This environmental and social monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Environmental and Social Monitoring Report

Project Number: 48325-001 Annual Report 2015–2016 August 2020

Philippines: 150 MW Burgos Wind Farm Project (Annex C – M, Appendix 1)

Prepared by EDC- Burgos Wind Power Corporation for the Asian Development Bank.

Annex C - Hazardous Waste Generator's ID

GRIEVANCE RECEIPT GRIEVANCE INFORMATIONREMARKS/PROPOSED

RESOLUTION UPDATES DATE OF RESOLUTION STATUSDATE OF

ENTRY NAME/ORGANIZATION ADDRESS CONTACT INFORMATION CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION DETAILS

July 28, 2016 Lydia Palencia Ablan, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

A. Land Acquisition 20. Document Handling and Processing

SPA not yet returned to the complainant

Provide a copy of the SPA as the original was never obtained by the Land Acquisition Team

Copy of the SPA already provided

July 29, 2016 Closed

Sept. 14, 2016 Corazon Ragual San Isidro, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

A. Land Acquisition 15. Payments and Compensation (Processing)

No amount received yet for the payment adjustment of tower location (Tower 104)

Request for payment submitted to Jun Anave for approval.

outsanding

Annex D - 2016 Grievance Log

ESMS Manual • Environmental Policy needs to be incorporated into the ESMS manual. It should be concise and bespoke to the

EBWPC Project.

• Organisation chart – an organization chart should be included in the manual. It is important that it includes the

roles of EBWPC staff including defining all responsibilities for the different sections of the ESMS. Additional

information about the parent company and group structure above the EBWPC Project is no necessary.

• An additional page should be included after the org chart which names the individuals responsible for the different

aspects of the ESMS. This approach will allow these names to be updated easily without impacting the entirety of

the ESMS.

• Consistency of the names used in the org chart of each position needs to be check throughout the ESMS.

• Comments made by ERM in 2015 regarding the ESMS need to be double checked against the document and should

be incorporated if they have not already.

• The ESMS manual should include a review schedule and this review should be allocated to an appropriate person to

complete and identify the person required to review it. (suggest this is done annually by EBWPC site staff

MP1

Stakeholder

Engagement

• The Stakeholder engagement schedule can be updated. Tasks from 2015 that have been completed can be

removed.

• An annual schedule plan should include frequencies of consultation, stakeholders involved and aims for the meeting

• Check if the schedule of stakeholder engagement in MP1 is consistent with what EBWPC will do on an annual basis.

• Consider to conduct a CSR report twice a year and ensure that livelihood restoration plan is in progress (should be

included in the annual schedule plan).

MP2 Shadow

Flicker

• This MP seems fit for purpose.

• EBWPC needs to check that the approach is manageable

• Need to include review schedule and responsible person.

MP3Grievance

Mechanism

• EBWPC needs to check whether grievances related to the Project Construction can be closed out.

• EBWPC should maintain a grievance form and record any complainants by the road patrol inspectors.

• EBWPC should continue monitor all the land acquisition court cases and update the information accordingly

MP4

Hazardous

Waste

Management

• Need to assess the practicality of the frequency of the reporting requirements stated in MP4. Weekly inventories

were not being submitted. The amount of waste being generated may not be significant enough to justify this

frequency and could be revised

• Non-conformance regarding waste storage seem to be repetitive and related to segregation of oil based waste

Annex E - ERM Summary of Findings

(filters and absorbents). MP4 and its annexes could be revisited and revised to include a mechanism to disseminate

the required waste management procedures with contractors as well as including measures to address non-

conformances going forward.

• MP4 should be redrafted to reflect the way in which the forms included within are stored by EBWPC.

MP5 Flora and

Fauna

• No flora/fauna and fire related incidents in 2016.

• Suggest EBWPC to show the checking explicitly in the road inspection record form.

• No IECs have been conducted since September 2015.

• Suggest EBWPC to organize one IECs at the end of 2016 and publicize updates if there are any.

MP6

Reinstatement

• Most of the planting actions have been completed. Photos have been attached for each replanting site.

• EBWPC should monitor the progress of replanting. Suggest EBWPC to conduct a quarter inspection and ensure the

replantation is in progress.

• A standard monitoring checklist should be established to give guidance to inspectors in assessing the performance

of the replantation.

MP7 Bird and

Bat Strikes

• Evidence of bird and bat strikes have been recorded in MP7F1.

• Frequency and species type are below the thresholds stated in MP7 that would trigger the need for further

investigation.

• This MP appears to be well implemented and does not require amendment.

MP8 Noise • ERM has provided an new approach to noise monitoring which should be documented in MP8

• Also the analysis of the data collected should be set out in MP8 including the use of the new template for preparing

the raw noise data for validation.

• MP8 need s to be updated accordingly

• A revision schedule for the noise monitoring MP should be included. An annual review of the techniques and

equipment would be suitable to ensure the approach remains fit for purpose.

MP9 Security • MP9 needs to be updated to reflect the current situation. Some of the target dates for the construction and

electrification of guard posts were not met. Reportedly these tasks have been modified due to changes in site

requirements and the MP needs to be revised.

• The entirety of MP9 needs to be updated to reflect the ‘on the ground’ security activities.

• Reporting frequencies could be amended if it is felt that current levels are no longer adding value – i.e. overly

frequent with limited pertinent information.

• Details of where reports relating to security can be found should be noted in the MP

MP10 Traffic • MP10 should be updated to reflect impending changes to the on-site rules regarding speed limits.

• Otherwise there is evidence of MP10 having been implemented in full with a good understanding demonstrated

by the EBWPC staff on its requirements

• Review frequency and responsibility should be included.

MP11 H&S • Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the requirements of MP11

• Records are available of all activities states in the MP

• The MP may benefit from being updated with explicit details of the day to day and month to month activities

relating to H&S issues. Having been written prior to operation it is generic in places. A rewrite stating the activities

carried out, their purpose and their frequency would demonstrate that the MP is a live document and has evolved

as the project has progressed.

MP12

Emergency

Preparedness

• Albeit emergency preparedness shows plans in place for various unforeseen events (bomb scare, fire, earthquake)

the MP may benefit from a programme of rehearsal for emergency procedures to demonstrate that the responsible

persons are well prepared in the event of an emergency.

• The rehearsal programme should be commensurate with the likelihood of the emergency event.

• Records should be maintained to demonstrate that emergency preparedness is practiced on site.

The following ESAP table includes ERM’s findings on EBWPC’s implementation of the ESAP.

No. Action Description Legislative

Requirement

/ Standard /

Best Practice

Required

Completion

Date

Documentation/

Indicator of

Completion

Responsible

Group / Person

ERM’s Implementation Monitoring – as of end 2016

EBWPC’s Progress ERM’s Assessment of ESAP Implementation and

Recommendation

1. Establishment of compliance monitoring team

1.1 EBWPC should appoint and

maintain an on-site personnel

responsible for overseeing

occupational health and safety

(OH&S) programs; personnel

will report directly to the Site

Manager

IFC PS1, DOE

requirement

For October

2014 and

ongoing

throughout

construction

and operation

Responsibilities assigned

Responsible person in place

OH&S programs being implemented

EDC Project

Management to

appoint the

Safety Officer.

Site Manager to

manage the

Safety Officer’s

activities.

A compliance monitoring team (CMT) has been arranged by EBWPC.

The Site Manager provides local management of the CMT. The

Business Unit Head oversees the team from the headquarters in

Manila. Refer to Annex B1 and B2.

On the EDC level, various departments support site-based

employees. These departments ensure that best practices are

implemented across all EDC project sites.

The following personnel and teams are responsible for OH&S and are

based at the Project site:

The Safety Officer is responsible for managing daily operational

activities, safe-work practices, safety programs, and standards.

As the substation has already been energized, the Safety Officer is

supported by two (2) full-time staff at the sub-station construction

site.

The Owner’s Engineer has safety personnel who manage audits

on the site.

The EPC contractors (Vestas for the wind farm and Alstom for the

substation), and their subcontractor (First Balfour) also have H&S

personnel. The H&S personnel are also responsible for

environmental management.

ERM met with the Owner’s Engineer and the EBWPC Safety Officer

and discussed on work schedule and activities undertaken.

Whilst PB is providing the Owner’s Engineer Services during

construction, the EDC Corporate level H&S management system is

currently being applied by EBWPC. Monthly safety reports are

produced by the Owner’s Engineer. OH&S is a topic in the weekly

meeting.

Achieved October 2014

The ESAP requirement is considered to be achieved.

A Safety Officer with a support team has been

working on the Project since construction

commenced.

ERM has recommended that a clear OH&S program

(including auditing and reporting) is implemented by

EBWPC as part of the EMS. Refer to ESAP action

13.1.

Annex F - Updated ESAP Matrix

1.2 EBWPC should appoint and

maintain an on-site personnel

responsible for overseeing

environmental and social

compliance/monitoring

programs; personnel will

report directly to the site

manager

Pollution Control officer to have

been appointed, and any

training needs to have been

identified and planned.

Pollution Control Officer to be

instated at the Project site and be

undertaken work related to the

pollution control; ensuring that

environmental measures are

considered during site clearance

and decommissioning; carrying

out environmental

monitoring/appointing

contractors to do this; preparing

a monthly environmental

report’.

IFC PS1,

DENR

requirement,

Good

Practice

31 March

2015*

Responsibilities assigned

Responsible person in place

EDC Project

Management to

appoint the

personnel’s

Site Manager to

manage the

Personnel’s

activities.

The overall management structure is as described for 1.1.

The following personnel and teams are responsible for overseeing

environmental and social compliance/monitoring program, and are

based at the Project site:

The Safety Officer also currently undertakes the Pollution

Control Officer role, and manages the monitoring of air, water,

noise, and waste.

The Forester oversees program implementation and reporting

on flora, fauna, and afforestation/ reforestation.

The Community Relations Officer liaises with the local

communities on issues related to the Project.

On the EDC level, various Manila-based departments support site- based employees. These departments ensure that best practices are

implemented across all EDC project sites:

The Manila-based Environmental Management Department

(EMD) provides guidance in the environmental monitoring.

The Watershed Management Department (WMD) provides

guidance on forestry activities.

The Corporate and Social Responsibility Department (CSRD)

and the Public Relations Department provide advice on

communicating the stakeholders, and on the communication

plan to implement the various programs, respectively.

The persons responsible for managing OH&S issues for the Owner’s

Engineer, EPC contractors and subcontractors are also responsible for

environmental monitoring/ pollution control.

During March 2015, a full-time Pollution Control Officer (PCO) was

appointed at the Project site but resigned during June 2015.

By September 2015, EWBPC had appointed a new Safety Officer

(Allan Lopez), and according to his CV, he is already a Trained PCO.

EBWPC advised that Allan will be responsible for all HSE

management.

Achieved March 2015/Re-achieved in September

2015

EBWPC has appointed a Safety Officer who is also a

Trained PCO.

2. Noise monitoring plan and mitigation program

2.1 To manage construction noise

levels and minimize disturbance

to nearby households, during

construction EBWPC should

limit the construction work

schedule from 6 AM to 7 PM for

the wind farm, and two (2) shifts

from 7 AM to 12 AM (midnight)

for the substation;

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, DENR

Standards

October 2014 Compliance of monitored noise levels with DENR and IFC standards

Minimal complaints from stakeholders

Daily construction work schedule; verification from Owner’s Engineer.

Conformance to action plan verified by project management inspection

Pollution Control

Officer, to check

construction

works are not

been undertaken,

and to liaise with

the contractors.

Construction activities undertaken from January to March 2015,

included works at the substation and reinstatement works at areas

cleared for the wind farm development.

Since the substation has already been energized, night-time

construction works are no longer undertaken; construction work is

undertaken between the agreed hours of 7 AM and 12 AM.

Operation of the wind farm is 24 hours per day and therefore the

substation controlled room is manned throughout the night.

The substation is located in the central part of the wind farm and the

nearest receptors are located approximately 750 m to the south east

and south west.

Achieved November 2014

Based on discussion with the Contractors and the OE,

ERM is satisfied that night-time construction works

are no longer undertaken.

The construction daily reports were requested from

EBWPC and during March 2015, the timesheets for

November 2014 to January 2015 were provided to

ERM. The timesheets show the working hours for

construction workers. Based on the timesheets most

construction workers finished work between 5 pm

and 7 pm.

2.2 To manage construction noise

levels and minimize disturbance

to nearby households, EBWPC

should implement a Traffic

Management Plan during

construction.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, DENR

Standards

October 2014 Traffic Management Plan, including monitoring records

Compliance of monitored noise levels with DENR and IFC standards

Site Manager, to

check traffic

management

plan has been

implemented.

Safety Manager

to implement the

traffic

management

plan.

The Traffic Management Plan is proposed in Section 15.12 and

Appendix I of the ESIA.

Appendix I of the ESIA includes First Balfour’s preliminary traffic

management plan, and updated versions were provided to ERM for

review: First Issue (2013), and Second Issue (2014). The scope of

First Balfour’s Traffic Management Plan applies to:

Access roads leading to and from all project activity areas.

Roads utilized for personnel, materials and equipment

operation and transport.

Access roads for construction.

During ERM’s site visit, it was noted that traffic is generally well

managed around the Project site, with the 20 km/hr speed limit

applied by vehicles on the access roads, however, there are no signs

to remind drivers of the speed limit.

Achieved December 2014

A Traffic Management Plan is in place and is implemented by First Balfour, and monitored by the

OE. In general any non-compliance is identified by

the Owner’s Engineer, and First Balfour is

responsible for any corrective action(s).

2.3 To manage construction noise levels and minimize disturbance to nearby households, EBWPC should conduct noise monitoring at impact areas and submit the results to the Financing Parties (Independent Monitoring Consultant to review the noise monitoring methodology and observe the monitoring).

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, DENR

Standards

October 2014 Compliance of monitored noise levels with DENR and IFC standards

Minimal complaints from stakeholders

Conformance to action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager, to

check that

monitoring has

been undertaken.

Pollution Control

Officer.

Pollution Control

Officer to

undertake the

monitoring.

Based on ERM’s limited informal interviews with the stakeholders in

the local community, since civil works in the wind farm area were

completed, construction noise is not considered to be a concern

The substation is located in the central part of the wind farm and the

nearest receptors are located approximately 750 m to the south east

and south west.

Noise monitoring is undertaken on a monthly basis by EBWPC,

however, as the wind farm is already operating, reference should be

made to 2.5 on operation noise. The ESIA identifies the construction

noise limit to be 60 dBA, but does not specify where this applies.

The IFC EHS Guidelines do not specify any construction specific

noise limits.

Achieved January 2015

EBWPC has implemented ERM’s October 2014

recommendations for the reporting (i.e. including

date/time of the monitoring, wind speed and any

observations made of noise sources).

Since the Project is already operating with minimal

construction activity at the substation site only

(which is not near any noise sensitive receptors), the

recommendations in 2.5 should apply, and ERM does

not have any specific recommendations for

construction noise monitoring.

2.4 During operation, EBWPC

should carry out stakeholder

engagement which includes

Information, Education, and

Communication (IEC) campaign

on noise to local communities

and officials in the barangays

affected by the wind farm.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan

drafted in accordance with

ESIA/IFC PS. Stakeholder

engagement commenced at

communities around the wind

farm. Thereafter, stakeholders

engaged in accordance with the

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4

30 April 2015* Stakeholder engagement records on noise.

Completion of IEC and grievance mechanism communicated.

