Abagold WEC BAR - Anchor Environmental

during 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 theconstruction phase of the project, and will be relatively short-lived. However, the larger size of this WECand the increased depth of water will require considerably greater volumes of construction material andlonger construction times than for Alternative 1 and 2. The southern side wall of the proposed WEC damfor Alternative 3 will cut across the channel directly in front of the Aquafarm intake, thereby severelyhindering their seawater intake capability. The lack of a phased-implementation approach on thisalternative also renders it less attractive than Alternative 1 in that it does not allow for the viability ofthe project to be assessed before full implementation has taken place. Identified positive impacts of thisalternative are as for Alternative 1 and 2, but increased construction costs render this alternative lesssecure from a financial perspective.No-go alternative (compulsory)No potential negative biophysical impacts were identified as being associated with the No-goalternative. However, escalating costs of electricity coupled with the high demand for this resource byAbagold pose a significant threat to the current and future viability of company’s abalone farmingoperations, and hence its ability to retain existing jobs and to secure new jobs in the future. Thisrepresents a highly significant potential negative socio-economic impact associated with this alternativeand strongly mitigates against adopting this alternative.73