Rating Sheet An example Table 1: Rating Guide for Environmental Criteria Environmental Criteria

Issues Impact Ratings Rating

Rating procedure Degree of Manage- Impact ability 1. Provide a rating for impact and a rating for manageability for each of the issues in table 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 and 2. For table 3 only a rating on impact is required. 2. This needs to be repeated for each option in the portfolio. Criterion 1: Terrestrial Biodiversity Values 3. To determine the impact rating refer to the impact rating guide to the right of the table Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 4 3 8 2 and decide if communities (NC Act , EPBC Act) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 2 5 ¾ The impact on the issue is predominantly positive or negative? communities (NC Act , EPBC Act) ¾ Then determine how positive and negative it is- select a rating from the guide Creation of new habitats and fill the relevant box. (An example is provided on the right of this page) Final Rating 4. Determine a rating for manageability using the manageability rating guide. 5. The individual ratings will be fed into a spreadsheet during the workshop, to determine In the above example we are looking at a Portfolio which consists of 2 infrastructure options (1 and 2) to the final rating for each criterion. make up the required shortfall in demand for a subregion.

Please note that you only need to provide a rating for impact and manageability for Ratings for impact and manageability are as follows: each option in the portfolio. The overall and final ratings will be computed using an Excel spreadsheet with assistance from your facilitator at the workshop. Flora o Option 1: Impact on Flora is negative but minor so it gets a rating of 4 (see impact rating guide on the next page). Since this impact can easily be managed in the short term by providing offsets, then it gets a rating of 8 (see manageability rating guide on the next If possible, before the workshop, please consider page). o Option 2: Impact on Flora is moderately negative so it gets a rating of 3, and because its preliminary ratings for the portfolios attached. Use a consequences are significant and difficult to manage even in the medium/long term it gets a manageability rating of 2. separate rating sheet for each portfolio. Fauna

o Option 1: Impact on Flora is significantly negative so it gets a rating of 2 and because it can be managed in the short term so the manageability rating is 5. o Option 2 : the Fauna issue does not apply

Creation of new habitats

o For both options 1 and 2 the issue does not apply so it is left blank.

Impact Rating Guide Table 1: Rating Guide for Environmental Criteria

Degree of Impact Environmental Criteria 1 Extreme Issues Impact Ratings Rating Degree of Manage- 2 Significant Impact ability 3 Moderate Impacts

1 2 3 1 2 3 Negative 4 Minor

Criterion 1: Terrestrial Biodiversity Values 5 A balance of positive and negative impacts Impacts Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 6 Minor communities (NC Act , EPBC Act) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 7 Moderate communities (NC Act , EPBC Act) Creation of new habitats 8 Significant Impacts Final Rating Positive 9 Extreme

Criterion 2: Aquatic Biodiversity Values Manageability Impacts Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 1 Catastophic, cannot be managed or mitigated communities (NC Act , EPBC Act)

Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare species, and Threatened 2 Consequences extreme, difficult to manage in short or long term communities (NC Act , EPBC Act) Level of naturalness, species diversity and richness impacted 3 Consequences significant, difficult to manage even in medium/long term Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna 4 Consequences significant, can be managed in short term Risk from inter-basin transfer 5 Consequences moderate, can be managed in medium/long term Final Rating 6 Consequences moderate, can be managed in the short term

Criterion 3: Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts 7 Consequences minor, can be managed in the medium/long term Impacts Changes to flow regimes, groundwater movement, ←------8 Consequences minor, easily managed in the short term geomorphology and its impact on species that have a critical Increasingly manageable link to flow, saline intrusion etc 9 Consequences insignificant, easily managed in the short term Changes in discharge of effluent, DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrient fluxes etc and its impact on Flora and fauna of the area Changes in demand for groundwater resources Final Rating The balance concept below can be used to combine a number of Ratings to give one overall Final Rating for each Final Rating criterion. By ‘placing’ marks according to the ratings given it can be seen if the balance is tipped to one side or the other and by how much. Criterion 4: Greenhouse Gas Production Impacts Embedded energy (energy required for manufacturing and The Final Rating is the balance point of the beam rounded to the nearest whole number. A spreadsheet has been construction) prepared which will calculate the Final Rating during the workshop. In the example below the Final Rating will be Operational system energy rounded to 4. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies Final Rating 99 9 9 123456789

Table 2: Rating Guide for Social Criteria Impact Rating Guide

Social Criteria Degree of Impact Rating Issues Impact Ratings

1 Extreme Degree of Manage- Impact ability 2 Significant 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 Moderate Impacts

Negative 4 Minor Criterion 1: Impacts on people Impacts No. of people directly affected/displaced 5 A balance of positive and negative impacts Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of tourism 6 Minor and recreational facilities, social support networks Public acceptability of the option. Impact on community 7 Moderate

attitudes (trust in Government, land stewardship etc) 8 Significant Capacity of the community, including people, industries and Impacts services, to adjust to any job losses or dislocation Positive 9 Extreme Final Rating Manageability Criterion 2: Impacts on properties and infrastructure 1 Catastophic, cannot be managed or mitigated Impacts No. of properties affected

2 Consequences extreme, difficult to manage in short or long term Social and/or physical infrastructure impacted Native title issues 3 Consequences significant, difficult to manage even in medium/long term Changes to flood behaviour 4 Consequences significant, can be managed in short term Indigenous and Non-indigenous Heritage values 5 Consequences moderate, can be managed in medium/long term Final Rating 6 Consequences moderate, can be managed in the short term Criterion 3: Equity issues 7 Consequences minor, can be managed in the medium/long term Impacts Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs

←------including geographic redistribution of wealth and resources 8 Consequences minor, easily managed in the short term

Increasingly manageable Final Rating 9 Consequences insignificant, easily managed in the short term

Criterion 4: Consistency with Council & Regional Plans Final Rating Impacts Scope and nature of clash with or necessary amendments to The balance concept below can be used to combine a number of Ratings to give one overall Final Rating for each criterion. By plans such as Water Resource Plans, Local and Regional Plans ‘placing’ marks according to the ratings given it can be seen if the balance is tipped to one side or the other and by how much. Final Rating The Final Rating is the balance point of the beam rounded to the nearest whole number. A spreadsheet has been Criterion 5: Water security prepared which will calculate the Final Rating during the workshop. In the example below the Final Rating will be rounded to 4. Impacts Desalination – Rating 9 - production of water is totally

independent of climatic influences Recycled water and groundwater – Rating 7 - are to some 99 9 9 extent buffered from short to medium term drought periods 123456789 Surface water storages and pipelines – Rating 3 to 6 - climate dependant but the storage element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in a particular catchment gives a higher Rating in wetter catchments than in drier catchments Stormwater and rainwater capture – Rating 1 - wholly climate dependant, susceptible to very short-term climatic changes Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency Final Rating

Table 3: Rating guide for Economic Criteria Impact Rating Guide (this guide is to be used in conjunction with corresponding Portfolio Economic Sheet) Economic Criteria Weightings and Description Issues Rating

1 Highest cost, least affordability, major job losses

→ Criterion 1: Total Life Cycle Costs 2 Impacts NPV of portfolio (or levelised cost if available) 3 Higher cost, lower affordability, increased job losses

Or Cost/Megalitre of water (if NPV or levelised cost not available) 4 Final Rating 5 Balanced 6 Criterion 2: Degree of uncertainty of Total Life Cycle costs 7 Lower cost, better affordability, increasing jobs created Impacts Reliability and predictability of costs and returns 8 ncreasing economic cost ------

Final Rating I 9 Least cost, best affordability, most jobs created

Criterion 3: Employment Impacts Jobs lost and gained as result of the portfolio Final Rating Final Rating The balance concept below can be used to combine a number of Ratings to give one overall Final Rating for each criterion. By ‘placing’ marks according to the ratings given it can be seen if the balance is tipped to one side Levelised cost: is the present value of total cost of building and operating water infrastructure over its economic life, converted to equal or the other and by how much. annual payments and also takes account of the water actually used.

