Ground Control

Management Plan
Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd
09 February 2023

The Power of Commitment

GHD Pty Ltd | ABN 39 008 488 373
180 Lonsdale Street, Level 9
Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
T +61 3 8687 8000 | F +61 3 8732 7046 | E [email protected] | ghd.com

Printed date 9/02/2023 11:28:00 AM

Last saved date 09 February 2023
File name https://projectsportal.ghd.com/sites/pp17_04/5575southgippslandhi/ProjectDocs/12527040-
RPT_5575 South Gippsland Hwy GCMP.docx
Author Nirav Patel
Project manager Nirav Patel
Client name Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd
Project name 5575 South Gippsland Highway, Lang Lang
Document title Ground Control Management Plan | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd
Revision version Rev 2
Project number 12527040

Document status

Status Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue

Code
Name Signature Name Signature Date
S3 A 8/10/2021
S3 B 30/03/2022
S4 0 N. Patel S. Narendranathan S. Narendranathan 30/03/2022
S3 C 31/05/2022
S3 D 1/06/2022
S3 E 2/06/2022
S3 F 3/06/2022
S4 1 N. Patel S. Narendranathan *On file S. Narendranathan *On file 14/09/2022
S3 G 02/02/2023
S3 H 08/02/2023
S4 2 N. Patel S. Narendranathan S. Narendranathan 09/02/2023

© GHD 2023
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for
which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised
use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

The Power of Commitment

Contents

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Definitions 3
1.3 Scope and limitations 3
1.4 Legislative Environment 3
1.5 Stability and Ground Control Context 3
2. Quarry Setting 5
2.1 General 5
2.1.1 Development History 6
2.1.2 Proposed Quarry Development 6
2.2 Quarry Infrastructure and Local Surroundings 7
3. Geotechnical Performance and Considerations 8
3.1 Geotechnical Model Considerations 8
3.2 Regional and Site Geology 9
3.2.1 Regional Geology 9
3.2.2 Regional Structural Geology 9
3.2.3 Stratigraphy 9
3.2.4 Major Structures 12
3.2.5 Neotectonics 13
3.3 Hydrogeology 14
3.4 Material Strength Parameters 15
3.4.1 Material Strength Variability 16
3.5 Summary of Anticipated Failure Mechanisms 17
3.5.1 Circular Instability (Primary Mechanism) 17
3.5.2 Erosion and Piping (Secondary Mechanism) 18
3.6 Geotechnical Considerations 20
3.6.1 Seismic Loading 20
3.7 Data Uncertainty 20
3.8 Design Acceptance Criteria 21
3.9 Slope Design Geometry 21
3.10 Stability Performance 22
4. Geotechnical Management Process 24
4.1 General 24
4.2 Effective Slope Formation at WA7541 24
4.3 Slope Monitoring requirements 24
4.3.1 Overview 24
4.3.2 Visual Inspections 25
4.3.3 Crack Monitoring 25
4.3.4 Survey Monitoring 25
4.4 General Drainage Considerations 26
4.5 Temporary Stockpiles 26
4.6 Trigger Action Response Plan 26
4.6.1 General 26

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan i
5. Geotechnical Risk Assessment 30
5.1 General 30
5.2 Geotechnical Hazards Identification 30
5.3 Risk Management Framework 31
6. Geotechnical Hazard Management 32
6.1 Hazard Assessment Process 32
6.2 Geotechnical Hazard Awareness 32
6.3 Geotechnical Hazard Detection 32
6.4 Risk Matrix 32
6.5 Hazard Prevention 33
6.6 Geotechnical Hazard Mitigation 33
6.7 Risk Register – Site Geotechnical Log 34
6.8 Risk Assessment Results 39
7. Quarry Closure and Rehabilitation 40
7.1 Rehabilitation Strategy 40
7.2 Erosion Management 40
8. Review and Audit 42
8.1 Triggers For Geotechnical Review 42
9. References 43
9.1 Relevant Acts 43
9.2 Legislation and Guidance Documents 44
9.3 Relevant Site Documentation/Studies 44

Table index
Table 1 Summary of Mohr Coulomb Parameters 16
Table 2 Anticipated Instability Mechanisms Present 17
Table 3 FoS Guidelines after ERR (2020) 21
Table 4 Summary of Pit Wall Stability Monitoring Procedures 27
Table 5 TARP for Slope Condition 28
Table 6 Geotechnical Hazards at the WA7541 Site 30
Table 7 WA7541 Quarry Pit Risk Rating 35
Table 8 Proposed Erosion Monitoring Criteria 40

Figure index
Figure 1 Plan view of WA7541 Boundary and adjacent work authorities. 2
Figure 2 Design process flowchart 4
Figure 3 Site Location within the regional plan 5
Figure 4 Pit Development Plan 6
Figure 5 Plan View of the Proposed Quarry Location Depicting Nearby Receptors 7
Figure 6 Development of Geotechnical Domain Model after Read and Stacey (2009) 8

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan ii
Figure 7 Physiographic Sub-Divisions of Western Port (Carillo-Rivera, 1975, modified
from Jenkin, 1974). Proposed quarry shown in red. 9
Figure 8 Simplified Geological Map of the Lang Lang Region 10
Figure 9 Typical sub-surface profile at the site 12
Figure 10 Earthquake and Geological Map of the Lang Lang Area. Earthquake ≥
Magnitude 3.0 Shown 14
Figure 11 Depth to Groundwater at the WA7541 Site (VVG, 2021) 15
Figure 12 Summary of Effective Strength Distribution (Cohesion) 16
Figure 13 Summary of Effective Strength Distribution (Friction Angle) 17
Figure 14 Schematic of a circular failure 18
Figure 15 Example of Erosion of Exposed Sand Batters at Nearby Quarry 19
Figure 16 Subsurface Section Alignment A-A’. 19
Figure 17 Seismic Hazard Map of Victoria for 1/500 year Return Period 20
Figure 18 Section A-A’ – Critical Pit Geometry 22
Figure 19 Impact of plant off-set distance from crest on batter FoS 23
Figure 20 ERR Likelihood Descriptions (DJPR, 2020) 32
Figure 21 ERR Risk Matrix (DJPR, 2020) 33
Figure 22 Risk Rating Acceptability (DJPR, 2020) 33
Figure 23 Hierarchy of Controls 34

Appendices
Appendix A Quarry Inspection Sheet

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan iii
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide a Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) for Lang Lang Sand
Resources Pty Ltd (the Client), owned by Aurora Construction Materials (ACM), who wish to develop sand
resources at Work Authority 7541 (WA7541), located at 5575 South Gippsland Highway (SGH) in the Lang region
of Victoria (the site; see Figure 1. Primarily, the GCMP aims to identify the risks associated with quarrying
operations at the South Gippsland site and to provide a framework for risk management. It is understood the
Client’s work plan application must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and
Regions (DJPR) - Earth Resources Regulation (ERR) division.
To assist the client with this application, GHD was engaged by Mr Kelvin Sargent of ACM to undertake a
geotechnical assessment of the site, with outcomes detailed in the GHD (2022) draft report ‘5575 South Gippsland
Highway Geotechnical Assessment’ dated 30 March 2022 (GHD Ref: 12527040-45542-13), and develop a ground
control management plan (GCMP) (this report) which identifies potential geotechnical risks and suitable risk
treatment protocols.
GCMPs are a tool that provide the necessary framework to recognise, identify and address pertinent geotechnical
issues for the purpose of creating a safe, stable, and sustainable site, as defined in Section 1.2, during quarry
operations all the way through to closure and rehabilitation phases. Accordingly, a key part of the GCMP is the
geotechnical risk assessment. The risk assessment is used to identify and address any perceived or known
threats to the:
– Safety of people – including the public and site personnel
– Environment
– Risk to quarry employees
– Key infrastructure within and around the quarry
– Nearby public infrastructure (where applicable)
The findings of the risk assessment help tailor management protocols to the site for which the GCMP is being
developed with the aim of mitigating risks to tolerable thresholds.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 1
Figure 1 Plan view of WA7541 Boundary and adjacent work authorities.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 2
1.2 Definitions
Safe
The interim and final landforms should present the lowest reasonably achievable risk to public health and safety
and the environment, both within and beyond the quarry boundaries. A range of possible hazards will need to be
addressed including fire, dust, and contamination of air, soil, and water, and detrimental or uncontrolled water
flows or the development of weak or dangerous ground. Suitable controls which are necessary to maintain safe
conditions should be implemented, e.g., ground movement monitoring. This document focuses specifically on
stability related controls.
Stable
Anticipated ground movements should be minimised as far as reasonably practicable and those movements that
will occur should be understood, predictable and controllable. Controls necessary to maintain stability within and
beyond the site boundary should be in place with appropriate monitoring. The risk of rapid, adverse ground
movements leading to damage to infrastructure, property, or the environment should be as low as reasonably
achievable. Any risk to human life will also be identified and addressed.
Sustainable
The quarry pit geometry including any water bodies, should be feasible from long term stability, environmental,
social, and economic perspectives, and capable of beneficial use post quarrying.

1.3 Scope and limitations

GHD has prepared this Ground Control Management Plan (GCMP) on the basis of information provided by ACM
and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has not
independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection
with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the GCMP which were caused by errors or
omissions in that information.

1.4 Legislative Environment

ACM is subject to the following key licences and legislative instruments:
– The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic) and associated Mineral Resources
(Sustainable Development) (Mineral Industries) Regulations 2019 (Vic) provide a legal framework for
quarrying / mining.
– Planning and Environment Act 1987.
– The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) and associated Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations (2017) (Vic) which address the health, safety and welfare of employees in the workplace, and of
the general public, in connection with the operation of the site.
– The Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic), Water Act 1989 (Vic), Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) (Vic).
– State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF).
WorkSafe, the Victorian Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and
Regions (DJPR) are the key State Government Regulatory bodies that oversee mining and quarrying operations in
Victoria. These bodies enforce the policies listed in the acts above to ensure that the WA7541 site operates within
the legislative requirements.

