Appendix H Aboriginal Heritage Report · Draft V1.1 Author to Editor OzArk 1st Internal (Series V1._ = OzArk internal edits) V1.0 JKB 9.1.2015 Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release

Appendix H

Aboriginal Heritage

Report

VIEW OF THE STUDY AREA.

ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE

TABBITA POULTRY FARM #3

CARRATHOOL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

SEPTEMBER 2015

REPORT PREPARED BY

OZARK ENVIRONMENTAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

FOR PLANNINGMATTERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PTY LIMITED

This page has intentionally been left blank.

OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management

Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. i

DOCUMENT CONTROLS

Proponent To Be Advised

Client Planningmatters Development Services Pty Limited

Project No / Purchase Order No

Document Description Aboriginal Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool LGA, NSW.

Name Signed Date

Clients Reviewing Officer

Clients Representative Managing this Document OzArk Person(s) Managing this Document

Phil Cameron

Location OzArk Job No.

\\DROBONAS\Public\OzArk EHM Data\Clients\PlanningMatters\Tabbita\Heritage\Report Items

1150

Document Status FINAL Date 9.1.2015

Draft V1.1 Author to Editor OzArk 1st Internal (Series V1._ = OzArk internal edits)

V1.0 JKB 9.1.2015

Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release to client

(Series V2._ = OzArk and Client edits)

V2.0 Reviewed. OzArk to Client 2.2.2015

FINAL V3._once latest version of draft approved by client

Finalised 21.9.2015

Prepared For Prepared By

Martin Ruggeri

Principal

Planningmatters Development Services Pty Limited

23 Noorilla Street

Griffith NSW 2680

P: 02 6962 2696

E: [email protected]

Jennifer Bertolani

Archaeologist

OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty. Limited

145 Wingewarra Street (PO Box 2069)

Dubbo NSW 2830

P: 02 6882 0118

F: 02 6882 6030

E: [email protected]

COPYRIGHT

© OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty Ltd, 2015 and © Planningmatters

Development Services, 2015

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as

permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted,

stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission.

Enquiries should be addressed to OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty Ltd.


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. ii

Acknowledgement

OzArk acknowledge Traditional Owners of the area on which this assessment took place and pay respect

to their beliefs, cultural heritage and continuing connection with the land. We also acknowledge and pay

respect to the post-contact experiences of Aboriginal people with attachment to the area and to the elders,

past and present, as the next generation of role models and vessels for memories, traditions, culture and

hopes of local Aboriginal people.


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by

Planningmatters Development Services (Planningmatters; the Client), on behalf of the Proponent

to complete a Due Diligence Archaeological Assessment for a proposed poultry farm (Tabbita

Poultry Farm #3) located in Tabbita, NSW, Carrathool Local Government Area.

The Proponent wishes to construct a total of five up to 20 shed poultry farms and one access

point off Tabbita Lane with an internal roadway that links all five clusters of sheds (the Project).

This report will detail and discuss any Aboriginal heritage constraints to Tabbita Poultry Farm #3

and its access roadway(s), hereafter referred to as the Study Area. The Study Area consists of

approximately 85 hectares of grazing land located off Tabbita Lane in Tabbita, NSW within Lot6

DP756057.

On Monday 22 December 2014 OzArk archaeology officer, Stephanie Rusden carried out a site

inspection of the Study Area. The majority of the Study Area has been modified via vegetation

clearing, agriculture and grazing. As a result of the visual inspection no items of Aboriginal

heritage were recorded within the Study Area. In addition, no landform within the Study Area was

assessed as being likely to contain subsurface archaeological deposits.

Based upon the findings of the current assessment it is concluded there are no constraints on the

basis of Aboriginal heritage to the proposed works as confined to the area assessed.

Recommendations concerning the Study Area are as follows:

1. As no Aboriginal sites or objects were recorded within the Study Area and no landforms

were assessed as having archaeological potential, no further archaeological assessment

is required;

2. As it is assessed there is a low probability of impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage within

the Study Area, the proposed works can proceed under the following conditions:

a. All land-disturbing activities must be confined within the assessed Study Area.

Should project impacts change such the area to be impacted is altered then

additional assessment may be required;

b. Any work crews employed in ground disturbing works within the Study Area should

be made aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal sites and objects; and

c. In the unlikely event objects are encountered which are suspected to be of

Aboriginal origin (including skeletal material), the Unanticipated Finds Protocol

(Appendix 2) should be followed.


