DOCSLIB.ORG

Uniper Technologies Uniper Technologies Limited, Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-On-Soar, Nottinghamshire, NG11 0EE T+44 (0) 115 936 2900

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uniper Technologies Uniper Technologies Limited, Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-On-Soar, Nottinghamshire, NG11 0EE T+44 (0) 115 936 2900 Uniper Technologies Uniper Technologies Limited, Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire, NG11 0EE T+44 (0) 115 936 2900 www.uniper.energy UNRESTRICTED UTG/20/PMP/489/R Revision 2 Job No: 2122.C00461.001 February 2021 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EMERGE CENTRE AT RATCLIFFE-ON-SOAR (PERMITTING) prepared for DR A READ, REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER, RATCLIFFE-ON-SOAR by V Kulambi & S J Griffiths SUMMARY Uniper is proposing building an energy recovery facility, the East Midlands Energy Re- Generation (EMERGE) Centre, on the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station site. An air dispersion modelling study has been undertaken to evaluate the significance of any air quality effects that may arise from the Installation. Where it was necessary to make assumptions and approximations, a worst-case approach has been adopted to ensure that the modelled concentrations are likely to be overestimates rather than underestimates. This study concludes that no human health based ambient air quality standards or guidelines are predicted to be exceeded due to emissions from the Installation and hence there will be no significant adverse effects on human health. This study also concludes that there will be no significant adverse effects on the sensitive features at local ecological sites due to emissions from the Installation. Prepared by Approved for publication Master copy signed by V Kulambi & S J Griffiths (12/02/2021) V Kulambi S J Griffiths Environmental Compliance Technical Head Environmental Sciences & Climate Change Registered office Compton House, 2300 The Crescent, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YE. Registered in England and Wales No: 2902387. UNRESTRICTED This document was prepared by Uniper Technologies Limited. Neither Uniper Technologies Limited, nor any person acting on its behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, method or process disclosed in this document or that such use may not infringe the rights of any third party or assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damage resulting in any way from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in the document. Telephone +44 (0) 115 936 2900 (please ask for Proposal Management) E-mail [email protected] © Uniper Technologies Limited 2020 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the Directors of Uniper Technologies Limited, Technology Centre, Ratcliffe on Soar, Nottingham, NG11 0EE. CLIENT DISTRIBUTION LIST EF Dr A Read Redevelopment Manager, Ratcliffe-on-Soar Revision 2 UTG/20/PMP/489/R CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS / NOMENCLATURE 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................. 1 3 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 2 3.1 Air Quality Assessment Levels (AQALs)................................................................... 2 3.2 Industrial Pollution Regulation .................................................................................. 3 3.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................. 5 3.3.1 Significance Criteria for Industrial Sources ...................................................... 5 3.3.2 Additional Significance Criteria for Metals........................................................ 6 4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 6 4.1 Dispersion Model Selection ...................................................................................... 6 4.2 Modelled Scenarios .................................................................................................. 6 4.3 Emission Characteristics .......................................................................................... 7 4.3.1 Emissions from the Installation ........................................................................ 7 4.3.2 Emissions from the Existing Coal-fired Power Station ..................................... 8 4.3.3 Emissions from the OCGTs ............................................................................. 8 4.3.4 Emissions Summary ........................................................................................ 9 4.4 Meteorological Data ............................................................................................... 11 4.5 Grids ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.6 Surface Roughness ................................................................................................ 12 4.7 Terrain ................................................................................................................... 12 4.8 Buildings ................................................................................................................ 12 4.9 NOx Chemistry ....................................................................................................... 13 4.10 Human Receptor Points ......................................................................................... 13 4.11 Model Uncertainty .................................................................................................. 14 5 BASELINE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 16 5.1 Estimated Background Concentrations: Human Health Assessment ...................... 