1.5 Stability and Ground Control Context

The formulation of a comprehensive GCMP particularly in a quarry setting requires the consideration of a number
of factors, such as the rock mass strength and mechanical characteristics, surface and groundwater
considerations, quarrying equipment and development methodology. Outlined below in Figure 2 is a design
process map, after the CSIRO guidelines (2009), which forms the framework for this GCMP.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 3
In developing the GCMP for WA7541 site, consideration is given to:
– The depth and operating life of the quarry
– The potential for changes in expected ground conditions associated with the expansion of the quarry (i.e.
groundwater fluctuations, bedding and planes of weakness)
– The location of working benches and transportation routes
– The potential for surface and ground water problems
– The equipment to be used, excavation methods, and handling of the resource and waste
– The presence of nearby surface features (e.g. public roads, railways, pipelines, natural drainage channels or
public buildings)
– The potential for the general public to inadvertently gain access to the quarry void during operation
– Geotechnical risk assessments and associated Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP)

Figure 2 Design process flowchart

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 4
2. Quarry Setting
2.1 General
The proposed quarry extraction site, WA7541, is situated in Lang Lang, Victoria, an area containing multiple sand
extraction quarries. The site is currently an undeveloped greenfield site, located approximately 7 km southeast of
the Lang Lang township, and 80 km southeast of Melbourne (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Site Location within the regional plan

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 5
The WA7541 boundary covers an area of just under 118 Ha. The resource will likely be used for the production of
construction materials such as concrete and road surfacing material.

2.1.1 Development History

The WA7541 site, at 5575 South Gippsland Highway, Lang Lang, is currently an undeveloped greenfield site, with
no past mining operations.

2.1.2 Proposed Quarry Development

Based on the provided information, excavation of the pit will be undertaken using a staged approach (see
Figure 4) from east to west. The pit geometry is likely to be formed as follows:
– Total depth of extraction is expected to be approximately 30 m below current surface level.
– Working and rehabilitated profiles of 1V:3H (approx. 18°) above groundwater and 1V:2H (approx. 26°) below.
– A 10 m wide beaching bench will be established at the water level.

Figure 4 Pit Development Plan

GHD understand that the client is proposing to excavate the resource using a sequenced process, as follows:
– Removal of overburden material (varies between 2 and 6 m in thickness)
– Dry extraction above the groundwater table
– Mechanical dredging to remove sand resources below the groundwater table

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 6
2.2 Quarry Infrastructure and Local Surroundings
This WA7541 site is bounded to the west and south by the South Gippsland Highway, to the northwest by WA1338
(Len Huxtable), to the northeast by Bass Gas Plant and to the east by private farmland. Four other existing WA
tenements can be found within 3 km of the proposed site: WA2 (Holcim), WA157 (Metro Quarry Group), WA1004
(Railway Sand Supplies) and WA1102 (Metro Quarry Group), as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Plan View of the Proposed Quarry Location Depicting Nearby Receptors

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 7
3. Geotechnical Performance and
Considerations
3.1 Geotechnical Model Considerations
The geotechnical domain model forms the basis for any quarry pit slope design. The geotechnical domain model
facilitates the segregation of a quarry pit into sectors or zones which have similar geological, structural and
material property characteristics, thus modes of instability. In principle, the act of geotechnical domaining allows
for multiple optimisation techniques to apply, where the slope design is optimised, in terms of safety and
economics, for a given sector rather than applying a single slope design across the entire pit. In essence,
geotechnical domaining a quarry pit can be used inform quarry owners/operators where to focus their time and
effort.
The geotechnical domain model is compiled from four component models:
– Geological model
– Structural model
– Hydrogeological model
– Material properties model
Geotechnical domaining of the Client’s site has relied upon the philosophy set out by Read and Stacey (2009).
Outlined in the Figure 6 are the considerations that are taken into account when formulating site specific
geotechnical domains.

Figure 6 Development of Geotechnical Domain Model after Read and Stacey (2009)

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 8
3.2 Regional and Site Geology
3.2.1 Regional Geology
The proposed quarry site lies approximately 7 km inland from the eastern shores of Western Port Bay. The area is
situated within a tectonic depression, known as the Western Port Sunklands. The sunklands are bounded to the
west by the Tyabb Fault, and to the east by the Bass and Heath Hill Faults (GeoVic, 2014; Geoscience Australia,
2020), forming a horst (Mornington Peninsula bedrock ridge) and graben (Port Phillip Sunkland, Western Port
Sunkland) sequence (McAndrew & Marsden, 1968).

3.2.2 Regional Structural Geology

The proposed quarry site is situated on a graben (Western Port Sunklands), downthrown relative to the
Mornington Peninsula bedrock to the west and the South Gippsland Highlands to the east. The extents of the
sunklands are defined by the Tyabb Fault to the west, and the Heath Hill Fault to the east (GeoVic, 2014). Within
the sunklands, the quarry site sits in a slightly elevated zone known as the Lang Lang Lowlands, delineated by the
Lang Lang Fault as shown in Figure 7 (Carillo-Rivera, 1975).

Figure 7 Physiographic Sub-Divisions of Western Port (Carillo-Rivera, 1975, modified from Jenkin, 1974). Proposed quarry
shown in red.

3.2.3 Stratigraphy
The area in the vicinity of the proposed quarry site consists of 3 main stratigraphic units Figure 8, as follows (from
oldest to youngest):
– Wonthaggi Formation (Ksw)
– Sandringham Sandstone, formerly known as Brighton Group (Nb)
– Unconsolidated Quaternary Deposits (Qg, Qa2 and Qa1)
A geological map of the proposed quarry site and the surrounding region is presented in Figure 8.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 9
Figure 8 Simplified Geological Map of the Lang Lang Region

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 10
Wonthaggi Formation (Ksw)
The oldest rocks found around the proposed quarry area is the sedimentary Wonthaggi Formation (Ksw). The
Wonthaggi Formation is part of the Strzelecki Group, which were the first sediments deposited within the
Gippsland Basin (Mehin & Bock, 1998). The overall thickness of the Strzelecki Group is at least 3000 m and
consists of interbedded non-marine greywackes, mudstones, sandstones, conglomerates, minor coals and
volcanics deposited in lacustrine, swamp or floodplain environments (Mehin & Bock, 1998). The Wonthaggi
Formation is defined by Welch et al. (2011) as a lithic volcaniclastic sandstone, arkose and siltstone, with minor
conglomerate and coal. Bryan et al. (1997) assigns an age of 129.5 – 100.5 Ma for the Wonthaggi Formation.
Sandringham Sandstone, formerly known as Brighton Group (Nb)
The Sandringham Sandstone (Nb) is a newly redescribed unit, grouping together the following units: Hanson Plain
Sand, Moorabool Viaduct Sands, Baxter Sandstone, Marina Cove Sand, Black Rock Sandstone, Red Bluff
Sandstone, Beaumaris Sandstone and the Brighton Group (VandenBerg, 2016).
Within the Port Phillip Bay region, exposures of Neogene sandstone are widely distributed and are often of
variable quality (VandenBerg, 2016). Therefore, these exposures have been studied in isolation from each other,
resulting in many outcrops being given their own rock unit name. VandenBerg (2016) conducted a re-examination
of the various type sections of these units and concluded that all name Neogene units in this region are shallow
marine in origin and contain sedimentary structures such as planar bedding and swaley cross-stratification. As
such, he interpreted that these units were deposited as a continuous sheet on an extensive strandplain, which has
been subsequently eroded into the scattered exposures that we see today. Because of these similarities,
VandenBerg (2016) proposes that these late-Neogene sediments be unified under the Sandringham Sandstone
name.
In the Lang Lang area, the Sandringham Sandstone is described as a paralic (interbedded marine and non-
marine) silt, sand and gravel deposit. The unit is variably calcareous and ferruginised, with sections of limestone
(GeoVic, 2014). Elsewhere, the Sandringham Sandstone also exists as sandy silt, fine sandstone, sandy
conglomerate to pebbly sandstone and clayey sand. The sandstone also contains carbonaceous bands (with plant
fossils), lag deposits, horizontal and swaley cross-lamination, and preserved burrows (VandenBerg, 2016).
The Sandringham Sandstone has been dated as Pliocene to Miocene in age, with a minimum age of 4.6 Ma
constrained by the overlying basalts of the Newer Volcanic Group and a maximum age of 5.8 (±0.2) Ma
determined by Sr/Sr isotope ratios within mollusc fossils (Hare et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 2005).
Due to its widespread distribution, the Sandringham Sandstone is overlain by multiple units. In the Lang Lang
Lowlands area, the Sandringham Sandstone is overlain by unconsolidated Quaternary sediments.
Unconsolidated Quaternary Deposits (Qa2, Qa1, Qg)
The youngest units found within the proposed quarry area are a series of Quaternary aged unconsolidated
sediments (GeoVic, 2014). There are two distinct phases of alluvial sedimentation (Qa2 and Qa1) and a series of
coastal lagoon deposits (Qg). Both phases of alluvial sedimentation are defined as generally unconsolidated,
variably sorted silt, sand and gravel, with Qa2 dissected to form terraces higher than Qa1 (GeoVic, 2014). The
coastal lagoon deposits can be found on the coast of Western Port Bay, to the southwest of the proposed quarry
site (GeoVic, 2014). Qg consists of variably consolidated, dark grey to black silt and clays.
In this region, these Quaternary sediments directly overlie the Sandringham Sandstone. A stratigraphy column is
presented in Figure 9.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 11
Figure 9 Typical sub-surface profile at the site

