Water Security for Wangaratta
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Phase 2 Project Report | Final
Contract No. 306796
August 2014
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Water Security for Wangaratta
Project no: VW07492
Document title: Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Document no: Phase 2 Project Report
Revision: Final
Date: August 2014
Client name: Department of Environment and Primary Industries
Client no: Contract No. 306796
Project manager: Simon Lang
Author: Simon Lang, Tara Smith, Elisabeth Norman, Peter Corrie, Michelle Freund
File name: DMCA/VW07492
Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (Jacobs)
ABN 37 001 024 095
Level 11 452 Flinders Street
Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
PO Box 312
T +61 3 8668 3000
F +61 3 8668 3100
www.jacobs.com
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the
property of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (Jacobs). Use or copying of this document in
whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement
of copyright.
Document history and status
Revision Date
Final Draft
Description
By
Review
Approved
i
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Revision Date
Draft A
Description
13.06.14 Draft for comment by the Project
Steering Committee
Final
07.07.14 Updated draft based on Project
Draft
Steering Committee comments
Final
04.08.14 Final, based on further Project
Steering Committee comments
Final Draft
By
Review
S. Lang K.
Approved
K. Austin
Austin
S. Lang K.
K. Austin
Austin
S. Lang K.
K. Austin
Austin
ii
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Contents
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
1.1
Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
This project............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3
Report structure .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.
Triple Bottom Line assessment method ................................................................ 8
2.1
Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2
Steps ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.
The base case (Option 1) ...................................................................................... 13
3.1
The Wangaratta water supply system ............................................................................................... 13
3.2
Reliability of supply ............................................................................................................................ 15
4.
Additional groundwater use (Option 2)................................................................ 17
4.1
Number of bores required .................................................................................................................. 17
4.2
Concept design ................................................................................................................................... 20
4.3
Indicative cost ..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Capital cost ........................................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Operating cost....................................................................................................................................... 22
5.
Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option 3) ........................................................................... 24
5.1
Storage size required.......................................................................................................................... 24
5.2
Concept design ................................................................................................................................... 27
5.3
Indicative cost ..................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.1 Capital cost ........................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3.2 Operating cost....................................................................................................................................... 31
6.
Alternative water use (Option 4) ........................................................................... 32
6.1
Potential water sources ...................................................................................................................... 32
6.2
Potential water users .......................................................................................................................... 34
6.3
Concept design ................................................................................................................................... 35
6.4
Indicative cost ..................................................................................................................................... 36
6.4.1 Capital Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 36
6.4.2 Operating Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 37
7.
Assessment against Triple Bottom Line criteria ................................................. 40
7.1
Financial Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 42
7.1.1 Net cost (40% weighting) ...................................................................................................................... 42
7.1.2 Third party impacts (10% weighting) ..................................................................................................... 44
7.2
Environmental criteria ........................................................................................................................ 46
Final Draft
iii
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.2.1 Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts (10% weighting) ............................................................................. 46
7.2.2 Surface water impacts (10% weighting) ................................................................................................ 47
7.3
Social Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 49
7.3.1 Reliability of supply for downstream users (4% weighting) ................................................................... 49
7.3.2 Cultural heritage (4% weighting) ........................................................................................................... 51
7.3.3 Amenity and recreation (4% weighting)................................................................................................. 53
7.3.4 Local community acceptance (4% weighting) ....................................................................................... 55
7.3.5 Price impacts (4% weighting) ................................................................................................................ 57
7.4
Technical criteria ................................................................................................................................ 60
7.4.1 Resilience (5% weighting) ..................................................................................................................... 60
7.4.2 Timing and complexity of implementation (5% weighting) ..................................................................... 61
8.
Triple bottom line assessment ............................................................................. 64
8.1
Raw scores .......................................................................................................................................... 64
8.2
Weighted scores ................................................................................................................................. 65
8.3
Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................................. 70
8.4
Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 72
9.
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 73
10.
References ............................................................................................................. 74
Appendix A. Groundwater resource investigation........................................................ 76
Appendix B. Possible locations for new bores ........................................................... 114
Appendix C. Concept design – additional groundwater use ..................................... 115
Appendix D. Concept design – enlarge Lake Buffalo ................................................. 135
Appendix E. Concept design – alternative water use ................................................. 136
Appendix F. Estimated capital cost – additional groundwater use ........................... 139
Appendix G. Estimated capital cost – enlarge Lake Buffalo ...................................... 143
Appendix H. Estimated capital cost – alternative water use ...................................... 144
Appendix I. Flora and fauna risks ................................................................................ 146
Appendix J. Predicted changes in streamflow ............................................................ 154
Appendix K. Impacts on downstream users ............................................................... 158
Final Draft
iv
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Executive Summary
Water security for Wangaratta has been a topical issue for several years, and assumed a
particularly high profile during the millennium drought and when 2003 bushfires affected the
water quality of the Ovens River. In 2013, the Victorian Government announced funding for
the Water Security for Wangaratta Project to assess the demand for water in Wangaratta,
and consider the best option for improving water security.
This first phase of the project estimated that the reliability of Wangaratta’s water supply is
88%, assuming current demands and operating rules, and historic climate conditions. That is,
there will be restrictions in 12% of years (or on average a 12% likelihood of restrictions in any
one year). This does not meet North East Water’s level of service objective of 90% reliability.
The first phase of the project also investigated several options to improve Wangaratta’s
reliability of supply:

The use of groundwater as a regular supplement to surface water supplies

The enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10 GL (from 24 GL to 34 GL)

The use of alternative water sources, such as those identified in North East Water’s
Alternative Water Atlas (NEW, 2012)
This project forms part of phase two of the Water Security for Wangaratta project. The
objective was to undertake a more detailed analysis of the options listed above, and
recommend which of them would provide the most benefits, with the least negative impacts,
for the best value for money.
To do this, concept designs of the three options were completed, and their costs, benefits
and impacts were compared using a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment. The options were
designed with the aim of providing 90% reliability of supply to Wangaratta under a “return to
dry climate” and future (2060) demand scenario. The return to dry climate represents a
repeat of climate conditions experienced from 1997/98 to 2008/09.
The concept design for the additional groundwater use option involves upgrading the water
treatment infrastructure at NEW’s Kerr Street site, and installing two new bores with
associated water treatment infrastructure. The first would be located at NEW’s Phillipson
Street site. Three options were considered for the location of the second new bore, and the
preferred location was Cruse Street (near Kerr Street).
Final Draft
1
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
The concept design for enlarging Lake Buffalo involves raising the main and secondary
embankments by 3.8 m, upgrading the existing primary and secondary spillways, installing a
tertiary spillway, installing a new high level outlet, and placing filters in the secondary
embankment. The dam would become a fixed crest rather than gated storage, and the full
supply level would rise by 2.9 m.
During the concept design for the alternative water use option, several potential water
sources were considered, including treated trade waste, storm water and effluent from
Wangaratta’s waste water treatment plant (WWTP). Recycling effluent from the WWTP to
Class A standard, and using it to meet up to 700 ML of industrial, commercial and
Wangaratta City Council demands, and 250 ML of non-potable residential demands, was
found to be the most viable option. The concept design therefore involves a Class A water
treatment plant and a distribution system for the recycled water.
Table 1.1 summarises the estimated capital and operating costs, and net present value, for
these three options. Although not included in the concept design, the additional groundwater
use option may also need a ‘stand-alone’ treatment plant for groundwater to be built at the
Faithfull Street Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This would cost an extra $1.5 - 2.0 million.
Similarly, although not included in the concept design, an enlarged Lake Buffalo may need a
new intake tower and outlet arrangement at an extra cost of $20 - $25 million, and a fish
ladder at an additional cost of at least $5 million.
Table 1.1 : Indicative costs
Option
Estimated
Estimated
Net present
capital cost
additional
value
operating cost
Additional groundwater use
$15 million
$260,000*1
$17 million
Enlarge Lake Buffalo
$80 million
$0*2
$54 million*3
Alternative water use
$95 million
$1,000,000*1
$86 million*4
1 for return to dry climate scenario
2 relative to current operating costs
3 accounts for avoided future dam safety upgrades
4 accounts for avoided costs in developing additional agricultural re-use schemes
For the TBL assessment, each option was scored against financial, environmental, social and
technical criteria which were selected and weighted in consultation with the Project Steering
Final Draft
2
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Committee. Based on the adopted criteria, additional groundwater use is the highest ranking
option (Figure 1.1). Enlarging Lake Buffalo and alternative water use have similar, but much
lower TBL scores.
The ranking of additional groundwater use as the best option was not sensitive to the
weighting of each criterion. For example, the cost drives much of the difference between the
TBL score for each option. However, even if financial criteria were excluded, groundwater
remained the highest ranked option (Figure 1.2). One reason for this is the additional
groundwater use option scored highest on the resilience criterion, because it is a climate
independent source of water, and it is not affected by events which may reduce surface water
quality (e.g. bushfires and floods).
Enlarging Lake Buffalo scored the lowest totals on the environmental and technical criteria,
and similarly to the alternative water use option on the social and financial criteria. The large
scale of capital investment required to deliver the project was somewhat off-set by the
expected third party benefits to irrigators. However the complexity of the works, their impact
on terrestrial flora and fauna, and the anticipated price impact for irrigators also contributed to
the low TBL score. The large cost of capital works for the alternative water use option also
contributed to its relatively low score compared with groundwater. In addition, this option is
not expected to reduce the demand for potable water enough to achieve 90% reliability of
supply for Wangaratta under return to dry climate scenarios. Potential users of recycled water
will also need to be incentivised to switch over from their current potable water supply.
In summary, the use of additional groundwater was assessed as the option most likely to
improve water security for Wangaratta, and provide the best value for money with the least
negative impacts.
Figure 1.1 : The TBL assessment score for each option (relative to a base case score of 0)
The graph illustrates the TBL assessment score for each option. The Base Case (Option 1)
has a score of 0; Additional Groundwater Use (Option 2) has a score of minus 21; Enlarge
Lake Buffalo (Option 3) has a score of minus 143; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has
a score of minus 188.
Figure 1.2 : The TBL assessment score for each option, excluding financial criteria
The graph illustrates the non-financial TBL assessment score for each option, excluding
financial criteria. The Base Case (Option 1) has a score of 0; Additional Groundwater Use
Final Draft
3
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
(Option 2) has a score of between 35 and 40; Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option 3) has a score of
between minus 60 and minus 70; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has a score of
between minus 35 and minus 40.
Final Draft
4
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
1. Introduction
Water security for Wangaratta has been a topical issue for several years, and assumed a
particularly high profile during the millennium drought and when 2003 bushfires affected the
water quality of the Ovens River. In 2013, the Victorian Government announced funding for
the Water Security for Wangaratta Project to assess the demand for water in Wangaratta,
and consider the best option for improving water security.
The project has been divided into the following phases (refer to the Water Security for
Wangaratta page on the website of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries)1:

Phase one – investigate and report on Wangaratta’s current and future water
requirements

Phase two – identify and assess options to improve Wangaratta’s water security

Phase three – final report with recommendations
1.1
Background
A Project Steering Committee has been established to guide the work for the Water Security
for Wangaratta Project. Representatives from North East Water (NEW), Goulburn-Murray
Water (G-MW), the North East Catchment Management Authority (NECMA) and the
Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) provide technical support to the
committee as required.
The Project Steering Committee has directed the work completed for the first phase of the
project, including:

The prediction of inflows and demands in the Ovens River water supply system (SKM,
2013)

Determining the degree to which the current water supply system can satisfy
Wangaratta’s residential, commercial and industrial needs at current and future levels of
demand under historic and potential future climate scenarios (RMCG, 2013; SKM, 2014)

Testing different options to increase water supply to Wangaratta or reduce demands
(SKM, 2014)
1
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water/urban-water/regional-water-supply-programs/water-security-for-wangaratta
Final Draft
5
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
This first phase of the project estimated that the reliability of Wangaratta’s water supply
system is 88%, assuming current demands and historic climate conditions. That is, there will
be restrictions in 12% of years. This does not meet NEW’s level of service objective of 90%
reliability. Under a return to dry climate (i.e. 1997-2009 millennium drought) and future (2060)
demand scenario, the reliability of Wangaratta’s current water supply system is estimated to
be 46%.
The first phase of the project also concluded that several options could improve Wangaratta’s
reliability of supply:

The increased use of groundwater as a supplement to surface water supplies

The enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10 GL (from 24 GL to 34 GL)

The use of alternative water sources, such as those identified in NEW’s Alternative Water
Atlas (NEW, 2012)
1.2
This project
This project is part of phase two of the Water Security for Wangaratta project. The objective
was to undertake a more detailed analysis of the options listed above, and recommend which
of them would provide the most benefits, with the least negative impacts, for the best value
for money.
To do this, concept designs of the three options were completed, and their costs, benefits
and impacts were compared using a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment. The options were
designed with the aim of providing 90% reliability of supply to Wangaratta under the return to
dry climate and future demand scenario considered in phase one of the project.
1.3
Report structure
This remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

Section 2 summarises the TBL assessment method used to compare the options
investigated

Section 3 describes the base case against which the three options are compared

Section 4 provides information on the additional groundwater use option

Section 5 provides information on the option to enlarge Lake Buffalo
Final Draft
6
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Section 6 provides information on the alternative water use option

Section 7 summarises the outcomes of the TBL assessment

Conclusions are presented in Section 9

Additional technical information is available in the Appendices
Final Draft
7
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
2. Triple Bottom Line assessment method
2.1
Overview
The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) assessment aims to take a balanced approach to evaluating
the additional groundwater, enlarging Lake Buffalo and alternative water use options by
scoring each option against relevant financial, environmental and social criteria. A summary
of the TBL process is provided in Figure 2.1, and Section 2.2 describes how each step was
applied in this project.
[Image replaced with text]
Step 1 – Objectives

Establish objectives of TBL assessment
Step 2 – Options

Identify and screen options
Step 3 – Criteria

Identify and screen assessment criteria
Step 4 – Weightings

Assign weightings to each criterion
Step 5 – Gather information

Gather technical information for each option according to the selected criteria
Step 6 – Scoring method

Determine scoring method for selecting relative scoring
Step 7 – Score options

Score options
Step 8 – Sensitivity analysis

Conduct sensitivity analysis (vary weightings and scores and evaluate outcome)
Final Draft
8
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Step 9 – Results

Provide recommendations based on TBL results
Figure 2.1 : A summary of the TBL assessment method [Replaced]
2.2
Steps
Step 1 was to establish the objective of the TBL assessment. For this project, the objective
was to find the option that improves the water security for Wangaratta, and provides the most
benefits, with the least negative impacts, for the best value for money.
Step 2 was to identify and screen options. This screening process occurred in the previous
phase of the Water Security for Wangaratta project, and led to the selection of the additional
groundwater, enlarging Lake Buffalo and alternative water use options investigated in this
project.
Step 3 was to develop the criteria against which each option is assessed. These criteria were
grouped within four domains (financial, environmental, social, and technical), as summarised
in Table 2.2. Early in the project, draft criteria were provided to the Project Steering
Committee for comment. The criteria were refined based on the comments received.
It is important to note that there are additional criteria which each option must meet. That is,
each option must:

Comply with relevant legislation and regulations

Provide the required water quality (e.g. potable water if being used to meet residential
demands)

Comply with the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs) of the Murray Darling Basin Plan

Not reduce the reliability of supply for surface water users in the Ovens River catchment

Aim to provide 90% reliability of supply during the return to dry climate and future
demand scenario considered in phase one of the Water Security for Wangaratta project.
For example, the option to enlarge Lake Buffalo by 10 GL was chosen for this TBL
assessment on the basis that it provides 90% reliability of supply under the return to dry
climate and future demand scenario.
The concept design of each option was based on these pass/fail criteria, and they are not
included in Table 2.2.
Final Draft
9
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Step 4 was to assign weighting to each criterion. The following weightings were adopted for
each domain, based on advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance:

Financial: 50%

Environmental: 20%

Social: 20%

Technical: 10%
Within the domains, the weightings were split evenly between each criterion. The exception
was within the financial domain, where net cost was given the highest weighting.
Step 5 was to gather the information needed to undertake the TBL assessment. This
information is summarised in Sections 3 to 6. Step 6 was to select a scoring method. Again,
advice from the Department of Treasury and Finance was followed, and the scoring method
is summarised in Table 2.1. Step 7 was to score the options against each criterion. Step 8
was to undertake a sensitivity analysis, by varying the weighting and scores within
reasonable bounds to see if the outcome of the TBL assessment was sensitive to these
assumptions. The outcomes of steps 7 and 8 are reported in Section 7. Step 9 was to
summarise the outcomes of the TBL assessment as recommendations for the Project
Steering Committee.
Table 2.1 : Scoring method for TBL assessment
Description
Score
Very much better than base case
+4
Much better than base case
+3
Moderately better than base case
+2
Little better than base case
+1
Same as base case
0
Little worse than base case
-1
Moderately worse than base case
-2
Much worse than base case
-3
Very much worse than base case
-4
Final Draft
10
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 2.2 : Criteria for the TBL assessment [Table split and adapted for accessibility]
Domain (weighting) - Financial Criteria (50%)
Criteria - description
Required Input
Disciplines
Notes
Net Cost – net capital and operating cost
Required capital works including
Engineering
Requirements for achieving relevant standards such as
of the option (as net present value),
pipes, pumping, treatment, dam
Water Resources Planning
Australian National Committee on Large Dams
relative to the base case
construction, etc.
Quantity Surveying
(ANCOLD) advice on acceptable flood capacity are
(40% weighting)
Permit, licence, approvals and
Economics
incorporated into the concept designs and indicative
associated studies
costs.
Avoided capital costs (e.g. planned
dam safety upgrades)
Energy consumption
Maintenance requirements
Third Party Impacts – costs and
Change in water volumes available
Economics
Irrigators will be third party beneficiaries if they receive
benefits of changes in reliability of supply
for third parties
Water Resources Planning
the benefits of increased reliability of supply without
for other users in the Ovens River
Change in reliability of supply for
catchment (e.g. irrigators)
third parties
having to pay a full share of the net costs.
(10% weighting)
Domain (weighting) - Environmental Criteria (20%)
Criteria - description
Required Input
Disciplines
Notes
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna – risks to
Footprint of options and impact on
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
Should additional statutory requirements be triggered this
native flora and fauna
habitat
will be factored into financial and technical criteria (e.g.
(10% weighting)
timing and complexity of implementation).
Surface Water Impacts – changes to
Changes in the volume and timing
Aquatic Ecology
river flow within the Ovens River
of river flows within the Ovens
Water Resources Planning
catchment
River catchment
[Empty cell]
(10% weighting)
Domain (weighting) - Social Criteria (20%)
Criteria - description
Required Input
Disciplines
Notes
Reliability for Downstream Users –
Changes in flow from the Ovens
Water Resources Planning
The options are designed to comply with the Sustainable
positive and / or negative impacts for
River catchment to the River
Hydrogeology
Diversion Limits within the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
other groundwater users, and surface
Murray system
Final Draft
11
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Criteria - description
Required Input
Disciplines
Notes
Cultural Heritage – impacts to cultural
Register of cultural heritage and
Cultural Heritage
[Empty cell]
heritage or historical heritage sites
historical heritage sites
Social Impacts
[Empty cell]
Social Impacts
This project did not include consultations with the local
water users in the River Murray system
(4% weighting)
(4% weighting)
Amenity and Recreation – impacts to
Impacts to existing recreational
existing amenity and recreation facilities
uses of land and water
(4% weighting)
Local Community Acceptance –
Community perception of
alignment with local community values
acceptability of options
community. Therefore, there is some uncertainty
(4% weighting)
associated with the TBL scores assigned for these
criteria.
Pricing Impact – willingness of NEW
Estimated bulk water and retail
Economics
This project did not include consultations with the local
and G-MW customers to pay increased
price impacts
Water Resources Planning
community. Therefore, there is some uncertainty
prices for water
associated with the TBL scores assigned for these
(4% weighting)
criteria.
Domain (weighting) - Technical Criteria (10%) NB: reliability of supply is also a threshold (pass /fail) criteria
Criteria - description
Required Input
Disciplines
Notes
Resilience – ability of the option to
Volume of additional supply
Water Resource Planning
The reliability of supply above NEW’s acceptable service
supply water during extreme events (e.g.
Timing of additional supply
Hydrogeology
level is a “threshold criteria”.
when bushfires affect surface water
Quality of additional supply
quality), and increase or decrease supply
to match changes in demand.
(5% weighting)
Timing and Complexity of
Approvals and licencing
Flora and Fauna
If works are likely to trigger additional approval or studies,
Implementation – delivery timeframes
requirement
Land Use and Statutory Planning
such as development of a Cultural Heritage Management
based on the complexity of
Engineering works and program
Cultural Heritage
Plan, EPBC referral, or land use rezoning, this would
implementation
Land use, availability and zoning
inform the scores for this criteria.
(5% weighting)
Final Draft
12
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
3. The base case (Option 1)
In the TBL assessment, the additional groundwater use, enlarging Lake Buffalo, and
alternative water use options will be compared to a base case. The base case is the current
situation, and represents a ‘business as usual’ approach.
3.1
The Wangaratta water supply system
The following information, unless referenced otherwise, is paraphrased from NEW’s Water
Supply Demand Strategy (NEW, 2012):
Wangaratta is a rural city located at the confluence of the Ovens and King Rivers
approximately 60 km south west of Wodonga. The water supply services over 9,000
connections for a population of more than 18,000. The Wangaratta water system also
supplies the town of Glenrowan via a pipeline. When referring to water, the remainder of this
document uses the name ‘Wangaratta’ to cover both Wangaratta and Glenrowan.
The Wangaratta water supply is sourced from the Ovens River at Faithfull Street,
immediately downstream of the King River confluence. Flow in the Ovens River is regulated
by Lake Buffalo (approximately 24 GL capacity), with flow in the King River regulated by Lake
William Hovel (13.7 GL).
The Ovens System Bulk Entitlement (BEE017172) allows for Wangaratta to extract up to
7,720 ML annually, at a maximum rate of 79 ML/day. Wangaratta’s annual demand is
approximately 3,200 ML on average, and this is expected increase to 3,600 ML on average
by 2060 (SKM, 2014; based on RMCG, 2013).
As the water resource manager, G-MW may impose restrictions on extractions from the
Ovens and King Rivers, if they predict that full water demands in the catchment (including
from irrigators) cannot be met. For example, extractions from the Ovens and King Rivers
were severely restricted during the millennium drought. Extractions for Wangaratta may also
be restricted because of water quality, as occurred in 2003 when bushfires in the catchment
reduced water quality in the Ovens River.
Three contingency groundwater bores are maintained in Wangaratta to supplement or
replace the Ovens River when restrictions reach Stage 4. Two of the bores are located at
Kerr Street, and one at the Faithfull Street Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
Final Draft
13
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
NEW currently holds the following groundwater licences:

Licence 7079206 provides access to 415 ML annually from the two Kerr Street bores
(combined), at a maximum extraction rate of 3 ML/day for each bore. This entitlement
has been used intermittently for contingency purposes.

Licence 8032870 provides access to 200 ML annually from the Faithfull Street bore, at a
maximum extraction rate of 2.6 ML/day. Two observation bores located nearby are used
to monitor groundwater levels as part of the licence conditions for the Faithfull Street
production bore. This entitlement is yet to be used, but is available if required.