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. iv

CONTENTS

Document Controls ..................................................................................................................... i

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... iii

Contents ................................................................................................................................... iv

Figures .................................................................................................................................. vi

Tables ................................................................................................................................... vi

Plates .................................................................................................................................... vi

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Brief Description of The Proposal ................................................................................. 1

1.2 Proposed Works .......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Relevant Legislation ..................................................................................................... 1

1.4.1 State Legislation ................................................................................................... 1

1.4.2 Commonwealth Legislation ................................................................................... 2

1.4.3 Applicability to the Project ..................................................................................... 3

2 The Archaeological Assessment ......................................................................................... 4

2.1 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment Objectives ................................................ 4

2.2 Date of Archaeological Field Inspection ....................................................................... 4

2.3 OzArk Involvement ....................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1 Field Assessment ................................................................................................. 4

2.3.2 Reporting .............................................................................................................. 4

3 Landscape Context ............................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Topography.................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 5

3.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Climate ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.6 Land–Use History and Existing Levels of Disturbance ................................................. 6

3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 6


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. v

4 Aboriginal Archaeology Background ................................................................................... 7

4.1 Ethno-Historic Sources of Regional Aboriginal Culture ................................................ 7

4.2 Local Archaeological Context ....................................................................................... 7

4.2.1 Desktop Database Searches Conducted .............................................................. 7

4.3 Predictive Model for Site Location ................................................................................ 8

5 Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice .............................................................. 9

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9

5.2 Defences under the NPW Regulations 2009 ................................................................ 9

5.3 Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice to the Proposed Development ........ 9

6 Results of Visual Inspection .............................................................................................. 11

6.1 Sampling Strategy and Field Methods........................................................................ 11

6.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 11

6.2.1 Aboriginal Sites Recorded................................................................................... 11

6.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 11

6.1 Management and Mitigation ....................................................................................... 11

7 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12

7.1 Aboriginal Heritage .................................................................................................... 12

References .............................................................................................................................. 13

Plates ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix 1: Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System Search Results ................. 16

Appendix 2: Unanticipated Finds Protocol ................................................................................ 17


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. vi

FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Location Map. .......................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1-2: Proposed Works Showing Impact Footprint. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 1-3: The Study Area. ....................................................................................................... 1

TABLES

Table 4-1: Desktop-Database Search Results............................................................................ 7

PLATES

Plate 1: View of Study Area. ..................................................................................................... 14

Plate 2: View of Study Area. ..................................................................................................... 14

Plate 3: Ground Surface Visibility within the Study Area. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by

Planningmatters Development Services (Planningmatters; the Client), on behalf of the Proponent

to complete a Due Diligence Archaeological Assessment for a proposed poultry farm (Tabbita

Poultry Farm #3) located in Tabbita, NSW, Carrathool Local Government Area (LGA; Figure 1-

1).

The Proponent wishes to construct a total of five 20 shed poultry farms and one access point off

Tabbita Lane with an internal roadway that links all five clusters of sheds (the Project).

This report will detail and discuss any Aboriginal heritage constraints to Tabbita Poultry Farm #3

and its access roadway(s), hereafter referred to as the Study Area.



Figure 1-1: Location Map.



Figure 1-2: The Project area with Tabbita Poultry Farm #3.



1.2 PROPOSED WORKS

In addition to the access roadway proposed works will include up to 20 sheds, hard stand pads

around the sheds and stormwater and water supply dams within proximity (Figure 1-2).

1.3 STUDY AREA

The Study Area consists of approximately 85 hectares of grazing land located off Tabbita Lane

in Tabbita, NSW within Lot6 DP756057.

The Study Area is within the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority and is located 15

kilometres southeast of Goolgowi and 40 kilometres northwest of Griffith, NSW.



Figure 1-3: The Study Area.



1.4 RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Cultural heritage is managed by a number of state and national acts. Baseline principles for the

conservation of heritage places and relics can be found in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS

2013). The Burra Charter has become the standard of best practice in the conservation of

heritage places in Australia, and heritage organisations and local government authorities have

incorporated the inherent principles and logic into guidelines and other conservation planning

documents. The Burra Charter generally advocates a cautious approach to changing places of

heritage significance. This conservative notion embodies the basic premise behind legislation

designed to protect our heritage, which operates primarily at a state level.

