WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERT-1

Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable

Sources Biomass Power Project in India

(Project ID Number 0362)

Annex to the PDD including Gold Standard

validation requirements.

Index

1. Introduction... 3

2. Project Type Eligibility Screen... 3

3. Additionality Screen... 3

3.1 Previous public announcement check... 3

3.2 Additionality tool ... 4

3.3 Official Development Assistance... 9

3.4 Conservative approach... 9

3.5 Technology transfer and Knowledge Innovation... 9

4. Sustainable Development ... 10

4.1 Sustainable development assessment ... 10

4.2 EIA requirements ... 14

4.3 Public consultation ... 15

5. Monitoring Plan ... 17

5.1 Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators ... 18

5.2 Request for clarification by GS-TAC... 18

Attachment 1... 20

1. Introduction

The purpose of this annex to the PDD of the Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable Sources Biomass Power Project is to enable a validation of the project against the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard validation will be carried out retroactively for the purpose of submitting the project for registration with the Gold Standard Foundation. A review of the project has been carried out by two members of the GS-TAC. The review dated 16 May 2007 will be submitted to the validating DOE in accordance with Gold Standard requirements.

The Sri Balaji 6 MW Non-Conventional Renewable Sources Biomass Power Project is located in Chennur Village, Chennur Mandal, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, India. The project was registered with the CDM Executive Board on the 21st of May 2006. The project activity consists of the construction of the biomass power plant in Chennur Village and the generated electricity is fed to the state grid. The fuel to be used in the power plant is locally available surplus biomass.

2. Project Type Eligibility Screen

Biomass projects claiming emission reductions derived from electricity generation are eligible under the Gold Standard. The biomass used falls into the Gold Standard eligible category

Agro-processing and other residues. In the absence of the project activity, the biomass would be burnt

in the fields or left to decay. Thus, there is no competing use of the biomass. The project activity will use locally available biomass and the CO2 emissions due to leakage are negligible. The power plant has not used other fuels such as coal since starting operations in April 2004.

3. Additionality Screen

3.1 Previous public announcement check

Please refer to Step 0 in the CDM Executive Board Additionality Tool (version 2) in section 3.2.

1 _{The Gold Standard Manual for CDM Project Developers section 3.2} 2 _{Ibid section 3.3}

3.2 Additionality tool

GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

The additionality tool has not been applied in its totality – the preannouncement check as well as the common practice check is missing.

Step 0: Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the project activity

Requirements Assessment Documentary

evidence

Conclusion

Provide evidence that the starting date of the CDM project activity falls between 1 January 2000 and the date of the registration of the first project activity. Provide evidence that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity.

The project became operational 15th of April 2004 (starting date of project activity) and the project was registered with the CDM EB Board on 21 May 2006. Board minutes dated 6 December 2002 evidence that CDM was considered before the starting date of the project activity.

OK

Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations

Requirements Assessment Documentary

evidence

Conclusion

Sub-step 1a: Define alternatives to the project activity.

In the absence of the project activity, the following scenarios have been considered:

For further

reference, see the validation report.

The viable scenario in the absence of the project is that the capacity addition to the

1. Provision of equivalent amount of power output by the grid to which the project is connected.

2. Construction of a biomass power plant with an equal installed capacity as the project, but without the CDM component.

grid would have been by the addition of fossil fuel plants and the biomass would have been burned in an uncontrolled manner or left for decay.

Sub-step 1b: Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations.

All alternatives in sub-step 1a are in

compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory

requirements. There is no legal requirement to obligate the use of biomass such as rice husk, juliflora etc as fuel for power generation in India.

The Indian Electricity Act of 2003 does not restrict the fuel choice for power generation.

OK

Step 3: Barrier analysis

Requirements Assessment Documentary

evidence

Conclusion

Sub-step 3a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type Financial barrier The project demonstrates For further

reference, see the validation report.

