View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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: mruggeri@planningmatters.net.au
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: jennifer@ozarkehm.com.au
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1
Figure 1-1: Location Map.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1
Figure 1-2: The Project area with Tabbita Poultry Farm #3.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1
Figure 1-3: The Study Area.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 1
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 2
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 3
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 4
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).
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 5
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).
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 6
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 7
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 8
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 9
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 10
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 11
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 12
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 13
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 14
PLATES
Plate 1: View of Study Area.
Plate 2: View of Study Area.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 15
Plate 3: Ground surface visibility.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 16
APPENDIX 1: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SEARCH RESULTS
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence: Tabbita Poultry Farm #3, Carrathool Local Government Area. 17
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).
Recommended