2.1 The purpose of the Project is to advance the construction of a part of the works (i.e. part of the Slip Roads 5 and 6) to be constructed under the Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay to provide a second entrance/exit to and from the proposed theme park and other developments in Penny’s Bay to relieve large number of park visitors, in case of emergency situation.
2.2 The scope of works for the proposed Road P1 Advance Works at Sunny Bay includes the followings:
(i) construction of about 1,000m of 2-lanes single carriageway road, namely Slip Road 5, including about 650m on elevated concrete structures, about 200m on elevated steel structures and the remaining section on reclamation;
(ii) construction of about 1,000m of 2-lanes carriageway road, namely Slip Road 6, including about 650m on elevated concrete structures, about 200m on elevated steel structures and the remaining section on reclamation;
(iii) construction of an at-grade roundabout, namely at-grade Road P1 Roundabout, to the west of Sunny Bay reclamation area formed under the Infrastructure for Penny’s Bay Development, Contract 1;
(iv) construction of about 150m of dual-2 and two 350m single two-lane at-grade road, namely Road A, connecting from the at-grade Road P1 Roundabout to Sunny Bay Road Roundabout north of Sunny Bay Public Transport Interchange and the associated retaining wall;
(v) reclamation works (about 3 ha.) and construction of seawall for forming the road embankment;
(vi) other associated works including traffic control and surveillance system and CCTV facilities in connection with the roads construction of at-grade road connections from the at-grade Road P1 Roundabout to Sunny Bay Road Roundabout north of the proposed Sunny Bay Public Transport Interchange;
(vii) provision of environmental mitigation measures during construction and operational stage, including but not limited to landscape and visual remedies to be recommended in the approved EIA study to be carried out in this Supplementary Assignment; and
(viii) provision of future construction of the Road P1 works at Sunny Bay.
2.3 A preliminary layout plan and vertical alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 and Road A to be constructed under this Project is shown in Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 respectively.
2.4 The concrete bridge sections of Slip Roads 5 and 6 as indicated in the layout will form the permanent section of Slip Road 5 and 6 under the Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay project. The roads continue on steel bridges are formed for the transient operations during emergency situation and their operating speeds will be restricted. Therefore, lower geometric standard is adopted for the sections of roads on steel bridges. Road A is formed to complete the routes for the proposed contingency plan connecting between the at-grade Road P1 Roundabout and Sunny Bay Road roundabout at the end of Sunny Bay Road.
2.5 The road sections on steel bridges and Road A including the at-grade Road P1 Roundabout will be demolished for construction of Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay project.
2.6 Based on the latest assumption, the Project is scheduled to commence in mid 2006 for completion in the 4th quarter of 2008.
2.7 The Project covers the following two specific designated project (DP) elements under the EIAO:
(i) construction and operation of roads which are district distributors (Slip Roads 5 and 6 and Road A) (Item A.1 of Part I of Schedule 2 of the EIAO); and
(ii) reclamation works (including associated dredging works) of more than 1 ha in size (about 3 ha of reclamation works would be required for this Project) and the boundary of which is less than 500m from the nearest boundary of the existing Luk Keng Conservation Area (LKCA) and the planned Lantau North Country Park Extension (LNCPE) (Item C.2 of Part I of Schedule 2 of EIAO).
2.8 During the review of the preliminary layout under this project, different options were explored and evaluated under various aspect in order to fulfil all the requirements and achieve the objective of the project, which is to provide an alternative access for vehicles entering and exiting the Theme Park when blockage of the existing Link Roads occurred. Other aspects that had been used for evaluation were the choice of road alignment, form of structure, junction assessment, road traffic noise, air quality, landscape and visual impact, land resumption, construction costs and programme. After striking the balance from all relevant aspects, the project scope has been determined and detail environmental impact study is then conducted to investigate and explore possible mitigation measures to remedy the unavoidable environmental impacts. The details of the recommended options and those options considered are discussed in the follow paragraphs.
