Esk River Improvement Group Meeting
Minutes of Meeting – 10am, Monday 6th March 2023, Microsoft Teams

Attendance: Douglas Lyons, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Rachael Langfield (Coal Authority), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Rebecca Lewis (Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife), Chris Gall (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Joy Godfrey (ENCC), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Rachel Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Caroline Freeman (Newbattle Abbey College), John Oldham (Esk Valley Trust), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse), Rachael Elliott (Nature Scotland)
Apologies: Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Audrey Murray (EnjoyLeisure), Peter Finnie (SEPA), David Ogilvie (SEPA), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council)
 

Welcome
CB welcomed everyone to the meeting and the previous minutes were approved.

1. Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife - Rebecca Lewis (RLe)

RLe provided an update to the group.

• They have been working with a landowner near the source of the Esk and planted 230 trees, which will help to reduce water run-off.
• Three more sampling sites have been added. Sites are above and below known seepage points into the river.
• From April they will be benchmarking on 5 sites on the South Esk. Collecting information down to species level and this will tell us in more detail what pressure is on the river.
• Having an event with the Marine Conservation Society looking at the links of the river to the sea and sharing information.
• Looking at adding 2 more sites this year, which will take them up to catchment scale on the North and South Esk.
• High level of engagement for Guardians of our Rivers. 41 Council and 214 people.

CB asked that once various projects are completed if a summary can be circulated.
ASK added if they could have a short summary of the main points that have been raised over the last 4 years during the monitoring. To encourage more people, who don’t have the ecological background.  
RLe answered that Citizen Science is about collecting baseline data and community engagement. As part of the funding requirements there is a full written report on water testing that they are currently working on and are more than willing to share this once completed. Adding further that all of the data is available on the Riverfly Partnership website.

2. Scottish Water – (Scottish Water were unable to attend, so they provided the following summary)
Operational update

• No significant work or event to report
• Local operations team are doing some general asset checks in advance of the bathing season
• This involved general maintenance checks from the Winter going in to Spring.
• They discuss and plan checks and maintenance with SEPA
• Bathing season is June 1st to 15th September

 
Nature Calls campaign

• The Scottish Water ‘Nature Calls’ campaign has been very active over the past month
• TV, Radio and social media national advertising
• Also been doing some localised hotspot advertising and campaign events in locations where there is a high number and frequency of reported blocked sewers from things like wet wipes.
• Over 3000 people have backed the call for a ban on the sale of wet wipes containing plastic in Scotland - Back the Ban - yourwateryourlife.co.uk

 
Nature Calls campaign results

• Tracking the impact of the campaign using various metrics
• One of these is the number of ‘sewer chokes’ (blocked sewer pipes) that get reported to Scottish Water and they are needed to attend and clear. These are nearly always because of wet wipes and other non-flushables.
• The number of sewer chokes has reduced by 14% in the past year (compared to a 10yr average)
• There has been consistent reduction every month whilst campaign running.
• They carry out customer research on recall of the campaign and messages
• 69% of people who are aware of the campaign say they will think more carefully about what they flush down the toilet
• 88% say they would support a call for wipes containing plastic to be banned
• 73% of people who have seen the advertising campaign recall the main message was ‘you shouldn’t flush wipes down the toilet’

 
3. Forth Rivers Trust – Ross HughesRH provided an update to the ERIG

• The results from Outfall Safari `shortly about to go live. They have produced a Story Map with details of what they have found.
• Halfway through spring walks program.
• Coal Authority site visits on 7th March in North of England, which will give people the knowledge of what will be installed in Dalkeith.
• Litter picks across catchment, these are open to the public.
• Upcoming presentation on from Buglife in Clackmannanshire where learnings will be shared.
• Forth Rivers Trust conference on 4th April for partners across the Forth Catchment to share experiences and ideas. RH offered to send further information to the group on this.

 
4. Coal Authority - Rachael Langfield (RL) RL provided an update to the ERIG on the Dalkeith Water Treatment Plant.
 

• The process design contract has been awarded and will take 4 months to complete. This will be carried out in parallel with the budget approval process.
• The business case for approval for the increase in costs is set to be presented to the UK Government ministry at the end of March
• RL thanked CB for his Letter of Support, this was received and also forwarded by BEIS, who have confirmed that they are still in support.
• A communication was sent to local residents at the end of January and they have a plan in place to provide further communication as the project progresses.
• Plans for the demolition of number 41 is still ongoing. There have been issues getting a suitable contractor. This is to take place as soon as possible. Still have security on the site.
• Project manager provided an online update to DDCC in February.
• The Coal Authority is ready to meet visitors for a tour of existing mine water treatment plants in the north of England, organised by the Forth Rivers Trust.

 
CB asked when will the decision to approve the project will be taken.
RL it is a two-step process. The first step is to the assurance board explaining the cost increases and the need to go out to tender again. This will give the approval to go out to tender and then they will go back in July for final approval with the actual cost and what company they are going to go with.
 
JG asked if the manganese will be fully treated at some point and if not what will be the impact on the river.
RL it is a two-step process. The treatment of the iron impacts the manganese levels. Until the iron treatment is up and running, we don’t know what level of treatment of Manganese will be needed. If it is required, there will be room in the building for this additional treatment plant.
 
JG asked if BEIS will welcome a second application for funding to treat the Manganese if necessary?
RL answered, as far as she is aware, yes, if that is what is needed from a point of view of water quality.
 
ASK added that the community appreciate the communication that was received in January, but they are worried about further slippage from a quarterly communication and hope that there is further communication soon.
RL added that they are doing communications on a quarterly basis and there will be a further communication once they have been to BEIS for approval.
 
ASK Added that there is concern about the non-treatment of manganese and what will be the impact of this on the River South Esk.
RL offered to have a discussion with geo-chemists and will send something that can be circulated.
 
PC stated that there are further leaks up river (at Elgin Haugh) and asked if the treatment plant will pull out the mine water and potentially reduce the outfall elsewhere.
RL confirmed that this is the case.
 
PB Added that flow coming out of Elgin Haugh has not changed. Explaining that it is very complex with the Manganese. SEPA are happy that it is a two-stage process. The iron is having the largest impact on the river and we don’t know the level of manganese to be treated until the iron has been treated.
 
5. SEPA – Chris Gall
CG no significant events to report. Reminded the group to report pollution incidents when they see them.
 
CB asked about the progress on the pollution incident in Musselburgh.
 
KW replied that the investigation is still ongoing, so they cannot give any further information. As soon as it is at an end point they will be able to provide information.
 
ASK enquired if CG knew anything about a strong odour that was coming from a sewage pumping station at Fisherrow Links park, commenting further that locals say that this is quite common. CG advised that ASK contacts Scottish Water directly on this matter.
 
PC asked if there was any progress on when the community meetings on bathing waters with SEPA will be reinstated. CG suggested the PC contacts Ruth Stidson directly.
 
6. East Lothian Council - Shona Grant
SG provided an update that the monitoring and data gathering at Fisherrow from the discharge at the former Newhailles landfill is still ongoing. The contaminated land officer at ELC is currently drafting his report. It was explained that there are discussions about what standards they are looking at in relation to the reporting. SG commented that they may have to contact NHS Public Health on this. SG asked if CB had already contacted Richard Othieno at NHS Lothian Public Health.
DL commented he was in touch with Richard Othieno in October, but despite an initial contact he had not been back in touch. DL suggested that he makes an introduction to SG at ELC to Richard Othieno on this matter. DL asked if ELC had anything that they could provide Richard Othieno with regard to the monitoring plan to introduce him to the issue. SG added that Scott Callow could add more detail to the monitoring that he has undertaken.
CB added that this has been going on for some time and his concern is if there is any hazard to public health and the need for NHS Lothian to get involved so we know that this is safe.
SG emphasised the importance of data gathering at this stage and that SEPA were involved in modelling the impact of the outfall discharge. SG will get in touch with Richard Othieno and have a conversation about this.

7. Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price

​Updated the group with use of a PowerPoint presentation. To be included as the record for the purpose of the minutes.
 
 
8. Midlothian Council - Moira Cartwright
MC updated the group with regard to the flood risk assessment. Referencing the high water in Lasswade over the new year period, Midlothian Council is identifying a resource for a flood risk assessment in the next financial year and a further update will be provided.
 
In relation to the Environmental Crime Strategy, the wardens contract has been finalised and should be mobilised around the Easter period. 
CB explained that that there was concern among the residents in Lasswade following being very close to a serious flood incident in December. CB emphasised the need to have a priority in progressing the flood risk management plan, in particular around Lasswade.
MC offered to pass this onto Derek Oliver.
ASK added that she expected that flood risk would be within the Midlothian Local Development Plan that will be being produced as a result of the NPF4 and Local Place plans.
CP added that he had picked up from SEPA the weather event at the end of December was a 1 in 10 event in Musselburgh. However, further up the river on the North Esk was of the region of a 1 in 25 year event. The water levels on the River South Esk were a lot lower in comparison, thus when the rivers joined, the weather event was not as significant further downstream.

9. AOB 
None
 
Meeting ends 11:15

Esk River Improvement Group Meeting
Minutes of Meeting – 10am, Monday 9th January 2023, Microsoft Teams

Attendance: Douglas Lyons, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Nick Aitken (East Lothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Rachael Langfield (Coal Authority), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Rebecca Lewis (Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife), Chris Gall (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Joy Godfrey (ENCC), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Rachel Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Caroline Freeman (Newbattle Abbey College)
Apologies           Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Audrey Murray (EnjoyLeisure), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse) David Ogilvie (SEPA)
 

Welcome
CB welcomed everyone to the meeting and the previous minutes were approved.
1. Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Scott Fraser
CB asked about the flooding at Lasswade and the mains burst at Bonnyrigg/Rosewell.
SF reported that on 1 January there was a burst 12-inch water main on Carnethie Street, Rosewell, approximately 1000 properties experienced no water or water discolouration. Tankers were brought in to supply water to the network. All supplies restored by 5pm on 1 January.
SF detailed the challenges Scottish Water faced from the sub-zero weather in December 2022. This had a severe impact on many assets. Very cold conditions led to a very challenging environment for working on frozen service pipes. The rapid thaw then had a major impact on the water network across the whole country. This impact was seen on both the public supply and the private supply (within homes and businesses).  Treatment works were then coping with a massive increase in supply due to leaks and burst pipes. Field operations and customer services were extremely busy. Then this was followed on by flooding from heavy rain at the end of December.
 
SB described what happened to the wastewater treatment works during the extreme weather. The deep freeze slowed down the flow of water through the filter beds, slowing or stopping a lot of the bacterial treatment, inhibiting treatment of wastewater. Then the thaw caused further difficulty. The dead bugs that died during the freeze caused issues with the waste treatment and then there was increases in flows from the thaw. Further, this was made worse by the heavy rain that followed. And the treatment works then experienced significant flooding. In the Esk the CSO’s would have been operating. Due to the scale of the flows, some CSO’s were broken, the screens bent or the motors became flooded. Scottish Water have contractors mobilised to recover treatment works and CSO’s.
 
SB was on site at Lord Ancrum Woods and reported that the site looks quite good. SB commented that the assets had performed well during the severe weather and that they are currently in a place where they are recovering the assets that were impacted by the weather.
 
RLe asked which treatment plants were impacted along the Esk
 
SB replied that there are not many wastewater treatment assets along the Esk. SB added that it was not a particular problem in this area and no assets entered into a failing situation.  
 
SF noted that Scottish Water have been impacted by weather more often than normal. The whole industry is having to adapt to how they cope with the impact of extreme weather.
 
CB added that we are seeing the results of climate change and it will be a big adjustment for the utilities as to how they adapt to that.
 
CB asked about the Lasswade flooding on 30 December 2022. SF offered to come back to the group on that.
 
CB asked for an update on the Eastfield Pumping Station works.
 
SB replied that there was no significant update from last meeting. Eastfield was not impacted by the recent high flows during the bad weather. Upgraded pipework and clean out plans will continue as before prior to bathing season. Other work will happen during bathing season. No exact date for the further work as yet, but SB will pass on this information once they have it.
 
ASK thanked SB for circulating the CSO maps.
 
2. Forth Rivers Trust – Ross Hughes
RH updated the group that their ‘Outfall Safari’ is coming to a conclusion. Volunteers have surveyed outfall sites from the river mouth to 15 km up the river Esk. On a preliminary review of results RH reports that he is not seeing any major issues with pipes, adding that volunteers are keen to do more surveys in the future.  
RH added that they are shortly looking to do more community presentations
RH reports that they are trying to organise a visit in March to a mine water treatment facility, run by The Coal Authority.  RH adds that he would be aiming to send out an invitation to ERIG members to join this site visit.
CB asked what they plan to do with the data when the survey of the outfall pipes is complete. CB emphasised that it is important, due to the effort that has been made, that the gathered information should be of use to a number of organisations. Adding that we should have a think where the best place is to hold the data so that everyone gets a chance to view the results.  
RH answered that they will make that data publicly available. They have similar data on projects on other rivers on their website. RH added if people are interested in any particular aspects of the survey, then please get in touch with him.
CB added that when the work is complete, he could also post the data on his website.
CG emphasised that if anything is found during the survey (contamination or sewage), to report this to SEPA and they can attend to that. Adding that it will be good to see the whole body of the work and what they can take form it.

 
3. Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife - Rebecca Lewis (RLe)
RLe provided an update to the group.

• Reports that they have 16 sites that are being monitored on a monthly basis and looking at 6 new sites.
• Looking at restoration along the riverbank and working with a landowner on a problem area and will provide a further update when finalised.
• Delivering some ‘species level’ training in April.
• Looking at new Citizen Science techniques that they are hoping to trial on the River Esk.
• Guardians of our Rivers has had a large amount of interest from over Scotland. Around 15-20 groups looking to replicate what they are doing on the Esk.

 
4. Coal Authority - Rachael Langfield (RL)

RL provided an update to the ERIG on the Dalkeith Water Treatment Plant. 

• BEIS approval dates set for March and July where they are looking to get approval for the new business case, that contains the increase in project costs.
• Demolition of number 41 is to take place as soon as possible. There have been reports from the Police that a number of children have been on the site.
• The process design contract is to be awarded at the end of January and will take 4 months to complete. They are carrying this out in parallel with the budget approval process.
• They are carrying out works at the discharge point to make sampling and recording of the flow easier and more accurate.
• Stated that there is a communication to residents that is being progressed and will be going out soon.
• Informed that The Coal Authority CEO was meeting the SEPA CEO as part of the ongoing engagement between these parties. The mine mater treatment plant is included in this discussion.

 
CB asked if a Letter of Support from Community Councils would be still helpful.
 
RL added that it is up to The Coal Authority to give BEIS an accurate business case and that all support is gratefully received.
 
ASK added that the community is feeling neglected as it is over a year since communication has been received by residents.
 
ASK commented that there should be some heat energy available from the mine water discharge in Dalkeith. ASK referred to research by Strathclyde and Glasgow University about heat potential from this mine water discharge and also that The Coal Authority is co-hosting a conference with the British Geological Society on mine water energy. ASK asked for some information about this.
 
ASK added that she has seen no information about people have gaining unauthorised access to number 41.
 
RL explained that the mine water heat recovery has been considered and it cannot be considered due to the footprint of the site and that this is the best location for the treatment works. Added that there are ongoing conversations looking at other sites in that area. RL will pass on her comments to the Innovation Team. RL explained that in the meantime the mine water still needs treated and The Coal Authority has to deal with the discharges.
 
RL added that that she has a request in to deal with the phone numbers that were provided on signage that was moved in a previous meeting.
 
CB commented that he would not want anything to happen that delayed the current application that is being progressed adding that the current pollution has a huge impact on the River Esk.
 
PB added that mine water heat is something that is being progressed passionately by the Coal Authority and others. Commenting that he is sure that it will play a future role in Dalkeith and across Scotland, but he would not want to see the water treatment scheme being held up, which is the key issue.
 
JG added that she will take it to the ENCC suggesting that they send a Letter of Support that BEIS fully fund the project.
 
