are near to top of the Waste Management Hierarchy, facilities promoting
these activities are the first to be accessed by the public when entering the site. There is the potential
August 2016 | Page 8
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
for Reusable material including household goods and other second hand items to be dropped off or
purchased at a Reuse Shed.
3.2.3 Community Recycling and Drop off Facilities
Recycling is the most common method of diverting waste from landfill in Western Australia. To support
this process, Community Recycling and Drop off Facilities are provided to accept and consolidate
recyclable materials from the community for future recycling. The Community Recycling and Drop
off Facilities accepts a range of materials including paper and packaging materials, scrap metal and
greenwaste. In addition, the facility also accept household hazardous and problematic waste
streams including paints, batteries, tyres and wastes that are destined to go to landfill cells. A typical
layout of a Community Recycling and Drop off Facility is provided in Figure 2.
In accordance with best practice principles, a Community Recycling and Drop off Facility is located
at the front of larger waste facilities such as landfills. This is to separate the public access from the
other operational areas of the site. After all the recycling options, modern Community Recycling
Centres provide disposal services to the community for refuse material which cannot be recycled.
One key element of this approach is to control access to the landfill cells in the interests of public
safety and minimise the size of the tipping face.
3.2.4 Materials Recovery Facility
A Materials Recovery Facility processes and bales the recyclable materials (paper, plastics, metals)
arising from the kerbside recycling collections.
At the time of writing, there is currently two Materials Recovery Facility located within the South West
Region. The Warren Blackwood Waste Materials Recovery Facility is located on Gandy Street in
Manjimup and caters for the Shire’s of Augusta-Margret River, Bridgetown-Greenbushes, Donnybrook-
Balingup, Manjimup and Nannup. The second MRF within the South West is located in Picton, and was
previously operated by Perthwaste. However, this facility was recently purchased by Suez and is no
longer operating as a MRF. It is understood that the facility is operating as a waste transfer station, to
support the transport of materials to Suez’s MRF located in Bibra Lake.
It may be possible for a Materials Recovery Facility located on site to service the needs of a number
of LGA’s within the South West Group, however as stated previously this will have to be considered as
part of the development of a network of Local, Sub-Regional and Regional infrastructure and services.
3.2.5 Resource Recovery Facilities
Resource Recovery is an important component of the waste diversion activities at the waste
management facility. Designated areas are required for stockpiling and processing of greenwaste
and inert materials, including sand, concrete and metals. There may also be provision of areas for
the development of a specialist facility for the recovery of energy or other valuable products (subject
to their viability).
3.2.6 Engineered Landfill
Disposal of waste will occur in landfill cells that are designed, constructed and operated to best
practice standards. The applicable standard in Western Australia is the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines
published in 2015.
The landfill cells will be lined with a composite containment system including a leachate collection
system which works to prevent contamination of the underlying soil and ground water. The collected
leachate will be transferred to a lined leachate evaporation pond for treatment through evaporation.
August 2016 | Page 9
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Leachate sprays will be used within the leachate evaporation pond and for recirculating into active
landfill cells to promote evaporation of leachate.
Combustible landfill gas generated in the landfill cells will also be collected and discharged into the
environment in a controlled manner. If sufficient quantities of landfill gas are generated, it could be
captured and flared or even used to generate electricity.
Cells that have been filled with waste will be covered with a capping layer comprising an impervious
liner to prevent water intrusion into the cell that would contribute to the generation of leachate. A
restoration soil layer suitable for supporting vegetation growth will be then laid over the impervious layer
to protect it. The surface of the capping layer will be constructed to a grade to drain stormwater and
to support revegetation.
3.3 Development Timeframe
The delivery of modern waste management facilities can be a long and complex process. The
process is generally categorised into five key Phases which are detailed below in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Project Delivery Phases
Phase Key Tasks
Phase 1: Site
Selection
Assessment of Sites of Interest identified through Site Selection Study to determine
Preferred Site(s) on which to commence Site Investigations.
Phase 2: Site
Investigations
& Feasibility
Assessment
Undertaking detailed Site Investigations on Preferred Site(s) to gather site specific
data, including but not limited to:
Groundwater (hydrogeological);
Soil types (geotechnical); and
Ecology (flora and fauna).
In addition, a full Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment will be carried
out to gather all publically available data on the sites. These works will assist in
determining a Selected Site that will be carried through to the Approvals Phase
and will also assist in gathering relevant design and approval data.
Phase 3:
Approvals
The South West Group will collect the relevant data and prepare the required
documentation to support the relevant Environmental and Planning Approvals
required for the Selected Site including:
Environmental Impact Assessment through Referral to the Environmental Protection Agency;
Planning Approval from the relevant LGA’s Planning Department; Building Licence from the relevant LGA; Works Approval from the DER for the construction of the facility; and Licence from the DER for the operation of the facility
Phase 4:
Design and
Construction
This Phase will commence with the design of the waste management facility and
the associated site infrastructure. Design documentation including the technical
specifications will be prepared to support the release of a construction tender for
the project. Following the tender process, a preferred contractor will be
appointed to complete the construction works. The design and construction will
need to comply with conditions set through the Approvals Phase.
Phase 5:
Operations
Once the waste management facility has been constructed in accordance with
the relevant approvals, the Shire can commence the operations of the facility
and the acceptance of waste.
The typical project timeline for the delivery of a waste management facility is illustrated in Diagram
3-1.
August 2016 | Page 10
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Diagram 3-1: Project Timeline
SITING
6 months
SITE INVESTIGATIONS & FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
12 months
APPROVALS
12 - 18 months
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
12-18 months
OPERATION
YEAR 4-5
August 2016 | Page 11
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
4 Site Selection Process
The following section outlines the site selection process that has been adopted for this study. The initial
analyses use available data sets and can be described as “desktop” analyses. The final selection of
the site for the modern waste management facility will be based on appropriate on-site testing and
investigations.
To commence the process, a classification system for sites was developed for use throughout the
lifespan of the Study. These are summarised Diagram 4-1.
Diagram 4-1: Site Classification System
Diagram 4-2 provides a schematic of the Site Selection Process developed in consultation with the
South West Group to identify a suitable site for the establishment of a modern waste management
facility and the current phase of this process.
Classification System of Sites
Sites of Interest
Sites of Interest that have been identified
within the Areas of Interest that warrant
further consideration.