Development Constraints
2.9 Before going into the discussion of development options considered, which are very limited, some of the major site constrains comprises existing features, proposed developments in proximity area and latest planned uses of land in Sunny Bay area which affecting the selection of options are listed as follows:
§ Operation of the adjoining log ponds
§ Existing North Lantau Highway
§ Existing Airport Express Line (AEL)
§ Existing Sunny Bay Traction Substation
§ Existing Link Roads 1 to 4 at the interchange area
§ Proposed Disneyland Resort Line and the Sunny Bay Station
§ Proposed Sunny Bay Public Transport Interchange
§ Future Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay
§ Future Tourism Area Gateway
2.10 For the planned land uses in Sunny Bay area, it is worth-mentioned that there are still uncertainties on the commissioning year of the future developments. At the time when this report is prepared, the commissioning year of Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok to Sunny Bay Section is scheduled in Year 2014 supported by “Strategic Highways Project Review – Review Report No. 7/01-02” undertaken by Transport Department in 2002. Furthermore, Tourism Area Gateway is to be commissioned in 2016 as identified in the final report of the Northshore Lantau Development Feasibility Study (NLDFS) conducted in 2000.
2.11 No further development details are available besides from the context of the final report of the NLDFS. In this regard, the development options considered for this Project with respect to constraints imposed by this future developments are based on the preliminary information obtained from the NLDFS.
2.12 The layout of Option 1 considered is presented in Figure 2.5. The alignment of Option 1 is different from Option 3 – the Recommended Option by adopting a high geometric standard of vertical and horizontal alignment along the steel bridge sections of Slip Roads 5 and 6 and Road A. In this regards, this option will require a minimum increase of 3 hectare in size of reclamation, construction of an elevated roundabout, an increase of 500m elevated concrete bridges. Nonetheless, the alignment proposed in this option is designed to follow the permanent alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 and the elevated roundabout under Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay project and the slip roads will run northeast ward over the log ponds in Sunny Bay.
2.13 As mentioned above, implementation of roads following this alignment will require reclamation of approximate 6 hectare in total, higher impacts on tidal current patterns in the bay area and water quality compared to Option 3 is therefore expected
2.14 The increased area of reclamation would result in a shift of the work site boundary closer to the Luk Keng area cutting down the separation between the work sites and the sensitive receivers at Luk Keng Tsuen, construction phase environmental impacts, in particular construction noise impact, would likely become more significant.
2.15 Landscape and visual sensitive receivers for this option would be similar as compared to Option 3. However, considering the increase in extent of reclamation, prolonged landscape and environmental impact during construction period would unavoidably be envisaged as compared to Option 3. With construction of an elevated roundabout and concrete bridges (above 7m above finished reclamation land on average) over the reclaimed land, environmental impact in respect of landscape and visual as compared to Option 3 would likely become more significant.
2.16 The option assessment also included the evaluation of impacts on land, cost and programme implication. The comparison of land criteria had largely been based upon the level of difficulty associated with the resumption of private lots. Option 1 will affect the short-term tenancies of the log ponds at Sunny Bay. The difficulty to obtaining this land was expected to be high and extra time for clearance of land would delay the completion of this Project substantially beyond the opening of the Theme Park. This option was likely to take over a year longer and cost more than the recommended option with additional reclamation and bridge foundations to be constructed. Given that the construction period would be prolonged should this option be adopted, the duration for the sensitive receivers subject to potential construction phase environmental impacts would inevitably be longer.
2.17 In summary, this option is considered not justified at this stage for the following reasons listed below:
• imposed unnecessary constraints to future Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay as the design alignment and the project status are not yet confirmed.
• 50% increase of reclaimed land required (compared to Option 3), with higher impact on tidal current patterns in the bay area and water quality.
• extra 9 to 18 months required for clearance of log ponds in Sunny Bay would delay the completion of the Project and the slippage of 9 to 18 months is not desirable. As a result of the prolonged construction period, the sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the Project site would be subject to a longer period of time exposed to the likely environmental disturbance due to the construction of the Project.
• extra $150M of construction cost required with additional elevated structure constructed (Current estimated total cost for the preferred option is $450M)
• The increased area of reclamation would result in a shift of the work site boundary closer to the Luk Keng area cutting down the separation between the work sites and the sensitive receivers at Luk Keng Tsuen, construction noise impact would become more significant.