NPV: the Net Present Value of future stream of costs discounted back to the present to assess the net worth in today’s dollar value. The Final Rating is the balance point of the beam rounded to the nearest whole number. A spreadsheet has been prepared which will calculate the Final Rating during the workshop. In the example below the Final Rating will be rounded to 4.

99 9 9 123456789

Confidential – For MCA Use Only

Wide Bay Burnett Regional Water Supply Strategy

Potential Water Supply Options for Hervey Bay and Maryborough

Hervey Bay City

Portfolio A 1. Pipeline extension from SunWater’s Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme near Childers to the Howard Water Treatment Plant (7,800 ML/a) 2. Purified Recycled Water (2,920 ML/a)

Portfolio B 1. Pipeline from Mary River Barrage discharging to Logbridge Creek and then to Lenthalls Dam (7,800 ML/a) 2. Purified Recycled Water (2,920 ML/a)

Portfolio C 1. Pipeline from Mary River Barrage directly to Burgowan Water Treatment Plant (10,000ML/a)

Portfolio D 1. Pipeline from Mary River Barrage directly to Burgowan Water Treatment Plant (5,400 ML/a) 2. Purified Recycled Water (2,920 ML/a) 3. Two small desalination plants (1,460 ML/a)

Portfolio E 1. Two small desalination plants (1,460 ML/a) 2. Purified Recycled Water (2,920 ML/a) 3. Pipeline extension from SunWater’s Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme near Childers to the Howard Water Treatment Plant (5,400 ML/a)

Maryborough City

Portfolio A 1. Raising Teddington Weir (1,400 ML/a)

Portfolio B 1. Off-stream storage of 5,000ML on the left bank at Teddington Weir (1,500 ML/a)

Portfolio C 1. Purchase of Medium Priority allocations from Mary River (convert to High Priority allocations) (1,250 ML/a)

Portfolio D 1. Purified Recycled Water (1,250 ML/a)

Note: The details of these options are based on preliminary data only. They may be subject to change in the future.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 1 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Hervey Bay City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Hervey Bay City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 1000ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 3550 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 9150 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Infrastructure included in this option Pipeline extension from SunWater’s Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme from • Waste Water treatment Plant at Nikenbah; C8(8) branch near Childers to the Howard Water treatment Plant • Pumping station; and • 15 km pipeline from WWTP to Cassava Lakes area Total volume of water that will be delivered 7,800ML/a delivered over an 8 month period. Stage 1 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Stage 2 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Climate independence of infrastructure High priority allocations are available from the Paradise Dam project for Not totally independent of climate as the amount of waste water produced which climate impacts are expected to be modest. will vary depending on the severity of drought

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities A number of endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in the area, A few endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in the area, however it (NC Act, EPBC Act) including Bosistoa species, Goodwood Gum, Minute Orchid and Pineapple is highly unlikely that any would be impacted, except through construction of Zamia etc. however impact is expected to be minimal due to existing road new works or unplanned deviation of a pipeline from road reserves. reserve. Remnant Endangered Regional ecosystem (12.5.13) in the area. Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The Endangered Swift Parrot, Northern Quoll and Spotted-tail Quoll May The vulnerable Black breasted button quail, Australian Painted Snipe and (NC Act, EPBC Act) occur in the area, and the Red Goshawk (vulnerable) is likely to occur in the Red Goshawk are likely to occur in the area; the endangered Swift Parrot area. The impact on their habitat is likely to be minimal as the pipeline is may occur nearby. The Northern and Spot-tailed Quoll may also occur in the likely to follow road reserves. Some temporary disturbance during works is area. The impact on these is likely to be negligible as the facility already likely, but easily managed. exists and only an upgrade will be required. Creation of new habitats Not applicable Improved reliability of water at the Cassava Lakes may benefit the wildlife found in the area. Manageability Environmental impacts are expected to be easily managed so long as the Any endangered RE’s impacted are normally managed through provision of pipeline follows the Bruce Highway. vegetation offsets. The likely hood of clearing of remnant vegetation is low however.

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water treatment plant, no No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the (NC Act, EPBC Act) interaction with aquatic habitat will occur. Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water treatment plant, no No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the (NC Act, EPBC Act) interaction with aquatic habitat will occur. Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water treatment plant, no No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the interaction with aquatic habitat will occur. Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water treatment plant, no Not applicable interaction with aquatic habitat will occur. Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Transfer of Burnett River water to the Burrum River basin is not expected to Not applicable be an issue given delivery is to the Howard water treatment plant. Creation of new habitats Not applicable Greater reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Manageability of impacts Not applicable Easily manageable.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 1 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Minimal change to the Burnett River flow regime at the Ben Anderson More water in the Cassava Lakes may impact riparian vegetation and basic Barrage storage. wet/drying cycle if existent. Minimal impacts easily managed through release regime. Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Burnett River water would be blended with Burrum River water – water Reduced discharge of effluent will result in less nutrients entering local quality issues are expected to be minimal. watercourses Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not applicable This option reduces discharge of waste into water ways and marine environment Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not applicable Not applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy Manufacture and laying of 31 km of 600/500 dia ductile iron pipe is the Production of steel pipework and pressure membranes may require major component of this option. significant energy consumption Operational energy 3,000,000 kw hrs pa at 7,800ML/a. Green energy could be purchased. Significant energy required for operating high pressure membranes and pumping. Green energy could be purchased. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies Not applicable Potential impact due to additional water in the Cassava Lakes area.

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced Pipeline construction will result in some temporary disturbance. Infrastructure already existing. Unlikely to be further major disturbance Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and Minimal Possible impacts due to perception of recycled water in the community. recreational facilities. Impact on social support networks Public acceptance of the option. Impact on community attitudes Pipeline is likely to be publicly acceptable. Any issues can be managed Consumption of Recycled water could create acceptability issues. However, through concessions (eg. underground pipe instead of aboveground if visual Hervey Bay prides itself on its existing recycling initiatives, so there is a impact). prior level of knowledge and education. Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses No job losses or dislocation are expected. No job losses or dislocation are expected. or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No of properties affected/acquired No private properties will be disturbed during pipeline construction although No additional impact anticipated some ongoing access easements may be required, also for a pump station. Social/physical infrastructure impacted Bruce Highway, may require a crossing and may include some temporary No additional impact anticipated disturbance of traffic during construction Native title issues Non expected No additional impact anticipated Changes to flood behaviour Not applicable Not applicable Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values No indigenous sites identified. Within range of the Historic Isis District No additional impact expected Water Memorial and Burrum District Soldiers Memorial, however no impact anticipated.

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic Water from Burnett to Burrum likely to encourage best value use and No equity issues. redistribution of wealth and resources trading. No equity issues.

