Original source · versioned page text
RFI - Att 1 - Slope Stablility Assessement
18 March 2026 Ref.: 25029-002-Rev0
Trillium Apperceived Pty Ltd
[email protected]
RE: SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR EXISTING & PROPOSED DAM CONSTRUCTION
64 MAIN STREET, KIN KIN
Dear David,
1. Introduction
As requested, Tectonic has undertaken a slope stability assessment for existing and proposed dam
construction at 64 Main Street, Kin Kin. This report presents the results of our slope stability assessment,
together with geotechnical advice for the proposed works. In summary, subject to implementation of
the recommendations made herein, there should be an acceptably Low Risk of slope instability affecting
the existing and proposed dams in accordance with the Australian Geomechanics Society Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management, dated March 2007 (AGS 2007).
1.1 Details of Site and Development
The subject site is described as Lot 2 on SP226603, covering an area of about 10.47 ha, with frontage via
a ‘handle’ to Main Street to the north. An existing residence and ancillary buildings were centrally
located, with developed residential blocks to the north and rural properties otherwise surrounding. A
detailed site description is given in Section 2 below.
Subject site boundary
Text Figure 1: Aerial image of site, courtesy Noosa Council (NC) Interactive Mapping
Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd
A.B.N. 83 165 727 828
PO Box 899, Buderim, QLD 4556 E [email protected]
P (07) 5478 9016
W tectonicgeo.com.au 1 of 12
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 16 pages
Page 2
Civil design drawings prepared by Bax Engineering Pty Ltd (Bax, Ref. 564-001-100 to 202 [4 sheets],
Rev A, dated 9 January 2026, see extracts in Text Figures 2 & 3, below and overleaf) indicate the extent of
the existing and proposed dams. Construction of Dams 01 to 04 in the northern part of the site was
practically complete at the time of our site visit (see Section 2 below), whilst Dams 05 to 08 in the south
were yet to be constructed.
The provided civil design drawings and our site observations indicate that batters around the dams are
typically formed (or are to be formed) at 1V:3H to 1V:4H, with some isolated batters ranging to a
maximum 1V:2H. The dams are mostly created by excavation up to about 4 m deep below the existing
ground surface, with some controlled filling having been undertaken across the natural drainage line to
form the northern side of the northernmost Dam 01. Boulder size rock fill has been placed or is
proposed around the dam edges, up to a maximum 1 m height, with rock lined overflows from each dam
outlet.
Existing Dams 01 to 04
Proposed Dams 05 to 08
Text Figure 2: Site plan, courtesy Bax
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 2 of 12
Page 3
Text Figure 3: Earthworks sections, courtesy Bax
1.2 Method and Scope of Investigation
The aim of this assessment is to address Items 1 & 2 of an NC information request dated 16 February
2026, which states:
Provide a site-specific geotechnical assessment prepared by a registered professional engineer (RPEQ)
demonstrating compliance with the PO3, PO12(c) of the Earthworks Code and PO1 of the Landslide
Hazard Overlay Code. The assessment must certify that:
a) the stability of the site, including associated buildings and infrastructure, will be maintained and
operational for the life of the development;
b) the site is not subject to the risk of landslide activity originating from other land, including land
above the site; and
c) development of the site will not increase the risk of landslide activity on other land.
Alternatively, provide a statement by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) confirming that the proposed
works do not create a risk of landslide in the long term.
As part of our slope stability assessment, a desk-top study was carried out comprising a review of
published geological maps, NC overlays, a Level 1 certification report for the Dam 01 filling by Wagner
(Ref. J25/03, Rev 1, dated 14 November 2025), and the results of previous borehole drilling at the site by
Tectonic (Ref. 25029-001-Rev0, dated 5 March 2025). Tectonic previously drilled two boreholes in the
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 3 of 12
Page 4
eastern and southern parts of the site using a 4WD utility mounted solid flight auger rig, on similar
ground to the dam areas, to depths of 2 m below ground level (BGL).
A walk-over survey was conducted to make an appraisal of the general condition of the existing and
proposed dam areas regarding topography, drainage, vegetation, geology, erosion, condition of existing
structures and slope stability. The walk-over was carried out by an experienced geotechnical engineer
from Tectonic on 3 March 2026. Results of the desk-top study and walk-over survey are included in
Section 2 below.
1.3 Qualifications of Responsible Engineer
This report has been prepared by Ashley Davey, an RPEQ with more than 30 years’ experience in
geotechnical engineering, including numerous slope stability projects.
2. Description of Existing Conditions
2.1 Geology
A published geological map 1 indicates that the site is underlain by residual strata derived from the
Triassic age Kin Kin Beds. The formation typically comprises strongly cleaved and commonly kinked
mudstone with thin siltstone laminae; minor volcanilithic sandstone (denoted Rk in Text Figure 4).
Subject Site
Text Figure 4: Extract from Gympie Surface Geology map
No exposures of ‘bedrock’ were observed near the dams, however weathered mudstone was observed at
about 1 m deep below the ground surface in shallow access track cuttings on the ridge areas in the
southern parts of the site (Ref. Text Figure 5 overleaf). Residual clay soil derived from weathering of
mudstone was observed in exposures around the existing Dams 01 to 04 (Ref. Text Figure 6 overleaf).
1 State of Queensland, Dept. of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Gympie Surface Geology, Sheet 9544, 2018
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 4 of 12
Page 5
Text Figure 5: Residual clay and weathered mudstone exposed in track cutting to south
Text Figure 6: Residual clays exposed in earthworks around northern dams
The previous Tectonic boreholes encountered stiff, residual, silty clay of medium plasticity, grading to
hard clay from about 1 m BGL.
The Wagner Level 1 report indicated that the fill used to construct the northern side of Dam 01,
estimated not more than 2 m high above the original ground surface, was compacted to a Hilf density
ratio of at least 95% Standard, and that the fill may be considered ‘controlled’.
2.2 Topography
Ground surface contours across the site and surrounds are illustrated in Text Figure 7 overleaf. The
existing and proposed dams are located within a natural drainage line, which is bounded by a spur within
the property to the eastern side (upon which the existing house and outbuildings are situated). The head
of the natural drainage line forms a broad gully within the south-western part of the subject site.
The original natural ground surface within the dam areas had a convergent and linear shape, being
relatively consistent down slope and concave across slope, however with a waning gradient approaching
the northern property boundary. No features indicative of previous landslide movement were observed
on the site; i.e. there were no backscarps, areas of ‘hummocky’ ground, tension cracks or the like.
Ground slope angles were estimated from measurements on site during the walk-over using a hand-held
clinometer. Inferred natural ground surface gradients ranged up to about 7° along the alignment of the
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 5 of 12
Page 6
dam areas, whilst the mostly cut batters around existing Dams 01 to 04 in the north typically ranged from
10° to 20° (≤ approx. 1V:3H).
Lot boundary
Lot boundary
Text Figure 7: Ground surface contours across site, courtesy NC mapping (upper) & Q Globe (lower)
Text Figures 8 and 9 on the following page illustrate the site conditions at the time of our walk-over.