Site Manager to

check on

progress of the

stakeholder

engagement.

Site Manager and

Community

Relations Officer

to undertake the

stakeholder

engagement.

EDC Public

Relations

Department to

provide the IEC

materials.

Based on PB’s due diligence reports and discussion with EBWPC,

stakeholder engagement was previously limited. When

commissioning and testing of the Project commenced in October

2014, no stakeholder engagement has been undertaken to

communicate the “start-up” of the WTGs.

EBWPC’s progress on stakeholder engagement is presented in ESAP

requirement 6.1. This ESAP requirement concerns IEC on

operational noise.

During December 2014, IEC materials were provided to ERM for

review, and ERM reviewed the IEC materials in terms of information,

education and disclosure of noise impacts. It is understood that

EBWPC carried out IEC with the barangay officials in December 2014,

however, ERM has requested that EBWPC revise some of the

materials for further IEC activities.

In December 2014, EBWPC advised that IEC activities and full

stakeholder engagement has been delayed because:

Achieved June 2015

EBWPC has conducted stakeholder engagement and

IEC on noise with affected persons and their

representatives.

The 2nd draft of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan

was provided to ERM in September 2015 with most

of ERM’s initial comments addressed. ERM has

provided some minor comments on the plan in

previous report, but this ESAP requirement is

considered to be achieved.

Plan. i. During November 2014, the Energy Regulatory Commission

(ERC) Certificate of Compliance (related to the commercial

operation of the project and the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) had still not

been secured, and EDC was concerned about “the political risk of

these requirements and the competitive race for FiT;

ii. February is fiesta time for Burgos and doing the IEC during this

festive occasion will strategically reach out to a larger group of

stakeholders; and

iii. More time will be given in developing IEC materials ensuring

them to be more effective.”

EBWPC started IEC activities in February 2015, and the activities

have involved the following:

i. Manned Burgos Wind Project information tent at the Burgos

Fiesta in February 2015;

ii. Revision of project information leaflets, and making these

available at barangay halls in April-May 2015;

iii. Leaflet and IEC on noise at Project Disaster Preparedness

Orientation, which was held from 1 to 8 June in 11 barangays (4

hours in each barangay). It was attended by Barangay Officials,

Barangay Health Workers and community residents (min 25

persons/max 50 persons);

iv. During May and June 2015, a HH survey/discussion with 30

households which are closest to the wind farm (including in

Saoit). EBWPC carried out the household survey/discussion

using guide questions on shadow flicker and noise. The survey

covered 30 households in the barangays of Saoit, Poblacion and

Nagsurot.

2.5 During operation, EBWPC should monitor noise levels during operation of wind turbines and conduct mitigating measures, as necessary. The following actions are identified

i. Conduct monthly validation noise monitoring and compare the results with the applicable standards.

ii. Based on the noise monitoring results and any grievances, consider if mitigation is required (e.g. engineering controls and resettlement), and implement is accordingly.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, IFC PS5

(if necessary),

DENR

Standard

30 April 2015*

Timetable for

any mitigation

(if required),

to be

determined

later.

Noise monitoring reports.

Compliance with noise standards of DENR and IFC

Mitigating measures implemented, as applicable

Status report provided to Financing Parties.

Site Manager, to

check that

monitoring has

been undertaken.

Pollution Control

Officer to

undertake the

monitoring.

In accordance with ERM’s scope of work, the noise monitoring

methodology has been reviewed by ERM. Undertaking the noise

monitoring is not part of ERM’s scope of work.

From December 2014 to March 2015, ERM provided support to

EBWPC to develop the operational noise methodology.

EBWPC has purchased an IFC compliant sound level meter and

anemometer and on 14 and 15 April 2015, the noise equipment

supplier provided training to EBWPC site-based employees on noise

monitoring. From 27 to 30 April 2015, ERM witnessed the noise

monitoring being undertaken by EBWPC and was satisfied with the

methodology and the equipment. Recommendations were made for

alternative noise monitoring locations which are more representative

of the impacts to the noise sensitive receivers.

The noise results and discussion on the noise monitoring results are

presented in Annex B3 and discussed in Annex E). Notably, the

monitoring results for the operation stage are generally lower than

Substantially Achieved in January 2016

EBWPC has taken steps towards implementation

EBWPC has undertaken noise monitoring with IFC-

compliant equipment. The preliminary results show

that the night time noise monitoring results at N2 still

occasionally exceeded the noise limits in the IFC EHS

Guidelines for Wind Energy. However, considering

new baseline and monitoring method (to exclude

abnormal background noise from the raw data

(review of noise monitoring record sheet and noise

monitoring raw data indicate that these exceedance

were largely due to the background noise such as dog

barking, insects, waves and rapidly approaching

vehicles from the surrounding of the noise monitoring

stations. This kind of background noise can be

during construction.

Since start-up of the WTGs (in October 2014), the operation of the

WTGs has been curtailed due to NGCP’s pending completion of the

upgrade of the transmission line (this is now expected to be

completed by late 2015/early 20162015). According to EBWPC, as

the NPC has been significantly delayed which is impacting on

revenue, additional resources have been provided to NPC by EBWPC

and other wind farm operators in Ilocos Norte so that the

transmission line can be completed. EBWPC has advised that the

curtailment is impacting on noise levels and ERM has requested data

from Vestas on this.

Grievances in relation to operational noise (particularly at night-time)

were reported at receptors in Barangay Saoit in November 2014; this

is consistent with the predicted night-time exceedance in the ESIA.

No grievances or issues were identified in the household survey/IEC

discussion in May and June 2015 and there are considered to be no

on-going grievances.

extracted by screening of raw data of noise

measurement (to be strictly verified with the noise

monitoring record form during the measurement)

so as to better reflect the actual noise contribution

from the WTGs. Likewise if abnormal noise from

the WTGs are detected during the noise

measurement, it shall be noted on the noise

monitoring record form so that the noise level can

be verified after the measurement.) has been

established, it is considered to be achieved and

monthly noise monitoring in the new stations (N1-

2015 to N7-2015) shall continue.

After further observations and monitoring,

EBWPC made adjustments to the timing of the

data collection to be consistent with the wind

conditions during the baseline period (low wind

conditions), resulting to no exceedance recorded

starting 4Q 2018.

2.6 In coordination with the

stakeholders, EBPWC should

establish a grievance mechanism

(Grievance Management

Procedure) for affected

communities.

Communicate grievance

mechanism to stakeholders and

determine if any revisions are

required for the grievance

mechanism.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, IFC PS5

(if necessary),

DENR

Standard

30 April 2015* Grievance mechanism, which has been implemented.

Grievances being recorded.

Stakeholders aware of the grievance mechanism.

Grievances with regards to noise are identified and addressed.

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the grievance

mechanism.

Community

Relations Officer

to implement the

grievance

mechanism.

The grievance mechanism includes contact method for stakeholders

to comment, lodge grievances or ask questions in person, by email,

by phone or by SMS. EBWPC has communicated the grievance

mechanism – refer to 6.2.

By September 2015, EWBPC had displayed the poster describing the

grievance mechanism in the 29 barangay halls where the wind farm

and the transmission line are located.

Achieved June 2015

EBWPC has communicated the grievance mechanism

to affected persons and their representatives.

2.7 EBWPC should implement a

Traffic Management Plan (for

Project-related traffic) for during

operation of the Wind Farm.

The Traffic Management Plan

should include the public roads.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, DENR

Standards

March 2015 Traffic Management Plan, including monitoring records

Compliance of monitored noise levels with DENR and IFC standards

Site Manager, to

check traffic

management

plan has been

implemented.

Safety Manager

to implement the

traffic

management

plan.

A Traffic Management Plan has been prepared by EBWPC and

included in the draft ESMS (MP 9). The plan is considered to be

implemented on site.

Achieved June 2015

ERM considers that the plan is acceptable and is

being implemented.

ERM is satisfied that the Traffic Management Plan

has been upgraded and is being implemented.

There is one further minor recommendation that the

map should include the traffic management measures

and traffic signs. However, this is a very minor

suggestion for improvement and EBWPC's better

implementation of the plan.

3. Shadow flicker monitoring plan and mitigation program

3.1 EBWPC should conduct

stakeholder engagement

through an Information,

Education, and Communication

(IEC) campaign on shadow

flicker to local communities and

officials in the barangays

affected by the wind farm.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan

drafted in accordance with

ESIA/IFC PS. Stakeholder

engagement commenced at

communities around the wind

farm. Thereafter, stakeholders

engaged in accordance with the

Plan.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, IFC PS5

(if necessary),

Good

Practice

30 April 2015* Stakeholder engagement records on noise.

Completion of IEC and grievance mechanism communicated.

Site Manager to

check on

progress of the

stakeholder

engagement.

Site Manager and

Community

Relations Officer

to undertake the

stakeholder

engagement.

EDC Public

Relations

Department to

provide the IEC

materials.

Based on PB’s due diligence reports and discussion with EBWPC,

stakeholder engagement was previously limited. When

commissioning and testing of the Project commenced in October

2014, no stakeholder engagement has been undertaken to

communicate the “start-up” of the WTGs.

EBWPC’s progress on stakeholder engagement is presented in ESAP

requirement 6.1. This ESAP requirement concerns IEC on shadow

flicker.

During December 2014, IEC materials were provided to ERM for

review, and ERM reviewed the IEC materials in terms of information,

education and disclosure of shadow flicker impacts. It is

understood that EBWPC carried out IEC with the barangay officials

in December 2014, however, ERM has requested that EBWPC revise

some of the materials for further IEC activities.

In December 2014, EBWPC advised that IEC activities and full

stakeholder engagement has been delayed because:

i. During November 2014, the Energy Regulatory Commission

(ERC) Certificate of Compliance (related to the commercial

operation of the project and the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) had still not

been secured, and EDC was concerned about “the political risk of

these requirements and the competitive race for FiT;

ii. February is fiesta time for Burgos and doing the IEC during this

festive occasion will strategically reach out to a larger group of

stakeholders; and

iii. More time will be given in developing IEC materials ensuring

them to be more effective.”

EBWPC started IEC activities in February 2015, and the activities

have involved the following:

i. Manned Burgos Wind Project information tent at the Burgos

Fiesta in February 2015;

ii. Revision of project information leaflets, and making these

available at barangay halls in April-May 2015;

iii. Leaflet and IEC on shadow flicker at Project Disaster

Preparedness Orientation, which was held from 1 to 8 June in 11

barangays (4 hours in each barangay). It was attended by

Barangay Officials, Barangay Health Workers and community

residents (min 25 persons/max 50 persons);

iv. During May and June 2015, a HH survey/discussion with 30

households which are closest to the wind farm (including in

Saoit). EBWPC carried out the household survey/discussion

using guide questions on shadow flicker and noise. The

survey covered 30 households in the barangays of Saoit,

Poblacion and Nagsurot.

Achieved in October 2015

EBWPC has conducted stakeholder engagement and

IEC on shadow flicker with affected persons and their

representatives.

3.2 EBWPC should consider the

effects of shadow flicker on

nearby properties. The

following actions are identified:

i. Carry out adequate stakeholder engagement should be undertaken to communicate what shadow flicker is, and to collect data on which properties are affected, and any health concerns (e.g. epilepsy, headaches etc.). Ensure the 19 households are included in the stakeholder engagement (women should also be included as they spend more time at home).

ii. Establish if there are any grievances related to shadow flicker.

iii. If necessary, implement mitigation, and conduct validation monitoring based on the results of the shadow- flicker modelling; and

iv. If necessary, undertake impact assessment and prepare a resettlement plan and implement mitigation through engineering controls and resettlement.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, IFC PS5

(if necessary),

Good

Practice

May 2015#

Timetable for

any mitigation

(if required),

to be

determined

later.

Compliance with IFC

standards Completion of

IEC and establishment

of grievance mechanism

Mitigating measures

implemented, as applicable

Status report provided to

Financing Parties

Site Manager, to

check on

implementation

of the action.

Pollution Control

Officer and

Community

Relations Officer

EBWPC has not carried out a reassessment of the shadow flicker

impact which was carried out as part of the ESIA.

EBWPC has advised that in the event of any grievances, as a first

step, it is intended to provide curtains through the stakeholder

engagement for people who may be affected by shadow flicker.

Based on ERM’s limited interviews, shadow flicker does affect certain

properties and sunrise, but unlike the noise, the Affected Persons

were not particularly concerned with the impact.

Summary of EBWPC’s progress:

i. With reference to ESAP requirement 3.1, IEC commenced during

Dec 2014, and involved barangay captains. EBWPC advised that

this will be completed by carrying out an IEC and a survey at the

19 households which were previously determined to be possibly

affected by shadow flicker. The household survey was

rescheduled for April 2015 and was undertaken in May and June

2015.

ii. EBWPC advised that based on the household survey results and

discussion with local communities, there are no current grievances

related to shadow flicker. It was found that in the summer time, 7

out of the 30 households surveyed are impacted by shadow flicker

for a maximum of 1 hour per day (i.e. at sunrise), however, it is not

considered to be a nuisance. IEC materials on shadow flicker and

details of the grievance mechanism are available are available in

the barangay offices.

iii. No current requirement for mitigation has been established.

A procedure for monitoring shadow flicker has been included in the

Draft ESMS (MP 2). The procedure outlines what to do in the event

that a grievance on shadow flicker is received and possible mitigation

options. The plan has taken in to account ERM’s previous

recommendations on what to do if a grievance is received.

EBWPC advised that they will revisit the community in the next dry

(summer) season to determine if shadow flicker is an issue and if

mitigation is required.

Achieved June 2015

Since the Project is already operating, the

reassessment (i.e. modelling) of the potential impact

of shadow flicker is considered to less beneficial, and

that EBWPC should focus efforts on IEC and

determining if there are any grievances .

i and ii – The survey determined that there are no

current grievances related to shadow flicker.

iii and iv. No assessment currently required.

It is suggested that the Community Relations Officer

form a close rapport with the community in Saoit

which are closest to the WTG, so that any questions

on shadow flicker can be answered, without a

grievance being triggered. Records of stakeholder

engagement should be maintained.

3.3 In coordination with the

stakeholders, EBPWC should

establish a grievance mechanism

(Grievance Management

Procedure) for affected

communities.

Communicate grievance

mechanism to stakeholders and

determine if any revisions are

required for the grievance

mechanism.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, IFC PS5

(if necessary),

Good

Practice

30 April 2015* Grievance mechanism, which has been implemented.

Grievances being recorded.

Stakeholders aware of the grievance mechanism.

Grievances on shadow flicker are identified and addressed.

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the grievance

mechanism.

Community Relations Officer to implement the grievance mechanism

The grievance mechanism includes contact method for stakeholders

to comment, lodge grievances or ask questions in person, by email,

by phone or by SMS. EBWPC has communicated the grievance

mechanism – refer to 6.2.

By September 2015, EWBPC had displayed the poster describing the grievance mechanism in the 29 barangay halls where the wind farm and the transmission line are located.

Achieved June 2015

EBWPC has communicated the grievance mechanism

to affected persons and their representatives.

