The RTA document Specific Geotechnical Issues (date: June, 2008) claims in regard to ‘Risk of rock falling from [the] Alum Mountain’:
· No evidence of recent rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road.
The RTA has been receiving complaints about boulder falls they are causing at the top of the mountain, not ‘rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road’. However, as the proposed road would be almost directly beneath over a quarter of a kilometre of mountain with 40 metre high cliffs of porous rock where, the RTA has stated, rainfall can bring about rock falls, and there is more than ample evidence of the fact that boulders have been falling from the mountain’s cliffs – and that those boulder falls are undermining huge sections of rock – the RTA’s statement that there is ‘no evidence of recent rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road’ is not necessarily correct.
· No evidence of recent rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road.
The RTA has been receiving complaints about boulder falls they are causing at the top of the mountain, not ‘rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road’. However, as the proposed road would be almost directly beneath over a quarter of a kilometre of mountain with 40 metre high cliffs of porous rock where, the RTA has stated, rainfall can bring about rock falls, and there is more than ample evidence of the fact that boulders have been falling from the mountain’s cliffs – and that those boulder falls are undermining huge sections of rock – the RTA’s statement that there is ‘no evidence of recent rock fall in the vicinity of the proposed road’ is not necessarily correct.
This post initially published: 20th July, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment