Appendix C - Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Peabody Energy

Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
North Wambo Underground Mine Modification
The updated draft CHIA was sent out to all registered stakeholders listed in Table 2 for review and comment.
Copies of all relevant correspondence received in relation to this draft CHIA are provided in Appendix 3 of
this report. This report will support the AHIP application and as such all issues raised by the registered
Aboriginal stakeholders have been addressed below.The following comments were received:
• Brian Horton on behalf of Muswellbrook Cultural Consultants agreed with the content of the updated draft
CHIA.
• Larry Foley on behalf of Buudang agreed with the methodology of the field surveys.
• Arthur Fletcher on behalf of Wonn 1 Contracting stated he was concerned that Aboriginal heritage sites
would be disturbed during the construction or widening of vehicle tracks in the Modification area.
With the exception of water bores to drain the voids of previous underground workings above the proposed
longwalls, no surface disturbance is proposed as part of the Modification. Vehicular movements within the
proposed MA would be limited to those required for monitoring and general maintenance activities. Vehicle
access would be via existing vehicle tracks.
• Arthur Fletcher agreed with the management measured proposed for sites within the MA.
A summary of the issues raised by Cacatua Culture Consultants as a result of their review of the
updateddraft CHIA and how they have been addressed in this report is detailed in Table 6.
Table 6 Summary of the Issues Raised by Cacatua Culture Consultants and How They Have Been Addressed in
the CHIA
Issue
The draft CHIA does not contain an
assessment of the cultural values (social,
scientific, historic and aesthetic) of the
MA.
Lack of consultation with the registered
Aboriginal parties regarding the cultural
significance of the MA.
Concerns that the views of some
Aboriginal people were considered to
reflect the views of the Aboriginal
community as a whole.
The draft CHIA contains limited ethnohistorical
information (including detail on
burial practices) on the Aboriginal history
of the MA.
Section 4.3.1 describes previous
archaeological surveys that have been
conducted in the local area but does not
identify the previous archaeological
surveys that have been undertaken within
the MA.
Response
The assessment of significance provided in Section 7.2 is based on
(scientific) archaeological significance only. The registered Aboriginal
parties have been asked to provide input regarding the cultural
significance of the recorded Aboriginal heritage sites throughout the
consultation process.
Section 7.1 documents the comments received from the registered
Aboriginal parties regarding the cultural significance of the area and
recorded Aboriginal heritage sites to date.
The registered Aboriginal parties have been asked to provide input
regarding the cultural significance of the MA throughout the consultation
process for the Project including during the proposed methodology review
period, field surveys and during the review of the draft CHIA.
Section 7.1 documents the comments received to date from the
registered Aboriginal parties regarding the cultural significance of the
area.
In response to this comment, Section 2 has been revised to state that the
views expressed by individuals may not necessarily reflect the views of
the Aboriginal community as a whole.
The ethno-historic and cultural information that has been included in the
CHIA is based on the information that is publically available in addition to
information provided by the Aboriginal parties to date through the
consultation process for the Modification.
White (2003) conducted an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment for
the Wambo Development project. The field surveys for this assessment
covered the North Wambo Underground Mine MA. Further detail is
provided in Section 4.3.1.
108453-2; October 2012 Page 12