Licence 881228 provides access to 50 ML annually from the irrigation bore in Anker
Road, at a maximum extraction rate of 10 ML/day. There is currently no infrastructure
connected to this bore, but the entitlement can be traded to other bores in Wangaratta if
required.
Raw water extracted from the Ovens River and the Faithfull Street bore is treated at the
Wangaratta WTP. At Kerr Street, one of the two bores is operational, and the raw water is
treated in a package treatment plant before being pumped to the 0.7 ML Kerr Street tower.
Waste water from Wangaratta is treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) north
of Wangaratta. Effluent from the WWTP is discharged to land or Reedy Creek. Further details
of the water treatment and distribution network is summarised in Figure 3.1. For more
information, refer to the Water Supply Demand Strategy (NEW, 2012).
Final Draft
14
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 3.1 : Schematic of the existing Wangaratta Water System (NEW, 2012)
The base case, or business as usual option, already includes planned investment in and
maintenance of Wangaratta’s water related infrastructure. For example, $22.5 million of dam
safety upgrades are planned for Lake Buffalo over the next 15 years, and $6 million is
expected to be spent in future on expanding the agricultural re-use of effluent from the
Wangaratta WWTP.
3.2
Reliability of supply
The reliability of supply under the base case was modelled by SKM (2014) over the period
1891 to 2012 for six different climate and demand combinations. The location where water is
extracted for Wangaratta is part of the regulated Buffalo system. Therefore, under the base
case, restrictions on Wangaratta’s water use can be expected in 12% of years assuming
historic climate conditions and current demand (Table 3.1). That is, the reliability of supply is
88%. Under a return to dry climate and future demand scenario, the base case reliability of
supply is expected to be 46%. NEW’s level of service objective is 90% reliability.
Final Draft
15
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 3.1 : Reliability of supply for base case [Table split and adapted for accessibility]
Percentage of years with restrictions (1891–2012) (Reliability)
Scenario
Climate
Demand
Buffalo system
William Hovell system
(including Wangaratta)
BAS1
Historic
Current
12% (88%)
17% (83%)
BAS2
Return to dry*1
Current
49% (51%)
51% (49%)
BAS3
2060 median*1
Current
19% (81%)
31% (69%)
BAS4
Historic
Future*2
12% (88%)
18% (82%)
BAS5
Return to dry*1
Future*2
54% (46%)
52% (48%)
BAS6
2060 median*1
Future*2
21% (79%)
33% (67%)
Notes:
1 as defined by Moran and Sharples (2011)
2 predicted for the year 2060
The following sections describe the three options investigated to improve Wangaratta’s
reliability of supply, and the information used to compare them in a TBL assessment. The
three options are:

The increased use of groundwater as a supplement to surface water supplies

The enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10 GL (from 24 GL to 34 GL)

The use of alternative water sources, such as those identified in NEW’s Alternative Water
Atlas (NEW, 2012)
Final Draft
16
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
4. Additional groundwater use (Option 2)
4.1
Number of bores required
The number of bores needed to increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90% was
assessed using the groundwater resource investigation described in Appendix A, the concept
design described in Appendix C, and the water resource modelling undertaken in phase one
of the Water Security for Wangaratta Project (SKM, 2014). For this option, it was also
assumed that in future, groundwater would be used to supplement extractions from the
Ovens River whenever surface water restrictions occurred, instead of only being used when
restrictions reach Stage 4 (as per the base case).
If the existing groundwater bores are used to supplement Ovens River extractions whenever
surface water restrictions occur, they supply enough additional water to increase
Wangaratta’s reliability of supply above 90% assuming (Table 4.2):

Historic climate and current demand

Median climate change and current demand

Historic climate and future (2060) demand
To do this, the bores need to be able to operate daily for long periods of time (i.e. for up to 40
weeks per year during extreme droughts). To provide water day after day while maintaining
groundwater levels within available drawdown limits, the bores need to have a recovery
period each day. Table 4.1 shows the estimated volume that can be sustainably extracted
from each bore each day, assuming it pumps for 16 hours and recovers for eight. These
proposed daily extraction volumes were used to estimate the influence of additional
groundwater use on Wangaratta’s reliability of supply. Combined, they are within the total
licensed extraction limit for the existing bores. However, in contrast with the existing licences
which allow for 3 ML/d to be extracted from each Kerr Street bore, it is proposed that more
water be taken from the No. 2 bore and less from the No. 1 bore. The reasons for this are
described in Appendix A.
Final Draft
17
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 4.1 : Existing bore capability and licence conditions [Table split and adapted for accessibility]
Bore
Pumping
Discharge
Proposed
Licensed
Licensed
duration
rate
daily
daily
annual
extraction
extraction
extraction
each day
limit
Kerr Street No. 1
16 hr
40 L/s
2.3 ML/d
3.0 ML/d
415 ML with
Kerr
Street
No. 2
Kerr Street No. 2
16 hr
60 L/s
3.5 ML/d
3.0 ML/d
415 ML with
Kerr
Street
No. 1
Faithfull Street
16 hr
33 L/s
1.9 ML/d
2.6 ML/d
200 ML
Total proposed daily extraction: 7.7 ML/d
Total licensed daily extraction: 8.6 ML/d
Total licensed annual extraction limit: 615 ML
Average proposed daily extraction: 2.6 ML/d
One new bore, and trading the unused groundwater licence for the irrigation bore in Anker
Road to the water supply bores, would increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply above 90%
for the following scenarios:

Return to dry climate and current demand

Median climate change and future (2060) demand
This is based on the assumption that the new bore has a daily extraction limit of 2.6 ML/d
(the average of the proposed daily extraction limits for the existing bores) and an annual
extraction limit of 200 ML. The actual yield from the new bore and its licence conditions would
need to be confirmed by further groundwater investigations.
A second new bore would be required to increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90%
under the return to dry climate and future demand scenario. The unused groundwater licence
for the irrigation bore in Anker Road would again need to be traded to the other bores, and
the annual extraction limit across the water supply bores would need to be increased by a
further 30 ML. Constructing a second new bore also means that, for all but the return to dry
climate and future demand scenario, the 90% reliability of supply target can be met with one
bore on standby (i.e. as back up if other bores fail or are taken offline for servicing).
Final Draft
18
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Assuming two new bores are constructed, Figure 4.1 shows the number of bores that would
operate from year to year under the historic climate and current demand scenario. Figure 4.2
repeats this for the return to dry climate and future demand scenario. Each of these
scenarios assumes that 10% of the raw groundwater extracted is lost during treatment.
Table 4.2 : Reliability of supply for Wangaratta with additional groundwater use [Table split and adapted for
accessibility]
Modelled Reliability of Supply for Wangaratta
Scenario
Climate
Demand
Base case
Current
Current
Current
bores*1
bores plus
bores plus
one new
two new
bore*1, *2
bores*1, *3
BAS1
Historic
Current
88%
95%
98%
98%
BAS2
Return to
Current
51%
74%
90%
93%
Current
81%
90%
96%
98%
dry
BAS3
2060
median
BAS4
Historic
Future
88%
92%
96%
98%
BAS5
Return to
Future
46%
64%
80%
90%
Future
79%
85%
91%
95%
dry
BAS6
2060
median
Notes:
1 assuming the groundwater bores are used whenever surface water restrictions occur
2 requires the unused groundwater licence for the irrigation bore in Anker Road to be traded
to the other bores
3 requires the unused groundwater licence for the irrigation bore in Anker Road to be traded
to the other bores, and the combined annual extraction limit for the bores increased by a
further 30 ML
Figure 4.1 : Number of bores used for the historic climate and current demand scenario, assuming two
new bores are installed
Final Draft
19
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 4.2 : Number of bores used for the return to dry climate and future demand, assuming two new
bores are installed
4.2
Concept design
The concept design for the additional groundwater use option is included in Appendix C. In
brief, the concept design includes:

An upgrade to the package treatment plant at NEW’s Kerr Street site

A new groundwater bore with associated pump and headworks, raw water balance tank,
and treatment plant at NEW’s Phillipson Street site

A second new groundwater bore
If the existing bores are used to increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90%, instead of
being used as a contingency supply during Stage 4 restrictions, it is appropriate to upgrade
the water treatment infrastructure associated with the Kerr Street bores. An upgrade to water
treatment infrastructure at the Faithfull Street WTP was not included in the concept design;
however Appendix C includes some words and approximate costs regarding ‘stand-alone’
treatment of groundwater at Faithfull Street if further trials show this is required.
With regards to the new bores, Phillipson Street is the preferred location for the first new bore
(Figure 4.3; Appendix B). Operating a bore at Phillipson Street would not significantly
influence groundwater levels at the Kerr Street or Faithfull Street bores, and the water supply
could be easily integrated into Wangaratta’s reticulation system. Appendix A includes more
details on how the operation of each current and proposed bore is expected to affect
groundwater levels at the other bores.
Several locations were considered for the second new bore (Appendix B):

Near (i.e. within 500 m of) the Faithfull Street WTP

Near NEW’s Kerr Street site (e.g. Cruse Street, Figure 4.3)

Near NEW’s Phillipson Street site
The search for appropriate locations was informed by maps showing Crown land, flood prone
land, and 200 m buffers around waterways and 300 m buffers around bores not owned by
NEW.
Final Draft
20
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
NEW would prefer the second new bore to be near their existing Kerr Street or Faithfull
Street sites, again because this would simplify the works required to integrate the additional
groundwater into Wangaratta’s reticulation system. The concept design in Appendix C
considers both sites. It is likely that a second new bore near Kerr Street would be easier to
construct and license compared with one near Faithfull Street. This is because the Crown
land sites near Faithfull Street, on which a bore could be easily constructed, are prone to
flooding and are within 200 m of waterways or 300 m of existing bores. However, there is
anecdotal evidence that Wangaratta Turf Club recently drilled an irrigation bore within the
race course, which is near Kerr Street. If this bore is viable, the Cruse Street (near Kerr
Street) location will be within 300 m. Drilling a new bore at Cruse Street may therefore impact
groundwater levels at the Turf Club bore. If the Turf Club bore is not viable, the probability
that a good yield can be achieved from a bore near Cruse Street will be reduced. In
summary, the preferred site for the second new bore will need to be confirmed during
detailed design of this additional groundwater use option.
For the concept design of the new bores, it was assumed that they would produce 3.5
ML/day by pumping for 16 hours and recovering for eight. This is higher than the 2.6 ML/day
assumed when considering the number of new bores required (Section 4.1), but it is
appropriately conservative from a cost perspective.
It is also important to note this additional groundwater use option can be implemented in
stages, if required. That is:

Stage 1: upgrade the water treatment infrastructure at Kerr Street, so that the existing
Kerr Street bores can be used more frequently

Stage 2: construct the first new bore at Phillipson Street

Stage 3: construct the second new bore
4.3
Indicative cost
4.3.1
Capital cost
Table 4.3 summarises the estimated capital cost to implement the additional groundwater
use option. More detail is provided in Appendix F.
The total cost estimate assumes:
Final Draft
21
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Stand-alone groundwater treatment is not required at the Faithfull Street WTP. If further
trials show this is required, the additional cost is expected to be $1.5 – 2.0 million.

The second bore is constructed at Cruse Street (near Kerr Street) rather than near
Faithfull Street (Figure 4.3).
Table 4.3 : Estimated capital cost – additional groundwater use
Item
Estimated cost
Upgrade of water treatment infrastructure at Kerr Street $3.5 million
First new bore at Phillipson Street, with additional water $5.4 million
treatment infrastructure
Second new bore at Cruse Street, with additional water $6.3 million
treatment infrastructure
Total
4.3.2
$15.2 million
Operating cost
The operating cost for the additional groundwater use option was estimated on the basis that:

Pumping costs are approximately $30 per ML. This includes the cost of power, and
ongoing entitlement fees for groundwater extractions.

Treatment costs are approximately $450 per ML

It costs $70,000 every eight years to replace filter media in the Amiad treatment plants.
Across the Kerr Street and Phillipson Street sites, this equals $280,000 every eight years
once all bores are installed.

Maintenance costs for the groundwater bores and treatment plants at Kerr Street and
Phillipson Street are $35,000 per year, in total

Bore operation costs are $15,000 per bore in the years when groundwater is required
For the return to dry climate and future demand scenario on which the concept design is
based, groundwater is required in 65 years out of 121, and the average raw volume extracted
is 300 ML per year. Therefore, for this scenario the operating cost is estimated to be
$260,000 per year on average.
Final Draft
22
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 4.3 : Proposed location for first new water supply bore – figure shows proposed location for first new supply bore on Phillipson Street in Wangaratta
Final Draft
23
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
5. Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option 3)
5.1
Storage size required
The following information is paraphrased from URS (2003) and SKM (2014):
Lake Buffalo is located on the Buffalo River, approximately 20 km south of Myrtleford. It was
constructed in 1965 as the first stage of a much larger dam, and was never intended to be a
permanent structure. The storage capacity of Lake Buffalo is approximately 24 GL, which is
relatively small given its catchment of 1,062 km².
The Lake Buffalo embankment is comprised of two earth and rockfill sections separated by a
concrete gated ogee primary spillway. The left abutment embankment (main embankment) is
a 120 m long zoned central clay core-rockfill section with a maximum height of approximately
35 m. The right abutment embankment (secondary embankment) is a 490 m long
homogeneous earthfill section with upstream rockfill protection. It has a maximum height of
approximately 17 m. A secondary unlined spillway is constructed in natural ground at the
eastern end of the secondary embankment. Figure 5.1 shows the current general
arrangement of Lake Buffalo.
A bigger Lake Buffalo has been investigated several times in the past. For example:


DWR (1992) developed concept designs to:
-
Build a 65 m high dam to create a 300 GL storage
-
Build a 85 m high dam to create a 800 GL storage
SKM (2008) investigated the hydrological impacts of enlarging Lake Buffalo to 1,000 GL
as part of the Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy
Most recently, SKM (2014) modelled the effect of enlarging Lake Buffalo on Wangaratta’s
reliability of supply, as part of phase one of the Water Security for Wangaratta project (Table
5.1). SKM (2014) found that enlarging Lake Buffalo’s capacity by 10 GL would provide 91%
reliability of supply for the Buffalo system (including Wangaratta) under a return to dry climate
and future demand scenario. This modelling assumed that the current gated spillway is
replaced by a fixed crest structure.
Final Draft
24
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 5.1 : Reliability of supply improvements from enlarging Lake Buffalo [Table split and adapted for
accessibility]
Modelled Reliability of Supply for Buffalo system (including Wangaratta)
Scenario
Climate
Demand
Current Lake Buffalo
Enlarged Lake Buffalo
capacity (24 GL)
(34 GL)
BAS1
Historic
Current
88%
98%
BAS2
Return to dry Current
51%
92%
BAS3
2060 median Current
81%
98%
BAS4
Historic
Future
88%
98%
BAS5
Return to dry Future
46%
91%
BAS6
2060 median Future
79%
98%
Final Draft
25
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 5.1 : Current general arrangement of Lake Buffalo (URS, 2003) Figure is a diagram showing the location of the current dam wall, spillways and other
infrastructure
Final Draft
26
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
5.2
Concept design
An interim dam safety upgrade of Lake Buffalo was performed in 2003 to address concerns
regarding cracking in the upper portions of the main embankment and insufficient flood
capacity (URS, 2003). The works included treatment of the clay core and left abutment areas,
construction of a partial height downstream filter and rockfill berm, strengthening works for
the primary and secondary spillways, and a 2.2 m raise of the main and secondary
embankment crests. This raising was achieved through a combination of earth and rockfill
construction, and installation of a concrete parapet wall.
The works undertaken in 2003 were designed as an interim upgrade. At the time, URS
(2003) also considered the dam safety works required to make the dam fully compliant with
modern engineering standards, including:

The installation of filters in the secondary embankment

Increasing spillway capacity further, so that the dam can pass the Probable Maximum
Flood (PMF)

Upgrading the spillway gates
The concept design for enlarging Lake Buffalo developed in this project was based on
concepts and recommendations in the URS (2003) report. Sketches are included in Appendix
D. In summary, the design includes (Table 5.2):

Raising the main and secondary embankment crests by 3.8 m, again through a
combination of earth and rockfill construction, and installation of a concrete parapet wall
(1.7 m high)

Raising the primary spillway crest by 6.5 m, widening it from 32 m to 70 m, and removing
the three vertical lift gates

Widening the secondary spillway from 100 m to 150 m, and installing a fuse plug
embankment approximately 7.5 m high, that has a top elevation of 272.0 m AHD and a
nominal base elevation of 269.8 m AHD. The fuse plug is intended to increase spillway
capacity by eroding when overtopped.

Creating a 160 m wide tertiary spillway through an overflow portion in the secondary
embankment, with a spillway crest elevation of 271.1 m AHD.

Installing a new high level outlet
Final Draft
27
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Installing filters in the secondary embankment
The concept design achieves two objectives. Firstly, it raises the full supply level (FSL) of
Lake Buffalo by 2.9 m, thus increasing its storage capacity from 24 GL to 34 GL. The
additional area expected to be inundated upstream of Lake Buffalo is shown in Figure 5.2.
Secondly, the concept design addresses the remaining dam safety concerns, i.e. the primary
spillway gates, spillway capacity and filters in the secondary embankment. Converting to a
fixed crest storage removes the need for upgrading the spillway gates. And the additional
spillway capacity provided by widening the primary and secondary spillway (with fuse plug)
and constructing a new tertiary spillway would be sufficient to pass the Probable Maximum
Precipitation Design Flood (PMPDF) of approximately 8,200 m³/s. The PMPDF is a smaller
flood than the PMF, but based on the most recent consequence assessment (SKM, 2011),
and the recently updated guidelines on Consequence Categories for Dams (ANCOLD, 2012),
a spillway capacity that passes the PMPDF is appropriate for Lake Buffalo. The current
spillway capacity at Lake Buffalo is 3,670 m³/s.
Enlarging Lake Buffalo would also involve the following complementary works:

Raising the two-lane road and bridge that passes over the main and secondary
embankments

Relocating facilities inundated at the Main Recreation Area and Marshalls Ridge
Seasonal Recreation Area
A fish ladder was not included in the concept design, but G-MW as the dam owner would be
obliged to consider installing one as part of any major upgrade of storage capacity.
As part of the concept design, consideration was given to the cost versus storage capacity
achieved by increasing FSL by more than 2.9 m. However, larger augmentations of Lake
Buffalo are not considered feasible if they have the same geometry as the existing dam (as
per the concept design in Appendix D). This is because of the compressible nature of the
existing rockfill, and limitations on how far the dam access road and bridge can be moved
downstream. These factors, together with the nature of the original dam construction (as a
temporary dam for a much larger water storage reservoir) mean that increasing Lake
Buffalo’s capacity beyond 34 GL would likely require a new dam.
Final Draft
28
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 5.2 : Summary of key elevations and widths for enlarging Lake Buffalo [Table replaced with text]
Element: Full supply level (FSL)
Elevation Existing: 264.4 m AHD
Elevation New: 267.3 m AHD
Increase: 2.9 m
Element: Embankment crest
Elevation Existing: 269.2 m AHD
Elevation New: 273.0 m AHD
Increase: 3.8 m
Element: Top of parapet wall (Parapet wall height is 1.7 m.)
Elevation Existing: 270.3 m AHD
Elevation New: 274.7 m AHD
Increase: 4.4 m
Element: Primary spillway
Elevation Existing: 260.8 m AHD
Elevation New: 267.3 m AHD
Increase: 6.5 m
Width Existing: 32 m
Width New: 70 m
Increase: 38 m
Element: Secondary spillway (New elevation is at the base of the fuse plug. The top of the
fuse plug is 272.0 m AHD.)
Elevation Existing: 265.5 m AHD
Elevation New: 269.8 m AHD
Increase: 4.3 m
Width Existing: 100 m
Width New: 150 m
Increase: 50 m
Element: Tertiary spillway (Overflow section on secondary embankment.)
Elevation New: 271.1 m AHD
Width New: 160 m
Final Draft
29
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 5.2 : Expected inundation extent upstream of Lake Buffalo if storage capacity is increased from 24
GL to 34 GL . Figure shows a map of Lake Buffalo with the area expected to be inundated if Lake Buffalo
storage capacity is increased marked on the map.
5.3
Indicative cost
5.3.1
Capital cost
The estimated capital cost for the works required to enlarge Lake Buffalo is approximately
$70 million. Appendix G shows how this estimate was derived.
The enlarging Lake Buffalo option is also likely to require:

$5-$10 million to be spent on vegetation offsets, to account for the native vegetation lost
when the lake level rises (see Appendix I for more details)

Approximately $0.5 million to buy back water entitlements in the Ovens River catchment,
so that average total surface water diversions are the same pre and post the
enlargement of Lake Buffalo, and therefore remain compliant with the proposed Murray
Darling Basin Plan Sustainable Diversion Limits for the Ovens River catchment. The $0.5
million price is based on the assumption that 280-300 ML of High Reliability shares are
purchased from currently active water users (rather than sleepers) at $1,600-$1,800 per
ML (see Appendix K for more details).
The total capital cost of enlarging Lake Buffalo is therefore estimated to be $80 million (Table
5.3).
Table 5.3 : Estimated capital cost – enlarge Lake Buffalo
Item
Estimated cost
Capital cost of upgrade (Appendix G)
$71.3 million
Vegetation offsets (estimated to be $5-$10
$7.5 million
million)
Buyback of water entitlements
$0.5 million
Total
$79.3 million
It is also important to note that the concept design includes a new high level outlet to access
the water stored above the current FSL, for an estimated cost of $1 - $2 million. The existing
low level outlets through the primary spillway would be retained. However, it may be
Final Draft
30
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
appropriate to construct a new intake tower and outlet arrangement as part of the
enlargement of Lake Buffalo. The type and cost of an intake tower is influenced by many
variables, including the construction method, number of offtakes, discharge capacity,
geological conditions and environmental controls during construction. If a new intake tower
which provided access to the full range of storage levels was required, the most feasible
scenario would be to construct one in the dry land and then connect it to the storage via an
approach channel excavated under water. This would potentially cost a further $20 - $25
million. Refining this cost estimate requires more investigations and design.
Likewise, the concept design and indicative cost does not include a fish ladder. If a fish
ladder was included in the enlarging of Lake Buffalo, the additional cost would depend on the
type of fishway. A relatively simple trap and haul operation would cost approximately $5
million to install. There would then be ongoing costs to operate the fishway. If a fish ladder
with less operating cost is preferred, the cost to install it will rise. For example, a fish lock
may cost $15 - $20 million.
Enlarging Lake Buffalo as per the concept design in Appendix D would remove the need for
planned dam safety upgrades. The avoided cost is estimated to be $22.5 million over the
next 15 years. This has been accounted for in the net present value (NPV) calculations used
in the TBL assessment (Section 7).
5.3.2
Operating cost
The cost of operating an enlarged Lake Buffalo is not expected to be materially different to
the current operating costs. It is already managed by G-MW as a High to Extreme
Consequence Category dam, and this practice would continue after the enlargement.
Final Draft
31
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
6. Alternative water use (Option 4)
6.1
Potential water sources
In their Water Supply Demand Strategy (NEW, 2012), NEW has prepared an Alternative
Water Atlas for Wangaratta. The atlas tables ‘alternative’ options for increasing water supply
or reducing the demand for potable water. Options include rainwater tanks, shallow bores,
recycled water and stormwater use.
The following alternative water use options were considered in more detail in this project:
a) Storing treated trade waste from Cleanaway’s south Wangaratta site via managed
aquifer recharge (MAR), and extracting it when needed for further treatment and use
b) Storing treated trade waste from Cleanaway’s south Wangaratta site in a new storage on
NEW’s Sandford Road site, and extracting it when needed for further treatment and use
c) Capturing storm water from the main drain passing through the Sandford Road site,
before storing it via MAR for later extraction, further treatment and use
d) Capturing storm water from the main drain passing through the Sandford Road site, and
holding it in a new storage on Sandford Road, before further treatment and use
e) Upgrading the Wangaratta Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), so that it can supply
Class A recycled water to meet commercial, industrial, and Wangaratta City Council
demands, and some non-potable residential demands
The conclusions were:

Option A was not pursued further, given MAR of treated trade waste is unlikely to be
approved by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

Option B provides less water compared with Option E (200 – 450 ML/year versus 1,950
ML/year)

In addition to MAR infrastructure, Option C would require the same investment in
infrastructure proposed for the additional groundwater use option (Section 4). The
additional groundwater use option has been designed to supply enough water to
Wangaratta without needing MAR, and therefore this option was not pursued further.
Final Draft
32
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Option D provides less water than Option E (1,150 ML/year versus 1,950 ML/year), and
storm water is a less reliable source of water in dry periods compared with water recycled
from the WWTP

Option E is the most feasible alternative water use option, because recycled water is a
reliable, climate independent source of water.
Alternative water use options will only increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply if they
reduce the demand for potable water. Table 6.1 shows the volume of demand in Wangaratta
that would need to be met using recycled water so that 90% reliability of supply is achieved
(i.e. restrictions occur in 10% of years).
Table 6.1 : Demand reduction required to achieve 90% reliability of supply for Wangaratta
Model Results for Wangaratta
Demand Reduction
Scenario Climate Demand
Reliability
of Supply
Required to Achieve
90% Reliability of
Supply
Per Year
Demand Reduction
Required to Achieve
90% Reliability of
Supply
% of Average
Demand
BAS1
Historic
Current
88%
107 ML
3%
BAS2
Return
Current
51%
767 ML
24%
Current
81%
411 ML
13%
to dry
BAS3
2060
median
BAS4
Historic
Future
88%
133 ML
4%
BAS5
Return
Future
46%
944 ML
26%
Future
79%
513 ML
14%
to dry
BAS6
2060
median
Final Draft
33
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
6.2
Potential water users
Flow through the Wangaratta WWTP is approximately 1,950 ML/year. (Refer to Wangaratta
Sewer System.2) Therefore, the WWTP would supply enough treated water to increase
Wangaratta’s reliability of supply above 90% for all climate and demand scenarios, if the
recycled water could be used as a potable water source. However, at present the use of
recycled water is restricted to non-potable demands. Therefore, metered consumption data
for 2009-10 was used to estimate the potential demand for recycled water in Wangaratta.
To do this, firstly an assessment was made of the industrial, commercial and Wangaratta City
Council demands which potentially could be met using recycled water. The results are shown
in Table 6.3. In summary, it was estimated that recycled water use by industrial and
commercial users and Wangaratta City Council could reduce Wangaratta’s current demand
for potable water by 700 ML per year. This estimate assumes that potential industrial and
commercial users could reduce their demand for potable water by 90% by using recycled
water.
It is important to note two things. Firstly, none of the potential users of recycled water
identified during this assessment have been consulted to confirm that they could use
recycled water to reduce their demand for potable water. Secondly, RMCG (2013) have
projected that Wangaratta’s future demand for water will be driven by increased residential
use, and non-residential demands are expected to remain static. Therefore, the potential
demand for recycled water is not expected to increase in future unless it is used for
residential purposes.
Reducing Wangaratta’s demand for potable water by 700 ML per year would be sufficient to
increase the reliability of supply to 90% in the historic and median climate change scenarios
considered in phase one of the Water Security for Wangaratta project, but not in the return to
dry climate change scenarios. To achieve 90% reliability of supply under these scenarios, a
further 250 ML per year of residential demand would need to be met using recycled water.
In Wangaratta, average residential use is approximately 200 kL per year (NEW, 2012). Of
this, approximately 40% would be used for outdoor use (source: Australian Bureau of
Statistics3). Therefore, to have 250 ML of recycled water used each year by households
2
3
http://www.newater.com.au/residential/forms/residential-customers/images/Sewer_Wangaratta.pdf
http://www.abs.gov.au/
Final Draft
34
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
would require approximately 3,100 houses to be connected to a recycled water distribution
system, assuming the recycled water is for outdoor use only.
Each of these scenarios also assume that potable water savings made by using recycled
water throughout the year can be stored (e.g. in Lake Buffalo) and made available in summer
periods when the demand for potable water increases. Such an arrangement would require a
change to current dam operations or an off-stream storage near Wangaratta, but this has not
been investigated further in this project. Further modelling with the Ovens River REALM
model would be needed to confirm how potable water savings are best stored and used to
increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply.
Table 6.2 : Estimate of demand for recycled water from industrial and commercial users, and Wangaratta
City Council
Class/User
2009-10
Consumption (ML)
Estimated demand
Estimated demand
which could be met
which could be met
with Recycled
with Recycled
Water
Water
ML
%
Residential
1,750
n/a
n/a
Commercial
480
20
4%
Industrial
775
630
80%
Vacant Land
3
0
0%
105
50
50%
3,110
700
23%
Wangaratta City
Council
Total
6.3
Concept design
The demand for potable water in Wangaratta will only be reduced by a significant amount
through use of recycled water, if the recycled water can be used for the variety of purposes
described in Section 6.2. This would require taking secondary treated effluent from lagoons
at the existing Wangaratta Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), treating it to Class A
standard, and distributing it to users via a recycled water reticulation network.
Similar to the additional groundwater use option, the recycled water use option could be
implemented in stages. The first stage would include a 5.5 ML/d Class A recycled water
Final Draft
35
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
treatment plant, a 2.5 ML treated water storage tank, a 5 ML/d pump station, and the
reticulation network for non-residential users (Figure 6.1). Appendix E includes more detail on
this first stage.
The second stage would include an upgrade to the Class A recycled water treatment plant (8
ML/d), storage tank and pump station, and the roll-out of the reticulation network for
residential users. A 40 km reticulation network would be required to supply 3,100 households
with recycled water for outdoor use, and this distribution system would branch off the
reticulation network installed in stage one.
6.4
Indicative cost
6.4.1
Capital Cost
The capital cost of treating waste water to Class A standard and distributing it to nonresidential users is estimated to be approximately $40 million (Table 6.3). This is comprised
of:

$22.9 million for a 5.5 ML/d Class A recycled water treatment plant

$17.6 million for the 2.5 ML treated water storage tank, 5 ML/d pump station and the
reticulation network shown in Figure 6.1
Appendix H shows how this estimate was derived.
The capital cost for the second stage is estimated to be approximately $55 million (Table
6.3).
This is comprised of:

$8.0 million to increase the capacity of the Class A recycling plant, treated water storage
tank and pump station

$17.1 million for a 40 km reticulation network

$29.5 million to connect 3,100 households to the reticulation network
Appendix H includes more details for this cost estimate.
Using Class A recycled water to meet non-potable demands in Wangaratta would remove the
need for planned expansions of agricultural re-use schemes. NEW has estimated the
Final Draft
36
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
avoided cost to be approximately $6 million. This has been accounted for in the net present
value (NPV) calculations used in the TBL assessment (Section 7).
Table 6.3 : Estimated capital cost – recycled water use [Table split for accessibility]
Stage 1 Item
Stage 1 Estimated cost
Class A recycled water treatment plant
$22.9 million
Treated water storage, pump station and reticulation
$17.6 million
network
Stage 1 Total
$40.5 million
Stage 2 Item
Stage 2 Estimated cost
Upgrade Class A recycled water treatment plant, treated
$8.0 million
water storage and pump station
Reticulation network for non-potable residential use
$17.1 million
Connections to households
$29.5 million
Stage 2 Total
$54.6 million
Total
$95.1 million
6.4.2
Operating Cost
The operating cost for the recycled (alternative) water use option was estimated on the basis
that:

Pumping costs are approximately $22 per ML

Treatment costs are approximately $800 per ML

It costs $250,000 every five years to replace the ultrafiltration membranes in the recycled
water treatment plant

It costs $15,000 every two years to replace the ultraviolet lamps in the recycled water
treatment plant

Maintenance costs for the recycled water plant, pump station and distribution network are
$50,000 per year in total for stage 1, and $100,000 per year for stage 2

Operator costs are $35,000 per year
Final Draft
37
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Therefore, if 700 ML of recycled water is produced each year, the operating cost is
approximately $720,000 per year. This cost rises to approximately $1,000,000 per year
following stage 2 when 950 ML of recycled water is produced each year.
Final Draft
38
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 6.1 : Concept design for recycled water use – supply to non-residential users. This shows a map of Wangaratta marked with the proposed locations of
the recycled water treatment plant and recycled water reticulation network.
Final Draft
39
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7. Assessment against Triple Bottom Line criteria
The three options for improving the reliability of water supply to Wangaratta were assessed
against the following criteria:
Economic criteria

Net cost, as a net present value (NPV) – Section 7.1

Third party impacts – Section 7.1.2
Environmental criteria

Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts – Section 7.2

Surface water impacts – Section 7.2.2
Social criteria

Reliability of supply for downstream users – Section 7.3

Cultural heritage – Section 7.3.2

Amenity and recreation – Section 7.3.3

Local community acceptance – Section 7.3.4

Pricing impacts – Section 7.3.5
Technical criteria

Resilience – Section 7.4

Timing and complexity of implementation – Section 7.4.2
The net cost (as a NPV) criteria has the highest weighting. The NPV was estimated over a
30-year period. Costs were discounted to 2014/15, by applying a discount rate of 4.5% (real),
which reflects NEW’s and G-MW’s weighted average cost of capital. Building costs were
estimated to escalate at 4% annually, relative to an assumed long term CPI of 2.5%. CPI
escalation was excluded from the analysis, because all costs were estimated in 2014/15
dollars. The NPV estimates do not include GST.
It is also important to note that the assessments of third party impacts, local community
acceptance and pricing impacts were based on desktop investigations, and were not
Final Draft
40
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
informed by community consultations. Therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with
the scores for these criteria.
Final Draft
41
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.1
Financial Criteria
7.1.1
Net cost (40% weighting)
In this assessment, the estimated net capital and operating cost of each option is compared
(as net present value). [Table replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Under the base case, G-MW
expects to undertake dam safety works at Lake Buffalo.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): For this option, the upgrade of
existing or construction of new infrastructure can be staged over time.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The total capital cost is estimated to be $15 million (2014/15
dollars).The cost estimate is indicative only and will vary with further investigation and design.
Indirect project costs are 27% of direct construction costs. These include contractor
preliminaries, contractor margins, consultant fees (design, investigations, etc.), and project
management fees (external and internal). The contingency allowance is 50%. A high
contingency is required given the preliminary nature of the concept design. The upgrade of
Kerr St water treatment infrastructure and installation of the first new bore are assumed to
occur in 2014/15. The second new bore is assumed to be constructed in 2023/24. Operating
costs are estimated to be $260,000 per year once all bores are in.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -1. NPV = $17 million
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Final Draft
42
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): For this option, there will be cost
implications for NEW and G-MW.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Potentially. The cost implications
for G-MW customers may be resisted.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: The transfer of cost to G-MW
customers should not exceed the value of the benefit to irrigators.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The capital cost of works is estimated to be $70 million
(2014/15 dollars).The cost estimate is indicative only and will vary with further investigation
and design. Indirect project costs are 35% of direct construction costs. These include
contractor preliminaries, contractor margins, consultant fees (design, investigations, etc.),
and project management fees (external and internal). The indirect costs are expected to be
higher for this option because of the design and investigations involved. The contingency
allowance is 50%. A high contingency is required given the preliminary nature of the concept
design. The project is assumed to be delivered over three years – with design and planning
in 2014/15, 70% of the balance in 2015/16 and the completion of works in 2017/18. The dam
operating costs are not expected to change as a result of this project, and are therefore not
included in the NPV estimate. This option is expected to avoid the need for dam safety
upgrades that would otherwise be required. This avoided cost is estimated to be $28 million
(real dollars) or $22 million (discounted over the 30 year assessment period). This option will
also involve purchasing $0.5 million of water entitlements, and $5-$10 million of vegetation
offsets. Therefore, the total capital cost is approximately $80 million.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -3. NPV = $54 million. NPV = $77 million, if
excluding currently planned dam safety upgrades
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? There may be insufficient demand for recycled water to
increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90% in a return to dry climate scenario.
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): For this option, there may be
cost implications for NEW customers who are provided recycled water (e.g. further on-site
water treatment).
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Potentially. It may take some time
for NEW customers to be ready to use recycled water.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The total capital cost is estimated to be $95 million (2014/15
Final Draft
43
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
dollars). The cost estimates are indicative only and will vary with further investigation and
design. Indirect project costs are 27% of direct construction costs. These include contractor
preliminaries, contractor margins, consultant fees (design, investigations, etc.), and project
management fees (external and internal). The contingency allowance is 50%. A high
contingency is required given the preliminary nature of the concept design. Stage 1 of the
project is estimated to be delivered over three years – with design and planning in 2014/15,
70% of the balance on 2015/16 and the completion of works in 2017/18. Stage 2 of the
project is also estimated to be delivered over three years – with design and planning in
2024/25, 70% of the balance on 2025/26 and the completion of works in 2027/28. Operating
costs are expected to commence the year after commissioning, and are estimated to be
$720,000 per year following Stage 1 and $1,000,000 per year following Stage 2. This option
is expected to avoid the need for investment in additional agricultural re-use schemes. This
avoided cost is estimated to be $6 million (real dollars) or $5.8 million (discounted over the 30
year assessment period).
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -4. NPV = $86 million. NPV = $92 million, if
excluding currently planned agricultural re-use schemes
7.1.2
Third party impacts (10% weighting)
In this assessment, the potential costs and benefits of changes in reliability of supply for other
users in the Ovens River catchment (e.g. irrigators) are compared. [Table replaced with text
for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): This option will only provide
potable water for Wangaratta. That is, there are no third party impacts.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The funding and cost recovery process for this option is yet
to be determined.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Final Draft
44
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Enlarging Lake Buffalo increases
the reliability of supply to Wangaratta and other water users (i.e. irrigators). The irrigators will
be third party beneficiaries if they receive the benefits of this increase in reliability without
paying their full share of the costs.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No, assuming that if there is any
price impact associated with the increased reliability of supply for irrigators, that this price
change is accepted.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The funding and cost recovery process for this option is yet
to be determined.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: +1
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Potentially
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): The use of recycled water for
non-potable demands in Wangaratta would need to be established in a manner that does not
reduce the volume and reliability of supply for irrigators who currently use effluent from the
WWTP to irrigate Lucerne. Users of recycled water may need to change their current water
management practices, and install on-site storage and further treatment infrastructure so the
recycled water is fit for their purpose. Having a secure source of Class A recycled water may
attract new industries to Wangaratta.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Potentially, assuming customers
are responsible for any on-site storage and further treatment required.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Offer recycled water at a discount
compared with the price of potable water.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The funding and cost recovery process for this option is yet
to be determined.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -1
Final Draft
45
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.2
Environmental criteria
7.2.1
Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts (10% weighting)
In this assessment, the potential risks to native flora and fauna are compared. [Table
replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Scoring for option relative to “base case”: 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): This option affects small areas
within an urban context. One potential new bore site has no issues. The other sites have
native vegetation mapped; including two sites with potentially EPBC listed vegetation. The
likelihood of finding threatened flora and fauna at the new bore sites is low to medium, and
the likelihood that construction works would impact their habitat is low.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: EPBC offsets may be required, in
addition to offsets under the Permitted Clearing regulations.
Assumptions and uncertainties: See Appendix I for more details. This is a desktop
assessment only. The data has not been verified with field visits. This cost of the vegetation
offsets has been accounted for in the indicative costs for each option, and therefore the
scores for this criterion are primarily based on the expected risk to threated flora and fauna.
Scoring for option relative to “base case”: 0
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): A large area (90 ha) of native
vegetation would be lost by raising the full supply level of Lake Buffalo by 2.9 m. The
likelihood of finding threatened flora and fauna in the vicinity of Lake Buffalo is medium to
Final Draft
46
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
high, but the likelihood that raising the full supply level would result in a significant impact to
their habitat is low.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Potentially. The large area of
native vegetation loss may trigger specific offset requirements (i.e. areas of new regulations
that have yet to be tested).
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Large vegetation offsets may be
required (likely to cost $5 - $10 million on the open market).
Assumptions and uncertainties: See Appendix I for more details. This is a desktop
assessment only. The data has not been verified with field visits. This cost of the vegetation
offsets has been accounted for in the indicative costs for each option, and therefore the
scores for this criterion are primarily based on the expected risk to threated flora and fauna.
Scoring for option relative to “base case”: -2
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): There may be some vegetation
loss resulting from laying recycled water pipelines along road reserves. The likelihood of
finding threatened flora and fauna within urban road reserves is low to medium, and the
likelihood that construction works would impact their habitat is low to medium.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Use existing linkages with the
WWTP to minimise vegetation and habitat loss.
Assumptions and uncertainties: See Appendix I for more details. This is a desktop
assessment only. The data has not been verified with field visits. This cost of the vegetation
offsets has been accounted for in the indicative costs for each option, and therefore the
scores for this criterion are primarily based on the expected risk to threated flora and fauna.
Scoring for option relative to “base case”: -1
7.2.2
Surface water impacts (10% weighting)
In this assessment, expected changes to river flow in the Ovens River catchment are
compared. [Table replaced with text for accessibility.]
Final Draft
47
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory) Extraction from the Calivil
Formation (target aquifer) is unlikely to have significant impact on nearby surface water
systems, because the Tertiary Aquitard acts as a low permeability boundary between the
groundwater and surface water systems.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment assumes no change in the pattern of
current surface water use
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory) Enlarging Lake Buffalo results in
a change in the downstream flow regime. There is a reduction in mean monthly flow from Feb
to July and an increase in the mean monthly flow from Sept to Nov (see Appendix J). This
change is primarily a result of changed operating rules rather than the increased storage
capacity. Decreased autumn flow has the potential to adversely impact fish in downstream
reaches if flow falls below recommended minimum low flows. Increased spring flow has the
potential to benefit downstream values by contributing to an increased likelihood of high flows
and floods that promote fish spawning, and floodplain and wetland inundation. The greatest
impact occurs in the Buffalo River downstream of the dam. The impact diminishes
downstream of Wangaratta, because natural tributary inflows contribute a greater proportion
of the stream flow.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Need to consider environmental
flow requirements in dam operating rules
Final Draft
48
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Alter release rules to meet
environmental flow recommendations
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment is based on modelled dam operating rules.
A change in operating rules would change the assessment outcome.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -1 in autumn; +1 in spring
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory) There is the potential for river
flows downstream of Wangaratta to increase slightly if recycled water use reduces the
demand for surface water extractions from the Ovens River. However, the increase will be
small relative to typical stream flows.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment assumes there is a minor change in the
pattern of current surface water use
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
7.3
Social Criteria
7.3.1
Reliability of supply for downstream users (4% weighting)
This assessment compares the positive and negative impacts expected for other
groundwater users, and surface water users in the River Murray system. [Table replaced with
text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): No change to existing reliability
for surface water diversions in the Ovens River catchment or River Murray system
Assumptions and uncertainties: Assumed no change to surface water downstream reliability
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Final Draft
49
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): For nearby groundwater users
G-MW imposes buffer zones, which means new bores should be at least 300 m away from
existing bores. Each proposed new bore site breaches these buffer zones. However, the
surrounding users are all screened within the shallower Shepparton Formation. The Tertiary
Aquitard is thought to be present at the new bore locations, and therefore the impact to
neighbouring users in the overlying Shepparton Formation is expected to be negligible. Users
within the Calvili Formation may see interference. However, there does not seem to be any
active bores in the area that utilise the Calivil Formation.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Assumptions and uncertainties: Assumed no change to surface water downstream reliability
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No. The impact on downstream users is expected to be
manageable.
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Operation of the enlarged Lake
Buffalo at a fixed crest level will improve Ovens River reliability and is expected to slightly
decrease River Murray reliability (see Appendix K for more details).
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Possible, but unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Buyback of high reliability water
shares in the Ovens River catchment
Assumptions and uncertainties: Modelling Murray reliability impacts is outside scope of this
project, so the impacts have not been quantified
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -1
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): There is no impact on reliability
Final Draft
50
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
of supply for Ovens River diverters. There is potentially a very small increase in River Murray
reliability assuming recycled water use in Wangaratta decreases the demand for surface
water extractions from the Ovens River.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Assumptions and uncertainties: Modelling Murray reliability impacts is outside scope of this
project, so the impacts have not been quantified
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
7.3.2
Cultural heritage (4% weighting)
This assessment compares the impacts to cultural heritage or historical heritage sites. [Table
replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): NA
Assumptions and uncertainties: Assumes no proposed ground works
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Bore installation by itself is
unlikely to require a cultural heritage management plan, but if the associated infrastructure
has > 25 m² impact area or is a pipeline >500 m in length and is <200 m from waterway, then
a cultural heritage management plan will be required. New Kerr St, Phillipson St bores: No
cultural heritage or historical heritage constraints identified, provided all works are 200 m or
more from waterways. A voluntary cultural heritage management plan would be
recommended for these options. New Faithfull St bore: Works would be within an area of
cultural heritage significance (within 200 m of a waterway) and will trigger a cultural heritage
management plan if these works are defined as high impact activities. No historical heritage
constraints.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Need to factor sufficient time for
cultural heritage management plan preparation, consultation with Aboriginal communities and
Final Draft
51
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
submission.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: A detailed desktop cultural
heritage assessment will determine the exact requirements for a cultural heritage
management plan.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): There are no registered cultural
heritage places or historical heritage sites within the proposed activity area. However, the
Lake Buffalo Land and On-Water Management Plan (G-MW, 2014) recognises that “the
current status of Aboriginal and European heritage at Lake Buffalo has not been specifically
investigated and is not well understood or documented” (p.17). Therefore a lack of data
should not be interpreted as a lack of risk. The enlargement of Lake Buffalo would impact
areas of cultural heritage significance and therefore a mandatory cultural heritage
management plan would most likely be required. The area of impact is large; therefore
fieldwork requirements may be extensive. Historical heritage sites listed on the Alpine Shire
LEP have been identified in the area. These will need to be avoided and the impacts
managed.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Need to factor sufficient time for
cultural heritage management plan preparation, consultation with Aboriginal communities and
submission. Time will be required for consultation with the National Trust, Heritage Victoria
and G-MW.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: A detailed desktop cultural
heritage assessment will determine the exact requirements for a cultural heritage
management plan. A desktop historical heritage assessment is also recommended.
Assumptions and uncertainties: Assumes a cultural heritage management plan is required.
Assumes a historical heritage assessment is required
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -2
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Final Draft
52
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Infrastructure for recycled water
use would be established at the existing WWTP north of Wangaratta. Works adjacent to the
existing WWTP would be likely to trigger a cultural heritage management plan, due to
proximity to waterways. In addition, pipelines into Wangaratta from this location would be
likely to cross multiple areas of cultural heritage significance. A mandatory cultural heritage
management plan would most likely be required. No historical heritage constraints were
identified for this option.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Need to factor sufficient time for
cultural heritage management plan preparation, consultation with Aboriginal communities and
submission.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: A detailed desktop cultural
heritage assessment will determine the exact requirements for a cultural heritage
management plan.
Assumptions and uncertainties: Assumes a cultural heritage management plan is required
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -1
7.3.3
Amenity and recreation (4% weighting)
This assessment compares the impacts to existing amenity and recreation facilities. [Table
replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts / considerations (including legal and regulatory): Could enable continued
irrigation of urban recreational infrastructure such as golf courses and playing fields during
dry periods.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: +2
Final Draft
53
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts / considerations (including legal and regulatory): Could enable continued
irrigation of urban recreational infrastructure such as golf courses and playing fields during
dry periods. Raising the water level of the lake may better enable water based activities to
continue in dry years. Construction activities may result in:

temporary loss of access to public boat ramps, recreation areas and public facilities

Reduced recreational fishing opportunities
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely. However, the
construction program should consider peak tourist times such as school holidays, Easter, and
long weekends.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Reinstate disturbed areas with
landscaping. Employ environmental management measures to manage dust, run-off, and
waste with a view to maintaining amenity. Maintain access to recreational areas where
feasible. Include appropriate signage to new recreation areas. Replace any recreational
infrastructure inundated or removed. Establish a communication program with community
notifications for upcoming works and changes to access.
Assumptions and uncertainties: Access to recreation areas, including boat ramps, will be
maintained during construction. All recreational assets subject to inundation will be replaced.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: +3
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts / considerations (including legal and regulatory): Could enable continued
irrigation of urban recreational infrastructure such as golf courses and playing fields during
dry periods. Construction activities will result in disturbances to road reserves in industrial,
commercial and residential areas.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Reinstate disturbed areas with
landscaping. Employ environmental management measures to manage dust, run-off, and
Final Draft
54
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
waste with a view to maintaining amenity. Establish a communication program with
community notifications for upcoming works.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: +1
7.3.4
Local community acceptance (4% weighting)
This assessment considers the alignment of each option with local community values. [Table
replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): A secure water supply is
considered by the community as important to facilitating growth in tourism, commercial and
agricultural activities. Reduced water security is likely to be a concern for the community
under the base case.
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has not been informed by consultations
with the local community, and therefore there is uncertainty in the scores assigned to each
option.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): The extraction of groundwater
may concern users of other bores if it is perceived this option will cause a decline in
groundwater availability. Community members may have concerns around groundwater
quality and taste. It will be important for groundwater to be treated to remove risk to public
health. This option could potentially be inconsistent with community values should it result in
a decline in groundwater dependent flora and fauna, or cause a change in how the water
supply tastes.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Periodically communicate the
results of groundwater monitoring to the community. Establish an ongoing mechanism (e.g.
CRG) to provide the community an opportunity to provide feedback on the project.
Final Draft
55
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has not been informed by consultations
with the local community, and therefore there is uncertainty in the scores assigned to each
option.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +1
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Recent dam enlargements (e.g.
Cotter Dam) have generally been well received by local communities. However, some people
in the local community may have concerns about the environmental impacts of enlarging
Lake Buffalo. Construction activities may also cause short term community concern with
respect to:

safety for visitors to Lake Buffalo

reduction in the Buffalo River water quality (sedimentation, dust and pollutants)
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Communicate safety measures to
all lake visitors. Establish an ongoing mechanism (e.g. CRG) to provide the community an
opportunity to provide feedback on the project.
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has not been informed by consultations
with the local community, and therefore there is uncertainty in the scores assigned to each
option.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +2
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Unlikely
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): There may be negative
community perceptions of the risks associated with alternative water sources. Given the
water will be used for non-potable purposes; this is less likely to be of concern to the
community. The community would expect recycled water to be treated to remove risks to
public health, and for individual property connections to the recycled water reticulation
network to be paid for (and undertaken by registered plumbers).
Final Draft
56
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Unlikely
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Engage with key stakeholders
early to test which forms of reuse will be acceptable and which may not.
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has not been informed by consultations
with the local community, and therefore there is uncertainty in the scores assigned to each
option.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +1
7.3.5
Price impacts (4% weighting)
This assessment considers the willingness of NEW and G-MW customers to pay the increase
in water prices that may occur. [Table replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Expenditure projections will need
to be captured in NEW’s Water Plan and its efficiency will be assessed as part of the ESC’s
pricing determination. This may impact opportunities for recovering the full project cost with
customer tariffs. The maximum increase in fixed fee charges for NEW customers is estimated
to be $20 per connection point (2013/14 dollars) over a 30 year assessment period. This is
an increase of approximately 10% compared with annual fixed charges for residential
customers in Wangaratta (currently $197.73). The impact of this option on volumetric charges
(currently $2.36 per kL) is more difficult to estimate. Once all bores are installed, the
operating cost is approximately $960 per ML of treated water feed into the distribution
system, which is 60% higher than the current costs ($596 per ML) for Wangaratta. Therefore,
assuming groundwater supplies 8% of Wangaratta’s demand on average in a return to dry
climate scenario, volumetric charges may increase by 5%.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The estimated pricing impact is indicative, and will need to be
confirmed by NEW. The preliminary estimates are based on the following assumptions:
Final Draft
57
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

The capital costs plus cost of depreciation are assumed to be recovered through fixed
charges, and the operational costs are recovered through volumetric charges

Price increases are spread over 47,500 water assessment (i.e. connection) points

Straight line depreciation has been applied to new infrastructure, with an assumed design
life of 50 years

Prices are in 2013/14 dollars, and are compared to 2013/14 tariffs

Charges for 20 mm meters in Wangaratta have been used as the basis for estimating the
percentage increase in fixed charges
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -2
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Potentially, if the pricing impact is unacceptable to those
affected.
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): The enlarging Lake Buffalo
option has a price impact for both NEW and G-MW customers (i.e. irrigators). An $80 million
project to enlarge Lake Buffalo would increase the annual fee for high reliability water in the
Ovens River catchment by approximately $130 per ML (G-MW, pers. comm.). This is a 330%
increase compared with the current fee of $38.39 per ML. Annual fees for G-MW customers
in the Murray River system would also increase by approximately $2-$5 per ML.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Price impacts for G-MW
customers may be met with opposition, which might delay the project.
Assumptions and uncertainties: It has been assumed that the capital cost of enlarging Lake
Buffalo is recovered using current Bulk Entitlement arrangements
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -4
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Potentially, if the pricing impact is unacceptable to those
affected.
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Expenditure projections will need
to be captured in NEW’s Water Plan and its efficiency will be assessed as part of the ESC’s
Final Draft
58
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
pricing determination. This may impact opportunities for recovering the full project cost with
customer tariffs. For the alternative water use option, the price of water may need to be less
for recycled water users to encourage use; however the price of water for the remainder of
NEW’s customers will increase. The maximum increase in fixed fee charges for NEW
customers is estimated to be $120 per connection point (2013/14 dollars) over a 30 year
assessment period. This is an increase of approximately 60% compared with annual fixed
charges for residential customers in Wangaratta (currently $197.73). The impact of this
option on volumetric charges (currently $2.36 per kL) is more difficult to estimate. The
operating cost is approximately $1,000 per ML of Class A treated water feed into the
distribution system, which is 70% higher than the current treatment costs ($596 per ML).
Therefore, assuming recycled water supplies approximately 25% of Wangaratta’s demand
once Stage 2 is complete, volumetric charges may increase by 14% on average.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Price impacts for customers not
receiving recycled water may be met with opposition, if they feel they are cross-subsidising
recycled water users.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The estimated pricing impact is indicative, and will need to be
confirmed by NEW. The preliminary estimates are based on the following assumptions:

The capital costs plus cost of depreciation are assumed to be recovered through fixed
charges, and the operational costs are recovered through volumetric charges

Price increases are spread over 47,500 water assessment (i.e. connection) points

Straight line depreciation has been applied to new infrastructure, with an assumed design
life of 50 years

Prices are in 2013/14 dollars, and are compared to 2013/14 tariffs

Charges for 20 mm meters in Wangaratta have been used as the basis for estimating the
percentage increase in fixed charges
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” -3
Final Draft
59
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.4
Technical criteria
7.4.1
Resilience (5% weighting)
This assessment compares the ability of each option to supply water during extreme events
(e.g. when bushfires affect surface water quality), and increase or decrease supply to match
changes in demand. [Table replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? Wangaratta’s current reliability of supply does not meet
NEW’s target of 90%
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Groundwater provides a climate
independent source of water, and is also unaffected by events which can reduce surface
water quality (e.g. bushfire; flood). However, groundwater bores can be unreliable if not used
frequently.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Service the bores frequently, and
install enough bores to have spare capacity (except in the most extreme climate and demand
scenarios).
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has assumed groundwater will be used to
increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90%, and not just when restrictions reach Stage
4.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +4
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Enlarging Lake Buffalo will
reduce the frequency of restrictions in Wangaratta because of drought. However, it will not
Final Draft
60
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
prevent restrictions attributable to poor water quality in the Ovens River (e.g. following
bushfires or floods).
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? No
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Maintain the current groundwater
bores in Wangaratta, so they provide supply during periods of poor water quality in the Ovens
River.
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment has assumed that Lake Buffalo will be
converted from a gated to fixed crest storage if enlarged from 24 GL to 34 GL.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +3
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? The demand for recycled water is not enough to achieve
90% reliability of supply in return to dry climate scenarios
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): Use of recycled instead of
potable water may not be appealing to industrial and commercial users if they need to make
changes to their water management practices (e.g. installing on-site storage and treatment).
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Potentially
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Offer recycled water at a discount
to potable water, and engage with potential users early to maximise demand for and
acceptance of recycled water use.
Assumptions and uncertainties: This assessment assumed that savings made throughout the
year from using recycled water can be stored (e.g. in Lake Buffalo), and then released in
periods of high demand (i.e. summer).
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” +2
7.4.2
Timing and complexity of implementation (5% weighting)
This assessment compares the expected time required to implement each option, based on
their complexity. [Table replaced with text for accessibility.]
Option 1 (base case)
Option description: Business as usual
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Scoring for option – relative to “base case” 0
Final Draft
61
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Option 2
Option description: Additional groundwater use
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): This option can be implemented
in stages. Depending on siting options for above ground infrastructure, there may be an
opportunity to avoid the need to obtain a planning permit, particularly if native vegetation
removal can be avoided.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? A planning permit may be
required; however, the minor nature of any native vegetation removal should limit the time
taken for the responsible authority to make a decision.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Locate new infrastructure to avoid
the need to obtain planning permits.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -1
Option 3
Option description: Enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10GL
Are there any potential fatal flaws? There is significant risk in relation to obtaining planning
approvals (if the native vegetation loss exceeds exemptions in the G-MW Native Vegetation
Management Code of Practice). There is no guarantee that a planning permit would be
issued, considering there are other options available for increased water supply to
Wangaratta.
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): It will take several years to
design and construct an enlarged Lake Buffalo. Compliance with Basin Plan SDLs would also
need to be demonstrated. The G-MW Native Vegetation Management Code of Practice
identifies where G-MW does not require planning approval, pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the
Alpine Planning Scheme. Where the loss of native vegetation is not consistent with the code,
then planning permits will be required.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? Timeframe associated with
obtaining planning approvals (if approved) can be protracted. There would be additional costs
associated with preparation of planning permit application documents, specialist reports
(ecology assessments etc.). Any decision from the responsible authority may be appealed to
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which adds time and costs.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications: Minimise the loss of native
vegetation. This is a key operational element in the Code of Practice.
Final Draft
62
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Assumptions and uncertainties: The application of the Code of Practice includes
consideration of other options to secure water for Wangaratta, to minimise native vegetation
removal.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -4
Option 4
Option description: Use of alternative water sources
Are there any potential fatal flaws? No
Key impacts/considerations (including legal and regulatory): The time required to design and
construct this option is expected to be more than option 2 and less than or similar to option 3.
Depending on siting options for above ground infrastructure, there may be an opportunity to
avoid the need to obtain a planning permit, particularly if native vegetation removal can be
avoided.
Will these impacts delay the implementation of this option? A planning permit may be
required; however, the moderate nature of any native vegetation removal should reduce the
time taken for the responsible authority to make a decision.
Potential mitigation measures for impacts and implications Locate new infrastructure to avoid
the need to obtain planning permits.
Assumptions and uncertainties: The application of the Code of Practice includes
consideration of other options to secure water for Wangaratta, to minimise native vegetation
removal.
Scoring for option – relative to “base case”: -2
Final Draft
63
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
8. Triple bottom line assessment
8.1
Raw scores
Table 8.1 summarises the raw (unweighted) scores for each of the options against the criteria
included in Section 7. The additional groundwater option received the highest raw score, with
the enlargement of Lake Buffalo and then the alternative water use option scoring the same.
Table 8.1 : Summary of raw scores for each option against each criteria [Table split for accessibility]
Additional
The Base
Groundwater Enlarge Lake Alternative
Case
Use (Option
Buffalo
Water Use
Financial
(Option 1)
2)
(Option 3)
(Option 4)
Net cost (NPV)
0
-1
-3
-4
Third party impacts
0
0
+1
-1
Additional
Environmental
Terrestrial flora and fauna
impacts
Surface water impacts
The Base
Groundwater Enlarge Lake Alternative
Case
Use
Buffalo
Water Use
(Option 1)
(Option 2)
(Option 3)
(Option 4)
0
0
-2
-1
0
0
0
0
Additional
The Base
Groundwater Enlarge Lake Alternative
Case
Use (Option
Buffalo
Water Use
(Option 1)
2)
(Option 3)
(Option 4)
0
0
-1
0
Cultural heritage
0
0
-2
-1
Amenity and recreation
0
+2
+3
+1
Local community acceptance
0
+1
+2
+1
Pricing impact
0
-2
-4
-3
Social
Reliability for downstream
users
Final Draft
64
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Additional
The Base
Groundwater Enlarge Lake Alternative
Case
Use (Option
Buffalo
Water Use
Technical Criteria
(Option 1)
2)
(Option 3)
(Option 4)
Resilience
0
+4
+3
+2
0
-1
-4
-2
Timing and complexity of
implementation
Additional
The Base
Groundwater Enlarge Lake Alternative
Case
Use
Buffalo
Water Use
Total (unweighted)
(Option 1)
(Option 2)
(Option 3)
(Option 4)
Unweighted Total
0
3
-7
-8
8.2
Weighted scores
Table 8.2 summarises the weighted scores for each of the options against the criteria
included in Section 7. The highest score an option can receive is +400, and the lowest is 400. Again (excluding the base case), the additional groundwater option received the best
score. The enlargement of Lake Buffalo and the alternative water use option scored similarly.
Figure 8.1 graphs the total weighted TBL scores for the each option. The base case is not
visible because it scores 0.
Final Draft
65
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table 8.2 : Summary of weighted scores for each option against each criteria (Table split for accessibility]
Option 1 - The Base Case
7.1 Financial
Score
Weighted score
Net cost (NPV) – Weighting 40
0
0
Third party impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
0
7.2 Environmental
Score
Weighted score
Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Surface water impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
0
7.3 Social
Score
Weighted score
Reliability for downstream users – Weighting 4
0
0
Cultural heritage – Weighting 4
0
0
Amenity and recreation – Weighting 4
0
0
Local community acceptance – Weighting 4
0
0
Pricing impact – Weighting 4
0
0
Total
N/A
0
7.4 Technical
Score
Weighted score
Resilience – Weighting 5
0
0
Timing and complexity of implementation – Weighting 5
0
0
Total
N/A
0
Total weighted score out of a total weighting of 100: 0
Option 2 Additional Groundwater Use
7.1 Financial
Score
Weighted score
Net cost (NPV) – Weighting 40
-1
-40
Final Draft
66
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.1 Financial
Score
Weighted score
Third party impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
-40
7.2 Environmental
Score
Weighted score
Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Surface water impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
0
7.3 Social
Score
Weighted score
Reliability for downstream users – Weighting 4
0
0
Cultural heritage – Weighting 4
0
0
Amenity and recreation – Weighting 4
+2
+8
Local community acceptance – Weighting 4
+1
+4
Pricing impact – Weighting 4
-2
-8
Total
N/A
+4
7.4 Technical
Score
Weighted score
Resilience – Weighting 5
+4
+20
Timing and complexity of implementation – Weighting 5
-1
-5
Total
N/A
+15
7.1 Financial
Score
Weighted score
Net cost (NPV) – Weighting 40
-3
-120
Third party impacts – Weighting 10
+1
+10
Total
N/A
-110
Total weighted score out of a total weighting of 100: -21
Option 3 Enlarge Lake Buffalo
Final Draft
67
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.2 Environmental
Score
Weighted score
Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts – Weighting 10
-2
-20
Surface water impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
-20
7.3 Social
Score
Weighted score
Reliability for downstream users – Weighting 4
-1
-4
Cultural heritage – Weighting 4
-2
-8
Amenity and recreation – Weighting 4
+3
+12
Local community acceptance – Weighting 4
+2
+8
Pricing impact – Weighting 4
-4
-16
Total
N/A
-8
7.4 Technical
Score
Weighted score
Resilience – Weighting 5
+3
+15
Timing and complexity of implementation – Weighting 5
-4
-20
Total
N/A
-5
Total weighted score out of a total weighting of 100: -143
Option 4 Alternative Water Use
7.1 Financial
Score
Weighted score
Net cost (NPV) – Weighting 40
-4
-160
Third party impacts – Weighting 10
-1
-10
Total
N/A
-170
7.2 Environmental
Score
Weighted score
Terrestrial flora and fauna impacts – Weighting 10
-1
-10
Surface water impacts – Weighting 10
0
0
Total
N/A
-10
Final Draft
68
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
7.3 Social
Score
Weighted score
Reliability for downstream users – Weighting 4
0
0
Cultural heritage – Weighting 4
-1
-4
Amenity and recreation – Weighting 4
+1
+4
Local community acceptance – Weighting 4
+1
+4
Pricing impact – Weighting 4
-3
-12
Total
N/A
-8
7.4 Technical
Score
Weighted score
Resilience – Weighting 5
+2
+10
Timing and complexity of implementation – Weighting 5
-2
-10
Total
N/A
0
Total weighted score out of a total weighting of 100: -188
Final Draft
69
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 8.1 : Weighted TBL assessment of each option (relative to the base case)
The graph illustrates the TBL assessment score for each option. The Base Case (Option 1)
has a score of 0; Additional Groundwater Use (Option 2) has a score of minus 21; Enlarge
Lake Buffalo (Option 3) has a score of minus 143; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has
a score of minus 188.
8.3
Sensitivity analysis
The Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) have a recommended approach to
weighting TBL criteria. The options examined in this Water Security for Wangaratta Project
fall under the category of ‘revenue generating’ because they involve some financial returns
from end users to offset their costs. For such projects, the DTF’s recommended weightings
are 50% for financial, 20% for environmental, 20% for social and 10% for technical criteria.
To test the sensitivity of the TBL assessment outcome to different weightings, and sensitivity
analysis was undertaken. The sensitivity analysis involved varying the weightings to see if
this changed the ranking of options. The tests were an:

Equal weighting scenario (25% weighting for financial, 25% for environmental, 25% for
social and 25% for technical criteria)

Social weighted scenario (20% weighting for financial, 20% for environmental, 50% for
social and 10% for technical criteria)

Environmental weighted scenario (20% for financial, 50% for environmental, 20% for
social and 10% for technical criteria)

Non-financial weighted scenario (0% for financial, 40% for environmental, 40% for social
and 10% for technical criteria)

The results of the sensitivity analysis are show in

Figure 8.2 to Figure 8.5. In each test, the additional groundwater use option scored better
than the enlarging Lake Buffalo and alternative water use options.
Final Draft
70
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure 8.2 : Sensitivity analysis – equal weighting scenario
The graph illustrates the sensitivity of the TBL assessment outcome for each option in an
equal weighting scenario (25/25/25/25). The Base Case (Option 1) has a score of 0;
Additional Groundwater Use (Option 2) has a score of between 20 and 25; Enlarge Lake
Buffalo (Option 3) has a score between minus 90 and minus 100; and Alternative Water Use
(Option 4) has a score between minus 100 and minus 110.
Figure 8.3 : Sensitivity analysis – environmental scenario
The graph illustrates the sensitivity of the TBL assessment outcome for each option in an
environmental weighted scenario (20% for financial, 50% for environmental, 20% for social
and 10% for technical criteria). The Base Case (Option 1) has a score of 0; Additional
Groundwater Use (Option 2) has a score of between 0 and 5; Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option
3) has a score between minus 100 and minus 110; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has
a score between minus 100 and minus 105.
Figure 8.4 : Sensitivity analysis – social scenario
The graph illustrates the sensitivity of the TBL assessment outcome for each option in in a
social weighted scenario (20% weighting for financial, 20% for environmental, 50% for social
and 10% for technical criteria). The Base Case (Option 1) has a score of 0; Additional
Groundwater Use (Option 2) has a score of between 0 and 10; Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option
3) has a score between minus 80 and minus 85; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has a
score between minus 90 and minus 100.
Figure 8.5 : Sensitivity analysis – non-financial scenario
The graph illustrates the non-financial TBL assessment score for each option, excluding
financial criteria. The Base Case (Option 1) has a score of 0; Additional Groundwater Use
(Option 2) has a score of between 35 and 40; Enlarge Lake Buffalo (Option 3) has a score of
between minus 60 and minus 70; and Alternative Water Use (Option 4) has a score of
between minus 35 and minus 40.
Final Draft
71
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
8.4
Discussion
The TBL assessment of each option shows that, based on the adopted criteria and
assessment of impacts, additional groundwater use is the highest ranking option. Enlarging
Lake Buffalo and alternative water use have similar, but much lower TBL scores.
The ranking of additional groundwater use as the best option was not sensitive to the
weighting of each criterion. The net cost drives much of the difference between the options
for the weighted TBL score (Figure 8.1). However, even under the non-financial sensitivity
test (Figure 8.5) groundwater was the highest ranked option. For example, additional
groundwater use scored highest on the resilience criterion, because it is a climate
independent source of water, and it is not affected by events which may reduce surface water
quality (e.g. bushfires and floods).
Enlarging Lake Buffalo scored the lowest totals on the environmental and technical criteria,
and similarly to the alternative water use option on the social criteria. The large scale of
capital investment required to deliver the project was somewhat off-set by the expected third
party benefits to irrigators. However the complexity of the works, their impact on terrestrial
flora and fauna, and the anticipated price impact for irrigators also contributed to the low TBL
score.
The large cost of capital works for the alternative water use option also contributed to its
relatively low score compared with groundwater. To achieve 90% reliability of supply for
Wangaratta under this option, potential users of recycled water will also need to be given
incentives to switch over from their current potable water supply.
Final Draft
72
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
9. Conclusions
In this project, three options for improving Wangaratta’s reliability of supply were evaluated:

The use of groundwater as a regular supplement to surface water supplies

The enlargement of Lake Buffalo by 10 GL (from 24 GL to 34 GL)

The use of alternative water sources
To do this, concept designs of the three options were completed, and their costs, benefits
and impacts were compared using a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment.
The use of additional groundwater was assessed as the option most likely to improve water
security for Wangaratta, and provide the best value for money with the least negative
impacts.
Final Draft
73
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
10.
References
Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD), (2012), Guidelines on the
Consequence Categories for Dams, October 2012
Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1992), State Water Resources Plan: New Source
Development, Potential Water Storage Sites in Northern Victoria
Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW), (2014), Lake Buffalo Land and On-Water Management
Plan, 2014
Moran, R. and Sharples, J. (2011), Guidelines for the Development of a Water Supply
Demand Strategy, Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Melbourne, August 2011
North East Water (NEW), (2012), Water Supply Demand Strategy
RMCG, (2013), Wangaratta and District Water Demands, Report prepared for the
Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013
SKM, (2008), Hydrological Modelling to Assess the Impact of Enlarging Lake Buffalo, Report
prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2008
SKM, (2011), Buffalo Hydrology Review, Dambreak Analysis and Consequence Assessment,
Report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, June 2011
SKM, (2013), Ovens River REALM Model, Input Data and Model Update, Report prepared for
the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and Goulburn-Murray Water,
September 2013
SKM, (2014), Water Security for Wangaratta Urban and Industrial Water Reliability, Technical
Report, Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, January
2014
URS, (2003), Lake Buffalo Interim Upgrade Design, Design Report, Volume 1: Main Report,
Report prepared for Goulburn-Murray Water, August 2003
Final Draft
74
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Important note about your report
The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs is to
undertake an options evaluation and indicative costing for three options for increasing water
security for Wangaratta, in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract
between Jacobs and the Client. That scope of services, as described in this report, was
developed with the Client.
In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or
confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by the Client and/or from other sources. Except
as otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or
completeness of any such information. If the information is subsequently determined to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and conclusions as
expressed in this report may change.
Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from the Client (if any) and/or
available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of
time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further
examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re-evaluation of the data,
findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared this
report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for
the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines,
procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above,
however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made as to the
data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.
This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the
findings. No responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other
context.
This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of, Jacobs’s Client, and
is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs
and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of,
any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
Final Draft
75
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix A. Groundwater resource investigation
A.1
Regional geology
Geological mapping (GSV, 1981) shows that on a regional scale, Wangaratta consists of mid
to late Palaeozoic bedrock overlain by Tertiary and Quaternary ages sediments.
As described by SKM (2007a), around Wangaratta the Tertiary and Quaternary sediments
are contained within a broad river valley incised into the Palaeozoic bedrock. Two northerly
oriented faults have resulted in a downthrown block which forms the valley floor (graben).
The maximum thickness of these sediments in the vicinity of Wangaratta is approximately
120 m. Further to the south, the elevation of the basement increases towards the highlands
and the broad floodplain around Wangaratta narrows into the King and Ovens River valleys
where the rivers transect the margins of the graben. With the increasing elevation to the
south the bedrock approaches the surface to eventually outcrop in the mountains, and the
river valleys become increasingly narrow and steep-sided. Accordingly, the sediments within
the valleys become thinner and narrower towards the mountainous region to the south.
A.2
Local geology
The geology of Wangaratta can be summarised into two groups – consolidated units and
unconsolidated units (SKM, 2007a). The unconsolidated units are primarily alluvial sediments
deposited in valleys that have been incised into the consolidated regional bedrock. These two
groups are described in more detail below:
Consolidated units
The regional bedrock is comprised of the following geological units (SKM, 2007a):

Ordovician sandstone, shale and mudstone.

Devonian granite.

Carboniferous sandstone and cross-bedded mudstone.

Permian sandstone and conglomerate.
Unconsolidated units
Geological mapping (VandenBerg 1997) indicates that Wangaratta is directly underlain by:

Quaternary Coonambidgal Formation, comprised of clay, sand and sandy clay directly
related to the course of Ovens River.
Final Draft
76
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Quaternary Shepparton Formation, comprised of fluvial silt, sand and minor gravel.

Underlying the Coonambidgal Formation and Shepparton Formation is the Tertiary Calivil
Formation, also referred to as the Deep Lead. The Calivil Formation is the deepest and
oldest alluvial formation and is primarily comprised of sand and gravel (G-MW, 2012).
A.3
Hydrogeology
Regional hydrogeology of the Lower Ovens Groundwater Management Area (GMA) is
summarised in Figure A.1. Locally, the hydrogeology of the Wangaratta area can be
summarised as:

The Shepparton Formation Aquifer – a major aquifer for the area, extending from the
surface to depths of up to 70 m.

The Upper Tertiary Aquitard – semi-confining clay layer that occurs at the base of the
Shepparton Formation and which slows the groundwater interaction between the
Shepparton Formation Aquifer and the deeper Calivil Formation Aquifer. Regionally, this
layer is thin and typically non-continuous, but locally is known to increase in thickness
north of Wangaratta.

The Calivil Formation Aquifer – a high yielding aquifer of good quality water.

Bedrock Aquifer – provides an extensive aquifer system, but due to low yields and
transmissivity, it is secondary compared to the overlying unconsolidated sediments.
Groundwater quality in the bedrock aquifer is typically good (below 90 milligrams per litre
total dissolved solids (mg/L TDS) (SKM, 2007a).
Figure A.2 shows the hydrogeological conceptual model of the Wangaratta area.
The unconsolidated units (Shepparton Formation and Calivil Formation) represent major
aquifers in the area and are used extensively (SKM, 2004). Regionally, these aquifers are
often well connected and are usually treated as a single aquifer system (SKM, 2007a).
Locally, however, the Calivil Formation Aquifer north of Wangaratta is poorly connected to
shallow aquifers and surface water due to the Upper Tertiary Aquitard separating it from the
overlying Shepparton Formation Aquifer (SKM, 2006). Due to this poor connectivity, the lag
period between changes observed in deep groundwater levels and potential changes in
shallow groundwater or surface water resources is in the order of months to years (G-MW,
2012).
Final Draft
77
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Water quality in these unconsolidated aquifers is generally less than 300 mg./L Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and becomes fresher closer towards the Ovens River due to
recharge from the river. Groundwater within the Shepparton Formation Aquifer tends to be
more saline than that in the Calivil Formation Aquifer (G-MW, 2012). Groundwater from the
Calivil Formation Aquifer is known to exceed Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for iron,
manganese and arsenic (SKM, 2004).
Recharge to the Shepparton and Calivil Formations aquifers is predominantly through rainfall
infiltration, with a smaller component from river and surface water interaction (SKM, 2004).
Groundwater levels are generally intersected within 10 m of the natural surface. Regionally
groundwater flows northwards towards the Murray River and discharges to the Murray
Trench.
Figure A.1 : Hydrogeological conceptual diagram of the Lower Ovens GMA (G-MW, 2012). This diagram
shows the geological layers and location of the aquifer of the Lower Ovens Groundwater Management
Area and how the aquifers interlink with surface water. Wangaratta lies within the Ovens Plain Zone
which is described as being poorly connected to surface water with Longer Lag period and currently low
extraction.
Figure A.2 : Hydrogeological conceptual model of the Wangaratta area, based on data available at
Faithfull Street (SKM, 2007a) This diagram shows the location of the Calivil Formation Deep Lead Aquifer
and its hydrogeological links to the surface.
The sediments of the Shepparton and Calivil Formations aquifers can be quite coarse and
bore yields are typically between 1 – 50 L/s, with yields increasing with the thickness of the
intersected unit (SKM, 2004). Highest yielding areas are immediately east of the Ovens River
and south of the confluence between the Ovens and King Rivers. Yields decrease rapidly
away from the River as the aquifer as the bedrock rises in the south (SKM, 2007a).
A summary of the aquifer and aquitard characteristics local to Wangaratta are shown in Table
A.1.
Final Draft
78
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table A.1 : Hydrogeological parameters [Table split for accessibility]
Aquifer parameters - Shepparton Formation
Transmissivity
5 – 66 m2/day (Tickell, 1978)
2000 m2/day in wider Murray Groundwater Basin (Nahm, 1985)
Storativity
-
Hydraulic conductivity 0.5 – 6 m/day (Shugg, 1987)
Model
Unconfined
Thickness
40 m (SKM, 2007a)
Aquifer parameters - Aquitard
Transmissivity
-
Storativity
-
Hydraulic conductivity 0.001 m/day
Model
Aquitard
Thickness
45 m (SKM, 2007a)
Aquifer parameters - Calivil Formation
Transmissivity
550 - 620 m2/day (SKM, 2004)
190 m2/day (SKM, 2007a)
140 m2/day (SKM, 2007b)
428 m2/day (SKM, 2007d)
Storativity
0.0015 (SKM, 2004)
0.0019 (SKM, 2007d)
Hydraulic conductivity 10 – 60 m/day (Shugg, 1987)
Model
Confined (SKM, 2004)
Thickness
35 m (SKM, 2007a)
A.4
Groundwater management areas
Wangaratta occurs within the Lower Ovens GMA. The groundwater resources of the Lower
Ovens GMA are managed through the conditions included in the Local Management Plan.
The GMA considers all major aquifers in this region, including the Calivil Formation (Deep
Lead) Aqufier, the Shepparton Formation Aquifer, the overlying Coonambidigal Formation
Aquifer and the Bedrock Aquifer. To ensure management of all aquifers, no depth limit has
Final Draft
79
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
been specified for the GMA. The GMA includes the following management zones that
intersect the Wangaratta area (G-MW, 2012):

Mid Ovens Zone (which includes the narrow alluvial aquifers in the mid Ovens south of
Wangaratta)

Ovens Plain Zone (which includes the floodplain north of Wangaratta to north of
Peechelba)