2.18 A second option considered was to make use of the Sunny Bay reclamation area constructed under the Penny’s Bay Development project, the road alignment of which is shown in Figure 2.6.
2.19 The Sunny Bay reclamation area was reclaimed to provide a public transport interchange serving passengers to and from Penny’s Bay via land transport during the emergency break down of DRL. With the alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 turning 180 degree around and over the existing NLH and future MTR Sunny Bay Station, the roads are then connect with the Sunny Bay Road (Sunny Bay section) which provide local access from Sunny Bay reclamation area to the Penny’s Bay Development. A low geometric standard of the slip roads in accordance with TPDM is adopted.
2.20 With implementation of Option 2, location of landscape and visual sensitive receivers identified as compared to Option 3 are of similar. Due to the increased distant from roads, the landscape and visual impact to Sunny Bay area would likely be slightly less significant. However, as majority of roads constructed in Option 2 are on elevated road section, provision of landscape planting as compensatory measures along the roads is not likely to be feasible.
2.21 Although Option 2 would eliminate the need of reclamation at the bay area of Sunny Bay, this option will have direct impact to the MTR Sunny Bay Station, in particular, the high fabric roof spanning across the platforms of Tung Chung and Tsing Yi bound of the railway station. Extremely long span is necessary to provide the required clearance from this fabric roof. In view of the overall bridge design, it is considered not very cost-effective and structural undesirable to have a single long span with the remaining spans arranged rather short.
2.22 Besides, the layout of Slip Roads 5 and 6 will be incompatible to implementation of future Road P1 and Sunny Bay Area Gateway identified in the Outline Development Plan. The need for the provision of Road P1 by 2014 to avoid congestion at NLH was confirmed by Transport Department. If Option 2 is adopted, implementation of future Road P1 will require demolition of Slip Roads 5 and 6. By the time future Road P1 is implemented, road capacity of NLH has almost reaches saturation and any demolition of the section of bridges over NLH for construction of the permanent Slip Roads 5 & 6 will have significant impact to the traffic access to and from the Airport via NLH.
2.23 Considering the above, this option is not recommended for the following reasons:
• direct impact to the MTR Sunny Bay Station
• extremely long span is necessary crossing over the AEL and MTR Sunny Bay Station
• not very cost-effective and structural undesirable to have a single long span with the remaining spans arranged rather short
• incompatible to future planned uses of land in Sunny Bay
• two-time disturbance of live traffic along NLH and AEL during implementation of Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay development as alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 over the road network does not conform with permanent design
2.24 For the recommended layout as shown in Figure 2.1, Slip Roads 5 and 6 would be divided into two sections, the permanent and the temporary section. For the portion of roads that will form part of the permanent section, a normal geometric standard would be used to ensure smooth operation of these roads. However, some temporary roads will be formed to complete the routes for the proposed contingency plan. These temporary roads will only be used for transient operations during emergency situation and their operating speeds will be restricted. Therefore, a lower geometric standard is recommended for these temporary roads.
2.25 For the permanent sections of Slip Roads 5 and 6, the bridge decks will be precast segment concrete box girder with side cantilevers. Structural form of the bridge decks was designed to a scheme that is consistent with and coherent to the existing elevated structures in Sunny Bay interchange. For the temporary sections of slip roads, steel decking supported by reinforced concrete footing will be provided. The adoption of steel decking will allow flexibility in road diversions during future construction of Road P1.
2.26 The recommended alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 was designed to tally with the current configuration of future Road P1. It also minimize the impact on planned development intensity and parameters of the planned tourism development in North Lantau particularly Sunny Bay reclamation. Flexibility was also retained to cater for the interfacing arrangements for the phased development in Sunny Bay.
2.27 Slip Roads 5 and 6 in the recommended option aligned parallel and seaward to NLH but running as close as practical to NLH to minimize land-take and reclaimed area. The embayed area of Sunny Bay is less disturbed and thus diminishes the impact on the adjacent ecological habitat.
2.28 Overall construction time required would be much less in comparing to other options. In other words, the prime objective of this Project could be achieved sooner after the opening of Theme Park.