CB added that letters would lend more weight if letters came from community groups rather than individuals and they can be used in the Business Case of The Coal Authority.
 
RL confirmed that she will feedback to DL the appropriate people who she thinks who the Letter of Support should be sent to and then he will share this information with the community groups.
 
ASK added that she is also waiting on information about what to include in a Letter of Support and who to send it to.
 
5. SEPA – Chris Gall
CG provided an update on the fish barrier work on the river Esk. Successful integrity surveys took place at the end of December on all three weirs (Montague Bridge and Ironmills on the North Esk. Dalkeith Weir on South Esk). The result of this work is expected in early February at which point results will be analysed and shared with landowners and used to inform the next stage of the process. Preparation and the concept design contracts will run through Summer 2023.
 
CT asked if the community meetings with SEPA will be reinstated.
PF Confirmed that he has discussed with Ruth Stidson and that he will get back within the next couple of weeks what the progress will be on the Fisherrow community meetings.
 
With regard to the ongoing pollution investigation in Musselburgh, CG confirmed that it is still an active investigation, so no further update. But he assured the group that work was ongoing on the incident.
 
ASK highlighted concerns about damage from the high rainfall to the Ironmills and Newmills weirs and if that the survey was done before or after the heavy rainfall. CG added that he would feed this back to the group that managed the survey work.
RLe wondered if there are any planned works to clear debris from the weir and viaduct. CP added that it is the responsibility of the owner of the weir (for clearing a blockage). But if it was to become a matter of public health it the local council may take a degree of responsibility.

6. East Lothian Council - Shona Grant
No update
 
7. Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price
Updated the group with use of a PowerPoint presentation. To be included as the record for the purpose of the minutes.
 
CP’s presentation updated ERIG on the MFPS, the weather event on 30 December 2022 and Invasive Species Steering Group.
 
8. Midlothian Council - Moira Cartwright
MC informs that the Environmental Crime Scheme is with their legal team and she is hopeful that there will be something forthcoming for the next meeting.
 
CB asked about the Lasswade flood. MC was unaware of the issues.
 
CB mentioned that there were previous discussions with Midlothian Council (Derek Oliver) about Midlothian Council putting together some flood risk analysis. MC will take that away as an action to find out more and will get back to the group.
 
ASK highlighted Twitter footage that shows the high-water levels at Lasswade.  
 
9. AOB 
None
 
Meeting ends 1115am

Attendance: Douglas Lyons, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Nick Aitken (East Lothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Rachael Langfield (Coal Authority), Dr Mike Cox (Coal Authority), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Rebecca Lewis (Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife), David Ogilvie (SEPA), Chris Gall (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), John Oldham (Esk Valley Trust), Joy Godfrey (ENCC), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Rachel Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse), Caroline Freeman (Newbattle Abbey College) Rachel Elliott (Nature Scotland)
Apologies: Audrey Murray (EnjoyLeisure), Craig Macadam (Buglife), Roger Crofts (Esk Valley Trust), Vicki White (SEPA), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Anna Griffin (SEPA) Rob Mitchell (SEPA), Nim Kibbler (Forth Rivers Trust)

Welcome
CB welcomes everyone to the meeting and the previous minutes were approved.

1. Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Scott Fraser
SB started with an update on the issues that were discussed at the last meeting.

• Network Obstruction (Near Hardengreen) - has now been removed. The network has been tested by the heavy rain in the last couple of weeks. They have seen the benefit of doing this as they have not seen surcharging manholes that were seen in the past.
• Damaged path (by the Sun Inn) that was caused by flooding in August. They are going to reinstate 50 meters with similar materials. A contractor has been engaged for this.
• Lord Ancrum’s Woods Project – Down to last two options. Both options have storage and a powered screen. At bottom end of the site of the old high school. At the stage just before taking to a contractor. A £1-2 million project. Delivery within the next year (which is fast for a capital project of this type).
• Gore Water burst water main (not River Esk related) – Found a cross-connection between the incoming sewer and the culvert that takes it out to the stream. Working on getting that fixed and the also replacing the manhole that is there.

 
Pittendreich Burn – SB provided details about an investigation into what is causing water discolouration in this area. Developers separate surface and wastewater, putting surface water through suds/detention/retention ponds. There are issues with dead vegetation in the ponds. The investigation will focus on if there are cross connections into the ponds and if any wastewater has mistakenly been connected into the surface water runoff. Commented that this will not be a quick process.

Eastfield Update - (addressing questions from Claire Tochel)
Commented that the asset is working as per design. Work has been done to upgrade the pumps and repairing the pipework. Final bit of work to check the pipework is planned in February 2023, (they need a cold dry period to undertake this work for storage purposes). After this, they plan to do another clean, to remove debris and rags. Determining on what they see in the works planned in the new year, Scottish Water plan to do a clean as a regular activity, either annual or 6 monthly. Once this work is done, this will be as good as they can make this pumping station.
Answering the question if this means the pumping station will be operating as per the licence? SB commented that he does not know. They can’t be clear where the figure of 947 litres per second (or 1100 litres per second in the emergency action plan) comes from. He does not think the pumping station will ever do that. Where they are at now is to understand the impact further upstream on the network and the environment with the current operating levels. And then the question between Scottish Water and SEPA is if this is acceptable and what work may be needed to hit a modelled number. If they need to upgrade Eastfield, that will be done after this work is completed. Any work upgrading Eastfield would be a very large project. Currently there are no issues with the rising mains at Eastfield.
 
CB asked if Scottish Water have had any issues with sediment/grit in the water at Eskbank?
SB is not aware of any grit in clean water. This should only happen if there is a leak. If this persists, advised that this should be called in.
 
ASK asked about the pdf of CSO’s that had been offered to be sent out at the previous meeting. (These will be circulated).
 
CT added that she appreciates hearing about the planned cleaning at Eastfield. Commented that we are getting to the heart of this, that many parts of the water cleaning infrastructure are in desperate need of upgrading. Which is an issue at Fisherrow.
CT wanted to make the point that this is a big issue and not one that we can ‘tick off’. Adding at what point do we need to do something else and when does this becomes a government issue, recognising the need for investment in our water quality.
CB commented that this is certainly something not to lose sight of and we will keep this as a sub-item on the agenda
 
RLe commented that one sampling site, near Penicuik, was on the trigger levels (a drop in invertebrate numbers). Asked if SB could get in touch if he had any information on this site. CG offered speak to RLe on this matter and put her in touch with the SEPA ecologists to look at what has happened on this section of the river.
 
2.Forth Rivers Trust – Ross Hughes
Have been running a series of public engagement presentations over last couple of months, with the final one coming up.

• Had first steering group meeting laying the groundwork where the Citizen Esk Project is going to pilot itself to in the next couple of years. Commented that they are driven by the community voice as to what kind of actions they would like to see and be supported with.
• Started an ‘Outfall Safari’ – a Citizens Science Project. People survey the river for outfall pipes coming into the river. Use a recognised assessment method to gauge the impact they are having on the river around them. So far, they have undertaken three training evenings and now have a small core of volunteers that are undertaking the Citizen Science project. They will look at the results and see if they want to expand this to other sections of the river.

 
CB commented that he was interested to see that they are doing a survey of outfall pipes. Adding that this has been discussed before in ERIG that the group don’t have a comprehensive knowledge of where the outfall pipes are, which is a big gap the understanding in what is impacting the river. Asked when do they think the survey will be finished and how much of the river is the survey taking in?
 
RH explained that the survey will run until the 17th of December and they will take time after to collate the information. Previous surveys on the Leven and Almond will give you an understanding to what information will be available. They are looking at where the Esk enters the Forth up to Springfield Mill on the North Esk and a kilometre past Cockpen on the South Esk. Adding that it would be great to expand on this in the future.
 
3. Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife - Rebecca Lewis (RLe)
Update on Riverfly on the Esk, (A Citizen Science Project)

• It has been a busy year. They have 41 fully trained volunteers and 10 more that are in training. (The training is a 6-hour session, both Theory and Practical sessions).
• They have 16 sites in place from source to sea and hope to add on another two sites next year.
• Speaking to 6 landowners that have been very supportive, allowing access to the river.
• Their focus is looking at the invertebrates, and water testing (nitrates and phosphates).
• Ran two workshops for the Midlothian Outdoor Festival, which were booked up.
• Freshwater biological association have donated 2 microscopes to the project.
• Next April they will offer more training, which will be looking at species levels for invertebrates.
• A report on water testing will be available to anyone that wants it.

Update on Buglife

• Launched a project called Guardians of our Rivers.
• Running the model of Riverfly on the Esk across Scotland, getting communities engaged.
• Launched in the beginning of October and had a large amount of interest from across Scotland.
• Buglife will be the hub. A place where they can get training and support.
• Open to anyone who wants to get involved.

 
4. Coal Authority - Rachael Langfield (RL) and Dr Mike Cox (MC)
Apologies given about the lack of communication about the Board Meeting that happened in public on the 30th of September at the National Mining Museum.  The next rotation for a public meeting of the Coal Authority Board in Scotland will be next summer.
 
RL provided an update on previously raised points

• There will be a communication update by the end of the year.
• On the issue of the use of the name Bilston Glen. Confirmed that in all external communications they are using the term Dalkeith Mine Water Treatment Scheme.
• Use of Renewable Energy – Mine Water heat recovery is not a preferred option for providing power due to limitations of the site and the size of the equipment.  They are looking at providing the use of solar panels, which will have to be located on the building. However, the orientation of the building (east to west), won’t give them the best benefits. An initial survey has been undertaken on this to assess the net gain to the project. This is ongoing and RL will update when they know more on this.

 
CB referred to a previous discussion about sending letters of support from the Community councils and himself on the basis of RL providing the necessary information.
RL I have this ready information to send after this meeting.
ASK Expressed frustration on the lack of communication.
 
ASK queried the Dalkeith Country Park and Bilston Glen references as these are confusing for the local community.
RL commented that projects can have internal names that don’t translate well into the real world. RL added she has been assured that the external communications do not reference Bilston Glen.  
 
ASK referenced notice boards that say, ‘ring this number, mine gasses’. She phoned the numbers, and these are hazard lines that do reporting, and they gave two numbers for the Coal Board. These numbers rung out.
RL will ask some questions on this within the Coal Authority, but it has nothing to do with the Mine Water treatment scheme.
 
ASK queried if the cameras that have been put into the area are these detecting mine gasses?
RL Answered that they have had security issues on a building that they have purchased. Children had gained access to the building. The cameras are for security. The plan is to proceed with the demolition of this building,
 
Dr Mike Cox presented slides to the group on the project chemistry

• Manganese @ 4-5 mg/L is at the upper end of what the coal authority measure in all their waters.
• Early 2019 there was a step change in iron and manganese in the water.
• February 2022, there was an outrush of contaminated water out of the Adit and into the river.
• The Coal Authority uses a process called High Density Sludge to treat the water. This process captures the iron as a solid so it can be taken out of the water and taken away and disposed of.
• When the plant is up and running, they will optimise the process (in conjunction with SEPA) once they understand how much manganese is being removed. If they need to remove more manganese it will be done at later stage.

 
CB states that the key thing is safety. Asking where is the trigger point for the safe level of manganese and iron in the water for humans, animals and creatures that live in the Esk?
MC adds that they use the EQS and work to meet these standards. He will send EQS numbers to RL to be circulated. The process will ensure the discharged water is compatible with the water in the river Esk.
 
CB asked, how they are going to dispose of the residue, which may be substantial?
MC Commented that it will be substantial; it will be a compact sludge that will be disposed of in several processes. They can use Okra in anaerobic digestors (units that produce compost) or they can dispose in Landfill.
 
CB commented that putting a large amount of a concentrated chemical into landfill does not sound like the best solution adding if they can find a commercial use for it, that would be ideal.
MC replies that (landfill) is not the best solution, and they are looking at viable alternatives.
 
ASK asked if they are intending on taking the manganese out from the start?
MC answered that they are going to treat the iron first. Then they will proceed to work with SEPA to look at the Manganese treatment. There will be options in the process where they can implement that.
 
ASK asked if they are using the UK or EU EQS data standards.
MC answers that it is probably the EU standards that they will be using. This was confirmed by Paul Butler (SEPA) and that there has been no change to EQS following Brexit.
 
PB added that it is SEPA authorisation on the Coal Authorities discharge on the treatment scheme that will set the permit so the EQS’s are not breached. The figures are roughly 1.5 mg/L for Iron and manganese.
 
PB comments that the Manganese is complicated (rises during the summer months as the PH rises). The treatment of the iron will impact the PH of the water. Which is why a phased approach makes sense for the treatment scheme to allow a better understanding of the manganese treatment.
 
CB highlighted that if the Sludge from the Iron and Manganese is to be disposed in landfill, he would be coming back to SEPA on that issue.
 
CG commented that the EQS for Iron and Manganese is published on SEPA website.
  
ASK added that in Midlothian there are projects dealing with food waste, and if we could get some joint work and avoid transporting waste to a different part if the country.
 
ASK asked if it is safe for animals to swim in the water?
CB explained that we were previously assured by NHS Lothian that it was safe and that he is in touch with Dr Richard Othieno on another issues.
 
JO asked how stable is the sediment and how likely is it that it will leach back into water courses?
MC answered that it is inert. It is iron oxide (that is found in soil). It will take a long time to leach out. If the material is mobilised; it will mobilise in small particles. If there is acidity in the landfill this could cause it to break down, indicating something wrong with the landfill.
 
JO queries with RL if they have any feeling that BEIS will have to scale back the funding of the project.
RL comments that they have had no feedback as to what any austerity cuts might mean for them. Adding that this is a high priority scheme.
 
 
5. SEPA – Chris Gall
Update on the burst water main at Gore Water in September. There is an ongoing investigation and Scottish Water are assisting. Fortunately, it happened before fish spawning time. SEPA ecology attended and found no impact on fish or invertebrates.
 
CB asked if there is any update on the Musselburgh pollution incident?
CG answered that he does not have any information. It is an ongoing investigation. PF confirmed that it is still an active investigation, so at some point they will be able to report on it.
 
CT asked about follow-up questions she may have to the responses SEPA issued to her previously issued questions.
PF mentions that he circulated his responses to the initial questions. Adding that Ruth Stidson is thinking about reconvening the community discussion meeting that happened in the past. CT can follow up with more detailed questions at this meeting.
             
PF introduced David Ogilvie, who is taking over from Vicky White as senior manager. DO introduced himself to the group.
 
CG passed on apologies for Rob Mitchell. Chris passes on Robs update on improvement work on fish passages. SEPA will be scoring tenders for structural survey contracts in relation to two weirs on North and one on the South Esk. The contract is expected to run through the winter.
 
6.East Lothian Council - Shona Grant
SG provided an update to the group.

• Newhailes landfill, the discharge onto Fisherrow. The monitoring is ongoing.
• Morrison Haven Sea defences. Ian Chalmers has taken up the post as the contact for queries. He is the senior engineer for flood protection.
• It was mentioned in the last meeting there were a few pools that had gathered under the weir next to Inveresk Industrial estate.  SG met PC onsite. Subsequently the contaminated land officer visited the site. However, the large amount of rain has not left anything much to see. He will continue to make observations to assess if this is an ongoing problem.

 
CB added that he is in touch with NHS Lothian with regards to the concerns about the discharge at Fisherrow Sands. They will come back to him, and he will then come back to ERIG.
 
7. Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price
CP presented slides.
Project Managers High Level report

• A report was presented to ELC in August 2022 – to update on our major consultation process and update on next steps.
• Council instructed the inclusion of the Ash Lagoons Seawall in the Preferred Scheme, an update to the assessment of Flood Risk, and a stand-alone Consultation Plan.
• A report was presented to ELC in October 2022 – to update on the actions from August and confirm next steps.
• The Project Team have now commenced the actual Outline Design
• Community groups from Musselburgh will be consulted from January
• A major Public Exhibition will be arranged from June 2023 (will continue to design afterwards based on comments received during that exhibition).
• Communication program, consultation program and EH21 scheme newsletter being worked on this year.
• Undertaking site visits to identify lessons learned in other Natural Flood Management projects.
• Using revised modelling scenarios.
• MFPS developing flood risk reduction options with key partners (upstream).

