Aboriginal Heritage Report

Transcription

LACHLAN RIVER PSC PUMP OS1 WITH PAD – GROUND-EDGE AXE.
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
PARKES WATER
PROJECT
AND
WASTE WATER AUGMENTATION
PARKES SHIRE AND FORBES SHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS
APRIL 2015
REPORT PREPARED BY
OZARK ENVIRONMENTAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
FOR PARKES SHIRE COUNCIL
This page has been left intentionally blank.
DOCUMENT CONTROLS
Proponent
Parkes Shire Council
Client
Project No / Purchase Order
No
Document Description
Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Parkes Water and Waste Water
Augmentation Project, Parkes Shire and Forbes Shire LGAs, NSW.
Name
Signed
Date
Clients Reviewing Officer
Clients Representative Managing this Document
OzArk Person(s) managing this document
Jason Myers
Phillip Cameron
Location
OzArk Job No.
\\DROBONAS\Public\OzArk EHM Data\
Clients\ParkesShireCouncil\SixWaterManagement
StudyAreasOct2014\Heritage\Report
1107
Document Status V3.3 FINAL
Date 9/1/2015
st
Draft V1.1 Author to Editor OzArk 1 Internal
(Series V1.X = OzArk internal edits)
V1.0 MW to BC Internal Edit 14/11/14
V1.1 BC Edit 14/11/14
Draft V2.0 Report Draft for release to client
(Series V2.X = OzArk and Client edits)
V2.0 OzArk to Client 17/11/14
V2.1 OzArk Edits 15/12/14
V2.2 OzArk to Client 23/12/14
FINAL once latest version of draft approved by
client
V3.0 MW
V3.1 MW
V3.2 MW
V3.3 MW
Prepared For
Prepared By
Andrew Francis
Acting Director Infrastructure
2 Cecile Street
Parkes NSW 2870
P: 02 68612344
E: [email protected]
Morgan Wilcox
Project Archaeologist
OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management
145 Wingewarra St (PO Box 4704)
Dubbo NSW 2830
P: 02 6882 0118
E: [email protected]
to Client 20/1/15
(WTP Amendments) 6/3/15
Client Edits 20/3/15
Client Edits 08/4/15
COPYRIGHT
© OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty Ltd, 2015 and © Parkes Shire Council, 2015
All intellectual property and copyright reserved.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted,
stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission.
Enquiries should be addressed to OzArk Environmental & Heritage Management Pty Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by Parkes Shire
Council (PSC; the Proponent) to complete an Aboriginal heritage assessment of six Study
Areas with the potential to be impacted by proposed new water and waste water infrastructure
within the Parkes and Forbes Local Government Areas.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Parkes Integrated Water Cycle Management
Plan 2005 and a number of subsequent studies, PSC proposes to upgrade major components
of the Parkes/Peak Hill Water Supply Scheme, including:
1.
Lachlan River Water Intake Bore 8 Refurbishment and Rising Main;
2.
Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation;
3.
“Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir and Pipeline;
4.
Akuna Road Sewage Treatment Plant Augmentation;
5.
Nash Street Sewer Rising Main Augmentation; and
6.
Parkes Urban Area Water Reticulation Mains Augmentation.
These six upgrade components are the six Study Areas for the current assessment, collectively
referred to as the Project Area. Study Area 1 is located approximately 14 kilometres east of
Forbes. Study Areas 2 through 5 are located on the northern and south-eastern outskirts of
Parkes, whilst Study Area 6 incorporates current residential areas of Parkes.
The current assessment has applied the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of
Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010a) and the Code of Practice for the
Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010b).
One open site with potential archaeological deposit (PAD; Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with
PAD) and one scarred tree (Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1) were recorded as a result of the
current Aboriginal heritage assessment.
Consultation with the Proponent indicates that one site, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with
PAD, will be impacted by the proposed works; all other sites will be avoided.
Recommendations concerning the Project Area are as follows.
1. To impact Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD the Proponent is required to apply to
the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit
(AHIP). Once granted, Aboriginal community representatives may wish to collect and/or
relocate artefacts/objects, whether temporarily or permanently. In order to apply for an
AHIP, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010
Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Parkes Water and Waste Water Augmentation Project
1
(ACHCRs) must be followed and evidence of adherence to these procedures provided in
the AHIP application. This process can take up to three months to negotiate.
2. Appropriate measures should be put in place to protect Akuna Road PSC Scarred
Tree 1, such as high visibility curtilage, during the construction phase of works.
3. Construction crew inductions should be provided to workers on the project as to the
location of the recorded sites and their legislative protection under the National Parks
and Wildlife Act 1974.
4. All land-disturbing activities must be confined to within the assessed areas.
5. Should any other objects or Aboriginal sites be identified during the course of
construction the Unanticipated Finds Protocol should be followed (Appendix 3).
2
CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.1
Brief Description of The Project ..................................................................................... 7
1.2
Proposed Works ............................................................................................................ 7
1.3
The Study Area .............................................................................................................. 8
1.4
Relevant Legislation .................................................................................................... 12
1.4.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 12
1.4.2
State Legislation .................................................................................................... 12
1.4.3
Commonwealth Legislation ................................................................................... 13
1.4.4
Applicability to the Project Site .............................................................................. 13
The Project......................................................................................................................... 14
2.1
Purpose and Objectives of the Archaeological Investigation ........................................ 14
2.2
Date of Heritage Assessment ...................................................................................... 14
2.3
Aboriginal Community Involvement .............................................................................. 14
2.4
OzArk Involvement ...................................................................................................... 14
2.4.1
Field Assessment .................................................................................................. 14
2.4.2
Reporting .............................................................................................................. 14
Landscape Context ............................................................................................................ 15
3.1
Topography, Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 15
3.2
Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 16
3.3
Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 16
3.4
Climate ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.5
Land–Use History ........................................................................................................ 17
3.6
Existing Levels of Disturbance ..................................................................................... 18
3.7
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 20
Aboriginal Heritage Assessment: Background .................................................................... 21
4.1
Ethno-Historic Sources of Regional Aboriginal Culture ................................................ 21
4.2
Regional Archaeological Context ................................................................................. 23
4.3
Local Archaeological Context ...................................................................................... 25
4.3.1
Desktop Database Searches Conducted ............................................................... 25
3
4.4
5
6
Predictive Model for Site Location ................................................................................ 27
Application of the Due Diligence Process ........................................................................... 29
5.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 29
5.2
Defences under the NPW Regulations 2009 ................................................................ 29
5.3
Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice to the Project Area ......................... 29
Results of Aboriginal Heritage Assessment ........................................................................ 31
6.1
Sampling Strategy and Field Methods ......................................................................... 31
6.2
Project Constraints ...................................................................................................... 31
6.3
Effective Survey Coverage .......................................................................................... 32
6.4
Aboriginal Sites Recorded ........................................................................................... 35
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD .......................................................................... 35
Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 ..................................................................................... 37
6.5
Aboriginal Sites Re-located .......................................................................................... 38
6.6
Aboriginal Community Input ......................................................................................... 38
6.7
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 38
6.8
Assessment of Heritage Significance ........................................................................... 39
6.8.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 39
6.8.2
Assessed Significance of the Recorded Sites........................................................ 40
6.9
7
8
Likely Impacts to Aboriginal Heritage from The Proposal ............................................. 42
Management and Mitigation: Aboriginal Heritage ............................................................... 43
7.1
General Principles for the Management of Aboriginal Sites ......................................... 43
7.2
Management and Mitigation of Recorded Aboriginal Sites ........................................... 43
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 45
Invitation to attend fieldwork ................................................................................................. 62
Consultation Log .................................................................................................................. 64
4
FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Location Map. .......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1-2: The Project Area – Forbes. ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-3: The Project Area – Parkes NSW. ............................................................................. 9
Figure 1-4: Study Area 1 - Lachlan River Water Intake and Bore 8 Refurbishment. ................. 10
Figure 1-5: Study Area 2 - Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation and Study Area 3 “Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir and Pipeline. ............................................................... 10
Figure 1-6: Study Area 4 - Akuna Road Sewage Treatment Plant Augmentation and Study
Area 5 - Nash Street Sewer Rising Main Augmentation. .......................................................... 11
Figure 1-7: Study Area 6 - Parkes Urban Area Water Reticulation Mains Augmentation. ......... 11
Figure 4-1: AHIMS Data and Study Areas. ............................................................................... 26
Figure 6-1: Survey Coverage – Study Area 1. .......................................................................... 33
Figure 6-2: Survey Coverage – Study Areas 2 and 3. .............................................................. 34
Figure 6-3: Survey Coverage – Study Areas 4 and 5. .............................................................. 34
Figure 6-4: Survey Coverage – Study Area 6. .......................................................................... 35
Figure 6-5: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD. .............................................................. 36
Figure 6-6: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1. ......................................................................... 37
TABLES
Table 1-1: Location of Study Areas. ........................................................................................... 9
Table 3-1: Landscape Context of the Study Areas. .................................................................. 18
Table 4-1: Desktop-Database Search Results.......................................................................... 25
Table 4-2: AHIMS Site Types and Frequencies........................................................................ 25
Table 5-1: Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice within the current Project Area. . 30
Table 6-1: Survey Coverage Data. ........................................................................................... 32
Table 6-2: Landform Summary—Sampled Areas. .................................................................... 33
Table 6-3: Survey Results. ....................................................................................................... 35
Table 6-4: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD – Surface Artefacts. ................................ 36
Table 6-5: Significance Assessment. ....................................................................................... 42
Table 6-6: Impact Assessment. ................................................................................................ 42
PLATES
Plate 1: Due Diligence - Study Area 5. Lot 223 DP75179 and Lot 1407 DP1159394. .............. 48
Plate 2: Due Diligence – Study Area 6. Noonan Street Drainage Reserve. .............................. 48
Plate 3: Due Diligence – Study Area 6. Want Street. ................................................................ 49
5
Plate 4: Study Area 1. Works Compound. ................................................................................ 49
Plate 5: Study Area 1. Works Compound and cutting. .............................................................. 50
Plate 6: Study Area 1. Works Compound. ................................................................................ 50
Plate 7: Study Area 1. Works Compound – Approximate location of proposed wet well. .......... 51
Plate 8: Study Area 2. Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation Location. ........................ 51
Plate 9: Study Area 2. Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation Location. ........................ 52
Plate 10: Study Area 2. Proposed southeast pipeline location. ................................................. 52
Plate 11: Study Area 3. Proposed Pipeline Corridor. ................................................................ 53
Plate 12: Study Area 3. Location of proposed “Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir.............. 53
Plate 13: Study Area 4. Akuna Road. ....................................................................................... 54
Plate 14: Study Area 4. Location of proposed Sewage Treatment Plant................................... 54
Plate 15: Study Area 4. Proposed pipeline corridor. ................................................................. 55
Plate 16: Study Area 5. Proposed pipeline corridor. ................................................................. 55
Plate 17: Study Area 5. Proposed Goobang Creek crossing and concrete weir. ...................... 56
Plate 18: Study Area 5. Lot 728 DP865225. ............................................................................. 56
Plate 19: Study Area 6. Location of proposed northern pipeline corridor. ................................. 57
Plate 20: Study Area 6. Danilenko Street. ................................................................................ 57
Plate 21: Study Area 6. Lot 7010 DP1019801, Lot 351 DP750152, and Lots 2 and 4 DP778755.
................................................................................................................................................ 58
Plate 22: Study Area 6. Inspecting exposures along Renshaw McGirr Way. ............................ 58
Plate 23: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD. Ground-edge Axe. ................................... 59
Plate 24: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD. Ground-edge Axe. ................................... 59
Plate 25: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD Artefacts. .................................................. 60
Plate 26: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1. ............................................................................ 60
Plate 27: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1. ............................................................................ 61
6
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management (OzArk) have been engaged by Parkes Shire
Council (PSC; the Proponent) to complete an Aboriginal heritage assessment of six Study
Areas with the potential to be impacted by proposed new water and waste water infrastructure
within the Parkes and Forbes Local Government Areas (LGAs; Figures 1–1, 1-2, and 1-3).
Figure 1-1: Location Map.
1.2 PROPOSED WORKS
In accordance with the recommendations of the Parkes Integrated Water Cycle Management
Plan 2005 and a number of subsequent studies, PSC proposes to upgrade major components
of the Parkes/Peak Hill Water Supply Scheme, including:
1. Lachlan River Water Intake and Bore 8 Refurbishment;
2. Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation;
3. “Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir and Pipeline;
4. Akuna Road Sewage Treatment Plant Augmentation;
5. Nash Street Sewer Rising Main Augmentation; and
6. Parkes Urban Area Water Reticulation Mains Augmentation.
7
Completion of the proposed works is likely to include ground disturbing activities such as:
•
Trenching and open cut activities of depths up to approximately 12 metres;
•
Use of small vehicles and plant machinery requiring access and manoeuvrability; and
•
Limited clearing and/or lopping of vegetation.
For the purposes of the current assessment proposed works within the delineated impact
footprint will result in complete disturbance.
1.3 THE STUDY AREA
The six upgrade components outlined in Section 1.2, are the six Study Areas for the current
assessment, collectively referred to as the Project Area (Figures 1–4 to 1–7).
Study Area 1 is located approximately 14 kilometres east of Forbes. Study Areas 2 through 5
are located on the northern and south-eastern outskirts of Parkes, whilst Study Area 6
incorporates current residential areas of Parkes (Table 1–1).
Figure 1-2: The Project Area – Forbes.
8
Figure 1-3: The Project Area – Parkes NSW.
Table 1-1: Location of Study Areas.
Study Area
#
Proposed Works
Lot/DP
Street Address
1
Lachlan River Water Intake, Bore 8
Refurbishment and Rising Main
Lot 81 DP750183 and Lot 18
DP750183
Eugowra-Forbes Road,
Forbes
2
Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation
and Proposed Alternate Location
Lot 7313 DP1143473, Lot 3
DP823404 and Lot 920 DP
750152
Webb Street, Parkes
3
“Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir and
Pipeline
Lot 7313 DP1143493 and Lot
7018 DP1019803
Webb Street, Parkes
4
Akuna Road Sewage Treatment Plant
Augmentation
Lots 5, 6, 7 DP1107556, Lot 1
DP724071, Lot 1 DP905102
and Lot 84 DP1136602
Akuna Road, Parkes
Nash Street Sewer Rising Main
Augmentation
Lot 223 DP750179, Lot 1407
DP1159394, Lot 728
DP868225, Lot 1 DP724071,
Lot 1 DP905102, Lot 84
DP1136602, Lots 5, 6, 7
DP1107556
Nash Street and Akuna
Road, Parkes
Parkes Urban Area Water Reticulation Mains
Augmentation
Lot 7010 DP1019801, Lot 351
DP750152, and Lots 2 and 4
DP778755
Webb Street, and including a
corridor along the verges of
Lorking Street, Danilenko
Street, Renshaw McGirr
Way, and Want Street,
Parkes.
5
6
9
Figure 1-4: Study Area 1 - Lachlan River Water Intake and Bore 8 Refurbishment.
Figure 1-5: Study Area 2 - Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation and
Study Area 3 - “Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir and Pipeline.
10
Figure 1-6: Study Area 4 - Akuna Road Sewage Treatment Plant Augmentation and
Study Area 5 - Nash Street Sewer Rising Main Augmentation.
Figure 1-7: Study Area 6 - Parkes Urban Area Water Reticulation Mains Augmentation.
11
1.4 RELEVANT LEGISLATION
1.4.1
Introduction
Cultural heritage is managed by a number of state and national acts. Baseline principles for the
conservation of heritage places and relics can be found in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS
2013). The Burra Charter has become the standard of best practice in the conservation of
heritage places in Australia, and heritage organisations and local government authorities have
incorporated the inherent principles and logic into guidelines and other conservation planning
documents. The Burra Charter generally advocates a cautious approach to changing places of
heritage significance. This conservative notion embodies the basic premise behind legislation
designed to protect our heritage, which operates primarily at a state level.
1.4.2
State Legislation
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)
This Act established requirements relating to land use and planning. The framework governing
environmental and heritage assessment in NSW is contained within the following parts of the
EP&A Act:
•
Part 4: Local government development assessments, including heritage. May include
schedules of heritage items;
•
Part 4.1: Approvals process for state significant development;
•
Part 5: Environmental impact assessment on any heritage items which may be impacted
by activities undertaken by a state government authority or a local government acting as
a self-determining authority; and
•
Part 5.1: Approvals process for state significant infrastructure.
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act)
Amended during 2010, the NPW Act provides for the protection of Aboriginal objects (sites,
objects and cultural material) and Aboriginal places. Under the Act (S.5), an Aboriginal object is
defined as: any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to
indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises NSW, being habitation both
prior to and concurrent with the occupation of that area by persons of European extraction, and
includes Aboriginal remains.
An Aboriginal place is defined under the NPW Act as an area which has been declared by the
Minister administering the Act as a place of special significance for Aboriginal culture. It may or
may not contain physical Aboriginal objects.
As of 1 October 2010, it is an offence under Section 86 of the NPW Act to ‘harm or desecrate
an object the person knows is an Aboriginal object’. It is also a strict liability offence to ‘harm an
12
Aboriginal object’ or to ‘harm or desecrate an Aboriginal place’, whether knowingly or
unknowingly. Section 87 of the Act provides a series of defences against the offences listed in
Section 86:
•
The harm was authorised by and conducted in accordance with the requirements of an
Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) under Section 90 of the Act;
•
The defendant exercised ‘due diligence’ to determine whether the action would harm an
Aboriginal object; or
•
The harm to the Aboriginal object occurred during the undertaking of a ‘low impact
activity’ (as defined in the regulations).
Under Section 89A of the Act, it is a requirement to notify the NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage (OEH) Director-General of the location of an Aboriginal object. Identified Aboriginal
items and sites are registered on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System
(AHIMS).
1.4.3
Commonwealth Legislation
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
Amendments in 2003 established the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage
List, both administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment. Ministerial
approval is required under the EPBC Act for proposals involving significant impacts to
National/Commonwealth heritage places.
1.4.4
Applicability to the Project Site
The current project will be assessed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.
Any Aboriginal sites within the Study Area are afforded legislative protection under the NPW
Act.
It is noted there are no Commonwealth or National heritage listed places within the Study Area,
and as such, the EPBC Act does not apply.
13
2
THE PROJECT
2.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the current study is to identify and assess Aboriginal heritage constraints
relevant to the proposed works. The current assessment will:
1. Identify portions of the Study Area to be assessed as per the Due Diligence Code of
Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010a);
2. Apply the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South
Wales (DECCW 2010b) to portions of the Study Area requiring further assessment,
including a formal survey, in order to meet the following objectives:
a. To identify whether or not Aboriginal objects are, or are likely to be (i.e.
archaeologically sensitive landforms), present within the Study Area;
b. To assess the significance of any recorded Aboriginal sites, objects or places, or
archaeologically sensitive landforms; and
c. Determine whether the activities of the Proponent are likely to cause harm to
Aboriginal sites, objects or places.
3. Provide management recommendations.
2.2 DATE OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
OzArk undertook the fieldwork component of this assessment on 30 and 31 October 2014, and
18 February 2015.
2.3 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Anthony Wilson, Peak Hill Local Aboriginal Lands Council (LALC) participated in the survey.
Consultation with Aboriginal community stakeholders is presented in Appendix 1.
2.4 OZARK INVOLVEMENT
2.4.1
Field Assessment
The fieldwork component of the current project was undertaken by:
•
2.4.2
Fieldwork Director: Morgan Wilcox (OzArk Project Archaeologist; BArch [Hons] La Trobe
University, Melbourne).
Reporting
The reporting component of the current project was undertaken by:
•
Report Author: Morgan Wilcox;
•
Reviewer: Ben Churcher (OzArk Principal Archaeologist; BA [Hons] Queensland
University, Brisbane, Dip Ed University of Sydney).
14
3
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
An understanding of the environmental contexts of a Study Area is requisite in any Aboriginal
archaeological investigation (DECCW 2010b). It is a particularly important consideration in the
development and implementation of survey strategies for the detection of archaeological sites.
In addition, natural geomorphic processes of erosion and/or deposition, as well as humanly
activated landscape processes, influence the degree to which these material culture remains
are retained in the landscape as archaeological sites; and the degree to which they are
preserved, revealed and/or conserved in present environmental settings.
3.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project Area falls within the NSW South West Slopes (SWS) Bioregion, within the Lower
Slopes ecosystem. The SWS Bioregion is an extensive area of foothills and isolated ranges
comprising the lower inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range extending from north of Cowra
through southern NSW into western Victoria (OEH 2014).
The SWS Bioregion lies wholly in the eastern part of the Lachlan Fold Belt which consists of a
complex series of north to north-westerly trending sedimentary and volcanic rocks (OEH 2014).
Within this bioregion, common materials include quartz and quartzite, basalt, and granites with
generally softer rocks such as shale or slate in the valleys between ranges and occasional
limestone outcrops. A large number of mineral deposits have supported the mining industry in
this region over the past 150 years (OEH 2014).
Lachlan-Bland Channels and Floodplains
The topography of the Lachlan-Bland Channels and Floodplains is typified by extensive alluvial
plains with numerous tributary systems with levees, gilgai and backplain swamps and
occasional lakebed (Mitchell 2002: 60). General elevation across this landscape type ranges
from 200 to 280 metres, with a local relief of up to 10 metres. Sedimentology of the LachlanBland Channels and Floodplains is defined by grey cracking clays, red-brown sand and loamy
sand on stream banks and extensive red-brown structured texture-contrast soils on plains
(Mitchell 2002: 60).
Eugowra Plains
The topography of the Eugowra Plains is typified by alluvial plains and lower hill slopes of
Lachlan River terraces and tributary valleys (Mitchell 2002: 63). General elevation across this
landscape type ranges from 250 to 300 metres, with a local relief of up to 15 metres.
Sedimentology of the Eugowra Plains is defined by extensive red-brown earths and cracking
clay soils (Mitchell 2002: 63).
15
Goonumbla Hills
The topography of the Goonumbla Hills is typified by extensive undulating low hills (Mitchell
2002: 60). General elevation across this landscape type ranges from 290 to 390 metres, with a
local relief of up to 70 metres. Sedimentology of the Goonumbla Hills is defined by stony yellow
earths, thin brown structured loams on the hills merging with red-brown and red texture-contrast
soils on the flats (Mitchell 2002: 60).
Jemalong Range and Slopes
The topography of the Jemalong Range and Slopes is dominated by strike ridges (i.e. hills or
ridge with an incline of 10 to 30 degrees) and colluvial slopes (Mitchell 2002: 60). General
elevation across this landscape type ranges from 250 to 400 metres, with a local relief of 120 to
150 metres. Sedimentology of the Jemalong Range and Slopes is defined by thin, very stony
soils (Mitchell 2002: 60).
Bimbi Plains
The topography of the Bimbi Plains is typified by alluvial plains (Mitchell 2002: 59). General
elevation across this landscape type ranges from 200 to 250 metres, with a local relief of 30 to
150 metres. Sedimentology of the Bimbi Plains is defined by gravelly clay loams and red brown
clays, red-brown texture-contrast soils on higher slopes and gradational profiles of clay loams
and clays along creeks (Mitchell 2002: 59).
3.2 HYDROLOGY
The Project Area falls within the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority (CMA) and all 6
Study Areas are located in the Lachlan River catchment.
Study Area 1 is located immediately adjacent to the Lachlan River, approximately 12 kilometres
upstream of Forbes, with an approximate upstream catchment area of 19,000 square
kilometres.
Study Areas 4 and 5 are intersected by Goobang Creek: Parkes’ primary waterway and a
tributary to the Lachlan River. At Parkes, Goobang Creek is a 5th order watercourse and has an
approximate catchment area of 600 square kilometres.
There are no mapped or defined waterways present within Study Areas 2, 3 and 6. These Study
Areas drain to Goobang Creek which is located between 1 and 3.7 kilometres from them.
3.3 VEGETATION
All landscape types present across the Project Area are noted by Mitchell (2002: 59–61) to
have been extensively cleared and cropped. As per Table 3–1, vegetation across all Study
Areas has been largely modified by land clearance since European settlement for the purposes
of agriculture and ground covering vegetation is largely comprised of exotic cereals and weeds.
16
Study Areas 1, 4 and 5 have been predominantly cleared, however, stands of mature native
trees (i.e. River Red Gum and Grey Box) are present along the immediate margin of the
Lachlan River and Goobang Creek, and along the verge of Eugowra–Forbes and Akuna Roads.
The majority of tree growth within Study Areas 2 and 3, dominated by White Cypress, has
occurred post agricultural clearance within the past 100 years and as such is highly unlikely to
demonstrate evidence of Aboriginal cultural modification.
The impact footprint for works within Study Area 6 is principally cleared. Where vegetation is
present it has been landscaped along the eastern verge of Renshaw McGirr Way and
residential streetscapes.
3.4 CLIMATE
Climate statistics from Parkes and Forbes Airports indicates the area has a mild climate with
average temperatures ranging from 2.4ºC to 34.3.5ºC (BOM 2014a; 2014b). The region
receives an average rainfall of 490.7 to 612.1 millimetres annually (BOM 2014a; 2014b).
3.5 LAND–USE HISTORY
Disturbance, cultural or natural, potentially alters the archaeologically record. It can do this in a
variety of ways, directly or indirectly. For example, land clearing directly removes a particular
site type - usually scarred trees or stone arrangements. Indirectly, land clearing accelerates soil
erosion, potentially resulting in previously buried occupation / activity sites becoming exposed
and altered / damaged.
Aboriginal people in prehistory are known to have used fire-stick farming, or controlled burns, to
alter vegetation ecosystems to promote the growth of desirable plants. Though it cannot be said
at this time whether fire-stick farming was undertaken within the Study Area, it is becoming
increasingly believed that Aboriginal fire regimes were widespread (Gammage 2011) and
therefore should be considered as a possible early land-use practice.
A summary of Study Area specific land uses is provided in Table 3–1. Land-use history and
associated disturbance levels across the Project Area are summarised below:
•
Agriculture. Farming and grazing are fundamental to the local economy and dominate
land-use throughout the area. The Project Area is primarily comprised of farming and
grazing land which has had the following impacts:
o
Vegetation Removal. It appears that the Project Area has been subject to
significant levels of vegetation removal;
17
o
Grazing. Subject to both historical and ongoing disturbances associated with
livestock movement and grazing, hoofed livestock is likely to have trampling and
compacted the ground surface within the Project Area; and
o
Cultivation. Repeated cultivation of land since the commencement of nonIndigenous settlement in the region will have altered soil profiles, disturbing subsurface archaeological deposits.
•
Residential Development. Throughout the Project Area residential development has
had varied impacts, the most profound of which is contained within Study Area 6.
•
Transport. Numerous sealed and unsealed roads and tracks intersect the Project Area.
The construction of transport corridors has likely had an impact upon the Project Area,
and at a minimum has impacted upon the integrity of the surrounding landscape context.
•
Utilities Infrastructure. The Project Area is crossed by a number of utilities provision
impacts, including transmission lines and underground service cables and gas lines.
Table 3-1: Landscape Context of the Study Areas.
Landscape
Context
Study Area #
1
2
3
Lachlan-Bland
Channels and
Floodplains, and
Eugowra Plains
Goonumbla Hills
and Jemalong
Range and
Slopes
Goonumbla Hills
Hydrology
Lachlan River
Nil
Vegetation
Largely cleared,
some remnant
mature
vegetation along
waterway
margin
Largely cleared,
some stands of
White Cypress
Pine and
isolated
Eucalyptus
Land-Use
Agricultural and
Utilities
Infrastructure
High to
Moderate
Topography
Geology and
Soils
Existing Levels
of Disturbance
3.6
4
5
6
Bimbi Plains
Goonumbla Hills
and Bimbi
Plains
Goonumbla Hills
and Jemalong
Range and
Slopes
Nil
Goobang Creek
Goobang Creek
Nil
Dominated by
White Cypress
Pine forest
Largely cleared,
remnant
vegetation along
waterway
margin and
Akuna Road
Largely cleared,
remnant
vegetation along
waterway
margin and
Akuna Road
Largely cleared
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural,
Utilities
Infrastructure
Agricultural,
Utilities
Infrastructure
and Transport
Corridor
Residential,
Agricultural and
Transport
Corridor
High to
Moderate
Moderate
High to
Moderate
High to
Moderate
High to Very
High
EXISTING LEVELS OF DISTURBANCE
Across the Project Area existing levels of disturbance were observed to vary from moderate to
very high (Table 3–1).
Moderate
Study Area 3 was observed to have only a moderate level of disturbance. Due to shallow
geological deposits which occur as outcrops on the ground surface of the knoll landform which
comprises Study Area 3, it does not appear that the area has been subject to cultivation. The
18
area has been impacted by land clearance activities, livestock grazing and linear impacts
resulting from motorbike tracks and isolated instances of ground surface disturbance from
geotechnical testing.
High to Moderate
The majority of Study Areas (1, 2, 4 and 5) demonstrated high to moderate levels of existing
disturbance. Cultivation has had a high impact across all of the above noted Study Areas and is
the primary cause of ground surface disturbance, in addition to the presence of livestock.
Study Area 1 as adjacent to the Lachlan River has two discreet areas of disturbance; within an
existing works compound as delineated by an agricultural fence and cropped paddocks outside
of this compound. Within the compound existing levels of disturbance are high, with ground
surface disturbance resulting from the construction of various sheds and pumping facilities,
trenching and installation of pipework, access roadway, and a deep cutting which has been
made along the length of the north-eastern boundary fence. Outside of the works compound,
existing levels of disturbance are moderate, primarily limited to cultivation and unsealed farm
access tracks. There is a margin of land, approximately 20 metres in width, between the
Lachlan River and cultivation boundary which exhibits a lesser level of disturbance. The location
of Bore 8 within Study Area 1 has been subject to ploughing and other agriculture related
activities such as farm infrastructure provision.
Study Area 2 has been subject to moderate disturbances primarily due to cultivation and
clearance, however the area also exhibits a high level of disturbance resulting from dam
construction, and miscellaneous earth works including contouring and the construction of a
possible livestock loading ramp.
Study Areas 4 and 5 contain all of the above noted disturbances, in addition to linear impacts
from the Akuna Road transport corridor and high disturbance impacts resulting from the
construction of large sewer treatment ponds within Lot 1 DP724071, Lot 1 DP905102 and Lot
84 DP 1136602, and the existing water treatment plant and compound within Lot 223
DP750179 and Lot 1407 DP1159394.
Portions of these two Study Areas which are immediately adjacent to Goobang Creek exhibit
high levels of disturbance associated with grading of the area, construction of a weir in the
creek bed and significant erosion resulting from livestock impacts. Furthermore, it is clearly
evident that the lower areas surrounding the creek are subject to inundation during flooding
events with large items of debris lodged in trees in the vicinity.
High to Very High
Study Area 6 is primarily existing high density housing and sealed, council easements and road
corridors including Renshaw McGirr Way, Want Street, Lorking Street and Danilenko Street, as
19
such it demonstrates very high levels of disturbance. The land contained within Lot 7010
DP1019801, Lot 351 DP750152, and Lot 2 DP778755 has been subject to moderate
disturbances from cultivation and dam construction.
3.7 CONCLUSION
The reliable water supply offered by the Lachlan River and Goobang Creek would have made
Study Areas, 1, 4, and 5 attractive to Aboriginal people in the past, thereby increasing the
likelihood of encountering Aboriginal sites at these locations. Given the vegetation and other
resources that would have been available being adjacent to permanent water, these areas
would have been ideal for Aboriginal occupation.
Relative to surrounding landscapes, Study Areas 2, 3 and 6, do not contain features known to
attract Aboriginal occupation of the landscape (i.e. permanent water supply, terraced
landforms). As such, the size and density of any potential sites located within these Study Areas
are likely to be smaller and sparser than those which you would expect to the east and in closer
proximity to Goobang Creek.
Furthermore, historical impacts and a high level of ground surface disturbance across the
Project Area from activities such as vegetation clearance, cultivation and grazing, as well as
seasonal flooding, are likely to have impacted the integrity of any sites that may be located
within the Project Area. Broad-scale vegetation clearance characteristic of the area reduces the
likelihood that culturally modified trees remain in-situ; however the presence of a number of
standing mature Eucalypts across the Project Area increases the possibility of this site type.
20
4
ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT: BACKGROUND
4.1 ETHNO-HISTORIC SOURCES OF REGIONAL ABORIGINAL CULTURE
At the time of European settlement, the Project Site is situated within the territory of people
belonging to the Wiradjuri tribal and linguistic group (Tindale 1974). The Wiradjuri tribal area is
situated within the Murray Darling Basin, covering three primary physiographic divisions: the
riverine plains in the west, the transitional western slopes in between and the highlands or
central tablelands in the east (White 1986).
The potential study corridors fall within the central division, being the transitional western slopes
into the central tablelands, the heart of Wiradjuri territory.
Episodes of early contact between Indigenous and European cultures from the nearby Lachlan
Valley (approximately 30 kilometres south) were documented by the explorers Oxley and
Cunningham in May 1817.
Oxley (1817; as cited in Whitehead 2003: 105) writes:
“About a mile from this place we fell in with a small tribe of natives, consisting of
eight men; their women we did not see. They did not appear any way alarmed at the
sight of us, but came boldly up: they were covered with cloaks made from opossum
skins; their faces daubed with a red and yellow pigment, with neatly worked nets
bound round their hair: the front tooth in the upper row was wanting in them all: they
were unarmed, having nothing with them but their stone hatchets. It appeared from
their conduct that they had either seen or heard of white people before, and were
anxious to depart, accompanying the motion of going with a wave of their hand.”
Cunningham (1817; as cited in Whitehead 2003: 105) reported:
“Calling to one another we were answered by strange voices, which left us in no
doubt of natives being near us. It was a great point we should all join in again, which
at length we did, after some time had passed over several miles on a cross-course,
the labour of which might have been saved. Our people came up with seven or eight
of the natives, who were clothed in mantles of skin reddened with a pigment from
the river. There appeared not the most distant symptoms of hostility among them!
They evidently had seen a horse before, and could pronounce some words in
English, such as bread, and they had every appearance of having been with those
at the Lachlan depot, from which we are now 54 miles west. From the columns of
smoke ascending from the trees to which these harmless beings were advancing
there is no doubts of their encampment being these situated, and it might be inferred
that their gins or wives were there, from their evident objection to our people
attempting to accompany them to their fires. The delay and loss of time occasioned
21
by the above adventure had allowed our boatmen to work themselves through all
the numerous windings of the river and overtake us”
Closer to the western end of the current Project Site but somewhat later (1835) came accounts
of contact with native groups by the Mitchell expedition, which had set out to explore the Bogan
River (Unger nd: 3; Kass 2003: 6). In April 1835 Mitchell’s party encountered a group of natives
on the outskirts of what is today the town of Parkes. From this meeting, Mitchell learned that
what had been named the Hervey Range by Oxley in 1817 was in fact known to the locals as
‘Goobang’, which derived from the Aboriginal word Coleong Coobung, which meant place of
many wattles (Kass 2003: 9). Mitchell’s group camped within earshot of the Aboriginal camp
and his account is quoted by Unger (nd: 4):
“The natives who we met here were fine looking men, enjoying contentment and
happiness within the precincts of their native woods. Their enjoyment seemed so
derived from nature, that it almost excited a feeling of regret, that civilised men,
enervated by luxury and all its concomitant diseases, should ever disturb the haunts
of these rude happy beings. The countenance of the first man who came up to me
was a fine specimen of man in an independent state of nature. He had nothing
artificial about him, save the badge of mourning for the dead, a white band (his was
very white), round his brow. His manner was grave, his eye keen and intelligent,
and, as our people were encamping, he seemed to watch the moment when they
wanted fire, when he took a burning stick, which one of the natives had brought, and
presented it in a manner expressive or welcome, and an unaffected wish to
contribute to our wants. Sat a distance, their gins sat at fires, and we heard the
domestic sounds of squalling children.”
When Mitchell’s party left their camping spot, several natives reportedly followed them, one of
whom speared a large kangaroo, while others used new tomahawks to extract honey from tree
branches. It is recorded that the natives accompanied the expedition for four days before
retreating upon the appearance of further natives. This was interpreted by Mitchell as the
original group of natives having reached their tribal boundary (Unger nd: 5).
Ethnographic information gleaned from this expedition noted the primary meat portion of their
diet consisted of possum, kangaroo and emu; women fished using a moveable dam of twisted
dry grass to corral fish so they could be picked out of the water and collected freshwater
mussels; and starchy plant roots were eaten (Kass 2003: 6):
As in most parts of NSW, foreign diseases were a precursor to white settlement and the
population encountered by early settlers was already impacted by this. Tales of early white
settlement include stories of clashes including massacres of the natives and revenge attacks.
22
4.2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Prior to 1985, no systematic, regional based archaeological studies had been undertaken in the
area. There were, nonetheless, many sites recorded, generally by interested locals or
amateurs. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, individuals such as Milne, Gresser
and to a lesser extent Garnsey, recorded site data and made collections of artefacts thereby
contributing to the body of archaeological data now available to the researcher.
The most relevant research-based studies were undertaken by Pearson (1981) 1 and Koettig
(1985). Together these provide baseline data for placing past Aboriginal sites within a regional
landscape context. Following is a summary of the salient points learned from these studies:
Pearson (1981) worked primarily in the Upper Macquarie region, the western boundary of his
study area being Wellington. The majority of Pearson’s field coverage was directed by
information from informants and was thus skewed toward large or obtrusive sites, which had
been recognised by local residents. Pearson excavated three rock shelter sites (Botobolar 5,
and Granites 1 and 2) which provided a regional record of Aboriginal occupation dating back to
around 5,000 years before present. Pearson’s analysis of the patterns of Aboriginal occupation
involved an examination of site location characteristics in four sample areas.
According to Pearson archaeological sites could be divided into two main categories,
occupation sites and non-occupation sites (which included grinding grooves, scarred or carved
trees, ceremonial and burial sites etc.). An analysis of the location of these sites led him to build
a model for site prediction along the following lines (Pearson 1981: 101).
•
Site distance to water varied from 10m to 500m, but in general larger sites are found
closer to water.
•
Good soil drainage and views over watercourses are important site location criteria.
•
Most sites were located in contexts, which would originally have supported open
woodlands.
•
Burial sites and grinding grooves were situated as close to habitation areas as
geological constraints would allow.
•
Ceremonial sites such as earth rings (‘bora grounds’) were located away from
campsites.
•
Stone arrangements were also located away from campsites in isolated places and
tended to be associated with small hills or knolls or were on flat land.
1
M. Pearson’s 1981 study is an unpublished PhD thesis from the ANU. The authors have been unable to directly access this work
and rely heavily on summaries presented in Koettig (1985).
23
•
Quarry sites were located where stone outcrops with desirable working qualities were
recognised and were reasonably accessible.
•
Based on ethno historic information, Pearson suggests that Aboriginal campsites were
seldom used for longer than three nights and that large archaeological sites probably
represent accumulations of material over a series of short visits.
The location of non-occupation sites was dependent on various factors relating to site function.
For example, grinding grooves only occur where there is appropriate outcropping sandstone,
but as close to the occupation site as possible. Modified trees were variably located with no
obvious patterning, other than proximity to watercourses, where camps were more frequently
located.
Koettig (1985) undertook a comprehensive study of evidence relating to Aboriginal occupation
within the Dubbo area. As a result of this study, Koettig (1985: 81–82) concluded that the
location of sites and their relative size were determined by various factors, predominantly
environmental and social. These are proximity to water, geological formation, and availability of
food resources.
The predictive model for site location developed as a result of this study can be summarised as
follows:
•
All site types can be found along watercourses;
•
Stone arrangements occur most frequently on knolls or prominent landscape features;
•
Larger campsites are most frequent along permanent watercourses, near springs or
wetlands, although small campsites may be found anywhere. Because occupation was
more intensive along major watercourses, more site complexes will be found there;
•
Modified trees may be found anywhere there are remnant stands of native trees;
•
Campsites would become smaller and more sporadic near the headwaters of creeks;
•
Grinding grooves are most frequent in association with appropriate sandstone;
•
Quarries may be found wherever there are reliable sources of suitable stone; and
•
Shell lenses (midden material) would only be found along the rivers or 4th order
streams.
24
4.3 LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
4.3.1
Desktop Database Searches Conducted
A desktop search was conducted on the following databases to identify any potential previouslyrecorded heritage within the Project Area. The results of this search are summarised here in
Table 4–1 and presented in detail in Appendix 2.
Table 4-1: Desktop-Database Search Results.
Name of Database Searched
Date of
Search
Type of Search
Comment
National and Commonwealth
Heritage Listings
29.10.14
Parkes, NSW
Forbes, NSW
No places listed on either
the National or
Commonwealth heritage
lists are located within the
Study Area
National Native Title Claims Search
29.10.14
Parkes, NSW
Forbes, NSW
No Native Title Claims
cover the Study Area.
20 sites returned within the
search area. No sites
located within the Project
Area.
28.10.14
Lat. -33.1942 to
-33.0882, Long.
148.0976 to
148.2656, Parkes,
NSW
and
Lot 81 DP750183
with a buffer of 1,000
metres, Forbes NSW
and
Lot 18 DP750183
with a buffer of 1,000
metres, Forbes NSW
Office of Environment and Heritage
(OEH) Aboriginal Heritage
Information Management System
(AHIMS);
Local Environment Plan (LEP)
29.10.14
search area.
search area.
Parkes LEP 2012
and
Forbes LEP 2013
None of the Aboriginal
places noted occur near the
Study Area.
A search of the OEH administered AHIMS database returned a total of 20 records for Aboriginal
heritage sites within the designated search areas. The dominant site type is modified trees
(i.e. carved or scarred), with isolated finds and open artefact scatters recorded in low frequency
(Table 4–2). None of these sites are located within any of the six Study Areas (Figure 4–1).
Table 4-2: AHIMS Site Types and Frequencies.
Site Type
Number
% Frequency
Scarred Tree
17
85
Carved Tree
1
5
Artefact Scatter
1
5
Isolated Find
1
5
Total
20
100
25
2
Figure 4-1: AHIMS Data and Study Areas .
The following provides a background summary of sites within the broader search for the current
project.
Scarred trees #43-3-0059, #43-3-0060 and #43-3-0061 were recorded by Jillian Comber in
2004 as a result of the Parkes Hub Archaeological Survey. This assessment was completed on
behalf of PSC for the Multi-Modal Freight Logistics Hub to be located in west Parkes (Comber
2004a). A total of three Grey Box eucalypts displaying multiple cultural scars were recorded all
to the northwest of Parkes (Comber 2004a: 12–13).
Carved tree “Parkes” (#43-3-0002) was recorded by David Bell as a result of a research survey
of Aboriginal carved trees (Bell 1979). The survey Aboriginal Carved Trees in NSW – A Survey
Report (Parts 1 and 2) was funded by a grant given to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
by the Australian Heritage Commission (Bell 1980: 1). Appendix C (Bell 1979: 85) lists the
carved tree as a possible burial and is now located at the Australian Museum (E5514).
10 of the 20 sites (#43-3-0008 to #43-3-0017) have been recorded as a result of archaeological
assessments completed by Witter (1987) and Dallas (1988; as cited in Brayshaw 1993) for the
London-Victoria Gold Project. Witter noted that high levels of quartz contamination from the
2
No sites returned by the AHIMS search in the vicinity of Study Area 1 hence no figure has been provided in this
report. Refer to Appendix 2 for AHIMS search results.
26
associated mining activities made it difficult to find camp sites and recommended that scarred
trees in the area be further investigated. Following on from Witter’s work, Dallas (1988)
recorded 10 scarred trees (#43-3-0008-0017) within the London-Victoria Gold Project study
area. Bimble Box and Cypress Pine were both reported as species bearing scars.
Open site “Parkes 1” (#43-3-0062) and isolated find “Parkes 2-IF” (#43-3-0063) were recorded
following a 2004 survey “Archaeological Survey at Parkes” completed by Jillian Comber on
behalf of Country House and Land Sales (2004b). Open site “Parkes 1” (#43-3-0062) is noted to
consist of two artefacts, a basalt core and a possible sandstone hammer stone, and seven
nodules of white ochre. The site covers an area of 150 metres by 80 metres and is situated
approximately 1 kilometre west of Goobang Creek. “Parkes 2-IF” is an isolated broken river
cobble with a ground edge.
Scarred Tree “PIE-ST1” (#43-3-0104) was recorded in 2013 by OzArk following an
archaeological assessment completed for the Parkes Industrial Estate (OzArk 2013). PIE-ST1
is a standing Grey Box, approximately 15 metres tall in very good, healthy condition, displaying
a single regular ovoid shaped scar oriented to the south (OzArk 2013: 30).
Scarred trees #43-4-0080, #43-4-0082 were recorded in 1997 by Navin Officer Heritage
Consultants as a result of archaeological assessment of the Proposed Route of the MarsdenDubbo Natural Gas Pipeline near the Newell Highway south of Parkes (Navin Officer 1997).
4.4 PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR SITE LOCATION
Across Australia, numerous archaeological studies in widely varying environmental zones and
contexts have demonstrated a high correlation between the permanence of a water source and
the permanence and/or complexity of Aboriginal occupation. Site location is also affected by the
availability of and/or accessibility to a range of other natural resources including: plant and
animal foods; stone and ochre resources and rock shelters; as well as by their general proximity
to other sites/places of cultural/mythological significance. Consequently sites tend to be found
along permanent and ephemeral water sources, along access or trade routes or in areas that
have good flora/fauna resources and appropriate shelter.
In formulating a predictive model for Aboriginal archaeological site location within any
landscape it is also necessary to consider post-depositional influences on Aboriginal material
culture. In all but the best preservation conditions very little of the organic material culture
remains of ancestral Aboriginal communities survives to the present. Generally it is the more
durable materials such as stone artefacts, stone hearths, shell, and some bones that remain
preserved in the current landscape. Even these however may not be found in their original
depositional context since these may be subject to either (a) the effects of wind and water
erosion/transport - both over short and long time scales or (b) the historical impacts associated
with the introduction of European farming practices including: grazing and cropping; land
27
degradation associated with exotic pests such as goats and rabbits and the installation of farm
related infrastructure including water-storage, utilities, roads, fences, stockyards and residential
quarters. Scarred trees may survive for up to several hundred years but rarely beyond.
Knowledge of the environmental contexts of the Project Area and a desktop review of the
known local and regional archaeological record, the most likely sites to be encountered are:
•
Scarred and carved trees present as the dominant site type for the locality and hence
are possible where mature trees of scar bearing type exist;
•
Open camp sites are possible on elevated ground however due to the high level of
disturbance across the Project Area this site type, if present, has a high likelihood of
being disturbed and/or of low integrity; and
•
Isolated finds may occur anywhere, especially in disturbed locations.
28
5
APPLICATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
In late 2010, changes were made to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act 1974)
via the Omnibus Bill. As of October 2010, the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection
of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a) was instituted to assist developers to exercise
the appropriate level of caution when carrying out activities that could cause harm to Aboriginal
heritage.
5.2
DEFENCES UNDER THE NPW REGULATIONS 2009
The first step before application of the Due Diligence process itself is to determine whether the
proposed activity is a “low impact activity” for which there is a defence in the NPW regulations
2009. The exemptions are listed in Section 7.5 of the Regulations (DECCW 2010a: 6).
The activities of the Proponent do not fall into any of these exemption categories. Therefore the
Due Diligence process must be applied.
Relevant to this process is the assessed levels of previous land-use disturbance.
The regulations (DECCW 2010a: 18) define disturbed land as follows:
Land is disturbed if it has been the subject of a human activity that has changed
the land’s surface, being changes that remain clear and observable.
Examples include ploughing, construction of rural infrastructure (such as dams
and fences), construction of roads, trails and tracks (including fire trails and
tracks and walking tracks), clearing vegetation, construction of buildings and the
erection of other structures, construction or installation of utilities and other
similar services (such as above or below ground electrical infrastructure, water
or sewerage pipelines, stormwater drainage and other similar infrastructure)
and construction of earthworks.
5.3
APPLICATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE CODE OF PRACTICE TO THE PROJECT
AREA
To follow the generic Due Diligence process, a series of steps in a question answer flowchart
format (DECCW 2010a: 10) are applied to the project impacts and Study Area and the
responses documented.
OzArk reviewed aerial imagery and desktop data and nominated portions within the Project
Area which are assessable under Due Diligence, as identified in Table 5–1.
29
Table 5-1: Application of the Due Diligence Code of Practice within the current Project Area.
STUDY AREA
1
Step 1:
Lot 18 DP750183
(Figure 5–1)
Will the activity
disturb the
ground surface
or any
culturally
modified
trees?
Step 2: Are there any:
Relevant
confirmed site
records or
other
associated
landscape
feature
information on
AHIMS?
6
5
Only Lot 223 DP75179 and
Lot 1407 DP1159394
(Figure 6–3, Plate 1)
Existing road corridors,
easements and residential
areas
(Figure 6–4, Plates 2 to 3)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
A search of the AHIMS
database revealed no
previously recorded sites within
the Study Area (Appendix 2)
No
No
Due diligence assessment of
this location was completed at
desktop level only and was not
visually inspected in the
company of an Aboriginal
Community representative.
An Aboriginal Community
representative was present
during the fieldwork component
of the current assessment.
An Aboriginal Community
representative was present
during the fieldwork component
of the current assessment.
No
No
No
This portion of the Study Area
has, in its entirety, been
disturbed by means included in
the definitions as noted in
Section 5.2. Hence resulting in
a ‘no’ answer to this question.
This portion of the Study Area
has, in its entirety, been
disturbed by means included in
the definitions as noted in
The Study Area has, in its
entirety, been disturbed by
means included in the
definitions as noted in
No
Any other
sources of
information of
which a person
is already
aware
Landscape
features* that
are likely to
indicate
presence of
Aboriginal
objects?
* Landscape features noted here include (DECCW 2010):
• within 200 metres of waters, or
• located within a sand dune system, or
• located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland, or
• located within 200 metres below or above a cliff face, or
• within 20 metres of or in a cave, rock shelter, or a cave mouth
and’ is on land that is not disturbed land (see Section 5.1.1)
The ‘no’ answer for Question 2 a-c, removes the selected areas from the Due Diligence
Process, moving through to this outcome (DECCW 2010: 10):
Proceed with caution. If any Aboriginal objects are found, stop work and
notify OEH (Office of Environment and Heritage). If human remains are
found, stop work, secure the site and notify NSW Police and OEH.
Further investigation as per the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in
New South Wales (DECCW 2010b) will be applied to the remainder of the Project Area.
30
6
RESULTS OF ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
6.1 SAMPLING STRATEGY AND FIELD METHODS
All Study Areas were, at a minimum, visually inspected during the fieldwork component of the
current assessment, including those noted in Section 5 as having been assessed under the
Due Diligence Code of Practice in order to ground truth existing levels of disturbance.
Formal survey and assessment as per the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Aboriginal
Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010b) was completed across the remaining portions of
the Project Area. As requested by the Proponent, only the impact footprint for infrastructure,
pipelines and roads and a 20 metre buffer area for proposed works was surveyed in the current
assessment.
Standard archaeological field survey and recording methods were employed in this study
(Burke & Smith 2004). Due to nature of proposed works (i.e. pipelines), the majority of the
proposed impact footprints were linear and were effectively surveyed via pedestrian transects
with the surveyors ranging from five to 15 metres apart. The length of each transect was
arbitrarily determined but was usually a function of its coincidence with a landscape feature
and/or its intersection with a man-made feature such as a vehicle track, bridge and/or fence
line. Graded tracks and exposures were examined where possible as they provided good
instances of ground surface visibility and exposure, allowing for sampling of landforms where
limited ground surface visibility posed constraints.
In Study Areas where existing levels of disturbance were observed to be moderate to high and
full pedestrian survey was not considered appropriate or necessary, visual inspection was
conducted via vehicle with pedestrian spot checks of areas identified by the archaeologist
present or Aboriginal community representative as being worthy of closer inspection
(i.e. exposures, all mature native trees).
6.2 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Beyond limited ground surface visibility (refer to Section 6.3) there were no constraints to the
effective completion of the current assessment. The weather during completion of the field work
component of the assessment was fine and sunny, and surveyors had adequate time to
effectively assess the six proposed Study Areas over two days.
As per Section 5.3, the locations of Bore 8 (Study Area 1 Lot 18 DP750183), the proposed
Nash Street Pump Station (Study Area 5 Lot 223 DP75179 and Lot 1407 DP1159394) and
existing road corridors, easements and residential areas
(Study Area 6) were assessed by
under the Due Diligence Code of Practice (DECCW 2010a). Due diligence assessment of the
location of Bore 8 has been completed at desktop level only.
31
6.3 EFFECTIVE SURVEY COVERAGE
Two of the key factors influencing the effectiveness of archaeological survey are ground surface
visibility (GSV) and exposure. These factors are quantified in order to ensure that the survey
data provides adequate evidence for the evaluation of the archaeological materials across the
landscape. For the purposes of the current assessment, these terms are used in accordance
with the definitions provided in the Code of Practice (DECCW 2010b).
Ground surface visibility (GSV) is defined as:
… the amount of bare ground (or visibility) on the exposures which might reveal
artefacts or other archaeological materials. It is important to note that visibility, on its
own, is not a reliable indicator of the detectability of buried archaeological material.
Things like vegetation, plant or leaf litter, loose sand, stone ground or introduced
materials will affect the visibility. Put another way, visibility refers to ‘what conceals’
(DECCW 2010b: 39).
Exposure is defined as:
… different to visibility because it estimates the area with a likelihood of revealing
buried artefacts or deposits rather than just being an observation of the amount of bare
ground. It is the percentage of land for which erosion and exposure was sufficient to
reveal archaeological evidence on the surface of the ground. Put another way,
exposure refers to ‘what reveals’ (DECCW 2010b: 37).
GSV and exposures across all six Study Areas were generally very low due to large amounts of
ground-covering vegetation (grasses and weeds), cereal cropping, as well as leaf litter. Visibility
ranged from 2 to 30 percent, with approximately 5 to 50 percent exposures afforded by erosion
and access tracks (see Tables 6–1 and 6–2). Exposures were located intermittently across the
Study Areas allowing a comprehensive representation of subsurface soils and assessment of
the potential for archaeological deposit.
Table 6-1: Survey Coverage Data.
Study
Area
Landform
Approximate
Survey Unit
Area (sq m)
Visibility
%
Exposure
%
Effective
Coverage Area
(sq m)
Effective
Coverage %
1
Floodplain
2,000
30
50
300
15
2
Undulating Plain
83,000
2
5
83
0.1
3
Knoll, Undulating
Plain
12,000
15
15
270
2.25
4
Floodplain,
Undulating Plain
103,000
5
15
772.5
0.75
5
Floodplain,
Undulating Plain
14,000
10
20
280
2
6
Modified Landform,
Undulating Plain
69,000
15
10
1,035
1.5
32
Table 6-2: Landform Summary—Sampled Areas.
Landform
Approximate
Landform Area
(sq m)
Area Effectively
Surveyed (sq m)
% of Landform
Effectively Surveyed
Number
of Sites
Number of
Artefacts or
Features
Floodplain
34,300
559.75
1.6
1
8
Undulating Plain
188,550
1,215.5
0.6
1
1
Knoll
8,400
189
2.25
0
0
Modified Landform
51,750
776.25
1.5
0
0
Due to limited GSV and a highly variable frequency of exposures, the average effective survey
coverage percentage when averaged across all six Study Areas was a relatively high 3.6
percent. While this may seem low, the 0.6 percent effective survey coverage assessed in the
flatter landforms (i.e. floodplain and undulating plains; Table 6–1) is a more common figure for
survey effectiveness as this takes into account large areas with low ground surface visibility and
a low incidence of exposures. Figures 6–1 to 6–4 illustrate survey coverage 3 completed during
field assessment (refer to Plates 4 to 22 for Study Area photographs).
Figure 6-1: Survey Coverage – Study Area 1.
3
Survey coverage Figures 6–1 to 6–6 delineate coverage by one individual, however other surveyors were also present, expanding
survey coverage.
33
Figure 6-2: Survey Coverage – Study Areas 2 and 3.
Figure 6-3: Survey Coverage – Study Areas 4 and 5.
34
Figure 6-4: Survey Coverage – Study Area 6.
6.4 ABORIGINAL SITES RECORDED
One open site with potential archaeological deposit (PAD) and one scarred tree were recorded
as a result of the current Aboriginal heritage assessment (Table 6–3).
Table 6-3: Survey Results.
Site Name
Feature(s)
Study Area
Landform
Lachlan River PSC Pump
OS1 with PAD
Open Artefact Scatter with PAD
1
Floodplain
Akuna Road PSC Scarred
Tree 1
Scarred Tree
4
Undulating Plain
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD
Site Type:
Artefact scatter with PAD
GPS Coordinates:
Refer to Table 6–4
Location of Site:
The surface manifestation of the site is located within an existing
council works compound. Due to the lack of GSV or landforms from which a site
boundary can be delineated, the site boundary has been arbitrarily set as a buffer of 100
35
metres surrounding known surface artefacts (Figure 6–5). It is possible that the site
extends beyond the 100 metre buffer, or may be smaller than this.
Description of Site: The site is a low density open artefact scatter with associated
PAD. Eight artefacts, including a Ground-edge Axe and flaked artefacts, were identified
on the highly disturbed ground surface within the works compound, which have been
revealed by a graded cutting which has been made on a northeast-southwest alignment
along the fenced boundary of the compound (Plate 5). These artefacts demonstrate the
potential for sub-surface archaeological deposit at this location.
Figure 6-5: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD.
Table 6-4: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD – Surface Artefacts.
GDA Zone 55
Artefact Type
Material
Dimensions (cm)
Easting
Northing
Ground-edge Axe
Basalt
13.9 x 7.1 x 4.4
605818.230
6304742.180
Tertiary Broken Flake
Grey Quartzite
2.6 x 2.7 x 0.8
605824.675
6304744.881
Secondary Broken Flake
Yellow Mudstone
2.1 x 2.1 x 0.6
605829.324
6304748.991
Angular Fragment
Grey Silcrete
(Max.) 2.9
605849.065
6304754.485
Tertiary Complete Flake
Grey Silcrete
4.1 x 3 x 0.7
605870.110
634.770.323
Tertiary Complete Blade
Grey Silcrete
2.4 x 1.1 x 0.4
605872.401
6304753.963
Tertiary Split Flake
Red Mudstone
3 x 1 x 0.4
605883.907
6304777.931
Tertiary Complete Flake
Cream Mudstone
1.4 x 1.8 x 0.6
605893.703
6304787.762
36
Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1
Site Type:
Scarred Tree
GPS Coordinates:
GDA, Zone 55, 611442.640E, 6330457.068N
Location of Site:
On the immediate verge of unsealed Akuna Road (Figure 6–6).
Description of Site: The Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) is approximately 18 to 20
metres tall and has a circumference of 1.57 metres (measures from the middle of the
scar). The tree has one south facing elongated scar which is almost completely closed
by regrowth (Plates 26 and 27). No associated artefacts were identified and there is no
anticipated potential for subsurface archaeological deposit. Dimensions are as follows:
Max. Scar Length (incl. regrowth): 83cm
Min. Scar Length (excl. regrowth): 69cm
Max. Scar Width (incl. regrowth): 3cm
Min. Scar Width (excl. regrowth): <1cm
Max. Width of Regrowth: 16cm
Max. Depth of Regrowth: 22cm
Height Base of Scar Above Ground: 43cm
Figure 6-6: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1.
37
6.5 ABORIGINAL SITES RE-LOCATED
No previously recorded Aboriginal sites were re-located during the survey.
6.6 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INPUT
Discussion was held with the representative from the Peak Hill LALC (Anthony Wilson)
regarding the cultural heritage values, including the significance of the Aboriginal objects and
any declared Aboriginal places that exist across the whole area that will be affected by the
activity. The significance of these values for the Aboriginal people that have cultural association
with the land was also discussed. During the discussion Anthony knew of no areas within the
Project Area that have any known cultural significance.
When discussing Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD, Anthony expressed concern
regarding the high likelihood of artefacts being further impacted by ongoing use of the PSC
works compound and expressed a preference that these artefacts be collected under the
auspices of an AHIP and relocated to an area nearby where they will not be disturbed.
Following consultation with the Proponent, it is unlikely that Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1
will be impacted by proposed works (upgrades to Akuna Road) within Study Area 4. Anthony
supported the recommendation of temporarily fencing the site during the construction phase to
protect against inadvertent impacts.
In the event that the Aboriginal heritage sites cannot be avoided during the proposed works, an
AHIP must be sought from the Office of Environment and Heritage. Further consultation with
registered Aboriginal parties (RAPs) will be undertaken should an AHIP application be made.
No other possible heritage constraints were noted by the Aboriginal representative present
during the field work component of the assessment. Anthony concurred with the levels of
disturbance assigned in the field to individual Study Areas (as noted in Section 3), agreed with
the appropriateness of the levels of assessment applied (i.e. Due Diligence or Code of Practice)
and did not have any objections to the manner in which the survey was undertaken.
6.7 DISCUSSION
The results of the assessment confirm the predictive model that suggested that proximity to
permanent water sources proportionately increases the probability of recording Aboriginal sites
or objects, and that the reliable water supply offered by the Lachlan River and Goobang Creek
increases the likelihood of encountering Aboriginal sites within Study Areas, 1, 4 and 5.
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD, identified within Study Area 1, also demonstrates the
cumulative historical impact of ground surface disturbances within the Project Area. The
integrity of the site has been greatly impacted by a high level of disturbance. The long history of
38
agricultural land use and associated disturbances within the Project Area has likely removed
many sites from the archaeological landscape, had they ever existed.
Scarred trees are the locality’s dominant site type and the identification of Akuna Road PSC
Scarred Tree 1 supports this trend.
The remaining Study Areas, 2, 3 and 6, are largely comprised of elevated and exposed sloping
land unsuitable for occupation. As such, the likelihood of these areas being used as occupation
areas is considered to be very low. No Aboriginal sites were identified within these Study Areas
and no potential for unidentified or subsurface sites or objects was documented.
6.8 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
6.8.1
Introduction
The appropriate management of cultural heritage items is usually determined on the basis of
their assessed significance as well as the likely impacts of any proposed developments.
Scientific, cultural and public significance are identified as baseline elements of significance
assessment, and it is through the combination of these elements that the overall cultural
heritage values of a site, place or area are resolved.
Social or Cultural Value
This area of assessment concerns the importance of a site or features to the relevant cultural
group: in this case the Aboriginal community. Aspects of social value include assessment of
sites, items, and landscapes that are traditionally significant or that have contemporary
importance to the Aboriginal community. This importance involves both traditional links with
specific areas, as well as an overall concern by Aboriginal people for their sites generally and
the continued protection of these. This type of value may not be in accord with interpretations
made by the archaeologist: a site may have low archaeological value but high social value, or
vice versa.
Archaeological/Scientific Value
Assessing a site in this context involves placing it into a broader regional framework, as well as
assessing the site's individual merits in view of current archaeological discourse. This type of
value relates to the ability of a site to answer current research questions and is also based on a
site's condition (integrity), content and representativeness.
The overriding aim of cultural heritage management is to preserve a representative sample of
the archaeological resource. This will ensure that future research within the discipline can be
based on a valid sample of the past. Establishing whether or not a site can contribute to current
research also involves defining 'research potential' and 'representativeness'. Questions
39
regularly asked when determining significance are: can this site contribute information that no
other site can? Is this site representative of other sites in the region?
Aesthetic Value
This refers to the sensory, scenic, architectural and creative aspects of the place. It is often
closely linked with the social values. It may consider form, scale, colour, texture and material of
the fabric or landscape, and the smell and sounds associated with the place and its use
(Australia ICOMOS 2013).
Historic Value
Historic value refers to the associations of a place with a historically important person, event,
phase or activity in an Aboriginal community. Historic places do not always have physical
evidence of their historical importance (such as structures, planted vegetation or landscape
modifications). They may have ‘shared’ historic values with other (non-Aboriginal) communities.
Places of post-contact Aboriginal history have generally been poorly recognised in
investigations of Aboriginal heritage. Consequently the Aboriginal involvement and contribution
to important regional historical themes is often missing from accepted historical narratives. This
means it is often necessary to collect oral histories along with archival or documentary research
to gain a sufficient understanding of historic values.
6.8.2
Assessed Significance of the Recorded Sites
6.8.2.1 Social or Cultural Significance
The social value of Aboriginal sites is generally determined through consultation with Aboriginal
people. All Aboriginal sites have significance to the local Aboriginal community as they provide
a tangible link to the occupation of the land by their ancestors. It can be said that the specific
sites recorded by the current assessment are not currently the focus of spiritual, political,
national or other cultural sentiment, however, Aboriginal heritage is of great value to many
people and the sites therefore have social value. As such, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with
PAD and Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 are held to have high social/cultural value.
6.8.2.2 Archaeological/Scientific Significance
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD demonstrated a low density of artefacts within a highly
disturbed context. All artefacts have been exposed as a result of a graded cutting which has
been made on a northeast-southwest alignment along the boundary of the compound,
demonstrating the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposit at this location. Due to the
extensive and high level of ground surface disturbance within the works compound, it is
assessed that subsurface deposits would have limited– or no–integrity within the compound.
40
Outside of the compound, existing levels of disturbance are moderate, and a margin of land,
approximately 20 metres in width between the Lachlan River and cultivation boundary, exhibits
a lesser level of disturbance. As such, the potential for in-tact sub-surface deposits associated
with Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD is more likely outside of the compound area.
Regarding the surface manifestations alone, whilst the site demonstrated low artefact numbers
and most artefacts displayed a minimum of flake attributes attributable to an Aboriginal origin,
the presence of an archetypal Ground-edge Axe increases its archaeological significance.
As such, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD has been assessed as having low scientific
value within the existing works compound and moderate scientific significance outside of this
area.
Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 has been assessed as holding low archaeological value.
Scarred trees are a common site type in the area and this site does not demonstrate any unique
characteristic, material or feature, and has largely been overgrown. It is unlikely Akuna Road
PSC Scarred Tree 1 would contribute any further scientific understanding of past Aboriginal
land use. However, scarred trees in general are a diminishing site type by their very nature.
Land clearance and ecological factors mean that scarred trees have a finite life-span, and their
study is considered important to our continued scientific understanding of past Aboriginal land
use. Because of the increase in the disappearance of these site types in NSW, it is generally
recommended that these sites be retained wherever possible.
6.8.2.3 Aesthetic Value
Whilst individual artefacts, such as the Ground-edge Axe, have a high aesthetic appeal, the
aesthetic value of a site is derived from its relationship to and position within the surrounding
landscape. Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD is located within a highly disturbed and
modified environment has therefore been assessed as having low aesthetic value. Further, the
site is in private land making public access and appreciation very difficult.
Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 has been assessed as having low aesthetic value. Scars on
trees are typically less difficult for the layperson to interpret than stone artefact remains,
however, the site is located within an area significantly disturbed via agriculture and/or
development.
41
6.8.2.4 Historic Value
There are no known historical associations to any of the sites within the Project Area and
therefore Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD and Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 have
been assessed as holding low historic value.
Table 6-5: Significance Assessment.
Site Name
Social or Cultural
Value
Archaeological /
Scientific Value
Aesthetic Value
Historic Value
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1
with PAD
High
Low and Moderate
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
6.9 LIKELY IMPACTS TO ABORIGINAL HERITAGE FROM THE PROPOSAL
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD has already been impacted by historical disturbances
within the PSC works compound. These impacts occurred prior to PSC’s purchase of the
property in 2001. The site is situated in an area which will be directly affected by the proposed
works and also has an ongoing risk of disturbance from activities such as routine maintenance
of the facility. No impacts to Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD are anticipated outside of
the works compound.
Following consultation with the Proponent, impacts to Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 will be
avoided by proposed works, specifically upgrades to Akuna Road.
No other known, or predicted, Aboriginal site or object will be impacted by the proposed works.
Table 6-6: Impact Assessment.
Site Name
Type of Harm
Degree of Harm
Consequence of Harm
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1
with PAD
Direct
Partial
Partial
None
None
No loss of value
42
7
MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
7.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL SITES
Appropriate management of cultural heritage items is primarily determined on the basis of their
assessed significance as well as the likely impacts of the proposed development. Section 6.8.2
and Section 6.9 describe, respectively, the significance / potential of the recorded sites and the
likely impacts of the development. The following management options are general principles, in
terms of best practice and desired outcomes, rather than mitigation measures against individual
site disturbance.
•
Avoid impact by altering the development proposal or in this case by avoiding impact to
a recorded Aboriginal site. If this can be done, then a suitable curtilage around the site
must be provided to ensure its protection both during the short-term construction phase
of development and in the long-term use of the area. If plans are altered, care must be
taken to ensure that impacts do not occur to areas not previously assessed.
•
If impact is unavoidable then approval to disturb sites must be sought from OEH and will
depend on many factors including the site’s assessed significance. Aboriginal
community consultation will also need to occur following the OEH Aboriginal Cultural
Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (ACHCRs). If granted, the
local Aboriginal communities may wish to collect or relocate any evidence of past
Aboriginal occupation (Aboriginal object), whether temporarily or permanently, if
necessary. The fate of all artefacts remains within the statutory control of the OEH. A
care and control permit may be issued to local Aboriginal groups or, with Aboriginal
community consent, to other parties, for educational or display purposes.
7.2 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION OF RECORDED ABORIGINAL SITES
As indicated in Section 6.9, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD is situated in an area
which will be directly affected by the proposed works and also has an ongoing risk of
disturbance from activities such as routine maintenance of the facility.
Within the works compound, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD has been assessed as
having high social values and low scientific, aesthetic and historic values. For impacts to the
site as contained within the existing works compound, no further archaeological investigation is
considered warranted. However, in order to obtain permission to partially impact Lachlan River
