Haidong Jiang
© 2022 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
In order to evaluate the Guizhou Weining to Weizhang (qian dian) highway engineering construction affects the surrounding environment, according to the nature of the construction project, scale, location, using production technology or pollution prevention and prevention measures for analysis, through the water environment, air environment, sound environment, ecological environment four evaluation factor analysis and evaluation. Through eight working area construction waste water, sewage water quality test analysis, ambient air and sound environment sensitive point 44, and construction along the 200m land, vegetation, wildlife, wood trees four aspects of the ecological environment evaluation, and the compensation method, scoring method and analysis method of the proposed project construction project environmental profit and loss has carried on the qualitative analysis. The analysis results show that the positive benefits of environmental economy generated by the proposed expressway are predominant, so the project is feasible from the perspective of environmental protection.
highway, environmental evaluation factor, compensation method, scoring method, environmental economy
With the construction of expressway in full swing, the increasing total mileage is increasing, its impact and damage on the ecological environment is more and more serious, so it is necessary to carry out the expressway ecological environment impact assessment research [1-5].
"Guizhou Weining to Weizhang (Guizhou-Yunnan Border) Expressway Project" is an important part of the "second horizontal" Daxing to Weining Expressway in the "Guizhou Expressway Network Planning". This project and Yangliu to Xuanwei Yunnan section highway linking, the north proposed Duxiangguogao Liupanshui to Weining section, south under construction Hangruiguogao to Xuanwei section, and through related projects connecting Bijie to Weining highway, is the national highway network in northwest Guizhou, east Yunnan economic radiation driving extension and expansion, is the northwest Guizhou national highway, and to strengthen the regional economic cooperation in Yunnan and an important inter-provincial highway channel.
Through testing and analyzing the water quality of construction wastewater and domestic sewage in 8 working areas of the highway project from Weining to Weizhang (the boundary between Guizhou and Yunnan), 44 sensitive points of environmental air and sound environment, and the ecological environment of land, vegetation, wild animals, famous trees and ancient trees in the area of 200m along the construction were evaluated. The environmental profit and loss of the proposed construction project are analyzed qualitatively by means of compensation method and scoring method.
According to the characteristics of the expressway project from Weining to Weizhang (Guizhou and Yunnan boundary) and the field survey and research results of the route scheme, the main contents of the environmental impact assessment work are determined as follows:
(1) Engineering analysis;
(2) Water environmental impact assessment;
(3) Sound and environmental impact assessment;
(4) Environmental air impact assessment;
(5) Ecological environment impact assessment;
(6) Transportation risk analysis;
(7) Environmental protection measures.
3.1 Environmental impact identification
According to the characteristics and analysis of the construction project, the impact of the generated pollutants on the ambient air, water environment, acoustic environment and ecological environment of the project area is identified and analyzed according to the environmental impact factors of long-term / short-term, reversible / irreversible, positive / negative, significant / slight, etc. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. List of environmental impact identification matrix
|
Environmental elements |
Construction period |
Operating period |
|||||||||
|
Take abandoned soil |
The subgrade |
road surface |
Bridge culvert |
The tunnel |
material transport |
Mechanical work |
The transportation |
greening |
reclamation |
Bridge culvert edge ditch |
|
|
Properties of soil |
|
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
□ |
|
|
Surface water article |
|
● |
|
● |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
□
|
|
Ground water quality |
|
● |
|
● |
|
|
|
■
|
|
|
□
|
|
Ambient air |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
■ |
□ |
|
|
|
Acoustical environment |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
● |
■ |
□ |
|
|
|
Aquatic organism |
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land vegetation |
● |
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
|
|
□ |
□ |
|
|
Terrestrial animal |
● |
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
● |
■ |
□ |
□ |
|
Note: □/●: Long-term / short-term effects; black / white: adverse / favorable effects; blank: no mutual influence
Table 2. List of evaluation factors of this project
|
Environmental elements |
Status quo evaluation |
construction period |
Operating period |
|
Water environment |
pH, COD, BOD5, NH3-N, SS, Petroleum group, total hardness, oxygen consumption, total coliform group |
SS, Petroleum group |
Pavement runoff (SS, petroleum group); domestic sewage for service facilities (COD, NH3-N) |
|
Ambient air |
NO2, PM10, PM2.5 |
Dust (TSP, PM10, PM2.5) |
Automobile exhaust: NO2 |
|
Sound environment |
Equivalent A sound level LAeq |
Equivalent A sound level LAeq |
Equivalent A sound level LAeq |
|
The ecological environment |
Land use type |
Land use type |
Land use type |
|
vegetation |
vegetation |
vegetation |
|
|
Wild animals |
Wild animals |
Wild animals |
3.2 Evaluation factors
According to the environmental impact identification results, the main environmental impact factor evaluation factors of the proposed project are shown in Table 2.
4.1 Water environment evaluation criteria
Refer to Tables 3 and 4 for rivers, lakes and groundwater along the highway. Sewage standards for sewage discharge during construction period and service facilities during operation period, please refer to Table 5 [6].
4.2 Acoustic environment evaluation criteria
The areas within 35m outside the boundary line of the existing national roads and provincial roads shall implement the Acoustic Environment Quality Standard, as referred to Table 6 for [7, 8].
Table 3. Evaluation criteria for water environment
|
Standard category |
pH |
COD (mg/ L) |
Petroleum Classs (mg/ L) |
SS (mg/L) |
BOD5 (mg/L) |
NH3-N (mg/L) |
Oxygen consumption(mg/L) |
|
Surface Water Environmental Quality Standards (GB3838-2002) Class Ⅲ standard |
6~9 |
≤20 |
≤0.05 |
≤30* |
≤4 |
≤1.0 |
≤6 |
Note: “*” is the third-level standard of Surface Water Resources Quality Standard (SL63-94)
Table 4. Groundwater environmental quality standard
|
Standard category |
pH |
Total hardness (CaCO3) (mg/ L) |
NH3-N (mg/L) |
Total coliform bacteria (MPNb/100mL) |
Oxygen consumption (mg/ L) |
|
Ⅲ class standard |
6.5~8.5 |
≤450 |
≤0.5 |
≤30 |
≤3.0 |
Table 5. Comprehensive sewage discharge standard
|
Standard category |
pollutants |
||||||
|
(GB8978-1996) Primary standard |
pH |
COD (mg/ L) |
Animal and plant oil (mg/ L) |
SS (mg/L) |
Petroleum (mg/L) |
BOD5 (mg/L) |
NH3-N (mg/L) |
|
6~9 |
≤100 |
≤10 |
≤70 |
≤5 |
≤20 |
≤15 |
|
Table 6. Sound environment quality standard: Unit: dB
|
Sensitive target |
Daytime |
Nighttime |
Class |
|
The status of acoustic environment in hospitals and schools |
55 |
45 |
Class 1 |
|
Residential residence within 35m outside the highway boundary line |
70 |
55 |
Class 4a |
|
Residential residence located 35m outside the highway boundary line and 35m outside the railway boundary line |
60 |
50 |
Class 2 |
|
Residential residence within 35m outside the railway boundary line |
70 |
60 |
Class 4b |
This project is a linear development project, with the characteristics of many sensitive points and a wide impact area. The evaluation is conducted by various means of investigation, monitoring and theoretical analysis.
In this environmental impact assessment, the environmental risk analysis adopts the probability analysis; the traffic noise impact assessment during the operation period; the impact of tunnel exhaust gas on the environment mainly follows the original environmental assessment, analogy and analysis, and the current situation monitoring, analogy analysis and model calculation.
6.1 Monitoring and evaluation of surface water environment status
The surface water bodies involved in the proposed highway include Shanlitou Reservoir, Maoshui River, Xiangchang River, Jindou River, Mabugou River, Kedu River and other rivers and lake reservoirs. The above surface water bodies are all divided into class III water functional areas.
According to the water flow of rivers and lakes on site, four monitoring sections were set up in this evaluation. The detailed monitoring sections and section characteristics are detailed in Table 7.
The detection method and detection limits of the surface water monitoring factors of this project are shown in Table 8.
6.1.1 Evaluation methodology
1) Standard index of a single water quality parameter at point i at point j:
Si,j=ci,j/csi
where: Si, j ——The standard index of the i th pollutant in j;
Ci, j —— The measured concentration value of the ith pollutant at point j(mg/L);
Csi —— Assessment criteria for pollutants i (mg/L) (mg/L).
2) pH value standard index calculation formula:
$S_{\mathrm{pH}, j}=\frac{7.0-\mathrm{pH}_j}{7.0-\mathrm{pH}_{s d}} \quad \mathrm{pH}_j \leqslant 7.0$
$S_{\mathrm{pH}, j}=\frac{\mathrm{pH}_j-7.0}{\mathrm{pH}_{s u}-7.0} \quad \mathrm{pH}_j>7.0$
where:
SpH,j—— standard index of a single water quality parameter pH at the j point;
PHj—— the pH value at point j;
PHsu ——the upper limit of pH specified in the surface water quality standard;
PHsd ——the lower limit of pH specified in the surface water quality standard.
If the standard index of water quality parameter > 1, it indicates that the water quality parameter exceeds the specified water quality standard and cannot meet the use requirements.
According to the monitoring results, see Table 9 for the evaluation results of the current situation of surface water environmental quality.
As can be seen from the above table: the standard index of all current situation evaluation factors of surface water bodies along the Project is less than 1, indicating that the current situation of water environmental quality in the evaluated reach of the Project meets the requirements of Class III standard of Surface Water Environmental Quality Standard (GB3838-2002).
6.2 Monitoring and evaluation of groundwater environment status
In this evaluation, the well springs of Hongshiyan Group in Maoshui Village along the line were sampled and monitored. The layout of the current monitoring points is shown in Table 10.
The monitoring data of groundwater quality status are shown in Table 11.
The evaluation method of this evaluation:
1) Standard index of single water quality parameter point i at point j:
Si,j=ci,j/csi
where: Si,j - standard index of the ith pollutant in J;
Ci,j - the measured concentration value of the ith pollutant at point j (mg/L);
Csi - Evaluation criteria for the i pollutant (mg/L).
