Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment (OzArk ... · Aboriginal Archaeological Due...

Appendix H

Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment

(OzArk 2016)

LOCATION OF PROPOSED ACCESS CORRIDOR JOINING THE RANCH FARM 4 AND

5.

ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT

THE RANCH FARMS 4 AND 5, NEAR GRIFFITH NSW

JANUARY 2016

REPORT PREPARED BY

OZARK ENVIRONMENTAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

FOR SLR CONSULTING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

ON BEHALF OF VOAG 4 PTY LTD AND VOAG 5 PTY LTD

This page has intentionally been left blank.

OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management

Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW i

DOCUMENT CONTROLS

Proponent VOAG 4 Pty Ltd and VOAG 5 Pty Ltd

Client SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Project No / Purchase Order No

Document Description Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5, near Griffith NSW.

Name Signed Date

Clients Reviewing Officer

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

Location OzArk Job No.

Tabbita NSW 1328

Document Status V3.0 FINAL

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

V1.0 PS drafted 22/01/2016 V1.1 CL edit 29/01/16 V1.2 PS edit 01/02/2016

Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release to client (Series V2._ = OzArk and Client edits)

FINAL V3._once latest version of draft approved by client

V3.0 PS finalise 12/02/2016

Prepared For Prepared By

Adam Williams Associate Environmental Scientists 10 Kings Road New Lambton NSW 2305 Mobile: 0412 450 227 Direct: (02) 4037 3211

Philippa Sokol Archaeologist OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty. Limited 145 Wingewarra Street (PO Box 2069) Dubbo NSW 2830 P: 02 6882 0118 F: 02 6882 6030 [email protected]

COPYRIGHT

© OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty Ltd 2016 and © SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd 2016 and © VOAG 4 Pty Ltd and VOAG 5 Pty Ltd

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 Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 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 Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by SLR Consulting

Australia Pty Ltd, on behalf of VOAG 4 Pty Ltd and VOAG 5 Pty Ltd, to undertake an Aboriginal

Archaeological Due Diligence assessment for The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5, as

part of The Ranch Poultry Production Complex, located approximately 26 kilometres north-west

of Griffith in south-western New South Wales in the Carrathool Local Government Area (LGA)

(Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2).

The Ranch Farms 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 will each comprise 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-

enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds, with associated support infrastructure and staff

amenities. The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site and The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site

comprise approximately 42.1 hectares and 42.8 hectares of rural land, respectively, within Lot

77 in Deposited Plan (DP) 720257 and Lot 78 DP 720258.

On Thursday 3rd December 2016, OzArk Project Archaeologist Philippa Sokol conducted a field

survey and visual inspection of the areas proposed for impact together with Griffith Local

Aboriginal Land Council Sites officer Max Harris. The field survey concentrated on three

pockets of vegetation that are proposed for clearing for the construction of access corridors to

Farms 4 and 5. A visual inspection was undertaken of the cropped paddocks where the poultry

sheds are proposed to be constructed.

No new Aboriginal objects or sites and no landforms of archaeological potential were identified during the field assessment. As such, the proposed work can proceed without archaeological constraint.

Recommendations concerning the project are as follows:

1. No Aboriginal sites or objects were recorded and no landforms were assessed as having

archaeological potential, no further archaeological assessment is required;

2. It is determined there is a low to nil probability of impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage

within the development areas, the proposed work can proceed under the following

conditions:

(a) All ground disturbance activities must be confined within the determined

development areas. Should the project impacts change, including altering the

impact area, then additional assessment may be warranted;

(b) All staff and contactors employed to undertake ground disturbance activities

should undertake a heritage induction outlining 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 3) should be followed.


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW iv


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW v

CONTENTS

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

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

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

1.2 Proposed Work ............................................................................................................ 1

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

1.4 Relevant Legislation ..................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 State Legislation ................................................................................................... 5

1.4.2 Commonwealth Legislation ................................................................................... 6

1.4.3 Applicability to the Project ..................................................................................... 6

2 The Archaeological Assessment ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment Objectives ................................................ 7

2.2 Date of Archaeological Assessment ............................................................................. 7

2.3 Aboriginal Community Involvement .............................................................................. 7

2.4 OzArk Involvement ....................................................................................................... 8

2.4.1 Field Assessment ................................................................................................. 8

2.4.2 Reporting .............................................................................................................. 8

3 Landscape Context ............................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Mitchell Landscapes of the Study Area ........................................................................ 9

3.1.1 Cocoparra Ranges and Footslopes ....................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Hillston Sandplains ............................................................................................... 9

3.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Land–Use History and Existing Levels of Disturbance ............................................... 10

3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 10

4 Aboriginal Archaeology Background ................................................................................. 12

4.1 Ethno-Historic Sources of Regional Aboriginal Culture .............................................. 12

4.2 Regional Archaeological Context ............................................................................... 13

4.3 Local Archaeological Context ..................................................................................... 14


