Angela Mining Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QLRT 108

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Angela Mining Pty Ltd & R. and L. Philipson, and Environmental Protection Agency [2006] QLRT 108 PARTIES: In the Matter of a Ministerial Direction for a rehearing of Application for Mining Lease No. 10291 and in the Matter of Environmental Authority MIM 400176303 - Application by Angela Mining Pty Ltd for mining lease and environmental authority and objections by R. & L. Philipson to their grant. Environmental Protection Agency as statutory party in the matter of Environmental Authority MIM 400176303 FILE NO/S: AML191/03 ENO16/04 PROCEEDING: Application for mining lease and determination of compensation DELIVERED ON: 25 September 2006 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATES: Original hearing 18-21 May 2004 at Charters Towers and Cornelia Station. Rehearing on the papers PRESIDING MEMBER: Smith DP ORDER/S: 1. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that ML 10291 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the applicant, provided that no mining activity is conducted on Cornelia Homestead Road apart from the laying and operation of a pipeline, and further provided that the environmental authority is amended by inclusion of the following additional condition: “The holder of this environmental authority must prepare and submit a Weed Management Plan to the administering authority. The Weed Management Plan must be included and updated with the submission of each plan of operations. The Weed Management Plan must include as a minimum: -- 1 of 12 --  A detailed program for the identification and eradication of weeds within the mining lease area.  Details of procedures for the inspection and adequate cleaning of vehicles and machinery used as part of the mining activities.” (at [35]) 2. A. The Applicant is to file and serve any additional evidence and submissions relating to compensation for ML 10291 by 4.00pm 9 October 2006. B. The objectors are to file and serve any additional evidence and submissions relating to compensation for ML 10291 by 4.00pm 23 October 2006. C. The Applicant is to file and serve any submissions in reply by 4.00pm 30 October 2006. (at [36]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATION – ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS – MINISTERIAL DIRECTION – MINERALISATION – ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY – WEED CONTROL – ROAD – RECOMMENDATION Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 260, 269(4)(b), 271(1)(c) Land and Resources Tribunal Act 1999, s. 41(2) Environmental Protection Act 1994, ss 216, 220 Oaths Act 1867 COUNSEL: A.M. West for the Applicant SOLICITORS: Dale and Fallu Solicitors for the Applicant Mrs L. Philipson (self represented) for herself and Mr R Philipson Background [1] When considering all the facts and circumstances of this matter which have finally resulted in this decision, the mid 19th century proverb that “fact is stranger than fiction”1 comes to mind. It is appropriate that the somewhat bizarre history of this matter be detailed. The chronology of events is as follows:  9 September 2003 – application for ML 10291 lodged by Angela Mining Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) pursuant to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (“the MRA”); 1 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 5th edition Oxford University Press 1999 at page 600. -- 2 of 12 --  24 October 2003 – amendments made by applicant to the description of the external boundary;  15 September 2003 – draft environmental authority issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (“the EP Act”);  10 December 2003 – objections lodged by Ronald Ellis Philipson and Leanne Philipson (“the objectors”) pursuant to s. 260 of the MRA.  10 December 2003 – objections lodged by the objectors pursuant to s. 216 of the EP Act;  19 December 2003 – application for ML 10291 and hearing of objections referred to the Tribunal by the Mining Registrar;2  2 February 2004 – direction made by President Koppenol of the Tribunal that for the hearing of the application for ML 10291 and the MRA objections thereto the Tribunal be constituted by a standard panel comprised of Deputy President Smith, Mining Referee Windridge and Mr R. Wright;  4 February 2004 – direction made by President Koppenol of the Tribunal that for the hearing of objections under s. 220 of the EP Act relating to ML 10291 the Tribunal be constituted by a standard panel comprised of Deputy President Smith, Mining Referee Windridge and Mr R. Wright;  4 February 2004 – directions hearing held regarding the mining lease application, the objections under the MRA and the EP Act, compensation for ML 10291, as well as compensation for ML 10019. Orders made for the facilitation of the matters;  23 March 2004 – orders made setting the matters down for hearing in Charters Towers commencing 18 May 2004;  18 May 2004 – hearing commencing in Charters Towers;  19 May 2004 – view and evidence on site at “Cornelia Station”;  20 May 2004 – hearing continues at Charters Towers, concluding on 21 May 2004;  Various dates June/July 2004 submissions by the parties in each matter;  July 2004 – lengthy illness of Mining Referee Windridge commences;  9 August 2004 – directions hearing held regarding illness of Mining Referee Windridge;  