Bedrock Zone (which includes the bedrock aquifer across the entire Lower Ovens GMA)
Groundwater extraction in the Lower Ovens GMA is currently capped through the declaration
of the Permissible Consumptive Volume (PCV). The PCV is currently set at 25,200 ML/a (GMW, 2012). The allocation for 2013/14 was 100% for all areas (G-MW, 2014).
In the Ovens Plain Zone, there is a 2 km buffer zone adjacent to the Ovens River which caps
the amount of licence entitlement in the Shepparton Formation in this zone. Development of
the Deep Lead aquifer in the Ovens Plain Zone is permissible as extraction from the aquifer
is known to have a significantly reduced impact on surface water flows when compared with
a similar volume extracted from the Shepparton Formation (G-MW, 2012).
Groundwater entitlement in the Calivil Formation Aquifer within the Ovens Plain Zone makes
up just 4% of the total licence entitlement volume in the Lower Ovens GMA. Currently, the
Calivil Formation Aquifer is relatively underdeveloped and there is opportunity for increased
development from this Aquifer (G-MW, 2012).
A.5
Existing supply bores
There are currently three groundwater bores with capacity for town water supply in
Wangaratta. The location of the existing bores is shown on Figure 3.1. Each of the bores is
described below.
Kerr Street No. 1
An emergency relief bore was drilled, constructed, developed and tested at Kerr Street in
2003.
The bore was constructed to a depth of 91 m with mild steel casing and stainless steel
screens. The Calivil Formation Aquifer was screened at intervals of 56.5 – 64.5 m and 79 –
84.5 m. The testing results indicated that the bore is capable of yields in excess of 85 L/s,
however these higher yields exceed the recommended transmission capacity of the screens.
Final Draft
80
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
As such, the pumping rate utilised was recommended to remain below 85 L/s (SKM, 2004).
The results of the SKM (2004) pumping test analysis are provided in A.12, which includes the
predicted drawdown and available yield.
The mild steel/stainless steel interface at the top of the screens may be susceptible to
accelerated galvanic corrosion, and this section will need to be checked by CCTV inspection
every two years from 2015. This is because the bore has been operated intermittently to
date, and therefore there are no trends to analyse in flow rates, drawdown levels or water
quality data to determine whether there are potential issues with the casing integrity.
Kerr Street No. 2
A second drought relief bore was drilled (WRK013103), constructed and tested at Kerr Street
in April 2007.
The bore was constructed using Class 12 uPVC with wire-wound stainless steel screens
(apertures ranging from 0.5 – 1.2 mm) to a depth of 127 m. Screened intervals corresponded
with gravel and sand layers of the Calivil Formation Aquifer at 56 – 64 m and 122 – 125 m.
A sustainable pumping rate of approximately 60 L/s was obtained for the bore for 30
consecutive days of pumping. SKM (2007d) noted that the rate could be increased in the
short term, or if cyclical pumping was carried out where periods of recovery would be allowed
for between periods of pumping. The results of the SKM (2007) pumping test analysis are
provided in A.13, which includes predicted drawdown and available yield.
An assessment of the effect of simultaneous pumping of the Kerr Street No. 1 and Kerr
Street No. 2 bores on yields was undertaken and showed that pumping both bores at their
maximum capacities for a period of 90 days would result in drawdowns of approximately half
their available drawdown (SKM, 2007d).
Faithfull Street
A drought relief bore was drilled, constructed and tested at Faithfull Street in March 2007.
The bore was constructed with 225 mm dia. Class 12 uPVC and 250 mm dia. stainless steel
wire-wound screens (apertures of 1.2 and 1.0 mm) to a depth of 122.15 m. The bore was
screened in the Calivil Formation Aquifer at 89.5 – 95.1 m and 117.1 – 120.1 m.
A sustainable pumping rate of approximately 33 L/s was obtained for the bore for 30
consecutive days of pumping. SKM (2007b) noted that the rate could be increased in the
Final Draft
81
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
short term, or if cyclical pumping was carried out where periods of recovery would be allowed
for between periods of pumping. The results of the SKM (2004) pumping test analysis are
provided in Section A.14, which includes the predicted drawdown and available yield.
Licences
Wangaratta currently holds licences to access 665 ML of groundwater annually (NEW, 2012):

Licence 7079206 provides access to 415 ML annually from the two Kerr Street bores
(combined), at a maximum extraction rate of 3 ML/day each bore. This entitlement is
used intermittently for contingency purposes.

Licence 8032870 provides access to 200 ML annually from the Faithfull Street bore, at a
maximum extraction rate of 2.6 ML/day. Two observation bores located nearby are used
to monitor groundwater levels as part of the licence conditions for the Faithfull Street
production bore. This entitlement is yet to be used, but is available if required.

Licence 881228 provides access to 50 ML annually for the irrigation bore in Anker Road,
at a maximum extraction rate of 10 ML/day. There is currently no infrastructure
connected to this bore, but the entitlement can be traded to other Wangaratta bores if
required.
The sustainable yield determined from previous pumping tests and current extraction licence
for each bore is summarised in Table A.2. As the turf irrigation bore is not connected to the
supply network, the current capacity of the existing Wangaratta groundwater bore supply
network is 615 ML/year (maximum of 8.6 ML/day).
Table A.2 : Summary of current Wangaratta supply bore capacity, based on current licence volume [Table
split for accessibility]
Kerr Street No. 1
Capable of > 85 L/s (SKM, 2004)
Reported
sustainable yield
However, 40 L/s for 30 consecutive days has been deemed the
sustainable pumping rate due to screen design and installation of
the nearby Kerr Street No. 2 – combined operation should not
exceed 85 L/s (SKM, 2007d)
Maximum licence
415
extraction (ML/year)
From two Kerr Street bores (combined).
Final Draft
82
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Maximum licence
extraction (ML/day)
3.0
An assessment of the effect of simultaneous pumping of Kerr St
No. 1 and Kerr St No. 2 on yields was undertaken and showed
Issues
that pumping both bores at their maximum capacities (40 and 60
L/s) for a period of 90 days would result in drawdowns of
approximately half their available drawdown – 22 m at Kerr St No.
2 and 18 m at Kerr St No. 1 (SKM, 2007d).
Kerr Street No. 2
Reported
60 L/s for 30 consecutive days of pumping (higher rates
sustainable yield
achievable for short-term cyclic pumping) (SKM, 2007d)
Maximum licence
415
extraction (ML/year)
From two Kerr Street bores (combined).
Maximum licence
extraction (ML/day)
3.0
An assessment of the effect of simultaneous pumping of Kerr St
No. 1 and Kerr St No. 2 on yields was undertaken and showed
Issues
that pumping both bores at their maximum capacities (40 and 60
L/s) for a period of 90 days would result in drawdowns of
approximately half their available drawdown – 22 m at Kerr St No.
2 and 18 m at Kerr St No. 1 (SKM, 2007d).
Faithfull Street
Reported
30 L/s for 30 consecutive days of pumping (higher rates
sustainable yield
achievable for short-term cyclic pumping) (SKM, 2007b)
Maximum licence
extraction (ML/year)
Maximum licence
extraction (ML/day)
Issues
Final Draft
200
2.6
Close proximity to the Ovens River will require ongoing monitoring
to ensure that there is no impact as a result of pumping.
83
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Total
Maximum licence extraction (ML/year)
615
Maximum licence extraction (ML/day)
8.6
A.6
Groundwater demand
In phase one of the Water Security for Wangaratta project, an investigation was undertaken
to determine the volume of groundwater required to offset the reduction in supply to
Wangaratta caused by surface water restrictions. This was done by calculating the difference
between unrestricted and supplied demand for Wangaratta for each of the climate and
demand scenarios investigated. From this, the volume of groundwater required to increase
Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90% was estimated (Table A.3).
Table A.3 : Groundwater volumes required to increase Wangaratta’s reliability of supply to 90% reliability
Number of years to be
Scenario
Climate
Demand
offset (i.e. number of
Maximum volume
years groundwater use
required within those
required to get 90%
years
reliability)
Bas1
Historic
Return to
Bas2
dry
2060
Bas3
median
Bas4
Historic
Return to
Bas5
dry
2060
Bas6
A.7
median
Current
3
107 ML/year; 4.5 ML/d
Current
47
767 ML/year; 9.4 ML/d
Current
12
417 ML/year; 7.6 ML/d
Future
4
133 ML/year; 8.5 ML/d
Future
53
963 ML/year; 12.4 ML/d
Future
13
513 ML/year; 12.2 ML/d
Existing licensed capacity for augmentation
To determine whether the existing bores and associated licences would be sufficient to
augment water supply in Wangaratta, current entitlements (Table A.2) were compared to the
demand requirements (Table A.3) to determine the potential for augmentation with the
existing supply network. A summary of the findings is provided in Table A.4. In summary,
current supply from available groundwater bores is insufficient to meet the return to dry
Final Draft
84
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
scenario currently (Bas2) or in the future (Bas5) and as such, additional groundwater would
be required. The 2060 median scenario (Bas6) annual demand can be met with existing
supply bores, however peak daily demand cannot be met and as such an additional supply
bore may also be required for this scenario.
Table A.4 : Demand volume compared to available groundwater supply
Maximum volume
Scenario Climate
Demand required within
Met with existing licence volume?
those years
Bas1
Historic
Return to
Bas2
dry
2060
Bas3
median
Bas4
Historic
Return to
Bas5
dry
2060
Bas6
median
Current
Current
Current
Future
Future
Future
107 ML/year; 4.5
Yes, 615 ML/year / 8.6 ML/day
ML/d
available.
767 ML/year; 9.4
No – additional groundwater supply
ML/d
required.
417 ML/year; 7.6
Yes, 615 ML/year / 8.6 ML/day
ML/d
available.
133 ML/year; 8.5
Yes, 615 ML/year / 8.6 ML/day
ML/d
available.
963 ML/year; 12.4
No – additional groundwater supply
ML/d
required.
513 ML/year; 12.2
ML/d
A.8
Existing bore capability
A.8.1
Kerr Street
615 ML/year available, but peak daily
demand cannot be met. Additional
supply bore required.
The following is a summary of information on the capability of the Kerr Street No. 1 bore
(SKM, 2004):

Available drawdown in 2003 was approximately 41.5 m, which included a 10% safety
factor for seasonal variation and interference with neighbouring users.

During the constant rate test (22 May 2003), 17.6 m of drawdown was observed after
pumping for 24 hours at 47.5 L/s.

Water level recovery was rapid, with 80% recovery experienced within 20 minutes
following the end of the step-test.
Final Draft
85
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

The results of the 2003 pumping test indicated that the bore was capable of yields in
excess of 85 L/s.

The transmittance capacity of the bore screens was rated to 85 L/s. The bore could be
pumped at higher rates, however this would likely lead to increased groundwater
entrance velocities which would in turn cause fine sediments to be dragged into the bore
thereby decreasing bore efficiency, increasing drawdown and potentially causing screen
collapse and / or damage.

The 200 mm diameter casing enables the installation of a 150 mm (6”) submersible or
vertical shaft turbine. A standard 6” electronic submersible (Grundfos SP95) is capable of
yields up to 35 – 40 L/s, or a 6” turbine (Thompson & Lewis 140 HC) may achieve 40 –
50 L/s. Larger capacity pumps cannot be installed owing to their physical size.
The following is a summary of Kerr Street No. 2 bore (SKM, 2007d):

Available drawdown in 2007 was approximately 41.0 m, which includes 2 m safety of
seasonal variation and a 10% safety factor for interference with neighbouring users.

During the constant rate test (8 June 2007), 31.2 m of drawdown was observed after
pumping for 14 days at 47.6 L/s.

Water level recovery was rapid, with 92% recovery experienced within 24 hours following
the end of the constant rate test.

The results of the 2007 pumping test indicated that the bore was capable of 60 L/s for 30
days continuously without exceeding available drawdown.

The transmittance capacity of the bore screens was rated at 60 L/s.
Since the Kerr Street No. 1 and No. 2 bores are on the same site, their capacity to operate
together should be assessed. Two bores that are pumped within close vicinity will exhibit a
cumulative impact, meaning that drawdown will be greater in both bores operating together
than if they were operating alone. SKM completed an assessment in 2007 to determine the
effect of simultaneous pumping at the Kerr Street No. 1 and No. 2 bores and to establish
combined sustainable pumping rates. The assessment involved calibrating the drawdown
curve to the observed data in the monitoring bore during the testing of the Kerr Street No. 2
bore, then simulating the simultaneous pumping of both bores at a range of pumping rates
and finally determining the drawdown in both pumping bores over a range of timescales. The
assessment considered pumping rates of 20, 30 and 40 L/s in the Kerr Street No. 1 bore, and
Final Draft
86
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
30, 50 and 60 L/s in the Kerr Street No. 2 bore. The simulated drawdowns from simultaneous
pumping are shown in Table A.5.
Table A.5 : Simulated drawdown of simultaneous pumping (SKM, 2007d) where T = 500 m2/day and S =
0.0016 [Table image reproduced and content split for accessibility]
1 day
Bore
Discharge Rate
Drawdown
Drawdown
m
%
Bore 2
60L/s
16
38
Bore 1
40L/s
12
30
Bore 2
50L/s
13
32
Bore 2
30L/s
10
25
Bore 2
30L/s
10
25
Bore 1
20L/s
7
16
Discharge Rate
Drawdown
Drawdown
m
%
7 days
Bore
Bore 2
60L/s
18
45
Bore 1
40L/s
15
36
Bore 2
50L/s
15
37
Bore 2
30L/s
12
28
Bore 2
30L/s
12
29
Bore 1
20L/s
8
20
Discharge Rate
Drawdown
Drawdown
m
%
30 days
Bore
Bore 2
60L/s
20
50
Bore 1
40L/s
17
41
Bore 2
50L/s
17
41
Bore 2
30L/s
13
32
Bore 2
30L/s
13
32
Bore 1
20L/s
10
23
Final Draft
87
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
90 days
Bore
Discharge Rate
Drawdown
Drawdown
m
%
Bore 2
60L/s
22
53
Bore 1
40L/s
18
47
Bore 2
50L/s
18
44
Bore 2
30L/s
14
35
Bore 2
30L/s
14
34
Bore 1
20L/s
10
25
In summary, previous work completed by SKM (2004 and 2007d) indicates that:

Maximum yield of the Kerr Street No. 1 bore is 40 L/s, based on limitations of screen
specification and casing diameter (therefore, pump availability).

Maximum yield of the Kerr Street No. 2 bore is 60 L/s, based on available drawdown.

The bores can be pumped for up to 30 days consecutively.
A.8.2
Faithfull Street
The following is a summary of information on the Faithfull Street bore (SKM, 2007b):

The available drawdown in 2007 was 46 m, which accounts for standing water level,
depth to screen, seasonal changes and interference with other users.

The constant rate test (23 May 2007) could not be completed at the planned pumping
rate due to rapid drawdown, consequently the constant test pumping rate was reduced.
After 4 hours of pumping at 37.1 L/s and 14 days of pumping at 29.1 L/s, the cumulative
drawdown was 36.7 m.

Water level recovery was rapid, with 100% recovery experienced with over 30 m of
recovery within first 5 min following the end of the constant rate test.

The results of the 2007 pumping test indicated that the bore was capable of 33 L/s for 30
consecutive days of pumping.

The sustainable yield of the bore for longer pumping periods (7 – 365 days
consecutively) was predicted to be 30 L/s.
Final Draft
88
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

A yield of 40 L/s was tested as part of the pumping test, but was found to have a rapid
rate of drawdown, compared to 30 L/s, which provided stabilised drawdown results
(Figure A.4 and Figure A.5 in A.14).
A.8.3
Recommended pumping regime for water supply augmentation – maximum
daily operation
In order to augment Wangaratta water supply, the maximum possible daily operation from
existing bores has been assessed using results from previous studies. As a worst case
scenario, it was assumed that the bores would be required to operate at full capacity, daily
and continuously. A daily period of recovery is therefore required.
On this basis, assuming continuous daily use is required to augment Wangaratta, a 16 hour
per day pumping period followed by an 8 hour recovery period is recommended. The
resulting cumulative daily extraction will be 7.7 ML per day (Table A.6).
Table A.6 : Existing bore capability
Bore
Pumping duration
Discharge rate (L/s)
(hours per day)
Daily extraction
(ML)
Kerr Street No. 1
16
40
2.3
Kerr Street No. 2
16
60
3.5
Faithfull Street
16
33
1.9
Total daily extraction is 7.7 ML.
NB: Current licence for Kerr Street No. 1 and No. 2 is 3 ML per day respectively, with a
maximum annual extraction of 415 ML cumulatively.
The daily extraction can be increased by extending the pumping period beyond 16 hours or
increasing the pumping rate; however, modelling of cyclic pumping to determine minimum
required daily recovery periods and extent of the boundary conditions would need to be
completed in order to make an informed decision on a sustainable pumping regime. It should
be noted that if a pumping schedule does not provide for full recovery, there will be a
progressive and incremental decline in water level and therefore available drawdown. The
amount of increment and the extent of its occurrence with time will depend upon the recovery
capacity of the bore. Indications from the pumping tests are that recovery is relatively rapid,
however the time required for recovery would be expected to increase as the overall volume
of water extracted increases.
Final Draft
89
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
The proposed daily extraction regime exceeds the existing licence for the Kerr Street No. 2
bore; however across the bores the proposed daily extraction total is less than the licensed
volume (Table A.7). It is recommended that the G-MW extraction licences are amended to
allow for the proposed daily extraction.
Table A.7 : Proposed daily extraction against current licensed daily extraction
Bore
Maximum licensed extraction (ML/day)
Proposed daily extraction
(ML/day)
Kerr Street No. 1 3.0
2.3
Kerr Street No. 2 3.0
3.5
Faithfull Street
2.6
1.9
Total
8.6
7.7
A.9
Capacity for additional bores
The comparison between sustainable yield and current licensed entitlement with the water
supply demand requirements in Section A.7 highlighted the requirement for up to two
additional groundwater bores. The likelihood of obtaining additional groundwater supply
bores has been considered below.
As described in Section A.3, the two major aquifer systems are the Shepparton Formation
Aquifer and the Calivil Formation Aqufier. These two aquifers are widely present across
Wangaratta. Currently, the Calivil Formation Aquifer is underdeveloped in the Ovens Plain
Zone. Moreover in north Wangaratta, the presence of the Upper Tertiary Aquitard limits
interaction between the Shepparton Formation Aquifer and the Calivil Formation Aquifer and
hence would limit the impact of extraction from the Calivil Formation Aquifer on surrounding
users that are typically intersecting the overlying Shepparton Formation Aquifer. Given the
above points and the acceptable groundwater quality and yield from this Aquifer, the Calivil
Formation Aquifer would therefore be a suitable target for additional groundwater supply
bores.
A.9.1
Bore location
North East Water (NEW) has indicated that from an infrastructure point of view:

An ideal location for the first additional bore would be Phillipson Street.

Close to Faithfull Street or Kerr Street (e.g. Cruse Street) would be ideal for the second
new supply bore.
Final Draft
90
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix B shows potential locations for the second new supply bore (a location near
Phillipson Street was also considered but was not investigated further). As bore interference
is a major factor in determining a suitable location for additional bores, a simple analytical
model was used to predict cumulative drawdown at the bore sites. The analytical model was
based on the Theis non-steady state radial flow solution (Theis, 1935) and the principle of
superposition. The model assumed that the aquifer is confined, homogenous (the system is
uniform) and isotropic (hydraulic properties of the aquifer are the same in all directions).
The model predicted cumulative drawdown under four scenarios:

Existing bores pumping

Existing bores pumping, plus Phillipson Street pumping

Existing bores pumping, plus Phillipson Street and Faithfull Street (new) pumping

Existing bores pumping, plus Phillipson Street and Cruse Street (near Kerr Street)
pumping
Inputs to the analytical model are shown in Table A.8. The model was run with two flow rates
for the new bores, based on the minimum and maximum flow rates proposed for the existing
bores.
Table A.8 : Analytical model inputs
Bore name
Location (Zone 55)
Distance from
Flow
Available
Kerr Street No. 2
rate
drawdown
(m)
(L/s)
(m)
Kerr Street No. 2 E 437069 N 5975824
0
60
41
Kerr Street No. 1 E 436951 N 5975835
118
40
45
Faithfull Street
E 439856 N 5976496
2,867
33
46
Phillipson Street E 437948 N 5978538
2,853
33 – 60
NA
Faithfull Street
E 440032 N 5976038
2,971
33 – 60
NA
E 436700 N 5976120
473
33 – 60
NA
(new)
Cruse Street
(near Kerr St)
NB: Flow rates shown in brackets was input into Model 2 and Model 3 – assumed to be the
same as Faithfull Street
T = 500 m2/day, S = 0.0016
Final Draft
91
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Cumulative drawdown was predicted over a range of continuous pumping periods. The
results of the four models are shown in Table A.9 to Table A.15. The results show that
ongoing, continuous pumping from all bores will result in a cone of depression that will affect
the available drawdown for neighbouring bores. None of the scenarios investigated exceeded
available drawdown, indicating that the suggested locations for new bore sites may be
suitable. The level of uncertainty regarding the predicted drawdown is proportional to the
assumptions of the model and the assumed aquifer characteristics of the new sites.
Table A.9 : Results of Model 1 – bores turned on are highlighted blue [Table split and colour removed for
accessibility]
1 day
Bore name
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
7
16%
Phillipson Street
0
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
1
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
2
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
45%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
36%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
9
19%
Phillipson Street
0
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
2
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
5
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
21
51%
7 days
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
Final Draft
92
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Bore name
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
17
42%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
11
23%
Phillipson Street
2
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
3
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
7
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
23
56%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
19
47%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
12
27%
Phillipson Street
4
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
5
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
9
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
25
62%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
22
53%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
15
32%
Phillipson Street
6
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
8
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
11
NA
90 days
Bore name
365 days
Bore name
Table A.10 : Results of Model 2 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 33 L/s for Phllipson Street [Table
adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Bore name
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
Final Draft
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
16
38%
93
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Bore name
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
7
16%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
7
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
1
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
2
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
45%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
9
19%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
9
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
2
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
5
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
21
52%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
18
43%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
11
24%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
11
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
4
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
8
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
24
58%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
20
49%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
13
29%
7 days
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
90 days
Bore name
Final Draft
94
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Bore name
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Phillipson Street (turned on)
13
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
6
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
10
NA
Total drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
27
66%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
23
57%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
16
36%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
16
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
9
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
13
NA
365 days
Bore name
Table A.11 : Results of Model 3 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 33 L/s for Phllipson Street and
Faithfull Street (new) [Table adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Bore name
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
8
17%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
7
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
8
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
2
NA
7 days
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
46%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
10
22%
Bore name
Final Draft
95
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Phillipson Street (turned on)
9
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
10
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
5
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
22
54%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
18
44%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
13
29%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
12
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
13
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
8
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
25
60%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
21
51%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
16
35%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
14
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
16
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
11
NA
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
90 days
Bore name
365 Days
% of available
Bore name
Total DD (m)
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
29
70%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
25
60%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
20
43%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
18
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
19
NA
Final Draft
drawdown
96
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Bore name
Total DD (m)
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
14
% of available
drawdown
NA
Table A.12 : Results of Model 4 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 33 L/s for Phillipson Street and
Cruse Street [Table adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
7
16%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
7
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
1
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
2
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
45%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
9
19%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
9
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
2
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
5
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
21
52%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
18
43%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
11
24%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
11
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
4
NA
Bore name
7 days
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
Final Draft
97
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
8
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
24
58%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
20
49%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
13
29%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
13
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
6
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
10
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
27
66%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
23
57%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
16
36%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
16
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
9
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
13
NA
Bore name
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
90 days
Bore name
365 Days
Bore name
Table A.13 : Results of Model 2 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 60 L/s for Phllipson Street [Table
adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
7
16%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
14
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
1
NA
Bore name
Final Draft
98
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
2
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
46%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
9
19%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
16
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
2
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
5
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
22
53%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
18
44%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
12
25%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
18
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
4
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
8
NA
Bore name
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
7 days
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
90 days
Bore name
Total Drawdown
(m)
% of av. DD
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
25
60%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
21
51%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
14
31%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
21
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
7
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
11
NA
Final Draft
99
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
365 Days
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
28
69%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
25
60%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
18
39%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
25
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
10
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
14
NA
Bore name
Table A.14 : Results of Model 3 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 60 L/s for Phllipson Street and
Faithfull Street (new) [Table adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
8
18%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
14
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
14
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
2
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
46%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
11
25%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
16
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
17
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
5
NA
Bore name
7 days
Bore name
Final Draft
100
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
30 days
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
23
56%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
19
46%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
15
33%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
19
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
21
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
9
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
26
64%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
23
55%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
19
41%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
23
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
24
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
12
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
31
76%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
28
66%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
23
51%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
27
NA
Faithfull Street (new) (turned on)
29
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St)
17
NA
Bore name
90 days
Bore name
365 Days
Bore name
Final Draft
101
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table A.15 : Results of Model 4 – bores turned on are highlighted blue; 60 L/s for Phillipson Street and
Cruse Street [Table adapted and colour removed for accessibility]
1 day
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
16
38%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
12
30%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
7
16%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
14
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
1
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
2
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
19
46%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
15
37%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
9
19%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
16
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
2
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
5
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
22
53%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
18
44%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
12
25%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
18
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
4
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
8
NA
Bore name
7 days
Bore name
30 days
Bore name
Final Draft
102
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
90 days
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
25
60%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
21
51%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
14
31%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
21
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
7
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
11
NA
Total Drawdown
% of available
(m)
drawdown
Kerr Street No. 2 (turned on)
28
69%
Kerr Street No. 1 (turned on)
25
60%
Faithfull Street (turned on)
18
39%
Phillipson Street (turned on)
25
NA
Faithfull Street (new)
10
NA
Cruse Street (near Kerr St) (turned on)
14
NA
Bore name
365 Days
Bore name
It is recommended that if detailed design for Wangaratta water supply augmentation is
required, a numerical model should be examined to allow for boundary conditions
(particularly those observed at Faithfull Street), recharge and heterogeneous aquifer
characteristics. The results of a numerical model will produce results with more certainty than
those produced by the analytical model above.
A.9.2
Likelihood of obtaining suitable supply
Hydrogeology
The likelihood of obtaining a suitable supply of groundwater for town water supply
augmentation is considered to be reasonable at any of the sites listed above. The expected
conditions are as follows:

Calivil Formation would be the target aquifer, where the top of the aquifer is likely to start
at a depth greater than 85 mBNS (below natural surface).
Final Draft
103
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Suitable aquifer material for screening is likely to occur at around 100 m below ground
surface (mBNS).

