Site Selection Study · As stated in the Regional Waste Management Strategy, the disposal of waste through landfilling is the least preferred approach to waste management in accordance

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



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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.




South West Group

Month YYYY


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




South West Group

Month YYYY


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.



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



South West Group

Month YYYY


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



South West Group

Month YYYY


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


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


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.



South West Group

Month YYYY


Table 7-4: Ranking of Freehold Land Sites of Interest


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



South West Group

Month YYYY


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



South West Group

Month YYYY


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


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


23 228.0 10 Freehold (2)



South West Group

Month YYYY


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



South West Group

Month YYYY


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;



South West Group

Month YYYY


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.



South West Group

Month YYYY


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.



South West Group

Month YYYY


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: [email protected]

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

Documents

Site Selection Study · As stated in the Regional Waste Management Strategy, the disposal of waste through landfilling is the least preferred approach to waste management in accordance