 
Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS)

• MFPS has been asked by the council to lead a coordination of INNS on the river Esk. (in 4th year of management of INNS).
• First meeting of INNS Steering group in spring 2022, next meeting is in February 2023. Bringing together all interested parties together. Projects teams are working on the lower and upper Esk.

 
CP hoped that they can continue to make progress and more and organisations and more landowners can join the effort. CP added that if anyone in this group believes that they can help, please get in touch.
CB asked about the practicality of planting trees to prevent flooding.
CP answered that trees do deliver flood risk reduction benefit, but not to the scale that removes the need for a physical flood protection scheme in Musselburgh. Due to the scale, there is no combination of natural solutions that are enough to remove the need for physical defences in the town. But there is scope for more natural solutions. Which is why they are reaching out to partner organisations to understand what best practice on a national scale is and what might be possible. He will report back on this point.
 
RLe asked if you get landowners involved with the detection of invasive species, what help do you offer when you identify them?
CP answered that the MFPS role is to chair the group and bring together interested parties, who will facilitate things moving forward. They are not providing direct support. But there is a group that are working to empower people at a local level. Land owners have an obligation to remove invasive species in their land and they are trying to get everyone involved to take action, so they have a reasonable chance of success.
 
ASK asked if there is potential for natural flood management in the wider Esk catchment.
CP answered that there is tremendous potential. This is an area that needs explored more, and to whether those interventions are merited from a MFPS perspective is a different question. He will ask from a MFPS perspective and report back.
 
CP and CT will continue conversation about invasive species at the seafront at an upcoming meeting between FHSA and MFPS and will highlight to the group any decisions.
 
JO asked, how are you planning in capturing the work that you are doing for the benefit of other groups further up the Esk?
CP answered that they will continue to use our analysis to help other parties (outwidth MFPS) that may want to use natural flood management within the Esk catchment. They will have to capture this in a report. He will come back to the group on this.
 
8. Midlothian Council - Moira Cartwright
Environmental Crime Scheme – this is with their legal team who are looking at the third-party company. MC will forward on an update from the legal team when that arrives.
 
9. AOB
MC asked if there is there any update on NAC and if the works that had been planned had been undertaken (root ingress work with cameras). MC will contact SB on this matter
 
DL to provide a date for the next meeting.
 
CB thanks all for attending
 
Meeting ends 11:45am

​

Attendance: Douglas Lyons, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Rachael Langfield (Coal Authority), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Nim Kibbler (Forth Rivers Trust), Frazer McNaughton (Nature Scotland), Chris Gall (SEPA), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), John Oldham (Esk Valley Trust), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Rebecca Lewis (Buglife), Craig Macadam (Bug Life), Joy Godfrey (ENCC),
Apologies: Peter Finnie (SEPA), Derek Oliver (Midlothian Council), Carolyn Freeman (NEC), Anna Griffin (SEPA), Neil Clark (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Audrey Murray (EnjoyLeisure), Rachel Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Roger Crofts, Edel Ryan (Midlothian Council)
 

Welcome
CB welcomes everyone to the meeting and previous minutes were approved.
 
1.Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Scott Fraser
Update on Water Resources - SF
 
In Scotland, five of the last six months have seen below average rainfall. On a national level, reservoir levels are at 76% of capacity, the average for this time of year is about 82%. In the East of Scotland, reservoir levels are at 68%.
 
CB asks how flexible are they in accessing the 76% national water levels for the regions that have shortages?
 
SF answered that they are quite flexible and have invested in resilience, the ability to move water around from one area to another. They have investment planned in the coming years to be able to maintain supplies.
 
SF addresses recent questions received about the low water levels at Gladhouse Reservoir. Water levels are just below 50% of capacity. Levels are artificially low due to construction work that are currently being undertaken. Following planned construction work at Gladhouse reservoir next year, (for which a planning application will be submitted), reservoir levels will increase.
 
On water consumption. Over the past three months, Scottish Water have undertaken media communications and community engagement work around water saving campaigns. They plan to link water usage with energy use and commented that round 50% of household energy is used on water.
 
CB asks how Scottish Water keep track of water capacity, to be able to match the increased demand resulting from the significant number of houses being built in Mid and East Lothian?
 
SF replies that they work closely with the Local Authorities on their local development plans to understand how many properties are being connected and during what time periods.
 
SF added they are always looking at treatment works and their capacity to meet demand. They work with developers to provide information about water usage to new homeowners, as this is an opportunity to think about water usage.
 
AH asked what work is done identifying and rectifying leakages, which are of a concern to the community?
 
SF explained that a huge amount of work is undertaken to try and identify and rectify leakages. Scottish Water lose 25% of the water that they treat and supply. By using monitoring equipment, they can undertake network analysis to see where changes in demand might identify a leak. They still have leakages, and they would like to reduce them.
 
Scottish Water Update following recent spills - SB
 
Impacted by storm condition rainfall after a dry period. They look to react as quickly as possible to issues, resolve them and then look to see if there are any improvements that can be done.
 
Newbattle Abbey Crescent 

• Raw discharge from manholes on to land after a dry period followed by heavy rainfall.
• What was found by the ground team were soft chokes. Which were predominantly made up of fat, grease and wipes.
• This was cleared as quickly as possible and no structural issues were found.

 
Near Hardengreen (in a field)

• Cleared up spill at the outfall and couldn't find any soft chokes or blockages there.
• The ground team CCTV’d the whole network and found what looks like a wheel within the sewer.
• They were unable to move the blockage and will soon dig down on top of it for removal.

 
Near the Sun Inn

• some discharge from a manhole to land in a wooded area.
• grease and rags had caused a blockage and were cleared quickly.

 
Iron Mills Road

• had some grey water reported on 30th of August
• on 31st of August a soft choke of fat, soil, grease and rags was cleared

 
Lord Ancrum’s Wood and potential future project.

• A spill reported on 1st September. The team attended and undertook a clean-up.
• Proposed new CSO with 500 m3 of storage which is nearing the point of construction.
• They are discussing where the outfall would be. At the existing point or a new point within the PFI.
• Added that this is a good step forward with regard to a new CSO and storage capacity.

 
SB added after a period of dry weather with lower flows, anything that's in the sewer network that shouldn't be in there, can be difficult to flush away. Following heavy rainfall, it will flush through, gather up and cause soft chokes.
 
CB asked if the fairly extensive outflows at Newbattle Abbey Crescent were only caused by the soft choke blockage, or was it an inevitable outcome of the way that the system works?
 
SB explained that ultimately high flows will have caused the blockage. If there hadn't been a soft choke, the modelling tells them the network would have been able to deal with high flows. and that he would have expected it would have discharged upstream rather than from manholes.
MC asked about CCTV work that was undertaken at NAC on 29th of August as a work order was raised.
 
SB replied that it sounds like they have found some roots. There is regular root cutting in this area as root ingress can be a cause of soft chokes.
 
CB asked if they think people are paying attention to campaigns in schools and public leaflets about not putting inappropriate material in the system?
 
SB answered that they have had less events they had before. Previously they were having regular events in normal conditions. Recently, they have had events in storm conditions. Adding that it sounds like the community are listening to what they are saying
 
SF notes that it is difficult to quantify from a campaign in terms of results. They have had less chokes this year. Adding they have another wave of the ‘nature calls’ campaign with TV advertising, radio and social media going live later in October.
 
CB asked if Scottish Water have any evidence that campaigns done through schools are more effective than just generally campaigning?
 
SF explained that they try and network with schools, and they get more requests to attend schools than Scottish Water can fulfil. They have education packs teachers can use on iPads.
 
CB notes that there is a strong feeling among the public that we should be moving towards eliminating outflows of sewage. Is that a long-term policy?
 
SB explains that CSO's are needed in the network. What is needed is to reduce the number of events that happen. Coupled with proactive work, shortening the window to react and getting monitors on outfalls. So as soon as there is a discharge, they know about it and fix it. There are 1000 new monitors going out around Scotland and some will be targeted in this area. In the future a smart network could show an increase in flows before it discharges.
 
CB notes that while reducing spills is commendable, in the longer term, we need to see some plans to eliminate spills.
SB states that they could head off anything at source that is not meant to go down the network. Then it will discharge in houses. Improving how the network operates and campaigns to stop things going down into the network that are at the root cause of spills.
 
JG asked about the new CSO with 500m3 storage. Where will that be located?
 
SB states that the proposal is near the new primary school. Right now, that is just a proposal.
 
JO asked in reference to Newbattle Abbey Crescent (NAC). Are Scottish Water saying that there is no infrastructure remedy planned at NAC and that the remedies are to do with improved monitoring and a more rapid response?
 
SB answered. The right thing is to have an understanding of the network, identification of a particular issue and react quickly. There was nothing he could comment on with regard to a specific issue at NAC. There is work going on there and with developers that he would have to come back on. For NAC no issues have been raised with him with regards to that network. Drainage impact assessments have been done and subsequently no issues were raised that he needs to resolve.
 
SF added that they have created new information videos (on their website) around wastewater and how the system works. SF commented that members may share it and use as appropriate. 
 
2.Forth Rivers Trust – Ross Hughes
During the summer they ran presentations and walks along the river, attended by over 150 people. Topics include mini-beasts, wildlife living along the sides of the river and invasive plant species.
 
They are running evening presentations to do with Outfall Safari. This is a Citizen Science engagement project. Looking to run an Outfall Safari on the South Esk at the end of October.  Volunteers will survey sections of the river looking for pipes that are coming into the river. They will make a note of where those are, doing a quick assessment grading them in terms of what their discharge looks like and highlighting ones that are potentially an issue.
 
They are also running presentations looking at eels on the Esk and one on invasive plant species.
 
RH shared feedback from the walks, that people had been surprised at the impacts that they were seeing and hearing about on the Esk. But also nice stories of people who have lived on the Esk all their lives telling us how the river has improved. For example, seeing things like dippers and herons on the river.
 
SB asked if RH needed a GIS plot or a map of all our discharge points along the Esk?
 
RH answered that it would be useful to check they have the most up to date information.
 
NK asked if it is just CSO's or discharge points as well?
 
SB replied that it will have all discharge points from our assets. Adding if anyone sees discharge or wastewater, and it doesn't appear on the map, then then let us or SEPA know.
 
SB offered to send a pdf to Colin and he could distribute to the group.
 

 
3. Coal Authority - Rachael Langfield 
Mine Water Treatment Scheme at Bilston Glen. Currently reviewing recent work with contractors and consultants looking at costs and gap analysis within the scope. Undertaken a risk workshop and a cost benefit analysis.
 
Conversations with SEPA looking at catchment-based benefits approach and this will feed into the business case that they will present back to BEIS, detailing the increase in cost and showing parallel benefits.
 
Operations and technical team have been working on the project scope specifics, working on flow rates and redundancy. What they are working on is a refinement rather than complete re-work of the project. They are looking to meet BEIS for approval in January, with the contract being awarded around June. Some potential for this to accelerate.
 
River levels are currently low. Current chemistry - iron at 40-50 milligrams per litre and manganese is about 5 milligrams per litre. The latest flow data showing a small increase in flows.
 
CB asked what is the difference in the content of manganese and what does that mean?
 
RL offered to invite someone to the next meeting to discuss the chemistry as it currently stands. CB added that this would be interesting for the group.
 
AH Asked if they are going to treat the manganese initially.  RL agreed to check up on this.
 
CB asked what is the level of cost increases in the water treatment project?
 
RL explained that construction costs are currently £15 million. A 50% increase. Materials, chemical and power costs have increased. There has been an escalation across all their schemes that they are currently working on.
 
CB offered to provide a letter of support for the project, as he had previously done. RL agreed to provide bullet points as to what they would like to see in it.
 
JG asked if they needed letters of support from the Community Councils to try to get maximum support. AH also happy to consider anything else that can further the project. RL agreed to contact JG about this.
 
AH added talking about Bilston Glen causes confusion. This is Junkies Adit, Old Fordel in Dalkeith.
 
AH asked if renewable energy projects attached to the scheme could reduce the cost of running the plant, using the heat of the water. RL offered to ask that question.
 
There was a discussion requesting more information to be provided to the community from the Coal Authority on the water treatment project. NK suggested an A4 notice that could be laminated and tied up near the river would be helpful to explain to the public what is happening.
 
RL offered to send something soon and thanked the group for its patience. It is probably one of the largest projects that the Coal Authority has undertaken.

 
4. SEPA - Katrina Wilson 
CB begins with reference to recently submitted questions from Claire Tochel from Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association. CB asked if the questions from CT could be raised directly with the individual organisations and asked these organisations to come back, copying the group into the reply.
 
KW

• Burst water main at Gore Water, liaising with Scottish Water to ensure there is adequate mitigation.
• Fish Barriers - continues to be an ongoing issue with land ownership agreements. Advising the group that they can't proceed until the legalities are resolved, but they are hoping that this will be soon.
• Drought Impact - SEPA deal with industrial and agricultural side. At the moment the River Esk is at moderate water scarcity. The current SEPA advice to industry and agriculture is to reduce usage volume, stagger water abstractions with other operators and utilise other water supplies where possible.
• River Esk sitting at 30 days from being classified as significant water scarcity. Do not think this will impact.

 
CB notes that it is interesting to hear more about the farming community, which is a huge part of our remit. Are there other current constraints in the catchments for the Esk where agriculture is being impacted?
 
KW explains for the Esk, the water scarcity levels are moderate, (they have reduced, not to such an extent that is going to have a severe impact). Current advice is to try and reduce water usage. They have not served notices to farmers that they can't abstract from the Esk, but that is in place elsewhere (in Scotland).
 
NK asks what is the mitigation plan for Scottish Water on the Gore Water?
 
NK explained that she tracked down the burst water pipe to opposite Arniston house. The Scottish Water manager on site said that there was no requirement for them to put in mitigation. The incident had been going for 30 hours before she called SEPA and a large amount of soil had been washed into the river. NK noted concern that Scottish Water, in terms of its environmental requirements to not pollute, is not letting SEPA know when they need support.
 
KW added they have been speaking to Scottish Water since then for mitigations. Adding that officers and ecologists are out there. KW asked if Scottish water have an update?
 
NK asked if Scottish Water could let her know what they expect to do in terms of mitigation also what is their understanding of their management procedures for notifying SEPA?
 
CB asked if we could get an update on the Gore Water spillage to distribute to Members?
 
SF notes that following this meeting he will look into this and ask about what mitigations are being looked at and come back to the group.
 

 
5. East Lothian Council - Shona Grant 
Update on the Fisherrow Sands discharge from the former landfill at Newhailes.

• Officers have been working with SEPA and continue to do so.
• Contaminated land officer has carried out four rounds of sampling from the discharge sump at the base of the former landfill, the outfall pipe at the beach and a borehole that is on the site perimeter.
• The results so far indicate the presence of leachate from the landfill site, elevated levels of iron and manganese, which indicate the possible presence of mine water.
• The Coal Authority has confirmed that it is likely that the flow is due to groundwater percolating through unworked, shallow coal seams and entering the former landfill via a spring.  The Coal Authority are going to assist further in providing further detail on the groundwater regime.
• The contaminated land officer has another 8 rounds of monitoring planned. Then they will have a full year of data for analysis.
• Post monitoring, they will collate the sampling data and then do a risk assessment of the potential impacts of the discharge. Looking particularly at human health and environment.
• SEPA are also going to be assessing the impact on the wider water environment, as it is beside the sea wall.
• The risk assessment will inform the next steps to be taken and if any remediation is required.