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource Diversion of 7,800 ML/a from the Burnett River system is unlikely to result Proposal will need to comply with State Government regulatory requirement Plans, Town Plans etc in any significant issues. of Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008

Department of Natural Resources and Water 2 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Water Security Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a Suggested rating 7 to some extent buffered from short to medium term buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Burnett drought periods. catchment is considered to be reliable giving added resilience to this option. Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable Some losses from the storage, climate change will increase evaporation. Small surface areas, however, so not significant.

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Net Present Value $37.3 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 7,800 ML of high priority allocation from the Burnett River and SunWater’s charges for delivery to the C8(8) branch through their distribution network. Cost per Megalitre of water $4,782 /ML at the Howard water treatment plant plus the additional costs detailed above.

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost $24.7 million $40M – stage 1 $30M – stage 2 Approximate operational cost $700,000 pa power, operation and maintenance.

Employment No of potential job losses None None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Assuming the capacity of the pipe system at Childers is sufficient. The Assuming the Cassava lakes can hold the extra capacity. viability of this option decreases significantly if an upgrade of the network is Legislative mixing requirements are met needed.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 3 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Hervey Bay City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Hervey Bay City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 1000ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 3550 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 9150 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Lenthalls Dam) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Infrastructure included in this option Pipeline from Mary River Barrage discharging to Logbridge Creek and then • Waste Water treatment Plant at Nikenbah; to Lenthalls Dam • Pumping station; and • 15 km pipeline from WWTP to Cassava lakes area Total volume of water that will be delivered 7,800 ML/a delivered over a 12 month period. Stage 1 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Stage 2 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Climate independence of infrastructure High priority allocations are assumed to be obtained at the mary river Not totally independent of climate as the amount of waste water produced Barrage by trading of existing entitlements or from the proposed Traveston will vary depending on the severity of drought Dam. In either case, climate impacts are expected to be modest.

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Three Endangered species are likely to occur in the area: Crossinia A few endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in the area, however it (NC Act, EPBC Act) Australiana, Cycas megacarpa and Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi (Pineapple is highly unlikely that any would be impacted, except through construction of Zamia). Vulnerable species likely to occur in the area include Bosistoa sp, new works or unplanned deviation of a pipeline from road reserves. Acacia attenuata, Quassia, the Minute Orchid, and Cupaniopsis shirleyana Remnant Endangered Regional ecosystem (12.5.13) in the area. (Wedge-leaf Tuckeroo). Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The endangered Swift Parrot and the endangered Tiger Quoll may occur in The vulnerable Black breasted button quail, Australian Painted Snipe and (NC Act, EPBC Act) the area, and the Vulnerable Red Goshaw and Button Quail are likely to Red Goshawk are likely to occur in the area; the endangered Swift Parrot occur in the area. may occur nearby. The Northern and Spot-tailed Quoll may also occur in the area. The impact on these is likely to be negligible as the facility already exists and only an upgrade will be required. Creation of new habitats Not applicable Improved reliability of water at the Cassava Lakes may benefit the wildlife found in the area. Manageability Remnant vegetation plentiful Pipeline may be required to go underground in Any endangered RE’s impacted are normally managed through provision of areas of remnant vegetation. vegetation offsets. The likely hood of clearing of remnant vegetation is low however.

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Minimal impact is anticipated due to minimal changes in water flows and No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the (NC Act, EPBC Act) regimes. Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The endangered Mary River Turtle may occur near the barrage. The No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the (NC Act, EPBC Act) vulnerable Australian Lungfish is likely to occur in the area, but impacts on Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits it would be easily managed. The Black face and Spectacled Monarch may be breeding in the area. Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness Possible impacts on some species as detailed above No additional impact expected, however, greater reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna Not applicable Not applicable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 4 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Lenthalls Dam) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Inter basin transfer from the Mary River system to the Burrum River may Not applicable result in some transfer of species. Creation of new habitats Not applicable Greater reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Manageability of impacts Mary Barrage pump station could be fitted with fine screens to manage inter- Easily manageable. basin transfer risk.

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Minimal change to the Mary River flow regime at the barrage. Additional More water in the Cassava Lakes may impact riparian vegetation and basic flows into Logbridge creek with minimal impact, positive if anything. wet/drying cycle if existent. Minimal impacts easily managed through release regime. Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Mary River water would be blended with Burrum River water – water Reduced discharge of effluent will result in less nutrients entering local quality issues are expected to be minimal and be easily managed. watercourses Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not applicable This option reduces discharge of waste into water ways and marine environment Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not applicable Not applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy Manufacture and laying of 15.5 km of 450 mm dia ductile iron pipe is the Production of steel pipework and pressure membranes may require major component of this option. significant energy consumption Operational energy 2,435,000 kw hrs pa at 7,800 ML/a. Significant energy required for operating high pressure membranes and Alternative supplies are possible, but difficult and costly to manage. pumping. Green energy could be purchased. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies No changes expected. Potential impact due to additional water in the Cassava Lakes area.

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced Pipeline construction will result in some temporary disturbance. Infrastructure already existing. Unlikely to be further major disturbance Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and May have a negative impact for Mary Valley entitlement holders. No major Possible impacts due to perception of recycled water in the community. recreational facilities, Impact on social support networks impact is otherwise anticipated.

Public acceptance of the option. Impact on community attitudes Removal of water from the Mary may cause some public concern, however Consumption of Recycled water could create acceptability issues. However, ,as this is done equitably through purchasing of allocations, this should be Hervey Bay prides itself on its existing recycling initiatives, so there is a manageable. prior level of knowledge and education. Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses Some job losses in the Mary Valley could result if 7,800 ML of high priority No job losses or dislocation are expected. or dislocation that may result directly allocations were purchased from existing entitlement holders.

Impacts on property No of properties affected/acquired Some properties disturbed during pipeline construction and ongoing access No additional impact anticipated easements required Social/physical infrastructure impacted A few creek crossings and road crossings. Impact easily managed. No additional impact anticipated Native title issues Depends on final pipeline route No additional impact anticipated Changes to flood behaviour Not applicable Not applicable Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values Non expected No additional impact expected

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic Transfer of the benefit provided by the water from Mary system to Burrum No equity issues. redistribution of wealth and resources system would occur through purchasing of the allocation.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 5 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Lenthalls Dam) Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource None Proposal will need to comply with State Government regulatory requirement Plans, Town Plans etc of Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a Suggested rating 7 to some extent buffered from shot to medium term buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Mary drought periods. catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Construction of Traveston Dam will change this. Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable Some losses from the storage, climate change will increase evaporation. Small surface areas, however, so not significant.

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Net Present Value $24.1 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over $40M – stage 1 50 years. Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 7,800 ML of $30M – stage 2 high priority allocation from the Mary River and any SunWater charges attributable to pumping water from their Mary River Barrage (Expected to be small) Cost per Megalitre of water $3,090 /ML at Lenthalls Dam plus the additional costs detailed above.

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost $14.4 million Approximate operational cost $536,000 pa power, operation and maintenance.