Table 7. List of monitoring sections of surface water environmental quality status
|
NO. |
Name of surface water body |
Pile number |
Geographic position |
Monitoring section location |
Monitoring project |
|
W1 |
Shanlitou Reservoir |
K0+268 |
E104°22'53.79" N26°47'57.82" |
The middle of Shanitou Reservoir |
pH, SS, TP, COD, BOD5, NH3-N, petroleum |
|
W2 |
Jindou River |
K19+50 |
E104°17'33.66" N26°41'28.50" |
Jindou interconnects 200m downstream across the river |
pH, SS, COD, BOD5, NH3-N, petroleum |
|
W3 |
Mabugou River |
K24+855 |
E104°15'37.47" N26°39'09.41" |
The highway crosses 200m downstream of the river |
|
|
W4 |
Kedu River |
K28+138 |
E104°15'06.61" N26°37'30.10" |
The highway crosses 200m downstream of the river |
Table 8. Surface water monitoring and analysis methods
|
Detection and analysis items |
Test method |
Method basis |
Minimum detection limit value |
|
water temperature |
The thermometer method |
GB13195-1991 |
—— |
|
pH Value |
glass electrode method |
GB6920-1986 |
0.01pH |
|
CODcr |
dichromate titration |
GB11914-89 |
10mg/L |
|
BOD5 |
Dilution and inoculation method |
HJ505-2009 |
2 mg/L |
|
SS |
gravimetric analysis |
GB/T11901-89 |
0.5 mg/L |
|
NH3-N |
N's reagent colorimetric method |
HJ535-2009 |
0.025mg/L |
Table 9. Evaluation list of the test results of the monitoring section of this project
|
Monitoring section |
Evaluation factor |
pH |
SS (mg/L) |
COD (mg/L) |
BOD5 (mg/L) |
NH3-N (mg/L) |
TP (mg/L) |
petroleum |
|
Evaluation Criterion |
6~9 |
≤30* |
≤20 |
≤4 |
≤1.0 |
≤0.05 |
≤0.05 |
|
|
W1 |
Range of detected values |
7.22~7.29 |
9~10 |
10~12 |
1.6~1.9 |
0.602~ 0.613 |
0.03~0.04 |
0.01L |
|
Mean Value |
/ |
9.33 |
11 |
1.7 |
0.608 |
0.033 |
0.01L |
|
|
Standard index |
0.11~0.14 |
0.31 |
0.55 |
0.43 |
0.61 |
0.66 |
0.1 |
|
|
over standard rate% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Maximum excess multiple |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
W2 |
Range of detected values |
7.33~7.39 |
22~25 |
5~6 |
0.6~0.9 |
0.152~ 0.157 |
/ |
0.01L~0.01 |
|
Mean Value |
/ |
23.33 |
5.67 |
0.77 |
0.155 |
/ |
0.003 |
|
|
Standard index |
0.165~0.195 |
0.78 |
0.28 |
0.19 |
0.16 |
/ |
0.06 |
|
|
over standard rate% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
|
Maximum excess multiple |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
|
W3 |
Range of detected values |
7.33~7.38 |
15~18 |
5~7 |
0.6~0.8 |
0.472~0.481 |
/ |
0.01L~0.01 |
|
Mean Value |
/ |
16.67 |
6 |
0.67 |
0.476 |
/ |
0.003 |
|
|
Standard index |
0.165~0.19 |
0.56 |
0.3 |
0.17 |
0.48 |
/ |
0.06 |
|
|
over standard rate% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
|
Maximum excess multiple |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
|
W4 |
Range of detected values |
7.51~7.59 |
12~15 |
6~8 |
1.0~1.3 |
0.174~0.185 |
/ |
0.01L |
|
Mean Value |
/ |
13.67 |
7 |
1.13 |
0.178 |
/ |
0.01L |
|
|
Standard index |
0.255~0.295 |
0.46 |
0.35 |
0.28 |
0.18 |
/ |
0.1 |
|
|
over standard rate% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
|
Maximum excess multiple |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
/ |
0 |
|
Table 10. List of the monitoring points of groundwater environmental quality status
|
NO. |
Name |
Pile number |
geographic coordinates |
Monitoring site location |
Monitoring factor |
|
S1 |
Hongshiyanjing spring |
K0+980 |
East longitude 104°22'39.09" North latitude 26°47'39.26" |
Sampling in wells about 118m southwest of Highway K0 + 970 |
PH, oxygen consumption, total hardness, NH3-N, and total coliform group |
Table 11. Monitoring results of groundwater environment status Unit: mg/L (pH SS)
|
NO. |
Water name |
Monitoring date |
water temperature (℃) |
pH |
NH3-N |
Total Hardness |
oxygen consumption |
total coliform group |
|
S1 |
Hongshiyan jing spring |
September 19 |
12.2 |
7.63 |
0.257 |
288 |
1.8 |
4 |
|
September 20 |
12.6 |
7.59 |
0.253 |
283 |
1.6 |
4 |
||
|
September 21 |
12.3 |
7.68 |
0.266 |
286 |
1.6 |
4 |
2) pH value standard index calculation formula:
$\begin{aligned} S_{\mathrm{pH}, j} &=\frac{7.0-\mathrm{pH}_j}{7.0-\mathrm{pH}_{s d}} \quad \mathrm{pH}_j \leqslant 7.0 \\ S_{\mathrm{pH}, j} &=\frac{\mathrm{pH}_j-7.0}{\mathrm{pH}_{s u}-7.0} \quad \mathrm{pH}_j>7.0 \end{aligned}$
where: SpH,j - standard index of a single water quality parameter pH at the JTH point;
PHj - the pH value at point j;
PHsu - the upper limit of pH specified in the surface water quality standard;
PHsd - the lower limit of pH specified in the surface water quality standard.