16 6 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 17 6.1 Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations ............................................................................ 25 6.1.1 99.79th Percentile Hourly Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations .................. 25 6.2 Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations ............................................................................. 27 6.2.1 Short-term Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations ................................................... 27 6.3 Annual Mean Chromium (VI) Concentrations ......................................................... 29 7 HABITATS IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 30 7.1 Local Ecologically Sensitive Sites........................................................................... 30 7.2 Assessment Criteria – Critical Levels and Critical Loads ........................................ 31 7.3 Significance Criteria for Ecological Impacts ............................................................ 33 7.4 Modelling Methodology .......................................................................................... 34 7.5 Results ................................................................................................................... 35 7.5.1 Assessment Against NH3 Annual Mean Critical Level .................................... 35 7.5.2 Assessment Against SO2 Annual Mean Critical Level .................................... 39 7.5.3 Assessment Against NOx Annual Mean Critical Level.................................... 42 Revision 2 UTG/20/PMP/489/R 7.5.4 Assessment Against NOx Maximum Daily Mean Critical Level ...................... 45 7.5.5 Assessment Against HF Maximum Daily Mean Critical Level ........................ 48 7.5.6 Assessment Against HF Maximum Weekly Mean Critical Level .................... 48 7.5.7 Assessment Against Nitrogen Critical Loads ................................................. 54 7.5.8 Assessment Against Acid Critical Loads ........................................................ 57 8 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 61 8.1 Impacts on Human Health ...................................................................................... 61 8.2 Impacts on Local Ecological Sites .......................................................................... 61 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 63 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 64 STACK HEIGHT EVALUATION ...................................................................... A-1 WIND ROSES FOR SUTTON BONINGTON 2015–2019 ................................ B-1 EXISTING (BASELINE) AIR QUALITY ........................................................... C-1 Revision 2 UTG/20/PMP/489/R ABBREVIATIONS / NOMENCLATURE ADMS Air Dispersion Modelling System AEL Associated Emission Level AQAL Air Quality Assessment Level AQS Air Quality Strategy As Arsenic BAT Best Available Techniques BREF Best Available Techniques Reference Document Cd Cadmium CO Carbon Monoxide Co Cobalt Cr Chromium Cu Copper CLv Critical Level CLMaxN Acid Critical Load CLNutN Nutrient Nitrogen Critical Load EA Environment Agency EAL Environmental Assessment Level ELV Emission Limit Value EPUK Environmental Protection UK GT Gas Turbine HCl Hydrogen Chloride HF Hydrogen Fluoride Hg Mercury IED Industrial Emissions Directive IPPC Integrated Pollution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environment Agency Midlands Region Wetland Sites Of
    LA - M icllanAs <? X En v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y ENVIRONMENT AGENCY MIDLANDS REGION WETLAND SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST REGIONAL MONITORING STRATEGY John Davys Groundwater Resources Olton Court July 1999 E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE ANGLIAN REGION Kingfisher House. Goldhay Way. Orton Goldhay, Peterborough PE2 5ZR 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 3 1.) The Agency's Role in Wetland Conservation and Management....................................................3 1.2 Wetland SSSIs in the Midlands Region............................................................................................ 4 1.3 The Threat to Wetlands....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Monitoring & Management of Wetlands...........................................................................................4 1.5 Scope of the Report..............................................................................................................................4 1.6 Structure of the Report.......................................................................................................................5 2 SELECTION OF SITES....................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Definition of a Wetland Site................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • And New Venue!
    13 September1994 New seasorr new day and new venue! Anotherseason of indoormeetings draws rapidly nearer as the nightsstart to close in. Severalof the pointsraised in lastyear's survey have been taken on boardduring the formulationof the programme and as a consequenceit is hopedthat therewill be greaterattendance at the meetings. The first change has been the move to Hayesand they are alreadyenjoying the fruits meetingson a Thursdayevening - the over- of the locationwith regularsightings of tawny whelmingchoice of the membership.lt is up owlsand sparrowhawksand up to four regular to you to now supportthis change - afterall it foxes! The groundfloor of the houseis where was your choice! meetingscan be held and a kitchen is very handilyplacedl Thereis also the advantage, - New venue Holly Hayes at least at the moment, of less restrictionon the length of meetings. This, hopefully,will The secondmajor change has beenof venue. allowmembers to be able to discussmatters Whereasall past meetingshave been held at of entomologicalimportance in great comfoft LeicesterMuseum, the move of the Ecology and in a more relaxedwav. Unitto HollyHayes, Birstall has resultedin an alternativevenue being available.Holly Hayes More local lnferest is a lovelysetting - a large house in its own groundswith ample safe parkingjust off the The last major change is the greaterinput now outer ring road at Birstall. Many parts of the being expected from LES members. you house have extensivewood panelling and wanted to have less in the way of invited woodenfire surrounds