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW vi

4.3.1 Desktop Database Searches Conducted ............................................................ 14

4.4 Predictive Model for Site Location .............................................................................. 15

5 Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice ............................................................ 17

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Defences under the NPW Regulations 2009 .............................................................. 17

5.3 Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice to the Proposed Development ...... 17

6 Results of Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment ............................................................. 20

6.1 Sampling Strategy and Field Methods........................................................................ 20

6.2 Project Constraints ..................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Field Results .............................................................................................................. 20

6.4 Aboriginal Sites Recorded .......................................................................................... 22

6.5 Aboriginal Community Input ....................................................................................... 22

6.6 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 22

7 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 24

7.1 Aboriginal Heritage .................................................................................................... 24

8 References ....................................................................................................................... 25

Plates ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 1 Aboriginal Consultation Log ................................................................................... 34

Appendix 2 Database Search Results ...................................................................................... 36

Appendix 3: Aboriginal Heritage: Unanticipated Finds Protocol ................................................ 37


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW vii

FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Regional Location Map of the Study Area within Carrathool LGA. ............................ 3

Figure 1-2: The Ranch Farm 4 and 5 Locality. ........................................................................... 4

Figure 6-1: The Ranch Farm 4 and 5 – Surveyed Areas. ......................................................... 22

TABLES

Table 4-1: Desktop-database search results. ........................................................................... 15

PLATES

Plate 1: View west proposed location of the Ranch Farm 4. ..................................................... 27

Plate 2: View south east showing Area 1. ................................................................................ 29

Plate 3: Exposed soils in Area 1. .............................................................................................. 30

Plate 4: Vegetation type observed in Area 1. ........................................................................... 30

Plate 5: View north to proposed shed location for Farm 5. ....................................................... 31

Plate 6: View north east along the proposed vehicle access corridor in Area 2. ....................... 31

Plate 7: View north to northern end of vehicle access corridor in Area 2. ................................. 32

Plate 8: View of predominantly B horizon soils in Area 2. ......................................................... 32

Plate 9: View of rock types present in Area 2. .......................................................................... 33

Plate 10: Common vegetation types observed in Area 2. ........................................................ 33

Plate 11: View south to proposed vehicle access corridor in Area 3. ........................................ 27

Plate 12: View of minimal sandy redeposit and hardsetting B horizon with small sandstone

fragments. ................................................................................................................................ 28

Plate 13: View north into Area 3 showing scattered rock fragments on exposed soils. ............. 28

Plate 14: View south to Area 3 showing typical vegetation type. .............................................. 27


Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by SLR Consulting

Australia Pty Ltd (the Client), on behalf of VOAG 4 Pty Ltd and VOAG 5 Pty Ltd (the

Proponents) to undertake an Aboriginal Archaeological due diligence assessment for The

Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 located in the Carrathool Local Government Area (LGA).

The Proponent is seeking development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning

and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to develop two intensive poultry broiler production farms

(The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5) (Figure 1-1).

1.2 PROPOSED WORK The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site and The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site will each

comprise 16 tunnel-ventilated fully-enclosed climate-controlled poultry sheds. Each shed will

have the capacity to house a maximum of 50,000 broilers at any one time, equating to total farm

populations of 800,000 broilers.

In additional to the poultry shed construction, the following supporting infrastructure will also be

required:

Two new residences to house the farm manager and assistant farm manager;

Various other infrastructure items to support the poultry production operation;

Extension of water and electricity infrastructure to service the development;

The construction of a large on-site water storage dam (with associated water tanks,

pumping and pipeline infrastructure), with a capacity of approximately 60 megalitres

(ML); and

Extension of the internal vehicular access road to the development area.

The proposed disturbance footprint associated with The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5

will be relatively small and the commercial activities associated with the poultry operation will be

largely confined to this area. Where practicable, it is intended to continue using the land outside

the disturbance footprint within the Development Sites for continued agricultural production

purposes under some form of lease or share farming arrangement.

1.3 STUDY AREA The Study Area includes The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site and The Ranch Farm 5

Development Site, including the poultry sheds, supporting infrastructure and 25 metre wide

infrastructure corridors (comprising access roads, water pipelines and powerlines). It is noted

that the Study Area for the proposed infrastructure corridors was approximately 50 metres wide.

The Study Area is situated on a rural property west of Back Hillston Road, Tabbita,



approximately 26 kilometres north west of Griffith and 19 kilometres south east of Goolgowi,

within the Riverina bioregion of south western NSW (refer Figure 1-1). The Ranch Farm 4

Development Site comprises approximately 42.1 hectares within Lot 77 DP 720257 and Lot 78

DP 720258, and The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site comprises approximately 42.8 hectares

within Lot 77 DP 720257. Both farms occupy vacant rural land.