Preferred Sites
Following the Multi Criteria Analysis of the
Sites of Interest, Preferred Site(s) are
prioritised.
Selected Site
Detailed Site Investigations and Feasibility
Assessment is carried out on the Preferred
Site(s) and a final Selected Site is chosen.
Area of Interest
Area from geospatial mapping that
may contain Sites of Interest.
August 2016 | Page 12
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Diagram 4-2: Site Selection Process
The initial phase of the process involved defining Site Selection Criteria based on environmental, social
and planning aspects to be used to identify Preferred Sites that warranted further consideration. The
Site Selection Criteria adopted for the Study are shown in Section 4.1.
Following the adoption of Site Selection Criteria, geospatial mapping of the study area was developed
utilising Geographical Information Systems (GIS) spatial modelling. All GIS layers relevant to the Site
Selection Criteria that were readily available were utilised to identify areas and sites that may be of
further interest to the South West Group.
It is important to note that an approach was adopted that followed the path of least resistance for the
Study through compliance with best practice siting principles as much as possible.
Phase 2: Site
Investigations &
Feasibility
Assessment
Phase 1: Site Selection
Current Phase of
Site Selection
Process
Develop Site Selection Criteria
Desktop Assessment - Multi Criteria Analysis
Sites of Interest
Areas of Interest
South West Group Workshop 1
Geospatial Mapping
South West Group Engagement
South West Group Workshop 2
Identification of Preferred Sites
South West Group Select Preferred Sites
Detailed Site Investigations & Feasibility Assessment
Selected Site
August 2016 | Page 13
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
4.1 Site Selection Criteria
As shown in Diagram 4-2, Site Selection Criteria were developed to govern the entire Site Selection
Process. These criteria were defined at the start of the process to ensure they are considered
throughout the project. The Site Selection Criteria consider a range of environmental, social and
planning factors which are listed in Table 4-1 below. They have been utilised in identifying Areas and
Sites of Interest throughout the Site Selection Process. In addition, the Site Selection Criteria form the
basis of the Multi Criteria Analysis undertaken on the Sites of Interest.
Table 4-1: Site Selection Criteria
Aspect Criteria
Size Optimum size of 100 hectares.
Shape / Topography Preferably an existing depression/undulation such as a dry valley and/or manmade void.
Distance from Generators
Regional Facility
Preferably as close as practically possible to the optimum location
(Location 2) defined in the Regional Waste Management Strategy.
Sub Regional Facilities
Preferably centrally located to the major population nodes within:
o The Bunbury-Wellington Group of Councils;
o The Capes Regional Organisation of Councils; and
o Warren Blackwood Group of Councils.
Surrounding Land Uses Preferably supportive or similar surrounding land uses such as: o Agricultural and forestry;
o Extractive Industry;
o Unallocated Crown Land; and
o Reserves.
Ideally suitable for the establishment of a 500m buffer surrounding the
site managed through the Town Planning Scheme.
Land Use Separation Distances
Preferably a separation distance of 2,000m to sensitive land uses;
Minimum separation distance of 1,000m to sensitive land uses;
Minimum separation distance of 3km to aerodrome servicing jet
aircraft; and
Minimum separation distance of 1500m to aerodrome servicing
piston-engine propeller-driven aircraft.
Environmental Separation Distances
Preferably 10m - 20m separation distance to Groundwater;
Minimum 2m separation distance from ground water; and
Minimum separation distance of 100m from Surface Water bodies.
Site Access and Road Network
Preferably direct access from a State Highway / Regional Distributor.
Located less than 5km from a sealed road catering for heavy vehicle
movements.
Preferably waste transport route not through residential/sensitive area.
Land Ownership Preferably Crown and/or Shire Land; Private Land also to be considered; and
Preferably free of Native Title.
Current Site Features Vegetation screening surrounding the boundary of the site. Large cleared areas; preferably including existing infrastructure such
as:
o Water Tank;
o Shed/Building;
o Dam; and
o Sealed internal roads.
Services Existing and/or available connections to: o Electricity grid;
o Telecommunications; and
o Water.
August 2016 | Page 14
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Aspect Criteria
Siting Site not located within the following: o Swan Coastal Plain;
o 100m of a fault line;
o Karst landform area;
o Heritage Listed Area; and
o Public Drinking Water Source Catchment Area.
Preferably site not located within the following:
o Groundwater Recharge Area;
o Conservation Significant / Environmentally Sensitive Areas which
contain:
Threatened Flora;
Threatened Fauna;
RAMSAR Wetland;
Threatened ecological communities;
Priority ecological communities.
o Proclaimed Water Management Area; and
o Area prone to flooding.
Geology Preferably underlying geology of clay material. Readily available construction and operational materials on or
immediately surrounding the site.
It is important to note that some constraints would prohibit the development of a landfill facility, while
others would represent a challenge. In consultation with the South West Group, an approach has
been adopted of following the path of least resistance through compliance with best practice siting
principles.
4.2 Geospatial Model
Based on the Site Selection Criteria adopted, a geospatial mapping model was generated for the
study area which contained a range of environmental, planning and social data layers. The various
layers utilised in the Geospatial Model, along with the relevant sources of the data are listed below in
Table 4-2.
August 2016 | Page 15
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Table 4-2: Geospatial layers and authors
Spatial Layer Layer Author
Wetlands and Surface Water Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW)/Department
of Environment Regulation (DER)/ Landgate
Environmentally Sensitive Areas DPaW/DER
Contaminated Sites DPaW/DER
Cadastral Boundaries (inc. Tenure) City of Busselton/Landgate
Town Planning Scheme Zones City of Busselton/Landgate
Road Network Main Roads Western Australia/Landgate
Topography (elevation) Landgate
Geology Department of Mining and Petroleum
Acid Sulphate Soils DPaW/DER
Threatened and Priority Fauna DPaW/DER
Declared Rare and Priority Flora DPaW/DER
Threatened and Priority Ecological
Communities
DPaW/DER
Groundwater City of Busselton
Surface Water Proclaimed Areas Department of Water (DoW)
Public Drinking Water Source Areas DoW
Floodplains DoW/Landgate
Aboriginal Heritage Department of Indigenous Affairs
European Heritage Heritage Council of WA
Special Control Areas City of Busselton
Airports City of Busselton /Landgate
Ramsar Sites DPaW/DER
National Parks DPaW/DER
Reserves City of Busselton /Landgate
Table 4-2 above is a summary of the key layers utilised for Geospatial Model, but is not considered
an exhaustive list of all layers utilised. In total, it is estimate that close to 300 layers were included in
the complete Geospatial Model.