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 6 of 12
Page 7
Text Figure 8: Looking south across Dam 01
Area of proposed Dams 05 to 08
Text Figure 9: Southerly view into area of proposed Dams 05 to 08
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 7 of 12
Page 8
2.3 Groundwater No signs of groundwater seepage at the surface (‘springs’) were observed during our walk-over around the site. Groundwater seepage may develop following periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall and would tend to proliferate in the upper topsoil materials. 2.4 Surface Drainage The proposed dams have a relatively large catchment, extending up to about 200 m (above Dams 05 to 08) into the south-western corner of the property. Overflow from the dams has been designed to follow the natural drainage line, with overflow from Dam 01 at the end of the chain to be directed into a rock- lined spillway which will direct runoff into a creek in the north-eastern corner of the site. Other than relatively minor surface rilling of bare soils from recent rainfall prior to our site visit (Ref. Text Figure 8 above), no evidence of significantly eroded soil was noted during our walk-over survey. 2.5 Vegetation The dam sites were mostly surrounded by grassed paddocks with some large mature trees, particularly a row of pine trees to the eastern side of proposed Dams 05 to 08. The trees displayed no signs of distortion that could be attributed to slope instability (e.g. tilting, leaning etc.). 2.6 Buildings and Other Structures The existing earthworks and rock filling around Dams 01 to 04, although relatively recently completed, displayed no signs of slope instability. Embankment crests between individual dams were relatively wide, with no evidence of settlement or tension cracking. None of the existing buildings on the ridge area to the east displayed signs of distress or distortion that could be attributed to slope instability. 18 March 2026 25029-002-Rev0 8 of 12
Page 9
3. Assessment of Land Stability
3.1 Existing Conditions
Parts of the existing and proposed dam sites are indicated by the NC landslide susceptibility overlay as
having a Moderate landslide hazard (Ref. extract in Text Figure 10). It should be noted that the NC
mapping is a broad-scale indication of landslide susceptibility and is superseded by this site-specific
assessment.
Lot boundary
Text Figure 10: Extract from SCC landslide hazard overlay mapping
There were no visible signs of global slope instability across the existing and proposed dam sites, with
the existing dam batters exposing stiff residual soils and controlled fill, and no groundwater seepage.
There was no substantial erosion or cracking of the existing batters and crest areas. The overall natural
ground surface gradients through the dam areas were relatively gentle.
3.2 Stability Assessment
The risk assessment for this project has been carried out following AGS 2007 Practice Note Guidelines for
Landslide Risk Management. Relative levels of risk and their implications are given in Table 1 overleaf,
and the Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property which is also attached.
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 9 of 12
Page 10
Table 1: Stability Risk Levels
Risk Level Example Implications(1)
VH Very High Risk Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and
implementation of treatment options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and
not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of property.
H High Risk Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of
treatment options required to reduce risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation
to the value of the property.
M Moderate Risk May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulators’ approval) but requires
investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options to reduce risk to Low.
Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be implemented as soon as practicable.
L Low Risk Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this
level, ongoing maintenance required.
VL Very Low Risk Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
Note: (1) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend
on the nature of the property at risk; these are only given as a general guide.
Considering the existing site conditions (Ref. Section 2), and subject to the implementation of
recommendations given below, it is assessed that there should be a Low Risk of global slope instability
affecting the existing and proposed dams. Regulators (NC) normally require that a Very Low or Low Risk
of landslide affecting the property must be demonstrated to enable development approval. Summarised
in Table 2 is our qualitative assessment of landslide risk for the development. A summary of qualitative
terminology for use in assessing risk to property is attached (taken from AGS 2007).
Subject to following the recommendations given in Section 4, we conclude that:
a. the stability of the dam sites would be maintained and operational for the life of the
development;
b. the dam sites are not subject to greater than a low risk of landslide activity originating from
other land, including land above the site; and
c. development of the site will not increase the risk of landslide activity on other land greater than
a low risk.
Table 2: Details of Qualitative Risk Assessment for Property (AGS 2007)
Assessed
Hazard Likelihood Consequence Comments
Risk
The likelihood of existing/proposed dam wall
instability is considered Unlikely, given the low
natural gradients, low to moderate
existing/proposed cut/fill batters, stiff (or
stiffer) natural soils and controlled fill, lack of
Instability of dam walls Unlikely Medium Low
groundwater, and no signs of instability within
the existing dam or on adjacent land. The
consequence of such instability would be
Medium, with the resultant risk being Low as
per AGS 2007.
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 10 of 12
Page 11
4. Recommendations
General recommendations to help maintain the stability of the site are given in the document Some
Guidelines for Hillside Construction, which is attached.
Construction of the proposed dams, as described in Section 1.1, shall not be altered from the referenced
Bax design unless assessed and approved by Tectonic prior to construction.
Please note that this assessment is provided based on the implementation of the following conventional
dam maintenance measures:
Access to the dams should be maintained to allow monitoring inspections and minor reactive
maintenance works.
