‘Shovel ready’ Infrastructure Projects: Project Information Form

About this Project Information Form

The Government is seeking to identify ‘shovel ready’ infrastructure projects from the Public and certain Private Infrastructure sector participants that have been impacted by COVID 19.

Ministers have advised that they wish to understand the availability, benefits, geographical spread and scale of ‘shovel ready’ projects in . These projects will be considered in the context of any potential Government response to support the construction industry, and to provide certainty on a pipeline of projects to be commenced or re- commenced, once the COVID 19 Response Level is suitable for construction to proceed.

The Infrastructure Industry Reference Group, chaired by Mark Binns, is leading this work at the request of Ministers, and is supported by Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited (CIP).

CIP is now seeking information using this Project Information Form from relevant industry participants for 1 projects/programmes that may be suitable for potential Government support. The types of projects we have been asked to consider is outlined in Mark Binns’ letter dated 25 March 2020.

CIP has prepared Project Information Guidelines which outline the approach CIP will take in reviewing and categorising the project information it receives (Guidelines).

Please submit one form for each project that you consider meets the criteria set out in the Guidelines. If you have previously provided this information in another format and/or as part of a previous process feel free to submit it in that format and provide cross-references in this form.

Please provide this information by 5 pm on Tuesday 14 April 2020.

As an initial task the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group has been asked to prepare a report on infrastructure projects/programmes that are ready for construction and could, if the Government deemed it appropriate, be deployed as part of a stimulatory package. It should be noted that the full impact of COVID 19 on the economy will not be known for some time, and the Government’s decision to accelerate any construction-related spend will be determined by its assessment of priorities at the time. This information is being sought in good faith, but no undertaking can be made that the criteria or any other considerations will not change or that any projects coming forward from the Reference Group will be accelerated, or any of the Reference Group’s recommendations adopted. This situation we all find ourselves in is truly dynamic.

This document relates to the gathering of project information only and is not a Notice of Procurement. It does not form part of any procurement process. It does not commit the Government or CIP to take any further steps, or provide any financial or other assistance, in connection with any information in response to this document or the projects to which that information relates.

1 We refer to “projects” throughout. This this term includes programmes of work in all cases.

CIP Project Information Form Page 1 of 15

Section 1: Key Information [Criteria 2 and 3]

1. Project Title: Waikato Region Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities Construction Programme

2. Please provide your details: Organisation Name: Waikato Regional Council Entity Type: Local Government Contact Name and Kelly Stokes, Manager – Business and Technical Services, Integrated Catchment Role: Management, Waikato Regional Council Email Address: [email protected] Telephone: +64 07 859 0787, +64 021 527 989

3. Please provide a very brief description of the infrastructure project: Brief Description “The construction of Stock Truck Effluent disposal facilities, in key regional locations across the Waikato Region”. Problem Being Addressed Consultation and investigations have revealed that the few and current STE facilities are facing increased pressure by truck operators and there is a need for more disposal sites across the Waikato. The consequence of this problem is also evident in effluent spillage complaints from the public and local authorities to the Waikato Regional Council (WRC). This problem will be further exacerbated as the dairy industry has increased to around 1.7 million head of cattle with further increases as former forestry land becomes available and Government policy aims to increase primary industry exports. Key Benefits Being Delivered The Regional Stock Truck Effluent Strategy for the Waikato identifies a proposed network of accessible disposal facilities to reduce the environmental effects, health risks and improve road safety. The strategy also identified a number of education strategies with farmers, truck drivers and regional stakeholders. This is to address the problem of inappropriate discharge of stock truck effluent, either by accidental spillage or deliberate dumping. Construction Readiness and Deliverable Timeframes (The Conveyor Belt) Immediate: One facility has been constructed and is now operational (joint project with NZTA and WRC) but requires some design modifications. Ready 0-6months: One facility is “on hold” pending NZTA weigh bridge programme confirmation (but has an agreed design and funding allocated with NZTA) From 6months onwards: Another two sites prioritised from the list of 10 potential locations identified as part of the strategy are at initiation stage. The entire programme indicated in the Strategy covers 10 sites, ideally over a 10-15 year period, but this is based on joint funding availability from NZTA and approved LTP allocation by WRC. How Funding Will Aid Progress At present, there is no permanent funding mechanism in place, and receiving this guarantee of funding will enable these important road and environmental safety facilities to proceed, providing jobs and security to the regions. If funding is not granted, the programme of delivery will be likely to extend over 25 years, with only one site likely to be built in each LTP cycle. Extra Information In 1997, a national working group led by the NZ Transport Agency was established to develop a strategy for a nationwide network of effluent disposal facilities following a fatal accident of a motorcyclist. Following this, in 1998 the Waikato Regional Stock Truck Effluent Working Group was established. In 2010, the regional working group published the Regional Stock Truck Effluent Strategy for the Waikato Region which clearly identifies the problem of inappropriate discharge of stock truck effluent, either by accidental spillage or deliberate dumping. https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/council/policy-and-plans/transport-policy/stock-truck-effluent-strategy/

