Case Decision - 199756

Interim CommentThe Development Applications Unit (DAU) notes the submission of the CHIA however the report does not comply with 38(3) of the NHRA and that section 19(1)b of the NEMA EIA Regulations. The report does not address any of the following requirements of section 38(3):Development specific map of identified heritage resources as well as a map of the development area. A map of the area surveyed for the CHIA must be included in the report along with an indication of the location of the communities that were spoken to. The actual community surveys must be uploaded to the case as well.The report is mostly a social history report and it does identify all types of heritage that may be impacted by the proposed development including shipwrecks and fossils. The report is missing a maritime archaeological impact assessment report as well as a palaeontological impact assessment report.An assessment of impacts with significance assessment has not been carried out.The report does not specify the communities who are opposed to the proposed development and their reasoning for their opposition.In order to address all these concerns a Maritime archaeologist must be appointed to undertake an assessment impacts to all types of heritage for the area as well as to collate and include the results of the CHIA into the HIA as part of section 38(3)e. As well as a suitably qualified palaeontologist to undertake an assessment of impacts to palaeontological resources.The following amendments to the BAR must be done:Item 17 on page 12 of the BAR must be amended to include all types of heritage and not just natural heritage.Item 5.4 on page 315 of the BAR must be amended to include all types of heritage including palaeontological heritage.The conclusions section on cultural heritage page 320 must be amended to include the results of a maritime HIA once it is commissioned.SAHRA will provide further comments on the submission of a HIA and PIA report as well as an amended BAR.