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment Report 2019
    Charnwood Borough Council Local Plan 2020-36 Ecological Assessment Report Ecology Evidence Update June 2019 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Conserving and Enhancing Charnwood’s Ecology in a National Context - National Planning Policy Framework - The Lawton Review - Understanding Significant Ecological Impacts - The Concept of Ecological Value - The Measurement of Ecological Value 3. The Natural Character and Ecology of Charnwood - Background to Charnwood - Ecological Aspects of Charnwood’s Landscape Character - Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan - Charnwood 2011 Borough Wide Phase 1 Habitat Study - Designated Sites in Charnwood - Priority Habitats and Species in Charnwood - Local Priorities for Charnwood 4. Charnwood Ecological Assessment Methodology - Desk Top Study - Field Survey Methodology - Mapping of Sites - Assessment of Sites - Detailed Case Studies - Limitations to the Methodology 5. Main Results - Continued Validity of the 2011 Borough Wide Habitat Study - Field Surveys and Grading of Sites - Impact on Statutory Designated Sites - Impact on Non-statutory Designated Sites 6. Other Findings - Identifying Ecological Networks in Charnwood - Restoring and Enhancing Ecological Networks in Charnwood - Summary and Conclusions 7. Appendix 1 – Case Studies Appendix 2 – Site Assessments 2 1. Introduction 1.1 This ecological assessment report has been prepared by the Senior Ecologist at Charnwood Borough Council (CBC) to provide up to date ecological information in support of the emerging Local Plan for the Borough of Charnwood. 1.2 The new Charnwood Local Plan will, amongst other things, allocate land to meet the Borough’s need for new homes and places of work. The Plan is being prepared in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out requirements for the preparation of Local Plans in terms of the evidence which should inform them, and the range of matters that each plan should address.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Growth Plan Sustainability Appraisal Sep 2018 Final
    Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (Final Report) Sustainability Appraisal Report September, 2018 REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 September Interim SA Report for Leicester and Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Alan Houghton 2017 Leicestershire Strategic Planning Group Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Regional Director (Alternatives assessment findings) Consultant Consultant Matthew Stopforth Planning Consultant 2 January, Draft SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant 3 February 2nd, Final SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant 4 September Updated SA Report for Strategic Planning Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Frank Hayes 12th Group review Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Associate Director 2018 Consultant Consultant 5 September Final SA Report Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Frank Hayes 26th Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Associate Director Consultant Consultant Table of contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Scoping .............................................................................................................................................. 8 3 Description of the options ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Woodlouse Oldest County Recordyet!
    v 12 March 1994 2,OOOYEAR OLD WOODLOUSE OLDEST COUNTY RECORDYET! During 1993, Jon Daws had the opportunity to examine mineralised woodlice in materral from trvo archaeologrcal digs irr Leicester's city centre. Someof the material dated from Roman times (50 AD) but the bulk came from the medieval period (pre 1100 - pre 140J AD). Jon describes his findt-ngs- All the woodllce were either !ooay,+ ^i^" rncruurngi -^l '.zQi -^ compost.^^h^^-+ anu.hA uungAr excavated from rubbish or dung heaps. Although recorded at fortY ^i *c TTnfnrf rrnrf o'l rr f ha nlrlo- p-L L5 . UII-I L Urre Lsrl, , lrrE vluEr sites in the county over the last f^,,,,^--^ ..^i-rw from dairv farms material consisted of fragments, !ew ygar > | lrLerrrry !! vrtr verr J rqJ whereas there were several whole :nd qtel'r'l cq. f he si oht of a specimens from the medieval minerallsed telson of P d:l.atatus samples. The extremitles of the from pre-1 100 AD was guite specimens suffered the most damage exciting. There were also several fhrnrrah fho qnrtl-- - ^ mL^v^ Llr!vuvrr Llre rvr urrl9 Vl vvgJ- . rllsr e pieces of pereonite from this were no complete antennae and onIY species with the characterrstic two telsons that proj ected beYond pattern and colour in the same the end of the pleonrtes survived sample and in another from the same intact - ArnadifLidiun species were nar i nd The other species of satisfactory since their telsons do woodlice \.vere f ound in varYing nnl. nra'ianf - from different periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage 211 Q3 2013