A number of acts of parliament provide for the protection of heritage at various levels of

government.

1.4.1 State Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

This Act established requirements relating to land use and planning. The framework governing

environmental and heritage assessment in NSW is contained within the following parts of the

EP&A Act:

Part 4: Local government development assessments, including heritage. May include

schedules of heritage items;

Part 4.1: Approvals process for state significant development;

Part 5: Environmental impact assessment on any heritage items which may be impacted

by activities undertaken by a state government authority or a local government acting as

a self-determining authority; and

Part 5.1: Approvals process for state significant infrastructure.

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act)

Amended during 2010, the NPW Act provides for the protection of Aboriginal objects (sites,

objects and cultural material) and Aboriginal places. Under the Act (S.5), an Aboriginal object is

defined as: any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to

indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises NSW, being habitation both

prior to and concurrent with the occupation of that area by persons of European extraction, and

includes Aboriginal remains.

An Aboriginal place is defined under the NPW Act as an area which has been declared by the

Minister administering the Act as a place of special significance for Aboriginal culture. It may or

may not contain physical Aboriginal objects.



As of 1 October 2010, it is an offence under Section 86 of the NPW Act to ‘harm or desecrate an

object the person knows is an Aboriginal object’. It is also a strict liability offence to ‘harm an

Aboriginal object’ or to ‘harm or desecrate an Aboriginal place’, whether knowingly or

unknowingly. Section 87 of the Act provides a series of defences against the offences listed in

Section 86, viz.:

The harm was authorised by and conducted in accordance with the requirements of an

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) under Section 90 of the Act;

The defendant exercised ‘due diligence’ to determine whether the action would harm an

Aboriginal object; or

The harm to the Aboriginal object occurred during the undertaking of a ‘low impact activity’

(as defined in the regulations).

Under Section 89A of the Act, it is a requirement to notify the OEH Director-General of the location

of an Aboriginal object. Identified Aboriginal items and sites are registered on AHIMS.

1.4.2 Commonwealth Legislation

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

Amendments in 2003 established the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage

List, both administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment. Ministerial

approval is required under the EPBC Act for proposals involving significant impacts to

National/Commonwealth heritage places.

Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act)

The Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) is applicable to the current assessment. This Act

established the Heritage Council of NSW. The Heritage Council’s role is to advise the government

on the protection of heritage assets, make listing recommendations to the Minister in relation to

the State Heritage Register, and assess/approve/decline proposals involving modification to

heritage items or places listed on the Register. Most proposals involving modification are

assessed under Section 60 of the Heritage Act.

Automatic protection is afforded to ‘relics’, defined as ‘any deposit or material evidence relating

to the settlement of the area that comprised New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement,

and which holds state or local significance’ (note: formerly the Act protected any ‘relic’ that was

more than 50 years old. Now the age determination has been dropped from the Act and relics

are protected according to their heritage significance assessment rather than purely on their age).

Excavation of land on which it is known or where there is reasonable cause to suspect that ‘relics’

will be exposed, moved, destroyed, discovered or damaged is prohibited unless ordered under

an excavation permit.



1.4.3 Applicability to the Project

The current project will be assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act.

Any Aboriginal sites within the Study Area are afforded legislative protection under the NPW Act.

Any items of local or state historical heritage significance within the Study Area are afforded

legislative protection under the Heritage Act.

It is noted there are no Commonwealth or National heritage listed places within the Study Area,

and as such, the EPBC Act does not apply.



2 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the current study is to identify and assess heritage constraints relevant to the

proposed works.

2.1.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment Objectives

The current assessment will apply the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010a) in the completion of a Due Diligence

archaeological assessment, in order to meet the following objectives:

Objective One: To identify portions of the Study Area to be assessed as per the Due

Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New

South Wales (DECCW 2010a);

Objective Two: To assess the significance of any recorded Aboriginal sites, objects or

places; and

Objective Three: To assess the likely impacts of the proposed works to any recorded

Aboriginal sites, objects or places and provide management

recommendations

2.2 DATE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INSPECTION

The fieldwork component of this assessment was undertaken by OzArk on Monday 22 December

2014.

2.3 OZARK INVOLVEMENT

2.3.1 Field Assessment

The fieldwork component of the current project was undertaken by:

Archaeology Officer: Stephanie Rusden (BS Land and Heritage Management,

University of Wollongong; BA Archaeology [in progress]).

