Stage 2: WestConnex M5 King Georges Road Interchange Upgrade Appendix B5 Construction Heritage Management Plan JULY 2016
DOCUMENT CONTROL File name Report name CEMP App B5 CHMP Rev E Revision number E Plan approved by: Name Name Contractor PM Contractor EM REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Description Approval E 01/07/2016 Periodic review no changes D 28/07/15 Revised as per DP&E s additional comments C 2/07/15 Revised as per DP&E s comments B 15/06/15 Revised as per WDA s and ER s comments A 12/05/14 Final for submission to WDA DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED COPIES Copy no. Issued to Version 1 2 3 4
CONTENTS 1 Introduction... 1 1.1 Purpose... 1 1.2 Background... 1 1.3 Structure of CHMP... 1 1.4 Consultation for preparation of the CHMP... 1 2 Legal and other requirements... 2 2.1 Legislation... 2 2.2 Guidelines and standards... 2 2.4 Minister s Conditions of Approval... 3 3 Existing environment... 4 3.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage... 4 3.2 Non-Aboriginal heritage... 4 4 Environmental aspects and impacts... 6 5 Environmental mitigation measures... 7 6 Compliance management... 8 6.1 Roles and responsibilities... 8 6.2 Training... 8 6.3 Monitoring and inspections... 8 6.4 Non-conformances... 8 6.5 Complaints... 8 6.6 Audits... 8 7 Review and improvement of CHMP... 9 APPENDICES Appendix A RMS Standard Management Procedure Unexpected Heritage Items TABLES Table 2-1 CoA relevant to this CHMP... 3 Table 5-1 Heritage mitigation measures... 7
GLOSSARY/ABBREVIATIONS CoA Ancillary facility CEMP CHMP CNVMP DEC DECCW Director General DP&E EA Conditions of Approval Defined by the Infrastructure Approval as a temporary facility for construction, including for example an office and amenities compound, construction compound, batch plant (concrete or bitumen), materials storage compound, maintenance workshop, testing laboratory or material stockpile area. Construction Environmental Management Plan Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water Director General of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (or delegate). Now the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment. Department of Planning & Environment Environmental Assessment EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EWMS Environmental Work Method Statements NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 OEH PAD PASA RMS WDA Secretary SoHI Office of Environment and Heritage Potential archaeological deposit Potential archaeologically sensitive areas Roads and Maritime Services WestConnex Delivery Authority Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment. Statement of Heritage Impact Page iii
1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This (CHMP) describes how Fulton Hogan will avoid, minimise and manage impacts to Aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage during construction of the (the Project). This CHMP has been prepared to address the requirements of the Minister s Conditions of Approval (CoA), mitigation measures listed in the WestConnex M5 King Georges Road Interchange Upgrade Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Jacobs, October 2014), RMS s Specification D&C G36 Environmental Protection, and applicable guidelines and legislation. 1.2 Background The Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impacts of construction of the Project on Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal heritage. The assessments included: Appendix J Stage 2 PACHCI Archaeological Survey report Appendix K Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impacts. 1.3 Structure of CHMP This CHMP is part of Fulton Hogan s environmental management framework for the Project and is supported by other documents such as the RMS Standard Management Procedure Unexpected Heritage Items and environmental work method statements. The review and document control processes for this CHMP are described in Chapter 10 of the CEMP. 1.4 Consultation for preparation of the CHMP No consultation on the preparation of this CHMP is required. In the event that previously unidentified heritage items/objects are discovered during construction, consultation will occur with relevant stakeholders and agencies in accordance with the RMS Standard Management Procedure Unexpected Heritage Items (refer Appendix A). Where relevant, the outcomes of this consultation will be documented in subsequent revisions of this CHMP. Page 1
2 Legal and other requirements 2.1 Legislation Legislation relevant to heritage management includes: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Commonwealth) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Commonwealth). Relevant provisions of the above legislation are explained in the register of legal and other requirements included in Appendix A1 of the CEMP. 2.2 Guidelines and standards The main guidelines, specifications and policy documents relevant to this CHMP include: Roads and Maritime Services D&C Specification G36 Environmental Protection Roads and Maritime Services Standard Procedure Unexpected Archaeological Finds (November 2011) Roads and Maritime Services Biodiversity Guidelines: Guide 2 Exclusion zones (RTA 2011) Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (Roads and Maritime Services, 2011) Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation (DEC, July 2005) Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010 (DECCW, 2010) (for reference only) Altering Heritage Assets (Heritage Office and DUAP 1996) Assessing Significance for Archaeological Heritage Sites and Relics (NSW Heritage Branch Department of Planning) RTA Heritage Guidelines (March 2004) Archaeological Assessment Guidelines (NSW Heritage Office and NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 1996) NSW Government s Aboriginal Participation in Construction Guidelines (2007) How to Prepare Archival Recording of Heritage Items (Heritage Office, 1998) Photographic Recording of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture (Heritage Office 2006) The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (1999).