If the standard index of water quality parameter > 1, it indicates that the water quality parameter exceeds the specified water quality standard and cannot meet the use requirements.
This analysis of groundwater quality standards is shown in 12.
According to the analysis results in Table 12, the standard indexes of the monitoring factors selected in this EIA are all less than 1, indicating that the water quality of Hongshiyanjingquan can meet the class ⅲ standard of Groundwater Quality Standard (GB/T14848-2017).
6.3 Monitoring and evaluation of current air environment
Combined with the characteristics of the project and the environmental characteristics along the route, the project has set up a total of 3 ambient air quality monitoring points. The locations of monitoring points are shown in Table 13.
The monitoring and analysis methods and detection limits are shown in Table 14.
Evaluation methodology:
Single-factor pollution index method is used, and the calculation formula is as follows:
Ii=ci/coi
where: Ci — monitoring value of the ith pollutant, μg/m3;
C0i —is the quality standard limit value of the ith pollutant assessment in the functional area, μg/m3;
Ii— single factor pollution index of the ith pollutant.
If the single factor index is all greater than 1, it indicates that the current situation of ambient air quality in the project area does not meet the standard requirements.
The current monitoring results of ambient air quality are shown in Tables 15 to 17 respectively.
As can be seen from Table 18, the single standard indexes of the conventional monitoring factors NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 within the evaluation range along the line are all less than 1, indicating that the ambient air quality of the areas along the line meets the secondary standard in the Ambient Air Quality Standard (GB3095-2012).
(8) Present situation evaluation results
According to the above monitoring results, the current evaluation results of ambient air quality are shown in Table 18.
6.4 Monitoring and evaluation of acoustic environment status
A total of 14 acoustic environmental quality status monitoring points were set up in this evaluation. See Table 19 for specific details.
The evaluation results according to the current situation of the acoustic environmental quality of the monitoring points are shown in Table 20.
Table 12. Statistical table of groundwater quality monitoring results of Hongshiyanjing spring
|
Monitoring site |
Evaluation factor |
Monitoring results (mg/L, except pH) |
Evaluation standard (mg/L, except pH) |
Standard index |
The standard situation |
|
The maximum Value |
|||||
|
Hongshiyanjing Spring |
pH |
7.68 |
6~8.5 |
0.45 |
Up to standard |
|
Ammonia nitrogen |
0.266 |
0.5 |
0.53 |
Up to standard |
|
|
Oxygen consumption |
1.8 |
3.0 |
0.6 |
Up to standard |
|
|
Total coliform bacteria (MPNb/100mL) |
4 |
30 |
0.133 |
Up to standard |
|
|
Total hardness (mmol/L, In terms of CaCO3) |
288 |
450 |
0.64 |
Up to standard |
Table 13. Monitoring points of ambient air quality
|
NO. |
Name |
Pile number |
geographic coordinates |
Monitoring site location |
Monitoring project |
|
G1 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, Jinzhong Town 2) |
K1+125 |
E104°22'38.65" N26°47'32.08" |
About 35m site open space on the left side of highway K1 + 125 |
NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 |
|
G2 |
Hongshi village Hongshi Primary school,Jindou town |
K18+392 |
E104°17'27.57" N26°41'49.09" |
About 130m left of the school open space of highway ZK18 + 392 |
|
|
G3 |
Partial rock Hongyan group Xiangling village,Jingdou town |
K26+119 |
E104°15'26.04" N26°38'30.53" |
Highway K26 + 119 right side of about 120m village site open place |
Table 14. Monitoring and analysis method of ambient air status evaluation factor
|
Detection and analysis items |
Test method |
Test method |
Minimum detection limit value |
|
NO2 |
Spectrophotometry |
HJ479-2009 |
0.05μg /m3 |
|
PM10 |
gravimetric analysis |
HJ618-2011 |
0.01μg /m3 |
|
PM2.5 |
gravimetric analysis |
HJ618-2011 |
0.01μg /m3 |
Table 15. Ambient air monitoring results of Hongyan Group 2) in Maishui Village, Jinzhong Town (Unit: μg/m3)