Submissions required by 23 August 2004;  25 September 2004 – hospitalisation of Deputy President Smith;  19 October 2004 – orders made by President Koppenol rescinding the directions previously made regarding constitution of panel and directing that the matters be heard by a panel comprising himself and Mr Wright;  9 November 2004 – decision of President Koppenol regarding ML 10291 and objections under the MRA and EP Act and compensation. Recommendation made that ML 10291 be rejected and that it is unnecessary to therefore determine compensation;  7 February 2006 – direction by the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines pursuant to s. 271(1)(c) of the MRA directing that the Tribunal hold a further hearing into ML 10291 regarding the provisions of s. 269(4)(b) of the MRA which relates to mineralisation; 2 Pursuant to section 265 of the MRA and section 219 of the EP Act. -- 3 of 12 --  8 February 2006 – referral by the Mining Registrar of a request for variation of access by the applicant to ML 10019;  9 February 2006 – allocation of application for ML 10291 and MRA and EP Act objections thereto by President Koppenol to the original panel of Deputy President Smith, Mining Referee Windridge and Mr R. Wright;  13 February 2006 – allocation by President Koppenol of variation of access for ML 10019 to a panel of Deputy President Smith, Mining Referee Windridge and Mr R. Wright;  3 March 2006 – directions hearing held;  9 March 2006 – letter from Registrar, Land and Resources Tribunal to Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water enclosing transcript of direction hearing of 3 March 2006 wherein the Tribunal raised concerns regarding the limited scope of the Minister’s referral of 7 February 2006;  11 May 2006 – further direction by the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water, pursuant to s. 271(1)(c) of the MRA, directing that the Tribunal hold a hearing into ML 10291 generally;  1 August 2006 – directions hearing held regarding matters in light of Ministerial direction of 11 May 2006. Timetable set for final submissions to be received by 1 September 2006; [2] It is pertinent to note that at the directions hearing on 3 March 2006, all parties agreed that the question of the variation of access to ML 10019 should await the outcome of the hearing of the mining lease application and MRA and EP Act objections for ML 10291. It should also be noted that whilst the parties filed and exchanged additional evidence relating to ML 10291 and objections thereto, no party considered it necessary for a further hearing as such to be conducted, submitting, which was accepted by the Tribunal, that the Tribunal could proceed on the basis of the evidence provided at the 2004 hearing and material and submissions provided subsequent to the Ministerial Directions. [3] Although the decisions in these matters have been allocated to panels of myself, Mining Referee Windridge and Mr R. Wright, the final decision is required to be made by myself alone.3 The Mining Lease Application [4] The applicant applied for ML 10291 on 9 September 2003 for the purpose of mining for silver ore and gold and for mine waste/spoil dumps; pipeline – water/slurry; stockpile ore/overburden; tailings/settling dams; treatment plant/mill site; and water supply. The mining lease application is located on a property known as “Cornelia Station” which is located about 8kms north of Pentland in the Charters Towers mining district. [5] ML 10291 shares a common boundary on 3 sides of ML 10019 already held by the applicant. ML 10019 is also located on Cornelia Station. 3 See LRT Act, section 41(2). -- 4 of 12 -- The objections [6] The objectors lodged their objections pursuant to s. 260 of the MRA and s. 216 of the EP Act on 10 December 2003. The objectors grounds of objection are in the following terms: “Applicants currently conduct mining activities on described property. We, the landholders object to granting of this additional lease as applicant (Angela Mining Pty Ltd) has not complied with sections of the Mineral Resources Act and codes of environmental compliance for mining lease projects in relation to the existing lease M/L 10019 it holds. After reading the standard conditions of the codes of environmental compliance we the landholders request the consideration of several additional conditions to provide better security for livestock and particular attention to erosion and sediment control and noxious weed control. The codes in present standard form do not give surity on these issues.” [7] The objectors stated on their Notice of Objection the following facts and circumstances which they relied on in support of their grounds of objection: “In 2001 the applicant company (formerly operated under the name of Tele-Cad Pty Ltd) and the current Mining Lease 10019 were investigated by staff of the Charters Towers Mining Registrar’s office. It was revealed that Tele-Cad Pty Ltd had illegally commenced mining operations on the lease without submitting a plan of operations for assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency. At a similar time, contractors employed by this lessee violated Section 3.2 condition 17 of the codes of environmental compliance by establishing new roads and tracks to enter the lease area. Instead of entering the lease by the designated road access they disturbed trees and grass on our land