Employment No of potential job losses None None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Losses down Logbridge creek not assessed Assuming the Cassava Lakes can hold the extra capacity.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 6 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Hervey Bay City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Hervey Bay City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 1000ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 3550 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 9150 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan WTP) Infrastructure included in this option Pipeline from Mary River Barrage directly to Burgowan Water Treatment Plant Total volume of water that will be delivered 10,000 ML delivered over a 12 month period Climate independence of infrastructure High priority allocations are assumed to be obtained at the Mary River Barrage by trading of existing entitlements or from the proposed Traveston Dam. In either case, climate impacts are expected to be modest

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities A number of vulnerable and endangered species are likely to occur within the (NC Act, EPBC Act) area, however, impact on these could be managed. Significant areas of remnant vegetation will have to be crossed just south of Burgowan Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The endangered Swift Parrot may occur in the area, and the vulnerable Red (NC Act, EPBC Act) Goshawk, Button Quail, Spot-tailed Quoll are likely to be in the area Manageability Quite manageable

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities None identified (NC Act, EPBC Act) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The Mary River Turtle may occur in the area of take, and the Qld Lungfish is (NC Act, EPBC Act) likely to occur in the area Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness

Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna

Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Inter basin transfer from the Mary River system to the Burrum River is not expected to be an issue given delivery of the Mary River water into the treatment plant Creation of new habitats Manageability of impacts Expected to be manageable. Drawdown from Mary Barrage to be monitored

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Minimal change to the flow regime at the barrage. Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Not applicable Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not applicable

Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not applicable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 7 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan WTP) Embedded energy Manufacture and laying of 34 kilometres of 500 mm dia. ductile iron pipe are the major components of this option. Operational energy 4,000,000 kWhrs pa for 10,000 ML delivered. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies Not available

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced Pipeline construction will result in some temporary disturbance Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and recreational facilities. Impact on social support networks Public acceptance of the option. Impact on community attitudes

Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses Some job losses in the Mary Valley could result if 10,000 ML of high or dislocation that may result directly priority allocations were purchased from existing entitlement holders

Impacts on property No of properties affected/acquired Minimise number of properties disturbed during pipeline construction and ongoing access easements required. Social/physical infrastructure impacted Some road crossings necessary with temporary disturbance Native title issues Changes to flood behaviour Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values No known indigenous heritage features

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic redistribution of wealth and resources

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource Transfer of 10,000 ML of allocation from the Traveston Crossing Dam Plans, Town Plans etc proposal to Hervey Bay city would have some long term implications for South East Queensland water supply, eg, Traveston Crossing Dam Stage 2 may need to be brought forward by 1 or 2 years

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Mary catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Construction of Traveston Crossing Dam will change this. Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 8 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan WTP) Net Present Value $45.1 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 10,000 ML of high priority allocation from the Mary River and any SunWater charges attributable for pumping water from their Mary River Barrage. (expected to be minor) Cost per Megalitre of water $4,510 /ML at Burgowan water treatment plant plus the additional costs detailed above

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost $27.91 million (excluding allocation purchase) Approximate operational cost $950,000 pa power, operation and maintenance

Employment No of potential job losses Some job losses possible in the Mary Valley No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Burgowan treatment plant may need some upgrades to deal with this option.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 9 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Hervey Bay City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Hervey Bay City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 1000ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 3550 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 9150 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Two small desalination WTP) plants Infrastructure included in this option Pipeline from Mary River Barrage directly to Burgowan • Waste Water treatment Plant at Nikenbah; • 2 desalination plants one likely to be near Water Treatment Plant • Pumping station; and Riverheads and the second near Burrum • 15 km pipeline from WWTP to Cassava lakes area Heads Total volume of water that will be delivered 5,400 ML delivered over a 6 month period Stage 1 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Each plant capable of 2ML/d, or 1,460Ml/a in total Stage 2 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Climate independence of infrastructure High priority allocations are assumed to be obtained at the Not totally independent of climate as the amount of waste Desalination plants would be independent of climatic Mary River Barrage by trading of existing entitlements or water produced will vary depending on the severity of impacts from the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. In either drought case, climate impacts are expected to be modest.

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and A number of vulnerable and endangered species are likely A few endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in Two endangered species likely to occur within the threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) to occur within the area, however, impact on these could the area, however it is highly unlikely that any would be area: Pineapple Zamia (Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi) be managed. Endangered species include: Cycas impacted, except through construction of new works or and Cycas Megacarpa. Approximately 5 vulnerable megacarpa, Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi and Cossinia unplanned deviation of a pipeline from road reserves. plant species, including Bosistoa sp, and Minute australiana and vulnerable species: Bosistoa selwynii and Remnant Endangered Regional ecosystem (12.5.13) in Orchid (taeniophyllum muelleri) which are likely to transversa, Cupaniopsis shirleyana and Taeniophyllum the area. occur in the area. muelleri. Significant areas of remnant vegetation will have to be crossed just south of Burgowan Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and The endangered Swift Parrot may occur in the area, and The vulnerable Black breasted button quail, Australian The vulnerable Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) is threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) the vulnerable Red Goshawk, Button Quail, Spot-tailed Painted Snipe and Red Goshawk are likely to occur in the likely to occur in the area. The Endangered Northern Quoll are likely to be in the area. area; the endangered Swift Parrot may occur nearby. The Quoll and Tiger Quoll may have habitat in the area. Northern and Spot-tailed Quoll may also occur in the area. The vulnerable Red Goshawk and Button quail and The impact on these is likely to be negligible as the facility endangered Swift Parrot and Giant Petrels may also already exists and only an upgrade will be required. occur in the area Creation of new habitats Not applicable Improved reliability of water at the Cassava Lakes may None benefit the wildlife found in the area. Manageability Quite manageable. Any endangered RE’s impacted are normally managed Expected to be manageable through provision of vegetation offsets. The likely hood of clearing of remnant vegetation is low however.

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and None identified No additional impact expected, however, greater No additional impact Within range of Hervey Bay threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have Marine Park. Some impact on habitats and sea positive benefits grasses expected. Great Sandy Strait is a RAMSAR site.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 10 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Two small desalination WTP) plants Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and The Mary River Turtle may occur in the area of take, and No additional impact expected, however, greater The endangered Blue Whale and Southern Right threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) the Qld Lungfish is likely to occur in the area. reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have Whale, and the vulnerable Humpack whale are likely positive benefits to occur within the area and are known to aggregate nearby. The loggerhead turtle (endangered) is known to breed within the area. The critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark may have habitat in the area, as well as the Green Sawfish and Whale Shark (both vulnerable). Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and Possible impacts on some species as detailed above No additional impact expected, however, greater No additional impact richness reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have positive benefits Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna Not applicable Not applicable No impact expected

Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Inter basin transfer from the Mary River system to the Not applicable Not applicable Burrum River is not expected to be an issue given delivery of the Mary River water into the treatment plant. Creation of new habitats Not applicable Greater reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may Modification of habitats with increased salinity. have positive benefits Manageability of impacts Mary Barrage pump station could be fitted with fine Easily manageable. Costly management in finding alternatives for waste screens to manage inter-basin transfer risk. or ensuring proper dilution in Hervey Bay.

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Minimal change to the Mary River flow regime at the More water in the Cassava Lakes may impact riparian No changes to flow regimes or impact on barrage. vegetation and basic wet/drying cycle if existent. groundwater. Minimal impacts easily managed through release regime. Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Not applicable Reduced discharge of effluent will result in less nutrients High increase in salinity, mixing in bay takes a entering local watercourses minimum of 10 days, and up to 20 with easterly and northerly winds prevailing. Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not applicable This option reduces discharge of waste into water ways For discharge, a minimum of 15m of water is and marine environment recommended, requiring significant length of pipe for effluent. Effluent pipe subject to high levels of corrosion and will need maintenance and replacing. Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy Manufacture and laying of 34 kilometres of ductile iron Production of steel pipework and pressure membranes High. Energy for construction of membranes and of pipe are the major components of this option. may require significant energy consumption piping is quite high. Operational energy 4,000,000 kWhrs pa for 10,000 ML delivered. Significant energy required for operating high pressure Very high. Even without including transport, membranes and pumping. Green energy could be c.15000kWh/day (7.5kWh/kL) purchased. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies No changes expected. Potential impact due to additional water in the Cassava Not applicable Lakes area.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 11 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Social Criteria Impacts on people Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Two small desalination WTP) plants No. of people directly affected/displaced Pipeline construction will result in some temporary Infrastructure already existing. Unlikely to be further Depending on site, could be as low as 1 family, or up disturbance. major disturbance to 10. Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of May have a negative impact for Mary Valley Possible impacts due to perception of recycled water in Visual impacts and local recreational activities may be Tourism and recreational facilities, Impact on social entitlement holders. No major impact is otherwise the community. influenced negatively. support networks anticipated.

Public acceptance of the option. Impact on community Removal of water from the Mary may cause some Consumption of Recycled water could create acceptability Provides a secure source of supply but with attitudes public outcry, however as this is done equitably through issues. However, Hervey Bay prides itself on its existing potentially significant issues regarding power purchasing of allocations, this should be manageable. recycling initiatives, so there is a prior level of knowledge consumption and brine disposal and education. Capacity of the community, industries and services to Some job losses in the Mary Valley could result if 7,800 No job losses or dislocation are expected. No job losses or dislocation are expected. adjust to any job losses or dislocation that may result ML of high priority allocations were purchased from directly existing entitlement holders.

Impacts on property No of properties affected/acquired Some properties disturbed during pipeline construction No additional impact anticipated 1-10 depending on site chosen and ongoing access easements required Social/physical infrastructure impacted A few creek crossings and road crossings. Impact easily No additional impact anticipated Limited if any. Choice of site may require tunnelling managed. pipes under existing properties Native title issues Depends on final pipeline route No additional impact anticipated Not available but considered unlikely Changes to flood behaviour Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values Non expected No additional impact expected Dependent on site chosen

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs Transfer from Mary to Burrum system would be through No equity issues. Not applicable including geographic redistribution of wealth and trading and purchased allocation. resources

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such Purchase of high priority allocation from the Mary River Proposal will need to comply with State Government Wide Bay Water are already considering this option as, Water Resource Plans, Town Plans etc is unlikely to result in any issues. regulatory requirement of Water Supply (safety and within their own business planning. No other known reliability) Act 2008 issues.

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage Suggested rating 7 to some extent buffered from shot to Suggested rating 9: Desalination plants would be sources element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the medium term drought periods. independent of climatic impacts catchment influences rating. Mary catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Construction of Traveston Dam will change this. Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable Some losses from the storage, climate change will none increase evaporation. Small surface areas, however, so not significant.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 12 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Key Details Option 1 – Pipeline (Mary to Burgowan Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Two small desalination WTP) plants Net Present Value $ 42 million including present worth of power and $40M – stage 1 maintenance costs over 50 years. Additional costs would $30M – stage 2 include the cost of acquiring 5,400 ML of high priority allocation from the Mary River and any SunWater charges attributable for pumping water from their Mary River Barrage.(expected to be minor) Cost per Megalitre of water

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost Approximate operational cost $777,000 pa power, operation and maintenance. Approximately $4500 per day ($2.20/kL)

Employment No of potential job losses Some job losses possible in the Mary valley None none No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Burgowan treatment plant may need some upgrades to Assuming the Cassava lakes can hold the extra capacity. Assuming waste stream is discharged ack into the bay. deal with this option Alternative options are also available for small quantities of bring as in this case.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 13 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio E

Hervey Bay City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Hervey Bay City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 1000ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 3550 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 9150 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 – Two small desalination plants Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Infrastructure included in this option 2 desalination plants one likely to be near Riverheads and • Waste Water treatment Plant at Nikenbah; Pipeline extension from SunWater’s Bundaberg Water the second near Burrum Heads • Pumping station; and Supply Scheme from C8(8) branch near Childers to the • 15 km pipeline from WWTP to Cassava lakes area Howard Water Treatment Plant Total volume of water that will be delivered Each plant capable of 2ML/d, or 1,460Ml/a in total Stage 1 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) 5,400ML/a delivered over an 8 month period. Stage 2 - up to 4ML/d (1,460ML/a) Climate independence of infrastructure Desalination plants would be independent of climatic Not totally independent of climate as the amount of waste High priority allocations are available from the impacts water produced will vary depending on the severity of Paradise Dam project for which climate impacts are drought expected to be modest.

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and Two endangered species likely to occur within the area: A few endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in A number of endangered and vulnerable plant species threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) Pineapple Zamia (Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi) and Cycas the area, however it is highly unlikely that any would be occur in the area, including Bosistoa species, Megacarpa. Approximately 5 vulnerable plant species, impacted, except through construction of new works or Goodwood Gum, Minute Orchid and Pineapple Zamia including Bosistoa sp, and Minute Orchid (taeniophyllum unplanned deviation of a pipeline from road reserves. etc. however impact is expected to be minimal due to muelleri) which are likely to occur in the area. Remnant Endangered Regional ecosystem (12.5.13) in existing road reserve. the area. Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and The vulnerable Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) is likely The vulnerable Black breasted button quail, Australian The Endangered Swift Parrot, Northern Quoll and threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) to occur in the area. The Endangered Northern Quoll and Painted Snipe and Red Goshawk are likely to occur in the Spotted-tail Quoll May occur in the area, and the Red Tiger Quoll may have habitat in the area. area; the endangered Swift Parrot may occur nearby. The Goshawk (vulnerable) is likely to occur in the area. The vulnerable Red Goshawk and Button quail and Northern and Spot-tailed Quoll may also occur in the area. The impact on their habitat is likely to be minimal as endangered Swift Parrot and Giant Petrels may also occur The impact on these is likely to be negligible as the the pipeline is likely to follow road reserves. Some in the area facility already exists and only an upgrade will be temporary disturbance during works is likely, but required. easily managed. Creation of new habitats None Improved reliability of water at the Cassava Lakes may None benefit the wildlife found in the area. Manageability Expected to be manageable Any endangered RE’s impacted are normally managed Environmental impacts are expected to be easily through provision of vegetation offsets. The likely hood of managed so long as the pipeline follows the Bruce clearing of remnant vegetation is low however. Highway. Some remnant vegetation may be impacted if the pipeline diverges from road reserves, and some connectivity of habitat may be negatively impacted.

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and No additional impact Within range of Hervey Bay Marine No additional impact expected, however, greater As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) Park. Some impact on habitats and sea grasses expected. reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have treatment plant, no interaction with aquatic habitat will Great Sandy Strait is a RAMSAR site. positive benefits occur.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 14 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio E

Key Details Option 1 – Two small desalination plants Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and The endangered Blue Whale and Southern Right Whale, No additional impact expected, however, greater As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) and the vulnerable Humpack whale are likely to occur reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have treatment plant, no interaction with aquatic habitat will within the area and are known to aggregate nearby. The positive benefits occur. loggerhead turtle (endangered) is known to breed within the area. The critically endangered Grey Nurse Shark may have habitat in the area, as well as the Green Sawfish and Whale Shark (both vulnerable). Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and No additional impact No additional impact expected, however, greater As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water richness reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may have treatment plant, no interaction with aquatic habitat will positive benefits occur. Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna No impact expected Not applicable As the pipeline is from an existing waterbody to a water treatment plant, no interaction with aquatic habitat will occur. Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Not applicable Not applicable Transfer of Burnett River water to the Burrum River basin is not expected to be an issue given delivery is to the Howard water treatment plant. Creation of new habitats Modification of habitats with increased salinity. Greater reliability of water in the Cassava Lakes may none have positive benefits Manageability of impacts Costly management in finding alternatives for waste or Easily manageable. No issue. ensuring proper dilution in Hervey Bay.

