w
Kempsey Shire Council
Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme
Options Comparison
December 2018
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | i
Abbreviations
The following Terms and Abbreviations are used in this report.
Term Definition
AS Australian Standard
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
CHN Chainage
DPE Department of Planning and Environment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
ET Equivalent Tenement
FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994
HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
JRPP Joint Regional Planning Panel
kL Kilolitres
KSC Kempsey Shire Council
LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council
MBR Membrane Bio-Reactor
ML Mega litre
NNTR National Native Title Register
NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife 1974
OEH Office of Environment and Heritage
POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow
SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
SEAR Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements
SEPP State Environmental Planning Policies
SPSS Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme
SRD State Regional Development
SSD State Significant Development
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
WM Waste Management
WSA Water Services Australia
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | ii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project background ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aboriginal heritage constraints ......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Design constraints ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Other constraints ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Aim of report.................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Options assessed ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Utilised design data ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Refined options assessment ............................................................................................ 7
2.2 Pressure sewer collection network ................................................................................... 7
3. Sewage treatment options ......................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Upgrade of South West Rocks STP (Option 1)................................................................. 9
3.2 Stuarts Point STP (Option 2) ......................................................................................... 12
3.3 Treated effluent disposal ............................................................................................... 13
3.1 Recommended buffer distances .................................................................................... 14
4. Sewage transfer route options ................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Northern Transfer via Shark Island and Quarry Street (Option 1A) ................................. 16
4.2 Northern Transfer via Shark Island and New Entrance (Option 1B) ................................ 19
4.3 Southern transfer via Lindsay’s Trail and New Entrance (Option 1C).............................. 20
4.4 Rising Main from Fishermans Reach to Stuarts Point STP (Option 2A) .......................... 21
5. Project risks ............................................................................................................................ 23
5.1 Sea level rise................................................................................................................. 23
5.2 HDD Crossing ............................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Location of new STP and effluent disposal..................................................................... 24
5.4 Key environmental constraints ....................................................................................... 24
6. Environmental and planning review ......................................................................................... 25
7. Comparison of options ............................................................................................................ 32
7.1 Multi Criteria assessment .............................................................................................. 32
7.2 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 41
8. Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................................... 42
8.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 42
8.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 44
8.3 References .................................................................................................................... 44
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | iii
Table index
Table 3-1 Load Predictions for South West Rocks STP ................................................................... 9
Table 3-2 South West Rocks Treatment Plant Capacity ................................................................... 9
Table 3-3 Site Controls for Use of Effluent ..................................................................................... 15
Table 3-4 Buffer Distances to Effluent Disposal Area ..................................................................... 15
Table 6-1 Summary of Approval Considerations ............................................................................ 27
Table 6-2 Preliminary Legislation Review ...................................................................................... 28
Table 7-1 MCA Ranking Table ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 7-2 Low Pressure System Costs .......................................................................................... 41
Table 7-3 Transfer System Options Costs ..................................................................................... 41
Table 7-4 Treatment Options Costs ............................................................................................... 41
Table 7-5 Total Project Costs for Each Option ............................................................................... 41
Figure index
Figure 1 Service Lots .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Proposed Options ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3 Sewage Treatment Options ........................................................................................... 10
Figure 4 Sewage Transfer Options .............................................................................................. 17
Appendices
Appendix A – Environmental Constraint Mapping
Appendix B – Cost Estimates
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Project background
GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) has been engaged by Kempsey Shire Council (Council/KSC) to undertake
investigations relating to design of a reticulated sewerage system to serve the Stuarts Point
area. The project proposes to install a sewerage system that services the villages of Grassy
Head, Stuarts Point and Fishermans Reach (Figure 1).
GHD undertook a preliminary options assessment for catchment sewage reticulation, routes for
sewage transfer pipelines and locations based on the hydraulic design criteria established in
Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Preliminary Design Report (GHD, 2017).
Due to the cultural heritage significance of the locality and potential for environmental impacts
associated with construction, several route options were developed for the transfer pipeline for
discussion with key stakeholders.
The original alignment routes assessed by GHD are provided as Figure 2.
Golden Hole
StuartsPointVillage
Grassy HeadHoliday Park
Stuarts PointHoliday Park
FishermansReach Village
Stuarts PointConventionCentre
YarrahapinniAdventistYouth Centre
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKS
RAINBOWREACH
ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 1
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR001_ServicedLots_0.mxd
0 560 1,120 1,680 2,240280
Metres
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire Council
Stuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Serviced lots
Data source: KSC: Aerial/Cadastre, 2016. LPI:DTDB, 2015. Created by: kpsroba
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
Study area
To be serviced as part ofcurrent project
Proposed future servicedlots - Rural Residential
Proposed future servicedlots - based upon currentLEP
Cadastre
!
!
!
!
!
!
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
"J
"J
"J
[Ú"J
[Ú STP discharge location to be confirmed
HDDoption 2
HDD option 4 HDD
option 3
HDDoption 1
TransferStation 1
TransferStation 2
TransferStation 3
TransferStation 5
TransferStation 4
FISHERMANSREACH
KEMPSCORNER
GRASSY HEAD
STUARTS POINT
ARAKOON
SOUTH WESTROCKS
497,500
497,500
500,000
500,000
502,500
502,500
505,000
505,000
6,582,
500
6,582,
500
6,585,
000
6,585,
000
6,587,
500
6,587,
500
6,590,
000
6,590,
000
6,592,
500
6,592,
500
Figure 2
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR002_PreliminaryOptions_0.mxd
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Kilometres
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD and LPI make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and
responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewerage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Preliminary alignment options
Data source: LPI: DTDB / DCDB, 2012, Aerial Imagery, 2016; GHD: Proposed Infrastructure (2017). Created by: fmackay
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
! Locality Point
Cadastre
Preliminary options
Reticulation mains
Transfer mains
HDD crossing option 1
HDD crossing option 2
HDD crossing option 3
HDD crossing option 4
Rising main option
[Ú Transfer WWPS
"J Launch pits
Service Layer Credits: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 4
1.2 Aboriginal heritage constraints
Following stakeholder discussions and assessment by a heritage consultant, Aboriginal heritage
constraints were identified for the preliminary route options as outlined below.
Option 1 - Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Kempsey Local Aboriginal
Land Council (LALC) advised that the Option 1 was inappropriate due to the overall
cultural significance of Shark Island.
Option 2 – The Fishermans Reach Road to Lindsay’s Trail section is in the vicinity of the
Stuarts Point Midden and areas where Aboriginal skeletal remain have been repatriated
by the OEH. Local Aboriginal groups noted strong opposition to any design that would
traverse this location (including Options 2 and 3).
Option 3 - The elevated lands at Rainbow Reach and the entry point to South West
Rocks would require additional archaeological investigation in the form of test pit
excavations. The Spencers Creek Midden and the Spencers Creek Quarry site are
recorded in close proximity to this alignment.
Option 4 - The exit point at Pelican Island has the potential to contain Aboriginal midden,
however the likelihood of encountering midden is less than Option 3. The elevated sand
dune crossing at Rainbow Reach would require additional archaeological investigation in
the form of test pit excavations.
1.3 Design constraints
The key design challenge identified in the preliminary investigations related to the alignment
between New Entrance road and Keith Andrew Avenue, an elevated section along the route
with several peaks near the South West Rocks STP. This profile presented hydraulic challenges
in the form of negative system pressures or alternatively return to gravity network, for a section,
with associate odour release potential in close proximity to residential areas.
Other design constraints included:
Constructability concerns with the proposed horizontal direction drilling (HDD) under
Macleay River on the grounds of potential for sewage transfer security, environmental
impact, cost and time to project.
Integrating the New Entrance Area into the transfer system as the area currently drains to
the north and integration into the alignment will require reversal of the system (at least the
northern part to the higher area to the southern end of the New Entrance area.
1.4 Other constraints
Loss of opportunity to allow effluent reuse for crop irrigation.
Extraction of water from the groundwater catchment for the Stuarts Point bores.
Cost implications of utilisation of the available capacity at the existing South West Rocks
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and the potential to bring forward a significant plant
upgrade.
Construction activity within the study area would be subject to an environmental approval
process, which depending on the construction and operational impacts of the selected
design may involve a lengthy assessment, approvals and permitting process.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 5
1.5 Aim of report
As a result of the potential design challenges and stakeholder concerns with the original
preliminary alignment, Council has decided to revisit the previously considered options of
sewage transfer main to SWR STP.
The aim of this report is to revise the options assessment to include the following:
Broaden the review of options for providing sewerage service to Stuarts Point, including
provision of new STP on the western side of Macleay River, near Stuarts Point and
associated options for effluent discharge. (This option was not reviewed in the previous
options assessment).
Review the treatment capacity of the existing South West Rocks STP and comment on
upgrades that may be triggered as a result of the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme
(SPSS).
Refinement of Macleay River Crossing options:
– Southern route from Lindsay Trail via Rainbow Reach to New Entrance and South
West Rocks.
– Northern route via Shark Island to New Entrance, South West Rocks.
Prepare cost estimates suitable to support the comparison of the options.
Prepare a multi-criteria analysis of the options to provide a basis for identification of the
best option on balance for the community given the environmental, social and economic
impacts.
Based on this analysis, GHD will recommend and option to proceed to concept
development, ground proofing and field investigations.
1.6 Limitations
This report: has been prepared by GHD for Kempsey Shire Council and may only be used and
relied on by Kempsey Shire Council for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Kempsey
Shire Council as set out in Section 1.1 of this report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Kempsey Shire Council arising
in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the
extent legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those
specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no
responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring
subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions
made by GHD described in this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the
assumptions being incorrect.
GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Kempsey Shire Council
and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities)], which GHD
has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not
accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in
the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 6
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information
obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site
conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific
sample points.
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information
reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on
assumptions and judgments made by GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not
be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices,
costs and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may
change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions
identified in this estimate. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options
assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence,
notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there
remains a chance that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding
would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning
purposes will vary depending on the conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The
user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 7
2. Options assessed
2.1 Utilised design data
In developing the options included in this assessment report, GHD reviewed and utilised the
following data provided by KSC for the calculations undertaken during the hydraulic analysis
and sizing of pump station, transfer pipelines and low pressure systems.
Water Production Weekly (Weekly/Monthly)
2015 Metered Consumption Data for Stuarts Point
Water Consumption Peaking Analysis
South West Rocks Options for Upgrade Strategies Report (GHD, 2002)
2.1 Refined options assessment
Treatment and Effluent Disposal Options
The STP location and effluent disposal options included within this report comprise:
Option 1 - Existing South West Rocks STP site, originally specified as the point for
treatment in previous investigations. Treated effluent is disposed at a dunal discharge
point at New Entrance.
Option 2 - A new Stuarts Point STP site as an alternative. Treated effluent disposal
options considered within this option included subsurface infiltration at the proposed site
or new dunal discharge point northeast of the Stuarts Point village.
Sewage Transfer Options
The selected sewage transfer system, depends largely upon the final location of the STP site
with the options summarised as follows:
South West Rocks STP
Option 1A – Northern Crossing of Macleay River from Perret Lane to Quarry Street
Option 1B - Northern Crossing of Macleay River from Perret Lane to New Entrance Road
Option 1C – Southern Crossing of Macleay River from Lindsay’s Trail to New Entrance
RoadC
Stuarts Point STP
Option 2A - Rising Main from Fishermans Reach to Stuarts Point STP (no Macleay River
crossing)
2.2 Pressure sewer collection network
2.2.1 Low Pressure System
The local area low pressure collection network for each community (Grassy Head, Stuarts Point,
and Fishermans Reach) will remain common to all options and has already been developed to a
suitable level for the options comparison. Accordingly, the project description, layouts and cost
estimates for this portion of the scheme will be adopted as they currently stand. As this scope
will not provide differentiation between the options, it will not have a significant role in the
assessment, but will be included in the final project description, layouts and cost estimates.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 8
2.2.2 Alternative Collection Systems
Whilst design investigations to date have focused on low pressure sewerage technology,
vacuum sewerage is a potential alternative.
One of the key differentiators between low pressure and vacuum sewerage is the suitability of
the systems for staging and flexibility of development. With vacuum sewerage, significant
upfront cost is associated with the vacuum sewage pump station, which cannot be staged.
However the costs associated with provision of services at the house lot are relatively cost
effective.
For low pressure, the infrastructure required at each household is a significant portion of the
total system cost, however this is readily staged and can be provided progressively as
development occurs. Accordingly, vacuum sewage tends to be better suited to communities
approaching full development, whilst low pressure is better suited to communities in the earlier
stages of development allowing the cost effective initial implementation of a sewerage scheme
whilst being able to cater for future development needs.
Low pressure provides other advantages such as reduced infiltration (limited to the house drain
only) and the capacity to use the provided storage to manage the peak flows in the collection
system.
Given the above, low pressure sewerage is considered a more suitable option for the Stuarts
Point Sewerage Scheme however alternate submissions will be considered at the tender stage
(including vacuum or a combined vacuum/pressure combination).
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 9
3. Sewage treatment options
The sewage treatment plant options and effluent disposal options considered in this report
(existing and alternate) are shown over (Figure 3).
3.1 Upgrade of South West Rocks STP (Option 1)
In order to identify the criteria required and scoring for assessment, it is imperative to
understand the current loads and ultimate design capacities of the existing South West Rocks
STP.
Table 3-1 shows the sewage load predictions used for the hydraulic analysis. This data was
based on simplified design flow calculations (GHD 2017).
Table 3-1 Load Predictions for South West Rocks STP
2016 2020 2030 2036
SOUTH WEST ROCKS Base
Population 5310 5612.4 6769 7660
ADWF (ML/day) 1.118 1.18 1.43 1.61
SOUTH WEST ROCKS Tourist
Population 2655 2806 3384 3830
ADWF (ML/day) 0.547 0.58 0.7 0.79
SOUTH WEST ROCKS Combined
Population 7965 8418 10153 11490
ADWF (ML/day) 1.665 1.76 2.13 2.4
Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme
Population 1888 - - 3305
ADWF (ML/day) 0.72 - - 1.27
Combined Total - -
ADWF (ML/day) 2.39 - - 3.67
Table 3-2 South West Rocks Treatment Plant Capacity
Year Plant Capacity (ML/day)
1980 1.44
2022 2.55
2033 2.55
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKSRAINBOW
REACH ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAYWAY
Figure 3
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR003_RevisedSTPOption_0.mxd
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Kilometres
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD and LPI make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and
responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewerage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Revised treatment options
Data source: LPI: DTDB / DCDB, 2012, Aerial Imagery, 2016; GHD: Proposed Infrastructure (2017). Created by: fmackay
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
Option 1
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
SWR new entrance effluent disposal
Option 2
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Proposed effluent pipeline
Offsite effluent disposal
HDD
Onsite subsurface effluent disposal
Proposed Treatment Plant Site
Cadastre
r]
STUARTS POINT
SECO
NDAV
ENUE
OCEAN AVENUE
MARI
N EPA
RADE
FI SHERMANS REACHROAD
Service Layer Credits: © Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Option 2
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 11
The South West Rocks STP is currently sized to handle 2.55 ML/day which includes the
Pasveer channels. This means that the existing plant is capable of treating the current
combined loads (SPSS and South West Rocks (2.4 ML/day)), however a plant upgrade would
be required in the short term due to the ultimate South West Rocks flows exceeding the current
plant capacity. Based on the combined loading, GHD predict the capacity limit to be reached
around 2022 (refer graph below). Considering the approximate lead time of at least two years to
upgrade a STP, commencement of design of construction works would be required by 2020.
If Council adopt Transfer Option 1A, 1B or 1C, an upgrade would be required to ensure the STP
is capable of handling flows above the ‘Combined 2036 Flow’ (assumed as ultimate) with
sufficient overhead capacity. A total of 3.8 ML/day ADWF (increase of 1.3 ML/day) capacity is
therefore recommended to accommodate the ultimate flow of both South West Rocks and
Stuarts Point areas.
South West Rocks STP Capacity
As a result of undertaking this high-level capacity assessment, it is recommended that Council
undertake the following actions in order to fully understand the future requirements for South
West Rocks STP:
Commence a raw sewage characterisation program to assess the sewage quality, in both
tourist and non-tourist periods
Undertake sampling of supernatant from sludge lagoons
Investigate population projections for SPSS
Liaise with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to determine requirements for
licence upgrades to address increased flows
Investigate upgrade options for liquid and solid streams
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 12
3.2 Stuarts Point STP (Option 2)
This option is premised on the approach of forgoing the transfer to South West Rocks STP by
constructing a new treatment plant south of Stuarts Point. Potential sites considered for a new
plant comprise (subject to required buffer zones from adjacent residents):
Lot 213 DP 752438 – Vacant Crown land
The Council waste management site (Lot 93 DP 752438) was originally considered but
discounted as an option based on the proximity to residences.
3.2.1 Sewage Collection
With the proximity of Fishermans Reach to the proposed Stuarts Point STP site, it is envisaged
that the Fisherman’s reach low pressure system (2.2.1) would be capable of discharging to the
inlet of the STP via a short rising main using the capacity of the onsite pump units. This
assumption would need to be validated in subsequent design stages.
3.2.2 Sewage Treatment
The ultimate capacity of a new STP to service the ultimate populations for the Grassy Heads,
Stuarts Point and Fishermans Reach Area would be approximately 1.3 ML/day ADWF (refer
Table 3-1). The required treatment plant process would be dependent upon the selected
effluent disposal and the minimum required effluent quality necessary for environmental
licencing of the disposal. The most likely treatment processes considered are:
Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) with or without effluent polishing via filtration (cloth or
sand filtration) or,
Membrane Bioreactor.
Both treatment options are modular and have the ability to increase capacity if required in the
future. As such, both options should be considered at this stage. Selection of a treatment
process design would require further assessment of licencing requirements (e.g. proposed
effluent disposal and required effluent quality). Infrastructure would include effluent storage,
chlorination, transfer pump station and effluent transfer pipeline.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 13
3.3 Treated effluent disposal
The identified opportunities for effluent disposal area are as follows:
3.3.1 South West Rocks STP
Dunal Disposal
The existing South West Rocks STP utilises a dunal effluent disposal area at New Entrance.
3.3.2 Stuarts Point STP
Option 2A- Subsurface Infiltration
A subsurface infiltration system within the treatment plant site was proposed by Council due to a
potentially easier approvals pathway with one contaminated land area and lower cost of
construction. However, due to the area infiltration area required (approx. 4 hectares or greater
for the ultimate 1.5 ML/day, assuming high permeability sandy soils and adequate drainage
capacity), this option may limit the available land area for treatment plant infrastructure.
Additionally, the infiltration site does not provided the acceptable EPA required buffer zones
from residents and bore water supply.
