Impact


Worst case parameter for assessment therefore 3.16km2 (1.01% of the East Anglia THREE site).


1. Cable protection of export cable (East Anglia site to shore) east of crossings with Greater Gabbard export cable (assuming 10% of cable length requires protection and that the cable protection is 6m in width) would be up to 0.3km2.


2. Cable protection of export cable (East Anglia site to shore) west of crossings with Greater Gabbard export cable (assuming 2.5% of cable length requires protection and that the cable protection is 6m in width): 0.02km2.


Total footprint during operation, (i.e. associated with cable protection), within the offshore cable corridor is 0.32km2. (0.03% of the offshore cable corridor).


The overall total footprint would therefore be 3.48km2.


Impact 2: Introduction of hard substrate and permanent loss of habitat


The introduction of new hard structures with a maximum surface area provided by the following project infrastructure:


1. Gravity base foundations for wind turbines 2. Gravity base foundations for offshore platforms and meteorological masts,


3. Inter-array cable protection and crossings,


4. cable protection of HVAC export cables between collector and converter stations


Cable protection of HVDC export cable Impact 3: Operational noise 172 wind turbines (7MW) with minimum spacing (675m x 900m)


Maximum number of operation and maintenance works over the proposed East Anglia THREE project lifetime (25 years).


1. 52 service trips to site per annum; and 2. 4,015 Wind Farm Support vessel trips to site per annum.


Preliminary Environmental Information May 2014


East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm


Chapter 11 Fish and Shellfish Page 16


The largest number of wind turbines with the closest spacing results in the generation of the greatest levels of underwater noise.


It is not possible to accurately calculate the surface area that would be available for colonisation. It would however be greater than the figure presented for “footprint” in operation Impact 1 (above) as the former is a 3-D metric, whilst the latter is 2-D.


Rationale


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111