CIP Project Information Form Page 2 of 15

4. This project will be located in which Territorial Authority: This project is Waikato Region wide. The district councils include: District Council, District Council, South Waikato District 5. Please confirm the project sector, category and type of Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Taupo infrastructure: District Council, .

Project Sector ✓ Project Categories ✓ Accommodation ☐ Three waters ☐ Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry ✓ Transport ✓ Alcohol Availability ☐ Buildings and Structures ☐ Bioscience and Biotechnology ☐ Other infrastructure ✓ Construction ✓ Energy ☐ Project Type ✓ Film and Television ☐ Critical infrastructure ✓ Imports and Exports ☐ New infrastructure ✓ Information communications and technology ☐ Replacement/refurbished infrastructure ☐ Manufacturing and Production ☐ Repurposed infrastructure ☐ Retail Trade ☐ Tourism ☐ Wholesale Trade ☐ Central Government ☐ Local Government ✓ Other ☐

6. What is the total cost of the project (NZ$M): $26,230,305M

7. Provide a high-level breakdown of this spend (e.g. construction costs, professional fees, land, other etc.): The 2017 Costs Estimates have been undertaken at the 10 sites identified for stock truck effluent disposal facilities. One of the sites, at Piarere, has been estimated as an optional site and included in the cost estimate summary. The current NZTA Proforma for Scheme Estimate (SE) cost estimation was used on a site by site basis, with Base Estimate, Expected Estimate, and 95th Percentile Estimate calculated based on the scheme drawings prepared for each site. The 95th Percentile Estimate is included in this table as the 2017 Estimate. Allowance has been made for professional fees and client managed costs during D&PD (Pre-Implementation), and professional fees and client managed costs during MSQA (Implementation). Physical works have been estimated separately for each site.

The 2017 estimated cost of all 10 sites as a programme of works was estimated at $17.5M, including construction, professional services and client managed costs, property costs, contingencies, and an allowance for funding risk and contingency. A review of the actual costs for Site 1 SH29/SH24 Kaimai has indicated that 50% additional cost was seen between the 2017 estimate and the 2019 construction. Contingency of 50% has been applied upon the 2017 estimate to obtain the 2020 expected cost. The higher costs for sites 9N and 9S are due to the poor ground conditions and the long acceleration and deceleration lanes on the high-speed highway.

Site Roading Facilities Name 2020 Expected 2017 estimate 2020 Expected 2017 estimate Site 1 – SH29 / SH24 Kaimai $960,428 $640,285 $296,319 $197,546 Site 2 –Ohinewai $2,168,306 $1,445,537 $243,324 $162,216 Site 3 – SH1 / SH5 Roundabout, Taupo $2,079,129 $1,386,086 $238,007 $158,671 Site 4 – Whatawhata $2,096,531 $1,397,687 $226,937 $151,291 Site 5 – Piarere truck layby (Optional Site) $685,209 $456,806 $186,834 $124,556

CIP Project Information Form Page 3 of 15

Site 6 – Te Rere Road, Lichfield $1,825,485 $1,216,990 $223,749 $149,166 Site 7 – Otorohanga $264,099 $176,066 $176,561 $117,707 Site 8 – Z Stop, Turangi $1,056,212 $704,141 $269,897 $179,931 Site 9N – SH2 Mangatawhiri to Paeroa $5,508,240 $3,672,160 $306,812 $204,541 Site 9S – SH2 Mangatawhiri to Paeroa $5,549,823 $3,699,882 $246,512 $164,341 Site 10 – SH3 / SH4 Intersection Eight Mile Junction $1,389,453 $926,302 $232,643 $155,095 Sub-Total $23,582,913 $15,721,942 $2,647,592 $1,765,061 Total Programme (all sites) $26,230,505 Sub-Total for Prioritised Programme (Sites 1, 3, 8, 10) $5,485,221 $1,036,865 Total for Prioritised Sites $6,522,086