Option 2B - Dunal Disposal
A potential site, similar to the South West Rocks dunal disposal, has been identified (at a
desktop level) on the eastern side of the Macleay Arm, north east of the Stuarts Point township.
The pressure main for effluent disposal could be installed in a combined trench with the Stuarts
Point sewage rising main to a suitable point on Marine Parade. A horizontal directional drill
under the Macleay Arm would then be installed onto Lot/Plan 7300//DP1152758 for disposal
(refer Figure 3).
The infrastructure required would consist of the following elements:
Effluent storage and outfall pump station at the STP site
Effluent pipeline constructed via common trench with the sewage rising main and HDD
under the Macleay Arm
Effluent irrigation disposal area on the foredunes
For the basis of this options assessment and cost estimates, GHD has estimated preliminary
costs of the more conservative dunal disposal option due to the compliance with EPA buffer
zones and unreserved land area for disposal.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 14
Ocean
An ocean outfall is an alternative effluent disposal option. However, this option was not
developed further during this options assessment. Marine discharge of treated effluent would
require the following elements:
Effluent storage and outfall pump station at the STP site (No requirement for wet weather
storage)
Effluent pipeline
A HDD outfall to an approved discharge point
Implementation of a sea floor effluent diffuser inclusive of near field dispersion modelling
Effluent Reuse
There is an opportunity for effluent reuse for irrigation of commercial avocado plantations at
Fishermans Reach. At this stage, there is no specific requirements for effluent reuse, however
this may be a potential condition in the environmental licencing process.
It is noted that KSC will not be able to directly control the timing and quantity of effluent reuse
onto third party properties. Accordingly, effluent reuse will be opportunistic, targeted at diverting
a portion of the effluent from the disposal system, rather than a standalone disposal option in its
own right.
Developing a recycled water management system is dependent upon the outcomes of a risk
assessment and mitigation process. This process takes into account the treatment process, end
use (i.e. crops irrigated), treatment barriers and non-treatment barriers. However it is noted that
for ocean or dunal effluent disposal options, a high quality effluent would be required, and as
avocados are a peeled crop, the extent of effluent treatment required to meet the target
recycled water quality may not be significantly more than required for disposal.
No consultation with stakeholders has been undertaken in the preparation of this report
regarding the effluent irrigation demands, quality, assessment of impacts to groundwater,
requirements for avocado crops, or other opportunities for effluent reuse at this stage.
3.1 Recommended buffer distances
A buffer zone is an area of land or water surrounding a particular land use (STP or effluent re-
use area) which is used to minimise adverse environmental and social impact due to odour,
noise, visibility or biological hazards of the land use. The buffer zone provides an important role
in reducing the impacts to ‘acceptable levels’.
3.1.1 Buffer Zone for STP
Department of Planning recommends a minimum buffer of 400 m width around STPs, although
this may be varied to suit local conditions (Department of Planning Circular No. 148 (E3) -
“Guidelines for buffer areas around sewage treatment (water pollution control) plants”).
Draft NSW Best Practice Odour Guidelines (which were written to replace the Department of
Planning Circular – but never adopted) also has a recommended 400 m buffer.
Chapter 6 of the NSW Department of Primary Industries Living and Working in Rural Areas
handbook provides recommended minimum buffer distances for various types of development
including waste facilities and sewerage works. The recommended buffers for STPs are 400 m.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 15
3.1.2 Buffer Zone for Effluent Re-use
The Australian guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks
(2006) outlines the following site controls for designated uses of recycled water from treated
sewage.
Table 3-3 Site Controls for Use of Effluent
Application On Site preventive measures
Municipal use — open spaces, sports grounds, golf courses, dust suppression, etc. or unrestricted access and application
No specific measures
Municipal use, with restricted access and application
Minimum 25-30 m buffer to nearest point of public access
Municipal use, with enhanced restrictions on access and application
Minimum 25-30 m buffer to nearest point of public access
Landscape Irrigation Combinations of
Micro spray
Drip irrigation
No public access
Commercial food crops consumed raw or unprocessed
None required, although pathogen reduction will occur between harvesting and sale
Commercial food crops No access during irrigation and if spray irrigation, minimum 25–30 m buffer distance between irrigation area and nearest public access point
Additionally, NSW Environmental guidelines: Use of effluent by irrigation, provides buffer zones
from effluent irrigation areas to minimise adverse effects to adjacent natural water course,
ecosystems, and residential wells or bore water supplies.
Table 3-4 Buffer Distances to Effluent Disposal Area
Sensitive Area Separation Distance (medium to high strength effluent)
Natural waterbodies (e.g. rivers and lakes) 50 m
Other Waters Site-Specific
Domestic well for house water supply 250 m
Town water supply bores 1000 m
Residential Area subject to spray drift 50 m
Drinking Water Catchments, Aquatic Ecosystems etc.
250 m
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 16
4. Sewage transfer route options
The following section provides a detailed description of the three sewage transport systems
considered in this Options Assessment (refer previous section). Transfer options 1A, 1B and 1C
are compatible with treatment Option 1 only. Transfer option 2A (refer to section 1.2) is
compatible with treatment 2 only. It should also be noted that Options 1A,1B and 1C provide the
added benefit of a new trunk main which achieves Council’s future initiative to augment the
sewage trunk main on the South West Rocks side to serve future development areas.
4.1 Northern Transfer via Shark Island and Quarry Street (Option
1A)
Option 1a is the northern crossing of Macleay River from Perrett Lane to Quarry Street. This
option will maintain the alignment and infrastructure north of Perrett Lane servicing Grassy
Heads, Stuarts Point and Fishermans Reach identical to that proposed in Option 2.
Option 1A- Northern Transfer via Shark Island and Quarry Street
4.1.1 Description
At Perrett Lane, a HDD would pass under Macleay Arm from west of Fishermans Reach
Road to a suitable exit point to be confirmed on the south western side of Shark Island
(possible location adjacent to existing track on Macleay Arm side).
From the HDD exit point, another HDD section would pass under the Macleay River to a
point in Quarry Street road reserve. In order to minimise the extent of disturbance on
Shark Island, the HDD works would limit the surface construction works area to a single
site containing HDD exit pits and necessary connecting pipework.
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKS
RAINBOWREACH ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 4
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR004_RevisedOptions_0.mxd
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Kilometres
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD and LPI make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and
responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewerage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Revised transfer pipeline options
Data source: LPI: DTDB / DCDB, 2012, Aerial Imagery, 2016; GHD: Proposed Infrastructure (2017). Created by: fmackay
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South WestRocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Cadastre Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 18
From the HDD exit point, the pipeline route would follow the northern side of Quarry
Street and turn south on the eastern side of Tahlee Close/pedestrian route to Gordon
Young Drive.
The route then follows Gordon Young Drive to Hill Street, through to the South West
Rocks golf course. Alternatives routes include options along Gregory Street and Mitchell
Street, however preliminary review indicates similar high point hydraulic challenges for
these options.
The pipeline would then cross the golf course to the eastern side, either directly across
the course, or following the northern boundary.
There are existing infrastructure corridors on the eastern side of the golf course linking to
the South West Rocks STP. Where possible the alignment would be located in existing
infrastructure corridors.
4.1.2 Challenges
Risks associated with HDD in, or near, environmentally sensitive areas.
Shark Island has been advised to be an area of Aboriginal cultural significance and may
contain artefacts.
KSC access for operating and maintaining infrastructure on Shark Island would be
limited, particularly for elements such as pump stations should they be proposed on the
island.
Provision of power supply for pumps on Shark Island may be challenging.
As Ocean Street follows the ridge line, the exit point will be subject to the profile that can
be achieved as follows:
– If a suitable steep exit angle can be achieved on the slope to the ridge, an exit in the
road reserve, to the west of Ocean Street, may be possible without impacting access
to residences.
– If not, a suitable exit on the northern side of Quarry Street to the east of Ocean Street
would be adopted.
– Along this corridor there is a north-south ridge to be crossed between Gregory Street
and Mitchell Street, with Sturt Street being the approximate high point. The elevation
of this ridge is above the system hydraulic grade line, resulting in negative pressures
unless an air break is provided. However, provision of an air break would provide
turbulent partial full pipe flow conditions on the downstream side of the ridge and
potential for significant odour release.
– This is a similar challenge as occurs with the Option 1C alignment, however the ridge
is narrower with the highest elevation approximately 15 m AHD, rather than multiple
ridges with peaks in excess of 30 m AHD.
– Options to resolve these hydraulics would be to HDD under the ridge line for
approximately 300 to 500 m, or alternatively providing an air break at the high point
with the associated odour release challenges that would exist.
– HDD additional cost (estimate ~ ).
– Air break ~Discharge maintenance hole (MH) complete with odour scrubber and
gravity sewer to the transition point back to full pipe flow (MH ~ , odour control
, extra over for sewer
). Higher risks in terms of odours, air locking and settlement
of solids.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 19
4.2 Northern Transfer via Shark Island and New Entrance
(Option 1B)
Option 1b - Northern Transfer via Shark Island and New Entrance
4.2.1 Description
The proposed infrastructure for this option would be very similar to Option 1A north of
Perrett Lane.
At Perrett Lane, a short HDD is proposed to pass under Macleay Arm from west of
Fishermans Reach Road to a suitable exit point to be confirmed on Shark Island (possible
location to the north/northwest of the Shark Island Jetty, adjacent an existing track).
