Kevin Cosmos on behalf of Yaburara & Mardudhunera/Western Australia/Baracus Pty Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 126
•27 August 2013
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL
Kevin Cosmos on behalf of Yaburara & Mardudhunera/Western Australia/Baracus Pty Ltd
[2013] NNTTA 126 (27 August 2013)
Application No: WO2012/1168
IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth)
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application
Kevin Cosmos on behalf of Yaburara & Mardudhunera (WC1996/089) (native title party)
- and -
The State of Western Australia (Government party)
- and -
Baracus Pty Ltd (grantee party)
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
Tribunal: Helen Shurven, Member
Place: Perth
Date: 27 August 2013
Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of exploration licence – expedited procedure objection application – whether act likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act likely to interfere with sites of particular significance – whether act likely to cause major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure attracted
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 29, 31, 146, 151, 237
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 66, 111
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)
Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA)
Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007
Cases: Butcher Cherel and Others/Western Australia/Faustus Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] NNTTA 15, (‘Butcher Cherel’)
Cheinmora and Others v Heron Resources Ltd and Another (2005) 196 FLR 250 [2005] NNTTA 99, (‘Cheinmora’)
Kevin Walley on behalf of the Ngoonooru Wadjari People/Western Australia/Allan Brosnan [2001] NNTTA 78, ('Brosnan')
Les Tullock and Others on behalf of the Tarlpa Native Title Claimants/Western Australia/Bushwin Pty Ltd [2011] NNTTA 22, (‘Tarlpa’)
Little and Others v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd (2005) 146 FCR 576, (‘Little’)
Maitland Parker and Others/Western Australia/Derek Noel Ammon [2006] NNTTA 65, (‘Maitland Parker’)
Maitland Parker and Others /Western Australia/Iron Duyfken Pty Ltd [2010] NNTTA 60, (‘Iron Duyfken’)
Rosas v Northern Territory and Another (2002) 169 FLR 330; (2002) NNTTA 113, (‘Rosas’)
Silver and Others v Northern Territory of Australia and Others (2002) 169 FLR 1; [2002] NNTTA 18, (‘Silver’)
Smith v Western Australia and Another (2001) 108 FCR 442, (‘Smith’)
Walley and Others v Western Australia and Another (2002) 169 FLR 437; [2002] NNTTA 24, (‘Walley’)
Wilma Freddie and Others/Western Australia/Asia Investment Corporation Pty Ltd [2004] NNTTA 30, (‘Asia Investment Corporation’)
Wilfred Goonack and Others /Western Australia/Geotech International Pty Ltd and Another [2009] NNTTA 72, (‘Geotech’)
Representatives of the Ms Aimee Hackett, Corser & Corser
native title party: Ms Shirley Feng, Corser & Corser
Representatives of the
Government party: Ms Bethany Conway, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Mr Cheyne Beetham, State Solicitor’s Office
Representatives of the
grantee party: Mr Matthew Clohessy, Emerald Tenement Services
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
On 25 July 2012, the Government party, through the Department of Mines and Petroleum ('DMP'), gave notice under s 29 of the Native Title Act1993 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of its intention to grant exploration licence E47/2648 (‘the proposed licence’) to Baracus Pty Ltd (‘the grantee party’). The Government party included in the notice a statement that it considered the grant attracted the expedited procedure (that is, one which can be done without the normal negotiations required by s 31 of the Act).
According to the notice:
·the proposed licence is approximately 111.7 square kilometres in size;
·the proposed licence is located 44 kilometres north east of Pannawonica, in the Shires of Ashburton and Roebourne;
·the native title party had until four months after the notification date, that is, until 25 November 2012, to lodge an objection application against the expedited procedure statement.
On 5 November 2012, an expedited procedure objection application was lodged with the Tribunal by Kevin Cosmos on behalf of the Yaburara and Mardudhunera native title claim group (‘the native title party’) in relation to the proposed licence. The native title claim of the Yaburara and Mardudhunera People (WC1996/089 - registered from 1 August 1996) overlaps the proposed licence by 99.17 per cent.
In accordance with standard practice, the Tribunal gave directions to the parties to provide contentions and evidence for an inquiry to determine whether or not the expedited procedure is attracted. These directions allow a period after the s 29 closing date for lodgement of objections for parties to discuss the possibility of reaching an agreement which could lead to disposal of the objection by consent.