3.2.4 Major Structures

A search of the Neotectonic Features Database (Geoscience Australia, 2020) reveals a number of faults within a
10 km radius of the proposed quarry site (Figure 10) The Wellington Fault is the closest, at a distance of
approximately 1.8 km to the northwest. This is followed by the Heath Hill Fault, which can be found 2.1 km to the
southeast. Other major faults within 10 km of the quarry site are the Lang Lang Fault, the Bass Fault and the
Almurta Fault (Geoscience Australia, 2020). The major structure traces are presented in Figure 10.
Wellington Fault
The Wellington Fault is the closest mapped structure to the proposed quarry site, with the closest point
approximately 1.8 km away. However, the lack of research on the Wellington Fault results in many questions
regarding the nature and characteristics of the Wellington Fault. The 1:250 000 Warragul geological map
(VandenBerg, 1997) maps the Wellington Fault as a 15 km long, a E to NE trending structure splaying off the
Heath Hill Fault near Lang Lang East, extending offshore into Western Port Bay. The Wellington Fault is not listed
as a neotectonic feature (Geoscience Australia, 2020), nor has any recorded earthquake greater than magnitude 3
been attributed to it.
Given the present-day stress field of southeast Australia (Rajabi et al., 2017), the predominately east trending
strike of the Wellington Fault appears unfavourable for ongoing crustal stress relief compared to the more
conducive, NE-SW trending Heath Hill Fault. Therefore, the Wellington Fault is unlikely to produce a large
earthquake under the current stress regime.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 12
Heath Hill Fault
The Heath Hill Fault is a known fault in the Lang Lang area. The Heath Hill Fault is a NE-SW trending reverse fault
represented as a topographical scarp, with the Cretaceous Wonthaggi Formation upthrown relative to the Western
Port Sunklands. Geoscience Australia (2020) measures the Heath Hill Fault at 50.3 km, with a location precision of
250 m resulting from small-scale mapping from the 90 m resolution SRTM DEM. It is probable that the Heath Hills
Fault has experienced “recent” activity, with the Neogene-aged Haunted Hills Formation displaced across the fault
trace, evidence of Pliocene or younger movement.
Lang Lang Fault
The complex Lang Lang Fault is a fault which acts as the northern/western boundary of the Lang Lang Lowlands.
The Lang Lang Fault is an approximately 20 km long fault splaying off the Heath Hill Fault just northeast of Heath
Hill. The easternmost extent of the Lang Lang Fault has an almost E-W strike, which transitions to NE-SW from
around Caldermeade (GeoVic, 2014).
Like the Wellington Fault, the Lang Lang Fault is not listed as a neotectonic feature (Geoscience Australia, 2020).
However, topographical analysis of the region show that the Lang Lang Lowlands have been elevated relative to
the Western Port Sunklands. Remnants of the Sandringham Sandstone have been preserved on the Lang Lang
Lowlands block, in contrast to the purely Quaternary nature of the deposits within the northern sunklands.
Therefore, it is likely that the Lang Lang Fault has experienced post-Neogene activity to some degree. However, a
combination of the lack of surface expression, the absence of recorded earthquake activity along the fault and the
less than optimal orientation of the fault trace suggest that future activity along this fault is unlikely, but not
impossible.
Bass Fault/Almurta Fault
The Bass Fault is a NE-SW trending reverse fault located to the east of the Heath Hill Fault. Geoscience Australia
(2020) lists the fault as 57.6 km in length, dipping to the southeast. The fault trace is mapped based on its
topographic expression, with an estimated vertical displacement across the fault of 45 m. This fault is suggested to
be neotectonically active based on displaced Neogene fluvial deposits across the fault scarp. One single
earthquake has been recorded in proximity to the Bass Fault, with a magnitude 3.1 recorded in 1987 (discussed
further in Section 3.2.5 ).
The Almurta Fault (located further east) is often considered as continuous with the Bass Fault, however
Geoscience Australia (2020) does not consider this to be the case. The 1:250 000 geological map for Warragul
(VandenBerg, 1997) also maps these two structures as separate faults.
Other than the fault trace, not much else is known about the Almurta Fault, which is not classified as a neotectonic
feature on the Neotectonic Features database (Geoscience Australia, 2020).

3.2.5 Neotectonics
In a search of Geoscience Australia’s Earthquakes@GA database (2021), only two earthquakes with a magnitude
greater than 3.0 have been recorded in the 10 km surrounding the proposed quarry site (Figure 10). The most
recent of those was a magnitude 3.3 which occurred on 20 December 1987, approximately 600 m from the
proposed quarry. Another earthquake was recorded on 18 September 1980, this time 8.5 km to the southeast of
the proposed site (magnitude 3.1).
Due to the age of these events, the records for these earthquakes are incomprehensive, recording only the time
and location, and not attributed to a specific fault. Based on location alone, it is likely that the 1980 event occurred
on the Bass Fault, while the 1987 event occurred in between the Wellington Fault and the Heath Hill Fault.
Based on the earthquake record, large earthquakes are uncommon in the area, with a magnitude 5.0 at the mouth
of Western Port Bay being the largest recorded in 1971. However, the area remains seismically active in the
Australian context, with smaller earthquakes recorded every few years, the majority recorded within the South
Gippsland Highlands. Given the present-day stress field of Australia (Rajabi et al., 2017) and the strike of the
mapped faults in the immediate area, the Heath Hill Fault and the Bass Fault are the most likely faults near the
proposed quarry location to experience a future fault rupture.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 13
Figure 10 Earthquake and Geological Map of the Lang Lang Area. Earthquake ≥ Magnitude 3.0 Shown

3.3 Hydrogeology
The groundwater table at the WA7541 proposed quarry site was interpreted using Visualising Victoria’s
Groundwater (VVG), a web based software that federates groundwater data from disparate sources. The depth to
water table is depicted in Figure 11. It is noted that this depth to groundwater is generally consistent with the
information recorded on the provided lithology logs.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 14
Figure 11 Depth to Groundwater at the WA7541 Site (VVG, 2021)

3.4 Material Strength Parameters

GHD (2022) has performed a number of geotechnical assessments, including site inspection and mapping
campaigns, throughout a number of quarries in the Lang Lang and Nyora areas. This has included visual
classification of site soils, performance measurements i.e., stable batter and slope angles, observations and
measurements of stockpiled materials (i.e., typically the angle of repose of material) and geological mapping of
structures (where relevant).
With the benefit of these verified empirical observations of stability conditions and site borehole logs, GHD has
enhanced its understanding of the geological and geotechnical conditions in the Lang Lang and Nyora extractives
areas and improved the level of geotechnical confidence for those sites. GHD has also been involved in
undertaking geotechnical reviews of operating conditions at the nearby sites (i.e., subsequent to commencement
of quarrying), with the intent of assessing slope stability conditions and utilising visual observations and
measurements to verify design assumptions. These can assist with updating design parameters, which are
typically documented in a site Ground Control Management Plan.
As has been undertaken for the nearby quarries, GHD has relied upon published geological information and its
growing understanding of this area of Victoria, to determine suitable material strength parameters for use in slope
stability modelling for this site. When considering a greenfield site which is to be formed in a locality of known
geological conditions, whereby the variability or the lack thereof is well understood, a suitable approach entails
making prudently conservative interpretations of material strengths to facilitate stability analyses and appropriate
sensitivity calculations.
As outlined above, three main stratigraphic units are present within the proposed quarry footprint, which are
categorised according to soil type. The material strength parameters, as assessed by GHD (2022), are based on
our experience with similar materials in this area of Victoria and our understanding of batter stability conditions at
nearby quarry sites. It is noted that the resource and interburden units comprise variable cohesive material content

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 15
and as such, a range in typical effective strengths has been outlined in Table 1, which is based on the batter
stability observations including measurements of stable batter profile, slope analyses and follow-up geotechnical
reviews performed for proximate sand quarries.
For the proposed 5575 South Gippsland Highway quarry, GHD is of the opinion that suitable and appropriate
geotechnical information is available to reasonably undertake slope stability modelling. Accordingly, GHD
considers that the material parameters (including Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters) in Table 1 are suitable for
use in slope stability calculations.

3.4.1 Material Strength Variability

As noted above and for conservatism, GHD has adopted the lower bound strengths for the analyses. Accordingly,
the results presented in this report are considered to be conservative. Table 1 outlines and Figure 12 and
Figure 13 depict the material strengths assessed for the site. Figure 13 also presents typical friction angles for
sand, sandy gravels and silty sand (after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).
As noted above and for conservatism, GHD has adopted the lower bound strengths for the analyses. Accordingly,
the results presented in the GHD (2022) geotechnical assessment report, which are also summarised in Section
3.10, are considered to be conservative.

Table 1 Summary of Mohr Coulomb Parameters

Unit Description Unit Weight Cohesion, c’ Friction Angle, ϕ’

(kN/m3) (kPa) (°)
1 Overburden 19.0 20 – 25 26 – 28
2 Sand (resource) 18.0 3–5 32 – 34
3 Interburden 18.0 5 – 10 25 – 30

Figure 12 Summary of Effective Strength Distribution (Cohesion)

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 16
Figure 13 Summary of Effective Strength Distribution (Friction Angle)

As depicted in Figure 15, GHD notes that the material strength parameters adopted for WA7541 are conservative
(lower bound) in comparison to the spectrum of typical friction angles (after Terzaghi and Peck, 1967).

3.5 Summary of Anticipated Failure Mechanisms

Table 2 Anticipated Instability Mechanisms Present

Anticipated Instability Mechanisms Present

Primary (Critical) Mechanism – Circular Failure
Instability controlled primarily by shear strength characteristics of the soil materials, the slope angle of the cut face and
phreatic conditions within the soil materials.

Secondary Mechanism – Erosion and Piping

Slumping and / or sloughing of any operating, terminal or remediated quarry batter faces and any (temporary) stockpiles,
where applicable. This mechanism can lead to the instability of overlying batters if not suitably managed.

3.5.1 Circular Instability (Primary Mechanism)

Circular failures occur in highly disturbed and / or weathered soil / rock materials that typically do not have
significant remnant structure. The likelihood for circular instability to manifest is dependent upon the shear strength
characteristic of the material and the slope angle of the cut face.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 17
Figure 14 Schematic of a circular failure

Circular failure is dependent upon the shear strength characteristics of the soil materials (e.g., sand resources),
the slope angle of the cut face and the phreatic conditions within the soil materials.
Circular failure occurring as a potential failure mechanism has been identified primarily for the overburden and
resource units at the site. This failure mechanism is not considered to pose any significant risk, providing adequate
surface water management measures are coupled with a suitable pit geometry.
The typical subsurface profile of the proposed development is shown below in Figure 16, which includes cohesive
soils (i.e., clays and silts) overly mostly sand resources, with discontinuous and relatively thin layers of interburden
(i.e., clays and silts).