|
Sampling site: Hongyan Group, Maishui Village, Jinzhong Town 2) (G1) |
Atmospheric pressure at sampling site: 79.0~88.7kPa |
||||||||
|
Sampling site air temperature: 15~22℃ |
Relative humidity at sampling site: 70~92% |
||||||||
|
Mean wind speed at sampling site: 1.3m/s |
Wind direction at sampling site: no sustained wind direction |
||||||||
|
Sampling instrument model: KB-6120 comprehensive atmospheric sampler |
|||||||||
|
Monitoring project |
Sampling period |
Sampling date |
|||||||
|
9.19 |
9.20 |
9.21 |
9.22 |
9.23 |
9.24 |
9.25 |
|||
|
NO2 hourly mean concentration |
2:00—3:00 |
18 |
19 |
17 |
20 |
21 |
16 |
20 |
|
|
8:00—9:00 |
25 |
27 |
24 |
26 |
28 |
25 |
27 |
||
|
14:00—15:00 |
41 |
44 |
43 |
41 |
45 |
40 |
43 |
||
|
20:00—21:00 |
24 |
25 |
24 |
22 |
23 |
25 |
26 |
||
|
NO2 Daily average concentration |
27 |
28 |
25 |
27 |
30 |
26 |
29 |
||
|
PM10 Daily average concentration |
49 |
50 |
47 |
48 |
48 |
47 |
50 |
||
|
PM2.5 Daily average concentration |
34 |
31 |
30 |
32 |
29 |
33 |
35 |
||
Table 16. Ambient air monitoring results of Hongshi Primary School, Hongshi Village, Jindou Town (Unit: μg/m3)
|
Sampling place: Hongshi Primary School, Hongshi Village, Jindou Town(G2) |
Atmospheric pressure at sampling site: 78.9~86.8kPa |
||||||||
|
Sampling site air temperature: 14~23℃ |
Relative humidity at sampling site: 73~90% |
||||||||
|
Mean wind speed at sampling site: 1.1m/s |
Wind direction at sampling site: no sustained wind direction |
||||||||
|
Sampling instrument model: KB-6120 comprehensive atmospheric sampler |
|||||||||
|
Monitoring project |
Sampling period |
Sampling date |
|||||||
|
9.19 |
9.20 |
9.21 |
9.22 |
9.23 |
9.24 |
9.25 |
|||
|
NO2 hourly mean concentration |
2:00—3:00 |
16 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
14 |
13 |
15 |
|
|
8:00—9:00 |
22 |
23 |
25 |
20 |
23 |
22 |
24 |
||
|
14:00—15:00 |
34 |
36 |
35 |
33 |
32 |
30 |
35 |
||
|
20:00—21:00 |
22 |
21 |
24 |
20 |
21 |
25 |
23 |
||
|
NO2 Daily average concentration |
23 |
26 |
25 |
22 |
23 |
21 |
27 |
||
|
PM10 Daily average concentration |
45 |
47 |
49 |
47 |
46 |
43 |
45 |
||
|
PM2.5 Daily average concentration |
30 |
33 |
34 |
30 |
31 |
35 |
32 |
||
Table 17. Ambient air monitoring results of Hongyan Group, Xiangling Village, Jindu Town (Unit: μ g/m3)
|
Sampling site: Hongyan Group, Xiangling Village, Jindu Town (G3) |
Atmospheric pressure at sampling site: 82.2~99.8kPa |
|||||||
|
Sampling site air temperature: 14~22℃ |
Relative humidity at sampling site: 75~92% |
|||||||
|
Mean wind speed at sampling site: 1.2m/s |
Wind direction at sampling site: no sustained wind direction |
|||||||
|
Sampling instrument model: KB-6120 comprehensive atmospheric sampler |
||||||||
|
Monitoring project |
Sampling period |
Sampling date |
||||||
|
9.19 |
9.20 |
9.21 |
9.22 |
9.23 |
9.24 |
9.25 |
||
|
NO2 hourly mean concentration |
2:00—3:00 |
13 |
16 |
14 |
15 |
12 |
15 |
16 |
|
8:00—9:00 |
25 |
24 |
21 |
24 |
20 |
22 |
23 |
|
|
14:00—15:00 |
35 |
37 |
34 |
35 |
34 |
36 |
38 |
|
|
20:00—21:00 |
27 |
29 |
28 |
29 |
28 |
30 |
29 |
|
|
NO2 Daily average concentration |
24 |
27 |
24 |
26 |
23 |
24 |
27 |
|
|
PM10 Daily average concentration |
37 |
40 |
38 |
40 |
37 |
41 |
42 |
|
|
PM2.5 Daily average concentration |
24 |
26 |
25 |
24 |
23 |
25 |
27 |
|
Table 18. Monitoring and evaluation results of ambient air quality status
|
Monitoring site |
Monitoring factor |
Monitoring period |
Range of measurement(ug/m3) |
Standard limits (ug/m3) |
Maximum single-factor index |
over standard rate (%) |
Maximum excess multiple |
|
(G1) |
NO2 |
Hourly average |
16~45 |
200 |
0.23 |
0 |
0 |
|
Daily average |
25~30 |
80 |
0.38 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
PM10 |
Daily average |
47~50 |
150 |
0.33 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
PM2.5 |
Daily average |
29~35 |
75 |
0.47 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
(G2) |
NO2 |
Hourly average |
13~35 |
200 |
0.18 |
0 |
0 |
|
Daily average |
21~27 |
80 |
0.34 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
PM10 |
Daily average |
43~49 |
150 |