in order to create an alternate access – without knowledge and definitely without consent from ourselves. Applicants have demonstrated total disrespect of correct procedures for the existing tenure and it would seem that nothing has changed. Please refer to Attachment A – copy of letter received from application director, Mr Carl Chadwick dated 25 September 2003. We question the appropriateness of a compensation offer, prior to ministerial approval of this mining lease. Has Mr Chadwick the right to commence compensation negotiation in such an absurd manner before he has legal confirmation of the outcome of this application? With reference to additional conditions considered necessary and absent from those listed in standard codes of environmental compliance we would be pleased to discuss issues at the office of Mining Registrar at a mutually agreeable time.” The hearing [8] As indicated in the President’s recommendation in this matter,4 the original hearing was conducted by the original panel, which is now the panel for the rehearing, in Charters Towers in May 2004 and a view was conducted and evidence taken on site. [9] It is important to note that Mrs Philipson represented herself and her husband at the hearing and throughout the process which has occurred subsequent to the Ministerial Directions in 2006. Mr C Chadwick, a director of the applicant, appeared on behalf of the applicant throughout the hearing of this matter. Neither Mrs Philipson nor Mr 4 See Re Angela Mining Pty Ltd and R & L Philipson [2004] QLRT 136. -- 5 of 12 -- Chadwick have legal qualifications. Following the Ministerial Directions in this matter, the applicant has been represented by Counsel, instructed by solicitors. This has had a marked impact on the presentation of the applicant’s case. Section 269(4) criteria [10] In taking account of and considering the criteria specified in s. 269(4) of the MRA, I have carefully considered and taken into account all of the material provided at the original hearing of this matter, all of the submissions and additional material provided by the parties both subsequent to the hearing and subsequent to each Ministerial direction, all exhibits, all relevant material provided to the Tribunal by the Mining Registrar, together with the Mining Registrar’s report in relation to this application. These reasons refer to the salient points, but not all of the relevant evidence, that I have taken into account. Section 269(4)(a) – have the provisions of the Act been complied with? [11] The Mining Registrar, Charters Towers, issued a Certificate of Application on 27 October 2003. The Mining Registrar can only issue this Certificate if satisfied that the applicant is eligible to apply for the mining lease and has complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the application.5 [12] Part of the grounds of objection by the objectors relate to alleged non-compliance with provisions of the MRA by the applicant with respect to ML 10019. In this regard, I note that the breaches alleged occurred in 2001 when the mining lease was held by Tele-Cad Pty Ltd. I also note that, whilst Mr Chadwick has common directorship in Tele-Cad Pty Ltd and the applicant, they are separate legal entities. [13] Further, the Mining Registrar in his report dated 2 January 2004 indicated that the applicant has not had a show cause notice, conviction, penalty or tenure cancelled under the MRA or the Mining Act 1968.6 As regards the objectors’ allegations, I note that the EPA wrote to Mr Chadwick on 29 April 2002 (as director of Tele-Cad Pty Ltd) requesting that mining activity cease and a new plan of operations be submitted. The plan of operations was submitted on 3 May 2002 which was accepted by the EPA. The EPA took no further action as, in its view, the requirements under ss 233 and 234 of the EP Act had been satisfied. [14] I note that, with respect to the current application, the applicant has complied with all relevant provisions of the MRA. Accordingly, taking due account of the objections, I am satisfied that the requirements of this criterion have been met. Section 269(4)(b) – is the land applied for mineralised or are the other purposes for which the lease is sought appropriate? [15] It was on the basis of a lack of evidence of mineralisation that President Koppenol recommended refusal of the application in November 2004. In this regard, it is appropriate to point out that both myself and Mining Referee Windridge (who has 5 See s. 251(1) of the MRA. 6 See Mining Registrar’s report 2 January 2004 page 2 number 5. -- 6 of 12 -- knowledge of the Pentland area) with the added assistance of viewing the site and the current operation of ML 10019, were of the opinion in 2004 that the land applied for is mineralised. The additional material lodged by the applicant has only further reinforced this view. Gold has been won from ML 10019 which borders the current application on 3 sides. The lease application is contained within a known mineralised area. Further, the applicant in its Additional Information and Statutory Declaration of 12 December 2003 swore, through Mr Chadwick, that the mining lease area was mineralised and gave the reason that: “it indicates good potential by previous mining leads from the Angela Mining lease (ML 10019) which points to this new area @ from fossickers which have had very good success for many years in