The 4 current/prioritised sites are: Site Roading Facilities Name 2020 Expected 2017 estimate 2020 Expected 2017 estimate Site 1 – SH29 / SH24 Kaimai $960,428 $640,285 $296,319 $197,546 Site 3 – SH1 / SH5 Roundabout, Taupo $2,079,129 $1,386,086 $238,007 $158,671 Site 8 – Z Stop, Turangi $1,056,212 $704,141 $269,897 $179,931 Site 10 – SH3 / SH4 Intersection Eight Mile Junction $1,389,453 $926,302 $232,643 $155,095 Sub-Total for Prioritised Programme (Sites 1, 3, 8, 10) $5,485,221 $3,656,814 $1,036,865 $691,243 Total for Prioritised Sites $6,522,086

There is also a risk that these costs could increase due to workload demand on contractors in a post Covid-19 restriction environment, as pressure for their services will be high.

Ongoing operation and maintenance costs are not included in this construction estimate, and are likely to be in the range of $60,000-$100,000 per annum, per site, due to significant distances between sites and travel times.

8. Briefly outline the value the project will deliver in terms of employment contribution. For each of the sites, contracted services will be engaged for all aspects of the works, ranging from design engineers, safety assessors, consultation and communication experts, project managers and administrators, procurement and tendering specialists, facility construction crews, roading construction crews, and ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility and the road.

This project will not be limited to WRC or NZTA personnel involvement but utilises a network of contractors and consultants across the region. Wherever possible, the locally based contractor or supplier is engaged.

9. Briefly describe how the project is currently/ intended to be funded: Currently part-funded in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan in year 2 and 3. However, all funding and project budget allocations in future years are at significant risk due to the impacts of Covid-19 on revenue sources, and the consequential negative impact on available borrowing and debt capacity to fund projects, due to prudential debt to revenue limits, and the implications on Council credit rating.

The NZTA’s P&I Knowledge Base states that stock effluent disposal sites are funded under the principle of exacerbator pays. The exacerbator is the original owner of the stock who benefits from the sale of that stock for processing. As there is no cost-effective method of levying this from the stock carried, use of local rates paid to either the relevant territorial authority or the relevant regional council, or both, is considered a fair method of raising an appropriate proportion of the construction cost. The NZTA’s share is general recognition of the

CIP Project Information Form Page 4 of 15

willingness to pay by road users for the benefits of prevention of effluent spillage. This principle applies regardless of the location of the facility being on a local road or state highway.

For Approved Organisations, from 2018/19 onwards the NZTA will fund the access roads component but the Approved Organisation will fund the facilities component. The change in funding from previous years is thus a risk to the project affordability as the Approved Organisations will fund a greater amount in the future

The future maintenance and operational costs are NOT included in the project construction costs estimates in Section 7 above. These costs are agreed via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and will set the annual subsidised value per site for the respective Local Authority to carry out these activities, to create more certainty for the stakeholders and funding partners. Current maintenance and operational budgets are set at 50 percent subsidised by WRC and 50 percent paid by the Local Authority as a local share. If the actual costs per site exceed the 50 percent local share, then the Local Authority covers this budget shortfall. This is being strictly monitored for the first operational site (SH29/SH24 Kaimai).

An MOU is created for each facility as it becomes operational. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs are likely to be in the range of $60,000-$100,000 per annum, per site, due to significant distances between sites and travel times. However the ability for these District Councils to pay their contribution to these sites is at significant risk due to the impacts of Covid-19 on revenue sources, and the consequential negative impact on available borrowing and debt capacity to fund projects, decreased District Council revenue, and the implications on Council credit rating.

10. Has this project previously applied for funding with any part of Government? Yes: ☒ No: ☐ - If Yes, please describe which part of government (i.e. PGF, NZTA FAR etc.), the outcome of the discussions and who such discussions were with (what Ministry and official).

There is an existing agreement, as outlined in question 9.

CIP Project Information Form Page 5 of 15

Section 2: Construction Readiness [Criteria 1]

11. Please briefly explain the status of the project including confirmation that the project will fall into one of the three categories of readiness (see 12 below). There is a Conveyor Belt of projects that can commence as part of this programme of work.