From the exit point, another HDD section would pass under the Macleay River to a point
in New Entrance road reserve. In order to minimise the extent of disturbance on Shark
Island, the HDD works would limit the surface construction works area to a single site
containing HDD exit pits and necessary connecting pipework.
From the exit point, the pipeline would be trenched along Marlin Drive, Gilbert Cory Street
and along Keith Andrews Avenue to the South West Rocks STP.
Trenching on Shark Island was removed due to concerns regarding disturbance of
cultural sensitive land.
4.2.2 Challenges
Risks associated with HDD in, or near, environmentally sensitive areas.
Shark Island has been advised to be an area of high Aboriginal cultural significance and
may contain artefacts.
KSC access to infrastructure on Shark Island would be limited, particularly for elements
such as pump stations should they be proposed on the island.
Availability of power supply for pumps on Shark Island is also limited.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 20
At approximately CH 16,750 , the route of the transfer pipeline reaches a high point of
43 m AHD in Keith Andrews Drive, just under 2 km from the South West Rocks STP. This
presents a number of technical challenges including:
– Potential for negative pressures, unless the high point is effectively ventilated (e.g.
provision of a standpipe).
– Potential for release of odours, as the sewage will be septic, with potential impact on
adjacent residential development.
– With an elevated inlet at the South West Rocks STP, flow will need to be returned to
pressure flow conditions, either by collection in a wet well and re-pumping or a natural
transition to pressure flow in the pipe line. Should transition in the pipeline be adopted
there would be potential for air entrainment, flow surging and release of entrained
gasses under pressure at the STP inlet.
– The two potential approaches for the design of the transfer system under these
conditions are either traditional sewer complete with manholes or a closed pipe at
grade with provision of a vent at high points. The advantages and disadvantages of
these options are detailed in the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Preliminary Design
Report (GHD, 2017).
4.3 Southern transfer via Lindsay’s Trail and New Entrance
(Option 1C)
Option 1C comprises a southern crossing of the Macleay River from Lindsay’s Trail to New
Entrance Road/Marlin Drive. The sewage transfer main would be constructed via HDD (refer to
the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Preliminary Design Report (GHD, 2017).
Option 2 – Southern transfer via Lindsay’s Trail and New Entrance
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 21
4.3.1 Description
The proposed infrastructure for this option would be very similar to Option 1 north of
Perrett Lane south of Fishermans Reach.
The sewage transfer main will extend south of Fishermans Reach up to Lindsay trail.
A HDD would be proposed to pass under Macleay River and Rainbow Reach to a
suitable exit point on New Entrance road at South West Rocks.
If a suitable steep exit angle can be achieved on the slope to the ridge, an exit in the road
reserve to the west of Ocean Drive may be possible without impacting access to
residences.
From the exit point, the pipeline would be trenched along Marlin Drive, Gilbert Cory Street
and along Keith Andrews Avenue to the South West Rocks STP.
4.3.2 Challenges
The alignment is in the vicinity of the Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex. Opposition
to this alignment has been received from NPWS and the Aboriginal community.
The Council easement along Lyndsay’s Trail is surrounded by (and includes a short
section within) National Park estate.
The remaining challenges following the HDD crossing are as per to Option 1b at approximately
CHN 16,670 (see Section 4.3.2)
4.4 Rising Main from Fishermans Reach to Stuarts Point STP
(Option 2A)
This option is only required if the Option 2 Stuarts Point STP is selected. The common transfer
route from Grassy Heads and Stuarts Point can be adopted with a new rising main from
Fishermans Reach north into the proposed STP inlet works.
4.4.1 Description
The proposed infrastructure for this option would be very similar to all aforementioned
options, until the proposed location of the new treatment plant (see red line in Option 3
below).
The low pressure trunk main at Fishermans Reach can be extended to divert flows north
towards to the new Stuarts Point STP.
4.4.2 Challenges
Since Option 2A does not transfer SPSS loads to South West Rocks, the opportunity to
upgrade the South West Rocks transfer main upgraded concurrently during the SPSS
project would be lost. As there will be an eventual need for the upgrade, this would need
to be packaged by Council as a separate scope of works.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 22
Option 2A – Fishermans Reach to Stuarts Point STP
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 23
5. Project risks
5.1 Sea level rise
In order to future proof the infrastructure that would be delivered under the project,
consideration should be given to the potential range of sea level rise and the impacts that this
may have on the serviceability of the infrastructure.
The nominal sea level rise shall be confirmed with Council to ensure the assets are designed for
the required design life.
The impact of the sea level rise is anticipated to include an increased risk (including saline tidal
inundation or elevated flooding levels) and frequency of inundation occurring.
In terms of impact, inundation, saline or otherwise is not anticipated to have an impact of
concern in respect of the proposed HDPE rising mains. Consideration however should be given
to the careful selection of metallic components (bolts, nuts and backing rings) to ensure a
suitable durability, in the event of saline impacts.
Pump stations however are potentially prone to increased flooding levels and salinity
deterioration. Accordingly it is recommended for pump stations that:
Top of pump station is set above tide and flood levels by the anticipated sea-level rise
Concrete elements such as wet wells are provided with suitable concrete grades and
covers to provide appropriate durability under saline exposure conditions
The level of sea level rise to be accommodated will need to be assessed in consultation with
KSC based on available research data.
5.2 HDD Crossing
Any HDD crossing of the Macleay River or Macleay Arm represents a critical element of the
infrastructure with significant impacts should the pipeline fail in service.
The highest risk time is during the construction of the pipeline, particularly during pull back of
the pipeline into the drill in the last phase of the installation process. After this point the stresses
in the pipeline, and the associated failure risks, reduce rapidly due to the stress creep property
of the pipe. After the first few weeks/months after installation, the risks are reasonably assessed
as low, although there will always be some remaining risk.
The impact of a HDD pipeline failure includes the release of contaminants to the environment,
potentially for a significant period until a repair/replacement can be implemented and/or a
significant period of loss of service.
The options to mitigate this risk are:
Provision of a HDD enveloping pipe of larger diameter than the proposed carrier pipe, to
enable insertion. This option would have little or no impact on the likelihood of a pipeline
failure, however it may reduce the extent of contaminant release to the environment and
potentially the time duration required to undertake a repair subject to the lead time
required to access the necessary replacement pipe quickly. The key implications of this
option is that it would more than double construction costs. No allowance has been made
in the cost estimates to address this risk at this stage.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 24
Provision of a second HDD crossing:
– Again this option would not change the likelihood of a pipeline failure or the extent of
the contaminant release in the first instance. However the availability of a second
pipeline would facilitate a faster response to an incident and therefore mitigate the
duration of the loss of service and the total contaminant release to the environment.
Key implications of adopting the option is that it will nearly double the cost of the HDD
crossing works. No allowance has been made in the cost estimates to address this
risk at this stage.
5.3 Location of new STP and effluent disposal
The provision of a STP at Stuarts Point has the benefit of eliminating the need for a HDD
sewage transfer pipeline and associated risks. However when locating effluent irrigation areas,
it is essential to ensure the neighbouring sensitive environments are considered and the
required buffer distances (as nominated by EPA) are maintained. Considering the proximity to
natural water courses, drinking water bores and residential areas within the study area, this
option would therefore add the following potential risks:
Insufficient buffer zones for onsite effluent disposal
Adequate management of buffer zones
Contaminant release from a new STP
5.4 Key environmental constraints
Based on a review of licenced and publically available mapping, the key environmental
constraints for all options are:
Aboriginal heritage
Coastal wetlands
State and Commonwealth listed threatened species, populations and/ or communities
National Park estate
Acid sulfate soils
Scenic protection lands
Available mapping of environmental constraints above is provided in Figure 5, 6 and 9 in
Appendix A. Further discussion of the associated environmental planning approval requirements
is provided in Section 6.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 25
6. Environmental and planning review
6.1.1 Planning Approval Pathway
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning
legislation in NSW. Planning instruments are made under Part 3 of the EP&A Act. Several
instruments define the approval pathway based on a number of factors such as development
location, capital investment value, type of development etc. The most applicable planning
instruments are discussed below.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) aims to facilitate the effective
delivery of infrastructure across the state through increased regulatory certainty and improved
efficiency and flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities while providing
adequate stakeholder consultation.
ISEPP relates primarily to public infrastructure projects developed for or on behalf of public
authorities. In accordance with Clause 106 (2), development for the purpose of sewage
treatment plants may be carried out without consent on land in a prescribed zone in the
prescribed circumstances. Clause 106 (3B) states that development for the purpose of sewage
reticulation systems may be carried out without consent on any land in the prescribed
circumstances.
Prescribed circumstances (refer Clause 106 (1)) occur if the development:
(a) is carried out by or on behalf of a public authority, or
(b) consists of the construction or operation of water industry infrastructure and, under the
Water Industry Competition Act 2006, a network operator’s licence is required before the
development may be carried out.
A prescribed zone (refer Clause 105) is defined as any of the following zones:
(a) RU1 Primary Production
(b) RU2 Rural Landscape
(c) RU4 Primary Production Small Lots
(d) IN1 General Industrial
(e) IN3 Heavy Industrial
(f) SP1 Special Activities
(g) SP2 Infrastructure
If the proposal meets the above, it would be considered development permissible without
consent and a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) would be prepared for determination by
Council.
If the proposal does not meet the requirements for prescribed circumstances, Clause 106 (2A)
and (3B) state that a sewage treatment plant or sewage reticulation system may be carried out
with consent on any land. However in the case of an STP (Clause 2(A)), the development must
be within a prescribed zone.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 26
Clause 8 (2) of ISEPP states that “if there is an inconsistency between a provision of this Policy
and any of the following provisions of another environmental planning instrument, the provision
of the other instrument prevails to the extent of the inconsistency:
(a) clauses 10, 11 and 19 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018’.
