Esk River Improvement Group Meeting Minutes of Meeting – 10am, Monday 29th January 2024, Microsoft Teams

Attendance: Douglas Lyons, Colin Beattie MSP, Jenny Gray, Rob Munn (MSP Office), Steven Boon, Scott Fraser, Raymond Hope (Scottish Water), Peter Finnie, Katrina Wilson, Chris Gall, Rob Mitchell, Ruth Stidson (SEPA), Rachel Langfield, John Batty (Coal Authority), Edel Ryan, Colin Davidson, Alan Heatley (Midlothian Council), Rebecca Lewis (Riverfly on the Esk/Buglife), Rachael Warrington, Conor Price (Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme), Ann Stewart-Kmicha (Dalkeith & District Community Council), Claire Tochel, Pauline Crerar (Fisherrow Harbour & Seafront Association), Joy Godfrey (Eskbank & Newbattle CC), Rory Sandison (Nature Scot), Roger Croft (Esk Valley Trust) Apologies: David Ogilvie (SEPA), Shona Grant (East Lothian Council), Ross Hughes (Forth Rivers Trust), Paul Butler (SEPA), Rachael Elliott (Nature Scotland), Anne Hyatt (Roslin and Bilston Community Council), Philip Duncan (Musselburgh Racecourse), Audrey Murray (Enjoy Leisure), Derek Oliver (Midlothian Council)

Welcome
CB welcomed everyone to the meeting

Previous minutes were approved subject the following check regarding a question from ASK (DDCC) regarding future funding of Ranger service at Gladhouse. Transcript/notes of meeting to be checked.

CB Highlighted the action points in the minutes and asked that these be covered by the relevant organisations when the meeting get to their section.

1. Scottish Water – Steven Boon (SB) / Scott Fraser (SF)
SB Esk pumping station – temporary pumps still in place. Everything now in place to carry out works and completion is due towards the end of the year. The pumps have to be moved first. There is a void that has opened up around the pumping station which needs to be resolved and works are ongoing on that. The widening of the temporary path will be looked at this week will confirm and let the group know

Lord Ancrum Wood – project to start on site in February with arrangements being made with the council regarding the school being built there to make sure that any work that would impact on the school site is carried out first.

Eastfield pumping station – SW committed to carrying out some work there replacing the hydraulic ends on all the pumps. The pipework has been wrapped to seal them and will be replaced with new pipework and we can see that the pumping station is exceeding 950 litres per second and can achieve in excess of that. We’re hitting licence and doing it at 40% less electricity

SF added the following updates:

 . At previous meetings there were questions about where the supply of water comes from to what areas and there is a service on the Scottish Water website where by putting in a postcode it shows the source of supply and reports on water quality https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/yourhome/your-water/water-quality/water-quality.
 . Improving Urban waters route map https://readymag.website/ScottishWater/IUW/– work on the upgrades to combined sewer overflows installing monitors.
 . Regarding the Ranger service at Gladhouse I’ll check on that and get back. There are issues with improving parking at that site as well

SB There is a commitment to install 2.5 thousand network monitors across Scotland. Work on this is moving at pace as the commitment is to complete this work by the end of 2024 so that monitoring is up and running. I can report back on progress on the Esk. There are 380 live now and SW can look at flows now and identify areas for work.
PC asked about monitors on the Esk. SB I can report back on progress and locations on the Esk. 

RLe asked about dam releases so she can alert her members when these are happening. SF advised he was looking at a way to deal with these and will contact RLe direct.

2. Forth Rivers Trust no one present; no report. 

3. Coal Authority – Rachael Langfield (RL)
RL Update on the Dalkeith mine water treatment scheme. The scheme has been approved by the Coal Authority leadership team. In process of getting approvals from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Have a sponsor and the seeking approval for the business case, also have to get approval from the Commercial Approval Board (CAB) for the tender process for the project. CAB meeting is due 7th Feb and are looking at approvals running in parallel. Continuing to run flows and chemistry at the site with additional flow surveys to make sure the details of the project are accurate. Have sent out a letter to residents giving a brief update on progress, particularly the approvals process and following approval will look at further comms including a potential drop-in session with residents. Hoping to share that with SEPA. Arranging a disconnection on the site of existing utilities which will lead to some traffic disruption to New Mills Rd over the next few weeks. While that is undertaken will carry out demolition of buildings dependent on contractor resource. Will update on approvals and progress at the next meeting.