The project is

additional in the sense that it would not be viable without CDM

of the proposed project activity.

additionality mainly through the existence of a tariff policy related barrier. By 31 March 2004, the policy

changes related to tariff rates in Andhra

Pradesh reduced the tariff from Rs. 3.48 per unit to Rs. 2.88 per unit. While the policy change takes into account the variable cost of power generation and fixes an increase of 5 % every year, the increasing cost of raw material is creating an imbalance in the % increase in the variable cost and the actual operating cost. The policy change by which electricity units generated at plant load factors greater than 80 % are priced at Rs. 1.52 per unit, which is approximately Rs. 0.24 less than the actual generating cost, is also seen as a main

deterrent.

revenues.

Sub-step 3b: Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of the

The barrier is not applicable to alternative 1 to the project activity identified in sub-step 1a.

For further

reference, see the validation report.

The barrier would not prevent alternative 1 in sub-step 1a.

alternatives.

Step 4: Common practice analysis

Requirements Assessment Documentary

evidence

Conclusion

Sub-step 4a:

Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity.

There are 34 low capacity biomass power plants operating in the state of Andhra Pradesh.

A majority (62 percent) of all commissioned biomass power projects in the state of Andhra Pradesh are either registered CDM projects or undergoing CDM validation. For further reference, see Attachment 1. OK Sub-step 4b:

Discuss similar options that are occurring.

The tariff price for power sale was reduced from Rs. 3.48 to Rs. 2.88 as of 31st March 2004. Since then, no biomass power projects have been commissioned in the state of Andhra Pradesh without CDM revenue. For further reference, see Attachment 1. OK

Step 5: Impact of CDM registration

Requirements Assessment Documentary

evidence

Conclusion

registration enable the

implementation of the project as it helps the project to overcome above-mentioned barrier. As a consequence, the project contributes to a decrease in greenhouse gas emission reductions as compared to

alternative 1 identified in sub-step 1a.

GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

On the justification of additionality, it would have been interesting to see how the generation costs for fossil fuels relate to those for biomass power generation.

Answer from the project proponent:

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Scenario 1 and 2: The coal price increases and the biomass price increases or remains stable. The regular coal-fired power plants are of much larger scale and owned by the government to a large extent. While they are subject to raw material price hikes (represented by the bold line), these increases are most often passed on to the customers. Reference is made to the answers to the request for review for project ID number 0591.

Biomass price

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Scenario 3 and 4: The coal price remains stable or decreases whereas the biomass price increases or remains stable. In both cases, the project could switch to coal or simply stop operations and capacity addition to the grid would happen by the addition of fossil fuel plants.

3.3 Official Development Assistance

The project is not a diversion of official development assistance (ODA) funding towards India. Please refer to the validation report.

3.4 Conservative approach

Please refer to the PDD and the validation report.

3.5 Technology transfer and Knowledge Innovation

The technology is already available in India and the technology transfer will thus take place from an urban to a rural area. The technology selected for the project is energy efficient and deemed good practice. Please refer to the PDD and the validation report.

6 _{Ibid section 3.3.4} 7 _{Ibid section 3.3.5}

4. Sustainable Development

4.1 Sustainable development assessment

GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

There is no Sustainable Development Impact Assessment – local economic impacts of rising biomass cost or non-competitiveness with food supply of the new demand for biomass should be addressed.

Sustainable Development Impact Assessment:

Component

- Indicators

Score (-2 to 2) Conclusion

Local/regional/global environment

- Water quality and quantity 0 No effect. - Air quality (emissions other

than GHGs)

+1 The project will reduce the generation of local pollution due to the

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues in the fields. Furthermore, the plant has adopted several measures to mitigate impacts on the environment due to project activities. Please refer to the validation report for further details. A green belt has been developed around the power plant to serve as a wall for air pollutants.

- Other pollutants (including, where relevant, toxicity, radioactivity, POPs, stratospheric ozone layer

0 Not relevant.

depleting gases)

- Soil condition (quality and quantity)

0 No effect.

- Biodiversity (species and habitat conservation)

0 No major change compared to baseline. Biomass used is locally available and grown in a sustainable manner.

Sub total +1

Social sustainability and development

- Employment (including job quality, fulfillment of labor standards)

+2 The project has generated jobs directly and indirectly. Local biomass suppliers, including farmers and biomass

transporters benefit in the sense that they can sell biomass to the power plant. Small farmers are getting reasonable monitory gains for the sale of agricultural waste to the plant. These statements from relevant stakeholders have been verified by DNV.