3.5.2 Erosion and Piping (Secondary Mechanism)

Erosion of exposed batters has been identified as a secondary instability mechanism which can result as slumping
and / or sloughing of operating, terminal or rehabilitated quarry batter faces and any (temporary) stockpiled
materials. These potential instabilities can occur due to:
– The presence of highly disturbed material
– Weak planes encountered during excavation of sand resources
– Improper surface water and groundwater management
– Inappropriate construction geometry

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 18
Figure 15 Example of Erosion of Exposed Sand Batters at Nearby Quarry

Piping can occur as water infiltration or perched water may drain via weak zones in the in-situ materials causing
the soil to wash out and undercut overlying batters. This can potentially lead to batter instability if not suitably
managed. Based on the encountered materials, it is likely that the primary mechanism of failure is circular failure.
Circular failure can also result, particularly where the standing groundwater level interfaces with the exposed sand
batters above pond level. Undercutting of the base/foundation could potentially increase the likelihood of circular
failure of the overlying batter slope. This instability mechanism can be managed with suitable batter design
(including offset from base of slope) and surface water management. The secondary mechanism of potential
instability can occur from erosion of exposed batters, as the initiation of instabilities within exposed soil units are
usually governed by build of pore water pressures as a result of uncontrolled / excessive surface water ingress.
This can lead to a decrease in material strength and eventuate as slumping and / or sloughing of batters.

Figure 16 Subsurface Section Alignment A-A’.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 19
3.6 Geotechnical Considerations
3.6.1 Seismic Loading
The Melbourne area inclusive of the WA 7541 site is within a relatively intermediate to high risk seismic zone.
GHD has undertaken additional stability assessments on the critical slope profiles to determine the sensitivity of
the proposed pit to seismic events.
According to the ‘Atlas of Seismic Hazard Maps of Australia’ 2013, Melbourne and surrounding areas have among
the highest Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) compared to the rest of the nation. The Spectral Acceleration (SA)
hazard value at 500 and 2500 year return periods (ARI) are PGA 0.0627 g (refer to Figure 17) and PGA 0.1704 g
respectively. Stability assessments have been done in accordance with the CSIRO (2009) guidelines for a 1 in 500
ARI.

Figure 17 Seismic Hazard Map of Victoria for 1/500 year Return Period

3.7 Data Uncertainty

In the context of quarry operations, data uncertainty arises from the challenges encountered when attempting to
quantify the variability in properties and characteristics of the insitu materials (rock / soil) that forms the quarry
batters. The uncertainty associated with the materials that form the WA 7541 site can be broadly categorised
under three categories, which are: geological uncertainty, material strength parameter uncertainty and model
(geometry) uncertainty. By taking a conservative approach for each of the categories listed above e.g. adoption of
lower bound strengths, the implications associated with data uncertainty i.e. misrepresentation of stability
performance, may be mitigated.
To improve the level of geotechnical understanding of the site once quarrying has commenced, geotechnical
inspections of excavated batters may be undertaken to assess stability performance and subsequently verify/refine
the material characteristics.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 20
3.8 Design Acceptance Criteria
The nomination of suitable acceptance criteria is a key part of the design and development of stability
management protocols. It provides a basis to evaluate the calculated stability performance (e.g. deterministic
Factor of Safety (FoS) of batters against the nominated criteria, with due consideration of the likely scale of the
potential instability and the associated consequences posed by it. Design acceptance criteria for the proposed site
have been nominated in line with accepted industry practice as outlined by DJPR (2020) Geotechnical guideline
for terminal and rehabilitated slopes for the extractives industry projects, and published precedents as outlined in
CSIRO’s ‘Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design’, (Stacey and Read, 2009).
Based on above outlined aspects, and in light of the anticipated risk of instability within the confines of the site, the
following design acceptance criteria has been nominated:
– A Factor of Safety of 2.0 is proposed for all Rehabilitated batters
– A Factor of Safety of 1.6 is proposed for Terminal batters
– A Factor of Safety of 1.3 is proposed for Operating batters
– A Factor of Safety of 1.1 for seismic conditions

Table 3 FoS Guidelines after ERR (2020)

Consequence of failure Examples Mean FoS

Not Serious Individual benches; small slopes 1.3
(< 50 m), temporary slopes, not
adjacent to haulage roads
Moderately Serious Any slope of a permanent or 1.6
semi-permanent nature
Very Serious Medium sized (50 -100 m) and 2.0
high slopes (< 150 m) carrying
major haulage roads or
underlying permanent quarry
installations

3.9 Slope Design Geometry

Presented below in Figure 18 is a depiction of the proposed slope design geometry, which is outlined below.
– Total depth of extraction is expected to be approximately 30 m below current surface level
– Working and rehabilitated profiles of 1V:3H (approx. 18°) above groundwater and 1V:2H (approx. 26°) below
– A 10 m wide beaching bench will be established at the water level

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 21
Figure 18 Section A-A’ – Critical Pit Geometry

3.10 Stability Performance

The proposed design geometry was assessed as part of the geotechnical assessment undertaken by GHD (2022).
In summary the results of the stability analyses results indicate that:
– Based on the proposed method of extraction (crane dredge or dragline dredge) of sand resources below
groundwater, a minimum beaching bench width of 10 m is required
– A minimum standoff distance of 6 to 8 metres is required from the crest of the submerged batters to the
nearest plant crawler to achieve an operational FoS of 1.2 to 1.3.
– Increasing the offset distance also increases the FoS, however as this crane loading is only for a short term
(duration of a month) a FoS of 1.2 can be adopted.
– Critical section A-A’ requires an offset distance of 25.5 m to achieve the nominated DAC for terminal batters
(FoS > 1.6).
– To achieve the DAC for rehabilitated batters (FoS > 2.0), a minimum offset of 35.5 m will be required.
– The proposed realignment of the waterway to the north / northeast of the proposed WA boundary has a
minimum buffer of 40 m to the extraction boundary as stipulated by the water authority, which is greater than
the minimum 35.5 m offset distance calculated in the stability analyses. Accordingly, the proposed waterway
re-alignment is not likely to adversely impact batter stability.
– Alternative methods of extraction such as floating cutter suction dredging would eliminate the potential for
localised instabilities to occur. This excavation method will be investigated further.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 22
 Dredging Off-set Distance
1.32

1.30

1.28
Factor of Safety (FoS)

1.26

1.24

1.22

1.20

1.18

1.16
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Off-set distance (m)

Figure 19 Impact of plant off-set distance from crest on batter FoS

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 23
4. Geotechnical Management Process
4.1 General
Outlined within this section are the respective geotechnical and ground stability management protocols that will be
implemented at the WA7541 site to ensure that worker safety and risk to external receptors are not compromised.
The overall geotechnical risk management framework within sand quarries such as the ACM Lang Lang site
consists of the following considerations:
– Employment of suitable slope formation techniques
– Robust geotechnical monitoring protocols
– Appropriate response approaches to potential geotechnical hazards
Outlined below are the requirements for these considerations within the WA7541 Site.

4.2 Effective Slope Formation at WA7541

Owing to the nature of the soil units within the proposed development, mechanical dredging is undertaken using
truck and shovel method for resources above groundwater level. Extraction below groundwater will be undertaken
using dredge or dragline.
Whilst the dredge or dragline provides a driving force, excavations below the waterline are supported by quarry
lake forces which provide ‘counterweight’ to the submerged batters. Any instabilities which occur below the
waterline may manifest as a surficial shear / slump at the beaching point. This will be managed to ensure that the
beaching point or submerged batters do not inadvertently undercut the ‘dry’ slopes above. Outlined in this section
are the nominated considerations / approaches to mitigate this occurrence.
Where ‘soft’ ground conditions are encountered at the waterline interface a suitably qualified person will inspect
the area to ensure geotechnical stability related risks are minimised. Any plant (fixed or mobile) will be located at a
safe standoff distance from the crest of the interface. A field bearing capacity assessment, using dynamic cone
penetrometers will be undertaken within these locations, prior to undertaking any underwater excavation.
Measures will be undertaken to operate and maintain suitably robust ground conditions at the water line interface,
so as to ensure that the material beneath dry slopes are not undermined. A bearing capacity assessment will be
undertaken based on the loading of the excavator proposed for extraction. Accordingly, any proposed extraction
stockpiles, pads or fixed / mobile equipment will be designed to meet these requirements. Exceeding these
requirements may lead to circular failure of the underlying Sand and subsequent affect the stability of the dry
batters above.
Dredging will be undertaken at a safe distance from the toe of the waterline interface on which any plant or
infrastructure maybe located on to ensure that this zone is not compromised from excavation of the resource.
Additionally, any stockpiling of the excavated / washed material will be undertaken at a safe standoff distance from
the crest of the underwater excavation to ensure it is not adversely affected by the stockpile or from leached water.
Ongoing management and assessments will be undertaken to determine the safe offset required for stockpiling
operations.
This GCMP identifies the potential hazards associated with the dredging process and outlines suitable protocols to
be employed to ensure potential geotechnical issues are adequately managed.

4.3 Slope Monitoring requirements

4.3.1 Overview
Monitoring is focused on identifying changes or potential hazards that can be material in governing stability.
Ground control monitoring is risk based with the highest priority domains receiving the most attention. The relative
monitoring effort has been determined through:

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 24
– Risk assessments contained within this document
– Stability assessments – including the development of trigger levels
– Actual field conditions and stability performance history (noting the rehabilitated areas will allow more stable
conditions to be achieved, reduced ground movement and optimisation of monitoring requirements in the form
of monitoring network intensities and frequencies)
The proposed monitoring system for the WA7541 site will involve the systematic recording of regular visual
inspections supplemented with periodic collection of data obtained from a network of survey monitoring points
distributed at a relatively wide spacing around the planned pit crest. Refer to Table 4 for timeframes and roles and
responsibilities.
If movement is indicated, a more extensive and possibly more sophisticated program can be implemented building
upon the initially proposed system.