Vehicular access to the Study Area is currently gained via a driveway from Back Hillston Road

running along the eastern boundary of Lot 77 DP 720257. Back Hillston Road and Tysons Road

connect the Study Area to Kidman Way (NSW State Route B87), which provides access to

Griffith (the area’s major centre) and to the poultry industry service facilities (hatchery, feedmill

and processing complex) located near Griffith and Hanwood.



Figure 1-1: Regional Location Map of the Study Area within Carrathool LGA.



Figure 1-2: The Ranch Farm 4 and 5 Locality.

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;

o Division 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

o Division 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 (Part 6), 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, such as:

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 Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH) Director-General of the location of an Aboriginal object. Identified Aboriginal

items and sites are registered on Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

(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.

1.4.3 Applicability to the Project

The current project is an Integrated and Designated development and 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. There are no Commonwealth or National heritage listed places

within the Study Area, and as such, the EPBC Act does not apply.

1.5 ASSESSMENT APPROACH The visual inspection component of the current assessment follows the Due Diligence Code of

Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Due Diligence; DECCW

2010a), which covers those portions of the Study Area that are situated within existing cropped

and highly disturbed land.

The pedestrian field survey component of the current assessment follows the Guide to

Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales

(OEH 2011), which covers those portions of the Study Area (Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3 Section 6) which will undergo vegetation clearance for the construction of infrastructure corridors.



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 NSW (Due Diligence; DECCW 2010) and the Guide to Investigating,

Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales (OEH 2011), in

order to meet the following assessment objectives:

Objective One: Conduct a desktop assessment to locate any previously recorded

Aboriginal sites in the Study Area;

Objective Two: To undertake a visual inspection of existing cropped and highly disturbed

lands within the Study Area to determine if there is considered a

presence of any Aboriginal objects, sites and sensitive landforms;

Objective Three: To undertake a pedestrian survey of proposed infrastructure corridors

and identify and record any new Aboriginal objects, sites and sensitive

landforms identified within the Study Area; and

Objective Four: Assess the significance and likely impacts of the proposed works to any

recorded sites and provide management recommendations.

2.2 DATE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The fieldwork component of this assessment was undertaken by OzArk EHM on Thursday 3

December 2015.

2.3 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Aboriginal community consultation in accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Consultation Requirements for Proponents (ACHCRs) (DECCW, 2010) is not a formal

requirement for Due Diligence assessments. However, the Proponent opted to invite a

representative of the Griffith Local Aboriginal Land Council (GLALC) to participate in the field

survey and to provide culturally specific information as appropriate.

One week prior to the fieldwork GLALC was contacted by telephone and a formal letter of

invitation was sent via email on 26 November 2015. The initial email bounced back, and the

email was resent and a follow-up phone call made on the 27 November 2015. GLALC

confirmed that they would provide a Site Officer for the fieldwork scheduled for Thursday 3

December 2015.



A log and copies of correspondence with Aboriginal community stakeholders is presented in

Appendix 1.

2.4 OZARK INVOLVEMENT

2.4.1 Field Assessment

The fieldwork component of the current project was undertaken by:

Fieldwork Director: Philippa Sokol (DipS University of New England, BA University of New England).

2.4.2 Reporting

The reporting component of the current project was undertaken by:

Report Author: Philippa Sokol; and

Reviewer: Chris Lovell (PhD, BA [Hons], BSc, University of Queensland).



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 MITCHELL LANDSCAPES OF THE STUDY AREA According to Mitchell (2002) the Study Area (The Ranch Farms 4 and 5) falls within two

landscape types. The dominant landscape type is the Cocoparra Ranges and Footslopes,

which covers most of The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 Development Sites and the

proposed infrastructure corridors. The Hillston Sandplains landscape occurs in south western

parts of The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site and north western parts of The Ranch Farm 5

Development Site.

3.1.1 Cocoparra Ranges and Footslopes

The Cocoparra Ranges and Footslopes are characterised by steep crested ranges, ridges, hills

and associated footslopes of Quaternary colluvium that includes outcrops of sandstone,

conglomerate and siltstone. Cliff faces are up to 30 metres high and bouldery hill slopes have

an overall relief up to 260 metres. Rock outcrops are extensive with soils that typically consist of

lithosols, acid, neutral and calcareous red earths on slopes, and deep sandy alluvium in creek

lines.

Past Aboriginal communities are likely to have encountered a variety of vegetation types on

different landforms within the current landscape. Vegetation type on ranges is likely to have

included a canopy of White cypress, Currawang, Dwyer’s mallee gum and red ironbark.

Understorey vegetation is likely to have comprised dense broombush, hill tea-tree, urn heath,

wedge-leaf hopbush, punty bush, cough bush, sugarwood, grey box, wilga, and Deane’s wattle.