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion No changes to flow regimes or impact on groundwater. More water in the Cassava Lakes may impact riparian Minimal change to the Burnett River flow regime at the vegetation and basic wet/drying cycle if existent. Ben Anderson Barrage storage. Minimal impacts easily managed through release regime. Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients High increase in salinity, mixing in bay takes a minimum Reduced discharge of effluent will result in less nutrients Burnett River water would be blended with Burrum of 10 days, and up to 20 with easterly and northerly winds entering local watercourses River water – water quality issues are expected to be prevailing. minimal. Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways For discharge, a minimum of 15m of water is This option reduces discharge of waste into water ways Not applicable recommended, requiring significant length of pipe for and marine environment effluent. Effluent pipe subject to high levels of corrosion and will need maintenance and replacing. Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy High. Energy for construction of membranes and of piping Production of steel pipework and pressure membranes Manufacture and laying of 31 km of 600/500 dia ductile is quite high. may require significant energy consumption iron pipe is the major component of this option. Operational energy Very high. Even without including transport, about Significant energy required for operating high pressure 2,076,000 kw hrs pa at 5,400ML/a. Green energy could 15000kWh/day (7.5kWh/kL) membranes and pumping. Green energy could be be purchased. purchased. Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies Not applicable Potential impact due to additional water in the Cassava Not applicable Lakes area.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 15 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio E

Social Criteria Impacts on people Key Details Option 1 – Two small desalination plants Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) No. of people directly affected/displaced Depending on site, could be as low as 1 family, or up to Infrastructure already existing. Unlikely to be further Pipeline construction will result in some temporary 10. major disturbance disturbance. Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Visual impacts and local recreational activities may be Possible impacts due to perception of recycled water in Minimal Tourism and recreational facilities, Impact on social influenced negatively. the community. support networks Public acceptance of the option/ Impact on community Provides a secure source of supply but with potentially Consumption of Recycled water could create Pipeline is likely to be publicly acceptable. Any issues attitudes significant issues regarding power consumption and brine acceptability issues. However, Hervey Bay prides itself can be managed through concessions (eg. underground disposal on its existing recycling initiatives, so there is a prior pipe instead of aboveground if visual impact). level of knowledge and education. Capacity of the community, industries and services to No job losses or dislocation are expected. No job losses or dislocation are expected. No job losses or dislocation are expected. adjust to any job losses or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No of properties affected/acquired 1-10 depending on site chosen No additional impact anticipated No private properties will be disturbed during pipeline construction although some ongoing access easements may be required, also for a pump station. Social/physical infrastructure impacted Limited if any. Choice of site may require tunnelling No additional impact anticipated Bruce Highway, may require a crossing and may include pipes under existing properties some temporary disturbance of traffic during construction Native title issues Not available but considered unlikely No additional impact anticipated Non expected Changes to flood behaviour Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values Dependent on site chosen No additional impact expected No indigenous sites identified. Within range of the Historic Isis District Water Memorial and Burrum District Soldiers Memorial, however no impact anticipated.

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs Not applicable No equity issues. Water from Burnett to Burrum likely to encourage best including geographic redistribution of wealth and value use and trading. No equity issues. resources

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such Wide Bay Water are already considering this option Proposal will need to comply with State Government Diversion of 5,400 ML/a from the Burnett River system is as, Water Resource Plans, Town Plans etc within their own business planning. No other known regulatory requirement of Water Supply (safety and unlikely to result in any significant issues. issues. reliability) Act 2008

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water Suggested rating 9: Desalination plants would be Suggested rating 7: to some extent buffered from shot to Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage sources independent of climatic impacts medium term drought periods. element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Burnett catchment is considered to be reliable giving added resilience to this option. Climate impacts on losses (eg evaporation) and efficiency None Some losses from the storage, climate change will N/A increase evaporation. Small surface areas, however, so not significant.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 16 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio E

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Key Details Option 1 – Two small desalination plants Option 2 - Purified Recycled Water Option 3 – Pipeline (Childers to Howard WTP) Net Present Value $40M – stage 1 $28.9 million including present worth of power and $30M – stage 2 maintenance costs over 50 years. Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 7,800 ML of high priority allocation from the Burnett River and SunWater’s charges for delivery to the C8(8) branch through their distribution network. Cost per Megalitre of water

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost Approximate operational cost Approximately $4500 per day ($2.20/kL) $460,000 pa power, operation and maintenance.

Employment No of potential job losses None None None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Assuming waste stream is discharged back into the bay. Assuming the Cassava Lakes can hold the extra capacity. Assuming the capacity of the pipe system at Childers Alternative options are also available for small quantities is sufficient. The viability of this option decreases of brine as in this case. significantly if an upgrade of the network is needed.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 17 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Hervey Bay Economic Sheet

Hervey Bay Portfolios Economic Sheet

Portfolio Options NPV of options or Cost/Megalitre of water (if NPV not available) Suggested Order A Pipeline $37.3 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. 3

Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 7,800 ML of high priority allocation from the Burnett River and SunWater’s charges for delivery to the C8(8) branch through their distribution network. PRW at Nikenbah $40M – stage 1 $30M – stage 2 B Pipeline from Mary $24.1 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. 2 River Barrage discharging to Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 7,800 ML of high priority allocation Logbridge Creek from the Mary River and any SunWater charges attributable to pumping water from their and then to Mary River Barrage (Expected to be small) Lenthalls Dam Approximate capital cost $14.4 million Approximate operational cost $536,000 pa power, operation and maintenance PRW at Nikenbah $40M – stage 1 $30M – stage 2 C Pipeline from Mary $ 45.1 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. 1 - Lowest cost River Barrage directly to Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 10,000 ML of high priority Burgowan water allocation from the Mary River and any SunWater charges attributable for pumping treatment plant water from their Mary River Barrage. (expected to be minor)

Approximate capital cost $27.91 million Approximate operational cost $950,000 pa power, operation and maintenance D Pipeline from Mary $ 42 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years. 4 River Barrage directly to Additional costs would include the cost of acquiring 5,400 ML of high priority allocation Burgowan water from the Mary River and any SunWater’s charges attributable for pumping water from treatment plant their Mary River Barrage.(expected to be minor)

Approximate capital cost $27.91 million Approximate operational cost $280,000 pa power, operation and maintenance PRW at Nikenbah $40M – stage 1 $30M – stage 2 E 2 small Desal $2,200/ML (4ML/d) Operational costs 5 - Highest cost plants 2 PRW $40M – stage 1 $30M – stage 2 Pipeline $28.9 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years

Approximate operational cost $460,000 pa power, operation and maintenance

Department of Natural Resources and Water 18 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Maryborough City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Maryborough City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 350 ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 500 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 1250 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 -Raising Teddington Weir Infrastructure included in this option Raising Teddington Weir by the installation of 1.5 metre high collapsible steel shutters on the spillway crest and the replacement of an ineffective fish ladder with a fish lock. Total volume of water that will be delivered 1,440 ML/a subject to the Water Resource Plan for the Mary River basin. Climate independence of infrastructure The Tinana Creek catchment is relatively large compared with the capacity of Tedddington Weir. Climate impacts on this option are expected to be minimal.