2.29 In conclusion, the recommended option is selected for the following reasons:
§ the recommended alignment tally with the current configuration of Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay and providing flexibility for the future alignment of Road P1
§ with the permanent alignment of slip roads constructed over NLH and AEL, one-time disturbance to the existing live traffic along the strategic transportation network connecting to the airport is accomplished;
§ the land-take and reclaimed area minimized, reducing impacts on tidal current and water quality
§ lengthy lead-time in land clearance of log ponds in Sunny Bay avoided
2.30 Because of the limited working space adjacent to the MTR Sunny Bay Traction Substation and Sunny Bay Station and the requirement of crossing NLH and railway tracks, a structural scheme of less foundation is prepared.
2.31 The articulation of the bridge structures is subjected to the existing and planned site constraints as described in paragraph 2.9 above. Bridge supports have to be located in the areas where the columns and foundation will have sufficient clearance from existing structures and facilities and utility diversion works could be minimized during construction. This in fact does not leave much choice for the locations of the bridge piers.
2.32 Different span arrangements have been developed and it is considered optimum to accommodate the various constraints by providing a total of 14 piers for Slip Road 5 and 16 piers for Slip Road 6 at the concrete bridge section with span length ranging from 32.6m to 55m. For the steel bridge section forming on the reclaimed land, bridges piers supported on pad footing foundations located at 15m apart will be provided for supporting the superstructures.
2.33 Since the foundation is in close proximity to the existing viaduct of NLH, the MTR Sunny Bay Traction Sub-station and Sunny Bay Station, the railway tracks of AEL and Disneyland Resort Line (DRL), the working space for the foundation works is very limited. The use of the relatively large plants for bored piling works may not be feasible at some pier locations due to limited working space.
2.34 An alternative foundation option of pre-bored steel H-pile is therefore considered. The pre-bored steel H-pile construction will require less working space and less headroom which makes construction under existing viaduct structures of NLH feasible. In addition, vibration caused by the type of piling works is minimized and potential damages to adjacent railway tracks and vulnerable network cabling system of the AEL are therefore diminished.
2.35 The use of pre-bored steel H-piles would reduce construction phase environmental impacts, e.g. noise, dust and water quality impacts, from piling works on sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the Project site.
2.36 The concrete bridge deck is in the form of a single-cell box girder of structural depth of 2.8m for the permanent sections of Slip Roads 5 and 6.
2.37 To minimize the disturbance to the existing live traffic along NLH and the operation of railway along AEL and DRL, the balanced cantilever construction method is considered suitable as erection of scaffolding could be eliminated and disruption of traffic could also minimized.
2.38 The main benefit of this type of construction, when used with a launching girder, is that deck construction can span across areas that are inaccessible from ground level. This was particular important because the alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 passes above the critical railway and expressway serving the Airport and Penny’s Bay. Besides, the roads and railways formed major constraints to the construction works involving limited hours during night possessions that makes balanced-cantilever method with launching girder appropriate. Due to the limited available works area at the existing ground and time allowed for construction, erection of precast segments by overhead gantry is considered reasonable.
2.39 The launching girder is about 120m long and 6-8m in height and allowing approximately 6m high working space between the gantry and the finish structural level, the gantry will be easily observed while travelling along NLH to and from the Airport.
2.40 The temporary up-ramp of Slip Rod 5 and down-ramp of Slip Road 6 at the western end connected to the at-grade Road P1 Roundabout are in the form of steel decking which will be easier to dismantle than a concrete structure and allow greater flexibility in development of the Road P1 between Sham Shui Kok and Sunny Bay. The steel deck will be formed by steel I-beams with in-situ concrete deck slab.
2.41 Due to the availability of land at the western end of the slip roads, it is envisaged that the portals and deck structures for the steel temporary ramps will be pre-fabricated and transported to site for installation.
2.42 The concrete units required for the bridge superstructures would be pre-fabricated outside Hong Kong, construction noise, dust and water quality impacts arising from which at the proposed Project site would thus be avoided. Since the scale of the proposed Project would be limited, the quantity of pre-cast concrete units necessary for the construction of the Project would not be substantial. Insurmountable off-site environmental impacts would not be envisaged.