On 19 December 2012, I was appointed by then President Graeme Neate as the Member for the purpose of conducting the inquiry.
Parties attempted to negotiate an agreement and directions were vacated to facilitate the agreement making process. Ultimately, parties were unable to reach agreement.
Directions were issued for an inquiry and in compliance with those:
·the DMP provided documents on behalf of the Government party on 11 June 2013;
·the native title party provided a statement of contentions on 18 June 2013;
·the grantee party provided a statement of contentions on 28 June 2013;
·the State Solicitor’s Office provided the Government party’s statement of contentions on 28 June 2013.
The grantee party contentions were lodged a few days out of time, but there were no objections from any party to their acceptance, and I accept the contentions. The Tribunal provided parties with a map of the proposed licence on 20 August 2013 to be used for the purposes of this inquiry, and no objections were received in response.
Section 151(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may proceed to determine a matter ‘on the papers’ (that is, without a hearing) unless the issues for determination cannot be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. I have considered the documents and material provided by the parties, and I am satisfied that this matter can be determined in this way.
Legal principles
Section 237 of the Act provides:
A future act is an act attracting the expedited procedure if:
(a) the act is not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(b) the act is not likely to interfere with areas or sites of particular significance, in accordance with their traditions, to the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of the native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and
(c) the act is not likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned or create rights whose exercise is likely to involve major disturbance to any land or waters concerned.
In Walley, Deputy President Sumner considered the applicable legal principles (at [7]–[23]) and I adopt those principles for the purposes of this inquiry (s 146 of the Act).
In relation to the nature of an exploration licence including conditions to be imposed, I adopt the principles outlined in Tarlpa at [10]-[16].
In relation to determining s 237(a), I adopt the following principles from Tarlpa:
·History and interpretation of s 237(a) as amended (at [57]-[64]).
·The Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation of s 237(a) as amended (at [75]). The Hon C J Sumner, Deputy President, has made it clear (at [66]) that ‘the law as applied by the Tribunal since the 1998 amendments does now require there to be evidence of direct interference with the community or social activities of the native title party which are of a physical and not purely spiritual nature for the expedited procedure not to be attracted’.
·The definitions of ‘interfere directly’ and ‘carrying on’ as applied to s 237(a) (at [105]-[109]).
·Must the community or social activities take place on the proposed licence area? (at [85]-[86]).
With respect to issues arising under s 237(b), I adopt the principles outlined in Maitland Parker at [31]–[38], [40]-[41].
The task of the Tribunal in relation to s 237(c) is to undertake a predictive assessment as to the likelihood of major disturbance to land and waters on the basis that major disturbance should be determined by reference to what was likely to be done, rather than what could be done (see Smith at [23]). This involves an evaluative judgment on whether major disturbance to land and waters concerned is likely to occur, from the point of view of the Australian community, inclusive of the Aboriginal community, as well as considering the concerns of the native title party (Little at [41]-[57]).
Evidence in relation to the proposed act
The Government party has provided: a statement of contentions; tengraph plan with topographical detail, tenement boundaries, historical land tenure and Aboriginal communities within and in the vicinity of the proposed licence area; a report and plan from the Register of Aboriginal Sites maintained by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (‘DAA’), formerly the Department of Indigenous Affairs); a copy of the tenement application; a copy of the proposed endorsements and conditions of the grant; and a tengraph quick appraisal.
The tengraph quick appraisal establishes the underlying land tenure within the area of E47/2648 to be as follows:
·Vacant Crown Land at 56.7 per cent;
·Pastoral Lease 3114/1013 (Yalleen) at 43.3 per cent;
·Historical Lease 394/404 at 26.5 per cent
Government party documentation also indicated that the area is designated as a Surface Water Area and a Groundwater Area proclaimed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) and managed by the Department of Water.
The quick appraisal establishes the area within this proposed license has previously been subject to two exploration licences, three mining leases, one prospecting licence and two temporary reserves. These licences were variously active between 1960 and 2005, overlapping the proposed licence between 100 per cent and 0.2 per cent and variously withdrawn, surrendered or expired.