Firstly, the current operational site requires a design modification to ensure it is functioning correctly, followed by the on-site adjustment. This needs to occur immediately. Due to Covid-19 Lockdown, workers are not available to perform this work.

Next, the second site scheduled for construction (Site 3 – Taupo SH1 / SH5 Roundabout), is designed and ready for progression to tender. This site is dependent upon advancement of the NZTA Weigh Bridge programme. The site has been optimised for multiple uses, as a weigh bridge and stock truck effluent disposal facility are designed for the same location. It is highly likely that the weigh bridge programme will be reprioritised by NZTA as a result of Covid-19 project reviews, putting this critical site at risk. If the NZTA weighbridge programme is reprioritised, the stock truck effluent disposal facility in its present format will need to be redesigned, adding cost and time to the process.

Thirdly, the remainder of the Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities programme will then follow, beginning with Eight Mile Junction SH3/SH4 and Z Stop Turangi. However, the pace at which these locations can proceed will depend upon two guarantees of funding. Firstly, Waitomo and Taupo District Councils - as these areas are dependent upon tourism businesses for district council rates, there is likely to be a drop in revenue due to the effect of Covid-19 on travel and international tourism, meaning they may not be able to make their contribution to the ongoing maintenance and operation of the sites. Secondly, the contribution from NZTA may be reprioritised considering the effect of Covid-19.

12. Confirm which of the following categories the project best falls into. Further commentary (briefly set out barriers to Status ✓ commencement)

A. Projects which currently are (or were) in the construction phase but have been put The current operational site requires design modifications on hold due to COVID 19 and are likely not ✓ to ensure it is functioning correctly. This needs to occur to progress, or to progress at a much immediately. slower rate or scale/scope, if not supported post COVID 19

The next site scheduled for construction (Site 3 – Taupo SH1 / SH5 Roundabout), is designed and ready for progression to tender. This site is dependent upon advancement of the NZTA Weigh Bridge programme. The site has been optimised B. Projects which have a high expectation of for multiple uses, as a weigh bridge and stock truck commencing the construction phase within ✓ effluent disposal facility are designed for the same the next six months (by 31 October 2020), location. It is highly likely that the weigh bridge but are unlikely to do so due to COVID 19 programme will be reprioritised by NZTA as a result of Covid-19 project reviews, putting this critical site at risk. If the NZTA weighbridge programme is reprioritised, the stock truck effluent disposal facility in its present format will need to be redesigned, adding cost and time to the

CIP Project Information Form Page 6 of 15

process.

The remainder of the Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities programme will then follow, beginning with Eight Mile Junction SH3/SH4 and Z Stop Turangi. However, the pace at which these locations can proceed C. Projects which could have been expected to will depend upon two guarantees of funding. Firstly, commence the construction phase within Waitomo and Taupo District Councils - as these areas are ✓ dependent upon tourism businesses for district council the next 12 months (by 30 May 2021), but rates, there is likely to be a drop in revenue due to the are unlikely to do so due to COVID 19 effect of Covid-19 on travel and international tourism, meaning they may not be able to make their contribution to the ongoing maintenance and operation of the sites. Secondly, the contribution from NZTA may be reprioritised considering the effect of Covid-19.

CIP Project Information Form Page 7 of 15

13. Confirm the status of key milestones Expected Status ✓ Date Suitable tender complete ☐ Tender evaluation in progress ☐ Procurement Request for Tender in the Market ☐ About to put out a Request for Tender to the market ✓ For the Taupo site Detailed Design Complete ✓ For the Taupo site Detailed Design Underway ☐ Detailed Design Detailed Design to commence For the Eight Mile ✓ Junction and Turangi sites Approved ☐ Lodged ☐ In preparation Each site is negotiated with Designations/Consents local iwi at ✓ detailed design stage once timeframes and funding are confirmed. Yes ☐ Being negotiated under PWA (please indicate stage below) Each site is negotiated at detailed design Land Acquired ✓ stage once timeframes and funding are confirmed. Has not commenced ☐ Approved WRC approved ✓ the 10 Year STE Business Case or Strategy Draft ☐ Investment Case Underway ☐ None ☐

14. Briefly outline any other comments on the key project timetable or key milestones

CIP Project Information Form Page 8 of 15

The 10-Year Regional Stock Truck Effluent Strategy for the Waikato region has been developed by Waikato Regional Council in collaboration with the Regional Stock Truck Effluent Working Group and in accordance with the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2006-2016.

