Two New Landslides and Bursting of Underground Spring.

Thursday, 2nd October, 2008.

With continuing blasting by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and Abigroup at and near Nerong (which is some 6 to 10 kilometres south of Bulahdelah and is not a part of the Bulahdelah 'upgrade' project) there have now been two landslides in one of the Alum Mountain's historic - and heritage listed - mining quarries.

An underground spring has also been caused to burst. This flooded the quarry and created a creek between the quarry and the 'top' car park. Although the water has now been pumped out, this has created a major mudslide hazard.

The following photographs were taken on 25th September, 2008:-

A section of the larger of the two landslides.

A section of the smaller of the two landslides.
The top of this landslide is only a few metres from walking-trail steps leading to the historic boiler site.

Rocks and boulders from the larger landslide now cover the pathway to the quarry.

This boulder came down with the smaller landslide.

Inside the quarry was completely flooded.

The water from the burst underground spring formed a creek which flowed from the quarry.

The creek flooded the 'top' car park and flowed down the mountainside, causing an extreme mudslide hazard.

And the RTA still intends to locate a new section of highway up to 25 metres deep into the western foot of the Alum Mountain - beneath the above!

And beneath cliffs from which boulders have been falling since the commencement of RTA, Abigroup blasting some 6 to 10 kilometres south of Bulahdelah!

Risk of Rock Falling from the Alum Mountain's Cliffs onto Proposed Highway

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.

This post initially published: 20th July, 2008.

The RTA's Lie Regarding Commencement of Construction

In response to some of those who query or object to the use of ‘Option E’ for the Pacific Highway Upgrade at Bulahdelah the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) is currently claiming that construction has already commenced and that it is too late and would be too costly to divert to another option. That, as is the case with the vast majority of statements made by the RTA, is absolutely untrue.

It is pre-construction activities (‘early works’) which are taking place, not actual construction. This was admitted to the few community members who are prepared to meet with the RTA and their cohorts during current RTA-conducted meetings.

The first of said meetings was held on Wednesday, 28th May, this year (2008). The RTA’s notes of that meeting state that there was a ‘budget allocation of $15 million from the recently announced Federal Budget to continue with the early works for Bulahdelah’; also: ‘AusLink 2 commences in July, 2009 [two thousand and nine]. The RTA is hoping funding becomes available for the construction of the Bulahdelah project’.

Construction of the ‘Option E’ route at Bulahdelah has not yet commenced.

It is not too late to prevent the conglomeration of atrocities the RTA has planned for the Pacific Highway Upgrade, Bulahdelah.

It is not too late to have the Bulahdelah section of the Pacific Highway Upgrade diverted to a western route e.g. Option A which is documented by the RTA as being the safest route for road users (ref. the Value Management Workshop Report).

This post initially published: 23rd July, 2008.

The RTA's Lies about Access to the Alum Mountain

Currently, most people access the summit of the Alum Mountain by private vehicle (using the road – not ‘track’ which leads to the upper car park). Despite their numerous claims to the contrary (including in a joint *media release by Eric Roozendaal and Jim Lloyd), the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) does not intend to maintain access to the Alum Mountain – they plan to decimate the highest usage area on the mountain’s foot and sever customary access to its summit.

*The abovementioned joint media release is of RTA propaganda and does not reflect the true situation. It is available at: http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/jl/releases/2006/May/l50_2006.htm
or: http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/jl/releases/2006/May/L50_2006.htm.

From the Bulahdelah Upgrading the Pacific Highway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Main Volume Page 5.19 [bold typeface and statements in square brackets added for emphasis/information]:-

'Mountain Access Overbridge

A single-span overbridge, totalling approximately 60 metres in length, is proposed at Station 96650 to replace the existing section of the Bulahdelah ([the] Alum) Mountain access track [actually an unsealed roadway] which would be cut by the Upgrade [should the ‘Option E’ route be used]. The overbridge would closely match the existing access track alignment. …

…

The bridge would have a 4-metre-wide deck and an internal clearance of 4.3 metres to the truss structure. It would primarily be used by pedestrians, but it could accommodate the passage of State Forest and emergency vehicles. Throw-over protective screens would be incorporated into the design.'

At the first of their RTA-conducted meetings this year (2008) the relatively few Bulahdelah community members who are prepared to meet with RTA bureaucrats were told that the (‘Option E’) route the RTA intends to use would not prevent private vehicles from accessing the upper reaches of the mountain. RTA meeting ‘notes’ show that – again – the RTA lied to community members, with the ‘notes’ stating that access to the mountain’s summit would only be for emergency vehicles.

This post initially published: 22nd July, 2008.