4.3 South West Group Workshop 1
Following the development of the Geospatial Model, a workshop was held with the South West Group
on the 04/04/16 to discuss the Site Selection Process in detail and to review our proposed methodology
for defining an Area of Interest.
4.4 Identification of Areas of Interest
The Site Selection Process commenced by conducting desktop analysis of the South West study area
to identify an Area of Interest within which Sites of Interest are likely to be found. This was done using
the Geospatial Model and Site Selection Criteria. Details of the Area of Interest identified is presented
in Section 5.
August 2016 | Page 16
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
4.5 Sites of Interest
Following on from establishment of an Areas of Interest, geospatial modelling was conducted to
identify a number of Sites of Interest that were incompatible with the Site Selection Criteria. In addition
to the identified Sites of Interest, the South West Group also nominated three additional sites that
members of the South West Group had previously considered as locations for landfilling operations.
An assessment of these nominated sites against the Site Selection Criteria and Geospatial Model was
conducted and it was found that they did not possess any fatal flaws. Therefore these nominated sites
were then identified as being Sites of Interest which were carried through for assessment. Details of
the selected Sites of Interest are presented in Section 0.
4.6 South West Group Workshop 2
Following the identification of the Sites of Interest, a second workshop was held with the South West
Group on the 02/05/16 to review the Sites of Interest and the draft Multi Criteria Analysis. Important
feedback was provided by the South West Group on key Aspects such as ‘Distance’ and ‘Road Access’.
4.7 Evaluation of Sites of Interest
In order to further filter down and identify Preferred Sites, the Sites of Interest were evaluated to assess
their strengths and weakness. The principle evaluation tool used was a Multi Criteria Analysis. The Multi
Criteria Analysis process assessed the Sites of Interest by scoring each site against Aspects and
Criterion. The Aspects and Criteria were assigned a specific weighting to reflect their relative
importance in determining the Preferred Site(s). The outcome of the Multi Criteria Analysis was a
weighted score for each Site of Interest. The Multi Criteria Analysis and its key findings are presented in
Section 7.
4.8 Preferred Sites
Following the Multi Criteria Analysis, the total weighted score for each nominated Site of Interest was
used to rank the sites from most to least preferred. From this ranking, the South West Group should
select a number of Preferred Sites to be carried through to the Phase 2 Site Investigation works.
4.9 Site Visit
Following the identification of the Preferred Sites, site visits were undertaken to ground proof geospatial
data and assess the Sites where possible. Due to limited site access, site visits are generally only able
to undertake minimal ground proofing of data such as the topographical profiles and vegetation
screening for the Areas of Interest. The most reliable data that can be gathered for a site is through
detailed studies such as Heritage, Hydrogeological and Ecological Surveys. Due to their expense,
studies such as these will occur only for Preferred Site(s) determined through the desk top phase of the
site selection process, thereby minimising the overall cost.
4.10 Future Tasks
The Site Selection Process which determined the Preferred Sites has used currently available high level
data and information which cannot be solely relied upon to provide a detailed understanding of the
conditions on and surrounding a Site of Interest. Therefore the Preferred Sites selected by the South
West Group need detailed on-site investigations and testing to confirm their suitability. This is referred
to as the Phase 2 Site Investigation works.
If the detailed investigations into the Preferred Sites identify one as having a fatal flaw, then it will no
longer be considered a Preferred Site. The remaining Preferred Site(s) will continue to be examined to
determine their suitability as the Selected Site. In addition, the next highest ranked Preferred Site could
be brought forward for consideration into the Phase 2 project works.
August 2016 | Page 17
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
5 Area of Interest
Due to the size of the South West area, a defined Area of Interest was required in order to be able
perform a focused and concentrated analysis. If an Area of Interest was too large or undefined, then
the identification of Sites of Interest would be an inefficient and cumbersome process.
5.1 Optimum Location
As described in Section 2, the Regional Waste Management Strategy endeavoured to identify the
most preferred area for the development of a Regional Landfill in the South West Region. The two
approaches used to determine a suitable location to concentrate further site investigation works were:
1. Method 1 – Equidistance Model; and
2. Method 2 – Hypothetical Regional Site Model.
The Equidistance Model was unsuccessful in identifying a preferred area occurs because there will
always be a situation where a participant will be required to travel further than another participant due
to the variances with the volume of waste that the LGAs generate and their individual location.
The Hypothetical Model was more successful than Method 1 and was able to identify an Optimum
Location, located inland from Capel and off the Swan Coastal Plan, as the most suitable location for
a regional landfill based on the distances travelled by each LGA to the area.
This Optimum Location was utilised in determining the Area of Interest for the Study. As shown in Figure
3, a 25km buffer was applied to the Optimum Location and any area that existed on the Swan Coastal
Plain was removed. The result was a large Area of Interest east off the Swan Coastal Plain
approximately 156,000ha in size which captured two of three nominated sites by the South West
Group. The Area of Interest was identified as possessing the following key characteristics:
Environmental Conservation Areas – It is estimate that close to half of the Area of Interest
consists of Conservation Land managed by the DPAW.
Transport Corridors – There are three major transport routes through the Area of Interest. These
transport corridors travel in a general west to east direction. Two of these major transport routes
follow river streams running down into the Swan Coastal Plain.
Rural Population – While the Area of Interest principally covers a rural area, there still exist a
reasonable dense population in areas outside of the conservation areas.
Hydrology – The Area of Interest sits at a higher elevation that the Swan Coastal Plain and is
characterised by undulating topography. Combined with medium rainfall levels in the region,
this results in a significant number of water features existing across the Area of Interest. It is also
worth noting that there is a strong correlation between natural surface water features and
Aboriginal Heritage Sites.
Threatened and Priority Ecological Communities – A number of Threatened and Priority
Ecological Communities have been identified as occurring along the edge the Area Interest
where it meets the Swan Coastal Plain. The presence of these communities may be a result
of increased environmental surveys in the area due to mining operations.