4. Flora, fauna and biodiversity

4.1 During the construction phase,

EBWPC should ensure minimal

removal of vegetation for wind

farm and transmission towers

areas, and minimize loss of

species, habitat, and habitat

fragmentation by conducting the

following:

i. Limit clearing activities

and cutting of trees at

designated construction

areas only.

ii. If further tree cutting is

required, secure tree

cutting permits prior to

cutting of trees;

iii. Implement alternatives to

tree cutting, if possible,

such as tree pruning or

removal branches;

iv. Avoid cutting of critical

species such as the Bantigue

trees along the coast of the

project. If cannot be

avoided, such trees will be

earth-balled. If cutting, the

same species will be planted

as replacement following

the 1:100 ratio of DENR;

v. Maintain safe zones by

avoiding critical habitats

such as the Kapurpurawan

coastal area;

vi. Protect ecosystems/

habitats which are not

affected by site clearing by

maintaining the natural

vegetation;

vii. Prepare terminal report for

submission to DENR on

project compliance with

tree cutting permit (TCP)

conditions and

implementation of

reforestation program.

viii. Report to be accepted by

DENR.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS6, DENR

requirements,

Good practice

i. to vi - to be

completed by

October 2014

vii - to be

completed by

November

2014

viii - to be

completed by

January 2015

Compliance with conditions stipulated in the FLAg permits

DENR approved terminal report.

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action.

Forester to liaise

with the

contractors and

implement the

action, including

preparation of

the terminal

report.

Since tree cutting activities are not being undertaken and are already

complete, this action is generally not relevant to current site activities.

i. Clearing and cutting of trees appears to have only being

undertaken in the location of the WTGs, laydown areas and

access roads.

ii. EBWPC advised that further tree cutting for the Burgos Wind

Project is not required.

iii. EBWPC advised that no tree cutting was undertaken from

October 2014 to March 2015; no tree cutting was being

undertaken during ERM’s site visit.

iv. The Bantigue trees remain along the jetty area, and trees outside

of this area have not been disturbed. Based on ERM’s

discussion with EBWPC and the contractors, no Bantigue trees

were cut during October 2014 to March 2015.

v. Natural vegetation is not disturbed in the Kapurpurawan

coastal area;

vi. Vegetation has only been disturbed in existing cleared areas.

vii. The EBWPC Forester submitted the Terminal Report to the

DENR in December 2014, and this was provided to ERM in

March 2015.

iii. A meeting with CENRO-Bangui to discuss the draft terminal

reports for Flag areas was held on 28th April. No document

approving the terminal reports was issued by DENR.

Achieved June 2015

EBWPC should ensure on-going compliance with the

following: Protect ecosystems/ habitats which are not

affected by site clearing by maintaining the natural

vegetation. There is a potential for non-compliance

should previously undisturbed areas of land in the

wind farm development area be cleared for the solar

project. EBWPC has advised that no new areas land

will be disturbed and solar panels will only be

installed on previously cleared land.

i to vii are considered to be complete.

iv. On 8 July 2015, ERM visited the CENRO officer in

Bangui and discussed the reinstatement of the Project

site with CENRO Officer Mr. Victor Dabalos. Mr.

Dabalos advised that the reinstatement works had

been accepted by the composite team and that the

Terminal Report was a high quality report that

should be replicated by other wind farm operators in

the area. The only recommendation for further

reinstatement works was that focus should be on

planting flora species which are indigenous to the

area so that they are more likely to withstand the

harsh conditions (i.e. little or no topsoil; rocky

subsurface material; presence of grazing animals;

limited water; and hot dry windy season; wet rainy

season).

4.2 During the operation phase,

EBWPC should ensure minimal

removal of vegetation in the

wind farm and transmission

towers by:

i. Implementing forest

protection activities, by

monitoring illegal logging

and poaching activities.

ii. Include for management of

any further tree cutting

activities in the EMMP/

EMS (refer to the measures

in 4.1).

IFC PS3, IFC

PS6, DENR

requirements,

Good practice

i. January

2015 – plan

to be in

place

February

2015 –

training to

be

conducted

ii.January

2015 – EMP

to be in

place.

October

2015 – EMS

to be in

place.

Compliance with conditions stipulated in the FLAg permits

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager

check on

implementation

of the action.

Forester to draft

and implement

the illegal

logging

monitoring plan.

Security Team to

undertake

monitoring.

The draft ESMS has been provided to ERM and this includes a

procedure for protection of flora and fauna and implementation of

conservation measures (MP 5).

The procedure includes a methodology for monitoring and reporting

illegal logging and poaching activities (section 3.1).

EBWPC has advised that no further tree cutting will be carried out.

First Balfour has a procedure for tree pruning/trimming. The

procedure involves getting permission of the land owner to prune the

tree. No reference is made to pruning of trees in the forest land.

Achieved June 2015

The draft ESMS incorporates a procedure which

includes a methodology for monitoring and reporting

illegal logging and poaching activities

4.3 EBPWC should ensure

implementation of a properly

managed reinstatement program

which mitigates impacts related

to landscape change/ loss of

species and habitat/habitat

fragmentation, carry out the

following:

i. In coordination with the

responsible contractors,

produce and implement a

Reinstatement Plan which

includes landscaping and

tree planting at disturbed

areas

ii. Use native species in re-

vegetation activities and

avoid introduction of

invasive alien species;

IFC PS3, IFC

PS6, DENR

requirements,

Good practice

November

2014 -

Reinstatement

Plan to be

finalized.

Ongoing re-

instatement

until early

2015.

(Maintenance

will be

continuous all

throughout

project life)

Reinstatement Plan.

Compliance with conditions stipulated in the FLAg and ECC.

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action and

coordinate with

the contractors.

Forester and

Pollution Control

Officer to carry

out monitoring of

the

implementation/

contractor

progress.

The following summarizes the progress:

- October 2014: Reinstatement activities for the wind farm area has

been undertaken by First Balfour, and monitored by the Owner’s

Engineer. EBWPC advised that a Reinstatement Plan had been

drafted by First Balfour, but was pending approval by the Owner’s

Engineer and EBWPC. Teams of local people from the local

communities had been hired to carry out the reinstatement (e.g.

preparing the ground, planting seeds and watering the ground).

Coconut matting is being used for stabilization of the earth. The

former construction areas include bare earth, disturbed natural

drainage, exposed slopes, steep slopes, scars in the rock face, and

loose spoil material.

- November 2014: EBPWC has advised that an overall Project

reinstatement plan will not be prepared as the approval process

will take too long for the works to commence. Instead EBWPC’s Owner’s Engineer will provide punchlists of works to be

completed for each WTG area. The preparation of the

punchlists commenced in late November.

Achieved December 2016.

EBWPC has taken steps towards

implementation

A total of 145 slopes or sites in five (5) sections are

identified as reinstatement and revegetation area on

the Plan. As of December 2015, 88 of these locations

(60.7%) were inspected with completion. EBWPC

is recommended to continue the reinstatement and

revegetation programme and update the

Reinstatement/Revegetation Plan on quarterly

basis until end of 2016.

Reinstatement and revegetation programme

continued until end 2016, satisfying the

requirements above.

ii. Protect ecosystems/habitats which are not affected by site clearing by maintaining the natural vegetation;

iii. Maintain safe zones by avoiding critical habitats such as the Kapurpurawan coastal area;

iv. Protect ecosystems/habitats which are not affected by site clearing by maintaining the natural vegetation.

Contractors to

implement the

reinstatement

plan.

- December 2014: EBWPC has provided the punchlists of the areas

which are targeted for rehabilitation to ERM for 1-31 December

2014 for review. The Owner’s Engineer is preparing the

monitoring the implementation of the punchlists to ensure that the

items are closed out.

- March 2015: The Owner’s Engineer confirmed that the final

outstanding punch list items have now been handed over to

EBWPC. The Construction Manager (Edwin Dela Fuente) is

assigned to monitor the reinstatement works. DENR Composite

Team (including CENRO, PENRO, Region 1 and LGUs) is doing

periodic inspection to monitor the rehabilitation works and, if

necessary, provide recommendations for improvement. EBWPC

advised that the DENR team inspected the reinstatement works on

3-4 March 2015. At the time of writing this report, the comments

from the DENR on the reinstatement works were not available.

- April 2015 onwards: The terminal report was accepted by DENR.

EBWPC will assess if any further requirements for revegetation are

required after the rainy season. It is expected that the rains will

have a positive impact on the vegetation at the site.

- September 2015: It is clear that EBWPC has been undertaken

reinstatement works, and has prepared the plans to meet DENR

requirements. However, ERM considers that a detailed

Reinstatement/Re-vegetation Plan should be prepared to clearly

indicate what will be undertaken on site and to meet IFC

requirements.

- EBWPC has checklists which indicate outstanding works

identified by the Owner’s Engineer. The Rehabilitation and Re-

greening Plan provides a high-level program of activities and no

drawings/maps are included.

- EBWPC should provide a proper Re-vegetation Plan for works going forward. The reinstatement/revegetation works should be related to the approximate 75 hectares of land which was cleared

for the project as shown in Figure 1 Land Cover Map in the 2014

Flora and Fauna Monitoring Report (Pastor L. Malabrigo and Rolly C. Urriza) and also the off-site compensatory planting. It is

important to have an understanding of how EBWPC is intending

for the cleared areas to look after the reinstatement/revegetation

compared to the current appearance. ERM is not expecting the

cleared areas to be fully vegetated, but rather, the procedures in

place for the initial vegetation and then monitoring by EBWPC of

the natural vegetation succession. The revegetation should be

sufficient to prevent erosion and should use suitable plant species.

In September 2015, ERM notes that the reinstatement/revegetation

procedures and documentation requirements have been improved,

however, we have some further recommendations. The

recommendations were implemented in January 2016.

4.4 EBWPC should minimize loss of

species, habitat, and habitat

fragmentation by conducting the

following:

i. Implement biodiversity

offsets as part of the

reforestation program;

ii. Draft a Reforestation Plan;

iii. DENR-Region 1 provide

confirmation that the

Reforestation Plan is

acceptable;

iv. Implement the Reforestation

Plan.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS6, DENR

requirements,

Good practice

December

2014 –

Reforestation

Plan to be

available

Compliance with conditions stipulated in the forestry permits (FLAg, tree cutting permits)

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action.

Forester to carry

out monitoring of

the

implementation/

contractor

progress.

Contractors to

implement the

reforestation plan

During December 2014, the Rehabilitation and Re-greening Plan was

provided to ERM for review. In summary:

i. Biodiversity off-sets in the plan include areas of public land that

will be identified for planting with indigenous tree species

(locally indigenous species targeted). EBWPC’s commitment is

100 trees to be planted for every tree that was cut/removed, for

the Project. This equates to a maximum of 1,121,300 trees (based

on the permits), with an 80% survival rate after 3 years of

maintenance. In addition, as part of EBWPC’s Tree for the

Future program, threatened/endangered species will be planted.

Terminal reports for three (3) TCPs for private lands were

approved and endorsed by CENRO-Bangui to DENR Region 1.

Meeting with CENRO-Bangui to discuss the draft terminal

reports for Flag areas are set on 28 April.

ii. The Reforestation/Rehabilitation and Re-greening Plan has been

prepared by EBWPC’s Forester.

iii. The plan has been approved by DENR as confirmed by ERM’s

discussion with the Bangui CENRO Officer in July 2015.

iv. In general, EBWPC has started to implement the plan.

Achieved June 2015

Monitoring of the reforestation efforts/

compensatory planting should be undertaken by

EBWPC. It is recommended that this is included

in the Re-vegetation Plan.

4.5 EBWPC should minimize loss of

species, and implement

measures for threatened species,

by carrying out the following::

i. Develop and implement mitigating measures for each identified threatened species (in the ESIA: 18 flora and 7 fauna)

ii. Conduct an IEC Campaign to raise general awareness about threatened species of flora and fauna among members of the community.

iii. Conduct environmental awareness training on the threatened species of flora and fauna among the contractors and the security staff

IFC PS3, IFC

PS6, DENR

requirements,

Good practice

May 2015# Mitigating measures available.

Mitigation measures implemented.

IEC records. Training

materials and attendance.

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action.

Forester to carry

out training and

implement the

action.

Community

Relations Officer

to undertake the

IEC with

assistance from

the Forester.

EBWPC advised that for the threatened flora species, a survey of the

boundary for the vegetated areas not affected during construction

was conducted. This is so an updated baseline map that will be

used in planning and setting control measures can be developed.

The 2014 Flora and Fauna Monitoring Report (Pastor L. Malabrigo

and Rolly C. Urriza) was provided to ERM.

Summary of progress:

i. EBWPC’s proposed mitigation for the threatened species is in line

with RA 9147: Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act

and is presented in the IEC materials (Protected Species at the Burgos

Wind Farm and Transmission Lines).

i. Can be considered as complete: Awareness of threatened species of

trees is raised through the planting of trees at schools (as referred to

in the Terminal Reports).

ii. Environmental awareness training is proposed as part of the

induction. The materials were provided to ERM for review and

ERM found the information to be very well presented and detailed.

Achieved June 2015

IEC materials on protected species are referenced in

the Draft ESMS in Procedure MP 5 Section 3.4).

ERM has made specific comments on the ESMS in

Annex C. Considering that snakes have been

unnecessarily killed by workers, snakes should be

specifically referred to in the IEC.

ERM considers that there are opportunities for IEC in

the communities/schools for raising environmental

awareness of threatened species of fauna (e.g.

through a project tourist office or through school

visits), however, these can be developed later in the

life cycle of the project (i.e. 2015-2016).

4.6 During operation, EBWPC

should monitor bird/bat strikes

by carrying out the following:

i. Put a procedure in place and conduct regular monitoring for evidence of bird and bat strikes and retrieve for identification.

ii. Include in the procedure for increased frequency of monitoring during the migratory season; and

ii. Include in the monitoring procedure for review of records, and in the event of high frequency of bird/bat strikes, conduct a fauna study.

IFC PS6,

Good

practice

i. February

2015

ii. February

2015

iii. February

2015

Bird Monitoring Procedure;

Training records;

Monitoring records

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action.

Forester to carry

out training and

implement the

action. Security

Team (foot

patrols and

security guard) to

undertake the

monitoring.

Forester to

review the

results.

i. In February 2015, EBWPC started monitoring and maintaining

records of bird and bat strikes, and EBWPC commented that this

is undertaken daily with the aid of security personnel. Records

of incidents of bird/bat strikes incident are available.

Identification is being done by the National Museum together

with its ID certification. The procedure and protocol will be

formally approved following the document control system that

will be developed through the ESMS.

ii. The Draft ESMS includes a procedure for bird and bat-kill

monitoring (MP 7 Bird and Bat and Other Monitoring Procedure).

The procedure includes for daily monitoring but a schedule of

which WTGs will be visited is not provided.

iii. Section 7of the procedure included for review of the records and

sets a strike frequency level for action to be taken.

Achieved September 2015

ERM comments that the procedure is adequate and

that the monitoring records are good.

5. Climate Change Adaptation

5.1 For the operation phase, EBWPC

should develop a procedure and

schedule (which takes in to

account contractor

responsibilities) to ensure that

an annual assessment of the

structural integrity of wind

turbines, transmission towers,

substation, and other support

facilities is undertaken.

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, Good

practice

Overall

procedure and

Schedule to be

advised by

March 2015

Structural assessment schedule

Structural assessment records

Site Manager to

liaise with O&M

contractors to

ensure that an

adequate

assessment

procedure is in

place and that

this is

undertaken.

Vestas advised that an annual structural integrity assessment has

been scheduled for the WTGs. ERM reviewed the schedule for 2015

and found that all WTGs are to be inspected by December 2015.

A maintenance schedule for provided for inspection and

maintenance of the substation equipment.