This is discussed further below.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018
State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (Coastal Management SEPP)
aims to promote an integrated and co-ordinated approach to land use planning in the coastal
zone in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Management Act 2016.
The proposal contains several areas that are mapped under the Coastal SEPP. Key areas when
determining the approval pathway for the project are those mapped as coastal wetlands and
littoral rainforest (see Figure 7 in Appendix A). Any development within these areas may be
carried out only with development consent (pursuant to Clause 10 of the Coastal SEPP). The
application for consent must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement (EIS).
As discussed above, in accordance with Clause 8(2) of ISEPP, the Coastal Management SEPP
prevails over ISEPP. Therefore any of the options that intersect the mapping shown in Figure 7,
will require development consent and an EIS.
For local development (i.e. not regional or state significant, discussed below), the applicant must
seek the Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) for the EIS from the
Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The EIS would then be prepared to address
the SEARs and the relevant requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulation. The EIS is
submitted to Council for determination.
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SEPP SRD)
defines development that is considered state significant development (SSD), state significant
infrastructure (SSI), critical SSI and regionally significant development (RSD).
A project meets the definition of SSD as per Clause 22 of Schedule 1 of SEPP SRD if:
a) handles more than 10,000 EP (equivalent population), or
(b) has a capital investment value of more than $30 million, or
(c) has a capital investment value of more than $10 million and is located in an environmentally
sensitive area of State significance.
An environmentally sensitive area of State significance includes land identified as ‘coastal
wetlands’ or ‘littoral rainforest’ under the Coastal Management SEPP.
For SSD, the applicant must also seek the SEARs for the EIS from the DPE. The EIS would
then be prepared to address the SEARs and the relevant requirements of the EP&A Act and
Regulation but is then submitted to the DPE for determination.
The proposal would not meet the definition of SSI or critical SSI.
RSD is defined under Schedule 7 of SEPP SRD. Council related development with a capital
investment value of over $5 million is defined as RSD. In this case the EIS is submitted to
Council for assessment but is determined by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP).
There may be an opportunity for the proposal to split approvals i.e. EIS and determination by
DPE for the transfer options and REF and determination by Council for the STP option. This
approach should be confirmed with DPE.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 27
The application of the above to each of the options assessed is summarised in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Summary of Approval Considerations
Option Coastal SEPP mapping – wetland and rainforest
CIV estimate* Prescribed circumstances#
Approval pathway
Option 1A Yes - Consent required
RSD
Option 1B Yes - Consent required
SSD
Option 1C Yes - Consent required
RSD
Option 2A No Yes Consent not required
Option 1 No No
(zoned RE1)
Consent required
RSD
Option 2+ No Yes
(zoned RU2)
Consent not required
Option 1A + 1 Yes - Consent required
SSD
Option 1B + 1 Yes - Consent required
SSD
Option 1C + 1 Yes - Consent required
SSD
Option 2A + 2 No Yes Consent not required
* Estimate only, see Section 7.2. Costs do not include low-pressure collection network costs
(common to all options), contingencies, preliminaries and engineering on-costs etc.
# Refer land use zones shown in Figure 10 in Appendix A.
+ We have assumed that offsite effluent disposal proposed for STP option 2 can be defined as
reticulation not treatment.
Review of Table 6-1 highlights the following:
Transfer options 1A, 1B and 1C all require development consent in accordance with
Clause 10 of the Coastal Management SEPP (EIS).
Transfer option 1B meets the definition of SSD, while option 1A and 1C currently fit the
definition of RSD (this may change if cost estimates are updated) as per Schedule 1 and
7 of SEPP SRD.
In accordance with Clause 106 (3B) of ISEPP, transfer option 2A is development
permissible without consent. A REF would be prepared in accordance with Part 5 of the
EP&A Act. Council would be the determining authority.
STP option 1 would require consent. It would also meet the definition of RSD (this may
change if cost estimates are updated) as per Schedule 7 of SEPP SRD. Sewage
treatment plants are permissible with consent in the RE1 zone under the Kempsey Local
Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013.
STP option 2 is development permissible without consent in accordance with Clause 106
(2) of ISEPP. A REF would be prepared in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
Council would be the determining authority.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 28
Combined transfer options 1B, 1A or 1C and STP Option 1 all require consent in
accordance with Clause 10 of the Coastal Management SEPP and would all meet the
definition of SSD.
Combined transfer option 2A and STP Option 2 is development permissible without
consent in accordance with Clause 106 (2) and (3B) of ISEPP. A REF would be prepared
in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Council would be the determining authority.
6.1.2 Other Legislation Review
Legislation other than the EP&A Act (addressed above) that may apply to the project is
summarised in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Preliminary Legislation Review
Legislation Requirements and Comment
Commonwealth Legislation
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
Under the EPBC Act a referral is required to the Australian Government for proposed ‘actions that have the potential to significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance or the environment of Commonwealth land.’
A search for matters of national environmental significance would need to be completed and potential impacts assessed. If impacts are considered likely to be significant, the project would need to be referred to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment for a determination as to whether EPBC Act approval is required.
Native Title Act 1993 The Native Title Act 1993 recognises and protects native title and provides that native title cannot be extinguished contrary to the Act. Essentially, the Act covers actions affecting native title and the process for determining whether native title exists and compensation for actions affecting native title. It establishes the Native Title Registrar, the National Native Title Tribunal, the Register of Native Title Claims and the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements, and the National Native Title Register (NNTR).
A search of the NNTR did not identify any active or approved claims in the project area, however Council have indicated they are aware of an incomplete land claim on the proposed site of the Stuarts Point STP.
Furthermore, Aboriginal stakeholders have noted their support for a Stuarts Point STP.
NSW Legislation
Roads Act 1993 Section 138 of the Roads Act requires that a person must not carry out work in, on or over a public road or dig up or disturb the surface of a public road without the prior consent of the appropriate roads authority.
The project would require works within the road reserve and this approval would likely be required.
Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)
Under Part 7 of the FM Act, a permit is required for dredging and reclamation, obstruction of fish passage, harm to marine vegetation and use of electrical or explosive devices in a waterway. Dredging and reclamation, and harm to marine vegetation are likely. However as SSD, an approval is not required.
Threatened aquatic species, populations and communities are listed under the FM Act. This would need to be assessed for the project.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 29
Legislation Requirements and Comment
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act)
The NPW Act aims to conserve nature, objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of cultural value within the landscape. If an impact to an Aboriginal heritage object or site is likely from a proposal, a permit must be sought under Section 90. However as SSD, an approval is not required.
Approval must also be sought for any activity on national park estate under this Act. The closest protected area is the Fisherman Bend Nature Reserve (see Figure 8 in Appendix A). The project is unlikely to directly impact on the park.
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act)
The BC Act outlines the factors to be considered when making an assessment of impact of a proposal on biodiversity. If a significant impact is deemed likely following this assessment, a Species Impact Statement or a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report may be required.
It is possible the project would impact on threatened species, populations and communities or their habitat and this would need to be assessed in the EIS.
Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act 1977 aims to ensure that the heritage of NSW is adequately identified and conserved. Under Section 57, a permit must be obtained for works, which have the potential to interfere with a heritage item or place, which is either listed on the State Heritage Register or the subject of an interim heritage order.
There are no listed heritage items in or near the project.
Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act)
The WM Act aims to ensure that water resources are conserved and properly managed for sustainable use benefitting both present and future generations. It also provides formal protection and enhancement of the environmental quality of waterways and in-stream uses as providing protection of catchment conditions.
Water use approvals are required under the WM Act for the taking of water unless an exemption under the Regulation applies. However as SSD, an approval is not required.
The WM Act also requires controlled activity approvals to carry out specified controlled activities on or under waterfront land. The proposal would be undertaken on waterfront land (within 40 metres of the bed of a river or estuary) and as such comprises a controlled activity under the WM Act. Councils are exempt from acquiring activity approvals under the WM Act.
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 (POEO Act)
Under Section 48 of the Act, an environmental protection licence relating to air, water and noise pollution or waste management is required for scheduled activities as listed under Schedule 1 of the Act.
It is possible the project meets the definition of a scheduled activity under Schedule 1 if the project has a processing capacity that exceeds:
(a) 2,500 persons equivalent, as determined in accordance with guidelines established by an EPA Gazettal notice, or
(b) 750 kilolitres per day,
If the above applies, an environmental protection licence under the POEO Act would be required.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 30
Legislation Requirements and Comment
Biosecurity Act 2015 This Act provides for the declaration of priority weeds and biosecurity zones by the Minister for Primary Industries. The Act also lists plant pests and diseases that are prohibited and notifiable in NSW. Any person who deals with any plant, who knows (or ought to know) of any biosecurity risk, has a duty to ensure the risk is prevented, eliminated or minimised, so far as is reasonably practicable.
Any priority weeds identified under the Act must be treated as prescribed if encountered.
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2000
This Act provides a framework to identify and implement the most efficient use of resources in order to reduce the potential for environmental harm arising from the generation of waste.
The construction contractor would be required to conform to the provisions of the Act in relation to waste management by adopting the resource management hierarchy principals (in order of priority) of avoidance, resource recovery and disposal.
Crown Land Management Act 2016
The project would require works on Crown land and Crown waterways. The work proposed would require a licence under this Act prior to the commencement of works. As owner of the land, consent to submit the EIS would also be required from the Crown.