Common grasses and forbs include: rock fern, wire grass, mulga grass, short grasses and

forbs. Bimble box, white cypress pine, mallees, yarran, wilga, emu bush and various acacia,

grasses and forbs occur on lower slopes (Mitchell 2002, 36).

3.1.2 Hillston Sandplains

Hillston Sandplains are characterised by a level to undulating sandplain of Quaternary Aeolian

sands with minimal alluvium and a relief ranging from two to four metres. Soils generally consist

of calcareous red earth and solonized brown soils with deep siliceous sands on hummocks.



Past Aboriginal communities are likely to have encountered extensive dense mallee and

broombush communities, including: red mallee, white mallee, broombush, spur wing wattle,

belah, rosewood, warrior bush, budda, white cypress pine, needlewood, hopbush, turpentine,

occasional ironbark and kurrajong, variable spear grass, medics and forbs (Mitchell 2002, 60).

3.2 HYDROLOGY No permanent water sources traverse the Study Area. The drainage information recorded on

the topographic layer for the Study Area (Tabbita 1:50 000 Topographic Map 8029-N) revealed

that two ephemeral drainage lines once traversed the Study Area to the south of both the ranch

Farm 4 Development Site and The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site. However the occurrence

of these is negligible as the area exhibits a long history of agriculture. The closest permanent

water source to the Study Area is Barren Box Swamp approximately 8 kilometres to the south

west. A number of smaller water sources drain into the swamp, including Mirrool Creek, located

approximately 15 kilometres further south. A number of natural depressions occur in the locality

that could temporarily hold water for brief periods following heavy inundation. These local water

sources could have provided fresh water and various resources to local Aboriginal communities.

However, no permanent water courses have been identified in the immediate vicinity or in the

Study Area.

3.3 CLIMATE Local climate statistics (Griffith Airport) indicate that the area has a cool to hot mid-western

climate. Temperatures range from an average monthly maximum temperature of 32.9°C in

January to an average monthly minimum temperature of 3.5°C in July. Rainfall in the locality of

the Study Area is the highest in October with 38 millimetres and lowest in April with 28

millimetres (Bureau of Meteorology 2016).

3.4 LAND–USE HISTORY AND EXISTING LEVELS OF DISTURBANCE Most of the Study Area has been intensively farmed. At the time of the assessment most of

Farms 4 and 5 were under crop. Large areas have been severely disturbed due to land

clearance, vegetation removal, ploughing and plant cultivation. A few small areas designated for

vehicle access are currently vegetated and may have been used for livestock grazing. Past

disturbance appears to have been limited in these areas. The construction of farm

infrastructure, including formed vehicle tracks and fences, also comprise sources of disturbance

in the Study Area.

3.5 CONCLUSION A review of the landscape context indicates that vegetation could have provided shelter for

Aboriginal people in the Study Area. However, access to water and associated resources is



likely to have been limited. The Study Area is situated on a low lying plain and therefore

generally lacks distinctive landscape features which may have been utilised for Aboriginal

occupation such as rocky outcrops which may provide shelter. Soils are generally sandy with no

underlying geology considered suitable for the manufacture of stone artefacts. Therefore the

location of the Study Area may not have been adequately resourced to support extended

periods of Aboriginal occupation.



4 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY BACKGROUND

4.1 ETHNO-HISTORIC SOURCES OF REGIONAL ABORIGINAL CULTURE The Study Area is located within the southern extent of the Wiradjuri tribal and linguistic group

(Tindale 1974). The Wiradjuri tribal area is located in the Murray Darling Basin and traverses

three general physiographic regions: the highlands or central tablelands in the east, riverine

plains in the west and the transitional western slope zone in between (White and Cane 1986).

The Wiradjuri is one of the largest language groups in New South Wales, extending across the

districts of Mudgee, Bathurst, Dubbo, Parks, West Wyalong, Forbes, Orange, Junee, Cowra,

Young, Holbrook, Wagga Wagga, Narrandera, Griffith and Mossgiel (Tindale 1974). Although

the area is considered to have a single language, various dialects were found throughout the

region (Tindale 2000).

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Wiradjuri group occupied the area to the south of

the Murrumbidgee River and east of the Lachlan River (Kass 2003, 10). The woodland

communities of the region provided habitat for possums (used for meat and fur), reptiles and

birds (Kabaila 1995). The Murrumbidgee River was a source of mussels and fish, including the

Murray cod (Heritage Office 1996, 132). The country between the rivers provided seasonal

plants, tubers, nuts, seeds and daisy yams. Larger game such as kangaroos and emus were

hunted, contributing to an overall nutritious and varied diet (Heritage Office 1996, 132). Small

groups moved around regularly according to seasonal resource fluctuations and ritual

obligations (Kass 2003). A relatively large number of carved trees are associated with important

sites marked out by clans, including burial sites (Kass 2003, 10).