4.3.2 Visual Inspections

A fundamental element of the WA7541 site slope monitoring program is the visual inspections undertaken by the
site production supervisor combined with observations by all personnel working in the quarry. These visual
inspections would also encompass the sites material stockpiles (including any temporary stockpiles).
Despite being a qualitative approach, visual monitoring is an extremely important aspect of the program and
should be maintained throughout the life of the quarry. Any relevant observations should be recorded in the daily
production logs.

4.3.3 Crack Monitoring

If evidence of movement is detected from visual inspection, the first step in augmenting the monitoring program
might be simple crack monitoring systems. Results of visual inspection and crack monitoring are a useful guide
when selecting additional secondary monitoring points for detailed survey assessments. Crack monitoring at the
WA7541 site is expected to consist of:
– Regular detailed mapping of location, depth, width of cracks, rate of extension and opening
– Installation of targets on opposite sides of cracks to monitor rate of opening
– Installation of surface (wireline) extensometers (if deemed necessary)
– Installation of picket lines or lines of targets that can be monitored using theodolites or precise levels to detect
changes in alignment, location or elevation along a given crack or the crest of the slope

4.3.4 Survey Monitoring

The most reliable and complete measurements of the 3D movements associated with initial movement could be
obtained from conventional survey (prism / pin monitoring) techniques using theodolites. This form of monitoring is
considered important for areas that are terminal and rehabilitated.
Accordingly, as batters approach their terminal extents, it is recommended that monitoring pins are installed in
proximity to these areas to ensure that stability is maintained and that these areas can be effectively transitioned
into the proposed rehabilitated landform.
The survey monitoring system can be installed by site survey personnel, generally with equipment in regular use at
the quarry. Geodetic surveys should start by installing a survey network of stable instrument stations and primary
monitoring points around the quarry perimeter. This network should be tied to at least three stable reference
stations well behind the pit crest.
The nominated monitoring points should be surveyed at regular intervals varying from weekly to quarterly
depending on the observed conditions and movement trends. The following survey system consideration should
be borne in mind:
Control points for the system should consist of the instrument stations near the crest of a pit slope and reference
stations located at least 100 m away from quarrying activities. Control points are usually established by conducting
a first-order survey, using conventional survey techniques such as triangulation.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 25
The stability of instrument stations can be checked by resurveying the control network or reference stations each
time the instrument station is used. Care must be taken to ensure sufficient observations are made to all reference
stations on a regular basis.
Data from the survey monitoring should be plotted and assessed after each set of reading. If movement is
detected, monitoring frequency of secondary points will depend on the size of the potential block dimension and
movement rates. These protocols are further reflected in the stability management TARP (Trigger Action
Response Plan) outlined in Section 4.5.
If instability is detected, additional secondary monitoring points may be established in the area to determine the
size, failure geometry and movement rates, and to assist in the planning of remedial measures.

4.4 General Drainage Considerations

Surface drainage and water course diversions should be properly engineered to avoid uncontrolled surface water
flows into the quarry. The management protocols in the site specific Surface Water and Groundwater Management
Plan should be implemented to ensure that effective management of any potential surface flows across the quarry
site.

4.5 Temporary Stockpiles

No permanent stockpiles are planned for this site, however any temporary stockpiles (including any temporary
stacked consolidated slimes) will be managed in line with the ACT EPA guidelines for stockpile management (ACT
EPA, 2019).

4.6 Trigger Action Response Plan

4.6.1 General
Table 4 provides a hierarchical outline of the slope monitoring procedures that are to be implemented at the
WA7541 site. The Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) associated with the monitoring plan is depicted in Table
5.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 26
Table 4 Summary of Pit Wall Stability Monitoring Procedures

Procedure Areas Frequency Activities Personnel Reporting and actions

Daily inspections All current active mining Daily Visual checks for cracking, Production Wall inspection book / daily production
areas, high-risk areas dilation and scaling Supervisor reports, discussed at daily meeting, and
requirements quarry manager (if necessary). Batter and
berm inspection forms to be filled and
signed off at daily production meeting as
required.
Periodic visual Pit perimeter and all Weekly to fortnightly and Visual checks for tension Production Berm inspection form, slopes and berms
inspections of pit accessible berms after heavy rainfall cracking, other signs of slope Supervisor overlay to pit plan, cracks to be painted
perimeter and berms movement and rockfalls and surveyed, advise quarry manager,
issue hazard alert as appropriate at
production meetings. Refer to Appendix A
for inspection form example.
Tension crack monitoring Cracked areas on pit Weekly and as soon as Measurements of crack widths Quarry Manager Spreadsheets. Geotechnical consultant to
perimeter and berms practicable after heavy and visual checks of other be notified if accelerations noted. Hazard
rainfall. Frequency to be signs of slope movement and alert to be issued to quarry personnel as
adjusted depending on rockfalls appropriate.
rates of opening
Survey (pin / prism) Cracked areas around Frequency to be adjusted Survey of changes in prism Quarry Surveyor Geotechnical consultant to be notified if
monitoring perimeter and on depending on rates of northings, eastings and accelerations in movement are noted.
berms, and other movement elevations Hazard alert to be issued to quarry
designed pit areas personnel as appropriate.
Slope Performance Audit All portions of walls Upon initial excavation to Stability conditions audit Geotechnical Geotechnical consultants audit report.
5 m depth and 5-yearly Consultant
thereafter, unless the
Quarry Manager is
required to engage a
geotechnical consultant for
any geotechnical concerns
Slope failure records Any portion of walls As required Complete hazard alert and Quarry Manager Management and senior quarry
(hazard alert and where a rockfall has incident report for the rockfall operations personnel and regulatory
incident reports) occurred in ta working or failure event agencies.
area

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 27
Table 5 TARP for Slope Condition

Alert Green Yellow Orange Red

Potential for actual Potential or actual fretting/erosion Potential or actual fretting/erosion of batter Potential or actual fretting/erosion of batter
fretting, erosion, of batter face involving ≥ 25 m3 face involving ≥ 25 m³ volume (and < 100 face involving ≥ 100 m³ volume.
minor cracks, volume (and < 100 m³); ground m³).
seepage or ground movement / displacement with Ground movement / displacement with
displacement. (< 25 cracks dilated >5 mm and over Ground movement / displacement with Cracks dilated > 50 mm and over 10 m
Condition of m3 in volume). 10 m length. cracks dilated >20 mm and over 10 m length.
quarry slopes length.
Cracks dilated ≤ 20 mm and up to Uncontrolled water flow.
20 m length. Cracks dilated ≤ 40 mm and up to 20 m
length.
Pooled water ≤ 25 m2 area.
Pooled water > 25 m2 area.

Person
Responses
Responsible

Contact geotechnical consultant and notify Contact Emergency Response Committee,

N/A N/A personnel of orange alarm level. geotechnical consultant and notify
Quarry personnel of red alarm level.
Manager
Monitor situation as required. Prepare to evacuate pit. Monitor situation as Evacuate pit, agree on recovery plan, notify
required. corporate, quarry inspectors, emergency
services and monitor situation as required.

Monitor production Monitor production activities. Liaise with shift supervisor, assess situation Inspect area from outside the failure zone
activities. Communicate with quarry and inspect as required. Communicate with and report to quarry manager. Implement
geotechnical engineer. geotechnical consultant. Notify stakeholders recovery plan once formulated (risk
as required. assessment required).

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 28
 Alert Green Yellow Orange Red

Shift / Report with daily Monitor slope conditions Communicate with workforce that an orange Communicate with workforce that a red
Production production plan throughout shift. Report any level has been reached. Closely monitor level has been reached and withdraw
noticeable change in conditions to slope conditions throughout shift. Report personnel and equipment to a safe
Supervisor Routine mapping and the quarry geotechnical engineer. any noticeable change in conditions to the location. Secure to prevent entry. Inspect
monitoring. Report any change of conditions quarry manager. Report any change of area from outside the failure zone and
or change in TARP level to the conditions or change in TARP level to the report to superintendent and quarry
next shift. next shift. Engage with a geotechnical manager immediately. Implement recovery
consultant, as required. plan once formulated (risk assessment
required).

Assess area. Determine Evaluate the monitoring data and provide Inspect, investigate and formulate recovery
frequency of inspections, recommendation for TARP level advance. plan (formal risk assessment required).
monitoring and remedial work. Assess area. Determine frequency of Report findings to quarry management.
Notify management of any inspections, increased monitoring and
change. Communicate with quarry remedial work. Notify management of any
workers the location, nature and change.
expected conditions associated
with the failure.

Quarry worker Report with daily Become familiar with location and Elevate level of awareness and monitor pit Comply with emergency evacuation
production plan potential change in pit slope slope conditions during shift and provide procedures and withdraw to a safe location.
condition during shift. Report any feedback on pit slope conditions.
significant change in conditions to
shift supervisor. Report with daily
production plan.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 29
5. Geotechnical Risk Assessment
5.1 General
The geotechnical risk assessment is a quantitative assessment based on the ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ of a
major geotechnical hazard occurring.
The qualitative risk assessment process has been utilised, as outlined in the risk assessment matrix presented in
Table 7 which aligns with the Australian Standard for Risk Management AS/NZ Standard 4360 (Standards
Australia 2004). Table 35 outlines the risk rating acceptability.