 
Breakdown of sea defences at Morrison’s Haven

• Liaising with colleagues, including Tom Reed, (Head of Infrastructure) and waiting on confirmation where future inquiries regarding this matter need to be directed to. An individual will take up their post in the near future.
• Tom Reed confirmed that Scottish Government had approved funding for coastline and flood risk. The next step is the formation of a working group in order to look at risk and impact and determine how and when funding will be allocated to different projects across East Lothian.
• Morrison’s Haven was a historic Environmental Improvement Project, which was funded by the SDA, which is now Scottish Enterprise.

 
CB notes with regard to the discharge at Fisherrow Sands and potential impacts to human health. We have had NHS Lothian in before to give us reassurance on the human health risks at Junkies Adit. CB adding that he thinks it might be an idea to do that again when the assessments are complete. CB asks if they have an idea of when that will be?
 
SG replied that they will get advice from colleagues when the risk assessment are done in terms of how likely it is to cause a problem.
 
CB noted that once the assessments have been carried out on the discharges to land, he would like someone from NHS Lothian to speak to the group to give reassurance on the risks to human health. (Reassurances were given to ERIG by NHS Lothian on the human health risks of swimming in the Esk at a previous meeting).
 
CT and SG had a discussion around the issue of high bacterial counts from surface water at the outfall pipe on the beach. CT highlighted bacterial counts were mentioned in the report. CT will raise these points in questions to Scottish Water and SEPA and discuss at the next meeting.
 
6. Musselburgh  Flood Protection Scheme - No update 
7. Midlothian Council - Moira Cartwright 
Update on Environmental Crime Strategy - MC 

• Proposing to take on a third-party company who will provide environmental wardens who will deal with issues such as fly-tipping and littering.
• MC has been advised that the contract with the company that has been successful is currently with legal. After that they hope to be able to implement the crime strategy.
• They have established a contract for collection of abandoned vehicles with Daltons and that is up and running.
• SG has advised that her colleague is active in the National Serious Organised Crime Group, looking at emerging trends. Where there is a license consultation, then they will include that type of information.

 
CB asks if the third-party company that is being appointed will be dealing with environmental issues going forward? Such as pollution in the River Esk.
 
MC explains that this remains with EHO’s within the Public Health and Environmental Protection team or SEPA. However, they will look at any fly-tipping on land beside the Esk.
 
CB asked NK to comment on fly tipping garden waste on the river Esk.
 
NK comments that it is fairly common practice that people take their garden waste onto the riverbank and people don’t recognize that it is a form of fly-tipping.  NK added that she does not think there are issues with it in relation to dumping in the river. Planned trash screens as part of the MFPS may highlight if there are any problems with this.
 
MC added that she is not aware of an issue with garden waste being reported to Midlothian Council. Adding that witnessed evidence is needed of someone either carrying out the fly tipping or some evidence within the waste that links it to an individual. Midlothian Council have purchased some CCTV cameras which can be operated through lamp posts and are looking at purchasing a mobile CCTV system which they might be able to employ.
 
NK and MC discussed meeting to look at areas where there have been issues around garden waste/fly-tipping.
 
CB asked about garden waste in East Lothian. SG said there is not much evidence of garden waste being fly tipped, but ELC does not charge for garden waste.
 
8.Buglife - Rebecca Lewis - Volunteer coordinator for Riverfly on the River Esk.
RL provided an overview of Riverfly on the Esk project.
Riverfly on the River Esk is a Citizen Science project, operating for over three years in the community, monitoring the health of the river through surveys of macroinvertebrates or (Riverfly). This year they have also added on water testing. Riverfly on the Esk is managed, coordinated and trained through volunteers. The agenda is driven by the community.
Supported by funding from small grants from multiple organizations, including Musselburgh and District Angling Association, ENCC, CALA Holmes and Midlothian Council. Received support from multiple organisations and experts, CPA and Newbattle Abbey College, Earth Watch, Bug Life, Riverfly Partnership, Freshwater Biological Association, the Scottish Freshwater Hub and is currently hosted by the Esk Valley Trust.
 
All of the volunteers, no matter the background, that come into this process receive certified Riverfly Partnership training. The training takes approximately 6 hours and has a theory and a practical base.
They currently have 46 trained Riverfly partnership surveyors across Mid and East Lothian.
 
RL noted that the sharing of knowledge about the River Esk has put more focus on the river, inspiring more projects.
 
They have 9 sites established along the River Esk. The groups work autonomously. After they're trained, they are paired up with more experienced people and Rebecca offers support sessions to each of the groups to keep the confidence in what they're doing.
 
The project is building a baseline of information that can be used by agencies. All the data is opensource, so everybody has access to this.
 
The project works to increase community knowledge and understanding of the river ecology and function.  It reaches out further into the community and it allows people to join that wider climate conversation.
 
The Riverfly partnership aims to help fill the gaps in organisations. They take surveys every month.  SEPA sets a trigger level for each of the sites. If our data falls below that Trigger level, then they inform SEPA. It is an early warning system that hopes to minimise any damage by early intervention.
 
They are looking at the journey from the source to the sea. This year, they aim to establish at least four more survey sites along the Esk, working with four land owners in the area who are very supportive of the project. They are aiming for catchment scale and are almost there.
 
RL detailed the outreach work, working with John Muir Awards, with schools, support green flags and attending community events. The projects are designed to be as inclusive as possible. People with mobility issues can get involved.
 
It has been a successful case study within Scotland and received a lot of recognition across the UK.  Buglife want to create a Riverfly hub in Scotland and have been successful in getting funding.
 
Similar hubs exist already in England and they work really well with the agencies. Buglife is going to be presenting that opportunity to Scotland and will be starting to train up more groups to mimic what they are doing in Midlothian and East Lothian.  The new Buglife project is called ‘Guardians of our Rivers’ and will be launched in October.
Further information can be found at www.environment.gov.scot/get-involved/scottish-freshwater-hub/riverfly-on-the-esk/
CB - thanks RL, and welcomed her onto the ERIG group.
 
CG – Asked if they have route of communication to their ecologists for discussion of findings?  RL – answered that she is open to any contact and communications. It is already a good setup they have with SEPA.

 
 
9.AOB
 
PC asked for an update on the spill earlier this year.
 
KW there is an ongoing investigation, and they are limited on what information they can give.  When they do have information, they will provide it.
 
RF Asked about a request to find out who had mentioned at a previous meeting about an invasive plants monitoring group.  
 
CB CP can update us in terms of the invasive species within MFPS at the next ERIG meeting.
 
Jenny Gray confirmed 7/11/22 for the next meeting.
 
CB thanks all for attending
 
Meeting end

Attendance: Ben Sutherland, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Denni Kinnear (Scottish Water), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Vicki White (SEPA), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Roger Crofts (Esk Valley Trust), Rachael Langfield (Coal Authority).
Apologies: Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Joy Godfrey (Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Rachael Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Tom Mills (Coal Authority).

Welcome
CB welcomes the meeting and previous minutes were approved.
 
Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Denni Kinnear
CB asks how Scottish Water has been responding to the problem of water scarcity in light of new funding being made available by the Scottish Government to deal with private water supply sufficiency issues?
DK states that reservoir levels are at an average level of 86% for this time of the year, although it is slightly drier in the east. SEPA have been issuing some messaging focused on ground water which is mainly directed at businesses. As for private water supplies, we have a longstanding agreement with local authorities whereby if someone has any issues with their supply they should contact their local authority and they will contact Scottish Water, after which bottled water will be provided to those experiencing no water. There is a Scottish Government run project to connect private supplies to public supplies, in Scotland there is approximately 22,500 private water supplies which is quite a lot. The subject is quite complex, and it can be challenging to connect up private supplies due to the remote nature of many of these households. In Aberdeenshire, Scottish Water is also working with Scottish Government on an ongoing project in relation to this matter.
CB explains there has been quite a lot of understandable concern about the water supplies in the east of the country. We are not seeing any restrictions coming yet, is it anticipated they will come in at some point?
DK replies that if the water levels drop significantly then we would potentially do some messaging to those in the east, but at the moment they are not at that stage.
SB notes the ongoing messaging is about using water wisely. Scottish Water has consistently put that message out and giving simple and practical advice for customers such as not keeping sprinklers on all the time and washing your car less regularly and things like that. If there are opportunities for members to pass that on further, then it would be appreciated. Scottish Water are pretty quick to step up any drought incident groups when we see these problems arise, but not aware of any significant impact yet but operational colleagues are keeping a close eye on this.
CB notes there has been discussion in the past about increasing reservoir capacity, has that been considered?
SB states he cannot comment on that because he does not work on the water reservoir side of the organisation, but he could ask and report back to the group if that would be of interest.
CB responds that they certainly would be interested with knowing, the issues pertaining to relative drought in the east seems to be becoming a common feature.
SB explains there is work done well in advance of any problems they see coming on the horizon with regards to ensuring there is appropriate water distribution and treatment works capacity. Its not something Scottish Water can react to very quickly, so there is a lot of strategic work that is undertaken to ensure mitigations are all in place and there is adequate water being provided to the houses which are being built.
CB thanks SB for his input and asks if he can update on any operational activities.
SB reports there is no other specific issues to highlight to the group.
RC explains that with regards to reservoir capacity, the other side of this is that if we have rainfall if we can increase the capacity of the Esk catchment then that would be really good at being able to retain water in those areas rather than it flowing down the river.
CT asks SB if there was any further update on Eastfield Pumping Station? Understand the clean up was meant to be undertaken prior to bathing season, can SB clarify if this has all been completed?
SB confirms the works has now been completed. There will be some further works which they will do after bathing season, which is what they refer to as auxiliary work. This will mean that any other pipework and isolation valves which are okay for now will be replaced to enable them to do any further works post bathing season.
 
Forth Rivers Trust – Ross Hughes
RH confirms Citizen Esk has now launched and they are starting to carry out some engagement works including a series of walks along the river. Would encourage any members to pass on any information to the public and encourage them to engage with Forth Rivers Trust to give their feedback.
 
Coal Authority – Rachael Langfield
RL confirms permitted mine water treatment scheme development has now been granted by Midlothian Council. They are still facing challenges with regards to the increased flow costs, so they have recently met with SEPA to discuss that and to map a way forward. They are currently in a position where they are taking a paper to their ERT board where they will be asking for approval to go back to BEIS with a revised business case. They will also need to seek Crown Commercial Services approval because the costs will be around £15 million. Therefore, the re-tenders will probably happen in Q3 and the awarding of a build contract will hopefully be before the end of the financial year, but all of this is subject to BEIS approval.
CB enquires as to whether Coal Authority has been required to make any compromises in order to keep the project in budget.
RL explains this is the reason they are having to go back to BEIS because they have been unable to get the project within the original budget. Some of that is due to the differences in the flows and how they are going to address that, and the other part of that is down to increase in the rising cost of building materials. Following on from that is the running cost for the mine water treatment scheme once it has been completed on site. They are currently thinking somewhere in the region of £38 million, which is around 50% more than was originally agreed. They are looking at ways to value engineer the approach down but still make sure they keep within the needs of SEPA, so they don’t want to be doing half a job and making sure they get the outcome they need which is why they need extra money.
CB notes this seems like a huge increase in the costs, what primarily is driving that?
RL states the original maximum flow was 150Litres per second, but peak flows are now around 200 litres per second, so a significant increase in the plant capacity is needed. The average flows have also increased from around 100 litres per second to 120 litres per second. The influence of external costs is approximately £1.3million on the previous case. They are looking at redundancy within the scheme and seeing whether they can relax the specification around that piece in light of the new flows. A lot of the reason is we have got a years extra data so we are a bit more confident on future flows which has given a better understanding of what those additional costs will be.
CB replies that given the increase in the flow rate which has happened over a period of one year, will that continuing rise be an ongoing issue for the Coal Authority?
RL states that she doesn’t think so. They are looking to upgrade some of the monitoring equipment, but this has been an evolving situation and they are now confident that the 200 litres per second will achieve what they are looking for.
CB asks what Coal Authority intends to do with regards to the disposal of waste material?
RL responds this something they are working on in the background and have a couple of research and development projects as a way of clawing back some money. But the cost they have put in on this business case are based around what it is actually going to cost and any savings after that will come through.
CB notes that there are getting are initial indications that the material is just going to be buried.
RL states they are having some discussions at the moment with the environmental agency about disposal costs for ones in England because there is an issue around some of the waste disposal codes. That is something they are looking at but on a whole they are looking at alternatives rather than just send this material to a landfill.
CB comments that there must be a use for this material.
RL states that this is the piece of works which they are currently undertaking in regard to ochre. They have just completed phase one of the project and its awaiting phase two to start. There are different usages such as pigment and selling to sewage treatment works for anaerobic digestion, so they are hopeful there may have that outlet to sell the ochre on.
 
SEPA – Katrina Wilson
Fish Barriers – issues pertaining to land ownership permission has been progressing, this is critical to the works and its only once this has been resolved can SEPA begin the proposed work.
Shiel Burn – at a previous meeting it was raised about a discharge from the Steel Fabrication yard into the Shiel Burn. SEPA carried out a visit and no signs of pollution were found at the location. They discussed the issue with the site and information was issued about pollution and water discharge.
KW confirms that in late June SEPA investigated reports of discolouration on the river North Esk. Forth Rivers Trust was helpful in providing information to them, however the source was not established. A local resident said the cloudiness was typical of the river at this time of year, however they don’t have any further information to substantiate whether that was the case or not.
Pollution incident of January 14th, 2022 – continues to be a live criminal investigation and no further information can be provided at this stage.
CB notes his concern that the longer this investigation continues it may become more difficult to find and prosecute the perpetrators involved.
VW responds that this is not necessarily the case, there can be a lot going on in the background but due to the sensitive nature and the fact it is a live investigation there is not always much information that can be shared with the public.
 
East Lothian Council – Shona Grant
BS explains SG called him a few moments ago to send her apologies for the meeting but has been advised that she will provide him with a report to share with the group.
 
Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Rachael Warrington
CB confirms RW sends her apologies for the meeting but has provided him an update to share with the group.
BS reads out the following update to the group:

• Another productive meeting held with Fisherrow Harbour and Seafront Association on Tuesday 14th June to progress the design of the flood defence at the harbour.
• CP presented to the Esk Valley Trust on Thursday 23rd June, including the Scheme’s position on Natural Solutions.
• Stakeholder email update sent out Tuesday 5th July.
• Roads, Structures and Access Working group to reconvene on Wednesday 3rd August.
• Meeting held with ELC planning to discuss concept designs for the Pinkie Burn.
• Meeting arranged with SEPA is discuss the Scheme’s proposed approach to Pinkie Burn hydrology and the latest climate change guidance.
• Further bat and nesting bird surveys have been carried out.

 
Midlothian Council – Moira Cartwright
MC confirms she has nothing significant to update the group on at this time.
CB asks if any progress has been made on the formation of an environmental unit within Midlothian Council?
MC states that due to increased costs DO was required to go back to Council to ask for additional monies, but she has not received any further update from him on the outcome. An Environmental Crime Strategy has been designed which they hope to act upon, but they need the additional resources from Council to move that forward. There was an idea to do with bringing in a third-party company to provide the service which would essentially be self-funding from the fines issued from incidents of fly tipping or littering. Not exactly sure what the current situation is but MC confirms she is happy to update the group at the next meeting.
 
AOB
RH explains that he took a note at the previous meeting in relation to the forming of a group to the issue of invasive species in Musselburgh, asks if there are any further updates on this?
BS confirms it was CP that spoke about this in the previous meeting, advises that he will take an action point from this meeting to request the Scheme to update the group on progress with regards setting up this group at the next meeting.
CB thanks all for attending
Meeting ends 10:40am
 

Attendance: Ben Sutherland, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Roger Crofts (Esk Valley Trust), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Chris Gall (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Ranald Lockhart (SEPA), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour Group), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Rachael Warrington (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Moira Cartwright (Midlothian Council), Derek Oliver (Midlothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Annette Lardeur (Coal Authority), Nim Kibbler (Forth Rivers Trust), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Brian Wailes (Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council).
​
Apologies: Edith Cameron (Rosewell & District Community Council), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse), Joy Godfrey (Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council).

Welcome
​
CB welcomes the meeting and previous minutes were approved.