August 2016 | Page 18
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
6 Sites of Interest
A total of 34 Sites of Interest were identified through the geospatial analysis of the Area of Interest. In
addition, the South West Group nominated three other sites warranting investigation. Geospatial
analysis was also undertaken on these nominated sites to determine which could be carried through
as Sites of Interest. The analysis utilised the Geospatial Model and Site Selection Criteria to determine
the presence of any fatal flaws in the sites that would warrant their exclusion from further consideration.
No fatal flaws were identified as occurring on any of nominated sites.
Therefore a total of 37 Sites of Interest were carried into the Multi Criteria Analysis process are shown
spatially in Figure 4. The 37 Sites of Interest are listed in Table 6-1, including information on:
Site ID Reference;
Area (hectares);
Tenure (# of Parcels);
Centrepoint Latitudes and Longitudes (GDA94); and
Centrepoint Eastings and Northing (MGA zone 50).
It is important to note that a key factor in determining the Sites of Interest was related to the distance
of a Site to a sensitive land use such as a residential property. A 1000m buffer around these land uses
was applied and initially Sites of Interest were identified outside of these buffer areas. However during
geospatial analysis of the model it was identified that acceptable buffers could be achieved by
securing multiple parcels of land of varying tenure type. As a result, a number of the Sites of Interest
identified contain more than one parcel of land within their site boundary, and in some cases multiple
types of tenure within their site boundary, as shown under the heading Tenure in Table 6-1.
August 2016 | Page 19
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Table 6-1: Sites of Interest for further evaluation
Site
ID
Area
(hectares) Tenure (# of Parcels)
Centrepoint
Coordinates
Centrepoint
Coordinates
Longitude Latitude Easting Northing
1 308 Freehold 115.8599 -33.3674 393936 6307396
2 167 Crown (2) 115.7680 -33.4684 385521 6296105
3 121 Freehold (3) 115.8788 -33.4703 395820 6296012
4 89 Freehold (2) 115.7729 -33.5107 386034 6291422
5 380 Crown (7), Freehold (1) 115.7239 -33.5259 381498 6289684
6 103 Crown 115.7227 -33.5367 381408 6288479
7 154 Freehold (2) 115.8839 -33.5439 396378 6287850
8 107 Crown 115.7227 -33.5434 381417 6287743
9 267 Freehold (2) 115.9334 -33.5593 400992 6286191
10 256 Crown 115.7096 -33.5613 380223 6285744
11 346 Crown 116.0019 -33.5665 407364 6285459
12 202 Crown 115.6951 -33.5665 378885 6285147
13 142 Crown 116.0090 -33.5895 408048 6282915
14 149 Crown 116.0063 -33.6081 407810 6280856
15 243 Crown (3) 115.9046 -33.6274 398401 6278617
16 545 Crown 115.6565 -33.6398 375406 6276971
17 140 Crown 115.7959 -33.6456 388341 6276487
18 154 Crown (2) 115.6725 -33.6445 376897 6276468
19 165 Crown 115.7946 -33.6540 388235 6275555
20 236 Crown (4) 115.8317 -33.6546 391668 6275527
21 145 Crown (2), Freehold, Road 115.7055 -33.6613 379977 6274641
22 147 Freehold 115.5475 -33.7326 365441 6266550
23 111 Freehold (2) 115.5352 -33.7465 364324 6264985
24 172 Freehold (2) 115.4814 -33.7463 359338 6264937
25 316 Freehold (3) 115.8162 -33.7555 390362 6264323
26 280 Crown (2), Road 115.4667 -33.7571 357999 6263718
27 194 Crown 115.8211 -33.7667 390835 6263084
28 355 Crown 115.6686 -33.7716 376713 6262376
29 124 Freehold (3) 115.5549 -33.7703 366180 6262376
30 251 Crown 115.8055 -33.7764 389402 6261995
31 136 Crown 115.5889 -33.7815 369353 6261177
32 92 Crown 115.5997 -33.7865 370356 6260631
33 155 Freehold 115.8125 -33.7932 390065 6260138
34 452 Crown 115.6795 -33.8034 377775 6258863
35 174 Crown (2) 115.8270 -33.8094 391430 6258355
36 144 Crown 115.7536 -33.8128 384639 6257901
37 7060 Crown 115.4705 -33.8853 358562 6249510
August 2016 | Page 20
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
7 Multi Criteria Analysis
A Multi Criteria Analysis was undertaken on the 37 Sites to assist in identifying their strengths and
weaknesses and to rank the Sites of Interest in priority order.
7.1 Aspects and Criteria
The Multi Criteria Analysis was based on the Site Selection Criteria which compromise a range of
environmental, technical and financial aspects and associated criteria. The aspects adopted for the
Multi Criteria Analysis were:
Distance;
Road Access;
Buffers;
Area;
Environmental;
Native Vegetation Clearing;
Hydrology;
Topography;
Infrastructure;
Screening;
Procurement;
Native Title;
Heritage; and
Mining Tenements.
Some aspects have a number of criteria assigned, due to multiple considerations needing to be
addressed for that specific aspect. Table 7-1 outlines the various aspects and criteria utilised for the
Multi Criteria Analysis and their respective weighting and scoring system.
7.2 Weightings and Scoring
Each aspect, and by association each criterion, was assigned a weighting in line with its relative
importance when determining a site for the modern waste management facility. For example, based
on the Site Selection Criteria, all Sites of Interest were of a considerable size, and consequently the
weighting for the Area aspect was not considered as important as the distance from the Optimum
Location, which can significantly affect the operational costs over the life of the project.
In some instances it was found that a particular criterion was not helpful in differentiating between the
Sites of Interest, even though it was an important factor that needed to be met by the Selected Site.
When this occurred, the criterion was given a zero weighting. For example, based on the Site Selection
Criteria all Sites of Interest had an appropriate distance from Public Drinking Water Source Area’s
(PDWSA). As a consequence the weighting within the Buffers aspect relating to this criterion was given
a zero weighting, and so, in effect was not used.
A simplistic three level scoring system was adopted for each of the criteria, with three being the most
preferred and one the least preferred. Table 7-1 outlines the various aspects and criteria utilised for
the Multi Criteria Analysis and their respective weighting and scoring system.