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities A number of endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in the area, (NC Act, EPBC Act) including Bosistoa species, Cossinia and Quassia, Minute Orchid and Pineapple Zamia etc. however impact is expected to be minimal Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Minimal impact on terrestrial species, although the Quoll and a number of (NC Act, EPBC Act) birds are likely to be in the area. Creation of new habitats Possible with additional water that may be available Manageability Expected to be manageable

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Aquatic and riparian species may be benefited by increase in water (NC Act, EPBC Act) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The Oxleyan Pygmy Perch is endangered and likely to occur in the area. The (NC Act, EPBC Act) Vulnerable QLD lungfish is likely to occur in the area. There is also a chance the Mary River turtle may occur in the area. Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness No additional impact

Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna Necessary provisions can be made available

Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Not Applicable

Creation of new habitats Provision of an effective fish transfer device is likely to result in migration of some fish species to new habitat areas and better sustain populations Manageability of impacts Manageable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 19 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Key Details Option 1 -Raising Teddington Weir

Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion A raised weir would result in minor changes in the flow regime of Tinana Creek downstream of the weir. The raising would increase storage capacity from 3,650 ML to 5,875 ML. Mean annual flow 1955/56 to 1992/93 was 240,516 ML Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Minimal Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not Applicable

Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not Applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy Manufacture and installation of 52 1.5 meter wide by 1.5 metre high steel shutters would be the major component of this option Operational energy Minimal Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies The increased storage capacity has a small chance of increasing anoxic releases including methane and NOx

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced None expected since the raised storage would be within the banks of Tinana Creek Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and None expected recreational facilities, Impact on social support networks

Public acceptance of the option/ Impact on community attitudes Minimal negative impact on community attitudes.

Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses None expected or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No. of properties affected/acquired None expected since the raised storage would be within the banks of Tinana Creek Social/physical infrastructure impacted None evident from inspection of imagery Native title issues Not Applicable Changes to flood behaviour Insignificant Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values None expected

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic No issues expected redistribution of wealth and resources

Department of Natural Resources and Water 20 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio A

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Key Details Option 1 -Raising Teddington Weir

Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource Capacity of the water treatment plant at Teddington Weir and of distribution Plans, Town Plans etc pipelines may need to be upgraded.

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Mary catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Construction of Traveston Crossing Dam will change this. Climate impacts on losses (e.g. evaporation) and efficiency Climate impacts on this option are expected to be minimal

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Net Present Value $10.37 million including present worth of operation and maintenance costs Cost per Megalitre of water $7,200 /ML

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost Approximate capital cost of $8.01 million Approximate operational cost Costs would be incurred in raising the shutters after each flood event, in maintaining the steel shutters and gantry and in maintaining and monitoring the effectiveness of the fish lock – assume $150,000 pa

Employment No of potential job losses None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions

Department of Natural Resources and Water 21 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Maryborough City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Maryborough City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 350 ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 500 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 1250 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 - Off-stream storage at Teddington Infrastructure included in this option Off-stream storage on the left bank at Teddington Weir of about 5,000 ML capacity with diversion capacity of 1.5 – 3.0 cumecs Total volume of water that will be delivered An off-stream storage facility at Teddington with a capacity of approximately 5,000 ML would have a yield of in excess of 1,500 ML/a Climate independence of infrastructure The Tinana Creek catchment is relatively large compared with the capacity of Tedddington Weir. Climate impacts on this option are expected to be minimal.

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities A number of endangered and vulnerable plant species occur in the area, (NC Act, EPBC Act) including Bosistoa species, Cossinia and Quassia, Minute Orchid and Pineapple Zamia etc. however impact is expected to be minimal Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Minimal impact on terrestrial species, although the Quoll and a number of (NC Act, EPBC Act) birds are likely to be in the area. Creation of new habitats Possible with additional water that may be available Manageability Expected to be manageable

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Aquatic and riparian species may be benefited by increase in water (NC Act, EPBC Act) Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities The Oxleyan Pygmy Perch is endangered and likely to occur in the area. (NC Act, EPBC Act) The Vulnerable QLD lungfish is likely to occur in the area. There is also a chance the Mary River Turtle may occur in the area. Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness No additional impact Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna Necessary provisions can be made available Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Not Applicable Creation of new habitats Provision of an effective fish transfer device is likely to result in migration of some fish species to new habitat areas and better sustain populations Manageability of impacts Manageable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 22 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Key Details Option 1 - Off-stream storage at Teddington Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Higher evaporation and seepage losses from an off stream storage are expected than for a raising of Teddington Weir. An off stream storage would result in slightly larger changes in flow regime downstream of the weir than would a raising of the weir Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Minimal Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not Applicable Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not Applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy Energy associated with the construction of the storage and pump station Operational energy Significantly greater than for the proposed raising of Teddington Weir Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies The increased storage capacity has a small chance of increasing anoxic releases including methane and NOx

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced None expected Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and None expected recreational facilities, Impact on social support networks Public acceptance of the option/ Impact on community attitudes Minimal negative impact on community attitudes. Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses None expected or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No. of properties affected/acquired None expected since the raised storage would be within the banks of Tinana Creek Social/physical infrastructure impacted None evident from inspection of imagery Native title issues Not Applicable Changes to flood behaviour Insignificant Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values None expected

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic Fair. redistribution of wealth and resources

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource Capacity of the water treatment plant at Teddington Weir and of distribution Plans, Town Plans etc pipelines may need to be upgraded; Further investigation of site might indicate that seepage would be unacceptably high

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Mary catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Construction of Traveston Crossing Dam would change this. Climate impacts on losses (e.g. evaporation) and efficiency Climate impacts on this option are not expected to be significant

Department of Natural Resources and Water 23 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio B

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Key Details Option 1 - Off-stream storage at Teddington Net Present Value Approximately $22 million for 5,000 ML capacity off-stream storage Cost per Megalitre of water

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost SunWater reported that a similar sized storage at Gattonvale near Collinsville cost $22 million. Approximate operational cost Operating cost, particularly pumping costs, would be significantly higher than for the raising of Teddington Weir option. (static pumping head for the off stream storage option would be up to 12 metres) SunWater desktop analysis concluded that the cost per ML of additional supply would be 60% higher than for the weir raising proposal

Employment No of potential job losses None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions

Department of Natural Resources and Water 24 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Maryborough City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Maryborough City Based on 1in 15 years Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 350 ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 500 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 1250 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 - Purchase Medium Priority allocations Infrastructure included in this option Not Applicable Total volume of water that will be delivered Subject to willingness of existing allocation holders to trade at the time • 350 ML for 2008 • 500 ML by 2026 • 1250ML by 2056 Climate independence of infrastructure Dependant on Mary River flows

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities No additional impacts (NC Act, EPBC Act)

Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable Rare (NC Act, EPBC Act Endangered, No additional impacts Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities (NC Act, EPBC Act) Creation of new habitats Not Applicable Manageability Not Applicable

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Potential for increased drawdown compared to current conditions, might (NC Act, EPBC Act) impact some species during low flows

Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Potential for increased drawdown compared to current conditions, might (NC Act, EPBC Act) impact some species during low flows. Species of relevance include the Mary River Turtle and the QLD lungfish. Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness No additional impact

Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna Not Applicable

Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Potential risks

Creation of new habitats Not Applicable Manageability of impacts Controlled by WRP/ROP