2.3.2 Reporting

The reporting component of the current project was undertaken by:

Report Author: Jennifer Bertolani (BS Anthropology, Central Washington University);

and

Reviewer: Phillip Cameron Senior Project Manager (BSc, Ass Dip App Sci, CEnvP).



3 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

An understanding of the environmental contexts of a Study Area is requisite in any Aboriginal

archaeological investigation (DECCW 2010b). It is a particularly important consideration in the

development and implementation of survey strategies for the detection of archaeological sites. In

addition, natural geomorphic processes of erosion and/or deposition, as well as humanly

activated landscape processes, influence the degree to which these material culture remains are

retained in the landscape as archaeological sites; and the degree to which they are preserved,

revealed and/or conserved in present environmental settings.

3.1 TOPOGRAPHY

The current Study Area falls within the NSW Murray Darling Depression (MDD) Bioregion within

the Ivanhoe - Nangara ecosystem and is wholly comprised of the Hillston Sandplains (Hsp)

(Mitchell 2002: 39). The topography of the Hsp is characterised by level to undulating sandplain.

The entirety of the Study Area is comprised of level sandplain.

3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The geology of the Hsp features Quaternary Aeolian sands with limited alluvium. Calcareous red

earth and solonized brown soils are found on hummocks. Soils within the Study Area consist of

sandy brown soils.

3.3 HYDROLOGY

The Study Area is located within the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority (CMA)

within the Murray Darling River basin 52 kilometres north of the Murrumbidgee River and 80

kilometres southeast of the Lachlan River. There are no drainage systems within the Study Area.

3.4 VEGETATION

The entirety of the Study Area has been previously cleared and ploughed for crop cultivation and

other agricultural land uses. Prior to European occupation vegetation within the Study Area would

have consisted of dense mallee and broombush communities which would include, pointed

mallee, mallee broombush, spur wing wattle, with belah, rosewood, warrior bush, budda, white

cypress pine, needlewood, hop bush, turpentine, occasional ironbark and burrajong, variable

spear grass, medics and forbs (Mitchell 2002: 39).

3.5 CLIMATE

Climate statistics are taken from Griffith located 40 kilometres southeast of the Study Area. The

Griffith area is dominated by summer rainfall with the maximum average temperature occurring

in January (33.0°C) and minimum average temperature occurring in July (3.5°C). The average

rainfall per year in Griffith is 401.6 millimetres (BoM 2015).



3.6 LAND–USE HISTORY AND EXISTING LEVELS OF DISTURBANCE

Since European settlement, the Griffith area has been subjected to a number of land uses that

have resulted in the clearing of native vegetation and/or the removal of natural sand dunes

including urban development, agriculture and grazing (leading to ground-cover loss and a rising

water-table).

The entirety of the Study Area has been disturbed by various land-uses. Current land-use

includes pastoralism while past agricultural use is visible within the landform.

3.7 CONCLUSION

The lack of reliable water supply within the Study Area would not have made the area attractive

to Aboriginals in the past, thereby decreasing the likelihood of encountering Aboriginal sites.

Historic impacts to the landscape as a result of land use, is likely to have impacted the integrity

of any sites that may be located within the Study Area.



4 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY BACKGROUND

4.1 ETHNO-HISTORIC SOURCES OF REGIONAL ABORIGINAL CULTURE

The Study Area is within the southern boundaries of the territory of the Wiradjuri tribal and

linguistic group (Tindale 1974). The Wiradjuri tribal area is situated within the Murray Darling

Basin and extends across three general physiographic regions: the highlands or central

tablelands in the east, the riverine plains in the west, and the transitional western slopes zone in-

between. It is important to recognise the use and meaning of the term ‘tribe’ and the designation

of lines on a map as ‘tribal boundaries’ as being controversial issues (Bowdler 1983: 22).

Prior to European settlement, the eastern margins of the Murrumbidgee River basin supported

woodland and forest habitats that provided home to a wide range of exploitable resources for the

Aboriginal population. These resources included possums, which provided a ready source of

meat and fur for cloaks (Kabaila 1998: 12). Also used were vegetables including the roots of daisy

yams (Myrrnong), the tubers of lilies and orchids, stands of bracken fern, and Kurrajong roots.