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a August 2016 | Page 21
Table 7-1: Summary of Multi Criteria Analysis aspects and criteria
Aspect Weighting Criteria %
Allocation
Adjusted
Weighting
Scoring
3 2 1
Distance 11.00 Distance from Optimum Location 100.00% 11.00 30 km
Road Access 13.50
Surrounding Existing Road Network 50.00% 11.00 Supportive Neutral Unsupportive
New Roadworks Required 10% 1.35 3 km
Transport route not through residential/
sensitive area. 20.00% 2.70 Negligible Impact Minor Impacts Significant Impacts
Road Maintenance Required 20.00% 2.70 Minimal Moderate Significant
Buffers 13.00
Proximity to Sensitive Land Uses 70.00% 9.10 >1000 m 500-1000 m 250 m 100-250 m 250 m 100-250 m 250 m 100-250 m 250 m 100-250 m 150ha 100-150ha
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 22 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
7.3 Results
Each Site of Interest was evaluated against each criterion and assigned a score based on the scoring
system adopted. The scores received were then multiplied by the corresponding weightings for both
the aspect and criterion to give a Weighted Score. The results of the Multi Criteria Analysis scoring are
provided in Appendix A.
All of the Sites of Interest were then ranked based on the sum of their assigned weighted score, in order
of highest to lowest, with highest being the most preferred Site of Interest. Table 7-2 shows the ranking
of the Sites of Interest arising from the Multi Criteria Analysis.
Table 7-2: Ranking of Sites of Interest
Site ID Totals Ranking Tenure (# of Parcels)
16 268.58 1 Crown
24 253.14 2 Freehold (2)
26 240.48 3 Crown (2), Road
34 239.64 4 Crown
29 237.04 5 Freehold (3)
4 233.44 6 Freehold (2)
28 230.04 7 Crown
31 228.68 8 Crown
21 228.28 9 Crown (2), Freehold, Road
23 227.98 10 Freehold (2)
2 227.57 11 Freehold (2)
5 226.86 12 Crown (7), Freehold (1)
18 226.10 13 Crown (2)
32 222.48 14 Crown
37 220.69 15 Crown
22 217.02 16 Freehold
7 209.93 17 Freehold (2)
1 209.01 18 Freehold
30 207.95 19 Crown
13 206.46 20 Crown
9 205.41 21 Freehold (2)
15 203.96 22 Crown (3)
19 202.53 23 Crown
36 199.91 24 Crown
27 199.31 25 Crown
20 196.56 26 Crown (4)
8 195.09 27 Crown
6 190.73 28 Crown
3 187.08 29 Freehold (3)
10 187.03 30 Crown
25 186.38 31 Freehold (3)
35 185.66 32 Crown (2)
33 176.01 33 Freehold
12 173.73 34 Crown
17 162.02 35 Crown
11 157.73 36 Crown
14 148.98 37 Crown
The Multi Criteria Analysis process should not be regarded as a black box in which sites are assessed
and a winner is determined based solely on the outcome. Rather, the Multi Criteria Analysis should be
regarded and utilised as an analytical tool that assists decision makers to better understand the
strengths, weaknesses and points of difference between the various sites being evaluated.
The maximum available score was 300 points. As shown in Table 7-2, Site 16 was the highest ranked
Site from the Multi Criteria Analysis with a total score of 268.6 which indicates a high level of
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 23 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
compliance with the requirements for the modern waste management facility. The next highest score
was Site 24 with a score of 253.1 and Site 26 was ranked 3rd with a score of 240.5. It is important to
note that the Sites ranked from 3rd (240.5) to 10
th (228) were only separated by 12.5 points.
7.3.1 Crown Vs Freehold Rankings
It should be noted that the Sites of Interest shown in Table 7-2 is comprised of both Crown and Freehold
land sites. As shown in Section 4.1, the Site Selection Criteria adopted for this Study did not adopt a
specific Tenure type for the Site Selection Study. Therefore priority was not assigned to any specific
Tenure type resulting in both Crown and Freehold sites being identified as Sites of Interest and
subsequently evaluated.
However the type of Tenure that exist over a Site of Interest has implications on the acquisition process
for the site and to develop a regional landfill. Therefore to assist the South West Group with selecting
an acquisition methodology going forward, the ranked Sites of Interest have been split into the ranked
Crown and Freehold land sites.
Table 7-3 below shows the ranking of the Crown land Sites of Interest. It should be noted that a number
of Sites of Interest had multiple parcels of land within its boundary. For the purpose of this Study, where
one of these parcels was identified as a Crown land, the site was categorised as a Crown land Site of
Interest. It should be noted that six of the top ten Sites of Interest are considered Crown land sites.
Table 7-3: Ranking of Crown Land Sites of Interest
Site ID Totals Ranking Tenure (# of Parcels)
16 268.58 1 Crown
26 240.48 3 Crown (2), Road
34 239.64 4 Crown
28 230.04 7 Crown
31 228.68 8 Crown
21 228.28 9 Crown (2), Freehold, Road
5 226.86 12 Crown (7), Freehold (1)
18 226.10 13 Crown (2)
32 222.48 14 Crown
37 220.69 15 Crown
30 207.95 19 Crown
13 206.46 20 Crown
15 203.96 22 Crown (3)
19 202.53 23 Crown
36 199.91 24 Crown
27 199.31 25 Crown
20 196.56 26 Crown (4)
8 195.09 27 Crown
6 190.73 28 Crown
10 187.03 30 Crown
35 185.66 32 Crown (2)
12 173.73 34 Crown
17 162.02 35 Crown
11 157.73 36 Crown
14 148.98 37 Crown
Table 7-4 below shows the ranking of Freehold land Sites of Interest. It is important to note that four of
the top ten Sites of Interest are Freehold sites, including the 2nd
ranked Site of Interest. In addition, the
majority of the Freehold land Sites of Interest consist of multiple parcels of freehold land.
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 24 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Table 7-4: Ranking of Freehold Land Sites of Interest
Site ID Totals Ranking Tenure (# of Parcels)
24 253.14 2 Freehold (2)
29 237.04 5 Freehold (3)
4 233.44 6 Freehold (2)
23 227.98 10 Freehold (2)
2 227.57 11 Freehold (2)
22 217.02 16 Freehold
7 209.93 17 Freehold (2)
1 209.01 18 Freehold
9 205.41 21 Freehold (2)
3 187.08 29 Freehold (3)
25 186.38 31 Freehold (3)
33 176.01 33 Freehold
7.4 Sensitivity Analysis
The Multi Criteria Analysis results are affected by the scores allocated to each Site of Interest against
each of the criteria, and the weightings given to each criterion. The scores are determined by the
scoring system and are unlikely to materially change. The weightings, however, are quite subjective.
A sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to evaluate the changes in the rankings of the Sites of Interest
if the weightings of the criteria were varied. Three alternative weighting scenarios were evaluated with
each placing a greater emphasis on a particular aspect of the evaluation. The three scenarios
assessed included:
Buffers – Increase to the importance given to the separation of the modern waste
management facility from surrounding land uses;
Environmental – Increase to the importance of environmental factors such as separation from
areas of environmental significance; and
Financial – Increase to the importance of factors that affected costs.
Each of these scenarios was compared with the adopted Multi Criteria Analysis weightings used for
the analysis. Table 7-5 provides details of the weightings of the criteria used for each of the scenarios.
Table 7-5: Scenario Weightings for Sensitivity Analysis
Aspect Weightings
Average Adopted Buffers Environmental Financial
Distance 7.14 11.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 Road Access 7.14 13.5 13.5 12.0 14.0 Buffers 7.14 13.0 16.0 15.0 9.0 Area 7.14 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
Environmental 7.14 11.0 8.5 11.0 11.0
Native Vegetation Clearing 7.14 7.75 7.25 8.5 8.5
Hydrology 7.14 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.5
Topography 7.14 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 Infrastructure 7.14 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Screening 7.14 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Procurement 7.14 7.25 7.25 6.5 8.5
Native Title 7.14 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
Heritage 7.14 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Mining Tenements 7.14 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100
The results of the sensitivity analysis are detailed in Table 7-6 below. The results show that while the
weighted scores change, the ranking of the top 10 Sites of Interest are largely unaffected by the
changes in the weightings. Site 16 remains the highest ranked Site of Interest for all of the scenarios
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 25 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
and is more than 10 points clear of the second ranked Site of Interest in all scenarios. Site 24 remains
the 2nd
ranked Site of Interest in all scenarios, and like Site 16, is close to 10 points clear of the next
highest ranked Site of Interest in all scenarios.
The Sites of Interest ranked 3rd to 10
th are consistent and merely undergo minor changes in rankings
based on subtle changes in score. Only in the Environmental and Financial scenarios are new Sites
of Interest introduced into the top 10. In the Environmental scenario, Site 21 falls out of the top ten
ranking and Site 2 enters as the 8th highest ranked Site. In the Financial scenario, Site 23 falls out of the
top ten ranking and Site 5 enters as the 6th highest ranked Site.
However, the fact that the changes in the criteria weighting do not materially affect the ranking of the
top 10 sites demonstrates that the ranking of the Sites of Interest is robust.
Table 7-6: Sensitivity Analysis Results
Scenario Adopted Buffers Environmental Financial
RANKING Score Site Score Site Score Site Score Site
1 268.6 16 269.1 16 266.1 16 271.9 16 2 253.1 24 251.6 24 250.4 24 254.5 24
3 240.5 26 241.6 34 239.0 26 244.8 26
4 239.6 34 240.7 26 237.5 34 240.9 34
5 237.0 29 237.5 29 235.6 4 235.2 29
6 233.4 4 233.7 4 235.4 29 234.1 5
7 230.0 28 231.9 28 230.7 28 232.9 4 8 228.7 31 230.9 31 226.5 2 231.5 21 9 228.3 21 227.3 21 225.9 23 230.7 28
10 228.0 23 226.3 23 225.0 31 230.4 31
11 227.6 2 225.7 18 224.5 21 229.8 2
12 226.9 5 225.1 2 223.8 5 228.7 23
13 226.1 18 224.6 32 221.2 18 228.2 18
14 222.5 32 223.5 5 219.5 37 225.6 32 15 220.7 37 222.7 37 218.6 32 220.9 37 16 217.0 22 216.9 22 218.4 22 213.4 22
17 209.9 7 209.7 1 212.1 7 208.0 30
18 209.0 1 208.4 30 210.4 30 207.0 7
19 208.0 30 208.2 7 210.2 1 206.9 9
20 206.5 13 207.4 13 209.2 13 206.4 13
21 205.4 9 204.2 19 207.7 15 204.4 1 22 204.0 15 203.9 15 205.1 9 203.2 19 23 202.5 19 202.4 9 203.7 19 201.9 15
24 199.9 36 199.9 36 202.8 27 198.5 36
25 199.3 27 199.3 27 202.5 36 198.1 27
26 196.6 20 196.9 20 198.8 20 197.5 8
27 195.1 8 195.0 8 193.5 8 196.9 6
28 190.7 6 188.4 3 190.6 25 192.6 20 29 187.1 3 187.8 6 189.4 3 192.4 10 30 187.0 10 186.4 35 188.7 6 181.3 35
31 186.4 25 185.9 25 188.1 35 181.1 3
32 185.7 35 184.0 10 185.4 10 180.6 25
33 176.0 33 177.4 33 178.8 33 177.4 12
34 173.7 12 171.6 12 171.4 12 168.6 33
35 162.0 17 159.6 17 160.4 17 166.0 17 36 157.7 11 155.2 11 156.4 11 160.0 11 37 149.0 14 147.5 14 148.2 14 151.4 14
7.5 Preferred Sites
Based on the outcome of the Multi Criteria Analysis and the sensitivity analysis, it can be concluded
that the top 10 Sites of Interest shown in
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 26 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Table 7-7 below be carried through as the Preferred Sites, with the top three ranked Sites - Site 16, Site
24 and Site 26, prioritised for further consideration.
Table 7-7: Preferred Sites Warranting Further Investigation
Site ID Totals Ranking Tenure (# of Parcels)
16 268.6 1 Crown
24 253.1 2 Freehold (2)
26 240.5 3 Crown (2), Road
34 239.6 4 Crown
29 237.0 5 Freehold (3)
4 233.4 6 Freehold (2)
28 230.0 7 Crown
31 228.7 8 Crown
21 228.3 9 Crown (2), Freehold, Road
23 228.0 10 Freehold (2)
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 27 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
8 Discussion
Based on the aspects, criteria, weighting and scoring applied, the Multi Criteria Analysis system allowed
for the ranking of the Sites of Interest to prioritise those that warrant further consideration. As stated
previously, the Multi Criteria Analysis should not be regarded as a black box in which sites are assessed
and a winner is determined based solely on the score. Rather, the Multi Criteria Analysis should be
regarded and utilised as an analytical tool that assists decision makers to better understand the
strengths, weaknesses and points of difference between the various sites being evaluated.