it.” [16] In the great majority of matters brought before this Tribunal seeking recommendations for the grant of a mining lease, little more information, if any, is provided to the Tribunal other than that contained within the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration. Force is of course given to that document by having it declared under the Oaths Act 1867. As President Koppenol pointed out in his reasons of November 2004, the evidence of mineralisation in this matter was not helped by the evidence of Mr Read nor by the inability of Mr Chadwick to adequately represent the applicant. However, although President Koppenol rightly pointed out that Mr Chadwick’s oral submissions that fossickers had taken gold off the site could not be accepted as evidence, Mr Chadwick’s statement to the same end in the Additional Information and Statutory Declaration has the force of evidence. [17] I should point out that in their submissions of 21 July 2006 the objectors went to some length to indicate that the land applied for is not mineralised. Of course, the strange feature of this matter in that it is before the Tribunal as a result of 2 Ministerial directions certainly would tend to muddy the water for the objectors in knowing just what it was appropriate for them to make submissions on and what it was not. In my view, the law with respect to submissions by the objectors is clear. They can only give evidence and make submissions in support of validly made grounds of objection.7 For completeness, I point out that even if the material provided by the objectors with respect to mineralisation could be received by the Tribunal, such material would not be sufficient, in my view, to sway my opinion that the land applied for is mineralised. [18] The additional material provided by the applicant removes any doubt that the land applied for is mineralised. The objectors did not make any objection on the ground of mineralisation. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the prerequisites for this criterion are satisfied. Section 269(4)(c) – if the land applied for is mineralised will there be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources within the area applied? [19] All indications from the evidence provided to the Tribunal lead to the conclusion that the applicant intends to conduct appropriate mining operations on the land in order to win commercial quantities of gold and silver ore. The applicant has successfully 7 ACI Operations Pty Ltd v Quandamooka Lands Council Aboriginal Corporation [2002] 1 QdR 347 -- 7 of 12 -- conducted mining operations on ML 10019. There are no objections by the objectors in this regard. I am satisfied that there will be an acceptable level of development and utilisation of the mineral resources with the area applied for should this mining lease be granted. Section 269(4)(d) – is the land and the surface area of that land in respect of which the mining lease is sought of an appropriate size and shape? [20] The mining lease area has what could be called an “awkward’ shape. The main feature of this awkward shape is a long, thin segment along which it is proposed to pipe water to the mining lease. The mining lease has a total area of 80.3ha. Again, with respect to the size and shape of the mining lease, the position at the hearing was clouded by Mr Chadwick’s indication of an alteration to the long thin part of the mining lease area, and then his reversion back to the formal application. There is no objection with respect to this aspect of the matter. In my opinion, the application area is of an unusual but otherwise appropriate size and shape. Section 269(4)(e) – is the term sought appropriate? [21] The applicant seeks a term of 10 years. The applicant proposes to mine for a period of 7 years and to rehabilitate for 1 year, with 2 years for contingencies. I also note that progressive rehabilitation is intended with respect to this mining lease. There is no objection with respect to the term of the mining lease. In my view, the term sought is appropriate. Section 269(4)(f) – has the applicant the necessary financial and technical capabilities to carry on mining operations under the proposed mining lease? [22] With respect to this criterion, on the basis of the evidence provided at the original hearing, in my draft decision of September 2004 my recommendation was that the mining lease not be granted on the basis that the applicant had failed to convince me that the requirements of this criterion had been met, particularly with respect to financial resources. However, since the Ministerial direction to rehear this matter and the additional evidence provided by the applicant (no doubt with the great benefit of the assistance of experienced Counsel and instructing solicitors) the applicant has now provided all of the information and material required to meet this criterion. I note that Mr Kingsley has been appointed as consultant supervisor. As Counsel for the applicant points out in his submissions of 14 August 2006, the applicant’s approach with respect to this criterion “is entirely proper and responsible”.8 It is arguable that the objectors’ objections touch upon this criterion. In this regard, Mr West’s submissions for the applicant of 14 August 2006 state as follows at paragraph 15: “The respondents have objected that the plan of operations sets out insufficient detail of the specific mining activities and financial assurance. This is no objection at all because there is no requirement that the plan of operations should set this information out. In any event the plan for ML 10019 and ML 10291 is to excavate, treat and rehabilitate 1ha at a time on a rolling basis which will be well within the resources of the applicant.” 