CB reads out update from Rosewell & District Community Council:

‘Rosewell & District Community Council recently carried out a clean-up of the Shiel Burn in which they filled a full skip with metal and another full of plastic waste including 5 tyres, an oil drum, plastic pipes, builders bags alongside general food packaging litter. The skips were funded by Crown Estate Scotland who manage the land on either side of the burn. The builder's yard have agreed to erect fencing to stop further litter in the river but the Community Council plan to speak to the Steel Fabricators to do the same, and to ask about a waste pipe which had foul smelling liquid coming from the Steel fabrication yard’.
 
Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Scott Fraser

SB reports there are no specific issues to highlight to the group.

Lord Ancrum Wood – SB confirms a value management session has recently taken place to look at a potential project at this site. At present, what is being considered is whether there are any opportunities in the upstream network for surface water management. They are also looking at what storage capacity there is in the network and downstream in the PFI storm works. They are also redoing the model in that area which will feed into any CSO proposals. It will look at any programme of blockages and whether proactive cleaning is needed. SB states all of this information will be taken into a further meeting which will bring all of those numbers to the table to determine what option is best to take forward. SB notes the process tends to move relatively slowly but they are trying to push things forwards as quickly as possible.

Eastfield Pumping Station –Scottish Water committed to undertaking a significant piece of work at Eastfield Pumping Station prior to bathing season. SB reports this piece of work has gone very well and has consisted of draining down the pumping station and managing with tankers, whilst at the same time checking out all the equipment. SB notes they did find one of the five pump lines was split, however they do have a standby arrangement which means they are technically okay with one of those pipes being taken out so long as there have critical spares on site. It is their intention to do any repairs required at the pumping station prior to bathing season. SB states they found a significant amount of rags in the wet wells when they were cleaning, so seeing it back to as it was designed is a fantastic place to be. Once all the work has been completed, they will do a drop test to check what flows the pumping station can pass forward and whether it can meet the flows on its licence.

PC asks with regards to the pump line splitting if this meant the line was broken?

SB explains there is a large pump with pipework which goes through a concrete wall and into the next well. It pulls out the flows out of the wet well and pushes it through into a rising mains which takes it further down the network. SB notes immediately when it came out of the pump it was clear it would not be capable of pumping any decent flow and was taking away pressure from the other pumps which was impacting their performance. The pump has subsequently been blanked off and they are now looking to install new pipework.

‘Nature Calls’ Campaign – SF thanks members for their support with helping to share the campaign on social media. Scottish Water were delighted with the response they received from organisations, customers and members of the public. SF states this was a huge campaign for Scottish Water which included advertisement on TV, radio, cinema, digital and outdoors. SF explains there were two angles to the campaign around binning wipes, as well as calling for a ban on wipes which contain plastic. This will be a campaign Scottish Water will be running for some time and will be looking to do further national advertisement later in the year. They will also be working with their operational colleagues to see if this has led to a significant change in behaviours.

CB mentions one of the issues he has noticed coming up regularly has been the general release of sewage into waterways. There have been around 470,000 controlled releases into our rivers in England and we do see the same problems happening here. Seems that the whole system is geared to having that sort of facility. What is the long-term strategy for getting away from this system?

SF explains he has seen a lot more interest in how the wastewater system works in Scotland. People are concerned about what is being released into the environment and in their rivers. Scottish Water have been investing huge sums of money in our wastewater infrastructure over the past 15 years to improve its network. In Scotland, there is not as much network monitoring in comparison to England, but there has been significant investment in screening and upgrading our sewer overflows. By putting more monitoring in place, it will help to identify if there are spillages when there shouldn’t be, as well as detailing the volumes of spillages when they do occur. In the long term, Scottish Water are grappling with a number of factors including climate change and looking at how they can ensure as much of the wastewater gets safely treated back to the environment. It will also be about working with partners to remove surface water from the network and making improvements to ‘blue-green’ infrastructure. This is alongside public campaigns to change behaviours such as stopping wipes being flushed down the toilet and getting into the environment.

CB thanks SF for his input but notes it appears some fundamental works is needed over a lengthy period in order to stop these sewage releases. Does Scottish Water have a plan to implement over the coming decades to get us to a point where all sewage is properly treated and doesn’t need to be released into the waterways?

SF advises that he does not believe they can entirely prevent the need for release points into the environment, but they can minimise this significantly as well as managing what does go into it. Because of competing factors such as preventing flooding it would be difficult to have a completely sealed system which never releases into the environment. Levels of wastewater treatment in Scotland are very high, but there is always more that can be done.

CB contributes that it appears from SF’s answer the plan is to manage down the number of releases from its current point.

SF agrees and adds it’s about making improvements and better understanding what happens in our networks through monitoring to ensure they are on top of everything and mitigations are in place when things do go wrong.  What is also important is improving the removal of surface water from the network as much as possible. This will all take a significant number of years and investment, but it is possible.

CP adds a few weeks ago SEPA revised their climate change projections for fluvial flood risk and increased the percentages for expected river flows. If there is going to be ever more water in the catchment during rainfall and storm events this will put increased pressure on infrastructure, particularly as the old combined systems already bring together sewerage and surface water. CP explains the situation is going to get every more challenging and local authorities would be appreciative if a plan was to come down from national government as this would require a major restructuring of civil infrastructure to facilitate the stopping of those releases based on the current rainfalls.

SF confirms he would echo much of what CP has said and states Scottish Water are working on blue-green infrastructure to address the issue of increased rainfall and surface water. This isn’t just a matter for Scottish Water, and therefore they are working in partnership with others at various local levels. For example, in Edinburgh Scottish Water are trying to look at certain streetscape projects and working with City of Edinburgh Council to decide how they can reduce surface water from some of the combined sewers.

CB thanks SF and asks if he could update the group every other meeting on any progress that is being made in our local area.

RC adds this issue illustrates we should be working more with nature and it is important this approach is taken throughout the catchment. RC notes it may be useful to ask for larger landowners within catchment what their thoughts are on how we can restrain flows into the river. 

CB states he will discuss this proposal with a few landowners to see if they have any interest in this.
 
Forth Rivers Trust – Nim Kibbler

NK announces Forth Rivers Trust are running a community-based development project called ‘Citizen Esk’. This project will be community led and as such contact has been made with a number of members in the group about forming a community steering group. NK states she would encourage any members of the group to share their thoughts with her about what issues they would like to see more data about or what they would be interested to see on the Esk in order for these ideas to shape the project.

NK reports this month they have met with some community groups and will be doing a formal press launch alongside working on their website. The intention with Citizen Esk is to inspire plenty of community engagement and encourage people to learn more about the Esk. NK confirms there will also be volunteering and citizen science projects to gather data on some of the issues they are seeing on the river.

CB notes Citizens Esk seems to be a big project and will require working with a large number of stakeholders, asks how Forth Rivers Trust is managing that?

NK explains they are not doing a full stakeholder approach to the catchment. It is a community development project which involves working with the local communities along the Esk.

RC adds he is in informal discussions with a number of interests to see how they could shape a broader project, of which Citizen Esk could be a component part. RC states the project would have scientific involvement alongside input from the community.

CB asks if RC could keep the group updated on how these discussions are progressing.
 
Coal Authority – Annette Lardeur

AL confirms a document has been submitted to Midlothian Council setting out the indicative plans for the scheme. Midlothian Council have asked for a small extension to review the proposals, but they are hoping to receive a response in the coming weeks. That decision will set out the boundaries for the project and will feed into any design work being done.

AL notes she is aware Coal Authority have not done much stakeholder engagement in the past couple of months. This was due to the tenders coming back with much higher costs than anticipated, which in turn has created challenges. AL explains if Coal Authority want to engage with people in the local community it is important they are able to convey the right information about the project. This is a key area being looked at and they are planning to do direct engagement face-to-face with local residents adjacent to the site alongside wider community engagement. AL hopes she will have more details on this work to share with the group at the next meeting.

Over the last couple of months, Coal Authority have been considering their options in terms of how they can absorb these higher costs. AL confirms the conclusion being reached is that in order to absorb these costs they must find a way to reduce the scale of the works they would do. In terms of next steps, Coal Authority are setting up a meeting with SEPA to discuss what they are proposing. In essence, they want to deliver the same outcomes and treat the same volumes to the same quality but look into making small scale alternations.

AL explains that any changes they make to reduce the price would fundamentally reduce the amount of water they could treat, which they don’t believe will be the correct approach. In order to move forward they will realistically need to get further approvals which is currently discussed at a senior management level. Over the coming weeks key decisions on the scheme will be made in order to progress, in parallel they will also be looking at what options they have to mitigate any further delays.

CB states the group would be concern if the volumes the scheme could treat were to be reduced as this would not lead to a good outcome. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like there are any areas where significant costs could be saved.

AL notes the only way to substantially save money would be to reduce the volume, which is the wrong thing to do. However, there are small scale changes being looked at which could reduce some of the costs.

ASK contributes that she is aware the temperature of the mine water coming out of Junkies Adit is around 15 degrees Celsius, wonders if Coal Authority could do something with regards to renewables?

AL explains this is something which is being looked at. There is a lot of promotion about mine energy heat schemes, but in order to make that work they would need to tie this in with other developments. Therefore, it is unlikely they would be able to do something big, but what they could do is build-in the potential for linking in with a similar project in the future.

ASK thanks AL for her response and states it is reassuring that Coal Authority are not looking to reduce the volume of water they could treat.
​
CB notes he is aware of initiatives on geothermal energy in Midlothian. The Council has a partnership with Vattenfall, who are a Swedish company that have a great deal of experience with these types of projects. CB states it might be worthwhile for Coal Authority to talk to them.

AL advises there has already been in discussions with Vattenfall. Coal Authority are able to produce the mine energy, but there needs to be a source for it which would require getting all other developments aligned. They can allow for uptake if there are other schemes in the future.

PB states SEPA are very supportive of the option not to reduce the amount of water that is being treated and for Coal Authority to seek additional funding. PB adds that SEPA are seeing a seasonal reduction in flow to the River Esk and recognise there has been concerns raised by the community. As the river flows reduce, additional mine water impacts are to be expected during the lower flow months, so visually the orange discolouration could extend further downstream.
 
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – Katrina Wilson
 
KW reports that SEPA have not received a high number of complaints since the last meeting, notwithstanding a few incidents concerning discolouration on the Esk. KW reminds the group SEPA have an online form to report incidents as well as its 24/7 pollution hotline.

Fish Barriers – KW notes at a previous meeting there was confusion surrounding the names of one of the fish barriers upstream of the bridge at Newmills Road. KW confirms to the group Registers of Scotland have named this as Newbattle Weir. In terms of fish barriers, SEPA are experiencing delays trying to obtain landowner and structure owner agreements at the weirs. Progress has been slow, but they are hoping to advertise the tender for the structural integrity surveys in the coming months.

Fisherrow Sands – out of season monitoring has indicated sources of pollution in the Brunstane Burn. SEPA are planning to monitor the bathing water in near and associated sites during the bathing season and will decide next steps at the end of the season. The plan for the 2022 bathing water season monitoring is being prepared, which will consist of 18 samples taken during that period. The out of season monitoring results are now available and KW happy to circulate with members.

River Esk Pollution incident from 14th January – KW states this continues to be a live criminal investigation and therefore she is limited on the information she can provide to the group at this time. KW advises their ecology team have found the River Esk has recovered quickly, but work does continue in terms of the investigation.

BS asks if SEPA are aware of an incident reported on social media over the weekend of an orange substance in the watercourse at the Electric Bridge in Musselburgh?

PB explains from the images he has seen it appears there is pollen or blossom floating on the river which has been stained orange from the iron ore coming from Junkies Adit.

ASK contributes that in one of the surveys she has seen Dalkeith Weir was labelled the barrier by Newmills Road, whilst Newbattle Weir was by the Sun Inn. However, this has now been clarified by Registers for Scotland.

CB states in relation to the update he provided from RDCC it might be have more weight if SEPA was to approach the Steel Fabrications to discuss the foul-smelling liquid, asks if KW could keep an eye on this. 

NK adds that she understands this issue has been reported to SEPA on a number of occasions.

KW asks NK if she is aware if this is a recent issue?

NK notes it has been reported over the past few years, she has spoken to RDCC about his problem during lockdown because they previously conducted an electrofishing survey of the Shiel Burn. NK adds she believes that because the Shiel Burn is already heavily polluted this may have resulted in SEPA’s not prioritising this issue.  
 
East Lothian Council – Shona Grant

CB explains that SG sends her apologies and she will provide a report to be circulated with group.
 
Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price

CP confirms he does not have much to update the group regarding progress on the scheme. The Project Team have been overwhelmed with the scale of information they have received over the six-month period of extensive consultation. At the final consultation event alone, many members of the public filled out their questionnaires with huge amounts of information. The Project Team are trying to contemplate all of this information to fully inform East Lothian Council on what the people of Musselburgh think about their proposals in order for them to ensure the next steps are decided on the basis of the evidence they have received.
CP reports the Scheme have appointed a new Stakeholder Project Manager, Rachael Warrington, to increase the scheme’s ability to communicate with the town.

CP explains the Scheme has been setting-up a partnership to work with Dynamic Coast and University of Glasgow to better understand the coastal environment and the potential for natural coastal flood risk reduction solutions within the Scheme. There is a desire from people in the town to try and utilise natural systems within the catchment and the Scheme has been provided a number of key contacts at universities across Scotland who they are currently reach out to.

The Scheme had a meeting with SEPA before Christmas in relation fish passage and the obstruction of weirs within Musselburgh. The question was posed as to whether there is sufficient overlap between the Scheme and those weirs such that multiple benefits can be delivered. SEPA are currently considering this at a strategic level and the Scheme has opened up the conversation through to the Forth Rivers Trust, who CP understands are going to undertake additional survey work for East Lothian Council to better understand the two weirs at Goosegreen and Eskmills, as well as the patch of water in between those weirs to identify if there is any potential for biodiversity, habitat and fish passage improvements which could be achieved within the flood protection scheme.

CP advised the Scheme has been managing the Eskmills Weir for a period of time to assist SEPA and Forth Rivers Trust with obtaining a new CAR licence to protect and minimise the potential for small fish to enter into that watercourse. As such last week the Scheme’s Project Team coordinated a works activity with the support of Forth Rivers Trust and Jacobs to do some maintenance work on the weir gates which was undertaken without any issues. This should mean there will not be any challenges to waterflow into the Mill lade for the summer period.

CP reports a new group is emerging within the Esk catchment who are going to take a lead on managing invasive species above Musselburgh which will be led by James Wylie. He is now forming a new group bringing in some expertise from his previous works on the River Tyne and reaching out to key stakeholders across the catchment. In addition, CP explains two weeks ago a meeting took place of all the key delivery partners who are actively managing invasive species, namely East Lothian Council, Inveresk Village Society, Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme, the new invasive species group and Midlothian Council.  Going forward the intention is to expand this steering group into a larger group working in parallel to ERIG.

CP states SEPA’s guidance on fluvial climate change has changed as of a few weeks ago. The Scheme are currently reaching out to SEPA and Scottish Government in order to understand what they are expecting of a flood protection scheme moving forward. CP explains the Scheme and East Lothian Council will need to be careful in ensuring they are finding the right balance between national advice and the desire of the people of Musselburgh not to have defence which are not too onerous to their environment.

CB notes one issue which he has become increasingly apparent in recent months is the amount of misinformation which seems to be circulating within the town, asks CP if there is an effective way to get the message out that this information is incorrect?

CP explains this is an issue the Scheme have been grappling with over the past year. The Project Team is aware of various streams of misinformation that have been circulating within the community which they find disappointing. They have continued to reiterate that no decision has been made on the form of defences. Within the Scheme’s key communications to the community dating back to January 2020 they have clearly stated that defences on the coastal foreshore greater than 1.4 metres would not be taken forward and therefore there is no scenario where a ‘Berlin wall’ would be constructed within the town. CP notes the Project Team will need to be very clear as to exactly what they are saying moving forward to avoid any ambiguity. The Scheme has also built a number of new communication tools to report through to the town and when key decisions have been made, they will need to state precisely what has been agreed and what is going to happen. Thereafter, if there is further misinformation everybody who has been informed through these communication channels will automatically know if this is not correct.