The purpose of the strategy is to set out a holistic strategic framework to prevent or minimise stock truck effluent discharge onto roads in the Waikato region. It achieves this by identifying key objectives, policies and actions for all stakeholders who hold joint responsibility for the management of stock truck effluent. The policies have been developed in recognition that there are eight key issues contributing to the amount of effluent being spilt onto roads.

The Waikato region has the largest number of livestock of any region in New Zealand, with over five million livestock. Thousands of stock truck trips are made each year, from farms to meat processing plants, to and from sale yards and between farms, incurring a significant amount of stock effluent discharge onto roads and road reserves.

This problem is exacerbated by a lack of suitable effluent disposal facilities in the region for stock transport carriers to use in-transit or at their destinations. However, the issue is not just for stock transport companies to address. There are a number of stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in the movement of stock, and a number of contributing factors to the problem, including: • the farmer, responsible for the management of livestock up to the time they are loaded onto the truck, and for receiving new or relocated stock • the stock truck, which should have a stock effluent holding tank fitted • meat processors, which should have stock truck effluent disposal facilities • sale yards, which should have stock truck effluent disposal facilities • a lack of in-transit stock truck effluent disposal facilities. Every stakeholder can contribute to the better management of stock truck effluent to minimise the amount which ends up on the road or roadside receiving environments.

Stock truck effluent spillages onto Waikato roads and environs cause numerous adverse effects, including: • contamination of land and waterways (the effluent can contain viruses, bacteria, nitrogen and concentrations of noxious plant seeds) • road safety hazards for cyclists, motorcyclists and motor vehicles • health hazards to people including cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and roading contractors • nuisance odours • negative public perceptions • damage to road surfaces.

Key Barriers or Risks to the project being ‘shovel ready’ can be summarised as:

Consequence / Risk Title Controls Likelihood Project Approvals and Funding: NZTA approvals High / High process for local and There is a threat that funds may not be available to deliver the intended national funding facilities. The cause of the threat is project funding needs to be agreed approvals. WRC across NZTA and WRC with separate funding approval processes, may not approvals process. be available for construction or staging. Programmes may also be Annual plan. Long reprioritised due to Covid-19. The consequence of the threat is project Term Plan. delays and increased costs, in addition to Health and Safety risk and adverse Environmental outcomes.

CIP Project Information Form Page 9 of 15

Iwi Consultation: Consultation High / Medium strategy. There is a risk that iwi oppose the project(s) or that they do not engage in consultation in a timely manner. The cause of the risk is that the identified effects of the facilities cannot be accepted by iwi or mitigated, or that it is not seen as high priority. The consequence of the threat is the project is unable to proceed.

Land Purchase: Consultation with High / High landowners There is a threat that land may not be available. The cause of the threat is landowners may not want to sell land. The consequence of the threat is that the sites cannot be implemented.

Consultation with directly affected parties: Consultation with High / High directly affected There is a threat that individual landowners or directly affected parties parties oppose the project(s) or the location of the facilities. The cause of the threat is no previous consultation, or the identified effects of the facilities cannot be accepted or mitigated. The consequence of the threat is that an individual project is unable to proceed.

Consents: Robust site selection, High / High identification of There is a threat of complications with approval of consents. The cause of environmental and the threat is unacceptable effects of the facilities. The consequence of the social responsibility threat is extra design / redesign, or finding new sites, leading to extra time issues, and and cost. consultation. Expedited consent processing.

CIP Project Information Form Page 10 of 15

Section 3: Overall Benefits and Risks [Criteria 4]

Please advise at a high level whether a project brings real value (in an economic, social and/or environmental sense) to New Zealand as a whole or the region in which it is located in line with Treasury’s Living Standards Framework2 and Sustainable Development Goals3. Please take into account, where relevant, the draft 2021 Government Policy Statement on land transport, available at https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi- modal/keystrategiesandplans/gpsonlandtransportfunding/gps-2021/, and the priorities that it establishes.