Trees should not be planted on the filled zone within 10 m of the northern side of Dam 01. Tree
roots can cause leakage and erosion of filled dam walls.
Any debris which builds up in the spillway channels running from the dams should be removed to
prevent overflow and potential erosion of the surrounding areas.
A maintenance inspection of the dams should be made following any rainfall exceeding 100 mm
within 24 hours, during which the spillways and earth embankment should be assessed, as discussed
below. It is recommended that dam inspections should be undertaken by the property owner.
During monitoring inspections, the embankments should be examined for signs of erosion, cracking,
piping, settlement, slides, and development of seepage (on the downstream face). Any cracks
should be filled immediately with well compacted clay. There are three main kinds of cracks:
transverse, longitudinal and shrinkage. Transverse cracks are those that run straight through the
dam from the upstream to the downstream side. Longitudinal cracks develop parallel to the crest
length. Shrinkage cracks develop in a random pattern of both transverse and longitudinal defects.
Cracks can also lead to another kind of failure known as piping, which is a term used when seepage
water creates a tunnel or pipe along a line of weakness through the dam.
Some minor erosion may occur over time from the spillway channel banks, particularly during
prolonged and/or intense rainfall events. It is expected that this would be limited to relatively small
volumes of soil in any singular event. Should any significant erosion or instability occur, or signs of
potential instability be observed, Tectonic should be notified immediately to arrange a site
inspection and determine an appropriate course of action.
5. Limitations
Your attention is drawn to the document Limitations, which is attached to this letter report.
This assessment relates only to the proposed works as described in Section 1.1. Any alterations to the
proposed development such as location and extent of earthworks must be assessed and approved by
Tectonic prior to construction.
18 March 2026
25029-002-Rev0 11 of 12
Page 12
Please contact the undersigned should you wish to discuss any of the above matters. Yours faithfully, Tectonic Geotechnical Pty Ltd Ashley Davey BEng (Geological) RPEQ 8159 Director/Principal Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: A. Qualitative Terminology for Use in Assessing Risk to Property B. Some Guidelines for Hillside Construction C. Limitations 18 March 2026 25029-002-Rev0 12 of 12
Page 13
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF LIKELIHOOD
Approximate Annual Probability
Implied Indicative Landslide
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional Recurrence Interval
Value Boundary
10-1 5x10-2
10 years The event is expected to occur over the design life. ALMOST CERTAIN A
20 years The event will probably occur under adverse conditions over the
-2
10 100 years
design life.
LIKELY B
-3
-3 5x10 200 years
10 1000 years The event could occur under adverse conditions over the design life. POSSIBLE C
5x10-4 2000 years
The event might occur under very adverse circumstances over the
10-4 10,000 years
design life.
UNLIKELY D
-5 5x10-5 20,000 years
10 The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances
100,000 years RARE E
over the design life.
-6 5x10-6 200,000 years
10 1,000,000 years The event is inconceivable or fanciful over the design life. BARELY CREDIBLE F
Note: (1) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Annual Probability or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY
Approximate Cost of Damage
Description Descriptor Level
Indicative Notional
Value Boundary
Structure(s) completely destroyed and/or large scale damage requiring major engineering works for
200% CATASTROPHIC 1
stabilisation. Could cause at least one adjacent property major consequence damage.
100%
Extensive damage to most of structure, and/or extending beyond site boundaries requiring significant
60% MAJOR 2
stabilisation works. Could cause at least one adjacent property medium consequence damage.
40%
Moderate damage to some of structure, and/or significant part of site requiring large stabilisation works.
20% MEDIUM 3
Could cause at least one adjacent property minor consequence damage.
10%
5% 1% Limited damage to part of structure, and/or part of site requiring some reinstatement stabilisation works. MINOR 4
Little damage. (Note for high probability event (Almost Certain), this category may be subdivided at a
0.5% INSIGNIFICANT 5
notional boundary of 0.1%. See Risk Matrix.)
Notes: (2) The Approximate Cost of Damage is expressed as a percentage of market value, being the cost of the improved value of the unaffected property which includes the land plus the
unaffected structures.