8 Applicant’s submissions 14 August 2006 paragraph 13. -- 8 of 12 -- [23] I agree with Mr West’s submissions. On the basis of the additional evidence and material provided to the Tribunal subsequent to the Ministerial directions in 2006, and read in light of the previous evidence given in this matter, I am now satisfied that the requirements of this criterion have been met. Section 269(4)(g) – has the past performance of the applicant been satisfactory? [24] As pointed out at paragraph [13] above the Mining Registrar’s report is to the effect that no enforcement action of any kind has ever been taken against the applicant. Clearly, there has been a history between the applicant, through its director Mr Chadwick, and the objectors which has been less than harmonious. In this regard, the position is well summarised by Mr West in his submissions of 14 August 2006 at paragraph 18 as follows: “The respondents have objected that in the past Applicant has varied the access route to the existing ML 10019. There was a deal of discussion of this at the trial. The evidence and submissions, such as they are, leave one with the impression that Mr Read had some sort of arrangement with the respondents’ manager. One also gains the impression that Mr Chadwick thought that the arrangement had been entered into with Mr Black (a former partner of the respondents’). Clearly the respondents are not happy about the situation. They see the proposed fence line access as interfering with their cattle mustering. They also urge potential erosion problems. The whole issue appears to be a multi-layered misunderstanding. As such it is not an adverse reflection on the Applicant. It does not seem likely that the fence line route will be so heavily trafficked with miners and musterers that the two would be a danger to each other and could not co-exist. A recommendation should be made in favour of the fence line access route.” [25] Taking all relevant factors into account, and in particular relying upon the report of the Mining Registrar, I am satisfied that the past performance of the applicant, whilst certainly not without blemish, has been satisfactory. Section 269(4)(h) – will any disadvantage result to the holders of existing exploration permits or mineral development licences or existing applicants for exploration permits or mineral development licences? [26] The applicant held PP10653 and PP10658. The holders of EPM12901 and EPM12388 have consented to this application. There is nothing in the material to indicate any disadvantage to any other person. Section 269(4)(i) – do the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management? and Section 269(4)(j) – will there be any adverse environmental impacts, and if so, the extent thereof? [27] As can be seen from the objectors’ objection, the crux of their objections relate to these 2 criteria. The manner in which the objections have been written and particularised make it difficult to delineate between each of these criterion, so I consider it appropriate to deal with both these criteria and the objections in this regard together. -- 9 of 12 -- [28] A great amount of the evidence given at the hearing related to environmental and land use issues. Certainly, the objectors are aggrieved that this mining lease is proposed for their land and, no doubt, they would rather that it did not occur. Of course, this is often the position of landholders when faced with mining operations on their land. It is the Tribunal’s responsibility to weigh up the factors relevant to these 2 competing interests – that of the landholder and that of the miner – on the one piece of land. Fortunately, of course, in this matter the mining lease only takes up a comparatively small amount of Cornelia Station, meaning that the objectors can continue their primary production activities. Further, the provisions and the objectives of the MRA make it clear that the State supports the extraction of minerals from land provided that the various criteria in s. 269(4) of the MRA are complied with and, of course, the MRA also provides that landholders are to be compensated for mining activities on their land. [29] Looking at all of the evidence as a whole, I agree with the objectors that the issue of weed management control on their property is of high concern. In this regard, there is evidence, albeit not completely conclusive, that the mining operations on ML 10019 may have led to some weed activity on Cornelia Station in the past. [30] With respect to these criteria, the Tribunal has had the considerable benefit of the participation of the statutory party, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in the proceedings under the EP Act. I note in particular the detailed submissions by Mr Rob Little, District Manager Townsville, Environmental Operations, Northern Region, EPA of 24 August 2006. I agree with the submissions made by Mr Little. In short, that means that I am not satisfied as to the nature or extent of the objectors’ objections, save those with respect to weed management, and in that regard I agree with the submissions by the statutory party that an additional condition should be included in the standard environmental authority for ML 10291 in the following terms: “The holder of this environmental authority must prepare and submit a Weed Management Plan to the administering authority. The Weed Management Plan must be included and updated with the submission of each plan of operations. The Weed Management Plan must include as a minimum:  A detailed program for the identification and eradication of weeds within the mining lease area.  