The construction and operation of the project has created a large number of direct and indirect job opportunities. The job opportunities include both skilled as well as unskilled labor. Local stakeholders have highlighted that the project has created opportunities for young people and has contributed towards a decrease in migration from the area. These statements from relevant stakeholders have been verified by DNV.

- Livelihood of the poor (including poverty alleviation, distributional equity and access to essential services)

+1 The biomass supply chain has created a source of income for farmers

collecting the biomass and also for transporters.

It is noted here that the biomass was burnt in the fields before the CDM became known and the only reason for a possible price hike is that the

biomass can now be sold to other project sites. Hence, at no time was there a direct competition between biomass supply to the plant and for example poor households.

- Access to energy services 0 The electricity is sold to the grid, thereby not directly affecting energy services to local people. The project activity contributes towards a more sustainable energy mix since its baseline scenario is a coal fired power plant.

- Human and institutional capacity (including empowerment, education, involvement, gender)

+1 The project has contributed towards work opportunities derived from the biomass supply chain and the biomass itself is a new source of income as compared to the baseline. The

construction and operation of the plant should also be mentioned in this context. These statements from relevant stakeholders have been verified by DNV.

Sub total +4

Economic and technological development

- Employment (numbers) +2 During the construction of the plant, 20 persons were employed by Sri Balaji Biomass Power Ltd and an additional 90 workers were employed on a contract labor basis. Approximately 80 of these workers are from neighboring Kadapa village and Kokkiraipalli village. The entire building material was supplied by using the facilities of local transport suppliers.

When synchronizing the plan with the grid in April 2004, Sri Balaji Biomass Power Ltd had 53 employees on its payroll. 45 of the employees are from Kokkiraipalli village and 8 are from Kadapa village which is situated close to the project site. Please refer to document signed by the Office of the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner.

During the operations of the plant 60-70 percent of the skilled employees are from the local area surrounding the plant and most of the unskilled labor is also hired from local villages.

- Balance of payments (sustainability)

0 India is a net importer of coal. Net foreign currency savings result through a reduction of coal imports as a result of CDM projects.

- Technological self reliance (including project

replicability, hard currency liability, skills development, institutional capacity, technology transfer)

+1 The technology is Indian, thus

contributing towards technological self reliance.

Sub total +3

TOTAL +8

4.2 EIA requirements

GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

There is no detailed justification using the pre-EIA assessment test explaining why no detailed EIA is necessary

The Gold Standard requires an EIA when required by the host country and/or the CDM Executive Board. In the absence of any host country legal requirements, the project proponent should check the project against the Gold Standard requirements on EIA.

1. Host country EIA requirements

Renewable energy biomass power projects such as this project do not fall under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest in India. For further details please refer to the PDD.

2. CDM Executive Board EIA requirements

The CDM Executive Board does not require an EIA for the project activity. 3. Gold Standard Initial Stakeholder Consultation

Individual meetings were held with relevant stakeholders during a period from December 2002 to November 2004. The question about any negative issues has been asked explicitly and no negative comments regarding the project have been made by interviewed stakeholders. These statements have been verified by DNV.

4. Sustainable Development Assessment Matrix?

According to the Gold Standard methodology, the sustainable development indicators should be assessed compared to the baseline scenario. The project does not score negative when

assessed against the sustainable development indicators. Please refer to section 4.1.

5. Conclusions

No EIA is required for the project activity.

4.3 Public consultation

GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

There is insufficient documentation whether the first round of the stakeholder consultation would have complied with the Gold Standard requirements (e.g. documentation of who was contacted, were local GS NGO supporters invited, was a public meeting hold, was a non-technical summary of the project available in the language spoken locally, were the right questions asked). This allows no indication of whether stakeholders identified significant issues that would have needed to be addressed in the PDD.

