Burnett & Anor v Fitzroy Shire Council & Ors [1991] QMW 9

IN THE WARDEN'S ffiJRI' MIA. 5843 - 46, OF~LAND _. HELD Nr ROCKHAMPrCN. BEIWEEN BRUCE TAYLOR BURNEIT AND Applicant GJRCCN JAMES CHRISTENSEN AND SEE DECISION Cbjectors BEFCRE: MR F.W. WINDRILGE Mining Warden. DECISICN ~livered on the seventeenth day of July, 1991. CATCH w::Effi: Mining Act, Mining Claims, Gold/Precious Metals, Water runoff/erosion, access, Contribution to road maintenance, Clearing of Land by Grazier as opposed to miner. [1991] QMW 9 -- 1 of 9 -- I. RECOMMENDATION OF WARDEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 21 OF THE MINING ACT 1968 - 1986. IN THE MATTER OF: MINING CLAIMS 5843, 5844, 5845, 5846 CENTRAL MINING DISTRICT. BEFORE: APPLICANTS: OBJECTORS: REPORT: F.W.WINDRIDGE, WARDEN . BRUCE TAYLOR BURNETT and GORDON JAMES CHRISTENSEN. FITZROY SHIRE COUNCIL, CLIVE MORGAN, PHILLIP DONOVAN, MOUNT MORGAN SHIRE COUNCIL, DOUGLAS STELEY, H. ODIJK, P. ODIJK, IAN HERBERT, CATHY HERBERT, CAPRICORN CONSERVATION COUNCIL,REGIONAL DIRECTOR QUEENSLAND NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ELIZABETH JANE LOWE. The hearing in respect of these four claims and objections thereto took place in the Wardens Court at Yeppoon and Rockhampton over the period 14th to 16th of May 1991. Gordon James Christensen and Bruce Taylor Burnett are the applicants for four mining claims in the Central District now known as Mining claims 4583, 4844, 5845 and 5846. However, throughout the proceedings reference to the claims has been by their previous numbers namely 548, 549, 550 and 551. For convenience I will use the old reference numbers. The applicants seek to hold such claims as equal partners namely a 50% share each. The applicants seek to mine gold but have included other previous metals and copper. This is not uncommon. The application areas are situated in the Parish of Bouldercombe, County of Livingstone. The applications were lodged at the office of the Mining Warden at Rockhampton on the 4th day of June 1991. Objections were to be lodged on or before the 10th day of August 1990. Provision for the continuation of these claims is contained in the Second Schedule of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 - 1990 and the applications are deemed to be applications under the Mining Act 1968 - 1986 notwithstanding the repeal of that Act. -- 2 of 9 -- The applicants are required to satisfy the warden in relation to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection 8 of Section 16. Paragraph (a) of Section 16 refers to the formal requirements of the application. There appears to be no ground to indicate that the provisions in respect of the formal requirements of the application have not been observed. No objections were lodged on that point. Therefore I find that I must be satisfied that Section 16 H (8) (a) of the Act has been complied with, and where there is any deficiency I would find substantial compliance. To consider subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Section 16H (8) , it is necessary to deal with the objections lodged by a number of persons and organisations. Quite a number of objections were lodged but after submissions on various points,· 75 objections were struck out for a number of reasons including non-appearance, late lodgment and lack of proof of service. However, a number remain and the grounds of objection were many and varied. To put the objections into their proper perspective, one must look at the proposed method of operation. Only four claims are involved, their dimensions being as per the survey plan. The applicant has indicated that at this stage only four shafts are to be put down, one on each claim and not all at the same time. The applicant states the positioning of each claim is to fit in with the shape of the reef as he believes it to be. The applicant states that overburden and spoil will be used to fill in the shafts when mining is complete, and it will also be used to fill in many old shafts, some dangerous, in the immediate vicinity. The applicant indicates that some overburden will also be used in road making on the claims. The applicant states he will transport ore from the shafts to a stockpile area to be established on Mother Lode in Bloom 4 where it will be trucked out at regul~ intervals. The applicant does not intend to do any processing on site. He states no hazardous chemicals will be used on site. Save for a caretaker, the applicant states no persons will reside on site. The applicants state that the plan of mining will disturb only the small areas to be used for shafts, stockpile area and connecting tracks. The applicant states that save for cooling drills, water will not be used in the process of extracting the ore. On a realistic overview of the whole operation, on a scale of 1 to 10, this operation barely deserves a rating of 1 . It is a very small scale operation as far as gold mining is concerned. I do not propose to go through each objection point by point, as many of them