5.2 Geotechnical Hazards Identification

Table 6 detailed the findings of this geotechnical assessment and identified geotechnical hazards relating to the
proposed quarry design at the WA7541 site:

Table 6 Geotechnical Hazards at the WA7541 Site

Mechanism Description
Hazard 1 Potential for small scale circular instability, as a result of
Slumping/erosion of sand batters, slumping of internal slumping and / or sloughing of the any operating, terminal or
stockpiles (including any stacked consolidated slimes remediated sand batter faces and any (temporary)
stockpiles) stockpiles, where applicable.
Potential causes for slumping include, but are not limited to:
– Highly disturbed materials and/or weak planes
encountered during excavation of sand resources.
– Improper surface and groundwater management during
underwater extraction around the batter faces or
periphery of stockpiles
– Inappropriate construction geometry.
Could occur due to groundwater drawdown in the region
surrounding the quarry. Suitable construction of the lower
slopes would be required if groundwater levels drop below
current levels (i.e., 5 m bgsl).
Hazard 2 Larger scale slope volume movements that are governed by
Deep seated circular instability the soil shear strength characteristics.
– Slope instability occurs when the driving forces are
greater than the resisting forces.
– Movement of this hazard occurs in a circular/rotational
manner and is dependent upon the slope geometry,
material strength and groundwater conditions.
– Consequences of this type of hazard can include partial
or full loss of pit crests and impacting working benches /
crane pads.
– Could occur due to groundwater drawdown in the region
surrounding the quarry. Suitable construction of the
lower slopes would be required if groundwater levels
drop below current levels (i.e., 5 m bgsl).
In extreme cases the failure zone may migrate some
distance from the pit crest which may exceed the work
authority boundary.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 30
 Mechanism Description
Hazard 3 Represented by small to large volumes of inflow into the
Erosion or piping between nearby quarries. excavation.
– The failure mechanism (i.e., erosion or piping) could
manifest from water flow in the sand between nearby
quarries.
The consequence of this may range from a minor to full loss
of the overlying pit crest but is dependent on volume of flow
between the two pits.
Hazard 4a Potential for small scale circular instability to occur above
Slumping of sand batters above beaching zone. the water line (or beaching point).
– This mechanism may be exacerbated due to
undercutting of the submerged slopes, highly disturbed
(very loose) materials, weak planes encountered during
excavation of sand resources.
This mechanism may also result due to improper surface
and groundwater management during underwater extraction
or inappropriate construction geometry.
Hazard 4b Potential for medium to large scale circular instability to
Slumping of sand batters below beaching zone. occur due to slumping of batter below the water line, leading
to propagation of a failure above the water line.
– This mechanism may be exacerbated due to
undercutting of the submerged slopes, highly disturbed
(very loose) materials, weak planes encountered during
excavation of sand resources.
This mechanism may also result due to improper surface
and groundwater management during underwater extraction
or inappropriate construction geometry.

5.3 Risk Management Framework

Risk assessment is the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. These three stages
of the risk assessment process are outlined in further detail in the context of the geotechnical risks associated
within the WA7541 site.
Risk analysis involves consideration of the source of risks, their consequences and the likelihood of those
consequences occurring. Risks are usually analysed by combining their likelihoods and consequences. The risk
evaluation process involves comparing the level of risk derived from the risk analysis with the risk criteria
established when the context for the risk management process was considered. The purpose of the risk evaluation
is to use the outcomes of risk analysis to decide which risks require treatment, and the treatment priorities.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 31
6. Geotechnical Hazard Management
6.1 Hazard Assessment Process
An ongoing hazard assessment process is applied at the WA7541 Quarry, resulting in risk-based decision-making
at all stages of quarry planning, design, development / construction / operations, and progressive rehabilitation /
closure. The previous section summarised the anticipated instability mechanisms that pose potential threats to
stable ground conditions in the proposed sand quarry. These hazards have been further evaluated as part of the
geotechnical risk assessment process, using the risk rating matrix outlined in Appendix A3 of the ‘Preparation of
Work Plans and Work Plan Variations – Guideline for Extractive Industry Projects’, dated December 2020,
prepared by DJPR.

6.2 Geotechnical Hazard Awareness

Regular communication and training are required to be provided to all quarry personnel with regards to
geotechnical hazards and the controls which are instated to manage the identified hazards. Site maps can be
utilised to identify and highlight geotechnical hazards within the quarry and the respective control measures.

6.3 Geotechnical Hazard Detection

A hazard may be defined as that which has the potential to cause harm or damage. The detection or realisation of
geotechnical hazards before they result as ground instabilities is important. This process involves identifying
potential geotechnical hazards before it becomes an event. Monitoring and data collection from installed slope
monitoring instruments, can assist in identifying potential hazards.

6.4 Risk Matrix

Risk assessment is the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. These three stages
of the risk assessment process are outlined in further detail in the context of the geotechnical risks associated
within the proposed WA7541 Quarry as outlined below. Risk analysis involves consideration of the source of risks,
their consequences and the likelihood of those consequences occurring. Risks are usually analysed by combining
their likelihoods and consequences. The risk evaluation process involves comparing the level of risk derived from
the risk analysis, with the risk criteria established, when the context for the risk management process is
considered. The purpose of the risk evaluation is to use the outcomes of risk analysis to decide which risks require
treatment, and the treatment priorities.
A semi quantitative risk assessment process has been utilised as outlined in the risk assessment matrix below as
suggested by Earth Resources Regulation (ERR).

Figure 20 ERR Likelihood Descriptions (DJPR, 2020)

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 32
Figure 21 ERR Risk Matrix (DJPR, 2020)

Figure 22 Risk Rating Acceptability (DJPR, 2020)

Figure 21 must be applied to each identified hazard, by selecting a consequence and likelihood according to the
guidelines. The risk matrix is designed to work in conjunction with the site geotechnical log. The log is designed to
identify the risk, classify the risk and describe the actions required to minimise the risk.

6.5 Hazard Prevention

Hazard prevention is the most desired outcome of hazard management. Through the implementation of a
systematic approach and operational controls as outlined in Section 4 including geotechnical assessment and
verification (i.e. Site Monitoring Plan and Data Collection with analysis of data), potential hazards can be identified
and measures instated for prevention. These preventative measures are dependent upon the likelihood and
consequence of the hazard (e.g. slope failure).

6.6 Geotechnical Hazard Mitigation

Hazard mitigation is the process involving reducing the consequences of a potential ground failure. If the hazard
cannot be eliminated, operational and engineering controls must be instated to mitigate or minimise the potential
consequences of the hazard.
The following hierarchy of control (Figure 23) can be applied to the mitigation of hazards:

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 33
Figure 23 Hierarchy of Controls

– Elimination - The hazard can be quarried out or removed from the site.
– Substitution – Modifications to the quarry design and operational procedures.
– Isolation – Delineating the area of concern to restrict access (e.g. bunding, windrows, fencing etc.).
– Engineering Controls – Revised slope design to improve stability (e.g. buttressing and safety berms etc.) or
improving knowledge of slope responses using additional monitoring equipment.
– Administrative – Communication of geotechnical hazards, geotechnical reporting and safety documentation
(e.g. safe work method statements (SWMS).

6.7 Risk Register – Site Geotechnical Log

A Geotechnical Risk Register must be kept on site at all times. The register is incorporated into the Site
Geotechnical Log for simplicity and efficiency. The Site Geotechnical Log will be built up over time and have the
process for which to close out any required actions, and outline the implemented actions taken to reduce the risk
classification (i.e. residual risk). An example of site checklist for assessing geotechnical risks in quarries is
provided in Appendix A after the CMPA ‘Working Safely with Geotechnical Risks in Quarries’, dated February
2016.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 34
Table 7 WA7541 Quarry Pit Risk Rating

Element at Quarry Hazard type Likelihood Consequence Risk Corrective / Likelihood Consequence Residual Comments
risk Boundary Category1 Rating Management Category1 Risk Rating
Action(s)
Internal All batters Hazard Type 1 – Possible Moderate Medium GPS monitoring Unlikely Moderate Medium – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian i.e., on-site personnel
Batters - Small scale (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
Personnel slumping/erosion of Regular inspections
safety and sand batters for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
Quarry Mobile instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Plant Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Surface water submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
managed in previously submerged batters.
accordance with site
– Suitable stand-off distances for haul trucks and vehicles will be maintained from the crest
instituted
of the underside batter and from the toe of excavated batters.
management plan.
– Bunding will be constructed to reduce the risk of vehicle roll-overs.
Hazard Type 2 – Rare Major Medium GPS monitoring Rare Moderate Medium – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Surface water submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
managed in previously submerged batters.
accordance with site
– Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
instituted
any).
management plan.
Hazard Type 3 – Rare Moderate Medium GPS monitoring Rare Minor Low – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
Erosion or piping (movement); – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
between nearby Regular inspections into slope material.
quarries. for signs of
instability; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Monitoring of submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
groundwater and previously submerged batters.
pond levels;
Geotechnical
excavation control;
Surface water
managed in
accordance with site
instituted
management plan
Hazard Type 4a– Possible Minor Medium Daily inspections; Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel
Slumping of sand Suitable as- – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
batters above constructed
beaching zone. geometry; Erosion – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
control measures; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Hazard Type 4b– stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
Slumping of sand Dedicated site
batters water level surface water – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained.
leading to instability management plans – Where ‘soft’ ground conditions are encountered at the waterline interface, a geotechnical
of above water level will be implemented; engineer should inspect the area to ensure stability related risks are minimised.
GPS monitoring and
batters. – Any plant (fixed or mobile) should be located at a safe standoff distance from the crest of
/ or prisms and pins
the interface. A field bearing capacity assessment, using Dynamic Cone Penetrometers,
should be installed.
should be undertaken within these locations, prior to undertaking any underwater extraction
(min. blow count 6 per 100 mm of penetration).

