aboriginal archaeological due diligence assessment (ozark ... › sites › carrathool ›...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW iv
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
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,
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 2
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 3
Figure 1-1: Regional Location Map of the Study Area within Carrathool LGA.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 4
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 5
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).
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 6
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 7
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 8
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).
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 9
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 10
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 11
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 12
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 13
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;
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 14
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 15
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 16
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 17
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 18
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?
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 19
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 20
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 21
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 22
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 23
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 24
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 25
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 26
—. 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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 27
PLATES
Plate 1: View south to proposed vehicle access corridor in Area 1.
Plate 2: View north to Area 1 showing typical vegetation type.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 28
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 29
Plate 5: View west proposed location of the Ranch Farm 4.
Plate 6: View south east showing Area 2.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 30
Plate 7: Exposed soils in Area 2.
Plate 8: Vegetation type observed in Area 2.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 31
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 32
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.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 33
Plate 13: View of rock types present in Area 3.
Plate 14: Common vegetation types observed in Area 3.
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 34
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
26.11.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
SB sent letter of invitation to do site work.
27.11.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
SB received a bounce-back saying that the email was undeliverable.
27.11.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
SB resent email email
27.11.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
SB rang to let the LALC know about the email being resent- Phone rang out
phone
30.11.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
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
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 35
Date Organisation Contact Name Comment Method
tomorrow
2.12.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
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
10.12.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
Sb received a message from PS to call Robert Carroll back on 0407965009
phone
10.12.15 Griffith LALC
Robert Carroll PO Box 8043 East Griffith NSW 2680 [email protected] 69626711
SB called Robert Carroll back. Robert requested the hours that Max worked. SB to email them through today
phone
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 36
APPENDIX 2 DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
Aboriginal Archaeological Due Diligence Assessment: ‘The Ranch’ Farms 4 and 5 near Griffith NSW 37
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).