Wiradjuri social organisation appears to have been based upon extended kinship networks

involving totemic designations and associations. The kinship system governed and controlled

marriage and determined ceremonial obligations. Individual identity and clan affiliations were

expressed partly through skin cloaks elaborate carvings on wooden implements (White and

Cane 1986, 61).

Common areas favoured by the local Wiradjuri (river and plains) also attracted colonial settlers

and the frontier of European settler expansion swept into Wiradjuri country over the 1830s and

1840s at breakneck pace (Kabaila 1995, 12). Diseases spread along the river systems

decimating Aboriginal populations. By the time the European settlers arrived, the fabric of

traditional Aboriginal life was no longer intact. A variety of locally contingent Aboriginal

responses rose from this, including resistance, economic hardship and opportunism. In the

1880s a mission called the Warangesda Mission was established by Reverend John Gribble at

Darlington point.



4.2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Within the Wiradjuri region, the presence of Aboriginal people has been dated to 40,000 years

ago in the Darling Basin (Hope 1981 as cited in Haglund 1985). Wiradjuri population are

thought to have spread east into the highlands between 14,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Few research based archaeological studies have occurred in the Griffith region. As such, the

primary resources are reports by consultants, including; Hiscock (1983), Witter ([1980] and

[2002]), Gollan (1982) and Silcox ([1986] and [1987]) who survyed easements for proposed

Electricity Transmissions Lines or water pipelines in the vicinity of the Study Area and further

afield near Wagga Wagga.

Although not derived from archaeological assessments, it is worth noting that a number of

Aboriginal objects were recovered from the Warangesda mission (Kabaila 1998, 116):

A green-stone axe head, manufactured from a type of stone that is rare on the lower

reaches of the Murrumbidgee River and was likely traded some 600 kilometres via

overland routes from mount William in Victoria;

A grindstone;

A retouched chert flake; and

Evidence of hearths sometimes lined with clay, stone or dug out of old termite mounds.

An archaeological assessment undertaken for a proposed pipeline between Wagga Wagga and

Young by Witter (1980) recorded 14 open camp sites, 21 isolated finds, a scarred tree and a

possible Aboriginal rock well.

In 1981, an extensive survey was undertaken in the Murrumbidgee River corridor between

Angle Crossing and Kambah Pool (Barz and Winston-Gregson in Navin Officer 2001a: 8). This

study focused on the river corridor and recorded 62 sites, primarily open camp sites that

extended over large areas. Unifacially flaked quartzite river cobble choppers were the most

common artefacts recorded together with quartz, chalcedony, jasper and sandstone artefacts.

Seven scarred trees were recorded along with three stone quarries and seven beaten earth

rings that may have been used for ceremonial purposes. In many cases it was found that sites

were not located on valley floors or ridge crests but on moderate landforms in relation to the

surrounding terrain. Habitation sites appear to have been focused on flattened hilltops and

small terraces above the valley floor that also provided shelter.

After surveying the Wagga Wagga to Darlington Point 330kV ETL, Hiscock (1983) agreed with

Witter (1980) that:

Mounds, occupation debris of worked stone and scarred cypress pine may be located

adjacent to major flood channels;



Scarred trees, fired clay hearths and occupation debris or worked stone, particularly

where sand features are present, may be located adjacent to minor flood channels and

temporary swamps; and

Rare isolated artefacts, flaked or abraded stone and scarred trees can be found through

the plains.

Anecdotal information derived from Hiscock’s (1983) discussions with local farmers suggests

that burials occurred at Tom Bullen Swamp approximately 40 kilometres south west of the local

area.

South of Griffith in the Leeton area, Koonadan Historic Site is located adjacent to Tuckerbil

Swamp, which encompasses part of a low dune. Aboriginal skeletal material has been

recovered from the dune and local Aboriginal community members believe that this is an

ancestral Wiradjuri burial ground (NPWS 1996).

Recently, OzArk (2013) undertook an archaeological survey for an upgrade to the Darlington

Point levee and extension at Darlington Point, located along the lower reaches of the

Murrumbidgee River. The area assessed comprised an approximately 5.8 kilometre levee bank

surrounding the township of Darlington Point. Three Aboriginal scarred tree sites were recorded

in the vicinity of the levee and bank of the Murrumbidgee River. All three trees were considered

to be in good condition, including two black box and a river red gum, and all three were located

in the vicinity of the Murrumbidgee River and associated creek lines.

4.3 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

4.3.1 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. A search of the OEH administered AHIMS

database returned no records for Aboriginal heritage sites or places within the designated

search area.



Table 4-1: Desktop-database search results.

Name of Database Searched Date of Search Type of Search Comment

Commonwealth Heritage Listings 15/01/2016 NSW and Carrathool LGA

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

National Native Title Claims Search 07/01/2016 Carrathool Shire Council NSW

No Native Title Claims cover the Study Area.