0.33 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
PM2.5 |
Daily average |
30~35 |
75 |
0.47 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
(G3) |
NO2 |
Hourly average |
12~38 |
200 |
0.19 |
0 |
0 |
|
Daily average |
23~27 |
80 |
0.34 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
PM10 |
Daily average |
37~42 |
150 |
0.28 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
PM2.5 |
Daily average |
23~27 |
75 |
0.36 |
0 |
0 |
Table 19. Monitoring point arrangement of sound environment quality status
|
NO. |
Name |
Pile number |
geographic coordinates |
Monitoring site location |
Monitoring project |
Noise type |
|
N1 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, JinzhongTown 1) |
K0+866 |
E104°22'45.47" N26°47'36.51" |
Left 36m + 866 K, 1.2m from the ground |
LAeq |
railroad noise |
|
N2 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, JinzhongTown 2) |
K1+125 |
E104°22'38.91" N26°47'31.92" |
Left side 46m of highway K1 + 125,1.2m from the ground |
Traffic noise, record the traffic flow |
|
|
N3 |
Yuanzitou Shuitang Group, Maoshui Village |
K1+948 |
E104°22'29.34" N26°47'08.42" |
Left side 104m of highway K1 + 948,1.2m from the ground |
ambient noise |
|
|
N4 |
Dagengzi Yinpo group, Midou village |
K3+150 |
E104°22'37.76" N26°46'31.35" |
About 18m on the right side of highway K3 + 150,1.2m away from the ground |
||
|
N5 |
Yiming Dumu group, Midou village |
K4+750 |
E104°22'16.65" N26°45'45.21" |
About 21m on the left side of highway K4 + 750,1.2m away from the ground |
||
|
N6 |
Yinyuan Yinyuan Group, Dashu Village, Yaozhan Town |
K7+945 |
E104°21'05.17" N26°44'26.57" |
Highway K7 + 945 left side 73m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N7 |
Pingzi Pingzi Group, Dashu Village |
K9+492 |
E104°20'14.29" N26°44'06.67" |
The right side of highway YK9 + 492 is 109m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N8 |
Liangyan Liangyan Group, Chongzi Village, Jindou Town |
K14+940 |
E104°17'19.50" N26°43'38.26" |
The right side of highway YK14 + 940 is 70m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N9 |
Hongshi Primary school,Hongshi Village ,Jindou Town |
K18+392 |
E104°17'27.52" N26°41'48.97" |
Left side of highway ZK18 + 392 is 30m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N10 |
Health Center, Jindou Town |
K19+165 |
E104°17'32.54" N26°41'23.05" |
Right side of highway YK19 + 165 is 21m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N11 |
Zhujiapo Village, Jindou Town |
K24+000 |
E104°15'57.38" N26°39'29.13" |
Right side of highway YK24 + 000 is 116m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N12 |
Pianyan Hongyan Group, Xiangling Village, Jindou Town |
K26+119 |
E104°15'26.50" N26°38'30.52" |
126 + 119 about 110m, 1.2m from the ground |
||
|
N13 |
Mabugou Village,Jin Dou town |
K27+378 |
E104°15'28.75" N26°37'47.79" |
About 123m on the left side of highway K27 + 378,1.2m away from the ground |
||
|
N14 |
Tongchanghe, Louzishan Group, Yaozhan community Yaozhan Town Community |
L1K0+256 |
E104°16'11.79" N26°44'07.12" |
The right side of highway LK0 + 256 is about 126m, 1.2m from the ground |
Table 20. Traffic noise and traffic flow monitoring results
|
NO. |
Monitoring site |
Monitoring time |
Vehicle / (during the monitoring period) |
|||
|
Date |
time interval |
Oversize vehicle |
Medium-sized car |
landaulet |
||
|
N2 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, JinzhongTown 2) |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
36 |
64 |
76 |
|
Nighttime |
9 |
12 |
15 |
|||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
32 |
53 |
82 |
||
|
Nighttime |
10 |
9 |
13 |
|||
The monitoring results show that the daytime acoustic environment quality of the Hongshi Primary School and Jindu Town Health Center within the evaluation scope of the project exceeds the standard is mainly caused by human activities in the school and around the hospital (Table 21). In addition, the acoustic environment quality of the other monitoring points within the evaluation range along the line meets the corresponding standard limits of the Acoustic Environment Quality Standard (GB3096-2008).