The quick appraisal documents indicate that services affected within the proposed licence include 24 minor watercourses.
According to the report from the DAA Register, there are no registered sites within E47/2648.
Tribunal mapping indicates that there are no Aboriginal communities located upon or near the area of the proposed licence.
The draft tenement Endorsement and Conditions Extract for the proposed licence provided by DMP indicates that the grant will be subject to the standard four conditions. The proposed licence will also be subject to two further conditions and eleven endorsements (which differ from conditions in that the breach of an endorsement does not make the licensee liable to forfeiture of the licence) (attached to this decision at Annexure A).
The Government party states in its contentions (at 17) that it will place the following Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) condition on the grant of the proposed licence:
In respect of the area covered by the licence the licensee, if so requested in writing by the Yaburara Mardudhunera People, the applicants in Federal Court application No. WAD127/1997 (WC1996/089), such request being sent by pre-paid post to reach the Licensee’s address, [address], not more than ninety days after the grant of this licence, shall within thirty days of the request execute in favour of the Yaburara Mardudhunera People the Regional Standard Heritage Agreement (‘RSHA’) endorsed by peak industry groups.
Evidence provided by the grantee party
The grantee party statement of contentions relating to the proposed licence outlines early exploration work to be undertaken consisting of non ground-disturbing activities including geological mapping and soil sampling. The grantee party states target areas are to be accessed by existing tracks where possible and helicopter where required. The grantee party contentions also assert the grantee party is aware of the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and its obligations under Part 4 of that Act in relation to the protection of sites. The grantee party states it is willing to undertake a heritage survey if required to ensure sites are not interfered with.
Evidence provided by the native title party
The native title party provided contentions in this matter, but have not provided any affidavit or other forms of evidence.
The native title party contentions briefly address interference with community and social activities under s 237(a) of the Act. They state that the Yaburara and Mardudhunera people engage in ‘traditional activities such as camping, hunting and fishing’ within the area of the proposed licence (at 6). The native title party state that the use of machinery and vehicles authorised under s 66 of the Mining Act will scare off any wild animals and impact on the ability of the native title party to hunt in the proposed licence area (at 7).
In relation to interference with sites of particular significance under s 237(b) of the Act, the native title party state that there are likely to be ‘scatterings of artefacts’ in the proposed licence area as a result of the Yaburara and Mardudhunera people’s historical occupation and use of the area for traditional ceremonies (at 8). The native title party do not provide further detail regarding the location or nature of any significant sites.
The native title party provide more information in relation to major disturbance of land under s 237(c) of the Act. They state, among other things, that ‘without the land and waters being surveyed and monitors being present when the region is being disturbed, then there is a risk of damage to the land and items left behind by the Native Title Party’s ancestors’ (at 11). They also refer to possible damage to areas which could disturb ancestor’s spirits and the native title party’s belief system.
The native title party contentions were provided prior to the grantee party’s contentions, and so the native title party did not have the benefit of the grantee party’s brief outline of initial exploration activity. In their contentions, the native title party did seek leave to respond to any evidence or contentions filed by the grantee or Government party. However, I note at the listing hearing on 15 August 2013, all party representatives indicated they had made all submissions and were happy to proceed, and for the matter to be determined on the papers. As such, the native title party contentions in relation to s 237(c) presuppose that the grantee party’s activities will be broader than the grantee party has indicated in its affidavit material (at 12-14).
The native title party submits that the expedited procedure does not apply to the proposed licence ‘however, if the National Native Title Tribunal finds that it does, the Native Title Party submits that the tenement should only be granted on the condition that surveys are conducted by the Native Title Party before any exploration activity commences' (at 17). There is nothing in the Act which empowers the Tribunal to impose such conditions on the determination of an expedited procedure matter.
Evidence provided by the Government party
The Government party notes there are no Aboriginal communities or registered DAA sites on the proposed licence and that there previously has been exploration and mining activity over the proposed licence area, including an exploration licence and temporary reserve.
The Government party notes the grantee party contentions including that:
·The grantee party is aware of its obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act;
·The grantee party will access exploration targets by using existing tracks and helicopter where possible and required;
·Rehabilitation work will be undertaken; and
·The grantee party has indicated early exploration works will not be ground disturbing and is willing to undertake a heritage survey if required to avoid disturbance of sites.