OEH AHIMS 30/11/2015

GDA Zone 55, Easting 391530 to 399137, Northing 6227994 to 6233269. 7.6 x 5.2 km, centred on the Study Area

No AHIMS sites where identified in the search area.

Local Environment Plan (LEP) 15/01/2016

Schedule 5 of the Carrathool Shire Council LEP of 2012

No Aboriginal sites or places were identified within the Study Area.

4.4 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 enable the following predictions about Aboriginal

cultural heritage to be made:

The large distance from a reliable water source, extensive past and existing disturbance,

and the absence of distinctive landform features suggest that very few or no items of

Aboriginal heritage will occur in the Study Area;

There may have been prior streams carrying reliable water in the vicinity of the Study

Area, but none were evidenced in the desktop assessment or during the field

assessment;

Scarred trees are the most common site type identified in the regional context. Many

mature trees have been cleared during the agricultural history of the region, however a

number of remnant trees remain within the Study Area with potential for cultural

scarring;

Earth ovens or hearths have been identified in the regional context. They generally

occur on slightly elevated ground, away from inundation areas, in the vicinity to

permanent water sources;

Earth mounds: are generally located on slightly elevated ground, in relatively

undisturbed locations, away from inundation areas, and are often located adjacent to

permanent water courses;

Open camp sites are possible on elevated ground near a reliable water source.

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 NPW Act via the Omnibus Bill. As of October 2010, the

Due Diligence process 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 VOAG 4 Pty Ltd and VOAG 5 Pty Ltd 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 proposed development at The

Ranch Farms 4 and 5 north west of Griffith and north of Tabbita, NSW.

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

Yes the activity will disturb the ground and as there are no culturally modified trees identified by

desktop assessment in the Study Area, at this stage it is anticipated that none will be disturbed.

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. The AHIMS search confirmed there are no previously registered Aboriginal sites or

places in the Study Area (see Appendix 2).

b) No. Aboriginal community consultation is not a formal requirement of the Due Diligence

process (DECCW 2010a Section 5). However, the Proponent has elected to consult with the

Griffith LALC and to invite fieldwork participation to assist in informing decision making for

the Study Area.

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

• 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.

The Study Area is situated in a low lying plain landform with an open aspect. No permanent

water sources traverse the area. The drainage information recorded on the topographic layer for

the Study Area (Tabbita 1:50 000 Topographic Map 8029-N) revealed that two ephemeral

drainage lines once traversed the Study Area. However, neither of these appear to exist today.

Although not required by the Due Diligence process, the Proponent has elected to apply the

precautionary principle and proceed to visual inspection of the development areas (Section 6)

in order to ground-truth the findings of the above desktop assessment.

Step 3: Can harm to Aboriginal objects listed on AHIMS or identified by other sources of information and/or can the carrying out of the activity at the relevant landscape features be avoided?

No: There are no known Aboriginal sites within 200 metres of the Study Area or identified on

the AHIMS search.

An answer of ‘no’ to Step 3 advances the process to Step 4.

Step 4: Does a desktop assessment and visual inspection confirm that there are Aboriginal objects or that they are likely?



No. The Study Area has been severely disturbed as described in Section 3.4. The visual

inspection assessed that there is a very low possibility of the activity adversely impacting

Aboriginal cultural heritage values.

A ‘no’ answer for Step 4, removes the project from the Due Diligence Process at this step,

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

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.

Details of the visual inspection and field survey of the Study Area are presented in Section 6.



6 RESULTS OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

6.1 SAMPLING STRATEGY AND FIELD METHODS Standard archaeological field survey and recording methods were employed in this study

(Burke & Smith 2004). The archaeological assessment focused on areas containing vegetation

that will be cleared for the construction of infrastructure corridors. Other parts of the Farm 4 and

Farm 5 development areas comprise cropped and highly disturbed paddocks. A visual

inspection of these areas was undertaken (Figure 6-1).

The information obtained during the assessment of the vegetated areas and the visual

inspection of adjacent paddocks, together with the background information outlined in Section 3 and Section 4, was sufficient to demonstrate Due Diligence.

6.2 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS Limited ground surface visibility (GSV) and exposure were the main constraints encountered

during the archaeological assessment. Although limited in areas, GSV and exposure were

sufficient to assess the area for archaeological material and/or potential.

6.3 FIELD RESULTS The field survey assessed three separate parcels of land that are proposed for vegetation

clearance. The field assessment results are divided into the three areas as summarised below.

Area 1

Area 1 is associated with The Ranch Farm 4 Development Site and is located to the south east

of The Ranch Farm 4 and comprises a strip of open vegetation and part of an old farm track

(Plate 1 & 2). Clearing is proposed in this area for a 25 metre vehicle access track and

infrastructure corridor connecting the approved The Ranch Farm 3 with The Ranch Farm 4.