As the Murrumbidgee River enters the western slopes of the Wagga Wagga area, and out onto

the red brown earth plains around Hay and Griffith, the landscape becomes more an open plain

woodland becoming increasingly arid with the western flow of the river. The grassland plains were

characterised by kangaroos and emus that were hunted, often using the firing of vegetation as a

tool (Kabaila 1998: 12). The frequent floods of the Murrumbidgee River provided the local

Aboriginal population with an abundance of resources: as the flood waters receded they left the

drying pools stocked with freshwater mussels, yabbies, fish and waterfowl as well as aquatic

plants (Kabaila 1998: 12).

4.2 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

4.2.1 Desktop Database Searches Conducted

A desktop search was conducted on the following databases to identify any potential previously-

recorded heritage within the Study Area. The results of this search are summarised here in Table

4-1 and presented in detail in Appendix 2.

Table 4-1: Desktop-Database Search Results.

Name of Database Searched Date of Search Type of Search Comment

Commonwealth Heritage Listings

8.1.2015 Carrathool LGA

No places listed on either the National or Commonwealth heritage lists are located within the Study Area

National Native Title Claims Search

8.1.2015 NSW No Native Title Claims cover the Study Area.



Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS);

20.12.2014 10 x 10 km

centred on the Project Site

No sites are located within the searched area.

Local Environment Plan

8.1.2015 Carrathool LEP

of 2012

None of the Aboriginal places noted occur near the Study Area.

A search of the OEH administered AHIMS database returned no records for Aboriginal heritage

sites within the designated search area.

4.3 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR SITE LOCATION

Across Australia, numerous archaeological studies in widely varying environmental zones and

contexts have demonstrated a high correlation between the permanence of a water source and

the permanence and/or complexity of Aboriginal occupation. Site location is also affected by the

availability of and/or accessibility to a range of other natural resources including: plant and animal

foods; stone and ochre resources and rock shelters; as well as by their general proximity to other

sites/places of cultural/mythological significance. Consequently sites tend to be found along

permanent and ephemeral water sources, along access or trade routes or in areas that have

good flora/fauna resources and appropriate shelter.

In formulating a predictive model for Aboriginal archaeological site location within any landscape

it is also necessary to consider post-depositional influences on Aboriginal material culture. In all

but the best preservation conditions very little of the organic material culture remains of ancestral

Aboriginal communities survives to the present. Generally it is the more durable materials such

as stone artefacts, stone hearths, shell, and some bones that remain preserved in the current

landscape. Even these however may not be found in their original depositional context since

these may be subject to either (a) the effects of wind and water erosion/transport - both over short

and long time scales or (b) the historical impacts associated with the introduction of European

farming practices including: grazing and cropping; land degradation associated with exotic pests

such as goats and rabbits and the installation of farm related infrastructure including water-

storage, utilities, roads, fences, stockyards and residential quarters. Scarred trees may survive

for up to several hundred years but rarely beyond.

Knowledge of the environmental contexts of the Study Area and a desktop review of the known

local and regional archaeological record, the most likely sites to be encountered are:

Open camp sites are possible on elevated ground however due to the high level of

disturbance across the Study Area this site type, if present, has a high likelihood of being

disturbed and/or of low integrity; and

Isolated finds may occur anywhere, especially in disturbed locations.



5 APPLICATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE CODE OF PRACTICE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In late 2010, changes were made to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act 1974)

via the Omnibus Bill. As of October 2010, the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection

of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a) was instituted to assist developers to exercise the

appropriate level of caution when carrying out activities that could cause harm to Aboriginal

heritage.

5.2 DEFENCES UNDER THE NPW REGULATIONS 2009

The first step before application of the Due Diligence process itself is to determine whether the

proposed activity is a “low impact activity” for which there is a defence in the NPW regulations

2009. The exemptions are listed in Section 7.5 of the Regulations (DECCW 2010a: 6).

The activities of the Proposal do not fall into any of these exemption categories. Therefore the

Due Diligence process must be applied.

Relevant to this process is the assessed levels of previous land-use disturbance.

The regulations (DECCW 2010a: 18) define disturbed land as follows:

Land is disturbed if it has been the subject of a human activity that has changed

the land’s surface, being changes that remain clear and observable.