overlap, particularly in relation to dust, noise, water quality, erosion etc. From a visit to the site of the four claims, it is clear that no person resides in the immediate vicinity of the claims. Mr.Morgan is perhaps the closest resident in that he conducts a grazing business on Portion 119 and resides there. The objections in relation to noise and dust were general in nature. -- 3 of 9 -- It appears those objections were based on the premise that if there is a mine, then there is dust and noise. This is true in some cases, but not in all cases. However, the objectors did not produce any factual evidence about the noise or dust that would emanate from this proposed operation. The major part of this operation is underground. Mr . Burnett described in broad general terms the technique used in this type of mining, and I would not seriously doubt that outline. The only real source of noise and dust would be from blasting and as this blasting would take place in the shafts, I fail to see that it would be a serious problem for any residents . There are inherent safeguards against using too much explosive which would tend to generate more noise. Explosives are expensive and overuse is costly. Overcharging a hole could result in the shaft being destroyed, causing delay. The method of fracturing rock requires small charges to be strategically placed, not large charges being set off to destroy everything for metres around. I do not see fly rock, dust, noise or vibration as a problem for any resident living down in the Bouldercombe area. If some noise is heard, then I fail to see how it will detrimentally effect them to such an extent that the claim should be not granted. No evidence was presented in relation to machinery noise levels and no experts were called. It would appear that machinery noise will be intermittent, particularly in the early stages, and the only person who might be aware of that noise is Morgan. The claim areas are situated on the border of the Fitzroy Shire and the Mount Morgan Shire but are physically located in the Fitzroy Shire ·. However, the slope of the terrain brings any water run-off into the catchment area for the Dee River but at the extreme top of the catchment area. Much was said about water run-off and the possibility of erosion. The natural slope of the terrain means that there always was some water run-off. I accept the applicants evidence that disturbance of the surface area will be relatively small. I fail to see how the natural rainfall and resultant run-off is going to seriously erode the area, or send thousands of gallons of water in raging torrents down· the mountainside, sweeping everything away. The applicant states he will be using some water to cool drilling bits. No doubt some will be used for domestic purposes. But essentially the operation is water free, and lots of water is what a gold miner doesn't need in a shafting situation. Erosion deserves a special mention because it was raised by Mr. Morgan as a possible cause of siltation for his dam. As disturbance will be kept to a minimum, water run-off will be no more than the natural run-off, and an increase in erosion would be hardly noticeable. In any event, the applicant will of his own volition or by enforcement of conditions build such earthworks as are necessary to contain any perceived increase in run-off. Mention was made of the possibility of run-off from the stockpile of ore which will be sited on Mother Lode in Bloom 4. The expert called by the applicant indicated any run-off could be controlled by the careful siting of the stockpile, and a small levy bank. I accept that statement and with proper monitoring and control I fail to see how any problem could arise. -- 4 of 9 -- Some concern was expressed about the run-off containing heavy metal and if this got into the water system it would have a detrimental effect on those who reside in the Bouldercombe area. The objectors called no evidence of a scientific nature on this point. An inspection of the area indicated many old shafts which have collected water : No doubt rainfall has for many years fallen on old spoil heaps and then run into the system. So if there is any heavy metal run-off, it has been going on for probably the last 50 years in an uncontrolled manner. So the concern is really speculation and not based on fact or scientific evidence presented to this Court. There is sufficient time to put these controls in place as I consider the tonnages referred to by Mr. Burnett are very optimistic for the early stages of mining. I turn now to access. In the history of the application, there was a hiccup in the description as it relates to access. The applicants have changed their access from entry from the Bouldercombe side to entry from Struck Oil side, if I may put it that broadly. Having viewed the nature of the terrain, it appears to be quite logical to vary the access and the applicant has every right to amend his application by variation of his preferred access. If this satisfies