1. E nviromental I mpact S tatement D evelopment P roposals for the B arkarby F ield O ctober 13 th S P resentation B engoa X avier N aldi C hiara S ai F lorence K ai K warteng O wusu A kyaw I llueca M unoz J acobo & S tojanovski T odor P r e s e n t

2. EIS Description of Alternatives

3. Zero-Alternative

5. The proposed development does not take place The Barkarby Airport remains No -or few- new housing in the area Zero-Alternative

6. Increasing road traffic of approx. 2% per year Increasing noise pollution (plane and road traffic) Increasing air pollution (plane and road traffic)

7. 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

8. Alternative 2 The ”Anatomic” development

10. Alternative 2 The ”Anatomic” development The smallest option All around the Barkarby village with a green belt in between

11. Alternative 2 Area concerned: 86.5 hectares 4600 new inhabitants 11 housing areas (9 with apartments – 2 with villas) No public transport network

12. Description of AlternativesAlternative 4 The ”American Dream” development

14. Alternative 4 The ”American Dream” development The medium-sized option Mixed use: housing & commercial/business Only on the North of Norrviksvägen

15. 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

16. Description of AlternativesAlternative 12 The ”Tutti Frutti” development

18. Alternative 12 The ”Tutti Frutti” development The biggest option Mixed use: housing & commercial/business Around the village of Barkarby (North, East and South)

19. 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

20. EIS Traffic Air Quality

21. Traffic Assumptions Traffic increase 2% per year Timescale of 10 years

22. Air Quality CO Emissions

28. Air Quality NO2 Emissions

34. Main Facts NO2 is the only pollutant to be considered Not a major threat over 10 meters Motorway represents the main pollutant source

35. EIS Traffic Noise Impact

36. baseline0-altAlt 2Alt 4Alt 12 point171,4572,1076,6073,25 point261,2562,6058,4063,9062,40 point358,4061,6073,4062,0568,45 point454,6055,0057,1055,7554,65 point568,6068,1567,05 Baseline

37. baseline0-altAlt 2Alt 4Alt 12 point171,4572,1076,6073,25 point261,2562,6058,4063,9062,40 point358,4061,6073,4062,0568,45 point454,6055,0057,1055,7554,65 point568,6068,1567,05 0-Alternative

38. baseline0-altAlt 2Alt 4Alt 12 point171,4572,1076,6073,25 point261,2562,6058,4063,9062,40 point358,4061,6073,4062,0568,45 point454,6055,0057,1055,7554,65 point568,6068,1567,05

39. baseline0-altAlt 2Alt 4Alt 12 point171,4572,1076,6073,25 point261,2562,6058,4063,9062,40 point358,4061,6073,4062,0568,45 point454,6055,0057,1055,7554,65 point568,6068,1567,05

40. baseline0-altAlt 2Alt 4Alt 12 point171,4572,1076,6073,25 point261,2562,6058,4063,9062,40 point358,4061,6073,4062,0568,45 point454,6055,0057,1055,7554,65 point568,6068,1567,05

41. Mitigation Measures Public-bus network Speed limit No-building area Screens

45. EIS Hydrology Water Quality & Runoff

46. Runoff Baseline runoffs: Igelbäcken 45 l/s Bällstaån 120 l/s

47. Runoff Very small runoff increase Cumulative impacts. Be careful!!!

48. Water Quality Less nitrogen released Phosphorus increase in Bällstaån

49. Main Facts Overflow will increase Improved water quality

50. EIS Ecology Flora, fauna & landscape

51. Impacts on Landscape 0 Alternative  Fragmentation Other alternatives  Opens the ”Green wedge”

52. Impacts on Flora Only impact will be on the edge of the forests (ecotones) for alternative 2 and 4 Deciduous, coniferous, oak trees, grass

53. 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

54. EIS Social

56. Population & Economic Growth Population base & high level for the municipality (Regional plan) Green buildings concept

57. "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

58.    

59.    

60.     72.4431.3472.4431.34

61. Public Participation Interviews & questionnaires Meetings

62. EIS Monitoring

64. EIS Conclusion & Recommendations

65. No big difference between the alternatives for environmental impacts Big differences in social impacts  We decide to recommend Alternative 4

66. Better balance between the needs for housing and the economic development of the area Avoids uncertainty concerning further development of the IKEA commercial area

67. Very good public transport network Limited impact on the environment (no excavation, no deforestation) Improvement of water quality (especially in the Igelbäcken)

68. The End