(3) The Approximate Cost is to be an estimate of the direct cost of the damage, such as the cost of reinstatement of the damaged portion of the property (land plus structures), stabilisation
works required to render the site to tolerable risk level for the landslide which has occurred and professional design fees, and consequential costs such as legal fees, temporary
accommodation. It does not include additional stabilisation works to address other landslides which may affect the property.
(4) The table should be used from left to right; use Approximate Cost of Damage or Description to assign Descriptor, not vice versa
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
68039 Landslide Risk Management Issued 10/7/07
Page 14
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX C: – QUALITATIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR USE IN ASSESSING RISK TO PROPERTY (CONTINUED)
QUALITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS MATRIX – LEVEL OF RISK TO PROPERTY
LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCES TO PROPERTY (With Indicative Approximate Cost of Damage)
Indicative Value of 1: CATASTROPHIC 2: MAJOR 3: MEDIUM 4: MINOR 5:
Approximate Annual 200% 60% 20% 5% INSIGNIFICANT
Probability 0.5%
A – ALMOST CERTAIN 10-1 VH VH VH H M or L (5)
-2
B - LIKELY 10 VH VH H M L
C - POSSIBLE 10-3 VH H M M VL
D - UNLIKELY 10-4 H M L L VL
-5
E - RARE 10 M L L VL VL
-6
F - BARELY CREDIBLE 10 L VL VL VL VL
Notes: (5) For Cell A5, may be subdivided such that a consequence of less than 0.1% is Low Risk.
(6) When considering a risk assessment it must be clearly stated whether it is for existing conditions or with risk control measures which may not be implemented at the current
time.
RISK LEVEL IMPLICATIONS
Risk Level Example Implications (7)
Unacceptable without treatment. Extensive detailed investigation and research, planning and implementation of treatment
VH VERY HIGH RISK options essential to reduce risk to Low; may be too expensive and not practical. Work likely to cost more than value of the
property.
Unacceptable without treatment. Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment options required to reduce
H HIGH RISK
risk to Low. Work would cost a substantial sum in relation to the value of the property.
May be tolerated in certain circumstances (subject to regulator’s approval) but requires investigation, planning and
M MODERATE RISK implementation of treatment options to reduce the risk to Low. Treatment options to reduce to Low risk should be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Usually acceptable to regulators. Where treatment has been required to reduce the risk to this level, ongoing maintenance is
L LOW RISK
required.
Acceptable. Manage by normal slope maintenance procedures.
VL VERY LOW RISK
Note: (7) The implications for a particular situation are to be determined by all parties to the risk assessment and may depend on the nature of the property at risk; these are only
given as a general guide.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
68039 Landslide Risk Management Issued 10/7/07
Page 15
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007
APPENDIX G - SOME GUIDELINES FOR HILLSIDE CONSTRUCTION
GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE POOR ENGINEERING PRACTICE
ADVICE
GEOTECHNICAL Obtain advice from a qualified, experienced geotechnical practitioner at early Prepare detailed plan and start site works before
ASSESSMENT stage of planning and before site works. geotechnical advice.
PLANNING
SITE PLANNING Having obtained geotechnical advice, plan the development with the risk Plan development without regard for the Risk.
arising from the identified hazards and consequences in mind.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Use flexible structures which incorporate properly designed brickwork, timber Floor plans which require extensive cutting and
or steel frames, timber or panel cladding. filling.
HOUSE DESIGN
Consider use of split levels. Movement intolerant structures.
Use decks for recreational areas where appropriate.
SITE CLEARING Retain natural vegetation wherever practicable. Indiscriminately clear the site.
ACCESS & Satisfy requirements below for cuts, fills, retaining walls and drainage. Excavate and fill for site access before
DRIVEWAYS Council specifications for grades may need to be modified. geotechnical advice.
Driveways and parking areas may need to be fully supported on piers.
EARTHWORKS Retain natural contours wherever possible. Indiscriminatory bulk earthworks.
Minimise depth. Large scale cuts and benching.