CB asked about the disposal of the by-product of the system specifically the iron ore and the ochre

RL CA have set up a contract to sell the ochre to use in anaerobic digester companies which they use as part of sewage treatment works. CA have a target of 95% of ochre waste will go to other use rather than landfill

CB what about the manganese?

RL until we start treating for the iron, we don’t know what level of the manganese is going to drop out naturally, so that will be a future project. We’ve got to deal with the iron before we can understand the level of treatment required and how much disposal

CB In terms of bulk the iron will make up most of what’s coming out?

RL Yes, there is a much greater volume iron compared to the manganese which is a smaller part. It’s just the contaminant impact it has on the watercourse.

CB You indicated that the demolition of the current buildings was subject to the contractor’s resources? Have they got it pencilled in?

RL Yes, it is coming up to the end of the financial year and there will be a bid to spend the money. My project manager is going to give me an update later this week to get this pushed forward.

CB The CAB meeting on the 7th is obviously a key meeting, have you had any feedback on any issues that might derail the approvals? With budget constraints and inflation people are twitchy that a project might get derailed or delayed.

RL No, the Commercial Assurance Board is more about the procurement route checking we’re following the procurement rules and making sure we’re achieving best value. The bigger one is the departmental sponsor to sign off on the business case itself.

RLe Interested to hear the ochre going to anaerobic digesters and asked if it was going to Millerhill as its local so sustainable.

RL I’ll check on where it goes and report back. It would be good if it was in the local area. ASK Would it be possible to get a copy of the local resident’s communication to the Community Council? And the date it went to residents as well.

RL Yes of course I can get it sent to you. And I’ll check with the project manager when the communication went out and let you know.

JG Can the communication be sent to Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council as well?

RL yes, of course

PB (SEPA) Thanks for the update and happy to join the drop-in session when its arranged. (Agenda was adjusted at this point as the meeting was waiting for Ruth from SEPA to join the meeting)

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

RLe Starting with Riverfly on the Esk we’ll be moving into our 6 th year of the community citizen science project and we’re looking at piloting morph on the Esk and I’ve been working with SEPA and hoping to get funding to start the scheme. Looking at habitat features and the riparian areas as well as the channel to add to the data we are collecting hoping it will provide funded training to more volunteers in the community and are interested in widening the scope beyond invertebrates. 
We are going to be working with Keep Scotland Beautiful and Fisherrow Harbour on an event to do with their project Upstream Battle which is focussing on litter along rivers and the implications of that reaching the sea which we’d like to stop. The event was postponed because of the storm passing through.
We’ve also ordered more testing kits, so we’ll be continuing to do nitrate and phosphate testing at our monthly monitoring sites along with the invertebrate data we’re collecting. We’ve been seeing elevated levels of nitrates over the winter months adding to the information we are collecting.
All this is open source, and we have an event for the volunteers with a couple of specialists to talk about what the data means. We are collating all this data and I want to start sharing it more widely with the community.
We found something special, a Trichoptera which is a caddis at one of our sites and it’s only the second recording in the East Coast of Scotland so that was exciting news.
I’ve been working up an event with the Ranger (Elspeth) at Gladhouse and hope we can do more in the future.
Moving on to guardians of our river which is the Buglife project. When it was launched, we aimed to train 15 groups over two years to help monitor the health of the river and at the end of the year we had 28 groups trained across Scotland. Some of these groups are now obtaining their own funding to make improvements on their local river. We’ve had over 500 people getting in touch, individuals, and groups. As a result, we have a new member of staff who’s got 15 years’ experience identifying freshwater invertebrates. We’ll continue to build local partnerships with guardians of our rivers.
We visited the SEPA offices to explore how we can work more closely together which was very positive.
I can share maps showing the distribution of groups across the country to give this group an insight. 
CB Can you put that link in the chat?
RLe I’ll try to but if not, I’ll attach to an email and circulate.
CB Thanks for the update it’s always interesting to hear what your groups are up to. Are there any questions to Rebecca? There were no questions.
CB As we are waiting for Ruth Stidson from SEPA to join the meeting we’ll move on to Musselburgh Flood Prevention.

5. Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme – Conor Price

CP provided a presentation to the group (slides attached to minutes). The scheme was presented to a special meeting of East Lothian Council on Tuesday 23rd January. This was the developed outline design and requested that the meeting clarify the next steps for the project. The meeting was recorded and is available on the Council website. There were three items:
1. An update on the work in partnership between the scheme, East Lothian Council and Dynamic Coast in relation to coastal change and its significance to Musselburgh. Council requested that this work to understand coastal erosion and the marine scientific protection area (MSPA) continue and report back to them on additional investigation work and potential mitigation solutions on how it may be dealt with moving forward.
2. To consider a petition to pause the scheme – the meeting determined that this be considered after item 3. This was so that Council could understand the context of the request to pause the scheme. The decision was not to pause the scheme.
3. This was the substantive item on the developed outline design with its environmental impact assessment. The scheme was instructed to proceed towards the next stage of the project – formal consultation of the developed outline design towards approval of the scheme
We have a lot of data which we’ve migrated to the scheme website and is contained in the Council reports. (Conor showed visualisations of the scheme show tree retention between the Roman and Rennie Bridge on the east side of the river by moving the line of wall from the roadside to outside the trees retaining amenity space.
Also showed visualisations of reformed sea wall. All the visualisations are on the website The Outline Design of the Scheme will be presented to a meeting of Full Council - Musselburgh Flood Protection).

To highlight to the group that we retain the key interventions in the catchment including the modification of Rosemary reservoir and Edgelaw reservoir both of which are located on the South Esk and will provide flood risk reduction benefits all the way through to Musselburgh. There is provision of the large tree debris catcher at Cowpits in Dalkeith Country Park. We have found a way to deliver environmental enhancements/river restoration/improvement of the river corridor over the entire distance of the scheme. There is ambiguity in the public mind between what is in the MFPS and the river restoration scheme which is parallel project. We work with partner organisations particularly Forth Rivers Trust on this parallel scheme to identify other river restoration measures which can be delivered within the river corridor, but they would not be part of the MFPS. Measures here would require additional or separate funding and delivery routes. That is per the letters of support for river restoration as a concept which have been provided by organisations. I’m hoping I can update in more substantial detail on this at the next meeting.
The Musselburgh project brings together three elements, flood prevention, seawall reconstruction and active travel routes. Number associated 3200 properties helped with flood risk, 6000m of enhanced footpath, 26,000sqm of upgraded public space, 4 replacement footbridges, 1 debris trap, 7 pumping stations, 2200m of new flood defence wall, modification of 2400m of wall, 20 floodgates etc.
I have reported in the past that this stage was initially assumed to take around 18 months to two years but has elongated to almost four years to facilitate the COVID pause and then an elongated consultation to try and ensure we developed the best product for the town. We are now in the formal consultation process, when objections may be raised, and we may end up going to a public local inquiry.
If we published the formal consultation around 22nd March, the 28 days for formal objections takes place through April. We will have an understanding of any implications in May/June, and I will update you at the earliest opportunity. The first and most important activity now is to achieve formal publication/notification of the scheme as defined in the Flood Risk Management Act. We must notify the scheme and simultaneously publish notice in newspapers. We continue our negotiations with Scottish Water regarding the two reservoirs in the South Esk catchment. This is a complicated partnership working on a project to modify a complex asset that cannot endanger those who reside below the asset and all modifications must be in line with the Reservoirs Act and fall into the proper process of management thereafter to ensure there’s no reduction of safety or quality.
Equally we continue negotiations with Buccleuch Estates regarding the placement of the large debris catcher by Whitecraig and what we need to do operationally to remove large debris promptly to stop blockages. These kinds of negotiations are complex, and we need to carry them out with all private landowners and public land owners and we are in negotiation with Midlothian Council as we are proposing changing the function of reservoirs in their area which will ultimately be beneficial but must be considered by them. In terms of notification of individuals in the Musselburgh Flood Scheme area we are sending out in order of 10,000 letters
We continue to engage with the Scottish Government Flood Risk Management team not just about the scheme itself but also in relation to our partnership work with Dynamic Coast on coastal erosion. Similarly, we continue to establish a new catchment management organisation which would be capable of delivering natural flood management or nature-based solutions in the catchment in future. I’m hoping I can update you on that work at the next meeting. The work with Dynamic Coast regarding coastal erosion. I would highlight the work done by Jacobs for the ELC that we will have a rise of 860mm of sea level rise by 2100 based on understanding of the data and when Dynamic Coast reported to ELC last week they confirmed within their work they are looking at 900mm for the same date. We are engaging with schools to make young people aware of the scheme and look to organise and event to bring them together to discuss the issues. We continue to work with Sustrans on the Active Travel element and develop that part of the designs and there has been consultation on that we will bring together to make any changes. The scheme will continue to work on invasive species management working between us and Forth Rivers Trust with a steering group in February and will send notification of that meeting which is provisionally 21st Feb. Communication we continue to update the website, there is a newsletter being prepared for Feb and press releases around the council meeting. The Brunton drop-in meetings have ceased, and we are thinking about whether to reform them throughout the year. As part of the statutory consultation, we’ll be making the documents publicly available in John Muir House in Haddington and Dalkeith Town Hall.