1
Determined on the basis of the critical credible or reasonable outcome, which takes into consideration the temporal exposure of at-risk elements.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 35
Element at Quarry Hazard type Likelihood Consequence Risk Corrective / Likelihood Consequence Residual Comments
risk Boundary Category1 Rating Management Category1 Risk Rating
Action(s)
Quarry Internal Hazard Type 1 – Possible Moderate Medium GPS monitoring Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
infrastructure Small scale (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
slumping/erosion of Regular inspections
sand batters for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Surface water submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
managed in previously submerged batters.
accordance with site
– Suitable stand-off distances for haul trucks and vehicles will be maintained from the crest
instituted
of the underside batter and from the toe of excavated batters.
management plan.
– Bunding will be constructed to reduce the risk of vehicle roll-overs.
Hazard Type 2 – Possible Minor Medium GPS monitoring Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Surface water submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
managed in previously submerged batters.
accordance with site
– Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
instituted
any).
management plan.
Hazard Type 4a – Possible Moderate Moderate Daily inspections; Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel
Slumping of sand Suitable as- – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
batters above constructed
beaching zone. geometry; Erosion – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
control measures; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Hazard Type 4b– stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
Slumping of sand Dedicated site
batters water level surface water – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained.
leading to instability management plans – Where ‘soft’ ground conditions are encountered at the waterline interface, a geotechnical
of above water level will be implemented; engineer should inspect the area to ensure stability related risks are minimised.
GPS monitoring and
batters. – Any plant (fixed or mobile) should be located at a safe standoff distance from the crest of
/ or prisms and pins
the interface. A field bearing capacity assessment, using Dynamic Cone Penetrometers,
should be installed.
should be undertaken within these locations, prior to undertaking any underwater extraction
(min blow count 6 per 100 mm of penetration).
Stockpiles Internal Hazard Type 4a: Unlikely Minor Low Stockpiles designed Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian i.e., on-site personnel
Slumping of in accordance with – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken
stockpiles DPI (2010); Surface
water managed in – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of stockpiles, i.e.,
accordance with site undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
instituted surface stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
water management – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained.
plan; Avoid – Ensure that foundation area of stockpiles is suitable prior to placement.
saturation of the
– Suitable stand-off distances for haul trucks and vehicles will be maintained from the toe of
stockpiled material.
any stockpiled material.
South West and Hazard Type 2 – Rare Moderate Medium GPS monitoring Rare Moderate Medium – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
Gippsland South Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
Highway instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control;

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 36
Element at Quarry Hazard type Likelihood Consequence Risk Corrective / Likelihood Consequence Residual Comments
risk Boundary Category1 Rating Management Category1 Risk Rating
Action(s)
Surface water – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
managed in submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
accordance with site previously submerged batters.
instituted – Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
management plan. any).
Noise/ West and Hazard Type 2 – Unlikely Moderate Medium Regular inspections Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
screening South Deep seated circular for signs of – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
bund instability instability;
Monitoring of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
groundwater; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Geotechnical stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
excavation control; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Surface water into slope material.
managed in – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
accordance with site submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
instituted previously submerged batters.
management plan.
– Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
any).
Beach Energy East / North Hazard Type 2 – Rare Major Medium GPS monitoring Rare Moderate Medium – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
(Bass Gas) Eastern Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
Plant instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
instability; into slope material.
Monitoring of – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
groundwater; submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
Geotechnical previously submerged batters.
excavation control; – Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
Surface water any).
managed in
accordance with site
instituted
management plan.
Residential West, East Hazard Type 2 – Rare Moderate Medium GPS monitoring Unlikely Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
Property and South Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
instability; into slope material.
Monitoring of – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
groundwater; submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
Geotechnical previously submerged batters.
excavation control; – Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
Surface water any).
managed in
accordance with site
instituted
management plan.
Realigned North and Hazard Type 2 – Rare Major Medium GPS monitoring Rare Moderate Medium – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
waterway North East Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
(MW asset instability Regular inspections
RD2504) for signs of – Avoid quarry activities that would knowingly decrease the stability of batters and stockpiles,
instability; i.e., undercutting. These stockpiles (including any temporary stacked consolidated slimes
Monitoring of stockpiles) will be maintained in accordance with the ACT EPA (2019) guidelines.
groundwater; – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
Geotechnical into slope material.
excavation control; – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
Surface water submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
managed in previously submerged batters.
accordance with site
– Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
instituted
any).
management plan.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 37
Element at Quarry Hazard type Likelihood Consequence Risk Corrective / Likelihood Consequence Residual Comments
risk Boundary Category1 Rating Management Category1 Risk Rating
Action(s)
Access Road East Hazard Type 2 – Rare Major Medium GPS monitoring Rare Minor Low – Establish exclusion zone(s) for pedestrian, i.e., on-site personnel.
Deep seated circular (movement); – Regular visual observations/monitoring undertaken.
instability Regular inspections
for signs of – Ensure surface water drainage systems are adequately maintained to reduce water ingress
instability; into slope material.
Monitoring of – Pond water levels should be maintained to minimise the potential for instability of
groundwater; submerged batters, as lowering of the pond may result in instabilities occurring in
Geotechnical previously submerged batters.
excavation control; – Groundwater monitoring data will be collected regularly to identify any adverse trends (if
Surface water any).
managed in
accordance with site
instituted
management plan.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 38
6.8 Risk Assessment Results
The geotechnical risk assessment for WA7541 site is summarised in Table 7.
Based on the risk assessment presented below, the residual risk to external receptors has been assessed to be
“Low”.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 39
7. Quarry Closure and Rehabilitation
7.1 Rehabilitation Strategy
The following progressive rehabilitation strategies are recommended for the WA7541 Quarry site:
– Store all topsoil for use on site that can later be used to cover and revegetate disturbed land, and thereby
reducing surface erosion and improving slope stability. Where possible topsoil will be used in the creation of
‘self-sustaining’ landforms that are vegetated with indigenous flora sourced from the local area, be of local
provenance, and be appropriate to the site’s Ecological Vegetation class.
– Store overburden in stockpiles for future use e.g. select back fill material. These stockpiles will be constructed
and maintained in line with the EPA publication ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’, to
ensure the likelihood of erosion related instabilities (slumping / sloughing etc.) are mitigated.
As far as practicable, progressive rehabilitation should be incorporated into daily operations to achieve the best
outcome.
– The following long-term rehabilitation strategies are recommended for the WA7541 Quarry site:
– Undertake final landform slope stability and erosion assessments to understand the nature of the final
rehabilitation concept.
– Undertake ground movement and groundwater monitoring at regular intervals until revegetation has
established and rehabilitated batters are ‘self-sustaining’, safe and stable as defined in Section 1.2.
– Should there be any material changes to the stability conditions at the site, the stability assessment and the
long-term rehabilitation plan should be reviewed accordingly.

7.2 Erosion Management

An erodibility potential analysis was undertaken by GHD (ref) for the proposed rehabilitation plan. The outcomes
are summarised below.
– After 12 months, the estimated soil loss for topsoiled, pre-vegetated batters is ‘Very Low’ based on the
Erosion Hazard guidelines put forward by Morse and Rosewell (1996) and also satisfies the criteria set out by
Commonwealth of Australia (2016) (i.e., less than 4.5 t/ha/yr.).
• However, in accordance with section 89E of the Miner Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990,
quarry owners are required (requirement no. 42) to rehabilitate the site to a state which is suitable for the
planned final use, where vegetation is consistent with the final land use.
• The erosion assessment indicates that through the establishment of vegetation, the long-term erosion
rate for rehabilitated batters satisfies the Commonwealth of Australia (2016) guidelines (i.e., <4.5 t/ha/yr.)
after 12 months.
Erosion monitoring and management is an ongoing procedure and is to be undertaken in line with Table 8.
Maintenance will be undertaken to ensure that erosion rates are within the Commonwealth of Australia (2016)
guidelines.

Table 8 Proposed Erosion Monitoring Criteria

Item Rehabilitation / Closure Criteria Elements to be Monitored Frequency

Erosion Operationally Operationally Operationally
(All areas No erosion channels greater than 200 Erosion channels greater than 6 Monthly
of the site) mm deep and/or wide: remedial action 150 mm deep or wide recorded Additional inspections after
initiated immediately & photographed for follow up. significant rainfall events.
No more than 5 erosion channels Post Closure
greater than 150 mm deep and/or wide At Closure
within a 20 m wide area remedial Y1 - 2 Monthly
action initiated immediately Any visible erosion channels Y2 - 3 Monthly
recorded and photographed for
At Closure follow up. Y3 - 6 Monthly

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 40
Item Rehabilitation / Closure Criteria Elements to be Monitored Frequency
No erosion channels greater than 50 Y4 - 12 Monthly
mm deep and/or wide: remedial action Additional inspections after
initiated immediately significant rainfall events.
No more than 5 erosion channels
greater than 20 mm deep and/or wide
within a 20 m wide area remedial
action initiated immediately

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 41
8. Review and Audit
This GCMP is considered to be ‘live’ document, i.e. requires continual review and is to be updated as required. In
general, updates to this GCMP should include, at a minimum, the following:
Site geotechnical conditions and hazard management
– Review of ground control management.
– Review of data collection and monitoring.
– Stability and suitability (i.e. safe and stable) of quarry pit design
• The outcomes of the geotechnical inspections undertaken of the excavated batters can assist with
assessing stability performance and subsequently verify/refine the material characteristics adopted for
the site. This observational approach is considered suitable for the site and the outcomes of which can
be utilised to update this GCMP, as required.
– Implementation of the GCMP.
– Compliance with this GCMP.
– Effectiveness and validity of this GCMP.
– Responsibilities and accountabilities are being met.

8.1 Triggers For Geotechnical Review

In addition to regular reviews, the below triggers also require for a geotechnical review to be performed:
– Undertake a stability assessment review subsequent to the exposure of approximately 5 m depth of sand
resource within the initial excavations (i.e., initial stability assessment). The intent of this is to validate the
parameters (material strengths) and slope geometry analysed in this pre-development assessment.
• As part of this review, stability analyses of an additional stability section will be undertaken (i.e., an
additional section to those undertaken in the GHD (2022) report titled ‘5575 South Gippsland Highway,
Lang Lang – Geotechnical Assessment’ (GHD ref: 12527040-94528-26, dated 13 September 2022). If
required, the outcomes of this geotechnical assessment will be updated based on further geotechnical
understanding of the site conditions.
• In addition to the above, the outcomes of the ‘initial’ stability assessment will be utilised to validate the
pre-development geometry (presented in this assessment), material properties and stability of the slope
design. Specifically, if required, the material strengths (of the site soils), site observations (i.e., batter
stability performance) recorded during development of the initial 5 m depth, any geotechnical testing
information, groundwater and surface water considerations and slope geometry will be updated to reflect
observed site conditions and the requirements of geotechnical guidelines.
– Five-yearly reviews are to be performed by a suitably qualified and experienced person. Items which must be
addressed in each review may include the items listed above, in addition to any site specific considerations.
– Reviews will be undertaken by a geotechnical consultant in response to triggering events, as set out in the
TARP (Table 5), where the Quarry Manager is required to engage a geotechnical consultant.

