Cultural heritage assessors had flagged that a prehistoric rock shelter, once used by Indigenous Australians in what is now New South Wales, appeared to contain a trove of potential archaeological artifacts less than 20 inches (50 centimeters) underground.
They developed a cultural management plan. At least one local assessor of Wiradjuri, Tubba-Gah, and Gamilaraay descent, Thomas Dahlstrom, met with the renewable energy firm that was then preparing to erect new power lines in the area in an effort to help the company avoid doing irreparable harm to the shelter and other nearby heritage sites.
And yet, that company, Acerez, has now admitted that it inadvertently damaged this cultural site “beyond recovery,” according to a statement on Monday. Speaking for Acerez, CEO Steve Masters also acknowledged in the press release that this heritage rock shelter “had been identified in the project’s planning approval.”
“We are deeply sorry,” Masters said. “The loss of this rock shelter is permanent, and nothing we say can undo that.”
Acerez reported that its work on the power line’s access tracks would be “immediately paused.” But the firestorm has already prompted the NSW environmental minister to announce that the state would be conducting an investigation into the site’s destruction, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported. For his own part, Dahlstrom said he has appealed beyond NSW, requesting federal protections for the site from the Australian government via an emergency protection order made possible by the nation’s 1984 heritage protection act.
‘A handy little cave’
According to public records accessed by The Guardian, the ancient rock shelter’s dimensions were roughly 13 by 6.6 feet (4 by 2 meters) with a grotto-like opening on its eastern face that likely provided “protection from rain, slope wash and westerly winds.”
Dahlstrom described the shelter as “a handy little cave,” telling a local ABC bureau in NSW that Indigenous Australians likely used the site as a refuge from the elements while foraging for food. But Acerez’s preventable destruction, he noted, might have also demolished any future chance of quantifying the true scope of the cultural loss or the site’s prior archeological value.
“If it had been tested, we’d have more answers of what conclusively would’ve been there,” Dahlstrom said.
Acerez signed a $5.5 billion contract with the state of New South Wales in 2024 to design, build, and operate over 124 miles (200 kilometers) of power lines as part of a plan to connect various renewable energy projects in the western part of the state, integrating this clean tech into the power grid. The project, which was fiercely contested by local communities at the time, is expected to take until 2028 to be completed.
Acerez said the damage to the heritage site occurred back in March, when the rock shelter was accidentally bulldozed to construct power-line access tracks for its proposed Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone about 186 miles (300 km) northwest of Sydney. The error was not discovered until this May, however, when Acerez staff noticed it while performing due diligence checks.
Not an isolated incident
“We are working with all relevant stakeholders to understand how this happened and to prevent this from occurring anywhere else on this project,” Masters said.
However, the episode is not the first instance in which Acerez’s construction work on this project has prompted an outcry from NSW residents. Last December, staff of Mudgee Veterinary Hospital and the Australian wildlife protection nonprofit WIRES described being “overwhelmed” and “horrified” while attempting to rescue roughly 60 bird hatchlings who had become separated from their parents when their nests were knocked to the ground amid Acerez’s tree-clearing work.
One local member of Australia’s parliament, Andrew Gee, called the project “environmental vandalism,” accusing Acerez of “ripping out centuries old native trees,” according to Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
In a formal statement at the time, Acerez said its tree-clearing had been conducted “on private property in accordance with the project’s environmental impact statement, planning approval and biodiversity management plan.”
English (US) ·