15. Briefly outline the social, environmental and economic benefits of the project to the local region and New Zealand and overall value for money. There are several benefits (or outcomes) from investing in new stock truck effluent sites including: Social Wellbeing Improved safety for all drivers, including vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists. Reduced Health issues for roading contractors and vulnerable road users. Reduced instances of loss of amenity due to effluent spills in urban areas. There is also an element of social improvement in the active management of the issue rather than the current ad hoc approach, which has the unfortunate outcome of accidental spillage on the roads or deliberate dumping off the side of the road. Economic Wellbeing Stock effluent disposal provides economic opportunities that do not currently exist due to the ad hoc manner in which the issue is currently dealt with. Very limited facilities currently exist in the Waikato and effluent is transported off site to disposal sites that are not managed holistically, and include landfills or other land-based sites where consent conditions permit the activity. A more coordinated approach to dealing with the problem presents some economic opportunity in dealing with the waste (e.g. recycling in some way), together with opportunities for waste transfer of the effluent through transportation from the effluent disposal facilities to identified regional collection facilities. There is also an element of social improvement in the active management of the issue rather than the current ad hoc approach, which has the unfortunate outcome of accidental spillage on the roads or deliberate dumping off the side of the road. Cultural Wellbeing As part of the prioritisation process, a Multi Criteria Assessment (MCA) workshop was held in 2017, with iwi engagement a key part of this workshop. Engagement with Tangata Whenua has included consultation with local iwi with information on the routes and individual sites for feedback. The selection process actively sought to avoid any sites of significance to iwi and locating any of the sites/facilities in close proximity to watercourses and waterbodies. Consideration of iwi management plans and WRC Plan Change One has determined that the best option from an iwi perspective for the collection of stock effluent is to capture it in closed holding tanks and then collect it for treatment at appropriate sites such as Municipal wastewater sites, or the Mynoke worm farm. It was considered that the fundamental basis for the project supports iwi aspirations around minimising contaminants entering the environment. During the design phase for each site, the local iwi or hapu are consulted again. Environmental Wellbeing Reduced environmental damage resulting from effluent seeping into waterways. Reduced odour from illegal dumping, and reduced odour by containing the disposal to approved sites. By providing designated disposal facilities, effluent discharge avoids waterbodies and culturally/historically sensitive sites.

The Waikato Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities – Detailed Business Case (published 2017) is available.

The Waikato region has approximately 4,500 farms with around 1.7 million head of dairy cattle. A further 6,500 farms in the region are made up of beef, sheep, deer and goats. Dairy farming in the region is expected to increase

2 https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework

3 https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rights-and-security/work-with-the-un-and-other-partners/new-zealand-and-the-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/

CIP Project Information Form Page 11 of 15

as former forestry land becomes available and Government policy aims to increase primary industry exports. As a result, the already high numbers of stock movements in and through the region which are expected to increase in the future.

There is limited amount of empirical evidence regarding the extent of effluent discharge issues, other than photographs of effluent dumped on the road and complaints logs recorded by territorial authorities and WRC. However, there is a significant amount of support for this DBC over the past decade and includes: • The lack of stock truck effluent disposal facilities remains the top issue for all stakeholders and is also highlighted by local authorities and politicians (via Waikato Regional Transport Committee and Regional Advisory Group meetings). Regional Stock stakeholder workshops continue to debate the issue of what to do when truck holding tanks are at capacity. Truck drivers readily admit to dumping effluent on the sides of roads, which then has an ongoing effect on the environment and road safety; • A WRC Survey at the National Fieldays in June 2008 showed that there are varying views from farmers regarding the recommended practice of standing their stock off green feed prior to transportation. The reasons for not standing stock related to not receiving enough notice to stand their stock from truck companies; • 5 mapping workshops were completed in 2015 across the Waikato region to determine routes travelled by the trucks and preferred locations for disposal facilities; • A survey conducted in June 2016 to livestock truck companies was completed asking about effluent volumes, truck and trailer ownership, effluent holding tanks, how often and where trucks disposed effluent during transport; • Between 2005 and 2016, on average there were an average of 50 complaints related to stock spillage and dumping reported to the WRC each year. Although it is acknowledged that this is not a complete record of all spillages and illegal dumping as it relies on the public to report such incidents. Not every incident is seen and not all incidents are reported. This inherent problem of under-reporting leads to some uncertainty in the true extent of the issue and the impact, i.e. how many effluent spillages occur on Waikato roads each year, how many incidents of deliberate dumping are detected, how many pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists are exposed to toxins etc; • Feedback from the Police and the Road Transport Association has also been collected and from March 2005 to March 2010, 102 complaints were recorded. However, it is widely accepted that the problem is significantly under- reported and not all territorial authorities keep records of this issue.