2.43 The advance reclamation area at Sunny Bay is located at the south side of Sunny Bay immediately adjacent to the AEL. The advance reclamation area will be protected by 600m of seawall of which approximately 180m will be sloping and the remaining 420m vertical. The size of the advance reclamation has been minimized and tailored to accommodate the proposed interim alignment of Slip Roads 5 and 6 and the Road P1 Roundabout. The shape of the advance reclamation is therefore relatively elongated with the proposed seawall following the alignment of the existing seawall and offset up to 80m further northwest.
2.44 Existing shoreline at Sunny Bay faces northwest and adjoins reclamation formed for the AEL and NLH using dredged reclamation methods. The existing seawall is sloping rock armour. The seabed levels in the area vary from about –2.0mPD near the shoreline to about –13.0mPD along the east end of the proposed seawall. The site is exposed to waves from the northwest.
2.45 The available ground data and further ground investigation conducted in end 2002 for this Project indicates that the thickness of soft marine deposit varies along the longitudinal profile of the site. The layer of marine deposit is approximately 20m within the area of the proposed advance reclamation.
2.46 To minimize the disposal of marine deposit, dredging of this soft mud layer will be avoided for the reclamation works. However, full dredging of soft layer is recommended at seawall foundation only to allow construction of a practical and compatible interface structures between the proposed and existing seawall at the east and west end of the advance reclamation and to provide a firm support to the significant magnitude of loads arising from the embankment and elevated roads and their close proximity to the proposed seawall cope line.
2.47 Besides constructing seawall on dredged foundations, a number of alternative seawall options have been considered. These options are constructed seawall on drained foundations, on sand/stone column foundations or on deep cement mixing (DCM) foundations. Comparison of this three type of foundations together with dredged foundations in respect of cost, risk, performance, stability, long term stability and environmental impact had been carried out and it is significant to note that the sand/stone columns and DCM would cost approximately 289% and 242% more than the dredged foundation.
2.48 The drained foundations option is not considered feasible for several key reasons:
§ the close proximity of log ponds within Sunny Bay prevents the placement of gently sloping temporary surcharging over the shallow dredged seabed;
§ the strength gain of conventional band drained insitu compressible deposits under surcharging would not be adequate to cater for the required foundation strength associated with vertical seawalls in combination with significant live loading from the elevated slip roads.
2.49 The sand/stone foundation treatment and DCM method is considered not suitable and is therefore not considered because of the following reasons:
§ need of extensive removal of disturbed seabed material and sand blanket eliminates benefit of this alternative to dredging;
§ higher residual settlements pose difficulties with design of bridge foundation and structure; and
§ need for a field trial requires additional cost and at least an additional 9 months;
2.50 The dredged option has been used successfully for the adjacent Sunny Bay reclamation without unacceptable impacts on the existing seawall and AEL. With proper implementation of the mitigation measures including the use of tightly sealed grabs and silt curtains, impact on water quality can be successfully mitigated. Details of the mitigation measures and assessment on the water quality impact from dredging works are discussed in Chapter 5 of the report.
2.51 The majority of the proposed works run along the coastal area at Sunny Bay. The assessment area is generally a sparsely populated area dominated by scattered village houses at Luk Keng Tsuen. In the vicinity of the construction area are NLH and AEL.
2.52 Luk Keng Conservation Area and the planned Lantau North Extension Country Park are found to the north and south of the proposed Project site respectively.
2.53 The Assessment Area for the purpose of this EIA Study, as specified in the Study Brief, is presented below (refer to Figure 2.1):
§ Noise impact assessment – the area within a 300m distance from the Project. The assessment area could be reduced accordingly if the first layer of noise sensitive receiver, closer than 300m from the project boundary, provides acoustic shielding to those receivers located further away subject to the agreement of the Director of Environmental Protection.
§ Air quality impact assessment - the area within a 500m distance from the Project.
§ Water quality impact assessment - cover all water bodies and sensitive receivers within the radius of 4km from the project site boundary and include the Ma Wan fish culture zone.
§ Marine ecological impact assessment – the assessment area would be the same as for the water quality impact assessment described above.
§ Terrestrial ecological impact assessment – cover all areas within 500m distance from the site boundary of the works areas.
§ Fisheries impact assessment – include all areas within 500m distance from the project area and any areas likely to be impacted by the Project.