First Balfour will be responsible for the O&M of the transmission line

and advised that an annual assessment will be undertaken. An

organization chart and detailed maintenance manual was provided

but the schedule was not provided to ERM for review.

A procedure and checklist for undertaking structural assessment

inspections has been incorporated in to the ESMS (MP 6

Reinstatement and Maintenance). EBWPC is responsible for

identifying required works. As of September 2015, EBWPC

advised that the contract for maintenance of the balance of plant is

pending (i.e. roads, jetty and drains).

Achieved September 2015

The Civil Works Maintenance Contract, of which the

scope of maintenance work included the structural

assessment) was signed in 29 January 2016 between

EBWPC and IPM Construction & Development

Corporation (IPM).

It is recommended that the schedule for the annual

assessment is undertaken by December each year

(the first assessment should be completed by

December 2016).

5.2 Put measures in place so that

during the operation phase,

upgrade work/reinforcements,

repairs, or other mitigating

measures are undertaken as

necessary to ensure the

adaptability of the facilities to

extreme weather events

IFC PS3, IFC

PS4, Good

practice

January 2015 Completed upgrading of installations (if necessary)

Site Manager to

liaise with O&M

contractors to

ensure that an

adequate

assessment

procedure is in

place and that

this is

undertaken.

The design of the WTGs, substation and transmission line considered

extreme weather events.

Vestas has a response plan in place to carry out visual checks of the

WTGs following typhoons and other extreme weather events. The

WTGs are fitted with alarms in the event that any faults are recorded

and this can be monitored remotely.

The Maintenance Manual for the Transmission Line identified that

extreme weather can affect the transmission line, but does not

described checking/maintenance measures to be undertaken to

prevent these.

A procedure and checklist for undertaking structural assessment

inspections has been incorporated in to the ESMS (MP 6 Reinstatement

and Maintenance). EBWPC is responsible for identifying required

works. As of September 2015, EBWPC advised that the contract for

maintenance of the balance of plant is pending (i.e. roads, jetty and

drains).

Achieved September 2015

ERM has checked the implementation of the

ESMS Procedure MP6 in December 2015.

6. Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Grievance Mechanism

6.1 EBWPC should develop and

implement a continuing

Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

EBWPC should engage with the

community through a formal

engagement process and set out

in the Stakeholder Engagement

Plan.

Stakeholder Engagement Plan

drafted in accordance with

ESIA/IFC PS. Stakeholder

engagement commenced at

communities around the wind

farm. Thereafter, stakeholders

engaged in accordance with the

Plan.

IFC PS1 30 April 2015* Stakeholder Engagement Plan available

Records to show that Stakeholder Engagement Plan has been communicated to all Stakeholders

Records of Stakeholder Engagement Plan measures that are implemented

Enhanced social acceptability (e.g. lesser number of valid grievances over time)

Greater awareness of the Project by stakeholders.

Site Manager to

check on

progress of the

stakeholder

engagement.

Site Manager and

Community

Relations Officer

to undertake the

stakeholder

engagement.

EDC Public

Relations

Department to

provide the IEC

materials.

Prior to construction, EBWPC carried out IEC activities in the

communities around the wind farm. However, the IEC was not been

formalized as a plan and all stakeholder engagement was not

recorded.

In June 2015, the draft ESMS was provided which includes the

Stakeholder Engagement Plan as procedure MP 1.

The draft procedure includes the following:-

Introduction (still to be completed)

Identification of specific requirements from legislation, ESIA

etc (still to be completed)

Methodology (i.e. steps for implementing the plan), includes:

identifying stakeholders and preparing a database and

grievance mechanism.

Records (i.e. stakeholder log).

ERM provided some recommendations on the Stakeholder

Engagement Plan and these were subsequently addressed by

EBWPC.

Achieved September 2014

The requirements related to the Stakeholder

Engagement Plan are considered to be achieved. ERM

will make some minor comments on the content

of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, for example, in

relation to vulnerable groups.

EBWPC should continue to implement the

Stakeholder Engagement Plan throughout operation.

6.2 In coordination with the

stakeholders, EBWPC should

establish a grievance mechanism

(Grievance Management

Procedure) for affected

communities and workers

IFC PS1,

Good

practice

September 2014

– Grievance

Mechanism to

be drafted.

November 2014

– All EBWPC

staff to receive

training is how

to record any

grievances

received.

November and

December 2014

– Grievance

mechanism to

be

communicated

to stakeholders

(it should be

communicated

to the

communities

nearest the

wind farm

first).

December 2014

– Contractors

and

subcontractors

also to have a

grievance

mechanism in

place (for

affected

communities)

Grievance Mechanism available

Communicatio n records available

Grievance Procedure implemented

Hit rate on the number of complaints that were addressed

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the grievance

mechanism.

Community

Relations Officer

to implement the

grievance

mechanism.

October 2014: EBWPC provided the grievance mechanism to ERM for

review. EBWPC had displayed posters at the municipal halls in the

municipalities where the Project is located (e.g. Burgos and the

municipalities affected by the transmission line), see Annex B4. Since

stakeholder engagement had not been undertaken recently with all

stakeholders, the grievance mechanism had not been communicated

to all of the stakeholders (including the Affected Persons). The

stakeholders were not involved in the design of the grievance

mechanism. EBWPC advised that staff (including security

personnel) received informal training on how to record grievances in

September 2014.

November 2014: The grievance mechanism was communicated to

Barangay Captains and Municipal Officials at the training seminar.

The Barangay Captains are the first point of contact for the Affected

Persons.

EDC has a policy and mechanism for worker grievances which is

applicable to all subsidiary companies including EBWPC. The draft

ESMS includes a procedure for worker grievances (MP 3).

The community grievance mechanism is combined with the shadow

flicker management plan in MP 2. Further information on

grievances is provided in 13.3. In general, ERM considers that

EBWPC has a good relationship with local stakeholders, and the

Community Relations Officer follows up on grievances that are

received.

Achieved June 2015

The draft ESMS includes the relevant procedures.

ERM is satisfied that the community grievance

mechanism is being implemented.

7. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Transmission Line and Jetty

7.1 EBWPC should prepare a

focused Environmental and

Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)

or similar studies for the

transmission line route and the

jetty used in delivering wind

turbine parts

IFC PS1,

Good

practice

May 2015# Completed ESIA which determines the likely impacts which occurred during construction of these facilities; and identifies the potential impacts which will occur during operation.

Relevant Applicable Standards identified in the ESIA.

EMMP prepared on the basis of the findings of the ESIA.

EDC EMD to

liaise with

environmental

consultants for

undertaking the

ESIA.

GHD was appointed to carry out the ESIA. It is understood that

GHD will be on site during November to carry out the related

studies.

EBWPC provided the scope of works for the ESIA and ERM notes

that:

“Both the TL and the Jetty Burgos Wind Project components will be covered

in this ESIA study. The ESIA aims to determine impacts resulting from the

implementation of construction activities for the TL Project and the Jetty,

and discuss potential impacts and management programs during operation

and decommissioning, as may be applicable, of both components.

Considering that any preconstruction environmental information is absent,

the determination of impacts resulting from the construction activities

would be based on secondary data from verified anecdotal accounts if

possible, and a comparison of existing and pre-construction conditions that

could be reasonably ascertained.”

During March 2015, EBWPC advised ERM that the draft ESIA has

been provided by GHD and is being reviewed by EBWPC, following

the review by EBWPC, it will be finalized.

The Draft ESIA was provided to ERM in June 2015.

As of September 2015, the outstanding works are considered to be:

- As per issue #12, to mitigate the impact of loss of more than 10% of their land, a Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) for the 49 landowners will be prepared by EBWPC. ERM has not yet seen the LRP.

- As per issue #13, the Stakeholder Engagement Plant should be updated to reflect the stakeholder engagement at the occupants of the structures within 30 m of the transmission line.

- As per issue #17, the determination of “if necessary” should be clarified (i.e. what is the trigger for mitigation implementation?).

Section 16 of the ESIA should be revised so that it is consistent with the other sections of the ESIA.

ERM has provided specific comments on the draft ESIA, and EBWPC’s environmental consultant (GHD) has responded to the comments. The action is considered as achieved in June 2015.

Achieved June 2015

7.2 EBWPC should execute an

environmental monitoring and

mitigation plan (EMMP), as

necessary, for the transmission

line and jetty

IFC PS1,

Good

practice

May 2015# Compliance with applicable DENR and IFC standards

Site Manager to

ensure the plan is

prepared and

implemented.

Forester,

Pollution Control

Officer,

Community

Relations Officer

and Security

Officer to

implement the

plan, as

appropriate.

The Draft ESIA was provided to ERM in June 2015. The ESMP from

the ESIA has been integrated in to the ESMS as MP13.

Achieved September 2015

8. Hazardous Waste Management

8.1 During construction, EBWPC

should ensure that

contractors/subcontractors are

properly handling, storing, and

disposing hazardous wastes

such as used oil, used batteries,

and other Petroleum Fuel, Oil,

and Lubricants (POL) by:

i. Conducting weekly inspection of the on-site storage facilities, to check compliance of the facility with regulatory requirements including secondary containment and safety equipment (i.e. spill kits, fire extinguishers, eye wash);

ii. Conduct weekly water quality monitoring at 4 downstream locations for oil and grease to ensure that no wastes are spilled into nearby waters/drains, and transported downstream; and

iii. Verify that contractors/sub- contractors are disposing hazardous wastes through an accredited transporter and disposal facility by end of the construction period or when on-site storage facilities fill up, whichever is sooner.

iv. To ensure that contaminated soils and concrete are removed from the Delta area and treated/disposed as hazardous waste.

IFC PS3,

DENR

requirements,

Good practice

i. October to

December

2014.

ii. October to

December

2014.

iii. November

2014

iv. November

2014

Compliance with applicable DENR and IFC standards

Weekly water quality monitoring results

Waste transfer/dispos al invoice and documentation.

Photographs of decommissioni ng of Delta area.

Waste invoice documentation for contaminated material from Delta area.

Site Manager to

check on

implementation

of the action and

coordinate with

the contractors.

Pollution Control

Officer to

undertake water

quality

monitoring and

review results.

Pollution Control

Officer to carry

out weekly

inspection for

monitoring of the

implementation/

contractor

progress

i. During construction, the monitoring of waste disposal is

undertaken as part of the weekly EHS site walkover by the

Owner’s Engineer. First Balfour maintains a weekly inventory

of the hazardous waste stored on the construction site. Weekly

monitoring is proposed to be undertaken in the ESMS MP 4

Section 5.3.7, however, the ESMS is not currently in only in draft

version and not implemented. ERM previously found that

hazardous wastes were not stored correctly by the contractors;

however, the situation was subsequently rectified. Refer to

Annex B5.

During December 2014, EBWPC provided a photographic EHS

site walkover reports, however weekly walkover reports for the

hazardous waste areas was not provided – the latest report was

dated 24 Nov 2014. No updated information was provided in

March 2015, however, EBWPC recommended that this will be

undertaken by the newly appointed PCO.

ii. EBWPC advised the water monitoring for 4 downstream

locations, however, parameters tested did not include oil and

grease (refer to Annex B6). The water samples are taken by

the Safety Officer (who is currently undertaking the Pollution

Control Officer’s duties) and transferred by overnight courier to

EDC’s EMD Analytical Laboratory Department for testing for

total suspended sediments (TSS) and total dissolved solids

(TDS).

iii. EBWPC provided First Balfour’s Hazardous Waste Registration

for review. First Balfour’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan

indicates that licensed hazardous waste transporters will be

used. In March 2015, EBWPC provided Waste Treatment

Certificates from a large waste consignment of oil drums to

ERM for review.

iv. ERM previously identified that the concrete in the secondary

containment for the above ground diesel-oil tank and in the

used oil store in the Delta area was contaminated with diesel-

oil. Refer to Annex B5. Decommissioning of the tank was

undertaken in January 2015. Following decommissioning and

removal of the oil tank, EBWPC forwarded photos showing the

exposed soil under the tank. EBWPC advised that there were

no signs of oil contamination.

Achieved in October 2015 (please refer to 8.2

below)

Progress made during construction, procedures

developed as part of ESMS by September 2015

i. EBWPC has developed a procedure as part of

the ESMS for weekly inspection of the waste

storage areas by EBWPC’s PCO and for records

to be maintained.

ii. ERM is satisfied that the water quality

monitoring is undertaken.

iii. EBWPC has developed a procedure as part of

the ESMS for weekly inspection of the waste

storage areas by EBWPC’s PCO and for

records to be maintained.

iv. Records of the contractor’s hazardous waste

management (i.e. licences of transporters,

transfer documents and disposal permits) are

retained by EBWPC.

v. No oil staining was visible on the photographs

emailed to ERM, however, ERM advised that

this is not the most appropriate method to

verify that there is not any oil contamination.

Following removal of an oil tank, it is

recommended for soil samples to be taken and

tested in a laboratory.

Comments on EBWPC’s draft ESMS Hazardous

Waste Management Procedure (MP 4) are made in

previous report.

8.2 EBWPC should develop and

implement a Hazardous Waste

Management Plan for the

operation phase which includes

IFC PS3,

DENR

requirements,

Good

31 March

2015*

Hazardous Waste Management Plan available

Site Manager to

ensure that the

plan is prepared

and

Hazardous waste procedure (MP 4) has been drafted as part of the

ESMS. MP 4 references the relevant legislation in the Philippines

and the IFC EHS Guidelines.

Achieved in October 2015.

ERM is satisfied that there is now a good procedure

in place.

the following:

i. Identification of an on-site hazardous waste storage facility;

ii. Construction of an on-site hazardous waste storage facility based on regulatory and safety requirements; and

iii. Identification of accredited transporters and disposal facility

practice and communicated / cascaded

Compliance with applicable DENR and IFC standards

implemented,

and liaise with

contractors.

Pollution Control

Officer to prepare

and implement

the plan.

Pollution Control

Officer to

monitor

EBWPC’s and the

contractors’ compliance with

the plan.

i and ii. The onsite hazardous waste management storage is located at

the substation. The facility was inspected by ERM in September 2015

and is considered acceptable to meet regulatory and safety

requirements. Secondary containment is provided.

iii. The procedure includes a checklist for identifying accredited

transporters and disposal facility.

8.3 EBWPC should organize removal of the above ground storage tank (AST) diesel oil that is no longer in use and is located at the EBWPC tempacil (office compound) at Saoit.

IFC PS3,

DENR

requirements,

Good practice

June 2015# Removal of AST.

Photos of decommissioni ng and AST removed.

Documentation from Petron.

Site Manager to

ensure that the

plan is prepared

and

implemented.

Pollution Control

Officer to

coordinate with

Petron and

organize removal

of the AST.

ERM identified that a redundant AST is located at the EBWPC

tempacil (office compound) at Saoit. The tank is a single skinned

tank, the volume of any remaining diesel oil cannot be established,

and the AST does not have any secondary containment.

It is understood that the tank has not been used for some time and

decommissioning and removal needs to be coordinated with Petron.

The tank should be properly decommissioned and removed to avoid

pollution of surrounding soil and groundwater due to tank failure

and/or vandalism. Tanks which are not in use have the tendency to

rust, which can lead to tank failure.

During March 2015, EBWPC forwarded ERM correspondence

indicating attempts to contact Petron for removal of the AST.

Attempts to contact the correct person at Petron had failed.

During ERM’s visit in July 2015, it was found that the AST had been

removed. Refer to Annex B5.