    No. 211 1 July - 30 September 2013 Editorial Panel: Helen Ikin, Steve Woodward, Jim Graham. Hon. Sec. Judy Johnson, 27 Sandalwood Road, Loughborough, Leics. LE11 3PR (01509-214711) IVY Hedera helix - A PLANT FOR ALL SEASONS Ivy, our only evergreen native climbing plant, is well known to butterfly enthusiasts as being the second generation food plant of the Holly Blue larvae but I suspect far fewer appreciate its importance to large numbers of moth species such as The Chestnut, Dark Chestnut, Dark Sword-grass, Tawny Pinion, Green-brindled Crescent, The Satellite and Red-line Quaker. It is also one of two main larval food plants of an attractive little geometer moth, the Yellow-barred Brindle, whose other main food plant is the Holly - like the Holly Blue! Ivy also provides important winter hibernating cover for The Brimstone, The Peacock and numerous other insect species. It gives protection to hibernating insects and roosting birds in the worst of the winter's weather when the countryside becomes a wind-swept, hostile place to all living organisms and when decent shelter can make all the difference between life and death to creatures fighting to stay alive and doing their best to avoid being blown into oblivion! Like many another conservation-minded person, I guess, I went through a phase in my life when I thought that Ivy growing on trees was a bad thing and should therefore be prevented by cutting IN THIS EDITION CLASSIFIED RECORDS Ÿ Mammals Page 2 Ÿ Birds Page 3 Ÿ Reptiles and Amphibians Page 7 Ÿ Fish Page 8 Ÿ Butterflies Page 9 Ivy © Stephen Woodward Ÿ Moths Page 13 through the stems - how dangerous a little Ÿ Beetles Page 15 knowledge can be! With the passage of time and more knowledge, I now realise that Ivy is Ÿ Other Insects Page 18 ecologically one of our most important native plant Ÿ species and often more important than some of Plants and Ferns Page 22 the tree species up which it climbs for support.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Woodland Strategy
    Leicester Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape and Woodland Strategy If you require further copies or larger print copies or have any other enquiries regarding this document please contact : Director of Planning and Transportation Leicestershire County Council County Hall Glenfield LEICESTERSHIRE LE3 8RJ Tel : 0116 265 7067 Fax : 0116 265 7965 Minicom : 0116 265 7334 e-mail : [email protected] Published by Leicestershire County Council County Hall, Glenfield, Leicestershire LE3 8RJ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced, stored in a retrieval system, or be transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, record- ing or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 0 85022 4357 © Leicestershire County Council 2001 Designed by Edward Moody Design, Leicester. Printed by deVoyle, Rutland. Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape and Woodland Strategy Contents 1. Introduction and Executive Summary . .1 2. Policy Background . .2 2.01 Introduction . .3 2.02 Structure and Local Plans . .3 2.03 Leicestershire County Council Strategies . .4 2.03.01 Sustainability Appraisal Scheme . .4 2.03.02 Countryside 2000 . .4 2.03.03 Nature Conservation Strategy . .4 2.03.04 Rural Strategy . .4 2.03.05 Tourism Strategy . .5 2.04 Local Agenda 21 . .5 2.05 Leicester Riverside Strategy . .5 2.06 Regional CharacterAreas and Natural Areas . .6 2.07 The UK Forestry Standard . .6 2.08 England Forestry Strategy . .9 2.09 Leicester,Leicestershire and Rutland BiodiversityAction Plan . .9 2.10 National Forest Strategy and BiodiversityAction Plan . .9 2.11 Local EnvironmentAgency Plans (LEAPs) . .10 3. The Leicestershire and Rutland Landscape 3.01 Introduction .
    [Show full text]
  • BAP Space for Wildlife Part 1
    Space for Wildlife Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 – 2026 2nd edition: December 2016 Revision by S Timms, Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre Space for Wildlife 2016 – 2026 Contents 1 Introduction and Scope 1 1.1 Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan – previous versions 1 Summary of the main revisions to Changes to ‘Space for Wildlife: Leicester, 1.2 2 Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan’ 1.3 Wildlife habitats – the current resource 2 1.4 Scope of ‘Space for Wildlife’ 3 Table 1.1 Leicestershire and Rutland – key facts 4 Table 1.2 Correspondence of LL&R priority habitats to national priority habitats 5 Table 1.3 Summary of current extent of habitats and trends (2016) 7 2 Priority BAP habitats 9 Promoting the creation of new wildlife habitat in the 3 10 wider countryside Survey, monitor and promote favourable management of 4 11 existing good sites through the Local Wildlife Sites system 5 Priority Species and Action Plans 12 6 Access and Biodiversity 14 7 Community Participation Plan 15 8 Important areas for wildlife in Leicestershire and Rutland 16 Map: Living Landscape areas 17 01a Charnwood Forest 18 01b National Forest 19 02 Soar and Wreake Floodplain 20 03 Leighfield Forest 21 04 Rutland Water 22 05 Rutland and NE Leicestershire limestone 23 9 Habitat creation information 24 10 References 31 Appendix 1: Priority Habitat Summaries Priority Habitat summaries and Register 35 Table: list of habitats with Registers and Maps 37 01 Broad-leaved Woodland 39
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (Final Report)
    Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (Final Report) Sustainability Appraisal Report September, 2018 REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 September Interim SA Report for Leicester and Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Alan Houghton 2017 Leicestershire Strategic Planning Group Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Regional Director (Alternatives assessment findings) Consultant Consultant Matthew Stopforth Planning Consultant 2 January, Draft SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant 3 February 2nd, Final SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant 4 September Updated SA Report for Strategic Planning Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Frank Hayes 12th Group review Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Associate Director 2018 Consultant Consultant 5 September Final SA Report Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Frank Hayes 26th Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Associate Director Consultant Consultant Table of contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Scoping .............................................................................................................................................. 8 3 Description of the options ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (Draft)
    Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan (draft) Sustainability Appraisal Report February, 2018 REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 September Interim SA Report for Leicester and Ian McCluskey Ian McCluskey Alan Houghton 2017 Leicestershire Strategic Planning Principal Sustainability Principal Sustainability Regional Director Group Consultant Consultant (Alternatives assessment findings) Matthew Stopforth Planning Consultant 2 January, Draft SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant 3 February 2nd, Final SA Report Ian McCluskey Mark Fessey Alan Houghton 2018 Principal Sustainability Principal Consultant Regional Director Consultant Table of contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Scoping .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3 Description of the options ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Soar Valley Improvement Scheme
    NRA Severn-Trent 66 NRA National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region THE SOAR VALLEY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME B arrow upon Soar RIVER SOAR CAT'CHIMENT IV ▼ ▼ SOAR VALLEY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME Kirby Muxloe / KEY REDHILL J | Urban Area Weir & sluices removed New Footbridge — A Roads Upstream sill at Redhill lock lowered Motorway Railway RATCLIFFE ON SOAR Canal Ratclil — on #oai Locks replaced Weirs lowered Urban defences constructed KEGWORTH Shallow lock lowered New deep lock Weir extended Urban defences constructed // N I SUTTON BONINGTON Urban defences constructed Sutton Konington I Normanl NORMANTON ON SOAR Urban defences constructed New pumping stations Hathern ZOUCH Cotes IV 1 COTES New flood control structure PI Main weir removed Side weirs bypassed Loughborough Shepshed PILLINGS -------- New flood control structure CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Setting the Scene 2 Navigation 2 Flooding 2 THE SOAR VALLEY IMPROVEMENT SCHEME Background 3 Objectives of the Scheme 3 Legislation 3 The Preferred Option 3 Outline Proposals 4 Environmental and Ecological Considerations 4 Financial Approval and Commencement 4 The Scheme in Detail 5 Consultation 8 Consultants and Contractors 9 THE FUTURE Maintenance KEY FACTS ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ill l l 055542 |M<— :nal Rivers Aur. io. nation Centre ffice ___________ jj ........... .... mmmmmmmm _____ Li INTRODUCTION SETTING THE SCENE The River Soar is 80km (50 miles) long from its source at Copston Magna, in Warwickshire, to its confluence with the River Trent at Redhill in Nottinghamshire. It drains an area of approximately 1,360 km2 (520 square miles) which is mainly used for agricultural purposes with the exception of the Leicester and Loughborough conurbations. Approximately 76 km of the River Soar is classified as main river.
    [Show full text]
  • LESOPS 25 Lott Et Al
    2 A Provisional Atlas of the Carabidae of Leicestershire & Rutland Derek Lott, Graham Finch & Gareth Price LESOPS 25 (2011) ISSN 0957 - 1019 A collaborative publication from The Leicestershire & Rutland Environmental Resources Centre and The Leicestershire Entomological Society 3 FOREWORD In the spring of 2009, Derek Lott, Graham Finch & Gareth Price embarked on the production of this atlas. The idea of the atlas was the brainchild of Graham Finch, who had attended a ground beetle training course and became well aware of the need for a VC55 distribution atlas. In July 2009 a very simple first draft was produced. Derek Lott and Graham Finch scrutinized the first draft. A number of important issues needed consideration, such as taxonomic changes, the classification of sites, obtaining accurate grid references and the removal of invalid species records falsely recorded in Leicestershire and Rutland. Derek Lott provided Carabidae context to some sites in the gazetteer as well as providing species context. The production of this atlas was made much easier by the life-long work of Derek Lott, who had already accumulated vast amounts of ground beetle data and local knowledge, without which this atlas would not have been possible. Special thanks go the Carabidae recorders who have sent in records. We have endeavoured to reference and acknowledge the people and sources that have helped in the production of this atlas but often with natural history publications there are too many people to thank over a very long period of time. Our apologies go to the people or sources that have been inadvertently omitted. The gazetteer obtained information from a number of sources, in particular the Flora of Leicestershire (Primavesi & Evans, 1988) and the Flora of Rutland (Messenger, 1971).
    [Show full text]