PSC Pump OS1 with PAD, an AHIP must be sought from the OEH and would require an
archaeological salvage programme. This application should be done in consultation with the
Peak Hill LALC and can take up to three months to be processed.
For any works proposed outside of the compound but within the current site boundary, where
Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD has been assessed as having moderate scientific
43
value, it is recommended that a test excavation programme be completed in accordance with
the Code of Practice (DECCW 2010b). A test excavation will determine the nature of the sites
sub-surface deposits (i.e. density, integrity and extent), and the results will help to inform
archaeological management.
It is anticipated that proposed works will avoid impacting Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1.
Appropriate management of this site would be the installation of high visibility curtilage during
the construction phase of proposed works to protect against inadvertent impacts to the site. In
OzArk’s experience it is preferred to fence off sections of the impact footprint in the vicinity of a
site, rather than draw attention to a site by fencing it off individually.
If PSC determines that impacts to Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1 are unavoidable then an
AHIP must be sought from OEH; the conditions of which would be informed by community
consultation as per the ACHCRs.
Construction crew inductions should be provided to workers on the project as to the location of
the recorded sites and their legislative protection under the NPW Act.
44
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Under Section 91 of the NPW Act (1974 as amended) it is mandatory that all Aboriginal sites
recorded under any auspices be registered with OEH AHIMS. As a professional in the field of
cultural heritage management it is the responsibility of OzArk to ensure this process is
undertaken.
To this end it is noted that two Aboriginal sites were recorded during the assessment.
Consultation with the Proponent indicates that one site, Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with
PAD, will be impacted by the proposed works; all other sites will be avoided.
The following recommendations are made on the basis of these impacts and with regard to:
•
Legal requirements under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as
amended) whereby it is illegal to damage, deface or destroy an Aboriginal place or
object without the prior written consent of the Director of the NSW Environment
Protection Authority;
•
The findings of the current investigations undertaken within the Project Area; and
•
The interests of the Aboriginal community.
Recommendations concerning the Project Area are as follows.
1. To impact Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD the Proponent is required to apply to
the OEH for an AHIP. Once granted, Aboriginal community representatives may wish to
collect and/or relocate artefacts/objects, whether temporarily or permanently. In order to
apply for an AHIP, the ACHCRs must be followed and evidence of adherence to these
procedures provided in the AHIP application. This process can take up to three months
to negotiate.
2. Appropriate measures should be put in place to protect Akuna Road PSC Scarred
Tree 1, such as high visibility curtilage, during the construction phase of works.
3. Construction crew inductions should be provided to workers on the project as to the
location of the recorded sites and their legislative protection under the NPW Act.
4. All land-disturbing activities must be confined to within the assessed areas.
5. Should any other objects or Aboriginal sites be identified during the course of
construction the Unanticipated Finds Protocol should be followed (Appendix 3).
45
REFERENCES
Australia ICOMOS 2013
International Council on Monuments and Sites 2013. The Australia
ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.
Bell 1979
Bell, D. 1970. Aboriginal Carved Trees in New South Wales: A Survey
Report – Part 1, A report prepared for NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service.
BOM 2014a
Bureau of Meteorology, 2014. Climate statistics for Australian locations:
Parkes
Airport,
<www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_065068
.shtml>, Accessed 10 November 2014.
BOM 2014b
Bureau of Meteorology, 2014. Climate statistics for Australian locations:
Forbes
Airport,
<www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_065103
.shtml>, Accessed 10 November 2014.
Brayshaw 1993
Brayshaw, H. 1993, Water Supply Pipeline to proposed North Parkes
Mine, NSW: Archaeological survey for Aboriginal Sites. Report to DPWS.
Burke & Smith 2004
Burke, H. and Smith, C. 2004. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Comber 2004a
Comber, J. 2004. Parkes Hub Archaeological Survey, A report prepared
for Parkes Shire Council.
Comber 2004b
Comber, J. 2004. Archaeological Survey at Parkes, A report prepared for
Country House and Land Sales.
DECCW 2010a
DECCW. 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of
Aboriginal Objects in NSW. Department of Environment, Climate Change
and Water, Sydney.
DECCW 2010b
DECCW. 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of
Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales. Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water, Sydney.
Gammage 2011
Gammage, B. 2011, The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines made
Australia, Allen and Unwin.
Kass 2003
Kass, T. 2003. Parkes Shire Thematic History, A report prepared for
Parkes Shire Council.
Koettig 1985
Koettig, M. 1985. Assessment of Aboriginal sites in the Dubbo City Area. A
report prepared for Dubbo City Council.
Mitchell 2002
Mitchell, P. 2002. NSW Ecosystems Database Mapping Unit Descriptions,
Groundtruth Consulting.
46
Navin Officer 1997
Navin, K. and Officer, K. 1997. Marsden-Dubbo Natural Gas Pipeline
Further Archaeological Assessment, Unpublished report to East Australian
Pipeline Ltd, Canberra.
OEH 2014
The Office of Environment and Heritage, 2014. South Western Slopes
Bioregion,
<www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/NSWSouthWestern
SlopesBioregion.htm>, Accessed 10 November 2014.
OzArk 2013
OzArk Environmental and Heritage Management Pty Ltd. 2013, Aboriginal
Archaeological Assessment: Parkes Industrial Estate, Parkes Shire LGA,
NSW.
Pearson 1981
Pearson, M. 1981. Seen Through Different Eyes: Changing Land Use
and Settlement Patterns in the Upper Macquarie River Region of NSW
from Prehistoric Times to 1860, PhD Thesis, Australian National
University, Canberra.
Tindale 1974
Tindale,
N.B.
1974. Aboriginal
tribes
of
Australia:
their
terrain,
environmental controls, distribution, limits, and proper names. University of
California Press; Canberra: Australian National University Press, Berkeley.
47
PLATES
Plate 1: Due Diligence - Study Area 5. Lot 223 DP75179 and Lot 1407 DP1159394.
Plate 2: Due Diligence – Study Area 6. Noonan Street Drainage Reserve.
48
Plate 3: Due Diligence – Study Area 6. Want Street.
Plate 4: Study Area 1. Works Compound.
49
Plate 5: Study Area 1. Works Compound and cutting.
Plate 6: Study Area 1. Works Compound.
50
Plate 7: Study Area 1. Works Compound – Approximate location of proposed wet well.
Plate 8: Study Area 2. Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation Location.
51
Plate 9: Study Area 2. Parkes Water Treatment Plant Augmentation Location.
Plate 10: Study Area 2. Proposed southeast pipeline location.
52
Plate 11: Study Area 3. Proposed Pipeline Corridor.
Plate 12: Study Area 3. Location of proposed “Golden Bar Hill” High Level Reservoir.
53
Plate 13: Study Area 4. Akuna Road.
Plate 14: Study Area 4. Location of proposed Sewage Treatment Plant.
54
Plate 15: Study Area 4. Proposed pipeline corridor.
Plate 16: Study Area 5. Proposed pipeline corridor.
55
Plate 17: Study Area 5. Proposed Goobang Creek crossing and concrete weir.
Plate 18: Study Area 5. Lot 728 DP865225.
56
Plate 19: Study Area 6. Location of proposed northern pipeline corridor.
Plate 20: Study Area 6. Danilenko Street.
57
Plate 21: Study Area 6. Lot 7010 DP1019801, Lot 351 DP750152, and Lots 2 and 4 DP778755.
Plate 22: Study Area 6. Inspecting exposures along Renshaw McGirr Way.
58
Plate 23: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD. Ground-edge Axe.
Plate 24: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD. Ground-edge Axe.
59
Plate 25: Lachlan River PSC Pump OS1 with PAD Artefacts.
Plate 26: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1.
60
Plate 27: Akuna Road PSC Scarred Tree 1.
61
APPENDIX 1: ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
INVITATION TO ATTEND FIELDWORK
62
63
CONSULTATION LOG
Parkes Water Supply Augmentation: Six Study Areas (Heritage)
Date
22.10.14
22.10.14
Organisation
Contact Name
Peak Hill Local
Aboriginal Land Council
(LALC)
Cherie Keed
Peak Hill LALC
Cherie Keed
29.10.14
Peak Hill LALC
Peak Hill LALC
Method
SB rang Cherie re tentative site officer
work.
Phone
SB emailed Cherie tentative details for
work and requested W/C
Email
SB emailed Cherie tentative details for
work and requested White card and
D/L
Email
68691726
Cherie Keed
SB rang re W/C office phone rang out
Phone
SB rang Anthony Wilson re white card
and Driver License - Anthony has them
in his wallet and can produce them to
council tomorrow. Sb explained can’t
get on to Cherie re W/C - Anthony gave
Cherie’s mobile number
Phone
SB rang Cherie’s mobile number and
left message to call asap re W/C
Phone
SB emailed Cherie re: letter of
engagement and urgent request for
W/C
Email
Anthony rang SB to see if I got on to
Cherie. SB said no- he will call her as
well
Phone
68691726
68691726
22.10.14
Comment
Cherie Keed
68691726
29.10.14
Peak Hill LALC
Cherie Keed
68691726
29.10.14
Peak Hill LALC
Anthony Wilson
0429 465 969
29.10.14
Peak Hill LALC
Cherie Keed
0414219803
29.10.14
Peak Hill LALC
Anthony Wilson
0429 465 969
64
APPENDIX 2: DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS
65
66
67
APPENDIX 3: UNANTICIPATED FINDS PROTOCOL
An Aboriginal artefact is anything which is the result of past Aboriginal activity. This includes
stone (artefacts, rock engravings etc.), plant (culturally scarred trees) and animal (if showing
signs of modification; i.e. smoothing, use). Human bone (skeletal) remains may also be
uncovered while onsite.
Cultural heritage significance is assessed by the Aboriginal community and is typically based on
traditional and contemporary lore, spiritual values, and oral history, and may also take into
account scientific and educational value.
Protocol to be followed in the event that previously unrecorded or unanticipated Aboriginal
object(s) are encountered:
1.
All ground surface disturbance in the area of the finds should cease immediately the finds
are uncovered.
a)
The discoverer of the find(s) will notify machinery operators in the immediate vicinity
of the find(s) so that work can be halted; and
b)
2.
The site supervisor will be informed of the find(s).
If there is substantial doubt regarding an Aboriginal origin for the finds, then gain a
qualified opinion from an archaeologist as soon as possible. This can circumvent
proceeding further along the protocol for items which turn out not to be archaeological. If a
quick opinion cannot be gained, or the identification is positive, then proceed to the next
step.
3.
Immediately notify the following authorities or personnel of the discovery:
a) OEH; and
b) Relevant Aboriginal Community Representatives.
4.
Facilitate, in co-operation with the appropriate authorities and relevant Aboriginal
community representatives:
a) The recording and assessment of the finds;
b) Fulfilling any legal constraints arising from the find(s). This will include complying with
OEH directions; and
c) The development and conduct of appropriate management strategies. Strategies will
depend on consultation with stakeholders and the assessment of the significance of
the find(s).
5.
Where the find(s) are determined to be Aboriginal Objects, any re-commencement of
construction related ground surface disturbance may only resume in the area of the
find(s) following compliance with any consequential legal requirements and gaining
written approval from OEH (as required).
68

Aboriginal Heritage Report

Transcription

Similar documents

to the event flyer.

Read More - Meridian Development

Ledcor PDF - Minerals North

Xero House

Russ Rothney – Neechi Commons

Presentation

- Healthy Aboriginal Network

enREDo International Design Network

culture - Gamarada

Yarnupings, October 2013 - Aboriginal Heritage Office