RC argues CP is suggesting the community has been purposefully mischievous. The displays which he has seen in reference to height of structures have been taken from figures given in community consultations throughout the Autumn by the consultants. RC further reports earlier this year the consultants decided to put an advert in the East Lothian Courier displaying a flood prediction at the bottom of Musselburgh High Street and declared 2,600 properties would be involved. One of the reactions to that was house insurances were immediately increased, by up to 80% in some cases. RC notes he has not met anyone that doesn’t believe there should not be flood protection works along the Esk, but what they want is for an open and transparent discussion. RC believes the action group was established to ensure there was much more dialogue with the town, which he hopes will improve following the appointment of Rachael Warrington.

CP notes that in relation to the area of misinformation he would highlight three examples. The first was misinformation within the town that the Scheme was planning to reopen the Electric Bridge for vehicles. This was incorrect and at no point was this ever stated by the Project Team, notwithstanding there was a lot of fear in New Street and Fisherrow areas that there would be an increase in road traffic in that location. Secondly, there was a fear and misinformation that they were going to remove bridges in the town and not put them back. This was a clear case of misinformation because the Project Team have stated on many occasions that they intend to replace bridges with ones that allow the water to pass through more easily. Finally, in some instances the Project Team did talk about a wall that was 2 metres in height, but along the foreshore the Scheme it was never stated that a wall would be this height. CP explains on the lower part of the Brunstane Burn on the private grounds of Scottish Water the wall will have to be 2 metres high over a short distance due to the asset being on extremely low ground. CP notes he has continually explained this is the only location at present where the form of defence has been decided.
 
Midlothian Council – Moira Cartwright

MC confirms there are no specific updates from Midlothian Council.
 
AOB

CB asks if SEPA can provide any indication as to whether they have identified the source and the perpetrators of the incident which took place on 14th January?

KW states as this is a live criminal investigation, she is very limited on the information she can provide at this time. It is still a live case within SEPA, and they are continuing with their investigations.

PC notes at a previous meeting a question was raised about the material coming from the sea defences at Morrisons Haven, understands a member from East Lothian Council was going to check this. CP to prompt a response from East Lothian Council representative.  

CB thanks all for attending.

Meeting ended 11:20am.

Attendance: Ben Sutherland, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Roger Crofts (Esk Valley Trust), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Chris Gall (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour Group), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Denni Kinnear (Scottish Water), Edel Ryan (Midlothian Council), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Joy Godfrey (Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse), Tom Mills (Coal Authority).
​
Apologies: Edith Cameron (Rosewell & District Community Council).

Welcome
​
CB welcomes the meeting and previous minutes were approved.
 
Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Denni Kinnear

SB notes they haven’t received any call outs for the majority of their assets, so not much to update the group on.

Lord Ancrum Wood: a bit of debris picking was undertaken a few months ago after some storms. SB mentions he is attending a value management session later in the afternoon in which they will assess a number of projects for Lord Ancrum Wood and look at which might be best value for customer money. SB explains there is also the option of doing nothing, meaning if the operational activities and the proactive cleaning have shown enough of an impact to keep on top of the situation then this might be the most viable option. SB hopes to provide a further update on this at the next meeting.

Works near Newbattle Abbey Crescent: SB shares an image of the surrounding area to provide details of the works. SB explains there are two areas of development, at one of the locations a drainage impact assessment has been carried out and the developers are doing works to install some pipework which includes online storm storage. At the second development a drainage impact assessment has been carried out and their initial proposal was to connect it down to the network at the bottom end of the development. However, the model showed this wasn’t possible and they have now been asked to install a pumping station to take it up to the top end network. SB notes Scottish Water are doing a strategic assessment to make sure there is no detrimental impact further downstream. There will also be private SUDS and private SUDS pipework installed at those developments to remove surface water. SB mentions it is for the developer, not Scottish Water, to provide communications to the local community regarding the work they are doing. However, if there are any actions that come back from the strategic studies then Scottish Water would do communications about any work that would be required to the network. SB further reports there will not be a sewage or an emergency overflow connection to the Pittendreich Burn, the only connection which might be installed is a SUDS connection for surface water.

CG clarifies to the group that when SB is referring to a downstream impact assessment, this is in relation to downstream sewer impacts and not downstream river impacts. SB agrees.

PC asks for explanation on how online storm storage works.

SB explains that sewers for the size of the development can be relatively small, but if the study shows that heavy rainfall would require more flow to go through the network, they can install bigger pipes to provide greater online storage. Alternatively, a bigger sewer can be installed at points where pipes are smaller, either with a bigger pipe or an offline storage tank. It essentially provides a backup and some additional storage capacity.

ER notes the local authority have had requests from local residents in relation to at least one of the developments. ER understands their planners are currently looking into this and they may come back to Scottish Water if there is any further information required.  

Kilburn: SB confirms issue was caused by a choke in the network and not as a result of the pumping station breaking down. There was also some discoloured water in the Kilburn but that came from a David Wilson housing development which wasn’t from their network. SB notes when these issues arise, they would pick this up with the developers and make sure these issues are fixed, and on this occasion Scottish Water cleared the rubble causing a blockage in the manholes on their behalf. SB explains there was an issue at end of December and a subsequent one at beginning of January in which both were resolved on same day. They have been doing some proactive cleaning and could do targeted communications through letter drops to local residents. SB further reports there are currently no plans to upgrade the pumping station to accommodate for the additional burden of those David wilson homes, because it works as it needs to. The strategic wastewater model assessment done for the development site concluded that the pumping station has got capacity to support the new development. However, SB notes they will rerun a modelling study of the wider network to make sure there is nothing further required. If the model did identify that the pumping station or the network needed to be upgraded in order to accept that development, then it is the developers who would front those costs.

AH enquires as to whether Scottish Water plans to do a letter drop to the new residents living near the Kilburn, or if this is just an idea at present.

SB confirms it is just an idea, as this is only done where there are repeat offenders. They have not seen any issues since January 7th, but they will do a letter drop if another blockage occurs.

Eastfield Pumping Station: work has been progressing with the aim of having this completed prior to bathing season. The current work involves making sure the penstocks can be isolated properly which is due to start today and should take about 10 days. SB explains the plates that come down to isolate the flows coming into the pumping station were not operating well enough to allow the work to be completed safely, therefore they have devised a new way of conducting the work in order to get the penstocks isolated. Once completed that will be all the work finished with regards to cleaning. The final piece of work will be to look at the pieces of kit to make sure everything is good as it needs to be.
 
Coal Authority – Tom Mills

On 31st January two stakeholder engagement events were held to give an introduction or update to the public on the mine water treatment scheme. TM reports this event went well, with a mixture of people and organisations in attendance.

A few weeks ago, the Coal Authority submitted their prior notification for permitted development to Midlothian Council planners which is currently going through the system. TM notes the Coal Authority has also recently purchased an individual property which will be demolished in order to improve access to the proposed site for the treatment scheme on Newmills Road for building and operationality in the future. This has been included in the package of information which has been provided to Midlothian Council planning regarding the demolition process.

TM explains that the flows and chemistry of the mine water has not significantly changed, but they did experience a high flow event a couple of weeks ago after heavy rain, which caused flows to significantly increase and led to a deterioration of the river conditions due to sheer volume of rain getting into the mine system. TM states the flows seem to be returning to seasonal levels and the event has not caused a significant change in the water chemistry, but they will continue to monitor.

The main works have been out to tender and the Coal Authority has now received the bids back from the design and build contractors, they are now currently working through the various proposals. TM notes the costs are have increased in the construction industry, but they are working with the tenders to explore various options to reduce costs without causing any detrimental impact on the overall works.
​
CB asks what sort of flexibility the Coal Authority has to absorb the impact of rising costs on the project.

TM states an element of risk was included as part of the business case which was put forward to BEIS. The Coal Authority have also been working with SEPA to look at the current permit and exploring whether there is an option to reduce the amount of water that could be treated and how to work through different flow conditions. There are also engineering options such as how much welfare provision they have on site. TM notes they don’t want to compromise too much on the scheme and will also be looking at what proposals the tenders come up with.

ASK highlights the major concern from the local community is what they perceive as lack of communication from the Coal Authority and are requesting that members of TM’s team meet with the community on both sides of the river. The Community Council is available to help facilitate communications with local residents where necessary. ASK further reports she is also aware of several small errors in the communications sent by the Coal Authority which aren’t inspiring confidence with local residents, noting the poster referred to a Bilston Glen event and there was also a mix up with dates. ASK states she did ask at the presentation events if it might be possible to see what the treatment scheme would look like from the other side of the river as that is another issue which was causing concern. Additionally, local residents are also worried about the boundary with James Lean Avenue, but this could be resolved with some kind of communication. ASK notes she is also perplexed about the demolition of a very old building in order to provide access to the site, as the paperwork she has seen that was submitted to the Council seems to show the building has to be demolished to accommodate for the treatment scheme.

TM thanks ASK for her comments, agrees Zoom is not ideal for engagement with the local community and explains COVID-19 was the reason for why the events were held remotely. The next steps for engagement will be 1 to 1s particularly along James Lean Avenue to meet and understand the concerns of residents at that boundary. On visibility from other side of the river, they are drawing up stakeholder plans but are currently in a process of tender clarification which might impact on the design. TM notes in regards to the demolition that the site is extremely constrained in terms of access to build the treatment scheme, so it is necessary to make the site safer to operate. TM explains further stakeholder engagement work will be set out once the current stage has been completed.

ASK reiterates the importance of early engagement with the local community because rumours will start to grow. People are already talking about a 50ft high building which she hasn’t seen in the design work. However, ASK states she would also like to compliment the Coal Authority as its EIA is very thorough.
 
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – Katrina Wilson
 
River Esk Pollution incident from 14th January: SEPA has continued with its incident response. The multi-agency meetings concluded at the end of February, but since then SEPA and East Lothian Council have continued to meet regularly to ensure the incident is under control and to provide updates to the public. SEPA ecologists have also done further water and soil sampling in the tributary of the River Esk which has been taken and analysed.  They are continuing to monitor the watercourse and collect data. KW notes the information provided for the investigation by the public has been valuable and SEPA would like to thank everyone who provided this to them, but unfortunately whilst the investigation is live she is limited on what else they can share at the moment. KW invites SG to provide further information from an East Lothian Council perspective.

SG states she would mirror much of what KW has said, they have continued to meet regularly to provide communication updates to let the public know this is still an ongoing exercise. SG confirms she currently attends the site at least once a week to monitor the watercourse. The number of absorbents deployed have been reduced because the situation is improving, and some were also washed out from higher flows and have now been retrieved. SG further reports the Council have been liaising with the golf course, who have also been keeping an eye on the watercourse for them.

KW notes there has been an unusually high number of incidents in the River Esk and its tributaries in recent weeks, however she would like to reassure everyone that these are unrelated. SEPA have been investigating the reports and ensuring that mitigations have been provided, and have also provided regular updates to partner agencies, stakeholders and the public. KW explains they have recently responded to an incident relating to a burst domestic heating oil tank and have also received a number of notifications of silt coming from construction sites.

Eastfield Pumping Station: SEPA continue to work with Scottish Water via the Eastfield Wastewater Pumping Station Operational Group to ensure the works are carried out prior to bathing season.

Fisherrow Sands: out of season monitoring has now concluded, early indications show a possibility of other sources of pollution in the Brunstane Burn which will be investigated once the full results have been interpreted. KW notes this work has been only recently been completed and therefore they do not have the full results yet.

Fish barriers: work continues to improve fish passage at two barriers in the North Esk at Montague Bridge and Ironmills, as well as one on the South Esk at Dalkeith Weir, which she notes is also known as Newbattle Weir. Discussions with land and structure owners are continuing with a view to obtain permission for the first set of structural surveys, which has been delay due to complexities over land and structure ownership. It is hoped these surveys will be carried out in Q1 of the next financial year.

ASK mentions it is her understanding that Dalkeith Weir is different to Newbattle Weir. Dalkeith Weir is at the location where the Coal Authority is undertaking the mine water treatment scheme, whereas Newbattle Weir is further up the river near the Sun Inn.

KW states she will look into this and find out.

CB enquires about how the recovery has been going from the IT issues.

KW states the process is ongoing, but they are in a much better position in comparison to this time last year. KW explains they have not been able to recover their old systems but have got new systems up and running which allow them to do their job. Progress has been made and things are much easier than 12 months ago.

PF explains SEPA had a digital strategy prior to the cyber-attack which was looking to morph a lot of their old systems onto modern platforms. These were originally five years plans which have been brought forward due to the cyber-attack. PF notes this has been an extreme growing pain but has meant the organisation is now moving into a space they were looking to be in 3- or 4-years’ time.

CT enquires as to when the results from the analysis from Fisherrow might be released.
KW states she is unaware when the results will be analysed.

CB asks if there is any prospect of catching whoever it was that was responsible for the incident on 14th January?

KW explains it is difficult to provide details because there is a live investigation, there is a positive line of enquiry but that’s all she can say at this time.
 
East Lothian Council – Shona Grant
 
SG mentions members of East Lothian Council recently attended an oil pollution beach supervisor course run by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which took place last week over two days. This formed part of an ongoing training programme which was delayed as a result of COVID-19. SG notes there was a high attendance at the course across Local Authorities, as well as representatives from the Ministry of Defence, Dunbar Harbour Trust, North Berwick Harbour Trust and Fisherrow Harbour and Seafront Association. SG mentions the course was very informative and will be useful for them to have that knowledge going forward.

SG explains the work at Newhailes remains ongoing, some of the manholes are either buried or significantly covered in vegetation so work has been going on to clear these areas in order for sampling to begin in the next few weeks.

CT notes she would like some feedback from East Lothian Council in relation to fibrous material which she believes is coming from the sea defences at Morrisons Haven. CT adds the material consistently makes up approximately half of her litter bag from rubbish she picks up at Fisherrow Sands and would like to know if there are any plans within East Lothian Council to do something about this.

SG states she will look into this and see who CT needs to speak to about this matter.  

PC states she has been helping to set up new sites in Musselburgh to do with surveying for river fly. PC reports she was out checking for flies with an ecologist one week after the pollution incident and did notice the flies appear to be healthier further up the river from the incident. The ecologist is hoping to post their results online.
 
Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price
 
CP confirms the Scheme maps were published in January 2022. The team has also been continuing to consult with key organisations and individuals across the town to understand their concerns and thoughts pertaining to the project. The Project Team have recently undertaken 3 major consultations events, a meeting for the Esk Corridor and Coastal areas on 8th and 9th of February, as well as a further meeting for the whole town which took place on the 8th March.   

CP notes the Scheme has now reach a partnership agreement with Dynamic Coast, with a final review of the contractual arrangements currently in the final stages of completion. A piece of work with them regarding natural solutions on the foreshore will begin thereafter.

CP reports the Scheme’s website is now fully functional and there is a huge amount of information on it with all the historical documents available for download. CP believes the Project Team has delivered everything that has been asked of them by the Project Board through Q1 2022, so the key question is what is next for the project.

Since summer 2021, as part of the consultation, the Scheme has been engaging with its regulatory working groups, involving all the appropriate officers with statutory, regulatory or licensing oversight of the Scheme. There have been three different working groups: planning, heritage and landscape, watercourse coastal impact and road structures and access. CP explains they have also been engaging with Musselburgh Community Council, NatureScot, Dynamic Coast, University of Glasgow, Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme Action Group and other notable concerned individuals who have contacted them with key thoughts they want the team to consider including the Musselburgh Business Partnership, Musselburgh’s elected representative, Buccleuch Estates and Dalkeith Country Park.