Details of procedures for the inspection and adequate cleaning of vehicles and machinery used as part of the mining activities.” [31] Provided that the additional condition as set out above is included in the standard environmental authority, and in spite of the objectors’ objections, it is my view that the operations to be carried on under the authority of the mining lease conform with sound land use management and that any environmental impacts will be adequately dealt with by compliance with the environmental authority. Section 269(4)(k) - will the public right and interest be prejudiced? [32] The only element of doubt regarding the public right and interest relates to where the mining lease interacts with Cornelia Homestead Road. In this regard, I note the letter -- 10 of 12 -- from the Dalrymple Shire Council dated 20 July 2004 and the submissions of Mr West dated 14 August 2006 at paragraph 29. In the circumstances of this matter, in which it is clear that there is no intent to mine Cornelia Homestead Road nor to interfere with vehicular traffic using that road in any way save for the construction of a pipeline crossing under the road, in my view the public right and interest will not be prejudiced by this mining lease application. Mr West has pointed out that it is arguable that the precise elements of s. 238 of the MRA have not been met due to the nature of the wording of the Council’s letter of 20 July 2004, although the intent of the letter and position of the Council is clear. In my view, the Council has clearly consented to the construction of the pipeline access under the road and must be taken to have consented to the mining lease application, provided of course that the road remains open and that no mining activity, apart from the pipeline, is undertaken on the road. Section 269(4)(l) – has any good reason be shown for refusal to grant the mining lease? [33] Taking into account all of the evidence, the objections, and the recommendation for inclusion of an additional condition in the environmental authority in my view there is not sufficient reason to recommend against the grant of this mining lease. Section 269(4)(m) – is the proposed mining operation an appropriate land use taking into consideration the current and prospective uses of the land? [34] With respect to this criterion, I rely upon my responses to each of the criterion listed above. As already pointed out, this is a classic case of 2 incompatible uses for the 1 piece of land. The grant of this mining lease will not prevent the objectors from carrying on their primary production activities on the balance area of Cornelia Station, and the objectors as landholders will be compensated should the mining lease be granted. The mining lease proposes the extraction of a valuable resource in accordance with environmental processes, taking into account the additional clause to be added to the standard environmental authority. In all the circumstances, on balance, I am satisfied that the proposed mining operation is an appropriate land use. Recommendation [35] Taking into account all the evidence before me and, in particular, that evidence referred to above, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister for Mines and Energy that ML 10291 be granted over the entire application area for the purpose and term sought by the applicant, provided that no mining activity is conducted on Cornelia Homestead Road apart from the laying and operation of a pipeline, and further provided that the environmental authority is amended by inclusion of the following additional condition: “The holder of this environmental authority must prepare and submit a Weed Management Plan to the administering authority. The Weed Management Plan must be included and updated with the submission of each plan of operations. The Weed Management Plan must include as a minimum:  A detailed program for the identification and eradication of weeds within the mining lease area. -- 11 of 12 --  Details of procedures for the inspection and adequate cleaning of vehicles and machinery used as part of the mining activities.” Compensation [36] In light of my recommendation set out above, it is now necessary that compensation for ML 10291 be determined. As the objectors in particular had requested the right to provide further evidence and submissions on compensation in the event that the mining lease was recommended for grant, I make the following orders: A. The Applicant is to file and serve any additional evidence and submissions relating to compensation for ML 10291 by 4.00pm 9 October 2006. B. The objectors are to file and serve any additional evidence and submissions for ML 10291 be 4.00pm 23 October 2006. C. The Applicant is to file and serve any submissions in reply by 4.00pm 30 October 2006. -- 12 of 12 --