BLUEMOMENT

.
Couldn't find the Herald article, but have found this on the P&J Website

I' ve never seen any kind of cetacean transitting Cuan, and suspect this may be flung out as a preliminary salvo. Of course, dead dolphins play well with the press, much more immediate than a discussion of restricted tidal flow and the implications.

However, changes in tidal flows would undoubtedly have significant effects over a large area. No pipes through a causeway are likely to be able to carry more than a small percentage of the water that flows back and forward through Cuan every day. Local conservation groups are mostly (though not entirely) composed of retired well-meaning incomers who come in and irritate the hell out of everyone, especially local fishermen. Argyll and Bute Council hate having islands to deal with - one less is a very attractive proposition, and I think it will take more than a few dolphin-lovers making unsubstantiated claims to stop this going ahead.

.
The Oban Times has now updated its website to include this week's edition.

STORY HERE

Quote from Oban Times' article:

‘No community which has a fixed link has ever asked for it to be removed.’
Barry Wilson, spokesman for Fixed Link Action Group, (FLAG)

I suspect that no community that has campaigned hard for 11 years would have the balls to ask for it to removed, more likely...

Donald

Nick wrote:.
Couldn't find the Herald article, but have found this on the P&J Website

No wonder you guys keep hitting the bottom - no one knows the depth......

From the above article....

A spokeswoman for Argyll and Bute Council said: “It appears that the depth of the water through the sound may be significantly less than was previously believed to be the case. If this is so, it would clearly have major cost implications for any potential fixed link. We have therefore agreed to commission a detailed hydrographic survey of this stretch of water, so as to get an accurate measurement of its depth.”

Ash

Ash

...stop giving Claymore excuses.....

Donald

Well - it definately said 3m on the depth sounder about 0.5 secs before the bang.

Anyway - block it off and have one of those tide things that makes electric like they have in Strangleford Louchgh. Much better.

What did it read just after the bang....?

It didn't

.
Since my post above I have been reliably informed that cetaceans are in fact known to transit Cuan. There is also a pretty unique environment underwater in parts of the sound resulting from the speed of the current, so there are undoubtedly a whole bunch of environmental implications as well as hydrographic considerations.

Interestingly I see a local yachting figure of some renown has now gone on record in the letters page of this week's Oban Times as saying he won't miss Cuan because the Sound of Luing is just as convenient for him. He proposes tidal turbines in the causeway and sees this as a win-win situation.

A couple of points spring to mind. Firstly, while using the Sound of Luing rather than Cuan may not inconvenience Mr. Kincaid, who is based in Oban, it is a different matter for the Balvicar fishing fleet, who will need to burn considerably more diesel getting to their fishing grounds to the West.

Secondly, AFAIK there are no turbines commerciallly available suitable for this type of installation; existing barrage-installed turbine set-ups have a facility for controlling the head of water at either side of the barrier, they are not designed for continuous (reversible) freeflow. In any event if all tidal flow through the sound is diverted through turbines experiences in Annapolis at the tidal station there suggest that the the fish kill rate is likely to be unacceptably high.

There are free-sited tidal turbines available that could sit on the seabed in Cuan and generate more power while leaving the bulk of the passage for unencumbered transit of fish and cetaceans. The efficiency and cost of these will reduce in years to come. Using the red herring of tidal power as justification for a causeway is disingenuous when the council's intention is 'solve' the 'problem' as quickly and cheaply as possible. A high level bridge would leave Cuan free for future development as tidal power technology matures, while the quick fix of a causeway is IMHO likely to close that option forever.

Ah Ballicks to the blasted place - get it filled in

Nick, is the red herring one of the fish that has been hit by a turbine? I'm confused.

You are right in what you say re: marine life. The stronger the currents, generally the more spectacular the marine life. This, however tends to be dead men's fingers, sponges, anemones, encrusting organisms and so on. Generally, the populace does not care, as they never see these things.

There is a place in the Summer Isles, Cathedral cave, or Conservation cave, which, IIRC, is a protected SSSI because of anemones, but I think they are rare.

I know the area, but not well. Rather than arguing the case against, what is the case for? Who wants it? Who is pushing for it?

.
The red herring is the idea that a causeway will bring the added benefit of tidal power generation - that will definitely not happen if the causeway is built in the next few years, for reasons I gave in that post. The idea is being suggested to put a positive spin on the causeway concept.

Luing is an island with some 180 inhabitants, currently served by a ferry across Cuan Sound to Seil, an island which has been connected to the mainland for over 200 years. Just over half of the inhabitants of Luing are in favour of a fixed link to Seil, so it is for the benefit of maybe 100 people who would prefer a fixed link to the current car ferry. (Others think it will destroy a way of life). The council would also prefer a fixed link as they don't like supporting the ferry. Like most councils thier budget is somewhat straightened though.

The channel is used by thousands of vessels every year, including the local fishing fleet. A detour of up to ten miles wold be involved involved if the channel was closed.

A high level bridge is the obvious solution, but there is no money for it. The council thinks the causeway will be cheap, but they are probably mistaken. Before this major tidal channel is blocked serious studies will have to be done to make sure that local commmunities on the East side of Seil are not subject to flooding. I think it is unlikely that it is going to happen. Wildlife pressure groups will also be digging their heels in.

That's it in a nutshell I think. Oh yes, and Claymore wants it filled in because he finds it tricky to navigate.

There's a good article on the ForArgyll website HERE

Just received this via our sailing club this morning -

Quote -

From: Pauline McGrow
Sent: 19 February 2010 11:25
Subject: Cuan Sound





Dear Secretary,



Once again the threat has arisen of the construction of a causeway across Cuan Sound. Despite strong protests from a variety of sources A&BC have initiated another hydrographic survey with a view to assessing the ease (or difficulty) of constructing a causeway across this piece of strongly tidal navigable water. This only 3 years after a similar exercise was declared quite uneconomic.



RYA Scotland is concerned to ensure the free right of navigation is maintained in this channel and are deeply concerned about this development, as you might expect. In order to assemble evidence of usage as a support for any protests we would be grateful if you, through the agency of your members, could estimate the number of transits of Cuan made by your members yachts in an average year and let us have your best collective guess whenever practicable. We realise you can do no more than estimate the number of transits but such an estimate may turn out to be invaluable.



I do hope you will feel able to assist us.



David Vass

Chair of Cruising Committee





Pauline McGrow
Senior Administrator
RYA Scotland

pauline@ryascotland.org.uk
http://www.ryascotland.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tel: 0131 317 7388

.
Good to know that the RYA are on the ball, although I don't think the interests of leisure boaters will be a major consideration - certainly not in the eyes of Argyll and Bute Council anyway.

I have put up a poll to ask our members the same queston.

.
There is a 'local' article on this story on the ForArgyll website HERE

If you look at the comments, Insider is probably not far off the money.