CP states he was delighted with the outcome of the meeting on 8th March. There were 14,000 letters of invitation sent out from the team to every property with a EH21 postcode plus some other properties in adjacent postcodes. CP confirms 422 people attended on the day, which was a huge number of people for a 10-hour event which took place in a single room in the town. One of the trends he noticed was that people were staying for a very long time, engaging with the team and reviewing all the boards. There were 322 questionnaires completed on the day and the team are now ongoing in analysing this information. CP notes the team were able to analyse the postcodes of people who attended and will be looking at this further to identify any gaps or areas where people are not engaging with them. Equally, the Project Team will be trying to identify the age groups that have not engaged with them so far and will be refocusing the next consultations to capture those who haven’t yet participated.

CP explains there has been huge amount of information conveyed to them which have been built up under 4 different themes: concepts, concerns, risks, and opportunities. CP notes the Project Team have not yet inputted the analysis from the recent consultation events in February and March which will be a key task in the next couple of weeks. Thereafter they will be able to extrapolate out key words and areas that are of the greatest importance to the public. CP states they will need to be careful about this and notes that just because a word turns up a lot doesn’t necessarily mean it is the most important. Words such as ‘bridge’, ‘electric bridge’ and ‘mouth of river’ jumped out from lots of the word clouds, however they are not seeing the same scale of word associated with defences as these can fit under many words. CP notes the Project Team need to grasp the background behind the words and then consider how do to absorb these messages and themes into the design once it begins to move forward.

The Project Team have now published two new pages on the Scheme’s website to provide unique destinations for information associated with two key themes: hydraulic modelling and natural solutions. CP notes both of these sections have been clearly highlighted to them throughout the consultation as areas the public and organisations want more information on. The team are putting in place all information they can on these pages to provide further clarity on these matters, and once the project moves forward these spaces will be used to evolve the conversation on natural solutions.

The Scheme’s Project Board met on Thursday 10th March to consider the progress in consultation prior to the design commencing. CP explains the Project Board has considered that the Project Team have undertaken an extensive process to consult widely across the town and across organisations to capture thinking before the design starts. CP notes he is not in a position to provide further information on the outcome of that meeting at the moment, however this will be published outwards to the town later this week.

CP advises on behalf of the Project Team and East Lothian Council he would like to express his sincere thanks to everyone who has participated in the consultation process to date to provide their thoughts about the Scheme. CP explains the Project Team want to do justice to all of the information that has been given to them in order for them to decide the best next steps for how to move forward with the project.

RC states he is pleased there is a recognition that further consultation of the community of interest is needed. RC reports it is also good that the historical documents are now on the website but notes many of these were developed years ago and have only became available to the public in recent weeks. It is important that we can have a process of engagement to understand what is behind some of these documents, as they do come to decisive conclusions but without offering the evidence that supports those claims.  RC explains one of the major worries relates to the hydraulic model being used, which is this 1 in 200-year event which the public are being told is on the instruction of Scottish Government. Therefore, in the eyes of the consultants this seems to preclude most nature-based solutions in the catchment. RC asks for clarity regarding the process of decision making, notes most of the funding has come from the Scottish Government, but we are being told that it is East Lothian Council that decides. What role does SEPA have in the formal decision-making process, as well as other government agencies such as NatureScot?

CP confirms a new page on the website has been created to provide more information on the hydraulic model, and soon other technical reports will also be uploaded to that location. CP recognises the process is not concluded but is committed to constructing that webpage into a space for all information associated with the hydraulic model. CP continues by stating there is no divergence between the Scheme’s flood maps and those published by SEPA, so although they have used two separate models, both are showing the same thing. The difference is the Scheme has the most accurate topographical survey data and therefore is more capable of representing the flow of water across the ground. CP further reports that decision making for the Scheme is defined by the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Ultimately, the Scheme must be presented to a full meeting of all councillors of East Lothian Council for a decision. CP notes the organisations RC has sighted will not be taking a decision on the Scheme because that is not the process outlined in the legislation, however those organisations will have a part to play as per their regulatory responsibilities. However, CP mentions as the Scheme is not yet designed they cannot definitively determine which pieces of legislation they will need to interact with and therefore what responsibilities each of these organisations will need to undertake, but as the project moves onwards this will become clear.

RC thanks CP for his response and understands he cannot be definitive at this time. RC further notes he looks forward to further discussions with CP and welcomes the opportunity to keep the dialogue going with the town and wider interests.

Midlothian Council – Edel Ryan

ER confirms both issues she was due to highlight have been covered in other updates. No other significant updates since last meeting.
 
AOB

RC notes at the previous meeting CB committed to making representations at a Scottish Government level about integrated catchment management, asks if CB has had the opportunity to have this discussion.

CB reports he received a response from Scottish Government a few days ago, which states they support integrated catchment area management. There is currently one being managed by the Forth Rivers Trust. CB explains he will circulate this with the group so everyone can see where the government is coming from.

RC mentions he is aware Forth Rivers Trust have been doing some electrofishing on the Esk but wasn’t aware of any wider work. RC notes it would be useful to see the Minister’s letter so he can pursue this further.

CB explains this isn’t a matter for this group to take up but is certainly something that should be pursued.

ASK adds Forth Rivers Trust are carrying out a Fisheries Management Plan for the Forth Catchment but wasn’t aware of any other projects.

DK notes she would like to thank everyone for their support on Scottish Water’s ‘Nature Calls’ campaign which is running for the next couple of months, they have reached out to a number of  community councils who have been sharing the campaign.

ASK enquires if there has been a date confirmed for the next meeting.

BS confirms he is looking at a number of potential dates, hopes to have these shared with the group in the coming days.

CB thanks all for attending.

Meeting ended 11:15am
 
 
 
 

Attendance: Ben Sutherland, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Paul Patterson, Nim Kibbler (Forth Rivers Trust), Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour Group), Lynn Crothers (East Lothian Council), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Conor Price (East Lothian Council), Gregor Moodie (East Lothian Council), Edith Cameron (Rosewell & District Community Council), Roger Crofts (Esk Valley Trust), Katrina Wilson (SEPA), Chris Gall (SEPA), Peter Finnie (SEPA), Ranald Lockhart (SEPA), Paul Butler (SEPA), Vicki White (SEPA), Claire Tochel (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Steven Boon (Scottish Water), Scott Fraser (Scottish Water), Alison Baker (Forth District Salmon Fishery Board), Annette Larder (Coal Authority), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Caroline Freeman (Newbattle Abbey College), Joy Godfrey (Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council), Derek Oliver (Midlothian Council).
​
Apologies: Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse)

Welcome
CB welcomes the meeting and previous minutes were approved.
 
River Esk Pollution Incident – Lynn Crothers (East Lothian Council) and Katrina Wilson (SEPA).

LC confirms SEPA first became aware of the incident through notifications from the public of a discharge in the river and a strong smell in the area. SEPA attended on site on Friday 14th January, carried out sampling and traced the contamination up to the Craigie Burn. Investigation work was undertaken around the Old Craighall area in relation to demolition work carried out in the area, as well as ongoing construction work being conducted by Persimmon. SEPA have been following up a number of lines of enquiry in order to determine the source of the contamination, including witnesses who had seen tankers in the area perhaps discharging into the sewers. There is a live investigation which could lead to enforcement action from SEPA which means there are limitations on what further information they can provide to the group.

East Lothian Council also became aware of the incident on Friday afternoon and officers were out on-site throughout the weekend. On Sunday, East Lothian Council met with SEPA and Scottish Water to discuss the situation. At this stage, roles and responsibilities were able to be established, with East Lothian Council taking the key role in terms of the clean-up. East Lothian Council then engaged with a contractor with specialised spill clean experience who installed a number of booms in the watercourse, particularly in the Craigie Burn area. The SSPCA have also been on site and removed a number of birds to take them back to their wildlife centre for decontamination purposes. East Lothian Council also put up a number of signs along the waterway to advise the public to keep out of the water until the river has reached its normal level of water quality, as well as to tell the public not to interfere with the birds due to a high risk of avian flu.

SEPAs investigation remains ongoing and East Lothian Council are continuing to work with the contractor in terms of the clean-up. A tanker has also been on site and has extracted approximately 10 tons of pollution from the watercourse. LC explains that discussion with the contractor remain ongoing in regards to the rest of the clean-up process, but reports over the weekend suggest the booms in the watercourse are holding up well and managed to resist further contamination of the River Esk. East Lothian Council are continuing to meet with SEPA as well as public health colleagues in NHS Lothian to ensure the risks to public health are minimised and there have been multi-agency meetings to provide updates on a regular basis.
KW explains SEPA received reports before lunchtime on Friday and were onsite a few hours later to conduct an investigation. SEPA received intelligence which opened up a number of lines of enquiry, and throughout their investigations SEPA have been taking samples in order to verify or eliminate information they have received. SEPA have been working closely with ELC to share information and to provide updates to the public regarding the response to the incident. SEPA are continuing their investigations and are limited on what they can say at this time.

KW adds that whilst the ecological impact on the Craigie Burn has been significant, the impact on the River Esk has been less severe. The water samples SEPA are receiving confirm a broad mix of hydrocarbons, but due to a complex mix within the samples it is taking time to get a full analysis. SEPA have been working with ELC to share this information with contractors.
CB thanks LC and KW for their updates and wishes both the best of luck in finding out where the pollution this has come from and ensuring the culprits are dealt with.

CT states FHSA received a large number of reports from the public that were desperate to see action but faced significant difficulties in receiving information from SEPA and East Lothian Council regarding the response to the incident. CT mentions one of the team at FHSA calling the SEPA emergency helpline on Saturday morning for advice, but did not receive further communication from SEPA until 4pm on Saturday afternoon to confirm they will provide an update FHSA when they receive more information, but this is not to be expected until Monday. CT recognises there may have been a lot going on in the background, but believes the situation was managed poorly and further information was needed. CT adds the process of getting information out to the public needs to be improved.

NK adds Forth Rivers Trust received around 30 calls from people contacting them to highlight the incident, on which she directed them to contact SEPA’s pollution helpline. NK explains that due to not receiving updates from SEPA, rumours emerged that no one was responding to the incident and there was no sense of urgency. NK asks who is currently responsible for both the clean-up of the ecological impacts from the incident and the pollution material itself? If SEPA cannot find the perpetrator, who is responsible for the clean-up and covering the costs?

KW confirms that SEPA’s main role in a pollution incident is to investigate the source and who the perpetrator is. KW explains that the normal procedure for these situations is that the source of the pollution and the perpetrator are identified quickly, with the polluter covering the costs for the clean-up.  When SEPA cannot find the polluter, they focus their efforts on the investigations, not the clean-up. However, KW notes on this occasion SEPA have worked with East Lothian Council over the weekend on the clean-up.

LC explains that East Lothian Council have been partaking in multi-agency meetings to provide information and updates, but there will be a point where they will have a cold debrief in which there will be a close examination of what happened and how things could be improved. LC notes she is aware there were issues raised regarding communications, which they will look at and discuss what improvements can be made should another scenario like this arise again in the future.

In response to NK, LC mentioned they are currently disentangling the legislation that is in place to make sure they know who is responsible for the costs for the incident. SEPA are a category 1 responder in these situations, however they may not be best equipped to deal with the clean-up and they do have the legislative powers to ask a public authority to take on the clean-up duties. LC adds that although East Lothian Council are currently fronting the costs for clean-up, this might not mean they are absorbing the full costs for the incident, if SEPA are able to trace the source and the perpetrator of the incident they could also recover costs from them.

NK reports there is a great deal of confusion from the public regarding where responsibilities lie. NK adds there is an element of environmental justice involved which means money and fairness will form a big part of the unpicking of the incident.
LC states they are in the early stages of trying to find the perpetrator and they will then be able look at issues relating to cost recovery.

NK explains she has been involved in a number of incidents in the past where it has not been possible to identify the perpetrator, or to extract the full sum of the money from the polluter through legal processes. NK notes it would be interesting to calculate how much this incident has cost and believes it is important to make this information public in order help to create a sense of transparency.

CT contributes that she hopes the coastal pollution will also be considered as part of the analysis of the incident.

LC mentions East Lothian Council Countryside Rangers have been working closely with colleagues in the RSPB to assess the impacts of the incident along the Fisherrow shorefront.
 
Scottish Water – Steven Boon and Scott Fraser

Mary Burn – small amount of rags identified which are being cleared up. Some spills identified from normal operations at CSO.

Benbught Burn – no issues identified.

Hardengreen – no issues identified.

Eastfield Pumping Station – cleaning work which has been planned is now being undertaken and will be completed in advanced of bathing season.

Grannies Park – manholes have now been extended by the PFI; Scottish Water are currently monitoring the impact.

Kill Burn – an issue reported on 30th December which was documented by Scottish Water as a category 3 environmental pollution incident. Sewage Response were sent out to clear the choke in the network. There was some discoloured water which was draining into the Kill Burn. The issue came from a manhole which was spilling from the David Wilson housing development, blockage coming from their drainage which connects into Scottish Water’s existing sewer. Issue was cleared by 31st December. There was a further choke on the 7th January and clean up was completed on the same day.

SF shares briefing on Scottish Water’s new customer campaign ‘Nature Calls’ relating to correct behaviours in the disposal of sanitary products. Scottish Water have been experiencing huge operational impacts on their network and more frequent discharges into rivers. Scottish Water have around 37,000 call outs a year from blockages in pipes in their network caused by the disposal of wipes and sanitary products, costing £6.5million of public money.

Scottish Water have been undertaking a large number of stakeholder briefings in preparation for the launch of the campaign on February 21st 2022. SF explains they have received largescale support from their customers for the campaign and they are pleased to hear that customers believe this is an issue Scottish Water should be taking forward. SF notes one of the aspects which has came out of the customer research is that 74% of people have stated that they never flush wipes down the toilet, which he reports is not an accurate representation of the actual behaviours of the public. There is also confusion amongst the public between ‘flushable’ and ‘fine to flush’ standards, the latter involving the testing of products to demonstrates that they do not contain plastics and will break down like toilet paper. The research has also highlighted that young females are unaware that sanitary products contain plastics and therefore should not be flushed down the toilet.

SF notes Scottish Water have been using social media adverts to increase awareness of the campaign. Scottish Water are also developing radio and television advertising which will run for 6-8 weeks from 21st February.

CB asks how successful the campaign has been to get manufacturers to drop the plastics element of these products.

SF comments there has been other work going on in the background in regards to the plastics elements of wet wipes and trying to remove them in order to get to a ‘fine to flush’ standard. Some retailers have stopped stocking flushable products unless they meet the ‘fine to flush’ standard. Also, improvements have been made in terms of labelling on packaging advising to not flush wipes.

JG asks if Scottish Water will be utilising platforms such as TikTok to increase awareness amongst young females regarding plastics within sanitary products.

SF states he understands the social media platforms Scottish Water are using is Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. They are seeing good engagement on Instagram; however he recognises this may not be as effective as TikTok for targeting younger populations.

JG mentions there may be a way to invite young people to make their own TikToks on this topic. If they have a good following, then all of their followers will see it.

SF agrees and notes JG has been very successful in the past on raising awareness of these issues by using different channels to get information out to the public.

ASK mentions she would like to clarity on the issue of a burst Scottish Water mains which occurred on Thursday 20th January and led to a significant number of school children being sent home. States the community would be interested to know how the burst mains in Newtongrange could result in a number of different parts of Midlothian also being impacted.

SF explains that due to the burst coming from a large diameter main this caused problems for a large area. SF confirms Scottish Water did manage to get supply working again quickly and were also using a tanker to pump water into the network to keep schools open but was aware that some schools did have to close for at least part of the day. SF confirms he will check his records and will provide further details with the group after the meeting.

SF reports there was an announcement made by Scottish Government Environment and Land Reform Minister Mairi McAllan in December on the Scottish Water’s Urban Waters Route Map,  which is approximately £500 million of investment in urban waters with the aim of improving the performance of CSOs and its sewer network. SF adds he will share a link with members to further information on this matter on the Scottish Water website.
 