Area 1 is situated on a low landform gently sloping to the south. It has a south to west aspect

and no identified water sources. GSV was approximately 30% with ground surface exposure

facilitating the search for archaeological material. Soils were a reddish brown sand redeposited

atop hardsetting B horizon (Plate 3). Scattered small fragments of ironstone and sandstone

were identified, however none are considered suitable for the manufacture of stone artefacts

(Plate 4). Vegetation comprised a sparse cover of mature eucalypts, minimal shrubs and a

moderate grass cover. None of the trees present contained cultural markings. No Aboriginal

objects or areas of archaeological potential were identified in Area 1.

Area 2

Area 2 is associated with the Farm 4 Development Site (Plate 5) and comprises a small pocket

of vegetation (Plate 6). An infrastructure corridor (comprising an access road, water pipelines

and powerlines), approximately 25 metres wide, is proposed to traverse this area in the north



west and south east. Area 2 is situated on a low lying plain, with a south west to west facing

aspect with no identified water sources. GSV was approximately 20% with good ground surface

exposure to inspect for archaeological material. Soils were a rich red redeposit atop hardsetting

B horizon (Plate 7). Minimal small sized fragments of ironstone, sandstone and volcanic rock

were identified, however these are not considered appropriate raw materials for the

manufacture of stone artefacts. Vegetation comprised a sparse layer of mature eucalypts,

scattered shrubs and clustered grasses (Plate 8). Trees were inspected for cultural markings,

however none were identified. No Aboriginal objects or areas of archaeological potential were

identified in Area 2.

Area 3

Area 3 is associated with The Ranch Farm 5 Development Site (Plate 9). This area is located

between The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch Farm 5 and comprises a strip of vegetation with

evidence of minimal clearing and possibly an old farm track (Plate 10 & 11). A 25 metre wide

road and associated services corridor is proposed to be constructed in Area 3 to connect both

farms. Area 3 is situated on a low lying landform with a north and south aspect and has no

identified water sources. GSV was approximately 30% with good ground surface exposure

facilitating the search for archaeological material. Soils were fine sandy redeposit atop

hardsetting B horizon (Plate 12). Moderate to large cobbles of ironstone, sandstone and

volcanic rock were identified, but none are considered appropriate raw materials for the

manufacture of stone artefacts (Plate 13). Vegetation comprised a dense growth of mature pine

and eucalypt, scattered shrubs and patches of dense grass (Plate 14). Trees were inspected

for cultural markings, but none were identified. No Aboriginal objects or areas of archaeological

potential were identified in Area 3.



Figure 6-1: The Ranch Farm 4 and The Ranch 5 – Surveyed Areas.

6.4 ABORIGINAL SITES RECORDED The field assessment and visual inspection identified no items of Aboriginal cultural heritage. In

addition, no landforms were assessed to have potential to contain sub-surface archaeological

deposits.

6.5 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INPUT Max Harris represented Griffith LALC for the field survey. He provided valuable input regarding

the potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Farm 4 and 5 development areas and local

surrounds. Max felt that the area was quite isolated from reliable resources like permanent

water, limiting its cultural heritage potential. He was satisfied with the Aboriginal heritage field

assessment of the Study Area.

6.6 DISCUSSION The predictive model (Section 4.4) indicated that the Study Area would not have been a

favourable landscape for extended periods of Aboriginal occupation. A field survey was

undertaken of three areas proposed for clearing to allow for the construction of access road

corridors and the installation of associated services. A visual inspection was undertaken of the



locations proposed for Farm 4 and Farm 5, which are located within highly disturbed cropped

paddocks. Where good ground surface exposure existed, these areas were inspected for

archaeological material. No Aboriginal sites or areas of archaeological potential were identified

during the field assessment. The presence of no Aboriginal cultural heritage items or landforms

is consistent with the lack of reliable resources to support occupation, high level of disturbance

and history of agricultural land-use. Other notable disturbances included: vegetation clearing;

infrastructure installation, including fence and gates; prior livestock grazing; and active erosion.

As such, there is a very low probability that any extensive or complex sites exist. The absence

of identified stone artefacts is likely related to a lack of supported underlying and outcropping

geology (Section 3.1). Scarred trees were not identified during the field assessment. The

accompanying Aboriginal representative, Max Harris, advised that the available trees were not

commonly used for cultural scarring.



7 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE Under Section 89A of the NPW Act 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 Aboriginal sites or landforms of archaeological potential were recorded during the field 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 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 local area; and

The interests of the Aboriginal community.

Recommendations concerning the project are as follows:

1. No Aboriginal sites or objects were recorded and no landforms were assessed as having

archaeological potential, no further archaeological assessment is required;

2. It is determined there is a low to nil probability of impacting Aboriginal cultural heritage

within the development areas, the proposed work can proceed under the following

conditions:

(a) All ground disturbance activities must be confined within the determined

development areas. Should the project impacts change, including altering the

impact area, then additional assessment may be warranted;

(b) All staff and contactors employed to undertake ground disturbance activities

should undertake a heritage induction outlining 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 3) should be followed.