Table 21. Evaluation of current monitoring results of sound environment quality
|
NO. |
Monitoring site |
Monitoring time |
Monitoring results and meeting the standards |
Background value (dB) |
Represents sensitive points |
||||
|
Leq(dB) |
standard |
Overstandard situation |
|||||||
|
N1 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, JinzhongTown 1) |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
55.4 |
4b |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
55.4 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
47.6 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
54.7 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
48.1 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
48.1 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N2 |
Hongyan Group, Maoshui Village, JinzhongTown 2) |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
61.3 |
4a |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
61.3 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
42.7 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
60.5 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
42.7 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
40.3 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N3 |
Yuanzitou Shuitang Group, Maoshui Village |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
41.6 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
42.4 |
Itself, Daqing Group, Shuitangbian |
|
Nighttime |
34.3 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
42.4 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.5 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
35.5 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N4 |
Dagengzi Yinpo group, Midou village |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
44.9 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
44.9 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
35.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
43.7 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.8 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
35.8 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N5 |
Yiming Dumu group, Midou village |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
45.2 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
45.9 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
36.1 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
45.9 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
36.9 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
36.9 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N6 |
Yinyuan Yinyuan Group, Dashu Village, Yaozhan Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
44.7 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
44.7 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
34.3 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
43.6 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.4 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
35.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N7 |
Pingzi Pingzi Group, Dashu Village |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
45.5 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
45.5 |
Itself, Dashu Pingzi |
|
Nighttime |
36.2 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
44.7 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
36.6 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
36.6 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N8 |
Liangyan Liangyan Group, Chongzi Village, Jindou Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
44.2 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
45.6 |
Itself |
|
Nighttime |
35.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
45.6 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.4 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
35.1 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N9 |
Hongshi Primary school,Hongshi Village ,Jindou Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
57.8 |
1 |
Overstandard |
Daytime |
57.8 |
Itself, Hongshi group |
|
Nighttime |
41.5 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
56.3 |
Overstandard |
Nighttime |
41.5 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
40.7 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N10 |
Health Center, Jindou Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
54.3 |
1 |
Overstandard |
Daytime |
54.3 |
Iitself, Yanjiayuanzi |
|
Nighttime |
38.6 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
53.4 |
Overstandard |
Nighttime |
38.6 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
38.2 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N11 |
Zhujiapo Village, Jindou Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
42.9 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
43.2 |
Iitself, Zhujiapo village group |
|
Nighttime |
34.5 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
43.2 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
34.5 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
33.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N12 |
Pianyan Hongyan Group, Xiangling Village, Jindou Town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
43.6 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
43.6 |
Iitself |
|
Nighttime |
35.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
43.2 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.4 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
34.9 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N13 |
Mabugou Village,Jin Dou town |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
41.3 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
41.3 |
Iitself |
|
Nighttime |
34.8 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
40.6 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
35.4 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
35.4 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
N14 |
Tongchanghe, Louzishan Group, Yaozhan community Yaozhan Town Community |
2018.9.22 |
Daytime |
54.8 |
2 |
Up to standard |
Daytime |
54.8 |
Iitself |
|
Nighttime |
39.2 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
|
2018.9.23 |
Daytime |
53.5 |
Up to standard |
Nighttime |
39.7 |
||||
|
Nighttime |
39.7 |
Up to standard |
|||||||
6.5 Evaluation of the ecological environment status quo
(1) Land resource evaluation
According to the statistics of remote sensing data (Table 22), the ecological evaluation area along the project is 2125.27hm2, among which the soil erosion type is mainly micro-erosion, followed by mild erosion, moderate erosion and strong erosion.
(2) Ecological environment evaluation
According to the investigation and analysis, the ecological comparison and analysis along the proposed highway is as follows (Table 23).
Table 22. Statistical table of land use type and area in the evaluation area
|
NO. |
Land type |
Area (hm2) |
The proportion of the total area is (%) |
||
|
First class |
Secondary class |
Third class |
|||
|
1 |
Agriculture and forestry land |
plough |
paddy field |
74.88 |
3.52 |
|
dry farm |
1034.12 |
48.66 |
|||
|
forest land |
forest land |
419.50 |
19.74 |
||
|
shrub land |
271.37 |
12.77 |
|||
|
meadow |
— |
230.76 |
10.86 |
||
|
Other agricultural land |
waters |
5.29 |
0.25 |
||
|
subtotal |
2035.92 |
95.80 |
|||
|
2 |
Construction land
|
— |
— |
56.10 |
2.64 |
|
subtotal |
56.10 |
2.64 |
|||
|
3 |
Unused land
|
— |
— |
33.27 |
1.57 |
|
subtotal |
33.27 |
1.57 |
|||
|
amount to |
2125.27 |
100.00 |
|||
Table 23. Comparison of the ecological environment status before and after the proposed highway
|
Evaluating indicator |
The original eia phase |
This evaluation |
|
Evaluation scope |
The total area within the evaluation scope is 1771.37 hm2 (the temporary land area is not counted). |
The evaluation area is 2125.27hm2 (including permanent and temporary occupation). |
|
Ecological sensitive area |
uninvolved |
uninvolved |
|
Through the ecological function area |
In the ecological function zoning of Guizhou Province, it belongs to the IV western version of moist subtropical needle broad leaf mixed forest, —— IV1 Qianxi Plateau mountain needle broad leaf mixed forest, grass mountain agriculture and animal husbandry ecological subregion. |
In the ecological function zoning of Guizhou Province, it belongs to the IV western version of moist subtropical needle broad leaf mixed forest, —— IV1 Qianxi Plateau mountain needle broad leaf mixed forest, grass mountain agriculture and animal husbandry ecological subregion. |
|
Vegetation status |
The natural vegetation in the evaluated area was divided into two vegetation series, including 3 vegetation type groups, 4 vegetation types, and 6 groups. Artificial vegetation is divided into two vegetation series, including two vegetation type groups, two vegetation types, and four groups. |
The natural vegetation in the evaluated area was divided into two vegetation series, including 3 vegetation type groups, 4 vegetation types, and 6 groups. Artificial vegetation is divided into two vegetation series, including two vegetation type groups, two vegetation types, and four groups. |
|
Animal status |
About 115 species of terrestrial wild vertebrates were distributed in the evaluated region, accounting for 13.89% of the 828 species in the province. |
About 115 species of terrestrial wild vertebrates were distributed in the evaluated region, accounting for 13.89% of the 828 species in the province. |
The environmental profit and loss of the proposed construction project are qualitatively analyzed by using the compensation method and the scoring method. The results are shown in Table 24.