Forth Rivers Trust – Nim Kibbler
No significant updates from last meeting. NK notes they are in the process of launching a project in Spring which is being finalised with partners. Information has been sent to a number of community groups should they wish to discuss the launch of the project.
 
Coal Authority – Annette Larder

AL notes funding for the minewater treatment scheme was approved by BEIS late last year and now the tenders for the design and construction of the treatment scheme are due back on Monday 31st January. This will determine how long the process will take and how much it is likely to cost.

Coal Authority has appointed a new Stakeholder Engagement Manager who has been organising an informative event which will take place on January 31st to update the public on the development of the treatment scheme.
 
Coal Authority has the intention to submit plans to the local planning authority in the coming weeks. The planners will review Coal Authority’s proposals and have the ability to impose conditions to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation and guidance. AL explains the Coal Authority has rights to develop certain aspects of the scheme which are close to the mines without having to submit for planning, however they do need to comply with all the requirements of planning and Environmental Impact Assessments. The plans which Coal Authority will put forward are not exactly what will be built, but through the design and development process they will seek to minimise the impact on residents and the environment by improving sustainability as much as possible. There will be further opportunity for people to review the plans to provide comments which Coal Authority will seek to take on board in the design.
 
On the chemistry of the minewater, the total iron concentration has been around 46-47 mg/litre. AL mentions the numbers do fluctuate, but there is not a significant trend, although it is slightly higher than 3 months ago. The manganese is relatively constant at approximately 5 mg/litre. The Manganese, Nickel and Zinc are all below the EQS level.
 
Coal Authority has been continuing to work with SEPA to progress towards making an application for the plant and are currently working through some of the details and challenges. AL explains both the applications and the receipt of the license from SEPA will be another key milestone for the Coal Authority.
 
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – Katrina Wilson
 
Eastfield Pumping Station: Scottish Water has identified an issue with silt accumulation in the wet wells which was restricting the pass forward flows. A Partial clean was carried out prior to 2021 bathing water season which improved the pumping capacity. Post-bathing season Scottish Water has been working with SEPA via The Eastfield Waste Water Pumping Station Operational Group in order to secure further improvements, involving survey work being carried out and a full clean of the wet wells also taking place. All further works will be carried out prior to the bathing water season this year. SEPA is satisfied that Scottish Water has taken all the necessary steps to maintain compliance with the license conditions. Enforcement takes many forms and whilst SEPA have not taken formal enforcement action SEPA have been working with Scottish Water to provide advice and guidance. SEPA are comfortable they have taken the correct enforcement approach given the circumstances, with the goal being of improving the pumping station.
 
Fisherrow Sands: SEPA have been doing out of season monitoring including investigative samples which have been taken weekly for a period of four weeks, primarily focusing on the Brunstane Burn but also some from the River Esk to identify further pollution sources that may be affecting the bathing water.
 
CT asks for clarity on whether the work will bring the pumping station up to the license requirement standard.
 
KW states the work that is being carried out will aim to bring compliance with the license SEPA has issued, but there is still the investigative works so SEPA cannot guarantee when that will take place.
 
SB notes that Scottish Water have been open and transparent with the group about the work they have been doing. Their goal is to bring the pumping station up to a point in which it is as good as they can make it, this is being done by bringing the wet wells up to full capacity and identifying if any equipment needs refurbished or improved. SB explains that in report from WGM there is a misunderstanding as to how the pumping station is operating. The report speaks about the downstream rising main not being fit for purpose which is not the case and was misrepresented in the report.
 
SB mentions there was an FOI request made last year in which he provided all of Scottish Water’s telemetry data for the past two years to demonstrate that the pumping station passes forward the flows that it is asked and it doesn’t regularly spill. Once all of the work on the pumping station is completed, they will keep a close eye on what flows the pumping station can do and whether it can do the full flow in its license. SB notes this is difficult to prove as the pumping station has never been asked to do that flow before, but it has done everything it has been asked to do and this is represented in the spill data which has been provided. Once work is done Scottish Water will perform a drop test in which they will allow the wells to fill up and then turn on all the pumps to see what the flow rate they can get from them all. SB adds he does not have any issues with bringing the results of these tests back to the group.
 
CT recognises this is a complicated situation, but as a non-expert the Eastfield report was very depressing particularly given Fisherrow has been on the poor water quality rating for around seven years. It came across in the report that the pumping station was not well maintained and therefore she wants to know that the work that is being done will improve the water quality. CT mentions when this issue is discussed it seems to be in a casual and positive manner, but she would just like to see that it is being taken seriously and that there are consequences for failures. CT asks if the information provided in the FOI could be shared with her.
 
SB notes Scottish Water do take this matter very seriously and have been working to get all their assets up to the standards they need to be. SB recognises the report seems to paints the picture that the pumping station does regularly spill but this is not the case and Scottish Water keep a close eye on how it is operating. The report does not represent what the pumping station does well which is why they are monitored with telemetry.
 
CB concludes and asks SB to keep everyone informed on progress at the pumping station.
 
ASK enquires as to whether the information in regards to the FOI at Eastfield Pumping Station can also be sent to BS to be circulated with the group.
 
East Lothian Council – Shona Grant
 
East Lothian Council officials met with SEPAs Contaminated Land Specialist in December regarding the former landfill site at Newhailes. SEPA are currently reviewing the site investigation and risk assessment which were undertaken in 2006/2007. A sampling strategy has been established which will identify various parameters and sampling points. SG notes she is hoping the sampling will begin soon and explains the aim is to produce an updated risk assessment after the sampling has been completed, with SEPA also looking at doing tidal monitoring in the area.
 
Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price
 
CP shares presentation on general progress of the scheme and how natural flood solutions are being incorporated into the design.
 
CP notes at the Shorthope Street bridge has previously been impacted by blockages within the bridges when debris gets stuck, but also by the sea levels. If there is a low sea level then the water can race away, however if there is a high sea level or a storm surge then that will further elevate the levels within the town.
 
CP provides image of the Goosegreen footbridge in 2013 through which Council demountable defences stopped flooding of urban area. CP explains this event was caused by the sea backing up the River Esk due to a storm surge on the Firth of Forth and property would have flooded if not for council intervention. 
 
The team have been undertaking a massive consultation exercise to gather the thoughts of the town. Seven meetings have already taken place, with 1050 hand delivered letters by a team member and the rest being posted out to the public. Within those letter drops, 370 substantial discussions which could have taken up to one hour of time from a team member plus all information from the discussions have been logged.
 
The Scheme is not yet designed, and the process remains ongoing. The design will not be locked until it is approved under the Flood Risk Management Act. There is not currently an estimated date for it being locked, but it will not be until 2023.
 
The Scheme will have an Environmental Impact Assessment, as is required in the legislation. An environmental screening and scoping has already taken place to identify which areas would need to be looked at and environmental surveys are also being undertaken to understand the environmental situation of the town. At this stage the design has not been concluded due to the consultation process being ongoing, and therefore they cannot undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment until they are aware of what the design is. However, this assessment will be undertaken when the consultation process is completed, and it will be published.
 
There will be natural solutions incorporated into the Scheme, as there are already a number of natural solutions already included in the design which they have looked at and they are confident will work. They are also looking at a number of other possible natural solutions and will try to map as many into the Scheme as possible.
 
CP explains he is not yet able to confirm if Musselburgh can be protected using the sand dune system. They have previously looked at this option but did not believe it could work and therefore it was not included in the Preferred Scheme, however the Project Team was challenged in the Mountjoy Local Area Consultation meeting to review the new data available by Dynamic Coast and their approach to flood protection at St Andrews. The Scheme is now engaging with Dynamic Coast and their partner Glasgow University to access to their new data and modelling tool. They will now do a further assessment of the potential for this option and will update the town on the results of their new analysis.
 
CP mentions he is aware of an incorrect understanding that the Project Team and East Lothian Council are planning to open the Electric Bridge as a main road bridge and refutes this claim on behalf of the Scheme and the Council. The Scheme did commit to replacing the Electric Bridge as a like for like structure. The bridge was originally owned by Scottish Power, however as the Council have now taken ownership of the bridge they are capable of reconsidering how to approach the Electric Bridge and will bring this conversation to the town in the next stage of the Local Area Consultations.
 
At the next stage of the consultation process they will be combining the seven areas into two new groups – an ‘Esk Group’ which will meet on the 8th of February, as well as a ‘Coastal Group’ which will meet on the 9th of February. A whole town meeting will take place on 8th of March in which they will invite everyone to come together and understand everything the Project Team have learned on the consultation journey.
 
The Scheme is currently ‘off programme’, which means there is no contract programme in place due to the delays incurred due to COVID-19 and due to the commitment of the Council to consult the town. CP notes if they locked the consultation to one or two months then this wouldn’t be true consultation, therefore they have left this open ended so they can properly understand what the town is saying.
 
There will be a major public exhibition for the entire town at an appropriate point later in the design process when the design has sufficiently evolved. Only after the design has been brought to a satisfactory point will the Project Team go to East Lothian Council to ask for permission to begin the next stage through which the Scheme gets approved under the legislation. It is only when it is approved under the legislation when the design will be locked.
 
The Project Team are in the process of meeting a number of individuals and groups who have key information to be provided. The only group they are yet to confirm a meeting with is with Musselburgh Action Group and hope to organise this as soon as possible in order to better understand their concerns.
 
CP adds he is aware some of the Scheme’s communication tools such as its website are not yet sufficient and is committed to getting the website up to date, including all of the relevant historical documents, before the next stage of the consultations.
 
After the next consultation meetings in February and March the Project Board within the Council structure will meet to determine what to do next. By spring the Project Team hope to have a revise programme and clarity pertaining to the next steps thereafter.
 
CP announces they are now due to publish the Scheme’s flood maps for the first time. The Scheme has also recently received approval from SEPA of the process and approach it has taken, further to four years of working with SEPA to get to that point. The maps they will publish are not vastly different from the maps SEPA which are already published on their website, or from the Scheme’s maps which were previously published in their exhibitions in 2019. However, they are more sophisticated and accurate than any other map that has been published before, and therefore the Project Team will use those maps as the basis for the design.
 
CP mentions there has been a clear desire from the town that the Scheme should be as natural as possible. They must engineer solutions which are an appropriate  use of public money and which are correct for reducing flood risk. The team are ongoing in attempting to understand how they deliver natural solutions within the Scheme. CP comments the most ‘natural’ solution would be to abandon the built environment and to return that land to the flood plain of the river or the sea, which would mean in reality the abandonment of parts of the town to give the space back to the river, but they are not intending to do this as the Council considers the abandonment of Musselburgh and its infrastructure as unacceptable. However, the design is not locked and if there is a major desire from the people to abandon parts of the town then Project Team will look at this again, but CP is unaware of any desire to do this and therefore this natural solution is being discounted by the Scheme.
 
CP explains the town must have protections along the river corridor and along the foreshore. If there were to be no defences along the Esk then all the water in a bankfull event must be kept somewhere else, therefore the question is whether natural interventions reduce it, and whether they will reduce it sufficiently. CP explains there must be something to separate the ‘wet’ environment (sea/river) from the ‘dry’ environment (town), but the form of that separation is yet to be confirmed. On the River Esk, they can reduce the water coming down to the town through upstream management or natural options within the catchment. There is currently an ongoing process of engagements with Professor Roger Crofts, SEPA and Dundee University to try and determine use of natural flood management solutions, which CP will update the group on in March. From a coastal perspective, defences must be on the foreshore and will consist of some barrier to keep the water out, which could take the form of a wall, embankment or sand dunes.
 
CP notes they have always looked to implement and develop natural solutions into the Scheme, for example it has always been their intention to put in a debris catcher to stop the debris getting to Musselburgh and blocking the bridges, potentially somewhere upstream of the A1 Bridge. They have also been looking at modifying Scottish Water reservoirs in the South Esk catchment in order to hold and capture water before it could get to the town.
 
CB thanks CP for bringing the group up to date on progress of the Scheme.
 
RC thanks CP for his comprehensive update and welcomes that the Scheme have been consulting more with the town. RC urges CP not to get involved in semantics about nature-based solutions, noting he has never heard of anyone talking about abandoning Musselburgh. RC adds he is pleased CP is consulting with the experts at Dundee and Glasgow Universities regarding coastal defences and is looking forward to his discussions with him.
 
JG mentions she has read previously that the marine environment requires nutrient from trees coming down the river and into the sea, enquires as to whether this will be prevented as a result of the Scheme.
 
CP comments that RC has challenged the Scheme on this issue which is no problem, as they are taking forward a Scheme in consultation and without challenge it is impossible for the Scheme to grow and be tailored to the town. He also looks forward to his conversation with RC and the Scheme will continue to connect to any expertise that is available and report back to the town.
 
In response to JG, CP notes that he is aware of the need for dead wood in ecosystems, but today there is very little debris that make its way to the sea as they get stuck within the bridges and weirs within Musselburgh and Midlothian. The Flood Protection Scheme is looking to replace bridges which are specifically prone to blockage, however the Scheme are incapable of altering the Rennie and Roman bridges due to their significant structures and both have grade A and B protection listing under Historical Environment legislation. As a result, they will remain a problem for blockage. The Environmental Impact Assessment will also pick up the impact of anything that they choose to do, including on this issue.
 
CP further reports the Scheme will continue to lead on the delivery of invasive non-native species reduction within the Esk corridor in partnership with Inveresk Village Society. They are currently making their plan and will update the group at the next meeting.
 
Midlothian Council – Derek Oliver
 
No significant updates from last meeting.
 
EC mentions that Rosewell & District Community Council are scheduling a clean-up of the Shiel Burn on Saturday 30th April and are in talks Crown Estate Scotland to gain the necessary permissions to do it.
 
DO explains he is happy to coordinate a waste collection uplift of anything collected.
 
EC states she will email DO separately to discuss further.
 
AOB
 
RC shares with the group his proposition that an action plan be drawn up for the Esk Valley. When looking at the wider context of the catchment, considerations should be made for establishing a progressive approach that seeks to meet a wide range of environment and ecological objectives relating to climate change, flood risk, biodiversity improvements, landscape amenity as well as public health and wellbeing. RC adds that in the context of the recently published River Basin Management Plan 2021-27 we should be looking at an action plan to be implemented over the coming years for improving the management of the catchment as a whole. RC notes that by making things more ‘natural’ we can in turn capture more carbon in soil, restore peatlands and wetlands and plant more native trees. RC comments there is government money available to assist this endeavour, such as Nature Restoration Fund, tree planting support from Forest Scotland and the Agri-Environmental Programme.
 
RC adds it is not for this group to take this forward as the project would require a host institution, however he has raised it as he believes there are wider issues about the whole catchment which are relevant for this group.
 
CB explains that members may need time to consider this proposal as there is a question as to how this could be achieved, and who would be responsible for taking on such a project.
 
CP notes this proposal does merit further consideration, mentions that it might be a question CB could raise with the Scottish Government. CP explains there is perhaps an opportunity for Scottish Government to start bringing together these key drivers in a way that isn’t done in specific projects.
 
CB states he is happy to make the necessary representations at a governmental level.
 
RC mentions he is please CB will take this to government, as he believes this is not a bureaucratic question, but a political one.
 
ASK states she is aware of a pollution issue just below Elginhaugh Bridge on the North Esk, notes the issue relates to iron ore coming from an old mine. ASK further reports the messaging by Coal Authority regarding a Bilston Glen informative event has led to a people in the local area perceiving the event as only relating to members of Loanhead.
 
AL recognises the point made by ASK and states that most of the literature is now referring to a treatment scheme in Dalkeith, with the presentation material next week also trying to reset that perception.
 
ASK thanks AL for her response, asks for clarity in relation to the Egress of minewater just below the Elginhaugh Bridge on the North Esk.
 
AL states she will contact ASK to discuss separately but explains it is her understanding this is a known discharge which is longstanding and is being monitored, asks if PB he can clarify.
 
PB confirms this is a longstanding minewater discharge. They are aware of the issue and do not believe the chemistry has changed but will add further detail at next meeting.
 
CB thanks all for attending.
Meeting ended 12:00noon.