Upload
angel-gilyard
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EnviromentalImpactStatementDevelopment Proposals for the Barkarby Field
October 13thSPresentation
Bengoa Xavier
Naldi Chiara
Sai Florence Kai
Kwarteng Owusu Akyaw
Illueca Munoz Jacobo &
Stojanovski Todor
P r e s e n t
EIS
Description of Alternatives
Zero-Alternative
• The proposed development does not take place
• The Barkarby Airport remains
• No -or few- new housing in the area
Zero-Alternative
Zero-Alternative• Increasing road traffic of
approx. 2% per year
• Increasing noise pollution (plane and road traffic)
• Increasing air pollution (plane and road traffic)
Zero-Alternative• Expansion of the IKEA
commercial area in the south
• Creation of a Natural Reserve around the Igelbäcken
• Slow restoration of military damaged forests
Alternative 2The ”Anatomic” development
Alternative 2• The ”Anatomic” development
• The smallest option
• All around the Barkarby village with a green belt in between
Alternative 2• Area concerned: 86.5 hectares
• 4600 new inhabitants
• 11 housing areas (9 with apartments – 2 with villas)
• No public transport network
Description of AlternativesAlternative 4The ”American Dream” development
Alternative 4• The ”American Dream”
development• The medium-sized option• Mixed use: housing &
commercial/business• Only on the North of
Norrviksvägen
Alternative 4• Area concerned: 95.49 hectares• 7170 new inhabitants & 3640
work places• 6 housing areas (6 with
apartments – 2 with villas) & 3 commercial/business areas
• Bus network, pedestrian and cycling paths in the housing areas
Description of AlternativesAlternative 12The ”Tutti Frutti” development
Alternative 12• The ”Tutti Frutti” development• The biggest option• Mixed use: housing &
commercial/business• Around the village of Barkarby
(North, East and South)
Alternative 12• Area concerned: 133 hectares• 11000 new inhabitants• 7 housing areas, all with
apartments & some commercial areas (undefined)
• New tunnel under the whole area moving the transiting traffic
• Bus network, pedestrian and cycling paths
EIS
TrafficAir Quality
Traffic Assumptions• Traffic increase 2% per year
• Timescale of 10 years
Air QualityCO Emissions
Air QualityNO2 Emissions
Main Facts
• NO2 is the only pollutant to be considered
• Not a major threat over 10 meters
• Motorway represents the main pollutant source
EIS
TrafficNoise Impact
baseline 0-alt Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 12
point1 71,45 72,10 76,60 73,25
point2 61,25 62,60 58,40 63,90 62,40
point3 58,40 61,60 73,40 62,05 68,45
point4 54,60 55,00 57,10 55,75 54,65
point5 68,60 68,15 67,05
Baseline
baseline 0-alt Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 12
point1 71,45 72,10 76,60 73,25
point2 61,25 62,60 58,40 63,90 62,40
point3 58,40 61,60 73,40 62,05 68,45
point4 54,60 55,00 57,10 55,75 54,65
point5 68,60 68,15 67,05
0-Alternative
baseline 0-alt Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 12
point1 71,45 72,10 76,60 73,25
point2 61,25 62,60 58,40 63,90 62,40
point3 58,40 61,60 73,40 62,05 68,45
point4 54,60 55,00 57,10 55,75 54,65
point5 68,60 68,15 67,05
baseline 0-alt Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 12
point1 71,45 72,10 76,60 73,25
point2 61,25 62,60 58,40 63,90 62,40
point3 58,40 61,60 73,40 62,05 68,45
point4 54,60 55,00 57,10 55,75 54,65
point5 68,60 68,15 67,05
baseline 0-alt Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 12
point1 71,45 72,10 76,60 73,25
point2 61,25 62,60 58,40 63,90 62,40
point3 58,40 61,60 73,40 62,05 68,45
point4 54,60 55,00 57,10 55,75 54,65
point5 68,60 68,15 67,05
Mitigation Measures• Public-bus network
• Speed limit
• No-building area
• Screens
EIS
HydrologyWater Quality & Runoff
Runoff
• Baseline runoffs:
• Igelbäcken 45 l/s
• Bällstaån 120 l/s
Runoff• Very small runoff increase• Cumulative impacts. Be careful!!!
New built-up surface (ha) Runoff (L/s)Alternative 2 5.11 45.0109Alternative 4 7.17 45.0287Alternative 12 12.85 45.0514
New built-up surface (ha) Runoff (L/s)Alternative 2 15.45 120.0579Alternative 4 38.23 120.2682Alternative 12 31.55 120.1252
Igelbäcken catchment area
Bällstaån catchment area
Nitrogen increase (%) Phosphorus increase (%)Alternative 2 -7.50 0Alternative 4 -9.06 0Alternative 12 -13.97 0
Nitrogen increase (%) Phosphorus increase (%)Alternative 2 -10.00 0.26Alternative 4 -15.25 5.10Alternative 12 -11.69 0.68
Igelbäcken
Bällstaån
Water Quality• Less nitrogen released • Phosphorus increase in Bällstaån
Main Facts• Overflow will increase
• Improved water quality
EIS
EcologyFlora, fauna & landscape
Impacts on Landscape• 0 Alternative
Fragmentation
• Other alternatives Opens the ”Green wedge”
Impacts on Flora
• Only impact will be on the edge of the forests (ecotones) for alternative 2 and 4
Deciduous, coniferous, oak trees, grass
Impacts on Fauna
• Alternative 4 and 12 are close to the Igelbäcken Impact on fish
• Mitigation Restricted access to the stream
Stone Loach and Spinned Loach
EIS
Social
Population & Economic Growth
• Population base & high level for the municipality (Regional plan)
• Green buildings concept
Green buildings concept• "Typical" buildings consume more of our
resources than necessary, negatively impact the environment, and generate a large amount of waste.
• Energy efficiency, use renewable energy• Water conservation • Waste minimization• Reduced operation and maintenance costs
72.44 31.34 72.44 31.34
Public Participation
• Interviews & questionnaires
• Meetings
EIS
Monitoring
Agency responsible for monitoring
Agency responsible for retaining
monitoring results
Mon
tly
Qua
rter
ly
Ann
ualy
Upo
n co
mpl
ains
or
requ
ests
TrafficCounty Administration
BoardX X
County Administration Board
NoiseCounty Administration
BoardX X
County Administration Board
Air qualitySwedish
Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
X XCounty Administration
Board
Water quality in Igelbäcken
Stockholm Water Institute
X XCounty Administration
Board
Fish population in Igelbäcken
Swedish Museum of Natural History or National Board of
Fisheries
X XCounty Administration
Board
Frequency
Monitoring plan
EIS
Conclusion &Recommendations
• No big difference between the alternatives for environmental impacts
• Big differences in social impacts
We decide to recommend
Alternative 4
• Better balance between the needs for housing and the economic development of the area
• Avoids uncertainty concerning further development of the IKEA commercial area
• Very good public transport network
• Limited impact on the environment (no excavation, no deforestation)
• Improvement of water quality (especially in the Igelbäcken)
The End