The Government party notes the grantee party has not provided evidence in relation to how it intends to exercise its rights in the proposed licence area and therefore the Tribunal must assume the grantee party ‘intend to exercise the full suite of rights conferred by section 66 of the Mining Act’.
The Government party states there is no evidence the grantee party will act in breach of the regulatory regime, and that endorsements and conditions will be imposed on the proposed licence.
The Government party notes the grantee party has indicated it is willing to enter into an RSHA in relation to the proposed licence. The Government party also notes that the grantee party has signed a copy of the RSHA and sent it to the native title party on 10 May 2012.
The Government party notes the native title party has not provided any affidavit evidence in this matter and the contentions which have been provided are broad factual assertions and do not provide support to the native title party’s argument that the expedited procedure should not apply. I accept the Government party’s argument that failure to lead evidence will not necessarily result in a party failing on an issue, but where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, the failure of that party to produce evidence as to those facts may lead to an unfavourable inference being drawn (see for example Brosnan at [63] and Silver at [23]).
The Government party has addressed each subsection of s 237 in its contentions.
In summary, for s 237(a) the Government party states that the native title party submissions are ‘assertions without content’ with no reference to supporting evidence. It states that to the extent the native title party carry out any community or social activities in the proposed licence area, there is not likely to be direct interference because:
·The grantee party has indicated its willingness to enter into an RSHA type agreement with the native title party;
·There are no Aboriginal communities within the area of the proposed tenements; and
·The activities of the grantee party and native title party can coexist.
In relation to s 237(b), the Government party does not accept the native title party’s contention that there is likely to be sites of 'particular significance' in the area, and submits that interference with any sites, should the Tribunal hold that there are such, is not likely because:
·There has been no evidence provided to support the existence of ‘potential’ sites referred to in the native title party contentions;
·Ground disturbing activities will be conducted in such a way as to not adversely impact on sites and which will respect local Aboriginal cultural concerns;
·The area has been subject to prior exploration and possible mining activity; and
·The Government’s regulatory regime is likely to prevent interference with any area or site of particular significance.
In relation to s 237(c), the Government party states the native title party has provided no evidence that the grant of the proposed licence will cause or constitute major disturbance to land or waters as envisioned by s 237(c) of the Act. The Government party states the grant of the proposed licence is not likely to involve major disturbance to land or waters because:
·The Government party’s regulatory regime will avoid major disturbance to land and waters;
·Proposed endorsements and conditions require rehabilitation of the land following exploration;
·The proposed licence has been subject to prior exploration and mining activity and the activities contemplated by the grantee party would be the same as or no more significant than the previous and continuing use of the area; and
·There is no evidence that the area has any particular characteristics that would be likely to result in major disturbance to land and waters.
Community or social activities (s 237(a))
The Tribunal is required to make a predictive assessment of whether the grant of the proposed licence and activities undertaken in relation to the grant are likely to interfere with the community or social activities of the native title party (in the sense of there being a real risk of interference) (see Smith at [23]). Direct interference involves an evaluative judgment that the future act is likely to be the proximate cause of the interference, and must be substantial and not trivial in its impact on community or social activities (see Smith at [23]). The assessment is also contextual, taking into account factors that may already have impacted on a native title party’s community or social activities (such as mining or pastoral activity) (see Smith at [27]).
The Tribunal has accepted that the intentions of the grantee party in a particular matter are relevant in assessing whether the activities are likely to directly interfere with the carrying on of a native title party’s community or social activities, or interfere with areas or sites of particular significance to a native title party. In Silver at [29]-[30], Member Sosso (whose findings I adopt) outlined that:
The adoption of a predictive assessment necessarily allows the Tribunal to receive evidence of a grantee’s intention where that evidence is adduced. In the absence of any evidence of intention, the Tribunal would be at liberty to assume that a grantee will fully exercise the rights conferred by the tenement ... evidence of intention cannot be unilaterally discarded in advance, as it is logically relevant to the question of likelihood.
There is no evidence that the grantee party will act contrary to the regulatory regime of the Government party and the grantee party has indicated its willingness to enter into an RSHA.