RM SEPA would be keen to see the debris screen cleared regularly as SEPA are working on the fish migration routes and any barrier would be an issue.

CP What is proposed is large poles 3-4 metres apart to target large debris such as trees but will factor in fish migration

RLe Removal of invasive, non-native species and importance of replanting to avoid erosion and sedimentation of the bank.

CP we are focussing on the removal of invasive species such as giant knotweed and removing the seedbeds before replanting. We are aware of the issues and are discussing at the steering group how to take control of the areas we clear and replant them.

ASK communities often feel consultations are held during holiday periods and can you confirm the location for the Midlothian consultation

CP Consultation in Midlothian likely to be in Dalkeith Library and agree on the consultation timings but the Musselburgh scheme needs to achieve notification by 31st March 2024 so that is the timeframe we are working to.

JG Predicted Sea level rise does that affect the effectiveness of the design

CP the levels I’ve reported don’t make a substantial difference but it is a complex issue and I’d point people to the Dynamic Coast report for more information and understanding https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/24427/01_update_on_dynamic_coast_assessme nt

6. Midlothian Council

ER joined by CD on local developments, AH on flooding.

CD Spoke about the development of the new LDP (Local Development Plan) MLDP2. Part of developing this is to identify and protect blue/green infrastructure – drainage networks, rivers, water courses but also suds ponds. The evidence report should be reported to MLC Full Council in March or May meetings. We’ve carried out a lot of engagement with community councils, SEPA, Scottish water etc.

AH Cycle 2 flood risk management plan covering the Forth estuary. 4 flood target areas 2 are on the Esk – north and south with the other 2 in Dalkeith and Loanhead. We are preparing our local surface water management plans. MLC are engaging a consultant to lead and produce the flood studies which will identify actions required to deal with flooding and any requirements for flood protection schemes. There is a Esk Catchment Group to look at natural flood management to mitigate any flooding in Musselburgh

CB asked about the flood risks in the Lasswade area AH that’s one of the areas that the flood study will look at and the other key area is Newbattle on the South Esk.

RM It would be good to meet to discuss SEPA plans around fish passage on the North and South Esk There followed some discussion on land ownership at Ironmills and clearing debris from the river there and the weirs which are targets for SEPAs Water Environment Fund with SEPA looking to improve for fish, environment and for net zero targets. We can’t always remove these barriers but where we do we aim to have a positive flood risk effect at those sites.

RLe raised the blockage and the potential danger to volunteers/members of the public trying to clear themselves.

That concluded the reports from MLC.