Water quality is expected to be < 500 mg/L TDS (Section A.15). Groundwater is likely to
exceed drinking water quality guidelines for iron, manganese and arsenic and this should
be considered in terms of treatment.

Yield is likely to exceed 30 L/s.
Licencing
Previous G-MW licencing conditions stated that new groundwater supply bores should be
located at least:

300 m from any bore not in the licensee’s ownership

200 m from the nearest waterway

30 m from any Authority channel, reserve or easement
Appendix B shows that all suggested locations for additional bores (Faithfull Street, Kerr
Street and Phillipson Street) fall within these buffer zones. However, the licence conditions
listed above no longer exist. Rather, the impacts on surrounding groundwater users would
need to be identified and proved to be acceptable, as part of the technical assessment
undertaken during the licensing of any new bore.
All suggested locations for the additional bores fall within the Lower Ovens GMA. Kerr Street
and Phillipson St fall within the Ovens Plain Zone and Faithfull Street lies within the Mid
Ovens Zone.
A.10 Conceptual design for drilling program – new bores
The following details the conceptual design for a drilling program.
Stage 1 – field preliminaries
This stage would include the following tasks:

Conceptual design and drilling technical specification.

Drilling licence application.

RFQ from three suitable and reputable drillers.

Tender assessment, contractor engagement.
Final Draft
104
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

Conceptual design and pumping test technical specification

RFQ from one or two suitable pumping test contractors. Tender assessment, contractor
engagement.

Safety planning.

Site visit to finalise final site selection with NEW and access issues with selected
contractor.
Stage 2 – field program
This stage would include the following tasks:

Site mobilisation and set-up.

Pilot hole drilling to at least 120 m.

Geophysical logging. Determination of final construction specification.

Reaming, construction, development. Construction likely to be with 250 mm diameter
PVC casing and stainless steel screens.

Pumping test.

Water quality sampling.

Site demobilisation and clean up.
Stage 3 – analysis and reporting
This stage would include the following tasks:

Preparation of formal bore logs.

Pumping test analysis to determine bore capability and sustainable yield.

Assessment of water quality against Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Reporting on field program and findings of analysis.
Final Draft
105
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
A.11 References
Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW), (2012), Lower Ovens Groundwater Management Area –
local management plan, August 2012
Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW), (2014), Lower Ovens GMA, (url: http://www.gmwater.com.au/water-resources/ground-water/groundwater_management/lowerovensgma),
accessed 16 April 2014
Geological Survey of Victoria (GSV), (1981), Wangaratta geological map sheet 8125:II Zone
55 – 1:50,000 scale
Nahm, G., (1985), Groundwater resources of Victoria, Department of Industry, Technology
and Resources
North East Water (NEW), (2012), Water supply demand strategy – Wangaratta System Plan,
(url: http://www.newater.com.au/about-us/all-publications/water-supply-demandstrategies/images/WSDS_2012_-_Wangaratta_System_Plan.pdf) accessed 23 April 2014
SKM, (2004), Wangaratta Town Water Supply - Production Bore Drilling, Construction and
Testing, Kerr St, Report for North East Water, January 2004
SKM, (2006), Lower Ovens Basin Groundwater Boundary Review, Cross Sections and GMA
Boundary Definition, Report for Goulburn Murray Water, October 2006.
SKM, (2007a), Emergency drought relief water supply for Wangaratta – Faithfull Street bore
groundwater assessment report, Report for North East Water, June 2007
SKM, (2007b), Wangaratta urban water supply – bore construction and pumping tests
(Faithfull Street Bore), Report for North East Water, August 2007
SKM, (2007c), Emergency water supply investigations – Wangaratta, Bright, Glenrowan,
Oxley, Moyhu, Myrtleford and Chiltern, Report for North East Water, August 2007
SKM, (2007d), Wangaratta urban water supply – reporting on bore construction and pumping
tests (Kerr Street Bore 2), Report for North East Water, September 2007
Theis C.V., (1935), The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate
and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage. Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union, 2, 519 – 524
Final Draft
106
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Tickell, S., (1978), Geology and hydrogeology of the eastern part of the riverine plain in
Victoria, Geological Survey Report, 1977/8
VandenBerg, A., (1997), Wangaratta 1:250,000 geological map series, Geological Survey of
Victoria, May 1997
Final Draft
107
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
A.12 Kerr Street No. 1 bore pumping test results
Available DD
= 41.5 m
Final Draft
108
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
A.13 Kerr Street No. 2 bore pumping test results
Final Draft
109
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
A.14 Faithfull Street bore pumping test results
Figure A.3 : Predicted drawdown
Final Draft
110
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure A.4 : Observed drawdown during the constant rate test
Final Draft
111
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure A.5 : Observed drawdown during the constant rate test (semi-log plot)
Final Draft
112
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
A.15 Groundwater quality – Calivil Formation (SKM, 2007c)
This diagram show the salinity of the Calivil formation. The diagram shows that the
groundwater around Wangaratta has low salinity.
Final Draft
113
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix B. Possible locations for new bores
See separate document for Appendix B.
Final Draft
114
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix C. Concept design – additional groundwater use
This appendix is divided into the following sections:

Section C.1 summarises the existing infrastructure for supplying groundwater to
Wangaratta

Section C.2 describes the proposed upgrade to NEW’s Kerr Street site

Section C.3 describes the new bore and associated infrastructure proposed for NEW’s
Phillipson Street site

Section C.3.2 includes options for a second new bore
C.1
Existing infrastructure
C.1.1
Existing groundwater bores
Table C.16 summarises relevant details about the existing groundwater bores in Wangaratta,
while Table C.17 summarises how they are proposed to operate if used to supply
groundwater more frequently (see Appendix A for more details). See Figure C.6 for an
explanation of how the different levels in Table C.16 and Table C.17 relate to one another.
Final Draft
115
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table C.16 : Existing groundwater bores [Table adapted for accessibility]
Extraction
Bore
Construction Date
Bore Total Depth
Screen Location
SWL
Licence
Daily
Kerr St No. 1
Kerr St No. 2
Faithfull St
May 2003
April 2007
March 2007
10.40 m BGL 3.0 ML/d
79.00-84.50 m BGL
126.50 m BGL
122.15 m BGL
Annual
415 ML per annum
56.50-64.50 m BGL
91.00 m BGL
Extraction Licence
(combined with Kerr St
No. 2)
415 ML per annum
56.25-63.75 m BGL
12.75 m BGL 3.0 ML/d
122.25-124.75 m BGL
(combined with Kerr St
No. 1)
89.50-95.10 m BGL
12.23 m BGL 2.6 ML/d
117.10-120.10 m BGL
200 ML per annum
Table C.17 : Proposed operation for existing groundwater bores [Table adapted for accessibility]
Bore
Proposed Daily
Extraction
Proposed
Operation
Period in 24 hr
Extraction Flow
Rate
Expected Draw
Down over 16
hr Operation
Assumed
Maximum Draw Pump Position Assumed
Down Level
Below Max
Pump Level
Draw Down
Kerr St No. 1
2.3 ML/d
16 Hrs
40 L/s
12 m below SWL 22.40 m BGL
10 m
32.40 m BGL
Kerr St No. 2
3.5 ML/d
16 Hrs
60 L/s
16 m below SWL 28.75 m BGL
10 m
38.75 m BGL
Faithfull St
1.9 ML/d
16 Hrs
33 L/s
35 m below SWL 47.23 m BGL
10 m
57.23 m BGL
Final Draft
116
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
GROUND LEVEL
10m MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE FOR
BORE PUMP
EXPECTED DRAW DOWN
STANDING WATER LEVEL SWL
ASSUMED THAT BORE LEVEL
RETURNS TO SWL AFTER 8 HR
RECOVERY PERIOD
DRAW DOWN LEVEL OVER 16 HOURS
ASSUME NO ADDIITONAL DRAW
DOWN OVER LONG TERM
OEPRATION
TOP OF BORE PUMPSET
BOTTOM OF BORE PUMPSET MUST
BE HIGHER THAN BORE SCREENS TO
ENSURE MOTOR COOLING
Figure C.6 : Typical operating levels
Final Draft
117
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
C.1.2
Existing groundwater treatment
Groundwater extracted from the Faithfull Street bore is passed through the main Wangaratta
Water Treatment Plant (WTP), before being discharged to the distribution system as part of
the total treated water output from the WTP. For this concept design, it has been assumed
that this treatment and integration configuration will continue in future if groundwater
becomes a more permanent part of Wangaratta’s water supply. However, it is acknowledged
that previous trials of treating groundwater blended with surface water extracted from the
Ovens River have proved difficult. If these difficulties cannot be resolved, a ‘stand-alone’
treatment plant for the groundwater water supply may be required at the Faithfull Street WTP
site. This could be achieved using a 3.3 ML/d package treatment plant, similar to the existing
one at NEW’s Kerr Street site, but installed in a permanent building. Given the space
constraints at Faithfull Street, installing a package groundwater treatment plant would also
require the small on-site office to be relocated. Based on the costs estimated for constructing
a new bore at Phillipson Street and upgrading the Kerr Street treatment facility, the additional
cost of providing stand-alone groundwater treatment at the Faithfull Street WTP is estimated
to be approximately $1.5-2.0 million.
Currently, a 3.5ML/d Amiad package treatment plant is located at Kerr Street to treat
groundwater extracted from the Kerr Street bores. This treatment facility will need to be
upgraded if groundwater is used more regularly to augment water supply to Wangaratta. This
upgrade has been considered further in Section C.2.
Treated groundwater from the Kerr Street bores is currently put into the 9 ML Kerr Street
ground tank, and distributed to the town from there. It is assumed that this integration of the
Kerr Street groundwater will continue if future.
C.1.3
Existing Kerr Street groundwater quality
Table C.18 provides a summary of the raw and treated water quality data available for the
Kerr Street No. 2 bore between July 2007 and December 2013. The data indicates that the
raw water generally has low turbidity, as would be expected in a groundwater source. Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Hardness values are well within Australian Drinking Water
Guideline (ADWG) limits.
Iron and manganese levels are elevated in the raw water sample results, but both are
significantly reduced by the existing treatment process. It should be noted that the 95 th
percentile treated water value for both parameters meets the ADWG recommended limit, but
Final Draft
118
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
is higher than the water industry standard long term targets for a treated water supply.
Residual iron and manganese in the treated water supply can lead to a build-up of biofilms in
the distribution system, and create aesthetic “dirty water” issues at customer taps, as well as
potentially limiting chlorine residual disinfection effectiveness. It is therefore recommended
that the existing package treatment plant be reviewed for its capacity to deliver treated
water with iron and manganese levels below long term recommended limits.
Arsenic levels are elevated above the ADWG recommended limit in the raw water samples.
The form of the arsenic is not stated, and it is therefore assumed to be the total arsenic
value, including both particulate and dissolved forms. The form of the Arsenic, including the
particular dissolved form – whether trivalent Arsenite As (III) or pentavalent Arsenate As (V) –
has a significant impact on the ease of removal in the treatment process. The treated water
sample results indicate that total arsenic is removed through the treatment plant process, to a
level below ADWG recommended limits. It is recommended that the groundwater
treatment plant sludge disposal method be reviewed, given the presence of
accumulated arsenic removed by the plant.
Final Draft
119
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table C.18 : Summary of water quality data provided by NEW for the Kerr Street No. 2 bore [Table split and
adapted for accessibility]
Parameter – TDS
Unit: mg/L
ADWG 2011 limit: 600
Risk Type: Aesthetic/asset
Sample point Max Min Ave
Med 95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
420
240 296.4 260
400
250
11
Treated
290
270 280.0 280
289
271
3
Parameter – Alkalinity
Unit: mg/L (as CaCO3)
Sample point Max Min Ave
Med 95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
150
130 133.3 130
146
130
9
Treated
140
120 130.0 130
135.5
124.5
10
Parameter – Hardness
Unit: mg/L (as CaCO3)
ADWG 2011 limit: 200
Risk Type: Aesthetic/asset
Sample point Max Min Ave
Med 95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
58
31
37.7 32
56.4
31
9
Treated
56
28
33.7 31
47.45
28.45
10
Parameter – Turbidity
Unit: NTU
ADWG 2011 limit: 0.2
Risk Type: Health
Sample point Max Min Ave Med 95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
13
0.1
1.5
0.1
12.15
0.1
18
Treated
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
19
Final Draft
120
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Parameter – pH
Unit: pH
ADWG 2011 limit: 6.5<pH<8.5
Risk Type: Aesthetic/asset
Sample point Max Min Ave Med 95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
8.2
6.7
7.2
7
7.96
6.7
13
Treated
8.2
6.7
7.3
7.15 8.14
6.7
14
Parameter – Iron
Unit: mg/L
ADWG 2011 limit: 0.3
Risk Type: Aesthetic/asset
Long term limit (to prevent build-up of biofilms in water supply system): 0.1
Sample point Max
Min
Ave
Med
95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
2.500 0.020 1.893 2.000 2.200
0.863
2.500
Treated
0.500 0.010 0.062 0.020 0.200
0.010
0.500
Parameter – Manganese
Unit: mg/L
ADWG 2011 limit: 0.1
Risk Type: Aesthetic/asset
Long term limit (to prevent build-up of biofilms in water supply system): 0.03
Sample point Max
Min
Ave
Med
95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
0.100 0.001 0.079 0.080 0.100
0.053
0.100
Treated
0.100 0.001 0.011 0.010 0.036
0.001
0.100
Parameter – Arsenic
Unit: mg/L
ADWG 2011 limit: 0.01
Risk Type: Health
Sample point Max
Min
Ave
Med
95th percentile 5th percentile Count
Raw
0.100 0.001 0.022 0.015 0.080
0.013
0.100
Treated
0.010 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.010
0.001
0.010
Final Draft
121
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
C.2
Upgrade to Kerr Street groundwater supply
C.2.1
Future operating regime
The basis of this concept design is that the two existing bores at Kerr Street will need to
operate 16 hours per day each day for extended periods of time to reduce the frequency of
restrictions at Wangaratta. The volumes they produce in these 16 hours will be greater than
the existing on site treatment capacity. In addition, there is insufficient space available on site
to comfortably locate a raw water balance tank. Therefore, the treatment capacity on site will
need to be upgraded.
The assumed pumping and treatment regime is shown in Figure C.7 and Table C.19.
Min 200kPa for operation of WTP.
May be >200kPa depending on TWL
in Kerr St Tank
Chlorine
AMIAD WATER
TREATMENT FILTERS
(INCREASED CAPACITY)
EXISTING KERR ST
BORES AND BORE
PUMPS
KERR ST TANK
TO BACKWASH
WASTE HOLDING
TANK AND SEWER
Figure C.7 : Kerr Street bores – proposed future operating regime
Final Draft
122
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table C.19 : Kerr Street bores – proposed future operating regime
Proposed daily
Bore pump flow –
Required Treatment
extraction limit
16 hrs production
Inflow Capacity - 16
(ML/d)
(L/s)
hrs operation (L/s)
Kerr St No. 1
2.3
40
40
Kerr St No. 2
3.5
60
60
Total
5.8
100
100
Existing Bore
C.2.2
Treatment upgrade
On site there is currently one 3.5 ML/d Amiad filtration plant. The 3.5 ML/d designation is the
production volume capacity of the plant over 24 hours of operation, which translates to an
average production flow rate of 40 L/s. The inflow capacity of the plant is 3.83 ML/d, or 44.5
L/s. The difference in input and output flow rates is attributable to losses from filter backwash.
A second 3.5 ML/d Amiad filtration plant was recently relocated from Kerr Street to Bright,
and refurbished with an alternative media to suit the surface water source at Bright. This
second plant has not been considered further in this concept design. Therefore, the
remaining treatment inflow capacity at Kerr Street is 44.5 L/s. To run both Kerr Street bores
simultaneously, the capacity of the treatment facility at Kerr Street needs to be increased by
installing a second filtration plant. The additional treatment capacity required is the difference
between the total combined bore flow rate of 100L/s, and the existing treatment capacity flow
rate of 44.5 L/s. That is, a 55.5 L/s inflow capacity upgrade is required. The existing 44.5 L/s
and proposed 55.5 L/s plant are expected to produce a combined total of 90.5 L/s of treated
water (Table C.20).
The current Amiad filtration plant located at Kerr Street has been built inside two shipping
containers. NEW has advised that if the Kerr Street bores are to be used more regularly in
future, it would prefer the treatment plant to be relocated inside a permanent building, for
ease of access for operation and maintenance. The building can be sized to house both the
existing filtration plant and the new 55.5 L/s filtration plant. Figure C.8 shows two possible
locations for this building.
It is understood there is a chlorine disinfection plant at Kerr Street, dosing the treated
groundwater, and boosting chlorine residual in the treated surface water transferred to the
Kerr Street tank from the Wangaratta WTP. It is expected that the existing chlorine
disinfection plant will need to be upgraded in order to disinfect the 90.5 L/s treated
Final Draft
123
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
groundwater flow rate, in addition to boosting chlorine residual in the surface water passing
through the Kerr Street tank. Therefore, a new disinfection plant may be required. This new
plant could also be located inside the new the treatment plant building, alongside the filtration
units.
Table C.20 : Kerr Street – treatment capacity
Treatment Plant
Inflow
Average treated water
Treated water - daily
capacity -
production - 16 hrs
production (ML/d)
16 hrs
operation (L/s)
operation (L/s)
Existing plant
44.5
40.0
2.3
Proposed new
55.5
50.5
2.9
100.0
90.5
5.2
plant
Total
Figure C.8 : Kerr Street – layout options. This diagram shows the options for the groundwater treatment
plant locations.
C.3
First new bore: Phillipson Street
The concept design for the new bore at Phillipson Street is based on the operating regime
described in Table C.21, The concept design includes a new bore, raw water balance tank
and treatment plant.
It was assumed that the new bore would produce 3.5 ML/d by pumping for 16 hours and
recovering for eight. This is higher than the 2.6 ML/d assumed when considering the number
of new bores required to meet the 90% reliability of supply target for Wangaratta (Section
4.1), but it is appropriately conservative from a design and cost perspective.
Final Draft
124
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Table C.21 : New Phillipson Street bore – proposed operating regime
Daily
New Bore
extraction
limit (ML/d)
Phillipson
3.5
Bore pump
Treatment
Average
Average
plant –
treated water treated water
flow – 16 hrs inflow rate
production -
production -
production
24 hrs
24 hrs
24 hrs
(L/s)
operation
operation
operation
(L/s)
(L/s)*1
(ML/d)*1
40.5
37.0
3.2
60
Street
Note:
1 10% of inflow lost to filter backwash
C.3.1
Bore, bore pump and headworks
The new bore constructed at Phillipson Street would require the following fit out:
1) Submersible pumpset:
a) Located a minimum of 10m below maximum draw down level for adequate pump
submergence, and above bore screens, to provide passing flow for motor cooling
b) With a duty flow of 60L/s at 40m head, requiring a 37kW motor
c) Fitted with shroud to encourage passing flow and motor cooling
2) Bore pump riser to surface level (assumed to be constructed of 38m of DN150 carbon
steel pipe)
3) Bore headworks including:
a) Manual isolation butterfly valve
b) Non return valve
c) Air release valve
d) Flow meter
e) Pressure indicating transmitter
4) Electrical equipment situated locally:
Final Draft
125
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
a) Switchboard
b) Motor control centre (MCC), either for soft starter or variable speed drive (VSD). A
VSD may be installed to slow the pump and control flow output at bore water levels
above maximum draw down
c) Power and communications cabling between the switchboard, MCC, and instruments
on the bore headworks and bore pump
The standing water level and expected drawdown from operating the Kerr Street No. 2 bore
at 60 L/s for 16 hours has been used to design the bore configuration (Figure C.9)
A pump supplier provided a quote for a 60 L/s pump at 40m head, with pumpset dimensions.
The outside diameter of the pump shroud is 295mm. The supplier recommends 10 mm
clearance to the outside of the shroud. This limits the minimum internal diameter of the bore
casing to 315 mm. The bore pumpset discharge pipe diameter is DN150 with flange OD
280mm. The resulting velocity is high at approximately 3.5 m/s. The next pipe size is DN200
with flange OD 335mm. This larger pipe could be used; however the bore casing ID would
need to be significantly greater than 335mm to allow for power cabling to pass between the
flange and the casing.
Final Draft
126
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
PIT
AIR VALVE
FE
ISOLATION
VALVE
BORE
HEADWORKS
NRV
GROUND LEVEL GL
BORE RISER
10m MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE FOR
BORE PUMP
EXPECTED DRAW DOWN 16m
SWL
ASSUME 12 mBGL
DRAW DOWN LEVEL OVER 16 HOURS
ASSUME 28 mBGL
ASSUME NO ADDITIONAL DRAW DOWN
OVER LONG TERM OPERATION
TOP OF BORE PUMPSET
ASSUME 38 mBGL
BORE PUMPSET
BOTTOM OF BORE PUMPSET MUST
BE HIGHER THAN BORE SCREENS TO
ENSURE MOTOR COOLING
Figure C.9 : Phillipson Street bore configuration
Final Draft
127
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
C.3.2
Raw water balance tank
In the operating regime outlined in Table C.21, it is proposed that the bore pump will have a
duty flow of 60 L/s, operating for 16 hours in every 24 hours. It is recommended that the
associated groundwater treatment plant be designed with a raw water balancing tank, and
sized to treat the total volume of raw water extracted over 24 hours, rather than 16 hours.
There are a number of reasons for this:
1) The physical size of the plant is less than would be required for a plant sized to treat a
bore production flow rate of 60L/s.
2) The operation of the treatment plant is not tied to the operation of the bore. The plant will
be able to supply treated water to the distribution system at a reasonably constant rate
24 hours a day, rather than only when the bore is operating. This constant production is
easier to integrate in the Wangaratta treated water system compared with periodic
supply.
3) The bore can be operated primarily at night when power tariffs are reduced, while the
treatment plant operates 24 hours a day, including during the day when peak demands
occur
4) The bore flow rate can be varied up or down, and the plant, with the balancing storage,
will always produce the daily extracted volume.
5) Treatment plant performance tends to improve with continuous operation, compared with
stop-start operation.
The proposed raw water balance tank would be sized for eight hours of plant capacity. This is
the maximum volume of treated water that can be produced while the bore is offline. Eight
hours of peak demand storage volume is also a standard sizing method for tanks to allow for
an emergency failure of equipment, providing a time period to fix the failure, or bring in
replacement equipment.
Eight hours of plant demand requires a usable tank volume of 1.2 ML. Allowing for 600 mm
dead volume and 400 mm freeboard, a tank 16 m in diameter and 7 m high would be
suitable. Note that although the bore may produce 3.5 ML/d, the plant will only put out
approximately 3.2 ML/d of treated water, with approximately 10% of the inflow volume lost to
waste from filter backwash.
Final Draft
128
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
The raw water balance tank also acts as a break pressure tank. Therefore, a feed pump is
required to pump water from the raw water tank through the treatment plant. The Amiad
package filtration plants proposed for the Phillipson Street site (Section C.3.3) require a
minimum feed pressure of 200 kPa to operate. They can receive higher pressures, however
a review and possible upgrade of the pressure rating of the fibreglass media tanks becomes
necessary.
At Phillipson Street, it is assumed that treated water will be delivered into the two 10 ML
treated water tanks. Therefore, the feed pump will need to deliver sufficient head to supply
through the Amiad treatment plant to the top water level of the Philipson Street tanks. It is
assumed that the pressure loss through the treatment plant is nominally 150 kPa.
C.3.3
Treatment plant
NEW has advised that it is satisfied with the performance of the Amiad package filtration
plant currently located at Kerr Street, and would like to use the same type of plant to treat
water extracted from the proposed Phillipson Street bore. The treatment plant has been sized
to process 3.5 ML/d over 24 hours. The total treated water output will be approximately 3.2
ML/d. The Amiad package plant consists of:

Fibreglass filter tanks

Filter media suitable for iron and manganese removal

Piping and valving

A minor sodium hypochlorite plant to dose backwash water to activate oxidising filter
media
It is assumed that if any additional chemical dosing, for coagulation, pH correction and
disinfection is required, these plants will be designed and supplied separately. Filter
backwash water is supplied from the filtered water stream, which results in a reduced
production flow rate for short periods, while a filter is in backwash.
Waste washwater will be discharged to a nearby sewer, with sufficient capacity to receive this
additional load. It is recommended that a waste washwater balance tank be installed to
control the discharge to sewer and ensure it is not overwhelmed by an excessive flow rate. It
is assumed the waste washwater balance tank would hold three filter backwashes, and will
be approximately 30 kL in size.
Final Draft
129
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
The proposed scheme is summarised in Figure C.10.
Min 200kPa for operation of WTP.
May be >200kPa depending on TWL
in Phillipson St Tank
HGL
Chlorine
RRAW WATER BALANCE
TANK
AMIAD WATER
TREATMENT
FILTERS
PHILLIPSON ST TANK
RAW WATER
FEED PUMP
NEW PHILLIPSON
ST BORE AND
BORE PUMP
TO BACKWASH
WASTE HOLDING
TANK AND SEWER
Figure C.10 : Phillipson Street – proposed operating regime
NEW has advised that the new package Amiad treatment plant would need to be housed in a
permanent building. The package treatment plant would be provided standard with free
standing filters and skid mounted pipework and valving. It has been assumed that the
treatment plant building should also provide room for additional chemical storage, which
might be required during continuous plant operation. A possible building footprint is shown in
Figure C.11. The total footprint area is approximately 17.5 m x 12.5 m. Figure C.12 shows a
possible site layout. The new infrastructure required could also be located in the north-east
corner of NEW’s Phillipson Street site. The site layout will need to be considered further
during detailed design.
The filtered water out of the treatment plant will require chlorination before entering the two
Phillipson Street tanks, to disinfect and provide a chlorine residual. Therefore, a dedicated
sodium hypochlorite disinfection plant will be required, separate to the minor system supplied
with the Amiad package treatment plant for media activation.
Final Draft
130
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
1000
17500
4 NO. AMIAD FILTERS
TOILET
5300
OFFICE AND
LABORATORY
3000
PIPE AND VALVE SKID
EQUIPMENT AREA
12500
PIPE AND VALVE SKID
1000
4 NO. AMIAD FILTERS
3500
1000
FUTURE COAGULENT
STORAGE TANK,
DOSING EQUIPMENT
AND BUND
FUTURE pH
CORRECTION STORAGE
TANK, DOSING
EQUIPMENT AND BUND
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
STORAGE TANK, DOSING
EQUIPMENT AND BUND
3500
SWITCHBOARD
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
Figure C.11 : Building layout of treatment plant
Figure C.12 : Phillipson Street – layout option. This diagram show the potential location of the
groundwater treatment plant.
C.3.4
Power, instrumentation and control
A power supply to the new Phillipson Street bore and treatment plant will be required. It has
been assumed that the adjacent overhead power supply will have sufficient capacity and will
not require an upgrade. The main loads at the Phillipson Street site will be the bore pump,
and the feed pump. All other power demands, such as dosing pumps and instrumentation
and control will be minor in comparison.
The main site switchboard would be located inside the treatment plant building as shown in
Figure C.11. A site PLC would also be installed in the treatment plant building to control the
treatment plant and bore pump operation. It is expected that an RTU would also be installed
with the PLC to provide an interface with the NEW SCADA system, and enable remote
monitoring and control.
Final Draft
131
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
C.4
Second new bore
A second new groundwater bore is required if Wangaratta is to have 90% reliability of supply
under a return to dry climate and future (2060) demand scenario. Three locations for this
second new bore were considered (Appendix B). NEW would prefer the second new bore to
be near their existing Kerr Street or Faithfull Street sites. Therefore, concept designs were
developed for these two locations.
If a new groundwater bore were located near Faithfull Street, it would be integrated into the
existing system as shown in Figure C.13. Crown land sites on which a bore could be easily
constructed would be inundated during a 1 in 100 annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood
to a depth of approximately 1 m. It has been assumed the bore can be located in areas prone
to flooding, provided the electrics (e.g. switchboard) are elevated well above expected flood
levels. However, it would not be advisable to locate a water treatment plant on flood prone
land. Raw water from the new Faithfull Street bore would therefore need to be pumped
through to the head of the Wangaratta WTP, and be treated there, along with the raw water
from the existing Faithfull Street bore.
Pump through
Transfer Pipeline
HGL
550m RAW WATER
TRANSFER PIPE
NEW FAITHFUL ST
BORE AND BORE
PUMP
HEAD OF
WANGARATTA WTP
EXISTING FAITHFUL
ST BORE AND BORE
PUMP
Figure C.13 : Proposed operating regime – new bore near Faithfull Street
If a new groundwater bore were located near Kerr Street (e.g. at Cruse Street as shown in
Appendix B), there would be two options to integrated the additional groundwater supply into
Final Draft
132
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
the existing system. Option one is to locate a treatment plant next to the new bore. Treated
water would then be pumped through to the Kerr Street tank (Figure C.14).
Option two is to transfer raw water from the new bore to a central treatment facility located at
NEW’s Kerr Street site, where it could be treated along with raw water from the existing Kerr
Street bores (Figure C.15). However, it is possible that the Kerr Street site would become too
congested if a treatment facility of sufficient capacity to treat three bores were located there.
Pump through Treatment Plant and
Transfer Pipeline
HGL
Chlorine
RRAW WATER BALANCE
TANK
AMIAD WATER
TREATMENT
FILTERS
650m TREATED WATER
TRANSFER PIPE
KERR ST TANK
RAW WATER
FEED PUMP
NEW KERR ST
BORE AND BORE
PUMP
TO BACKWASH
WASTE HOLDING
TANK AND SEWER
Figure C.14 : Proposed operating regime – new bore near Kerr Street – option 1
Final Draft
133
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Pump through
Transfer Pipeline
Min 200kPa for operation of WTP.
May be >200kPa depending on TWL
in Kerr St Tank
HGL
RRAW WATER BALANCE
TANK
AMIAD WATER
TREATMENT
FILTERS
RAW WATER
FEED PUMP
NEW KERR ST
BORE AND
BORE PUMP
Chlorine
650m RAW WATER
TRANSFER PIPE
KERR ST TANK
TO BACKWASH
WASTE HOLDING
TANK AND SEWER
EXISTING KERR ST
BORES AND BORE
PUMPS
Figure C.15 : Proposed operating regime – new bore near Kerr Street – option 2
Final Draft
134
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix D. Concept design – enlarge Lake Buffalo
The following pages show marked up drawings, describing the concept design of the:
D.1
General arrangement
D.2
Main embankment
D.3
Primary spillway
D.4
Secondary embankment
D.5
Secondary spillway with fuse plug
D.6
Tertiary spillway
See separate document for Appendix D.
Final Draft
135
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix E. Concept design – alternative water use
E.1
Stage 1 – non-residential use
E.1.1
Recycled water plant
The demand for potable water in Wangaratta from non-industrial users will only be reduced
by a significant amount if the recycled water provided is treated to Class A standard. Stage 1
of this concept design therefore involves taking secondary treated effluent from lagoons at
the existing Wangaratta Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), and treating it to Class A
standard, at a rate equal to the estimated peak daily demand (PDD) of approximately 5.5
ML/d.
The cost for this option assumes the Class A recycled water treatment plant includes
coagulation, flocculation and flotation (DAF), membrane ultrafiltration (UF), UV disinfection
and chlorination. The DAF process would remove most colour, algae and suspended solids,
thus protecting the UF plant from solids overload. The UF plant would remove residual
turbidity and provide a positive 4 log barrier to pathogens. The UV disinfection and
chlorination would provide at least an additional 3 log barrier, thus improving the pathogen
removal to in excess of 6 log. The DAF float would be removed for treatment or returned to
the head of the WWTP, and the UF backwash would be turned to the head of the WWTP.
The Class A recycled water would be discharged to a 12 hour, 2.5 ML storage tank, providing
the balancing volume necessary for stable recycled treatment plant operations and variable
customer demand. It is assumed that the Class A recycled treatment plant described above
will produce a water quality suitable for sustainable discharge to land; however consultation
will be required with customers, to discuss changes which might be seen in water quality
compared with their current potable water supply. Nutrients and total dissolved solids (TDS)
are not removed by the process described above, and if present in elevated levels in the
WWTP secondary treated effluent, these will pass into the recycled water distribution system.
E.1.2
Distribution system
The distribution system to non-residential customers was designed as a constant pressure
system (between the 12 hour storage tank at the recycled water plant and the customer’s
meter) based on the estimated PDD rates in Table E.22. It was assumed that customers
would be responsible for any on-site facilities required (e.g. storage tanks) to balance the
difference in flow rates between that received from the reticulation and on-site usage. Table
Final Draft
136
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
E.23 summarises the total length of each pipe diameter within the non-residential distribution
system. The distribution system is shown in Figure E.16.
Table E.22 : Recycled water pressure reticulation pipe network – non-residential use [Table removed and
converted to text for accessibility]
Pipe Leg 1 from Recycle Plant
To Intersection Wangaratta Rd/Sisely Ave: PDD Flow Range in Leg 41.9-44.3 L/s; Pipe
Diameter DN250; Pipe Length 7500 m
Leg 1 sub-demands to branch legs and direct connections
To Group 1.1: Direct connections to users; PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.85 L/s
To Group 1.2: Branch to user 8; PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.15 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN80;
Pipe Length - 300m
To Group 1.3: Branch to users 4,9,25,26,29,31; PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.75 L/s; Pipe
Diameter - DN80; Pipe Length – 2500 m
To Group 1.4: Direct connections to users; PDD Flow Range in Leg: 0.65 L/s
Pipe Leg 2 from Intersection Wangaratta Rd/ Sisely Ave
To User 16: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 29.8-31.0 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN250; Pipe Length –
900 m
Leg 2 sub-demands to branch legs and direct connections
To Group 2.1; Branch to user 5: ;PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.2 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN80;
Pipe Length – 400 m
To Group 2.2; Branch to users 19,20: ;PDD Flow Range in Leg - 1.0 L/s; Pipe Diameter DN80; Pipe Length – 1500 m
Pipe Leg 3 from Intersection Wangaratta Rd/ Sisely Ave
To User 32: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 4.8-10.8 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN150; Pipe Length –
3500 m
Leg 3 sub-demands to branch legs and direct connections
To Group 3.1; Branch to users 22,24: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.4 L/s; Pipe Diameter DN80; Pipe Length – 1500 m
To Group 3.2; Branch to user 21: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 0.3 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN80;
Pipe Length – 400 m
To Group 3.3; Direct connection to users: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 5.3 L/s
Final Draft
137
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Pipe Leg 4 from Recycle Plant
To User 17: PDD Flow Range in Leg - 7.9 L/s; Pipe Diameter - DN150; Pipe Length – 1200
m
Table E.23 : Total lengths of each pipe diameter – non-residential use
Pipe diameter
Total length (m)
DN250
8,400
DN150
4,700
DN80
6,600
Figure E.16 : Distribution system for Class A recycled water – supply to non-residential users. This
diagram shows a map of Wangaratta marked with the possible locations for the recycled water treatment
plant and recycled water reticulation network.
Final Draft
138
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix F. Estimated capital cost – additional groundwater use
F.1
Upgrade water treatment infrastructure at Kerr Street
Capital Cost Estimate
PROJECT
TASK
Project No.
VW07942
File
SHEET No.
1
of
DMCA
1
PREPARED BY
EN
Date
May 2014
CHECKED BY
NS
Date
May 2014
WANGARATTA WATER SECURITY
CONCEPT DESIGN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Schedule: KU
KERR ST BORE AND TREATMENT UPGRADE
Item
B
Description
Unit
Quantity
Rate
Amount $
BORE FIT-OUT AND HEADWORKS
B.1
60L/s submersible bore pumpset with shroud
Not required
B.2
DN150 MSCL Riser pipe
Not required
B.3
Power and instrumentation/comms cabling in bore
Not required
B.4
Headworks piping
Not required
B.5
NRV
Not required
B.6
Isolation BFV
Not required
B.7
Air Valve
Not required
B.8
Flow Meter
Not required
B.9
Pressure Instrument
Not required
B.10
Switchboard
B.11
New VSD
B.12
Local controller
B.13
Electrcial installation
Item
1
20,000
$20,000
B.14
New electrics
Item
1
20,000
$20,000
Item
1
650,000
$650,000
D
D.1
E
Not required
No.
2
15,000
$30,000
Not required
AMIAD TREATMENT PLANT 55.5 L/s (4.8ML/d nom size 24hr operation)
Free standing filters and skid mounted pipe and valves
TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
E.1
20 x 15 building - concrete slab, tilt-up panel, Colorbond roof
Item
1
400,000
$400,000
E.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for building
Item
1
60,000
$60,000
E.3
Delivery Bay
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
E.4
Sodium Hypochlorite system - storage tank, dosing equipment, bund
Item
1
200,000
$200,000
E.5
PLC progamme modifications
Item
1
10,000
$10,000
E.6
Swicthboard
Replace
Item
1
90,000
E.7
RTU
Replace
Item
1
15,000
$15,000
E.8
Relocaiton of exisitng filters and pipework into new building
Item
1
100,000
$100,000
E.9
Electrical installation
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
F
$90,000
BACKWASH HOLDING TANK AND SEWER CONNECTION
F.1
60kL tank including earthworks and foundation preparation
Item
1
90,000
$90,000
F.2
Electrically actuated outlet control and isolation valve
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.4
Connection to existing sewer main
Item
1
5,000
$5,000
$4,500
G
YARD PIPEWORK AND ELECTRICAL CABLE AND CONDUIT
G.1
Pipe run - bore headworks to balance tank
lin m
20
225
G.2
Pipe run - balance tank to Amiad treatment plant
lin m
10
225
$2,250
G.3
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to Kerr St Tank
lin m
50
225
$11,250
G.4
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to closest sewer main
G.5
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Bore Switchboard and Local Controller
lin m
30
100
$3,000
G.6
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Backwash Holding Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
G.7
Instrumentation/Comms run to Balance Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
H
H.1
I
I.1
Not required
POWER
Power upgrade to site
Not included
Commissioning and Defects Liability
Commissioning and Defects Liability Support
Item
1
30,000
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$1,847,000
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
$1,847,000
$147,760
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
$1,847,000
$129,290
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$1,847,000
$92,350
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$1,847,000
$92,350
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
2%
$1,847,000
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$36,940
$2,345,690
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
$2,345,690
$586,423
Contingency Sum
Item
25%
$2,345,690
$586,423
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES (ex GST)
$3,520,000
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
Final Draft
139
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
F.2
First new bore: Phillipson Street
Capital Cost Estimate
Project No.
PROJECT
TASK
VW07942
File
DMCA
SHEET No.
1
of
1
PREPARED BY
EN
Date
May 2014
CHECKED BY
NS
Date
May 2014
WANGARATTA WATER SECURITY
CONCEPT DESIGN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Schedule: P1
PHILLIPSON ST BORE AND TREATMENT
Item
A
A.1
B
Description
Unit
Quantity
Rate
Amount $
Item
1
300,000
$300,000
BORE
Construction of bore
BORE FIT-OUT AND HEADWORKS
B.1
60L/s submersible bore pumpset with shroud
No.
1
40,000
$40,000
B.2
DN150 MSCL Riser pipe
lin m
40
225
$9,000
B.3
Power and instrumentation/comms cabling in bore
lin m
40
100
$4,000
B.4
Headworks piping
Item
1
10,000
$10,000
B.5
NRV
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.6
Isolation BFV
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.7
Air Valve
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.8
Flow Meter
No.
1
5,000
B.9
Pressure Instrument
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.10
Switchboard
No.
1
30,000
$30,000
B.11
VSD
No.
1
15,000
$15,000
B.12
Local controller
No.
1
5,000
$5,000
B.13
Electrcial installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
C
$5,000
BALANCING TANK AND FEED PUMP
C.1
1200kL Balance Tank
No.
1
700,000
$700,000
C.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for balance tank
Item
1
100,000
$100,000
C.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.4
44L/s feed pumpset
No.
2
30,000
$60,000
C.5
Pump inlet and outlet isolation BFV
No.
4
1,500
$6,000
C.6
Pump NRV
No.
2
2,000
$4,000
C.7
Flow meter - pump discharge
No.
1
5,000
C.8
Pressure Instrument - pump discharge
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.9
Mechanical and electrical installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
Item
1
500,000
$500,000
D
D.1
E
$5,000
AMIAD TREATMENT PLANT 3.5ML/d
Free standing filters and skid mounted pipe and valves
TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
E.1
17.5 x 12.5 building - concrete slab, tilt-up panel, Colorbond roof
Item
1
350,000
$350,000
E.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for building
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
E.3
Delivery Bay
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
E.4
Sodium Hypochlorite system - storage tank, dosing equipment, bund
Item
1
200,000
$200,000
E.5
PLC
No.
1
20,000
$20,000
E.6
Swicthboard and control panel
No.
1
90,000
$90,000
E.7
RTU
No.
1
10,000
$10,000
E.8
Electrical installation
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
F
BACKWASH HOLDING TANK AND SEWER CONNECTION
F.1
30kL tank including earthworks and foundation preparation
Item
1
60,000
$60,000
F.2
Electrically actuated outlet control and isolation valve
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.4
Connection to existing sewer main
Item
1
5,000
$5,000
$4,500
G
YARD PIPEWORK AND ELECTRICAL CABLE AND CONDUIT
G.1
Pipe run - bore headworks to balance tank
lin m
20
225
G.2
Pipe run - balance tank to Amiad treatment plant
lin m
10
225
$2,250
G.3
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to Phillipson St Tank
lin m
50
225
$11,250
G.4
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to closest sewer main
lin m
50
225
$11,250
G.5
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Bore Switchboard and Local Controller
lin m
30
100
$3,000
G.6
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Backwash Holding Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
G.7
Instrumentation/Comms run to Balance Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
H
H.1
I
I.1
POWER
Power upgrade to site
Not included
Commissioning and Defects Liability
Commissioning and Defects Liability Support
Item
1
30,000
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$2,817,250
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
$2,817,250
$225,380
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
$2,817,250
$197,208
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$2,817,250
$140,863
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$2,817,250
$140,863
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
2%
$2,817,250
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$56,345
$3,577,908
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
$3,577,908
Contingency Sum
Item
25%
$3,577,908
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES (ex GST)
$894,477
$894,477
$5,370,000
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
Final Draft
140
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
F.3
Second new bore: Cruse Street (near Kerr Street) option
Capital Cost Estimate
Project No.
PROJECT
TASK
VW07942
File
DMCA
SHEET No.
1
of
1
PREPARED BY
EN
Date
May 2014
CHECKED BY
NS
Date
May 2014
WANGARATTA WATER SECURITY
CONCEPT DESIGN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Schedule: K3
KERR ST NEW BORE AND TREATMENT
Item
A
A.1
B
Description
Unit
Quantity
Rate
Amount $
Item
1
300,000
$300,000
$40,000
BORE
Construction of bore
BORE FIT-OUT AND HEADWORKS
B.1
60L/s submersible bore pumpset with shroud
No.
1
40,000
B.2
DN150 MSCL Riser pipe
lin m
40
225
B.3
Power and instrumentation/comms cabling in bore
lin m
40
100
$4,000
B.4
Headworks piping
Item
1
10,000
$10,000
B.5
NRV
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.6
Isolation BFV
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.7
Air Valve
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.8
Flow Meter
No.
1
5,000
B.9
Pressure Instrument
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.10
Switchboard
No.
1
30,000
$30,000
B.11
VSD
No.
1
15,000
$15,000
B.12
Local controller
No.
1
5,000
$5,000
B.13
Electrcial installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
C
$9,000
$5,000
BALANCING TANK AND FEED PUMP
C.1
1300kL Balance Tank
No.
1
700,000
$700,000
C.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for balance tank
Item
1
100,000
$100,000
C.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.4
44L/s feed pumpset
No.
2
30,000
$60,000
C.5
Pump inlet and outlet isolation BFV
No.
4
1,500
$6,000
C.6
Pump NRV
No.
2
2,000
$4,000
C.7
Flow meter - pump discharge
No.
1
5,000
$5,000
C.8
Pressure Instrument - pump discharge
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.9
Mechanical and electrical installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
Item
1
500,000
$500,000
$350,000
D
D.1
E
AMIAD TREATMENT PLANT 3.5ML/d
Free standing filters and skid mounted pipe and valves
TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
E.1
17.5 x 12.5 building - concrete slab, tilt-up panel, Colorbond roof
Item
1
350,000
E.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for building
Item
1
50,000
E.3
Delivery Bay
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
E.4
Sodium Hypochlorite system - storage tank, dosing equipment, bund
Item
1
200,000
$200,000
E.5
PLC
No.
1
20,000
$20,000
E.6
Swicthboard and control panel
No.
1
90,000
$90,000
E.7
RTU
No.
1
10,000
$10,000
E.8
Electrical installation
Item
1
50,000
$50,000
F
$50,000
BACKWASH HOLDING TANK AND SEWER CONNECTION
F.1
30kL tank including earthworks and foundation preparation
Item
1
60,000
$60,000
F.2
Electrically actuated outlet control and isolation valve
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
F.4
Connection to existing sewer main
Item
1
5,000
$5,000
$4,500
G
YARD PIPEWORK AND ELECTRICAL CABLE AND CONDUIT
G.1
Pipe run - bore headworks to balance tank
lin m
20
225
G.2
Pipe run - balance tank to Amiad treatment plant
lin m
10
225
$2,250
G.4
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to closest sewer main
lin m
50
225
$11,250
G.5
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Bore Switchboard and Local Controller
lin m
30
100
$3,000
G.6
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Backwash Holding Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
G.7
Instrumentation/Comms run to Balance Tank
lin m
10
100
$1,000
H
H.1
I
POWER
Power upgrade to site
Not included
Commissioning and Defects Liability
I.1
Commissioning and Defects Liability Support
J
Treated Water Transfer Pipeline (from Cruse St to Kerr St Tank)
J.1
DN250 MSCL Pipe - Supply, Trench, Bed, Lay, Backfill, Reinstate Road Pavement
Item
1
lin m
650
30,000
750
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$487,500
$3,293,500
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
$3,293,500
$263,480
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
$3,293,500
$230,545
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$3,293,500
$164,675
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$3,293,500
$164,675
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
2%
$3,293,500
$65,870
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$4,182,745
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
$4,182,745
$1,045,686
Contingency Sum
Item
25%
$4,182,745
$1,045,686
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES (ex GST)
$6,280,000
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
Final Draft
141
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
F.4
Second new bore: Faithfull Street option
Capital Cost Estimate
Project No.
PROJECT
TASK
VW07942
File
DMCA
SHEET No.
1
of
1
PREPARED BY
EN
Date
May 2014
CHECKED BY
NS
Date
May 2014
WANGARATTA WATER SECURITY
CONCEPT DESIGN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Schedule: F2
FAITHFUL ST BORE AND TRANSFER PIPE
Item
A
A.1
B
Description
Unit
Quantity
Rate
Amount $
Item
1
300,000
$300,000
$40,000
BORE
Construction of bore
BORE FIT-OUT AND HEADWORKS
B.1
60L/s submersible bore pumpset with shroud
No.
1
40,000
B.2
DN150 MSCL Riser pipe
lin m
40
225
B.3
Power and instrumentation/comms cabling in bore
lin m
40
100
$4,000
B.4
Headworks piping
Item
1
10,000
$10,000
B.5
NRV
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.6
Isolation BFV
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.7
Air Valve
No.
1
1,500
$1,500
B.8
Flow Meter
No.
1
5,000
B.9
Pressure Instrument
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
B.10
Switchboard
No.
1
30,000
$30,000
B.11
VSD
No.
1
15,000
$15,000
B.12
Local controller
No.
1
5,000
$5,000
B.13
Electrcial installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
C
$9,000
$5,000
BALANCING TANK AND FEED PUMP
C.1
1300kL Balance Tank
No.
1
700,000
$700,000
C.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for balance tank
Item
1
100,000
$100,000
C.3
Level insturment - tank
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.4
44L/s feed pumpset
No.
2
30,000
$60,000
C.5
Pump inlet and outlet isolation BFV
No.
4
1,500
$6,000
C.6
Pump NRV
No.
2
2,000
$4,000
C.7
Flow meter - pump discharge
No.
1
5,000
$5,000
C.8
Pressure Instrument - pump discharge
No.
1
2,000
$2,000
C.9
Mechanical and electrical installation
Item
1
30,000
$30,000
D
D.1
E
AMIAD TREATMENT PLANT 3.5ML/d
Not required
Free standing filters and skid mounted pipe and valves
TREATMENT PLANT BUILDING AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
E.1
17.5 x 12.5 building - concrete slab, tilt-up panel, Colorbond roof
E.2
Earthworks and foundation preparation for building
E.3
Delivery Bay
E.4
Sodium Hypochlorite system - storage tank, dosing equipment, bund
E.5
PLC
E.6
Swicthboard and control panel
E.7
RTU
E.8
Electrical installation
F
BACKWASH HOLDING TANK AND SEWER CONNECTION
F.1
30kL tank including earthworks and foundation preparation
F.2
Electrically actuated outlet control and isolation valve
F.3
Level insturment - tank
F.4
Connection to existing sewer main
G
Pipe run - bore headworks to balance tank
G.2
Pipe run - balance tank to Amiad treatment plant
G.4
Pipe run - Amiad treatment plant to closest sewer main
G.5
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Bore Switchboard and Local Controller
G.6
Power and intrumentation/comms run - From Building to Backwash Holding Tank
G.7
Instrumentation/Comms run to Balance Tank
H.1
I
Not required
POWER
Power upgrade to site
Not included
Commissioning and Defects Liability
I.1
Commissioning and Defects Liability Support
J
Raw Water Transfer Pipeline (from new bore to Wangaratta WTP)
J.1
Not required
YARD PIPEWORK AND ELECTRICAL CABLE AND CONDUIT
G.1
H
Not required
DN250 MSCL Pipe - Supply, Trench, Bed, Lay, Backfill, Reinstate Road Pavement
Item
1
Lin m
550
30,000
750
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$412,500
$1,806,500
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
$1,806,500
$144,520
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
$1,806,500
$126,455
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$1,806,500
$90,325
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$1,806,500
$90,325
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
2%
$1,806,500
$36,130
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$2,294,255
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
$2,294,255
$573,564
Contingency Sum
Item
25%
$2,294,255
$573,564
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES (ex GST)
$3,450,000
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
Final Draft
142
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix G. Estimated capital cost – enlarge Lake Buffalo
DRAFT Preliminary Cost Estimate - Capital Cost
Project No.
VW07492
File
DMCA
Sheet No.
1
of
1
Prepared By:
NS
Date
Jun-14
Checked By:
CK
Date
Jul-14
PROJECT
Water Security for Wangaratta
WBS
LAKE BUFFALO 10GL AUGMENTATION
(2.9m raising of Full Supply Level)
Item
Description
Unit
DIRECT COSTS:
1
1
1
1
Quantity
Rate
Likely
Likely
1
General (~CH:0.0 to 800)
Demolish existing guard fence
2
Demolish existing road.
m
m²
6,160
3
Demolish existing geotextile fabric
m
800
4
Demolish existing parapet wall
m
800
5
1.7m high parapet wall
m
800
6
Geotextile fabric
7
Road surface
m
m²
6,160
8
Guard fence
m
800
800
800
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Amount
50
15
1
100
1,225
15
50
150
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2
1
2
$
2
Excavation to remove vegetation
Excavation on top to establish existing layer zones
3
1
3
3
Fill - Various layers
2,000
m³
500
m³
20,000
$
$
$
2 $
35 $
75 $
4,500
17,500
1,500,000
$
4
1
4
1
Construction shoring
Item
1
2
Demolish existing gate, bridge, etc.
3
Excavation
Item
m³
45,000
4
Spillway walls - footings
m³
1,500
5
Spillway walls - walls
m²
2,400
6
Spillway walls - blade walls
m²
1,000
7
Spillway walls - backfill
m²
3,000
8
Base (Upstream)
m²
2,100
9
Base (Downstream)
m²
2,100
10
Stressbar anchors
11
Ogee crest adjustment
No
m³
9,100
12
Stressbar anchors
13
Road bridge
No
m²
560
1
625
25
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,400,000
100,000
35
1,500
1,500
1,500
75
750
750
500
500
5,000
3,500
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5
1
5
$
4
1
4
1
2
Excavation to remove vegetation
Excavation on top to establish existing layer zones
~200m
3
Geotextile fabric
4
Fill - Various layers
m²
6,000
m³
10,800
m²
2,000
m³
35,000
$
$
$
$
2
35
15
75
$
$
$
$
13,500
378,000
30,000
2,625,000
$
6
1
6
~160m
Excavation to remove vegetation
Excavation on top to establish existing layer zones
m²
4,800
m³
9,600
3
Geotextile fabric
m²
1,600
4
Fill - Various layers
m³
16,000
5
Scour protection
m²
30,000
$
$
$
$
$
2
35
15
75
13
$
$
$
$
$
10,800
336,000
24,000
1,200,000
382,500
$
7
1
7
1
2
Excavation to remove vegetation
Excavation on top to establish existing layer zones
~110m
3
Geotextile fabric
4
Fill - Various layers
m²
3,300
m³
5,940
m²
1,100
m³
19,250
$
$
$
$
2
35
15
75
$
$
$
$
7,425
207,900
16,500
1,443,750
$
1
Secondary Spillway (with Fuseplug) (~CH: 20 to 170)
Excavation at ends to widen spillway
m³
8,500
2
Backfill - compacted clay layer
m³
21,000
3
Backfill - Sand / gravel fill
m³
4,500
1
High Level Outlet
New outlet to access water above current FSL
$
$
$
35 $
40 $
50 $
8
1
8
1
~150m (increased from 100m)
Assume deposit within 2 km
$
No
1
$
1,500,000 $
1,675,575
297,500
840,000
225,000
1,362,500
1,500,000 $
1,500,000
$
34,440,575
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
1
1,953,300
Secondary Embankment Part B (~CH: 170 to 280)
Total
1
3,046,500
Tertiary Spillway (~CH: 280 to 440)
2
1
Total
1
21,747,500
Secondary Embankment Part A (~CH: 440 to 640)
Total
1
~70m
Required for construction
2,400,000
100,000
1,575,000
2,250,000
3,600,000
1,500,000
225,000
1,575,000
1,575,000
312,500
4,550,000
125,000
1,960,000
Total
1
1,522,000
Primary Spillway (~CH: 640 to 710)
Total
1
1,633,200
~100m
m²
Total
1
Rate includes, linemarkings, etc.
Assume reuse of existing /new posts
Main Embankment Crest (~CH:710 to 810)
1
Comment:
~800m
Assume ok to re-use
40,000
92,400
800
80,000
980,000
12,000
308,000
120,000
Total
1
Totals
-
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
1
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
2
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
3
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
10%
4
Physical Spillway Model and Investigation
Item
1
5
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
6
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
9
$
$
$
$
$
$
34,440,575
34,440,575
34,440,575
1,000,000
34,440,575
34,440,575
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,755,246
2,410,840
3,444,058
1,000,000
1,722,029
1,722,029
Contractors preliminaries, etc
Margin / profit
Consultants fees, etc
Required to confirm spillway arrangement
Large project
Nominal allowance
Total
$
13,054,202
TOTAL PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
$
47,494,777
Total
$
23,750,000
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES
$
71,250,000
1
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
2
Contingency Sum
25%
Item
$
$
47,494,777 $
47,494,777 $
11,873,694
11,873,694
Nominal allownace
Nominal allownace
Rounded up excl GST
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD:
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
Final Draft
143
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix H. Estimated capital cost – alternative water use
H.1
Stage 1 – non-residential use
Capital Cost Estimate
PROJECT
TASK
Project No.
VW07942
File
SHEET No.
1
of
DMCA
1
PREPARED BY
EN
Date
May 2014
CHECKED BY
NS
Date
May 2014
WANGARATTA WATER SECURITY
CONCEPT DESIGN CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Schedule:
RECLAIMED WATER OPTION
Item
A
Description
Unit
Rate
Amount $
5.5ML/d CLASS A RECYCLED WATER TREATMENT PLANT
A.1
Coagulation, Floculation and Flotation (with DAF)
A.2
Membrane Ultrafilration Plant
A.3
UV Disinfection Plant
A.4
Chlorination Plant
B
Quantity
$12,000,000
TREATED WATER STORAGE AND PUMP STATION
B.1
2.5ML Tank including earthworks
Item
1
1,750,000
$1,750,000
B.2
5ML/d (58L/s) Pump Station
Item
1
250,000
$250,000
C
RETICULATION NETWORK
C.1
DN250 Pipe - Supply, Trench, Bed, Lay, Backfill, Reinstate Road Pavement
Lin m
8400
450
$3,780,000
C.2
DN150 Pipe - Supply, Trench, Bed, Lay, Backfill, Reinstate Road Pavement
Lin m
4700
380
$1,786,000
C.3
DN80 Pipe - Supply, Trench, Bed, Lay, Backfill, Reinstate Road Pavement
Lin m
6600
225
$1,485,000
C.4
Connections to Customers
No.
40
5,000
$200,000
D
D.1
E
E.1
POWER
Power upgrade to site
Not included
Commissioning and Defects Liability
Commissioning and Defects Liability Support
Item
1
30,000
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$30,000
$21,281,000
INDIRECT PROJECT COSTS
Indirect Construction Cost @ % of direct cost
Item
8%
$21,281,000
$1,702,480
Contractor Margin @ % of direct cost
Item
7%
$21,281,000
$1,489,670
Design and Preliminary Investigations @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$21,281,000
$1,064,050
Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
5%
$21,281,000
$1,064,050
Client - Project Management @ % of direct cost
Item
2%
$21,281,000
$425,620
CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL
$27,026,870
ALLOWANCE / CONTINGENCY ABOVE ESTIMATED COST
Nominal Allowance for Scope Creep @ % of total cost
Item
25%
$27,026,870
$6,756,718
Contingency Sum
Item
25%
$27,026,870
$6,756,718
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE PLUS ALLOWANCES (ex GST)
$40,550,000
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION RECORD
The above estimate should be regarded as STRICTLY INDICATIVE and may vary significantly with further investigation and the construction methodology adopted.
H.2
Stage 2 – residential use
At $225 per linear metre for the expanded recycled water reticulation network (which would
branch off the stage one reticulation network), and $5,000 per household connection (to
separate potable and recycled water use), the direct construction costs for stage two would
be approximately:

