Latest Information in Relation to Logan Pollution Incident

<

Fran has asked me to update you as to where we are at regarding implementing an appropriate post clean-up monitoring of Logan Water.

Scottish Water Solutions has developed a survey programme designed to assess the recovery of the affected reach of Logan Water (including invertebrate populations) and we are currently discussing the implementation of this programme with ecologists who can undertake the sampling and analysis for us.

Whilst Scottish Water appreciate your intention to assist in the stocking of invertebrates and their eggs into Logan Water, unfortunately we cannot be associated with such work in any way either from an environmental, ecological or legal perspective. I can confirm that none of the ecologists I have spoken with in respect of these waters have recommended the re-stocking of the Logan with invertebrates, but I also recognise that you have known and worked with these waters for many years and therefore respect any decision you make with regard to this action.

The proposed monitoring programme is designed to assess and demonstrate the ecological recovery of the Logan Water over a period of years. For this reason, any introduced numbers of invertebrates could and most likely will affect the results of any monitoring programme that is carried out.

Please contact me should you require further information on what we are proposing.

Kind regards
Hugh Keane

Environmental Advisor
Scottish Water Solutions
Leven House
Balmore Road
Glasgow G22 6NP
Telephone: 0141 355 5800

As you can clearly see Scottish Water have decided allow the Upper Logan Water to recover under its own steam so to speak. If this incident had occured on the likes of the River Tay or Tweed do you think the respective District Salmon Fishery Boards would allow them to basically wreck a river then walk away from it? I think not.
We at the Nethan Valley Angling Association were prepared to restock the affected area with similar invertebrates to those wiped out by Scottish Water free of charge.
As the River is apparently being abandoned to its own devices we would like Scottish water to answer the following questions.
1. Were invertebrate or fish surveys carried out in affected area prior to their major fauxpas? If not where are the scientists going to compare figures against as no one knows how much of the River was affected.
2. Is this not the second time that the Water Authorities have caused serious damage to this very important spawning tributary in the last 20 years and what did they do to help its recovery last time they destroyed it?
3. What food is going to be available to juvenile fish hatching from this years spawning of sea trout and brown trout or are they merely just another acceptable casualty in the big game of science?
4. Given that S.E.P.A. intend fitting a fish pass at their gauging station further down the catchment in the very near future and that lots more fish are expected to get past the structure what will their protege feed on if they chose to spawn in Upper Logan?
5. When will there be an acceptable number of invertebrates available for these anticipated extra fish's protege to feed on?
6. Evidence of otter activity was clear to see when pollution occurred, when will there be enough food IE fish available for them to survive on?
7. Several pairs of Oyster Catchers use upper Logan as nesting sites will there be enough food available for them and their brood?
8. We can see that by letting the river recover on its own scientist may learn how quickly a river recovers after such an incident occurs. Truth is it should never be allowed to occur again in the future and we hope Scottish Water have learned a valuable lesson on this occasion so there is no need for the boffins to do the tests. The river must be put back to the way it was with the greatest of urgency.
We have asked 3 river managers for their views on Scottish Waters answer to the problem and they all disagree with the boffins. I think given the experience of these guys have I would tend to listen to them before listening to some academic. The only people who will benefit from all of this will be the scientists who will no doubt be paid an exorbitant fee for their study work and not one penny will be spent helping the river or its related fauna.
It is also our understanding that we are not the only angling association who have on going issues with Scottish Water in relation to their equipment causing pollution to our rivers.Sewage Pumping Stations 1 & 2 at Cambuslang are faulty on a fairly regular basis. We can produce evidence to support this if required.
What Scottish Water need to realise is the River Clyde is a recovering salmon river and many of her tributaries are vital to the continued expansion of the salmon numbers within the catchment. Many rivers have limited access for migratory fish because of man made barriers etc, therefore every spare square inch of spawning water is vital to the system as a whole. Yet they are prepared to play around with 1.5kms of spawning and nursery area. If it is going to take 5 years for the Upper Logan to fully recover naturally does this mean that it will be that length of time before it is use to fish?
As for allowing nature to look after itself one of our members sent us some cartoons which we thought might highlight the fact that Mother Nature often needs a helping hand. Hope they make you smile but there is a serious message behind them.
We have asked for copies of the reports compiled by the consultants, to date we have had no reply. We will now be formally requesting the information under the Freedom of information(Scotland)Act
If you disagree with Scottish Waters approach to the recovery of the Upper Logan please contact Fran Millar, Fran.Millar@scottishwatersolutions.co.uk