Abagold WEC BAR - Anchor Environmental

Potential ImpactStatusAlternative1Alternative2Alternative3AND NOISE GENERATED BY TURBINESPOTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS: JOBCREATION AND SECURITY Positive High High HighPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS:WAVE AND CURRENT REGIME CHANGES Negative Low Low LowPOTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEIGHBOURING USERS:VISUAL IMPACTSNegativeMediumlowMediumlowMediumEnvironmental impact statements for the four identified project alternatives are presented below.Alternative 1 (preferred alternative)The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 1 of the development are allmedium-low, low, very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales)during the construction phase of the project which were considered to be of medium significance.These noise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of the project and hence will berelatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to the implementation of theproject. The phased implementation of infrastructure and activities in this alternative is attractive inthat it will allow the viability of the project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place.Identified positive impacts of this alternative are likely to be highly significant and will be of lastingduration and strongly motivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 2The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are very similar to Alternative1, and are also all medium-low, low, very low or insignificant, aside from potential noise impacts oncetaceans (whales) during the construction phase of the project which were considered to be ofmedium significance. These noise-related impacts will be restricted to the construction phase of theproject and hence will be relatively short-lived and as such do not represent a significant obstacle to theimplementation of this alternative. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on this alternativerenders it less attractive relative to Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability of the projectto be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of this alternativeare as for Alternative 1, and are likely to be highly significant and will be of lasting duration and stronglymotivate for implementation of the project.Alternative 3The identified potential negative environmental impacts of Alternative 3 are more significant thanAlternative 1 or 2 owing to the larger size of the WEC proposed in this alternative, but are still mostly ofmedium, low, or very low significance, aside from potential noise impacts on cetaceans (whales) duringthe construction phase of the project, and the impacts to the water intake capabilities by Aquafarmduring both the construction and operational phases, which were both considered to be of highsignificance . As is the case for Alternatives 1 and 2, these noise-related impacts will be restricted to the15