CUTS Support with engineered retaining walls or batter to appropriate slope. Unsupported cuts.
Provide drainage measures and erosion control. Ignore drainage requirements
Minimise height. Loose or poorly compacted fill, which if it fails,
Strip vegetation and topsoil and key into natural slopes prior to filling. may flow a considerable distance including
Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards. onto property below.
FILLS Batter to appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining wall. Block natural drainage lines.
Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage. Fill over existing vegetation and topsoil.
Include stumps, trees, vegetation, topsoil,
boulders, building rubble etc in fill.
ROCK OUTCROPS Remove or stabilise boulders which may have unacceptable risk. Disturb or undercut detached blocks or
& BOULDERS Support rock faces where necessary. boulders.
Engineer design to resist applied soil and water forces. Construct a structurally inadequate wall such as
Found on rock where practicable. sandstone flagging, brick or unreinforced
RETAINING
Provide subsurface drainage within wall backfill and surface drainage on slope blockwork.
WALLS
above. Lack of subsurface drains and weepholes.
Construct wall as soon as possible after cut/fill operation.
Found within rock where practicable. Found on topsoil, loose fill, detached boulders
Use rows of piers or strip footings oriented up and down slope. or undercut cliffs.
FOOTINGS
Design for lateral creep pressures if necessary.
Backfill footing excavations to exclude ingress of surface water.
Engineer designed.
Support on piers to rock where practicable.
SWIMMING POOLS Provide with under-drainage and gravity drain outlet where practicable.
Design for high soil pressures which may develop on uphill side whilst there
may be little or no lateral support on downhill side.
DRAINAGE
Provide at tops of cut and fill slopes. Discharge at top of fills and cuts.
Discharge to street drainage or natural water courses. Allow water to pond on bench areas.
SURFACE Provide general falls to prevent blockage by siltation and incorporate silt traps.
Line to minimise infiltration and make flexible where possible.
Special structures to dissipate energy at changes of slope and/or direction.
Provide filter around subsurface drain. Discharge roof runoff into absorption trenches.
Provide drain behind retaining walls.
SUBSURFACE
Use flexible pipelines with access for maintenance.
Prevent inflow of surface water.
Usually requires pump-out or mains sewer systems; absorption trenches may Discharge sullage directly onto and into slopes.
SEPTIC &
be possible in some areas if risk is acceptable. Use absorption trenches without consideration
SULLAGE
Storage tanks should be water-tight and adequately founded. of landslide risk.
EROSION Control erosion as this may lead to instability. Failure to observe earthworks and drainage
CONTROL & Revegetate cleared area. recommendations when landscaping.
LANDSCAPING
DRAWINGS AND SITE VISITS DURING CONSTRUCTION
DRAWINGS Building Application drawings should be viewed by geotechnical consultant
SITE VISITS Site Visits by consultant may be appropriate during construction/
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE BY OWNER
OWNER’S Clean drainage systems; repair broken joints in drains and leaks in supply
RESPONSIBILITY pipes.
Where structural distress is evident see advice.
If seepage observed, determine causes or seek advice on consequences.
Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007 113
Page 16
PRACTICE NOTE GUIDELINES FOR LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT 2007 114 Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007
Page 17
Limitations This document has been prepared for the purpose outlined in Tectonic’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this document, in whole or in part, for any other purpose. The scope of Tectonic’s Services are as described in Tectonic’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Tectonic did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the report. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Tectonic in regards to it. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given that economic and time constraints limit the practical extent of geotechnical investigation. Variations in conditions may occur between investigation locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the document. Where variations exist on site, additional studies and actions may be required. Tectonic’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time that the work was performed. The passage of time, man-made or natural events, may alter the site conditions. It is understood that the Services undertaken allowed Tectonic to form an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations. Any assessments made in the preparation of this document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the findings of the investigation described. Actual subsurface conditions may differ from those indicated in the document (e.g. between boreholes or test pits). No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this document. Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Tectonic for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. This document is provided for the sole use by the Client and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Tectonic accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document. Limitations August 2024 | Rev2