Examples include ploughing, construction of rural infrastructure (such as dams

and fences), construction of roads, trails and tracks (including fire trails and tracks

and walking tracks), clearing vegetation, construction of buildings and the

erection of other structures, construction or installation of utilities and other similar

services (such as above or below ground electrical infrastructure, water or

sewerage pipelines, stormwater drainage and other similar infrastructure) and

construction of earthworks.

5.3 APPLICATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE CODE OF PRACTICE TO THE PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT

To follow the generic Due Diligence process, a series of steps in a question answer flowchart

format (DECCW 2010a: 10) are applied to the project impacts and Study Area and the responses

documented.

The following paragraphs address this due diligence for the Tabbita Poultry Farm #3 in Tabbita

NSW.

Step 1: Will the activity disturb the ground surface or any culturally modified trees?

Yes the activity will disturb the ground. Go to Step 2.



Step 2: Are there any:

a) Relevant confirmed site records or other associated landscape feature

information on AHIMS? and/or

b) Any other sources of information of which a person is already aware? and/or

c) Landscape features that are likely to indicate presence of Aboriginal objects?

a) No. A search of the AHIMS database revealed no sites located within the Study Area. The

AHIMS Web Service search covered the following area: GDA Zone 55 Eastings 381675 –

390450; Northings 6225345 – 6233399 with a buffer of 50 meters (see Appendix 1).

b) No. It is noteworthy that Aboriginal community consultation is not a formal requirement of the

Due Diligence process (DECCW 2010a Section 5), although it is noted that the Proponent

may wish to consider undertaking consultation if it will assist in informing decision making.

c) Landscape features noted here include (DECCW 2010a):

• within 200 metres of waters, or

• located within a sand dune system, or

• located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland, or

• located within 200 metres below or above a cliff face, or

• within 20 metres of or in a cave, rock shelter, or a cave mouth

and’ is on land that is not disturbed land (see Section 5.2) then you must go to Step 3.

No. The Study Area does not contain any of the landscape features described above.

The ‘no’ answer for Question 2 a-c, removes the project from the Due Diligence Process at this

step, moving it through to this outcome (DECCW 2010a: 10):

AHIP application not necessary. Proceed with caution. If any Aboriginal

objects are found, stop work and notify OEH (Office of Environment and

Heritage). If human remains are found, stop work, secure the site and notify

NSW Police and OEH.

The Proponent has elected to apply the precautionary principle and proceed to visual inspection

of the Study Area (Section 6) in order to ground-truth the findings of the above desktop level

assessment.



6 RESULTS OF VISUAL INSPECTION

6.1 SAMPLING STRATEGY AND FIELD METHODS

Visual Inspection was concentrated on the stand of vegetation within the western portion of the

Study Area. Notes were made and photographs were taken. This information was suitable to

demonstrate Due Diligence along with the background information obtained (Sections 3 and 4).

6.2 RESULTS

The entirety of the Study Area has been modified via vegetation clearing and agriculture (Plate

1-2). Variable amounts of ground cover gave a range of ground surface visibility across the Study

Area (Plate 3).

6.2.1 Aboriginal Sites Recorded

No items of Aboriginal heritage were recorded within the Study Area. In addition, no landform

within the Study Area was assessed as being likely to contain subsurface archaeological

deposits.

6.3 DISCUSSION

No Aboriginal sites were recorded during the site visit. The findings of the current assessment

conform to the predictive model for site location (Section 4.3) that there is a low possibility for

site types such as scarred trees and artefact scatters.

6.1 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

Appropriate management of cultural heritage items is primarily determined on the basis of their

assessed significance as well as the likely impacts of the proposed development.

To this end it is noted no Aboriginal site or object was observed within the Study Area.

Additionally, there is a low potential for undetected isolated finds or small artefact scatters to be

located within the Study Area. Should such sites exist, it is assessed these are likely to have been

previously impacted by agricultural disturbances and there is very little possibility for any

extensive or complex sites. It is therefore considered any further archaeological assessment of

the Study Area will not substantially alter the assessment given in this report.



7 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

Under Section 91 of the NPW Act (as amended in 1974) it is mandatory that all Aboriginal sites

recorded under any auspices be registered with OEH AHIMS. As a professional in the field of

cultural heritage management it is the responsibility of OzArk to ensure this process is

undertaken.

To this end it is noted that no new Aboriginal sites were recorded during the assessment.