Achieved June 2015

The AST has been removed. EBWPC advised that

Petron had removed the AST.

9. Environmental Management Plan for the Decommissioning Plan of the Batching Plant

9.1 EBPWC should minimize

environmental impact during

decommissioning of the

batching plant by:

i. Check the site for loose materials, raw materials and litter. These should be disposed or secured.

ii. Prepare a decommissioning plan for this facility.

iii. Removing all remaining materials prior to

IFC PS3,

DENR

requiremen

ts, Good

practice

i. November

2014.

ii. January 2015

iii. March 2015

iv. March 2015

v. March 2015

vi. March 2015

to June 2015

Compliance with applicable DENR and IFC standards

Site Manager to

ensure the plan is

prepared and

implemented.

Community

Relations Officer

to communicate

to nearby

households on

the

decommissioning

works.

i. No loose materials or litter are present at the plant.

ii. The Method Statement for Decommissioning the Batching Plant

and the Risk Analysis for Safety were provided to ERM for

review. EBWPC advised that other aspects of the

decommissioning plan are being written by EDC’s Environment Monitoring Department., however, these were not provided to

ERM for review.

iii to v. EBWPC advised that the decommissioning has already been

undertaken but no documentation is available since this was not

provided by First Balfour (the employee responsible for this is

already working on another project and is now on medical leave).

vi… Note yet started, however, EBWPC advised that this area may

Considered as achieved in June 2015

Due to the low risk to the environment/human

health now associated with this ESAP requirement,

ERM recommends that it can be closed.

decommissioning of the facility;

iv. Ensure through inspection the contractor’s proper storage, handling, and disposal of unused materials, hazardous wastes, and general refuse;

v. During the decommissioning works, conduct air quality and noise level monitoring to check impacts at nearby households; and

vi. Re-instate the area through landscaping and tree planting

now be developed with solar panels, and may not be reinstated.

Note: The concrete batching plant is located near WTG27 and the

closest receptors (with reference to the ESIA) are: R18 to the south;

R19 east; R21 north; and R14 west.

The works associated with i to v are generally considered

completed, but since no documentation is available, ERM is

unable to ascertain the environmental monitoring and

management measures which were undertaken during the

decommissioning works.

ERM visited the site of the batching plant in March 2015, and

noted that all materials had been removed but reinstatement had

not yet started. EBWPC advised that no landscaping will be

undertaken since solar panels will installed on this land.

ERM recommended that the documentation should be obtained

from First Balfour and the environmental management and

monitoring which were put in place during decommissioning of

the plant should be advised. EBWPC has advised that they have

attempted to obtain the documentation without success.

10. Security Management Plan

10.1 EBWPC should develop and

implement a Security

Management Plan to ensure the

safety of local communities,

pasture famers and tourists from

the Project (to include potential

WTG breakage and also prevent

vandalism and property damage

of WTGs)

IFC PS1,

Good

practi

ce

4Q 2014 or

prior to

operations

phase

Security Management Plan available and communicated / cascaded

Security Procedure implemented

Number of incidents of people injury at restricted area

Number of incidents of vandalism and property damage of WTGs

Site Manager to

ensure the plan is

prepared and

implemented.

Security Officer

to implement the

plan. Safety

Officer, Security

Officer and

Community

Relations Officer

to provide inputs

to the plan

A security management procedure has been developed as part of the

ESMS (MP 9).

The security management procedure includes the wind farm and

solar farm area.

Achieved June 2015

Comments on EBWPC’s draft ESMS Security

Management Procedure (MP 9) are made in previous

report.

11. Water Extraction Plan

11.1 EBWPC/its contractors should

purchase water for construction

needs

IFC PS3,

Good

practice

August 2015# Invoices for water purchases.

Conformance with action plan verified by project management inspection

Site Manager to

ensure that the

permits are

obtained by the

contractors.

EBWPC and its contractor, First Balfour, advised that water is being

abstracted from Pusuak Spring. In the Philippines, a license from

the NWRB is required in advance of abstraction of surface or

groundwater. The Contractor has reportedly obtained permission

from the local farming association but has not obtained a license from

the NWRB. In order to obtain a water permit from the NWRB, a

community resolution is required to be obtained through the

municipal government.

In October/November 2014, 97.23 m3 per day of water was abstracted

for dust suppression, construction at the substation site, watering the

seedlings during reinstatement, and for the standby fire-fighting

truck.

EBWPC advised ERM that the following has occurred since the

abstraction of water without an NWRB-issued license was first

identified as an issue in July 2014:

August 2014 – Prepared initial application to NWRB.

September 2013 – Realized that there was not enough time to

apply for a license before the end of construction.

October 2014 – Researched purchasing options but the nearest

water districts (e.g. Pasuquin) advised that they do not have the

capacity to provide water purchasing. Application made to

NWRB for the water permit for operation (refer below). EBWPC

advised that the remaining construction water

requirement is 97.23 m3 per day which is mainly for

reinstatement works.

March and June 2015- Abstraction of water is ongoing.

September 2015 – Abstraction of water is on-going from a well

in the Municipality of Pasuquin, but the water requirement is

much less since there are limited construction works remaining

and the substation.

Considered as Achieved in October 2015.

EBWPC has demonstrated their best effort to secure

a water permit from the responsible NWRB.

Application letters and fees were well documented.

11.2 EBWPC should secure water

rights permits from the National

Water Resources Board (NWRB)

for the water supply needs

during the operation phase.

EBWPC to check on progress of

the “Municipal Resolution” and

obtain permit from NWRB.

IFC PS3,

NWRB

requirements,

Good practice

August 2015# Issuance of water rights permit

Site Manager to

ensure that the

permit is

obtained and to

liaise with the

Municipal Board.

ERM understands that water requirements during the operation

stage will be 3 m3 per day (based on 30 people and for domestic use),

in addition to a 85 m3 standby fire-fighting water tank whereby the

water is changed on an annual basis. No water will be required for

operation process activities (i.e. for power generation). The fire

water tank (capacity 85 m3) will be filled and only refilled when

cleaned (i.e. once every year), or used (i.e. in case of fire). The

abstracted water will be used for domestic activities (e.g. toilet

flushing and hand washing).

Considered as Achieved in October 2015.

EBWPC has demonstrated their best effort to secure a

water permit from the responsible NWRB.

Application letters and fees were well documented

In November 2014, EBWPC attempted to apply for the permit from

NWRB but was advised that in addition to the Mayor of Burgos

(whereby permission had already been obtained), permission had

also be obtained from the Municipal Board (i.e. the Mayor, the Vice

Mayor and the Councillors). EBWPC attempted to apply the

relevant permissions, known as a “Municipal Resolution”. EBWPC

advised that as part of the reviewing the application, the Municipal

Board will hold various meetings with the various stakeholders

In December 2014, EBWPC advised that the water rights permit was

not considered by the Municipal Board, and that EBWPC was

liaising with the board for it to be discussed in January 2015. ERM

requested a further update in March 2015, but EBWPC advised that

no further information was available.

In July 2015, found that the water was being abstracted from First

Balfour’s site in the Municipality of Pasuquin. EBWPC advised that

following discussion and numerous follow-up by EBWPC with the

relevant LGUs, it is not possible to obtain the water permit for the

following reasons:

NWRB is responsible for assigning water rights, but the

Municipal Resolution for water abstractions is the

responsibility of the LGUs.

The LGU has advised that it has not issued a Municipal

Resolution for abstraction of groundwater from

wells/springs before and that EBWPC should proceed with

the abstraction (as this is what all other companies/domestic

users do in the municipality).

The LGU has reportedly indicated that proceeding with the

permit is not a priority right now as their focus is in driving

decisions with more popular feedback from the community.

EBWPC advised that water-saving measures will be further

investigated and implemented during operation (e.g. environmental

awareness training, low-flush toilets, the shower may be

removed/only allowed to be used in emergency situation).

In September 2015, ERM discussed the situation with the EBWPC and

the representative from the Financing Parties. Based on the

information from EBWPC, the water permit cannot be obtained in the

short/mid-term. ERM advised that EBWPC should provide the water

permit application for review and also retain this documentation in

case of future dispute by NWRB or the LGUs. EWBPC provided a

copy of the water permit application which had been submitted to

NWRB to ERM (no received receipt had been obtained). EBWPC

provided a copy of the letters to the Burgos LGU; the letters were

dated 28 November 2014 and a received receipt had been obtained.

12. Community Health and Safety

12.1 EBWPC should provide and

install fencing for the

transmission towers at the

Davila National High School

and Ilocos Norte Agricultural

College to prevent civilians /

students from potential injuries

IFC PS4,

Good

practice

30 June 2015* Completion of fence

Photos of fence construction and completed.

Site Manager to

ensure than fence

is constructed.

Community

Relations Officer

to coordinate

with

school/college

and contractors

EBWPC advised that the fencing work is currently at the planning

stage. The following implementation plan was provided to ERM:

Tower 027 and 028 (Davila National High School)

Tower 083 (Ilocos Norte Agricultural College) – note these are the old

tower numbers.

Schedule advised in March 2015:

1. Invitation to Bid Jan. 5-23

2. Review of Proposals Jan. 26 - Feb. 6 3. Awarding of project to local contractor April

4. Signing of Contracts April

5. Safety Orientation May

6. Construction phase May

7. Turn-over to Dep-Ed June

In June 2015, EBWPC advised that the contract had not yet been

finalised as the negotiations took longer than expected. The target

date for the contract signing was advised as September, with work

completion by November 2015.

In September 2015, EBWPC advised that the contract had still not

been signed because a competitive quotation could not be obtained.

Following discussion with ERM and the representative of the

Financing Parties, EBWPC confirmed that the work would be

completed before 31 December 2015.

In October 2015 the fenced were constructed around the towers in

concern. ERM witnessed the completion in the January 2016 site

visit.

Achieved in October 2015.

13. Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)

13.1 EBWPC should develop and

implement an EMS which

includes ESIA mitigating

measures and compliance to

local regulations, IFC

Performance Standards and IFC

EHS Guidelines

To align with the IFC PS, the

EMS should include OH&S and

community health and safety.

IFC PS1,

Good

practice

March to April

2015 – Initial

project planning

May to June

2015 – EMS

planning

June to

November 2015

–

Implementation

November to

December 2015

– Checking and

corrective

action.

January 2016 –

Management

review*

(EBWPC to

provide

progress reports

in line with key

deliverables)

EMS available and communicated / cascaded

EMS implemented

EDC Head Office

and Site Manager

to ensure that the

EMS is

implemented.

EDC EMD

responsible for

guidance.

EBWPC

Compliance

Team responsible

for its

implementation.

EBWPC advised that they would like advice from ERM on this

action. ERM gave a presentation to Manila-based EDC staff and the

EBWPC compliance team on 17 November 2014. The presentation

included the requirements of the IFC PS on ESMS.

In November 2014, an ESMS implementation plan was advised which

in summary includes the following:

March to April 2015 – Initial project planning

May to June 2015 – EMS planning

June to November 2015 – Implementation

November to December 2015 – Checking and corrective action.

January 2016 – Management review

EBWPC advised that it intends to implement an ISO 14001 certified

EMS at the site. This would meet the requirements on PS1 which

requires that, the EMS should include documents and mechanism for:

• Policy

• Identification of risks and impacts

• Management programs

• Organizational capacity and competency

• Emergency preparedness and response

• Stakeholder engagement

• Monitoring and review

ESMS training was held at the Project site with site staff on 21-22

April 2015.

The draft ESMS was provided to ERM for review in June 2015 and an updated ESMS was provided in September 2015. ERM anticipates that with the support from EDC’s Environmental Management Department (EMD), an adequate EMS can be implemented for the project. Further support may be required from ERM to guide the EMD on the requirements of the IFC EHS Guidelines and IFC PS.

ERM recommends that EBWPC ensures that the mitigation and monitoring measures that were proposed in the ESIA are being implemented in advance of the implementation of the EMS, which may take some time to develop. These measures should be implemented from the start of operation.

The mitigation and management measures in the ESIA and ECC for both the construction and operation stages should be implemented by EBWPC.

Comments on EBWPC’s draft ESMS were made in previous report.

Considered as Achieved in January 2016

EBWPC is recommended to continuously improve and review the effectiveness of the ESMS throughout the operation period.

13.2 The EMS shall be extended to

cover social impacts and

mitigation (i.e. implement an

ESMS).

IFC PS1,

Good

practice

March to April

2015 – Initial

project planning

May to June

2015 – EMS

planning

June to

November 2015

–

Implementation

November to

December 2015

– Checking and

corrective

action.

January 2016 –

Management

review*

(EBWPC to

provide

progress reports

in line with key

deliverables)

ESMS available and communicated / cascaded

ESMS implemented

EDC Head Office

and Site Manager

to ensure that the

ESMS is

implemented.

EDC EMD

responsible for

guidance.

EBWPC

Compliance

Team responsible

for its

implementation.

Refer to 13.1 Considered as Achieved in January 2016

EBWPC is recommended to continuously improve

and review the effectiveness of the ESMS

throughout the operation period.

13.3 EBWPC should ensure that all

contractors appointed for the

operation stage have an EMS

which is consistent with the

requirements of the ESIA,

Equator Principles, legislation

applicable in the Philippines,

IFC PS and IFC EHS Guidelines

(this includes a grievance

mechanism for workers and the

community).

IFC PS1 March 2015 Contractors EMS and records

Site Manager to

liaise with

contractors to

ensure that this is

undertaken.

Vestas and First Balfour have an EMS which is developed in

accordance with ISO 14001 and ISO 18001. The ESMS incorporates a

grievance mechanism for the workers, but any grievances from the

community are to be directed to EBWPC, and EBWPC’s grievance

mechanism will be triggered. First Balfour and Vestas have specific

EHS plans for working on the Burgos Wind Project. The grievance

mechanism is communicated to contractors and the Community

Relations Officer is familiar to the contractors. It is acknowledged

that at least two (2) community grievances have been reported by the

contractors to the Community Relations Officer, who then follows up

on the grievances in accordance with EBWPC’s policy.

Sub-contractors will be required to comply with EBWPC’s ESMS.

Achieved in June 2015

The current contractors have an EMS and a

procedure for worker grievances. Grievances from

the community are to be directed to EBWPC to be

dealt with by EBWPC’s grievance mechanism.

13.4 EBWPC to implement the

EMMP from the ESIA for the

wind farm.

IFC PS1 31 March 2015* EMMP Records Program

Site Manager to

ensure that the

EMMP is

implemented.

Pollution Control

Officer and

Safety Officer

responsible for its

implementation.

Based on the initial visit, the EMMP is generally being implemented.

The EMMP is included in the draft ESMS.

Achieved in June 2015

14. Labour

14.1 Before the end of construction,

EBWPC should formulate a

Demobilization Plan to

determine how many of the

direct/indirect employees can be

retained for the operation stage

IFC PS2 February 2015 Demobilization Plan to

Employment numbers/ records for construction/o peration

Site In accordance with Performance Standard 2, it is recommended that,

where appropriate, existing skilled and unskilled employees are

retained for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project.

EBWPC provided a plan which indicates the number of people

employed directly or indirectly through contracts for construction

and operation. EBWPC advised that all workers are engaged either

directly by EBWPC or its contractors and hold a short-term contract

of employment.

The majority of construction workers have already demobilized to

other construction projects.

Considered as achieved

ERM suggests that since the majority of construction

workers have already demobilized, and there are no

apparent issues regarding construction workers, that

this ESAP requirement is considered complete.