Marine Safety Act 1998 The Marine Safety Act 1998 ensures the safe operation of vessels in ports and other waterways. Aquatic licences are issued under the Marine Safety Act 1998 for any activity (whether or not vessels or equipment are involved) that’s conducted, organised or promoted in, or on, any navigable waters that restricts the availability of those waters for normal use by the public. The project may require a licence for any works on the waterway.
Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act)
The CM Act establishes the framework and overarching objects for coastal management in New South Wales.
The purpose of the CM Act is to manage the use and development of the coastal environment in an ecologically sustainable way, for the social, cultural and economic well-being of the people of NSW. The CM Act establishes management objectives specific to four management areas mapped under the Coastal Management SEPP, reflecting their different values to coastal communities. Works within the coastal zone (which applies to most of the proposal site) must be considered against the requirements of the CM Act, where relevant.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 31
In accordance with Section 4.41 of the EP&A Act, the following approvals (relevant to the
project) do not apply to SSD:
A permit under section 201, 205 or 219 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994
An Aboriginal heritage impact permit under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife
Act 1974
A water use approval under section 89, a water management work approval under
section 90 or an activity approval (other than an aquifer interference approval) under
section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.
6.1.3 Reassessment of Environmental and Planning Review
The assessment included in the preceding sections, should be reviewed once more detailed
designs for the proposal are developed. The assessment constitutes a preliminary review only
based on conceptual design, location and constraints information only.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 32
7. Comparison of options
7.1 Multi Criteria assessment
The sewage treatment options and transfer pipeline options developed in Chapters 3 and 4
were compared using a high-level, multi criteria analysis.
The evaluation criteria selected comprise:
Constructability
Maintainability
Environmental/Social Issues
Financial
The following weighting was assigned to each criteria following a workshop between GHD and
KSC.
Criteria Weighting
Constructability 25%
Maintainability 25%
Environmental Risk/Social Issues 25%
Financial Impact 25%
Total 100%
For each of these criteria, a score between 0 – 5 was assigned based on the following rating
system.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 33
Table 7-1 MCA Ranking Table
Points Range
Impact Rating Constructability Maintainability Environmental/Social
0 Unacceptable Service (Eliminate from consideration as viable option)
Construction requires materials and expertise that are not available.
Unacceptable community impacts.
Unacceptable construction conditions from a safety or constructability viewpoint.
Facility will increase the operation and maintenance workload at considerable cost.
Frequent maintenance intervention will be required AND/OR difficult and unfamiliar maintenance requirements.
High risk of license noncompliance without rapid response maintenance attention.
Safety Risks are high.
Construction will provide the most interruption to the community and the environment.
1 Very High (Least Preferred - NOT desirable)
Construction using difficult techniques involves high safety risks and long lead times for supply of materials or equipment.
Contains high risk of delays.
Constructability severely constrained by prevailing conditions.
Facility will require significant increased maintenance workload and cost with new facility.
Frequent maintenance intervention will be required AND/OR difficult and unfamiliar maintenance requirements.
Safety risks are high.
Construction will provide a very high impact to the environment and interruption to the community.
2 High (Requires significant management)
Construction using difficult techniques involves significant safety risks has some community impacts that would be difficult to manage.
Facility will require significant increased maintenance workload and cost with new facility.
New maintenance systems may be required.
Construction will provide a high impact to the environment and interruption to the community.
3 Moderate (Negotiable)
Construction using techniques that involves new technology AND/OR has significant community impacts that can be managed.
Facility will provide no change to operability workload.
New or less widely used technical solution that will work with appropriate construction and management in service.
Requires more operational intervention.
Construction will provide a moderate impact to the environment and interruption to the community.
4 Normal (Acceptable)
Construction using well tested and familiar construction and familiar construction techniques.
Facility will provide some improved operability through reduced or enhanced maintenance workload and cost and negligible operational risk.
Construction will provide an acceptable level of interruption to the community and the environment.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 34
Points Range
Impact Rating Constructability Maintainability Environmental/Social
5 Low (Most Preferred)
Construction using well tested and familiar construction techniques.
Facility will provide extensive improved operability through reduced maintenance workload and cost and negligible operational risk.
Facility will provide improved environment when maintenance is required.
Construction will provide the least interruption to the community and the environment.
*Financial scoring was calculated based on a relative score to the minimum cost
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 35
7.1.1 Sewage Treatment MCA
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Option 1
Augment STP on South West Rocks Option 2
Construct New STP on Stuarts Point Scoring: 1 - least preferred to 5 - most preferred
%
Criteria: Meets objectives/drivers Meets all objectives Meets all objectives
Criteria: Constructability Moderate
(Negotiable) Normal
(Acceptable)
To ensure that the existing South West Rocks treatment plant is capable of handling the additional Stuarts Point load requires a planning study to review the hydraulic and biological capacity of the plant. This process also requires a review of the licensing requirements and additional investigation to construct suitable effluent disposal systems
This is the construction of a new sewage treatment plant in Stuarts Point. The risk involved in construction and capacity are low. However, obtaining approval and new licensing may be challenging.
Score 3 4
Weighted score 25% 0.75 1
Criteria: Maintainability Normal
(Acceptable) Low
(Most Preferred)
Since the works involve augmenting an existing plant, the existing maintenance practices shall prevail. As such, maintainability is moderate since the plant includes a majority of the original assets which may not be contribute to short-medium term defects.
The plant is expected to be in suitable working order following commissioning.
Score 4 5
Weighted score 25% 1 1.25
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 36
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Option 1
Augment STP on South West Rocks Option 2
Construct New STP on Stuarts Point Scoring: 1 - least preferred to 5 - most preferred
%
Criteria: Environmental/Social Issues
Moderate
(Negotiable) High
(Requires significant management)
Since the plant requires augmentation, there may be an increase in outfall and a potential trigger for a new license.
The construction of a new wastewater treatment plant adjacent to a major roadway poses significant environmental and social risks to be managed by Council. New environmental approval will be required for a new contaminated site. Proximity to residents may have negative impacts due to odour without sufficient mitigation measures. However, a Stuarts Point STP may provide re-usable effluent for avocado farm irrigation.
Score 3 2
Weighted score 25% 0.75 0.5
Financial
Order of Capital Cost (excl GST)
Criteria: Lowest Capital Cost favoured.
Score 4.84 5.00
Weighted score 25% 1.21 1.25
Scores – (Weighted score) 100% 3.71 4.00
Highest is preferred
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 37
7.1.2 Sewage Transfer Route MCA
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Option 1A
Northern Crossing of Macleay River to Quarry Street
Option 1B Northern Crossing of Macleay River to New Entrance Road
Option 1C Southern Crossing of
Macleay River
Option 2A Rising Main Up to New
Stuarts Point STP
Scoring: 1 - least preferred to 5 - most
preferred %
Criteria: Meets objectives/drivers
Meets all objectives Meets all objectives Meets all objectives Meets all objectives
Criteria: Constructability
Moderate
(Negotiable)
High (Requires significant
management)
Very High (Least Preferred - NOT
desirable)
Normal (Acceptable)
Heritage consultants and searches have found that Shark Island Crossing may be inappropriate due to cultural significance of the area. The risk of HDD across Macleay river is similar to Option 1, however, the staged and shorter HDD crossings may improve constructability and reduce the associated risks.
Heritage consultants and searches have found that Shark Island Crossing may be inappropriate due to cultural significance of the area. The risk of HDD across Macleay river is similar to Option 1, however, the staged and shorter HDD crossings may improve constructability and reduce the associated risks. The implications of odour management and high point management is present along Keith Andrews Drive.
Heritage consultants have informed the corridor between Fisherman's Reach and Lindsay's Trail contain repatriated aboriginal skeletal remains. Therefore, obtaining approval for construction along this alignment poses significant challenges. The crossing is a two stage HDD with entry/exit pits on rainbow reach. Total length approx. 2 km long with high risk of fracking and requirement of temporary pumping systems to manage potential site flooding.
Traditional rising main construction only.
Score 3 2 1 4
Weighted score 25% 0.75 0.5 0.25 1
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 38
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Option 1A
Northern Crossing of Macleay River to Quarry Street
Option 1B Northern Crossing of Macleay River to New Entrance Road
Option 1C Southern Crossing of
Macleay River
Option 2A Rising Main Up to New
Stuarts Point STP
Scoring: 1 - least preferred to 5 - most
preferred %
Criteria: Maintainability
Moderate
(Negotiable)
High (Requires significant
management)
High (Requires significant
management)
Normal (Acceptable)
Since the HDD crossings are independent, maintainability of the crossings are improved. However, the material and method selected shall consider the design life of the pipeline is maintained.
Since the HDD crossings are independent, maintainability of the crossings are improved. However, the material and method selected shall consider the design life of the pipeline is maintained. Odour equipment may be required for the Keith Andrews high point - which requires maintenance.
However, the material and method selected shall consider the design life of the pipeline is maintained. Odour equipment may be required for the Keith Andrews high point - which requires maintenance.