8 REFERENCES

Bureau of Meteorology. 2016. Bureau of Meteorology. www.bom.gov.au [accessed January

2016].

Burke, H. and Smith, C. 2004. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook, Blackwell, Oxford.

DECCW. 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

DECCW. 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New

South Wales. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

Gollan, K. 1982. Archaeological Survey of the Route of a Proposed Electricity transmission Line

from Darlington Point to Griffith . Report to the Electricity Commission of NSW.

Hiscock, P. 1983. An Archaeological Survey of the proposed 330kV Transmission Line, Wagga

Wagga to Darlington Point . Report to the Electricity Commission of NSW .

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

Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.

Kabaila, P. 1995. Wiradjuri Places: The Murrumbidgee River Basin, with a section on Ngunawal

Country. Volume 1. Black Mountain Projects.

—. 1998. Wiradjuri Places: The Murrumbidgee River Basin, with a selection of Ngunwal Country

(2nd ed.). Vol. 1. Jamison Centre. ACT: Black Mountain Projects.

Kass, T. 2003. A Thematic History of the Central West: Comprising the NSW Historical Regions

of Lachlan and Central Tablelands. NSW Heritage Office.

Mitchell, Dr. Peter. 2002. Description for NSW (Mitchell) Landscapes Version 2. Department of

Environment and Climate Change NSW.

NSW Department of Lands, 2003. Topographic Map Sheet 1: 50 000 - Tabbita 8029-N.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1996. Koonadan Historic Site Plan of Management.

OzArk. 2013. Aboriginal and Historic heritage Assessment: Darlington Point Levee Upgrade.

Report to NSW Public Works on behalf of Murrumbidgee Shire Council.

OEH, 2011. Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in

New South Wales. Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Silcox, R. 1986. Archaeological Survey for the Water Supply Line on the south west Tablelands

between Wagga Wagga and Ungarie.

Silcox, R. 1987. Test Excavations at Gumly Gumly near Wagga Wagga.

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

http://www.bom.gov.au/



—. 2000. Wiradjuri Language Development Project. University of California Press.

White, I, and S Cane. 1986. “An Investigation of Aboriginal Settlements and Burial Patterns in

the Vicinity of Yass.”

Witter, D. 1980. Archaeological Gas Pipeline Survey between Wagga Wagga and Young.

Witter, D. 2002. Archaeological Pipeline Survey between Wagga Wagga and Young.



PLATES

Plate 1: View south to proposed vehicle access corridor in Area 1.

Plate 2: View north to Area 1 showing typical vegetation type.



Plate 3: View of minimal sandy redeposit and hardsetting B horizon with small sandstone fragments.

Plate 4: View north into Area 1 showing scattered rock fragments on exposed soils.



Plate 5: View west proposed location of the Ranch Farm 4.

Plate 6: View south east showing Area 2.



Plate 7: Exposed soils in Area 2.

Plate 8: Vegetation type observed in Area 2.



Plate 9: View north to proposed shed location for Farm 5.

Plate 10: View north east along the proposed vehicle access corridor in Area 3.



Plate 11: View north to northern end of vehicle access corridor in Area 3.

Plate 12: View of predominantly B horizon soils in Area 3.



Plate 13: View of rock types present in Area 3.

Plate 14: Common vegetation types observed in Area 3.



APPENDIX 1 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION LOG

Date Organisation Contact Name Comment Method

25.11.15 Griffith LALC

Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711

SB rang and spoke to the CEO - Steve Young. SB gave a heads up about site officer work next Thursday.SB to send formal letter of invitation

phone



SB sent letter of invitation to do site work.

email



SB received a bounce-back saying that the email was undeliverable.

email



SB resent email email



SB rang to let the LALC know about the email being resent- Phone rang out

phone



SB rang and spoke to Steve Young and Robert Carroll. Confirmed email received. Robert will call Max Harris and will send through cert of currency for workers comp

phone



Date Organisation Contact Name Comment Method

tomorrow



SB rang and spoke to Robert- Robert found the Workers Comp cert and is going to email straight back to SB. Robert gave Max Harris mobile number 0448441970

phone

3.12.15 Griffith LALC Max Harris - Site's Officer 0448 441 970

Undertook field survey In person



Sb received a message from PS to call Robert Carroll back on 0407965009

phone



SB called Robert Carroll back. Robert requested the hours that Max worked. SB to email them through today

phone



APPENDIX 2 DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS



APPENDIX 3: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE: 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).

Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment (OzArk ... · Aboriginal Archaeological Due...

Documents

Transcript of Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment (OzArk ... · Aboriginal Archaeological Due...