§ Cultural heritage impact study – cover the entire foot of the work boundary as shown in Figure 2.1.
§ Landscape impact assessment – the area within a 500m distance from the Project
§ Visual impact assessment – the area within the viewshed formed by natural / man-made features
2.54 Appendix 2.1 shows the preliminary construction program of the project. According to the program, construction is scheduled to commence in mid 2006 for completion in 4th quarter of 2008. Since at this early stage of the Project there are uncertainties over the way that individual contractors will programme elements of the work, the programme has adopted a worst case scenario and assumes that certain activities will be carried out concurrently. Assessed impacts are therefore always conservative.
2.55 For the purpose of this EIA study, traffic flows for years 2008 and 2023 were forecast for all major roads within 500m of the proposed project site, which respectively represents the year of Project commencement and maximum traffic flow conditions within 15 years after the Project commencement.
2.56 According to the preliminary project implementation program, the proposed Project would be operational within the period of Year 2008 to 2023. Traffic forecasts for year 2023 would be considered as the peak traffic projection for the proposed project on account of the positive growth rate of the traffic flow in the assessment area. The traffic data are presented in Appendix 2.2.
2.57 In the light of one of the main purposes of the proposed Project that is to provide alternative routes to and from the Theme Park in Penny’s Bay in case of emergency such as car accidents, traffic conditions of a hypothetical emergency scenario were predicted for the purpose of traffic noise and air quality impact assessment. The traffic condition for the emergency scenario was based on the assumption that the existing Link Roads 1 and 2 are blocked, and that all traffic are diverted to the proposed Slip Roads 5 and 6. Traffic forecast for the emergency scenario is provided in Appendix 2.2.
2.58 It would be envisaged that, under prevailing normal circumstances, traffic flow along the road sections proposed to be constructed under this Project would not be high. In the case of an emergency situation, traffic along these road sections would be expected to go up. However, such an emergency would only happen rarely and its duration would be limited. The assessment for the emergency scenario would be adopted as a reference scenario only.
2.59 Traffic data adopted for the present assessment was agreed by Transport Department.
2.60 Other projects near the proposed Project work site could give rise to cumulative environmental impacts on sensitive receivers if their constructions are to be undertaken concurrently with the Project. Based on the Theme Park EIA, NLDFS-EIA along with the information available at the time, the construction of the current projects in Sunny Bay including MTRC Disneyland Resort Line and CEDD Infrastructure for Penny’s Bay Development would be completed in Quarter 3 of 2005. Therefore, there would be no interfaced key project to be carried out concurrently with the Project.
2.61 One of the key objectives of the Project is to ensure that a second entrance/exit is provided to and from the proposed Theme Park in Penny’s Bay for relieving large number of park visitors during emergency situations. Without this Project, traffic entering/exiting to/from Theme Park could make use of an existing private overpass over NLH at MTRC Siu Ho Wan Depot. Minor modifications to the overpass would be required before providing a temporary rerouting of traffic. However, modification of this private overpass would however have financial and legal implications and would be subjected to agreement with MTRCL.
2.62 In the absence of the Project, the environmental conditions of the assessment area of this Project would still be subject to planned and committed changes as a result of the construction and operation of projects described in Section 2.60, as described in the NLDFS EIA.
2.63 As predicted in the NLDFS EIA, the planned developments under the NLDFS would comply with all environmental standards and legislation with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures for construction and operation phases. The NLDFS EIA also demonstrated the environmental feasibility of the residual impacts from the planned developments.
Consideration on Alternative Road Alignment
Consideration on Design and Construction Method
Environmental Conditions in the Absence of The Project
Figure 2.1 General Layout of the Recommended Option
Figure 2.2 Vertical Profile of Slip Road 5
Figure 2.3 Vertical Profile of Slip Road 6
Figure 2.4 Vertical Profile of Road A
Figure 2.5 General Layout of Alternative Alignment – Option 1
Figure 2.6 General Layout of Alternative Alignment – Option 2
Appendix 2.1 Preliminary Construction Programme
Appendix 2.2 Traffic Forecast for Years 2008 and 2023 (Normal and Emergency Scenarios)