7. SEPA

PF Introduced SEPA staff Ruth Stidson, Bathing Water lead, Katrina Wilson, regulatory Unit Manager, Paul Butler, Mine Water Lead, Chris Gall, Senior Environmental Protection Officer and Rob Mitchell who you’ve heard from earlier. Thanked CB for circulating the letter to SEPA and the response along with the sample data excel sheet. Clarified that what are called associated samples are not bathing water samples but samples from potential contributory inputs. Summarised the progress at Fisherrow as contained in the letter from a senior manager at SEPA. Fisherrow had bathing water status and had lost that after a run of poor results £3m was spent on a range of issues, including dealing with complex urban infrastructure especially affecting the Brunstane Burn, tributaries, pumping stations etc as a result many misconnections were identified and rectified. As a result, through continued samples and associated sample inputs have led to Fisherrow producing a good status and we were able to recommend to the Minister that the bathing water be reinstated, and it was. I want to stress that the Brunstane Burn and other watercourses as tributaries are urban infrastructure waterways and simply can never be as clear as mountain streams as they will always have surface run-off and other contributory factors going into them. SEPA will continue to sample both the bathing water and the contributory associated samples and will work with Scottish Water and others to ensure bathing water quality is protected.

RS shared two graphs showing sampling from Fisherrow Sands 2014-2023 sampling results have shown a drop in elevated levels. As of 2023 status was ranked as good which means exceeding minimum standards. 2nd slide showed Brunstane Burn which shows higher levels due to urban nature. Despite the volatility that can be found in urban water courses there is a general lowering to elevated levels. As a result, we believe that Fisherrow is moving into business as usual as the levels are stable.

CB commented that it is difficult to keep urban water pristine but encouraging that there is an improvement and opened for questions.

CT questioned why the focus was on Fisherrow Sands when the data provided was specifically the River Esk and the Brunstane Burn. Raised concern with high levels of human waste. Accepted that the Esk is not a bathing water but raised if it was a bathing water, the levels were upwards of 100 times the SEPA minimum quality cut off. Colin’s letter asked three questions – 1. What the numbers indicate in terms of pollution? 2. Is there a danger to public health and wildlife? 3. If the figures show issues what does SEPA do?

Asked if there was a purpose for collecting e coli and intestinal enterococci to indicate the health of the waterways? Asked if the identified sewage source was multiple misconnected properties what action is being taken to deal with those properties?

RS Restated that she is not a bathing water specialist so was asked to speak about Fisherrow Sands and from our samples we are not seeing the River Esk impacting bathing water. We’ve been successful improving the bathing water and where do we go now with pollution in the rivers. As the regulator one of the issues is that rivers do not have any standards for bacteria unless they were designated bathing water. There is no minimum limit for bacteria in rivers in the regulations

PF Waterways being affected by sewage systems including combined sewer overflows is a national issue so would be up to government to make amendments to legislation and improvements such as separating surface from foul will cost billions. SEPA is following the regulations regarding bathing water and the impact of the Esk and Brunstane is minimal.

SF Scottish Water’s Urban Waters Routemap Improving Urban Waters Routemap - Scottish Water is looking to understand more about the network with monitors like CSOs and upgrading CSOs. The monitors will provide information on issues such as problems caused by misconnections and where we can identify those misconnections, we can tackle them. SW does have an investment plan to address this issue.

CT There does have to be some government intervention because regulation doesn’t deal with the problem. Misconnections persist. Is there a pollution risk? Is there a risk to human health?

CB In the past we had someone from Public Health Scotland who advised that the pollution levels in the Esk were not a danger to public health. Perhaps to address this issue we should ask him to a future meeting.

CT I would like some expert advice on how bad this is.

RS From our data the Esk doesn’t meet bathing water standards and therefore there would be a risk to health of bathing in the river. I think as Colin suggested getting someone along who has expertise in public health would be advisable.

PC Added that we do nitrate and phosphate testing but it’s not one of the best rivers for insects. Also, dog walkers letting their dogs use the river for swimming and how that could bring bacteria into contact with humans.

CB reiterated that ERIG would invite someone from Public Health Scotland to a future meeting.

ASK The person who spoke to the group was Richard Othieno.

CB We’ll invite him.

8. AOB

CB I want to say that Doug Lyons who’s been taking the minutes will be stepping back and Rob Munn who is on the screen will be taking over in the future and will be the contact point.

RMu thanks Colin I’ve put my email address in the chat and looking forward to learning more on the future meetings.

ASK Before you move off, I wanted to pick up the comment PF made about actions and say that RM and myself have had a positive conversation and I want to say that Rob did try to contact Dalkeith and District Community Council and myself after meetings and it was email addresses that were not quite right, but we’ve got a positive working relationship now.

​CB thanked everyone and closed the meeting Meeting ends at 11:50