The native title party contend certain community and social activities such as camping, hunting and fishing take place on the proposed licence. The native title party has not provided evidence as to the frequency, timing, participants or specific location of these activities. As the Tribunal has found in previous determinations, evidence about community or social activities which is of a general and unspecified nature will be insufficient to lead to a finding that the proposed act will directly interfere with those activities in a substantial or more than trivial way (see Asia Investment Corporation, at [14]). I also note that no affidavit evidence has been produced by the native title party in support of their contentions.
To the extent that members of the native title party do carry out those community and social activities, I accept the evidence of the Government party at [38] above and have reached the conclusion that there is not likely to be direct interference.
I also accept that past and present exploration and mining activities are likely to have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, the community or social activities of the native title party. While there is no specific evidence of the degree of such interference, the Tribunal is entitled, as part of the overall context, to have regard to the fact that these previous activities will already to some extent have interfered with the native title party’s community and social activities (see Tarlpa at [122]).
The total area of the Yaburara and Marthudunera People claim is approximately 9,554 square kilometres and the proposed licence is approximately 111.7 square kilometres. The size of the area of the proposed licence in the context of the much larger native title claim makes it less likely that exploration activity will interfere with the community or social activities described by the native title party.
In the circumstances, taking into account the evidence available, I conclude that there is unlikely to be interference of the kind contemplated by s 237(a) of the Act in this matter.
Sites of particular significance (s 237(b))
The issue the Tribunal is required to determine in relation to s 237(b) of the Act is whether there is likely to be (in the sense of a real risk of) interference with areas or sites of particular (that is, more than ordinary) significance to the native title party in accordance with their traditions. As noted, it is established in DAA documentation and Tribunal mapping that there are no registered sites within the proposed licence. However, this does not mean there may not be other sites or areas of particular significance to the native title party in the area. The Register does not purport to be a record of all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia, and the Tribunal will consider whether there is evidence to support the existence of relevant sites in particular matters.
The native title party contentions refer to the likelihood that other significant sites exist in the area but provide no evidence or content as to the nature of any ‘particular significance’ of any sites. Even if I were to accept that there are other sites in the area which have not been identified, the native title party contentions themselves speak only about the sites being ‘significant’, and there is no information as to how or why sites may be of ‘particular significance’ to the native title party.
I accept the Government party contentions at [39] and the grantee party contentions at [24] above that, in the event of there being any areas or sites of particular significance within the proposed licence, interference with those areas is not likely.
The Tribunal has held, on previous occasions, that the native title party must provide evidence with sufficient detail and specificity to allow the Tribunal to make the predictive assessment required by s 237(b) (see for example Iron Duyfken at [39]; Cheinmora at [43]). In the present matter, the evidence before me does not disclose a sufficient basis to reach a conclusion regarding the particular significance of any sites, or that they are likely to be interfered with.
The regulatory regime based on the AHA has been described on numerous occasions by the Tribunal (see for example, Maitland Parker (at [31]-[38], [40]-[41]). While the Tribunal has usually found that the site protective regime based on the AHA is sufficient to ensure any interference with sites of particular significance is unlikely, each matter must be considered on its own facts (see Butcher Cherel (at [81]-[91]). The Tribunal must consider, based on facts of particular cases and the nature and extent of sites of particular significance, whether this protective regime is sufficient to make it unlikely that there will be interference with sites of particular significance. I am satisfied, based on the available evidence, that the AHA and its associated processes, together with the endorsements and conditions to be placed on the proposed licence in this matter, are likely to prevent interference with any area or site of ‘particular significance’ in the context of exploration activities.
Taking all of these factors into account, I find there is no real risk of interference with sites of particular significance as a result of the grant of the proposed licence, as envisioned by s 237(b) of the Act.
Major disturbance to land and waters (s 237(c))
The Tribunal is required to make an evaluative judgment on whether major disturbance to land and waters is likely to occur (in the sense that there is a real risk of it) from the point of view of the entire Australian community, including the Aboriginal community, as well as taking into account the concerns of the native title party and what was likely to be done by the grantee party (see Little at [41]-[57]).
It is well established that the starting point and pre-condition of any inquiry into matters relating to s 237(c) is evidence of proposed physical disturbance of land and waters (see Rosas at [84]). In this matter, the native title party have not offered any evidence that relates to significant, direct physical disturbance of land or waters. Cultural concerns about unauthorised access cannot, on their own, form the basis of a finding of major disturbance (see Geotech at [44]).