The stakeholder consultation has been accused of being copy-paste by an Indian NGO in a widely publicized accusation of fraud in the CDM (see

http://www.cseindia.org/programme/geg/pdf/CDM-presentation.pdf). While the GS does not judge whether these accusations are true or not, a thorough documentation of stakeholder consultation is particularly necessary for this project.

1. Initial stakeholder consultation

Individual meetings were held with relevant local stakeholders during the period of December 2002 to November 2004. All contacted stakeholders responded, amongst them village representatives, transporters and biomass suppliers. Appointments were made over the

telephone and then the project proponent cordially went there to meet them. During the meeting, an oral non-technical summary has been provided for all relevant local stakeholders in local language. Project details such as types of biomass going to be used, amount of energy to be supplied to the grid, etc. were addressed and made available to the stakeholders. The written comments by the relevant local stakeholders confirm that no issues/questions were left open or unanswered. Furthermore, they confirm that the following significant issues came up:

- All stakeholders were happy to learn about the project’s existence - Local labor should be used as much as possible.

- Small farmers will get monetary gains for the sale of agricultural waste to the plant.

- Transporters of biomass benefit from the project

- Migration of people from the region has been reduced as a consequence of implementation the project.

Participant Company/organization Function

E. Daptagiri Chennur Village Sarpanch

J. Ramalakshmamma Yanapalle Village Sarpanch Chintala Malamma Kokkarayapalli Village Sarpanch K. Suresh Babu Zilla Parishad, Cuddapah Chairperson Pedda Reddy Biomass supplier (small

business)

Biomass supplier V. Obul Reddy Transporter (small business) Individual transporter

The PDD was made publicly available on the UNFCCCs website and parties, stakeholders and NGOs were invited to comment on the project for a period of 30 days from 09-07 to 2005-10-06. No comments were received.

Late October 2005, DNV has interviewed stakeholders for the purpose of confirming selected information and to resolve outstanding issues. Apart from village representatives and biomass suppliers, stakeholders interviewed by DNV include a representative of Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of A.P. (NEDCAP) on availability of biomass. Interviews with

representatives of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and Forest Range Officer flying squad, Cuddapah, on the environmental performance of the project, complaints, potential threats to forests and control on usage of restricted biomass have been carried out by DNV. For further reference including a list of interviewed stakeholders, please consult the validation report. 2. Main stakeholder consultation

GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

There is no second stakeholder consultation round in which stakeholders could have checked whether any issues they might have addressed in the first round were properly addressed in the PDD.

The main stakeholder consultation will be carried out in parallel with the Gold Standard validation of the project.12

A second stakeholder meeting will be held at the plant on 18 October 2007 2.00 PM to 6.00 PM.

Address of the plant:

Sri Balaji Biomass Power Private Limited Kokkirayapalli Road, Chennur, Kadapa Andhra Pradesh, India – 516 567 Phone: 08562 – 232222, 232223

The validating DOE will be present at the stakeholder meeting. Invitations will be made using local media but also through personal communication. The Gold Standard Environmental and Social Impacts Checklist (Attachment 2) will be translated into Telugo and submitted to the stakeholders attending the meeting.

Full project documentation will be made publicly available for two months, including: (i) The original and complete PDD

(ii) A non-technical summary of the project design document (in Telugu) (iii) All relevant supporting information

(iv) During the consultation period the project proponent will respond to comments and questions by interested stakeholders.

The report on the main stakeholder consultation will include:

(i) A description of the procedure followed to invite comments, including addressing all the details of the oral hearing such as, place, date, participants, language, local or national Gold Standard NGO supporters, etc. The Gold Standard Foundation shall be invited to comment on the project.

(ii) All written or oral comments received.

(iii) The argumentation on whether or not comments are taken into account.

5. Monitoring Plan

12

_{Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications 5 July 2007 section 6 states the}

during the main stakeholder consultation can be in parallel to the validation process. Validation can be concluded at the earliest 60 days after commencement of the main stakeholder consultation.

GS-TAC request for correction according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

The monitoring plan fails to address critical sustainable development indicators that should be drawn from both the Sustainable Development Impact Assessment as well as the stakeholder consultation.