8.1 Highest Ranked Sites Commentary
The maximum available score was 300 points. As shown in Table 7-2, Site 16 was the highest ranked
site from the Multi Criteria Analysis with a total score of 268.6 which indicates a high level of
compliance with the Site Selection Criteria. The next highest score was 253.1 and was achieved by
Site 24. While 253.1 is still considered a high score, it is significantly less than Site 16. Site 26 was ranked
3rd with a score of 240.5, which again is regarded as a relatively high score although lower than Site
24. However, Site 24 and 26 are located in close proximity to one another and possess contrasting
land Tenures which provides the South West Group with a level of flexibility moving forward. Therefore
the Sites ranked 1st to 3
rd, were considered to be the highest ranked Sites of Interest warranting
commentary.
The high score attributed to Site 16 is due to the Multi Criteria Analysis identifying a number of strengths
that the site possesses over Sites 24 and 26 across a variety of Aspects and Criteria. As shown in
Appendix A, Site 16 achieved a score higher than both Sites 24 and 26 in the following Criterion:
Proximity to Sensitivity Land Uses;
Separation distance from Environmental Conservation Significant Areas;
Environmental Management; and
Site Suitably Screened.
Of these Criterion, the ‘Proximity to Sensitive Land Uses’ is considered a key Criteria with an adjusted
weighting of 9.10. While Site 16 scored better than both Sites 24 and 26 in the above Criterion, there
were minor variations between these Sites across all remaining Criteria, however the differences in
scoring between this key Criterion is the principle reason for Site 16 being close to 10 points clear of
the 2nd
ranked Site 24.
Aside from the key Criteria discussed above, Site 16 possess a number of other favourable attributes.
This is shown in its scoring for Criterion such as:
Distance from Optimum Location;
Surrounding Existing Road Network;
New Roadworks Required;
Transport route not through residential/ sensitive area;
Road Maintenance Required;
Distance to Mapped Fault Lines;
Proximity to PDWSA
Area;
Environmental Approvals;
Surface Water Management;
Site Contours;
Site Suitably Screened; and
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 28 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Purchase cost of Site
Site 16 scored low in only four Criterion which was due to the presence of surface water features on
the Site, the amount of vegetation requiring clearing, implications for Native Title and the existence of
mining tenements over the Site.
However it should be noted that certain features of Site 16 and all Sites of Interest still require
investigation due to a lack of site specific information being available for the Site Selection Study, such
as datasets related to depth to groundwater, geology and soils. A range of datasets related to these
features were gathered and analysed as part of this study, however their coverage was limited and
offered differing degrees of accuracy which made uniform assessment and scoring of the Sites of
Interest impractical. As the purpose of the Multi Criteria Analysis is to assess all Sites of Interest against
the each other on a standard set of Aspects and Criterion, it was determined that these datasets
should not be utilised during the analysis process as the limited data could not facilitate accurate
comparisons. Therefore the Multi Criteria Analysis was restricted to Aspects and Criterion that could be
assessed with detailed and reliable datasets. Further detailed hydrogeological and geotechnical
studies will be required as part of the Phase 2 Site Investigations to determine the conditions across the
Preferred Sites arising from the Site Selection Study.
8.2 Tenure
As shown in Section 7.5, the Preferred Sites contain a 6 to 4 split of Crown vs Freehold Tenure. However
two of the top three highest ranked Sites, including the highest ranked Site 16, are identified as Crown
land. Therefore, Talis recommends that the South West Group adopt Crown land as the preferred
Tenure going forward at this stage. To facilitate this process, the South West Group should seek to
engage with the Department of Lands to discuss what constraints or opportunities exist over the
Preferred Sites. The Department of Lands may also assist with clarifying matters related to Mining
Tenements and Native Title implications going forward.
In the event that the South West Group chooses to adopt Freehold land as the preferred Tenure going
forward, then there are a number of options available including:
Directly Approach – The South West Group directly approaches land holders of the Freehold
Sites identified in this Site Selection Study and look to procure the individual(s) property;
Engage with Local Real Estate Agents – Engage with real estate agents regarding the desire
to purchase land within the Area of Interest. Talis has adopted this approach in the past, and
the agents knowledge in the area have been crucial in:
o Identifying Land that has previously been on the market;
o Determining land owners on or off the market that could be interested selling land; and
Community Consultation – Undertake a community consultation campaign to outline the
South West Group’s desires, and request for landholders to nominate sites for consideration.
This may be achieved through the release of a Site Selection Community Consultation Report.
This option provides maximum transparency to the public on the process.
As outlined above, there is a number of procurement options available to South West Group to further
progress a Freehold land site. Talis recommends that the South West Group assess all the various
procurement options available with the view to determining a preferred procurement methodology.
As part of this process, due consideration should be given to a variety of aspects, including but limited
to:
Legislative requirements;
Governance policies;
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 29 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Commercial risk;
Value for money; and
Community engagement.
8.3 Phase 2 Detailed Site Investigations and Feasibility Assessments
Progressing forward from the Site Selection Study, the South West Group will be required to begin
Detailed Site Investigations into the Preferred Sites warranting further consideration. The findings of
these Detailed Site Investigations will provide the necessary information required to conduct Feasibility
Assessments including conceptualisation of design, operational and logistical factors to generate
costing estimates of developing at each Preferred Site.
It is recommended that the Detailed Site Investigations and Feasibility Assessments be carried across
the adopted Preferred Sites concurrently. This will provide the South West Group with a complete
overview of the constraints that exist across each Site and allow for an informed decision making
process when determining the Selected Site. It will also provide the South West Group with a level of
security in the event that a fatal flaw exists across one of the adopted Preferred Site during the site
investigations. In this instance, studies can continue on the remaining adopted Preferred Sites with
minimal effect on the development timeframe. If required, the next highest ranked Site of Interest
could be brought forward as a Preferred Site to replace the fatally flawed site.
