Appendix C - Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - Peabody Energy

Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
North Wambo Underground Mine Modification
Site ID
Code
Site Name
Predicted total
subsidence based
on the approved
layout (mm)
Incremental
change in
subsidence due to
the proposed
modification
(millimetres [mm])
Incremental
change in tilt due
to the proposed
modification
(mm/m)
AS G Wambo Site 338 3000 2100 15
AS E Wambo Site 348 5100 0 -5
AS A Wambo Site 351 3100 0 0
AS B Wambo Site 352 4400 1800 -5
AS C Wambo Site 353 3000 100 0
AS F Wambo Site 354 350 0 0
AS P Wambo Site 356 3600 900 25
AS Z Wambo Site 357 2300 800 20
IFY Wambo Site 358 4000 2400 10
ST3 Wambo Site 360 3000 300 10
IF AA Wambo Site 361 1700 1800 35
AS AB Wambo Site 362 5300 700 10
AS AC Wambo Site 363 500 0 0
The identified risks to heritage, as well as, proposed conservation and mitigation strategies have been
summarised in Table 18.
There were a number of formal tools identified at Wambo Site 57 and Wambo Site 360 was a culturally
scarred tree. Wambo Site 360 (ST3) and Wambo Site 57 were in close proximity to the crest of the hill and
each other and may well be connected. For this reason they were ranked as moderately significant at a local
level. The remainder of the Aboriginal cultural heritage sites in the project area were ranked as having low
archaeological significance. A number of trees of a similar size and type were inspected in areas that had
been previously undermined and it was determined by the Aboriginal stakeholders present, that if the
predicted subsidence is similar to that experienced in other underground mining area then the tree should be
left in situ and that regular monitoring of the site should be undertaken to monitor health of the tree.
The registered Aboriginal parties inspected a number of trees with a similar girth and of similar type in an
adjacent area which had been previously undermined by longwall mining with similar predictive subsidence
modelling and found that the previously undermined trees had not been adversely affected.
An inspection was also made of areas that had previously been mined by longwall mining in order to view the
impact of potential subsidence on artefact sites in the current project area. On the basis of subsidence
effects viewed in the area, it was determined by the registered Aboriginal parties present, that if subsidence
impacts were minimal then it was unlikely that artefact sites would suffer impact. However, where
subsidence predictions were moderate to high then the artefact sites could be impacted on by downward
movement due to vertical subsidence (whereby the land surface moves downwards as a whole). As such an
Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) would be required for Aboriginal sites that were likely to suffer
impact. The registered Aboriginal parties recommended that artefact scatters and isolated finds not be
moved unless required. They considered that if impact to specific sites was likely, then those sites should be
salvaged under an appropriate permit. It was also recommended that periodic monitoring of the sites be
maintained by Wambo Coal to mitigate against potential site damage from subsidence impacts. If any
impact to the Aboriginal objects is considered likely then immediate remediation measures should be
instigated.
108453-2; October 2012 Page 52