some objectors, then that is to his advantage. However, the Court, in setting conditions, can determine the access routes which will be the most appropriate. Objection to the amended access route was maintained by a number of objectors but principally by the Mount Morgan Shire Council. Formed roads travel almost to the site of the claims then veer off. A gazetted but unmade road extends from Struck Oil road through portion 119 almost to the claims. There are only two options for access. One, being through Bouldercombe and onwards up the Dee road is plainly untenable as far as safety, maintenance and erosion is concerned. I am at a loss to understand why others could not see that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages, as they were blatantly obvious. This route has been discarded by the applicant, and I reject that route also. The only viable route is from the Struck Oil approach, and to consider this aspect the Mount Morgan Shire Council called an engineers with some experience with the road in question. A report is in evidence and gives some detail as to the current state of the roadway and the work and expenditure necessary to bring the road to a standard where it will withstand mine traffic. However, the term "mine''. traffic appears to be one which conjures up many different images in many minds. On the application under consideration, given the maximum work force that can be employed in such an operation, it appears that very light passenger vehicles will be the main user of the access track, with an occasional heavy vehicle to remove stockpiled ore when required. This could be as little as one load per day, considering the limited ability to extract any sizeable quantity of ore from this small operation. I do not consider the problems of access from the Struck Oil side are insurmountable. The most urgent problems , being the known danger spots, are stated by the engineer in his report. It appears the local council has not expended any funds of a significant nature on this road for a number of years. The general road conditions can be monitored and if problems arise, these can be attended to. It is a matter for the Mount Morgan Shire Council if they wish to approach the applicants for a contribution for road maintenance. It is not a -- 5 of 9 -- matter on which the Court will set a figure and it is not a matter on which the Court will make a compensation order. One of the principal objectors was Mr. Morgan who with his wife is the occupier of Portion 119. In effect the claims are not located on Portion 119, but due to the incorrect positioning of the fence, they ,with the exception of Number 4, are in an area grazed by his cattle. However, the water catchment slopes back into country used by Morgan and his wife for grazing purposes. I have already dealt with run-off and erosion problems, and I fail to see how the operation will effect the grazing pursuits of Mr. Morgan. He has some concern about clearing of trees by the miner but exhibited no such concern when he cleared a large parcel of land for grazing purposes. It is an interesting fact of life that if a grazier clears 20 hectares of land, he is developing his land for the good of the community. If a miner wants to remove one tree to sink a shaft, he is regarded as a vandal. Through portion 119 there is a gazetted but unformed and unconstructed road. While there is some concern about this road, it is a portion of road available and Mr. Morgan has no claim over it, although he was once offered but refused to acknowledge a Permit to Occupy. His credibility came under attack on a number of points and I was not overly impressed with his demeanour. Both Mr. Steley and Mr. Herbert gave evidence as objectors. However, I fauna their evidence related to their lifestyles, the surrounding environment, and the effect on the water supply. Basically both suffer from lack of impact as they reside some distance away and noise, dust, flyrock are and will be inconsequential, in my opinion. Erosion of an old track was referred to as an example, but there was no factual or scientific evidence to link such erosion to the planned operation, except by speculation on a worse case scenario. There was no evidence to show how the mining or water from such mining is going to enter the aquifers from which they draw their supplies. I am of the opinion that the matters raised by the objectors do not constitute good or valid reasons why the claims should not be granted. I am satisfi~d that the public interest or right will not be prejudicially affected by the registration of the mining claims. Conditions are as per the attached schedule. However, as indicated during the hearing, the applicants must take steps to convert the claims to a lease/s, and further or amended conditions will be set by the Honourable the Minister. F.W. WINDRIDGE WARDEN. -- 6 of 9 -- ,. THE CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO THESE MINING CLAIMS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The holders, their executors, administrators and assigns shall pay the rental as prescribed. 