It is anticipated that at this stage the Detailed Site Investigations should include, but not be limited to
the following:
Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment – Prior to conducting any Detailed Site
Investigations, a full Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessment will be required. This is
a desktop study will seek to identify any fatal flaws that may exist across the site(s) and guide
the scope of the Detailed Site Investigations. It is anticipated that the content of the report will
cover the following:
o The values on and surrounding the site including;
Environmental Attributes;
Social Attributes;
o Comparison of these values to Best Practice Environmental Management for Siting,
Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills.
Detailed Studies and Surveys – The information gathered from the Due Diligence and Landfill
Capability Assessment will guide the scope of any required Detailed Studies and Surveys. It is
anticipated that at this stage the Detailed Studies and Surveys should include, but not be
limited to the following:
o Ecological;
o Hydrogeological;
o Geotechnical; and
o Aboriginal Heritage.
As stated previously, the data that is then gained from the abovementioned Detailed Site
Investigations will provide the necessary information required to accurately conduct the Feasibility
Assessment of each site. The Feasibility Assessment will provide detailed costings on the Construction,
Operation and Logistics for each site. This will provide the South West Group with a complete overview
of the constraints that exist across each Site and allow for an informed decision making process when
determining the Selected Site.
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 30 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
9 Recommendations
Based on the Siting Selection Study undertaken to date, it is recommended to:
1. Review the findings of this report and make a determination on the preferred land acquisition
methodology going forward regarding Crown and Freehold land. As part of this process, the
South West Group should:
o Consult with the Department of Land regarding the constraints and opportunities in
relation to further progressing with Crown Land;
o Assess the various options in relation to further progress Freehold Land including:
Direct Approach to Landowners;
Engagement with Real Estate Agents;
Community Consultation Campaign.
2. Arising from the outcome of Recommendation 1, the South West Group should adopt a list of
Preferred Sites warranting further consideration; and
3. Proceed with Detailed Site Investigations, Due Diligence and Landfill Capability Assessments
and Feasibility Assessments on the adopted Preferred Sites.
Site Selection Study
Regional Waste Management Facility
South West Group
Month YYYY
August 2016 | Page 31 TW16002 - Site Selection Study.3a
Figures
Figure 1: Typical Landfill Schematic Layout
Figure 2: Typical Community Recycling Centre Schematic Layout
Figure 3: Area of Interest
Figure 4: Sites of Interest
+15m
+12m
0m
+15m
+12m
+12m
+12m
0m
0m
0m
LO
CA
L R
OA
D
+12m
0m
404m
237m
269m
237m
80m
110m
300m
LEACHATE POND
MAINTENANCE SHED
WHEEL WASH
COMMUNITY DROP-OFF AREA (OPTIONAL)
SEE INSET A
SURFACE WATER POND
LANDFILL EXPANSION AREA
SCREENING VEGETATION
STOCKPILE AREAS
LEACHATE COLLECTION PIPE
SURFACE WATER DRAIN
LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD
MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS
SITE FENCE
860m
763m
LANDFILL GAS FLARE
80m
400m 190m
100m
WEIGHBRIDGE
SITE OFFICE
GATEHOUSE
COMMUNITY DROP-OFF
AREA (OPTIONAL)
PARKING
NOTES
1. This drawing is the property of Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.It is a confidential document and must not be copied, used, or its contents divulged without prior written consent.
2. All levels refer to Australian Height Datum.
3. DO NOT SCALE, use figured dimensions only, if in doubt please contact Talis Consultants.
No. Date App.Amendment / IssueDrw
n.Chk
.
Project: Title:Drawn by:
Checked by:
Approved by:
Scale:
Date:
Job No:
File No:
Figure: Rev:
Landfill Concept DesignGeneric Site Layout
001 A
AU
KG
KR
1:5000
9/9/14
TW16002
TW14022DG002
8/663 Newcastle Street, Leederville WA 6007
PO Box 454, Leederville WA 6903
T: 1300 251 070
E: admin@talisconsultants.com.au
ASSET MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SPATIAL INTELLIGENCE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
w w w . t a l i s c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m . au
Client:
South West GroupA 9/9/14 KRGenericA
UKG
N
INSET A
(SCALE 1:1250)
Prepared:
Checked:
Reviewed:Revision:
Scale:Date:
Project No:
A.Upitis
K.Rogers
K.GarveyRev A
25/06/15 (A3) 1:10,000TW16002
Figure 2
Vegetation Screening
Sealed Hardstands
Landscaping
Footpath
Stormwater Pond
Community Reuse and Recycling CentreSchematic Drawing
Community Vehicle Use
Heavy Vehicle Use
Fence
LEGEND
Waste Receptacles
Stormwater Pond
HouseholdHazardous
Waste
E-Waste
Reuse Area
Reuse Building
Education Centre &Administration
Service Area
Steel and Aluminium Cans Separated Plastics
CardboardGlassTyres
PaperWood Mattresses
WasteOil
UsedBatteries
Service Area
SpareReceptacles
MSW MSW Greenwaste Metals
UP DOWN
Attendant'sCabin
Sealed Roads
Pedestrian Crossing
Public CarParking Spaces
Multi-TieredDrop-OffFacility
XXXXXXX
A000/00 A Rev A
LEGEND
Figure 03
SOUTH WEST SITE SELECTION STUDYArea of Interest0 2 4 6 8 101
Kilometers
¤ Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50, Projection: Transverse Mercator, Datum: GDA 1994RM CullenChecked:
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
BUSSELL HWY
Bunbury
CapelDonnybrook
Busselton
Nannup
DONNYBRO
OK KOJONUPRD
SOUTH WESTERN HWY
VASSE HWYSUESRD
GOODWOOD RD
BUSSEL
L HWY
SOUTH WESTERN
HWY
350000
350000
360000
360000
370000
370000
380000
380000
390000
390000
400000
400000
410000
41000062400
00
624000
0
625000
0
625000
0
626000
0
626000
0
627000
0
627000
0
628000
0
628000
0
629000
0
629000
0
630000
0
630000
0
631000
0
631000
0
Date: 18/05/2016Revision:
Scale @ A3: 1:250,000
Area of Interest
Data source: Roads, Suburbs, LGA's, Imagery, Transport - Landgate, 2016. Imagery: Nearmaps, 2016.
Harvey
Bunbury CollieCapel DonnybrookYallingup Busselton Boyup
BrookMargaretRiver BridgetownNannup Manjimup
Augusta
Walpole
0 50 100 1
Recommended