14.2 Either the EDC policy should be

updated to specifically refer to

EBWPC, or EBPWC should

develop its own policy for

to include reference to:

Employees’ rights under

national labour and

employment law; and

Non-discrimination and

equal opportunity.

IFC PS2 July 2015# EDC/EBWPC HR policy

EDC Human

Resources

department

In September 2015, EBWPC provided the Environmental and Social

Policy which had been developed specifically for the Project.

The relevant commitments made in the policy are:

Respect human rights, including employees’ rights under

national labour and employment law, and the rights of

affected communities;

Carry out activities consistent with the intent of ensuring

legally permissible equal opportunity, fair treatment, and

non-discrimination in relation to recruitment and hiring,

compensation, working conditions and terms of employment

for our workers; and

Provide a healthful and safe workplace for our people and

promote their physical well-being.

Achieved in September 2015

14.3 All new workers to have

contracts in place prior to

commencement, setting out

working conditions, terms of

employment and EHS

responsibilities. Workers

grievance mechanism to be

included in the ESMS.

IFC PS2 July 2015# Employment contracts

Site Manager and

EDC Human

Resources

department

EBWPC provided an example EBWPC employee contract and

advised that all employees, whether temporary or permanent have

contracts in place before commencing employment.

The working place and conditions are clearly set out in the contract.

Employees are required to work a 40 hour week and are paid twice

per month.

Achieved in June 2015

ERM comments that the contract includes a non-

competition clause requiring that upon leaving

employment, the employee cannot work for a

company in the same industry in the Philippines for a

period of one (1) year. Whilst there are no specific

requirements in the IFC standards regarding such

clauses, ERM comments that the contractual

requirement is quite stringent which may not be

considered reasonable.

15. External Reporting and Disclosure

15.1 To better align with the PS, the

Stakeholder Engagement Plan

and Grievance Mechanism

should be communicated

through the ongoing stakeholder

engagement (for the life of the

project). Other information

should be disclosed as required

by the PS.

IFC PS1 July 2015# Stakeholder Engagement Plan

Stakeholder Engagement Records

Site Manager to

check on

progress of the

stakeholder

engagement.

Site Manager and

Community

Relations Officer

to undertake the

stakeholder

engagement.

EDC Public

Relations

Department to

provide the IEC

materials.

In October 2014, the grievance mechanism was communicated to the

community by displaying posters on the grievance mechanism at the

municipal halls in the municipalities where the Project is located.

Revised photos were displayed in September 2015.

During December 2014, ERM discussed the Stakeholder Engagement

Plan with EBWPC and the updates that are required.

Monthly/quarterly updates on the Project are provided to the

investors.

In September 2015, EBWPC provided the final draft Stakeholder

engagement plan to ERM. ERM found that it included for on-going

stakeholder engagement with the communities, LGUs and local

NGO/CSOs.

January 2016: EBWPC provided the draft for the 2016 Stakeholder

Engagement Plan to ERM. It included an on-going stakeholder

engagement with the Lot Owers, vulnerable households to noise

and shadow flickers, local CSO/NGOs, vulnerable TL lot owners,

barangay and municipal officials.

Achieved in September 2015

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan includes for on-

going stakeholder engagement and disclosure with

the communities and NGO/CSOs.

16. Actions Required by the ADB

16.1 Formal establishment of the grievance mechanism and a wider dissemination (in the barangays) of the grievance mechanism, including contacts, timelines for grievance redressal etc.

Disseminate grievance to community residents & stakeholders, including those affected by the transmission line.

ADB’s SPS December 2015 A poster with details of the grievance mechanism is available in all barangays covered by the project.

Community Relations Officer to disseminate grievance to community residents & stakeholders through barangay officials

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

October 2014: EBWPC provided the grievance mechanism to ERM for review. EBWPC had displayed posters at the municipal halls in the municipalities where the Project is located (e.g. Burgos and the municipalities affected by the transmission line), see Annex B4. Since

stakeholder engagement had not been undertaken recently with all stakeholders, the grievance mechanism had not been communicated to all of the stakeholders (including the Affected Persons). The stakeholders were not involved in the design of the grievance mechanism. EBWPC advised that staff (including security personnel)

received informal training on how to record grievances in September 2014.

November 2014 EBWPC presented the grievance mechanism to Municipal LGU Officials and Barangay Captains at a training seminar held at a nearby hotel on from 19-21 November 2014

February 2015: EBWPC manned a tent (in addition to hosting other activities) at the Burgos Fiesta in order to communicate information on the Project. EBWPC also handed out IEC flyers, which included grievance mechanism details.

December 2015: EBWPC posted posters with details of the mechanism in 20 Barangays.

Achieved in December 2015

The community grievance mechanism has been implemented.

EBWPC provided a list of complainant’s information and follow-up action from the community stated from February 2014 and a sample of poster they presented to the community.

EBWPC should update the status of the each case and identify repeated issues and to seek for LNT & FBL feedback mechanism.

16.2 Barangay level consultations to identify and resolve any outstanding issues on land procurement, including temporary impacts during construction

Organize barangay level consultations for both wind farm and transmission line

ADB’s SPS December 2015 Records and evidence of barangay level consultations

Community Relations Officer to conduct a random household survey for barangays covered by the Transmission Line

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

December 2014 - EBWPC carried out stakeholder engagement with the barangay officials of the host barangays for the wind farm.

November 2015- December 2015: EWPC carried out stakeholder

engagement with the barangay officials of the host barangays for the

Wind Farm.

January 2016: EBWPC drafted a stakeholder engagement plan for the

year 2016 which includes on-going stakeholder engagement activities

and disclosure with the communities and NGO/CSOs.

Achieved in 2016

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan has been completed and includes on-going stakeholder engagement and disclosure with the communities and NGO/CSOs.

16.3 For all landowners with outstanding issues, provision of legal support to the landowners from EBWPC is required.

ADB’s SPS Ongoing support

Description of legal support provided to landowners

Status of lease registration including list of outstanding issues and monitoring records for closure

Perfected land documents will be proof that the landowners were able to have access to legal support

Land Team August 2012: EBWPC has developed a methodology and strategy for

land acquisition and generated a land use instrument report for both

registered and non-registered land.

November 2015: EBWPC generated the land updates for both the

Transmission line and Wind farm.

Achieved

Legal support has been continuously provided to the landowners.

16.4 Socio-economic survey of 33 households with material impact

ADB’s SPS June 2015 Socioeconomic survey

Presentation of results

Community Relations Officer to undertake the survey.

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

Survey is already done. Achieved in October 2015

16.5 Action plan in consultation with BABA on measures to be taken up for communal pasture lands.

Prepare socio-economic profile of BABA members

Planning workshop with BABA

ADB’s SPS September 2015 Consultation/workshop records.

Socio-economic profile of BABA members.

Plan agreed by BABA.

Community Relations Officer to undertake consultation with BABA and prepare the plan.

BABA to provide input to the plan.

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

A survey among BABA members was already done. Ongoing communication with BABA.

Achieved in July 2015

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan includes on-going stakeholder engagement and disclosure with the communities and NGO/CSOs.

EBWPC has also provided the socioeconomic profile of BABA and a sample of activity report dated on 10 July 2015.

16.6 Information disclosure and continued stakeholder engagement through implementation of the IEC plan of EDC.

Organize barangay level consultations

ADB’s SPS December 2015 Consultation/

workshop records.

Updated IEC plan

Community Relations Officer to conduct a random household survey for barangays covered by the Transmission Line

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

November 2014 - EBWPC presented the grievance mechanism to Municipal LGU Officials and Barangay Captains at a training seminar held at a nearby hotel on from 19-21 November 2014

December 2014 - EBWPC carried out stakeholder engagement with the barangay officials of the host barangays for the wind farm

February 2015 - EBWPC manned a tent (in addition to hosting other activities) at the Burgos Fiesta in order to communicate information on the Project. From 26-28 February 2015. EBWPC set-up an exhibition in Burgos Municipal Hall to raise the awareness on the Burgos Wind Farm.

Stakeholder engagement plan was completed as part of the ESMS.

Achieved in 2016

Records of IEC campaign and

consultation/workshops were

received.

16.7 Implementation of livelihood restoration measures to land owners affected more than 10%, including prioritization in employment opportunities, skills and capacity development training etc.

ADB’s SPS October 2015 – September 2016

Data on livelihoods

Livelihood Restoration Plan

Community Relations Officer to determine, plan and implement livelihood restoration measures.

Site Manager, to check that action has been undertaken.

Survey is already done and achieved on October 2015.

January 2016: A draft for the livelihood restoration plan is made including the proposed activities, timeframe and performance standards.

A set of household survey questions was received. The questions covered the topics of socio-economic, health and social issues.

EBWPC provided the profile of 49 TL LOT owners with the additional

information on the status or whereabouts of each of the lot-owners.

EBWPC drafted a livelihood restoration plan from February to

October 2016. It is suggested to provide a performance standard for the

proposed activities.

Achieved in 2016

Cattle dispersal was implemented and accepted by the affected lot owners. Ongoing monitoring is being done during operational phase.

* Date revised in accordance with EBWPC’s email to the Financing Parties on 18 February 2015.

# Date revised in accordance with EBWPC’s email to the Financing Parties on 14 May 2015

The following colour code has been applied in order to track the progress of EBWPC’s implementation of the ESAP: White: New action/recommendation and cannot be assessed based on current information.

Green: Completed and no further action is required.

Yellow: Completed to a certain extent, however, ERM recommends further improvement before this requirement is closed out.

Orange: On-going or partially complete but not requiring immediate action.

Pink: EBWPC has made progress in implementing the ESAP requirement, but the target date will not be met – a revised date for compliance needs to be agreed with the Financing Parties.

Red: Requires immediate action to be compliant with the terms of the loan.

No. Land Owners Location Tower No. of

Tower

Tower

Area

Total Area

(sq.m.)

Affected

Area

Significance of

ImpactSurvey Respondent

Relationship to

the LO

Result of Shortlisting

(Meeting with ROW

Patrols)

Final Validation Findings

(Face-to-face Interview with Target

Households)

For Consideration to

Livelihood Assistance

Program

1 Pedro Bumagat Brgy. Ablan,

Burgos

009 1 225.00 1,264.00 17.80% 10-49% Lydia B. Palencia Daughter Farmer, grandchildren

living with the couple

Owner of the lot is already dead,

Lydia (Pedro Bumagat's) is already

sickly, Arnulfo (husband) is

dependent on farming, limited

financial assitance from daughter

who works as an employee in a

small BPO company in Laoag City. 2

grandchildren is living with them.

*Per capita income: 2, 783

Yes

2 Isaias Aguada San Isidro,

Pasuquin

085 1 77.00 405.00 19.01% 10-49% Damaso Aguada Son Farmer, children have no

stable jobs

Lot owner is already dead; the

tenant is dependent on farming;

working family members have

unstable jobs as construction

workers, farmers and ambulant

vegetable vendors. They are all 9 in

the family with 4 school-aged

children

*Per capita income: 575 37

Yes

3 Onnagan, Tomasa San Isidro,

Pasuquin

087 1 108.00 1,080.00 10.00% 10-49% Godofredo Onnagan Tenant Farmer, children are

unemployed

Lot owner is already dead, tenant is

fully dependent on farming and is

unable to send 4 children to college.

Children have unstable jobs

*Per capita income: 2, 730

Yes

4 Sps. Antolin &

Milagros Vila

Ngabangab,

Pasuquin

088 1 225.00 957.00 23.51% 10-49% Antolin Vila LO Dependent on farming No other source of income aside

from farming, child is also a farmer

and an ocassional construction

laborer

*Per capita income: 918

Yes

5 Alfredo Cacal Corocor, Bacarra 102 1 124.00 207.00 59.90% 50-100% Wenceslao Cacal Tenant Dependent on farming Lot owner owns vast expanse of

farmlands. The tenant is dependent

on farming, wife washes clothes for

additional income, 2 children are

unemployed

*Per capita income: 2, 000

Yes

6 Reynalda S. BanciprCabaruan, Bacarra 107 38.00 305.00 12.46% 10-49% Reynalda S. Bancipra Lo owner no regular source of

income (labandera); no

children; 50+ yrs old

Washes clothes to earn a living,

husband is fully dependent on

farming a small parcel of land

*Per capita income: 666.67

Yes

Annex G - TL Lot Owners Validation

7 Carmen Cadiente Sangil, Bacarra 115 160.69 1,166.00 13.78% 10-49% Rolly Respicio Tenant Tenant, no other source of

income

Lot owner's family is well-to-do.

Tenant is dependent on farming, his

partner sells vegetables as an

additional source of income, with 3

school-aged children

* Per capita income: 2, 550

Yes

8 Adolfo & Vicenta

Lazaro

Vira, Laoag City 120 1 235.00 1,793.00 13.11% 10-49% Dante Corpuz tenant is Dante Corpuz;

farmer

Tenant is farming several hectares

of land producing over 50 sacks of

rice per cropping season (net

produce), owns 1 tractor; a jeepney

and tricycle operator

*Per capita income: 15, 250

No

9 Jose Castillo Barit, Laoag City 122 1 440.00 1,412.00 31.16% 10-49% Decy Barroga Tenant Castillo is based in San

Nicolas; tenant is farmerThe lot owner operates several

businesses in San Nicolas. Tenant

has no other source of income aside

from farming a small parcel of land.

Living with his mother who is

already very old and sickly

*Per capita income: 1, 500

Yes

10 Josefino Figuracion Tenant Tenant is a farmerLot owner owns several hectares of

land. Tenant is a farmer fully

dependent on farming as a source

of livelihood, wife works as a

janitress at Laoag City Hall, son is

unemployed

Per capita income: 9, 111

Yes

11 Roger Domingo Traffic aid and a farmer Lot owner owns several hectares of

land. Tenant works as a traffic aid,

wife works as an ocassional

household helper, washes clothes

and a manicurist/pedicurist, with 3

school-aged children

*Per capita income: 2 138

Yes

2,859.00 15.42% 10-49%Anacleto Pasion Barit, Laoag City 124 &

'124A

2 441.00

* Per capita income is based on the 2015 per capita income of Ilocos Norte which is Php13, 096

Annex H - Sample Agreement for EBWPC LSP Beneficiaries

No.Name of

BeneficiaryBarangay

Baseline

Household

Income

Number of

Dispersed

Cattle

Date of Awarding

Total Number

of Calf

Produced

Total Number

of Cattles Sold

Total Number of

Cattle at

Present

Total Income Derived

from Sales of CattleAdditional Remarks

1 Arnulfo Palencia Ablan Php13, 916 1 August 11, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

2 Godofredo

Onnagan

Tabungao, Pasuquin Php16, 380 1 June 04, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

3 Damaso Aguada San Isidro, Pasuquin Php5, 178 1 July 25, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

4 Antolin Vila Ngabangab,

Pasuquin

Php2, 755 1 July 12, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

5 Rolly Respicio Sangil, Bacarra Php12, 750 1 July 11, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

6 Wenceslao Cacal Corocor, Bacarra Php8, 000 1 August 11, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

7 Reynalda

Bancipra

#10, Bacarra Php1, 333 1 August 11, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

8 Josefino

Figuracion

Barit, Laoag City 27, 333 1 August 11, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

9 Roger Domingo Barit, Laoag City 12, 833 1 November 16, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

10 Decy Barroga Barit, Laoag City Php3, 000 1 August 19, 2016 0 0 1 none yet No issues encountered by the

beneficiary.

