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