Low maintenance requirements for short section of rising main
Score 3 2 2 4
Weighted score 25% 0.75 0.5 0.5 1
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 39
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Option 1A
Northern Crossing of Macleay River to Quarry Street
Option 1B Northern Crossing of Macleay River to New Entrance Road
Option 1C Southern Crossing of
Macleay River
Option 2A Rising Main Up to New
Stuarts Point STP
Scoring: 1 - least preferred to 5 - most
preferred %
Criteria: Environmental/Social Issues
Moderate
(Negotiable) Moderate
(Negotiable)
High (Requires significant
management)
Normal (Acceptable)
Due to the environmental sensitive alignment, the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. This may delay the acquisition of the grant due to time delays. 'Potential Aboriginal Heritage risks
Due to the environmental sensitive alignment, the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. This may delay the acquisition of the grant due to time delays. 'Potential Aboriginal Heritage risks
Due to the environmental sensitive alignment, the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. This may delay the acquisition of the grant due to time delays. 'High risks to cultural heritage impact within the corridor from Perrett’s lane to Lindsay Trail.
Due to the environmental sensitive alignment, the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. This may delay the acquisition of the grant due to time delays. 'High risks to cultural heritage impact within the corridor from Perrett’s lane to Lindsay Trail.
Score 3 3 2 4
Weighted score 25% 0.75 0.75 0.5 1
Financial
Order of Capital Cost (excl GST)
Criteria: Lowest Capital Cost favoured.
Score 1.80 1.56 1.81 5.00
Weighted score 25% 0.45 0.39 0.45 1.25
Scores – (Weighted score) 100% 2.70 2.14 1.70 4.25
Highest is preferred
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 40
GHD notes that the South West Rocks trunk main requires an upgrade in future to meet the ultimate capacity of South West Rocks. The added benefits of Options
1B, 1C is the upgrade of the western trunk main as part of the Stuarts Point sewerage scheme transfer pipeline. As Option 2A does not included this added benefit,
the cost for the western trunk main has been added to the financial section of this multi criteria analysis.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 41
7.2 Cost Estimates
A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for the total project cost, for each option on the
basis of the scope of the sewerage system as it is currently understood.
A summary of the Detailed Cost Estimate is provided in Appendix B.
Table 7-2 Low Pressure System Costs
Treatment Option Cost
Low Pressure Collection – On Property
Low Pressure Collection – On Street
Low Pressure System (rounded)
*These costs are preliminary estimates only and excludes 15% preliminaries, 15% contingency and 10%
engineering and on cost and GST.
Table 7-3 Transfer System Options Costs
Transfer System Option Cost
Option 1A – Northern Crossing (Shark Island) to STP via Quarry Street
Option 1B - Northern Crossing (Shark Island) to STP via New Entrance Road
Option 1C – Southern Crossing
Option 2A – New Rising Main (Option 2 only)
*These costs are preliminary estimates only and excludes 15% preliminaries, 15% contingency and 10%
engineering and on cost and GST.
Table 7-4 Treatment Options Costs
Treatment Option Cost
Option 1 – Augment South West Rocks STP (incl. Stuarts Point and Option 1C alignment)
Option 2 – New Stuarts Point STP (Option 2A only)
*These costs are preliminary estimates only and excludes 15% preliminaries, 15% contingency and 10%
engineering and on cost and GST.
Table 7-5 Total Project Costs for Each Option
Option Cost
Option 1 – Augment South West Rocks STP (incl. Option 1C alignment) Integration to STP ( )
Preliminaries (15%), Contingency (15%) and Engineering and on cost (10%)
Total (ex. GST)
Option 2 – New Stuarts Point STP
Preliminaries (15%), Contingency (15%) and Engineering and on cost (10%)
Total (ex. GST)
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 42
8. Conclusions and recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
As part of the Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme design engagement, GHD undertook an initial
Options Assessment to investigate potential alignments to transport sewage from Stuarts Point
area to the existing South West Rocks STP. Following this assessment, Council requested a
revision of this Options Assessment to include an alternate treatment plant site as well as
alternative route alignments. The primary driver for this revision is the consideration of the
option of a new STP at Stuarts Point, to reduce potential environmental and heritage risks
associated with the preliminary route alignments.
8.1.1 Design Flows and Infrastructure
The project area receives increased loads during peak holiday times. In view of this, loads have
been developed for the following scenarios:
Low Flow Case - Off-Season (ADWF)
The flows for this scenario have been assessed at the ADWF based on an allowance of
140 kL/ET/annum.
Peak Design Case - Holiday Season
The peak design loads have been assessed in accordance with the Simplified Design Flow
Equation as set out in WSA 07 Pressure Sewerage Code of Australia Section 4.4.4.2 with
adoption of the recommended values for A and B (1.9 and 76 respectively). The preliminary
pipework for the transfer system and sewage reticulation were adopted based on the
aforementioned standard. The pipe sizing and detailed layout of the network layout will be
confirmed and finalised as part of the preliminary and detailed design phases.
8.1.2 Hydraulics
The hydraulics of the sewage transfer pipeline to the South West Rocks STP have been
reviewed based on closed system with booster pumps or series pumping including
consideration of control complexity, odour risks, etc.
Based on the assessment undertaken, a series pumping system is considered to offer the most
advantage to Council.
8.1.3 Environmental Constraints and Planning Approvals
The study area is located in the coastal zone and comprises associated scenic, heritage,
coastal wetland, threatened species and acid sulfate soil constraints.
Transfer options 1A, 1B and 1C all require development consent in accordance with Clause 10
of the Coastal Management SEPP (EIS). Transfer option 1B meets the definition of SSD, while
option 1A and 1C currently fit the definition of RSD (this may change if cost estimates are
updated) as per Schedule 1 and 7 of SEPP SRD. In accordance with Clause 106 (3B) of ISEPP,
transfer option 3 is development permissible without consent. A REF would be prepared in
accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Council would be the determining authority.
STP option 1 would require consent. It would also meet the definition of RSD (this may change
if cost estimates are updated) as per Schedule 7 of SEPP SRD. Sewage treatment plants are
permissible with consent in the RE1 zone under the Kempsey Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
2013. STP option B is development permissible without consent in accordance with Clause 106
(2) of ISEPP. A REF would be prepared in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Council
would be the determining authority.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 43
Combined transfer options 1A, 1B or 1C and STP Option 1 all require consent in accordance
with Clause 10 of the Coastal Management SEPP and would all meet the definition of SSD.
There may be an opportunity for the proposal to split approvals i.e. EIS and determination by
DPE for the transfer options and REF and determination by Council for the STP option. This
approach should be confirmed with DPE.
Combined transfer option 2A and STP Option 2 is development permissible without consent in
accordance with Clause 106 (2) and (3B) of ISEPP. A REF would be prepared in accordance
with Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Council would be the determining authority.
8.1.4 Preliminary Cost Estimate
The ‘order of cost estimate’ prepared for the concept and detailed design phases was refined to
include the new treatment and transfer options. At present the scope of works remains
potentially subject to change and should be reviewed at the next stage of reporting as the scope
becomes more certain and defined.
The most cost efficient solution and the highest scored option from the Multi Criteria Analysis
was Option 2 - Construction of a new STP on Stuarts Point which included a rising main from
Fishermans Reach. This option totalled at approximately
8.1.5 Multi Criteria Analysis
A multi criteria analysis was undertaken to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of
each option based on Constructability, Maintainability, Environmental Issues and Financial
Impact. The outcomes were as follows:
Treatment Option Ranking
Option 1 – Upgrade the South West Rocks STP 2
Option 2 – Construct New Stuarts Point STP 1
Sewage Transfer Option (HDD Crossing) Ranking
Option 1A – Northern Crossing of Macleay River to Quarry Street 2
Option 1B – Northern Crossing of Macleay River to New Entrance Rd 3
Option 1C – Southern Crossing of Macleay River to New Entrance Road 4
Option 2A - Rising Main from Fishermans Reach to new Stuarts Point STP 1
Based on this assessment, the proposed solutions are as follows:
The recommended treatment option based on the Multi Criteria Analysis is the
construction of a new STP at Stuarts Point. This option provides the most cost effective
and low risk solution by eliminating the requirement for a sewage transfer main across the
Macleay River.
In addition to the above, the transfer infrastructure to support the Stuarts Point STP was
also identified as the preferred transfer infrastructure option.
If Option 2A is chosen as the way forward, Council will need to package the South West
Rocks western trunk main upgrade as a separate package of works outside of this
scheme.
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505 | 44
In the event that Council should wish to transfer sewage flows to the South West Rocks
STP, the recommended HDD crossing option is Option 1A - Northern Crossing of
Macleay River to Quarry Street. It must be noted that the population projections estimate
that the sewage loads may exceed existing STP capacity by approximately 2022.
Consequently, due to the planning, design and construction time required, if any HDD
crossing is adopted, a STP upgrade (approx. 1.3 ML/day ADWF capacity increase) is
also triggered in the short term.
8.2 Recommendations
Based on this revised options assessment, GHD recommend Council construct a new STP at
Stuarts Point. This option achieves the following advantageous outcomes:
Elimination of risks and costs associated with a HDD crossing of Macleay River.
Potential for minimising environmental impacts i.e. avoiding the environmentally sensitive
areas.
Delay in a major upgrade of the South West Rocks STP.
The lowest cost of construction in comparison to other options with which
includes a 15% preliminaries, 15% contingency and 10% engineering and on costs.