5.1 Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators

Table 1: Data to be collected in order to monitor sensitive sustainable development indicators.

Sustainable Development Indicator

Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m),

calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Water quantity Water Water used m3/hour m

Waste water treatment performance

Waste Water Water reused m3/hour m

Availability of biomass13 Survey on local availability of biomass types used in the project e Employment Employment (number of jobs) Employees contracted to work in the operations of the plant. m

5.2 Request for clarification by GS-TAC

GS-TAC request for clarification according to the TAC review dated 16 May 2007:

Monitoring of biomass used: Indicator D3.4 records the amount of biomass used, indicator D.3.5

13

_{Gold Standard Rules and Procedures Updates and Clarifications 5 July 2007 section 5 states the}

records the type/calorific value of biomass used. The GS-TAC would like to see the monitoring methodology for indicator D.3.4 especially further explained. Are fuel purchase records internal records or confirmed by suppliers?

Answer from project proponent:

The fuel at the plant is stored in lots. Daily fuel reports are prepared at the plant on the basis of net weight of each trip measured on the weight bridge. A Goods Received and an Inspection Report is prepared for each trip and the payment to the supplier is made on the basis of Inspection Reports. All the reports are made at the plant by plant personnel. The supplier is paid as per the invoice submitted by him and it corresponds to the inspection records which are also confirmed by the supplier.

Attachment 1

BIOMASS POWER PROJECTS IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Plant Installed capacity Year when operations started Criteria for sucess 1 Gowthami Solvents Oil Ltd

2.75 MW March 1996 Low price on biomass fuel.

Along with the low price on biomass they got tariff price for power sale 3.48 Indian rupees till 31st March 2004. 2 HCL Agro Power

Ltd

6 MW October 2000 Low price on biomass fuel. Same as 1 3 Ind-Barath Energies Ltd 6 MW October 2000 CDM Project (0970) 4 Jyothi Bio-Energy Pvt. Ltd 4.5 MW November 2000 Low price on biomass fuel. Same as 1 5 Sudha Agro Oil &

Chemical Industries Ltd 6 MW December 2000 Low price on biomass fuel. Same as 1 6 Gayatri Agro Industrial Power Ltd 6 MW February 2001 CDM Project (0797) 7 Rayalseema Green Energy Ltd 5.5 MW February 2001 CDM Project (0546) 8 Matrix Power Ltd 4 MW February

2001

CDM Project (0281) 9 Jocil Limited 5 MW March 2001 Financially

viable without CDM.

Yes

10 Gowthami Bioenergy

6 MW July 2001 Under validation as a CDM Project.14 11 SLS Power Ltd 6 MW August 2001 Financially

viable without CDM.

Yes 12 Roshni Power tech

Ltd

6 MW August 2001 Under validation as a CDM project. Validation visit scheduled in August 2007. 13 Vamsi Industries Ltd 4 MW April 2001 Financially viable without CDM. Yes 14 Vijay Agro 4 MW January 2002 Under validation

Products Pvt Ltd as a CDM project.15 15 Varam Power Projects Private Ltd 6 MW January 2002 CDM Project (0697) 16 My Home Power Limited 9 MW February 2002 CDM Project (0476) 17 KMS Power (P) Ltd 6 MW July 2002 CDM Project

(0374) 18 Rithwik Energy Systems Ltd 6 MW September 2002 CDM Project (0253) 19 Veeraiah Non-Conventional Power Project Ltd 4 MW October 2002 Financially viable without CDM.

20 Sathya Kala Power Project 4 MW October 2002 Financially viable without CDM. 21 Suchand Power Generation Pvt Ltd 6 MW November 2002 Financially viable without CDM. Yes 22 Rithwik Power Projects Ltd 6 MW November 2002 Under validation as a CDM project.16 23 Shalivahana Constructions Pvt. Ltd 6 MW December 2002 CDM Project (0591) 24 Indur Green Power

(P) Ltd 6 MW February 2003 CDM Project (0391) 25 Perpetual Energy Systems Ltd 6 MW March 2003 CDM Project (0390) 26 Adl Laxmi Industries 150 KW April 2003 Financially viable without CDM. Yes 27 Saro Power &

Infrastructures Ltd

6 MW June 2003 Financially viable without CDM.

Not operational.

28 Balaji Agro Oils Ltd 6 MW June 2003 Under validation as a CDM project.17 29 Agri Gold Projects

Limited 6 MW July 2003 CDM Project (0534) 30 Sree Rayalseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd 6 MW August 2003 Financially viable without CDM. Plant is not running. 31 B. Seenniah & Company (projects) Ltd

6 MW October 2003 The project is going for CDM validation.18 At present it is under major shut down.

32* Om Shakti Renergies Ltd 6 MW January 2004 Considering CDM.19 33* Clarion Power Corporation Limited 12 MW February 2004 CDM Project (075) 34* Satyamaharshi Power Corporation Ltd 6 MW July 2004 CDM Project (0396)

* Projects commissioned since 2004.

Attachment 2

Environmental and Social Impacts Checklist20

The project proponent will clarify that the first answer column refers to a scenario with the project implemented as compared to the baseline scenario, i.e. a situation without the project, but including other future development at the location.

Environmental Impacts Yes/ No / ? .

Briefly describe

Is this likely to result in a significant effect? Yes/No/? – Why?

1. Will construction, operation or decommissioning of the Project use or affect natural resources or ecosystems, such as land, water, forests, habitats, materials or, especially any resources which are non-renewable or in short supply? 2. Will the Project involve use, storage, transport, handling, production or release of

substances or materials (including solid waste) which could be harmful to the environment? 3. Will the Project release

pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air? 4. Will the Project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation?

5. Will the Project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into surface waters, groundwater, coastal wasters or the sea?

6. Are there any areas on or around the location which are protected under international or national or local legislation for their ecological value, which could be affected by the project?

7. Are there any other areas on or around the location, which are important or sensitive for reasons of their ecology, e.g. wetlands, watercourses or other water bodies, the coastal zone,

mountains, forests or woodlands,

which could be affected by the project?

8. Are there any areas on or around the location which are used by protected, important or sensitive species of fauna or flora e.g. for breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, overwintering, migration, which could be affected by the project?

9. Are there any inland, coastal, marine or underground waters on or around the location which could be affected by the project?

10. Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions e.g. temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause the project to present

environmental problems?

Socioeconomic and Health Impacts

Yes/ No / ? . Briefly describe

Is this likely to result in a significant effect? Yes/No/? – Why?

11. Will the Project involve use, storage, transport, handling, production or release of

substances or materials (including solid waste) which could be harmful to human health or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks to human health?

12. Will the Project release pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air that could adversely affect human health?

13. Will the Project cause noise and vibration or release of light, heat energy or electromagnetic radiation that could adversely affect human health?

14. Will the Project lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into surface waters, groundwater, coastal wasters or the sea that could adversely affect human health?

15. Will there be any risk of accidents during construction or operation of the

health?

16. Will the Project result in social changes, for example, in

demography, traditional lifestyles, employment?

17. Are there any areas on or around the location, protected or not under international or national or local legislation, which are important for their landscape, historic, cultural or other value, which could be affected by the project?

18. Are there any transport routes or facilities on or around the location which are used by the public for access to recreation or other facilities and/or are

susceptible to congestion, which could be affected by the project? 19. Is the project in a location where it is likely to be highly visible to many people?

20. Are there existing or planned land uses on or around the location e.g. homes, gardens, other private property, industry, commerce, recreation, public open space, community facilities, agriculture, forestry, tourism, mining or quarrying which could be affected by the project?

21. Are there any areas on or around the location which are densely populated or built-up, or occupied by sensitive uses e.g. hospitals, schools, places of worship, community facilities, which could be affected by the project?

22. Are there any areas on or around the location which contain important, high quality or scarce resources e.g. groundwater, surface waters, forestry,

agriculture, fisheries, tourism and minerals, which could be affected by the project?

23. Is the project location susceptible to earthquakes, subsidence, landslides, erosion, flooding or extreme or adverse climatic conditions e.g.

temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause

the project to present socioeconomic problems?