Department of Natural Resources and Water 25 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Key Details Option 1 - Purchase Medium Priority allocations Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion Potential for increased drawdown compared to current conditions Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients None Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways Not Applicable

Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not Applicable

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Embedded energy No additional infrastructure required Operational energy Proportional increase on existing energy use only Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies Not Applicable

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced None

Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and None recreational facilities, Impact on social support networks

Public acceptance of the option/ Impact on community attitudes Minimal as it is subject to willingness of existing allocation holders to trade at the time Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses Not Applicable or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No. of properties affected/acquired None Social/physical infrastructure impacted None Native title issues Not Applicable Changes to flood behaviour Not Applicable Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values None

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic Purchase from existing holders of allocations to be converted will reduce redistribution of wealth and resources availability for other users. Could be an issues for irrigators seeking allocation trades

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource None Plans, Town Plans etc

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 3-6: climate dependant but storage element provides a buffer. Rainfall reliability in the catchment influences rating. Mary catchment is very much a run of the river system, currently, and has a lower reliability. Climate impacts on losses (e.g. evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 26 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio C

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Key Details Option 1 - Purchase Medium Priority allocations Net Present Value Cost per Megalitre of water No new allocations of High Priority water available from Mary River currently. Would need to buy Medium Priority and convert. Current cost approximately $2,000 per megalitre for Medium Priority.

Total cost of approximately $2.5 million

Capital and Operational Costs Approximate capital cost Approximate operational cost

Employment No of potential job losses None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions This option would be less secure if Traveston Crossing Dam is not built.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 27 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Maryborough City Water Supply Options Information Sheet

Objective To meet urban water shortfall for Maryborough City Based on 1 in 15 year Level of Service ƒ 2008 - 350 ML shortfall ƒ 2026 - 500 ML shortfall ƒ 2056 - 1250 ML shortfall

Key Details Option 1 - Purified Recycled Water Infrastructure included in this option Advanced wastewater treatment plant to produce PRW adjacent to Errol Street wastewater treatment plant and then transferred through a pipeline to Teddington Weir Total volume of water that will be delivered Approximately 1,500 Ml/a Climate independence of infrastructure High

Environmental Criteria Terrestrial Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Minimal impact on endangered and vulnerable species in and around (NC Act, EPBC Act) Teddington Weir area and proposed pipeline route. Species include the Red Goshawk, the Quoll and the Swift Parrot. Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Possible occurrence of endangered and vulnerable species in and around (NC Act, EPBC Act) Teddington Weir area and proposed pipeline route Creation of new habitats None Manageability Not Applicable

Aquatic Biodiversity Flora - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Possible occurrence of endangered and vulnerable flora in and around (NC Act, EPBC Act) Teddington Weir area, benefited by extra water if anything.

Fauna - Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare Species and threatened communities Minimal impact (positive if any) to endangered and vulnerable species in and (NC Act, EPBC Act) around Teddington Weir. This may include the Mary River Turtle, and is likely include the Oxleyan Pygmy Perch and the QLD lungfish. Impact on level of naturalness, species diversity and richness No additional impact Barriers to movement of aquatic fauna No change Risks from inter-basin transfer-exotic pests Not Applicable Creation of new habitats Additional water into Teddington Weir may be create fringe habitats Manageability of impacts Expected to be manageable

Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts Changes to flow regimes, geomorphology, saline intrusion A slight increase in flows could be anticipated Changes in DO, pH, salinity, turbidity, nutrients Small risk of additional nutrients being released from Errol St WTP, however easily managed through strict legislative requirements. Changes in discharge of effluent to waterways None, although less of the effluent will make it to the mouth of the river. Changes in demand for groundwater resources Not Applicable

Department of Natural Resources and Water 28 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Energy Use and Climate Change Impacts Key Details Option 1 - Purified Recycled Water Embedded energy Manufacturing and installing of the PRW facility and the pipeline would be major components Operational energy Relatively High Direct methane and NOx production from water bodies None

Social Criteria Impacts on people No. of people directly affected/displaced PRW facility should not have much impact and pipeline route can be adjusted, if required Impact on quality of life, including health, creation of Tourism and Minimal recreational facilities, Impact on social support networks Public acceptance of the option/ Impact on community attitudes Some issues may arise at returning recycled water to the weir, however these are expected to be minimal. Capacity of the community, industries and services to adjust to any job losses Not Applicable or dislocation that may result directly

Impacts on property No. of properties affected/acquired Minimal expected but subject to pipeline route Social/physical infrastructure impacted Construction of pipeline goes through urban areas and may cause temporary disturbance. Native title issues Not assessed. Likely to be previously extinguished. Changes to flood behaviour minimal Indigenous and Non-indigenous heritage values None identified

Equity issues Fairness of proposals regarding opportunities and costs including geographic No geographic redistribution. No equity issues. redistribution of wealth and resources

Consistency with Council and Regional Plans Scope and nature of necessary amendments to plans such as, Water Resource Details on impact of pipeline route on more urban areas required. The route Plans, Town Plans etc would be chosen to fit with necessary plans. Some costs for research and manageability to ensure this.

Water Security Dependency of portfolio on climate sensitive water sources Suggested rating 7 to some extent buffered from shot to medium term drought periods Climate impacts on losses (e.g. evaporation) and efficiency Not applicable

Economic Criteria Total life cycle costs Net Present Value Not specifically calculated, however similar length pipeline (Mary Barrage to Lenthalls) is $24.1 million including present worth of power and maintenance costs over 50 years Cost per Megalitre of water Not known at this time

Department of Natural Resources and Water 29 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Portfolio D

Capital and Operational Costs Key Details Option 1 - Purified Recycled Water Approximate capital cost $14.4 million for the pipe, PLUS maybe $30M (Similar plant in Hervey Bay) Approximate operational cost $536,000 pa power, operation and maintenance of the pipeline PLUS important power requirements for the PRW plant (but significantly less than for desalination). Could be managed through purchase of green energy.

Employment No of potential job losses None No of potential job gains Temporary gain during construction

Risks, issues and assumptions Capital costs of PRW uncertain, and resulting costs of water would decrease exponentially with size of PRW.

Department of Natural Resources and Water 30 12/09/2008 Confidential – For MCA Use Only Maryborough Economic Sheet

Maryborough City Portfolios Economic Sheet

Portfolio Options NPV of options or Cost/Megalitre of water (if NPV not available) Suggested Order A Raising Teddington $7,200 /ML; 2 Weir Approximate capital cost of $8.01 million. Costs would be incurred in raising the shutters after each flood event, in maintaining the steel shutters and gantry and in maintaining and monitoring the effectiveness of the fish lock – assume $150,000 pa B Off-stream storage SunWater reported that a similar sized storage at Gattonvale near Collinsville cost $22 3 on the left bank at million. Teddington Weir Operating cost, particularly pumping costs, would be significantly higher than for the raising of Teddington Weir option. (static pumping head for the off stream storage option would be up to 12 metres) SunWater desktop analysis concluded that the cost per ML of additional supply would be 60% higher than for the weir raising proposal C New Medium No new allocations of High Priority water available from Mary River currently. Would 1- Lowest cost Priority allocations need to buy Medium Priority and convert. Current cost approximately $2,000 per from Mary River megalitre for Medium Priority converted to High Priority allocations Total cost of approximately $2.5 million D Purified Recycle Similar plant in Hervey Bay costed at approximately $30M 4 – Likely to be the Water highest cost

Department of Natural Resources and Water 31 12/09/2008