8.3 References
GHD (2017) Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme Preliminary Design Report. Reference
22185121504
GHD (2017) Capacity Assessment Options for South West Rocks STP Technical
Memorandum. Reference 22185121500
GHD (2018) Macleay River Crossing Routes Options Memo. Reference 22185121505
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505
Appendices
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505
Appendix A – Environmental Constraint Mapping
Figure 5 Acid Sulfate Soils
Figure 6 Vegetation Mapping and Threatened Species Records
Figure 7 Coastal management SEPP
Figure 8 NPWS Estate
Figure 9 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System Mapping (Withheld – Not for
Public Display)
Figure 10 Land Use Zones
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKSRAINBOW
REACH
ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 5
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR005_AcidSulfateSoils_0.mxd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Acid Sulfate Soils
Data source: LPI: Aerial/DTDB/DCDB, 2015. KSC: ASS, 2017. Created by: kpsroba, tmorton
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Offsite effluent disposal
Study area
Cadastre
Proposed effluent pipeline
Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
Acid Sulfate Soil
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈ [̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈[̈
[̈
[̈
[̈
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀ [̀[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀ [̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀
[̀ [̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀ [̀[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀ [̀
[̀ [̀ [̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀ [̀[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀ [̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀ [̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀[̀
[̀
[̀
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKSRAINBOW
REACH
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 6
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR006_VegMapping_THSpecies_0.mxd
0 0.45 0.9 1.35 1.80.225
Kilometers
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Vegetation mapping andthreatened species records
Data source: LPI: Aerial/DTDB/DCDB, 2015. KSC: Vegetation / Threatened Species, 2017. Created by: kpsroba, tmorton
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Offsite effluent disposal
Study area
Cadastre
Proposed effluent pipeline
Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
[̀ Threatened fauna
[̈ Threatened flora
LEGENDAgriculturalPlantations / Orchards
Banksia
Cleared, partlycleared
Coast Cypress Pine
Coastal Complex
Coastal Flooded Gum
Coastal PinkBloodwood
Coastal SandsBlackbutt
Dry Grassy Blackbutt-
Tallowwood
Dry GrassyTallowwood-GreyGum
Escarpment Redgum
Hardwood Plantations
Heath
Heathy Scribbly Gum
Introduced
Low Relief CoastalBlackbutt
Lowland Red Gum
Mangrove
Native Grassland
Open CoastalBrushbox
Paperbark
Rainforest
Rock
Saltmarsh
Sand Ridge
Swamp
Swamp Mahogany
Swamp Oak
Urban
Water Surface
Water surfaces
Wattle
Wet Flooded GumTallowwood
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKSRAINBOW
REACH
ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 7
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR007_SEPP_0.mxd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI, DPE and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Coastal Management SEPP
Data source: LPI: Aerial/DTDB/DCDB, 2015. DPE: Coastal management SEPP, 2018. Created by: kpsroba, tmorton
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Offsite effluent disposal
Study area
Cadastre
Proposed effluent pipeline
Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
Coastal Management SEPP
Coastal wetlands
Littoral Rainforests
r]
r]
Hat HeadNational Park
Hat HeadNational
Park
Hat HeadNational Park
YarriabiniNational Park
YarriabiniNational Park
ArakoonNational Park
Fishermans BendNature Reserve
FishermansBend Nature
Reserve
ClybuccaHistoric
Site
ClybuccaHistoric
Site
ClybuccaHistoric Site
YarrahapinniWetlands
National Park
YarrahapinniWetlands
National Park
YarrahapinniWetlands
National Park
YarrahapinniWetlands
National Park
FishermansBend Nature
Reserve
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKS
RAINBOWREACH
ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 8
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR008_NPWS_0.mxd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI, DPE and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
NPWS Estate
Data source: LPI: Aerial/DTDB/DCDB, 2015. DPE: Coastal management SEPP, 2018. Created by: kpsroba, tmorton
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Offsite effluent disposal
Study area
Cadastre
Proposed effluent pipeline
Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
NPWS Reserve
Historic Site
National Park
Nature Reserve
Figure 9 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System Mapping (Withheld – Not for Public Display)
r]
r]
FISHERMANSREACH
YARRAHAPINNI
SOUTH WESTROCKS
RAINBOWREACH
ARAKOON
BARRAGANYATTI
GRASSY HEAD
JERSEYVILLE
CLYBUCCA
STUARTS POINT
WAY WAY
RU1
E1
E2
RE1
W1
E2
E1
E3
W1
RU1
E1
RU5
B2
R3
RU2
R1
E2
E3
E1
E3
E1
RU1
E2
RE1
R1
RU2
E2
R3
E1
R1
RU2R1
RE1
RU1RU1
E1
E2
E2
RE1
E2
E2
E3
E3
E1
E2
R1
E2
E2
W2
RE1
RU2
R1
© Department of Finance, Services & Innovation 2018
Figure 10
G:\22\18512\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\221851215\OptionsAssessmentReport\22185121505_OAR010_Landuse_0.mxd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
LEGEND
© 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD, LPI and KSC make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Job Number
Revision 0
22-185121505
Date 06 Dec 2018oKempsey Shire CouncilStuarts Point Sewage SystemOptions Assessment Report
Land Use Zones
Data source: LPI: Aerial/DTDB/DCDB, 2015. KSC: ASS, 2017. Created by: kpsroba, tmorton
Level 3, GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle NSW 2300 T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Paper Size A4
r] Existing South West Rocks STP
r] New Stuarts Point STP
Offsite effluent disposal
Study area
Cadastre
Proposed effluent pipeline
Transfer route options
Option 1A
Option 1B
Option 1C
Land Use Zones
B1 Neighbourhood Centre
B2 Local Centre
E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves
E2 Environmental Conservation
E3 Environmental Management
IN1 General Industrial
IN2 Light Industrial
R1 General Residential
R3 Medium Density Residential
R5 Large Lot Residential
RE1 Public Recreation
RE2 Private Recreation
RU1 Primary Production
RU2 Rural Landscape
RU5 Village
SP2 Infrastructure
W1 Natural Waterways
W2 Recreational Waterways
GHD | Report for Kempsey Shire Council - Stuarts Point Sewerage Scheme, 22185121505
Appendix B – Cost Estimates
Thursday, 6 December 2018 Author: NF Checked KJS
KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL
STUART POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME UPGRADE
Option 1 - Upgrade South West Rocks Sewage Treatment Plant
Preliminary Order of Cost Estimate
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on assumptions and judgments made by
GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs
and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in
this estimate. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance
that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning purposes will vary depending on the
conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Exclusions:
This estimate does not include costs incurred during stakeholder coordination and activities involved in satisfying cultural heritage requirements.
Thursday, 6 December 2018 Author: NF Checked KJS
Item Description Qty Unit Rate Amount
Option 2 - New Stuarts Point Waste Water Treatment Plant
KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL
STUART POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME UPGRADE
Preliminary Order of Cost Estimate
3 Item
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on assumptions and judgments made by
GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs and other
variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in this estimate. GHD
does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance that
the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning purposes will vary depending on the
conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Exclusions:
This estimate does not include costs incurred during stakeholder coordination and activities involved in satisfying cultural heritage requirements.
Thursday, 6 December 2018 Author: NF Checked KJS
Option 1A - Macleay Northern Crossing (Shark Island) to Quarry Street
KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL
STUART POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME UPGRADE
Preliminary Order of Cost Estimate
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on assumptions and judgments made by
GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs
and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in
this estimate. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance
that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning purposes will vary depending on the
conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Exclusions:
This estimate does not include costs incurred during stakeholder coordination and activities involved in satisfying cultural heritage requirements.
Thursday, 6 December 2018 Author: NF Checked KJS
KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL
STUART POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME UPGRADE
Option 1B - Macleay Northern Crossing (Shark Island) to New Entrance Road
Preliminary Order of Cost Estimate
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on assumptions and judgments made by
GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs
and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in
this estimate. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance
that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning purposes will vary depending on the
conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Exclusions:
This estimate does not include costs incurred during stakeholder coordination and activities involved in satisfying cultural heritage requirements.
Thursday, 6 December 2018 Author: NF Checked KJS
KEMPSEY SHIRE COUNCIL
STUART POINT SEWERAGE SCHEME UPGRADE
Preliminary Order of Cost Estimate
Option 1C - Macleay Southern Crossing to New Entrance Road
GHD has prepared the preliminary cost estimate provided using information reasonably available to the GHD employees who prepared the estimate; and based on assumptions and judgments made by
GHD.
The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of order of cost estimate and must not be used for any other purpose. The Cost Estimate is a preliminary estimate only. Actual prices, costs
and other variables may be different to those used to prepare the Cost Estimate and may change. Unless as otherwise specified, no detailed quotation has been obtained for actions identified in
this estimate. GHD does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the options assessed can or will be undertaken at a cost which is the same or less than the Cost Estimate.
Where estimates of potential costs are provided with an indicated level of confidence, notwithstanding the conservatism of the level of confidence selected as the planning level, there remains a chance
that the cost will be greater than the planning estimate, and any funding would not be adequate. The confidence level considered to be most appropriate for planning purposes will vary depending on the
conservatism of the user and the nature of the project. The user should therefore select appropriate confidence levels to suit their particular risk profile.
Exclusions:
This estimate does not include costs incurred during stakeholder coordination and activities involved in satisfying cultural heritage requirements.
GHD
Suite 7A, 66 Lord Street Port Macquarie NSW 2444 T: 61 2 6586 8700 F: 61 2 6586 8701 E: [email protected]
© GHD 2018
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. 22185121505-55466/https://projects.ghd.com/oc/newcastle1/optionscomparisonstu/Delivery/Documents/22185121505-REP_B_Options Comparison_November2018.docx
Document Status
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue
Name Signature Name Signature Date 0 N.Fernando
L KingK.ShephardA.Fletcher
06/12/2018
1 N.FernandoL King
K.ShephardA.Fletcher
Fletcher 13/12/2018
www.ghd.com