$9 million for the approximately 40 km of reticulation network required to reach 3,100
houses

$15.5 million for 3,100 household connections
Final Draft
144
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing

$4.2 million to increase the capacity of the stage one Class A recycling plant (8 ML/d),
treated water storage tank and pump station
After adding 27% for indirect costs, and a 50% contingency, the total capital cost for stage
two equals approximately $55 million.
Final Draft
145
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix I. Flora and fauna risks
A desktop flora and fauna risk assessment has been undertaken, as far as possible, for each
option to improve reliability of supply to Wangaratta. The assessment involved a review of the
following databases and documents:

Biodiversity mapping (DEPI 2014a) – This database comprises large scale mapping and
classification of native vegetation across Victoria. It also classifies areas of mapped
native vegetation according to importance to biodiversity.

Habitat Mapping for Threatened Species (DEPI 2014a)

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DEPI 2014b) – This database comprises historical records of
flora and fauna species from across the state. Records are added opportunistically, as
flora and fauna surveys are conducted within Victoria for a variety of purposes. Records
from a 5 km radius of the site have been assessed for this report.

Protected Matters Search Tool (DotE 2014) – The Protected Matters Search Tool
(PMST) highlights any matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) relevant to
the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act) that are likely to occur within an area.
Findings were considered against the relevant flora and fauna legislation summarised in
Table I.24.
Table I.24 : Relevant environmental legislation regarding flora and fauna [Table converted to text for
accessibility]
Commonwealth: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act)
Description
The EPBC Act has significant implications for natural resource and environmental
management in Australia. This Act provides for the listing of threatened species, threatened
ecological communities and key threatening processes. It also relates to actions likely to
have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). There are
nine matters of NES:
 World Heritage Sites
 National Heritage Places
 Ramsar Wetlands
Final Draft
146
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
 Nationally threatened species and ecological communities
 Migratory species
 Commonwealth marine areas
 Nuclear actions
 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
 Water resources from coal seam gas development or large coal mining development
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine whether any matter of NES is likely to be ‘significantly’ impacted by the proposed
works.
Recommend further assessment where required, such as targeted surveys. Where matter of
NES may be impacted recommend mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impact. If
impact cannot be avoided the project will need to be referred to the Commonwealth
Department of the Environment.
State: Environment Effects Act 1978 (EE Act)
Description
The Environment Effects Act 1978 provides for the assessment of actions that are capable of
having a significant environmental effect.
Actions which might have a significant environmental effect should be referred to the
Victorian Minister for Planning, who decides if an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) is
required. An EES might be required where:
 There is a likelihood of regionally or state significant adverse environmental effects
 There is a need for an integrated assessment of social and economic effects of a project
or relevant alternatives
 Normal statutory processes would not provide a sufficiently comprehensive, integrated and
transparent assessment
This Act also allows an applicant to write to the Secretary of the Victorian Department of
Planning and Community Development (DPCD) to confirm no EES is required.
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine whether the extent of removal of native vegetation and habitat for threatened
species of state significance will trigger the need for a referral under the Environmental
Effects Act.
Final Draft
147
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Recommend further assessment where required, such as targeted surveys. If trigger for EES
is met, recommend mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impact.
If impact cannot be avoided an EES referral will need to be submitted.
State: Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)
Description
The FFG Act provides a framework for biodiversity conservation in Victoria.
Threatened species and communities of flora and fauna, as well as threatening processes,
are listed under this Act.
A number of non-threatened flora species are also listed as protected under the FFG Act. A
Permit to Take is required to remove these species from public land.
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine if any FFG-listed flora or fauna species are likely to be affected or threatening
processes occur by the proposed works within the Project area
Recommend further assessment where required, such as targeted surveys. Where listed
flora and fauna species are identified or threatening processes likely, recommend mitigation
measures to avoid and reduce impact. If listed flora and fauna species are to be removed a
Permit to Take may need to be obtained.
State: Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) (formally DSE)
Victorian Advisory Lists (VicAdv)
Description
The DEPI Victorian Advisory Lists (VicAdv) are not a statutory list of threatened species, but
rather list species for which conservation management is recommended by DSE. The VicAdv
lists are comprised of the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2005 (DSE,
2005), the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013 (DSE, 2007), and
the Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2009 (DSE, 2009).
The presence, or likely presence, of a species listed on the VicAdv lists is used to determine
whether species specific habitat is required to be offset.
Final Draft
148
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine if any species present are listed on the VicAdv lists and likely to be affected by the
proposed works within project area.
Recommend further assessment where required, such as targeted surveys. Where listed
flora and fauna species are identified, recommend mitigation measures to avoid and reduce
impacts. If listed flora and fauna species are to be impacted an offset will be prescribed for
the project area that incorporates habitat for the affected species.
State: Planning and Environment Act 1987
Description
Applications to remove, destroy, or lop native vegetation in Victoria invoke relevant municipal
planning schemes and the Planning and Environment Act, which are given authority through
the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP).
A range of exemptions apply under this Act.
Depending on the scale of the native vegetation clearance, statutory referral to the DEPI may
be required.
Offset requirements for the clearances of native vegetation are determined by the NVMF and
the relevant Catchment Management Authority’s Native Vegetation Plan.
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine whether native vegetation is present and will require removal.
Where native vegetation is present within the project area, recommend mitigation measures
to avoid and minimise the removal of native vegetation. If native vegetation is to be removed,
a permit will be required from the approval authority.
Certain overlays (e.g. Environmental Significance Overlays) may modify the permit
requirements for the removal of native vegetation
State: Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines
(Guidelines)
Description
The purpose of these Guidelines is to guide how impacts on biodiversity should be
considered when assessing an application for a permit to remove, lop or destroy native
vegetation.
Final Draft
149
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
For the purpose of these Guidelines the term ‘remove native vegetation’ includes to lop or
destroy native vegetation.
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine whether native vegetation is present and will require removal.
Where native vegetation is present within the project area, recommend mitigation measures
to avoid and minimise the removal of native vegetation. If native vegetation is to be removed,
prescribe an offset in accordance with the Guidelines.
State: Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)
Description
The CaLP Act defines requirements to:
 Avoid land degradation;
 Conserve soil:
 Protect water resources; and
 Eradicate and prevent the spread and establishment of noxious weed and pest animal
species.
The Act defines four categories of noxious weeds: State Prohibited Weeds, Regionally
Prohibited Weeds, Regionally Controlled Weeds and Restricted Weeds. Noxious weeds
species and the category they are placed in is specific to individual CMA regions.
Project relevance/ actions required
Determine whether any pest plant or animal species are present within the project area.
Recommend mitigation measures to control pest plant and animal species and to prevent any
increase in the populations of these species as a result of proposed works
A summary of the likely flora and fauna risks associated with each option is included in Table
I.25.
Table I.25 : Summary of likely flora and fauna risks [Table converted to text for accessibility]
Water Supply Option: Additional groundwater
EVC Impact: Small – depending on construction requirements and number of bores needed
to be established, but assumed to be less than 5 ha.
Final Draft
150
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Offset Requirement: Small. No specific threatened species offsets would be required given
urban context.
Threatened Species Risks: Low. Not considered significant given urban context. It is unlikely
that specific approvals will be required.
Permit Requirement: Likely managed by Council (although one potential EPBC community
may be impacted). Potential drawdown impacts on local vegetation have not been
considered in this assessment, but may involve additional permits and impacts.
Water Supply Option: Enlarge Lake Buffalo
EVC Impact: Very large – 90 ha
Offset Requirement: Very Large. $5 m-$10 m on the open market. Potential threatened
species offsets may also be required
Threatened Species Risks: Moderate to Significant. A number of threatened species
recorded in the area. Mostly aquatic or semi aquatic species unlikely to be adversely
impacted with an EMP in place to manage the rate of water level/habitat change.
Permit Requirement: DEPI. Given impact size, specific offsets may be required for
threatened species habitat and individual EVCs. This is an untested part of the New
Permitted Clearing Regulations.
Water Supply Option: Alternative Water Use
EVC Impact: Medium - <10 ha. Significant vegetation between the WWTP and proposed
distribution system. Construction is likely to include Scattered Tree Offset requirements.
Offset Requirement: Moderate. $200,000–$300,000
Threatened Species Risks: Low to Moderate. Not considered significant given largely urban
context. It is unlikely that specific approvals will be required.
Permit Requirement: Council. >15 scattered native trees of 10 ha requires DEPI referral.
Unlikely to be any NES/EPBC triggers
To provide more detail for each option:

Table I.26 summarises the potential flora and fauna risks for each new bore site
considered in the concept design for the additional groundwater use option.

Figure I.17 shows the EVCs that will be inundated by raising the Lake Buffalo full supply
level by 2.9 m. It is estimated that a total of 90 ha of mapped EVC will be inundated.
Thirty-six threatened fauna and seven threatened flora species have also previously
Final Draft
151
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
been recorded in the vicinity of Lake Buffalo. However, there is a low likelihood that
enlarging Lake Buffalo would significantly impact their habitat.

Figure I.18 shows the native vegetation (as EVCs) in and around Wangaratta. For the
alternative water use option, there is the potential for scattered native vegetation in road
reserves to be lost during the construction of the proposed recycled water distribution
system (Figure 6.1)
Potential flora and fauna risks have been assessed via a desktop study only, and field visits
would be needed to confirm the actual flora and fauna values that could be impacted by each
option.
Table I.26 : Summary of flora and fauna risks for new bore sites
Bore
EVCs
Offset Requirement
Option
Threatened Potential
Species
Permit
Requirements
Bore 1 –
EVC 55 Plains
Loss of <1 ha of
Phillipson
Grassy Woodland*1
potentially
St
9
Council; DEPE;
DotE
Commonwealth
listed vegetation
Bore 2 –
NA
NA
0
No specific flora
Cruse St
and fauna
(near Kerr
permit
St)
requirements
Bore 2 –
EVC 56 Flood Plain
Loss of <1 ha of
Faithfull St
Riparian Woodland
riparian EVC
Bore 2 –
EVC 55 Plains
Loss of <1 ha of
Phillipson
Grassy Woodland*1
potentially
4
Council
9
Council; DEPE;
option
St option
DotE
Commonwealth
listed vegetation
Note:
1 EVC 55 Plains Grassy Woodland is equivalent to the EPBC Listed and Critically
Endangered White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native
Grassland
Final Draft
152
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Figure I.17 : EVC loss associated with the enlargement of Lake Buffalo. This diagram is a map of Lake
Buffalo showing the potential areas of vegetation loss under the areas which would be inundated
following the enlargement of Lake Buffalo.
Figure I.18 : Native vegetation as EVCs in and around Wangaratta. This map shows the location of native
vegetation in and around Wangaratta.
Final Draft
153
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix J. Predicted changes in streamflow
The plots in this appendix show the predicted changes in streamflow in the Buffalo River and
Ovens River if Lake Buffalo is enlarged from 24 GL to 34 GL, and the primary spillway
changes from being gated to a fixed crest. The plots include three different climate scenarios,
but each assumes current level of development demands. Similar plots were prepared for
future level of development demand scenarios, but they do not differ significantly from the
plots included in this appendix.
The plots show that enlarging Lake Buffalo would reduce downstream flows in the autumn,
and increase them in spring. This is attributable to the changes in dam operation, more so
than the enlargement of Lake Buffalo’s capacity. Currently, Lake Buffalo is a gated storage.
During spring, the gates are closed to fill the lake to full supply level (FSL). Conversely, in
autumn the gates are opened and the storage is drawn down to sill level. If Lake Buffalo were
enlarged, it would become a fixed crest storage. Therefore, the lake would fill and spill
according to inflows rather than gate operations. Consequently, the dam would harvest more
water in autumn (thus reducing downstream flows compared with current operations), and
spill more water in spring (thus increasing downstream flows). This is demonstrated in the
storage traces contained in the first plot on the next page.
The changes in streamflow expected from enlarging Lake Buffalo to 34 GL are minor,
especially compared to expected changes under the median climate change or return to dry
climate scenarios. In addition, the changes become smaller with increased distance
downstream. Enlarging Lake Buffalo has a minor effect on streamflow, because 34 GL of
storage capacity is small compared to the mean annual inflow (400 GL under historic climate
conditions). For this reason, increasing the capacity of Lake Buffalo to 34 GL is also expected
to make no material difference to flood frequencies downstream of the storage (see the
second plot on the next page).
Final Draft
154
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Lake Buffalo storage traces - current level of development
40000
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Volume in Storage (ML)
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Buffalo River downstream of Lake Buffalo - current level of development
1000000
Flow (ML/week)
100000
10000
1000
100
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Time Exceeded
Final Draft
155
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
90000
Buffalo River downstream of Lake Buffalo - current level of development
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
80000
Return-to-dry climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Return-to-dry climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Mean flow (ML/month)
70000
Median 2060 climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Jan
250000
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ovens River downstream of Buffalo River - current level of development
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Return-to-dry climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Mean flow (ML/month)
200000
Return-to-dry climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
150000
100000
50000
0
Jan
Final Draft
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
156
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
250000
Ovens River upstream of Wangaratta - current level of development
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Return-to-dry climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Mean flow (ML/month)
200000
Return-to-dry climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
150000
100000
50000
0
Jan
350000
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ovens River downstream of Wangaratta - current level of development
Historic climate, current Lake Buffalo
Historic climate, enlarged Lake Buffalo
300000
Return-to-dry climate change, current Lake Buffalo
Mean flow (ML/month)
Return-to-dry climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
Median 2060 climate change, current Lake Buffalo
250000
Median 2060 climate change, enlarged Lake Buffalo
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Jan
Final Draft
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
157
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
Appendix K. Impacts on downstream users
Improving the reliability of supply to Wangaratta may affect the reliability of supply for other
water users, including in the River Murray system. Of the options examined in this project,
only one is expected to have an impact on other users.
Option 2 – Additional groundwater use
The option involving additional use of groundwater is not expected to affect flow in the Ovens
River. Bores constructed in this option will be screened in the Calivil Formation, where it is
overlain by the Tertiary Aquitard. Due to the presence of the Aquitard, extractions from the
Calivil Formation are known to have minimal to no influence on flow in the Ovens River.
Therefore the use of additional groundwater from the Calivil Formation will have no impact on
the reliability of supply for other users.
Option 3 – Enlarging Lake Buffalo by 10 GL
Enlarging Lake Buffalo from 24 GL to 34 GL, and replacing the gated spillway with a fixed
crest spillway, will change the timing of spills from Lake Buffalo to the Ovens River, and
therefore inflows to the River Murray. The expected changes are described in Appendix J.
Reducing inflows from the Ovens River to the River Murray in autumn and increasing them in
spring is likely to have a minor impact on reliability of supply in the River Murray system,
because demands for River Murray water are generally higher in autumn compared with
spring.
Enlarging Lake Buffalo will also increase the reliability and volume of supply for both
Wangaratta and other water users (e.g. irrigators) in the Ovens River catchment. Under the
historic climate and current level of development scenario, surface water extractions in the
Overs River catchment are expected to increase by 280 – 300 ML per year on average if
Lake Buffalo is enlarged to 34 GL. Conversely, flows to the River Murray would reduce by
approximately 1 GL per year on average, because of the increased diversions in the Overs
River catchment, and increased losses to evaporation and seepage in Lake Buffalo and en
route to the Murray. This reduction in inflow would also have a minor impact on River Murray
system reliability.
Option 4 – Use of alternative water sources
The use of recycled water to meet some of Wangaratta’s demands would decrease surface
water diversions from the Ovens River, and therefore increase inflows to the River Murray.
Final Draft
158
Options Evaluation and Indicative Costing
The volume of recycled water use may be in the order of 1 GL per year, and in turn 1 GL per
year of additional flow may be passed to the River Murray under this option (depending on
changes in Ovens River losses). The exact amount would depend on the volume and timing
of recycled water use.
Basin Plan Considerations
Long term average sustainable diversion limits set out in the Murray Darling Basin Plan
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2012) will take effect on 1 July 2019. The Basin Plan defines a
Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) for an SDL resource unit, of which the Overs River
catchment is one. The plan also defines a Baseline Diversion Limit (BDL) for the same SDL
resource unit as the long term average volume of water taken from watercourses, intercepted
by runoff dams or commercial plantations assuming historical climate conditions under the
water management laws in place on 30 June 2009. This volume was estimated in the Basin
Plan to be 83 GL/year in the Ovens surface water SDL resource unit (25 GL/year for
watercourse diversions, 26 for runoff dam interception and 32 GL/year for plantations).
Therefore, to remain compliant with the Murray Darling Basin Plan, any increase in
extractions from waterways, runoff dams or plantation use in the Ovens River catchment
would need to be offset by reductions elsewhere in the valley (e.g. through buybacks of water
entitlements). Options 1, 2 and 4 do not increase diversions (Option 4 may reduce diversions
by approximately 1 GL per year). However, Option 3 is expected to increase diversions from
the Ovens River by approximately 280 – 300 ML per year assuming historic climate and
current demands.
To return diversions to their pre-enlarged Lake Buffalo average would therefore require the
purchase of approximately 300 ML of High Reliability shares from active water users (i.e. not
sleepers). These types of shares currently sell for approximately $1,600 - $1,800 per ML. The
State would also need to demonstrate to the MDBA that long term average diversions in the
Ovens River catchment were the same pre and post the enlargement of Lake Buffalo.
References
Commonwealth of Australia (2012), Water Act 2007 - Basin Plan 2012.
Murray Darling Basin Authority (2012), Hydrologic modelling to inform the proposed Basin
Plan - methods and results, MDBA publication no: 17/12, Murray-Darling Basin Authority,
Canberra.
Final Draft
159