The following recommendations are made on the basis of these impacts and with regard to:

Legal requirements under the terms of the NPW Act (as amended in 1974) whereby it

is illegal to damage, deface or destroy an Aboriginal place or object without the prior

written consent of OEH;

The findings of the current investigations undertaken within the Study Area; and

The interests of the Aboriginal community.

Recommendations concerning the Study Area are as follows:

1. As no Aboriginal sites or objects were recorded within the Study Area and no landforms

were assessed as having archaeological potential, no further archaeological assessment

is required;

2. As it is assessed there is a low probability of impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage within

the Study Area, the proposed works can proceed under the following conditions:

a. All land-disturbing activities must be confined within the assessed Study Area.

Should project impacts change such the area to be impacted is altered then

additional assessment may be required;

b. Any work crews employed in ground disturbing works within the Study Area should

be made aware of the legislative protection of Aboriginal sites and objects; and

c. In the unlikely event objects are encountered which are suspected to be of

Aboriginal origin (including skeletal material), the Unanticipated Finds Protocol

(Appendix 2) should be followed.



REFERENCES

Australia ICOMOS 2013 International Council on Monuments and Sites 2013. The Burra Charter: The

Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.

BoM 2015 Bureau of Meteorology 2014. Climate Statistics for Australian Locations

Griffith, NSW. Website viewed 8 January 2015.

<http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_075041_All.shtml>.

Bowdler 1983 S. Bowdler. Aboriginal Sites on the Crown Timber Lands of NSW. Report

to the Forestry Commission of NSW.

DECCW 2010a DECCW. 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Department of Environment, Climate Change

and Water, Sydney.

DECCW 2010b DECCW. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal

Objects in New South Wales. Department of Environment, Climate Change

and Water, Sydney.

Kabaila 1998 P. Kabaila 1998 (2nd ed.) Wiradjuri Places. The Murrumbidgee Basin Black

Mountain Projects. Canberra.

Mitchell 2002 Mitchell, P. 2002. NSW Ecosystems Database Mapping Unit Descriptions.

Groundtruth Consulting.

Tindale 1974 A. Tindale 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. University of California

Press.



PLATES

Plate 1: View of Study Area.

Plate 2: View of Study Area.



Plate 3: Ground surface visibility.



APPENDIX 1: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SEARCH RESULTS



APPENDIX 2: UNANTICIPATED FINDS PROTOCOL

An Aboriginal artefact is anything which is the result of past Aboriginal activity. This includes stone

(artefacts, rock engravings etc.), plant (culturally scarred trees) and animal (if showing signs of

modification; i.e. smoothing, use). Human bone (skeletal) remains may also be uncovered while

onsite.

Cultural heritage significance is assessed by the Aboriginal community and is typically based on

traditional and contemporary lore, spiritual values, and oral history, and may also take into

account scientific and educational value.

Protocol to be followed in the event that previously unrecorded or unanticipated Aboriginal

object(s) are encountered:

1. All ground surface disturbance in the area of the finds should cease immediately the finds

are uncovered.

a) The discoverer of the find(s) will notify machinery operators in the immediate vicinity

of the find(s) so that work can be halted; and

b) The site supervisor will be informed of the find(s).

2. If there is substantial doubt regarding an Aboriginal origin for the finds, then gain a qualified

opinion from an archaeologist as soon as possible. This can circumvent proceeding further

along the protocol for items which turn out not to be archaeological. If a quick opinion cannot

be gained, or the identification is positive, then proceed to the next step.

3. Immediately notify the following authorities or personnel of the discovery:

a) OEH; and

b) Relevant Aboriginal Community Representatives.

4. Facilitate, in co-operation with the appropriate authorities and relevant Aboriginal

community representatives:

a) The recording and assessment of the finds;

b) Fulfilling any legal constraints arising from the find(s). This will include complying with

OEH directions; and

c) The development and conduct of appropriate management strategies. Strategies will

depend on consultation with stakeholders and the assessment of the significance of the

find(s).

5. Where the find(s) are determined to be Aboriginal Objects, any re-commencement of

construction related ground surface disturbance may only resume in the area of the find(s)

following compliance with any consequential legal requirements and gaining written

approval from OEH (as required).

Documents

Appendix H Aboriginal Heritage Report · Draft V1.1 Author to Editor OzArk 1st Internal (Series V1._ = OzArk internal edits) V1.0 JKB 9.1.2015 Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release