The results of environmental profit and loss analysis show that the positive environmental benefit of the proposed project is about 2.5 times of the negative benefit, indicating that the positive environmental and economic benefits generated by the proposed expressway are dominant. The project is feasible from environmental protection.
Table 24. The economic benefit analysis table of the environmental impact of the proposed project
|
NO. |
Environmental elements |
Influence, measures, and investments |
Influence, measures, and investments |
Notes |
|
1 |
ambient air, acoustical environment |
Sound and gas environment quality decrease on both sides of road (-3) Sound and gas environment on both sides of the existing urban roads is improved (+ 2) |
-1 |
Make 1,2 and 3 points according to the influence degree respectively; "+" positive benefit; and "-" negative benefit |
|
2 |
water quality |
Crossing rivers, hazards (-2) |
-1 |
|
|
3 |
population health |
No significant adverse effects, convenient transportation convenient for medical treatment (+ 1) |
+1 |
|
|
5 |
plant |
Do not occupy a piece of forest land, no significant adverse effects, all kinds of greening projects, increase vegetation coverage |
0 |
|
|
6 |
sightseeing resource |
Promote the development of tourism in Weng'an County and Huangping County |
+1 |
|
|
7 |
mineral products |
It is conducive to the exploitation and utilization of mineral resources |
+1 |
|
|
8 |
agriculture |
Accelerate the logistics exchange in urban areas |
+1 |
|
|
9 |
Related planning |
Coordinate with the transportation system planning |
+1 |
|
|
10 |
Landscape greening and beautification |
Increase investment in environmental protection and improve environmental quality along the route |
0 |
|
|
11 |
conservation of water and soil |
There were no significant adverse effects |
0 |
|
|
12 |
Demolition and resettlement |
Demolition and reconstruction of houses, power and wire facilities |
-1 |
|
|
13 |
land value |
The value of the land on both sides of the highway is increased |
+1 |
|
|
14 |
Direct social benefits |
Save time, reduce fuel consumption, improve safety and other three benefits |
+2 |
|
|
15 |
Indirect social benefits |
It should reflect the principle of common social progress and fairness, improve the investment environment, promote economic development, and enhance environmental awareness |
+2 |
|
|
16 |
anti-pollution measures |
Increase project investment |
-1 |
|
|
amount to |
Positive benefit: (+ 10); negative benefit: (-4); positive benefit / negative benefit =2.5 |
+6 |
||
[1] Zhou, J. (2006). Study on ecological environment impact assessment index system for expressway construction. Enterprise Technology Development, 25(5): 36-37. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-8937-B.2006.05.013
[2] Cheng, G., Wang, X. (2007). Study on environmental impact assessment index system for expressway construction. Journal of Anhui Institute of Architecture: Natural Science Edition, 15(2): 101-104. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-4540.2007.02.029
[3] Xu, W.L., (2019). Analysis of common problems and key points of environmental Impact assessment of highway construction projects. Environment and Development, 31(6): 2. https://doi.org/10.16647/j.cnki.cn15-1369/X.2019.06.012
[4] Liu, S.Y. (2020). Analysis of common problems and key points of environmental Impact assessment of highway construction projects. Encyclopedia Form, (15): 263-264. https://doi.org/10.12253/j.issn.2096-3661.2020.15.501
[5] Qu, Y.H., Wu, X.Y., Zhang, X., Qu, L.X. (2022). Environmental impact assessment of expressway construction projects based on comprehensive weight. Transportation Technology and Economy, 24(2): 64-75.
[6] Xu, G.P., Xu, J., Wang, J., Chen, S.Q., Ma, X.W. (2016). Evaluation of landscape visual influence in expressway planning and construction -- a case study of lebai expressway project. Chinese Highway Society. China Highway Society, pp. 133-141.
[7] Li, X.F. (2021). Analysis of key points of acoustic environmental impact assessment of expressway reconstruction and expansion project. Northern Environment, 33(1): 78-92.
[8] Li, Q.S. (2016). Discussion on technique and method of post-assessment of sound environmental impact of expressway. Journal of Shanxi Coal Management Cadre Institute, (3): 216-217.