2. The holders, their executors, shall furnish as prescribed all returns)documents and statements. administrators and assigns returns ( including royalty 3. The holders, their executors, administrators and assigns shall maintain the surface area of the land subject to the mining claim to such condition as the warden may from time to time dete~mine during the term of the mining claim. 4. The holders, their executors, administrators and assigns shall restore the surface of the land subject of the mining claims as nearly as may be to its state prior to the commencement of operations . 5. The holders, their executors, administrators and assigns shall maintain the land free of noxious weeds. 6. The holders ., their executors, administrators and assigns shall not permit the discharge of firearms on or across the area of the said claims. 7. The holders, their executors, administrators and maintain the claims in a clean and tidy state and all machinery, plant, camp litter and rubbish termination of the claims. assigns shall shall remove prior to the 8. No person other than a caretaker shall be permitted to reside on the said claims. 9 . The holders shall ensure that the amount of noise , dust, gases, ground vibration or other nuisance factors generated on the claims and affecting area~ outside the boundaries of the claims is minimised and at a level acceptable to the Minister. 10, The holders shall use their best endeavours to place overburden and waste spoil in any unfilled excavations on or in the near vicinity of the claims to render such areas as safe as possible. 11. The holders shall construct such roadworks as are essential and shall maintain such road works in a manner to prevent and lessen any possibility of erosion. 12. The holders shall remove mature trees only where essential to the actual mining operation, road construction and ore stockpile . 13. The holders shall observe at all times the provisions of - -- 7 of 9 -- •. * Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 - 1988. * Clean Waters Act 1971 - 1982. * Fire Service Act 1946 - 1987. * Forestry Act 1959 - 1987 . and any other law of Queensland as it relates to the Holder and to the claim. 14. ·The holders shall rehabilitate all mined areas, plant sites, roads, erosion control levees, overburden and waste rock dumps and other disturbed areas progressively and without delay. Unless otherwise approved, such rehabilitation shall be carried out by- (a) shaping the area so that it conforms as far as reasonable practicable with the surrounding topography. (b) returning any surface material or arable soil removed. (c) stabilising the restored areas against the natural forces of erosion in Qrder that ongoing maintenance after termination of the claims is not required. 15. The holders shall not store fuel or toxic chemicals on the claims. 16. The holders shall not permit the use of explosiv~s except by a licensed person and shall at all times observe the Explosives Act as amended. 17 . The holders shall not treat ore on the site of the claims. As there was some indication that the area is to be included in a Departmental and Other Purposes Reserve, but at this stage such is a proposal only, the following is put forward as a suggestion and not as conditions. However, the claim holders may be able to structure their mining programme to fit in with the suggested proposal: A. The gazetted but unformed road be temporarily closed to the public and constructed to a reasonable standard and utilised by the claim holder during the term of the claims. B. The claimholders construct such other roads as are essential to the stockpile area on Motherlode in Bloom 4 and the other claims. -- 8 of 9 -- • C. The stockpile area on Motherlode in Bloom 4 be constructed so that at the completion of mining it can be converted to and used as a parking area/lookout. D. Other roads as constructed be will be facilitate their use by mining has terminated. constructed in members of the a manner that public after E. After mining has terminated, the closed road be re-opened and the area of the claims be included in the proposed Reserve and brought up to a standard suitable for public use by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. SECURITY BONDS: As these claims were granted in the transitional period (as extended by the Minister ), the applicants must take action to ' convert the claims to leases and obviously amended and or additional terms and conditions will be set . However, for the purposes of allowing the granting of the claims to finalise, I order that the applicants deposit the sum of $100.00 per claim with the Registrar as nominal security bond in the first instance within 7 days , and a further sum of $200.00 per claim at least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of any development work in relation to the claims or roadwork in relation to access to the claims. -- 9 of 9 --