2016 LIVELIHOOD MONITORING (CATTLE DISPERSAL)

Annex I - 2016 TL Livelihood Monitoring

Ref. No.

DATE PLACE COMPANY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE

CONTACT PERSON/ ORGANIZATION

AGENDA

1 01/5-6/2016 Brgy. Hall - Bayog, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

Debbie Sabarre/Jansen Chano

PCWS Conduct PWSRIA

2 01/07-08/2016 Brgy. Hall - Bobon, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

Debbie Sabarre/Jansen Chano

PCWS Conduct PWSRIA

3 01/19-20/2016 Burgos Wind Farm Jansen Chano PCWS Conduct Feasibility Study4 1/16/2016 EDC Burgos TenFacil Debbie Sabarre/Jansen

ChanoRoger Abad Consultation Meeting with

emphasis on the feedlot project5 1/26/2016 Palalay Hotel Conference

RoomDebbie Sabarre/Jansen Chano

GRI Team Administer GRI tool

6 1/19/2016 Paayas Brgy Hall Jansen Chano Arvin Tarun/PB Conduct PWSRIA7 1/20/2016 Burgos Wind Farm Jansen Chano Lyn Capistrano/PCWS Conduct of assessment and

technical works for the water project of EDC

8 1/21/2016 Burgos Municipal Hall Jansen Chano Lyn Capistrano/PCWS Meeting on the status of Bira Spring

9 1/22/2016 Paayas Brgy. Hall Jansen Chano Lyn Capistrano/PCWS PWSRIA10 2/1/2016 EBWPC Temfacil Jansen Chano/Col. Bani

CabanayanEngr. Minerva Pascua Meeting with Kapurpurawan

Vendors11 2/1/2016 MAO Office Jansen Chano Cheryl Ruguian/OIC Meeting in preparation for the

Burgos Town Fiesta12 2/12/2016 Municipal Operations Office

of 4Ps PasuquinJansen Chano/Deborah G. Sabarre

Cynthia Pascua/PDO II Deliver requested assistance for 4Ps Concert for a Cause

13 March 04, 2016 Nagsanga, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano Brgy. Captain IEC on the Burgos Wind Power Project, Community Health and Safety and the Grievance Mechanism

14 March 04, 2016 Poblacion 2, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano Brgy. Captain IEC on the Burgos Wind Power Project, Community Health and Safety and the Grievance Mechanism

15 March 11, 2016 Salpad, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano Brgy. Captain IEC on the Burgos Wind Power Project, Community Health and Safety and the Grievance Mechanism

Annex J - 2016 Stakeholder Engagement Record

16 March 11, 2016 Sulbec, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano Brgy. Captain IEC on the Burgos Wind Power Project, Community Health and Safety and the Grievance Mechanism

17 April 06, 2016 Poblacion, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Jeogie Jimenez Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

18 April 08, 2016 Vira, Laoag City Jansen Chano Brgy. Captain IEC on the Burgos Wind Power Project, Community Health and Safety and the Grievance Mechanism

19 April 12, 2016 Poblacion, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Joegie Jimenez Public Hearing for Burgos 4 WPP

20 April 12, 2016 Saoit, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Glen Joy Gervacio Council Presentation of the Burgos 4 WPP

21 April 15, 2016 Nagsurot, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Aprilia Aleta Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

22 April 19, 2016 Bobon,Burgs, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Joel Tesoro Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

23 April 19, 2016 Paayas,Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Arvin Tarun Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

24 April 19, 2016 Buduan, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Edwin Sallutan Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

25 April 22, 2016 Agaga, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Jameson Rabago Concultation on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

26 April 24, 2016 Nagsurot, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

AprillaAleta Public Hearing for Burgos 4 WPP

27 April 26, 2016 CENRO Bangui Jansen Chano/Rosalyn Casil Victor Dabalos Deliver requested assistance for the Regional Youth Camp

28 April 28, 2016 Bangui Municipal Hall Jansen Chano Tourism Office Deliver requested assistance for their Municipal Fiesta

29 April 29, 2016 Buduan, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Edwin Sallutan Public Hearing on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

30 May 02, 2016 Davila, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

PB Attend Brgy. Fiesta

31 May 03, 2016 Pagali, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Christopher Lopez Council Presentation of the Burgos 4 WPP

32 May 03, 2016 Davila, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Council Presentation of the Burgos 3 WPP

33 May 06, 2016 Agaga, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Jameson Rabago Council presentation on the Burgos 4 Wind Power Project

34 May 24, 2016 Tanap, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Judy Garcia Council presentation on the Burgos 3 WPP

35 June 07, 2016 Bayog, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

PB Rodel Dalo Public Hearing on the Burgos 3 and 4 Wind Power Project

36 June 10, 2016 Graciano's Cove, Bayog, Burgos, Ilocos Norte

CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

LMB President LMB Presentation of the Burgos 3 and 4 WPP

37 June 18, 2016 EDC Wind Farm Deborah Sabarre/Amadeo Palacpac/Jansen Chano

Marlyn Bumagat Joint Tree Planting Activity

38 Jun. 25, 2016 Tanap, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Judy Garcia Public Hearing on the Burgos3 WPP

39 Jun. 26, 2016 Pagali, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Christopher Lopez Public Hearing on the Burgos 4 WPP

40 July 5, 2016 Ablan, Burgos, Ilocos Norte CGA/Sherylie Basuil/Jansen Chano

Celerino Abad Council Presentation of the Burgos 4 WPP

41 Jul. 7, 2016 Brgys. Corocor, Cabusligan, Pasngal and Cabulalaan, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano/ROW Patrols PBs Deliver requested assistance (monoblock chairs)

42 July 21-22, 2016 Palalay Hotel Conference Room

Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

ASOG TeamLGU

Conduct CCA-DRR Training

43 Jul. 28, 2016 Brgys. Tabungao, Sangil, Pungto and Ngabangab, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte and Brgy. Ablan, Burgos Ilocos Norte

Jansen Chano ROW Patrols Administer Economic Profiling to TL Lot owners who are beneficiaries of EDC'c Livelihood Assistance

44 Aug. 5, 2016 Red Cross HQ Jansen Chano Haydie Manalili Meeting with Red Cross on the planned CBDRR Training to 11 Brgys. of Burgos, Ilocos Norte

45 Aug. 10, 2016 PDRRM Office Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano/Justin Aliganga

Michael Benito Meeting with PDRRMC Officials for the proposed training to all MDRRMC point persons in the entire province

46 Aug. 11, 2016 Bacarra and Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

BABA Members, ROW Patrols

Inspect cattle to be purchased for EDC Livelihood support to TL Lot owners and BABA

47 Aug. 24-26, 2016 Palalay Hotel Function Room

Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

LGU Officials of 4 barangays (Tanap, Nagsurot, Ablan and Buduan)

Community-based Disaster Risk and Management Training

48 Sept. 1-3, 2016 Palalay Hotel Function Room

Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

LGU Officials of 7 barangays (Saoit, Bobon, Agaga, Bayog, Paayas, Pagali and Poblacion))

Community-based Disaster Risk and Management Training

49 Sept. 9, 2016 Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office

Jansen Chano Cynthia Pascua/PDO II Meeting for the planned engagement of MSWD Office and EDC

50 Sept. 15, 2016 Municipal Conference Room Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano/Bani Cabanayan/Rosalyn Arucan

SB Members, Vice Mayor Cresente Garcia and other LGU Staff

Wind Farm Tourism Project

51 Sept. 16, 2016 Bacarra, Ilocos Norte Deborah Sabarre/Jansen Chano

BABA Members, ROW Patrols

Meeting on the status of livelihood project with BABA, improvement activities for the feedlot, scouting for a possible livestock to be purchased

52 October 7, 2016 EBWPC Temfacil Josephine Garcia/BHW Federated President

FGD

53 November 11, 2016 Municipal Conference Hall DOE Info Drive54 December 19, 2016 Saoit, Burgos, Ilocos Norte Jansen Chano Glen Joy Gervacio Deliver requested Assistance55 December 19, 2016 Tanap, Burgos, Ilocos Norte Jansen Chano Judy Garcia Deliver requested Assistance

Annex K. Photos of unpaved and paved access road.

A. Unpaved Road

B. Paved Road

ANNEXES - 02

Table G- 2. Day-time noise level monitoring (LAeq, LA90, dBA)

January 2016

N1-2015 52.1 51.2 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 51.5 44.9 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 57.3 51.4 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 39.5 36.4 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 46.0 43.8 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 39.6 35.5 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 43.9 42.6 55 46.4 49.4

February 2016

N1-2015 52.7 50.6 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 50.4 48.9 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 50.5 48.3 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 47.0 45.4 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 43.0 40.9 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 38.5 34.5 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 42.1 39.5 55 46.4 49.4

March 2016

N1-2015 57.7 56.2 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 58.4 56.9 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 45.5 43.2 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 44.7 42.4 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 39.1 35.7 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 38.4 34.1 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 44.4 41.1 55 46.4 49.4

April 2016

N1-2015 48.5 46 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 47.9 46.3 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 51.8 45.1 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 44.3 43.8 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 57.4 48.1 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 55.2 44.2 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 46.4 48.2 55 46.4 49.4

May 2016

N1-2015 51.9 49.6 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 50.1 46.6 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 48.6 44.3 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 46.3 42 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 45.4 43.4 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 46.7 43.1 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 53.8 50.8 55 46.4 49.4

June 2016

N1-2015 58.6 55.3 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 57.4 56 55 47.9 50.9

Annex L - Noise Data Results

N3-2015 48.2 45.8 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 49.2 45.8 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 46.5 43.9 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 50.4 44.5 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 52.4 47.5 55 46.4 49.4

July 2016

N1-2015 53.9 61.5 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 52.4 51 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 51.5 48 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 48.1 45.3 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 49.1 47.4 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 46.6 43.4 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 52.7 50 55 46.4 49.4

August 2016

N1-2015 64.4 61.3 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 62.4 60.4 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 55.4 54.2 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 55 53.8 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 55.7 52.4 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 57.9 56.8 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 53.7 52.2 55 46.4 49.4

September 2016

N1-2015 43.7 42.4 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 46.4 45 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 41.8 39 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 41 37.8 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 41.9 40 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 39.4 35.8 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 44.1 41.9 55 46.4 49.4

October 2016

N1-2015 45.1 43.3 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 46.4 44.0 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 42.2 40.1 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 43.6 41.4 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 41.7 39.1 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 36.9 - 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 43.0 40.3 55 46.4 49.4

November 2016

N1-2015 54.2 53.0 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 49.6 47.8 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 45.1 42.8 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 46.7 44.9 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 49.6 47.7 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 45.0 42.8 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 53.1 51.7 55 46.4 49.4

December 2016

N1-2015 61 56.6 55 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 58.8 57.9 55 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 52.2 50.4 55 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 52.6 50.8 55 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 52.6 48.5 55 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 53.5 51.7 55 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 55.4 54 55 46.4 49.4

*The shaded values are the measurements which exceeded the IFC guideline OR the baseline +3 value for

the monitoring period noise level

Table G-3: Nighttime Noise Level Monitoring (LAeq, LA90, dBA)

Station Noise Level

LAeq

Noise Level

LA90

IFC Guidelines

Value

Baseline

Noise Level

Baseline

+ 3 Levels

January 2016

N1-2015 51.3 50.0 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 56.1 52.6 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 44.2 43.4 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 49.2 47.8 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 43.3 41.4 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 46.3 42.4 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 46.2 45.2 45 52.8 55.8

February 2016

N1-2015 52.0 50.5 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 55.2 53.9 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 51.3 47.0 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 55.5 53.9 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 40.7 39.7 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 41.7 40.6 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 43.0 41.9 45 52.8 55.8

March 2016

N1-2015 54.7 53.7 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 57.2 56.4 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 54.0 51.7 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 52.1 50.8 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 40.2 38.6 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 38.9 36.9 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 57.0 59.9 45 52.8 55.8

April 2016

N1-2015 50.5 49.4 45 51.9 54.9

Station Noise Level

LAeq

Noise Level

LA90

IFC Guidelines

Value

Baseline

Noise Level

Baseline

+ 3 Levels

N2-2015 65.3 64.5 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 65.3 62.2 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 67.4 65.8 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 55.4 52.9 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 50.3 49.6 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 52.2 50.8 45 52.8 55.8

May 2016

N1-2015 47.5 44.3 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 55.4 54.0 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 46.1 45.3 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 49.2 48.5 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 43.1 41.5 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 51.1 50.1 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 54.0 53.0 45 52.8 55.8

June 2016

N1-2015 56.0 53.4 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 59.9 58.4 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 64.4 56.3 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 59.6 58.1 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 52.8 49.3 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 61.0 54.8 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 60.0 57.7 45 52.8 55.8

July 2016

N1-2015 65.1 63.4 45 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 67.2 64.4 45 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 58.3 55.7 45 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 76 73.2 45 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 56.5 54.1 45 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 56.9 58.7 45 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 62.3 58.6 45 46.4 49.4

August 2016

N1-2015 56 54 45 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 73 67 45 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 65.8 62.9 45 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 63.9 61.1 45 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 58.7 52.4 45 57.4 60.4

N6-2015 55 52.1 45 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 No data gathered 45 46.4 49.4

September 2016

N1-2015 48.1 45.3 45 48.7 51.7

N2-2015 51.6 48.6 45 47.9 50.9

N3-2015 50.6 48.6 45 51.8 54.8

N4-2015 50.1 48.3 45 44.3 47.3

N5-2015 43.7 42.4 45 57.4 60.4

Station Noise Level

LAeq

Noise Level

LA90

IFC Guidelines

Value

Baseline

Noise Level

Baseline

+ 3 Levels

N6-2015 43.7 42.9 45 55.2 58.2

N7-2015 51.6 49.6 45 46.4 49.4

October 2016

N1-2015 57.1 55.0 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 61.1 60.8 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 52.6 52.4 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 62.5 61.8 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 53.1 50.4 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 47.9 46.2 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 54.4 52.0 45 52.8 55.8

November 2016

N1-2015 57.9 56.2 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 58.1 56.6 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 52.3 51.4 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 51.4 57.1 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 39.3 37.4 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 48.2 47.3 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 49.2 43.1 45 52.8 55.8

December 2016

N1-2015 51.9 50.8 45 51.9 54.9

N2-2015 54.8 53.7 45 49.2 52.2

N3-2015 49.4 48.0 45 59.5 62.5

N4-2015 50.0 48.6 45 57.4 60.4

N5-2015 52.3 48.6 45 49.7 52.7

N6-2015 51.5 50.3 45 59.5 62.5

N7-2015 55.6 54.2 45 52.8 55.8

*The shaded values are the measurements which exceeded the IFC guideline OR the baseline +3 value

for the monitoring period noise level

Figure G- 2. Daytime Noise Level vs Standards, LAeq (dBA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

N1-2015 N2-2015 N3-2015 N4-2015 N5-2015 N6-2015 N7-2015

Daytime Noise Level LAeq (dBA)

Baseline

IFC Values

Baseline +

DecibelsJan-18

Feb-18

Mar-18

Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

Nov-18

Dec-18

Figure G-3. Nighttime Noise Level vs Standards, LAeq (dBA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

N1-2015 N2-2015 N3-2015 N4-2015 N5-2015 N6-2015 N7-2015

Nigthtime Noise Level LAeq (dBA)