The native title party’s contentions presuppose that the grantee party will fully exercise the rights conferred by the proposed licence under s 66 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA). These rights are said to authorise activities including, among other things, digging pits, trenches and holes in the land, sinking bores and tunnels, excavating and removing land, earth, soil, rock and stone from the land, and taking water from the land. The native party contends that these activities are likely to result in the removal of and disturbance to traditional bush tucker, bush medicine and traditional items.
The native title party also contends that, if the disturbance will have a significant impact on members of the native title party who live in and use the affected area, it might be sufficient to warrant a finding that it will constitute a major disturbance even if it would be unimportant to non-Aboriginals. In the present matter, there is no evidence that members of the native title party live in or use the proposed licence area, or any material that would support a finding that those people would be significantly affected by the grant of the proposed licence.
In this matter the native title party have provided no evidence of any sensitive topographical, geological or environmental factors which would lead people to think that exploration activities would result in major disturbance to land or waters, and there is no evidence that the grantee party is likely to fail to comply with the regulatory regime.
On that basis, I do not find it likely that major disturbance to land and waters is likely to occur in this matter, as envisioned by s 237(c) of the Act.
Determination
The determination of the Tribunal is that the act, namely the grant of exploration licence E47/2648 to Baracus Pty Ltd, is an act attracting the expedited procedure.
Helen Shurven
Member
27 August 2013
ANNEXURE A
GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TENEMENT ENDORSEMENTS AND CONDITIONS
ENDORSEMENTS
In respect to Water Resources Management Areas (WRMA) the following endorsements apply:
1The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and any Regulations thereunder.
2The Licensee’s attention is drawn to the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, which provides for the protection of all native vegetation from damage unless prior permission is obtained.
3The Licensee pursuant to the approval of the Minister responsible for the Mining Act 1978 under Section 111 of the Mining Act 1978 is authorised to explore for iron.
4 The Licensee attention is drawn to the provisions of the:
·Waterways Conservation Act, 1976
·Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, 1914
·Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage Act, 1909
·Country Areas Water Supply Act, 1947
·Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984
·Water Resources Legislation Amendment Act 2007
5The rights of ingress to and egress from the mining tenement being at all reasonable times preserved to officers of Department of Water (DoW) for inspection and investigation purposes.
6The storage and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons, chemicals and potentially hazardous substances being in accordance with the current published version of the DoWs relevant Water Quality Protection Notes and Guidelines for mining and mineral processing.
In respect to Artesian (confined) Aquifers and Wells the following endorsement applies:
7The abstraction of groundwater from an artesian well and the construction, enlargement, deepening or altering of any artesian well is prohibited unless a current licence for these activities has been issued by the DoW.
In respect to Waterways the following endorsement applies:
8Advice shall be sought from the DoW if proposing any exploration in respect to licence purpose within a defined waterway and within a lateral distance of:
·50 metres from the outer-most water dependant vegetation of any perennial waterway, and
·30 metres from the outer-most water dependant vegetation of any seasonal waterway.
9 No exploration being carried out that may disrupt the natural flow of any waterway unless in accordance with a current licence to take surface water or permit to obstruct or interfere with beds or banks issued by the DoW.
10 Advice shall be sought from the DoW and the relevant service provider if proposing being carried out in an existing or designated future irrigation area, or within 50 metres of an irrigation channel, drain or waterway.
In respect to Proclaimed Ground Water Areas the following endorsement applies:
11 The abstraction of groundwater is prohibited unless a current licence to construct/alter a well and a licence to take groundwater has been issued by the DoW.
CONDITIONS
...
5 The Licensee notifying the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease by telephone or in person, or by registered post if contact cannot be made, prior to undertaking airborne geophysical surveys or any ground disturbing activities utilising equipment such as scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes, drilling rigs; water carting equipment or other mechanised equipment.
6 The Licensee or transferee, as the case may be, shall within thirty (30) days of receiving written notification of:-
·The grant of the Licence; or
·Registration of a transfer introducing a new Licensee;
Advise, be registered post, the holder of any underlying pastoral or grazing lease details of the grant or transfer.
0
14
0