3 Existing environment The following sections summarise what is known about Aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage within and adjacent to the Project corridor based on information provided in: Appendix J Stage 2 PACHCI Archaeological Survey report, and Appendix K Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impacts. 3.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage 3.1.1 Historic context The locations and boundaries of traditional Aboriginal language groups within the greater Sydney region is based on observations by Europeans since the early 1700s. The two language groups relevant to the study area are the Darug and Gameygal whose clans were present within the general vicinity of Botany Bay. The Darug occupied the area from Broken Bay to the northern and western area of Botany Bay, the north shore of the Georges River stretching westward to Appin in the south, and along the Nepean/Hawkesbury catchment to the north (Attenbrow 2010). The Gameyjal clan is believed to have resided in the St George area, south of the study area (Attenbrow 2010). European settlers started to arrive and establish themselves within the greater Canterbury and Hurstville LGAs (the general study area) during the early 1800s. With the arrival of the settlers came dramatic changes to the local environment, most noticeably extensive vegetation clearing. In time, subdivision opened up the area to suburban settlement and with it even greater disturbance as residential development and the need for supporting infrastructure grew. Since the late 1980s the study area has been subject to substantial ground disturbance due to the construction of the M5 motorway and other associated infrastructure. 3.1.2 Aboriginal cultural heritage No previously recorded Aboriginal sites are situated within or adjacent to the study area (refer Section 4.3 of Appendix J - Aboriginal Heritage Working Paper). The majority of survey area has been subject to substantial ground disturbance due to the construction of the M5 Motorway and its associated infrastructure. Native vegetation present is predominantly regrowth, with some areas of remnant native vegetation. No trees bearing cultural scarring were identified in the study area. Ground surface visibility is extremely low throughout the survey area, except for areas of disturbance, some eroded areas and those areas surrounding footpaths and tracks. Drainage channels within the study area are predominately artificial, generally created as part of the construction and maintenance of the M5 Motorway. The survey undertaken during the preparation of the EIS did not identify any Aboriginal cultural heritage objects within or adjacent to the Project area. Also no landforms within the survey area were considered to have potential to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage 3.2 Non-Aboriginal heritage 3.2.1 Historic context The earliest land grant in the Beverly Hills area was given to John Townson in 1808 (Austin 1967, Thorp 1994). However, the land was re-granted by Governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1810, due to Townson s severe illness (Austin 1967). One of the first properties in the area was Dumbleton Farm, an orchard settled in the 1830s. The Beverly
4 Environmental aspects and impacts The EIS has found that there will be no direct heritage impacts as a result of the construction of the Project. Further review of the construction program and methodology confirmed that only Welfare Avenue UCA will be used as a haulage and access route for the main project alignment (refer Appendix C of the CCAFMP - Vehicle Movement Plan). Specific mitigation measures to address potential impacts on Welfare Avenue UCA are provided in Table 5-1. There will be no haulage or heavy vehicle access via Pallamanna Parade UCA. A risk management approach was used to determine the severity and likelihood of the construction activities impact on the environment and to prioritise its significance. This process considered potential regulatory and legal risks as well as taking into consideration the concerns of the community and other key stakeholders. The objectives of the risk assessment were to: Identify activities, events or outcomes that have the potential to adversely affect the local environment and/or human health/property Qualitatively evaluate and categorise each risk item Assess whether risk issues can be managed by environmental protection measures, and Qualitatively evaluate residual risk with implementation of measures. Appendix A3 of the CEMP contains a list of issues, related aspects and corresponding risks associated with the Project. Specific measures to mitigate the identified heritage risks are also provided in Table 5-1.
6 Compliance management 6.1 Roles and responsibilities Fulton Hogan s Project Team organisational structure and overall roles and responsibilities are outlined in Section 4.1 of the CEMP. Specific responsibilities for the implementation of environmental controls are detailed in Table 5-1 of this CHMP. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the Project Archaeologist are detailed below. 6.1.1 Project Archaeologist The environmental responsibilities of the Project Archaeologist are to: 6.2 Training Assist in consultation, advice, liaison with Aboriginal and non-aboriginal stakeholders and observation of construction works, as required. All employees, contractors and utility staff working on site will undergo site induction training relating to Aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage management issues, including: requirements of this CHMP relevant legislation roles and responsibilities for heritage management procedure to follow in the event of an unexpected heritage item find during construction works procedure to follow in the event of discovery of human remains during construction works, and penalties and non-compliance with this CHMP. Further details regarding staff induction and training are outlined in Chapter 5 of the CEMP. 6.3 Monitoring and inspections There are no specific heritage monitoring requirements for the Project. Should an unexpected heritage item or human remains be discovered during construction, the works will cease immediately and the RMS Standard Management Procedure Unexpected Heritage Items will be followed. 6.4 Non-conformances Non-conformances will be dealt with and documented in accordance with Section 8.5 of the CEMP. 6.5 Complaints Complaints will be recorded and addressed in accordance with Section 6.3 of the CEMP and the Community Communication Strategy (CCS). 6.6 Audits Audits (both internal and external) will be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of environmental controls, compliance with this CHMP, CoA and other relevant approvals, licences and guidelines. Audit requirements are detailed in Section 8.4 of the CEMP.
7 Review and improvement of CHMP The CHMP will be reviewed annually to ensure compliance with legislative requirements and its suitability and effectiveness for the project. The review may be in the form of: a formal management review a second party audit, and/or an inclusion as a separate item at a site meeting. In addition to the annual review, the following matters may trigger the review and revision of the CHMP: discovery of previously unidentified Aboriginal or non-aboriginal heritage items significant changes in construction activities that may have an impact on heritage where targets are not being achieved, or in response to audits and nonconformity reports. Minor changes to the CHMP will be approved by the Environmental Representative in accordance with section 1.8 of the CEMP. All major changes to CHMP will be approved by the Secretary. Page 9
Appendix A RMS Standard Management Procedure Unexpected Heritage Items