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 42
9. References
ACT Environment Protection Authority (2019), Guideline for Stockpile Management, ACT Government, November
2019.
Australian Standards 1726 (2017) – ‘Geotechnical Site Investigations’.
Carillo-Rivera, J. J. (1975). Hydrogeology of Western Port, Geological Survey of Victoria Survey Report, 1.
Casagrande, A., 1948. Classification and identification of soils. Transactions, ASCE, vol. 113, pp901-930.
CMPA, 2016, ‘Working Safely with Geotechnical Risks in Quarries’, Guideline prepared by the Construction
Material Processors Association (CMPA), February, 2016, Issue 1.
DJPR, 2020, ‘Preparation of Works and Work Plan Variations – Guideline for Extractive Industry Projects’,
Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, December 2020.
DJPR, 2020, ‘Geotechnical Guidelines for Terminal and Rehabilitated Slopes: Extractives Industry Projects,
Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, September 2020.
DPI, 2010, ‘Code of Practice for Small Quarries’, Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Earth Resources
Regulation (ERR)
DELWP, 2019, Water Management Information System (WMIS), Department of Environment, Land, Water &
Planning, Online Access - http://data.water.vic.gov.au/. Last accessed: 15 October 2019.
Geoscience Australia (2021). Earthquakes@GA Database, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, accessed 15
February 2021.
Geoscience Australia (2020). Australian Neotectonics Database, Geoscience Australia, accessed 30 November
2020.
GeoVic (2014). Victorian Surface Geology (Seamless Geology 2007-2014) database. Retrieved from: http://er-
info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/anonymous.html on 19 August 2020.
GHD (2022). 5575 South Gippsland Highway Geotechnical Assessment, GHD Ref: 12527040-45542-13, dated 30
March 2022. (GHD, 2022)
Mark. L., Burbidge, D. R., Edwards, M., 2013. Atlas of Seismic Hazard Maps of Australia: Seismic Hazard Maps
and Hazard Spectra. Record 2013/41: Geoscience Australia: Canberra.
McAndrew, J. & Marsden, M. A. H. (1973). Regional guide to Victorian geology. [Melbourne] School of Geology,
University of Melbourne.
Read, J., Stacey, P., 2009. Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, first edition, CRC Press, published 18
November 2009.
Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand (2004) – AS/NZS 4360:2004 – ‘Risk Management’, Sydney,
NSW.
VandenBerg, A.H.M., 1997. Warragul SJ 55-10 Edition 2, 1:250 000 scale Geological Map Series, Geological
Survey of Victoria.
VandenBerg, A. H. M. (2016). Depositional Facies and Extent of the Late Neogene Sandringham Sandstone in
Southern Victoria, Australia, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 128, 7-24.
Wallace, M. W., Dickinson, J. A., Moore, D. H. & Sandiford, M. (2005). Late Neogene strandlines of southern
Victoria: a unique record of eustasy and tectonics in southeast Australia, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 52,
279-297.
Welch, S. I., Higgins, D. V. & Gallaway, G. A. (2011) eds. Surface Geology of Victoria 1:250 000, Geological
Survey of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries.

9.1 Relevant Acts

– Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic)

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 43
– Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) Cth
– Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) (Vic)
– Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic)
– Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Extractive Industries) Regulations 2019.
– Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic)
– Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (2017) (Vic)
– Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)
– State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF, Vic)
– Water Act 1989 (Vic)

9.2 Legislation and Guidance Documents

Commonwealth of Australia (2016), ‘Mine Rehabilitation, Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for
the Mining Industry, Commonwealth of Australia 2016
DJPR (2020), ‘Geotechnical Guidelines for Terminal and Rehabilitated Slopes’, Department of Jobs Precincts and
Regions, September 2020
Read, J., Stacey, P. (2009) ‘Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design’, first edition, CRC Press, published 18
November 2009

9.3 Relevant Site Documentation/Studies

GHD (2022). 5575 South Gippsland Highway Geotechnical Assessment, GHD Ref: 12527040-45542-13, dated 30
March 2022. (GHD, 2022)

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 44
Appendices

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 45
Appendix A
Quarry Inspection Sheet

GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 46
General Slope Stability Checklist
General Slope Stability Checklist

Date of Inspected
Inspection by

Area of Observation Action

Required

Benches, Berms and Haul roads Yes No

Benches and haul roads stable and without signs of failure (e.g.,
significant cracking, slumping)

Wide enough for vehicles and suitable rockfall protection and sufficient
toe/ bench catch capacity, debris build-up on benches, loss of bench
width (e.g., from erosion or underlying batter instability)

Adequate passing areas

Drainage in place and is adequate/effective

Access and haul roads in good condition, free draining and without signs
of movement (e.g., cracking, slumping)

Edge Protection Berms (or windrows) in place and in order, suitable

drainage installed

Unstable ground (e.g., cracking, loose, fractured, saturated)

Geological conditions (e.g., loose pockets of material, unfavourable

weathering, orientation and intersection of geological structures such as
faults, joints, bedding)
Adverse drainage conditions from access roads

Stockpiles, Surge Piles and Overburden Dumps

Installation of edge protection (windrows) to an adequate height where

dumping is performed at the top of the stockpile/tip or overburden dump

Cracking on the surface and crest of the stockpile, heave at the toe of
the stockpile or surface water pooling/ponding

Evidence of undercutting or undermining (i.e., oversteepening) of the

stockpile

Washouts (e.g., run-off related erosion) from rainfall

Condition/integrity of physical barriers around previous unstable areas

or barriers/fences preventing access (i.e. exclusion zones around
undercut stockpiles)
Where practical, draw point on surge piles identifiable

Suitable lighting provided for active areas

Installation of windrows (edge protection) to an adequate height where

dumping is performed.

Dams and Ponds

Cracking of earthen slope

Changes in quantity of seepage, if seepage exists or is anticipated

Significant erosion in proximity to spillway/overflow

Significant shrinkage surrounding any pipe work through slope or

significant loss of material surrounding any pipes

Pit Surrounds
Drainage away from pit, including storm water and surface water

Any water ponding or normal face water disappearing

Condition/integrity of physical barriers around previous unstable areas or

barriers/fences preventing access
Surface settlement or subsidence, significant cracking near pit crest

Signage

Exclusion Zones signposted for Unstable Faces or other unstable slopes

Entrance to Pit Requirements signposted, i.e. 10/20/30 Rule/Radio
Contact prior to entry
Warning signs posted at Sediment Ponds, Water Dams

Crests

Lowering of ground surface at or behind the crest of the overall

slope/bench

Water running over the crest of the overall slope/bench

Water entering cracks behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

New accumulations of water behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

Surcharging of ground behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

Tension cracks increasing in size and/or offsets, sliding of one face of the
crack
Edge Protection Berm (windrows) in place and in order
Faces

Bulging of the slope face

Erosion or mass movement of slope materials down the slope

Settlement of slope face

Displacement across joints/bedding planes

Open structural features inclined > 10 degrees out of the face

Open structural features inclined steeply > 70 degrees out of the face

Loose material or overhanging material on the face

Irregular slope gradient

Irregularities in plan of the slope face

Excessive water seepage, surface water disappearance

Drainage blankets blocked

Overhanging rock above working faces/roadways, not protected by rock

traps

Signs of active/recent failure of the face including bulging of the face

and/or sagging of the face
Slope deterioration or deformation (batter, bench, floor bulging or toe
heave)
Toe

Ground movements at or in front of the toe of the overall slope/bench

Water seeping from or in front of the toe of the overall slope/bench

New accumulation of water at the toe of the overall slope/bench

Excavations at or near toe of structure not as per design of quarry/tip

Falling Rock Protection Berm in place and in order

Bulging or undercut toe

Waterlogging at or near slope toe

Other observations
Crest, Face and Toe Stability Checklist
Crest, Face and Toe Stability Checklist

Date of Inspected
Inspection by

Area of Observation Action

Required

Crests Yes No

Lowering of ground surface at or behind the crest of the overall

slope/bench
Water running over the crest of the overall slope/bench

Water entering cracks behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

New accumulations of water behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

Surcharging of ground behind the crest of the overall slope/bench

Tension cracks increasing in size and/or offsets, sliding of one face of the
crack

Edge Protection Berm (windrows) in place and in order

Faces
Bulging of the slope face

Settlement of slope face

Displacement across joints/bedding planes

Open structural features inclined > 10 degrees out of the face

Open structural features inclined steeply > 70 degrees out of the face

Loose material or overhanging material on the face

Irregular slope gradient

Irregularities in plan of the slope face

Excessive water seepage, surface water disappearance

Drainage blankets blocked

Overhanging rock above working faces/roadways, not protected by rock
traps

Signs of active/recent failure of the face including bulging of the face

and/or sagging of the face
Slope deterioration or deformation (batter, bench, floor bulging or toe
heave)

Toe

Ground movements at or in front of the toe of the overall slope/bench

Water seeping from or in front of the toe of the overall slope/bench

New accumulation of water at the toe of the overall slope/bench

Excavations at or near toe of structure not as per design of quarry/tip

Falling Rock Protection Berm in place and in order

Bulging or undercut toe

Other observations
ghd.com The Power of Commitment
GHD | Lang Lang Sand Resources Pty Ltd | 12527040 | Ground Control Management Plan 47
This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document
must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted
by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.