Baseline

IFC Values

Baseline +

DecibelsJan-18

Feb-18

Mar-18

Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

Nov-18

Dec-18

ANNEXES – 03

Table G-4 Summary of observed sources of noise (January 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: January 08, 2016 / Time: 10:22 AM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded was the crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• Chicken sound

• Dog barking

• motorcycle passing nearby

Date: January 08, 2016 /Time: 23:17 PM

The most dominant source of the noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

N2 Date: January 08, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded

is continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• Chicken sound

• Cow sound

• Sound from cutting of trees activity

Date: January 08, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was the crickets sound

N3 Date: January 11, 2016/Time: 10:09 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded

was the sound from Kubota in operation near the station

Other sources;

• Chirping Birds

• Rustling leaves

• Sounds from flowing water

• Chicken sound

• Person talking nearby

• Motorcycle passing nearby

Date: January 11, 2016 /Time: 23:09 PM

The most dominant source of sound recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Sounds from flowing water

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: January 11, 2016/Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• Vehicle passing nearby

• Motorcycle passing nearby

• Dogs barking

• Chicken sound

Date: January 11, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of sounds recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• Dogs barking

• Chicken sound

N5 Date: January 13, 2016 /Time: 12:14 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• Rustling leaves

• Motorcycle passing nearby

• Goat sound

• Cow sound

Date: January 16, 2016 /Time: 00:33 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• Dogs barking

Annex M - Noise Observation

N6 Date: January 13, 2016 /Time: 10:15 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the birds chirping Other sources;

• Rustling leaves

Date: January 15, 2016 /Time: 23:19 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was cricket’s sounds

N7 Date: January , 2016 /Time: 09:02 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• Chicken’s sound

Date: January 15, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was the cricket’s sound

Other sources

• Chicken sound

• Dog’s barked

Table G-4 Summary of observed sources of noise (February 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: February 09, 2016 / Time: 10:29 AM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded was the crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• Chicken sound

• Dog barking

• Motorcycle passing nearby

Date: February 09, 2016 /Time: 23:17 PM

The most dominant source of the noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

N2 Date: February 09, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound

recorded is continuous chirping birds

Date: February 09, 2016/Time: 22:01 PM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was the crickets sound

N3 Date: February 10, 2016/Time: 10:08 AM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was chirping birds. Other sources;

• Chirping Birds

• Rustling leaves

• Chicken sound

• Goat sound

Date: February 10, 2016 /Time: 23:09 PM

The most dominant source of sound recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Frog sound

• Dog’s barking

N4 Date: February 10, 2016/Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• Vehicle passing nearby

• Motorcycle passing nearby

• Dogs barking

• Chicken sound

Date: February 10, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of sounds recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• Frog sound

• Dog sound

• Motorcycle passing nearby

N5 Date: February 12, 2016 /Time: 12:02 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• Rustling leaves

• Motorcycle passing nearby

• Sound from the house construction

• Cow sound

• Sound from house repair

Date: February 13, 2016 /Time: 00:38 AM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

N6 Date: February 12, 2016 /Time: 10:14 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the birds chirping Other sources;

• Rustling leaves

• Vehicle passing nearby

Date: February 12, 2016 /Time: 23:19 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was cricket’s sounds

N7 Date: February 12 , 2016 /Time: 09:01 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• Chicken’s sound

• Dogs barking

• Motorcycle passing nearby

Date: February 12, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was the cricket’s sound

Other sources

• Dog’s barked

• Truck brake sound

Table G-4 Summary of observed sources of noise (March 2016).

Station Daytime Night time

N1 Date: March 02, 2016 / Time: 10:35 AM The most dominant source of the noise recorded

was the crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: March 02, 2016 /Time: 23:19 PM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: March 02, 2016 /Time: 09:02 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded is

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• Dog’s barked

Date: March 02, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N3 Date: March 04, 2016/Time: 10:24 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

Date: March 04, 2016 /Time: 23:09 PM The most dominant source of sound

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Goat’s sound

• Motorcycle passed by

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

• Rustling leaves

N4 Date: March 04, 2016/Time: 12:19 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: March 04, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

N5 Date: March 04, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: March 07, 2016 /Time: 23:20 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N6 Date: March 07, 2016 /Time: 10:14 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• Gocko sounds

Date: March 07, 2016 /Time: 22:09 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

N7 Date: March 07, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: March 08, 2016 /Time: 22:06 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the cricket’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

• Dog’s barked

Table G-4 Summary of observed sources of noise (April 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: April 05, 2016 / Time: 10:16 AM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded was the crashing waves Other sources;

• birds chirping

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

• airplane sound

Date: April 05, 2016 /Time: 23:17 PM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: April 05, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded is

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

Date: April 05, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the Frog and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: April 06, 2016/Time: 10:08 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded

was continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Dog’s barked

• Goat’s sound

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: April 06, 2016 /Time: 23:11 PM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (not in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: April 06, 2016/Time: 09:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Motorcycle and vehicle passed by 50 meters away

• chicken sound

Date: April 06, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( not in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

N5 Date: April 08, 2016 /Time: 12:06 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: April 09, 2016 /Time: 00:35 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

N6 Date: April 08, 2016 /Time: 10:17 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Vehicle passed by

Date: April 08, 2016 /Time: 23:16 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

• Gecko sound

N7 Date: April 08, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping

Date: April 08, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Gecko sound

Other sources

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

• Dog’s barked

• Chicken’s sound

Table G-5 Summary of observed sources of noise (May 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: May 11, 2016 / Time: 10:16 AM

• The most dominant source of the noise recorded was the birds chirping

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: May 12, 2016 /Time: 23:16 PM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: May 11, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Date: May 12, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: May 13, 2016/Time: 10:08 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Sound from videoke

Date: May 17, 2016 /Time: 23:08 PM The most dominant source of

sound recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: May 13, 2016/Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded were

chainsaw in operation and sound from videoke Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

• duck sound

• motorcycle passed by

Date: May 17, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of

sounds recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N5 Date: May 18, 2016 /Time: 11:59 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: May 21, 2016 /Time: 23:20 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sound ( in

operation)

N6 Date: May 18, 2016 /Time: 10:13 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: May 20, 2016 /Time: 22:09 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chirping birds

N7 Date: May 18, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• People talking

Date: May 20, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the cricket’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Frog’s sound

Table G-6. Summary of observed sources of noise (June 2016).

Station Daytime Night time

N1 Date: June 13, 2016 / Time: 10:19 AM The most dominant source of the noise recorded was the

crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

• people shouting and talking near the station

Date: June 13, 2016 /Time: 23:26 PM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: June 13, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded is continuous

chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Date: June 13, 2016/Time: 22:01 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: June 15, 2016/Time: 10:15 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was continuous

birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Rustling leaves

• Dog’s barked

Date: June 15, 2016 /Time: 23:11 PM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound and Frog’s sound

Other sources:

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: June 15, 2016/Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was continuous

chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: June 15, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

• Frog’s sound

N5 Date: June 17, 2016 /Time: 12:40 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Thunder storm sound

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: June 24, 2016 /Time: 00:43 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous cricket’s and frog’s sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N6 Date: June 17, 2016 /Time: 22:16 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the cricket’s

sound and cicada sounds Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation) Vehicle passing by

Date: June 24, 2016 /Time: 23:22 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was cricket’s and frog’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N7 Date: June 17, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: June 24, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the cricket’s sound and frog’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Table G-9. Summary of observed sources of noise (July 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: July 29, 2016 / Time: 12:02 PM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded was the bird chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: July 31, 2016 /Time: 02:08 PAM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N2 Date: July 28, 2016 /Time: 13:25 PM The most dominant source of sound recorded is

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

•

Date: July 28, 2016/Time: 12:33 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: July 28, 2016/Time: 14:39 PM The most dominant source of sound recorded

was continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Dog’s barked

• Goat’s sound

• People talking

Date: July 31, 2016 /Time: 02:08 AM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound and crashing waves

Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N4 Date: July 28, 2016/Time: 13:48 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Motorcycle and vehicle passed by 50 meters away

• chicken sound

Date: July 28, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

• Frog’s sound

• Dog’s barking

N5 Date: July 29, 2016 /Time: 12:34 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling grasses

• Cow’s sound

Date: July 31, 2016 /Time: 12:41 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Frog’s sound

N6 Date: July 28, 2016 /Time: 10:33 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Cicada sounds

Date: July 30, 2016 /Time: 23:23 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

• Gecko sound

N7 Date: July 29, 2016 /Time: 09:08 AM Date: July 30, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of noise recorded was the continuous birds chirping

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

The most dominant source of noise recorded was the cricket’s sound

Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Frog’s sound

Table G-10 Summary of observed sources of noise (August 2016)

Station Daytime Night time

N1 Date: August 03, 2016 / Time: 14:36 PM

• The most dominant source of the noise recorded was the birds chirping and crashing waves

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

Date: August 03, 2016 /Time: 23:25 PM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chirping birds

N2 Date: August 03, 2016 /Time: 13:12 PM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was continuous chirping birds

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Tractor sound 100 meters away

Date: August 03, 2016/Time: 22:02 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Frog’s sound

N3 Date: August 03, 2016/Time: 10:19 AM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was continuous birds chirping

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Sound from videoke

Date: August 04, 2016 /Time: 22:49 PM The most dominant source of sound recorded

was the continuous cricket’s sound Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: August 03, , 2016/Time: 09:07 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded were chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Tractor sounds 25 meters away

• Chicken sound

• Dog’s barked

Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 12:01 AM The most dominant source of sounds recorded

was the continuous crickets sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

• Frog’s sound

• Motorcycle passed by 25 meters away

N5 Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 12:03 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous cricket’s sound Other sources;

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

N6 Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 10:14 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Gecko sound

• Cicada sound

Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 23:17 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Frog’s sound

N7 Date: August 05, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the continuous birds chirping

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

No data gathered

Table G-11. Summary of observed sources of noise (September 2016).

Station Daytime Night time

N1 Date: September 08, 2016 / Time: 09:12 AM The most dominant source of the noise recorded was the

crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

• people shouting and talking near the station

Date: September 08, 2016 /Time: 23:20 PM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded was crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: September 08, 2016 /Time: 10:30 AM Date: September 08, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM

The most dominant source of sound recorded is continuous chirping birds

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken sounds

The most dominant source of noise recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: September 08, 2016, 2016/Time: 09:12 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was continuous

birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

• Goat sound

• People talking

Date: September 23, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound Other sources:

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

N4 Date: September 08, 2016/Time: 02:41 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was continuous

chirping birds and ricemill in operation near the station Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 25 meters away

•

Date: September 23, 2016 /Time: 23:13 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N5 Date: September 09, 2016 /Time: 12:21PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: September 10, 2016 /Time: 00:43 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous cricket’s sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N6 Date: September 09, 2016 /Time: 10:26 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the chirping

birds Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Date: September 09, 2016 /Time: 23:28 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was cricket’s sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N7 Date: September 09, 2016 /Time: 09:01 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: September 09, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the cricket’s sound and frog’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Table G-12. Summary of observed sources of noise (October 2016).

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: October 10, 2016 / Time: 12:08 PM The most dominant source of the noise recorded

was the crashing waves Other sources;

• birds chirping

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• motorcycle passed by 50 meters away

• airplane sound

Date: October 24, 2016 /Time: 23:18PM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded continuous crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: October 10, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

crashing waves Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Chirping birds

• Dog’s barked

• Motorcycle passed by

• Sounds from a radio

Date: October 24, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was the Frog and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: October 11, 2016/Time: 13:38 PM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Sounds from talking people

• Dog’s barked

• People shouting

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: October 25, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of

sound recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• Frog’s sound

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

• Frog’s sound

N4 Date: October 10, 2016/Time: 09:01 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

• Motorcycle and vehicle passed by 50 meters away

• Cow’s sound

Date: October 25, 2016 /Time: 23:10 PM The most dominant source of

sounds recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( not in operation)

• Frog’s sound

• Dog’s barked

N5 Date: October 11, 2016 /Time: 12:17 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Date: October 27, 2016 /Time: 00:59 AM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N6 Date: October 11, 2016 /Time: 10:18 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: October 26, 2016 /Time: 23:26 PM The most dominant source of noise

recorded was cricket’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N7 Date: October 11, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

Date: October 26, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise

Table G-13. Summary of observed sources of noise (November 2016).

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

• Vehicle passed by

• Sounds from cutting wood

recorded was the cricket’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Station

Daytime Night time

N1 Date: November 08, 2016 / Time: 13:16 PM The most dominant source of the noise recorded

was the crashing waves Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chirping birds

Date: November 15, 2016 /Time: 23:23PM The most dominant source of the

noise recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: November 08, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

continuous chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

Date: November 15, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was the crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N3 Date: November 08, 2016/Time: 10:10 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken sounds

Date: November 21, 2016 /Time: 22:00PM The most dominant source of

sound recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources:

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

N4 Date: November 08, 2016/Time: 11:18 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

continuous bird chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Motorcycle passed by

• Chicken sound

Date: November 21, 2016 /Time: 22:00PM The most dominant source of

sounds recorded was the continuous crickets sound

Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

N5 Date: November 15, 2016 /Time: 12:10 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

Date: November 23, 2016 /Time: 00:52AM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was continuous cricket’s sound

Other sources;

Table G-14 Summary of observed sources of noise (December 2016).

Station Daytime Night time

N1 Date: December 06, 2016 / Time: 10:22 AM The most dominant source of the noise recorded was the

crashing waves Other sources;

• Chirping birds

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: December 12, 2016 /Time: 23:18 PM The most dominant source of the noise

recorded were crashing waves and crickets sound

Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N2 Date: December 06, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded is continuous

chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

Date: December 12, 2016/Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the continuous crickets sound Other source;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

N3 Date: December 06, 2016/Time: 10:15 AM The most dominant source of sound recorded was continuous

birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Chicken’s sound

• Rustling leaves

Date: December 13, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of sound

recorded was the continuous cricket’s sound Other sources:

• WTG humming sounds (in operation)

• Dog’s barked

• Gecko sound

• Motorcycle passed by

• Rustling leaves

• WTG humming sound ( not in operation)

N6 Date: November 15, 2016 /Time: 10:15 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: November 06, 2016 /Time: 22:09 PM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was cricket’s sounds

Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

N7 Date: November 15, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was

the continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

• Motorcycle passed by

Date: November 22, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of

noise recorded was the cricket’s sound

Other sources

• WTG humming sound (not in operation)

N4 Date: December 06, 2016/Time: 13:32 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was continuous

chirping birds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

Date: December 13, 2016 /Time: 23:07 PM The most dominant source of sounds

recorded was the continuous crickets sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sounds ( in operation)

N5 Date: December 07, 2016 /Time: 12:19 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

Date: December 15, 2016 /Time: 00:39 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was continuous cricket’s sound Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

N6 Date: December 07, 2016 /Time: 22:23 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the cricket’s

sound and cicada sounds Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation) Vehicle passing by

Date: December 14, 2016 /Time: 23:19 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was cricket’s and frog’s sounds Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

N7 Date: December 07, 2016 /Time: 09:00 AM The most dominant source of noise recorded was the

continuous birds chirping Other sources;

• WTG humming sound ( in operation)

• Rustling leaves

Date: December 14, 2016 /Time: 22:00 PM The most dominant source of noise recorded

was the cricket’s sound Other sources

• WTG humming sound (in operation)

• Rustling leaves

Appendix 1 - Bantigue Report