16. What is the expected contribution to local/ national employment? For each of the sites, contracted services will be engaged for all aspects of the works, ranging from: • design engineers – team of 4, • road safety assessors – team of 4, • consultation and communication experts – team of 2, • project managers and administrators – team of 4, • procurement and tendering specialists – team of 2, • facility construction crews – team of 6, • roading construction crews – team of 6, • ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility – internal team of 2, external cleaning contractors 1, external electrical contractor 1, • ongoing operation and maintenance of the road – team of 4, • traffic management during construction or maintenance – team of 3, • locally based suppliers – at least concrete, roading, electrical, cleaning, • all STE drivers that use the site. Per Site Conservative estimate = 39 personnel over project lifecycle per site.

17. What are the risks associated with the project? Each risk should be ranked as high, medium or low and include a short explanation as to why it was given that risk rating.

CIP Project Information Form Page 12 of 15

Low/ Risk Further commentary on risk Med/ High

A. The risk of the project not commencing the commencement is dependent upon funding within the advised timescale Medium

B. The risk the project will not be completed the effect of Covid-19 demands on time and High on time, to cost or to specification resources is not yet known.

C. Risk the project will not realise the The project will take much longer to realise than Med benefits outlined above planned.

18. Are there any other key project risks or any other information which would be useful background or context at this stage? Improvements to stock truck effluent disposal also offers the opportunity to support both national and regional policy direction such as the Government Policy Statement (GPS), Waikato Regional Plan (2012) and the Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan (2012-2045). This will also provide a vital injection of work into these small district councils, all of which have been severely adversely affected by Covid-19 due to their reliance upon Tourism.

Section 4: Impact of COVID-19

19. Please briefly comment on the likelihood and timing of the project recommencing once the COVID 19 Response Level is suitable for construction to proceed It is unlikely that contractors will be able to deploy teams to the regions, the health and safety regulations around proximity to fellow workers will not be known, people are unlikely to want to travel across regions to complete work, the financial cost of equipment or supplies is likely to dramatically increase, the availability of resources will be unknown, and the guarantee of government funded programmes of work will not be understood. There will also be a delay to commencing work, as organisations will not be able to rapidly move from stood down to fully functional in a short period of time.

20. What is the best estimate of the impact (financial/social/environmental) COVID 19 has had on the project and on local industry associated with the project? Due to uncertainty, projects that are not essential services have been delayed. This trepidation to recommence work increases risk for entities seeking resources such as contract staff and suppliers. It is also impossible to estimate the increase in cost that will be observed when restrictions are lifted.

It is important to note that the farms, abattoirs, and meat processing facilities are still operating during this Lockdown/Covid-19 time period, meaning that the effect of this STE facility construction delay will be that the existing situation, with inadequate disposal facilities, will continue.

21. Has this project already, or is likely to benefit from already announced Government led financial support for businesses (e.g. wage subsidy scheme/business finance guarantee scheme) Yes: ☐ No: ☒ - If Yes, please describe the scheme and extent of the support you have received/expect to receive.

CIP Project Information Form Page 13 of 15

22. Briefly outline the top 2-3 things that the Government can do to help progress this project. Please consider both financial and non- financial levers such as lowering regulatory barriers, adjusting Government procurement practices, fast-tracking resource consent processes. 1. Clearly prioritise partnership projects, especially in the regions. 2. Provide clarity of NZTA programmes of work so we know where we stand. 3. Introduce guaranteed cost cover funding arrangements. For example, the financial estimates included in this are a best guess at this point in time. If the real cost is greater than indicated, this inflation could not have been anticipated and if it is not guaranteed to be covered, it will place the projects at risk.

Other useful ideas: - Fast track decision making and approval processes - Expedite resource consents - Consider alternative procurement pathways e.g. direct appointment - An all of Government approach whereby all Government agencies work together to ensure fast track delivery of these programmes.

Please indicate clearly whether you consider any information you have provided in this form to be confidential. Confidential information will not be publically released, other than in anonymised form, except to the extent that any release is required by law.

This information is NOT confidential.

CIP Project Information Form Page 14 of 15

Map of project locations

CIP Project Information Form Page 15 of 15